This study has attempted to shed some light on the decisive factors that underlie the
adoption or non-adoption of kitchen gardens in rural Tanzania and has identified the
importance of demand and biophysical factors for implementation of kitchen gardens.
These two were the aspects that were most tangible and feasible to being assessed and
measured. Highlighted were also social factors, which while equally important in the
process of adoption and dissemination, were more abstract and often inherent not to the
technology per se, but to their “project context”. This study demonstrated how operational
measures undertaken by projects contributed or hindered the dissemination of KGs and
offered tentative recommendations for an outscaling to PCSSs and other regions with a
similar context.
From the analysis conducted it can be concluded that, first, adoption and outscaling of KGs
is a process primarily determined by the demand of KGs and to a certain degree lower adoption rates or participants dropping out occurred when households did not perceive diet
improvement as a primary concern. Specifically the analysis identified 1) a shortage of
local markets, 2) low average household incomes and 3) water scarcity as the key
determinants for KG demand. Secondly, the trade-off between pursuing income-generating
activities and subsistence production of vegetables through KGs highlighted a key concern
for many respondents. It revealed a priority for income generation in the decisions to
allocate money and labor. This insight applied particularly for wealthier households, where
gardening activities imposed higher opportunity costs. Thirdly, in current implementation
efforts, KG owners were challenged by resource constraints like scarcity of water for
irrigation, pest depredation and livestock conflicts among others. Fourthly, at times
individual attitudes towards development projects impeded the sustainable implementation
of KGs in ICSS, undermining the sense of ownership for the KG and occasionally led to a
misuse of project participation. This attitude was likely nurtured by a legacy of project
presence in communities and by additional reinforcement through operational decisions,
like the ongoing provision of inputs or payments for trainings. Fifthly, social factors like
communication barriers occurred both intra-group because of hierarchical structures and
inter-group (group vs. group-outsiders) due to village morphologies and to unfriendly
relations marred by mistrust and jealousy. These have negatively impacted the
dissemination of KG knowledge but also the functioning of the groups. Lastly, at the time
of the study some farmers could not see the purpose of KG groups, instead they created
burdensome liabilities for members’ already constrained time and financial resources. As a
consequence, conceptualizing adequate and relevant group actions must be the base for
decisions whether group formation should be promoted at all.
Recommendations for the outscaling to PCSS and other villages comprise 1) adequate
targeting of areas, considering the presence of demand factors and especially of other
projects in the region, 2) an introductory provision of inputs, 3) locally anchored extension
service provision and 4) technical guidance with gradual withdraw. Great care should be
placed on the consistency of compensational schemes in research activities. Despite the
simple setup, implementation, maintenance and outscaling of KGs require technical
guidance that should be integrated to existing structures or people. Possible strategies are ToT and FTF approaches, but also channeling these tasks into local health centers or a local
extension officer.
The positive impact that KGs are able to offer for rural communities has been well
illustrated, however it requires more fairness and integrity in how, when and where to
promote KGs and more concerted efforts to disseminate their knowledge and practice. This
demands a thorough understanding of what challenges each community faces and how KGs
are able fit into its specific context. Without this, KG projects are likely to be yet another
failed development intervention. When farmers and project implementers design adequate
measures to overcome the identified challenges, KGs are indeed a viable strategy to
improve the nutritional wellbeing of rural households.