Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Livelihood diversification is integral in increasing household resilience against shocks in the Global South. The study examines the motives and constraints to livelihood diversification. Participants were purposively selected from Springrange, Rocksdale and Fox farms. The results show that diversification of livelihoods is used as an adaptive strategy to respond to long-term reduction in purchasing power parity resulting from climatic and non-climatic factors. However, smallholders struggle to construct productive strategies to diversify their portfolios because of prodigious socioeconomic and financial odds. There is need for development practitioners to stabilise land tenure and scale up access to credit and markets.

Keywords

Constraints rural household livelihoods diversification vulnerability resilience

Introduction

Growing anecdotal data from a variety of fields has indicated that people living in rural areas of Asia and Africa typically do not specialise in raising crops, raising livestock or raising fish to the complete exclusion of other income-generating activities (Baird and Hartter, 2017; Benjamin, 1994; Islam, 2018; Mallick, 2019; Matondi, 2011; Sarker et al., 2019). Instead, most farmers in rural areas have traditionally expanded their agricultural operations to include a variety of additional productive fields. There are many reasons for this kind of diversity, including a large number of potential activities and both positive and negative effects. Given this, many academics now portray rural livelihoods as being built from a variety of resources or activities (Benjamin, 1994; Dercon and Krishnan, 1996; Ellis, 1998). Livelihood diversification is one of the key strategies in building rural farmers’ resilience as it allows risks to be spread, hence reducing the farmers’ vulnerability to various shocks (Mohammed et al., 2021). Diversifying a rural livelihood is frequently categorised based on geography, function or industry (Loison, 2015; World Bank, 2018).

Climate change has had a significant impact on agricultural production and productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA; Chinokwetu and Togo, 2023; IPCC, 2007). Rural farmers who only depend on agriculture are vulnerable to shocks like drought, floods, pests and changes in prices. Because of this, a number of farmers have moved and engaged in non-farm activities to diversify their sources of income. According to Bryceson (2002), livelihood diversification in rural SSA refers to a protracted process of reorienting and adjusting distressed livelihoods. To become more resilient as a household, rural farmers are reducing their dependency on agriculture by participating in non-farm activities. Approximately 70% of people in Zimbabwe make their living from rain-fed agriculture (Cousins, 2010) and the nation has not been immune to severe weather patterns, fluctuations in rainfall, socio-political upheavals (Nyathi et al., 2018) or HIV/AIDS; all of which have negatively impacted food security and livelihood vulnerability (Nyathi and Ndlovu, 2022).

In wealthy nations, diversification is also prevalent as people and families look for greater opportunities. It is commonly accepted that one of the main forces behind the growth of the rural non-farm economy is that agriculture seems failing to sustain the livelihoods of farm households (Bird and Shepherd, 2003). Households are now forced to explore alternative sources of income outside of agriculture due to the collapse of rain-fed agriculture (Kanza and Vitale, 2015; Nyathi et al., 2023). Determining the precise factors impeding rural residents’ attempts to diversify their sources of income is crucial to understanding their lives and ways of living. As a result, various restrictions apply depending on the household and the locality. To expedite the process, a sensible plan for broad-based livelihood diversification in rural areas needs to be devised. It is crucial to pinpoint the precise barriers to livelihood security so that appropriate solutions can be implemented to create a supportive atmosphere (Mehta et al., 2022). In light of the foregoing, the study investigates the rationale behind livelihood diversification and to pinpoint the obstacles that farm households encounter when pursuing this goal. Specifically, the study seeks to answer the following questions: What are the factors explaining household livelihood diversification in selected dry-land agrarian settings in Matabeleland? What are the constraints faced by these households in their attempts to diversify their livelihood portfolios? This paper is composed of five sections: the first part comprehends the diversity of livelihoods; the second part examines motives and constraints to diversification; the third part explores the study setting, methods and materials; the fourth part presents the study findings; and the last part presents conclusions and recommendations for future policy.

Comprehending the diversity of livelihoods: a conceptual note

The term livelihood denotes the idea of actors striving to make a living, attempting to meet their various consumption and economic necessities, coping with uncertainties, responding to new opportunities and choosing from different value positions (Nyathi and Ndlovu, 2022; Scoones, 1998). This description is supported by Chambers and Conway (1992) who obliquely state that livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living. In their fight for survival and to raise their standard of life, household members build a different portfolio of activities and social support networks through a process known as livelihood diversification (Ellis, 1998; Sherifa, 2022). Diversifying one’s source of income can occur through non-agricultural means such as starting small businesses or opting for non-agricultural sources such as temporary work or migration, or through agricultural means such as producing high-value or multiple crops. For Bryceson (2002), diversifying one’s source of income is a long-term process that involves reorienting and changing distressed livelihoods in rural SSA. To strengthen the resilience of their households, their livelihood portfolios have been reoriented to minimise their reliance on agriculture. Ellis (2000) opines that further explanation is required to understand diversity and diversification in the context of a livelihood. Diversity is the existence of numerous distinct revenue streams at one particular point in time. On the other hand, diversification views the emergence of diversity as a continuous social and economic process reflecting opportunity and pressure factors that lead to families adopting a wider range of complex and varied subsistence tactics. Diversification and variety can also be interpreted broadly as diverse and growing sources of income, but in the context of rural development, they are more frequently used to suggest moving away from farming as the principal or primary means of rural existence (Bird and Shepherd, 2003; Ellis, 2000). Thus, in this study, the term livelihood diversification refers to farm households’ efforts to discover novel means of increasing earnings and lowering their susceptibility to various livelihood shocks. It refers specifically to the combination of earning a living through on-farm, off-farm and non-farm activities (Kanza and Vitale, 2015; Sherifa, 2022).

Motives and constraints of rural livelihoods diversification

Several reasons motivate individuals or households to diversify, such as socioeconomic, diversification of assets, income streams and jobs (Alamneh et al., 2023; Davies, 1993; Ellis, 2000). Hence, the diversification of financial holdings and sources of income is encouraged for both households and individuals. Growing anecdotal data indicates that households are no longer focusing on agriculture with its potential gains from specialisation but, rather, are diversifying their sources of income and generation patterns for a variety of reasons. Rural households participate in a multitude of activities and depend on varied income portfolios. A range of 30%–50% is common in SSA, but in Southern Africa, that percentage may reach up to 80%–90% (Pavithra and Kamal, 2013).

In South Asia, on average, non-farm sources account for about 60% of rural households’ income. However, this percentage varies greatly between households that lack access to land for farming and those that do. In SSA, dependence on agriculture tends to decrease steadily as income levels rise. Thus, rural households are better off with a more diverse revenue portfolio. Elsewhere, there is a consistent pattern indicating that the most diverse livelihoods are found in the very poor and somewhat well-off, while the medium-income groups show less variation (Nyathi et al., 2018). According to Ellis (2000), there are a variety of incentives for diversifying one’s source of income, including short-term involvement and long-term change. Diverse forms of diversification can be used depending on the prerequisites and the surrounding circumstances. Alamneh et al. (2023) note that non-farm and off-farm incomes can aid in overcoming issues to do with insurance and credit. Apart from employing the extra effort needed by the household, it might also offer options for income earning outside of the growing season, help manage weather-related hazards like being evicted from the agricultural land and guarantee consistent consumption all year round. Clear dualistic tendencies can be seen in diversification profiles, for instance, the wealthiest diversify to foster economic growth and amass more wealth while the poorest diversify to ensure survival (Cousins, 2010; Ellis, 2000; Nyathi et al., 2018).

Scholars (Dabin, 1980; Mohammed et al., 2021; Painter et al., 1994) have noted that one of the most important tactics for increasing the resilience of rural farmers is livelihood diversification since it spreads risks and lessens the farmers’ susceptibility to different shocks. For instance, climate change has had a significant impact on agricultural production and productivity in SSA (IPCC, 2007). Rural farmers who only depend on agriculture are vulnerable to shocks like drought, floods, pests and changes in prices (Ndlovu et al., 2020). Consequently, a lot of farmers have moved and engaged in non-farm activities to diversify their sources of income. Extreme weather patterns, varying rainfall, socio-political upheavals and HIV/AIDS have all affected food security and the sustainability of livelihoods in Zimbabwe. As a result, rural communities, development actors and policymakers at all levels must work together more closely to curb factors that contribute to and exacerbate food insecurity (Bird and Shepherd, 2003; Nyathi et al., 2018). This demonstrates the need for the implementation of a combination of complementary national and local policies and strategies for increasing food security. To survive and raise their level of standard of living, they need to adopt diversification which creates opportunities for increasing diverse portfolio of activities and assets (Ellis, 2000; Salam and Bauer, 2022).

Study setting, methods and materials

The research was conducted in three purposively selected farms across three distinct districts in the Matabeleland region (see Figure 1) between March and June 2019. Matabeleland region comprises Matabeleland South, Matabeleland North and Bulawayo provinces. Matabeleland North Province spans an area of 75,025 km², making up 19.2% of the total land area in Zimbabwe (Chingarande et al., 2020). With a population of 749,017 (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, 2012), it is the second least populous province after Matabeleland South. The low and erratic rainfall that is characteristic of Matabeleland North Province makes it prone to drought and occasional floods. Matabeleland South Province was a thriving livestock and small grain-producing province in the 1970s (Ndlovu et al., 2020). Today, the province relies heavily on humanitarian assistance from the government and humanitarian agencies. Specifically, the study was conducted at Fox Farm, located in Matobo District (Matabeleland South province), Rocksdale Farm, located in Bubi District (Matabeleland North province), and Springrange Farm, located in Umguza District. The Matobo area is situated in Matabeleland South province in the southern region of the City of Bulawayo. The district borders Botswana to the south, Gwanda to the southeast and Mangwe District to the west. However, the Matabeleland North Province includes the districts of Umguza and Bubi; the districts of Umguza and Tsholotsho border Bulawayo to the west and Lupane to the east.

Figure 1.

Map showing Umguza, Bubi and Matopo districts in Matabeleland South and North Provinces.

Rocksdale Farm comprises 44 households and is located in Bubi district’s ward 22, which has 600 households (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, 2012). Due to low soil fertility, irregular rainfall patterns and issues associated with water scarcity, both provinces have limited capacity for cultivating crops (Bird and Shepherd, 2003). Bird and Shepherd (2003) state that Matobo district experiences less than 450 mm of precipitation on average per year. The estimated yearly rainfall for Umguza and Bubi is between 450 and 600 mm. The three farms’ respective farmers follow different livelihood trajectories. According to Thebe (2011), the majority of farmers in the Umguza and Bubi districts grow maize and minor grains on a small scale, with goats, sheep and cattle becoming a source of income. Small trade in wild berry harvesting, community irrigation projects and mopane worms are essential to the livelihoods of the people in the Matobo district. Maphosa (2009) has highlighted the importance of remittances from South Africa, Botswana, the United Kingdom and other European nations as a source of income. The most common language used in the study area is isiNdebele, which is similar to the widely spoken Nguni languages in South Africa (Tambo, 2013).

This study used a qualitative case study approach whose philosophical underpinning is that reality exists outside of ourselves and can only be accessed through our perceptions, interpretations and socially constructed meanings (Bhaskar, 2008). The qualitative approach helped to make meaning and gain an in-depth understanding of the reasons that govern human behaviour in the face of livelihood vulnerabilities (Bercht, 2019, 2020). The strategy was designed to allow the researcher to investigate and comprehend research participants’ perspectives within the framework of their situations and living conditions (Ayeb-Karlsson et al., 2016). Several fieldwork visits to each of the three farms were made as part of the data collection process. Three focus group discussions were conducted in the three distinct farms and each discussion lasted between 2 and 3 hours. Focus groups are especially useful as a complement to other methods of data collection for providing in-depth information in a relatively short period of time. Data were also collected using 30 in-depth interviews. These in-depth interviews were done with purposefully selected household heads. These households secured land from the government through the land reform programme of 2000 and had valid offer letters. Participants of the study for both the focus group discussions and in-depth interviews were selected by considering gender, age, and community leadership role and income status of households. Key informants also played an important role in data collection. Specifically, the researcher engaged 15 informants who included representatives from local authorities, non-governmental field workers, agricultural extension services and traditional leaders. The researcher decisively chose key informants to understand the dynamics of livelihoods. Pseudo-names were used to conceal the identity of participants (Marshall, 1996). The N-Vivo was used for data analysis to reduce a large number of manual tasks and give the researcher more time to discover tendencies, recognise themes and draw conclusions (Wong, 2008).

Results and discussion

Motives for rural household livelihoods diversification

Our innovative inquiries sought to determine the causes of the diversification of farm household livelihoods. We posed questions to the participants that focused on the contribution of agriculture to the rural economy and the reasons behind the diversification of livelihoods of these farm households. The results of the three farms’ respective studies demonstrate that agriculture continues to be vital to farmers’ livelihoods. Participants emphasised that since agriculture provides them with food, pride, jobs and earnings, it is an essential element of their way of life. Most of them hinted that farming is still the most stable source of income and they are unwilling to abandon it. Subsequent discussions revealed that, in addition to cultivating crops, communities also raised cattle, important for generating cash and serving as a symbol of wealth when paying the bride price. During a focus group, one of the participants emphasised that raising livestock helps people diversify their diets because they can produce milk and meat. In addition to providing draught power for clearing land and ploughing, livestock also produced manure to enhance soil fertility and structure.

One 62-year-old female participant, MaSibanda, aptly summarised the significance of crop and animal production when she said:

Crop growing and livestock rearing are the two economic activities that define us as Ndebele-speaking people. I am trying to say that farming is an integral aspect of Ndebele culture and continues to be the main source of our income. Our problem is the drought and its detrimental effects. We continue to farm even though it can be difficult at times to harvest even a bag of maize. During prosperous seasons, we sell our marketable surplus grains to the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) and National Foods, which helps us make a little money for our kids’ education and food.

The points raised by MaSibanda are in line with the findings of Hussein and Nelson (1998) who pointed out that animals can provide goods other than just liquid assets. We also tried to find out the explanations for the three study sites’ varied lives. The study’s intriguing conclusion is that nearly every participating household did not depend solely on farming as their means of subsistence. This was noted in both the well-to-do and the vulnerable households. Participants’ discussions revealed that diversifying sources of income was a function of accumulation and survival. The study further revealed that households did not give up farming in the process of diversifying their incomes. This is in contrast to Bryceson’s (2002) belief that livelihood diversification in rural SSA is a long-term de-agrarianisation process of adjustment and reorientation of livelihoods in distress in which smallholders are invariably abandoning farming. In particular, it resulted in households diversifying their sources of income to help hedge against risk or deal with short-term disasters. Subsequent interactions revealed that some households had sufficiently varied sources of income to accumulate funds for investments and consumption. It emanated that the degree of diversity in livelihood portfolios varied from household to household, and this had a bearing on variables such as age, education, class and availability of credits and remittances. One key source, Mlilo, succinctly summarised the various motivations underlying the diversification of livelihoods when he or she said:

We need to recognise that households are rational-driven entities. A few households in this community have diversified their sources of income as a way to cope with the long-term decline in their purchasing power parity which has been brought about by macroeconomic uncertainty or, in certain cases, uncontrollable climate change. Additionally, we have observed certain households utilising the abundance of natural resources such as alluvial gold deposits and certain forestry-based resources like mopane worms to diversify their sources of income. To put it briefly, the availability of possibilities, incentives, and occasional constraints are what drive diversification.

Several scholars (Alamneh et al., 2023; Chambers and Conway, 1992; Ellis, 2000; Khatun and Roy, 2012; Nyathi and Ndlovu, 2022) support the findings of this study by arguing that livelihood diversification is intended to reduce food insecurity, prevent dependency, reduce vulnerability, enhance self-reliance and develop a set of specific skills during crises. According to Chambers (1997a; 1997b), to exist in a world that is unpredictable and full of risks, poor people in particular typically need to diversify their sources of income. Many of them have amassed a sizable portfolio of accomplishments as a result. Since diversification offers a range of flexible income streams if primary activities are unsuccessful, it may be crucial in preserving livelihoods (Berry, 1989). Mengistu and Belda (2024) argue that diversification of household livelihood strategies may be necessary in the context of unstable, drought-prone and low agricultural income, limited farmland and high-growth environments. This could have a positive impact on smallholder farmers’ income as well as on reducing risks and regaining livelihood. Therefore, the results show that the process of livelihood diversification may be accelerated by both pull and push factors such as shifting terms of trade and perceptions of better prospects or environmental danger and declining wages.

Restrictions on diversification

Recognising the obstacles to rural development and acting to enhance the livelihood and food security of rural communities require an understanding of the livelihood diversification strategy’s limitations (Mehta et al., 2022). The objective of our second primary study question was to record the constraints that farm households encountered while attempting to broaden their sources of income.

Insecure land tenure and inadequate collateral

Different academics contend that the issue of land tenure is inextricably linked to the security of tenure (Cousins, 2010; Dudal, 1980; Johannes et al., 2017; Nyathi et al., 2024). The transferability and respect of beneficiaries’ land rights are prerequisites for the realisation of security of land tenure (World Bank, 2002). According to the World Bank (2002), tenure security influences farmers’ decision-making on investments, finance availability and productivity. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions in the three research sites demonstrated that farmers were facing difficulties with the security of tenure. Participants at the Fox and Springrange Farms reported that, in 2018, the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development sent letters to every household informing them that they had been resettled unlawfully and that they would need to leave the farms by July of the same year. Researchers say that the security of tenure was influencing participants at the Rocksdale farm as well, even though they had not received any correspondence of this kind from the Ministry of Land and Resettlement at the time of data collection. This was because they were aware of what was happening in other farms.

Discussions revealed that the lack of security of tenure was deterring farmers from making improvements on their plots of land and this was affecting agricultural output. One participant in a focus group discussion said,

We moved here in 2000 following the Zimbabwean government’s land allocation. In the past two years, the government has expressed interest in taking us off this property once more. You will not believe that over 17 years after being resettled, we still do not have title deeds and the government keeps telling us to move. Sincerely, how do you manage your parcel of land with precarious land tenure? I would like to begin a gardening project, but I am worried I will lose my meagre savings and remittances. Any time, we can be evicted from this farm like what is happening in other farms. You cannot plan properly on which economic activities to pursue without title deeds. (Mathe)

Subsequent investigations revealed that the smallholder farmers’ inability to utilise their land as collateral in credit applications was another consequence of the absence of title deeds. The obstacle of unstable land tenure and inadequate collateral has hindered a considerable proportion of households from their endeavours to broaden their sources of income. Numerous academics (Carney, 1998; Ellis, 2000; Mengistu, 2022) believe that having access to credit services could improve the diversification of livelihoods. According to Smith (2001), in Uganda, one of the main obstacles to potential diversification into non-farm economic activities is the inaccessibility of financial services as a result of market imperfections or lack of credit knowledge. Contrary to Smith’s conclusion, a study that was conducted in Ethiopia indicated that farmers who had access to loans were more likely to buy agricultural supplies than to diversify their sources of income (Asfaw et al., 2018).

Inadequate infrastructure in rural areas

Many academics have underlined the need to develop rural infrastructure for both livelihood diversification and poverty reduction (Barrett et al., 2001; Barrett and Reardon, 2000; Bird and Shepherd, 2003; Handley et al., 2009; Salam and Bauer, 2022). There is ample evidence to suggest that most rural communities in the Global South lack essential infrastructure that is necessary for developing livelihoods such as markets, hospitals, roads, schools, electricity and water development. Access to transportation is a crucial element influencing rural lives since it affects market development, the flow of people and products, and/or both (Barrett and Reardon, 2000; Bryceson, 1999; Mengistu, 2022). Participant conversations in the three study regions revealed that livelihood diversification was being adversely affected by a lack of infrastructure.

A key informant, Ncube, observed that

There are many livelihood opportunities that we can pursue in these newly resettled areas. Regrettably, one significant obstacle to realising some of our goals is the underdevelopment of infrastructure. The roads are in terrible condition and have not been maintained in the last ten years, making this farm inaccessible. Here, communication is difficult due to constant network issues. Even after being resettled for nearly 20 years, we still lack electricity. Without electricity, you are limited to nothing.

According to Department for International Development (DFID) (1999), better rural infrastructure helps promote rural–urban relations for diversifying livelihoods and ensuring that rural residents are aware of options that are available to them. Handley et al. (2009) allude that rural markets are poorly integrated over both time and space as a result of inadequate institutional and infrastructural linkages (e.g. railway, roads, landline and mobile telecommunication) between local, national and international markets. In addition to having an impact on physical markets, this also makes it harder for traders and producers to obtain information about price changes, hence restricting their capacity to alter trading and production patterns to avert economic shocks. The results of this study are further supported by Khatun and Roy (2012) who contend that markets, irrigation and water development in particular were found to be significant factors in determining the diversification of livelihoods.

Absence of household assets

Successful livelihood diversification depends in large part on household assets (Berry, 1989; Bryceson, 1996; Devereux, 1993; Ellis, 2000; McMichael, 2012; Mengistu and Belda, 2024; Sen, 1997). The conversation led to the conclusion that one of the main obstacles to diversifying sources of income was a lack of household assets. Participants said it was hard to diversify one’s crop output without household assets like livestock, ploughs and other crucial agricultural instruments. One of the primary causes of households not making use of their land is a lack of draught power. In addition, it was revealed that credit was hard to obtain without assets because household property is typically used as security. According to a participant, Khumalo, from a household that was considered vulnerable, having assets like livestock and other valuables shows that you are wealthy and can repay loans:

Without those, no one will be able to borrow your money. Although we are open to exploring non-agricultural means of subsistence, we lack assets and are unsure of how to obtain initial funding. All we possess is the land, but it has remained barren due to a lack of draught power. Those who own cattle can sell them, make money, purchase high-quality seed varieties, or pursue other career paths. Without even a cat that I can call mine, I can never do what others explore as options.

The participant’s above comments illustrate the barriers that impoverished households confront in their efforts to diversify their sources of income and underline the significance of household assets in this process. The comments also highlight the significance of owning animals as a sign of financial status. In their research on the diversification of rural livelihoods in West Bengal, Khatun and Roy (2012) discovered that household assets contribute to livelihood diversification both directly and indirectly. The researchers revealed that assets allowed investing in alternate sources of income, in addition to serving as a store of wealth. Adepoju (2019) noted that the level of livelihood diversification had a significant and positive relationship with the value of physical assets owned by a household. One of the things preventing rural West Bengali livelihood diversification is the asset base. Ayele et al. (2006) agree with Khatun and Roy (2012) when they argue that both deliberate actions help to strengthen household asset bases and allow for adaptation and diversification of livelihoods through ownership and access to productive resources.

Effects of HIV and AIDS

SSA rural households have been impacted by the HIV and AIDS epidemic. According to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2006), the HIV and AIDS epidemic is causing rural fragmentation and reversing decades of socioeconomic improvement. In-depth interviews with key informants showed that one of the obstacles to the diversification of livelihoods in the three farms was the HIV and AIDS epidemic. Subsequent interactions revealed that the epidemic was mostly affecting those who were engaged in various economic activities and then sexual activity. One participant reported that the outbreak was having a significant effect on her household’s labour supply. She emphasised that providing care for the terminally ill resulted in a shortage of labour for livelihood possibilities like producing crops. The participant further disclosed that taking care of the sick also resulted in less time being spent on important livelihood options that are sought for survival as well as accumulation. Discussions with participants also revealed that the epidemic was placing a growing amount of caregiving responsibility on women who are crucial to smallholder agriculture and meeting household needs. The feminisation of HIV and AIDS care also hampered women’s capacity to shift into other lucrative occupations. During a focus group, it was revealed that households were selling their productive assets to cover the price of child care. What came out was that household savings which serve as a gauge of the sustainability of a livelihood were exhausted. Subsequent interactions also showed that rural residents were experiencing resource strain due to urbanites’ propensity to transport terminally ill patients to rural areas, and the attendant increased food consumption during funerals. MaDube posited that

HIV and AIDS is a serious problem in the farms and, in some way, almost every home is impacted. The pandemic has reduced the ability of the most vulnerable households in this neighbourhood to work the fields, grow their food, or even diversify their sources of income, which has made them impoverished. A trail of vulnerable and orphaned youngsters is also left behind by the disease. In my experience working with home-based carers, impoverished households find it more difficult to manage the consequences of the pandemic than their wealthier counterparts who can afford to engage workers and, in certain cases, receive support in the form of remittances.

In contrast to their more vulnerable peers, wealthier households are better equipped to withstand shocks and strains. The FAO (2006) states that the potential long-term impact on nutrition and food security is devastating as farmers die in their prime before they can pass on knowledge to their children and this validates the findings of this study. Majola et al. (2022) allude that the effects of HIV and AIDS on household habits, labour, income, skills and knowledge have made it more difficult to establish sustainable rural livelihoods. Through structural dynamics in adult mortality, the epidemic not only increases the degree of food insecurity and poverty but also modifies its characteristics (Mbereko, 2010; Mbereko et al., 2019). Researchers have also bemoaned the fact that HIV and AIDS have led to a rise in the number of households headed by women and children, as well as foster families (Majola et al., 2022; UNAIDS, 2018).

Insufficient education and training

According to Ayele et al. (2006), the most effective strategy for lowering poverty and inequality as well as creating the groundwork for sustainable livelihoods is human capital development, which includes education and skill development. Scholars contend that educating girls can help empower them and lower the likelihood of living in poverty. Some scholars have indicated that education and skills development can enhance community governance of natural resources (Berry, 1989; Chimhowu and Woodhouse, 2008; Ellis, 2000; Nyathi et al., 2024). In-depth interviews with key informants on the three study farms led to the conclusion that one of the barriers to livelihood diversification is the lack of formal education and skills training. Participants disclosed that anyone may launch a career and travel anywhere in the world if armed with an education. The conversations revealed that the majority of jobs in rural areas require five subjects at the Ordinary level, including maths and English. People who lack these prerequisites find it difficult to get work, particularly in government and quasi-governmental programmes. Nkosiyazi posited,

Life is difficult if you never went to school like me. Many job opportunities have arisen, particularly from the Rural District Council and the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority. Our councillor regularly posts employment openings, but the catch is that applicants must at least have a passing grade in five subjects at Ordinary Level, including English.

In addition, it was discovered that, in the main, the training recently given to resettled farmers, thanks to the assistance of numerous institutions and a few non-governmental organisations (NGOs), was centred on agricultural development. The Agritex Extension Workers, World Vision and Lutheran Development Trust provided training on conservation agriculture, small grain production and small livestock production to the smallholders in the three research farms. The farmers indicated that throughout the training they had attended, livelihood diversification had not received much attention. The majority of participants felt that business growth and vocational skills such as building, brick moulding, wood technology and waterworks needed to be taught by the government and other development partners. For instance, Masuku hinted that

We have never received training on non-farm and off-farm activities. That, in my opinion, will be a good place to start so that we can understand how other communities diversify their sources of income. We must be aware of the ins and outs of starting and expanding a business. However, acquiring skills capital without initial funding won’t help us escape poverty. In the process, it is necessary to address the lack of start-up funding.

The findings of the study are confirmed by Loison (2015) and Serrat (2017) who posit that a commendable number of vulnerable households typically lack formal education and skills which serve as entrance barriers preventing them from engaging in higher return activities like skilled and non-farm jobs. The scholars further note that well-off households specialise in profitable on- and off-farm ventures, while impoverished ones remain ensnared in low-income pursuits that keep them in a cycle of structural poverty. The findings of the study are further buttressed by Kinsey (2002) and Ayele et al. (2006) who contend that providing farmers with a variety of skills increases their opportunities to diversify into numerous industries and generate revenue from these varied sources. Equipping farmers with skills makes them competitive in whichever field they choose (Chirau et al., 2014; Mutsvangwa-Sammie, 2020; Nyathi et al., 2018).

Social and family constraints

The study concluded that societal and family factors limit the diversity of subsistence. The study’s participants stated that their socio-cultural values and societal expectations are ingrained in their livelihoods which include farming and animal husbandry. Participants in this study indicated that farming, both crop and animal production, was a component of their social identity and ancestry. One issue impeding livelihood diversification has been identified as the social value attributed to agricultural and animal rearing. One participant, Mpala, indicated that

I cannot imagine doing anything outside of farming; it is the main reason I am here. If people witness me engaging in non-farm pursuits, what will they say? When they discover that I am no longer giving agricultural and animal rearing priority, even my ancestors will not be pleased. You should also be aware that you could lose your land in the event of a land audit where it is discovered that you are not cultivating crops.

The survey also revealed that some households are reluctant to expand their sources of income into fields that are disliked by the community. It emerged from the conversations that certain livelihood possibilities, such as traditional beer brewing, vending and part-time work, are not viewed as favourable by some of the households. One participant, Makunene, highlighted that

Diversifying your sources of income can be difficult, particularly if you choose a path that certain community members oppose. It was then that we began brewing beer the old-fashioned way. We were called into the village head disciplinary meeting by this community, including our close relatives, who turned against us and prevented us from following that line of work.

After experimenting with traditional beer production, one participant explained how her husband was called names by some of his family, which ultimately drove him to travel to South Africa. It became apparent that the community had grown hostile towards him as well, accusing him of using his ancient beer brewing methods to promote societal evils. This finding is consistent with that of Amsalu and Alebachew (2009) who argue that societal expectations as well as cultural values are the major factors that discourage households from engaging in diversification activities. For Roy and Basu (2020), a number of households have remained glued in smallholder agricultural practices as they view it as part of their culture and family values. However, Khatun and Roy (2012) allude that family size is usually considered as an indicator of labour availability and households with abundant labour supply are believed more likely to engage in livelihood diversification or have a higher participation in non-agricultural activities. Labour-rich households feel less constraint to send some of their members to non-farm activity (Chirau et al., 2014; Dercon and Krishnan, 1996; Gebru et al., 2018; Majola et al., 2022; McMichael, 2012; Nyathi et al., 2018; Sarker et al., 2019).

Diseases that affect animals and wildlife

Study participants from the three farms posited that their efforts to diversify their on-farm livelihoods were also impacted by problematic wild animals. It became apparent that several animals had invaded the three farms, with some doing so in quest of water and pastures, and others such as predators for raiding livestock. The following animals were listed as detrimental to crops: warthogs, antelopes, baboons, kudus and monkeys. Farmers said that their harvests had decreased as a result of these problematic wild animals which destroy their crops. It was also discovered that small livestock, particularly goats, lambs and pigs, were being wiped out by predators including hyenas, leopards, cheetahs and jackals. This was amply captured by one participant, Mr Ngulube, in one of the farms who noted that

Some of us are discouraged by problem animals. Almost every day, jackals, leopards, and hyenas kill our animals. We have complained to the management of National Parks and Wildlife, but our efforts have been useless because we are instructed to coexist with the wild creatures. The sheep breeding industry in Bulawayo and Victoria Falls had a ready market, so I decided to build one there. After losing almost thirty of them to these predators, I gave up. Additionally, warthogs, kudus, and baboons attack our crops. Because of wild animals, many households have failed to succeed through gardening.

The discussion suggests that the issue of wild animals is impeding on-farm diversity. Conversations revealed that the majority of wildlife reserves near the resettled farms are no longer fenced, which forces animals to roam into fields and other areas with water supplies. Animal illnesses were also noted by participants as a difficulty that households encounter when trying to diversify. Many households had attempted to raise chickens but failed due to illnesses like the new cattle disease. During a focus group, it was revealed that a considerable number of cattle were killed in 2017 and 2018 by lumpy skin disorders and foot-and-mouth diseases. Many goats and sheep, particularly at the Fox and Rocksdale farms, were reported to be dying from pulpy kidney and heart water infections. This stems from the fact that households attempting to diversify their means of subsistence through farming and animal rearing are hampered by wild animals and a number of diseases (Nuvey et al., 2023). This finding is also substantiated by Digal and Singh (2023) who posit that the escalating human–wildlife conflicts in rural communities, driven by expanding human populations encroaching upon natural habits, pose significant risks to both human safety and livelihoods. Most rural communities in developing countries depend on crop cultivation and livestock rearing for their source of food and income (Ladan, 2014), and therefore, any damage to crops and livestock greatly jeopardises their socioeconomic well-being. Regardless of an increase in the magnitude of human–wildlife conflict in Zimbabwe (Gandiwa, 2013; Mhuriro-Mashapa et al., 2017), it is still problematic to reliably estimate the socioeconomic and financial implications of human–wildlife conflicts on affected livelihood (Malley and Gorenflo, 2023).

The government and agricultural household development model

Governments in the Global South continue to prioritise smallholder agriculture in their frameworks for rural development policies (Abera et al., 2021; FAO, 1983; Kinsey, 2002; Mazwi et al., 2019; Nyathi et al., 2018; Svodziwa, 2018). Like other sub-Saharan administrations, the government of Zimbabwe is adamant that smallholder agriculture is the backbone of rural economies and that it cannot be replaced. As previously mentioned in several sections of this study, Zimbabwe’s land reform programme was aimed at boosting agricultural output to enhance food security for both households and the country as a whole. As a result, the Zimbabwean government has prioritised agrarian livelihoods while providing only minimal assistance for non-farm and off-farm pursuits (Hammar et al., 2003; Mazwi et al., 2019; Sarker et al., 2019). The policy has to recognise that the livelihood diversification approach is crucial for increasing rural households’ income in response to vulnerable agricultural livelihood situations (Chinokwetu and Togo, 2023; Mutsvangwa-Sammie, 2020; Wabara, 2020). Participants disclosed that the government exclusively funds crop and animal husbandry operations. They expressed concern at the government’s scant support for such initiatives and this has prevented them from diversifying their portfolios of livelihoods. Discussions also showed that the government’s one-size-fits-all strategy for rural development, particularly when it comes to allocating agricultural inputs without considering the agroecological capacities of different farms, was viewed as a roadblock to household diversification. The participants suggested that the government should now take context-specific elements into account when deciding what kind of livelihood support to provide to newly resettled farmers. One participant strongly expressed this by saying that, in most newly resettled communities, government schemes and even other development agencies do not support livelihood diversification.

Thebe argued,

For instance, there is a perception that certain off-farm and non-farm livelihood activities jeopardise the agrarian purposes of the land reform. However, the fact that rain-fed agriculture is unable to lift households out of poverty is overlooked. I believe that decision-makers must realise that these farms are essential for our survival and that without irrigation, livelihoods would continue to be susceptible to shocks and strains. Once more, I believe those in positions of authority must understand that having access to land alone – without systemic support that includes low-cost loans, will not lift us out of poverty. We won’t get rich till the kingdom come.

The fact that households were relocated for agricultural reasons, in my opinion, informs the character of the projects in these locations. Therefore, training on improved farming methods and agricultural inputs should be the main focus of encouraging the diversification of livelihoods. The study findings are corroborated by Chimhowu and Woodhouse (2008) who argue that the rural development policy of Zimbabwe prioritises agricultural development as seen by the government’s expansion of schemes meant to improve access to inputs for smallholders. There is therefore limited government support for attempts by households to diversify their livelihood portfolios. For Abera et al. (2021), policy formulators must accept that livelihood diversification plays a decisive role in the reduction of poverty, and food insecurity and in improving the welfare of rural communities. The scholars opine that rain-fed agriculture alone has limited capacity to transform the situation of poor households in dryland areas. Thus, a comprehensive development plan that enhances successful livelihood diversification is found to be imperative and most urgent (Ellis, 1998; Haile et al., 2024; Majola et al., 2022; Mengistu and Belda, 2024).

Conclusion and recommendations

The results show that agriculture has continued to be the main source of income in rural areas. However, the unpredictability of rain-fed agriculture and its knock-on consequences, which include reduced pastures, food insecurity and household poverty, have forced some people to diversify their sources of income. The fact that nearly all participants combined farm and non-farm strategies suggests that non-farm revenue is a significant factor in enhancing income. Meeting the fundamental subsistence demands of a household and engaging in non-agricultural pursuits offer a risk minimisation manoeuvre. The study also demonstrates that lack of proper marketing and transportation infrastructure, lack of stronger farming sectors that provided abundant income for households in some areas and lack of opportunity or scope to find alternative livelihoods were the main obstacles to livelihood diversification faced by rural households in the study areas. The research areas have a great deal of potential for diversifying livelihoods into both farm and non-farm activities, but obstacles such as inadequate credit facilities, lack of knowledge and training, reluctance to take on socially undervalued tasks and apprehension about taking risks due to weak asset bases are also hampering rural households from broadening their perspectives on income source diversification. The establishment of suitable regulatory and supportive environments that promote the development of self-sustaining rural financial institutions with savings and lending programmes is a major responsibility of the government. At the local level, business plan development and financial institution outreach training ought to go hand in hand with the establishment of credit cooperatives and microcredit organisations.

Whether a rural livelihood is on or off-farm, its effectiveness is largely dependent on market accessibility. Not only should knowledge about market potential be more easily accessible, but viable marketplaces should also be built for rural producers. Rural farmers and business owners will have more negotiating power thanks to market intelligence, but it will also provide them with ideas for customising their products. The construction of rural infrastructure has the potential to significantly boost rural livelihoods and reduce poverty because it can promote information transfer, efficient markets and the working mobility of people, resources and outputs. It can also assist in integration with national economies. Labour-intensive methods may be used to provide village water supply systems, good road access and electrification. As a result, these will boost local purchasing power and give residents of the area improved physical facilities as well as essential building and maintenance skills and job possibilities. The government must create a strong, all-encompassing rural development policy that outlines tactics for lowering poverty and sustaining rural livelihoods. This should be based on evaluations of geographical advantages at the local, regional and national levels.

The creation and exploration of local potential, which will inform infrastructure development, should involve the private sector, the government, NGOs and the local populace. Promoting the availability of financial services and microfinance to rural populations is one possible avenue for additional supportive policies and incentives. It is impossible to minimise the contribution that women make to household livelihoods and food security. Deliberate efforts are required to empower and equip women to access more livelihood and economic options than males, given the prevalence of HIV and AIDS in many areas. It is necessary to change communal tenure structures so that women can own land. Avoiding gender stereotypes about non-agricultural specialisation is advised. With a focus on women in particular, community organisations should be prepared to offer a platform for organising skill development, marketing and infrastructure provision for the economic activities of the villages.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Douglas Nyathi

Author biography

Dr Douglas Nyathi is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the University of Johannesburg. He holds a PhD in Public Policy from the University of KwaZulu Natal. His research thematic areas encompass climate change, rural and agrarian livelihoods transformation and gender.

References

Abera

Yirgu

Uncha

(2021) Determinants of rural livelihood diversification strategies among Chewaka resettlers’ communities of southwestern Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security 10: 30.

Adepoju

(2019) Comparative analysis of determinants of household poverty among rural farming households in Southwest Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology 29(4): 1–12.

Alamneh

Mada

Abebe

(2023) The choices of livelihood diversification strategies and determinant factors among the Peri-urban households in Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences 9(2): 2281047.

Amsalu

Alebachew

(2009) Assessment of climate change-induced hazards, impacts, and responses in the Southern lowlands of Ethiopia. Technical Report, FSS Research report no. 4. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Forum for Social Studies.

Asfaw

Pallante

Palma

(2018) Diversification strategies and adaptation deficit: evidence from rural communities in Niger. World Development 101: 219–234.

Ayeb-Karlsson

Van der Geest

Ahmed

, et al. (2016) A people-centred perspective on climate change, environmental stress, and livelihood resilience in Bangladesh. Sustainability Science 11: 679–694.

Ayele

Bekele

Zekeria

(2006) Productivity and efficiency of agricultural extension package in Ethiopia. Available at: https://eea-et.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Gezagegn-and-Mekonnen_Productivity-and-efficiency-of-Agricultural-extension-package-in-Ethiopia.pdf

Baird

Hartter

(2017) Livelihood diversification, mobile phones and information diversity in Northern Tanzania. Land Use Policy 67: 460–447.

Barrett

Reardon

Webb

(2001) Non-farm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa. Concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy 26(4): 315–331.

10.

Barrett

Reardon

(eds) (2000) Agro-industrialization, globalization, and international development. Agricultural Economics 23(3): 18–27.

11.

Benjamin

(1994) The growing importance of diversification activities for French farm households. Journal of Rural Studies 10(4): 331–342.

12.

Bercht

(2019) Sleepwalking into disaster? Understanding coping in the broader field of mental barriers. Examples from the Norwegian Arctic in the face of climate change. In: Kendra

Knowles

Wachtendorf

(eds) Disaster Research and the Second Environmental Crisis: Assessing the Challenges Ahead. Cham: Springer, pp.137–160.

13.

Bercht

(2020) Tackling climate inaction: how a social identity approach matters to climate communication (Long Version. Wissenschaftsmanagement). CASE: Research Communication and Social Behaviour. Available at: https://www.wissenschaftsmanagement.de/dateien/downloads-open-access/wima_open_access_bercht_2020_0.pdf

14.

Berry

(1989) Coping with Confusion: African Farmers’ Responses to Economic Instability in the 1970s and 1980s. Boston, MA: African Studies Centre, Boston University.

15.

Bhaskar

(2008) A Realist Theory of Science (with a New Introduction). London: Routledge.

16.

Bird

Shepherd

(2003) Livelihoods and chronic poverty in semi-arid Zimbabwe. World Development 31(3): 591–610.

17.

Bryceson

(1999) African rural labour, income diversification and livelihoods approaches a long-term development perspective. Review of African Political Economy 26(80): 171–189.

18.

Bryceson

(1996) Deagrarianization and rural employment in Sub-Saharan Africa: a sectoral perspective. World Development 24(1): 97–111.

19.

Bryceson

(2002) The scramble in Africa: reorienting rural livelihoods. World Development 30(5): 725–739.

20.

Carney

(ed.) (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? London: DFID.

21.

Chambers

(1997a) Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

22.

Chambers

(1997b) Editorial: responsible well-being – a personal agenda for development. World Development 25(11): 1743–1754.

23.

Chambers

Conway

(1992) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper no. 296. Brighton: IDS.

24.

Chimhowu

Woodhouse

(2008) Communal tenure and rural poverty: land transactions in Svosve Communal Area, Zimbabwe. Development and Change 39(2): 285–308.

25.

Chingarande

Mugano

Chagwiza

, et al. (2020) Zimbabwe Market Study: Matabeleland North Province Report. Washington, DC: Research Technical Assistance Center.

26.

Chinokwetu

Togo

(2023) Climate change impacts on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Buhera District, Zimbabwe. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development 16(10): 41–54. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4687072

27.

Chirau

Nkambule

Mupambwa

(2014) Rural livelihoods in Zimbabwe: heterogeneity, diversification and vulnerability. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies 5(1): 5–15.

28.

Cousins

(2010) What is a ‘smallholder’? Class-analytic perspectives on small-scale farming and agrarian reform in South Africa. Working Paper no.16. Cape Town, South Africa: University of the Western Cape.

29.

Dabin

(1980) Phosphorus deficiency in tropical soils as a constraint on agricultural output. In: Drosdoff

Zandstra

Rockwood

(eds) Priorities for Alleviating Soil-Related Constraints in the Tropics. Los Banos, CA; Laguna, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute, pp.217–232.

30.

Davies

(1993) Versatile Livelihoods: Strategic Adaptation to Food Insecurity in the Malian Sahel. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

31.

Department for International Development (DFID) (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods and Poverty Elimination. London: DFID.

32.

Dercon

Krishnan

(1996) Income portfolios in rural Ethiopia and Tanzania: choices and constraints. The Journal of Development Studies 32(6): 850–875.

33.

Devereux

(1993) Theories of Famine. New York; London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

34.

Digal

Singh

(2023) Study on human wildlife conflict and its impact on the livelihood of rural communities of Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Advanced Zoology 44(Suppl. 5): 2371–2384.

35.

Dudal

(1980) Soil-related constraints to agricultural development in the tropics. In: Drosdoff

Zandstra

Rockwood

(eds) Priorities for Alleviating Soil-Related Constraints in the Tropics. Los Banos, CA; Laguna, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute, pp.41–54.

36.

Ellis

(1998) Survey article: household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. The Journal of Development Studies 35(1): 1–38.

37.

Ellis

(2000) Rural Livelihood Diversity in Developing Countries: Analysis, Policy, Methods. Oxford: OUP.

38.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1983) Guidelines: Land Evaluation for Rain Fed Agriculture. Rome: FAO.

39.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2006) Inter-Agency Experiences and Lessons: From the Forum on Operationalising Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches. Rome: FAO.

40.

Hussein

Nelson

(1998) Sustainable livelihood and livelihood diversification. IDS Working Paper, No. 69. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

41.

Gandiwa

(2013) The numbers game in wildlife conservancies: changeability and framing of large mammal numbers in Zimbabwe. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen.

42.

Gebru

Ichoku

Phil-Eze

(2018) Determinants of livelihood diversification strategies in Eastern Tigray Region of Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security 7: 62.

43.

Haile

Tolossa

Girma

(2024) The contribution of livelihood diversification and livelihood capitals to food security in the Waata community of Ethiopia.

44.

Hammar

Raftopoulos

Jensen

(2003) Zimbabwe’s Unfinished Business. Harare, Zimbabwe: Weaver Press.

45.

Handley

Higgins

Sharma Bird

, et al. (2009) Poverty and Poverty Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Overview of the Issues. London: Overseas Development Institute.

46.

IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.

47.

Islam

(2018) Climate change, natural disasters and socioeconomic livelihood vulnerabilities: migration decision among the char land people in Bangladesh. Social Indicators Research 136: 575–593.

48.

Johannes

Moyo

Abiodun

(2017) Assessing communal farmers’ preparedness to drought in the Umguza District, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 22: 194–203.

49.

Kanza

Vitale

(2015) Agriculture in developing countries and the role of government: Economic perspectives. In: Selected paper prepared for presentation at the 2015 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 26–28 July. Available at: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205362 (accessed 28 March 2024).

50.

Khatun

Roy

(2012) Rural livelihood diversification in West Bengal: determinants and constraints. Agricultural Economics Research Review 25(1): 115–124.

51.

Kinsey

(2002) Survival or growth? Temporal dimensions of rural livelihoods in risky environments. Journal of Southern African Studies 28(3): 615–629.

52.

Ladan

(2014) Examining human-wildlife conflict in Africa. In: International conference on biological, civil and environmental engineering, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 17–18 March, pp.102–105. Luxembourg: BCEE.

53.

Loison

(2015) Rural livelihood diversification in Sub-Saharan Africa: a literature review. The Journal of Development Studies 51: 1125–1138.

54.

Majola

Angotti

Denardo

, et al. (2022) The end of AIDS? HIV and the new landscape of illness in rural South Africa. Global Public Health 17(1): 13–25.

55.

Malley

Gorenflo

(2023) Shifts in the conflict-coexistence continuum: exploring social-ecological determinants of human-elephants interactions. PLoS ONE 18(3): e0274155.

56.

Mallick

(2019) The Nexus between socio-ecological system, livelihood resilience, and migration decisions: empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Sustainability 11: 3332–3390.

57.

Maphosa

(2009) Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe: Impact of Remittances from South Africa. Dakar, Senegal: Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa.

58.

Marshall

(1996) The key informant technique. Family Practice 13(1): 92–97.

59.

Matondi

(2011) Livelihoods Diversity Study in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: Study Commissioned by Oxfam.

60.

Mazwi

Chemura

Mudimu

, et al. (2019) Political economy of command agriculture in Zimbabwe: a state-led contract farming model. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 8(1–2): 232–257.

61.

Mbereko

(2010) University of Zimbabwe Lake Kariba Research Station. Available at: https://www.uz.ac.zw/index.php/2013-07-09-08-51-40/ulkrs/190-sci/dept-sci/biology/480-dr-tamuka-nhiwatiwa (accessed 4 March 2024).

62.

Mbereko

Scott

Venganai

(2019) Experiences of different household structures’ caring for people living with HIV and AIDS in the antiretroviral era: a case study of Nyamakate rural area in Zimbabwe. Cogent Social Sciences 5: 1565075.

63.

McMichael

(2012) Depeasantization. In: Ritzer

(ed.) The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 681–701.

64.

Mehta

Vaidya

Sharma

(2022) Constraints to livelihood diversification among rural households in Himachal Pradesh. Agro Economist – An International Journal 9(4): 279–285.

65.

Mengistu

(2022) Rural livelihood vulnerabilities, contributing factors and coping strategies in Takusa Woreda, North Western Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences 8(1): 2095746.

66.

Mengistu

Belda

(2024) The role of livelihood diversification strategies in the total household income in Takusa Woreda, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences 10(1): 2306033.

67.

Mhuriro-Mashapa

Mkwakiwa

Mashapa

(2017) Determinants of communal farmer’s willingness to pay for human-wildlife conflict management in the periphery of Save Valley Conservancy, South-Eastern, Zimbabwe. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 27(5): 1678–1688.

68.

Mohammed

Batung

Kansanga

, et al. (2021) Livelihood diversification strategies and resilience to climate change in semi-arid northern Ghana. Climatic Change 164(3–4): 53.

69.

Mutsvangwa-Sammie

(2020) Impact narratives of agricultural innovations and their implication on rural livelihoods in south west Zimbabwe. Outlook on Agriculture 49(4): 330–339.

70.

Ndlovu

Prinsloo

le Roux

(2020) Impact of climate change and variability on traditional farming systems: farmers’ perceptions from south-west, semi-arid Zimbabwe. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 12(1): 742.

71.

Nuvey

Haydon

Hattendorf

(2023) Relationship between animal health and livestock farmers’ wellbeing in Ghana: beyond zoonoses. BMC Public Health 23: 1353.

72.

Nyathi

Ndlovu

(2022) Livelihood diversification and household food security in selected agrarian settings of Western Zimbabwe. In: Leal Filho

Kovaleva

Popkova

(eds) Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security (World Sustainability Series). Cham: Springer, pp.349–359.

73.

Nyathi

Beremauro

Takavarasha

, et al. (2018) Diversification and farm household welfare in grasslands ‘A’ farm, Kwekwe District, Zimbabwe. Journal of Human Ecology 62: 52–62.

74.

Nyathi

Joram Ndlovu

Dube

, et al. (2023) The vulnerability of small-scale fisheries-based livelihoods to climatic and non-climatic stressors in Kani Ward, Binga, Zimbabwe. Available at: https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/the-vulnerability-of-small-scale-fisheries-based-livelihoods-to-/25435844

75.

Nyathi

Ndlovu

Mare

, et al. (2024) Women’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change in Agrarian settings of Zimbabwe. In: Mukhopadhyay

Bhattacharya

Chouhan

, et al. (eds) Climate Crisis, Social Responses and Sustainability (Climate Change Management). Cham: Springer, pp.541–559.

76.

Painter

Sumberg

Price

(1994) Your terroir and my ‘action space’: implications of differentiation, mobility and diversification for the approach terroir in Sahelian West Africa. Africa 64(4): 447–464.

77.

Pavithra

Kamal

(2013) Role of non-farm sector in sustaining rural livelihoods in Punjab. Agricultural Economics Research Review 26(2): 257–265.

78.

Roy

Basu

(2020) Determinants of livelihood diversification under environmental change in coastal community of Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2): 7–26.

79.

Salam

Bauer

(2022) Rural non-farm economy and livelihood diversification strategies: evidence from Bangladesh. Geo Journal 87(2): 477–489.

80.

Sarker

Oian

Min

Shouse

(2019) Vulnerability and livelihoods resilience in the face of natural disaster: a critical conceptual review. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 17(6): 12769–12785.

81.

Scoones

(1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper no. 72. Brighton: IDS.

82.

Sen

(1997) From income inequality to economic inequality. Southern Economic Journal 64(2): 384–401.

83.

Serrat

(2017) The sustainable livelihoods approach. In: Serrat

(ed.) Knowledge Solutions. Singapore: Springer, pp.21–26.

84.

Sherifa

(2022) Livelihood diversification strategies and livelihood outcome of rural household in Ethiopia: a reviewed paper. International Journal of African and Asian Studies 10: 64–82.

85.

Smith

(2001) Access to Rural Non-Farm Livelihoods in Uganda. Kent: Natural Resources Institute.

86.

Svodziwa

(2018) Rural Diversification Strategies in Promoting Structural Transformation in Zimbabwe. Human and Social Studies 7(2): 123–138.

87.

Tambo

(2013) The Potential of Using Visual Problem Appraisal as a Trigger for Conflict Transformation; A Case of Matabeleland South, Zimbabwe. Wageningen: Van Hallarenstein University of Applied Sciences.

88.

Thebe

(2011) The politics of hunger: resettled households and future commercial agriculture in Post 2000 Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 13(2): 309–332.

89.

UNAIDS (2018) UNAIDS welcomes additional evidence from Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, and South Africa on progress towards the 2020 targets. Available at: https://www.fast-trackcities.org/content/unaids-welcomes-additional-evidence-cameroon-c%C3%B4te-d%E2%80%99ivoire-and-south-africa-progress-towards

90.

Wabara

(2020) Impact of livelihood diversification on rural households. Income: The case of gamo zone. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 11(23). ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper).

91.

Wong

(2008) Data analysis in qualitative research: a brief guide to using Nvivo. Malaysian Family Physician 3(1): 14–20.

92.

World Bank (2002) Achieving Development Outcomes: The Millennium Challenge. Washington, DC: World Bank.

93.

World Bank (2018) The World Bank Annual Report 2018 (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/630671538158537244/The-World-BankAnnual-Report-2018.

94.

Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (2012) Zimbabwe 2012 Census: Provincial Report Matabeleland North. Harare, Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency.

Motives and Constraints of Rural Livelihoods Diversification in Dry-Land Agrarian Settings of Matabeleland,Zimbabwe

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Comprehending the diversity of livelihoods: a conceptual note

Motives and constraints of rural livelihoods diversification

Study setting, methods and materials

Results and discussion

Motives for rural household livelihoods diversification

Restrictions on diversification

Insecure land tenure and inadequate collateral

Inadequate infrastructure in rural areas

Absence of household assets

Effects of HIV and AIDS

Insufficient education and training

Social and family constraints

Diseases that affect animals and wildlife

The government and agricultural household development model

Conclusion and recommendations

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biography

References