icipe Digital Repository

Integrated health interventions for improved livelihoods: A case study in Ethiopia.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Kassie, M.
dc.contributor.author Zewdu, A.
dc.contributor.author Wossen, T.
dc.contributor.author Landmann, S. T.
dc.contributor.author Diiro, G.
dc.contributor.author Ballo, S.
dc.contributor.author Belayhun, L.
dc.date.accessioned 2021-06-09T11:18:39Z
dc.date.available 2021-06-09T11:18:39Z
dc.date.issued 2020
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1421
dc.description Research Article en_US
dc.description.abstract Smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) face multifaceted and co-existing risks, such as human and animal diseases and pests. Even though smallholder farmers often experience these challenges simultaneously, interventions to address these challenges are often implemented in a piecemeal fashion. However, managing agricultural production constraints without alleviating human and livestock health burdens might not generate significant and sustained benefits to achieve the desired development outcome (e.g., reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty). As such, building farmers’ resilience and adaptive capacity to co-existing production constraints and health burdens may require an integrated and holistic approach. Understanding the potential benefits of an integrated approach would provide critical information, for example, for revisiting the extension systems and for designing pro-poor holistically integrated interventions to tackle interrelated challenges facing smallholder farmers. In this paper, we examined the economic benefits of integrated human–plant–animal health interventions aimed at controlling malaria, stemborer infestations of crops, and trypanosomiasis, along with beekeeping as a livelihood diversification option in rural Ethiopia. We developed a whole-farm multiperiod mathematical linear programming model to examine the economic consequences of the interventions. Our results suggest that relaxing livelihoods and the human–plant–animal health constraints that farmers face has the potential to at least double income. The results further show that exploiting the potential synergies among interventions can generate higher economic benefits. The annual income from the combined interventions is 35% higher than the sum of the income gains from each intervention alone. Our results support an integrated approach to achieve holistic outcomes in areas where these development constraints co-exist. en_US
dc.description.sponsorship Biovision Foundation, Switzerland, and core financial assistance to the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe) provided by UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), and the Kenyan and Ethiopian Governments en_US
dc.publisher Sustainability en_US
dc.rights Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States *
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ *
dc.subject co-existing agricultural risks en_US
dc.subject integrated health interventions en_US
dc.subject economic benefits en_US
dc.subject multiperiod linear programming en_US
dc.subject Ethiopia en_US
dc.title Integrated health interventions for improved livelihoods: A case study in Ethiopia. en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

The following license files are associated with this item:

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States

Search icipe Repository


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account