AGAI L JHARA UPAZILA
3.9 Data Collect ion
38
SI. Characteristics Measuring Possible Observed Mean Standard
No. unit ranze ranee deviation
1 Age Actual 15-30 16-30 25.2 3.83
years
2 Education Years of Unknown 0-14 4.73 4.31
schooling
3 Family size Number of Unknown 2-11 5.27 2.02
members
4 Farm size Hectare Unknown .06-4.75 0.90 0.69
5 Annual Family 'OOO'Taka Unknown 45.00- 95.45 40.82
income 300.21
6 Training Actual UNknown 0-36 5.15 8.13
Exposure Days
7 Daily time use Actual Unknown 2-12 6.86 2.5
hours
8 Rural Scores 0-27 4-26 16.77 4.77
mindedness
9 Credit received 'OOO'Taka Unknown 0-27 6.58 7.15 Table 4.1 Rural Youth's personal characteristics profile
A summary of the analyzed results for the selected characteristic of the Rural youth (independent variables) for this study are shown in Table 4.1
4.1 Selected characteristic of the Rural youth
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the findings of the present study. The first
section deals with the selected characteristics of the rural youths, while the second section deals with the extent of participation of rural youths in selected agricultural lGAs. Relationship between the selected characteristics of the rural youths and their participation in agricultural IGAS has been discussed in the third section. The fourth section deals with the problems faced by the rural youhs in participating selected agricultural IGAS.
CHAPTER4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
39
The observed level of education scores of the rural youth ranged from 0 to 15 having an average of 4.73 and the standard deviation was 4.31. On the basis of their level of education scores, the rural youths were classified into four categories, namely " illiterate" (0), " can sign only" ( .5), " medium educated" ( 1-10) and higher educated above 10). The distribution of the rural youth according to their level of education is shown in Table 4.3.
4.1.2 Level of Education
Findings indicated that a large proportion ( 56%) of the rural youth were elder youth aged compared to 16 and 18 percent being younger youth and middle youth respectively. It is expected that youth aged respondents are more interested in participation in agricultural income generating activities. The extension agencies should consider this age category among the rural youth and involve them for conducing effective agricultural extension programmes.
Categories Rural youth Mean Standard
Number Percent Deviation
Younger youth 16 16
(16-20) years)
Middle youth
28 28
(21-25 years) 25.2 3.83
Elder youth 56 56
(26-30 years)
Total 100 100
Table 4.2 Distribution of the rural youth according to their age
The observed age scores of the rural youth ranged from 16 to 30 having an average of 25 .2 with a standard deviation of 3 .83 .On the basis of the age scores of the rural youth, they were classified into three categories:" younger youth" (16-20 years),"
middle youth" (21-25) years and" elder youth" (26-30 years). The distribution of the rural youth according to their age is shown in Table 4.2.
4.l. l Age
40
The family size scores of the rural youth ranged from 2 to 11. The average and standard deviation of the family size scores was 5.27 and 2.02 respectively. On the basis of their family size scores, the youths were classified into the following three categories: " small" (2-4), " medium" (5-8) and " large" (9 and above). Table 4.4 Contains the distributing of the rural youth according to their family size.
4.1.3 Family size
It was found that the majority (54%) of the rural youth had mediwn education compared to 19 percent, 20 percent and 7 percent having illiterate, can sign only and higher education respectively. It is assumed that educated youth are more progressive and innovative than those of illiterate with respect to participation in IGAs. If the level of education of the rural youth is increased, they may become more interested to participation in agricultural IGAs. So, necessary efforts should be made by the extension services to increase the level of education of the rural youth of the study area.
Total 100 100
7 Higher 7
educated (Above 10)
4.31 4.73
54 Medium 54
educated (1-10)
20 20
Can sign only (0.5)
19 19
llliterate (0)
Number Percent Mean
Standard Deviation Rural youth
Categories
Table 4.3 Distribution of the rural youth according to level of education
al ze above arm size
ize (up to
Rural outh Mean Standard
Number Percent Deviation
78 78
17 17
0.90 0.69
5 5
100 100
stribution of Rural youth according to farm size
farm size scores of the rural youth varied from .06 to 4.75 hectare.
farm size was 0.9 hectares and the standard deviation was 0.69. The ere classified into the following three categories based on their farm small farm size" (Up to 1), "medium farm size" (1.01-2), and" large 01 and above).
on of the rural youth according to their farm size is shown in Table ize
al that 51 percent of the rural youth had medium family compared to ent having small and large family. Based on the above data it can be t the average family size of Bangladesh is 5 .27 which is lower than y size which is equivalent to 5.60 BBS, 2007) .
Rural outb Mean Standard
Number Percent Deviation
42 42
51 51 5.27 2.02
7 7
100 100
istributioo of Rural Youth according to family size
41 Table : 4.4 D
Categories
Small
Medium (5-8)
Large ( 9 and above)
Total
Findings reve 42 and 7 perc concluded tha national Iarnil
4.1.4 Farms
.
The observed The average rural youth w size scores: "
farm size" (2.
The distributi 4.5.
Table 4.5 Di Categories
Small farms lha)
Medium f (1.01-2 ha) Large farm si (2.01 ha and
Tot
---' ~
42 Total 100
High annual income ( above 100 Th. Tk.)
31 31
50 50 95.45 40.82
Medium annual income (60-
100 Th. Tk.)
19 19 Low annual
income (up to 60 Th.
Tk.)
Percent Number
100
Categories Standard
Deviation Mean
Rural youth
Table 4.6 Distribution of rural youth according to annual family income
TI1c observed annual family income of the rural youth ranged from 45.00-300.21 thousand taka having an average of 95.45 with a standard deviation of 40.82.Based on their family annual income scores, the rural youth were classified into three categories, " low annual income" (up to 60 thousand Tk.) " medium annual income" (60-100 thousand Tk.) and "high annual income" (above 100 thousand Tk). The distribution of the rural youth according to their family income is shown
in Table 4.9.
4. 1 .5 Annual Family income
lt was found that 78% of the rural youth possessed small farm size compared to 17 percent 4 percent of them having small and medium farm size respectively. The average farm size of the rural youth was 0.90 hectare which is higher than the national average farm size, which is equivalent to 0.8 hectare (BBS, 2005). This indicates that the farm size levels of the rural youth in the study area are lower than a typical agricultural farming community of Bangladesh. Therefore, it can be concluded that most of the rural youth were unable to participate in different agricultural income generating activities due to lack of sufficient agricultural land.
43
Findings reveal that 48 percent of the rural youth had no training exposure
compared to 27 percent, 14percent, and 11 percent having low, medium and high
training exposure respectively. Training experience can play a vital role for rural
Categories Rural youth Mean Standard
Deviation Number Percent
No training exposure (0) 48 48
Low training exposure (1-6) 27 27
Medium training exposure (7- 14 14 5.15 8.13
15)
High training exposure 16 and 11 11 above
Total 100 100
Table 4. 7 Distribution of rural youth according to training exposure
The observed training received scores of the rural youth ranged from 0-36 having an average 5 .15 and a standard deviation of 8.13. On the basis of their training received scores, the rural youth were classified into 4 categories: " no training exposure" (0)," low training exposure" (1-6)" medium training exposure" (7- 15) and " high training exposure" (16 and above). The distribution of the rural youth according to their training exposure scores is shown in Table 4.7.
4.1.6 Training exposure income.
Findings reveal that the highest portion (50 percent) of the rural youth had medium annual family income while 18 percent and 30 percent of them had low and high annual family income respectively. That means 69 percent of the rural youth had low to medium annual family income. The average income of the rural youth of the study area is higher than the per capita income of the country which is equivalent to US Dollar 599 (BBS, 2007). This might be due to the fact the rural youth of the
study area were not only engaged in agricultural practices but also they earn
money from other earning family members also contribute to increase their family
44
Rural mindedness of the respondents ranged from 4 to 26 against the possible range Oto 27 having an average of 16.77 with a standard deviation of 4.77. Based on the rural youth mindedness scores were classified into three categories: " low rural mindedness" (up to 9), " medium rural mindedness" (10-18) and "high rural 4.1.8 Rural mindedness
Findings reveal that 56 percent of the rural youth fell in medium time use category.
The remaining 20 percent and 24 percent were in low and high time use category respectively. More participation is necessary for increasing IGAs. Extension agents should inspire the rural youth to participate more.
Total 100 100
24 24 High (>8)
56 56 Medium (5-8)
20 20
Low (Up to 4)
deviation
Categories
R.uralyouth ~ean Standard
2.5 Percent
Number
6.86
Table 4. 8 Distribution of rural youth according to their daily time use
Time use scores of the respondents ranged from 2 to 12 having an average 6.86 and a standard deviation of 2.5. On the basis of their daily time use scores, the rural youths were classified into 3 categories: "low" (up to 4), " medium " (5-8) and
"high " (>8). The distribution of the rural youth according to their daily time use scores is shown in Table 4.8.
4.1. 7 Daily time Use
youth towards participating in IGAs. It is normally found that training experience of the youth in rural community is very low or nil. Most of the rural youth do not go outside. As a result inspiration for change do not develop much. While this scanty scope for rural youth participate in development activities which are normally improved through need-based training.
l
45 Total
Distribution of rural youth according to credit received
egories Standard
Rural youth Mean Deviation Number Percent
42 42
32 32 6.58 7.15
26 26
100 100
vailability (above 10
vailabili
d of the respondents ranged from Tk. 0 to Tk. 27 thousand with an andard deviation of 6.58 and 7 .15 respectively. Based on the credit e youths were classified into three categories : no credit availability"
t availability " (1-10), " medium credit availability (above 10). The f the rural youth according to their credit availability is shown in received
that majority (53 percent) of the rural youth had medium rural rnpared to 6 percent and 41 percent having low and high mindedness is assumed that the rural youth must have to be residing mostly in improve their IGAs.
100 tal 100
41 41 above 18
53 53 16.77
6 6
Percent Number
Standard Deviation
Mean Rural youth
4.77 ribution of Rural youth according to rural mindedness
bovc 18). The distribution of the rurul youth according to their rural ores is shown in Table 4.9.
'
mindedness .. ( u mindedness sc
Table 4.9 Dist Categories
Low mindedness Medium minde High mindedness
To
Findings show mindedness co respectively. It their village to
4.1.9 Credit Credit receive average and st availability, th (O)" low crcdi distribution o Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Cat
No credit a Low credit a High credit a
..
46
The observed participation score of rural youth in selected agricultural mcome generating activates (IGAs) ranged from 3 to 18 having an average of 9.12 with a standard deviation 3.56 against the possible range of 0 to 20. On the basis of their participation scores, the rural youths were classified into three categories: " low participation" (1-7) " medium participation" (8-13) and " high participation" (14- 20). The highest proportion (51 percent) of the rural youth fell in the "medium participation" category and only 18 percent fell in the " high participation"
category. The distribution of the rural youth according to their participation in IGAs is shown in figure 4.1
An interval scale was used to measure the participation of rural youth in agricultural income generating activating (IGAs). Composite participations are described below:
4.2. l Participation of the Rural youth in selected agricultural income