COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND

ECONOMICS
ECONOMICS PROGRAM

Urban Agriculture and Its Contribution for

Employment Creation, the Case of Debre
Birhan Town

A senior essay submitted to the Department

of Economics, College of Business and
Economics, Debre Birhan University, in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Economics.

Prepared By
Samuel Bekele

Advisor
Amare F.

1
 June 2011
Debre Birhan
Ethiopia

DEBRE BIRHAN UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
ECONOMICS PROGRAM

Urban Agriculture and Its Contribution for

Employment Creation, the Case of Debre
Birhan Town

Prepared By: Samuel Bekele

Approved By Board of Examiners

_______________________ _____________________
Advisor Sign
_______________________ _____________________
Examiner Sign
_______________________________ ____________________________

Examiner Sign

2
3
 Acknowledgement

First and foremost my grand gratitude goes to the almighty God who lets the
start and has been in all the way up to the end of this paper.

I am highly indebted to my senior essay Advisor Ato Amare F. whose valuable

comments and guidance has been the most valuable and with out whom this
paper could not have been here. I would also like to thank the workers of the
DBAEO and DBMSEO workers who provided me with the necessary
materials I needed.

I am also grateful to my Ma and Pa and all those my families who has laid
each inch of the path to the completion of this paper. My special thanks go to
T.Z, T.B and S.K who have been close enough to make things easier than they
could have been. Let my appreciation go to Mr. Ramsey, Ato Mebreku and
Ato Zinabu and all the members of the Economics family for all the support
and courage they offered me with

4
 Table of contents
Contents Page

Acknowldgement..........................................................................................................................I
list of tables.................................................................................................................................II
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................II
Acronyms...................................................................................................................................III
Abstract......................................................................................................................................IV

Chapter one
1. Introduction
1.1. Background of the study.......................................................................................................1
1.2. Statement of the problem......................................................................................................2
1.3. Objective of the study...........................................................................................................4
1.3.1. General objective........................................................................................................4
1.3.2. Specific objectives......................................................................................................4
1.4. Methodology of the study...................................................................................................4
1.4.1. Data source.............................................................................................................4
1.4.2. Method of data collection........................................................................................4
1.4.3. Sample and sampling techniques............................................................................5
1.4.4. Data interpretation and analyzing............................................................................5
1.5. Significance of the study......................................................................................................5
1.6. Scope of the study.................................................................................................................6
1.7. Limitation of the study..........................................................................................................6
1.8. Organization of the paper.....................................................................................................6
Chapter Two
2. Literature review
2.1. Theoretical review................................................................................................................7
2.1.1. Definition of related concepts....................................................................................7
2.1.2. Potentials of Urban Agriculture.................................................................................8
2.1.3. Basic agricultural practices........................................................................................9
2.1.4. The Where, What, Who and Why of urban agriculture...........................................10
2.1.4.1. Location & Scale (Where).............................................................................10

5
 2.1.4.2. Activities & Stage (What).............................................................................11
2.1.4.3. Stakeholders (Who).......................................................................................11
2.1.4.4. Motivation (Why)..........................................................................................13
2.1.5. Urban agriculture in less developed countries..........................................................13
2.2. Empirical review.................................................................................................................15
2.2.1. Historical development of urban agriculture...........................................................15
2.2.2. Urban agriculture in the developing world..............................................................16
2.2.3. Urban agriculture in Debre Birhan..........................................................................17
Chapter Three
3. Data analysis and discussion
3.1. Back ground of the study area............................................................................................19
3.2. Urban agriculture in Debre Birhan.....................................................................................20
3.2.1. Cooperatives in urban agriculture............................................................................20
3.2.2. Investment in urban agriculture...............................................................................21
3.3. Major activities of Urban Agriculture in Debre Birhan......................................................22
3.4. The socio-economic characteristic of the respondents.......................................................25
3.5. Involvement in urban agriculture........................................................................................28
3.6. Production and employment in urban agriculture..............................................................32
3.7. Modern input use and productivity in urban agriculture....................................................35
Chapter Four
4. Conclusion and recommendation
4.1. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................40
4.2. Recommendation................................................................................................................41
References..................................................................................................................................43
Appendix-I.................................................................................................................................44

6
 List of Tables
Table 3.1 employment in cooperatives engaged in urban agriculture
Table 3.2: invested capital and employment in agricultural investment in Debre Birhan
Table 3.3 Input provision and production of urban farming in Debre Birhan
Table 3.4 input provision and production of irrigation farming in Debre Birhan
Table 3.5 Forest development in Debre Birhan
Table 3.6: the age, sex and educational level characteristic of the respondents
Table 3.7: the marital status and family size of respondents
Table 3.8: respondents as grouped by type of agricultural activity
Table 3.9: respondents as grouped by time span stayed in the activity
Table 3.10: respondents as grouped by their previous employment
Table 3.11: respondents as grouped by reasons for being unemployed
Table 3.12: respondents as grouped by the type of labors employed
Table 3.13: respondents as grouped by their reason for employing family labor
Table 3.14: respondents as grouped by the income they get from selling their products
Table 3.15: respondents as grouped by change in their living standard
Table 3.16: respondents as grouped by their modern input usage
Table 3.17: respondents as grouped by the type of technique of production they use
Table 3.18: respondents as grouped by the support from institutions
List of Figures

Figure 3.1 Type of involvement in urban agriculture

Figure 3.2: The purpose for which they use agricultural product
Figure 3.3: The effect of inability to use modern input

7
 Acronym
BMA- Bangkok Metropolitan Administration
CFP- Cities Feeding People
CFSC- Community Food Security Coalition
CGIAR- Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
DBAEO- Debre Birhan Agricultural Extension Office
DBIO- Debre Birhan Investment Office
DBMSEO- Debre Birhan Micro and Small Scale Enterprises Office
E.C- Ethiopian Calendar
FAO- Food and Agriculture Organization
ILRI - International Livestock Research Institute
Km- Kilo Meter
LDCs- Less Developed Countries
MSE- Micro and Small Scale Enterprises
NGO- Non-Governmental Organization
RNRRS- Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy
SACCOs- saving and credit cooperatives
TEI- Thailand Environment Institute
UA- Urban Agriculture
UK- United Kingdom
UNDP- United Nations Development Program
US- United States
USD- United States Dollar

8
 Abstract
Agriculture in towns, cities and the area surrounding them is the main phenomenon of most of
developing countries. Likewise the residents of Debre Birhan has been involved in agricultural
activities thus producing agricultural products in a small scale and it is this reliance of the
town’s population on urban agriculture as employment option that served as a basis for this
study. The study has the main objective of examining the role that urban agriculture plays in
creating employment opportunity, the problems it faces and the solutions for it. The study relied
in the primary and secondary data. The primary data is collected from the respondents who are
residents of the Debre Birhan town and which are 55 in number and used interview and
questionnaire method for its collection. The secondary data presented and analyzed is collected
from the various documents in government bureaus and institutions in the form of published and
unpublished materials. The study found that urban agriculture has a high potential to serve as a
source of employment for the unemployed ones but the income and the security of the job is not
that significant enough for the majority to completely rely on it. There are also some restraints
such as Lower provision of working space and modern inputs, Lower and some times no supply
of funds, lack of close support and communication with government and private supporting
institutions and other problems that limit the ability of urban agriculture in creating a
dependable employment opportunity.

9
 Chapter one
1. Introduction
1.1. Background of the study
In the next quarter century, the population explosion that characterized much of the 20th
century is expected to be replaced by another dramatic demographic transformation: urban
population growth of unprecedented scale. Future prospects indicate that the urban population of
developing countries is to double to 4 billion by 2025. Africa and Asia will be witnessing the
most explosive urban growth. But these countries that are urbanizing the most rapidly, are the
least prepared to satisfy their food needs and many precariously depend on food aid and imports.
(Peter King’ori, 2004)
More than half the world's population is now living in cities. The locus of poverty has
also shifted to urban areas making unemployment and food insecurity a chronic urban problem.
The developing world's absolute poor living in urban areas has increased from 25% in 1988, to
about 56% by 2000. These are only the few rationales why urban agriculture is increasingly
being practiced around the world as a livelihood strategy for poor city dwellers.
Urban agriculture is a significant economic activity, central to the lives of hundreds of
millions of people throughout the world. Currently more than 800 million urban residents are
involved in commercial or subsistence agriculture in or around cities. Despite limited support
and heavy losses, UA is generating products valued in the tens of millions of USD, year in and
year out, in major LDC urban centers. 200 million are market producers, employing 150 million
people full-time (Smit et al. 1996).
For African and developed countries, urban agriculture has become central to the
livelihood of millions of people. estimate show that nearly 25 out of the 65 million people living
in urban areas of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia currently obtain part of
their food from UA and that, by 2020, at least 35-40 million urban residents will depend on UA
to feed themselves. Self-production represents anywhere from 18% (East Jakarta) to 60%
(Kampala) of total food consumption in low-income households, with sample percentages
depending solely on self-production reaching 50% (Nairobi). In Harare, savings accruing to low-
income farmers are equivalent to as much as several months of earnings. (Luc J.A. Mougeot,
1999)

10
 As in most Sub-Saharan African countries, more and more of the rapidly growing
Ethiopian population is becoming concentrated in and around large towns and cities making the
urban population grow at 4.3% so that it now covers 17% of the total population in the country.
This rapid expansion of urbanization and growth of urban population has too often exceeded the
capacity to provide essential services, such as, adequate water, shelter, and, in particular,
employment and nutritious food. Thus the society’s long existing habit of growing own food
added to urban problems of over crowding have forced the existing and the new migrating
residents of cities to respond through an increased participation in urban agriculture. Urban
agricultural activities are now recognized as an important source of food, nutrition and income
for the urban poor. (Sabine gündel, 2006)
Urban agriculture is now a major phenomenon in the urban Ethiopia. In Northern
Ethiopia, Plan is helping local people to grow vegetables as a source of improved income and
improved diet. Over 300 families in tourist town Lalibela are producing a range of fruit and
vegetables which they sell at the local market or eat at home. In the capital Addis Ababa, urban
agriculture supports more than 51,000 families farming on a total of 9,380 hectares which is
17.4% of the total area of the city. (Country Position Paper, 2010)
Urban agriculture in Debre Birhan is not a new concept to the residents, even though the
official support of the government has been lower prior to 2004/05. The government, as part of
its national policy of securing food self sufficiency, has given a higher consideration for it. In
Debre Birhan urban agriculture these days constitute major activities such as urban crop raising
and irrigation, animal husbandry and hides and skin marketing, forestry and such like activities.
It is now a major source of living for lots of people both as a source of employment and income
creation and food security options.
Thus, this study helps in assessing the current trends and performances in the area,
identify problems, and contribute to the solution of those identified problems.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Urban agriculture is mostly concentrated around homes and in vacant or infill areas.
Millions of people are now growing food crops, raising livestock and managing trees and
flowers. In many cases they are also contributing to the environment by greening the city,

11
absorbing wastes through composting and recycling and putting marginal and abandoned land to
productive use (Gordon Prain, 2007).
In many cases observed UA has proved to be fairly affordable, a noteworthy source of
income and savings and is more profitable than rural-based production. For the urban poor in the
developing countries urban agriculture is an important socio- economic activity. Given that it is
largely poverty driven, the activity’s contribution to food security and income generation for the
poor families is undeniable. The deteriorating socio-economic environment in most developing
countries coupled with the rapid rates of urbanization is factors likely to push the magnitude of
the activity to unprecedented levels in the near future. (Ibid)

Though urban agriculture is a naturally viable economic activity, it has received less
recognition from urban developers, planners and administrators. The growth of urban agriculture
has taken place in the face of socio-economic prejudices in form of planning standards and
regulations that exclude agriculture from urban land use systems. Although this kind of
agriculture demands considerable technical skill, it receives little or no attention and is frequently
ignored and sometimes outlawed by municipal authorities. This has led local people to engage in
agricultural systems operating well below their potential and frequently to use production
practices that add to existing urban health and environmental problems. (Caleb Mireri et al,
2004)
In most less developed countries and African cities urban agriculture is widespread but in
most cases it is subsistence with limited capital inputs and legitimacy to facilitate for more
intensive operations. In most African cities, urban agriculture is a transfer of rural subsistence
agriculture to urban areas, particularly as whole families migrate and settle in urban areas. (H.
Kadmiel, 1993)
The situation in Debre Birhan is not far from the underlying features of urban agriculture
in the developing countries. Land is still a major problem where urban agriculture is forced to
compete with other economic activities for a free land to operate which is getting aggravated as
the recent move of the town towards being a rapidly urbanizing trade centre gets momentum.
The supply of farm and other related inputs and technologies are at their lower level not yet
developed to a satisfactory level. Besides, government and non government bodies in
supplementary inputs (provision of current and forecasted information, upgrading of methods
and technologies, encouraging policy incentives and the like) do not support the urban

12
agriculture. The provision of credit is also not developed and is found at its subsistence level.
Such and other problems in the area have constrained the potential of the area in expanding
employment opportunities and thus improve economic condition of the community.
Thus, this study enables in identifying the major constraining factors that limited the
capacity of the area in employment creation and indicate the measures that can be taken by the
stakeholders of urban agricultural activity in solving such problems.

1.3. Objective of the study

1.3.1. General objective
The general objective of this study is to examining the role that urban agriculture plays in
creating employment opportunities, identify the major constraints and the major areas of
intervention for the stakeholders of urban agriculture in the Debre Birhan town.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

 To examine the role of urban agriculture in employment creation;
 To identify the problems that exist in the area which restrained its potential of
employment opportunity creation
 To contribute to the solutions of the problems in the area
1.4. Methodology of the study
1.4.1. Data source
The study relied on both primary and secondary sources of data for its data need where
the Primary sources include interview and structured questionnaires (where both include open
and closed ended question options). The Secondary source consisted of the published and
unpublished data sources.
1.4.2. Method of data collection
The study used scheduled interviews and structured questionnaires, of both open and
closed ended options for the collection of primary data where as it used published, i.e.
publication of bureaus of regional and federal government bodies, publication and reports by
related organization ,journals, magazines, newspaper, annual report, books etc and un published,
i.e. recorded documents and other un published data source found in the city administration,
regional bureaus and other supportive private institution for the collection of secondary data.

13
 1.4.3. Sample and sampling techniques
The study applied random sampling technique which has a higher degree of applicability
of the law of statistical regularity (where a sample taken at random from the population is highly
representative of the population on average). From the various options in the random sampling,
the study used simple random sampling that has the benefit of avoiding subjectivity and personal
bias error and allows an equal chance of selection of the units in the population.
The population under consideration includes residents of Debre Birhan town who are
engaged in activities of urban agriculture such as urban farming, animal fattening, forest
development thus reaching a total of 3,417 people engaged in the major urban agriculture
activities in the town. From the total population the study selected 55 sample units to constitute
its sample.

1.4.4. Data interpretation and analyzing

Once collection of the required data is under taken, the data editing, classification and
tabulation were conducted so as to facilitate further analysis that comes next. Analysis of the data
collected used descriptive method applying measures like percentage and the like. Such
measures and computations were accompanied by interpretation presented and inferences drawn.
1.5. Significance of the study
Even though urban agriculture is an activity of long period of existence with a higher
social exposure to it, the studies conducted in the area are not enough to address the challenges it
faces and the attention it requires. Thus, the conduction of this study is of such importance as
stated below;
 It gives a basic understanding and information on the current situation of the area;
 It adds to the aspect of the role of urban agriculture as a source of employment in Debre
Birhan town;
 It motivates stakeholders to give it more emphasis and other entities, like private and
institutional researchers to allocate more resources in developing the economic potentials
of urban agriculture;
 It serves as a reference for other studies interested on the related or other areas.

14
1.6. Scope of the study

Urban agriculture, especially for Ethiopians where the social tie with agriculture in both
urban and rural areas is tight and its contribution to creation of employment opportunities, is an
area which should be studied at a country level. But due to time, financial and other constraints
the study is geographically delimited to Debre Birhan town. The study also covered the time
interval between 2005/06 and 2009/10 for the sake of finding a relatively organized data when
compared to the previous years. The data collected and analyzed were also confined to this time
interval. The research is interested only on the contribution of urban agriculture as a source of
employment creation.

1.7. Limitation of the study

The study has faced various limitations while it was being conducted. One is the limitation with
respect to time since the time allocated was the academic year which was not enough. The other
is the financial constraint to cover the various costs the study required. Unavailability of
organized and timely data was another problem the study faced.

1.8. Organization of the paper

The paper consists four chapters. The first chapter constitutes background, statement of
the problem, objective of the study, scope of the study, significance of the study, limitation of the
study and the data methodology is the last component of the chapter. Discussed in the second
chapter is review of related literature which is presented as having two sub components; the
theoretical review and the empirical review. In the third chapter, the data treatment, processing
and interpretation are included where as the fourth chapter deals with the conclusion and
recommendation forwarded.

15
 Chapter Two
2. Literature review
2.1. Theoretical review
2.1.1. Definition of related concepts
Key dimensions of current definitions of UA are many. The more common conceptual
building blocks and basis of definition are based on types of economic activities, food/non-food
categories of products and sub-categories, urban character of location, types of areas where it is
practiced, types of production systems, product destination and production scale and other
related aspects in urban agriculture. (Mougeot, 1999)
The UNDP (1996) defines urban agriculture as an activity that produces processes, and
markets food and other products, on land and water in urban and peri-urban areas, applying
intensive production methods, and (re) using natural resources and urban wastes, to yield a
diversity of crops and livestock. (CFSC, 2003)
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), also defined urban
agriculture as an industry that produces, processes and markets food and fuel, largely in response
to the daily demand of consumers within a town, city, or metropolis, on land and water dispersed
throughout the urban area, applying intensive production methods, using and reusing natural
resources and urban wastes to yield a diversity of crops and livestock. This definition pictures
urban agriculture as an industry that responds to the nutritional demands of a city, from within
that city, with the use and reuse of that city’s resources while acknowledging economic and
resource use. But it does not reconcile aspects of regional health, food security, and application
of grassroots organizations (visit the web page http://www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/coag/).
A more integrated definition is given by Mougeot (1999) where Urban Agriculture is an
industry located within (intra-urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, an urban centre, a
city or metropolis, which grows or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-
food products, reusing mainly human and material resources, products and services found in and
around that urban area, and in turn supplying human and material resources, products and
services largely to that urban area.(luc j.a. Mougeot, 1999)
Another definition, as stated in Bettina Baumgartner and Hasan Belevi(2001), considers
Urban agriculture as an activity that comprises the production, processing and distribution of a
diversity of foods, including vegetables and animal products within (intra-urban) or at the fringe

16
(peri-urban) of an urban area. Its main motivation is food production (for personal consumption
or sale) and/or higher income. This definition only includes the questions pertaining to the
where, what and why, and aims at distinguishing between rural and urban agriculture and
agricultural activities conducted for recreational purposes.

2.1.2. Potentials of Urban Agriculture

Income and employment creation for the urban poor
Urban farming provides a source of employment not only for urban farmers themselves,
but also for people operating in linked micro-enterprises: input and output industries and services:
herding, collection and selling of feed and manure, production of compost and processing of
agricultural produce, street vending of food, etc.

Economies of scale
Using high-density urban farming, as for instance with vertical farms or stacked
greenhouses, many environmental benefits can be achieved on a citywide scale that would be
impossible otherwise. These systems do not only provide food, but also produce drinkable water
from wastewater, and can recycle organic waste back to energy and nutrients. At the same time,
they can reduce food-related transportation to a minimum while providing fresh food for large
communities in almost any climate.

Energy efficiency
The current industrial agriculture system is accountable for high-energy costs for the
transportation of foodstuffs. The average conventional produce item travels 1,500 miles, using, if
shipped by tractor-trailer, one gallon of fossil fuel per hundred pounds (add the source). The
energy used to transport food is decreased when urban agriculture can provide cities with locally
grown food.

Community development
Urban agriculture contributes to community development by leading people to organize
themselves for cleaning up and rehabilitating vacant and degraded land areas and transforming
these into gardens so as to stimulate actions for improving the community livelihood.
Urban food security
Even though cities will remain largely dependent on the input from the rural areas and
international supply, cities can and should consciously pursue a greater degree of self-reliance in

17
food. A shift away from the present reliance on the highly capitalized and energy-consuming
“supermarket” model, based on external supply of foodstuffs, is urgently needed.

Social
Localized food production in urban and peri-urban areas contributes to local economies by
creating jobs and producing valuable products. Lots of studies indicate that unemployed
populations in large cities and suburban towns would decrease if put to work by local food
movements. Schools have foreseen the asset of local food production and are beginning to
incorporate agricultural sections in their curricula and present it as a career opportunity. Urban
agricultural projects are beginning to open a new labor market in areas that have been negatively
affected by industrial outsourcing of jobs. (Wikipedia, 2010)

2.1.3. Basic agricultural practices

There are several agricultural practices applied in or near urban areas, which provide possibilities
for the employment of labor hours of urban dwellers, are known. These are:

Horticulture
These are Crops grown by the poor in cities and which must meet several criteria, such as:
 Rotate rapidly due to land uncertainty and
 Adapt to relatively uncontrolled conditions for lack of proper tools.
The horticultural practices differ in accordance with the production factors available. The most
important factors for production are: (1) land, (2) water for irrigation, (3) labor, (4) capital, (5)
material, (6) seeds, (7) pesticides and herbicides, and (8) fertilizer. The crucial elements for low-
income city dwellers to become involved in urban agriculture are access to land followed by the
availability of irrigation water.

Aquaculture
Such are urban activities conducted with in or at the fringes major urban areas. They
include production of fish and, to some extent, water vegetables in ponds fertilized by
wastewater has long been. Such activities are highly applicable most importantly for the third
World due to the fact that it uses relatively simple technology and is inexpensive to construct and
maintain. It is obvious that aquaculture mainly constitutes a cost effective way to treat waste and
also provides food for the city.

18
Livestock Raising
For traditional and economic reasons, livestock production is important in many cities. The
livestock raised in cities is typically poultry, birds, and smaller animals which are raised by the
less affluent in the dense city cores. Small livestock is important in sustainable development,
since its meat to feed ratio is higher than that of large animals. Small livestock can be produced
cheaply in small spaces, while all forms of livestock are becoming increasingly important
sources of protein as rising incomes lead to changing diets.

Urban Forestry
Urban forests act as natural filters and are central in combating urban air pollution, especially
carbon dioxide and particulate matter (Smit, 1996). They cause considerable modifications to the
microclimate. Furthermore, forests are important for the local water household, to ensure a clean
water supply, prevent erosion, and provide a habitat for urban wildlife and even disposal sites for
liquid or solid waste. Therefore, forestry projects are projects of public interest. Furthermore, in
much of the developing world, wood is the primary fuel for cooking and heating, and a low-cost
construction material.

Other Urban Farming Activities

Urban agriculture appears in many forms other than the aforementioned, such as for example
apiculture, a labour-intensive activity which produces honey. Wax is also produced as by-
product and used particularly as lightening material. As aforementioned, due to the great
diversity of plant species in urban areas, production of honey is high. (Bettina Baumgartner

and Hasan Belevi, 2001)

2.1.4. The Where, What, Who and Why of urban agriculture

2.1.4.1. Location & Scale (Where)

Urban agriculture is assigned as an agricultural activity within and around urban areas.
Availability of land is very often the crucial element for people to become engaged in urban
agriculture, but even more so is its access. This implies both manner of land use and legal
aspects, as well as a near and secure access. The second aspect may be important in cases where

19
women are the urban farmers and have to travel to the plot with their children at different times
of the day.

2.1.4.2. Activities & Stage (What)

Urban agriculture may comprise different activities and stages: (1) acquisition and
utilization of the necessary resources, inputs and services; (2) production of goods; (3) “post-
production”, including processing, packaging, distribution, marketing, and recycling; (4)
consumption.
Furthermore, all activities like home gardening, horticulture of food and non-food
products (ornamental plants), aquaculture, livestock, and forestry form part of urban agricultural.
If the entire agribusiness with suppliers of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, as well as banks and
credit agencies providing financial support are included, the number of people engaged in urban
agriculture is much higher than if only the urban farmers are counted.
2.1.4.3. Stakeholders (Who)
Various actors are involved in urban agriculture; they are the suppliers of resources,
inputs and services, the producers, the transporters, the processors, the retailers, the consumers,
the promoters, and the managers. These actors belong to the public and private sector, the formal
and informal economy.
Urban Farmer
In most developing countries, the urban farmers belong to low income groups. They
are relatively long-term city residents, moderately poor, and frequently females. They exist in all
regions of the world, but face vastly different conditions and opportunities. Urban farmers are
marginally better off than the absolute poor. They have dwelt in the city long enough to have
acquired access to some land and other resources. A case study on Nairobi established in 1994
that about 44% of the urban farmers belonged to the very low income group, and about 16% to
the low income bracket. About 85% of these urban farmers had been residing in the city for more
than 14 years. Little attention has been paid to the women who tend to predominate in urban
agriculture which relates well with their care-taking and house-holding roles in most countries.
Women perform numerous vital roles directly related to urban agriculture, and actively
participate especially in urban gardening for home production, but also in food processing and
marketing. In small-scale urban agriculture, women can perform the gender roles for which they

20
are primarily responsible, namely provision of food, general household well-being and child-care
duties. On a larger urban agricultural scale, the men take over food production and management
of the plots. Furthermore, since women are still disadvantaged in the formal sector of urban
economy, they get involved in small scale production.
Urban farmers can be classified in various categories depending on the region of the
world, city zone, site location, tenure modality, time allocation, producer’s socio-economic
status, production system and scale, and product destination. Diversity is the one characteristic
urban farmers have in common.
Consumer
The consumer is both the subsistence farmer consuming his own food, as well as the
customer on local markets and consumer of food purchased from street vendors.
Supplier
This group of stakeholders includes all those who provide inputs and services required by
the process of production in urban agriculture. Producers of agribusiness inputs (such as seeds,
feeds, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and tools) belong to a well-organized economic sector, in
contrast to the relatively unorganized, disparate and small-scale producers. A further
characteristic of the agribusiness sector is that it manufactures for the rural market. The entire
logistics, including its trade channels, are designed for the rural area and are not adapted to the
needs and opportunities of the small and scattered group of urban producer. Additionally, credit
providers, including banks, credit unions and farmer associations are essential because farmers
are forced to invest always before the harvest.
Processor, Vendor
The group of processors and vendors is very heterogeneous. Poor women selling a small
amount of cooked food on the street are one extreme. Companies processing, distributing and
selling large quantities of processed and unprocessed products are the other extreme. In contrast
to large-scale farmers in rural areas with direct contacts to Supermarkets or restaurants, small-
scale farmers in urban and peri-urban areas cannot easily find a market for their products which
they sell on small local Markets. Furthermore, small-scale farmers carry out their own cleaning,
processing and possibly packaging activities, whereas large-scale farmers leave this work to food
processing facilities. Some products require special processing, such as for example slaughtering
should be conducted in professional facilities for reasons of hygiene and associated risks.

21
 Public Sector
The public sector has a strong influence on urban agriculture. In cities where urban
agriculture is illegal or neglected by governments, performance of urban agriculture is low.
There is little government support and training for the urban farmers. In the event of a
prohibitive legislation on urban agriculture, only few organizations and institutions plan
activities in this field.
2.1.4.4. Motivation (Why)
Urban agriculture is very often believed to be a response to urban crises, a survival
strategy of the migrants who come from the rural part of the country, and after being
disappointed at not finding work in the city they become part of the growing population of the
urban poor. In fact the migrants hope that by coming to the towns they can increase the number
of different activities which, in various combinations, can guarantee their survival. It is also
emphasized the diversification possibility of maximizing the advantages of combining farming
and non-farming. It must be emphasized that, in most cases, decision to migrate to the city is not
taken by the individual alone, but rather on a family or household level to spread the risk over
different regions, activities and persons.

2.1.5. Urban agriculture in less developed countries

Land tenure
Many involved in urban agriculture do not own the land they use to grow food. Where
there is no title, or three to five year leases, they risk losing their investment when the land is
taken for other purposes.

Start-up costs
Agriculture enterprises have start-up costs that can be an obstacle to people with limited
income. Costs include: labor, site management, water, tools and equipment, rent and insurance,
processing, packaging, and marketing materials.

Access to markets
Growers often find it difficult to market their locally-grown foods to groceries,
restaurants, and institutions because of wholesale distributors’ monopolies.

22
Knowledge and skills
Urban growers may lack the knowledge and skills in production, processing and
marketing that would bring about successful yields and food security.

Lack of organization among urban farmers

Most urban farmers are not organized in a formal way. This limits the representation of
their interests in urban policymaking and planning at the various levels and hampers their
participation in development programmes.

Lack of support services and appropriate technologies

The technologies applied by urban farmers (especially so in Africa) are normally very
basic: hand labor and simple tools. Crop choices and production technologies are often not well
adapted to the conditions of the production site (e.g. intensive backyard farming requires other
technologies than roadside farming or production on riverbanks). (CFSC, 2003)

23
2.2. Empirical review

2.2.1. Historical development of urban agriculture

In Honiara, the Capital of the Solomon Islands, surveys show that families save up to
20% from their previous food bill by now growing food
Most households in the Southeast Asia and Pacific Island Regions practice urban
Agriculture as a Direct means for obtaining a fresh, continuous, and healthy food supply to
supplement the main parts of meals In Bangladesh, 10% of the total family income is often
derived from small homelot food gardens.
The Wetlands reportedly produce 22 tons of fish per day, treat 150 million gallons of
Calcutta’s wastewater and cover some 10-15% of the fish consumption in Calcutta
Urban farming is not new. Ancient cities like Babylon had their hanging gardens and
farms in or in the vicinity of urban areas. Community wastes were used in ancient Persia to feed
urban farming. In Machu Picchu water was conserved and reused as part of the stepped
architecture of the city and vegetable beds were designed to gather sun in order to prolong the
growing season. Allotment gardens came up in Germany in the early 19th century as a response
to poverty and food insecurity. Victory gardens sprouted during WWI, WWII and were fruit,
vegetable, and herb gardens in US, Canada, and UK. This effort was undertaken by citizens to
reduce pressure on food production that was to support the war effort. Community gardening in
most communities is open to the public and provides space for citizens to cultivate plants for
food or recreation. (Wikipedia, 2010)
While the 1970s had viewed urban agriculture as a survival strategy for the poor, the
1980s and 1990s have experienced drastic change in the character of urban agriculture. It is now
increasingly lining credence not only among the urban poor but also by a significant proportion
of the medium income earners and other professionals. With increasing poverty in the urban
areas, city planners and national policy makers are also recognizing the central role of urban
agriculture in the wider urban economy and also it’s potential to contribute to urban greening
cities. The benefits of urban agriculture do not only accrue to the urban arming households but to
the whole urban environment if it is properly carried. (George Matovu, 2006)

24
Urban agriculture fits no specific geographic location. It is done wherever land is available.
Private lands, public lands, legally and illegally. Urban agriculture is practiced by a variety of
people and is done for a wide range of reasons. It is undertaken wherever land or space is
available: residential plots, public access areas, abandoned or vacant lands, balconies, canals,
rooftops, etc. (Paul Sommers and Jac Smit, 1994)

2.2.2. Urban agriculture in the developing world

Cairo, Egypt
In the meantime in Egypt, population explosion and the tendency to build on agricultural land
have acted to limit the resources of city families and their access to healthy products. With a little
effort and money, rooftops can contribute in improving the families quality of life and provide
them with healthy food and raise their income, this is besides the environmental and aesthetic
role it plays. While it is not new, the notion of planting rooftops in Egypt has only recently been
implemented. In the early 1990s at Ain Shams University, a group of agriculture professors
developed an initiative of growing organic vegetables to suit densely populated cities of Egypt.
The initiative was applied on a small scale; until it was officially adopted in 2001, by the Food
and Agriculture Organization.

Havana, Cuba
Due to the shortage of fuel and therefore severe deficiencies in the transportation sector a
growing percentage of the agricultural production takes place in the so-called urban agriculture.
In 2002, 35,000 acres (140 km²) of urban gardens produced 3.4 million tons of food. In Havana,
90% of the city's fresh produce come from local urban farms and gardens. In 2003, more than
200,000 Cubans worked in the expanding urban agriculture sector.

Mumbai, India
Economic development in Mumbai brought a growth in population caused mainly by the
migration of laborers from other regions of the country. The number of residents in the city
increased more than twelve times in the last century. Mumbai Port Trust has developed an
organic farm on the terrace of its central kitchen, which is an area of approximately 3,000 sq ft
(280 m2The central kitchens distributes food to approximately 3,000 employees daily, generating

25
important amounts of organic disposal. A terrace garden created by the staff recycles ninety
percent of this waste in the production of vegetables and fruits.

Bangkok, Thailand
In early 2000, urban gardens were started under the direction of the NGO, Thailand Environment
Institute (TEI), to help achieve the Bangkok Metropolitan Administrations (BMA) priority to
‘green’ Thailand. With a population of 12 million and 39% of the land in the city vacant due to
rapid expansion of the 1960s-80’s Bangkok is a test bed for urban gardens centered on
community involvement. Teach members of the communities the benefits of urban green space.

Beijing, China
Beijing's increase in land area from 4,822 km² in 1956 to 16,808 km² in 1958 led to the increased
adoption of peri-urban agriculture. Such "suburban agriculture" led to more than 70% of non-
staple food in Beijing, mainly consisting of vegetables and milk, to be produced by the city itself
in the 1960s and 1970s. Recently, with relative food security in China, periurban agriculture has
led to improvements in the quality of the food available, as opposed to quantity. One of the more
recent experiments in urban agriculture is the Modern Agricultural Science Demonstration Park
in Xiaotangshan. (Wikipedia, 2010)

2.2.3. Urban agriculture in Debre Birhan

Urban agriculture in Debre Birhan is not an activity of current time span. it is dated back
to a long time back. But an organized support from government and non government bodies is of
a short history. The government gave a higher consideration for the activity as part of its national
program of reducing food in security and curbing the huge employment prevalent in cities.

Urban agriculture is currently conducted being classified to various activities where the
major ones include urban crop raising ad irrigation, animal husbandry and hides and skin
marketing, forestry and such like activities. Various data and statistics compiled by government
show that the area is getting a momentum both in growth in output of the activities involved and
the number of people it participates.

The data for 2005 obtained from DBAEO (2011) showed that some 73 ha of land has
been cultivated using modern irrigation of streams, while 51.5 ha of land was cultivated with

26
traditional irrigation thus involving 375 and 501 people as cultivators. The year 2006 also
witnessed cultivation of 27.5 ha of land cultivated with improved seeds and fertilizer where as
the land cultivated with modern and traditional irrigation of streams was 75 ha and 54 ha of land
yielding 2208kl and 13460kl of output respectively.

The animal fattening and processing is another urban agriculture type in Debre Birhan. Its
milk production and processing for the year 2008/09 has 46,589lts. Figures for the animal
fattening for the years 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08 show that some 473, 301 and 450 of Dalga
typed cattles have been bred and fattened.

The town’s micro and small scale enterprises office and other institutions have been the
main source of credit and other financial services. For the year 2008/09, 386,000br of credit has
been provided for cooperatives.

These are just the excerpts of the lots of potential that urban agriculture holds and
achievements gained over the years. The successful conduction with the effective intervention of
governmental and non governmental organizations is expected to lead to increased employment
opportunities.

27
 Chapter Three
3. Data analysis and discussion
This chapter focuses the analysis and discussion of the data collected from the primary
and the secondary sources. The primary data is collected from the respondents who are residents
of the Debre Birhan town and which are 55 in number and used interview and questionnaire
method for its collection. The secondary data analyzed and presented below is collected from the
various documents in governmental bureaus and institutions in the form of published and
unpublished. The analysis of the data is started from giving some hint about the area the research
is conducted, i.e. Debre Birhan town.
3.1. Back ground of the study area
Debre-Birhan town was established by the 15thc king of Ethiopia, Atse Zeryaekob, in
1446E.C. The town is found in 900 North latitude and 390 eastern longitude. Found under
Amhara region, North Shoa Zone administration the town shares a total of 18,081.95 hector of
land and have 2750 meter above mean sea level. The topography of is classified as 86% flat land,
10% framented land and 4% mountainous land. Debre Birhan has a dominantly temperate
climate, which covers 99% while the remaining 1% is sub tropical. The average rainfall-is
971.34 mm the average temperature is 10 0c. Debre-Birhan town is found in northeastern on
a130K.M far from the capital city of Addis-Ababa and 695km in southeastern part from the
Bahir Dar town, the regional administration. The town has, as of the 2008/09 data, a total of
82,894 population of which the urban shares 69344 (32098 male and 37246 female) while the
rural part constitute the rest 13550 (6834 male and 6716 female).
Debre Birhan town, with its previous and present connection to the agricultural way of
life, has a higher involvement in agriculture. In the town around 2991 ha of land is currently used
for agricultural production of which 249.25 is cultivated with irrigation. The town also has a
1081.93 ha of land for grazing, 343 ha for forest-, and 374.4 ha for other agriculture related
activities. The average farmer land holding is 2.0625 ha.
As of the data found from the DBAEO (2011), the livestock population for the year
2009/10 stands at 12,132 cattle, 18,399 sheep, 1,362 goat, 12,215 hen, 946 goats and 545 oxen.
The town also produces products of these livestock population of which some are started to be
transported for sale at markets in neighboring towns and cities. With these regard the animal

28
products of the town for the same year 2002 is 1585 skin, 1710 hide, 378,287litres of milk ,
359,328 of egg.

3.2. Urban agriculture in Debre Birhan

Agriculture is not a new activity to residents of Debre Birhan. As in most towns and
urban areas of Ethiopia, Debre Birhan used to rely on Agriculture though these days the
dominance and vitality of it is being taken by the other sectors such as industry and service.
3.2.1. Cooperatives in urban agriculture
The history of urban agriculture as an activity, which is given the attention of the
government as a source of employment and income creation and attainment of food security, is
short. It was in 2004/05 that the government started to organize the youth in micro and small
scale cooperatives with in which included is urban agriculture. Since then urban agriculture has
been playing its share in alleviating the unemployment problem of the town which has an
unemployed labor force of (as of 2010) 9615 (3406 male and 6209 female). The below table
shows the engagement of the youth in micro and small scale cooperatives organized under urban
agriculture.

Table 3.1 employment in cooperatives engaged in urban agriculture

Year No of cooperatives Male female total
2006/07 13 129 282 281
2007/08 23 220 188 408
2008/09 42 309 334 643
2009/10 27 319 200 519
(Source: DBMSEO, 2010)
As the above table indicates an increasing number of unemployed male and female were
engaged in urban agriculture being organized under cooperatives. The number of cooperatives
which starts at 13 in 2006/07 has increased through the years to rise to more than three folds as
in the case of 2008/09 when it becomes 42. It is not only the number of the cooperatives that has
been increasing but also the people who constitute them. The number of previously unemployed
(or those employed in less sufficient income jobs) people who come to be involved in urban
agriculture has increased from its level 281, when the organizing the micro and small scale

29
enterprises began, to 519 in 2009/10. But the some of the enterprises weren’t successful though
to stay on track and their number has decreased from the 42 to 27 (between the years 2008/09
and 2009/10). The reason provided was the disagreement in between members of the enterprises.
As of 2001 data, multi purpose Farmers’ cooperatives which are 4 in number have been
organized creating employment of a total 3341 (2948 male, 393 female). In the same year, two
cooperatives engaged in animal fattening, has been organized and these cooperatives have
employed a total of 68 (51 male and 17 female) members managing a total capital of 128,959br.
Other two cooperatives who engage in producing and processing milk were also set to work with
their total 60 members (16 male and 44 female). The cooperatives were managing a total capital
of 110,102.80 br showing how much these and the above mentioned cooperatives have helped in
alleviating the unemployment problem in the town. The above figures also show the higher
response of the urban society to engaging in urban agricultural activity.
The government has been the major supporter of the cooperatives and the enterprises.
The data for 2001 shows that Fertilizer provided for cooperatives amount to 1980 kl DAP and
248.5 kl UREA. Improved seeds amounting 29kl of wheat were also provided for the urban
farmers in order to increase their production and productivity. The government has also been
providing credit services. The data for the same year 2001 shows of a Credit service delivery of
386,000 to the cooperatives.

3.2.2. Investment in urban agriculture

Investment in agriculture in areas which have the potential for it can be a source of not
only national economic growth but also income and employment creation. The potential for
Debre Birhan to attract investment is high given its resources and its proximity to the center of
the country’s industrial and trading center, Addis Ababa. The table below shows the invested
capital in Debre Birhan and the employment opportunity created.
Table 3.2: invested capital and employment in agricultural investment in Debre
Birhan
Year Capital in the primary sector Employment
2005/06 2,227,900 58
2006/07 4,724,399 85
2007/08 2,000,000 20

30
 (Source: DBIO, 2011)
As can be seen from the above table the investment in agriculture has created a total of
163 employments in the selected three years. The total capital of the investors in the years have
also shown increment from 2227900 in 2005/06 to 4724399 in 2006/07 and 2000000 in the year
2007/08. But as one can see from the above table both the capital and the employment creation
of the investors has declined in 2007/08 which shows that the town has a lot to do in attracting
investors.

3.3. Major activities of Urban Agriculture in Debre Birhan

Urban farming
Among the different urban agricultural activities in Debre Birhan the crop farming takes
the dominance. The urban farming includes various activities from homegrown vegetables to the
large scale investment activities. In the table below, various issues, like land allotment, total
production and input provision related to urban farming is shown.

Table 3.3 Input provision and production of urban farming in Debre Birhan
year Input provision Total

land DAP UREA Compost (cubic production

meter)
2005/06 3273.978 1032 139 3880 65,481
2006/07 3304.125 1697 487 1025 68,922
2007/08 3256.5 1737.5 157 1129 78,768
2008/09 3391.47 1914.5 157 3611 99,542.74
2009/10 2931.024 2184.5 3905 2535 80,006.275
(Source: DBAEO, 2011)

The year to year changes in the input supply and production presented in the table above
shows that it is not only the inputs of production that change in positive direction but also the
output they yield. Modern fertilizer provision to urban farmers have shown an increment in their
provision, which in the case of DAP is from 1032 to 2184.5 and in the case of UREA 139 to
3905 for those years in between 2005/06 and 2009/10. The above table witnesses that if provided

31
with the required inputs urban agriculture not only improves its employment creation ability but
also its output as shown above to rise up to 99,542.74 in the year 2008/09. The increase in the
total production and its sustained growth in the years ahead is promising for the increased labor
need and thus employment creation.
What we have observed above is the aggregate input versus production relation ship. But
agriculture in Debre Birhan is not only conducted in the traditional rain fed system but also
through modern irrigation supplemented with modern agricultural input. The table below
summarizes the condition of agriculture when conducted in irrigation.
Table 3.4 input provision and production of irrigation farming in Debre Birhan
year Land Fertilizers Irrigation machineries Total
production
DAP UREA compost Motor Pedal
pump pump
2005/06 138.5 - - - - - 13,451
2006/07 149 58.5 24.25 1025 3 5 15,668
2007/08 154.25 49.5 510.25 475 4 - 18,668
2008/09 157.25 125.5 6.5 35/m2 12 13 13,698
2009/10 213.45 155 34.25 25/m2 5 3 17,593.3
(Source: DBAEO, 2011)

From the results of the table above, one can observe that the irrigation in the town is
conducted with the help of modern agricultural machineries (such as motor pumps, pedal pumps)
and modern fertilizers (such as DAP, UREA, Compost). Motor and pedal pumps have been
provided to urban irrigation farmers in the town which at their higher number of provision
reached to 12 and 13 in the year 2008/09. From the table one can see that the level of input
provision and total production have been fluctuating though the years showing increment at
times and decrease in others which is explained by the fluctuation in the demand for these inputs
which in turn changes with the change in the number of farmers (mainly cooperatives whose
number has been changing as shown in table 3.1). Irrigation since 2004/05, producing twice a
year since
Considering the engagement of farmers in the irrigation, as of the data from DBAEO
(2011), 656 town residents got employed in the year 2006/07 of which 501 are male where as

32
155 are female. This number increased to 697 in the year 2008/09 while the number of female
participants reduced to 94. The increase in the number of those who engaged in the irrigation
urban farming is an encouraging one but the decline of the female participants whose number
and share declined isn’t good for increasing job opportunities of female.
Urban animal fattening
Another activity the practiced by the majority of the urban dwellers in Debre Birhan is
the animal fattening which is usually conducted either for their meat or milk and milk products.
As of the 2000 data from DBAEO 2 cooperatives were engaged in animal fattening including 51
male and 17 female and registering a total capital of 128,959 br. Another 2 cooperatives were
also organized to engage in milk and milk products processing activity thus creating employment
for 60 members (16 male and 44 female) and a total capital of 110,102.80br. Animal fattening
which the town residents conduct in their dwelling compound is an activity that highly closes the
gap between the home and work place and this is why the urban female dwellers engage in it in
better amount and share.
Considering the support given to them by the government, as of DBAEO (2011) medical
treatment for 17,635, vaccination for 8,045 cattles and improvement through breeding for 240
were provided. 28,404 tones dry cattle feed was also provided for 2,301 engaged in animal
fattening.
Urban forest development
The forest development is one of the agricultural activities conducted in Debre Birhan.
This activity which generates income and employment for the urban unemployed has another
potential which is the maintaining the suitable living environment of the town.
Table 3.5 Forest development in Debre Birhan
Year Seedlings Tracing
Built repaired
2005/06 584,285 19 10
2006/07 861,884 21.5 34.325
2007/08 460,430 26.7 28.81
2008/09 253,519 37.24 23.74
2009/10 281,275 49.125 43.375
(Source: DBAEO, 2011)
As indicated in table the seedling development in town in the years in between 2005 and
2010 has been started with big numbers though this number declined in the years that followed.

33
This is due to the initial higher concern given for planting seedlings as the millennium
celebration of the 2007/08 drew close. The figures after show a big fall from their previous thus
showing that such development were a specific time phenomenon whose concern was reduced
after it. This is not a good news fro the town’s forest development and the people involved in it
since it needs consistent attention. Besides this the building and repairing of Tracing around the
development shows increment in the years where the building reached 49.125 in the year
2009/10. This can enable the sustained development of forest and the creation of better
environment conservation capability.

3.4. The socio-economic characteristic of the respondents

Table 3.6: the age, sex and educational level characteristic of the respondents
characteristics Number Percent
sex
Male 34 61.82%
Female 21 38.18%
Total 55 100%
Age groups
<18 - -
18-32 19 34.54%
33-45 24 43.64%
46-64 12 21.82%
>64 - -
Total 55 100%
Level of education
illiterate 10 18.18%
Primary education 18 32.73%
Secondary education 23 41.82%
Higher education 4 7.27%
Other education - -
Total 55 100%
(Source: own survey, 2011)

34
 As indicated in the table above, which shows the age, sex and education characteristic of
the respondents, the majority of the respondents, 34 (61.82%) are males while the rest 21
(38.18%) are females.
The data in the table shows the lower involvement of the urban women in such activities
as agriculture, which require laborious work for living, unlike their female counterparts of the
rural region. The majority of the hired or self-employed women of the urban region prefer their
own job as like bakeries, beauty salons, traditional drinking, and such like activities.
Another socio-economic characteristic of the respondents is their age. Of the total 55
respondents who are engaged in urban agriculture, none of those people were found in the age
group lesser than 18, 19 (34.54%) were in the age between 18 and 32, 24 (43.64%) were in the
age group of 32-45, 12 (21.82%) were in between 46 and 64 and none of the respondents were
found to be aged above 64 years of age.
As shown on the above table, the majority of the participants on the urban agriculture are
those found in the adult age taking 43.64% of the total respondents since this age group has some
connection in the past with the agriculture sector as a way of living. The fact that the youth
didn’t take majority of the share is because some of the urban youth in this age group between 18
and 32 still attend extended education as a way of increasing job opportunity and income level
where as the other group of youth in this age group mainly search for job at institutions and do
not consider agricultural activities as a life changing opportunities.
Considering the educational level of the respondents, the majority of the respondents
have stated that they attended secondary education, i.e. 23 (41.82%), 18 (32.73%) attended
primary education, 4 (7.27%) were higher education attendant and 10 (18.18%) did not have any
formal education background.
The fact that the literate respondents took the majority of the respondents is since this
respondents dwell in the urban area where availability of education is better for them than their
rural counter parts.
Another socio economic characteristic worth of concern is the marital status and family
size of respondents.

35
 Table 3.7: the marital status and family size of respondents
Marriage status Number Percent
Single 4 7.27%
Married 42 76.36%
Divorced 2 3.64
widowed 7 12.73%
Total 55 100%
Family Size
<5 6 10.91%
5-10 27 49.09%
> 10 22 40%
Total 55 100%
(Source: own survey, 2011)
Considering the marital status of the respondents, 42 (76.36%) of the respondents replied
that they are married, 4 (7.27%) are single, 2 (3.64) are divorced and the remaining 7 (12.73%)
are those who lost their spouses to death.
From the above table one can see that the share of the married respondent is far larger
than the rest of groups of the respondents such as the single, divorced and widowed showing the
response of married couples to engagement in such activities is higher.
Coming to the family size of the respondents, the larger proportion of the respondents,
i.e. 27 (49.09%) replied that they have a medium sized family of 5-10, 22 (40%) have a more
than 10 family size where as the rest 6 of the respondents replied that they have a family less
than 5.
As the table above indicates, most of the households engaged in urban agriculture have a
medium sized family of 5 up to 10 which is partly explained by the access of this section of the
society to the modern family planning techniques and to modern ways of living which may not
allow large number of children. The fact that the majority of the respondents have a relatively
larger family size goes hand in hand with the figures we observed above about the marital status
and the age group of the society since a higher ages and a larger portion of marriages allow the
respondents to have a larger family size.

36
3.5. Involvement in urban agriculture
Of the total 55 respondent asked about their involvement in the given type of urban
agriculture, those who named it as that they involve in small scale crop production take the lead
with their number which is 29 (52.73%) followed by those who are engaged in animal
fattening/husbandry activities, 23 (41.82%), and those who conduct forest development (large or
small scale seedling development), who are amounted to 3 (5.45%).
Table 3.8: respondents as grouped by type of agricultural activity
Types of urban agriculture
activity number Percent
Crop production 29 52.73%
Animal fattening 23 41.82%
Forest development 3 5.45%
total 55 100%

(Source: own survey, 2011)

The result of the above table shows that crop production is the dominant agricultural
activity in Debre Birhan town as followed by animal fattening and forest development. The
majority of farmers and others who are engaged in other types of agriculture depend on the
traditional agricultural practices and areas and do not base their involvement on market demand
and price considerations. The same works for the majority of the respondents who indicated that
they engage in the traditional crop production.
The respondents were also asked for how long they were in the activity. Most of them, 30
(54.55%) replied that they stayed in the activity for more than 10 years. Some others, 16
(29.09%) said that they stayed in the activity for 5-10 years while the remaining 9 (16.36%)
stated that they come to be involved in the area after the past 5 years.
Table 3.9: respondents as grouped by time span stayed in the activity
Time span respondents number Percent
stayed in the activity
<5 years 9 16.36%
5-10 years 16 29.09%
>10 years 30 54.55%
total 55 100%
(Source: own survey, 2011)

37
 The results in the above table can be a further proof for the fact urban agriculture is not a
recent phenomenon that urban dwellers practice. It shows that residents in Debre Birhan have
been practicing the activity for long. It was being conducted as the traditional way and for the
traditional reason (subsistence and hand to mouth) which residents in the past have been
conducting. But the attitude of the people towards agriculture as an urban activity of income
generation and employment creation is of recent phenomenon.
The study was also interested in the type of work that the respondents were doing before
engaging in the urban agriculture activity. The results are discussed below.
Table 3.10: respondents as grouped by their previous employment
Employment type number Percent
unemployed 23 41.82%
Government/private employed 17 30.91%
Private job 15 27.27%
others - -
total 55 100%
(Source: own survey, 2011)
As indicated in the table above the majority of the respondents has been unemployed
before engaging in urban agriculture. These respondents take 41.82% of the total respondents (or
23 out of the total 55). Other respondents, 15 (27.27%) specified that they have been working
their own job and the 17 respondents left responded that they have been hired in the private or
governmental institutions.
The above table tells that urban agriculture has big potential to serve as a provider of
employment opportunity for the jobless. The figures indicate that the major reason for the
respondents to participate in urban agriculture is their inability to find other alternative or
potential source of income. As indicated above urban agriculture is not a new area to get an
employment at, it is some thing that has been dominant in the urban areas in the past. Thus both
new entrants and existing job seekers will have higher possibility to be engaged in the activity
with which they are familiar. The data also shows that part of the participants in the sector, who
have been hired in the government or private institutions, take the next big share of the
respondents. The reason for these parts to be involved in this area is the insufficiency of the pay
or wages in these institutions where the fixed income they receive loses its power of purchasing

38
day by day. Those who quit their own job to be employed in the area also take a share which
can’t be ignored.
Depending on the above question provided the respondents who replied that they have
been unemployed were further asked the reasons why they became unemployed. Their replies are
presented in the table below.
Table 3.11: respondents as grouped by reasons for being unemployed
unemployment type Number Percent
Temporary lay off 2 8.7%
Mismatch in job requirements 5 21.74%
Unavailability of job opportunities 16 69.56%
total 23 100%
(Source: own survey, 2011)
Most of the respondents, 16 (69.56%) who have been unemployed before engaging in
urban agriculture specified their reason of being unemployed as unavailability of job
opportunities. The second largest share of this group, 5 (21.74%) is taken by those who were
unemployed due to mismatch in job requirements. The remaining respondents, 2 (8.7%), stated
their reasons as temporary lay off from their jobs due to seasonality of works…………. Thus one
can understand that the major pushing factor for involvement of the unemployed people in the
area is the cyclical typed unemployment, which is prevalent in most of the urban areas in general
and Debre Birhan in particular, followed by the frictional and structural unemployment types.
Thus given proper consideration and support urban agriculture can be a source of employment
for whatever the unemployment type and especially for the cyclical typed one which is the
dominant one in Debre Birhan.
The researcher also asked the respondents about their involvement type in urban
agriculture, i.e. whether it is permanently, or temporarily or whether it is on their spare time.
Their responses are presented as follows.

39
 Figure 3.1 Type of involvement in urban agriculture

type of involvement in urban agri-

culture
30
25 24
22
20
15
10 9

5
0
Permanently Temporary On spare time

(Source: own survey, 2011)

In rural areas the major and the dominant area for the involvement or for the employment
of the labor hour of a given person is the agricultural sector. Residents of a given rural area have
a lower chance of spending part or the whole of their labor hour in alternative areas of
employment. But the case is different when we come to the urban centers where the alternative
areas for the involvement of labor increase in type and number. This is what one can observe
from the above figure. Even though, those respondents who said that their involvement in urban
agriculture is of a permanent nature have a high number, i.e. 22, those who are engaged
temporarily are 9, but it is those who does it at their spare time and side by side with their other
activities and jobs they are engaged (24) in that take the lion share from the total respondents.
In the case of urban areas, residents who are engaged in agricultural activities with lower
provision of land and other necessary production inputs, do not totally depend on it since the
output level is not high enough to generate sufficient income to meet their needs. Thus, it will be
necessary to diversify the income generating activities. But this is not to forget the 22 of the
respondents who are permanently engaged in urban agriculture as a task of generating income.
For such section of the respondents, urban agriculture is their main job with which they raise
income to cover their day to day and/or long term costs. This section of the respondents also has
a better provision of resources (time, land, financial resources etc.) which can enable the
production of a relatively larger output, raising of larger income and the possibility of a job on
which to completely rely.

40
3.6. Production and employment in urban agriculture
Even though most of the agricultural activity in urban areas is conducted in a relatively
smaller plot of land which will not allow the production of larger output, it still requires the one
involved in such an activity to employ not only his own but also the labor hours of others.
Concerning this, the respondents were asked whether they employ family labor or hired labor.

Table 3.12: respondents as grouped by the type of labors employed

Type of labors employed Number Percent
Family labor 31 56.36%
Hired labor 24 43.64%
total 55 100%
(Source: own survey, 2011)
The higher proportion of the respondents claimed to hire from their own family, 31
(43.64%), while the rest, 24 (43.64%) replied that they hire or use labor outside the family labor.
Those respondents who replied that they use family labor were further asked their reasons for
choosing family labor over that of hired out side labor. Their responses are tabulated below:

Table 3.13: respondents as grouped by their reason for employing family labor
Reasons for employing family labor Number Percent
Unavailability of cheap labor 9 29.03%
Lack of capital for additional hired labor 16 51.62%
Lower trustworthiness of hired labors 6 19.35%
total 31 100%
(Source: own survey, 2011)
Lack of capital is provided in the above table (by those respondents who hired family
labor) as a reason for not hiring an out side labor. These respondents are 16 in number and are
more than half (51%) of the total 31 respondents. 9 (29.03%) of the respondents stated that their
reason is unavailability of cheap labor. The rest 6 (19.35%) respondents replied that they didn’t
hire outsiders because they have lower trust on hired labors. This is explained by the fact that the
small scale conduction of agricultural activities in urban areas does not generate enough funds
for expenses of supervision of the hired labor.

41
 Here the respondents were asked questions related to their production. The respondents
were asked for what purpose they use their products. As indicated in the figure below, more than
half of the respondents, 31(56.36%) use their output from urban agriculture both for sale at
market and home consumption while 18 (32.73%) provide it to the market and not for home
consumption and the rest 6 (10.91%) use their production for home consumption only.

Figure 3.2: The purpose for which they use agricultural product
For Home consumption; 10.91%

Both for home For sale at

consumption Market ;
and market 32.73%
sale; 56.36%

(Source: own survey, 2011)

the majority of farmers, growers and pastoralists (mainly engaged in animal fattening) in
less developed countries base their production on home consumption and the rest that is left for
market is sold on a much lower value as compared to the case when there is an efficient market
system. On the above table, the majority of the respondents have replied that they use their
agricultural products for both home consumption and market sale. One of the drives for the move
towards urban agriculture in cities and towns is the need of urban dwellers for fresh and easily
accessible food. It is this demand for locally grown, fresh and low transport requiring food that
explains the respondents’ high interest in providing it to the local urban market. The reason for
the other respondents who use their agricultural product solely for home consumption is that
their production is too small to be used for both market and home needs.
Based on the above question provided for the respondents, the respondents who said that
they use their product for market and for both market and home consumption were also asked if
the income they get from the production and sale of agricultural output is enough to for them and
others who depend on them. Their response is summarized in the table below.

42
 Table 3.14: respondents as grouped by the income they get from selling their
products
Is the level of income you get from selling your agricultural products enough for you and
the people who depend on you?
Yes No
Number Percent Number Percent
14 28.57% 35 71.43%
(Source: own survey, 2011)
As indicated above in the table more than 70% of the respondents do not get sufficient
income form the sale of their products on the market. This is explained by the fact that the
majorities of urban dwellers who engage in agricultural activities do not take urban agriculture as
their only source of income and rely on it but rather use it as a supplementary source of income
and as a way of fulfilling their own desire for easily accessible and fresh food, beside income
generation. But still there are some who use their product for market and they are getting
momentum due to their business oriented production, market based uses and the response from
the government starting from organizing them in enterprises of micro and small scale typed up to
providing them with the support they require though it has its limitations.
To make the impact of participating in urban agriculture on urban dwellers more clear the
respondents were asked if there is an improvement on their living standard after they become
involved in urban agriculture.

Table 3.15: respondents as grouped by change in their living standard

Is there improvement on your living standard after you are engaged in urban agriculture?
Yes No Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
21 38.18% 34 61.82% 55 100%
(Source: own survey, 2011)
The majority of the respondents 34 (61.82%) replied that their involvement in urban
agriculture didn’t result in any positive change in their level of living. though this group of the
respondents take the lead, those who specified that there is indeed a change in their living
standard are not too small to be ignored. they admitted that urban agriculture has indeed changed
their life. The higher proportion of this group of the respondents based their production on

43
market basis and the support they got from the government and other institutions was helpful,
though not satisfactory, in providing them with an employment opportunity, income generating
potential and a better consumption as compared to the times before.

3.7. Modern input use and productivity in urban agriculture

With regard to this the respondents were asked if they use modern inputs of production.
The majority of the respondents, 38 (69.09%) are not benefited from the use of modern types of
inputs. the rest 17 (30.91%) use modern inputs in their production.

Table 3.16: respondents as grouped by their modern input usage

Do you use modern inputs in your production
Yes No Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
17 30.91% 38 69.09% 55 100%
(Source: own survey, 2011)

The use of modern inputs of production is essential in that it enable the producer to have
the largest possible output from the costs he incurs. It allows the increase of output from the
given level of outlay that the producer incurs. As indicated in the table above, most of the
respondents are not able to use modern inputs but rather lie in traditional and frequently used
agricultural methods. they reasoned that this is due to the relatively higher cost of the input per
unit of the output since the output they produce is not high enough to allow them exploit
economies of scale from the available inputs.
The respondents who answered that they don not use modern fertilizer were further asked
to specify the effect of their inability to use on modern inputs on their production and
productivity. Figure 3.3 shows their response to this question:

44
 Figure 3.3: The effect of inability to use modern input

Very high, 10.91%

Medium, 12.73%

low, 7.27%

High, 67.27%
Very
low,
1.81%

(Source: own survey, 2011)

The results of the above chart shows that inability to use modern inputs is the main
source lesser productivity and 67.27% of the respondents have responded that it has high effect
on productivity. Only one responded that it has very low effect on its productivity while 6 said
that it has a very high effect on their productivity, 7 said medium, while the rest 4 said low. From
the responses of the respondents one can deduce that the effect of modern inputs on the
production level is undeniable and that its lower provision is has a great ability to constrain
production.
Taking this into consideration the respondents were asked what type of technology of
production they use, i.e. whether labor intensive or capital intensive, since both types of
technologies of production have great effect on the amount and type of labor to be employed.
The results are discussed below.

Table 3.17: respondents as grouped by the type of technique of production they use
What type of technique of production Number Percent
do you use? Labor intensive 49 89.09%
Capital intensive - -
others 6 10.91%
Total 55 100%
(Source: own survey, 2011)

45
 The above table shows that more than 89% of the respondents use a labor intensive type
of technique for their production. These respondents rely in such technique of production
because the cost that such a technique of production, supported by heavy machineries, is too big
for them to afford and that the return from such scale of production is too small to serve as a
guarantee against the high risks and costs associated with large scale capital intensive
production.
The support of institutions whether governmental or nongovernmental is plays a great
role in making urban agriculture a reliable source of employment for the urban dwellers. Both of
these institutions have resources at hand which at their effective use and provision could solve
the problems that participants in urban agriculture face. Keeping this in mind the researcher
provided the following question, about any support respondents get from governmental and non
governmental institutions, and the results are presented as follows.

Table 3.18: respondents as grouped by the support from institutions

Have you received support from governmental and non-governmental institutions?
Yes No
Number Percent Number Percent
12 21.82% 43 78.18%
(Source: own survey, 2011)
As indicated in the table above 43 (78.18%) of the respondents haven’t been beneficiary
from the support of institutions (government and non-government). only 12 (21.82%)
respondents have admitted that they have received support. for a long time urban agriculture
hasn’t been regarded as an urban activity that deserves the special concern of the government
and those who can be of some use to it though this condition is changing in that the government
is giving it due consideration as a potential weapon against urban poverty, unemployment and
food self insufficiency. thus is the late effort of the government that should be presented to
explains why the majority is not benefited from the support of such institutions. added to this is
the pro-rural policy of then government which allocates the majority of the resources needed in
the agricultural sector to the rural section of the country thus leaving few resources for the urban
counterparts.

46
 Based on the above question those respondents who answered “No” were also asked what
type of support they need from the government or the non governmental institutions. The vast
majority of the respondents said that they require the provision of working capital in the form of
credit (which some prefer at a low interest and unexaggerated collateral) and land to work on,
modern inputs of production, provision of services like information and consultation on market
condition, new and effective production techniques and new and productive seeds. Some
required the government to ease the bureaucracy in government offices while others needed
The respondents were asked whether they faced any obstacles before getting involved in
urban agriculture or not. More than 92% (51) of the respondents faced problems when engaged
in the activity.

Table 3.19: respondents as grouped by the problems they faced

Have you faced serious problems when getting involved in to urban agriculture?
Yes No
Number Percent Number Percent
51 92.73% 4 7.27%
(Source: own survey, 2011)
The respondents who said that they faced problems were further asked to state the type of
problems that they faced. The problems stated were almost similar to those provided above as a
response for the type of support respondents required from institutions. The problems
respondents raised are like low provision of information, lower supply of working capital and
unavailability of working space.
The above presented are the problems that the respondents faced before getting employed
in the activity. The respondents were also asked the problems they faced after they get involved
in urban agriculture. Respondents mentioned these problems:
 lack of close communication with related offices of the government (such as MSE
agency, DBAEO, SACCOS etc.) and private supporting institutions,
 Lack of proper provision of information on production and production techniques,
market, modern technologies, and other supplementary issues.

47
 Lower and some times no supply of funds that can be used as working capital. In relation
to this, some raised that the interest required to be paid on borrowed fund is too much for
them.

 Lower provision of working space which especially for those engaged in farming
activities is the major challenge.

 Lack of proper training on management of inputs, financial assets, and other resources
they own.

48
 Chapter Four

4. Conclusion and recommendation

4.1. Conclusion

Urban agriculture is not an activity of a recent phenomenon rather an activity which was
being practiced a long time before as employment creating area though the previous engagement
were not characterized by organized and committed involvement of the government as a main
motivator and the proper as a participant. The perception of urban agriculture as an urban activity
of income generation and employment creation is of recent phenomenon.
The major reason for the majority of the respondents to participate in urban agriculture is
their inability to find other alternative or potential source of income. Besides The majority of the
respondents are also engaged in urban agriculture in their spare time thus doing it side by side
with their other activities and jobs they are engaged in and those who are permanently and
temporarily engaged in it have a higher number but not high enough to say that the engagement
in urban agriculture is a dependable employment scheme. This shows that urban agriculture has a
high potential to create source of employment for the unemployed ones but the income and the
security of the job is not that significant enough for them to completely rely on it.
Coming to the type of the labor used, the higher proportion of the respondents claimed to
hire from their own family. The major reason for this is the lack of capital. This restricts the
capacity of urban agriculture in expanding output and employment since both the production
level and the labor required are limited.
The majorities sell and consume both for home consumption and market sale. But the
income they get from marketing their output is not high enough for them to support themselves
and others who depend on them. The reason for the other respondents who use their agricultural
product solely for home consumption is that their production is too small to leave them with
surpluses which can be used for both market and home needs. This feature of urban agriculture
in Debre Birhan which is due to the small scale production of agricultural output makes it hard to
enable sustainable income flow thus no sustainable employment.

49
 Most of the respondents are not able to use modern inputs but rather lie in traditional and
frequently used agricultural methods. They reasoned that this is due to the relatively higher cost
of the input per unit of the output since the output they produce is not high enough to allow them
exploit economies of scale from the available inputs. Other restraints those who engaged in
urban agriculture face are lack of close support and communication with government and private
supporting institutions, Lack of proper provision of information, Lower and some times no
supply of funds, Lack of proper training on management of resources and Lower provision of
working space can be named as reducing the sector’s ability for expanding employment
opportunity.

4.2. Recommendation
From the discussions presented above it is clear that urban agriculture has a big potential for
reducing the unemployment in the town and thus expand employment options. But there are
some areas which ask for measures which should be taken to further strengthen the capacity of
the sector in contributing to the employment creation of the town. Below listed are the measures
that should be taken by the stakeholders of the urban agriculture if the area is to be of much
significance.
 Increased attention should be given to the young and female part of the society who
has a higher unemployment share in urban areas. Thus organizing this section of the
society under associations, providing them with training, capital, land and other
necessities of production should be given primary concern.
 The government should have to consider the sustainable provision of the modern
inputs whose sources are outside the access of users. For the inputs with a high cost
the government and private supporting institutions should consider some support in
the form of subsidy.
 Linkages with investors and other producers should have to be established so as to
increase the marketability of the outputs and revenue generating capacity. In this
respect factories, private institutions, government and those involved in urban
agriculture should work closely such that the raw, semi processed and final products
get markets either for further processing or consumption.

50
 The provision of land and financial services is the main constraint in the sector which
not only limited the availability of capital for the large scale production but also
restrained the possibility of expanded and secured employment. Thus the combined
resource of government (in providing land and finance) and private institutions (in
providing financial resources) should have to be used to the top of its capacity so that
the lower availability of such resources will not restrain the potential of the sector.
 The production system of the urban growers is characterized by the traditional hand
to mouth and primarily for consumption system. This makes it hard for the growers to
generate enough income from their production thus to make their engagement
unsecured one. Thus to make a sustained employment in the urban agriculture those
engaged in the sector should base their production on the market.

51
 4.2. References

 Bettina Baumgartner and Hasan Belevi, A Systematic Overview of Urban Agriculture in

Developing Countries, Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science & Technology
and Dept. of Water & Sanitation in Developing Countries, September 2001

 Caleb Mireri, Aphonse Kyessi, Nimrod Mushi and Peter Atekyerez, Urban Agriculture in
East Africa: practice, challenges and opportunities, 2004
 CGIAR-Urban Harvest, 2007
 Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC ), Urban Agriculture and Community Food
Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe, October
2003
 Country Position Paper, Urbanization: Market Opportunities Ethiopia, 2010
 George Matovu, Urban Agriculture Programme, 2006
 Gordon Prain, Urban Harvest: A Cgiar Global Program on Urban Agriculture Peri-Urban
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture
 Kadmiel H. Wekwete, Urban Agriculture Research in East and Southern Africa II:
Record, Capacities and Opportunities, CFP Report 3 University of Zimbabwe, 1993
 luc j.a. Mougeot, urban agriculture: Definition, Presence and Potentials and Risks
Thematic Paper 1, 1999
 Paul Sommers and Jac Smit, promoting urban agriculture: a strategy framework for
planners in north America, Europe and Asia, cities feeding people report series 9, 1994
 Paul Sommers and Jac Smit, CFP Report 9: Promoting Urban Agriculture: A Strategy
Framework for Planners in North America, Europe and Asia, the Urban Agriculture
Network
 Peter King’ori, Assessment of urban and peri-urban agriculture research in the Centers of
the (CGIAR) in Sub-Saharan Africa Urban Harvest Working Paper Series, Paper No. 1 ,
March 2004;
 Sabine Gündel, a synthesis of urban and peri-urban agricultural research, RNRRS
programme, February 2006;

52
 Appendix- I
1. Questionnaire for those engaged in urban agriculture
ደብረ ብርሃን ዩኒቨርሲቲ
ቢዝነስና ኢኮኖሚክስ ኮሌጅ
የኢኮኖሚክስ ትምህርት ክፍል
ይህ መጠይቅ የከተማ ግብርና በደብረ ብርሃን ከተማ ውስጥ የስራ እድልን በመፍጠር ላይ ያለው
አስተዋፅኦ በሚል ርእስ ለሚሰራው ጥናት እንደ መረጃ ግብዓት ያገለግል ዘንድ የተዘጋጀ ነው፡፡ የዚህ
መጠይቅ ዋና ዓላማ ለዚሁ ጥናት የሚያገለግል መረጃ መሰብሰብ ሲሆን በዚህ መጠይቅ የሚሰበሰብ መረጃ
ከታለመለት ዓላማ ውጪ የማይውልና ሚስጥራዊነቱ የሚጠበቅ ነው፡፡ እርስዎም በዚህ መጠይቅ ላይ ለሚገኙ
ጥያቅዎች ትክክለኛና ተዓማኒነት ያላቸውን መልሶች በመስጠት እንዲተባበሩን በአክብሮት
እጠይቃለሁ፡፡
ሀ) ግላዊ መረጃ
1. ፆታ፡ ሀ. ወንድ ለ. ሴት
2. እድሜ፡ _______________
3. የትምህርት ደረጃ፡
ሀ. ያልተማረ ለ. አንደኛ ደረጃ
ሐ. ሁለተኛ ደረጃ መ.ከፍተኛ ትምህርት
ሠ. ሌሎች፣ እባክዎ ይግለፁት______________________________________
4. የጋብቻ ሁኔታ፡
ሀ. ያገባ ለ. ያላገባ ሐ. የፈታ መ. የትዳር አጋራቸውን ያጡ
5. የቤተሰብ መጠን
ሀ. ከ 5 በታች ለ. ከ 5-10 ሐ. ከ 10 በላይ
ለ) የከተማ ግብርናን የተመለከቱ መረጃዎች
6. በየትኛው የከተማ ግብርና ስራ ላይ ነው የተሰማሩት?
ሀ. በሰብል ልማት ለ. በከብት ማደለብ/እርባታ ሐ. በደን ልማት
መ. ልሎች፣ እባክዎ ____________________________________________
7. በከተማ ግብርና ላይ ለምን ያህል ጊዜ ቆይተዋል?________________________
8. በከተማ ግብርና ላይ ከመሰማራትዎ በፊት የስራ ሁኔታዎት ምን ይመስላል?
ሀ. ስራ አጥ ለ. በመንግስት/በግል ድርጅት ተቀጣሪ ሐ. የግል ስራ
መ. ሌሎች፣ እባክዎ ይግለፁት______________________________________
9. ለጥያቄ ቁጥር 8 መልስዎት "ሀ" ከሆነ ስራ አጥ የሆኑበት ምክንያት ምንድነው?
ሀ. በጊዜያዊነት ከስራ ተቀንሰው ለ. የስራ ዕድል ስላጡ ነው
ሐ. በተማሩት እና ለስራ በሚፈለገው የስልጠና ዓይነት መካከል ልዩነት ስላለ
10. በከተማ ግብርና ላይ የተሰማሩት በምን ዓይነት መንገድ ነው?
ሀ. በቋሚነት ለ. በጊዜያዊነት ሐ. በትርፍ ጊዜዎት
መ. ሌሎች፣ እባክዎ ይግለፁት______________________________________
11. ለስራዎት ምን ዓይነት የሰው ሀይል ይጠቀማሉ?
ሀ. ከቤተሰብዎ ለ. ተቀጣሪ
12. ለጥያቄ ቁጥር 11 መልስዎት "ሀ" ከሆነ ይህንን የመረጡበት ምክንያት ምንድነው?
ሀ. በዝቅተኛ ደሞዝ የሚቀጠር ሰራተኛ በማጣትዎ
ለ. ለተጨማሪ ተቀጣሪ ሰራተኞች ካፒታል ባለመኖሩ
ሐ. ሌሎች፣ እባክዎ ይግለፁት ………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………..
13. የሚያመርቱትን ምርት በዋነኝነት ለምን ይጠቀሙበታል?
ሀ. ለቤት ውስጥ ፍጆታ ለ. ለገበያ ሐ. ለ"ሀ" እንዲሁም ለ"ለ"
መ. ሌሎች፣ እባክዎ ይዘርዝሩት
………………………………………………………………………………………..

53
 ………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………..
14. ለጥያቄ ቁጥር 13 መልስዎት "ለ" ወይም "ሐ" ከሆነ ለገበያ አቅርበው የሚያገኙት
እርስዎን እና ሌሎችን ለማስተዳደር በቂ ነው?
ሀ. አዎ ለ. አይደለም
15. በከተማ ግብርና ላይ በመሰማራትዎ በኑሮዎ ላይ የመጣ መሻሻል አለን?
ሀ. አዎ ለ. የለም
16. በምርት ሂደትዎ ላይ ዘመናዊ ግብዓቶችን ይጠቀማሉ?
ሀ. አዎ ለ. የለም
17. ለጥያቄ ቁጥር 16 መልስዎት "ለ" ከሆነ በምርትዎት ላይ ያለው ተፅዕኖ ምን ያህል ነው?
ሀ. በጣም ከፍተኛ ለ. ከፍተኛ ሐ. መካከለኛ መ. ዝቅተኛ ሠ. በጣም ዝቅተኛ
18. የሚጠቀሙበት የምርት ዘዴ ምን ዓይነት ነው?
ሀ. የሰው ሀይል መሰረት ያደረገ
ለ. ዘመናዊ እና የሰው ሀይልን የሚቀንሱ/የሚቆጥቡ መሳሪያዎች
ሐ. ሌሎች፣ እባክዎ ይዘርዝሯቸው…………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
19. ከድርጅቶች (መንግስታዊ ወይም መንግስታዊ ካልሆኑ) ያገኙት ድጋፍ አለን?
ሀ. አዎ ለ. የለም
20. ለጥያቅ ቁጥር 20 መልስዎት "ለ" ከሆነ ምን ዓይነት ድጋፍ ይሻሉ?
ሀ. የመስሪያ ካፒታል ለ. የምክር ሐ. የዘመናዊ ግብአቶች አቅርቦት
መ. ሌሎች፣ እባክዎ ይግለፁት…………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….....
21. በከተማ ግብርና ላይ እንዲሰማሩ ያነሳሳዎት ምክንያት ምንድነው?
ሀ. ከዚህ በፊት በስራው ላይ የነበረዎት ልምድ
ለ. የአማራጭ የስራ ዕድሎች አለመኖር
ሐ. ከተለያዩ ምንጮች ያገኙት መረጃ
መ. ለሚመረቱ ምርቶች ያለው ገበያ እና ተቀባይነት
ሠ. ሌሎች፣ እባክዎ ይግለፁት……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
22. ወደ ስራው እንዳይገቡ እንቅፋት የነበሩ ችግሮች ነበሩን?
ሀ. አዎ ለ. የለም
23. ለጥያቄ ቁጥር 23 መልስዎት "ሀ" ከሆነ ምን አይነት ችግሮች ናቸው ያጋጠመዎት?
ሀ. የመረጃ እጥረት ለ. የመስሪያ ካፒታል እጥረት ሐ. የመስሪያ ቦታ እጥረት
መ. ሌሎች፣ እባክዎ ይግለፁት……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
24. ወደ ስራው ከገቡ በኋላ ያጋጠሙዎት ችግሮች የትኞቹ ናቸው?
ሀ. የመረጃ እጥረት ለ. የመስሪያ ካፒታል እጥረት ሐ. የመስሪያ ቦታ እጥረት
መ. የዘመናዊ ግብአቶች እጥረት ሠ. ከድርጅቶች (መንግስታዊና መንግስታዊ ያልሆኑ) ድርጅቶች
ድጋፍ ያለመኖር
ሠ. ሌሎች፣ እባክዎ ይዘርዝሩት……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………..

54