Seasonality in the Coastal Lowlands of Kenya, Part 3
Kenya Coast Portal
Section:
Books, reports and dissertations
Many of the PDF-files in the Portal contain enhancements to improve document presentation and internal navigation. However, enhancements are not recognised by all browsers to the same extent. For best results the reader is advised to check the available PDF-options or to download the PDF-file concerned and open it with Adobe Acrobat Reader as PDF-viewer. This application can be downloaded for free from http://get.adobe.com/reader/.
Number of pages:
152
Year of publication:
1989
Print title:
Foeken D., Leegwater P., Niemeijer R., Veerman W. & Hoorweg J. (1989). Seasonality in the Coastal Lowlands of Kenya. Part 3: Socio-Economic Profile. (Food and Nutrition Studies Programme, Report No.32). Nairobi/Leiden: Ministry of Planning and National Development/African Studies Centre.
For reference purposes, cite the following link:
https://www.ascleiden.nl/kenya-coast/brd/foeken-leegwater/seasonality-coastal-lowlands-part-3
Summary/abstract:
This is the third report of a series on seasonal fluctuations in food supply and nutrition in the coastal lowlands of Kenya. In the period, mid-1985 to late-1986, five consecutive survey rounds were carried out among households in six locations in Kwale and Kilifi Districts. The present report offers a description of the socioeconomic characteristics of the study areas: demographic characteristics, living conditions, food production (farm size, land use, labour and food self-sufficiency), production of cash crops and livestock, off-farm employment and household income.
In all, about 40% of the households fall below the food poverty line; families that do not have sufficient income (cash & kind) to assure even the minimal energy requirements of the household members. Households that depend on farming mostly have low incomes and they are generally unable to meet household needs – with exceptions. Higher incomes are realized through wage employment – not farming. The two districts have a similar distribution of household economies with the exception that more poor households were recorded in the Kilifi research areas.
An important finding is that the number of poor households in the three agroecological zones is mostly the same. The further distribution over different types of household economies also differs little. This can be explained by the fact that among households above the poverty line, wages are the major income component, and employment opportunities are not location-bound – workers go where employment is offered. Few households manage to secure a living from farming – and this is so in all agro-ecological zones despite differences in agricultural potential.