Livestock Research for Rural Development 26 (5) 2014 Guide for preparation of papers LRRD Newsletter

Citation of this paper

Client satisfaction with livestock improvement technologies in Marsabit, Turkana and Garissa counties of northern Kenya

F O Wayua, S G Kuria, A Gudere, D Golicha, J Lesuper, H K Walaga and A Adongo

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, National Arid Lands Research Centre,
P. O. Box 147 Marsabit-60500, Kenya
fwayua@yahoo.co.uk   ;   francis.wayua@gmail.com

Abstract

A study was conducted in Marsabit, Turkana and Garissa counties of arid northern Kenya to capture client satisfaction on livestock improvement technologies. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire randomly administered to different clients in various exhibitions where the technologies were disseminated in Marsabit (n=56), Garissa (n=47) and Lodwar (n=107). The data was analysed using descriptive statistics.

 

Results show that 2,580 clients were reached with the technologies during the exhibitions, 32% being adult males, 21% adult females, 30% youth males and 17% youth females. Out of these, 210 filled the client satisfaction questionnaire, 70% being males and 30% females. Majority of the clients in Lodwar (93.2%) and Garissa (69.6%) were satisfied with the technologies, as opposed to only 19.6% in Marsabit. The same trend was observed in the rating of service delivery in terms of quality, cost and usefulness. The main reason is that people in Marsabit also practice agro-pastoralism and would have preferred more crop-based technologies. Clients mostly liked milk processing technologies and the fact that the exhibitions were elaborate, well-organised and relevant to their livelihood systems. However, 10% of the clients disliked selling of brochures and literature of materials being in English. Clients in all the exhibitions agreed that technology dissemination at grassroots needed to be improved and the exhibitions organised more regularly.

 

In conclusion, this study shows that clients were generally satisfied with the livestock technologies. Future studies should investigate the extent to which agricultural technologies disseminated through shows and exhibitions in pastoral areas impact on the clients.

Key words: agricultural technologies, dissemination, pastoralism, Kenya


Introduction

Satisfaction is a subjective concept and varies from individual to individual. It can be loosely viewed as the utility an individual obtains from consumption of a certain good or service (Allen and Wilburn 2002). However, just like utility, it is hard to quantify. It can, therefore, be viewed in ordinal terms, where an individual is asked to rank or score the level of satisfaction obtained from using a certain service or commodity.

 

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) is the premier national agricultural research organisation in Kenya, with the legal mandate to carry out research in agriculture and veterinary sciences. The Institute has 22 main research centres mandated to undertake strategic, applied and/or adapted research as well as outreach and partnerships. KARI-Marsabit is one of the KARI centres located in the northern part of the country and conducts research on livestock (camels, cattle, sheep, goats), crops (cereals and pulses) and cross-cutting issues (climate change, gender, etc.). KARI-Marsabit provides technologies, products and services to various clients’ who have varied requirements. Their level of satisfaction, therefore, largely depends on how the technologies, products and services benefit them at their environment. In order to improve on service delivery to its clients, KARI-Marsabit should ensure that there is continuous improvement on technologies, products and services it offers to its clients to suit their needs. However, the extent to which clients are satisfied with the livestock technologies and services is not clearly known. This study, therefore, aimed to capture client feedback on their level of satisfaction with different aspects of livestock technologies, products and services offered to them through shows and exhibitions, and suggest ways for improvement.


Methodology

Study sites

 

The survey was conducted in Marsabit, Garissa and Turkana counties of arid Northern Kenya. These areas are arid and fall in agro-ecological zones V and VI. The prevailing agricultural system is livestock keeping (pastoralism) and agro-pastoralism in a few pockets in the arid rangelands. The main livestock kept are camels, sheep, goats and cattle. The sites were purposively selected following the shows and exhibitions held in the areas, and the high potential for commercialising livestock production.

 

Data collection

 

Data was collected using a structured questionnaire randomly administered to different clients in various shows and exhibitions. These included the Agricultural Sector Development Support Programme (ASDSP) launch in Marsabit (n=56), the Garissa Agricultural Society of Kenya (ASK) show (n=47) and the Kenya Pastoralist Week (KPW) in Lodwar (n=107). Several technologies were exhibited during the shows and exhibitions, including the following:

 

(a)    Natural resources management technologies

(b)   Livestock technologies

(c)    Value addition and postharvest technologies

Practical demonstrations on the application of the various technologies and information were held during the shows and exhibitions.

 

The clients were asked about the positive and negative aspects in the KARI-Marsabit stand in each show /exhibition, and areas of improvement. The level of client satisfaction with the livestock technologies and their overall rating of KARI-Marsabit service delivery in terms of quality, cost and usefulness was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (i.e. satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neutral, somewhat dissatisfied, dissatisfied). Likert scales have been widely used to measure observable attributes in various social science measurement areas. Examples of measured variables include customer attitudes towards labelling in nutrition (Lindhorst et al 2007) and satisfaction of journal quality in library science (Yue et al 2007), among others. 

 

Clients in Marsabit were specifically asked about their knowledge of KARI-Marsabit functions, as the research station is situated within the county, and if they had received services from the research centre in the last 12 months preceding the survey. The clients were given the questionnaire at the exit point of the KARI stand after they had seen the various technologies; they filled the questionnaire and left it at the customer desk.

 

Data analysis

 

The collected data was analysed in SPSS Statistics Version 20 (SPSS 2011) and presented using descriptive statistics (totals, frequencies, percentages and measures of dispersion).


Results and Discussion

Clients reached

 

A total of 2,580 clients were reached with the technologies and information, 32% being adult males, 21% adult females, 30% youth males and 17% youth females. Out of these, 210 filled the client feedback questionnaire, 70% being males and 30% females (Table 1).

Table 1: Number of clients reached and questionnaires administered

 

Marsabit

ASDSP launch

Lodwar

KPW

Garissa

ASK show

Total

Adult males

40

588

195

823 (32)*

Adult females

28

398

120

546 (21)

Youth males

16

485

276

777 (30)

Youth females

13

260

161

434 (17)

Total number of clients reached

97

1,730

752

2,580

Total questionnaires administered

56

107

47

210

    - Male

39

71

36

146 (70)

    - Female

17

36

11

64 (30)

*Figures in parentheses are percentages

 

Positive aspects (likes) in the KARI-Marsabit stand in each show /exhibition

 

The customers indicated different positive aspects in each show/exhibition (Table 2). Technologies on milk processing (milk testing, cultured fermented milk, ghee making) were the most liked in all the three sites. This could be because this resonates directly with household food security in the study sites in which livestock keeping (pastoralism) is the main livelihood activity. Clients secondly liked the fact that KARI-Marsabit stand was very elaborate, well organised and relevant to their livestock-based livelihood systems.

Table 2: The positive aspects (likes) in the KARI stand in each show /exhibition

Likes

Marsabit ASDSP launch

Lodwar KPW

Garissa ASK show

N*

%

N

%

N

%

Milk processing technologies (cultured fermented milk, yoghurt, ghee, milk testing)

19

34.5

41

38.3

13

27.7

KARI staff are knowledgeable and professional

3

5.5

 

 

1

2.1

KARI staff are welcoming and approach people well

3

5.5

2

1.9

 

 

Nerica rice

2

3.6

 

 

2

4.3

Bee keeping and honey processing

2

3.6

 

 

1

2.1

Pasture seeds

2

3.6

 

 

5

10.6

Tea manure

2

3.6

 

 

 

 

Well organised and educative / relevant stand

18

32.7

17

15.9

9

19.1

Mineral supplement

2

3.6

2

1.9

1

2.1

Livestock drugs and disease treatment

1

1.8

26

24.3

6

12.7

Camel plough

1

1.8

-

-

7

14.9

Mastitis in camels

 

 

1

0.9

 

 

Camel feeds and camel production

 

 

2

1.9

 

 

Burdizzo castration for goats and camels

 

 

8

7.5

 

 

Hides and skins value addition

 

 

7

6.5

 

 

Mobile house for kids and lambs

 

 

1

0.9

 

 

Dairy goats

 

 

 

 

2

4.3

Total

56

100.0

107

100.0

47

100.0

*N indicates number of clients who responded

Negative aspects (dislikes) in the KARI-Marsabit stand in each show /exhibition

 

Ten percent of the interviewed clients (n=210) were not happy with some of the aspects in KARI-Marsabit’s stand. These aspects were different in each show (Table 3). In Marsabit, for example, the three aspects that customers (n=8) disliked most about KARI-Marsabit’s stand were selling of brochures and ghee, lack of demonstration farms and brochures, posters and labels being in English. The KARI-Marsabit stand at the KPW in Lodwar attracted a lot of clients who overcrowded the stand, and this was a cause of dissatisfaction to some clients (n=3).

Table 3: Percent of customers indicating negative aspects (dislikes) in the KARI-Marsabit stand in each show/exhibition

Dislikes

Marsabit ASDSP launch (n=8)

Lodwar KPW (n=9)

Garissa  ASK show (n=3)

Literature being in English

12.5 (1)*

 

 

Lack of milk products (yoghurt, ghee) for show goers to taste

12.5 (1)

11.1 (1)

 

Selling of brochures

25.0 (2)

 

 

Lack of demonstration farms

25.0 (2)

 

 

Selling of ghee

25.0 (2)

 

 

Tent too small leading to overcrowding, hence facilitators cannot give recommended information

 

33.3 (3)

 

Improper translation of English words to local language

 

33.3 (3)

 

Items on display not locally available

 

22.2 (2)

 

Prices not put on products on display

 

 

33.3 (1)

Cream separator not working

 

 

66.7 (2)

Total

100.0 (8)

100.0 (9)

100.0 (3)

*Figures in parentheses indicate number of clients who responded

Knowledge of KARI-Marsabit functions

 

Of the 56 respondents during the ASDSP launch in Marsabit, 70% were aware of KARI-Marsabit’s functions, whereas 30% were not. Those who were aware of KARI-Marsabit functions listed the functions as presented in Table 4. Those who were not aware of KARI-Marsabit’s functions gave the reasons as presented in Figure 1.

Table 4: Clients’ knowledge of KARI-Marsabit functions during ASDSP launch in Marsabit

Function

N*

%

Agricultural research

22

52.4

Providing seeds to farmers

11

26.2

Training farmers and stakeholders on new technologies

5

11.9

Providing breeding animals to farmers

1

2.4

Catalysing adoption of agricultural technologies

1

2.4

Organising field days

1

2.4

Customising research activity to address technology needs of the County

1

2.4

Total

42

100.0

*N indicates number of clients who responded


Figure 1: Reasons for not knowing KARI-Marsabit functions as reported by clients

Of the 56 respondents during the ASDSP launch in Marsabit, 21.4% had received services from KARI-Marsabit in the last 12 months preceding the survey (Figure 2), 78.6% had not.

Figure 2: Services received by clients from KARI-Marsabit in the last 12 months prior to the survey
Level of satisfaction with KARI-Marsabit technologies

 

Majority of the clients in Lodwar and Garissa were satisfied with the KARI-Marsabit technologies. However, some of the clients in Marsabit were somewhat dissatisfied or indifferent about the KARI-Marsabit technologies (Table 5). This is mainly because most of the technologies were livestock-based, whereas a significant population within Marsabit Mountain practice a mixture of livestock and crop farming because of the micro-climate provided by Marsabit Mountain.

Table 5: Level of satisfaction with KARI-Marsabit technologies in each show/exhibition

 

Marsabit ASDSP launch

Lodwar KPW

Garissa ASK show

Level of satisfaction

N*

%

N

%

N

%

Satisfied

11

19.6

96

93.2

32

69.6

Somewhat satisfied

23

41.1

4

3.9

11

23.9

Neutral

20

35.7

2

1.9

1

2.2

Somewhat dissatisfied

2

3.6

-

-

2

4.3

Dissatisfied

-

-

1

0.9

-

-

Total

56

100.0%

103

100.0%

46

100.0%

*N indicates number of clients who responded

Overall rating of KARI-Marsabit’s service delivery in terms of quality, cost and benefits criteria

 

Results in Table 6 show that most of the clients in Lodwar and Garissa were satisfied with KARI-Marsabit’s service delivery in terms of quality, whereas 52.7% of the clients in Marsabit were somewhat dissatisfied and 27.3% were indifferent.

Table 6: Overall rating of KARI-Marsabit’s service delivery in terms of quality criteria

 

Marsabit ASDSP launch

Lodwar KPW

Garissa ASK show

Level of satisfaction

N*

%

N

%

N

%

Satisfied

5

9.1

89

90.8

28

63.6

Somewhat satisfied

29

52.7

5

5.1

12

27.3

Neutral

15

27.3

3

3.1

3

6.8

Somewhat dissatisfied

6

10.9

-

-

1

2.3

Dissatisfied

-

-

1

1.0

-

-

Total

55

100.0

98

100.0

44

100.0

*N indicates number of clients who responded

There seems to be no problem with costs because most of the customers in Lodwar and Garissa were satisfied, except in Marsabit where about 60% were somewhat dissatisfied or indifferent (Table 7). The main reason for the low satisfaction with clients in Marsabit was that most of the displayed technologies were livestock-based whereas the community in Marsabit practices agro-pastoralism and would have preferred more crop-based technologies. 

Table 7: Overall rating of KARI-Marsabit’s service delivery in terms of cost criteria

 

Marsabit ASDSP launch

Lodwar KPW

Garissa ASK show

Level of satisfaction

N*

%

N

%

N

%

Satisfied

2

4.8

75

78.1

16

44.4

Somewhat satisfied

13

31.0

11

11.5

6

16.7

Neutral

10

23.8

7

7.3

5

13.9

Somewhat dissatisfied

16

38.1

2

2.1

2

5.6

Dissatisfied

1

2.4

1

1.0

7

19.4

Total

42

100.0

96

100.0

36

100.0

*N indicates number of clients who responded

Most of the clients were satisfied with the benefits (usefulness) of KARI-Marsabit’s service delivery, even though this varied within the shows/exhibitions (Table 8).

Table 8: Overall rating of KARI-Marsabit’s service delivery in terms of benefits criteria

 

Marsabit ASDSP launch

Lodwar KPW

Garissa ASK show

Level of satisfaction

N*

%

N

%

N

%

Satisfied

24

48.0

90

94.7

32

78.0

Somewhat satisfied

12

24.0

1

1.1

7

17.1

Neutral

9

18.0

1

1.1

2

4.9

Somewhat dissatisfied

5

10.0

1

1.1

 

 

Dissatisfied

 

 

2

2.1

 

 

Total

50

100.0

95

100.0

41

100.0

*N indicates number of clients who responded

Areas of improvement on the technologies, products and services

 

Table 9 shows that the customers who visited KARI-Marsabit stand in all the shows and exhibitions were in agreement that information dissemination and feedback at grassroots needed to be improved, and the shows/exhibitions to be organised more regularly and for longer duration. Clients in all the shows also agreed on the need to increase dissemination of livestock products value addition technologies (milk, hides and skins). This should be encouraged, as the study by Kuria et al (2013) showed that farmers are more likely to adopt technologies if these are availed to them, and this could improve livestock productivity in the arid northern Kenya.

Table 9: KARI-Marsabit’s areas of improvement on the products, services and information

 

Marsabit ASDSP launch

Lodwar KPW

Garissa ASK show

Areas of improvement

N*

%

N

%

N

%

Educate farmers on milk processing especially cream separator

12

11.1

15

10.1

 

 

Organise more demonstration sessions / field days

12

11.1

12

8.0

6

12.8

More research on dryland crops

11

10.2

-

-

 

 

Provide crop and pasture seeds to farmers

11

10.2

-

-

 

 

Bee keeping and honey value addition

7

6.5

-

-

 

 

Information dissemination at grass roots

23

21.3

37

24.8

11

23.4

Pasture production

4

3.7

9

6.0

6

12.8

Offer employment for youth

4

3.7

-

-

 

 

Hides and skins value addition (wet salting technology and leather tanning)

3

2.8

11

7.4

8

17.0

Artificial Insemination for livestock improvement

3

2.8

 

 

 

 

Provide community service /security

3

2.8

1

0.7

 

 

Rain water harvesting

2

1.9

-

-

 

 

Collaborate with stakeholders on food security in the county and Community

2

1.9

-

-

 

 

Secure enough funding

1

0.9

-

-

 

 

Attend public meetings to disseminate information

1

0.9

-

-

 

 

Mineral salt improved

1

0.9

-

-

 

 

Kales planting and preservation

1

0.9

-

-

 

 

Storage facilities

1

0.9

-

-

 

 

Timely relay of research information

1

0.9

-

-

 

 

Soil research

1

0.9

 

 

 

 

Hay technology

1

0.9

 

 

 

 

Poultry keeping

1

0.9

1

0.7

 

 

Improve on technology generation

1

0.9

-

-

 

 

Involve young farmers in their projects

1

0.9

-

-

 

 

Improve translation of words into local language

-

-

6

4.0

1

2.1

Repair cream separator to make it use less energy

-

-

1

0.7

2

4.3

Provide livestock drugs during the shows

-

-

16

10.7

 

 

Bring processed products (milk, ghee) for sale

-

-

2

1.3

1

2.1

Displayed technologies to be made locally available

-

-

15

10.1

 

 

Establish more offices locally for offering services to the people

-

-

9

6.0

2

4.3

Eradication of prosopis

-

-

1

0.7

 

 

Cross-breeding to improve local camels and goats

-

-

5

3.4

 

 

Disseminate information through local radio

-

-

2

1.3

2

4.3

Increase space for the exhibition

-

-

2

1.3

 

 

Establish livestock drug shops

-

-

1

0.7

2

4.3

Human medicine to be also exhibited

-

-

1

0.7

 

 

Fishing

-

-

2

1.3

 

 

Provide information based on research carried out in the region

 

 

 

 

1

2.1

Camel plough

 

 

 

 

1

2.1

Breed lolicos lablab which is not bitter

 

 

 

 

1

2.1

Open up demonstration plots where farmers and extension can learn

 

 

 

 

2

4.3

Reduce cost of brochures

 

 

 

 

1

2.1

Total

108

100.0

149

100.0

47

100.0

*N indicates number of clients who responded


Conclusions and recommendation


Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the European Union though the Arid and Semi Arid Lands Agricultural Productivity Research Programme (ASAL-APRP).


References

Allen D R and Wilburn M 2002 Linking Customer and Employee Satisfaction to the Bottom Line. American Society for Quality, Milwaukee, WI. 

Kuria S G, Murage A, Walaga H K and Lesuper J 2013 Likelihood of agricultural technologies adoption by pastoralist communities: the case of camel improvement technologies and information in Marsabit and Isiolo Counties of northern Kenya. KARI-Marsabit Technical Report. 

Lindhorst K, Corby L, Roberts S and Zeiler S 2007 Rural consumers’ attitudes towards nutrition labelling. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 68, 146–150. 

SPSS 2011 IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20 (Release 20.0.0). IBM Corp. 

Yue W, Wilson C S, and Boller F 2007 Peer assessment of journal quality in clinical neurology. Journal of Medical Library Association, 95, 70–77.


Received 25 March 2014; Accepted 21 April 2014; Published 1 May 2014

Go to top