GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020, Online: ISSN 2320-9186 www.globalscientificjournal.com HOUSEHOLD CATEGORIES AND LIVELIHOOD CHOICES IN DRYLAND AREAS IN KENYA: INSIGHTS FOR DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND POLICY. Dr. Fred K. Wamalwa Department of Development Studies JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY, KENYA. fkwamalwa@gmail.com ABSTRACT This study investigated household livelihood options in dryland areas. In order to champion livelihoods in these areas, various government and non-governmental development agencies are involved in diverse interventions. The study objec- tive was to categorise and characterise households, identify household livelihood choices, and ascertain household devel- opment intervention priorities in dryland areas. The study was carried out in the semi-arid area of Buuri and Abothuguchi West divisions, also called the Northern Grazing Area [NGA], Meru Central district in Kenya. Quantitative and qualitative techniques were used to collect primary and secondary data from 68 households and development agencies working in the area. Data with quantifiable factors was analysed by statistical analysis using SPSS. Qualitative data was analysed using content and narrative analysis techniques. Results established three household categories: Rich/Gatonga[7.4%], Non- Rich/Nkia[42.6%], and Poor/Nkia Mukeu[50%] households in the study area. The results further found four common household livelihood choices including agricultural(Crops and livestock)[83.8%]; Non-farm (self-employment)[39.7%]; Non-agricultural wage labour (formal and informal employment)[26.5%]; and social network(relief food, borrowing, beg- ging and remittances)[84.0%] activities. Results also show preferred development interventions at household, community and external institution levels in the short, medium and long terms. In the short, improvement of livestock production [25%] was preferred at household level, while water infrastructure development was both prioritised at community level [43%], and external institution level [49%]. In the medium term, preferred intervention at household level was also live- stock improvement [21%], small business development [29%] at community level, and water infrastructure development [28%]. Finally, results too show that in the long term, households prefer small business development at household [28%] and community [21%] levels, while at external institutional level; livestock production improvement [22%] in the long term was preferred. The study recommends detailed baseline studies that analyse household: categories and characteris- tics; livelihood choices; and intervention priorities as basis for the formulation of dryland poverty reduction strategies. In policy terms, the study calls for partnerships in the implementation of dryland development programmes to avoid effort duplication. In broad terms, three principles are recommended for ASAL development i.e. Active involvement of the local people and their practices; Strengthening of local resources; and Promotion of coherence through the establishment of linkages between endogenous and exogenous resources. Keywords Arid and Semi-arid Lands; ASALs; Coherence; Communities; Baseline Studies; Drylands; Development Interventions, Management, and Policy; External Institutions; Government; Household Categories; Household Livelihoods; Kenya; Livelihood Choices; Meru Central District; NGOs; Poverty Alleviation Strategies; Rural Household. GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2020 ISSN 2320-9186 241 GSJ© 2020 www.globalscientificjournal.com