Livelihoods and poverty reduction in coastal communities in the Western Region of Ghana: Analysis of livelihoods baseline data of the ICFG Program

The research approach involved a sampling strategy that targeted four communities in the Western Region of Ghana. A questionnaire was used to collect data from 1,200 households, which was then analyzed to identify key findings. The dataset collected included information on household assets, vulnerability, nutrition, and livelihoods activities. The analysis revealed that household assets, such as land, livestock, and domestic assets, varied significantly across the four communities. The mean and median selected assets by community showed that households in the four target communities had different levels of access to assets. For example, households in Community A had a higher mean and median selected assets compared to households in Community B. The analysis also showed that vulnerability, nutrition, and livelihoods activities were significant concerns in the four communities. The mean and median selected assets by income tercile by community revealed that households in the lower income tercile had limited access to assets, making them more vulnerable to poverty. The nutrition data showed that households in the four communities had varying levels of access to nutritious food, with households in Community A having the highest mean and median nutrition scores. The livelihoods activities data showed that households in the four communities engaged in various activities, including agriculture, animal products, fishing, and other income-generating activities. The mean and median selected assets by income tercile by community revealed that households in the lower income tercile had limited access to assets, making it difficult for them to engage in income-generating activities. The data also showed that households in the four communities had varying levels of access to natural resources, with households in Community A having the highest mean and median natural resource scores. The analysis of the dataset revealed that households in the four communities had different levels of access to assets, making them vulnerable to poverty. The data also showed that households in the four communities had varying levels of access to nutritious food and natural resources, which affected their livelihoods activities. The findings of this study highlight the need for targeted interventions to address the poverty and vulnerability concerns in coastal communities in the Western Region of Ghana. The study's results are presented in a series of tables, which provide a detailed analysis of the data collected. Table 1 shows the number of households and sample size in the four target communities. Table 2 shows the mean and median selected assets by community, while Table 3 shows the mean and median selected assets by income tercile by community. Table 4 shows the land owned and farmed by community, while Table 5 shows the size distribution of land owned and farmed by households by community. Table 6 shows the mean land owned by income tercile by community, while Table 7 shows the livestock ownership by community. Table 8 shows the mean number of livestock owned by livestock type by community, while Table 9 shows the mean livestock assets in cattle equivalent units by income tercile by community. Table 10 shows access to and use of natural resources by community, while Table 11 shows household demographics and education by community. Table 12 shows household education level by income tercile by community, while Table 13 shows education level reached by gender and community. Table 14 shows reasons for migration by community, while Table 15 shows health in the household by income tercile by community. Table 16 shows the five most common diseases across households, while Table 17 shows selected domestic assets by community and total. Table 18 shows types of organizations by community, while Table 19 shows loans and savings by community. Table 20 shows the most common shocks by community, while Table 21 shows the most severe shocks by community. Table 22 shows the mean loss from adverse events by community.