Using the Women Empowerment in Livestock Index (WELI) to Examine Linkages between Women Smallholder Livestock Farmers’ Empowerment and Access to Livestock Vaccines in Machakos County of Kenya: Insights and Critiques
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Sampling and Data Collection
2.3. Focus Groups/Stakeholder Meetings on Local Understanding of Empowerment
2.4. WELI as a Quantitative Tool
2.5. Computation of the WELI Score
2.6. Additional Livestock Vaccine Module
2.7. Data Analysis
2.8. Ethical Approval
3. Results
3.1. Participant Descriptive Information
3.1.1. Socio-Demographic Profiles
3.1.2. Relationship between WELI Score and Age/Household Size
3.1.3. Participation in Livestock Activities
3.1.4. Comparison of Agricultural and Livestock Activities Verses Empowerment Level
3.1.5. Participation and Access to Vaccines/Preventative Care and Information
3.2. Definition of Empowerment, WELI Indicators, and Related Empowerment Scores
3.2.1. Participation and Access to Vaccines/Preventative Care and Information
3.2.2. Women Empowerment Domains
3.2.3. WELI Score
3.2.4. Contribution of Indicators to Disempowerment
3.3. Participants Knowledge and Access to Vaccination and Vaccine Information
3.3.1. Respondents Access to Vaccine Information
3.3.2. Respondents’ Ability to Vaccinate Their Animals
3.3.3. Relationship between Training and Empowerment
3.3.4. Relationship between Empowerment and Loss of Animals to Diseases
3.3.5. Respondents’ Knowledge and Overall Empowerment Score
4. Discussion
4.1. Household Structure, Age and Number of Household Members Influence Adequacy
4.2. Women’s Contribution towards Livestock Productive Activities and their Impact on WELI Score
4.3. Contribution of Indicators to Disempowerment
4.4. WELI SCORE as a Measure of Empowerment
4.5. Women’s Empowerment and Access to Livestock Services and Vaccination
4.6. Limitations of the Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Perry, B.; Grace, D. The impacts of livestock diseases and their control on growth and development processes that are pro-poor. Philos Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 2643–2655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Understanding and Integrating Gender Issues into Livestock Projects and Programmes. A Checklist for Practitioners; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; ISBN 978-92-5-107513-5. [Google Scholar]
- Engida, E.; Guthiga, P.; Nyota, H.; Karugia, J.T. The Role of Livestock in the Kenyan Economy: Policy Analysis Using a Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium model for Kenya; ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 37; IFPRI: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; p. 27. [Google Scholar]
- Ogali, I.N.; Mungube, E.O.; Lichoti, J.K.; Ogugo, M.W.; Ommeh, S.C. A study of Newcastle disease virus in poultry from live bird markets and backyard flocks in Kenya. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2018, 10, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apopo, A.A.; Kariithi, H.M.; Ateya, L.O.; Binepal, Y.S.; Sirya, J.H.; Dulu, T.D.; Welch, C.N.; Hernandez, S.M.; Afonso, C.L. A retrospective study of Newcastle disease in Kenya. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020, 52, 699–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Renault, V.; Hambe, H.A.; Van Vlaenderen, G.; Timmermans, E.; Mohamed, M.; Ethgen, O.; Saegerman, C. Economic impact of contagious caprine pleuropneumonia and cost-benefit analysis of the vaccination programmes based on a one-year continuous monitoring of flocks in the arid and semi-arid lands of Kenya. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2019, 66, 2523–2536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, J.A. Veterinary vaccines and their importance to animal health and public health. Procedia Vaccinol. 2011, 5, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jiggins, J.L.S. Foresight Project. Science Review SR: 48; Gender in the Food System: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Njuki, J.; Sanginga, P.C. Women, Livestock Ownership and Markets Bridging the Gender Gap in Eastern and Southern Africa; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 1–169. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/34088 (accessed on 2 May 2020).
- Agriculture and Economic Development Analysis Division. The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA); Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Development; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; ISBN 978-925-106-768-0. [Google Scholar]
- Kristjanson, P.; Mango, N.; Krishna, A.; Radeny, M.; Johnson, N. Understanding poverty dynamics in Kenya. J. Int. Dev. 2010, 22, 978–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ajala, A.A. Women’s tasks in the management of goats in Southern Nigeria. Small Rumin. Res. 1995, 15, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corniaux, C.; Duteurtre, G.; Dieye, P.N.; Chapuis, R.P. Mini-dairies as a model of organization of the dairy sectors in West Africa: Successes and limits. Rev. D’élevage Vet. Med. Trop. Ctries. 2005, 58, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galiè, A.; Teufel, N.; Korir, L.; Baltenweck, I.; Webb Girard, A.; Dominguez-Salas, P.; Yount, K.M. The Women’s Empowerment in Livestock Index. Soc. Indic Res. 2019, 142, 799–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nowakoswski, K. Revealing the Gap between Men and Women Farmers. National Geographic, 2014. Available online: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/140308-international-female-farmers (accessed on 2 May 2020).
- Galié, A.; Mulema, A.; Benard, M.A.; Onzere, S.N.; Colverson, K.E. Exploring gender perceptions of resource ownership and their implications for food security among rural livestock owners in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Nicaragua. Agric. Food Secur. 2015, 4, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaz, A.; Pratley, P.; Alkire, S. Measuring Women’s Autonomy in Chad Using the Relative Autonomy Index. Fem. Econ. 2016, 22, 264–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, G.J.; Kordas, K.; Murray-Kolb, L.E. Associations between women’s autonomy and child nutritional status: A review of the literature. Matern. Child Nutr. 2014, 11, 452–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- James-Hawkins, L.; Peters, C.; VanderEnde, K.; Bardin, L.; Yount, K.M. Women’s agency and its relationship to current contraceptive use in lower- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of the literature. Glob. Public Health 2016, 13, 843–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
- Annas, J. Women and the Quality of Life: Two Norms or One? In The Quality of Life, Online ed.; Nussbaum, M., Sen, A., Eds.; Oxford Academic: Oxford, UK, 2003; pp. 279–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabeer, N. Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment. Dev. Change 1999, 30, 435–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, A. Development as capability expansion. In Human Development and the International Development Strategy for the 1990s; Griffin, K., Knight, J., Eds.; MacMillan: London, UK, 1990; pp. 41–48. [Google Scholar]
- Lombardini, S.; Bowman, K.; Garwood, R. A ‘How To’ Guide to Measuring Women’s Empowerment: Sharing Experience from Oxfam’s Impact Evaluation. Oxfam GB, 2017. Available online: https://www.oxfam.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/A-how-to-guide-to-measuring-womens-empowerment.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- Klasen, S.; Schüler, D. Reforming the gender-related development index and the gender empowerment measure: Implementing some specific proposals. Fem. Econ. 2011, 17, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klugman, J.; Li, L.; Barker, K.M.; Parsons, J.; Dale, K. How are the domains of women’s inclusion, justice, and security associated with maternal and infant mortality across countries? Insights from Women, Peace, and Security Index. SSS-Popul. Health 2019, 9, 100486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mistry, R.; Galal, O.; Lu, M. Women’s autonomy and pregnancy care in rural India: A contextual analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 69, 926–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Upadhyay, U.D.; Hindin, M.J. Do higher status and more autonomous women have longer birth intervals? Soc. Sci. Med. 2005, 60, 2641–2655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hausmann, R.; Tyson, L.; Zahidi, S. Gender Gap Index report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum: 2012. Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2012.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2022).
- United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update; United Nations Development Programme: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.C.; Mussi, E.; Sunindijo, R.Y. Analysing gender issues in the Australian construction industry through the lens of empowerment. Buildings 2021, 11, 553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkire, S.; Meinzen-Dick, R.; Peterman, A.; Quisumbing, A.R.; Seymour, G.; Vaz, A. The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index; OPHI Working Paper No. 58; OPHI: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 1–69. ISBN 978-1-907194-45-0. [Google Scholar]
- The World Bank. Minding the Stock: Bringing Public Policy to Bear on Livestock Sector Development; The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/3043 (accessed on 25 March 2022).
- Malapit, H.J.L.; Quisumbing, A.R. What dimensions of women’s empowerment in agriculture matter for nutrition in Ghana? Food Policy 2015, 52, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johnston, D.; Stevano, S.; Malapit, H.; Hull, E.; Kadiyala, S. Review: Time use as an explanation for the agri-nutrition disconnect? Evidence from rural areas in low and middle-income countries. Food Policy 2018, 76, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackden, C.M.; Wodon, Q. Gender, Time Use, and Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa; World Bank Working Paper No. 73; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7214 (accessed on 25 March 2022).
- Dungumaro, E.W. Availability of Domestic Water and Sanitation in Households: A Gender Perspective Using Survey Data. In Proceedings of the PRIPODE Workshop on Urban Population, Development and Environment Dynamics in Developing Countries, Nairobi, Kenya, 11–13 June 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Mason, K.O.; Smith, H. Women’s Empowerment and Social Context: Results from Five Asian Countries; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Alidou, S.; Marikje, V. Only women can whisper to gods: Voodoo, menopause and women’s autonomy. World Dev. 2019, 119, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canning, D.E.; Schofield, H. The Effect of Fertility on Female Labor Supply and Household Poverty in Indonesia; Harvard School of Public Health: Boston, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Sinding, S.W. Population, poverty and economic development. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2009, 364, 3023–3030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Aklilu, H.A.; Almekinders, C.J.; Udo, H.M.; Van der Zijpp, A.J. Village poultry consumption and marketing in relation to gender, religious festivals and market access. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2007, 39, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odongo, J.A. Modelling the Relationship between Farmer Attitude towards Farming, and on Farm Practice a Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Tanzania. Master’s Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
Tools Used | Nº of Events | Nº of Participants | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | Total Nº of People | ||
WELI quantitative survey | 1 | 95 | 285 | 380 |
Stakeholders’ meetings (SM) | 3 | 22 | 14 | 36 |
Focus groups discussions (FGD) | 10 | 4 (37) | 6 (67) | 104 |
Independent Variable | Dependent Variable | Research Question | Hypothesis | Statistical Test |
---|---|---|---|---|
Demographic variable | Choose to vaccinate (categorical, binary) | Is there an association between vaccination rates among female livestock keepers and level of empowerment within the livestock sector? | Do empowered women vaccinate more? | Logistic regression |
Knowing where to purchase vaccines (categorical, binary) Knowledge about animal health (categorical, ordinal) Access to information on vaccinating (categorical, ordinal) | WELI score (continuous) | Is there an association between vaccination knowledge among female livestock keepers and level of empowerment within the livestock sector? | Does knowledge about vaccines contribute to empowerment? | Multiple linear regression |
WELI score (continuous) | Animals lost to disease (continuous) | Is there an association between animals lost to disease among female livestock keepers and level of empowerment within the livestock sector? | If women are more empowered do they lose less animals? | Linear regression |
Attending training sessions about animals (continuous, binary) | WELI score (continuous) | Is there an association between attending training sessions for animals among female livestock keepers and level of empowerment within the livestock sector? | Is training helping to empower women? | Is training helping to empower women? |
Male (Dual Adult Male Female HHs) | Female (Dual Adult Male Female HHs) | Female (Adult Female Only) | All Female | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean age (SD) | 57 (15) | 48 (13) | 56 (14) | 49 (13) |
Median age (Years) | 59 | 47 | 57 | 48 |
Interquartile range | 44–68 | 39–58 | 44–65 | 40–59 |
Min–Max age | 25–90 | 22–79 | 22–85 | 22–85 |
No. of observations | 95 | 247 1 | 38 | 285 |
Covariate | Exp (b) | p-Value | [95% CI] |
---|---|---|---|
Respondent’s gender (Ref group = Index man) | 1.020 | 0.459 | 0.967–1.076 |
Respondent’s age in years | 1.003 | <0.001 | 1.002–1.005 |
Household size | 0.981 | 0.005 | 0.967–0.994 |
Activity | Men | Women | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Animal feeding | 58.9% | 92.0% | <0.001 |
Checking animal health | 68.4% | 88.8% | <0.001 |
Disease preventative measures | 57.7% | 60.3% | 0.744 |
Milking animals | 66.7% | 85.0% 1 | - |
Cleaning animals | 38.1% | 90.2% | <0.001 |
Slaughter animals | 45.4% | 64.3% | <0.001 |
Breeding | 39.0% | 65.2% | <0.001 |
Marketing of live animals and products from live animals | 40.3% | 59.4% | <0.001 |
Selecting which species and breeds to rear | 28.6% | 33.3% | 0.689 |
Sharing livestock workload among household members | 75.4% | 96.0% | <0.001 |
Covariate | Exp (b) | Std. Error | [95% CI] | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Number of agricultural activities in which individual participates in | 1.07 | 0.01 | 1.04–1.10 | <0.001 |
Number of livestock activities in which individual participates in | 1.02 | 0.01 | 1.01–1.03 | 0.001 |
Gender of the respondent (Ref group = Male) | 0.98 | 0.03 | 0.93–1.03 | 0.457 |
Respondent age | 1.00 | <0.01 | 0.99–1.00 | 0.068 |
Household size | 0.98 | 0.01 | 0.97–0.99 | 0.001 |
Economic Independence | Knowledge and Skills | Opportunities for Networking | Autonomy in Decision Making |
---|---|---|---|
Can negotiate for better buying prices of poultry and goats. | Access to informal training on vaccine handling and administration | Organized into networks/with activities that empower fellow women on VVC and livestock production | Can make decisions and take action to improve their livelihoods and incomes |
Can increase the size of their flocks-Own more goats and chicken that they can sell for more profit | Access to information on animal health and entrepreneurship so they can improve their businesses | Increased ability to access credit as individuals or as group networks | Make decisions that enable them to participate and benefit from formal livestock markets |
Can own successful businesses such as agrovets, distributors | They are engaging their partners, family members and sharing information and skills obtained from trainings | Their groups can influence government decisions and structures | Can move vertically upwards into influential positions e.g., animal health assistants, vets, directors |
Can have access to credit and resources similar to the men | Have more education at-college level and can therefore get better jobs and make more money | Their networks have more savings, which they can rely on in hard times | Can be recognized by their husbands and community leaders as contributors |
Male Respondents Dual Adult HHs (%) | Female Respondents Dual Adult HHs and Female Only HHs | p-Value | Female Respondents | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adult Female Only HHs (%) | Dual Adult HHs (%) | ||||
Autonomy in income use | 81.1 | 68.5 | 0.019 | 79.0 | 66.9 |
Self-efficacy | 67.4 | 64.0 | 0.550 | 60.5 | 64.5 |
Attitudes about domestic violence | 81.1 | 85.7 | 0.282 | 86.8 | 85.5 |
Respect among household members | 62.1 | 50.0 | 0.041 | 65.8 | 47.6 |
No of observations | 95 | 286 | 38 | 248 |
Male Respondents (%) | Female Respondents (%) | p-Value | Female Respondents | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adult Female Only HHs (%) | Dual Adult HHs (%) | ||||
Input in productive decisions | 66.3 | 86.7 | <0.010 | 86.8 | 86.7 |
Input in productive decisions–livestock | 61.1 | 92.3 | <0.001 | 94.7 | 91.9 |
Ownership of land other assets | 95.8 | 89.5 | 0.063 | 92.1 | 89.1 |
Access to and decisions on credit | 93.7 | 94.1 | 0.895 | 92.1 | 94.4 |
Control over use of income | 78.0 | 82.5 | 0.316 | 79.0 | 83.1 |
Work balance | 59.0 | 26.2 | <0.001 | 31.6 | 25.4 |
Visiting important locations | 62.1 | 49.7 | 0.035 | 39.5 | 51.2 |
No. of observations | 95 | 286 | 38 | 248 |
Male Respondents (%) | Female Respondents (%) | Chi-sq. (p-Value) | Adult Female Only HHs (%) | Female in Dual Adult HHs (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group membership | 73.7 | 92.0 | <0.001 | 89.5 | 92.3 |
Influential Group membership | 52.6 | 72.7 | <0.001 | 68.4 | 73.4 |
No of observations | 95 | 286 | 38 | 248 |
Indicator | Men | Women |
---|---|---|
Number of observations | 95 | 286 |
3DE score | 0.80 | 0.79 |
Disempowerment score (1-3DE) | 0.20 | 0.21 |
% achieving empowerment | 51.5% | 50.3% |
% not achieving empowerment | 48.5% | 49.7% |
Mean 3DE score for not yet empowered | 0.58 | 0.58 |
Mean disempowerment score (1-3DE) | 0.42 | 0.42 |
Gender Parity Index (GPI) | 0.92 | |
Number of dual-adult households | 78 | |
% achieving gender parity | 57.7% | |
% not achieving gender parity | 42.3% | |
Average empowerment gap | 0.18 | |
WELI score | 0.81 |
Access to Information about Vaccination | Men | Women | Chi-sq. (p-Value) |
---|---|---|---|
Have access to information regarding vaccinating goats for CCPP | 7.8% | 8.1% | 0.008 (0.927) |
Have access to information regarding vaccinating chicken for NCD | 12.2% | 8.5% | 1.127 (0.288) |
Have access to information regarding any of the two vaccinations | 18.9% | 16.0% | 0.339 (0.560) |
Ability to Vaccinate | Men | Women | Chi-sq. (p-Value) |
---|---|---|---|
Farmer is able to vaccinate goats against CCPP | 19.5% | 10.3% | 4.650 (0.098) |
Farmer is able to vaccinate chicken against NCD | 37.8% | 32.5% | 0.928 (0.629) |
Able to vaccinate livestock against any of the two diseases | 46.9% | 39.3% | 1.438 (0.230) |
Independent Variables | Exp (b) | Std. Error | [95% CI] | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived ability to access information regarding vaccination (Ref group = None/small extent). No. of observations = 231 | 0.94 | 0.04 | 0.87–1.02 | 0.146 |
Able to vaccinate livestock against CCPP or NCD (Ref group = No). No. of observations = 244 | 0.95 | 0.03 | 0.90–1.00 | 0.066 |
Attended training about goat or chicken health in the past 12 months (Ref group = No). No. of observations = 22 | 0.91 | 0.24 | 0.54–1.54 | 0.727 |
Dependent Variables | Model Used | Exp (b) | Std. Error | [95% CI] | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vaccination rate No of obs. = 236 | Log binomial model (Reporting Risk ratio) | 0.94 | 0.70 | 0.22–4.07 | 0.938 |
Reported number of CCPP deaths in the past 12 months No of obs. = 232 | Negative binomial regression (Reporting Incidence Rate ratio) | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.02–0.34 | 0.001 |
Reported number of NCD deaths in the past 12 months No of obs. = 270 | 1.35 | 0.52 | 0.64–2.88 | 0.431 |
Covariates | Exp (b) | Std. Error | [95% CI] | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Knows where to purchase vaccine against CCPP or NCD (Ref group = No). | 1.08 | 0.03 | 1.02–1.15 | 0.007 |
Knowledgeable about animal health, goat or chicken (Ref group = Not at all/small extent) | 1.01 | 0.04 | 0.94–1.08 | 0.791 |
Have access to information regarding any of the two vaccinations (Ref group = No) | 0.93 | 0.04 | 0.85–1.01 | 0.099 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kaluwa, C.; Oduma, J.; Abdirahman, F.A.; Kitoga, B.K.; Opondoh, A.A.; Muchibi, J.; Bagnol, B.; Rosenbaum, M.; Onchaga, S.; Stanley, M.; et al. Using the Women Empowerment in Livestock Index (WELI) to Examine Linkages between Women Smallholder Livestock Farmers’ Empowerment and Access to Livestock Vaccines in Machakos County of Kenya: Insights and Critiques. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1868. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10111868
Kaluwa C, Oduma J, Abdirahman FA, Kitoga BK, Opondoh AA, Muchibi J, Bagnol B, Rosenbaum M, Onchaga S, Stanley M, et al. Using the Women Empowerment in Livestock Index (WELI) to Examine Linkages between Women Smallholder Livestock Farmers’ Empowerment and Access to Livestock Vaccines in Machakos County of Kenya: Insights and Critiques. Vaccines. 2022; 10(11):1868. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10111868
Chicago/Turabian StyleKaluwa, Catherine, Jemimah Oduma, Faduma Abdullahi Abdirahman, Byalungwa Kyotos Kitoga, Angela A. Opondoh, John Muchibi, Brigitte Bagnol, Marieke Rosenbaum, Sylvia Onchaga, Meghan Stanley, and et al. 2022. "Using the Women Empowerment in Livestock Index (WELI) to Examine Linkages between Women Smallholder Livestock Farmers’ Empowerment and Access to Livestock Vaccines in Machakos County of Kenya: Insights and Critiques" Vaccines 10, no. 11: 1868. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10111868