systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...

dry fish and vegetables, respectively. The consumption of meat was relatively low in
all three farming groups.
With regard to the direct impact of the rice-fish farming systems on
consumption of fresh fish, farmers in FS I consumed more fish (7%) than farmers in
FS I1 (6%) and FS I11 (4%). Other food items showed varied budget shares among
the three farming system groups.
Nonfood expenditures
A summary of the nonfood expenditures and the budget share of each nonfood item
are presented in Table 15. Within the nonfood category, the highest amount was
spent on education. The impact of fish culture on quality of life was that farmers
spent more on education. For example, farmers in FS I and FS I1 spent about 26%
and 39% of their total nonfood expenditures on education compared with FS 111
farmers who spent 1270. However, FS 111 farmers spent more on taxes and assets
than farmers in FS I and FS 11.
In relation to expenditures on social activities (e.g., cultural ceremony,
recreation, and donations), there is a remarkable difference between farmers in FS I
and FS I1 although they have the same social status. With the increased income
from fish, FS I (fish cultivated three times a year), farmers spent more on social
activities than FS I1 farmers. However, FS 111 farmers spent the highest budget share
on social activities.
Significant differences were also observed in expenditures on health services
(e.g., visiting rural heklth services and family planning) between farmers in FS I and
FS 11. Farmers in FS 111 spent the highest budget share on health services.
Demand elasticities
A summary of price and income elasticities for all budget categories is given in
Tables 16, 17, and 18. These figures were compared using the estimated parameters
of the LA/AIDS model. There was variability in the elasticities in all groups of
consumers.
The demand for food and nonfood groups appears to be unit price inelastic
in all farming groups (Table 16). However, farmers in FS I11 are relatively more
responsive (i.e., a coefficierlt of -0.664 for food and -0.748 for nonfood). Meanwhile,
the demand for food and nonfood groups appears to be income elastic in all farming
groups except for food in FS I (0.999 and 1.001).