International Journal of Geography and Regional Planning IJGRP

Vol. 3(1), pp. 027-042, August, 2016. www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 1201-8904

Review Article

Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between

the presence of University for Development Studies
(UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu, Ghana
Daniel Buor* and Irenius Konkor
Faculty of Social Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

Due to formal education potentials for development, African governments usually site
tertiary institutions in agrarian communities without taking recourse to their effects on the
livelihood activities of people living in such communities. The study explored the
relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and
livelihood diversification of people in Bamahu in the Upper West Region of Ghana. A sample
of 130 was drawn from a community of 2498 using purposive and snowball samplings
techniques. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 was used to analyze
quantitative data. Interviews, focus group discussions and observations were instruments
used to collect qualitative data which was analyzed thematically whiles questionnaire
design was used to collect quantitative data. It was found that the economy had been
transformed to a more monetized economy. Livelihood activities patronized as a result of
the establishment of UDS include small-scale business, porterage, security services and
hostel management. Income earnings of respondents had also improved over the years.
Many problems including loss of farmlands by the community have been encountered.
Entrepreneurial training and interest free loans are recommended to help ease
diversification.

Keywords: Livelihood, Entrepreneur, UDS, diversification, loan

INTRODUCTION

African governments have realized the potentials of
higher education for regional development (Teferra and
Altbachl, 2004; Bloom et al., 2006). This has led to the
siting of tertiary educational institutions in agrarian
communities such as the case of Bamahu in the Upper
West Region of Ghana. Land use change from
agricultural livelihood activities towards service provision
is evident in most parts of the developing world (Smith et
al., 2001; Simon et al., 2004; Paavola, 2008). In India,
land-based livelihoods of subsistence and marginal
farmers are now predominantly and rapidly becoming
unsustainable because their land is no longer able to
meet the requirements of food production for the family
and fodder for their livestock (Hiremath, 2007). A
research by Mehar et al., (2016) on farmers coping
strategies for climate shock indicated the
unsustainability of agricultural sources of livelihood
which gave rise to farmers search for alternative sources
of livelihoods. As a result, rural households are
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana
compelled to look for alternative and diverse sources of
income.
A study conducted by National Sample Study
Organization (NSSO) on Indian farmers has revealed
that, about 27 percent of the farmers do not like farming
because it is not considered profitable and, given a
chance, nearly 40 percent of the farmers would prefer to
take up alternative livelihood activities other than farming
(Kumar, 2006).
*Corresponding author: Daniel Buor, Faculty of Social
Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. Email:
drdrbuor@gmail.com,
Co-author: Irenius Konkor: ikonkor@gmail.com
Buor and Konkor 028
Belay and Bewket (2015) stated that, rural households
could enhance their livelihoods through sustainable land
and water management. A study recently conducted by
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) on poverty
and farming systems has revealed that, diversification is
central to poverty reduction efforts for subsistence
farmers in South and South-East Asia (FAO and World
Bank, 2001). Farmers are increasingly diverting from
agricultural livelihood activities to small-scale mining in
sub-Saharan Africa in order to maintain appreciable
living standards (Hilson, 2016). A similar research
conducted by Loison (2016) showed Sub-Saharan rural
dwellers rapid diversion of their traditional sources of
livelihoods.
Ghana, in her quest to achieving Millennium
Development Goal II (MDG II, 2009), now Sustainable
Development Goal IV (ICSU, 2015), embarked on a
massive restructuring in the educational sector coupled
with massive infrastructural development. It is therefore
not surprising that educational facilities are rapidly
expanding throughout the country to meet the increasing
enrollment numbers as evident in the establishment of
UDS in the three Northern Regions including the Wa
Campus.
With particular reference to Bamahu, a farming suburb
of Wa, the establishment of University for Development
Studies (UDS) has over a decade resulted in significant
growth and development in the area. The growth and
development of Bamahu can partly be attributed to the
educational functional role Bamahu has assumed and
this is attracting people from all walks of life. As a result
of this large number of people and students drawn there,
there is an economic gap which draws business-minded
people to the area. The increasing population has its
associated development implications in the areas of
housing, health facilities, environmental sanitation and
water supply, social and most importantly livelihood
strategies (Wa Municipal Assembly, 2012).
As a community that used to engage in farming activities,
there has been a great shift with respect to the livelihood
opportunities available to the inhabitants of the area.
Some of the livelihood opportunities within the grasp of
the people of Bamahu include; porterage, security
services, cleansing services, petty trading and shop
ownership as well as hostel management. On the
contrary, some inhabitants who were subsistence
farmers have now lost their farm lands, hence, their
source of livelihood. A key challenge to the
establishment of UDS in Bamahu is the rapid conversion
of prime agricultural lands into educational, residential
and business facilities. Although livelihood diversification
is an essential strategy by which rural people may work
to achieve sustainable livelihoods, it is one that generally
operates in conjunction with other strategies.
As a community making transition from predominantly
primary agricultural economic activities to service
provision livelihood activities, it needs to be noted that
diversification of livelihood would take center stage. As
livelihoods are diversified, it would have its resultant
effects. Cognizant of the fact that urban dwellers buy
virtually everything they need and Bamahu is rapidly
becoming peri-urbanized it is important to study how
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana
these subsistence based survivors cope with a rapidly
increasing monetized economy. This paper explored the
relationship between the presence of UDS and livelihood
diversification in Bamahu.
Much research work has been undertaken with regard to
livelihood diversification in developing countries but most
of them are limited to other areas. For example,
Determinants and constraints of rural livelihood
diversification in west Bengal by Khatun and Roy
(2012), is limited to only livelihood constraints and
determinants and Sustainable livelihood and livelihood
diversification by Hussein and Nelson (1998), aimed to
explore alternative routes to sustainable livelihoods
pursued by rural people in contrasting agro-ecological
settings. No such work however has been done in
Ghana, especially with regard to dislocation due to the
establishment of educational institutions hence, this is a
pioneering work.
The main objective of this study is to explore the impact
of UDS on the livelihoods of residents in Bamahu. The
specific objectives are: identifying the specific livelihood
opportunities created as a result of the establishment of
UDS at Bamahu, examining if there had been an
improvement in the living conditions of residents since
diversification, and, identifying the challenges faced by
residents as a result of the establishment of UDS at
Bamahu. The following hypotheses were tested in the
field:
(a) There is a significant positive association
between age and diversification.
(b) Married people in agrarian communities
diversify most due to limited land for agricultural activities
(c) The educated diversify more than the non-
educated in a sudden change of land use in agricultural
communities.
(d) Diversifiers earn proportionally higher income
than non-diversifiers as a result of land use change in
agrarian communities.
Context of the study
UDS was established in May 1992 by the government of
Ghana. It has four campuses including the Wa-Campus.
The Wa Campus was first located in Wa-Sombo but later
relocated at Bamahu due to lack of sufficient land space
for infrastructure. In an attempt to overcome this
challenge, hundreds of acres of land were acquired,
subjecting the then agrarian livelihood dependents to
new and diverse paradigms of livelihoods. Because the
landlords have not been duly compensated, some of
them still farm on the school land which gives the
authorities some challenges. The siting of UDS in
Bamahu has consequently resulted in land use change
in the community.
The administrative region, Wa, can be located in the
North-Western part of Ghana and bordered by Burkina
Faso to the North, the Northern Region to the South, the
Upper East Region to the East and La Cote DIvoire to
the West. Wa municipality is one of the eleven districts
in the Upper West Region. The municipality covers an
area of 125km2, stretching between latitudes 1 10 N to
2 5 N and longitudes 9 55 W to 10 25 W and shares

Bamahu
Figure 1. Wa Municipal Showing Bamahu
Source: Survey DepartmentWa, 2015
administrative boundaries with the Nadowli District to the
North, the Wa East District to the South-East and the Wa
West District to South-West (WMA, 2014). The
municipality has a population of 107,214 (WMA, 2014).
Bamahu is a suburb of Wa and is also bounded to the
North by Wa municipal, Piisi to the South, Kpongu to the
West and Sing to the East as shown in Figure 1. Bamahu
has a population of 2,498 (WMA, 2014). It is located in
the Savannah high zone with high temperatures all year
round and a rainfall duration of about five months. The
remaining seven months is the dry season characterized
by harmattan and high temperatures. The vegetation
type is that of the savannah grassland.
The concept and determinants of
diversification
Livelihood diversification is an essential strategy by
which people in many parts of the world try to make ends
meet and improve their well-being. Livelihood
diversification refers to a continuous adaptive process
whereby households add new activities, maintain
existing ones or drop others, thereby maintaining diverse
and changing livelihood portfolios (Ellis, 2004; Birwarup,
2010). Diversification as a livelihood strategy is further
defined as a process by which the person or rural family
unit builds a group of activities and goods seeking an
improvement in living conditions (Ellis, 2000).
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 029
Map of Ghana
Diversification can be divided into two namely:
diversification out of necessity and diversification by
choice (Ellis, 2000; Vedeld et al., 2007). Diversification
out of necessity refers to a situation whereby the income
from ones own farm production is not enough to meet
acceptable and standard level of living. Diversification
out of choice refers to voluntary reasons for
diversification. This can be attributed to the desire to
obtain higher returns available from non-farm activities.
Different income sources can be seen as risk coping
strategy. This is because diversified households are less
susceptible compared to undiversified households
(Dercon, 1996). In Kenya, households increasing
access to non-farm employment has been identified as
livelihood an important approach for reducing their vulnerability
(Davis, 2003; Christiansen et al., 2005; Eriksen, 2007).
When area access difficulties are eliminated and
opportunities of means of subsistence are identified and
extended, the farmer or the community develops the
capacity to generate livelihood and improve their lives
(Boserup and Kanji, 2007; Carolina et al., 2012).
It must be emphasized that the ability of households to
adopt more profitable diversification strategies depends
on many factors. Livelihood diversification determinants
are a function of a set of factors that include: dependency
ratio, education, family size, asset value, membership of
social groups and training/skill development
(Atchoarena, 2003; Chun, 2011; Dilruba et al., 2012).
Ghana
Buor and Konkor 030
Dependency ratio is the ability of a household to meet its
subsistence needs. With an increase in dependency
ratio without a corresponding increase in family income,
the ability of a household to meet its needs decreases
and the probability of diversifying livelihood to non-farm
activities increases (Barrett et al., 2001; Dilruba et al.,
2012; Eneyew, 2012). A high dependency ratio puts
stress on the limited financial resources. The relationship
between livelihood diversification and dependency ratio
is very high and cannot be underestimated as a high
dependency ratio calls for a livelihood strategy that is
more rewarding to address the needs of members
(Owusu, 2005; Dilruba et al., 2012). Diversification as a
result of high dependency ratio can be classified under
diversification out of necessity (Ellis, 2000).
Education is a gradual process of acquiring knowledge
which can either be formal or informal. Research has
shown that households with higher levels of educated
individuals have greater chances to diversify livelihoods
since they are open to greater opportunities. Education
enhances the skills of members in a household hence,
can enable them to venture into other lucrative livelihood
opportunities (Bryceson, 2002; Dilruba et al., 2012).
Family size is a key determinant in livelihood
diversification according to Reardon (1997). He
observed that family size affects the ability of a
household to supply labour to the farm. In a large family,
some members could remain engaged in farming while
others could opt for non-farm activities. It will also reduce
the risk of livelihood failure (Roy et al., 2012). An
important factor determining the options available to
households in relation to diversification is availability of
assets. Individuals own asset base helps both directly
and indirectly in livelihood diversification (Bebbington,
1998; Roy et al., 2012). Asset offers a store of wealth as
well as provides an opportunity to invest in alternative
enterprises. Several researchers have noted that the
lack of asset base creates an entry level barrier for the
resource-poor households in diversifying their livelihood
options particularly towards high-end remunerative non-
farm activities (Roy et al., 2012).
Membership of a formal social organization like co-
operative and village groups are important social capital
in determining livelihood diversification. Membership of
a cooperative elevates social status and increases
access to common property resources as well as
different government/NGO schemes which can be used
as a stepping stone to diversify livelihood (Kelkar and
Nathan, 2005; Dilruba et al., 2012). Membership of
groups also enables individuals to take part in training
programmes organized by government or NGOs and
also improves access to financial assistance from
financial institutions.
With most of the non-farm activities being skill based,
training increases the possibility of getting non-farm jobs.
Farming at the local level is often non-skilled and training
activities carried out by government agencies and
NGOs are mostly aimed at providing specialized skills
(Roy et al., 2012). Training of individuals improves their
capacities and their skills and this goes a long way to
affect their ability to diversify their livelihoods (Rokadi,
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana
2002; Dilruba et al., 2012). With little training the chance
to diversify livelihood is slim and narrow, however,
training opens up new horizons which individuals can tap
into to improve their lives. Training is therefore an
important determinant of livelihood as it has the power to
create and pave way for new opportunities which would
be more resistant to shocks and also more rewarding
financially (Dilruba et al., 2012). In the current study,
there was an interplay of these factors: dependency
ratio, education, family size, marital status in determining
participation in livelihood diversification.
Constraints to livelihood diversification
Livelihood diversification is an important survival
strategy for the rural households in developing countries
(Ellis, 1998; Hussein and Nelson, 2016). Most land
based activities are increasingly under pressure
because of increasing population size the world over and
there is the urgent need for households to diversify to be
able to cope in a world which has been monetized.
However, there are several constraints to successful
livelihood diversification (Angelsen and Kaimowitz,
1999). Available literature has identified some of the
socio-economic, technological, institutional and policy
constraints to livelihood diversification. These
constraints have been found to vary across space and
time as well as across livelihood groups (Devereux,
2001; Dilruba et al., 2012). Some of the constraints
include poor asset base, lack of credit facilities and lack
of infrastructure.
The availability of assets enables individuals to venture
into new areas. However, when no assets are available,
it paints a blurry picture of the future as the individual
would have to start from the bottom and build up.
Therefore, without assets, the landless and small scale
farmer would have constraints to diversification. Poor
asset base therefore is a key determinant of
diversification (Reardon et al., 2000; Dilruba and Roy,
2012).
Lack of access to institutional credit is an impending
factor to livelihood diversification (Islam et al., 2014).
Many households in developing countries after
completion of training provided by the private or
government agencies in some self-employment activities
cannot start their own businesses due to lack of finance.
Since land is an important form of collateral, it limits
access to credit which further results in limiting
opportunities for rural dwellers, both for employment and
for other income generating activities (Yawn et al., 1998;
Khatun and Roy, 2012). Most rural dwellers are poor in
one way or the other and have no collateral to secure
loans from banks (Khatun and Roy, 2012).
Infrastructural availability plays an influential role in the
development of rural livelihoods. Improved
communications help easy access to market which is
important for both buying and selling of goods and
services and for getting non-farm jobs (Khatun and Roy,
2012).
To sum up, the principal constraints faced by the rural
households are of different kinds. While most of them are

SLF
Figure 2. The Sustainable livelihoods Framework
Source: DFID, 1999
socio-economic in nature, some constraints are agro-
ecological in nature. Spatial variation leads to cross-
sectional heterogeneity, thereby influencing livelihood
diversification pattern.
The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework developed by
the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Advisory Committee
(DFID, 1999) is a tool for enhancing our understanding
of livelihoods, particularly the livelihoods of the poor. The
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework as a tool for
planning and assessing the contributions to
sustainability presents the main factors that affect
peoples livelihoods, and typical relationships between
them. Vulnerability context presents grounds upon which
livelihoods are disrupted which in the case of this study
is represented by siting of an educational institution in an
agrarian community. Livelihood assets on the other hand
offer opportunities for affected individuals and
households to build resilient livelihood pillars. Access to
these assets by the study population will not only
strengthen their resistance to livelihood risk but also
improve their standards of living in a risk prone society.
Effective enforcement of these strategies would, through
the transforming structures and processes, build
sustainable livelihood outcomes. Figure 2 shows the
Sustainable Livelihood Framework.
The Welfare Pentagon Theory
The Welfare Pentagon Theory epitomizes the five
central institutions that households use to satisfy current
and future needs in a given society. These five
institutions embody family, markets, social networks,
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana
Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 031
membership institutions and public authorities (de
Neubourg, 2002). These five institutions are similar to
Ellis (2000) various forms of capitals that can bring
change in livelihood platforms. Despite the fact that
historical and geographical appearances differ, these
institutions are found in every society across time and
space. Spatio-temporarily, the relevance of each
institution to households may vary. The theory argues
that diversification is an income generating as well as
consumption smoothing strategy (Hoogeveen, 2001;
Kochar, 2004). Fig. 3.
Households and individuals use the institutions of the
welfare pentagon in their livelihood strategies in an
attempt to raise income but also to smooth consumption.
Families, social networks and membership institutions
help households to address the livelihood risk by means
of various and different mechanisms of solidarity
(Neubourg 2009). Social networks, membership of
institutions and families serve as important source of
capital and assets for diversification. Belonging to a
family makes it possible to have access to capitals such
as family land for the establishment of shops and
building of hostels whereas membership of a group
makes financial capital easily accessible which will bring
about stress-free diversification. The large number of
people in Bamahu greatly constituted by students serve
as market for the sale of goods and provision of services.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework (Fig. 4) adopted for the study
was based on Ellis (2000) framework on initiatives of
rural income improvement. In this framework, livelihood
strategies have got activities that generate means of
Buor and Konkor 032

Figure 3. The Welfare Pentagon

Source: de Neubourg, 2002

Figure 4. Conceptual framework on initiatives of rural income improvement

Source: Ellis, (2000)

subsistence for the family unit and individuals divided including rural products selling, inputs and goods, and
into activities based on natural resources, and non- other rural services like equipment maintenance and
natural based resources, i.e. (a) activities based on rural manufacturing.
natural resources including collection, nourishment Ellis (2000), identified natural capital, social capital,
cultivation, non- nourishment cultivation, cattle and flock, financial capital, human capital and physical capital as
and non-rural activities such as brick production, livelihood platforms. From this framework, changes in
weaving and (b) non-natural based resource activities any of the following; social relations, social class, age,
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana

Figure 5. Livelihood Diversification Framework
Source: Adapted, based on Ellis (2000)
institutions, state agencies and most especially land will
bring a change in livelihood platforms. The link between
Ellis framework on initiatives of rural income
improvement and the adapted model is in land as an
element that modifies access to livelihood platform and
how land use change in the study area has modified
livelihood strategies. It is important to state that, even
though Ellis framework of rural income improvement has
stated income strategies, it is also important to point out
that, it did not explain how location of educational
institutions offer opportunities and challenges and the
means by which people can take advantage of these
opportunities and also transform the challenges into
opportunities to benefit their livelihoods. Ellis framework
was also modelled to satisfy generalized livelihood
modalities hence, failed to consider the specifics that
could bring about livelihood diversification and the
resultant impact. Ellis saw population as a factor that
could interfere with access to livelihood platforms. In this
study, population is seen as a causal factor of a new
tertiary educational institution which serves as a market
base for diversified residents. Fig. 5 was therefore
adapted to fill the gaps in the original framework.
The adapted framework (Livelihood Diversification
Framework) assumes two main sources of livelihood
namely; land based and non-land based livelihood
activities indicated in Fig.5 as land based and non-land
based resource activities. Most rural dwellers earn their
livelihoods from land based resource activities by
engaging in rural activities such as cultivation, livestock
rearing, and collection whereas a small proportion earn
their livelihoods from non-land based activities such as
small scale food processing, blacksmithing, basket
weaving and pottery. The siting of tertiary educational
institutions in rural communities increases the population
of such areas and land use change in general. The
shrinking of agricultural land use as a result of siting
tertiary educational institutions compels the people to
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana
Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 033
diversify their livelihoods. The large population serves as
market base for diversifiers and the emergence of urban
livelihood activities such as land sales, construction
work, formal jobs, manufacturing and the provision of
services are prominent.
METHODOLOGY
The study variables are age, sex, income, marital status,
family size and employment status. The rationale was to
identify how respondents within each category will
respond to livelihood diversification as a result of the
establishment of UDS in Bamahu. The main tool for the
data collection was interview guide. Primary data was
collected using interview guide, focus group discussion
and observation. The interview guide was systematically
and thematically organized under the following five
subsections; demographic characteristics, socio-
economic characteristics, evidence of shifting
livelihoods, challenges and change in quality of life due
to the establishment of UDS in Bamahu. The data for this
study was collected using the cross sectional study
design. The triangulation/mixed method or technique
and the interactive model in the framework of concurrent
triangulation were also used in this study (Maxwell,
1996). Mikkelsen (1995), identified two types of
triangulation namely; between and within triangulations.
This study however employed the between triangulation
since it allows different methods to be used in a single
study.
The study employed both random and non-random
sampling techniques. For the random sampling the
community was first divided into two clusters (Dagaaba-
yiri and Yarihi-yiri) due to its size and for adequate
representation of the entire community in the sample.
Secondary data source included information from
various government institutions and documents that lend
Buor and Konkor 034
themselves to the study. The non-random technique
comprised purposive and snowball as there were no
records of those who had lost their farmlands due to the
siting of UDS in the community. In the application of the
snowball approach, the Assembly man (Law maker of
the Local Area) was first contacted. He led the research
team to the first respondent. After collecting the data
from him, he in turn directed the team to subsequent
respondents. A total of 130 respondents were selected
(1)
using the formula: n=Z-score cited in Scott
(ME)
(2013), where,
n is the sample size,
Z-score is the confidence level (1.96)
SD is the standard deviation (1.35)
ME is the Margin of Error (0.05)
1.35(11.35)
1.96 = 129.654. This figure was however
(0.05)
rounded to the nearest ten resulting in 130.
The sample size was deemed adequate due to the
homogeneity of the study population. Fifty percent (50%)
of the sample was then collected from each cluster.
Apart from the natives, the following respondents
including the Municipal Assembly Planner, the Assembly
man and the Dean of UDS, Wa Campus were selected
purposively to respond to some specific questions. The
researchers identified them as custodians of prime
information hence, purposively selected them.
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version
20.0 was used in analyzing quantitative data. Data was
coded into SPSS and results presented in tables for
interpretation. Observations and direct quotations from
respondents which constituted qualitative data were
tape-recorded and transcribed which helped make
findings clearer. Key concepts were organized into basic
themes from which were identified organizing themes
and global themes. The instruments were pre-tested for
validation. Two field assistants were also trained for a
week to assist in the data collection. The consent of the
respondents was sought though five of them later
refused to participate and had to be replaced.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Characteristics of the sample
As indicated in Table 1, out of the one hundred and thirty
(130) respondents interviewed, 50.8% were males while
the remaining 49.2% were females. Per this statistics,
the sample is male dominated.
This however, was due to the fact that some females
were not interested in responding to the questionnaire
because they felt it was the domain of men. Age greatly
influences the kind of work one can do especially
occupations that need physical strength and so can
affect diversification. As shown in Table 1, 83.9% of the
respondents were between the ages of 15 and 45
constituted by 38.5% between the ages of 15-25 and
45.4% between the ages of 26-45. This implies that the
sample is youthful. Exactly 10.7% of the respondents
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
were between the ages of 46-60 whereas respondents
above 60 years constituted a paltry figure of 5.4%.
Majority of the respondents representing 68.5% were
married whereas 25.4% were single. Those who were
widowed represented 4.6% whereas 1.5% of all
respondents were divorced. On the other hand, 38.5% of
all respondents had no formal education and only 12.3%
had tertiary education. Whereas 15.4% had secondary
education 33.8% of all respondents had basic education.
This generally implies that literacy is low in the study
community. Majority of the respondents representing
82.3% earned below GHs300 per month whiles 7.7%
and 8.5% earned between GHs301-500 and GHs501-
800 respectively. Respondents who earned above
GHs800 constituted only 1.5%. This implies that most of
the respondents might take advantage of new income
opportunities so might be attracted to diversification.
Fertility rate is also high among the respondents as
46.1% of all respondents had between 4-10 children.
Respondents who had between 1-3 children constituted
38.5% whereas 15.4% of all respondents had no
children.
Characteristics of respondents who had diversified
their livelihood
As evident in Table 2, age greatly influences
diversification as majority (88.9%) of diversifiers were
between the ages of 15 and 45. This implies that the
youth diversify more than the aged probably because
they have the physical strength to do whatever job they
want to do be it business or labour intensive. Non-
diversifiers though paltry also constituted 13.1%. A chi-
square test with a value of 26.137 and a probability value
of 0.002 shows a significant association between age
and diversification hence, we accept the hypothesis that
there is a significant positive association between age
and diversification. About 67.7% of all diversifiers earned
regular income whereas non-diversifiers constituting
22.3% earned regular income. Majority of all regular
income earners however, earned GHs300 and below. As
shown in Table 2 at the chi-square value of 21.233 and
a probability value of 0.047 we accept the null hypothesis
that diversifiers earn proportionally higher than non-
diversifiers as a result of land use change in agrarian
communities since the probability value is less than the
alpha value of 0.05.
A chi-square value of 10.652 and a probability value of
0.559 show no significant association between
education and diversification. This means that
respondents level of education did not influence their
diversification hence, we reject the hypothesis that the
educated diversify more than the non-educated in a
sudden change of land use in agricultural communities.
As indicated in Table 2 majority of diversified
respondents had no formal education. This was probably
so because diversification was out of necessity and not
by choice.
Out of 67.7% of respondents who had changed their
respective occupations 56.8% were males whiles the
remaining 43.2% were females. This confirms Ellis
Ghana
 Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 035

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample

Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative

Variables Percent
Age 15-25 years 50 38.5 38.5
26-45 years 59 45.4 83.9
46-60 years 14 10.7 94.6
above 60 years 7 5.4 100
Total 130 100
Sex Male 66 50.8 50.8
Female 64 49.2 100
Total 130 100
Marital status Married 89 68.5 68.5
Single 33 25.4 93.9
Widowed 6 4.6 98.5
Divorced 2 1.5 100
Total 130 100
Educational status primary school 22 16.9 16.9
JHS 22 16.9 33.8
SHS 20 15.4 49.2
Tertiary 16 12.3 61.5
not educated 50 38.5 100
Total 130 100
Income less than GHs 100 54 41.5 41.5
GHs 100-300 53 40.8 82.3
GHs 301-500 10 7.7 90
GHs 501-800 11 8.5 98.5
GHs 801-1200 2 1.5 100
Total 130 100
Number of children No child 20 15.4 15.4
1-3 50 38.5 53.9
4-6 41 31.5 85.4
7-10 19 14.6 100
Total 130 100
Source: Field data, 2016

(1999) assertion that, men are more opened to
diversification opportunities than women. The reason for
this occurrence is not farfetched. Women in that part of
the country are directly under the control and submission
of their husbands. Husbands are the heads of families
and decision-making is controlled by them (Kabeer,
1999). Women would have to consult their husbands in
whatever they intend doing. Women do not also own vital
productive and economic resources such as land in the
North (Kyei, 2008). In a discussion with a woman in her
late forties, a question was asked, if you were consulted
personally at the time of land acquisition for the
establishment of UDS would you have given them the
land? She replied;
I do not know anything about land, go (referring to the
researchers) and ask the men seated over there, they
know about land (Focus Group Discussion, female
respondent with basic education).
This confirms Kyeis (2008) findings that, women lack
ownership of vital productive resources such as land in
the North. Table 2 summarizes the study variables with
their respective chi-square values. A chi-square value of
20.399 and a probability value of 0.016 shows significant
association between marital status and diversification
hence, we accept the null hypothesis that married people
diversify most in agrarian communities due to limited
land for agricultural activities.
Based on the probability values in Table 2, apart from
sex and educational status, all the other variables had
significant association with diversification. This means
that, education and sex had little or no impact on
diversification. This could however, be attributed to the
fact that diversification in Bamahu is borne out of
necessity and not by choice.
Increasing employment in non-agricultural sector is a
major source of livelihood to many in the community. An
increase in non-agrarian employment avenues
according to IFAD (2001, cited in Tacoli, 2002; Braun,
2007 and Adomako, 2013), are usually seen in
traditional regional development theory as the outcome

Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana
Buor and Konkor 036

Table 2. Characteristics of diversifiers

Variable Category Diversifiers Non- Total p-values Chi-

diversifiers square
15-25 years 32 10 42
26-45 years 44 13 57
Age 46-60 years 10 3 13 0.002 26.137
above 60 years 2 3 5
Missing values - - 13
Total 13 88 29 130
Sex Male 50 17 67
Female 38 12 50 0.449 2.647
Missing values - - 13
Total 13 88 29 130
Income < GHs 100 30 14 44
Per GHs 100-300 37 9 46
Month GHs 301-500 17 0 17 0.047 21.233
GHs 501-800 3 5 8
GHs 801-1200 1 1 2
Missing values - - 13
Total 13 88 29 130
Married 62 16 78
Marital Single 28 5 33
Status Widowed 1 0 1 0.016 20.399
Divorced 2 3 5
Missing values - - 13
Total 13 93 24 130
Primary 18 2 20
Educational JHS 16 4 20
Status SHS 14 7 21 0.559 10.652
Tertiary 6 5 11
No education 36 9 45
Missing values - - 13
Total 13 90 27 130
Source: Field Data, 2016

Table 3. Occupational areas of diversifiers

Sex Farming Valid % Business Valid % Seamstress /tailor Valid % Labour work Valid %
Male 9 75 10 27 1 10 12 100
Female 3 25 27 73 9 90 0 0
Total 12 100 37 100 10 100 12 100
Source: Field Data, 2016

of the vicious circle of rural urban development. In livelihood opportunities created as a result of the
contrast to this theory, the growth of non-agrarian establishment of UDS at Bamahu.
employment opportunities in the study community Women in the study community are into the most
(Bamahu) is not as a result of agricultural growth but as lucrative and less energy sapping job opportunities
a result of increasing difficulty in accessing land for created as a result of the establishment of UDS in the
farming purposes hence, acting as a push factor, and community compared with men despite the limitations
shifting people from agrarian based livelihood activities they faced as we will see in the system of inheritance
to non-agrarian based activities. Some of the livelihood and diversification. Out of 28.5 percent of the
opportunities within the grasp of the people of Bamahu respondents who were into business, a staggering 73%
include; porterage, security services, cleansing services, constituted females whiles the remaining 27 percent are
petty trading and shop ownership as well as hostel males as shown in Table 3. This justifies what Brook and
management. This finding satisfies the first specific Davila (2000), stated, cited in Adomako (2013), that,
objective of the study thus, identifying the specific women are more likely to go into business. For those
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana

into fashion, 90% were seamstresses while the
remaining 10% were tailors. Unlike around other tertiary
educational communities, where catering services are
common among men, no man among all the
respondents was into catering. Considering the low level
of education in the community, this may be due to the
cultural notion that, the woman/girl child belongs to the
kitchen. Men on the contrary dominate in the more
energy demanding jobs like labour work, farming among
others. This means that, though men are able to diversify
most, women diversify into better and lucrative jobs.
Reasons for diversification of livelihoods
Several reasons accounted for diversification of
livelihoods as it varied from person to person. For some,
income security is the reason they had diversified.
Agrarian source of income is no longer sustainable since
agricultural lands are now small in size and any attempt
at farming on the undeveloped school land could be
unprofitable since the crops can be bulldozed at any
point in time for the purposes of construction. This
suggests that loss of farmland is the main factor
influencing diversification. But it is also true that the
laborious nature of farming coupled with non-ready
income accounted for diversification as was suggested
by some women respondents. Shifting their main source
of livelihood is therefore the only way by which they could
secure their livelihood. In reaction to the insecurity of
farming on the school land, a man said;
We have problem with the school authorities. When you
farm on the school land the food crops can be bulldozed
but some of the lecturers are farming on it (Focus Group
Discussion, Male respondent in his early thirties with
basic education).
Some have diversified their sources of livelihood or
added other sources of livelihoods for the purposes of
earning more income. Bamahu has been monetized to
such an extent that residents buy virtually everything.
Diversifying is the ultimate way by which they can earn
enough in order to buy all that they need. In a focus
group discussion, a woman said;
I earn enough to pay for my childrens school fees. I have
eight children and my first child is in senior high school.
Left with farming alone, my worries would have been
nightmares. (Focus Group Discussion, Female
respondent in her early fifties with basic education).
Some respondents representing 12.5%, however, were
satisfied with their current sources of livelihood. It must
however be emphasized that some were conditional. A
male respondent who was a shop owner said;
I do not need another work if this one (referring to the
shop) will grow. (Focus Group Discussion, Male
respondent with basic education).
The siting of tertiary institutions is central to the
development of many communities in Africa. These
institutions do not only play educational functional role,
but also serve as a magnetic field attracting diverse
economic activities. These institutions therefore serve as
economic hubs as they assume the role of a nucleus in
the development of towns. Converging economic
activities is distinctive of siting tertiary institutions as
these activities dogged them wherever they are located.
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana
Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 037
The siting of UDS in Bamahu has radically
metamorphosed it from agrarian to a monetized
economy. Farming as a source of livelihood is gradually
giving way to other sources of livelihood especially the
service sector. Services such as; ware-housing for
building materials, banking, internet caf, printing press,
hostel managing, and transport services are common.
Non-farming economic activities that were already there
have also been intensified. Business currently is the
single largest livelihood activity for majority of the people
of Bamahu due to ready market largely constituted by
students.
Effects of diversification
About 78.7% of all respondents believed that, it is easy
earning a living now than previously though 20.6% were
of the contrary view. This could be explained by what
Adomako (2013) stated, that, the changes in major
economic activities and their negative implications are
greatly felt by people whose livelihood depends on the
natural environment whiles the emergence of a
monetized economy serves as an opportunity for those
who have the assets. Some respondents particularly the
women claimed that, the work they are doing now is less
energy demanding and you can always be assured of
getting money every day from whatever business one
may be doing compared with occupations such as
farming and quarrying where they had to wait for months
before they could get their income. On the basis of this,
one can confidently say that the second specific
objective thus, examining if there had been an
improvement in the living conditions of residents since
diversification, has been achieved.
Whereas some diversified for the purpose of gaining
more experience, others do so for the purposes of
maintaining or improving their standard of living. This
could possibly be the reason why 84.6% of all
respondents agreed there was an improvement in their
living conditions. In a focus group discussion, a woman
who was into kenkey business said;
My work was quarrying which was energy demanding
and had no ready market as a trip of stones could lie
there for months without any one coming to ask how
much it even cost. Some buyers may come and pick it
on credit in the name of coming back to pay in a day or
two and will never come back. For now my employer
pays me fortnightly (Focus Group Discussion, Female
respondents, no formal education).
Diversification out of necessity was the invisible hand
pushing many to diversify their livelihood portfolios in
order to maintain or improve their standards of living. Out
of the 90% of all respondents who received regular
monthly income, 75.2% represented diversifiers whiles
24.8% represented those who did not as shown in Table
4.
A chi-square test of independence on occupational
change and levels of income showed a significant
association between the two variables. A probability
value of 0.047 which is less than the alpha value of 0.05
means that there is a significant positive association
between diversification and income as shown in Table 5.
Buor and Konkor 038

Table 4. Income Levels of Diversifiers and Non Diversifiers

Income per month Diversifiers Non-diversifiers Total

< GHs 100 30 14 44
GHs 100-300 37 9 46
GHs 301-500 17 0 17
GHs 501-800 3 5 8
GHs 801-1200 1 1 2
88 29 117
Source: Field Data, 2016

Table 5. Chi-Square Tests on diversification and income

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 21.233a 12 .047
Likelihood Ratio 20.034 12 .066
Linear-by-Linear Association
.930 1 .335

N of Valid Cases 92
Source: Field Data 2016

Table 6. Chi-Square Tests on level of education and income

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 12.579a 4 0.014
Likelihood Ratio 12.112 4 0.017
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.601 1 0.032
N of Valid Cases 130
Source: Field Data, 2016

Diversifiers earn higher regular incomes than non-
diversifiers. This evidence corroborates the qualitative
evidence of improved living conditions among
respondents, hence, re-emphasizing the satisfaction of
the second objective of examining if there had been an
improvement in the living conditions of residents since
diversification.
Effects of socio-demographic variables on income
There is a significant relationship between income and
number of years in schooling as shown in Table 6. The
Pearson chi-square recorded a value 12.579 and a
probability value of 0.014 which is less than the alpha
value of 0.05. This means that a persons level of income
is significantly influenced by the number of years in
education. People with higher levels of education are
more likely to earn higher income than those with little or
no education.
Similarly, gender has a significant impact on level of
income as shown in Table 7. At the Pearson chi-square
of 3.961 the probability value was 0.047 for income and
gender. This means that there is a significant
relationship between gender and income and the
amount one earns is greatly influenced by his or her
gender status. The males earn slightly higher than the
females as no female respondent earned above GHs800
though only 4.4% of all males who earn regular income
earn above GHs800. The probability value for both
associations which respectively are 0.014 and 0.047 are
less than the alpha value which means that, there is a
strong association between years of schooling and
income and between gender and income.
Other variables such as number of children and marital
status which were expected to have impact on income
proved otherwise as both of them had their probability
values respectively as 0.494 and 0.249 are far greater
than the alpha value of 0.05. This means that there is no
significant relationship or association between these
variables and income.
Negative impacts of the presence of UDS in Bamahu
Challenges and opportunities are the manifestations of
transformational changes in livelihood activities presented

Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana

Table 7. Chi-Square Tests on gender and income
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Casesb
Source: Field Data, 2016
presented to the people of Bamahu as a result of the
establishment of UDS. The relationship between the
farmer and that of his farmland are inseparable. Loss of
farmland is therefore the greatest setback that could
ever happen to the people of Bamahu as far as livelihood
is concerned. According to Afriyie et al., (2013) the sale
of farmlands for non-agricultural purposes to urban
developers deprive farmers of their livelihood by
shrinking the natural capital base. A valid percent of
eighty (80%) of all the respondents said that, their
farmlands had been taken for non-farm activities
precisely for the construction of the school infrastructure.
This therefore poses a great threat to their livelihoods
since most of them depended entirely on the land for
primary economic activities. To minimize the brunt of
loss of lands, some respondents suggested training on
small-scale businesses in order to ease diversification.
Related to loss of farmlands are diverse land-related
problems. It was observed from the field that, apart from
agricultural land use value of lands as a natural
commodity and probably for quarry and putting up their
own houses, land had no other use to them. The coming
of UDS has, however, enlightened them on other uses
of land apart from these traditional land uses. They now
know how to sell land and this has culminated into
multiple sales of land by land and non-land owners alike.
The people are therefore sitting on a time bomb
considering the potentials it holds for conflicts and its
resultant impact on peace and livelihood activities of
people not only in the community but the region as a
whole. In a focus group discussion, a man in his early
forties asserted;
Bamahu as it stands now depends on the mercies of our
judicial system to survive independently as a community
as it stands the risk of being divided among three other
communities who claim to have owned some parts of
Bamahu. This peculiar problem never existed in the
history of Bamahu until now where these communities
are anticipating some form of compensation from the
government and therefore want to be part of it. (Focus
Group Discussion, Male respondent with basic
education)
Closely related to land problems is ownership of land.
Patrilineal system of inheritance is the culture in that part
of the country, implying that women cannot own land.
Considering the central role of women for the survival of
the family, if they had access to such a vital productive
commodity, the 70.8% level of poverty in the study region
as stated by the Ghana Living Standard Survey (2012),
could have been very much lower. This probably is one
of the reasons why more women are into business than
men. Women play a central role in rural development
through non-farm activities. Diversification can improve
the income acquisition potentials of women and in so
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 039
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
3.961a 1 0.047
4.011 1 0.045
3.935 1 0.047
130
doing metamorphose into improved nutritional,
educational and the general well-being of the family
particularly children since it has been proven by Todaro
and Smith (2009), that women spend relatively higher
proportion of their income on their families compared
with their male partners.
Increase in room occupancy is yet another worry
observed from the field as husband and wife/wives and
children now have to share the same room. This is done
just to rent out the remaining rooms because of the high
demand for accommodation in the community and the
anticipated returns expected from subletting. This was
not the case a few years back. In a focus group
discussion a gentleman in his early twenties said;
One of my uncles has rented out his own room and is
now in the same room with his wife and children. (Focus
Group Discussion, Male respondent with secondary
education).
Other problems identified by the respondents include:
Pressure on limited social amenities such as water and
public latrines. Though new ones have been added they
do not meet demand. Exactly 77.3% of all responded
that security in the community was worse than before.
Stealing of motorbikes and electrical gadget are
common among students and natives alike. Indecent
dressing and promiscuity is now high in the community.
In an interview with the assembly man he said;
One native boy of about 15 years in junior high school
was sent to a distant village by his parents because
some student ladies found pleasure in him. The ladies
found him to be naturally endowed and could satisfy
them sexually. It came to light when one student lady
tried to outsmart her next door neighbour who had
brought the boy to her room (Interview with the Assembly
man).
Coping strategies
An agrarian economy that has been transformed into a
monetized economy presented a number of challenges.
The people, however, have adopted a number of coping
strategies to overcome some of these challenges.
Temporal migration is a strategy that a number of them
have adopted in an attempt to overcome these
challenges particularly the farmers. They migrate to near
and distant places where there are still vast tracks of land
for large scale farming. They return to the community
with their food crops which they use to feed their families
and also sell some to earn revenues that can be used to
undertake a business venture. This confirms the findings
of Cekan (1992) in Gallo a village in Mali. But unlike
Gallo where the people reduce their calorie intake,
migrate to cities and some undertaking cash crop
production, the people of Bamahu move to other villages
Ghana
Buor and Konkor 040
to undertake food crop production. Women practice what
is locally called dag bila literary translated as small box
in which they put money periodically for each to take in
turns. This was what some of them used to start their
business and those who were into business already
plough it back into their business in order to expand it.
This probably explains why women are into business
more than men.
DISCUSSION
Inference drawn from the study has shown that
diversification by the people of Bamahu was motivated
by necessity. Diversification was necessary because
their previous sacrosanct sources of livelihood were
curtailed by the presence of UDS. This type of
diversification is similar to Ellis (2000) diversification out
of necessity. This justifies the third specific objective, i.e.
identifying the challenges faced as a result of the
establishment of UDS in Bamahu. All three specific
objectives have been achieved with the findings of
specific livelihood opportunities created, challenges
faced and improved living conditions among
respondents as a result of the presence of UDS in
Bamahu.
There is a significant positive association between age
and diversification, marital status and diversification and
income and diversification. This implies, we accept the
hypotheses related to them as earlier stated. The
hypothesis that, the educated diversify more than the
non-educated in a sudden change of land use in
agricultural communities was not satisfied.
Diversification out of necessity and not by choice could
have explained this occurrence. This was contrary to
research findings by Bryceson, (2002) and Dilruba et al.,
(2012) which stated that, households with higher levels
of educated individuals have greater chances of
diversifying livelihoods since they are open to greater
opportunities.
Out of 67.7% of respondents who had changed their
respective occupations 56.8% were males whiles the
remaining 43.2% were females. This confirmed Ellis
(1999) assertion that, men are more opened to
diversification opportunities than women. This was
however, explained by the fact that women lack
ownership of vital productive resources such as land
(Kyei, 2008).Women in the study community however,
are into the most lucrative and less energy sapping job
opportunities created as a result of the establishment of
UDS in the community compared with men. This justifies
what Brook and Davila (2000), stated, cited in Adomako
(2013), that, women are more likely to go into business.
An improvement in living conditions of diversifiers is
partly due to the increase in the population of the
community as a result of the establishment of the
university which serves as a large market base for
economic activities as indicated in the adapted
conceptual framework. The central government through
the Municipal Assembly has therefore provided more
social services such as a clinic, boreholes, refuse
containers to the community. According to Ohene-Kyei
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana
(2008), District Assemblies involvement in poverty
alleviation and development is mainly centered on the
provision of social service infrastructure. The gap
between availability and accessibility of these services
has been bridged.
The growth of non-agrarian employment opportunities in
the study community (Bamahu) was not as a result of
agricultural growth but as a result of increasing difficulty
in accessing land for farming purposes as in the findings
of IFAD (2001) cited in Tacoli, (2002) and Braun, (2007)
and Adomako,(2013)hence, acting as a push factor, and
shifting people from agrarian based livelihood activities
to non-agrarian based activities .Diversification from an
agrarian based economy into a more monetized
economy is asset driven. Those with assets are able to
make transition with ease and efficiency compared with
those who lack it (Dilruba and Roy, 2012). Any efforts at
empowering the asset poor would be an attempt at
enhancing their diversification. Lack of access to
institutional credit is an impeding factor to livelihood
diversification (Islam et al., 2014). Hence, the practice
of dag bila where moneys are contributed and given to
individuals of the group periodically formed the sources
of their capital. This confirms Dilruba et al., (2012) finding
of increased access to common property and resource
by membership of such groups. According to Kelkar and
Nathan, (2005), membership of a cooperative elevates
social status and increases access to common property
resources. Since there is strength in unity, membership
of such groups enables members diversify into business.
Most rural dwellers are poor in one way or the other and
have no collateral to secure loans from banks ( Khatun
and Roy, 2012). Hence, this practice is the source of
capital for some diversifiers. This means that, the
specific objective of identifying specific livelihood
opportunities created has been achieved.
In fulfillment of identifying challenges faced by residents
due to the establishment of UDS, shrinking agricultural
lands for farming purposes which formed the basis of
their livelihoods did not go unnoticed. According to
Afriyie et al., (2013) the sale of farmlands for non-
agricultural purposes to urban developers deprive
farmers of their livelihood by shrinking the natural capital
base. This was evident when 80% of all respondents
acknowledged a rapid conversion of their farmlands into
non-farm activities precisely for the construction of the
school infrastructure. Loss of farmland, multiple sales of
land, increased cost of living and moral degradation
were also identified. Given the results which relate to the
conceptual framework and theoretical perspective, it is
expected that more members of the study community will
get involved in alternative livelihoods which will improve
their quality of life.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
UDS authorities in collaboration with the National Board
for Small Scale Industry are recommended to provide
the community with trained skills in order to ease
diversification processes since some respondents
identified it as a necessary condition for non-land based
diversification. Skills coupled with low or interest free

loans would enable them overcome the brunt of lost
sources of livelihood due to the presence of UDS.
Further research especially on areas such as the impact
of UDS on sustainable livelihood activities and the
impact of UDS on gender and diversification using more
thorough, sophisticated and in-depth methods is also
recommended. Lastly, government and UDS authorities
should speed up with the compensation process to
enable beneficiaries venture into other livelihood
portfolios.
It was realized from the study that, diversification is a bi-
gender phenomenon, but men diversify most though
women diversify into less energy sapping job fields
compared with men. Education, however, had little or no
impact on diversification as most of those who diversified
were those with little or no formal education. There are
numerous livelihood opportunities created as a result of
the establishment of UDS in Bamahu and those that
were already there have also been intensified. Some of
them include: food vending, internet caf operation,
printing, cleaning, porterage, security services, hostel
management etc. Moreover, the data confirmed that
living conditions of diversifiers have improved over the
past few years. Most respondents preferred their current
sources of livelihood to their previous sources of
livelihood even though there were some socio-economic
problems such as theft, multiple sale of land, and
increase in room occupancy. The sustainable livelihood
framework and the pentagon theory have been reflected
in the results whiles the conceptual framework which
links diversification to loss of farmlands and non-land
based activities in rural and urban areas have been
justified.
REFERENCES
Adomako JA (2013). Urbanisation Of The Rural
Landscape: Assessing The Effects And Coping
Mechanisms In Peri-Urban Kumasi.Canadian Center
for Science and Education.
Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D (1999). Rethinking the Causes
of Deforestation: Lessons from Economic Models. The
World Bank Research Observer, 14(1):73-98.
Atchoarena D, Wallace I, Green K, Gomes CA (2003).
Strategies and Institutions for Promoting Skills for
Rural Development. Education for rural development:
towards new policy responses, p.239. California,
NFPE
Barrett CB, Reardon T, Webb P (2001). Non-farm
Income Diversification and Household Livelihood
Strategies in Rural Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and
policy implications. Food policy, 26 (4):315-331.
Bebbington A (1999). Capitals and Capabilities: A
framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural
livelihoods and poverty. World
development, 27(12):2021-2044.
Belay M, Bewket W (2015). Enhancing Rural Livelihoods
Through Sustainable Land and Water Management.in
Northwest Ethiopia. Geography, Environment,
Sustainability, 8,79-100.
Boserup E, Kanji N (2007). Woman's role in Economic
Development. Earthscan.
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
Ghana
Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 041
Bryceson DF (2002) The Scramble in Africa:
Reorienting Rural Livelihoods. World Development.
30(5):725-739.
Bryceson DF (2002). Multiplex Livelihoods in Rural
Africa: Recasting the terms and conditions of gainful
employment. The Journal of Modern African
Studies, 40 (01):1-28.
Bloom DE, Canning D, Chan K (2006). Higher Education
and economic development in Africa (Vol. 102).
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Carolina Bilibio OH JFS, (2012). Sustainable Water
Management in the Tropics and Subtropics - and case
studies in Brazil.. Vol. IV ed. India, por David Rotbard:
Unipampa.
Cekan J (1992), Seasonal Coping Strategies in Central
Mali: five villages during the "soudure"
Disasters, 16 (1): 66-73.
Chun N, Makiko W (2011). Can Skill Diversification
Improve Welfare in Rural Areas? Evidence from the
Rural Skills Development Project in Bhutan.
Davis JR (2003). The Rural Non-Farm Economy,
Livelihoods and their Diversification. Issues and
Options. Department for International Development.
London de Neubourg C, Sigg R, Behrendt C (2002).
The Welfare Pentagon and the Social Management of
Risks. Social security in the global village, 8.
Dercon S (1996). Risk, Crop Choice, and Savings:
Evidence from Tanzania. Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 44(3):485-513.
Devereux S (2001). Livelihood Insecurity and Social
Protection: A reemerging issue in rural
development. Development policy review, 19(4):507-
519.
Dilruba K, Roy B (2012). Rural Livelihood Diversification
in West Bengal. Agricultural Economic Research
Review, 115-124.
Ellis F (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in
Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis F (2004). Occupational Diversification in Developing
Countries and Implications for Agricultural Policy. Hot
topic paper-Programme of Advisory and Support
Services to DFID (PASS) Project No. WB0207.
Ellis F (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood
diversification. The journal of development
studies, 35(1):1-38.
Eriksen SH, O'brien K (2007). Vulnerability, poverty and
the need for sustainable adaptation
measures. Climate policy, 7(4):337-352.
FAO and Worldbank. (2001). Farming Systems and
Poverty. Rome and Washington DC.
GSS (2010). 2010 Population and Housing Census.
Ghana Statistical Service.
Hilson G (2016). Farming, Small Scale Mining and Rural
Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: A critical overview.
The Extractive Industries and Society, 3, 547-563.
Hiremath BN (2007), December. The Changing Faces of
Rural Livelihoods in India. In National Civil Society
Conference on What it takes to Eradicate Poverty,
New Delhi (pp. 4-6).
Hoogeveen JGM (2001), 'Risk and Insurance in Rural
Zimbabwe', Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Buor and Konkor 042
ICSU ISSC (2015): Review of the Sustainable
Development Goals:The Science Perspective. Paris:
International Council for Science (ICSU).
Kabeer N (1999). Resources, Agency, Achievements:
Reflections on the measurement of women's
empowerment. Development and change, 30(3):435-
464.
Kabila A, Kwadwo A, Janet AAA (May, 2013). Household
Responses to Livelihood Transformation in Peri-Urban
Kumasi. Canadian Center of Science and Education 6:
6.
Kelkar G, Nathan D (2005). Strategic Gender
Interventions and Poverty Reduction: Principles and
Practice. IFAD-UNIFEM Gender Mainstreaming
Programme in Asia.
Kochar A (2004). Ill-health, Savings and Portfolio
Choices in Developing Economies. Journal of
Development Economics, 73(1):257-285.
Kumar P, Singh NP, Mathur VC (2006). Sustainable
Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods:
synthesis. Agricultural Economics Studies, 32(6):850-
75.
Kyei PO (2008). Crawling out of Poverty: Nadowli
Women and Poverty Alleviation under the
Decentralized System of Ghana. Bulletin of the Ghana
Geographical Association, 3(25) :129-148.
Loison SA, Loison SA (2016). Rural livelihood
Diversification in Sub_Saharan Africa: ALiterature
Review.The Journal of Development Studies,51,
1125-1138.
Maxwell JA (1996). Qualitative Research Design. An
Interactive Approach. Newbury Park CA: Sage
Publications.
Mehar M, Mittal S, Prasad N (2016). Farmers Coping
Strategies for Climate Shock: Is it differentiated by
gender? Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 123-131.
Mikkelsen B (1995). Methods for development work and
research: a guide for practitioners. Sage Publications
India Pvt Ltd.
Neubourg CD (2009). A Livelihood Portfolio Theory of
Social Protection. Maastricht Graduate School of
Governance, Maastricht University, Brussels,
December, 9, pp.1-5.
Owusu F (2005). Livelihood Strategies and Performance
of Ghana's Health and Education Sectors: Exploring
the Connections. Public Administration and
Development, 25(2):157-174.
Paavola J (2008). Livelihoods, Vulnerability and
Adaptation to Climate Change in Morogoro,
Tanzania. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(7):642-
654.
Rakodi C (2002). A Livelihoods ApproachConceptual
Issues and Definitions. Urban Livelihoods: A people-
centred approach to reducing poverty, pp.3-22.
Reardon T (1997). Using Evidence of Household Income
Diversification to Inform Study of the Rural Nonfarm
Labor Market in Africa. World
Development, 25(5):735-747.
Reardon T, Taylor JE, Stamoulis K, Lanjouw P,
Balisacan A (2000). Effects of Nonfarm Employment
on Rural Income Inequality in Developing Countries:
Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu,
An investment perspective. Journal of agricultural
economics, 51(2):266-288.
Scott S (2013). Determining Sample Size: How to ensure
you get the correct sample size. Provo, Utah:
Qualtrics.
Karim H, John N (1998), 'Sustainable Livelihoods and
Livelihood Diversification', IDS Working Paper 69.
Simon D, McGregor D, Nsiah-Gyabaah K (2004). The
changing urban-rural interface of African cities:
definitional issues and an application to Kumasi,
Ghana. Environment and Urbanization, 16(2):235-
248.
Smith DR, Gordon A, Meadows K, Zwick K (2001).
Livelihood Diversification in Uganda: Patterns and
determinants of change across two rural
districts. Food Policy, 26(4), pp.421-435.
Tacoli C (2002). Changing Rural-Urban Interactions in
the Sub-Saharan Africa and their Impact on
Livelihoods: A summary (Vol. 4). IIED.
A Teferra D, Altbachl PG (2004). African Higher
Education: Challenges for the 21st century. Higher
education, 47(1):21-50.
Todaro MP, Smith SC (2009). Economic Development.
10th Edition. Pearson
United Nations. Department of Economic and United
Nations. Department of Public Information,
(2009). The millennium development goals report
2009. United Nations Publications.
Vedeld P, Angelsen A, Boj J, Sjaastad E, Berg GK
(2007). Forest Environmental Incomes and the Rural
Poor. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(7):869-879.
WMA (2014). The Composite Budget of the Wa
Municipal Assembly. Wa: Wa Municipal Assembly.
Yawn J, Benjamin M, Charitonenko S (1998). Promoting
Efficient Rural Financial Intermediation. The World
Bank Research Observer, 13(2):147-70.
Accepted 24 June, 2017.
Citation: Buor D, Konkor I (2016). Shifting livelihood:
Exploring the relationship between the presence of
University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood
diversification in Bamahu, Ghana. International Journal
of Geography and Regional Planning 3(1): 027-042.
Copyright: 2016 Buor and Konkor. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
cited.
Ghana