Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
sent children to school. But they spared some land for a school. None of them were
buried in the cemetery, and the cattle dip was never built until 15 years ago. Today,
there is no one in this village who has not benefited directly or indirectly from their
foresight. We wish to do the same for our future and the future of generations to come.
We need to assess [Guthima] the effects of our actions today to make better decisions
for the future.
The process of indicator measurement was therefore referred to as guthima
and indicators as ithimi. The value that an indicator takes correctly fitted the term
guthimo. These terms are used in similar contexts in reference to human health and
were therefore assumed to be readily understandable by most people in the villages.
Participants were then asked to make lists of indicators that they would use to assess
specified agroecosystem attributes. These attributes were (1) soil fertility and farm
productivity; (2) pests and diseases; (3) environmental quality; (4) incomes, savings,
investments, and employment; (5) lifestyle; (6) leadership and community action;
(7) knowledge, information, and education; (8) markets and marketing; and (9)
equity. Table 6.2 gives a summary of indicators selected for each village.
6.3.2 r
e s e A r C h e r
-p
r o p o s e D
i
n D i C A t of r s
The measured attribute, the categories, and the number of researcher-proposed indi-
cators in each of the three domains are shown in Table 6.3. Most of the categories in
the social domain had no indicators mainly due lack of conceptually valid measures
of the attributes as well as difficulties in measurement. For the biophysical and eco-
nomic attributes with no indicators, the main reason was the cost and difficulty of
measuring them. Researcher-proposed indicators were divided into two sets based
on the level of the agroecosystem holarchy at which they were to be applied. The first
set consisted of measures to be applied at the land-use unit (LUU) level, while the
other was to be applied at the study-site level (SSL).
A list of researcher-proposed LUU-level indicators is shown in Table 6.4. For
profitability and cost scores, indicator crops were coffee, tea, maize, kale, beans, and
potatoes. For the preference scores, indicator common foods were maize, beans, peas,
kale, carrots, and Irish potatoes. Indicator traditional foods were arrowroots, sweet
potatoes, cassava, millet, and sorghum. Indicator resources for equity assessment
were land, vehicles, livestock, cash crops, food crops, household goods, children,
nonfarm income, and cash savings. Indicator infrastructure included market, public
transportation, schools, health care facility, and administrative offices (Appendix 2).
Adults were defined as non-school-going persons over 18 years of age. For the pur-
pose of child health clinic (CHC) records, children were defined as those LUU mem-
bers 5 years of age or younger. Available labor was defined as the total number
of adults in the LUU with no off-farm employment. Nonfood crops included tradi-
tional cash crops such as coffee, tea, and pyrethrum. Food crops included vegetables,
maize, beans, and the like, even when grown primarily for sale. For contacts and
familial ties, only visits outside the district were considered.
Table 6.5 is a list of researcher-proposed SSL indicators of health and sustain-
ability for the Kiambu agroecosystem. Most of these indicators were aggregates of
measurements taken at the LUU level. Indicator crops, foods, and resources were as
Search WWH ::
Custom Search