Examining the adoption of agroforestry in Southern Rwanda: a double hurdle approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of variables and summary statistics.

Variable	Description	Sample mean	Std. Dev.
Dependent variable
Agroforestry adoption	Farmer adopting agroforestry (1 = yes; 0 = otherwise)	0.41	0.49
Intensity of adoption	The land area allotted for agroforestry (m^2)	2270.51	7568.02
Independent variables
Age	Age of household head (years)	47.53	13.83
Gender	1 if the household head is male, 0 otherwise	0.37	0.48
Marital status	1 if the household head is married, 0 otherwise	0.70	0.45
Education level	1 if the farmer has a formal education, 0 for non-formal education	0.31	0.46
Household size	Total household size (number of persons)	4.75	2.13
Land ownership	1 if a farmer owns the land, 0 otherwise	0.57	0.49
Cooperative membership	1 if a farmer is a member of an agricultural cooperative, 0 otherwise	0.23	0.42
Farming experience	Number of years in farming	23.74	13.09
Market orientation	Amount of harvest (in Kg) sold to the market	49.06	128.53
Credit access	1 if the farmer has access to credit, 0 otherwise	0.26	0.43
Distance to market	Time (in minutes) taken to reach preferred selling point	37.46	37.41

Table 2. Differences in household characteristics by adoption category (sample mean).

Variable	Adopters (N = 250)	Non-adopters (N = 365)	Mean difference	t-Values
Age	49.28	46.33	2.95***	2.61
Gender	0.34	0.39	0.04	1.13
Marital Status	0.63	0.75	0.12**	3.16
Education level	0.33	0.30	0.03	0.73
Household size	4.58	4.88	0.30*	1.71
Land ownership	0.82	0.40	0.42***	11.27
Cooperative membership	0.28	0.19	0.09***	2.77
Farming experience	26.00	22.18	3.81***	3.58
Market orientation	74.54	31.74	42.80***	4.10
Credit access	0.30	0.23	0.06*	1.67
Distance to market	31.65	41.43	9.78***	3.20

Notes. ***, **, *denote the statistical significance at 1, 5, and 10% levels, respectively.

Figure 1. Constraints that hinder farmers to adopt agroforestry farming practices.

Table 3. Results of the double hurdle model on the adoption of agroforestry in rural Rwanda.

Variable	Probit (first hurdle)			Truncated regression (second hurdle)
	Coefficient	Std. error	Marginal effect	Coefficient	Std. error	Marginal effect
Age	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	7.64	38.17	7.64
Gender	−0.07	0.13	−0.02	349.28	710.82	349.28
Marital Status	−0.21	0.16	−0.06	1450.05	879.85	1450.05
Education level	−0.13	0.13	−0.04	1270.76*	682.82	1270.76*
Household size	−0.04	0.03	−0.02	70.70	165.33	70.69
Land ownership	1.21***	0.12	0.37***	75.99	639.94	75.99
Cooperative membership	0.24*	0.13	0.07*	1395.41*	755.99	1395.41*
Farming experience	0.01*	0.01	0.01*	55.04	40.46	55.04
Market orientation	0.01***	0.01	0.01***	6.86***	2.44	6.86***
Credit access	0.49***	0.14	0.15***	−1249.13*	731.61	−1249.13*
Distance to market	−0.01**	0.01	−0.01**	−5.74	8.22	−5.74
Constant	−0.70**	0.31		−1481.68	1631.28
Log likelihood function = −328.99
Number of observations = 606
Wald chi^2(11) = 32.72***
Pseudo R^2 = 0.30
Sigma = 8.82***

Notes: ***, **, *denote the statistical significance at 1, 5, and 10% levels, respectively.