1 Descriptive statistics of the sample
2 Food choices
3 Setbacks and worries (Q25, Q26)
4 Attachment to your local territory (Q27)
5 Attachment to your peers (your local community) (Q28)
6 Trust (Q29, Q30)
- 6.1 Trust in people (Q29)
- 6.2 Trust in organizations and vendors (Q30)
  - 6.2.1 by city and gender
7 Q9 Was yesterday a celebration or feast or fasting day
8 Food product categories that ANY member of your household consumed yesterday during the day or night, in the household (Q17)
- 8.1 Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) (Q17)
  - 8.1.1 by city and gender
9 Food and drink that the respondent consumed (Q10)

1 Descriptive statistics of the sample

1.1 city

Table 1.1: Number of respondents by city
levels	N	%
Kisumu	493	32.6
Kitui	508	33.6
Nyeri	513	33.9
Total	1,514	100.0

Figure 1.1: Number of respondents by city

1.2 Age (Q18.1)

Table 1.2: Age of respondents by city - summary statistcs
city	n	%	Mean	st.Dev	min	Q1	Median	Q3	max
Kisumu	493	32.6	42.4	11.5	22	33	40	50	76
Kitui	508	33.6	35.8	13.5	18	25	32	45	79
Nyeri	513	33.9	36.0	14.0	18	24	33	44	82
Total	1,514	100.0	38.0	13.4	18	27	36	47	82

Figure 1.2: Age of respondents by city

1.3 Gender (Q18.2)

Table 1.3: Gender of respondents by city
stat	gender	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
count	Male	184	245	218	647
	Female	308	261	292	861
	Prefer not to say	1	2	3	6
	Total	493	508	513	1514
col.%	Male	37.3	48.2	42.5	42.7
	Female	62.5	51.4	56.9	56.9
	Prefer not to say	0.2	0.4	0.6	0.4
	Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Figure 1.3: Gender of respondents by city

1.4 Education level (Q18.3)

Table 1.4: Education level of respondents by city
stat	education	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
count	no qualification, literate	30	9	38	77
	primary	115	179	125	419
	secondary	202	189	209	600
	more than secondary	144	125	136	405
	other	2	6	4	12
	Total	493	508	512	1513
col.%	no qualification, literate	6.1	1.8	7.4	5.1
	primary	23.3	35.2	24.4	27.7
	secondary	41.0	37.2	40.8	39.7
	more than secondary	29.2	24.6	26.6	26.8
	other	0.4	1.2	0.8	0.8
	Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Figure 1.4: Education level of respondents by city

1.5 Household size (Q19)

Table 1.5: Household size, average values by city
city	adults 14 or older	children 3-13	children 0-2	Hosehold size	members with revenue
Kisumu	3.6	1.9	0.2	5.7	1.2
Kitui	3.3	1.3	0.3	4.9	1.4
Nyeri	2.6	0.9	0.3	3.8	1.4
Total	3.2	1.3	0.3	4.8	1.3

Figure 1.5: Overall household size by city

1.6 Household head’s form of employment (Q20)

Table 1.6: Household head’s form of employment by city
stat	employment	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
count	Unemployed	41	42	74	157
	Regular worker	102	26	35	163
	Casual worker (paid by the day)	105	138	112	355
	Clerk (formal employment)	109	89	115	313
	Manager	53	0	3	56
	Businessman/self-employed	60	209	144	413
	Sole trader	23	1	10	34
	Other	0	3	20	23
	Total	493	508	513	1514
col.%	Unemployed	8.3	8.3	14.4	10.4
	Regular worker	20.7	5.1	6.8	10.8
	Casual worker (paid by the day)	21.3	27.2	21.8	23.4
	Clerk (formal employment)	22.1	17.5	22.4	20.7
	Manager	10.8	0.0	0.6	3.7
	Businessman/self-employed	12.2	41.1	28.1	27.3
	Sole trader	4.7	0.2	1.9	2.2
	Other	0.0	0.6	3.9	1.5
	Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Figure 1.6: Household head’s form of employment by city

1.7 Average monthly household income (Q21)

Table 1.7: Average monthly household income by city
stat	income	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
count	1=lower than average	151	18	44	213
	2=somewhat lower than average	85	41	32	158
	3=about average	123	72	54	249
	4=somewhat higher than average	112	158	136	406
	5=higher than average	22	219	247	488
	Total	493	508	513	1514
col.%	1=lower than average	30.6	3.5	8.6	14.1
	2=somewhat lower than average	17.2	8.1	6.2	10.4
	3=about average	24.9	14.2	10.5	16.4
	4=somewhat higher than average	22.7	31.1	26.5	26.8
	5=higher than average	4.5	43.1	48.1	32.2
	Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Figure 1.7: Average monthly household income by city

1.7.1 by city and gender

Table 1.8: Average monthly household income by gender and city
		row %	col %
Kisumu	1=lower than average	45.0	55.0	100	37.0	26.9	30.7
	2=somewhat lower than average	30.6	69.4	100	14.1	19.2	17.3
	3=about average	34.1	65.9	100	22.8	26.3	25.0
	4=somewhat higher than average	35.1	64.9	100	21.2	23.4	22.6
	5=higher than average	40.9	59.1	100	4.9	4.2	4.5
	Total	37.4	62.6	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Kitui	1=lower than average	58.8	41.2	100	4.1	2.7	3.4
	2=somewhat lower than average	39.0	61.0	100	6.5	9.6	8.1
	3=about average	45.1	54.9	100	13.1	14.9	14.0
	4=somewhat higher than average	41.8	58.2	100	26.9	35.2	31.2
	5=higher than average	55.3	44.7	100	49.4	37.5	43.3
	Total	48.4	51.6	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Nyeri	1=lower than average	48.8	51.2	100	9.6	7.5	8.4
	2=somewhat lower than average	9.4	90.6	100	1.4	9.9	6.3
	3=about average	43.4	56.6	100	10.6	10.3	10.4
	4=somewhat higher than average	40.4	59.6	100	25.2	27.7	26.7
	5=higher than average	47.2	52.8	100	53.2	44.5	48.2
	Total	42.7	57.3	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Total	1=lower than average	46.9	53.1	100	15.3	13.0	14.0
	2=somewhat lower than average	28.5	71.5	100	7.0	13.1	10.5
	3=about average	39.3	60.7	100	15.0	17.4	16.4
	4=somewhat higher than average	39.5	60.5	100	24.7	28.5	26.9
	5=higher than average	50.5	49.5	100	38.0	28.0	32.3
	Total	42.9	57.1	100	100.0	100.0	100.0

Figure 1.8: Average monthly household income by gender and city

1.8 Extent to which the household were able to meet their food needs during the last year (Q16)

Table 1.9: Meet food needs by city
stat	meet_food_needs	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
count	No, we experienced serious food short-ages	11	51	70	132
	We experienced some difficulties	76	299	162	537
	We had about what we needed	268	91	140	499
	Yes, we had what we needed	125	63	113	301
	Yes, more than enough	13	4	28	45
	Total	493	508	513	1514
col.%	No, we experienced serious food short-ages	2.23	10.04	13.65	8.72
	We experienced some difficulties	15.42	58.86	31.58	35.47
	We had about what we needed	54.36	17.91	27.29	32.96
	Yes, we had what we needed	25.35	12.40	22.03	19.88
	Yes, more than enough	2.64	0.79	5.46	2.97
	Total	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00

Figure 1.9: Meet food needs by city

1.8.1 by city and gender

Table 1.10: Meet food needs by gender and city
		row %	col %
Kisumu	No, we experienced serious food short-ages	45.5	54.5	100	2.7	1.9	2.2
	We experienced some difficulties	32.0	68.0	100	13.0	16.6	15.2
	We had about what we needed	36.2	63.8	100	52.7	55.5	54.5
	Yes, we had what we needed	41.6	58.4	100	28.3	23.7	25.4
	Yes, more than enough	46.2	53.8	100	3.3	2.3	2.6
	Total	37.4	62.6	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Kitui	No, we experienced serious food short-ages	43.1	56.9	100	9.0	11.1	10.1
	We experienced some difficulties	47.5	52.5	100	57.6	59.8	58.7
	We had about what we needed	51.6	48.4	100	19.2	16.9	18.0
	Yes, we had what we needed	50.8	49.2	100	13.1	11.9	12.5
	Yes, more than enough	75.0	25.0	100	1.2	0.4	0.8
	Total	48.4	51.6	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Nyeri	No, we experienced serious food short-ages	36.2	63.8	100	11.5	15.1	13.5
	We experienced some difficulties	35.2	64.8	100	26.1	36.0	31.8
	We had about what we needed	48.2	51.8	100	30.7	24.7	27.3
	Yes, we had what we needed	55.4	44.6	100	28.4	17.1	22.0
	Yes, more than enough	25.0	75.0	100	3.2	7.2	5.5
	Total	42.7	57.3	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Total	No, we experienced serious food short-ages	39.7	60.3	100	8.0	9.2	8.7
	We experienced some difficulties	41.6	58.4	100	34.3	36.2	35.4
	We had about what we needed	42.4	57.6	100	32.6	33.3	33.0
	Yes, we had what we needed	48.7	51.3	100	22.6	17.9	19.9
	Yes, more than enough	35.6	64.4	100	2.5	3.4	3.0
	Total	42.9	57.1	100	100.0	100.0	100.0

Figure 1.10: Meet food needs by gender and city

2 Food choices

2.1 Importance of reasons driving consumer purchasing choices (Q2)

Table 2.1: Importance of reasons driving consumer purchasing choices
Q2	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
1.Availability	4.08	4.53	4.52	4.38
2.Nutrition content (healthiness)	3.95	4.03	3.69	3.89
3.Wishing to be a “good” provider (parent,host)	3.86	3.85	3.17	3.63
4.Affordability (price)	4.70	4.74	4.62	4.69
5.Environmental friendliness	3.39	3.37	2.90	3.22
6.Aiming at diversifying/balancing the diet	3.83	4.01	3.72	3.85
7.Linkage with our tradition/culture	2.27	2.37	2.32	2.32
8.Locally produced	3.36	3.55	3.29	3.40
9.Product characteristics (taste,aroma,color,shape)	4.13	3.91	3.66	3.90
average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

Reasons driving consumer purchasing choices by city, sorted by importance; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

Figure 2.1: Reasons driving consumer purchasing choices by city, sorted by importance; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

2.2 Share of household income spent on purchased food (Q3)

Table 2.2: Share of household income spent on purchased food by city
stat	income_food	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
count	A very limited part (less than 25%)	3	16	47	66
	Less than half (from 25% to 50%)	118	118	75	311
	About half (50%)	243	188	170	601
	More than half (from 50% to 75%)	107	142	135	384
	Almost all (from 75% to 100%)	22	44	86	152
	Total	493	508	513	1514
col.%	A very limited part (less than 25%)	0.6	3.1	9.2	4.4
	Less than half (from 25% to 50%)	23.9	23.2	14.6	20.5
	About half (50%)	49.3	37.0	33.1	39.7
	More than half (from 50% to 75%)	21.7	28.0	26.3	25.4
	Almost all (from 75% to 100%)	4.5	8.7	16.8	10.0
	Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Figure 2.2: Share of household income spent on purchased food by city

Figure 2.3: Share of household income spent on purchased food by gender, education and income level

Table 2.3: Q3 Share of household income spent on purchased food - count
variable	levels	A very limited part (less than 25%)	Less than half (from 25% to 50%)	About half (50%)	More than half (from 50% to 75%)	Almost all (from 75% to 100%)	Total
Total	Total	66	310	600	381	151	1,508
gender	Male	32	150	256	149	60	647
	Female	34	160	344	232	91	861
education	no qualification, literate	11	11	27	17	11	77
	primary	11	73	156	119	59	418
	secondary	24	130	243	153	48	598
	more than secondary	20	94	168	90	31	403
	other	0	1	6	2	2	11
		0	1	0	0	0	1
income	lower than average	22	46	92	35	16	211
	somewhat lower than average	7	37	50	45	19	158
	about average	8	48	94	72	25	247
	somewhat higher than average	7	70	175	107	46	405
	higher than average	22	109	189	122	45	487

Table 2.4: Q3 Share of household income spent on purchased food - %
variable	levels	A very limited part (less than 25%)	Less than half (from 25% to 50%)	About half (50%)	More than half (from 50% to 75%)	Almost all (from 75% to 100%)	Total
Total	Total	4.4	20.6	39.8	25.3	10.0	100
gender	Male	4.9	23.2	39.6	23.0	9.3	100
	Female	3.9	18.6	40.0	26.9	10.6	100
education	no qualification, literate	14.3	14.3	35.1	22.1	14.3	100
	primary	2.6	17.5	37.3	28.5	14.1	100
	secondary	4.0	21.7	40.6	25.6	8.0	100
	more than secondary	5.0	23.3	41.7	22.3	7.7	100
	other	0.0	9.1	54.5	18.2	18.2	100
		0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100
income	lower than average	10.4	21.8	43.6	16.6	7.6	100
	somewhat lower than average	4.4	23.4	31.6	28.5	12.0	100
	about average	3.2	19.4	38.1	29.1	10.1	100
	somewhat higher than average	1.7	17.3	43.2	26.4	11.4	100
	higher than average	4.5	22.4	38.8	25.1	9.2	100

Table 2.5: Chi-squared test between Share of household income spent on purchased food and the following variables
variable	Test	Statistic	df	p.value	Signif
city	Chi-squared	119.32	8	4.6e-22	***
gender	Chi-squared	7.52	4	0.1109
educ	Chi-squared	46.63	16	7.8e-05	***
income_avg	Chi-squared	45.17	16	1.3e-04	***

2.3 Food products lacking in your household diet (Q4)

Table 2.6: Products lacking in your household diet
Q4	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
1.Cereals or cereal products	2.93	3.92	3.60	3.49
2.Vegetables	4.07	3.90	3.91	3.96
3.Fruits	3.31	3.40	3.09	3.27
4.Legumes	3.40	3.25	3.17	3.27
5.Fish	3.23	2.42	1.69	2.44
6.Oils	3.05	4.02	3.77	3.62
average values on a scale from 1 = completely lacking, to 5 = extremely present

Products lacking in your household diet by city, sorted by lacking; average values on a scale from 1 = completely lacking, to 5 = extremely present

Figure 2.4: Products lacking in your household diet by city, sorted by lacking; average values on a scale from 1 = completely lacking, to 5 = extremely present

2.4 Local food products: frequency of purchase ad interest in a new local product (Q5, Q6)

Local food products: local_food: Q5.frequency of purchasing local products; local_food_interest: Q6.interest in including a new local product in the household diet

Figure 2.5: Local food products: local_food: Q5.frequency of purchasing local products; local_food_interest: Q6.interest in including a new local product in the household diet

2.4.1 Frequency of purchase of local food products (Q5)

Figure 2.6: Q5 Frequency of purchase of local food products; average values on a scale from 1: Never; to 5: Always (most of the time)

Table 2.7: Q5 Frequency of purchase of local food products - summary statistics
variable	levels	n	perc	mean	st.dev	min	Q1	median	Q3	max
city	Kisumu	492	32.7	3.40	0.91	1	3	3	4	5
	Kitui	505	33.5	4.20	0.85	2	4	4	5	5
	Nyeri	509	33.8	4.28	0.87	1	4	5	5	5
gender	Male	646	42.9	4.00	0.97	1	3	4	5	5
	Female	860	57.1	3.94	0.95	1	3	4	5	5
education	no qualification, literate	76	5.0	3.83	1.00	1	3	4	5	5
	primary	418	27.8	4.01	0.96	1	3	4	5	5
	secondary	598	39.7	4.00	0.94	1	3	4	5	5
	more than secondary	403	26.8	3.92	0.99	2	3	4	5	5
	other	11	0.7	3.45	0.52	3	3	3	4	4
income	lower than average	211	14.0	3.71	1.06	1	3	4	5	5
	somewhat lower than average	158	10.5	3.83	0.94	2	3	4	5	5
	about average	246	16.3	3.85	0.98	1	3	4	5	5
	somewhat higher than average	405	26.9	4.03	0.95	1	3	4	5	5
	higher than average	486	32.3	4.13	0.88	1	4	4	5	5
Total	Total	1,506	100.0	3.97	0.96	1	3	4	5	5
statistics computed on a scale from 1: Never; to 5: Always (most of the time)

Table 2.8: Test on differences in Q5.Frequency of purchase of local food products between levels of the following variables
variable	Test	Statistic	p.value	Signif
city	Kruskal-Wallis	256.42	2.1e-56	***
gender	Wilcoxon	289,233.00	0.1494
educ	Kruskal-Wallis	8.28	0.0817	.
income_avg	Kruskal-Wallis	34.09	7.1e-07	***

Post hoc analysis: Dunn test for multiple comparisons - p.values
city	Kisumu	Kitui
Kitui	<0.001	-
Nyeri	<0.001	0.3424

Post hoc analysis: Dunn test for multiple comparisons - p.values
income_avg	lower than average	somewhat lower than average	about average	somewhat higher than average
somewhat lower than average	1	-	-	-
about average	1	1	-	-
somewhat higher than average	0.0032	0.1533	0.2481	-
higher than average	<0.001	0.0041	0.0039	1

2.4.2 Interest in buyng a new local food product (Q6)

Figure 2.7: Q6 Interest in buying a new local food product; average values on a scale from 1: not at all interested; to 5: extremely interested

Table 2.9: Q6 Interest in buying a new local food product - summary statistics
variable	levels	n	perc	mean	st.dev	min	Q1	median	Q3	max
city	Kisumu	492	32.7	4.13	0.84	2	4	4	5.0	5
	Kitui	505	33.5	4.30	0.88	1	4	5	5.0	5
	Nyeri	509	33.8	3.93	1.12	1	3	4	5.0	5
gender	Male	646	42.9	4.18	0.94	1	4	4	5.0	5
	Female	860	57.1	4.08	0.98	1	3	4	5.0	5
education	no qualification, literate	76	5.0	4.13	1.11	1	3	5	5.0	5
	primary	418	27.8	4.22	0.94	1	4	4	5.0	5
	secondary	598	39.7	4.03	0.99	1	3	4	5.0	5
	more than secondary	403	26.8	4.16	0.92	1	4	4	5.0	5
	other	11	0.7	4.09	0.70	3	4	4	4.5	5
income	lower than average	211	14.0	4.34	0.89	1	4	5	5.0	5
	somewhat lower than average	158	10.5	4.05	0.97	1	3	4	5.0	5
	about average	246	16.3	4.06	1.05	1	3	4	5.0	5
	somewhat higher than average	405	26.9	4.20	0.90	1	4	4	5.0	5
	higher than average	486	32.3	4.01	0.99	1	3	4	5.0	5
Total	Total	1,506	100.0	4.12	0.97	1	4	4	5.0	5
statistics computed on a scale from 1: not at all interested; to 5: extremely interested

Table 2.10: Test on differences in Q6.Interest in buying a new local food product between levels of the following variables
variable	Test	Statistic	p.value	Signif
city	Kruskal-Wallis	29.86	3.3e-07	***
gender	Wilcoxon	292,990.00	0.0517	.
educ	Kruskal-Wallis	11.99	0.0174	*
income_avg	Kruskal-Wallis	23.58	9.7e-05	***

Post hoc analysis: Dunn test for multiple comparisons - p.values
city	Kisumu	Kitui
Kitui	0.0012	-
Nyeri	0.2228	<0.001

Post hoc analysis: Dunn test for multiple comparisons - p.values
income_avg	lower than average	somewhat lower than average	about average	somewhat higher than average
somewhat lower than average	0.0173	-	-	-
about average	0.0235	1	-	-
somewhat higher than average	0.4717	0.8586	1	-
higher than average	<0.001	1	1	0.0347

2.4.3 by city and gender

Table 2.11: Q5.Frequency of purchase of local food products by gender and city
gender	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
Male	3.5	4.2	4.2	4.0
Female	3.4	4.2	4.3	3.9
Total	3.4	4.2	4.3	4.0

Table 2.12: Q6.Interest in buying new local food product by gender and city
gender	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
Male	4.2	4.3	4.0	4.2
Female	4.1	4.3	3.9	4.1
Total	4.1	4.3	3.9	4.1

Local food products: frequency of purchase and interest by gender and city; average values: Q5: on a scale from 1: Never; to 5: Always (most of the time), Q6: on a scale from 1: Not at all interested; to 5: Extremely interested

Figure 2.8: Local food products: frequency of purchase and interest by gender and city; average values: Q5: on a scale from 1: Never; to 5: Always (most of the time), Q6: on a scale from 1: Not at all interested; to 5: Extremely interested

Table 2.13: Wilcoxon test on frequency of purchase of local products by gender in different cities
city	statistic	p.value
Kisumu	29,743.5	0.3300
Kitui	32,165.0	0.8364
Nyeri	30,649.5	0.4345
Total	289,942.5	0.1401

Table 2.14: Wilcoxon test on interest in buying new local food product by gender in different cities
city	statistic	p.value	Signif
Kisumu	30,622.0	0.1103
Kitui	32,322.5	0.7516
Nyeri	33,175.5	0.3894
Total	293,350.5	0.0531	.

2.4.4 Reasons and obstacles for including a new local product in your household diet (Q7, Q8)

Table 2.15: Q7.importance of the reasons for including a new local food product in your family diet and Q8.importance of obstacles that may prevent you from including a new local food item in your family diet
variable	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
Q7.1.It would be environmentally-friendly	4.13	3.46	2.92	3.49
Q7.2.I could afford it	3.88	4.53	4.46	4.29
Q7.3.I could easily find it where I buy food	4.38	4.13	3.96	4.16
Q7.4.It would be in line with my culture/tradition	3.49	2.48	2.45	2.80
Q7.5.It could help local farmers	3.91	3.72	3.15	3.59
Q7.6.It has been suggested by friends/people I trust	2.05	3.08	2.81	2.65
Q8.1.I would not be familiar with its taste	4.05	3.51	2.94	3.50
Q8.2.I don’t want to change my food practice/habits	2.45	2.90	2.34	2.56
Q8.3.I would need to compare its price with other food products	3.46	4.36	3.99	3.94
Q8.4.I don’t know if it is healthy	3.57	3.91	3.64	3.71
Q8.5.My friends/people I know do not eat it	2.28	2.91	2.50	2.57
Q8.6.I don’t trust the farmer/seller	2.73	3.15	2.62	2.83
average values on a scale from 1: Very unlikely; to 5: Very likely

Reasons to include a new local food product in your household diet sorted by importance by city; average value on a scale from 1: Very unlikely; to 5: Very likely

Figure 2.9: Reasons to include a new local food product in your household diet sorted by importance by city; average value on a scale from 1: Very unlikely; to 5: Very likely

Obstcles from including new local food product in the household diet by city; average value on a scale from 1: Very unlikely; to 5: Very likely

Figure 2.10: Obstcles from including new local food product in the household diet by city; average value on a scale from 1: Very unlikely; to 5: Very likely

2.5 Healthy diet (Q11)

Figure 2.11: Q11 Healthy Houshold Diet; average values on a scale from 1: No, totally unhealty; to 5: Yes, totally healthy

Table 2.16: Q11 Healthy Houshold Diet - summary statistics
variable	levels	n	perc	mean	st.dev	min	Q1	median	Q3	max
city	Kisumu	492	32.6	3.74	1.21	2	3	4	5	5
	Kitui	506	33.6	3.89	0.99	1	3	4	5	5
	Nyeri	509	33.8	3.86	1.03	1	3	4	5	5
gender	Male	646	42.9	3.80	1.08	1	3	4	5	5
	Female	861	57.1	3.85	1.08	1	3	4	5	5
education	no qualification, literate	77	5.1	3.17	1.15	1	2	3	4	5
	primary	418	27.7	3.72	1.11	1	3	4	5	5
	secondary	598	39.7	3.94	1.06	1	3	4	5	5
	more than secondary	403	26.7	3.92	1.02	1	3	4	5	5
	other	11	0.7	3.45	0.69	3	3	3	4	5
income	lower than average	211	14.0	3.22	1.27	1	2	3	5	5
	somewhat lower than average	158	10.5	4.27	1.00	2	3	5	5	5
	about average	247	16.4	3.93	1.07	1	3	4	5	5
	somewhat higher than average	405	26.9	3.69	1.08	1	3	4	5	5
	higher than average	486	32.2	4.02	0.88	1	3	4	5	5
Total	Total	1,507	100.0	3.83	1.08	1	3	4	5	5
statistics computed on a scale from 1: No, totally unhealty; to 5: Yes, totally healthy

Table 2.17: Test on differences in Q11.Healthy Houshold Diet between levels of the following variables
variable	Test	Statistic	p.value	Signif
city	Kruskal-Wallis	2.69	0.2604
gender	Wilcoxon	270,113.50	0.3189
educ	Kruskal-Wallis	40.71	3.1e-08	***
income_avg	Kruskal-Wallis	100.90	6.3e-21	***

Post hoc analysis: Dunn test for multiple comparisons - p.values
educ	no qualification, literate	primary	secondary	more than secondary
primary	0.0014	-	-	-
secondary	<0.001	0.0123	-	-
more than secondary	<0.001	0.1124	1	-
other	1	1	0.7281	0.9081

Post hoc analysis: Dunn test for multiple comparisons - p.values
income_avg	lower than average	somewhat lower than average	about average	somewhat higher than average
somewhat lower than average	<0.001	-	-	-
about average	<0.001	0.0125	-	-
somewhat higher than average	<0.001	<0.001	0.048	-
higher than average	<0.001	0.022	1	<0.001

2.5.1 by city and gender

Table 2.18: Healthy Houshold Diet by gender
city	Male	Female	Total
Kisumu	3.6	3.8	3.7
Kitui	3.9	3.9	3.9
Nyeri	3.9	3.9	3.9
Total	3.8	3.9	3.8
average value on a scale from 1: No, totally unhealty; to 5: Yes, totally healthy

Figure 2.12: Healthy Houshold Diet by gender; average value on a scale from 1: No, totally unhealty; to 5: Yes, totally healthy

Table 2.19: Wilcoxon test for differences in healty_diet between genders in the cities
city	statistic	p.value	Signif
Kisumu	25,271.0	0.0352	*
Kitui	32,493.0	0.7400
Nyeri	31,676.0	0.9972
Total	270,113.5	0.3189

2.6 Propensity to introduce a new food product (Q12 Q13)

2.6.1 Q12 New food product that can reduce the likelihood of having an infection [Block 1] or that is likely to reinforce your immunity to infections [Block 2]

New Food Product: A=no additional food costs and 60% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year; B=some additional food cost now and 40% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year; C=no additional food costs and 40% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year; D=some additional food cost now and 60% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year

Figure 2.13: New Food Product: A=no additional food costs and 60% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year; B=some additional food cost now and 40% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year; C=no additional food costs and 40% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year; D=some additional food cost now and 60% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year

Table 2.20: Q12 New Food Product Choice - count
variable	levels	B.D	A.C	Total
Total	Total	1,087	420	1,507
city	Kisumu	240	252	492
	Kitui	432	74	506
	Nyeri	415	94	509
gender	Male	483	163	646
	Female	604	257	861
education	no qualification, literate	60	17	77
	primary	321	97	418
	secondary	409	189	598
	more than secondary	291	112	403
	other	6	5	11
income	lower than average	143	68	211
	somewhat lower than average	69	89	158
	about average	132	115	247
	somewhat higher than average	316	89	405
	higher than average	427	59	486
A=no additional food costs and 60% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year C=no additional food costs and 40% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year
B=some additional food cost now and 40% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year D=some additional food cost now and 60% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year

Table 2.21: Q12 New Food Product Choice - %
variable	levels	B.D	A.C	Total
Total	Total	72.1	27.9	100
city	Kisumu	48.8	51.2	100
	Kitui	85.4	14.6	100
	Nyeri	81.5	18.5	100
gender	Male	74.8	25.2	100
	Female	70.2	29.8	100
education	no qualification, literate	77.9	22.1	100
	primary	76.8	23.2	100
	secondary	68.4	31.6	100
	more than secondary	72.2	27.8	100
	other	54.5	45.5	100
income	lower than average	67.8	32.2	100
	somewhat lower than average	43.7	56.3	100
	about average	53.4	46.6	100
	somewhat higher than average	78.0	22.0	100
	higher than average	87.9	12.1	100
A=no additional food costs and 60% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year C=no additional food costs and 40% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year
B=some additional food cost now and 40% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year D=some additional food cost now and 60% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year

Table 2.22: Test on the relationship between the choice of a new food product and the following variables
variable	Test	Statistic	df	p.value	Signif
city	Chi-squared	199.98	2	3.8e-44	***
gender	Chi-squared	3.69	1	0.0548	.
educ	Chi-squared	11.65	4	0.0201	*
income_avg	Chi-squared	175.38	4	7.3e-37	***

2.6.1.1 by city and gender

Table 2.23: Choice New Food Product by gender and city
		row %	col %
Kisumu	A.C	32.5	67.5	100	44.6	55.2	51.2
	B.D	42.5	57.5	100	55.4	44.8	48.8
	Total	37.4	62.6	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Kitui	A.C	45.9	54.1	100	13.9	15.3	14.6
	B.D	48.8	51.2	100	86.1	84.7	85.4
	Total	48.4	51.6	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Nyeri	A.C	50.0	50.0	100	21.7	16.1	18.5
	B.D	41.0	59.0	100	78.3	83.9	81.5
	Total	42.6	57.4	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Total	A.C	38.8	61.2	100	25.2	29.8	27.9
	B.D	44.4	55.6	100	74.8	70.2	72.1
	Total	42.9	57.1	100	100.0	100.0	100.0

Choice New Food Product by gender: A=no additional food costs and 60% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year; B=some additional food cost now and 40% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year; C=no additional food costs and 40% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year; D=some additional food cost now and 60% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year

Figure 2.14: Choice New Food Product by gender: A=no additional food costs and 60% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year; B=some additional food cost now and 40% of probability of getting an infection at the end of next year; C=no additional food costs and 40% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year; D=some additional food cost now and 60% of probability of being protected from an infection at the end of next year

Table 2.24: Chi-square test on relation between Choice New Food Product and gender in the cities
city	statistic	df	p.value	Signif
Kisumu	6.26	2	0.0438	*
Kitui	0.56	2	0.7576
Nyeri	3.30	2	0.1919
Total	4.10	2	0.1288

2.6.2 Q13 Interest in a New nutrient dense Food Product

Figure 2.15: Interest in a new nutrient dense food product; distribution of values by city

Figure 2.16: Q13 Interest in a new nutrient dense food product; average values on a scale from 1: Not at all interested; to 5: Extremely interested

Table 2.25: Q13 Interest in a new nutrient dense food product - summary statistics
variable	levels	n	perc	mean	st.dev	min	Q1	median	Q3	max
city	Kisumu	492	32.7	4.92	0.30	2	5	5	5	5
	Kitui	505	33.5	4.32	0.84	1	4	5	5	5
	Nyeri	509	33.8	3.95	1.13	1	3	4	5	5
gender	Male	646	42.9	4.36	0.92	1	4	5	5	5
	Female	860	57.1	4.41	0.93	1	4	5	5	5
education	no qualification, literate	77	5.1	4.40	1.00	1	4	5	5	5
	primary	417	27.7	4.38	0.88	1	4	5	5	5
	secondary	598	39.7	4.38	0.93	1	4	5	5	5
	more than secondary	403	26.8	4.43	0.96	1	4	5	5	5
	other	11	0.7	4.09	0.54	3	4	4	4	5
income	lower than average	211	14.0	4.80	0.67	1	5	5	5	5
	somewhat lower than average	158	10.5	4.64	0.78	1	5	5	5	5
	about average	247	16.4	4.60	0.79	1	4	5	5	5
	somewhat higher than average	405	26.9	4.36	0.90	1	4	5	5	5
	higher than average	485	32.2	4.05	1.02	1	4	4	5	5
Total	Total	1,506	100.0	4.39	0.93	1	4	5	5	5
statistics computed on a scale from 1: Not at all interested; to 5: Extremely interested

Table 2.26: Test on differences in Q13 Interest in a new nutrient dense food product between levels of the following variables
variable	Test	Statistic	p.value	Signif
city	Kruskal-Wallis	326.90	1e-71	***
gender	Wilcoxon	268,027.50	0.1799
educ	Kruskal-Wallis	8.68	0.0697	.
income_avg	Kruskal-Wallis	181.21	4.1e-38	***

Post hoc analysis: Dunn test for multiple comparisons - p.values
city	Kisumu	Kitui
Kitui	<0.001	-
Nyeri	<0.001	<0.001

Post hoc analysis: Dunn test for multiple comparisons - p.values
income_avg	lower than average	somewhat lower than average	about average	somewhat higher than average
somewhat lower than average	0.2577	-	-	-
about average	0.0144	1	-	-
somewhat higher than average	<0.001	<0.001	0.0015	-
higher than average	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

2.6.2.1 by city and gender

Table 2.27: Interest in a New nutrient dense Food Product by gender and city
gender	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
Male	5.0	4.3	3.9	4.4
Female	4.9	4.3	4.0	4.4
Total	4.9	4.3	4.0	4.4
average values on a scale from 1: Not at all interested; to 5: Extremely interested

Interest in a new nutrient dense food product by gender; average values on a scale from 1: Not at all interested; to 5: Extremely interested

Figure 2.17: Interest in a new nutrient dense food product by gender; average values on a scale from 1: Not at all interested; to 5: Extremely interested

Table 2.28: Wilcoxon test on Interest in a New nutrient dense Food Product by gender in different cities
city	statistic	p.value	Signif
Kisumu	29,622.5	0.0684	.
Kitui	32,079.0	0.8780
Nyeri	29,687.5	0.1994
Total	268,027.5	0.1799

2.6.2.2 Reasons make you include and obstacles prevent you from including a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet (Q14, Q15)

Table 2.29: Q14.reasons make you include and Q15.obstacles prevent you from including a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet
variable	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
Q14.1.It could make my household diet healthier	4.46	4.24	3.92	4.20
Q14.2.It could enhance my social status	3.56	2.88	2.33	2.92
Q14.3.I could afford it	4.14	4.57	4.43	4.39
Q14.4.It would be in line with my lifestyle/culture	3.55	2.81	2.45	2.93
Q14.5.I trust the farmer/seller	3.27	3.49	2.94	3.23
Q14.6.I would trust my doctor’s recommendation	4.32	3.88	3.61	3.93
Q15.1.A new food product would make me feel less safe	2.42	3.09	3.33	2.95
Q15.2.I would not be familiar with its taste	2.51	3.43	2.97	2.97
Q15.3.I don’t want to change my food practice/habits	2.13	2.85	2.18	2.39
Q15.4.I would need to compare its price with other food products	3.06	4.25	4.00	3.78
Q15.5.I would not have enough time to prepare it	2.36	2.69	2.48	2.51
Q15.6.My friends/people I know do not eat it	2.26	2.85	2.42	2.51
average values on a scale from 1: Very unlikely; to 5: Very likely

Reasons make you include a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by city, sorted by importance; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

Figure 2.18: Reasons make you include a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by city, sorted by importance; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

Obstacles prevent you from including a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by city, sorted by importance; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

Figure 2.19: Obstacles prevent you from including a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by city, sorted by importance; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

2.6.2.2.1 by city and gender

Table 2.30: Reasons make you include a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by gender and city
variable	gender	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
Q14.1.It could make my household diet healthier	Female	4.46	4.27	3.97	4.24
	Male	4.47	4.20	3.86	4.17
Q14.2.It could enhance my social status	Female	3.52	2.92	2.43	2.98
	Male	3.61	2.85	2.13	2.85
Q14.3.I could afford it	Female	4.15	4.57	4.46	4.38
	Male	4.13	4.56	4.42	4.38
Q14.4.It would be in line with my lifestyle/culture	Female	3.56	2.87	2.54	3.02
	Male	3.53	2.75	2.35	2.86
Q14.5.I trust the farmer/seller	Female	3.26	3.50	3.06	3.27
	Male	3.29	3.49	2.75	3.19
Q14.6.I would trust my doctor’s recommendation	Female	4.26	3.96	3.64	3.96
	Male	4.43	3.82	3.53	3.91

Reasons make you include a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by gender; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

Figure 2.20: Reasons make you include a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by gender; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

Table 2.31: Obstacles prevent you from including a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by gender and city
variable	gender	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
Q15.1.A new food product would make me feel less safe	Female	2.49	3.14	3.36	2.97
	Male	2.29	3.03	3.27	2.89
Q15.2.I would not be familiar with its taste	Female	2.57	3.50	2.98	2.98
	Male	2.40	3.41	2.93	2.95
Q15.3.I don’t want to change my food practice/habits	Female	2.21	2.82	2.17	2.38
	Male	1.98	2.84	2.15	2.36
Q15.4.I would need to compare its price with other food products	Female	3.11	4.23	3.97	3.72
	Male	2.98	4.26	4.07	3.82
Q15.5.I would not have enough time to prepare it	Female	2.44	2.70	2.55	2.56
	Male	2.23	2.69	2.38	2.45
Q15.6.My friends/people I know do not eat it	Female	2.35	2.86	2.51	2.55
	Male	2.11	2.86	2.32	2.46

Obstacles prevent you from including a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by gender; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

Figure 2.21: Obstacles prevent you from including a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by gender; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

3 Setbacks and worries (Q25, Q26)

3.1 Setbacks during the past year (Q25)

Setbacks during the past year, distribution of values; description of variable names: setback_fdshort: 1.Food shortage/starvation; setback_healthds: 2.Health (disease); setback_drinking: 3.Drinking water shortage; setback_flood: 4.Climatic event (flood,drought,storm); setback_losshome: 5.Loss of home; setback_foodprice: 6.Increase of food prices; setback_jobloss: 7.Loss of job; setback_inc: 8.Income reduction; setback_crime: 9.Social problems (violence or crime)

Figure 3.1: Setbacks during the past year, distribution of values; description of variable names: setback_fdshort: 1.Food shortage/starvation; setback_healthds: 2.Health (disease); setback_drinking: 3.Drinking water shortage; setback_flood: 4.Climatic event (flood,drought,storm); setback_losshome: 5.Loss of home; setback_foodprice: 6.Increase of food prices; setback_jobloss: 7.Loss of job; setback_inc: 8.Income reduction; setback_crime: 9.Social problems (violence or crime)

Table 3.1: Setbacks during the past year and their impact
variable	Kisumu	Kitui	Total
1.Food shortage/starvation	3.54	4.22	3.88
2.Health (disease)	3.43	3.63	3.53
3.Drinking water shortage	2.75	4.27	3.51
4.Climatic event (flood,drought,storm)	3.30	3.98	3.64
5.Loss of home	2.94	1.97	2.45
6.Increase of food prices	3.58	4.55	4.07
7.Loss of job	3.65	3.60	3.63
8.Income reduction	3.21	4.29	3.75
9.Social problems (violence or crime)	3.10	2.48	2.79
average value on a scale from 1: Not at all important; to 5: Extremely important

Setbacks during the past year and their impact by city, sorted by importance; average value on a scale from 1: Not at all important; to 5: Extremely important

Figure 3.2: Setbacks during the past year and their impact by city, sorted by importance; average value on a scale from 1: Not at all important; to 5: Extremely important

3.1.1 by city and gender

Setbacks during the past year and their impact by gender and city; average value on a scale from 1: Not at all important; to 5: Extremely important

Figure 3.3: Setbacks during the past year and their impact by gender and city; average value on a scale from 1: Not at all important; to 5: Extremely important

3.2 Worries for the near future (Q26)

Worries for the near future, distribution of values; description of variable names: worry_fdshort: 1.Food shortage/starvation; worry_healthds: 2.Health (disease); worry_drinking: 3.Drinking water shortage; worry_flood: 4.Climatic event (flood, drought, storm); worry_losshome: 5.Loss of home; worry_foodprice: 6.Increase of food prices; worry_jobloss: 7.Loss of job; worry_inc: 8.Income reduction; worry_crime: 9.Social problems (violence or crime)

Figure 3.4: Worries for the near future, distribution of values; description of variable names: worry_fdshort: 1.Food shortage/starvation; worry_healthds: 2.Health (disease); worry_drinking: 3.Drinking water shortage; worry_flood: 4.Climatic event (flood, drought, storm); worry_losshome: 5.Loss of home; worry_foodprice: 6.Increase of food prices; worry_jobloss: 7.Loss of job; worry_inc: 8.Income reduction; worry_crime: 9.Social problems (violence or crime)

Figure 3.5: Worries for the near future by city, sorted by importance; average value on a scale from 1: Not at all important; to 5: Extremely important

3.2.1 by city and gender

Figure 3.6: Worries for the near future by gender and city; average value on a scale from 1: Not at all important; to 5: Extremely important

3.3 Comparing setbacks and worries

Figure 3.7: Obstacles prevent you from including a new nutrient-dense food product in your household diet by city, sorted by importance; average values on a scale from 1 = not at all important, to 5 = extremely important

4 Attachment to your local territory (Q27)

Figure 4.1: Attachment to your local territory; average value on a scale from 1: Not at all attached; to 5: Extremely attached

5 Attachment to your peers (your local community) (Q28)

Figure 5.1: Attachement to your peers (your local community); average value on a scale from 1: Not at all attached; to 5: Extremely attached

6 Trust (Q29, Q30)

6.1 Trust in people (Q29)

Figure 6.1: Trust in people

6.2 Trust in organizations and vendors (Q30)

Figure 6.2: How much do you trust in, by city; average value on a scale from 1: No trust at all; to 5: A lot of trust

6.2.1 by city and gender

Figure 6.3: How much do you trust in, by gender and city

7 Q9 Was yesterday a celebration or feast or fasting day

The analyzes of questions Q10 and Q17 were carried out excluding households for which the reference day was a celebration or a feast or a fast day in which special food products were eaten or in which people ate more or less than usual.

8 Food product categories that ANY member of your household consumed yesterday during the day or night, in the household (Q17)

Figure 8.1: Food product categories sorted by share of households who have selected it by city

8.1 Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) (Q17)

Figure 8.2: HDDS distribution

Figure 8.3: HDDS by city; average values

Figure 8.4: HDDS; average values

Figure 8.5: HDDS distribution

8.1.1 by city and gender

HDDS by city; average values HDDS by city and gender; average values

Figure 8.6: HDDS by city; average values

9 Food and drink that the respondent consumed (Q10)

Figure 9.1: Items sorted by share of consumers who have selected it by city

9.1 Food Group Diversity Score (FGDS) (Q10)

Food Group Diversity Score (FGDS) is not validated as an indicator of nutrient adequacy for the general population, but gender equity of food group diversity can be assessed. The FGDS is a semi-continuous score (0-10), expressed as the average score out of 10 for the population.

Figure 9.2: FGDS distribution

Figure 9.3: FGDS by city; average values

9.1.1 by city and gender

Figure 9.4: FGDS by gender; average values

9.2 Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women of Reproductive Age (MDD-W)

Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women of Reproductive Age (15-49) is achieved when ≥5 out of 10 specific food groups, defined for FGDS, are consumed by an individual over the course of a day.

Figure 9.5: MDD-W by city

Figure 9.6: MDD-W by education and income level

9.3 All-5: Consumed all five recommended food groups

Proportion of the total population consuming all five food groups typically recommended for daily consumption in food-based dietary guidelines around the world: fruits; vegetables; pulses, nuts, or seeds; animal-source foods; and starchy staples. A score of 5 indicates minimal adherence to dietary guidelines, because people who did not consume the food groups definitely did not meet dietary guidelines. (It is therefore a minimum bar, because many people who consumed all five food groups still may not have met dietary guidelines in terms of quantities consumed.)

Figure 9.7: All-5: Consumed all five recommended food groups

Figure 9.8: All.5 by city, gender, education and income level

9.4 Global Dietary Recommendations (GDR)

The NCD-Protect score is a score with a range from 0 to 9. It is a sub-component of the GDR score, and reflects adherence to global dietary recommendations on healthy components of the diet. The NCD-Protect score is based on food consumption from 9 healthy food groups during the past day and night. A higher score indicates inclusion of more health-promoting foods in the diet, and correlates positively with meeting global dietary recommendations. It is expressed as the average score for the population.

The NCD-Risk score is also a proxy for ultra-processed food intake. A higher NCD-Risk score is closely related to higher ultra-processed food consumption. The NCD-Risk score is a score with a range from 0 to 9. It is a sub-component of the GDR score, and reflects adherence to global dietary recommendations on components of the diet to limit or avoid. A higher score indicates higher consumption of foods and drinks to avoid or limit, and correlates negatively with meeting global dietary recommendations. The NCD-Risk score is based on food consumption from 8 food groups to limit or avoid during the past day and night (one food group, processed meat, is double weighted). This is a negative indicator, and is expressed as the average score for the population.

Global Dietary Recommendations (GDR) score

The GDR score is a score with a range from 0 to 18 that indicates adherence to global dietary recommendations, which include dietary factors protective against non-communicable diseases. The higher the GDR score, the more recommendations are likely to be met. The GDR score is based on food group consumption during the past day and night. The GDR score is calculated as follows: NCD-Protect - NCD-Risk + 9 = GDR score It is expressed as the average score for the population.

Figure 9.9: NCD-Protect score by city, gender, education and income level; average values

Figure 9.10: NCD-Risk score by city, gender, education and income level; average values

Figure 9.11: GDR score distribution

Figure 9.12: GDR score by city, gender, education and income level; average values

		row %			col %
city	tech_avsb	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total
Kisumu	A.C	32.5	67.5	100	44.6	55.2	51.2
	B.D	42.5	57.5	100	55.4	44.8	48.8
	Total	37.4	62.6	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Kitui	A.C	45.9	54.1	100	13.9	15.3	14.6
	B.D	48.8	51.2	100	86.1	84.7	85.4
	Total	48.4	51.6	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Nyeri	A.C	50.0	50.0	100	21.7	16.1	18.5
	B.D	41.0	59.0	100	78.3	83.9	81.5
	Total	42.6	57.4	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Total	A.C	38.8	61.2	100	25.2	29.8	27.9
	B.D	44.4	55.6	100	74.8	70.2	72.1
	Total	42.9	57.1	100	100.0	100.0	100.0

variable	gender	Kisumu	Kitui	Total
1.Food shortage/starvation	Female	3.48	4.22	3.82
	Male	3.63	4.21	3.95
2.Health (disease)	Female	3.48	3.66	3.56
	Male	3.36	3.58	3.48
3.Drinking water shortage	Female	2.76	4.29	3.46
	Male	2.73	4.25	3.58
4.Climatic event (flood,drought,storm)	Female	3.33	3.98	3.63
	Male	3.26	3.98	3.66
5.Loss of home	Female	2.91	2.06	2.52
	Male	2.99	1.88	2.37
6.Increase of food prices	Female	3.60	4.54	4.03
	Male	3.53	4.57	4.11
7.Loss of job	Female	3.66	3.58	3.63
	Male	3.64	3.62	3.63
8.Income reduction	Female	3.18	4.26	3.67
	Male	3.25	4.33	3.85
9.Social problems (violence or crime)	Female	3.06	2.55	2.83
	Male	3.19	2.41	2.75
average value on a scale from 1: Not at all important; to 5: Extremely important

variable	statistic	p.value	Signif
1.Food shortage/starvation	38,489.5	0.0894	.
2.Health (disease)	29,318.5	7.9e-09	***
3.Drinking water shortage	20,378.0	3.1e-06	***
4.Climatic event (flood,drought,storm)	27,533.5	1.1e-05	***
5.Loss of home	28,358.0	0.8685
6.Increase of food prices	26,000.5	0.3373
7.Loss of job	70,139.0	2.8e-14	***
8.Income reduction	26,505.5	4.2e-07	***
9.Social problems (violence or crime)	22,231.5	9.6e-17	***

variable	Test	Statistic	p.value	Signif
city	Wilcoxon	59,825.00	4.8e-48	***
gender	Wilcoxon	129,293.50	0.0994	.
educ	Kruskal-Wallis	5.99	0.1997
income_avg	Kruskal-Wallis	37.93	1.2e-07	***

income_avg	lower than average	somewhat lower than average	about average	somewhat higher than average
somewhat lower than average	0.0844	-	-	-
about average	0.0035	1	-	-
somewhat higher than average	0.0319	1	1	-
higher than average	<0.001	0.0657	0.1579	0.0032

city	statistic	p.value	Signif
Kisumu	27,926.0	0.7788
Kitui	32,664.5	0.6592
Total	129,293.5	0.0994	.

variable	Test	Statistic	p.value	Signif
city	Wilcoxon	59,181.00	5.3e-49	***
gender	Wilcoxon	125,241.50	0.4367
educ	Kruskal-Wallis	5.76	0.2182
income_avg	Kruskal-Wallis	34.41	6.2e-07	***

variable	levels	Most people can be trusted	It depends	One cannot be too careful	Total
Total	Total	36.3	58.6	5.1	100
city	Kisumu	41.1	53.7	5.3	100
	Kitui	31.6	63.4	4.9	100
gender	Male	38.5	56.9	4.7	100
	Female	34.6	59.9	5.4	100
education	no qualification, literate	17.9	76.9	5.1	100
	primary	30.4	63.8	5.8	100
	secondary	41.0	53.1	5.9	100
	more than secondary	39.6	57.1	3.4	100
	other	0.0	100.0	0.0	100
income	lower than average	32.1	61.3	6.5	100
	somewhat lower than average	51.6	46.0	2.4	100
	about average	39.2	52.6	8.2	100
	somewhat higher than average	30.9	64.7	4.5	100
	higher than average	34.9	61.4	3.7	100

variable	Test	Statistic	df	p.value	Signif
city	Chi-squared	10.25	2	0.0059	**
gender	Chi-squared	1.68	2	0.4320
educ	Chi-squared	23.38	8	0.0029	**
income_avg	Chi-squared	25.89	8	0.0011	**

		row %			col %
city	trust_people	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total
Kisumu	Most people can be trusted	35.1	64.9	100	38.6	42.5	41.1
	It depends	39.4	60.6	100	56.5	51.9	53.7
	One cannot be too careful	34.6	65.4	100	4.9	5.5	5.3
	Total	37.4	62.6	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Kitui	Most people can be trusted	58.8	41.2	100	38.4	25.3	31.6
	It depends	43.6	56.4	100	57.1	69.3	63.4
	One cannot be too careful	44.0	56.0	100	4.5	5.4	4.9
	Total	48.4	51.6	100	100.0	100.0	100.0
Total	Most people can be trusted	45.6	54.4	100	38.5	34.6	36.3
	It depends	41.7	58.3	100	56.9	59.9	58.6
	One cannot be too careful	39.2	60.8	100	4.7	5.4	5.1
	Total	43.0	57.0	100	100.0	100.0	100.0

variable	Kisumu	Kitui	Total
1.public authorities	3.15	3.33	3.24
2.your community (neighbours in the district)	3.42	3.45	3.44
3.consumers’ associations/organizations	3.33	3.30	3.31
4.farmers	3.45	3.72	3.59
5.food processors	2.94	3.42	3.18
6.food street vendors	2.59	3.13	2.86
7.food vendors in the market or small grocery storers	3.36	3.43	3.40
8.food vendors in the supermarket	3.62	3.53	3.57
average value on a scale from 1: No trust at all; to 5: A lot of trust

variable	Wilcoxon.stat.	p.value	Signif
1.public authorities	116,915.5	0.3272
2.your community (neighbours in the district)	119,293.5	0.6784
3.consumers’ associations/organizations	100,813.5	1.9e-06	***
4.farmers	89,074.5	4.4e-14	***
5.food processors	87,606.5	5.8e-15	***
6.food street vendors	115,321.0	0.1789
7.food vendors in the market or small grocery storers	122,850.5	0.6714

stat	yest_celebration	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
count	No	470	505	512	1487
	Yes	23	3	1	27
	Total	493	508	513	1514
col.%	No	95.3	99.4	99.8	98.2
	Yes	4.7	0.6	0.2	1.8
	Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

food.category	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
1.Cereals	89.0	97.4	90.6	92.4
2.White roots and tubers	32.3	33.3	56.6	40.6
3.Orange fleshed roots/tubers or vegetables	42.8	31.9	40.7	38.4
4.Dark green leafy vegetables	99.6	77.4	73.7	83.5
5.Other vegetables	89.5	97.0	86.4	91.0
6.Orange fleshed fruits	41.8	60.2	52.3	51.5
7.Other fruits	52.5	54.7	61.1	56.1
8.Organ meat	15.6	6.7	7.1	9.8
9.Flesh meat	21.1	42.7	33.0	32.4
10.Eggs	43.0	36.8	37.1	38.9
11.Fish	52.5	10.6	6.3	23.1
12.Pulses	21.5	66.3	58.0	48.8
13.Nuts and seeds	29.0	18.5	27.5	24.9
14.Milk and milk-products	69.6	88.8	84.3	81.0
15.Oils/Fats	67.1	71.3	69.9	69.4
16.Sugar and sweets	61.7	64.6	68.2	64.8
17.Spices and Condiments	48.1	78.5	77.0	68.0
18.Beverages	72.2	66.1	72.7	70.3

group	group.description	variable.name	question.num.	question
1	Cereals	HDDS_01	Q17.1	Cereals
2	White roots and tubers	HDDS_02	Q17.2	White roots and tubers
3	Vegetables	HDDS_03	Q17.3	Orange fleshed roots/tubers or vegetables
		HDDS_04	Q17.4	Dark green leafy vegetables
		HDDS_05	Q17.5	Other vegetables
4	Fruits	HDDS_06	Q17.6	Orange fleshed fruits
4	Fruits	HDDS_07	Q17.7	Other fruits
5	Meat	HDDS_08	Q17.8	Organ meat
5	Meat	HDDS_09	Q17.9	Flesh meat
6	Eggs	HDDS_10	Q17.10	Eggs
7	Fish	HDDS_11	Q17.11	Fish
8	Legumes, nuts and seeds	HDDS_12	Q17.12	Pulses
8	Legumes, nuts and seeds	HDDS_13	Q17.13	Nuts and seeds
9	Milk and milk-products	HDDS_14	Q17.14	Milk and milk-products
10	Oils/Fats	HDDS_15	Q17.15	Oils/Fats
11	Sugar and sweets	HDDS_16	Q17.16	Sugar and sweets
12	Spices, condiments and beverages	HDDS_17	Q17.17	Spices and Condiments
12	Spices, condiments and beverages	HDDS_18	Q17.18	Beverages

variable	Test	Statistic	p.value	Signif
gender	Wilcoxon	265,461.50	0.5931
educ	Kruskal-Wallis	31.24	2.7e-06	***
income_avg	Kruskal-Wallis	106.80	3.5e-22	***

educ	no qualification, literate	primary	secondary	more than secondary
primary	0.5614	-	-	-
secondary	0.0025	0.0114	-	-
more than secondary	<0.001	<0.001	1	-
other	1	1	1	0.7953

city	statistic	p.value
Kisumu	26,659.0	0.2616
Kitui	33,480.5	0.3523
Nyeri	27,245.0	0.2364
Total	266,083.0	0.6105

food.category	Kisumu	Kitui	Nyeri	Total
01 staple foods made from grains	73.0	97.2	90.4	87.0
02 whole grains	72.4	30.9	21.2	41.2
03 white roots/tubers	77.9	36.4	60.2	58.0
04 legumes	53.1	66.5	64.7	61.5
05 vitamin A-rich orange veg	49.7	26.8	38.2	38.1
06 dark green leafy vegetables	90.7	72.2	72.9	78.5
07 other vegetables	85.8	96.3	89.6	90.6
08 vitamin A-rich fruits	55.8	68.1	58.2	60.8
09 citrus	45.2	9.3	24.1	26.0
10 other fruits	84.8	67.5	69.0	73.7
11 grain sweets	33.1	28.7	23.1	28.3
12 other sweets	37.5	10.0	12.5	19.9
13 eggs	62.3	35.8	43.3	47.0
14 cheese	41.6	0.6	1.2	14.2
15 yogurt	35.3	15.4	13.1	21.1
16 processed meat	32.9	21.7	12.0	22.0
17 unprocessed red meat (ruminant)	66.7	58.5	36.3	53.7
18 unprocessed red meat (non-ruminant)	36.5	0.6	1.6	12.6
19 poultry	35.7	6.3	4.5	15.3
20 fish & seafood	36.7	11.8	3.9	17.3
21 nuts & seeds	53.3	21.7	26.3	33.6
22 ultra-processed packaged salty snacks	54.8	3.9	4.1	20.6
23 instant noodles	34.5	6.7	4.9	15.2
24 deep fried foods	60.9	54.7	42.4	52.5
25 fluid milk	68.2	89.8	85.3	81.2
26 sweetened tea/coffee/milk drinks	26.0	72.2	73.1	57.4
27 fruit juice	54.0	21.5	9.4	28.0
28 SSBs (sodas)	30.6	29.9	20.2	26.9
29 fast food	26.0	1.0	1.4	9.3

FGDS.code	FGDS.descr	variable	question	question.descr
1	Grains, white roots and tubers, and plantains	DQQ_01	Q10.1	01 staple foods made from grains
		DQQ_02	Q10.2	02 whole grains
		DQQ_03	Q10.3	03 white roots/tubers
2	Pulses (beans, peas and lentils)	DQQ_04	Q10.4	04 legumes
3	Nuts and seeds	DQQ_21	Q10.21	21 nuts & seeds
4	Dairy	DQQ_14	Q10.14	14 cheese
		DQQ_15	Q10.15	15 yogurt
		DQQ_25	Q10.25	25 fluid milk
5	Meat, poultry and fish	DQQ_16	Q10.16	16 processed meat
		DQQ_17	Q10.17	17 unprocessed red meat (ruminant)
		DQQ_18	Q10.18	18 unprocessed red meat (non-ruminant)
		DQQ_19	Q10.19	19 poultry
		DQQ_20	Q10.20	20 fish & seafood
6	Eggs	DQQ_13	Q10.13	13 eggs
7	Dark green leafy vegetables	DQQ_061	Q10.6.1	06.1 dark green leafy vegetables
7	Dark green leafy vegetables	DQQ_062	Q10.6.2	06.2 dark green leafy vegetables
8	Other vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables	DQQ_05	Q10.5	05 vitamin A-rich orange veg
8	Other vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables	DQQ_08	Q10.8	08 vitamin A-rich fruits
9	Other vegetables	DQQ_071	Q10.7.1	07.1 other vegetables
9	Other vegetables	DQQ_072	Q10.7.2	07.2 other vegetables
10	Other fruits	DQQ_09	Q10.9	09 citrus
		DQQ_101	Q10.10.1	10.1 other fruits
		DQQ_102	Q10.10.2	10.2 other fruits
Diet Quality Questionnaire (DQQ) - Indicator Guide (https://www.globaldietquality.org/dqq)

Consumer survey - Kenya

2023-01-24