Figure 1
Location of RePEAT study villages, Uganda.
Table 1
Descriptive characteristics of communal grazing lands (from community survey).
| Characteristic | Community level (n=32) | Patch level (n=62) |
|---|---|---|
| Communities in cattle corridor (percent) | 59.7% | – |
| Perceived patch condition (percent) | ||
| Bad | 9.80% | |
| Average | 42.70% | |
| Good | 47.50% | |
| Patch usage by community members (percent) | 40% | 30% |
| Area of communal grazing land (hectares)* | 24 | 6 |
| Grazing lands with use restrictions (percent)* | 8.06% |
Median values represented rather than means to account for left skewed distribution of values.
*Household density per grazing land and use restriction variables were modeled but did not yield significant results, likely due to small sample size.
Table 2
Summary statistics.
| Mean | SD | Min | Max | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | |||||
| Communal grazing land (0/1) | 0.34 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 | 1=Presence of grazing land, 0=Absence of grazing land |
| Grazing patch condition | 2.39 | 0.66 | 1 | 3 | Grazing patch condition where 1=bad, 2=average, 3=good |
| Grazing patch usage (%) | 0.41 | 0.32 | 0.012 | 1 | Proportion of households in a community using grazing land |
| Predictors | |||||
| Religious diversity | 2.73 | 0.84 | 1 | 4 | Number of religions present in a community |
| Ethnic diversity | 2.29 | 1.43 | 1 | 6 | Number of ethnicities present in a community |
| Variation in assets value | 2.72 | 1.74 | 0 | 10 | Community coefficient of variation of household asset values standardized to 1–10 scale |
| Variation in livestock value | 2.96 | 2.05 | 0 | 10 | Community coefficient of variation of household livestock values standardized to 1–10 scale |
| Variation in cattle ownership | 3.82 | 2.42 | 0 | 10 | Community coefficient of variation of household cattle ownership standardized to 1–10 scale |
| Mutual aid groups | 1.24 | 2.11 | 0 | 12.12 | Number of mutual aid groups per 100 households in a community |
| Local organizations | 0.89 | 1.58 | 0 | 9.68 | Number of local organizations per 100 households in a community |
| Microcredit groups | 1.77 | 3.40 | 0 | 23.26 | Number of microcredit groups per 100 households in a community |
| Partnerships with NGOs | 0.43 | 1.48 | 0 | 12 | Number of partnerships per 100 households in a community |
| Percentage of land owned | 80.22 | 21.67 | 6.275304 | 100 | Average percentage of land under owner tenancy in a community |
| Percentage of land occupied | 16.27 | 21.45 | 0 | 93.72 | Average percentage of land under occupant tenancy in a community |
| Percentage of land with tenant | 3.51 | 4.73 | 0 | 21.72 | Average percentage of land under tenant tenancy in a community |
| Number of households | 162 | 157 | 25 | 1023 | Number of households in a community |
| Average Value of Assets (USD) | 88 | 83 | 9 | 566 | Average value of assets per household |
| Average Value of Livestock (USD) | 224 | 300 | 8 | 2191 | Average value of livestock per household |
| Average land per household (hectares) | 0.72 | 0.69 | 0.10 | 4.05 | Average land per household |
| Livelihood diversity | 4.98 | 1.70 | 0 | 10 | Index of livelihood diversity in a community in comparison with other communities |
| Average cattle ownership | 5.48 | 7.21 | 0 | 43 | Average cattle ownership per household |
| Population density (people/pixel) | 3.10 | 2.39 | 0.24 | 12.82 | Population density (1 km buffer) |
| Driving time to town (hours) | 0.87 | 0.96 | 0.01 | 8 | Driving time to nearest town |
| Cattle corridor (0/1) | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 | 1=Community is within the ‘cattle corridor’, 0=Community is not within the ‘cattle corridor’ |
| Forest density (pixels) | 30.53 | 11.72 | 10.21 | 58.47 | Average tree cover across pixels within a community, year 2000 (1 km buffer) |
| Precipitation (centimeters) | 12.26 | 1.92 | 8.09 | 19.60 | Climate yearly average of rainfall across pixels within a community (1 km buffer) |
| Communities=94; Patches=62 |
Table 3
Logistic regression models predicting presence of grazing land.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social capital measures | ||||
| Bonding | ||||
| Religious diversity | 0.419*** | 0.306*** | 0.437** | 0.273** |
| (0.139) | (0.127) | (0.172) | (0.140) | |
| Ethnic diversity | 0.974 | 1.043 | 0.868 | 0.900 |
| (0.173) | (0.197) | (0.171) | (0.239) | |
| Variation in assets value | 1.392** | 1.453*** | 1.351 | 1.613* |
| (0.186) | (0.202) | (0.299) | (0.427) | |
| Variation in livestock value | 0.978 | 1.063 | 0.847 | 0.818 |
| (0.192) | (0.189) | (0.139) | (0.164) | |
| Variation in cattle ownership | 1.044 | 1.069 | 1.194 | 1.318* |
| (0.144) | (0.129) | (0.133) | (0.221) | |
| Bridging | ||||
| Mutual aid groups | 0.847 | 0.842 | 0.881 | 0.713 |
| (0.102) | (0.114) | (0.140) | (0.155) | |
| Local organizations | 0.824 | 0.813 | 0.715 | 0.792 |
| (0.155) | (0.153) | (0.160) | (0.204) | |
| Linking | ||||
| Microcredit groups | 0.747*** | 0.710*** | 0.764*** | 0.680*** |
| (0.0803) | (0.0805) | (0.0721) | (0.0766) | |
| Partnerships with NGOs | 0.511 | 0.513 | 0.448 | 0.439 |
| (0.211) | (0.215) | (0.227) | (0.247) | |
| Property rights | ||||
| Land tenure1 | ||||
| Percentage of land occupied | 1.038* | 1.015 | 1.045** | |
| (0.0200) | (0.0125) | (0.0208) | ||
| Percentage of land with tenant | 1.014 | 1.027 | 1.003 | |
| (0.0560) | (0.0549) | (0.0591) | ||
| Land tenancy2 | ||||
| Percentage mailo land tenure | 0.981 | |||
| (0.0161) | ||||
| Percentage customary land tenure | 1.002 | |||
| (0.0108) | ||||
| Community characteristics | ||||
| Number of households | 0.999 | 1.001 | ||
| (0.00243) | (0.00310) | |||
| ln(Average value of assets) | 1.770 | 1.311 | ||
| (1.039) | (1.163) | |||
| ln(Average value of livestock) | 0.412* | 0.427 | ||
| (0.197) | (0.264) | |||
| ln(Average land per household) | 0.969 | 0.486 | ||
| (0.297) | (0.259) | |||
| Livelihood diversity | 1.486* | 1.739* | ||
| (0.329) | (0.521) | |||
| Average cattle ownership | 1.117* | 1.032 | ||
| (0.0706) | (0.0789) | |||
| Population density | 0.691 | |||
| (0.208) | ||||
| Biophysical controls | ||||
| ln(Driving time to town) | 0.912 | |||
| (0.347) | ||||
| Cattle corridor | 0.0838* | |||
| (0.110) | ||||
| Forest density | 0.972 | |||
| (0.0376) | ||||
| Precipitation | 0.416** | |||
| (0.169) | ||||
| Constant | 5.173 | 4.870 | 27.60 | 4.244e+08* |
| (5.175) | (5.865) | (208.4) | (4.706e+09) | |
| AIC | 119.18 | 121.45 | 126.85 | 117.90 |
| BIC | 144.62 | 157.06 | 175.17 | 178.94 |
| Observations | 94 |
Coefficients are presented as odds ratios, robust standard errors are in parentheses.
1Tenure base category percentage free/leasehold land tenure.
2Tenancy base category percentage of land owned.
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.
Table 4
Ordered logistic regression model predicting grazing land condition (bad, average, good).
| Model 1 | |
|---|---|
| Social capital measures | |
| Religious diversity | 0.265*** |
| (0.128) | |
| Variation in assets value | 1.218 |
| (0.433) | |
| Variation in livestock value | 0.844 |
| (0.189) | |
| Variation in cattle ownership | 1.130 |
| (0.389) | |
| Mutual aid groups | 0.344*** |
| (0.122) | |
| Microcredit groups | 1.503 |
| (0.902) | |
| Community characteristics | |
| Number of households | 0.998 |
| (0.00278) | |
| ln(Average value of assets) | 0.0700* |
| (0.102) | |
| ln(Average value of livestock) | 0.198** |
| (0.139) | |
| Livelihood diversity | 1.222 |
| (0.367) | |
| Population density | 1.393 |
| (0.735) | |
| Biophysical controls | |
| Cattle corridor | 0.0459*** |
| (0.0547) | |
| Precipitation | 0.460 |
| (0.238) | |
| ln(Driving time to town) | 0.240*** |
| (0.116) | |
| Observations | 62 |
Coefficients are presented as odds ratios, robust standard errors are in parentheses.
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.
Table 5
Generalized linear model predicting grazing land usage.
| Model 1 | |
|---|---|
| Social capital measures | |
| Religious diversity | 0.572*** |
| (0.0838) | |
| Variation in assets value | 2.741*** |
| (0.381) | |
| Variation in livestock value | 1.438*** |
| (0.139) | |
| Variation in cattle ownership | 0.520*** |
| (0.0574) | |
| Mutual aid groups | 0.715*** |
| (0.0876) | |
| Microcredit groups | 0.775 |
| (0.155) | |
| Community characteristics | |
| Number of households | 0.994*** |
| (0.00110) | |
| ln(Average value of assets) | 0.0566*** |
| (0.0253) | |
| ln(Average value of livestock) | 4.442*** |
| (0.980) | |
| Livelihood diversity | 1.141 |
| (0.158) | |
| Population density | 3.010*** |
| (0.554) | |
| Biophysical controls | |
| Cattle corridor | 16.18*** |
| (7.309) | |
| Precipitation | 1.723*** |
| (0.191) | |
| ln(Driving time to town) | 1.285* |
| (0.171) | |
| Constant | 244.6 |
| (1119) | |
| Observations | 62 |
Coefficients are presented as relative proportion ratios, robust standard errors in parentheses.
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.