Maintaining Quality of Life during the Pandemic: Managing Economic, Social, and Health Well-Being Amid the COVID-19 Crisis of Agricultural Entrepreneurs
Abstract
:1. Introduction
COVID-19 in Pakistan
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area and Sampling Procedure
2.2. Measuring Quality of Life (QoL)
3. Results
3.1. Background of the Participants
3.2. Impact of COVID-19 on the QoL of Agricultural Entrepreneurs
3.3. QoL Index by Important Socioeconomic Characteristics Based on Gender of Agricultural Entrepreneurs
3.4. Determinants of the QoL Effect during COVID-19
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sarwar, A.; Imran, M. Prioritizing Infection Prevention and Control Activities for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): A Multi-Criteria Decision-Analysis Method. J. Heal. Leadersh. 2021, 13, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kickbusch, I.; Leung, G.M.; Bhutta, Z.A.; Matsoso, M.P.; Ihekweazu, C.; and Abbasi, K. COVID-19: How a virus is turning the Sarwar upside down. BMJ 2020, 369, 1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Banerjee, D. The COVID-19 outbreak: Crucial role the psychiatrists can play. Asian J. Psychiatry 2020, 50, 102014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IFRC. 2021. Available online: https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/ (accessed on 12 July 2022).
- Adams-Prassl, A.; Teodora, B.; Marta, G.; Christopher, R. Inequality in the Impact of the Coronavirus Shock: Evidence from Real Time Surveys. J. Public Econ. 2020, 189, 104245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davillas, A.; Jones, A.M. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on Inequality of Opportunity in Psychological Distress in the UK; Global Labor Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Etheridge, B.; Spantig, L. The Gender Gap in Mental Well-Being during the COVID-19 Outbreak: Evidence from the UK; ISER Working Paper Series No. 2020-08; Institute for Social and Economic Research: Colchester, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Holmes, E.A.; O’Connor, R.C.; Perry, V.H.; Tracey, I.; Wessely, S.; Arseneault, L.; Ballard, C.; Christensen, H.; Silver, R.C.; Everall, I.; et al. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yip, P.S.; Cheung, Y.T.; Chau, P.H.; Law, Y.W. The impact of epidemic outbreak: The case of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and suicide among older adults in Hong Kong. Crisis 2010, 31, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alon, T.; Doepke, M.; Olmstead-Rumsey, J.; Tertilt, M. The Impact of COVID-19 on Gender Equality; No. w26947; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Benzeval, M.; Burton, J.; Crossley, T.F.; Fisher, P.; Jäckle, A.; Low, H.; Read, B. The Idiosyncratic Impact of an Aggregate Shock: The Distributional Consequences of COVID-19; IFS: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Dingel, J.I.; Neiman, B. How many jobs can be done at home? J. Public Econ. 2020, 189, 104235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Losada-Balta, A.; Jiménez-Gonzalo, L.; Gallego-Alberto, L.; Pedroso-Chaparro, M.D.S.; Fernandes-Pires, J.; Márquez-González, M. We’re staying at home. Association of self-perceptions of aging, personal and family resources and loneliness with psychological distress during the lockdown period ofCOVID-19. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2020, 76, e10–e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chesley, N. What does it mean to be a “breadwinner” mother? J. Fam. Issues 2017, 38, 2594–2619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzo LK, C.; Minello, A. Mothers, childcare duties, and remote working under COVID-19 lockdown in Italy: Cultivating communities of care. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2020, 10, 120–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addati, L.; Cattaneo, U.; Esquivel, V.; Valarino, I. Care Work and Care Jobs for the Future of Decent Work. 2018. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/-dgreports/-dcomm/-publ/documents/publication/wcms_633135.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2021).
- Peterman, A.; Potts, A.; O’Donnell, M.; Thompson, K.; Shah, N.; Oertelt-Prigione, S.; van Gelder, N. Pandemics and Violence against Women and Children; Center for Global Development Working Paper 528; Centre for Global Development: Washington, DC, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Usher, K.; Bhullar, N.; Durkin, J.; Gyamfi, N.; Jackson, D. Family violence and COVID-19: Increased vulnerability and reduced options for support. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2020, 29, 549–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bradshaw, S. Socio-Economic Impacts of Natural Disasters: A gender Analysis. 2004. United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, no. 33. Available online: https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/5596-socio-economic-impacts-natural-disasters-gender-analysis (accessed on 23 May 2022).
- Neumayer, E.; Plümper, T. The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters: The Impact of Catastrophic Events on the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy, 1981-2002. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2007, 97, 551–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blaskó, Z.; Papadimitriou, E.; Manca, A.R. How Will the COVID-19 Crisis Affect Existing Gender Divides in Europe? Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wenham, C.; Smith, J.; Morgan, R.; Group, G. COVID-19: The gendered impacts of the outbreak. Lancet 2020, 395, 846–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Khan, A.K.; Lodhi, F.S.; Rabbani, U.; Ahmed, Z.; Abrar, S.; Arshad, S.; Irum, S.; Khan, M.I. Impact of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic on Psychological Well-Being of the Pakistani General Population. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 564364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dhahri, A.A.; Arain, S.Y.; Memon, A.M.; Rao, A. The psychological impact of COVID-19 on medical education of final year students in Pakistan: A cross-sectional study. Ann. Med. Surg. 2020, 60, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shoaib, M.; Abdullah, F. COVID-19 backlash: Psycho-social impacts of outbreak in Pakistan. Health Educ. 2021, 121, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. 2019. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.FE.ZS?locations=PK (accessed on 23 May 2022).
- OXFAM. If a Woman Does a Job, She Can Support Her Family as Well. 2019. Available online: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620925/rr-community-discussions-gender-roles-pakistan-081019en.pdf;jsessionid=F7FD05485B39A9E9F18F52B11608EAAA?sequence=1 (accessed on 23 May 2022).
- Imran, M.; Ozcatalbas, O. Determinants of household cooking fuels and their impact on women’s health in rural Pakistan. Env. Sci. Poll. Res. 2021, 27, 23849–23861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IGC. Has COVID-19 Exacerbated Gender Inequalities in Pakistan? 2021. Available online: https://www.theigc.org/blog/has-covid-19-exacerbated-gender-inequalities-in-pakistan/ (accessed on 23 June 2022).
- Pindado, E.; Sánchez, M. Researching the entrepreneurial behaviour of new and existing ventures in European agriculture. Small Bus. Econ. 2017, 49, 421–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sippel, S.R. Breaking ground: Multi-family farm entrepreneurs in Moroccan export agriculture. J. Rural. Stud. 2016, 45, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seuneke, P.; Lans, T.; Wiskerke, J.S. Moving beyond entrepreneurial skills: Key factors driving entrepreneurial learning in multifunctional agriculture. J. Rural. Stud. 2013, 32, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamano, T.; Sato, N.; Arif, B.W. COVID-19 Impact on Farm Households in Punjab, Pakistan: Analysis of Data from a Cross-Sectional Survey; Asian Deevelopment Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Shahbaz, P.; Boz, I.; Haq, S.U. Determinants of crop diversification in mixed cropping zone of Punjab Pakistan. Direct Res. J. Agric. Food Sci. 2017, 5, 360–366. [Google Scholar]
- Abid, M.; Scheffran, J.; Schneider, U.A.; Ashfaq, M. Farmers’ perceptions and adaptation strategies to climate change and their determinants: The case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2015, 6, 225–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siddiqui, R. Income, Public Social Services, and Capability Development: A Cross-District Analysis of Pakistan; No. 2008: 43; Pakistan Institute of Development Economics: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Zorondo-Rodríguez, F.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Demps, K.; Ariza-Montobbio, P.; García, C.; Reyes-García, V. What defines quality of life? The gap between public policies and locally defined indicators among residents of Kodagu, Karnataka (India). Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 115, 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ihsan, N.; Aziz, B. A multidimensional analysis of quality of life: Pakistan’s context. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019, 142, 201–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Praag, B.M.; Frijters, P.; Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. The anatomy of subjective well-being. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2003, 51, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hagerty, M.R.; Cummins, R.; Ferriss, A.L.; Land, K.; Michalos, A.C.; Peterson, M.; Sharpe, A.; Sirgy, J.; Vogel, J. Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research. Bull. Sociol. Methodol./Bull. De Méthodologie Sociol. 2001, 71, 58–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dluhy, M.; Swartz, N. Connecting knowledge and policy: The promise of community indicators in the United States. Soc. Indic. Res. 2006, 79, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swain, D.; Hollar, D. Measuring progress: Community indicators and the quality of life. Int. J. Public Adm. 2003, 26, 789–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; Fisher, B.; Ali, S.; Beer, C.; Bond, L.; Boumans, R.; Danigelis, N.L.; Dickinson, J.; Elliottc, C.; Farley, J.; et al. Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haq, H. Measuring Human Wellbeing in Pakistan: Objective Versus Subjective Indicators; MPRA Paper, 38968; University Library of Munich: Munich, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Liao, P.S. Parallels between objective indicators and subjective perceptions of quality of life: A study of metropolitan and county areas in Taiwan. Soc. Indic. Res. 2009, 91, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kingdon, G.G.; Knight, J. Subjective well-being poverty vs. income poverty and capabilities poverty? J. Dev. Stud. 2006, 42, 1199–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Türksever, A.N.E.; Atalik, G. Possibilities and limitations for the measurement of the quality of life in urban areas. Soc. Indic. Res. 2001, 53, 163–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Young, D.; Wei, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Xiao, S.; Wang, X.; Chen, X. The relationship between objective life status and subjective life satisfaction with quality of life. Behav. Med. 1998, 23, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Helliwell, J.; Layard, R.; Sachs, J. World Happiness Report. 2013. Available online: http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2022).
- Rahman, T.; Mittelhammer, R.C.; Wandschneider, P.R. Measuring quality of life across countries: A multiple indicators and multiple causes approach. J. Socio-Econ. 2011, 40, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haq, R.; Ahmed, A.; Shafique, S. Variation in the quality of life within Punjab: Evidence from MICS, 2007–2008. Pak. Dev. Rev. 2010, 49, 863–879. [Google Scholar]
- Pak, A.; Adegboye, O.A.; Adekunle, A.I.; Rahman, K.M.; McBryde, E.S.; Eisen, D.P. Economic consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak: The need for epidemic preparedness. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicola, M.; Alsafi, Z.; Sohrabi, C.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 78, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, N.; García, J.R.; Jimeno, J.F. The Impact of Unemployment on Individual Well-Being in the EU; Working Paper, 29; European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes: Belgium, Handle, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Selim, S. Life satisfaction and happiness in Turkey. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 88, 531–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemp, B.; Bateham, A. The role of distress and social involvement in quality of life among people with spinal cord injury. Top. Spinal Cord Inj. Rehabil. 2010, 16, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burckhardt, C.S.; Anderson, K.L. The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): Reliability, validity, and utilization. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2003, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Banister, D.; Bowling, A. Quality of life for the elderly: The transport dimension. Transp. Policy 2004, 11, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ul Haq, S.; Boz, I.; Shahbaz, P. Measuring Tea Farmers’ Perceptions of Sustainable Agriculture and Factors Affecting This Perception in Rize Province of Turkey. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2022, 24, 1043–1056. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, S.R.; Bloom, N.; Davis, S.J.; Terry, S.J. COVID-Induced Economic Uncertainty; NBER Working Paper 26983; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Morganstein, J.C.; Ursano, R.J. Ecological disasters and mentalhealth: Causes, consequences, and interventions. Front. Psychia-Try 2020, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mroczek, D.K.; Kolarz, C.M. The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 1333–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kalaylıoğlu, Y.; Öztürk, A.M.; Eker, G.B. The Economic and Social Impact of COVID-19 on Women and Men: Rapid Gender Assessment of COVID-19 Implications in Turkey; UN Women: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- UN. Policy Brief: The Impact of COVID-19 on Women. 2020. Available online: https://www.unwomen.org/-media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2020/policy-brief-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-women-en.pdf?la=en&vs=1406 (accessed on 23 May 2022).
- Dang, H.A.H.; Nguyen, C.V. Gender inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic: Income, expenditure, savings, and job loss. World Dev. 2021, 140, 105296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacques-Aviñó, C.; López-Jiménez, T.; Medina-Perucha, L.; De Bont, J.; Gonçalves, A.Q.; Duarte-Salles, T.; Berenguera, A. Gender-based approach on the social impact and mental health in Spain during COVID-19 lockdown: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e044617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowal, M.; Coll-Martín, T.; Ikizer, G.; Rasmussen, J.; Eichel, K.; Studzińska, A.; Koszałkowska, K.; Karwowski, M.; Najmussaqib, A.; Pankowski, D.; et al. Who is the Most Stressed During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Data From 26 Countries and Areas. Applied psychology. Health Well-Being 2020, 12, 946–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez-Pavón, D.; Carbonell-Baeza, A.; Lavie, C.J. Physical exercise as therapy to fight against the mental and physical consequences of COVID-19 quarantine: Special focus in older people. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2020, 63, 386–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haapala, E.A.; Vaisto, J.; Lintu, N. Physical activity and sedentary time in relation to academic achievement in children. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 583–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Korczak, D.J.; Madigan, S.; Colasanto, M. Children’s physical activity and depression: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2017, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saladino, V.; Algeri, D.; Auriemma, V. The psychological and social impact of COVID-19: New perspectives of well-being. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Madgavkar, A.; White, O.; Krishnan, M.; Mahajan, D.; Azcue, X. COVID-19 and Gender Equality: Countering the Regressive Effects; McKinsey Global Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmed, A. Gender Gap in Pakistan Widens Further. 2021. Available online: https://www.dawn.com/news/1615763 (accessed on 21 August 2021).
- Tran, B.X.; Nguyen, H.T.; Le, H.T.; Latkin, C.A.; Pham, H.Q.; Vu, L.G.; Le, X.T.T.; Nguyen, T.T.; Pham, Q.T.; Ta, N.T.K.; et al. Impact of COVID-19 on economic well-being and quality of life of the Vietnamese during the National social distancing. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 565153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Islam, M.M.; Alharthi, M. Impact of COVID-19 on the Quality of Life of Households in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adler, N.E.; Snibbe, A.C. The role of psychosocial processes in explaining the gradient between socioeconomic status and health. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2003, 12, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jalan, J.; Ravallion, M. Transient poverty in postreform rural China. J. Comp. Econ. 1998, 26, 338–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haq, S.U.; Shahbaz, P.; Boz, I. Knowledge, behavior and precautionary measures related to COVID-19 pandemic among the general public of Punjab province, Pakistan. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2020, 14, 823–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Socioeconomic Characteristics | Male Agricultural Entrepreneurs | Female Agricultural Entrepreneurs |
---|---|---|
Mean | Mean | |
Age (Years) | 35.37 (9.13) | 32.54 * (6.92) |
Education (Years) | 11.27 (2.18) | 10.06 ** (1.68) |
Family size (Number) | 7.74 (2.74) | 6.34 ** (1.94) |
Children (Number) | 0.33 (0.55) | 0.58 * (0.46) |
Marital status (1 = Unmarried, 0 = Married) | 0.58 | 0.51 * |
Landholding (1 = large, 0 = small) | 0.56 | 0.45 |
The secondary source of income (1 = Yes, 0 = No) | 0.31 | 0.13 * |
Livelihood source of other family members | ||
Wages (1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise) | 0.15 | 0.22 ** |
Public employment (1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise) | 0.33 | 0.51 * |
Self-employment (1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise) | 0.25 | 0.13 * |
Livestock (1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise) | 0.27 | 0.14 * |
Monthly income (PKR) | ||
Low-income group (<50,000) (1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise) | 0.47 | 0.59 * |
Medium income group (≥50,000 and ≤100,000) (1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise) | 0.32 | 0.31 |
High income group (>100,000) (1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise) | 0.21 | 0.10 * |
QoL Indicators | Changes in QoL due to COVID-19 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male Agricultural Entrepreneurs | Female Agricultural Entrepreneurs | |||||||||
SDA | DA | N | A | SA | SDA | DA | N | A | SA | |
Economic well-being | ||||||||||
Livelihood source | 7.00 | 8.50 | 9.00 | 29.50 | 46.00 | 14.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.67 | 55.33 |
Income | 12.00 | 10.50 | 9.00 | 20.00 | 48.50 | 10.00 | 15.33 | 20.00 | 18.67 | 41.00 |
Wealth | 10.00 | 18.00 | 12.50 | 39.50 | 20.00 | 15.33 | 20.00 | 13.67 | 27.00 | 24.00 |
Food purchasing power | 9.00 | 6.00 | 5.00 | 25.00 | 55.00 | 7.00 | 16.67 | 10.00 | 16.00 | 50.33 |
Non-food purchasing power | 7.00 | 7.00 | 9.00 | 19.00 | 56.00 | 10.67 | 17.33 | 0.00 | 12.00 | 60.00 |
Job opportunities | 17.50 | 15.50 | 13.00 | 17.00 | 37.00 | 6.00 | 20.67 | 17.33 | 12.00 | 44.00 |
Health well-being | ||||||||||
Physical health status | 7.50 | 7.00 | 21.00 | 54.50 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 9.33 | 16.00 | 43.33 | 21.33 |
Mental health status | 6.50 | 11.50 | 12.00 | 19.50 | 50.50 | 9.33 | 22.00 | 22.67 | 25.33 | 20.67 |
Spiritual health status | 6.00 | 28.50 | 0.00 | 30.50 | 35.00 | 0.00 | 8.00 | 5.33 | 40.67 | 46.00 |
Intellectual health status | 20.00 | 17.00 | 30.00 | 13.00 | 20.00 | 25.00 | 20.50 | 4.50 | 30.00 | 20.00 |
Social well-being | ||||||||||
Connection with family members | 30.50 | 36.50 | 10.50 | 16.50 | 6.00 | 20.67 | 56.67 | 14.00 | 8.67 | 0.00 |
Connection with friends | 11.00 | 29.50 | 15.00 | 29.00 | 15.50 | 14.67 | 33.33 | 20.00 | 28.00 | 4.00 |
Connection with relatives | 12.00 | 34.50 | 5.00 | 25.00 | 23.50 | 17.00 | 32.67 | 4.33 | 14.67 | 31.33 |
Connection with colleagues | 14.50 | 31.00 | 18.00 | 9.00 | 27.50 | 19.33 | 41.33 | 5.33 | 11.33 | 22.67 |
Participation in voluntary activities | 3.00 | 0.20 | 27.50 | 27.50 | 40.00 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 43.33 | 32.67 | 20.00 |
Participation in social events | 5.00 | 6.00 | 14.50 | 25.50 | 49.00 | 10.00 | 11.33 | 20.67 | 33.33 | 24.67 |
Work and life balance | 14.00 | 7.00 | 0.00 | 43.00 | 36.00 | 2.00 | 2.50 | 4.50 | 48.33 | 42.67 |
Access to market | 17.50 | 5.50 | 22.00 | 16.50 | 38.50 | 7.33 | 29.33 | 0.00 | 18.00 | 45.33 |
Access to transport | 13.00 | 17.50 | 7.00 | 37.00 | 25.50 | 0.00 | 7.33 | 9.33 | 49.33 | 34.00 |
Access to health facilities | 0.00 | 0.00 | 21.00 | 44.00 | 35.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 53.33 | 46.67 |
Access to bank facilities | 20.50 | 30.50 | 7.00 | 30.33 | 11.67 | 12.00 | 15.67 | 16.33 | 20.50 | 35.50 |
Access to worship place | 33.00 | 14.50 | 8.00 | 22.00 | 22.50 | 42.67 | 7.00 | 5.67 | 21.33 | 23.33 |
Socioeconomic Categories | Female Agricultural Entrepreneurs | Male Agricultural Entrepreneurs |
---|---|---|
By age c | ||
Older | 69 a | 65 *a |
Younger | 59 b | 53 *b |
By education c | ||
High | 58 a | 55 *a |
Low | 74 b | 61 *b |
By marital status | ||
Married | 66 a | 63 *a |
Unmarried | 63 a | 54 *b |
By family size c | ||
Large | 68 a | 60 *a |
Small | 60 b | 56 *a |
By land holding | ||
Large | 61 a | 54 *a |
Small | 67 b | 63 *b |
By monthly income c | ||
Low | 72 a | 60 *a |
High | 56 b | 57 a |
Explanatory Variables | Coefficient | Odd Ratios |
---|---|---|
Gender (1 = Male agricultural entrepreneurs, 0 = Female agricultural entrepreneurs) | −0.62 * (0.21) | 0.54 |
Age (Years) | 0.05 * (0.01) | 1.05 |
Education (Years) | −1.31 * (0.09) | 0.27 |
Marital status (1 = Unmarried, 0 = Married) | 0.26 (0.19) | 1.29 |
Family size (Number) | 0.72 * (0.06) | 2.05 |
Children (Number) | 0.24 (0.21) | 1.27 |
Landholding (1 = large, 0 = small) | −0.53 ** (0.19) | 0.59 |
Secondary source of income (1 = Yes, 0 = No) | −1.36 (0.50) | 0.26 |
Livelihood source of other family members a | ||
Wages | 0.35 * (0.06) | 1.42 |
Livestock | 0.42 * (0.10) | 1.52 |
Self-employment | 1.60 * (0.29) | 4.95 |
Monthly income (PKR) b | ||
Low-income quantile | 0.70 * (0.26) | 2.01 |
Medium income quantile ≥50,000 and ≤10,000) | 0.29 * (0.09) | 1.33 |
Log-likelihood | −252.54 | |
LR chi2 | 1411.71 | |
Prob > chi2 | 0.00 | |
Pseudo R2 | 0.7365 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cheng, Y.; Nadeem, M.; Haq, S.u.; Prisca, K.; Aziz, B.; Imran, M.; Shahbaz, P. Maintaining Quality of Life during the Pandemic: Managing Economic, Social, and Health Well-Being Amid the COVID-19 Crisis of Agricultural Entrepreneurs. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15597. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315597
Cheng Y, Nadeem M, Haq Su, Prisca K, Aziz B, Imran M, Shahbaz P. Maintaining Quality of Life during the Pandemic: Managing Economic, Social, and Health Well-Being Amid the COVID-19 Crisis of Agricultural Entrepreneurs. Sustainability. 2022; 14(23):15597. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315597
Chicago/Turabian StyleCheng, Yi, Muhammad Nadeem, Shamsheer ul Haq, Kyalisiima Prisca, Babar Aziz, Muhammad Imran, and Pomi Shahbaz. 2022. "Maintaining Quality of Life during the Pandemic: Managing Economic, Social, and Health Well-Being Amid the COVID-19 Crisis of Agricultural Entrepreneurs" Sustainability 14, no. 23: 15597. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315597