Although agriculture is the backbone of Kenya's economy, the industry is faced with rapid social, cultural, economic, and technological changes that have significantly increased crime levels in rural areas. In particular, communal, social, and individual controls are diminishing, and the result is an increase of criminal activities against agricultural operations. The aim of the study was to assess factors associated with levels of agricultural theft and vandalism in Kenya, based on the perceptions of farmers themselves. The research was carried out in the Soy division of Uasin Gishu County. A multistage sampling approach, which incorporates purposive, random, and systematic techniques, was used to select respondents within the case study locations. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to a representative sample of 200 farmers. Key informant interviews and informal discussions were conducted with local administration officers, namely, village elders, sub chiefs and chiefs, to supplement information derived from the survey. The study used routine activity theory to explain how perceived changes in communities where the farmers lived have created opportunities for the commission of crime. Based on the findings, the study recommends programs which create employment opportunities for both youth and disadvantaged persons in rural Kenya.

Crime rates in rural Kenya continue to increase, with a majority of farms experiencing more and more crime. These experiences have prompted rural farmers to opt for tactics that have the potential to minimize their own risk to victimisation, but which do not address the economic and social structural causes of crime in Kenya. This article reports on the findings of a study conducted on the adoption of farm crime prevention measures and their relationship to past victimisation experiences. Data for this study came from a survey of 200 farmers who were randomly selected in Uasin Gishu County of Kenya. The study was guided by routine activities theory, dividing crime prevention actions possibly adopted by farmers into two types: guardianship and target-hardening. The general finding is that the guardianship actions were utilized more often to reduce risk of victimisation than targethardening measures.