To gain an insight into the patterns of diversification, it is important to identify local definitions of livelihoods. Interpretations of well-being sought through community based participatory exercises in both districts, incorporated occupational as well as resource endowment and access considerations. The very poor were defined as those devoid of assets, often having no land, inadequate shelter, and being occupationally static- relying upon begging or farm laboring (in the case of Kumi) as their only source of sustenance. Access to resources and services increased in parallel to improved livelihoods, with poor and average households de fined as more socially and economically flexible affording some basic services (health and education), and having sufficient land for crop production and limited sales. Those within the average well-being category were also identified as having sufficientfinancial capital to purchase essential non-food commodities such as bedding, clothes and in some cases radios and bicycles. Those considered to have the best livelihoods were often
identified in terms of their access to assets as it related to their occupations, de fined