Rural livelihood diversity and its influence on the ecological intensification potential of smallholder farms in Kenya

Abstract

Smallholder farmers represent the majority of food producers around the world, yet they are often the most at risk of suffering yield gaps and not achieving their production potential. Ecological Intensification (EI) is a knowledge intensive approach to sustainable agricultural intensification which utilizes biodiversity‐based ecosystem services to support greater yield and reduce reliance on agrochemical inputs. Despite the potential benefit of EI based practices, uptake by smallholders is not as widespread as it could be. Here we test the hypothesis that application of EI on smallholder farms in Kenya is a viable approach that could be taken in order to enhance food security. Focusing on natural pest control and crop pollination, we used farmer surveys to explore the potential for EI in central Kenya. We identified to what extent farm typology and access to knowledge determine the incentives and barriers facing smallholder producers and how this influences optimal pathways for sharing knowledge and providing extension services. We found considerable potential for EI of smallholder farms in this region; most farmers grew insect pollinated crops and some farmers already employed EI practices, while others relied heavily on chemical pesticides. Based on physical, social, and economic factors, three farm typologies emerged including “semi‐commercial,” “market orientated,” and “subsistence.” These typologies influenced the appropriate EI practices available to farmers, as well as routes through which knowledge was shared, and the extent to which extension services were utilized. We propose that to support effective uptake of EI practices, smallholder farm heterogeneity should be acknowledged and characterized in order to target the needs and capabilities of farmers and identify appropriate knowledge sharing and support pathways. The approach we take here has the potential to be employed in other regions globally.

A value chain perspective towards sustainable agricultural practices: the case of vegetables in Chile

“…Guarín et al (2020) found that farming types with organic certifications are linked to more formal market channels. Similarly, Kansiime et al (2021) found that market-oriented farming types are more likely to make intensive use of pesticides, which is consistent with our results for Type-III, IV and V systems which are more dependent on farm income and use pesticides to ensure high production yields. Our results for Type II also seem to be consistent with Mutyasira (2020) who states that farming types located closer to markets have greater potential for crop diversification and high-value commercialisation.…”

“…Moreover, our Type-II farming system supports evidence from Masi et al (2021) and Teixeira et al (2018) who found that agroecological principles are associated with farming types led by women. In terms of the variables used to measure the sustainability level of agricultural practices, we used similar variables to those found in prior studies focused on the importance of including environmental sustainability aspects in farming typologies, namely, the use of pesticides, the amount of nitrogen released, the preservation of native flora and fauna and the use of manure (Berre et al, 2019;Bánkuti et al, 2020;Kansiime et al, 2021;Stylianou Chapter 3 et al, 2020). However, our study differs from the others by using a farm-level index that aggregates the different sustainability variables (Table 3.2), making it easier to operationalise the sustainability concept and understand the complex dynamics between sustainability and farming systems.…”

“…Socio-economic and structural farm characteristics also affect the market channel in which farmers operate. Previous farming typology studies that have taken into consideration market-related factors have used variables such as market-orientation to identify the percentage of production output going to the market (Kansiime et al 2021), the distance to markets as a proxy for market access (Mutyasira, 2020) and the type of buyers (e.g., farmers' markets, wholesalers and cooperatives) (Guarín et al, 2020). Bánkuti et al (2020) and Guarín et al (2020) found that farming types with formal agreements with agribusiness (e.g., supermarkets, processors and specialised stores) are linked with relatively wealthy farming systems, similar to our results for Type-I and II farming systems.…”

A Typology and Preferences for Pigeon Pea in Smallholder Mixed Farming Systems in Uganda

“…Our findings show that low-resourced farm types allocated more land to crop production compared to animal grazing. Kansiime et al [53] found in Kenya that low-resourced smallholders allocated substantially more acreage to crop production than high-resourced ones. Similarly, smallholders allocated about 0.57 ha to pigeon pea farming, with an average productivity of 380 kgha −1 .…”

The benefits of integrated pest management for apple depend on pest type and production metrics

“…Transitioning from a conventional to a more IPM-based agricultural approach can be limited by, among other things, a lack of knowledge of appropriate and effective tools as well as presenting economic risks for those producers who have somewhat limited uptake and expansion potential (Alwang et al, 2019;Deguine et al, 2021;Kansiime et al, 2021). The effective contribution of natural enemies to help control pests through conservation biocontrol (CBC) is fundamental to successful IPM schemes in open systems but there is a clear lack of evidence for the potential for CBC based approaches to deliver agronomic and economic benefits for growers, with research endpoints limited primarily to effects on abundance of pests and natural enemies (Kleijn et al, 2019;Johnson et al, 2021;Girling et al, 2022).…”