Table 1:
Socio-demographics and land access among 30 participants in the land-tenure Shamba Maisha sub-study
| Characteristics | Women (N[%] or median [IQR]) | Men (N[%] or median [IQR]) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| N = 15 | N = 15 | |
|
|
||
| Sociodemographic variables | ||
|
|
||
| Head of household | 8 (53.3%) | 14 (93.3%) |
|
|
||
| Married with single partner | 7 (46.7%) | 10 (66.7%) |
|
|
||
| Married with multiple partners | 1 (6.7%) | 3 (20.0%) |
|
|
||
| Widowed | 7 (46.7%) | 1 (6.7%) |
|
|
||
| Single | 0 (0%) | 1 (6.7%) |
|
|
||
| Living in peri-urban area | 6 (40.0%) | 6 (40.0%) |
|
|
||
| Living in rural area | 9 (60.0%) | 9 (60.0%) |
|
|
||
| Age | 46.0 (39.0, 53.0) | 41.0 (36.0, 48.0) |
|
|
||
| Age of children <= 17 years old in household | 8.5 (5.0, 12.0) | 9.0 (5.0, 12.5) |
|
|
||
| Years on ART | 6.0 (2.0, 7.4) | 4.6 (2.5, 6.9) |
|
|
||
| 2+ Children | 13 (86.7%) | 14 (93.3%) |
|
|
||
| Perceived Land Access * | ||
|
|
||
| Land insecure | 5 (33.3%) | 2 (13.3%) |
|
|
||
| Land secure | 10 (66.7%) | 13 (86.6%) |
|
|
||
| Type of Land Access * | ||
|
|
||
| Freehold (permanent ownership) | 9 (60.0%) | 10 (66.7%) |
| Has any written documentation about rights to land | 2 (13%) | 5 (33.3%) |
| Name appears on title | 1 (6.7%) | 3 (20%) |
|
|
||
| Customary (customary ownership) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0%) |
|
|
||
| Informally occupied | 4 (26.7%) | 3 (20.0%) |
|
|
||
| Rented or Leased | 0 (0%) | 2 (13.3%) |
|
|
||
‘Land Access’ refers specifically to the type of land that study participants were using for the Shamba Maisha study and does not include additional pieces of land to which some participants may have had access. For the qualitative sub-study, land access typologies were created or determined based on coding of self-reported qualitative data derived from IDIs.