Gender Differences in IPM and Vegetable Farming

Lessons learned about gender differences in IPM and vegetable farming

By: Cathy A. Rakowski, The Ohio State University

Conducting a thorough gender analysis of IPM issues and other aspects of vegetable farming in the three countries included in the project (Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania) requires either that

  1. ) gender as a variable be included in the design of questions and in the analysis of data for each survey and/or
  2. ) survey data be shared with other researchers for the purpose of conducting gender analyses.

Surveys in all three countries had been completed at the time of this writing. One was a baseline survey conducted in Tanzania by Dr. Amon Maerere several years ago. It was a random survey, which likely explains why only 26.7% of those surveyed were women farmers while 73.3% were men. The data are available for analysis in SPSS if funds become available to hire a student to produce the required tables.

A survey of farmers also was conducted in Ethiopia by ICIPE (International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology). Three hundred farmers were interviewed, of which only 11 were women (3.66%). This likely was a random survey, but the small number of women farmers included means it will be impossible to evaluate gender differences among vegetable farmers in Ethiopia.

Data for Kenya include an original survey of 403 farmers conducted with funding from this project for the purpose of analyzing diverse aspects of vegetable farming, IPM issues, sources of inputs, and a range of other variables shed light on gender differences. MS student Muntasir Hasan conducted the survey under the guidance of Dr. George Norton. Every effort was made to include both women and men farmers by alternating the sex of farmers interviewed in the households sampled. As a result, 48.9% of farmers interviewed were women. Rakowski was given access to the data set and enough funding to hire an Ohio State University graduate student (Asanka Wijesinghe) to assist with technical aspects of data analyses and to produce required tables using STATA.

 

Examples of Gender Findings for Kenya

The following presents a brief analysis of some important gender differences identified by the Muntasir-Norton survey. Simple crosstabs were used for preliminary analyses.

The study included 206 men farmers and 197 women farmers. For the purpose of comparison, the following uses % within each gender group.

Age:  Ages of farmers surveyed ranged from 20-81, with distribution across age groups very similar except for a slightly higher percent of men in upper age ranges and a slightly higher percent of women in lower age ranges.

Marital status:  With respect to “marital status” (whether legalized or cohabitation), 92.7% of men farmers and 70% of women farmers indicated that they were “married.” A larger percent of women farmers identified as widowed (21%) than men (3.4%). More women farmers also identified as single (6.6%) compared with men farmers (3.4%). Only 1 man and 5 women indicated being separated or divorced.

Agriculture as an occupation:   Farmers were asked whether agriculture was their primary occupation or their secondary occupation. For over 76% of the men, it was their primary occupation and for 24% it was their secondary occupation. For 80% of the women, it was their primary occupation and for 20% it was their secondary occupation.  Other primary occupations included having a business or a wage job for both men (23%) and women (19%). Over half of both men (54%) and women (56%) stated that they had only one occupation (farming).

The farming households surveyed ranged from 1-28 members for men and 2-15 members for women. However, 84% of men and 63% of women farmers lived in households with between 3-10 members. It is unclear whether or not some households include any unrelated individuals or if all are related. “Members” do children and extended family members who are adults.

Most farmers, both men and women, appear to have reasonable or easy access to the nearest extension office (5 or fewer kilometers) and to agricultural inputs.

Sizes of plots vary greatly (from .125 acres to 30,000 acres). On average, women’s plots tend to be only slightly smaller than men’s although a larger percentage of women than men have very small plots (under 1 acre). A few farmers (2 men and 3 women) have access to public land for farming.  Few farmers rent land and more than half of all men (59.2%) and close to half of all women (44.7%) surveyed inherited their land. Both women and men live in households that own a significant number of livestock (ranging from 1 or 2 to 80+).

Membership in farmer groups and other community-based organizations is low. Only 28.6% of men and 39% of women are members of a community organization and 56% of men and 57% of women farmers are not members of a savings group. Men farmers and their spouses are slightly more likely than women farmers and their spouses to be members of a marketing cooperative, but the numbers are low.

Men farmers are more likely than women farmers to receive advice from an agricultural extension worker (73% vs 53%) or from a farmer field school (10% vs 5.6%). Both are highly likely to receive advice from radio shows (85% of men and 80% of women).

Both women and men surveyed grow tomatoes and cabbage but plot sizes are not large. Tomatoes are grown on plots that range from .01 acres to 4 acres and cabbage is grown on plots that range from .001 to 4 acres. Men in the survey are somewhat more likely than women to grow tomatoes (40% vs. 30%) and cabbage (46.6% vs. 44.1%).

The percent of household income from selling vegetables varies greatly for both men and women farmers. However, men’s households and women’s households are both highly likely to report that half or more of the household income comes from selling vegetables (25.07% for men’s households, 23.5% for women’s).

Both men and women farmers are equally likely to use irrigation systems (55% and 58% respectively) while women farmers are more likely to use cans or buckets to water vegetables (51.5%) than men (41%).

Both women and men farmers struggle with a variety of crop pests and diseases and they use a variety of pesticides and strategies (including weeding and IPM) to address these. Many reported that they adopted IPM methods primarily because it costs less. However, most men and women interviewed regarding the effectiveness of IPM did not believe that IPM was more effective than pesticides, nor did they believe that it was safer for family health, better for the environment, or that it protects beneficial insects. However, a majority also thought that pesticides have adverse effects on the environment (especially water pollution, kills pests’ natural enemies, kills bees).

The majority of farmers surveyed, both men and women, had not received training in IPM and the majority who did received training only once. A majority of both men and women farmers who use pesticides use protective boots and hats when applying them, but few use a mask or goggles.

It is not clear whether both sets of respondents—male and female—were the heads of their households or not. The focus was on selecting a farmer knowledgeable about farming in each household surveyed. Male respondents tended to state, when asked, that men were more likely to make decisions regarding pests and women respondents stated that either women or both genders were more likely to make decisions about what to do about pests. Women respondents also gave more credit to women than men did for some decisions (i.e., spending money on pest management) but more credit to men for applying pest management products. About 20% of the farmers indicated that both farmers (male and female) in a household shared in making decisions about important issues involving both farming and pest management. Most indicated that they chose to use pesticides based on the number of pests detected on the plants and/or the visibility of damage on plants. Problematically, both men and women farmers indicate high rates of illness among family members after applying pesticides.