ROLE OF KITCHEN GARDENS IN DIVERSIFYING DIETS AMONG

SEMI ARID INHABITANTS OF IGAMBA NGOMBE IN THARAKA

NITHI COUNTY, KENYA

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF KITCHEN GARDEN PRACTICING AND

NON-PRACTICING HOUSEHOLDS IN IGAMBA NGOMBE

THUKU LINET NJERI

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE IN APPLIED HUMAN NUTRITION

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE, NUTRITION AND TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

2020
 DECLARATION

This dissertation is my original work and has not been submitted for award of a degree in any
other University.

Signature …… ……….. Date 1/12/2020

Thuku Linet Njeri
A56/14607/2018

This dissertation has been submitted for examination with our approval as University supervisors

Professor Wambui Kogi- Makau

Department of Food Science, Nutrition and Technology
University of Nairobi

Signature……………………………………………… Date: December 1, 2020.

Dr. George O. Abong

Department of Food Science, Nutrition and Technology
University of Nairobi

Signature Date. December 1, 2020.

ii
 UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
Plagiarism Declaration Form for Students

Name of Student Thuku Linet Njeri

Registration Number A56/14607/2018
College College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences
Faculty/School/Institute Faculty of Agriculture
Department Food Science, Nutrition and Technology
Course Name Applied Human Nutrition
Title of the work: Role of kitchen gardens in diversifying diets among
semi-arid inhabitants of Igamba Ngombe in Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya

DECLARATION
1. I understand what Plagiarism is and I am aware of the University‟s policy in this regard
2. I declare that this dissertation is my original work and has not been submitted elsewhere for
examination, award of a degree or publication. Where other people‟s work, or my own work has
been used, this has properly been acknowledged and referenced in accordance with the
University of Nairobi‟s requirements.
3. I have not sought or used the services of any professional agencies to produce this work
4. I have not allowed, and shall not allow anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing
it off as his/her own work
5. I understand that any false claim in respect of this work shall result in disciplinary action, in
accordance with University Plagiarism Policy.

Signature… ………………………………. Date1/12/2020

iii
 DEDICATION

It is my great delight to dedicate this dissertation to my family and mentor:

My beloved dad, Francis, for being such a great source of encouragement in the entire process

My mum, Nancy, for your continuous love and above all prayers

My sisters, Maureen and Ruth for being great sources of inspiration

To my supervisor, Professor Wambui-Kogi Makau, for mentoring me and for being a source of

encouragement.

Thank you all and may the Almighty God bless you abundantly

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First is to thank the Almighty God for His Grace forbearance and direction throughout my

academic life and for His love and mercy upon me. I am also grateful to my supervisors Prof.

Wambui Kogi-Makau and Dr. George O Abong for providing supportive supervision throughout

all the phases of the development of this dissertation and for their effort in ensuring that all the

work is well done. I also thank my fellow students for moral support and the cooperation during

the course work phase. My sincere gratitude goes to my family members for giving me moral

and financial support all the way through. I acknowledge with deep appreciation the University

of Nairobi for sponsoring my Master of Science degree education.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION........................................................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................. iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................ v

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ x

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xi

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACROYNMS ................................................................................... xii

OPERATIONAL DEFINATIONS ........................................................................................... xiii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ xiv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the problem ...................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Justification of the Study ....................................................................................................... 4

1.4. Aim of the Study .................................................................................................................. 4

1.5: Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................ 4

1.6: Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................ 4

1.6.1 General Objective ........................................................................................................... 4

1.7 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 6

2:1 Concept of kitchen gardening ............................................................................................... 6

2:2 Dietary diversity .................................................................................................................... 8

2:2:1Methods and tools of assessing dietary diversity ............................................................ 8

2.2.1.1 Household Dietary Diversity Scores ........................................................................... 9

2.2.1.2 Individual dietary diversity score .............................................................................. 10

vi
 2:3 Dietary diversity and socio-economic status....................................................................... 13

2:4 Dietary diversity and malnutrition ...................................................................................... 15

2:5 Micronutrient malnutrition .................................................................................................. 15

2:5:1 Micronutrient malnutrition management...................................................................... 16

2:6 Climatic conditions of semi-arid lands ............................................................................... 17

2:7: Gap in knowledge .............................................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................... 19

3:1 Study Setting ....................................................................................................................... 19

3.1.1 Study area and population ............................................................................................ 19

3.1.2 Position and size ........................................................................................................... 20

3.1.3 Administrative and political units................................................................................. 20

3.1.4 Climate.......................................................................................................................... 20

3.1.5 Health............................................................................................................................ 21

3.1.6 Education ...................................................................................................................... 21

3.1.7 Farming ......................................................................................................................... 21

3.2. Research Methodology....................................................................................................... 22

3.2.1 Study Design .................................................................................................................... 22

3.2.2 Study Population........................................................................................................... 22

3.2.3 Sampling ....................................................................................................................... 22

3.2.3.1 Determination of sample size .................................................................................... 22

3.2.3.2 Sampling Procedure ................................................................................................... 24

3.2.2Techniques for data collection for every objective ....................................................... 26

3.2.3: Ethical and Human Rights Commission...................................................................... 27

3.2.4: Pretesting of tools ........................................................................................................ 28

vii
 3.2.5 Recruitment and Training of research assistants .......................................................... 28

3.2.6 Data quality assurance and control ............................................................................... 29

3.2.7 Data Management and analysis .................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ................................................................................................. 30

4.1: Socio- Demographic Characteristics of the study population ............................................ 30

4.1.1 Population Structure ..................................................................................................... 30

4.1.2 Marital Status ................................................................................................................ 31

4.1.3 Household headship and relationship with other members .......................................... 32

4.1.4 Education Level ............................................................................................................ 32

4.1.5 Main Occupation .......................................................................................................... 33

4.1.6 Household asset ownership .......................................................................................... 34

4.1.7 Livestock Ownership .................................................................................................... 35

4.1.8 Household income and livelihood ................................................................................ 36

4.1.9 House ownership and characteristics ............................................................................ 37

4.1.10 Sources of Lighting and Cooking ............................................................................... 38

4.2 Dietary Diversity Scores ..................................................................................................... 39

4.3 Contribution of Kitchen gardening to dietary diversity ...................................................... 41

4.4 Sustainability of kitchen gardens ........................................................................................ 43

4.4.1 Sources of Planting Materials ....................................................................................... 43

4.4.2: Labor............................................................................................................................ 44

4.4.3: Source of water used in kitchen gardening.................................................................. 44

4.4.4: Economic value of kitchen gardens to the households ................................................ 45

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION.............................................................................................. 46

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 46

viii
 5.2 Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the study population .............. 46

5.3 Dietary diversity .................................................................................................................. 47

5.4: Contribution of Kitchen gardening to Dietary Diversity. ................................................. 47

5.5 Sustainability of Kitchen gardens in Semi-Arid lands ........................................................ 48

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 51

6.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 51

6.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 51

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 53

APPENDIXES ............................................................................................................................. 57

Appendix 1: Consent form ........................................................................................................ 57

Appendix 2: Questionnaire........................................................................................................ 58

Appendix 3: Training Curriculum & Program......................................................................... 65

ix
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Marital status of the household members ................................................................... 32

Table 4.2: Main occupation of the household members .............................................................. 34

Table 4.3: Ownership of household assets .................................................................................... 34

Table 4.4: Distribution of households by source of income and livelihood ................................. 37

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Map showing the study area; Source: https://www.researchgate.net ......................... 19

Figure 4.1: Distribution of Household members by age categories in years ................................ 31

Figure 4.2: Distribution of the household members based on the level of education ................... 33

Figure 4.3 Distribution of livestock ownership ............................................................................ 36

Figure 4.4: Distribution of households by building materials .................................................... 38

Figure 4.5: Distribution of Households by Sources of Lighting and sources of fuel ................... 39

Figure 4.6: Distribution of Households by Dietary Diversity Scores ........................................... 40

Figure 4.7: Distribution of Households by Dietary Diversity Scores categories .......................... 40

Figure 4.8: Distribution of types of Vegetables grown in the Kitchen Gardens........................... 42

Figure 4.9: Distribution of types of Fruit trees grown .................................................................. 42

Figure 4.10: Sources of planting materials in the first and subsequent planting times ................ 43

xi
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACROYNMS

ASALs Arid and Semi-Arid Lands

CIDP County Integrated development Plan
CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers
DASAL Directorate of Arid and Semi-Arid Lands
FANTA Food and Agriculture Nutrition Technical Team
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score
HFIAS Household Food Insecurity Access Scale
IDDS Individual Dietary Diversity Score
IYCF Infant Young Child Feeding
K.G Kitchen Gardening
KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
KNH Kenyatta National Hospital
KPHC Kenya Population and Housing Census
MAD Minimum Acceptable Diet
MAM Moderate Acute Malnutrition
MDD Minimum Dietary Diversity
MDD-W Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women
MMF Minimum Meal Frequency
NKG Non Kitchen gardening
PACJA Pan Africa Climate and Justice Alliance.
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WFP World Food Program
WHO World Health Organization

xii
 OPERATIONAL DEFINATIONS

Dietary Diversity Refers to the number of different food groups, as categorized by

Food Agricultural Organization, consumed by a Household

(Household dietary diversity) and an individual (Individual dietary

diversity) in the last 24 h

Household Refers to a group of persons living under the same roof, related by

blood, marriage or other social ties, eating from the same pot,

sleeps in the same compound, relying on the same household

economic and considers the same person as the household head.

Kitchen Garden Refers to a portion of land where vegetables, fruits and sometimes

other crops in small scale are planted primarily for home

consumption whether within the homestead or outside the

homestead.

Semi- Arid Lands Refers to areas that have been classified by Directorate of arid and

semi- arid lands (DASAL) as areas with aridity levels of between

30-79%.

Sustainability of

Kitchen Garden Kitchen gardening as an intervention will be termed sustainable if

project beneficiaries can manage their gardens comfortably

without external help and with no strain. This is in relation to;

Labor, Planting materials, water. and Economic impact

xiii
 ABSTRACT
Achieving dietary diversity in Arid and Semi-Arid lands is quite a big challenge due to the
weather patterns experienced in this climatic zone. The low amounts of rainfall and high
temperature levels negatively affect food production as well as livestock kept in these areas.
Although Kitchen gardens are known to directly improve food security at household levels by
ensuring access to foods that are nutritious and diversified, information on the role they play in
Arid and Semi-arid lands is scanty. A comparative study was therefore conducted between
August and September 2019 to determine the role of kitchen gardens in dietary diversity among
98 kitchen garden practicing and 221 non-practicing households. Data entry and analysis were
performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 and Microsoft excel.
Results showed that kitchen garden practicing and non-practicing households had similar
characteristics in age, sex, main occupation, and type of contribution to household (p >0.05) but
differed significantly (p <0.05) in level of education and gender of the household head. Female-
headed households were more open to the idea of owning a kitchen garden compared to male-
headed households. There was a significant difference between the two groups in the gender of
the household head (p <0.05). The study showed significant difference (p<0.05) in the dietary
diversity scores between the two groups. Kitchen gardening practicing households had a more
diversified diet compared to the non-practicing households. This could be contributed by the fact
that all the households, 100%, that practiced kitchen gardening had planted more than one type
of vegetable whereas majority of the participants, 71%, had more than two types of vegetables.
Out of all the four indicators of sustainability, source of water was the biggest setback faced. In
conclusion, kitchen gardens play a role in achieving dietary diversity of households by allowing
the practicing households to have access to different varieties of vegetables grown in the gardens
as well as boosting their economic ability hence improving their purchasing power of other
foods. There is need to target men in the promotion of kitchen gardens and to find long lasting
solution to ensure water availability for sustenance of kitchen gardens in this climatic zone.

xiv
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

According to a report by Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR)

Research Program on Dry land Systems, estimates that, more than 40% of the world‟s land

surface falls under the Arid and Semi-Arid lands (ASALs) category and about 2.5Billion people,

who translate to 30% of the world‟s population, live in this dry areas. Poverty in the Arid and

semi-arid lands is quite alarming with an average poverty index of around 70% with some areas

having a poverty index as high as 80% (Water Service Trust Fund, 2018).

According to a World Food Program (WFP, 2016) report, Kenya has diverse natural resources

with highly varied terrain and topography. Further, 80% of Kenya‟s landmass is either Arid or

Semi-arid hence limiting rain-fed crop production. This automatically leads to food insecurity

and consequently low dietary diversity thus the need to innovate sustainable interventions.

Globally about two billion people or a third of the world‟s population suffer from lack of

essential vitamins and minerals, otherwise referred to as Hidden Hunger. About 45% of Kenyans

in the dry areas are afflicted by chronic malnutrition while over 500,000 children require

vitamins due to food shortages (WHO, 2016). This climatic Zone is prone to higher levels of

food shortages due to the low amount of rainfall they receive and the high temperature levels

experienced. Micronutrient malnutrition remains one of the largest nutrition problems

worldwide. Children are especially vulnerable due to their increased nutrient requirements for

growth and development. In most cases, the diet provided at the household levels is often

inadequate and as such increases the dietary diversity by introducing locally grown vegetables,

1
fruits and small animals like chicken, rabbits. Where possible, fish would go a long way in

improving the micro nutrient intake.

Kitchen gardens offer great potential for improving household food security and getting rid of

micronutrient deficiencies. They are known to directly improve food security at household levels

by ensuring access to foods that are nutritious and diversified, increasing the purchasing power

of households as well as providing a backup plan during the dry season (FAO & FHI 360,

2016).Research has shown that kitchen gardens are associated with improved dietary diversity

scores, greater consumption of vitamin A rich fruits, other fruits, Vit A rich vegetables, other

vegetables, pulses, and improved complementary food availability (Girard et al. 2012). Kitchen

gardens have a positive impact on household food consumption patterns; they are associated with

an overall increase in dietary diversity of rural low-income households (Ruel and Alderman

2013). In addition, although indirectly, kitchen gardens may supply cereals to the family, they

may do so by using the money that would have been used in purchasing fruits and vegetables to

purchase cereals and other foods. (Njuguna 2013).

The Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA); an organization that is spread all over

Africa, mobilizes and empowers the African civil society to towards realization of environmental

and climate justice for all people in Africa. It was founded in 2008 and has emerged as the most

vibrant and largest civil society platform in climate change and sustainable development with a

membership of more 1000 organizations and networks.

2
Due to the climatic conditions, Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) started Kitchen

Gardening as an intervention from a climatic point of view. This implies the need to investigate

the the implication of Kitchen Gardening on dietary diversity in households in dry land regions.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Achieving Dietary diversity in the ASALs is quite a big challenge. This can be attributed to the

weather patterns experienced in this climatic zone. The low amounts of rainfall and high

temperature levels affect food production and at times negatively affect livestock kept in these

areas.

Lack of dietary diversity can lead to micronutrient deficiencies and consequently poor nutritional

status of individuals. World Health Organization recommends a minimum daily intake of 400g

of fruits and vegetables or 146 kg/person/per year. But poor communities such as those in the

ASALs have a per capita consumption of 35kg/person/year (FAO, 2015). This is way below the

recommended figure.

Even though Igamba Ngombe lies in the category of Semi-Arid land in Kenya, there has been

promotion of kitchen gardening, an intervention that has been identified as one that can lead to

adequate dietary diversity levels and has been noted to be a sustainable venture. However, there

is limited information on the role of Kitchen gardening in diversifying diets of households in

ASALs hence the need for current research.

3
1.3 Justification of the Study

Dietary Diversity is an essential component of a healthy population and good nutrition status of a

people. This is rarely achieved in ASALs. The study sought to establish if kitchen gardening is

an effective and sustainable intervention in ensuring diet diversity among households in ASALs.

The information assembled through the study, will benefit the households in the ASAL climatic

zones and help them make evidence based decisions hence promoting food and nutrition

security Other researchers will also benefit from the study in identifying areas that have not been

explored, hence finding other areas to research on.

1.4. Aim of the Study

The aim of the study is to contribute towards achieving Food and Nutrition Security in Semi-

Arid Lands in Kenya.

1.5: Purpose of the Study

The information generated by the study can be used by the policy makers both at County and

National Levels to formulate policies to benefit the communities in Semi-arid lands so as to

improve the dietary diversity of communities in this climatic region.

1.6: Objectives of the Study

1.6.1 General Objective

To determine the role of Kitchen Gardens in achieving Dietary Diversity among people living in

the ASALs in Kenya.

4
1.6.2 Specific Objectives

1. To establish the socio-economic status of kitchen gardening practicing and non –

practicing households in Igamba Ngombe South Constituency in Kenya.

2. To determine the household dietary diversity of Kitchen gardening practicing and

non –practicing Households in Igamba Ngombe South Constituency

3. To determine the association between Kitchen Garden ownership and dietary

diversity of households in the ASALs.

4. To assess the sustainability of Kitchen Gardening as an intervention in the ASALs.

1.7 Research Questions

1. What is the socio-economic status of Kitchen gardening practicing and Non –practicing

households in Igambe Ngombe Constituency?

2. What is the household dietary diversity of Kitchen gardening practicing and Non –

practicing households in Igambe Ngombe Constituency?

3. Does practicing Kitchen Gardening have implications on dietary diversity of Households

in Semi-Arid lands in Kenya?

4. Is kitchen gardening a sustainable intervention in the semi-arid lands in Kenya?

5
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2:1 Concept of kitchen gardening

Kitchen gardens trace their origin to Northern Europe, and in particular Great Britain in the 18th

Century. In Africa they are traced to Egypt, where farming began in the continent. The earliest

garden of any kind was one that supplied its owner with edible and to a certain extent, medicinal

substances. People created such gardens in pre-historic times to date albeit on a small scale and

with fewer medicinal or household plants (Jakob, 2010)

Even in the early days productive kitchen gardens required certain essential elements that are

common to all. They are usually situated close to the homestead; they need fertile soil, water and

shelter from harsh climate and security from people (thieves) and animals. Security is provided

by low stone or mud walls, hedges of thorns or spiky cacti, wooden or reed palings (Chris,

2010).

Various names and definitions have been used to describe what a kitchen garden is. A kitchen

garden is a piece of land where herbs and vegetables are grown around the house for household

use (Evans &Jakob 2010). Generally, kitchen gardening refers to the cultivation of a small

portion of land which may be around the homestead or within short walking distance. The

closeness to the family home is for convenience and security purposes. For this study, Kitchen

garden refers to a small segregated piece of land dedicated to production of fruits, vegetables or

animals primarily for home / family consumption. Noteworthy is that, recently, the term kitchen

gardening is being used interchangeably with the term vegetable garden.

6
According to Michelle and Hanstad (2004), five intrinsic characteristics of home gardens are

location of garden, near the residence; contains a high diversity of plants; production is

supplemental rather than a main source of family consumption and income; occupies a small area

and are a production system that the poor can easily enter at some level.

The different forms of kitchen gardens that are in existence include; planting in sacks, pot

planting, garden planting and shown in Figure 2.1, respectively and animal rearing.

Planting in sacks in which a farmer puts soil, preferably top soil, in a sack and for better results

mixes it with animal or farmyard manure. The vegetables are planted either from the top or along

the sides by making holes (as small as possible) in the sack and then sowing the seeds/plants.

Vegetables, such as Spinach, Onions, tomatoes, and kale are ideal for sack gardening.

Pot Planting- It is more or less the same like sack planting just that the plants are planted in pots.

The same procedure of preparing sacks is used. Fruits such as Strawberries do well in such

settings.

Garden planting- In this type of kitchen gardening, the crops are planted directly into the

dedicated. The land is first prepared. This is necessary in to ensure favorable conditions for seed

germination and establishment, root penetration, crop management, elimination of weeds and

pathogens, improving water holding capacity of the soil and drainage, and ease later field

operations. The seedbed is finely prepared, leveled and then rows and ridges are made. The seeds

are then planted.

Animal keeping- Small animals such as Rabbits, Chicken, Goats, and Ducks are reared primarily

for household consumption.

7
Figure 2.1 : Manifests some forms of Kitchen Gardens

2:2 Dietary diversity

Dietary diversity relates to nutrient adequacy (coverage of basic needs in terms of macro and

micro nutrients) and to diet variety/balance, which are two of the main components of diet

quality (UNSCN, 2008).

2:2:1Methods and tools of assessing dietary diversity

To assess dietary diversity, Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) have proven to be useful elements. At

the household level, dietary diversity indicators have been adopted as a proxy for economic

status (Kennedy & Marie, 2011). At the individual level, dietary diversity indicators serve as a

proxy for diet quality and for some studies, they have shown a relationship with adequacy in

nutrients. Dietary diversity scores are not difficult to use as they are easy to compute and

interpret. They can also be used in different regions since the list of foods used in the

questionnaire can be generated in a way that reflects the locally consumed foods.

8
2.2.1.1 Household Dietary Diversity Scores

In 2006, the Food Agriculture and Nutrition Technical team released the Household Dietary

Diversity Score (HDDS) as an indicator of food access of households. A highly diversified diet is

associated with adequacy of energy giving foods and foods rich in protein as well as

micronutrients (Swindale & Bilinsky, 2006). In most cases the HDDS can be used together with

other indicators that point to food security. For example, the Household Food Insecurity Access

Scale (HFIAS) that helps to shed more light on the access of the household to specific food

groups. (Cafiero et al., 2014).

The HDDS is easy to use, as the questions are standardized and can be well articulated by the

respondents and the data collectors. Additionally, the set of questions usually take less than ten

minutes for one respondent. (Swindale & Bilinsky, 2006). Although the standard format is not

sensitive of the different cultures around the globe, the researcher should customize the question

to fit the study population. ((Kennedy & Marie, 2011).

Even with its numerous advantages, one of the limitations is that the data collected does not give

a clear picture on the dietary intake of different food groups by the household members. It also

does not give data on the distribution of the food within the household. There is are no globally

acceptable cut-off points to distinguish the household that consume diverse food and those that

do not.

The household dietary diversity score described in the FAO Dietary Assessment guidelines

consists of a simple count of food groups that a household has consumed over the preceding

24hrs. Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) is based on the count of 12-food groups. The

9
information is extracted from one qualitative 24-hour recall, excluding foods consumed outside

the home. The respondent is asked to list all the foods they consumed in the last 24hrs, they are

then grouped into the 12 food groups i.e ( Pulses, nuts and seeds, Vitamin A rich vegetables and

tubers, other vegetables, Vitamin A rich fruits, other fruits, meat,& poultry,& fish, eggs, milk

& milk products, oil & fats energy giving foods, spices & condiments & beverages) in the

dietary diversity questionnaire and a score out of 12 is given. According to FAO, a score of

above 6 is considered to be good while that below 3 is considered to be poor.

HDDS accesses the quality of food access at household level. Additionally, it is useful for

identifying emergencies related to food security and malnutrition (Ruel, 2013). Studies have

shown that an increase in dietary diversity at household level is positively associated with

household food security (Hoddinott et al., 2002).

2.2.1.2 Individual dietary diversity score

Individual dietary diversity score is a method used in assessing the quality of the diets

consumed by an individual (Dere Kal et al., 2017). The individual dietary diversity can be

assessed using any of the three methods depending on the target group.

1) The Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) for children 6-23 months old, is one of eight

core indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices MAD was

developed and finalized at the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Consensus

Meeting on Indicators of IYCN in 2007. These eight indicators were developed to

provide simple, valid, and reliable metrics for assessing the many aspects of IYCF that

are of interest at the population level (WHO, 2008). The other seven indicators are: early

initiation of breastfeeding; exclusive breastfeeding of children under 6 months;

10
 continued breastfeeding at 1 year; introduction of solid, semi-solid, or soft foods;

minimum dietary diversity; minimum meal frequency; and consumption of iron-rich or

iron-fortified foods. The MAD indicator is a composite indicator composed of the

Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD) and Minimum Meal Frequency.

The MAD, along with the other seven IYCF indicators, was developed for assessment at the

population level to facilitate comparisons across and within countries, to describe trends over

time, to target/identify populations at risk, target interventions, make policy decisions about

resource allocation, and serve as an impact measure when monitoring and evaluating IYCF

programs. Because the MAD indicator captures multiple dimensions of feeding, it can be used

for comparisons across populations with different rates of continued breastfeeding or be

presented by breastfed and non-breastfed children (WHO, 2008).

One advantage of this indicator is that it is relatively simple to calculate and interpret and is

applicable across socio-cultural contexts. It is also applicable for both breastfed and non-

breastfed children. Analyses have shown that the MAD indicator is associated with child

anthropometric status, particularly stunting (Jones et al., 2013). However, a weakness of this

indicator is that it does not provide quantitative information about children‟s food and nutrient

intake. The indicator was designed to capture optimal complementary feeding patterns (based on

WHO recommendations), but it was not designed to capture excessive intake of energy, sugar, or

fat that would yield information about risks for overweight and obesity (Lele et al., 2016).

11
Minimum dietary diversity for women.

The Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W) is a population-level indicator of diet

diversity validated for women aged 15-49 years old. The MDD-W is a dichotomous indicator

based on ten food groups and is considered the standard for measuring population-level dietary

diversity in women of reproductive age. The MDD-W was preceded by the Women‟s Dietary

Diversity Score (WDDS), which was a validated continuous indicator based on reported intake

of nine food groups. The MDD-W was developed after additional validation using new data sets

was carried out and with the objective of creating a dichotomous (easier to interpret) indicator

rather than a continuous one (FAO & FHI, 2016).

According to the MDD-W, women who have consumed at least five of the 10 prescribed food

groups over a 24-hour recall period are classified as having minimally adequate diet diversity.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the United States Agency of International

Development (USAID) both recommend the use of the MDD-W when a categorical indicator of

individual dietary diversity for women is needed. These organizations also recommend using the

10-food group dietary diversity indicator if a continuous variable is desired.

Indicators of women‟s diet diversity have strongly and positively correlated with micronutrient

adequacy of the diet in cross-country analyses using data from several low-income countries

(Arimond et al., 2010). Micronutrient adequacy is an important element of diet quality, thus, the

MDD-W can be used as a proxy for this aspect of diet quality. Although data is obtained from

the resulting indicator is appropriate only for population-level (not individual-level) targeting. It

can be used to monitor and evaluate programs that seek to improve diet quality in resource-

constrained settings. The MDD-W can be used to calculate and report prevalence, making it a

12
simple and easy to understand tool that is useful for communication and advocacy materials,

particularly for non-nutrition audiences (Arimond, 2016; FAO & FHI, 2016).

One of the advantages of MDD-W is that it is simple to collect, tabulate, and interpret. The

results are easy to communicate (i.e. either households achieve minimally adequate diversity or

not). Additionally, the threshold for adequacy is standardized which enables comparisons across

time and space. However, the tool must be adapted to include culturally relevant examples of

foods for each of the 10 food groups that include 1. Grains, white roots and tubers, and

plantains 2. Pulses (beans, peas and lentils) 3. Nuts and seeds 4. Dairy 5. Meat, poultry and

fish 6. Eggs 7. Dark green leafy vegetables 8. Other vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables 9.

Other vegetables 10. Other fruits

Enumerators must be properly trained to correctly categorize meals containing a mix of different

food groups, and to record only food groups where more than half a cup of a food in that group

was consumed, to exclude nutritionally less relevant foods, such as condiments or seasonings

from the total score (FAO & FHI, 2016). A strength of the MDD-W is its simplicity as a measure

of a key aspect of diet quality, but it remains a rough proxy for nutrient adequacy. Individuals

interested in a more precise estimate of nutrient intake and adequacy should consider conducting

a quantitative 24-hour Dietary Recall instead.

2:3 Dietary diversity and socio-economic status

Households in middle income and low income countries base their diets on very few food groups

that include their normal staple foods, this results to low dietary diversity (Ruel, 2013). Through

the past decades, economic development has resulted in changes in food consumption patterns in

low Income and middle income countries, fat and sugar rich foods tend to replace traditional

13
grains and fiber rich foods. Nutrition transition affects individuals with higher Socio-Economic

status first (Popkin, 2014). Although some of the changes are beneficial to some extent, they are

associated with increase in obesity and non-communicable diseases (Hawkes, 2006).

In both high income and low income countries, socioeconomic status is a major determinant of

healthy diets. Studies have shown that high social economic status can be associated with general

healthier dietary patterns, quality of the diet, and increased diversity (Mayen et al., 2014)

In refugee camps, high prevalence of Iron Deficiency Anemia and over nutrition is indicative of

double burden of disease with both hidden hunger (micronutrient malnutrition) and non-

communicable diseases present in the same population or even within the same household

(Grijalva et al., 2012).

A study done by Hatloy et al., (2016), in Mali, demonstrated a relationship between dietary

diversity and socio-economic status of the households. The study showed that the women of low

socio-economic status in the urban areas had a higher diversity score than those of low socio-

economic status in the rural areas.

In low income rural areas of the Sub-Saharan Africa, of which, the majority of the people rely

on rain-dependent, their diet quality remains a great challenge ( Black, 2013). Individuals in high

socio-economic status are more likely to eat healthy foods that may include lean meats, low-fat

dairy products, vegetables and fruits, while those of the different status, tend to eat less fibre and

more fat (Giskes, 2010).

14
A study done in 17 countries estimated that four out of five deaths due to non-communicable

diseases now occur in low and middle income countries and the burden is expected to rise in the

next few decades (Schmidhubler, 2015).

In general, cereals are cheaper than the other food commodities, hence less advantaged

communities tend to have a monotonous diet that lacks in diversity and is rich in energy giving

foods. Households that are more stable are able to complement the staple foods with foods that

are both diverse and rich in micronutrients (Allen et al., 2006).

2:4 Dietary diversity and malnutrition

Malnutrition has been a serious issue globally for the longest time now. The triple burden of

malnutrition is now felt more than before. In the recent past, the big role that nutrition plays in

the physical and intellectual growth of children has really been emphasized. The impact that

nutrition has on the economy is directly felt, through the reduced public health expenditure on

healthcare (Hoddinott et al., 2008).

Adequate and proper nutrition comprises of the very fundamental requirements for a healthy

human life. Credible evidence that shows the association between a diverse diet and health

outcomes and economic performance is available (Oldiges, 2017).

2:5 Micronutrient malnutrition

Micronutrient malnutrition refers to diseases caused by dietary deficiency of vitamins or

minerals. It is estimated that more than 2 billion in the world today could be suffering from

micronutrient malnutrition ( Hannah & Rithie, 2017). It can also be defined as lack of essential

vitamins and minerals required in small amounts by the body for proper growth and

15
development. Although any person can suffer from micronutrient deficiency, children and

pregnant mothers are more susceptible to developing the deficiencies. This may be as a result of

low dietary intake as well as higher physiological needs. (Hannah & Max, 2017).

According to the World Health Organization 2015, around 20% of maternal deaths are attributed

to Anemia alone. While Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of preventable blindness in

children, it manifests as night blindness, and could further progress to permanent blindness in

extreme cases. Zinc deficiency is mainly common in developing countries whose diet is cereal

based and very low in protein. Zinc is very important for growth and recuperation. Lack of it can

lead to stunting or weakened immune system and even health complications in pregnant women,

neonates or children. Zinc deficiency has been associated with higher mortality and morbidity

rates in mothers and newborns. (Prasad, 2013).

Micronutrient Malnutrition is extremely high in a number of countries in South Asia and Sub-

Saharan Africa. The countries in North Africa, Central Europe and East Asia have been

categorized as having mild micronutrient deficiencies issues (Hannah & Max 2017).

Under nutrition and micronutrient malnutrition remains a huge problem in many developing

countries. Proper nutrition not only requires access to food but also higher dietary diversity and

quality (Kibrom, 2015)

2:5:1 Micronutrient malnutrition management

In cases where hidden hunger cannot be solved by dietary intake single handedly, other

interventions can be used. These include Food fortification, Supplementation and bio

16
fortification. Food fortification entails adding small amounts of the micro-nutrients to processed

foods that are consumed by majority of the population. Supplementation involves giving

concentrated of certain micronutrients in tablet, liquid or powder form. Bio fortification refers to

making use of bio-technology to increase the concentration of certain micronutrients in certain

foods that are consumed by most people (Miller & Welch, 2013).

2:6 Climatic conditions of semi-arid lands

Of all the climatic zones, Semi-Arid land is the second driest after desert climate. Semi-Arid

climatic zone receives rain twice a year, amounting to 15 inches of rainfall on average. It is

considered an intermediate between the desert climate and humid climate. There are two types of

semi-arid lands; Hot- semi- arid climates and Cold semi-arid lands. The Hot semi-arid lands are

largely found in Africa, South Asia, and Australia and in some parts of South America, North

America and Europe. The Cold Semi-Arid climates experience warm, dry summers and cold

winters. This type is majorly found in some parts of North America, North and South Africa,

Europe and partially in South America (World Atlas, 2017). These regions do support vegetation

that is also found in the desert. They have thick cuticles; thorny branches that help them reduce

water loss through transpiration. Animals found in this region are those that have adapted to

grassland eco-system. They include Zebras, Antelopes and Bison among others (World Atlas,

2017).

In Kenya, Arid and Semi-arid areas cover close to 80% of the total Kenyan land, 60% of the

National Parks and Reserves are found in these areas. These lands house close to 30% of the total

Kenyan population, approximately, 12 million people, 50% of the Kenyan livestock and 75% of

wildlife. Out of the 47 Counties, over 50% (29) are categorized as ASALs. They include;

17
Kiambu, Nakuru, Homabay, Elgeyo Marakwet, Machakos, Migori, Meru, Taita Taveta, Lamu,

Kilifi, Kwale, Nyeri, Laikipia, West Pokot, Embu, Tharaka Nithi, Kitui, Makueni, Kajiado,

Narok, Garissa, Baringo, Isiolo, Samburu, Wajir, Turkana, Tana River, Marsarbit and Mandera.

These areas are classified in relation to aridity levels: Those that have 85-100% aridity are

referred to as Arid Counties while those with 30-84 % aridity are Ist class semi-Arid and those

with 10-29% aridity are 2nd class semi-arid counties( DASAL, 2018)

2:7: Gap in knowledge

A number of interventions have been carried out in the ASALs in Kenya to address the recurrent

food and nutrition security problems in this climatic zone. Most of these interventions are done

to empower the residents economically and not to increase their dietary diversity levels and have

somehow proved to be unsustainable.

In last five to ten years, Kitchen gardening has been introduced as an intervention to help achieve

food and nutrition security as well as enhance dietary diversity. Most of the researches done in

regard to kitchen gardening in this climatic zone are done in light of its contribution to food

security and not dietary diversity.

Therefore there is need to determine the role of kitchen gardens in dietary diversity in this

climatic zone.

18
 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3:1 Study Setting

3.1.1 Study area and population

This study was conducted in Igamba-Ng‟ombe constituency, Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya.

Tharaka Nithi County has a total population of 393,170 according to the 2019 Kenya Population

and Housing Census (KPHC) with the majority being Chuka, Muthambi, Mwimbi and Tharaka

people of the larger Ameru community. The minority are the Akamba, Ambeere and Aembu

who come from the neighboring counties( Tharaka Nithi County Development Plan, 2018).

Tharaka Nithi County was purposively selected because it is one of the counties that is Semi-

Arid lands and was selected by PACJA to be one of the counties benefiting from the kitchen

gardening project.

Figure 3.1: Map of Tharaka Nithi County

Source: https://www.researchgate.net

19
3.1.2 Position and size

Tharaka Nithi County lies between latitude 000 07‟ and 000 26‟ South and between longitudes

370 19‟ and 370 46‟ East. The county borders the counties of Embu to the South and South

West, Meru to the North and North East, Kitui to the East and South East while sharing Mount

Kenya with Kirinyiga and Nyeri to the West. The total area of the County is 2,662.1 Km 2;

including 360Km2 of Mt Kenya forest in the county (Tharaka Nithi County Development Plan,

2018).

3.1.3 Administrative and political units

Tharaka Nithi County, whose headquarters are at Kathwana, is divided into five (5)

administrative sub-counties namely Tharaka North, Tharaka South, Chuka, Igambango‟mbe and

Maara. Tharaka North Sub-county is the largest covering an area of 803.4 Km2 while Igamba

ng‟ombe is the smallest covering an area of 308Km2. Igambang‟ombe constituency has 2 wards,

7 locations and 18 sub-locations (Tharaka Nithi County SMART Survey Report September

2016).

3.1.4 Climate

The County has two main ecological zones. The highlands (upper zone) comprised of Maara and

Chuka which receive adequate rainfall for agriculture. The semi-arid (lower zone) covers

Tharaka and receives less rainfall making it suitable for livestock production. The county has a

bi-modal rainfall pattern with the long rains falling during the months of April to June and the

short rains in October to December. Temperatures in the highland areas range between 14 0C to

300C while those of the lowland area range between 220C to 360C.

20
3.1.5 Health

The County has a total of 128 health facilities of which, 61are public facilities, 6

nongovernmental facilities, 29 faith based and 32 private facilities. The prevalence of stunting

for the County stands at 22.0%, which is below the national level prevalence rate of 26%

(Ministry of Health, 2015).

3.1.6 Education

A majority of the County population is literate with only 17 % and 13.2% unable to read and to

write, respectively. Those who cannot read or write are 16.9 %. The dropout rate is 20% for both

primary and secondary schools. The dropout rate for boys, 22%, is higher than for girls

(20%).The transition rate from Early Childhood Development Education (ECDE) to primary is

quite high at a rate of 85%. The transition rate from primary to secondary schools is

approximately 70% (Tharaka Nithi CIDP 2018-2022).

3.1.7 Farming

Agriculture is the main economic activity and source of livelihood of the communities residing

in Tharaka Nithi County. Majority of the households, 92%, are involved in agricultural

activities. The upper region of the County produces mainly cash crops such as coffee and tea

while the lower region mainly produces food crops such as maize, beans, cowpeas, bananas,

sorghum, tomatoes, paw paws, avocadoes and citrus fruits. Macadamia, oranges, mangoes,

cotton and tobacco are grown in the lower regions of the county.

Livestock farming is also an important economic activity in the County. Both dairy farming and

beef farming are practiced in the upper and lower parts of the county respectively. Sheep, cattle,

chicken and goats, are among the types of animal reared in this county. In the recent past, the

21
residents have taken up fish farming and one of the main types of fish kept is Trout (Tharaka

Nithi County SMART Survey Report September 2016).

3.2. Research Methodology

3.2.1 Study Design

The research design of the study was cross-sectional with a comparative and evaluative

component. It is evaluative because, the study was conducted within an ongoing project set up,

and sought to evaluate the outcome of the intervention from a nutrition point of view by

comparing with the situation of households that were not practicing kitchen gardening. The study

used both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and data analysis.

3.2.2 Study Population

The universe study population for this study is 109, 860 households in Tharaka Nithi (KNBS,

2019) while the study population is an estimate of 20,000 households within Igamba Ngombe

Constituency. The Households included in this study are those that practice Kitchen Gardening

within the PACJA Project and those that do not practice kitchen gardening but reside Igamba-

Ng‟ombe constituency.

3.2.3 Sampling

3.2.3.1 Determination of sample size

The sample size has been calculated using the Fisher et al. (1991) formula

N= Z2pq

22
 d2

Where

N = Desired sample size

Z= Level of significance of 95%

P= prevalence rate of Iron Deficiency Anemia among women of childbearing age (22%)

Q= 1-p (women without Iron Deficiency Anemia)

D= Level of accuracy – used 5% standard error.

1.962 x 0.22 x 0.88 + 10% attrition

0.052

= 326 Households.

A prevalence (22%?) rate of Anemia among women of reproductive age , from KDHS 2009, was

used to calculate the sample size. This is because most of the crops expected to be grown in the

kitchen garden are rich sources of micronutrients and especially Iron.

A total of 326 households were interviewed. Those with Kitchen Gardens were 102 while those

without were 224. This made the required sample size of 326 households. There were 7 drop

outs, 4 from Kitchen garden practicing households and 3 from the non- practicing households.

The reason for dropping out resulted from incomplete and wrongly filled questionnaires. The

final sample of 319 households, comprised 98 with kitchen gardens and 221 without. Only 102

households were part of the kitchen gardening project run by PACJA, hence the reason why the

number is double that of non-practicing households.

23
3.2.3.2 Sampling Procedure

Kenya was purposively i.e. the area of study was intentionally selected , chosen, and so was

Tharaka Nithi , Igamba Ngombe constituency and Kamaindi ,Igamba ngombe ,Kajuki wards.

This was because it is in this constituency and the mentioned wards that the Kitchen gardening

project was being carried out. For the households that practice kitchen gardening exhaustive

sampling was used i.e. all the households that owned kitchen gardens within the PACJA project

were involved in the study. For the non-practicing households, systematic random sampling was

used in choosing the households that were involved in the study. Every tenth household was

selected to participate in the study. The person responsible for preparing the family meals was

chosen to represent the household in the study. Inclusion Criteria: The Person responsible for

preparing the family meals, participants with good hearing and memory, permanent residents in

the household, a person who understands the questions, willing to participate. Exclusion

Criteria: Non-willing Participants and residents who have stayed less than 3 months within the

24
Household. This is represented diagrammatically in figure 3.3 as follows.+

25
3.2.5 Techniques for data collection for every objective

Data collection was conducted between the months of August and September 2019. The

techniques used for data collection depended on the objective as detailed below:

Objective 1: To describe the socio-economic status of Kitchen gardening practicing and

non –practicing households

A well detailed semi-structured questionnaire (Appendix 2) was used to obtain the data on socio-

demographic and socio-economic status of the kitchen gardening practicing and non-practicing

households. The variables included were; age of study participants, marital status, their level of

education, contribution to household, and the relationship with the household head.

The indicators of socio-economic status used include: ownership of assets such as land,

livestock, television, ownership of house and the materials used to build the houses.

Objective 2: To determine the household dietary diversity of Kitchen gardening practicing

and non –practicing Households

The study used a Household Dietary Diversity Questionnaire(Appendix 2) that was adopted from

the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance, (FANTA) Household Dietary Diversity Score

Indicator Guide ( Swindale & Bilinsky, 2006). Minimal modifications were done to include

foods that are available in the study area as well as omit foods that are not found in the study

area. The questionnaire contains two parts, in the first part the respondents described the meals

and snacks he/ she consumed in the last 24 hours. Once the enumerator was satisfied that the

respondents recall was complete, they then filled in the food groups based on the information

gathered from the recall. The enumerators were trained on how to classify the foods into the

respective food groups (Appendix 3).

26
Objective 3: To determine the contribution of Kitchen Gardening in improving Dietary

Diversity of Households in the ASALs.

The data on the contribution of kitchen gardening to dietary diversity was obtained using the

information derived from the Household Dietary Diversity (HHDD) questionnaire. The Dietary

Diversity Scores of the practicing and non-practicing households were analyzed and compared to

determine if kitchen gardens had a significant contribution to the dietary diversity. The scores

were obtained by classifying the foods consumed among the 12 food groups in the questionnaire

(Appendix 2). For every food group from which an item was consumed a score of 1 was awarded

whereas any food group that no item in it was consumed a score of 0 was awarded. Once all

these is done the scores were summed up and the dietary diversity score obtained. The study

adopted the FAO cut-off points that classify the DDS into low (<4) , medium( 5-8) and high( >

8) DDS. A DDS above 5 is considered good enough while that below 3 is considered to be poor.

Objective 4: To assess the sustainability of Kitchen Gardening as an intervention in the

ASALs

A detailed semi-structured questionnaire (Appendix 2) was used to collect data on the

sustainability of kitchen gardens. The study focused on four key variables; Labor, Source of

planting materials, Availability of water and the Economic value of kitchen gardens to the

households that owned them. The indicators used to assess the economic value of the kitchen

gardens involved asking the respondents how much money they saved considering the fact that

they did not purchase vegetables. The respondents were also asked if they sold any of the

produce form their gardens.

3.2.6: Ethical and Human Rights considerations

The enumerators explained to the participants what the study entails and how important their

feedback was both to themselves, to the county as well as the nation at large. They were assured

27
that all the information they would give would be treated with utmost confidentiality. It was also

made clear that no incentive would be given for participation. Every participant gave their

voluntary informed consent (VIC) to participate in the study by signing a consent

form(Appendix 1). VIC means that the participant was not coerced or forced to be part of the

study, but instead they willingly took part. Approval to conduct the study in the ward was

obtained from the Chief‟s office and, Tharaka Nithi County offices.

3.2.7: Pretesting of tools

A pretest of the tools was done in 15 households from a different ward with similar

characteristics to those from the ward where the study was conducted. In the 15 households, 7

owned kitchen gardens whereas 8 did not. The pretest was conducted to validate the tool to

ensure that it yielded the right and needed data. Pretest provided experiential learning by

enabling the enumerators to get hands-on-experience as they familiarized themselves with the

tools and the data collection exercise as well as estimate the time that was sufficient for the

respondents to answer all the relevant questions.

3.2.8 Recruitment and Training of research assistants

Two research assistants both of whom were males were involved in the data collection exercise.

The two were recruited with the help of the entry person into the community; they were familiar

with data collection procedures having been part of other studies prior to this. Their minimum

qualification was; secondary school education and residence in the area of study.

The numerators were trained for two days and had experiential exposure in the third day a

through the pretest. The training covered all essential components including: how to administer

the questionnaires and most specifically the diversity Score questionnaire; how to approach a

28
Household and get an Informed consent; topic and Objectives of the study, interviewing and

Observational skills and techniques, how to conduct the 24hr Recall, how to measure the size of

the Kitchen Garden, how to fill the questionnaire and what to do in case a mistake is done, how

to handle cases that would interfere with the interview, e.g. when a visitor comes, and ethics in

research, specifically in fieldwork, including detecting and managing fraud .

3.2.9 Data quality assurance and control

Quality control is a product oriented process and is focused on problem identification whereas

quality assurance is process oriented and focuses on defect prevention. Data quality and

assurance were achieved through various ways that include; hiring and training of qualified

research assistants, pre-testing of the questionnaires as well as adequate supervision of the

research assistants. The data collected was thoroughly crosschecked to ensure the data was

recorded as expected and none was missing. The data was coded prior to data entry and the

appropriate statistical procedures used during analysis of the data. All questionnaires were

scrutinized for accuracy and completeness. The ones found to be uncompleted were discarded,

seven questionnaires were discarded.

3.2.10 Data Management and analysis

Data entry, cleaning and coding was done using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS),

and Microsoft Excel. During analysis, descriptive statistics i.e. sum, means and median were

used to describe information such as socio-economic and socio-demographic status of the

households. Inferential statistics were carried out to describe relationship between categorical

data and the application is shown in chapter four.

29
 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

This chapter contains the results of the data collected to find out the Role of kitchen gardens in

enhancing dietary diversity in Semi-Arid Lands, in Kenya with a specific focus on Igamba

Ngombe constituency in Tharaka Nithi County. The results are reported in 4 Sections that are

aligned to the objectives of the study. These include: The socio demographic and Socio-

Economic characteristics, Dietary Diversity of the Kitchen Gardening Practicing and non-

Practicing Households, Relationship between Kitchen Garden ownership and Dietary Diversity,

and Sustainability of Kitchen Gardens in Semi- Arid lands .

4.1: Socio- Demographic Characteristics of the study population

The study investigated seven socio-demographic characteristics namely; age, sex, marital status,

relationship with household head, education Level, occupation and contribution to the household

of both the Kitchen Garden practicing and Non – Practicing households. The purpose was

primarily to provide the socioeconomic context of the sample population.

4.1.1 Population Structure

The sample comprised of 319 households with a total of 1155 people with males being 47.7%

while the females were 52.3%. Among the households with kitchen gardens, the males were

47.5% while in the non- practicing households they were 47.8 %. Within the households with

kitchen gardens, the females were 52.5% whereas in the non-practicing households they were

47.8%. The mean household size for the study population was 3.6, whereas in the Kitchen

garden practicing and non-practicing was 3.3 and 3.7 respectively. Excluding the outliers (4

households in kitchen garden practicing and 6 in the non-practicing households, with >10

members ) the mean household size was 3.1 and 3.4 respectively. The mean age of the sample

30
population was 27.9 years with a median of 22. The minimum age was 3 months while

maximum age was 79 years. The frequencies in the different age categories is illustrated in figure

4.1

100
90
80
70
60
50
Percentage
respondent 40
Males
30
Females
20
10
0

>65
0-4

55-59
5-9 years

15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54

60-64
10-14 years

Age in years

Figure 4.1: Distribution of Household members by age categories in years

4.1.2 Marital Status

More than two-thirds of the members in the households were married (69.1%) while the divorced

made up the least proportion (0.4%). In both KG and NKG practicing households, the married

were still majority with 60.9% and 72.6% respectively. Likewise the divorced were the least with

0.6% in NKG practicing households and none (0%) in the KG practicing households. There was

a notable difference of 11.7% between the KG and NKG practicing households among the

widowed as illustrated in Table 4.1. There is significant difference in marital status between the

kitchen gardening practicing and non-practicing households as evidenced by an independent

sample T-test p-value of 0.008 , 4df

31
Table 4.1: Marital status of the household members

Marital Status KG Households NKG Households p- value

Percentage ( n= 215) Percentage (n= 726)

Married 60.9% 72.6% 0.008

Divorced 0% 0.6%

Separated 4.2% 3.1%

Widowed 19.5% 7.8%

Single 15.3% 15.9%

***KG- Kitchen garden NKG-Non Kitchen Gardening

4.1.3 Household headship and relationship with other members

Out of all the 319 households, 77.7% and 22.3% had male and female household heads,

respectively. Among the Kitchen gardening households, males head represented 63.3% of the

households whereas females headed 36.7 %. Within the households without kitchen gardens,

84.2% had a male head whereas females headed15.8% of the households. There was a

significant difference between the two groups in the gender of the household head, as evidenced

by an Independent sample T-test p-value <0.05.

4.1.4 Education Level

In both groups, those who had attained primary education level had the highest percentage,

31.7% in households with kitchen gardens and 38.0% among the households without kitchen

gardens. Household members with no education had the least percentage of 8.4% and 7.2% in

kitchen gardening practicing and non-practicing households respectively as shown in Figure 4.2

There is a significant statistical difference between the two groups as evidenced by an

32
independent sample T-test=18.004, df 3, p<0.05 . The non-school going children as well as those

who had not yet completed their primary school education and attained a certificate , , were

exempted during the analysis .

40 38 37.7

35 31.7 32.5

30 27.3

25
Percentage
20 17
Respondent
15

10 8.4
7.2
5

0
KG HHs NKG HHs

Primary Secondary Tertiary None

Figure 4.2: Distribution of the household members based on the level of education

4.1.5 Main Occupation of working age household members

Among the kitchen garden practicing households, the highest percentage (27%) did casual work

as their main occupation whereas the least were housewives (10.7%). Within the non-practicing

households, the highest percentage (28.9%) were casual laborers while the least were farmers

(14.9%). The distribution by main occupation is illustrated in table 4.2 below. There is no

significant difference between the kitchen garden practicing and non-practicing households as

evidenced by an independent sample T-test=12.199, df 6 p>0.05

33
Table 4.2: Main occupation of working age household members
Main Occupation K.G. Practicing HH NK.G Practicing HH p- value
% (n= 178) %e (n= 422)
Farmer 21.9 14.9 0.07
Small Scale Trader 23 21.8
Casual Laborer 27 28.9
Formally Employed 17.4 15.4
House Wife 10.7 19

***KG- Kitchen garden NKG-Non Kitchen Gardening

4.1.6 Household asset ownership

In both the kitchen garden practicing and non- practicing households, the two least owned assets

were a car with 7.1 % and 4.1 %, respectively and Gas cookers with 5.1% amongst the kitchen

garden practicing households and 7.7 % among households without kitchen gardens. The most

owned assets in both groups was radio, 93.9 % among households with kitchen gardens and

76.9% among households without kitchen gardens(Table 4.3)

Table 4.3: Ownership of selected household assets

Asset K.G Practicing HH NKG Practicing HH

Percentage (N= 98) Percentage (N= 221)

Car 7.1 4.1

Motorcycle 18.4 17.2
Farm Implements 75.5 72.4
Television 20.4 8.1
Gas Cooker 5.1 7.7
Bicycle 37.8 32.1

Radio 93.9 76.9

Sofa set 24.5 13.6
Land Ownership 91.8 74.7
***KG- Kitchen garden NKG-Non Kitchen Gardening

34
4.1.7 Livestock Ownership

The study findings showed that the mean; number of cows, goats and sheep owned by the study

households as follows cows was 6.4 ± 5.3 ranging from 1 to 38 cows. There were 8 outliers

(0.03%) that involved those who owned >20 cows. Once the outliers were excluded the mean

dropped to 5.7 . Among the kitchen garden practicing households the mean number of cows

was 9.3 ± 7.1 while amongst the non-practicing households it was 11.2 In both groups majority

of the people, 88.8% amongst the kitchen garden practicing households and 76.5% amongst the

non-practicing households owned goats. The mean number of goats owned was 8.1± 6.2 ranging

from 1 to 34 goats. Sheep was the least owned livestock as seen across both groups. Only 18

households among the kitchen garden practicing households and 20 among non-practicing

households did own sheep. The mean number of sheep was 2.3±1.3 ranging from 1 to 6. This is

illustrated in figure 4.3 .The small animals kept by the respondents include Chicken and Rabbits.

Majority of the households in both groups, kept chicken, 74.5% among the households with

kitchen gardens and 78.3% among those without kitchen gardens. Only 11(%) households with

kitchen gardens kept rabbits while among those without, only 29 households (13.1%) kept

rabbits.

35
 100
88.8
90
78.3 76.5 78.3
80 74.5 74.5
70
60
Percentage 50
Respondent 40
30
18.4
20
9 11.2 13.1
10
0
Cows Goats Sheep Chicken Rabbits

K.G N.KG

Figure 4.3 Distribution of households by livestock ownership

4.1.8 Household income and livelihood

Majority of the households, both in kitchen garden practicing and non-practicing categories,

earned their income from businesses, while the least had pension as their source of income.

Mixed farming was the livelihood of most households (56.1% and 46.6% among Kitchen garden

practicing and non-practicing households respectively), while crop farming was the least, with

3.1% and 1.8% among Kitchen garden practicing and non-practicing households, respectively

(Table 4.4)

36
Table 4.4: Distribution of households by source of income and livelihood

K.G Practicing HH NKG Practicing HH

Percentage (N= 98) Percentage (N= 221)

Main Source of Income

Business 44.9 46.2
Employment 38.8 39.8
Cash Transfer 14.3 5.9
Pension 2.0 8.1
Type of Livelihood
Crop Farming 3.1 1.8
Livestock Keeping 16.3 14.0
Mixed Farming 56.1 46.6
Employment + 15.3 22.6
Mixed Farming
Employment 9.2 14.9
***KG- Kitchen garden NKG-Non Kitchen Gardening

4.1.9 House ownership and characteristics

Among the Kitchen gardening practicing households, 91.8% of them owned the houses they

lived in while 8.2 % were living in rented houses. The trend was the same among the non-

practicing households where a majority, 91.9 % , lived in their own houses while 8.1 % lived in

rented houses. In both groups, most homes had iron sheet roofs (80.6% and 87.3% in the Kitchen

gardening practicing and non-practicing households, respectively, while the least number had

their roofs made of tiles (1% in kitchen garden practicing households and none in the non-

practicing households). The residential houses were made of four types of floors, namely; mud,

cement, wood and brick or stone whose distribution is presented in figure 4.4 Majority of the

kitchen garden practicing households had their walls made of bricks or stones, 56.1%, while the

least percentage , 2%, had their walls made of plaster. In the non-practicing households the

37
highest percentage, 45.2% had their walls made of mud while as the least percentage, 0.9%, had

theirs made of plaster. The distribution of the households by the types of walls is illustrated in

figure 4.4

100

90
87.3 80.1
80 80.6
76.5
70

60
56.1
Percentage
50
Respondent 45.2 41.6
40
30.6
30
22.4
20 18.4
19.5
12.7 11.2 10.9
10
1 0 1 0 0 0.5 2 0.9 0 1.4
0

Floor types Wall types

Roof types
Kitchen Garden Practicng NKG Practicing

Figure 4.4: Distribution of households by type of house according to building materials

4.1.10 Sources of Lighting and Cooking

Among the kitchen garden practicing households, the most commonly used source of lighting

were Hurricane Lamps (56.1%), Tin lamps (53.1%) and Torches (38.8%) whereas among the

non-practicing households, the most commonly used source of lighting were, Hurricane Lamps

(61.5%) Torch (57.9%) and Tin Lamps (36.7%). Among the Kitchen Garden practicing and non-

38
practicing households respectively, the most common source of cooking fuel were wood 84.7%

and 86.0% , Paraffin 63.3% and 62.9% and Charcoal 44.9% and 43.0% (Figure 4.5)

100
90 84
80 86
70 63
60 56
53 63
61
Percentage 50 57 45
Respondent 38
40
43
30 36 25
20 16
6 7
10 3 15
13 3 10 6
0

sources of cooking fuel

sources of lighting
Kitchen Garden Practicng NKG Practicing

Figure 4.5: Distribution of Households by Sources of Lighting and sources of fuel

4.2 Household Dietary Diversity Scores

Within the kitchen garden practicing households, the mean dietary diversity score was 5.8±1.2,

with the maximum score being 8 and the minimum score being 3. A similar trend was observed

within the non-practicing households, a mean of 5.0±1.5, a maximum score of 9 and a minimum

score of 3. In both groups, less than half of the households attained the recommended dietary

diversity score of ≥5, 47.9% in the practicing and 33.9% in the non-practicing households, figure

4.6 and Figure 4.7. Though similar trends are observed in the two groups, where most of the

households had scores lying between 5 and 8 there was a significant difference between the two

groups, p<0.05. The most consumed foods were pulses and energy giving foods 83% and 89%

respectively whereas the least consumed foods were animal meat and nuts and seeds, 13% and

39
2% respectively. Consumption of Vitamin A rich and other vegetables was significantly higher

in kitchen garden practicing households than in non-practicing households.

Dietary diversity score was significantly affected by the source of food, source of income,

kitchen garden ownership, p<0.05, whereas land ownership and house ownership had no

significant effect on dietary diversity, p<0.05

120

100

80

60
K.G HH

Percentage 40
NKG HH
Respondent

20

0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Dietary Diversity Scores

Figure 4.6: Distribution of Households by Household Dietary Diversity Scores

0.5
High DDS >8
0

67.4
DDS Categories Medium DDS (5-8)
80.6

32.1
Low DDS <4
19.4

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage

NKG HH K.G HH

Figure 4.7: Classification of households by dietary diversity Scores

40
4.3 Contribution of Kitchen gardening to dietary diversity

Majority of the households that own kitchen gardens, 71%, had grown more than 2 types of

crops in their kitchen gardens. Out of all the crops grown, kale was the most common, 96.9% of

the households reported to have grown the crop in the last two seasons. This was followed by

spinach at 82.7%, cow peas at 80.6%. The least grown vegetables were; black night shade

(Managu) at 6.1% and amaranth (terere ) at 37.8% . Among the fruit trees the most common was

Banana plants at 74.5 % followed by mango trees at 57.1%. The least commonly planted trees

were lemon trees at 2% and avocado trees at 18.4%. No households had planted macadamia

trees, which would be a good source of nuts. The distribution of households according to

cultivated crops is depicted in figure 4.8 and figure 4.9.

Over three quarters of the households practicing kitchen gardening reported that owning one

proved important for the following reasons; It helps them save money used on purchasing food;

saves time used to go purchase the vegetables from the markets. When they sell the surplus, it is

a source of income hence enabling them buy food they cannot grow, it keeps them busy a couple

of days in the week. The maximum amount of money reported to have been saved by household

owning a kitchen garden was 250ksh per week while the minimum amount was 30ksh per week.

There was a significant difference, p-value <0.05 between the kitchen gardening practicing and

non-practicing households on the money spent on purchasing food.

41
 120

100
96.9
82.7
80
80.6
66.3
Percentage
60
Frequency

40 37.8

20.4 6.1
20 13.3
0
1
0

Vegetables grown

Figure 4.8: Distribution of households by types of Vegetables grown in the Kitchen

Gardens

80 74.5
71.4
70
60 57.1

50 41.8
Frequency
40
Percentage
30
18.4
20
10 2 0
0

Types of fruit trees

Figure 4.9: Distribution of households by types of Fruit trees grown

42
4.4 Sustainability of kitchen gardens

Kitchen gardens are important in both the Nutrition and Agricultural sectors due to their role in

ensuring food and nutrition security. The study used indicators for sustainability as elaborated by

the World Resource Institute 2016 that include; Agricultural in puts (Planting materials and

labor), Water and Economic value.

4.4.1 Sources of Planting Materials

Majority of the respondents, 54.1% reported to have obtained their first seeds/seedlings from the

project, whereas the 35.7% got them from the agro vet and the rest , 10.2% got them as gifts

from family or friends. In relation to the source of subsequent planting materials, Majority

sourced them from Agro vets ( 92.9%), whereas 2% got them from the project and the remaining

sourced them from family or friends , figure 4.10

100 92.9
90
80
70
60 54.1
Percentage
50
Respondent Initial Planting
40 35.7
Subsequent Planting
30
20
10.2
10 5.1
2
0
Project Agrovet Gift
Source of Planting materials

Figure 4.10: Sources of planting materials in the first and subsequent planting times

43
4.4.2: Labor

For most respondents, 80.9%, the labor involved in preparation, planting and maintenance of the

kitchen gardens was from the family members. Only 19.1% reported to have sourced the labor

outside the family. In 85.3% of the households, the responsibility of attending to the kitchen

garden was mostly left to the women and children. Over three quarters, 90.8% of the respondents

reported that the time used in attending to the kitchen garden did not affect their normal routine

hence allowing them to carry out other activities as well as look after the kitchen garden.

4.4.3: Source of water used in kitchen gardening

Majority of the respondents reported that their main source of water used in kitchen gardening

was the river (60.2%), this includes those whose kitchen gardens were along the river and those

who relied on the irrigation scheme that sourced its water from the river. As for the rest of the

households, 11.2%, 10.2%, 9.2%, 8.2% and 1% relied on rainfall, borehole, stored water Kitchen

Waste and tap water respectively (figure 4.11). Those that reported use of water from kitchen

waste clarified that any water without soap or other detergents was used in the kitchen garden.

44
 70
60.2
60

50

40
Percentage
Respondent
30

20
11.2 10.2
9.2 8.2
10
1
0
River Rainfall Borehole Stored Kitchen Tap Water
Water Waste
Sources of water

Figure 4.11: Sources of water used in kitchen gardening

4.4.4: Economic value of kitchen gardens to the households

Over three quarters of the households, 93.7% agreed that owning a kitchen garden has

contributed both monetary and non-monetary benefits to them. For majority (99%) households

consumption was the main mode of utilizing the kitchen garden produce whereas 77.6% reported

to having sold their kitchen produce when in surplus. The maximum amount of money reported

to have been saved by household owning a kitchen garden was 250ksh per week while the

minimum amount was 30ksh per week. There was a significant difference, p-value of <0.05

between the kitchen gardening practicing and non-practicing households on the money spent on

purchasing food.

45
 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

The main objective of this study was to determine the role of kitchen garden in dietary diversity

in Semi-Arid lands in Kenya. It involved characterizing the Kitchen Garden practicing

households and non-practicing households population by socio-economic and socio-demographic

characteristics. Household dietary diversity questionnaire was used to determine the dietary

diversity scores of the respondents. The study also sought to establish if kitchen gardening is a

sustainable intervention in Semi-Arid lands in Kenya. This chapter entails discussion on the

findings reported in chapter 4.

5.2 Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the study population

The study investigated seven socio-demographic characteristics. The two groups were similar in

4 of the characteristics, which are: Age, sex, main occupation, and contribution of the household

members to the welfare of the home. The two groups differed in three of the characteristics

namely, Marital status, gender of the household heads and Education level. These results indicate

that these three variables have an impact in the adoption of kitchen gardens among the

households. Female-headed households have a higher chance of owning a kitchen garden

compared to male-headed households. These results are similar to those of a study conducted in

Tanzania on Status and scope of kitchen gardening of green leafy vegetables in rural Tanzania,

(Rybak et.al, 2018), which found that the log odds of having a vegetable garden increase by 2.8

for a female head household than a male. According to the results of the study, members of the

households without kitchen gardens were more educated than those with. Among the kitchen

gardening households, 8.4% had no formal education whereas within the non-practicing

households 7.2% had no formal education. The findings differ with the findings of Tanzania on

46
Status and scope of kitchen gardening of green leafy vegetables in rural Tanzania (Rybak et.al,

2018) which found that for a person that is educated compared to one who is uneducated, the

logs of owning a kitchen garden increases by 3.8.

5.3 Dietary diversity

According to the findings of the study, there is a significant difference in the dietary diversity

scores between the two groups. The results show that the households with kitchen gardens had a

more diversified diet compared to those without. Within the kitchen-gardening households

47.9% had a DDS above five that is considered normal whereas among the non-practicing

households only 33.9% had attained the recommended DDS. Consumption of Vitamin A rich

and other vegetables was significantly higher in kitchen garden practicing households than in

non-practicing households. This can be explained by the fact that most kitchen gardens owners

had planted vegetables including kales Cowpeas, and Spinach.These findings are similar to a

study conducted in Kericho County at James Finlay among workers who agreed that kitchen

gardening promotes nutritional diversity (Njuguna, 2013). The most consumed foods were pulses

and energy giving foods, whereas the least consumed foods were animal meat and nuts& seeds,.

These findings are similar to those obtained from a smart survey conducted in Tharaka nithi

county in 2016 that reported Oils and cereals were the most consumed whereas organ meats and

fish were least consumed (Tharaka Nithi County survey report 2016).

5.4: Contribution of Kitchen gardening to Dietary Diversity.

From the findings of this study, all the households that owned kitchen gardens had planted more

than one type of vegetable in their kitchen gardens. Majority of the participants, 71%, had more

than two types of vegetables, hence increasing the dietary options for the households. These

47
results resemble the findings of a study conducted in Kericho County where majority of the

respondents had more than four varieties growing in their kitchen gardens (Njuguna, 2013).

According to The World Vision Organization report 2019 on kitchen gardening project in

Uganda, the sale of surplus produce from the kitchen gardens increased the purchasing power of

other foods not grown in the garden. The respondents from the kitchen gardening practicing

households echoed these same sentiments.

The results of the study show that the households had grown fruit trees that were common in

rural homes. At least most of the homesteads with or without kitchen garden owned at least one

type of fruit trees. Exotic varieties of the same were rarely grown but instead the households

focused on indigenous varieties.

5.5 Sustainability of Kitchen gardens in Semi-Arid lands

The factors that were considered in assessing the sustainability of kitchen gardens included:

Labor, Source of planting materials, Source of water and the Economic impact of the kitchen

gardens.

Over three quarters of the households with kitchen gardens acquired labour from within the

households. These findings are similar to those obtained by a study done in Tanzania on Status

and scope of kitchen gardening of green leafy vegetables in rural Tanzania, where family labor

was a common (Rybak et al., 2018).

Majority of the households, 90.8% reported that the time used in tending to the gardens has not

affected their normal routine. Majority of the 90.8% practiced mixed farming or crop farming

48
hence working on the kitchen gardens was not such a new concept to them and could easily fit

into their schedules. The other 9.2% mainly consisted of small scale traders and employed

people. Due to the nature of their occupation, they had to squeeze some time to ensure the

kitchen gardens are well taken care of.

A study on „Constraints faced by farmers in adoption of kitchen gardening in Punjab‟,

established that unavailability of quality seed was one of the major problems faced by farmers in

establishing and maintain kitchen gardens (Kaur & Sharma 2018). The decline, from 54.1 % to

2% of people that obtained the seedlings from the project and consequently a sharp increase from

35.7 % to 92.9% of participants that obtained the planting materials from local sources shows a

positive indication of independence of the households from the project since the planting

materials are available and affordable.

The biggest setback for communities that live in semi-arid lands who practice farming activities

is lack of enough rainfall, (World Food Program, 2016). The households that owned kitchen

gardens echoed the same sentiments. Though practices such as using kitchen waste are been

encouraged the kitchen gardens owners find it difficult to practice that since even the water they

get is not enough for their domestic uses. Majority of the kitchen garden owners relied on the

river both directly and indirectly as their source of water both for domestic use and for tendering

to the kitchen garden. Only 9.2% has water storage facilities and used stored water as their main

source of water during the time of data collection.

According to the sustainable livelihood approach, an intervention is sustainable if it has a

positive economic impact on a people alongside other benefits. Slightly less than 100% of the

49
kitchen garden owners used their produce for home consumption while 77% sell the surplus from

their gardens. The mean profit gained from selling the surplus was 119 ± 60.5 and as the

respondents reported, the money gained was used to buy other types of food as well as pay other

utilities.

50
 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions

Kitchen garden practicing and non-practicing households are similar in six socio-demographic

and socio-economic characteristics and differed in two, that is level of education and gender of

the household head which are to be the major determinants in adoption of kitchen gardens.

In both kitchen gardening practicing and non-practicing households, the trends in the distribution

of the household dietary diversity scores are similar although the kitchen garden practicing

households had a more diversified diet. Kitchen gardening positively influences households‟

consumption of vegetables, especially Vitamin A rich vegetables. Its ownership affected by;

Level of education, gender of the household head and Land Ownership.

Kitchen gardening as an intervention is sustainable in light of availability of labor, Availability

and affordability of planting materials, and the positive economic impact it has on the owners

The biggest setback is the source and availability of water.

6.2 Recommendations

More emphasis should be put on Identification and implementation of Strategies that will help

reach the men within the households and educate them on the need and importance of adopting

kitchen gardens

More emphasis should be put in growing of indigenous vegetables, such, Black nightshade

(Managu), and Amaranthas (Terere) hence promoting consumption of dark green vegetables.

51
A similar longitudinal study that will take into consideration variations in seasons is highly

recommended.

The County government in liaison with the NGOs in the area should to train the residents on

water harvesting and storage techniques so as to ensure the kitchen garden owners have enough

water all year round to tend to their gardens.

Project officers, with the help of the county agricultural extension officers should train the

kitchen garden owners on pest management so as to reduce losses of the kitchen garden

produce.

Studies resembling this can be done in other semi-arid parts of the country to establish if the

findings of this study can be replicated in other areas.

52
 REFERENCES

Allen.L.N., De Benoust.B. Davy,O., Hurell.R., &WHO,2006, Guidelines on food fortification

with micronutrients.

Black. R.E., Victoria C.G., Walker S.P., Bhutta Z.A., Christian .P., De Onis .M. et al. Maternal

and Child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle income countries.

Lancet 2013

Chris Evans & Jakob Jesperson “The farmers‟ Handbook,” “Near the House 2” Chapter 2

Kitchen Garden” Grihasthi Communications 2010.

Constance Rybak1 & Hadijah Ally Mbwana & Michelle Bonatti & Stefan Sieber1, & Klaus

Müller1, Status and scope of kitchen gardening of green leafy vegetables in rural Tanza

nia: Implications for nutrition intervention 2018

Dewey, (2006). "Developing and validating simple indicators of complementary food intake and

nutrient density for breastfed children in developing countries"

Fisher, A.A.; Laing, J. E.; Stockel, J.E.;Townsend, J. W. (1991). A handbook for family planning

operations, research design and sample size determination. The Population Council: New

York.

Giskes.K., Avendano .M., Brug .J. Kunst A.E. A sytematic review of studies on socio-economic

inequalities in dietary intakes associated with weight gain and overweight /obesity

conducted among eurpoean adults. Obes Rev 2010: 11; 413-429

Girard, A. W., Self, J. L., McAuliffe, C., & Olude, O. (2012). The effects of household food

production strategies on the health and nutrition outcomes of women and young

children: A systematic review. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 26(S1), 205– 222

53
Grijalva –Eternod CS, Wells J.C., Cortina B.M., Salse U.N. Tonder M.C. Dolan C, et al. The

double burden of obesity and malnutrition in a protracted emergency setting. A cross

sectional study of Western Sahara Refugees. Plos Med 2012:9(10):

Hannah.R. & Max.R. (2017).” Micronutrient deficiency” Published online at our world in

data.org. Retrived from http://ourworldindata.org/mironutrient -deficieny

Hatloy A., Torheirm L.E., Oshaung A 1998. Food variety, a good indicator of nutritional

adequacy of the diet. A case study from an urban area in Mali, west Africa, European

Journal of clinical nutrition 52(12):891-8.

Hatloy.A, Hallund .J. , Diarra M.M. &Oshaung.A., 2000 Food Variety, Socio-economic status

and nutrirional status in urban and rural areas in Koutiala, Mlai; Public Health Nutrition

3: 57-65

Hoddinot .J., Maluccio J.A., Behrman J.R., Flores R., Martorell .R., Effect of a nutrition

Intervention during early childhood on economic productivity in Quatemalan adults

Lancet 2008; 371(9619): 411- 416

Hoddinott.J. & Yohannes.Y. 2002. Dietary diversity as a food security Indicator. FANTA 2002,

Washington DC.

Jones et al., (2013). "World Health Organization infant and young child feeding indicators and

their associations with child anthropometry: A synthesis of recent findings"

Joshi et al., (2011). "Determinants of inappropriate complementary feeding practices in young

children in Nepal: Secondary data analysis of Demographic and Health Survey 2006"

Journal of Food Security,2019, vol 7, No 1, 13-19. Available online at http:// pubs. Scie

pub.com/jfs/7/1/2019 Published by science and education publishing.

Kennedy Gina, Maylis Razes, Terri Ballard and Marie Claude Dop. 2010,”Measurement of

Dietary Diversity for monitoring the impact of food based approach.

54
Kibrom.T.S., Vijesh.V.K., Matrin Qorim. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

112(34), 10657-10662 , 2015

Mayen A.L., Marques.V.P., Paccaud.F. Boret .P., Stringhin .S. Socio-economic determinants of

dietary patterns in low and middle income countries: A systematic review. A.m J

Clinical Nutri. 2014;100(6)

Miller.D.D. & Welch.R.M(2013). Food System Strategies for preventing micronutrient

malnutrition, Food policy, 42, 115-128

Mitchelle.R., Hanstaed .T. : Small homegarden Plots and sustainable livelihoods for the poor;

Rome Italy, LSP Working paper 11:2004

Njuguna, J.M. (2013). The Role of Kitchen Gardens in Food Security and Nutritional Diversity:

A case study of workers at James Finlay Kenya- Kericho. University of Nairobi.

Oldiges.C. 2017. “Measuring malnutrition and dietary diversity: Theory and evidence from

India.‟ OPHI Working paper 108, University of Oxford.

Osman et al., (2016). "A comparison of pregnancy outcomes in Ghanaian women with varying

dietary diversity: a prospective cohort study protocol"

Popkin BM, The nutrition transition; an overview of world of world patterns of change. Nutri

Revi 2014: 62(pt2): s140-s143 doi: 10:1111/j 1

Prasad.A.S. (2013) Discovery of Human Zinc Deficiency. Its impact on Human Health and

Diseases- Advances in Nutrition, 4(2) 176-190

Public Health Nutrition 11(2), 132-141,Doi: 10.107/SI 368980007000043

Ruel MT. Operationalizing dietary diversity; A review of measurement issues and research

priorities. J. Nutri.2013; 133(11 suppl 2): 3911s-3926s

55
Schmidhuber .J., Shetty .P., The nutrition transition to 2030. Why developing countries are

likely to bear the major burden. Acta Agriculture Scandinavica, section c- Food

Economics 2015; 2(3-4) : 150-166

Swindale and Bilinsky,(2006)‟ Household Dietary Score(HDDS) for measurement of household

food access; indicator guide, version 2. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance

Project,(FANTA) Academy for educational Development(AED), Washington, D.C.

WHO, The global prevalence of anemia in 2015 Geneva

WHO/UNICEF (2017)”Global Nutrition Monitoring Framework: Operation guidance for

tracking progress in meeting targets for 2025”

www.ministryof devolution and Asal.go.ke

56
 APPENDIXES
Appendix 1: Consent form
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE, NUTRITION AND TECHNOLOGY
APPLIED HUMAN NUTRITION
ROLE OF KITCHEN GARDENS IN DIETARY DIVERSITY IN SEMI-ARID LANDS IN
KENYA
Hello, My name is …………………………………………………………………………….I am
part of a research team that seeks to get information about the role kitchen gardens play in
dietary diversity. We are conducting the survey in your area and your household has been
selected to be part of the study. If you agree, you shall answer the questions on behalf of the
other household members.

The Information you provide will be useful in finding the role that kitchen gardens play in
dietary diversity in this climatic zone. A copy of the report will be submitted to your leaders who
may use it for planning of development projects in this area.
All the information you give will be confidential. The information will be used to prepare a
general report but will not include any specific name. There will be no way to identify that you
are the one who gave the information.
We do encourage you to participate in this study and your cooperation will be highly
appreciated.
If you do agree, may we proceed to ask you some questions related to your household?

Respondent answer………………………………………..1= Yes 2= No

Signature of the Interviewer………………………………………….

Signature of the Interviewee…………………………………………
Date……………………………………………………………………..

57
Appendix 2: Questionnaire

QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER

ROLE OF KITCHEN GARDENS IN DIETARY DIVERSITY IN SEMI-ARID LANDS IN

KENYA

Name of interviewer………………………………………………..DATE……./……./2019
Village…………………………………….. Ward………………………………
SECTION A: HOUSEHOLD PROFILE
Please let me know the people that do live in your house in the last 3 months.[ Please start with
the household head, followed by the person responsible for preparing household meals.]
Serial NAME AGE Sex Marital RHHH Education Occupation Contribution
No (yrs) Status level to
HOUSEHOLD

SEX MARITAL RELATIONSHIP TO EDUCATION OCCUPATION CONTRIBUTION

STATUS HOUSEHOLD HEAD TO HH
1= Male 1= Married 1= HH 1= Primary 1= Farmer 1= Money
2= Female 2=Divorced 2=Wife 2=Secondary 2=Small Scale 2= Labour
3=Separated 3=Child 3=Tertiary trader 3=Nothing
4= Widowed 4=Grandchild 4= None 3=Casual Laborer 4= Others (Specify)
5= Single 5= Parent to HH 4=Formally
6= Others Specify employed
5= House Wife
6=Student
Others(Specify)
****Contribution to labor is members over 12 years

****Household member is one who has lived in the house since the last 3 months

**** RHHH-Relation to Household Head

58
SECTION B: SOCIAL ECONOMIC STATUS
2) Observe/Ask Does the Household own the following assets?
Serial no Household Assets Owned (Tick where Number owned/Number of
applicable) acres/ Sets/ animals
2.1 Car
2.2 Motorcycle/Scooter
2.3 Tractor/ Farming machinery
2.4 Television
2.5 Gas cooker
2.6 Bicycle
2.7 Radio
2.8 Sofa set
2.9 Land
2.10 Cows
2.11 Goats
2.12 Sheep
2.13 Rabbits
2.14 Chicken
2.15 Donkey
2.16 Others(Specify)

2b) What is your households‟ source of income?

1= Employment 2= Business 3= Pension 4= Cash Transfer

3. Do you rent land? 1= Yes 2= No ……………………….[ If no skip to question 6]

4. [If yes] How much Land do you rent?................acres

5. How much do you pay per rented land per year? Ksh ……………….

6. Is the house you live in your own or rented? 1= owned 2= Rented

7 How many sleeping rooms, living room and kitchens do you have in your compound?

Sleeping…………………………Living room……………………..Kitchen……………….

8 (If rented) How much do you pay a month? Ksh………………

9 [Observe] What material has been used to construct the main house?

10.1 Roof

1= Makuti 2= Iron Sheets 3= Tiles 4= Grass/ thatch 5=others specify

10.2 Wall

59
1= Mud 2= Plaster 3= Woods 4= Brick / Block/ stones 5=Iron Sheets

6= Others Specify……......

10.3: Floor

1= Mud 2= Cemented 3= Wood 4= Brick / Block/ stones 5= Others Specify……......

11. What are the two main sources of energy for lighting?

1= Wood 2= Tin Lamps 3= Hurricane Lamps 4= Pressure Lamps 5= Gas 6= others

(Specify)……………..

12. What are the two main sources of energy for Cooking?

1= Wood 2= Charcoal 3= Paraffin 4= Electricity 5= Gas 6= Others (Specify)………………….

13 What is your type of livelihood?

1= Crop farming 2= Livestock Farming 3= Mixed Farming 4= Employment + 1,2,3

60
SECTION C: Dietary Diversity Score Sheet as Adopted from FAO.
13. Please describe the foods (meals and snacks) that you ate or drank yesterday during the day
or night , here at home or outside the home. Start with the first food or drink of the morning.

Breakfast Snack Lunch Snack Dinner Snack

In order of priority, what is the source of the food you consumed?

1 2 3 4 5
Kitchen Garden
Grocery Shops

Kiosks

Gifts from friends

Others (Specify)

61
When the respondent recall is complete, fill in the food groups based on the information
recorded above. For any food groups not mentioned, ask the respondent if a food item from this
group was consumed
Question Food group Examples YES=1
number NO=0

1 PULSES Beans, Peas, Lentils, Njahi, Kamande,

2 NUTS AND Groundnuts, Macadamia, Simsim

SEEDS

3 VITAMIN A RICH pumpkin, carrot, squash, or sweet potato

VEGETABLES that are orange inside + other locally
AND TUBERS available vitamin A rich vegetables (e.g.
red sweet pepper)
Dark green leafy vegetables, including wild forms+ locally
available vitamin A rich leaves such as amaranth, cassava leaves
, kale spinach

4 OTHER other vegetables (e.g. tomato, onion,

VEGETABLES eggplant) + other locally available
vegetables
5 VITAMIN A RICH ripe mango, cantaloupe, apricot (fresh or
FRUITS dried), ripe papaya, dried peach, and 100%
fruit juice made from these + other locally
available vitamin A rich fruits

6 OTHER FRUITS other fruits, including wild fruits and

100% fruit juice made from these

7 MEAT, POULTRY, beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, game,

FISH chicken, duck, other birds, insects
liver, kidney, heart or other organ meats or blood-based foods

8 EGGS eggs from chicken, duck, guinea fowl or

any other egg

9 MILK AND MILK milk, cheese, yogurt or other milk

PRODUCTS products

10 OILS AND FATS oil, fats or butter added to food or used for
cooking

11 ENERDY GIVING Ugali, mchele, chapatti, spaghetti, noodles

FOODS
sugar, honey, sweetened soda or sweetened
juice drinks, sugary foods such as
chocolates, candies, cookies and cakes
12 SPICES, spices (black pepper, salt), condiments
CONDIMENTS, (soy sauce, hot sauce), coffee, tea, alcoholic
BEVERAGES beverages

Did you eat anything (meal or snack) OUTSIDE the home

Yesterday?

62
SECTION D: Aspect of Contribution & Sustainability
15. Do you have a kitchen Garden? 1=Yes 2= no ………………. (If no skip to question 27)
16 (If yes), How long have you had your Kitchen Garden? ...........................
17 (Observe/ Ask) How far is your kitchen garden from the Homestead? ..................
18 (Observe/ Ask) What is the size of your Kitchen Garden? ......................

19 Did you produce the following in your Kitchen Garden between October 2018 and may 2019?
Serial No Vegetable /Fruits 1= Yes, 2= No Serial No 1= Yes, 2= No
1 Kales(Sukuma) 10 Onions
2 Amaranth(Terere) 11 Mangoes
3 Cowpeas (Kunde) 12 Bananas
4 Pumpkin Leaves 13 Lemon
5 Spinach 14 Avocado
6 Blacknight shade(Managu) 15 Passions
7 Carrots 16 Macadamia
8 Tomatoes 17 Pawpaw
9 Dhania 18 Others(Specify)

b) Do you think growing vegetables/ and or fruits is useful to

you?....................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
20. Where did you get the seeds/ seedlings for planting the first time?

1= Project 2= Agrovet 3= Gift (From a friend/Family Member 4= Others (Specify)

21 Since the first time you received planting materials have you planted again ? 1= Yes, 2=No

[If yes ] How many times more?..............

22 What was the source of the subsequent planting materials?

1= Project 2= Agrovet 3= Gift (From a friend/Family Member 4= Others (Specify)

63
22 How many times have you harvested from your K.G?................

23 In order of priority how do you utilize the produce form your K.G?.................

1= Home Consumption 2=Selling 3= Others (Specify)

b) [If they sell] How much money do you make from selling the produce?...........................
24 What is the source of the water you use in your kitchen Garden? (In order of priority)

Source of Water Score 1= Most frequently Used 25

Who
2=Frequently Used
River atten
Kitchen Water Waste 3=Sedomly used
ds to
Rely On Rainfall 4=Rarely Used your
Stored Water Kitch
5=Never Used
Borehole en
Tap Water Gard
en? ............................. ( e.g. Children, Husband, Worker.)

26. Has the timing of attending to the garden affected your normal routine? ....................... If yes
How has it affected?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

26b) Since you have a Kitchen Garden, how much money do you think you save?.....................

27 How much money do you spend in buying food? .........................

27b) How much money do you think you would save if you had a kitchen garden?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION

64
 Appendix 3: Training curriculum &program

TRAINING CURRICULUM

The enumerators will be trained on the following sub-headings

 How to approach a Household and get an Informed consent
 Topic and Objectives of the study
 Interviewing & Observational skills and techniques
 How to conduct the 24hr Recall
 How to measure the size of the Kitchen Garden
 How to fill the questionnaire and what to do in case a mistake is done
 How to handle cases that would interfere with the interview, e.g. when a visitor comes
 Ethics in Research including dangers of fraud.
The topics will be covered following the program below

DAY 8:00-10:30AM 10:30- 11:00-1:00 Pm 1:00- 2:00-4:00Pm

10:50am 1:50Pm

1 Introduction of the TEA Aim& Purpose of LUNCH Ethics in Research

Topic the study  Things to
 How to Objectives of the observe
approach a study. while
Household BREAK BREAK conductin
and get an g a
Informed research
consent  Fraud in
 How to Research
handle
disruptions
during the
interview
2 Interviewing Skills & How to fill the Practical
Observational Skills questionnaire
How to fill the
questionnaire and
what to do in case
a mistake is done

3 How to conduct a 24 Pre-Test Conclusion

hr Recall

65