Downloading: Improving Garo People?s Livelihood through Involvement in Income Generating Activities: Evidence from Netrakona District, Bangladesh
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
www.ijsr.net | Open Access | Fully Refereed | Peer Reviewed International Journal

ISSN: 2319-7064

To prevent Server Overload, Your Article PDF will be Downloaded in Next Seconds

Improving Garo People?s Livelihood through Involvement in Income Generating Activities: Evidence from Netrakona District, Bangladesh

Rahat Ahmed Juice, Dr. M. Saidur Rahman

Abstract: The focus of the study was to address the impact of household income generating activities on improving livelihoods of Garo people covering two upazillas namely Susong Durgapur and Purbadhola in Netrakona district. A total of 120 Garo households were selected as sample following purposive random sampling technique. The main livelihood activities of Garos are agricultural practices in the plain land and in their homesteads. They used to grow rain fed crop like Aman and Aus rice in the plain land. Sometimes the gentle slope between the tillas is used for growing maize, groundnut, mustard, wheat, etc. Secondary occupation namely small trader, carpenter, cottage industry, boutique shop, parlor, etc., were non-farm activities in the study areas. Most of the variables in the model had significant impact on Garo households income. To assess the impact of increased income from income generating activities on livelihood, DFID recommended livelihood framework was used. According to that analysis, all kinds of livelihood assets were increased in both farm and non-farming groups. Overall human capital, social capital, financial capital, natural capital and physical capital were increased for the farm income group by 69.9 percent, 46.19 percent, 47.96 percent, 12.87 percent and 33.17 percent respectively while overall human capital, social capital, financial capital, natural capital and physical capital were increased for the non-farm income group by 82.03 percent, 62.10 percent, 62.90 percent, 28.90 percent and 49.63 percent, respectively. Finally, some policy recommendations based on the findings of the study were suggested.

Keywords: Household, Livelihoods, Purposive, Financial, Impact, framework



Top