The study, led by Jackline Juma Robert of Egerton University together with Mary W. K. Mathenge and Augustus Sammy Muluvi, examines why some smallholder cashew farmers throw themselves fully into cooperative life while others remain on the margins. The stakes are considerable. Kenya’s national cashew output has collapsed from 28,410 tonnes in 2015 to just 8,997 tonnes in 2023, and Kilifi County, which produces roughly 40 percent of the national crop and supports more than 70,000 smallholder farmers, sits at the epicenter of the decline. Weak institutional coordination, thin market linkages and low cooperative participation are identified as central culprits.

Agricultural cooperatives, the authors argue, are among the best-documented institutional fixes for smallholder market failure. By pooling produce and sharing infrastructure, they cut transaction costs, improve access to quality inputs, credit and markets, and create platforms for disseminating knowledge and new technologies. In cashew value chains specifically, cooperatives enable collective investment in storage, transport and processing, allowing farmers to capture more value from each nut. The problem, the researchers found, is not that cooperatives do not work; it is that participation intensity, meaning the number of different services a farmer actually draws from the cooperative, remains stubbornly low.

To investigate, the team surveyed 394 smallholder farmers in Kilifi North Sub-County, a designated cashew production zone where the crop is the principal cash enterprise. Using a multistage sampling design, they first purposively selected the county, then the sub-county, and finally four major cashew-producing wards: Kibarani, Matsangoni, Dabaso and Tezo. Individual respondents were drawn by simple random sampling from a register of 11,012 registered cashew farmers maintained by the county agriculture department and the Empowering Farmers Foundation, with the sample size calculated using Yamane’s formula and inflated slightly to guard against non-response.

Because the outcome of interest, the count of cooperative services a farmer receives, is count data plagued by excess zeros, the researchers compared four regression specifications: standard Poisson, negative binomial, zero-inflated Poisson and zero-inflated negative binomial. Diagnostic tests revealed significant overdispersion, with a mean of 1.82 against a variance of 2.62, and a glut of zeros largely produced by non-members who are structurally excluded from cooperative services. The zero-inflated Poisson model, which separately models this structural-zero group from the count process among members, delivered the lowest Akaike Information Criterion at 1304.858 and emerged as the preferred specification. Multicollinearity checks using variance inflation factors showed no problematic correlation among predictors.

The descriptive portrait of the farming population is striking in its own right. Nearly 64 percent of surveyed cashew farmers were women, a pattern the authors attribute to men migrating toward alternative income activities as cashew returns have stagnated, leaving women to shoulder routine farm management, harvesting and marketing. Cooperative members were also significantly more likely to have received training in cashew production and Good Agricultural Practices, to access market information, to use pesticides and to belong to social groups, suggesting that membership is entangled with broader networks of information and support.

The regression results tell a coherent economic story. Older farmers used more services, with each additional year of age raising the expected rate of service utilization by a factor of 1.012, plausibly because experience has taught them the long-run value of cooperative support. Education mattered as well: each additional year of schooling increased service uptake by a factor of 1.023. Larger households, with their deeper labor pools and diversified risk, participated more intensively, as did farmers earning off-farm income, whose expected rate of service use was 1.264 times higher per unit increase in such income, presumably because financial slack makes cooperative engagement less risky.

Scale and market access proved decisive. Each additional cashew tree owned raised expected service utilization by a factor of 1.004, reflecting economies of scale that make cooperative services worth the trouble, while farmers with market access used services at 1.895 times the rate of those without, a finding the authors interpret as evidence that a ready market builds the trust that underpins collective action. On the flip side, geography worked against participation: every additional kilometer from the nearest market, or from the nearest tarmac road, reduced service utilization by a factor of 0.985. Remoteness, the study suggests, cuts farmers off not just from physical market access but from extension visits, cooperative announcements and the peer networks through which cooperative life actually happens.

The authors are careful to acknowledge limits. Their data are cross-sectional, gathered between July and August 2025, and thus capture a snapshot rather than the dynamics of participation over time. Conditions in other cashew-producing areas, with different cooperative structures, market access and agroecology, may diverge from Kilifi North, cautioning against overgeneralization. Still, the analytical framework, grounded in Collective Action Theory and Random Utility Theory, treats each farmer as a utility maximizer weighing the perceived costs and benefits of engagement, and the data support that framing with unusual clarity.

The policy implications are concrete. The researchers recommend targeted training to diffuse information about cooperative benefits, deliberate strengthening of social networks and market interactions, and subsidy programs channeled through cooperatives, especially for farmers with fewer trees who might otherwise be priced out of participation. They also call for public investment in rural roads and market proximity, alongside growth in the non-farm economy, to raise off-farm incomes that fuel cooperative engagement. In a county where one nut once funded households, schools and futures, the message is blunt: reviving Kenya’s cashew sector may depend less on the tree than on the roads, education and trust that carry farmers into collective action.

Subject of Research: Determinants of the intensity of participation in agricultural cooperatives among smallholder cashew farmers in Kilifi County, Kenya

Article Title: Intensity of participation in cooperatives among smallholder cashew farmers in Kilifi County, Kenya

Article References: Robert, J. J., Mathenge, M. W. K., & Muluvi, A. S. (2026). Intensity of participation in cooperatives among smallholder cashew farmers in Kilifi County, Kenya. Discover Agriculture, 4(1), Article 282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-026-00755-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44279-026-00755-5

Keywords: cashew farming, agricultural cooperatives, Kilifi County, Kenya, smallholder farmers, Zero-Inflated Poisson model, cooperative participation, market access, rural infrastructure, farm productivity, collective action, coastal agriculture