university of nairobi department of …chss.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/default/files/chss/john...

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL WORK

THE ROLE OF KITCHEN GARDENS IN FOOD SECURITY AND

NUTRITIONAL DIVERSITY:

A CASE STUDY OF WORKERS AT JAMES FINLAY KENYA- KERICHO

BY

JOHN MBURU NJUGUNA

(C50/62987/2011)

A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF DEGREE IN MASTER OF ARTS

IN RURAL SOCIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

NOVEMBER 2013

http://www.pdfcomplete.com/cms/hppl/tabid/108/Default.aspx?r=q8b3uige22

ii

DECLARATION

This research is my Original work and has not been presented for a degree in any

other university.

Signature Date

John Mburu Njuguna

C50/62987/2011

This research report has been submitted for examination with my approval as the

University supervisor.

Signature Date

Dr G.G.Wairire

Department of Sociology and Social Work

University of Nairobi


iii

DEDICATION

This research project is dedicated to my parents, the late Samuel Njuguna and

Elizabeth Mumbi for their prayers and support. My beloved Wife Mary Njoki and my

children, Ruth, Nathan and Simon for their deep understanding and allowing me to be

away from them at times during my study.


iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My heart is indebted to my supervisor the Late Dr. Pius M. Mutie for his rich

guidance almost through the entire project. I am equally indebted to Dr G.G. Wairire

who finished the good work started by his predecessor. I acknowledge the work of

Prof. Chitere, Dr. Robinson Ocharo, Prof. Yambo and Dr Agnes Zani for their help in

imparting skills that helped me complete my research project.

I cannot forget to thank my supervisor at workplace Brenda B. Ochieng and former

colleague Mohamed Mbarak for their moral support during the course work. Marcus,

Kean, Daniel Kirui, Betty Kibiliach, Reuben Langat, Jane Ndirangu, Chris Masika

and the entire James Finlay Kericho Team that facilitated my data collection for this

research.

Special thanks to all my research assistants for the special role they played as

participant observers during the fielding of questionnaires and to James Finlay

managers at different sections who joined the various focused groups and offered vital

information during the sessions.


v

TABLE OF CONTENT

Declaration ....................................................................................................................... ii

Dedication............................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... iv

Table of content ..................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ...................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures ....................................................................................................... ix

List of Plates .................................................................................................................. ixi

Acronyms ........................................................................................................... xii

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1

1.1 Background Information .............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem............................................................................................. 3

1.3 Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 5

1.4.1 Specific Objectives ................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Justification of the Study ............................................................................................. 5

1.6 Scope and Limitations ................................................................................................. 7

1.7 Definition of key terms ................................................................................................ 8

1.7.1 Kitchen Garden ........................................................................................................ 8

1.7.2 Food security ............................................................................................................ 8

1.7.3 Nutritional Diversity ................................................................................................. 8

1.7.4 Food Availability...................................................................................................... 8

1.7.5 Food Access ............................................................................................................. 8

1.7.6 Utilization ................................................................................................................ 9

1.7.7 Stability .................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................. 10

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Kitchen Gardens and African Leafy Vegetables in Nutritional Diversity .................... 12

2.3.1 Food Accessibility and Vulnerability ...................................................................... 15

2.3.2 Food availability ..................................................................................................... 17

2.4. Theoretical Framework............................................................................................. 19

2.4.1 Techno-Ecological Theory...................................................................................... 19


vi

2.4.2 The Adoption of Innovation Theory ........................................................................ 19

2.4.3 Conceptual Model. ................................................................................................. 20

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................ 21

3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 21

3.1 Research design......................................................................................................... 21

3.2 Site Description ......................................................................................................... 21

3.2.1 Unit of observation ................................................................................................. 22

3.2.2 Unit of analysis ...................................................................................................... 22

3.3 Target population .................................................................................................... 22

3.4 Sampling procedure ................................................................................................... 22

3.5 Types of data ............................................................................................................. 23

3.5.1 Data collection ....................................................................................................... 23

3.5.1.1 Household interview ............................................................................................ 23

3.5.1.2 Key informants .................................................................................................... 24

3.5.1.3 Focus Group Discussions ..................................................................................... 24

3.5.1.4 Desk Review ....................................................................................................... 25

3.5.1.5 Observation ......................................................................................................... 25

3.6 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 25

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS .............................. 26

4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 26

4.1 Demographic Characteristics ..................................................................................... 26

4.1.1 Respondents Household Distribution ...................................................................... 26

4.1.2. Distribution of Respondents by Sex ....................................................................... 27

4.1.3 Marital Status ......................................................................................................... 27

4.1.4 Distribution o Respondents byAge ......................................................................... 28

4.1.5 Education level ....................................................................................................... 29

4.2.0 Main Findings ........................................................................................................ 29

4.2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 29

4.2.1 Kitchen Garden Set Up ........................................................................................... 29

4.2.2 Size of gardens ....................................................................................................... 35

4.2.3 Source of Help and Organization ............................................................................ 37

4.3 Kitchen Garden Food Security Effect ........................................................................ 38

4.3.1 Value of Food Supply ............................................................................................. 40

4.4 Kitchen Garden Effect on Nutritional Diversity ......................................................... 41

4.4.2 Nutrition Diversity of Kericho District .................................................................... 42

4.4.3 Value of Nutrition Diversity ................................................................................... 44


vii

4.4.4 Vegetables as a Source of Protein ........................................................................... 45

4.5 Challenges Faced by the Kitchen Garden ................................................................... 46

4.6 Correlation between attendance and food supply value .............................................. 48

4.6.3 Solution to the challenges ....................................................................................... 49

4.6.4 Improvement recommended by respondents ........................................................... 50

4.6.5 Vegetable production in Containers ........................................................................ 51

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 56

5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 56

5.2 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................... 56

5.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 57

5.4 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 58

5.4.1 Recommendations to JFK ....................................................................................... 58

5.4.2 Recommendations to other investors in Agriculture ................................................ 59

5.4.3 Recommendations to Government .......................................................................... 59

5.4.4 Recommendations to Development Agents ............................................................. 60

5.4.5 Further Research .................................................................................................... 60

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 61

APPENDIX 1.................................................................................................................. 1

Questionnaire ................................................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX II .............................................................................................................. 12

Key Informant Interview Guide ...................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX III ............................................................................................................. 13

FGD Guide .................................................................................................................... 13


viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Village Distribution of the Respondents ........................................................... 26

Table 4.2 Gender ............................................................................................................. 27

Table 4.3 Marital Status .................................................................................................. 27

Table 4.4 Age Group Distribution ................................................................................... 28

Table 4.5 Education level ................................................................................................ 29

Table 4.6 Size of the Garden ........................................................................................... 35

Table 4.7 Vegetables Bought Before ............................................................................... 39

Table 4.8 Vegetables Bought Today ................................................................................ 39

Table 4.9 Value of Food Supply to the Respondents ........................................................ 40

Table 4.10 Vegetables/Fruits Grown in Kericho District .................................................. 43

Table 4.11 Challenges faced by the Kitchen Garden ........................................................ 47

Table 4.12 Correlation between attendance and food supply value ................................... 48


ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Distribution of hungry people in the world in millions ........................... 15

Figure 2.2 Conceptual framework ............................................................................... 20

Figure 4.1 Sources of design help ......................................................................... 37

Figure 4.2 No of variety grown in households ...................................................... 41

Figure 4.3 Respondents value diversity ..................................................................... 43

Figure 4.4 Frequency of buying meat ........................................................................ 46

Figure 4.5 Solution to the challenges ......................................................................... 49

Figure 4.6 Improvements recommended .............................................................. 51


x

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 4.1 Demarcation with wood ............................................................................ 31

Plate 4.2 Garden layout ............................................................................................. 32

Plate 4.3 Hibiscus hedge ........................................................................................... 33

Plate 4.4 Green hegde at the beginning of the project ............................................ 34

Plate 4.5 Workers in one of the early gardens .......................................................... 34

Plate 4.6 Side Garden in Umoja Village at Tiluet Estate........................................ 35

Plate 4.7 Compost pit ................................................................................................. 36

Plate 4.8 A Banana Stool in One of the Kitchen Garden ......................................... 45

Plate 4.9 Nutritional board near a dispensary ........................................................... 50

Plate 4.10 Strawberry growing in improvised containers ........................................ 52

Plate 4.11 Banana stems used as containers for vegetable production .................... 52

Plate 4.12 Vegetables growing in upright sack containers .................................... 53

Plate 4.13 Vertical Multistory Garden ....................................................................... 54

Plate 4.14 Vegetables growing in hydroponics...................................................... 55


xi

ACRONYMS

FAO- Food and Agricultural Organization

JFK- James Finlay Kenya

WHO-World Health Organisation

OECD- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

FGD-Focused Group Discusions

ALVS- African Leafy Vegetables

UN-United Nations

DFID- The Department for International Development


xii

ABSTRACT

Food security and nutritional diversity is one of the key areas that a developing

country should address. With varying local opportunities and challenges, the kitchen

garden forms a panacea that can address food insecurity and bring in self reliance,

sovereignty and dignity. Households have labour power the physical ability of

household members to generate income (Christopher, 2006). When this labour power

is used in the Kitchen garden it has the ability to improve food security and nutritional

diversity of the household. Even with the dwindling land resource small areas around

the house as small as ten square meters can make the difference in the lives of many.

This research was undertaken on workers at James Finlay Kenya to investigate the

role of kitchen gardens in addressing food security and nutritional diversity. The

research used both qualitative and quantitative approach to collect data from

households and stakeholders. Stratified sample was used to pick household

respondents.

The findings show that the kitchen gardens at James Finlay are small organic gardens

which were started about six years ago. Majority of them are about 10 square meters.

The size of the garden was designed to be big enough to produce sufficient vegetables

for the household but small enough to be replicated in many areas in Kenya where

land as a production unit has become too small. In the innovation uptake the social

capital (in this case the predominant Seventh Day Adventist teaching of healthy living

by promoting the use of plants as the major source of nutrients, the goodwill from the

management) and the human capital in the form of traditional knowledge (71% had

kitchen gardens before) played a big role. The management decision to reinforce this

innovation by hiring a consultant to bring a positive change to food security and

nutritional diversity of the workers acted as a trigger. Almost 48% of the respondents

do not buy vegetables after establishing kitchen gardens as compared to 4.2% who

were not buying vegetables before the gardens were formalised. About 99% of the

respondents think that the kitchen garden has improved their nutritional diversity.

Compared to the monoculture of the few gardens that existed before the formal

gardens, more than 18 different varieties of vegetable and fruits were recorded in

different households during the study indicating that a wide diversity has been


xiii

achieved. Eighty five % have replicated the garden in their rural homes, and 98%

have learnt a new skill indicating that the kitchen garden seems to be positively

addressing food security and nutritional diversity and further demonstrating the

central role of agriculture in meeting household needs.

James Finlay Kenya management should continue popularising the kitchen garden to

bring more workers to self sufficiency in vegetable supply. As an organic garden the

phosphorous deficiency should be addressed, possibly by using Finlays IPM crop

division to improve the productivity of the gardens. Dudutech products from Finlays

IPM approach like Rhizatec (mycelia enhancing roots system) and Vermitec

(vermicompost) (Dudutech ltd, 2012) can be used for this purpose. The government

can learn from this innovation and include a kitchen garden in its extension program

as it has the capacity to address food security and nutritional diversity and especially

so with the dwindling land sizes. Further research needs to be done to establish the

quantity of vegetables harvested from these gardens. This will further help to establish

the cost savings from the kitchen gardens which is important in arriving to wider

recommendations.


1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

In Kenya and world over high population growth, rural urban migration and

vulgarities of weather have pushed the cost of food upwards (Silvia, 2012). The

increased use of food crops in biodiesel production put further imbalance to food

supply which further affects the demand/supply relationship. Non-communicable

diseases add further pressure to the citizens and more so to low income groups. The

resultant of this is more people are going to be food insecure. Famine Early Warning

system warned that there will be a rise from 2.2 million to 2.4 million food insecure

people in August 2012 (UN, 2012).

The answer to increased food demand cannot be met by the green revolution as well

as rain fed agriculture which is already showing fatigue (Pastakia, 2011) This food

insecure group needs to face the current environmental and health challenges by

identifying ways to better align aesthetics, ecology, and health (Denver Urban

Gardens, 2012). A kitchen garden can be a part of the solution to this problem. As

already proven one-size-fits all solutions cannot be applied in every area to answer the

question of food sustainability (Beddington, 2011).

The higher demand for food should be met by practical innovations like kitchen

gardening which not only improves availability but also answers the question of

diversity required for a healthy community. The kitchen gardens can be viewed as an

adaptive strategy of communities as an entry point for development. The kitchen

garden can also help to reduce the gap of productivity between the technical potential

and actual production levels of food crops due to low use of suboptimal inputs and

low adoption of most productive technologies (Tittonell, 2012). A kitchen garden

involves the very people who are the greatest resource for development in a view to

improve their own livelihoods and empowerment as envisaged in the rural university

concept (Mathai, 1985). The kitchen gardening is a radical transformation towards

using resources more efficiently. The kitchen garden is perhaps the only available

ecological space available to the poor to meet their economic needs especially so in


2

Africa where the poor tends to rely more on natural resource base for their livelihood.

Kitchen Gardens depend on the gardeners for maintenance and are spaces made

meaningful by the actions of people during the course of their every-day lives. They

are spaces where the gains from social capital, physical and symbolic arrangement of

items of private living space are aggregated and given utility value. Above all,

Kitchen garden is an avenue where the actor is totally immersed in his role (Kimber,

2012).

The British and the Americans won two world wars by growing their own food to

feed their armies and the people left at home (Great Britain Ministry of Food, 1946).

Kenyans can feed themselves by growing what we eat and one way to do this is

adopting the Kitchen garden. The kitchen garden is a form of Community adaptive

strategies that leads to sustainable livelihoods (Agobia, 1999).

A kitchen garden is an integrated system which comprises the family house, a

recreational area and a garden producing a variety of foods including vegetables,

fruits and medicinal plants for home consumption or sale. The kitchen/home gardens

have been found to play an important role in improving food security for the resource

poor rural households in developing country like Bangladesh (Asaduzzaman, 2011)

and can do the same in Kenya.

In addition to supplying the food needs, the kitchen gardens help in biodiversity

conservation as well as a platform of socializing the younger generation into the

communities norms as they interact with the older people while tending the gardens.

While it may not directly supply the cereals need for the family, the savings achieved

from not buying fruits and vegetables would be used to buy additional cereals.

Most of the African homes had a garden either by default or design which often

undermine its usefulness. The spring onion which has wide usage in many households

as a spice/condiment has always been grown near homestead officially cultivated and

protected from animals. In many cases this garden evolves from the dumpsite where

seeds from plants like pumpkin are thrown with trash, germinate and grow into plants.

Eventually this dumpsite evolves into a valuable garden supplying vegetables. Many

African families depend for survival on what they grow. For such families Kitchen


3

gardens are the difference between life and death. For the Kikuyus there is a saying,

ndoigangue ni ng'aragu ,tetereukamera, which translates when I give up on

hunger, amaranthus (vegetable) germinates and life continues.

Ornamental or vegetable gardening is a fun pastime or hobby for many people who

enjoy but do not spend much time analyzing. Many people cannot really explain why

they have to plant something; before they call any place they have lived a home. In

high rainfall areas like Kericho, food supply is expected not to be a problem but food

is produced on land and not everybody is in control over land and hence will depend

on the market forces for food supply.

In 2010, Italian NGO, Terra Madre launched an ambitious project in kitchen gardens

in Africa dubbed A thousand Gardens In Africa which aimed to create a thousand

gardens in schools, villages and the outskirts of cities(Miller, 2012).In Kenyas Vision

2030 Public- Private Partnership has been singled out as one key driver of

development (Kenya (NESC), 2007). James Finlays Kenya (JFK) is one such

company that embraced this partnership way back before it was officially known.

The purpose of the Kitchen Garden Project was to help employees in the village

improve on family food supplies and nutrition year round, through sustainable

exploitation of the land, water and other resources around the house including the idle

household labor and skills. The status quo at this time in the workers villages was a

free for all situations even where some people had tried some gardening. The villages

were messy with poorly cultivated and eroded gardens, un-coordinated and dirty

children play areas. By growing our own food we are also helping the environment by

not importing food from around the globe.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Agricultural workers lack sufficient incomes to meet their food and nutritional

demands adequately. An alternative way of improving their food supply is practicing

kitchen garden farming. African countries contribute the highest human development

index in terms of GDP but this has not been translated into food security (Goswan,

2012). In the developing countries food production has gone down as result of poor

governance, poor land management, and marginalization of the peasant production


4

and rural urban migration which has deprived the food production areas of the much

needed workforce. Monoculture commercial production also pushed the peasants to

marginal and non productive lands. The globalized system of food production and

trade favors a reliance on export crops while discriminating against small-scale

farmers and subsistence crops. More than 16 million people are at risk in the Sahel

alone (across the semi-arid belt from Senegal to Chad) and an equal number in the

Horn of Africa remain vulnerable after last years food crisis in Djibouti, Ethiopia,

Kenya and Somalia (FAO, 2012). In such a situation of food scarcity the population

on the lower end of the social class is extremely vulnerable.

The agricultural workers are the least paid all over the world and will be the most

affected by food inflation. The living wage is not yet achievable in any part of the

world and as the investors compete in the global perspectives solutions to food

security through salary increments are not tenable. Alternative ways of helping the

poor to get their food supply would be a noble method. Prevention, efficiency and the

primacy of localism are the three governing principles of the self-reliant city (Grewal,

2011). Looking at Finlays as one of these cities, the kitchen garden is one efficient

use of the land resource. The kitchen gardens can be an example of how to attain

food security not only to Finlays but to the entire country when the knowledge and

skills are transferred to other areas.

About a third of the world population suffers from one or more deficiency of

micronutrient (Amaroso, 2012) which has persisted even when the food stocks are

said to be above demand. The kitchen garden falls under bio-intensive and

participatory innovation which can provide year round availability, access and

consumption of adequate amount and varieties which supply not only the calorific

demands but also the micronutrients by the resource poor. Iron deficiency affects

about two thirds of the world population and consequently reduces work capacity of

entire populations (Wanjek, 2005). This serious handicap to development can only be

overcome by the diversity embodied in the kitchen garden.

Sustainable production and consumption was defined by Oslo symposium 1994 as

follows, the production of goods and services that responds to basic needs and bring

a better quality of life, while minimizing the use of natural resources, toxic materials


5

and emission of waste and pollutants over life cycle, so as not to jeopardize the ability

to meet the needs of future generations.

Provision of food which is a key driver to the health and well being of the workers

goes beyond basic contractual obligation. JFK attempted to provide food indirectly to

the workers by introducing a structured kitchen garden in 2005. To this day no

evaluation has been done to ascertain the extent of success of the project. Availability

of food does not guarantee its accessibility due to social and/or economic constraints

(Kavishe, 1993). For the JFK workers income and localization (alienation from the

areas of food production) forms part of these constraint. Areas where food crops are

also cash crops have been found to exhibit high levels of malnutrition (Mushi, 1993).

1.3 Research Questions

The research questions that the study sought to answer are;

1. What are kitchen gardens and how are they designed?

2. To what extent have the kitchen gardens impacted on food security of JFK

workers?

3. To what extent have the kitchen gardens impacted on nutrition diversity of JFK

workers?

4. What challenges do kitchen gardens face and how can the challenges be handled?

1.4 Objectives

The general objective is to investigate the role of kitchen gardens in Food supply and

nutritional diversity to James Finlay workers.

1.4.1 Specific Objectives

i. Find out what kitchen gardens are and how they are designed.

ii. How effective are kitchen gardens in food security.

iii. In what way have kitchen gardens influenced nutritional diversity.

iv. Establish the challenges that are faced by the kitchen gardens and what is being

done to overcome these challenges.

1.5 Justification of the Study

Kitchen gardens are an area that is currently under research in an attempt to shed

more light into this subject in Kenya. Kitchen gardens are important in the domestic


6

economy of the marginalized but because they are relatively not immediately obvious

and less visually impressive than field systems, they tend to be overlooked and their

contribution to survival of mankind underrated (Kimber, 2012). Agriculture extension

officers advise farmers to practice crop rotation. This kind of practice would not hold

in a small plot and it is thus necessary to find out how these kitchen gardens overcome

low productivity usually associated with overworked soils (Agobia, 1999). The

parameters of food production are inter-related in terms of land, water, environment

and the people involved in the production.

The 2007/2008 post election violence in Kenya destroyed civil and social capital as

well as networks which are vital in survival and especially in food acquisition (World

Bank, 2009). This further worsens food shocks for the poor and it has always been in

history, these shocks are better addressed by local participation in the production

process.

The availability of vegetables and fruits in a kitchen garden would increase

consumption and hence mitigate against malnutrition. The availability of the food

would spur consumption as observed by a study of urban community gardeners in

USA (Alaimo, 2008). Beyond the obvious hunger resulting from insufficient food, we

have hidden hunger of micronutrients deficiency that leads to vulnerability to

infectious diseases physical and mental impairment that leads to low productivity in

addition to reduced life expectancy (Turner, 2012).The kitchen gardens are known to

increase local opportunities to eat better(Litt, 2011).

Among the barriers that deter consumption of fruits and vegetables are costs,

availability and acceptance. Kitchen gardens have been found to lower these barriers

as the cost of production is low as the participants invest their own labor and other

production functions like land and organic fertilizer (Dibsdall, 2011). The individual

production will certainly grow varieties that one would like thus increasing access and

eventually increased acceptance of tastes perception of fruits and vegetables. Herbs

and condiments improve the taste of food and thereby encourage consumption.

Poor people more often pay a higher price for food as they buy in expensive small

quantities as well as traveling far to get to where the food costs relatively lower


7

thereby losing that advantage on transport(Smit, 2001). Kitchen gardening can thus

be argued to improve access to food to the vulnerable groups.

Kitchen gardens provide and supplement subsistence requirements and generate

secondary direct or indirect income (Ninez, 1984). Direct income is by sale of surplus

production while the indirect income is by the savings achieved by not buying the

same products from the market as well as butter trade when produce is exchanged

with others from the neighbors.

Besides the provision of fruits and vegetables gardening provides an aesthetic and

therapeutic exercise that helps in relieving stress. The perception of good health goes

beyond what we eat and encompasses the whole being. While the poor engage in

manual work in their employment they do so as an obligation but in their gardens they

do it because they like it. Gardening promotes relief from acute stress (Berg, 2011)

which further improves the wellbeing of the participants.

African leafy vegetables (ALVS) form part of the richest sources of vitamin sources

for human consumption. About 45,000 species of plants are found in sub-Saharan

Africa, 1000 of which are edible. African spinach happens to be the most common in

African diets (Oiye, 2009). Micronutrient deficiencies in iron, selenium, copper, zinc

and iodine affects many people in Africa. Vitamin A deficiency has been found to

affect a third of the population The Kitchen garden through diversification and

adoption of the ALVS will certainly address the much needed nutritional diversity.

1.6 Scope and Limitations

The study covered the James Finlays Kenya ltd in Kericho. The target households

were those that practice kitchen garden. It also focused on the impact of kitchen

gardens on food security and household nutritional diversity. Since the study was

done in an area that is peri-urban, the results may not be applicable to urban areas.

However, they may be true for other parts of Kenya that bear similar characteristics.


8

1.7 Definition of key terms

1.7.1 Kitchen Garden

The simplest definition of a kitchen garden is a garden where vegetables, herbs, and

fruits are grown for one's own consumption. This is related to the household garden

definition which defines these gardens as a subsystem within a larger food

procurement system which aims at the production of household consumption items

that are not obtainable, readily available or affordable through other means including

wage earning. These gardens supply supplements subsistence requirements and

generate direct or indirect income (Ninez, 1984).

1.7.2 Food security

This research project has adopted the 1996 World Health Organization definition of

food security which states when all people at all times have access to sufficient,

safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life(WHO 2013). Access here

has to do with physical and economic factors that enable people to meet their dietary

needs as well as their dietary preferences.

1.7.3 Nutritional Diversity

Nutritional diversity refers to a diet that focused on the diversity of the food

consumption to maintain overall health and vitality. A human diet requires at least 51

nutrients in adequate amounts consistently for good health (Remans, 2003).

1.7.4 Food Availability

The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality, supplied

through domestic production or imports (including food aid).

1.7.5 Food Access

Food access refers to the access by individuals to adequate resources for acquiring

appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Entitlements are defined as the set of all

commodity bundles over which a person can establish command given the legal,

political, economic and social arrangements of the community in which they live

(including traditional rights such as access to common resources).


9

1.7.6 Utilization

Utilization refers to utilization of food through an adequate diet, clean water,

sanitation and health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all

physiological needs are met. This brings out the importance of non-food inputs in

food security.

1.7.7 Stability

To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access to

adequate food at all times. They should not risk losing access to food as a

consequence of sudden shocks (e.g. an economic or climatic crisis) or cyclical events

(e.g. seasonal food insecurity). The concept of stability can therefore refer to both the

availability and access dimensions of food security.


10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Various names and definitions have been used to describe the kitchen garden over

time. For this paper the kitchen garden represents the universal subsistence food

production unit also going by the name farmyard enterprise, backyard garden,

dooryard garden, home garden or food garden. The kitchen garden entails small scale

economic production units in relatively confined areas located close to the family

dwellings. Kitchen gardens have evolved with man over the years but still remain the

most ancient and persevering form of cultivation (Kimber, 2004). Kitchen gardens

easily fall within the definitions of urban agriculture as the practice of cultivating,

processing and distributing food in, and/or around a village, town or city. It is not just

limited to foods and fruits but also include keeping of small animals like chicken,

rabbits and bees for honey as well as non food items like flowers and trees.

The USA the kitchen gardens/urban farming came into the lime light during the 2nd

world war due to shortage of food, labour and transport. The government encouraged

citizens to grow their own fruits and vegetable in what was called Victory Gardens.

It was estimated that over 20 million victory gardens were created between 1942 and

1943. Over 40 percent of their vegetables and fruits were produced that year as people

felt they were doing a patriotic act by growing on the victory gardens.

This is a food war. Every extra row of vegetable in the allotments savesthe battle

on the kitchen front cannot be won without the help from the kitchen garden, Isnt an

hour in the garden better than an hour in the queue?" (World Carrot Museum, 2012).

The above statement observed by Lord Woolton, Minister of Food, 1941 underscores

the importance of the Kitchen gardens during the war.The victory gardens were not a

preserve of the USA but were a common phenomenon with its allies in Canada,

United Kingdom, and Germany.

Land that has been left behind by former industrial cities as well as homes left behind

by disasters like Katrina has been converted into gardens. Food miles concerns as well

as rampant food illness from industrially produced foods has helped to promote

locally grown foods. In March 2009, US First lady Michelle Obama planted a 1,100-


11

square-foot (100 m2) "Kitchen Garden" on the White House lawn (Michelle, 2012), is

the first since Eleanor Roosevelt's, to raise awareness about healthy food.

The production of vegetables and fruit in gardens and allotments was economically

and nutritionally important for the poor, often the only supplement to their low wages

(Kemp, 1977) until the onset of green revolution which came with monoculture and

one size fits all model of agricultural food production.

In Germany there are German garden Ghettos, which are small plots for rent,

popularly known as the schrebergarten located at the edge of the cities where

Germans spend their time over the weekends. Small vegetable plots exist within these

ghettos where families teach the young generation on vegetable production (German

Survival Bible, 2006).

After the fall of USSR in 1989 and tightened economic embargo by USA, Cubans lost

the food aid and had to feed themselves. Some 8000 gardens known as Popular

Gardens were created in Havana most of which are farmed organically as fertilizers

and pesticides used to come from Russia. These gardens are responsible for more than

50 percent of all vegetables consumed in Havana (Chaplowe, 1996).

In Philippines a project by the name, Oh My Guly (OMG) that stands for oh my

vegetables in the local Tagalog language was launched to improve production and

consumption of local vegetables. In this project local celebrities in dance, music and

television are featured in print and on television, posing with their favorite vegetables.

These role models are being used as gate keepers to boost consumption of fruits and

vegetables among children as opposed to meats and rice-based diets as is common

with Philippinos (Cotthem, 2012).

From these gardens man has managed to produce relatively large amounts of food

from relatively small extensions of land ordinarily unsuited for field agriculture,

supply nutrition not obtained solely from field agriculture like the condiments and

spices which are relatively fresher than when obtained far from the fields, provide

food (including staples) in non-farm settings especially urban centers, seal food

supply gaps in terms of famine or food flow disruptions like it happened in Kenya


12

during the Post Election Violence of 2007/2008, provide fodder for household

animals like rabbits and chicken, accrue in-kind or cash benefits when exchanged

with money or other needs with the neighbors, ( cash from incidental sales of surplus

production), obtain secure production through location to the dwellings in terms of

time and space, provide relatively less contaminated foods by reducing the number of

people handling the product . Kitchen gardens are good experimental bases for new

genetic material and cultivation techniques with ample time to tend and follow the

plants throughout the growing period. They guarantee women who are the mediators

between production and consumption in the family, a regular and secure supply of

food, petty cash or goods for trade. As recognized by International Plant Genetic

Resources Institute (IPGRI) the kitchen gardens form an important role in in-situ

biodiversity (Eyzaguire, 2001). The kitchen gardens provide aesthetic value which in

turn provides therapeutic healing to the community. As the family works together in

the garden, the older regeneration is able to pass important life skill knowledge to the

younger generation. The garden offers physical exercises to the family members

which guard against obesity. The availability of fruits and vegetables from the garden

induces consumption of the same.

2.2 Kitchen Gardens and African Leafy Vegetables in Nutritional Diversity

African leafy vegetables (ALVS) form part of the richest vitamin sources for human

consumption. About 45,000 species of plants are found in sub-Saharan Africa, 1000

of which are edible. African spinach happens to be the most common in African diets.

Per capita Consumption of number of fruits and vegetables declined between 1986

and 1995 (29 kg per capita consumption) in sub-Saharan Africa while it was rising in

developed countries (Oniango, 2009).

According to FAO/WHO vegetable consumption per person should be 146 kgs per

annum. In Kenya urban vegetable consumption is 147 Kgs per person against 73 Kgs

in rural areas (Onim, 2008). In terms of nutrition ALVS have been found to be

important than the brassicas in Yaound Cameroon for household consumption and

income generation for poor households (Shiundu, 2007). ALVS are generally more

profitable giving about $19708 per ha (sold as leaves) as compared to $1197 for

maize per ha (Mwaniki, 2008). The kitchen gardens can be used to grow the vitamin

rich ALVS. The main benefits of ALVS include superior nutrition qualities in


13

vitamins, oils and micronutrients. They are adapted to the local environment, they use

own seeds as opposed to expensive hybrid seeds, fast growth, and lately high income

for the health conscious consumers. Unhealthy diets, sedentary lifestyles as well as

tobacco use have been scientifically proven as major determinants of non

communicable diseases (Rasanathan, 2011). Unhealthy diets are perhaps the major

determinant for non communicable diseases for the poor people. WHO listed Kenya

among 72 countries with low serum retinal levels as a result of Vitamin A deficiency.

Vitamin A supplementation began several years ago but food based long term strategy

is more cost effective and here the ALVS play a major role.

Iron deficiency affects about 50% of the world population predominantly in the

developing countries (WHO, 2004). This deficiency results in 30% impairment in

physical capacity and performance (WHO, 2001). The ALVS produced in Kitchen

gardens would form a stable supply of this much required iron. The traditional

vegetables, meet the major protein calorie nutritional needs especially in children, the

sick, elderly, expectant and lactating mothers (FAO, 2005).

2.3 Kitchen Gardens and Food Security

Food security was defined in 1974 by the first World food summit in Rome under the

auspice of FAO as, availability at all times, of adequate world food supplies of basic

foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuation

in production and prices (FAO, 2003).

The most widely accepted definition and concept of food security is the World Bank

1986 definition which is as follows, access by all people at all times to enough food

for an active and healthy life(FAO, 2003). This definition is broken down to

availability, access, utilization and vulnerability. Food security in Kenya has been

tackled differently by trying to control the units of production and mainly land and

water.

Many famines in the world happen not because of lack of food but in poor distribution

occasioned by poor government policies, perishability of the food as well

geographical challenges. In 1943 Bengal had one of the biggest rice harvest yet


14

hundreds of laborers starved to death. The poor laborers are vulnerable and lack the

security of livelihood that will secure food (Department for International

Development (DFID) , 2004).

Sessional paper no 10 of 1965 identified poverty, ignorance and disease as the leading

problems to deal with as a government (Kenya Government, 1966). Top-down

projects were designed with an aim that benefits will trickle down to the people. At

micro level poverty concerns were not addressed. Basic needs approach has also been

tried as a form relief but has been found to leave people as it found them in 1972. To

date this model is practiced through the ministry of Special programs. District Focus

for rural development (DFRD) came into being in 1983 (Maina, 2005).

The Vision 2030s enhanced equity and wealth creation opportunities for the poor;

policy can only be achieved when the poor has access to one of the greatest

production input the land (Kenya Government, 2007). This does not necessarily

need to change the land tenure system by using the land around where the poor people

live (kitchen gardens) more efficiently. This is one way that Kenya can feed itself. In

March last year the government launched the Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture

Project (UPAP) in an effort to promote food production in urban and peri-urban areas.

A number of districts have been selected to spearhead this project with the main

emphasis on innovative use of the scarce land resource to boost small scale

production. This project is also aimed at building the capacity of small farmers who

have embraced the greenhouse farming but lacks the technical know-how of

greenhouse farming. Kiambu and Kericho districts are some of the districts in this

project (Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Kenya, 2012). A key area is the

realization that 36% of the urban population practices agriculture.

The kitchen garden is a principal source of household food and income during periods

of stress, e.g. the pre-harvest lean season, harvest failure, prolonged unemployment,

health or other disabilities suffered by family members or agricultural and economic

disruption caused by wars for instance the post election violence in Kenya. In

Kampala, Uganda, after the civil war, urban agriculture substantially fed the city in

non-cereal foods. Kitchen gardens contributes to household food security by

providing direct access to food that can be harvested, prepared and fed to family


15

members. Poor, landless or near landless people practise gardening on small patches

of homestead land, vacant lots, roadsides or edges of a field, or in containers.

Gardening may be done with virtually no economic resources, using locally available

planting materials, green manures, "live" fencing and indigenous methods of pest

control. Kitchen gardening is a production system that the poor can easily access.

Kitchen gardening provides a diversity of fresh foods that improve the quantity and

quality of food rich in nutrients available to the family (Marsh, 1998).

2.3.1 Food Accessibility and Vulnerability

Geographical barriers, geo-politics, globalization, level of development,

regionalization, gender, income, religion and culture are among the many factors that

play a big role in access to food. Paradoxically the world has enough food for the

current population but it just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and

belonging to the wrong person or in a form that is not palatable to the people.

Constraints to food access include economic growth that is inadequate in the

aggregate, or in wholesome leading to lack of opportunities to become an active

participant in the economy (USAID, 1992). This could be an acquired behavior in the

form of Learned helplessness (Peterson, 1993) as a result of colonization most of

the developing countries are net importers of food making it food a commodity that

can only be accessed through the income that one has.

Globalizations has broken both the physical and the mental barriers and brought

unrealistic perception of access to food. The adverts in the media and in the market

places of food from far lands look cheaper than they really are and tend to undermine

local production. We are like a people in an ocean of food which is visible to us

through a thick glass which can only be broken by monetary exchange. Widespread

hunger exists today in a context of global oversupply of food as the chart below

suggest.


16

Figure 2.1: Distribution of undernourished people in the world in millions

The figure above shows about 1 billion people were classified as hungry in the world

in 2010 (FAO, 2010).

The current FAO global cereal production for 2012 is 2396 million tons against a

global utilization of 2370 million tonnes (FAO, 2012). This paints a picture of a world

of plenty where hunger should be a foreign word from. The food situation contradicts

the1798 Thomas Malthus population theory (Burns, 2011. Inventions like the green

revolutions seem to have reversed the growth patterns in food production. Generally

in developed countries as well as some countries in Far East the food production

increased as a result of green revolution.

Vulnerability is a dynamic concept which looks at the situation before and the results

or outcomes. It is an expression of the future world which we dont know and is a

very subjective area. This concept is more of the perception of the people involved

rather than the very physical availability of food or ability to acquire it. Different

people will return different levels of satisfaction given the same physical conditions


17

and endowments. Kenya is the most developed in east and central Africa yet the

Kenyans are the least satisfied people in the region.

2.3.2 Food availability

Globalization has helped man to include foods from un-imaginable distances to be on

his plate, by improved transport, processing, cooling and communication in general.

Though this has increased food availability in developed countries, the same cannot

be said to be true in developing countries where infrastructure is poor to say the least.

Food production is done in areas of low human population and has to be transported

to areas of low production and of high food demand.

Though the green revolution had succeeded in developed countries and some Asian

economies, food production in Africa and particularly Sub-Saharan Africa has

stagnated if not declined (Asiema, 1994).

People living below the poverty line are net buyers of food. In terms of quality man

needs other types of food besides cereals. Fruits and vegetables are perishable and

have a short vase life compared to the cereals. Transporting them to great distances

requires expensive processing and refrigeration which highly increases their prices.

Besides the fruits and vegetables, meats and animal products are also highly

perishable. This perishability further compromises the relative availability of a

balanced diet food to the vulnerable. Before the recent draught in northern Kenya last

year, which resulted in Kenyans for Kenyans food campaign, excess milk in central

Kenya and central Rift valley was poured into open drains (Wambugu, 2011).

The availability of food is not just about the inadequacy and the immediate

entitlement but has to do with paucity of the household as without assets to liquidate

and buy food one will go hungry (Maxwell, 1992).

Despite the bill of rights in Kenyas constitution guaranteeing food (National

Council for Law Reporting, 2010) as adopted from the Universal Declaration human

rights (United Nations, 2013) we are in private ownership market economy where

entitlement (read availability) and relations of persons are determined by what they

own, what they generate, what they can trade, what they can accede to or are given.


18

Food Deserts have emerged from the current food retailing structures in America

large supercentres in suburban areas where food is scarce for disadvantaged

consumers (Thomas, 2010). Most of the imported foods in developing countries are

found in supermarkets which are located away from the marginalized people.

As eluded earlier in this paper, the world food production is above its utility needs.

The late Roger Revellie of Harvard University claimed that Africa, Asia and Latin

America could feed 35- 40 billion people(seven to eight times the current world

population) if they used water more efficiently(Richman, 1995). The kitchen garden

uses part of domestic water thereby improving growing conditions for plants.

Gardeners directly experience nearby nature by 'getting their hands dirty' and growing

food. They enjoy the way vegetables taste and form emotional connections with the

garden. The physical and social qualities of garden participation awaken the senses

and stimulate a range of responses that influence interpersonal processes (learning,

affirming, and expressive experiences) and social relationships that are supportive of

positive health-related behaviors and overall health. This research suggests that the

relational nature of aesthetics, defined as the most fundamental connection between

people and place, can help guide community designers and health planners when

designing environment and policy approaches to improve health behaviors. Young

people trained to be the farmers through the kitchen gardens can produce and process

food for tomorrow, not just to feed themselves and their villages, but to grow the food

to feed our cities (JFAD, 2012).

Food insecurity in a household can be seen as a combination of two distinct problems:

a problem of acquirement and a problem of utilization. Below is a four dimensional

angle of looking at the food insecurity; the ability to improve and maintain the level

of acquirement, the ability to cope with shocks to acquirement, the ability to improve

and maintain the level of utilization; and the ability to cope with shocks to utilization

These elements above are not independent of one another but are rather interrelated

and hence complex. Other external factors like national policies variables will have

their effects on the household which lies at the end of the chain.


19

2.4. Theoretical Framework

Two theories were relied upon in this research are Techno-Ecological theory and the adoption theory as explained below.

2.4.1 Techno-Ecological Theory

Techno-ecological theory of Berry and Cline (Scanlan, 2003) best captures the

Kitchen garden innovation. This theory opines that technology and human ingenuity

are the greatest resources available and are not being threatened with scarcity. The

theory further says that as it has been in the past, future challenges confronting the

worlds carrying capacity will be met.

Kitchen Gardens are a result of human ingenuity and were instrumental in the shift of

humankind from the hunters and gatherers stage to domesticated agriculture where

seeds selected from the forest were planted near the dwelling places in the

domesticating process. The success that this garden has had in the past can be used to

address food and nutritional diversity. Combining this with organic farming

techniques will have a garden producing sufficient food for years from a small area.

2.4.2 The Adoption of Innovation Theory

The Adoption of Innovation Theory (Rogers, 1995) gives light to how innovations are

adopted or not. The elements of diffusion are very important in respect to the type of

innovation, the communication channels, the timing and the social system that would

determine the success of adoption. This answers the process question important in

evaluation of who was involved in decision making, how the decisions were made,

whether new networks have been made and who benefits from the innovation. Typical

top-down innovations are short lived as the recipients do not own the process. Rogers

refers these kinds of decisions as Authority Innovation-design. JFK used this system

but due to sustained reinforcement, the timing, and by use of village champions

(communication channels) the project has been successful to a greater extent. The

project used old employees as opinion leaders and gate keepers to the society.


20

Figure 2:2 Conceptual Framework

2.4.3 Conceptual Model.

The Kitchen garden project was set up using result chain logical framework typical of

result based management as shown above. This provides a way of indentifying

measurable indicators which helps to recognize changes attributable to the innovation.

The activities were well defined and form a basis of expectations in terms of short

term outputs like seeing the actual physical garden and workers supplying the

household labor. The outcomes desired were the improved food supply and nutritional

diversity. Replication of these gardens outside Finlays would be a good indicator of

the uptake of the innovation. Happy and healthy families are the greater why the

kitchen garden was started.

Activities

1. Develop a kitchen garden policy, plan and budget.

2. Mobilize and train the households on kitchen gardening

3. Set up demonstration plots and workshops

4. Supply inputs like seeds, manure and information

Outputs

1. Small productive organic gardens for every household

2. Improved no of varieties of vegetables and fruits

3. Improved production and consumption of indigenous vegetables

Outcome

1. Improved food supply to the family

2. Improved nutritional diversity

3. Improved disposable income

Impact

Health and fulfilled Families


21

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction The chapter presents the research design and methodologies used in this study. The

areas that were reviewed under this chapter include; the research design, site

description, unit of observation, sample size, data collection techniques and data

analysis were discussed in this chapter.

3.1 Research design

This study was designed to understand the roll of the kitchen gardens to the JKF

workers by interviewing them, their leaders and the stakeholders in the area. This was

done through administering a structured questionnaire to the workers, three focused

discussions in three villages, Observations, Key informant interviews and desk review

of information from stakeholders.

3.2 Site Description

The study was carried out at JFK Kericho both the tea and the flower section. The

purpose of this study was to documents the geographical features of the villages,

infrastructures, social backgrounds and social composition of the population. This site

was selected because of the researchers urge to survey how the people use the land

resource in formal kitchen gardens. Moreover, JFK is one of the few farms that still

house its employees. The employees live deep in the farm cut from the normal market

supply which ideally would make them vulnerable.

The population of the workers was 14,314 at the time of the study. The tea estates

section employs over half (56.4%) of the population while the rest are in tea factories

and services departments. JFK is situated in Kericho County which has a total

population of 758,339 people. Kericho County has five constituencies namely,

Kericho, Kipkelion, Londian, Litein and Kabuti. It covers 2479 square kilometers and

a population density of 309 people per square kilometer. It has a poverty rate of 44.2

%(USAID, 2012).

Temperatures range from a minimum of 16C to a maximum of 20C. The average

rainfall ranges between 1,400 mm and 2,000mm per annum. This choice has been

done because JFK has adopted the kitchen garden innovation. Though Kericho is a


22

high rainfall area where food should be plenty, most of the land is put on cash crops at

the expense of the food crops. JFK has recorded an average of 1867.mm of rainfall for

the last ten years.

3.2.1 Unit of observation

Unit of observation is the unit upon which one collects or analyzes data (OECD,

2005) term analogous with unit of measurements. The unit of observation is the JFK

workers in the lower cadre usually referred to as unionisable staff.

3.2.2 Unit of analysis

The unit of analysis is the major component that is being analyzed in the study

(Trochim, 2006). It is the 'what' or 'whom' that is being studied. The unit of analysis

in my study is the perceived role of kitchen garden is in food security and nutritional

diversity of James Finlays workers in Kericho.

3.3 Target population

The target populations for this study were the JFK workers in the lower cadre who

were about 1100 households living in the farm. In this case one hundred and forty two

(142) households were sampled.

3.4 Sampling procedure

Sampling is the process of selecting a group of subjects for a study in such a way that

the individuals represent the larger group from which they were selected (Yount,

2006). When one is studying a population it may be logistically and economically

impossible to study the full population, but looking at a group that represents the

population may help one to make inferences and extrapolations to the whole

population. Sampling is the process of collecting information from the sample.

The study population (JFK) is about 1100 households (Finlays, 2011) who live in the

farm. According to Small sample technique (Morgan, 1970) a 280 sample would be

most ideal at 95 level of confidence. However this puts a very big impact on the cost

of the study as to administer the questionnaire alone will require in excess of 2

months having in mind that the workers may only be available for not more than a

three hour window when workers are in their houses after work. One hundred and

forty (140) households were sampled for this study.


23

To avoid biasness a stratified random sample was used. This was done to help cover

the stratified nature of the workers and in turn help to capture all the possible

perceptions across the groups. Various income groups have different perceptions

about food and this can only be captured by a random stratified sample. This

probability element allows the findings of the study to be used to infer to the JFK

population. Eighty three households in tea, twenty five in flowers, nineteen in

factories and fifteen in services were sampled. The tea villages were taken from two

productive estates (Tiluet and Kaproret) and one low production estate (Kapsongoi).

The factories were represented by Kitumbe, Medical team was sampled from Miwani

village and the flower section was represented by Master D village in Flowers Two.

3.5 Types of data

The study used both primary and secondary data. The primary data was collected

from the respondent on their perception of their state of food security and their dietary

diversity. Five research assistants were recruited, trained and helped to fill the

questionnaires to the households under my supervision. Secondary data was sourced

from the human resource department, food prices treads from the ministry of

agriculture, and timelines from the elderly people in Kericho.

3.5.1 Data collection

Household interviews, key informant interviews, focused groups discussions; desk

review, photography as well as observations were used to carry out this study.

3.5.1.1 Household interview

The household is central to the development process not only as a production unit but

it is also consumption, social and demographic unit. This is so because the household

is the basic unit of influence to the members well-being. This study uses the

Malawian definition of household which is as follows; the household was defined as

consisting of one or more persons related or unrelated who make common provision

for food and who regularly take their food from the same pot and/or share the same

grain store (Nkhokwe) or pool their incomes for the purpose of purchasing food."

Malawi 1987, 1998, (Coast, 2008). A structured questionnaire was used to get the

respondent household perception on various issues about the kitchen garden


24

3.5.1.2 Key informants

Key informants are individuals with knowledge of the community under review in

terms of their needs. They provide key information on the subject matter in the

community. The informant should be well versed with information about the

community. A key informant interview guide structured to shed light on the JFK

kitchen gardens discussions was prepared. Those interviewed were;

1. Eight JFK personnel managers

2. The project consultant

3. Four Women leaders

4. Five Section heads

5. Kericho District Agricultural Officer

6. Two JFK Medical Personnel

7. Union leader

Union leaders are in the political front and are more critical on any developments

initiated by the management. A note taker accompanied me during the key informant

interviews.

3.5.1.3 Focus Group Discussions

Focused groups discussions (FGDs) are group of individuals selected and assembled

by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is

the subject of the research(Gibbs, 1997). They entail organized discussions aimed at

gaining information from the individuals about the topic at hand and organized in

such a manner that all the perspectives of the subject will be covered. This is

important in qualitative research where the indicators in review are perceptions

difficult to quantify and can only be captured in emotions and where visual and body

language and weight to spoken or written words. FGDs help to gain insight gaining

insights into peoples shared understandings of everyday life and the ways in which

individuals are influenced by others in a group situation. A moderator was required to

control and guide the discussions and will be employed for this study. An FGD guide

was used to restrain the discussions from digression.

In this research 3 focused group discussions were done, in Mara Mara club. The

discussions included managers, section heads, village champions, medical personnel,

ground men and welfare representatives.


25

3.5.1.4 Desk Review

Desk review also known as secondary research is done by collecting information from

existing data from other researches and government organs as well as stakeholders in

the area. The stakeholders in this research were the JFK management executives, the

project consultant and village committee members. A check list was used to ensure all

possible data is collected.

3.5.1.5 Observation

Observation helps in gathering information primarily through close visual inspection

of the natural setting. Here the research tries to be unobtrusive and detached from the

setting. Participant observation where the researcher and the assistants will try and

observe and experience the world as a participant, while retaining an observer's eye

for understanding, analysis and explanation will be applied in this study(Smith, 1997).

Field notes were taken and maintained throughout the research. Observations were

done in an open mind to avoid bias interpretations of the situation. The information

gathered here was of snapshot nature and cannot be conclusive. A structured checklist

was used to guide the observation. However it helped to build a good picture of the

subject as well as identifying outliers during the data cleaning exercise.

3.6 Data analysis

The study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods but with a bias on the

former. Quantitative data was coded and summarized in tables and analyzed in

frequencies and percentages. Descriptive Statistics of The Statistical Package for

Social Scientists (SPSS) was used to analyze some of the data. Findings were

presented in tables, narratives and bar charts. Qualitative data was analyzed by

screening all the notes taken and presented in narratives where necessary. In many

areas the qualitative data was used to give meaning to the findings to the quantitative

data.

The biggest challenge in this study was the vast size of the JFK with villages located

several kilometers from one another. To cover the as many perceptions as possible the

researcher avoided neighboring villages which further added to the challenge. As an

employee of the flowers section it took a lot of discipline not to direct the research to

the flower section only.


26

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0 Introduction This chapter presents the research findings obtained from 142 respondents who are

workers selected from the JFK workers households, observations seen in the gardens,

information from focused group discussions and Key informant interviews as well as

secondary data from stake holders. The data generated contained enough information

which can effectively answer the research questions. The survey focused on assessing

whether the Kitchen gardens have influenced food security and nutritional diversity of

the practicing households.

4.1 Demographic Characteristics

4.1.1 Respondents Household Distribution

The structured questionnaire was administered to 142 households in seven villages at

JFK. The factory was represented by Mamba village in Kitumbe, Master D village for

flowers, Barrier village for Kapsongoi estate, Miwani village for the medical section,

Dimboli and Umoja village for Tiluet estate and Kaproret Tea Estate as shown in the

table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 Village Distribution of the Respondents

Frequency Percent

Flowers 35 24.6

Kaproret 19 13.4

Kapsongoi 30 21.1

Kitumbe 23 16.2

Medical 5 3.5

Tiluet 30 21.1

Total 142 100.0

I had more flower workers available and hence a slightly higher percentage sampled

than it would normally be in a purely stratified sense.


27

4.1.2. Distribution of Respondents by Sex

From the 142 respondents thirty six point six percent of the respondents were females while the rest were men. No data was available to compare with the households gender data and hence this is not a reflection of the farm but for those who were available in their homes at the time of survey. The higher male percentage was perhaps due to the different tasks done by both women and men. Many men work in areas that set them free during daytime when the study was done. Machine tea harvesters who are predominantly men work early in the morning and are back in their homes in mid morning

Table 4.2 Gender Gender Frequency Percent

Female 52 36.6

Male 90 63.4

Total 142 100.0

4.1.3 Marital Status

Majority of the respondents (83.1%) were married which would point to

some level of seriousness in handling household needs. About 13% of the

respondents were single as shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Marital Status

Marital Status Frequency Percent

Married 118 83.1

Separated 4 2.8

Single 18 12.7

Widowed 2 1.4

Total 142 100


28

The higher percentage of married gives the research more weight as married

people are normally directly involved in food provision to their households.

4.1.4 Distribution of Respondents by Age

Majority of the workers fall in the so called youth group with respondents

aged between 21 and 40 years making a total of 71.1% of the respondents.

The high percentage of the youthful workers agrees with the national

outlook where the youth forms the majority of the nation (United Nations

Development Programme, 2013). The youthful range could also be a result

of turnover of old workers who could be going for greener pastures away

from the low paying agricultural sector.

Table 4.4 Age Group Distribution Age group Frequency Percent

21-30yrs 48 33.8

31-40yrs 53 37.3

41-50yrs 29 20.4

51-60yrs 6 4.2

Above 61yrs 1 .7

Total 142 100.0


29

4.1.5 Education level

Majority of the respondents had the primary level of education (47.9%) with

almost an equivalent number with secondary (43.7%). Seven % have tertiary

courses while 1.4 % had only pre-primary education. The high level of

secondary school graduates in JFK agrees with the availability of skilled

manpower in Kenya which places the country at a comparative advantage

over its neighbours. This could also be an indicator of high level of un-

employment in Kericho forcing educated people to take the only available

slots in the agricultural sector

Table 4.5 Education level

Education level Frequency Percent

Pre-primary 2 1.4

Primary 68 47.9

Secondary 62 43.7

Tertiary 10 7.0

Total 142 100

4.2 Main Findings

4.2.0 Introduction The research was able to answer all the questions that it sought to answer in the objectives as detailed below.

4.2.1 Kitchen Garden Set Up

The first objective sought to understand how the Kitchen gardens were set up. To do

this a reflection of the food security status was sought from the Kericho District

Agricultural Officer (DAO). Kericho district is a high productive area and save for the

workers in plantations the district is relatively food secure. The district was 60 % food

secure in 2012 according to the DAO. A Kipsigis elder helped to lay a background of

food security perception of the community.


30

One 83year old Kipsigis elder says, to the Kipsigis food security involved the

availability of Finger millet, milk from cows and African leafy vegetables like black

nightshade (soyik), spider plant ( kilchik)

To the Kalenjin extreme lack of food like in major draughts is referred to as rubeti.

Moderate food availability where staple food accompaniment like vegetables and milk

are lacking is referred to as Munyasta. People who live in abject poverty with

meager food availability are said to experience Sineti.

Before colonization the Kalenjin did not use sugar in their diets and its only much

later by around 1930. Table salt in the old times was not available and instead water

was made to pass through the ashes to serve as the food sweetener. Kalenjins have

seen three major famines, kimauto Sigiri( where the draught was so severe that the

Kipsigis ate the donkey an animal they abhor). The other famine was Kimauto Kisii

where the Kalenjins sold their children to the Kisiis in exchange of food. The other

famine was Kimauto muhogo (where cassava flour was the only food available).

Floods in 1961 swept a lot of food away and whatever remained developed into

manure inside the stores). On the overall the Kipsigis people occupied a very

productive land and food has been in abundance until recently due to population

pressure.

The idea of formal kitchen garden was approved by the management to reduce the

Munyasta condition among its workers in 2003. It was not until 2006 when the first

gardens were set in Masob

university of nairobi department of …chss.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/default/files/chss/john...

Documents