##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

The debate around sustainability of development projects is intriguing, emerging as a contemporary development paradigm. Nevertheless, empirical literature insinuates that sustainability of development projects is seldom realized. Perhaps because the sustainability drivers are not well articulated at the project design stage making sustainability uncertain. This paper calls for a decisive paradigm shift in dairy goat project designs for sustainability.  The paper is based on a study conducted in Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya, to investigate the influence of project design factors on the sustainability of dairy goat projects. Design factors considered for this study are the Project Beneficiary Selection Process, Community Capacity, Institutional Linkages and Project Infrastructure. The study was anchored on the structural-functional theory, diffusion of innovations theory and collective action theory. The sample size was 196 respondents sampled using sequential and stratified random sampling.  Purposive sampling was used to sample 13 key informants. Further, six focus group discussions each with 8 participants were conducted. Questionnaires, interview guide and FGD guide were used respectively to collect data. Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables and frequencies, percentages, arithmetic mean and standard deviation. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation (r), simple regression, multiple regression and stepwise regression (R squared), F-tests were used to test hypotheses.   Hypothesis (H0) that the combined project design factors have no significant influence on the sustainability of dairy goat projects was tested.  Results; r = 0.389 implying a positive slope between project design and sustainability.  R- Squared = 0.152, that 15.2% of the variation in sustainability was explained by variation in project infrastructure, community capacity, project beneficiary selection process, and institutional linkages. ANOVA indicated the model was statistically significant at (F (1,183) = 8.176) and the p-value = 0.000≤0.05, shows that there exists a positive correlation and the slope of the population regression line is not zero. therefore, H0 was rejected. The study concludes that combined project design factors are critical and important in enhancing project sustainability and recommends that dairy goat project design should incorporate authentic project beneficiary selection Process, their capacities developed and the project linked to supportive institutions as well as promoting the requisite infrastructure. The study found a gap in literature on the social economic contribution of dairy goats to the community livelihoods, as a measure of sustainability and recommends further study on this area.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Kahi, A. K, and Wasike, C. (2019). Dairy Goat Production in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current Status, Constraints and Prospects for Research and Development, Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2019 Aug; 32(8): 1266–1274.
     Google Scholar
  2. Boyazoglu, J. Hatziminaoglou, I. Morand-Fehr, P. (2005). the role of the goat in society: past, present and perspectives for the future, Small Ruminant Research 60, 13–23.
     Google Scholar
  3. Adejobi, A. Kassali, R. (2013). Markets and rural services as determinantsn of improved seeds usage by crop farmers in Osun State, Nigeria. African Crop Science Journal, 21(2), 143 – 152.
     Google Scholar
  4. Kavoi, J. Mwangi, G. Kamau, G. (2014). Challenges Faced by Small Land Holder Farmer Regarding Decision Making in Innovative Agricultural Development, International Journal of Agricultural Extension, 2311-8547.
     Google Scholar
  5. Olantunji, A. Adeyemo, O. (2009). Live-weight and chest girth correlation in commercial sheep and goat herds in southwestern Nigeria, International Journal Morphology 27, 49–52.
     Google Scholar
  6. Luis, E. Homero, S. Maria, W. Luiz, I. Johann, S. Cesar, M. (2012). Dairy Goat Production Systems, Tropical animal health and production.
     Google Scholar
  7. FAO, (2019). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations statistical databases. http:// faostat.fao.org
     Google Scholar
  8. Shivairo, R. Matofari, J. Muleke, C. Migwi, P. Lugairi, E. (2013) Production Challenges and Socio-Economic Impact of Dairy Goat Farming amongst Smallholder Farmers in Kenya. Journal of Food Science and Quality Management, Vol.17, 2013
     Google Scholar
  9. FAO, (2012). Invisible Guardians; Women Manage Livestock Diversity. FAO Animal Production and Health, 174.
     Google Scholar
  10. Peacock, C. (2008). Dairy goat development in East Africa: A replicable model for Smallholders? Small Ruminant Research, Vol. 77: 225–238.
     Google Scholar
  11. Peacock, C. and Hastings, T. (2011) Meru dairy goat and animal healthcare project, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9:1, 203-211.
     Google Scholar
  12. Chenyambuga, S. and Lekule, F. (2014) Breed preference and breeding practices for goats in agro-pastoral communities of semi-arid and sub-humid areas in Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development Vol. 26, Article 117.
     Google Scholar
  13. Thomson, C. El-Haram, R. Emmanuel R. (2011). Mapping sustainability assessment with the project life cycle. Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering Sustainability, 164(2): 143-157.
     Google Scholar
  14. Miller B.A & Christopher L, (2019) Current status of global dairy goat production: an overview, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences Vol. 32, No. 8:1219-1232
     Google Scholar
  15. Ngongoni, T. Zvinorova, P. Halimani, E. Renneth, T. Nobbert, M. (2013). Viability of smallholder dairying in Wedza, Zimbabwe, Trop Anim Health Prod, 45:1007–1015.
     Google Scholar
  16. Zewdie, B. and Welday, K. (2015). Reproductive Performance and Breeding Strategies for Genetic Improvement of Goat in Ethiopia: A Review, Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences
     Google Scholar
  17. Gilbert, J. (2014). Sustainability in Project Management Competencies: Analyzing the Competence Gap of Project Managers, Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 2, 40-58.
     Google Scholar
  18. Sanders, E. and Binder, T. (2010). A Framework for Organizing the Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), pp.195-198, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220030447
     Google Scholar
  19. Hussain, E. and Sanders, N. (2012). Participatory Design with Marginalized People in Developing Countries: International Journal of Design, 6(2), 91-109.
     Google Scholar
  20. Matiwane, M. and Terblanché, E. (2012). The influence of beneficiaries needs on project success or failure in the north west province, south Africa, Journal of Agriculture, and Rural Development Vol. 40, 2012: 76 – 90.
     Google Scholar
  21. Swanepoel, H. and DeBeers, F. (2006). Community development breaking the cycle of poverty 4th edition. Cape South Africa: Formeset Printers.
     Google Scholar
  22. Conning, J. and Kevane, M. (2002). “Community-based targeting mechanisms for social safety nets: a critical review.” World Development, 30.3, pp. 375-394.
     Google Scholar
  23. Booher, D. and Innes, J. (2002). Network Power in Collaborative Planning: Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 221–236.
     Google Scholar
  24. Barasa, F. and Jelagat, T. (2013). Community Participation in Project Planning, Management and Implementation: Building the Foundation for Sustainable Development, International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 5, Issue, 02, pp.398-401.
     Google Scholar
  25. Düvel, G. (2002). Coping with felt and unfelt needs in programmed extension. S. A. Journal of Agriculture Extension, Volume 23: 28 – 35
     Google Scholar
  26. Nicola, J. Chanamuto and Stephen, J.Hall (2015). Gender equality, resilience to climate change, and the design of livestock projects for rural livelihoods, Gender and Development Vol. 23, No. 3, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  27. Akintoye, I.R., Adidu, F.A. (2008). Optimising National Growth Through Human Resources Investments. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 2008, 22, 433-443.
     Google Scholar
  28. Lubungu, M. Chapoto, A. and Tembo, G. (2012). Smallholder Farmers Participation in Livestock Markets: The Case of Zambian Farmers. Indaba Agricultural Policy. Research Institute (IAPRI) publication.
     Google Scholar
  29. Amir, H. (2014). Participatory Development Strategy: and Effect on Community in Punjab. Academic Journal of Vssol 3 No 6.
     Google Scholar
  30. Onono. J, Wieland. J, Rushton. J, (2015), Factors influencing choice of veterinary service provider by pastoralist in Kenya, Tropical Animal Health and Production
     Google Scholar
  31. Villanueva, B. Yamini, J. Richard, O. Welch, E. Aseffa, S. Michael, H. (2016). Influence of social networks on the adoption of climate smart technologies in East Africa, https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications
     Google Scholar
  32. Tatlonghari, G. Paris, T. Pede, V. Siliphouthone, L. and Suhaeti, R. (2012). Seed and Information Exchange through Social Networks: The Case of Rice Farmers of Indonesia and Lao PDR, Sociology mind Vol 2 169 – 176
     Google Scholar
  33. Pali, P. Zaibet, L. Mburu, K. Ndiwa, N. and Rware, H. (2013). The potential influence of social networks on the adoption of breeding strategies, Livestock Research for Rural Development 25 (5).
     Google Scholar
  34. Sarah, G. (2012). Restoring infrastructure systems: An integrated network design and scheduling (INDS) problem." European journal of operational research. p. 794 - 806.
     Google Scholar
  35. Shah, A. (1992). ‘Dynamics of Public Infrastructure, Industrial Productivity and Profitability’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(1): 28–36.
     Google Scholar
  36. Gökdai, A. Sakarya, E. Contiero, B. and Gottardo, F. (2020) Milking Characteristics, Hygiene and Management Practices in Saanen Goat Farms: A Case of Canakkale Province, Turkey, Turkey, Italian Journal of Animal Science, 19:1, 213-221
     Google Scholar
  37. IFAD (2006) Quality enhancement for project design: Guidelines for internal project review. Programmes Management Department. Rome, www.ifad.org/actionplan/ deliverables/qe.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  38. Gilberto, M. (2012). The Impact of Infrastructure on Agricultural Productivity, Discussion Paper Series No. 2012-12
     Google Scholar
  39. Aklihu, Y. (2008). Livestock marketing in Kenya and Ethiopia; A review of policies and practice, Feinstein international center, Adids Ababa
     Google Scholar
  40. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
     Google Scholar
  41. Kosgey, S. and Okeyo, A. (2007) Genetic improvement of small ruminants in low-input, smallholder production systems: Technical and infrastructural issues. Small Ruminant Research 70: 76-88.
     Google Scholar
  42. Ahuja, G. (2000). The dsuality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of inter-firm linkages. Strategic Management. J. 21: 31–43.
     Google Scholar
  43. Ndoro, J. T., Mudhara, M. and Chimonyo, M. (2014) Livestock extension programmes participation and impact on smallholder cattle productivity in KwaZulu-Natal: A propensity score matching approach. S Afr. Jnl. Agric. Ext., Dec 2014, vol.42, no.2, p.62-80.
     Google Scholar
  44. Khwaja, A. (2004). Is increasing community participation always a good thing? Journal of the European Economic Association. 2(2‐3), 427-436.
     Google Scholar
  45. Dongier, P. Van Domelen, J. Ostrom, E. Ryan, A. Wakeman, W. Bebbington, A. (2003), Community driven development. World Bank Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.
     Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)