ADOPTION AND IMPACT OF IMPROVED MAIZE VARIETIES ON

MAIZE PRODUCTIVITY AND FOOD INSECURITY IN AMURU

DISTRICT OF HORO GUDURU WOLLEGA, ETHIOPIA

MSc. THESIS

GEMECHIS MERGA DORSIS

.

JANUARY, 2022
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, HARAMAYA
 ii

Adoption and Impact of Improved Maize Varieties on Maize Productivity

and Food Insecurity in Amuru District of Horo Guduru
Wollega, Ethiopia

A Thesis Submitted to the Postgraduate Program Directorate

(School of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness)
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Sciences in Agriculture (Agricultural and Applied Economics)

Gemechis Merga Dorsis

January, 2022
Haramaya University, Haramaya
 iii

APPROVAL SHEET
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

As thesis research advisors, we hereby certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis
prepared under our guidance and direction, by Gemechis Merga Dorsis, entitled, “Adoption and
Impact of Improved Maize Varieties on Maize Productivity and Food Insecurity in Amuru
District of Horo Guduru Wollega, Ethiopia”, and we recommend that the thesis be submitted
as it fulfills the thesis requirements for the degree of Masters of science in Agriculture
(Agricultural and Applied Economics).

Million Sileshi (PhD)

Major Advisor Signature Date

Fresenbet Zeleke (PhD)

Co-advisor Signature Date

As members of the Examining Board of the MSc Thesis Open Defense, we certify that we
have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Gemechis Merga Dorsis and examined the
candidate. We recommend that the thesis be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirements for
the degree of Master in Collaborative Master of Sciences in Agricultural and Applied
Economics.

1.____________________
Signature Date
Chair Person
2.____________________
Internal Examiner Signature Date
3.____________________
External Examiner Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the Thesis is contingent upon the submission of its final
copy to the council of graduate studies (PGDP) through the candidate’s department or
school graduate committee (DGC or PGDP).
 iv

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

By my signature below, I declare and affirm that this thesis is my own work. I have
followed all ethical and technical principles of scholarship in data collection, data analysis
and compilation of this Thesis. All sources of materials used for this thesis have been
properly acknowledged.

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for collaborative

Masters of Science degree at Haramaya University in Agricultural and applied
Economics and is deposited at the University Library and available for users and
borrowers under the rules of the Library. I con fidentially declare that this thesis has not
been submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree,
diploma, or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that
accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended
quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by
the head of the major department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in
his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In
all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author of the thesis.

Name: Gemechis Merga Dorsis

Signature: ________________
Place: Haramaya University
Date: ___________________
 v

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born on July 27, 1993 in Agamsa kebele, Amuru District of Horo Guduru
Wollega Zone and Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia from his father Mr. Merga
Dorsis and his mother Mrs. Degitu Deyas. He attended elementary and secondary school at
Agamsa elementary and secondary school respectively. Unfortunately, because there was no
preparatory school in Agamsa kebele at the time, he relocated to Amuru district and attended
Amuru preparatory school. After he successfully passed EGSEC, he joined Haramaya
University in 2013 and graduated after three years with BSc in Agribusiness and value
chain management in 2015. After graduation, from 2016 to 2017, he worked as a junior loan
officer in the Development Bank of Ethiopia's Adama district for nearly a year. From 2017 to
2019, he worked as a customer service officer front maker at Commercial Bank of Ethiopia in
North Addis Ababa district Arat kilo for two years. Finally, from 2019 to present, he worked
as a graduate assistant at Mettu University for almost a year before enrolling at Haramaya
University in 2020 to pursue his MSc in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
 vi

DEDICATION

I grew up hearing about my father's affection for me and how thrilled he was when I was born.
I'm sorry that Daddy didn't get to see every step I took since I was a one-month-old baby. So it
is with pride and gratitude that I dedicate this thesis to my father.
 vii

ACKNOWLDEGMENTS

First and foremost, I thank my God, my good Father, for letting me through all the difficulties.
I have experienced your guidance day by day. You are the one who let me finish my Msc
degree. I will keep on trusting you for my future. Thank you, Lord.

I truly acknowledge the valuable time, patience, support of my major advisor Dr. Million
Silashi and my co-advisor Dr. Fresenbet Zeleke, who taught me the fundamentals of academic
life, whose contribution is immense, and without their involvements, the accomplishment of
this research would have been difficult. Besides, their kind and gentle guidance and advisor-
ship from the early inception as a concept note, design of the research proposal to the final
write-up of the thesis by adding valuable, constructive and ever-teaching comments highly
improved the contents of the thesis.

Much appreciation is expressed to the Africa Economics Research Consortium (AERC) and
Haramaya University for awarding me the scholarship and for funding the research work that
enabled me to pursue this study leading to the writing of this MSc thesis.

Furthermore, my heartfelt gratitude goes to my family for their constant support since I joined
Haramaya University for MSc. program. Words cannot explain how grateful I am to my
wonderful wife, Mergitu Tolera and my newborn son Moa Gemechis who withstood
loneliness while I was apart from them and offered me boundless love, courage, and for all of
the sacrifices you've made on my behalf during my university stay. I’d like to present my
sincere thankfulness to my mother, Degitu Deyas, whose prayers for me have kept me going
thus far, for her significant role in my life and her numerous sacrifices for me and our entire
family, and to my dearest brother, Tarekegn Merga, for being a true brother when needed.

My heartfelt thanks go to the Mettu University for giving me the chance to join the MSc
program. Besides, my gratitude goes to my colleagues and friends: Bikila Tesfa, Mustefa Bati
and Temesgen Olani for their unreserved cooperation, encouragement, and support throughout
the study period. I am most grateful to all of them.
 viii

I would also like to appreciate the data collecting team's remarkable efforts for effective data
collection, as well as the household farmers in Amuru district, Horo Guduru Wollega zone, for
their patience and hospitality in responding to the lengthy survey questionnaire. Thanks also
extend to all Woreda agriculture and Natural resource office experts for providing valuable
time and necessary information for this research work

Finally, I must acknowledge Gudeta Kumera, Gutu Beji, Kefalew Kissi and Robera Fetena
who have made the last two years just a little sweeter.
 ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AE Adult Equivalent
ATE Average Treatment Effect
ATT Average Treatment Effect on the Treated
ATU Average Treatment Effect on the Untreated
CIA Conditional Independence Assumption
CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
CSA Central Statistics Agency
DA Development Agent
EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
ESR Endogenous Switching Regression
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FGD Focus Group Discussion
IDTM Improved Drought Tolerant Maize
IMV Improved Maize Variety
KG Kilogram
KM Kilometer
MOA Ministry Of Agriculture
NCV Net Crop Value
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OPVs Open pollinated Varieties
PSM Propensity Scores Matching
SNNP Southern Nation Nationalities and Peoples
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
UNDP United Nation Development program
USD United State Dollar
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
WHO World Health Organization
 x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET iii

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR iv
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH v
DEDICATION vi
ACKNOWLDEGMENTS vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS x
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LISTS OF FIGURE xiv
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX xv
ABSTRACT xvi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of the Study 1
1.2. Statements of the Problem 3
1.3. Research Questions 6
1.4. Objectives of the Study 6
1.5. Significance of the Study 7
1.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study 7
1.7. Organization of the Thesis 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1. Concepts and Definitions 9
2.1.1. Adoption of technology 9
2.1.2. Productivity 10
2.1.3. Food security 11
Continues…
 xi

2.2. Adoption Status of Improved Maize Variety in Ethiopia 13

2.3. Food Security Situation in Ethiopia 15
2.4. Theory of Adoption 16
2.5. Food Insecurity Measurement 21
2.6. Issues and Approaches in Impact Studies 22
2.7. Review of Empirical Studies 24
2.7.1. Determinants of improved maize variety adoption 24
2.7.2. Effect of improved maize variety adoption 26
2.8. Conceptual Framework of the Study 28
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 31
3.1. Description of the Study Area 31
3.1.1. Location and physical features 31
3.1.2. Population 31
3.1.3. Agro-climatic zone and farming system 31
3.2. Data Types, Sources and Method of Data Collection 33
3.3. Sampling and Sample Size Determination 34
3.4. Methods of Data Analysis 35
3.4.1. Determining food insecurity status 35
3.4.2. Determining maize productivity level 36
3.4.3. Empirical model specification 36
3.5. Variables Selection, Definition and Its Measurement 41
3.5.1. Treatment variable 41
3.5.2. Outcome variables 41
3.5.3. Independent variables 41
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 46
4.1. Descriptive Analysis 46
4.1.1. Descriptive statistics of continuous explanatory variables 46
4.1.2. Descriptive statistics of discrete explanatory variables 49
Continues…
 xii

4.1.3. Descriptive statistics of outcome variables 52

4.2. Endogenous Switching Regression Estimation Results 53
4.2.1. Determinants of improved maize varieties adoption 54
4.2.2. Impacts of improved maize variety adoption on productivity and food insecurity 58
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 61
5.1. Summary 61
5.2. Conclusion 63
5.3. Recommendations 63
6. REFERENCES 66
7. APPENDICES 82
7.1. Appendix Tables 82
7.2. Survey Questionnaire 86
 xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1. Sample district, Kebeles and number of sample households 35

2. Summary of Variables selection, definition and its measurement 45

3. Descriptive statistics of continues explanatory variables 48

4. Descriptive statistics of discrete explanatory variables 51

5. Descriptive statistics of continues outcome variables 52

6. Food security status among adopters and non-adopters (binary food security outcome) 52

7. Decision of adopting IMV: Probit model 56

8. Endogenous switching regression model result (average treatment effects) 60

 xiv

LISTS OF FIGURE

Figure Page

1: Stages in the farmer’s adoption process for improved seeds 10

1: Conceptual framework of the study 30

3: Base map of Amuru District 32

 xv

LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Table Page

1. Conversion factors of tropical livestock unit 82

2. Conversion factors for Adult – Equivalents 82
3. Conversion factors of food items consumed by sample households 83
4. Multicollinearity test for variables in the ESR 83
5. Second stage ESR estimates of calorie intake and food insecurity 84
6. Second stage ESR estimates of Net crop value 84
 xvi

Adoption and Impact of Improved Maize Varieties on Maize Productivity and Food
Insecurity in Amuru District of Horo Guduru Wollega, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

Government policy strategies, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), are aimed at increasing
agricultural productivity, which could lead to improved household food security and increased farm
income. In Ethiopia, the situation is similar. Hence, understanding smallholder farmers' low and
variable crop yields has been a central research and policy priority in addressing food security. This
study, therefore, aims at assessing adoption and impact of improved maize varieties on maize
productivity and food insecurity in Amuru district of Horo Guduru Wollega, Ethiopia. The study
utilized cross-sectional household level data collected in 2020/2021 from 263 randomly selected
sample households. Both descriptive and econometric methods were used to analyze the data.
According to the results of descriptive statistics of continues explanatory variables, there was a
statistically significant difference in age of household head, education of household head, size of farm
land, family size, livestock owned and market distance between adopters and non-adopters of IMVs.
Likewise, the results of discrete independent variables show that sex of household head, information
from government agent, and information from farmers association, access to credit and access to
training was statistically significant association with adoption of IMVs. The results of the probit model
show that adoption of the improved maize varieties among households was found to be positively
influenced by education level of the household head, total livestock owned, access to credit, access to
training, farm size, access to information from extension agent and access to information from farmers
association whereas family size and market distance influenced adoption negatively. Moreover, the
results obtained from the endogenous treatment effect model indicated that the adoption of IMVs not
only generated a significantly positive impact on household calorie intake and net crop value, but it
also reduced food insecurity. The results from this study revealed that IMVs adoptions significantly
contribute to the economic and social development of smallholder farmers by improving average
calorie intake and net crop values as well as by reducing food insecurity. Therefore, it is recommended
that governments and non-governmental organizations should encourage the adoption of improved
maize varieties on a wider scale to increase maize production and reduce food insecurity in rural
households. This is critical in realizing the IMVs potential among maize producers in the study area.

Key Words: Adoption; Impact; Improved Maize Varieties; Endogenous Switching Regression; Food
Security.
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

In most developing countries, agricultural development is a key for economic growth and
feeding growing populations. In Ethiopia, with a population growth rate of 2.45 % per year,
agriculture is the dominant economic sector, accounting for 32.7% of GDP, over 75 %, and
90% of foreign exchange earnings (NBE, 2020). Furthermore, it meets 70% of local industry's
raw material needs (FAO, 2015). As a result, agriculture is Ethiopia's economic backbone.

Despite such high potential roles, Ethiopia's agriculture sector productivity has been limited
and challenged due to a variety of determinants (Mengistu and Degefu, 2017). Lack of
appropriate and affordable new agricultural technologies, poor infrastructure, inefficient
marketing systems, land degradation, rapidly expanding population, inaccessibility to
agricultural inputs, and low adoption rate toward new agricultural technologies are all
important factors limiting agricultural productivity (Bihon, 2015). Furthermore, Ethiopia's
agriculture is sensitive to environmental and climate-related shocks since it is heavily reliant
on traditional agricultural methods and rain-fed farming systems (UNDP, 2016).

The performance of the country's agriculture sector is crucial in ensuring food and nutrition
security (Mengistu et al., 2021). Agriculture-led economic growth linked with better
livelihoods and nutrition has the potential to be a long-term solution to Ethiopia's chronic
poverty and food insecurity (USAID, 2021). As a result, like other developing countries, the
main development agenda of Ethiopia, is ensuring food security and eradicating poverty.

Several studies indicated that, to reduce household food insecurity and poverty, supplying
high-quality seeds of improved varieties to smallholder farmers is vital, with the goal of
increasing agricultural production and productivity, improvement of nutrition, system
resilience, and income creation (Otieno et al., 2017; Ariga et al., 2019). Likewise, Adopting
improved agricultural technology and variety in drought-prone areas can be an essential
alternative to eliminating food shortages and food insecurity by improving crop productivity
and income (Sultana et al., 2021).
 2

Crop production contributes the most to the agricultural sector, with cereals accounting for a
significant portion. For 2018, Ethiopia's national productivity of major crops is 2.257 tons/ha
(MoFED, 2018). According to International trade administration report this sub-sector
accounts for approximately 60% of rural employment, 80% of total cultivated land, more than
40% of household food spending, and more than 50% of total caloric intake in a typical
Ethiopian home (ITA, 2021). According to FAOSTAT, 2020 the area under cereal cultivation
in Ethiopia was 10,390,466 hectares in 2018, rising by 0.8 percent to 10,478,217 hectares in
2019. Despite the abundance of fertile land for agriculture, the country is unable to produce
high yields of cereals due to poor infrastructure, lack of improved technology, and a lack of
machinery and irrigation facilities (CSA, 2020).

One of cereal crop, maize (Zea mays L.), also known as corn, is the world's third most
important cereal crop after wheat and rice (Gebre et al., 2019), and in Ethiopia's most widely
planted crop, from lowland to highland agro-ecologies. In 2019, about 2.37 million hectares
were allocated to maize production and about 9.50 metric tons were harvested (CSA, 2019). In
terms of the use of improved varieties, maize takes the first rank among cereals. For instance,
about 54.9% of the maize field in 2018 was covered by improved maize varieties (CSA,
2018).

Despite increased maize area coverage and significant efforts in maize research, the average
national yield of 3.992 tons per hectare is very low in comparison to the global mean yield
(CSA, 2019). However, if all maize farmers adopted improved maize varieties (IMVs), maize
yield could be doubled (CSA, 2017). Although maize is one of the most productive crops in
Ethiopia, it is not playing the expected potential role in ensuring food security due to various
factors like poor soil fertility (lack of nutrient), low improved variety adoption and poor
agronomic management (Abdulkadir et al., 2017).

In Ethiopia, maize is produced primarily for food, especially in the major maize-producing
regions, particularly for low-income groups, and is also used as a basic diet (CSA, 2017).
Abate et al. (2015) reported that over 9 million smallholders cultivate maize on about 2
million hectares (14% of Ethiopia's total land area) in which 88% of its output going to food.
Farm households consume Maize as "Injera", Porridge, Bread and "Nefro". Also it is eaten
 3

roasted or boiled as vegetables at green stage (MoANR, 2016). The small-scale producers
themselves consume three-quarters of the maize produced at the household level (CSA, 2017).
Thus, Maize is a significant source of food and contributes to enhance the food security status
of households (Dawit et al.,2014a). However, like other Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries,
Ethiopia has not yet been able to guarantee food security at the national or household level
(Menale et al., 2013; Bezu et al., 2014).

In the study area, since two decades, farmers started the use of improved maize varieties to
overcome the problem of low maize production and productivity. However, adoption of
improved maize varieties remains very low. Consequently, a problem of low maize
productivity and food insecurity is still confronting the livelihood of rural areas of the study
area. This calls for studying level of improved Maize variety adoption and its impact on
productivity and food security as well as factors responsible for low performance of the
adoption of maize technology in the study area.

1.2. Statements of the Problem

Growth in agricultural productivity is a critical component of many African countries'

economic development (Ogundari et al., 2014). Government policy strategies, particularly in
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), are aimed at increasing agricultural productivity, which could lead
to improved household food security and increased farm income (Kalinda et al., 2017).
Despite the fact that agriculture is the backbone of the Ethiopian economy and the majority of
the country's people rely heavily on it for a living, crop productivity improvements appeared
insufficient and progress was slow (Merihun et al., 2021) Hence, understanding smallholder
farmers' low and variable crop yields has been a central research and policy priority in
addressing food security (Banchayehu et al., 2021).

Ethiopia's agricultural sector has a long history of resiliency, but it is presently in decline. The
country is well-known for its regular food shortages due to many factors such as droughts,
natural resource degradation, a lack of appropriate technologies and low levels of input use
(fertilizer, pesticide, and improved seeds), a lack of institutional support, insufficient
agricultural research and extension, pests, and market development constraints (Merga and
 4

Haji, 2019;Tafesse et al .,2012). Furthermore, political insecurity, weaknesses in successive

strategic development policies, financial constraints, and a rapidly growing population with
traditional farming practices and tools led farmers to expand agricultural farmland to the
delicate ecological system, desertification of the country's environment assistance is the root
cause of the problem in the country (Gebissa et al., 2021). As a result, improving the
implementation of extension services in agronomic practices, afforestation, livestock and crop
plant protection, access to financial support, access to improved seeds and access to time-
based markets can improve the community's livelihood (UNCTAD, 2017).

Moreover, given that smallholders production is already operating at its land frontier with
limited scope to increase supply of land to meet the growing demand for agricultural products,
future increases in agricultural output will depend on increasing yield per ha through the use
of improved production technologies (Keya and Rubaihayo, 2013). This implies that improved
verities are important agricultural input to increase productivity as well as to improve
livelihood and food security status of rural farmers (Solomon et al., 2012a).

According to Dorosh and Rashid (2013), over recent decades the government of Ethiopia has
set ambitious agricultural productivity development goals meant to improve food security
status of millions smallholder households. A major focus of the policy was emphasizing on
research and extension activities targeted at the major staple crops widely grown by resource
poor smallholder farmers (Moti et al., 2015). As a result, the Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research (EIAR), in partnership with the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT), produced and released more than 40 improved maize
varieties (MoA, 2011). However, the adoption of improved maize variety by smallholder
farmers is still low (Feleke and Zegeye, 2006; Tura et al., 2010; Menale et al., 2013).

The problems of maize productivity, which affect food security status of the country, are also
affecting the rural households’ food security of Amuru district, the study area. Low maize
productivity, in the study area, is mainly due to the low utilization of improved maize
varieties. For instance, during 2018/19 cropping season maize covered a total of 4419 ha of
land, from these 2563 (58%) ha was covered by local varieties and 4613.4 ton of maize was
obtained while 1856 (42%) ha of land was covered by improved maize varieties and 6310.4
 5

ton of maize was obtained (AWAO, 2019). Even though the total area covered by local maize
varieties higher than that of improved maize varieties, the total production gained from
improved maize varieties (6310.4 ton) is by far greater than that of local varieties (4613.4 ton)
(AWAO, 2019). This shows that the problem of low productivity of maize is linked to the
lower utilization of improved maize variety among maize producing farmers.

The issue of food insecurity is also the major policy issue for Amuru district as it is the
problem of many households like other Ethiopia parts. According to Tegegne (2018), Amuru
district households have been reported to be food insecure and to have lived hand to mouth.
Over 9.2 % reported experiencing food scarcity during a length of twelve-month period, while
42 % live in absolute food poverty. As a result, the average consumption gap required to get a
food insecure household to the food security line was determined to be 31.52 % of the food
security line. Hence, empirically evaluating the food insecurity status of the Amuru district is
critical for policy intervention.

Several studies have been conducted to explain factors affecting the adoption and impact
ofIMVs adoption in Ethiopia at different places and times by using different models (e.g.,
Mengistu et al., 2021; Girma et al., 2019; Gishu et al., 2018; Moti et al., 2018; Musa et al.,
2017). However, the currently available knowledge about the low adoption of IMVs is not
sufficient due to the fact that the determinants of adopting IMVs and its impact are vary across
the country and different from place to place. Amuru district is known for maize dominated
cropping system, with heterogeneous farming community and sample households with and
without adoption of IMV.

Furthermore, previous studies on improved varieties adoption determinants (i.e Mengistu et al.
(2021); Gishu et al. (2018); Oluwatoyin (2021); Girma et al. (2019); Mahoussi et al. (2021)
and Zeleke et al. (2021)) solely focused on factors influencing adoption decision of farm
household. However, the empirical evidence on the impact of improved varieties adoption on
productivity which ultimately translates into the food security of households is not seen
separately. Scarcity of such empirical investigations has created a knowledge gap on the
performance and impact of such agricultural technologies. In addition, there has been also
limited effort to quantify the impact of technology adoption on smallholder farm household
 6

productivity and food security by considering the endogeneity that would arise from self-
selection bias. Hence, to address this problem, this study adopts an endogenous treatment
effect model to control for both observed and unobserved heterogeneities on adoption and the
outcome variables.

Despite significant effort made by researchers, research institutions and other concerned
bodies to study level of adoption and productivity of different maize verities, as to our
knowledge, the influencing factors for adoption of improved maize variety as well as the
impact of improved maize variety adoption on food insecurity and productivity in the study
area has not been conducted in the study area. Consequently, scientific analysis has been
hindered that could provide strategic information for decision-makers, researchers,
practitioners (extension workers), and smallholder farmers. This paper extended to fill this
gap. Therefore, impact of adoption of improved maize variety on productivity and rural
household food insecurity, and factors affecting the improved maize variety adoption in the
study area will provide information for policy maker in order to improve adoption of improved
maize varieties and enhance food security status through increasing maize productivity in the
study area.

1.3. Research Questions

1. What is the food security status of households in the study area?

2. What are the determinants of improved maize variety adoption by smallholder farmers in
the study area?
3. What is the impact of improved maize variety adoption on rural household maize
productivity and food insecurity in the study area?

1.4. Objectives of the Study

The overall objective of the study is to analyze the adoption and impact of improved maize
variety on maize productivity and food insecurity in Amuru district H/Guduru Zone, Ethiopia.

The specific objectives of the study are:

1. To determine the food security status of sample households in the study area
 7

2. To analyze the determinants of improved maize variety adoption by smallholder farmers

in study area
3. To evaluate the impact of improved maize variety adoption on maize productivity and
level of food insecurity of rural farming household in the study area

1.5. Significance of the Study

Understanding the barriers that prevent households from adopting improved maize varieties,
as well as the impact of IMV adoption on productivity and food insecurity, and determining
households' food security status in the study area, will provide information for farmers,
policymakers, researchers, and other stakeholders to make informed decisions and formulate
intervention policies and strategies. This study also expected to benefit Agricultural and
Natural Resource Office and different NGO in the study area in terms of improving the
knowledge base to enhance adoption of improved maize variety and reduce rural household’s
food and nutritional security. In addition, understanding factors that hinder households to
adopt improved maize varieties will help local development planner to make an appropriate
plan to address the households need in through adoption of improved maze technology. It
could also serve as a reference for researchers and others development actors interested in the
research area to undertake further studies.

1.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study

The aim of this study is analyzing the food security status, determinants of improved maize
variety adoption and its impact on productivity and food insecurity in Amuru district, of Horo
Guduru Wollega, Ethiopia . Furthermore, the study was limited to 263 sample households in
the three Kebeles that only represented the study area. As a result, making inferences and
generalizing findings from a drawn sample back to the district's population is imbalanced.
Moreover, the study was limited to identifying the above problems by considering only
2020/21 data year (cross sectional data). Due to time constraints, limited resources, and
complex research logistics, it was not possible to use other methods such as longitudinal and
panel data. Since cross-sectional data of one year was used, it is relatively shorter period of
time to understand the impact of adopting IMVs on household productivity and food
 8

insecurity. Similarly, because the study used cross-sectional data from a single season,
generalization of calorie intake, which may differ from season to season, may result in bias.

1.7. Organization of the Thesis

This thesis is divided into five sections. The background of the study, statement of the
problem, objectives of the investigation, importance of the study, and scope and limits of the
study are all included in the first chapter. Chapter two discusses a review of the literature on
basic concepts of IMV adoption, ways of assessing food insecurity, impact assessment
methodologies, and empirical literature studies on the impact of IMV adoption on household
productivity and food insecurity. The third chapter covers description of the study area, data
gathering methods, sources, and procedures, as well as data analysis methodologies. The
findings on the sociocultural and demographic features of sample households, variables
influencing household adoption of IMVs, household food security status, and the effects of
adopting IMVs on household productivity and food insecurity were presented in Chapter four.
Chapter five concluded with a summary, conclusion, and recommendations.
 9

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Concepts and Definitions

2.1.1. Adoption of technology

Different writers have been defined adoption of technology in various ways. In the context of
technological innovations, adoption is characterized as the process by which an agricultural
producer substitutes one previously unknown operation with another. This necessitates the
development of new information and the alteration of its production function (Seré, et al.,
1990)

Feder et al., 1985, divided adoption into two categories: individual (farm level) adoption and
aggregate adoption. Individual farmer adoption is defined as the amount to which a new
technology is employed in long-term equilibrium by a farmer who is fully aware about the
technology and its potential. Aggregate adoption is defined in the context of diffusion as the
spread of new technology within a region. This implies that the aggregate level of specific new
technology adoption in a given geographical area or population is used to measure aggregate
adoption.

The implementation of a technology is a complex process, and understanding the nature of the
production process is critical in the context of risky production, such as that of the agricultural
sector. According to Welch (1970), farmers realize that what they learn now will be useful in
the future, so they will actively experiment with inputs, recognizing that they won't be able to
maximize in the short term but can learn more about the factors of output to assist in the
optimum operation of their method in the future.

Just and Zilberman (1985) cited by Feder et al. (1985) describes adoption as a mental process,
and an individual passes from first hearing about an invention to final use of it. The adoption
(individual, household or organization) is a process which is passing through a multi-stage
process such as awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption, However, individual,
household or organization might reject an innovation at any time during or after the adoption
process (Rogers, 1983; Rogers, 1995; Frank, 1995b; Moreland, 2011).
 10

When an adoption unit is introduced to a new concept and learns some information about it,
the adoption process begins. The potential adopter will develop a favorable or unfavorable
attitude towards innovation at the persuasion point, depending on the information obtained.
Subsequently, there will be involvement in activities to determine whether to adopt or reject
innovation. When innovation is put into practice, execution happens. Ultimately, the outcomes
of the implementation and other information sources can help to improve or undo the previous
decision (Rogers, 1983 and Rogers, 1995).

Figure 1 Stages in the adoption of improved seeds by farmers

Source: Simtowe et al., 2019

2.1.2. Productivity

Productivity is a key concept in economic analysis. It is an important indicator of economic

effectiveness because it reveals how well resources are combined and utilized to achieve the
desired and expected results (GRIPS, 2020). A quantifiable link between output and input is
the most commonly recognized definition of productivity (Iyaniwura and Osoba, 1983; Antle
and Capalbo, 1988). This definition is widely accepted due to two related factors. One, the
definition suggests what productivity is thought to be in the context of an enterprise, an
 11

industry, or an economy as a whole. Two, regardless of the type of production, economic, or

political system employed, the fundamental notion of productivity stays the same as long as
the link between the number and quality of products and services produced and the quantity of
resources utilized to generate them remains constant (Prokopenko, 1987).

According to Eatwell and Newman (1991) Productivity is defined as a ratio of some measure
of output to some index of input usage. Alternatively, productivity is the arithmetic ratio of the
amount produced to the amount of any resources used in the course of production. This
meaning of productivity refers to output per unit of input or resource utilization efficiency
(Samuelson and Nordhaus, 1995).

Krugman (1994) asserts that "in the long run, productivity is almost everything." Productivity
can be studied at three different levels: global, national, and enterprise. International
productivity reflects a view of competition among countries to achieve high technology, high-
quality products, high-value services, and low production costs. At the national level,
productivity makes the best use of available resources to maximize overall yield, increase
employment, and raise citizens' living standards. At the enterprise level, productivity is
associated with the most efficient use of in-company resources, with the goal of achieving
superior business performance.

Productivity is defined as the connection between a production processor service system's

output and the inputs used to generate that output (ILO, 2015; Prokopenko, 1987). It shows
how much output is produced per unit of input. A productive society selectively mobilizes
new ideas, technological innovations, and competing business models to generate more value
through a better combination of a country's resources (Conway, 2016; Cusolito and Maloney,
2018; OECD, 2015a).

2.1.3. Food security

Food security is a dynamic concept, as seen by the numerous definitions proposed in research
and policy. Food security emerged as a concept in the mid-1970s, during conversations about
international food problems at a time of a global food crisis. The early emphasis of attention
was mostly on food supply issues such as ensuring the availability and, to some extent, price
 12

stability of fundamental foodstuffs on a worldwide and national scale. A process of

international negotiation followed, leading to the World Food Conference of 1974, and the
establishment of a new set of institutional structures covering information, resources for
achieving food security, and platforms for policy issues (ODI, 1997).

The original emphasis, reflecting worldwide concerns in 1974, was on the quantity and
stability of food supply. During the 1974 World Food Summit, food security was defined as
"the availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of essential commodities to
maintain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset variations in output and pricing
(UN, 1975). Furthermore, the FAO expanded its concept in 1983 to include ensuring
vulnerable people's access to available supplies, implying that attention should be balanced
between the demand and supply sides of the food security equation: "ensuring that all people
have both physical and economic access to the basic food that they need at all times" (FAO,
1983).

The World Bank's seminal report "Poverty and Hunger" (World Bank, 1986) examined the
temporal dynamics of food insecurity. It established the widely accepted distinction between
chronic food insecurity, which is linked to issues of persistent or structural poverty and low
incomes, and transitory food insecurity, which is linked to periods of increased stress brought
on by natural disasters, economic collapse, or conflict. The expression "access to enough food
for an active, healthy life" is used to describe this concept of food security.

According to the 1996 World Food Summit, "Food security is attained when all people, at all
times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to suit their
dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life,"( FAO, 1996). This
definition is again refined in The State of Food Insecurity 2001 as "a scenario in which all
people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and
nutritious food that fits their dietary needs and food choices for an active and healthy life"
(FAO, 2002).

The following are some useful working definitions: Food security exists when all people have
physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that fits their
dietary needs and food preferences for a healthy and active life at all times. The concept of
 13

household food security is applied to the family level, with individuals within households as
the focus of concern. Food insecurity is defined as a lack of adequate physical, social, or
economic access to food (FAO, 1996).

The following dimensions of food security are identified by this commonly recognized
definition:

Food availability refers to the availability of sufficient quantities of appropriate-quality food,

whether produced domestically or imported (including food aid). Food access is individuals'
access to necessary resources (entitlements) for obtaining appropriate foods for a healthful diet
Given the legal, political, economic, and social arrangements of the community in which they
live, entitlements are defined as the set of all commodity bundles over which a person can
exercise command (including traditional rights such as access to common resources).
Utilization: emphasizes the value of non-food inputs in ensuring food security. To achieve a
state of nutritional well-being in which all physiological needs are met, food must be utilized
through a proper diet, clean water, sanitation, and health care. Stability: can relate to both the
availability and access aspects of food. To be food secure, a population, household, or
individual must always have access to sufficient food. They should not be at risk of losing
food due to unexpected occurrences (such as an economic or climate disaster) or cyclical
events (e.g. seasonal food insecurity).

2.2. Adoption Status of Improved Maize Variety in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), in collaboration with the
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center(CIMMYT), has developed and
distributed nearly 40 improved maize varieties, including hybrids and OPVs, over the previous
four decades. Since the mid-1990s, the majority of these improved varieties have been
marketed. Improved maize varieties have already been planted on 39% of Ethiopia's total
maize area (CGIAR, 2014).

The first locally developed hybrid (BH140) was launched in 1988, followed by a late-maturing
hybrid (BH660) in 1993, and BH540 and the Pioneer Hi-bred Seed Ethiopia hybrid PHB3253
in 1995 (MoA, 2011). In 2013, there were 16 hybrids and four Open Pollinated Varieties
 14

(OPVs) in production. Hybrids accounted for 97 % seed market, whereas OPVs accounted for
only 3%.With the exception of the Pioneer hybrids Shone and Agar, there are also hybrids that
came into production between 2005 and 2008, but their quantities are still limited (Abate et
al., 2015).

Drought tolerance, resistance to major diseases, better yield potential, and extensive
adaptability are all advantages of BH661, which is being marketed under the auspices of the
Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) project. Both BH660 and BH540 expected to
replace by this variant. The demand for foundation seed of this new hybrid is fast increasing
among seed suppliers. By 2014, five companies, including Amhara Seed Enterprise (ASE),
Avallo, ESE, Oromia Seed Enterprise (OSE), and Southern Seed Enterprise (SSE), had
produced almost 2,900 MT of certified seed (Abate et al., 2015).

Only four OPVs are widely used, and their use is restricted to places prone to drought, such as
the central rift valley. Melkassa2 and Melkassa4 OPVs have been widely utilized in recent
years; two additional ones (Melkassa6 and Gibe2) have recently entered the market, and their
use is expected to grow before being replaced by higher yielding hybrids in development
(MoA, 2011).

Berhanu et al. (2006) conducted a study in the country's key maize hubs and found that
improved maize variety adoption increased from 63% to 69% in 2001. Similarly, Getachew et
al. (2010b) conducted an adoption study in Ethiopia's Adami Tulu - Jido Kombolcha and
Adama Districts, finding that 53% of well-endowed households chose improved drought-
tolerant maize (IDTM) varieties and planted them on 23% of their cultivated area. On the
other hand, these kinds were accepted by 47% of the poorest households, who planted IDTM
on 20% of their cultivated land. Similarly, according to Abate et al. (2015), the area of maize
planted with improved varieties in Ethiopia increased from 14% in 2004 to 40% in 2013.

According to De Groot et al. (2014), who performed a baseline survey on smallholder farmers'
use of improved agriculture technology and varietal adoption decision behavior in East
Wollega, West Shewa and West Arsi zones of Oromia National state of Ethiopia. As a result,
out of the total maize producers, 31% of farmers were utilizing newly purchased (non-
recycled) improved maize varieties. According to the same study, during the same season,
 15

27% grew BH660 on approximately 21% of the maize land, whereas 6% of farmers grew
BH54 on about 9% of the maize area. BH543, BHQP542, Morka, Melkassa-1, Melkassa-4,
and AMH800 are among the lesser-known maize varieties among sample farmers.

2.3. Food Security Situation in Ethiopia

Ethiopia is frequently addressed in relation to the issue of food insecurity in Sub-Saharan

Africa. Food insecurity has been described as a major concern for Ethiopia by a number of
scholars (Degefa et al., 2005; Messay et al., 2012; Meskerem et al., 2015 and Belay et al.,
2017). Ethiopia has the highest rate of malnutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa 32.1 million people,
followed by Tanzania 15.7 million, Nigeria 12.1 million, Kenya 11 million, and Uganda (10.7
million (AFSH,2014 and ADB,2014).

According to Bezu (2018), almost 33 million Ethiopians suffer from chronic malnutrition and
food insecurity, with the dry land population accounting for the majority of the food-insecure
population. Furthermore, according to various scholars, food insecurity and poverty were more
prevalent in rural areas, with 30.4 % living in poverty, compared to only 25.7 % of urban
dwellers consuming less than the minimum recommended daily intake of 2200 kcal/adult
equivalent (AE)/day (FAO,2017).

Commercial food imports and food aid have accounted for a major share of the country's total
food supply in recent years (Belay et al., 2017). Ethiopia has been characterized as sensitive to
food import uncertainties from the world market due to its substantial reliance on food imports
(Berhanu et al., 2004). Furthermore, despite efforts to increase food security, the real number
of Ethiopians subject to food shortages has remained relatively high (Guyu et al., 2015). By
the year 2019, around 8.1 million people would require emergency food assistance. Despite
efforts to attain household food security in Ethiopia, approximately 25% of the population
remains below the nationally recognized poverty threshold (USAID, 2019).

According to the FAO (2018) report, the main causes of food insecurity in most parts of
Ethiopia are prolonged drought, conflict, crop disease, flooding, protracted effects of previous
poor seasons, desert locusts, low household income, the cost of nutritious foods, and a lack of
knowledge about nutritious food factors.
 16

To address food insecurity, the government has developed and implemented long-term
strategies (Agricultural Development Led Industrialization, Sustainable Development and
Poverty Reduction Program, Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development Program,
Growth and Transformation Plan I and II) to ensure food security and eliminate poverty by
incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals into the Plan (UNDP,2016 and CIDA,2013)
Several assessments were conducted in 2015, and it issued a clear directive to regional
authorities to increase their efforts, as well as releasing $381 million of its own finances to
address the crisis (FAO, 2016). Similarly, rural households (HHs) in Ethiopia have used food
insecurity coping strategies such as selling live animals to purchase food grain, borrowing,
participating in off-farm activities, seeking support from relatives and friends, changing
feeding habits, food for work, and reducing the amount to be consumed (Eden et al ., 2009;
Habtamu, 2013 and Ahmed et al., 2018).

2.4. Theory of Adoption

The Theory of Reasonable Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) is one of the most popular
theories used and is about one factor that determines behavioral intention of the person’s
attitudes toward that behavior. Fishbien and Ajzen (1975) defined “attitude” as the
individual’s evaluation of an object and defined “belief” as a link between an object and some
attribute, and defined “behavior” as a result or intention. Attitudes are affective and based
upon a set of beliefs about the object of behavior. A second factor is the person’s subjective
norms of what they perceive their immediate community’s attitude to certain behavior.

Rogers (1995) proposed that the theory of ‘diffusion of innovation’ was to establish the
foundation for conducting research on innovation acceptance and adoption. According to this
theory adoption of a new idea, behavior, or product (i.e., "innovation") does not happen
simultaneously in a social system; rather it is a process whereby some people are more apt to
adopt the innovation than others. Diffusion of innovation theory explained that the innovation
and adoption happened after going through several stages including understanding, persuasion,
decision, implementation, and confirmation.
 17

Diffusion, on the other hand, is described as "the process by which an innovation is

communicated over time among members of a social system through certain channels"
(Rogers, 2003). The decision process of the farmer to adopt or not adopt (or to abandon a
technology once adopted) can be divided into three levels: the farmer's innovativeness in terms
of when to adopt in the diffusion process, and the rate at which a technology is adopted in the
system (Rogers 2003). The intensity of production, for example, in terms of number of
farmers, total area, area within farms, or harvest, can be used to determine the extent of
adoption (CIMMYT, 1993)

Ajzen (1991) developed Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) which is about one factor that
determines behavioral intention of the person’s attitudes toward that behavior. TPB assumes
that human action is logical and driven by three distinct constructs: Behavioral assumptions
about what will most likely happen as a result of a behavior, resulting in a positive or negative
attitude toward the behavioral intention; control beliefs about perceived behavioral controls
that promote or hinder behavior; and normative beliefs about others' normative expectations
and motives to fulfill these expectations, which contribute to perceived social pressure or
subjective norm (Ajzen, 1991)

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was introduced by Fred Davis in 1986. An adaptation
of Theory of Reasonable Action, TAM is specifically tailored for modeling users’ acceptance
of technologies (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Early adoption studies assumed that people
were resistant to change and that this resistance needed to be overcome (Nowak, 1984).
However, there is a major distinction between a producer who is reluctant to adopt and one
who is unable to adopt. These two forms of adoption barriers are summarized by Nowak
(1992):

Inability to adopt: (1) Insufficient or scarce information; (2) High costs of collecting
information; (3) System complexity; (4) Too expensive; (5) Unnecessary labour requirements;
(6) Planning timeframe too short (benefits too far in the future); (7) Restricted availability and
accessibility of supporting resources; (8) Inadequate managerial abilities and (9) Getting little
to no say in the adoption decision.
 18

Unwillingness to adopt: (1) Knowledge discrepancies or contradictions; (2) Poor

applicability and usefulness of information; (3) Contradictions between existing production
targets and the latest technology; (4) Ignorance on the part of the farmer or advocate of the
technology; (5) Inadequate for the physical setting; (6) Increased likelihood of negative
outcomes; and (7) Belief in traditional practices. Many of the distinctions made between
inability and refusal to follow are based on subjective assumptions (e.g., too high, too low,
insufficient) and would be difficult to evaluate empirically.

Non adopters can also be categorized as (1) those for which adoption would be less profitable
than maintaining current practices, and (2) those for whom adoption would be more profitable
but who prefer not to move technologies due to other barriers. For these two categories,
initiatives aimed at promoting adoption will need to be adapted differently. The current
economic theory of adoption assumes that a potential adopter makes a decision based on the
maximization of expected utility, taking into account costs, policies, personal characteristics,
and natural resource properties. This theory was also being applied to this study.

A discrete technological option is made, resulting in a degree of input usage and profit. If the
advantages of using adoption technology are mainly external to the farm, farmers are unlikely
to incorporate those benefits into their decision to use the technology. Since the overall
benefits of moving to these technologies may exceed the drawbacks by a wide margin, if those
benefits are not recognized by the farmer who bears the costs, voluntary adoption of preferred
technologies may not occur.

According to Feder et al. (1985) the adoption decision involves the choice of how much
resource (i.e. land) to be allocated to the new and the old technologies if the technology is not
divisible (e.g. mechanization, irrigation). However, if the technology is divisible (e.g.,
improved seed, fertilizer and herbicide), the decision process involves area allocations as well
as level of use or rate of application. Thus, the process of adoption decision includes the
simultaneous choice of whether to adopt a technology or not and the intensity of its use.
Besides, before adoption choices are made a farmer makes a set of several interdependent
decisions (Hassan, 1996).
 19

According to Tarrant (1974) values of individual farmers, identifiable aims and attitudes
towards risk aversion are most important factors in decision making process to adopt new
agricultural technology. Similarly, Mignouna et al. (2011) stated that, the characteristic of the
technology play a critical role in adoption decision process. They argued that farmers who
perceive the technology being consistent with their needs and compatible to their environment
are likely to adopt since they find it as a positive investment. Farmers’ perception about the
performance of the technologies significantly influences their decision to adopt them.

According to the Rational Decision-making Model, a model in which decisions are made
systematically and based consistently on the principle of economic rationality people strive to
maximize their individual economic outcomes (Taher, 1996; Mendola, 2007). Information
about all possible alternatives, their outcomes and the preference of decision makers is
assumed available. Taher (1996) emphasized influence of the community on the farmer. He
argues that decisions in farming will be determined not only by the goal of maximizing the
benefit or of reducing the risk, but also by willingness to accept criticism from the community
(depending very much on a farmer's social position in different groups).

According to Mendola et al., 2007, three theoretical models can explain agricultural household
decisions: the profit-maximizing theory, utility maximizing theory, and risk-averse theory.
The profit maximization theory looks at farmers' production decisions from the perspective of
the farming household's allocative efficiency of the farming households in the ‘small but
efficient’ hypothesis of Schultz (1964). The utility maximizing theory looks at decision
making of the farming household as a family and a business. In effect, it looks at how farming
households make production and consumption decisions while being constrained. The risk-
averse theory, on the other hand, considers the risk-taking behavior of farming households
when making decisions. In risk studies, the theory is tied to the 'safety first' concept (Adeyemo
and Okoruwa, 2018).

Despite the fact that any of these three approaches might be used to represent farming
household decisions, the profit maximization theory has been dropped in favor of the other
two. Profit maximization theory is based purely on allocative efficiency, which models simply
the profit outcome without including the farm household decision-making process. In practice,
 20

this does not work for farming households, necessitating the development of alternative theory
that represent the farm family's decision-making process as well as the intended outcome.
Farming households make production decisions, such as whether or not to adopting different
IMVs. (Maurice et al., 2014; Kassie et al., 2008; Bekele and Drake, 2003).

In this study, the utility maximization theory was carefully inferred. Farming households are
viewed as both household and enterprise in the utility maximization household decision-
making theory. Utility maximization theory originated in economics and assumes decision-
makers have complete knowledge of the options available, as well as an infinite ability to
assess the expected utility attained from these options, and uses this knowledge to maximize
their expected utility from a set of decisions (Bernoulli, 1954).

Mathematically the theory can be presented as follows: Let 𝑈𝑖1 be the utility obtained by a
farmer households 𝑖 from adopting IMVs and 𝑈𝑖0 the utility of not adopting IMVs. Let 𝑋𝑖 be a
vector of farm and farmer characteristics as well as institutional factors influencing the
decision of adopting IMVs and ԑ𝑖 the error term. According to the state of adopting, the utility
of farmer 𝑖 can be approximated as follows:

𝑈𝑖0 = 𝑓(𝑋𝑖0 ) + ԑ𝑖0

𝑈𝑖1 = 𝑓(𝑋𝑖1 ) + ԑ𝑖1 1

A farmer 𝑖 will choose to adopt IMVs only if the utility derived from adopting is greater than
the utility from not adopting. Mathematically, a farmer adopts IMVs if 𝑈𝑖1 > 𝑈𝑖0 . The
utilities, on the other hand, are not visible, and the only thing we see is the farmer's decision.
As a result, the utility for adopting IMVs can be described in the following latent structure
model:

𝐴∗𝑖 = 𝑍𝑋𝑖 + ԑ𝑖 2

Where 𝐴∗𝑖 is a binary variable for adopting, with a value of 1 if IMVs are adopted and 0
otherwise. Xi is the number of explanatory variables used.
 21

2.5. Food Insecurity Measurement

Measurement is necessary at the outset of any project to identify the food insecure, to assess
the severity of their food short fall, and to characterize the nature of their insecurity (seasonal
versus chronic) (Hoddinott et al., 2002). However, there is no single indicator that best
measure household food insecurity, thus several indicators are used. Generally household food
security outcome have been measured in different ways. Food consumption score (FCS),
household dietary diversity score (HDDS), household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS),
and the occurrence of insufficient food supply in the previous 12 months. However
comparison of method to measure the state of food insecure at household level is determined
by the costs, time requirements skill and susceptibility to misreporting (Hoddinnot, 2002). The
same source explained the four outcome measures of household food security as follows.

Individual’s dietary intake: The "gold standard" for measuring food security is the
assessment of food consumption in kilocalories (such as per-capita calorie consumption), but
its application is difficult since it necessitates the collecting of comprehensive food intake
data, which is time demanding (WFP, 2008).This is a measurement of how much calories or
nutrients a person consumes in a given time span, typically 24 hours. This includes the type of
food consumed, the amount consumed, snacks consumed, and meals consumed outside of the
home. It provides the most reliable measure of individual caloric intake when applied
correctly, allowing you to decide if enough calories are being consumed in the household and
whether food security status varies by household (Ibid, 2002).

Food Consumption Score (FCS): The WFP's (2008) FCS, which evaluates the frequency of
consumption of several food types by a household in the seven days before to the survey, is
one of the alternate instruments for measuring food security. Different food products are first
classified into nine major groups, after which a food intake score is produced using weights
allocated to each food group. This technique divides households into three food security
groups: poor, borderline, and acceptable, using FCS cut-offs that have been confirmed based
on data obtained from households in various countries (Wiesmann et al., 2009).
 22

Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS): assesses food insecurity (in terms of
access) in the household, as well as the frequency with which the event occurred in the four
weeks preceding the survey (Coats et al., 2007). Anxiety and uncertainty about the household
food supply; insufficient quality (including variety and preferences of the type of food); and,
insufficient food intake and its physical consequences are three characteristics of food
insecurity captured in this assessment (Coats et al., 2007). The HFIAS is then determined by
adding the frequency of food insecurity-related conditions, with a greater number signifying
severe food insecurity. Following the recommended cut-offs (Coats et al., 2007), families are
classified into four degrees of food insecurity: food secure, mildly food insecure, moderately
food insecure, and severely food insecure.

Household Dietary Diversity scale (HDDS): reflects the nutritional diversity of the normal
household and serves as a proxy for food access in the household (Swindle et al., 2006).
HDDS differs from FCS in that it does not assign any weight to different food items and does
not take into account the frequency with which a certain food is consumed. Furthermore, it
frequently uses a 24-hour recollection period rather than the seven-day recall time utilized in
FCS. The average HDDS is estimated based on whether any of the 12 food groups were
consumed by anyone in the family. The HDDS is compared among socioeconomic groups
such as income terciles to measure household food access.

Since the study's unit of measurement were the household, individual household dietary intake
caloric was chosen over the other approaches in order to reach the study's objectives.It is also
less susceptible to seasonality and life-cycle effects, less susceptible to measurement mistakes
because respondents have fewer reasons to lie, closer to the utility that people effectively
extract from money, and for the poor, the majority of income is consumed (CSA 2005; FAO
2002).

2.6. Issues and Approaches in Impact Studies

Nowadays, several approaches have been used in various impact studies. These include
different in different, propensity score matching, regression discontinuity design, and
instrumental variable estimation methods. (Abadie et al., 2004)
 23

Propensity Score Matching (PSM) used when it is possible to create a comparison group from
a sample of non-participants closest to the treated group in the absence of baseline data using
observable variables. Both groups are matched based on propensity scores predicted
probabilities of participation given some observed variables (Abadie et al., 2004). This
approach assesses the impact of treatment between participants and matched individuals. The
matching is carried out only on observed features, assuming that a selection bias exists only
because of observable features (World Bank, 2010 and Ravallion, 2005).

The difference in difference method compares the treatment and control groups before (first
difference) and after the project (second difference). When propensity scores are employed,
and their scores fall beyond the range observed for the treatment group, comparators should be
dropped. In this situation, potential participants are identified and information is gathered from
them. However, only random subsets of these individuals are permitted to engage in the
project. The counterfactual is made up of identified individuals who do not actually engage in
the project (Jalan and Ravallion, 1999; Baker, 2000). The difference in difference used when
baseline and time series information on both participants and non-participants is available
(Stern et al., 2012).

Randomized selection methods (RSM) are the processes of randomly selecting both groups,
treatment and control, from a clearly defined population to evaluate the outcome of an
intervention. Based on this, the control group is similar to the treatment group, with the main
difference being participation in the needed program (Abadie et al., 2004). Randomized
selection method used to assess the impact of a program when participant is randomly select
for it (UNDP, 2009).

Regression discontinuity is based on the cut-off point in an observable characteristic, often

known as the rating variable. Regression discontinuity approaches have the strongest internal
validity (ability to identify causal linkages). However, their external validity (ability to
generalize findings to similar contexts) may be lacking because the estimated treatment impact
is limited to the discontinuity (Baum, 2013). The regression discontinuity design is a quasi-
experimental pretest and posttest design that elicits the causal effect of intervention that has
assigned using a threshold.
 24

However, most methods to impact evaluation using non-experimental (not randomly assigned)
data do not capture observable and/or non-observable features that influence adoptions and
outcome variables. For example, instrumental variables only capture unobserved
heterogeneity, but the presumption is that the simultaneous change in outcome variables can
be treated as a treatment impact (Mussa et al., 2017; Kabunga et al., 2012; Bekele et al., 2014)
cited by (Million et al., 2019). In comparison, it may be inappropriate to use regression
models to analyze the effect of a given technology using pooled user and non-user samples
because it has a similar impact on both classes (Mussa et al., 2017; Menale et al., 2010;
Minale et al., 2011b).

Thus, Endogenous switching regression (ESR), which is the most commonly used tool for
evaluating the effect of a given technology, is a methodological technique that overcomes the
above limitations (Abdulai and Huffman 2014; Muss et al., 2017; Asfaw et al., 2012; Di Falco
et al., 2011; Moti et al., 2018; Kabunga et al., 2012; Menale et al. 2011a; Bekele et al., 2014).

Therefore, in order to reduce the selection bias and ensure reliable outcomes, this study was
used ESR techniques by capturing both the observed and unobservable heterogeneity that
affects the outcome variable and the decision on adoption (Moti et al., 2018; Bekele et al.,
2014). Two stages were followed to analyze the effect of IMV adoption on food security and
productivity under the ESR System. In the first stage, IMV adoption is estimated using a
binary probit model as a selection, whereas both linear regression and binary probit models are
used in the second stage to test the relationship between the outcome variable and IMV
adoption (Moti et al., 2018; Bekele et al., 2014).

2.7. Review of Empirical Studies

2.7.1. Determinants of improved maize variety adoption

There are substantial literatures outlining factors affecting IMVs adoption decisions using
various econometric methods.

Mengistu et al. (2021) investigated the adoption of improved maize varieties as a sustainable
agricultural intensification in eastern Ethiopia using a logit regression model. The logit model
 25

output indicated that the household head's educational status, age, and the number of plots held
significantly influenced the decision to adopt improved maize varieties. The distance from the
main road and the location (district) dummy, on the other hand, were adversely associated
with the likelihood of IMVs adoption.

Mahoussi et al. (2021) examined the adoption and intensity of improved maize seeds in Benin,
West Africa, using the Double Hurdle model. According to the study, Literacy, easy access to
improved seeds, and particular training on the usage of improved maize varieties, as well as
being male-headed households, were found to have a favorable and significant influence on
the decision to adopt improved maize seeds.

Zeleke et al. (2021) used the Double Hurdle model to analyze the factors that affect the
adoption of improved bread wheat varieties in Arsi Highland, Oromia Region, Ethiopia.
According to estimates of the first hurdle model, wheat farming experience, distance to
cooperatives, renting a tractor and combine harvester, Urea application, and net income from
wheat grain sale all increased the likelihood of IWV adoption. In contrast to female-headed
households, male-headed households are less likely to adopt IWVs.

Girma et al. (2019) used double-hurdle model to study Gender differences in the adoption of
agricultural technology the case of improved maize varieties in southern Ethiopia. The study
found that, number of adult males in the household, the size of the land, access to credit,
access to market information, participation in farmer training, and the amount of livestock
held are all positively associated with the likelihood of IMV adoption. The number of adult
females in the household, distance from the market, and off-farm income, on the other hand,
are all adversely related to the likelihood of IMV adoption.

Oluwatoyin (2021) used logit regression model to study Factors influencing adoption of
improved maize seed varieties among smallholder farmers in Kaduna State, Nigeria. The
findings revealed that household size, level of education, farming experience, labor
availability, contacts with extension agents, farm size, off-farm income, and membership in
associations all influenced household adoption of improved maize seed types. The age of the
household head and access to credit, on the other hand, have a perversely negative impact on
adoption.
 26

Sánchez-Toledano et al. (2018) studied the determinants of the adoption of improved maize
seeds in southern Mexico using the survival analysis method. According to the study's
findings, young farmers with small family members and high number of generations who were
also dedicated to agriculture, had enough awareness about innovation, and were willing to take
risks were more likely to adopt new seeds.

Danso-Abbeam et al. (2017) used multinomial logit and tobit regression to study farm
household adoption of improved maize varieties in Ghana's northern region. Results from the
logit model revealed that, factors like the household head's age, household size, level of
experience, farm workshop attendance, number of years in formal education, access to
agricultural credit, membership in a farmer-based organization, labor availability, and
extension contacts were all positively associated with the likelihood of IMV adoption.

Gishu et al. (2018) used logit regression model to investigate determinants of adoption of
improved (BH-140) maize variety and management practice in south Ari, woreda, South Omo
Zone, SNNPRS, Ethiopia. According to the study's findings, education, contact with extension
agents, sex, livestock ownership, income, access to demonstration, and access to credit were
all significant and positively associated with the adoption of improved maize technologies;
however, distance from the market center was significant but negatively associated.

2.7.2. Effect of improved maize variety adoption

Several empirical studies reported the impacts of adopting improved maize technology on
household food security, farm productivity, and farm income and household wellbeing.

Moti et al. (2018) conducted a study on the impact of improved maize adoption on the
household food security of maize-producing smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. The impact of
IMV adoption on per capita food consumption expenditure and perceived household food
security status was empirically assessed using an endogenous switching regression model
supported by the dose-response continuous treatment effect method. The findings reveal that
IMV adoption has a significant and positive impact on per capita food consumption, as well as
a significant increase in the likelihood of a smallholder being in food surplus.
 27

Sinyolo (2020), evaluate the impact of improved maize varieties adoption on household food
security among smallholder farmers in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The propensity score
matching approach, the treatment effect model, and the Tobit selection model were used to
analyze a sample of 415 maize producers. The findings were similar across all models,
suggesting that improved maize varieties improved household food security. According to the
findings, growing an additional 1 ha of improved maize types boosts yearly food expenditure
per capita by almost R4000.

Ahmed and Anang (2019) estimated the impact of improved maize variety adoption on farm
income in Ghana's Tolon District. The impact of improved maize variety adoption on farm
income was estimated using a regression with endogenous treatment effect model, which
accounts for selection bias originating from both observable and unobservable factors. The
findings show that adoption is related to farm income in a significant and positive way. Maize
producers' gross farm income grew by GH¢852 as a result of the adoption of improved maize
varieties.

Manda et al. (2018) studied on the impact of improved maize varieties on household food
security in eastern Zambia using household survey data from a sample of over 800 rural
households. To get accurate impact estimates, they employ the doubly robust inverse
probability weighted regression adjustment approach, which is supplemented with propensity
score matching on six different food security measures. Across the two econometric
approaches, they show a positive impact of maize adoption on food security.

Musa et al. (2017) studied on the Impact of improved maize varieties on farm productivity and
wellbeing in East Hararghe Zone of Ethiopia. The impact on farmer welfare was estimated
using the combined propensity score matching method with endogenous switching regression,
and the impact on farm productivity was measured using the stochastic frontier corrected for
sample selection. The results show that adoption of improved maize varieties leads to
significant gains in wellbeing and improves farm productivity.

The research conducted on Analysis of Adoption and Impacts of Improved Maize

Varieties in Eastern Zambia by Khonje et al. (2015) by using data obtained from a sample
of over 800 farm households. In the finding the propensity score matching and endogenous
 28

switching regression models are employed and the results of the model show that adoption
of improved maize leads to significant gains in crop incomes, consumption expenditure, and
food security. Moreover, improve maize varieties have significant poverty-reducing in
Eastern Zambia.

Gebre et al. (2021) studied on impact of stress-tolerant maize adoption on maize yield, maize
income, and food security in Tanzania. The heterogeneous impact of stress-tolerant maize
adoption on the three outcomes of interest was estimated using the dose-response continuous
treatment effect approach supported by an endogenous switching probit model. The adoption
of stress-tolerant maize varieties increased maize grain output by nearly 1 ton/ha and maize
income by about $62/ha, according to the findings. Stress-tolerant maize varieties also
decrease the probability of reporting mild, moderate, or severe food insecurity by 34%, 17%,
and 6%, respectively.

Takam‐Fongang et al. (2019) uses both the endogenous switching regression and propensity
score matching models to analyze the adoption and impact of improved maize varieties on
maize yields in central Cameroon. They argue that adopting improved maize varieties
increases maize yields. With the ESR and PSM approaches, the estimated impact varies from
0.513 to 0.674 tons per hectare and from 0.530 to 0.578 tons per hectare, respectively.

Abdoulaye et al. (2019) assessed the Impacts of improved maize varieties in Nigeria. They
used an endogenous switching regression approach. They found that adoption of improved
maize varieties increased maize grain yield by 0.574 tons/ha and per-capita total expenditure
by US$ 77 (US$ 0.21/day). They concluded that the incidence of poverty among adopters
would have been higher by 6% without adoption of the improved varieties.

2.8. Conceptual Framework of the Study

Agricultural technology adoption patterns differ significantly from one smallholder

farmer to the next, owing to differences in institutional and socioeconomic conditions. As
demonstrated by CIMMTY (1993), farmers' decisions to adopt or not adopt new
technologies are influenced by factors related to their objectives and constraints. These
factors include farmers' endowments, which can be measured by farm size and assets
 29

ownership, size of the family labor force, age, formal education, and institutional support
system available for inputs.

Technology adoption is the result of various interactions between the internal and external
environments of farmers. The main key variables that were expected to influence the
adoption of improved maize varieties in the study areas were demographic factors
(household head age, house head education, house head sex, family size), economic
factors (owned livestock, farm income, and off farm income), institutional factors
(distance to nearest market, information from extension agent, access to credit, access to
training), and social factors (information from farmers' association).

Practical experience and observations of reality have demonstrated that one factor may boost
adoption of one technology in one specific area for a specified duration while causing a barrier
in other areas (Tesfaye et al., 2001). Because of these factors, developing a single, unified
adoption model in the technology adoption process for all individual locations is difficult. As a
result, the conceptual framework depicted in Figure-2 displays the most important variables
that are expected to influence the adoption of improved maize varieties in the study area. It
also indicates how adoption leads to increased output and productivity. A rise in output, in
turn, helps farmers have a higher net crop value and, as a result, food secured.
 30

Figure 2: Conceptual framework of the study

Institutional Variable
➢ Access to credit Personal and Demographic Variables
➢ Access to training ➢ Gender
➢ Distance to market ➢ Education level
➢ Information from extension ➢ Family size
agents ➢ Age

Socio-economic Variables Maize

Decision Household
➢ Livestock ownership productivity
to adopt food
➢ Farm size Increased
IMVs secured
➢ Off-farm income

Social Factor
➢ Information from
farmers’ associations

Source: Own sketch

 31

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the Study Area

3.1.1. Location and physical features

The study area, Amuru district is located North West of Horo-Guduru Wollega Zone, Oromia
region, Ethiopia (Figure 3). Capital of the Amuru district, Obora, is located at nearly 392 km
to Ambo road, North West of Addis Ababa, the federal capital city of Ethiopia. The district is
geographically located between 60 35' N and 70 52' W latitude, and 420 90' E and 480 95' E
longitude (Tegegne, 2018). Moreover, the district is situated at an altitude of 760 - 2505 m
above the sea level. Amuru district is bordered on the south by Jarte Jardaga district, on the
southwest by Abe Dongoro district, on the west by Gonka River, which divided Kiramu and
Amuru district, on the north by the Abay River which separated it from the Amhara Region,
and on the east by Abay Chomen district.

3.1.2. Population

Amuru districts' total population and number of households are 92,364 and 20,067
respectively. Of the total households, 18,198 (90.7%) are male-headed and 1,869 (9.3%) are
female-headed. Around 96.1% of the total population lives in rural areas, while the remainder
(3.9%) lives in Obora, the capital (Tegegne, 2018). Regarding the religious, the majority of
the residents practiced Orthodox Christianity, with 41.77% claiming to be orthodox, while
38.53% claimed to be Protestants, 14.8% claimed to be Muslims, and 4.35% claimed to follow
traditional beliefs. Similarly, the Oromo (81.12%) and Amhara (18.7%) were the two largest
ethnic groups in Amuru; all other ethnic groups made up 0.18% of the population (Amuru
Woreda, 2017).

3.1.3. Agro-climatic zone and farming system

The district is characterized by three agro-ecological zones classified as semi-arid (kola), the
semi-temperate (woinadega), and the temperate tropical highlands (dega) areas (Argaw et al.,
2015). The short and erratic rains that occur from February to April are followed by the main
 32

rainy season (July to September), which accounts for 90% of the total harvest. The average
annual temperature and rainfall range from 11.10 0C to 23.60 0C and 1167mm to 1737.9mm,
respectively (Ararso et al., 2017).

Figure 3: Base map of Amuru District

Source: Argaw et al. (2015)

Agriculture is the main source of livelihood and the sector is dominated by small-scale
farmers, who rely on subsistence practices of mixed farming. Since the districts' agricultural
activities were focused most of the time on the rain, it is vulnerable to changing weather
conditions. Many households are only able to produce less than once a year to comply with
their food requirements. Of the total area, 65811, 14530, 7363 and 5797 hectares are
comprised of land under cultivation, grazing, forest and settlement. Cereals occupy the largest
slice of cultivated land, with 14959,10830 and 8759 hectares of wheat, teff and barley,
 33

followed by 4850, 4419, 4209 and 3554 hectares of chick peas, maize, bean and field peas,
respectively (Tegegne, 2018). Farmers in Amuru district use a crop-livestock mixed farming
technique similar to that used in other parts of the country. In 2010, the total livestock
population in Amuru district was 245,462, with cattle numbering 164898, sheep numbering
15152, goats numbering 20401, mules numbering 247, horses numbering 176, donkeys
numbering 7694, and poultry numbering 34892 (WBD, 2013).

3.2. Data Types, Sources and Method of Data Collection

Quantitative and qualitative data on a wide range of variables were collected. The primary data
were obtained through individual interviews of selected respondents using standardized
questionnaires. Focus group discussion and a key informant interview were also used. The
survey was used to collect information on household personal and demographic
characteristics (Household head age, House head education level, House head sex and
Family size), economic factors (owned livestock and off/non-farm income), institutional
factors (distance to nearest market, information from extension agent, access to credit and
access to training ) and social factors (information from farmers’ association) and food
consumption and maize productivity which were selected in the analysis to answer the
objectives of the study.

The questionnaire was written in English first, then translated into the local language (Afan
Oromo) and pretested to ensure that respondents and enumerators understand the questions.
Three enumerators were employed on the basis of their local language and culture, skills and
data collection experiences. Training was provided to the enumerators on the procedure to
follow while conducting interview with respondents and deep discussion were held to make
the questionnaire clear.

The focus group discussions (FGD) members were those who were not involve in the
individual interview. Three focus group discussions at each study kebeles were conducted and
each focus group comprised six to eight individuals involving both sexes in each group. The
output of the discussion were used to get additional supporting qualitative evidence on current
 34

situation of household food security and challenges that farmers have been faced in adoption
of improved maize variety

To complement the primary data, secondary data was obtained from different unpublished and
archival sources such as records of district’s office of agriculture, Kebele administration
offices, journals, websites and other relevant sources.

3.3. Sampling and Sample Size Determination

The sample size of the households for this study was determined by the Kothari (2004). The
formula for determining the sample size is given by:

Z2 pqN
n=
e2 (𝑁−1)+𝑍 2 pq

where: Z is the 95% confidence interval under the normal curve (1.96), 𝑒 is the acceptable
error term (0.05), but for these study error term is adjusted to six percent to collect cost
effective representative sample size, N is the total population and p and q are the proportion of
the population of adopting IMV and non-adopting IMV respectively.

(1.96)2 ∗ 0.49 ∗ 0.51 ∗ 20067

𝑛= = 263
(0.06)2 (20067 − 1) + (1.96)2 0.49 ∗ 0.51

Based on the above formula, sample size is 263 farmers (129 from adopters and 134 from non-
adopters)

A multi-stage sampling technique was employed to select the sample households for the study.
In the first step, Amuru District was selected purposively due to the potential high production
of maize in the area. In the second stage, kebeles in the district were classified into dega,
woinadega and kola based on their agro-ecology. Then, one kebele from each agro-ecology
and total of three kebeles were randomly selected out of 21 kebeles of Amuru district Then,
maize producer farmers in 2020 were stratified in to two (adopters (treated group) and non-
adopters of improved maize verity(control group)). Finally, 134 households that did not adopt
 35

IMVs from control group and 129 households that did adopt IMVs from treated group were
randomly selected using proportionate probability sampling based on the size of each kebele.

Table 1 Sample district, Kebeles and number of sample households

Total Adopters Non-Adopters Total

District Kebeles Proportion
households Sampled Sampled Sampled

Agamsa 1283 49 50 99 37.62%

Amuru L/Wali 959 36 38 74 28.21%
J/Migir 1164 44 46 90 34.17%
Total 3406 129 134 263 100

Source: Amuru district office of agriculture and own computation result

3.4. Methods of Data Analysis

Quantitative data was analyzed by using descriptive and inferential statistical tools.
Descriptive statistics such as means, percentages and standard deviation was used to analyze
the collected data, while chi square (discrete variables) and t test (continuous variables) was
applied to test the statistical significance association and different among adopters and non-
adopters, respectively. Endogenous Switching Regression (ESR) was applied to evaluate the
impact of adoption of improved maize variety on maize productivity and food insecurity status
of farming households.

3.4.1. Determining food insecurity status

The ‘'household" was described as a group of people who live together and share food from a
common pot in this study as the unit of study. To determine the food insecurity status of
households, the study was used calorie intake.

To estimate food insecurity status, the types and quantities of food consumed by each
household during the previous 7 days period were gathered initially. Second, using a calorie
conversion factor, the calorie content of eaten food items was computed (WFP, 2017).
Thirdly, total calorie consumption was divided by seven and adult equivalent (AE) family size
 36

and compared to the nationally agreed minimum energy requirement. According to FDRE
(2010), the minimum nationally suggested energy requirements per adult per day is 2200
kilocalories, and is used as a cut-off point for determining whether a household is food secure
or not. As a result, households with per AE food energy below the minimum subsistence
requirement were considered as food insecure, while households with per AE food energy
greater than or equal to the minimum subsistence requirement were considered as food secure.
Thus, we estimated the daily household food calorie intake per adult equivalent (HFCi) as
follows:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑎 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑

𝐻𝐹𝐶𝑖 =
𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 ∗ 7

3.4.2. Determining maize productivity level

Following Gedefa (2016); Takele (2010) and Mideksa et al.(2021) who evaluated the
profitability of technology adoption in cereal production( Sesame, Rice and Maize), we used
the net crop value analysis technique, which takes into account all inputs and expenses
necessary to produce maize and estimates costs based on market prices. A hectare of maize
land is the measurement unit. Market pricing and actual maize production data were collected
and used to determine maize production revenue. The following specification was used to
calculate net crop value:
𝑛

NCV = 𝑇𝑅 − 𝑇𝐶 = 𝑃𝑄 − ∑ wixi
𝑖

Where: 𝑇𝑅 and 𝑇𝐶 stand for total revenue and total cost per hectare, respectively, 𝑃 stands for
farm-gate maize price (Birr/Qt, 𝑄 stands for average maize productivity at the household level
(Qt/ha), and wi and xi stand for unit price and amount of input i utilized in maize production,
respectively.

3.4.3. Empirical model specification

It is necessary to capture the observable and non-observable characteristics of adopters

(treatment group) and non-adopters (control group) with regard to food insecurity and farm
 37

household productivity when making an effective impact assessment of the improved maize
variety.

Using non-experimental data to assess the impact of improved agricultural technology

adoption on production and household food insecurity is difficult since the counterfactuals are
unobserved, that is, we do not know what would have happened if the farmer had not adopted
technologies. This means that we have a missing data problem when looking at the
counterfactual. As a result, we estimate the direct impact of IMVs on maize productivity and
food insecurity. Furthermore, due to factors that are not observable to the researcher, farmers
may not be randomly assigned to adopting technology. This is due to the fact that technology
adoption is either voluntary or targeted at a specific group of farmers. Farmers who adopt new
technologies, for example, may be more productive; in this scenario, self-selectivity in
technology adoption is the cause of endogenity (Amare et al., 2012).

From an econometric viewpoint, assessing the impact of technology adoption may be difficult
due to endogeneity caused by self-selection bias. We use an endogenous treatment effect
model to solve this problem. This model is specific in that it employs a linear and binary
outcome model (productivity and food insecurity) The model can be used to estimate the
average treatment effect on the treated (IMVs adoption) in addition to the average treatment
effect when the outcomes (productivity and food insecurity) are not conditionally independent
of the treatment.

Farmers' choice of improved varieties was modeled using a probit model in the first stage of
the ESR. The second stage was used the ordinary least squares (OLS) and binary probit model
with selectivity correction to estimate the relationship between the net crop value and food
insecurity variables and IMVs adoption, as well as a collection of explanatory variables
respectively.

The study adopted expected utility maximization theory for the farmers’ adoption of IMVs
measures. If the expected utility from adoption (𝑈𝛼 ) is greater than the corresponding utility
from non-adoption(𝑈𝑛𝛼 ), a farmer (𝑖)adopts improved maize varieties i.e 𝑈𝛼 − 𝑈𝑛𝛼 > 0 .
 38

Let 𝐴∗𝑖 be the latent variable capturing the benefit of the 𝑖 𝑡ℎ farmer's adoption of improved
maize varieties and given as:

1 𝑖𝑓 𝑍𝑖 𝛼 + ԑ𝑖 > 0
𝐴∗𝑖 = 𝑍𝑖 𝛼 + ԑ𝑖 Where 𝐴∗𝑖 = 1
0 other wise

where: Z is vector of household, farm and village level variables that affect the decision to
adopt and/or not adopt improved maize varieties and ɛ is an error term.

The adoption decision of an improved maize variety might be endogenous in the outcome
equation (calorie intake, net crop value and food insecurity), and analyzing the outcome
variable without adjusting for potential endogeneity could lead to biased estimates. As a result,
employing an instrumental variables technique to identify the outcome equation from the
selection equation is crucial. Adoption of IMVs should be impacted by the instrumental
variable but, the outcome variables, such as calorie consumption, net crop value, and food
insecurity, should not be affected by the instrumental variable. We employed sources of
information (government extension (yes=1) and farmers cooperatives (yes=1) as a selection
instrument, as instrumenting variables impacting the decision to adopt IMV but not household
calorie intake net crop value and food insecurity, despite the fact that obtaining a real
instrument is experimentally challenging.

We evaluated the validity of these instruments using a falsification test. A falsification test is a
method of determining if instrumental variables are genuine instruments if they affect the
selection equation (in our instance, adoption of IMV) but not the outcome variable. As a
result, the falsification test on the selected instrumental variables reveals that they jointly and
statistically significantly influence IMV adoption decisions (in selection equation: Chi2 =
95.73; P-value = 0.000), but not net crop value (F-value = 0.67; P-value = 0.511for adopters
and F-value = 1.06; P-value = 0.350 for non -adopters) , calorie intake (F-value = 0.71; P-
value = 0.49 for adopters and F-value = 0.84; P-value = 0.32 for non -adopters). Or household
food insecurity (Chi2 = 3.64; P-value = 0.170 for adopters and Chi2 = 4.52; P-value = 0.104 for
non-adopters).
 39

As an endogenous switching regime model, the outcome regression equations for both
adopters (regime 1) and non-adopters (regime 2) can be written:

Regime 1: Y1i = β1 X1i + ε1i if Ai = 1 (IMV Adopters) 2a

Regime 2: Y2i = β2 X2i + ε2i if Ai = 0 (non-adopter of IMV) 2b

Where Yi represents outcome variables (Calorie intake, net crop value and a binary food
insecurity, status) of smallholder farmer i for each regime (1 = adopter of IMVs and 0 = non-
adopter of IMVs), Xi is a vector of farm and socio-economic characteristics of household that
affects outcome variables, and βi is a vector of parameters to be estimated.

Assume that the error terms ε1i ,ε2i , and 𝑢𝑖 have a trivariate normal distribution, with mean
vector zero and covariance matrix (Lee et al., 1982),

𝜎𝑢2 ⋯ …
2 2
𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑢𝑖, ε1i, 𝜀2𝑖 ) = [𝜎𝜀1𝑢 𝜎𝜀1 ⋮ ] 3
2 2
𝜎𝜀2𝑢 ⋯ 𝜎𝜀2

2 2 2
Where in the continuous equations 𝜎𝑢2 𝜎𝜀1𝑢 and 𝜎𝜀2𝑢 are variances of the error terms. 𝜎𝜀1 and
2
𝜎𝜀2 are covariance of 𝑢𝑖 and ε1i, and 𝜀2𝑖 respectively. Since Y1i and Y2i are not observed
simultaneously a covariance of the corresponding error terms is not defined (Maddala, 1983).
This error terms structure shows that the error terms of the outcome equation and the error
terms of the selection equation are correlated, resulting in an expected non-zero value of ε1i,
and 𝜀2𝑖 given 𝑢𝑖 - the error terms of the selection equation (Abdulai and Huffman, 2014). The
expected values of the truncated error terms 𝜖(𝜀1 |A = 1) and 𝜖(𝜀2 |A = 0) are, therefore,
given below:

Zα
φ( )
σ
𝜖(𝜀1 |A = 1) = 𝜖(𝜀1 |u > −𝑍𝛼) = 𝜎𝜀1𝑢 Zα ≡ 𝜎𝜀1𝑢 λ1 4a
𝚽( )
σ

and
Zα
−φ( )
σ
𝜖(𝜀2 |A = 0) = 𝜖(𝜀2 |u ≤ −𝑍𝛼) = 𝜎𝜀2𝑢 Zα ≡ 𝜎𝜀2𝑢 λ2 4b
𝟏−𝚽 ( )
σ
 40

The probability density and cumulative distribution function of the standard normal

distribution are φ and 𝚽, respectively. The ratio of φ and Φ evaluated at Zα is referred to as

2 2
the inverse Mills ratio λ1 and λ2 (selectivity terms). If the estimated covariance 𝜎𝜀1𝑢 and 𝜎𝜀2𝑢
are significantly different from 0 the decision to adopt and the outcome variable are correlated.
This means endogenous switching and the emergence of a selectivity bias sample (Maddala,
1986; Maddala and Nelson, 1975). Where 𝜌1 and 𝜌2 are coefficients of correlation between
ui, the selection equation error term, and the outcome equations 𝜀1 and 𝜀2 , error terms. In
addition, there were estimates of treatment effects. In real and counterfactual cases, the
Average Treatment Effect on Treated and Untreated (ATT and ATU) was estimated using the
effects of predicted values of the dependent variable for adopters and non-adopters:
Adopters with adoption of IMV

φ(Zα)
E(Y1i | Ai = 1, 𝑋1𝑖 ) = β1 X1i + σϵ1uρ1 𝚽(Zα) 5a

Non-adopters without-adoption

φ(Zα)
E(Y2i | Ai = 0, 𝑋2𝑖 ) = β1 X2i − σϵ2uρ1 (𝟏−𝚽(Zα)) 5b

Adopters had they decided not to adopt IMV

φ(Zα)
E(Y2i | Ai = 1, 𝑋1𝑖 ) = β2 X1i + σϵ2uρ2 𝚽(Zα) 5c

Non-adopters had they decided to adopt IMV

φ(Zα)
E(Y1i | Ai = 0, 𝑋2𝑖 ) = β2 X2i − σϵ1uρ2 (𝟏−𝚽(Zα)) 5d

Hence, ATT of adopter is computed as the difference between (5a) and (5c)

ATT = [E(Y1i |Ai = 1, ] − [E(Y2i | Ai = 1, ] 6

Likewise, ATU of non-adopters is computed as the difference between (5b) and (5d)

ATU = [E(Y1i |Ai = 0, ] − [E(Y2i | Ai = 0, ] 7

 41

3.5. Variables Selection, Definition and Its Measurement

3.5.1. Treatment variable

It is dummy values of 1 for household adopt improved maize variety and 0 otherwise. Farm
households in our study area plant improved and local maize varieties, either alone or in
combination. As a result, in this study, we defined adopters as farm households who grew
improved maize varieties, during 2020 production year, independent of what else they
cultivated while non-adopters as farm households who grew maize without using IMV in the
same period.

3.5.2. Outcome variables

Productivity (NCV):It is continues variable that represents maize yield and it is measured as
net crop value (production output value minus input value) per hectare in monetary terms.

Kilocalories consumption per adult equivalent (Kcal): It is continues variable measuring

the amount of calories or nutrients a person consumes per day.

Household food insecurity (HHFINS): It is a dummy variable that represents the level of
food insecurity in the household. It’s represented by a "1" for food insecurity and a "0"
otherwise.

3.5.3. Independent variables

A number of variables were observed that can influence households’ adoption of improved
maize varieties including; personal and demographic, and socio economic, and institutional
factors. Some of the variables which are considered in the analysis are defined and
hypothesized as follows:

Information from farmers’ cooperation (InformanFC): It is a dummy instrumental variable

with a value of 1 if the household head acquired information from the farmer organization
during the study year and a value of 0 otherwise. Farmers' decisions to adopt improved maize
varieties could be influenced by information from farmers' associations or cooperative
 42

members. Farmers that have the opportunity to obtain timely and critical information on
transaction costs, disseminating, and other information from associations are more likely to
adopt (Mulugeta, 2009). As a result, information from farmers association was supposed to
have a positive influence on the adoption of improved maize varieties.

Information from extension agents (InformanEA): It's a dummy instrumental variable with
a value of 1 if the household head got information from extension agents during the study year
and a value of 0 otherwise. Adoption studies by Million et al. (2019) have showed that access
to information from extension agents increases probability of farmers’ adoption decision of
improved technologies. Thus, in this study, access to information from extension agents was
expected to positively influence farmers' decision to adopt improved maize varieties.

Sex of household head (GENDER): is a dummy variable which takes up the value of “1” if
the family head is a male and “0” if the family head is female. In most cases male headed
households have better access to information on improved technologies and are more likely to
adopt new technologies than female (Bayissa, 2010). Sex is, therefore, expected to positively
influence adoption of improved maize variety.

Age (AGE): This variable refers to the chronological age of household head at the time of the
survey, measured in years. Age of the household positively influences adoption of improved
maize variety by household. New maize technologies are more likely to be adopted in old aged
households. This may be due to older farmers are assumed to have gained knowledge and
experience over time and are better able to evaluate technology information than younger
farmers (Abadi et al. 2014; Bedru and Dagne, 2014). However, according to Sánchez-
Toledano et al. (2018), younger farmers were more likely to adopt new technologies, have
positive attitudes toward innovation, and have a low risk perception. Furthermore, According
to the study of Ullah et al., 2018, older farmers may be more hesitant to adopt new
technology. Therefore, the effect of age on adoption of IMVs is indeterminate.

Household size (FAMSZ): It is a continuous variable measured in adult equivalent of each

individual whom living together under a given household. To get the adult equivalent of the
individuals living in a given household, individuals are categorized on the basis of their age
group and assigned a value on the basis of the standard adult equivalent conversion factor.
 43

For each additional family member in the household, households were more likely to adopt the
improved maize varieties, holding other variables constant. This suggests that large family size
provides more labor for farm operation and an increased incentive to produce more output on
farm (Motuma et al., 2010; Abadi et al., 2015). However, farmers were limited in their options
of technology, degree of innovation, and crop choice due to budget restrictions resulting from
high level of family expenditure Feder et al. (1985). Hence, the effect of family size on
adoption of IMVs is indeterminate.

Level of education (EDULEVEL): is continuous variable measured in year of schooling.

Farm households with more educated heads tend to adopt improved maize varieties. Farmers
with higher levels of education, therefore, are more likely to adopt improved maize
technologies than those who do not (Moti et al. (2015). Education augments one's ability to
receive, decode and understand information relevant to making innovative decisions
(Wozniak, 1984). This creates an incentive to acquire more information. Farmers with more
education have aware of more information sources and more efficient than those with less
education in evaluating and interpreting information about technologies (Gishu et al., 2018).
Therefore, education is expected to positively influence adoption of improved maize variety.

Livestock ownership (LSTOCK): is continuous variable and measured by Tropical

Livestock Unit (TLU). In rural context, livestock holding is an important indicator of
household's wealth position. Livestock serves as an important source of cash (Abadi, 2014;
Gishu et al., 2018). In the study area, they rear livestock. Therefore, livestock could be used as
insurance for risks. Based on this assumption this variable is expected to have positive relation
with adoption of improved maize variety.

Farm land holding size (FARMSIZE): is a continuous variable measured in Hectare. It is an

indicator of wealth and social status and influence within a community. It was expected to be
positively associated with the decision to adopt improved maize. This means that farmers who
have relatively large landholding would be more initiated to adopt the improved varieties.
Farm size is expected to influences households' decision to adopt or reject improved maize
varieties (Yishak and Punjabi, 2011). Land holding size is expected to influence the adoption
of improved maize varieties positively as those operating on larger farms tend to have greater
 44

financial resources, incentives and more land to allocate to the high yielding wheat varieties
(Wubeneh and Sanders, 2006, Beshir et al., 2012). Hence it was hypothesized that Farm land
holding size affects adoption of improved maize variety positively.

Credit services (CRD): It is a dummy variable, which takes a value 1 if the farm households
have used credit or 0, otherwise. This variable is measured in terms of whether respondents
have access to credit. Farmers who have access to credit may overcome their financial
constraints and therefore be able to buy farming inputs. Farmers without cash and do not have
access to credit may find it very difficult to attain and adopt new technologies (Taha, 2007;
Sisay, 2016). Hence, an access credit service is hypothesized to positively influence farmers’
decision to adopt improved maize variety.

Off-farm income (OFFINCO): It is continuous variable measured in ETB. The availability

of off-farm income can affect the probability of adoption positively since it can increase the
farmer's financial capacity to pay for improved inputs (Getachew et al., 2010b; Dawit et al.,
2014b). As a result, the availability of off-farm income sources for households is expected to
increase the likelihood of improved maize variety adoption.

Distance to markets (DIST): It is a continuous variable measured as the walking distance in

KM that the household travel to reach the nearby market. Those farmers having nearby market
have better market information. Farmers living nearby market are expected to be better
adopters due to the influence of demonstration, farmer-to-farmer seed dissemination, and
output market (Abadi et al., 2015). Therefore, it is hypothesized to have a negative impact on
the adoption of improved maize variety.

Access to training (ACCTRG): it is dummy variable which takes the value 1 if the
smallholder farmers have access to demonstration and training and otherwise 0.
Demonstration plots and farmer trainings are believed to facilitate change in the behavior of
farmers and ultimately bring behavioral changes in favor of improved maize technology
adoption (Bedassa, 2001 and Habtermariam, 2004). Therefore, access to training and
demonstration is expected to have a positive impact on adoption of improved maize variety.
 45

Table 2: Summary of Variables selection, definition and its measurement

Nominated Type of Unit of Effect on

Variable Definition
Symbol Variable Measure Adoption
Treatment Variable
Adoption ADOPTION Dummy 1 if adopter otherwise 0
Outcome Variables
Productivity NCV Continuous ETB/ha
Food insecurity HHFINS Dummy 1 if insecure otherwise 0
Explanatory variables
Information from InformanEA Dummy 1 if yes otherwise 0 +
Extention Agents
Information from InformanFC Dummy 1 if yes otherwise 0 +
Farmers Cooperation
Gender GENDER Dummy 1 if male otherwise 0 +
Age of HH AGE Continuous Year +/-
Education of HH EDULEVEL Continuous Year of schooling +
Family size FAMSZ Continuous AE +/-
Off farm income OFFINCO Continuous ETB +
Access to credit CRD Dummy 1 if yes otherwise 0 +
Distance to the market DIST Continuous KM -
Total livestock ownership LSTOCK Continuous TLU +
Farm size FARMSIZE Continuous Hectare +
Access to training ACCTRG Dummy 1 if yes otherwise 0 +
 46

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

4.1.1. Descriptive statistics of continuous explanatory variables

Before embarking on the econometrics result, it is important to describe the socioeconomic,

institutional, and farm characteristics of the sample households by adoption status. Table 3
shows descriptive statistics of continues explanatory variables considered in adoption and
impact analyses. According to the results, there was a statistically significant difference in age
of household head, education of household head, total farm land, family size, livestock owned
and market distance between adopters and non-adopters of IMVs, while the mean off farm
income of respondents was not significantly different between the two groups.

These observations imply that, the household head had an average age of 38.9 years. Adopters'
average age was higher (40.5 years) than non-adopters (37.2 years). The test statistics showed
that there is significant mean difference in average age between adopters and non-adopters at
1% probability level. Concerning education, the average level of education in years of
schooling of household head was 5.8 years, which is equivalent to elementary education. The
results further showed that the mean year of schooling for the adopters was 7.2 years while it
was 4.5 years for the non-adopters. The t-test indicated that, there was significant difference
(p<0.01) between adopters and non-adopters. This implies, adopters had relatively higher
education level than the non-adopters.

Moreover, the average size of landholding of the sampled household was 3.9 ha. IMV
adopters had on average of 4.72 ha farm land, which is more than non-adopters (3.17 ha) with
statistical difference (p<0.01) between adopters and non- adopters. The result shows the
average size of landholding of sampled households was higher than the regional average (1.15
ha) and the national average 0.8 ha Headey et al. (2014). The average family size in adult
equivalent in the surveyed households was 4.8. Adopters' average household size was smaller
(4.6) than non-adopters' (5.05). The test statistics showed that there is significant mean
 47

difference in average family size in adult equivalent between adopters and non-adopters at 1%
probability level.

Like majority of Ethiopian farmers, livestock takes an important part in the farming business
in the Amuru District, which contributes to the subsistence requirements. The type of livestock
owned includes cattle, small ruminant, equine, and chicken. The livestock holding measured
by TLU (Table 3) depicts that, IMV adopters on average had 9.24 TLUs while Non-adopters
have 6.64 TLUs. The results showed that there is significant difference in average livestock
holding between adopters and non-adopters at 1% probability level showing that adopters had
large holdings as compared to non-adopters of IMVs.

The study area's farm households rely mostly on agricultural production, with non-agricultural
activities supplementing their income. A closer look at the average off farm income of
sampled households (Table 3) showed that from off farm activities, farmers in the study area
obtain on average ETB 2035.81 per year. In this regard, IMVs adopter generated on average of
ETB 1956.97 per year, compared to ETB 2111.71 per year for non-adopters. However, the t-
test show that, there was no statistical significant difference in the off farm income between
adopters and non-adopters.

Regarding the average distance that farmers in the study area have to travel to the nearest
market was 5.4 km. The average distance from the nearest market for the adopters of IMVs
was 4.29 km and for the non-adopters was 6.5 km. The results were significant (p<0.01),
implying that the non-adopters were far from the nearest market as compared to adopters.
 48

Table 3: Descriptive statistics of continues explanatory variables

Adopters Non – adopters Total sample

Variables Description (No = 129) (No = 134) (No = 263) t-value
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Age Age of household head (years) 40.57 9.647 37.223 8.078 38.866 9.022 -3.057***

Education Education of household head (years of 7.224 3.457 4.507 3.194 5.840 3.588 -6.622***
schooling)

Total farm land Total land operated by a household (ha) 4.724 1.661 3.179 1.796 3.937 1.893 -7.237***

Family size Household size (adult equivalent ) 4.661 1.420 5.057 1.669 4.863 1.562 2.070***

Livestock owned Livestock owned (TLU) 9.241 2.788 6.604 2.912 7.897 3.138 -7.494***

Off farm income Nonfarm income (Birr) 1956.97 1257.61 2111.71 1136.19 2035.81 1197.50 1.047

Market distance Distance to nearest market (KM) 4.294 1.974 6.507 2.273 5.422 2.399 8.415***
***, ** and * significant at the 1, 5 and 10 percent probability levels,

Source: Computed from own survey data of 2021

 49

4.1.2. Descriptive statistics of discrete explanatory variables

Several discrete independent variables were considered in this analysis. From the total sample
households, 88.6% were male headed and only 11.4% of respondents were female headed.
Meanwhile, About 93.8 % and 83.6 % of IMV adopters and non-adopters respectively were
male headed. The chi-square result indicated that there was significant association between
adoption and sex of the household head.

The evidence acquired from many Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) performed with female
headed households notably revealed that there was a common targeted bias towards, among
others, female farmers, which confirms the conclusion relating to gender-based inequalities
among technology users (Belachew et al.,2020; Tesfay,2020 and Mwungu et al., 2019). FGD
participants in Agamsa reported that "most extension agents are males, and due to cultural and
religious expectations, they do not interact appropriately with female headed households as
well as female members of the community." This, in my opinion, has created a barrier to
accessing and using essential information on IMVs."

The results also revealed that, about 83.7% (108 out of 129) of IMV adopters and 50.7% (68
out of 134) of non-adopters acquired information from government agents. Therefore, 66.9%
(176 out of 263) of households got information from government extension agents and 33.1%
(87 out of 263) of households didn’t. On the other hand, 59.7% (77 out of 129) of the IMV
adopters and 11.2% (15 out of 134) of non-adopters obtained information from farmers
association. In total, 35% (92 out of 263) of households received information from farmers
associations, while 65% (171 out of 263) did not. This figure showed, higher proportion of
IMV adopters have got information from both sources than that of the non-adopters. The chi-
square test also indicated that there was significant (P<0.01) association between adoption and
source of information.

In terms of institutional characteristics, there were also considerable discrepancies between the
two groups of households. In the study area, providing credit in the form of cash or in kind to
aid rural farming families is uncommon. As a result, few (24.3%) of the respondents (64 out of
263) were got credit from formal institution. The result also revealed that 31.8% of adopters
 50

and only 17.2% of non-adopters earned credit in the previous year (2020). The chi-square test
indicated that there was significant association between adoption and access to credit.

As far as access to training, only 18.3% (48 out of 263) of the households reported received
training about IMVs in previous year (2020), with a significantly higher proportion of adopters
which were 31.8% (41 out of 129) acknowledging receipt of such training than non-adopters
5.2% (7 out of 134).It was statistically significant association between adoption and access to
training at 1% probability level.
 51

Table 4: Descriptive statistics of discrete explanatory variables

Adopters Non – adopters Total sample

Variables Description (No = 129) (No = 134) (No = 263) 2-value
No. % No. % No. %

Sex of household head Male 121 93.8 112 83.6 233 88.6
(1=male 0=female) 6.788***
Female 8 6.2 22 16.4 30 11.4

Information from government Yes 108 83.7 68 50.7 176 66.9

(1=Yes, 0=No) 32.283***
agent No 21 16.3 66 49.3 87 33.1

Information from farmers Yes 77 59.7 15 11.2 92 35.0

(1=Yes, 0=No) 67.96***
association No 52 40.3 119 88.8 171 65.0

Access to credit Yes 41 31.8 23 17.2 64 24.3

(1=Yes, 0=No) 7.628***
No 88 68.2 111 82.8 199 75.7

Access to training Yes 41 31.8 7 5.2 48 18.3

(1=Yes, 0=No) 31.074***
No 88 68.2 127 94.8 215 81.7
***, ** and * significant at the 1, 5 and 10 percent probability levels,

Source: Computed from own survey data of 2021.

 52

4.1.3. Descriptive statistics of outcome variables

The outcome variables such as calorie intake, net crop value, and binary food insecurity status
of both adopters and non-adopters are presented in Table 5. According to the findings, the
average calorie intakes of the sampled households were 2367.1 kcal per adult equivalent per
day. The average daily calorie consumption of farm households in the adopters' category was
2470.71 kilocalories, compared to 2267.28 kilocalories for non-adopters. This means that on
average adopters consumed a larger amount of kilocalories than non-adopters and the
difference was statistically significant at 1% probability level.

Table 5: Descriptive statistics of continues outcome variables

Adopters Non – adopters Total sample

Variables (No = 129) (No = 134) (No = 263) t-value
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Calorie intake 2470.71 331.21 2267.38 328.28 2367.11 344.49 -4.9994 ***

Net crop value 12375.35 303.08 8930.97 176.31 10620.42 1742.65 -1.1e+02***

***, ** and * significant at the 1, 5 and 10 percent probability levels,

Source: Computed from own survey data of 2021.

The net crop value of maize was one of outcome variable. Total respondents had an average
net crop value of ETB 10620.42 per ha. Similarly, IMV adopters generated an average net
crop value of ETB 12375.35 per ha, compared to ETB 8930.97 per ha for non-adopters. The t-
test indicated that net crop value among adopters and non-adopters was significantly different
at 1% level.

The other outcome variable is binary food insecurity status. Accordingly the study used 2200
kcal /AE/ day as cut-off point to classify households as food secure or food insecure. As a
result, food security was defined as a household's physical food intake in kcal being greater
than or equal to 2200 kcal/AE/day, while food insecurity was considered as a household's
physical food consumption in kcal less than 2200 kcal/AE/day. Adopters and non-adopters'
food security status is presented in Table 6 indicated that 65% (171 out of 263) of the sampled
 53

households were food secure, whereas 35 (92 out of 263) were food insecure. Regarding the
food insecurity status among adopters and non-adopters of IMVs, study found that 83.7%
(108 out of 129) and 47% (63 out of 134) of adopter and non-adopter households,
respectively were food secure.

Table 6: Food security status among adopters and non-adopters (binary food security outcome)

Adopters Non – adopters Total sample

Outcome variables
(No = 129) (No = 134) (No = 263)
χ2-value
No. Percent No. Percent No Percent
Food secure 108 83.7 63 47 171 65 38.935***
Food insecure 21 16.3 71 53 92 35
Total 129 100 134 100 263 100
***, ** and * significant at the 1, 5 and 10 percent probability levels.

Source: Computed from own survey data of 2021.

Our descriptive statistics show that IMV adoption helps improve maize productivity and food
security in households. However, comparing the performance of adopters and non-adopters
may not be a causal interpretation because these findings are based solely on observed mean
differences in the outcome of interest and may not be due to IMV adoption alone, but rather to
other factors such as household wealth and other related socioeconomic factors. As a result,
we don't know whether adopters' had better productivity and food security status at this level.
Therefore it is important to assess the impact of adoption of IMVs on maize productivity and
food security of rural households in the study area by controlling both observable and
unobservable factors which influence adoption decision and outcome variables.

4.2. Endogenous Switching Regression Estimation Results

The coefficients of the ESR model's key explanatory variables contain vital information. The
results of second stage ESR, the estimated coefficients of net crop value, binary food
insecurity and calorie intake are presented in Appendix Table 5 and 6. The results on factors
influencing the adoption decision and the impacts from the full information maximum
 54

likelihood (FIML) estimation of the ESR model were only briefly mentioned here because the
major objectives of this study was to assess the impacts of adopting IMVs.

4.2.1. Determinants of improved maize varieties adoption

The first stage ESR, binary probit was used to identify determinants of improved maize
variety adoption by smallholder farmers in study area. The Wald test of the model (Wald Chi-
squared = 120.25 and P= 0.000) is significant at the 1% level, implies that the overall model is
fitted and the explanatory variables used in the model were collectively able to explain
farmers’ decision regarding the adoption of improved maize varieties in the study area.

Nine of the twelve variables in the model associated with the choice to adopt IMVs according
to the estimation findings in Table 6. Among the variables education level of the household
head, total livestock owned, access to credit, access to training, farm size, access to
information from extension agent and access to information from farmers association
significantly increased the probability of adoption. This implies that for every unit increase in
any of these variables, probability of adoption increased by the magnitude of their marginal
effects. Moreover, two of the twelve variables (family size and market distance) had a
negative effect on the likelihood of adopting IMV. Non-/off-farm income, sex of the
household head and age of the household head, on the other hand, did not differ significantly
influence adoption of IMVs.

At a 5% level of significance, education is revealed to have a statistically positive association

on IMV adoption. The results showed that increasing in years of formal schooling of the
household head by one year would result in a 1.8% increase in the likelihood of adopting
IMVs in maize production. It's believed that this was related to the capacity of education in
increasing farmer knowledge and information absorption about new agricultural technology.
Farmers with more years of schooling have no trouble gathering and analyzing information,
and they are better able to make meaningful assessments of new agricultural technology than
farmers with less years of schooling. The findings comparable with the result of Danso-
Abbeam et al. (2017) who studied farm household adoption of improved maize varieties in
Ghana's northern region and found farmers with a higher level of education are more likely to
use IMV than farmers with a lower level of education.
 55

It was found that the size of a family had a negative and significant influence on a household's
adoption decision at p < 0.05. The negative association tends to imply that for every additional
adult equivalent family size, the likelihood of adopting IMVs decreases by 3.5%. Farmers with
largest number of families involved in maize production had fewer resources to invest since
most of their resources were expected to be used for self-sufficiency and maintenance needs
Ouma et al. (2014).Farmers were limited in their options of technology, degree of innovation,
and crop choice due to budget restrictions resulting from high level of family expenditure
Feder et al. (1985). These findings show that households in the study area with largest number
of families are obliged to select and save the best seed from past production seasons for use in
the following year, as opposed to improved seed, which must be purchased each year to ensure
expected returns. Evidence from Sánchez-Toledano et al. (2018) and Challa and Tilahun
(2014) also suggest the negative impact of large family size on the adoption of new
agricultural technologies. The empirical finding however contradicts the study by Oluwatoyin
(2021) on factors influencing adoption of improved maize seed varieties among smallholder
farmers in Kaduna State, Nigeria which indicated that farmers with larger households have a
higher probability of embracing innovation especially if it was labor-intensive, as they could
harness labor from household members at little or no cost.

The probability of adopting IMVs was found to be significantly and positively affected by
livestock ownership at 5% level. The study indicates that as a farmer's livestock holding
increases by a TLU, the probability of adopting IMVs rises by 1.8%. As livestock considered
as a means of income diversification, a source of additional income and can also be an
insurance against risk and uncertainty, possession of livestock could therefore increase the
probability of adoption through its influence on income. This result was consistence with past
empirical studies such as Muluken et al. (2021) who noted that farm households who owned
more livestock are better-off in taking risks associated with new technologies and practices, or
these households received preferential treatment by the promoters of improved agricultural
technologies and hence they have better chance of using improved agricultural technologies.
Evidence from Gishu et al. (2018) also suggests that Livestock ownership has a positive and
significant relationship with the probability of adoption of improved maize variety.
 56

Table 7: Decision of adopting IMV: Probit model

Variables Coefficient Robust Std. Err. t-value Marginal Effects

Sex of hh 0.788 0.541 1.46 0.089
Age of hh 0.029 0.015 1.93 0.003
Education of hh 0.158*** 0.041 3.83 0.018
Family size -0.31*** 0.096 -3.24 -0.035
Non -farm income 0.00 0.000 0.12 0.000
TLU 0.156*** 0.045 3.46 0.018
Access credit 0.702** 0.319 2.20 0.079
Market distance -0.382*** 0.058 -6.54 -0.043
Access training 1.868*** 0.396 4.72 0.211
Farm size 0.35*** 0.076 4.62 0.039
InformanEA 1.29*** 0.310 4.15 0.145
InformanFC 1.471*** 0.326 4.51 0.166
_cons -3.602*** 1.317 -2.74
Number of observations 263
LR chi2(12) 120.25
Prob > chi2 0.000
Pseudo R2 0.7015
Log Pseudo likelihood -54.395474
***, **, and * significant at the 1, 5, and 10 percent probability levels, respectively.

Source: Computed from own survey data of 2021.

Moreover, the model results revealed that access to credit was significantly (p<0.05) and
positively influenced farmers to adopt IMVs. Access to credit has a marginal effect of 0.079,
implying that keeping other variables constant, those households who had access to credit had
a 7.9% higher probability of adopting IMVs than those who did not. This could be linked to
the fact that access to credit enables farmers to have enough money to buy IMVs and other
essential inputs as per a recommendation. As a result, it facilitates their adoption of IMVs. The
 57

result corroborates earlier literature by Melese (2018) and Ullah et al. (2018) who suggested
that with the availability of necessary credit, farmers are able to purchase productive farm
inputs and invest in the technology.

At the 1% level of significance, the distance from the nearest market was negative and
significant. The marginal effect of distance from nearest market was negative 0.043, implies
that moving one kilometer away from the nearest market reduces the probability of IMV
adoption by 4.3%, ceteris paribus. The result can be explained by the fact that as the distance
to the nearest market increases, so does the difficulty of gaining access to the product and
input markets, which discourages farmers from adopting improved maize varieties due to
lower market incentives. Households that are closer to the market have better access to market
information, and make marketing of input and outputs easier with lowers costs. Feleke and
Zegeye (2006), Abadi et al. (2015) and Gishu et al. (2018) also reported that residing of
households in nearest distance to the market promotes the adoption of IMVs by farming
households.

At the (P<0.01) threshold, the specific training variable on IMV adoption was very significant.
The possibility of adopting IMV was positively influenced by the training received on how to
use them. According to the marginal effect value, received training increases the probability of
IMV adoption by 21.1%. This could be explained by the fact that training increases the degree
of knowledge of the producer, allowing them to seek out more productive information and be
more dedicated to farming. Similar findings were reported by Mahoussi et al. (2021), who
found that providing producers with the necessary information helped them to assess the
usefulness of the technology and, as a result, whether it should be adopted or not.

Farm size was found to influence the probability of adopting improved maize varieties in a
positive and significant (p<0.01) way. The marginal effects result reveals that increasing farm
size by one hectare increases the probability of adopting IMVs by about 3.9%. Explanations
could be farmers with large farm sizes are more likely to accept new technology because they
can afford to dedicate a portion of their land for testing new technology, which if successful,
would lead them to completely adopt the technology, unlike those with smaller farms. The
result was consistent with Mengistu et al. (2021) who claimed that having a larger number of
 58

plots spreads production risks across space/location since production failure may not occur in
all of the farm households' plots at the same time.

Information from extension agents and farmer cooperatives was found to influence the
probability of adopting improved maize varieties in a positive and significant (p<0.01)
manner. The marginal effect value implying access to information from extension agents and
farmers cooperatives favors adoption of IMV by 14.5 and 16.6%, respectively. This would be
due to the importance of information in the diffusion of agricultural technologies. Farmers
living in the rural agricultural zones or remote areas may have less access to information
compared to urban dwellers. Rural areas lack access to infrastructural facilities such as
accessible roads and other communication facilities, which limit access to information.
Generally, access to information from extension agents and farmer cooperatives were the vital
source of information in the study area and able to influence the decisions to adopt new
technologies. The result agrees with studies by Million et al. (2019), who noted that providing
information enables farmers to be more aware of the problem of technology adoption and its
consequences, as well as keep up with the latest technological solutions.

4.2.2. Impacts of improved maize variety adoption on productivity and food insecurity

One of the main objectives of the study was to assess the effect of improved maize variety
adoption on productivity and food security. This section reports the findings arising from the
endogenous treatment effect model. Table 7 presents the expected calorie intake, binary food
insecurity and net crop value under actual and counterfactual conditions.

Adopters' predicted calorie consumptions are 2470.71 kilocalories per day, and would have
been 2241.91 kilocalories per day had they not adopted improved maize varieties. The ATT
which equals 228.80 kilocalories is significant at 1% probability level. This implies that
adopters had decided to not adopted, their average calorie intake would have decreased by
228.80 kilocalories. Furthermore, the ATU results show that the actual kilocalories per day
consumption of non-adopters was 2267.38, however if non adopters' households had decided
to adopted IMVs, their calorie intake would have been 2383.87 kilocalories per day. The ATU
results 116.48 kilocalories were gap between the two groups and significant at 1%. Meaning if
 59

non-adopter households would have to adopt IMVs, their calorie intake would have increased
by 116.48 kilocalories.

Looking into the binary food insecurity variable, had IMV adopters not adopted, their
probability of being food insecure would have increased by 34.8%. Likewise, had non-
adopters adopted IMVs, their probability of being food insecure would have decreased by
30.5%. Therefore, the studies demonstrated that adopting IMVs significantly improves
farmers' food security by increasing their calorie intake.

The study also assessed the impact of IMVs adoption on net crop value in addition to food
insecurity and calorie intake to see the pass way of how IMVs adoption improve food security
status of farming households. Households who adopted IMVs earned on the average ETB
3485.46 per ha more net crop value than those who did not adopted any IMVs. For an average
farm size of 3.9 ha owned by a household, the average net crop value loss resulting from not
adopting IMV could be as high as 13,593.3 ETB per year. Similarly, comparing the expected
maize productivity express by net crop income in the counterfactual case and observed
outcome ,those who are not adopting any IMVs are forgoing ETB 3652.01 per ha of maize net
crop.

In general, the findings reveal that adopting IMVs increases calorie intake and food security
status through enhancing net crop value. Therefore, any measure of the aforementioned
significantly associated variables with adoption will increase the probability of adoption and
consequently enhance maize productivity, calorie intake and food security in the study area.

According to our model, the adoption of improved varieties results in positive gains in
productivity and food security. These findings are consistent with the theoretical expectation
because the purpose of improved varieties and certified seeds were to boost smallholder
productivity as well as reduce food insecurity. This study result were comparable with the
results of Gebre et al. (2021), Sinyolo (2020), Ahmed and Anang (2019), Takam‐Fongang et
al. (2019), Abdoulaye et al., (2019), Moti et al., (2018), Manda et al. (2018) who were
reported adoption of IMVs increased maize productivity and maize income as a result
improved maize varieties adoption also enhance food security status of farming households.
 60

Table 8: Endogenous switching regression model result (average treatment effects)

Farm household type and Decision stage Average treatment

Outcome variable
treatment effect To adopt Not to adopt Effect

ATT (a) 2470.71 (c) 2241.91 (e) 228.80***

Calorie intake
ATU (d) 2383.87 (b) 2267.38 (f) 116.48***

ATT (a) 0.163 (c) 0.511 (e) -0.348***

Binary food insecurity
ATU (d) 0.227 (b) 0.533 (f) -0.305***

ATT (a) 12375.35 (c) 8889.88 (e) 3485.46***

Net crop value
ATU (d) 12582.99 (b) 8930.97 (f) 3652.01***

***, ** and * are significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively. ATT = Average treatment effect on treated; ATU = Average
treatment effect on Untreated.

Source: Computed from own survey data of 2021.

 61

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary

Maize is an important crop in this area, serving as a cash crop and being consumed at
home. Government institutions such as the district agricultural office, agricultural research
institutes, and other non–governmental organizations have introduced new technology
such as improved varieties. However, the influencing factor for adoption of improved maize
varieties as well as the impact of improved maize varieties adoption on food insecurity and
productivity in the study area has not been seen separately. Consequently, scientific analysis
has been hindered that could provide strategic information for decision-makers, researchers,
practitioners (extension workers), and smallholder farmers. This paper extended to fill this
gap.

The objective of this study was to determine the food security status of sample households in
the study area, to analyze the determinants of improved maize variety adoption by smallholder
farmers in study area and to evaluate the impact of improved maize variety adoption on maize
productivity and level of food insecurity of rural farming household in the study area.

The study utilized cross-sectional household level data collected in 2020/2021 from 263
randomly selected sample households. A multi-stage sampling technique was employed to
select the sample households for the study. Both descriptive and econometric methods have
been used to analyze the data. Daily calorie intakes in the household were used as indicators of
food insecurity status of households, while net crop value was employed as a proxy for
productivity. The endogenous switching model is used in the methodology to account for
observable and unobservable factors that may influence the choice to use IMVs. There is self-
selection into treatment since farm households are not randomly assigned to the technologies
(technology adoption). To account for the selection bias in adoption decisions, the endogenous
treatment effect is used.

The results of descriptive statistics for continues explanatory variable reveal that, there was a
statistically significant difference in age of household head, education of household head, total
farm land, family size, livestock owned and market distance between adopters and non-
 62

adopters of IMVs, while the mean off farm income of respondents was not significantly
different between the two groups. Moreover, the results of descriptive statistics for discrete
explanatory variable reveal that, there was a statistically significant difference in Sex of
household head, information from government agent, and information from farmers
association, Access to credit and Access to training between adopters and non-adopters of
IMVs.

Regarding the food insecurity status of sampled households, it is found that 65% (171 out of
263) of the sampled households were food secure, whereas 35 (92 out of 263) were food
insecure. The results of the probit model show that adoption of the improved maize varieties
among households was found to be positively influenced by education level of the household
head, total livestock owned, access to credit, access to training, farm size, access to
information from extension agent and access to information from farmers association. On the
other hand, family size and market distance influenced adoption negatively. Moreover, the
results obtained from the endogenous treatment effect model indicated that the adoption of
IMV not only generated a significantly positive impact on household calorie intake and net
crop value, but it also reduced food insecurity.

Finally, using the second stage endogenous switching model to estimate the impact, it was
found that adopters had decided to not adopted, their average calorie intake would have
decreased by 228.80 kilocalories. Similarly, if non-adopter households would have to adopt
IMVs, their calorie intake would have increased by 116.48 kilocalories. Looking into the
binary food insecurity variable, had IMV adopters not adopted, their probability of being food
insecure would have increased by 34.8%. Likewise, had non-adopters adopted IMVs, their
probability of being food insecure would have decreased by 30.5%. Furthermore, households
who adopted IMVs earned on the average ETB 3485.46 per ha more net crop value than those
who did not adopted any IMVs. Likewise, comparing the expected maize productivity express
by net crop income in the counterfactual case and observed outcome ,those who are not
adopting any IMVs are forgoing ETB 3652.01 per ha of maize net crop.
 63

5.2. Conclusion

This study analyzes the impact of IMVs on food insecurity and productivity using primary
data collected in Amuru district of Ethiopia. The study employs parametric (ESR) methods to
reduce the effect of self-selection bias due to both observable and unobservable farm,
household socio-economic characteristics.

The first stage ESR indicates that education level of the household head, total livestock
owned, access to credit, access to training, farm size, family size, market distance, access to
information from extension agent and access to information from farmers association were
significantly associated with IMVs adoption. The results obtained from the second stage ESR
models were indicated that the adoption of IMV not only generated a significantly positive
impact on household calorie intake and net crop value, but it also reduced food insecurity. In
fact, the probability of food insecurity decreases by 34.8% compared to their counterfactuals.
Further, calorie intake and net crop value increased by Birr 228.80 and 3485.46 per ha due to
IMV adoption, respectively.
Therefore, it can be concluded that IMVs adoptions significantly contribute to the economic
and social development of smallholder farmers by improving average calorie intake and net
crop values as well as by reducing food insecurity.

5.3. Recommendations

The study findings reveal that the adoption of IMVs significantly contributed to economic and
social development of smallholder farmers in the study area. Given the significant
contributions of farmers’ adoption of IMVs to household food security and productivity,
policy priorities should be placed on research and development of improved maize varieties
that are adapted to local agro-ecological conditions to meet farmers' need for improved seed.
Moreover, to boost access to IMVs in rural regions, the government should engage the private
sector in improving the agricultural technology supply system through government quality
assurance. This would help to reduce the low adoption rate and this would also encourage non-
adopters to adopt which will be easy only if these seeds are available and accessible.
 64

The study results reveal that contact with development agents was significant factors in
influencing the adoption of IMVs. Similarly, farmers training were significant factors in
influencing the adoption of IMVs. So, establishing extension service a policy priority in terms
of building technical competence and assigning it to local needs in order to boost farmers'
awareness about input potential and give technical guidance for the management and
deployment of IMVs at the suggested level. Furthermore, because training improves adoption,
farmers must be trained. This might be accomplished through providing targeted training at
farmers' training centers and promoting field day, which is one of the most common
techniques of sharing technology and influencing other farmers to adopt new technology, as
well as offering opportunities for neighboring farmers to witness how the new technology is
used in the field.

The result of this study also revealed that distance to nearest market was negatively and
significantly influences household adoption. This means access to the product and input
markets, as well as information, is critical in making the adoption process go more smoothly.
As a result, one of the most important strategies was to improve rural road infrastructure.
Similarly, access to credit of households positively influenced the adoption of IMVs.
Therefore, lowering credit barriers to technology adoption, as well as strengthening access to
rural microfinance institutes is important predictors of adoption's success. These strategies can
best be achieved by the government and other stakeholders in the subsector through promoting
ease of access to credit facilities to these farmers.

The finding of this study also indicated that family size was negatively and significantly
associated with household adoption of IMVs. Likewise, the result of this study also showed
that livestock holding was positively and significantly associated with household adoption of
IMVs. As a result, the importance of government support during the production process and
market prices may play an important role in encouraging non-adopter farmers due to budget
constraints caused by high levels of family expenditure; this would also be a valid strategy in
increasing the rate of technology adoption. Furthermore, to increase household food security
in the study area, governmental and non-governmental institutions, as well as other
stakeholders should encourage mixed farming (both livestock and crop production). Similarly,
level of education were positively influenced the adoption of IMVs. Therefore, as the youth
 65

are pushed to consider agriculture as a business rather than "a way of life," formal education of
young people is required through aggressive human and infrastructure development.

In general, governments and non-governmental organizations should encourage the adoption

of improved maize varieties on a wider scale to increase maize production and reduce food
insecurity in rural households. This is critical in realizing the IMV potential among maize
producers in the study area.

Due to time constraints, limited resources, and challenging research logistics, this study relied
on cross-sectional data from a single season. However, calorie intake may fluctuate from
season to season. As a result, additional research is required to generate tangible evidence of
the study area's food security status utilizing longitudinal and panel data. Furthermore, this
study solely looked at the factors that influence the adoption of improved maize varieties in
the study area. However, it did not examine the intensity to which improved maize varieties
were adopted in the study area. As a result, more research is needed to give empirical evidence
concerning the intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties in the study area.
 66

6. REFERENCES

Abadi, T. 2014. Impact of improved maize varieties adoption on smallholder farmers’

marketed maize surplus in oromia regional state, ethiopia. The Degree Of Master
thesis, UNFPA ,New York
Abadi, T., Philip, D. and Moti, J. 2015. Factors that affect the adoption of improved maize
varieties by smallholder farmers in central oromia, ethiopia. Developing Country
Studies, 15(5).
Abadie, A., Drukker, D., Herr, J. L. and Imbens, G. W. 2004. Implementing matching
estimators for average treatment effects in stata. The Stata Journal, 4: 290-311.
Abate, T., Bekele, S., Menkir, A., Wegary, D., Kebede, Y., Tesfaye, K., Menale, K., Bogale,
G., Tadesse, B. and Keno, T. 2015. Factors that transformed maize productivity in
Ethiopia. Food Security, 7(5):965-981.
Abdoulaye, T., Wossen, T. and Awotide, B. 2018. Impacts of improved maize varieties in
Nigeria: ex-post assessment of productivity and welfare outcomes. Food Security,
10(2):369-379.
Abdulkadir, B., Kassa, S., Desalegn, T., Tadesse, K., Haileselassie, M., Fana, G., Abera, T.,
Amede, T. and Tibebe, D. 2017. Crop response to fertilizer application in Ethiopia.
Crop_response_to_fertilizer_application_in_Ethiopia_a_review
Abduselam, M. 2017. Food security situation in Ethiopia: a review study. International Journal
of Health Economics and Policy, 2 (3): 86–96.
Abebe, Z. D. and Sewnet, M. A. 2014. Adoption of soil conservation practices in North
Achefer District, Northwest Ethiopia. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and
Environment, 12(3):261–268.
Adesina, A. A. and Zinnah, M. M. 1993. Technology characteristics, farmers' perceptions and
adoption decisions: A tobit model application in sierra leone. Agricultural Economics,
9: 297-311.
Adeyemo, T.A. and Okoruwa, V.O. 2018. Value addition and productivity differentials in the
Nigerian Cassava System. Sustainability, 10(12):4770.
Adnan, N., Nordin, S.M. and bin Abu Bakar, Z. 2017. Understanding and facilitating
sustainable agricultural practice:A comprehensive analysis of adoption behaviour
among Malaysian paddy farmers.Land Use Policy, 68:372–382.
Africa Development Bank (ADB).2014. Africa food security brief: Special focus on climate
change. Africa food security statistics department.
Africa food security and hunger (AFSH).2014. Hunger/undernourishment scorecard, 1–5.
 67

Ahmed K, Jema H, and Lemma Z. 2018. Determinants of food insecurity and coping
strategies of rural Households: the case of Shalla District, West Arsi Zone, Oromia
Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Developing Agricultural Economics, 10(6):200–12.
https://doi. org/10.5897/JDAE2018.0933.
Ahmed, H. and Anang, B.T. 2019. Impact of improved variety adoption on farm income in
Tolon district of Ghana. Agricultural Socio-Economics Journal, 19(2):105-115.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human decision
processes, 50(2):179-211.
Amengor, N.E., Owusu-Asante, B., Adfo, K., Acheampong, P.P., Nsiah, B., Nimo, A.,
Adogoba, D. and Haleegoah, J. 2018. Adoption of improved sweet potato varieties in
Ghana.Asian Journal of Agricultural Extention and Economics Sociol, 23: 1–13.
Antle, J.M. and Capalbo, S.M. 1988. An introduction to recent developments in production
theory and productivity measurement. Agricultural productivity: Measurement and
explanation, 17-95
Ararso, F. 2017. The relation of malaria incidence and climate out of population in Amuru
Woreda, Horo Guduru Wollega Zone, West Ethiopia from 2007-2016 Year. Doctor of
philosophy dissertation, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia).
Argaw A., Karunamoorthi, K. and Beyene, B. 2015. Prevalence, knowledge and self-reported
containment practices about bedbugs in the resource-limited setting of Ethiopia: a
descriptive cross-sectional survey. Health, 7(09).
Ariga, J., Mabaya, E., Waithaka, M. and Wanzala-Mlobela, M. 2019. Can improved
agricultural technologies spur a green revolution in Africa? A multicountry analysis of
seed and fertilizer delivery systems. Agricultural Economics, 50: 63–74. doi:
10.1111/agec.12533
Asefa, S. and T. Zegeye. 2003. Rural poverty, food insecurity and environmental degradation
in Ethiopia: A case study from South Central Ethiopia. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Development Studies in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia .
AWAO. 2019. Crop Production Status in 2018/19 Meher Season. Amuru woreda Agricultural
office.
Awotide, B. A., Abdoulaye, T., Alene, A. and Manyong, V. M. 2014. Assessing the extent and
determinant of adoption of improved cassava varieties in South-western Nigeria.
Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 6(9):376–385
Awotide, B. A., Aziz, A. K. and Diagne, A. 2016. Agricultural technology adoption,
commercialization and smallholder rice farmers’ welfare in Rural Nigeria. Agricultural
and Food Economics, 4( 3)
Aynalem, S., Kumar, N. and Singh, S. 2018. Agricultural technology adoption and its
determinants in ethiopia: A reviewed paper. Asia Pacific Journal of Research Institute,
2347-4793.
 68

Baker, J. 2000. Evaluating the impact of development projects on poverty: A handbook for
practitioners. The World Bank.
Banchayehu, A.T., Chamberlin, J., Van Ittersum, M.K. and Reidsma, P. 2021. Usage and
impacts of technologies and management practices in ethiopian smallholder maize
production. Agriculture, 11(10), 938.
Baum, C.F., 2013. Propensity Score Matching Regression Discontinuity Limited Dependent
Variables.
Bayissa, G. 2010. Adoption of improved sesame varieties in meisso district, west hararghe
zone, ethiopia. Degree of Masters Thesis submitted to Haramaya University.
Bedassa, T. 2001. Simulating strategy options for enhancing hyv-maize technology adoption
in oromia, Ethiopia.
Bekele, W. and Drake, L. 2003. Soil and water conservation decision behavior of subsistence
farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of the Hunde-Lafto area,
Ecological Economics 46: 437-451.
Berhanu, G. and Swinton, S. 2003. Investment in soil conservation in Northern Ethiopia: The
role of land tenure security and public programme. Agricultural Economics, 29: 69-84.
Berhanu, G., Hoekstra, D. and Azage, T. 2006. Commercialization of ethiopian agriculture:
extension service from input supplier to knowledge broker and facilitator, improving
productivity and market success of ethiopian farmers project. Working Paper
International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi. Kenya.
Berhanu, G.B. 2001. Food insecurity in Ethiopia: The impact of socio-political forces.
Development Research Series Working Paper No. 102, DIR and Institute for History,
International and Social Studies, Aalborg University, Denmark.
Beshir, H., Emana, B., Kassa, B. and Haji, J. 2012. Determinants of chemical fertilizer
technology adoption in North Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: The Double Hurdle
Approach. Journal of Research in Economics and International Finance, 1: 39-49.
Bezu, D. 2018. A review of factors affecting food security situation of Ethiopia: From the
perspectives of FAD, economic and political economy theories.
Bezu, S., Kassie, G.T., Shiferaw, B. and Ricker-Gilbert, J. 2014. Impact of improved maize
adoption on welfare of farm households in Malawi: a panel data analysis. World
Development, 59:120-131.
Bihon, K. 2015. Factors affecting agricultural production in Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia.
Doctor Philosophy dissertation, University of South Africa, Republic of South Africa.
Binod, P., Sindhu, R., Singhania, R. R., Vikram, S., Devi, L., Nagalakshmi, S., Kurien, N.,
Sukumaran, R. K. and Pandey, A. 2010. Bioethanol production from rice straw: an
overview. Bioresource Technology, 101: 4767-4774.
 69

Birara, E., Muche, M. and Tadesse, S. 2015. Assessment of food security situation in Ethiopia:
A Review.Asian Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(2):55-68.
Biru, W. D., Zeller, M. and Loos, T. 2018. The impact of agricultural technologies on poverty
and vulnerability of smallholders in Ethiopia: Panel Data Analysis. International
Journal of Water Resources Development, 31:120-133.
Bonabana, W. 2002. Assessing factors affecting adoption of agricultural technologies: the case
of integrated pest management in Kumi District, Degree of Masters Thesis, Eastern
Uganda.
Canadian Hunger Foundation and Reach Consult ( CIDA). 2013. Canadian food security
policy group: Assessment of CIDA’s food security strategy and funding in Ethiopia.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2005. The 2005 national statistics. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2007. The 2007 population and housing census of Ethiopia.
CSA Addis Ababa.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2015. Agricultural sample survey: Time series data for
national and regional level (from 1995/96(1988E.C)2014/15(2007E.C)).
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2017. Report on area and production of major crops. Addis
Abeba: Centeral Statistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2018. Agricultural Sample Survey 2016 /17: Report on farm
management practices (private peasant holdings, meher season), volume III, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2019. Agricultural sample survey 2018/19: report on area
and production of major crops (private peasant holdings, meher season), volume 1,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2020. Report on area and production of major crops (private
peasant holdings, Meher Season). Agricultural Sample Survey.
Chilot Yirga., BI Shapiro, and Mulat Demeke. 1996. Factors influencing adoption of new
wheat technologies in Wolemera and Addis Alem Areas of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 1(1): 63-84.
CIMMYT. 1993. The adoption of agricultural technology: A Guide for Survey Design,
Mexico International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
Coates, J., Swindale, A. and Bilinsky, P. 2007. Household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS)
for measurement of food access: Indicator Guide. Version 3. FANTA

Cochrane, L. and Bekele, Y. W. 2018. Average crop yield (2001–2017) in Ethiopia: trends at
national, regional and zonal levels. Data in brief, 16: 1025.
 70

Conway, J.H., Burgiel, H. and Goodman-Strauss, C. 2016. The symmetries of things. CRC
Press.
Cragg, J. G. 1971. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to
the demand for durable goods. Econometrica (pre-1986), 39: 829.
Cusolito, A.P. and Maloney, W.F. 2018. The elusive promise of productivity.
Danso-Abbeam, G., Antwi, B., Ehiakpo, D.and Mabe, F. 2017. Adoption of improved maize
variety among farm households in the northern region of Ghana. Cogent Economics
and Finance 5:1416896.
Dasgupta, S. 1989. Diffusion of agricultural innovations in village India.Wiley Eastern
Limited, New Delhi.
Dawit, A., Chilot, C., Adam, B. and Agajie, T. 2014a. Situation and outlook of maize in
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.
Dawit, A., Chilot, Y., Adam, B. and Agajie, T. 2014b. Situation and outlook of maize in
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.
Dawit, A., Mwangi, W., Nigussie, M. and Spielman, D. J. 2008. The maize seed system in
Ethiopia: challenges and opportunities in drought prone areas. African Journal of
Agricultural Research, 3: 305-314.
De Groot H., Chilot, Y., Moti, J., Zachary M.G., Nipula G. and Kidist, G. 2014. Baseline
Survey: Nutritious Maize for Ethiopia (NuME). Research Report 102. EIAR, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Debebe, B.2018. A review of factors affecting food security situation of Ethiopia: from the
perspectives of fad, economic and political economy theories. International Journal of
Agriculture and Innovation, 6:2319-2473
Denkyirah, E. K., Okoffo, E. D., Adu, D. T., Aziz, A. A., Ofori, A. and Denkyirah, E. K.
2016. Modeling Ghanaian cocoa farmers’ decision to use pesticide and frequency of
application: The case of Brong-Ahafo region. SpringerPlus, 5(1): 1–13
Di Falco, S., Veronesi, M. and Yesuf, M. 2011. Does adaptation to climate change provide
food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia.
Diiro, G. 2013. Impact of off-farm income on agricultural technology adoption intensity and
productivity: Evidence from rural maize farmers in Uganda, Uganda Support
Programme IFPRI Working Papers.
Dowswell, C., Paliwal, R. and Cantrell, R. 1996. Maize in 3rd World. West Views
press,Colorado, USA.
ECHO. 2014. Factsheet on Ethiopia. European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil
Protection(E. C. H. A. C. P).
 71

EHNRI, (Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute), 2000. Food Composition Table
for Use in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.
Eden M., Nigatu R.and Ansha Y.2009. Analysis of Household levels determinants and coping
mechanisms of food insecure households in Southern Ethiopia.
Emmanuel, D., Owusu-Sekyere, E., Owusu V, and Jordaan H. 2016. Impact of agricultural
extension service on adoption of chemical fertilizer: Implications for rice productivity
and development in Ghana. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 79: 41–49.
FDRE. 2010. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Growth and Transformation Plan 20
10/ 11 -20 14/ 15 Volume I.
FDRE. 2013. Ethiopian strategic investment for sustainable development, Ethiopia.
Feder, G., Just, R. and Zilberman, D.1985 Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing
countries: A survey of Economic Development, 33:55–298.
Feder, G., Just, R. E. and Zilberman, D. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in
developing countries: a survey. Economic development and cultural change, 33:255-
298.
Feleke, S. and Zegeye, T. 2006. Adoption of improved maize varieties in southern ethiopia:
factors and strategy options. Food policy, 31: 442-457.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Fishbein, M. and leek A. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research, 181-202.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1983. World Food Security: a reappraisal of the
concepts and approaches. Director general’s report. Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1996. Rome declaration on world food security
and world food summit plan of action Rome. World Food Summit, 13-17.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2002. The state of food insecurity in the world.
Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2002. The state of food insecurity: Report 2002.
Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2006. Food security. Food and Agricultural
Organization FAO, Paris.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2016. Situation report Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:
Food and Agriculture Organization.FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2017. The state of food security and nutrition in
the world. Rome.
 72

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2018. Pastoralism in Africa’s dry lands; reducing
risks, addressing vulnerability and enhancing resilience.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT). 2017. Statistical databases and data-sets of
the food and agriculture organization of the united nations. food and agriculture
Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT)
Food and Agriculture Organization statistics data (FAOSTAT). 2018. The state of food
insecurity in the world Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and
nutrition Rome: FAO.
Food and Agriculture Organization statistics data(FAOSTAT).2018. Rome, Food and
Agriculture Organization.
Gaya, H., Tegbaru, A., Bamire, A., Abdoulaye, T. and Kehinde, A. 2017. Gender differentials
and adoption of drought tolerant maize varieties among farmers in northern
Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 9(5).
Gebre, G.G., Isoda, H., Rahut, D.B., Amekawa, Y. and Nomura, H. 2019, September. Gender
differences in the adoption of agricultural technology: The case of improved maize
varieties in southern Ethiopia. In Women's studies international forum.
Gebre, G.G., Mawia, H., Makumbi, D. and Rahut, D.B. 2021. The impact of adopting stress‐
tolerant maize on maize yield, maize income, and food security in Tanzania. Food and
Energy Security, 10(4):313.

Gebresilassie, L. and Bekele, A. 2015. Factors determining allocation of land for improved
wheat variety by smallholder farmers of Northern Ethiopia. Journal of Development
and Agricultural Economics, 7(3): 105–112
Gedefa, B. 2016. Adoption and cost benefit analysis of sesame technology in drought prone
areas of Ethiopia: Implication for sustainable commercialization. International Journal
of African and Asian Studies, 23: 11-35.
Getachew, L., Moti, J., Langyintuo, Mwangi, W. and Rovere, R. L. 2010a. Characterization
of maize producing households in Adami Tulu - Gido Kombolcha and Adama Districts
in Ethiopia. Country Report Ethiopia. Nairobi CIMMYT.
Getachew, L., Moti, J., A. Langyintuo, Mwangi, W. and Rovere, R. L. 2010b. Characterization
of maize producing households in Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha and Adama Districts
in Ethiopia Nairobi: EIAR – CIMMYT
Gishu, N., Yohannes, M. and Agidew, A. 2018. Determinants of adoption of improved (bh-
140) maize variety and management practice, in the case of South Ari, Woreda, South
Omo Zone, Snnprs, Ethiopia., . International Journal of Research Studies in
Biosciences (IJRSB), 6:35-43.
Greene, W. H. 2003. Econometric Analysis, Pearson Education India.
 73

Gregory, P.J. and Ingram, J.S. 2008. Climate change and the current ‘food crisis’. CAB
Reviews: perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science, nutrition and natural
resources, 3(99):1-10.
Gujarati, D. N. 1995. Basic Econometrics, 3-Rd Ed. McGraw-Hill.
Habtamu A. 2013. Transitory food insecurity and coping strategies in north western Ethiopia:
Sixth International Conference in Agricultural Statistics.
Habtermariam. 2004. The Comparative influence of intervening variable in the adoption
decision behavior of maize and dairy farmers in shashamane and bishoftu, ethiopia.
improved maize technologies in major growing region of Ethiopia. Doctor of
philosophy Dessertation, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Hailemariam, T ., Dadi, L., Yami, A. and Dana, N. 2006. Determinants of adoption of poultry
technology: A Double-Hurdle Approach. Livestock research for rural development,
18: 1-14.
Hailemariam, T., Menale, K., and Bekele, S. 2013. Adoption of multiple sustainable
agricultural practices in rural Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(3): 597–
623
Hassan, A. 1996. Improved traditional planting pits in the Tahoua department, Niger. An
example of rapid adoption by farmers.
Headey,D., Dereje, M. and Taffesse A. 2014. Land constraints and agricultural intensification
in Ethiopia: Village-level Analysis of High-potential Areas. Food
Policy 48:129–141
Ingram, J.S., Gregory, P.J. and Izac, A.M. 2008. The role of agronomic research in climate
change and food security policy. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment, 126(1-2):4-
12.
International Labor Organization(ILO). 2015. Productivity improvement and the role of trade
unions. A Worker’s education manual. Bureau for Workers’ Activities, Geneva.
International Trade Administration (ITA). 2021. Country Commercial Guides: Ethiopia
Agricultural Sector.
Jalan, J. and Ravallion, M. 1999. Income gains to the poor from workfare: estimates for
Argentina's Trabajar Program World Bank Publications.
Just, R. E. and Zilberman, D. 1985. Risk aversion, technology choice, and equity effects of
agricultural policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67: 435-440.
Kalinda, T.H., Tembo, G. and Ng’ombe, J.N. 2017. Does adoption of conservation farming
practices result in increased crop revenue? Evidence from Zambia, 56(2): 205-221
Kariyasa, K. and Dewi, Y. A. 2013. Analysis of factors affecting adoption of integrated crop
management farmer field school (Icm-Ffs) in Swampy Areas. International Journal of
Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), 1: 29-38.
 74

Kassa, Y., Kakrippai, R.S. and Legesse, B. 2013. Determinants of adoption of improved maize
varieties for male headed and female headed households in West Harerghe zone,
Ethiopia. International Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 1(4): 33-38.
Kassie, M., Yesuf, M. and Köhlin, G. 2008. The role of production risk in sustainable land-
management technology adoption in the Ethiopian Highlands, Working Papers in
Economics, Göteborg, Sweden.
Ketema, M., Kibret, K., Hundessa, F. and Bezu, T. 2021. Adoption of improved maize
varieties as a sustainable agricultural intensification in Eastern Ethiopia: Implications
for Food and Nutrition Security. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and
Technology, 9(6):998-1007.
Khandker, S. R., Barnes, D. F. and Samad, H. A. 2010. Energy poverty in rural and urban
India: are the energy poor also income poor?, The World Bank.
Khonje, M., Manda, J., Alene, A. D. and Menale, K. 2015. Analysis of adoption and impacts
of improved maize varieties in Eastern Zambia. World Development, 66: 695 706.
Kothari, C.R. 2004. Research Methodology: Methods and techniques. 2nd edition. Published
by New Age International Ltd., Publishers.
Krugman, P., 1994. The Age of diminished expectations: U.S. Economic Policy in the 1990s
(3rd edition.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Langyintuo, A. S. and Mungoma, C., 2008. The effect of household wealth on the adoption of
improved maize varieties in Zambia. Food policy, 33:550-559.
Lavigne, M., Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., and Newman, P. 1991." Marxian Economics"(Book
Review). Slavonic and East European Review, 69(4):784.
Lee, L.F., Maddala, G. S. and Trost, R. P. 1982. Testing for structural change by d-methods in
switching simultaneous equations models.Center For Naval Analyses. Professional
Paper 342.
Liu, J. and Wilson, N. 2002. Corporate failure rates and the impact of the 1986 insolvency act:
An Econometric Analysis. Managerial Finance, 28:61-71.
Loevinsohn, M., Sumberg, J., Diagne, A. and Whitfield, S. 2013. Under what circumstances
and conditions does adoption of technology result in increased agricultural
productivity? A Systematic Review.
Lokshin, M. and Sajaia, Z. 2004. Maximum likelihood estimation of endogenous switching
regression models.
Maddala, G. S. and Nelson, F. D. 1975. Switching regression models with exogenous and
endogenous switching. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 5: 423–
426.
 75

Mahajan, V., Muller, E. and Bass, F.M. 1993. New-product diffusion models. Handbooks in
operations research and management science, 5:349-408.
Mahoussi, F.E., Adegbola, P.Y., Aoudji, A.N., Kouton-Bognon, B. and Biaou, G. 2021.
Modeling the adoption and use intensity of improved maize seeds in Benin West-
Africa: Double-hurdle approach. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and
Development, 21(4):17931-17951.
Maurice, J., Mwabu, G. and Muchai, D. 2014. Farm technology adoption in Kenya: a
simultaneous estimation of inorganic fertilizer and improved maize variety adoption
decisions, Agricultural and Food Economics 2: 12-25.
McCann, L., Gedikoglu, H., Broz, B., Lory, J. and Massey, R. 2015. Effects of observability
and complexity on farmers’ adoption of environmental practices. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 58: 1346-1362.
Meja, M.F., Alemu, B.A. and Shete, M. 2021. Total factor productivity of major crops in
Southern Ethiopia: a dis-aggregated analysis of the growth components. Sustainability,
13(6):3388.
Melesse B. 2018. A Review on factors affecting adoption of agricultural new technologies in
Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science and Food Research, 9: 226
Menale, K., Moti, J. and Mattei, A. 2014. Evaluating the impact of improved maize varieties
on food security in rural Tanzania: evidence from a continuous treatment approach.
Food Security, 6:217-230.
Mendola, M. 2007. Agricultural technology adoption and poverty reduction: A propensity-
score matching analysis for rural Bangladesh. Food policy, 32(3):372-393.
Mendola, M. 2007. Farm household production theories: A Review of “Institutional” and
“Behavioral” Responses.Asian Development Reveiw, 24: 49–68.
Mengistu Ketema and Degefu Kebede1. (2017). Adoption Intensity of Inorganic Fertilizers in
Maize Production: Empirical Evidence from Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Ethiopia.
Journal of Agricultural Science, 9(5), 124-132.
Merga, B. and Haji, J. 2019. Factors impeding effective crop production in Ethiopia. Journal
of Agricultural Science, 11 (10): 1–14.
Mideksa,D., Moti, J. and Mitiku, F. 2021. Determinants and profitability of inorganic fertilizer
use in smallholder maize production in Ethiopia. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 7(1).
Mignouna, D., Manyong, V., Rusike, J., Mutabazi, K. and Senkondo, E. 2011. Determinants
of adopting imazapyr-resistant maize technologies and its impact on household income
in Western Kenya.
Million, S., Kadigi, R., Mutabazi, K. and Sieber, S. 2019. Impact of soil and water
conservation practices on household vulnerability to food insecurity in eastern
 76

Ethiopia: endogenous switching regression and propensity score matching approach.

Food Security, 11(4):797-815.
Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MoANR). 2016. Plant variety release
protection and seed quality control directorate. Crop Variety Register Issue No. 19.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopa
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). 2002. Ethiopia: Sustainable
development and poverty reduction program, Addis Ababa.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). 2018. Annual progress report of
the GTP II Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1–33.
Mmbando, F. E. and Baiyegunhi, L.J. 2016. Socio-economic and institutional factors
influencing adoption of improved maize varieties in Hai District, Tanzania. Journal of
Human Ecology, 53(1): 49–56.
MoA. 2011. Crop Variety Register- Animal and plant health regulatory directorate. . ministry
of agriculture. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
MoARD. 2007. Horn of Africa consultations of food security, country report. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Government of Ethiopia.
Moti, J., Menale, K. and Marenya, P. 2015a. Impact of improved maize variety adoption on
household food security in Ethiopia: An Endogenous Switching Regression Approach
Agriculture in an interconnected world.
Moti, J., Menale, K. and Paswel, M. 2015b. Impact of improved maize variety adoption on
household food security in Ethiopia: An Endogenous Switching Regression Approach
Agriculture in an interconnected world, 1008:2016-80248.
Moti, J., Menale, K., Marenya, P., Yirga, C. and Erenstein, O. 2018. Impact of improved
maize adoption on household food security of maize producing smallholder farmers in
Ethiopia. Food Security, 10(1):81-93.
Motuma, T., Dejene, A., Tsegaye, T., La Rovere, R., Kassie, G., Mwangi, W. and Mwabu, G.
2010. Adoption and continued use of improved maize seeds: case study of Central
Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5:2350-2358.
Mulugeta, A. (2009). Determinants of intensity of adoption of old coffee stumping technology
in Dale Woreda, Ethiopia.
Muluken, W.G., Hassen, J.Y., Endris, G.S., Aweke, C.S., Moges, D.K. and Rorisa, D.T. 2021.
Adoption of improved agricultural technology and its impact on household income: a
propensity score matching estimation in eastern Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food
Security, 10(1):1-12.
Mussa, A., Kassahun, M., Aemro T. and Eden, A. 2017. The Impact of improved maize
varieties on farm productivity and wellbeing: evidence from the East Hararghe Zone of
Ethiopia. Development Studies Research, 4(1):9-21.
 77

Mussaa, E., Obare, G. A., Bogale, A. and Simtowe, F. 2011. Resource use efficiency of
smallholder crop production in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia.
National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE). 2020. Annual Report of the National Bank of Ethiopia for
the year 2018/19. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Nejadrezaei, N., Allahyari, M.S., Sadeghzadeh, M., Michailidis, A. and Bilali, H.E. 2018.
Factors affecting adoptionof pressurized irrigation technology among olive farmers in
Northern Iran. Application Water Science.
Newman, R. 2001. Wr Whitney award lecture understanding the corrosion of stainless steel
Corrosion, 57: 1030-1041.
Nowak, J. 1984. Adoption and diffusion of soil and water conservation practices,î
futureagricultural technology and resource conservation,edited by burton c. english,
James A. Maetzold, BrianR. Holding, and Earl O. Heady, Iowa State University Press,
Ames, 214-237.
Nowak, J. 1992. Why farmers adopt production technology? Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 47(1): 14-16.
OECD/FAO. 2019. Agriculture in SSA. Prospects and challenges for the next decade. In
OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016–2025;OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 59–96.
Ogada MJ. Mwabu G.and Muchai D., 2014. Farm technology adoption in Kenya. a
simultaneous estimation of inorganic fertilizer and improvedmaize variety adoption
decisions.
Ogundari, K. 2014. The paradigm of agricultural efficiency and its implication on food
security in Africa: what does meta-analysis reveal?. World Development, 64:690-702.
Ojo, S.O. and Ogunyemi, A. I. 2014. Analysis of factors influencing the adoption of improved
cassava production technology in Ekiti State, Nigeria International Journal of
Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 1(3): 40–44
Oluwatoyin ,O.B. 2021. Factors influencing adoption of improved maize seed varieties among
smallholder farmers in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension and
Rural Development, 13(2):107-114.
Otieno, G. A., Reynolds, T. W., Karasapan, A. and Noriega, I. L. 2017. Implications of seed
policies for on-farm agro-biodiversity in Ethiopia and Uganda. Journal of Peasant
Studies, 36: 663–706. doi: 10.1080/03066150903143079
Ouma, J., Bett, E. and Mbataru, P. 2014. Drivers of adoption of improved maize varieties in
moist transitional zone of Eastern Kenya. Journal of Economic Sustainable
Devevelopment, 5:2222–1700.
Overseas Development Institute (ODI). 1997. Global hunger and food security after the World
Food Summit. ODI Briefing Paper London.
 78

Prokopenko, J. 1987. Productivity management: A practical handbook. International Labor

Organization.
Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of innovation. New York Free Press, New York.
Rogers, E.M. 1995. Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations. Joint
Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 21(7):324-328.
Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition, New York, Free Press.
Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. 1971. Communication of innovations; a cross-cultural
approach.
Samuelson, P.A. and Nordhaus, W.D. 1995. Economics: International Edition. New York.
McGraw-Hill.
Sánchez-Toledano BI., Kallas Z., Rojas OP. and Gil, JM. 2018. Determinant factors of the
adoption of improved maize seeds in Southern Mexico: A survival analysis
approach.Sustainability, 10: 3543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103543
Sassi, M. and Acocella. 2018. Understanding food insecurity. springer
Schmidhuber, J. and Tubiello, F.N. 2007. Global food security under climate change.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50):19703-19708.
Schultz, T.W. 1964. Transforming Traditional Agriculture; University of Chicago Press:
Chicago, USA.
Seré, C. and Estrada, J.F. 1990. Estudios de adopción e impacto en pasturas tropicales. In
Investigación con Pasturas en Fincas CIAT; Centro Internacional de Agricultura
Tropical (CIAT): Palmira, Colombia.
Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J. and Warshaw, P.R. 1988. The theory of reasoned action: A meta-
analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.
Journal of consumer research, 15(3):325-343.
Shiferaw, F. and Tesfaye, Z. 2005. Adoption of improved maize varieties in Southern Ethiopia
Food policy, Factors and strategy options.
Shiferaw, F. and Tesfaye, Z. 2006. Adoption of improved maize varieties in Southern
Ethiopia: Factors and Strategy Options. Food policy, 31: 442-457.
Shiferaw, H. and Kidanu, S. 2013. Agricultural land map of Ethiopia. A working report,
Ethiopian. Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA). Unpublished Report
Shih, Y.Y. and Fang, K. 2004. The use of a decomposed theory of planned behavior to study
Internet banking in Taiwan. Internet research, 14(3):213-223.
Shishay, K. and Messay, M. 2014. Determinants of rural household food insecurity in Laelay
Maichew Woreda Tigray, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Food Security,
2:106–112.
 79

Simtowe, F., Amondo, E., Marenya, P., Sonder, K. and Erenstein, O. 2019. Impacts of
drought-tolerant maize varieties on productivity, risk, and resource use: Evidence from
Uganda. Land use policy, 88:104091.
Sinyolo, S. 2020. Technology adoption and household food security among rural households
in South Africa: the role of improved maize varieties. Technology in Society,
60:101214.
Sisay, A. 2003. Rural poverty, food insecurity and environmental degradation in Ethiopia: A
case study from South Central Ethiopia. international journal of Ethiopian studies, 59-
89.
Sisay, D. 2016. Agricultural technology adoption, crop diversification and efficiency of maize-
dominated smallholder farming system in Jimma Zone, South-Western Ethiopia.
Doctor of philosophy dissertation, Haramaya university, Haramaya.
Smith, J. A. and Todd, P.E. 2005. Does matching overcome lalonde's critique of non
experimental estimators? Journal of econometrics, 125:305-353.
Solomon, A., Bekele, S., Simtowe, F. and Lipper, L. 2012a. Impact of modern agricultural
technologies on smallholder welfare: evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia. Food
policy, 37:283-295.
Solomon, A., Bekele, S., Simtowe, F. and Mekbib, H. 2011. Agricultural technology adoption,
seed access constraints and commercialization in Ethiopia. Journal of Development
and Agricultural Economics, 3: 436-477.
Stern, D., Assef, R. J., Benford, D. J., Blain, A., Cutri, R., Dey, A., Eisenhardt, P., Griffith, R.
L., Jarrett, T. and Lake, S. 2012. Mid-Infrared Selection of Active Galactic Nuclei with
the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer. I. Characterizing Wise-Selected Active
Galactic Nuclei in Cosmos. The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 30.
Storck, H. and Doppler, W., 1991. Farming systems and farm management practices of
smallholders in the Hararghe Highlands. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel.
Sultana, R., Rahman, M.H., Haque, M.R., Sarkar, M.A. and Islam, S. 2021. Determinants of
drought tolerant rice variety adoption: evidence from rural farm household in Northern
part of Bangladesh. Path of Science, 7(10):7001-7010.
Swindale and Bilinsky. 2006. Household dietary diversity score (HDDS) for measurement of
household food access: indicator guide. VERSION 2. FANTA
Taffesse, A., Dorosh, P. and Gemessa, S.A. 2012. Crop production in Ethiopia: regional
patterns and trends. In: Food and Agriculture in Ethiopia: Progress and Policy
Challenges, 53–83.
Taha, M. 2007. Determinants of the adoption of improved onion production package in Dugda
Bora District, East Shoa, Ethiopia. Unpublished degree of Masters. Thesis, Hamaraya
University, Hamaraya,Ethiopia.
Taher, S. 1996. Factors influencing smallholder cocoa production: a management analysis of
behavioural decision-making processes of technology adoption and application. for
Award of Doctoral Dissertation at Wageningen University, Wageningen, Holland.
 80

Takahashi, K., Muraoka, R. and Otsuka, K. 2020. Technology adoption, impact, and
extension in developing countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature.
Agricultural Economics, 51: 31–45.
Takam‐Fongang, G.M., Kamdem, C.B. and Kane, G.Q. 2019. Adoption and impact of
improved maize varieties on maize yields: Evidence from central Cameroon. Review of
Development Economics, 23(1):172-188.
Takele, A. 2010. Analysis of rice profitability and marketing chain: The case of
FogeraWoreda. Masters Thesis Presented to School of Graduate Studies, Haramaya
University, Haramaya,Ethiopia.
Tarrant, J. R. 1974. Agricultural geography Newton Abbot: David and Charles.
Taylor, S. and Todd, P. 1995. Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned
behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 12(2):137-155.
Tegegne, B.2018. Poverty situations in the case of Amuru Woreda, Horro Guduru Wolegga
Zone, Oromia Regional State.
Tesfaye, Z., Bedassa, T. and Shiferaw, T. 2001. Determinants of adoption of improved maize
technologies in major maize growing regions in Ethiopia.
Thomson, K., Gelson, T. and Elias, K., 2014. Adoption of improved maize varieties in
Southern Zambia. Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 6(1): 33–39.
Tsegaye, M. 2018. Determinants of food security in the Oromiya Region of Ethiopia. In
Economic Growth and Development in Ethiopia, 39-65.
Ugwumba, C.A. and Okechukwu, E.O. 2014. Adoption of improved maize production
technologies in Enugu State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations
and Research, 3(1): 259–261.
Ullah, A., Khan, D., Zheng, S. and Ali U. 2018. Factors influencing the adoption of improved
cultivars: a case of peach farmers in Pakistan. Ciência Rural, Santa Maria, 48: 11. DOI:
10.1590/0103-8478cr20180342.
United Nations (UN). 1975. Report of the World Food Conference, Rome 5-16 November
1974. New York.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD). 2017. The role of science,
technology and innovation in ensuring food security by 2030. New York, NY, USA:
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2016. Country program document for
Ethiopia (2016-2020), first regular session, New York.
USAID. 2019. Food assistance fact sheet Ethiopia; USAID: Washington, DC, USA,
 81

USAID. 2021. Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) Ethiopia Country Plan, 22. The U.S
Government’s Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2): 186-204.
Vitale, I., Galluzzi, L., Castedo, M. and Kroemer, G., 2011. Mitotic Catastrophe: A
mechanism for avoiding genomic instability. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology,
12: 385.
Welch, F. 1970. Education in production. Economy, 8: 39–59.
World Bank(WB). 1986. Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in
Developing Countries. Washington DC.

World Food Program (WFP). 2017. Conducting Food Security Assessments using Household
Expenditure Surveys (HES): Vam Guidance Paper
World Food Summit, 1996. The world free from hunger. Rome.
Wozniak, G. D. 1984. The adoption of interrelated innovations: A human capital approach.
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 70-79.
Wubeneh, N. 2003. Farm-level adoption of new sorghum technologies in Tigray Region,
Ethiopia. Masters degree thesis submitted to Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.
Wubeneh, N.G. and Sanders, J. 2006. Farm-Level adoption of sorghum technologies in
Tigray, Ethiopia. Agricultural systems, 91: 122-134.
Yishak, G. and Punjabi, N. 2011. Determinants of adoption of improved maize technology in
Damot Gale, Wolaita, Ethiopia. Rajasthan Journal of Extension Education, 19: 1-9.
Young, H., Jaspers, S., Brown, R., Frize, J. and Khogali, H. 2001. Food-security assessments
in emergencies: a livelihoods approach. Overseas Development Institute.
Yu, B., Nin-Pratt, A., Funes, J. and Gemessa, S.A. 2011. Cereal production and technology
adoption in Ethiopia. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II (ESSP II), ESSP II
Working Paper, 31.
Zeleke, B.D., Geleto, A.K., Komicha, H.H. and Asefa, S. 2021. Determinants of adopting
improved bread wheat varieties in Arsi Highland, Oromia Region, Ethiopia: A Double-
Hurdle Approach. Cogent Economics and Finance, 9(1).
Zeng, D. 2014. Three essays on the adoption and impacts of improved maize varieties in
Ethiopia. Virginia Technology Adoption.
 82

7. APPENDICES

7.1. Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1: Conversion factors of tropical livestock unit (TLU)

Livestock Category TLU

Cows 1.000
Oxen 1.000
Heifers 0.750
Calves 0.200
Goats 0.060
Sheep 0.060
Donkey (adult) 0.700
Donkey (young) 0.350
Mature chicken 0.013
Horses or mules 1.100
Camels 1.250

Source: Storck et al. (1991)

Appendix Table 2: Conversion factors for Adult –Equivalents

Age group (years) Male Female

<10 0.6 0.6
10-13 0.9 0.8
14-16 1.00 0.75
17-50 1.00 0.75
>50 1.00 0.75

Source: Storck, et al., 1991

 83

Appendix Table 3: Conversion factors of food items consumed by sample households

Food items Unit kilocalorie (kcal) Proportion of Consumption (%)

Barley Kg 3723 0.00
Maize Kg 3751 31.45
Sorghum Kg 3805 31.14
Teff Kg 3589 0.35
Wheat Kg 3623 20.37
Irish potato Kg 1037 1.34
Sweet potato Kg 1360 0.06
Lentil Kg 3522 0.18
Beans Kg 3514 2.89
Peas Kg 3553 0.50
Onion Kg 713 0.65
Pepper Kg 933 0.00
Beef Kg 1148 0.09
Milk Kg 737 1.23
Egg No. 61 0.04
Sugar Kg 3850 2.74
Butter Kg 7364 0.00
Edible oil Litter 8964 6.93
Vetch Kg 3470 0.00
Coffee Kg 1103 0.04

Sources: Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute, (2000)

Appendix Table 4: Multicollinearity test for variables in the ESR

Variable VIF 1/VIF

InformanFC 1.373 0.729
Market distance 1.296 0.772
TLU 1.216 0.822
Education level 1.155 0.865
Farm size 1.153 0.867
InformanEA 1.119 0.894
Access training 1.107 0.903
Credit access 1.091 0.916
Sex hh 1.070 0.935
Family size 1.056 0.947
Age 1.041 0.960
Non-farm income 1.041 0.961
Mean VIF 1.181

Source: Computed from own survey data of 2021.

 84

Appendix Table 5: Second stage ESR estimates of calorie intake and food insecurity

Variables Calorie intake (Kg) Food insecurity

Adopters Non-adopters Adopters Non-adopters
Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err.
Sex hh 18.297 100.742 -105.516 116.442 -0.69 0.636 0.214 0.378
Age hh 4.696 2.919 -2.473 3.748 -0.001 0.017 -0.001 0.016
Education level -2.468 8.004 -6.939 10.062 -0.014 0.045 0.000 0.041
Family size -97.768*** 14.557 -63.933*** 21.922 0.387*** 0.107 0.299*** 0.089
Non-farm income -0.003 0.021 0.014 0.026 0.000** 0.000 0.000 0.000
TLU 14.567 8.816 -9.32 13.234 -0.082 0.071 -0.021 0.05
Access to credit -71.348 60.448 61.119 93.51 0.613* 0.337 -0.182 0.374
Market distance 9.054 14.348 -1.393 21.476 -0.168* 0.092 0.028 0.08
Access to training -91.792 64.463 -256.159 141.805 1.109*** 0.330 0.773 0.594
Farm size .578 18.785 -10.587 17.135 0.240** 0.116 0.228** 0.089
mills1 -23.641 80.016 -39.025 46.238 0.442 0.516 0.181 0.181
Constant 2623.381*** 256.852 2974.337*** 330.467 -3.254** 1.631 -2.681** 1.075

Number of obs. 129 134 129 134

F-Value/W.Chi2 5.74 2.80 45.36 29.24
Prob > F 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.0021
R-squ./Pseudo r2 0.2567 0.2014 0.3344 0.1976
Root MSE 298.67 306.32
Log pseudo likelihood -38.14448 -74.33649
***, ** and * significant at the 1, 5 and 10 percent probability levels, respectively

Source: Computed from own survey data of 2021.

 85

Appendix Table 6: Second stage ESR estimates of Net crop value

Variables Net crop value (Birr)

Adopters Non-adopters
Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err.
Sex hh 183.582** 71.383 16.084 38.762
Age hh 2.163 2.509 -2.13 1.871
Education level 5.45 8.686 -19.155*** 6.295
Family size -7.862 19.792 12.546 10.129
Non-farm income -0.005 .017 -.018 0.013
TLU -0.826 7.33 -2.781 5.226
Access to credit 204.643*** 54.365 -36.075 44.505
Market distance 17.574 13.366 33.593*** 9.049
Access to training 45.228 60.966 -125.294** 59.233
Farm size 31.031* 17.67 -24.542*** 8.027
mills1 136.203** 67.781 -79.965*** 18.427
Constant 11796.708*** 221.835 9143.6*** 128.522

Number of obs. 129 134

F-Value/W.Chi2 2.66 2.73
Prob > F 0.004 0.0035
R-squ./Pseudo r2 0.1706 0.1718
Root MSE 288.71 167.53
Log pseudo likelihood
***, ** and * significant at the 1, 5 and 10 percent probability levels, respectively

Source: Computed from own survey data of 2021.

 86

7.2. Survey Questionnaire

ADOPTION AND IMPACT OF IMPROVED MAIZE VARIETIES ON MAIZE

PRODUCTIVITY AND FOOD INSECURITY

0. HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION

1. Enumerator‟s 2.[Date/Month /Year] 3. Questionnaire

Name: Code:
5. kebele: 6. Name of the survey respondent:

1. HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND CHARACTERISTICS

1.1. Total family size of the household ________in number.

Name of household Sex Age Formal Marital Status Occupation

member (start with the 0. Female 1. (years) Education Codes A Codes B
respondent) Male (years)

Codes A 1. Single 2. Married 3.Widowed 4. Divorced/Separated

Codes B 1. Farming (crop + livestock) 2. Salaried employment 3. Off-farm employment 4.
Non-farm employment 5. School/college child 6. Non-school child 7. Herding 8. Household
chores.
9. Others, Specify

2. LIVESTOCK HOLDING DURING 2012/13 E.C.

2.1. Do you have livestock? 0. No 1. Yes
 87

2.2. If yes for Q#2.1, indicate the number of livestock in the following
Table 2 Summary of Livestock holding

Types of Livestock Number Owned Number Sold Income Obtained

Oxen
Cows
Bulls
Heifers
Calves
Horses (Adult)
Horses (Young)
Donkeys (Adult)
Donkeys (Young)
Goat (Adult)
Goat (Young)
Sheep (Adult)
Sheep (Young)
Poultry
Bee colony

3. LAND HOLDING AND USAGE

3.1. Do you have your own land? 0. No 1. Yes

3.2. If yes, total land size ha
3.3. Do you think that your piece of land is enough to support your family? 0. No, 1. Yes
If no to Q#3.3, what are the reasons? 1. Low soil fertility, 2. Small land size,
Insufficient application of inputs, 4. Large family size, 5. others
3.4.What is the total land you cultivated in 2012/13E.C? total ______ha
3.5.Total size of land covered by IMVs in 2012/13 E.C _________ha
3.6.Total size of land covered by local maize varieties in 2012/13 E.C _________ha
 88

3.7.How do you evaluate your level of production during the last three years? 1. excess of
family consumption, 2. sufficient for household consumption, 3. insufficient for family
consumption, 4. Others

4.NON/ OFF-FARM INCOME IN 2012/13 E.C

4.1.Have you got off/non–farm income during 2012/13 E.C? 0. No 1. Yes

4.2.If yes, indicate the amount and sources of income earned from non/off-farm:

Table 5 Types and magnitude of off/non-farm income

S/N Non -farm income Number of Number of days Income per Total annual
Sources of income people engaged worked in a working day income from
month off farm
activity
1 Wage
2 Selling local drink
3 Petty trading
4 Selling fire wood
5 Handicraft
6 Herding
7 Pension payments
8 Ceramic
9 Carpenter
10 Rent from assets
11 Trading
12 Clothes making
13 Hired in other farm
14 Remittance
15 Other

5. DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST MARKET

5.1.How far is your home from the nearest market? _______km.

5.2.Where do you sell majority of your farm products? 1. On farm, 2. At c ooperative union
shops, 3. At local markets, 4. Others
5.3.Do you get market information about price of inputs and outputs? 0 = No 1 = Yes
5.4.Did you get good price for your produce in 2012/13 E.C? 0. No 1. Yes
 89

5.5.If no, what are the reasons? 1. low demand for the products, 2. higher supply of the
products, 3 . Lak of information, 4. Lack of road access, 5. Others
5.6.How do you transport your produce to the market? Using: 1. Vehicle 2. Animal power, 3.
Cart, 4. Human power 5. Others

6. ACCESS TO CREDIT SERVICES

6.1. Do you have access to credit for your agricultural activities? 0. No 1. Yes
6.2. If yes for Q#6.1, did you used credit services during 2012/13 E.C? 0. No, 1. Yes
6.3. If yes for Q#6.2, the source? 1. Commercial banks, 2. Cooperative unions,

3. Neighbors and relatives, 4. Micro finance institutions 5. Other

6.4. If yes for Q#6.2, what was the amount of credit that you have received?
________Birr.
6.5. If yes for Q#6.2, for what purpose? 1. Purchase of seeds 2. Purchase of fertilizer,
3. Purchase of oxen, 4. For family consumption, 5. Others
6.7. If no to Q#6.2, what are the reasons? 1. Collateral problem 2. No need of credit,
High interest rate, 4. Inadequate supply, 5. No access, 6. Others

7. ADOPTION STATUS OF MAIZE PRODUCTION PRACTICES

7.1.When you heard about improved maize varieties for the 1st time in years?_______
7.2. From whom/where you did first heard about the improved maize varieties

1. Development agent 2.Research Center 3.Neighbors 4.Farmers’

organizations 5.Others (specify)
7.3. Have you ever used improved seed varieties of maize on your farm? 1. Yes
0.No
7.4. If yes, when did you start planting? year (in E.C)
7.5. If yes for Q#7.3 how much land did you allocated for improved maize varieties for the
last three years?

No Name of varieties 2010/11 E.C 2011/12 E.C 20012/13 E.C

Area(ha) Yield Area(ha) Yield Area(ha) Yield

 90

7.6. Type of improved maize varieties used. 1. Shone 2. BH660 3.Owner Limmu
7.7.If yes, for Q#7.3, where do you get these seed?
1. Research Center2. Government supply3. Purchase from market4. Supply of development
partners (e.g. NGO)5. Other source (please specify) _
7.8. Have you ever used fertilizer (DAP and UREA) on your farm? 1. Yes 2. No
7.9. If your answer is yes for Q #7.7, fill the following table
Type of Utilized per cropping Purchase
S.N Fertilizers Quantity Season 2012/13 Price
per packet
1 DAP
2 UREA

7.10. Why you are using improved maize varieties (multiple answers is possible)?
1. Improving yield performance 2. Reducing cost of production 3.Offsetting
environmental effect 4. Increasing income 5.improving soil fertility 6.food security 7.
Other (please specify…)
7.11. If you say no for Q#7.3, why you are not in a position to use these improved
technology inputs?
1. High purchase price 2.Acecebility problem 3.Incopatible weather condition4.Lack of
information 5. Fear of risk 6. Other:
7.12. Do you face any challenge in adoption process of farm input fertilizer and improved
seed?
1. Yes 0. No
7.13. If your answer is Yes for Q#7.13 what are the major challenges that affect the use of
these farm inputs (multiply answer is possible)?
1. Lack of improved seed 2. Lack of fertilizer 3.Disease 4.Lack of information
about these technology 5. Others (specify).

8. EXTENSION SERVICE
 91

8.1. Did you consulted by DAs in the last cropping Season (2012/13E.C)? 1. Yes
0.No
8.2. If your answer is yes, for the question Q#8.1, how many days did DA contacted you in
2012/13E.C cropping season for purpose of maize production and mgt?
8.3. If yes for Q#8.1 how the DA did helped you?
1. Practical assistance at farm 2.Demonistartion 3.Training at FTC
4. Others (please specify)
8.4. Have you ever attended any demonstration or field days arranged by DAs or research
center on maize? 1. Yes 0.No
8.5. Have you ever participated in training on maize production? 1. Yes 0. No
8.6. Which institution was your first source of information about improved maize varieties
and fertilizers? 1) BOA 2) Other farmers 3) Research center 4)
NGOs
(specify) 5) Relatives 6) other (specify) _

9. MARKET SERVICE AND PRICE

9.1 Do you have market for maize? 1. Yes 0. No

9.2. Did you sell your maize crop during the 2012/13E.C E.C year? 1. Yes 0.No
9.3. If yes, where do you sell your crop?
1. at farm gate 2. Village market 3.District market 4. Secondary market
5. Tertiary market 6. Other specify:
9.4. At what season do you usually sell maize product? 1. Right at harvest 2. Latter after
harvest
3. Any time I face problem 4. Other (specify):
9.5. Distance to the nearest market center KM.) ____________________
9.6. Distance to the all-weather road (in minute.) _ ___________________

10. PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS

10.1. How much did you get from maize production in 2012/13E.C E.C from improved
varieties?
 92

No varieties Area(ha) Quantity obtained Price per Total

in quintal(Q) quintal (P) profit(p*Q)
1
2

10.2. How much did you spent for maize production in 2012/13 cropping season on
improved varieties?

No Input Costof input Price of input Total input

per unit per unit Cost
1 Land rent(ha)
2 Seed(Kg)
3 Herbicide(L)
4 Pesticide (L)

10.3. How much did you spent for operation of maize production in 2012/13E.C cropping
season on improved varieties?

Operation No of No of day Working hour Wage rate per day Total cost
workers
Land preparation(Oxen and
labor)
Planting (Oxen and labor)
Weeding
Herbicide
pesticide application
Harvesting
Threshing
Sack cost
Cost of transportation to
Market
Total
 93

11. DAILY CALORIE INTAKE QUESTION

Table 7 Types and Amounts of Food consumed during the past 7 days
Food Type Amounts consumed in the last 7 Days in Kg.
Tef
Maize
Wheat
Barley
Sorghum
Rice
Beans
Peas
Chickpea
Meat
Fish
Chicken
Egg
Milk
Butter
Cheese
Potatoes
Sweet potato
Tomatoes
Onion
Pepper
Garlic
Cabbage
Sugar
Honey
Salt
Oil
 94

Coffee
Others

12. CHECK LIST FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

As you probably know, agricultural office is trying to popularize an improved technology,

which should significantly increase yields. The office is also providing best practices from
other areas who adopt IMVs. Even Agricultural agents are also supporting the farmers in
different dimensions.
However,
1. Most of the farmers are not adopting IMVs why?
2. Which one of the varieties (local or IMVs) has more yields?
3. Have you got IMVs timely?
How the extension services deliver information to you about importance of IMVs?

1. What are the challenging factors which affect adoption of IMVs in your area?
2. Is there any type of training provided to you on the way how you adopt IMVs?
3. Do you think that adopting IMVs has an impact on your maize productivity?
4. What is your recommended implication on adopting IMVs?

13: QUESTIONS FOR THE KEY INFORMANTS

1. Do you think that the maize production and productivity is enough to enhance productivity
and food security status of households in the district?
2. What methods did you apply for transferring knowledge and practice about IMVs?
3. What type of planting methods that producer of IMVs) use? What you advised them?
4. Is the farm inputs are accessible to farmers in time? If yes, how? If no, why?
5. What do you think that major challenges which face rural farm households to adopt IMVs?
6. What is your recommended implication for farm house holds and for government organization
about IMVs adoption?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE!