Hydroponics 
Performance Evaluation Report 
Hydroponics Innovation in Kenya
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD
AUGUST 2019
Prepared By: Brenda Binge, MSC Climate Change and Sustainability, Kenyatta University (Kenya)
The Kaizen Company | Contract #: AID-OAA-C-15-00011 
www.securingwaterforfood.org | securingwaterforfood@gmail.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 2
INTRODUCTION 5
BACKGROUND 9
Gender 9
Farm Size 10
Farmer’s Experience 11
Other Occupations or Sources of Income 12
Family Size 14
METHODOLOGY 15
Sample Selection 16
RESULTS 19
EXPERIENCE WITH INNOVATION 20
BENEFITS OF INNOVATION 23
Agricultural Activities Benefits 23
Water Benefits 25
Crop Benefits 27
Income Benefits 29
Poverty Reduction Benefits 30
DISCUSSION 31
Usage/Availability 32
Crop Yield/Survival 33
Changes in Income 33
Gender Differences 34
Affordability 35
Impact on Poverty 35
Benefits of Innovation on Community 35
Comparison of latest innovator M&E statistics with latest SWFF M&E statistics 36
CONCLUSION 37
REFERENCES 39
ANNEX I 41
ANNEX II 43
2 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Many challenges hinder the prosperity of agricultural activities in developing countries, considering that 
it is the backbone of economic activity and contributes to food security and nutrition in most of these 
countries. The environmental problems caused by anthropogenic activities, such as deforestation and 
desertification, are increasing to meet food security needs through clearing to provide for arable land for 
cultivation. They are further exacerbated by the high population growth rate. Arable land loss is estimated 
at 30 to 35 times the historical rate. Agriculture also uses about 70 percent of the planet’s available 
freshwater. This scenario is unsustainable in the long-run and requires renewed focus on efficient water 
use. Although 2.6 billion people depend directly on agriculture, only 52 percent of the land used for 
agriculture is moderately or severely affected by soil degradation.
Additionally, there are challenges of soil farming, including prevalence of pests and diseases; reliance on 
unpredictable rainfall; dependance on pesticides, fertilizers, and manure; and more labor hours and days 
weeding, among others. Hydroponics technology counters this by using less water, increasing the yield, 
using minimal space, reducing the cost of the value chain from the input, onfarm production, post harvest, 
and marketing. Hydroponics reduces incidences of pests and diseases that are common with conventional 
soil farming.
A performance evaluation of Hydroponics Africa was carried out, and 50 farmers were interviewed. 
Farmers were grouped into clusters and later randomized. Probability proportion to size (PPS) procedure 
was used to ensure that the probability of a cluster being selected was proportional to the size of the 
ultimate cluster, giving larger clusters a greater probability of selection and smaller clusters a lower 
probability. Systematic and simple random sampling techniques were used to identify the 50 sampled 
farmers. The interviews were recorded and, with the consent of the farmers, photos were taken. 
Seventy-eight percent of respondents interviewed were female, and 22 percent were male. Most of the 
farmers have not diversified their income, with the majority (50 percent) only having one source of income, 
26 percent with two sources of income, and two percent with three sources of income. Females have an 
average of 0.4361 acre, whereas males have an average of 1.2617 acres. This is typical of African culture 
where men own more land than women. The average years of experience of hydroponics technology 
is 0.91 years, with little disparity when disaggregated by gender. Females and males have had the 
technology for 0.84 and 1.16 years, respectively. The average age of the respondents is 45 years. The 
correlation between age and experience, though positive, is very low at 0.01.
ABSTRACT
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 3
Farmers are spending less with the introduction of hydroponics technology. Before, the average amount 
spent in agricultural activity was Ksh. 21,297 per year. These costs include, but are not limited to, fertilizers, 
pesticides, water, labor, storage, and transportation. However, with the introduction of hydroponics, the 
average cost is Ksh.11,102 per year. The huge disparity is attributed to significant reduction of input supplies, 
such as pesticides, fertilizers, manure, reduced labor costs in weeding, pruning, and labor hours/days.
The majority of farmers engaging in hydroponics use it for subsistence with little or no surplus for sale. The 
main value chain includes kale (sukuma wiki), spinach, local vegetable (kansira), local vegetable African 
nightshade (managu), and Indigenous Amaranthus (terere). The few engaged in commercialization reported 
improved household income. The majority are continuing with hydroponics due to the benefits associated 
with the technology, such as reduced water use, involvement of women, increased crop yields, the ability to 
decide when to plant and which crops to plant, and the ability to diversify the crops.
For the success of the technology, there needs to be more distribution centers, training centers, technical 
support from the innovators, follow up to ensure sustainability of the technology, and increase in the 
percentage of success and uptake.
4 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 5
INTRODUCTION
6 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Conventional agricultural practices can cause a wide range of negative impacts on the environment. 
Conventional or modern industrial agriculture historically has been defined as the practice of growing 
crops in soil, in the open air, with irrigation, and with the active application of nutrients, pesticides, 
and herbicides. Some of the negative impacts of conventional agriculture include high and inefficient 
use of water, large land requirements, high concentrations of nutrients and pesticides in runoff, 
and soil degradation accompanied by erosion (Guilherme, Lages et at 2015). These have adverse 
impacts on the finite natural resources, and sustainable development will not be achieved. Other 
serious challenges associated with soil farming include high prevalence of pests and diseases which 
is exacerbated further by climate variability. The use of a considerably high amount of water in soil 
farming, coupled with the unpredictability of the rainfall patterns1
 and the high cost of installation of 
irrigation facilities, makes it even harder for the farmers to participate in agriculture. Increased cases 
of perennial food shortages and food insecurity due to low productivity are associated with these 
factors. Consequently, these affect food security and have no guarantee of improved nutrition. This 
increases the cases of stunted and malnourishment among infants, especially in developing countries.
The high population growth rate that is experienced globally exacerbates environmental problems. 
Humans tend to clear forests so they can practice agriculture and meet their dietary needs. According 
to Tilman et al., 2002, the human world population will reach about nine billion by 2050. The high 
population strains the finite resources, such as land. Land is subdivided into small uneconomical divisions 
for agricultural activities, which hinders the prosperity of agricultural activities in developing countries 
where agriculture is the backbone of economic activity. The biggest challenge for global agriculture 
today is producing enough food to meet the demands of the world’s exploding population. According to 
Venter Gert 2017, the primary global challenges include food insecurity, military defense issues, water 
and land scarcity, urbanization, and energy demands. Farmers will need to produce double the amount 
1 Most of the farmers depend on rainfed agriculture.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 7
of food with less water and land, using less energy while facing sharp increases in the cost of energy, 
labor, mechanization, and fertilizers.The fertilizers and pesticides, on the other hand, emit greenhouse 
gases, such as methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide and lead to the greenhouse effect and 
global warming that contribute to climate variability. Climate variability is a serious threat to the nations’ 
achievement of their development goals. Many regions in Africa are already highly vulnerable to climate￾related hazards, with temperatures and rainfall being sporadic and extreme (MoALF, 2017).
The wasteful way food is produced today relies on extracting finite resources, including phosphorus, 
potassium, and oil, to grow food in ways that harm the natural systems upon which agriculture 
depends. The damage includes the degradation of 12 million hectares of arable land annually, one￾quarter of annual greenhouse gas emissions, and three-quarters of deforestation from 2000 to 2010 
(Ellen MacArthur 2019).
Hydroponics offers a solution to these predicaments. In summary, hydroponics is a technology for 
growing plants in nutrient solutions (water and fertilizers) with or without the use of an artificial 
medium2 to provide mechanical support. It is the process of growing plants without using soil.3
The principle advantages of hydroponic systems over traditional growing methods include high￾density maximum crop yield and crop survival, more efficient use of water and fertilizers, minimal 
use of land area, suitability for mechanization, and disease control. The costly and time-consuming 
tasks of soil cultivation are unnecessary in hydroponic systems, and a rapid turnaround of crops is 
readily achieved. The net effect is an increased yield, increased time of production, increased crops 
2 e.g., sand, gravel, vermiculite, rockwool, peat moss, coir, sawdust
3 Hydroponics is derived from greek words, it is an amalgamation of two words : hydro, meaning water and ponein, meaning to 
toil. 
8 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
per unit, increased quality of harvest, and improved use of resources. A less wasteful approach to 
resource consumption means reduced waste, preservation of water stocks, and a diminished reliance 
on pesticides, fertilizers, and other potentially harmful materials. A multiple effect is increased family 
income (Jensen, Merle H, 2010).
Soilless cultivation represents a valid opportunity for the agricultural production sector, especially 
in areas characterized by severe soil degradation and limited water availability. Furthermore, this 
agronomic practice embodies a favorable response toward an environment-friendly agriculture and 
is a promising tool in the vision of a general challenge in terms of food security (Sambo, P., et al, 2019).
Hydroponics Africa Limited is a private company that has been in existence since 2013 as the pioneer 
initiator and leader of hydroponic farming systems in East Africa. Their main office is in Zambezi, 
Kiambu county in Kenya, and they have a branch in Rwanda. However, they have clients across Kenya, 
Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, and Somalia. The company enables farmers to achieve predictable 
and highly nutritious yields for vegetables and produce their own animal feed at limited cost. With 
hydroponics, the farmer is unaffected by seasons and adverse weather conditions. It uses up to 80 
percent less water. This, therefore, guarantees food security and improved nutrition. Hydroponics 
Africa leverages use of locally available materials and provides products such as hanging garden, 
hydrocrates, greenhouse for commercial purposes, fodder, circular, and vertical and horizontal 
hydroponic systems. Currently, they use a plant physiology and chemistry technology in which plant 
roots release an exudate that chemically signals the drip tape to release water when the crop has 
insufficient water to meet evaporative demand. The chemically infused microporous tubing holds 
water and nutrients until root exudates are emitted to trigger the release of water. 
An impact evaluation was performed through interviewing 50 farmers face to face using the 
Fulcrum mobile application. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed. Literature review, 
observation, and inferences data collection techniques also were used. Photos of the farmers 
were taken. A key informant interview was done with the Hydroponics innovator, Peter Chege. The 
purpose of this report is to give evidence that farmers are using hydroponic technology and to 
verify whether the farmers are realizing water benefits, producing more food with less water, and 
improving household income. It also studies how the use of hydroponics differs between women 
and men and the difficulties and challenges that farmers face with the technology and the market 
system. Further, it provides recommendations on how the technology can be improved based on 
the farmers’ experiences. The farmers were grouped into clusters based on their agro-ecological 
zones4 and later randomly selected.
4 According to the agricultural potential.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 9
Farmers that participate in hydroponics cut across different agro-ecological zones and include 
both rural and urban farmers, women and men, young and old, and rich and poor farmers. A total 
population of 1,546 farmers in Year 1 and Year 25 was used. The sample clusters included6 Buruburu, 
Dagoretti, Gacuthi, Githunguri, Kangemi, Kenyatta Road, Kikuyu, Kingeero, Kitengela, Mathare Slum, 
Muguga, Nairobi, Ruai, Ruaka, Ruiru, Uthiru, and Waginge.7
 Fifty farmers were interviewed, and 
their selection is discussed at length in the next section. This section describes the demographics, 
livelihoods, and agricultural and economic context of the respondents.
Interviews were conducted face to face by field evaluator Brenda Binge in English and Kiswahili. 
Where necessary, local dialect was administered with the help of an interpreter. The interviews 
were carried out using the Fulcrum mobile application and analysed using SPSS and Excel where 
descriptive statistic variables in the data were calculated, including summary of frequencies and 
proportions of categorical variables such as gender, and averages of the variables such as water use. 
Crop yields were determined and, where applicable, correlation was determined. The questionnaire 
tried to answer whether the sample of customers is experiencing water/yield/ income/hydroponics 
benefits and to determine how the hydroponics technology can be improved to maximize benefits for 
the farmers. It also tried to assess the market system and understand the technology based on the 
farmers’ perspectives and testimonials.
Gender 
Seventy-eight percent of the respondents were female and 22 percent were male (Figure 1). Several 
factors tend to contribute to this disparity, among the most important is that male respondents are 
engaged in other income activities. Females are perceived to stay at home as the male engages in 
other off-farm activities. Women are now engaged in farming activities that once were perceived as a 
male dominant activity, which explains the high percentage of female respondents.
5 Y1 and Y2 were selected as these farmers had already harvested and thus could determine the objectives of the report. Y3 
farmers had just began in May 2019 thus were difficult to assess the objectives of the report.
6 The number of participants in each cluster is available in the annex.
7 The calculation of the sample is in the annex.
BACKGROUND
10 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FIGURE 1. GENDER OF RESPONDENTS
(n=50)
78%
22%
GENDER OF RESPONDENTS
Female
Male
Farm size 
The land tenure system reported by the respondents include family tenure and individual (private) 
tenure. With the former, one is granted access to land on the basis of qualification as a family 
member. Respondents mentioned they had inherited the land. Individual tenure is where one 
owns land on more or less a permanent basis that is free from any claims from others. They are 
absolutely not answerable to anyone in the enjoyment of the land, including decisions on resource 
use and access. Land rates are paid to the county governments of their jurisdiction. A few farmers 
stay in rental homes and pay rent from as low as sh.2,000 per month in Mathare slums where the 
farmers basically do not have land or space for farming. The hanging bags technique has been 
used to counter the land space challenge, allowing them to farm from their walls. Maximum rent of 
Ksh.20,000 and 25,000 per month was reported by two respondents. One respondent was in an 
aggregation center where farmers aggregate their milk and sell collectively to avoid exploitation by 
middlemen,8 and the other farmer was in a rental home.
The average farm size was 0.62 acres with huge disparity when disaggregated by gender (male 1.26 
acres and female 0.44 acres). This disparity can be associated with the predominance of males in 
land matters, as they are the primary owners of the resources and women are less involved in the 
household decision making.
Four of the 50 respondents farm in school compounds and use the school utilities. The positive 
externality is earned by the pupils, as they are able to enjoy the feeding program and diversification 
of dietary needs.9 Increasing school attendance with the assurity of food is a big challenge in areas 
8 They have formed a farmers group to enjoy the benefits of collective action.
9 The crops include sukuma wiki, spinach, cowpea that are well spread in a feeding timetable.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 11
such as Mathare slums; consequently, the farms improve the education system.10 One respondent’s 
farm takes care of the juveniles from the Kamiti Maximum Prison. This provides a spillover benefit with 
the reformation of the juveniles as they are engaged in agricultural activities to keep busy and limiting 
cases of crimes. 
Figure 2 shows the size of the land in acres disaggregated by gender.
FIGURE 2: SIZE OF THE LAND IN ACRES DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER
(n=50)
1.2
1.4
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.2
SIZE OF THE LAND IN ACRES DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER
NUMBER OF ACRES
Female Male
0
Farmer’s experience and age
The average age of the farmers is 45 years. It is expected that as age increases, the experience 
with the technology increases; however, this is not the case with these respondents. The correlation 
between age and experience in years, despite being positive, is very low at 0.01.
The average years of experience is 0.91 years, with little disparity when disaggregated by gender. 
Females and males have had the technology for 0.84 and 1.16 years, respectively (Figure 3). Females 
tend to be less experienced in the technology, which can be associated with culture because in some 
regions farming is left to the husband as the head of the household while the wife is solely a homemaker. 
10 Literacy level is improved.
12 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FIGURE 3: AVERAGE OF YEARS EXPERIENCE
(n=50)
1.20
1.40
0.80
0.40
1.00
0.60
0.20
AVERAGE OF YEARS EXPERIENCE
AVERAGE YEARS
Female Male
0
Sources of income 
The agriculture sector plays a significant role in household income despite the recurring challenges 
explained previously. Fifty-six percent of the respondents practice farming as their primary source of 
income. These include crop farming and livestock rearing. The main value chains11 include vegetables 
such as sukuma wiki, spinach, local vegetables such as African nightshade commonly known as 
managu, cowpea (leafy) natively known as kunde, kansira, Indigenous Amaranthus (terere12), and 
fodder13 for livestock feeds. There is a special preference of these vegetables because they are the 
best accompaniment to the staple food (ugali) and also attract higher prices, especially during the hot 
and dry seasons for farmers engaged in commercialization. Twenty-two percent of the respondents 
are employed,14 14 percent are engaged in small enterprises, such as owning a business. Six percent 
are wage laborers, and two percent are unemployed. The respondents engaged in wage labor are 
susceptible to vulnerability as they are not likely to be paid on a monthly basis and pay is normally 
low compared to their employed and small enterprises counterparts. The wage laborers include inter 
alia, tailoring, work on farm fields, and shops. For the small enterprises, some respondents had small 
businesses while some had enterprises that earned them more than Ksh. 720,000 per year. From 
these statistics, it is evident that the farmers are engaged in both on- and off-farm economic activities.
Figure 4 illustrates the respondents’ economic activity (on- and off-farm economic activities). 
11 Other value chains that were also mentioned by respondents include, capsicum,celery, and parsley. 
12 Other communities refer to the Indigenous Amaranthus as mchicha.
13 Barley was the common value chain reported by the livestock rearing farmers.
14 These include teachers, nurses among others.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 13
FIGURE 4: RESPONDENTS ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
(n=50)
60%
40%
20%
50%
30%
10%
RESPONDENTS ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Farming Small
Enterprise
Wage
Labor
Employed Unemployed
0%
The majority of the respondents (70%) have one source of household income. These respondents 
mentioned farming as their main economic activity.15 The diversification of the income sources suggests 
likelihood of increased household income and thus less vulnerability. Only one respondent had diversified 
income of up to three sources of income, 13 of the 50 respondents had two sources of income, and one 
had no source of income.16 Figure 5 shows the diversification of the income sources of the respondents.
FIGURE 5: DIVERSIFICATION OF INCOME SOURCES
(n=50)
60%
40%
20%
50%
80%
70%
30%
10%
DIVERSIFICATION OF INCOME SOURCES
0 1 2 3
0%
Total
15 Some however do not engage in the sale of the surplus, they had other sources of income.
16 This respondent was only engaged in farming for subsistence with no surplus for sale.
14 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Family size 
The average family size is four. This includes household members who share the same cooking pot 
methodology and is the nuclear family with a few incidences of external family, friends, and workers. 
There were male-headed households, female-headed households, and youth-headed households. The 
head of the household role includes, but is not limited to, decision making in resource use and access.
Two out of the 50 respondents had formed a group for women and a group for farmers, while three 
were engaged in the innovation in the schools where pupils benefited through the feeding programs. 
These schools included Kiboro Primary school and Destiny Junior, both in Mathare, and Moi Avenue 
Primary School in Nairobi. One respondent was in a children’s home that cares for juveniles from the 
Kamiti Maximum prison.17
17 Currently, they take care of up to 15 boys.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 15
METHODOLOGY
16 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Sample selection 
With the primary source of users list data from Hydroponics Africa, there was a total population of more 
than 1,500 farmers in Year 1 and Year 2 across 207 cluster villages. The farmers were characterised 
according to the various agro ecological zones (AEZ) in terms of agricultural potential. Farmers in the 
cold and wet regions are located largely in Kiambu county, Muranga, Embu, among other counties. 
These areas are in proximity with rivers and wetlands, such as River Njoro, Ruaka, etc. This is in contrast 
with farmers in the hot and dry areas of Kitengela, Athi River, Kamulu, Kakuma, Kitui, etc. Other counties 
with the hot and wet characteristic were grouped together, such as Kisumu, Mombasa. The farmers 
within the city were grouped together, since the hydroponics innovation does not require a large land 
space and is designed for easy adaption by urban farmers. Moreover, the evaluation also wanted to 
understand urban agriculture and the challenges they face. The sample selection involved clustering 
the farmers into cluster villages and later randomization to determine which farmers to interview. The 
sample clusters include: Buruburu, Dagoretti, Gacuthi, Githunguri, Kangemi, Kenyatta Road, Kikuyu, 
Kingeero, Kitengela, Mathare Slum, Muguga, Nairobi, Ruai, Ruaka, Ruiru, Uthiru, and Waginge. Literature 
review was carried out to research water use and farming practices of the farmers in the sampled 
areas, which was valuable in determining how to conduct the survey.
Probability proportion to size (PPS) procedure was used to ensure that the probability of a selected 
cluster is proportional to the size of the ultimate cluster, giving larger clusters a greater probability of 
selection and smaller clusters a lower probability. To ensure that all farmers in the population have the 
same probability of selection irrespective of the size of their cluster, each of the hierarchical levels prior 
to the ultimate level was sampled according to the size of ultimate farmers it contains, but the same 
number of farmers were sampled from each cluster at the last hierarchical level.
The number of farmers to be sampled from each cluster also was determined to ensure that all 
individuals in the population have the same probability of selection irrespective of the size of their 
cluster, the same number of farmers was sampled from each cluster. To determine the sampling 
interval (SI), the total population was divided by the number of clusters to be sampled.
Of the 207 clusters, 60 were considered for sampling based on convenience, easy to reach areas, 
time constraints, and budget constraints.18 A random number between one and S1 was chosen 
through tossing of papers, and four was selected to determine the Random Start (RS) that was 
determined to be 11. The first cluster sampled contained the cumulative population, and the series 
went on until 20 clusters were determined.
A combination of simple random and systematic random sampling was then used to identify the 
individual farmers to be interviewed; 54 farmers were determined. These individual farmers were 
proportionally distributed by location in the same proportions as the overall population of farmers. 
However, with the challenges of the low response rate and missing specific attributes, the sample size 
was increased to 100 with over 200 farmers contacted. Fifty were available for interviews, and the 
results are discussed at length in later sections.
18 The characteristics are the same
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 17
In some instances, phone numbers and emails were not on the users list. Some were not willing to be 
part of the interview, others had not received their units and could not be evaluated, and still others 
were involved in other economic activities and had previous commitments. These farmers were 
replaced with new randomly selected users. Farmers sampled were not centralized, thus requiring 
more time because the farmers were spread across Nairobi, Kiambu, and Kajiado counties. 
The field evaluator explained the purpose of the evaluation and sought consent to engage in 
administering the questionnaire. Participants verbally consented to engage in the interview. If they did 
not wish to respond to a particular question, they were asked to notify the evaluator and the particular 
question would be skipped.
The farmers were interviewed through face to face using the Fulcrum mobile application, the 
interviews were recorded and later transcribed, and photos with the farmers were taken. However, 
two respondents did not wish to be recorded so notes were taken. 
In some instances, observation technique was used to lessen the burden and to validate interviewee 
responses as accurately as possible. In instances where the farmer did not know the answer or did 
not wish to provide a response, the evaluator asked related questions and used observations to 
determine and estimate. A conversion excel was generated that converted the various variables and 
is available in the annex section. The raw data was later analyzed using SPSS and excel. Descriptive 
statistics were analyzed for water use and crop yield; income mean, median, and averages were 
calculated; summary of frequencies and proportions of categorical variables such as gender was 
developed; and disaggregation of the various variables with gender and region\ where there was 
applicable correlation, was determined. 
Figure 6 below illustrates the geographical location of the interviewed farmers.
FIGURE 6: GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE 50 RESPONDENTS
18 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 19
RESULTS
20 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Farmers perceived the hydroponics technology as their “savior” in agricultural activities. They have 
been able to change their farming practices by reducing water use. Since they do not depend on the 
rainfall, they can now decide when and which crops to plant. They also reduce labor as there are less 
weeds. They spend less labor days and hours on the farm and engage in other economic activity to 
improve their household income. Female respondents feel the innovation is less labor intensive and “the 
market is at their doorstep” as they do not have to go to the market. With the scarce resource of water, 
hydroponics uses less water so they can allocate the water use in other domestic activities, reducing the 
distance and time in fetching water.
With the ongoing debate of the increased genetically modified foods in the market, farmers are 
happy that through hydroponics they now know what they are consuming and growing since they are 
involved in the agricultural activity decision making. Some attest they had health issues while they 
were purchasing food, but now can diversify their meals and improve their nutrition and dietary needs 
because they know the foods they are consuming. 
With little or no use of pesticides, farmers are happy. They link the use of fertilizers and pesticides to 
the increased incidences of cancer. Some would say they are now “safe from cancer as they are no 
longer using these inputs.”
Figure 7 illustrates whether the farmers will continue using the innovation in five to 10 years. Eighty￾four percent of the respondents will continue with the innovation, while 16 percent said they will 
not. For the majority (84 percent), the decision is based on the benefits of hydroponics mentioned 
previously, while the 16 percent had the contrary opinion based on challenges they have experienced 
with the innovation.
EXPERIENCE WITH INNOVATION
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 21
FIGURE 7: RESPONDENTS USE OF HYDROPONICS 
AGAIN IN THE FUTURE (5-10 YEARS)
(n=50)
84%
16%
RESPONDENTS USE OF HYDROPONICS AGAIN IN THE 
FUTURE (5-10 YEARS)
No
Yes
All males will continue with the innovation, whereas 79 percent of females will continue and 21 percent 
will not. From the farmers’ testimonials, their logic is based on the challenges they experienced. This 
included pests, diseases, water shortage, water scarcity, and high rates of evaporation. Some could 
not really tell why their crops failed. For instance, some of the farmers in Kitengela had the challenge 
of water shortage, resulting in crop failure. They could not understand why their crops failed since 
the demonstrations and training by the innovator showed they should have survived. These farmers 
initially depended on the rainfall for farming; but with the introduction of hydroponics, they are now 
buying water from vendors and prices would go up during the dry spells. This was a limiting factor in 
the success of the innovation and posed challenges to their farming.
Some farmers reported they will not continue with the innovation using the hydrocrate technology 
(with rock wool material).19 They cited shortcomings including increased temperature and high rates 
of evaporation causing the rock wool to harden and leading to crop failure, and it also degrades after 
one year. Some of the farmers in Dagoretti cited “skin irritation” and felt it may not be safe to use. 
There were few concerns with the nutrients because farmers do not know the components of the 
nutrients. They want to be trained more on the components so as to limit the uncertainty surrounding 
the nutrients.
Figure 8 illustrates whether the farmers will continue to use the Hydroponics Africa innovation five to 
10 years in the future, disaggregated by gender.
19 Farmers in Kitengela, Ruaka and Dagoretti had the hydrocrates with rock wool material that did not do well in all three areas.
22 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FIGURE 8: RESPONDENTS USE OF HYDROPONICS FIVE TO 
10 YEARS IN THE FUTURE, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER
(n=50)
60%
80%
100%
40%
20%
RESPONDENTS USE OF HYDROPONICS FIVE TO 10 YEARS IN THE 
FUTURE, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER
% OF RESPONDENTS
Female Male
0%
No Yes
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 23
Agricultural activities benefits 
The respondents interviewed engaged in a variety of value chain commodities (VCC) from vegetables 
to fruits. The five main VCCs are kale (sukuma wiki), spinach, local vegetable (kansira), and local 
vegetable African nightshade (managu) and terere.
Looking at the value chain in totality from the inputs, on-farm production, post-harvest, and market, 
farmers spend less money with the introduction of the hydroponics innovation. Before, the average 
amount spent in agricultural activity was Ksh. 21,297 per year. These costs include, but are not limited 
to, fertilizers, pesticides, water, labor, storage, and transport costs. However, with the introduction of 
hydroponics, the average cost is Ksh.11,102 per year.
The main inputs reported by respondents include water, fertilizers, pesticides, manure, and labor 
days/hours. In conventional farming, 11 farmers mentioned they applied fertilizers with an average 
cost of Ksh. 16,677.5 per year to increase the crop yields. With the introduction of hydroponics, 
none of the farmers reported the use of fertilizers. They only associated it with the nutrients that 
they purchase with the hydroponics system. Six farmers reported using pesticides input before the 
use of hydroponics with an average cost of Ksh.3,069. After the adoption of hydroponics, only one 
respondent mentioned using the pesticides at a cost of Ksh.2,880 per year. Twelve respondents 
reported purchase of water from vendors with conventional farming. 
The majority of respondents depended on rain water, streams, rivers, and underground water that 
was free of charge since water is a public good and free for all. However, 12 respondents did not enjoy 
this water service and had to purchase water from the vendors at an average cost of Ksh 21,299 per 
year. With the adoption of hydroponics, the cost is expected to drop; however, the average cost of 
water per year reported by 23 respondents is Ksh.24,008.93. This is associated with the high price of 
water, especially during the hot and dry season. Additionally, before the introduction of hydroponics, 
most farmers relied on rainfall that in most cases was unpredictable. With the introduction of 
hydroponics, they do not depend on the uncertain rainfall pattern, suggesting that most will now 
have to buy the water from vendors to continue with the agricultural activity. This is evident with the 
increase from 12 to 23 respondents who incurred water costs. The other farmers reported use of 
groundwater, rain water harvesting, rivers, and streams that they enjoyed free of charge.
For labor, the farmers gave labor hours/days where they depended on family labor with only one 
farmer giving the labor expense to employ someone. This is the labor used in on-farm and post￾harvest. They mentioned that with hydroponics, they spend less time in the fields as compared to 
conventional soil farming. Three farmers mentioned they spent on average Ksh.4,000 on manure 
BENEFITS OF INNOVATION
24 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
with conventional farming while others could get the same on farm20 and at no cost. However, with 
hydroponics, none of the farmers reported use of manure input.
For the transport and market costs, they did not spend much because the market is at their doorstep. 
Only two farmers mentioned transport costs as more people and middle men come to the farms to buy.
These results are indicative but not accurate as the objective was to compare before and after the 
innovation. However, some farmers were not engaged in farming before the introduction of the 
hydroponics system but have become involved in farming since the introduction. This is an advantage 
because some are now engaged in farming, which is an economic activity to improve family income 
and, consequently, reduce poverty. This also leads to food security and improved nutrition.
When disaggregated by gender, females spent Ksh 2,750 before the innovation and ksh. 4,485 
per year after the innovation. This disparity is associated with the water input cost. Before, most of 
the females depended on rainfall for farming, but with hydroponics they have to purchase water to 
ensure sustainability of the system. As water is a limited, expensive, and scarce resource, it tends to be 
expensive with exacerbated prices during the hot and dry season that is prolonged with the climate 
variability.21 The rate from the Nairobi water and sewerage company that supplies and distributes 
water indicates 0 to 100 liters is Ksh.43 per unit.22 Males, however, spent Ksh.87,055 per year before 
hydroponics and Ksh. 34,562 per year after hydroponics. Several factors contribute to this disparity, 
with the most important being the significant reduction of water use by hydroponics technology 
meaning less water costs, little or no usage of pesticides and fertilizers, and reduced labor costs in 
weeding, pruning and labor hours.
Figure 9 illustrates the average amount spent per year in agricultural activities before and after the 
innovation, disaggregated by gender.
20 These farmers engaged in mixed farming and thus could get the manure on farm.
21 For instance, the 20 liter jerry can can go as high as 50sh during the dry season as mentioned by farmers in Mathare slums.
22 There are other charges such as meter reading.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 25
FIGURE 9: AVERAGE AMOUNT SPENT PER YEAR IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES 
BEFORE AND AFTER THE INNOVATION, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER
(n=50)
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
40000
20000
50000
30000
10000
NO TITLE
AMOUNT IN SHILLINGS
Female Male
0
Average amount spent before innovation per year
Average amount spent after innovation per year
With the introduction of hydroponics, the number of harvests has increased along with increases in 
the quality of harvest and the time of production. Most of the farmers harvest vegetables weekly or 
biweekly, including sukuma wiki, spinach, capcicum, tomatoes, onions, and local vegetables such as 
cowpea-leafy (kunde), African nightshade (managu), terere, kansira. For the fodder, barley takes six to 
seven days to mature which has direct proportional impact on yields. The households are guaranteed 
meals providing food security and improved diet. For the livestock, health and milk production 
are improved. For instance, one dairy goat in Githunguri is fed 2 kilograms of fodder produced 
hydroponically and can produce up to 3 liters of milk per day.
Water benefits 
The main source of water in agricultural activities reported by the farmers includes ground water, 
rainfall, tapped/piped water, and rivers. As a public good, water is scarce and expensive. This affects 
agricultural activities and, consequently, food security. 
Prior to the introduction of hydroponics, many farmers relied on rainfall farming, which is tied to 
the challenges of climate extremities. Reliance of rainfall as their primary source of water poses a 
challenge in quantifying how much water was used before the technology,23 however, it was easy for 
some farmers to compare their water use before and after the technology.24 These farmers used the 
same source of water, making it easy to compare what they used before and after the introduction of 
hydroponics. With the challenge of change in water source, the use of statistical tests such as T-test is 
limited. However, an average amount of water used after the innovation was determined.
23 It was hard for them to measure the rainfall used in farming.
24 For those who did not depend on rainfall farming
26 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
With the introduction of hydroponics farming, farmers do not have to rely on the unpredictable 
rainfall and are unlikely to be affected by climatic shocks such as heat stress, increased and 
extremely low temperatures, and the prolonged drought. Each of these has negative impact on 
water access and availability and, ultimately, food security. With hydroponics, farmers can go on 
with their farming practices. The average amount of water used by hydroponics is 173 liters per 
week with huge disparity when disaggregated by gender. Females use an average of 154 liters, and 
males use 242 liters. This disparity can be associated with several factors including that females 
are known to be the ones fetching water so they know the challenges such as distance to the 
water source, water scarcity, unavailability, and unreliability. This means they tend to use it more 
economically than their male counterparts. Males also tend to have invested in water harvesting 
techniques such as ground water, rain water, and piped water. It is worth noting that the water 
benefits are confounded by the size of the land.
Figure 10 below disaggregates amount of water use per week in liters by region.
FIGURE 10: DISAGGREGATION OF AMOUNT OF WATER 
USED PER WEEK IN LITERS BY REGION
(n=50)
300
200
100
250
150
50
DISAGGREGATION OF AMOUNT OF WATER USED PER WEEK IN LITERS 
BY REGION
LITERS
Kajiado Kiambu Nairobi
0
Kajiado is in the hot and dry agro ecological zone and has challenges with water access, reliability, and 
availability. Water is a scarce resource which limits its use. The average water use per week is 84 liters 
compared to farmers in Nairobi and Kiambu who use 285.2 and 103.9 liters per week, respectively. 
Kiambu is in the cold and wet agro ecological zone, so the farmers engage in rain water harvesting 
techniques and incur high water use. Relatively, farmers in Nairobi have boreholes and piped water 
provided by the Nairobi city county, which can also be associated by the wasteful nature of the people 
in the city.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 27
Crop benefits 
Some of the farmers engaged in summer crops like maize, beans and other crops before the 
innovation . However, with the introduction of hydroponics, they now can engage in horticultural crops 
that are perceived to be expensive to maintain due to the high costs of associated inputs. This poses 
a challenge in comparing yields before and after the innovation since the crops before hydroponics 
are different from the crops produced after adoption of hydroponics. Some of the farmers, however, 
engage in the same crops before and after innovation.
With hydroponics, there are incidences of crop survival compared to soil farming, as crops evade the 
soil borne diseases that are common in the tropics and farmers do not have to depend on the climate 
that is characterised by high incidences of prolonged drought, reduced rainfall, flood, increased 
temperatures, and other related climate extremities. Seventy-seven percent of the respondents’ 
crops survived, whereas 23 percent did not survive. When disaggregated by gender, 90 percent of 
male farmers’ crops survived and 10 percent did not survive. As for females, 64 percent said their 
crops survived and 36 percent did not survive. This can be associated with males engaging in better 
agricultural practices compared to females and the barriers that limit females such as water access 
and reliability.
Figure 11 below illustrates whether the crops of the respondents survived, disaggregated by gender.
FIGURE 11: WHETHER THE CROPS OF THE RESPONDENTS SURVIVED, 
DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER.
(n=50)
60%
40%
20%
50%
80%
70%
100%
90%
30%
10%
WHETHER THE CROPS OF THE RESPONDENTS SURVIVED, 
DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER
% OF RESPONDENTS
Female Male
0%
No Yes
28 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
The average crop production in kilograms per year before the use of hydroponics was 750 kilograms 
while hydroponically the production significantly increased to 1,632 kilograms. This can be associated 
with the benefits alluded to hydroponics that increase crop yields through timely forecasts.The 
farmers do not need to rely on the uncertainty of the weather and can have increased yields. 
Hydroponics increases the time of production per year, the number of crops per unit, and the quality 
of harvest while weeds and pests are limited. When disaggregated by gender, females produced 246 
kilograms per year before the innovation and 319 kilograms per year after the innovation. Similarly, 
males reported significant increases in production from 2,599 kilograms per year before hydroponics 
to 6,443 kilograms after.25 Several factors tend to contribute to this huge disparity, including the 
female farm unit size is smaller than the male farm unit, females are less involved in decision making 
about resource use, and they have limited access to farm inputs such as water as compared to their 
male counterparts.
Figure 12 below illustrates the total production per year before the innovation and after the innovation, 
disaggregated by gender.
FIGURE 12: TOTAL PRODUCTION PER YEAR BEFORE THE INNOVATION AND AFTER THE 
INNOVATION, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER.
(n=29)
6000
4000
2000
5000
7000
3000
1000
TOTAL PRODUCTION PER YEAR BEFORE THE INNOVATION AND AFTER 
THE INNOVATION, DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER
PRODUCTION IN KG
246
Female
319
2599
6443
Male
0%
Average of total mass produced before per year
Average of total produce using hydroponics
25 a conversion excel is available at the annex. several farmers could associate the production to bunches, bucket, basin. The 
conversion excel has converted this to kilograms.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 29
Income benefits 
The majority of the farmers engaging in this innovation use it for subsistence with little or no surplus 
for sale. Eight of the 50 farmers are engaged in the sale of their surplus produce. Six of the eight 
are engaged in the sale of vegetables, and two are engaged in the sale of milk. The average income 
earned per year from the sale of their surplus as a result of hydroponics is Ksh. 24,233 for the six 
farmers and Ksh. 158,400 for the two farmers. The high numbers involved in subsistence and not sale 
of surplus can be associated with the high cost of the system. Thus, they can afford a small unit area. 
They wish to upscale and commercialize the farming, but capital is the limiting factor. Some farmers 
noted since they are not purchasing, they are saving and improving their household income. 
Farmers involved in fodder are also involved in the commercialization of the milk and improving their 
household income because they produce more income when they feed their livestock with fodder 
produced hydroponically as compared to feeding the napier grass, hay, maize stalks, etc. Using the 
previous example of the Githunguri dairy goat producing three liters of milk, the gross margin per day 
per goat is Ksh. 360,26 less the daily expense per goat of Ksh. 60, making the net income per day per 
goat Ksh. 300. Similarly, a respondent within a children’s home in Nairobi-Kahawa West reported 
an increase in profit margin with hydroponics because they are able to sell more milk when farming 
hydroponically. This scenario is similar to the farmers engaged in the production of horticultural crops 
that allude to the improved household income such as celery, parsely, tomatoes, and others.
26 Given that the price per liter for dairy goat is Ksh.120.
30 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Poverty reduction benefits 
The poorer households have smaller unit systems than their rich counterparts so few are engaged in 
the sale of their surplus. However, they try to sell the surplus, and most desire to upscale their farming 
and commercialize, but are limited by capital and space. Most of these poor farmers live in densely 
populated areas such as mathare slums, or farmers’ lands have been fragmented into very small 
subdivisions due to the high population growth rate.
For the few respondents who engage in the sale of the surplus, there is evidence of improved household 
income and, consequently, poverty reduction. Some farmers also argue that they can now save more 
since there is no purchasing of the farm produce — the food comes from their farm as opposed to 
purchasing from the market. However, income is the same since they are not involved in selling.
 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 31
DISCUSSION
32 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Before the innovation, some of the farmers relied on rainfall for their agricultural activities so it is 
difficult for them to determine how much water they used. Similarly, for crop production before the 
innovation, previously planted crops are different from crops planted hydroponically, therefore limiting 
the use of statistical tests such as t-test. However, averages were determined.
The majority of the farmers are engaged in hydroponics to boost their home consumption with little 
remaining for market sales, so they are involved in other occupations off-farm. This presented a 
challenge in reaching the respondents. Farmers sampled were not centralized, which required more 
time, and some were not reachable. Others did not wish to have the interviews because it would 
take too much time and there was no compensation provision for time lost due to participating in the 
survey. Despite the challenges, the survey was successful and the target respondents achieved.
Usage/Availability 
The majority of the farmers are continuing with the hydroponics innovation due to the benefits 
associated with it, such as reduced water use, involvement of women, increased yield through timely 
forecasts, the ability to decide when and which crops to plant, the ability to diversify crops,27 and 
reduced farming activities costs. With the success of hydroponics, some have been able to start small 
scale commercialization of crops so as to enjoy the economies of scale.
Contrary, some of the farmers discontinued farming hydroponically due to pests and diseases, water 
shortages, crop failure, distance to the collection or distribution centers. Some farmers said this posed 
a challenge in their production and, consequently, affected their farming practices. Some wished to 
upscale their farming but are challenged by space and cost implications of the installation.
27 increasing their dietary needs.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 33
Crop yield/survival 
Conventional farming requires active application of farm inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and 
herbicides. With their prohibitive prices, very few people28 can afford inputs which leads to crop failure. 
This is because crops cannot survive in such an environment and there is reduced crop yields and/
or crop failure. Similarly, the poor land tenure systems leads to fragmentation and reduced farming 
land affects the yields. Climate variability pose serious threats in farming, scarcity of water, increased 
temperatures, and very low temperatures because frost affects crop production. These problems 
have an adverse impact on crop yields. The challenges associated with soil farming, such as soil borne 
diseases, are common in the tropics.
Hydroponics revolutionizes crop farming through less water use, decreased input use and costs, 
reduced pest population, little or no weeding, increased quality of harvests, and increased in 
production time, all of which have a positive impact on crop yields.The artificial intelligence system, 
for instance, is able to respond in real time to plants’ needs and changing weather conditions. The 
farmers testified that with hydroponics, they are not affected by climate variability and, thus, their 
produce is guaranteed. They are able to increase their yield through timely forecasts and for the 
livestock because the fodder improves livestock health and milk production.
Farmers report increased yields because of the hydroponics technology. With a small unit area, they 
are able to produce much more than compared to previous use of soil farming.
Most of the farmers report increased crop survival. For instance, the respondent in Nairobi-Kahawa 
West engaged in hydroponics during the dry spells29 as the fodder grown hydroponically will survive, 
giving a continuous supply of food for the livestock.
Some farmers have access to project water that is a county government initiative to distribute water to 
its residents. This means the cost of water is reduced, and water is available which increases crop yield. 
Changes in income 
Most of the respondents were within the extreme poor bracket, earning Ksh 0 to 240,000 per year. 
The majority undertake farming as their primary occupation whereas respondents who diversified 
their sources of income were within the 240,001 to 480,000; 480,001 to 720,000; and 720,000 and 
more per year brackets.
Most farmers’ motivation for adopting the hydroponics innovation is to boost home consumption with 
little for market sales. Thus, there is little or no change in income for most of the farmers although they are 
able to save more as they reduce the cost of purchasing and transporting food. Farmers who are selling 
their surplus and engaged in the commercialization report a significant increase in household income.
Looking at the significant reduction in the cost of farming above, farmers save and improve their 
household income. These monies can be allocated in other budgetary needs, such as health and 
education, and improve the well being of the respondents and their families altogether.
28 This is due to the high poverty rates 
29 However, during the rainy season, they engage in hay, maize stalk as they depend on rainfed farming.
34 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
The majority of the respondents report no increase in family income because the household 
consumes the additional yield. A few farmers (10) provided evidence of the somewhat, significant and 
very significant increase in the family income attributed to hydroponics. Of those, seven are within 
the extreme poor bracket of farmers earning Ksh 0 to 240,000 per year. This, therefore, suggests an 
increase in family income.30 It means if the farmers were to commercialize on their farming, there will 
be an increase in family income.
Gender differences 
Both male and female farmers experience benefits from hydroponics. This included reduction in water 
use, increase in crop yields/survival through timely forecast, reduction in farming inputs costs, and 
help deciding which crops to plant and when to plant. With the poor land tenure systems, there are 
challenges with land access. Females benefit more from the land challenge; culturally, males own 
more land than females who are also less involved in decision making of the use of the land resource. 
With hydroponics, it is possible to engage in farming with a small land space, thus making a special 
effort to include in farming women who are limited by land space due to cultural restrictions.
Hydroponics is also less labor intensive and makes it possible for females to engage in farming like 
their male counterparts.
30 10 out of 50 farmers is a small representation to provide an average of increase in income as a result of the technology.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 35
Within water use benefits, women faced greater barriers in accessing water input and spend more 
accessing water from vendors. Also, the prices increase with the dry season prolonged by climate variability.
Males tend to benefit more than females due to several factors, including but not limited to land size, 
access to farm inputs, affordability of the innovation, and education/literacy levels.
Affordability 
Most of the farmers are comfortable with what they pay currently because of the benefits of 
hydroponics. They feel it is economical and the payment plan makes the innovation affordable. 
However, many feel the innovation should be free simply because they cannot afford it. Some of the 
respondents interviewed mentioned they received the innovation for free31 and wish to upscale their 
production to enjoy the economies of scale.
The majority wish to upscale their farming, but the limitation is the installation cost which is expensive 
to most of them. This explains why most of the respondents are engaged in subsistence farming. 
The respondents whose crops did not survive have a contrary opinion on the same. They feel they 
have not been able to break even and make profits from farming. They feel they have had losses and 
have wasted time with the technology that otherwise could be channelled into other activities.
Impact on poverty 
Most of the respondents are engaged in subsistence farming, which is attributed to the costs 
associated with the installation of the hydroponics innovation. Therefore, most can only afford a small 
unit size for home consumption. They wish to upscale their farming and increase their family income. 
However, it can be assumed that since they are purchasing from the market there is an increase in 
financial savings. This, therefore, means the poverty level is reduced.
Benefits of hydroponics on community 
With the hydroponics innovation, farmers have come together to form farmer groups. They believe 
that when they come together, they are able to benefit more and learn from each other. A women’s 
group in Mathare slums came together and engaged in farming as a result of the education they 
received from their children. Similarly, farmers in Githunguri came up with an aggregation center 
to aggregate their produce as a result of hydroponics farming. This leads to food security for the 
community, reduced cost of food,32 and, ultimately, improved health and nutrition of the community.
Other farmers land have served as a demonstration space where neighbors and relatives learn 
about hydroponics. The farmers are also willing to share the skills they have learned with others.
31 They were very pleased with the technology and, more so, with having the technology for free.
32 With the increase in the production of the crops and milk, reduced cost of the agricultural activities (production), the net 
effect is reduced prices of these commodities.
36 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Comparison of latest innovator M&E statistics with latest SWFF M&E statistics
From the innovator data, the approach was different in determining whether the farmers realize 
water and yield benefits, but the results are similar and indicate that with hydroponics, farmers tend 
to use less water and experience an increase in agricultural production.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 37
CONCLUSION
38 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Most of the farmers’ motivation for adopting the Hydroponics Africa innovation is to boost their 
home consumption for food security and guarantee the dietary needs. However, there is the urge 
to upscale their farming, but the challenge lies in the initial capital associated with the installation 
and the land space. Water input cost also is seen as a challenge in the success of hydroponics. 
If barriers associated with water are solved, then most of the farmers will enjoy the benefits 
associated with the innovation.
The majority of the respondents have benefited from the water/yield/cost of production benefits. 
These benefits lead to reduced prices of produce to the community, a spillover effect that is crucial to 
the community as it ensures food security and affordability, consequently improves nutrition.
For the farmers with challenges of land access and availability, they can be encouraged to consider 
crops requiring very little space such as peppermint, spearmint, and other herbs. These crops attract 
very high prices per batch, with the range of Ksh 20 to Ksh 40 where other vegetables such as sukuma 
wiki costs Ksh 18 per kilogram. This can lead to improved household income and, consequently, 
reduced poverty.
With 77 percent of the respondents positively impacted by the hydroponics, the innovation is 
important in agricultural activities. The number is likely to rise if the challenges and barriers 
experienced by the farmers are addressed. The female respondents are seen to be vulnerable 
as much as they are working toward benefiting from the innovation. If the stumbling blocks are 
addressed, they will be up against their male counterparts.
Farmers can be advised to practice staggered farming with crops such as celery and parsley so that 
when they have harvested there is less time to wait for the next harvest, a climate smart agriculture 
technique that is sustainable and guarantees the farmers’ food prosperity. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 39
REFERENCES
40 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Ellen MacArthur , 2019, World Economic Forum, Our food system is no longer fit for the 21st century, 
Here are three ways to fix it. available at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/how-to-build￾a-circular-economy-for-food/
Guilherme Lages Barbosa et al., 2015, Comparison of Land, Water, and Energy Requirements of Lettuce 
Grown Using Hydroponic vs. Conventional Agricultural Methods, 12(6): 6879–6891. Available at https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/Jensen, Merle H, 2010. Hydroponics Worldwide-A 
technical Overview, University of Arizona School of Agriculture Tucson, Arizona 85721. Available at: 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d4a7/1ef04b4d174d00d65fc4238629db99f9bd1a.pdf
MoALF, 2018. Climate Risk Profile for Kisumu County, Kenya County Climate Risk Profile series. The 
Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MoALF), Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: https://
ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/climate-risk-profile-kisumu-county-kenya-county-climate-risk-profile￾series#.XVW1RjcvN6x
Sambo, P., Nicoletto, C., Giro, A., Pii, Y., Valentinuzzi, F., Mimmo, T., Cesco, S. (2019). Hydroponic 
Solutions for Soilless Production Systems: Issues and Opportunities in a Smart Agriculture 
Perspective. Frontiers in plant science, 10, 923. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.00923
Tilman D., Cassman K. G., Matson P. A., Naylor R., Polasky S. (2002). Agriculture sustainability and 
intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677. 10.1038/nature01014. 
United Nations Sustainable Development, 2019, Forests, Desertification and Biodiversity available at 
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/biodiversity/
Venter Gert 2017, Is hydroponics the answer to global food challenges? Available at; https://www.
farmersweekly.co.za/agri-technology/farming-for-tomorrow/hydroponics-answer-global-food￾challenges/
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 41
ANNEX I
42 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
CONVERSION
DESCRIPTION OF THE CONVERSION FROM TO QUANTITY
size of the land from meter squared to acres m2 acres 1m2 0.000247 
acres
size of the land from feet to acres sq.foot acres 1sq.foot 0.00002296 
acres
distance in minutes/hours to km minutes kilometres 15minutes 1km
pesticides applied from grams to kilograms grams kilograms 1000g 1kg
pesticides applied from liters to grams litres grams 1l 1000g
pesticides applied from milliliters to liters milliliter liter 1l 1000ml
pesticides applied from liters to kilogram liters kilograms 1l 1kg
manure applied from sacks to kilograms 50kg sack kilograms 1sack 30kg 1sack
manure applied from buckets to kilograms bucket kilograms 1bucket 20kg 1bucket
manure applied from pickup to kilograms pickup kilograms 1pickup 900kg 1pickup
labour days from people and days to days people/days days people*days people*days 1labor day
buckets of maize output to kilograms bucket kilograms 1bucket 20kg 1bucket
sack of maize to kilograms 50kg sack kilograms I sack 50kg 1sack
buckets of beans to kilograms bucket kilograms 1bucket 20kg 1bucket
sack of beans to kilograms 50kg sack kilograms 1sack 50kg 1sack
buckets of fertilizer to kilograms bucket kilograms 1bucket 20kg 1kg
bucket of potatoes to kilograms bucket kilograms 1bucket 20kg 1bucket
bucket of sukuma wiki to kilograms bucket kilograms 1bucket 5kg 1bucket
sack of sukuma wiki to kilograms 50kg sack kilograms 1sack 30kg 1sack
pieces of avocado to kilograms 1piece kilograms 7pieces of 
avocado 1kg 1kg
bundles of grass to kilogram bundle kilograms 1bundle 20kg 1bundle
bundles of fodder to kilograms bundle kilograms 1bundle 20kg bundle
pick up of napier grass to kilograms pickup kilograms 1pickup 500kg 1pickup
1 debe of manure to kilograms debe kilograms 1debe 2kg 1debe
debe of beans to kilograms debe kilograms 1debe 2kg 1debe
bunch of fodder to kilograms bunch kilograms 1bunch 20kg 1bunch
bucket of arrow roots to kilograms bucket kilograms 1bucket 25kg 1bucket
bunch of sukuma wiki to kilogram 1 bunch kilogram 10 bunches 5kg 1kg
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 43
ANNEX II
44 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FARMER INFORMATION
NAME 
AGE 
DATE TIME 
GROUP INTERVIEW? o Yes o No
GROUP INTERVIEW NOTES
HOW MANY FAMILY MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU THE SAME POT? 
GENDER o Male o Female
WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY OCCUPATION?
o Farming
o Wage Labor
o Seasonal Migrant Labor
o Small Enterprise
o Other: 
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER OCCUPATION?
o Farming
o Wage Labor
o Seasonal Migrant Labor
o Small Enterprise
o Other: 
WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR VILLAGE/TOWN? 
SIZE OF FARM (ACRES) 
HOW MUCH LAND DO YOU OWN? 
HOW LARGE IS YOUR FARM/PLOT? 
o Large
o Medium
o Small
o Very Small
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 45
HOW MUCH IS LAND RENT? 
OTHER LAND NOTES
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN USING HYDROPONICS? 
DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES THIS YEAR? o Yes o No
HOW MANY MONTHS IS THE PRIMARY GROWING SEASON? 
HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HARVEST PER YEAR? 
FARM INFORMATION
WHAT CROPS DO YOU GROW AS A RESULT OF HYDROPONICS? LIST FROM MOST IMPORTANT TO 
LEAST IMPORTANT:
1. 
2. 
3. 
DID THE MOST IMPORTANT CROP BENEFIT ? o Yes o No
DID THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT CROP BENEFIT ? o Yes o No
DID THE THIRD MOST IMPORTANT CROP BENEFIT ? o Yes o No
WHAT IS THE WATER SOURCE FOR YOUR IRRIGATION OF CROPS?
o Own pond
o River
o Groundwater
o Innovation Source
o Other 
46 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
WHAT IS YOUR METHOD OF IRRIGATION?
o Drip feed
o Flooding
o Hand watering
o Rainfed
o Other 
HOW MUCH HAS YOUR WATER USAGE CHANGED SINCE USING HYDROPONICS? 
USING Hydroponics HAS YOUR ACCESS TO WATER:
o Had no change
o Improved
o Fundamentally improved (Improved a lot)
o Other: 
PREVIOUSLY GROWN CROPS
MASS OF PRODUCE: WHAT YIELDS DID YOU HAVE FOR YOUR FIRST CROP ? 
MASS OF PRODUCE 2: WHAT YIELDS DID YOU HAVE FOR YOUR SECOND CROP? 
USING HYDROPONICS HAVE YOU
o Used more water
o Had no change in water use
o Used less water
o Other: 
USING HYDROPONICS HAVE YOUR CROP YIELDS (ASK FOR EACH CROP):
o Declined
o Remained the same
o Increased
o Substantially increased
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN THE SURVIVAL RATES OF YOUR CROPS DUE TO HYDROPONICS? 
o Yes o No
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 47
HOW MUCH OF YOUR PRODUCE DID YOU CONSUME IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (BUCKET, BUNCH, KG)
HOW MUCH OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS DID YOU USE BEFORE HYDROPONICS?
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS BEFORE HYDROPONICS? 
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS DO YOU USE AFTER HYDROPONICS?
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON THE FOLLOWING INPUTS AFTER HYDROPONICS? 
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
48 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON EQUIPMENT DUE TO HYDROPONICS? 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON TRANSPORT AND STORAGE BEFORE AND AFTER 
HYDROPONICS? 
OTHER FARM NOTES (OPTIONAL).
INCOME AND EXPENDITURES
WHAT IS YOUR ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME? 
o 0-240,000 EXTREME POOR
o 240,001-480,000 LOW INCOME
o 480,001-720,000 MIDDLE INCOME
o 720,000+ UPPER INCOME
HOW MUCH INCOME DID YOU MAKE BEFORE HYDROPONICS? 
AFTER HYDROPONICS? 
HAS HYDROPONICS IMPROVED YOUR FAMILY INCOME? 
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME DO YOU GET FROM NON-FARM SOURCES? 
HOW MUCH PRODUCE DID YOU SELL? 
WHAT IS THE PRICE PER KILO YOU RECEIVED FOR EACH OF YOUR CROPS FOR THE LAST SEASON?
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 49
USING HYDROPONICS HAS YOUR ACCESS TO CREDIT:
o Not improved
o Improved
o Improved and have been able to repay over a short period
HOW DO YOU CURRENTLY FINANCE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES?
o Own savings
o Credit and savings scheme
o Other credit
HOW MUCH DO YOU PAY FOR HYDROPONICS? 
HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR HYDROPONICS?
o Nothing
o Hydroponics is free
o The same as what I pay now
o 50% less
o 50% more
o Other: 
HOW HAVE YOU SPENT YOUR NEW INCOME?
o N/A (if no new income)
o Send children to school or keep children in school
o Social functions (like weddings)
o Investment in farming
o Improving house
o Other: 
OTHER INCOME NOTES (OPTIONAL)
PERCEPTIONS OF HYDROPONICS
WILL YOU USE HYDROPONICS IN THE FUTURE (5 TO 10 YEARS)? o Yes o No
PLEASE ELABORATE: 
50 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
HOW, IF AT ALL, HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR FARMING PRACTICES DUE TO HYDROPONICS?
o No change
o Introduced new crops
o Changed irrigation system
o Reduced water usage
o It helps me decide when to plant
o It helps me decide which crops to plant
o Other: 
HAVE YOU FACED ANY DIFFICULTIES OR PROBLEMS USING HYDROPONICS? o Yes o No
HOW CAN HYDROPONICS BE IMPROVED? 
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT HYDROPONICS?
o Wealthy farmer
o Neighbor
o Innovation personnel
o Extension worker
o Other: 
WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCED YOU TO TRY HYDROPONICS?
o Demonstration from neighbor’s farm
o Innovation is free from extension services
o No alternative water source
o Other: 
DO YOU SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE SKILLS FROM HYDROPONICS WITH OTHERS? o Yes o No 
IF SO, HOW? 
WHAT DO YOU FEEL ARE THE BENEFITS OF HYDROPONICS? 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 51
HOW HAS HYDROPONICS HELPED YOU? PLEASE RANK THE TOP 3 AND EXPLAIN POSITIVES/
NEGATIVES.
 Makes water reusable 
 Helps women farmers as well as men 
 They made a special effort to include women farmers 
 Helps in producing more of our most important crop 
 Increases my yield through timely forecasts 
 Helps by lowering cost of inputs 
 Improves health and strength of livestock 
 Helps reduce labor 
 Reduces crop wastage 
 Helps me decide when to plant 
 Helps me decide which crops to plant 
 Other: 
WOULD YOU RECOMMEND HYDROPONICS?
o No
o Yes
o Yes, would strongly recommend
ARE THERE NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM HYDROPONICS IN THE COMMUNITY? o Yes o No
IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN. 
IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS, HAVE EFFORTS BEEN MADE TO RESOLVE THEM? 
o Yes o No
EXPLAIN. 
52 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: HYDROPONICS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
DO YOU HAVE PROBLEMS FINDING A MARKET TO SELL YOUR CROPS IN? o Yes o No
EXPLAIN. 
DO YOU HAVE PROBLEMS GETTING YOUR CROPS TO THE MARKET? o Yes o No
EXPLAIN. 
HAVE CHANGES IN RAINFALL OR TEMPERATURE AFFECTED YOUR FARMING PRACTICES OR 
CROP YIELDS COMPARED TO HISTORICAL RAIN/DRY SEASON PERIODS? o Yes o No
OTHER
INCOME/POVERTY NOTES
GENDER OBSERVATIONS
QUESTIONS/REQUESTS
OTHER NOTES

Securing Water for Food has sourced and invested in a portfolio of innovative 
solutions that aim to help farmers use water more efficiently and effectively, 
improve water storage for lean times, and remove salt from water to make more 
food. Our cohort of innovators are helping people in 35 low-resource countries 
with tools they need to produce more food with less water.
To learn more about Securing Water for Food, 
visit www.securingwaterforfood.org.