Profitability and determinants of protected vegetable farming in Nepal

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of the variables used in multinomial logistic regression

Variables	Type	Description of the variables	Expected sign
Dependent variable (Yi)	Dummy	Type of protected structure (0 = temporary structure, 1 = semi-permanent structure, 2 =permanent structure)
Independent variables
Age	Continuous	Age of the household head (year)	±
Gender	Dummy	Gender of the household head (1 = male, 0 otherwise)	+
Education	Dummy	Education of the household head (1 = formal education, 0 otherwise)	+
Ethnicity	Dummy	Ethnicity of the household (1 = Brahmin/Chhetri, 0 otherwise)	±
Family type	Dummy	Type of family (1 = nuclear, 0 otherwise)	-
HH members in AG	Continuous	Number of household members involved in agriculture	+
Land rent	Dummy	Farming in rented land (1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	-
Experience in vegetable	Continuous	Number of years of experience in vegetable farming	+
Took loan	Dummy	Loan taken for installment of protected structure (1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	±
Organization membership	Dummy	HH is a member of social organization (1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	+
Awareness of structure insurance	Dummy	HH is aware about insurance of protected structure (1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	+
Received training in protected farming	Dummy	HH has received training in protected farming (1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	+
Received subsidies	Dummy	Received subsidy for installment of protected structure (1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	+
Record keeping	Dummy	Record keeping of farm cost and returns (1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	+
Technician visit	Continuous	Number of visits of technicians in farm (times)	+

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents by type of protected structure

Variable	Structure	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum	ANOVA comparison	Tukey HSD
								1	2
Age	0	50	40.00	10.62	24	61	p = 0.055	p = 0.062*	p = 0.986
	1	20	34.30	7.62	25	45			p = 0.106
	2	20	40.40	7.40	27	52
	Overall	90	38.82	9.60	24	61
Members in agriculture	0	50	2.44	1.21	1	5	p = 0.867
	1	20	2.30	1.30	1	5
	2	20	2.30	1.21	1	5
	Overall	90	2.38	1.22	1	5
Land holding	0	50	24.82	29.98	3.0	120.0	p = 0.120
	1	20	35.40	43.63	7.0	120.0
	2	20	15.30	6.92	5.0	25.0
	Overall	90	25.05	30.94	3.0	120.0
Years of farm registration	0	50	2.44	1.74	1	6	p = 0.000	p = 0.000***	p = 0.000***
	1	20	5.40	1.53	3	8			p = 0.363
	2	20	4.60	2.34	1	8
	Overall	90	3.58	2.24	1	8
Experience in protected farming	0	50	2.64	2.09	1	8	p = 0.021	p = 0.017**	p = 0.710
	1	20	4.00	1.62	2	8			p = 0.076*
	2	20	3.00	1.02	1	4
	Overall	90	3.02	1.87	1	8
Area under protected farming	0	50	4120.24	3623.21	150	12,600	p = 0.000	p = 0.030**	p = 0.002***
	1	20	1568.00	1171.37	288	4,584			p = 0.986
	2	20	1427.20	1241.61	60	4,584
	Overall	90	2954.62	3093.42	60	12,600

Notes: 0 = temporary structure, 1 = semi-permanent structure, 2 = permanent structure. *, ** and *** denote significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

Table 3. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents by type of protected structure

Variable	Overall (N = 90)	Temporary structure (N = 50)	Semi-permanent structure (N = 20)	Permanent structure (N = 20)	Chi-square value	p-value
Gender
Male	82.22	76	90	90	2.980	0.225
Education of HH head
Higher secondary	55.56	48	70	60	3.006	0.222
Ethnicity
Brahmin/Chhetri	51.11	44	60	60	1.853	0.396
Religion
Hindu	62.22	56	70	70	2.276	0.32
Family type
Nuclear	46.67	48	30	60	3.696	0.158
Source of income
Agriculture	97.78	100	100	90	7.159**	0.028

Notes: ** denotes significance at 5% probability level.

Figure 1. Cropping pattern in protected structure.

Table 4. Productivity of the protected vegetable farming based on structure type

Type of structure	Productivity (mt./ha/year)					ANOVA comparison
	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
0	50	178.35	89.36	46.25	437.50	p = 0.208
1	20	218.87	90.01	120.00	350.00
2	20	197.24	77.71	133.33	395.58
Overall	90	191.55	87.68	46.25	437.50

Table 5. Comparison of net present value of different types of protected structures

Structure type	Net present value					ANOVA comparison
	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
0	50	1753368.22	1305765.90	159274.09	5244997.89	p = 0.178
1	20	2272357.42	2479170.35	−188785.09	6847396.09
2	20	1342210.06	881413.03	375219.97	3421842.92

Notes: 0 = temporary structure, 1 = semi-permanent structure, 2 = permanent structure.

Table 6. Comparison of benefit–cost ratio of different types of protected structures

Structure type	Benefit–cost ratio					ANOVA comparison	Dunnett’s test
	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum		1	2
0	50	2.89	1.15	1.14	6.45	p = 0.000	p = 0.636	p = 0.000***
1	20	2.47	1.57	0.88	5.16			p = 0.070*
2	20	1.60	0.27	1.13	1.97

Notes: 0 = temporary structure, 1 = semi-permanent structure, 2 = permanent structure. * and *** denote significance at 10% and 1% probability level, respectively.

Table 7. Comparison of payback period of different structures

Structure type	Payback period					ANOVA comparison	Dunnett’s test
	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum		1	2
0	50	0.78	0.302	0.288	1.557	p = 0.000	p = 0.004***	p = 0.000***
1	20	1.91	1.350	0.546	5.013			p = 0.006***
2	20	3.16	1.011	1.750	4.475

Notes: 0 = temporary structure, 1 = semi-permanent structure, 2 = permanent structure. *** denotes significance at 1% probability level.

Table 8. Marginal effects from multinomial logit model

Variable	Semi-permanent structures				Permanent structures
	Coefficient	Standard error	Marginal effect	p-value	Coefficient	Standard error	Marginal effect	p-value
Age	−0.576	0.23	−0.284	0.012**	−0.201	0.048	0.009	0.666
Gender	−7.525	5.044	−4.464	0.136	4.636	2.023	0.483	0.022**
Education	23.42	8.618	1.09	0.007***	4.267	2.044	−0.13	0.037**
Ethnicity	0.984	1.844	0.029	0.594	1.044	1.051	0.058	0.32
Family type	4.032	2.114	0.098	0.057	5.541	1.859	0.324	0.003**
HH members involved in agriculture	7.823	3.029	0.362	0.01**	1.541	0.737	−0.034	0.037**
Land rent	2.983	2.905	0.0172	0.305	−1.206	1.266	−0.145	0.341
Experience in vegetable farming	3.288	1.185	0.147	0.006***	0.889	0.277	0.003	0.001***
Took loan	4.188	2.299	0.249	0.068	−2.091	1.645	−0.233	0.204
Memberships in farmers’ group	−6.699	3.178	−0.321	0.035**	−0.697	1.582	0.075	0.659
Awareness of structure insurance	−3.391	2.195	−0.1885	0.122	1.001	1.612	0.137	0.535
Received training in protected farming	−2.537	2.193	−0.126	0.247	0.003	1.491	0.048	0.999
Received subsidies	0.749	1.731	−0.176	0.665	2.909	1.532	0.199	0.058*
Record keeping	−6.293	2.793	−0.289	0.024**	−1.31	1.389	0.228	0.345
Technician visit	−0.101	0.649	0.0167	0.874	−1.15	0.573	−0.083	0.045**

Notes: Base category = temporary structure. Log likelihood = −31.635. No. of observation = 90LR. chi²(30) = 115.83. Prob > chi² = 0.000. Pseudo R² = 0.646. ***, ** and * denote significance at 1%, 5% and 10% probability level, respectively.

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of the study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Correction

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.