Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
1 Transportation Means and Access to Basic Services

1 Transportation Means and Access to Basic Services

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang

Sustainability Field Exercises in Rural Areas …



163



Village total



Walk or bike



Group 1



Car driven by a

household

member



Group 2



Car driven by

others



Group 3



Public

transportation



Group 4



Local NGO

service

Others



Group 5

0



10



20



30



40



50



60



70



80



90



100



Percent of respondents



Fig. 3  Main means of transportation of households



Village total



Self-managing



Group1



Mobile grocery

stores



Group2



Delivery

service

Group3



Outmigrated

family

Neighbors



Group4

Others

Group5

0



10



20



30



40



50



60



70



Percent of respondents



Fig. 4  Main access mean to groceries



80



90



100



S. Kudo



164



are “self-managing” grocery shopping represent 54.2 % of the community, which

is about 25 % lower than in other groups. Instead, 33.3 % of households in Group

5 answered that they use “Mobile grocery stores” to purchase daily products. It

would appear logical thus that the use of “Delivery services” should also be high

in Group 5, however it was highest in Group 1 at 8.9 %.

In terms of the frequency of grocery shopping, a clear difference was found

between Groups 1–4 and Group 5. About 45–65 % of households in Groups 1–4

answered that they do grocery shopping “2–3 times per week”, while the same

response was only 31.8 % in Group 5 (Fig. 5). Instead, 54.5 % of households in

Group 5 answered “2–3 times per month”.



4.2 Property Management of Households

There are various types of properties in rural areas, including farmlands, community forests, individual houses, and even some intangible resources such as

local knowledge and traditions. Since the questionnaire was targeting individual

households, the management conditions of their farmlands, individual houses, and

seasonal activities were investigated by asking respondents about their current

operations.



Village total



Group 1

Almost

everyday

Group 2



2-3times

/week

2-3times

/month



Group 3



Once

/Month



Group 4



Others

Group 5

0



10



20



30



40



50



60



Percent of respondents



Fig. 5  Frequency of grocery shopping



70



80



90



100



Sustainability Field Exercises in Rural Areas …



165



Regarding the management of farmlands, in Group 1, 45.7 % of households

answered that they are “Non-farmers” (Fig. 6). This is largely because communities in Group 1 form the central area of the village, which consists of a higher

concentration of built areas than farming areas. Reflecting such characteristics,

the most common type of farming was “Self-consumption” in Group 1, at 28.5 %,

essentially small scale farming to produce rice and vegetables by households for

their own consumption. There are only 6.0 % “Full-time farmer” and 7.1 % “Parttime farmer” households in Group 1.

Compared to Group 1, there are higher proportions of “Full-time farmer” and

“Part-time farmer” households in Group 2–4. Especially, the shares of “Part-time

farmer” are highest at 25.7 % in Group 3. Also, the share of “Ask other person to

cultivate” is higher at 22.6 % in Group 4 and 17.1 % in Group 3. In general, farming operations are fairly well maintained in Groups 2–4, and are especially active

in Groups 3 and 4. In the case of Group 5, the type of farming appears different

from other groups. The share of “Self-consumption” type of farming is the highest

(56.5 %) among all five community groups. In addition, there is no household who

answered “Part-time farmer” within this group.

Kamikoani is known for its heavy snow in winter, and therefore removing snow

is an important part of maintenance work for individual households. The survey asked how each household is managing this task. Between 70 to 83 % of the

households in Groups 1–4 responded that they are “Self-managing”. For the case



Village total

Full-time

farmer

Group 1



Part-time

farmer



Group 2



Ask relatives

to cultivate



Group 3



Ask other

person to

cultivate

Selfconsumption



Group 4



Non-farmer

/Others



Group 5

0



10



20



30



40



50



60



Percent of respondents



Fig. 6  Farming operation of households



70



80



90



100



S. Kudo



166



of Group 5, the response of “Self-managing” is slightly lower at 65.2 % (Fig. 7).

Instead, 21.7 % of households in Group 5 answered “Ask neighbors” for help, and

13.0 % responded “Ask out-migrated family” members for assistance. Essentially,

responses which require the support of others are 5–10 % higher in Group 5 than

in the other four community groups.

Another common challenge in property management is the shortage of manpower for local activities. The survey asked the types of activities that residents feel their community does not have enough manpower for. In Group 1–4,

between 30 and 60 % of households raised the task of “Removing snow” and

between 20–40 % of them responded “Local events” (Fig. 8). The latter answer

implies that residents feel they do not have enough people to organize local festivals at the same scale and content as they had in the past. In the case of Group

5, the response appeared different, with 73.9 % of the households mentioning

“Removing snow” and only 8.7 % “Local events” . Considering the smaller population sizes, this finding implies that local events have already been down-sized

significantly in Group 5.



Village total

Self-managing

Group1

Ask neighbors

Group2



Ask outmigrated family

Private service



Group3



No removing

Group4

Others

Group5

0



10



20



30



40



50



60



70



Percent of respondents



Fig. 7  Removing snow task



80



90



100



Sustainability Field Exercises in Rural Areas …



167



Village total



Group 1



Farm operation

Removing snow



Group 2



Chores / cleanups

Community property



Group 3

Local events

Nothing special

Group 4

Others

Group 5

0



10



20



30



40



50



60



70



80



90



100



Percent of respondents



Fig. 8  Activities that residents feel shortage of manpower



4.3 Economic Status: Income Satisfaction Level of

Households

To find out about the economic status of households, the questionnaire asked about

the income satisfaction level of households. The possible answers provided were

“Sufficient”, “Sufficient but I want an additional part-time job”, “Neither sufficient nor insufficient”, “Insufficient so that I need an additional part-time job”,

“Insufficient so that I need an additional full-time job”.

The results show that only 10.9 % of households in the village feel that they

have “sufficient” income (Fig. 9), including 10–13 % in Groups 1–3, down to 5.9 %

in Group 4, and no household choosing this answer in Group 5. The most common

answer was “Neither” at 57.4 % in the village total, which was highest in Group 4

at 62.7 % and lowest in Group 5 at 54.5 %. The total cumulative responses to the

answers of “Sufficient”, “Sufficient, but I want an additional part-time job”, and

“Neither” can be seen as the proportion of households that are not expressing negative

evaluations on their current income levels. This category of answer consists 70–75 %

of Group 1–4 households, while it is only 54.5 % for the case Group 5. Instead,

households who expressed their income levels are insufficient so that they need either

part-time or full-time jobs are 45.5 % in Group 5, which is about 20–27 % higher than

in other community groups. It can thus be concluded that, in general, the majority of

households in Group 5 are not satisfied with their current income levels.



S. Kudo



168



Village total



Sufficient



Group 1



Sufficient

(part-time)



Group 2



Neither

Insufficient

(part-time)



Group 3



Insufficient

(full-time)



Group 4



Others

Group 5

0



10



20



30



40



50



60



70



80



90



100



Percent of respondents



Fig. 9  Income satisfaction



4.4 Social Relationships Among Residents

Social relationships between residents are considered as a key component to

enhance local livelihoods in rural communities. The survey examined the household’s relationships with others by asking to whom they consult with when they

encounter any concerns or problems. In the village total, 41.1 % of households

responded that they consult with their “Relatives” (Fig. 10) and 20.7 % with their

“Out-migrated children”. These two options essentially relate to family members,

and consist more than 60 % of the total responses. It is worth noting that in contrast 23.1 % of households answered “None”, meaning they do not consult with

anyone. The shares of households who said they consult with their “Neighbors”,

“Town hall”, and “Care workers” were all less than 5 %. In Group 1, the most

common answer was “None” at 43.5 %, which was the highest among all community groups. In Group 2–5, about 20 % of households chose the “None” answer,

while 37–53 % of households in Group 2–5 answered that they consult with

“Relatives” (the same answer was only at 21.7 % in Group 1).

In addition to social relationships within each community, the survey asked if

households are interested in any particular activities to enhance the local economy and living environment. The possible answers provided in the questionnaire were “Enhancing local market”, “Promoting tourism”, “Utilize abandoned



Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

1 Transportation Means and Access to Basic Services

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)

×