The extent and determinants of vegetable commercialization among smallholders in Sebeta Hawas Woreda, Oromia Region, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study area. Source: Developed based on ethio-GSI

Table 1. Definition, measurement, and expected signs of variables.

Description of variables	Measurement	Expected sign
Age of the household head	Continuous (years)	+/−
Sex of household head	Dummy (0 = female, 1 = male)	+
Years of schooling	Continuous (years of school)	+
Family size	Continuous (adult equivalent)	−
Landholding size	Continuous (ha)	+
Pesticide use	Dummy (1 = yes, 0 = No)	+
Access to irrigation facilities	Dummy (1 = yes, 0 = No)	+
Participation in off-farm activities	Dummy (1 = yes, 0 = No)	+/−
Cooperative memberships	Dummy (1 = yes, 0 = No)	+
Tropical livestock unit	Continuous (TLU)	+/−
Access to credit services	Dummy (1 = yes, 0 = No)	+
Access to extension services	Dummy (1 = yes, 0= No)	+
Access to improved seed	Dummy (1 = yes, 0= No)	+
Access to chemical fertilizers	Dummy (1 = yes, 0= No)	+
Market information access	Dummy (1 = yes, 0= No)	+

Table 2. Summary statistics of the sample households (dummy variables).

Variables	Description	Number of respondents (N = 385)	Percent (%)
Sex	Female	36	9.40
	Male	349	90.60
Pesticide use (0 = no;1 = yes)	Yes	376	97.70
Irrigation facilities (0 = no;1 = yes)	Yes	176	45.70
Off-farm activities (0 = no;1 = yes)	Yes	54	14.00
Cooperative membership (0 = no;1 = yes)	Yes	181	47.00
Intercropping practices (0 = no;1 = yes)	Yes	41	10.60
Access to extension services (0 = no;1 = yes)	Yes	217	56.40
Access to improved seeds (0 = no;1 = yes)	Yes	194	50.40
Access to chemical fertilizers (0 = no;1 = yes)	Yes	168	43.64
Access to market (0 = no;1 = yes)	Yes	184	47.80
Access to market information (0 = no;1 = yes)	Yes	203	52.70

Source: survey result (2022).

Table 3. Credit service access, sources, and the purpose of receiving credit.

Variables	Description
Credit services	Number of respondents	Percent (%)
Yes	105	27.3
Source of credit
Bank	10	2.6
Friends	12	3.1
Credit and saving institution	21	5.5
Traders	16	4.2
Edir	46	11.9
Purpose receiving credit
To purchase vegetable seeds	45	11.7
To purchase chemical fertilizer	50	13
To purchase draft animals	10	2.6

Source: survey result (2022).

Table 4. Summary statistics of the sample households (continuous variables).

Variables	Min	Max	Mean	Std. deviation
Age of household head (years)	25.00	74.00	45.43	10.72
Education status (years of schooling)	0	15	4.80	4.64
Farming experiences (years)	1.00	50.00	12.42	10.62
Family size (adult equivalent)	2.00	15.00	6.10	2.84
Distance to market (km)	0.40	68.00	13.58	13.48
Distance to the main road (km)	0.04	17.00	3.55	3.54
Livestock holding unit (TLU)	0.00	34.70	7.51	6.26
Total land holding (ha)	0.13	12.00	2.81	2.14
Land allocated to vegetables (ha)	0.13	6.50	0.98	1.02

Source: survey result (2022).

Table 5. Types of vegetable crops dominantly grown and their share of production in the study area.

S. N	Types of vegetables	Land allocated to vegetables (ha)	Share (%)	Total vegetable production (tons)	Share (%)
1	Onion	74.90	19.90	1852.55	26.34
2	Garlic	20.30	5.40	84.90	1.21
3	Tomato	50.60	13.40	972.78	13.82
4	Cabbage	94.20	25.00	1934.78	27.50
5	Potato	43.00	11.40	774.49	11.01
6	Lettuce	6.00	1.60	108.60	1.54
7	Habesha gomen (Kale)	29.70	7.90	572.65	8.14
8	Beetroots	47.60	12.60	660.83	9.34
9	Carrots	10.50	2.80	73.55	1.05
Total		376.8	100	7034.63	100

Source: survey result (2022).

Table 6. Commercialization Indices vegetables.

Description	Min	Max	Mean	Std. deviation
Onion CI	0.37	0.95	0.787	0.11
Garlic CI	0.27	0.89	0.644	0.15
Tomato CI	0.34	0.97	0.819	0.14
Cabbage CI	0.51	0.95	0.834	0.08
Lettuce CI	0.42	0.91	0.755	0.19
Potato CI	0.56	0.95	0.842	0.10
Ethiopian Cabbage/kale CI	0.36	0.94	0.766	0.13
Beetroots CI	0.34	0.96	0.743	0.15
Carrots CI	0.31	0.74	0.484	0.11
Aggregate commercial index	0.22	0.97	0.742	0.15

Source: survey result (2022).

Table 7. Household commercialization status.

Commercialization level category	Frequency	Percent (%)
Subsistence level (<25%)	7	1.82
Low commercialization level (25–50%)	24	6.23
Medium commercialization level (50–75%)	66	17.14
High commercialization level (>75%)	288	74.81
Total	385	100.00

Source: survey result (2022).

Table 8. Vegetable commercialization level by share of land allocation.

Total household land holding size (ha)	Share in percentage (%)	Land allocated to other food crops (ha)	Share in percentage (%)	Land allocated to vegetable production (ha)	Share in percentage (%)
1082.07	100	705.27	65.2	376.80	34.82

Table 9. Parameter estimates of the two-limit Tobit model for output commercialization determinants.

Explanatory variables	Coefficients	Std. Err	Marginal effects
Sex of household head	0.034*	0.018	0.034
Age of household head	−0.002***	0.001	−0.002
Years schooling	0.010**	0.005	0.010
Family size	0.006***	0.002	0.006
Landholding size	0.004	0.003	0.004
Pesticide use	0.007	0.033	0.007
Access to irrigation facilities	0.043***	0.011	0.042
Participation in off-farm activities	−0.079***	0.015	−0.079
Cooperative membership	0.028**	0.012	0.028
Tropical livestock unit (TLU)	−0.006***	0.001	0.006
Access to credit services	0.038***	0.012	0.038
Access to extension services	0.046***	0.011	0.046
Access to improved seed	0.037***	0.013	0.037
Access to chemical fertilizers	0.025**	0.010	0.025
Access to market information	0.060***	0.013	0.060
Constant	0.695***
Sigma	0.096

Log likelihood = 350.57 LR chi² (14) =351.07 Prob > chi²=0.0000Pseudo R²= −1.003.

Number of observations =385; Note: ***, **, and * indicate that significance at the 1, 5, and 10% levels respectively. Source: model output based on household survey data, 2022.

Data availability statement

Data can be made available based on reasonable request