Design and Implementation of an Adaptive, Integrated Approach to Health and Sustainability in a Smallholder-Dominated Agroecosystem - Integrated Assessment of Health and Sustainability of Agroecosystems - page 39

table 2.2
summary of Key demographic features based on a 1997 census of land-use
units in the Intensive study site, Kiambu district, Kenya

Githima Gitangu mahindi thiririka Kiawamagira Gikabu

Division Githunguri Limuru Kiambaa Lari Kikuyu Tigoni

Approximate
size of village
(km 2 )

2 2 0.5 3 0.5 1

Number of
land-use units

229 224 40 188 41 83

Mean acreage
per unit

2.3 ± 0.17 2.1 ± 0.12 2.7 ± 0.34 3.5 ± 0.14 1.8 ± 0.21 1.9 ± 0.19

Units with
more than one
household

23 19 1 9 6 15

Number of
households

304 296 41 230 62 147

Proportion of
female-headed
households

22.7% 18.8% 30.0% 17.0% 43.9% 27.7%

Proportion of
female
managed
households

31.9% 46.4% 50.0% 32.4% 53.7% 63.9%

Proportion of
households
with off-farm
income

14.8% 37.5% 67.5% 29.8% 36.6% 57.8%

Mean number
of people per
household

5.6 ± 0.25 6.1 ± 0.22 7.8 ± 0.6 8.0 ± 0.35 7.3 ± 1.0 7.0 ± 0.36

Mean off-farm
employed per
household

0.3 ± 0.06 0.8 ± 0.10 2.5 ± 0.4 0.6 ± 0.09 1.4 ± 0.35 1.5 ± 0.20

Mean number
going to
school per
household

2.3 ± 0.12 2.7+0.15 1.7 ± 0.28 2.8 ± 0.15 2.24 ± 0.31 2.5 ± 0.24

0.54 for income from livestock. Population was evenly distributed in all six villages,
as were farmland and cattle (Table 2.3).
In Mahindi, all eight resources considered were equitably distributed. In Kia-
wamagira, only off-farm employment was markedly uneven, while in Gikabu it was
only income from food crops. Off-farm employment was most unevenly distrib-
uted in Githima (Figure 2.6), while sheep and goats were unevenly distributed by