Table 5.
Dependent variable |
|||||||
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
(7) |
|
Δcattle (no.) | Δgoats (no.) | Δemployees (no.) | Δfarm size (ha) | Abandon land? (y/n) | Land sales during study period? (y/n) | Safe water source 2006 | |
Relationship between initial patch size and welfare: Marginal effect of poverty | |||||||
Patch size = 3 | −0.667 (0.531) | −1.97** (0.778) | −0.248* (0.131) | 0.325 (0.335) | 0.301*** (0.089) | 0.253*** (0.092) | −0.179 (0.310) |
Patch size = 102 | 1.91* (1.13) | 2.78** (1.43) | −0.462 (0.548) | −0.312 (0.608) | −0.025 (0.091) | 0.321** (0.161) | −0.247 (0.308) |
Relationship between patch deforestation and welfare: Marginal effects of increase of 1 SD in deforestation | |||||||
On nonpoor | 0.155 (0.208) | 0.126 (0.315) | 0.082 (0.078) | −0.088 (0.142) | 0.014 (0.016) | 0.102*** (0.030) | 0.146** (0.064) |
On poor | 0.470 (0.345) | 0.849** (0.388) | 0.008 (0.064) | −0.005 (0.089) | 0.152** (0.064) | 0.170** (0.070) | 0.203** (0.096) |
Significance: *P < 0.10; **P < 0.05; ***P < 0.01.