Frailty and complexity: smallholder agriculture in semi-arid Kenya
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Agriculture, the ‘backbone’ of the Kenyan economy, is dominated by smallholder farmers who account for 65 per cent of total agricultural production and 51 per cent of labour force in the sector. However, with 80 per cent of land classified as arid or semi-arid land (ASAL), smallholding in Kenya exists against a backdrop of poor agro-ecological conditions. In ASALs, 86 per cent of women and children in households are classified as ‘food insecure’. Climate change, characterised by increased frequency and intensity of drought in the region, inserts new layers of urgency and complexity into this already-great crisis. Responding to these immediate food security challenges, cross-sectional household data from smallholder farmers in three Counties of semi-arid Kenya is analysed with the goal of advancing the knowledge of semi-arid smallholder agriculture and improving household food security in the region. Specifically, household agro-economic data from two Agro-Ecological Zones (AEZ), Lower Midlands 4 (LM4) and Lower Midlands 5 (LM5), in Tharaka-Nithi, Machakos and Makueni Counties is examined in the light of two themes: frailty and complexity. Using existing literature and anecdotal evidence for hypothesis testing, I present multiple and logistic regression analyses, exposing the entrenched frailty of a smallholder agricultural system whereby even in a good season, only 52 per cent of plots break even. Three trends emerge: (i) plots in the LM4 Agro-Ecological Zone, characterised by lower mean temperature and higher annual precipitation, are more likely to break even in both good and bad seasons than farmers in the drier LM5 zone; (ii) despite anecdotal evidence provided by farmers, monocrop plots outperform mixed crop plots, offering a higher probability of breaking even in both good and bad seasons largely due to economies of scale; (iii) High Value Traditional Crops (HVTCs), notably green grams and millet, increase farmers’ likelihood of breaking even in both good and bad seasons, while maize, our sample’s cash crop, performs the most poorly. Reflecting on these statistical trends, data-based policy inferences - including greater HVTC adoption, ‘mosaic monocropping’, collective pest-management and microinsurance - are offered vis-à-vis how agricultural policy in Kenya can better contribute to food security, drawing heavily on the FAO’s climate-smart agriculture (CSA) framework.Adopting a ‘magnifying glass’ approach, I then offer a theoretical (and at times humorous) analysis of one particular barrier to the greater adoption of HVTCs, bird scaring by farmers of millet and sorghum, demonstrating the inherent complexity of even the most seemingly-simple development intervention. 100 per cent of millet and sorghum farmers in the Tharaka-Nithi study area report scaring birds as a labour input, devoting on average 24-66 per cent of all labour time to this activity – a stark contrast to farmers of all other crops, almost zero per cent of which report scaring birds. However, it is farmers’ behaviour with respect to birds, and not the pests themselves, that provide the greatest insight. Individually scaring birds from their land, farmers within a community continuously shift the cost of pests from one plot to the next, creating what I describe as a ‘ripple effect’ externality. Environment and resource economic’s (ERE) prescriptions are overviewed and rendered inadequate for addressing this bird scaring tragedy. In turn, a collective action approach is proposed, incorporating farmer groups, collective planting and scaring schedules and community feeding plots.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».