Understanding the Social Impacts of Urban

NOVEMBER 2011

Strengthening the humanity and dignity of people in crisis through knowledge and practice

Understanding the Social Impacts of Urban Gardening in Ethiopia Ritu Shroff, Mengistu Dessalegn, Hanna Teshome

©2011 Feinstein International Center. All Rights Reserved. Fair use of this copyrighted material includes its use for non-commercial educational purposes, such as teaching, scholarship, research, criticism, commentary, and news reporting. Unless otherwise noted, those who wish to reproduce text and image files from this publication for such uses may do so without the Feinstein International Center’s express permission. However, all commercial use of this material and/or reproduction that alters its meaning or intent, without the express permission of the Feinstein International Center, is prohibited.

Feinstein International Center Tufts University 200 Boston Ave., Suite 4800 Medford, MA 02155 USA tel: +1 617.627.3423 fax: +1 617.627.3428 fic.tufts.edu

2

Feinstein International Center

Acknowledgments The Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA) team would like to extend gratitude to the following: • The 151 men and women participants of the USAID Urban Gardens Program (USAID UGP) for their time, their openness, and their active engagement in this study • The Ethiopian implementing partners of the USAID UGP for their support and time in coordinating data collection, and for sharing their experiences with the USAID UGP • The staff of Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) at the USAID UGP and in Washington DC for their logistics support, provision of information, and feedback. We would particularly like to thank Nancy Russell, the former Chief-of-Party, USAID UGP and her teams in Addis Ababa, Adama, Bahir Dar, and Hawassa, as well as Caesar Layton and Alison Lipsky at DAI headquarters for their support. • Tufts University and the Feinstein International Center Africa Regional Office for their logistics support, technical guidance, and overall management of this project. We are grateful to Fasil Yemane, Hailu Tseyahu, and Yemisearch Weldearegai for their support. • The team is particularly indebted to Andy Catley as the Principal Investigator of this project for his overall guidance and detailed technical oversight. Photo credits All photographs in this report were taken by participants of the USAID Urban Gardens Program in Ethiopia. This report is published by Tufts University with funding provided by USAID Urban Gardens Program for HIV Affected Women and Children (663-C-00-08-00427-00). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, or the United States Government.

Understanding the Social Impacts of Urban Gardening in Ethiopia

3

Contents Summary

7

1. Introduction

10

1.1 Background

10

1.2 Objective and questions of the PIA

10

2. Methodology

11

2.1 Background to Participatory Impact Assessment

11

2.2 Scoping study and selection of variables

11

2.3 PIA design

12

2.3.1 Participatory methods

12

2.3.2 Sampling of cities, gardens, and participants

14

2.3.3 Use of routine USAID UGP monitoring data and existing literature

14

2.3.4 Data analysis

15

3. Findings

16

3.1 Changes in people’s lives

16

3.2 Contributing factors to the changes and relative importance of USAID UGP

18

3.3 Factors that determine people’s continued involvement in gardening and their relative importance

20

3.3.1 Factors that encourage people to keep gardening

21

3.3.2 Factors that discourage people from continuing to garden and contribute to dropping out

3.4 Main social benefits of the USAID UGP

23

3.4.1 Gardening and social status

24

3.4.2 Gardening, empowerment, and self reliance

25

3.4.3 Gardening, mental health, and well-being

26

3.4.4 School gardeners and self-worth

26

3.5 Nutritional and financial benefits of the USAID UGP

26

3.5.1 Data from USAID UGP monitoring in Ethiopia and other countries

26

3.5.2 Specific financial and nutritional benefits of the USAID UGP

31

3.6 Relative importance of social benefits compared with financial and nutritional benefits

4

21


34

4. Discussion

36

4.1 Value of social benefits to urban poor in Ethiopia

36

4.2 Value of small contributions to income and food security among urban poor communities

36

4.3 Challenge of sustainability of gardening and related benefits with current program design

36

4.4 Effects on reducing stigma and discrimination toward people infected and affected by HIV not fully clear from PIA

37

4.5 School gardens face greater challenges than group gardens

37

5. Recommendations

38

38

5.1 Program design and implementation

5.1.1 Development of a different strategy for school gardens

5.1.2 Provision of better farming implements, water supply kits, and protection from pests, stealing, and stray animals

5.1.3 Expansion of the duration that gardeners are enrolled in the program

5.1.4 More consistent follow-up after graduation to monitor, support, and provide guidance

38 38 38 38

5.1.5 Greater focus on resilience and lasting poverty reduction

5.2 Measurement of social, nutritional, and financial impacts

39 39

5.2.1 Measurement of nutritional and financial impacts

39

5.2.2 Measurement of social impacts

39

5.2.3 Further research based on current data

39

References

40

Annex 1

42


5

ABBREVIATIONS DAI EW FGD IP M&E NGO OAC OVC PIA PLHIV SPSS USAID UGP

6

Development Alternatives Inc. Extension Workers Focus Group Discussions Implementing Partner Monitoring and Evaluation Non-governmental Organization Operational Area Coordinator Orphans and Vulnerable Children Participatory Impact Assessment People Living with HIV Statistical Package for the Social Sciences United States Agency for International Development Urban Gardens Program


SUMMARY Background The United States Agency for International Development Urban Gardens Program (USAID UGP) for HIV/AIDS Affected Women and Children (USAID UGP) aims to improve the nutrition and income of women and children living with HIV/AIDS in urban centers of Ethiopia by establishing and supporting school and group vegetable gardens. The project is implemented by Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) and local partners. The USAID UGP started in 2009. In terms of possible impacts, the project monitoring system focused on measuring financial and nutritional indicators. However, by mid-2010 senior managers of the USAID UGP had visited many gardens and began to suspect that the project was leading to important social benefits for gardeners. Given the focus of the project monitoring data on “hard” financial and production indicators, there was a need to explore the specific nature of these social benefits and understand their relative importance. In partnership with the Feinstein International Center at Tufts University, a participatory impact assessment (PIA) was designed to examine these issues. Study objectives and the PIA approach The PIA focused on the following questions: 1. W hat are the main social benefits of the USAID UGP at the individual and group levels, and what is the relative importance of these benefits? 2. W hat is the relative importance of USAID UGP-derived social benefits compared with the financial and nutritional benefits of the program? 3. W hat is the nutritional value of food consumed directly from gardens, or purchased using income from produce sales, for different age groups of children, and for adults? 4. W hat are the factors that determine people’s continued involvement in gardening, either as individuals or groups, and what is the relative importance of these factors?

5. W hat are the lessons for the future design and evaluation of USAID UGPs in Ethiopia and beyond? Participatory impact assessment evolved in the early 1990s as a natural extension of the various participatory approaches and methods that had already been used for community-level problem analysis for many years. Tufts University has been adapting PIA approaches since the late 1990s, with one area of development focusing on the use of standardized participatory methods that are repeated with individuals or groups and supported by informal interview techniques, and triangulation with project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data. Methods The PIA worked with a representative sample of gardeners who graduated from the USAID UGP in 2009. It was felt that impacts were best understood by working with gardeners who had graduated at least a year prior to the assessment, in order to understand issues related to the continuation (or not) of gardening after project support ended. By reference to the key questions and possible financial, nutritional, and social benefits of the USAID UGP, we used six variables to understand changes in people’s lives, as follows: Financial benefits • Assets • Purchasing power Nutritional benefits • Amount of food consumed • Dietary diversity

Social benefits • External social well-being (social status) • Internal social well-being (self-esteem) The six variables were determined using an initial exploratory scoping study, and were described by participants as being contextually relevant. Participants described changes to these


7

variables over time using a scoring method, and also identified contributing factors, both positive and negative, to these changes. They then ranked the six variables in order of importance. This approach produced both qualitative and quantitative data, and was supplemented by interviews covering the specific history and activities of each garden. In 2009 the USAID UGP supported 104 gardens in six cities. Of these, we randomly sampled 15 gardens in the four cities of Addis Ababa, Adama, Bahir Dar, and Hawassa, leading to a sample of gardens comprising nine group gardens and six school gardens across these cities. The PIA worked with 151 participants from these gardens. Key findings Changes in gardeners’ lives • The average scores for all six variables related to financial, nutritional, and social benefits increased over time, indicating that overall, gardeners were better off in 2011 compared with 2009. • There was a wide frequency distribution of the scores assigned to each of the six variables, indicating that individual circumstances were important in affecting how gardeners described changes over time. • The increase in social benefits exceeded the increase in financial and nutritional benefits, with the latter showing a relatively low increase. The majority of PIA participants stated that social benefits were far more important to them than financial or nutritional benefits. Social benefits were inextricably linked with other types of benefits, and financial and nutritional well-being were often seen through the “lens” of social benefits, i.e., the social value of income, assets, or food was prioritized over the actual financial or nutritional values. • Specific social benefits included mental peace and satisfaction, plus distraction from their daily struggles, a sense of empowerment and self-reliance, and improved social status—these benefits were cited by all participants in the PIA.

8


• Project monitoring data provided by DAI indicated a modest yearly contribution of the USAID UGP to income and food consumption in absolute terms, in both 2009 and 2010. However, the PIA revealed that these apparently small changes were still highly valued and need to be understood in the Ethiopian context. They contributed to increases in assets and, to a lesser extent, purchasing power and the amount of food consumed. They have also contributed to increased dietary diversity and improved perceptions of health among families. • A lthough school gardeners fared slightly worse than group gardeners, on average they also reported positive changes. Contributing factors to these changes USAID UGP activities made: • A substantial contribution to the increase in social benefits reported by gardeners, and especially the external social benefits (social status) among school gardeners. • A relatively modest contribution to the increase in nutritional benefits, i.e., amount of food consumed and dietary diversity, reported by gardeners. • A relatively low contribution to the increase in financial benefits reported by gardeners. Factors that determine continued involvement in gardening, and their relative importance • PIA participants listed various contextual factors that affected their decision to continue to garden after most of the direct support from the USAID UGP ended, as well as factors related to the their intensity of gardening. • Some of these factors were project-specific and acted as “enablers,” such as actual experience of benefits, or people’s aspirations. • Others project factors were “inhibitors,” such as water availability and costs, technical support, quality of materials provided by the project, plot size, and duration of the intervention. • Some factors were not project-related, such as moving away, obtaining other jobs, changing schools, and being asked by families to stop gardening (school gardeners).

Discussion and Recommendations Based on the PIA findings, the PIA team concludes and recommends the following: 1. The value of social benefits is substantial and closely linked with other benefits. These should form part of the overall impact pathways of the USAID UGP in the future and should be measured accordingly. Understanding social benefits will also help USAID UGP achieve greater impact, as social well-being affects all the other dimensions. 2. The value of apparently small contributions to food and income security in the Ethiopian context needs to be understood and accepted. Measuring variables such as assets and purchasing power, and understanding what these mean to poor families in urban settings in Ethiopia, is contextual, and may have greater value than in other contexts. It is recommended that in future, the USAID UGP measure the two variables of financial well-being used in the PIA—assets and purchasing power—rather than income. The project should also measure the amounts of food consumed at the household level, and dietary diversity.

4. The PIA was unable to gather sufficient evidence on the impact of the USAID UGP in reducing stigma and discrimination towards people living with HIV (PLHIV), but issues of confidentiality and unwillingness to discuss HIV status may have been a factor during the PIA. However, it appears that not all USAID UGP participants were HIV-affected and hence overall social status and social wellbeing was mentioned more often. Regardless of the actual mention of reduced stigma and discrimination, it is safe to say that the USAID UGP’s significant contribution to social well-being would benefit PLHIV as well as other vulnerable populations.

3. Key program design and implementation issues faced by 2009 gardeners were significant, and to the extent that they still exist, should be addressed. It is understood that 2010 and 2011 gardeners have experienced somewhat different strategies and activities from 2009 gardeners. However, based on 2009 graduate data, challenges of water and land may be generalized to later years, as well as the challenge of the one-year duration. The one-year duration in particular, is deemed insufficient by most gardeners and implementing partners to undertake land acquisition, land clearance, and understand successful vegetable gardening techniques. Similarly, school gardeners face a unique set of challenges—they require parental approvals, school authority support, have less access to and power in markets, and graduate from those schools where they start gardening. A fuller strategy to address these challenges is recommended.


9

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The USAID Urban Gardens Program for HIV/ AIDS Affected Women and Children (USAID UGP) aims to improve the nutrition and income of women and children living with HIV/AIDS in urban centers of Ethiopia through support to school and group vegetable gardens. The program is implemented by DAI and started in late 2008/early 2009; it now covers 16 cities and towns in Ethiopia. The target focus is orphans and vulnerable children (OVC), and implementation is via local NGOs, which in turn support gardening groups. By mid-2010 the program had reached more than 40,000 OVC and around 15,000 households. The USAID UGP works with local NGOs as implementing partners (IPs). DAI provides technical and financial support to the IPs, who organize individuals (adults or children) through government extension workers. The gardeners undertake a one-year supported effort to grow vegetables, with inputs, training, and other support provided by DAI and the extension workers. After the year, they are no longer given any support, but it is anticipated that they have the skills and capacities to continue gardening. Over time, DAI reports improving the quality of its activities and intensifying some of its strategies. For example, relative to 2009 the capacity building and support to the gardeners is now supplemented through weekly dialogue between gardeners and extension workers. Some gardeners have been supported with fruit trees, others with poultry, and still others with livestock. More effort has been directed towards policy issues and obtaining local government support. 1.2 Objective and questions of the PIA By late 2010 senior managers on the USAID UGP had visited many gardens, and began to suspect that the project was leading to important social benefits for gardeners. Given the focus of the project monitoring data on “hard” financial

10


and production indicators, there was a need to explore the specific nature of these benefits and understand their relative importance. The questions of the PIA evolved in this context. The objective of the PIA was to answer the following questions: 1. W hat are the main social benefits of the USAID UGP at the individual and group levels, and what is the relative importance of these benefits? 2. W hat is the relative importance of USAID UGP-derived social benefits compared with the financial and nutritional benefits of the program? 3. W hat is the nutritional value of food consumed directly from gardens, or purchased using income from produce sales, for different age groups of children, and for adults? 4. W hat are the factors that determine people’s continued involvement in gardening, either as individuals or groups, and what is the relative importance of these factors? 5. W hat are the lessons for the future design and evaluation of USAID UGPs in Ethiopia and beyond? These questions were largely answered by the PIA—see Findings.

2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 B ackground to Participatory Impact Assessment Participatory impact assessment (PIA) evolved in the early 1990s as a natural extension of the various participatory approaches and methods that had already been used for community-level problem analysis for many years. An important aspect of PIA includes initial discussions with communities to identify their indicators for measuring impact, followed by the use of participatory methods to assess changes over time, and to attribute change to both program and non-program factors. This approach has been demonstrated as being particularly useful for revealing hitherto unreported impacts and for understanding the relative importance of different types of benefits. Tufts University has been adapting PIA approaches since the late 1990s, with one area of development focusing on the use of standardized participatory methods that are repeated with individuals or groups, and supported by informal interview techniques and triangulation with project M&E data. These adaptations produce both numerical data for conventional statistical analysis, plus the qualitative reasoning and insights that are needed to explain numerical trends and attribution. This mix of numerical data, statistical analysis, and qualitative reasoning has helped to make PIA acceptable to a wide range of stakeholders, each with different preferences in terms of assessment methods and data presentation. The USAID UGP is well-suited to PIA for several reasons: • Ethiopian culture and societal norms play a major role in determining the well-being of individuals, by affecting their social status, key social relationships, and access to traditional support systems—and isolation from those systems. The qualitative interviewing methods of PIA are a useful way to examine these issues, with prioritization of specific aspects of social stigma and discrimination associated with HIV. Systematic use of PIA methods allows qualitative changes to be measured.

• A lthough gardening is an activity that produces financial or nutritional benefits, it is also an activity practiced for pleasure, as a form of recreation, and for the satisfaction of producing something from scratch and watching it grow. There are also elements of distraction from day-to-day problems and hassle—in general, gardening is a quiet, peaceful business. Finally, group gardening may offer significant social relationship building, particularly among people living in poverty and living with HIV/AIDS, who may experience greater forms of social isolation. The PIA can explore the extent to which these “non-economic” benefits might apply to the USAID UGP, which is unknown at present. • The USAID UGP is a complex project, with different types of participants, different inputs, and different timeframes; a project-wide assessment would be difficult due to the multiple variables. However, by focusing on variables such as changes in people’s lives, and the extent to which the USAID UGP has contributed to these changes among school and group gardens and between a sample of cities, some analysis of project-wide effects can be obtained. • There are opportunities to use new types of participatory methods, such as visualization of participant experiences using photographs taken by the USAID UGP group members, with explanatory narrative. • In addition to PIA, the project has collected some data through a routine monitoring system, and there is now some global literature on the effects of urban gardening. A complementary desk-top analysis can help to improve understanding of the financial and nutritional impacts of the USAID UGP. The PIA used a brief, initial scoping study followed by the systematic use of participatory methods in selected cities. 2.2 Scoping study and selection of variables The initial scoping study was exploratory and examined how best to measure well-being, in a broad sense, among project participants. This study examined social aspects of HIV/AIDS, Understanding the Social Impacts of Urban Gardening in Ethiopia

11

issues of stigma and social isolation, and the ways in which program participants described and prioritized these issues. The scoping study also explored the social dynamics of USAID UGP groups, the pros and cons of gardening, and the ways in which participants describe the qualitative economic, nutritional, and social benefits and other consequences of gardening as an activity. The scoping study findings provided the necessary framing to develop this methodology for detailed, in-depth data collection, in order to achieve the objective of the PIA. The scoping study was conducted in Addis Ababa, Bahir Dar, and Hawassa in March and April, 2011, and involved 16 in-depth interviews and 15 focus group discussions with USAID UGP participants, as well as interviews with six implementing partner staff and five school authorities. Using the scoping study, we identified six variables for measuring financial, nutritional, and social changes experienced by USAID UGP participants as follows: Financial benefits • Assets • Purchasing power Nutritional benefits • Amount of food consumed • Dietary diversity Social benefits • External social well-being (social status) • Internal social well-being (self-esteem) With regards to financial benefits, the team opted not to measure income due to the welldocumented challenges of accurately measuring this variable. In addition, the high level of inflation in Ethiopia between 2009 and 2011 indicated that purchasing power was a more useful variable for understanding financial status. With regards to nutritional benefits, the USAID UGP focused on vegetable gardening and therefore diet diversity was seen as a potentially useful variable, in addition to the amount of food consumed. Under social benefits, the team used the variable of external social well-being to cover issues such as social status and community acceptance, and internal social benefits to cover self esteem and general happiness. 12


2.3 PIA design The overall PIA design was based on: • Review of secondary literature and data related both generally to urban garden projects in different parts of the world, and specifically to the USAID UGP, e.g., USAID UGP monitoring data provided by DAI. • Understanding and documenting the history and activities of each garden. • Comparing changes to the six financial, nutritional, and social variables over time. • Describing the project and non-project factors, both positive and negative, that contributed to changes in the financial, nutritional, and social variables. • Measuring the relative importance of financial vs. nutritional vs. social benefits. • Identifying specific social benefits and measuring the relative importance of these benefits. • Understanding participant ideas for improving the project. A key aspect of the design was that it is difficult to quantify possible social benefits using the same quantitative measures applied to the financial benefits (e.g., income in birr) or nutritional benefits (e.g., weight of vegetables consumed). By using a participatory scoring approach, it was possible to directly compare social, financial, and nutritional benefits. The PIA was conducted from June to September, 2011. 2.3.1 Participatory methods Timelines Timelines were used as a group exercise with gardeners to understand the history of each garden, and also to elicit enablers and inhibitors for gardening, drop-out and continuation rates, times of harvest, and factors that supported or hindered the sustainability of the gardens. Focus Group Discussions and in-depth interviews Focus group discussions (FGDs) and interviews were used with gardeners to understand how their lives had been affected by the USAID UGP and other factors that influenced their well-being and

quality of life. With school gardeners, the team preferred to use group discussions rather than individual interviews, as it was felt that students would be more open and forthcoming if in a group of peers. On the other hand, adult gardeners were interviewed individually to encourage more openness, especially about sensitive issues. A range of semi-structured interview techniques as well as the other methods described below were used. Proportional piling Proportional piling was used to measure changes to the six variables over time, and to measure the relative importance of each of the variables to individuals. Laminated culturally-appropriate picture/image cards based on experiences during the scoping study were used to illustrate each of the six variables. To measure changes over time, individual gardeners referred to the timeline for their garden and using a predetermined number of counters, assigned counters to each variable to indicate changes before they started gardening and “now,” (now being the time of the assessment). To show the relative importance of each of the variables to them, individual gardeners divided a fixed number of counters against each of the six variables.

Scoring After the proportional piling exercise, participants were asked to identify factors that had contributed to the changes, for each variable they had described above. These factors were then scored using a fixed number of counters to show their relative importance. The factors were categorized as project and non-project factors. Participatory photography and story gathering To triangulate, add detail, and provide additional case-study type material to the assessment, we used participatory photography. Selected groups and individuals were loaned digital cameras, given basic training in their use, and asked to take photographs that illustrated their involvement in the USAID UGP, and the benefits and constraints of the program.1 The assessment team then revisited the participants with prints of the photos and asked a series of group and individual questions to elicit narratives and stories behind the photos and foster group discussions and ranking of the photos. The various participatory methods are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Summary of participatory methods Area of inquiry

Method

Type of participant

Understanding the garden: history of the garden

Individual interviews–timelines/history Group–timelines

Extension workers Gardeners*

Changes in people’s lives over time

Individual/group** stories Individual/group** proportional piling to describe changes in income status, nutritional status, and social status Individual/group** probing to understand the quality and nature of changes

Gardeners* Gardeners*

Gardeners*

Table 1. continued on next page

1

his approach is adapted from that described at http://www.photovoice.org/. Tufts has previously used disposable cameras with people T to the Karamojong Cluster to develop touring photographic exhibitions. An example is at https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/ display/FIC/Multimedia. Understanding the Social Impacts of Urban Gardening in Ethiopia

13

Table 1. continued from previous page Area of inquiry

Method

Type of participant

Contribution to changes

Individual/group** brainstorming on contributors to Gardeners* above-mentioned changes Scoring of factors in order, high to low Gardeners* Probing on these factors Gardeners*

Relative importance of social versus other benefits

Individual/group proportional piling to describe importance of social vs. income vs. nutritional value of USAID UGP

Gardeners*

Understanding of social benefits

Individual/group brainstorming on types of social benefits Individual/group scoring on types of social benefits

Gardeners* Gardeners*

Reasons for not continuing Individual interviews to garden

Gardeners who do not garden anymore

Recommendations for the future

Small group exercise to identify enablers and inhibitors Small group generation of recommendations

Gardeners*

All or any issue(s) related to USAID UGP

Photography by participants Small group discussions/explanations on photos Ranking/prioritizing of photos

Gardeners* Gardeners* Gardeners*

Gardeners*

* G ardeners are those who were enrolled in program in 2009, female or male, and who may or may not be gardening currently ** Individual is appropriate for group gardens and group work for school gardens

2.3.2 Sampling of cities, gardens, and participants From a list of six cities in total covered by the USAID UGP in 2009, we purposively selected four cities viz. Addis Ababa, Awassa, Adama, and Bahir Dar, in which 104 gardens had been supported. In each city, we then randomly selected four school and group gardens that were operational in 2009 only (and may or may not be operational during the PIA), to produce a list of 16 gardens. In Addis Ababa, one garden was later omitted from the list for logistical reasons, giving a total of 15 gardens (nine group gardens and six school gardens). In each garden, gardeners were

14


invited to participate in the PIA and on average, these participants numbered approximately eight gardeners per group garden and approximately 10 school children per school garden. A total of 151 gardeners were interviewed, of which 77 are group gardeners, and 74 school gardeners. 2.3.3 Use of routine USAID UGP monitoring data and existing literature Existing USAID UGP monitoring data were used to examine and compare quantity of vegetables produced versus consumed and sold. The data also provided income gained from the sales of vegetables, which was also used in the analysis.

While the PIA focused on data gathered from 2009 gardeners retrospectively (i.e., in 2011), the existing USAID UGP monitoring data represent information gathered from 2009 and 2010 gardeners while enrolled in the program. Therefore, we cannot use the monitoring data to triangulate findings gathered through the PIA on income or consumption, but instead, these are presented separately. 2.3.4 Data analysis Numerical data produced by proportional piling and scoring methods were first compared by city, by type of garden, and by gender using analysis of variance. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences by city, garden type, or gender. For data derived from proportional piling of the six financial, nutritional, and social variables, data were summarized using the mean score and 95% confidence levels in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software. This data were also summarized using the number of participant scores by variable, i.e., by frequency distribution, using MS Excel. Data derived from relative scoring of financial, nutritional, and social benefits were summarized using the mean scores, in MS Excel. Qualitative data such as narrative were recorded in MS Word using prescribed formats, and then coded and analyzed in Atlas.ti software. Data outputs for each code were generated and further analyzed for patterns and trends, as well as synergies and disparities, particularly between school and group gardeners. A workshop to present draft findings and provide an opportunity for DAI to comment and ask questions was conducted on October 13, 2011. This provided one additional step in the process of cross-checking and quality control.


15

3. FINDINGS 3.1 Changes in people’s lives Figure 1 shows changes in the financial, nutritional, and social variables from 2009 (before people started gardening) to the situation in mid-2011. A positive change was evident across all six variables, but with most change being seen in external social well-being (increased social acceptance and community relationships) and internal social well-being (increased self-esteem, hope, and confidence). The variables showing the least change are those related to nutritional status, with changes being significantly lower than the social changes. When examining the frequency distributions of the scores by city or type of garden, further differences were evident, albeit not statistically significant (see Annex 1 for frequency distributions for each variable).

• Few gardeners reported negative changes of the two social variables; 6% and 11% reported reduced external and internal social well-being respectively. • In contrast, a far higher number of gardeners experienced negative changes in the two nutritional variables—33% of gardeners reported a decrease in food consumption and 29% reported a decrease in diet diversity, compared with 2009. • For the financial variables, 13% and 21% of gardeners reported reduced assets and purchasing power respectively. • School gardeners experienced slightly less changes on all six dimensions, with external social change being an exception (Figure 2). • W hile the differences between cities were not significant, gardeners in Bahir Dar and Hawassa are better off now compared with 2009 on both nutritional and social variables than gardeners in Addis Ababa and Adama.

Figure 1: C hanges in financial, nutritional, and social benefits (n=151 gardeners) between 2009 and mid-2011

Note: Data derived from proportional piling, comparing changes to each variable over time. The y-axis shows change on a possible scale of -10 (negative change) to +10 (positive change), with 0 indicating no change. 16


When respondents were asked to describe the nature and quality of these changes, their answers revealed the following: • There was a complex interplay between the variables. For examples, increased assets also meant greater social acceptance and community regard. “Now, we have our own tela (beer) containers that the household is spared from renting such containers for my mother’s tela trade. We have replaced our previous bed which was not enough for five people. We now have our own TV and are relieved of being despised by our neighbors where we used to visit to watch TV.” Male gardener, school garden, Bahir Dar. “There is big change in my life as I go out to work. After 2009 I have changed the door and window for my house. This is because now I have better awareness on saving practices, and can work and support my family. It is now that I have good knowledge about family planning practices, therefore I have not added more children. After 2009 I organized 20 women and started saving and by lending 1000 birr, I have constructed one room and rented it, and so getting more income.” Female gardener, group garden, Adama. “In the past, I would feel sad when I saw my friends wearing new clothes and not being worried about lacking reference materials for their school studies. Instead, I used to go to school barefoot, let alone being able to get such reference materials. I now feel happy, because my parents can fulfill me what I want to have.” Male gardener, 16 years old, school garden, Hawassa. • There are powerful indications of the existing economic and social conditions/status of the gardeners. Since most of the gardeners are quite poor, even seemingly small changes and small purchases were deemed very significant. “My situation is better now. In the past, I had shortage of money and I would buy food on daily basis. Now, I have better income and I buy food once on monthly basis. Besides, I get vegetables from my garden. I can eat it. I can also sell it and buy other foods.” Female gardener, 28 years old, group garden, Addis Ababa.

“In the past I used to go to school without eating enough food, and I would often feel sleepy. I would also get depressed to attend class. I now don’t feel like that. It is peace.” Male gardener, 16 years old, school garden, Hawassa. “We now have more household items. In particular, we have acquired some household utensils which we used to borrow from our neighbors. We are now self-sufficient.” Female gardener, 16 years old, school garden, Bahir Dar. • The lack of safety nets or cushions, which means that people are easily pushed back into poverty or hunger with any life changes. “I am living with my husband. We have four children (three male and one female) and two of my children are attending school. I joined the group garden in 2009 and my husband is working as a carpenter on occasional basis. Therefore my family income is not constant and satisfactory. Up until June 2010 I used to engage in other incomegenerating activities like hair threading and was earning 200 birr/month. Life is getting hard because cost of living is getting high. Besides I am not feeling well since last year and am now raising a baby and currently I am not working my previous jobs and not able to support my husband. Though this is the case my family was able to increase some assets like buying bed, TV as my husband was doing his work continuously for six months last year. However, our purchasing power has reduced as my husband could not get regular job and is doing work as he gets and that is coupled with high cost of living prevailing in the country.” Female gardener, group garden, Bahir Dar. “My family had sold two sheep and five chickens so as to pay medical bill for my mother. So our asset level has reduced from its level before 2009.” He also added, “We would fulfill our needs better before 2009 than now as the main source of income had dried up as my elder brother used to work as a carpenter but now he had quit his job and currently we do not have enough income to fulfill our needs.” Male gardener, school garden, Adama.


17

“My family asset has reduced now from its level before 2009. Before 2009 my family use to have sofa, mobile phone, and television but after 2009 my aunt got divorced with her husband who used to have reasonably good income. Then the income of the family has reduced dramatically and we had to sell some of our assets like sofa and other furnitures so as to cover our household expenses. The purchasing power of my family has been reduced very much as the major breadwinner of our family has gone. Besides we are living in a rent house. And my aunt does not get enough income from the work that she is doing in a flower farm.” Female gardener, school garden, Addis Ababa. 3.2 C ontributing factors to the changes and relative importance of USAID UGP Figure 2 shows changes in the financial, nutritional, and social variables from 2009 (before people started gardening) to the situation in mid-2011, by garden type. Beneath the graph, it also lists the factors that contributed to change and presents the numbers of gardeners reporting each factor. Overall, school gardeners experienced slightly less positive changes compared with group

gardeners. In addition, the USAID UGP had far less effect on the changes described by school gardeners, and these changes were more attributed to non-project factors. For example, 33 group gardeners attributed financial changes to the USAID UGP compared to only six school gardeners. In contrast, 73 school gardeners attributed changes to positive non-project factors, compared to only 50 group gardeners. In addition: • Project factors have all contributed to positive impact—there is not a single example from the PIA that points to a negative impact from the USAID UGP. • The non-USAID UGP-related positive factors include other income, family support, savings, increased awareness of HIV among the community (through community and mass media education), as well as community attitudes due to increased income, and a sense of well-being. Some of these could very well be partially associated with gardening. For example, a gardener might well have had access to additional income sources due to their exposure through gardening, or through their increased social acceptance, or through their increased self-esteem and self-confidence. These linkages could be explored further

Figure 2: C hanges in financial, nutritional, and social benefits in group (n=77) and school gardens (n=74), and contributing factors

Figure 2. continued on next page 18


Figure 2. continued from previous page

through additional research. • The non-USAID UGP-related negative factors indicated the precarious economic situation of many gardeners. Inflation was a particularly important negative factor, although other factors such as the loss of, or reduction in, casual employment, poor health, or increased needs in the family all could have had a significant negative impact on financial and nutritional status. Interestingly, loss of income and loss of purchasing power is seen to significantly affect internal well-being as well, by causing a perceived loss of social status. • Reduced stigma and discrimination toward people living with HIV is mentioned as a factor primarily in Bahir Dar, and to a lesser extent in Hawassa, and almost exclusively in group gardens. While USAID UGP has played a significant role in reducing overall marginalization and social exclusion, it is not clear if the participants were experiencing it in the past due to poverty, social norms, or HIV status in particular. In other words, the significant proportion of PIA respondents do

not seem to directly attribute the changes in their social lives to a change in attitude toward people living with HIV; however, it is not clear if this is due to a desire to protect their own confidentiality. These quotes illustrate how the different factors interact with each other to affect people’s financial, nutritional, and social states. “I am 15 years old and ninth grade student and promoted to tenth grade. I am living with my parents (father and mother) along with one of my elder brothers (18) and a younger sister (7). Before 2009 my father used to work as a guard and as a broker and my mother used to work as trader but now she is ill. So as to pay for my mother’s medical bill one bed was sold. On the other hand my family has bought one cell phone after 2009. Generally speaking my family income has increased a bit but high cost of living is pressing us and now we cannot afford to buy more assets but fulfilling daily and monthly expenses. Hence there is no change in our asset.” Female gardener, school garden, Adama.


19

“I am 28 years old and living with my two children (16 years old boy and 13 years old girl). I used to live with my husband before 2005 but when I got sick and get diagnosed positive for HIV, my husband and me had separated as my husband was found to be negative. Then we sold our house, divide the money and two of our children remained with me. I bought a new but smaller house and now I am living with my children doing gardening and selling ‘injera’ and bread for our livelihood. The father of my children is supporting me to raise the children. My asset has improved after 2009 as I was able to buy electric machine for baking bread and ‘injera,’ television and TV stand from sale of vegetable and the money I am earning from other incomegenerating activity (baking and selling of ‘injera’ and bread). After I separated from my husband I started to build asset all over again. But before that I had never worked like this as all the responsibility was on my husband in supporting the family.” Female gardener, individual garden, Hawassa. “I am living with my husband and 16-year-old daughter. I joined Hiwot group garden in July 2009. My husband is trading ‘chat.’ Before 2009, I was washing cloth for other person. After 2009 I gave up the labor work and engaged solely on gardening. I also have other responsibility in our association, cleaning of cattle manure. In 2009 I sold most of my assets (bed, chairs, and other furniture) to pay medical bill for my husband. After I started working in the garden I managed to buy some assets like TV and bed. Above all I am feeling peace of mind. I prefer to stay in the garden as it makes me to eat my lunch properly. Previously I used to have many things in my home, but afterwards I sold several of my assets so as to take care of my husband. If I talk of purchasing power, it was much better before 2009 as things were cheap therefore I could buy many things with small money but now everything is getting expensive.” Female gardener, group garden, Bahir Dar. 3.3 F actors that determine people’s continued involvement in gardening and their relative importance

20


Routine monitoring data collected from the cities of Addis Ababa, Adama, Bahir Dar, Gondar, Dessie, and Hawassa cities revealed enrollment in USAID UGP at a total number of 5,107 adults and children in 2009, and a total of 5,935 adults and children in 2010 (excluding 200 people in Addis who enrolled in the first quarter of 2010 and then dropped out). Most of these gardeners stayed with the program for the three quarters of 2009, and the 2010 enrollees for the full year of 2010. Graduation numbers were not available for all six cities, but DAI suggest that about twothirds to three-fourths of those enrolled graduate. There are no clear patterns in terms of numbers enrolled in each city, and there is considerable variance when comparing enrollments in 2009 and 2010. It is not known what proportion of these trained gardeners are gardening today, or to what extent they are gardening today. With this information, the qualitative data below helps shed some additional light on factors that determine continued involvement in gardening. During the PIA, discussions with 2009 gardeners showed that continued involvement in gardening was a highly-individualized decision. It depended on several inter-related factors, including perceived benefits (both anticipated and actualized), a number of project-controlled enabling and inhibiting factors that either sustain engagement or limit it, each person’s experience of gardening, and other life situations. The majority of the participants involved in the PIA were still gardening in mid-2011, but to varying degrees. Thus, it must be noted here that continued involvement in gardening should not imply gardening sustained at the same rate and intensity as during the project period. Most participants demonstrated a tapering off of intensity, effort, and time in the garden. Further, some gardeners mention a stop-start process after the first year, which means that production is not sustained at similar levels.

“I wanted to indicate by this picture my motivation for work as I am digging land and covering the roots of vegetable with soil. In rainy season it is the only farming activity to be done since our garden is flooded with excess water.” Female gardener, 30 years old, Kebele 05 group garden, Bahir Dar.

3.3.1 Factors that encourage people to keep gardening Generally, the most important factor that sustains gardening is perceived benefits (Table 2). In addition to the above, group discussions in all school gardens revealed that one benefit was being busy and not spending time in places which were deemed unworthy. Another factor mentioned in school and group gardens included feeling motivated by their own work, and the fact that it was a productive, useful activity. Finally, school gardeners mentioned family support and parental approvals as a significant enabling factor. Project support such as encouragement from the extension workers, and support for agricultural inputs such as seeds and implements were also enablers, but mentioned less frequently as it is not standard project practice to continue providing

such support after the year has been completed, and appears to be undertaken only by a few of the implementing partners. “My father currently does not have job and hence he is helping me in growing vegetable. He is always to my side giving encouragement and support in doing gardening. By doing so we managed to buy whatever is required in the house from sale of vegetable that we grow together. Not only that as a family we do also buy ‘teff’ and wheat and other food items by selling vegetable we grow together.” Female gardener, 15 years old, group garden, Adama. 3.3.2 Factors that discourage people from continuing to garden and contribute to dropping out In spite of the high interest in gardening, the social benefits and enjoyment, and the financial and nutritional benefits, the gardens are not fully sustainable after one year. As mentioned, some

Table 2. Main factors that sustain gardening Factor

Number of gardens listing factor

1. Income from sales of vegetables 2. Consumption of produce 3. Pride in supporting family/contributing to family food and income 4. Developing a positive attitude to life/feeling productive 5. Endurance, peace of mind, mental satisfaction

16 16 14 15 16


21

gardeners either reduce their engagement or completely stop gardening. As the PIA took place only 18 months after termination of support, it appears reasonable to predict that fewer and fewer gardeners will sustain their engagement in gardening over the long term. a. Project-related factors Both school and group gardeners mentioned several factors that affect their decision to garden that are arguably under project control. These

included severe problems with water supply, land, pests, lack of appropriate farming implements, insufficient training, and lack of sustained support. Water supply issues include challenges with obtaining water on a regular basis, being able to raise sufficient money to pay for water bills, being able to pay for fuel for a generator that powers the pumping of water, and having a functional water supply system. Issues with land include gardeners feeling that their plots were too small to yield sufficient produce to make the efforts worthwhile, selection of land

The photos below illustrate some of these project factors. “This picture represents how I am plowing land which is dry and covered with grass. The picture also represents how I do the work with lack of experience and shortage of farm implements. I wanted to show with this picture how doing garden work involves a lot of challenges, and how some could drop out even from the start just observing such challenges.” Male gardener, 18 years old, Shiny Day School Garden, Hawassa.

“This picture represents two things. One is linked to the absence of fence, and livestock would enter the garden after I finished my work and left the garden. In this case, I wanted to indicate the challenge we have experienced due to lack of fence. On the other hand, the picture also represents how people simply watch me while working in the garden. This is the big challenge that I wanted to show in this picture, people simply watching me without showing any sign of helping me. As a result, I often get discouraged and stop doing my work.” Male gardener, 19 years old, Shiny Day School Garden, Hawassa.

“These three photos best represent the challenges we have experienced with regard to gardening. These pictures tell the difficulties we gardeners deal with regarding the water pipe we use for watering our gardens. The water pipe problem, particularly damaged valve, has created a serious challenge to our garden activities. We suggest the following solutions. Repairing the valve can be one solution. However, once the valve is repaired, the pipe apparatus has to be kept in a covering box so that access to it may be restricted to gardeners only. Yet, we question the viability of repairing the valve as a durable solution. Instead, we suggest installing another form of water facility in the garden.” A group of gardeners, Adama No. 2 school garden, Adama. 22


that is prone to flooding, is in an unsuitable place (e.g., near an abattoir, in a remote area, close to garbage dumps), or took too much effort to clear to render it suitable for gardening, or land being appropriated after it is being used as a garden for other purposes (for example by the city municipality). Gardeners mentioned that gardens do not have fences or other forms of protection from animals and people coming in and eating/ stealing the vegetables. Finally, costs of seeds and pesticides may be higher than income gained from sales of vegetables, hence if they are no longer subsidized, gardeners may discontinue. “One of the biggest challenges we have faced is that our garden has been over flooded with water coming from Nile River largely in rainy season.” Male gardeners, group garden, Bahir Dar. “Pests are damaging potato roots and making it to wilt and eventually dry up.” Male gardener, 35 years old, group garden, Addis Ababa. “Some of the vegetables, particularly kale which was planted in November/December 2009 was destroyed by birds. Others such as Swiss chard were affected by some disease, while cabbage was destroyed due to lack of water. Water bills also pose a significant challenge. The cost of water is higher than what we get from gardening. Lack of training is another problem. We started planting without receiving any training. We also do not get seeds in time. Besides, we often receive the same types of seeds. We also lack the follow-up of the people who should support us to work. In particular, they fail to deliver the items/ services/support they promised us to receive.” A group of gardeners, group garden, Adama. b. N on-project-related factors that led to discontinuation of gardening

new school (which is not likely to be supported) or at home. These gardeners are difficult to follow up with and so their continuation rate is unknown. Other factors include the weak health of some gardeners when they commence gardening, which makes the hard labor difficult to sustain (especially in initial stages of clearing and land preparation). Finally, some gardeners simply discontinue due to other income opportunities that are more lucrative. “Some move to other areas and stop gardening. Some gardeners may also stop gardening for lacking the consent of their parents. Some gardeners also lack patience for garden work. They engage in labor work, and they do not have patience to wait for three months until vegetables reach for harvest. They just prefer to do the work from which they can get income quickly.” Group of gardeners, school garden, Adama. “The harmful relationship between eucalyptus trees and vegetables is the common factor that discourages some people in our area from continuing their garden activities. Eucalyptus trees have adverse impact on vegetables. Yet, some people tend to plant vegetables alongside eucalyptus trees, and they end up with dried vegetables.” A group of gardeners, group garden, Addis Ababa. “My parents were pushing me against the garden work. They want me to focus on my studies. Most of the time they do not allow me to go to school after class to do gardening.” Female gardener, 16 years old, school garden, Bahir Dar. “In summer season I often discontinued gardening as I am busy with other income-generating activities (riding donkey cart) that may compete with gardening as it fetches more income than the garden.” Male gardener, 16 years old, school garden, Adama. 3.4 Main social benefits of the USAID UGP

There were several factors mentioned by gardeners that were not necessarily related to the project, but were given as reasons for dropping out or discontinuing gardening. The most commonly-mentioned factor was among school gardeners, who do have a harder time sustaining their gardening than group gardeners. Once students graduate from a school, which could be soon after completing the year gardening with the project, they either have to garden in their

As already noted, social benefits were substantial and highly valued, and intrinsically linked to other types of impact. Both school and group gardeners mentioned income from the sale of vegetables, consumption, and mental peace and satisfaction among the top five-ranked overall benefits. These issues are described in further detail in the following sections.


23

“I took this picture to convey the kind of social life I have gained through gardening. We are living social life with our neighbors. We are drinking coffee.” Female gardener, 26 years old, Kebele 05 group garden, Bahir Dar. 3.4.1 Gardening and social status One of the major social benefits that participants associated with the USAID UGP was building social relationships. Gardening and related sales of vegetables and income created opportunities for socially and economically disadvantaged people to interact with other members of the society and socialize with the same people who used to marginalize them. Group gardeners indicated that the creation of the garden as a social space thus fostered social relationships within and outside the garden (when gardeners sell vegetables). These social relationships are essential in the Ethiopian context, as they are associated with community acceptance as well as a sense of place in the larger fabric. For people living with HIV or people living in poverty, moving from a state of low social acceptance to high social acceptance has been profound, and is associated with a sense of hope, pride, and self-confidence. Gardeners also indicated that besides helping them to socialize and forge solidarity with people having similar experiences, the USAID UGP served as a meeting place where they come together for sharing experiences, supporting each other, and giving each other moral support and advice. 24


“Cabbage helped me go out and meet with people. I have known many people because of cabbage.” Female gardener, 30 years old, group garden, Adama. “We were so poor that people (in the neighborhood) used to isolate us. They wouldn’t come when we invited them to drink coffee. After we got wealth, working hard, all of them started to invite us for coffee. Now we drink coffee with seven people.” Male gardener, 13 years old, school garden, Bahir Dar. “People used to treat me differently. When drinking coffee, they would separately wash my cup. As a result, I quit drinking coffee with my neighbors. However, they now come to us. They come and buy vegetables from us.” Female gardener, 40 years old, group garden, Bahir Dar. “My social life is good now. When I go to the market to sell kosta (Swiss chard), I get to know with people. They encourage me. My kosta has helped me know many people.” Female gardener, 28 years old, group garden, Addis Ababa. “My social life has become better after joining this association (garden association). Now there is social life. We support each other, and visit one another during illness.” Female gardener, 30 years old, Adama.

3.4.2 Gardening, empowerment, and self reliance Gardening empowered some project participants by freeing them from their confinement in the domestic sphere. This particularly relates to women, who asserted this empowering role of gardening, stating that before they started gardening they had little exposure to public spheres involving economic and social activities. In a related context, gardeners who considered gardening as a sort of occupation indicated that the garden has provided them with a sense of purpose in life, instead of being idle or sitting at

home without work. Gardening also increases a sense of self-reliance. Many participants in the USAID UGP expressed that gardening fosters feelings of self-reliance, providing support within the family. This is through the income derived from gardening and/or the vegetables grown there. “In the past, I would never go out from home. I would not even go to other people’s houses. Now I have started going out, doing vegetable work. The garden helped me go out from home.” Female gardener, 50 years old, group garden, Adama.

“This picture shows I am standing along with my two sons at home. This is to show that I managed to raise my children from the benefit (food and money from sale of crops) that I got from the garden. I often took Swiss chard, tomato, maize, and potato by credit and feed it to my children quite often. Now I feel happy in getting organized with other people in the garden, being able to work in the garden and able to raise my eight children all by myself as my husband is not living with me.” Female gardener, Hulugeb Fruit and Vegetable Association, Bahir Dar. “The picture shows three children sitting in a house. I am raising these children from the income that we are getting from sale of vegetable. My family livelihood is based on gardening and other income-generating activity (I am working as a guard).” Male gardener, individual garden, Hawassa.

“The picture shows I am selling Swiss chard and both of us look happy. This is because I am happy about getting customer to buy vegetable produce and the buyer looks happy by the good deal of vegetable he is buying. Hence this shows that both of us are benefiting from the transaction. On top of that other vegetable in the garden are ready to harvest.” Male gardener, Adama No. 4 school garden, Adama.


25

“In this picture I am smiling while touching vegetables which are almost ready for harvest. The picture represents the success of my hard work. I took this picture to indicate the internal satisfaction I have derived from gardening.” Male gardener, 19 years old, Shiny Day School Garden, Hawassa.

“This picture shows how I am happy holding lettuce. I wanted to express through this picture that when I come to the garden I get happiness. Whenever I get angry at home, I come to the garden and feel happy there. I have got mental peace through the garden work.” Female gardener, 30 years old, Fekidura group garden, Adama.

3.4.3 Gardening, mental health, and well-being

friends undertaking something productive, rather than spending time in places that were deemed “unworthy.” This shift in lifestyle, coupled with the fact that school gardeners are also earning some money and supporting their families, raises their community status and social acceptance. This in turn increases their self-esteem and self-confidence. Finally, some of the interviewed students mentioned that the income from sales of vegetables was used for educational expenses, and that there are social benefits associated with being able to pay for school expenses.

Gardening is also practiced for the purpose of escaping feelings of illness, worries, depression, and problems. Gardeners reported that whenever they feel sick or depressed, they resort to the garden to forget about their problems and get peace of mind. “When I feel angry, I just go to the garden and spend my time there. I feel happy when I do my garden activities. When I go there and work, my mind gets rehabilitation. Otherwise, if I simply sit at home, I would cross over River Abay through thinking (worries) and come back home.” Female gardener, 30 years old, group garden, Adama. “I now feel happy because of my garden work. I feel happy when I look at my vegetable garden besides eating and selling vegetables.” Female gardener, 30 years old, group garden, Addis Ababa. “My self-esteem has improved due to gardening and not spending time in unworthy places. Being able to do garden work has enabled me to foster the feeling that I can do work, thereby enhancing the value I give to myself.” Male gardener, 17 years old, school garden, Hawassa. 3.4.4 School gardeners and self-worth In interviews with school-based gardeners, several of them mentioned that gardening has provided them with an opportunity to be with

26


3.5 N utritional and financial benefits of the USAID UGP 3.5.1 Data from USAID UGP monitoring in Ethiopia and other countries Data collected by the USAID UGP monitoring system were analyzed for income, production, and food consumption. These data were gathered by DAI for 2009 and 2010 while gardeners were enrolled in the program, whereas the PIA data was collected from a sample of 2009 gardeners, around 18 months after they graduated from USAID UGP. Table 3 summarizes production, income and consumption data collected by DAI under their routine monitoring system for the USAID UGP. To interpret the figures it is important to note that the gardeners represented in 2009 were different from the gardeners in 2010. Although measures varied by city, on average across the six cities the

production, income, and consumption figures were substantially higher in 2009 compared with 2010. Note that the data indicate production per gardener and consumption per beneficiary. There are approximately three to four beneficiaries per gardener (calculated based on numbers of gardeners and numbers of beneficiaries as provided by USAID UGP data). These data thus indicate that 10% to 66% of the amount of vegetable produced is consumed by beneficiaries in the homes of gardeners, with an average of 30% of total produced being consumed.

Figure 3 shows the average income in birr per gardener by quarter and city. In general, gardeners received more income from vegetable sales in 2009 relative to 2010. At the high end, quarterly incomes are in the 100-120 birr range per gardener, but this is highly variable. The relatively high performance of Addis Ababa and Adama in 2009 was not repeated in 2010, when performance was relatively weak. When comparing incomes from vegetable gardening in Ethiopia through USAID UGP with income data from around the world (Table 3),

Table 3. M easures of production, income, and consumption in the USAID UGP in 2009 and 2010 (source: DAI, Addis Ababa) Time period 2009 (data from 3 quarters): Production/gardener (kg) Income/gardener (birr) Consumption/beneficiary (kg)

City Average Addis Ababa Adama Bahir Dar Gondar Hawassa Dessie 208 317 35

2010 (data from 4 quarters): Production/gardener (kg) 30 Income/gardener (birr) 51 Consumption/beneficiary (kg) 4

609 219 30

82 60 12

65 156 6

133 52 5

49 58 6

206 158 17

49 13 6

170 142 6

89 225 5

198 162 6

35 50 2

77 88 5

Note: The gardeners involved in the USAID UGP in 2009 were different from those who participated in 2010. Figure 3. Average income per gardener from sale of vegetables by city (source: DAI, Addis Ababa)


27

there is a significantly lower-than-average performance in Ethiopia. As the data from other countries indicate, on average, gardeners’ incomes were approximately US$30 per month in these countries. In contrast, USAID UGP gardener’s average income was US$6-US$10 per year. However, as noted in the discussion section, the levels among these gardeners and in Ethiopia more generally present a different context, where small incomes may indeed have tremendous value in terms of quality of life and well-being. Therefore, a better comparison with other countries could involve analysis of the income derived from gardening with other income or poverty indicators. Table 4 compares net monthly income from urban gardens with gross national per capita income. In most countries, typical net monthly income from

irrigated mixed vegetable farming in urban areas in developing countries is around US$30, with a great deal of variance. These data do not indicate if such income is seasonal. Production data from DAI are shown in Figure 4 and it is useful to compare with Figure 3 to examine how production related to income. In Adama vegetable production in the second and third quarter of 2009 was impressively high. Subsequent quarters show significantly lower production and this is consistent with low pergardener incomes. In contrast, Addis Ababa did not show very high production in Q2 and Q3 of 2009, but reports quite high incomes; Q4 of 2009 indicates a very productive quarter, but incomes are just slightly

Table 4: M onthly net income from irrigated mixed vegetable farming around the world City Typical net monthly income in US$ per farm (if not mentioned otherwise) Accra, Ghana 40–57 Bamako, Mali 10–300 Bangui, Central African Republic 320 (producers), 330 (wholesalers), 140 (retailers) Banjul, Gambia 30 Bissau, Guinea-Bissau 24 Brazzaville, Republic of Congo 80–270 (producers), 120 (retailers) Continuo, Benin 50 Dakar, Senegal 40–66 Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania 60 Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam 40–80 Hyderabad, India 30–70 (figures per ha) Freetown, Sierra Leone 10–50 Jakarta, Indonesia 30–50 Kumasi, Ghana 35–85 Lagos, Nigeria 53–120 Lame, Togo 30–25 Nairobi, Kenya 10–163 Niamey, Niger 40 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso 14–70 Takoradi, Ghana 10–30 Yaoundé, Cameroon 34–67

Gross national income per capita US$/ per month 27 24 22 26 12 53 36 46 24 nab. nab. 13 nab. 27 27 26 33 17 25 27 53

Sources: Dansk et al., 2002a, 2002b; Kessler, 2002; Diop, 2002; Cofie et al., 2003; Jansen et al., 1995; Gockowski et al., 2004; Moustier, 2001; Buechler and Devi, 2002; Jacobi et al., 2000; Faruqui et al. (draft); Purnomohadi, 2000, IWMI (unpubl.); Cornish and Lawrence, 2001; Ezedinma and Chukuezi, 1999; Drechsel et al., 2005. 28


higher than previous quarters. Production drops off in 2010 for Addis. Other cities show greater correlation between production and income. Figure 5 shows consumption data for 2009 and 2010 provided by DAI. Consumption is higher in some quarters than others, e.g., when there is fasting or when there is greater production. In Addis in Q4 of 2009, it appears that consumption was quite high in comparison with previous quarters, in keeping with production. This high consumption is a possible explanation for the

relatively small differences in incomes between quarters in 2009, as vegetables appear to have been consumed rather than sold. Adama shows a consistent correlation between production, consumption, and income for Q2 and Q3 of 2009, and indeed subsequent quarters. Bahir Dar production in Q1 of 2010 does not correlate with consumption or incomes; however, it is possible that the vegetables were harvested toward the end of Q1, with incomes and consumption reported the following month.

Figure 4. A verage vegetable production per gardener by city (source: DAI, Addis Ababa)

Figure 5. A verage consumption of vegetables per gardener by city (source: DAI, Addis Ababa)


29

In general, there is internal consistency between the production, income, and consumption data, indicating that there is a level of consistency in the data collection between gardens and between cities. In sum, the high production and related income and consumption in quarters 2 and 3 of 2009 in Addis Ababa and Adama cities have skewed the annual achievements in favor of 2009 and are unexplained by the current data. These data are collected by type of vegetable and the nutritional value could be determined by

type of vegetable. However, these data cannot be used to obtain a sense of nutritional value or benefits, since they is collected at the level of the garden, not the household, or at the individual level. Therefore it is difficult to compare nutritional benefits from USAID UGP with benefits from other gardening programs in urban areas in the rest of the world. The box below summarizes the types of nutritional benefits measured and demonstrated in urban agriculture (UA) programs around the world.

Box: W hat are we learning about nutritional effects from urban agriculture (UA) from around the world? Taken from Annotated Bibliography on Urban Agriculture, March 2003. ETC Urban Agriculture Programme A global estimate is that 15-20% of the world’s food is produced in urban areas (Margaret Armar-Klemesu 2000). Data from cities in developing countries reveal that: • In Hanoi, 80% of fresh vegetables, 50% of pork, poultry, and freshwater fish, as well as 40% of eggs, originate from urban and periurban areas (Nguyen Tien Dinh 2000); • In the urban and periurban area of Shanghai, 60% of the city’s vegetables, 100% of milk, 90% of the eggs, and 50% of the pork and poultry meat is produced (Cai Yi-Zhang and Zhang Zhangen in Bakker et al. 2000); • Dakar produces 60% of the national vegetable consumption whilst urban poultry production amounts to 65% of the national demand (Mbaye and Moustier 1999). Sixty percent of the milk consumed in Dakar is produced in or around the city; • In Accra, 90% of the city’s fresh vegetable consumption is from production within the city (Cencosad 1994). • Over 26,000 popular gardens cover 2,438.7 hectares in Havana, producing 25,000 tons of food each year; a total of 299 square kilometers of urban agriculture produces 113,525 tons/year (Mario Gonzalez Novo and Catherine Murphy in Bakker et al. 2000); With regards to actual nutritional impacts, these findings are from various location-specific studies conducted: • In Harare, 60% of food consumed by low-income groups was self-produced (BowyerBower and Drakakis-Smith 1996). • In Kampala, children aged five years or less in low-income farming households were found to be significantly better-off nutritionally (less stunted) than counterparts in non-farming households (Maxwell, Levin and Csete 1998). Urban producers obtained 40 to 60 % or more of their household food needs from their own urban garden (Maxwell and Zziwa 1992). Box continued on next page 30


Box continued from previous page • In Cagayan de Oro, urban farmers generally eat more vegetables than non-urban farmers of the same wealth class, and also more than consumers from a higher wealth class (who consume more meat) (Potutan et al. 1999). • In Java, home gardens provide for 18% of caloric consumption and 14% of protein intake of the urban population (Ning Purnomohadi 2000). • In Kenya, farmers in Kamae experienced an increase in dietary diversity through increases in caloric, protein, Vitamin A ,and iron intakes when compared with a baseline study. Nutritional outcomes in children (wasting/stunting/underweight) showed mixed responses, indicating that nutrition education is a key component of any UA project aimed at improving nutritional outcomes (chapter 1, Njogu in Agriculture in Urban Planning, ed. Redwood, Earthscan 2009) • In Blantyre and Lilongwe, urban farmers did not rank UA is their main livelihoods source, or as their main food entitlement. However, there was significant variance in the findings between low-income and high-income households, with 42.5% of low-income families’ income coming from UA. This indicates that although food security may not have been addressed through UA for these families, it provided an important income source (chapter 5, Mkwambisi in Agriculture in Urban Planning, ed. Redwood, Earthscan 2009). The above findings demonstrate that there are increases in consumption, both calorically and in micronutrient intake, among urban farmers/producers. However, they also caution against assuming significant nutritional impacts solely through the introduction of UA. Not all studies examined, using anthropometric or other approaches, nutritional outcomes and those that did showed either positive or mixed results. This indicates that nutritional outcomes can be influenced by a number of factors beyond just production of food, including actual quantities of food consumed, education, and others. 3.5.2 Specific financial and nutritional benefits of the USAID UGP The data gathered under the PIA also examined financial and nutritional benefits. The initial scoping study confirmed that income and consumption varied greatly from month to month, even week to week, as it was dependent on several factors such as harvest, market prices of vegetables at that time, scarcity or availability of vegetables in the market, and so on. During the PIA many participants described a rich array of nutritional and financial benefits from gardening. These are more closely associated with outcome and impact, rather than output-level information as gathered through the routine data collection through the project.

a. Assets Interviewed gardeners purchased a range of small and large household items with income gained from the sales of vegetables. These include television and stereos, furniture (beds, sofas, chairs), cooking utensils (that they had to borrow in the past), and phones. “ My financial situation has changed due to gardening, my other income activity (carpentry) and the support of my wife who does labor work linked with flower cultivation. I have acquired a TV and some furniture, but more importantly I have built a house and moved out from a rented house. I now can buy notebooks and school uniforms for my children in advance, whereas I would previously rush to fulfill such things only after schools open. I now live in a better condition.” Male gardener, 36 years old, group garden, Adama. Understanding the Social Impacts of Urban Gardening in Ethiopia

31

“In this picture I am showing a smiling face while turning on my TV. The picture first represents that I am happy, and it next shows the TV I bought with vegetables. I took this picture to show the TV I bought with the income from vegetables. It also shows how I am happy in doing so.” Female gardener, 35 years old, Kebele 05 group garden, Bahir Dar.

b. Purchasing power Interviewed gardeners used their income from vegetable sales for common household expenses such as shiro (chick pea flour), cooking oil, coffee, salt, sugar, and firewood. Some have contributed their earnings to savings groups, to house rent, and to holiday expenses. School gardeners repeatedly cited the purchase of teaching materials and other school equipment with their income from the USAID UGP.

“There is a change in purchasing power after 2009. Now when I am in short of money, I go to the garden, sell vegetable, and buy food for my children. This is because of the garden work and other labor works I am doing. The labor work that I am doing is on and off so I cannot totally depend on it and after 2009 the garden work is supporting me in getting food for my children and more often I sell vegetable and buy whatever is required in my house in my capacity of course. On the contrary there is no change in my level of asset. Besides my health is getting deteriorated and I do not have the energy to work more time.” Female gardener, group garden, Adama.

“The picture shows ripe carrot that I planted to sell it and buy teaching materials, which is the major benefit from gardening. I also use small portion of the vegetable produce for home consumption. I also use this picture to show for other people and look for market.” Male gardener, Tabor Girar school garden, Hawassa.

“The picture shows I am attending vegetable meal with my daughter. And this is making me happy as I myself am producing vegetable in the garden and do not need to buy from market and this has reduced my food expenses.” Female gardener, Modjo Kera group garden, Adama.

32


“I bought new dresses for my two daughters after I was given 200 birr for holiday from the group as a dividend.” Female gardener, 40 years old, Hulugeb Fruit and Vegetable Association, Bahir Dar.

c. Amount of food

d. Diet diversity

Food expenditure was mentioned as a major item among household expenditure in the homes of interviewed USAID UGP participants. Interviewed gardeners reported skipping meals or eating smaller amounts than they needed on a regular basis, indicating that hunger was not at all uncommon. Self-reports on changes in amount of food consumed are a proxy for changes in caloric consumption, and as the quotes below indicate, more than half of the gardeners interviewed spoke of increased food consumption.

Awareness of the benefits of vegetables coupled with the availability of free, easily-accessed produce has resulted, among more than half of the interviewed gardeners, in eating a more diverse, healthy range of foods. The quotes below illustrate this benefit:

“My present situation is by far better than the previous one. There were times I would go to sleep without eating. I now buy food on monthly basis rather than on daily basis, which was the case when I did not have enough food.” Male gardener, 25 years old, group garden, Addis Ababa. “I now eat like a donkey. In the past, I would skip lunch after eating breakfast.” Male gardener, 18 years old, school garden, Hawassa.

“I call kosta my tablet; it opens my appetite.” Female gardener, 40 years old, group garden, Addis Ababa. “My body has greatly benefited from eating vegetables. I can move as much as I want.” Male gardener, 41 years old, group garden, Addis Ababa. “I use vegetables for the health of my hod (abdomen).” Female gardener, 75 years old, group garden, Hawassa. “From diet diversity, we get balanced diet. This helps us maintain our health. If we are healthy, we can get the other things (benefits). If we are not

“The picture clearly shows I am eating vegetable with my wife and my daughter. I wanted to show the first harvest is to be used for consumption at home and it enabled me to get fresh vegetable from my own garden. I am eating half of produced vegetable and sells out the rest.” Male gardener, Modjo Kera group garden, Adama.


33

“This picture shows that I am now eating injera with cabbage. I used to eat only shiro before, and I took this picture to show how I have now been able to eat this type of food due to my garden work.” Male gardener, 16 years old, Adama No.2 school garden, Adama.

healthy, we will die, and we will not also get the others.” Male gardener, 16 years old, school garden, Hawassa. “My situation in terms of diet diversity has improved due to gardening. In the past I would often eat shiro, but I now include vegetables from my garden.” Female Gardener, 25 years old, group garden, Adama. “My nutritional situation in terms of diet diversity has improved due to gardening, having access to vegetables, and improved awareness of diet diversity. In the past, we had no awareness of diet diversity; we were concerned only with eating enough until getting full.” Male gardener, 17 years old, school garden, Adama.

3.6 R elative importance of social benefits compared with financial and nutritional benefits Figure 6 shows the scoring by PIA participants of social benefits versus financial and nutritional benefits. Although the scores across the six variables were not significantly different, external social benefits received the highest average score, and overall participants assigned more than one-third of their “weighting” to social variables. Further questioning indicated that community regard and social acceptance were especially important to gardeners. There was no difference between school gardeners and group gardeners (reflecting

Figure 6: R elative importance of financial, nutritional and social benefits reported by USAID UGP gardeners (n = 151)

34


age differences), nor any significant difference between cities over the scoring of the six variables (with one exception that Adama ranked external social status even higher than the other three cities). When combined with additional interview data, it was evident that across the four cities, social status was of tremendous importance in Ethiopia to participants, as illustrated in the quotes below. “I value social relations most. Love exists if you live with community.” Male gardener, 14 years old, school garden, Adama. “I value the importance of social life most. Social life gives education. I got knowledge and living methods due to meeting people. Living with people is useful.” Female gardener, 49 years old, group garden, Adama. “When you live with the community, having a close relationship with them, they will feed you even when you are hungry. If you face a problem at home, they will help you out. They will also help you catch a burglar.” Male gardener, 14 years old, school garden, Hawassa. “I give more importance to self-esteem. In order to do anything, we should first give high value to ourselves. If we value ourselves saying that we can do it, we can reach a good place.” Female gardener, 16 years old, school garden, Bahir Dar. “I value self-confidence most. If you do not have confidence on yourself, you won’t be successful. If you are confident on yourself, you will be successful.” Female gardener, 16 years old, school garden, Bahir Dar. “I value self-esteem most. If I give great value to myself, it will be possible for me to achieve the other things.” Female gardener, 18 years old, school garden, Hawassa. “I value self-esteem. In order to accomplish what I intend to do, I must give value to myself. If I do not give value to myself, I will not be able to accomplish the others.” Male gardener, 18 years old, school garden, Hawassa.


35

4. DISCUSSION Findings from the PIA indicate that 2009 gardeners continued to experience positive financial, nutritional, and social impacts from gardening after the main support from the USAID UGP ended, about 18 months previously. These impacts were more evident in group gardens relative to school gardens, and were attributed to a range of USAID UGP and non-USAID UGP factors (Figure 2). In addition, positive impacts were lessened—or in some cases, diminished considerably—by contextual factors that affect the lives of the urban poor in Ethiopia, such as inflation. Although the USAID UGP made only modest changes to people’s lives in absolute financial or nutritional terms, an understanding of the social impacts of the project help to explain why people value the project and continue to garden. Further tracking of the 2009 gardeners over time and further use of PIA would provide further insights into both the USAID UGP impacts, and the complex environment that enables or hinders activities such as urban gardening. 4.1 V alue of social benefits to urban poor in Ethiopia The idea for the PIA arose because USAID UGP managers sensed that that gardeners were continuing to garden for reasons beyond income or food for consumption. The PIA clearly shows that gardening provides a range of profound and powerful social benefits to many individuals, and that they rate these benefits at a similar or greater level than financial and nutritional benefits (Figure 6). It was evident that social changes also lead to improved income and nutritional states, in several ways. Individuals who are accepted in their community and further accorded a certain status become integrated into the larger social fabric. They are then able to participate in a range of social activities and exchanges, from clubs and Iddirs (indigenous voluntary associations at the community level where members contribute a small sum of money), to coffee drinking. Moving from a state of social exclusion to social inclusion has tremendous knock-on effects—on self-esteem and internal well-being, on pride, on hope, as well as on 36


opportunities to generate additional income. Individuals move more into a virtuous socioeconomic cycle, whereas previously, they were trapped in a cycle of marginalization and poverty. 4.2 V alue of small contributions to income and food security among urban poor communities The routine monitoring data of the USAID UGP indicates rather low financial and nutritional benefits from the USAID UGP in absolute terms (Figures 4 and 5). For example, these benefits represent lower-than-average performance if compared with urban agriculture in other developing countries (Table 4). However, the PIA indicates that these benefits, although seemingly small, have resulted in improvements in financial and nutritional status in people’s lives. In terms of financial status, gardeners gave concrete examples of the acquisition of assets and increases in purchasing power through gardening. In terms of nutritional status, there is less compelling evidence of impact (as the USAID UGP monitoring data was not suitable for impact analysis) but nonetheless, the PIA findings data do indicate positive changes in both food consumption and diet diversity, with many examples emerging from the PIA that gardeners were experiencing much less hunger compared to the time before gardening. 4.3 C hallenge of sustainability of gardening and related benefits with current program design While the impacts of the USAID UGP were generally positive, changes to the design of the project might achieve greater impact. In particular, the one-year period of support to gardeners was deemed insufficient by gardeners, implementing partners, DAI staff, and the PIA team. A significant proportion of the year is engaged in obtaining land and land preparation. Gardeners explained that land preparation is an exhausting manual task, and that some individuals are unable to sustain that level of effort. Further, the land that is available may be

prone to landslides or flooding, or have issues with access to affordable, regular water supply. These challenges take time and effort to sort through, leaving much less than a year for gardeners to obtain the skills needed for successful vegetable gardening. After a year, support is withdrawn, both in terms of inputs as well as technical assistance, and this amount of time is again insufficient for gardeners to practice and improve their skills with close coaching and guidance and all the inputs provided. A longer period of support might well result in greater continuation rates, as well as greater intensity of gardening after the project.

with school work and other income-generating activities, they need familial and school support, and they graduate from the schools where they may have started gardening. They may also have less access to and power in markets. The strategy for school gardens in 2009 appeared to be largely the same as that for group gardens and, unless adapted for the situations faced by school students, will continue to yield fewer benefits than those participating in group gardens.

4.4 E ffects on reducing stigma and discrimination toward people infected and affected by HIV not fully clear from PIA PIA respondents directly indicated that changing attitudes toward people living with HIV were a contributing factor to positive changes in social status in Bahir Dar and, to a much lesser extent, in Hawassa. While it is clear that in all four cities the majority of participants experience less marginalization and exclusion, such community changes could be due to several factors, not only lessened discrimination against people infected and affected by HIV. Further, it was not clear, due to confidentiality reasons, if the majority of USAID UGP participants are HIV infected and affected, or vulnerable and poor more generally. Given the findings, the PIA can conclude the USAID UGP is very effective in reducing marginalization and social exclusion, but its specific effects on stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV are less understood. 4.5 S chool gardens face greater challenges than group gardens The PIA findings reveal that school gardeners have benefited less from the USAID UGP in 2009 and have also experienced positive changes to a slightly lesser extent than group gardeners. School gardeners face more barriers to sustaining their gardening—they must balance garden work Understanding the Social Impacts of Urban Gardening in Ethiopia

37

5. RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Program design and implementation The PIA highlighted several issues with program design and implementation that could be addressed in the future to yield more positive impacts. These include: 5.1.1 Development of a different strategy for school gardens The school gardens in 2009 were developed and implemented using the same strategy and design as the group gardens. However, they face different challenges when attempting to continue gardening after the program support has ended, and have considerably less access to and power in markets. The program should design a strategy for school gardeners such that they can continue to garden even after they graduate, and can sell their produce at competitive rates and have access to markets. In some school gardens, school authorities have taken initiative by building support systems for OVCs to continue their education and to continue gardening at a reasonable scale, even after they graduate from the program. In these schools, school gardeners mention that they continue to experience social, nutritional, and financial impacts from the gardening in a significant way. Such schools offer models for the USAID UGP to examine and replicate program-wide and can also contribute to learning around the relationship between IPs and schools. 5.1.2 Provision of better farming implements, water supply kits, and protection from pests, stealing, and stray animals As stated above, the quality of the technical support and materials provided in 2009 was sub-optimal, with many gardeners complaining only 18 months after the program. It is recommended that higher quality materials be used in the gardens. Finally, water supply issues in general are a huge challenge in most gardens, and this issue should be resolved in a satisfactory manner before the USAID UGP withdraws its support.

38


5.1.3 Expansion of the duration that gardeners are enrolled in the program Gardeners as well as IPs claim that the one-year duration of the program is insufficient. Most gardeners are urban and new to gardening/ farming, and hence take a lot of time to learn the basics of vegetable farming. Further, considerable time is taken up in the year with land acquisition, land clearing and preparation, and solving water supply issues. This leaves much less than a year for gardeners to receive training and supervised experience growing and selling the vegetables. It is recommended the program duration be expanded to at least 18 months to two years. 5.1.4 More consistent follow-up after graduation to monitor, support, and provide guidance Most gardens are not visited after USAID UGP withdraws support. While in theory IPs and DAI are supposed to follow up with these gardens, in practice, they are busy with new gardens. Only a few gardens received continued support. These gardens claim that they benefit tremendously from the continued technical and emotional support. Extension workers play a huge role for success of the program and will ensure its sustainability. In some gardens (e.g., Adama city, Modjo kera 02), the continued support of the extension worker (technical and small material input such as vegetable seed) to gardeners has led to greater sustainability. However, this is left to the individual extension worker, rather than integrated as a program strategy. Institutionalizing continued linkages between extension workers and gardeners even after graduation ensures continued supervision and encouragement, and in turn will increase program sustainability. It is also recommended that all gardens continue to be visited even after the USAID UGP has withdrawn support to monitor activities, provide guidance, and oversee sustainability.

5.1.5 Greater focus on resilience and lasting poverty reduction As already mentioned, the contributions of USAID UGP to improved financial and nutritional status can be considered modest at best. These gains are fragile, and can easily be overturned by even minor changes in life circumstances. Most gardeners cannot rely on USAID UGP as their sole or even major source of income. For a more sustained and lasting contribution to reduced vulnerability and increased food security, additional strategies to generate income must be considered. 5.2 M easurement of social, nutritional, and financial impacts 5.2.1 Measurement of nutritional and financial impacts

ex-post data collection points. Assets and purchasing power have much more meaning and are a clearer indication of actual changes in financial status than income data. 5.2.2 Measurement of social impacts The PIA has indicated high value placed on social benefits among gardeners, as well as high levels of benefits in these areas. For these reasons, it is recommended that social impacts of the USAID UGP not be ignored, but be rigorously measured and assessed on a regular basis. Baseline data can be gathered using some of the same techniques and approaches as used in the PIA, and additional data collection points (end-of year and then yearly for two to three years) could be built in to a future M&E framework. 5.2.3 Further research based on current data

The PIA has been able to collect rich and powerful data indicated a range of short- and long-term financial and nutritional benefits. The routine monitoring data only collect process and output-level data. There are a number of tools and approaches available to gather data on financial and nutritional impacts. These should be used, and such data should be gathered under USAID UGP on a regular basis. For nutritional impacts, it is recommended that standard anthropometric measures (such as weight for age, arm circumferences) be used on a six-monthly basis using random sampling approaches. Further, USAID and other guidelines on measurement of dietary diversity are absolutely essential for this project, as it is a vegetable gardening project.

The PIA has gathered considerable data that could be used for further analysis. Such analysis could include disaggregation by gender; further exploration on the linkages between social variables and other variables; the challenges and inhibiting factors faced by school gardeners in particular; the stories of the gardens after graduation and withdrawal of USAID UGP support; and detailed stories on a selection of gardeners. All of these types of analyses would be useful in future design of the USAID UGP.

For financial impacts, it is recommended that measurement of assets and purchasing power using similar approaches (a combination of qualitative and quantitative) on a six-monthly basis be undertaken. Such data could be gathered from a randomly-selected sample of gardeners with baseline and progress, end-of-year, and


39

REFERENCES Annotated Bibliography on Urban Agriculture. November 2001, updated March 2003. Introduction, pp 9-12. ETC Urban Agriculture Programme. Leusden, The Netherlands. Prepared for Swedish Development International Agency. Buechler, S., and G. Devi. 2002. Wastewater Use for Urban Agriculture. Table handout during Hyderabad Conference, November 2002. IWMI-IDRC (mimeo). Cofie, O., R. van Veenhuizen, and P. Drechsel. 2003. Contribution of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture to Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paper presented at the Africa session of 3rd WWF, Kyoto, Japan, 17 March 2003. Cornish, A., and P. Lawrence. 2001. Informal Irrigation in Peri-urban Areas. A Summary of Findings and Recommendations. KAR project R7132. Report OD 144. London, Department for International Development (DFID). Danso, G., B. Keraita, and Y. Afrane. 2002a. Farming Systems in Urban Agriculture, Accra, Ghana. With Special Focus on its Profitability, Wastewater Use and Added Malaria Risk. Consultancy report submitted to FAO-Ghana office via International Water Management Institute. Danso, G., P. Drechsel, T. Wiafe-Antwi, and L. Gyiele. 2002b. Income of Farming Systems around Kumasi, Ghana. Urban Agriculture Magazine 7: 5-6. Diop, F. 2002. Farming Systems in Urban Agriculture in Four Cities, with Special Focus on its Profitability, Wastewater Use and Added Malaria Risk. Consultancy report submitted to FAOGhana office via International Water Management Institute. Drechsel, P., S. Graefe, G. Danso, B. Keraita, E. Obuobie, P. Amoah, O.O. Cofie, L. Gyiele, and D. Kunze. 2005. Informal Irrigation in Urban West Africa. IWMI Research Report, no. 102. Available at http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/pubs/pub102/RR102.pdf. Ezedinma, C., and C. Chukuezi. 1999. A Comparative Analysis of Urban Agriculture Enterprises in Lagos and Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Environment and Urbanization 11(2): 135-144. Faruqui, N. I. 2002. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse for Food and Water Security. Urban Agriculture Magazine no 8. December 2002. Wastewater Use for Urban Agriculture. Leusden, RUAF. Gockowski, J., Nelly N. Soua Mboo, P. Elong, and O. David. 2004. Livelihoods Study of Urban Agriculturalists in Yaoundé. In C. Nolte, ed. Urban Harvest Pilot Site Yaoundé. Final Report, 23. Jacobi, P., J. Amend, and S. Kiango. 2000. Urban Agriculture in Dar es Salaam: Providing for an Indispensable Part of the Diet. In N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, and H. de Zeeuw, eds. 2000. Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, 257-284. Feldafing Germany, DSE.

40


Jansen, H.G.P., D.J. Midmore, P.T. Binh, S. Valasayya, and C.C. Tru. 1995. Peri-urban Vegetable Production in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Working paper, AVRDC. Kessler A. 2002. Farming Systems in Urban Agriculture in Four West Africa Cities, with Special Focus on its Profitability, Wastewater Use and Added Malaria Risk. Consultancy report submitted to FAO-Ghana office via International Water Management Institute. Moustier P. 2001. Assessing the Socio-Economic Impact. UA Magazine 5 December 2001, Appropriate Methods for Urban Agriculture. Leusden, RUAF. Purnomohadi, N. 2000. Jakarta: Urban Agriculture as an Alternative Strategy to Face the Economic Crisis. In N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, and H. de Zeeuw, eds. 2000. Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, 453–466. Feldafing, Germany, DSE. Veenhuizen, R. van, and G. Danso. 2007. Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and PeriUrban Agriculture. Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper 19. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Chapter references below: Dubbeling, M. 2001. IPES/Urban Management Programme (UMP-LAC/UNCHSHABITAT). With contributions from Andrea Carrion (UMP-LAC, Ecuador), Maria Caridad Cruz (FUNAT, Cuba), Asteria Miambo (Dar Es Salaam City Council, Tanzania) and Fernando Patiño (HABITAT Regional Office, Brazil). Discussion paper for the Workshop on “Appropriate Methodologies for Urban Agriculture Research, Policy, Planning, Implementation and Evaluation.” Nairobi, October 2-5, 2001. Bakker et al. 2000. Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. DSE, Germany. Koc, M., R. MacRae, L. Mougeot, and J. Welsh. 1999. For Hungerproof Cities, Sustainable Urban Food Systems. IDRC, Ottawa, Canada. Smit, J., A. Ratta, and J. Nasr. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. Publication series fir Habitat II. Vol. 1. New York, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).


41

ANNEX 1. Frequency distributions of participant (n=151) scores for changes in financial, nutritional, and social variables over time Figure A1. Assets

Figure A2. Purchasing power

Figure A3. Amount of food

42


Figure A4. Diet diversity

Figure A5. External social benefits

Figure A6. Internal social benefits


43

Feinstein International Center Tufts University 200 Boston Ave., Suite 4800 Medford, MA 02155 USA tel: +1 617.627.3423 fax: +1 617.627.3428 fic.tufts.edu