Chapter One Introduction Background of the Study The concept of nonfarm livelihood is expressed and clarified in different ways by different academicians and scholars

Chapter One
Introduction
Background of the Study
The concept of nonfarm livelihood is expressed and clarified in different ways by different academicians and scholars. According to Kaija (2007) nonfarm livelihood refers to all other activities outside of the farming sector and agricultural wage employment. Nonfarm livelihood diversification activities are essential to the livings of rural families and should occupy a central locus in policies addressing the development complications in Africa (Anriquez, G and Daidone, S., 2009, as cited in Meaza, 2014).

Livelihood diversification is an essential approach through rural people can work to accomplish sustainable livelihoods; it is one that generally operates in combination with other approaches which can contribute to the realization of sustainable livelihoods. (K. Hussein and J. Nelson, 1998).
Rural nonfarm livelihood activities have become a significant constituent of living approaches amid rural families. According to diversification theory, households exchange the relative high mean effectiveness of one activity to reduce risk and maximize utility. Occupation in nonfarm livelihood actions is important for diversification of the bases of farm household’s livelihood. It allows farming families to develop their making by giving them an opportunity to apply the essential inputs and decreases their food shortage during times of unanticipated harvest failure (FAO 1999, as cited in Okunmadewa, 2002).
The contribution of nonagricultural undertakings to countryside family income in the third world countries in common and Sub Saharan Africa in specific is significant. Indigenous non farming income subsidizes between 30 to 40 % of rural household income in the unindustrialized world. (Haggblade et al., 2007 as cited in Oyakhilomen Oyinbo;Kehinde Tobi Olaleye, 2016). Rural farming households in several different settings have been found to expand their nonfarm income foundations letting them to spread risk and smooth intake. (Ellis, 1998; Reardon et al, 1992as cited in Awoniyi, et al, unknown). Xxxxx source
Findings of studies from the time of 1990s in Latin America have shown that some 40% of countryside farming household income was from nonfarm livelihoods. In addition, nonfarm was also the leading sector in employment creation. The studies also indicates the stake of rural household income that originates from nonfarm sources ranges from 35% in Asia to 45% in sub Saharan Africa nations provide a fair comprehensive summary in middle 1990s. (John Stafford, 2010 and UNDP, 2017). In addition in recent times, Dirven (2011) predicts that at present day, 45% of rural workers in the Latin American region are involved in certain nonfarm livelihood activities as foremost source of income and as their sources of livelihood. In addition basically women, most literate and adults. (Gilles Cliché, 2011).
The occurrence of nonagricultural activities in countryside Africa dates back in the writings to 19th century (David Rider Smith, Ann Gordon, Kate meadows, Karen Zwick (2001). on the other hand, studies over the past 15 years have stressed the growing significance of nonagricultural foundations of earnings to rural farmers. The focus on livelihood diversification essentially indicates a process a broadening of income and livelihood strategies away from purely crop and livestock production towards both farm and nonfarm accomplishments that are commenced to breed supplementary earnings through the production of other agricultural and nonagricultural properties and facilities, the trade of salaried manual labor in trivial works (Hussein and Nelson, 1998).
Now in Africa, numerous investigations shown that greatest number of countryside farming families are engaged in agricultural activities such as husbandry, harvest and fish production as their principal substance of livelihood, they also involve in other income making actions to enhance their main basis of income. Most of rural manufacturers have traditionally varied their productive actions to comprise a variety of additional productive areas. In other expression, some of the rural households gather everything of their income from only one foundation, hold all their wealth in the form of any single asset, or use their resources in just one activity (Gordon Prain, Nancy Karanja, Diana lee smith, 2010).
In Nigeria, the farming area is afflicted with complications comprise soil unproductiveness, infrastructural insufficiency, threat and doubt and seasonality among others. Thus, rural farming households are obliged to improve tactics to handle with growing susceptibility related with farming production via diversification, intensification and migration or moving out of farming (Ellis 1998, as cited in, Adepoju Abimbola O. and Obayelu Oluwakemi A, 2013).
A study conducted in south west of Nigeria shows that households that are involved in Non-Farm Income have boosted social and human capital base meanwhile they have advanced literacy rate. In addition, most of the families that are involved in non-farm livelihood income are still in their industrious years, they are able to employ themselves in numerous income making and breeding activities that can improve the household obtaining influence and accordingly their wellbeing prestige. Additionally, most of the farming households that are involved numerous revenue making doings are associates of social organizations from where they derive joint welfares. This has the inclination to boost the prizes made from their farm income making actions and most particularly their Non-Farm Income making doings which will improve their wellbeing standing. (Awoniyi, et’al, n.d).
Chambers 1997, as cited in Karim Hussein and John Nelson, 1998) has reasoned that deprived people in specifically usually have to expand foundations of living for the reason to live in a danger exposed and indeterminate sphere. This is particularly right for West African countries; meanwhile Sahelian societies have factually favored to vary than to strengthen prime production undertakings (Painter et al 1994:457as cited in Karim Hussein and John Nelson, 1998). This has led many of them to build up a wide portfolio of activities.

Empirical studies appraised so far have acknowledged numerous issues that govern participation and earnings from non-farm activities in Ethiopia. These causes can be classified into individual and family features such as age, education, gender, household size, dependency, land holding, properties, and income; and community characteristics such as distance to markets, nearness to cities, and access to physical infrastructure. Despite the fact that, there is no consensus in the path and magnitude of these determining factor, due to mixed results in the pragmatic writings. (Zerihun, 2013).
Broadening of revenue can be attained to a larger scope via the advancement of off-farm activities. Increasing the accessibility of off-farm actions and improving the wage rates can increase farming households’ participation in off-farm activities. Moreover, the fundamental elements that thwarts farmers’ involvement in non-farm activities must be filled and removed. The creation of training cores to confrontation skill obstacles, the donation of credit for the poor together with business-extension guidance and the expansion of public employment systems could be of use. These recommendations can fit quite well to the activities of TDA and REST which are involved in providing credit and training to agriculturalists in non-farm actions in the state. (T. Woldenhanna and Oskam, 2001).
Above and beyond, a study piloted in Saharti Samre woreda has revealed that Non-farm livelihood diversification has numerous impacts on farming households. It helps them to shrink susceptibility, asset improvement, and fulfilling family’s basic needs and increase usage of farming gears. Additional, households involved themselves in non-farm livelihood activities make income that can help them to insurance costs of modern farm inputs. Allowances sent from migrant affiliates of a household has assisted farming households healthier consumption of farming inputs like compost, better seeds, great crop varieties, pesticides and insecticides. (Brhanu, 2016:76).

Brhanu (2016) claimed that as there are several variables that delimit non-farm livelihood diversification household size, education, asset holdings and consumption, reveal that non-farm diversification is tracked by richer families. This shows that as there is admission obstacle and poverty traps in which demands specific policy interventions and measures that enable poor rural households to take advantage of rural nonfarm livelihood activities through access to formal credit, infrastructure and increasing public investment in social services, mainly education and employment.
Furthermore, rural nonfarm livelihood diversification is commonly practiced among the rural households of Emba Alaje woreda, South Tigray zone. There are several reasons that initiate farming households of rural Emba Alaje to vary their livelihoods to the non-farm activities. At the same time, there are also some constraints that limit rural households’ in diversifying their livelihoods to the non-farm sector. Most of the time, there are various factors that forced households to experience vulnerability. These might include insufficient natural resource basement, poverty, drought, land fragmentation, low agricultural production, climatic risk, poor land management, bad governance and uncertainty and unavailability of credit.

Statement of the Problem
Numerous investigations had been piloted on the issue of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification on global, national, and regional level among these (Shujaat Farooq, 2014; Hernitee Dose, 2007; Kamal vatta, 2009; Obayelu Oluwakemi A, 2013; Brhanu, 2016; Zerihun, 2013; Woldenhanna and Oskam, 2001; Tegene, 2000; Meaza, 2014; Kinfe, 2011; Gebru, 2012). Investigations carried out about nonfarm livelihood diversification in Ethiopia by various researchers agree on one thing that the sector of rural nonfarm livelihood had remained far behind. While this is true, non-farm livelihood diversification historical trend, sustainable livelihoods strategies, livelihood and food security and pouring forces of diversification are repeatedly overlooked, especially in the national and regional context.
Extensive numbers of studies conducted before on issues of livelihood diversification. For instance, Woldenhanna and Oskam (2001) noted that the underlying factors that thwart participation in nonfarm livelihood activities such as credit constraints, and lack of skill which might be addressed through the provision of credit and technical training.

Study piloted by Awoniyi, et’al, (n.d) shows that Farming families that are not engaged in nonfarm undertakings are more susceptible to poverty when equated with the farming households that involved in nonfarm earning. As a result, in order to lessen poverty amid households in the study area, there is the necessity to advance the level of human capital base of the farmers in the study area in order to boost the extent of returns originated from nonfarm undertakings.

Tegegne (2000) study in southern Ethiopia shows that the trend of the farm households is to engaged in nonfarm livelihood accomplishments because of the shortage of land, low yield of crops, lack of grazing land and so on.

Meaza (2014) conducted investigation in Enderta woreda entitled nonfarm livelihood diversification alternative by taking each household asset and pinpointing the impact of nonfarm sector for sustainable livelihood of the rural household.
Kinfe (2011) investigated the determinants of nonfarm employment and identify the major problems that hamper the rural non-farm sector.

Gebru (2012) in his study assessed the relationship between the agro-ecological conditions and rural nonfarm employment.
Additionally, Brhanu (2016) tried to study rural nonfarm livelihood diversification determinants of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification in areas where there is distinct agro ecology pattern in Saharti Samre woreda of south eastern zone. However, the study was not comprehensive enough to assess and analyze the complex nature of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification. The researcher also admitted that the study was not representative enough to generalize to the context of south eastern zone, Tigray region.
Hereafter, this study focused on assessing and making understanding of the socio-economic impact of the rural nonfarm households, education, income, employment status and gender role in nonfarm sector will be assessed in in Emba Alaje woreda, Tigrai regional state. To the extent of my information no available study has observed the socio-economic impact of the rural nonfarm livelihood diversification situation in rural areas of southern Tigray zone where the researcher takes it as a study.

Most importantly the researcher trusts that rural nonfarm livelihood diversification needs to be investigated and examined based on conceptual frameworks to recommend widespread strategy guiding principle for socio economic betterment of the rural areas.
Hence, this study focuses on assessing the socio economic impact of the rural nonfarm livelihood diversification in Emba Alaje woreda. The researcher believed that setting based study can sort straightforward knowledge about the socio economic impact of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification in the study area where there is diverse livelihood and socio economic situation.

Objective of the study
General Objective
The general objective of this study is to assess the socio-economic impact of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification amongst farming households in Emba Alaje woreda, Southern Tigray zone.
Specific Objectives
To identify the major rural nonfarm livelihood activities in Emba Alaje woreda.
To investigate the economic impact of rural non-farm livelihood diversification in the study area.

To assess the social impact of rural nonfarm livelihood in Emba-Alaje woreda.

To examine gender facet of rural nonfarm livelihood divergence in the study area.

Significance of the Study
This study is generally estimated to have practical and hypothetical impact on the farming households and other stakeholders that shall have access to the final product of the study. Hypothetically, the findings of the can indicate the socio-economic of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification in Emba Alaje woreda and in addition can help as a bench mark for additional studies. Practically, the study findings shall serve as for ministry of agriculture and rural development and other concerned bodies for recommendation to improve nonfarm livelihood diversification and wellbeing of the farming households. Additionally, findings of this study could be important basement for understanding the socio economic impact of rural farming households.
Scope of the Study
The scope of the study is restricted only to assess the socio-economic impact of rural non-farm livelihood diversification among farming rural households in Emba Alaje woreda. Studying each and every aspects of rural non-farm livelihood diversification of the farming household in relation to socio-economic impact of the farming household in Emba Alaje is quite difficult and time taking to study. Therefore, as a result the researcher choose two specific tabias from the two ecological zones highland and lowland areas which are representative of the woreda to be geographically specific. Result of the study may not be applied to other areas, which might have different socio-economic and cultural setting.
Limitation of the Study
Like any other studies this experienced some limitations. Since the survey study mainly farming households is undertaken on a few selected respondents, the findings may not represent all members of population under the study.

The second limitation was the non-possibility of explaining long term variations of the issues that will be address in the investigation. This was fundamentally because of the cross sectional nature of the study in its time dimension. The investigation was conducted at one point in time indicating that, the data was not collected at different times for analyzing long term variation of the role of community care
In addition to this some of the farmers’ respondents’ were not interested to positively respond to questions about their overall socio economic situation. Moreover, since the perception of the community toward nonfarm livelihood activities is stereotyped some of farming households didn’t respond accurately and majority of the farming households are engaged self-employed activities there was difficulty in estimating their asset.
Organization of the Thesis
The report of the study is divided in to five chapters. Part one basically deals on the background of the study, statement of the problems, and objectives, significance, delimitation and organization of the study. Chapter Two, deals with review of related literature on previous studies on non-farm rural Livelihood diversification in developed nations and mainly third world countries in broad and Ethiopia in specifically. Chapter three deals with Methodology part, together with the study approach, study design, data sources, sampling technique and methods of data collection and description of the study area. Chapter Four also deals with discussion and analysis of results related to the major and commonly practiced types of rural non-farm livelihood diversification, socio-economic impact of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification, role of gender difference in livelihood diversification. Chapter five also concerned with summarization the results collected from various elements of the investigation (household-survey, focus group discussion, in depth interview & key informant interview) and also deals with conclusion and recommendations about rural non-farm livelihood diversification, and identifies some implications for future research.

Operational Definition
Table 1 operational definition of the study
Concepts Variables Pointers
Socio-Economic and Demographic characteristics Age of participants
Sex of participants
Educational status of the participants
Family size of participants
Marital status of participants
Saving
Income How old is participant
Is the participant being male or female
The educational level of the participant
Number of the members of the household
Whether the respondent is single, married, divorced or widowed
Whether the farming household have saving culture or not
Income generated from the nonfarm activities excluding remittance and other incomes outside of agriculture
Credit Access to credit Whether the rural farming household have access to credit or no access of credit
Non-farm livelihood Non-farm livelihood diversification Whether the rural farming household engaged in non-farm livelihood diversification or not engaged and nonfarm livelihood refers all livelihood activities out of farm not agriculture
Land Size of plot land The size of plot land that rural farming households have
Hand craft
Activities including: – jewelries, pottery, metal work and wood work, pottery and “seffa”.
Chapter-Two
Review of Related Literature
Definition of Key Terms and Concepts
Rural: – A rural area refers area that has few homes and small number of residents and rural areas population density is very low. Many people live in urban area. In urban area residential and business area are located very close to each other. In country side there few people and unlike the urban areas their residential and business area are distant to each other. (Nat Geo Sites, rural areas, accessed in https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/rural-area/ last visited 15/11/2017: 04:34 pm).
In rural areas farming is the main manufacturing in most countryside areas. Most people live or work on ranches. Villages, townships, and further small settlements bounded by countryside and Natural world is more commonly found in countryside than in towns for the reason of the lack of people and houses. In fact, rural are frequently called the countryside because inhabitants can see and relate with the countryside indigenous natural world. (ibid).

Non-farm: – Nonfarm principally talks about the activities which are not associated to agricultural undertakings. Nonfarm occupation is defined as any form of engagement other than farm occupation in the kind of incomes, self, or voluntary household labor.

Livelihood: – According to Chambers and Conway (1992) livelihood basically talk about the abilities, possessions and actions vital for a means of alive: a livelihood is sustainable which can handle with and make progress from tension and shocks, boost its skills and properties, and afford sustainable livelihood prospects for the following generation; and which pays net advantage to further livelihoods at the home and worldwide levels and in short and extended duration.
Diversification: – Diversification refers the preservation and continuous alteration of a highly-varied range of activities to lessen household income variability, decrease the confrontational influences of seasonality, and offer occupation or income (Ellis 2000; Barrett et al. 2001; Lanjouw & Lanjouw 2001; Davis & Bezemer 2004; Haggblade et al. 2010 as cited in Prowse, M. 015). Diversification has been long regarded as a threat decreasing approach in the aspect of growing climatic and economic risks in third world nations. (Prowse, M. (2015).

Livelihood Diversification: – Livelihood diversification as the process by which rural families construct a miscellaneous folder of activities and social support competences in their fight for existence and basically to advance their expected of living. (Ellis, 1997).

Rural non-farm livelihood: – Rural non-farm activity is defined both spatially, by activity that takes place in rural areas, and functionally, by a set of activities that do not constitute primary agricultural production. Rural non-farm activities include value chain activities, such as agro processing, transport, distribution, marketing, and retail, as well as tourism, manufacturing, and mining, and self-occupation undertakings.
Framework-A framework is a ‘particular way of viewing the world’. The framework defines and categories the different types of assets and entitlements which households have access to.

Livelihoods framework- is a technique of know how families originate their livelihoods by drawing on competences and properties to advance livelihood approaches collected of a range of activities.

Empirical Literature
Livelihood Diversification
Gebru (2012) in his study argued that the prevailing literature on livelihood diversification is thwarted with definitional problems and inconsistencies. Consequently, the term off farm, non-farm, non-agricultural, non-traditional, etc. normally appear in apparently synonym ways. The basic distinctions among activities and incomes are to be made along secteral and spatial lines.
Even though the existing literature on livelihood diversification lacks agreed definition among different scholars and academicians, a number of researchers define nonfarm and off farm most times interchangeably. For instance, Gordon and Craig (2001) defined nonfarm activities as actions that are not principally cultivation or plantation. Nevertheless, nonfarm does comprise commerce or processing of agrarian outputs. Furthermore, according to their description, off farm denotes all actions that are undergone far from the families’ personal farm. Contrary, according to Lanjouw and feder (2001), define nonfarm as it is a sector that comprises all economic activities in the rural area except agriculture, livestock, fishing and hunting. (ibid).
Livelihood diversification has received ample consideration from researchers and policy-makers in the past decades, with high anticipations that helping it can offer a corridor for poverty lessening and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa countries. (S.A. Loison, 2015). The thought of livelihood was influenced by initial development approaches. (S.A. Loison, 2015). Livelihood was established with the increasing recognition of via enormous international conferences and forums. The Brundtland Commission (1987) bring the concept of Sustainable Livelihoods as an method to boost production, possession, and availability to properties and earnings activities, warranting sufficient stocks and movements of food and currency to meet basic needs. (S.A. Loison, 2015).
A livelihood symbolizes the means of acquisition a living. It also indicates to income generating activities and employment, looks to be identical with, and occasionally overlaps, concepts associated with terms such as employment and work. But, the concept of livelihood defines more multifaceted and miscellaneous approaches for living than what is meant by employment (Chambers ; Conway, 1991).
As presented in S.A. Aoison (2015) nonfarm livelihood diversification is of increasing prominence for economic advance, poverty lessening, food security and creation of employment. Evidence from studies in rural SSA shows that as nonfarm livelihood have positive impacts up on income, wealth, consumption, nutrition, farm production and food sufficiency. Nevertheless, growths of income and accumulation of wealth as a result of livelihood diversification is not yet happening on a large enough scale to affect a majority of smallholders in rural Sub Sahara Africa. The process is biased in favor of relatively better off farmers with sufficient assets, while the poor incline to be delayed by entry barriers. The relatively better off small owners who use opportunities and relations amid farm and nonfarm activities are able to use livelihood diversification to expand their incomes and accumulate wealth. (S.A. Aoison, 2015).
According to Y. Gautam and P. Andersen (2016) rural livelihood diversification and wellbeing by signifying that a household can enhance wellbeing only when it pulls into its livelihood assortment the high return sector among various off farm opportunities available. However, pulling the high return sectors are not a matter of free choice. This can be better explained using a schematic framework which recognizes that off farm sector for diversification is rooted into and differentiated by background pre-conditions reflecting various assets: both tangible and intangible assets at the household’s disposal. In this context, when the well-endowed households diversify, they diversify for’ good reasons’ (Von Braun and Pandya-Lorch 1991, as cited in Yograj Gautam and Peter Andersen (2016) not for survival but for accumulation. So they are more likely to get into high return sectors and achieve wealth or well-being (Woldenhanna and Oskam 2001, as cited in Y. Gautam and P. Andersen, 2016).

The poor population of the society is incapable to get involved in profitable nonfarm sectors is forced to adopt activities that do not require high investment capacities and special skills. One of them is wage labor which is based mainly on an unequal patron client type of relationship between the high and low caste which contributes no more than a little relief for the laborers families in situations of acute food crisis. (Y. Gautam and P. Andersen, 2016).
Y. Gautam and P. Andersen (2016) illustrated that diversification does not contribute to the wellbeing of rural farmers; but rather a household’s ability to pull high return sectors into its livelihood portfolio is more contributory in improving wellbeing. Also, a household’s capability to diversify into a high return sector is reliant on forerunner level of resources and assets mean together tangible and intangible resources. These resources are unfairly disseminated; the resources rich households diversify into high return sectors and substantially improve their wellbeing. The resource poor households, on the other hand, lack the investment capacity and are forced to continue their low return diversification. (ibid).
Y. Gautam and P. Andersen (2016) in their study concluded that at future livelihoods in the context of widening inequality informs that low caste and poor households that lack resources and diversify into low return sectors at present are equally unlikely to be able to exploit new economic opportunities effectively even in the future. This highlights the need for rural poverty reduction interventions to be sensitive to local inequalities and direct targeted opportunities to the most underprivileged ones. (ibid).
Centered on their outcomes O. Oyinbo and K. Olaleye (2016) claimed that 30% of the farm households were poor, implying that 70% of the farmers were non poor. Household size, livelihood diversification and access to credit meaningfully define the poverty standing off farming households in the study area.
Livelihood diversification for the farming households helps to diminished being poor implying that livelihood diversification bargains the opportunity for relieving poverty among the farmers in the study area through multiple tributaries of income as a result of diversification. Therefore, it is suggested that attentiveness and abilities attainment training Programmes especially for women and youths should be recognized at the grass roots level by the local government authorities to guarantee that the farming households’ are practicing farming alongside with a number of income making activities to increase their wellbeing. (O. Oyinbo and K. Olaleye 2016).
In their study K. Hussein and J.Nelson (1998) concluded that:
Livelihood diversification is standard for most people in the majority of developing countries in Asia and Africa and nonfarm activities are serious constituents of the diversification process. Livelihood diversification activities are very prospective to be essential to the assurance of viable livelihood, and their relevance will not diminish in the near future, somewhat, we expect their importance to upturn.
Livelihood diversification is tracked aimed at an assortment of inspirations, and these inspirations differ accordingly: from a desire to collect to invest, to a necessity to maintain earnings, to a condition to adjust to live in vulnerable conditions. It cannot be considered by the nature of short term outcomes associated with it as these are too diverse to categorize, they rely upon a multitude of interdependent causes and their lengthy consequences are slightly assumed.
Related to above argument, the characteristics of livelihood diversification is reliant on principally upon the situation within which it is happening this comprises the distinction access to livelihood diversification doings and the dissemination of the aids of livelihood diversification.
Finally, K. Hussein and J. Nelson (1998) in their investigation they argue that the lowliest rural farming households possibly have the least prospects to diversifying a way that will lead to build up for investment devotions. This does not mean that they will not be able to diversify to this end over the long term, for example, labor, to build up their assets. These concerns have not been satisfactorily talked through study.
Livelihood diversification has a positive impact upon the farming household income. The positive impact can be accredited to acceptance of newest machineries by the rural farming households. Countryside rural families differentiated their revenue from both the nonfarm and farm foundations. The farm cradles of livelihood containing of yield and livestock activities of the rural farming households were diversified because of accepting the new principles of crops seeds and improved breeds of animals. (Muhammad Israr, et’al, 2014).

Rural Non-Farm Livelihood Diversification
Rural nonfarm livelihoods investigation is supposed to have been started with the born of peasant and farming investigations in the 1960s, assumed the supremacy of farmer methods of making in the newly liberated African countries. Nevertheless, farmer and farming investigations have decreased out of fashion, however, the thoughts and philosophies are quiet essential to the understanding of rural farming households’ livelihood. (Fikru: 2008).

Nonfarm enterprises have been considered as the afterward finest substitute to the outdated farming as an employment initiator in Africa and other less developed countries of Asia and Latin America, with the capability to captivate a profound number of rural youths. This understanding has governments and development organizations investing in a mixture of guidelines and Programmes in take to afford the essential setting and funding for the nonfarm sectors to advance and prosper. (M. L. Quayefio, 2017).

World Bank (2017) report argue that rural nonfarm livelihood activities attributes for 35 to 50 percent of countryside residents’ income in developing countries, and for the landless and the very poor, sustainable income advantages at the household level are concomitant with supplementary wages received from nonfarm doings. The farming households who depend on farm sector incline to be among the poor. The rural nonfarm sector can contribute to economic growth, rural employment, poverty reduction, and a more spatially balanced population distribution.
The nonfarm zone is a central constituent of the farming households’ economy. It backings the livelihoods of rural poor by providing lucrative work, enhancing their insufficient incomes and preventing them from deteriorating additional under the poverty line. Family size, working landownership and employee population proportion have been originated to be the determinants of income diversification among rural farming households. (Pavithra S and K Vatta, 2013).
The preponderance of the households had exchanged over to other occupations or within the same source of livelihood had strengthened their doings. This process of diversification had influenced positively the farming household income. Livelihood diversification has a positive impact on the household income. This positive can be accredited to the implementation of latest technologies by the rural households. The rural households diversified their income from both the farm and non-farm sources. (Muhammad Israr, et’al, 2014).

World Bank (2008) report indicated that most developing countries, importance of nonagricultural doings is growing and it is expected to account for 30 to 50% of rural incomes World Bank. This is basically because the number of poor people in countryside areas surpasses the ability of farming to provide sustainable livelihood prospects in several parts of the world.
As indicated in Dr. Shujaat Farooq (2014) study agriculture still leads in rural job, its connotation has worsened overtime. There is a change away from farm to nonfarm activities in rural areas. Within the nonfarm sector, the stake of industry has failed significantly with a corresponding intensification in the significance of service and market doings. The contemporary investigation indicates that nonfarm income gathers to farming households principally originate via the salaried employment and self-employment. Self-employed employees are typically engaged in commerce and transport facilities although services and creation doings account for two thirds of rural nonfarm salaried personnel.
Dr Shuujat F (2014) surveyed the role of nonfarm economy in rural employment provision and its relations with household wellbeing, including the poverty standing and school admission of children (age 5-15 years) in Pakistan. At present-day, 23 percent of the countryside Pakistan families own certain types of nonfarm enterprises where 96 percent of the nonfarm enterprises are microenterprises.
The weaker involvement of poor farming households in nonfarm doings can be enhanced via socio-economic resource utilization. Aimed at countryside growth, vibrant labor demanding farming alongside with a new nonfarming segment can afford improved occupation and income to the farming households, with egalitarian revenue circulation and abolition of countryside poverty. Strategy involvement to encourage countryside nonfarm occupation is similarly vindicated to stopover, to some extent, migration to cities. (ibid).
In their study, Pavithra S and K Vatta (2013) noted that it is very essential to develop the learning ranks of the farming families. Their involvement in extra industrious nonfarm economic actions must be enhanced. There is interest to encourage nonfarm area by inspiring agricultural and nonagricultural associations and by increasing essential infrastructural services.

D. Khatun and B.C Roy (2013) justified that the foremost restraints confronted by the farming households are numerous in number. Although utmost of them are socio economic in nature, certain restraints are of agro ecological in from the very constitution. The main restrictions tackled by the families in the more differentiated area are: deprived asset base, nonexistence of loan, absence of consciousness and teaching services, fright of taking loss, lack of countryside services, and absence of chances in nonfarm segment, whereas the foremost restriction in less diversified area are: weak transportation service, weak resource endowment, hostile agro weather, absence of loans and credit service provision, lack of understanding and training, absence of foundational services which are very critical for the nonfarm sector.
As Fikru (2008) particularized in his investigation these are some of the typical nonfarm activities commonly practiced:
Charcoal production
Quarrying and production of building materials
Furniture making, carpentry, painting
Pottery, mats, baskets
Repair of shoes, vehicles, tools
Leather work, textiles and clothing
Transport
Wholesale and retail trading
Barberry, photography
Cooked food sale, coffee and tea shops, bars
Grain milling, dairy processing, slaughtering and butchery
Formal employment: teachers, health workers etc.

The alignment of nonfarm activity differs considerably as a function of widely variable natural resources, working force supply, geographical setting, and organizational reasons. Quantity trouble rises basically from periodic, part time, and minimal measure nature of making and the truth is that manufacturers do not habitually have inscribed archives. Numerous reviews thus usage employment as a delegation for nonfarm action levels. (Haggblade et al, 2007).
Gender role in Rural Nonfarm Livelihood Diversification
Anke Nihof (2004) in his study argued that while evaluating countryside nonfarm livelihood diversification, role of gender in livelihood diversification arose to the forefront, there are numerous reasons to give further detailed consideration to nonfarm livelihood activities. The foremost reason to give attention the numerous traditionally grounded, responsibilities of women and men in family nutrition and livelihood systems. Accordingly, male and female have diverse alternatives and duties in courses of livelihood earning. Hetlers study on female out migration in Central Java shows how social, economic and cultural factors intertwine to produce a livelihood portfolio that is both gendered and diversified.
Countryside work markets are in broad have fewer significant foundation of revenue for females than the numerous forms of nonfarm in itself that are getting amplified consideration in academic and policy making. Country level studies virtually comprehensively indicate that inside the nonfarm area salary work is controlled via male and own work by females. In Nicaragua, for instance, male are nearly 15 percent more possible to participate in farming wage work, and around two percent less probable to involve in nonfarm own work. (Corral and Reardon, 2001 as cited in FAO).

Northeastern Brazil, where countryside female are considerably more energetic in the farming segment equated with the rest of Latin America, women made up half of the whole nonfarm countryside economically energetic population, focused in the entrepreneurial facilities and educational segments. Equating female and male with similar household, individual and provincial features, countryside northeastern Brazilian male are fairly more likely than females to have nonfarm occupation, nevertheless knowingly less likely to rest on low-productivity, low-earn areas like fabrics, retailing and facilities (Ferreira and Lanjouw, 2001).
Now in Ecuador, the middling possibility of principal occupation in the nonfarm subdivision is around 8 percent for males related to 21 percent for females; males are also meaningfully more probably to be hired in nonfarm occupations with salaries beyond the normal farm salary. Females with related features have better opportunity of employed in low income own occupation activities and get 70 percent lower than males, holding other causes same as before (Elbers and Lanjouw, 2001).

Presence lady might symbolize a significant hurdle to access to non-farm occupation. Broadening in countryside earnings may also influence gender relations (females may come to be extra disregarded if they are more forced than males in their admittance to non-farm prospects, or they may be enabled by innovative prospects to earn income, and develop skills and networks). Age concerns can also be significant. (NRI RNFE Project Team, 2000).

In several third world countries (LDCs) females contribute a strategic role in agriculture and nonagricultural additional facilities. They are often accountable for sale of produce and for subsistence production. (ibid). Amongst rural dwellers, poverty has decreased fastest for those engaged in non-farm activities. The lowest and the most rapidly declining poverty rates amongst those engaged in nonfarm activities have been female-headed households. (ibid).
The existence of women lead families from corner to corner the returns field recommends that it is the considerable manual labor market change amongst females into the non-farm sector mostly as a ancillary activity), that has led to the quick deterioration in poverty, rather than the women-headedness per se. However, indicative evidence on successful female- headed households have proposed that female-headship, and the subsequent governor over resources, has played a role in the operative rendezvous in the non-farm sector, and the consequent weakening in poverty rates. (Smith, 2001).
Nonetheless, growing women involvement in the nonfarm economy does seem to mirror the foundational up of prospects external to farming. For females, who customarily have less admittance to land and asset, and who at this time bear the popular of the physical burden, non-farm possibilities may well perform smart. (ibid).
The easy doing countryside non-farm segment offers the majority of nonfarm occupation for the countryside farming households. The concentration of acting these nonfarm economic doings intensifies throughout the off farming time when the rainfall stop and farming cannot perform. Even though females are far away from more involved in the nonfarm economic undertakings than males, the prospects accessible for functioning nonfarm are better for males than that for females. Involvement in nonfarm economic activities is impacted by numerous reasons and not a particular reason. (Stanley Kojo Dary and Naasegnibe Kuunibe, 2012).
S. Blocka and P. Webb (2001) study in Ethiopia after the post famine revealed that, an inverse association was observed between female headed households and diversification (consistent with Glewwe and Hall, 1998), regardless of the information the woman heads were considerably more prospective to be certain of that off-farm earnings safeguards a family counter to famine. It seems that considering in the intrinsic advantage of an approach of earnings expansion cannot always be performed upon, principally in the lack of aforementioned wealth and properties.

Fikru (2008) noted that Women dominate many of the nonfarm activities such as household based food processing, local drink sales, local crafts and street side petty trade. Nonfarm activities are particularly important for female headed households who usually belong to disadvantaged sections of the community. Accordingly, women could be key actors’ in fast-tracked countryside makeover if their role is clearly acknowledged and support is delivered to them by governmental and non-governmental agencies.
Gebru (2012) in his study argued that, even if three fourth of participants’ male headed households are employed in low remunerative activities especially in food for work’, casual wage work, the average per household earning of male headed households from the non-farm activities are one and half times of the female headed households. This is happening because those male headed households that are engaged in high return self-employment and regular salaried employment activities ear the highest income.
Brhanu (2016) study in Saharti Samre woreda show that Household characteristics (being male or female headed) was found insignificant influencing factor for households so as to diversify their livelihoods to the non-farm sector in Tabia Addis Alem (weynadega) while it was found significant determinant factor of non-farm livelihood diversification in Tabia Lemlem Arena.
Importance of the Rural Non-Farm Livelihoods
There are numerous literatures shows that with the determining cause of nonfarm enlargement in countryside measures of the unindustrialized world (Barrett et al. 2001; Corral ; Reardon 2001; Ellis 2000; Woldenhanna ; Oskam 2001; Escobal 2001; Lanjouw et al. 2007; Lemi 2010; Yúnez-Naude ; Taylor 2001;). These writings signposts that the countryside nonfarm sector is gaining significance in most unindustrialized nations, even if farming rests the key source of earnings and occupation. (Prowse, M. 2015).

Significance of the rural nonfarm sector as a backer to the countryside improvement has prospered in recent times. There is growing realization that the farming is not the only monetary sector in the countryside areas and outsized range of nonfarm economic undertakings exist. Evidence from most continents over the last decade recommends that the share of household income from the nonfarm sources is increasing. (Kinfe, 2011).

Past studies (Awoyemi, 2004; Jonasson, 2005; Benjamin and Kimhi, 2006; Kaija, 2007, as cited in Prowse, M. 2015) reported that the contribution of nonfarm income sources to the rural economy cannot be neglected because it has grown substantially during the last two decades and its stake to total household earnings varies in the middle of 30% and 50% in some unindustrialized countries.

Rural nonfarm income is also the backbone of the economy of numerous small towns and rural areas throughout the countryside as well as an important source of income and employment for many of the poor. Accordingly, the countryside nonfarm economy will contribute a significant role in explain the future prospects for occupation growth and poverty alleviation in Africa. (Hazel and Haggblade, 1993 as cited in Kinfe 2011).

Rural non-farm livelihoods in rural Sub-Sahara Africa are the object of growing interests. Small scale manufacturing and processing enterprises are viewed as important means of creating sustainable wealth, contributing to the economic growth and diversification. Given that rural non-farm activities are often based on the local agricultural produces. It is argued that this sector (rural non-farm livelihood) can make substantial contribution to the economic growth by influencing income and farm productivity. (Zoomers, 1995 as cited in Kinfe 2011).

In regard specifically to rural Ethiopia, households have been found to diversify their income sources due to both push and pull factors. Push factors such as rural population growth, farm fragmentation and declining agricultural productivity are commonly-cited causes for diversifying (Degefa 2005, as cited in Prowse, M. 2015).

In Ethiopia, rural non-farm activities employment in their own wing. Rural nonfarm employment provides an important source of income for many landless households basically in the drought prone rural areas. (MLSA, 1997).
In Ethiopia, some 20% of the rural income originates from the rural nonfarm sector. In some parts of the Ethiopia, nonfarm labor income accounts for up to 35% of the total household income. (Woldenhanna, 2000).

Income from non-farm activities varies between 14 and 26.7 percent. This agrees with the findings of Rijkers, Söderbom, and Teal, 2008 as cited in Prowse, M. (2015). Who estimated the contribution of nonfarm income at more than a quarter of total household income in rural areas of Ethiopia?
Another study also confirms figures which roughly correspond to those of the earlier rounds of the ERHS (Ethiopia rural house hold survey). For instance, surveys of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs findings from five regions (Amhara, Tigray, Oromia, South region and the sedentary farming areas of Afar) show that while 43.9 percent of households were engaged in non-farm activities in 1996, the average contribution to total household income was only 10.2 percent (Sharp et al. 2003: 163). As expected in an agrarian economy, the share of income derived from farm activities by far exceeds other income sources, reaching a peak in 1997(82.64 percent). (Prowse, M. 2015).
Infrastructural development, high levels of education, and increased access to credit are all factors that contribute to the growth of the rural non- farm sector. The expansion of roads, transport, and communication infrastructure leads to specialization and division of labour by rural households. It promotes the development of trade, marketing, and distribution of network, including sub-contracting arrangements linking farm and non-farm sectors to the local towns. (Nurul Islam, 1997).
Conceptual Frameworks of Livelihood
The study uses a livelihood framework to conceptualize and understand the livelihood processes in the study area. Livelihood frameworks are often used by researchers to document and analyze the processes by which individuals and households utilize their resources and opportunities to make living in particular socio-economic and biophysical contexts (Scoones 1998; Carney 1998; Ellis 2000; Shanmugaratnam 2008; Haan and Zoomers 2005, as cited in Ayele, 2008).

4435475163830Livelihood Strategies
00Livelihood Strategies
2603500187960Access mediated by
00Access mediated by
1497965173355Resources
00Resources
110299526733500-3175062865Context
00Context
5848985274955Outcome
00Outcome
490855036830000
18859502882900023622004445000416179045085005514975444500039052534988500674179545466000631888522225000354711013970000
4935220139700056229256667500560831948895005650230117475Desirable
Outcomes
Well off
Reduced
Vulnerability
More income
Food Security
Sustainable
resource use
00Desirable
Outcomes
Well off
Reduced
Vulnerability
More income
Food Security
Sustainable
resource use
401066021590002566035215900026206451651000120395976200008191507620000-8191511620500-27305158115Trends:
Population growth
Deforestation
Soil fertility
declineCrop yield decline
00Trends:
Population growth
Deforestation
Soil fertility
declineCrop yield decline
266700090170Policies, Institutions and processes:
Rules ;customs
Share cropping
Land tenure system
Markets
00Policies, Institutions and processes:
Rules ;customs
Share cropping
Land tenure system
Markets

4121785187960Livelihood
Diversification
•Non-farm
•Off-farm
•Migration
Agriculture
Intensification/
Extensification
00Livelihood
Diversification
•Non-farm
•Off-farm
•Migration
Agriculture
Intensification/
Extensification
1323340243205Natural Capital
Physical Capital
Human Capital
Financial Capital
Social Capital
00Natural Capital
Physical Capital
Human Capital
Financial Capital
Social Capital

-9525011366400-27305250190Shocks:
Drought
Crop pests
Diseases
Flood
00Shocks:
Drought
Crop pests
Diseases
Flood
26479508255Organizations:
State agencies
NGOs
Donors
Peasant associations
00Organizations:
State agencies
NGOs
Donors
Peasant associations

560895528511400107823035306000241554024384000241554017653000107823028575000
566356516510Undesirable
Outcomes:
Vulnerability
Poverty
Food insecurity
Unsustainable
resourceutilization00Undesirable
Outcomes:
Vulnerability
Poverty
Food insecurity
Unsustainable
resourceutilization
257937028765400-8191526098400
18827741968500-1333546990Broader
Context:
Rural policies
Economic trend
Price instability
00Broader
Context:
Rural policies
Economic trend
Price instability
260667546990Social relations
Gender
Age
00Social relations
Gender
Age

526351511239500-5461021336000
186944027178000right2444750025660359398000
Figure 1: livelihoods framework for investigating rural household livelihood diversification
Source: Modified from Scoones (1998) and Ellis (2000)
As it is presented above, Figure 1 represents the framework. The conceptual framework developed for the study of households’ livelihood diversification is sustainable livelihoods approach. Basic elements of sustainable livelihood framework adopted from Scoones (1998) and Ellis (2000) are the following:
Vulnerability context
The vulnerability here in the above framework refers context the external environment in which people exist, shouldered the farming households shocks in which people have limited or no control, have a great influence on people’s livelihoods and on the wider availability of assets. Vulnerability emerges when human beings have to face harmful threat or shock with inadequate capacity to respond effectively. (DFID, 2000 as cited Glopp, 2008).
In this study, non-farm livelihood diversification means that engagement in activities outside the agriculture sector, non-farm livelihood diversification includes households either they are self-employed or waged in the non-farm sector.
Livelihood Assets
Livelihood assets are the resources on which people draw in order to carry out their livelihood strategies. The key livelihood assets are the following:
Human capital: – represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labor and good health that together enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives. At a household level human capital is a factor of the amount and quality of labor available; this varies according to household size, skill levels, leadership potential, health, health status, etc. (DFID, 1999).
Social capital: – There is much debate about what exactly is meant by the term ‘social capital’. In the context of the sustainable livelihoods framework it is taken to mean the social resources upon which people draw in pursuit of their livelihood objectives. These are developed through: networks and connectedness, membership of more formalized groups, rules, norms and sanctions; and relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchanges that facilitate co-operation, reduce transaction etc. Mutual trust and reciprocity lower the costs of working together. (DFID, 1999).
Natural resource: – refers for the natural resource stocks from which resource flows and services (e.g. nutrient cycling, erosion protection) useful for livelihoods are derived. There is a wide variation in the resources that make up natural capital, from intangible public goods such as the atmosphere and biodiversity to divisible assets used directly for production (trees, land, etc.). (DFID, 1999).
Physical capital: – comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods needed to support livelihoods. Infrastructure consists of changes to the physical environment that help people to meet their basic needs and to be more productive. Producer goods are the tools and equipment that people use to function more productively. (DFID, 1999).
The following components of infrastructure are usually essential for sustainable livelihoods: affordable transport; secure shelter and buildings; adequate water supply and sanitation; clean, affordable energy; and access to information. (DFID, 1999).
Policies, Institutions and Processes
Policies, institutions and process efficiently define access to numerous sorts of capital, to livelihood approaches and to decision making bodies and source of influence, terms of give-and-take among different kinds of capitals, and yields to any given livelihood strategy (DFID, 2000 as cited Glopp, 2008).

Policies, institutions and processes have a straight forwarded impact upon weather people are able to achieve a sense of attachment and welfare. For the reason that culture is involved in this area they also count for other unexplained’ dissimilarities in the way things are done in different societies. Policies, institutes and manners can define access to possessions and effect decision making processes. (ibid).

Livelihood Strategies
Livelihood strategies encompass the variety and amalgamation of undertakings and choices that individuals undertake in order to accomplish their livelihood objectives. It should be assumed as a vibrant course in which people cartel events to come across their numerous desires at different times. Numerous fellows of a household might live and work at diverse areas, for the moment or long-lasting. (DFID, 2000 as cited Glopp, 2008).
Livelihood strategies are straight reliant on possession standing and policies, institutes and procedures. Henceforth those underprivileged individuals strive and that the livelihood strategy of one family might have an impact (positive or negative) on the livelihood strategy of another family.
Livelihood Outcomes
Livelihood results are the accomplishments of livelihood approaches, such as more earnings (e.g. cash), amplified welfare (e.g. non material goods, like self-worth, health prestige, access to services, feeling of inclusion), and reduced susceptibility (e.g. improved resilience via proliferation in asset prestige), enhanced food safety (e.g. intensification in economic capital in order to purchase nutrition) and a further sustainable usage of natural properties (e.g. appropriate property rights) (Scoones, 1998).

Theoretical Literature
Theories make available sets of thoughts that accrue to figure out the world nearby human being (Kalof, Dan and Dietz, 2008). Authors’ like Mwanje (2001:8) noticed social theories as “a system of interconnected notions that summarize and establish wisdom about the social world.” Placing them in a comprehensive perspective, Brown (2004: 45) wrote, on social theories, as “interconnected arrays of thoughts that pursue to create sense of social facts so as to display in what way the social world goes.” Highlighting on the instrumentality of theories, and installing a sociological methodology, Wallace and Wolf (1995: 2 as cited in Tesfaye, 2015) wrote: Sociological theories do not consist of a world of formal, empty boxes inappropriate to the world of work and household, command, choice, discrimination and operation. They have the whole thing to do with that world how we perceive it, recognize it, describe it, as well as how we act in it and thus what it becomes.

Simply, philosophies do afford elucidation about the functioning nature of happenings in the world (Tesfaye 2015). As more associated to this study, a theory is a system of assumptions, mental outlook, principles, and affiliations imagined to clarify identified set of occurrences (Tennis 2008:3, cited in Chekole, 2017). The study at hand anticipated and used some livelihood approach to describe rural nonfarm livelihood diversification.
The theoretical amalgamation was done principally for two vital motives. First, to accord with the methodological triangulations used in the study. The Second motive was a single theory cannot copiously scrutinize and describe the issue of nonfarm livelihood principally for the purpose it’s bigger and multifaceted nature dictates the employment of the assumptions of various sociological theories.

2.4.1 Sustainable Livelihood Approach
Collin (2001) indicated that the notion of Sustainable Livelihoods can be transcends back from the work of Robert Chambers, through a research Program carry out by the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex, including work in Ethiopia, Mali and Bangladesh in specific.
The joining of the three words “sustainable”, “rural” and “livelihoods” as a term signifying a specific method was feasibly first made in 1986 in a hotel in Geneva during the discussion around the Food 2000 report for the Brundtland Commission. Involving M.S. Swaminathan, Robert Chambers, the report laid out a vision for a people oriented progress that had as its preliminary point the rural actualities of poor people (Swaminathan et al. 1987 as cited in Scoones, 2009).
Chambers and Conway (2008) created operational study for the Institute of Development Studies that a nowadays much used definition of sustainable livelihoods emerged; a livelihood encompasses the proficiencies, properties (including both material and social resources) and undertakings for a means of breathing. A livelihood is sustainable and defensible when it can survive with and recover from tensions and shockwaves sustain or enhance its competences and assets, while not damage the natural resource foundation.

Figure 2: Sustainable livelihood Approach adapted from DFID, 2000
In a nutshell, the main elements of the SLFA can be summarized as follows:
“The framework depicts stakeholders as operating in a context of vulnerability, within which they have access to certain assets. Assets gain weight and value through the prevailing social, institutional and organizational environment (policies, institutions and processes). This context decisively shapes the livelihood strategies that are open to people in pursuit of their self-defined beneficial livelihood outcomes.” (Kollmair et al, 2002 as cited in Glopp, 2008).
Sustainable livelihood approach was approached and defined by different institutes and departments. Among these DFID and OXFAM are among the key institutions that used Sustainable livelihood approach in their own distinctive perspective.
2.4.1.1 Sustainable Livelihood Approach from the perspective of DFID
The concept of “Sustainable Livelihoods” constitutes the basis of different “Sustainable Livelihood Approaches” (SLA) and has been adapted by numerous development organizations such as the British Department for International Development (DFID). The DFID has developed a “Sustainable Livelihood Approach”, which is one of the most extensively used livelihoods methods in development practice.
DFID adapts a version of Chambers Conway’s definition of livelihoods:

“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base.” (DFID, 2000 as cited in Glopp, 2008).
DFID’s principal and central objective is the eradication of poverty in third or unindustrialized countries. DFID, conversely, advocates that there are several techniques of applying livelihoods methods. Even though, the use of the livelihoods method is flexible to specific local situations and to goals defined in hands-on way, it inspires a combination of essential principles. (D. Carney, 1999).
People-centered: sustainable poverty eradication will be realized mainly if outside support concentrates on what concerns to public, comprehends the variances among groups of individuals and works with them in a manner that is compatible with their contemporary livelihood line of attack, social situation and capacity to become accustomed.

Responsive and participatory: economically incapable deprived individuals themselves must be strategic players in pinpointing and addressing livelihood priorities. Foreigners need processes that enable them to listen and respond to the poor.

Multi-level: poverty eradication have massive encounter that will be overwhelmed merely by working at numerous levels, warranting that micro-level activity informs the development of strategy and an operative empowering situation, and that macro-level structures and manners support people to construct upon their own strengths.

Conducted in partnership: the livelihood activities should undertake through with both the community and the private sector.

Sustainable: there are four important dimensions to sustainability financial, organizational, and societal and ecofriendly sustainability. All are significant a equilibrium must be institute amongst them.

Dynamic: outdoor support from donors necessarily recognizes the vibrant nature of livelihood plans, respond flexibly to act according the people’s condition, and develop extended guarantees. SL lines of track are underpinned by a commitment to poverty extinction. Even though, in theory, be realistic to work with any interested party and shareholder, an inherent standard for DFID is that undertakings should be planned to maximize livelihood welfares for the economically underprivileged section of the society.

Chapter Three
Research Methods
Description of the Study Area
Emba Alaje woreda is one of the 52 woreda of Tigray regional state located on the southern zone, and the woreda has 22 tabias and three sub woreda, those are Alaje, Bora and Slewa sub woreda. The study was conducted in Atsela and Mayliham Tabias located in Alaje and Bora sub woreda of Emba Alaje respectively.
Climate and Location
The Alaje Woreda is situated between 1422710 and 1439170 north latitude and 530543 and 560142 east longitude, and lies at an altitude of 2,350 meters above sea level (masl). Long-term meteorological data indicate that the mean annual rainfall for the area is 912 millimeters with a mean daily temperature ranging between 9-23 ºC. It is bordered by Woreda Saharti Samre in the north, Endamehoni to the south, Raya Azebo and Hintalo Wajerat to the east and by the Amhara region to the west. The Woreda comprises 20 kebeles and is dominated by two major agro-ecologies highlands and lowlands. (Girmay, et’al, 2014). The administrative center of this woreda is Adi Shehu; other towns in Alaje woreda include Bora Chelena and Dela.
Socio-Demographic and Livelihood Characteristics
Total land cover of the Woreda is estimated at 76,722 hectares-there are 27,327 hectares of arable land, 2,618 hectares of forest, and 20,366.6 hectares of grazing land, and 26,410.4 hectares which fall under the category ‘others’. The population of the Woreda is about 116,201. The total cultivated land in the Woreda is 27,327 hectares, of which 24,709 hectares is cultivated based on rain-fed agriculture. (ibid).

Although crop production is the main activity of the farm households, a substantial number of farmers engage in mixed farming because of their integrated crop and livestock production system. Off-farm activity is an important supplementary source of income for subsistence farmers in the area. Mixed crop-livestock farming is the main source of livelihood for people in the community. (ibid).

299085151435000018383255457825Map of The study area
Emba-Alaje Woreda
00Map of The study area
Emba-Alaje Woreda

Figure 3: Administrative map of Tigray Regional state
392743717169710020284101937607004314825485775Map of the selected Tabia of the study
Mayliham and Atsela Tabias
00Map of the selected Tabia of the study
Mayliham and Atsela Tabias

Figure 4: Map of Emba-Alaje Woreda
Research Approach
Through taking side on realistic stand, drawing on the suggestion in the study the researcher employed both quantitative and qualitative approaches to comprehend the stated problem could not be used a single research approach. Nonfarm livelihood diversification because of its multifaceted nature the study approached both by qualitative and quantitative research approach specifically concurrent triangulation. Accordingly, household sample survey was used to collect the qualitative data, whereas, key informant interview, in-depth interview, FGDs and field observation were employed to collect and gather the qualitative data.
Research Design
In order to investigate the rural nonfarm livelihood diversification among the countryside farming households of Emba Alaje woreda the research was employed principally both descriptive research design and cross sectional study design. The descriptive research design was basically employed because; it is appropriate to describe the degree of the nonfarm livelihood diversification and its socio-economic impact, commonly practiced nonfarm livelihoods in the study area. Cross sectional study design is although known as one shot study design and cross sectional study design is best matched to investigations aimed at finding out the prevalence of a phenomenon, condition, attitude or issue, by taking a cross section of the population. Cross sectional study design is also useful in attaining an overall picture as it stands at the time of the intervention. This study design is planned to scrutinize phenomena’s by taking a cross section of it at one time. In this study only one contact was done with farming households of Emba Alaje woreda.
Because of the above stated justifications in this research both descriptive and cross sectional study design were employed. The study aims at collecting data from the study participant, study areas and others related with the issue under investigation at a single point of time 2010 E.C, relatively brief duration of time and the research had no intention and interest to study and making analysis pattern of change over time (beyond one year) and make description about the issue under investigation.
The data typically collected from multiple rural farming households and a questionnaire in the survey requires respondents to memory the changes in certain variables occur over specific time duration. Data was collected from the male, female headed farming households, and from different agricultural extension workers and officials of the woreda and Tabia.
Sources and types of Data
In this study both primary and secondary source of data were employed in order to accomplish the objective of the study.
3.4.1 Primary sources of Data: – Primary data for the study was collected from the rural farming households in the study woreda via household survey, focus group discussion, in depth and key informant interview.

3.4.2 Secondary sources of Data: – Besides primary sources of data, intensive review of related literatures on rural nonfarm livelihood diversification necessary secondary of sources of data were collected via different research books, articles, journals, magazines, brochures, woreda reports and other documents that have direct or indirect relationship with the problem under investigation. These data which are relevant for this study was also collected from libraries, websites, institutions like woreda agriculture and rural development office, office of finance, office of micro and small enterprises.
Methods and Instruments of Data Collection
Since the issue of rural nonfarm livelihood is multi-dimensional and multifaceted by its nature it was very challenging to use a single research method, rather it was found sound and advisable to employ a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods, because of the use of mixture of qualitative and quantitative research methods enables to overcome the pitfalls of qualitative via quantitative and quantitative via qualitative. A single research approach could not provide sufficient and possible answers to the specific objectives of the study; therefore, a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative was be used in this study.
In this study concurrent triangulation was employed mainly because of both quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed equally together. The methods used in this study are the following: House- holds survey, In-depth Interview, FGDs, field observation and key informants interview.
Methods of Data Collection
House-Hold Survey
Survey research is conceivably the best method available to the social researcher who is interested in gathering original data for targeted population which is too large to include directly in the study. Probability sampling technique provides a group of respondents whose characteristics may be taken to reflect those of the study population, and carefully constructed standardized questionnaires provide data in the same from all respondents of the rural farming households.

Meanwhile the unit of analysis for this study is the household; survey is the key method of data collection employed in generating quantitative information relevant to the objectives of the study. This method enabled the researcher to generate primarily quantitative and representative information about the major themes and objectives of the study.

Focus Group Discussion (FGDs)
Focus group discussions (FGDs) is more the preferable available research methods when there is a need to extract information which is deep and detailed information and when group interactions are capable of producing detailed data and new thoughts, and extracting contradictory views from the participants of the study.

Focus Group Discussion is also helpful in cross checking data gathered through in depth interview on the rural nonfarm livelihood diversification socio-economic impacts, and their understanding to ward rural nonfarm livelihood diversification, the major nonfarm livelihoods practiced by the countryside farming households.
The focus group discussion was done in Tabia Mayliham and Atsela total 4 FGDs. In the FGDs the household heads both male and female was included basically to grasp whether there is significant different of perception and involvement among the farming households toward the rural nonfarm livelihood diversification and if there is difference in attitude and job classification about nonfarm livelihood diversification and each FGDs session incorporates 10 discussants members in the focus group discussion exclusive of moderator and the participants of the FGDs session was done based on their exposedness with the issue under investigation.
Key informant interviews (KIIs)
Among the most essential methods of data collection key informant interview was employed in the study. Key informant interview was used in the study basically to understand the understanding and perception of officials and experts of the woreda who had direct and indirect relationship with issue under investigation. For this reason, semi-structured questions were used because it allows the researcher to go beyond methodically arranged questions. Besides, the way respondents answer forced the researcher to probe and ask questions in several ways. Accordingly, individuals who had firm information and knowledge about rural nonfarm activities was interviewed.

A key informant interview was made with four officials of the woreda. Two from rural and agricultural development office and four from administration office of the four Tabias. Having this method information related with socio-economic impact of rural nonfarm livelihood was collected. Further, information related with the attitude of farm households and the role of the local government was addressed.
In Depth Interview
In depth interview is also essential and preferable research method of data collection for detailed and deep in sighted data from the farming households who have been detailed knowledge and experience about rural nonfarm livelihood diversification. Although, in depth interview method allow to make recommendation.
In depth interview was piloted with six (6) farming households 3 male and 3 females who have been stayed engaged in nonfarm livelihood activities for long period of time. This method enabled the researcher to grasp good deal knowledge on identifying the commonly practiced nonfarm livelihood, socio-economic impact and gender facet of nonfarm livelihood diversification.
Field Observation
This method is one of the extensively used in ethnographic methods having the reason of gaining inmost understanding about communal and local truths. In additional all-inclusive terms, observation includes, straight and continued communication with the population under investigation, and of opulently writing up the challenges experienced, respecting, recording, representing at least partly in its own terms, the irreducibility of human understanding” (Willis and Trondman 2000 in Prowse 2010).
Field observation is one of the crucial element in stirring and crosschecking the evidence assembled through the abovementioned evidence collection methods principally FGDs and household surveys. For example, the commonly practiced nonfarm livelihood activities, its socio-economic implication and gender role in rural nonfarm livelihood diversification. By considering the above justification, the researcher believes field observation was vital in the study in order to catch up the type’s nonfarm livelihood and the entire study environment since there were issue’s needs direct observation.
Instruments of Data Collection
Questionnaires
A questionnaire, containing of household socio-demographic characteristics, commonly practiced nonfarm livelihoods, socio-economic impact, and gender facets of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification was developed in order to collect both quantitative and qualitative data for the fieldwork.
The survey questionnaire included both open ended and close ended questions. The close ended questionnaire section shares the greatest section of the questionnaire while the rest part of the questionnaire was close ended questionnaire that was mainly because of conditions that seeks probation. Questionnaire items prepared for survey respondents, and it was translated to local language Tigrigna. Consequently, of the total 347 questionnaire distributed to the farming households 332 were found valid the rest 15 were found not fully filled.
Key informant checklist
Key informant checklist was prepared in which list of questions the researcher asks for the key informants of the woreda and Tabia and for this study structured questionnaire was used, with in structured questionnaire; each key informant was asked similar questions at all.
Semi structured checklist was prepared to extract deep and full-fledged qualitative data through deep discussion with FGDs session participants. In addition the FGDs guide checklist enables to extract multiple, diverse and deep rooted data from the officials and experts from the woreda and Tabias.
FGDs guide line
FGDs guideline was arranged in which list of questions the researcher asks for the four FGDs session participants and for this purpose unstructured questions was arranged in order to go according the survey respondents reaction and the information the thesis demanded. Every FGDs session discussants farming households were asked similar questions.
Interview
Interview has been made with in depth interview respondents farming households who have been deep knowledge and experience about the issue under investigation.
Sampling Procedures and Techniques
It is important to understand what sampling is, before going to see what sampling designs and related sampling techniques are. Sampling refers to the procedure whereby a sample is extracted from a general population. There are two most commonly recognized sampling designs in carrying out a study both in qualitative and quantitative social research. These designs include probability and non-probability sampling designs (Babbie 1990, as cited in Chekole, 2017).
Emba Alaje woreda has 22 Tabias; as a result clustered sampling was used to select the appropriate Tabia based on their ecological zone, because cluster sampling is extremely useful in selecting a random sample. Emba Alaje woreda have basically two ecological zones these are highland and lowland, 10 tabias of Emba Alaje woreda located in the lowland areas and 12 tabias found in the highland areas of the woreda. As a result the 22 Tabias were categorized in to two cluster based on their ecological zone. From the two clusters the researcher selected two Tabias by lottery method. As a result the researcher selects Mayliham Tabia from lowland ecology and Atsela from the highland ecological zone of Emba Alaje woreda.
After identified the study Tabias randomly from the woreda, the participants of the farming household were selected by a simple random sampling technique. In simple random sampling each and every element in the population has an equal and independent chance of selection in the sample. Equal chance implies that the probability of selection of each element in the population is the same; that is, the choice of an element in the sample is not influenced by other considerations such as personal preference. The concept of independence means that the choice of one element is not dependent upon the choice of another element in the sampling; that is, the selection or rejection of one element does not affect the inclusion or exclusion of another. Population frame of Mayliham Tabia, and Atsela Tabia rural farming households in which sample size received from officials of the Tabia.
Mayliham Tabia has 1532 farming households and Atsela Tabia has 1093 total population respectively. Probability proportion size (PPS) was drawn from the two tabias because the total household population of the two Tabias is different. Since the population of the study area is homogeneous a random number of sample household was selected from the farming household of the two Tabia each farming households have equal inclusion chance for the study.
The researcher selected Emba Alaje woreda as a study area because of the following reason. In Emba Alaje woreda the agriculture sector is growing at alarming rate and the agriculture sector gets more attention from government. However, the rural nonfarm sector despite its potential for economic growth, source of income, employment the sector remains behind and the perception of the community toward the nonfarm sector is also extremely low.
The federal government of Ethiopia and regional governments are designing to reduce the incidence of rural poverty trough agricultural intensification and Extensification. A number of studies of where done on agricultural sector at the regional and woreda levels, determinants of nonfarm livelihood and nonfarm livelihood and food security etc. However, the rural nonfarm sector impacts did not get attention from government. The researcher was concerned to study the socio-economic impact of rural nonfarm livelihood among the farming households of Emba Alaje woreda.
Because of the above justifications the researcher becomes affiliated to study the socio-economic impacts of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification among the farming households of Emba Alaje woreda. The researcher had also close knight knowledge about the issue under investigation.
First of all, before selecting a formula for sample size determination it was found good to check whether the population size is finite or unknown. Since the population of study area is known the researcher preferred to employ Yamane formula for determining the sample size given:
241935026670000 Yamane formula n= N
(1+Ne2)
Where,
n= corrected sample size
N= population size
e= margin of error
Then
Total farming households of the four selected tabias = 2625
Standard Error= 5%=0.0025
282892522669500n = 2625
(1+2625. 0.52)
282892520256500n = 2625
(1+2625*0.0025)
Corrected sample size of farming households of the four selected Tabia=347
The total population of the four selected tabias of the woreda is 2625; as a result 347 sample sizes were drawn using Yamane formula.

Specifically, Mayliham Tabia total population= 1532
272415017399000272415017399000If 2625=347
1532=?
Mayliham Tabia sample size= 203
Atsela Tabia total population= 1093
If 2625=347
1093=?
Atsela Tabia sample size= 144
As a result 203 and 144 sample sizes were selected from Mayliham and Atsela tabias respectively.
This sample size selected to the two tabias was based on simple random sampling method. Though with this method the sample size will be fairly represented, Proportionate distribution of the sample was made on the basis of the size.
Methods of Data Analysis
Data analysis in the study pursued thematic approach. Thus, the qualitative data produced from the key-informant interviews, in depth interview and focus group discussions was analyzed through careful interpretation of meanings and contents; and through organizing, and summarizing in accord with the issue under investigation. Hence, all the data that was collected using local language “Tigrigna” was directly translated into English by the researcher, in addition an effort was also made to reserve the origination of the information during the interpretation it into English. Also, the inquiry supported the data with secondary sources.
Both qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed concurrently. First the data will be present separately corresponding to the appropriate techniques. The surveyed data of the households was subjected for both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis methods and was analyzed using statistical techniques including cross tabulation, descriptive statistics, such as frequency distribution, percentages were used in the study.

Ethical considerations
Any attempt to an empirical investigation should be done in consideration with ethical norms as they contribute to the reliability of the findings of the study. Ethics in the context of research involve a set of norms and principles that researchers in their respective disciplines obey and apply. (Bernard, 2006).

Primarily, a formal letter was written from Mekelle university department of Sociology in order to smooth the researcher access of all relevant information in particular and field work in general. The letter written by Sociology department clearly states the overall goal of the study to all concerned bodies of the local government of Emba Alaje woreda. Besides, a letter of informed consent was written to the participants as key informants, in depth interview and FGDs discussants. The researcher clearly informed the overall purpose of the study orally to the study participants both in the FGDs session, in depth interview and key informants interview. In addition participants were informed as they have the right to reject to participate in the study. In addition participants were informed in informative way as the information they provide was only for the fulfillment of the thesis. As to the sample survey, the participants will confirm their voluntary participation through written consent form.
All in all, the researcher; introduced the purpose of the study as a fulfillment of a Masters’ Study program and not for any other hidden agenda by the researcher and request the respondents to participate in the study on a voluntary basis and refusal or abstaining from participating was permitted. The researcher also assured the respondents of confidentiality of the information would protect from any possible harm that could arise from the study since the findings would be used for the intended purposes only.
Table 2 Summary of research methods and instruments employed
Specific Objectives Unit of Analysis Observation Unit or Data source Methods of Data collection
To identify the commonly practiced types of rural non-farm livelihood diversification in Emba Alaje woreda.
Identify the commonly practiced nonfarm livelihoods Key informants
Focus group discussion participants
Community residents
Key informant interview
Focus group discussion
Household survey
Interview
To investigate the economic impact of rural non-farm livelihood diversification in the study area.

To assess the positive and negative impacts nonfarm livehood on the rural farming households Key informants
Focus group discussion participants
Rural farming households involved in the study Key informant interview
FGDs
Household survey
Interview
To investigate the social impact of rural non-farm livelihood diversification in the study area.

To assess the positive and negative impacts nonfarm livehood on the rural farming households Key informants
Focus group discussion participants
Rural farming households involved in the study Key informant interview
FGDs
Household survey
Interview
To examine gender aspects of rural non-farm livelihood divergence To explore gender role in nonfarm livelihood diversification Key informants
Focus group discussion participants
Rural farming households Key informant interview
FGDs
Household survey
Interview
Chapter Four
Data Analysis and Presentation
Introduction
In assessing the socio-economic impact of nonfarm livelihood activities in Emba Alaje woreda up on the countryside farming households’ research outcomes centered on household survey, key informant interview, in depth interview and focus group discussion are presented in this chapter. The presentation is organized in line with research objectives.

To address the specific objectives of this study i have presented my interpretation and reflections of the issue along with the research participants own direct interpretation and understandings. The chapter is organized into four sections. Part one deals with the commonly practiced nonfarm livelihood activities in the study area. In part two the economic impact of nonfarm livelihood activities in the study area was presented. Part three also deals with the social impact of nonfarm livelihood activities in the study area. Part four deals with the gender facets in nonfarm livelihood diversification.
Description of Socio Demographic Characteristics of respondents
This chapter examines the socio-demographic characteristics of the sampled rural farming households involved in nonfarm livelihood activities. The data used was resulting from the household level survey questionnaire. The sample respondents were farming households living in the two study areas Tabia Atsela and Tabia Mayliham and they were 349 in number. The actual survey participants intended to use in this study were 349 as a result 349 survey questionnaire were distributed however, the data collected from the participants was 332 so the whole analysis depend on the 332 study participants.
This section basically describes household characteristics, age of the sample respondents, martial statues the sample respondents, Educational statues of household head and spouse educational statues and religious affiliation of faming household.
Sex of respondents
The surveyed data among the 332 farming household respondents 174 or 52.4% were males, whereas the rest 158 respondents or (47.6 %) were females. The household characteristics especially sex and age has their own impact on the nonfarm livelihood diversification.
Table 4.1 Frequency and Percentage distribution of respondents by Sex
Sex Frequency Percentage
Male 174 52.4
Female 158 47.6
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
Age of respondents
From the farming household survey respondents almost half of them (40.1%) were between the age group of 31-40. The next majority age group is 41-50 which accounts for (32.2%) followed by 51-60 that is 13.6%. The next majority group is the age group of 20-30 which accounts 11.1%. The smallest portion of the respondents is the age group between 61-70 accounts for only 3% i.e. limited to 10 respondents out of 332.
The mean (average) age of parent respondents is 45 years. Consequently, we can understand from this age distribution the rural community is composed of people at the age of adulthood. This age distribution has an adverse effect on the nonfarm livelihood diversification and the whole socio economic activities of the rural farming households and community.

Table 4.2 Frequency and Percentage distribution of respondents by Age
Age group Frequency Percentage
20-30 37 11.1
31-40 133 40.1
41-50 107 32.2
51-60 45 13.6
61-70 10 3.0
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
The researcher made the survey on rural farming households by asking which age group of the community and farming household participate more in the nonfarm sector almost most the respondents respond that the age group of 35-50. Hereafter, when we see the age distribution that participates more in the nonfarm livelihood activities is 31-40 which accounts 40.1%.
As indicated in the table above, the current age distribution of the farming households involved in nonfarm livelihood activities respondents out of the 332 respondents (40.1%) of them are between ages of 31-40, while 32.2 % of the respondents are between the ages of 18-25, although, 13.6 % of the respondents are between the age group of 51-60 and 11.1 % of the respondents are between the age groups of 20-30. The remaining 3 % are between the ages of 61-70. Majority of the study participants argued that the age group of 31-40 because of various reasons participates more in the nonfarm livelihood activities in the rural areas.

Men age 55 said the following:

Most of the community members including me begun to engage in nonfarm livelihood activities lengthy times after marriage, because it is believed that there is enough asset for ourselves (parents), even we can lead our life by drinking a cup of coffee. However, this doesn’t work after children were born because the agricultural production is not sufficient enough to cover kids’ food, cloth and educational expenses by considering this fact the parents begun to diversify their livelihood in to nonfarm livelihood activities. (Respondent1).
Marital status of respondents
The surveyed data and in depth interview data indicates that marital status affects the involvement in nonfarm livelihood activities of a given society. For example, married household heads have a better opportunity to involve in nonfarm livelihood activities by its nature nonfarm livelihood demands or require man power than the other livelihood activities. On the other hand, divorced and widowed farming household head may face lack of man power to energize the nonfarm sector by its nature nonfarm livelihoods demand numerous man power. All in all, married households’ have better opportunity and advantage to engage in nonfarm livelihood activities than the others.
As indicated in the table below, majority of the respondents (203) were married which accounts for 63 percent, 64 respondents were found to be divorced which accounted 19.3 percent; also widowed households were found 10.5 percent and the remaining 24 respondents out of 332 were found single which accounts 7.2 percent.
Table 4.3 Frequency and Percentage distribution of respondents by marital status
Marital status Frequency Percentage
Single 24 7.2
Married 209 63
Divorced 64 19.3
Widowed 35 10.5
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
Household size of respondents
The survey undertaken regarding the household size refers the number of individuals living together within a given household without the family members living outside the household. The surveyed data revealed the average household size in of the study area is 5. The surveyed data also revealed that the family size of farming household respondents ranges from one up to eight.
Therefore, the majority of the farming household respondents 51.8% of them has a family size of 3-4 followed by 30.4% who have a family size 5-6 and 13.5% who have a family size of 1-2 and 4.2% who have a family size 7 and above. As we can see from the cross tabulation below in family size consisting 3-4 is many in number and the family size of farming households in general is moderate in size.
According to the Tabias and woreda officials the reason behind this having medium family size is the result of extensive campaign of family planning by the health extension workers and donors organizations. According to the key informants and in depth interview medium family size currently gaining wide and huge acceptance among the countryside farming households in the study area.

Table 4.4 Frequency and Percentage distribution of family size
Family size Frequency Percentage
1-2 45 13.5
3-4 172 51.8
5-6 101 30.4
7 and above 14 4.2
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
Educational status of household head and spouse household head
As shown in the below table from 332 farming household respondents, 53.3% of them cannot read and write, 33.7 percent of them can only read and write, 6.6% primary school complete, 4.5% high school complete and 1.8% are diploma and above. According to the interviewees, low level of educational attainment means low, weak and inappropriate use of modern agricultural technologies and inputs and available resources, education by default enables efficient and wise use of available resources without compromising the interest of future generation.
Table 4.5 Frequency and percentage distribution of educational status of household head
Educational status Frequency Percentile
Cannot read and write 177 53.3
Read and write 112 33.7
Primary complete 22 6.6
High school complete 15 4.5
Diploma and above 6 1.8
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
Respondent age 59 said the following:

I have completed high school during derg regime in “?? ????? ???” literary refers school of woyanne and now am working in animal husbandry and hand craft works through the credit got from Dedebit micro finance and TDVA (Tigrai disabled veterans association). At the end of 1980s I was enrolled in the woreda Dedebit micro finance with the position of officer and later after the crackdown of TPLF central committee in to two me and others who haven’t official diploma and above degree from government colleges and universities were expelled from work. At that time those who holds diploma were employed in other governmental and nongovernmental offices. Peoples like me were forced to engage in agriculture and related activities to lead our life and survive, at that time if I hold a diploma now I may be in luxurious job and life. Education is key for everything, after I expelled from my job I returned back to my homeland at that I haven’t any asset even land to make living, after some time I decided to engage in nonfarm livelihood activities specifically in animal husbandry (cattle, bee, chicken and other related production) accomplished high school enables me to make good decisions in my life, what I have now is because of my education at this time am relatively in a good condition economically than those who cannot read and write, to be open with you the farmers have better wealth and resources unfortunately they do not know how to use what they have, all in all what I want to tell you is that education is key for everything. (Respondent2).
Table 4.6 Frequency and percentage distribution of educational status of spouse household
Educational status Frequency Percentile
Cannot read and write 240 72.3
Read and write 79 23.8
Primary complete 10 3
High school complete 3 .9
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
As shown in the above table from 332 farming spouse household respondents, out of 332 respondents 72.3 percent of them cannot read and write, 23.8 percent of them can only read and write, 3% primary school complete, only .9% out of 332 respondents only 3 accomplished high school.
Religion affiliation of respondents
Religion is a precarious social aspect which refers to a structure of outlooks, views and practices that individuals share in a group or other collectivities. Religion is among the social institutions which have solid bearing in the course of formation forthcoming necessities for adoration and funeral environments in the study area. In the study area, based on sample survey, the majority of the farming households was followers of orthodox Christianity and followed by Islam.

As shown in the below table the distribution of the respondents religion affiliation shows that the majority of the respondents 222 (66.9%) are orthodox Christians, 100 or (30.1%) are Islam followers, while 3% or 10 respondents are other religion followers and this specifies the mass of people under investigation are orthodox Christian followers.

Table 4.7 Frequency and percentage distribution of religious affiliation of respondents

Religion affiliation Frequency Percentile
Orthodox Christianity 222 66.9
Islam 100 30.1
Others 10 3
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
Farming background of the farming households
According to the respondents themselves most of the farming households owns or have farmland what they called locally xsimad “???”. Most of the farming households respond that as they didn’t get adequate agricultural production which enables to have and live healthy life and the researcher personally observed that as the land are not fertile or conducive for agriculture due to different man and natural made factors. As a result of low agricultural production the farming households were forced to diversify their livelihood into nonfarm sector.
Table 4.8 Frequency and percentage distribution of farmland ownership
Do you have farm land Frequency Percentile
Yes 296 89.2
No 36 10.8
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
As shown in the above table the distribution of the land ownership or possession across the respondents’ shows that majority of the respondents (89.2%) are farmland owners, (10.8%) of the respondents have not possessed farmland.
Male age 58 from Mayliham clarified the issue of land in relation to nonfarm livelihood diversification in the following way:
In our Tabia in the recent decades as a result of rapid population growth incidence of shortage of farmland is happening. Shortage of farmland in line with low agricultural production is one of the contributory factors that forced the farming household to engage in nonfarm livelihood activities. If i didn’t engaged in nonfarm livelihood activities this fragile and infertile farmland may not be enough for the household food consumption, kids educational expenses, basic needs of the family and health expenses, the farmland what I have isn’t enough even for me and my wife. (Respondent3).
However, the woreda and Tabia officials do not agree with above stated idea, they argued that, despite the above stated fact the farming households culture and interest of using modern agricultural technologies and inputs is poor, even the farming households are skeptic of these agricultural technology and in addition the price of these modern technology and inputs is unfair with the economic purchasing capacity of the farming households.

Ways of gaining farmland
According to officials and farming households of the woreda there was different ways of gaining farming land. Most of the respondents argued that among the means of obtaining farmland are through or from government (Tabia or kebele) administration. However, there also other ways obtaining farmland.
Table 4.9 Frequency and percentage distribution ways of obtaining farmland
Means of obtaining farmland Frequency Percentile
From Tabia administration 231 69
Inherited 74 22.1
Tibna or rent 14 4.2
Other 13 3.9
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
As indicated in the table above in the study area, around (61%) of the study participants get their farmland from Tabia administration, (22.1%) of the study participants get their farm land through inheritance from their families, (4.2%) of the study participants get their farmland through rent (Tibna), only (3.9%) of the study participants get their farmland through other means obtaining.
Farming production
As indicated in the below table out of 332 respondents (63%) respond that they did not get enough farming production during the last harvest years before 2017-1018, (37%) of the respondents respond that as they get enough farming production during the last harvest seasons before 2017-2018.

Priest age 76 from Amedewiha Tabia said the following:
During the last 30 and 40 years there was adequate agricultural production and as a result in our religious and cultural celebrations like wedding, epiphany and baptism every community member were invited to eat and drink just more two and three days that is because of surplus agricultural production, unfortunately this a day due to different manmade and natural reasons the agricultural production declined drastically as a result this a day we in a great problem, we are experiencing food shortage. This a day the agriculture in itself isn’t enough for obtaining and feeding our parents. We are praying god to give as surplus production. (Respondent4).

Table 4.10 cross tabulation of respondents farming production
In addition, the key informants agree that, there is low agricultural production despite the paper value oriented reports of the woreda agriculture and rural development office and the woreda administration office. They claimed that the main reason for the low farm production is basically climate change, deforestation, repeated drought, fragmentation of fertile farm land and low culture of using modern agricultural technologies and inputs.
To sum up the above analysis, one can simply understand that the vast majority of the respondents did not get enough and adequate agricultural production during the last 10 harvest seasons. Therefore, the population under study area is under continuous poverty risks.
Majority of the survey respondents and FGDs session participants respond that in order to lessen the risk of low agricultural production first and foremost the farming household should diversify their livelihood to the nonfarm livelihood activities since the study area is potential area for nonfarm livelihood activities like animal husbandry, handcraft, traditional mineral extraction and petty weekly trade. By doing so the risk emanates from lower agricultural production can be diminished. Secondly, the farming household respondents respond that in order to reduce the risk of lower agricultural production boosting irrigation is the second finest alternative. Finally, increasing the consumption of high yields and crops and use of modern sophisticated fertilizer, since the soil fertility is diminishing due to various complicated and interrelated factors the use of modern fertilizers and high yield crops should be enhanced.

Nonfarm livelihood diversification
This part presents and discusses the result of analysis of the data resulting from the house hold survey questionnaire, FGDs, key informant, in depth interview. It investigates the commonly practiced rural nonfarm livelihood activities, socio-economic impacts and gender facet of rural nonfarm livelihood activities in Emba Alaje woreda.
Commonly practiced nonfarm livelihood activities
According to the surveyed data, FGDs participants, informants’ responses regarding the major nonfarm livelihoods practiced in Emba Alaje woreda there are number nonfarm livelihood activities practiced in the rural areas by the farming households. Accordingly, among the most common nonfarm livelihood in the study area are the following: handcraft, petty trade, animal husbandry, wage labour, traditional dairy processing, traditional taverns or local drinks, charcoal production, traditional mineral extraction, and cobblestone input provision, painting and weaving.
Table 4.11 Frequency and percentage distribution of the practiced nonfarm livelihood
Nonfarm livelihood Frequency Percentage
Handcraft 65 19.6
Petty trade 61 18.4
Animal husbandry 53 16
Day wage labour 47 14.2
Traditional dairy processing 31 9.3
Traditional taverns or local drinks 21 6.3
Charcoal production 22 6.6
Traditional mineral extraction 16 4.8
Painting 7 2.1
Weaving 7 2.1
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
In relation to the above stated commonly practiced types of nonfarm livelihoods Fikru (2008) identified the key nonfarm livelihoods practiced like charcoal production, quarrying, furniture making, and dairy processing.

Hand Craft
Among the farming households’ of Emba Alaje woreda handcraft is one of the major nonfarm livelihood activities in the study area. As indicated in the table 4.11 amongst the 322 farming household participants 65 of them (19.6 %) their livelihood is handcraft next to farm.
According to the informants and FGDs session participants’ handicrafts are distinctive expressions of their own culture and society. Handicraft activities engagement is one of the significant and profitable segments of the nonfarm livelihood diversification activities this a day in the study area. Key informants revealed that Emba Alaje woreda is one among the potential areas of handcraft activities endowment in southern Tigray zone in standings of handcraft activities.
The survey respondents argued that there are a number of handcraft activities in their community. Among the most commonly practiced handcraft activities among the farming households of Emba Alaje woreda are: Traditional jewelries, like (locally called Shiquar, Enqui, Pottery, traditional metal and wood work and “Seffa”. Handcraft plays an incredible role to society by producing different farming and house equipment.
Table 4.11 Frequencies and percentage distribution handcraft works engagement
Handcraft Engagement Frequency Percentile
Traditional jewelry 17 26.15
Pottery 23 35.38
Traditional metal and wood work 14 21.53
Seffa “??” 11 16.92
Total 65 100
Source: own survey, 2018
As indicated in the above table, in the study area 17 or (26.15%) participate in making traditional jewelries, 35.38% majority of the participants engaged in pottery making, 21.53% engaged in Traditional metal and wood work and 16.92% of the participants of the study engaged in Seffa.
Most of the respondents respond that the above stated handcraft works in the past few years were main source of income for the farming household, because there was numerous handcraft product consumers in those times. Traditional jewelries works are too busy during religious and social celebrations because there was huge demand of traditional jewelries among the urban and rural population. However, in the previous year’s consumption of these traditional jewelries had been declined among the forefront customers of traditional jewelries mainly adult women.

Figure 5: Traditional jewelry rural women use
A respondent 73, from Atsela Tabia, narrated while he was answering for a question, how you perceive traditional jewelry.

Fine, in past two decades our every action was amazing, ladies of the time were beautiful because of their traditional beauty decorations like marda, shiquar and enqui…really traditional jewelry is more fascinating. What am saying is that adult and youth of this time don’t use their forefathers jewelries instead they use the western jewelries. (respondent5).
For that reason, we can understand from the above stated interview consumption of traditional jewelries among the urban and countryside and population had been drastically diminished basically because of modernity and globalization driven reasons.
According to the FGDs discussants, pottery is one of the handcraft activities commonly practiced in Emba Alaje woreda basically and solely by women, it is regarded as women work and practically the researcher observed most of the pottery workers are women. Woman’s who engaged in pottery making produces “Xsahli”, “Jebena”, “Eitro” and “Megogo”.
According to informant respondents and interviewee’s “Seffa” is one type of the handcraft works in which numerous women of the farming are actively engaged. Women of the rural farming households boost their household income through making and selling Seffa. Seffa is exclusively practiced by women members of the farming household and it is considered as women work.

Figure 6: Among the Seffa products in the farming households of Emba-Alaje
FGDs session discussants of Atsela Tabia, survey respondents and in depth interviewees agreed in one thing that traditional metal and wood work is also one of the commonly practiced handcraft works among the farming households and claimed that metal and wood work is very profitable because of every necessary input are easily accessible at fair price since the area have huge metal and wood endowment. The metal and wood works are used for constructing house, different house goods and farm equipment. The metal and wood work products produced by the farming household main purchaser is church next to the community itself, however, the farming household sell their products at a very cheap price.
The focus group discussants agree in one thing that there is division of handcraft works among men and women. Handcraft works according to the in depth interviewees and FGDs discussants traditional metal and wood work is men work from the very constitution in the study area.
According the FGDs session discussants from Mayliham and Atsela Tabia response regarding division of handcraft work among the farming households, surprisingly there is no any possible means men to work the job labeled women work, the same women cannot work what is labeled men work. Pottery and “Seffa” are exclusive jobs of women in Emba Alaje woreda. The study claimed that there are handcraft works assigned for both men and women, both men and women can work interchangeably, jewelry making is shard work of both men and women of the rural farming households.
However, key informants do not agree with above stated idea, they argued that, labeling of handcraft in to men and women work currently is not working and its acceptance has been declined. Many females begun to work previously considered as men, numerous men also working previously labeled women work. However, still there is the attitude among the rural areas of the woreda, but due to the massive campaigns and visible changes the long existed attitude was changed especially toward handcraft.
Key informant from woreda MSE age 48 said:
In the previous times the marginalized section of our society called “Budda” ?? only permitted to engage in our society and handcraft work were considered as sin, but this a day as a result of at this time many university and college graduates starts to invest in handcraft works to make practical what they learn in their respective university and college, at this time there are individuals that changes their livelihood because of their engagement in handcraft works. (Informant1).

In addition, in depth interview informant from Atsela Tabia narrates:
TVET graduate in manufacturing from Maychew TVET, I was looking for a job for three consecutive years after graduation, unfortunately did not get office job, no one organization is interested to employ me, some organizations told me “it is better for you to create your own business”, one day one of our neighbor told to engage handcraft and related activities, soon I call my family to prepare 5000 BIRR for that business, immediately after one month I started own job and start saving what I get daily as a result now I have house and fine Birr. I had received additional basic trainings that add a knowledge and skill. (respondent6).
The above two interviews indicates that despite yearn existed distorted attitude currently the attitude toward handcraft activities is changing basically among the educated section of the society (TVET, college and university graduates). In General, the data collected from FGDs, key informants, in depth interview demonstrated that the attitude toward handcraft and related activities is till stereotyped and far behind. While most of the key informants respond that the attitude toward handcraft and related activities is changing over time. While they are developing the attitude that hand craft is and can be a solid base of livelihood for many jobless countryside youth and adults.

Petty Trade
Although, petty trade is mostly considered as major nonfarm livelihood among the farming households of Emba Alaje woreda. Petty trade according to the FGDs discussants, in depth interview informants and key informants is a type of trade involves the sale of cheap and easy countryside products like chicken, egg; “Beles” in a weekly held market.
As indicated in the table (4.11) among the 332 survey participants farming households 19.3% livelihood is dependent on petty trade. Most of the petty trade engaged respondents engaged in different petty trading activities. Women of the farming households engaged in “Gullit” and the farming household sell their items only to feed and cover their family basic needs from week to week. The researcher also observed that most of the petty trade Gullit activities are run by women of the farming households.
According to the farming household respondents, women of the farming households retail their petty items in their surrounding area basically chicken, “Beles” in summer season, egg locally called “????”, local traditional drinks and the researcher also personally observed that the petty trader farming households had not been received legal acknowledgment from government and they did not pay tax to the local government, more than half of the petty trader respondents get average profit 100-150 per week.
Data collected from key informants and in depth interview informants demonstrated that petty trade had not brought a substantial change in the livelihood of the farming households; it is only for fulfilling daily basic needs of the farming household. The profit emanates from petty trade is insignificant.

Women age 38 from Atsela Tabia narrates the following:
I have five children and my husband passed away 10 years ago and I have not any piece of land. After the death of my husband I engaged in Gullit retail basically in “Shimbra”, “Shewit meshla bahri”, “Beles” in summer, “Gibba”, sugarcane and sometimes egg. In Gulit retail I have faced several challenges while i engage in in petty trade, the main challenges I face are social, physical and health, being a Gulit worker the society perceived me as incapable to participate and share my fair share in different social events and my work place is as you have seen not conducive and not healthy. Gulit despite its unprofitable still am Gulit worker because I have not any alternative any land and other opportunities that make me lead better life and I think it is my destiny. (Respondent7).
The women argument signifies that the driving force that forced the farming household in petty trade (Gulit) is because of shortage of farm land, poverty and shortage of other opportunity to make living. Therefore, it is clear that the farming households who have been engaged in nonfarm livelihood activities do not get worthy production from petty trade that would make them to have better living. In short the income got from petty trade is only for hand to mouth consumption.
Farmer age 33 from Mayliham Tabia said the following:
Young and adults of our community as you have seen and listen have not farm land, even our forefront brothers and sisters have not farm land, in addition since our background is from poor farm family we not have sufficient money to start our own business, even what makes us not take the advantage provided by REST of loan which returns after four year is we have not tangible or visible collateral. As a result with the money our parents donate we engage in petty trade. (Respondent8).
From my observation during my field stay I observed that the rural adults are actively engaged in a petty trade relatively than the other age group of the rural farming community, and there are a few adults involved in relatively profitable trade like meet ox, goat, ship, farm product, and another consumption goods, because they take the advantage of loan provided by REST since they have collateral.
From the discussion with Atsela Tabia administration office expert, it was found out that petty trade is one of the nonfarm livelihood activities in which a number of Atsela Tabia residents engaged in, despite their engagement they did not get out nice income and profit except few individuals. In supporting the above raised idea P. Gautam and P. Anderson (2016) argued that the poor population of the society is incapable to get involved in profitable nonfarm sector is forced to adopt activities that do not require high investment capabilities and skills.
Having said this, the researcher raises a question that what should do to improve the livelihood of the rural poor households? In response to the existing rural poor hardship of life basically those who lead their life only by petty trade currently the poor farming households with the intent of safeguarding their livelihood are searching other alternative types of livelihood activities which are relatively good. Majority of the FGDs discussants farming household argued the local government in collaboration with loan and credit providers institutions should create barrier free for taking loan and credit for the farming households despite the asset they possessed.
Based on the findings gathered from key informants and FGDs session discussants, it was discovered that REST is providing a long term loans for the farming households with the aim of ensuring food security and improve their livelihood. However, the interviewee respondents claimed that despite the loan and accessibility there is limitation in accessibility of credit for the poor farming households who have not collateral. The study found out that poor farming households who rely on petty trade are not beneficiaries of the program launched by REST. The key informants also claimed that adjustment and rearrangement should be made to avoid the barriers for taking loan and credit accessibility of the poor farming households who have not any guarantee asset. Although, REST experts respond that because of the intervention many of the rural farming households are currently improving their livelihood and improve their trade since they are well aware of trade.
Animal husbandry
According to the data obtained from officials and experts of the woreda numerous farming are engaged in animal husbandry and make their living. The farming households employed animal husbandry as their major and supportive livelihood next to agriculture. Considering by its multipurpose contribution for type countryside farming households’ animal husbandry is the prominent nonfarm livelihood in both Tabias Atsela and Mayliham respectively. Here the researcher found that it’s important to note that despite some contradiction among scholars regarding animal husbandry is farm or not number of academicians and scholars revealed that there is significant difference between farm and agriculture, agriculture is very immense concept which incorporates farming and husbandry, in other way animal husbandry isn’t part of farm.
The surveyed data result as indicated in table 4.11 indicates that 16 % of the study participant farming households their livelihood is dependent on animal husbandry. Animal husbandry as a survey result indicates it is third significant nonfarm livelihood in Emba Alaje woreda. Among the common animal husbandry are ox, ship, milk cow, goat, bee and honey production and chicken.
FGDs discussant indicates that animal husbandry contributes its own fair share in food security and food self-sufficiency of the farming household. For the rural farming households animal husbandry beyond food consumption has also substantial role in producing income of the farming households.
Data collected from the informants demonstrated that Emba Alaje woreda has plenty of assets of livestock; however, despite its potential it has not yet exploited the existing resource because of customary and traditional use and lack of modern skill, technology and knowledge.
On the other hand, the researcher in his interview with key informants and interviewees found out that despite the local government extensive efforts 10 years ago to boost hybridizing between native and foreign livestock locally called “Bagayiet”, the number of hybridized milk cows remains to be insignificant in relation with demand of the farming households. In addition, the cost of the Bagayiet was very expensive and the initiation of hybridizing does not continued as its beginning and also the agricultural extension workers commitment was so poor.
Here it is important to note that key informants and FGDs session discussants response regarding the principal the farming households are experiencing in the animal husbandry sector as a result the core challenges are the following: lack dedicated agriculture extension experts, low quality products due to traditional nutrition culture. The key informants respond that in the study area there is no any modern dairy processing and technology and market relation with customers is found too weak.
Consistent with the finding Atsela agriculture expert narrates the following:
Government has given solid and tangible attention to animal husbandry to make the sector potential source of income and livelihood basement for the farming households. In the past years government made massive awareness creation campaign related with how to make and improve the livelihood of the farming households. Hereafter, as a result of the awareness creation campaign some convincing and visible progresses have been registered. (Informant2).

As evidently indicated in the above discussion animal husbandry despite some efforts of government in the past years recently don’t get any attention from the local government.
Based on the finding of the study it was discovered that the key informants and in depth interview informant signifies and recommend that the local and regional government should work in collaboration with all stakeholders to make the sector more profitable. The FGDs discussants argued that the role of animal husbandry in ensuring and fulfilling food consumption of the farming household is evident. In addition the farming households should have to involve in making quality products through improving the nutrition of the animals (milk cows), using available technologies.
Wage Daily Labour
From farming own perspective and understanding day wage labour refers when someone from the farming household engaged and works in on other farming household farm and other nonfarm undertakings with a daily salary including food and drink. The farming households respond that most of daily wage labors are from the highlands of Emba Alaje woreda and the working environment of day wage labour is characterized by menaces and unsafe working environment.
FGDs piloted in Tabia Atsela depicted that day wage labour is one of the major nonfarm livelihood practiced mainly among countryside adults aged 20-45; since the job by its nature demands more energy. Daily wage labor is found intensive and more demanded in the course of the plowing and harvest. As indicated in table 4.11 among the study participants 14.2% their livelihood is dependent day wage labour. Consistent with the above finding, Brhanu (2016) finding indicates that male members of a household are mostly engaged on this type of livelihood activity. However, there are also circumstances on which female members of a household engaged in such activity.

FGDs discussants and key informants revealed that within day wage labour there are different kinds of day wage labor hiring chiefly based on their perdiem payment and duration of time. Building expert is one of the day wages labour in which receives fine payment almost around 250 Birr per day excluding their food and drink consumption. In addition, occasional daily jobs are also among the daily labour activities in which the rural farming engaged most and its average daily payment was 30 up to 40 Birr. Consistent with the above finding Woldenhanna (2000) argued that in Ethiopia, 20% of the rural income originates from the rural nonfarm sector and in some parts of the Ethiopia, nonfarm labor income accounts for up to 35% of the total household income.
The study also find out that wage labors regarding the time spent classified in to two categories. These are seasonal daily labour and year round wage labour. Year round day wage labour is occupation that exists all year round like building and other activities which requires skill and this year round wage labor activities have relatively better payment than those of seasonal wage labors.
Men age 46 from Mayliham Tabia said the following:
I have no piece of farm land and even if my wife has farm land the production we get from that cannot feed us more than three month, I work in local building, most of the time exclusive of food and drink averagely I get 200 Birr per day. Because of my engagement in building and the money I get from the sector I teach four of my children but the working environment is not safe, you are always in risk. (Respondent8).
In addition, as the survey result indicates there are daily wage labors that occurred seasonally, among these plowing, weeding and reap.
Farmer age 57 from Mayliham Tabia said the following:
I have 10 xsimad fertile farm lands and as you see am disabled, I cannot do every task in my own, and as a result every year I collect farmers with their full farming equipment for plowing and after that I also employ number of farmers during “Xsahiyay” and later in order to collect farm products I also employ daily wage laborers. All in all, I employ every year daily wage labour starting from sow, reap. (Respondent9).
Key informants said that in the daily wage labour the incidence of child labour exploitation is almost a custom among the rural farming households. The farming households only and only care about the money the child bring by selling his labour rather they do not care about health and well-being of the child. The law enforcement bodies like police and attorneys did not give attention to child labour exploitation. However, the FGDs discussants neglected and denied the existence of child labour exploitation.
In general, from the preceding analysis one can easily understand that wage day labor is one of major practiced nonfarm livelihood in the study area in which numerous farming households livelihood depend, relatively majority of the day wage labors were from the highland areas of the woreda and in day wage labor there is child labor exploitation.
Traditional Dairy Processing
As indicated in the table (4.11) among the surveyed respondents who pursue nonfarm livelihood diversification 9.5% next to farming sector involved in traditional dairy processing to make living. The farming households who have been engaged in this sector the way of their dairy processing is very traditional way, what makes dairy processing unique from the other types of nonfarm livelihood for the farming household of Tabia Mayliham and Atsela is that the households beyond market they used the proceed item in their daily food consumption.

The survey data and key informants reported that the highland area of Emba Alaje has a huge potential endowment of cow milk. The same is true the lowland area of the woreda possess a huge potential of goat milk. From the observation made and information gathered basically the highland area despite its milk potential because of traditional dairy processing the rural farming households did not get worthy from the sector, in addition, most of the cows are native in which they have low milk production ability.

According to the key informants and personal observation in Atsela Tabia there are a few farming households in which they have better experience of milk production and dairy processing. These farming households’ responds that their introduction of exotic milk cows locally called “Bagayiet” and hybrid milk cows; in addition they have established market linkage with the nearby town “Addishehu” customers make them more beneficiaries from the sector and they have also some customers in Mekelle city.
Information gathered through the key informant interview and FGD sessions indicate that the point out the challenges for not getting fine production from the sector: In the study area despite the existence of animal health center there is shortage of modern equipment and well-disciplined and interested veterinary medicine professional. When farmers visit the health center they did not get satisfactory treatment, having this in their mind they costumed care and treatment in traditional way. In addition they also argue that most of the milk cows are local breads, in which local breeds are environmental adapted, high disease resistance, however, the local milk cow breeds are weak in production when compared with American cows.
Traditional Taverns (Local Drinks)
The survey result indicated in table 4.11 among the surveyed study participant farming households who engaged in nonfarm 6.3% make their living by engaging in traditional taverns or local drinks. Survey and FGDs session data collected revealed that traditional taverns (local drinks) are commonly called as “Mesheta biet” or “Mies biet”, and these traditional taverns are the most frequently excercised nonfarm livelihoods especially and basically it is considered as women work among countryside farming households and those women who have been engaged in traditional are profitable, relatively they have a better livelihood and they are living in relatively comfortable house compared with the rest countryside farming households.
The study find out that traditional taverns basically “Siwwa” followed by “Mies” from the time of antiques till know has played a critical and foundational role among the farming households basically among female headed farming household life. Abundant social, cultural and religious celebrations are intensively attached with the so called traditional taverns “Siwwa”, and “Mies”, for this reason, the livelihood of the rural farming households and basically those of female headed farming households is dependent on the traditional or local drinks.

The study also find out that traditional taverns or local drinks was characterized by: the market time is fixed and periodic, in the previous times most of the farming households engage in local drink production make a drink at home and transport to the nearby local market where the farmers collect per week with the aim of sell their product to the thirsty farmers.
The study find out that there is a strong tie and concern among the local drink producer women for that reason they have schedule when to produce with the aim of avoiding loss comes from accessibility and alternative drinks as a result local drink producers have their own saving and other social gathering, unlike the previous decades currently the farming households develop a single and fixed area having protection from sun and others which serve as tavern locates with in their residential area. In depth interview informants argue that among the local drink producers’ widowed and divorced women actively engaged in traditional taverns and selling of local drinks than those of married women.
In depth interview informant women age 58 from Mayliham said the following:
Now am 58 years old, I cannot compete in other economically lucrative business like these of adults. Local drink is also relatively profitable when compared with other economic activities at minimum losses emanates from local drink is not that much disastrous, it demands easy coast for its inputs. As a result of selling local drinks now I have 5 room houses and currently am building other 6 rooms. Per month each room is rented 45 Birr.” (informant3).
As I have tried to grasp from FGDs session and field observation, traditional local drink production in addition to gender it was mostly practiced by older women, the researcher according to his field observation most of the local drink producers are older divorced and widowed women and the community prefers local drink than modern drinks like beer.

Charcoal production
As the surveyed data signposts 6.3% study participant farming households’ livelihood was dependent charcoal production. In his interview with FGDs participants and key informants the researcher has found out that because of in accessibility of electric power supply and daily fragmentation of power supply in the nearby towns of Emba Alaje charcoal locally called Fiham is the major cradle of energy for food, warm and reheating and light in all towns of the woreda and some part of the countryside residents.
A more probing question was forwarded to survey participants and key informant and in depth interview informants on how do you see charcoal trade? Majority of the responds forward almost same idea that is regardless of the income they receive it imposes different hamstring on the environment in general and the farm household in particular imposes air pollution, deforestation, reducing rainfall and health problems and in addition since charcoal production is banned activity the farming households did not got worthy income.
Women 37 from Mayliham said the following:
No doubt that everyone everywhere wishes and needs to have some sort of income basically to make living, however, as you knows and see we haven’t sufficient income and our farmland is infertile. It is mandatory at minimum to get even breed to see the next day. We get income through charcoal production since there is huge charcoal demand in the nearby towns; I know its crime but I have not any other alternative. Thus, by reminding one day to be thrown in jail am producing charcoal…..it’s a matter of survival. (Respondent10).
To sum up the above discussion the farming households produce charcoal knows as it is catastrophic both to the environment in general and individual in particular. Farming households involved in charcoal are violating law but no one charcoal producer is accused and the society in itself remain silent only gossip. The woreda office of agriculture and rural development is not challenging and focused seriously on the issue yet despite some efforts for lip.

Agriculture extension expert age 28 said the following:
Really when I think about charcoal and role of local government I surprise and shame, list name is not ok because everyone knows the number one customers of charcoal are the local government officials including from bureau of agriculture and rural development, I know we cannot escape from missing accountability but we can do nothing because the letter we write pass through the woreda leaders. (Informant4).
To sum up the above the discussion, in order to bring grass rooted solution lot is expected basically society itself the society and local government should mobilize resources to minimize the risk, awareness creation and in addition local government should also work for the application and practicability of national implemented rules and regulation. It is mandatory to make collective campaign and effort from government, society, religion institutions. Expect to solve the existing charcoal production problem by one sector or segment is like clamp by one hand.
Traditional Mineral Extraction
The study result from survey indicates that 3.3 % of the study participants their livelihood is dependent traditional mineral extraction. In addition data collected from the woreda administration indicates numerous adults of the farming households are engaged in traditional mining and make their living.
The study piloted in Mayliham and Atsela Tabia illustrates that the study area have huge mineral endowment. Among these resources rivers takes the lead, rivers like Gereb Tsana, Gereb Atsela and Gereb Chelena have possessed huge sandstone, limestone and stone for building. The stated minerals have huge demand from the nearby towns Bora, Addishehu and Maychew for construction and cobblestone making. The local government by considering this advantage organizes youths of the woreda in cooperatives and unions to extract and get benefit of the full-fledged minerals. As a result youths of Tabia Atsela organized in sandstone and stone extraction registered remarkable success. Unfortunately, youths of Mayliham failed to take advantage.
Key informant and FGDs session discussants revealed that there are farming households whose livelihood partially depends on gold extraction in traditional by moving to the nearby area Agew wagihimra called werkamba mainly the lowlanders of Bora and Slewa. Generally, the common mineral in the area cobblestone are inputs stone, sandstone, limestone, metal and gold. In addition key informants discussed that in informal way some members of Tabia Atsela through illegal they extracting mineral that from the historical highland of Alaje which is believed that there was numerous fascist Italy were deposed like military equipment, gold, cars, fuel and others in the highland.
In depth interview formant from Mayliham Tabia age 33 said the following:
I occasionally travel to werkamba and I stay there two or three months. My life is somewhat dependent on mineral extraction basically gold. In the previous years I got better income from werkamba gold extraction center. But due to the gold center was seized and parked by government I stop gold extraction and remain in Bora. (Informant5).
In the above statement, it has indicated that gold extraction in traditional way is their source of income. Gold, sandstone, stone and metal are found most essential for the farming households to fulfill their household basic needs and to make living, however, due to close of werkamba gold site and extraction of minerals in traditional way makes the farming household and others involved not to take the advantage.
Painting
The other type of nonfarm livelihood activity in the study area is painting. The survey result shows that from the from the survey participants 2.1% of them are engaged in painting especially religious paintings and make their livelihood.
According to the in depth interview informants who have been engaged in painting basically in religious painting. Despite the numbers of religious painters are very a few there is huge demand of religious and other cultural paintings from the church and community. However, due to the purchasing capacity of the society the price attached for the religious paintings was not satisfactory.
Data obtained from the woreda administration demonstrated in collaboration with Tigrai bureau of fine arts the painters had get basic training related with painting. In addition in depth interview informants argued that they have received very critical knowledge, they work previously by tradition way but after the training they add knowledge and start beautiful arts. As a result they sent their products to the nearby towns of southern Tigray zone and Mekelle. Currently they have number of customers in Maychew and Mekelle among the main customers are hotels, bar and restaurants, tourism bureau, coffee houses and Orthodox Church dominantly. The respondents claimed that as a result of the training they get from art bureau their livelihood is totally changed.
The key informants and in depth interview informants recommend that concerned bodies basically bureau of tourism should work closely with the painters in order to advertise the tourism sites, historical places, ornaments of the woreda.

Weaving
Although weaving is found one of the nonfarm livelihood activities in which number of farming households is engaged in. As indicated in table (4.11), among the surveyed respondents, 2.1 % of households in Emba Alaje woreda are engaged in weaving as a means of livelihood strategy. According to the respondents at the previous 10 years weaving was one of the dominant nonfarm livelihood among the farming households, but due to the introduction of massive textile industries their role was replaced by these factory’s, even if they produce their product quality was poor compared with these modern once.

Economic impact of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification
The existence and development of rural nonfarm livelihoods because of various driving factors like poverty, farm land fragmentation, soil fertility decline and repeated drought and other related factors have been resulted economic impact on the countryside farming households. As a result there were changes in the economy of the farmers of the study area under investigation. Among the economic impacts of nonfarm livelihoods are develop saving and saving culture, improve income, food security and resisting shocks on the countryside farming households of Emba Alaje woreda.

Impact on household income
In this paper related with the economic impact of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification, according to the surveyed data there was positive impact on the income of farm households. My key informants revealed that as there is impact as a result of their involvement in the nonfarm livelihood diversification activities. The farmers got significant amount of income in give-and-take of their nonfarm products.
As the survey data revealed the farming household income increases as they engaged more in the sector, the more you engaged the more income received, basically those who had engage in animal husbandry, painting and traditional tavern or local drinks have more income than the other nonfarm livelihoods.
Key informant age 53 from Tabia Atsela said the following:
Before 10 years, I was in a very harsh condition even difficult to see next and hhhhh………… horror to remember, but thanks to Dedebit micro finance next to God” ???? ??? ?? ???” literary refers Dedebit my mother and mother of my child’s that provides loan that enables me to engage in nonfarm livelihood basically in animal husbandry (bee, chicken, milk cows and meat ox). Now my children are learning in private colleges fulfilling all what they need and also I built house.”(Respondent14).

Farmer age 68 from Mayliham Tabia said the following:
“Long years ago till now I cover all educational expenses and all their needs my children just through income I got from handcraft works, currently I have two university and one grade 8th students.” (Respondent15).
From the below stated figure we can understand that nonfarm livelihood have positive income impact. The result of the study shows that among the positive income impacts resist drought takes the largest percentage about 36.23 % followed by pay loan received from basically from Dedebit micro finance and enterprise and private loan providers 26.05 %, own asset basically oxen which is sign of wealth in the study area 18.86 % the farming households because of their engagement in nonfarm livelihood they would construct house and address and solve food demand of the farming household 18.26%.

Table 4.11 the respondents’ response of the income impact of nonfarm livelihood
The FGDs session participants and key informants point out that, nonfarm livelihoods based on their income importance or generate classified in to three categories. These are: –
High income generator: according to my key informants and FGDs session participants high income generator livelihood refers these livelihoods that have high demand and low supply in market and attach expensive price, the farmers while they sold an item identified as high income earner, beyond fulfilling their basic daily consumption they can even build house and purchase essential items like oxen that could have long term advantage. Among these livelihoods, animal husbandry, mining, traditional taverns or local drinks and Painting (religious paintings).
Middle income generator: according to the key informant and FGDs session participants medium income generator livelihoods refer still there is income that could meet basic daily consumption of the farming but could not purchase beyond. Among these livelihoods day wage labour (skilled), and traditional dairy processing.
Low income generator: according to the key informant and FGDs session participants low income generator livelihoods that still there is income but couldn’t meet daily basic needs of the households. Among these livelihoods day wage labour (no skill), cobblestone input provision, charcoal production and petty trade.
The survey respondents and key informants reiterated that the main reason for not getting appropriate production was mainly because of the nonfarm livelihood sector wasn’t organized just like other livelihoods or economic doings 30.8%, the farming households themselves despite the hardships of they invest less time and effort 45% and nonfarm livelihood diversification didn’t receive attention from farming household themselves and the concerned bodies of local government 28.7%.
All in all, to sum up the above discussions involvement in rural nonfarm livelihoods have positive impact on income of the countryside farming households. In line with this Muhammad Israr, et’al (2014) argued that nonfarm livelihood diversification has a positive impact on the household income. This positive can be accredited to the implementation of latest technologies by the rural households.
Impact on job creation
One of the positive impacts of engagement in rural nonfarm livelihood diversification was job opportunity creation. Majority of the study participants agreed in one thing that the farming households as a result of their involvement in the sector they have been creating job opportunities mainly temporary or season driven jobs both for members of farm household and others.
The surveyed data revealed that out of the 332 farming households 196 of them or 59% has been created job opportunity for others, while 136 or 41% of the farming household didn’t yet create job opportunity for others.

Table 4.12 frequencies and percentage distribution response on job creation
Do you create job opportunity for others Frequency Percentile
Yes 196 59
No 136 41
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
Moreover, no doubt job opportunity was created for others, but the job opportunity created the employees did not get what they deserve in exchange of the service provide, the payment they got was not satisfactory.
Similar with the above idea the researcher asked “if the payment wasn’t satisfactory why you not you stop?” Women age 30 said the following:
“Yes the payment isn’t fair but I have no other alternative, if I reject the job no doubt after seconds other person can do it, there is huge supply of daily laborer.” (Respondent15).

Additionally, the FGDs session participants in line with the above stated idea argued that the payment received from nonfarm livelihoods was not only satisfactory, through the payment no one can fulfill the minimum daily consumption, but this trend in recent years saw improvement due to the enlargement job opportunity.
The researcher found it important to note that the nonfarm livelihood diversification in the study area beyond its job creation, it was surveyed that for who does the nonfarm livelihood creates job, as a result of the surveyed data among the 196 respondents 142 or 74% created job opportunity for those who cannot read and write, followed by people who attend elementary school 50 or 26%. As a result of the study nonfarm livelihood diversification has positive on job creation, but it is for the illiterate section of the society not for the college and university graduate students. These findings appears to be consistent similar with study conducted by Dr. Shuujat F (2014) which reported that in Pakistan rural nonfarm livelihood diversification role in rural employment was 23%.
Table 4.13 frequencies and percentage distribution respondents’ response for who create job opportunity
For who you create job opportunity Frequency Percentile
People who can’t read and write 142 74
People who attend primary school 50 26
Total 192 100
Source: own survey, 2018
Impact on saving and saving culture
The countryside farming households after inaugurated compacted foundation in nonfarm livelihood diversification, the farming households start to save money from livelihood in which they engaged in. Result of the surveyed data indicated that among the 332 respondents 223 or 67.2% have saved and develop saving culture and the rest 109 or 32.8% respondents didn’t save and haven’t saving culture.

Table 4.14 frequencies and percentage distribution response on saving and saving habit
Save money Frequency Percentile
Yes 223 67.2
No 109 32.8
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
Involvement nonfarm livelihood diversification as the surveyed data and FGDs session participants revealed that has positive impact on saving and saving habit among the farming households. The farming households can improve and develop saving habit or culture in which saving was previously considered bad, but because of their involvement the farming households can secure better life and resist shock resulted from drought and poverty.
In connection to the above discussion, key informant from Atsela age 51 said the following:
“Currently I have engaged in milk and milk products production and now I have 6 American milk cows. I have number of milk and related products customers in Addishehu; as a result I get fine money from milk, after fulfilling cows’ food and other necessary inputs for the milk cows, I save the rest money I get from milk production every week regularly I save money in Ambesa international bank. “. (Informant7).
In supporting to above raised idea FGDs session participants said that there was saving culture among the farming households who have been engaged in nonfarm livelihood diversification. As indicated in the previous income impact section those who involved in high income generator nonfarm livelihoods, length of time involvement in the sector have its own impact saving and saving culture of the farming households. As a result the study indicates that farming households who have been engaged in the sector for lengthy year or time have better probability saving and saving habit than those involved in nonfarm for short period of time. however, there was also farming households who have been engaged in nonfarm livelihood diversification for long time and get more income unfortunately do not save in nearby unions and saving institutions this mainly because of lack of understanding of benefits of saving and lack modern saving institutions in the study area mainly in lowland areas of the woreda. In addition the unions and was not accountable for their members.
In connection to the above discussion, FGDs Participant from Mayliham age 39 said the following:
“I save in Lemlem Chelena Biruh Tesfa 25 Birr per month for the last previous 10 years, however, due to their irresponsive and unaccountable works means they used the deposed money for their personal use, lack of audit and other internal problems of the leaders I decided to stop saving. Imagine I save 25 Birr for the last ten consecutive years but they gave me less than what I save and there is no modern private or government bank. Concerned body from woreda didn’t follow up the daily activities of the union. I strongly believe that there should be modern saving institution lead by professional.” (Informant8).
To make conclusion the above stated discussion involvement in rural nonfarm livelihood diversification has positive impact on saving and saving habit of the countryside farming households. Involvement alone was not sufficient enough, the farming households who have been engaged in the sector for lengthy years have better saving culture than those involved short time. All in all, involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification has positive impact in saving and in addition the length of time stayed in the sector influenced more.
Impact on food security
As shown in the below table from 332 farming household respondents response toward the role of nonfarm livelihood activities in ensuring household security 10.84% farming households involved in the study responds strongly agree, almost half of the respondents 44.58% responds agree, 34.34% disagree and 10.24% strongly disagree respectively. Almost above half of the respondents respond that involvement in rural nonfarm livelihood diversification has positive impact up on ensuring household food security.
Data resulted from survey and FGDs session participants regarding the role of nonfarm livelihood diversification in food security revealed that nonfarm livelihoods has positive impact on assuring food security of the farming households. In addition the surveyed data revealed that the farming households who have been engaged for lengthy times have been higher probability of ensuring household food security than those of households who didn’t involve in nonfarm livelihood diversification and even those who engaged in the sector for short period of time.
In addition, the FGDs session participants claimed that engagement in nonfarm livelihood diversification not only improves or ensures food security but also start to own asset. The farming households as a result of their involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification own livestock. This helps the farming households to cope up food deficits and beyond assuring household food security and asset accumulation, they also start to sell their products in market, having this in mind, rural nonfarm livelihood diversification brings positive impact on ensuring the farming households food security and also on positive on asset accumulation. These appear to be consistent similar with study conducted by Awoniyi, et’al (no date) come up with the finding that farming households that aren’t involved in nonfarming activities are more vulnerable to poverty when compared with the farming households involved in nonfarm.

Table 4.15 frequencies and percentage distribution respondents’ response nonfarm livelihood role in food security
Source: own survey, 2018
The study also came up with a finding that rural nonfarm livelihood diversification in addition of ensuring farming household security also contributes in resisting shocks mainly emanates from low agricultural production, recurrent drought and poverty. As displayed in the below table among the 332 study participants in relation to the role of involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification 26.81% responds strongly agree, 42.47% agree, 12.91% neutral, 9.34% disagree and 8.43% responds strongly agree. Majority of the respondents respond that involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification contribution toward resisting shocks have responded that agree.
Table 4.16 frequencies and percentage distribution respondents’ response nonfarm livelihood role in resisting shocks

Source: own survey, 2018
Social impact of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification
The study also shows that nonfarm livelihood has profound positive and negative impacts on the farming households of Emba Alaje woreda. Especially involvement in certain nonfarm livelihoods basically hand craft and low earing livelihoods have visible negative impacts are social marginalization including residual area, weaken social ties, social marginalization, negative impact on educational attainment and also enhancing social gatherings (Equb, Edir and Mahber) and enhancing cooperation during good and bad times.
Impact on social capital
According to Rakodi (2002) social capital basically refers the guidelines, customs, responsibilities and trust entrenched in social structures, social relations and institutional engagements which empowers members of the society their personal and communal objectives. The surveyed data indicates that involvement in the nonfarm livelihood diversification has positive and negative impact in social capital of the community. In the survey made to scrutinize whether nonfarm livelihood has impact on social capital, majority 58.9% participants of the study revealed positive impact and the rest 40.8% responds that involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification has negative impact on the social network or social capital for the society under investigation.

Table 4.17 frequencies and percentage distribution impact of nonfarm livelihoods in social capital

Source: own survey, 2018
Positive impact
Involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification certainly has positive impact on enhancing social capital, network among the countryside farming households in terms of creating different social gatherings like (Equb, Edir and Mahber), social communication and interaction, and cooperation during good and bad times. Among the farming household respondents all most all of them response regarding the positive was helping during good and bad times, especially problems emanated from drought and emergency incidences farmers involved nonfarm livelihoods helps the victim household. There were respondents who told that they buy material in which the farmer cannot afford in its own.

According to the FGDs session participants and informants, social capital in essence social relations among the farming households was typically established on neighborhood relationship, religious, cultural and social ceremonials, blood and kinship ties, assistance and aid association and labour give-and-take.
In connection to the above discussion, FGDs Participant from Atsela age 44 said the following:
“Most of the farming households in our community including me during summer and other event driven circumstances we exchange all farming equipment and labour power locally called “???: ???” literally refers campaign in collection for helping someone as a result of his help request. We plough one farmer who may haven’t own oxen, or poor. There is strong sense of cooperation among each of us basically we give priority for those who are who are economically poor and sick members of our community. There is saying related with my idea “??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ? ??? ?? ???” literary refers fifty lemon for one person is difficult but easy for fifty individuals.” (Respondent19).
Respondent 19 speech and other debates shows that there was strong capital and network and sense of belongings and help each other among the farming households as a result of their involvement in the nonfarm livelihood diversifications. In addition the cooperation and sharing among the farming households basically depend on the similarity of the job or livelihood they involved in and cooperation among all farming households during good and bad times irrespective of the type of nonfarm livelihood they involved.
In the same way the farming households because of their involvement in nonfarm they create social activities which have significant influence on the livelihood of the farming households. The FGDs and key informants respondents respond that among the social activities created because of involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification are Equb, Edir and Mahber. These social activities have their own role and purpose for instance Equb for collecting and saving money of the farming households, Edir for sharing communal property in which the farming households could use during good and bad times like weeding, baptism, death and Mahber for sharing, discussing and dealing communal issues.
Negative impact
Nonfarm livelihoods despite their positive impact on social capital they have also negative impact up on the social capital of the study area under investigation. Previously and nowadays, involvement in certain nonfarm livelihoods in general and handcraft in particular brought extreme negative impact on the social capital of the rural farming households of the area under investigation.
According to the FGDs respondents the wider society have bad and wrong perception for those who have been engaged in handcraft work and for the peoples locally called or labeled as “??” literary refers blacksmith engaged in the sector. The survey respondents and key informants responds that among the key impacts of nonfarm livelihood in social capital are marginalization from resuming spiritual position and residential area for living mean that the handcraft workers lives in their own location far from the rest of the society locally called “?? ???”, marginalization and exclusion from different social, cultural activities and the handcraft workers cant engage and make marriage with the rest of the community members.
In association to the above discussion, FGDs Participant from Mayliham age 28 said the following:
“We have totally wrong understanding for handcraft workers and handcraft work. We could be in better livelihood position if we had and have rational understanding to ward handcraft. Unfortunately, because of our curse we didn’t benefited yet from the sector. Remember back Aksumite civilization solely it’s because advancement in handcraft and architect. If we are really afraid of handcraft and handcraft workers it is so to be afraid of Aksumite civilization which is cradle of all civilization. (Informant).
In addition other respondent said the following:
“As you know our society have high religious impact, accept all what church say. Its shame in society where I live even if they are Christians its dream and unthinkable handcraft workers to resume religion position, if we continue in this living poverty would be our identity.”(Informant).
As it evidently indicated in the above both key informants stated same issue that as there was thwarted understanding among the farming households toward handcraft work and handcraft workers. The surveyed data revealed the main factors for the existed misunderstanding toward handcraft are lack of awareness and understanding about its potential advantages 47%, religious influence 17%, and low value assigned 35.8%. In connection with the above finding Weldebrhan (2013) argued that the occurrence of handcraft activities, there are social out looks toward handcraft activities. Accordingly, most of the handcraft activities are assumed as the job of marginal society. Despite their tremendous contribution for the community they are insulted instead.
Impact on education
Education in every setting and sphere is the cornerstone for every social, cultural and economic development. No one country, organization cannot assure economic growth which is sustainable without having educated man power. Education enables peoples to critical think, understanding of their surrounding environment in order to improve their life or livelihood and register economic growth and development.
As indicated the socio-demographic section of the study among the 332 farming households 54.5% of the study participants farming households were illiterate. This statistics could tell us that the tendency of the farming households to attend education was low.
According to the household survey and FGDs results revealed that regarding impact of nonfarm livelihood activities on education responds that involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification have impact on educational attainment.
Table 4.18 frequencies and percentage distribution response nonfarm livelihood influence in education
Degree of influence Frequency Percentile
High influence 135 40.7
Middle influence 119 35.8
Less influence 50 15.1
No influence 28 8.4
Total 332 100
Source: own survey
As presented in the above table among the 332 study participants in relation to the influence of involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification in educational attainment the vast majority 135 or 40.7% responds high influence, 119 or 35.8 middle influence, 50 or 15.1% less influence and 28 or 8.4% responds no influence. Majority of the survey and FGDs respondents respond that involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification has an impact on educational attainment of the countryside farming households.
In addition, the surveyed data result obtained from farming households, FGDs and key informant come up with the idea of involvement in nonfarm livelihood nonfarm livelihood have negative impact on educational attainment of the farming households.
Table 4.19 frequencies and percentage distribution nonfarm impact on education
Impact Frequency Percentile
Positive 81 24.4
Negative 239 75
Total 332 100

Source: own survey, 2018
As indicated in the above table nonfarm livelihood diversification has negative impact on educational attainment of the rural farming households’ educational attainment. Among the 332 survey participants 239 or 75% responds that involvement in nonfarm activities has negative impact in educational attainment of the countryside farming households. The researcher asked the FGDs participants and key informants how involvement or engagement in nonfarm activities brought negative impact on educational attainment. Key informants and FGDs participants identified three basic reasons; the expected time to spent in education was spent in nonfarm activities 30.4%, since they got enough income from nonfarm activities they lost interest to visit school 39.2%, family forced their child to work with themselves 30.4%. Involvement of the farming households in nonfarm livelihood diversification has negative impact the educational attainment of the farming households.
One of the FGDs participants age 24 has stated nonfarm livelihood impact on educational attainment said the following:
“Am 24 years old, I need to visit schools even now. However, my family members aren’t interested and don’t allow me to attend school, they always tell me that there is no education without having food and other basic needs, as a result always am in duty. In addition all university graduate students of our community haven’t get yet government work. The basic reason for not attain education is because of this cursed work.” (Respondent16).
In addition one key informant nonfarm livelihood diversification on education attainment said the following:
“To be honest with you, currently education becomes senseless and valueless, all university and college graduate students haven’t yet get government job and these educated haven’t improved than those who aren’t educated, rather involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification is becoming the best alternative at minimum to ensure and improve livelihood. Look all the educated individuals they haven’t their own home, beyond this there are teachers who left the teaching and involved in nonfarm livelihoods. Since I got enough money from the nonfarm livelihoods am not interested to attend education from the very constitution.” (informant9).
From the above discussion one could note that involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification activities has negative impact up on the educational attainment of the farming households because of various interrelated economic and non-economic reasons. Among the main reasons that the study participants point out are, the farming households have not time to visit school because the nonfarm livelihoods by their nature demands more time, the farming households gets enough money from the nonfarm livelihood activities as a result they haven’t interest to visit school, and the farming households didn’t allow their kids to visit school in order to help them in nonfarm doings.
In addition key informants and survey participants also revealed that involvement in nonfarm livelihood activities has its own negative impact on health statues of the farming households. The survey data indicates among the 332 study participant farming households 21.69 responds strongly agree, 32.83% agree, 3.61% neutral, 21.69% and 13.25% responds respectively.
Gender facets of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification
WHO (2018) defines gender as it is socially fabricated appearances of being men and women such as customs, roles and interactions of and among collections of females and males. The notion of gender differs from culture to culture and can be reformed. Gender role on rural nonfarm livelihood diversification, men and women participation, and type of nonfarm livelihood where men and women participate more exclusively and mutually. Household survey, key informant and focus group discussion session participants and respondents were inquired to scrutinize gender role and contribution, and to assess the existential problems related with gender in nonfarm livelihood diversification.
According to the surveyed data regarding the participation of the farming households on nonfarm livelihood diversification men headed household accounts 54 or 16.6%, women headed household 50 or 15.4% and both male and female accounts 221 or 68%. Majority of the response was both male headed and female headed households have been almost equally engaged in the nonfarm livelihood diversification activity. The same with above Brhanu (2016) concluded both male and female headed farming households could be engaged in in numerous nonfarm livelihood activities like wage labour, trade, handcraft and crooked food and local drinks.
Table 4.20 frequencies and percentage distribution gender participation in nonfarm activities
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 54 16.3
Female 50 15.1
Both 221 66.6
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
The view of the key informant and FGDs session participants, nonfarm livelihood activities were categorized in to three section male, women and shared activities. According to survey and key informants the classification of job was basically based on easiness and value of the nonfarm livelihood activities, male of the farming household engaged more in high priced and difficult nonfarm livelihood activities as well females vise verse. Accordingly, day wage labour, charcoal production, traditional mineral extraction, painting and weaving were considered as male work and traditional dairy processing and traditional taverns or local drinks were also still considered as female work and in addition handcraft, petty trade and animal husbandry were considered shared or mutual work in which excercised by both men and women. In connection with the above finding Fikru (2008) argued that women dominate many of the nonfarm activities such as household based food processing, local drink sales, local crafts and street side petty trade. Nonfarm activities are particularly important for female headed households who usually belong to disadvantaged sections of the community.

In addition data resulted from key informants and FGDs indicates that the reason that forced women headed farming households to engage in easy and low priced and valued nonfarm activities as indicated below, social pressure 33.3%, cultural influence 39.4%, religious doctrine influence 13.5% and 13.8% were the basic reasons that forced women to engaged in traditional dairy processing and traditional taverns or local drinks.
Table 4.21 frequencies and percentage distribution response of the reasons for engagement in certain nonfarm activities
Reason Frequency Percentile
Social pressure 104 33.3
Cultural influence 123 39.4
Religious doctrine influence 42 13.5
Women interest 43 13.8
Total 312 100
Source: own survey, 2018
Discussion results from the FGDs indicated that women participation in nonfarm livelihood diversification was high despite the price they received from the sector involved in. survey data shows that women participation in the sector was as follow high participation 31.9%, medium 33.4%, fair 26.2% and poor participation 8.4%.
Table 4.22 frequencies and percentage distribution of level of women participation in nonfarm livelihood
Level of participation Frequency percentile
High participation 106 31.9
Medium participation 111 33.4
Fair participation 87 26.2
Poor participation 28 8.4
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
The FGDs session participants identified the basic reason that pushed women to involve in low price and easy nonfarm livelihood activities. Accordingly, the respondents identified comfort of the comfort of the job, they have not another best alternative livelihood activity, because of the customary practices, women’s aren’t competitive enough to get high earing jobs and the women have double responsibility inside and outside of home.
Table 4.23 frequencies and percentage distribution of reason for working low price and easy work
Why women involved low earning and easy nonfarm livelihoods Frequency Percentile
Because of its comfort 79 23.8
Not having other alternative livelihood 91 27.4
Because of customary practices 64 11.2
Double responsibility inside and outside of home 68 26.1
Not competitive for more earning income 30 9.0
Total 332 100
Source: own survey, 2018
Chapter Five
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
This study is conducted in Emba-Alaje woreda southern Tigray zone with the objective of assessing the socio-economic impact of rural nonfarm livelihood diversification among the farming households. Both qualitative and quantitative methods of research were employed to reach at the outcomes of the investigation. The study areas of this research are principally Mayliham and Amedewiha Tabia farming households.
The investigation was done through qualitative and quantitative research approach by employing cross sectional study design and using mixed research method specifically concurrent triangulation. The qualitative data were collected by household survey questionnaire from total of 332 farming households selected by simple random sampling technique.
On the other hand, the qualitative data were collected through FGDs guidelines with 4 FGDs session groups two from Mayliham and two from Atsela Tabia consisting 10 farming household heads, key informant 8 purposively selected key informant interview from Tabia and woreda officials and in-depth from the total 20 and 25 purposively selected informant farming household heads.
Nonfarm has been claimed as multi-dimensional concept comprising various features. Taking this argument in to concern, this study examined the commonly practiced type of nonfarm livelihood, social impact, economic impact; positive and negative and gender dimension of nonfarm livelihood were analyzed.
To analysis the respondents’ demographic and socio-economic characteristics concerning sex and age composition of the respondents’, as a result the study result indicates out of 332 farming households 52.4% was found males and 47.6% was also male headed households and regarding age group majority of the respondents 40.1% were found between the age group of 31-40 and also 53.3% of the farming households cannot read and write. Also concerning martial statues the farming households 63% were married and regarding religious affiliation 66.9% were also orthodox Christian followers. Among the 332 farming households participated in the study 89.2% have farm land while the rest haven’t farmland and 63% of the farming households respond that they didn’t yet get enough production during the last harvest seasons before 2016-2017. Regarding the number of years the farming households have been stayed involved in the nonfarm livelihood activities 34.3% stayed around 11 up to 15 years.
Also regarding the pushing factors for the involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification of the respondents’, low agricultural production has contributed the highest proportion about 30.7% followed by frequent and repeated drought 28.61%, poverty 28.78% and absence of farm land 19.88% respectively. As mentioned among the prime factors for engagement in nonfarm livelihood diversification low agricultural production has contributed the highest percentage. In relation to this Degefa (2005) argued that rural farming households diversify their livelihood in to nonfarm due to push factors, among the push factors are rural population growth, farm fragmentation, decline agricultural productivity.
The commonly practiced types of rural nonfarm livelihood doings by the farming households in Emba Alaje woreda are handcraft, petty trade, animal husbandry, wage labour, traditional dairy processing, traditional taverns or local drinks, charcoal production, traditional mineral extraction, and cobblestone input provision, painting, weaving. Among the various nonfarm livelihood activities being engaged by farming households in study area, handcraft accounts 19.6%, followed by patty trade18.4%, animal husbandry 16% and day wage labour takes the majority proportion and weaving and painting equally 2.1% are the types of nonfarm livelihoods practiced by the farming households of Emba-Alaje woreda. In connection with the above finding Fikru (2008) identified the key nonfarm livelihoods practiced in the study area like charcoal production, quarrying, furniture makes, and dairy processing.
The other finding of the study showed that the existence and engagement in rural nonfarm livelihood diversification was due to various reasons like poverty, land fragmentation, soil fertility decline and repeated drought and other related factors have been ensued impact on socio-economic life of the countryside farming households. Socio economic impacts brought by nonfarm livelihood activities have both positive and negative impact up on the community in general and household in particular. Among the positive impacts the farming households experience are: develop saving culture, improve income diversification opportunity, food security assurance and enable resisting shocks and also among the negative impacts are social exclusion, weaken social ties or interaction among the farming households.
The farming household income increases as they engaged more in the sector, the more you engaged the more income received, basically those who had engaged in animal husbandry, painting and traditional tavern or local drinks have more income than the other nonfarm livelihoods. among the positive income impacts resist drought takes the largest percentage about 36.23 % followed by pay loan received basically from Dedebit micro finance and enterprise, and private loan providers 26.05 %, own asset basically oxen which is sign of wealth in the study area 18.86 % the farming households because of their engagement in nonfarm livelihood they would construct house and address and solve food demand of the farming household 18.26%. The study finding indicates that nonfarm livelihoods based on their income importance or generate classified in to three categories. High earning (animal husbandry, mining and traditional taverns or local drinks), medium earning (day wage labour which is skilled) and low earning (wage labour with no skill, cobblestone inputs provision). Nonfarm livelihoods enables the farmers to resist drought 36.23%, start own asset basically oxen which is sign of wealth in the study area 26.05% and solve food demand of the household 18.26%.
Majority 59% of the survey participants agreed in one thing that the farming households as a result of their involvement in nonfarm livelihoods they have been creating job opportunities mainly temporary or season driven jobs both for members of farm household and others, however, the job opportunity created the farming household employees did not get what they deserve in exchange of the service provide, the payment they got was not satisfactory, however, this trend in recent years saw improvement due to the widening of nonfarm job opportunity. In addition, Shuujat F (2014) which reported that in Pakistan rural nonfarm livelihood diversification role in rural employment was 23%.

The farming households’ involvement nonfarm livelihood diversification has positive impact on saving and enhancing saving culture. Result of the surveyed data indicated that 67.2% of the study participant farming households save money that they got from the sector or type’s nonfarm livelihood they are engaged in. However, Involvement alone was not sufficient enough, the farming households who have been engaged in the sector for lengthy years have better saving culture than those involved short time.

Also nonfarm livelihoods have positive impact on assuring food security of the farming households. The surveyed data revealed that the 55.34% farming households who have been engaged for lengthy times have been higher probability of ensuring household food security than those of households who didn’t involve in nonfarm livelihood diversification and even those who engaged in the sector for short period of time. In addition, the farming households not only improve or ensure food security but also start to own asset. Similar with above finding Awoniyi, et’al (no date) come up with the finding that farming households that aren’t involved in nonfarming activities are more vulnerable to poverty when compared with the farming households involved in nonfarm.

On the other hand the other finding of this study indicates that nonfarm livelihood has impact on social capital of the society under investigation, as a result 58.9% participants of the study revealed that positive impact and the rest 40.8% responds that involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification has negative impact on the social network.
Also the finding of the study indicates that involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification develops strong capital and network and sense of belongings and help each other among the farming households as a result of their involvement in the nonfarm livelihood diversifications they establish (Equb, Idir and Mahber). There is saying “??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ? ??? ?? ???” literary refers fifty lemon for one person is difficult but easy for fifty individuals.” The social capital was typically established on neighborhood relationship, religious, cultural and social ceremonials, blood and kinship ties, assistance and aid association and labour give-and-take.

Findings of this study found that nonfarm livelihoods despite their positive impact on social capital they have also negative impact up on the social capital of the study area under investigation. Previously and nowadays, involvement in certain nonfarm livelihoods in general and handcraft in particular brought extreme negative impact on the social capital of the rural farming households. Among the negative social impacts exclusion from resuming spiritual position and residential area for living mean that the handcraft workers lives in their own location far from the rest of the society, marginalization and exclusion from different social, cultural activities and the handcraft workers can’t engage and make marriage with the rest of the community members.

With regard to impact of nonfarm livelihood diversification on education attainment, the study found out that among the farming households 75% involvement in nonfarm livelihood nonfarm livelihood have negative impact on educational attainment of the farming households.
Concerning to gender dimension the surveyed data indicates the participation of the farming households on nonfarm livelihood diversification men headed household accounts 54 or 16.6%; women headed household 15.4% and both male and female accounts 68%. Accordingly both men and women participate equally in nonfarm livelihood diversification activities.
Regarding the work division of nonfarm livelihood activities, they were classified in to three sections male work, women work and shared activities. The division of the job was classified based on work easiness and the value attached for the work. Accordingly male of the farming household engaged more in high priced and difficult nonfarm livelihood activities as well females vise verse. Accordingly, day wage labour, charcoal production, traditional mineral extraction, painting and weaving were considered as male work and traditional dairy processing and traditional taverns or local drinks were also still considered as female work and in addition handcraft, petty trade and animal husbandry were considered shared or mutual work in which excercised by both men and women.
Finally, the causes forced women headed farming households to engage in easy and low priced activities are because of social pressure 33.3%, cultural influence 39.4%, and religious doctrine influence 13.5% and 13.8% were the basic reasons that forced women to engage in low priced and easy nonfarm livelihoods like traditional dairy processing and traditional taverns or local drinks.

Recommendation
Based on the findings in the analyzing and discussion section the following points could be recommended:
Involvement in nonfarm livelihoods enables to improve the farming households’ livelihood, the local government should have to work to create conducive platform like awareness creation campaign, provide financial assistance for the rural farming households. In addition, loan and credits should be provided for the farming households.
With regard to confronting the negative impacts of nonfarm livelihood, the community and government should work in collaboration in awareness creation.
In order to enhance the livelihood of the farming households and the nonfarm livelihoods the local government should provide financial (credit and loan) assistance and Vocational and technical training and there should be training centers.
Eventhough, there are efforts by FDRE and local governments to enhance rural nonfarm livelihoods in the rural areas. However, there is no exclusive independent institution that initiates to work for the application of already legislated policies and strategies. So, appropriated and concerned institution should be established that will control and assess the overall activities of nonfarm livelihoods.
Finally, the study has identified the following research area which needs further investigation in future.

Nonfarm livelihood diversification and credit provision
Linkage among nonfarm livelihood diversification and TVET
The role of local government in nonfarm livelihood diversification
Prospects and challenges of nonfarm livelihood diversification
References
Anke Niehof. (2004). The significance of diversification for rural livelihood systems, Sociology of Consumers and Households Group, Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Awoniyi, et’al, Non-Farm Income Diversification and Welfare Status of Rural Households in South West Zone of Nigeria, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Bowen University, Iwo Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ibadan.
Ayele Tessema Jufare. (2008). Livelihood adaptation, risks and vulnerability in rural wolayata, Ethiopia, PHD thesis, environment and development study, Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric Norwegian University of Life Sciences, UMB Dissertation No. 2008: 46Ås, Norway.

Bernard, R. (2006). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 4th ed. Lanham, Alta Mira press.

Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Robson, K. and Thomas. (2002). Focus Groups in Social Research.

London: Sage Publications
Brhanu Tsegay Mesele. (2016).Rural Non-farm livelihood diversification among farming households in Saharti Samre Woreda, Southeastern Tigray, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Chambers, R., ; Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century (IDS Discussion Paper 296). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Retrieved from http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/775.

Carney D. (1999). Sustainable livelihood approaches: progress and possibilities for change, ISBN 1 86192 491 7, Toronto Ontario M5P 1L7 Canada
Chekole Hadis Tiku. (2017). Socio-cultural aspects of illegal migration in Raya Azebo woreda, Tigray national regional state, Addis Abeba university, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
Chris Elbers. (2001). Inter secteral Transfer, Growth, and Inequality in Rural Ecuador, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands, World Development Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 481±496, 2001 , www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev.
Collin Murray. (2001). Livelihoods research: some framework and methodological issues, department of sociology, university of Manchester, and chronic poverty research center ISBN number: 1-904049-05-2
David Rider Smith. (2001). Gender and the Rural Non-Farm, Rural Non-Farm Economy in Uganda, Uganda.
DFID. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets, accessed from http://www.ennonline.net/dfidsustainableliving.
Dr. Shujaat Farooq. (2014). The Rural Non-Farm Economy, Livelihood Strategies and Household Welfare in Rural Pakistan Technical Paper for2nd ADB-Asian Think Tank Development Forum, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Dilruba Khatun and B.C. Roy. (2013). Rural Livelihood Diversification in West Bengal: Determinants and Constraints, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol. 25(No.1) January-June 2012 pp 115-124, Institute of Agriculture, Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan – 731 236, West Bengal.
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

FAO Corporate documentary repository, Current and Emerging Issues for Economic Analysis and Policy Research (CUREMIS), Economic and Social Development Department, Accessed in http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4940e/y4940e0a.htm#TopOfPage.

Fikru Tesfaye. (2008). A case study of non-farm rural livelihood diversification. Maters Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Retrieved on Dec 11/2014 from http//www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher.

Gebru Mengesha Damtie. (2012). Determinants of participation in and returns from non-farm activities in the rural areas of Tigray, Mekelle university, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
Gilles Cliché. (2011). Rural Women’s Empowerment in Nonfarm Employment Issues for ICT Initiatives and Territorial Policies in Latin America, UN Women in cooperation with FAO, IFAD and WFP Expert Group Meeting Enabling rural women’s economic empowerment: institutions, opportunities and participation, Accra, Ghana.
Girmay Tesfay et’al. (2014). participatory rural appraisal report, Alaje woreda Tigray region.
Glopp. (2008). DFIDs sustainable livelihood approaches and its framework.

Gordon Prain, Nancy Karanja, Diana lee smith (2010) African harvest agriculture in cities of Cameroon, Kenya and Uganda. Springer, New York, NY 10013, USA
Hussein K, Nelson J. (1998). Sustainable livelihoods and livelihood diversification, IDS working, Brighton: Institute of development studies. P. 69.

Haggblade, S, Hazell, B and Reardan T. (2006). The Rural Non- Farm Economy: Pathway out of Poverty or pathway in? Transforming The Rural Non-Farm Economy (Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Karen Zwick et’al. (2001).Livelihood diversification in Uganda: patterns and determinants of change across two rural districts, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME44TB, UKbIndependent Consultant, P.O. Box 945, Kigoma, Tanzania.

Kelil Demsis. (2015). The Impacts of Child Out-Migration on the Parents’ and Migrants’ Livelihood: The Case of Muher and Aklil Woreda of Gurage Zone, Addis Abeba university, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
Kinfe Assefa. (2011). Household livelihood strategies: determinants of rural non-farm employment a case study in eastern Tigray, northern Ethiopia, Mekelle university, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
Meaza Tadesse Weldegebriel. (2014). the role of non-farm activities in sustaining rural livelihood, in the case of Enderta woreda, Tigray regional state, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
Muhammad Israr, Humayun Khan, Dawood Jan, Nafees Ahmad. (2014). Livelihood Diversification: A Strategy for Rural Income Enhancement. Journal of Finance and Economics, 2014, Vol. 2, No. 5, 194-198 Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/jfe/2/5/10 © Science and Education Publishing DOI: 10.12691/jfe-2-5-10
Monica Lambon-Quayefio. (2017). Non-Farm Enterprises and the Rural Youth Employment Challenge in Ghana, Vol 48, No 3 (2017) | Africa’s Youth Employment Challenge: New Perspectives, IDS institute of development studies, accessed in http://bulletin.ids.ac.uk/idsbo/article/view/2873/ONLINE%20ARTICLE, university of Ghana, Ghana.
Nat Geo Sites, rural areas, accessed in https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/rural-area/ last visited 15/11/2017: 04:34 pm.
NRI RNFE Project Team. (2000). Policy and Research on the Rural Non-Farm Economy a Review of Conceptual, Methodological and Practical Issues, natural resource institute.
Oyakhilomen Oyinbo and Kehinde Tobi Olaleye. (2016). Farm Households Livelihood Diversification and Poverty Alleviation in Giwa Local Government Area of Kaduna State, Nigeria, Vol. 15 Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria.
Okunmadewa. (2002). Poverty and Agricultural Sector in Nigeria: Poverty Reduction and the Nigeria Agricultural Sector. Elshaddai Global Ventures Ltd.
Pavithra S.a and Kamal Vattab. (2013). Role of Non-Farm Sector in Sustaining Rural Livelihoods in Punjab, a National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP), New Delhi – 110 012 b department of Economics & Sociology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana – 141 004, Punjab, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol. 26 (No.2) July-December 2013 pp 257-265.

Peter Lanjouw (2001). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands and The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, World Development Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 481±496, 2001
Prowse, M. (2010). Integrating reflexivity into livelihoods research. Progress in Development Studies www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev.
Prowse, M. (2015). The Determinants of Non-Farm Income Diversification in Rural Ethiopia, Journal of Poverty Alleviation and International Development, 6(1), 109-130.

Rakodi, C. & Lloyd-Jones, T. (eds.) 2002. Urban Livelihoods: A People-centered Approach to Reducing Poverty, Earthscan: London.
Sarah Alobo Loison. (2015). Rural Livelihood Diversification in Sub-Saharan Africa: A literature review, The Journal of Development Studies, 51:9, 1125-1138, DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2015.1046445.
S. Blocka, P. Webb. (2001). The dynamics of livelihood diversification in post-famine Ethiopia, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA, Tufts University, School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Food Policy and Applied Nutrition Programme, 126 Curtis Street, Medford, MA 02155, USA.

Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS. Working Paper 72. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development, Journal of Peasant Studies
Vol. 36, No. 1, ISSN 0306-6150 print/ISSN 1743-9361 online-2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/03066150902820503 http://www.informaworld.com
Stanley Kojo Dary and Naasegnibe Kuunibe. (2012). Participation in Rural Non-Farm Economic Activities in Ghana, American International Journal of Contemporary Research Vol. 2 No. 8; August 2012, Department of Economics and Entrepreneurship Development University for Development Studies, wa campus Ghana.
T. Woldenhanna and Oskam. (2001). Income diversification and entry barriers: evidence from the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia, Department of Economics, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia and Wageningen University, Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Hollandsweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Tegegne, G.E. (2000). Non-Farm Activities and Production Decisions of Farmers, the Case of North Shoa, Ethiopia, Lei den: African Studies Center.

Tesfaye Zeleke. (2015). Interaction, Institutions, and Impacts of Tourism on the Bishoftu Modjo Hawassa Route, Central Ethiopia. A dissertation submitted to the department of Sociology, Addis Ababa University.

Weldebrhan Werede. (2013). Assessment of nonfarm livelihood diversification of farmers in Enderta woreda, Tigray, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Tigray. Ethiopia.
WHO (2018). Gender, equity and human rights, protected together vaccines work accessed in http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/
World Bank. (2017). Growing the Rural Nonfarm Economy to Alleviate Poverty, an Evaluation of the Contribution of the World Bank Group an independent evaluation, Washington DC.
Yograj Gautam and Peter Andersen. (2016). Rural livelihood diversification and household well-being: Insights from Humla, Nepal, Department of Geography, University of Bergen, Fosswinkelsgate 6, 5020 Bergen, Norway.

Zerihun Berhane Weldegebriel. (2013). Rural Non-Farm Diversification in Ethiopia: What Determines Participation and Returns.
Appendix: 1
Mekelle University
College of Social Sciences and Languages
Department of Sociology
Post graduate program (R)
General introduction
Dear respondent, my name is Yirga Alemu, and I am master’s degree candidate at Mekelle University, in the Department of Sociology. Currently, I am conducting my thesis entitled as “Rural Nonfarm Livelihood Diversification the case of Emba Alaje woreda, Tigray regional state.” The purpose of the study is to assess the socio-economic impact of rural non-farm activities on the rural farming households of Emba-Alaje woreda.
Therefore, the researcher politely requests you to kindly and genuinely respond to the questions that will be asked. This is mainly because the quality of the final output of the study will largely relay on the information you provide. In this regard, your honesty in giving your responses will be highly valuable. The researcher would like to assure you that the data collected from you would only be utilized for the purpose of this research. Finally, the information you provide will be used only for the purpose of the study, and your personal information will be kept confidential and undisclosed.

Part 1: Identification
Name of Tabia: ________________
Interviewer’s Name: ____________
Interview ID: __________________
Interview Date: ________________
Part 2: Farming Household socio-demographic characteristics:
Instruction: encircle the number of your answer for each question.

Sex of household head?
Male B. Female
Age of the household head (years):
18-22 B. 23-30 C. 31-40 D. 41-50 E. 51-60 F. 61-70 E. 71-80 G. 81+
Marital status:
Married B. Single C. Divorced E. Widowed
Family size (number): females=……………… males=…………….total=……………
Educational level of the household head:
A. Illiterate B. read and write C. 1-8 D. 9-12 D. Degree E. Masters
If your answer for question number 3 is (married). What is the educational level of spouse households?
Illiterate B. read and write C. 1-8 D. 9-12 D. Degree E. Masters
What is your religious affiliation? A. Muslim B. Orthodox Christianity C. Other
Part 3: Questions related with farm sector
Do you own farm land? A. Yes B. No
If your answer for question number 1 is yes, how did you get your farm land?
Inheritance
Rent (Tibna)
from government
If other specify__________________
Do you believe that you have got adequate production during the last harvest seasons before 2009/10 E.C?
Yes B. No
If your answer for question number 3 is NO, what measure do you take to minimize the problem? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 4: questions related with the Non-farm livelihood activities
Do you diversify your livelihoods to the non-farm livelihood activities?
A. Yes B. No
If your answer for question No. 1 is “YES”, from the non-farm activities in which activities you engaged in most?
Hand craft
Charcoal production
Petty Trade
Day Wage labour
Cobblestone production and related activities
Animal husbandry
Weaving
Traditional taverns or local drinks
Traditional dairy processing
Painting
Traditional mineral extraction
If other specify_____________________________
For how long time you have been engaged in non-farm livelihood activities?
1-5 years
5-10 years
10-15years
15-20 years
Above 20 years
In your community what are the most commonly practiced nonfarm livelihood activities?
Hand craft
Charcoal production
petty Trade
Wage labour
Cobblestone production
Animal husbandry
Weaving
Traditional taverns
Traditional dairy processing
Painting
Traditional mineral extraction
If other specify_____________________________
If your answer for question NO. 1 is “No” why you didn’t engage in nonfarm livelihood activities?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why do you diversify your livelihood activities? Multiple answers is possible?
To fulfill children/Kids education expenses
For the purpose of asset accumulation
To fulfill food demand of the household
To pay loan of the household
If other specify________________________
Do you think that you get enough production from the nonfarm sector?
Yes B. No
If your answer for question NO. 7 are “NO” what are the factors behind that make you not get enough production from the nonfarm sector?
The nonfarm sector isn’t well organized like agriculture
Because I invest less time and effort in the nonfarm livelihood sector
We don’t give much attention to the nonfarm livelihood activities
If other specify________________________________________
What are the responsible factors that influence you to diversify your livelihood activities? Multiple answers possible
Poverty
Because of others engagement in the sector motivated me to engage in
Low agricultural production
Drought
If other specify__________________________________________________
Do you believe that nonfarm livelihood sector gets equivalent attention from government like agriculture sector?
Yes B. No
If your answer question number 10 is “YES” what types of assistance were provided by government?
Financial support like credit and loan
Market relations and opportunities
Technical and vocational training
If other specify___________________________
What is your understanding toward the nonfarm livelihood activities especially toward
“handcraft”?
Handcraft works can be a potential source of employment for the university graduate students and others if attention is given from concerned bodies
Handcraft works can be a potential source of income for the society
If other specify ____________________________________________
Does the government provides technical and financial assistance to the nonfarm livelihood activities in general and “Handcraft” works in particular?
Yes B. No
If your answer for question NO. 13 is “Yes” what kind of assistance does the government provide?
Financial support
Market relation
Technical and vocational training
If other specify________________________
Nonfarm livelihood activities have impact on social activities and social life of farming households?
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
What are key social impacts of nonfarm livelihood activities?
It promotes or strengthen social interaction or network
It enables to cover the educational expenses of our children
It develops sense of cooperation during good and bad times
As a result of participation in nonfarm livelihood activities especially in the handcraft work leads social exclusion
If other specify______________________________________________
Being you are “handcraft” worker, what are the social impacts you face?
Being handcraft worker we are marginalized from social activities in the community
We are totally excluded from resuming spiritual positions
Being handcraft worker we can’t make marriage with the rest society
If other specify____________________________________________
Some members of our society misunderstood “Hand craft” and related activities, what do you think the reason?
lack of awareness
Religious influence
low status or low value assigned for the activity
If other specify_________________________________________
In your opinion what is the most important economic impact of the nonfarm?
Income earing
Ensuring food security
Saving and saving culture
Occupation opportunity
If other specify, _______________________________________________________
Do you save the money you get from the nonfarm livelihood activities?
Yes B. No
Do you create temporary or permanent job opportunity for others?
Yes B. No
If answer for question NO. 20 “YES” what kinds of people are engaged in?
For peoples these who cannot read and write
Peoples who attends elementary school
University graduate students
Does the nonfarm sector helps you in resisting shocks during low production seasons?
It protects us in resisting shock
To some extents it prevents shock
It has nothing role in resisting shock
Nonfarm livelihood activities help in ensuring farming household food security?
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Nonfarm livelihood activities have impact upon educational attainment of household members?
Greatest influence
Middle influence
Less influence
Nothing influence
If your answer for question NO. 25 is “greater influence”, how it affects?
It affects Positively for the educational attainment for members of the household
If affects Negatively for the educational attainment for members of the household
If your answer for question NO. 25 is “Negatively” how the nonfarm activities have negative impact on the educational attainment of farming household members?
The expected time to spent in education is spent in nonfarm activities
Since we get enough money from the nonfarm activities we lost Interest in education
Family forced kids to engage in nonfarm activities
If other specify________________________________________________
Nonfarm livelihood activities have health impact?
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Part 5: questions related with gender role in the Non-farm livelihood activities
From the household member who participate more the non-farm activities more?
Men B. Women C. Both
Does the women participate in rural non-farm activities livelihood activities?
A. Yes B. No
If your answer for question number 2 is No, what is the possible reason behind?
Societal pressure
Cultural influence
Religious influence
They haven’t interest in the sector
If any specify__________________________________________
If your answer for question NO 2 is “Yes” how looks like women participation in the nonfarm livelihood activities?
High participation
Middle participation
Fair participation
low participation
On what types of non-farm livelihood activities do women mostly engaged in?
Wage labour
Hand craft
Petty Trade
Charcoal production
Weaving
Traditional taverns
Traditional dairy processing
Painting
Traditional mineral extraction
If other specify_____________________________________
If your answer for question number 5 is “handcraft” why they engaged in the stated sector?
Because of its comfort for women
Because nonfarm activities are easy to work compared to the other works
Because men aren’t interested to work in nonfarm activities
Because we cannot engage easily in more earning works
Because of customary practices
If other specify_______________________________________________
Do the men participate in rural non-farm activities livelihood activities?
A. Yes B. No
If your answer for question number 7 is “No” what is reason behind?
Because nonfarm activities was considered as women work
Because the men aren’t interested to engage in the sector
Because of the sector isn’t that much profitable
If other specify____________________________________________
If your answer for question NO. 7 is “Yes” in which sector does men participate more?
Handcraft
Charcoal production
Cobblestone production
Animal husbandry
Weaving
If other specify___________________________________________
In “Handcraft” works who participate more? Multiple answer is possible
Men B. Women C. Both
If your answer for question NO 10 is “MEN” in which type of handcraft does men participate?
Pottery
Metal works
Jewelries
Weaving
Metal and Wood work
Appendix: 2
?????? ???
??? ????? ????? ??????
??? ????? ?????
??? ??? ?????
????
???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? (?? ??????) ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??????
??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????
??? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ??????
?? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????
???? ????? ?????
????? ????/? ??—————-
???—————
???—————
?? ?? ?? —————
???? 1? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??????????
1? ?? ??? ??? ???
?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????
2? ??? ??? ????? (????):
?? 18-22 ?? 23-30 ?? 31-40 ?? 41-50 ?? 51-60 ?? 61-70 ?? 71-80 ?? 81+
3? ???? ???:
?? ????
?.?????
?? ?????
?? ???/? ??? ????? ???/??
??? ???? ??????? (????): ??????=……………… ????=…………….???=……………
??? ????? :
?? ??????
?? ????? ????? ????
?? 1-8 ?? 9-12
?? ???? ????? ???
????? ??? ??? 5 ???? (????) ??? ??? ????? ????/?? ???? ?????
?? ??????
?? ????? ????? ????
?? 1-8
?? 9-12
?? ???? ????? ???
?????
?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???
??? ?????? ?????___________________
?? ???? 2? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????
?? ??? ??? ???? ??
?. ??? ?. ?????
??? ??? 1 ???? “???” ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??????
?. ????
?. ????
?. ?? ????? ????
??? ??? ?????? ?????___________________
???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? 2009/2010 ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ? ?????
?. ?? ?. ?????
????? ??? ??? 3 ???? “?????” ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
?? ???? 3? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ????
?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ??
?. ?? ???? ?. ??????
??? ??? 1 ???? “??” ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????
?. ???? ?? ???
?. ?? ??? ????
?. ????? ???
?. ????? ???
?. ?? ???? ??????
?. ???? ???? ?. ???
??? ?????? ?????__________________________________
?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ????? _____________
?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ???
?. ???? ?? ???
?. ?? ??? ????
?. ???
?. ????? ???
?. ?? ???? ??????
?. ???? ????
?. ???? ???
??? ??? ?????? ?????__________________________________
??? ??? 1 ???? “??????” ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
????? ????? ????? ????/?????
?. ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???????
?. ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????
?. ???? ??? ??? ?????
?. ??? ????? ?? ?????
??? ??? ?????? ????? ________________________
?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??
?. ?? ???? ?. ??????
??? ??? 7 ???? “??????” ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????
?. ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????
?. ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??????
?. ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????????
??? ??? ?????? ????? ________________________
????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ????
?. ????
?. ???? ??? ???? ??????
?. ??? ???? ?? ???? ???
?. ???
??? ??? ?????? ????? ________________________
?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??
?. ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??
?. ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??????
??? ??? ???? “?? ????” ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????
?. ????? ???
?. ??? ??????
?. ?????? ??????? ???
??? ??? ?????? ????? ________________________
???/? ????/? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? “?? ???” ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????
?. ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? “?? ???” ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???
?. ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? “?? ???” ????? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???
??? ??? ?????? ????? ________________________
????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? “?? ???” ??? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ???? ??
?. ?? ???? ?. ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???
??? ??? 13 ???? “?? ????” ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????
?. ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???
?. ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??????
?. ???? ??????? ??????
??? ??? ?????? ????? ________________________
?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???::
?. ??? ???? ??????
?. ?????? ???? ?????
?. ?????
?. ???????
?. ???? ???????
???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??
?. ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????
?. ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??????
?. ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???
?. ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????
??? ??? ?????? ????? ________________________
?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????
?. ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ????
?. ????? ?? ????? ????? ????
?. ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????
??? ??? ?????? ????? ____________________________________________
?? ?? ???? ??????? ? “???? ?? ???” ? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????:: ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?
?. ???? ??? ??????
?. ?????? ???
?. ????? ????
??? ??? ?????? ????? ________________________
?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?
?. ???? ??? ?. ??? ?. ??? ??? ?. ??? ???
??? ??? ?????? ????? ________________________
??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????/? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????/? ??
?. ?? ???? ?. ??????
????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????/?? ??
?. ?? ??? ?. ???????
??? ??? 21 ???? “?? ???” ????? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ????
?. ????? ????? ?????? ?. ???? ??? ????? ??? ????
?. ???? ????
?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??::
?. ??? ???? ??????
?. ?????? ???? ?????
?. ?????
?. ???????
?. ???? ???????
?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???::
?. ??? ???? ?????? ?. ?????? ???? ?????
?. ????? ?. ??????? ?. ???? ???????
?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???::
?. ??? ??? ??? ?. ????? ??? ??? ?. ????? ??? ??? ?. ??? ???? ??? ????
??? ??? 25 ???? “??? ???” ????? ???? ?????
?. ????? ??? ?. ???? ???
??? ??? 26 ???? “????” ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????::
?. ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?????
?. ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??????
?. ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???????
??? ??? ?????? ????? ________________________
?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???::
?. ??? ???? ??????
?. ?????? ???? ??????
?. ?????
?. ???????
?. ???? ???????
???? 4? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????
?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??::
?. ?? ?????
?. ?? ??????
?. ??? ???? ????
?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ??
?? ?? ?? ?????
??? ??? 2 ???? “?????” ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???
?? ??????? ????
?? ???? ????
?. ?????? ????
?. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????
??? ??? ?????? ?????____________________________________
????? ??? ??? 2 ???? “??” ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????
?. ????
?. ???
?. ???
?. ???
?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????
?. ????? ???????
?. ?? ???? ?? ???
?. ?? ???? ???
??? ??? ?????? ?????____________________________________
??? ??? 4 ???? “?? ???? ?? ???” ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????
?. ??????? ????? ?????
?. ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????
?. ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??????
??? ??? ?????? ?????__________________________________
?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??
?. ?? ???? ?. ??????
??? ??? 6 ???? “??????” ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???
?. ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??????
?. ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???????
?. ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??????
??? ??? ?????? ?????____________________________________
??? ??? 6 ???? “?? ????” ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????
?. ???? ?? ???
?. ?? ???? ???
?. ?? ???? ???? ????
??? ??? ?????? ?????____________________________________
?? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???
?. ?? ?????
?. ?? ??????
?. ???? ??
??? ??? 9 ???? “?? ?????” ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????
?. ?? ???? ???
?. ?? ???? ??? ???
?. ????? ?? ????
?. ?? ???? ???? ??? ????
Appendix: 3
Focus Group Discussion Checklist
Part 1: Identification
Name of the TABIA: ____________________________
Interviewers Name: _______________________
Interview ID: __________________________
Interview date: __________________________
Segment Two: FGDs Checklist
For how long time you have been engaged in nonfarm livelihood?
What are the common types of non-farm livelihood activities practiced among the farming households? Mention them?
What do you think about why the farming households engaged in nonfarm livelihood? Is there any pushing factor?
Does a non-farm livelihood activity have impact on social practices and social life of the community? How it impose impact?
What is the role of non-farm livelihood activities on economy of the farming household society?
What are the major challenges for the development of rural non-farm livelihood activities?
Is there any relationship among nonfarm livelihood activities and women? How?
Are there any supports that enable you to engage in nonfarm livelihood activities? Mention them? What support?
What do you think about the role of government role in making the rural nonfarm livelihood diversification to make potential area?
In what types of non-farm livelihood activities women engage? Why engage? In what types of nonfarm livelihood activities men mostly engaged in? Why engage?
Appendix: 4
Interview Guide to Key Informants
Segment One: Identification
Name of the TABIA: ___________________
Interviewers Name: ____________________
Interview ID: _________________________
Interview date: ______________________
Segment two: Interview Guide
What is your position in this institution?
What are the common type’s nonfarm livelihood activities in Emba Alaje woreda?
What do you think about why the farming households engaged in nonfarm livelihood? Is there any pushing factor?
How do you explain gender attribution of nonfarm livelihood activities in Emba Alaje woreda?
In which sector of nonfarm activities men participate more?
In which sector of nonfarm activities women participate more?
What is the main reason for the differentiation in job allocation?
Does your office provide financial assistance and vocational training for the sector and for those who engaged in the sector?
Tell me about the economic impacts of nonfarm livelihood diversification in this Tabia?
In terms of:-Saving and saving culture, Income generation, food security, resisting shocks, Potential job creation and other economic impacts. Discuss in detail.
Tell me about the social impact of nonfarm activities? Positive or negative? On educational attainment, on social capital, and health? Discuss briefly?
How do you explain gender and nonfarm livelihood relation? In what types of women engaged most and men? Is there gender based job classification among the farming households? If yes how, why?
Is there anything that you would like to add?
Appendix: 5
In depth interview Guide for household head Interviewees
Segment 1: Identification
Age: ___________
Sex: ___________
Segment 2: Interview guide
What are the most commonly practiced nonfarm livelihoods in your community? Why the farming households engaged in certain and specific nonfarm livelihoods? What do you think the factors that forced the farming households to engage in nonfarm livelihood? Discuss in detail.
For how long time or years you have been engaged in nonfarm livelihood?
What are the most visible economic impacts of rural nonfarm livelihoods? Positive or negative impacts? Discuss in detail? How they impose impact?
What are economic impacts of involvement in nonfarm livelihood diversification? List and discuss in detail? Its positive and negative impact?
Does the government provide any support for the farming households involved in nonfarm livelihoods?
What are the key social impacts of nonfarm livelihood diversification? Discuss in detail? How they impose impact?
What are the economic impacts of nonfarm livelihood diversification? List the impacts? Discuss in detail?
How do you explain gender and nonfarm livelihood relation? In what types of women engaged most and men? Is there gender based job classification among the farming households? If yes how, why?
Is there anything that you would like to add?