Adoption and impacts of conservation agriculture on smallholder farmers’ livelihoods in the case of Arba Minch Zuria district of Southern Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. The five target kebeles (Zigity Perasso, Lakka, Zigity Baqolle, Ganta Meychaie & Dega Ochollo) of the CA project in Arba Minch Zuria district of southern Ethiopia..

Table 1. Binary logit estimation for conservation agriculture (n = 250)

List of Variables	Odds Ratio			Marginal Effect
	Odds Ratio	Robust Std. Err.	P-Value	$\frac{\mathit{d}y}{\mathit{d}x}$$.$	Robust Std. Err.	P-Value
Gender of the Respondents^(*^)	.417698	.2198327	0.097*	−0.1803339	0.10117	0.075*
Age of the Respondents	1.053599	.0520918	0.291	0.0109901	0.01116	0.980
Years Formal Education	1.224413	.0939408	0.008***	0.0448113	0.01773	0.011**
Total farm Size	1.642329	.5977886	0.173	0.1125046	0.08303	0.175
Farm Experience	1.035873	.0498739	0.464	0.0089903	0.01074	0.402
Credit Access^(*^)	6.805233	4.855989	0.007***	0.3416567	0.08657	0.000***
Extension Service^(*^)	55.08889	49.17207	0.000***	0.7059073	0.06321	0.000***
Market distance	1.002686	.0048475	0.579	0.0005991	0.00108	0.581
Participation in off-farm activities^(*^)	.4093552	.2555171	0.152	−0.1998409	0.14232	0.160
Household Size	1.258657	.1255656	0.021**	0.0499953	0.02286	0.029**
Marital Status^(*^)	.2351057	.2062361	0.099*	−0.2584711	0.10145	0.011**
Livestock Ownership^(*^)	.5517809	.4530913	0.469	−0.1169823	0.15348	0.446
Yearly Income (Log)	2.123819	.8319079	0.054*	0.1669991	0.0872	0.055*
Cooperating group Membership^(*^)	48.27541	26.94865	0.000***	0.7405062	0.06258	0.000***

(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1.

***, ** and * significant at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.

Source: Survey data, 2020.

Table 2. ATT estimated impact of conservation agriculture on Maize Yield (in Kg/ha)

Matching Algorithm	Number of treated	Number of controls	ATT	Std. Err.	t-value
RM	112	6	245.489	65.755	3.733***
KM	121	10	221.640	90.738	2.442**
SM	120	11	168.376	72.789	2.313**
NNM	121	6	250.306	70.043	3.574***

***, ** and * significant at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.

Source: Survey data, 2020.

Table 3. Simulation-based sensitivity analysis results

Matching Algorithm	Baseline ATT	Simulated ATT	Std. Err.	Outcome Effect (Λ)	Selection Effect (Г)
RM	228.278	206.105	1559.176	3.50e+19	39.726
KM	221.640	202.978	-	2.708	77.440
NNM	250.306	236.722	1194.957	20.949	39.523

Source: Survey data, 2020.

Table 4. ATT estimated impact of conservation agriculture on income (in Birr)

Matching Algorithm	Number of treated	Number of controls	ATT	Std. Err.	t-value
RM	150	57	6333.086	2894.914	2.188**
KM	150	57	7894.186	4116.282	1.918*
SM	150	57	8444.419	3481.311	2.426**
NNM	150	19	9913.316	5315.240	1.865*

***, ** and * significant at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.

Source: Survey data, 2020.

Table 5. Simulation-based sensitivity analysis results

Matching Algorithm	Baseline ATT	Simulated ATT	Std. Err.	Outcome Effect (Λ)	Selection Effect (Г)
RM	6333.086	6182.426	3163.389	4.184	4.317
KM	7894.186	15410.587	-	2.076	9.245
NNM	9913.316	20056.407	14456.917	1.983	8.595

Source: Survey data, 2020.