Determinants of Rural Household Poverty: The Case of Sodo Zuria Woreda, Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia
Habtamu Honja Shaga 1 * , Tekle Leza Mega 2, Marisennayya Senapathy 3
More Detail
1 Coffee, Tea and Spices Development and Marketing Directorate Director, Sodo Zuria Woreda, Agriculture and Natural Resource Development Office, Wolaita Zone, ETHIOPIA2 Vice President for Business and Development and Associate Professor, Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, College of Agriculture, Wolaita Sodo University, ETHIOPIA3 Associate Professor, Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, College of Agriculture, Wolaita Sodo University, ETHIOPIA* Corresponding Author


Poverty is one of the central issues and the most far-reaching social matters on the planet. It has no geological limit. Along these lines, this examination has done to distinguish the determinants of the rural household poverty in Sodo Zuria Woreda of Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia. To accomplish this goal, 152 rural family units were chosen using a systematic random sampling technique following the corresponding method’s likelihood. The primary and secondary data optional information just as quantitative and qualitative subjective details have been used. In this investigation, the Cost of Basic Needs approach has applied to determine the extent of the poverty line and Foster-Greer and Thorbecke Poverty Index has used to decide the degree of rural poverty. The aftereffect of the basic needs approach’s cost shows that the investigation zone’s poverty line was about 5348.073 Birr every year per adult equivalent consumption. Utilizing this poverty line as a benchmark, the investigation demonstrated that 39.47 per cent of the family units were poor. The headcount index, poverty gap and squared poverty gap indexes among poor people families are 0.3947, 0.1035 and 0.0427. The Binary Logit Regression model’s discoveries show eight significant variables at under 1%, 5% and 10% likelihood level among 15 factors. As needs are, the family size was a positive relationship with the rural family’s poverty and measurably significant. In the interim, sex, age, educational level, land size, total livestock unit, use of technology and participation of saving have a tangible negative relationship with the rural household poverty and factually huge up to under 10% likelihood level. There is a need to reinforce the link between rural development and poverty reduction programs that consider old aged and female-headed families in mediations, limit populace size through integrated family planning and education obligations introduce appropriate livestock packages, and create awareness of the farmers for using new agricultural technologies.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EUR J SUSTAIN DEV RES, 2021, Volume 5, Issue 2, Article No: em0157

Publication date: 15 Apr 2021

Article Views: 1453

Article Downloads: 3227

Open Access References How to cite this article