Most dams have achieved their main goals for which they were constructed. Its existence has affected livelihood diversification in many ways. A number of studies have been conducted on the effects of dam construction on rural livelihoods. However, studies on the positive and negative effects of dam construction on rural livelihood diversification are inadequately studied. This study will inform policy makers and staff of the Bui Power Authority (BPA) to appreciate the implications of the dam on rural livelihoods and formulate better strategies for alternate livelihoods to the communities. The aim of the study was to investigate the positive and negative effects of Bui Hydro- electric dam construction on the rural livelihood diversification. The research employed key informant using an in-depth interview, involving thirty (30) participants from both farming and fishing communities called Battor Akanyakrom and Dokokyena in the Brong-Ahafo region of Ghana. The results revealed that, the construction of the dam had a short- term positive impact and a long- term negative impact on households on- farm and off- farm/non-farm activities. Understanding the various livelihood diversities, what determines those diverse livelihoods and the effect of the dam construction on the diverse livelihood activities is a precondition for formulating better sustainable livelihood strategies.

1. Effect of Bui Hydroelectric Dam on Household Livelihood Diversification
Effect of Bui Hydroelectric Dam on Household Livelihood
Diversification
*Daniella Delali Sedegah1, James Agyei-Ohemeng2, Gabriel Asiem3
1,2,3 School of Natural Resource Management, University of Energy & Natural Resources, Ghana
Most dams have achieved their main goals for which they were constructed. Its existence has
affected livelihood diversification in many ways. A number of studies have been conducted on
the effects of dam construction on rural livelihoods. However, studies on the positive and
negative effects of dam construction on rural livelihood diversification are inadequately studied.
This study will inform policy makers and staff of the Bui Power Authority (BPA) to appreciate the
implications of the dam on rural livelihoods and formulate better strategies for alternate
livelihoods to the communities. The aim of the study was to investigate the positive and negative
effects of Bui Hydro- electric dam construction on the rural livelihood diversification. The
research employed key informant using an in-depth interview, involving thirty (30) participants
from both farming and fishing communities called Battor Akanyakrom and Dokokyena in the
Brong-Ahafo region of Ghana. The results revealed that, the construction of the dam had a short-
term positive impact and a long- term negative impact on households on- farm and off- farm/non-
farm activities. Understanding the various livelihood diversities, what determines those diverse
livelihoods and the effect of the dam construction on the diverse livelihood activities is a
precondition for formulating better sustainable livelihood strategies.
Keywords: rural livelihood, Bui hydroelectric dam, diversification
INTRODUCTION
Dams have played a major role in the provision of water
resources and energy. Constructions of man-made
structures such as dams, power generation facilities and
transmission of both water and electric power have been
imposed with many environmental regulations due to the
resultant effects on community livelihoods. Studies
(DiFrancesco & Woodruff 2007) show that more than
45,000 large dams (greater than 15 m in height) exist
worldwide. This is largely due to the desire of countries
especially developing one to achieve the millennium
development goals and other socio-economic
development objectives leading to the re‐engagement of
the World Bank and other regional banks in financing large
water infrastructure in the last few years (World Bank,
2004; Grey & Sadoff, 2007). However, the construction of
dams is often made at the expense of important factors in
a wholistic developmental perspective, such as the
environment, socio-economy and sustainability of culture,
thereby affecting people’s general livelihood. While most
dams have achieved their main goals for which they were
constructed but there has been an adverse effect on
determinants of livelihood and an increased vulnerability of
local communities. Canter (2004) points out that dams can
potentially harm living beings besides their advantages
such as meeting basic requirements of the society and
increasing living standards. Household resettled to pave
way for the dam construction are exposed to various
shocks, risks and stresses. Some households therefore
undertake diverse activities to obtain income to be able to
endure these shocks and stresses. According to Ellis
(1996), when a rural household has diverse sources of
income earning activities, its financial chances of survival
are better than those household which has only one
source.
*Corresponding author: Daniella Delali Sedegah, School
of Natural Resource Management, University of Energy &
Natural Resources, Ghana. E-mail: drdrbuor@gmail.com
Case Report
Vol. 5(1), pp. 108-114, March, 2019. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2021-6009
International Journal of Geography and Regional Planning

2. Effect of Bui Hydroelectric Dam on Household Livelihood Diversification
Sedegah et al. 109
Problem Statement
The construction of the Bui Dam alone covered a total of
444 km2 of agricultural land displacing 1,219 people
comprising of eight communities with 219 households (Bui
Power Authority, 2013). There is a clear indication that
affected communities were agrarian largely depending on
natural assets on the environment for survival. There has
been some studies (Cotula et al., 2009; Shoemaker et al.
2001; Lebel et al.2005; Doyle et al. 2000; Anderson et al.
2008) done on effects of dam construction on rural
livelihoods. The negatives however, have not escaped
international attention (Baviskar and Sigh, 2004). Although
the resettlement exercise came with some compensation,
Weber & McDonald (2004) have indicated that the
resettled communities experience a total decrease of
income because of less land and poorer quality of their
land which cannot be compensated for. Meanwhile, the
determinants of the local people’s livelihood have changed
and faced with challenges. Policy makers and researchers
have often ignored the contribution made by rural
livelihood diversifications focusing attention on agriculture
(Carswell, 2000). This study therefore examines the effect
of the Bui Hydroelectric Dam on household livelihood
diversification.
Objectives
The aim of the study was to investigate the positive and
negative effects of Bui Hydro- electric dam construction on
the rural livelihood diversification.
The specific objectives were;
1. To identify the determinants of rural livelihood
diversification
2. To assess the various rural livelihood diversification in
the communities
3. To examine the effects of the dam construction on
rural livelihood diversifications.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Nguyen et al (2017) examined the natural and social
capital of forty six (46) rural households of Bo Hon villagers
in central Vietnam, before and after resettlement within
Binh Thanh due to the building of Binh Dien Hydroelectric
dam on the Huu Trach River. The study aimed to develop
solutions to the impacts of resettlement on natural and
social capital, and strategies for timely intervention and
new livelihoods after households were resettled. Aspects
of lives affected according to their study were their land
resource, access to common-pool natural resources,
income structure, agriculturally based livelihoods, material
assets, customary practices and social relationships.
Significantly, land for growing rice and other crops were
substantially reduced as a result of flooding, common pool
resources such as honey and rattan were reduced and
only 25% of villagers continued to fish. The resettled
households have applied a mix of livelihood strategies
including spending their compensation money on food;
restoration of agricultural livelihoods; crop diversification;
land reclamation for acacia forestry; wage labor and
migration for long-term adaptation.
Okuku et al (2015), have noted that the construction of
dams on the River Tana (Kenya) were mainly for
hydropower generation, with little consideration of the
long-term impacts on downstream livelihoods. The study
therefore investigated the impacts on people’s livelihoods
downstream. The results showed a few positives and
numerous negative impacts. The study established that
there was an inadequate stakeholders’ consultation
resulting in reduced flood-recess agriculture and fold plain
pastoralism and an escalated resources-use conflict.
These negative impacts can be addresses by not just the
benefit of generating electricity but also improving on
livelihoods since both are equally important. The study
recommends a more integrated river basin development
that embraces aquaculture and water-based ecotourism to
provide diversity of livelihood options in dealing with
malnutrition and poverty in the region.
The construction of hydroelectric dams such as Ghana’s
Bui dam is crucial for both domestic use and industrial
development however, the unintended socio-economic
implications for livelihoods for resettled communities has
the potential of minimizing the intended benefits of
securing them. Cooke et al (2017) used an extended
environmental justice framework to make sense of the
resettlement and compensation schemes for Indigenous
peoples who were resettled for the construction of the
Bakun dam in Borneo, East Malaysia. They analyzed the
social protection measures designed for the protection of
Indigenous peoples and their livelihoods qualitatively using
in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with local
communities, institutional actors in Malaysia, Chinese
actors and dam builders. The study concludes that social
protection policies did not protect Indigenous people and
their land sufficiently, but it facilitated a commodification
process of both land and people. Their results showed
that neither the redistributive nor the procedural dimension
of the dam project has been satisfactory, but there is a
deeper and more worrisome dimension of breaking the
bond between Indigenous people and their ancestral land.
This is not just a case of land grabbing but also removing
the entitlement to both land and a traditional life style.
METHODOLOGY
The research was conducted in two communities: Battor
Akanyakrom and Dokokyena in the Banda district of the
Brong-Ahafo Region of Ghana as show in Figure 1. This
study takes a qualitative case study approach to
investigate how household’s livelihood diversities are
affected by the Bui Hydroelectric dam. These communities
were chosen due to the diversity in household livelihood
strategies, proximity of communities to Bui Hydroelectric

3. Effect of Bui Hydroelectric Dam on Household Livelihood Diversification
Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 110
dam and resettled communities as a result of Bui dam
construction. These reasons reflect the merit of conducting
study in terms of accessibility, collecting relevant data, and
the relevance of the study to stakeholders (i.e. the
community, NGOs, MOFA, District Assembly, and Bui
Power Authority) interested in understanding positive and
negative effects of dams on livelihood and ensuring
sustainable livelihoods in resettled communities.
Purposive sampling was used in selecting 30 (Veal, 2006)
household heads with insight in phenomenon being
studied. Given that research connoisseurs like Morse
(1994) suggests approximately a sample size of between
30 – 50 participants, while Creswell (1998) suggests only
20 – 30 for qualitative research, the choice of 30
participants is justified.
The Akanyakrom community comprises of Ewe people
believe to have migrated from Volta region in the 1920s to
their current location in the Brong-Ahafo Region. The
Dokokyena community is also inhabited by indigenous
people who migrated from the Upper West Region to work
as agricultural laborers on seasonal basis and have in the
long term settled in the area. The major rainy season
occurs between April and July and the minor rainfall period
occurs between September and November.
Fig. 1: Map of Banda district showing Battor Akanyakrom and Dokokyina community
For purposes of triangulation (Yin, 2011) and data
credibility (Bailey, 2007) key informant interviews, direct
observation and semi-structured interviews were used in
collecting data and focus group discussions. Direct
observation was used to provide a rich understanding of
the subject-matter as well as to validate the information
obtained through other sources of information such as the
key informant interviews done (Adler & Adler, 1994). Key
informants interviews were used to gather information from
some opinion leaders within the study area. The use of
focus group discussion in a qualitative study such as this
is encouraged because, it participants’ disclosures tends
to be natural and comfortable (Krueger & Casey, 2000).
Characteristics of households
Respondents were all married with ages ranging from
thirty- two (32) years to sixty-nine (69) years and
household sizes ranging five (5) to eleven (11) as shown
in Table 1. Their main traditional occupation among the
two communities is fishing (due to the proximity to the
Volta Lake) and farming, however, Akanyakrom
community also engages in tourism activities (proximity to
the Bui National Park) and trading in farm produce.
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Community Gender Age Number of
Households
Frequency
Battor
Akanyakrom
Male
Female
32-69 5-11 10
5
Dokokyena Male
Female
32-69 5-11 9
6
Total Number
Of Households
30
Source: Field survey, 2018

4. Effect of Bui Hydroelectric Dam on Household Livelihood Diversification
Sedegah et al. 111
DISCUSSION
The study identified the main livelihoods determinant
identified were gender, availability of land, markets, skills
and level of education.
Gender
The study revealed that women-men co-operation was a
one factor which contributes towards rural household
income. Awoy3 shared her experience, “I was a
fishmonger, and my husband was a fisherman”. However,
in Dokokyena community, where households are
dominantly farmers, it was observed that men were into
commercial farming whilst the women were into the
subsistence farming. For instance, Atta says, “men are
more into commercial cashew farming whilst the women
were also supporting us with growing and harvesting of
pepper, garden eggs & okro cultivation”.
This finding is supported by (Harcourt, 2010; Eysenbach,
2011; FAO, 2014) that, in some cultures, migratory wage
labor or off-farm enterprises are basically men business,
which results in transferring to women the whole
responsibility for conventional subsistence and cash
cropping (the so called “feminization of agriculture”).
Culturally, women assist their husbands by processing and
trading fish and farm produce.
Land size
Fertile land and the Volta Lake were identified as potential
physical assets for crop production, fish farming and
livestock. Large land sizes favored agricultural activities
whereas farm households with smaller mean land size are
engaged in non-farm and off-farm livelihood diversification
strategies. This is consistent with studies by Adugna
(2008) & Fikru (2008) that, farmers with smaller land size
are involved in off-farm diversification activities due to
small land sizes in order to support their household
livelihoods.
Proximity to Market
Communities closer to a town are able to source markets
for their produce and also have a chance to access
facilities and infrastructure such as markets, banks, credit
facilities and health facilities that can further develop their
livelihood. Amare & BelaIneh (2013) have shown that
market distance and non/off-farm diversification had
positive and significant relationship because residing
nearer to the market enables farm households to engage
in non-farm activities (like petty trading and shop keeping).
This study supports the results that proximity to market has
a significant influence on both non-farm and farm activities
among the rural households. Respondents admitted that
access to market is very essential in their farm and non-
farm activities.
Skills
From the results, in order for a household to diversify,
human capital is an asset in diversification for rural
livelihoods because the more the skills attained by a
household the easier it is to diversify. Artistic skills in
tailoring, carpentry, farming, fishing, hunting etc. was not
acquired by most households through education but
acquired through inheritance from previous generations.
Bediako shares his story, “The first thing my father gave
me when I started following him to farm was a cutlass and
a hoe and these are the tools we have been using
throughout our farming activities”. It was observed that,
individuals who are able to read and write were able
advance their livelihoods especially non- farm activities.
According to Khatun & Roy (2012) possession of a
technical skill increases the possibility of a rural dweller
getting a non-farm job and therefore diversifying their
livelihood. Newman & Canagarajah (1999) found in
Uganda that individuals who have an education have a
higher likelihood of participating in non-farm activities than
those without any education.
Diversification of rural livelihoods
The three main livelihood alternatives are farming, fishing
and trading. Men had a greater degree of occupational
livelihood diversification than women. Sarah Alobo Loison
(2015) identifies two factors that trigger rural people to
diversify: push and pull factor. Push factors are negative
factors that force them to seek additional income while the
pull factors are the positive factors that trigger rural
households to improve upon their living standards.
Diversification is necessitated as a result of the seasonality
of farming and fishing, compounded by the less fertility of
the land. For instance, Kojo says, “I am still farming but the
work is not active because the land is infertile”.
Respondents also noted that rainfall patterns has changed
and there are long periods of drought. One pressing
constraint in farming activities that make the households
diverse into off- farm is the lack of credit to purchase farm
inputs and hire labour. Afram shares that “one challenge
on our farms is lack of money to purchase tractors and
other farm tools”.
Effects of dam construction on rural livelihood
diversifications
The respondents revealed both positive and negative
effects of the dam construction on their on-farm and non-
farm activities.
Positive effects of dam construction on rural
livelihood diversifications
According to International Council on Mining and Metals
(ICMM, 2006), large dams provide many benefits to rural
communities such as increased and assured water
availability for domestic and industrial purposes. Social

5. Effect of Bui Hydroelectric Dam on Household Livelihood Diversification
Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 112
infrastructures such as schools improves the skills of rural
people in non- farm activities (Asmal, 2000) and dirty roads
and paths are constructed to provide easy access to
market for trading activities (Niasse, 2005).
The period of construction and aftermath of the dam has
brought about some positive impact in agricultural
activities of the communities. Each household was given a
grant of one hundred Ghana cedis (GHS 100) every month
for one year during the construction. In addition, a
borehole, places of convenience and a of two bedroom
house with a kitchen, a bath and a living room was given
to each household. Mr Kwasi expressed his satisfaction by
saying “I am okay with the money and house given to me
and my family”. Mr. Andoh added that “the money given to
me is enough to purchase seedlings for planting”. Others
were compensated with land which they used for crop
production and irrigated it with water from the borehole
provided. Some part of land outside the dam site was
flooded with water and provided fishing grounds for the
rural people attracting people from different communities
for fishing. Kofi shares that “I travelled all the way from Yeji
to fish here”.
As a result of the dam construction, roads were
constructed easing access to the market. Aisha narrates
her incidence of being injured through a motor accident
before the roads were constructed. She said “due to bad
roads, on my way to the market, i fell to the ground and
smirched the tomatoes I was going to sell”. Trading
activities has improved as a result of good roads because
drivers were reluctant to ply their routes and so they had
to walk long distances to sell their produce. Other non-
farm activities such as carpentry, boat mending, fish
processing etc. has improved. Increased fishing calls for
many boat menders and fish mongers. The staffs of Bui
Power Authority engage the services of carpenters, food
sellers, hairdressers etc. A school provided as part of their
compensation package has enabled parents to send their
children to school. Mr. Owusu says that “I send all my
children to school so that they will become big people in
future and will not depend only on farming” The Bui dam
has served as a tourist site where people come to view and
learn about the development of the dam. This has created
opportunity for the people to sell their produce to these
tourists. Bui Power Authority (BPA) also a source of
employment for some of them. Benson recounts that “I
used to work for BPA as a mason when they started
constructing the dam alongside working on my farm”.
Negative effects of dam construction on rural
livelihood diversifications
Inspite of the positive impacts outlined, it was noticed that
the negative effects outnumbered the positive ones.
Anderson, 2010 confirms this observation by stating that
even though dams are designed mainly to meet the needs
of the beneficiaries the consequences of these projects on
the social and environmental costs far outweigh any
benefits that dams may contribute after rural resettlement.
Lands offered to affected persons eligible for land
compensation have been identified to be small and of poor
quality. Most households complained of displacing the
whole community in terms of the evacuation process and
resettlement outcome. Their farmlands and homes were
flooded by the dam and they had no choice than to move
to the resettlement site. Even though they have been
compensated with accommodation and money, they
complained bitterly of the loss of fertile farmlands
especially commercial farms. Mr. Enoch explains this
event saying “the money given us was just for one year
and it can’t compensate my cashew farm which takes
about 4 to 6 years to harvest”. Lands offered to affected
persons eligible for land compensation have been
identified to be small and of poor quality since lands further
from the river is less fertile. Fish farming was adversely
affected. The flood has changed the route of the fishes and
this has resulted in lower catch by fishermen. Abdalla
shares that “as the flood increases, the fishes are carried
away and the few ones left has been over-exploited
leaving no fish in the lake”. Another added, “we the
fishermen were resettled with dry land and we have been
banned from fishing in the Volta Lake”.
Livestock farmers have also lost grazing fields to the floods
and have caused death among live stocks due to
starvation. In non- farm activities, women were more
affected because they were into trading of farm produce
and non- timber forest products. A woman said “My
husband’s harvest is poor due to infertility of the land”. This
was highlighted by Mrs Badu who shares that “If there is
poor harvest of cassava, I cannot sell the few cassavas to
customers and at the same time use some to cook”. Mrs.
Akoto also explains that “I used to pick mushrooms and
leaves in the forest and sell but it has been flooded”. Loss
of fishing has led to loss of livelihood for boat menders.
Most of the rural people have migrated to urban towns and
this has led to loss of clients for people who are into non-
farm activities. Finally, wage labour has also been affected
with low non-farm income as there are few and infertile
lands left to plough. Those that work as tour guides in the
Bui National Park also complain of low visits of tourist on
the site. Mr Andam explains that “tourists visit the park to
view hippos but part of the park has been inundated and
has displaced the animals”. Farmers who worked as
masons during the construction of the dam have gone
back to their infertile lands because the construction is
over. Apart from the livelihood activities affected by the
dam, the health of the rural people was also affected.
Stagnant waters caused by the flooding have created safe
havens for insects such as mosquitoes causing malaria
causing river blindness (Onchocerciasis).

6. Effect of Bui Hydroelectric Dam on Household Livelihood Diversification
Sedegah et al. 113
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The analysis from this research reveals that the main
determinants for all the activities were gender, land size,
available and distance to market, skills, and level of
education. The assessment of the effects of Bui
hydroelectric dam on household livelihood diversification
showed that, while the Bui Dam have had some positive
benefits, it also has detrimental impacts on affected rural
communities such as loss of farmlands and homes to
flooding, deprived rural access to resources and other
valuable assets such sacred groves.
The study recommends that government and the Bui
Power Authorities should ensure resettlement programs
are effective by engaging all stakeholders for an effective
intervention. A policy needs to be developed on the
resettlement of people in order to ensure that the
households get fair dues for their lands. The provision of
fertilizer to farmers will address the problem land infertility
as well as easy access and availability to extension officers
to educate farmers on best practices for maximum yields.
A comprehensive ecotourism package should be put in
place for communities to benefit from.
REFERENCES
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observation techniques.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 377– 392). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage
Adugna Eneyew (2012). Determinants of Livelihood
Diversification in pastoral societies of Southern
Ethiopia.Journal of Agriculture and Biodiversity
Research. 1, (3), 43-52; retrieved on October 2015.
Anderson, D.H., et al., 2008. Proximate and distant
visitors: differences in importance ratings of beneficial
experiences. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 26 (4), 47–65.
Amare D, Belaineh L (2013). Determinants of income
diversification among rural households: The case of
smallholder farmers in Fedis district, Eastern Hararghe
zone, Ethiopia. J. Develop. Agric. Econ. 5(3):120-128.
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/
JDAE.
Asmal, E. (2000). The construction of grievance: Natural
resources and identity in a separatist conflict. Journal
of Conflict Resolution 51(6): 950 - 972.
Bailey, C. A. (2007). A guide to qualitative field research
(2nd ed.). London: Pine Forge Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983204
Baviskar, A. and Singh, A.K. 1994. Malignant growth: The
Sadar Sarovar dam and its impact on public health.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 14:349–
358.
Canter, M.M. (2004). Poverty risks from population
displacement in water resources development.
Development Discussion Paper 355. Cambridge
MA:Harvard Institute for International Development.
Carswell G (2000). Livelihood diversification in southern
Ethiopia. IDS working paper 117.
Cooke F. M, Nordensvard J., Bin Saat G., Urban F. &
Siciliano G. (2017), The Limits of Social Protection: The
Case of Hydropower Dams and Indigenous Peoples’
Land. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, pp.
437–450 doi: 10.1002/app5.187
Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Leonard, R. and Keeley, J.,
2009, Land grab or development opportunity?
Agricultural investment and international land deals in
Africa, Rome/London, FAO/IFAD/IIED,
http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=12561IIED.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research
design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DiFrancesco, K. and Woodruff, K., 2007. Global
perspectives on large dams: report on a conference
held November 3–5, 2006.
Doyle, M.W., et al., 2000. Dam removal: physical,
biological, and societal considerations, In: R.H.
Hotchkiss and N. Glade, eds. Proceedings of the 2000
joint conference on water resources engineering and
water resources planning and management, 30 July –
2 August 2000, Minneapolis, MN: American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1–10.
Ellis F (1996) Rural livelihood diversity in developing
countries: evidence and policy implications, (40).
Retrieved from
http://ww.smallstock.info/reference/ODI/odinrp40.pdf
Eysenbach, D. (2011). Gender. In D. Mulvaney, & P.
Robbins (Eds.), Green Politics: An A-to-Z Guide (pp.
190-194). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
FAO. (2014). Gender in Agriculture; Closing the
Knowledge Gap. (A. R. Quisumbing, T. L. Raney, & J.
A. Behrman, Eds.) Dordrecht: Springer Science+
Business Media B.V.
Fikru Tesfaye (2008) A Case Study Of Non-Farm Rural
Livelihood Diversification In Lume Woreda, Oromiya
Reginonal State of Ethiopia. A Thesis Submitted to the
School of Graduate Studies Addis Ababa University
Grey, D. and Sadoff, C.W. 2007. Sink or swim? Water
security for growth and development. Water Policy 9(6):
545 – 571.
Harcourt, W. (2012). Women Reclaiming Sustainable
Livelihoods: An Introduction. Palgrave: Macmillan
ICMM (2006). The challenge of mineral wealth using
resource endowment to foster sustainable
development. International council on mining and
metals, London. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 5(238): 1 -
16.
Khatun, D. and Roy, B. C. (2012): Rural livelihood
diversification in west Bengal: Determinantsand
constraints. Agricultural Economics Research Review,
5(1):115-124
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A
practical guide for applied research, 4th ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc
Lebel, L., Garden, P., and Imamura, M., 2005. The politics
of scale, position, and place in the governance of water

7. Effect of Bui Hydroelectric Dam on Household Livelihood Diversification
Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 114
resources in the Mekong region. Ecology and Society,
10 (2), 1–8.
Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative
research. In Denizin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S., Handbook
of qualitative research (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Newman, C., Canagarajah, S., 1999. Non-Farm
Employment, Poverty, and Gender Linkages: Evidence
from Ghana and Uganda. Working Draft, World Bank,
Washington D.C.
Nguyen Hien Thanh, Pham Huu & De Bruyn, (2017)
Impact of Hydroelectric Dam Development and
Resettlement on the Natural and Social Capital of Rural
Livelihoods in Bo Hon Village in Central Vietnam.
Sustainability, 9, 1422; doi:10.3390/su9081422
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Niasse, M. (2005) Post-évaluation et capitalisation du volet
socio-environnemental du barrage de Garafiri
(Guinée), Agence Française de Développement.
Okuku E., Bouillon S., Ochiewo J. O., Munyi F., Kiteresi L.
I & Tole M. (2015) The impacts of hydropower
development on rural livelihood sustenance,
International Journal of Water Resources
Development,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2015.1056297,
Rutledge, Taylor &Francis
Sarah Alobo Loison (2015) Rural Livelihood Diversification
in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Literature Review, The
Journal of Development Studies, 51:9, 1125-1138,
DOI:10.1080/00220388.2015.1046445
Veal, A.J. (2006) Research Methods for Leisure and
Tourism: A Practical Guide, 3rd edition, Harlow, UK:
Pearson.
Shoemaker, B., Baird, I.G., and Baird, M., 2001. The
people and their river: a survey of riverbased livelihoods
in the Xe Bang Fai River Basin in central Lao PDR.
Vientiane, Lao PDR: Canada Fund for Local Initiatives.
World Bank. 2004. Water resources sector strategy:
Strategic directions for World Bank engagement.
Washington, DC: World Bank. www.worldbank.org
Webber, Michael and McDonald, Brooke (2004):
‘Involuntary Resettlement, Production and Income:
Evidence from Xiaolangdi, PRC’. World Development
Vol. 32, No. 4.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Accepted 14 March 2019
Citation: Sedegah DD, Agyei-Ohemeng J, Asiem G
(2019). Effect of Bui Hydroelectric Dam on Household
Livelihood Diversification. International Journal of
Geography and Regional Planning 5(1): 108-114.
Copyright: © 2019: Sedegah et al. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.