American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics

Submit a Manuscript

Publishing with us to make your research visible to the widest possible audience.

Propose a Special Issue

Building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas.

Impact of Maize Production on the Welfare of Small-Scale Famers in Uasin Gishu County; a Case Study of Moiben Constituency

When a community engages in economic activity, they always expect to use it as a resource to elevate their economic status. Residents of Uasin Gishu county have over the years engaged tremendously in maize farming expecting it to aid in elevating their economic status. However, despite the heavy investment in the farming of maize, the majority of small-scale farmers in the region still languish in poverty despite farming maize every season. As a result, the study aimed at determining the impact of maize farming on the economic welfare of small-scale farmers in the region. The study looked at how maize farming influenced the income, food security, and employment status of the farmers. The study was carried out in the Moiben constituency which had a population of 300 maize farmers and it was able to sample a total of 75 farmers from the constituency who were sampled through a simple random sampling technique. The study used a structured questionnaire to interview the farmers. The study used simple linear, Poisson, and binary logistic regression models to determine the effect of maize production on income, food security, and employment of small-scale farmers in the region. The results of the linear regression model showed that maize production had a positive significant effect on the income of the farmers in the region (p<0.05). An increase in the size of land for maize production by 1 ha was determined to increase the income of the farmer by approximately Kshs 55,945/=. Based on the results of the Poisson regression model, maize production was determined to have a positive significant effect on the food security of the farmer (p<0.05). An increase in land size under maize production by 1 ha was determined to increase the number of bags of maize stored for family consumption by 1 bag. Lastly, the logistic regression model showed that maize production had a significant effect on the employment of small-scale farmers (p<0.05). The results showed that a farmer with 1 ha of land more was 3.942 times more likely to only carry out farming as a source of employment compared to a farmer with 1 ha of land under maize farming. In conclusion, the study was able to determine that maize farming was able to increase the income of the farmers, increase food security and provide employment opportunities for small-scale farmers. Therefore, this showed that maize production was able to improve the welfare of maize farmers in the region.

Welfare, Maize Production, Food Security, Income, Job Opportunity

APA Style

Rutto Janet Chelagat, Troon John Benedict. (2023). Impact of Maize Production on the Welfare of Small-Scale Famers in Uasin Gishu County; a Case Study of Moiben Constituency. American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics, 8(1), 13-18. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajere.20230801.13

ACS Style

Rutto Janet Chelagat; Troon John Benedict. Impact of Maize Production on the Welfare of Small-Scale Famers in Uasin Gishu County; a Case Study of Moiben Constituency. Am. J. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2023, 8(1), 13-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ajere.20230801.13

AMA Style

Rutto Janet Chelagat, Troon John Benedict. Impact of Maize Production on the Welfare of Small-Scale Famers in Uasin Gishu County; a Case Study of Moiben Constituency. Am J Environ Resour Econ. 2023;8(1):13-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ajere.20230801.13

Copyright © 2023 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Ashley C., & Hussein K. (2000); Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment. London U.K.
2. Bryman Crammer (1999) Research Methods – quantitative and qualitative approaches. Act Press. Nairobi, Kenya.
3. Central Bureau of Statistics and Ministry of Planning Statistics (2004); Economic Survey Report Nairobi.
4. Crewel. I. W (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (second edition) Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
5. Cochran W. G (1993) sampling Techniques. John Wiley, New York.
6. FAO, 2004. Increasing fertilizer use and farmer access in sub-Saharan Africa literature review farmers in Zambia. What can fertilizer alone do or not do, working paper?
7. FAO, (2010) Food and Agriculture Organization. Statistics on Production (2010).
8. Fischer (2009). Brazilian Economy, Growth and Development (6th Edition). United States: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
9. KSB, (2008) Kenya maize production Strategic Plan, 2010–2014.
10. Kangethe W. G. (2004) Agricultural Development and food security in Kenya.
11. Kothari, C. R (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: WillyEastern Limited.
12. Lank host and Veldman (2008); Evidence on the Relationship between low income and poor Health. Working paper volume 21.
13. Mayo and Peter (2008); Effects of extension services on agricultural productivity and technology adoption.
14. Mugenda. O. M and Mugenda. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Research methods Africa Center for Technology Studies (Acts) press, Nairobi Kenya.
15. Nyoro (2002); Relationship between fertilizer and agricultural production.
16. Oso, Y. W & Owen, D. (2009) A General Guide to Writing a Research Proposal and Report, Jomo Kenyatta Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya.
17. Purseglove and Wrigley (1979) Species, Hybrid, History and disease and pests of maize.
18. Richard A. &Easterlin, (2000); the Worldwide Standard of Living since 1800. Journal of Economic Perspective Vol 14. USA: Published by American Economic Association.
19. Romano D., Erdgin Marco D., and Luca A.(2010); Livelihood strategies and household resilience to food insecurity.
20. United Nations (2011) Resilient Livelihood-Disaster Risk Reduction for Food Nutrition and Security framework Programme. Rome, Italy.
21. United Nations (2000) Policies for Small-Scale maize Growing in Swaziland.
22. Wawire, Kahora, Shiundu, Kipruto &Omolo (2006); Evidence on the Relationship between low prices of maize and Poverty.
23. World Bank, (2006). Poverty and hunger issues and opinions for food security in developing countries. Washington D. C. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), The World Bank.
24. Paudyal, K. R., Poudel, S. K., 2001. impact of the public- and private-sector maize research in Nepal. In: Gerpacio, R. V. (Ed.), Impact of Public- and Private-Sector Maize Breeding Research in Asia, 1966-1997/98. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico, D. F., Mexico, pp. 66-80.
25. Paudyal, K. R., Ransom, J. K., Rajbhandari, N. P., Adhikari, K., Gerpacio, R., Pingali, P. L., 2001. Maize in Nepal: Production Systems, Constraint. 3 and Priorities for Research. Nepal Agricul- tural Research Centre (NARC) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Kathmandu, Nepal, p. 48. pp. 1-11.
26. Pingali, P., & Pandey, S. (2001). Meeting world maize needs: technological opportunities and priorities for the public sector (No. 557-2019-5085).
27. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) (2019). Gross County Product Report, Nairobi, Kenya.
28. El Bouhali, C., & Rwiza, G. J. (2017). Post-millennium development goals in sub-Saharan Africa: Reflections on education and development for all. In Re-thinking postcolonial education in sub-Saharan Africa in the 21st century (pp. 13-31). Brill.
29. Unterhalter, E., & North, A. (2011). Responding to the gender and education Millennium Development Goals in South Africa and Kenya: Reflections on education rights, gender equality, capabilities, and global justice. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 41 (4), 495-511.