HURRICANE GEORGES RECOVERY PROGRAM
Monitoring and Evaluation - Haiti
South-East Consortium for International Development
SECID/Washington SECID/Haiti
1634 I Street, NW Suite 702 Delmas 31, 27
Washington, DC 20006 Port-au-Prince, Haiti
tel. 202.628.4551 tel. 509.246.0786
Baseline with Geographic Zone Tables
Report no. 1
This document was prepared under USAID Contract No. 521-C-00-99-00069-00. The views expressed
herein are the views of the author and not necessarily the views of the U.S. Agency for International
Development.
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SECID would like to thank the USAID/HGRP team who showed a great amount of
interest in the preparation and execution of this baseline study. In particular, SECID
would like to thank Robert “Beto” Brunn who assisted us with all phases of the study,
Nina Minka, for her significant support and Harry François, for his technical assistance.
SECID would also like to recognize the participation of Dan O’Neil (PADF HGRP
Director) in the preparation of this study.
NOTE : This document is a translation of the original baseline study report that was
produced in French. The French version should be considered the “official” document.
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is the first of a series of studies aimed at evaluating the impacts of the Hurricane
Georges Recovery Program (HGRP). Three phases have been identified: 1) Establishment of a
baseline for measuring the initial level of indicators (1999 reference year) ; 2) A 1
st Impact
Survey plannned for November-December 2000; 3) A Final Impact Survey at the completion of
the HGRP. This baseline study constitutes the first phase and establishes the baseline indicators
for measuring the impacts of HGRP interventions.
The study area covers the southern section of the South East Department; from Bainet to Anse à
Pître and the irrigated plain of Thomazeau. The surveys are geared toward the household level.
Households within distinct agro-ecological zones will be analyzed. A random sample of 1,079
households was investigated during the baseline: 471 in hillside zones, 146 in non-irrigated plains
and 462 in irrigated plains.
Initial levels of the following principal indicators were measured:
Indicator 1 : Average Household Revenue
The average yearly household revenue was 13,761.8 gourdes (688 US$). The range of values
associated with this average revenue figure, as defined by the confidence intervals, were between
12,267 and 15,256 gourdes. The high standard deviation explains the large dispersion of average
revenue. This revenue was due mainly to non-agricultural activities (44.9%) and crop production
(33.5%). When taking into account the entire sample, households headed by women earned about
half the revenue (7,633 Gourdes) of those headed by men (15,096 Gourdes). When considering
revenue generation by gender within each household sampled (independent from the gender of
each head of household), women and their dependents earned about 30% of the revenue and men
and their dependents about 70%.
Indicator 2 : Percentage of Households utilizing ORE/PADF Improved Seeds.
The provision of ORE/PADF improved seeds had not been initiated at the time of the baseline
study. Nevertheless, 1.2% of the households investigated claimed to have utilized ORE/PADF
improved seeds.
Indicator 3 : Percentage of Households Trained in Disaster Managementon Techniques
About 5% of households headed by both men and women were aware of the disaster
preparedness committees, the disaster preparedness plans and their contents. These households
are located mostly on the Cayes-Jacmel coast where PADF has had a longstanding presence.
Indicator 4 : Percentage of Resilient Households.
Resilience cannot be measured by the baseline survey alone. It is necessary also to consult the
progress reports of the different partner organizations.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND 4
OBJECTIVES 4
PROJECT DESIGN 4
METHODOLOGY 5
PRINCIPAL RESULTS 8
SUMMARY INDICATOR TABLES 9
INDICATOR 1 : AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD REVENUE 11
INDICATOR 2: % OF HOUSEHOLDS UTILISING ORE/PADF SEEDS 16
INDICATOR 3 : DISASTER PREPAREDNESS 17
INDICATOR 4 : % OF RESILIENT HOUSEHOLDS 22
ANNEXES 24
5
BACKGROUND
Hurricane Georges struck Haiti in September 1998 and severly damaged the agricultural
infrastructure in many parts of the country. Many irrigation systems were either partially
or totally destroyed. This severely affected the agricultural economy in the zones
concerned. In order to help alleviate the situation, USAID designed and is implementing
the HGRP. Among the main objectives of the program are the rehabilitation of drainage
basins and small irrigation perimeters damaged by the hurricane. HGRP interventions
will be implemented by several partner organizations including PADF, CECI, Plan
International, and CRS. HGRP monitoring and evaluation will be carried out by SECID.
Working closely with both USAID and PADF, SECID will complete a baseline and two
subsequent surveys to measure HGRP impacts.
OBJECTIVES
The first survey will provide a baseline of reference data. This data will, first of all, serve
as a baseline for measuring the changes in household revenue before and after HGRP
interventions in the field. The second objective is to determine the level of utilization and
impact of improved seeds that will be distributed by ORE to project participants. The
third objective is to evaluate information provided to households on disaster preparedness
and mitigation.
PROJECT DESIGN
Three phases were developed in order to analyze the impacts of HGRP interventions:
1) The establishment of a baseline. A baseline survey was conducted in May 2000 at
potential HGRP sites with the goal of measuring the initial levels of reference
indicators. Since 1999 was the reference year, the baseline was focused on
indicator levels for this year. The potential HGRP intervention area was broken
down into agro-ecological zones and each intervention site was stratified
according to preestablished criteria. A total of 1,079 households located in the
different agro-ecological zones were surveyed during the baseline.
2) A 1st Impact Survey in November-December 2000. This impact study will reflect
the level of indicators for the year 2000. Comparison with the baseline year
(1999) will allow the progress of HGRP interventions to be measured. A total of
1,000 households located in the different agro-ecological zones will again be
surveyed during this second phase. The sample households not affected by HGRP
interventions will serve as the “control group”. The results will be presented by
agro-ecological zone.
6
3) A second impact study in November-December 2001. This study will focus, like
the two preceeding studies, on a randomly selected sample of 1,000 households
and measure indicator levels for the year 2001. Households not affected by HGRP
interventions will serve again as the “control group”. The results will be presented
by agro-ecological zone. The progression of indicators will be determined by
comparison with the baseline year (1999).
The table below summarizes the different phases of data collection.
Table 1 : Different Phases of Data Collection (based on USAID’s proposal)
Period May 2000 Nov-Dec 2000 Nov-Dec 2001 Total
Households
May 2000
Baseline in the
South East,
from Bainet to
Anse-à-Pitre
and Thomazeau,
grouped by
agro-ecological
zone (1999
reference year)
1,000
households
Nov-Dec 2000
1
st Impact
Survey (2000
reference year)
1,000
households
Nov-Dec 2001
Final Impact
Survey (2001
reference year)
1,000
households
METHODOLOGY
This section provides a summary of the principal methodological steps that were used in
conducting the survey.
The study area covers the southern portion of the South East Department ; from Bainet to
Anse-à-Pître, and the Thomazeau plain. The plan was to administer 500 surveys in the
Bainet/Jacmel/Cayes-Jacmel intervention area, 200 in the Marigot/Belle-Anse/Anse-à￾Pître intervention area and 300 in the Thomazeau plain.
The study focusses on the household as the pertinent unit of analysis. The household is
defined here as “a unit of production and consumption, where the person in charge (head
of household) and other members share the same roof and take meals together”. 1,079
rural households were surveyed during the baseline study.
7
The households were analysed by agro-ecological zone. This agro-ecological
stratification approach diminished sample bias and reduced the variability between
households. Three zones were pre-established according to topographical and irrigated
water availability criteria: hillside, non-irrigated plain, and irrigated plain. The
households surveyed were divided as follows: 471 in the hillside zone, 146 in the non￾irrigated plain zone and 462 in the irrigated plain zone (43.6%, 13.5% and 42.9%,
respectively). Table 1 shows the distribution of the sample households by agro-ecological
zone. During the data analysis phase, the sample households were classified by head of
household gender. These results are shown in table 2. Following a random sampling
method, 17.9% of households headed by women and 82.1% of households headed by
men were surveyed.
Table 1: Household Sample Distribution by Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain
Locality No. of
households
Locality No. of
households
Locality No. of
households
Cajeun 35 Raymond 37 Tavette 36
Lapierre 38 Mambo 36 Demontreuil 36
Capaul 35 Banane 38 L’Hermitage mandais 35
Bas Petavie 37 Mapou 35 La Hatte 35
Laporte 35 Cachiman 36
Terre Rouge 38 Source Sable 36
Casque Carre 38 Sire 36
La vacherie 36 Joanau 36
Bassin Bleu 37 Chapotin 36
La Revoie 35 Carrefour Joanau 35
Gabriel 36 Despuzeau 36
Corail Lamothe 36 Boen 35
Macary (Dessira) 35 Balan 35
Totals 471 146 462
Grand Total 1,079
Table 2: Heads of Households by Gender and Agro-Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain
Totals
Gender
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Male 373 79.2 115 78.8 398 86.2 886 82.1
Female 98 20.8 31 21.2 64 13.8 193 17.9
Totals 471 100.0 146 100.0 462 100.0 1,079 100.0
The methodological approach consists of the following steps:
1.- Bibliographical Research: This step consists of consulting available
documents on the relevant study areas and adjacent localities.
8
2.- Field Reconnaissance and Exploratory Survey: This step permits
verification of the pertinence and currentness of the information consulted
during the bibliographical search.
3.- Stratification of Interventions: The objective of stratifying project
interventions is to classify the study area into homogenous zones allowing a
more coherent analysis of the study parameters (revenue in particular). After
defining the three agro-ecological zones, each locality was assigned to one of
them.
4.- Locality Sampling : An average of 35 households were surveyed in each
locality - 28 localities distributed among the three agro-ecological zones were
selected - 14 in the western portion of the South East Department, 6 in the
eastern part of the South East Department and 8 in the Thomazeau plain.
These localities were randomly selected from a complete list of localities
created from administrative maps.
5.- Enumeration of Households in the Intervention Zones: In order to establish
a survey base, the enumeration (counting) of households at each randomly
selected site was carried out before the administration of the formal baseline
survey.
6.- Household Sampling: In each selected locality, an average of 35 households
were selected randomly and surveyed after the enumeration of households
during the community meetings.
The procedure was as follows:
Assigning a number to each household
 Randomly selecting 35 households in the presence of community members.
7.- Field Surveys: The field surveys were carried out in two phases:
A preliminary contact meeting
 The collection of information from rural households
8.- Data Entry: Data collected in the field was coded and entered into SPSS
software.
9
PRINCIPAL RESULTS
10
SUMMARY INDICATOR TABLES
The following indicator tables summarize the results of the baseline survey. Detailed
analysis of these tables is found later in this report.
Table A : Total Average Revenue in GOURDES and the (US $ equivalent)1
according to Head of Household Gender and Agro-Ecological Zone
Head of Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Household
Gender
Average2
revenue
Gdes
No. of
house
holds
Average
revenue
Gdes
No. of
house
holds
Average
revenue
Gdes
No. of
house
holds
Average
revenue
Gdes
No. of
House
Holds
Women 5,971.0
(298.6US$)
98 11,596.4
(579.8US$)
31 8,259.4
(413.0US$)
64 7,633.4
(381.7US$)
193
Men 14,199.4
(710.0US$)
373 21,495.6
(1,074.8US$)
115 14,088.9
(704.4US$)
398 15,096.8
(754.8US$)
886
Total average
revenue
12,487.3
(624.4US$)
471 19,393.7
(969.7US$)
146 13,281.4
(664.1US$)
462 13,761.8
(688.1US$)
1,079
Confidence Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
interval - 5%
significance
level
10,248.1
(512.4US$)
14,726.5
(736.3US$)
12,884.5
(644.2US$)
25,902.9
(1,295.1US$)
11,644.2
(582.2US$)
15,399
(770.0US$)
12,267.4
(613.4US$)
15,256.2
(762.8US$)
Table B: Percentage of Households utilizing ORE/PADF Improved Seeds in their
Fields
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Utilizing
ORE/PADF3
Improved
Seeds
% of
house
holds
No.
surveyed
% of
house
holds
No.
surveyed
% of
house
holds
No.
surveyed
% of
house
holds
No.
surveyed
Women 0% 98 0% 31 1.9% 64 .7% 193
Men 3.1% 373 0% 115 0% 398 1.4% 886
Total 2.5% 471 0 146 .3% 462 1.3% 1,079
 
1
 The exchange rate at the time of the survey was 1 US $ = 20 gourdes
2
 In the tables, total average revenue is calculated as follows: for example, 12,487.3=(5,971.0*98 +
14,199.4*373)/471.
3
 There was confusion among the households between the HGRP and PADF-PLUS. The seeds received
came from PADF-PLUS.
11
Table C : Household Comprehension of Risk Management and Disaster
Preparedness and Mitigation by Agro-Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total4
Household
Comprehension of
Risk Management
and Disaster
Preparedness and
Mitigation
% % % % % % % % %
1-Knowledge of the
existence of a disaster
committee
6.1% 7.8% 3.2% 4.3% 0% 2.0% 3.6% 4.8% 4.5%
2-Knowledge of the
existence of a disaster
preparedness plan
1.0% .8% 0% .9% 0% 0% .5% .5% .5%
3-Knowledge of the
contents of the disaster
preparedness plan
0% .6% 0% 1.7% 0% 0% 0% .5% .4%
Households meeting at
least one of the conditions
above
6.1% 8.2% 3.3% 4.3% 0% 2.0% 3.6% 4.9% 4.7%
Both genders meeting
conditions 1&2&3 above
7.8% 4.1% 1.7% 4.7%
No. of households
surveyed
98 373 31 115 64 398 193 886 1,079
 
4
 The weighted average taking into account the size of households headed by men and women.
12
Indicator 1 : Average Household Revenue
1.1. Total Average Revenue
When including all the households and taking into account the proportion of households
by agro-ecological zone in the sample, the average annual revenue is 13,761.8 gourdes
(688 US$). The range of values consistent with this average revenue figure, taking into
account the confidence intervals, are between 12,267 and 15,256 gourdes. The high
standard deviation results in a large dispersion of average revenue values. This revenue
comes mainly from non-agricultural activities (44.9%) and crop production (33.5%). See
table # 3.
The analysis by agro-ecological zone shows an appreciable difference in average revenue
among them - 12,487.3 gourdes in the hillside zone, 19,393.7 gourdes in the non-irrigated
plain zone and 13,761.8 gourdes in the irrigated plain zone. The high level of average
revenue in the non-irrigated plain zone can be attributed to non-agricultural activities.
The majority of households surveyed in this zone were located near main roads and the
town of Jacmel – a major commercial center. Households in the non-irrigated plain zone
benefit from opportunities in the area, particularly from commercial activities. In
addition, most of the households in this zone were located close to the sea creating
revenue opportunities from fishing.
However, when considering revenue obtained just from crop production, the irrigated
plain zone appears to be the most interesting. Average revenue acquired exclusively
through agricultural production was highest in the irrigated plain zone – 5,432 gourdes
compared with 4,183 gourdes in the hillside zone and 3,452 gourdes in the non-irrigated
plain zone.
The standard deviation, however, was very high and accounted for a large deviation in
relation to the averages and a large variability of average revenues. This indice enabled
us to carry out the test of homogeneity with the goal of confirming or invalidating if the
perceived difference of average revenues between the agro-ecological zones was
significant. The test of homogeneity showed that average revenues by agro-ecological
zone were identical.
With a significance level of 5%, the acceptance region of the Hypothesis H0 of
homogeneity for average revenue was located on a normal curve reduced by the interval
[-1.96 ; +1.96]. The corresponding z value between the hillside and non-irrigated plain
zones was (-1.90), between the hillside and irrigated plain zones (-0.46), and between the
non-irrigated and irrigated plain zones (1.78). Since these three values fell within the
acceptance region of the hypothesis for homogeneity, with a significance level of 5%,
the average revenues by agro-ecological zone were not significantly different5
. This result
is corroborated by the confidence intervals of the different zones that contain
 
5
 Refer to the annex for details on the test for homogeneity.
13
considerable portions of communes in all the zones [12884.5; 14726.5] representing 62%
of the amplitude of confidence intervals from the total sample [12267.4; 15256.2].
Table 3 : Total Average Household Revenue by Agro-Ecological Zone
Revenue Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Source Average
Gdes
Percentage
of revenue
by activity
type
Average
Gdes
Percentage
of revenue
by activity
type
Average
Gdes
Percentage
of revenue
by activity
type
Average
Gdes
Percentage
of revenue
by activity
type
Crop
production
4,183.25
(209.2US$)
33.5 3,452.08
(172.6US$)
17.8 5,432.19
(271.6US$)
40.9 4,610.20
(230.5US$)
33.5
Fruits 1,223.75
(61.2US$)
9.8 1,396.35
(69.8US$)
7.2 610.94
(30.5US$)
4.6 977.09
(48.9US$)
7.1
Non￾agricultural
activities
5,594.31
(279.7US)
44.8 12,082.27
(604.1US$)
62.3 4,914.12
(245.7US$)
37.0 6,179.05
(309.0US$)
44.9
Sale of
animals
1,086.40
(54.3US$)
8.7 2,094.52
(104.7US$)
10.8 1,832.83
(91.6US$)
13.8 1,555.08
(77.8US$)
11.3
Animal
products
124.87
(6.2US$)
1.0 77.57
(3.9US$)
0.4 159.38
(8.0US$)
1.2 137.62
(6.9US$)
1.0
Land use
fees
274.72
(13.7US$)
2.2 290.90
(14.5US$)
1.5 332.34
(16.6US$)
2.5 302.76
(15.1US$)
2.2
Total
average
revenue
12,487.3
(624.4US$)
100 19,393.7
(969.7US$)
100 13,281.4
(664.1US$)
100 13,761.8
(688.1US$)
100
Standard
Deviation
24,790.9 40,117.6 17,950.9 25,046.8
Limit Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Confidence
Interval - 5%
Significance
Level
10,248.1
(512.4US$)
14,726.5
(736.3US$)
12,884.5
(644.2US$)
25,902.9
(1,295.1US$)
11,644.2
(582.2US$)
15,399
(770.0US$)
12,267.4
(613.4US$)
15,256.2
(762.8US$)
14
1.2. Composition of Average Revenue
After taking into account the weightings of different revenue sources (Table 3) when
looking at all the zones combined, crop production and non-agricultural activities
constitute the two principal sources of revenue (33.5% and 44.9% respectively) in the
make up of total average revenue. At the agricultural production level, three crops
(bananas - 30.7%, beans - 16.6%, corn - 10.6% and legumes - 14.7%) provide most of
this revenue. Sorghum (7.7%) and sugar cane (7.2%) also provide significant revenue
from crop production. Other crops can be considered to be residual.
Concerning non-agricultural revenue, commerce (35%), trades (12.9%) and fishing
(11.3%) represent the main components.
Analysis of each agro-ecological zone shows similar results. The importance of non￾agricultural activities (commerce in particular) in the non-irrigated plain zone has already
been noted.
1.3. Average Revenue by Head of Household Gender
In general, households headed by women generate less revenue than those headed by
men. Taking into account all the households sampled, a household headed by a woman
earns about half the revenue (7,633 gourdes) of those headed by men (15,096 gourdes)
See Table 4. This revenue difference can be explained by the following:
· Households headed by women have less land than households headed by men
(approximately 50% less) which results in less agricultural revenue.
· Female heads of households are often older and more likely to be widows or
abandoned by their spouses. There are also many young, single women who head
households who do not have the same opportunities or potential for finding work
as male heads of households.
· Female heads of households are excluded from certain jobs which are reserved
exclusively for men like fishing, charcoal production and certain trades.
An analysis by agro-ecological zone shows similar results. However, it is worth noting
that the difference in revenue between households headed by females and households
headed by males is more pronounced in the hillside zone. In the two plain zones, this
difference is less because of the predominance of commerce activities that represent the
principal source of revenue for households headed by females.
15
Table 4 : Total Average Revenue by Head of Household Gender and Agro￾Ecological Zone
Revenue Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Source Average6
revenue
Gdes
No. of
house
holds
Average
revenue
Gdes
No. of
house
holds
Average
revenue
Gdes
No. of
house
holds
Average
revenue
Gdes
No. of
house
holds
Female 5,971.0
(298.6US$)
98 11,596.4
(579.8US$)
31 8,259.4
(413.0US$)
64 7,633.4
(381.7US$)
193
Male 14,199.4
(710.0US$)
373 21,495.6
(1,074.8US$)
115 14,088.9
(704.4US$)
398 15,096.8
(754.8US$)
886
Total
average
revenue
12,487.3
(624.4US$)
471 19,393.7
(969.7US$)
146 13,281.4
(664.1US$)
462 13,761.8
(688.1US$)
1,079
1.4. Revenue Generation by Gender within the Household
In households managed by both men or women, there is a portion of revenue that is
generated by the man and his dependents; and another portion brought in by the woman
and her dependents. Table 5 presents the proportion (percentage) of revenue generation
by gender. Women and their dependents bring in about 30% of household revenue
and men and their dependents about 70%. These proportions are applicable to all the
agro-ecological zones (see table 5). It should be noted that most of the revenue generated
by women comes from non-agricultural activities (commerce in particular).
Table 5 : Revenue Generation by Gender within the Household
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Revenue Source Irrigated Plain Totals
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
Crop production 8.9% 91.1% 5.5% 94.5% 7.2% 92.8% 7.7% 92.3%
Fruits 40.4% 59.6% 21.8% 78.2% 23.3% 76.7% 32.3% 67.7%
Non-agricultural
activities
45.4% 54.6% 40.0 60.0 56.5% 43.5% 47.7% 52.3%
Sale of animals 14.7% 85.3% 4.6% 95.4% 8.5% 91.5% 9.7% 90.3%
Animal products 37.6% 62.4% 35.0% 65.0% 14.7% 85.3% 24.7% 75.3%
Land use fees 14.8% 85.2% 11.8% 88.2% 34.5 65.5 25.0% 75.0%
% of average revenue 29.6% 70.4% 28.4% 71.6% 26.9% 73.1% 28.2% 71.8%
No. of households
surveyed
98 373 31 115 64 398 193 886
 
6
 In the tables, total average revenue is calculated as follows: for example, 12,487.3=(5,971.0*98 +
14,199.4*373)/471.
16
1.5. Average Revenue Distribution by Gender
In order to better understand the dispersion and disparity of revenue according to head of
household gender, Table 6 divides households by head of household gender and agro￾ecological zone. The table shows that 13.0% of female-led households and 3.7% of
households led by men earn less than 1,000 gourdes annually. When taking into account
the total cumulative sample, 60% of households headed by women and 32% of
households headed by men earn less than 5,000 gourdes of annual revenue. Also, 80% of
female-headed households and 57% of male-headed households earn less than 10,000
gourdes annually. This confirms that households managed by women are less well-off
than those led by men. In addition, Table 6 shows that the distribution of average revenue
for female-headed households is concentrated below the average when compared with
male-led households that are symetrically clustered around the average.
Table 6 : Total Average Revenue Levels by Gender and Agro-Ecological Zone
Revenue Level Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Total Sample
Gourdes Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
% % % % % % % %
Less than 1000 15.3% 4.6% 12.9% 2.6% 9.4% 3.3% 13.0% 3.7%
1000-3000 32.7% 16.6% 35.5% 14.8% 26.6% 14.6% 31.1% 15.5%
3000-5000 16.3% 13.4% 9.7% 9.6% 15.6% 15.3% 15.0% 13.8%
5000-10,000 19.4% 25.5% 12.9% 18.3% 21.9% 26.4% 19.2% 24.9%
10,000-20,000 8.2% 19.8% 16.1% 24.3% 14.1% 22.4% 11.4% 21.6%
20,000-50,000 8.2% 16.6% 9.7% 22.6% 10.9% 13.6% 9.3% 16.0%
50,000 and
greater
3.5% 3.2% 7.8% 1.6% 4.5% 1.0% 4.5%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
No. of
households
surveyed
98 373 31 115 64 398 193 886
17
Indicator 2 : Percentage of Households Utilizing ORE/PADF Improved
Seeds
The provision of improved seeds to households had not been initiated at the time of the
baseline survey. Nevertheless, a baseline was established in order to be able to measure
progress in subsequent surveys. 98.8% of households said that they have not yet utilized
ORE/PADF improved seeds. About 70% of the households surveyed had not yet heard of
these seeds and the 29% that knew of the seeds said that they were not yet available.
Head of household gender did not make any difference in this case. More detailed
information on utilization of ORE/PADF improved seeds will be collected during the 1
st
Impact Survey scheduled for November 2000.
On the other hand, 1.2% of households surveyed in the South East said that they had
benefitted by PADF-PLUS improved bean and corn seeds. These seeds were mentioned
because the respondents mistakenly believed that they were provided by the HGRP.
The FAO/Ministry of Agriculture seed distribution program affected a small number of
households in the study zone. This explains why between 5% and 10% of households
reported utilizing non-ORE/PADF improved seeds (see table and annex).
Table 7: Percentage of Households Utilizing ORE/PADF Improved Seeds
Utilizing Agro-Ecological Zone
ORE/PADF
Improved
Seeds
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Totals
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total7
% % % % % % % % %
Yes 0% 3.1% 0% 0% 1.9% 0% .7% 1.4% 1.3%
No 100% 96.9% 100% 100% 98.1% 100% 99.3% 98.6% 98.7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Number of
households
surveyed
98 373 31 115 64 398 193 886 1,079
 
7
 The weighted average taking into account the size of households headed by men and women.
18
Indicator 3 : Knowledge of the Existence of a Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
Committee, a Disaster Preparedness Plan and the Contents of the Plan ( 3 responses
combined)
Table 8 is the result of aggregating the responses to these three questions:
1. Do you know of a group or committee in the locality that helps people prepare
themselves for future natural disasters?
2. Do you know of the existence of a disaster preparedness and mitigation plan in
your community?
3. Do you know the contents of this plan?
At the time the survey was administered, activities for preparing households in the case
of a disaster had not yet commenced. The mobilization for forming disaster preparedness
and mitigation comittees had only been initiated on the Cayes-Jacmel coast where the
first two projects were getting underway. The first mobilization session in Cayes-Jacmel
was held after the baseline survey had been completed. However, in selected project
intervention zones, the main organizations chosen to mobilize the communities were
sometimes identified as the disaster committees by the households in the survey. Table 8
shows the percentage of households that responded positively to at least one of the three
questions listed above. A similarly formatted table is presented in the annex for each
question. In general, the responses are closely correlated. In other words, the households
that responded positively to the first question were more likely to do the same for the
second and third questions.
Approximately 5% of households headed by both genders knew of the existence of a
committee or a disaster preparedness and mitigation plan. These households were
located mainly on the Cayes-Jacmel coast where PADF has had a long-standing presence
and where CODHA was promoting the program.
19
Table 8 : Households Informed about Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation by
Agro-Ecological Zone.
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total8
Level of Household
Knowledge
% % % % % % % % %
1-Knowledge of the
disaster preparedness
committee
6.1% 7.8% 3.2% 4.3% 0% 2.0% 3.6% 4.8% 4.5%
2-Knowledge of the
disaster preparedness plan
1.0% .8% 0% .9% 0% 0% .5% .5% .5%
3-Knowledge of the
contents of the disaster
preparedness plan
0% .6% 0% 1.7% 0% 0% 0% .5% .4%
Households meeting at
least one of the three
conditions cited above
6.1% 8.2% 3.3% 4.3% 0% 2.0% 3.6% 4.9% 4.7%
Both genders combined
meeting conditions 1&2&3
7.8% 4.1% 1.7% 4.7%
No. of households
surveyed
98 373 31 115 64 398 193 886 1,079
Knowledge of risk and disaster management will be evident by how well households are
able to prepare for future natural disasters and and their behavior during an actual
disaster. Also, it would be interesting to evaluate the capacity and attitudes of households
in preparing for disasters.
The majority of households were not informed on ways to prepare for disasters;
75% of the households surveyed believed there was nothing to do to prepare for
them. This percentage is again higher in the irrigated plain zone (85%). Most of the
households saying that they had the capacity to prepare for natural disasters believed that
soil conservation and reforestation where the best solutions.
Furthermore, in measuring the future behavior of households in the case of a new
disaster, 45% of households surveyed said that there is nothing they can do; they would
submit passively to a disaster. Households led by women would be more prone to
exposure (55% said there was nothing they could do as opposed to 43% for households
led by men). Other households (more than ½ of those surveyed) showed a little more
imagination and cited strategies that they would use in the event of future disasters. A
 
8
 The weighted average taking into account the size of households headed by men and women.
20
majority (36.9%) would flee their homes and seek refuge elsewhere. These same
households mentioned that their dwellings were too flimsy to survive a natural disaster.
On the other hand, 10% of households hoped to stay in their homes and seek shelter
under tables or beds. (see Table 11).
21
Table 9: Capacity of Households to Prepare for Natural Disasters
What You Agro-Ecological Zone
Can Do to
Prepare for
Disasters
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Total Sample
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total9
% % % % % % % % %
Nothing 69.1% 67.8% 77.1% 65.0% 85.8% 85.1% 77.5% 75.2% 75.3%
Soil
conservation/
Reforestation
27.8% 22.7% 12.9% 19.3% 7.9% 5.5% 18.8% 14.5% 15.3%
Remove trees
and branches
that could
damage the
house
2.1% 4.0% 5.3% 3.2% 3.5% 2.1% 3.9% 3.6%
Follow
instructions
heard on the
radio
1.0% 1.1% 1.6% 1.3% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Construct a
shelter to
protect against
the wind
.8% .3% .4% .4%
Put animals in
a shelter
2.7% 7.0% 2.3% 3.0% 2.5%
Avoid high￾risk areas
.8% .9% 1.0% .9% .7%
Take shelter in
a concrete
house
.3% 1.6% .5% .5% .3% .4%
Structurally
reinforce your
house
2.6% .8% .7% .6%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
No. of
households
surveyed
98 373 31 115 64 398 193 886 1,079
 
9
 The weighted average taking into account the size of households headed by men and women.
22
Table 10 : Reaction of Households in the Case of a Future Disaster
What You Agro-Ecological Zone
Can Do in the
Case of a
Disaster
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total10
% % % % % % % % %
Nothing 54.1% 53.5% 64.5% 46.5% 52.4% 32.5% 55.2% 43.1% 45.3%
Flee your
house and seek
refuge
elsewhere
28.6% 27.1% 29.0% 40.4% 31.7% 48.5% 29.7% 38.4% 36.9%
Stay at your
house and seek
shelter under a
bed or table
11.2% 9.6% 3.2% 6.1% 11.1% 11.5% 9.9% 10,0% 10.0%
Structurally
reinforce your
house
3.1% 6.7% .9% 1.3% 1.6% 3.3% 3.2%
Don’t get near
trees or water
3.1% 2.2% 6.1% 3.2% 4.3% 2.6% 3.6% 3.4%
Follow
instructions
heard on the
radio
.5% 3.2% 1.5% .5% .9% .8%
Remove a
section of the
roof to let
wind pass
through
.5% 1.6% .5% .2% .3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
No. of
households
surveyed
98 373 31 115 64 398 193 886 1,079
 
10 The weighted average taking into account the size of households headed by men and women.
23
Indicator 4 : Percentage of Resilient Communities
Resilient communities cannot be completely defined within the context of this baseline
study. They represent a group of localities that are capable of addressing the problems
caused by natural disasters. Resilience can be defined as communities having at least
20% of households satisfying indicator 2; specifically, utilization of ORE/PADF
improved seeds, or 20% of households informed on how to prepare for and mitigate
disaster risks including knowledge of the existence of a disaster preparedness and
mitigation committee, plan or the contents of this plan. These communities must also be
the beneficiary of an infrastructural or environmental project under the HGRP. It is
necessary to wait for the progress reports submitted by the different implementing
agencies before determining the level of this indicator.
24
ANNEXES
25
SUMMARY INDICATOR TABLES BY
GEOGRAPHIC ZONE
The following summary indicator tables display data by geographic zone with the goal
of testing if the averages are homogenous or statistically different.
Table A 1: Total Average Revenue in GOURDES and the (US $ Equivalent)11
according to Head of Household Gender and Geographic Zone
Jacmel/Cayes￾Jacmel/Bainet
Marigot/Bellanse/
Anse-à-Pître
Head of Thomazeau Total Sample
Household
Gender Average
Revenue
Gdes
No. of
households
Average
Revenue
Gdes
No. of
households
Average
Revenue
Gdes
No. of
households
Average
Revenue
Gdes
No. of
households
Female 6,154.8
(307.7US$)
123 11,655.4
(582.8US$)
38 8,540.2
(427.0US$)
32 7,633.4
(381.7US$)
193
Male 12,946.5
(647.3US$)
457 22,764.2
(1,138.2US$)
177 13,647.0
(682.4US$)
252 15,096.8
(754.8US$)
886
Total average
revenue
11,506.2
(575.3US$)
580 20,674.9
(1,033.7US$)
215 13,119.6
(656.0US$)
284 13,761.8
(688.1US$)
1,079
Confidence Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
interval - 5%
significance
level
9,660.9
(483.0US$)
13,351.5
(667.6US$)
15,981.7
(799.1US$)
25,368.1
(1,268.4US$)
10,936.4
(546.2US$)
15,302.8
(765.1US$)
12,267.4
(613.4US$)
15,256.2
(762.8US$)
Components for the Test of Homogeneity
1) Between Jacmel/Cayes-Jacmel/Bainet and Marigot/Bellanse/Anse-à-Pître
Z= - 3.55, falls within the acceptance zone of the alternative hypothesis. Given a
significance level of 5%, there is a significant difference between the two average
revenues.
2) Between Jacmel/Cayes-Jacmel/Bainet and Thomazeau
Z= -1.10, falls within the acceptance zone of the nulle hypothesis. Given a significance
level of 5%, there is no significant difference between the average revenues of the
Jacmel/Cayes-Jacmel/Bainet zone and the Thomazeau zone.
3) Between Marigot/Bellanse/Anse-à-Pître and Thomazeau
Z= 2.85, greater than 1.96. Given a significance level of 5%, the average revenues are
significantly different.
 
11 The exchange rate at the time of the study was 1 US $ = 20 gourdes
26
Table B1: Percentage of Households Utilizing ORE/PADF Improved Seeds in their
Fields
Geographic Zone
Jacmel/Cayes￾Jacmel/Bainet
Marigot/Bellanse/
Anse-à-Pître
Thomazeau Total Sample
Utilization
of
ORE/PADF
Improved
Seeds
% of
households
No.
surveyed
% of
households
No.
surveyed
% of
households
No.
surveyed
% of
households
No.
surveyed
Female 1.3% 123 2.5% 38 0% 32 .7% 193
Male 2.1% 457 2.30% 177 0% 252 1.4% 886
Total 1.9% 580 2.3% 215 0% 284 1.3% 1,079
Table C1 : Households Informed about Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation by
Geographic Zone.
Geographic Zone
Jacmel/Cayes￾Jacmel/Bainet
Marigot/Bellanse/
Anse-à-Pître
Thomazeau Total Sample
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total Level of Household 12
Knowledge % % % % % % % % %
1-Knowledge of the
disaster preparedness
committee
4.1% 4.6% 5.3% 11.2% 0% 0% 3.6% 4.8% 4.5%
2-Knowledge of the
disaster preparedness plan
.8% .7% 0% .6% 0% 0% .5% .5% .5%
3-Knowledge of the
contents of the disaster
preparedness plan
0% .7% 0% .6% 0% 0% 0% .5% .4%
Households meeting at
least one of the conditions
cited above
4.1% 5.0% 5.3% 11.8% 0% 0% 3.6% 4.9% 4.7%
Both genders combined
meeting conditions 1&2&3
4.8% 10.6% 0% 4.7%
No. of households
surveyed
123 457 38 177 32 252 193 886 1,079
 
12 The weighted average taking into account the size of households headed by men and women.
27
Table 1a: Total Average Household Revenue by Agro-Ecological Zone
Revenue Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Source Average Standard
Deviation
Average Standard
Deviation
Average Standard
Deviation
Average Standard
Deviation
Crop
production
4,374.5
(n=450)
9,136.3 3,727.2
(n=135)
8,881.0 5,779.7
(n=434)
13,198.5 4,887.2
(n=1,019)
11,042.1
Fruits 1,453.8
(n=395)
2,524.6 2,211.1
(n=92)
4,828.5 1,570.2
(n=179)
3,567.9 1,589.7
(n=666)
3,230.9
Non￾agricultural
activities
7,023.5
(n=376)
22,401.5 13,667.5
(n=129)
40,479.0 5,789.5
(n=392)
8,830.4 7,439.7
(n=897)
22,022.2
Sale of
animals
22,76.3
(n=224)
3,072.7 4,577.5
(n=67)
6,179.5 3,653.8
(n=232)
4,332.7 3,182.2
(n=523)
4,227.2
Animal
products
253.4
(n=232)
633.8 223.7
(n=49)
268.0 738.2
(n=105)
1,671.1 381.5
(n=386)
1,025.7
Land use fees 1,819.7
(n=71)
3,322.8 1,697.0
(n=26)
3,149.6 2,200.9
(n=69)
3,026.9 1,959.0
(n=166)
3,163.4
Total
Average
Revenue
12,487.3
(n=471)
24,790.9 19,393.7
(n=146)
40,117.6 13,281.4
(n=462)
17,950.9 13,761.8
(n=1,079)
 25,046.8
Mode 2,500 1,800 3,680 2,500
Table 2a : Number and Frequency of Households in the calculation of Total
Average Revenue
Revenue Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Source No. of
House
holds
Frequency
%
No. of
house
holds
Frequency
%
No. of
house
holds
Frequency
%
No. of
house
holds
Frequency
%
Crop
production
450 95.5 135 92.5 434 93.9 1,019 94.4
Fruits 395 83.9 92 63.0 179 38.7 666 61.7
Non￾agricultural
activities
376 79.8 129 88.4 392 84.8 897 83.1
Sale of
animals
224 47.6 67 45.9 232 50.2 523 48.5
Animal
products
232 49.3 49 33.6 105 22.7 386 35.8
Land use
fees
71 15.1 26 17.8 69 14.9 166 15.4
Total 471 100 146 100 462 100 1,079 100
28
REVENUE FROM CROP PRODUCTION
Table 3a : Total Average Agricultural Revenue (crop production) by Household
according to Agro-Ecological Zone in Gourdes
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Source of Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Agricultural
Revenue Average % Average % Average % Average %
Corn 524.94
(26.2US$)
12.0 842.34
(42.1US$)
22.6 404.57
(20.2US$)
7.0 518.04
(25.9US$)
10.6
Beans 813.66
(40.7US$)
18.6 704.44
(35.2US$)
18.9 843.84
(42.2US$)
14.6 811.28
(40.6US$)
16.6
Sorghum 188.10
(9.4US$)
4.3 287.0
(14.4US$)
7.7 595.31
(29.8US$)
10.3 376.31
(18.8US$)
7.7
Bananas 1,885.14
(94.3US$)
43.1 1,330.61
(66.5US$)
35.7 1,150.16
(57.5US$)
19.9 1,491.16
(74.6US$)
30.7
Manioc 126.86
(6.3US$)
2.9 108.08
(5.4US$)
2.9 104.03
(5.2US$)
1.8 117.29
(5.9US$)
2.4
Yams 349.96
(17.5US$)
8.0 18.64
(0.9US$)
.5 17.34
(0.9US$)
.3 166.16
(8.3US$)
3.4
Sweet
Potatoes
26.25
(1.3US$)
.6 26.09
(1.3US$)
.7 121.37
(6.1US$)
2.1 68.42
(3.4US$)
1.4
Sugar Cane 52.49
(2.6US$)
1.2 70.82
(3.5US$)
1.9 751.36
(37.6US$)
13.0 351.88
(17.6US$)
7.2
Congo Peas 139.98
(7.0US$)
3.2 93.18
(4.7US$)
2.5 57.80
(2.9US$)
1.0 97.74
(4.9US$)
2.0
Malanga 21.87
(1.1US$)
.5 3.73
(0.2US$)
.1 - - 9.77
(0.5US$)
.2
Rice - - 46.24
(2.3US$)
.8 19.54
(1.0US$)
.4
Peanuts 48.12
(2.4US$)
1.1 63.36
(3.2US$)
1.7 23.12
(1.2US$)
.4 39.10
(2.0US$)
.8
Vigna 8.75
(0.4US$)
.2 44.73
(2.2US$)
1.2 40.46
(2.0US$)
.7 29.32
(1.5US$)
.6
Pois de
souche
8.75
(0.4US$)
.2 11.18
(0.6US$)
.3 11.56
(0.6US$)
.2 7.77
(0.4US$)
.2
Legumes 113.74
(5.7US$)
2.6 7.45
(0.4US$)
.2 1,560.52
(78.0US$)
27.0 718.42
(35.9US$)
14.7
Other 70.0
(3.5US$)
1.6 115.54
(5.8US$)
3.1 46.24
(2.3US$)
.8 63.53
(3.2US$)
1.3
Average
agricultural
revenue
4,374.5
(218.7US$)
100 3,727.2
(186.4US$)
100 5,779.7
(289.0US$)
100 4,887.2
(244.4US$)
100
29
Table 4a : Total Average Agricultural Revenue (crop production) by Household
according to Agro-Ecological Zone
Source of Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Agricultural
Revenue
Average Standard
deviation
Average Standard
deviation
Average Standard
deviation
Average Standard
deviation
Corn 559.3
(n=424)
968.2 915.3
(n=124)
1,995.3 784.1
(n=225)
1,677.2 681.9
(n=773)
1,408.6
Beans 1,225.9
(n=298)
2,438.4 1,905.1
(n=50)
4,963.0 1,441.1
(n=255)
1,630.9 1,373.2
(n=603)
2,469.2
Sorghum 338.1
(n=250)
667.8 504.1
(n=77)
714.4 754.7
(n=343)
953.1 570.4
(n=670)
860.3
Bananas 4,058.4
(n=209)
7,848.9 3,902.7
(n=46)
5,972.3 8,756.2
(n=57)
17,664.0 4,893.7
(n=312)
10,290.2
Manioc 626.1
(n=90)
2,134.1 510.2
(n=29)
604.6 1,028.1
(n=45)
3,082.0 715.9
(n=164)
2,269.9
Yams 1,425.2
(n=111)
5,904.4 425.0
(n=6)
377.8 505.4
(n=13)
403.7 1,287.1
(n=130)
5,464.5
Sweet
Potatoes
195.4
(n=63)
245.4 332.5
(n=10)
319.0 529.1
(n=100)
1,114.4 396.2
(n=173)
875.8
Sugar Cane 1,618.9
(n=14)
2,920.9 782.5
(n=12)
511.8 7,414.2
(n=44)
18,598.9 5,118.3
(n=70)
15,044.5
Congo Peas 445.2
(n=142)
688.5 474.9
(n=27)
481.0 607.3
(n=42)
818.8 481.2
(n=211)
694.2
Malanga 1,952.0
(n=5)
2,346.9 750
 (n=1)
- - - 1,751.7
(n=6)
2,155.7
Rice 716.1
(n=27)
919.3 716.1
(n=27)
919.3
Peanuts 777.2
(n=28)
711.7 936.0
(n=9)
802.1 594.5
(n=15)
710.2 752.0
(n=52)
721.9
Vigna 281.9
(n=14)
270.2 438.7
(n=14)
706.8 520.8
(n=35)
960.6 449.5
(n=63)
797.0
Pois de
souche
235.9
(n=14)
259.5 216.7
(n=6)
126.2 338.5
(n=13)
275.9 272.8
(n=33)
247.7
Legumes 1,869.56
(n=27)
3,971.0 562.5
(n=2)
760.1 3,341.3
(n=203)
9,346.0 3,146.0
(n=232)
8,856.7
Others 1,741.4
(n=18)
4,558.9 1,714.1
(n=9)
3,865.3 2,477.9
(n=8)
4,233.6 1,902.7
(n=35)
4,206.9
Average
agricultural
revenue
4,374.5
(n=471)
9,136.3 3,727.2
(n=146)
8,881.0 5,779.7
(n=462)
13,198.5 4,887.2
(n=1079)
11,042.1
30
Table 5a : Number and Frequency of Households in the calculation of Average
Agricultural Revenue
Source of Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain Total Sample
revenue Number of
households
Frequency Number of
households
Frequency Number of
households
Frequency Number of
households
Frequency
Corn 424 90.0 124 84.9 225 48.7 773 71.6
Beans 298 63.3 50 34.2 255 55.2 603 55.9
Sorghum 250 53.1 77 52.7 343 74.2 670 62.1
Bananas 209 44.4 46 31.5 57 12.3 312 28.9
Manioc 90 19.1 29 19.9 45 9.7 164 15.2
Yams 111 23.6 6 4.1 13 2.8 130 12.0
Sweet
Potatoes
63 13.4 10 6.8 100 21.6 173 16.0
Sugar Cane 14 3.0 12 8.2 44 9.5 70 6.5
Congo Peas 142 30.1 27 18.5 42 9.1 211 19.6
Malanga 5 1.1 1 .7 0 0 6 .5
Rice 0 0 0 0 27 5.8 27 2.5
Peanuts 28 5.9 9 6.2 15 3.2 52 4.8
Vigna 14 3.0 14 9.6 35 7.6 63 5.8
Pois de
Souche
14 3.0 6 4.1 13 2.8 33 3.1
Legumes 27 5.7 2 1.4 203 43.9 232 21.5
Others 18 3.8 9 6.2 8 1.7 35 3.2
Total
average
revenue
471 100 146 100 462 100 1,079 100
31
REVENUE FROM NON-AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
Table 6a : Total Average Non-Agricultural Revenue by Household according to
Agro-Ecological Zone
Source of Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Non￾Agricultural
Revenue
Average % Average % Average % Average %
Salaried
agricultural
work
84.28
(4.2US$)
1.2 54.67
(2.7US$)
.4 225.79
(11.3US$)
3.9 141.35
(7.1US$)
1.9
Direct
revenue from
the HGRP
- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Crafts 140.47
(7.0US$)
2.0 27.34
(1.4US$)
.2 5.79
(0.3US$)
.1 66.96
(3.3US$)
.9
Trades 744.49
(37.2US$)
10.6 1,831.44
(91.6US$)
13.4 880.00
(44.0US$)
15.2 959.72
(48.0US$)
12.9
Civil servant/
regular
employment
302.01
(15.1US$)
4.3 902.06
(45.1US$)
6.6 422.63
(21.1US$)
7.3 446.38
(22.3US$)
6.0
Sale of wood
& charcoal
400.34
(20.0US$)
5.7 984.06
(49.2US$)
7.2 358.95
(17.9US$)
6.2 468.70
(23.4US$)
6.3
Sale of
agricultural
products
688.30
(34.4US$)
9.8 601.37
(30.1US$)
4.4 775.79
(38.8US$)
13.4 714.21
(35.7US$)
9.6
General
commerce
1,446.84
(72.3US$)
20.6 3,184.52
(159.2US$)
23.3 1,736.85
(86.8US$)
30.0 1,822.73
(91.1US$)
24.5
Fishing 1,208.04
(60.4US$)
17.2 1,284.75
(64.2US$)
9.4 335.79
(16.8US$)
5.8 840.69
(42.0US$)
11.3
Seasonal
emigration
386.29
(19.3US$)
5.5 697.04
(34.9US$)
5.1 225.79
(11.3US$)
3.9 349.67
(17.5US$)
4.7
Long-term
emigration
386.29
(19.3US$)
5.5 410.03
(20.5US$)
3.0 358.95
(17.9US$)
6.2 379.42
(19.0US$)
5.1
Other and
unclassified
revenue
1,257.20
(62.9US$)
17.9 3,676.55
(183.8US$)
26.9 451.58
(22.6US$)
7.8 1,249.87
(62.5US$)
16.8
Average non￾gricultural
revenue
7,023.5
(351.2US$)
100 13,667.5
(683.4US$)
100 5,789.5
(289.5US$)
100 7,439.7
(372.0US$)
100
32
Table 7a : Total Average Non-Agricultural Revenue by Household according to Agro￾Ecological Zone
Source of Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Non￾Agricultural
Revenue
Average Standard
Deviation
Average Standard
Deviation
Average Standard
Deviation
Average Standard
Deviation
Salaried
agricultural
work
1,919.4
(n=17)
2,455.1 684.5
(n=10)
558.2 2,938.7
(n=30)
4,609.0 2,239.2
(n=57)
3,673.0
Direct
revenue from
the HGRP
- - - - - - - -
Crafts 3,805.9
(n=14)
11,611.2 1,700.0
(n=2)
1,131.4 1,081.7
(n=3)
1,661.3 3,154.1
(n=19)
9,951.4
Trades 4,192.3
(n=67)
5,776.1 8,721.9
(n=27)
10,232.8 6,615.4
(n=52)
11,373.7 5,893.0
(n=146)
9,081.6
Civil servant/
Regular
employment
6,715.3
(n=17)
7,229.1 12,927.8
(n=9)
13,183.9 9,800.9
(n=17)
7,881.8 9,235.5
(n=43)
9,081.6
Sale of wood
& charcoal
1,901.7
(n=79)
2,851.3 7,481.7
(n=17)
16,224.7 1,429.9
(n=98)
1,919.3 2,152.6
(n=194)
5,454.9
Sale of
agricultural
products
2,819.1
(n=92)
3,653.3 2,877.6
(n=27)
4,059.7 3,034.3
(n=100)
2,992.3 2,924.6
(219)
3,407.9
General
commerce
3,932.7
(n=138)
5,250.1 7,194.3
(n=57)
14,180.3 3,408.1
(n=200)
4,755.5 4,137.7
(n=395)
7,157.0
Fishing 22,688.0
(n=20)
2,971.1 23,572.6
(n=7)
28,908.9 8,855.3
(n=15)
9,472.2 17,895.2
(n=42)
20,573.0
Seasonal
emigration
2,645.4
(n=50)
3,529.8 4,241.0
(n=21)
3,437.2 3,707.3
(n=24)
6,179.9 3,266.4
(n=95)
4,338.2
Long-term
emigration
2,004.5
(n=72)
2,352.0 2,528.6
(n=21)
5,474.5 3,290.1
(n=43)
4,286.5 2,491.7
(n=136)
3,660.0
Other and
unclassified
revenue
18,939.3
(n=25)
79,435.7 78,975.0
(n=6)
173,131.7 6,806.4
(n=26)
10,322.3 19,724.5
(n=57)
76,694.6
Average non￾gricultural
revenue
7,023.5
(n=471)
22,401.5 13,667.5
(n=146)
40,479.0 5,789.5
(n=462)
8,830.4 7,439.7
(1,079)
22,022.3
33
Table 8a : Number and Frequency of Households in the calculation of Average Non-Agricultural
Revenue
Source of Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain Total Sample
Non￾Agricultural
Revenue
Number of
households
Frequency
%
Number of
households
Frequency
%
Number of
households
Frequency
%
Number of
households
Frequency
%
Salaried
agricultural
work
17 3.6 10 6.8 30 6.5 57 5.3
Direct
revenue from
the HGRP
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crafts 14 3.0 2 1.4 3 .6 19 1.8
Trades 67 12.2 27 18.5 52 11.3 146 13.5
Civil servant/
Regular
employment
17 3.6 9 6.2 17 3.7 43 4.0
Sale of wood
& charcoal
79 16.8 17 11.6 98 21.2 194 18.0
Sale of
agricultural
products
92 19.5 27 18.5 100 21.6 219 20.3
General
commerce
138 29.3 57 39.0 200 43.3 395 36.6
Fishing 20 4.2 7 4.7 15 3.2 42 3.9
Seasonal
emigration
50 10.6 21 14.4 24 5.2 95 8.8
Long-term
emigration
72 15.3 21 14.4 43 9.3 136 12.6
Other and
unclassified
revenue
25 5.3 6 4.1 26 5.6 57 5.3
Households
generating
non￾agricultural
revenue
376 79.8 129 88.4 392 84.8 897 83.1
Number of
Households
471 100 146 100 462 100 1,079 100
34
Table 9a : Weights of Different Sources in the composition of Non-Agricultural
Revenue
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Non-Agricultural Revenue Source Total Sample
% % % %
Salaried agricultural work 1.2 .4 3.9 1.9
Direct revenue from the HGRP 0 0 0 0
Crafts 2.0 .2 .1 .9
Trades 10.6 13.4 15.2 12.9
Civil servant/
regular employment
4.3 6.6 7.3 6.0
Sale of wood & charcoal 5.7 7.2 6.2 6.3
Sale of agricultural products 9.8 4.4 13.4 9.6
General commerce 20.6 23.3 30.0 24.5
Fishing 17.2 9.4 5.8 11.3
Seasonal emigration 5.5 5.1 3.9 4.7
Long-term emigration 5.5 3.0 6.2 5.1
Other and non-classified revenue 17.9 26.9 7.8 16.8
Total 100 100 100 100
Table 10a: Relationship of Household Members with the Head of Household
according to Agro-Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Totals
Relationship
with the
Head of
Household
% % % No. % %
cumulative
Spouse 16.8 16.7 18.3 835 17.4 17.4
Son/daughter 67.9 64.8 71.2 3,300 68.9 86.3
Father/mother 1.6 .9 .8 58 1.2 87.5
Uncle/aunt .2 1.1 .3 19 .4 87.9
Other parent 10.9 12.3 8.3 479 10.0 97.9
Other relation 2.6 4.1 1 102 2.1 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 4,793 100.0 ----
35
Table 11a: Distribution of Household Members by Gender and Agro-Ecological
Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Totals
Gender
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Masculine 1,300 49.7 394 50.1 1,288 52.0 2,982 50.7
Feminine 1,315 50.3 392 49.9 1,187 48.0 2,894 49.2
Total 2,615 100.0 786 100.0 2,475 100.0 5,876 100.0
Table 12a: Distribution of Household Members by Agro-Ecological Zone according
to Level of Education
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Education Level Totals
% % % No. % %
cumulative
Don’t know 1.1 1.2 1.4 68 1.2 1.2
Illiterate 29.2 27.2 28.8 1,584 28.2 30.0
Did not complete primary
school (less than 6 years of
schooling)
50.7 49.9 50.9 2,788 50.7 80.7
Completed primary school
(6 years of schooling)
4.8 6.1 4.1 258 4.7 85.4
Did not complete
secondary school (less than
13 years of schooling)
9.9 12.7 13.6 652 11.8 97.2
Completed secondary
school (13 years of
schooling)
1.4 .7 .6 51 .9 98.1
University (more than 13
years of schooling)
.2 .5 .1 10 .2 98.3
Alphabetization Center (a
few months of
alphabetization training).
2.8 1.6 .6 93 1.7 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 5,504 100.0 ----
36
Table 13a: Distribution of Household Members (18 years and older) according to
Matrimonial Status and by Agro-Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Matrimonial Totals
Status
% % % No. %
Married 30.2 32.1 24.5 845 28.0
Living
together
27.2 29.7 33.3 912 30.2
Divorced -- -- .1 1 0.1
Separated 4.1 4.4 3.5 117 3.9
Single 31.9 28.2 32.8 961 31.8
Widow/
Widower
6.7 5.6 5.8 186 6.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 3,022 100.0
Table 14a: Education Level of Household Members (6 years and older) by Agro￾Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Education Level Totals
% % % No. % %
cumulative
Don’t know .9 .8 1.4 55 1.1 1.1
Illiterate 27.4 24.2 27.3 1363 26.9 28.0
Did not complete primary
school (less then 6 years of
schooling)
51.2 50.8 51.1 2585 51.1 79.1
Completed primary school (6
years of schooling)
5.1 6.6 4.3 250 4.9 84.1
Did not complete secondary
school (less than 13 years of
schooling)
10.8 14.5 14.6 652 12.9 97.0
Completed secondary school
(13 years of schooling)
1.5 .8 .6 51 1.0 98.0
University (more than13
years of schooling)
.2 .6 .1 10 .2 98.2
Alphabetization Center (a
few months of
alphabetization training)
3.0 1.8 .6 93 1.8 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 5,059 100.0 ----
37
Table 15a: Distribution by Average and by Age Group of Household Members
according to Agro-Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Totals
Age Group
% % % No. % %
cumulative
< 6 years 14.2 15.4 12.3 797 13.6 13.6
6 – 15 years 30.6 30.5 29.8 1776 30.2 43.8
16 – 30 years 24.0 23.4 26.4 1465 24.9 68.8
31 – 50 years 18.9 18.1 20.4 1140 19.4 88.2
51 – 70 years 9.8 11.7 9.8 591 10.1 98.3
> 70 years 2.5 .9 1.3 104 1.7 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 5873 100.0 ---
Average 24.25 years 23.56 years 24.51 years 24.26 years
Table 16a: Distribution of Household Members (6 years and older) according to
Main Occupation and by Agro-Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Totals
Occupation
of Household
Members (6
years and
older) % % % No. % %
cumulative
Don’t know .1 .8 .7 22 .4 .4
Student 47.6 46.7 46.8 2,376 47.1 47.5
Agriculture 28.6 224.6 28.1 1,405 27.9 75.4
Agricultural
laborer
.1 .3 .2 10 .2 75.6
Crafts .4 .3 .1 15 .3 75.9
Trades 2.0 2.9 2.5 116 2.3 78.2
Sale of wood
& charcoal
.3 .3 .4 17 .3 78.5
General
commerce
8.0 11.5 12.0 514 10.2 88.7
Employee .7 1.4 .8 42 .8 89.5
Other 1.7 1.8 1.9 89 1.8 91.3
None 10.5 9.5 6.5 436 8.7 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 5,877 100.0 ----
38
Table 17a: Distribution of Agricultural Plot Size by Household and Agro-Ecological
Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Totals
Total Surface
Area
(carreaux)
% % % No. % %
cumulative
< 0.5 40.1 28.9 22.8 263 29.6 29.6
³ 0.5 and < 1 25.6 29.6 30.2 254 28.5 58.1
³ 1 and < 2 21.2 20.4 25.1 205 23.0 81.1
³ 2 and < 5 9.8 17.6 18.2 136 15.3 96.4
³ 5 3.4 3.5 3.8 32 3.6 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 890 100.0 ---
Average 1.08 cx 1.28 cx 1.46 cx 1.3 cx
Table 18a: Distribution by Plot Size and Head of Household Gender according to
Agro-Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Totals
Gender Gender Gender Gender
Total
Surface Area
(carreaux)
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
% % % % % % % %
< 0.5 54.0 36.3 40.0 25.9 40.4 20.3 46.0 26.2
³ 0.5 and < 1 23.8 26.1 30.0 29.5 28.1 30.5 26.7 28.9
³ 1 and < 2 17.5 22.2 13.3 22.3 19.3 25.9 17.3 24.2
³ 2 and < 5 4.3 11.7 16.7 17.9 11.1 19.5 8.7 16.6
³ 5 -- 4.3 -- 4.5 3.5 3.8 1.3 4.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Average 0.65 cx 1.20 cx 0.83 cx 1.40 cx 0.96 cx 1.53 cx 0.81 cx 1.41 cx
Table 19a: Average Plot Size according to Head of Household Gender
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Totals
Gender Gender Gender Gender
Average
Surface
Area
(carreaux)
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
Total 0.65 1.20 0.83 1.40 0.96 1.53 0.81 1.41
Cultivated 0.40 1.06 0.55 0.99 0.70 1.16 0.54 1.10
39
Table 20a: Distribution by Cultivated Plot Size by Household and Head of
Household Gender according to Agro-Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Totals
Gender Gender Gender Gender
Cultivated
Plot Size
(carreaux)
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
% % % % % % % %
£ 1 71.0 46.6 62.1 41.1 49.1 23.4 60.8 33.4
> 1 and<= 2 19.4 27.8 20.7 28.6 31.6 35.6 24.3 32.1
> 2 and <= 3 9.6 16.2 10.3 17.0 14.0 28.5 11.5 22.9
> 3 and <= 4 -- 7.3 6.9 10.7 5.3 11.7 3.4 10.1
> 4 -- 2.1 -- 2.7 -- 0.8 -- 1.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Average 0.40 cx 1.06 cx 0.55 cx 0.99 cx 0.70 cx 1.16 cx 0.63 cx 1.10 cx
Table 21a: Distribution by Agro-Ecological Zone and Cultivated Plot Size
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Totals
Cultivated
Plot Size
(carreaux)
% % % No. % %
cumulative
£ 1 51.7 45.4 26.7 337 38.0 38.0
> 1 and <= 2 26.0 27.0 35.1 273 30.8 68.8
> 2 and <= 3 14.9 15.6 26.7 186 21.0 89.8
> 3 and <= 4 5.7 9.9 10.9 80 9.0 98.8
> 4 1.7 2.1 0.7 11 1.2 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 890 100.0 ---
Average 0.92 cx 0.90 cx 1.10 cx 1.01 cx
40
Table 22a: Distribution of Plots according to Land Tenure and Agro-Ecological
Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Totals
Land Tenure
% % % No. %
Purchased 25.1 23.0 22.7 649 23.7
Inherited 38.4 21.4 36.7 965 35.2
Joint ownership 4.7 2.8 2.2 89 3.2
Rental – payment in
cash
11.6 25.3 5.4 288 10.5
Rental – payment with
produce
11.2 16.0 2.8 495 18.0
Rental – no payment
required
2.5 4.7 1.4 62 2.3
Purchased and ceded 2.6 2.8 3.6 85 3.1
Inherited and ceded 3.9 3.9 4.2 111 4.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 2,744 100.0
Table 23a: Average Plot Surface Area (carreaux) by Type of Ownership
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain
Type of
Ownership
Average
(cx)
Standard
Deviation
Average Standard
Deviation
Average Standard
Deviation
Purchased .342 .608 .566 .807 .482 .554
Inherited .316 .630 .606 .766 .502 .580
Joint
ownership
.382 .598 .409 .352 .353 .547
Rental –
payment in
cash
.241 .562 .425 .542 .312 .366
Rental –
payment with
produce
.282 .435 .250 .250 .397 .464
Rental – no
payment
required
.306 .280 .368 .249 .485 .318
Purchased and
ceded
.464 .648 .675 .736 1.310 5.352
Inherited and
ceded
.310 .395 .375 .408 .566 .866
41
Table 24a: Distribution of Plots according to Slope
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Slope Totals
% % % No. % %
Cumulative
Gentle 32.3 74.9 91.2 1,841 67.1 67.1
Average 37.9 16.8 6.6 538 19.6 86.8
Steep 29.8 8.3 2.2 363 13.2 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 2,742 100.0 ---
Table 25a: Soil Conservation Methods Utilized
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non￾Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Soil Conservation Totals
Method
% % % % %
Cumulative
Contour canals 2.7 12.5 .8 2.4 2.4
Gully plugs .4 1.3 -- .3 2.7
Dry walls 10.0 2.0 1.7 5.2 7.9
Hedgerows 2.8 2.6 .1 1.4 9.3
Mulch strips 4.3 3.3 .8 2.5 11.8
Terracing .1 -- -- .0 11.8
Other structures 1.1 -- -- .5 12.3
No structures 78.7 78.3 96.9 87.7 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ---
Table 26a: Percentage of Irrigated Plots
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Totals
Plot
% % % % %
Cumulative
Irrigated 6.4 1.8 82.5 43.0 43.0
Non-irrigated 93.6 98.2 17.5 57.0 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ---
42
Table 27a: Average Number of Trees by Plot and Agro-Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Number of Totals
Trees
No. No. No.
Minimum 0 0 0 0
Maximum 915 1,025 921 1,025
Average 60 54 26 43
Table 28a: Reasons given for not Utilizing ORE/PADF Improved Seeds
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Reasons for not Totals
Utilizing
ORE/PADF
Improved Seeds % % % %
Don’t know about
them
75.1 86.9 61.2 69.3
Not available in my
locality
23.5 14.1 35.0 28.3
Not available at
planting time
0.7 -- 1.6 1.1
Too expensive 0.7 -- 0.3 0.4
Don’t practice
farming
-- -- 1.9 0.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
43
Table 29a: Type of Seeds Utilized by Households
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated Plain Irrigated Plain
% of Households % of Households % of Households
Seed Type
Corn Beans Sorghum Corn Beans Sorghum Corn Beans Sorghum
Traditional 95.4 92.7 99.4 95.7 95.7 98.1 85.1 89.9 85.3
ORE/ PADF 1.3 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.3 0.3
Improved
(Other)
3.3 6.3 0.6 4.3 4.3 1.9 14.9 9.8 14.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 30a: Fertilization Techniques Practiced by Households according to Agro￾Ecological Zone
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
FertilizationTechniques Totals
Utilized by Farmers
% Yes % No % Yes % No % Yes % No % Yes % No
Traditional fallow 87.2 12.8 84.3 15.7 91.6 8.4 88.7 11.3
Ash 6.1 93.9 7.1 92.9 11.0 89.0 8.3 91.7
Chicken manure 3.5 96.5 2.9 97.1 4.5 95.5 3.8 98.2
Purchased manure 5.0 95.0 3.6 96.4 2.9 97.1 3.9 96.1
Organic manure 81.5 18.5 59.3 40.7 43.4 56.6 62.3 37.7
Chemical fertilizer 23.8 76.2 9.3 90.7 6.7 93.3 14.5 85.5
Green manure 14.3 85.7 11.4 88.6 4.0 96.0 9.3 90.7
Compost 15.7 84.3 8.6 91.4 4.3 95.7 9.8 90.2
Table 31a: Percentage of Households who know or have heard of ORE/PADF
Improved Seeds
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Familiar with Totals
ORE/PADF
Improved
Seeds % % % %
Yes 6.6 0.0 0.6 3.2
No 93.4 100.0 99.4 96.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
44
Table 32a: Availability of ORE/PADF Improved Seeds
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Availability of Totals
ORE/PADF
Improved Seeds
% % % %
Don’t Know 49.1 72.9 25.8 42.3
Yes 1.3 0.0 0.9 0.9
No 49.6 27.1 73.3 56.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 33a: Farmer Practice of Burning Fields Before Planting
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Practices Burning Totals
of Fields before
Planting
% % % % %
Cumulative
Always 16.3 17.3 29.4 22.1 22.1
Sometimes 20.7 30.9 24.1 23.5 45.6
Never 63.0 51.8 46.5 54.4 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 --
Table 34a: Farmer Practice of Burning Plant Residues
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Totals
Practices Burning
of Plant Residues
% % % % %
Cumulative
Always 24.1 39.3 30.9 29.1 29.1
Sometimes 24.8 28.6 34.9 29.6 58.7
Never 51.1 32.1 34.2 41.3 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 --
45
Table 35a: Availability of Disaster Preparedness Committee Members for Assisting
Farmers in the Case of Natural Disasters according to Agro-Ecological Zone
Disaster Agro-Ecological Zone
Preparedness
Committee
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Total Sample
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Totals13
% % % % % % % % %
Yes 6.1% 7.8% 3.2% 4.4% 0% 2.0% 3.6% 4.8% 4.5%
No 93.9% 92.2% 96.8% 95.6% 100% 98.0% 96.4% 95.2% 95.5%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 36a: Participation in Meetings with Disaster Preparedness Committee
Members
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Number of Totals
Meetings
% Farmers % Farmers % Farmers % %
Cumulative
0 19.4 -- -- 15.0 15.0
1-3 45.2 66.7 66.7 50.0 65.0
4-6 12.9 16.7 33.3 15.0 80.0
7-10 19.3 16.6 -- 17.5 97.5
Greater than 10 3.2 -- -- 2.5 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ---
Table 37a: Knowledge of the Existence of a Disaster Preparedness Plan
Knowledge of Agro-Ecological Zone
Disaster
Preparedness
Plan
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Tota l Sample
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total14
% % % % % % % % %
Yes 1.0% .8% 0% .9% 0% 0% . 5% .5% .5%
No 99.0% 99.2% 100% 99.1% 100% 100% 99.5% 99.5% 99.5%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
 
13 The weighted average taking into account the size of households headed by men and women.
14 The weighted average taking into account the size of households headed by men and women.
46
Table 38a: Knowledge of Disaster Preparedness Plan Contents
Knowledge Agro-Ecological Zone
of Disaster
Preparedness
Plan
Contents
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated Plain
Total Sample
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total15
% % % % % % % % %
Yes 0% .6% 0% 1.7% 0% 0% 0% .5% .4%
No 100% 99.4% 100% 98.3% 100% 100% 100% 99.5% 99.6%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 39a: Beneficiaries of Development Projects
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
Beneficiaries of Totals
Development
Projects
% % % Frequency %
Yes 44.6 26.7 16.4 324 30.1
No 55.4 73.3 83.6 754 69.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 509 100.0
Table 40a: Cooperativeness of Interviewees
Agro-Ecological Zone
Hillside Non-Irrigated
Plain
Irrigated
Plain
The Interviewee Totals
was:
% % % % %
cumulative
Very cooperative
and informative
63.7 58.0 50.5 57.3 57.3
Somewhat
cooperative
35.0 40.6 47.5 41.2 98.5
Not cooperative
and informative 1.3 1.4 2.0 1.5 100.0
 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ---
 
15 The weighted average taking into account the size of female and male-headed households.
47