Ann M. Oberhauser

Women in Geography have been earning PhDs at a rate comparable to men over the past two decades in the United States (Kaplan and Mapes 2016), and the number of PhD degrees awarded to underrepresent...

Women and other marginalized groups in geography are telling their stories and advocating for change in a discipline where they have historically been underrepresented and overlooked in research an...

Feminist approaches to livelihoods deeply enrich development studies by focusing on gender, social difference, intrahousehold considerations, and other manifestations of power. In this paper, we suggest three pillars of feminist livelihood studies that advance debates in this field. First, postcolonialism and decoloniality are separate but related frameworks essential for situating feminist approaches to livelihoods. Second, social‐relational and intersectional analyses provide critical understandings of the forces of oppression and difference that co‐produce livelihoods. Finally, feminist research on the environment examines social‐ecological dimensions of livelihoods that complement studies in feminist political ecology. Feminist methodologies are highlighted throughout our discussion and include the application of decolonising methods, reflexivity, and socio‐spatial dynamics within livelihood research. Attention to these pillars through a critical feminist lens provides a transformative agenda for livelihood studies. In sum, the research and practice of feminist livelihoods presented here support new directions for development studies to disrupt colonial, masculinist, and racialised approaches and to decolonise the ways we interact with communities to affect change.

This study assessed the livelihood education pro­grams (LEPs) of the Center for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. The center is based at Iowa State University (ISU) and operate in Uganda through the ISU Uganda Program, with the goal of ending hunger in Uganda. We used mixed methods, using surveys and focus groups. The surveys assessed dietary and caloric intake statuses and food access pathways with 454 households (316 LEP partici­pants and 138 nonparticipants). Twelve focus groups conducted with 125 LEP clients explored dietary changes and coping strategies during food scarcity. Overall, 44.1% households had good diets, and 42.5% had acceptable caloric intake. LEP par­ticipants were associated with good diets and acceptable caloric intake compared to nonpartici­pants. Specifically, participation in livestock pro­grams was associated with good diets, and agronomy, postharvest, livestock, and nutrition programs were associated with acceptable caloric intake. Foodstuffs were mainly accessed through home (farmgate) production, especially protein and energy foods, and market purchases for animal-source foods and vegetables. Focus groups identi­fied shifts in consumption from fresh to dried foods like sweet potatoes and cassava flour during scar­city. Consumption of animal-source proteins was low, and foods like meat and fish went off the menu during scarcity periods. Mothers selling their labor in exchange for food or cash, reliance on husbands, use of food reserves, and livestock sales were the main food insecurity coping strategies. Others included profits from small businesses, bor­rowing, friends, and fruit gathering. These results imply the benefit of participating in LEPs. Efforts to develop postharvest programs for starchy food, in addition to monitoring the adoption of storage practices, will benefit households.

The Ugandan government has relentlessly partnered with universities and philanthropic organizations in building the human capacities of livestock farmers to improve their herd production. The study investigated the impact of the livestock programs of Iowa State University (ISU) of the United States through its Center for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods and ISU Uganda program in Uganda. The study determined the influence of livestock training programs on the adoption of sustainable livestock production practices between 2014 to 2018 commensurate with the 2014 to 2019 strategic plan impact evaluation. We sampled 454 households, of whom 366 (80.6%) were livestock farmers. Among livestock farmers, 174 (47.5%) participated in livestock training programs. Farmers mostly trained in local chickens, exotic/layer chickens, and piggery; average in goats and feeding/feed formulation; but less in forage production and marketing/gross margin analysis. The frequency of attendance was low with 80.5% attending one to seven of 21 maximum times. In assessing knowledge comprehension and retention, we established an average score of 63.6% among all trainees. In production trends, 93.2% were involved in production before 2014, 76.0% were active in production by 2018, and up to 23.0% (re)joined a livestock enterprise between 2014 and 2018. Households who (re)joined production were associated with participation in livestock training and received inputs like breeding animals, water tanks, and feeds. The study recommends continuous training of farmers and upgrading service providers, establishment of resource centers, and engaging policymakers on policies on training and capacity-building efforts. Routine monitoring and evaluation of the training materials and farmers.