A comparative cost-benefit analysis of mobile and sedentary pastoral production systems in selected villages in Northern Tanzania.

L. E. Yamat, C. Mung’ong’o
{"title":"A comparative cost-benefit analysis of mobile and sedentary pastoral production systems in selected villages in Northern Tanzania.","authors":"L. E. Yamat, C. Mung’ong’o","doi":"10.1079/9781789242966.0059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract\n Despite a growing body of evidence that highlights the economic, social and environmental benefits of mobile pastoralism, few governments are ready to tolerate mobility and many policy makers promote knowingly or inadvertently the policies of sedentarization. This production system seems not to be clearly understood by many and has been characterized as backward, environmentally destructive and economically unsustainable; and the view is that it should be replaced with more sedentary forms of livestock production or other beneficial land uses. The overriding question is whether sedentary livestock keeping is more productive and utilizes fewer resources and less space than the mobile pastoral system. This study carried out a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the two production systems in selected villages of Kiteto and Karatu districts. The aim was to come up with credible data to test this hypothesis. Two alternatives were compared in terms of their net present value (NPV) to test a null hypothesis. The alternative with an NPV greater than zero or higher than its alternative was accepted to be more viable compared with the one with an NPV less than zero or less than its alternative. Whenever the NPV of the sedentary production system in the analysis was shown to be greater than zero and/or greater than the NPV of the mobile pastoral production system the null hypothesis was accepted and vice versa. The study was conducted in Makame village of Kiteto District and Dofa village of Karatu District. Makame village represents a mobile pastoral production system while Dofa village represents a sedentary production system. The study employed a quantitative approach using a household survey in the two villages. The comparative cost-benefit analysis was carried out using monetary values derived from the livestock unit statistical approach. The findings have revealed that the average cost of maintaining a mobile pastoral and sedentary production systems are TSh90,096,333 and TSh112,295,200, respectively. The cost-benefit ratios are 1:0.5 for a mobile pastoral production system and 1:0.25 for the sedentary one.","PeriodicalId":311644,"journal":{"name":"Climate change impacts and sustainability: ecosystems of Tanzania","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Climate change impacts and sustainability: ecosystems of Tanzania","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789242966.0059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Despite a growing body of evidence that highlights the economic, social and environmental benefits of mobile pastoralism, few governments are ready to tolerate mobility and many policy makers promote knowingly or inadvertently the policies of sedentarization. This production system seems not to be clearly understood by many and has been characterized as backward, environmentally destructive and economically unsustainable; and the view is that it should be replaced with more sedentary forms of livestock production or other beneficial land uses. The overriding question is whether sedentary livestock keeping is more productive and utilizes fewer resources and less space than the mobile pastoral system. This study carried out a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the two production systems in selected villages of Kiteto and Karatu districts. The aim was to come up with credible data to test this hypothesis. Two alternatives were compared in terms of their net present value (NPV) to test a null hypothesis. The alternative with an NPV greater than zero or higher than its alternative was accepted to be more viable compared with the one with an NPV less than zero or less than its alternative. Whenever the NPV of the sedentary production system in the analysis was shown to be greater than zero and/or greater than the NPV of the mobile pastoral production system the null hypothesis was accepted and vice versa. The study was conducted in Makame village of Kiteto District and Dofa village of Karatu District. Makame village represents a mobile pastoral production system while Dofa village represents a sedentary production system. The study employed a quantitative approach using a household survey in the two villages. The comparative cost-benefit analysis was carried out using monetary values derived from the livestock unit statistical approach. The findings have revealed that the average cost of maintaining a mobile pastoral and sedentary production systems are TSh90,096,333 and TSh112,295,200, respectively. The cost-benefit ratios are 1:0.5 for a mobile pastoral production system and 1:0.25 for the sedentary one.
对坦桑尼亚北部选定村庄的流动和定居牧业生产系统进行成本效益比较分析。
尽管越来越多的证据强调了流动畜牧业的经济、社会和环境效益,但很少有政府准备容忍流动性,许多政策制定者有意或无意地推动定居化政策。这种生产制度似乎没有得到许多人的清楚了解,被认为是落后的、破坏环境的和经济上不可持续的;人们的观点是,它应该被更久坐不动的牲畜生产形式或其他有益的土地利用所取代。最重要的问题是,与流动放牧系统相比,定居牲畜饲养是否更有生产力,利用的资源和空间是否更少。本研究在Kiteto和Karatu地区选定的村庄对两种生产系统进行了成本效益比较分析。其目的是找到可信的数据来验证这一假设。根据净现值(NPV)比较了两种选择,以检验零假设。与NPV小于零或小于其替代方案的方案相比,NPV大于零或高于其替代方案的方案被认为是更可行的。在分析中,只要静态生产系统的NPV大于零和/或大于流动游牧生产系统的NPV,零假设就被接受,反之亦然。这项研究是在Kiteto区的Makame村和Karatu区的Dofa村进行的。Makame村代表了一个流动的游牧生产系统,而Dofa村代表了一个固定的生产系统。该研究采用了定量方法,在两个村庄进行了住户调查。采用家畜单位统计方法得出的货币价值进行了比较成本效益分析。研究结果表明,维持流动游牧和定居生产系统的平均成本分别为90,096,333泰铢和112,295,200泰铢。流动牧业生产系统的成本效益比为1:0.5,而固定牧业生产系统的成本效益比为1:0.25。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信