Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Vol. 9(2), pp. 242-249, 2019

ISSN: 2276-7770

Copyright ©2019, the copyright of this article is retained by the author(s)

DOI Link: http://doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2019.2.052419097  

http://gjournals.org/GJAS

 

Description: C:\Users\user\Pictures\Journal Logos\GJAS Logo.jpg

 

 

 

 

Contribution of Agroforestry for Livelihood Improvement in Wamakko Local Government Area, Sokoto State, Nigeria

 

 

Gwimmi, D.P.1; Umar, I.1; Nafiu A.K.1; Atiku, M.1; Ambursa A.S.1; Sokoto M.B.2; Wele, H.K.3

 

 

1, Kebbi State University of Science and Technology, Aliero, Department of Forestry & Fisheries.

2, Usmanu Dandodiyo University Sokoto, Department of Forestry and Environment.

3, College of Agricuiture, Zuru. Kebbi State.

 

 

 

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

 

Article No.:052419097

Type: Research

DOI: 10.15580/GJAS.2019.2.052419097

 

 

The study assessed the contribution of agroforestry for livelihood improvement in Wamakko Local Government area of Sokoto State. Four (4) districts were purposively selected for the study based on the dominance of agroforestry practices in the study areas. Two villages were randomly selected from each of the selected districts. From each village, 30 farmers were conveniently selected given a total sample size of 240 respondents. Structured questionnaire were administered, retrieved and analysed.Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results of the study indicated that, majority (70.8%) of the farmers were within the age bracket of 15 to 30 years and 78.3 percent were married and they had attended at least one form of formal education or the other. Furthermore, 79 percent source information about climate change from family and friends, while 52.1 percent stated that high temperature was the main climate change experience they had. Majority (wms=3.87) of the farmers stated that dispersed tree on cropland was highly practiced. To encourage agroforestry practice, incentives through the distribution of improved tree seedlings would assist greatly.

 

Submitted: 24/05/2019

Accepted:  28/05/2019

Published: 13/06/2019

 

*Corresponding Author

Gwimmi D.P.

E-mail: gwimidave@ gmail.com

 

Keywords: Agroforestry; livelihood; Socio-economic characteristic

 

 

 

 

 

 


INTRODUCTION

                       

           A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base” (Carney, 1998). Climate change is a major challenge for agriculture, food security and rural livelihoods for billions of people including the poor in most developing countries (Carney, 1998).

During the past 30 years, agroforestry has progressed from being a traditional practice with great potential to the point where development experts agree that it provides an important science-based pathway for achieving important objectives in natural resource management and poverty alleviation (Lin, 2010). Despite its ubiquitous use by smallholder farm families, there is inadequate awareness about the potential of agroforestry to benefit millions of households trapped in poverty. We need a global ‘agroforestry transformation’ to mobilize science and resources to remove the socio-economic, ecological and political constraints to widespread application of agroforestry innovations. Building on three decades of work with smallholder farmers in Africa, Asia and Latin America, coupled with strategic alliances with advanced laboratories, national research institutions, universities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across the globe, the World Agroforestry Centre and its partners are poised to foster such an agroforestry transformation (Lin, 2010).

            Trees play a crucial role in almost all terrestrial ecosystems. They provide a wide range of products and services to rural and urban people. As natural vegetation is cleared for agriculture, trees are integrated into productive landscapes – this practice is known as agroforestry.  Agroforestry is practiced by millions of farmers and has been a feature of agriculture for millennia (Lin, 2010). It encompasses a wide range of working trees that are grown on farms and in rural landscapes and includes the generation of science-based tree enterprise opportunities that can be important in the future. Among these are: fertilizer trees for land regeneration, soil health and food security; fruit trees for nutrition and income; fodder trees that improve smallholder livestock production; timber and fuel wood trees for shelter and energy; medicinal trees to combat disease, particularly where there is no pharmacy; and trees that produce gums, resins or latex products (Garrity, 2004). Many of these trees have multiple uses, each providing a range of benefits. An estimated 1.2 billion rural people currently practice agroforestry on their farms and in their communities, and depend upon its products (World Bank, 2000). Their tree-based enterprises help ensure food and nutritional security, increase their income and assets, and help solve their land management problems. Agroforestry is a collective name for land-use systems and technologies where woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliberately used on the same land-management units as agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence. In agroforestry systems, there are both ecological and economical interactions between the different components (Schoeneberger, 2009).There are many types of agroforestry systems that are employed in a number of regions of the world and at different levels of complexity (Montagnini and Nair, 2004). Silvi-pastoral systems are agricultural systems where trees are planted within a pasture field to provide feeds and shade as well as food and fuel for the farmer. Another type of agroforestry is the intercropping of crops within hedgerows of trees called agrosilvicultural system to provide windbreaks/shelterbelts for the crops and increase the soil stability of the region. Mixed-use forests are a type of agroforestry that allows for multiple crops to be produced in a small physical   land area, increasing the temporal and structural diversity of the ecosystem, and the net benefits or negatives are largely based on the design of the system. The range of agroforestry systems possible can potentially allow for many different types of adaptation under a range of conditions (Schoeneberger, 2009). However, levels of co-benefits depend on the amount of diversity integrated into the system, as more diversity within the agroforestry system will lead to greater co-benefits.

According to Rogers (2003), adoption occurs when one has decided to make full use of the new technology as a best course of action for addressing a need. Adoption is determined by several factors including socio-economic variables such as individual needs, knowledge about the technology and individual perceptions about methods used to achieve those needs (Thangata&Alavalapati, 2003).

 

 

METHODOLOGY        

 

Study Area

 

The study was carried out in Wamakko Local Government Area of Sokoto State. Wamakko is 10 km west of Sokoto city. The LGA was created in 1991. The LGA has Ten (10) Districts: Dundaye, Wamakko, Gumbi, Gumburawa, Gedawa, Kalambana, Wajeke, Arkilla, Gwiwa, and GidanBubu. The study area is located on latitude 13°-13°2′16″N and longitude 5°-5°5′37″E  (NGIA, 2016). It is bordered to the north by Tangaza Local Government, to the south by Bodinga and Yabo Local Government Areas, west by Silame Local Government, and to the east by Sokoto and Kware Local Government Areas. It has an area of 697 km² and a population of 208,250 (NPCN, 2011). The major occupation of the people are farming, fishing and trading. The main ethnic groups are Hausa and Fulani, other Nigerian tribes also reside and live peacefully with the indigenes of Wamakko Local Government Area (Roger, 2006; SSMIYSC, 2013).

 

Sampling Procedures and Sample Size

           

Four (4) districts were purposively selected out of ten (10) districts in Wamakko local government area, for the study based on the dominance of agroforestry practices in the study areas. The districts selected are Dundaye, Gumburawa, GidanBubu and Wamakko. Two villages were randomly selected from each of the selected districts making eight (8) villages. From each village, 30 farmers were conveniently selected given a total sample size of 240 respondents.     

 

Data Collection

 

Two hundred and forty (240) structured questionnaires were administered, retrieved and analysed. Data collected were on the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, usefulness of agroforestry practices and level of adoption of agroforestry in the study area.

 

Data Analysis

 

Data collected were analyzed using both descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages). Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 20.0 was used for the analysis.

 

           

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Farmers

 

From table 1, the majority (70.8 %) of the farmers fell within the ages of 15 to 30 years. In addition to this, 29.2 percent fell within the ages of 31 years and above in the study area. This implies that the majority of the agroforestry farmers were within the active age to provide labour force; younger farmers participated more than older ones in the farming activities. This is supported by Ogungbileet al. (2002) who stated that younger farmers are more likely to adopt an innovation than older farmers because of strength, better education and more exposure to new ideas.

 

Gender

           

All of the farmers involved in agroforestry practice were men. Men who were mostly the household heads had more access to land and participated more in outdoor activities than women. The predominance of men in agroforestry practice was due to the cultural and traditional practices which restricted women from farming activities. This finding agreed with Angoet al. (2011) who reported that majority of rural populace in the northern part of the country engage in farming, while the female folk partake only in rearing of children, domestic and other house chores and processing of agricultural produce.

 

Marital Status

 

Majority of the farmers (78.3%) were married while 21.7 percent of them were single. This could mean that the married individuals were more committed to their responsibilities and worked very hard to earn a living because of the responsibilities they shoulder. The finding is supported by Olarindeet al. (2008) who reported that one of the most important factors which determine technical efficiency of a business is the marital status of the individual.

 

Family Size

 

A total of 78.3 percent of the farmers had family size of 1 to 10 persons, this implies that the small family size could be as a result of small income and poverty. Also the labour was limited because of the small size of the family, this is in agreement with Adamu (1997) who stated that the plot of land which rural populace possess are mostly small in size because of the nature of inheritance in which the children share the land left behind when their parent die. On the other hand, 8.8 percent of the farmers had family size of between 16 persons and above. Other studies indicated that large family size is expected to enable farmers to take up labour intensive activities (Anleyet al., 2007; Birungi, 2007 and Nyangena, 2007).


 

 

Table 1: Distribution of Farmers According to their Socio–Economic Characteristics

Variables

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Variables

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Age (years)

 

 

Level of Education

 

 

15-20

49

20.4

Quranic

61

25.4

21-25

72

30.0

non formal

36

15.0

26-30

49

20.4

Primary

41

17.1

31- above

70

29.2

Secondary

32

13.4

Total

240

100.0

Adult

32

13.3

Gender

 

 

Tertiary

38

15.8

Male

240

100.0

Total

240

100.0

Marital status

 

 

Farming experience

 

 

Single

52

21.7

1-5

75

31.3

Married

188

78.3

6-10

85

35.4

Total

240

100.0

11-15

38

15.8

Family size

 

 

16- above

42

17.5

1-5

84

35.0

Total

240

100.0

6-10

104

43.3

Farm size (ha)

 

 

11-15

31

12.9

1-4

92

38.3

16- above

21

8.8

5-9

65

27.1

Total

240

100.0

10-14

52

21.7

 

 

 

15- above

31

12.9

 

 

 

Total

240

100.0

Source: Field survey, 2015.

 

.


Educational Status

 

Most of the farmers have attained and obtained one form of formal education or the other and this would help farmers in adopting any technology introduced to them. This is in agreement with Obinne (1991) who reported that education influence the adoption of new innovations, ideas and techniques in business operations. It is also noteworthy that 36 farmers (15%) did not have formal education and as such it might be difficult for them to adopt modern technique, innovations or new ideas in farming activities.

 

Farming Experience

 

Most of the farmers had many years of experience in Agroforestry practice, this implies that the more experienced a farmer is, the more efficient he is  supposed to become and vice versa, This is in agreement with Onubuogu et al. (2013) who reported that farmers with more experience would be more efficient and have better knowledge on climatic conditions.

           

Size of Land Holding

 

Majority (86.2%) of the farmers had land size which fell within 1 and 9 hectares, 6.3 percent had land size that fall within 10 and 14 hectares, while 7.5% had land size that fell within 15 hectares and above. This implies that the majority of farmer had large plot for their agricultural activities. This is not in agreement with Adamu (1997) who stated that the plot of land which rural people possess is mostly small in size because it has to be shared among the heirs of deceased owners.


 

 

Table 2: Distribution of Farmers According to the Usefulness of Agroforestry Practices

Variables

VH

H

L

VL

WMS

MR

Usefulness of agroforestry practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provision of food (fruits vitamins)

204

34

2

0

3.84

1st

 

(85.0)

(14.2)

(0.8)

(0.0)

 

 

Increase in soil nutrients

91

118

30

1

3.25

4th

 

(37.9)

(49.2)

(12.5)

(0.4)

 

 

Provision of fuelwood

179

57

4

0

3.73

2nd

 

(74.6)

(23.8)

(1.7)

(0.0)

 

 

Provision of timber

49

69

95

27

2.59

7th

 

(20.4)

(28.8)

(39.6)

(11.3)

 

 

Protection against wind and storms

113

107

19

0

3.39

5th

 

(47.1)

(44.6)

(7.9)

(0.0)

 

 

Provision of income

156

76

6

2

3.61

3rd

 

(65.0)

(31.7)

(2.5)

(0.8)

 

 

Protection of soil from erosion

60

114

62

3

2.97

6th,

 

(25.0)

(47.5)

(25.8)

(1.3)

 

 

Source: Field survey, 2015.

Likert scale-VH=very high, H= high, L= low, VL= very low, WMS= weighted mean Score and MR= mean rank.

 

 

Table 3: Distribution of Farmers According to the Contribution of Agroforestry to livelihood improvement

Variables

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Income generation

 

 

Crop production

106

44.2

Livestock production

31

12.8

Tree production

47

19.6

Sales of timber

28

11.7

Bark of the tree

28

11.7

Total

240

100.0

 

Food

 

 

 Fruits

200

83.3

 Seeds

19

7.9

 Leaves

21

8.8

Total

240

100.0

 

 Feed

 

 

Fruits

88

36.7

Seeds

66

27.5

Leaves

86

35.8

Total

240

100.0

 

Medicine

 

 

Roots

50

20.8

Leaves

34

14.2

Bark of the tree

154

64.2

Seeds

2

0.8

 Total

240

100.0

 

Raw materials

 

 

Timber

239

99.6

Leaves

1

0.4

Total

240

100.0

 

Protection from trees

 

 

Provision of shade

133

55.5

Serves as wind break

88

36.6

Purifies air

19

7.9

Total

240

100.0

Source: Field survey, 2015.

 

 


Usefulness of Agroforestry Practice                                                                         

 

Majority of the farmers (wms =3.78) stated that agroforestry practice was highly useful in the provision of food and it was ranked first, this implies that most of the agroforestry practices are done purposely for products from trees such as fruits and seeds. Similar finding by Aggarwal and Mall (2000) reported that agroforestry trees have many uses in our environment ranging from provision of services such as purification of air, production of food, fruits, fuel, timber, gums and other products, they  also ensure conservation of soil,  while  provision of timber was ranked the least (wms = 2.59). This could be due to the fact that in rural areas, trees are usually cut down or harvested for fuel wood before the trees matured as such it makes it difficult for timber production, also because of lack of timber-based industries in the study areas. This finding did not agree with Glover and Elsiddig  (2012) who reported that agroforestry trees  are grown in order to produce wood which is cut into lumber (sawn wood) for use in construction of buildings, bridges, track ways, poles for power lines, carts, farm implements, boats, etc.

           

Income Generation

 

A total of 44.2 percent of the farmers generated income through crop production, this implies that majority of the farmers depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Similar finding by Parry et al. (2007) reported that agriculture is the main livelihood system of most of our people and along with allied sectors like livestock and fisheries, contributes to the livelihood standard, though 11.7 percent generate income through sales of timber. This is as a result of trees on farm lands which are used for construction. Similar finding by Pandit and Thapa (2004) reported that, growing of trees on farmlands contributes to household income.

           

Source of Credit

 

Majority (57.1%) of the farmers did not have any source of credit and depended on no one for credit, this implies that farmers try to work with income obtained from the sales of farm produce. This agrees with the finding of Parry et al. (2007) who reported that more than 60 per cent of the populations are directly or indirectly relying on agriculture as a source of income in rural areas. Only 1.7 percent of the farmers stated that they sourced credit from private individuals. This could be as a result of their small scale or subsistence level of farming as such they needed private source of credit to support the family. This finding disagrees with Palm et al. (2005) who reported that agroforestry practice can also support wildlife and provide another source of income. 

 

Parts of the Tree Used for Food

 

About 83.3 percent of the farmers used fruits as food. This implies that farmers may obtain fruit from trees on their farm for food either processed or fresh. This is in consonance with Padoch et al. (2008) who documented that fruits have been a low-cost staple food source, while 7.9 percent stated that they used seed as food, this is because some of the trees in rural areas produce edible seed which are used for food. This finding is supported by World Bank (2000) who reported that many trees bear edible nuts which can loosely be described as being large, oily kernels found inside a hard shell. These include coconuts (Cocos nucifera), Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa). They have high nutritive value and contain high-quality protein, vitamins and minerals as well as dietary fiber.

 

Parts of the Tree Used for Feed

 

A total of 36.7 percent of the farmers stated that they use fruits as animal feeds, this could be due to the fact that farmers use fruits from tree either directly or processed as animal feeds, while 27.5 percent use seeds for preparing animal feeds. Similar finding by Neupane and Thapa (2001), reported that some products of tree species grown on farmland are the main sources of animal feeds.

 

Parts of the Tree Used for Medicine

 

Majority (64.2%) of the farmers used bark for medicine, this may be true in rural settlement where people make use of the bark of tree to treat certain sicknesses such as malaria and typhoid fever, this agrees with Lichterman (2004) who reported that, the bark of some trees such as willow  tree contains large amounts of salicylic acid, which is the active metabolite of aspirin. Willow bark has been used for millennia for medicine as an effective pain reliever and fever reducer. Also, Muriukiet al. (2012) reported that many trees are cultivated to provide medicine from bark, leaves, roots, etc., which are sold to provide income and are used for self- treatment, supporting the health of communities. Some 0.8 percent of farmers used seeds for medicine. This could be so because some seed of trees contains medicinal properties. Similar findings found that many of the seed of common trees and weeds that populate human settlements, such as Balanites aegyptiana and Acacia nilotica have medicinal properties (Lichterman, 2004).

 

Parts of the Tree Used as Raw Materials

 

Majority (99.2%) of the farmers stated that timber is used as raw materials, this may include stems of trees used in local construction. This finding is in agreement with Shepherd et al. (2003) who reported that wood has been an important, easily available material for construction since humans started building shelters. Only 0.4 percent said leaves are used as raw materials. This holds to the fact that some farmers are very poor to purchase timber as such they use leaves to cover their small muddy huts.

Protection from Trees

 

About 54.2 percent of farmers stated that trees protect them by the provision of shade. This could be the reason why some of the farmers plant trees on their farms so that during the day when heat is high they will go under the tree and have some shade. This is in agreement with Sileshi et al. (2007) who opined that trees and shrubs in agroforestry systems can contribute to better microclimate by providing shade and windbreak in farms and homes. Even though 7.9 percent stated that trees protect them by purifying the air. This is because trees produce oxygen during photosynthesis thereby purifying the air in an environment. This finding is in agreement with Lin (2007) who reported that, tree on farm bring about favorable changes in the microclimatic conditions by purifying air, influencing radiation flux, air temperature and wind speed.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Many of the farmers maintained trees in their farmland in form of agroforestry practices, and collect fuel wood, and fodder from these trees for their sustenance. This type of management system has contributed to the improvement of soil fertility in the study area. Agroforestry practice is strongly adopted in the study area.

           

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Based on the findings, the study recommends several ways in which policy and regulatory practices can be improved to support farming communities in the practice of agroforestry. The following recommendations are hereby made:

.

1.    Many smallholder farmers do not have the knowledge and skills to manage agroforestry, therefore government should find a way of educating and training the farmers. 

2.      Government should distribute improved tree seeds and seedlings suitable for agroforestry freely to every farmer who shows interest to go into agroforestry practice. This will also encourage other farmers to adopt the practice.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Adamu, S.S. (1997). Socio-economic factors associated with rural-urban migration in Nigeria. A case of Maiduguri. Sixth Urban Symposium: 74-76.

Aggarwal, P.K. and Mall, R.K. (2000). Climate change and rice yields in diverse- agro environments of India. II. Effect of uncertainties in scenarios and crop models on impact assessment’ Climate Change. 5(2): 331-343.

Ango, A. K., Abdullahi, A. N. and Abubakar, B. B. (2011). Role of socio-economic parameters in Determining the Efficacy of  Urban Agriculture in providing Food Security in Birninkebbi Metropolitan Area, Kebbi State, North Western Nigeria. International research.Journal of Agric Science. 1(6): 185- 192.

Anley, Y., Bogale, A. and Haile-Gabriel, A. (2007). Adoption decision and use intensity of soil and water conservation measures by small holder subsistence farms in Debo district, western Ethiopia. Cited in Abdullahi A. S. (2014).Production and marketing of honey and shear butter in Zuru local Government Area Kebbi State, Nigeria. M.Sc. Dissertation, Department of Forestry and Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, Usmanu Danfodio University, Sokoto State Nigeria.

Garrity, D. (2004). World Agroforestry and the achievement of the millennium development Goals. Agroforestry systems. 9(61): 5-7.

Glover, E. K. and Elsiddig, E. A. (2012) The causes and Consequences of Environmental Changes in Gedaref, Sudan. Land Degradation & Development Journal. 23(4): 339–349.

Lin, B.B. (2007). Agroforestry management as an adaptive strategy against potential microclimate extremes in coffee agriculture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. (144): 85-94.

Lin, B.B. (2010). The role of agroforestry in reducing water loss through soil evaporation and crop transpiration in coffee agroecosystems. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. (150) 510-518.

Montagnini, F. and Nair, P.K.R. (2004). Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems. 5(61): 281-295.

NGIA, (2016):(National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency)  Map of Wamako Local Government Area in Sokoto, Nigeria www.cartographic.info/names/map.php?id=763520&f=5  Retrieved 4/5/2016

NPCN (2011).National Population Commission of Nigeria. Sokoto (State, Nigeria) - Population Statistics and Location in Maps. http://www.citypopulation.de/php/nigeria-admin.php?adm 2id=NGA034021. Retrieved 3/08/ 2016.

Nyangena, W. (2007).Social determinants of soil and water in rural Kenya environment, development and sustainability. Cited in Abdullahi A. S. (2014).Production and marketing of honey and shearbutter in Zuru local Government Area Kebbi State, Nigeria. M.Sc. Dissertation Department of Forestry and Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, Usmanu Danfodio University, Sokoto State Nigeria.

Ogungbile, A. O., Tabo, R. and Rahman, S. A. (2002).Factors affecting the adoption of ICSVIII and ICSV400 Sorghum varieties in Guinea and Sudan Savanna of Nigeria.The plant Scientist. 4(3): 21-32.

Olarinde, L. O., Ajao, A. O. and Okunnola, S. O. (2008).Determinants of technical efficiency in beekeeping farms in Oyo State, Nigeria.A Stochastic frontier approach. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Science. 4 (1): 65 – 69.`

Onubuogu, G.C., Chidebelu, S. and Eboh, E. C. (2013). Enterprise type, size and allocative Efficiency of Broiler production Imo State, Nigeria. International  Journal of Applied Research Technology. 2(6): 10-19.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (Fifth ed.). New York: The Free Press. (7): 67-68.

Roger, B., Longtau, S., Hassan, U. and M. Walsh (2006). The Role of Traditional Rulers in Conflict Prevention and Mediation in Nigeria: Interim Report. Prepared for DFID, Nigeria Prepared for DFID, Nigeria. 51-60.

Schoeneberger, M.M. (2009). Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon in agricultural lands. Agroforestry Systems. 6(75): 27-37.

Sokoto State Ministry of Information, Youths, Sports and Culture, (SSMIYSC) (2013).Sokoto State Diary.Sokoto State printing press Sokoto.1-29.

Thangata, P. H., and Alavalapati, J. R. R. (2003). Agroforestry adoption in southern Malawi: the case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidiasepium and maize. Agricultural System. 78(1): 57-71.  

World Bank.(2000). World Development Report 2000. Oxford University Press, Oxford 68-69.


 

 

 

Cite this Article: Gwimmi, DP; Umar, I; Nafiu AK; Atiku, M; Ambursa AS; Sokoto MB; Wele, HK (2019). Contribution of Agroforestry for Livelihood Improvement in Wamakko Local Government Area, Sokoto State, Nigeria. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences 9(2): 242-249, http://doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2019.2.052419097.