Our framework shows that the nature and level of income inequality is determined by four major characteristics or forces namely; the household personal characteristics ; farming characteristics ; economic characteristics ; and existing transforming structures and processes . Macro-economic characteristics impact income inequality through economic growth as well as, globalisation and technological change . Just as important, age and dependency ratios can strongly impact labour supply and therefore earnings from labour. Demographic factors can impact income redistribution which in turn can affect demographic characteristics: for example, low income redistribution can lead to the formation of extended families as an alternative protection to poverty risks .

In the mountain areas context, we view income inequality as socially undesirable for three major reasons. Firstly, it affects the capacity of less resource-endowed farmers to produce enough food for their families making them more vulnerable to hunger and poverty. Secondly, it deteriorates not only the farmers’ welfare but also the land resources and agro-ecologies of mountain areas leading to increased loss of biodiversity. Thirdly, it is a major cause of unsustainable use of mountain natural resource base which in turn accelerates more income poverty and inequality in mountain areas . It is important to add that, the overall debate on the relationship between inequality and economic growth seems to be quite polarized in the literature. On one hand, there are scholars who argue that increases in inequality lead to lower growth levels . Alesina and Rodrik for example, show that taxation and redistributive government expenditures have negative effects on capital accumulation, and therefore, they are negatively correlated with growth. Using the socio-political instability approach, Alesina and Perotti argue that individuals within highly unequal societies have incentives to engage in activities such as crime that may destabilize the society. This approach also suggests an inverse relationship between growth and income inequality. On the other hand, some scholars suggest a positive association between inequality and growth .

Kaldor and Kaldor for example, argue that the marginal propensity to save of poor people is smaller than that of rich people. Then, if the saving rate is positively associated with investment rate, and investment affects the growth positively, the more unequal an economy is the faster it would grow. Mirrlees also affirms that, pay compression structures that do not compensate for merit would lead societies to be more equal. Yet, they would also have an inverse effect on individuals’ incentives, which are the decisive factors behind outstanding achievements. Elsewhere, Bourguignon used a convex saving function to show that the initial distribution has positive effects on the aggregate output. In other words, the higher the initial distribution is, the higher the aggregate output would be. Investment indivisibilities, is another argument that is used to show the positive relationship between inequality and growth. Since a large amount of money is needed for any new investment, and in the presence of ineffective capital market that prevents pooling resources by small investors, wealth concentration would be the result that can lead to a faster growth. However, it is worth noting that, some studies have indicated both negative and positive relationships . Barro for example, found a positive relationship between growth and inequality for rich societies, but a negative relationship for poor societies.The study was conducted in Uluguru Mountains covering fourteen hamlets in the wards of Mlimani and Luhungo , and Mzumbe in Morogoro, Tanzania.

Located at altitudes of between 650 and 1400 metres above sea level, the study hamlets falls within the mountains’ range. Geologists classify a mountain as a landform that rises at least 300 meters or more above its surrounding . The Uluguru Mountains run approximately north-south with altitudes of up to 2630 metres above sea level at their highest point and their range contains a nature reserve which constitutes the Uluguru North, Uluguru Soutn and Bunduki Forest Reserves. About fifty villages border the Uruguru Forestry Reserve with population of over 151,000 found within the mountain area . Though harbour many endemic flora and fauna species, the Uluguru Mountains, as for other mountain areas in the world, are generally vulnerable to many natural and anthropogenic threats, including frequent fires, land cover change and agricultural intensification, just to mention a few.