FACTORS AFFECTING AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTIVITY: A CASE STUDY OF MWALA SUB-

COUNTY, MACHAKOS COUNTY

MERCYLYNE NDUKU MUTINDA

DGA/081/S/2021

A thesis submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of

Science in Agricultural Resource Management of Mwala Technical and vocational
collage

2019
DECLARATION
I understand that plagiarism is an offence and I declare therefore that this research
thesis is my original work and has not been presented to any other institution for any
other award

Signature: _____________________________ Date: ______________________

Mercylyne Nduku Mutinda
DGA/081/S/2021

This research thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as collage
Supervisors

Signature: ___________________________ Date: _____________________

Madam Rhoda
Department of General Agriculture
Mwala Technical and Vocational Collage

©Mercylyne
Nduku Mutinda
ACKNOWLEME
NT

I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisors: Madam Rhoda for their

direction, instruction and supervision of my research concept paper, proposal and
thesis.

I also extend my sincere gratitude to my family for their encouragement throughout

my research work.

Finally, I wish to thank my research assistants for their co-operation, contribution and
hard work during data collection period.

Thank you and God bless!

ii
 DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my parent Victoria Mutinda for her steadfast support during
this course.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ...........................................................................................................
ii
COPY RIGHT ..............................................................................................................
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................
iv
DEDICATION ...............................................................................................................
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................
vi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................
ix
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................
x
ACRONYMS ...............................................................................................................
xii
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................
xiii
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................
1

iv
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................
1

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

1

1.2. Food Security in Kenya ......................................................................................... 2

1.3. Food Security Situation in Mwala Sub-County ..................................................... 4

1.4. Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................

5

1.5. Justification of the Study ....................................................................................... 6

1.6. General Objective .................................................................................................. 7

1.7. Research Questions ................................................................................................

7

1.8. Limitations ............................................................................................................. 7

1.9. Assumptions ...........................................................................................................

8

1.10. Definition of Terms .............................................................................................

8

1.11. Organization of the Thesis...................................................................................

9

CHAPTER TWO .........................................................................................................

10 LITERATURE
REVIEW ............................................................................................ 10

2.1. Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................

11

2.2. Neoliberalism Theory .......................................................................................... 11

2.3. Dependency Theory ............................................................................................. 12

2.4. The Entitlement Approach to Food Security ....................................................... 12

2.5. Malthusian and Anti-Malthusian Theory .............................................................

13

2.6. Knowledge on Food Security............................................................................... 14

2.7. Factors that Affect Food Security ........................................................................ 15

2.8. Dimensions of Food Security............................................................................... 16

v
2.9. Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................
18

CHAPTER THREE .....................................................................................................

22
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................
22

3.1. Research Design................................................................................................... 22

3.2. Research Site and Rationale................................................................................. 22

3.3. Target Population .................................................................................................

23

3.4. Sample Size ..........................................................................................................

23

3.5. Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................. 24

3.6. Measurement of Variables ................................................................................... 24

3.7. Operationalization of Variables ........................................................................... 28

3.8. Data Collection Method .......................................................................................

29

3.9. Instrument Validity .............................................................................................. 31

3.10. Reliability of the Instrument ...............................................................................

32

3.11. Pre-test Results ....................................................................................................

33

3.12. Data Processing and Analysis .............................................................................

33

3.13. Model Specification 1 .........................................................................................

34

3.14. Model Specification 2 .........................................................................................

34

CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................

40
RESULTS ....................................................................................................................
40

4.1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................

40
vi
4.2. Response Rate ......................................................................................................
40
4.3. Requisite Tests ..................................................................................................... 40

4.4. Level of Awareness of Food Security ..................................................................

45

4.5. Food Security Status ............................................................................................ 49

4.6. Social-economic Factors Influencing Food Security ...........................................

53

4.7. Physical Factors Influencing Food Security ........................................................ 59

4.8. Natural Factors Influencing Food Security ..........................................................

62

CHAPTER FIVE .........................................................................................................

64
DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................
64

5.1. Food Security Status in Mwala ............................................................................ 64

5.2. Food Security Awareness and Knowledge .......................................................... 66

5.3. Determinants of Farmer Awareness..................................................................... 67

5.4. Causes of Food Insecurity ....................................................................................

68

5.5. Natural and Physical Factors ............................................................................... 70

5.6. Social-economic Factors ......................................................................................

71

CHAPTER SIX ............................................................................................................

73
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................
73
6.1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................
73

6.2. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 74

6.3. Recommendations ................................................................................................

75

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................
77

vii
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................
86
Appendix 1: Food emergencies for the year 2005 .......................................................
86
Appendix 2: Food security status for 2014/2015 .........................................................
86
Appendix 3: Questionnaire ..........................................................................................
87
Appendix 4: Focus Group Discussion Guide...............................................................
95 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework of food and nutrition security ...............................
19
Figure 2.2: Simplified Conceptual Framework ...........................................................
21
Figure 4.1: Food Security Status ..................................................................................
50
Figure 4.2: Number of meals per day ..........................................................................
51
Figure 4.3: Distribution by gender ...............................................................................
53
Figure 4.4: Food Prices Rating ....................................................................................
56 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Summary of Variables ................................................................................
26
Table 3.2: Operationalization of Variables ..................................................................
28
Table 3.3: Reliability Test............................................................................................
33
Table 3.4: Variables, Description and Expected Signs ................................................
38
Table 4.1: Response Rate .............................................................................................
40
Table 4.2: KMO and Bartlett's Tests ...........................................................................
41
Table 4.3: Table of Multicollinearity Statistics ...........................................................
41
Table 4.4: Pearson Correlation ....................................................................................
42
Table 4.5: Model Summary .........................................................................................
43

viii
Table 4.6: ANOVA ......................................................................................................
44
Table 4.7: Coefficients of Determination ....................................................................
44
Table 4.8: Percentage of respondents with Knowledge on Food Security Concept
N=60 ............................................................................................................................
45
Table 4.9: VIF for Explanatory Variables ...................................................................
47
Table 4.10: Logit Model Estimates of the Determinants of Farmers’ Awareness on
Food Security (Gender and Education Level Considered Categorical) .......................
48
Table 4.11: Food Access Rating ..................................................................................
49
Table 4.12: Meals taken in a day .................................................................................
50
Table 4.13: Main food taken ........................................................................................
51
Table 4.14: Food insecurity causes in Mwala sub-county ...........................................
52
Table 4.15: Factor Influencing Food Security .............................................................
52
Table 4.16: Head of Household ...................................................................................
53
Table 4.17: Respondents’ age and level of education..................................................
54
Table 4.18: Number of people and average monthly income ......................................
55
Table 4.19: Respondents Occupation ..........................................................................
55
Table 4.20: Food Security Awareness as a Human Right ...........................................
57
Table 4.21: Responses on Socio-economic Factors .....................................................
58
Table 4.22: Extent to Which Government Affect Food Availability in Household ....
58
Table 4.23: Distance Covered to Access the Market ...................................................
59
Table 4.24: Extent to which Market Accessibility Affect Food Availability ..............
59

ix
Table 4.25: Means of Transport ...................................................................................
60 Table 4.26: Land size and percentage of land under food related
activities ................ 60
Table 4.27: Extent of Land Productivity ......................................................................
61
Table 4.28: Extend of Effect of Land Size on Food Availability ................................
61
Table 4.29: Hazards Experienced in Mwala Sub-county .............................................
62
Table 4.30: Most Important Hazards ...........................................................................
62
Table 4.31: Opinion on weather changes within Mwala sub-county ...........................
63 ACRONYMS

AE Adult Equivalents
AWSC African Women’s Studies Centre
CBOs Community Based Organizations
DFID Department for International Development
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FGDs Focus Group Discussions
FNS Food and Nutrition Security
GOK Government of Kenya
HFS Household Food Security
HH Household
IARCs International Agricultural Research Centres
IFIs International Financial Institutions
KFSSG Kenya Food Security Steering Group
NARES National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
OLS Ordinary Least Square
ROK Republic of Kenya
SSA Sub-Saharan African
TEEAL The Essential Electronic Agricultural Library
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
WFP World Food Program
WHO World Health Organization
x
 ABSTRACT
Ensuring food security is a global significant challenge despite struggles to increase
agricultural productivity, food distribution and identify appropriate policy
interventions to cub food shortage. The recent recurrent incidences of food deficit in
Kenya have placed the nation among the 20 most food insecure countries in the
world. Food insecurity in the country is a prevalent issue since approximately 84%
the country’s landmass is covered by arid and semi-arid land. Achieving sustainable
food security in these regions is a major challenge. The sub-county of Mwala is
located within the semi-arid marginal agricultural zone of the south-eastern and
coastal lowlands. The zone is often drought prone, exposing its households to
occasional chronic and recurrent acute food insecurity. To alleviate food insecurity in
Mwala Sub-county, the study examined the level and knowledge of food security in
Mwala sub-country and the factors that affect availability, access, utilization and
stability of food and nutrition. The study examined how socio-economic, natural and
physical factors influence food security and their impact on alleviation of food and
nutritional deficits. The research approach involved exploratory, descriptive and
participatory research designs. Purposive and simple random sampling methods were
used to select four locations and a sample size of 84 farmers groups. The data was
subjected to descriptive analysis using SPPS Version 21 and the relationship between
variables determined using Multiple Linear Regression Analysis. A binomial logit
model was employed to assess the factors affecting awareness of food security. The
study showed that gender, education, and income of the households were the main
determinants of food security awareness. The status of food security amongst
residents of Mwala sub-county is very low as depicted by a 98% response. Only 2%
of the respondents evaluated food security status in their households as food secure.
Additionally, the model summary shows that 76.3% of variation in food security can
be explained by the three predictors namely; natural factors, socio- economic factors
and physical factors. This implies that the remaining 23.7% of the variation in food
security could be accounted for by other factors not included in this study. These
findings provide policy insights on key areas of intervention with respect to uptake of
food security in the Sub-county, County and ultimately the country at large.

xi
xii
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background Information
Food security remains a significant challenge despite global struggles to identify and
implement appropriate policy interventions which include increasing agricultural
production and improvement of food distribution (FAO, 2014). All over the world
food crisis and on-going chronic and acute food insecurity problems clearly
demonstrate that numerous people are becoming susceptible to political, climatic and
economic shocks that threaten food and nutritional availability, access, utilization and
stability (FAO, 2014).

Like other Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries, the prevalent food insecurity in
Kenya is attributed to a number of factors including socio-economic, physical and
natural, high rate of post-harvest food losses, unstable food prices and limited
household income (Wambua et al., 2014; Icheria, 2015). The recent recurrent
incidences of food deficit in Kenya has made it one of the 20 most food insecure
countries in the world (Icheria, 2015). Over the years there has been a continual
decline in crop and livestock diversity, increasing vulnerability of smallholder farmers
to food insecurity (Achonga et al., 2015).

A growing recognition that a lot of factors affect food security in arid and semi-arid regions of
the country has been on the rise (Wambua et al., 2014). Approximately

84% of Kenya’s landmass is arid and semi-arid land, hence not suitable for rain-fed
agriculture (ROK, 2010). The Sub-county of Mwala in Machakos County is located
within the semi-arid marginal agricultural zone of the south-eastern and coastal
lowlands with a population of 163,032 people, 7,150 registered farmers and 275
farmers’ groups. The region is typically characterized by unevenly distributed rainfall
of between 500-1250mm per annum (GOK, 2009), where most the farmers practice
subsistence farming. Consequently, the zone is often drought prone, exposing
households to occasional chronic and recurrent acute food insecurity. At the same

1
time, livestock production in the sub-country is limited to drought tolerant indigenous
livestock breeds which have a low productivity capacity (KFSSG, 2008).
Amwata et al., (2016) established that in Makueni County, vulnerability of households
to food insecurity is determined by land size, household size, rainfall and access to
climate information, herd size, off-farm employment and gender of the household
head. Mganga et al., (2015) reiterate that female-headed households were more
vulnerable to food insecurity than male-headed households because of low access to
resources for food production and purchases.

To achieve sustainable food security in the semi-arid regions of the country is one of
the main challenges facing both the county and national governments at large (FAO,
2013). This challenge is extremely intricate, requiring consideration of not just food
availability and access but also the ability to be utilized and its stability. To enhance
food security in any region, there is need to create awareness on the concept of food
not just being available, but accessible in a form that satisfies the dietary needs of the
people while ensuring the stability of its access (Bartfeld and Wang, 2006). Since there
are numerous factors that affect the achievement of food availability, access, utility
and stability, making the smallholder famers aware of such factors and how they affect
food security will empower them to focus on not just increased productivity but also
ensuring their households are food secure (Adams et al., 2010).

The country’s food sustainability is perceived to lay in the availability and

accessibility of maize, a central indicator of food security (Wambua et al., 2014).
According to Muchena et al., (1988), maize crop can grow in a wide range of soils that
enables maize cultivation in almost all agro-ecological zones. Empirical evidence
reveals that two out of every three farmers grow maize (Kibaara, 2005), exuberating
the food insecurity issue even further due to overreliance to one crop.

1.2. Food Security in Kenya

Food is one of the basic needs of human life (FAO, 2014). Therefore, the methods of
acquiring it have preoccupied people for a very long time and were the major focus

2
during the early times of human existence (FAO, 2013). The issues related to food
security have, therefore, attracted the attention of researchers worldwide due to its
importance for human health and survival (FAO, 2014). According to FAO (2013), an
estimate of over 10 million people are food insecure and about 3.2 million are drought
affected residents in the marginal areas who live on food relief, making the
achievement of national food security a key objective of the agricultural sector in
Kenya.

Food security in this case is defined as “a situation in which all people, at all times,
have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which
meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (KFSSG,
2008; ROK, 2008). Food security is influenced by two determinants; a physical and a
temporal determinant. The physical determinant is the food flow which include;
availability, accessibility and utilization (FAO, 2014). Food availability is guaranteed
when people have excess of their immediate requirements. Access is ensured when all
households and all individuals within those households have sufficient resources to
obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Adequate utilization is the ability of the
human body to ingest and metabolize food. In most cases, utilization is only discussed
from a biological perspective (FAO, 2014).

Kenya has been facing severe food insecurity problems depicted by a high proportion
of the population having no access to food in the right amounts and quality. The
country has undergone a succession of poor rainy seasons, with the last good rainy
season pattern experienced in 2013 (FAO, 2013). In the marginal agricultural areas,
the number of food insecure households has risen, primarily due to the October to
December 2014 short rains being well below average (FAO, 2013). The current food
insecurity problems in the country are attributed to several factors including the
frequent droughts in most parts of the country, high costs of domestic food production
due to high costs of inputs especially fertilizer, high global food prices and low
purchasing power for large proportion of the population due to high level of poverty
(FSR, 2012). Failure to achieve food security translates to food insecurity as a result of
declining nutritional status and health of the public (FAO, 2013). Nutritional

3
insecurity is characterized by energy and protein deficit and currently almost 50% of
families’ experience energy and protein deficit (FOA, 2014).

1.3. Food Security Situation in Mwala Sub-County

Mwala Sub-county is within a marginal agricultural livelihood zone that covers the
south-eastern and coastal lowlands (USAID, 2010). The production seasons are
characterized by poorly distributed rainfall ranging between 500-1250mm per year
(GOK, 2009). The zone is often drought prone and the March to May long rains are
often unreliable (USAID, 2010). The short rains are the most productive and account
for approximately 70% of the food output (GOK, 2001). The general pattern of food
security in Mwala Sub-county is characterized by considerable seasonal fluctuations
which contribute to unstable levels of food products commonly grown such as maize,
beans, pigeon peas, millet and sorghum. Lack of food diversity in the Sub country
contributes to food insecurity as majority of the locals rely on cereals particularly,
maize as their staple food and rarely modify their meals to include other traditional
and contemporary foods (GOK, 2009).

Different agronomic factors contribute to the poor production experienced in the

region. The prolonged droughts and low agricultural productivity have often
exacerbated the country’s food security situation with increased reliance on food
relief. Low levels of maize production often leave many households with low access to
required foods, thus remaining under-fed during times of poor harvest (GOK, 2001).
Maize accounts for approximately 70% of the food produced, which is higher than
even more drought resistant crops like sorghum, millets and green grams.

Lack of adequate local and national strategic food reserves, high post-harvest loses and
lack of effective control of crops and livestock diseases has often compounded the
food security problem. Income structure of the households in the sub-county indicate
that about 40% earnings are derived from crop sales, 30% from livestock, 30% from
off-farm activities including money sent from earnings by household members
working away (GOK, 2009). Households have small storage facilities and household
heads often sell available food immediately after harvest to meet other food and non-

4
food obligations. Livestock production is limited by low productive capacity of the
indigenous breeds that are able to tolerate drought conditions (KFSSG, 2008).

1.4. Statement of the Problem

There has been widespread food insecurity in Kenya, an indication that the proposed
measures and interventions of food insecurity mitigation have not been successful,
calling for different approaches. Issues related to food security have attracted the
attention of researchers worldwide due to its importance for human health and
survival. While most studies have been directed on factors that influence food security,
limited work has been focused on the knowledge and level of understanding of what
food security means especially among the rural poor. The widespread household food
insecurity in Kenya’s arid and semiarid regions calls for review of ineffective
interventions since 51% of the rural households are still food insecure compared to
38% in the urban areas (AWSC, 2014). Although most of the rural population has
been directing their concerns about food security on the ability to secure adequate food
supplies, food availability does not guarantee its access and utility (Icheria, 2015).

The degree of food security knowledge of smallholder farmers has not been explored
as a way to winning the fight against food insecurity while identifying other factors
that contribute to food insecurity. Without the proper knowledge of what food security
is, most households members would not understand the impact of food insecurity
factors to their own food security situation or the level of food insecurity they are
exposed to. There is need to promote the awareness of food security concept among
the smallholder farmers while enlightening them on the factors that cause food
insecurity. It is essential to make them aware that food availability, though elemental
in ensuring food security, does not guarantee its access especially to the rural poor
households. For households and individuals to be food secure, food at their access
must be adequate both in quantity and quality, which translates to active healthy life
for every individual (AWSC, 2014). This study addressed food insecurity issues in
Mwala sub-county from the mind-set of smallholder farmers to the factors that affect
food security. The study further assessed the extent to which natural, physical and
socio-economic factors have influenced food security in the study area.

5
1.5. Justification of the Study
Lately, there has been a fairly vigorous discourse about the food crisis that has hit
many parts of the world, including Kenya (AWSC, 2014). Many studies on food
security have been addressing the issue of food crisis by strengthening food security at
the level of national, community and households (Icheria, 2015). The widespread food
insecurity in Kenya is an indication that the proposed measures and interventions of
eradicating food insecurity have not been successful calling for different approaches.
The study by Kimani and Kombo (2010) shows that the concept of food security from
the consumers’ perspective is best understood with the members of the household in
mind.

Empowering the smallholder farmers to understand what being food secure means, is
adorning them with the capacity to identify factors that threaten their food security
while at the same time developing strategies to curb the food insecurity issue within
their household. To mitigate food insecurity among the communities there is an urgent
need for thorough assessment of the level and knowledge of food availability, access,
utility and sustainability. Food needs vary from region to region and among countries
within regions of the world. This means that approaches to food security have to be
tailored to each situation.

The study tried to address food insecurity issue in Mwala Sub-county from the mindset
of the smallholder famers to the factors that affect food security. The study further
assessed the extent to which natural and physical factors have influenced food
security. The recommendations from the study were added on to the existing
interventions since food insecurity can only be addressed with multifaceted
approaches. Kaloi et al., (2005) notes that this knowledge can assist smallholder
farmers, policy makers, researchers and other stakeholders to take the necessary
measures and ensure food security in the Sub-County.

1.6. General Objective

6
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the level and knowledge of food
security and the factors that affect it among smallholder farmers in Mwala Subcounty,
Machakos County in Kenya.

1.6.1. Specific Objectives The

specific objectives are:

i. To assess the level of awareness of components of food security among the small
scale farmers.

ii. To investigate how socio-economic factors influence food security in Mwala

Sub-county iii. To examine the extent to which natural and physical factors
influence food security in Mwala Sub-county.

1.7. Research Questions

i. What is the level of awareness of small holder farmers on components of food security
in Mwala Sub-county?

ii. How do socio-economic factors influence food security in Mwala Sub-county?

iii. How do natural and physical factors influence food security in Mwala Subcounty?

1.8. Limitations
The study was confined to Mwala Sub-county in Machakos County Kenya. The focus
was on the level of knowledge on food security among the smallholder farmers in the
Sub-country and the factors that affect food security. Although numerous factors have
been identified that are responsible for the food insecurity situation in Kenya, this
study was limited to the socio-economic. Whereas researchers in different regions
have also identified various efforts by smallholder farmers in mitigating food
insecurity, the study was limited to identifying the extent to which physical and natural
factors influence food security in the study area and give recommendations.

1.9. Assumptions
The study was based on the following assumptions:

7
 i. Past food security interventions have had some positive impact on food security.
ii. Households faced the same prices for food, irrespective of their location in the
county.

iii. The socio-economic and natural environments in other arid and semi-arid counties
in Kenya are significantly similar to those in the study area. Any observed
effects could be generalized to the dry land region.

1.10. Definition of Terms

i. Climate variability: in this study refers to alterations in the earth's weather,
including variations in temperature, wind patterns and rainfall. ii. Governance: is
used to refer to a process of policy and enforcement of regulations and standards
relating to food security in this study.

iii. Household: Here refers to a unit of people living together and eating from the same
pot.

iv. Markets: in this study, refer to avenues for buying and selling of food.
v. Food security: refers to when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe,
nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life (in this study). vi. Food
insecurity: is the state of, or risk of, being unable to provide food (to oneself, a
family, a nation, etc.) (FAO, 2001). Food insecurity as a situation exists when
members of a household have an inadequate diet for part or all of the year or face
the possibility of an inadequate diet in the future. Hunger is the uneasy or painful
sensation caused by a lack of food (Phillips and Taylor, 1990).

vii. Farmer: a farmer is a person engaged in agriculture, raising living organisms for food or
raw materials.

viii. Farmers’ demographic characteristics: is the data about farmers’ population, age,
gender and income

ix. Farmland size: Size in acres of household land under cultivation

x. Farm size: Size in acres of the entire household land holding
xi. Small-scale farmers: Farmers whose agricultural orientation is mainly subsistence and
cultivate land not exceeding 10 acres (Icheria, 2012).

8
1.11. Organization of the Thesis
The study is organized into six chapters. Chapter one provides details on the
background of the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, objectives of
the study, research questions, limitations, and delimitations, assumptions of the study
and definition of terms used.

Chapter Two offers a review of the relevant literature on the determinants of food security,
theoretical and conceptual framework.

Chapter Three covers research methodology that is applied to source data. In this
section the procedures and techniques which were used in the collection, processing
and analysis of data are explained. Specifically, the following subsections are
included; research design, target population, data collection instruments, data
collection procedures, pre-testing of research instrument, operationalization of the
variables and finally data analysis.

Chapter Four presents the results of the descriptive and regression analysis and the presentation of
study findings.

Chapter Five provides a discussion of the results in relation to the expected outcomes,
and testing of hypothesis. This is followed by chapter six which contain a summary of
the findings, conclusions and recommendations for policy interventions from this
study. References and appendices follow thereafter.

CHAPTER TWO

9
LITERATURE REVIEW
Studies on food security have mainly focused on food production as the main approach
of securing food (Nyariki, 1997). Some governments advocate for the expansion of
farming systems to produce enough for households to be food secure (Gladwin et al.,
2001). On the other hand, others have focused their attention on the contributions of
root and tuber crops such as sweet potato and cassava to food security (Allemann et
al., 2004). Their main emphasis in the fight against food insecurity has been the
importance of improving food security under conditions of climatic change (Droogers,
2003).

The degree of vulnerability to food insecurity depends on the nature of the risk and a
household’s resilience to it. A household’s resilience often depends on how well it can
re-organize and adapt; which further depends on the demographic characteristics,
assets and livelihood strategies (Nyariki et al., 2002; D’Haese et al., 2005). The food
security risk factors in the dry lands include natural shocks such as climate (drought)
and natural resource degradation (soil, forests, water) which expose households to
fluctuation in food production (European Commission, 2000; Nyariki et al., 2002).
But the effect of climate change reflected in worsening aridity remains the most
daunting (Tiffen, 2002). The high risk of food insecurity has contributed to the
collapse of agro – pastoral systems and reduced income generating activities thus
eroding the purchasing power of the rural households (Wambua and Kithia, 2014).

Nguluu et al., (2014) described the farming systems that exist in the dry-lands of
Kenya and offers suggestions for improvement and sustainable use of dry-land
biodiversity to enhance food security. These includes; intercropping and sole cropping
farming systems (especially the newly developed varieties) for the long term
sustainability of agro diversity and food security which would in turn conserve the
environment.

2.1. Theoretical Framework

10
To analyse the reason why food insecurity is still prevalent in the arid and semiarid
areas in Kenya despite international action and attempts by the government to
eradicate it, several theories were chosen. The theory of neoliberalism belongs to the
branch of international relation theories and the theory of dependency is one of the
development theories. Other theories of food security used were the Entitlement
theory, Malthusian and Anti-Malthusian approach to food security. The Malthusian
theory contends that population increase causes food scarcity while and Anti-
Malthusian claim that an increase in population causes increase in food production
(Kayunze, 2008). This was done consciously with an attempt to have more
comprehensive analysis and by combining several, could have better overview from
national and international levels.

2.2. Neoliberalism Theory

Neoliberalism has been chosen because it provides an explanation and reasons behind
the agricultural market liberalization, which had an immense impact on the Kenyan
market and consequently on the food security in Kenya. Neoliberalism is the theory of
political economic tradition advocating that the prosperity of a human is best achieved
by liberation of his entrepreneurial opportunities that are bounded by institutional
framework. The government should only create and maintain institutional framework
designed for free trade. The rapid growth in power of newly established International
Financial Institutions (IFI) and the capital centralization alongside, the structural crisis
within the central economies led to the unfavourable impacts on the exports. What is
more, the drop of primary commodity prices deepened the degradation there. The three
main characteristics of neoliberalism are privatization, deregulation and
disengagement of the state in areas of social provision. Neoliberalism is able to
explain how re-regulating markets via state-led policies benefits dominant classes and
the poorest ones become even poorer with no access to food and other goods. In
general, theory focuses on the importance of institutions and their imposed norms.

2.3. Dependency Theory

Dependency theory analyses the relationship between the developed economies and
developing ones, the exploitation of the periphery by the advanced ones. The theory

11
focuses on the impacts of unequal relationship between the two parts. Dependency is
described as the integration of periphery in the global system by which
underdeveloped countries and former colonies are economically profited from which
has led to their underdevelopment (Soete, 1981). Thus, the theory explains the
underdevelopment as a particular situation where the group of disadvantaged countries
is conditioned by the growth of dominant ones. The main statement of the theory is
that the international exchange and foreign investments inflict negative effects in the
social welfare of the recipient countries (Jenkins and Scanlan, 2001). Overall,
dependency theory has a focus point on unequal, exploitative and dependent relations
between the First World and the Third World.

2.4. The Entitlement Approach to Food Security

The entitlement approach to hunger discusses the ability of people to command food
through the legal means available in the society. Entitlements are defined as the set of
alternative commodity bundles that a person can command in a society using the
totality of rights and opportunities that he or she faces (Young et al., 2001). Sen’s
(1981) entitlement theory forms the conceptual basis of approaches of all agencies to
assessing food security. Sen, (1981) introduced the idea of food security as a demand
concern, where it is viewed in terms of entitlements, which influence capacity to
access food. In this regard, the ability of households to access food either through
production, purchase or transfers becomes important in defining household food
security. Hence, household food security is a function of the availability of food within
the country and the level of household resources that are necessary to produce or
purchase food as well as other basic needs. Sen explained that famines occur not
because there is not enough food, but because people do not have access to enough
food. Of course the availability of food near to the household is a prerequisite of food
security. Availability is influenced by factors such as community’s proximity to
centers of production and supply or market forces, restrictions on trade and
international policies that affect food supplies. All of these are key to food security
analysis. Sen’s work was none the less a radical break through, before him the
availability of food was thought to be the overriding determinant of famine (cite).

12
According to Sen (Year), people’s exchange entitlements to their livelihood sources
reflect their ability to acquire food. Famine occurs when a large number of people
suffer a complete collapse in their exchange entitlements (Sen, 1981). From the recent
experience especially in Africa the association between violence and famine is so
close that no widely applicable famine can disregard the role of violence and the way
some resources like food are illegally acquired by some groups at the expense of
others (de Waal, 1990; Macrae and Zwi, 1994). In Sen’s work the violent access of
food by one group removes another exchange entitlements (cite).

Entitlement theory has been criticised on two further counts. First it implies a straight
forward sequence of entitlement failure leading to hunger and then to malnutrition,
starvation and death. Second it implies that people’s actions are largely determined by
their need to consume food (de Waal, 1990). An important extension to entitlement
theory focuses on the role of investments in determining household vulnerability to
food insecurity. When households are able to generate a surplus over and above their
basic food requirements, the excess resources are diverted into assets of different kinds
which can be drawn upon when they face crisis (Swift, 1989). In such circumstance
we may relate food security to the idea of vulnerability to poor resource endowments
of households, focusing more clearly on the risk where avoidance becomes central to
attaining food security.

2.5. Malthusian and Anti-Malthusian Theory

Malthusian and Anti-Malthusian theories take two contentious positions in relation to
food availability and population growth. According to Dyson, (1996) cited by
Kayunze et al., (2007), argue that food insecurity is caused by having too many people
compared to the amount of food produced. Population increases in a geometrical
manner and food production increases only in an arithmetical ratio. This means that a
strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence
is a necessity. However, other Anti-Malthusians argue that there can never be too
many people in a country.

13
Expansion of food production like it was during the green revolution of Asia in the
1970s as a result of improved agricultural technology is difficult today because of the
environmental changes which have left farmers with few options to improve food crop
output. Demands for irrigation water, the use of additional fertilizers on currently
available crop varieties has little or no yields increase. While Malthusians are
pessimistic and argue that in future there will be too little food for the increasing
population, Anti-Malthusians comments that improved agricultural technology will
increase food production (Kayunze et al., 2009).

All these theories and concepts were considered to explain the ineffectiveness of
Kenyan policies. After the theoretical considerations, however, it was decided that
only the neoliberalism and dependency theories were appropriate since they together
are capable of providing the answer to the issue in question.

2.6. Knowledge on Food Security

The concept of food security is recent in origin and it has been defined in many ways
by many researchers (WFP, 2012; DFID 2004). DFID (2004) highlights that early
thinking linked hunger and food insecurity to reduced food availability. Hunger and
particularly famine, appeared to be a result of an acute food shortage, which could be
best addressed through steps to increase the production and distribution of food. Later,
the explanations in terms of failures of ‘entitlement’, that is the inability of individuals
to access the food they need due to poverty was linked to food security. Concerns
about food security were previously directed more at the national and international
level, and concerned the ability of countries to secure adequate food supplies. Only
later did the level of analysis shift to include a focus on food security at local level,
even down to households and individuals (WFP, 2012).

Most of the rural households understand food security as having sufficient availability of
food though, majority of them still experience hidden hunger which refers to persons
whose food is insufficient to meet the FAO/WHO recommended allowance of 2,250
calories per person per day (ROK, 2008). The causes of food insecurity are complex and
improving agricultural performance has proved to be less important than tackling the

14
underlying poverty that remains the fundamental cause of hunger and food insecurity
(DFID, 2004). As the saying goes ‘poverty is in the mind’, addressing the understanding
of smallholder famers about food security could be a mile towards achieving food
security coupled with other strategies. Whereas various definitions on food security
exist, it is important to establish whether the concept is understood at the local level.

2.7. Factors that Affect Food Security

Food security is affected by a complexity of factors. These include unstable social and
political environments that preclude sustainable economic growth, war and civil strife,
macroeconomic imbalances in trade, natural resource constraints, poor human resource
base, gender inequality, inadequate education, poor health, natural disasters such as
floods and locust infestation and the absence of good governance (Haile et al., 2005).
All these factors contribute to either insufficient national food availability or
insufficient access to food by households and individuals.

Food insecure households are not always hungry because their villages or counties
produce less but because several factors affect food productivity and storage. Studies
by Below et al., (2012), Wambua, (2008) and Tiffen, (1994) reveal that physical and
natural factors such as drought, performance and distribution of rainfall, soils,
temperature, crops and livestock diseases, and pests contribute significantly to food
insecurity in the marginalized areas. The areas have experienced climate changes due
to human impact as well as social–economic transformation which have negatively
affected rural livelihood systems (Wambua et al., 2014).

The major cause of food insecurity in the arid and semiarid areas is attributed to
physical, natural and human factors (Mutiso, 2015). There is growing recognition that
socio-economic factors such as poor agricultural practices, levels of household
incomes and expenditure patterns, prevalent food and non-food prices, marketing
practices and conflict have compounded to the precarious food insecurity situation
among the marginalized smallholder farmers households (Wambua et al., 2014;
Kinyua, 2004). Other underlying factors include adoption rates in growing drought
tolerant crops, use of uncertified seeds, access to farm inputs and poor post-harvest

15
food management. Female headed household are more at risk of food insecurity due to
limited access to land ownership and other valuable assets (Mulandi, 2007). Lack of
land and other resources such as livestock, money and good shelter needed to facilitate
farming activities were identified as the major contributing factors to food insecurity
(Wambua et al., 2014).

The identified food insecurity problems can be attributed to several factors that include:

i. Climatic factors, including the frequent droughts in most parts of the country.
ii. High costs of domestic food production due to high costs of inputs especially
fertilizer.

iii. Internal displacement of a large number of farmers, especially those in the high
potential agricultural areas.

iv. High global food prices associated to low purchasing power for large proportion of
the population due to high level of poverty.

As a result, more than 10 million (almost a third of the population) persons are chronically food
insecure (ROK 2010; FAO 2011; ROK 2008).

2.8. Dimensions of Food Security

These are also referred to as Food security Components. Common to most definitions
of food security are the elements of availability, access, utilization and stability or
sustainability (FAO 2011).

2.8.1. Food Availability

In this context, availability refers to the physical existence of food, be it from own
production or from the markets. On national level food availability is a function of the
combination of domestic food stocks, commercial food imports, food aid, and
domestic food production, as well as the underlying determinants of each of these
factors. Use of the term availability is often confusing, since it can refer to food
supplies available at both the household level and at a more aggregate (regional or

16
national) level. However, the term is applied most commonly in reference to food
supplies at the regional or national level (Riely et al., 1999).

Food availability is achieved when a sufficient amount of food is constantly available

for all members of society. This kind of food can be obtained through household
production, local production, storage, imports or food aids. Food availability is a
function of the combination of domestic food stocks, commercial food imports, food
aid, and domestic food production, as well as the underlying determinants of each of
these factors.

2.8.2. Food Access

Access emphasizes on having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a
nutritious diet. It is the way different people obtain the available food. Normally, we
access food through a combination of home production, stocks, purchase, barter, gifts,
borrowing or food aid. Food access is ensured when communities and households and
all individuals within them have adequate resources, such as money, to obtain
appropriate foods for a nutritious diet (Riely et al. 1999). Access depends normally on;
income available to the household, the distribution of income within the household,
the price of food, and other factors worth mentioning are individuals’ access to
market, social and institutional entitlement/rights (ibid).

2.8.3. Food Utilization

Utilization has a socio-economic and a biological aspect. If sufficient and nutritious
food is both available and accessible the household has to make decisions concerning
what food is being consumed (demanded) and how the food is allocated within the
household. In households where distribution is unequal, even if the measured
aggregate access is sufficient some individuals may suffer from food deficiency
leading to diet related diseases.

2.8.4. Food Stability

17
Stability or sustainability refers to the temporal dimension of nutrition security (i.e. the
time frame over which food security is being considered). In much of the food security
literature, a distinction is drawn between chronic food insecurity—the inability to meet
food needs on an ongoing basis—and transitory food insecurity when the inability to
meet food needs is of a temporary nature (Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992)

2.9 Conceptual Framework

The study is based on the 2009 Wold Food Program (WFP) conceptual framework of
food and nutrition security (WFP, 2009). The conceptual framework uses basic causes
of food insecurity, the underlying causes, factors that lead to the impact and the
outcome of the impact as indicators of food insecurity. There are three key concepts in
the framework; Livelihoods, Food security and Nutrition security. The framework
analyses the basic causes or structural factors that establish the context in which food
insecurity exists, the underlying causes in relation to the characteristics of the
individuals that make them more or less susceptible to food insecurity, the factors that
lead to malnutrition and death. This framework allows for formulation of hypotheses
on probable local effects of crisis. It allows for review of secondary information and
discussions with key informants, aids in identifying most factors that most likely affect
FNS in the study and pinpoint possible linkages among factors affecting FNS in the
study area (WFP, 2009).

Food security is influenced by food flow as the physical determinant which includes;
availability, accessibility and utilization. Availability is achieved if adequate food is
available at people’s disposal. Access is ensured when all households and all
individuals within those households have sufficient resources to obtain appropriate
foods for a nutritious diet. Adequate utilization is the ability of the human body to
ingest and metabolize food. In most cases, utilization is only discussed from a
biological perspective (FAO, 2014).

Nutrition security is based on nutritious and safe diets, an adequate biological and
social environment, a proper health care to avoid diseases ensure adequate utilization
of food (FAO, 2014). The inclusion of smallholder farmers’ knowledge and

18
understanding of food security concept and factors that affect it is explored on the
basis of food security (availability, access and utilization), nutrition security and

livelihood as conceptualized in Figure 1.1.

Social
economic
factors

Food and
nutritional
security
Physical Natural
factors factors

Figure 0.1 Conceptual framework of food and nutrition security

Figure 2.1 is presented to simplify the interactive effects of the study variables of the
WFP Conceptual Framework of Food and Nutrition Security. The independent
variables here represent the causes or the determinants of food security. It is these
variables that are tested to see if they have a significant influence on the dependent
variable, food security. The factors are Natural factors (climate change),
SocioEconomic (governance), Physical factors (access to market), demographic

19
factors (gender, population) and level of awareness (knowledge). The dependent
variable here is food security. There is also extraneous variable or the moderating
factors. The moderating factors include economic status and political stability.

20
 Socio-economic factors
 Agricultural practices
 Levels of households incomes
 Expenditure patterns
 Food and non-food average prices
 Marketing practices
 Access to markets
 Conflicts
 Governance

Demographic Factors
 Age
 Gender
 Marital Status
 Occupation
 Highest level of education
Food Security
 Food Reserves
 Number of meals
Natural Factors per day
 Climate variation (weather changes)
 Source of food
 Drought
 Floods

Physical Factors
 Land Use
 Land size
 Land productivity
 Distance to the market)

Level of Awareness
 Knowledge on food security
 Type of farming methods
 Farmers Group
 Type of farmer

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Figure 0.2: Simplified Conceptual Framework

21
 CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Design
To adequately respond to the research questions a research approach involving
exploratory, descriptive and participatory research designs was utilized. Exploratory
case study research provided information on the level and knowledge of food security
among the smallholder farmers while descriptive research gave a logical description of
the different farmers groups under investigation, the socio-economic, natural and
physical factors that influence food security. The descriptive case study and
participatory research were further used to establish the extent to which the different
factors influence food security in the sub-county.

3.2. Research Site and Rationale

This study was conducted in four locations in Mwala Sub-county, a medium potential
livelihood zone within Machakos County in Kenya. Mwala sub-county has 15
locations that cover an area of 852.9 Km 2 with a population of 89,211 people (Kenya
National Bureau of Statistics, 2013). The sub-county is located 1000 to 1600 m above
sea level within the semi-arid marginal agricultural zone of the south-eastern and
coastal lowlands. It is typically characterized by bimodal unevenly distributed rainfall
ranging between 500-1250mm per annum (GOK, 2012; USAID 2010). Rainfall is
scarce and erratic making the Sub-county of Mwala often prone to drought mainly due
to unreliability of the March to May long rains. Much of the productivity that is close
to 70% of the food output takes place during the short rains in October to December
while the long rains occur in March to May (GOK, 2009). The short rains normally
deliver more rain and are more reliable than the long rains (GOK, 2009). At the same
time livestock production is constrained by poor productive capacity of the local
breeds which have the ability to tolerate and resist drought conditions (KFSSG, 2008).
Among many factors that affect food security, study locations selected (Mbiuni,
Muusini, Mwala and Kabaa.) have contrasting production patterns, agricultural
activities and socio-economic differences (FAO, 2013).

3.3. Target Population

22
Mwala Sub-county has population density of 160 persons per square Kilometre, a
population of 163,032 people. The Sub-county has 15 locations and 58 sub-locations,
highest number of administrative units compared to other sub-counties within

Machakos Country. From the sub-county’s population, 7,150 of them are registered farmers
who have formed 300 farmers’ groups (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics,

2013). A sample of smallholder farmer was drawn from the farmers’ groups within
four purposively selected locations; Mbiuni, Muusini, Mwala and Kabaa, in the
subcounty.

3.4. Sample Size

A sample size of 86 farmers’ groups was used where 21 farmers’ groups from each of
the four locations represented the small-scale farmers in Mwala Sub-county. The
sample was selected using a multistage sampling method.

The sample size was determined according Magnani (1999) using the following formula;

n  D Z Z  sd
α β 2 12 sd22 ……………………………… (1)
 X 2  X1
 
Where; nrequired minimum sample size per survey round or comparison group

Ddesign effect for cluster surveys (use default value of 2)

X1  the estimated level of an indicator at the time of the first survey or

for the control area

X2 the expected level of the indicator either at some future date or for the project area
such that the quantityX2  X1is the size of the magnitude of change or comparison
group differences it is desired to be able to detect
sd1 and sd2  expected standard deviations for the indicators for the respective

survey rounds or comparison groups being compared

Zα the z score corresponding to the degree of confidence with which it is desired to
be able to conclude that an observed change of size X2  X1

would not have occurred by chance statistical significance, and

23
 Zβ  the z  score corresponding to the degree of confidence with which it is desired to
be certain of detecting a change of size X2  X1 if one actually occurred

statistical power.
Applying formula 1, we obtain;

n2 1645.  0840.  * 10212  12252 / 2040,

2
 1440, 
2

2 6175. 2543066, ,  / 600 2

215705432 , , / 36000, 0  2436262.   86

3.5. Sampling Procedure

Multistage sampling strategy was used to get the sample size of 86 farmers’ groups.
Purposive sampling was used to select 4 out of 15 locations within the sub-county,
while simple random sampling was used to select a sample size of 21 farmers’ groups
from each of the location.

A sampling frame (list of households) was obtained for each farmers group.
Respondents were randomly selected from each farmer’s group using simple random
sampling method for which the starting point was chosen at random that is the first ith
household was selected randomly in each farmers’ group. Thereafter, the subsequent
households were selected at regular intervals which was obtained by dividing the total
population of each location by 21.

3.6. Measurement of Variables

3.6.1. Independent Variables
The independent variables here represent the causes or the determinants of food
security. These variables that were tested to see if they had a significant influence on
food security. The factors included, natural factors, socio-economic factors, physical
factors and level of awareness (knowledge) on food security. The dependent variable
here was food security. The extraneous variable or the moderating factors included
economic status and political stability.

24
Based on the reviewed literatures, some of the common predictors that were expected to
have influence on farmers’ food security in the study area were;

1. Age of head of household (AGE): Age is a continuous variable and measured in

years. Older people have relatively richer experiences of the social and physical
environments as well as greater experience of farming activities (Haile et al.,
2005). That is, when heads get higher age, they are expected to have stable
economy in farming. Moreover, older household heads are expected to have better
access to land than younger heads, because younger men either have to wait for
land redistribution, or have to share land with their families. Therefore, the
expected effect of age on household food security would be positive for older
household heads and negative for comparatively younger household heads.

2. Sex of head of the household (SEX): Sex of the household is a dummy variable.
Female headed households, according to Adugna and Wogayehu (2011), have
higher probability of being food insecure. Hence, in this study sex also is expected
to have relation with the household food security status. Male headed households
are expected to be more food secure that female headed households.

3. Marital status of the household head (MAS): This is a discrete variable and it
determines the household food security status. The study made by Adekoyo (2009)
in Oyo state of Nigeria found that households headed by married individuals were
found to be food secure and households headed by unmarried households heads
were found to be food insecure. However, widowed and divorced female headed
households, according to Adugna and Wogayehu (2011), were highly positioned to
be food insecure. Thus, the same result would be expected in his study.

4. Household size (AE): The size of the household is a continuous variable and
measured in household adult equivalents. Thus, increasing family size in turn adult
equivalent, according to reviewed literatures, tends to exert more pressure on
household consumption than the labour it contributes to production (Adugna,
2011). Thus, increase in the household adult equivalent would have a negative
correlation with household food security status.

25
5. Educational level of head of household (EDUC): Formal education is a variable
which could impact positively on household ability to take good and wellinformed
production and nutritional status decisions (Babatunde et al., 2007). Based on
Amaza et al. (2006), the higher the educational level of household head, the more
food secure the household is expected to be. Therefore, the same relation would
also be expected in this study.

6. Farm land size of a household (FLSZ): Farm land size is the total farm land
cultivated by the household measured in hectares. According to Haile, Alemu and
Kudhlande (2005) and Babatunde et al. (2007), food production can be increased
extensively through expansion of areas under cultivation. It was thus expected that
households with larger farm size to have more likelihood to being food secure than
those with smaller farm size. As a continuous variable, the expected effect of farm
land size on household food security was positive.

Table 0.1: Summary of Variables

Independent Expected Variable description Type of
variable sign variable
Age of HH head + Age of the household head, Continuous
measured in years.

Sex of HH head + Sex of the household head, 0 for Dummy

female and 1 for male that means it
is dummy variable.

Marital status + Marital status of the household Discrete

head, 0 for divorced and widowed
and, 1 for married.

HH size in AE _ Number of household/family Continuous

members who live under the same
household, measured in AE.

Education level + Education level of the head of the Discrete

26
 household, where 0= None; 1=
Primary, 2 =Secondary, 3 =
Tertiary.

Land holding size + Size of crop land, measured in Continuous

hectares.

The independent variables are measured using certain indicators as follows:

i. Natural Factors such as Climate change; the indicators include weather
changes and types of weather. These indicators are assessed to determine their
effect on farms and livestock and on food security.

ii. Socio-economic factors such as governance; the indicators are awareness of

food security as human rights component, activities ensuring food security.
These factors are tested on their influence to on food security.

iii. Physical factors such as access to market; the indicators are distance to the no
of kilometres to the market and food prices. The effect of these variables on
food security is also determined in the study.

iv. Human factors such as land use; the indicators include size of land and land
used for food production and land productivity in relation to the ideal expected
yields. These indicators are tested to reveal their influence on food security,
the study’s dependent variable measured using the indicators of food
availability, accessibility and productivity.

v. The level of awareness on food security; the indicators include knowledge on

food security, type of farmer (smallscale vs. largescale) and type of farming
methods employed. These factors are examined and their influence on food
security determined.

3.6.2. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in this study was food security. The food security status could
be determined based on the 2100 kcals per adult equivalent per a day. Thus, it was a
bivariate taking the value 1 for food secured households and 0 for food insecure
households. If the household consumed less than this minimum amount of energy, it

27
 was food insecure and if the household consumed more than the threshold level, the
household was concluded as food secure. This variable was used for binary logistic
regression.

There were 3 domains of the independent variable as adapted from WFP’s (2005) household
food consumption approach. They are household food security, vulnerability to household food
insecurity and household food insecurity.

3.7. Operationalization of Variables

The operational of variables describes the independent and dependent variables measurement
indicators of the study as shown in the table 3.2;

Table 0.2: Operationalization of Variables

Objectives Independent Measurement of Measurement Tools of
Variables indicators scale Analysis
To assess the level of Awareness Knowledge on Ordinal scale Mean,
awareness of food food security, type frequencies,
of farmer and type mode,
security among the
of farming Standard
small scale farmers in methods deviation
employed and Multiple
Mwala Sub-county
regression
analysis

28
To investigate how Socioeconomi Awareness of Ordinal scale Mean,
socio-economic c factors food security as frequencies,
factors influence food human rights mode,
security in Mwala component, Standard
Sub-county. activities ensuring deviation
food security such and
as governance, Multiple
marketing regression
practices, analysis

expenditure
patterns, income
levels

To examine the extent Natural and weather changes Ordinal scale Mean,
to which natural and physical and types of frequencies,
physical factors factors weather, distance mode,
influence food to the market and Standard
security in Mwala food prices deviation
Sub-county. and Multiple
regression
analysis

Dependent
variables

29
The primary purpose Food Adequate food Ordinal scale Mean,
of this study was to security Reserves, Number frequencies,
mode,
examine the level and of meals per day,
Standard
knowledge of food deviation
Source of food
security and the and Multiple
factors that affect it regression
analysis
among smallholder
farmers in Mwala
Sub-county,

Machakos County in
Kenya.

3.8. Data Collection Method

Primary data, both qualitative and quantitative was collected from various
stakeholders. Secondary data was obtained from searches in libraries; offline databases
e.g. The Essential Electronic Agricultural Library (TEEAL) and the internet (online
databases and websites).

3.8.1. Questionnaire
The present study used semi structured questionnaires to collect primary data. Two
selected assistants from the local area were engaged to ensure local customs were
respected. A rapport had been created between the assistants and the community.
These assistants had been selected since they had worked with social development
projects in the area for the past five years. This made access to accurate information
easy. Having worked in the area enhanced the phenomenon of talking with community
during discussions rather than talking to the community as Okeyo (2015) advises.

Three weeks were taken to explain the objectives of the study to the community,
adequate time was spent explaining the objectives and enough chance given to the
community for seeking clarification. To minimize biases, information was filtered,
notes taken and later used to enrich the questionnaire. The questionnaire used had

30
specific questions with limited answers creating a possibility to get the quantitative
data that could be analysed statistically.

Semi structured questions assisted in generating in-depth and explanatory qualitative

information. This method allows flexibility, follow up to original questions and
pursuing of new lines of questioning, two-way interaction and facilitates exchange of
information between the interviewer and interviewee making the atmosphere more
relaxed. The use of both closed-ended questionnaires and semi-structured questions is
necessary in order to get as much information as possible from the community
members (Okeyo, 2015).

3.8.2. Focus Group Discussions

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were also used to allow probing. The FGDs were
used as a qualitative research technique for mapping out systems and answer questions
of "why" and "how", especially concerning the data collected from the questionnaire
interview. Where information was not clear from the questionnaires the discussion
clarified how the natural factors (climate change) affected the daily living of the
community for instance. The discussants were in groups of 5 - 10. The meetings took
between 2 - 3 hours and were done in all the four locations with the permission of the
area administrator (chief).

3.8.3. Key Informants

Key informants interviews were used with people who had vast experience and
knowledge and could provide extensive insight into bio-sociocultural aspects of the
community. The representative from the county agricultural office and agricultural
extension officer were purposively selected as key informants since they possessed
vital information concerning household food security as well as agricultural aspects.
Interviews were conducted with the two officers to get insights on household food
security. Information concerning land use such as sizes of farmlands, food production,
drought resistant crops cultivated in the area, was obtained from the agricultural
extension officer. The researcher booked appointments with key informants and

31
informed them of that the study was for academic purposes prior to conducting the
interviews.

3.9. Instrument Validity

Farmers were asked through questionnaires and interviews to identify indicators of
food security and what they understand by the term food security. They were asked to
score between the social-economic, physical and natural factors, which contribute
significantly to food insecurity.

The first objective was to a large extent implemented using brainstorming with
structured questionnaires and face-to face interviews with the farmers’ groups. The
second and third objectives involved collecting information from the stake holders in
the four locations through interviewing key informants that included researchers from
National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems (NARES) and International
Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs), extension agents, NGOs, agro-dealers,
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and farmers. The interviews entailed the use
of semi structured questionnaires and face-to-face interviews. Additionally, secondary
data and the use of prior knowledge was also applied for these two objectives.
3.10. Reliability of the Instrument
Reliability refers to the degree to which scores obtained with an instrument are
consistent measures (Kothari, 2008). To test the reliability of the instruments, the
study used test-retest technique. Test-retest reliability is measured by administering a
test twice at two different points in time. According to Okeyo (2015) reliability is also
checked by comparing farmers’ responses with those of other farmers and sources.
Cooper and Schindler (2001) explain reliability of research as determining whether the
research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the
research results are. Pre-test study is thus conducted to detect weakness in design and
instrumentation and to provide accurate data for selection of a sample.

Pre-test was used to improve the questionnaire, semi-structured questions and

interviews and test for reliability of the instruments. The study dealt with experts and

32
farmers from different locations of Mwala sub-county who were issued with the
questionnaires. The experts were required to assess if the questionnaires helped in
assessing the food security issue and the factors affecting it. Farmers who participated
in the pre-test study were not involved in the main study. Pre-testing was carried out in
28 farmers’ groups to make 10% of the total number of the 275 farmers involved in
the study.

According to Orodho (2003) the number in the pre-test should be 10% of the entire
sample. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of items in
the questionnaire to gauge its reliability. Data reliability plays an important role
towards generalization of the gathered data to reflect the true characteristics of the
study problem (Klein and Ford, 2003). The analysis tested the internal consistency of
the instruments by computing Cronbach’s alpha to determine the reliability of the
instrument. Cronbach’s Alpha is a reliable coefficient that indicates how well items are
positively related to one another. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.712 was taken
as acceptable reliability. According to Cronbach (1957) a coefficient of between 0.7 ≤
α < 0.9 is taken to be good while that of α≥ 0.9 is taken to be excellent (George, 2003).

3.11. Pre-test Results

The coefficient of the data gathered from the pre-test study was computed with the assistance of
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21. The average

Cronbach’s Alpha value for the pre-test was 0.712 as shown in table 3.3, meaning the items
under each variable, were consistent.

Table 0.3: Reliability Test

Variable Cronbach’s No of Items
Alpha
Natural factors .780 3
Socio-economic factors .883 4
Physical factors .563 4
Food security .623 5

Average Cronbach’s Alpha for all variables .712 16

33
 Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

3.12. Data Processing and Analysis

Data analysis is the process of evaluating data using analytical and logical reasoning to
examine each component of the data provided. SPSS version 21.0 was used to
generate descriptive statistics including frequency counts and percentages. The
relationship between the variables for example the level of farmers’ knowledge on
food security, social economic, physical and natural factors were determined using
Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on the SPSS software.

For this study descriptive, multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to
answer the specific objectives. The descriptive analysis involved computation of
means, standard deviation, percentages, and frequency of distribution for objective
number two. For objective one, a binary logistic regression analysis was employed to
indicate the likelihood of the independent variables being associated with food
security or insecurity.

3.13. Model Specification 1

Multiple Linear Regression analysis was adopted to establish the relationships between the
dependent and independent variables as described in equation 2.

Yβ0 β1X1β2X2 β3X3 ε ………………………………. (2)

Where; Y Food Security
β0 Constant β1,β2,&β3 
Coefficients

X1  Natural Factors

X2  Social Economic Factors

X3  Physical Factors ε
Residual Error

34
3.14. Model Specification 2
Modeling the determinants of the level of knowledge on food security at household
levels seems to comprise different methodologies and techniques. It includes the
different techniques from ordinary least square to discrete choice models. It is unwise
to use OLS regression when confronted with a binary dependent variable. The main
difficulty occurs with regression model when the researcher wishes to use a binary
variable as dependent variable. The variable does not follow normal distribution.
Rather, it is distributed as a binomial random variable. Connecting a regression line to
data points reveals the hetroscedasticity problem in linear relationship between
dependent and independent variable. Moreover, if an estimated OLS regression model
is carried out, the residuals are not normally distributed.

Therefore, using OLS regression on data with a binary dependent variable violates at
least two assumptions that underlie this model. There are two alternative regression
models that are used most often when dealing with a binary dependent variable:
Logistic regression and Probit regression. The discrete choice model has a number of
attractive features as compare to regression approach. The most important feature of
the discrete model approach is that it gives probabilistic estimates for the different
status of food security while regression approach does not have this particular feature.
It means that in regression analysis one cannot make any probability statement about
the effects of different explanatory variables on food security.

Owing to the marginal effects and the interrelationship of the level of farmers’
knowledge on food security and the level of awareness of food security, the farmer’s
level of knowledge on food security is modelled separately. A binary logit model was
employed in assessing determinants of farmer knowledge about food security. The
logit model was preferred owing to the fact that the dependent variable is discrete in
nature. According to Green and Hensher (2009), the logistic distribution is better in
applied research over the probit model because of computational complexity arising
from lack of a closed form for the normal cumulative density function on which the
probit model is based. With level of knowledge as the dependent variable, farmers

35
who were aware were identified and assigned the value of F1and 0 otherwise. The
logit model is specified as:

F 0 1t1 2t2 3t3 4t4 5t5 6t6…………………………. (3)

Where

F Level of farmer’s knowledge on food security

0  Constant

1,2,3,4,5 &6 Coefficients t1

Farm size t2 Gender t3  Education

t4 Income t5 Farmers Group t6
Type of Farmer
The a priori expectation of the probability of a household becoming food secure is stated as:

i. Age of household head: The age of household head is expected to impact on

his or her labour supply for food production. Young and energetic household
heads are expected to cultivate larger farms compared to the older and weaker
household head. It also determines the ability to seek and obtain off farm Jobs
and income which younger household heads can do better. Arene and Anyaeji
(2010) on the other hand, found older household heads to be more food
secure than the younger household heads. Hence the expected effects of age
of household head on food security could be positive or negative.

ii. Sex of household head: Sex of household head looks at the role played by
the individuals in providing households needs including acquisition of food.
Female headed households have higher dependency ratios which hinder
household capacity to allocate labour to on-farm or other income generating
activities. Also female headed household tend to be older and have fewer
years of education than male heads of household (FAO, 2012). The expected
effect of this variable is positive.

36
iii. Household size: The size of household determines the food security status of
the households. It is expected that as the household size increases, the
probability of food security decreases. This could mean that as the household
size increases there is larger number of people to be taken care of by the same
source of income. Hence the effect of the variable is negative.

iv. Income of Household: This refers to the sum of earnings of household from
both off-farm and on farm sources (Babatunde et al., 2007). The more
household head earns income the greater the chances of being food secure.

The income is expected to increase household’s food production and access to

more quantity and quality food. The expected effect of this variable on food
security is positive.

v. Education of Household Head: Education is expected to have positive

influence on household food security. As the level of education increases, the
percentage of food secure households increases. This is expected because
with increase in the level of education, individuals will be able to adopt more
modern farm technologies on their farms thus improving their productivity
and again have access to better job opportunities in the labour market. The
expected effect of this variable on food security is positive.

vi. Land Size: Land size is the total area of land cultivated to food and cash
crops by households measured in hectares. The larger the farm size of the
household, the higher the expected level of food production, it is therefore,
expected of a household with a larger farm size to be more food secure than a
household with a smaller farm size. Hence the expected effect on food
security is positive.

vii. Farmers’ Group: Farmers’ groups is the potential of a farmer to belong to a

farmers group or a cooperative the society within the Sub-county. The higher
the chances of belonging to a farmers’ group the higher the ability to access
government support such as seeds, training or credit facilities. Hence the
expected effect on food security is positive.

viii. Farmer Type: Farmer type refers to either small scale farmer or large scale
farmer. Farmer type is expected to have positive or negative influence on

37
 household food security. A large scale farmer is expected to have higher
impact on food security since he/she cultivates large tracts of land, hence
maximum production. A small scale farmer is prone to food insecurity since
the food production is also small. Membership to social and development
group like Merry-go-round, farmers’ savings and credit cooperative
organization (SACCO) were relatively higher among large scale farmers.

Table 3.4 depicts the Variables, Description and expected signs for the determinants of
level of awareness of food security. The table presents six variables that were used to
determine level of awareness. Among the variables used were size of land
(LANDSIZE), gender of the household (GENDER), education level of the farmer
(EDUC), income of the farmer (INCOME), Farmers Group (FARMERGP), and type
of the farmer (FARMTYPE). Gender refers to the roles played by both men and
women in the society. It was therefore expected that gender could have a significant
effect in terms of knowledge about food security. Further, education level of the
household was thought to have influence on awareness. Finally, average monthly
income was included because it was expected that it could explain awareness and
alternative risk mitigation strategies on food security. The table 3.4 presented indicates
the description and expected signs for the variables.

Table 0.4: Variables, Description and Expected Signs

Variable Description Expected sign

LANDSIZE Size of land in acres [1 = large scale, 0 = small 

scale] ]
GENDER Household gender [1 = male, 0 = female] 

EDUC Education level of the household [1 = high educ, 0 

= low educ]

INCOME Monthly income of the household [1 = High 

income, 0 = low income ]

FARMERGP Membership to a development group [1 = 

Yes, 0 =otherwise]

38
TYPEFARM Type of farmer either small or large scale [1 = 
large scale, 0 = otherwise]
Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

Following Greene (1993), the probability that farmer i is aware of food security can be
modelled as:

' x
 

 
Pr ob   Fi j  1 
e 
 
i
   ' xi  …………………………………… (4)

1e ' xi 

The subscripts i and j denote farmer awareness/knowledge where those who are aware
are assigned a value of 1 and 0 for otherwise. It should be noted that equation (3)
above represents the reduced form of the binomial logit model, where the xi row vector
of explanatory variables for the ith farmer and the non-observed i' s are assumed to
follow a distribution of logistic probability with a density function:

G'' xi ' xi 1' xi …………………………………………… (5)

The probability that farmer i is aware of food security is empirically estimated by the model
as:

Pr Fi 1 Xii i …………………………………………………. (6)

Where X represents a vector of socio-demographic characteristics that influence farmers

awareness of food security, i is a vector of parameters to be estimated while

i stochastic random term. The study also estimated marginal effects. According to
Otieno (2013), marginal effects measures instantaneous effects change in explanatory
variable on the predicted probability under the assumption that all other explanatory
variables are held constant. Thus, marginal effects are computed as follows:

39
 
m   

iXiiXi i  i ……………………………………………….….. (7)

For continuous explanatory variables.

In terms of dummy variables, equation (5) becomes

m  Fi
Pr

1
PrFi 
0
……………………………………….…………. (8)
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1. Introduction
This chapter presents analysed data that comprises of general information of the
respondents, food security, natural factors, socio-economic factors and physical factors
which are thought to affect food security awareness.

4.2. Response Rate

Orodho (2003) defines response rate as the extent to which the final data sets includes
all sample members and is calculated as the number of respondents with whom
interviews are completed and divided by the total number of respondents in the entire
sample including non-respondents. The study targeted 84 respondents from Mwala
sub-county. However, 60 questionnaires were filled correctly and returned. This
translates to 71.4% response rate (Table 4.1). A response rate of above 50% is
adequate for analysis (Babie, 2002) thus a response rate of 71.4 % in this study was
considered good and adequate for analysis.

Table 0.1: Response Rate

Category Frequency Percentage
Response 60 71.4
Non response 14 28.6

Total 84 100.0
Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.3. Requisite Tests

40
4.3.1. Sampling Adequacy: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test
Factorability is a major concern especially whereby a particular variable is measured
using different factors and that one of those factors is to be used to represent that
variable. Factorability is the assumption that there are at least some correlations
amongst the variables so that coherent factors can be identified. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) and Bartlett’s are measures of sampling adequacy that’s used to check
factorability. From table 4.2, the Bartlett’s test has a significant value of 0.002 which
is less than 0.005. KMO is also approximately greater than 0.5. We thus conclude that
there is some relationship among the variables hence the data is sufficient for
application of factor analysis.

Table 0.2: KMO and Bartlett's Tests

Sampling Adequacy Tests Values
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure 0.52
of sampling adequacy
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 20.716
6
Df

Sig. .002
Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.3.2. Multicollinearity
Multicollinearity is the undesirable situation where the correlations among the
independent variables are strong. For Multiple Regression to be applicable, there
should be no strong relationships among the independent variables. Statistics used to
measure multicollinearity include tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF).
Tolerance of a respective independent variable is calculated from 1 - R 2. A tolerance
with a value close to 1 means there is little multicollinearity, whereas a value close to
0 suggests that multicollinearity may be present. The reciprocal of the tolerance is
known as Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). A VIF of 5 or greater than 5, indicates
there is multicollinearity associated with that variable. Table 4.3 shows the values of
the statistics, obtained from the data. The table indicates the test results for
multicollinearity, using both the VIF and tolerance. With VIF values being less than 5,
it was concluded that there was no presence of multicollinearity in this study.

41
 Table 0.3: Table of Multicollinearity Statistics

Model Collinearity Statistics

Variable Tolerance VIF

Natural factors .823 1.216

Socio-economic factors .916 1.092

Physical factors .771 1.296

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019
4.3.3. Inferential Analysis: Correlations of the Study Variables
Table 4.4 illustrates the correlation matrix among the independent variables.
Correlation is often used to explore the relationship among a group of variables
(Pallant, 2010). That the correlation values are not close to 1 or -1 is an indication that
the factors are sufficiently different measures of separate variables (Hope-Hailey
Farndale, and Kelliher, 2010). It is also an indication that the variables are not
multicollinear. Absence of multicollinearity allows the study to utilize all the
independent variables.

Table 0.4: Pearson Correlation

Dependent and independent Natural Physical Food Socio-economic
vari ables factors factors security factors

Pearson
1 .420* .294* .011
Natural factors Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .011 .465
Pearson
.420* 1 .398* .025
Physical factors Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .001 .425
Pearson
.294* .398* 1 -.243*
Food security Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed) .011 .001 .030
.011 .025 -.243* 1
Pearson Socio-
economic
Correlation

42
factors
Sig. (1-tailed) .465 .425 .030
N=60
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). Source:
Author computations from field data, 2019

Table 4.4 indicated that natural factors and physical factors have significant positive
moderate relationship as attributed by the correlation coefficient of 0.420 and p-value
of 0.000. Logically it is expected that the two influence each other in various aspects.
The results shows presence of a positive and significant weak relationship between
natural factors and food security as proved by the p-value and the correlation
coefficient (r=0.294, p=0.011<0.05). There is a very weak but insignificant
relationship between natural factors and socio-economic factors since the p value of

0.465 is greater than 0.05 level of significance and the correlation coefficient is 0.11.

The correlation matrix table shows presence of significant positive relationship

between physical factors and food security (r=0.398, p=0.001). The results further
show an insignificant relationship between physical factors and socio-economic
factors as attributed the p value and correlation coefficient (r=0.025, p=0.425). A
significant negative relationship between socio-economic factors and food security can
be observed as indicated by the Pearson correlation coefficient of ̶ 0.243 and a pvalue
of 0.030.

4.3.4. Regression Analysis Results

A multiple linear regression analysis was done to examine the relationship of the
independent variables with the dependent variable. The adjusted R2 is the coefficient
of determination. This value explains how food security varied with natural factors,
socio-economic factors and physical factors. The model summary (Table 4.5) shows
that 76.3% of variation in food security can be explained by the three predictors
namely natural factors, socio-economic factors and physical factors an implication that
the remaining 23.7% of the variation in food security could be accounted for by other
factors not included in this study.

43
 Table 0.5: Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .885a .783 .763 .939

a. Predictors: (Constant), natural factors, socio-economic factors, physical factors Source:
Author computations from field data, 2019

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done to establish the fitness of the model used.
The table 4.6 shows that the F-ratio (F=5.959, p=.001) was statistically significant.
This means that the model used was appropriate and the relationship of the variables
shown could not have occurred by chance.
Table 0.6: ANOVA
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares

Regression 9.824 3 3.275 5.959 .001b

1 Residual 30.776 56 .550
Total 40.600 59

a. Dependent Variable: food security

b. Predictors: (Constant), natural factors, socio-economic factors, physical factors Source:
Author computations from field data, 2019

The estimated coefficients (βs) show the contribution of each independent variable to
the change in the dependent variable. The coefficients in table 4.7 results show that
natural factors (β=.110, p=.233) though positive, insignificantly affected food security
in Mwala sub-county. The results also show that socio-economic factors (β= -0.139,
p=.033) negatively and significantly affected food security. Physical factors (β=

0.281, p=.011) were found to positively and significantly influence food security.

Table 0.7: Coefficients of Determination

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.

44
 Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 1.479 .287 5.158 .000
Natural factors .110 .0.091 .155 1.205 .233
1 Socio-economic
factors -.139 .064 -.254 -2.180 .033

physical factors 0.281 .106 .339 2.644 .011

a. Dependent Variable: food security
Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.4. Level of Awareness of Food Security

The concept of food security knowledge was analysed from a concept knowledge perspective and
the local farmer know-how perspective.

4.4.1. Perception on Respondents’ Concept on Food Security

To measure how respondents perceived the concept of food security; a five point
hedonic scale was prepared. In order to capture their knowledge on food security,
respondents were asked to mention what their understanding on food security was. The
aim of this exercise was to examine whether the four basic component of food security
(adequate, accessibility, stability of food supply and sustainability of food
procurement) were clear to the household respondents. Table 4.8 shows results of five
point hedonic scale measuring knowledge on food security. From Table 4.8, 59.9% of
all the respondents had excellent knowledge on food security, with Mwala location
having the highest number of knowledgeable respondents.

In Muusini location, respondents had the least number of excellent knowledge among
the four locations and had a highest number of neutral and moderate knowledge
respondents that was 30% and 26.4% respectively. Extremely ignorant and moderate
ignorant household of respondents did not exist in Mwala location but did exist in
Mbiuni location 3.5% and 6.8%, in Muusini location 6.4% and 0.5%, and in Kabaa

3.4% and 3.6%.

45
Table 0.8: Percentage of respondents with Knowledge on Food Security Concept
N=60
Location
Type of knowledge Mbiun Muusin Mwal Kabaa Total
i i a %
Extremely Ignorant (Know Nothing) 3.5 6.4 0.0 3.4 3.3

Moderate Ignorant (below average) 6.8 0.5 0.0 3.6 2.7

11.0 30.0 16.7 3.7 15.3
Neutral (No clear evidence of
presence of lack of knowledge)

Moderate knowledge (above average) 12.0 26.4 13.3 23.3 18.8

Excellent knowledge 66.7 36.7 70.0 66.0 59.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

During Focus Group Discussion (FGD`s), which were conducted among the four
locations, the discussants were asked to explain their understanding on the term ‘food
security’ from local perspectives. Participants in Kabaa location agreed unanimously
that, a family would be considered food secure if it had enough maize grain for the
entire season, while participants from Mbiuni location mentioned ‘food security’ to
mean having enough maize to run for the whole year. Participants from Muusini and
Mbiuni location explained that, a family may have large quantities of other cereal
crops like millet/sorghum or maize grains yet the majority of households will still
consider the family to be food insecure simply because they do not have beans. The
same observation was made in Mwala and Kabaa locations. In Kabaa location where
by participants considers being food insecure if there is no enough maize even if there
is plenty of cassava.

Commenting on the concept of food security, one member from Mwala Location
attested that “if household rely very much on maize for Githeri (mixture of maize and

46
beans) preparation it implies that, the household is food insecure”. Most household in
Kabaa location consumed Githeri after the depletion of their cassava, mainly between
February and April. In Mbiuni location, most of the household consumed food other
than cassava in time when cassava stock got finished either due to crop rot, while in
the field or because of excessive selling of raw cassava. In general participants
complained that, there was a problem among the households on maintaining well
balanced diet on their daily menu.

4.4.2. Determinants of Farmer Awareness

In order to ensure that explanatory variables included in the model were not in any way
correlated with each other, a multicollinearity test was done through a variance inflation
factor (VIF) computation. A simple ordinary least square (OLS) regression was estimated
with awareness as the dependent variable with the rest as explanatory variables. The VIF
quantifies the severity of multicollinearity in an ordinary least squares regression.
According to Gujarati (2004), VIF shows how the variance of an estimator is inflated by
the presence of multicollinearity. The calculation of VIF follows equation 9;

1
VIF  …………………………………………………… (9)

2
1 Ri

2 2
Where Ri is the R of the regression with the ith independent variable as a dependent
variable. Table 4.9 presents the results of the VIF. The mean VIF is 1.31 with
explanatory variables having a VIF ranging from 1.05 to 1.59. The VIF for the
independent variables are less than five (<5) implying zero multicollinearity. This
justifies the inclusion of these variables in the binary logit model (Maddala, 2000).

Table 0.9: VIF for Explanatory Variables

Variable VIF 1/VIF

FARMDSIZE 1.58 0.633
INCOME 1.53 0.654

47
 LANDSIZE 1.52 0.658
EDUC 1.07 0.935
GENDER 1.05 0.953
FARMERGP 1.04 0.962

Mean VIF 1.30

Source: Model Analysis 2019

Table 4.9 presents the results of the binary logit model. The coefficient values explain
the influence of each explanatory variable on the probability of respondents being
aware about food security. Furthermore, the marginal effects give what would happen
immediately if farmers become aware about food security. The independent variables
that significantly influenced farmer awareness were gender, education, and income of
the household.
Table 0.10: Logit Model Estimates of the Determinants of Farmers’ Awareness on
Food Security (Gender and Education Level Considered Categorical)

Variable Estimates B S.E. Sig. Odds Ratio

Land size .215 .110 .049 1.240
Gender(male) -2.647 .975 .007 .071
Education level .136
Education level (none) 2.135 1.718 .214 8.456
Education level (primary) 1.126 1.178 .339 3.085
-.623 1.196 .602 .536
Education level (secondary)
Monthly income .000 .000 .716 1.000
Farmer member of group?(no) -3.154 2.413 .191 .043
Farmer type(small scale) 1.829 .996 .066 6.229
Constant -2.697 1.545 .081 .067
Source: Model Analysis, 2019

48
The results in table 4.10 show that people with bigger tracts of land were more aware
of food security as compared to those with smaller parcels of land. Male headed
households were less aware of food security as compared to female headed households
by as much as 7%. The implication of this is that female headed households are more
aware of food security than male headed households.

The odds of being aware of food security for farmers who have never been to school
was 8 times greater than the odds of those who have been to tertiary level. The
chances of being aware of food security for those who had attained primary education
level was 3 times higher than those who had been to tertiary level. On the contrary, the
odds of being aware of food security was about 53.6% less for those who had been to
secondary level compared to those who were educated up to tertiary level. This
implies that farmers’ awareness was increased by the education level such as technical
institutes, colleges and university compared lower levels of education.

The level of household income had no influence on the level of food security
awareness whereas involvement in a farmers’ group significantly impacted on the
level of awareness. Those who did not belong to farmers’ group were about 4.3 % less
likely to be aware of food security compared to those who were members of any
farmers’ group. At the same time, large-scale farmers were about 6 times more likely
to be aware of food security compared to smallscale farmers in Mwala sub-county.
The odds ratio corresponding to the constant term was 0.067 which implies that
regardless of the land size, gender, education level and monthly income, residents of
Mwala sub-county are generally less aware of food security by about 6.7%.

4.5. Food Security Status

4.5.1. Respondents Rating on Food Accessibility
Majority of the respondents (51.7%) reported that it was difficult to access food in the
household, 28.3% felt that it was difficult getting food, 18.3% were neutral about the
statement while the smallest percentage (1.7%) said that food access was easy (Table

49
4.11). The implication of this is that generally it is very difficult for household in Mwala sub-
county to access food.

Table 0.11: Food Access Rating

Opinion Frequency Percent

Very difficult 31 51.7

Difficult 17 28.3

11 18.3
Neutral
Easy 1 1.7

Total 60 100.0
Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

About 98% of the respondents evaluated food security status in their households as
insecure in relation to their food access rate, while only 2% reported to be food secure
(figure 4.1). This implies that the status of food security amongst residents of Mwala
sub-county is very low, with most of them being food insecure.

Figure 0.1: Food Security Status

50
4.5.2. Descriptive Statistics on Food Security
4.5.2.1. Number of Meals per Day
On average members in Mwala sub-county households take two (2) meals per day.
This is further supported by the results on table 4.12 and figure 4.1 that depicts that
majority of the households members (66.7%) take two (2) meals, followed by those
who take three (3) meals (23.3%) per day. Only 10% of the household members take
one at least one (1) meal per day. The results further imply that household members
takes at least a meal per day.

Table 0.12: Meals taken in a day

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

No. of meals taken

60 1.00 3.00 2.1333 .56648
per day

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.5.2.2. Main Food Consumed Within the Households

The biggest percentage (65%) of the households in Mwala sub-county depend on maize
(maize flour) as the main food, followed by those who mainly consume both maize and
beans (26.7%), then those who feed on maize, rice and beans (5%) while the least number of
households (5%) reported that their meals are mostly made of either maize or rice (Table
4.13 and Figure 4.2).

Table 0.13: Main food taken

Food type Frequency Percent
Maize (Flour) 39 65.0
Maize and beans 16 26.7
Maize and rice 2 3.3
Maize, rice, beans 3 5.0

Total 60 100.0
Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

51
 Figure 0.2: Number of meals per day

4.5.3. Causes of Food Insecurity

All participating respondents (100%) attributed their food insecurity to low and
variable rainfall pattern while, 88.3% reported that postharvest losses were the main
cause of food insecurity in their household. At the same time, 86.7% attributed their
food insecurity status to poor agricultural practices with another 81.7% attributing
high human population as a major contributing factor. Land degradation was reported
to affect 78.3% of the population leading to unstable food supply, while poor market
and conflicts were recorded as major causes of food insecurity by 73.3% and 36.7%
respondents respectively. Other causes reported included HIV/AIDS, old age, death of
livestock and fluctuation on food prices (Table 4.14).

Table 0.14: Food insecurity causes in Mwala sub-county

Cause of Food Insecurity Frequency Percent

Low and variable rainfall 60 100.0
Poor agricultural practices 52 86.7
High human Population 49 81.7
Land degradation 47 78.3
Conflict 22 36.7

52
 Postharvest losses 53 88.3
Poor market 44 73.3
Others: Death of livestock 1 1.7
Fluctuation in food price 1 1.7
HIV/AIDS 4 6.7
Old age 1 1.7

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.5.4. Factor Influencing Food Security

The respondents were asked to indicate the factor mostly affecting food security in
their respective households. A considerable number pointed out land use and changes
in the rainfall pattern (climate change) with 66.7% and 61.7% respectively (table
4.15). Some 48.3% of the respondents reported access to market as the most
influencing factor on food security while 30% pointed out the governance. The results
have an interpretation that land use affects food security the most in the households of
Mwala sub-county.

Table 0.15: Factor Influencing Food Security

Factor Frequency(out of 60) Percent

Climate change 37 61.7

Governance 18 30

Access to market 29 48.3

Land use 40 66.7

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.6. Social-economic Factors Influencing Food Security

4.6.1. Demographic Factors
4.6.1.1. Respondents’ Household Position
Of the respondents, a bigger percentage (60%) was household heads while the remaining 40%
was not (table 4.16).

53
 Table 0.16: Head of Household

Head of Frequency Percent Valid Percent

household?

Yes 36 60.0 60.0

No 24 40.0 40.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.6.1.2. Distribution by Gender

The respondents profiled comprised of 65% females and 35% males. This Implies that majority
of the respondents who participated in the study were females.

Figure 0.3: Distribution by gender

4.6.1.3. Distribution by Age and Level of Education
Most of the respondents (33.3%) were aged between 50 to 60 years, followed closely
by those between 41 to 50 years (31.7%) and those between 31 to 40 years (21.7%).
On the other hand, majority (53.3%) of the respondents had attained secondary level of
education, followed by those with primary level of education (28.3%), then those with
tertiary level of education (13.3%). About 5% of the respondents had no basic
education. The implication of these results is that majority of those interviewed were

54
between 31 to 60 years of age inclusive and had attained either the primary or
secondary level of education (Table 4.17).

Table 0.17: Respondents’ age and level of education

Respondent’s Respondent's level of education Frequency age None Primary Secondary
Tertiary
18-24 years 3.3% 1 0 1 0 2
25-30 years 6.7% 0 1 2 1 4
Age of the 31-40 years 21.7% 0 2 7 4 13
respondent 41-50 years
31.7% 0 4 13 2 19
50-60 years 33.3% 2 10 8 0 20
over 60 years 3.3% 0 0 1 1 2
Total 3 17 32 8 60

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.6.1.4. Descriptive on the Household Size and Average Monthly Income The
average number of people living in a particular household in Mwala sub-county was 6
persons, with the minimum number of people being 2 and the maximum number being
12 persons. The standard deviation of 2.246 in table 4.18 implied that the average
number of persons living in a particular household lie between 3 and 8. Therefore that
there was no huge difference between the number of persons living in a particular
household and the other.

On average the monthly average income of household in Mwala Sub-county was

KSh.10, 308.33 with the minimum and maximum average monthly income for the households in
this study being KSh. 2,000 and KSh. 35,000 respectively. The standard deviation was Ksh.
8,260, relatively bigger. This is an implication that there is a large difference between the average
monthly incomes of households. Some households earn high monthly income compared to others.

Table 0.18: Number of people and average monthly income

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Number of people
60 2 12 5.80 2.246

55
 in the household
Average monthly
60 2,000 35,000 10,308.33 82,60.120
income
Valid N (list wise) 60

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.6.1.5. Respondents’ Occupation

Majority of the respondents (83.3%) were purely Crop farmers, 10% were both
business persons and farmers, 5% were employed while 1.7% comprised of crop and
livestock keeper as shown on table 4.19. This imply that farming is the main source of
food for majority of households.

Table 0.19: Respondents Occupation

Occupation Frequency Percent

Business + farming 6 10.0

Employed 3 5

Crop Farming 50 83.3

Crop and livestock keeping 1 1.7
Total 60 100.0

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.6.1.6. Market Food Prices

Most of the respondents (51.7%) reported the food prices at the market as very high
(Figure 4.4) compared to the prevailing food prices in other Markets within the
county. About 31.7% rated the food prices as high, 10% as moderate, and 1.65% as

56
low and 1.65% as very low.

Figure 0.4: Food Prices Rating

4.6.2. Government and Food Security

Awareness on food security as a human right was used to identify the impact of
governance on food security. The respondents were asked whether they were aware
that food security is a human right and majority (55%) reported that they were aware
while the remaining 45% were not aware as shown in table 4.20.

Table 0.20: Food Security Awareness as a Human Right

Frequency Percent

57
 Aware 33 55.0
Not aware 27 45.0

Total 60 100.0

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.6.3. Socio-economic Factors in Relation to Food Security

Majority (38.3%) of the respondents strongly disagreed to the statement that
government ensure that households have adequate food. This was followed by those
who strongly agreed to the statement at 23.3%, then those who disagreed to the
statement 16.7%, then those who agree (13.3%) and finally those who were neutral on
the statement (8.3%) (Table 4.21).

The respondents were also asked to give their opinion on whether the ministry of
agriculture advises them on the best agricultural practices. Table 4.21, shows that
majority (30%) of the respondents strongly disagreed, followed by those who agreed
(20%), then those who disagreed and strongly agreed (18.3%) and finally those who
were neutral on the statement (13.3%). In general the residents of Mwala sub-county
don’t agree with the statement.

About 28.3% of the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement that the
government provides them with certified seeds (table 4.21), this was followed by those
who disagreed and strongly agreed (21.7%). Next was those who agreed (18.3%) and
finally those who were neutral on the statement (10%). This implies that majority of
the respondents did not have access to government subsidised seeds.

Table 0.21: Responses on Socio-economic Factors

58
Statement Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
agree disagree

Government ensure 14(23.3%) 8(13.3%) 5(8.3%) 10(16.7%) 23(38.3%)

that households have
adequate food

Ministry of agriculture 11(18.3%) 12(20.0%) 8(13.3%) 11(18.3%) 18(30%)

advise on best
agricultural practices

Government provides 13(21.7%) 11(18.3%) 6(10.0%) 13(21.7%) 17(28.3%)

seeds to farmers

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

Respondents’ opinion on the extent to which they think the government affect the
availability of food in their households is shown on table 4.22. Majority (31.7%)
reported that the government affect food availability in the house hold to a very small
extent.

Table 0.22: Extent to Which Government Affect Food Availability in Household

Frequency Percent

Very large extent 16 26.7

Large extent 10 16.7

Neutral 9 15.0

Small extent 6 10.0

Very small extent 19 31.7
Total 60 100.0

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.7. Physical Factors Influencing Food Security

4.7.1. Market Accessibility and Food Availability

59
On average the residents of Mwala sub-county have to cover about 10.5 Kilometres to
access the market in order to buy or sell food. The distance covered range between 0.5 to
more than 10.5 Kilometres (Table 4.23).

Table 0.23: Distance Covered to Access the Market

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation
Distance to the market 60 .50 30.00 10.5250 6.67491
Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

The effect of market accessibility on food availability affected to a very large extend
majority (58.9%) of Mwala Sub-county residents. This was followed by those who
indicated large extent (26.7%). The results are as shown in table 4.24.

Table 0.24: Extent to which Market Accessibility Affect Food Availability

Feedback Frequency Percent

Very large extent 35 58.3

Large extent 16 26.7
Neutral 3 5.0

Small extent 1 1.7

Very small extent 5 8.3
Total 60 100.0

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

Respondents’ feedback was sought on the means they use to transport their produce to
and from the market. About 57% reported that they carry the produce themselves. This
was followed closely by those who use public means (53.3%), then 46.7% those who
use donkeys and finally only 1.7% of those who use camels (Table 4.25). The
implication of these results is that majority of residents of Mwala sub-county either

60
carry the produce themselves or use public transport to take their produce to the
market and that camel transport is hardly ever used among the residents.

Table 0.25: Means of Transport

Means Frequency(out of 60) Percent

Donkey 28 46.7

Camel
1 1.7
Carry themselves
34 56.7
Public means
32 53.3

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.7.2. Land size, use and productivity

On average, residents of Mwala sub-county own about 7 acres of land with some
owning up to 30 acres and the least owning less than an acre. Of the total land size, on
average about 66% is under food related activities, with some utilizing the entire piece
of land for food production and some as low as 5% of the total land size. The standard
deviation of 20.5 implies a large spread about the average percentage of land used for
food related activities (Table 4.26).

Table 0.26: Land size and percentage of land under food related activities

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Land size .13 30.00 7.3396 5.64735
Percentage of land under
5.00 100.00 66.1450 20.53324
Food related activities
Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

61
In terms of land productivity, majority (51.7%) reported very low production from their
land. Twenty percent (20%) rated their land productivity low, 16.7% rated it as moderate,
8.3% rated it high while only a small percentage (3.3%) reported that their land
productivity is very high (Table 4.27). This has an interpretation that in general land
productivity is low in Mwala sub-county.

Table 0.27: Extent of Land Productivity

Frequency Percent
Very high 2 3.3
High 5 8.3
Moderate 10 16.7

Low 12 20.0
Very low 31 51.7
Total 60 100.0

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

On the extent to which size of land affect food availability in the household, 56.7%
rated it very large, 20% rated it large and minority (3.3%) rated it very small extent
(Table 4.28). This is an implication that majority of the residents in the sub-county
were of the opinion that land size is a key factor influencing food availability in their
respective households.

Table 0.28: Extend of Effect of Land Size on Food Availability

Frequency Percent

Very large extent 34 56.7

Large extent 12 20.0
Neutral 8 13.3

Small extent 4 6.7

Very small extent 2 3.3
Total 60 100.0

62
 Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.8. Natural Factors Influencing Food Security

4.8.1. Important Hazards in the Area
With regards to the hazards experienced, majority (68.3%) of the respondents reported
that they had experienced delayed rains, followed closely by those who experience
drought (66.7%) while a minority had experienced flash floods (Table

4.29).
Table 0.29: Hazards Experienced in Mwala Sub-county

Hazard Frequency Percent

Drought
40 66.7

Flash floods
8 13.3

Delayed rains
41 68.3

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

Drought was rated as the most important hazard recurring in Mwala sub-county by
63.3% of the respondents followed by flood (33.3%). Out of all respondents about
26.7% rated pests and diseases as the third important hazard. The least rated hazard
was water shortage (6.7%) (Table 4.30). This implies that Mwala households have
enough water supply for their domestic needs despite the fact that drought is
catastrophic in the area.

Table 0.30: Most Important Hazards

Hazard rating Hazard Valid N Frequency Percent

Hazard rated first Drought 60 38 63.3

Hazard rated second Flood 60 20 33.3

63
 Hazard rated third Pest and diseases 57 16 26.7
Hazard rated fourth Animal diseases 40 7 11.7

Hazard rated fifth Malaria 37 8 13.3

Hazard rated sixth Increasing food prices 37 5 8.3
Hazard rated seventh Conflict 36 7 11.7
Hazard rated eighth Water shortage 36 4 6.7

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

4.8.2. Climate Change and Food Security

About 70% of the respondents strongly agreed that they had noticed weather changes
in the area, 15% agreed, 6.7% neither agreed nor disagreed, 3% disagreed while 3.3%
strongly disagreed. This implies that majority of the respondents had noticed the
weather changes in Mwala sub-county.

Sixty one point seven percent (61.7%) strongly agreed to the statement that climate
changes affect grazing and farming. This formed the majority followed by about 20%
who agreed, the next 11.7% comprised of those who neither agreed nor disagreed
while 3.3% disagreed and strongly disagreed with the statement. This implies that
about 81.7% concurred with the statement that climate changes affect their grazing and
farming in the area (Table 4.31).

Table 0.31: Opinion on weather changes within Mwala sub-county

Statement Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
agree disagree

I have noticed weather 42(70.0%) 9(15.0%) 4(6.7%) 3(5.0%) 2(3.3%)

changes in the area
Weather changes affect 37(61.7%) 12(20.0%) 7(11.7%) 2(3.3%) 2(3.3%)
farming and grazing of
livestock

Source: Author computations from field data, 2019

64
 CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
5.1. Food Security Status in Mwala
Majority of the households covered in the research (98%) indicated that they were
exposed to food shortage within the sub-county. The status of food security amongst
residents of Mwala sub-county is very low, with only 7% of the total households being
food secure.

A multiple regression analysis model was used to measure the food security index of
Mwala Sub-county. From the multiple regression results in Table 4.20, equation 2
yields;

Y 1.479  0.110X1  0.139X2  0.281X3

According to the regression equation established, holding all independent factors

constant, food security index was approximated at 2. This is interpreted to mean that at
the baseline, that is, when natural, socio-economic and physical factors are held
constant, then it would be difficult for the households in Mwala sub-county to get
food. The study shows that the households in Mwala sub-country on average (66.7%)
have the privilege of taking two meals per day (Table 4.12). The results further imply
that households take at least 1 meal per day. Wambua (2008), learned that households
skipped a meal as a coping strategy to periods of food shortage. Other strategies
adopted by households that Adekoya (2009) identified included, consumption of
unconventional food, reliance on help from relatives or friends outside the household,
reduction in quantity served to children and purchasing food on credit. This indicates
that, although Mwala Sub-county households have access to food, but its sustainability
is not guaranteed while at the same time, its quantity is limited.

From the regression equation taking all other independent variables at zero, a unit
increase in natural factors will lead to approximately 1 unit increase in food security
(Table 4.7). The interpretation of this is that, as the extent to which weather or climatic
factors approach or tend to small extent, the easier it becomes for the households in

65
Mwala sub-county to get food. However, this influence is rendered insignificant by the
corresponding p value of 0.233 (Table 4.7).
A unit increase in socio-economic factors will lead to approximately 1 unit decrease in
food security (Table 4.7). This means that the more irresponsible/reluctant the
government becomes in advising and supporting residents of Mwala sub-county on
agricultural related activities, the more difficult it would be for them to get food. A
number of the residents of Mwala sub-country reported not to have received
government support on agricultural issues (Table 4.15). Accordingly, the study brings
out the impact of the government in promoting food security among its citizens.

A unit increase in physical factors will lead to approximately 1 unit increase in food
security (Table 4.7). The implication of this result is that the lower the market prices
for the produce becomes the easier it would be for the households to get food hence
food secure. This is because households would not be encouraged to sell their little
harvest and further that it will be easier for them to buy food from the market when
they have little or none. Other measure that will possibly contribute to food security
under the physical factors is improvement in land utilization on agriculture related
activities.

Food is a basic human need. However, the accessibility and availability of enough
food in the desired quality throughout the year remains a dream for many people
within Mwala sub-county. Majority (51.7%) of the residents of Mwala Sub-county
find it difficult to access food in the household with only a small percentage (1.7%)
having ease access (Table 4.11). With an average household size of 6 members, most
of the households hardly meet and sustain their food needs (Table 4.18). They
therefore adopted varied coping strategies such as; reducing or rationing household
consumption and reducing the number of meals per day (to 2 or 1) (Table 4.12). Such
kind of adaptation exposes household members to disease attack since they try to work
hard in farms while consuming small quantity of a diet that is also unbalanced.
Generally it is very difficult for household in Mwala sub-county to access food. Many
factors contribute to this matter as the residents continue to battle with frequent

66
droughts, market inaccessibility, lack of government support, low income levels, poor
production and decreasing land size.

5.2. Food Security Awareness and Knowledge

Food security does not just mean physical availability of any single commodity such
as maize as is the case depicted by Mwala sub-county residents. The concept of Food
security covers availability, accessibility in terms of affordability in adequate
quantities, stability in supply and sustainability and utilization of the food. The study
showed a 59.9% excellent knowledge on food security by residents of Mwala location
(Table 4.8). The possible explanation of that situation might have been because of
higher literacy rate among respondents. It was also identified that nutritional security
was wanting among the households. Lack of sustainable income was the main reason
identified to contribute heavily on the food insecurity problem in Mwala Sub-county.

Despite majority of the respondents having excellent knowledge on food security, that
did not mean majority of households were food secure. The high food insecure
households consume at least a meal per day for an average of six family member
(Table 4.12 and 4.18). A half of the population are farmers (50%) whose earnings
largely go to food purchase depend on average KSh.10, 308 per month (Table 4.18),
which is below the recommended Kshs. 18,168 by FAO /World Bank (GOK 2001;
2004). Unfortunately, this is not enough to buy other necessary foods like meat, fish,
sugar, milk and other nutrition foods throughout the year. In addition, the cost of
production within these households is high compared to the output. This situation
makes households have limited access to nutritious food from either farm production
or market purchase hence exposing them to the consequences of food insecurity. The
lack of any of the four aspects of food security results in food insecurity, a common
phenomenon in the sub-county.

It was observed that to most of the household, the concept of food security in the
surveyed area implied physical availability of one commodity (maize). Majority of the
household were aware of food security but could not identify with the four concepts of
food security. Food security has generally been taken as synonymous with maize

67
security (Nyoro et al., 1999). In the context of Mwala sub-county, having enough
maize to last a season or the whole year meant the residents were food secure. Others
believe food security means having enough maize and beans to support the family.
While most households rely on maize as a staple crop, the declining production
exacerbates the food security issue in the sub-county. Maize is a staple crop and
contributes about 50% of daily caloric intake for most households (USDA, 2009).
However, sole consumption of maize does not provide the recommended nutrients to
the households, hence leading to nutritional insecurity. From the farmers’ perspective,
it is evident that the residents of Mwala sub-county did not have an idea of the four
concepts of food security.

5.3. Determinants of Farmer Awareness

Gender, education, and income of the household significantly influenced farmer
awareness of food security. The results show that a unit increase in land size, increase
food security awareness by about 24 % among residents of Mwala sub-county (Table
4.7). This implies that those people with bigger tracts of land were more aware of food
security as compared to those with smaller parcels of land. On the other hand Male
headed households were less aware of food security as compared to female headed
households by as much as 7% (Table 4.10). These results are in contract with
Adugna’s (2011) work, which showed that female headed households were food
insecure than male headed households. The implication of this is that female headed
households are more aware of food security than male headed households. This could
be attributed to the fact that women usually spend more time on the farms as compared
to men. According to Karaya et al., (2013), women play a major role in primary food
production and are therefore the main custodians of food security. The results are
consistent with those of Adesope et al,. (2010) who found out that female consumers
in Northern Nigeria were more likely to be aware of safety labels of sugar.

The odds of being aware of food security for farmers who have never been to school is
about 8 times greater than the odds of those who have been to tertiary level. The
chances of being aware of food security for those who had attained primary education
level was about 3 times lower than those who had been to tertiary level. On the

68
contrary, the odds of being aware of food security was about 53.6% less for those who
had been to secondary level compared to those who were educated up to tertiary level

(Table 4.10). This implies that those farmers who had been to technical institutes, colleges and
university were more aware of food security compared to those who had been to secondary
schools. Low education levels is frequently the basis to unemployable skills, strong cultural
beliefs and practices leading to low adoption rate in modern farming practices hence awareness of
food security and its concepts (Wambua et al., 2014).

The level of household income had no influence on the level of food security
awareness however, farmers’ participation in a farming group increased their food
security awareness. Those who did not belong to farmers’ group were about 4.3% less
likely to be aware of food security compared to those who were members of any
farmers’ group (Table 4.10). This finding concurs with those of Kumar (2011) that
farmer’s participation in social and community-based organization increased the
probability of being aware about food security. Small scale farmers were more aware
of food security compared to large scale farmers in Mwala sub-county. Consequently,
regardless of the land size, gender, education level and monthly income, residents of
Mwala sub-county are generally less aware of food security let alone its concepts or
focus points.

5.4. Causes of Food Insecurity

In the recent years, Kenya has been facing severe food insecurity problems attributed
to several factors; Climatic factors, high costs of domestic food production as a result
of high costs of inputs especially fertilizer, internal displacement of farmers, high
global food prices, low purchasing power due to high level of poverty among others
(Wambua et al., 2014; Endalew et al., 2015).

Food security is closely tied to natural, physical and social-economic factors that have
significant and moderate positive relationship which influences each other in various
aspects. From the results a positive and significant weak relationship between natural
factors and food security was identified. Normally natural factors such as climate
change, drought, floods and famine are important determinants of food security
situation in different parts of the world (FEWS NET, 2013). There too was a very

69
weak but insignificant relationship between natural factors and socio-economic
factors. This is in concurrence with what one would expect as natural factors are
sometimes unpredictable and uncontrollable.

From the correlation matrix a significant positive relationship between physical factors
and food security was observed. This could be because physical factors are mostly
human controlled and may have significant influence on food security issue. The
results further show presence of insignificant relationship between physical factors and
socio-economic (Table 4.4). This therefore imply that in Mwala subcounty governance
has minimal or no influence on market accessibility, education levels and land use.

Furthermore, a significant negative relationship between socio-economic factors and

food security was detected (Table 4.7). This means that national and local government
have a negative influence on food security in Mwala sub-county. Mwala sub-country
residents (100%) attribute their food insecurity to low and variable rainfall pattern,
postharvest losses (88.3%), poor agricultural practices (86.7%) and population
pressure (81.7%). Land degradation was reported to affect 78.3% of the population
leading to unstable food supply, while lack of market and conflicts were recorded as
major causes of food insecurity by 73.3% and 36.7% respondents respectively. Other
causes reported included HIV/AIDS, old age, death of livestock and fluctuation on
food prices (Table 4.14).

The multiple linear regression analysis explains how food security varied with natural
factors, socio-economic factors and physical factors. A 76.3% of variation in food
security can be explained to have been influenced by the three predictors namely
natural factors, socio-economic factors and physical factors. This implies that the
remaining 23.7% of the variation in food security could be accounted for by other
factors not included in this study. Natural factors (β=.110, p=.233) positively though
insignificantly affected food security in Mwala sub-county, socio-economic factors
(β= -0.139, p=.033) negatively and significantly affected food security, while physical
factors (β= 0.281, p=.011) were found to positively and significantly influence food
security (Table 4.7).

70
5.5. Natural and Physical Factors
Changes in weather and climate were identified to play an important role in the food
security status of Mwala sub-county. Weather changes negatively impacted both
farming and grazing activities for 81.7% farmers. Majority (68.3%) of the farmers
experienced delayed rains, drought (66.7%) while a minority (13.3%) experienced
flash floods. Drought was rated as the most important hazard recurring in Mwala
subcounty followed by floods. Pests and diseases were rated as the third important
hazard. The least rated hazard was water shortage (6.7%) (Table 4.29). This implies
that Mwala households have enough water supply for their domestic needs despite the
fact that drought is catastrophic in the area.

The impact of climate change poses a significant challenge to agricultural productivity,

as the frequency of drought is expected to increase both in intensity and extent. The
dry periods are expected to get drier while the wet periods are projected to get wetter.
Mwala sub-county experiences poorly distributed rainfall ranging between 500-
1250mm per year (GOK, 2009). Being a drought prone zone, the reduced levels of
short rains could have led to frequent droughts resulting in low productivity since
short rains are the most productive and account for approximately 70% of the food
output. Climate change is also responsible for unpredicted floods as the rainfall levels
intensify during the wet season. Reduced precipitation has been observed to promoted
abundance and spread of pest and diseases hence increasing the cost of production
while reducing the production levels. Households have therefore developed low
resilience to shocks as a result of repeated exposure to drought, floods and
pestdiseases hazards.

Market accessibility has influenced food security in Mwala sub-county immensely.

The residents cover about 10.5 Kilometres to access the market in order to buy or sell
food (Table 4.23). In rural areas, households depend on agricultural production for
about 20% of household food consumption and rely on the market for the rest (FEWS
NET, 2013). The effect of market accessibility on food availability affected to a very
large extend majority (58.9%) of Mwala Sub-county residents (Table 4.24). The high
produce market prices experienced by most residents, reduce their chances of food

71
access and availability (Figure 4.4) as Hoddinott (1999) reported of remote village
households facing higher food prices and less access to food variety. Additionally,
57% of the population lack a means of transporting their produce to and from the
market and end up carrying the produce on their back, limiting the amount of produce
marketed. Those who use public transport accounted for 53.3% of the population but
high transport cost further limit their access to the market (Table 4.25). Given the high
degree of market reliance, most households in Mwala sub-county become vulnerable
to food insecurity due to the market inaccessibility (in relation to distance and means
of transport) and high prices.

On average, residents of Mwala sub-county own about 7 acres of land on average and
about 66% is utilized for food related activities though some utilize the entire piece of
land for food production (Table 4.26). Depleted soils, irregular rainfall and lack of
proper inputs has affected the land productivity. A majority (51.7%) reported low
production from their land attributing it to land size and only 3.3% enjoying sufficient
productivity (Table 4.28). Food security in Mwala sub-country can be attributed to a
large extend on land use (66.7%), climate change (61.7%) and market access (48.3%)
as was observed by Waweru et al., (2015). Therefore land use affects food security
the most in the households of Mwala sub-county.

5.6. Social-economic Factors

The major socio–economic factors that emerged significant in this study were low
involvement of the government in promoting agricultural activities in the sub-county,
low education levels, unfavourable marketing system, poor agricultural practices
which contributes to low yields, poor post-harvest management leading to high rate of
food waste and limited sources of household income.

Lack of country government and local government support was identified as the major
social-economic contributing factor to food insecurity in the area. Majority (38.3%) of
Mwala sub-county residents reported less involvement of the government in
addressing food insecurity issue in the region. These residents rarely received
extension services from the Ministry of agriculture on good agricultural practices.

72
Even though the government had made strides in promoting agriculture in the country
through subsidized inputs, a good number (28.3%) of the respondents strongly
disagreed (Table 4.21). This implies that Mwala Sub-county has not been benefiting
fully from the government subsidized seeds, fertilizers and agricultural advisory
services.

Other factors that affected to food security of households in the study area included
respondents’ occupation and income as evidenced by low average income of KSh.10,
308.33 per month (Table 4.18). Low income levels means that most households had
low purchasing power leading to lack of the ability to access food during periods of
shortage. These factors contribute to overdependence on agriculture as the sole source
of income as also observed by Wambua et al., (2014) in their study on food insecurity
issues of Kenyan dry lands ecosystem.

Notably 65% of the households were female headed exposed vulnerably to food
insecurity. This can be attribute to the fact that male gender is more advantaged when
it comes to property control and better access to education. This bias leads to most
females having less authority over the land need for farming activities and marketing
of produce which culminates to food insecurity (Wambua et al., 2014; Adekoya,
2009).

The right to food as a basic need is fundamental and without it many other human
rights cannot be enjoyed (Josanthony, 1999). In Mwala sub-county, 55% of the
population know it’s a human right to be food secure while 45% were not aware.
Awareness could be one thing but achieving it is another, hence food insecurity is still
rampantly the defining characteristic of the semiarid area of Mwala Sub-county. This
has headed the residents (31.7%) to believe that the government was not in the
forefront of ensuring adequate availability and sufficient sustainable supply of food
within the household although access to food is a human right.
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

73
6.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the summary of the major findings and the conclusions from the
results of this study. It also presents the recommendations from the findings of the
study. This has been done in respect to the stipulated objectives of the study and the
research questions posed in Chapter One of the thesis.

With regard to the influence of climate change (natural factors) on food security, the
study found out that majority (70%) of the participants reported to have experienced
climate changes in the area. Delayed rains (68.3%) was the most experienced
phenomenon describing the extent of the weather changes in the study area. Sixty one
point seven (61.7%) of the respondents agreed that cliamte changes affected farming
and grazing. Majority (61.7%) of the respondents indicated that climate change
affected food security to a large extent, with 43.7% saying this was to a very large
extent. The results shows presence of a positive and significant weak relationship
between natural factors (climate change) and food security as proved by the p-value
and the correlation coefficient (r=0.294, p=0.011<0.05).

With regard to the effect of governance on food security, majority (55%) reported that
they were aware while the remaining 45% were not aware that food security was a
human right issue. Findings of the study indicated that majority (38.3%) of the
respondents strongly disagreed to the statement that government ensure that
households have adequate food. This was followed by those who strongly agreed to
the statement at 23.3%, then those who disagreed to the statement, then those who
agree (13.3%) and finally those who were neutral on the statement. Over one third
(31.7%) of the respondents felt that governance affected food security to a very small
extent. The presence of a significant negative relationship between socio-economic
factors and food security indicated by the Pearson correlation coefficient of ̶ 0.243 and
a p-value of 0.030 means that governance have a negative influence on food security
in Mwala sub-county. However, the Beta weight shows that a unit change in
governance reduces food insecurity by 1 unit.
This study also assessed the effect of access to markets on food security. On average
the residents of Mwala sub-county have to cover about 10.5 Kilometres to access the

74
market in order to buy or sell food products. The distance covered range between 0.5
to 30 Kilometres. This implies that some residents are very close to the market places
while others are as far as 30 kilometre. Field observations also showed that majority
(51.7%) of the respondents felt that the food prices were too high, 31.7% rated the
food prices as high, 10% as moderate and 3.3% as low and very low respectively.
Over half (58.9%) of the participants felt that access to markets affected food security
to a large extent. Access to markets has a strong positive correlation (r=0.398) and is
shown through regression analysis to have a significant (df=59, p<0.05) influence on
food security. The Beta weight show that an increase in access to market leads to an
increase in food security by 1 unit.

Finally, this study also looked at the effect of land use on food security. Results of the
study reveal that majority (94.5%) of the participants owned less than 10 acres of land.
Over half (56.7%) of the participants indicated that they used at least half of their land
for food production. Findings also show that over one fifth (20%) used over 75% of
their land for food production. Further, slightly over two fifths (40.2%) of the
respondents indicated that their land was fairly productive, while over two thirds
(66.7%) felt that the proportion of land under crop impacted on their food security to a
large extent. Land use has a strong positive correlation (r=0.025) and was found to
significantly (df=59, p<0.05) influence food security in the study area. Indeed, the
regression analysis indicated that land use (p=0.01) had a significant effect on food
security both at the 95% and 99% level of confidence. The Beta weight shows that a
unit increase in land use leads to an increase in food security by 24%. Both multiple
regression and binomial logit models were employed in empirical analysis of the
primary data. The key findings of the study were that gender, education and income of
the farmer significantly affected awareness of food security.

6.2. Conclusion
The study concludes that climate change, access to market and land use are important
determinants of food security in Mwala Sub-county. Climate change has had a significant impact
on food production in the study area evidenced by delayed erratic rainfall which influence
farming and grazing.

75
Further, findings of the regression analysis indicated that governance was not a critical
determinant of food security. However, the Beta weight showed that a unit increase in
governance leads to a reduction (- .139) of food security by 13.9 units. This may mean
that governance is not enough in enlightening about food security since there may be
other factors such as climate change that could still hamper the realization of food
security in the area. In addition, the local Ministry of Agriculture officials in the area
were reported not to be active in promoting expansion of agricultural based alternative
livelihood strategies to cushion residents to the vagaries of food insecurity. It emerged
strongly in FGDs that residents were not provided with much needed inputs and
education which could improve food production and hence food security in Mwala
Sub-county.

6.3. Recommendations
Several recommendations of dealing with farmers’ food insecurity in Mwala
Subcounty are proposed herein. They focus on means of improving household food
production, means of improving household food consumption patterns, means of
improving food access through food purchases and means of improving the use of less
drastic coping strategies in cases of household food insecurity. Basing on the above
conclusions, it is clear that although residents of Mwala Sub-county have excellent
knowledge on food security, majority of the households are food insecure. It is
therefore recommended that:

Location and Sub-county officials should enlighten Mwala Sub-county residents on

food as a human basic right and food security as an issue to consider beyond the
simplistic matter of mere availability. Knowledge dissemination to farmers on the four
pillars underpinning food security: food availability, food accessibility, utilization and
stability in form of extension services can offer great opportunities of increasing the
capacity of farmers’ awareness and knowledge of food security that could help fight
food insecurity. An enlightened resident on food security will be able to appreciate the
value of proper storage of harvested agricultural products for sustainability, increased

76
productivity to enhance food availability and proper financial planning for improved
accessibility.

Low level of education among the household in the study area was found to affect
level of awareness of eating habits and had direct implication on their health. It is
recommended that, there is a need for locations and Sub-county officials to engage the
community in the study area to raise awareness on food security and its essential value
to health so as to avoid and reduce health implication associated with poor diets. These
will encourage community at large to be conscious and informed about awareness and
importance of the nutritional content of food and therefore will lead the households to
supports eating habits of healthy food.

Climate change was identified a major natural factor promoting food insecurity to a
large extent. Alternative farming methods should be upheld in Mwala Sub-county such
as precision agricultural, promotion organic and inorganic fertilizers use to improve
crop productivity, water and soil conservation awareness, use of certified seeds and
embracing planting of drought tolerant and resistant crop varieties suitable for the area.
Financial intervention among the rural poor with the rationale of enhancing
agricultural productivity to address the food insecurity concept should be a focus by
the county and national government.

Residents of Mwala sub-county reported to cover long distances to access the market,
while the food products fetched high prices leading to less access to food. The findings
thus provide policy insights on key areas of intervention in terms of market and
infrastructure. The country and sub-county government need to open up markets that
are closer to the locations to enable resident cover short distance, reduce cost of food
products and promote affordable food access in the sub-country.

REFERENCES

77
Achonga, B.O., Akuja, T.E., Kimatu, J.N. and Lagat, J.K. (2015): Implications of
Crop and Livestock Enterprise Diversity on Household Food Security and
Farm Incomes in the sub Saharan region, Global Journal of Biology,
Agriculture & Health Sciences,Vol.4(2):125-129.

Adams, E.R., Hamilton, P.B. and Gibson, W.C. (2010). African Trypanosomes; Celebrating
Diversity. Trends in Parasitology. Article in press

Adekoya, A.E. (2009). Food Insecurity and Coping Strategies among Rural
Households in Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Food, Agriculture and
Environment, vol. 7(3&4), 187-191.

Adesope, A.A.A., Awoyemi, T.T., Falusi, A.O. and Omonona, B.T. (2010).
Willingness to Pay for Safety Label on Sugar and Vegetable Oil among
Households in South–Western Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social
Research, 10(1).

Adugna E, Wogayehu B (2011). Causes of Household Food Insecurity in Wolayita:

Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research,
3(3):35-48.

Allemann, J., S. M., Laurie, S., Thiart and H. J. Voster. (2004). Sustainable
Production of Root and Tuber Crops (Potato, Sweet Potato, Indigenous
Potato, Cassava) In Southern Africa. South African Journal of Botany 70 (1):
60-66.

Amaza, P.S., Umeh, J.C., Helsen, J. and Adejobi, A.O. (2006). Determinants and
Measurements of Food Insecurity in Nigeria: Some Empirical Policy Guide (No.
1004-2016-78541).

Amwata, D. A., Nyariki, D. M., & Musimba, N. R. (2016). Factors Influencing

Pastoral and Agropastoral Household Vulnerability to Food Insecurity in the
Drylands of Kenya: A Case Study of Kajiado and Makueni Counties. Journal
of International Development, 28(5), 771-787.

Arene, C.J and Anyaeji, J. (2010). Determinants of food security among Households
in Nsukka metropolis of Enugu State, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of social
studies 30(1):9-16.

78
African Women’s Studies Centre (AWSC) (2014). Status Report on the Kenya
National Food Security: Zero Tolerance to Hunger, Kenya Constitution
Article 43 (1) (c).University of Nairobi Press. Nairobi.

Babatunde, R.O, Omotesho, O.A and Sholotan, O.S (2007). Socio-Economic

Characteristics and Food Security Status of Farming Households in Kwara
state, North-central Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 6(1): 49-59.

Babbie, E., Mouton, J. (2002). Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.
Bartfeld, J. and Wang, L. (2006). Local Level Predictors of Household Food Insecurity.
Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Below, T. B., K. D. Mutabazi, D. Kirschke, C. Franke, S. Sieber, R. Siebert, and K.

Tscherning. (2012). Can Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change be
Explained by Socio-Economic Household-Level Variables? Global
Environmental Change 22(1):223-235.

Cooper, P. S., and Schindler, D. (2001). Business Research Methods. New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
D’Haese, M., Verbeke, W., Van Hylenbroeck, G., Kirsten, J. And D’Haese, L.
(2005). New Institutional Arrangements for Rural Development. The case of
local wool growers association in Transkei area, South Africa. The Journal of
Development Studies, 41 (8): 1444-1466.

De Waal, A. (1990). A Re assessment of Entitlement Theory in the Light of the Recent

Famines in Africa. Development and Change, 21(3), 469-490.

DFID (Department for International Development) (2004). Poverty and Hunger. Online
document: http//www.Is.ac.uk/poverty-hunger/aims.html.

Droogers, P. (2003). Adaptation to Climate Change to Enhance Food Security and

Preserve Environmental Quality: Example for southern Sri Lanka.
Agricultural and Water Management 66: 15-33.

Endalew, B., Muche, M. and Tadesse, S. (2015). Assessment of Food Security

Situation in Ethiopia: A Review. Asian Journal of Agricultural Research,
9(2), 55-68.

79
 European Commission (2000). Integration of Food Security Objective within Poverty
Reduction Framework. Directorate-General Development, Sectorial Strategies, Rural
Development, Food security. DEV/A/1/uwD (99),I:\uw\opm poverty\final text 1-3-2000.doc
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) (2014). The State of Food Insecurity in the
World, FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) (2013). Food Outlook: Biannual Report on
Global Food Markets. FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) (2012). Gender inequalities in Rural

Employment in Ghana an overview. Prepared by the Gender, Equity and
Rural Employment Division, FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) (2011). The State of Food Insecurity in
the World: How Does International Price Volatility Affect Domestic
Economies And Food Security? FAO, Rome, Italy

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) (2006). The Role of Food and Agriculture. FAO,
Rome, Italy

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). (2001). Handbook for Defining and
Setting up a Food Security information and Early Warning System (FSIEWS),
FAO, Rome, Italy

FAO, IFAD, WFP (2013): The State of Food Insecurity in the World. The Multiple Dimensions
of Food Security." Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome

FEWS NET (Famine Early Warning Systems) Kenya Food Security Report, (2014).
Routledge.
FEWS NET (Famine Early Warning Systems). Kenya Food Security Report, (2013). Routledge.

FSR (Food Security Report). (2012). Prepared by Kenya Agricultural Research

Institute, Food Security Portal.
(http://www.foodsecurityportal.org/kenya/food-security-report-preparedkenya-
agricultural-research-institute#.V4ZNMyEi5mc.google).

Gladwin, C. H., A.M. Thomson, S. Jennifer, Peterson and A.S. Anderson. (2001).
Addressing food security in Africa via multiple livelihood strategies of
women farmers. Food Policy 26: 177-207.

80
GOK (Government of Kenya) (2012). National Food and Nutrition Security Policy.
Nairobi: Government Printer.
Government of Kenya (2009). Mwala District Development Plan, 20082012.Nairobi:
Government Printer.

GoK (Government of Kenya) (2004). Towards Achieving Food Security in Kenya. A

paper presented by the permanent secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya at
the African Conference on “Assuring Food and Nutrition Security in Africa
by 2020. Prioritizing Action, Strengthening Actors, and Facilitating

Partnerships”. (April 2004), Kampala

GOK (Government of Kenya) (2001). Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Government printer,
Nairobi.

Green, W.H. and Hensher, D.A. (2009), Modelling Ordered Choices, New York: New
York University.

Gujarati, D. (2004), Basic Econometrics, 4th edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Haile, H.K., Alemu, Z.G. and Kudhlande, G. (2005) Causes of Household Food
Insecurity in Koredegaga Peasant Association, Oromiya Zone, Ehiopia.
Agrekon 44(4):543–560.

Hoddinott John (1999). Choosing Outcome Indicators of Household Food Security,

Technical Guide: International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington,
D.C.

Hope-Hailey, V., Farndale, E., and Kelliher, C. (2010). Trust in Turbulent Times:
Organizational Change and the Consequences for Intra-Organizational Trust.
Research Methods for Business Students, 336-357.

Icheria B.K (2015). Household Food Insecurity and Coping Strategies among Small
Scale Farmers in Tharaka Central Division, Kenya. International Journal of
Humanities Social Sciences and Education. 2(2) 63-76.

Icheria, B. K. (2012). Household Food Insecurity and Coping Stategies among Small
Scale Farmers in Tharaka Central Division, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation,
Doctoral dissertation), Kenyatta University

81
Jenkins, C. J. and Scanlan, S. J., 2001. Food Security in Less Developed Countries, 1970 to
1990. American Sociological Review, 66(5), pp. 718-744.

Josantony, J. (1999), Food: Christian Perspective on Development Issues. Genprint:

Ireland
Kaloi, E., Tayebwa, B. and Bashaasha, B. (2005). Food Security Status of
Households in Mwingi District, Kenya. In African Crop Science Conference
Proceedings (Vol. 7, No. pt. 2 of 3, pp. 867-873).

Karaya, R. N., Onyango, C.A. and Amudavi, D.M. (2013), Fighting Hunger
Together: A Case of Women Farmers’ Participation in Women Groups in
Mwala Division, Kenya, International Journal of Agricultural Management
and Development, 3(3):189-200.

Kayunze, K. A., Mwageni, E.A., and Mdoe, N.S.Y. (2009). Do various methods of
food security determination give similar results? Evidence from Rufiji
District, Tanzania. Eastern and Southern Africa Journal of Agricultural
Economics and Development 6: 125 -145.

Kayunze, K. A. (2008). HIV/AIDs and food security in Rufiji District Tanzania.

Thesis for award of PhD degree at Sokoine University Agriculture Morogoro,
Tanzania. 258pp.

Kayunze, K. A., Mwageni, E. A., and Ashimogo, G. C. (2007). Entitlement to food

and food security in Rufiji District, Tanzania. Tanzania Journal of
Development Studies 8 (2): 29 - 47.

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Food Crisis in Kenya. Nairobi: Kenya Central
Bureau of Statistics.

Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG). (2008). The Impact of Rising Prices on
Disparate Livelihood Groups In Kenya 2008. Nairobi: Government

Printer.
Kibaara, B. W. (2005). Technical Efficiency in Kenyan's Maize Production: An
Application of the Stochastic Frontier Approach (Master of Science
dissertation, Colorado State University).

82
Kimani, E. N., & Kombo, D. K. (2010). Gender and Poverty Reduction: A Kenyan Context.
Educational Research and Reviews, 5(1), 024-030.

Kinyua Joseph (2004). Towards achieving food security in Kenya: Ministry of agriculture.
Nairobi, Kenya

Klein, L. R., and Ford, G. T. (2003). Consumer search for information in the digital
age: An empirical study of prepurchase search for automobiles. Journal of
interactive Marketing, 17(3), 29-49.
Kothari, C.R. (2008). Research methodology. Method and techniques. (2 nd ed), New Delhi.
New Age International (P) Ltd.

Kumar, D.S., Barah, B.C., Ranganathan, C.R., Ranganathan, R., Gurunathan, S. and
Thirumoorthy, S. (2011). An Analysis of Farmers’ Perception and Awareness
towards Crop Insurance as a Tool for Risk Management in Tamil Nadu,
Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24:37-46

Macrae, J., & Zwi, A. (1994). Famine, Complex Emergencies and International
Policy in Africa: An Overview. War and Hunger: Rethinking International
Responses to Complex Emergencies. London, Zed Books, 6-36.

Maddala, G.S. (2000), Introduction to Econometrics (3rdedn). New Jersey: PrenticeHall

Inc.

Magnani, Robert (1997). Sampling guide. IMPACT Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring
Project, Arlington, Va.

Maxwell, S., & Smith, M. (1992). Household Food Security: A Conceptual Review. Household
Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, Measurements, 1-72.

Mganga, K.Z., Musimba, N.K.R., Nyariki, D.M., Nyangito, M.M., & Mwang'ombe,
A. W. (2015). The Choice of Grass Species to Combat Desertification in Semi
Arid Kenyan Rangelands is Greatly Influenced by their Forage Value for
Livestock. Grass and Forage Science, 70(1), 161-167.

Muchena, F.N., Mbuvi, J.P. and Wokabi, S.M. (1988), ‘Report on soils and land use
in arid and semi-arid lands of Kenya’, Ministry of Natural Resources,
National Environment Secretariat, Nairobi, Kenya.

83
Mulandi Bernice (2007). Gaining Women’s Views on Household Food Security in Wote
Sub-location, Kenya. PhD Thesis, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio

Mutiso, F.M (2015). Determinants Influencing Sustainability of Agricultural Projects:

A Case Of Mwala Sub-county, Machakos County, Kenya, PhD Thesis,
University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.

Nguluu, S. N., Karanja, J., Kimatu J.N., Gicheru, P.T., Musimba, N. 1 , Njiru, E.,
Kathuli, P., Nzioki, H., Akuja, T., Muli, B.K., Nzombe, N.N. (2014): Refining
Dryland Farming Systems as a Means of Enhancing Agrodiversity and Food
Security in Eastern Kenya: A review. Journal of Advances in Agriculture.
Vol.3, No.1, Pp. 142-149.
Nyariki, D.M., Wiggins, S. L., Imungi, J. K., (2002). Levels and Causes of Household
Food and Nutrition Insecurity in Dryland Kenya. Ecology of Food and
Nutrition, 41: 155-176.

Nyariki, D. M., and Wiggins, S. (1997). Household food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa:
lessons from Kenya. British Food Journal, 1997: 249-262.

Nyoro, J. K., Kiiru, M. W., & Jayne, T. S. (1999). Evolution of Kenya's Maize Marketing
Systems in the Post-Liberalization Era (No. 680-2016-46751).

Okeyo B., (2015) Fisheries of Kenya's Coast: A socio-ecological system in transition, Scholars'
Press- Germany

Orodho, A. J. (2003). Essentials of Educational and Social Sciences Research Methods.

Nairobi: Masola Publishers.

Otieno, D.J (2013), Market and Non-Market Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption
of Improved Beef Cattle in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas of Kenya, Journal of
Agricultural Science, 5(1):32-43

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using
IBM SPSS, 6th Edn Crows Nest. NSW: Allen &Unwin.

Phillips, J. M. (1994). Farmer education and farmer efficiency; a meta-analysis.

Journal of Economic Development and Cultural Change. 43:1439pp.
ROK (Republic of Kenya) (2010). The Constitution of Kenya. Government Printers. Nairobi

84
ROK (Republic of Kenya) (2008). Kenya Food Security and Nutrition Strategy. Nairobi:
Government Printers.

Riely, F., Mock, N., Cogill, B., Bailey, L., & Kenefick, E. (1999). Food Security
Indicators and Framework for Use in the Monitoring and Evaluation of Food
Aid Programs. Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), Washington,
DC.

Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and Famines: an Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Soete, L., 1981. Technological Dependency: A Critical View. In: D. Seers, ed.
Dependency Theory. A Critical Reassessment. London: Frances Pinter
(Publishers), pp. 181-206.
Swift, J. (1989). Why are rural households’ people vulnerable to famine? IDS
Bulletin 20 (2), Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex,
Brighton, UK.

Tiffen, M., Mortimor, M. and Gichuki, F. (1994). More People Less Erosion: Environmental
recovery in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya

Tiffens, M. (2002). Questioning Desertification in Dry-Land Sub-Saharan Africa. Natural

Resources Forum, 26: 218-233.

USAID (United States Agency for International Development) (2010). Food Security
in Kenya: Situation report. Nairobi, Kenya. United States Agency
International Development.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2009). Access to Affordable and

Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their
Consequences. Economic Research Service, Washington

Wambua, B.N. and Kithia, S.M. (2014). Effects of Soil Erosion on Sediment Dynamics, Food
Security and Rural Poverty in Makueni District, Eastern

Kenya. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 4(1) 101107

Wambua, B.V., Omoke, K.J. and Mutua, T.M. (2014). Effects of Socio-Economic

85
 Factors on Food Security Situation in Kenyan Dry Lands Ecosystem. Asian Journal
of Agriculture and Food Science 2: 51 – 59.

Wambua, B.N (2008) Food Security in Semi–Arid Areas: An Analysis of

SocioEconomic and Institutional Factors with Reference to Makueni district,
Eastern Kenya, PhD Thesis, University of Nairobi, and Nairobi, Kenya.

Waweru, G.K., Omuterema, S. and Mugo, F. (2015). Association Between

Household Food Access and Livelihood Food Strategy Factors in Githunguri
And Mwala Sub-Counties, Kenya. Developing Country Studies, Vol.5, No.4,
pp. 112-119

WFP (World Food Programme) (2012). Nutrition at the World Food Programme. Programming
for Nutrition-Specific Interventions.

WFP (World Food Programme) (2009). Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability
Analysis Guidelines. United Nations World Food Program.
WFP (World Food Programme) (2005), Emergency and food security assessment handbook.
Rome

Young, H., Jaspars, S. Brown, R., Frize, J. and Khogali, H. (2001). Food insecurity
assessment in emergencies: A livelihood approach. Westminster Bridge Road
London United Kingdom.

86
 APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Food emergencies for the year 2005
Food Emergencies, 2005
Dominant variable Africa Asia Latin America Europe Total
Human 10 3 1 1 15
Natural 8 7 1 0 16
Combined 7 1 0 0 8
Total 25 11 2 1 39
Source: FAO, 2006

Appendix 2: Food security status for 2014/2015

Current food security outcomes, October 2014

87
Source: FEWS NET, 2014

Appendix 3: Questionnaire
My name is Mercylyne Nduku Mutinda. Currently I am registered as a Masters student
at Mwala Technical and vocational collage in the School of Agriculture and
Veterinary Sciences in the program of Master of Science in Agricultural Resource
Management. I intend to undertake my thesis studies on the factors affecting
agricultural productivity in Mwala Sub-county, Machakos County. In this study,
we work closely with Madam Rhoda of Mwala Technical and vocational collage. The
study will be effective or successful depending on your reliable responses and your
response will be used only for the intended study. So, please indicate your response by
encircling the different items and fill the provided space for the structured
questionnaire. 1. General Direction:

 No need of writing your name

 Please answer all questions properly and clearly
 Be free to answer all questions (this is simply to indicate a solution for the problem of food
insecurity)

88
Section A: Demographic Profile
1. Are you head of a household? 1. = Yes 2. = No
2. What is the age of household head if different from respondent?
i. =18 – 24 years ii.
=25 – 30 years
iii. =31 – 40 years
iv. =41 – 50 years v.
=50 – 60 years

vi. = over 60 years

3. What is your gender?
i. =male
ii. =female
4. How old are you?
i. =18 – 24 years ii. =25 – 30 years iii. =31 – 40 years iv. =41 – 50 years

v. =50--60 years
vi. = Over 60 years
5. Level of education
i. =None
ii. =primary
iii. =secondary iv. =Tertiary

6. How many people live in this household?

…………………………………………………………………………………
7. What is your occupation?
………………………………………………………………………………......
8. What is the average monthly income in this household?
…………………………………………………………………………………
Section B: Food Security
9. How many meals do you take in a day?
…………………………………………………………………………………
10. What is the main food taken in this household mostly?

89
 …………………………………………………………………………………
11. What is the source of the food in this household?
…………………………………………………………………………………
12. What was maize yield last season? ............... This season? ................................
13. How difficult would you say getting food in the household is?
i. =Very difficult
ii. =Difficult
iii. =Neutral iv. =Easy

v. =Very easy
14. How do you evaluate your household food security status?
i. Food secure ii. Food insecure
15. If your answer is ‘ii’ above, what are the major causes for food insecurity in your household
(allowing multiple responses)?

i. Low and variable rainfall

ii. Limited non-agricultural
iii. Population pressure
iv. Environmental degradation
v. Conflict
vi. Failure to properly utilize own production
vii. Lack of fair market
viii. Others specify_____________________________________________

Section C: Climate Change and Food Security (Natural Factors)

16. I have noticed weather changes in the area.
i. =Strongly agree
ii. =Agree
iii. =Neutral
iv. =Disagree
v. = Strongly disagree
17. Which of the following have you experienced?
i. =Droughts

90
 ii. =Flash floods
iii. =Delayed rains
18. What are the most important hazards recurring in your area? Put the below options in highest
to lowest order (drought, flood, malaria, pests and diseases, conflict, animal diseases,
increasing food prices, water shortage other specify
________________________________________________________).

19. Weather changes affect farming and grazing of livestock

i. = Strongly agree
ii. =Agree
iii. =Neutral
iv. =Disagree
v. = Strongly disagree
20. To what extent do weather changes affect food availability in your household?
i. =To a very large extent
ii. =To a large extent
iii. =Neutral
iv. = To a small extent
v. = To a very small extent

Section D: Governance and Food Security (Socio-economic Factors)

21. Are you aware that food security is a human right?
i. =Yes
ii. =No
22. Government officials ensure that households have adequate food
i. =Strongly agree
ii. =Agree
iii. =neutral
iv. =Disagree
v. =Strongly disagree
23. Ministry of agriculture officers advise us on best farming practices
i. =strongly agree
ii. =Agree

91
 iii. =neutral
iv. =Disagree
v. =Strongly disagree
24. The government provides seeds to farmers
i. =Strongly agree
ii. =Agree
iii. =neutral
iv. =Disagree
v. =Strongly disagree
25. To what extent does governance affect food availability in your household?
i. =To a very large extent ii. =To a large extent
iii. =Neutral
iv. =To a small extent
v. =To a very small extent

Section E: Access to Markets (Physical Factors)

26. How far do you have to go to access a market where you can buy or sell food?
……………………………………………………………………………………
27. How would you rate the food prices at the market?
i. =Very high
ii. =High
iii. =Moderate iv. =Low

v. =Very low
28. To what extent does access to markets affect food availability in your household?
i. =To a very large extent
ii. =To a large extent
iii. =Neutral
iv. =To a small extent
v. =To a very small extent
29. How do you transport your produce to the nearby market?
i. On donkey back

92
 ii. On camel back
iii. Carry it yourself
iv. By using public transportation
v. Others specify____________________________________________
30. Is the market faire for both purchasing and selling? (For both croppers and agropastoralists)

i. Yes
ii. No

Section F: Land Use (Physical Factors)

31. What is the size of your land?
………………………………………………………………………………
32. What percentage of your land do you use for food related activities?
……………………………………………………………………………….
33. How productive would you say your piece of land is?
i. =Very high
ii. =High
iii. =Moderate iv. =Low

v. =Very low
34. To what extent does land use affect food availability in your household?
i. =To a very large extent
ii. =To a large extent
iii. =Neutral
iv. =To a small extent
v. =To a very small extent
35. Which of the following factors affect food security most in your household?
i. =Climate change
ii. =Governance
iii. =Access to markets
iv. =Land use

93
Section G: Knowledge about Food Security
36. Knowledge of food security will be measured by using a 5 points hedonic scale as follows:
Statement implying knowledge on food security Yes No Scores by respondents

Food security means ensuring, adequacy of food

supplies in terms of quantify quality and variety of
food.

Food security means optimizing stability in the

flow of food supplies.
Food security means access to nutritionally
adequate and safe food.

Food security means sufficient skills to acquire,

prepare and consume nutritionally adequate diet
including those to meet the special need of young
children and pregnant mothers.

Food security means access to health services and a

health environment to ensure effective biological
utilization of food consumed.

Total score
Key: Yes = 1 Mark No = 0 Mark
5 - Excellent knowledge
4 - Moderate knowledge (above average)
3 -Neutral (no clear evidence of presence or lack of knowledge)
2 - Moderately ignorant (Below average)
1- Extremely ignorant (know nothing)
37. If your occupation is farming, classify it under the following
1. Small scale [ ] 2. Large scale [ ]
38. Do you belong to any Farmers Group?
1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

Section H: Level of Awareness on Importance of Food Security

94
39. Did you receive any advice from the extension agent on proper grain storage practice in
2015/2016?

40. Are you aware of the importance of consuming nutritious food?

1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
41. Do you know which foods provide the nutrients referred to in the recommendations?

1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
42. Can you choose between different foods to identify the healthiest ones?

1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]
43. Do you know what the health implications of eating or failing to eat particular foods are? 1.
Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

44. State your location.

[ ] Mbiuni
[ ] Muusini
[ ] Mwala
[ ] Kabaa

Thank you for your Cooperation

95
 Appendix 4: Focus Group Discussion Guide
General Questions
i. What is food security?
ii. What are the governance issues that you recommend to be addressed to promote food
security?

iii. How have changes in the weather affected food availability of late in your village?
iv. In your opinion, how do you think food production can be improved so all can be food
secure?

v. How does land ownership system affect availability, access and use of food here?
vi. What problems do you experience in relation to access to marketing of your products?

Knowledge about Food Security

i. What do you understand the term food security?
(From local perspective)
ii. Can you tell me various signs of food insecurity? iii.
What are the causes of food insecurity in your location?

iv. How do you overcome the problem of food insecurity?

Level of Awareness on Importance of Food Security
i. Do you understand about food security awareness and its importance to household?
ii. What are strategies in ensuring awareness and importance of food security in
households?

96