|Observations|3,124|3,123|2,641|
|---|---|---|---|
|Root MSE|0.3602|0.4005|0.4894|
|**_Included controls_**||||
|Exogenous controls (age, agesq, sex “male==1”)|_No_|_Yes_|_Yes_|
|Other controls (HH size, marital status, education, occupation,<br>other income sources, land ownership)|_No_|_No_|_Yes_|
|Year fixed effects|_Yes_|_Yes_|_Yes_|
|Cluster fixed effects|_Yes_|_Yes_|_Yes_|
|Household fixed effects|_No_|_No_|_No_|

The findings also imply that switching the main source of income for these households is an important coping strategy. Further, the results show that households who switch from their initial occupation to commercial farming are likely to benefit because they increase their total agricultural production (Table 10). We also discover that these potential benefits from agricultural production which accrue to households which switch to commercial farming as their main source of income possibly come from the increase in total production of vegetables (Table A32; Appendix 4).<sup>25</sup> Ruiz and VargasSilva (2016) suggest that refugees working within the agriculture sector may not necessarily leave the sector in response to the refugee shock but can change the types of crops they were cultivating. Alix-Garcia and Saah (2009) also explain that positive wealth effects accrue to households who respond to increasing prices by increasing production of particular agricultural products, especially the non-aid food items. These increasing prices are driven by increasing demand for these non-aid food items. In Uganda, the basic food aid basket given to refugees comprises maize, cow peas, salt, beans and cooking oil (Betts et al., 2017), and from anecdotal evidence, rice and sorghum occasionally feature in the food basket. When the preferred food items are not given freely, the refugees incur a cost to obtain the foods which they would rather consume. For instance, Somali refugees in Uganda can trade their aid-maize-rations for cash, in order to buy their preferred foods which are pasta and rice (Betts et al., 2017). Moreover, Betts et al., (2017) further highlight trade opportunities within refugee economies where neighboring villages sell their products including vegetables to refugees. These accounts support the argument of improved welfare for host households who switch to commercial farming and perhaps specifically those who produce more vegetables.<sup>26</sup>

> 25 We do not find significant correlations with total production of fruits and cereals (Tables A33 & A34; Appendix 4).

> 26 Important to note as well is the definition of a commercial farmer in this context. Usually commercial farming encompasses 2 major aspects among other things; the main purpose being to sell the produce and the physical capital requirement being large area of land. The results in Tables A31 to A34 (Appendix 4) show a positive correlation between agricultural production and the ownership of land larger than the median size. However, the results in Table A35 (Appendix 4) suggest that the decision to switch to commercial farming perhaps does not drive the need to own a larger area of land at least in the immediate future. The reverse could also be true that the switch to commercial farming in this context is not majorly driven by the size of land owned. Since with the LSMS-ISA, the classification of the main source

31