Development of Health and Sustainability Indicators for a Tropical Highlands Agroecosystem - Integrated Assessment of Health and Sustainability of Agroecosystems - page 159

Gikabu-na-buti thiririka Githima

Number and location of outlets for
produce

Number and location of outlets for
produce

Demand versus supply
of produce (price )
Access to markets

Permanent houses
Number of tea bushes

Number of children not going to
school due to lack of school fees

Tea bushes
Coffee bushes

Farming techniques
Number of schools and attendance
Attendance to hospitals

Frequency of extension meetings Farming techniques

Number of people
with technical skills

Types of buildings Quality of access road

Type of buildings

In most cases when no statements were given for an indicator, there were indica-
tions that a discussion had taken place during the group meeting and a consensus
reached on how to make the report. These were most likely situations in which a
consensus on what to report was not reached, participants were unable to carry out
the measurements, or cultural factors inhibited public debate. There were difficulties
in recording actual morbidity and mortality data (with respect to both humans and
livestock). Where information on the number of deaths was given, the target popu-
lation and the time period covered was not supplied. Most communities preferred
not to quantify morbidity and mortality. There were indications that participants
in all villages had difficulty dealing with quantities and numerical measurements.
Participants preferred, and were able to analyze, nominal data (e.g., very high, high,
low, and very low).
For a number of attributes, participants dropped some of the indicators and
selected new ones. The reasons given were that some indicators were difficult to
measure or the information gathered was not easy to interpret or not useful at all.
It was difficult to elucidate the processes followed since the research team was not
present during the group discussions.

6.3.3.2 Researcher Proposed

Table 6.7 shows the means and standard errors of the quantitative, researcher-pro-
posed LUU-level indicators. In 7.1% (16/225) of the LUUs, all the adults (non-school-
going persons 18 years and older) were involved in off-farm activities. However, the
average number of people dependent (for employment) on 1 acre of crop fields was
22.69 ± 1.55 persons, with an average monthly per capita income of 1,339.77 ± 179.43
shillings. In contrast, the average monthly wage was 6,537.11 ± 1,179.47 shillings.