Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
AEZONE
LH1
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
UH1
UH2
UH0
UM1
UM2
UM3
UM4
UM5
Thiririka
VILLAGES
+
+
INTENSIVE
EXTENSIVE
6
Githina
+
Kihenjo
6
Gitwe
6
Gikabu
+
Redhill
6
Kameria
Gitangu
6
+
Muongoiyia
Gakinduri Makindi
6
6
Kiawanagira
+
fIGuRe 2.5 Map of Kiambu showing the distribution of study sites by agroecozones as
described by Jaetzold and Schmidt (1983). LH, lower highlands; UH, upper highlands; UM,
upper midlands. See CD for color image.
about the same magnitude in Githima, Gitangu, and Gikabu (Figure 2.7). Income
from food crops was the most inequitable in Githima (Figure 2.8), in contrast to
Thiririka, where income from cash crops (coffee and tea) was the most inequitable
(Figure 2.9).
Figure 2.10 shows the proportion of land under various crops in the six ISSs
based on the 1997 census of land-use units. For each village, the proportion of land
under each enterprise was calculated as the average of the per farm proportion. Most
(36.44%) of the farmland in Githima village was allocated to coffee. In Kiawamagira
village, most (49.70%) of the land was under food crops. In Thiririka, nearly 50%
of farmland was left fallow or as pasture. Gitangu village had the highest (17.39%)
proportion of land allocation to fodder (mostly Napier) among the six villages (Gik-
abu 9.18%; Githima 6.52%; Kiawamagira 7.72%; Mahindi 12.58%; and Thiririka
0.52%). In addition, the land allocated to noncrop activities (other) was proportion-
ately bigger because of space used for housing livestock and paddocks. Horticultural
crops had the biggest proportion of farmland in Thiririka village.
Figure 2.11 shows the location of public medical facilities in Kiambu district
relative to both ISSs and ESSs. Of the ISSs, only Thiririka and Mahindi were close
to a public health facility (within 1-km radius of the village; closest facility for other
Search WWH ::




Custom Search