Household characteristics

The overall household size is relatively large, with an average of 9.76 (Standard Deviation (SD)

= 5.29) family members per household. On average, the household size of the farms oriented in tomato production is significantly (p < 0.001) larger than the farms oriented in apple and grape production. Study results showed a very high degree of inequality in regard to gender of the farm household head where, 99% of the farms were male-headed. All family farms (in total 102) were living in the same village since the head of the family farm was born. The average age of the farmers from the entire sample is 46.75 (SD = 11.11) years old. On average, farmers oriented in tomato production were significantly (p < 0.05) younger and considerably less educated (p <

0.01) compared to the apple and grape producers. The number of tomato farmers having additional profession aside from a farmer was different and significantly ( = 9.13, df = 2 p <

0.05) lower compared to the two other group of farms. The likelihood of having additional profession aside from a farmer was statistically proven to be dependent on the farmer's education level ( = 14.49, df = 2 p < 0.01). This result corresponds with the statistical test performed for differences in terms of education, where tomato farmers were significantly less educated among the three group of farms.

Table 20: Summary statistics of the farm household characteristics Farm household characteristic Mean SD Min Max HH size at tomato farms 12.16 6.18 4 26 HH size at grape farms 9.40 4.96 4 27 HH size at apple farms 7.23 2.67 3 14 HH size for entire farms 9.76 5.29 3 27 Farmer's age at tomato farms 43.11 7.51 31 65 Farmer's age at grape farms 48.40 13.44 25 84 Farmer's age at apple farms 49.30 11.01 30 72 Farmer's age for entire farms 46.75 11.11 25 84 Farmer's education at tomato farms 9.89 2.87 4 20 Farmer's education at grape farms 11.97 2.94 8 18 Farmer's education at apple farms 13.83 2.30 8 18

76 Farmer's education for entire farms 11.76 3.15 4 20

Note: HH-household; SD-standard deviation

Similar significant differences (p < 0.001) were observed in terms of the number of the family members employed. Family farms which were oriented in tomato production tend to have significantly higher number of the family members working fully in the farmstead. Different to this, apple oriented farms had significantly higher number of family members employed outside of the farmstead. Out of all interviewed family farms, 25.5% stated that they do have at least one family member working outside the country, mainly in Western European countries. No significant differences were observed among the three groups of family farms in regard of having family members working outside of the country.

Table 21: Summary statistics of employment status of the family farms

Employment Mean SD Min Max

Total employment at tomato farms 6.05 3.30 1.00 16.00 Total employment at grape farms 4.57 2.20 1.00 12.00 Total employment at apple farms 3.43 1.79 1.00 9.00 Total employment for entire farms 4.77 2.75 1.00 16.00 Employment in the farmstead at tomato farms 5.91 3.26 1.00 16.00 Employment in the farmstead at grape farms 3.48 1.65 1.00 8.00 Employment in the farmstead at apple farms 2.00 1.05 1.00 5.00 Employment in the farmstead for entire farms 3.93 2.76 1.00 16.00 Employment out of the farmstead at tomato farms 0.37 0.75 0.00 3.00 Employment out of the farmstead at grape farms 1.08 1.40 0.00 6.00 Employment out of the farmstead at apple farms 1.43 1.47 0.00 6.00 Employment out of the farmstead for entire farms 0.93 1.29 0.00 6.00 Note: SD-standard deviation

The farm business as a source of income plays a very important role in the welfare of tomato farm households. Approximately 90% of the interviewed tomato farms considered self-employment income from the agriculture sector as the main source of income in the household.

77 Only 8.1% of the tomato family farms, income flows from self-employment excluding agriculture and touristic sector was the main contribution of the household income. Grape family farms choose to diversify more income sources in order to support living standards. In comparison to the tomato farms, a smaller percentage (74%) of the grape family farms declared that the generated income from agriculture activities is the main source of income for their livelihood. A survey conducted in Albania reported that 60% of the farm household incomes come from farming activity and 22% of the income derives from self-employment or waged labor (Wehinger & Zhllima, 2013).

For other grape farms, wage income excluding agriculture and the tourist sector (14.3%), self-employment income excluding agriculture and touristic activities (5.7%) and other income sources like private and public transfers (5%) were considered to be the main source of income.

A completely different situation can be found for most of the apple producers where the farm household wellbeing is mainly based on off-farm activities. Only 23.3 % of apple producers earn income mainly from the agriculture activities. Majority (43.3%) make a living from wage income and 33.3% from self-employment excluding agriculture and the tourist sector. For most of the apple producers income from agriculture is an additional source of income with the purpose to diversify and stabilize their household income.

Farm household income sources were further examined to see how the income pattern relates to the other farm household characteristics. Study results did not show a significant association between the sources of income and the age groups of farmers. Household size (all family members dependent on the household financial support including students away at school), farm size (all cultivated land including owned and leased land) were not shown to be significant determinant factors for the household income sources. Farmer's education level and experience in terms of the number of years active in farming were significantly correlated and the main factors contributing to the income source determination of farm household. In terms of education level, similar patterns were found in the study conducted by (Zezza, 2007) in cross comparison of fifteen developing countries. Households with lower levels of education are likely to be more engaged in on-farm activities and rely more on agriculture income. Study results from (Estudillo

& Otsuka, 2010) showed that secondary and tertiary education was positively corralled to

non-78 farm income. Another study conducted by (Miftari & Gjonbalaj, 2013) showed that the higher the education level the higher probability that farm households will engage in non-farm activities, having positive effect on household’s non-farm diversification as well as improved household welfare.

Table 22: Correlation of the farm household income sources with farm characteristics Farm household income sources

Farm characteristics Df p-value Cramer's V

Farmer's age 9.18 9 0.42 0.17

HH size 10.78 9 0.29 0.18

Farm size 9.00 6 0.17 0.29

Education 27.10 6 0.00 0.51

Experience 19.17 6 0.00 0.30

Note: HH size- household size.

Income of farm households and its contribution to the total household income varies according to the farm typology and commodity. On average, tomato farms were having the highest share of income from agriculture and compared to the two other groups of farms, the difference was proved to be statistically significant (p < 0.001). For farmers oriented more on apple production the average farm income contribution to the total household income was 55% (SD 30%). The level of income earned from non-agricultural activities (mainly as wage or self-employment income) was considerably higher for apple farm households. The average contribution of farm income to the total income was slightly higher for grape producers 58% (SD 28%). However, for tomato producers, farm income was the main contributor to the total household income with 83%

and the level of income from agriculture activities was significantly higher compared to grape and apple farms (p < 0.05). Another part of income for tomato farms was mostly coming from private (remittances) or public (pensions) transfers. The composition of human and natural assets at farm household was a key determinant for the income level. The household size, number of family members working actively on farm and farm size, were all positively and significantly associated with the farm income. The Person's correlation coefficient of household size and

79 income was r = 0.198, p < 0.05, for employment r = 0.207, p < 0.05 and farm size r = 0.496 p <

0.001. No significant correlations were observed between farmer's age, education, and experience in agriculture with the total income of farm household.

Table 23: Annual income of farm households by source of income

Source of income Mean SD Min Max

Total income at tomato farms 19,322 11,467 5,580 71,680 Total income at grape farms 21,883 20,112 3,600 92,000 Total income at apple farms 21,121 14,722 3,500 70,000 Total income for entire farms 20,730 15,700 3,500 92,000 Income from agriculture at tomato farms 14,456 6,466 725 30,000 Income from agriculture at grape farms 10,366 9,142 1,200 40,000 Income from agriculture at apple farms 9,494 7,978 1,000 35,000 Income from agriculture for entire farms 11,593 8,133 725 40,000 Income from non-agricultural activities at grape farms 6,310 2,569 2,400 14,400 Income from non-agricultural activities at apple farms 12,976 8,447 1,500 40,000 Note: Descriptive statistics of the income from non-agricultural activities for tomato farms were not reported as only 5 household farms out of 37 were generating income from non-agricultural activities.