\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Enhancing economic subsistence: diversification activities and labor
intensification as economic setback mitigation in upland agriculture
communities}



\author[1]{Simeon Jr Bernados}%
\affil[1]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 25, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup








\sloppy


Enhancing economic subsistence: diversification activities and labor
intensification as economic setback mitigation in upland agriculture
communities

Simeon C. Bernados, Jr\textsuperscript{1}

\textsuperscript{1}College of Arts and Sciences, Cebu Technological
University, Cebu City, Philippines

E-mail: simeonjr.bernados@ctu.edu.ph

Abstract

To demonstrate that pluriactivities can contribute to the economic
condition as a response to economic setback, the diversification
activities of upland farmers and the utilization of their available
labor pool were used to illustrate that economic well-being is
attainable through the use of lucrative undertakings. Using the 1995 and
2015 data to compute two growth years, upland farm household strategies
to cope with financial challenges were documented and analyzed.
Variables included in the analysis were the socioeconomic status of
upland households, the different agricultural phases, the labor types
used relative to the different agricultural phases, and the time
expended on the use of labor types in relation to the different
agricultural phases. Results showed that diversification activities have
helped the upland household meet the financial requirements needed for
both the farm and households. Recommendations for governments and
development planners to undertake development projects for upland
communities were discussed.

Keywords: upland farming, livelihood diversification, crop
diversification, labor utilization, agricultural phases, poverty

Introduction

\selectlanguage{english}Studies have shown that participation in rural nonfarm employment
(RNFE) have contributed to income increase, wealth and even agricultural
productivity (Barrett, Reardon, \& Webb, 2001; Haggblade, Hazell, \&
Reardon, 2005). These findings suggest that the correlation between
participation and higher income is a way out of poverty (Bezu, Barrett,
\& Holden, 2012). But, studies of determinants of participation
suggested the opposite, that an unequitable access of remunerative
nonfarm activities only favors the rich rather than the poor (Barrett et
al., 2001; Corral \& Reardon, 2001; Davis et al., 2010; Dercon, 2006;
Meert, Van Huylenbroeck, Vernimmen, Bourgeois, \& Van Hecke, 2005).
Thus, there is a good reason to examine the positive trajectories of the
correlation.

Studies on economic activities of poor households in the rural areas
showed positive trajectories on the contribution of livelihood
activities to the well-being of rural household (Avila-Foucat \&
Rodr\selectlanguage{ngerman}íguez-Robayo, 2018; Kassie, Kim, \& Fellizar, 2017; Mentamo \& Geda,
2016; Saha \& Bahal, 2015). These studies demonstrated that the ultimate
outcome of pluriactivities was for the improvement of the well-being of
household through increase of income and high productivity. Households
engaged in numerous activities like trade, handicrafts, services to meet
their daily needs (Srisopaporn, Jourdain, Perret, \& Shivakoti, 2015).
To measure affluence, accumulation of assets became the gauge (Barrett
et al., 2001; Ellis \& Freeman, 2004; Saha \& Bahal, 2016).

Farmers' economic activities have not only improved their financial
capacity but also the ecological outcomes associated with the
activities. Studies have shown that crop diversification, for instance,
have improved soil condition through the cultivation of nitrogen-fixing
crops, reduced pest infestation through effective pest management
control, and lessened soil run-off or soil erosion (Gaba et al., 2015;
Kidane \& Zegeye, 2018). Moreover, going beyond the carrying capacity of
the natural resource could be prevented by liberalizing access to the
different livelihood resources (Kamanga, Vedeld, \& Sjaastad, 2009).

However, quantification of farmers' labor expenditures in relation to
agricultural phases and their contribution to agricultural productivity
was rarely reported in the literature. This is the gap of research that
this paper addresses. Most of the discussions on farmers' labor use were
placed in broad headlines, leaving out the specific value of time use
and their allocation of it in cognizance of their economic activities.
This method of inquiry is directed at the understanding farmers' values
and needs for time use is expressive of prioritization of needs
(Chambers, 1995; Rhoades \& Booth, 1982).

The main objective of this paper then is to demonstrate that
pluriactivities can contribute to the economic condition of the upland
farmers. This paper used the diversification activities of farmers and
the utilization of their available labor pool as means of improving
their economic condition.

Theoretical Framework

As a response against uncertainties and as alternative means to increase
household income, diversification of livelihood and resources becomes
the default response over specialization, and in fact, becomes the norm
(Barrett et al., 2001; Kasem \& Thapa, 2011; Kyi \& Doppler, 2011). This
subject was discussed extensively by Altieri (2018), Ellis \& Freeman
(2004), Kidane \& Zegeye (2018), Meert et al (2005), Saha \& Bahal
(2016), Salvioni, Rondinelli, Esposito, \& Henke (2009). Two types of
diversification strategies stand out in the literature i.e. livelihood
diversification and the agriculture or crop diversification.

Livelihood diversification

Livelihood diversification is the use of non-specific household assets
for non-agriculture \selectlanguage{english}activities unconnected to the farm business (Meert
et al., 2005) and is associated with increased income (Makate, Wang,
Makate, \& Mango, 2016). Rural poor farmers diversify by adopting a
range of activities, e.g. trade, handicrafts, services, and rents like
plow animal rentals, to improve economic condition (Haggblade et al.,
2005; Saha \& Bahal, 2016; Srisopaporn et al., 2015). Assets accumulated
coming from different sources become the measure of wealth and
well-being (Barrett et al., 2001; Ellis \& Freeman, 2004; Saha \& Bahal,
2016).

To understand rural small farmholders' income seeking-behavior, myriads
of variables were drawn-out from various econometric models
(Avila-Foucat \& Rodr\selectlanguage{ngerman}íguez-Robayo, 2018; Kassie et al., 2017; Mentamo \&
Geda, 2016; Saha \& Bahal, 2016). Among these were household age,
environmental consciousness, government regulatory requirements and
subsidies, civic engagements, education level, access to credit and
other financial resources, perceptions on land tenure, possessions of
livestock, and dependency ratio. These studies argued that these
variables need to be incorporated into the development plans to ensure
farmers' chances of survival and well-being.

Livelihood diversification protects the overutilization of the natural
resources, such as the forestland. Forestland resource was one of the
sources of farmers' alternative livelihood (Kamanga et al., 2009). In
this study, authors demonstrated that households of economically poor
farmers constituted the vast majority of forest consumers, implying that
limiting the poor households' access to the forest resources could
contribute to disparity in income inequalities. But in granting them
liberal access to forest resources, pressure on forest resource is
inevitable (Vadez, Reyes-García, Huanca, \& Leonard, 2008). Hence to
lessen the reliance on the use of forest resources, lucrative
enterprises should be made available to the rural poor farmers (Nguyen
\& Tran, 2018; Wei, Chao, \& Yali, 2016). In this study, the authors
argued that extremely poor households consumed and utilized forest
resource more than their well-off counterparts implying that access to
forestlands leads to increase in household per capita income, thereby
contributing to the reduction of poverty incidence.

Agricultural diversification

Agricultural or crop diversification increases household income (Dorsey,
1999) and household resiliency during lean periods (Singh, Kumar, \&
Woodhead, 2002). It is performed either by growing a variety of crops at
one time or by growing different crops in different locations at the
same time. Farmers diversify crops for numerous ends (Bosma, Udo,
Verreth, Visser, \& Nam, 2005).

Aside from financial necessity, crop diversification has non-finance
advantage (Kidane \& Zegeye, 2018; Makate et al., 2016). These studies
reported the practical value of crop diversification e.g. improvement of
soil fertility, efficiency of agro-ecological systems which reduces crop
production risks, enhances production stability, yields, and improvement
of the diversity of human diet, suppression of diseases and pests,
weeds, and volunteer crops. Studies concluded that crop diversification
promotes ecological balance, reduces farm input use such as fertilizers
and pesticides through intraspecies management and mitigation of
environmental impacts, reduces pest infestation by \selectlanguage{english} preventing their
growth, reproduction, or dispersal, and minimizes soil erosion and the
associated loss of nutrients by acting directly on soil fertility
through nitrogen fixing species such as legumes (Gaba et al., 2015). In
conclusion, crop diversification could be implemented for food
production as well as ecosystem equilibrium.

Has diversification really improved the lives of the marginalized farm
households?

As a response to curb poverty among the marginalized farmers in the
rural areas, modernization of agro-technology improves rural farmers
lives and eliminate rural poverty (George, 2014). Lessons from Green
Revolution proved that by adoption of new technologies, lives of farmers
could be improved and the national production goals could be achieved as
well (Gollin, Hansen, \& Wingender, 2018; Horlings \& Marsden, 2011;
Pingali, 2012). However, there were reports in some few studies that
farmers rejected the introduced technology of the risk involved in the
adoption of modern technology, thus resulting to low income and
productivity (Fermont \& Benson, 2011; Garibaldi et al., 2017; Loos et
al., 2014).

In poverty studies, crop diversification improved farmers' livelihood
outcomes (Kasem \& Thapa, 2011; Kyi \& Doppler, 2011). For instance, in
one region in China, a five-year average yield increase was achieved
from 67.9\% to 97\% as a result of crop diversification (Zhang et al.,
2016). Similar gains were observed in South Africa (Michler \&
Josephson, 2017) and in some developing countries like Malawi, Nepal,
Vietnam, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Albania, and Panama (Pellegrini
\& Tasciotti, 2014).

Allocation of human resources in diversified household

Diversification activities begin at the household (Koomson \& Asongu,
2016). Levy (1985), and Zepeda (2006) reported on the economic value of
children and their contribution to the agricultural production; Adewale,
Oladejo, \& Ogunniyi (2005) examined the attitudinal factors of children
pertaining the drudgery of agricultural operation; Dinku, Fielding, \&
Genc (2018) examined the roles children played in the household.

The division of labor by gender has been extensively published in the
literature and concluded that women has contributed to agricultural
production (Haddad \& Reardon, 1993; Matshe \& Young, 2004; Neitzert,
1994; Saenz \& Thompson, 2017; Shiferaw, Gebremedhin, \& Zewdie, 2017;
Udry, 1996; Udry, Hoddinott, Alderman, \& Haddad, 1995). Saenz (2017)
reported on the marketing and production involvement of women; Shiferaw
(2017) documented women's access to credit services reporting that some
government and nongovernment organizations preferred to extend credit
and other financial services to women rather than men for the reason
that women's economic activities were in consonance with government's
programs. However, Matshe \& Young (2004) claimed that some domestic
concerns prevented women to fully participate in agricultural production
like children's care, household care, and farm support

Accounting of labor and its contribution to agricultural productivity is
rarely reported in literature and is usually placed in broad headlines
in ethnographic efforts (Boserup, 1966). The quantification of farm
labor can lead researchers to the understanding of the working patterns
of farmers both in on-farm and off-farm seasons (Stone, Netting, \&
Stone, 1990) as well as the prioritization of farmers' needs and the
valuation of their resources in relation to their economic condition.

Method

The data used in this paper were component data of the project ``Farm
Labor and the Agroecological Management of Upland Rice Farming in
Eastern Visayas, Philippines''. The research area is primarily
agricultural with rice as the principal crop and others such as legumes,
coconuts, rootcrops, and cash crops such as banana and vegetable as
secondary crops. The area has limited flat lands, surrounded with high
mountains with minor creeks flowing towards major creeks of three
composing villages. This project detailed upland farmers farming
practices.

Secondary data were used in this essay. The data were formal survey
interview, personal interviews with upland farmers and key informant,
and notes during the participant observation phase. Household units were
used as sampling units because they could be conveniently compared with
other cultural units (Gross, 1984). Furthermore, it was relatively easy
to observe behavior directly in a household or to use a single informant
to report on the activities of household members. A total of 57
household units were used in the analysis. Prior informed consent was
sought from the research participants prior the conduct of the formal
survey, and personal interview with upland farmers and key informant.
Furthermore, ethics clearance was granted by the departmental ethics
committee of the Provincial Agricultural Office, Province of Leyte,
Philippines.

In this article, authors used the 1995 and 2015 data to compute two
growth years. Data used in the analysis included among others:
socioeconomic status of upland farmers, the different agricultural
phases, the labor types used relative to the different agricultural
phases, and the time expended on the use of labor types in relation to
the different agricultural phases.

Socioeconomic status includes the demographic characteristics of the
household units, their livelihood and agronomic activities. Agricultural
phases are the different agricultural tasks such as field preparation/
repair (FP), planting/ transplanting/ replanting (PL), weeding and pest
management (HR), fertilizer application/ manuring (MA), and harvesting
(HA). Labor types are the labor used in the performance of the
agricultural phases, and these are the self labor, unpaid family labor,
collective or exchange labor, and hired labor. Time expenditure is the
amount of time spent in the performance of a task. These were computed
in terms of hours expended as estimated by the research participant
through the recall method.

Analysis

In soliciting the time expenditure data, the approximation method,
instead of the diary method, was adopted. Approximation method uses the
recall method. The farmer research-participant approximates the number
of hours or days in an agricultural task. Researchers were very much
aware of the inherent weakness of this method but was considered to be a
lesser demanding task compared to the diary method (Bernard \&
Killworth, 1993; Paolisso \& Hames, 2010). Descriptive statistics e.g.
frequency count, mean, and percentage were used in the analysis. For the
computation of the percentage of change, the entry of the final year
(t\textsubscript{2015}) is subtracted with the entry of the beginning
year (t\textsubscript{1995}) divided by t\textsubscript{1995} and then
is multiplied by the constant 100.

Results

Table 1 describes the demographic characteristics of upland farm
households in terms of age of household heads, their educational
attainment, household size, and number of household dependents. Majority
of household heads were advanced in age (40-74 years) and have low
educational attainment (2-9 years). Furthermore, household units have
high population size (5-11 members) and have many dependents ranging
from 5-14 dependents. Not to mention that these were factors of poverty
(Jung \& Smith, 2007), the data would point out that the farm household
units had high overhead expenses like caring for children and the
elderly, and household maintenance. Hence, capital requisites for
agricultural endeavours were needed and household heads have to source
out the much need capital for agricultural use.

Labor management of upland farm household

Farmers allocated a labor type in relation to the agricultural phases.
Households utilized four labor types, to wit: the unpaid family labor,
self-labor, collaborative/exchange labor, and the hired labor.
Self-labor is the type of labor performed by the household heads. In
this study, household heads were the research participants. Unpaid
family labor is the type of labor performed by every able-bodied member
of the household; collective or exchange labor is the labor type
extended to the members of the exchange group where reciprocity is the
norm of the group, and; hired labor is a form of a contract labor paid
by the households.

Table 1. Demographic profile of upland farm household in a rural village
in Eastern Visayas, Philippines\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Variable}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
f\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{\%}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Mean}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Age of household heads} 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59
60-64 65-74 Total\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
4 3 7 5 8 17 6 7 57\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
7 5 12 9 14 30 11 12 100.00\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
52.5 (years)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Household Size} 0 -2 3 -5 6 -8 9 -11 12 -14 Total\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5 22 24 5 1 57\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
9.0 39.0 42.0 9.0 2.0 100\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
6\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{No. of Dependents} 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10+ Total\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5 1 19 19 12 1 57\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
9 2 33 33 21 2 100\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
6\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{No. of years in school of household head} 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9
Total\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
4 12 16 20 5 57\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
7 21 28 35 9 100\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
4.9 (years)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Households utilized the self-labor and the unpaid family labor for the
field preparations and paddy repair (FP), weeding and pest management
(HR), and fertilizer application (MA) works while the hired labor and
unpaid family labor were used during the planting/ re-planting/
transplanting (PL) and harvesting (HA) phases (Table 2). The
collective/exchange labor was used as a support labor pool for the FP
and PL works.

Table 2. Percentage of change of average labor time input (man/hours)
expended by upland households in an agricultural cropping cycle\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllll@{}}
\toprule
Labor Types & Field Tasks & Field Tasks & Field Tasks & Field Tasks &
Field Tasks & Field Tasks\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
& *FP & *PL & *HR & *MA & *HA & Total mean\tabularnewline
Self & 33.70 & 1.37 & 11.65 & 2.50 & 4.13 & 53.35\tabularnewline
Family & 3.68 & 0.39 & 5.75 & 1.64 & 7.71 & 19.17\tabularnewline
Cooperative & 1.21 & 1.84 & 0.56 & 0.13 & 0.84 & 4.58\tabularnewline
Hired & 4.43 & 5.60 & 2.14 & 0.07 & 6.23 & 18.47\tabularnewline
Total Mean & 43.02 & 8.90 & 20.10 & 4.34 & 18.91 & 95.57\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Legend:

*FP= field preparation/paddy repair

*PL = planting/re-planting/transplanting

*HR= weeding/pest management

*MA= fertilizer application

*HA = harvesting

Quantifying labor expended for a cropping season would elucidate how
much time farmers would spend in a cropping season. Data showed that
most of the time were spent on field preparation and paddy repair. In
general, a growth trend of the percentage of change in time expenditure
in all agriculture phases was observed. In particular, self-labor has an
increase of 33.70\% of time input in the FP phase alone and more than
50\% of it was used in all phases. Self-labor was used primarily in FP
and HR phases, and it was supported by the unpaid family labor. For the
whole cropping season, unpaid family labor has almost 20\% of time input
and was used during the FP (3.68\%), HR (5.75\%), and HA (7.71) phases.
The hired labor was used primarily in the HA (6.23\%), PL (5.60\%), and
FP (4.43\%) phases. For a cropping season, an increase of 18.47\% time
input was incurred using the hired labor. Exchange/ Cooperative labor
was the least labor type (4.58\%) used by farmers.

Productivity of land units is biased towards capital intensification
arguing that productivity cannot be achieved through the use of
traditional method of cultivation. Boserup's model of productivity
demonstrated that through labor intensification, agricultural production
could be achieved. Using this theory to explain farmers' time use and
agricultural production, farmers' efforts were concentrated on paddy
repair indicating the instability of the paddy system. The data showed a
33.70\% increase of time input on the use of the self-labor, implying
that instead of hiring labor to do the repair task, farmers did the task
themselves. This high increase of self-labor in the repair task was
attributed to the numerous weather disturbances that visited the
country. A total of 24-26 tropical depressions/ typhoons entered the
Philippine area of responsibility (PAR) and Eastern Visayas is a typhoon
path.

Other phase where self-labor was primarily utilized was on
weeding/harrowing/ pest management phase incurring an 11.65\% change of
time input. Weeding was done manually, hence this task requires a number
of workers. On pest management, farmers avoided the use of pesticides
and other chemicals for they were already aware on the disadvantages of
using agricultural chemicals. In these tasks, farmers were aided by
unpaid family labor.

Exchange labor was the least labor type utilized by upland farmers with
approximately 5\% increase of time input for the whole cropping cycle.
In situation that financial resource is quite scarce, farmers or upland
communities need to be aware of the importance of collaborative efforts
in the promotion of their goals and objectives. Exchange labor would be
of help during labor scarcity, in the performance of multi-worker tasks,
and in tasks perceived as being drudgerous. For instance, cooperative
labor could be utilized during paddy repair, planting, weeding/
harrowing, fertilizer application, and harvesting seasons. In this
manner, the needed cash intended to hire additional labor in the
performance of other tasks could be used from some other purposes.

Diversification activities of upland farmers

Household units did engage in at least one type of livelihood options or
a combination thereof to augment income for the support of the
agricultural enterprise and sustenance of the household (Table 3).
Livestock-raising, vegetable-raising, and tuba gathering -- a local wine
from coconut juice -- were amongst the most favoured livelihood options
undertaken by the households. Produce was sold either within or outside
the locality. On the other hand, some household members sought temporary
employment either as construction workers or doing some menial jobs as
daily wage earners. Income generated from these endeavours was used as
added capital for both farm needs and household subsistence. Farmers
also employed multiple activities like fishing-vegetable raising and
fishing-livestock-vegetable raising which were mostly practiced by
farmers. Aside from agriculture-based activities, fishing is the
secondary form of livelihood for the catch of the day could be easily
converted to cash. However, earnings of the daily wage workers could not
be higher than the mandated daily minimum wage because the level of
education is one of the factors for getting high paying and gainful
employment (Barrett et al., 2001; Ellis \& Freeman, 2004; Meert et al.,
2005). At the time of this report, the daily minimum wage was pegged at
Php 386.00 or US \$7.36 in the global standards. This number is much
lower for the agricultural sector.

With rice as the main crop, households cultivated other crops for income
augmentation to support both the farm and household needs. In this
instance, the cultivation of crops was primarily a combination of
perennial and annual crops while in some cases with the introduction of
short-term crops or cash crops. For example, majority of the household
maintained the banana-coconut combination i.e. an annual crop-perennial
crop combination. Similar to other annual and perennial crops, time
input requirement is minimal and will not eat up much time allotted for
some other activities. Other combinations would include
perennial-annual-short term crops. The short-term crops would be the
source for immediate cash. In general, this mode of multi-cropping
systems has been a product of experience and transmitted knowledge which
proved to pay-off efforts of the upland farmers (Kidane \& Zegeye,
2018).

Crop diversification served other purposes aside from financial ends
like soil erosion or soil run-off. Upland farmers cultivated vegetations
like lantana (\emph{Lantana camara} ) and mura (\emph{Vetiveria
zizanoides} ) to minimize soil erosion and improved soil fertility.
Farmers explained that when hedgerows are fully established,
\emph{mura}has a high-water holding capacity, hence controlling soil
run-off.

Discussion

Unlike the industrial sector who used time to measure one's
productivity, the same cannot be used in a farming community where
traditional know-how was still persistent in every phase of agricultural
task (Stone et al., 1990). Traditional agriculture is equated with
experience and the perpetuation of experience is verified through
practice over time. Hence, an introduction of something new to the
existing practice would entail a high-order of acceptance.

Table 3. Economic profile of the upland farm household other than rice
farming\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Variable} & f & \textbf{\%}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\textbf{Livelihood options other than rice farming} Livestock-raising
Vegetable raising Wine (tuba) gathering Carpentry Fishing Selling
Lumbering & 50 22 22 8 8 6 1 & 88 39 39 14 14 11 2\tabularnewline
\textbf{Livelihood options combinations} Fishing-vegetable raising
Fishing-livestock-vegetable raising Fishing-livestock raising
Livestock-carpentry Livestock-vegetable raising Lumbering-vegetable
raising Selling-vegetable raising Vegetable raising-\emph{tuba}
gathering Fishing-selling-livestock raising Livestock
raising-vegetable-carpentry & 13 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 & 23 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2\tabularnewline
\textbf{Vegetation cultivated other than rice} Banana-coconut
Banana-coconut-legumes Coconut-legumes Banana-coconut-rootcrops
Banana-coconut-legumes-fruit trees Banana-legumes Banana-rootcrops
Coconut-rootcrops Coconut-legumes-corn-rootcrops
Banana-coconut-legumes-fruit trees-rootcrops Banana- cacao
Legumes-corn-rootcrops Coconut-abaca Banana-legumes-corn-rootcrops
Banana-coconut-legumes-fruit trees-buri Coconut-legumes-abaca
Banana-coconut-abaca Coconut-legumes-fruit trees Coconut-legumes-fruit
trees-rootcrops-abaca Banana-coconut-fruit trees & 10 6 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 & 18 11 7 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

The challenge that Philippine agriculturists must face is to interface
traditional farming systems with the demands of the new crop varieties.
The authors maintained that traditional farming practice could give
farmers' an assurance of success for they were familiar with the system
that they relied for years and could calculate the risks involved rather
than imbibed on something that promises heaven which were full of
uncertainties and uncalculated risks (Chambers, 1995; Rhoades \& Booth,
1982). Traditional agriculture is characterized by low education and a
high economic dependency ratio which further made them adhere to the
usual way of doing a task. The only competitive advantage that
Philippine farmers have is farming experience. If experience is not
taken into account, rejection or modification of introduced technology
is possible to happen. For development agents, acceptance, modification,
rejection of technology are measures of success of developmental
activities (Fujisaka, 1987). The reasons why projects fail because these
projects are socially na\selectlanguage{ngerman}ïve (Dove, 1986; Peluso, 1993), and the naivete
lies on the approach of analyzing human behavior.

To beat economic challenges, farmers found it fit to diversify their
activities to sustain both the household and farm enterprises. Instead
of specializing on rice cultivation, farmers decided to undertake
diverse activities like livelihood activities and vegetation cultivation
options. This strategy was learned from previous generation. For these
farmers, their decisions to diversify have paid-off their efforts which
are always accompanied by a rational apportionment of time and resources
for the attainment of the desired goals, and these decisions are
reflective of values and needs of household members (De Buck, Van Rijn,
Roling, \& Wossink, 2001; Gladwin, 1980; Greiner, Patterson, \& Miller,
2009). For instance, the use of the slash-and-burn method, the tilling
of the sloppy areas, the preference on the diversified systems over the
specialized systems or the generalized ecosystem manifests cultivators'
values, needs, and rationality (Casiño \& Casiño, 1976; Eder, 2003,
2010).

Off-farm employment was considered by upland farmers as a buffer
resource to augment capital needed for specific agricultural tasks.
Employment and other alternative livelihood options assured farmers of
steady cash inflow. Income earned from this activity is used to finance
some agricultural activities and needs like the needed labor force and
farm inputs e.g. seeds and fertilizers.

To minimize overhead expenditures, upland farmers used three labor types
that did not cause them financial obligations e.g. self labor, unpaid
family labor, and the collective or communal labor. Upland farmers
utilized their own labor and the unpaid family labor in all phases of
the agricultural cycle although with minimal participation in the
planting phase. Collective labor, on the other hand, was only used
minimally for upland farmers resorted to its use when there is scarcity
of labor or during labor bottlenecks. In synchronized rice farming
system, it is expected that synchronization of agricultural tasks is
inevitable. Hired labor was used for the field preparation (plowing),
planting, and harvesting tasks. With very limited financial resource,
livelihood diversification activities were resorted to assure the
continuance of the tasks.

By experience, upland farm households have asserted that they were able
to improve and meet their needs through the different economic
activities. Through their traditional way of farming, they were able to
sell some of their produce to the nearby markets and acquired some farm
implements for the next cropping cycle.

Conclusion and Recommendation

It is evident from the discussion that upland farmers' management of
land, labor, and capital and the natural resources is a result of a
complex interaction among a number of interdependent components of which
a cultivator has access to his resources --- both human and non-human
--- to maximize the attainment of goals according to the knowledge he
possesses. From this premise, development of relevant and viable
technology for marginalized farmers should be grounded in full knowledge
of existing farming systems. Evaluation of the program or technology
used should also be made on the conformity of the program or technology
to the goals, needs, aspirations, and socioeconomic circumstances of the
target beneficiaries not solely on the technical performance of
technology.

We have to be reminded time and again that the failure of induced
development was not factored on the technical aspect of the programs but
was placed on the inability of the development planners to understand
the cultural behavior of a society. Farmers' environment was formed
according to their goals, aspirations, perceived needs and expected
benefits. Goals, aspirations, and perceived needs underlie practices,
and practices imply decision-making strategies. All these strategies and
other similar plans were developed as anti-poverty alleviation
solutions.

As a response against poverty, upland farmers resorted to primarily use
their traditional way of farming as an adaptive response. The reliance
of self-labor, unpaid family labor, and cooperative labor ensured upland
farmers' labor needs and facilitated the performance of agricultural
tasks. Therefore, labor and farm scheduling would help diminish labor
shortage in the case of labor bottlenecks.

Multiple cropping, as wont by the upland farmers, needs more push from
government agriculture extension workers for farmers perceived this as
buffer resource in times of weather disturbances. Furthermore, adoption
of the local way of multiple cropping into the local agricultural
pattern is a form of mainstreaming culture in development plans which
could ensure farmers' cooperation and thus helped alleviate poverty.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Research Ethics

Research clearance to proceed with the study was granted by the
departmental ethics committee of the provincial agricultural office
(Province of Leyte, Philippines) to use the data of the project.

Funding Support

The study received no fund support.

References:

Adewale, J. G., Oladejo, J. A., \& Ogunniyi, L. T. (2005). Economic
Contribution of Farm Children to Agricultural Production in Nigeria: A
Case Study of Ekiti State of Nigeria. \emph{Journal of Social Sciences}
,\emph{10} (2), 149--152. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2005.11892473

Altieri, M. (2018). \emph{Agroecology:The Science of Sustainable
Agriculture} . \emph{CRC Press} (Vol. 448). Taylor \& Francis.

Avila-Foucat, V. S., \& Rodríguez-Robayo, K. J. (2018). Determinants of
livelihood diversification: The case wildlife tourism in four coastal
communities in Oaxaca, Mexico. \emph{Tourism Management} ,\emph{69}
(June), 223--231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.06.021

Barrett, C. B., Reardon, T., \& Webb, P. (2001). Nonfarm income
diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa:
concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. \emph{Food Policy}
,\emph{26} (4), 315--331.

Bernard, H. R., \& Killworth, P. D. (1993). Sampling in time allocation
research. \emph{Ethnology} , \emph{32} (2), 207--215.

Bezu, S., Barrett, C. B., \& Holden, S. T. (2012). Does the nonfarm
economy offer pathways for upward mobility? Evidence from a panel data
study in Ethiopia. \emph{World Development} , \emph{40} (8), 1634--1646.

Boserup, E. (1966). \emph{The Conditions of Agricultural Growth} .
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

Bosma, R. H., Udo, H. M. J., Verreth, J. A. J., Visser, L. E., \& Nam,
C. Q. (2005). Agriculture Diversification in the Mekong Delta: Farmers'
Motives and Contributions to Livelihoods. \emph{Asian Journal of
Agriculture and Development} , \emph{2} (1\&2), 49--66.

Casiño, E., \& Casiño, E. S. (1976). \emph{The Jama Mapun: a changing
Samal society in the southern Philippines} . Cellar Book Shop.

Chambers, R. (1995). Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality
counts?\emph{Environment and Urbanization} , \emph{7} (1), 173--204.

Corral, L., \& Reardon, T. (2001). Rural nonfarm incomes in
Nicaragua.\emph{World Development} , \emph{29} (3), 427--442.

Davis, B., Winters, P., Carletto, G., Covarrubias, K., Quiñones, E. J.,
Zezza, A., DiGiuseppe, S. (2010). A cross-country comparison of rural
income generating activities. \emph{World Development} , \emph{38} (1),
48--63.

De Buck, A. J., Van Rijn, I., Roling, N. G., \& Wossink, G. A. A.
(2001). Farmers' reasons for changing or not changing to more
sustainable practices: an exploratory study of arable farming in the
Netherlands. \emph{The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension}
,\emph{7} (3), 153--166.

Dercon, S. (2006). Economic reform, growth and the poor: Evidence from
rural Ethiopia. \emph{Journal of Development Economics} , \emph{81} (1),
1--24.

Dinku, Y., Fielding, D., \& Genç, M. (2018). Health shocks and child
time allocation decisions by households: evidence from
Ethiopia.\emph{IZA Journal of Labor Economics} , \emph{7} (1), 4.

Dorsey, B. (1999). Agricultural intensification, diversification, and
commercial production among smallholder coffee growers in central
Kenya.\emph{Economic Geography} , \emph{75} (2), 178--195.

Dove, M. R. (1986). Peasant versus government perception and use of the
environment: a case-study of Banjarese ecology and river basin
development in South Kalimantan. \emph{Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies} , \emph{17} (1), 113--136.

Eder, J. F. (2003). Of fishers and farmers: Ethnicity and resource use
in coastal Palawan. \emph{Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society}
,\emph{31} (3), 207--225.

Eder, J. F. (2010). Ethnic differences, Islamic consciousness, and
Muslim social integration in the Philippines. \emph{Journal of Muslim
Minority Affairs} , \emph{30} (3), 317--332.

Ellis, F., \& Freeman, H. A. (2004). Rural livelihoods and poverty
reduction strategies in four African countries. \emph{Journal of
Development Studies} , \emph{40} (4), 1--30.

Fermont, A., \& Benson, T. (2011). Estimating yield of food crops grown
by smallholder farmers. \emph{International Food Policy Research
Institute, Washington DC} , 1--68.

Fujisaka, S. (1987). Filipino upland farmers: informal ethnoscience for
agricultural development research. \emph{Philippine Studies} ,\emph{35}
(4), 403--419.

Gaba, S., Lescourret, F., Boudsocq, S., Enjalbert, J., Hinsinger, P.,
Journet, E. P., \ldots{} Ozier-Lafontaine, H. (2015). Multiple cropping
systems as drivers for providing multiple ecosystem services: from
concepts to design. \emph{Agronomy for Sustainable Development}
,\emph{35} (2), 607--623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0272-z

Garibaldi, L. A., Gemmill-Herren, B., D'Annolfo, R., Graeub, B. E.,
Cunningham, S. A., \& Breeze, T. D. (2017). Farming approaches for
greater biodiversity, livelihoods, and food security. \emph{Trends in
Ecology \& Evolution} , \emph{32} (1), 68--80.

George, T. (2014). Why crop yields in developing countries have not kept
pace with advances in agronomy. \emph{Global Food Security} ,\emph{3}
(1), 49--58.

Gladwin, C. H. (1980). A theory of real-life choice: Applications to
agricultural decisions. \emph{Agricultural Decision Making:
Anthropological Contributions to Rural Development} , 45--85.

Gollin, D., Hansen, C. W., \& Wingender, A. (2018). \emph{Two blades of
grass: The impact of the green revolution} . National Bureau of Economic
Research.

Greiner, R., Patterson, L., \& Miller, O. (2009). Motivations, risk
perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by
farmers.\emph{Agricultural Systems} , \emph{99} (2--3), 86--104.

Gross, D. R. (1984). Time allocation: A tool for the study of cultural
behavior. \emph{Annual Review of Anthropology} , \emph{13} (1),
519--558.

Haddad, L., \& Reardon, T. (1993). Gender bias in the allocation of
resources within households in Burkina Faso: A disaggregated outlay
equivalent analysis. \emph{The Journal of Development Studies}
,\emph{29} (2), 260--276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389308422273

Haggblade, S., Hazell, P., \& Reardon, T. (2005). The rural nonfarm
economy: Pathway out of poverty or pathway in? In \emph{International
Food Policy Research Institute. The future of small farms. Proceedings
of a research workshop, Wye, UK} (pp. 151--178).

Horlings, L. G., \& Marsden, T. K. (2011). Towards the real green
revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological
modernisation of agriculture that could `feed the world.' \emph{Global
Environmental Change} , \emph{21} (2), 441--452.

Jung, S. Y., \& Smith, R. J. (2007). The Economics of Poverty:
Explanatory Theories to Inform Practice. \emph{Journal of Human Behavior
in the Social \ldots{}} , \emph{16} (2003), 21--40.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J137v16n01

Kamanga, P., Vedeld, P., \& Sjaastad, E. (2009). Forest incomes and
rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. \emph{Ecological
Economics} , \emph{68} (3), 613--624.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.018

Kasem, S., \& Thapa, G. B. (2011). Crop diversification in Thailand:
Status, determinants, and effects on income and use of inputs.\emph{Land
Use Policy} , \emph{28} (3), 618--628.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.12.001

Kassie, G. W., Kim, S., \& Fellizar, F. P. (2017). Determinant factors
of livelihood diversification: Evidence from Ethiopia. \emph{Cogent
Social Sciences} , \emph{3} (1), 1369490.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1369490

Kidane, M. S., \& Zegeye, E. W. (2018). Crop diversification and
productivity in semiarid and sub-humid maize-legume production systems
of Ethiopia. \emph{Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems} ,\emph{42}
(10), 1106--1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1505679

Koomson, I., \& Asongu, S. A. (2016). Relative Contribution of Child
Labour to Household Farm and Non\selectlanguage{english}-Farm Income in Ghana: Simulation with
Child's Education. \emph{African Development Review} , \emph{28} (1),
104--115.

Kyi, T., \& Doppler, W. (2011). Impact of Crop Diversification on Income
Generation of Beneficiaries under Rice Based Irrigated Farming System of
Myanmar. \emph{Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development} , \emph{21}
(1).

Levy, V. (1985). Cropping pattern, mechanization, child labor, and
fertility behavior in a farming economy: Rural Egypt. \emph{Economic
Development and Cultural Change} , \emph{33} (4), 777--791.

Loos, J., Abson, D. J., Chappell, M. J., Hanspach, J., Mikulcak, F.,
Tichit, M., \& Fischer, J. (2014). Putting meaning back into
``sustainable intensification.'' \emph{Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment} , \emph{12} (6), 356--361.

Makate, C., Wang, R., Makate, M., \& Mango, N. (2016). Crop
diversification and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe:
adaptive management for environmental change. \emph{SpringerPlus}
,\emph{5} (1135), 1--18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2802-4

Matshe, I., \& Young, T. (2004). Off\selectlanguage{english}-farm labour allocation decisions in
small\selectlanguage{english}-scale rural households in Zimbabwe. \emph{Agricultural Economics}
,\emph{30} (3), 175--186.

Meert, H., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vernimmen, T., Bourgeois, M., \& Van
Hecke, E. (2005). Farm household survival strategies and diversification
on marginal farms. \emph{Journal of Rural Studies} , \emph{21} (1),
81--97.

Mentamo, M., \& Geda, N. R. (2016). Livelihood diversification under
severe food insecurity scenario among smallholder farmers in Kadida
Gamela District, Southern Ethiopia. \emph{Kontakt} , \emph{18} (4),
e258--e264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kontakt.2016.09.003

Michler, J. D., \& Josephson, A. L. (2017). To Specialize or Diversify:
Agricultural Diversity and Poverty Dynamics in Ethiopia. \emph{World
Development} , \emph{89} , 214--226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.011

Neitzert, M. (1994). A Woman's Place: Household Labour Allocation in
Rural Kenya. \emph{Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue
Canadienne d'etudes Du Developpement} , \emph{15} (3), 401--427.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.1994.9669567

Nguyen, T. V., \& Tran, T. Q. (2018). Forestland and rural household
livelihoods in the North Central Provinces, Vietnam. \emph{Land Use
Policy} , \emph{79} (March), 10--19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.046

Paolisso, M., \& Hames, R. (2010). Time diary versus instantaneous
sampling: A comparison of two behavioral research methods. \emph{Field
Methods} , \emph{22} (4), 357--377.

Pellegrini, L., \& Tasciotti, L. (2014). Crop diversification, dietary
diversity and agricultural income: empirical evidence from eight
developing countries. \emph{Canadian Journal of Development Studies /
Revue Canadienne d'etudes Du Developpement} , \emph{35} (2), 211--227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2014.898580

Peluso, N. L. (1993). Coercing conservation?: The politics of state
resource control. \emph{Global Environmental Change} , \emph{3} (2),
199--217.

Pingali, P. L. (2012). Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path
ahead. \emph{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}
,\emph{109} (31), 12302--12308.

Rhoades, R. E., \& Booth, R. H. (1982). Famer-back-to-farmer: A Model
for Generating Acceptable Agricultural Technology. \emph{Agriculrural
Administration} , \emph{11} , 127--137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-586X(82)90056-5

Saenz, M., \& Thompson, E. (2017). Gender and policy roles in farm
household diversification in Zambia. \emph{World Development} ,\emph{89}
, 152--169.

Saha, B., \& Bahal, R. (2015). Factors Leading to Success in Diversified
Occupation: A Livelihood Analysis in India. \emph{The Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension} , \emph{21} (3), 249--266.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.927372

Saha, B., \& Bahal, R. (2016). Livelihood diversification pursued by
farmers in West Bengal. \emph{Indian Research Journal of Extension
Education} , \emph{10} (2), 1--9.

Salvioni, C., Rondinelli, V., Esposito, L., \& Henke, R.
(2009).\emph{Diversification strategies in small farms in Italy}
.\emph{Economia} . https://doi.org/10.14601/EDA-8975

Shiferaw, K., Gebremedhin, B., \& Zewdie, D. L. (2017). Factors
affecting household decision to allocate credit for livestock
production: Evidence from Ethiopia. \emph{Agricultural Finance Review}
,\emph{77} (4), 463--483. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-06-2016-0062

Singh, R. B., Kumar, P., \& Woodhead, T. (2002). Smallholder farmers in
India: Food security and agricultural policy. \emph{RAP Publication}
,\emph{3} .

Srisopaporn, S., Jourdain, D., Perret, S. R., \& Shivakoti, G. (2015).
Adoption and continued participation in a public Good Agricultural
Practices program: The case of rice farmers in the Central Plains of
Thailand. \emph{Technological Forecasting and Social Change} , \emph{96}
, 242--253.

Stone, G. D., Netting, R. M., \& Stone, M. P. (1990). Seasonally, labor
scheduling, and agricultural intensification in the Nigerian
Savanna.\emph{American Anthropologist} , \emph{92} (1), 7--23.

Udry, C. (1996). Gender, agricultural production, and the theory of the
household. \emph{Journal of Political Economy} , \emph{104} (5),
1010--1046.

Udry, C., Hoddinott, J., Alderman, H., \& Haddad, L. (1995). Gender
differentials in farm productivity: implications for household
efficiency and agricultural policy. \emph{Food Policy} , \emph{20} (5),
407--423.

Vadez, V., Reyes-Garcia, V., Huanca, T., \& Leonard, W. R. (2008). Cash
cropping, farm technologies, and deforestation: what are the
connections? A model with empirical data from the Bolivian
Amazon.\emph{Human Organization} , 384--396.

Wei, D., Chao, H., \& Yali, W. (2016). Role of income diversification in
reducing forest reliance: Evidence from 1838 rural households in
China.\emph{Journal of Forest Economics} , \emph{22} , 68--79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2015.12.002

Zepeda, L., \& Kim, J. (2006). Farm parents' views on their children's
labor on family farms: A focus group study of Wisconsin dairy
farmers.\emph{Agriculture and Human Values} , \emph{23} (1), 109--121.

Zhang, W., Cao, G., Li, X., Zhang, H., Wang, C., Liu, Q., \ldots{}
Jiang, R. (2016). Closing yield gaps in China by empowering smallholder
farmers. \emph{Nature} , \emph{537} (7622), 671.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

