The major limitation of this study is the identification of rural households with HIV and AIDS due to the stigma of HIV illness. Therefore HIV-positive rural households were identified through the Association of Persons Living with HIV and AIDS (PLWHA) in three district hospitals in the Eastern Region of Ghana by consultations with health officers and AIDS counselors. This implied that only the few HIV-positive individuals who attended these health institutions were included in the study and all other HIV-positive individuals were excluded. Consequently the survey population which was purposively chosen was small. Generalization of survey findings is limited as a result of this purposive method of sampling, therefore the findings of the study cannot be generalized; the aim was to describe the management strategies of households included in the survey. The survey was cross-sectional rather than longitudinal as subjects were interviewed once due to limited time and resources. As a result the survey provided an overview of the management strategies in home gardens rather than how the management strategies in home garden changed over time in households living with HIV and AIDS. This was, however, complemented by in-depth studies.
56
Information from dietary studies was self-reporting and the value depended on respondent’s truthfulness and memory. Although the method used encouraged honest recall, nevertheless some under and over reporting were likely to occur.
The survey sample was not stratified into HIV-positive and HIV-negative households during data collection due to HIV and AIDS-related stigma. These two categories were marked out during data management and analysis. In two communities, where the research was conducted, it was not easy to ensure confidentially and protect the privacy of participants as members of the communities knew households with individuals with HIV and AIDS illness. However this was not a problem in most of the communities.
57
Table 3.2: Assessment of home garden management strategies among HIV-positive and HIV-negative rural households in Eastern Region of Ghana (Research Phase 2), with the objective: To assess the biodiversity in home gardens of HIV- positive and HIV-negative rural households in the Eastern Region of Ghana and its contribution to dietary diversity among these households.
Operational
objectives Expected outputs Methods, instruments and strategies for data
collection
Analysis Research Phase 2: Survey
Objective: Document differences in biodiversity in home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative rural households and evaluate its contribution to dietary diversity in these households
A1: Assess and compare field and home garden cultivation in HIV- positive and HIV- negative rural households
Differences in:
‐ field and cultivated home garden area;
‐ number of adult household members (aged 15- 65) who contribute to home garden cultivation;
‐ number of adult household members (aged 15-65) who contribute to livestock rearing;
‐ proportions with farming as main occupation
between HIV-positive and HIV- negative determined Household survey Semi-structured interviews Student’s t-tests and Fisher’s exact tests to uncover and explain similarities and differences
A2: Describe and compare biodiversity in home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative rural households Difference in: ‐ number of different
categories of plants species cultivated;
‐ plant species diversity; ‐ kinds of domestic livestock
and poultry reared between HIV-positive and HIV- negative households determined
Home garden survey Inventory of plant
species
List of domestic livestock and poultry species in home gardens compiled Structured questionnaire Shannon- Wiener index Student’s t-tests to uncover and explain similarities and differences
A3: Describe and assess contribution of home garden species to dietary diversity in HIV- positive and HIV- negative households
Difference in:
‐ proportions that consumed the individual food groups; ‐ dietary diversity score with food items from home garden (DDS(+HG));
‐ dietary diversity score without food items from home garden (DDS(–HG)); ‐ proportions that consumed
food items from home garden between HIV- positive and HIV- negative households determined
Household survey Home garden survey 24-hr qualitative dietary recall Structured questionnaire Dietary diversity score (DDS) Student’s t-tests and Fisher’s exact tests to uncover and explain similarities and differences
A4: Assess and evaluate the statistical
association between household dietary diversity and home garden species diversity
The degree of the association between dietary diversity score and home garden species diversity established
Home garden survey Inventory of plant species 24-hr qualitative dietary recall Pearson correlation Dietary diversity score (DDS) Shannon- Wiener index Correlation coefficient
58
Table 3.3.1: Uncovering the effect of the interaction between household HIV status and gender of the home garden owner on biodiversity in home gardens (Research Phase 3a) with the objective: To evaluate the differences in the biodiversity in home gardens of female-headed and dual-headed HIV-positive and HIV-negative rural households and the effect on household dietary diversity.
Operational
objectives Expected outputs Methods, instruments and strategies for data
collection
Analysis Research Phase 3a: In-depth studies
Objective: Document and compare biodiversity in home gardens, labour input in home gardens and dietary diversity in female-headed and dual- headed HIV-positive and HIV-negative rural households
A1: Describe and assess field and home garden cultivation in female-headed and dual headed HIV- positive and HIV– negative rural households
Differences in: ‐ field area cultivated; ‐ number of field
crops cultivated; - cultivated home
garden area between the four households types determined Household survey Case studies In-depth interviews Survey data stratified by household HIV status and gender of household head (female/dual- headed) Two-way ANOVA and Fisher's protected LSD-tests to uncover and explain similarities and differences A2: Describe and
assess the biodiversity in home gardens in female-headed and dual headed HIV- positive and HIV- negative rural households Differences in the number of: ‐ annual crops; ‐ perennial crops species; ‐ categories of crops; ‐ vegetable crop species;
‐ root and tuber crop species; fruit species; ‐ other crop species
cultivated: ‐ species diversity; ‐ kinds of domestic livestock reared; ‐ number of poultry reared; ‐ number of domestic livestock reared in the home four garden types determined
Household survey Home garden survey Shannon-Wiener index Case studies In-depth interviews Survey data stratified by household HIV status and gender of household head (female/dual- headed) Two-way ANOVA and Fisher's protected LSD-tests to uncover and explain similarities and differences
A3: Describe and assess labour input in home gardens in female-headed and dual headed HIV- positive and HIV- negative rural households
Differences in number of adult household members (aged between 15-65 years) who contributed to: ‐ cultivating; ‐ planting; ‐ weeding; - harvesting crops in the four households types
Household survey Case studies In-depth interviews
Survey data stratified by household HIV status and gender of household head (female/dual- headed) Two-way ANOVA
and Fisher's protected LSD-tests to uncover and explain
similarities and differences
59 diversity in female-
headed and dual- headed HIV-positive and HIV–negative rural households
diversity scores of the four households types determined 24-hr qualitative dietary recall Dietary diversity score Case studies In-depth interviews stratified by household HIV status and gender of household
head(female/dual- headed)
2-way ANOVA and Fisher's protected LSD-tests to uncover and explain similarities and differences
Table 3.3.2: Exploring the biodiversity in subsistence and commercial home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative rural households in the Eastern Region of Ghana (Research Phase 3b) with the objective: To explore the differences and similarities in subsistence-oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative rural households in the Eastern Region of Ghana and their significance in food security.
Operational objectives
Expected outputs Methods, instruments and
strategies for data collection
Analysis Research Phase 3b: In-depth studies
Objective: Describe and compare differences and similarities in biodiversity, management input used, seasonal availability of produce and consumption of home garden produce in subsistence-oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative households
A1: Assess and compare field and home garden cultivation in HIV- positive and HIV- negative households with subsistence oriented and commerce oriented home gardens Differences and similarities in: - proportions that have farming as main occupation; - cultivated field area; ‐ number of years of home garden cultivation; - cultivated home garden area in the four household types determined Household survey Home garden survey Case studies In-depth interviews
Survey data stratified by household HIV status and primary aim in home garden cultivation (subsistence-oriented/ commerce-oriented) Chi-square tests to
uncover and explain similarities and differences Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s multiple comparison tests to examine the
differences across home garden types
A2: Describe and compare biodiversity in subsistence- oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative households Extent of similarity in crop composition in the four home garden types determined Differences in: - number of individual plants; - total number of crop species; - number of annual Home garden survey Inventory of crop species in home gardens compiled Inventory of crop species in home gardens compiled Case studies In-depth interviews
Survey data stratified by household HIV status and primary aim in home garden cultivation ( subsistence oriented/ commerce oriented) Species richness Sørenson’s index of similarity Plant count
60 food crop species; - number of
perennial food crop species; - number of non-
food crop species recorded in the four home garden types determined Strength of the
association between function of home garden and presence of the individual crop species established. Differences in:
- ecological indices; - species diversity; - evenness
in the four home garden types determined Shannon-Wiener index Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s multiple comparison tests to examine the
differences across home garden types
Fisher’s exact tests to uncover and explain association between variables
A3: Assess the relationship between use of external inputs between subsistence- oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative households
Strength of the association between function of home garden and use of:
‐ improved planting material; ‐ chemical pesticides; ‐ chemical fertilizers; ‐ hired labour; ‐ presence or absence of fences in the four home garden types established
Household survey Case studies In-depth
interviews
Fisher’s exact tests to uncover association between variables
A4: Assess and compare seasonal availability of home garden produce in subsistence- oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative households Differences in number of home garden crop species harvested in:
‐ rainy season only; ‐ dry season only; ‐ both rainy and dry
seasons
in the four home garden types determined Household survey Case studies In-depth interviews Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s multiple comparison tests
to examine the differences across home garden types Chi-square and
Fisher’s exact tests to uncover similarities and differences
A5: Assess the consumption of a staple crop cultivated in subsistence- oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative households Differences in proportions that consumed a staple crop cultivated in the home garden 24-hr prior to the study determined in the four home garden types
Household survey 24-hr qualitative dietary recall Case studies In-depth interviews
Fisher’s exact tests to uncover and explain similarities & differences
61
Table 3.4: Evaluating the seasonal dimension of coping with food shortages in farm households living with HIV and AIDS in the Eastern Region of Ghana (Research Phase 4), with the objective: To evaluate the food insecurity of HIV-positive and HIV-negative farm households in the Eastern Region of Ghana during the post-harvest period and in the lean season.
Operational
objectives Expected outputs Methods, instruments and strategies for data
collection
Analysis Research Phase 3b: In-depth studies
Objective: Describe and compare differences and similarities in biodiversity, management input used, seasonal availability of produce and consumption of home garden produce in subsistence-oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative households
A1: Assess and compare field and home garden cultivation in HIV- positive and HIV- negative households with subsistence oriented and commerce oriented home gardens Differences and similarities in: - proportions that have farming as main occupation; - cultivated field area; ‐ number of years of home garden cultivation; - cultivated home garden area in the four household types determined Household survey Home garden survey Case studies In-depth interviews
Survey data stratified by household HIV status and primary aim in home garden cultivation (subsistence-oriented/ commerce-oriented) Chi-square tests to
uncover and explain similarities and differences Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s multiple comparison tests to examine the
differences across home garden types
A2: Describe and compare biodiversity in subsistence- oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative households Extent of similarity in crop composition in the four home garden types determined Differences in: - number of individual plants; - total number of crop species; - number of annual
food crop species; - number of
perennial food crop species; - number of non-
food crop species recorded in the four home garden types determined Strength of the
association between function of home garden and presence of the individual crop species established. Differences in:
- ecological indices; - species diversity; - evenness
in the four home
Home garden survey Inventory of crop species in home gardens compiled Inventory of crop species in home gardens compiled Case studies In-depth interviews
Survey data stratified by household HIV status and primary aim in home garden cultivation ( subsistence oriented/ commerce oriented) Species richness Sørenson’s index of similarity Plant count Shannon-Wiener index Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s multiple comparison tests to examine the
differences across home garden types
Fisher’s exact tests to uncover and explain association between variables
62 garden types
determined A3: Assess the
relationship between use of external inputs between subsistence- oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative households
Strength of the association between function of home garden and use of:
‐ improved planting material; ‐ chemical pesticides; ‐ chemical fertilizers; ‐ hired labour; ‐ presence or absence of fences in the four home garden types established
Household survey Case studies In-depth
interviews
Fisher’s exact tests to uncover association between variables
A4: Assess and compare seasonal availability of home garden produce in subsistence- oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative households Differences in number of home garden crop species harvested in:
‐ rainy season only; ‐ dry season only; ‐ both rainy and dry
seasons
in the four home garden types determined Household survey Case studies In-depth interviews Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s multiple comparison tests
to examine the differences across home garden types Chi-square and
Fisher’s exact tests to uncover similarities and differences
A5: Assess the consumption of a staple crop cultivated in subsistence- oriented and commerce-oriented home gardens of HIV-positive and HIV-negative households Differences in proportions that consumed a staple crop cultivated in the home garden 24-hr prior to the study determined in the four home garden types
Household survey 24-hr qualitative dietary recall Case studies In-depth interviews
Fisher’s exact tests to uncover and explain similarities & differences
63
References
Adu, S. V. (1992). Soils of the Kumasi region, Ashanti Region, Ghana. Memoir 8, Ghana Research Institute.
Agyei-Mensah, S. (2001). Twelve years of HIV/AIDS in Ghana: Puzzles of interpretation.
Canadian Journal of African Studies, 35(3): 441- 472.
Amanor, K. S. (1994). Ecological knowledge and the regional economy: environmental management in the Asesewa district of Ghana. Development and Change, 25(1): 41- 67.
Akrofi, S., P. C. Struik & L. L. Price (2010). HIV and orientation of subsistence and commercial home gardens in rural Ghana: Crop composition, crop diversity and food security. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5 (18): 2593–2607.
Ampofo, W., K. Torpy, Y. D. Mukadi, K. Koram, K. Nolan, R. Amenyah, E. Kaitoo, P. Antwi, A. D. Ofori-Adjei & P. Lamptey (2006). Normal CD4+ T lymphocyte levels in HIV seronegative individuals in the Manya/Yilo Krobo communities in the Eastern Region of Ghana. Viral Immunology, 19 (2): 260–266.
Asare, E. O., S. K. Oppong & K. Twum-Ampofo (1990). Home gardens in the humid tropics of Ghana. In: K. Landauer, & M. Brazil (eds.). Tropical home gardens. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 41–65.
Ashley, C., D. Start & R. Slater (2003). Understanding livelihoods in rural India: diversity, change and exclusion. Policy Guidance Sheets, Norwich: Overseas Development Institute.
Awuni, J. A. (2002). Strategies for the improvement of rural chicken production in Ghana. In:
Characteristics and Parameters of family Poultry Production in Africa. IAEA, pp. 33-
37.
Benneh, G. (1973). Small-scale farming systems in Ghana. Africa: Journal of the
International African Institute, 43: 134146.
Bennett-Lartey, S.O., G. S. Ayernor, C. M. Markwei, I. K. Asante, D. K. Abbiw, S.K. Boateng, V. M. Anchirinah & P. Ekpe (2002). Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetics resources in farming systems in Ghana (2009). In: J. W. Watson & P. B. Eyzaguirre (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Home Gardens Workshop, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany, pp. 83–96.
64
approaches, 3rd edition, Altamira Press, California.
Campbell, O. M. R. & W. J. Graham (1996). Measuring maternal mortality: Data sources for direct and indirect approaches. IUSSP Working paper prepared for the Seminar on
Innovative Approaches to the Assessment of Reproductive Health, organised by the
Committee on Reproductive Health of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, 24th-27th September 1996, Manila, The Philippines.
Castro, F. G., K. Coe, S. Gutierres & D. Saenz (1996). Designing health promotion programs for Latinos. In: P. M. Kato & T. Mann (Eds.), Handbook of diversity issues in health psychology pp. 319-345. New York: Plenum Press.
Chapman, G. & H. Maclean (1990). Qualitative research in home economics. Canadian
Home Economics Journal 40 (3): 129-134.
Chen, L. C. & R. Feilden (1984). Measuring impact using clinical, morbidity, and mortality data. In: D. E. Sahn, R. Lockwood & N. S. Scrimshaw. Methods for the Evaluation
of the Impact of Food and Nutrition Programmes. United Nations University Press
Tokyo, Japan.
Crabtree, B. F. & W. Miller (Eds.) (1999). Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.
Ezzamel, M. & H. Willmott (1998). Accounting for teamwork: A critical study of group- based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly,43: 358- 396.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2007). Household dietary diversity questionnaire. From http://www.foodsec.org/tr/nut/hdd.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2010).
Finch, H. & J. Lewis (2003). Focus Groups. In: J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 170-
198). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Flower, L. & J. R. Hayes (1984). Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1: 120-160.
Flyvberg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry,