FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION OF ROW PLANTING

TECHNOLOGY ON WHEAT PRODUCTION IN MUNESA

DISTRICT, OROMIA REGION, ETHIOPIA

MSc THESIS

ADUNEA DINKU DISSASA

JUNE 2017
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, HARAMAYA
 Factors Affecting Adoption of Row Planting Technology on Wheat
Production in Munesa District, Oromia Region, Ethiopia

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Rural Development and

Agricultural Extension, Postgraduate Program Directorate

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER

OF SCIENCE IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Adunea Dinku Dissasa

June 2017
Haramaya University, Haramaya
ii
 HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE

I hereby certify that I have read and evaluated the MSc Thesis prepared by Adunea Dinku
Dissasa under my guidance, which is titled “Factors Affecting Adoption of Row Planting
Technology on Wheat Production in Munesa District, Oromia Region, Ethiopia”. I
recommend that the thesis be submitted as it fulfills the requirements.

Prof. Fekadu Beyene _________________ _______________

Major Advisor Signature Date
As a member of the Board of Examiners of the MSc Thesis Open Defense Examination of
Adunea Dinku Dissasa, I certify that I have read, evaluated the thesis and examined the
candidate. I recommend that the thesis be accepted as it fulfills the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in Rural development.

Chairperson Signature Date

Internal Examiner Signature Date

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 (CGS) through the Departmental Graduate
Committee (DGC) of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension.

iii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this Thesis manuscript to my Grandfather Dissasa Bedada who passed away
without seeing my achievements and to my mother Gadise Mideksa for nursing me with
affection, love and dedicated parent ship in the success of my life.

iv
 STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

First, I declare that this thesis is my own work and that all sources of materials used for
writing it have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted to Haramaya
University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in
Rural Development and is deposited at the library of the University to be made available to
borrowers under the rules and regulations of the library. I declare that I have not submitted
this thesis to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree,
diploma, or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without requiring special permission
provided that an accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for
extended quotations from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be
granted by the head of the Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension
or by the Dean of the Postgraduate Program Directorate where in his or her judgment, the
proposed use of the material is for a scholarly interest. In all other instances, however
permission must be obtained from the author.

Name: Adunea Dinku Dissasa

Date of Submission: June 2017 Signature:
School/Department: Rural Development and Agricultural Extension

v
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author, Adunea Dinku Dissasa, was born in Munesa district in East Arsi Zone on 21
March, 1992. He attended his primary school in Kenchere and Ego town and his secondary
education at Andinat Secondary and Asella preparatory school in Asella town from 2001-
2012. After he successfully passed the Ethiopian School Leaving Certificate Examination
(E.S.L.C.E.), he joined Haramaya University in 2013 and graduated with the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Economics in July, 2015. After he completed the first
Degree, he joined again to Haramaya University in October, 2015 to pursue a study
program leading to the Degree of Master of Science in Rural Development.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Above all, I praise and glorify God, for his immeasurable help and blessing, and for giving
me the stamina required to successfully complete this work.

I feel a great pleasure to place on record my deep sense of appreciation and heartfelt thanks
to my major-advisor Prof. Fekadu Beyene for his keen interest, constant supervision,
valuable guidance, kindness, encouragement, and constructive criticisms from the initial
stage of thesis research proposal development to the completion of the thesis.

In addition, I would like to pay my sincere appreciation and gratitude to the Ministry of
Education for giving me the chance and getting the scholarship that covered living and
research cost to join my postgraduate studies at Haramaya University.

Finally, I am especially very thankful to Dinkina Tolosa, Gelana Daba, and Zemadu
Bekele for their wholehearted and excellent assistance in data collection process. At last, I
would like to express my special thanks to my colleagues, Doyo Kena and Degefa Derago
for their admirable assistance during my research works.

vii
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency

CC Contingency Coefficient
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
CSA Central Statistic Agency of Ethiopia
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
FGD Focused Group Discussion
FTC Farmers Training Centers
GAIN Global Agricultural Information Network
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
Ha Hectare
HYV High Yield Variety
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
RboA Regional Bureau of Agriculture
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and People Region
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
VIF Variance Inflation Factors

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR v

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ix

LIST OF FIGURES xii

LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX xiii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Background of the Study 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem 3

1.3. Objective of the Study 4

1.4. Research Questions 5

1.5. Significance of the Study 5

1.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study 5

1.7. Organization of the Study 6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1. Row Planting Technology 7

2.1.1. Advantage and Disadvantage of Row Planting Technology 8

2.2. Basic Concepts and Theoretical Foundation of Technology Adoption 8

2.3. Technological Change and Agricultural Development 10

2.4. Paradigms on Agricultural Technology Adoption 12

2.5. Empirical Studies on Factors Affecting Technology Adoption 14

2.5.1 Household Specific Factors 15

2.5.2. Institutional Factors 18

2.5.3. Economic Related Factors 22

2.6. Conceptual Framework of Agricultural Technology Adoption 24

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINOUED)

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 27

3.1. Description of the Study Area 27

3.2. Types and Sources of Data 29

3.3. Sampling Technique and Sample Size Determination 29

3.4. Methods of Data Collection 30

3.4.1. Structured Interviews 30

3.4.2. Focused Group Discussion 31

3.4.3. Key Informant Interview 31

3.5. Method of Data Analysis 32

3.5.1. Descriptive Analysis 32

3.5.2. Estimation of the Dependant Variable (Adoption index) 32

3.5.3. Econometric Analysis: Tobit Model 33

3.5.4. Test of Multi-Collinearity Problem 36

3.6. Definition of Variables and Hypothesis 37

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 43

4.1. Introduction 43

4.2. Status of Adoption of Row planting Technology 43

4.3. Socio-economic, Demographic and Institutional Characteristics of Farmers by

Adoption Levels of Wheat Row Planting 44

4.4. Econometric Analysis 56

4.4.1. Determinants of Adoption of Row Planting Technology 56

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 66

5.1. Summary 66

5.2. Conclusions and Recommendations 67

6. REFERENCES 70

7. APPENDICES 85

x
 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

1: Number of respondents in each selected rural kebeles 30

2 : Summary of variables and hypothesized relationship 42
3: Distribution of sample respondents by level of adoption of wheat row planting 44
4: Characteristics of wheat grower farmers by adoption levels of wheat row planting:
Continuous variables 50
5: Characteristics of wheat grower farmers by adoption levels of wheat row planting:
Dummy variables 55
6: Maximum likelihood estimates of Tobit Model 61
7: Marginal effects of significant explanatory variables 64

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1: Conceptual framework of agricultural technology adoption 26

2: Map of the study area 29

xii
 LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Table Page

1: Multi-colinearity test result for the continuous variables in Tobit model 86

2: Contingency coefficients for the dummy variables in Tobit model 86
3: Conversion factor used to compute man equivalent (Labour force) 87
4: Conversion factors used to estimate Tropical Livestock Unit 87

xiii
 Factors Affecting Adoption of Row Planting Technology on Wheat
Production in Munesa District, Oromia Region, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

In the context of sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in Ethiopia where agriculture and

specifically crop production take the lion’s share in economic development, supporting the
sector through introducing new agricultural technologies, like row planting technologies
in the recent times, boosts production and productivity of smallholder farmers and
therefore reduces food insecurity in the country. However, despite of such contribution,
utilization of improved technologies remained low in Ethiopia thereby in the study area. To
this end, the aim of this study was to look in to factors affecting adoption and intensity of
use of row planting technology on wheat production in Munesa district. Multi-stage
sampling procedure was followed to select the major wheat producing kebeles, the study
kebeles and households for the study. The major wheat producing kebeles were selected
purposively; three rural kebeles and 140 household heads were selected randomly using
probability proportional to size sampling. Structured interview schedule was developed,
pre-tested and used for collecting the essential quantitative data for the study from the
sampled households. Focus group discussion and key informant interview were also used
to generate qualitative data to get in-depth information for the study. Moreover, secondary
data were collected from published and unpublished sources. Data were analyzed, and
presented quantitatively using different statistical methods such as frequency, percentage,
mean, standard deviation. Inferential statistics such as Chi-square test (categorical
variables) and F-test (continuous variables) were also employed to test the variation of
sample respondents they have towards adoption and intensity of use of row planting
technology in wheat production. Tobit econometric model was employed to analyze
determinants of adoption and intensity of use of row planting technology on wheat
production using STATA software version 12. The model result indicated that literacy of
farmers, labor availability, frequency of extension contact, credit use, participation in row
planting training and availability of improved wheat seed do positively and significantly
influenced were as livestock size and market distance do negatively and significantly
affected adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting technology in the study area.
Based on the findings of this study it can be concluded that policy and development
interventions should give emphasis towards improvement of such economical and
institutional support system so as to achieve wider adoption of wheat row plating
technology, increased production and productivity of smallholder farmer.

Keywords: Adoption, Intensity, Row planting, Technology, Tobit model, Wheat, Munesa
district

xiv
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study

Escaping from poverty traps in many developing countries like Ethiopia depends on the
growth and development of the agricultural sector (WB, 2008).The agricultural sector is
the mainstay and principal engine for Ethiopian economic growth for several centuries. It
is still the dominant sector being contributing 38.8% of the total GDP, 70% of the raw-
material requirements for local industries, 73% of employment and 75% of export earnings
(UNDP, 2016). According to CSA (2011) almost 85% of Ethiopian populations are living
in rural areas and depending on agriculture for their livelihoods. Agriculture has assumed a
steering role in enhancing economic growth and importantly in reducing poverty and food
insecurity in the country. Despite the decline in poverty and increase in total agricultural
production, existing evidence shows that almost 22% of the households are still food
deficient using the threshold of 2550 kilocalories per adult equivalent per day (CSA, 2016).

The vast majority of Ethiopian farmers are small-scale producers. An estimate shows about
94% of Ethiopian farmers rely on less than 5 hectares of land, of which 55% cultivate less
than 2 hectares. Crop productivity still remains very low relative to its potential yields,
only averaging 2.21 t/ha between 2010 and 2014 (WB, 2014). The low agricultural
productivity could be attributed to many factors including land degradation, small farm
size, recurrent drought and poor farm technology. Whereas much of the recent production
growth is often attributed to area expansion, there is significant potential for increasing
productivity of food crops in Ethiopia through the introduction of promising crop
technologies (CSA, 2014). Following these facts, successive Ethiopian governments have
focused on promoting technology-led initiatives to enhance production and productivity of
smallholder farmers (FDRE, 2010).

Crop production is a subsector on which the country has unfailingly depended on to bring
about a livelihood transformation by the poor. Wheat is one of the major staple and
strategic food security crops and most widely cultivated and consumed in Ethiopia. In
2012/2013, it was cultivated on 1,627,647.16 hectares of land and has the production of
34,347,061.22 quintals with the productivity of 21.10kg/ha in Ethiopia (CSA, 2013). In
Ethiopia, wheat is mainly produced in vast areas of Oromia and Amahara, the total area
 2

covered by wheat in these regions are 740,810.94 ha and 460,164.57 ha, respectively, with
smaller quantities in SNNPR and Tigray (CSA, 2012).

Accounting for a fifth of humanity’s food, in terms of calorie intake, wheat is the second
most important food crops in the country behind maize (FAO, 2014a). Dorosh and Rashid
(2013) on their study found that the demand for wheat has been increased due to growing
population, urbanization and the expansion of food processing industries in the country. If
the country is to feed the rapidly growing population and meet the high demand, it needs to
increase the yield of wheat. However, increasing yield requires successful adoption of
improved agricultural technologies.

At present, it is the smallholder farmers (4.5 million holders on 1,426,000ha) that produce
most of the wheat production in Ethiopia comparing to the eight percent contribution of the
large state-owned farms (124,000ha of land). The production is very insufficient to meet
the increasing demand for food for the ever-increasing population that is Ethiopia’s wheat
production self sufficiency is only 75% and the remaining 25% wheat is imported
commercially (GAIN, 2014). The low yield has made the country unable to meet the high
demand and the country remains net importer despite its good potential for wheat
production (Rashid, 2010). This low production and productivity of wheat in the country is
attributed to low use of improved farm inputs, dependency on rainfall and traditional
farming (low utilization of improved farm technologies) (Hassen et al., 2012).

Increasing yield and meeting the high demand has become the main focus of government’s
agricultural policy and extension activities. In an effort to improve wheat production and
productivity and meet high wheat demand in the country, Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)
through Regional Bureau of Agriculture (RBoA) had introduced a wheat row planting
technology in 2012 all over the regions. Agricultural extension activities have been
concerned with promotion, adoption and scaling up of wheat row planting technologies;
and adoption of row planting is seen as some of the factors for wheat yield enhancement in
the country. As a result, planting of wheat in rows has become one of the agronomic
practices of smallholder farmers in the country (Berihun et al., 2014). This recently
introduced wheat row planting has significant yield effect in midland and highland areas of
Ethiopia (Tolosa et al., 2014). However, this technology is not widely accepted as expected
and the majority of farmers in different parts of the country are continued to use the
traditional broadcasting method of wheat production thereby in the study area. Therefore,
 3

this study made an attempt to identify factors that affect farmers’ adoption and intensity of
use of row planting technology on wheat production in the study area.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Wheat is one of the prominent food and cash crops for smallholder farmers and ranks third
in total production and fourth after Teff, Maize and Sorghum in area coverage in Ethiopia.
It accounts for approximately 11% of the national calorie intake in the country (GAIN,
2014). According to the CSA data, wheat occupies about 17% of the total cereal crop area
in the country with annual production of about 3.43 million tons cultivated on an area of
1.63 million hectares (CSA, 2013). Despite this fact, recent estimates show that wheat
farmers in Ethiopia produce on average 2.1 t/ha by using traditional broadcasting method,
which is well below the experimental yield of above 5t/ha and national average yield about
24.5 quintals per hectare (MoA, 2012). In 2012, for instance, Ethiopia’s wheat yield was
29% below the Kenyan average, 13% below the African average, and 32% below the world
average yield which is 40 quintals per hectare (FAO, 2014b).

In this regard, the research system, along with the other stakeholders, played a major role
in improving technologies required to enhance agricultural productivity in the country
(Biftu et al., 2016). Efforts have been also underway by the national agricultural research
system since its establishment in 1956 and a number of technologies have been released for
the farming community. In spite of these efforts, productivity gains are not as such
adequate in the country. Low level of adoption of agricultural technology is among the
major factors contributing to low productivity in the country (Ahmed et al., 2014). This
low level of adoption holds true for row planting technologies in wheat production as well.

Compared to the traditional broadcasting system, row planting gives better yield with
quality of the seed at harvesting period (Joachim et al., 2013). Recent studies conducted in
Ethiopia show that yields are very responsive to this improved technology. By comparison
to the conventional broadcasting technique, for instance, Tolosa et al. (2014) found on
average of 14.6% higher wheat yields with row planting technology while Vandercasteelen
et al. (2014) found an increase in teff yields between 12 and 13% in farmers’ experimental
plots and 22% in demonstration plots managed by extension agents. Nonetheless, sizeable
improvement in production and productivity depends on the extent to which a household
has adopted this improved technologies.
 4

In addition, in United States, planting wheat in wide rows in combination with inter-row
cultivation reduced weed density by 62% and increased yield by 16% (Lauren et al., 2012).
Moreover, according to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD,
2012) row planting on average increases production by 30%s and reduces the amount of
seed consumption to one-fifth of existing seed use. To improve production and
productivity of smallholder farmers and meet GTP goals, the government of Ethiopia is
also doing its best by complementing the existing technologies with new technologies (row
planting technology). Despite this fact, the introduced technologies were not widely
accepted as expected in different parts of Ethiopia thereby in the study area. Essentially,
the observed failure of farmers to adopt row planting technology and fully put into practice
could be attributed to various factors which appeared to have some bearing on the farmers'
decision to adopt the technologies.

In Ethiopia, studies on adoption of row planting technology on crop production are scanty
and less focused on adoption of wheat row planting and its intensity of usage. For instance,
Tadele (2015) studded on adoption and intensity of row planting on crop production by
using dependent double hurdle models. However, his study lack emphases on wheat row
planting. Moreover, Worku and Yishak (2016) conducted study on factors influencing
adoption of wheat row planting technology by using binary Logistic regression model, but
they did not see intensity of use of wheat row planting. There is also no empirical
information in the study area about the determinants of the adoption and intensity of use of
wheat row planting technology. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge though factors
affecting adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting technology were not
assessed. To contribute to this knowledge gap, therefore, this study tried to analyze factors
affecting adoption and intensity of use of row planting technology on wheat production.

1.3. Objective of the Study

The general objective of this study is to assess factors affecting adoption and intensity of
use of row planting technology on wheat production in the study area. From this general
objective, the study examined the following specific objectives:

 To assess the level of adoption of row planting technology on wheat production in

the study area.
 To identify determinants of adoption and intensity of use of row planting
technology on wheat production in the study area.
 5

1.4. Research Questions

 What is the current level of adoption of row planting technology on wheat
production in the study area?
 Why do farmers fail to adopt row planting technology on wheat production in the
study area?
 What are the important constraints farmers faces to adopt row planting technology
on wheat production?

1.5. Significance of the Study

The application of new agricultural technology on the ground extremely depends on the
farmers’ adoption of technology. Therefore, the result of this study are believed to draw
attention of policy-makers towards enhancing new technology adoption among smallholder
farmers’ and tries to provide adequate and reliable information to potential researchers;
increase awareness of extension agents and others related development institutions which
are aimed at improving agricultural production and productivity. The study intends to
identify factors that influence farmer’s decision on adoption and intensity of use of row
planting technology on wheat production. It is also expected that development planners and
policy makers would use as a base line in terms of designing development plan and
formulation of policies.

1.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study

In technology adoption process, a factor which is found to enhance adoption of a particular

technology in one locality at one time might be found to hinder adoption of the same
technology in another locality at the same or different time. Therefore, it is difficult to
identify universally defined factors either enhancing or hindering adoption of new
agricultural technologies. This study was restricted to identifying factors affecting adoption
and intensity of use of row planting technology on wheat production in Munesa district by
collecting data from 140 respondents due to the limited time and money required to
accomplish the thesis. The study also focuses only on representative sites in the district and
considers wheat grower farmers in the area to collect substantial qualitative and
quantitative information for the study.
 6

1.7. Organization of the Study

The remaining part of the thesis is organized as follows. The second part presents related
literature reviews in which previous studies and reports related to the agricultural
technology adoption are reviewed. The third part illustrates the characteristics of the study
area and also describes the methodological approach including sampling techniques,
methods of data collection and tools used for the analysis of collected data. In the fourth
part, the main findings of the study are discussed and finally, part five presents summary,
conclusion and possible recommendations based on the results of the study.
 7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This part is classified in to five sections. The sections included are presented in such a way
that could give an insight on issues such as row planting technology, basic concepts and
theoretical foundation of agricultural technology adoption, technological change and
agricultural developments, paradigms on agricultural technology adoption, empirical
reviews of previous agricultural technology adoption studies, and conceptual framework of
technology adoption.

2.1. Row Planting Technology

Row planting technology involves the growing of plants on a plot of land with sufficient
space between each of the plants so that they can develop their roots and shoots more fully.
According to ATA (2012) crop 'planting with rows starts with growing seedlings in a
nursery and planting these in the field with sufficient and equal spacing between each
seedling. Or, the seed can be sown in rows with sufficient spacing between the seeds and
between the rows. In Ethiopia, it is mainly practiced with crops such as sorghum, maize,
wheat and teff. According to Ram and Prashanta (2011) also enough spacing between the
plants and sowing of two seed grains at one point facilitates needed moisture, aeration,
nutrition, and light to the crop roots, as a result; helps faster growth of plants and
productivity as well. It’s antonyms to the traditional broadcasting sowing method that
contributes positively to the low crop yield.

In general speaking, there are two main systems of wheat intensification (SWI) principles
of crop production. Namely; principles of root development and intensive care. Principles
of root development: For the sake of proper growth of crop plant, it must be well
established from its rooting system. It’s a fact that root development is the first stage of
healthy growth of any plant. To be achieved requires enough food and space around the
plant. From this principle, then conclude that distance between plants and nourishment are
decisive things for the better growth and development of crop plants for that matter
enhances outputs. Principles of intensive care: Intensification, here is contrary to the high
number of plant density per unit space meaning it’s proper space maintenance and taking
care of plants very closely. Finally, so as to increase wheat yield it needs intensive care in
each stage plant development including management of weed, insect, disease, irrigation,
and organic manure (Ram and Prashanta, 2011).
 8

Overall, a study made by Ram and Prashanta (2011) showed that wheat crop reacts
positively to seed priming and row planting. Less plant population increased spacing
(20cm * 8cm) is important for increasing the number of tillers per plant, plant height, and
spike length as well.

2.1.1. Advantage and Disadvantage of Row Planting Technology

Row planting has a lot of advantage and preferred as it avoids uneven stands, improves
tillering and creates enough spaces between rows for easy weeding and the elimination. It
makes the farmers easer to identify off-type plants, decrease plant completions, lodging
and immature tillers. Thus plants grow better and yield high quality seeds (MoA, 2016).
Row planting had linearly increasing effect on the performance of individual plants
as they draw more nutrients from surrounding and more solar radiation for better
photosynthetic process which inter produces more effective tiller numbers and
longer panicle length per each tillers than dense once. Row planting also has
advantage in reducing the input seed consumption, controlling weeds, especially
mechanical control by inter cultivation and management of the crop and maintaining
optimum density of seedlings relative to the commonly used conventional and broadcast
planting methods. Therefore, adopting row planting agricultural technology over wheat
crop increases more yield of wheat as compared to the aforementioned commonly applied
methods by smallholder farmers even in Ethiopia (Attaullalh et al., 2007).

As explained, the row planting has a lot of advantages; however it is tedious, time taking,
needs qualified person/labor intensive and effort than broadcasting method of crop
production. Row seeding of germinated seeds could also be done but it is practiced on
limited scale because of its costs and difficulty in obtaining implements. However,
broadcasting method has the advantage of being up to four times faster than row
planting method and drilling and is of particular value for sowing large hectare of
winter cereals. Broadcast method of planting is also less expensive and less time taking
than row planting method of crop production (Hunt, 1999).

2.2. Basic Concepts and Theoretical Foundation of Technology Adoption

Agricultural technology plays an important role in economic development of one country

by boosting the production and productivity of the sectors. Adoption and diffusion of these
technologies are two interrelated concepts. Many researchers belonging to different
 9

disciplines have defined the two concepts in relation to their own fields. Adoption
commonly refers to the decision to use a new technology or practice by farmers on
a regular basis.

For instance, Feder et al. (1985) define adoption as the integration of an innovation into
farmers’ normal farming activities over an extended period of time. It is also noted that
adoption, however, is not a permanent behavior. This implies that an individual may decide
to discontinue the use of an innovation for a variety of personal, institutional, and social
reasons. This is because there might be another practice that is relatively better in
satisfying farmers’ needs. However, adoption does not necessarily follow the suggested
stages from awareness to adoption; trial may not be always practiced by farmers to adopt
new technology. Farmers may adopt the new technology by passing the trial stage. In some
cases, particularly with environmental innovations, farmers may hold awareness and
knowledge but because of other factors affecting the decision making process, adoption
may not occur (Ray, 2001).

Furthermore, Bahadur and Siegfried (2004) defined adoption as a mental process through
which an individual passes from hearing about an innovation to its adoption that follows
awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption stages. It can be considered a variable
representing behavioral changes that farmers undergo in accepting new ideas and
innovations in agriculture anticipating some positive impacts of those ideas and
innovations. Dasgupta (1989) found that farmers often reject an innovation instead of
adopting it; non adoption of an innovation does not necessarily mean rejection. Farmers are
sometimes unable to adopt an innovation, even though they have mentally accepted it,
because of economic and situational constraints.

With regard to the relationship of technological attributes with farmers’ adoption decision,
Rogers (1995) identified five characteristics of agricultural innovations, which are
important in adoption studies. These include: relative advantage (the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes, compatibility (the degree to
which the farmer perceives an innovation to be consistent with his/her cultural values and
beliefs, traditional management objectives, the existing level of technology and stages of
development, complexity (the degree to which an innovation is perceived to be complex to
understand and use by farmers, trialability (the degree to which the innovation could easily
 10

be tried by farmer on his/her farm, and observability (the degree to which results of
innovation are visible to farmers).

Adoption decision involves the choice of how much resource to be allocated to the new
technology and the old technology if the technology is not divisible (like mechanization,
irrigation). However, if the technology is divisible (like improved seed, fertilizer, row
planting and herbicide), the decision process involves area allocation as well as intensity of
use of the technology (Feder et al., 1982). Therefore, the process of adoption includes the
simultaneous choice of whether to adopt or not to adopt and the intensity of use of
technology. The measurement of intensity of use of agricultural technology needs to
identify whether the technology is divisible or not.

The intensity of use of divisible technologies can be measured at the individual level in a
given period of time by the share of farm area under the new technology or quantity of
input used per hectare in relation to the agricultural research recommendations (Feder et
al., 1982). On the other hand, the extent of adoption of non-divisible agricultural
technologies such as tractors and combine harvesters at the farm level at a given period of
time is dichotomous (uses or not use) and the aggregate measure becomes continuous.
Aggregate adoption of a non-divisible technology can be measured by calculating the
percentage of farmers using the new technology within a given period of time.

Diffusion often refers to spatial and temporal spread of the new technology among
different users. Rogers (1983) define diffusion (aggregate adoption) as the process by
which a technology is communicated through certain channels over time among the
members of a social system. This definition recognize the following four elements: (1)
the technology that represents the new idea, practice, or object being diffused, (2)
communication channels which represent the way information about the new technology
flows from change agents to final users or adopters, (3) the time period over which
a social system adopts a technology, and (4) the social system.

2.3. Technological Change and Agricultural Development

Agricultural technology refers to innovations of new ideas, methods, practices or

techniques of production that provide the means of achieving sustained increase in farm
productivity (Abate, 1989). Despite various attempts to transform agriculture by the
developing countries, the sector has still remained in its traditional state. The reason behind
 11

the low level of agricultural development is introverted policies followed by the

governments of these countries over the years.

The conventional wisdom in the 1950s and early 1960s was to lay the blame for the non-
adoption of improved technologies on the perceived rigid adherence of peasant producers
to tradition, their ignorance and their lack of education (Rogers, 1969). The solution to the
problem of low agricultural productivity was, therefore, conceptualized within a trickle-
down transfer of technology framework.

Development strategies of the 1950s and early 1960s also gave priority to promote the
industrial sector for which agriculture was neglected. The rapid population growth, on the
one hand, and the widening gap between the demand for and the supply of food
production, on the other, has brought an impetus for agriculture to receive increased
attention in the late 1960s. Therefore, in order to reap the benefits that agriculture can
provide to the mass of the rural poor in particular and to the national development at large,
it was necessary to transform the traditional agriculture into a productive sector (Shultze,
1964) termed as "getting agriculture moving." Agricultural transformation, therefore,
requires appropriate public policy intervention (Yotopoulos, 1967) so as to generate the
surplus produce. One of the basic factors in the transformation of agriculture is
technological change. Mosher and Barret (2006) emphasized that new technology adoption
and diffusion alone is not enough to get agriculture moving and thus changes in the
institutional, infrastructural, and cultural factors must occur in the process of
transformation.

Most of the agricultural development assistance in the 1960s was predicated on the
assumption that the wide agricultural productivity gap between the developed and the less
developed countries could be attributed to the low level of technology application, by what
were then perceived, as irrational tradition bound peasant farmers in the latter (Hayami and
Ruttan, 1971). Agricultural development assistance in the 1960s and 1970s was therefore,
conceptualized within a dualistic theory of development which perceived the solution to
the problem of low agricultural productivity as depending on the direct transfer of modern
agricultural technologies from the developed countries to the list developed countries. This
approach, as encapsulated in the Green Revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s,
brought tremendous yield increases among many resource-rich farmers in Asia and Latin
America (Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985). However, in most of Sub- Saharan Africa and
 12

some parts of Asia and Latin America, where millions of resource-poor farmers face harsh
agro-ecological and institutional constraints different from those that characterize the
research stations in which the innovations were developed, Green Revolution technologies
were not only poorly adopted, but led to serious distributional and social consequences
(Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985).

The need for technology adoption in agriculture, besides increasing factors' efficiency, is to
cope with natural hazards faced by the sector. Experiences of many countries showed that
sizable proportion of agricultural technology is commodity specific (improved seeds and
animal breeds) that are suited only for limited and usually most favorable ecological
environments (Anderson, 2002). Therefore, areas with poor environments may not have a
chance of adopting due to their poor response to the technologies in question. It can be
deduced that technological change in agriculture, its diffusion and adoption can
substantially induce growth to agricultural production. Agricultural research and extension
are the basis for such a process to advance further.

2.4. Paradigms on Agricultural Technology Adoption

The literature on agricultural technology adoption is vast and somewhat difficult to

summarize compactly. A recent strand of literature focuses on social networks and
learning. For instance, Bandiera and Rasul (2006) looked at social networks and
technology adoption in Northern Mozambique and found that the probability of adoption is
higher amongst farmers who reported discussing about new technologies with others.

More recently, literature on agricultural technology adoption has also focused on the effect
of social learning on adoption decisions. The basic motivation behind this literature is the
idea that a farmer in a village observes the behavior of neighboring farmers, including their
experimentation with new technology and then farmer updates his priors concerning the
technology which may increase his probability of adopting the new technology in the
subsequent year. Moreover, there are two important assumptions about the nature of social
learning in this story. First, each farmer receives information on the outcomes of
experiments from every other farmer in the village. Second, each farmer observes other
farmers experiments with no loss of information. Applying this model to high yielding
varieties (HYV) adoption in India, Foster and Rosenzweig (1995) found that initially
farmers may not adopt a new technology because of imperfect knowledge about
management of the new technology; however, adoption eventually occurs due to own
 13

experience and neighbors' experience. Overall evidence suggests that network effects are
important for individual decisions, and that, in the particular context of agricultural
innovations, farmers share information and learn from each other.

To explain the major adoption behaviors and determinants of technology adoption the
literature is then synthesized into three paradigms of technology adoption namely
innovation-diffusion model, the adoption perception and the economic constraints models.

The innovation-diffusion model, following from the work of Rogers (1995) holds that
access to information about an innovation is the key factor determining adoption decisions.
The appropriateness of the innovation is taken as given, and the problem of technology
adoption is reduced to communicating information on the technology to the potential end
users. By emphasizing the use of extension and local opinion leaders or by the use of
experiment station visits and on-farm trials the 'skeptic' non-adopters can be shown that it
is rational to adopt. The model assumes that a technology is transferred from its source to
the end-users through agent medium. In addition, the model assumes that the technology is
technically and culturally appropriate but the problem of adoption is one of asymmetric
information and very high search cost (Shampine, 1998). The important issue with respect
to this model is that technology is appropriate for use provided that it is not hindered by the
lack of effective formal and or informal communication methods.

Emanating from the pioneering work of Hayami and Ruttan (1971) the economic
constraints model or factor endowment model, assumes that the distribution of resource
endowments among potential users in a country or region determines the pattern of
technological adoption. The model also contends that input fixity in the short run, such as
access to credit, land, labor or other critical inputs limits production flexibility and
conditions of technology adoption decisions by farmers (Shampine, 1998).

Complementary to the first two models, relatively more recent technology characteristics
users’ model assumes that the perceptions of potential adopters as well as the
characteristics of the technology are important determinants for adoption decisions and
diffusion of the technology. The model also suggests that, even with full farm household
information, farmers may subjectively evaluate the technology differently than scientists
(Ashby and Sperling, 1992). Thus, understanding farmers’ perceptions of a given
technology is crucial in the generation and diffusion of new agricultural technologies and
 14

farm household information dissemination. Gemeda (2001) suggested that using the three
paradigms in modeling agricultural technology adoption improves the explanatory power
of the model relative to a single paradigm.

2.5. Empirical Studies on Factors Affecting Technology Adoption

Agricultural technology adoption has long been of interest to social scientist because of its
importance in increasing production and productivity of crops. In developing countries,
adoption studies started about four decades ago following the Green Revolution in Asian
countries. Since then, several studies have been undertaken in Asia and Latin America to
assess the rate, intensity and determinants of adoption. Most of these studies focused on the
Asian countries where the Green Revolution took place and was successful.

Doss et al. (2003) on their examination of the existing literature on technology adoption in
Eastern Africa had reported that depending on the location of the study and the
objective, it is difficult to indicate one factor as a key determinant of the adoption of
improved agricultural technologies. However, a wide range of economic, institutional and
demographic aspects may influence farmers’ decision to adopt new technologies (Johannes
et al., 2010). Economic analysis of technology adoption has also sought to explain
technology adoption behavior in relation to household specific characteristics, household
resource endowments, asymmetric information, risk and uncertainty, institutional related
factors, availability of agricultural input, and poor infrastructure (Uaiene et al., 2009).

A more recent strand of literature has included social learning and networks in the
categories of factors influencing agricultural technology adoption (Uaiene et al., 2009).
Some other studies classify these factors into different categories. For instance, Akudugu et
al. (2012) grouped the determinant of agricultural technology adoption into three
categories namely; economic, social and institutional factors. Empirical literature indicates
many categories for grouping determinants of agricultural technology adoption. However,
there is no clear distinguishing feature between variables in each category. Categorization
is done to suit the current technology being investigated, the location were the technology
is used, and the researcher’s preference, or even to suit client needs (Bonabana- Wabbi,
2002). This study was reviewing the resent studies on factors determining adoption of
agricultural technology by categorizing them into household specific factors, economic
related factors, and institutional factors. Based on this classification a critical review was
 15

done on each factor (variables) how it affects agricultural technology adoption among
farming households.

2.5.1 Household Specific Factors

The age of the farmer plays an important role in the adoption of new agricultural
technologies. However, the effect of age on the adoption of new technology is somewhat
ambiguous. On the one hand, some studies suggests that as farmers get older they
become more conservative and less open to new ideas. On the other hand, it is also
argued that they gain more experience and they are more able to evaluate the benefits of
new technologies (Johannes et al., 2010). For example, Simtowe et al. (2016) found that
age of household head positively affect adoption of improved varieties. The effect is
thought to stem from accumulated knowledge and experience of farming systems
obtained from years of observation and experimenting with various technologies.

Contrary to this, age has also been found to be negatively correlated with adoption
decisions. Berihun et al. (2014) have reported that age was negatively affecting adoption of
new technologies. Older farmers, perhaps because of investing several years in a particular
practice, may not want to jeopardize it by trying out a completely new method. Similarly,
farmers’ perception that technology development and the subsequent benefits, require a lot
of time to realize, can reduce their interest in the new technology because of farmers’
advanced age, and the possibility of not living long enough to enjoy it (Caswell et
al., 2001). Moreover, Tolosa (2014) on his study on factors limiting adoption of wheat
row planting technology in Ethiopia and Hailu (2008) reported that as age increases, farm
households would become reluctant and conservative in adopting new technologies and do
prefer their indigenous one.

Another factor that affects agricultural technology adoption in developing country is sex of
household head. It has been investigated for a long time in agricultural production and
technology adoption. Most study show mixed evidence regarding the different roles men
and women play in technology adoption. For instance, Solomon et al. (2014) on their study
found that sex has positive effect on the adoption of fertilizer and improved seed variety in
Ethiopia. Another study by Gilbert et al. (2002) had shown a positive significant effect of
sex on fertilizer use in Malawi. They explained that in their study district, letting females
to be a household head is not yet well developed and recognized. Consequently,
 16

female headed households mostly are those who are widowed and divorced. In such
instances, beside the cultural factors, their probability of adopting new agricultural
technology becomes negligible.

Similarly, study by Wangare (2007) on adoption of improved wheat varieties and fertilizer
use in Kenya found that being a male headed household affect positively fertilizers specific
attributes. He argued that male household heads perceived fertilizer specific attributes
favorably compared to female household heads. Perhaps male household heads could have
been more educated and access to information and, making them to be in a better position
to assess and understand fertilizer specific attributes compared to female household heads.
Contrary to this, Doss and Morris (2001) in their study on factors influencing improved
maize technology adoption in Ghana found non-significant effects of sex on adoption.
They argued that effort in improving women’s working skills does not appear warranted as
their technical efficiency is estimated to be equivalent to that of males.

Similarly, Bourdillon et al. (2002) and Chirwa (2005) on their study found no sex
differences in the adoption of improved seed in Zimbabwe and Malawi, respectively.
Moreover, Horrell and Krishnan (2007) found no significant difference in maize seed
usage by male and female headed households in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, Freeman and
Omiti (2003) also found that the sex of the household head has no significant effect on the
adoption and intensity of use of chemical fertilizer in Zimbabwe and Kenya, respectively.
A literature survey by Quisumbing (1995) concludes that there is mixed evidence on
technological adoption by sex. However, most of the technology adoption studies found
that better educated farmers, regardless of their sex, are more likely to adopt new
technologies.

The observed patterns of technology adoption are also typically influenced by education
level of household heads. Education is thought to create a favorable mental attitude for the
acceptance of new practices especially of information-intensive and management-intensive
practices and reduce the amount of complexity perceived in a technology adoption and
increase technology adoption (Caswell et al., 2001). For instance, Wangare (2007) and
Yonas (2014) studded on impact of row planting of teff crop on rural household income in
Ethiopia and Alene et al. (2000) on adoption and intensity of use of improved maize
varieties in the central highlands of Ethiopia reported the positive effect of education on
adoption. They explained that more educated farmers are able to access information on a
 17

given technology and understand and asses the attributes of that technology compared to
non educated farmers.

Similarly, Mohammed and Lakew (2013), Leake and Adam (2015), Abrhaley (2016) and
Tolosa et al. (2014) reported the positive influence of farmer’s education on technology
adoption. They explained that farmers with higher education level can easily process
information and search for appropriate technologies to alleviate their production
constraints. Contrary to this, Hailu (2008) found that education had negative impact on the
adoption of amount of fertilizer applied on wheat production. He explained that farmer
may be attributed to the fact that while educated farmers are more willing to adopt new
innovation they have less access to cash and assets such as ownership of livestock. This
limits their ability to purchase inputs and hence apply lower rates than the less
willing to adopt but wealthier farmers. Similarly, Uematsu and Mishra (2010) reported a
negative influence of formal education on adoption of improved crop varieties.

Another important factor which affects agricultural technology adoption is labor. The
effect of labor availability on technology adoption differs depending on whether the area
targeted with the technology has a net labor shortage or net labor surplus or whether the
proposed technology is labor-saving or labor-intensive. Higher labor supply is associated
with higher rates of adoption of labor-intensive technologies. On the other hand, the dual
nature of off-farm labor possibilities but can also reduce the availability of labor and
thereby decrease the likelihood of adopting high-labor technologies (Lee et al., 2001).
Labor bottlenecks, resulting from higher labor requirements that new technologies often
introduce, and seasonal peaks that may overlap with other agricultural activities, are also
another important constraints to technology adoption (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2002).

Tadele (2016), Abrhaley (2016) and Yonas (2014) were reported that, probability of
farmers to adopt and the level of adoption of row planting technology are positively
affected by family labor. They explained that, row planting technology is labour intensive
and hence the household with relatively high labor availability uses the technologies on
their farm plots better than others. Similarly, Hailu (2008), Motuma et al. (2010) and
Leake and Adam (2015) on their study in Ethiopia found that adoption of improved wheat
technology positively influenced by the family labor. They argued that farmers who have
more family labor can supply the required labor for different operations and undertake the
agricultural activity in time and effectively manage the wheat fields.
 18

Farmers’ perception towards technology characteristics were also very important

explanatory variables that are usually omitted in most of agricultural technology adoption
studies. Few studies have revealed the importance of such variables in explaining
technologies adoption. For example, Ermias (2013) in his study on adoption of improved
sorghum varieties and farmers’ varietal trait preference in Ethiopia found positive and
significant effect of perception on adoption and intensity of use of improved sorghum
varieties. He explained that farmers are more responsive in adopting new technologies if
they perceive those new technologies as compared to the existing one gives better results.
Similarly, Kwame and Bhavani (2014) reported that the intensity of use of soil and water
conservation practices and perception of soil fertility are positively and significantly
correlated. Moreover, Timu et al. (2012) confirmed that improved sorghum varieties in
Kenya had desirable production and marketing attributes while the local varieties were
perceived to have the best consumption attributes.

Akinola et al. (2010) also on their study on determinants of adoption and intensity of use of
balance nutrient management system technologies in Nigeria reported that farmers’
perception of the state of land degradation and soil depletion has a positive effect on the
adoption and use intensity of BNMS-manure technology. They explained that the
probability of adoption of the BNMS-manure technique is higher for farmers who perceive
their cropping land as degraded or soil depleted than for households who do not have such
perception. Contrary to this, in the same study, Akinola et al. (2010) reported a negative
influence of farmer perception on adoption and intensity of use of BNMS-rotation. The
probable explanation they give is that farmers would rather adopt the BNMS-Manure than
BNMS-rotation because BNMS-manure technology is more likely to have a more
immediate effect on production through the direct application of inorganic and organic
fertilizers.

2.5.2. Institutional Factors

The major option for increased adoption of technology is to overcome the income/ capital
constraint through increased credit provision (Mkandawire, 1993). Access to credit takes
cognizance of farmers’ access to sources of credit to finance the expenses relating to the
adoption of new innovations. It boosts farmers’ readiness to adopt technological
innovations. For example, Berihun et al. (2014) on their study on adoption decision of
chemical fertilizer and HYV found that, access to credit affects technology adoption
 19

positively and is one best option whereby smallholders could be instigated in diversifying
their economic base. As a liquidity factor, the more farmers have access to credit, the more
likely to adopt agricultural technologies that could possibly increase crop yield.

Similarly, Namwata et al. (2010), Leake and Adam (2015), Akinola et al. (2010), Frank et
al.(2016) and Beyan (2016) where reported the positive influence of credit availability on
technology adoption. The explanation they put for this could be that the availability of
credit enables households to pay for external hired labor and other expenses incurred in the
process of technology adoption. In addition, Hailu (2008) studded on adoption and
intensity of use of improved technology in Ethiopia and Simtowe et al. (2016) studded on
determinants of agricultural technology adoption under partial population awareness, the
case of pigeon pea in Malawi were also reported positive influence of access to credit on
technology adoption. They explained that with the availability of credit a household can
purchase improved seed and hire extra labor and increase the propensity of adopting
improved technologies. In contrast to this, Tolosa (2014) found a negatively influence of
access to credit on technology adoption.

Different studies by different authors also found that distance to the nearest market center
is another important factor that needs to be considered while dealing with agricultural
technology adoption. Market is not only needed as an outlet for production but also as a
means of securing inputs. Farmers need something to do with their increased output. If
there is no nearest markets that can bear the extra supply, their investment in new
agricultural technologies will be for nothing (Andrei, 2011). For example, Kapalasa
(2014), Abrhaley (2016), Kabuli (2005) and Namwata et al. (2010) reported that farmers
closer to markets have higher probability of adopting improved technology because they
do not have to travel long distance with their produce to sell hence incur no costs on
transport unlike those that are far and have bulky and a lot of harvest. In addition, they
have access to information about the availability of market and also prices prevailing on
the market and this inform the farmers when deciding what to grow for the next growing
season.

Similarly, Beyan (2016) and Paudel and Matsuoka (2008) reported that distance to the
nearest market is an important determinant of adoption for farmers producing bulky
commodities because of transportation and infrastructure challenges. Poor infrastructure
 20

like roads raises transportation costs and as such farmers closer to markets are more likely
to adopt improved technologies of bulky crops.

Extension service is very crucial institutional factor that differentiates adoption status
among farmers. Studies suggest the likelihood that a farmer will continue using a new
agricultural technology is related to the frequency of contact with trained extension
workers, especially for technically complex technologies, contact with neighboring farmers
who possess knowledge of the proposed technology also increases the likelihood of
adoption (Andrei, 2011). Information reduces the uncertainty about a technology’s
performance hence may change individual’s assessment from purely subjective to objective
over time (Caswell et al., 2001). Exposure to information about new technologies as such
significantly affects farmers’ choices about it. Kapalasa (2014), Kwame and Bhavani
(2014) and Ghimire et al. (2015) were reported that frequency of extension contact has
positive influence on agricultural technology adoption. They explains that farmers with
access to information through contacts with extension workers are the ones who are more
likely to adopt improved practice than who are not got access to extension service.

Similarly, Chirwa (2005), Yonas (2014), Frank et al. (2016) and Kaliba et al. (2000) were
reported a positive influence of extension contact on technology adoption. Tolosa et al.
(2014) were also reported farmer access to improved seed through extension service
significantly affect adoption of wheat row planting technology. The extension contact
variable incorporates the information that the farmers obtain on their production activities
on the importance and application of innovations through counseling and demonstrations
by extension agents on a regular basis. Contrary to this, Mohammed and Lakew (2013)
reported that access to extension service did not significantly correlate with the decision to
adopt improved technologies. He argued that farmers have good knowledge about
agricultural technologies through media and information from neighbors. Similarly,
Solomon et al. (2015) on their study on measuring the effectiveness of extension
innovations for out-scaling agricultural technologies found that frequency of extension
contact has no significant effect on new technology adoption.

Sanginga et al. (2001) also argued that contact with extension agent in the South Western
Savannah region of Nigeria did not have much impact on farmers’ adoption and the
intensity of use of improved soybean varieties while the farmer-to-farmer horizontal
dissemination of information played a more important role in the dynamics of technology
 21

diffusion. Moreover, using a nationally representative data from Ethiopia, Yigezu et al.
(2014) also reported that the number of contacts with extension agents does not have
significant effect on the decision and intensity of adoption of improved barley and potato
varieties. The possible explanations for this result they put are 1) extension agents’ time
might be too thinly spread among many farmers, which reduce their efficacy; 2)
development agents are extremely busy as they are responsible for many other tasks
including ensuring repayment of agricultural loans and also serve as important channels for
pushing the government’s agenda, which again might undermine their efficiency in
promoting new agricultural technologies.

Availability of improved seed is also another important explanatory variable in influencing

the adoption of new agricultural technologies. Some new agricultural technologies are not
used alone to increase the production and productivity of crops. Improved seed is so
important input which is used with many new agricultural technologies to increase the
production and productivity of farmers. For instance, Ume and Ochiaka (2016) reported
that input seed availability was positively affecting technology adoption. They explained
that high cost, untimely and unavailability of inputs has profound effect on rejection of
adoption of technologies by farmers.

Similarly, Tolesa (2014) and Tolesa et al. (2014) reported that availability and access to
improved wheat seed have a positive effect on adoption of wheat row planting technology.
They argued that availability of improved wheat seed had increased the probability of
adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting technology. This is because improved
seed increase production at harvesting period when used with row planting technology than
local seed. Ghimire et al. (2015), Laduber (2016) and Bayissa (2010) also reported the
positive influence of availability of improved seed on technology adoption.

Belonging to an association or social group as member can influence farmer’s decision to

adopt an improved technology. In most farming communities farmers form or join social
group/associations of various kinds for all sorts of reasons. For instance, Frank et al.
(2016) and Mignouna et al. (2011) found that belonging to a social association/group
enhances social capital allowing trust, idea and information exchange. Farmers within a
social group learn from each other the benefits and usage of a new technology. Uaiene et
al. (2009) suggests that social network effects are important for individual decisions and
 22

that in the particular context of agricultural innovations; farmers share information and
learn from each other.

Martey et al. (2013) study on fertilizer adoption and use intensity among smallholder
farmers in northern Ghana found positive influence of farmer membership to association
on fertilizer adoption. They argued that farmer membership to an association let them to
access inputs easily with an affordable price that is pertinent to increase agricultural
production and thereby increase technology adoption. Similarly, Ghimire et al. (2015) and
Abreham and Tewodros (2014) have reported that farmer’s membership to social
group/association has positive effect on adoption intensity of agricultural technology. They
explained that farmers’, who exposure to various information sources is able to analyze the
risks, benefits and take advantage of new innovations.

2.5.3. Economic Related Factors

The use of new agricultural technology is directly or indirectly related with the level of
income of the farm households. The direct relation is most of the time due to the better
purchasing power of the higher income households and induces an improved access to
technologies available. Rich farmers are usually observed as the first movers to try new
technologies and better risk taking behavior in technology uptake. In contrary, poor
farmers are usually characterized by their slow movement towards trying new
technologies. This is mainly due to fear to fail to harvest lower yield than basic required
amount for their subsistence. Therefore, participation in off-farm activate is one of the
mechanism by which farmer alleviate their income constraint because it is important in
financing purchased farm inputs and hiring labor (Mwania et al., 1989).

Tadele (2016), Akinola et al. (2010) and Frank et al. (2016) were reported positive
influence of off-farm activities on technology adoption decision of farm households. They
argued that income from off-farm activity support farmers to easily afford agricultural
input costs; and these farmers are mostly exposed to new and updated information since
they move from one town to another and contacted with different people with different
background. Contrary to this, Tolosa et al. (2014) reported that income from off-farm
activity is negatively affected wheat row planting technology adoption. He explains that,
farmer are not willing to use time and labor consuming technology.
 23

Livestock ownership is another essential factor that determines adoption of improved

agricultural technologies in the context of developing countries agriculture including
Ethiopia. Livestock holding size, which is a proxy for measuring wealth status of farm
household, are usually considered as a risk buffering assets that boost farmers’ confidence
to try new agricultural practices. Accordingly, most adoption studies confirmed the
positive and the significant influence of livestock holding on technology adoption and
intensity of use. Among them are findings of Ermias (2013), Sisay (2016) and Abrhaley
(2016). They argued that livestock ownership is considered as an asset that could be used
either in the production process or it could be exchanged for cash for the purchase of inputs
whenever the need arose. Moreover, Mohammed and Lakew (2013), Solomon et al. (2011)
and Leake and Adam (2015) on their study elsewhere in Ethiopia reported that livestock
ownership (sometimes a proxy for wealth accumulation) is found to positively and
significantly influence the adoption decision. They argued that livestock increases
household income from sale of animals and farmers can finance their agricultural
requirement easily.

Similarly, Hassen (2014) found a positive effect of livestock ownership on probability of

adoption of improved forages. Livestock is considered as an asset that could be used either
in the production process or in exchange. Ghimire et al. (2015) and Beyan (2016) also
found similar results. Contrary to this, Laduber et al. (2016) on their study on factors
affecting adoption of improved bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) variety in Ethiopia
reported a negative influence of livestock size on adoption. Similarly, Berihun et al. (2014)
reported a negative influence of livestock size on adoption of chemical fertilizer. The
presence of livestock would be an impediment for adopting chemical fertilizer where
farmers do prefer utilizing manure without incurring product and transportation cost.
Moreover, Tolosa et al. (2014) was also reported a negative influence of livestock holding
size on participation in wheat row planting in the highland area of Ethiopia.

Land size is perhaps the single most important resource, as it is a base for any economic
activity especially in rural and agricultural sector. Farm size influences farmers' decision to
use or generate new technologies and plays a critical role in adoption process of a new
agricultural technology. Many researchers have analyzed farm size as one of important
determinant of agricultural technology adoption. Some technologies are termed as scale-
dependant because of the great importance of farm size in their adoption (Bonabana-
Wabbi, 2002). Farmers with large farm size are likely to adopt a new technology as they
 24

can afford to devote part of their land to try new technology unlike those with less farm
size (Uaiene et al., 2009). On the other hand, small farm size may provide an incentive to
adopt some technologies or practices, especially in the case of an input-intensive
innovation such as a labour-intensive or land-saving technologies. The impact of farm size
on adoption and intensity of use of agricultural technologies on the other hand, is not
consistently similar in various adoption studies. Some of the studies reported a positive
influence of farm size on adoption decision. For instance, Tadele (2015) found positive
effect of farm size on adoption of row planting technology in Walaita Sodo, Ethiopia.
Similarly, Abreham and Tewodros (2014) reported a positive effect of cultivated farm size
on adoption and intensity of use of new agricultural technology.

Moreover, Awotide et al. (2012) were also reported positive effect of farm size on
technology adoption. Contrary to this, Hassen (2014), Ermias (2013) and Etwire et al.
(2016) reported a negative influence of farm size on intensity of use of improved
agricultural technology. They explained that farmers with small farm size use improved
technologies more than large farm households and small farms are efficient as they
intensify farm technologies and relatively better ratio of labor to land compared to large
farms that may acquire labor at higher transaction costs. From the above in-depth review of
previous adoption studies, it is evident that there is no consistency in the findings of the
cited literature. However, the above- cited studies are indicative of which factors influence
the agricultural technology adoption process.

2.6. Conceptual Framework of Agricultural Technology Adoption

Adoption of new and improved agricultural technologies can only be effective when the
right conditions for their successful implementation are in place. Farmers face many
complex challenges in adoption and scaling out of agricultural and natural resource
management technologies and practices (Shiferaw et al., 2009). Context specific empirical
understanding of factors affecting household decision is important for promotion and
scaling up of adoption of productivity enhancing technologies (Bewket, 2007). Researchers
have argued that numerous factors can affect the farmer’s decision to adopt agricultural
technologies (Yu et al., 2010). Based on theoretical and empirical reviews of the literature
on technology adoption various factors that influence technology adoption and intensity of
use can be identified and grouped into the following four broad categories. (1) Factors
 25

related to farmers characteristics; (2) factors related to technological attributes; (3) factor
related to institution and markets; and (4) economic related factors.

The factors related to the characteristics of farmers include sex, age, labor availability and
literacy. Better endowment of human capital and active labor force in the family increases
farmers’ probability of adoption of new agricultural technologies because of investment
capacity and the ability to take risks when experimenting with new technologies. Improved
technologies have different labour requirements, hence labor endowment matters. For
instance, higher labor supply is associated with adoption of labor-intensive technologies.
Literacy is also another important human capital that encourages farmers to experiment in
new agricultural technologies, hence increase adoption of the technologies. The factors
related to the attributes of the technology include the individual’s perception towards the
new technology with respect to its relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
trialability and observability. Generally, technologies perceived positively by farmers are
more likely to be adopted.

The institutional factors include credit uses, distance to the nearest market, and availability
of improved seed, membership in social association, agricultural training and extension
contact. The likelihood that a farmer will adopt and continue use an agricultural technology
is related to the credit use, frequency of extension contact and participation in agricultural
training, especially for technically complex technologies. Credit improves farmer’s
financial constraints for purchasing different agricultural inputs. In addition, Extension
contact and training provides update information, technical skill and enhances farmers’
awareness towards the new technologies, hence motivates them to adopt the technologies.
New technologies often require repeated and consistent use of new inputs such as
improved seed that increase adoption of agricultural technologies. Moreover, Farmers who
participated more in social association have better information about new technologies;
hence raise their likelihood of adoption of the technologies.

Economic related factors include cultivated farm size, livestock ownership and off-farm
income which their better endowment increase farmers’ probability of adoption of new
agricultural technologies because of investment capacity. Livestock ownership and off-
farm activity improve farmer’s financial capital for purchasing productivity enhancing
inputs and allows farmers to invest in new technologies. On the other hand, farmers with
large cultivated farm land are good candidates for investing in scale dependent
 26

technologies and also increase farmer’s adoption and experimenting with risky or new
technologies. However, practical experiences and observations of the reality have shown
that one factor may enhance adoption of one technology in one specific area for certain
period of time and may create hindrance for other locations. The direction and degree of
impact of the factors are not uniform and the impact varies depending on the type of
technology and conditions of areas where the technology is to be introduced. Because of
this reason, it is difficult to develop a one and unified adoption model in technology
adoption process for all specific locations. Hence, the conceptual framework presented in
the Figure-1 below shows the most important factors expected to influence adoption and
intensity of use of wheat row planting technologies. The arrows indicated in the conceptual
framework shows the expected relationship between the variables.

Household
characteristics

Institutional Adoption and

intensity of use Technological
and market
of wheat row attributes
factors
planting
technology

Economic related
factors

Source: Adopted from Tewodros et al. (2016) and adjusted by the researcher

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of agricultural technology adoption

 27

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter starts with a brief description of the study area, Munesa district followed by
sources and methods of data collected for the study. Besides, descriptions of data analysis
methods that are used to address research objectives are briefly discussed step by step.

3.1. Description of the Study Area

This study mainly focused and conducted in the Munesa district, which is one of the 26
woredas located in the east Arsi zone, Oromia Region. Munesa district is one of
administrative units located in southern part of Asella (capital town of Arsi zone). Munesa
situated at 7o12’to 45 N latitudes and 52o to 39o03’E longitude in central Ethiopia and
232km south west of Addis Ababa. Munesa shared boundary line with east Shewa zone in
the western part, Ziway Dugda and Tiyo districts in the north and Digelu and Tijo district
partly in the northeastern part, Kofale in the southern part and Limu and Bilbilo in eastern
part of the district. The total area of the district is 1031km2 and the district was organized
in to 32 rural and 3 urban kebeles. The so called Kersa town is the administrative canter of
Munesa district at present time (MDAO, 2013).

Most parts of Munesa district is covered with flat plains, few high mountain peaks such as
Chike and Kulsa and small part of Rift Valley areas characterize the topography of the
district. The area covers 121,730 hectare topographically and the district has high land
escarpment and small low land areas. The altitude of the area ranges from 2080-3700m
above sea level and characterized by mid sub-tropical temperature ranging from 5oc –
20oc. Consequently due to this range of altitude the area has composed of three climatic
zones namely temperate (Dega) 50%, sub-tropical (Weina Dega) 42% and tropical (Kola)
8%.The annual average rainfall is 800mm-1200mm and mostly with clay type of soil
(60%) and rare case black soil which is fertile and other low coverage of Luvisoil (20%)
and Cambisoil (20%) in the district. Generally, the soils of the district are fertile and
suitable for agricultural production (MDAO, 2013).

According to the recent population number projection made by CSA (2016), the total
population of Munesa district residing in the rural area is estimated to be 188418 of which
92848 are males and 95570 are females. The total urban population of the study area is
estimated to be 23344 of which 11780 are males and 11564 are females. The livelihood of
the largest number of households in the study area depends on the agricultural activities
 28

which accounts about 91.77% of the total number of households in area. A small number
of populations of the area depend on other non-agricultural activities like trade, handcraft,
daily laborer etc.

The rainfall pattern in the district is bimodal which are short rainy season and long rainy
season. This bimodal type of rainfall makes production of crops possible in Belg and
Meher seasons. The duration of Belg rainy season is from mid February to April and for
Maher season from June to September. However, the intensity of production is high during
the Meher season.

The agricultural production system of the district has characterized by mixed types. Thus,
crop production and livestock. Crop production is one of the main agricultural activities
and is mainly of rain fed and traditional. The major annual crops growing are wheat,
barley, teff, and maize; from cereals, horse beans, field peas; from pulses Linseed and
Rapeseed from oil seeds. From cereal crops wheat, barley, and maize are dominantly
growing in the district (account more than 80%). Livestock such as cattle, sheep, goats,
pack animals, and Poultry are important source of livelihoods in the area (MDAO, 2013).

Among the cereal crop grown in the district, wheat is widely known and the main cereal
crop and currently covers great share of agricultural land. Among the 26 woredas in the
east Arsi zone, the district is the one from the well known areas of highest wheat producing
district. It is also the major staple food and cash crops for smallholder farmers in the
district than other cereal crops.

Agricultural production in Ethiopia specifically in the study area is still under traditional
farming methods. In nutshell, enhancing the productivity of cereal crops in general and the
wheat crops in particular is crucial at the country level and district level as well. To
improve the traditional agricultural practice, the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) through
Regional Bureau of Agriculture (RBoA) has been made utmost efforts via dissemination of
improved agricultural technologies like row planting technology on wheat production in
2012 all over the regions. Recently in the district many of smallholder farmers are still
continuo to use the traditional broadcasting method of wheat production and not adopting
the row planting technology. However, some are producing the wheat through both the
traditional broadcasting and row planting method and few of them are adopting fully the
technologies on wheat production in the district though it is important to examine factor
 29

affecting adoption and intensity of use of row planting technology on wheat production in
the district.

Figure 2: Map of the study area

Source: Ethio-GIS, 2016.

3.2. Types and Sources of Data

Data for the study was gathered from two sources which is primary and secondary. The
majority of primary data were collected from respondents through structured interviews. In
addition, focused group discussion (FGD) and Key informant interview were used for data
collection. Secondary sources of data that support primary data were also used for this
study purpose; published and unpublished documents like official reports, articles, journals
and internet sources.

3.3. Sampling Technique and Sample Size Determination

The study employed multi- stage sampling technique to select sample respondents. In the
first stage, from 32 rural kabeles of the district, 12 major wheat producer kebeles which
experience wheat row planting technology mostly have been purposively selected. Kebeles
with no or little wheat production and wheat row planting are not considered for purposive
selection. In the second stage, three rural kebeles were selected from identified major
 30

wheat producer kebeles by simple random sampling techniques. Before selecting

household heads to be included in the sample, a list of wheat producers’ household heads
for each selected kebeles were prepared with the help of kebele leader and development
agent of the respective kebeles. In the last and final stage, 140 farm household heads were
selected from identified wheat producer household heads using random sampling technique
by taking into account probability proportional to size of wheat producer in each of three
selected rural kebeles. As a result, the survey was administered and data were collected and
analyzed on 140 respondents. Accordingly, the number of respondents in each selected
rural kebele was as shown in the Table1.The sample size was determined by following a
formula developed by Yemane (1967). The formula is:

= ,
( . )
= 140………………………………………………..(1)
( )

Where n is the sample size for the study, N is the population of interest which is 1362, e is
the precision level which is 0.08 in this study. The sample size from each kebeles was
determined based on their proportion to total share of households residing in each kebeles.

Table 1: Number of respondents in each selected rural kebeles

No Name of Kebeles Number of wheat producer Selected number

household heads of respondents
1. Didibe Yadola 439 45
2. Garambota Lole 513 53
3. Shumbulo 410 42

Total 1362 140

3.4. Methods of Data Collection

3.4.1. Structured Interviews

The major instrument used for primary data collection from sample respondents for this
study was structured interview schedule with questions which are carefully constructed.
On the bases of information acquired during informal interview with farmers meet
occasionally and from readings of related literatures structured interview questionnaire
were constructed for the data collection. The interview questions mainly focused on
 31

households demographic (age, sex structure, family size, education, etc), socio-economic
(total cultivated land holding, wheat land, cultivated land under wheat row planting,
livestock ownership, off-farm activity, and farm input utilization), institutional (extension
contact, market distance, membership to social association/group, training on row planting
technology, credit use, etc) and farmers perception towards wheat row planting technology.

Before data collection process started pre-testing the questionnaires on different area from
the study location on randomly selected eight non sampled respondents was conducted and
necessary amendments were made prior to conducting the formal survey. After pre-testing,
two days training was given to the 13 enumerators on briefings of the objectives, contents
of the interview schedule and to acquainted them with the basic techniques of data
gathering and interviewing techniques and on how to approach respondents. The
enumerators for the data collection were selected on the basis of their educational
background, local knowledge and ability of speaking the local language of the study area.
Subsequently, the survey was conducted under the close supervision of the researcher.

3.4.2. Focused Group Discussion

Focused group discussion was used as a means of triangulation with questionnaire data
collection method. In this study, with the help of development agents and leaders of
respective kebeles, one FGD was conducted on each randomly selected kebeles to get in-
depth information from the respondents and fill the gaps observed during personal
interviews. The FGDs were conducted with the elders, young peoples, and model farmers
groups of each having eight members. The FGD was conducted after the survey. The main
aim of FGD is to cross examine farmer perceptions towards wheat row planting
technology, the major bottle necks hindering them from adoption and intensity of use of
wheat row planting and the possible solution to improve the adoption level of farmers.

3.4.3. Key Informant Interview

Purposively knowledgeable respondents were selected to provide detail information

regarding to the current practice and application of wheat row planting, the intensity of
usage, the problems that wheat grower farmers face to adopt the row planting technology
and the consequent yield improvement achieved in the study area. Key informants were
development agents and model farmers from each randomly selected kebeles, and officers
from the district agriculture and rural development. The total numbers of key informants
 32

were 14 (6 development agents, 5 model farmers and 3 the district agricultural and rural
development officers).

3.5. Method of Data Analysis

3.5.1. Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentages, mean, standard deviation, and

inferential statistics such as chi-square test for dummy variables and F-test comparison for
continuous/discrete variables were employed to assess the relationship of socio-economic,
demographic and institutional variables, and technology characteristic related variables
with farmer’s adoption levels of wheat row planting.

3.5.2. Estimation of the Dependant Variable (Adoption index)

Before analyzing the determinants of adoption and intensity of use of row planting
technology, it is important to identify the level of adoption of row planting technology on
wheat production for each farm household heads. Accordingly, farmers who were not
using row planting technologies on wheat production during the survey year are considered
as non-adopters, while farmers who were using the technologies for the production of
wheat are considered as adopters. Adoption index score was calculated by dividing area
allocated for wheat production through row planting technology to total cultivated area
allocated for wheat production (traditional broadcasting and row planting technology) of
the ith farmers.

Different researchers applied adoption index to know farmers level of adoption of

improved agricultural technologies on their farm lands and categorize them as non-adopter,
low, medium and high adopter based on their adoption index score. For instance, Alemitu
(2011), Abreham and Tewodros (2014), and Rahmeto (2007) used adoption index and
categorize sample respondents in to four adoption categories.

Similarly, in this study, adoption index was applied to know the level of adoption of wheat
row planting for each sample households at the time of the survey, which shows to what
extent the respondent farmer, has adopted the practice. The adoption index for each
respondent farmer was calculated as:
( )
AIi= ( )
th
AIi= Adoption index of the i farmer
 33

i=1, 2, 3………n, and n= total number of respondent farmers

ATi= Total area allocated for wheat production (traditional wheat broadcasting system and
row planting).

Thus, the adoption index is non-negative continuous dependent variable with a value
starting from zero (0) to one (1). Once the AI scores was calculated, sample respondents
were classified into four adoption categories’ namely non- adopter, low, medium and high
adopter. Zero indicates non- adoption of wheat row planting technology of one category
and one indicates full adoption of the practice and greater than zero to equal to one implies
adopters with three category (low-adopters, medium- adopters and high- adopters).

3.5.3. Econometric Analysis: Tobit Model

The analysis of technology adoption was carried out following the concept depicted by
Rogers (1962) and Feder et al. (1985). The econometric model, Tobit model was used to
trace the important determinants of adoption and intensity of use of row planting
technology on wheat production among the farmers. Factors affecting adoption and
intensity of use of wheat row planting technology were estimated by examining their
influence on proportion of wheat area planted with row planting technology. The
proportion of area planted with row planting technology has a censored distribution since it
is zero for those not adopting (hereafter called non-adopters). This suggests that ordinary
least squares regression is not appropriate and that Tobit model should be used for the
analysis (Tobin, 1958). The Tobit model is used when the decision to adopt and intensity
of use of agricultural technology are assumed to be made jointly and factors affecting them
are assumed to be the same (Solomon et al., 2011).

Tobit model is an extension of Probit model developed by James Tobin in 1958 (Amemiya,
1985). The rationale to use the Tobit model than other adoption models such as Logit or
Probit is to overcome the deficiency of those models to determine level of adoption. Probit
model is estimating the probability of adoption as a function of other explanatory variables.
However, the interest of Tobit model is finding out not only the probability of adoption but
it can also indicate the intensity of use of the technologies and the decisions whether to
adopt or not and how much to adopt are assumed to be made jointly, hence the factors
affecting the two level decisions were taken simultaneously (Adesina and Zinnah, 1993;
Solomon et al., 2010). This is because adoption of improved technologies alone is not
sufficient since improvement in production and productivity of farm households depends
 34

not only on adoption but also on the intensity of use of the technology. Therefore, either
Binary Logistic or Probit models couldn’t examine the intensity of use of a given
technology.

Looking into the empirical studies in the literature, many researchers have employed the
Tobit model to identify factors influencing adoption and intensity of use of new
agricultural technologies. For instance, Alene et al. (2000), Ermias (2013), Turinawe et al.
(2015), Alemitu (2011), Abreham and Tewodros (2014) and Rahmeto (2007). The model
describes the relationship between a non-negative dependent variable Yi and an
independent variable Xi. The dependent variable of this study was the area under wheat
row plating technology from total cultivated wheat area and which is continues dependent
variable. Tobit model is also known as censored regression model or limited dependent
variable regression model because of the restriction put on the values taken by the
regressand (Maddala, 1992). It is intuitively clear that if one estimates a regression line
based on the observed values only, the resulting intercept and slope coefficients are bound
to be different than if all the observations were taken in to account (Amemiya, 1985).

Model specification

The general formulation of the Tobit model is given in terms of latent index function
shown bellow. Following the Johnston and Dinardo (1997), Let AIi = adoption intensity of
row planting technology of ith farmer, AI* = the latent variable and the solution to utility
maximization problem of intensity of adoption subject to a set of constraints per household
and conditional on being above a certain limit and then Tobit model can be specified as
follows:
AIi∗ =BO + BiXi + Ui, where i=1, 2………….…n
AI = AIi∗ , if AIi∗ >0
=0 if AIi∗ ≤ 0………………………………………………………………………….(2)
Where
Xi= Vector of factors affecting adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting
technology,
Bi= Vector of unknown parameters, and
Ui= is the error term normally distributed with mean 0 and variance .
 35

Equation (2) represents a censored distribution of intensity of adoption since the value of
AI for all non-adopters equals zero. The model parameters are estimated by maximizing
the Tobit likelihood function of the following form (Maddala, 1992, and Amemiya, 1985).

β β
L=∏ f σ
∏
σ
…………………………………………………(3)

Where f and F are respectively, the density function and cumulative distribution function
∗ ∗
of .∏ Means the product over those i for which ≤ 0, and∏ means the
∗
product over those i for which > 0. Following Tobin (1958), the expected intensity of
adoption of wheat row planting technology across all observations E (AI) is:
(AI) = XßF(z) + σf(z)........................................................................................................ (4)
Similarly, the expected value of intensity of use of wheat row planting technology by
adopters was estimated by:
E (AIi|AIi* > 0) = Xß + σf(z)/F(Z)……………………………….....................................(5)
where X is a vector of explanatory variables, F (z) is the cumulative normal distribution of
z, f (z) is the value of the derivative of the normal curve at a given point (i.e., unit normal
density), z is the Z-score for the area under normal curve, β is a vector of Tobit maximum
likelihood estimates, and is the standard error of the error term.

The Tobit coefficients do not directly give the marginal effects of the associated
independent variables on the dependent variable. But their signs show the direction of
change in probability of adoption and the marginal intensity of adoption as the respective
explanatory variable changes. Because of this it is not be sensible to interpret the
coefficients of a Tobit model in the same way as one interprets coefficients in an
uncensored linear model (Johnston and Dandiro, 1997). Hence, one has to compute the
derivatives of the estimated Tobit model to predict the effects of changes in the explanatory
variables.

As cited in Maddala (1997), Johnston and Dandiro (1997) proposed the following
techniques to decompose the effects of explanatory variable into adoption and intensity
effects. Thus; change in Xi (explanatory variables) has two effects. It affects the
conditional mean of AIi* in the positive part of the distribution, and it affects the
probability that the observation will fall in that part of the distribution. Similarly, in this
study, the marginal effect of explanatory variable was estimated as follows.
1. The marginal effect of an explanatory variable on the expected value of the dependent
variable is:
 36

( )
= ( ) …………………………………………………………………………(6)

β
σ
is denoted by z, following Maddala (1997).

2. The change in probability of adopting of wheat row planting technology as independent

variable Xi changes is:
( ) β
= f(z) σ ……………………………………………………………………………..(7)

3. The change in the intensity of use of wheat row planting technology with respect to a
change in an explanatory variable among user is:
( ∗ ) ( ) ( )
= 1− ( )
− ( )
……………………………………………………(8)

3.5.4. Test of Multi-Collinearity Problem

Before running the specified regressions model for the analysis of data, all the
hypothesized exogenous variables were checked for the existence of multi-collinarity
problems which may arise due to a linear relationship among explanatory variables. It
refers to a situation where it becomes difficult to separate effects of independent variables
on the dependent variable because of strong relationships among independent variables
(Maddalla, 1977). If there is multi-collinarity problem among the exogenous variable, it
may cause the estimated regression coefficients to have wrong signs, smaller t-ratios, high
R2 value and it also causes large variance and standard error with a wide confidence
interval. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate accurately the effect of each variable (Gujarati,
2004). Among different methods to detect the presence of multi-co linearity problem
among the exogenous continuous variables and dummy variables, variance inflating factor
(VIF) and contingency coefficient (CC) method were used simultaneously (Gujarati,
2004). VIF for individual continuous explanatory variable (Xi) can be calculated as
follows:

VIF = …………………………………………………………………………… …..(9)

Where, R2 is the coefficient of correlation among explanatory variable. The larger the
value of VIF indicates the more co linearity among one or more model explanatory
variables. As a rule of thumb, if the VIF of a variable exceeds 10, which will happen if a
multiple R-square exceeds 0.90, that variable is said be highly collinear (Gujarati, 2004).
 37

The dummy variables are said to be collinear if the value of CC is greater than 0.75 (Healy,
1984). It is specified as follows:

= ……………………………………………………………………………. (10)

n - Is sample size and x2 - is chi-square value. Computer software called STATA version
12 was used to run the Tobit model for the analysis of data collected from sample
respondents.

3.6. Definition of Variables and Hypothesis

Dependant variable: In the estimation of factors that affect farmer’s decision on adoption
and intensity of use of wheat row planting, the dependant variable used in the Tobit model
is the proportion of farm area covered by wheat row planting technology from the total
cultivated wheat area which is a value ranges from 0 to 1 or from 0 %-100%.

Independent variables and hypothesized relationship: The variables that tend to explain
a given dependent variable are said to be explanatory or independent variables. The
independent variables were identified from previous similar empirical studies and the
nature of the study area. These variables are expected to affect farmer’s adoption and
intensity of use of wheat row planting and are defined as follows:

1. Age of a household head (HHAGE): Age is a continuous variable and measured in

years. It’s one of the factors that determine decision making of a person on the adoption of
new agricultural technology. Older farmers may have more experience, resource, or
authority that would allow them more possibilities for trying new technologies. On the
other hand, it may be that young farmers are more likely to adopt new technologies,
because they may have more schooling than older farmers and have been exposed to new
ideas and hence more risk takers. It’s also that, advanced aged household heads are more
reluctant to accept new technology and agricultural production styles than younger
household heads (Assefa and Gezahegn, 2010).Thus, in this study, age of household head
was hypothesized to have negative relationship with adoption and intensity of use of row
planting on wheat production.

2. Sex of household head (HHSEX): This variable was entered the model as dummy
variable (takes a value of 1 if the household head is female and, 0 otherwise) and
 38

expected to have a positive relationship with adoption and intensity of use of row
planting technology on wheat production.sex is a biological nature of human being of
maleness or femaleness of the head of the household and found to be one of the factors
influencing adoption of new technologies. Due to many socio-cultural values and norms,
males have freedom of mobility and participation in different extension programs and
consequently have greater access to information. Therefore, it was hypothesized that male
farmers’ household head are more likely to adopt new technology than their counterparts
(Mesfin, 2005).

3. Literacy (HHLITERACY): In this study, literacy were measured as dummy variable

which takes the value 1 if the household head is literate, 0 if illiterate and expected to
influence adoption and intensity of use of row planting technology on wheat production
positively. It is often assumed that literate farmers are better able to process information
and search for appropriate technologies to alleviate their production constraints.
Nevertheless, it is significant to examine the role literacy plays in technology adoption
decisions (row planting technology). Adoption correlates positively with literacy (Getahun
et al., 2000).

4. Livestock size (LIVESTSIZE): Livestock is the farmers' important source of income,

food and draft power for crop production in Ethiopian agriculture. It’s a continuous
variable measured in terms of Tropical livestock unit (Storck et al., 1991). A household
livestock size was calculated by multiplying the number of each type of animal by
an appropriate conversion factor of TLU and then summing up. Households with
higher livestock size will have higher probability of getting excess livestock for
source of farm manures and traction power as well as source of cash income for purchase
of different farm inputs, and enhance adoption of technology. It was hypothesized that as
livestock ownership increases, adoption and intensity of use of new technology was
expected to increase because it is a source of income and serves as proxy for wealth status
(Habtemariam, 2004). In this study, it was expected that livestock size affects adoption and
intensity of use of row planting technology positively.

5. Credit use (CREDITUSE): This variable is treated as dummy variable which takes a
value 1 if the household head is users of credit and 0 if non users. In this study, it was
hypothesized to have positive relationship with adoption and intensity of use of row
planting technology on wheat production. Credit is an important source of cash which
 39

improve farmer capital constraints and enable them to buy agricultural inputs. According to
Simtowe et al. (2016) credit helps farmers to purchase inputs such as improved seeds,
fertilizers and chemicals which are used as input for agricultural production. Hence, the
amount of credit received has direct relationship with the adoption of new agricultural
technology.

6. Frequency of extension contact (FREXTCONT): In this study, it was measured by

number of contact between extension agent and farmers per year. The frequency of contact
between the extension agent and the farmers was hypothesized to be the potential force,
which accelerates the effective dissemination of adequate agricultural information to the
farmers thereby enhancing farmer’s decision to adopt new technologies. Empirical results
revealed that extension contact has an influence on farm households’ adoption of new
technology (Hailu, 2008). Farmers’ visited by extension agents are believed to be exposed
for different, new, updated information used to adopt new agricultural technologies thereby
increase and double agricultural production (Wondimagegn et al., 2011). It was expected
to influence adoption and intensity of use of row planting technology on wheat production
positively.

7. Distance to the nearest market (DISMARKET): It was continuous variable and

measured by kilometers taken to arrive nearest market center from the respondent residency.
As the farmers are closer to the market, the higher will be the chance of adopting agricultural
technology because they do not have to travel long distance with their produce to sell
hence incur no costs on transport unlike those that are far and have bulky and a lot
of harvest. On the other hand, the furthest residence of farmers from nearest market is the
higher cost of transportation, the limited access to inputs and the lower the output price and
less access to information about the new agricultural technology than their counterparts.
Therefore, distance from the nearest market center is hypothesized to influence negatively the
farmers’ decision to adopt improved agricultural technology (Kabuli, 2005; and Namwata et
al., 2010). In this study, it was also expected to influence adoption and intensity of use of row
planting technology on wheat production negatively.

8. Membership to social association/groups (PARTSA): It was measured as a dichotomous

variable, with the value of 1 if the farmer was not membership of any social association/
group and, 0 otherwise. A farmer usually belongs to various types of social association/groups
and also forms part of various networks. Membership in social association implies that
 40

farmers meet regularly and allow discussions on farm issues and farmers within a group learn
from each other how to grow and market new crop varieties. As discussed, the evidence
suggests that network effects are important for individual decisions, and that, in the particular
context of agricultural innovations, farmers share information and learn from each other
(Conley and Udry, 2000). Therefore, membership in social association/group may lead to
sharing of information on new agricultural technologies and how to use them on their farm
plots; thus it was expected to have positive effect on farmers’ decision to adopt and intensity
of use of row planting technology on wheat production.

9. Availability of improved wheat seed (AVLISEED): It was measured as a dichotomous

variable, with the value of 1 for timely and adequately availability of improved wheat seed
and, 0 otherwise. The use of improved seed was believed to increases agricultural production
and productivity and adoption of new agricultural technologies. Improved seed is basic input
for practicing row planting technology since farmers do not went to use local varieties with
this technology. In this study, this variable was expected to have positive impact on the
adoption and intensity of use of row planting on wheat production.

10. Labor availability (LABORAVAL): It was interred in to the model as continues

variable. Labor was measured in terms of Man Equivalent (Storck et.al., 1991).
Availability of labor is likely to influence the gross margin of the innovation. A farm with
larger number of workers per hectare (unit of land area) is more likely to be in a position to
try and continue using a potentially profitable innovation. Household’s labor availability
has positive effect on adoption (Million and Belay, 2004). Thus, in this study, it was
expected to influence adoption and intensity of use of row planting on wheat production
positively.

11. Participation in off- farm activities (POFFACT): In this study, it was treated as a
dummy variable taking a value of 1 if a household head was not participated in any off-
farm income generating activities and, 0 otherwise. Additional income earned from
activities outside the agriculture increases the farmers’ financial capacity and the
probability of investing on new technologies. Thus, it was expected that participation in off
farm activities affects adoption and intensity of use of row planting technology on wheat
production positively. Techane et al. (2006) was found that participation in off-farm
activities positively influences farmers’ adoption decision of new agricultural technology
since it improves income constraints.
 41

12. Cultivated farm size (CFARMSIZE): In this study, it’s the amount of cultivated farm
land operated in the survey year measured in hectare and is continuous variable. Farm land
is a key factor of production in farming community. The large farm area implies more
resource and greater capacity to invest in new technologies, purchase agricultural inputs
and an increased readiness to take risk that may affect adoption of new agricultural
technologies (Ellis, 1992). Some of the studies showed a positive influence of the farm size
on adoption decision of farm households. For instance, Alene et al. (2000) studied
determinants of adoption and intensity of use of improved maize varieties in the central
highlands of Ethiopia found a significant positive effect of farm size on technology
adoption. Therefore, the farmer who owns relatively more cultivated farm land was
hypothesized to be more likely to adopt new technologies and expected to influence
adoption and intensity of use of row planting on wheat production positively.

13. Participation in training (FRPTRA): Training is one of the means by which farmers
acquire new knowledge and skill on new agricultural technology provided for them and
then increases the probability of adoption of new technology (wheat row planting). It was
measured by the number of times the farmer has participated in training of wheat row
planting in last three years. Participation in agricultural training influence farmers’
adoption behavior of new agricultural technology and intensity of its usage positively
(Belay, 2003). In this study, it was expected to affect adoption and intensity of use of row
planting technology on wheat production positively.

14. Perception towards row planting (HHPRTTECH): In this study, it was treated as
dummy variable taking the value of 1 if the farmer did not perceived a row planting
technology positively and superior to the existing one and, 0 otherwise. Perception is
important determinant of agricultural technology adoption decisions and tells us whether a
farmer has positive or negative perception towards new technology adoption. It is logical
to expect that if a farmer has a positive perception towards available new technologies (row
planting technology) (i.e., that it is superior to the existing one and able to improve his crop
yields and potential to supply safe food), then the farmer is likely to decide to adopt the
technology. Neupane et al. (2002) found that farmer’s positive perceptions towards a given
technology have positive effects on adoption decision. In this study, it was expected to
affect adoption and intensity of use of row planting technology on wheat production
positively.
 42

Table 2 : Summary of variables and hypothesized relationship

Dependant variable Description

Area under wheat row Non-negative continuous variable

planting technology

Independent variable Measurement Description Hypothesis

Age of household head Years Continuous variable -

Sex of household head 1=Female, 0 =Male +

Literacy of household Dummy variable (1=literate, 0=
head illiterate) +
Cultivated farm size Hectare Continues variable +
Livestock size TLU Continuous variable +

Labor availability ME Continuous Variable

+
Availability of Dummy variable ( 1, if available, 0
improved wheat seed otherwise ) +
Participation in off- Dummy variable ( 1, if participate, +
farm activity 0 otherwise )
Frequency of Number Continuous variable +
extension contact
Credit use Dummy variable( 1, users, 0 +
otherwise)
Distance to the
nearest market Kilometer Continuous variable -
Participation in row Number Continuous variable +
planting training
Perception on row Dummy variable ( 1, if perceived as
planting superior/positive perception, 0 +
otherwise)
Membership to social
association/group Dummy variable (1, if membership, +
0 otherwise )
 43

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Introduction

This part mainly presents the major findings of the study with an appropriate level of
discussion. It is divided in to three sub-headings that could give a brief account of the
subjects that were being investigated by the study. The first sub-heading presents the
descriptive statistics of status of adoption of wheat row planting while the second sub-
heading is about the description of socio-economic, demographic and institutional
characteristics of sample respondents by adoption level of wheat row planting. The third
sub-heading discuses econometric analysis result which deals with determinants of
adoption of wheat row planting.

4.2. Status of Adoption of Row planting Technology

Dissemination of agricultural innovations to the end users is one of the priority areas that
deserve attention in agriculture and rural development. The application of new agricultural
technology, whether it is introduced from within the social system or outside, is important
for farmers to achieve increased production and productivity of their crops. Usually there is
a variation in adopting new agricultural technologies among the farmers. Some of them
may not adopt the technology, some may adopt half of it and the other may adopt full of it.
The variation on adoption of new technology may be due to many factors. It may include
personal, psychological, economical, institutional factors etc. In this study, farmers who
did not practice/use row planting technology on wheat production during the survey year
were considered as non-adopters while the farmers who practice and use row planting
technology on wheat production were considered as adopters. Based on the result from the
calculation of adoption index, sample respondents were classified in to four adoption
categories namely non-adopter, low, medium, and high adopter in this study. The result on
mean adoption index scores across adoption category is provided in Table 3.
 44

Table 3: Distribution of sample respondents by level of adoption of wheat row planting

Adopter N % Adoption Mean STD Min Max

Categories index(AI) of AI
Non-adopt 43 30.7 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.00
Low 26 18.6 0.01-0.33 0.200 0.07 0.05 0.33
Medium 40 28.6 0.34-0.66 0.480 0.05 0.34 0.63
High 31 22.1 0.67-1.00 0.850 0.17 0.67 1.00
Total 140 100% 0.00-1.00 0.360 0.33 0.00 1.00
F-value 628.19***

Source: Own survey data, 2016; *** indicates at 1% significant mean difference

Out of 140 sample respondents, 97(69.30%) are adopters of wheat row planting at different
adoption categories: low, medium, high adopter and the rest 43(30.70%) are non-adopter
households. A close look at the adoption index score of sample respondents indicated in
table 3 reveals that 43 sample respondents have (30.70%) adoption index score of 0 which
indicates their overall non-adoption of wheat row plating, 26 respondents (18.6%) have
adoption index starting from 0.01 to 0.33 which indicates low adopters categories, while 40
households (28.6%) have adoption index score ranging from 0.34 to 0.66 indicating
medium adopters, and 31 respondents (22.1%) have adoption index score ranging from
0.67 to 1 which shows high level of use of wheat row planting in the study area.

The above table also clearly indicated that the mean adoption index score of non-adopters,
low, medium and high adopters groups was 0.00, 0.20, 0.48 and 0.85, respectively. One
way analysis of variance revealed that there is significant mean difference (F=628.19,
P=0.000) among the adoption index score of the four adoption categories at 1%
significance level, implying the existence of variation in level of adoption among sample
households. This variation of adoption may be due to household personal, economical,
institutional and technological characteristics.

4.3. Socio-economic, Demographic and Institutional Characteristics of

Farmers by Adoption Levels of Wheat Row Planting

Several factors influence farmers’ technology adoption decision and intensity of usage. In
this study, the independent variables thought to have relationship with adoption and
 45

intensity of use of wheat row planting are grouped as continuous/discrete and dummy
variables and discussed in the following sections.

Age of household head

The role of age in explaining technology adoption is somewhat controversial. It is usually

said that older farmers are assumed to have gained knowledge and experience over time
and are better able to evaluate technology information than younger farmers (Mignouna et
al., 2011). Contrary to this, as farmers grow older, there is an increase in risk aversion and
a decreased interest in long term investment on new technology than the youngest one
(Mauceri et al., 2005). On the other hand, younger farmers are typically less risk-averse
and are more willing to try new technologies.

As indicated in the table 4, the mean age of sample households was 43.29 years. The mean
age of respondents found in non-adopters, low, medium and high adopters categories were
found to be 45.88, 42.88, 43.6 and 39.61 years, respectively. The mean age of non- adopter
category was higher than low, medium and high adopter categories. This implies that most
of the aged farmers in the study area are reluctant to adopt and invest in wheat row planting
technologies. The result obtained from mean test using one-way ANOVA show that there
was significant mean difference (F=2.32, P=0.078) at 10% probability level among
adoption categories, implying the presence of significant relationship of age with adoption
and intensity of use of wheat row planting. This is evident from the significant mean
difference in average age among adoption categories.

Household labor availability

Availability and amount of family labor force plays a vital role in determining adoption
and intensity of use of new agricultural technologies. The existence of active work force in
rural households usually encourages them to show interest in trying some new agricultural
technologies. Off course, the influence of labor availability on technology adoption
depends on the characteristics of the technology to be adopted. When the new technology
in relative to the existing ones are more attractive and labor intensive, farmers with more
labor availability would tend to adopt those technologies. Nevertheless, if a technology is
labor saving like tractors, harvesters, pesticides and the like, its impact will be negative.
 46

The average labor availability in sample households in terms of ME was found to be 3.41.
The average of labour availability for non-adopters was 2.55 while for low, medium and
high adopters categories were 3.68, 3.65, and 4.05, respectively (Table 4). As compared to
non-adopter categories, the average labor availability of low, medium, and high adopter
categories was high, implies the relationship of labor availability with adoption of wheat
row planting. This is because row planting technology is labor intensive; households with
high labor availability in the family adopt the technology than others. The size of labor
force in the household is expected a priori to contribute for variation on adoption decision
of wheat row plating. The mean test of analysis of variance ANOVA (F= 15.964,P =
0.000) also shows the significant mean difference among adoption categories in terms of
labor availability at 1% probability level, implying the presence of significant relationship
of labor availability with adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting.

Moreover, data gathered during FGD and key informant interview suggested that the major
problem hindering most farmers from adoption of wheat row planting is the amount of
labor required for the activity is high as compared to the conventional one. As a result it
was found to be difficult to practice row planting for most of poor farmers and farmers
with small labor availability in the family. Hence, to simplify the task of row planting and
increase adoption, many farmers during FGD suggested that appropriate row planter
machine should be made available with affordable price and distributed to the smallholder
farmers in the area.

Land holding size

Land is perhaps the single most important and scarce resources in agricultural production
as it is a base for any economic activity especially in agricultural sector. In this study, it
refers to the total cultivated land size owned by the sample households in hectares. In the
study area, the average cultivated farm size of sample respondent was 4.27ha. The average
cultivated land holding size of non-adopters, low, medium, and high adopter categories of
sample respondent was 4.64, 3.93, 4.13 and 4.23ha, respectively (Table 4). ANOVA test
(F=1.209, P=0.309) shows none statistically significant mean difference among adoption
categories with respect to cultivated land size.
 47

Livestock holding size

Livestock are important assets and a source of livelihoods especially for farming
households in rural areas. Their purpose is multi-dimensional ranging from being as factor
of production (draught power for crop cultivation) to a symbol of prestige. It is also an
important source of income as those high livestock owner farmers could have enough cash
to purchase required amount of agricultural inputs that complementary used with new
technologies and as a source of food for rural households. As shown in table 4, the average
livestock holding size of sample respsondent was 7.17 TLU. It was observed that from
table 4, on average, non-adopters had 6.98 TLU and low, medium and high adopter
categories had 8.50, 6.88 and 6.69 TLU, respectively. The result of ANOVA test (F=1.278,
P=0.284) revealed insignificant mean difference in livestock holding size among adoption
categories. This clearly shows the non significant relationship of livestock holding size
with adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting.

Frequency of extension contact

Frequency of contact between farmer and extension agent is found to be one of the key
mechanisms in increasing adoption of new agricultural technologies. Farmers are usually
informed about the existence as well as the effective use and benefit of new technology
through extension agents. This is because exposing farmers to new and updated
information based upon innovation-diffusion theory is expected to stimulate adoption of
new technology (Uaiene et al., 2009). Extension agent acts as a link between the
innovators of the technology and users of that technology. This helps to reduce transaction
cost incurred when passing the information on the new technology to a large heterogeneous
population of farmers (Genius et al., 2010).

The result in table 4 indicated that the average frequency of extension contact was 5.72.
The average frequency of extension contact with farmers for non-adopter, low, medium,
and high adopter categories were 4.65, 6.31, 5.93, and 6.45, respectively. As compared to
non-adopter categories, the average frequency of extension contact of low, medium and
high adopter category was high. This implies the importance of extension contact in
facilitating adoption of wheat row planting. The result of ANOVA test (F=4.706, P= 0.000)
also revealed that there is statistically significant mean difference among adoption
categories with respect to frequency extension contact with farmers at 1% probability level,
 48

implying the presence of significant relationship of extension contact with adoption and
intensity of use of wheat row planting.

Furthermore, data gathered during FGD suggests that frequency of extension contact was
vital and valuable to enhance the adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting since
extension agent provide the new and updated information, skill training and knowledge
transfer on the application of the technology which increase farmer’s adoption level.

Distance from market center

Markets are communication centers for both producers and consumers (Hailu, 2008). In
this study, the average distance taken to travel from respondent residency to the nearest
market center was 5.94 kilometer. The mean distance traveled by non-adopters, low,
medium and high adopter categories to rich the nearest market centers was 6.12, 6.40, 5.98,
and 5.24 km, respectively (Table 4). The average distance traveled to reach the nearest
market center by sample respondents was relatively similar. The result of one way analysis
of variance (F=0.733, P=0.534) also shows that there is no statistically significant mean
difference among adoption categories with respect to distance from household residency to
the nearest market center.

Participation in training

Training is one of the means by which farmers acquire new knowledge and technical skills
on new technology. On the other hand, it is an important input that improves farmers’
performance and equips farmers with new knowledge and skills on the application of the
new technology. Farmers who participate frequently in training can get more information,
technical skill and knowledge on new technology than non participant farmers and
expected to boost adoption and intensity of usage.

The study shows that, the average frequency of participation of sample respondents in
wheat row planting training was 2.41. The average frequency of participation in wheat row
planting training for non-adopter, low, medium, and high adopter category was 0.51, 2.81,
3.33, and 3.52, respectively (Table 4). As compared to non-adopter categories, the average
frequency of participation in row planting training for low, medium and high adopter
categories was high, impaling the great importance of training on enhancing adoption and
intensity of use of wheat row planting. The result of ANOVA test (F=45.97, P=0.000)
 49

shows statistically significant mean difference between adoption categories with respect to
frequency of participation in wheat row planting training at 1% probability levels, implying
the presence of significant relationship of frequency of participation in training with
adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting.

Furthermore, data acquired from key informant interviews suggests that participation in
row planting training is one the mechanism to improve farmer adoption level of wheat row
planting technology. This is because training brings attitudinal change on farmer’s
technology adoption when it is given on regular basis for farmers both at FTC and
technology demonstration sites. On the other hand, data gathered from FGD suggests that
one of the major factors contributed to farmers’ hesitancy on adoption of wheat row
planting was not only luck of frequent training on the application of row planting but their
fear of crop failure especially when rain is low during planting season.
Table 4: Characteristics of wheat grower farmers by adoption levels of wheat row planting: Continuous variables
Adoption categories

Non-adopter Low adopter Medium adopter High adopter Total

F-value
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

household head 45.88 (12.1) 42.88 (9.21) 43.6 (9.7) 39.61 (8.3) 43.29 (10.3) 2.32*
vailability 2.55 (0.80) 3.68 (0.98) 3.65 (1.02) 4.05 (1.24) 3.41 (1.16) 15.946***
ted farm size 4.64 (1.67) 3.93 (1.30 ) 4.13 (1.54) 4.23 (1.90) 4.27 (1.63) 1.209(NS)
ck size in TLU 6.98 (3.78) 8.50 (5.23) 6.88 (3.20) 6.69 (3.54) 7.17 (3.90) 1.278(NS)
ncy of extension contact 4.65 (3.10) 6.31(1.64) 5.93 (1.90) 6.45 (2.03) 5.72 (2.42) 4.706***
e to the market in km 6.12 (2.90) 6.40 (3.60) 5.98 (3.11) 5.24 (3.22) 5.94 (3.16) 0.733(NS)
ation in training 0.51(1.01) 2.81 (1.50) 3.33 (1.49) 3.52 (1.18) 2.41 (1.82) 45.97***

Own survey data, 2016; Standard deviation in parentheses; NS=Non-significant;*, *** indicate at 10% and 1% significance le
 51

Sex of household head

Sex differential between household head is a very important explanatory variable in

studying determinants of adoption and intensity of use of new agricultural technology. The
prevailing social set up of rural households placed a varying responsibility among male and
female members. In most parts of rural Ethiopia women are disfavored groups of the
society who could not easily access technology information. Therefore, the sex of
household head may have a great deal of effect on the adoption and intensity of use of row
planting.

The descriptive analysis indicated that 86.43% of the sample households are male and the
rest 13.57% are women, who are single, widowed or divorced (Table 5). The result also
shown that 67.77%(82) of male and 78.95%(15) of female headed households are found in
low, medium and high adopter categories and the rest 32.23% of male and 21.10% of
female headed households are found in non-adopter categories. As also indicated in the
table 5, the number of female headed households who adopt wheat row planting are very
few as compared to their counter parts in the study area. This may be due to the fact that
female headed household may have no labor assistance from family members and less
resource endowment than their counter parts. The chi-square test (χ2=2.944, P=0.400)
revealed that there is no significant difference between sex of household head among
adoption categories.

Furthermore, data obtained from FGD also suggests that sex of the household head had a
great effect on the adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting. During the
discussion, they reported that wheat row planting were found to be very difficult to practice
for female headed than male headed households. The possible reason they imply is that
female headed household had no better access to information on new technology, labor
support from family members and lack resource than their counterparts. Although they said
that female headed household have difficulty to participate in different agricultural
activities like row planting because of their biological reproduction role of child birth and
lactation and daily activities in the house.

Literacy of household head

Literacy is among the most important human capital in the analysis of technology
adoption. It increases the ability of the farmer to use their resource efficiently and enhance
 52

the decision making capability of the farmers to adopt new agricultural technologies which
increase the product and productivity of their crops. This is because literacy influences
respondents’ attitudes and thoughts making them more open, rational and able to analyze
the benefits of new technology and increase their tendency of cooperation with the other
peoples. Feder et al. (1985) indicated that education enhances farmer’s ability to acquire,
interpret and use information, including information about agricultural technologies and
leads to the earlier and faster adoption.

In this study, regarding to the literacy of household heads, two literacy levels were
identified i.e. illiterate (if household head cannot read and write) and literate (it includes
formal and informal education of household heads). From the survey results, about 32.86%
and 67.14% of the household heads were illiterate and literate, respectively. The proportion
of literate farmers in non-adopter category was 12.77 % and in that of low, medium and
high adopter groups was 24.47 %, 37.23 %, and 25.53 %, respectively (Table 5). The result
indicated that majority of sample respondents can read and write and are adopters of wheat
row planting, implies literate household head have no difficulty in understanding the
advantage and disadvantage of new agricultural technologies hence increase their
probability of adoption. Illiterate household heads who adopt wheat row planting are only
32.61% (15) and the rest 67.39% (31) are found in non-adopter categories. The result of
chi-square- test analysis (χ2=44.360, P=0.000) shows the statistically significant difference
among adoption categories with respect to literacy of sample households at 1% probability
level, implying the presence of significant relationship of farmer’s literacy with adoption
and intensity of use of wheat row planting.

Credit use

Credit has been found to boost adoption of new agricultural technologies among
smallholder farmer in developing countries like Ethiopia (Mohammed and Temu, 2008). It
was believed that credit is used to promote the adoption of risky technologies through
relaxation of the liquidity constraints as well as through the boosting of households’ risk
bearing ability. This is because with an option of borrowing, a household can do away with
risk reducing but inefficient income diversification strategies and concentrate on more
risky but efficient investments (Simtowe and Zeller, 2006).
 53

As indicated in the Table 5, among sample household heads, 33.57% (47) of them obtained
and used the credit and the remaining 66.43% (93) have not received and used the credit.
This shows that majority of sample respondents were not received and used the credit in
the study area. This may be due to low availability of credit supply institution, high interest
rate and less farmer’s awareness towards credit uses in the district. With respect to credit
uses of farmers in the adoption categories, 29.79 % of non-adopters, 23.40 % of low-
adopters, 23.40 % of medium and 23.40 % of high adopters have received the credit. The
result of chi-square- test (χ2=1.622, P=0.654) revealed that there is no significant
difference between adoption categories with respect to credit uses.

Availability of improved wheat seed

As indicated in the Table 5, out of 140 sample household heads, 45.71% of farmers were
reported availability of improved wheat seed on time with required quantity and the
remaining 54.29% of farmers reported unavailability of improved wheat seed on time with
required quantity during agricultural cropping period as a major problem on adoption of
wheat row planting in the study area. The result shows that availability of improved wheat
seed on time with required quantity was relatively lower in the study area; hence affect
farmer’s probability of adoption of row planting technologies since farmers are usually
interested to use improved seed with this technology. The proportion of farmers in
adoption categories, 10.94 % of non-adopters, 26.56 % of low-adopters, 37.50% of
medium and 25.00 % of high adopters have reported availability of improved wheat seed
on time with required quantity during cropping season in the study area. The result of chi-
square- test (χ2=22.791, P=0.000) shows the significant difference between adoption
categories with respect to availability of improved wheat seed at 1% probability level,
implying the presence of significant relationship between availability of improved wheat
seed and adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting.

Participation in social group/association

Belonging to a social group/association enhances social capital allowing trust, idea and
information exchange on new agricultural technology available (Mignouna et al., 2011).
Farmers within a social group learn from each other the benefit and application of new
agricultural technologies. Uaiene et al. (2009) also suggests that social network effects are
important for individual decisions, and that, in the particular context of agricultural
 54

innovations, farmers share information and learn from each other hence increase their
probability of adoption.

Out of 140 sample farmers interviewed, 92.86% of them had participated in social group
while 7.14% did not participate in social group. From 92.86% (130) of respondents
participated in social group, 72.31% (94) are found in low, medium and high adopter
categories and the rest are found in non-adopter categories (Table 5). This show that,
majority of sample respondents where participated in social group/association and are
adopters in different adoption categories. This may be due to the fact that farmers within
the social group can share information on new available agricultural technologies hence
increase their probability of adoption. The result of chi-square test (χ2=8.734, P=0.033)
shows statistically significant difference between adoption categories with respect to
participation in social group/association, indicating the presence of significant relationship
of social participation with adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting in the study
area.

Participation in off-farm activities

Participation in off-farm activity is one of the mechanism by which farmers alleviate their
income constraints in agricultural technology adoption. This is because off-farm activity
acts as an important strategy for overcoming credit constraints faced by the rural
households in many developing countries (Reardon et al., 2007). According to Diiro
(2013) off- farm activity is expected to provide farmers with liquid capital for purchasing
productivity enhancing inputs such as improved seed, weed chemicals and fertilizers etc. In
the study area, petty trade, daily labor on different activities, house making and horse
drawn cart were found to be among off-farm activities in which sample households are
participating in as a source of income. Out of the total sample household heads, 61.43%
(86) were involved in off-farm activities, while 38.57% (54) are not (Table 5). Among the
sample respondents who participated in off-farm activities, 72.09 % were found in low,
medium and high adopter categories and the rest 27.91% were found in non-adopter
categories. The analysis of chi-square test result indicated that with respect to participation
in off-farm activities (χ2=2.943, p=0.401), there is no significant difference among
adoptioncategories.
 55

Table 5: Characteristics of wheat grower farmers by adoption levels of wheat row planting: Dummy variables

Adoption categories
Non-adopter Low adopter Medium adopter High adopter Total
N % N % N % N % N % Chi2- value

Sex of household Male 39 32.23 23 19.01 35 28.93 24 19.83 121 86.43

head Female 4 21.10 3 15.79 5 26.31 7 36.84 19 13.57 2.944(NS)
Literacy of household Illiterate 31 67.39 3 6.52 5 10.87 7 15.22 46 32.86
44.360***
heads Literate 12 12.77 23 24.47 35 37.23 24 25.53 94 67.14
Credit use No 29 31.18 15 16.13 29 31.18 20 21.51 93 66.43
1.622(NS)
Yes 14 29.79 11 23.40 11 23.40 11 23.40 47 33.57

Participation on No 7 70.00 0 0.00 1 10 2 20 10 7.14

8.734**
social group Yes 36 27.69 26 20.00 39 30 29 22.3 130 92.86
Participation in No 19 35.19 11 20.37 11 20.37 13 24.07 54 38.57 2.943(NS)
off-farm activities Yes 24 27.91 15 17.44 29 33.72 18 20.93 86 61.43
Availability of No 36 47.37 9 11.84 16 21.05 15 19.74 76 54.29 22.791***
improved wheat seed Yes 7 10.94 17 26.56 24 37.5 16 25.00 64 45.71

Source: Own survey data, 2016; N=Number of respondent; NS=Non-significant;**, *** indicate at 5% and 1% significance level
 56

4.4. Econometric Analysis

In the previous section a description of sample households’ important characteristics and

their relation with adoption of wheat row planting was thoroughly presented. However, a
simple look at the relation and association of those variables by itself is not enough to
reach on conclusion. In this section therefore, results and discussions from an econometric
model analyses was presented. Accordingly, Tobit model was used to analyze the influence
of various explanatory variables on adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting
technology.

Before running the model analyses the existence of a serious of multi-co linearity problem
among independent variables for all continuous and discrete variable were checked by
Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for continuous/discrete explanatory variables and
Contingency Coefficients (CC) for dummy explanatory variables. The values of VIF
displayed in the appendix table 1 show that all the continuous explanatory variables have
no serious multi-co linearity problem and the values of the contingency coefficients were
also low as shown in appendix table 2. Based on the value of this two multi-co linearity
problem tests both the hypothesized continuous/discrete and dummy variables were
included in the respective models.

4.4.1. Determinants of Adoption of Row Planting Technology

This part presents the maximum likelihood of Tobit econometric model estimates of the
factor affecting adoption and intensity of use of row planting technology on wheat
production. The dependent variable for the Tobit model is the proportion of cultivated farm
size covered by wheat row planting from the total cultivated wheat area which is non-
negative continuous variable. From a total of 14 explanatory variables included in the
model, eight explanatory variables were continuous and the rest six were dummy variables.
The selection of those explanatory variables for the model was done through literature
review of previous similar works and the characteristics of the study area.

The result of maximum likelihood estimates of Tobit model are summarized in Table 6.
From the total of 14 explanatory variables hypothesized to influence adoption and intensity
of use of wheat row planting, the Tobit model output suggests that, literacy of household
head, livestock size in TLU, frequency of extension contact, credit use, availability of
improved wheat seed, distance to the nearest market center, participation in agricultural
 57

training( wheat row planting training), and labour availability are the major factors found
to be significantly affecting adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting in the
study area.

The log likelihood function indicates a chi-square value of 136.50 significant at 1%

probability level. This means the model as a whole fits significantly (P≤0.001). On the
other hand, it implies that all explanatory variables included in the model jointly influence
the adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting by the farmers in the study area.

Literacy of household head (HHHLITERACY)

In this study, in conformity with the hypothesis, literacy of the household head, which is
one of the important indicator of human capital, were positively and significantly
influenced the probability of adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting at 5%
probability level, suggesting that literate household head can understand agricultural
instructions easily, have better access to information and higher tendency to adopt
improved agricultural technologies than illiterate household heads. Moreover, literacy
enhances farmers’ to make independent choices/decision and to act on the basis of the
decision and increase the households ability to acquire, analyze, interpret and use
information relevant to the adoption of improved agricultural technologies. Thus, literacy
of household head emerges as an important factor in enhancing adoption and intensity of
use of wheat row planting in the study area. This result goes along with the study done by
Tolesa et al. (2014), Wangare (2007), Yonas (2014), Mohammed (2014) and Leake and
Adam (2015).

Labor availability (LABORAVAL)

As per the prior hypothesis, household labour availability had influenced the probability of
adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting positively at 1% level of significance.
The result reveals that when household labor availability increases, the probability of the
household being adopter of the wheat row planting increases. The probable reason for this
positive effect was that improved practices like wheat row planting are labour intensive
and hence the households with high labour availability in their family uses the technologies
on their farm plots better than others. On the other hand, households with more labor
availability is expected to ease labour constraints, thereby enhancing the farm households
more likely to register better adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting than
 58

others. In addition, large working labor force in the family means, there is high labour
availability in the households for agricultural activities hence the household may not need
to hire more additional labor and the money saved due to the use of own labor force could
be used for purchasing other agricultural inputs and enhance the probability of adoption of
wheat row planting. The result was consistent with the finding of Motuma et al. (2010),
Leake and Adam (2015), Tadele (2016), Yonas (2014) and Abrhaley (2016).

Frequency of extension contact (FREXTCONT)

Frequency of extension contact as measured in number extension contact with farmers per
year during the agricultural production season were positively and significantly influenced
the adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting at 10% probability level, implying
that farmers who had frequently contacted with extension agents during the agricultural
cropping season was allocated more of their cultivated wheat land for wheat row planting
and are technically more efficient on the application of row planting on farm plots than
those who had less number of contacts. In another words, the result indicates that farmers
who are frequently exposed to formal extension information have higher probability
towards adoption than those with less exposure. Thus, farmers’ who frequently visited by
extension agents are believed to be exposed to different, new, and update information that
help them to speedup adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting on their farm
lands. The result was found as per to the prior expectation. The result was consistent with
the finding of Kapalasa (2014), Kwame and Bhavani (2014), Ghimire et al. (2015) and
Frank et al. (2016).

Market distance (DISMARKET)

As expected, distance from the respondent’s home to the nearest market center were
negatively and significantly influenced the probability of adoption and intensity of use of
wheat row planting at 10% probability level. The negative influence of this variable
suggests that the likelihood of adopting wheat row planting declines as the distance from
the respondent’s home to the nearest market center increase. The possible reason might be
that, the furthest residence of farmers from nearest market is the higher cost of
transportation, the limited access to inputs and the lower the output price and less access to
information about the new agricultural technology (row planting technology) than their
counterparts. Moreover, actually, there might be agricultural input for instance improved
seed, modern fertilizer, weed chemical suppliers within a certain sub-district or village, but
 59

if once finished, to avail it again, time will fly and the probability of adopting these
technologies would undoubtedly be compromised. This can be explained as market
distance increases, farmers may incur more costs for transport, spend time and energy
consumption, which increases total production cost and thereby contribute for low final
return. Consequently, farmer initiation for adoption of new technology (wheat row
planting) would decline. The result was consistence with the findings of Kabuli (2005),
Namawata et al. (2010), Kapalasa (2014) and Beyan (2016).

Credit use (CRDITUSE)

Credit use was one of institutional variable which was found to have positive and
significant influence on the probability of adoption and intensity of use of wheat row
planting at 10% probability level. The result is in line with the hypothesis set forth. The
result reveals that farmers who have received and used the credit have higher probability of
adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting than non-user farmers. This has an
implication that credit use is one way of improving financial constraints for purchasing
different agricultural inputs like improved seed, modern fertilizer, weed chemicals and
hiring labor/row planting machine from private owner farmer’s to improve labor
constraints for agricultural activities. As a liquidity factor, the more farmers have received
and used the credit, the more likely to adopt wheat row planting that could possibly
increase their yield. Therefore, the significance of credit use variable in positively
influencing the farmer’s decision to adopt wheat row planting indicates the inherent
demand for credit and its importance in facilitating the uptake of improved agricultural
technologies (wheat row planting). The result is consistent with the finding of Namwata et
al. (2010), Simtowe et al. (2016), Frank et al. (2016) and Beyan (2016).

Availability of improved wheat seed (AVIWSEED)

Availability of improved wheat seed at the right time with required quantity has the
expected positive and significant influence on adoption and intensity of use of wheat row
planting at 1% probability level. The positive influence of this variable implies that
supplying improved wheat seed at the right time with required quantity increases the
farmer’s probabilities of being adopter of row planting technology since improved seed is
one of the main agricultural inputs which farmers usually interested to use than old seeds.
This is because improved wheat seed gives high yield at harvesting period than old seeds
especially when used with row planting technology. Conversely, if improved wheat seed
 60

was not available at the time of cropping season, farmers will allocate their cultivated
wheat land for traditional broadcasting method using old wheat seed because the farmers
are not likes to wait for the availability of improved wheat seeds since the time of crop
planting season may pass. The result is the reflection of the situation in the study area in
particular and in Ethiopia in general about the supply of improved seeds. Quite often
improved wheat seeds are in short supply in the study area and hence adoption becomes a
question of timely availability and provision of the enough quantities for farming
households. On the other hand, high cost, untimely and unavailability of improved seed has
profound effect on rejection of adoption of row planting technology by farmers. The result
is in line with the finding of Ghimire et al. (2015), Laduber (2016), Ume and Ochiaka
(2016), Tolesa (2014), Tolesa et al. (2014) and Bayissa (2010).
 61

Table 6: Maximum likelihood estimates of Tobit Model

Variables Estimated coefficients Standard error t-ratio

HHHSEX -0.017 0.089 -0.19

HHHAGE -0.003 0.003 -0.91
LABORAVAL 0.098*** 0.029 3.35
HHHLITERACY 0.022** 0.010 2.27
CLFARMSIZE -0.011 0.018 -1.11
LIVESTSIZE(TLU) -0.028 *** 0.008 -3.66
POFFACT 0.076 0.062 1.23
*
FREXTCONT 0.030 0.016 1.87
CRDITUSE 0.112* 0.061 1.84
PARTSG/A 0.085 0.117 0.73
AVLWSEED 0.232*** 0.076 3.05
DISMARKET -0.016* 0.009 -1.85
***
FRPTRA 0.084 0.021 4.00
HHPRPTECH -0.029 0.031 -0.94
CONST -0.406 0.271 -1.50
Sigma 0.281 0.021

Log likelihood function = -32.35428, Pseudo R2 = 0.6784, Prob > Chi2 = 0.0000
LRCh2 (14) =136.50
Source: Model output, 2016
**
Note: *, and *** represents significance at 10%, 5% and 1% probability levels,
respectively.

Participation in training (FRPTRA)

Training is one of the extension events and the means of teaching and learning process
where farmers get practical skill and technical information for adoption of new agricultural
technologies. As expected, this variable were influenced the probability of adoption and
intensity of use of wheat row planting positively and significantly at 1% probability level.
This may be explained by the fact that farmers who have an opportunity to participate
frequently in wheat row planting training and attend training at demonstration site of wheat
row planting gain better knowledge and technical skill on the application of wheat row
 62

planting thus are more likely to adopt and use the technologies than those who less
participate. In another words, the result reveals that farmers who are frequently exposed to
formal training given at FTC and technology demonstration site have higher probability
towards adoption than those with less exposure. When farmers practically observe a new
practice they can weigh the advantage and disadvantages of the new technology. This can
facilitate adoption and helps them to implement the new technology properly. The
implication is that emphasis has to be given to farmers’ adoption of wheat row planting
through frequent training at FTC and technology demonstration site to enhance adoption
and intensity of usage among them. The result is agreed with the findings of Beyan (2016),
Alemitu (2011) and Tesfaye et al. (2001).

Livestock size (LIVESTSIZE)

The model result revealed that livestock size had influenced the probability of adoption and
intensity of use of wheat row planting negatively and significantly at 1% probability level.
The negative influence of the variable on adoption and intensity of use of wheat row
planting implies that when the livestock size increases the farmer’s aspiration to adopt and
intensity of use of wheat row planting decreases. The result was not in compliance with the
previous hypothesis set forth. The possible reason for the result obtained in this study could
be that the household with large livestock size allocate small land for the cultivation of
crops. This is because as livestock size increase, the grazing land allocated for livestock
production also increases and this intern decrease generally the land allocated for crop
production specifically the land for wheat production. Moreover, due to high labor
requirement of row planting, the households with larger number of livestock size divide
their labor force in to two activities. This may lead to labor shortage for practicing row
planting technology. For this reason those who own large number of livestock found to be
low adopter and intensity of usage. The result is in line with the findings of Tolosa et al.
(2014), Laduber et al. (2016) and Berihun et al. (2014).

Effects of change in significant explanatory variables on adoption and intensity of use

of wheat row planting

All variables that were found to influence the probability of adoption and intensity of use
of wheat row planting might not have similar contribution in influencing the decision of
farm households. Therefore, change in explanatory variables from a Tobit model could be
decomposed in to changes due to probability of adoption and changes due to intensity of
 63

use as suggested by McDonald and Moffit (1980). Accordingly, the marginal effect of
significant explanatory variables in explaining adoption and intensity of use of wheat row
planting are listed in Table 7.

From a total of eight statistically significant explanatory variables, six of them were found
to have a positive effect while the rest two have negative effect on the dependent variable.
Literacy of household head, frequency of extension contact, credit uses, availability of
improved wheat seed, participation in row planting training and labor availability are
variables which positively influence adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting.
Contrary to this, distances to the nearest market and livestock size have a negative
influence on adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting. Of those positive
significant explanatory variables, the marginal effects of availability of improve wheat seed
followed by the credit use and labor availability was larger than the rest three variables.

The marginal effect result reveals that an intervention ensuring the availability and
provision of improved wheat seed to farmers in required quantity and at the right time
increases the probability of adoption of wheat row planting by 23.47% and also increases
the intensity of use of wheat row planting by 0.1337. The overall effect of this variable on
adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting was 0.1824. The effect is very
immense as compared to the change resulting from other positive significant explanatory
variables implying that priority should be given for improving the availability, delivery
system, quantity and timely availability of improved wheat seeds for farm households in
the study area. On the other hand, a unit increase in ME will increase the probability of
change on adoption of wheat row planting by 9.20%. Moreover, a unit increase in labor
availability in ME will increase the intensity of use of wheat row planting by 0.0589.

Credit uses and frequency of participation in wheat row planting training are other positive
significant explanatory variables which have profound effect on probability of adoption
and intensity of use of wheat row planting. Marginal effect result reveals that creating
awareness among farmers on credit uses and improving credit supply institution increase
the probability of change on adoption of wheat row planting by 10.49%. Moreover, the
effect of change in credit use on intensity of use of wheat row planting is 0.0672. That
means, if the farmers have obtained the credit for agricultural production, the intensity of
use of wheat row planting will increase by 0.0672. The overall effect of this variable on
adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting was 0.0912. As a liquidity factor, the
 64

more farmers have obtained the credit, the more likely to adopt row planting technologies
that could possibly increase their yield. The marginal effect result in the table also
indicated that a unit increase in farmer’s frequency of participation in wheat row planting
training increases the probability of change on adoption of wheat row planting by 7.89%
and also increases the intensity of use of wheat row planting by 0.0505. This is because
training improves farmer’s knowledge on the application of row planting and then changes
their attitudes and enhances adoption of the technologies. The overall effect of the variable
was 0.0686.

Table 7: Marginal effects of significant explanatory variables

Change in Change in
probability of intensity of
Variable description adoption use Overall change

LITERACY 0.0209 0.0134 0.0181

LABORAVAL 0.0920 0.0589 0.0710
LIVESTSIZE -0.0262 -0.0168 -0.0228
FREXTCONT 0.0283 0.0181 0.0246
CRDUSES 0.1049 0.0672 0.0912
ACCWISEED 0.2347 0.1337 0.1824
DISMARKET -0.0150 -0.0096 -0.0130
FRPTRA 0.0789 0.0505 0.0686
Source : Model output, 2016

Moreover, the marginal effect result confirms that as a frequency of extension contact with
farmers increase by one the probability of change on adoption of wheat row planting
increases by 2.83% and also increases the intensity of use of wheat row planting by 0.0181.
The overall effect from this variable was 0.0246. Therefore, the extension agent have to
take in to account the frequency of contact with farmer as a major component of extension
to promote adoption of wheat row planting and intensity of usage among farming
households. On the other hand, marginal effect result reveals that providing opportunities
for farmers to improve their literacy level increase the probability of change on adoption of
wheat row planting by 2.09%. In addition, the effect of change in household’s literacy on
the intensity of use of wheat row planting was 0.0134. It means that if the household head
have got an opportunity to improve their literacy level, the intensity of use of wheat row
 65

planting will increase by a factor of 0.0134. This is because literate farmers have the ability
to realize quickly the advantage and disadvantage new technologies and then adopt faster
than their counterparts. The overall effect of this variable on adoption and intensity of
usage was 0.0181.

Furthermore, the result of marginal effect revealed that a unit increase in TLU decreases
the household’s probability of change on adoption of wheat row planting by a factor of
2.62% and also decrease the intensity of use of wheat row planting by 0.0168. The overall
effect of this variable on adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting was -0.0228.
It means that as livestock size increase, land allocated for practicing wheat row planting
and labor availability for the activity decrease. On the other hand, a unit increase in
walking distance (km) from the home of a household to the nearest market center decreases
the probability of change on adoption of wheat row planting by 1.50%. Moreover, a unit
increase in distance (km) from the household residency to the nearest market will decrease
the intensity of use of wheat row planting by 0.0096. It means that as distance to the
nearest market increase, farmer access to input and output market and information on new
technology decrease. The overall effect of this variable on adoption and intensity of use of
wheat row planting was -0.0130.
 66

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary

This study assessed the current status of adoption of wheat row planting and identifies
factors that determine farmers’ decision on adoption and intensity of use of wheat row
planting. A multi-stage sampling and proportional allocation techniques were used to
obtain sample respondents. Thus, the study used a primary data collected through pre-
tested structured interview schedule from randomly selected 140 sample respondents from
randomly selected three Kebeles in Munesa district of East Arsi zone. Moreover,
qualitative data were collected from FGD and key informant interviews to get in-depth
information. Furthermore, secondary data from published and unpublished sources were
reviewed for this study purpose. The studies were used descriptive statistics, inferential
statistics and econometric model (Tobit model) for the data analyses. Inferential statistics
were used to test the significant relationship between independent and dependent variable.
VIF and CC were also used to assess the existence of multi co-linearity problem among the
independent variables.

The result of descriptive analysis has shown that 69.29% of sample respondents are
adopters and 30.71% are non-adopters of wheat row planting during the survey year in
study area. But there is a variation among adopters of wheat row planting. On the other
hand, for various reason farmers’ may not fully adopt and plant their total cultivated wheat
area by row planting technology. As mentioned by sample respondents the reason for
variation among adopters of wheat row planting ranges from the financial capacity of
farmers to other household personal and demographic, economic, institutional and
psychological related factors. The variation among sample respondent was assessed in
view of various factors theoretically known to influence farmers’ adoption behavior of new
technologies.

Result from inferential analysis of chi-square test and one way ANOVA test indicated that
some of the variables hypothesized to influence farmers’ adoption behavior were
significantly related with adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting. Accordingly,
human capital (age, labor availability, literacy of household head), institutional variables
(participation in social association/group, frequency of extension contact, participation in
row planting training), and farmers’ perception towards row plating technology had
significant correlation with adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting.
 67

From 14 explanatory variables included in the Tobit model, eight variables had shown
significant relationship with adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting.
Accordingly, literacy of household head, labor availability, credit use, frequency of
extension contact, participation in wheat row planting training and utilization of improved
wheat seed were found to have positive and significant influence on adoption and intensity
of use of wheat row planting. Contrary to this, livestock size in TLU and distance to the
nearest market center in km were found to have negative and significant influence on
adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting.

5.2. Conclusions and Recommendations

Wheat has assumed its importance as a major staple food crop in Ethiopian agriculture.
Expansion in the production of wheat crop stimulated through technological change is
expected to support higher calorie intake and improve households and national food
security. The primarily rain fed wheat production in Ethiopia is still low and lagging
behind many African countries and is also deficient in terms of production to meet the
national requirements. The performance of wheat production has been commendable in
recent years. It is understood that there is enormous potential for further productivity
growth in wheat crop through the adoption and intensity of use of row planting technology
which is important to meet the growing demand and food deficit particularly in Ethiopia
specifically in the study area, hence reduce poverty and countries dependence on wheat
import and then stimulates economic growth of the country.

Regardless of its contribution, however, the emphasis given nationally to the sector is still
relatively low compared to other food crops. As a result of this, institutional support
service, several household personal, demographic and economic related factors affected the
adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting technologies and consequently
production and productivity of the sector. Based on the research findings, the following
significant variables are recommended to improve farmers’ adoption and intensity of use of
wheat row planting technology.

The study find out that frequency of extension contact and participation in row planting
training are imperative in raising farmer’s adoption and intensity of use of wheat row
planting. Therefore, the district rural development and agricultural office should give due
emphasis to wheat grower farmers to increase their adoption and intensity of use of wheat
row planting by arranging frequent short-term training and awareness creation programs
 68

through FTC method and training at technology demonstration sites. Moreover, since
extension agents have potential force for effective dissemination of updated and adequate
information for farmers at grass root level, the district rural development and agricultural
office should reinforced the existing extension service provision so as to improve farmers’
frequency of contact with extension agents to get up-date information and advices on new
technologies (row planting) through increasing the number of extension workers and
creating proper environment for them to reach all farm households in the study area.

Literacy of farmers (being literate) is also found to be vital in raising adoption and intensity
of use of wheat row planting. Therefore, the study recommends local governments to
intensify the existing formal and informal education for smallholder farmers. On the other
hand, literacy campaigns and adult education strategies must be designed and implemented
by concerned bodies to improve the farmer’s literacy level.

Labor availability was found to affect adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting
technology significantly and positively. In the experience of smallholder farming row
planting is found to be labour intensive as compared to the conventional one. Hence, to
improve this, wheat row planter machine should be produced and provided to the farmers,
who cannot afford it easily, at subsidized price or available to the farmers in contract form
by the local governments.

Most farmers’ deviation from adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting was
found partly due to lack of financial capacity. Therefore, micro finance institutions found
in the district or zone (farmers’ financial markets) should improve the delivery system to
enable farmers to acquire and use credit to purchase different agricultural inputs that
complementary used with row planting technologies. In addition, credit should be made
available to the farmers at lower interest rate to improve their credit uses and adoption of
wheat row planting.

Farmers reported timely unavailability of required quantity and high price of improved
wheat seed as their major constraint to practice wheat row planting. This greatly exposed
them to use local seed which results in low yield at harvesting period and high production
expenses and in turn results in low adoption of row planting. Therefore, the existing
improved wheat seed supplier institutions at zonal/district level or the delivery system
should be strengthen and has to be distributed on time with required quantity through easy
 69

channel at fair price directly to the farmers unlike to the current condition not reach at the
peak sowing season.

Livestock size was found to affect adoption and intensity of use of wheat row planting
negatively. Due to the limitation of land for both crop production and livestock rearing in
the study area, the farmers should reduce the livestock to manageable size so that they can
invest the extra income from livestock for purchasing of different agricultural inputs and
hiring of labor/row planter machine.

The negative influence of distance to the nearest market center on the adoption and
intensity of use of wheat row planting call for concerning bodies to invest on improving
rural road infrastructure and market access through development and maintenances of rural
road networking that provide services all year round. Alternatively, emphasis should be
given to strengthen the existing rural-urban infrastructure development to improve farmer’s
access to input and output markets.
 70

6. REFERENCES

Abate Bekele. 1989. Income Potential Assessment of Improved Wheat Varieties at

Farm levels. In Workshop on Problems and Prospects of Rural Development in
Ethiopia, Nazret (Ethiopia).

Abreham Kebedom, and Tewodros Ayalew. 2014. Analyzing Adoption and Intensity of
Use of Coffee Technology Package in Yergacheffe District, Gedeo Zone, SNNPR,
Ethiopia. Dilla University, College of Agriculture and Natural resources.
International Journal of Science and Research, 3(10): 231-706.

Abrhaley Gebrelibanos. 2007. Farmers’ Perception and Adoption of Integrated Striga

Management Technology in Tahtay Adiabo Woreda, Tigray, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis
Submitted to School of Graduate Studies, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.

Abrhaley Tsehaye. 2016 .The Analysis of Fertilizer Use and Agricultural productivity: The
Case of La’ilay Maychew Woreda, Tigray, Ethiopia. To be presented on 14th
International Conference on the Ethiopian Economy, organized by EEA.

Adesina, A., and Zinnah, M. 1993. Technology Characteristics, Farmers' Perceptions and
Adoption Decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leon. Agricultural
Economics, 9: 297-311.

Akinola, A., Alene, A., Adeyemo, R., Sanogo, D., Olanrewaju, A., Nwoke, C., and
Nziguheba, G. 2010. Determinants of Adoption and Intensity of Use of Balance
Nutrient Management Systems Technologies in the Northern Guinea Savanna of
Nigeria. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 49(1):25.

Akudugu, M., Guo, E., and Dadzie, S. 2012. Adoption of Modern Agricultural Production
Technologies by Farm Households in Ghana: What Factors Influence their
Decisions? Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 2(3).

Alemitu Mulugeta. 2011. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Haricot Bean Varieties
and Associated Agronomic Practices in Dale Woreda, SNNPRS. MSc Thesis
Research, Hawassa University, Ethiopia.

Alene, A., Poonyth, D., and Hassan, R. 2000. Determinants of Adoption and Intensity of
Use of Improved Maize Varieties in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia: a Tobit
analysis, 39(4): 633-643.

Amemiya, T. 1985. Advanced Econometrics. T.J Press, Pad stow Ltd: Great Britian.
 71

Anderson, J. 2002. "Environmental Issues and Farming in Developing Countries," 13th

Congress, Wageningen, the Netherlands, International Farm Management
Association.

Andrei, P. 2011. Agricultural Technology Adoption: Issues for Consideration When

Scaling-Up. The Cornell policy review: Journal of the Cornell Institute for Public
Affairs, 1.

Ashby, J., and Sperling, L. 1992. Institutionalizing Participatory, Client-driven Research

and Development in Agriculture. Paper presented at the meeting of the CGIAR
social scientists. The Hague. September 15-22.

Assefa Admassie and Gezahegn Ayele. 2010. Adoption of Improved Technology in

Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Economics, 1(5): 155-178.

ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency). 2012. Results of 2012 New Teff Technology
Demonstration Trials.

Ahmed H., Lemma, Z., and Endrias G. 2014. Technical efficiency of maize producing
farmers in Arsi Negelle, Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia: Stochastic Frontier
Approach. J. Agriculture and Forestry. 60 (1): 157-167.

Attaullah, K., Muhammad Arif, Asad Sh., Sajid Ali, Zahira, H., and Sajjad, K. 2007.
Evaluation of Planting Methods for GrainYield and Yield Component of Wheat.

Awotide, B., Diagne, A., Wiredu, A., and Ojehomon, V. 2012. Wealth Status and
Agricultural Technology Adoption among Smallholder Rice Farmers in Nigeria.
International Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(2).

Bahadur, K., and Siegfried, B. 2004. Technology Adoption and Household Food Security.
Analyzing Factors Determining Technology Adoption and Impact of Project
Intervention: A Case of Small holder Peasants in Nepal, Paper Prepared to
Present in the Deutscher Tropentag, Humboldt-University, Berlin.

Bandiera, O., and Rasul, I. 2006. “Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern
Mozambique.” The Economic Journal, 116(514): 869-902.

Bayissa Gedefa. 2010. Adoption of Improved Sesame Varieties in Meisso District, West
Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. PHD Dissertation, Haramaya University, Ethiopia: 108.
 72

Belay Kassa. 2003. Agricultural Extension in Ethiopia: The Case of Participatory

Demonstration and Training Extension System. Journal of Social Development in
Africa; Harare, 18(1).

Berihun Kassa, Bihon Kassa, and Kibrom Aregawi. 2014. Adoption and Impact of
Agricultural Technologies on Farm Income: Evidence from Southern Tigray,
Northern Ethiopia. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics,
2(4): 91-106.

Biftu, A., Diriba, B., Bayisa, T., and Getachew, F. 2016. Participatory Demonstration and
Evaluation of Bread Wheat Technologies: The experience of FRG/FREG approach
in Bale and West Arsi zones of Oromia national regional state, Ethiopia. Scientific
Journal of Crop Science, 5(3): 90-103.

Bewket, W. 2007. Soil and Water Conservation Intervention with Conventional

Technologies in Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and Adoption by
Farmers. Land use Policy, 24:404-416.

Beyan Ahmed. 2016. What Determines Smallholder Farmers’ Decision to Adopt Multiple
Cropping Technologies? Evidence from East Hararghe Zone, Oromia Region,
Ethiopia. Department of Agricultural Economics, Haramaya University. World
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 12 (4): 282-289.

Bonabana-Wabbin, J. 2002. Assessing Factors Affecting Adoption of Agricultural

Technologies: The Case of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Kumi District,
MSc Thesis, Eastern Uganda.

Bourdillon, M., Hebinck, P., Hoddinott, J., Kinsey, B., Marondo, J., Mudege, N., and
Owens, T. 2002. Assessing the Impact of HYV Maize in Resettlement Areas of
Zimbabwe. Summary report. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, D.C.

Caswell, M., Fuglie, K., Ingram, C., Jans, S., and Kascak, C. 2001. Adoption of
Agricultural Production Practices: Lessons learned from the US. Department of
Agriculture area studies project. Washington DC. US Department of Agriculture.
Resource Economics Division, Economic Research service, Agriculture Economic
Report No. 792.
 73

Chambers, R., and Ghildyal, B. 1985. Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers: The
Farmer First and Last Model. Agricultural Administration, 20.1-30.

Chirwa, E. 2005. Adoption of Fertilizer and Hybrid Seeds by Smallholder Maize Farmers
in Southern Malawi. Development of Southern Africa, 22 (1): 1–12.

Conley, T., and Udry, C. 2000. Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana.
Unpublished Paper. Yale University, Economic Growth Center.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia). 2012. Agricultural Sample Survey: Area and
Production of Major Crops, Meher season, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia). 2013. Report on Area and Production of
Major Crops, Private Peasant holdings, Meher season, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia). 2014. Agricultural Sample Survey 2009/10
to 2014/15. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia). 2016. Comprehensive Food Security and
Vulnerability Analysis. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

CSA (Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia). 2011. Agricultural Sample Survey: Area
planed and Production of Major Crops. Meher season, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA (Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia). 2016. Projected Summery and Statistical
Report of 2016 Populations and Housing Census, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Dasgupta, S. 1989. Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations in Village India. Department of

Sociology and Anthropology, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada Nkonya.

Diiro, G. 2013. Impact of Off-farm Income on Technology Adoption Intensity and

Productivity: Evidence from Rural Maize Farmers in Uganda. International Food
Policy Research Institute, Working Paper 11.

Dorosh, P., and Rashid, S. 2013. “Food and Agriculture in Ethiopia: Progress and Policy
C.

Doss, C., Wangi, M., Verkuijl, H., and De Groote, H. 2003. Adoption of Maize and Wheat
Technologies in Eastern Africa: A Synthesis of the Findings of 22 Case Studies.
Economic Working Paper 03-06. Mexico.
 74

Doss, CR., and Morris, ML. 2001. “How Does Gender Affect the Adoption of Agricultural
Innovations? The Case of Improved Maize Technology in Ghana”. Agricultural
Economics, 25(1):27–39.

Ellis, F. 1992. Agricultural Policies in Developing Countries. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Ermias Tesfay. 2013. Adoption of Improved Sorghum Varieties and Farmers’ Varietal
Trait Preference in Kobo District, North Wolo Zone, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis,
Haramaya University, Ethiopia. College of Agriculture and Environmental
Sciences, Department of Agricultural Economics: 74.

Etwire, E., Anoma, A., and Miranda, Y. 2016. Seed Delivery Systems and Farm
Characteristics Influencing the Improved Seed Uptake by Smallholders in Northern
Ghana. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 5(2).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nation). 2014a. “Crop Production
Data.” Rome, Italy. United Nations.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nation). 2014b. Food Balance Sheets.
Rome, Italy.

FDRE (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia). 2010. Growth and Transformation Plan
2010/11- 2014/15. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 1.

Feder, G., Just E., and Zilberman, D. 1982. Adoption of Agricultural Innovation in
Developing Countries: A Survey. World Bank, staff working papers, 542(3).

Feder, G., Just, R., and Zilberman, D. 1985. Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in
Developing Countries: A survey. Journal of Economic Development and Cultural
Change, 33(2): 255-95.

Foster, D., and Rosenzweig, M. 1995. Learning by Doing and Learning from Others:
Human Capital and Technical Change in Agriculture. Journal of Political
Economy, 103 (6):117-120.

Frank, E., Mmbando, L., loyd, G., and Baiyegunhi, J. 2016. Socio-Economic and
Institutional Factors Influencing Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties in Hai
District, Tanzania.
 75

Freeman, A., and Omiti, J. 2003. Fertilizer Use in Semi-Arid Areas of Kenya: Analysis of
Smallholder Farmers Adoption Behavior under Liberalized Markets”. Nutrient
Cycling in Agro ecosystems, 66: 23–31.

GAIN (Global Agricultural Information Network). 2014. Report: ET1401, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia: USDA.

Gemeda Abdisa. 2001. Farmers’ Maize Seed System in Western Oromia, Ethiopia.
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico and
Ethiopia Agricultural Research Organization.

Genius, M., Koundouri, M., Nauges, C., and Tzouvelekas, V. 2010. Information
Transmission in Irrigation Technology Adoption and Diffusion: Social Learning,
Extension Services and Spatial Effects.

Getahun Degu, Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., and Abdishekur, W. 2000. An Assessment of
the Adoption of Seed and Fertilizer Packages and the Role of Credit in Smallholder
Maize Production in Sidama and North Omo Zone, Ethiopia. Mexico, D.F.:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).

Ghimire, R., Wen-Chi, H., and Mahadeb, PP. 2015. Adoption Intensity of Agricultural
Technology. Empirical evidence from small holder maize farmer in Nepal.
International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, 4.

Gilbert, R., Sakala, W. D., and Benson, T. D. 2002. Gender Analysis of a Nationwide
Cropping System Trial Survey in Malawi. African Studies Quarterly, 6(1).

Girmachew, k. 2005. Determinants of Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices

in the Environs of Simen Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis Presented
to School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

Gujarati, D. 2004. Basic econometrics, 4th edition. India, New Delhi, Tata McGraw-Hill
publishing company.

Habtemariam Abate. 2004. The Comparative Influence of Intervening Variable in the

Adoption of Maize and Dairy Farmers in Shashemene and Debrezieit, Ethiopia.
PhD Thesis, University of Pretoria.

Hailu Beyene. 2008. Adoption of Improved Teff and Wheat Production Technologies in
Crop Livestock Mixed Systems in Northern and Western Shewa Zones of Ethiopia.
University of Pretoria, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Science.
 76

Hailu Gebre-Mariyam. 1991. Wheat Productions and Research in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia: Institute of Agricultural Research.

Hassen Beshir, Bezabih , E., Belay Kasa, and Jema Haji. 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(2):39-49.

Hassen Beshir. 2014. Factors Affecting the Adoption and Intensity of Use of Improved
Forages in North East Highlands of Ethiopia. American Journal of Experimental
Agriculture, 4 (1): 12-27.

Hayami, Y., and Ruttam, V. 1971. Agricultural Development: An international perspective.

Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Healy, F. 1984. Statistics: A Tool for Social Research. California, USA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.

Horrell, S., and Krishnan, P. 2007. “Poverty and Productivity in Female-Headed

Households in Zimbabwe”. Journal of Development Studies, 43 (8): 135–138.

Joachim, V., Mekdim, D., Bart, D., and Lemayehu, S. 2013. Scaling-Up Adoption of
Improved Technologies: The Impact of the Promotion of Row Planting on Farmers’
Teff Yields in Ethiopia. LICOS Discussion Paper Series: 1-2.

Johannes, TA., Vabi, MB., and Malaa, DK. 2010. Adoption of Maize and Cassava
Production Technologies in the Forest-Savannah Zone of Cameroon: Implications
for Poverty Reduction. World Applied Science Journal, 11 (2):196-209.

Johnston, J., and Dandiro, J. 1997. Econometrics Methods, 4th edition, New York:
McGraw HillCompanies, Inc.

Kabuli, A. 2005. Economic Assessment of the Benefits of Soybean Incorporation within

Smallholder Maize Based Cropping Systems and Factors Affecting Adoption in
Malawi. MSc Thesis, Bunda College.

Kaliba, A., Verkuijl, H., and Mwangi, W. 2000. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved
Maize Seeds and Use of Inorganic Fertilizer for Maize Production in the
Intermediate and Lowland Zones of Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, 32:35–47.
 77

Kapalasa, E. 2014. Assessing Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Improved Soybean

Varieties in Malawi. Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(6):339-349.

Katungi, E., and Akankwasa, K. 2010. Community-Based Organizations and Their Effect
on the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Uganda: A Study of Banana
(Musa spp.) Pest Management Technology.

Kwame, P., and Bhavani, S. 2014. Adoption Intensity of Soil and Water Conservation
Practices by Smallholders: Evidence from Northern Ghana. Bio-based and Applied
Economics, 3(2): 159-174.

Laduber Wondale, Dessalegn Molla, and Daniel Tilahun. 2016. Logit Analysis of Factors
Affecting Adoption of Improved Bread Wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) Variety: The
Case of Yilmana Densa District, West Gojam, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development, 8 (12):258-268.

Lauren, N., Gallandt, E., and Mallory, E. 2012. Impact of Spring Wheat Planting Density,
Row Spacing, and Mechanical Weed Control on Yield, Grain Protein, and
Economic Return in Maine. Weed science, 60, 244-253.

Leake Gebresilassie and Adam Bekele. 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.

Lee, D., and Neil, S. 2001. Explaining the Adoption and Dis-adoption of Sustainable
Agriculture: The Case of Cover Crops in Northern Honduras. Economic
Development and Cultural Change, (49):793-820.

Legese Dady. 2004. Agricultural Research and Technology Development in Ethiopia.

Proceedings of the workshop held to discuss the socio-economic research results of
1998-2002. August 6-8, 2002, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Maddala, G. 1992. Introduction to Econometrics, 2nd Ed. University of Florida and Ohio
State University. New York, Macmillan Publishing Company, U.S.A. and Cultural
Change, 49:793-820.

Maddala, G. 1997. Limited Dependent and Qualitative variables in Econometrics. Society

Monographs Cambridge University press, USA .

Martey, E., Alexander, N., Prince, M., Mathias, F., Buah, S., John, B., Benjamin, D.,
Ahiabor and Francis K. 2013. Fertilizer Adoption and Use Intensity among
 78

Smallholder Farmers in Northern Ghana: A Case Study of the AGRA Soil Health
Project. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 3(1).

Mauceri, M., Alwang, J., Norton, G., and Barrera, V. 2005. Adoption of Integrated Pest
Management Technologies: A Case Study of Potato Farmers in Carchi, Ecuador;
Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics
Association Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island.

Mc Donald, J., and Moffitt, R. 1980. The Use of Tobit Analysis. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 62(2):318-32.

MDAO (Munesa District Agricultural Office). 2013. Annual report, Munesa district,
Ethiopia.

Meinzen-Dick, R., Knox, A., Place, F., and Swallow, B. 2002. Innovation in Natural
Resources Management: The Role of Property Rights and Collective Action in
Developing Countries.

Mesfin Astatkie. 2005. Analysis of Factors Influencing Adoption of Triticale and Its
Impact. The Case Farta Wereda. MSc Thesis (Unpublished) Presented to School of
Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

Mignouna, B., Manyong, M., Rusike, J., Mutabazi, S., and Senkondo, M. 2011.
Determinants of Adopting Imazapyr-Resistant Maize Technology and its Impact on
Household Income in Western Kenya, 14(3):158-163.

Million Tadesse and Belay Kasa. 2004. Determinants of Fertilizer Use in Gununo Area,
Ethiopia: 21-31. In Tesfaye Zegeye, Legesse Dadi and Dawit Alemu (eds).
Proceedings of Agricultural Technology Evaluation Adoption and Marketing.
Workshop held to discuss results of 1998-2002, August 6-8, 2002.

Mkandawire, R. 1993. Agrarian Change and Food Security among Smallholders in

Malawi.

MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). 2012. “Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Directorate.”
Crop Variety Register, 15.

MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). 2016. “Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Directorate.”
Crop Variety Register, 15.

MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development). 2012. Crop Production, Addis
Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
 79

Mohammed Endris and Lakew Wondimu. 2013. Are Fertilizers and Improved Seeds
Complementary or Substitute in the Process of Adoption? A Case Study of
Northern Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Research, 2(11):286 – 293.

Mohammed Yesuf, Menale Kassie, and Gunnar Kohlin. 2009. Risk Implications of Farm
Technology Adoption in the Ethiopian. Working Papers in Economics, 404.

Mohammed, K., and Temu, A. 2008. Access to Credit and Its Effect on the Adoption of
Agricultural Technologies: The case of Zanzibar. African Review of Money Finance
and Banking: 45-89.

Moser, C., and Barrett, C. 2006. “The Complex Dynamics of Smallholder Technology
Adoption: The Case of SRI in Madagascar.” Agricultural Economics, 35 (3): 373–
388.

Motuma Tura, Dejene Aredo., Wondwossen, L., Rovere, R., Tesfahun Girma, Mwangi, T.,
and Germano M. 2010. Adoption and Continued Use of Improved Maize Seeds: A
Case Study of Central Ethiopia. African Journal of Agriculture, 5(17):235-235.

Mwania, M., Shiluli, M. C., and Kamidi, M. K. 1989. Towards Appropriate Agronomic
Recommendations for Smallholder Maize Production in the Highlands of Western
Kenya.

Namwata, B., Lwelamira, J., and Mzirai, O. 2010. Adoption of Improved Agricultural
Technologies for Irish Potatoes (Solanum Tuberosum) Among Farmers in Mbeya
Rural District, Tanzania: A Case of Ilungu. World Journal of Animal and Plant
Science, 8(1):927-935.

Neupane, RP., Sharma, KR., and Thapa, GB. 2002. Adoption of Agro Forestry in the Hills
of Nepal: A logistic regression analysis. Journal of Agricultural Systems, 72(1).

Oladele, O., and Fawole, O. 2007. Farmers’ Perception of the Relevance of Agricultural
Technologies in South-Western Nigeria. Department of Agricultural Extension and
Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Journal of Human Ecology,
21(3):191-194.

Paudel, P., and Matsuoka, A. 2008. Factors Influencing of Improved Maize Varieties in
Nepal: A Case Study of Chitwan District. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 2(4): 823-834.
 80

Quisumbing, A.R. 1995. Gender Differences in Agricultural Productivity: A Survey of

Empirical Evidence. Food consumption and nutrition division discussion paper,
Washington.

Rahmeto Negash. 2007. Determinants of Adoption of Improved Haricot Bean Production

Package in Alaba Special Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. Department of Rural
Development and Agricultural Extension, School of Graduate Studies, Haramaya
University, Ethiopia.

Ram, B. and Prashanta, R. 2011. System of Wheat intensification (SWI): A new concept
on low input technology for increasing wheat yield in marginal land.

Rashid, S. 2010. Staple Food Prices in Ethiopia. A paper prepared for the COMESA policy
seminar on “variation in staple food prices: causes, consequence, and policy
options”, Maputo, Mozambique, 25-26 January 2010, under the Africa.

Ray, G. 2001. Extension Communication and Management, 2nd Edition. Naya

Prokash,Calcutta: 65-72.

Reardon, T., Stamoulis, K., and Pingali, P. 2007. “Rural Nonfarm Employment in
Developing Countries in an era of Globalization.” Agricultural Economics, 37:173–
183.

Rogers, E. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations, 1st Edition. New York: The free press.

Rogers, E. 1969. IVI Modernization among Peasants, New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Rogers, E. 1983. Diffusion of innovations. New York, USA: The free press.

Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, USA: The free press.

Ruttan, V. 1977. The Green Revolution: Severn generalizations. International

Development Review, 19: 16-23.

Sanginga, PC., Adesina, AA., Manyong, VM., Otite, O., and Dashiell, KE. 2001. Social
Impact of Soybean in Nigeria’s Southern Guinea Savanna, International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture.

Shampine, A. 1998. Compensating for Information Externalities in Technology Diffusion

Models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(3): 337-346.
 81

Shiferaw, B., Okello, J., and Reddy, R. 2009. Adoption and Adaptation of Natural
Resource Management Innovations in Smallholder Agriculture: Reflections on key
Lessons and Best Practices. Environ Dev Sustain, 11:601-619.

Shultz, T.1964. Transforming Traditional Agriculture, Yale University Press, New Haven,
USA.

Simtowe F., Solomon Asfaw, and Tsedeke Abate. 2016. Determinants of Agricultural
Technology Adoption under Partial Population Awareness: The Case of Pigeonpea
in Malawi. Agricultural and Food Economic, 4:7.

Simtowe, F., and Zeller, M. 2006. The Impact of Access to Credit on the Adoption of
Hybrid Maize in Malawi: An Empirical Test of an Agricultural Household Model
under Credit Market Failure. MPRA Paper.

Simtowe, F., Zeller, M., and Diagne, A. 2009. The Impact of Credit Constraints on the
Adoption of Hybrid Maize in Malawi. Review of Agriculture and Environmental
Studies, 90 (1).

Sisay Debebe. 2016. Agricultural Technology Adoption, Crop Diversification and

Efficiency of Maize-Dominated Smallholder Farming System in Jimma Zone,
South-Western Ethiopia. PhD Thesis dissertation. School of Agricultural
Economics and Agribusiness, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.

Solomon Asfaw, Bekele Shiferaw, and Simtowe, F. 2010. Does Technology Adoption
Promote Commercialization? Evidence from Chickpea Technologies in Ethiopia:
27.

Solomon Asfaw, Bekele Shiferaw, Simtowe, F., and Mekbib Gebretsadik. 2011.
Agricultural Technology Adoption, Seed Access Constraints and
Commercialization in Ethiopia. Journal of Development and Agricultural
Economics, 3(9): 436-447.

Solomon Asfaw, Menale, K., Simtowe, F., and Lipper, L. 2011. Poverty Reduction Effects
of Agricultural Technology.

Solomon Tesfaye, Ayele Tessema, and Adam Bekele. 2014. Adoption of Improved Wheat
Varieties in Robe and Digelu Tijo Districts of Aris Zone in Oromiya Region,
Ethiopia: Adouble hurdle Approach. African Journal of Agricultural Research
(academic Journals): 369-370.
 82

Solomon Tiruneh, Yigezu A., and Zewdie Bishaw. 2015. Measuring the Effectiveness of
Extension Innovations for Out-scaling Agricultural technologies. African Journal of
Agricultural Science and Technology, 3(7): 316-326.

Storck, H., Bezabih Emana, Berhanu Adnew, Borowiecki, A., and Shimelis Welde. 1991.
Farming Systems and Farm Management Practices of Small-Holders in the
Hararghe Highlands. Farming system and resource economics in the Tropics.
Wissenschafts Varlag Vauk Kiel KG, Germany, 11.

Tadele Tafese. 2015. Adoption and Intensity of Row-Seeding (Case of Wolaita Zone).
MSc in Development Policy Analysis, Department of Economics, College of
Business and Economics, Wolaita Sodo University, Ethiopia.

Tadele Tafese. 2016. Adoption and Intensity of Row-Seeding. The case of Wolaita Zone,
Ethiopia. Open Access Library Journal, 3(3): http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib

Techane Adugna, Mulut Demek and Bezabhe Emana. 2006. Determinants of Fertilizer
Adoption in Ethiopia. The Case of Major Cereal Producing Areas. Agricultural
Society of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Tesfaye Zegaye, Girma, T., Tanner, D., Verkuijl, H., Aklilu, A., and Mwangi, W. 2001.
Adoption of Improved Bread Wheat Varieties and Inorganic Fertilizer by Small
Scale Farmers in Yelma Dansa and Farta Districts of Northern Ethiopia. Mexico,
D.F. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO) and International
Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).

Tewodros Tefera, Girmay Tesfay, Eyasu Elias, Mulugeta Diro, and Irene K. 2016. Drivers
for Adoption of Agricultural Technologies and Practices in Ethiopia: A study report
from 30 Woredas in four regions. Capacity building for scaling up evidence-based
best practice in agricultural production in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa/Wageningen.

Timu, A., Richard M., Julius O., and Mercy, K. 2012. The Role of Varietal Attributes on
Adoption of Improved Seed Varieties: The Case of Sorghum in Kenya. Selected
Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics
Association’s AAEA, Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington.

Tobin, J. 1958. Estimation of relationship for limited dependent variables. Econometrician,

26: 26-36.
 83

Tolesa Alemu, Bezabih Emana, Jema Haji, and Belaineh Legesse. 2014. Impact of Wheat
Row Planting on Yield of Smallholders in Selected Highland and Lowland
Areas of Ethiopia. An Agricultural Marketing Project (AAMP). International
Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 4(5): 386 – 393.

Tolesa Alemu. 2014. Socio-economic and Institutional Factors Limiting Adoption of

Wheat Row Planting in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research,
Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center.

Turinawe, A., Drake, L., and Mugisha, J. 2015. Adoption Intensity of Soil and Water
Conservation Technologies: A Case of South Western Uganda. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 17(4), 711-730.

Uaiene, R., Arndt, C., and Masters, W. 2009. Determinants of Agricultural Technology
Adoption in Mozambique. Discussion papers No. 67.

Uematsu, H., and Mishra, A. 2010. Can Education be a Barrier to Technology Adoption?
Select paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics
Association 2010 AAEA, CAES, and WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, Denver,
Colorado, 25- 27.D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute.

Ume, S, and Ochiaka, J. 2016. Determinant Factors to the Adoption and Discontinue
Adoption of Improved Okra (Abelmoschus Esculentus) Production Technologies in
Ivo Local Government Area of Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Case Studies Journal, 5.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2016. African Economic Outlook:

www.africaneconomicoutlook.org. UNDP, Ethiopia.

Vandercasteenlen, J., Mekdim, D., Mintlen, B., and Alemayehu, S. 2014. Perceptions,
Impacts and Rewards of Row Planting of Teff. Ethiopian Strategy Support Program
II, ESSP working paper 65. International Food Policy Research Institute.

Wangare, P. 2007. Determinants of Adoption of Improved Wheat Varieties and Fertilizer

Use by Smallholder Farmers in Njoro and Kieni West,Divisions. Masters of
Science, Degree in Agricultural Economics of Egerton University, Kenya.

WB (World Bank). 2008. Well-being and Poverty in Ethiopia: The Role of Agriculture and
Agency. World Bank Report No. 29468-ET, Poverty Reduction and Economic
Management, Country Department for Ethiopia, Africa Region, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
 84

WB (World Bank). 2014. World Development Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/.

Wondimagegn Mesfin. Bekabil Fufa, and Jema Haji. 2011. Pattern, Trend and
Determinants of Crop Diversification: Empirical Evidence from Smallholders in
Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 2(8).

Worku Mentire and Yishak Gecho. 2016. Factors Affecting Adoption of Wheat Row
Planting Technology: The Case of Sodo Zuriya Woreda, Wolaita Zone, Southern
Ethiopia. Innovative Systems Design and Engineering, 8(1).

Yamane, T. 1967. Statistics, an introductory analysis, 2nd Edition. New York, USA:
Harper and Row.

Yigezu, YA., Tizale, CY., and Aw-Hassan, A. 2014. Modeling Farmers’ Adoption
Decisions of Multiple Crop Technologies: The Case of Barley and Potatoes in
Ethiopia. A paper being prepared for submission to a journal.

Yonas Berhe. 2014. The Impact of Row Planting of Teff Crop on Rural Household Income:
The Case of Tahtay Maychew Wereda, Tigrai, Ethiopia. Mekelle University,
College Business and Economics, Department of Economics.

Yotopoulos, A. 1967. Alocative Efficiency in Economic Development: A Cross-

Section Analysis of Epirus Farming, Center for Planning and Economic
Research, 18 Monograph Series, F., Constantinidus and C. Mehalas, Athens.

Yu, B., Nin-Pratt, A., Funes, J., and Asrat, S. 2010. Cereal Production and Technology in
Ethiopia. Discussion Paper 12. Washington, D.C. International Food Policy
Research Institute.
 85

7. APPENDICES
 86

Appendix Table 1: Multi-co linearity test result for the continuous variables in Tobit model

Co-linearity statistics
Variables VIF 1/VIF
Labor availability in ME 1.59 0.628043
Frequency of participation in training 1.45 0.687505
Frequency of extension contact 1.23 0.811201
Household age 1.22 0.821326
Tropical livestock unit 1.19 0.842741
Cultivated farm size in hectare 1.06 0.945692
Distance to nearest market center in Km 1.02 0.977706
Mean VIF 1.25

Source: Own survey output, 2016

Appendix Table 2: Contingency Coefficients for the dummy variables in Tobit model

A B C D E F G
A 1.0000
B 0.0975 1.0000
C -0.0141 0.1230 1.0000
D 0.1224 -0.0781 -0.1169 1.0000
E 0.1573 0.3791 0.3066 -0.1482 1.0000
F 0.2942 0.1897 -0.0684 -0.0732 -0.1838 1.0000
G -0.0521 0.0512 -0.0081 -0.0210 -0.2139 -0.1868 1.0000
Source: Own survey output, 2016

A=Household sex D= Credit uses

B=Literacy of HHH E=Access and utilization of improved wheat seed
C=Participation in off-farm activities F=Perception of wheat row planting technology
G=Participation in social group/association
 87

Appendix Table 3: Conversion factor used to compute man equivalent (Labour Force)

Age group Male Female

< 10 0.00 0.000
10-13 0.20 0.200
14-16 0.50 0.40
17-50 1.00 0.80
>50 0.70 0.50
Source: Strock et al. (1991)

Appendix Table 4: Conversion factors used to estimate tropical livestock unit

Animal categories TLU Animal categories TLU

Calf 0.25 Donkey (young) 0.35
Weaned Calf 0.34 Sheep and Goats (adult) 0.13
Heifer 0.75 Sheep and Goats (young) 0.06
Cow and Ox 1.00 Chicken 0.013
Horse 1.10
Donkey (adult) 0.70
Source: Strock et al. (1991)
 88

Interview Questionnaire
Factors Affecting Adoption of Row Planting Technology on Wheat Production in
Munesa District, Oromia Region, Ethiopia

Respondent and site identification

Please confirm that the person you interview is the head of the household or that s/he is
able to answer questions concerning the agricultural production and other household
issues. If the respondent is not able to do so, please stop the interview and arrange another
date to interview the head of the household. Please explain the respondent that the
questions are only for study purpose that information you supply will not be revealed to
anybody else, neither will it have any negative effect on your farming activities and used
only for the academic purposes..
General Instructions to Enumerators
 Make brief introduction to the respondent before starting the interview (greet them, tell
your name, get her/his name, and make clear the purpose and objective of the study that
you are undertaking).
 Please ask the question clearly and patiently until the respondent understands.
 During the process put the answers of each respondent both on the space provided and
encircle the choice as required.

General information about respondents

Date of interview: _________________
1. Name of the respondent: _________________ HH ID _________________
District ________________; Kebele _________________
Zone ______________ Region; _____________
Category of the respondent (circle the answer) 1) Adopter 2) non-adopter
2. Name of the Interviewer: ______________________Sign: _________________
I. Personal and Demographic related variables
1. Age of the household head ____________________
2. Sex of the household head _____________
1) Male 2) Female
3. Relation to household head (status):
1) Head, 2) husband, 3) wife, 4) Son, 5) Daughter; 6) Brother; 7) Sister;
8) Hired labour; 9) if other, specify
 89

4. Main occupation of household head:

1) Crop farming; 2) Crop farming and off-farm activity (like Pity trade, hired labour….);
3) Student; 4) Military; 5) Dependent; 6) Watch after animals; 7) House wife;
8) if other, Specify
5. Education level of household head
1, Illiterate 2, can read and write 3, Primary school (1-4) 4, junior school (5-8)
5, Secondary school (9-10) 6, High school (11-12) 7, Higher education 8, other
6. What is your family size? _____________________
Age categories Male Female
Less than 10
10-14
15-65
> 65

6.1. Are you get help from family members for agricultural activities? 1, Yes 2, No
6.2. If “yes” questions #6.1, in which type of agricultural activities? Specify
7. Household labour availability bin 2008/9 E.C agricultural production season
Age Male Female Type of agricultural activities participated in
categories
<15 year
16-65
>65
Wheat production activities includes: - 1) Land
preparation 2)row planting/sowing 3)Weeding 4)
Harvesting 5) Threshing 6) Transportation 7) Storage
8) Marketing 9)others (specify)

7.1 Do you think that shortage of labour is the major production constrain for wheat row
planting technology? 1, No 2, Yes

7.2 If yes Q7.1, for what specific activities do you encounter labour shortage?
1, Cultivation of land 2, Weeding 5, Row planting activity
3, Crop harvest 4, Threshing 6, Others (Specify)
7.3 If yesQ7.1, how did you overcome this labour shortage?
 90

1, by using family labor 2, Hiring labor 3, Labour pooling mechanism/asking for

cooperation 4, others, specify
II. Economic related variables
1. Do you participate on work outside agriculture/off-farm activities in 2008/09 E.C?
1, Yes 2, No
1.1 If yes, who participates in off-farm activity? Specify name of participant
and number of days spent in a year
1.2 If “yes” questions #1, do you earn income from the activities? 1, Yes 2, No
1.3 If “yes” questions #1.2, for what purpose you use the income you earn from the
activities? 1) To buy agricultural inputs like fertilizers, improved seed 2) To purchase
oxen 3) for household consumption 4) To construct house 5) To pay other debit
6) all 7) if other, please specify
1.4 If “yes” questions #1.2, what is/are your source of income outside agriculture/off-farm
activities? 1, Paid daily labour 2, Petty trade
3, Handcraft 4, Other, specify
2. Please fill the following table about land holdings during 2008/09E.C agricultural season
in hectare
Land Total area in Cultivated Fallow Rented out Other
Ownership Hectare Land area in land Land area source
hectare
Own
Rented out
Other
Total

2.1. From your total hectare of crop production, how many hectares you allocate for wheat
crop production?

2.2. If you use row planting technology for wheat production in 2008/9 E.C, how many
hectare you allocate for wheat production through row planting from total area of wheat?
Please specify it

2.3. Do you think that shortage of land is the major production constraint for you to
practice row planting technology? 1, No 2, Yes
3. Are you engaged in livestock production? 1, Yes 2, No
 91

3.1. If “yes”Q3, what is your total livestock size in 2008/2009 E.C. agricultural season?
Animal categories Total
Cattle Oxen
Cows
Heifer
Bull
Calves
Total
Sheep and goat Sheep
Goat
Chicken
Total
Marines Camel
Donkey
Mules
Hoarse
Total
Total livestock size

3.2. Do you think that having large livestock size will increase the adoption of agricultural
technology (row planting technology?) in your area? 1, yes 2, No
3.3. If “yes”Q3.2, how?
III. Institutional Factors
1. Do you have contact with extension/ development agent? 1, Yes 2, No
1.1. How frequently do extension agents visit you?
1, Never 2, Ones in a week 3, Twice in a week 4, Ones in a month 5, Twice in a month 6,
Three times in a month 7, Yearly 8, If other specify…………………………..
1.2. If you have contact with extension agent, what type of information you get from
extension agent on wheat production through row planting technology?
 92

No How relevant is the information from DA’s on wheat

production through row planting method
Very Quite relevant Not relevant
relevant
The application of row
planting with reduced
seed rate

Fertilizer and improved

wheat seed application on
row planting

Wheat seeding depth and

width between rows

Weed control technical

support/advise

1.3. Do you think that having frequent contact with extension agent will increase adoption
of agricultural technology? 1, yes 2, No
1.4. If “yes” for questions# 3.3, how?

2. Is there any credit institution/sources in your area? 1, yes 2, No

2.1. Did you get access to credit? 1, Yes 2, No
2.2. If “yes”Q2, do you received credit for the agricultural production?
1, No 2, Yes
2.3. If “yes” questions #4.2, for what purpose you use the credit received from the sources?
1) To buy modern farm inputs like fertilizers 2) To purchase oxen 3) To buy improved
seeds 4) for household consumption 5) To construct house 6) To pay another debit 7)
to hire labor for agricultural activities 8) all 9) If other, please specify
2.4. If “yes” Q2.2, what is the source of your credit? 1, Banks 2, Friends\relative
3, Micro finance institutions
4, if others specify

2.5. Do you think that credit obtained will increase adoption of new agricultural technology
 93

(row planting technologies)? 1, Yes 2, No

2.6. If “yes” Q2.5, how? Specify

3. Do you participate in any social group/ association?

1) Yes 2) No

3.1. If “yes” Q3, in which social group/association? 1, Equb 2, Edir 3, Debo

4, Social network 5, if others, specify

3.2. If “yes” Q3, what is/are the advantage you get from participation in social group/
association with respect to agricultural information? Specify it

4. Do you need improved wheat seed for wheat production through row planting
technology? 1, Yes 2, No
4.1. If yes Q4, is their availability of improved wheat seed with time and required quantity
during cropping season in the district? 1, Yes 2, No
4.2. If yes Q4.1, do you have access in last three years? 1, Yes 2, No
4.2. From where did you get improved wheat seeds?
1, BOA _________ 2, Research centre ______ 3, Own source _________
4, Market ________ 5, Neighbors______ 6, NGO _______7, Others, specify
4.3. Have you ever used improved wheat seed for row planting technology during 2008/09
E.C cropping season?
1, No 2, Yes
4.4 If no to Q4.3, reason for not using improved wheat seed? Please specify
4.5 If yes, what was the size of area under row planting technology using improved wheat
seed during 2008/09 production season in hectare?
4.6. Do you think that timely unavailability of improved wheat seed will affect adoption of
row planting technology in your area? 1, Yes 2, No
5. Does your home near to the market center? 1, Yes 2, No
5.1. How many kilo maters is the market far from your home?
5.2. Do you get market information about prices and demand conditions of agricultural
inputs and out puts? 1, Yes 2, No
5.3. If yes Q5.2, what is your source of information
1, Development agent 2, Traders 3, Neighbor farmers 4, Friends 5, Other…………….
 94

5.4. How do you transport agricultural produce to the market place?

1) On back 3) Horse cart

2) Vehicle 4) If other, specify

5.5. Do you think that distance from the market has negative effect on the adoption of
agricultural technology (wheat row planting technology)? 1, Yes 2, No
5.6. If “yes” Q5.5, how? If “No” how? Specify

6. Do you participate in wheat row planting training given at farmers training center (FTC)
and technology demonstration cite?
1, yes 2, No
6.1. If yes Q 6, how many times do you participate in a year?...................................
6.2. If “yes” Q6, what is the advantage you get from training after participation? Specify it

6.3. Do you think that participation on training will improve the problems on adoption of
agricultural technology (row planting method)? 1, Yes 2, No
6.4. If “yes” Q6.3, how? Specify it

IV. Row Planting Technology Adoption

1. Do you have information about row planting method of wheat production?
1, Yes 2, No
1.1. If yes question #1, where do you get such information about row planting?
1, Extension agents (DAs oral orientation at FTC) 2, Friends and families
3, Neighbors 4, Social network 5, from kebele administration 6, Training at
demonstration center 7, If others, specify
1.2. As you get information about it, do you adopt row planting technology?
1, yes 2, No.
1.3. If “yes” question #1.2, since when you adopt this row planting methods of wheat
production system? (Years), if No, go to question #1.4
1.4. After you adopt it, have you seen any productivity difference between broadcasting
and row planting method of wheat production? 1, Yes 2, No
1.5. Reasons for not adopting row planting technology on wheat production.
 95

1, It requires many labors 2, It takes time when plowing and planting than traditional
3, It is low yield than broadcasting system 4, if other, specify
2. Do you think that there is risk associated to the use of wheat row planting technology?
1, No 2, Yes
2.1. If yes, what are the risks associated to the use of row planting technology?
1. __________________________2.__________________3. ____________________
3. How do you perceive the effectiveness of row planting technology on wheat production?
1, very good 2, good 3, No change 4, bad 5, very bad

3.1 How do you perceive the effectiveness of row planting technology on wheat production
with respect to wheat yields, seed germination and quality of output, and input seed and
fertilizer consumption? Please fill the following table
Description Superior Inferior
The capacity of the yield

The capacity of seed germination

and output quality
Input seed and fertilizer consumption

Other

3.2 Describe the advantages and disadvantages you have seen on the application of row
planting technology on wheat crop production.
Advantages
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________
Disadvanteges_____________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
1. Checklist used for conducting focused group discussion.
As you probably know, agricultural office is trying to popularize row planting technology,
which is believed to increase yield of small holder farmer. In addition, development agents
are supporting the farmers in different dimensions to increase adoption of wheat row
planting. However, Most of the farmers are not adopting the practice still.
 Why?
 96

 Why are so few farmers adopting the row planting technology for wheat
production?
 Is the row planting make profitable to farmers or not? If yes how? If not why?
 Do the farmers experienced difficulty in practicing row planting technology for
wheat production?
 What are the general impressions /overall effect about the row planting technology
on wheat production?
 Can you get improved wheat seed in required quantity at the right time?
 Which method of sowing did you use mostly in your locality for wheat production
and why?
 Which one of the variety (local seed or improved seed) you prefer to practice row
planting technology for the production of wheat and why?
2. Interview checklist used for key informants
1. When the row planting technology is introduced to your district?
2. What is current performance of the row planting method on wheat production in your
district?
3. What are common problems faced by farmers while practicing wheat row planting
technology and what actions have been taken to solve the problems for the farmers in the
district?
4. What kind of support does district agricultural office is providing to improve the
adoption level of row planting technology by farmers?
3. Interview checklist for development agents (Experts)
1. Why are so few farmers adopting the wheat row planting technology in the district?
2. What are the major problems you have seen that farmers are facing while using row
planting technology to wheat?
3. How and when do you help the row planting users on wheat crop production?
4. Do you give training for the farmers regarding to the application of row planting
technology for the wheat production and when the training is given for the farmers?
5. What are the mechanisms you use to solve the problem regarding the application and
adoption level of row planting technology?
6. What are the general impressions /overall effect about the row planting technology on
wheat production in the district?