International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
ISSN: 1473-5903 (Print) 1747-762X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tags20
Realizing Inclusive SAI: contextualizing indicators
to better evaluate gender and intergenerational
inequity in SAI processes and outcomes – cases
from Southern and Western Africa
Leo C. Zulu, Ida N. S. Djenontin, Akosua Darkwah, Judith Kamoto, Jessica
Kampanje-Phiri, Gundula Fischer, Philip Grabowski & Irene Egyir
To cite this article: Leo C. Zulu, Ida N. S. Djenontin, Akosua Darkwah, Judith Kamoto, Jessica
Kampanje-Phiri, Gundula Fischer, Philip Grabowski & Irene Egyir (2020): Realizing Inclusive SAI:
contextualizing indicators to better evaluate gender and intergenerational inequity in SAI processes
and outcomes – cases from Southern and Western Africa, International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability, DOI: 10.1080/14735903.2020.1737356
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1737356
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 26 Mar 2020.
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 270
View related articles View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tags20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1737356
Realizing Inclusive SAI: contextualizing indicators to better evaluate
gender and intergenerational inequity in SAI processes and outcomes –
cases from Southern and Western Africa
Leo C. Zulu a, Ida N. S. Djenontin a, Akosua Darkwah b, Judith Kamotoc, Jessica Kampanje-Phiri
c, Gundula Fischer d, Philip Grabowski e and Irene Egyir b
aDepartment of Geography, Environment, and Spatial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA;
bDepartment of Sociology, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana; cDepartment of Forestry, Lilongwe University of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, Lilongwe, Malawi; dInternational Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Arusha, Tanzania; eDepartment of
Environmental Science, Public Health and Sustainability, Taylor University, Upland, Indiana, USA
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Despite increasing sustainable agricultural intensification (SAI) investments, indicators Sustainable agricultural
for detecting gender and intergenerational inequities in SAI costs and benefits sharing intensification (SAI); gender
often remain overgeneralized, theoretical, or locally irrelevant. We examine the inequity; youth inequity;
relative value of, and how to, customize standard SAI indicators to detect such participatory
inequities in specific socio-cultural contexts to enhance data collection for contextualization; SAIindicators; Malawi; Ghana
evidence-based decision making in fostering gender/youth inclusive SAI. Using
focus-group discussions and key informant interviews among farmers and diverse
government, NGO, private sector, and academic stakeholders in two districts in
Malawi and three in Ghana, we assess the perceived roles, differentiated needs/
priorities of men, women and youth, and the sharing of SAI burdens and benefits
within farming households. We investigate what context-appropriate questions to
ask, to whom, and how, to collect reliable information on indicators of SAI-
investment inequities. Results illuminate context-specific, gendered and
intergenerational factors shaping access to and ownership of productive resources,
household decision making, SAI participation, and appropriateness of selected
indicators. Combining farmers’ and local field-expert’ perspectives offers practical
insights for customizing inequity indicators. Findings highlight advantages of local
contextualization of SAI indicators, including insights on appropriate data-collection
approaches that challenge orthodox survey/quantitative methods for detecting and
assessing gender/age inequities to foster inclusive SAI.
Introduction and benefits (Snyder & Cullen, 2014; Zimmerer et al.,
2015), there is insufficient context-specific evidence
In response to increasing pressures from rapid popu- to support efforts to address inequities that arise
lation growth and the need to produce sufficient from SAI investments.
food while mitigating environmental degradation, Some gender narratives and interventions in Africa
Pretty et al. (2018) attest to growing progress in are based on misleading assumptions, received
increased investments in sustainable agriculture wisdom and stereotypes about women and gender
intensification, SAI. While some studies acknowledge relations and struggles (Droga, 2011; Doss et al., 2018).
gender and intergenerational inequities in SAI (Zurek Common myths include: (i) inflating (to 70%) women’s
et al., 2015) and the inequitable sharing of its costs proportion of the global poor population (Chant,
CONTACT Leo C. Zulu zulu@msu.edu Department of Geography, Environment, and Spatial Sciences, Michigan State University,
Geography Building, 673 Auditorium Road,Room 123, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not
altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
2006); (ii) simplifying and overstating (to 60–80%) the reflect what researchers think they do (Yount et al.,
share of food produced by women (Doss, 2014); (iii) 2019); they can also obscure or render unrecognizable
uncritically emphasizing and/or underestimating the different realities of men, women, male and
women’s land ownership (1–2% globally) while female youth (Cho et al., 2013). Moreover, the data-
mostly ignoring joint land ownership (Doss et al., collection process (types of question asked, how,
2018); and (iv) essentializing narratives that women and research methods used) influences the quality
are inherently better environmental stewards than of data collected and capacity to capture the experi-
men (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2014). These myths pose ences and perspectives of men, women and the
the risk of underrating the real challenges that many youth effectively. Household-survey methods tra-
women face in accessing productive resources (land, ditionally used in gender analysis often fail to grasp
finances, information and others), and consequent the context-specific factors that shape outcomes.
loss of opportunities relative to men. Another impli- Further, standardized survey questions are sometimes
cation is ignoring differentiated but complementary inadequate, contextually inappropriate, and not
gender roles within Africa’s socio-cultural realities always addressed to the right person who can
(Hudson-Weems, 1993; Nightingale, 2006; Torri, provide reliable information for evaluating gender
2010), and overburdening women by promoting prac- inequities in SAI investments and barriers to inclusion
tices which bring unrecognized new labour demands (Doss et al., 2018; Fisher et al., 2010). Barriers include
on them (e.g. climate smart agriculture). socio-cultural factors that undermine participation in
Moreover, gender is not the only factor shaping decision making at household level and limit access
social norms, roles and relationships that are impor- to productive resources for women and the youth
tant in SAI production. Specifically, a unitary focus within their communities. Thus, women in most rural
on women’s needs as if they are isolated from their African contexts typically do not make the major
households, communities and institutions neglects household decisions, and have limited access to
and can upset important gendered power relations, household finances (Van Houweling et al., 2012).
and lead to conflict (Doss et al., 2018). It is important Despite widespread recognition that sensitizing
to consider multiple dimensions of identity while men to include women and their opinions in house-
making sense of unique gendered experiences, as hold decision making is an essential part of empower-
Crenshaw (1991) illustrates through the gender ing women, the indicators for the needed analytical
analytical concept of ‘intersectionality.’ Age, for depth to guide corrective decision making are not
instance, intersects with gender to produce differen- adequately deployed. Conventional gender-assess-
tiated, context specific outcomes and impacts (Cren- ment indices tend to focus narrowly on individual
shaw, 1991; Nash, 2008; Winker & Degele, 2011). women and their status relative to men (Morgan,
Thus, different generations might have varying priori- 2014). While participatory gender-focused research
ties and levels of influence within their communities. in agricultural development in Africa has been going
The growing focus on the youth and their issues, for on for over two decades, much of it remains in the
example, might neglect specific challenges that grey literature and little has focused on SAI.
older generations might face, and lead to ineffective Recent laudable efforts to develop gender sensitive
policy and programme/project formulations in SAI criteria for SAI, such as the Sustainable Intensification
production and processes that fail to leverage the Assessment Framework (SIAF, Musumba et al., 2017;
different complementary but shifting roles of adult Smith et al., 2017), highlight – rather than obviate –
and young men and women adequately. Inadequate the need for practical approaches to guide implemen-
attention to such gender intersectionality with age tation of such theoretical frameworks. The SIAF pro-
and other factors can undermine understanding of vides a holistic, technology centred, and systematic
the real, context specific needs, preferences and priori- analytical framework that allows interdisciplinary
ties of women, men, and the youth, and increase the cooperation and comparison across space and time
risk of reproducing or worsening inequities in the based on sets of SI indicators structured into five
sharing of SAI costs and benefits.1 domains. Although the framework has a social
Data that are not contextually appropriate often domain centred on gender-equity indicators, there
lead to misinterpretations that can reinforce existing remains a need to enhance the gender dimension,
simplistic gender narratives (Doss et al., 2018). and to customize the indicators to specific contexts
Answers to standardized questions not only rarely in order to move the framework from theory to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 3
practice. Emerging scholarship on cognitive interview- Materials and methods
ing recognizes such challenges of making data collec-
tion on gender inequities more context appropriate. Conceptual framework: customization of SAI
For instance, Hannan et al. (2019) specifically target indicators and the participatory indicator
making the WEAI data-collection framework more par- development (PID) approach
ticipatory by changing the survey questions on There is much published literature on developing
women’s empowerment. The WEAI is a major data-col- standardized, cost-effective indicators with compar-
lection tool for measuring women’s empowerment ability within and across countries (Rasmussen et al.,
and inclusion in agriculture to aid decision-making in 2017), and on data-collection instruments to assess
project/programme management and policymaking. gender inequity (Dookie et al. 2013). However, there
Malapit et al. (2019) adapt the WEAI to produce a is little on customizing these indicators to specific con-
new project-level WEAI (pro-WEAI) that includes texts in agriculture. There is even less research on indi-
some qualitative indicators and sub-indicators under cators of intergenerational inequity and its
three main domains of intrinsic, instrumental, and col- intersectionality with gender in agriculture.
lective agency. We seek to contribute to such work Several gender-specific and youth-specific efforts to
through a participatory contextualization of SAI indi- contextualize indicators (Owen & Goldin, 2015) high-
cators of gender and age-based inequities more as a light the advantages and challenges of existing PID
sensitizing concept or device (Bowen, 2006) that can experiences (e.g. Dijkstra & Hanmer, 2000; Fraser
aid the design of locally appropriate or customized et al., 2006; Freebairn & King, 2003; Hochfeld & Bassa-
indicators as well as data collection methods, instru- dien, 2007; King et al., 2000). They also touch on the
ments and practice, than a means to propose alterna- contentious concept and definition of the household
tive research methods. in different settings and their potential implications
The objectives of this study are to: (1) assess locally on research findings (e.g. Beaman & Dillon, 2012;
perceived intra-household patterns and signs of gen- Netting, 1993; Randall et al., 2015).
dered and intergenerational inequities in sharing SAI Agricultural contexts vary in space and time and
benefits; (2) customize standard SAI indicators of across ecological, social, economic, cultural and politi-
gender and youth inequities to specific socio-cultural cal dimensions. So do gender and age-based relations
contexts in sites in Ghana andMalawi using a participa- and manifestations. For instance, patriarchy domi-
tory indicator development approach, and (3) assess nates most communities and shapes access to pro-
the qualitative comparative advantage of conducting ductive resources and decision making, but
such customization in terms of the quality of infor- conditions vary from place to place (Stearns, 2015)
mation. The research contributes to assessing and and at different scales (international, national, sub-
enhancing the localized relevance and effectiveness country, and household). In Malawi, as in much of
of a selected set of SAI gender and youth (in)equity sub-Saharan Africa, patrilineal and matrilineal kinship
indicators developed under the SIAF to inform decision systems influence who has access to and control
making on gender and age-inclusive SAI. over land and other productive resources, often to
The next section presents a brief literature review the disadvantage of women in patrilineal commu-
on participatory indicator development (PID) generic- nities and men in matrilineal areas (Peters, 1997;
ally, and in relation to gender and youth inclusion in Ngwira n.d.; Rukuni, 2016). However, who wins or
SAI, highlighting some gaps in locally relevant indi- loses is not straightforward (Kerr, 2005), and changes
cators. We then describe the data-collection such as growing privatization of production and con-
methods and analysis. In the results section we first sumption can alter/weaken kinship relations. Asses-
present locally perceived indicators of existing sing how benefits from SAI initiatives are distributed
gender and youth inequities in SAI benefits sharing. among men and women will require nuanced under-
Second, we articulate the indicator customization standing of these social, spatial and temporal vari-
process and outcomes, organized under four themes ations. Furthermore, research interest on youth in
– productive resources, agency/empowerment, agriculture has focused on factors affecting youth par-
capacity, and achievement in wellbeing. We finally ticipation (Naamwintome & Bagson, 2013; Van
discuss the findings, focusing on the benefits of con- Gyampo & Obeng-odoom, 2013) and the challenges
textualizing SAI indicators for gender and youth that they face (Naamwintome & Bagson, 2013; IFAD,
inclusion, and then conclude. 2015). There is little research done at the intersection
4 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
of youth/age and gender, complicated by disparities with researchers at all development stages (rare), to
in the definition of youth (Durham, 2000, 2004; a customization process where expert-produced indi-
Mapila, 2014). With the increasing investments both cators are contextualized to local conditions (Hochfeld
in SAI and on empowering the youth, it is imperative & Bassadien, 2007; Fraser et al., 2006). Thus, PID lies at
to develop localized indicators of gender and youth the intersection of indicator development and
inclusion in SAI. empowerment of research participants through
As pointed out earlier, efforts to measure such gen- engaged discussions (Chambers, 1994; Hochfeld &
dered dynamics have largely depended on standar- Bassadien, 2007). It also helps to capture often-neg-
dized, largely quantitative indicators, such as the lected farmer knowledge (King et al., 2000). For
UNDP Gender Inequality Index for assessing socio- instance, the ecological basis of many indicators pro-
economic dynamics (Dijkstra and Hanmer, 2000), the vided by local farmers often bears out, and local stake-
SIAF (Musumba et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2017), or holders tend to provide more holistic indicators that
the Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index, emphasize qualitative social dimensions (Reed et al.,
WEAI (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2019). The WEAI, in particu- 2008).
lar, holds some strengths, including its structured, con- A PID approach also accommodates theoretical
sistent nature that allows comparability of perspectives aimed at raising the voices of the
measurement of gender dimensions within and excluded, including investigating knowledge distor-
across projects/programs, and its potential to tions that expunge legitimate women’s experiences
uncover impacts of disparities in empowerment, (Longino, 1993; Gouws, 1996). By the ‘explicit, self-con-
health, nutrition and other factors (Malapit et al., scious application of values within scientific practice’
2015). Seeking information on the influence of house- (Gergen, 1988, p. 92), indicators and data-collection
hold and non-household members on decision methods derived from a PID process can substantially
making, and encouraging tool adaptation to specific decrease inadvertent male bias. Although women’s
contexts are other WEAI strengths. However, critiques and other local stakeholders’ knowledge and perspec-
of such standardized indicators include numerical tives are not necessarily always sound and unques-
reductionism; lack of flexibility; and top-down and tionable relative to that of researchers, government
expert-driven development with inadequate consider- facilitators, NGO, and other non-local stakeholders’
ation of the interests of local resource managers and (Reed et al., 2008), ‘a blend with stakeholders’ knowl-
communities, gender, and age-based, and other edge and local experience enhances the questions
context-specific social inequities and factors (Fraser of indicators’ applicability and practicability’ (Roy
et al., 2006; Hochfeld & Bassadien, 2007). There are et al., 2013, p. 672). To be sure, recent advances in par-
also challenges in translating the indicators into prac- ticipatory research go beyond PID to allow participants
tice (Hochfeld & Bassadien, 2007). Even the WEAI has to perform the data coding rather than outsiders, for
been criticized for treating ‘men and women in the instance by using the qualitative software SenseMaker
household as if they were individuals acting alone (Van der Merwe et al., 2019). However, ensuring
for their own benefit’ (Underwood et al., 2014, n.p.), that indicators can be used in cost-effective data col-
and for failing to adequately capture women’s experi- lection under resource-challenged settings is a major
ences through their own narratives (Yount et al., 2019). consideration for our research.
The participatory indicator development (PID) The use of participatory mixed methods in evalu-
approach provides a process to develop indicators ation research is well developed, yet quantitative
that are more appropriate and context-focused to survey-based methods tend to dominate. While quan-
reflect the gender issues identified by diverse local sta- titative indicators and methods can provide useful
keholders (Guijt, 1998; Fraser et al., 2006; Reed et al., quantifiable data and cross-comparability on SAI
2008). PID provides a platform that integrates the par- benefit sharing by gender and age, qualitative indi-
ticipation of outside researchers or experts, farmer cators and participatory data-collection techniques
communities, and diverse other local stakeholders. are uniquely suited to unearthing detailed contextual
PID can enhance understanding of local definitions information and local perceptions that help to explain
and perceptions of key concepts, and factors that local behaviour (Fraser et al., 2006; Mohan et al., 2017).
affect implementation. The literature reveals a spec- However, on their own, qualitative methods and data
trum from purely bottom-up processes in which are admittedly not ideal in cases where generalizabil-
locals build the indicators through co-development ity is critical because qualitative results tend to be
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 5
applicable to particular contexts. A PID process and climate/agroecological diversity that might
ensures the capture of relevant qualitative social influence gender and youth equity in SAI.
dimensions, which local participants tend to empha- For Malawi, we selected matrilineal Dedza district
size, along with quantitative data, which researchers because the farmer and multi-stakeholder platforms
and experts tend to prioritize using mixed methods. established under the AR project were more active
Examples include the use of mixed methods in than in Ntcheu (the other AR district). We deliberately
Malawi on gender inclusive monitoring and evaluation added the largest patrilineal district in Malawi,
of climate services (Gumucio et al., 2018), and on Mzimba (in northern Malawi) to also capture perspec-
legume adoption and nutrition (Kerr et al., 2007). Ulti- tives from a patrilineal kinship system. Land-inheri-
mately, the PID approach we used helps to address tance systems can shape differential access to land
known methodological challenges in developing (e.g. Doss et al., 2018; Peters, 2010). In matrilineal
gender-sensitive indicators – striking a balance systems, land is inherited through the woman’s/
between expert-led, often standardized approaches wife’s side and men marry into the wife’s village. In
and a participatory process basing indicator formu- patrilineal areas, land passes down the male side
lation on unspecified research values, and feasibility and women marry into the husband’s village.
under resource-scarce conditions (Hochfeld & Bassa- Mzimba district also had active farmer-discussion plat-
dien, 2007). forms. For the next lower scale level, we purposively
Although there is growing recognition of the value selected Golomoti and Champhira Extension Planning
of PID-based indicators to uncover context-specific Areas (EPAs) within Dedza and Mzimba, respectively.
realities in sustainable agriculture, its application in The sites also represent different agro-ecological
assessing gender inequalities in SAI-intervention plan- zones, with Golomoti being in a drier area than Cham-
ning and monitoring remains scarce. Rare examples phira (Figure 1 – left panel).
include PID use in climate-change risk assessment For Ghana, we selected two of the three AR regions
(Asare-kyei et al., 2015), on sustainability (Fraser that showed the most cross-region contrast based on
et al., 2006; Rosenstro & Kyllo, 2007; Yegbemey et al., our criteria – Northern Region and Upper East Region.
2014), on the effectiveness of adaptation interventions On social aspects, women in the Upper East Region
(Mohan et al., 2017), and in agricultural trade-off analy- are generally considered as farmers in their own
sis (Kanter et al., 2018). Hochfeld and Bassadien(2007) right, often with their own pieces of farmland,
used a hybrid PID process to develop a gender-sensi- whereas those in the Northern Region are largely con-
tive approach for a small family-health service NGO in sidered farm hands working alongside men in agricul-
South Africa. tural production (Apusigah, 2009). Climatically/
Seeking to fill the identified gaps, we applied the agroecologically, the Northern Region lies in the
PID approach to customize a set of gender SAI indi- Sudan savanna zone, with slightly higher annual rain-
cators developed under the SIAF. The process has fall and a longer major growing season than the
several advantages: (1) avoiding mistakes arising Upper East Region, which lies within the Guinea
from uncritical acceptance of orthodox and overge- Savanna. Different climatic/agroecological factors
neralized assumptions about women in agriculture; can affect crop choice, cropping strategy, and associ-
(2) localization of often neglected and underdeve- ated gender relations (Doss, 2002). Moreover, religion
loped equity-based indicators; and (3) enhancing can also influence levels and quality of rights enjoyed
the collection of context-appropriate and relevant by women (Wanyeki, 2003). Thus, picking one district
information to understand the changes that are in predominantly Christian Upper East Region and
needed to achieve enduring equity in agricultural two in Islam-dominated Northern Region helps to
interventions. capture and interrogate potential differential
impacts of contrasting social conceptualizations, reli-
gion, and biophysical condition on SAI outcomes.
Study sites
We further selected two communities per selected
We selected study districts and sites focusing on areas district. These were Tingoli and Cheyohi in Tolon-
where the Africa RISING (AR) agriculture project was Kumbungu District, and Duko and Tibali in Save-
implemented in northern Ghana and central Malawi. lugu-Nanton District, in Northern Region; and
We purposively chose district sites that collectively Nyangua and Gia in Kassena-Nankana District in
captured wide diversity along major axes of social Upper East Region (Figure 1 – right panel).
6 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
Figure 1. Maps of sampled regions in Ghana (left) and study sites and communities in Malawi (right).
Data collection and analysis leaders who interact with farmers on a regular basis
and have useful local perspectives and knowledge to
We conducted Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Key offer. The sampling strategy is detailed in Appendix 1.
Informant Interviews (KIIs), and literature review to We collected information on local perceptions and
collect data to contextualize indicators of gender experiences of SAI dynamics related to gender and
and youth inequities in Malawi and Ghana in 2017 youth (in)equity, including roles, needs, and priorities
and 2018. Qualitative methods help to unpack micro of men, women and youth within farming households.
and meso-scale dynamics and processes, and local We also examined the sharing of SAI costs and benefits
perceptions that shape social dynamics of sustainabil- through participatory FGD activities and exercises. For
ity (Fernández-Kelly, 2012; King et al., 2000). KIIs and the selected SAI indicators, we explored their rel-
FGDs are particularly useful in PID to uncover local evance, appropriateness, and who and how to ask
knowledge, experiences and perspectives of local questions to collect information for the associated
project implementers on the technical side and local metrics. We analyzed our research data with Nvivo
community members, and capture hard-to-quantify Pro qualitative analysis software version 11 using
but important factors, e.g. agency or women’s multi-step axial coding to derive themes differentiated
empowerment (Fraser et al., 2006; Hochfeld & Bassa- by gender and age. To gain data familiarity and a sense
dien,, 2007; Meinzen-Dick et al., 2019). KII sample of the recurrent themes, we first explored the data
sizes and numbers of FGDs varied, reflecting the using text inquiries, text search tools, and word
point at which saturation was reached in terms of clouds. We also built a mental map based on the prin-
new information added. Specifically, we conducted cipal questions asked and variables collected. These
eight FGDs in Malawi, each targeting 10–15 partici- became the major/parent thematic nodes we started
pants, and ten KIIs. In Ghana, we carried out 24 the coding process with, standardized for both study
FGDs, each targeting 3–11 participants and 17 KIIs. countries. Using a randomly selected dataset from
Local technical experts selected for the KIIs were key Malawi, we binned the data into these initial major
stakeholders identified during a previous stake- nodes. Throughout the progressive coding of the infor-
holder-analysis study and during the FGDs. They mation from each FGD and KII, we expanded the node
included district and sub-district agriculture, gender, structure by creating new child and grandchild nodes
youth, nutrition and related extension agents, NGOs, representing emerging sub-themes and sub sub-
project managers, private sector actors, and civic themes uncovered, respectively. We used the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7
remaining FGD and KII transcripts to confirm and vali- first sought to disentangle who within the household
date the overall node structure. This process helped to (women, men, and male and female youth) benefits
fuse some nodes together and to split some when the from these improvements and how, and what the indi-
data diverged, to form new sub-themes and sub sub- cators are for such benefitting or absence thereof.
themes when needed. Research team members dis- Insights from community members (FGDs) and local
cussed and reviewed the codebook iteratively among experts (KII responses) in Malawi and Ghana revealed
to enhance comparable analysis across sites and similar clues of overall household benefits.
countries. We exported binned data from the software Second, we describe findings on contextualizing
to a Microsoft Word document for a critical content standard SAI indicators on gender and intergenera-
analysis of the structured themes and extraction of tional inequities to the sociocultural contexts of our
illustrative excerpts. The current paper presents a study sites and elaborate on the comparative value of
subset of these results. Overall, we sought to capture such age and gender-differentiated customization.
farmers’ and local field experts’ voices and experiences We organize these findings into four categories of
through thematic characterization, quotes and anec- gender and intergenerational inequities in SAI: pro-
dotes. Both data collection and analysis focused on ductive resources, agency/empowerment, capacity,
in-depth content analysis and contextualization. and achievements based on an adapted framework
(Figure 2) for the social domain of the SIAF manual
(Musumba et al., 2017, p. 153). Instead of going
Results
through all the indicators considered individually, we
The customization process enhanced understanding emphasized indicators that emerged as important in
of how gender and youth inequities manifest within KIIs and FGDs, and as having the most potential for cus-
the different socio-cultural contexts. Because most tomization from the PID process and in adjustments to
informants deemed the sharing of the benefits from data collection. Specifically, we focus on gender and
agriculture investments as the most potent avenue intergenerational inequities associated with land
for detecting gender and youth inequities in SAI, we rights (access, use, and control), ownership of and
Figure 2. Organizing framework for presenting the customized indicators based on an earlier adaptation of the empowerment and equality in
agriculture (Hemminger et al. 2014, based on Kabeer 1999).
8 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
decision making on livestock and crops and their man- activities and other household aspects; differential
agement, access to extension services, social capital roles in agricultural activities by crop, and access to
(e.g. group participation), time use, and for Malawi land; and women’s agency to mitigate some of the
only, children’s nutrition and food-security status. inequities. For instance, key informants pointed out
that lack of participation of young males and
females in projects is an indicator that they would
Local perceptions of indicators and patterns of
not benefit from the projects. Whoever (men,
gendered and intergenerational inequities in
women or the youth) made the decision to grow a par-
sharing SAI benefits
ticular crop or raise a particular livestock type, and
FGD and KII data showed that household benefits more importantly, whoever made the decision to sell
sharing from SAI was differentiated by gender and or conducted the selling tended to benefit more
age. Perceived indicators of benefits for women than other household members did. This is often
included asset ownership, active involvement in agri- men. However, some (five) local experts in the Upper
culture projects, having non-farm employment or East Region contended as inconceivable the possi-
income from trades, acquisition/ownership of techno- bility that only patriarchs benefit from SAI within a
logical items or gadgets such as mobile phones, and (polygamous) household while other members do
having all-year-round food availability. Improved not. The quotes below illustrate their point but this
house quality, health status of family members, phys- view appeared to reflect inconsistencies between
ical appearance (clothes, looks, health) of respondents local norms and values of an idealized familyon one
and their children, and ability to meet the education hand and reality on the other:
needs (costs) of children, were also important.
Buying new assets (e.g. motorbikes or livestock), It is not possible. Benefits accrued would be shared
among all wives; men would provide working capital
improving the quality of their house (with metal out of the tangible benefits to all wives. (Male R4D
roofs, cured bricks, cement floors), ability to purchase member, Kassena Nankana Municipality)
agriculture inputs and pay school fees for children,
dressing smartly, provisioning the family well, and This is just not possible. Benefits are shared and all young
people will be given part of food or clothing or enjoy
spending time at home denoted men benefitting improvements in housing, transportation or whatever.
from SAI benefits. Men in Ghana additionally included (Female, Department of Agriculture employee, Kassena
all-year-round food self-sufficiency, marrying more Nankana Municipality)
wives, acquiring chieftaincy titles, and supporting
Men’s traditional role as heads in most households
other family members financially to undertake rites
reinforced SAI inequities in their favour, and either
of passage. They also highlighted paying for daugh-
undermined women’s roles in decision making or
ters’ education. Perceived signs for male and female
youth benefits after harvest. The following quotes
youth benefitting in Malawi included uninterrupted
illustrate this:
school attendance, resources to establish small
businesses, non-dependence on informal piecework The husband, for example, will take all the cowpeas the
(ganyu), and in Ghana meeting costs of marriage household harvested to the market for sale. The money
rites, having su cient food and nutrition, being realized from the cowpea sales will be spent on purchas-ffi
ing beer. The husband will even spend nights out until
healthy, and having good clothing. One important the money is finished and then he will return home.…
gender difference in Ghana was the emphasis of Such husbands do not involve their wives in decision
male youth on being able to afford modern modes making on use of the money and on household expendi-
of transportation such as motorbikes. Table 1 summar- tures. (ASP members, Golomoti –Dedza)
izes some features of women, men and the youth For instance, when a girl child like me asks for school
benefitting or not from SAI improvements from fees, they would respond that school is not good for
Ghana, and illustrates the range and relative impor- girls and it is better for us to get married so that we
tance of the benefit indicators. start doing our own things. There are real problems for
On the sharing of SAI bene ts, some age and the youth, especially girls. (Female Youth, Champhira –fi
Mzimba)
gender-based disparities stood out as main locally-
perceived centres/loci of inequity. They included In contrast, in some contexts, women wielded more
inequitable participation in agricultural projects, power traditionally than men wield. Some women
produce marketing, decision making on agriculture proactively negotiated for powers in decision-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 9
Table 1. Summary of features of women, youth, and men benefitting or not from SAI improvements in Ghana.
Features Northern Region (Frequency) Upper East Region (Frequency) Totala
Features of benefit
Women
Children’s needs 21 9 30
Clothing 13 14 29
Healthy looking skin 6 11 17
Secondary Employment 19 0 19
Participation in financial schemes 4 0 4
Building houses 3 0 3
Acquiring phones 2 0 2
Food security 0 11 11
Speaking up in public 0 2 2
Youth
Mechanized means of transport 21 13 34
Building houses 10 7 17
Consumer items 5 12 17
Marriage 12 5 17
Changed appearance 5 12 17
Livestock 8 0 8
Provide for family of origin 3 0 3
No migration 2 0 2
Grow non-traditional cash crop 1 0 1
Men
Housing improvements 14 10 24
Food security 16 4 20
Taking on more wives 8 5 13
Providing for wives 0 6 6
Providing for wives and children 0 10 10
Public speaking 0 10 10
Mechanized means of transport 6 5 11
Livestock 8 0 8
Chieftaincy 7 0 7
Consumer items 6 0 6
Provision of children’s education 6 0 6
Support for extended family 4 0 4
Leisure 3 0 3
Self-employment 1 0 1
Features of no benefit
Women
Having to share a spouse 1 0 1
Unequal housing improvements 1 0 1
Personal needs unmet 1 0 1
Struggle for food 0 10 10
Dress shabbily 0 7 7
Women’s demeanour 0 6 6
Hunger 0 3 3
Extra-marital liaisons 0 3 3
No shares in agricultural proceeds 0 2 2
Youth
Poor food 1 7 8
No support for rites of passage 1 0 1
Dis-interest in state of fathers’ farms 1 0 1
No support for educational pursuits 0 4 4
Anger 0 4 4
The frequencies refer to the number of times that a response or theme came up during all the FGDs. Therefore, the total does not refer to the
number of focus groupsa. Data Source: PID FGDs Data – Ghana.
making or for independent production to attain some Yes, a woman is controlling all the money and a man has
economic autonomy. Thus, in matrilineal Dedza, no chance to access the money. […] A man will go to the
women owned land and some controlled decision market to sell the agro-produce and on return home; the
woman will demand to be given all the money since the
making on marketing. A man in Dedza, and a male woman has more power than the man […]. (ASP member,
youth in Mzimba (Malawi) commented as follow: Golomoti, Dedza)
10 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
You just know that the family is being ruled by the to sell alone without consulting the wife and the cash is
woman. Whenever there are contributions in the commu- not shared with the wife. In disappointment the wife
nity, for example at the church, the man cannot contrib- decides to farm on her piece of land, alone. (ASP
ute until he asks the woman. […] Another thing is that member, Golomoti – Dedza)
nowadays almost every person has a cell phone as a
means of communication compared to previous years I was oppressing my wife when it comes to sharing
when the post office was the main means of communi- benefits realized from the farm sales. Consequently, we
cation. You find in this case that the woman has a cell shared the lands. The part of the land (field) that I farm,
phone while the man has no phone. (Male Youth, Cham- I control it and the part that my wife farms belongs to
phira, Mzimba) her. (Man, Golomoti – Dedza)
Some women negotiated for joint intra-household Negotiating for land for autonomous farming required
decision-making powers on various agricultural and considerable bargaining power for women, especially
non-agricultural activities to mitigate the inequities in patrilineal societies. Informants in Malawi perceived
Table 2 illustrates the gender and age-differentiated the level of such intra-household bargaining power to
decision-making roles for Malawi. Explanations for be associated with years of marriage. Many perceived
such successful negotiations include ensuring that a woman in an older marriage to have earned more
family needs, such as raising money for children’ intra-marital confidence, and to be less inclined to
school fees, were met and that individual benefits seek to impress the husband in the image of the
accrue to them (women). ideal feminine. She was also less tolerant of working
for the husband’s benefit as farm work became
Yes, we discuss with the women to grow maize and soya
beans in one field for sale so that we will get money for more arduous with advancing age, and after years of
children’s school fees. […] Yes, despite the fact that learning lessons the hard way.
men own land, women contribute to decision making
regarding the use of that land and sale of farm produce [This does happen in] older families and the reasons [are]
and livestock. […] Yes [we also include children] similar to what you have explained. After a long experi-
because culture here recognizes children as property ence of their husbands selling the agricultural produce
owners and hence, we need them to participate in and not sharing the money fairly with their wives, a
decision making regarding the sale of livestock. (ASP woman decides to rent her own field and cultivate it on
member, Champhira – Mzimba) her own. [And yes], because she has learnt it the hard
way and she feels she is better off benefiting more
FGDs revealed a perceived increase of cases in which from agriculture when she cultivates her own field.
women negotiated for access to intra-household land, (Female Youth, Champhira – Mzimba)
or borrowed, rented or bought land outside the house-
However, while it is easy for older couples to decide to
hold to cultivate their own (cash) crops independently.
split pieces of land in matrilineal settings, for young
In doing so, they sought to respond to the inequitable
women, bargaining for equitable benefits from their
benefit sharing despite their labour contribution and to
labour and land ownership is not straightforward.
gain income for self-use and for the family. The ensuing
Societal norms also weighed against women. As
(mostly temporary) land splitting to allow women’s
attested by a female youth in matrilineal Dedza, the
autonomous farming was reported in both patrilineal
fear of losing a husband to other women prevented
Ghana regions and Malawi’s Mzimba district where
some women from enforcing claims of land ownership
men control the land, and in matrilineal Dedza where
and insisting on the need to benefit from it. In con-
women’s nominal control over land appeared not
trast, the practice of paying bride price in patrilineal
to shield them from men’s tendency to monopolize
Mzimba (Malawi) was claimed as a positive cultural
agricultural proceeds within the household. The follow-
force that enhanced the integration, social capital,
ing quotes are illustrative of this apparent proactive
and negotiating power of women within their hus-
trend, including an anecdote of a husband acknowled-
band’s villages, over time. It is also important to differ-
ging his role in such an unfair practice:
entiate negotiated agency from default agency
Couples share the land or divide the field where each one related to women being left in charge of agricultural
does his/her own cropping while still married. […] Yes, it production and decisions following the emigration
happens in our villages and it depends on couples’ agree- of their spouses. In Mzimba (Malawi), where many
ments. (Male respondent, Golomoti – Dedza) young men went to work in South Africa, such emigra-
As a family, you can decide to grow soybeans for sale but tion had emerged as a virtual rite of passage into
after harvesting, the husband decides to go to the market adulthood for them.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 11
Table 2. Gendered decision-making patterns on some key SAI-related activities in Malawi.
Who decides in Dedza? Who decides in Mzimba?
Joint (Both men & Joint (Both men &
Type of crops Man Woman Youth women) Man Woman Youth women)
Agriculture-related decision making
1. Crop management (growing and managing fields with cash and food crops)
Food crops Overall x xxx - xx xx xxx - xx
Maize xx xx - xxx - - - xxx
Ground nuts x xxx - - - xxx xx
Pigeon pea x xxx - - xxx
Rice - - xxx
Soya (bean) x xxx - - xx xxx - -
Sweet potato - - - - xx xxx - xx
Irish potato - xxx - xxx
Beans - xxx - - x xxx - xx
Millet x xx - -
Cassava xx x - xxx
Vegetables x xx - -
Tomatoes xx x - -
Cash crops Overall xxx x - x xxx x - xx
Ground nuts xxx - - xx - x - xxx
Cow peas xxx - - xx - - - xxx
Cotton xxx - - - xxx - - -
Cassava xxx - - -
Tobacco xxx - - - xxx - - -
Pigeon pea - xxx - - - - - xxx
Beans xxx - - xx xxx x - x
Soya (bean) xxx xx - - xx x - x
Sweet potato xxx - - - xx x - xx
Vegetables xxx xx - -
Paprika xxx - - -
Sunflower xxx xx - x
Maize xx x - x
Irish potato xx xx - -
Tomatoes xxx xx -
Onions - xxx - -
Sugarcane xxx - - -
Millet - xx - xx
2. Crops sales
Cotton xxx - - xxx
Soya beans xxx xx - xxx xxx
Cow peas - xxx - xxx
Groundnuts - xxx - xxx xx
Tobacco xxx - - xxx
Tomato xxx xxx - xx
Vegetables xxx xxx -
Sunflower xx xxx
Maize xxx xx
Cassava xxx
Pigeon peas xxx
Beans xxx xx
Onions xxx
Cabbage xxx
Sweet potato xxx
Market search xxx - xxx xxx xxx
3. Sales of Livestock and Livestock Products
Cattle xxx - - xxx x
Goats xxx - - xxx x
Sheep xxx - - xxx
Pigs xxx x - xxx x
Chickens x xxx - x xx x
Eggs - xxx - xxx
Guinea fowl x xxx -
Market search xxx - xxx xxx xxx
Milk xx xxx xx xxx x
(Continued )
12 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
Table 2. Continued.
Who decides in Dedza? Who decides in Mzimba?
Joint (Both men & Joint (Both men &
Type of crops Man Woman Youth women) Man Woman Youth women)
Other household decision-making aspects
4. Purchase of agriculture-related items
Fertilizer xxx xx - xxx xxx - xxx
Treadle pump xxx x - - xxx xx - xx
Seeds xx xxx - xxx xxx - xxx
Pesticides xxx x - - xx xxx
Hoes x xxx - xx - xxx
Ox cart xxx x - - xxx xx -
Axe xxx x - - xx xxx
Chemicals xx xxx -
Sprayers x xx - xx
Watering cane xx xxx
5. Purchase of non-agriculture-related items
Bicycle xxx x xxx xx x
Phone xxx x xx xxx xx xxx
Radio - xxx xxx xx
Television xxx
Iron sheets xxx
Utensils - xxx - - xxx
Clothes xx - xxx - xxx -
Mats - xxx -
Sofa sets xxx
Food (extra after harvest) - - - xxx x xx - xxx
Key
xxx Make most decisions
xx Contributes to some extent to
the decision making
x Contribute very little to decision
making
- None
Blank Non-applicable
Source: PID FGDs Data – Malawi.
Insights on contextualizing gender and youth resources. In both Malawi and Ghana, local communities
inequity indicators in Ghana and Malawi and experts generally considered questions on land-
related indicators on gendered land access germane
The participatory contextualization of gender and
to uncovering gender and intergenerational inequities
youth inequity indicators uncovered similarities and
but reported local sensitivity to questions on gendered
peculiarities across locations. It revealed the suitability
land ownership. The kinship-system type regulating cus-
of data-collection questions, highlighted some ques-
tomary land inheritance and socio-cultural norms ad
tions for indicators that local communities and
practices tended to have some influence.
experts considered sensitive, unacceptable, or irrele-
Many informants (both men and women) in both
vant within the context, and elicited suggestions to
the matrilineal and patrilineal sites considered ques-
reframe and improve questions, with implications for
tions on gendered ownership of land, and intra-house-
the selection of appropriate research methods. We
hold allocation of land parcels based on quality or
summarize in Table 3 the local perceptions on indi-
fertility, culturally controversial and even inappropri-
cators of all four categories of indicators for Ghana
ate. In patrilineal sites, men generally deemed such
and Malawi.
questions a challenge to their authority and privilege
while some women also considered them a potential
Productive resources source of conflict in gendered conjugal and commu-
The PID process revealed context-speci c nuances on nity power relationships. Land ownership, access,fi
issues of access to productive resources, particularly and sometimes land quality were recognized as
land (access, ownership, and quality), asset ownership important dimensions of land rights within SAI.
including livestock, and available human and social However, there was near consensus that although
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 13
men owned and controlled land in the patrilineal Despite the sensitivity associated with some land-
societies, women generally had adequate (though related indicators, there was some agreement that
admittedly declining) access to land, a customary questions of both gendered land ownership and
right further reinforced by the dowry custom. Thus, access linked to quality were relevant for assessing
land access, not ownership, was viewed locally as SAI inclusion and were important to ask in both
the immediately important land-rights issue for inclus- Ghana and Malawi. Some local farmers and experts
ive SAI. The following two quotes clarify this sensitivity were of the view that the question of land quality
over land access and ownership, and the third on gen- would be suitable if modified to focus on gender-
dered and quality-based ownership: neutral aspects/metrics of land quality, or if rephrased
into a third-party perspective to impersonalize them.
According to our culture, land belongs to a man, but a
woman bene ts because the land belongs to her Some informants suggested alternative framing offi
husband and she can decide to go and cultivate questions focusing on efficiency arguments, such as
anytime she wants to do so. Our culture pays lobola asking whether land-fertility status was used to allo-
[bride dowry], and in so doing the woman becomes cate land parcels to particular crops and members of
part of the man’s clan, which means the land also the household. Data collectors could then infer the
belongs to her. (Female Mzimba DAECC member)
gender dimensions of ownership/control from
‘ … to ask who owns each field, I don’t think it is appropri- answers to questions on who had primary responsibil-
ate;’ […] ‘Most of us are used to cultivating fields inher- ity for particular crops. Additionally, more clarity on
ited from out husbands’ clan; so there is no problem at the objectives of the data collection would reduce
all’ (Female youth, Champhira, Mzimba).
resistance.
However,… , where you want to understand whether it’s As for information sources, local stakeholders gen-
the woman or a man who cultivates the infertile land, I erally recommended asking both the male household
am really skeptical if that’s a good question to ask here head and spouse (if not a single-headed household),
in Mzimba. (Mzimba DAECC member)
separately, to allow candidness and avoid conflict:
These sentiments were not universal. A small number The approach should be to ask the couple separately so
of women argued that answers to such questions that you get some reliable information. Because if you
asked by outsiders could serve as the basis for trans- ask them together, the moment you leave, fights
ensue and someone is packing. (Dedza DAECC
forming their communities. ‘It is even the outsiders
member)
who will bring new ideas to the family’, suggested a
woman in Northern Ghana. Context mattered, however. The man was almost uni-
In contrast, questions on land ownership and versally deemed the most appropriate person to ask in
on intra-household gendered allocation based on patrilineal households although the female manager
land quality were generally considered appropriate might provide the most reliable answers. Dependent
and less sensitive in Malawi’s matrilineal site. Most youth were generally not considered reliable infor-
male and female community and expert informants in mation sources.
Dedza – where women nominally have ownership Findings reflect a tendency among women and the
rights and stronger tenure security than men – youth, both groups often marginalized, to ensure that
deemed all the land-related questions locally appropri- their opinions and interests were made visible, not
ate. Common justifications were that the questions suppressed. Women and the youth tended to be
would yield information on sources of the land more open on the contested inequity indicators for
parcels, how they are divided among family members, measuring gendered and intergenerational land
who uses or controls what parcels, and how efficiently rights. Women generally sought more transparency
they are used in relation to land-quality/cropmatching. than adult men did on such questions/metrics. A min-
However, informants in Dedza highlighted growing ority of young people also linked the questions to the
strains in the matrilineal land-inheritance system as shared production of knowledge among locals and
population continues to grow. This leads to increasing experts, resulting in local benefits. Among these pre-
sub-division of available land and subsequent passing dominantly poor rural communities, the local expec-
down of smaller land parcels; growing land scarcity; tation that the research findings would ultimately
and consequent increasing cases of land renting and help in their socioeconomic development was wide-
buying – the very argument for the promotion of SAI. spread, even among local experts.
14 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
Table 3. Summary notes on the participatory customization of the SAI indicators of the social domain in Malawi and Ghana.
Parameters Indicators Suitable or Not Better or alternative ways suggested Reliable person
Malawi Ghana Malawi Ghana Malawi Ghana
Productive resources – Land access and Controversial with no Yes – Appropriate Alternative suggestions NONE Context-driven: men Men
Land and land rights ownership rights consensus. Some provided: Ask men or in patrilineal
expressed women separately. Or ask system and
reluctance. Others each family member what women in
were OK. land they own and control matrilineal
systems – or both
men and women,
but separately
Land quality and Yes – Suitable Yes – Appropriate if the Alternative suggestions NONE Both men and Men
productive value aspect of influence on provided: request to make women, but
access if not evoked it flexible and to not separately.
compare men’s and Youth also may be
women’s land fertility reliable
Influence of land Yes – But controversial NONE Men
quality on land from women’s
access and rights perspective. Women (of
polygamous settings)
oppose this question as it
may affect household
dynamics (revealing
gendered hierarchy)
Productive resources – Crops and farm Yes – Suitable Seemingly not suitable Recall period on farm There is no bold Both men and The household
Crops & Livestock management activities and crops-related distinction and women, but head
management and (Malawi). operations should be absolute rules separately. (patriarch) or
ownership Crops distinction limited to one or two between these Youth also were the first wife.
(cash crops versus months after the end of two types of mentioned. But, in general,
food crops) and the growing season. crops. But, in general, men anybody can
farm management Ideally should be during (if not possible to answer
(Ghana) the prevailing rainy perform separate correctly
season. interview)
Livestock ownership Yes – Suitable Yes – Suitable. More contextual clues NONE Every member of the Males of the
and decision- But some contended it is provided: phrase the household. household
making patterns inappropriate because question as a way to Women mostly
livestock is a family understand the cultural preferred for
property practices concerning each reliable
category of livestock, who information
owns them and who
controls them in terms of
management, but not
directly raise any aspect of
gender equity in decision
making over livestock.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 15
Capacity/Access Access to markets Yes – Suitable Yes – Appropriate NONE NONE Men; more involved. Women and
information Also, the Youth
Individual whose
phone is
registered with
the Agriculture
Commodity
Exchange (ACE)
Access to extension Yes – Suitable Yes – Appropriate NONE NONE Either a man or a Head of the
information and woman, or even household, the
services the youth eldest son, or
the wife (as last
recourse).
Also, any adult
member of the
community
Access to markets - Yes – Appropriate, but not - NONE - The patriarch,
useful (everybody has the wife or
access to market) eldest son
Market participation Yes – Suitable Yes – Suitable NONE NONE Men, more involved Head of the
household, the
eldest son, or
the wives (as
last recourse).
Access to financial Yes – Suitable Yes – Suitable. Avoid starting the interview Privacy is key to Women mostly Loans providers
credits and loans But slightly controversial in with such a question; make getting preferred (rural banks or
the Northern Region clear to the farmers that accurate women’s
(deemed intrusive) the purpose of enquiring is information. village savings
not to police and arrest and loans)
delinquent borrowers Women who
have taken
loans
themselves
Agency/ Overall decision- Controversial and - Ask family members - Either men or
empowerment making complex issue. Many separately. Simulate asking women
(Decision Making, participants were for another family.
time allocation, and reluctant because of
social capital its cultural sensitivity
supported access to (mainly in north);
productive few deemed it
resources) appropriate.
Decision making for Yes – Suitable - NONE - Both men and -
the purchase of women, together.
new items Men are more
indicated
(Continued )
16 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
Table 3. Continued.
Parameters Indicators Suitable or Not Better or alternative ways suggested Reliable person
Malawi Ghana Malawi Ghana Malawi Ghana
Decision-making - Slightly controversial. Many NONE NONE - The household
related to family’s deemed it appropriate. head
croplands However, some
management participants argued it is a
private matter.
Other household Yes – Suitable in Upper NONE The household
decision-making East Region. head or the
and ownership Slight resentment in eldest son.
Northern Region Rarely the wives.
(polygamy setting) as it In such case,
may upset family the first wife in
dynamics particular
Use and control of Yes, but few Yes – Caveat that wrong NONE NONE Both men and The person
income and wage opposition answers would be mostly women, but directly
salary provided separately. Men involved in
mostly preferred earning and
using the
income
Time allocation and Yes – Suitable Yes – Caveat is that it will More contextual clues Ask per activity Both men and Each individual
labour division for not be exact because provided: time spent on an such as the women, but household
farm activities people do not time activity for a specific crop planting women mostly member
themselves is related to either its social season or the preferred
or economic value. growing
Questions of time allocation season.
would be appropriate if
asked with a short time
lag/recall period, such as
days, a week, or a month.
For question related to food
eaten, recall period should
be no longer than a week.
One day is ideal.
Time allocation and Yes – Suitable More contextual clues The best time to Women mostly
labour division for provided: need to clearly ask was at the preferred
livestock define what ‘taking care of’ end of the year
management means. Relevant to to account for
proceed by livestock types, new births.
such as for cattle, for goats,
for sheep, for pigs, etc.
Participation in Yes – Suitable - NONE - Every member of the -
collective action household.
groups Women mostly
preferred for
reliable
information
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 17
Second, asking questions on gendered and inter-
generational household decision making was gener-
ally considered important and appropriate, although
some questions were considered contentious or inap-
propriate (Table 3). In Ghana, informants affirmed suit-
ability of such questions but only if men and women
are asked separately, and after the purpose of the
data collection and potential immediate (e.g. monet-
ary gifts) and long-term (research-derived) benefits
to the community are explained clearly. Questions
on gendered decision making on crops and livestock
management and sale were generally uncontroversial,
if asked for each specific crop or livestock type. Some
informants suggested rephrasing questions for some
indicators to avoid resistance arising from fear of or
embarrassment from exposure of negative aspects
of gender inequity in decision making and livestock
ownership. In Malawi, some informants suggested
asking more generically how each asset, including
livestock, was acquired, and who controls or
manages it; and to impersonalize the questions
beyond the household by couching them as cultural
practices and treating them by asset category.
There were other insights for indicator customiza-
tion from both countries. They included being cau-
tious with questions deemed locally sensitive by one
group without suppressing the voices of other
groups (especially women and youth), and ensuring
that the target/respondent was indeed a farmer. Infor-
mants emphasized specificity by crop/livestock type
and cautioned against using the broad categories of
cash and food crops in relation to decision making
because some crops are grown both for food and
for cash. Even food-production roles were gendered.
In northern Ghana, for instance, men tended to
grow tubers and women vegetables, while shea-nut
(for shea-butter) production in the Savannah zones
is almost exclusively a women’s economic activity.
Agency and empowerment
Communities in Ghana and Malawi affirmed the
importance of seeking information on social capital,
SC (leadership, participation in groups, social cohe-
sion) or collective agency, as most participating
members considered it important in empowering indi-
vidual farmers and in the sharing of SAI benefits and
burdens. Local experts rated SC metrics as moderately
to highly suitable in assessing parity in SAI benefit
sharing. In this section, we focus on indicator customi-
zation for instrumental collective agency (decision-
making on agricultural production, resources
Social cohesion Yes – Suitable - NONE - Every member of the -
indicator household.
Women mostly
preferred for
reliable
information
Achievement: Men and women’s Controversial with no Yes- Should be explained clearly, NONE Women mostly Medical
Nutrition, food health status clear agreement especially the underlying preferred personnel
security, health using health reasons. (nurses in local
passports health centres)
Children’s nutrition/ Yes – Suitable Yes NONE NONE Women mostly Health centres
food security preferred Medical
status using personnel
health passport (nurses in local
health centres)
Source: PID Data – Malawi and Ghana.
18 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
ownership and control, control over income, and time information. As an illustration, one young male in
allocation) and intrinsic agency (intra-household Mzimba indicated that some young men in the area
relations). had accessed higher education opportunities
Most prominently for Malawi, participation in col- through group participation in projects.
lective action groups, group leadership, and high Findings also affirmed the gendered and age-
levels of community cohesion emerged as major dependent nature of time allocation to agricultural
boosts to the SC needed to access productive and related activities, and burden sharing, often to
resources. First, community members and local the disadvantage of women in aggregate; hence, the
experts considered participation in agriculture- need to collect information on it. Informants in both
related groups, generically, important to access pro- countries also underscored the value of the time-allo-
ductive resources because Malawi uses the group cation indicator as a proxy for agency, the uneven
approach as the core of its agricultural extension burden (costs) imposed by SAI investments,
system. Farmer groups are used as the main conduit efficiency in time use by household members, and
to farmers (both men and women) for external agricul- as an indicator of the availability of time for new SAI
tural inputs, including improved seed, fertilizers, interventions. Collecting information from men,
micro-credit, new technologies and extensions ser- women, male and female youth was emphasized.
vices. Further, training from projects, schemes and Informants in both countries highlighted the need
other providers are done through these farmer for a brief recall period for information sought –within
groups. The value of membership in such groups 1–2 months after harvest for most agricultural activi-
was clear and uncontested: ties. For livestock, asking right at the end of the
season was recommended. For a nutritional record
‘People who participate in community groups benefit
more than people who do not belong to any community of food consumed, most recommended no more
group’ (district extension officer, Dedza); ‘people who par- than a week after the food was eaten to avoid
ticipate in several groups benefit [even] more, for memory decay. Alternatively, informants suggested
instance, they are able to access loans and sell their giving selected farmers custom logs to record times
produce in bulk at better prices;’ and ‘people who hold spent on each agricultural activity or to record daily
leadership positions benefit more than those who are
just members [as] every opportunity falls in the hands food intake (type, amount, timing) for specified
of leaders first before spreading to other members’. desired periods. While this is already part of good
(Senior Irrigation Engineer, Dedza) survey and participatory research practice, it is not
done often or systematically, and the recall periods
Second, participation in women’s Village Savings and
imposed do not always match what the farmers indi-
Loans (VSL) groups, specifically, emerged as a critical
cate were the most appropriate.
indicator for women’s economic empowerment
through assured access to locally saved intra-group
credit. VSL and similar savings groups were considered Capacity – access to markets, market
an essential entry point to mitigate adverse gender information, and extension services
and age-based inequities in accessing SAI benefits. Access to extension services and market information
Women use the revolving credit to advance their indi- was gendered and age-dependent in both countries.
vidual and family welfare directly or through invest- Reliable information sources to detect gender/age
ments in agriculture or other businesses. inequities were men, women, and the youth, asked
separately. Men tended to dominate information on
We access things easily that improve our lives and markets and access to extension services although
farming skills, unlike those who do not participate in
clubs. Those that are not participating cannot access a such access was generally limited for Malawi sites.
treadle pump because they give them out through Limited mobility might give an advantage to women
clubs. Yes, because the benefit of being in a club is that on accessing extension services, though only a
you access loans and other extension services easily. single community member mentioned it:
For those in village savings and loans [groups], they are
able to get a loan and use it, for example, for contract Women have more access because they spend more time
labor in your farm. (community member, Golomoti – at home than men, so extension information is easily
Dedza) passed through them. (ASP member, Golomoti -Dedza)
Informants in both countries indicated the need to ask Findings also underscore the need to be specific about
men, women, and the youth, separately, for reliable the agricultural activity in question. The youth were
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 19
important in sourcing information from the radio, appropriate, generally multiple (men, women, the
mobile and other electronic sources, and from youth), members of the household to collect reliable
distant markets, justifying collection of indicator infor- and holistic information. Women’s locally perceived
mation from them, too. Higher levels of education tendency to seek more transparency and be more
help the youth to understand such information and trustworthy than men in providing candid information
related technologies better. on sensitive issues that illuminate inequities favouring
men illustrate that the traditional practice of collecting
Achievement – nutrition, food security and information only from household heads risks conceal-
health ing and reinforcing, rather than uncovering, the
We examined the suitability of indicators for assessing gender and age-based inequities.
achievements in wellbeing, gender inequity in men’s Findings from other studies affirm these local con-
and women’s health, children’s nutrition, and food- cerns and the call for interviewing multiple household
security status. Community members and local members. Fisher et al. (2010) found that the accuracy
experts in both countries rated nutrition/food security of answers given by household heads (predominantly
status indicators as the most suitable among all others male) was unreliable and could mislead policy inter-
(Table 3). Informants generally considered collecting ventions in Malawi. In rural Tanzania, a ‘lack of intra-
information on the nutritional status of under-five chil- household accord’ meant that ‘husbands and wives
dren, men, women and youth from the medical-record interviewed separately frequently disagree with each
book (health passport – Malawi) appropriate, but not other on who holds authority over key farming,
about other health conditions/diseases. Reasons family, and livelihood decisions’ (Anderson et al.,
included perceived poor linkage between health and 2017; Djurfeldt et al., 2018). Inadequacies of the tra-
agriculture, and privacy concerns (e.g. over revelation ditional definitions of a household (Beaman & Dillon,
of HIV/AIDS status). Informants suggested having 2012; Randall et al., 2015) further lend support for
health personnel in the data-collection team to the suggested alternatives.
collect the health information from medical-record PID findings also challenge standard assumptions
books, and providing a clear explanation of the about land rights, including the privileging of data col-
reasons for data collection to mitigate confidentiality lection on land ownership indicators over land access,
concerns. Women emerged as the most reliable infor- and support collecting gender- and age-segregated
mation source for the nutrition and health indicators information on land access and quality as well owner-
because of their caregiving roles. ship. Findings further suggest caution in asking ques-
tions on land ownership because of associated
sensitivity in some contexts. Significantly, local stake-
Discussions
holders considered land access and quality more rel-
What is the comparative qualitative advantage of cus- evant as indicators than outright ownership, as Doss
tomizing standard social indicators of SAI to detect et al. (2018) suggest. Informants in the patrilineal
context-appropriate gender and intergenerational sites of both countries generally perceived women
inequities in the sharing of SAI benefits and to have reasonable access to agricultural land
burdens? This question guides our discussion of whereas adult and young males in matrilineal Dedza
findings. appeared to fare less well in accessing land from
First, findings problematize the traditional survey wives and female relatives. In Ghana, informants
method and its reliance on the now-contested urged for going beyond technical standard questions
notion of a unitary, nuclear, male-headed farming on land access by including metrics on the quality of
household composed of close family members who land that women and men access in order to
share strong bonds and an unspoken social contract capture nuanced gender differences. In both
to cooperate together (Netting, 1993). The findings countries, respondents suggested enhancements to
confirm the common local reality of a more flexible, standard household interview conduct. These
internally differentiated household of related individ- include using different or additional research
uals with looser bonds, and differences across methods that allow strategies such as seeking infor-
diverse area/country contexts. Local farmers and mation on land ownership from non-household
experts highlighted the need for alternative data-col- members (e.g. clan or traditional leaders), using
lecting methods that allow interviewing the open-ended questions, or impersonalizing questions.
20 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
Doss et al. (2015) also recognize the need for new, clear definition of joint decision-making when asking
locally-relevant metrics on land rights that include questions lest it be confused with joint management.
both individual and joint ownership, and using ancil- Findings on age segregation showed that the youth
lary documentation to enhance information quality. are generally neglected in decision-making, access to
Women’s negotiated access to autonomous culti- land and finances, participation in SAI projects and
vation to earn personal income emerged as a benefits sharing, and in equity analyses, despite the
growing practice and significant measure of their many strengths they can bring. This underlines the
agency and empowerment. The perceived higher fre- locally-recognized importance of collecting infor-
quency of this gender-inequity corrective strategy mation from youth directly while adhering to research
among older couples highlights the need for collect- ethics and recognizing cost–benefit implications that
ing age-specific information. As with findings from might need further analysis. Young women were
studies in Ghana and elsewhere (e.g. Malapit et al., doubly disadvantaged by both age and sex, as
2019; Meinzen-Dick et al., 2019; Schroeder, 1999), evident in their relative exclusion in decision-making
local insights highlighted the positive multiplier processes and their limited access to productive
effect when women gain in economic autonomy resources. While definitions and perceptions of who
from such independent agricultural production. the youth are varied across sites, they influenced
Women’s quality of life and that of their families and who is excluded or not from decision making and
communities also consequently improve. Women access to resources, and require clarity in indicator
also gain intrinsic agency (Malapit et al., 2019) via definition and data collection. Notably at all the sites,
intra-household power to bargain for other rights. adult respondents expressed the importance of the
PID findings show the importance of collecting not youth for sustaining agriculture into the future. Col-
only information on social capital (collective agency) lecting information on youth engagement in agricul-
indicators, but also specifically on the type of organiz- tural entrepreneurship, non-traditional cash crops,
ation that women, men and the youth participate in. In irrigation and activities involving use of modern tech-
Malawi, membership in savings and loans (VSL) nologies (e.g. mobile phones and the Internet to
groups emerged as exceptionally empowering for access information and services), emerged as impor-
women economically by giving them access to small tant in capturing the youth’s energy, creativity, and
loans from local group savings. Further, participation positive contributions, as well as patterns of inequity
in farmer groups/clubs provided access to external that drive their exclusion. The knowledge gained can
productive resources (farm inputs, micro-credit and reveal entry points for enhancing youth engagement
others), and extension services and information. The and benefits from SAI investments. The PID process
pro-WEAI tool includes questions on group member- revealed the need to adopt an intersectional approach
ship and membership in influential groups, but the that combines youth and gender analysis despite
developers acknowledge the need for potential challenges associated with it (Grünenfelder
additional collective-agency indicators (Malapit et al., & Schurr, 2015). We address the youth and their
2019). Local informants deemed the additional SC engagement in SAI in a separate publication.
indicators that we included (social cohesion, holding Despite significant agreement on perceived pat-
leadership positions, and level of social support) terns of gender and age-based inequities, on the suit-
appropriate and relevant, a potential contribution ability of indicators/questions, who to ask and how,
into the WEAI. some cross-country differences that underscore the
Given the near-consensus that the activity of crop value of PID emerged. For instance, on marketing agri-
and livestock marketing, particularly who makes the cultural products, women dominated in Ghana and
decision to sell and who performs the selling, men in Malawi. Differences in perceptions of land
influenced SAI benefits sharing, an indicator on rela- ownership and access reflected cultural differences
tive levels of mobility by women, men and youth surrounding gender norms and relations. In particular,
would be important to add to inequity indicators the kinship system mattered. Whether a respondent
because some respondents cited it as influencing lived under a matriarchal or patriarchal system
market participation. Another significant finding was appeared to influence his/her views on the suitability
the surprisingly high levels of shared/joint intra- of some indicators/questions, particularly on land
household decision-making reported (Table 2). issues. For instance, men and women in matrilineal
However, this might also suggest the need for a Dedza were relatively more accepting of transparency
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 21
on questions of gendered analysis of land quality than to local contexts. The PID approach revealed
in patrilineal Mzimba and Ghana where the questions different ways to frame some indicators from diverse
were more roundly considered unsuitable. As perspectives (of local experts, farming communities,
expected, men in Dedza also tended to express land and researchers), locations, and times. It can provide
insecurities more than in the patrilineal sites. These guidance to researchers, decision makers, project
findings illustrate the importance of the PID process managers, and donors wishing to collect data to
to guard against male bias, making reductionist guide decision making on fostering equitable
assumptions, and using overly generalized indicator benefits- and cost-sharing from SAI investments
questions in data collection, especially as local situ- among men, women, male and female youth.
ations continue to change. Ensuring data collected captures relevant local cultural
On process, findings also highlight the need for PID specificities to detect inequities in gender and youth
to combine the views of external researchers with benefits from SAI is of the utmost importance. Our
those of diverse local stakeholders, including commu- study also contributes to emerging scholarship on
nity members and field experts or programme/project improving survey questions on women’s empower-
implementers who are expected to use the indicators. ment through cognitive interviewing (e.g. Hannan
Different stakeholder groups often provided unique et al., 2019; Malapit et al., 2019).
but complementary contextualization perspectives,
creating a holistic picture of reality. Thus, responding
Conclusion
farmers in Ghana deemed inconceivable the situation
where patriarchs benefitted from SAI gains We used KIIs and FGDs to capture local community
while women or the youth did not, although five and expert views on intra-household patterns and
local experts cited manifestations of that very occur- signs of gendered and intergenerational inequities in
rence. Interviewing only farmers might have provided sharing SAI benefits; to customize standard SAI indi-
incomplete/incorrect information. While the idea is to cators of gender and youth inequities to local contexts
have metrics that capture the widest range of possible in Malawi and Ghana using a PID approach; and to
answers based on the realities of a particular site, con- assess the comparative advantage of conducting
textualization can also raise the common issue of such customization in terms of the quality of infor-
researcher positionality and subjectivity about whose mation. The goal is to contribute to making SAI invest-
views (local experts, farmers, or the researchers) they ments more inclusive. Standard quantitative indicators
assign more validity to within the PID process. tend to miss important local dynamics that drive
Further, local farmers’ views are not always necessarily gender/age inequities, making them of limited local
‘correct.’ There is need to plan and use triangulated relevance.
data collection to guard against taking erroneous or First, the PID approach uncovered locally-specific
incomplete information as fact, and against reinfor- indications and patterns of intra-household inequities
cing respondent perspectives that internalize or socia- in the sharing of SAI benefits among men, women,
lize gender norms, which might not be in women’s or and youth in both countries, often in favour or men
men’s strategic interests. Triangulation helps to guard over women and youth, adults over youth, and male
against the temptation to accept uncritically that over female youth. Inequitable participation in
because local farmers said that something is sensitive produce marketing, decision making (especially on
or inappropriate, then we should not collect data on it, crop/livestock choices, selling and marketing, and on
even if the data can help to uncover gender inequities. household expenditures), and in agricultural projects
Rather, the PID process we used provides not only a were perceived as main centres/loci of inequity,
sensitizing device to anticipate how potential respon- revealing potential areas of focus for SAI gender/age
dents view particular questions, but also practical equity indicators and interventions. Findings also
insights on how locally-sensitive questions might be revealed women’s agency to mitigate such inequities
rephrased and data-collection methods adjusted to in both countries, notably negotiating for intra-house-
allow the ethical collection of accurate information hold (sometimes extra-household) land access for
for indicator metrics with minimal respondent autonomous cash-crop cultivation to earn personal
discomfort. income and some economic autonomy (mostly
Ultimately, the PID process illustrated that there among older couples), and for joint intra-household
was no single ‘right’ way to customize SAI indicators decision making on agricultural activities and other
22 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
issues. These context-specific differences, including process points to the need for an intersectional
men dominating agricultural produce marketing in approach that integrates age differentiation into
Malawi and women in Ghana, the influence of gender analysis to detect both gender and youth
kinship systems on gendered and intergenerational inequities (Grabowski et al., this issue). More broadly,
access to land, and in some aspects of gender/age findings show the value of using a PID approach to
inequity, affirm the differential impacts of SAI on contribute to translating SAI indicators from theory –
these groups and illustrate the value of indicator such as the Sustainable Intensification Analytical Fra-
customization. mework – into practice and to emerging scholarship
Second, the PID approach showed the potential to on the notion of cognitive interviewing to enhance
enhance indicators and data-collection approaches gender analysis in agriculture.
for locally relevant and high quality information to
inform decision making on gender and age-based
SAI inequities. It yielded practical insights on the Note
context-appropriateness of indicators and associated 1. We use the phrase costs and benefits to capture broadly
questions, who and how to ask questions, and alterna- and qualitatively both the burdens or disadvantages and
tive ways to phrase some questions or collect data. The advantages for men, women, and the youth arising from
PID process not only helped to identify inequity indi- SAI investments; not in reference to formal economic
cost-and-benefit analysis, which also has its silences and
cators that are locally sensitive or controversial— poorly supported claims (Kabeer, 1994).
often those that challenge men’s authority or
benefits, indicators/questions on gendered land
rights and household expenditures, and on adult Acknowledgements
health—but also offered insights on how to deal
with some of them. Suggestions included generalizing We wish to thank all the local community members and local
experts in the study sites in Malawi and Ghana who generously
questions (e.g. using a third-party voice), better expla- gave their time to participate in the research. We all thank all the
nation of data-collection objectives, collecting infor- research assistants in both Malawi (Gabriel Sajeni, Pemphero
mation from knowledgeable ancillary sources, and Majawa, Stanly Chirwa and Lydia Sichali) and Ghana for their
interviewing multiple household members (men, excellent work.
women, and male and female youth), preferably separ-
ately. Combined, community and expert perspectives
offered holistic practical insights for the customization Disclosure statement
of inequity indicators to inform evidence-based No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
decision making to foster gender and youth inclusive
SAI.
Finally, while acknowledging the qualitative and Funding
sample-size limitations, the study contributes to The Achieving Equitable Benefits from SAI through Effective
knowledge and practice by providing practical Tools and Metrics, Project S35, was funded by UKaid, the UK
insights to enhance data collection, and can serve as government, under the Sustainable Intensification Research
a sensitizing concept to guide the design of locally and Learning in Africa (SAIRLA) programme. The views expressed
in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily
appropriate and relevant indicators of gender and reflect the UK government’s official policies; Department for
intergenerational inequity in SAI, and that of data-col- International Development.
lection methods and instruments. It contributes to
works that problematize conventional data-collection
approaches dominated by household survey Notes on contributors
methods and the orthodox practice of collecting Dr. Leo C. Zulu is broadly trained natural and social scientist
such data primarily from household heads. The PID examining nature/society interactions. His research includes
process instead affirmed the emerging conclusion community natural resources management, agroecological and
that in order to get holistic and reliable information, community dynamics of agricultural development including
one needs to interview multiple members of the gender, sustainable solid biomass energy development, rural
livelihoods, social forestry, the food/water/energy/health nexus,
household (men, women, male and female youth). climate change adaptation and sustainable development. He
Further, given the underdevelopment of indicators also has extensive professional experience working in forestry
and tools for assessing youth inequities, the PID and biodiversity conservation in Malawi and southern Africa.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 23
Ida N. S. Djenontin is a doctoral candidate for a dual PhD degree ORCID
in human geography (Human-Environment Relationships) and in
Environmental Science and Policy Program at Michigan State Leo C. Zulu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7123-4918
University. Her current research interests lie at the intersection Ida N. S. Djenontin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0991-5701
of environmental governance and international development, Akosua Darkwah http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2713-4407
building upon her diverse ongoing and prior research on agricul- Jessica Kampanje-Phiri http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3712-7246
ture farming systems & policy analysis, sustainable rural liveli- Gundula Fischer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7658-786X
hoods, climate change, decentralized environmental Philip Grabowski http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-2908
governance and knowledge co-production in environmental Irene Egyir http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2067-8946
management. She integrates natural and social sciences per-
spectives in interdisciplinary research using mixed qualitative
and quantitative statistical, modeling and spatial analytical References
methods. Anderson, C. L., Reynolds, T. W., & Gugerty, M. K. (2017). Husband
Dr. Akosua Darkwah is Associate Professor in the Department and wife perspectives on farm household decision-making
of Sociology at the University of Ghana. Her broad area of authority and evidence on intra-household accord in rural
research interests is gender studies. Specifically, she looks at Tanzania. World development, 90, 169–183.
the ways in which gender reconfigures work in the Ghanaian Apusigah, A. A. (2009). The gendered politics of farm household
context. production and the shaping of women’s livelihoods in
Dr. Judith Kamoto is a Senior Lecturer and Deputy Principal of Northern Ghana. Feminist Africa, 12(12), 51–67.
Bunda College, LUANAR, with expertise in Development Asare-kyei, D. K., Kloos, J., & Renaud, F. G. (2015). Multi-scale par-
Studies and supporting degrees in tropical forestry, and agricul- ticipatory indicator development approaches for climate
ture. She conducts interdisciplinary research on agriculture, change risk assessment in West Africa. International Journal
environment, forestry and other natural resources, gender of Disaster Risk Reduction, 11, 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/
dynamics of agriculture/environment and development, j.ijdrr.2014.11.001
climate change, and related policy analysis. She was the Beaman, L., & Dillon, A. (2012). Do household definitions matter
Malawi Research Team Leader for the collaborative research in survey design? Results from a randomized survey exper-
project, Achieving Equitable Benefits from Sustainable Agricul- iment in Mali. Journal of Development Economics, 98(1), 124–
ture Intensi cation through Tools and Metrics under the Sustain- 135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.06.005fi
able Agriculture Intensification Research and Learning Alliance Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts.
(SAIRLA) program, in partnership with the University of Ghana, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12–23.
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), and Michigan https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500304
State University. Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis
of experience. World development, 22(9), 1253–1268.
Jessica Kampanje-Phiri (PhD) is a social anthropologist special- Chant, S. (2006). Re-thinking the “feminization of poverty” in
ized in understanding the cultural dimension of food systems relation to aggregate gender indices. Journal of Human
in Malawi and beyond. Her specific areas of academic and Development, 7(2), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/
research expertise include: sustainable agriculture intensifica- 14649880600768538
tion, food and nutrition policy analysis, the natural, social, politi- Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of
cal, institutional, economic, cultural, and technological aspects of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis.
food, poverty and livelihood security, power and gender Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–
relations, social-cultural inequalities, humanitarian interventions 810. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608
and development assistance. Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality,
Dr. Gundula Fischer is a social anthropologist with a specializ- identity politics, and violence against women of color.
ation in gender relations in agriculture. She has conducted Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1300. https://doi.org/10.
research in sustainable intensification contexts in various 2307/1229039
African countries. An Associate Professor of Agricultural Econ- Dijkstra, A. G., & Hanmer, L. C. (2000). Measuring socio-economic
omics and Agribusiness. gender inequality: Toward an alternative to the UNDP gender-
related development index. Feminist Economics, 6(2), 41–75.
Dr. Philip Grabowski connects economic and environmental https://doi.org/10.1080/13545700050076106
perspectives as he researches sustainable agricultural develop- Dijkstra, A. G., & Hanmer, L. C. (2000). Measuring socio-economic
ment. His focus areas include assessing adoption of sustainable gender inequality: Toward an alternative to the UNDP gender
farming practices, developing indicators for sustainable intensifi- related development index. Feminist Economics, 6(2), 41–75.
cation and fostering local food systems. Djurfeldt, A. A., Hillbom, E., Mulwafu, W. O., Mvula, P., & Djurfeldt,
Dr. Irene Egyir has been a lecturer in the University of Ghana G. (2018). "The family farms together, the decisions, however
since 1995 and has researched widely in areas related to are made by the man”—Matrilineal land tenure systems,
agricultural resource development, smallholder farm welfare and decision making in rural Malawi. Land use
business, and inclusiveness. She consults for a number of policy, 70, 601–610.
local and foreign development-oriented organizations, Dogra, N. (2011). The mixed metaphor of ‘Third World Woman’:
especially on mainstreaming gender and youth issues in Gendered representations by international development
agriculture. NGOs. Third World Quarterly, 32(2), 333–348.
24 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
Dookie, C., Lambrou, Y., & Petrics, H. (2013). A tool for gender-sen- in Practice, 25(6), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.
sitive agriculture and rural development policy and programme 2015.1059800
formulation: Guidelines for Ministries of Agriculture and FAO. Guijt, I. (1998). Participatory monitoring and impact assessment of
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations sustainable agriculture initiatives: An introduction to the key
(FAO). elements (No. 1). IIED.
Doss, C. (2014). If women hold up half the sky, how much of the Gumucio, T., Huyer, S., Hansen, J., Simelton, E., Partey, S., &
world’s food do they produce? In A. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen- Schwager, S. 2018. Inclusion of gender equality in monitoring
Dick, T. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. Behrman, & A. Peterman and evaluation of climate services. CCAFS Working Paper no.
(Eds.), Gender in agriculture and food security: Closing the 249. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,
knowledge gap. Springer and FAO. http://link.springer.com/ Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
book/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4. Hannan, A., Heckert, J., James-Hawkins, L., & Yount, K. M. (2019).
Doss, C. R. (2002). Men’s crops? Women’s crops? The gender pat- Cognitive interviewing to improve women’s empowerment
terns of cropping in Ghana.World Development, 30(11), 1987– questions in surveys: Application to the health, nutrition,
2000. and intrahousehold relationships modules for the project-
Doss, C., Kovarik, C., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A., & van den level women’s empowerment in agriculture index. Maternal
Bold, M. (2015). Gender inequalities in ownership and & Child Nutrition, 16. e12871. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.
control of land in Africa: Myth and reality. Agricultural 12871.
Economics, 46(3), 403–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec. Hemminger, K., Bock, B., Groot, J., Michalscheck, M., & Timler, C.
12171 (2014). Towards integrated assessment of gender relations
Doss, C., Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., & Theis, S. (2018). in farming systems analysis (Doctoral dissertation, MSc
Women in agriculture: Four myths. Global Food Security, 16, thesis, Wageningen University (also presented as a poster
69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.001 with the coauthors at Tropentag 2014)).
Durham, D. (2000). Youth and the social imagination in Hochfeld, T., & Bassadien, S. R. (2007). Participation, values, and
Africa: Introduction to parts 1 and 2. Anthropological implementation: Three research challenges in developing
Quarterly, 73(3), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1353/anq. gender-sensitive indicators. Gender & Development, 15(2),
2000.0003 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070701391516
Durham, D. (2004). Disappearing youth: Youth as a social shifter Hudson-Weems, C. (1993). Africana womanism: Reclaiming our-
in Botswana. American Ethnologist, 31(4), 589–605. https://doi. selves. Bedford Publications.
org/10.1525/ae.2004.31.4.589 IFAD. (2015). Youth access to rural finance. Inclusive rural
Fernández-Kelly, P. (2012). Making sense of the other: financial services. Lessons Learned series.
Ethnographic methods and immigration research. In S. J. Kabeer, N. (1994). Reversed realities: Gender hierarchies in develop-
Gold & S. J. Nawyn (Eds.), Routledge international handbook ment thought. Verso.
of migration studies (pp. 494–505). Routledge. Kabeer, N. (1999). The conditions and consequences of choice:
Fisher, M., Reimer, J. J., & Carr, E. R. (2010). Who should be inter- reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment
viewed in surveys of household income? World Development, (Vol. 108, pp. 1-58). Geneva: UNRISD
38(7), 966–973. Kanter, D. R., Musumba, M., Wood, S. L., Palm, C., Antle, J.,
Fraser, E. D., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. Balvanera, P., & Thornton, P. (2018). Evaluating agricultural
(2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory trade-offs in the age of sustainable development.
processes for sustainability indicator identification as a Agricultural Systems, 163, 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pathway to community empowerment and sustainable agsy.2016.09.010
environmental management. Journal of Environmental Kerr, R. B. (2005). Food security in northern Malawi: gender,
Management, 78(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. kinship relations and entitlements in historical context.
jenvman.2005.04.009 Journal of Southern African Studies, 31(1), 53–74.
Freebairn, D. M., & King, C. A. (2003). Reflections on collectively Kerr, R. B., Snapp, S., Chirwa, M., Shumba, L., & Msachi, R. (2007).
working toward sustainability: Indicators for indicators! Participatory research on legume diversification with
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 43(3), 223–238. Malawian smallholder farmers for improved human nutrition
https://doi.org/10.1071/EA00195 and soil fertility. Experimental Agriculture, 43(4), 437–453.
Gergen, M. M. (1988). Toward a feminist metatheory and meth- https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479707005339
odology in the social sciences. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), King, C., Gunton, J., Freebairn, D., Coutts, J., & Webb, I. (2000). The
Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 87– sustainability indicator industry: Where to from here? A focus
104). New York University Press. group study to explore the potential of farmer participation in
Gouws, A. (1996). Feminist epistemology and representation: the development of indicators. Australian Journal of
The impact of post-modernism and post-colonialism. Experimental Agriculture, 40(4), 631–642. https://doi.org/10.
Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, 30, 65–82. 1071/EA99148
Philip P. G., Ida N. S. Djenontin, Leo C. Z., Judith F. K., Jessica, K.-P., Longino, H. (1993). Subjects, power and knowledge: Description
Akosua, D., Irene, E., Gundula, F. this issue. Gender- and youth- and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In L.
sensitive data collection tools in agriculture interventions: Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 101–
informing and enabling inclusive SAI. 120). New York: Routledge.
Grünenfelder, J., & Schurr, C. (2015). Intersectionality – A chal- Malapit, H., Kovarik, C., Sproule, K., Meinzen-Dick, R., &
lenge for development research and practice? Development Quisumbing, A. R. (2015). Instructional guide on the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 25
abbreviated women’s empowerment in agriculture index (A- Africa since independence. Sage Open, 5(2),
WEAI). International Food Policy Research Institute. 2158244015589353. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015589353
Malapit, H., Quisumbing, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Seymour, G., Rasmussen, L. V., Bierbaum, R., Oldekop, J. A., & Agrawal, A.
Martinez, E. M., Heckert, J., & Team, S. (2019). Development (2017). Bridging the practitioner-researcher divide: Indicators
of the project-level women’s empowerment in agriculture to track environmental, economic, and sociocultural sustain-
index (pro-WEAI). World Development, 122, 675–692. https:// ability of agricultural commodity production. Global
doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.018 Environmental Change, 42, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Mapila, M. A. (2014). Agricultural policy processes and the youth gloenvcha.2016.12.001
in Malawi: IFPRI. Reed, M., Dougill, A., & Baker, T. (2008). Participatory indicator
Meinzen-Dick, R., Kovarik, C., & Quisumbing, A. R. (2014). Gender development what can ecologists and local communities
and sustainability. Annual Review of Environment and learn from each other? Ecological Applications, 18(5), 1253–
Resources, 39, 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- 1269. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0519.1
environ-101813-013240 Rosenstro, U., & Kyllo, S. (2007). Impacts of a participatory
Meinzen-Dick, R. S., Rubin, D., Elias, M., Mulema, A. A., & Myers, E. approach to developing national level sustainable develop-
(2019). Women’s empowerment in agriculture: Lessons from ment indicators in Finland. Journal of Environmental.
qualitative research (Vol. 1797). Intl Food Policy Res Inst. Management, 84, 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Mohan, D., Prabhakar, S. V. R. K., & Upadhyay, H. (2017). jenvman.2006.06.008
Identifying adaptation effectiveness indicators using partici- Roy, R., Chan, N. W., & Rainis, R. (2013). Development of indicators
patory approaches: A case study from the Gangetic Basin. for sustainable rice farming in Bangladesh: A case study with
Climate and Development, 11(0), 287–301. https://doi.org/10. participative multi-stakeholder involvement. World Applied
1080/17565529.2017.1401523 Science Journal, 22(5), 672–682. http://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.
Morgan, M. (2014). Measuring gender transformative change wasj.2013.22.05.2890.
(Program Brief No. AAS-2014-41). CGIAR Research Program Rukuni, M. (2016). Study on the impact of land tenure systems on
on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. agricultural transformation in Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania
Musumba, M., Grabowski, P., Palm, C., & Snapp, S. S. (2017). Guide and Zambia Volume 1: Main Report. 1(December), 1–70.
for the sustainable intensification assessment framework. Schroeder, R. A. (1999). Shady practices: Agroforestry and gender
Naamwintome, B. A., & Bagson, E. (2013). Youth in agriculture: politics in the Gambia (Vol. 5). Univ of California Press.
Prospects and challenges in the Sissala area of Ghana. Net Smith, A., Snapp, S., Chikowo, R., Thorne, P., Bekunda, M., &
Journal of Agricultural Science, 1(2), 60–68. Glover, J. (2017). Measuring sustainable intensification in
Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, smallholder agroecosystems: A review. Global Food Security,
89(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2008.4 12, 127–138.
Netting, R. M. (1993). Smallholders, householders: Farm families Snyder, K. A., & Cullen, B. (2014). Implications of sustainable agri-
and the ecology of intensive, sustainable agriculture. Stanford cultural intensification for family farming in Africa:
University Press. Anthropological perspectives. Anthropological Notebooks, 20,
Ngwira, B. N. (n.d.). Women’s property and inheritance rights and 9–29. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/53063.
the land reform process in Malawi 1. 1–21. Stearns, N. P. (2015). Gender in world history. Routledge.
Nightingale, A. (2006). The nature of gender: work, gender, and Torri, M. C. (2010). Power, structure, gender relations and com-
environment. Environment and planning D: Society and munity-based conservation: The Cawswe Study of the
Space, 24(2), 165–185. Sariska Region,Rajasthan, India. Journal of International
Owen, G., & Goldin, J. (2015). Assessing the relationship between Women’s Studies, 11(4), 1–18.
youth capabilities and food security: A case study of a rain- Underwood, C. R., Leddy, A. M., & Morgan, M. (2014). Gender-
water harvesting project in South Africa. Water SA, 41(4), equity or gender-equality scales and indices for potential use
541–548. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v41i4.14 in aquatic agricultural systems. WorldFish.
Peters, P. E. (1997). Against the odds: Matriliny, land and gender Van der Merwe, S. E., Biggs, R., Preiser, R., Cunningham, C.,
in the Shire Highlands of Malawi. Critique of Anthropology, 17 Snowden, D. J., O’Brien, K., Jenal, M., Vosloo, M., Blignaut, S.,
(2), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X9701700205 & Goh, Z. (2019). Making sense of complexity: Using sense-
Peters, P. E. (2010). “Our daughters inherit our land, but our sons maker as a research tool. Systems, 7(2), 25. https://doi.org/
use their wives’ fields”: Matrilineal-matrilocal land tenure and 10.3390/systems7020025
the new land policy in Malawi. Journal of Eastern African Van Gyampo, R. E., & Obeng-odoom, F. (2013). Youth partici-
Studies, 4(1), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1753105090 pation in local and national development in Ghana: 1620–
3556717 2013 by. 5(9), 129–150.
Pretty, J., Benton, T. G., Bharucha, Z. P., Dicks, L. V., Flora, C. B., Van Houweling, E., Hall, R. P., Diop, A. S., Davis, J., & Seiss, M.
Godfray, H. C. J., Goulson, D., Hartley, S., Lampkin, N., Morris, (2012). The role of productive water use in women’s liveli-
C., Pierzynski, G., Prasad, P. V. V., Reganold, J., Rockström, J., hoods: Evidence from rural Senegal. Water Alternatives, 5(3),
Smith, P., Thorne, P., & Wratten, S. (2018). Global assessment 658–677.
of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Wanyeki, L. M. (2003). Women and land in Africa: culture, religion
Nature Sustainability, 1(8), 441–446. https://doi.org/10.1038/ and realizing women’s rights. New Africa Books.
s41893-018-0114-0 Winker, G., & Degele, N. (2011). Intersectionality as multi-level
Randall, S., Coast, E., Antoine, P., Compaore, N., Dial, F. B., Fanghanel, analysis: Dealing with social inequality. European Journal of
A., Gning, S. B., Thiombiano, B. G., Golaz, V., & Wandera, S. O. Women’s Studies, 18(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/
(2015). UN census “households” and local interpretations in 1350506810386084
26 L. C. ZULU ET AL.
Yegbemey, R. N., Yabi, J. A., Dossa, C., & Bauer, S. (2014). Novel participatory indicators of sustainability reveal weaknesses of maize
cropping in Benin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0214-9
Yount, K. M., Cheong, Y. F., Maxwell, L., Heckert, J., Martinez, E. M., & Seymour, G. (2019). Measurement properties of the project-level
Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index. World Development, 124, 104639.
Zimmerer, K. S., Carney, J. A., & Vanek, S. J. (2015). Sustainable smallholder intensification in global change? Pivotal spatial interactions,
gendered livelihoods, and agrobiodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2015.03.004
Zurek, M., Keenlyside, P., & Brandt, K. (2015). Intensifying agricultural production sustainably: A framework for analysis and decision
support.
Appendix 1
Table A1. Summary of the sampling for Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) in Malawi.
Research Areas Data Dedza – Central Malawi (Matrilineal) Mzimba – Northern Malawi (Patrilineal)
collection types
Focus Group 1 FGD at District level with Technical agricultural officers 1 FGD with Technical agricultural officers from DAECC –
Discussions (8) from DAECCa – Mixed gender Mixed gender
1 FGD at sub-District level with Farmers’ Associations 1 FGD with Farmers’ Associations from Champhira ASP –
from Golomoti ASPa – Mixed gender Mixed gender
2 FGDs at local level with individual smallholder farmers 2 FGDs with individual smallholder farmers of Kazinjilira
of Golomoti community, one with Men and one with community, one with Youth Male and one with Youth
Women Female farmers
Key Informants 5 KIIs with: 5 KIIs with:
Interviews (10) . Agriculture Gender Roles and Extension Support . District Nutrition officer
Services Officer . District Agricultural Development Officer
. District Agricultural Development Officer . District Crops Officer
. Senior Irrigation Engineer . Methodology Extension Officer,
. District Crops Officer, . District Youth Officer
. Livestock Development Officer
aDAECC = District Agricultural Extension Coordinating Committee; ASP = Area Stakeholder Panel.
Table A2. Summary of the sampling for Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) in Ghana.
Research Areas Northern Region Upper-East Region
Data Tolon-Kumbugu District Savelugu-Nanton District Kassena Nankana District
collection
types
Focus Group 1 FGD in Cheyohi Community with: Chief 1 FGD in Duko Community with: Chief 1 FGD in Gia Community with: Chief
Discussions (traditional leader), Magazia (traditional leader), Magazia (traditional leader), Magazia
(24) (traditional women’s leader), and (traditional women’s leader), and (traditional women’s leader), and
Assembly Man (authority of modern Assembly Man (authority of modern Assembly Man (authority of modern
political structure) political structure) political structure)
3 FGDs Cheyohi Community with farmer 3 FGDs Duko Community with farmer 3 FGDs Gia Community with farmer
groups: groups: groups:
. one with 10 Men farmers . one with 10 Men farmers . one with 10 Men farmers
. one with 8 Women farmers . one with 9 Women farmers . one with 10 Women farmers
. one with 9 youth farmers (6 males, 3 . one with 8 youth farmers (5 males, 3 . one with 10 youth farmers (5 males,
females) females) 5 females)
1 FGD in Tingoli Community with: Chief 1 FGD in Tibali with: Magazia (traditional 1 FGD in Nyangua Community with:
(traditional leader), Magazia women’s leader) and Assembly Man Chief (traditional leader), Magazia
(traditional women’s leader), and (authority of modern political (traditional women’s leader), and
Assembly Man (authority of modern structure) Assembly Man (authority of modern
political structure) political structure)
3 FGDs Tingoli Community with farmer 3 FGDs in Tibali with farmer groups: 3 FGDs Nyangua Community with
groups: farmer groups:
. one with 9 Men farmers . one with 10 Men farmers . one with 10 Men farmers
. one with 11 Women farmers . one with 9 Women farmers . one with 10 Women farmers
. one with 8 youth farmers (6 males, 2 . one with 9 youth farmers (5 males, 4 . one with 10 youth farmers (5 males,
females) females) 5 females)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 27
Key Informants 5 KIIs with: 5 KIIs with: 7 KIIs with:
Interviews (17) . Women in Agricultural Development . Nutrition Officer . Two (2) Farmer Representatives
Officer . Women in Agricultural Development . Women in Agricultural Development
. Veterinary Officer Officer Officer
. Agricultural Extension Officer #1 . Retired Director of Agriculture, MoFA . Cooperative Officer
. Agricultural Extension Officer #2 . Management Information Systems . Assemblyman
. Management Information Systems Officer . Planning Officer
Officer . Veterinary Officer . Management Information Systems
Officer