| dc.description.abstract | In Kenya. as in other urban cities 111 sub-Saharan Africa. urbanization IS characterised by
increasing number of people who are food insecure. unemployed and poor. They live in
unplanned. overcrowded structures in slum areas. which are unrecognised by city planners and
lack adequate potable water. sewerage. drainage. garbage collection. roads, schools and health
services, and have high crime rate. Poverty and waste management are therefore the two main
problems common to most cities of developing countries.
Food insecurity and lack of basic needs prompt some low-income households to embarking on
farming using their family labour and minimal capital inputs. They combine them with
seemingly idle, vacant, public or private urban land that they do not own to generate food and
income. However, the activity is not recognized and city authorities view it as nuisance and a
public health risk getting in the way of other urban activities. UA is unique because it can
contribute to solving the problems of poverty and waste management. However. for the
contribution to be realised, UA by low-income households has to be transformed into an
efficient activity that is integrated into the entire economy. The factors constraining the possible
transformation and integration are not clear. and facilitating policies and programs are lacking.
Therefore the objectives of the study were to characterise urban farming households. determine
the profit level and factors influencing it. and compare allocative, technical. and economic
efficiency among different socio-economic groups of households.
A random sample of 92 UF households. stratified by gender. was selected in Korogocho, one of
the low-income areas in Nairobi. in 1998. Cross tabulation facilitated descriptive analysis, while
the profit, function model was used to determine factors explaining variation in profit. Joint
Xlll
estimation of the profit and wage share functions was used to test for economic, allocative
(price), and technical efficiencies differences between groups of farmers based on these factors.
The average low income urban farming household had seven people and was headed by a 47
year old person with only 5 years of education residing in Nairobi for 27 years and cultivating
urban land for 13. About two fifths of the households were women headed. An average of 1.4
decares of land was cultivated usually in one or two land parcels about three quarters walk from
the residence. The majority (86%) did not use external inputs such as fertilizer, improved seed
or manure. Therefore, family labour and own saved seed of uncertified quality were the main
inputs in the activity carried out with the participation of most of the household's members
(90%). Labour was hired by 42% of the households. Majority of the households "acquired"
cultivation rights because land was seemingly idle and staked as claim on it by ensuring that it
was tended to through out the year. Few of them keep livestock (18%) as expected from the
congested high-density housing. In over 75% of conjugal households, both spouses made the
decision to embark on urban farming. In all households, nearly all members worked on the land
parcels. Theft of produce was by far the most serious problem followed by small parcels of land
and lack of money for inputs. The type of assistance needed most for the activity was stated as
i
access to land and inputs and supplementary income to subsist on when the produce run out.
A total of Ksh909, 938 profits for the long rains of 1997 was generated by the 89 households in
the sample (with 588 people) from a total area of 12.4 hectares (124 decares). This is an average
of Ksh10, 224 per household for the season or Ksh1, 705 per month. It is about 74% of the
minimum wage per month for a labourer in Nairobi for the survey year, 1997. In other words if
UF was done away with, 49% and 31% of the households would loose more than third and
XIV
more than half of their incomes, respectively. For 50% of households. UF profit was higher than
other income earned by household head and spouse from sources other than UFo Considering
the basic needs per adult equivalent, an average household needed a monthly income of Ksh 13.
371 to be above poverty line. The households in the sample were poor because only 4% of the
them earned combined income from UF and other activities to be above poverty line. The other
households earned only 28% of the average minimum income needed to be above poverty line
(Ksh3, 634), underscoring the magnitude of deprivation. UF contributed 14% of the available
minimum average income, against 15% from other sources.
Differences in economic, allocative and technical efficiency were analysed for different groups
based on the seven variables hypothesized. There were no differences in efficiency between
farmers cultivating more than 1.4 decares and those cultivating less. The groups or farmers
maximizing profits were those who had cultivated urban land for less than 13 years, earned less
than Ksh3099 from other activities, had no access to technical information, and those whose
main objective in embarking on the activity was to earn cash income. unlike their counterparts.
Conjugal household heads with seven or more years of formal education also maximized profits
while non-conjugal households, irrespective of the level of education, did not. Integration of UF
with other activities is likely to be facilit~ted by households allocating optimal variable inputs to
production because they are more likely to respond to incentive for more inputs needed in
Stages II and III of the transformation process.
The groups of households found to be more technically efficient were those who had cultivated
urban land for 13 or more years, were headed by women with less than seven years of formal
education, and operated the activity with the objective of generating cash income unlike their
counterparts. Technically efficient groups of fanners are more likely to facilitate the envisaged
xv
integration of UF because their operations make the activity compete favourably for available
resources with alternative activities
The evidence form the study adds further weight towards persuading the urban policy makers to
accept UF as a legitimate land use and focus on its actual and potential contribution to food
security, income. wastewater and organic waste reuse. open space management and aesthetic
value. Zoning of urban land and lease arrangements specifying, duration and the type of UA
that can be practiced, are crucial for the envisaged transformation of the activity. Farmers
organized in groups can hold user rights and facilitate relevant research, extension contact,
group credit, farmers markets and enforcement of health risk standards. A flexible facilitating
agency is needed to promote favourable official policy for UFo facilitate organization of farmers
into groups, certify "safe food" labels to increase consumers' confidence, endorse financing
applications and ensure that macro and micro benefits of the practice evolve with participatory
research.
Although the transformation and integration of UF is envisaged over time, it probably exists in
cross section among different income. groups of farmers with a variety of technologies.
I
objectives, financing, and access to markets. Research focusing on the constraints at different
levels is likely to suggest strategies for the integration process that are more efficient. Even
without UF, the municipal authorities are faced with the daunting task of safe management and
disposal of wastewater and organic waste. The challenge will increase with increase in urban
population particularly that of unplanned settlements. UA can be a component of a large-scale
system of managing wastewater and organic waste. In the process UF will generate income.
jobs and more pleasant urban environment. through sustainable use and reuse of urban of
resources. | en |
