Adoption of improved groundnut seed and its impact on rural households’ welfare in Eastern Ethiopia

Figures & data

Table 1. Performance of groundnut in Ethiopia in the last ten years

Variables	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Area (Ha)	27,084	35,468	37,126	40,198	41,579	49,603	64,477	90,156	79,747	64,649
Production (ton)	29,053	34,150	51,080	44,685	46,425	71,607	103,478	124,419	112,088	103,706
Yield (ton/ha)	1.073	0.963	1.376	1.112	1.117	1.444	1.605	1.380	1.406	1.604

Source: Authors estimation using data from FAOSTAT.

Table 2. Groundnut yield growth from 2005 to 2014 in Ethiopia and other developing countries

Country	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Ethiopia	4.69	−10.25	42.91	−19.21	0.44	29.30	11.17	−14.01	1.85	14.13
World	4.19	−3.34	5.78	−2.99	−2.50	8.19	−1.76	5.31	5.06	−9.57
Africa	1.14	9.58	−16.83	1.99	2.22	5.42	−5.01	5.78	−11.95	9.76
Eastern Africa	−18.74	20.05	−2.83	−7.56	8.16	9.03	17.76	−10.21	−3.89	−1.46
LIFD	8.00	−6.93	13.44	−10.55	−5.24	18.56	−7.53	−5.24	19.63	−11.83

Source: Authors estimation using data from FAOSTAT.

Figure 1. Location of the study area in Oromia regional state of Ethiopia.

Table 3. Characteristics of sample respondents

Variable	Adopters (N = 106)	Non-adopters (N = 195)	Pooled (N = 301)
Male headed	0.89 (0.03)	0.83 (0.03)	0.85 (0.36)
Age of head	37.44 (1.12)	38.06 (0.85)	37.8454 (11.77)
Education	0.51 (0.05)	0.27 (0.03)	0.35 (0.48)***
Farming experience	20.62 (0.92)	19.71 (0.78)	20.03 (10.43)
Groundnut experience	19.34 (0.98)	15.99 (0.69)	17.17 (9.91)**
Size of Land owned	9.27 (0.47)	6.91 (0.28)	7.74 (4.40)**
Livestock size (TLU)	4.37 (0.84)	2.93 (0.16)	3.44 (5.46)*
Farm income	10171.7 (895.22)	9,163.28 (650.95)	9,518.41 (9,132.25)
Off/non-farm activity	0.20 (0.04)	0.17 (0.03)	0.18 (0.38)
Income from livestock	1,572.17 (506.51)	1,260.75 (232.83)	1,370.42 (4,046.73)
Family size in adult equivalent	(5.71) (0.24)	5.34 (0.16)	5.47 (2.31)
Cooperative	0.5 (0.049)	0.58 (0.04)	0.55 (0.50)
Social responsibility	0.35 (0.05)	0.41 (0.03)	0.39 (0.49)
Access to extension	0.96 (0.02)	0.94 (0.02)	0.95 (0.22)
Frequency of extension contact	70.51 (7.79)	64.03 (5.61)	66.31 (78.93)
Sufficiency of extension service	0.85 (0.03)	0.85 (0.02)	0.85 (0.36)
Information exchange	0.94 (0.02)	0.89 (0.02)	0.91 (0.29)
Training regarding groundnut	0.77 (0.04)	0.56 (0.04)	0.63 (0.48)*
Market information	0.89 (0.04)	0.78 (0.03)	0.82 (0.41)*
Distance to market	4.71 (0.61)	5.61 (0.52)	5.29 (6.96)
Distance to coop	1.80 (0.28)	2.07 (0.17)	1.97 (2.59)
Distance to FTC	1.15 (0.13)	1.38 (0.10)	1.3 (1.4)
Plot size	4.00 (0.20)	2.84 (0.10)	3.25 (1.79)***
Ecology (1 = kola, 0 = woinadega)	0.70 (0.04)	0.77 (0.03)	0.75 (0.43)
Plot to home distance	0.10 (0.01)	0.11 (0.010)	0.11 (0.14)
Owned by household	0.97 (0.02)	0.98 (0.008)	0.98 (0.14)
Good fertility^1	0.72 (0.04)	0.68 (0.03)	0.70 (0.46)
Medium fertility	0.27 (0.04)	0.27 (0.03)	0.27 (0.45)
Plain slope^2	0.76 (0.04)	0.84 (0.03)	0.81 (0.39)
Average slope	0.24 (0.04)	0.16 (0.03)	0.15 (0.35)

Source: Own estimation result (2016).

* Indicate significance levels at 10% respectively.

** Indicate significance levels at 5% respectively.

*** Indicate significance levels at 1% respectively.

¹ The farmer ranked each plot as “poor”, “medium” or “good”.

² The farmer ranked each plot as “plain”, “medium slope” or “sloppy”.

Table 4. Results of logit regression model estimation

Variables	Coef.	Std. err.	P>z
Household characteristics
Sex of the household head	0.042	0.416	0.921
Age the household head	−0.049	0.021	0.018
Educational status of the head	1.194	0.311	0.000
Groundnut farming experience	0.066	0.023	0.004
Livestock ownership (TLU)	0.011	0.039	0.772
Land owned	0.027	0.039	0.483
Family size in adult equivalent	0.024	0.075	0.754
Institutional characteristics
Cooperative membership	−0.027	0.342	0.937
Social responsibility	−0.215	0.341	0.529
Extension contact frequency	0.003	0.002	0.080
Training	0.762	0.317	0.016
Distance to market	−0.002	0.023	0.947
Plot characteristics
Plot size	0.298	0.104	0.004
Good soil fertility	1.480	1.139	0.194
Medium soil fertility	1.383	1.148	0.228
Slope plain	−0.113	0.352	0.749
_cons	−3.782	1.347	0.005

Figure 2. Kernel density of propensity scores.

Figure 3. Kernel density of propensity scores of non-adopters.

Figure 4. Kernel density of propensity scores of adopters.

Table 5. Estimates of matching methods to measure impact of improved groundnut seeds on household livelihood

Matching algorism	ATT	Bootstrap SE	t-stat
NN	0.086	0.031	2.32
Kernel matching	0.085	0.026	3.23
Radius	0.078	0.022	3.493
Stratification	0.079	0.026	2.742

Table

Animal category	TLU
Calf	0.25
Donkey (young)	0.35
Weaned calf	0.34
Camel	1.25
Heifer	0.75
Sheep and goat (adult)	0.13
Cow and ox	1.00
Sheep and goat (young)	0.06
Horse	1.10
Chicken	0.013
Donkey (adult)	0.70

Source: Storck, Emana, Adnew, Borowiccki and Woldehawariat (1991).

Table

Age group (years)	Man-equivalent		Adult-equivalent
	Male	Female	Male	Female
<10	0	0	0.6	0.6
11–13	0.2	0.2	0.9	0.8
14–16	0.5	0.4	1	0.75
17–50	1.0	0.8	1	0.75
>50	0.7	0.5	1	0.7

Source: Storck et al. (1991).

Storck, H., Emana, B., Adnew, B., Borowiccki, A., & Woldehawariat, S. (1991). Farming systems and resource economics in the tropics: farming system and farm management practices of smallholders in the Hararghe Highland (Vol. II). Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, Kiel, Germany.

 Google Scholar