Gender, marital status, farm size and other factors influencing the extent of cash cropping in Kenya: A case study

This article examines the effects of commercialisation of agriculture on land use and work patterns by means of a case study in the Nyeri district in Kenya. The study uses cross sectional data collected from small-scale farmers in this district. We find that good quality land is allocated to non-food cash crops, which may lead to a reduction in non-cash food crops and expose some households to greater risks of possible famine. Also the proportion of land allocated to food crops declines as the farm size increases while the proportion of land allocated to non-food cash crops rises as the size of farm increases. Cash crops are also not bringing in as much revenue commensurate with the amount of land allocated to them. With growing commercialisation, women still work more hours than men. They not only work on non-cash food crops but also on cash crops including non-food cash crops. Evidence indicates that women living with husbands work longer hours than those married but living alone, and also longer than the unmarried women. Married women seem to lose their decision-making ability with growth of commercialisation, as husbands make most decisions to do with cash crops. Furthermore husbands appropriate family cash income. Husbands are less likely to use such income for the welfare of the family compared to wives due to different expenditure patterns. Married women in Kenya also have little or no power to change the way land is allocated between food and non-food cash crops. Due to deteriorating terms of trade for non-food cash crops, men have started cultivation of food cash crops with the potential of crowding out women. It is found that both the area of non-cash crops tends to rise with farm size but also the proportion of the farm area cash cropped rises in Central Kenya.

Human settlements: Australia state of the environment report, 2001

Australia’s transition to the 21st century has been marked by an extended period of economic prosperity unmatched for several decades, but one in which a series of question marks are being raised in three principal areas: in relation to the environment, the social well-being of the population, and the future path of economic development. The first concern, which is of primary interest in this report, relates to the physical environment of cities and their surrounding regions, and the range of pressures exerted by population and human activity. The report begins by noting the increasing divergence of the prime indicator of national economic performance—gross domestic product (GDP)—from the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). GPI is a new experimental measure of sustainable development that accommodates factors currently unaccounted for in GDP, such as income distribution, value of household work, cost of unemployment, and various other social and environmental costs. The divergence of these two indicators in recent decades suggests that Australia’s growth has been heavily dependent on the draw-down of the nation’s stocks of capital assets (its infrastructure), its human and social capital, and its natural capital (Hamilton 1997).