IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijarit/344636.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender analysis in selected agricultural practices in Gedeo and Halaba zones in Southern Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Tegene Ayele
  • Teklu Gebretsadik

Abstract

Identification and recognition of gender-dis aggregated constraints, gender imbalances, differentials in gender roles, and decision-making on agriculture production, technology transfer, and input utilization are essential to the transformation of research output to benefit women and men. This study aimed to assess gender integration in selected agricultural practices and gender division of labor in the Gedeo and Halaba Zones. The study employed a cross-sectional design. The sample respondents were randomly 86 men and 69 women farmers, and a total of 155 farmers were selected to collect the data through triangulation of key informants interviews, focus group discussion, and household survey. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data analysis results in the frequency of men and women's participation computed. Different gender participation factors evaluated. According to the data analysis result, the effect of community norms was assessed among 155 respondents, men 54 (34.8%), 0 (0%), and 15 (9.7%), responded as yes, no and undecided, respectively. Similarly, women participants believed that 64 (41.9%), 1 (0.6%), and 36 (23.2%), responded as yes, no and undecided, respectively. Decision-making could affect gender participation. Men 66 (42.6%), 1 (0.6%) and 20 (12.9%) responded as yes, no and undecided, respectively. Likewise, women participants believed that 53 (34.2%), 1 (0.6%) and 15 (9.7%), responded as yes, no, and undecided, respectively. Concerning care workmen 65 (41.9%), 0 (0%) and 21 (135%), responded as yes, no and undecided, respectively. Similarly, women participants believed that 54 (34.8%), 0 (0%) and 15 (9.7%), responded yes, no and undecided, respectively. Average task share of the household is 30%, 15%, 43% and 12% for men, boys, women and girls, respectively. Women and men performed a larger share of the gender role in rural households than boys and girls. The reproductive work of women in the household covered 67% of the total household care work. The gender participation index in selected agricultural practices was 0.709. However, the Participation Index of men was found to be 0.55 and that of women was 0.45. According to this statistical result, household members spent agricultural labor hours differently, as converting this labor share into daily labor hours indicated that women, men, boys, and girls are spending 10, 7, 4 and 3 hours per day on average, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Tegene Ayele & Teklu Gebretsadik, 2024. "Gender analysis in selected agricultural practices in Gedeo and Halaba zones in Southern Ethiopia," International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology (IJARIT), IJARIT Research Foundation, vol. 14(01), June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijarit:344636
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.344636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/344636/files/1%29%20IJARIT%200452.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.344636?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ijarit:344636. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ijarit.webs.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.