Rural Livelihood Choices Impact on Environmental Degradation in Kieni East and Kieni West Sub - counties, Kenya

Abstract

Poverty continues to pose livelihood challenges hence environmental problems among rural populations in semi and arid communities. One of the most understated impacts of livelihood activities on human wellbeing is their implication on environmental degradation. Most studies regarding poverty and the environment overlook implications of rural livelihood choices in marginal areas on the environment, and how organizations and institutions intervene to save or augment the problem. The purpose of this study was to investigate the socio-economic profile of respondents, how livelihood activities are chosen based on household assets and their impact on environmental degradation in Kieni East and Kieni West sub-counties of Nyeri County. Also examined in this study was the moderating effect of rural extension services on livelihood choices in the study area. The study adopted a cross-sectional research design. The main source of quantitative data was household survey while qualitative data was collected mainly using semi-structured interviews, participant observations and desk reviews. Proportionate stratified random sampling technique was used to establish a 400-household sample size in 10 sub-locations. Data was analyzed using descriptive and econometric modelling techniques. Socio-economic data was analyzed using statistical descriptive techniques. An independent T-Test was carried out to test statistical significance at p<0.05. Data with quantifiable factors was subjected to log-linear and hierarchical multiple regression analyses. Qualitative data was analyzed using grounded theory, discourse and narrative analyses. Results show that the proportion of female-headed households and single-headed households was 23% and 36%, respectively. Illiteracy level for household heads was 11% with an average age of 55 years, who had lived in their present land holding for an average of 28 years. The average family size was four members with an adult labour force (19–59 years) of 57%. Study results further showed that the main household livelihood choices included cropping activities [CA] (77% of respondents), off-farm activities [OA] (61%), forest activities [FA] (49%), and livestock activities [LA] (40%). Findings indicate that all household livelihood activities are influenced by household assets. However, the type and extent of influence on the choices was distinct for the different household assets. Out of the five household assets, only education and household income had significant influence on all the four livelihood choices. Education had the strongest influence on forest activities [λ = 0.470] and household income on livestock activities [λ = 0.200] at p<0.05. Findings further indicated that livelihood activities in the study area contribute to environmental degradation, manifested in three common phenomena, that is, water scarcity, deforestation and soil erosion. Pooled results showed that all livelihood activities cause overall environmental degradation, that is, FA [B = 0.386], CA [B = 0.205], LA [B = 0.224], and OA [B = 0.122] at p<0.05 significance. The interaction of extension services and household livelihood assets (Z*X), results showed had insignificant [b = .074, SEb = .048, β =.071, p>.001] influence on household livelihood choices. The study concluded with some recommendations for policy and further research considerations.