Cost-benefit analysis of gender-transformative socio-technical innovation bundles in Kenya

Background of Context HER+ - Harnessing Gender and Social Equality for Resilience in Agrifood Systems
The CGIAR Gender Equality and Inclusion Accelerator, formerly Gender Equality Initiative or Harnessing Gender and Social Equality for Resilience in Agrifood Systems (HER+), co-designed and piloted socio-technical innovation bundles (STIBs) also referred to as gender responsive STIBs in Embu, Makueni, and Nakuru counties in Kenya. Earlier project evidence showed that farmers preferred bundles that combined improved seed, climate-smart or conservation agriculture practices, intercropping, extension, farmer-to-farmer learning, and financial services. This created the need to understand whether these bundles continued to generate economic and wider benefits after the initial project phase. The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) study was designed to understand the costs and benefits of adding gender-transformative bundles into the existing socio-technical innovations (STIBs) adopted by farmers in Kenya under different gender, county, and implementation contexts. The study reconstructed and classified the dominant bundle types, estimated farmer-level private costs and benefits, and examined how costs and returns varied by county, gender, and bundle type.
Methodology
The study took a theory-based approach to evaluate the cost and benefit of adding gender-transformative bundles into the existing socio-technical innovation bundles (STIBs) among a subset of beneficiaries of Gender Responsive socio-technical innovation bundling work in Kenya and to generate evidence on private and program-level economic viability of these bundles. A participatory mixed-methods study design was used to generate quantitative data through desk reviews and farmer survey. Quantitative data were collected through a survey using structured questionnaires and face-to-face interviews with 213 farmers via the Kobo Collect platform, with particular attention to gender and regional balance in sampling. Data was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics in Stata and Microsoft Excel. The analysis used plot-level and household-level data collected from 213 farming households in Embu, Makueni, and Nakuru counties. These farmers participated in the HER+ and Ukama Ustawi (UU) initiative implemented between 2022 and 2024. There were 417 plots before applying the eligibility criteria. A plot was retained if farmers had grown at least one HER+ and UU crop, namely maize, common beans, or vegetables, and if the plot had at least one relevant technological and one technical innovation linked to the two initiatives. A total of 310 plots met these criteria. Since all retained plots also had a social-innovation component at the household level, they were all classified as STIBs plots. The main comparison was therefore between STIBs and GT-STIBs, where a household was classified as having a GT-STIBs if at least one eligible plot was linked to a gender-transformative innovation.
Key Findings
The retained plots were generally intensive in the use of innovation. Improved seed-related innovations were common: 78% used certified seed and 37% used recycled seeds of improved varieties. Technical innovation exposure was also high. Crop arrangement, Conservation Agriculture (CA)/soil/water/fertility management, timely operations, and post-harvest practices were almost fully adopted, while demo-linked learning was also common. Social innovations varied more than technical and technological innovations. Collective action was reported by about 96% of households, savings or finance by 63%, gender-transformative social innovation by 52%, and nutrition-related social innovation by about 33%. The gender-transformative archetype included gender training, gender-transformative nutrition training (GTNT), household dialogue or couple planning, and inclusion in farming decisions; GTNT alone was reported by 35% of households. These results show continuation of different combinations of technological, technical, and social innovation archetypes rather than isolated innovations.
The CBA results were positive. At the household level, the mean harvest value from eligible plots was about KES 137,160 ($1,056) per hectare, while the mean cash production cost was KES 44,262 ($341) per hectare. This gave a mean net cash benefit of about KES 91,247 ($703) per hectare. The median results were also positive, with a harvest value of KES 123,423 ($951) per hectare, a cash production cost of KES 42,736 ($329) per hectare, and a net cash benefit of KES 75,764 ($584) per hectare. The mean household BCR was 4.06, and ROI was 3.06, while the median BCR and ROI were 3.17 and 2.17, respectively. This means that STIBs were generally profitable, although benefits were not evenly distributed across households.
However, GT-STIBs did not show a clear one-season cash-return advantage over STIBs. STIBs households had a higher mean harvest value per hectare, at about KES 140,510 ($1,082), compared with KES 133,997 ($1,032) among GT-STIBs households, and a higher mean net cash benefit per hectare, at about KES 96,767 ($745), compared with KES 86,037 ($663). GT-STIBs households had slightly higher cash cost per hectare, KES 46,176 ($356), compared with KES 42,234 ($325) among STIBs households. The same pattern was reflected in profitability ratios, with STIBs households having higher mean BCR and ROI than GT-STIBs households. This finding is cautiously interpreted because GT-STIBs remained economically viable, but their added value was not clearly evident in one-season cash CBA indicators.
Disaggregated results showed that respondent gender was not the primary source of CBA variation. Male respondent households had slightly higher harvest value, net cash benefit, BCR, ROI, and net benefit per hectare, while female respondent households had higher average cash production costs. However, most of these sex differences were not statistically meaningful. County differences were clearer. Nakuru had higher harvest values and net benefits than Embu and Makueni, while Makueni had lower costs and relatively favorable profitability ratios. This suggests that geography, crop mix, market conditions, and county-level implementation contexts shaped economic returns more strongly than respondent sex.
The wider benefit results showed a different pattern from cash CBA. GT-STIBs had stronger associations with social, gender, nutrition, market-access, and resilience outcomes. GT-STIBs households were more likely to report improved joint decision-making, women’s participation in farming decisions, men’s support in household and farm activities, improved attention to nutrition and food preparation, and improved group-based access to information, credit, or markets. GT-STIBs households were also more likely to report reduced crop loss, saved production under shock, better plot performance under stress, and any monetized resilience benefit from avoided losses.
Main takeaways from the CBA analysis
 STIBs are economically viable, but GT-STIBs benefits are expressed more strongly through climate resilience, nutrition, food security, and empowerment pathways than through immediate one-season cash returns.
 Economic analysis (CBA) indicators should be combined with empowerment, food security, nutrition, group access, and climate resilience measures.
 Bundles should be adapted by county context during scaling, and social and behavioral components should intentionally be part of this process.
 Scaling of GT-STIBs should aim to address where women and men experience the bundle differently. This will require strengthening gender-transformative components such as household dialogue, couples-based learning, and gender-transformative nutrition.
 Future scaling should retain explicit gender-transformative components, but monitoring should go beyond CBA and sex disaggregation to intra-household dynamics. This would be critical in understanding whether wider benefits, including women’s decision-making, men’s support, labour sharing, control over benefits, nutrition practices, and climate resilience capacities are changing for women and men in the same households.