WOLAITA SODO UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE STUDIES DIRECTORATE

CUMULATIVE INCIDENCE ADAPTATION OF MUNG BEAN AND ITS

EFFECTS ON HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ASSET ACCUMULATION
IN ETHIOPIA

Ph.D. DISSERTATION RESEARCH PROPOSAL

GIRMA GATA GANEBO

College: Agriculture
Department: Agricultural Economics
Program: Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics
Major Advisor: Berhanu Kuma (Ph.D., Associate Professor)

Co- Advisor: Alula (Ph.D., Assistant Professor )

January, 2023
Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia

1
 APPROVAL SHEET

CUMULATIVE INCIDENCE ADAPTATION OF MUNG BEAN AND ITS EFFECTS

ON HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ASSET ACCUMULATION IN ETHIOPIA

Submitted by:

Girma Gata Ganebo ______________ _____________

Name of Student Signature Date

Approved by:

1 Berhanu Kuma (PhD, Associate Professor) ______________ _____________

Name of Major Advisor Signature Date

2 Alula Tafesse (PhD, Assistant Professor) ______________ ______________

Name of Co-Advisor Signature Date

3 ___________________ ______________ ______________

Name of Evaluator/Examiner Signature Date

4 ___________________ ______________ ______________

Name of Chairman, DGC Signature Date

5 ___________________ ______________ ______________

Name of PG Coordinator Signature Date

6 ___________________ ______________ ______________

Name of A. Director ,GSD Signature Date

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET..............................................................................................................................ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..............................................................................................v
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study.............................................................................................................1

1.2 Statement of the Problem.............................................................................................................6

1.3 Research Questions.....................................................................................................................13

1.4 Objectives of the Study...............................................................................................................13

1.5 Significance of the Study............................................................................................................14

1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study..........................................................................................14

1.7 Organization of the Dissertation Proposal...............................................................................14

2. LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................15
2.1 Definitions of Concepts..............................................................................................................15

2.1.1Concepts of Traditional and Systemic Risks......................................................................15

2.1.2 Concepts of Single and Simultaneous Adaptation Strategies..........................................16
2.1. 3 Concepts of Farmers’ Perception, Static and Dynamic Technology Adoption............16
2.1.4 Concepts of Market Participation and Impact of Market participation........................17
2.2 Theoretical and Analytical Perspectives...................................................................................18

2.2.1 Theoretical Framework for Cumulative Incidence Assessment.....................................18

2.2.2 Analytical Framework for Cumulative Incidence Assessment.......................................19
2.2.3 Theoretical Framework for Simultaneous Adoption Models..........................................21
2.2.4 Analytical Framework for Simultaneous Adoption Models............................................22
2.2.5 Theoretical Framework of Farmers’ Perception towards Technology Adoption.........23
2.2.6 Analytical Frameworks for Improved Varieties Dynamic Adoption/Duration Analysis
Approach/......................................................................................................................................25
2.2.7 Theoretical Framework for Market participation and its Impact on Household Income
and Asset Accumulation...............................................................................................................27
2.2.8 Analytical Frameworks for Market Participation and its Impact on Household Income
and Asset Accumulation...............................................................................................................28
2.3 Empirical Literature Review.....................................................................................................30

2.3.1 Cumulative Incidence Assessment through Dimensional Reduction..............................30

3
 2.3.2 Disentangling the Climate related Risks Adaptation Mechanism from Simultaneous
(mix) Adaptions Strategies...........................................................................................................32
2.3.3 Determinants of Static and Dynamic Adoption of Multi stress Tolerant Mung Bean
Varieties.........................................................................................................................................35
2.3.4 Impacts of Mung Bean Production, Marketing and Export Performance upon
Households’ Income and Welfare Indicators in World, Africa and Ethiopia........................37
2.4 Conceptual Framework.............................................................................................................43

3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................47

3.1 Description of the Study Area...................................................................................................47

3.2 Data Types and Sources.............................................................................................................49

3.3 Methods of Data Collection.......................................................................................................49

3.4 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination...........................................................50

3.5 Method of Data Analysis............................................................................................................51

3.6 Econometric Model Specification..............................................................................................52

3.6.1 Principal Component Analysis...........................................................................................52

3.6.2 Multivariate Probit Model Specification...........................................................................54
3.6.3 The Cox Proportional Hazard (Cox’s PH) Model............................................................62
3.6.4 Endogenous Switching Regression Model Specification..................................................74
4. WORK PLAN AND LOGISTICS...................................................................................................80
4.1 Work Plan...................................................................................................................................80

4.2 Logistics.......................................................................................................................................80

5. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................81

4
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADLI Agriculture-Led Industry Initiative

AEU Per Adult Equivalent

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency

ATT Average Treatment Effect on Treat

ATU Average Treatment Effect on Untreated

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

CBR Cost Benefit Ratio

CDF Commutative Distribution Function

CoxPH Cox Proportional Hazard

CPI Consumer Price Index

CSA Central Statistics Agency

CSAS Climate Smart Agriculture System

DTCs Drought Tolerant Crops

ECX Ethiopian Commodity Exchange

EDHS Ethiopian Demographic Household Survey

EM-DAT Emergency Events Database

ERHS Ethiopian Rural Household Survey

ESE Ethiopia Seed Enterprises

ESR Endogenous Switching Regression

5
ESS Ethiopian Socioeconomic Survey

ETA Event Tree Analysis

FAM Factor Analysis Method

FEM Fixed Effect Model

FIML Full Information Maximum Likelihood

FTA Fault Tree Analysis

GMM Generalized Method of Moments

GTP Growth and Transformation Plan

HR Hazard Ratio

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

IPWRA Inverse Probability Adjustment Regression

MCDM Multi Criteria Decision analysis Making

METE Multinomial Endogenous Treatment Effects

MOT Ministry of Trade

MRAS Multi Risk Adaptation Strategies

MSA Multivariate Statistical Algorithm

MSTC Multiple Stress Tolerant Crop

MVP Multivariate Probit Model

PCA Principal Component Analysis

PDTCV Pests and Disease Tolerant Varieties

PPP Purchasing Power Parity

PSM Propensity Score Matching

6
REM Random Effect Model

RR Relative Risk

SML Simulated Maximum Likelihood

SNNPR South Nation Nationalities and Peoples Region

SSA Sub Saharan Africa

TH Transitional Heterogeneity

TLU Tropical Livestock Unit

VAR Risk At Value

WorldVeg World Vegetable Center

7
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

This introduction section presents the background of the study, statement of the problem, the
research questions, objectives of the research, significance of the study, scope and limitations
of the study, and organization of the dissertation proposal.

1.1 Background of the Study

Mung bean (Vigna radiata [L.] Wilzcek var. radiata) is widely grown and originated in
monsoon areas of South East Asia (Meskel et al., 2020) ; ( Suthar & Kukreja, 2021). About
ninety percent of the world’s mung bean produced in Bangladesh, Burma, India, Indonesia,
Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Myanmar (Itefa, 2016) ; (Yanos & Leal, 2020).
India has dominated more than twenty eight cultivated varieties and produces the most mung
beans in the world, followed by China and Myanmar 1 (Schreinemachers et al., 2019)2; (Godoi
et al., 2021). Thirty percent of global mung bean output comes from India and Myanmar
(Pandey et al. 2018). It is gaining popularity to other continents because of its multiple uses.
In South America and Australia, it has been identified as a high yielding pulse crop
(Schreinemachers et al., 2019). Currently, it is cultivated on more than 7.3 million hectares
worldwide. Global annual production is increased from 3 million tons in 2013 (Nair et al.,
2014) to 5.3 million tons (2015 – ‘17) and the average yield is 7210 kg/ha (Bindumadhava et
al., 2017); (Batzer et al., 2022). India and Myanmar each supply about 30% of this, China
16%, and Indonesia 5% (Godoi et al., 2021). According to the report of the World Vegetable
Center (WorldVeg), the improved varieties (61% of the total mung bean area) program users
reached about 400,000 farmers in six main producing countries in South East Asia (Sequeros
et al., 2021).

2
Breeding work on what Schreinemachers et al., (2019) called “the billion-dollar bean” has resulted in multiple cultivars suitable for specific
needs of growers in South Asia.

1
Mung bean is an eco-friendly crop of dry land agriculture with a wealthy basis of proteins
(21-31%) (Batzer et al., 2022) ; (Hirtzer et al. 2021) ; (King, 2020). That is about twice as
much protein (amino acid lysine) as cereals (Mbeyagala et al., 2016) and it provides essential
nutrients such as vitamins, and minerals (iron and zinc). Because of its nutrient sensitivity it
plays an important role in the global food system transformation by providing a plant-based
source of dietary (plant based ‘burger’) instead of unhealthy foods such as raw meats and
sugar (Rockstrom et al. 2019). Countries such as South America and Australia were adopted
because of its superior digestibility 3 (Schreinemachers et al., 2019). Furthermore, the ability
of mung bean to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere is important to agricultural sustainability
(Gupta et al., 2012) ; (Sequeros et al., 2021). In country like Philippines it is being sold at four
times the price of sorghum, which means mung bean farmers earn more money (Hetrick,
2016). According to (Hisen et al., 2020) the profitability of the mung bean production was
examined by on the return on investment (ROI) and the framers earned 133 % of ROI in
producing mung per hectare. This approach accelerates agricultural development (Ordoñez,
2017) and makes the mung bean farmers more profitable than rice ROI (55.2%) in the country
(Hisen et al., 2020). Mung bean and pigeon pea are accounting for over 80 % of the total
export value and 70 – 75 % of total bean and pulse production in Myanmar. The export prices
of the Myanmar mung bean depended on the demand of other importing countries such as
Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and EU markets and China (Tun et al., 2020) ; (Tun & Phyo,
2019). Its production not only increases farmers’ income through the sale of it, but also
through the reduction of farm inputs after cultivated (Pataczek et. al., 2018).

Mung bean also produced in tropics and subtropics of Africa, in arid areas of East Africa
countries (Mbeyagala et al., 2016) ; (ERA, 2017) ; (URT, 2016). There are about 0.7 million
mung bean farmers registered in WorldVeg from Africa. In East Africa the average area is 0.4
– 1.4 ha per producer (Sequeros et al., 2021). Eleven improved mung bean varieties with
average age of 12 years identified from 9,000 farmers in East Africa countries such as
Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania however only four is (out of 11) related to the World Vegetable
Center (WorldVeg) program (Sequeros et al., 2021). Day to day increase of area coverage and
quantity initiated the smallholder farmers to exert their maximum effort in production of the

3
Easily digestible mung bean is free from flatulent effects and is hypoallergenic (Dahiya et al., 2015).

2
marketable crop, mung bean, to improve the household income and other livelihood
improvements (Carletto et al., 2017). It can be used for both an adaptation and a mitigation
strategy in ever changing climates4 (Siamabele, 2021), as cover crop, rotation crop or
intercrop (Syafruddin,2020) ; (Dinsa et al., 2022), and thereby increasing its productivity
since newly released varieties are important for improving food security, household income
and agricultural sustainability in East Africa (F. Mmbando et al., 2021).

According to (Ogada et al., 2020) based on the issue entitled “climate smart agriculture,
household income and asset accumulation among smallholder farmers” through multi
activities so called, climate smart agriculture system (CSAS) practices are adopted to mitigate
the climate changes of East Africa. Cop smart activities are mainly based on drought tolerant
crops (DTCs) such as improved mung bean seed varieties especially in Kenya. The adoption
of DTCs significantly increases household income by 83 % which, in turn, improves
household asset accumulation (Ogada et al., 2020). In this region the markets of this specific
crop are the multiple output markets like other legumes due to double benefit of the crops
such as consumption and market sales (Ogada et al., 2020) ; (Sequeros et al., 2021). In
Tanzania smallholder farmers who participate in the legumes markets spend as much as 24%
of their income on food, attained a more diversified diet, and are subject to fewer months of
food insecurity over a year (Manda et al., 2021).

Ethiopia has unique variations in climate and soil types as the result of the wide variations
with endowed agro-ecology providing profit in the agriculture sector (Atnaf et al., 2015).
Agricultural activities have been practiced during belg and meher5 seasons in high land and
low land areas (Silva & Broekel, 2017). Cereals, pulses, oil seeds, root crops, vegetables and
fruits are grown across the countries (CSA, 2021). Among pulses haricot beans, soya beans,
cowpea, pigeon peas and mung beans are predominantly grown in low land areas (Marechera
4
Mungbean is considered a wonder crop due to its ability to tolerate or escape drought conditions, yet has short maturity periods and
improves soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation (Swaminathan et al., 2012).

5
Belg season has short and moderate rainfall which covers the months from February to May while the meher is the main rainy and
production season, which extends the months from mid of June, July, August, mid of September in Ethiopia (Alemayehu et al., 2011; Broek
et al., 2014).

3
et al., 2019); (CSA, 2021). Grain legumes are one of the third largest export crops next to
coffee and sesame (oil seeds) that contributes to high foreign currency (Getachew, 2019)
besides to domestic income generation through selling the products from legumes including
grain, construction poles, livestock feed or livestock products derived from better feeding
(Muoni, 2019).

Mung bean is recently introduced to some parts of Ethiopia after launched as export crop
(ECX, 2014) and produced in coastal areas, river valleys and the regions of the country
crossed by East Africa Rift valley. Jemma and Raya valley in North Ethiopia, Omo valley in
South Ethiopia and the Central and Southern part of the Rift valley in Oromia regions are the
pioneer areas (Girma et al., 2019) ; (Aklilu & Abebe, 2020) ; (Kaysha et al., 2020) ; (Baza &
Shanka, 2022). MH-97-6 (Boreda), Shewa Robit, Rasa (N-26), Arbeke, MH BR-1, NLV-1
and NUL-1 mung bean varieties have been developed by different agricultural research
centers and disseminated to farmers for cultivation and the demand of the farmers has
increasing though the improved varieties are not yet exposed to farmers in moisture stress
areas of South Ethiopia (Kassa et al., 2021) ; (Dinsa et al., 2022) ; (Baza & Shanka, 2022).

The total area covered by mung bean crops accounts for 7% of pulses (CSA, 2021). And the
total production accounts for 3% (1,122,794 quintals (qts)) of pulses. The production capacity
is lower than other pulse crops (Simtowe et al., 2016). At the national level, 37,555 private
holders used 4.64% of the crop land area for their production and produced 338,602 quintals
of mung bean during the production seasons (CSA, 2021). It increases the annual area
coverage to 41,663.3 ha, the quantity to 514,227qts, and the number of smallholder farmers to
327,788 (CSA, 2018). The total area reached in 2018/19 was 48,074.52 ha, with a production
of 576,204.64 qts and a productivity of 11.93 quintal ha-1(CSA, 2019). According to the
(CSA, 2021) report, the estimated area under mung bean in Ethiopia during the main cropping
season of 2019/2020 was 49,123.52 ha with a productivity of 1136 kg ha -1. In 2020/21, the
total production area covered by mung beans in both seasons was 140,515 ha (CSA, 2021).
Mostly, the Amhara region produced 297,518 quintals, the Oromia region produced 38,538.16
quintals and the SNNPR produced 2,546 quintals. 45.53 hectares of crop land or 2.51% of
pulse crop land area was used by mung bean in the Afara region (CSA, 2021).

4
 Besides its digestibility and nutrient sensitivity 6, it is a quick crop, requiring 60–90 days to
mature and three times grown in a year (Batzer et al., 2022). It is a useful crop in moisture
stress areas and has a good potential for crop rotation and relay cropping with cereals using
residual moisture (Dinsa et al., 2022). Thereby, increasing the smallholder farmers’ income
by at least 40% -70% per hectare of planted legumes (Getachew, 2019) ; (Kebede, 2020). As a
group of legumes it has been used for improving food security and nutrition, soil fertility
improvement by fixing nitrogen due to a symbiotic rhizobia relationship, providing livestock
feed and as source of fuel in Ethiopia (Kebede, 2020). Addition, it increases the performance
and productivity of compatible varieties by reducing the crop failure risks in dry lands of
Central and Eastern Ethiopia (Tana et al., 2022). The production system is a viable alternative
for increasing productivity and producing cash crops to get additional household income in
low land areas of North Shewa Ethiopia (Temeche et al., 2022). It is used as source of rural
household incomes in Rift valley area of Ethiopia through the sale of beans (Amsalu et al.,
2016) since it is new emerging commercial product (Pataczek et. al., 2018).

In beginning of 21st century 822 tons exported in 2001 and 1363 tons in 2002 (Itefa, 2016);
2310 tons in 2004, from 5667 tons in 2005 to 22,719 tons in 2013 which increases from 1.7
million USD to 27 million USD (MoT, 2016). After 2014 its export quantity has been
increasing and in 2015 rises to 29,174 tons and in 2016 rises to 68,818 tons (MOT, 2016). The
increasing production leads to at least doubling of its current annual exports (Getachew,
2019). Mung bean is the 4th ranked legumes being exported after launched as export crop by
ECX (2014) and the 6th main export item of the country in the commodity market , 6% of the
export share among the grain leguminous and it traded at both the exchange and the
customary markets (Baker & Yuya, 2020). All contribution makes the mung bean as the
second low land pulses next to common bean that contributes national foreign earnings with
increasing quantity of export with in last two to three years (Endeshaw et al., 2018).

6
Mung bean is a food grain leguminous eco- friendly crop of dry land agricultural with high nutrition value especially as alternative source
of protein for small holder farmers ( Yehula Kass et al., 2021& Umata, 2018). And also it helps to reduce cholesterol and diabetes (Habte,
2018).

5
Though the primary objective of the governments, policy makers and other partners in the
region is enhancing agricultural productivity (Mukasa,2018; Wossen et al., 2017) besides to
the potential importance of mung bean, its productivity and export share is low and less
popular when compared with other exportable pulse crop in drought prone areas (Endeshaw et
al., 2018). SNNPR smallholder farmers produced very less amount of mung bean crop though
endowed by favorable agro ecology zones. The marketable surplus of the crop is very low
totally in the country compared with other dry beans though Amhara region is the main
producer and exporter of the newly emerged cash crop, mung bean or Masho in Amharic
language, in Ethiopia. This is due to mainly longtime spanning of agricultural technology
adoption duration and the multifaceted risks beyond the ability of small farmers to control and
even lead to a total failure of the farm operation (Janowicz-Lomott, Łyskawa, 2014).
Multifaceted risks have not been addressed fully even by farmers and other stake holders for
adopting multiple strategies simultaneously (Meraner & Finger, 2019).

Therefore, increasing the mung bean production and productivity through the adoption of the
technology is pivotal for overall agricultural sustainability in drought-prone areas especially
in the horn of Africa i.e. Ethiopia ( Mmbando et al., 2021) ; however, still the areas are under
the shocks, food insecure, income and welfares are unable to support the rural society. Thus, it
is crucial to analysis the cumulative incidence, perceptions of farmers’ towards recently
introduced eco –friendly mung bean crop varieties adoption, production and marketing and its
impact on households’ income and overall welfare in low land areas of SNNPR, Ethiopia.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Agriculture is the main sector of the Ethiopian economy; it contributes 32.7% of GDP,
provides food and household income for nearly three-quarters of the population, accounts for
79% of foreign exchange earnings, employs 68.6% of the labor force, supplies inputs for the
agro-processing industry, and provides a large market (Teame et al., 2017) ; (NBE,
2020/212021). However, the sector is still stagnant due to low use of agricultural technologies
along with a lack of adequate knowledge, adverse perceptions, typically relaying on rain-fed
agriculture, low quantities and qualities of the output and imperfect input and output markets
(Abebe & Sewnet, 2014) ; (Kelemu, 2015) ; (Umata, 2018) Umata, 2018; (Mahlet et al.,

6
2018). Due to these and other factors the sector becomes uncertain and susceptible mainly to
natural risks and almost subjected to multiple risks that accounts for about 70 % of life loss
and 80 % of economic loss in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (Hilale et al., 2016); (Guan et al.,
2017) ; (Sarker et al., 2016) ; (Tesfamicheal Wossen, 2015) ; (Mukasa,2018).

To hamper these challenges the government has been making enormous efforts to improve the
livelihood of smallholder farmers, reduce poverty, improve food security, ensure nutrition
status and improve household social and economic welfare from now two decades ago
through development initiatives such as ADLI (NPC, 2016), GTP I (2010-2014), GTP II
(2015-2019) and the establishment of ATA 7. This policy and initiatives are used to increase
the competitiveness of smallholder farmers agriculture system; for instance cluster approach
which contributes and gives priority to the improvement of average productivity of high-
value and smart crop varieties (SCVs) and thereby enhances the competitiveness of the crops
for domestic and foreign markets (Koroma et al., 2016). The drought-tolerant crop varieties
(DTCVs) and pests and disease tolerant varieties (PDTCVs) in collaboration with research
centers are used for as effective coping strategies especially in low land areas of the country
(Wossen et al., 2017). To improve farmers’ income and welfare of the country the
government encourages the transformation of the smallholder farmers from subsistence
farming to commercialization of high value crops such as coffee, sesame, wheat, maize, white
bean, mung bean, and others (Endeshaw et al., 2018) through better agricultural practices,
research and extension, technology transfers, and constructing rural infrastructure (Zegeye et
al., 2022); (De Janvry et al., 2017); (Teka & Lee, 2020).

Mung bean is one of the most feasible legumes in moisture-stress areas in Ethiopia (Dinsa et
al., 2022). However, low production capacity due to low improved varieties contexts stayed
the smallholder farmers as strange for the varieties across the country hence it is a non-native
and non-staple crop. This might be bringing two effects either brings good opportunities for
commercial purpose or results full of risks.

7
The Agriculture-Led Industry Initiative (ADLI) fosters industrialization through agricultural growth and market-oriented smallholder
farmers agriculture since 1992 (NPC, 2016); and the two consecutive five years plans such as Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP I
(2010-2014) and GTP II (2015-2019) and establishment of Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA).

7
Empirical literature is mixed on mung bean crop adoption. Some studies focused on varietal
adoption on specific agronomic traits such as the adoption and diffusion of mung bean
varieties’ morphological and color features, its agro-ecology zone adoption, land suitability
and fertilizer application assessment in different ARCs in Ethiopia (Gebre, 2015) ; (Kassa et
al., 2021). Besides the local performance or psychological traits preferences of farmers were
investigated in participatory approach, yield and yield related traits were identified based on
morphological determination of genotypes; however, due to low genetic biodiversity and low
improved8 genotypes (a few accessions) (Itefa, 2016); it is unknown for all farmers , SCVs are
not equally released across the country and its production is being limited (Itefa, 2016);
(Gebre, 2015) ; (Balabanova et al., 2015) ; (Yehuala et al., 2018) ; (Aklilu & Abebe, 2020) ;
(Mota et al., 2021) ; (Kassa et al., 2021); (Dinsa et al., 2022); (Mulu et al., 2022).

Adoption of new agricultural technology is still complex for the farmers. They farmers do not
easily understand how the new practices are communicated and the channels are
disseminated. These issues make the farmers delayed to accept the new technology. The final
adoption or non-adoption decisions relays on farmer’s attitudes towards the new innovation.
The fundamental theory of attitudes and perceptions indicated that the process of beliefs
formation always not possible to measure but attitudes can be observed through the choices
individuals make. The positive attitudes based on farmers’ knowledge about the new
technology, views and judgments increase the likelihood of adoption thereby enhance the crop
yields (Meijer et al., 2015; Ntshangase et al., 2018) while farmers uncertainty due to lack of
information about the new technology can able to change the perception of the farmers and
adversely affects the probability of adoption (Morton et al., 2017, 2019); (Muriyowa &
Sibanda, 2018).

Most of the previous studies focused on the demographic factors that can affect the adoption
or non-adoption of the new agricultural technology (Kassie, et al., 2012). Some studies also
conducted on the perceptions of framers’ towards agricultural technology (Ntshangase et al.,
2018) however the farmers’ behavior about switching of the crops varies across socio-cultural
contexts and practices of the entire countries for starting the adoption of the new agricultural

8
To date a total of 75 improved varieties were released of which 60 (80%) are common bean, 10 cowpea, four mung bean, and one pigeon
pea (EIAR, 2016).

8
technology for the first time and substituting the existing crops by new varieties due to
different drivers such as perceptions towards the new technology (Yibekal et al., 2018).

While others are targeted for adoption of crops in terms of socio-economic attributes. Though
the extant studies conducted on socio economic aspects of adoption, they have been targeted
to determining the intensity or level of adoption of mung bean varieties technology and the
factors that affected the decisions at a given time through static models such as Logit, Probit
or Tobit models (Islam et al., 1970,2013); (Mmbando et al., 2021). Some were used the
descriptive analysis and pair wise ranking (Ayenew, 2020); others used linear regressions
(Barroga & Brien, 1996), few employed machine learning (Girma et al., 2019). In each
model, the subjective perception variables were defined as dichotomous variables that take on
the value of 1 and a value of 0, otherwise. The perception of farmers’ towards new technology
is measured based on the agreement level of the respondents perceived according to the
designed Likert type scale. The mentioned static models are still full of limitation to estimate
time variant and time invariant factors simultaneously.

Up to the knowledge of the researcher, there were no studies conducted on the dynamic
adoption of mung bean crop in Ethiopia. In fact few studies in different countries were
conducted on determinants of the timing of adoption of some cereals and root crop varieties,
soil fertility and pest management adoption (Sánchez-Toledano et al., 2018); (Poolsawas &
Napasintuwong, 2019); (Marechera et al., 2019); (Ahsanuzzaman, 2015); (Odendo et al.,
2010). In Ethiopia, the researchers such as Merga (2016) indicated the adoption speed of
compost technology; Adam and Yitayal (2014) assessed the adoption of the duration of hybrid
maize; the duration analysis of improved potato varieties conducted by (Lemessa et al., (2019)
and common bean varieties adoption was assessed (Abebe & Bekele, 2015).

The intention of the current study is to reason out why the farmers are not adopted at the same
time in the same agro-ecological zones and to assess the exact time scale of the rural farmers’
adoption speed of the mung bean crop cultivation. Next is aimed at to assess the perception of
farmers’ towards the adoption of newly introduced mung bean varieties related with input
utilization, production, nutrition values and marketing holistically to capture the attitudes
dimensions or loading factors (PCA) in survival analysis. Since, it is new for the farmers and

9
newly launched as the export crop that creates different inquiries in their mind. Then only the
common bean, chick pea, and pigeon pea crops for cultivation purposes such as consumption
and economic importance were addressed. However, the mung bean varieties that are
compatible with harsh environments are not given due attention by researchers, policy
makers, and development agents. So that the current researcher is motivated to fill the gap of
knowledge if this is the case for unfamiliarity and adverse perceptions of smallholder farmers
towards mung bean varieties for a long period of time.

Studies focused on traditional risks such as economic risks and environmental (ecological)
risks; however, neglecting other possible risk dimensions. Absence of cumulative assessment
of incidence is still the problems for smallholder farmers since risks are nested, contagious,
and reinforce each other (Zamrodah, 2016) ; (Wu et al., 2022). Individual risk assessment is
widely analyzed by different scientific researchers while cumulative /integrated incidence
assessment or the systematic classification of the types of risks in agriculture sector is not
more practiced though it helps to seek risks holistically (Laura Girdžiūtė, 2012) ; (Yan Zhou,
2022) ; (Burliai et.al, 2021). It can be used for both an adaptation and a mitigation strategy in
ever changing climates as SCVs like other pulses (Siamabele, 2021). However, the covariate
and non-stationery of the risks are the key problems (Zeweld et al., 2019); (Hilale et al.,
2016).

Few studies have assessed the decisions of adopting multiple strategies simultaneously instead
of analyzing strategies independently in separate equations in the world (Akhtar et al., 2021);
(Adhikari & Khanal, 2021); (Malcolm & Sinnett, 2021); (Meraner &Finger, 2019). However,
extant studies in Ethiopia are lacking in at least the following issues. The drought prone area
of the countries have full of incidences and beyond the responding capacities of the small
holder farmers. Thus the natures of risks faced by farmers in production of mung bean have
not been assessed cumulatively and systematically in case it is ecofriendly crop and simply
adopt the climate changes so that other competing risks are unexplored based on their
respective simultaneous mechanisms.

Dispersion of smallholder farmers along with low quantity of produce hinders the role of the
middle men to supply the main exporters of the mung bean in significant amount with

10
minimum transaction costs (Mwangi & Kariuki, 2015). The limited availability of the input
services for the farmers, low quantities and qualities of the output supply to the markets,
seasonality of the markets, inadequate flow of market information, and weak linkage between
the smallholder farmers and the export marketers are challenging the mung bean crop market
participation (Shikur, 2022) ; (Umata, 2018) and challenging the entire smallholder farmers
(Mahlet et al., 2018). These issues further leads to the unexpected outcome of the smallholder
farmers’ food security, nutrition and health status, income amount and other welfare
indicators of the society (Lien et al., 2015) ; (WFP, 2019).

Though the mung bean researchers were a few, they simply came across the descriptive
analysis of financial analysis i.e. profitability analysis (CBR) (Tun & Phyo, 2019);(Wang et
al., 2018) and review on market challenges (Kebede, 2020). Land race and staple crops
usually cultivated for both household consumption and commercialization purposes like grain
legumes (Kebede, 2020); (Manda et al., 2021); (Getachew, 2019); common bean (Habte et al.,
2021); chick pea (Tabe Ojong et al., 2022); maize and pigeon pea (Sequeros et al., 2021) (F.
E. Mmbando et al., 2015a); moringa (Meskel et al., 2020). Almost all studies (Hashmiu et al.,
2022); (Abokyi et al., 2020); (Manda et al., 2021) ; (Zegeye et al., 2022) ; (Biru et al., 2020);
(Habte et al., 2021); (Rubhara et al., 2020); (Schreinemachers et al., 2019); (Sequeros et al.,
2020); (LI et al., 2020) exhaustively seen the impacts of market participation on smallholder
farmers’ income, consumption and food security.

However, these studies were lacking in at least the following issues. First, the outcomes from
production, market participation and export performance of the crop such as households’
income, consumption and food security are smoothing to the short term shocks of households
and volatile in nature (Brockington, 2019) than the long term measure of welfare. Hence the
drought prone areas characterized by prolonged shocks thus the study focuses on the side of
long term impact indicators. Second, methodologically market participation of smallholder
farmers does not address the quantitative issues. They mainly focused on the mean effects
than the effects of the level of market participation and heterogeneity. Logit, Tobit model,
OLS and IV models are subjected to different biased estimations and cannot able to handling
all impact evaluation challenges. To my knowledge, hence it is late entrant for the market and

11
the country especially as export crops there was no depth mung bean crop research conducted
for overall economic contribution and smallholder farmers’ improvement of income and
welfare in Ethiopia. Finally, the crop is new for the farmers and newly launched as the export
crop that makes the export quantity and value has increasing slightly without any study based
on bilateral export trade performance. Unlike other export commodities, it raises questions for
the current author, such as "Does production quantity affect mung bean market
participation ?", "Can it stand alone as a sector?", "How do smallholder farmers perceive it?"
and others, prompting the researcher to fill the gaps.

Generally, the current studies intended to fill the above mentioned gaps by incorporating the
new issues among the risk adaptation strategies such as liquidity management to reduce
financial risk, for hedging with options and futures, contracts (forward pricing) to reduce
market risks and input and output price risks, precautionary savings, spreading sales of mung
bean production to manage surplus produce in peak season and to get better price in off
season that are untouched in extant studies. Due to lack of dynamic adoption in this specific
crop studies the researcher adopting empirical literature from other countries duration analysis
of mung bean varieties technology so as to identify the variables according to the country’s
endowments. The researcher address on the issues why the mung bean varieties are not
equally released to all parts of the country; to see the reasons why the farmers are not adopted
at the same time in same agro ecological zones. And to understand the exact time scale of the
rural farmers who adopted the mung bean crop. Lastly, the welfare indicators should be
targeted on long term impact of smallholder farmers asset accumulation hence eco-friendly
farmers’ cultivation of eco-friendly crops’ asset accumulation index is superior in average
than short term income and consumption indicators.

Therefore, the objectives of this study is examining the cumulative incidences, multiple
adaptation mechanisms using simultaneous decision making process, the farmers’ perception
towards the adoption of the mung bean crop in low lands area of the country and further it
estimating the impact of multiple stress tolerant mung bean cultivation up on smallholder
farmers’ income and asset accumulation through meticulous methodological design.

12
1.3 Research Questions

The following are the specific research questions that this study targets to address:

1. What are the main cumulative incidence components that affect the eco-friendly mung
bean crop production in low land Ethiopia?
2. What are the factors that affect the simultaneous adaptation mechanisms used to mitigate
cumulative incidence of the mung crop production? What are the multiple adaptation
mechanisms used by eco- friendly farmers in Ethiopia?
3. What are the farmers’ perceptions towards adoption of new mung bean varieties in low
land areas of Ethiopia?
4. What are the effects of mung bean crop producers’ market participation up on household
income and asset accumulation in low land Ethiopia?

1.4 Objectives of the Study

Broadly, this study aimed to examine the cumulative incidence adaptation, farmers’
perception, production and marketing of improved mung bean varieties and its effect on
households’ income and welfares in low land Ethiopia.

The specific objectives are to:

1. Assess the cumulative incidences components in production of the eco-friendly mung

bean in low land areas of Ethiopia.
2. Identify adaptation strategies and factors affecting mung bean farmers’ simultaneous risk
adaptation strategies in low land areas of Ethiopia.
3. Assess farmers’ perception towards the adoption of new mung bean varieties in low land
areas of Ethiopia.
4. Evaluate the impact of multiple stress tolerant mung bean producers’ market participation
up on household income and asset accumulation in rural Ethiopia.
1.5 Significance of the Study

The study is expected to address and expose economic importance of the crop to other
drought prone areas of the country. To identify the potent variables those affect the new crop

13
across the eco-friendly farmers. It might lead to econometric methodology argument among
the researchers to further conduct the research in this specific crop adaption, production and
market participation and its impact on drought prone areas of rural smallholder farmers’ asset
accumulation. To author’s knowledge, the study will be the first in the country in every
aspects so as to provide the recommendations and policy implications as benefits for the
sector performance by indicating the key interventions areas.
1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study

South Nations and Nationalities Regional State is the determined study areas from 11 regional
states of the country due to research constraints and six districts will be selected. Lack of
recorded historical crop panel data in regional and national level might limit the research if it
is focusing only in cross-sectional survey data inadequacy to explain household behavior over
a longer period.

1.7 Organization of the Dissertation Proposal

This dissertation proposal is organized into five chapters. Chapter one deals with the
introductory section. Chapter two provides the review of theoretical and empirical literature.
Chapter three presents the methodology will be used in the study. Chapter four outlines the
work plan and logistics. The last chapter five indicates the references of the proposal.

14
 CHAPTER TWO

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Under this chapter conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature review of cumulative
incidence assessment, comprehensive adaptation techniques, speed of improved variety
adoption, production, marketing and export importance of MSTC, mung bean, for smallholder
farmers specifically and for countries economic growth in general are presented. Next,
following these reviews their respective frameworks are formulated.

2.1 Definitions of Concepts

2.1.1Concepts of Traditional and Systemic Risks

Risk inherently involves adverse outcomes, including lower yields and incomes and can also
involve catastrophic events, such as financial bankruptcy, food insecurity and human health
problems (Komarek et al., 2020). Risk is the chance of a bad outcome, the variability of
outcomes, and the uncertainty of outcomes (Hardaker, 2000).

The traditional types of risks are personal risk, production risk, financial risk, institutional
risks and marketing or price risks. Others classified traditional risks in two economic risks and
environmental (ecological) risks. Risks also not only vary overtime but vary across
individuals. Idiosyncratic risk types are death of household member, death of livestock, etc.
Collective risks are spatially covariate shocks that affect the community at the same time such
as drought, flood, local unrest, food price increase, input price increase, etc. The academic
groups mainly focused on traditional and commonly known types of risks such as financial
risks, environmental and ecological risks (Shahzad et al., 2018Shahzad et.al, 2018).

Comprehensive risk analysis is practiced in Sub Saharan Africa countries (SSA) those
seriously affected by the covariate shocks at the same time such as drought, flood, local
unrest, agricultural inputs and food price increase, etc. All risks are networked or clustered,
contagious, reinforce and overlap each other, and systematically analyzed. These are new and

15
complex type to analysis such as social risks, cultural risks and political risks (Wu et al.,
2022) ; (Yan Zhou, 2022).

2.1.2 Concepts of Single and Simultaneous Adaptation Strategies

Single risk based adapting strategies focusing on climate changes. Hence, its severity has
more than tripled since 1980s (Munich re, 2020); and its severity decreases the cereal
production in the world from 9 to 10 percent (Tabe Ojong et al., 2022); (Lesk et al., 2016) and
690 million of the world population suffer from hungry daily and that two third hungry live in
rural areas (FAO et al., 2020; Laborde et al., 2020). Climate change incidence has a low
probability but a high negative impact which can be seen from annual levels of productivity
(Ogurtsov et al., 2008).

Adopt of a mix of adaptation strategies are more likely practiced than adopting a single
strategy in smallholder farmers Ethiopia (Barana & Maeregeu, 2020). To sustain their farming
system the multiple facets of risks through multi risk adapting strategies approach is crucial.
For simultaneous decision making process simultaneously utilizing multiple risk adopting
strategies is more effective than giving sole emphasis to one (Velandia et.al, 2015).

2.1. 3 Concepts of Farmers’ Perception, Static and Dynamic Technology

Adoption

The fundamental theory of attitudes and perceptions indicated that the process of beliefs
formation always not possible to measure but attitudes can be observed through the choices
individuals make. The positive attitudes based on farmers’ knowledge about the new
technology, views and judgments increase the likelihood of adoption thereby enhance the crop
yields (Meijer et al., 2015; Ntshangase et al., 2018) while farmers uncertainty due to lack of
information about the new technology can able to change the perception of the farmers and
adversely affects the probability of occurrence of adoption (Morton et al., 2017); (Morton et
al., 2019); (Muriyowa & Sibanda, 2018).

Adoption is defined by different authors in different ways. It is a decision to use a new

technology by economic agents either individually or aggregately (Hailu, 2008); an outcome

16
of the decision to accept a given innovation (Bonabana, 2002); a mental process of an
individual passes through from first hearing about innovation to final utilization (Mwangi &
Kariuki, 2015); (Rogers, 1962). It is Integration of new technology into existing practice
through a period of trial and adaptation (Mwangi & Kariuki, 2015). The concept of adoption
defined in terms of intensity of adoption and rate of adoption. Rate of adoption is the relative
speed with which farmers adopt an innovation whereas intensity of adoption refers to the level
of use of a given technology in any time period (Bonabana, 2002).

The speed of adoption is usually measured by the length of time required for a certain
percentage of members of a system to adopt a given technology (Bonabana, 2002).
Agricultural technology are the development of new innovations such as introduction of new
crop types, improved seed, fertilizers, new varieties of crops and machinery in order to
increase productivity (Mwangi & Kariuki, 2015) and reducing average cost of production
(Mwangi & Kariuki, 2015) ; (Challa, 2013) ; improvement in nutrition status and higher
income earnings of smallholder farmers (Wandji et al. ,2012).

2.1.4 Concepts of Market Participation and Impact of Market participation

Market participation of smallholder farmers is defined as the process at which farmers being
able to buy inputs from the input market or being able to sell their output in the output market.
Market participation of smallholder farmers of developing countries is an indispensable
pathway towards economic growth (Poole, 2017). Whereas, the level or intensity of market
participation is defined as the quantity of output sold by a farmer from total production or
quantity of inputs a farmer can purchase in the input market (Jagwe et al., 2010). Subsistence
agriculture may not be a viable activity to ensure sustainable household food security and
welfare. Moreover, market participation has a linking power between the input and output
sides of the market (Motie et al., 2009; FAO, 2014). The production decision of
commercialized farmers is based on market signals and comparative advantages. Whereas;
those of subsistence farmers are based on production feasibility and subsistence requirements
and selling only whatever surplus product is left after household consumption requirements
are met. Smallholder farmers sell only a part of their production and this part is often small. In

17
Ethiopia smallholders sell less than a quarter of their production, retaining most of it for in-
household consumption (FAO, 2015).

Some authors defined market participation as similar to commercialization; others make a

clear distinction between the two terms. Latt and Nieuwoudt (1988) defined market
participation as similar to commercialization of agricultural commodities which facilitate the
transition from subsistence farming to market engagement mode. Berhanu and Moti (2010)
argued that agricultural market participation and commercialization are two dissimilar
concepts. Agricultural commercialization functions well when orientation and participation
exist together. Market orientation in agriculture is defined as the degree of allocation of
resources for the production of agricultural commodities that are aimed for exchange or sale
while market participation in crop production is measured by the proportion or amount of
crop output sold in the market. Thus, the transformation of subsistence agriculture into
commercialized agriculture will be realized when market orientation translates strongly into
market participation. Agriculture in Ethiopia is a subsistence type and is dominated by over
15 million smallholder farmers producing about 95% of agricultural products (CSA, 2018).
The present study follows the same reasoning that farmers' activity is studied in terms of
market participation rather than commercialization impacts on household income and asset
accumulation.(Tabe Ojong et al., 2022) assessed the impact of crop market participation on
household income and asset and livestock accumulation outcomes (asset, asset per capita,
livestock ownership, per capita livestock ownership, income and per capita income). The
analyzed the short (intermediate outcome) and long term welfare effects (ultimate outcomes)
indicated by consumption and income, and asset indicators respectively.

2.2 Theoretical and Analytical Perspectives

2.2.1 Theoretical Framework for Cumulative Incidence Assessment

To evaluate scientifically, the comprehensive risks in agricultural economy the application of

the complex network theory is crucial. The multivariate statistical algorithm (MSA) method
used for clustering risks and estimating the coefficients because the individual risk factors are
difficult to be stripped away. Therefore, for systematic assessment and multi risk modeling we

18
adopt the Multiple factor/factorial analysis (MFA) algorithm that emanated from complex
network theory (CNT). Specifically, the factor analysis method starts from the correlation
matrix of many observed variables and groups the observed variables according to the
magnitude of the correlation so that the correlation between observed variables within the
same group is high and the correlation between variables indifferent groups is low. The
original variables decomposed into a linear combination of unobservable implied variables so
called common factors and the other is uncorrelated to common factors but correlated with
original variables themselves, special factors (Wu et al., 2022); (Yan Zhou, 2021).

2.2.2 Analytical Framework for Cumulative Incidence Assessment

Emily Amondo et al., (2019) adopted Antile’s Moment based Approach of three moments like
mean yield, variance, and Skewness central tendency statistics to estimate the effects of
drought-tolerant crop varieties (DTCV) on productivity and production risks. Farmers’ costs
for seed varieties, other inputs, and the cost of inputs prices, productivity and production risk
effects, cost of production are assumed to be non-random as farmers are price takers in both
input and output markets (Wossen et al., 2017). And also Mukasa (2018) considered four
moments by adding kurtosis statistics.

Best - Worst scaling method (BWS) is used to rank the long listed sets of risks as stated
preference approach , that enables the respondent to select the ‘best’ and the ‘worst’ attributes
or sources of risks based on standard score and standardized square root interval scale
(Thompson et al., 2019; Cosmos Attaa & Eric T. Micheels, 2020).

Laura Girdžiūtė (2012 ) in his review pointed out : the Hazard analysis method , fuzzy matrix
of a mathematical algorithm technique, event tree analysis (ETA), fault tree analysis (FTA) ,
Delfi technique, Monte – Carlo simulation method, cost benefit analysis (CBA), risk at value
(VAR) and variation –co-variation method are the main risks evaluation methods to assess the
risk severity, prediction, happening of unexpected event, errors of the sub systems and
components relationship, opinions , expected return and risk indexes , cost-benefit weights,
potential losses and massive historical data respectively.

19
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) originally proposed by (Mahmoudi et al., 2021);
K.Pearson and independently developed by Hotelling (Hotelling, 1936). PCA is a statistical
technique to look at data distribution and dispersion measurements such as standard deviation,
variance and covariance and in other way matrix algebra technique for calculating
eigenvectors and eigenvalues which transforms a number of possibly correlated variables,
high dimensional set, into a smaller number of uncorrelated variables, low dimensional set, by
using orthogonal /orthonormal /transformation called principal components (P. Sai Shankar et
al., 2019).

Basically, the PCA technique has been applied dimensionality reduction in agricultural
economics (Sarkar et al., 2014) in order to assess’ multidimensional poverty, cumulative
risks, categorizing farm typology (Chatterjee et al., 2015), etc. PCA used to identify the core
risks by categorizing by different factors among similar risks by reducing the dimensionality
of original problems (correlation problems) by using orthogonal /orthonormal /transformation
called principal components (P. Sai Shankar et al., 2019) and which are ordered so that the
first few retain most of the variation present in all of the original variables (Sidharth Prasad
Mishra et al., 2017). (Mahmoudi et al., 2021); Sidharth Prasad Mishra et al (2017); and
(ICAR, 2019) stated the steps and assumptions to apply PCA.

Assumptions for principal components analysis are sample size, normality, linearity and
orthogonality. Large Sample size makes the correlation coefficients to be reliable. However
there is no exact sample size for processing of PCA. And all the rules of the thumb 9 are not
mutually exclusive (ICAR, 2019). PCA is a generally a non-parametric of extracting relevant
information from confusing datasets. If variables are normally distributed, the solution is
enhanced. To the extent normality fails, the solution is degraded by may still be worthwhile.
The PCA is degraded when linearity fails, because correlation measures linear relationship
and does not reflect non-linear relationship. Principal components (PCs) are orthogonal. That

9
Arbitrary rules of thumbs say that there should be at least 10 observations for each variable. The minimum sample size should be at least
150-300 (Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). For a few highly correlated variables sample size closer to 150 is sufficient. Some suggest that
number of variable determines the size of sample. Bryant and Yarnold (1995), Nunnaly (1978) and Gorsuch (1983) recommend that the ideal
sample to variable ratio should be at least five. The rule of significance states that there should be 51 extra observations than the number of
variables, to support chisquare testing (Lawley and Maxwell, 1971). These rules are not mutually exclusive (ICAR, 2019).

20
means the second PC will be perpendicular to first PC and subsequently the third PC will be
perpendicular to the second PC.

Statistically, Minimization of Total Absolute Deviation (MOTAD) model was developed by

Hazell, 1971 and has been widely employed by others to estimate farmers’ response to
agricultural risks and expected incomes. Mean- Gini risk programming model was used by
Yang (1999), to explore the influence of agricultural policy risk on farming households. And
Ren et al., (1995) used the model to show the impact of price risk on wheat and corn crops.

However, it is difficult to measure risks statistically because they can only select on method to
evaluate all types of risks in the same time. It only depicts the tradeoffs between agricultural
risks measurements of expected income and the absolute deviation of income and other
central tendency statistics. In addition they explained only one type of risk but failed to show
other agricultural risks and dynamics of time though Laura Girdžiūtė (2012) used single
integrated models to evaluate all risks.

Empirically, a copula function is a multivariate distribution function defined on the unit cube
with uniformly distributed marginal. Copulas are instruments that combine univariate
distributions (one risk effects) to obtain a multivariate distribution (many risks effect) with a
particular dependence structure mainly on price risk and yield dependency.

Dimensionality reduction concept adopted in discipline of agricultural economics in order to

assess’ cumulative risks, multidimensional poverty, categorizing farm typology, etc. The
multivariate statistical algorithm used to identify the core risks by categorizing by different
factors among similar risks by reducing the dimensionality of original problems (correlation
problems) and it used to category the farm typology (Abdi, 2007 as cited in S. Chatterjee et
al., 2015).

2.2.3 Theoretical Framework for Simultaneous Adoption Models

Based on utility maximization theory the farmer households decide to adopt an adaptation
strategy to maximize their expected utility. It is a function of anticipated adoption cost and
benefit as well as their preferences that are influenced by several factors. In this event, the

21
definition of the utility to a farmer is not higher yields. In the adaptation context, the utility
attained from adapting strategy could stabilize yield and the implied decrease in a risk. A
farmer is more likely to adopt a particular risk adaptation strategy if the benefit from its
adoption is higher than non-adoption to increase the utility.

Let Uo and Uj represent the benefits to a farmer with out and with the adoption of risk
adaptation strategies. A rational farmer, a risk averse farmer 10 labeled as i, will decide to
adopt the jth risk adaptation strategies if the net benefit (β *ij) of its adoption is higher than
without it, i.e., Β*ij = U*j - Uo > 0. In this case, the net benefits of adopting a risk adaptation
strategy are a latent variable11, which is determined by some characteristics of smallholder
farmers (Kamba et al.,2015) and the characteristics of the strategies (X ij) and error term (εij) as
in the following equation:

Β*ij = Xij Βj + εij (j = 1, 2,…, n)………………………………………..………………….(2.1)

Equation (3.1) can be presented in terms of an indicator functions. In this case, the
unobserved preferences in equation (3.1) translate in to the observed binary outcomes
equation for each adaptation strategy choices, as shown in the equation (3.2).

Β*ij = { 1 ,if βij >0

¿

0 , otherwise
……………………………………………...…….……………… (2.2)

2.2.4 Analytical Framework for Simultaneous Adoption Models

According to A. Colin Cameron & Pravin K. Trivedi (2005) the bivariate probit model is a
joint model for two binary outcomes that generalizes the index function model from one latent
variable to two latent variables that may be correlated. Generalizations to multivariate probit
are obvious though will experience numerical challenges because of higher order integrals (A.
Colin Cameron & Pravin K. Trivedi, 2005). In the case of the choice of multiple adaptation
strategies uni-variate technique is not appropriate and may generate biased estimates as they
10
A risk averse farmer household increase utility by selecting an adaptation strategy if the difference between the benefits and costs of
adaptation is higher than the benefits derived without adopting.

11
The utility from each adaptation strategy cannot be directly observed rather it can be indirectly obtained from the choice made by the
farmer that revealed, which adaptation strategies provide a better utility subject to its determinants (Green, 2012; Djalalou et al., 2015;
Tarekegn et al., 2017).

22
are based on the assumption of the independence of error terms of the different adaptation
strategies implemented and also exclude information about interdependent and simultaneous
adoption decisions (Greene - Econometrics Analysis.Pdf, n.d.);(Greene 2019). If the farmers
adopt more than one risk adaptation strategies simultaneously (mutually inclusive); this
prohibits employing multi nominal logit regression (MNL) for the analysis since it assumes
the independence of the categories i.e., household choices are mutually exclusive (Greene,
2012). Multivariate probit model (MVP) regression relaxes the assumption of the
independence of the irrelevant alternatives (IIA) which are assumed by binary and MNL
(Green, 2012). Therefore, it is highly likely that the decision to adopt one strategy can
influence the adoption of multiple other strategies. That is why the decision to adopt risk
coping strategies is inherently multivariate. It is robust to estimates the influence of
exogenous factors to choose the various strategies simultaneously while permitting the error
terms of each of these strategies to be freely correlated (Greene, 2012).

Farmers employed multiple adaptation strategies simultaneously to impede negative multi

risks impacts (Mulwa et al., 2017). The multivariate probit model helps us to determine
possible positive correlation (complementarities) and negative correlation (substitutability)
between the strategies used by farmers (Aryal et al., 2020). Also the pair wise correlation is
important to compare the simultaneously adapting strategies with individual probit equations.
If the individual probit equations test of likelihood ratio (P < 0.000) of independent of error
terms so we highly rejected so we apply MVP for multi risk adaptations strategies (MRAS).

2.2.5 Theoretical Framework of Farmers’ Perception towards Technology

Adoption

Theoretical background of the agricultural technology adoption studies (Mosher, 1979,

Rogers, 1983, Runquist, 1984, Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971) mainly indicated the categories
of adopters and stages in the adoption process. The speed of improved agricultural technology
adoption depends on the availability of improved technologies, which involve the generation
and dissemination of these technologies to the farmers. Generation of improved technologies
is a time-intensive process leading to a depreciation of the technologies. More time is also
required for adoption to take place i.e. the time that passed from the introduction of the

23
technology until the decision is made to use it. A generic adoption profile includes the
technology development lag ending with a release of new technology and the initially
increasing adoption rate, which reflects the growing number of farmers in the target area who
are using the technology .An adoption plateau occurs when most target farmers have been
exposed to the technology and have decided whether or not to adopt it. Adoption then
declines as the technology becomes obsolete. Together, these Components determine the
speed with which adoption of yield increasing technologies has impacts on farmers’
production (Mills et al., 1998). All potential adopters of a new technology do not adopt it at
the same time because of their readiness to use the technology. Thus, when dealing with the
concept of adoption it is necessary to identify the type of adopters one is dealing with and
even the adoption stages.

Early adoption studies pioneers such as Mosher (1979) and Rogers (1983), they identified and
described five categories of adopters in a social system. These categories were innovators,
early adapters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Rogers(1983) indicated that the
majority of early adopters are expected to be younger, more educated, venturesome,
and willing to take risk. In contrary to this group, the late adopters are expected to be older,
less educated, conservative, and not willing to take risks. However, a study by Runquist
(1984) noted that the practical aspect of the classification of adopters into five categories, as
Rogers (1983) did, is relevant to deliberate or planned introduction of innovation. The
usefulness of this categorization is restricted as there is evidence indicating a movement
from one category to the other, depending on the technology introduced.

Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) and Rogers (1983) described the innovation adoption
decision process, as the mental process from the first knowledge of an innovation to the
decision to adopt or reject. The study further indicated that the innovation adoption decision
process is different from the diffusion process. The former (i.e adoption) takes place within
the mind of an individual while the latter (i.e diffusion) occurs among the units in a social
system or within a region.

Based on this theoretical background the study identified five stages in the adoption process.
These are awareness the initial knowledge of the innovation, interest and persuasion,

24
evaluation, degree depending on the situation and adoption. These stages in the diffusion
process imply a time lag between awareness and adoption. It is usually measured from
first knowledge until the decision is made whether to adopt or not. Thus we can understand
from these stages adoption is not a random behavior, but is the result of sequence of events
passing through these adoption stages (Rogers, 1983). This can lead us to models dealing with
adoption decision of a certain technology.

They farmers do not easily understand how the new practices are communicated and the
channels are disseminated. These issues make the farmers delayed to accept the new
technology. The final adoption or non-adoption decisions relays on farmer’s attitudes towards
the new innovation. The fundamental theory of attitudes and perceptions indicated that the
process of beliefs formation always not possible to measure but attitudes can be observed
through the choices individuals make. The positive attitudes based on farmers’ knowledge
about the new technology, views and judgments increase the likelihood of adoption thereby
enhance the crop yields (Meijer et al., 2015; Ntshangase et al., 2018) while farmers
uncertainty due to lack of information about the new technology can able to change the
perception of the farmers and adversely affects the probability of adoption (Morton et al.,
2017); (Morton et al., 2019); (Muriyowa & Sibanda, 2018).

To evaluate scientifically, the knowledge, attitudes and perception of farmers’ towards

agricultural technology recently applied by the complex network theory is crucial. The
multivariate statistical algorithm (MSA) method used for clustering attitudes , risks or multi
risk modeling and estimating the coefficients because the individual risk factors are difficult
to be stripped away and study adopt the Multiple factor/factorial analysis (MFA) algorithm.
The original variables decomposed into a linear combination of unobservable implied
variables so called common factors and the other is uncorrelated to common factors but
correlated with original variables themselves, special factors (Wu et al., 2022); (Yan Zhou,
2021).

25
2.2.6 Analytical Frameworks for Improved Varieties Dynamic
Adoption/Duration Analysis Approach/

Since adoption is a mental process, it has five successive stages such as awareness the initial
knowledge of the innovation, interest and persuasion, evaluation, trial and confirmation and
adoption (Rogers, 1983). In investigation of new agricultural adoption technology the
previous researchers were used cross-sectional data in a static approach to analyze why some
farmers adopt at a given point in time however the adoption by itself the continuous process
(dynamic) (Hailu, 2008). A static approach refers to farmers’ decisions to adopt an
improved technology at a specific place and a specific period of time. These models
focus on a single point in time and try to identify who is adopting technology and who is not.
Dynamic adoption models are model that allow for changes in farmers’ adoption decisions
as farmers gain skills in a technology from year to year. Duration techniques have several
advantages over static models dealing with adoption decision. Thus, they allow continuous-
time analysis regardless of the periods used in the data themselves. This means that in these
models predicted probabilities can be obtained over a period of one year regardless of the
number of periods observed. They also take into account the evolution of the adoption of the
technology and its determinants over time. Duration analysis techniques are appropriate to
account for right censoring (when we only know that the farmer did not adopt the technology
at least up to a given period t), and easily handle time-varying covariates (Poolsawas &
Napasintuwong, 2019). These “right-censored observations contribute to the hazard rate with
their survival information” (Coetzee, 2006).

Adoption is integration of new technology into existing practices not instantaneously but
through time and process (Rogers, 2003). It is also defined as a mental process of an
individual from the first time you hear of an innovation/technology to the time you practice it
(Mwangi & Kariuki, 2015). Duration models take advantage of more information, meaning
the timing of adoption, which cannot be exploited in logit or probit models. Regardless of
these major drawbacks of the static model, most of adoption studies continue to apply variants
of the static binary setting of logit or probit models (Janson, 1992; Shields et al., 1993; Polson
and Spencer, 1991). In these models the adoption decision is merely dichotomous (whether

26
or not to adopt) where a functional relationship between the probability of adoption and a set
of explanatory variables is estimated econometrically using logistic distribution for the Logit
procedures and the normal distribution for the Probit procedures. The Logit/Probit methods
investigate the effects of regressors on the choice to use or not use (Feder et al., 1985). For
instance, if a Probit model is used to analyze data on fertilizer adoption, a farmer who
adopts the recommended level of fertilizer is treated the same as a farmer who applies
one tenth of the recommendation (Ghosh, 1991). But the alternative static econometric
procedures such as the Tobit (Tobin, 1958) are used to analyze quantitative adoption
decisions when information on the intensity of adoption is available (e.g., data on
percentage of area planted to improved varieties, amount of fertilizer/herbicide applied,
etc.).

Dynamic adoption models are takes the advantage of taking more information of evaluating
the timing of adoption, and its determinants overtime; it incorporates both the cross sectional
and time variant data jointly in the dynamic framework. Addition, it is compatible to account
for right censoring and easily incorporates the time varying covariates. Finally, it can also use
for unmeasured heterogeneity (Deaton, 1997; Butler & Moser, 2010). A further advantage of
duration model is the ability to control for unmeasured heterogeneity without the need for a
full panel data set. Heterogeneity of individuals for example reflected by differences in
characteristics might change the individual hazard. Here the multiplicative effect of the
covariates has a clear and intuitive meaning (Beyene & Kassie, 2015; Poolsawas &
Napasintuwong, 2019); (Hailu, 2008); (Arora & Bansal, 2012); Merega, 2016). In economics,
duration models are often used in labor market studies, where un-employment durations or
spells are analyzed (Jenkins, 2005); (Lancaster, 1978); (Verbeek, 2007); time until business
failure, interval between purchase and soon (Greene, 2003). In agricultural sector, it has been
applied in adoption of conservation (Isabel & Toledano, 2017), adoption of improved seed
(Sánchez-Toledano et al., 2018); (Knowler & Bradshaw, 2007; Nazli & Smale, 2016);
adoption of fertilizer and herbicide, etc. Because of these advantages the researchers adopted
the duration model.

27
2.2.7 Theoretical Framework for Market participation and its Impact on
Household Income and Asset Accumulation

In perspective of market participation farmers are involving in market for getting benefits
from the participation. Therefore, assumed the rational farmers would chose to be participate
if the expected utility obtained from market participation (D 1) is greater than that from not
participated in the market (D0). This utility gained from farmers’ market participation (D * =
D1-D0) can be expressed as a function of unobservable vector of covariates (Z) in a latent
model as follows:

¿ ¿
Di = αZi + ηi; Di = 1 if Di = > 0, ……………………………….………….……………… (2.3)

Where Di is a binary variables that equals 1 if the mung bean farmers participated in the
market and 0 if the framers not participated in the market; α is a vector coefficients to be
estimated; Zi is a vector of explanatory variables; and η i is a random error terms assumed to be
normally distributed. Market participation expected to affect various outcomes at the farm
level (in this study the outcomes variables are income and asset accumulation) assumed as the
linear function of a vector of exogenous variables X i and endogenous in market participation
Di such that:

Yi = βXi +δ Di + εi ………………………………………………….…........…………...… (2.4)

Where Yi represents the outcome variables and Di is defined as previously; β and δ are
parameters to be estimated, and εi is the error term.

2.2.8 Analytical Frameworks for Market Participation and its Impact on

Household Income and Asset Accumulation

The crop income/per capita income/, consumption expenditure approach that adjusted by per
adult equivalent (AEU)12 annually and so called per capita consumption expenditure approach
and per capita asset/asset index values will be used to estimate the impact of farmers’ market
12
Labor force in Adult Equivalent Units (AEU) per household was estimated using recommended levels of energy intake by transforming
each family member into a fraction of an AEU based on age group and sex and those values are then summed to compute the total Adult
Equivalent Units for the particular household. The 1973 FAO/ WHO recommended calorie requirements were used as the basis for the
transformation. See Schofield (1985) for details.

28
participation upon their welfare. The crop income (measured by Birr) refers to the total annual
income of the households generated from all crop production including mung bean. The per
capita income computed from the household income obtained from the sales of the crop and
livestock, remittances, salaries, and off farm income with the most significant contribution
from agriculture. Alternatively, household income measured by the expenditure approach. It
approximates total household income from total household expenditure on food and non-food
items and contributions to expenditure. Total household expenditure per adult equivalent
(AEU) was included to capture all the household expenditure within a year measured in Birr.

The total asset values except livestock units converted into 2005 USD PPP. It is necessary to
analysis the livestock as a potentially productive form of assets as it reflects the long-term
abilities of the household to meet their consumption needs and their potential increase in
value as they mature and convert into TLU (Tabe Ojong et al., 2022). Alternatively, (Ogada et
al., 2020) used household domestic asset index. It is calculated for all movable assets with
each type of assets or groups of assets assigned weights which are then adjusted for age as
follows (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010):

[ ]
G N
Household domestic asset index = ∑ ∑ w∗gi i= 1, 2, 3….; g = 1, 2, 3……,G .. (2.5 )
g=1 i=1

Where, gi = weight of the ith item of assets g, N = number of asset g owned by household a =
age adjustment to weight, G = number of assets owned by household.

Therefore, almost all studies (Hashmiu et al., 2022); (Abokyi et al., 2020); (Manda et al.,
2021); (Habte et al., 2021); (Zegeye et al., 2022); (Biru et al., 2020); (Rubhara et al., 2020);
(Sequeros et al., 2020); (LI et al., 2020) exhaustively seen the impacts of market participation
on smallholder farmers’ income, consumption and food security. These are prone to short
term shocks of households and volatile in nature (Brockington, 2019) than the long term
measure of welfare. Thus drought prone areas shocks are not only short period’s problem but
also cannot stabilize the livelihood of the rural farmers. So the welfare indicators should be
targeted on long term impact of smallholder farmers like productive and non-productive

29
household asset holdings or accumulation hence eco-friendly farmers’ cultivation of eco-
friendly crops’ asset index is superior in average.

Estimation of the impact of market participation on mung bean farmers’ welfare outcomes is
major methodological challenges to cascade because it needs to control of potential selection
biases /heterogeneity and endogeneity problems. Extant literatures of market participation of
smallholder farmers do not address the quantitative issues. They mainly focused on the mean
effects than the effects of the level of market participation and heterogeneous cases. The Tobit
model, OLS estimation techniques , IV models, and Heckman’s two-stage model have been
employed to estimate the impact of market participation upon smallholder farmers’ welfare;
however, these models and techniques are subjected to different biased estimations (G.Sigei,
2007,2014); (Arega et al., 2008; Adeoti et al., 2014; Mbitsemunda et al., 2017).

If we apply the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimation technique to estimate the impact of
market participation upon farmers’ welfare the result should be biased because the model
treats all independent variables exogenously. Because all participants are may not benefited
equally from market participation. The richer may have earned much income than the poorer.
The selection biases arising from the observed heterogeneity controlled by the Propensity
Score Matching (PSM) (Azeem et al. 2018) but still the problem of unobserved heterogeneity
remained. Along PSM the Instrumental variables (IVs) are able to capture the unobserved
factors; however, the impact can be represented as a simple parallel shift with respect to the
outcome variable (Mmbando et al., 2015b). The main limitations of Heckman’s model
employed in a two successive decisions analysis is that when there is a high degree of
multicollinearity between the independent variables and the inverse Mills ratio which results
in high standard errors on the coefficient estimates and parameter instability.

Therefore in order to achieve the objective the current study adopts the models that can able
to handling all impact evaluation challenges so called the Endogenous Switching Regression
model (ESR) for the impact of market participation of mung bean farmers’ upon their income
and asset accumulation(Di Falco et al., 2011); (Lokshin & Sajaia, 2004).

30
2.3 Empirical Literature Review

2.3.1 Cumulative Incidence Assessment through Dimensional Reduction

Farmers faced a combination of all usual risks in agricultural production rarely at same time
but they might to be faced at least a single risk during crop season hence the risks are inherent
or not exclusive in agricultural production (Guan et al., 2017; Sarker et al., 2016). Many
studies focused solely on traditional risks especially in economic risks and environmental
(ecological) risks by neglecting other possible risk dimensions. Individual risk assessment is
widely analyzed by different scientific researchers while integrated risk assessment analyzes
is limited to integration of two risks only though it helps to seek risks holistically (Laura
Girdžiūtė, 2012). However the systematic classification of the types of risks in agriculture
sector is not more practiced (A. Burliai et.al, 2021).

(Amondo et al., 2019) adopted Antile’s Moment based Approach of three moments like mean
yield, variance, and Skewness central tendency statistics to estimate the effects of drought-
tolerant crop varieties (DTCV) on productivity and production risks. Farmers’ costs for seed
varieties, other inputs, and the cost of inputs prices, productivity and production risk effects,
cost of production are assumed to be non-random as farmers are price takers in both input and
output markets (Tesfamicheal Wossen, 2015); (Wossen et al., 2017). And also Mukasa (2018)
considered four moments by adding kurtosis statistics. Best - Worst scaling method (BWS) is
used to rank the long listed sets of risks as stated preference approach , that enables the
respondent to select the ‘best’ and the ‘worst’ attributes or sources of risks based on standard
score and standardized square root interval scale (Thompson et al., 2019; Cosmos Attaa &
Eric T. Micheels, 2020).

Laura Girdžiūtė (2012 ) in his review pointed out : the Hazard analysis method , fuzzy matrix
of a mathematical algorithm technique, event tree analysis (ETA), fault tree analysis (FTA) ,
Delfi technique, Monte – Carlo simulation method, cost benefit analysis (CBA), risk at value
(VAR) and variation –co-variation method are the main risks evaluation methods to assess the
risk severity, prediction, happening of unexpected event, errors of the sub systems and
components relationship, opinions , expected return and risk indexes , cost-benefit weights,

31
potential losses and massive historical data respectively. World Bank Group (2016) once the
risks are identified according to their capacity to cause major losses the quantification of risks
should be carried out by time series analysis techniques for assessing production risks to
arrive at monetary value of losses, variations for the historical mean to assess market risks and
qualitative analysis used to asses environmental risks by ranking the losses dimensions.

(Wu et al., 2022) were focused on new and comprehensive risks like social risks, political
risks and cultural risks based on complex network theory through factor analysis method
(FAM). Multivariate Statistical Algorithm (MSA) based on complex networks assessed
cumulatively because all risks are networked or clustered, contagious, reinforces and overlaps
each other, and systematically analyzed the risks(Wu et al., 2022).

Comprehensive risk analysis is crucial for the community of SSA countries especially the
horn of African countries those seriously affected by non- stationery and the covariate shocks
at the same time such as drought, flood, local unrest, agricultural inputs and food price
increase, etc. The drought risk and flood alone are estimated about 70 % loss of life and 80 %
of economic loss in SSA (Hilale et al., 2016) though the regional governments, policy makers
and other partners primary objective is enhancing agricultural productivity (Mukasa, 2018) by
20-20% rise of yield and reduction of yield variability and production risk (Wossen et al.,
2017). Assessing comprehensive risks help small holder farmers to deploy their respective
simultaneous risk adaptation strategies (Fisher et al., 2015). One of the effective coping
strategies is use of the drought-tolerant crop varieties (DTCV) in collaboration with research
centers (Wossen et al., 2017). The original variables decomposed into a linear combination of
unobservable implied variables so called common factors and the other is uncorrelated to
common factors but correlated with original variables themselves, special factors (Wu et al.,
2022).

2.3.2 Disentangling the Climate related Risks Adaptation Mechanism from

Simultaneous (mix) Adaptions Strategies

Farmers faced multiple risks in agricultural production in developing nations inherently or

inclusively (Guan et al., 2017). These risks are beyond the ability of small farmers to control

32
and even lead to a total failure of the farm operation (Janowicz-Lomott, M. & Łyskawa, K.,
2014) also they have not been addressed fully even by farmers and other stake holders
(Meraner, M. & Finger, 2019). To sustain their farming the multiple facets of risks through
multi risk adapting strategies approach (MRAS) is crucial. For simultaneous decision making
process simultaneously utilizing MRAS is more effective than giving sole emphasis to one
(Velandia et.al, 2015). So smallholder farmers’ adaptation decisions should be shaped by both
climate and non-climate factors (Eakin, H. et al., 2014; Burnham, M.; Ma, Z., 2018). Thus
assessing risks origin, types, severity or anticipated losses their distribution and correlation
with each other is crucial to sound risk management strategies (Lien et al., 2015); (Akhtar et
al., 2021); (Adhikari & Khanal, 2021).

(Wouterse et al., 2022) dealt about microeconomic adaptation of climate change such as crop
switching. Most farmers who abandoned existing crops because of climate change challenges
by adopting a cash crop (mung bean) primarily due to price increases for the crop since newly
linked to export market in Ethiopia (Tessema et al., 2019);(Yibekal et al., 2018). Variation in
sowing times (Danso-Abbeam et al., 2021);(Stringer et al., 2020 ;(Ojo & Baiyegunhi, 2020);
water and soil conservation practices (Asfaw et al., 2018) ; seed bank/sales of crops, changing
farming calendar, varying of land size, share cropping , intercropping, mono cropping and
technology related techniques are the identified strategies to combat climate changes in
Nigeria (Danso-Abbeam et al., 2021). Many of the techniques adopted by rural households
are focused on established information and technologies (Adhikari & Khanal, 2021).

Specialized cropping strategy is adopted by Chinese farmers which can significantly improve
the technical efficiency and yields of crops in agriculture. Also it can help farmers to alleviate
the adverse effect of climate changes on the technical efficiency of their crops (Chen & Ma,
2015);(Wu et al., 2022). That is why the concept adaptation basically related with climate
change effects though other few scholars related it definition not only with climate change
impacts but relates with development agendas. Adaption defined as “the process of
adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit
beneficial opportunities” (IPCC, 2019).

33
Adopt of a mix of adaptation strategies are more likely practiced than adopting a single
strategy climate related risk in smallholder farmers Ethiopia (Asrat & Babiso, 2020). Crop
selection, cropping calendar, crop diversification, soil and water conservation practices and
irrigation were identified adopting strategies to reduce climate change and the strategies of
smallholder farmers are influenced by the factors like gender, age, educational status, farm
size, soil fertility, distance from the market center, agro ecology, access to climate
information, and access to credit in area of Hobicha district, Ethiopia (Asrat & Babiso, 2020).

(Kidane et al., 2022) focused on climatic and non-climatic factors operate either in isolation
or in concert to shape smallholder farmers’ on farm, non-farm/off-farm adaptation responses
in the Raya Azebo district of Ethiopia. These adaptation measures to be driven by climatic
(e.g., drought and erratic rains) and non-climatic factors (e.g., limited local employment
options, market conditions, land shortage, soil fertility issues, and crop diseases).

Disentangling the climate related risks from other multi risks that can adversely affect
agricultural production is important not only to design appropriate climate risk reduction but
also to prioritize policy interventions (Tesfamicheal Wossen, 2015). Adapting to more
resilient crops in the changing climates will not only ensure food availability but also enhance
accessibility, utilization and stability as it will improve farmers’ diversification levels and
income levels (Siamabele, 2021).

Different countries farm households deploy different coping strategies to cope with
comprehensive risks (Fisher et al., 2015). It will provide further benefits in production, food
security and risks mitigation (Gebremariam, 2018). One of the effective coping strategies is
use of the drought-tolerant crop varieties (DTCV) Wossen et al. (2017), pests and disease
tolerant varieties (PDTCV) in collaboration with research centers It expected to increase
yields by 20-20%, reduce yield variability and reduce production risk (Wossen et al., 2017).
Farmers are already responding to these risks by adopting new practices, such as changed
cropping dates, economic diversification, and more efficient use of agricultural inputs
(OECD, 2019); adopting new crop varieties, switching to new crops, monitoring weather
forecasts, purchasing agricultural insurance etc. (Trinh et al., 2018 ; Ochoaetal.,2019).
Crop/livestock insurance, crop/livestock diversification, alternative farm enterprise

34
diversification and income support from off farm activities are some adopting strategies that
used simultaneously and the strategies are influenced by operator’s age, education, income,
landholdings, government incentives, smartphones and farmers continuation plan (Adhikari &
Khanal, 2021);(Scientific et al., 2022).

The range of risks faced by agriculture sector is not limited to regions and crops. Important
cereal crops such as rice, maize and wheat in the world negatively affected not only by
climate changes but also in mild rise temperature (Sato et al., 2020; Tumbo et al., 2020; Ureta
et al., 2020). Contract farming, agricultural credit and off farm income are the three
simultaneously taken adopting strategies that used by among hybrid maize growers in
Pakistan (Akhtar et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, recently few studies have assessed the decisions of MRAS simultaneously in
the world (Akhtar et al., 2021);(Adhikari & Khanal, 2021) instead of analyzing strategies
independently in separate equations. The nature of risks faced by farmers in production of
mung bean, newly introduced crop, has not been assessed but they might be facing some
similar risks and many new risks unlike that of other pulse crops risks.

2.3.3 Determinants of Static and Dynamic Adoption of Multi stress Tolerant

Mung Bean Varieties

(Mmbando et al., 2021) focused on the factors that influencing the probability and the extent
of adoption of mung bean technologies in East Africa countries such as Tanzania, Kenya, and
Uganda by using multivariate probit and Poisson regression models. Gender of the
households, household size, farm size, livestock size, household assets, access to extension
services and access to credit are the factors that affect technology adoption among mung bean
small holder farmers in East Africa countries.

Technological tools including the comparison factors by calculating priorities from pairwise
comparisons using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with Eigen vector method the
researcher classified the land suitability for mung bean varieties into highly suitable,
moderately suitable, marginally suitable and not suitable. According to multi criteria decision
analysis making (MCDM) in Wollo territory Oromia zone areas such as Jile Timuga, Artuima

35
fursi, Dewa chefa, Argoba and Bati and South Wollo Zone (Worebabu, Kalu and Wogidi),
North Wollo Zone (Habru, Kobo and Gubalafto) and Waghimra( Abergela) are more suitable
for mung bean crop (Ayenew, 2020).

(Girma et al., 2019) were demonstrated the selection of the important green mung bean
morphological and color features used to grade the quality of sample green mung bean
varieties classification and performance evaluation through machine learning and split
evaluation techniques was implemented for the logistic regression, k-Nearest Neighbor
(kNN), Naïve Bayes, Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Random Forest (RF) in developing
countries like Ethiopia.

In order to adopt the environment and satisfy the mung bean farmers adopting improved
mung bean technology is crucial though there were few studies on socio economic aspects of
adoption since mung bean crop has multidimensional importance for farmers in Ethiopia
(Itefa, 2016). In SNNPR state South Omo, Ethiopia the adaptation study of improved mung
bean varieties was conducted and MH-97-6 (Boreda) (2.57qt/ha) showed to be best performer
variety followed by N-26(2.10qt/ha) and Shewarobit (2.07qt/ha) according to the study of
(Gebre, 2015). In Raya valley of Northern Ethiopia , black bean produced greatly higher yield
followed by Shewa Robit variety and the least was MH BR-1 variety due to shortage and
erratic rainfall agro-ecology the earliness selection criteria is the best for the varieties and
easily adoptable in Tigray region, Ethiopia (Teame et al., 2017).

(Mota et al., 2021) the inputs application such as fertilizer (NPS) with improve mung bean
variety N-26 essential to enhance mung bean yield in drought prone areas of Humbo district
Wolaita zone, Ethiopia. (Yehuala et al., 2018) evaluated improved mung bean technologies by
participatory approach and identified the most preferred varieties such as variety Rasa (N-26)
better with grain yield to NLV-1, Arbeke and local varieties in Jemma valley farmers.
However, it did not reach many farmers due to lack of awareness about the availability of the
improved varieties and farmers lack access to improved seed (Yehuala et al., 2018). The
parameters such as flowering date, pod per plant seed per pod and grain yield were showing
significant differences among the tested varieties at plant in areas of East Harereghe zone,

36
Oromia region state, Ethiopia. Rasa and Boreda improved mung bean varieties were
recommended for area due to high diseases resistance (Umata, 2018).

(Dinsa et al., 2022) based on the performance evaluation indicated that improved mung bean
varieties such as Shewa Robit variety had higher grain yield, next N-26 and Boreda mung
bean variety. While Arkebe variety had lower grain yield as compared with others mungg
bean varieties. Therefore Shewa Robit, N-26 and Boreda were the best varieties for moisture
stress areas of East Shewa zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. (Aklilu & Abebe, 2020) reported that
mung bean varieties showed significant effect on grain yield and hundred seed weight. They
reported higher grain yield for NUL-1 (2326.8 kg/ha), Shewa robit (2302.6kg/ha) and N-26
(1946.3kg/ha) of mung bean varieties at Tepi, South western Ethiopia. (Kassa et al., 2021)
assured the recommended variety so called Variety Rasa (N-26)(Yehuala et al., 2018)
disseminated to the farmers of low land areas of North Shewa zone, Ethiopia following the
phases of scaling up models such as innovation, learning and scaling up. Scaling up of the
improved variety had a yield advantage of 45.45% compared to local variety.

2.3.4 Impacts of Mung Bean Production, Marketing and Export

Performance upon Households’ Income and Welfare Indicators in World,
Africa and Ethiopia

2.3.4.1 Mung Bean Production, Marketing and Export Performance in the

World

Mung bean (vigna radiata (L).Wilczek) is widely grown and originated in South and South
East Asia (Meskel et al., 2020) ( Mogotsi, 2006 as cited by Shivamsuthar &
Sarvjeetkukreja ,2021). About 90 % of the world mung bean produced in South East Asia in
Bangladesh, Burma, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand (Itefa,
2016);(Yanos & Leal, 2020). It originated from India (more than 28 cultivated varieties
recorded) and diversified and commonly produced in monsoon areas of South East Asia
(Schreinemachers et al., 2019). In present time it produced in tropics and subtropics of Africa,
in arid areas of East Africa countries (MBEYAGALA et al., 2016); (ERA, 2017; URT, 2016);

37
South America, Australia because of its superior digestibility and has been identified as high
yielding pulse crop (Schreinemachers et al., 2019).

Its production cannot only increase a farmers’ income through the sale of it, but also through
the reduction of farm inputs after cultivated (Pataczek et. al., 2018). In country like
Philippines it is selling at four times the price of sorghum, which means mung bean farmers
earn more money (Hetrick, 2016). Mung bean / black garm and pigeon pea are accounting for
over 80% of the total export value and 70-75% of total bean and pulse production in
Myanmar. The export prices of the Myanmar mung bean depended on the demand of other
importing countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and EU markets and China (Tun
et al., 2020);(Yu Yu Tun & Aung Phyo, 2018).

According to mung bean cultivation area the Myanmar farmers in Yangon region classified
into small, medium and high sown acre groups. The benefit cost ratio results 1.9, 2.12, and
1.95 respectively. The steady export markets are encouraging the value added products of the
mung bean according to as pointed in one of the exports produces of mung bean faced price
instability among farmers (Tun et al., 2020). Main marketing actors are farmers, village
collectors, local wholesalers and wholesalers (exporters). Most of the farmers in Myanmar
villages directly contact with the local wholesalers in Pyinmana Township (Tun et al., 2020).
According to (Sequeros et al., 2020); about 637,000 mung bean farm households in Myanmar
earn the income from mungbean even landless households earn some amount of income by
providing labor to harvest.

It is popular cash crop that it is selling at four times at price of sorghums in country like
Philippines which increases the revenue for farmers (Hetrick, 2016). According to Mar Hisen
et al., 2020 the profitability of the mung bean production was examined by on the return on
investment (ROI) and the framers earned the gross total income of php. 49,500 and incurred
the cost of Php 23,640 that implies 132.66% of return on investment in producing mung per
hectare. This approach accelerates agricultural development Ordoñez (2017) and makes the
mung bean farmers more profitable than rice ROI (55.2%) in the country (Mar Hisen et al.,
2020).

38
2.3.4.2 Mung Bean Production, Marketing and Export Performance in Africa

Legume crops markets are the multiple output markets due to double benefit of the crops
(consumption and market sales). The multinomial endogenous switching regression model
(MESR) estimations indicated that it is significantly affects the impact of household income
and food security. In Tanzania smallholder farmers who jointly participate in the maize and
legumes markets spend as much as 24% of their income on food, attained a more diversified
diet, and are subject to fewer months of food insecurity over a year (Manda et al., 2021).

(Ogada et al., 2020) based on the issue entitled “climate smart agriculture, household income
and asset accumulation among smallholder farmers” through multi activities so called, climate
smart agriculture (CSA) system, practices are adopted to mitigate the climate changes of in
East Africa in form of weather smart, water smart, crop smart, carbon smart, livestock smart
and knowledge smart activities. Cop smart activities are mainly based on drought tolerant
crops (DTCs) like mung bean and pigeon pea improved seed varieties especially most
households in Nyando basin in Kenya being cultivated alongside of traditional legumes beans
and cow peas. They found that the adoption of DTCs significantly increases household
income by 83 percent which, in turn, improves household asset accumulation.

2.3.4.3 Mung Bean Production, Marketing and Export Performance in

Ethiopia

Low lands of the country characterized by unique land forms such as rift valley, river valley,
depression, etc. and the climate is very harsh for livestock production and crop cultivation due
to high temperature and scanty rainfall. Therefore, the drought-tolerant crop varieties (DTCV)
such as low land pulses are used to adopt multi incidences. Among pulses haricot beans, soya
beans, cowpea, pigeon peas and mung beans are predominantly grown in warmer and
lowlands of the country (Karanja, 2016; CSA, 2018). The main producing areas of mung bean
in Ethiopia are some area of North Shewa, DebreSina, Qallu and South Wollo zones in
Amhara regional state, some districts’ in Beinshangul Gumuz, Bale zone and East shewa zone
in Oromia regional state (Dinsa et al., 2022) and lowland areas of Wolaita ,Gamo, Gofa,
South Omo zone , Konta special district and Konso area in South Nation Nationalities and

39
Peoples regional states (Gebre, 2015).Common bean and mung bean are the two main low
land pulse crops grown in Mirab Abaya, Kucha, Boreda, Demba Gofa, Zala, Arba Minch
Zuriya, Konso and Derashe in Gamo,Gofa and Segen zones in SNNPR state (Tehulie et al.,
2021);(Tariku et. al, 2018).

The belg season preferred for mungbean due to low pest and disease incidence, high yield and
seed quality. Mung bean can easily grow by intercropping with other leguminous and it has a
potential for crop rotation due to short periods to mature in smallholder farmers (Endeshaw et
al., 2018);(Dinsa et al., 2022);& (Amsalu et al., 2016). It used as source of rural household
incomes in rift valley area of Ethiopia through the sale of beans (Yehuala et al., 2018);
(Amsalu et al., 2016) since it is new emerging commercial product and also through reduction
of farm inputs after cultivation (Pataczek et. al., 2018).

Based on the title “Productivity and Welfare Impacts of Improved Common Bean
Technologies among Smallholders in Ethiopia” the researchers showed the yield effects and
welfare effects by following the models such as the inverse probability adjustment regression
(IPWRA) implemented by three estimation stages and Multinomial endogenous treatment
effects model /METE/. According to IPWRA and METE estimation techniques the average
effect of fertilizers and the combinations of fertilizers and seed varieties are significant. The
yield effects are higher when the fertilizer and the varieties used simultaneously. Both were
increases the yield by 42%. The welfare effects indicated by consumption expenditure, daily
dietary diversity and food consumption score and the result revealed that positively
associated with asset index, education level and agro ecological location. The result
demonstrates that if all farmers were to adopt improved varieties, their food security measured
by food consumption score and 24 hour dietary diversity score would increase in Ethiopia
(Habte et al., 2021).

In SNNPR region in Segen zone by employing endogenous switching model and Generalized
Propensity Score model they estimated the impact of Moringa market participation on
household welfare by controlling the selectivity biases and evaluated the outcome variables
respectively. Factor endowments, contact with extension agents, access to the market
information, distance to the market and participate in training key determinants of market

40
participation whereas membership to cooperatives, NGO supports, access to means of
transportation affect rural farmers’ welfare (Meskel et al., 2020)

(Tabe Ojong et al., 2022) assessed the impact of drought induced crop commercialization,
chick pea, on household asset and livestock accumulation outcomes (asset, asset per capita,
livestock ownership, per capita livestock ownership, income and per capita income) by using
the fixed effect estimators, endogenous switching regression and Quintile regression
techniques in Ethiopia. The analyzed the short and long term welfare effects indicated by
consumption and income, and asset indicators respectively. The commercialization effect of
chickpea production is positively and significantly across both asset and the per capita asset
outcome. The effect on asset value is greater than the commercialization effect on livestock
value. A unit increase in the amount of chickpea commercialized increases livestock
ownership by 5.68 TLU, citrus paribus. The chickpea crop commercialization also increases
household income and per capita income.

(Zegeye et al., 2022) in Ethiopia Amhara regional state by using panel data from Ethiopian
household survey rounds by selecting the rural households data from town area households
data in order to estimate the impact of agricultural technologies on household food
consumption expenditure. The advantages over other impact models the endogenous
switching regression was applied and the found that the adoption of technologies significantly
increases the food consumption expenditure per adult equivalent. Family size, livestock asset,
extension visit, credit access, distance from the market, and plot distance can affect farm
households’ decisions to adopt farm technology. The food consumption expenditure of
adopters and non-adopters is determined by age, education level, and family size and
livestock assets in the region.

Mung bean (6%) is the 4th exporting legumes after launched as export crop by ECX (2014)
and the 6th main export item of the country in the commodity market (ECX) mainly due to
ongoing promotion of crop commercialization of smallholder farmers. Coffee, sesame and
hair coat bean export trading in the country is only allowed through the Exchange on regular
trading days, whereas maize, wheat and mung bean are traded at both the Exchange and the
customary markets (Baker & Yuya, 2020). Both the production and export volume has an

41
increasing trend over the past years for instance in beginning of 21 st century 822 tons exported
in 2001 and 1363 tons in 2002 (Itefa, 2016). The export volume of mung bean rise from 2310
tons in 2004, from 5667 tons in 2005 to 22,719 tons in 2013 which increases from 1.7 million
USD to 27 million USD (MoT, 2016). After 2014 its export volume has increasing and in
2015 rises to 29174 tons and in 2016 rises to 68,818 tons (MOT, 2016).

This initiated the local producers to use improved mung bean varieties and it increases annual
area coverage to 41,663.3ha, its increases the volume to 514,227qt and smallholder farmers
number reached to 327,788 (CSA, 2018). Addition, it initiated the local producers to use
improved mung bean varieties and it increases annual area coverage to 41,663.3ha, its
increases the volume to 514,227qt and smallholder farmers number reached to 327,788 (CSA,
2018). This expands its foreign market presence through increased production levels, which
will lead to at least doubling of its current annual exports(Atnaf et al., 2015);(Getachew,
2019). The production area also increases from season to season. The total area occupied by
mung bean in Ethiopia in 2018/19 was 48,074.52 hectares with production of 576,204.64
quintals and the productivity of 11.93 quintal ha-1(CSA, 2019). According to CSA (2021) the
total production area covered by mung bean in both Belg and Meher is 140,515 ha which
accounts 7 % of pulses. And the total production accounts 3% (1,122,794 quintals) of pulses.
At nation level 37,555 private holders uses 4.64% of crop land area for its production and
produced 338, 602 quintals of mung bean in Ethiopia in the production seasons. Mostly
Amhara region produced 297,518 quintals, Oromia region produced 38, 538.16 quintals and
SNNPR region private holders produced 2,546 quintals and the least produced by Afara
region and only 25 temporary private holders (CSA, 2021). All contribution makes the Mung
bean as the second low land pulses next to common bean that contributes national foreign
earnings with increasing volume of export with in last two to three years (Endeshaw et al.,
2018).

Productivity of mung bean is low and less popular when comparing to other exportable pulse
crop in drought prone areas especially in rural developing countries (Endeshaw et al., 2018).
Increasing the mung bean productivity through adoption of the technology is the crucial since
newly released varieties are important for improving food security, household income and

42
agricultural sustainability in East Africa (F. Mmbando et al., 2021). Mung bean is unknown to
all farmers of the country and its production is being limiting due to low genetic biodiversity
and low improved genotypes only thirteen accessions in Ethiopia (Itefa, 2016). Smallholder
farmers dispersion along with low volume of produce hinders the role of the middle men to
supply the main exporters of the mung bean in significant amount with minimum transaction
costs (FAO, 2015); the smallholder farmers have less knowledge about economic importance
of the crop and less adoptive capacity is the problem (Zeweld et al., 2019). The limited
availability of the input services for the farmers, low quantities and qualities of the output
supply to the markets, seasonality of the markets, inadequate flow of market information, and
weak linkage between the smallholder farmers and the export markets are challenging the
mung bean crop market participation (Umata, 2018) and challenging the entire smallholder
farmers (Mahlet et al., 2018).

2.4 Conceptual Framework

Based on the conceptual, theoretical, analytical and empirical review of literature this section
of conceptual framework tried to depict the perception of farmers’ towards improved mung
bean varieties; cumulative incidence assessment, simultaneous risk adaptation mechanisms
and impact of improved mung bean production and market participation on household income
and asset welfare as follows ( Figure 1) :

Theoretically, the study identified five stages in the adoption process. These are awareness the
initial knowledge of the innovation, interest and persuasion, evaluation, degree depending on
the situation and adoption. It is usually measured from first knowledge until the decision is
made whether to adopt or not. Thus adoption is not a random behavior, but is the result of
sequence of events passing through these adoption stages (Rogers, 1983). Duration models
take advantage of more information, meaning the timing of adoption, which cannot be
exploited in static models. Its determinants overtime; it incorporates both the cross sectional
and time variant data jointly in the dynamic framework. Addition, it is compatible to account
for right censoring and easily incorporates the time varying covariates. Small scale farmers’
technology adoption behavior in low income countries characterized by complex sets of time
invariant and time variant covariates. These are socio-economic, demographic, farm

43
structures, market and financial, endowments, and institutional factors. The main key
variables that can affect the speed of adoption of mung bean varieties in the study area
summarized as follows: age of mung bean farmers at time t, gender, education status, attitudes
(cultural beliefs i.e PCA), social networks, family size, sources of income of farmers, farm
income of farmers, livestock size, farm suitability, land tenure security, farm management,
input price of at time t, output price of at time t, market participation, credit access, public
institutions contact and government policy.

Farmers faced multiple risks in agricultural production in developing nations inherently or

inclusively (Guan et al., 2017). Farmers are already responding to these risks by adopting new
practices (OECD, 2019); (Trinh et al., 2018; Ochoaetal., 2019). The current study adopted to
assess correlation and inter-linkage of MRAS and its influencing factors among mung bean
smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. The simultaneous risk adaptation strategies that smallholder
farmers adopted to reduce the implications of multi risks includes such as crop improved
variety selection strategy, crop diversification strategy, crop switching and changing farming
practices , soil and water conservation practices and irrigation,, use of saving , borrowing,
and reduction in household consumption strategy, hedging and contracts (forward pricing)
strategy, and choosing alternative livelihood strategy are the dependent variable. these are
some adopting strategies that used simultaneously and are influenced by operator’s age,
education, income, landholdings, government incentives, smartphones and farmers
continuation plan (Adhikari & Khanal, 2021);(Scientific et al., 2022).

Market participation expected to affect various outcomes at the farm level (in this study the
outcomes variables are income and asset accumulation). Crop output market participation of
smallholder farmers increases household income and welfare. Market participation enhances
trade and efficiency of production, leading to household income improvement and welfare
improvement (Carletto et al., 2017). Higher market participation could drive productivity by
providing information and cash flow for working capital. In turn higher productivity and
production efficiency could drive market participation, because households having surplus
crops more than own consumption would be facilitated to sell the surplus (Rios et al., 2008) ;
this why always the rational farmers would chose to be participate if the expected utility

44
obtained from market participation is greater than that from not participated in the market.
The control variables likely to affect the outcome of interest such as income and asset
accumulation are reviewed from extant literature categorized into farmers characteristics,
demographic , socio economic factors, farm conditions, institutional contacts, factor
endowments, information symmetry and etc. affect market participation for instance , (LI et
al., 2020; Meskel et al., 2020; Mmbando et al., 2021; Mmbando et al., 2015b); (Ogutu,
Gödecke, & Qaim, 2020; Ogutu & Qaim, 2019); age ,gender, education level , farm size,
dependency ratio, distance to market, factor endowments (farm size, labor, and livestock),
geographical location or agro ecological location of farmers, institutional support or NGO
market linkage programs , access to information via phone and access to information via
extension services ,contact with extension agents ,participate in training, asset index, (Habte
et al., 2021), infrastructure investment , cooperative membership, transport and packaging
costs (Abokyi et al., 2020).

45
 3. Market and Financial factors
* Input price
* Output price
* Credit access
* Market access 4. Capital components *Natural capital*
Human capital *Social capital * Fincial
capital * Physical capital
2. Farm structure
* Farm size
* Farm suitability
* Land tenur security *Soil slope
* Soil fertility

1. Farmers’ socio economic

characteristics
*Age,
Farmers' 5. Institutional factors

*Gender, Perception( new * access to road, information ,

cooperative membership, extension
*Education status,
* Family size,
realsed mung contact, government incentives,
record of crop fauilirity , policy
*depedency ration * Social bean technology reforrms
networks,
* Farm income, & competing
*Sources of income, incidences)
* Livestock size

PCA PCA/MFA

Crop switching, crop

diversfication, soil & water Dependent
conservation, improved Income and Asset
Speed of adoption varieties selection, hedging & Accumulation)
contarcts , use of alternative
livelihood strategies , etc

Survival analysis
MCA
Adoption of Risk Adaptation
improved Mung Startegies of Outcome
bean Varieties Smallholder Farmers
(RASF)

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of adoption, adaptation strategies, and impacts of improved

mung bean varieties production and market participation on household income and welfare.

Source: Own Review, 2022

46
 3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

The third chapter of this dissertation proposal mainly intends to present, how the initially
proposed research objectives and questions will be addressed practically with the help of
research tools. Thus, the following sub-sections are organized to discuss the description of the
study area; data sources and methods of data collection; sampling techniques and sample size
determination; method of data analysis, and econometric model specification.

3.1 Description of the Study Area

The valley and coastal areas are the main producing areas of mung bean in Ethiopia (Dinsa et
al., 2022) ; (CSA, 2021) ; (Gebre, 2015). North Shewa zone of Debre Sina, Qallu , Shewa
Robit and South Wollo zones in Amhara regional state, Central Rift valley East Shewa and
Bale zone zone in Oromia regional state and Rift valley and Omo river valley areas of
SNNPR state are the main producing areas of the mung bean crop (Gebre, 2015).

SNNPR region has 11 zones and six special woreda. Gamo, Gofa and Wolaita zones are the
three main producer area of mung bean among the Rift valley and Omo river valley zones of
SNNPR (Gebre, 2015). Mung bean is the main low land pulse crops grown in Daramalo and
Kucha in Gamo, Demba Gofa, Zala, in Gofa zone and Abala Abaya, Humbo and Kindo
Koysha, and Ofa Woredas in Wolaita zone in SNNPR state (Baza & Shanka, 2022) ; (Tehulie
et al., 2021); (Tariku et al., 2018).

Gamo zone is one of 11 zones of SNNPR and its capital city, Arba minch is located 495 km in
South direction from Addis Ababa. Daramalo and Kucha are the two main producers of mung
bean. Daramalo district is one of the districts of Gamo zone. It is found at 223 kilometers far
apart from Arbaminch (through Arba Minch – Wolayta Soddo – Sawula main road), 210
kilometers from Hawassa and 486 kilometers from Addis Ababa. It is located in North West
of Arba Minch, which is side away 12.5 kilometers west from Wolayta Soddo – Sawula main
road at Morka /Kucha district’s Kebele/ and is bordered on the North by Kucha district, on the
East by Dita district, on the South by Bonke district, on the South West by Kamba district and
on the West by Zala district. Daramalo was part of former Dita Daramalo district.

47
According to CSA total population of the district is 81,025; males account 51.4 percent (41,
618) while females covered the rest 48.6 percent (in absolute term 39,407). Daramalo district
has 23 rural and one urban kebele so called Wacha. There are three agro-ecological zones;
temperate (12 kebeles), semi – tropical (5 kebeles) and tropical (7 kebeles). Tropical / kola/
kebeles such as Hoya Degeze, Masta, Domoa, Shela Shubo, Shela Deda, Nenena Abaya, and
Antashe are the min producers of mung bean crop. The district is endowed with natural
resources. Zage and Masta rivers give highest irrigation potential for cash crops. Both are
tributaries of Omo River. Like other parts of the region, agriculture is the main means of
livelihood for the population both in terms of crop production and livestock. Maize, mung
bean, Red Wolaita beans, white beans, soya beans and watermelon are the major crops grown
in lowland areas.

Kucha district is also the main producing area of mung bean. Kucha district is bordered with
Wolaita zone (Humbo and Gesuba districts) in the North; Zala, Daramalo, and Dita in the
South; Demba Gofa and Boreda districts in West and East respectively. Morka kebele, Dana
kebele literally named as Dana Bazuwa /Hot area/ and they are located in Basin of Dana
River, and peri –urban area of Selam Ber, capital of Kucha, (ketene 7) are the major producers
of mung bean.

Gofa zone is part of former Gamo Gofa zone and the center of the zone is Sawula town. Zala
and Demba Gofa districts are the main producers of mung bean. Zala district bordered on
Kucha in North and Daramalo in North West, bordered with Demaba Gofa in West, Kamba in
East and Ubba Deberetsehay in South.

According to CSA (2005), Wolaita zone has an estimated total population of 2,741,304 of
which 1,353,003 were males and 1,388,301 were females. With settled in an estimated area of
4511.7 km2 which accounts 4% of the SNNPR. Wolaita Sodo is the capital city of the zone.
The city is 390 km (via Shashemene) and 328 km (via Hosaina) away from the national
capital Addis Ababa, and 170 km from the regional capital Hawasa. Astronomically, it is
located between 6054'N latitude and 37045'E longitude with an average elevation of 2,150m
above sea level. Mung bean is the main low land pulse crops grown in Abala Abaya, Humbo
and Kindo Koysha and Gesuba Woredas in Wolaita zone (Baza & Shanka, 2022). Mancha

48
Gogara kebele is the main producer of the mung bean crop. Seera Esho and Busha recently
cultivated by few farmers and privet investors. Humbo district is the low land area of East
Africa rift valley. Lome Pango Kebele and adjacent area (Manuka – the settlement place of
Amhara people) also the main producer of the mung bean (Tehulie et al., 2021); (Tariku et al.,
2018).

3.2 Data Types and Sources

In order to achieve the study objectives and to address research questions formulated in
chapter one through appropriate research tools. , Tthis study intended towill use both primary
and secondary data types. Sources of primary data will be mung bean producers, key
informants, traders, and others relevant bodies. The primary data include the eco-friendly
mung bean farmers’ demographic, socio-economic characteristics, the mechanisms to
response the incidences, the speed of adoption of the mung varieties, cumulative assessment
of incidences, their market participation’s etc. pertinent to the objectives of the study.
Secondary data from the Gamo, Gofa and Wolaita zones agriculture department and their line
district offices/kebeles include demographic, socio-economic information and others will be
collected from the respective districts' and kebeles' offices. In addition secondary data will be
gathered from Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency (CSA), Ethiopian Socioeconomic Survey
(ESS), Ethiopia Seed Enterprises (ESE), Ethiopian Rural Household Survey (ERHS), Gamo,
Gofa and Wolaita zones agriculture department and their line district offices, necessary
websites will be visited such as WB, IMF, Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), and
FAOSTAT. All data especially after pretesting the survey data, the final survey data and the
secondary data will be collected from October 1, 2022 -Dec.5, 2022.

3.3 Methods of Data Collection

The primary data methods to be employed are key informant interviews, focus group
discussions, household surveys and field observation. Data will be collected from mung bean
producers with the help of interview schedule in each district. Traders in Wacha, Selamber,
Gesuba, Tebela and others nearby towns will be visited and interviewed. The preliminary and
final household survey will be conducted by using commonly employed tools such as

49
questionnaire schedule or interviews. Trained and oriented enumerators are very important
during collection of the data and they assigned as data collectors (Kothari, 2004:104). Thus
the experts familiar with farmers and this crop will be assigned and the orientation will be
given at the same time by the researchers. The informal group discussions will be held with
mung bean producers and agricultural experts in the study area to investigate reasons for over
and underutilization of improved mung bean varieties, farmers’ perception towards mung
bean production and the effect of multi-risk on mung bean production and market
participation on household income and asset accumulation. With regard to key informant
interviews the zonal and district experts in mung bean crop cumulative incidences’ and its
effects on households’ income and asset accumulation will be interviewed with structured
interview questionnaires. Finally, field observation will be carried out in selected drought
prone areas that engaged in cultivation of mung bean to assess adverse effects of cumulative
incidences. This method is important in this study which deals with mung bean farmers who
are not capable of giving verbal reports of their feeling for one reason or the other (Kothari,
2004:96).

3.4 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination

Multistage sampling procedures will be employed to determine the sample representative of

the mung bean farmers in SNNPR, Ethiopia. For a big inquires extending to a considerable
large geographical area, say the whole region; it is advantageous over simple design because a
large number of units can be sampled for a given cost under multistage sampling because of
sequential clustering. Gamo, Gofa, and Wolaita zones will be selected purposively based on
the production potential, large area coverage, many producers and the pioneer of the improved
variety users among 11 zones of the region in stage one. In the second stage, six districts (two
from each zone) of them will be selected purposively as the part of the study based on the
number of producers or production potential of recently introduced mung bean crop as well as
their active participation in the market. In addition to this the districts are adjacent to each
other and a typical representative of agro-ecological conditions for the multi-stress tolerant
crop varieties, mung bean, where mung bean crop are said to be introduced for the first time
in SNNPR. The third stage involved simple random sampling techniques to select mung bean

50
grower kebeles of the districts. Finally, the systematic sampling technique will be used to
sample the mung bean farmers, in the various communities on the bases of the established
sample frame from each kebeles based on the sample size determined by Yamane’s (1967)
sample size determination formula given as follows:

N
n= 2 ………………………………………..……………………………….(3.1)
1+ N (e)

Where; n = Sample size; N = is the population size, and e is the level of precision. At 95%
confidence levels and the level of precision (error), e = 0.05 is assumed. Based on equation
(3.2) 384 sample households were selected randomly proportional to the total population size
from the 12 mung bean grower kebeles.

9587
n=
1+ 9587(0.05)
2 = 384 ……………...……………………………….(3.2)

The study will be used a proportionate or equalized sampling technique to take a sample from
each district, which is specified as follows:

Pi=
n
N
* xi, where P represents the sample from strata or kebele i; n is the sample size, N
i

is the population, and Xi is the number of households in each kebele i.

3.5 Method of Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and econometric methods will be used to analyze the data. Descriptive
statistics and inferential statistics will be used to summarize the center of distribution, the
dispersion, and the shape of data such as the smallholder farmers socio-economic,
demographic and institutional characteristics, production and market participation, the income
and welfare indicators, export performance factors and others characteristics. Econometric
methods will be used to analyze factors affecting speed of adoption of mung bean varieties,
analyzing cumulative incidence, factors that affect the adaptation of MRAS, factors that
affecting market participation and impact of market participation upon farmers’ income and
welfare outcomes and determinates of bilateral export performance of new export crop, mung

51
bean, in Ethiopia. The econometric models will be run by using SPSS 25 and STATA 16
packages.

3.6 Econometric Model Specification

The main objective of this study is examining the cumulative incidences, multiple adaptation
mechanisms using simultaneous decision making process, the speed of adoption of the mung
bean crop production and further it estimating the impact of multiple stress tolerant mung
bean cultivation up on smallholder farmers’ income and asset accumulation in low lands area
of the SNNPR. Further the study investigates the determinants and the effects of the
explanatory variables upon smallholder farmers’ income and welfare by incorporating all gaps
illustrated. To achieve the research objectives and to address the research questions in
addition to descriptive analysis and the econometrics estimation techniques will be employed
such as Principal component Analysis (PCA), Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA), Multiple
Correspondence Analysis (MCA), Multivariate Probit model (MVP) regression, the Cox
Proportional Hazard model (Cox PH), Endogenous Switching Regression model (ESR), and
Propensity Score Matching (PSM).

3.6.1 Principal Component Analysis

PCA used to identify the core risks by categorizing by different factors among similar risks by
reducing the dimensionality of original problems (correlation problems) by using
orthogonal /orthonormal /transformation13 called principal components (P. Sai Shankar et al.,
2019) and which are ordered so that the first few retain most of the variation present in all of
the original variables (Sidharth Prasad Mishra et al., 2017). (Mahmoudi et al., 2021); Sidharth
Prasad Mishra et al (2017); and (ICAR, 2019) stated the steps and assumptions to apply PCA.

Therefore, there are n samples each with P observations. These P observations can be
expressed as P components (new variables) of a random vector X = (X 1, X2, X3,, ...., XP )T after
normalization. Let the mean vector E(X) = 0 and of this random vector X and the covariance

13
The PCA is a statistical technique to looks at data distribution and dispersion measurements such as standard deviation, variance and
covariance and in other way matrix algebra technique for calculating eigenvectors and eigenvalues which transforms a number of possibly
correlated variables, high dimensional set, into a smaller number of uncorrelated variables, low dimensional set, by using orthogonal
/orthonormal /transformation called principal components (P. Sai Shankar et al., 2019).

52
matrix Cov (X) = ∑ be equal to the correlation array of X. F = (F 1, F2, F3,…,Fm) T (m<p) ,
which denotes the m common factors ( original variables) with mean vector E(F) = 0. The
covariance matrix Cov (F) = In, where In denotes the unit diagonal array. ε = (ε 1, ε2, ε3,…,
εp)T is called the special factors , which is only related to the components X i (i= 1,2,…,p) of a
random vector X, is independent of each other and F, and has E(ε) = 0 ; let the components of
ε be independent of each other ; the covariance matrix ∑ε is given as follows:

[ ]
δ 11 2 ⋯ 0
Cov(ε) = ∑ ε = ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ……………………………………..……….………..(3.3)
0 ⋯ δ pp 2

Therefore, factor model defined as:

{
X 1=( β 11 F 1+ β 12 F 2 + β 13 F3 + …+ β 1m F m ) +ε 1 ,
X 2 =(β 21 F 1+ β22 F 2 + β 23 F 3+ …+ β 2 m F m )+ ε 2 ,
X 3 =(β 31 F 1+ β32 F 2 + β 33 F 3+ …+ β 3 m F m )+ ε 3 ,
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .. … … .. , ¿ ………………….........….…..
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .... ,
…………………………… ………………………………….,
X p=(β p 1 F 1+ β p 2 F 2 + β p 3 F 3 +…+ β pm F m )+ ε p
¿

(3.4)
Where β = (βij) p×m is the coefficient matrix usually called the factor loading matrix in each
component construction. The larger the absolute value of each factor loading β ij, the greater
the correction between Xi and Fj usually, there is / βij/ ≤ 1.

According to equation (3.4), the covariance between the variable Xi and Fj is as follows:

m
Cov (Xi ,Fj) = Cov (∑ β ij Fj+ εi, Fj) ………………….………………….……..………..(3.5)
j=1

Since F1, F2, F3,…,Fm are independent of each other and F 1, F2, F3,…,Fm and ε1, ε2, ε3,…, εp are also
independent of each other, it follows that

Cov(Xi ,Fj) = βij . …………………………………………………….…………....………..(3.6)

53
That is to say, the factor loading βij indicates the degree of correlation between X i and
Fj .According to equation (3.4), the correlation coefficient between the variable X i and Fj is as
follows:

ri j = β i1, β j1 + β i2, β j2+ β i3, β j3+….+ βim, βjm……………………………..……...………..(3.7)

Equation (3.7) shows that the correlation coefficient between X i and Fj is also larger when
both variables Xi and Fj have larger loading on a common factor.

As indicated in work of (Niftiyev, 2021) before the principal component analysis is being
conducted, we must apply the Kaiser –Meyer –Olkin measure of sampling adequacy or
simply KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphercity to know if the variable count and sampling size
allows applying PCA or not. If KMO test is > 0.400; thus the PCA analysis is relevant.

3.6.2 Multivariate Probit Model Specification

In the case of the choice of multiple adaptation strategies uni-variate technique is not
appropriate and may generate biased estimates as they are based on the assumption of the
independence of error terms of the different adaptation strategies implemented and also
exclude information about interdependent and simultaneous adoption decisions (Greene -
Econometrics Analysis.Pdf, n.d.);(Greene 2019). MVP considering the possibility of
contemporaneous correlation in the choices to adopt contract farming, off-farm income
diversification, and agricultural credit as risk management strategies can be stated as follows:

y𝑖𝑗 = X’i𝑗 𝛽𝑗 + 𝜀𝑖𝑗 (j = 1, 2, 3…n)………………………………...…………..……………… (3.8)

where y𝑖𝑗 (j = 1…, m) characterizes the risk management alternatives (suppose m = 3) 14 faced
by the ith producer (i = 1…, n), 𝑥𝑖𝑗 is a 1 × K vector of observed variables that influence the
adoption decision of risk management tools, 𝛽𝑗 is a K × 1 vector of unknown parameters, and
𝜀𝑖𝑗 is the unobserved error term a standard normal distribution with mean vector zero and a

14
In this description, each y𝑖𝑗 is a binary variable and, thus, Equation (3.8) is actually a system of m equations (m = 3 in this case) to be estimated:
y1*= 𝛼1 + 𝑋𝛽1 + 𝜀1 …………………………………………………………………………..………………………………..……………………………………….…...…....…..……(3.9)
y2 = 𝛼2 + 𝑋𝛽2 + 𝜀2 …………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………..…..….……....…(3.10)
*

y3*= 𝛼3 + 𝑋𝛽3 + 𝜀3 ………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………….………….……………………………….………...…..…...…...….(3.11)

Whereas Y1, Y2, and Y3 are three latent variables underlying each of the risk management adoption decision, such that Y ij = 1 if yij* > 0; 0 otherwise, for each j = 1, 2 & 3.

54
covariance matrix with diagonal elements equal to 1. 𝜀𝑖 is assumed to be i.i.d independent
across i but correlated with j for any i.

Mathematically the model can be specified as follows

y1j = {01otherwise
if y > 0
ij
……………………………………….……….....……..….……. (3.12)

Hence, in the multivariate probit approach, the error terms (across j = 1 ..., m alternatives) are
jointly assumed to have multivariate normal (MVN) distributions with a mean vector equal to
zero or E[ε] = 0 and variance normalized to unity, where εip ∼ MVN (0, Ω) and the
covariance matrix Ω as shown below.

[ ]
1 ⋯ ρ13
Cov(ε) = Ω = ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ……………………………...……………...…………..(3.13)
ρ31 ⋯ 1
The matrix has diagonal elements 1 (error term variance) while ρ off-diagonal represent pair
wise coefficient correlations between respective diversification strategies.

Farmers employed multiple adaptation strategies simultaneously to impede negative multi

risks impacts (Mulwa et al., 2017). The multivariate probit model helps us to determine
possible positive correlation (complementarities) and negative correlation (substitutability)
between the strategies used by farmers (Aryal et al., 2020). Also the pair wise correlation is
important to compare the simultaneously adapting strategies with individual probit equations.
If the individual probit equations test of likelihood ratio (P< 0.000) of independent of error
terms so we highly rejected so we apply MVP for multi risk adaptations strategies (MRAS).

Because of ample merits the MVP was used by (Mwinkom et al., 2021) in Ghana;(F.
Mmbando et al., 2021) in case of East Africa countries; (Aryal et al., 2020) in Bangladesh; in
Ethiopia the model is used for analyzing correlated dichotomous data set by (Mulwa et al.,
2017);(Galmessa A., 2018);(Addis & Abirdew, 2021); (Mulwa et al., 2017);(Asfaw et al.,
2019); (Bedeke et al., 2018); (Yonas Addis & Solomon Abirdeal , 2021); (Adhikari &
Khanal, 2021); (Khanal et al. (2019). Following them the current studies adopted the MVP to
assess correlation and inter-linkage of MRAS and its influencing factors among mung bean

55
smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. The simultaneous risk adaptation strategies that smallholder
farmers adopted to reduce the implications of multi risks includes crop improved variety
selection strategy (CV), crop diversification strategy (CD), crop switching and changing
farming practices (CS), soil and water conservation practices and irrigation (CI) , use of
saving , borrowing, and reduction in household consumption strategy (CB), hedging and
contracts (forward pricing) strategy (CH), and choosing alternative livelihood strategy (CL)
are the dependent variable and follows multivariate normal distributions εCV, εCD, εCS, εCI,
εCB, εCH , εCL and variance covariance matrix ρ as shown as

Cov(ε) = ρ =

[ ]
1 ρCVCD ρCVCS ρCVCI ρCVCB ρCVCH ρCVCL
ρCDCV 1 ρCDCS ρCDCI ρCDCB ρCDCH ρCDCL
ρCSCV ρCSCD 1 ρ CSCI ρCSCB ρCSCH ρCSCL
ρCICV ρCICD ρCICS 1 ρCICB ρCICH ρCICL … … … … … … … … ... …(3.14)
ρCBCV ρCBCD ρCBCS ρCBCI 1 ρCBCH ρCBCL
ρCHCV ρCHCD ρCHCS ρCHCI ρCHCB 1 ρCHCL
ρCLCV ρCLCD ρCLCS ρCLCI ρCLCB ρCLCH 1

Where, ρ (rho) off-diagonal represent pair wise coefficient correlations between any two
adaptation strategies and the matrix has diagonal elements 1 (error term variance). If these
correlations in the off-diagonal elements in the covariance matrix are become non- zero so it
justifies the application of a MVP instead of applying a univariate probit for each individual
risk adaptation strategies.

Recall,

E[ε] = 0 and variance = 1 covariance = Ω ,

E[ε1|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = E[ε2|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = E[ε3|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = E[ε4|x1,x2,
x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = E[ε5|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = E[ε6|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = E[ε7|x1,x2, x3,x4,
x5,x6 ,x7] = 0,

56
Var[ε1|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = Var[ε2|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = Var[ε3|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] =
Var[ε4|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = Var[ε5|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = Var[ε6|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] =
Var[ε7|x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] =1,

Cov[ε1,ε2, ε3,ε4,ε5,ε6, ε7 | x1,x2, x3,x4, x5,x6 ,x7] = Ω.

Accordingly, this study identified seven risk adapting strategies alternatives used by
smallholder mung bean farmers. Following the specification in equation (3.8) and the review
indicated above, the MVP model deployed for this study is specified as follows:

y𝑖1 = 𝑥’𝑖 𝛽 + 𝜀1, y = 1 if yi1 > 0, 0 otherwise]

[ i1 ……………………….……….….… (3.15)
yi1 refers to crop improved variety selection strategy
y𝑖2 = 𝑥’𝑖 𝛽 + 𝜀2, y = 1 if yi2 > 0, 0 otherwise]
[ i2 ……………………….…….…….… (3.16)
yi2 refers to crop diversification strategy
y𝑖3 = 𝑥’𝑖 𝛽 + 𝜀3, [yi3 = 1 if yi3 > 0, 0 otherwise] ………………………….……..….… (3.17)
yi3 refers to crop switching and changing farming practices
y𝑖4 = 𝑥’𝑖 𝛽 + 𝜀4 [yi4 = 1 if yi4 > 0, 0 otherwise] …………………………….……....… (3.18)
yi4 refers to soil and water conservation practices and irrigation
y𝑖5= 𝑥’𝑖 𝛽 + 𝜀5, [ yi5 = 1 if yi5 > 0, 0 otherwise ] , ……………………..….………...….. (3.19)
yi5 refers to use of saving , borrowing, and reduction in household consumption strategy
y𝑖6 = 𝑥’𝑖 𝛽 + 𝜀6, [yi6= 1 if yi6 > 0, 0 otherwise] ……………………………..………… (3.20)
yi6 refers to hedging and contracts (forward pricing) strategy
y𝑖7 = 𝑥’𝑖 𝛽 + 𝜀7, [ yi7= 1 if yi7 > 0, 0 otherwise ] , ………………………………...……..(3.23)
yi7 refers to choosing alternative livelihood strategy

From equation (3.8) again 𝑋′𝑖𝑗 is a 1 x 𝑘 vector of observed variables that affect the choice and
decision of the smallholder mung bean farmers and the following demographic factors, capital
components, farm level characteristics, and institutional arrangement interventions and
technological factors can affect the small holder mung farmers’ simultaneous risk adaptation
strategies in Ethiopia are SEX+/-, AGE+, FS+, FMZ+, KH+, KP+, SOF+, INFO+, MKT+, and
CRT+.

57
Where, SEX- Sex of smallholder farmers , AGE- Age of smallholder farmers, FS- Size of
smallholder farmers members ,FMZ -Farm size , KH- Human capital , KP- Physical capital,
SOF- Soil fertility , INFO- Access to information, MKT- Access to Market, and CRT- Access
to credit . And 𝛽𝑗 is a 𝑘 x 1 vector of unknown parameters (to be estimated), and ε 𝑖𝑗 is the
unobserved error term. The superscripts indicates the expected highly likely (+) and low
likely (-) probability of mung bean farmers choices of MRAS (Adhikari & Khanal, 2021;
Mulwa et al., 2017);(Asrat & Babiso, 2020); (Ademe et al. 2019; Harveyetal, 2018; Paulos &
Belay, 2018 ; Meraner & Finger, 2019; Adam et al., 2019;; Adégnandjou et al., 2018 ;
Zerihun et al., 2018;; Gebrekidan et al., 2019; Diallo et al., 2020; Arun & Jun, 2019).

With the assumption of multivariate normality, the unknown parameters can be estimated
using a simulated maximum likelihood (SML) technique that uses the Geweke–Hajivassiliou–
Keane (GHK) simulator to evaluate the multivariate normal distribution. The SML method is
generally free from simulation bias for a give number of simulations. This method involves a
likelihood function and the estimated parameters achieves efficiency when the number of
simulations increases quickly (Lee, D.; Song, 2014).

Description of variables used in Multivariate Probit Model

Dependent variables

The simultaneous risk adaptation strategies that smallholder farmers adopted to reduce the
implications of multi risks includes crop improved variety selection strategy (CV), crop
diversification strategy (CD), crop switching and changing farming practices (CS), soil and
water conservation practices and irrigation (CI), use of saving, borrowing, and reduction in
household consumption strategy (CB), hedging and contracts (forward pricing) strategy (CH),
and choosing alternative livelihood strategy (CL).

Explanatory variables

The following demographic factors, capital components, farm level characteristics, and
institutional arrangement interventions and technological factors can affect the small holder
mung farmers’ simultaneous risk adaptation strategies.

58
Sex of household head (SEX)+/-: Female headed smallholder farmers are less likely to receive
access to extension to extension contacts than their male counterparts (Ragasa et al., 2013).
They have faced a systematic bias that may undermine their competitiveness in the market
based institutional arrangements (Ndiritu et al., 2014). Male smallholder farmers are more
likely to use crop diversification strategy and use crop variety strategy (Ademe et al. 2019;
Harveyetal, 2018; Paulos & Belay, 2018).

Age of household head (AGE)+: Smallholder farmers’ age is significantly affects the risk
adapting strategies. Old aged smallholder farmers are less likely to adopt crop or livestock
adaptation strategy than younger small holder farmers because younger small holder farmers
usually have an excess work force but lack of sufficient capital (Adhikari & Khanal, 2021);
(Meraner & Finger, 2019).

Size of smallholder farmers members (FS) +: According to Adam et al., (2019) the
smallholder farmers with large family size decline the probability of portfolio diversification
where as having large family size more likely to use crop diversification, soil and water
conservation strategies ( Birtukan & Abriham ,2016).

Farm size (FMZ) +: Smallholder farmers with relatively with large farmland have higher
economies of scale and production there by encourages rely on market based institutional
arrangements as risk adapting strategies (Mulwa et al., 2017). Bartolini et al., (2014) the lack
of sufficient land hinders the diversification process –inadequate space to establish many
enterprises.

Human capital (KH) +: human capital related with education, skills and awareness of the
individual farm households. The well-educated smallholder farmers may possibly have better
awareness about production outlay, productivity, market value, crop character and other
expected risks than uneducated smallholder farmers (Adégnandjou et al., 2018). More
experience of the smallholder farmers have positive relationship with use of crop variety
strategy and use of input intensity strategy according to the finding of Zerihun et al., (2018).
This could be because education enhances farmers’ ability to seek innovations and updates
(Adhikari & Khanal, 2021).

59
Physical capital (KP) +: Livestock is an indicator of wealth in the rural area thus smallholder
farmers with a more tropical livestock unit (TLU) relay on market-based arrangements risk
coping strategy during hardship (Gebrekidan et al., 2019). However, sever risks result
destocking due to livestock death and eventually undermined households’ self-insurance
capacity (Wps et al., 2007),(Dercon, 2002).

Soil fertility (SOF) +: Soil fertility is directly affects choice of irrigation as an adaptation
strategy among smallholder farmers. The smallholder farmers with fertile soil have more
probability of using irrigation strategy than those who have less fertile soil (Asrat & Babiso,
2020).

Access to information (INFO)+: Smallholder farmers’ accesses to radio, television, phone,

etc. are less likely to depend of public institutional arrangements to smooth consumption
(Ragasa et al., 2013). The ICT service fill the farmers with latest information of marketing
and farming techniques and helps to communicate with the agricultural stakeholders to
manage the risks immediately according to (Mc Elwee and Bosworth 2010; (Adhikari &
Khanal, 2021) but in developing countries might have limited advantages.

Access to Market (MKT) +: If the distance to market center is too far, it decreases the use of
crop varieties or an adaptation strategy, because better access to markets enables farmers to
obtain information on climate change and other important agricultural inputs (Teame et al.,
2017);( Diriba M. & Jema H., 2015) ;(Diallo et al., 2020).

Access to credit (CRT) +: Arun and Jun (2019) indicated that using improved crop varieties
strategy positively affected by credit service because the credit helps to empower the small
holder farmers’ purchasing power of agricultural inputs in Nepal.

Table 1: Summary of Variables, their Definitions and Expected Signs

Table 1: Summary of Variables, their

Definitions and Expected Signs

Variable name Code Definitions of Measurement Signs

variables

60
Dependent variable

Improved variety selection strategy CV Simultaneous Categorical

risk adaptation
strategies
Crop diversification strategy CD

Crop switching and changing farming CS

practices

Soil and water conservation practices CI

and irrigation

Use of saving, borrowing, and CB

reduction in hh consumption strategy

Hedging and contracts (forward CH

pricing) strategy

Choosing alternative livelihood CL

strategy

Independent variables

Age AGE Age of farmers Years +

Sex SEX Sex of farmers Dummy(0 = +/-

male,1= female)

Family size FS Size of farmer No. of family +

members members

Farm size FMZ Farm size of Hectare/Timad +

farmers

61
Soil fertility SOF Soil fertility Dummy(0 = +
fertile, 1= not )

Credit CRT Credit access Dummy (0 = +

accessible,1=
inaccessible)

+
Human capital KH Human capital Years of
of the schooling
individual farm
households

+
Physical capital KP Physical wealth TLU
of households

+
Access to information INFO Smallholder Dummy
farmers’ (0=access ,1 =
accesses to not access)
Radio, TV,
phone, etc.

Access to Market MKT Farmers’ Dummy +

Access to (0=access ,1 =
Market not access)

3.6.3 The Cox Proportional Hazard (Cox’s PH) Model

Adoption of new agricultural technology is still complex for the farmers. They farmers do not
easily understand how the new practices are communicated and the channels are
disseminated. These issues make the farmers delayed to accept the new technology. The final
adoption or non-adoption decisions relays on farmer’s attitudes towards the new innovation.
The fundamental theory of attitudes and perceptions indicated that the process of beliefs
formation always not possible to measure but attitudes can be observed through the choices

62
individuals make. The positive attitudes based on farmers’ knowledge about the new
technology, views and judgments increase the likelihood of adoption thereby enhance the crop
yields (Meijer et al., 2015; Ntshangase et al., 2018) while farmers uncertainty due to lack of
information about the new technology can able to change the perception of the farmers and
adversely affects the probability of adoption (Morton et al., 2017); (Morton et al., 2019);
(Muriyowa & Sibanda, 2018). Most of the previous studies focused on the demographic
factors that can affect the adoption or non-adoption of the new agricultural technology
(Kassie, et al., 2012). Some studies also conducted on the perceptions of framers’ towards
agricultural technology (Ntshangase et al., 2018) however the farmers’ behavior about
switching of the crops varies across socio-cultural contexts and practices of the entire
countries for starting the adoption of the new agricultural technology for the first time and
substituting the existing crops by new varieties due to different drivers such as perceptions
towards the new technology (Yibekal et al., 2018).

In each model, the subjective perception variables were defined as dichotomous variables that
take on the value of 1 if the farmer considered that the new agricultural technology is better
than the existing legumes for a given technology attribute, and a value of 0, otherwise. The
perception of farmers’ towards new technology is measured based on the agreement level of
the households perceived according to the designed Likert type scale. However, the current
study aimed at to assess the perception of farmers’ towards the adoption of mung bean
varieties related with input utilization, production, nutrition values and marketing holistically
to capture the attitudes dimensions or loading factors (PCA)15 in survival analysis.

In economics, duration models are often used in labor market studies, where un-employment
durations or spells are analyzed (Jenkins, 2005); (Lancaster, 1978); (Verbeek, 2007); time
until business failure, interval between purchase and soon (Greene, 2003). In agricultural
sector, it has been applied in adoption of conservation (Isabel & Toledano, 2017), adoption of
improved seed (Sánchez-Toledano et al., 2018); (Knowler, D. & Bradshaw, B., 2007; Nazli &
Smale, 2016); adoption of fertilizer and herbicide, etc.

15
PCA is an intermediate step for further treatment of data that includes regression analysis, indexing, assigning weights, etc.

63
Therefore, this study will use one of the duration or competing risk models of survival
analysis so called the Cox Proportional Hazard (Cox’s PH) model, which was introduced by
Cox (1972). The Cox model is a well-recognized statistical technique for analyzing survival
data. In short, the survival data analysis (SA) has the characteristics of the dependent variable
is waiting time until the occurrence of the well-defined event, observations are censored and
they are independent variables (either continuous or discrete or possible interactions) whose
effect on the waiting time we wish to asses or control. T is a non-negative variable that
indicates the time to event or survival time i.e., waiting time /duration from initial time which
is also known as risk (non- adoption state) until the farmers’ technology adoption state or until
the end of the event so called failure or end of spell (Greene, 2003:p.817); or the length of
time farmers waited before adopting the technology, considered as dependent variable. If the
event is observed, it said observed (1); but not, it was censored (0). Time t is some time
available to work or the cross-section of duration’s t 1, t2, tn. It demonstrates that the probability
that duration time T is smaller or equal to some value‘t’. It means the probability of an event
occurring before or at time t. Nevertheless, researchers are interested in the probability that T
has a length of at least t (Sánchez-Toledano et al., 2018).

F (t) = P (T < t) t≥ 0, ……………………………………..……………………………..(3.24)

Where, F (t) - refers to commutative distribution function (CDF) of T and ranges from 0 to 1,
is non-decreasing function of t, and as t →∞, F (t) →1 and P- stands for probability that the
event has occurred by duration t.

In SA it is more convenient to work with two related functions called the survivor function S
(t) and the hazard function h (t). S (t) is the reverse of the cumulative distribution function of
T. This gives the probability of being alive just before duration t, or more generally, the
probability that the event of interest has not occurred by duration t. In the case of farmer waits
before agricultural technology adoption is the probability of an individual not adopt until or
beyond time t / longer than time t is defined as:

S (t) = 1 – P (T < t) or S (t) = 1- F (t) =∫ f ( t ) ∆ t , ………………………….………….. (3.25)

0

64
We can thus interpret the survivor function as the probability of surviving (in the state) past
time t. It is positive and ranges from 0 to 1. It is define as S (0) = 1 and t → ∞, S (∞) → 0.
Another important function in duration data analysis which is related to both F (t) and S (t); is
the hazard function h (t) which measures the instantaneous rate of occurrence of the event or
at which farmers adopt agricultural technology from the state at time t (at T = t, conditional on
survival up to time t), given that they have not exited before time t. h (t) specifies the
instantaneous rate of leaving per unit time period at t (Lancaster, 1990) or represent the
probability that farmers adopt the new technology at time t + ∆t. The formal definition of the
P(t ≤ T <t+ ∆ t /T ≥t )
hazard function is h(t) = lim ;
the numerator of this expression is the
∆ t →0 ∆t
conditional probability that the event will occur in the interval (t, t +∆t) given that it has not
occurred before (T ≥ t ) and the denominator is the width of the interval. Dividing one by the
other we obtain a rate of event occurrence per unit of time. Taking the limit as the width of
the interval goes down to zero, we obtain an instantaneous rate of occurrence.

f (t )
h(t) = , ………………………………………………………………..…..…………..
S (t)
(3.26)

That is the hazard function is the density of exits at time t divided by the survivor function at
time t. Hazard rate is the instantaneous probability of the given event occurring at any point in
time. Hazard ratio also called relative risk. In many economic applications it seems quite
likely that the duration variable T depends on a set of explanatory variables. To take into
account the possibility that time invariant explanatory variables affect the hazard rate, we can
write down a proportional hazard model as follows:

h(t; xβ) = h0(t) * h(xβ) ………………………………………………..(3.27)

Function of t but not X Function of X but not t

Where x represents farmers’ specific variables that are assumed to affect the probability of to
be adopt and β are the model coefficients to be estimated that can describe how each variable
affects the likelihood of farmers’ adoption state. The function h o (t) is a baseline hazard
function, which is the hazard function of a farmer technology adoption with all X = 0. By

65
writing it like this, we are assuming that the baseline hazard is common to all individuals
while the hazard rate at a given point in time t differs proportionally across individuals
depending on the X variables. We typically assume that:

h (x,β) = exp (β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + … βkXk) = exp(Xβ’) ……………………………..(3.28)

In the general case, we think of the i th individual having a set of covariates xi = (x 1i, x2i,... xpi),
and we model their hazard rate as some multiple of the baseline hazard rate:

hi(t) = h(t|xi) = h0(t) exp (β1x1i +···+ βpxpi) …………………………….…...…………..(3.29)

Suppose where x = 1 for adopted and x = 0 for control. Then if we think of h 1(t) as the hazard
rate for the treated group, and h0 (t) as the hazard for control, then we can write:

h1(t) = h (t|x = 1) = h0(t) exp (βx) = h0(t)exp(β) ………………………………………..(3.30)

This implies that the ratio of the two hazards is a constant, e β, which does not depend on time,
t. In other words, the hazards of the two groups remain proportional over time.

h1(t )
¿ = eβ …………………………….……………………………………....…………..
h 0(t)¿
(3.31)

eβ is referred to as the hazard ratio (HR) or relative risk (RR) and β is the log hazard ratio or
log relative risk. This means we can write the log of the hazard ratio for the i th individual to
the baseline as:

h1(t )
log ( ¿) = β1X1i + β2X2i + β3X3i ………………………………..……………………..
h 0(t)¿
(3.32)

Generally, the model specified as:

p
h(t/x) = h0 (t) exp (∑ x i β i’) ………………………………………..……….…………..(3.33)
i=1

p
Alternatively in log form, log h (t/x) = log h0 (t) + log (∑ x i β i’).
i=1

66
Where ,h(t/x) –the hazard for individual i at time t conditional on covariates xi ; h o(t) - a
baseline hazard function, which is the hazard function of a farmer technology adoption with
all covariates X1, X2, X3, X4,…, Xn= 0. (i.e., the “reference group”). It only involves time, t.

So when we substitute all of the Xi s equal to 0 in equation (3.28) we get

h (t/x = 0) = h0 (t) exp (β0 *0+ β1*0+ β2*0 + β3*0 + … βk*0) = h0 (t)
p

∑ x i β i’ – This expression shows time invariant of explanatory variables (no time inclusion)
i=1

unlike a baseline hazard function and multiplies the baseline hazard and we can model (3.32)
the effects of the covariates are modeled exponentially. Because of this sometimes called
“multiplicative intensity model” or “multiplicative hazards model” or “proportional hazards
model”. P- Number of parameters in model. X i- is vector of explanatory variables which
accelerate or decelerate the agricultural technology adoption decision. β's - are the model
coefficients to be estimated that can describe how each variable affects the likelihood of
farmers’ adoption state. There is no β0 or intercept in the model hence (h (t/x) = 0) h o (t). That
is why h0 (t) is a baseline hazard function and unspecified in the model. And, we don’t have to
assume that h0 (t) follows an exponential model, or a Weibull model, or any other particular
parametric model. This makes the model a semi-parametric model (Cox, 1972; 1975) and
estimated by partial likelihood estimation without estimating the baseline hazard (Iversen et
al., 2020).

The empirical analysis of the speed of adoption of crop varieties based on (Poolsawas &
Napasintuwong, 2019);(Ahsanuzzaman, 2015; Sánchez-Toledano et al., 2018); Odendo et al.
(2016) ; Bulti, R.Merega (2016). Accordingly Cox’s PH model the duration of each farmer is
assumed to follow its own hazard function hi (t) which can be specified16 as follows:

log hi (t/x) = log h0 (t) + log β1 AGEmbf(t) + log β2 SEXmbf + log β3 EDUmbf + log β4
ATmbf + log β5 SOCmbf + log β6 FAZmbf + log β7YSmbf + log β8 YFmbf,+ log β9 TLUmbf +

16
log hi (t/x) = log h0 (t) + log β1Xi1 + log β2Xi2 + log β3Xi3 + log β4Xi4 + log β5Xi5 + log β6Xi6+ log β7Xi7 + log β8Xi8 + log β9Xi9+ log β10Xi10 +
log β11Xi11 + log β12Xi12+ log β13Xi13 + log β14Xi14 + log β15Xi15 + log β16Xi16 + log β17Xi17 + log β18Xi18………………...…………...……..(3.33)

67
log β10 FMZmbf(t) + log β11 LTSmbf + log β12 FMMmbf + log β13 Cmbf(t) + log β14Rmbf(t) +
log β15 MKPmbf + log β16 CRmbf + log β17 PUBmbf + log β18 GOVmbf……………..(3.34)

Where,
hi (t/x) Time to adoption FMZmbf (t) Farm size at time t
AGEmbf(t Age of mung bean farmers at time t FMSmbf Farm suitability
)
SEXmbf Gender of mung bean farmers LTSmbf Land tenure security
EDUmbf Education status of the farmers FMMmbf Farm management
ATmbf Attitudes (cultural beliefs) = PCA Cmbf(t) Input price of at time t
SOCmbf Social networks of farmers Rmbf(t) Output price of at time t
FAZmbf Family size mung bean farmers MKPmbf Market participation
YSmbf Sources of income of farmers CRmbf Credit access
YFmbf Farm income of farmers PUBmbf Public institutions contact
TLUmbf Livestock size GOVmbf Government Policy

Dependent variable: Duration analysis treats the length of time to adoption (or adoption
spell) as the dependent variable. The dependent variable used in the analysis will be the time
farmers waited before adopting mung bean varieties, measured by the number of time scale
(years) elapsed since the introduction of the technology in the year 2018(2011 E.C). For
farmers who started farming as a household after the technology was introduced, the duration
was counted from the year they started it to the year they adopted. For those farmers who had
not as yet adopted, the duration was right-censored at the year of data collection. Explanatory
variables: The covariates with t subscripts are time variant covariates while the rest covariates
are time invariants that mentioned in table 3.1.

Definitions and Descriptions of the Variables will be used in Cox’s PH

Model
Dependent Variable

Duration analysis treats the length of time to adoption (or adoption spell) as the dependent
variable. The dependent variable used in the analysis will be the time farmers waited before
adopting mung bean varieties, measured by the number of time scale (years) elapsed since the

68
introduction of the technology in the year 2014. For farmers who started farming as a
household after the technology was introduced, the duration was counted from the year they
started it to the year they adopted. For those farmers who had not as yet adopted, the duration
was right-censored at the year of data collection.

Explanatory Variables

The covariates with t subscripts are time variant covariates while the rest covariates are time
invariants.

Age of mung bean farmers (AGEmbf) : When the farmers get older he may acquire much
experience and can easily adopt the technology easily but sometimes cannot take any more
risks (wear down confidence) when the farmers gets older and older. In addition, Beshir and
Wegary (2014) reported that farmer’s age significantly influenced adoption of improved
maize seeds in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Therefore the expected sign will be
positively or negatively affects the adoption of mung bean varieties.

Gender of mung bean farmers (SEXmbf): The survival time of male farmers’ are more
likely to adopt the hybrid technologies earlier (quicker) than female farmers (Adam Bekele
&Yitayal Abebe, 2014). Similar sign will be expected.

Education status of the farmers (EDUmbf): Education status of farmers affects the
adoption of improved mung bean varieties directly related. Farmers with higher education
levels adopt technology earlier (Burton et al. 2003; Dadi et al. 2004; Matuschke and Qaim,
2008). According to Bulti (2016), farmers with graduate of secondary level were found to
accelerate the adoption of as compared with less level of education status. Therefore,
education status of farmers expected to affect the adoption of improved mung bean varieties
directly.

Attitudes (cultural beliefs) towards specific technology (ATmbf) : Farmers with good
attitude towards the agricultural technology tendered to adopt more quickly of a short duration
according to Parra and Calatrava (2005) and (Sánchez-Toledano et al., 2018). Farmers’ bad

69
perception about the side effects of the mung bean varieties expected to retard its speed of
adoption and hence this variable is expected to carry a positive sign.

Social networks (membership, kinship, and connectedness) (SOCmbf): Rogers (2003)

discussed the important roles of social communication as a mean to stimulate technology
adoption. The relationship between social meetings and adoption of new crop varieties with
the positive effect hypotheses indicated (Matuschke and Qaim (2008) and Dadi et al. (2004);
Jaleta et al., 2015).

Family size (FAZmbf): The farmers with larger size of household member are hypothesized
to increasing the probability of adopting the technology (Hintze et al. 2003).

Sources of income (YSmbf): Off-farm income enhances the importance of information

dissemination in explaining speed of adoption (Ahsanuzzaman, 2015)

Household income (YFmbf): Lunduka, R., Fisher M, and Snapp, S. (2012) indicated that the
availability of physical and financial resources or the overall wealth of the farmers indicating
the farmers capability of resisting risks and adopting the technology easily.

Livestock size (TLU): Farmer with more number of livestock, which measured by tropical
livestock unit (TLU), is likely to adopt hybrid cereal crops slightly later than those with less
Adam Bekele &Yitayal Abebe, 2014). Herd size has a positive effect on the adoption duration
probably because these resources could offer an alternative farm income source to cerials and
as livestock holdings increase farmers may forego (become reluctant) to become early
adopters (Murage et al. ,2012).

Farm size (FMZmbf): Framers with large farm size adopt the technology earlier than farmers
with relatively small farm size. So, Farm size has positively affects the speed of adoption of
technology (Bulti R., 2016)

Land tenure security (LTSmbf): Land tenure is positively correlated with adoption and land
tenure security it shows that early adopters of the technology are those with secured
perception of their land in the future (Zone, 2016); (Bulti R., 2016). Providing land certificate

70
for farmers can affect speed of mung bean technology adoption and the sign expected to be
positive.

Farm management (FMMmbf) : Line sowing and mechanical harvesting, the use of seed
treatments with bio fertilizers and bio pesticides, and the adoption of better varieties with
more comprehensive disease resistance can quick adoption of the technology among farmers
(Schreinemachers et al., 2019).

Input price cost (Cmbf): According to the report of (Poolsawas & Napasintuwong, 2019) the
seed price increases the timing adoption of technology in Thailand unlike the finding of
Mugisha and Diiro (2010). This is because the share of cost of the seed is relatively lower
than other cost of inputs. The mung bean input cost is assumed to be low compared to other
cereal crops and pulses so it can affect the speed of adoption directly.

Output price (Rmbf): Grain price is expected to positively shift the probability of adoption
according to Sain and Martinez (1999) and Dadi et al., 2004; Kalinda et al. 2014).

Farmers market participation (MKPmbf): Farmers near to input market centers can easily
accessible for infrastructure and the nearer to input markets the earlier to adopt the technology
((Ahsanuzzaman, 2015). But disagree with the finding of (Sánchez-Toledano et al., 2018). So
both signs will be expected.

Credit access (CRmbf): Credit access to the farmers is the important factors of technology
adoption with positive impact (Ahsanuzzaman, 2015).

Public extension contact /technical support (index) 17 (PUBmbf):, Extension services by

public and private research center has positive impact (Ahsanuzzaman, 2015). According to
Bulti R., (2016) speed of adoption of the technology is highly correlated with awareness or
technical support. (Sánchez-Toledano et al., 2018) results showed that farmers who received
information from a qualified institution or individual (agricultural technician) agreed to adopt
improved seeds. The farmers who participated in field trials or have crop visits both formal
and informal meetings are hypothesized to adopt earlier. However much meeting with public
17
Index of technical support = (number of contacts with extension agents per year + visits to demonstrations + participation in technology
training + contact with research institutes divided by four (Bulti R., 2016).

71
bodies can complicate the adoption choices of the technology especially in situation where the
improved seed varieties does not provided to the market (Poolsawas & Napasintuwong,
2019). Therefore both signs will be expected.

Government Policy (agricultural and trade policy) (GOVmbf): The sudden government
policy reforms either in trade or agricultural sector is taken during the harvesting season and
sowing season can affect the price of the seed and the grain and results the adverse effect of
the adoption of improved varieties. For example, Mexico policy reforms affected time of
technology adoption (Sánchez-Toledano et al., 2018).

Table 2: Summary of Variables, their Definitions and Expected Signs

Variable name Abbreviations Definitions of variables measurement Signs

Dependent variable

72
Time of adoption hi (t/x) Speed of adoption of mung Years of
bean varieties adoption/not

Independent variables

Age AGEmbf(t) Age of mung bean farmers Years +/-

at time t

Gender SEXmbf Gender of the farmers Dummy(0 = +/-

male,1= female)

Education status EDUmbf Education status Years of +

schooling

Attitudes/ ATmbf Attitudes (cultural beliefs) PCA loading +

perceptions

Social networks SOCmbf Social networks of farmers Index of +

networks

Family size FAZmbf Family size of farmers No. of family +

members

Income YSmbf Sources of income of Categorical +

farmers
(0 = on farm ,

1= off farm,

2 = salary bases)

Household YFmbf Farm income of farmers Birr +

income

Livestock size TLUmbf Number of livestock TLU +

73
 owned

Farm size FMZmbf (t) Farm size at time t Hectares/Timad +

Farm suitability FMSmbf Farm suitability Dummy(0 = +

suitable, 1= not )

Land tenure LTSmbf Land tenure security Dummy (0= +

certified ,1=not )

Management FMMmbf Farm management Categorical +

(0 = line sowing,

1= insecticides
& pesticides,

2 = mechanical
harvesting 3=
others )

Input price Cmbf(t) Input price of at time t CPI +/-

Output price Rmbf(t) Output price of at time t CPI

Participation MKPmbf Farmers market Dummy ( 0 = +/-

participation participate , 1=
not participate )

Credit CRmbf Credit access Dummy (0 = +

accessible,1=
inaccessible)

Contact PUBmbf Public institutions Composite index +/-

contact/technical part/

Policy reforms GOVmbf Government Policy Dummy ( 0 = -

74
reformed,1 = no
reform is
undertaken )

75
3.6.4 Endogenous Switching Regression Model Specification

Estimation of the impact of market participation on mung bean farmers’ welfare outcomes is
major methodological challenges to cascade because it needs to control of potential selection
biases /heterogeneity and endogeneity problems18. Therefore in order to achieve the objective
and to handle all the mentioned evaluation challenges the study will apply the Endogenous
Switching Regression model (ESR) for the impact of market participation of mung bean
farmers’ upon their income and asset accumulation ((Di Falco et al., 2011);( Lokshin &
Sajaia, 2004). ESR compared with PSM; it can able to process consistent estimates by
removing the biases emanating from both endogentiy and observed and unobserved factors
(Hübler 2016; StataCorp 2017). In addition it can relax the assumptions of a simple parallel
shift with respect to the outcome variable by estimating jointly one selection equation 19and
the two separate outcome equations20 (Di Falco et al., 2011). In stage one the probit model
will be used to relate the selection equation (market participation) with the determinates
whereas the welfare outcome equations will be estimated in stage two and also the
determinates of the impacts of market participation upon farmers’ income and asset
accumulation will be identified.

Following (Maddala, 1992); (Maddala & Nelson,1975); Lokshin & Sajaia (2004); (Di Falco
et al., 2011);(F. E. Mmbando et al., 2015b); and recent literature (Zegeye et al., 2022);
(Meskel et al., 2020) and Belay and Mengiste, (2021), to clarify the ESR method, consider a
situation where a farmer could participate in the market or not. Let, a latent variable capturing
¿
the expected net benefits from market participation is Di =. The probit model of market
participation specified in equation (2.3). And the second stage consists in the estimation of
two regimes outcome equations: one for market participation and another for non-market
participation represented as follows:

Regime 1: Y1i = β1X1i + ε1i if Di = 1 (Market participation) ……….………………..…… (3.35)

18
If we apply the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimation technique for equation (3.36) to estimate the impact of market participation upon
farmers’ welfare the result should be biased because the model treats all independent variables exogenously. The selection biases arising
from the observed heterogeneity controlled by the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) (Azeem et al. 2018) but still the problem of unobserved
heterogeneity remained. Along PSM the Instrumental variables (IVs) are able to capture the unobserved factors; however, the impact can be
represented as a simple parallel shift with respect to the outcome variable (Frank E. Mmbando et al., 2015).
19
It is the model part of farmers’ decisions to participate in the market.
20
It assesses two separate equations (one for participants and one for non-participants) of the impact of market
participation upon farmers’ income and asset accumulation.

76
Regime 2: Y2i = β2X2i + ε2i if Di = 0 (Non- market participation) ……………………..… (3.36)
Where Yi is farmers welfare in regimes 1 and 2, Xi is a vector of exogenous variables of mung
bean farmers’ i, expected to influence welfare; 𝛽 is the coefficient vector; D is a dummy for
market participation, and, 𝜀𝑖 the residuals.

In the ESR framework, the error terms in three equations (2.3, 3.35, and 3.36) are assumed to
have a trivariate normal distribution with zero mean and covariance matrix of the following
form:

[ ]
δ 2η δη 1 δη 2
cov (η, ε1 , ε2) = δ 1 η δ 21 . ………………………………………………...……(3.37)
2
δ2η . δ 2

Where δ 2ηis the variance of the error term in the selection equation (2.3); δ 21 and δ 22 are the
variances of the error terms in the outcome equations (3.35 and 3.36); δ 1 η and δ 2 η are the
covariance of η, ε1i and ε2i. Covariance between ε1i and ε2i is not defined since Y1 and Y2 are not
observed simultaneously (Maddala et al., 1986). The necessary implication of the error
structure is that as a result of the error terms of the selection biases equation (2.3) η is
correlate with the error terms of the welfare functions (3.35 and 3.36) , ε1i and ε2i , the
expected value of ε1i and ε2i, conditional on the sample selection are non-zero.

The full information maximum likelihood (FIML) method is a more efficient method of
estimating endogenous switching regression model. The FIML method simultaneously
estimates binary (the selection equation) and continuous parts of the model (the outcome
equations) to yield consistent standard errors (Greene - Econometrics Analysis.Pdf, n.d.);
(Lokshin & Sajaia, 2004).

Based on (Di Falco et al., 2011); (Adjin et al., 2020); and Belay and Mengiste, (2021) the
Endogenous Switching Regression model will be used to identify the impact of eco- friendly
farmers’ market participation upon income and asset accumulation of those participate in the
mung bean market (a) with respect to eco- friendly farmers that do not participate in the mung
bean market (b), and to investigate the expected welfare outcome in the counterfactual
hypothetical cases (c) that the participated eco-friendly farmers do not participate, and (d) that

77
the non-participant eco-friendly farmers participated. The conditional expectations for our
outcome variables in the four cases will be presented as follows:

Case I: market participants with participation in mung bean market

E (Y1i /Di = 1) = β1X1i + δ ε1 η λ1i ………………………………………….……...……. (3.38a)
Case II: market participants have decided not to participate in mung bean market
E (Y2i /Di = 1) = β2X1i + δ ε2 η λ1i ………………………………………...….…………. (3.39b)
Case III: non market participants without the participation in mung bean market
E (Y2i /Di = 0) = β2X2i + δ ε2 η λ2i ……………………………………...………….……. (3.40c)
Case IV: non market participants have decided to participate in mung bean market
E (Y1i /Di = 0) = β1X2i + δ ε1 η λ2i ……………………………………...…….…………. (3.41d)

Equation (3.38) computes the observed outcome (a) for market participants and equation
(3.40) calculates the observed outcome (c) for non-market participants. The expected outcome
(b) in equation (3.39) represents the counterfactual for the observed outcome (a) in equation
(3.38). This counterfactual expresses what would have happened had the farmers decided to
be participate in mung bean market. Similarly the equation (3.41) is a counterfactual outcome
(d) for the observed outcome (c) in equation (3.40). It represents the scenario in which
farmers decided to be participants of mung bean markets. Using these expected outcomes
(equations 3.38a-3.41b) we derive unbiased treatment effects: the average treatment e ffect on
treat (ATT), which is the difference between equations (3.38a) and (3.39b) that is a - b), and
the average treatment effect on untreated (ATU), which is the di fference between equations
(3.41d) and (3.40c) that is d - c).

ATT = E (Y1i /Di = 1) - E (Y2i /Di = 1) = (β1- β2) X1i + λ1i (δ ε1 η - δ ε2 η) ……….……… (3.42)

ATU = E (Y2i /Di = 0) - E (Y1i /Di = 0) = (β1- β2) X2i + λ2i (δ ε1 η - δ ε2 η) ……………… (3.43)

To calculate the heterogeneity effects, farm households that participated may have earn more
income or asset accumulation than the farmers that did not participate regardless of the fact
that they decided to participate but because of unobservable characteristics such as their
skills, we can apply the expected outcomes described in equations (3.38a -3.41d). The “effects
of base heterogeneity” for the group of farm households that decided to participate (BH 1) is
the difference between (a) and (d); according to Carter and Milon (2005).

78
BH1 = E (Y1i /Di = 1) - E (Y1i /Di = 0) = β1 (X1i - X2i) + δ ε1η (λ1i- λ2i) ……………..…… (3.44)

Similarly for the group of farm households that decided not to participate (BH2), “the effect of
base heterogeneity” is the difference between (c) and (b)

BH2 = E (Y2i /Di = 1) - E (Y2i /Di = 0) = β2 (X1i – X2i) + δ ε2 η (λ1i – λ2i) …………..….… (3.45)

Finally, difference between (TT) and (TU) gives in “transitional heterogeneity” (TH), that is
whether the effect of participating to mung bean market is larger or smaller for farm
households that actually participated to the market or for farm households that actually did not
participate in the counterfactual case that they did participate, that is the difference between
equations (3.42) and (3.43) (i.e., ATT and ATU). Or it indicates whether the effect of
participating in mung bean market is larger or smaller for the participants than for the non-
participants. In addition PSM and SUR models will be employed to comparison of ESR and
to estimate the dependency between productivity and market participation respectively.

Variables Expected to Affect Market Participation and Impact of Market

Participation on Household Income and Welfare Indicators

Measurement of the outcome variables

The crop income/per capita income/, consumption expenditure approach that adjusted by per
adult equivalent (AEU) annually and so called per capita consumption expenditure approach
and per capita asset/asset index values will be used to estimate the impact of farmers’ market
participation upon their welfare. The crop income (measured by Birr) refers to the total annual
income of the households generated from all crop production including mung bean. The per
capita income computed from the household income obtained from the sales of the crop and
livestock, remittances, salaries, and off farm income with the most significant contribution
from agriculture. Initially measured in Ethiopian currency (Birr) and converted into nominal
value of USD purchasing power parity (PPP) values by using conversion rates of World Bank
2011 and adjusted to real value using Consumer Price Index (CPI) in base year of 2005 to
compare the values across time period. Alternatively, household income measured by the
expenditure approach. It approximates total household income from total household
expenditure on food and non-food items and contributions to expenditure. The total

79
expenditure in local currency will be converted to the PPP equivalent using PPP rates that are
referenced to 2011 (IBRD, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2018).
Total household expenditure per adult equivalent (AEU) was included to capture all the
household expenditure within a year measured in Birr.

The total asset values except livestock units converted into 2005 USD PPP. It is necessary to
analysis the livestock as a potentially productive form of assets as it reflects the long-term
abilities of the household to meet their consumption needs and their potential increase in
value as they mature and convert into TLU according to Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO) conversion factors ((Tabe Ojong et al., 2022). Alternatively, (Ogada et al., 2020) used
household domestic asset index. It is calculated for all movable assets with each type of assets
or groups of assets assigned weights which are then adjusted for age as follows (Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010): (equation 2.5).

Dependent variable

Farmers market participation will be measured both by binary decision of mung bean farmers
whether participate in output market in selling of crop or not in the past 12 months. To see the
farmers are more market oriented measuring in sales index is standard, which enables
comparison across farmers. It is the ratio of sales of production to total harvest that multiples
by 100 to change into percent and it ranges from 0 to 1(Carletto, Corral, & Guelfi, 2017).

Explanatory variables

The control variables likely to affect the outcome of interest are reviewed from extant
literature categorized into farmers characteristics, demographic , socio economic factors, farm
conditions, institutional contacts, factor endowments, information symmetry and etc affect
market participation for instance , (LI et al., 2020; Meskel et al., 2020; Mmbando et al., 2021;
Mmbando et al., 2015b); (Ogutu, Gödecke, & Qaim, 2020; Ogutu & Qaim, 2019);
age ,gender, education level , farm size, dependency ratio, distance to market, factor
endowments (farm size, labor, and livestock), geographical location or agro ecological
location of farmers, institutional support or NGO market linkage programs , access to
information via phone and access to information via extension services ,contact with

80
extension agents ,participate in training, asset index + (Habte et al., 2021), infrastructure
investment+ cooperative membership+ transport and packaging costs (Abokyi et al., 2020).

Table 3: Summary of Variables, their Definitions and Expected Signs

Variable name Code Definitions of variables measurement Signs

Dependent variable

Market participation MKT Farmers market participation Binary

participate/not

Outcome variables

Income INC ETB

Asset accumulation ASA Index

Independent variables

Age AGE Age of farmers Years +/-

Gender SEXm Gender of the farmers Dummy +/-

Education status EDU Education status Years +

Attitudes ATmbf Attitudes (cultural beliefs) Dummy +

Social networks SOC Social networks of farmers Index +

Dependency ratio DEP Inactive work force Ratio +

Income sources INCS Sources of income of farmers Categorical +

Livestock size LISK Number of livestock owned TLU +

Farm size FMZ Farm size of farmers Hectares/Timad +

Distance DIS Distance to the nearest Km +

market

81
Credit CRT Credit access Dummy +

Contact PUB Public institutions contact Composite index +

Policy reforms GOV Government Policy Dummy -

4. WORK PLAN AND LOGISTICS

4.1 Work Plan

This is to assign dates for the completion of various activities of the dissertation. The main
activities are necessary organization and arrangements, data collection, data analysis and
report writing and their respective times should be managed efficiently.

Table 4: Time Schedule of Activities

No. Activities Date Remark

1 Preparing PhD. dissertation Proposal January1,2022-Dec.31,2022
2 Review of Literature Continuous process
3 Data collection and organization Jan.1,2023 –March 5,2023
4 Data analysis and interpretation March 6,2023-March 22,2023
5 Draft PhD Dissertation thesis submission Mar.23, 2023-May 19,2023
6 Final PhD Dissertation thesis submission May.20, 2023-June 28,2023
8 Presentation of PhD Dissertation thesis As per the schedule of SGS

82
4.2 Logistics

The financial source of the study from the Wolaita Sodo University and the logistics ensures
that the necessary personnel, travel, per diem, equipment, materials and associated services
and expendable supplies will be available for the study project.

Table 5: Detail of the logistics (Birr = 50 USD)

No Items Unit Quantity Unit price Total cost

1 Expendable Supplies Packages 30 1000 30,000.00
2 Travel costs Time 3 rounds 3000 9,000.00
3 Per diem Time 3 months 1595 47,850.00
4 Advisers & examiners fee Number 5 20,000.00 100,000.00
5 Miscellaneous Expense Number 5 1000 5,000.00
6 Contiguous (10%*191,850) percent 19,185
10 Grand total 211,035.00
5. REFERENCES

Abokyi, E., Strijker, D., Asiedu, K. F., & Daams, M. N. (2020). The impact of output price
support on smallholder farmers’ income: evidence from maize farmers in Ghana.
Heliyon, 6(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05013
Addis, Y., & Abirdew, S. (2021). Smallholder farmers’ perception of climate change and
adaptation strategy choices in Central Ethiopia. International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management, 13(4–5), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-09-
2020-0096
Adhikari, S., & Khanal, A. R. (2021). Economic sustainability and multiple risk management
strategies: Examining interlinked decisions of small american farms. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 13(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041741
Adjin, K., Goundan, A., Henning, C., & Sarr, S. (2020). Estimating the impact of agricultural
cooperatives in Senegal: Propensity Score Matching and Endogenous Switching
Regression analysis. https://macau.uni-kiel.de/receive/macau_mods_00001354
Ahsanuzzaman, A. (2015). Duration Analysis of Technology Adoption in Bangladeshi
Agriculture. 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California,
July, 1–32. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/200406/files/Ahsanuzzaman-2015.pdf
Akhtar, S., Abbas, A., Iqbal, M. A., Rizwan, M., Samie, A., Faisal, M., & Sahito, J. G. M.
(2021). What determines the uptake of multiple tools to mitigate agricultural risks among
hybrid maize growers in Pakistan? Findings from field-level data. Agriculture
(Switzerland), 11(7), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070578

83
Aklilu, M., & Abebe, T. (2020). Adaptation study of mung bean (Vigna radiata) varieties in
tepi, south wester Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Plant Science and Research, 10(5), 58–61.
www.pelagiaresearchlibrary.com
Amondo, E., Simtowe, F., Rahut, D. B., & Erenstein, O. (2019). Productivity and production
risk effects of adopting drought-tolerant maize varieties in Zambia. International Journal
of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 11(4), 570–591.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2018-0024
Aryal, J. P., Sapkota, T. B., Rahut, D. B., Krupnik, T. J., Shahrin, S., Jat, M. L., & Stirling, C.
M. (2020). Major Climate risks and Adaptation Strategies of Smallholder Farmers in
Coastal Bangladesh. Environmental Management, 66(1), 105–120.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01291-8
Asrat, M., & Babiso, B. (2020). Smallholder Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change and
Determinants of their Adaptation Choices in Hobicha, Southern Ethiopia. Agri Res &
Tech: Open Access J, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.19080/ARTOAJ.2020.25.556291
Atnaf, M., Tesfaye, K., & Dagne, K. (2015). The Importance of Legumes in the Ethiopian
Farming System and Overall Economy: An Overview. American Journal of
Experimental Agriculture, 7(6), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajea/2015/11253
Ayenew, W. A. (2020). Land Suitability Analysis for Mung Bean Production Using a GIS
Based Multi-Criteria Technique in Part of Wollo, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Journal of
Economics and Sustainable Development, 11(23), 29–36.
https://doi.org/10.7176/jesd/11-23-04
Baker, M. M., & Yuya, B. A. (2020). Determinant of Sesame Export Performance in
Ethiopia: A Panel Gravity Model Application. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food
Science and Technology, 8(3), 714. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v8i3.714-720.3219
Balabanova, B., Stafilov, T., & Bačeva, K. (2015). Application of principal component
analysis in the assessment of essential and toxic metals in vegetable and soil from
polluted and referent areas. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 21(3), 536–544.
Batzer, J. C., Singh, A., Rairdin, A., Chiteri, K., & Mueller, D. S. (2022). Mungbean : A
Preview of Disease Management Challenges for an Alternative U . S . Cash Crop. 13.
Baza, M., & Shanka, D. (2022). Agronomic and economic performance of mung bean ( Vigna
radiata L . ) varieties in response to rates of blended NPS fertilizer in Kindo Koysha.
1053–1063.
Beyene, A. D., & Kassie, M. (2015). Speed of adoption of improved maize varieties in
Tanzania: An application of duration analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 96, 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.007
Biru, W. D., Zeller, M., & Loos, T. K. (2020). The Impact of Agricultural Technologies on
Poverty and Vulnerability of Smallholders in Ethiopia: A Panel Data Analysis. Social
Indicators Research, 147(2), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02166-0

84
Chatterjee, S., Goswami, R., & Bandyopadhyay, P. (2015). Methodology of identification and
characterization of farming systems in irrigated agriculture: Case study in West Bengal
state of India. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 17(5), 1127–1140.
Chen, M., & Ma, J. (2015). Application of Principal Component Regression Analysis in
Economic Analysis. 10(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.2991/msetasse-15.2015.255
CSA. (2021). the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency Report
on Area , Production and Farm Management Practice of Belg Season Crops for Private
Peasant Holdings. V, 25.
Danso-Abbeam, G., Ojo, T. O., Baiyegunhi, L. J. S., & Ogundeji, A. A. (2021). Climate
change adaptation strategies by smallholder farmers in Nigeria: does non-farm
employment play any role? Heliyon, 7(6), e07162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07162
Di Falco, S., Veronesi, M., & Yesuf, M. (2011). Does adaptation to climate change provide
food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 93(3), 825–842. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar006
Dinsa, T., Balcha, U., Benya, F., & Fufa, M. (2022). Performance evaluation of improved
mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) varieties at low moisture areas East Shewa,
Oromia, Ethiopia. Journal of Scientific Agriculture, 6, 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.25081/jsa.2022.v6.7289
Endeshaw, H., Dawit, A., Berhanu, A., & Chilot, Y. (2018). Production and Marketing of
Major Lowland Pulses in Ethiopia : Review of Production and Marketing of Major
Lowland Pulses in Ethiopia : Review of Developments , Trends and Prospects. Ethiop. J.
Crop Sci., 6(3), 435–465.
G.Sigei. (2007). Determinant of Market Participation Among Small-scale Pineapple Farmers
In Kericho County,Kenya. Information Management and Business Review, 3(3), 244.
http://works.bepress.com/ahmed_hunjra/30/
Galmessa A. (2018). Adoption of Improved Soyabean Varieties : The Buno Bedele and East
Wollega Zones of Oromia Region , Ethiopia. April, 1–79.
Gebre, W. (2015). Adaptation study of improved mung bean (Vigna radiate) varieties at
Alduba, south Omo, Ethiopia. Research Journal of Agriculture and Environmental
Management, 4(8), 339–342. http://www.apexjournal.org
Getachew, T. (2019). Pulse Crops Production Opportunities, Challenges and Its Value Chain
in Ethiopia: A Review Article. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 9(1), 20–29.
https://doi.org/10.7176/jees/9-1-03
Girma, T., Mohapatra, S. K., & Belete, B. (2019). Feature Extraction and Classification of
Green Mung Bean Using Machine Learning. 10(8), 1443–1447.
Godoi, F. C., Prakash, S., & Bhandari, B. R. (2021). Final report Final report. In Review of 3D
printing and potential red meat applications (Issue 23 February 2021).

85
 http://libdcms.nida.ac.th/thesis6/2010/b166706.pdf
Greene - Econometrics Analysis.pdf. (n.d.).
Habte, E., Katungi, E., Yirga, C., & Fenta, B. A. (2021). Adoption of Common Bean
Technologies and its Impacts on Productivity and Household Welfare in Ethiopia :
Lessons from Tropical Legumes Project Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Re ...
Adoption of Common Bean Technologies and its Impacts on Productivity (Issue June).
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17130.03524
Hashmiu, I., Agbenyega, O., & Dawoe, E. (2022). Cash crops and food security: evidence
from smallholder cocoa and cashew farmers in Ghana. Agriculture and Food Security,
11(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00355-8
Isabel, B., & Toledano, S. (2017). Affecting Their Decision To Improve Maize. Acta de
Calificación de Tesis Doctoral, 132.
Islam, Q. S., Rahman, M., Hossain, M., & Hossain, M. (1970). Economic Analysis Of
Mungbean (Vigna Radiata) Cultivation In Some Coastal Areas Of Bangladesh.
Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, 36(1), 29–40.
https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v36i1.9227
Itefa, D. (2016). General Characteristics and Genetic Improvement Status of Mung bean
( Vigna radiata L .) in n Ethiopia : Review Article. International Journal of Agriculture
Innovations and Research, 5(2), 232–237.
Iversen, T., Ma, C. A., Iversen, T., & Ma, C. A. (2020). Technology Adoption in Primary
Health Care OF OSLO Technology Adoption in Primary Health Care (Vol. 9071).
Kassa, Y., Mamo, D., Abie, A., Tigabe, A., & Ayele, T. (2021). Scaling up of improved mung
bean technology in the potential areas of north shewa zone amhara region. International
Journal of Agricultural Extension, 9(2), 135–141.
https://doi.org/10.33687/ijae.009.02.3257
Kaysha, K., Shanka, D., & Bibiso, M. (2020). Performance of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.)
varieties at different NPS rates and row spacing at Kindo Koysha district, Southern
Ethiopia. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1771112
Kebede, E. (2020). Grain legumes production and productivity in Ethiopian smallholder
agricultural system, contribution to livelihoods and the way forward. Cogent Food and
Agriculture, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1722353
Kidane, R., Wanner, T., Nursey-Bray, M., Masud-All-Kamal, M., & Atampugre, G. (2022).
The Role of Climatic and Non-Climatic Factors in Smallholder Farmers’ Adaptation
Responses: Insights from Rural Ethiopia. Sustainability, 14(9), 5715.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095715
Komarek, A. M., Pinto, A. De, & Smith, V. H. (2020). A review of types of risks in
agriculture : What we know and what we need to know. Agricultural Systems,

86
 178(November 2019), 102738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102738
Kotharari, C. . (New A. I. P. (n.d.). Research Methodology-Methods and Techniques.
Lemessa, S., Alemayehu, M., Daksa, M., & Dechassa, N. (2019). Adoption Spells of
Improved Potato Varieties by Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Ethiopia: The Duration
Approach. Zeszyty Naukowe SGGW w Warszawie - Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego,
19(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.22630/prs.2019.19.2.27
LI, M., GAN, C., MA, W., & JIANG, W. (2020). Impact of cash crop cultivation on
household income and migration decisions: Evidence from low-income regions in China.
Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 19(10), 2571–2581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-
3119(20)63161-6
Lien, G., Hardaker, J. B., & Anderson, J. R. (2015). Coping with risk in agriculture: applied
decision analysis. In Coping with risk in agriculture: applied decision analysis (Issue
May). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780645742.0000
Maddala, G. S. (1992). Introduction to Econometrics, Second Edition (p. 631).
Mahmoudi, M. R., Heydari, M. H., Qasem, S. N., Mosavi, A., & Band, S. S. (2021). Principal
component analysis to study the relations between the spread rates of COVID-19 in high
risks countries. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 60(1), 457–464.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.09.013
Manda, J., Azzarri, C., Feleke, S., Kotu, B., Claessens, L., & Bekunda, M. (2021). Welfare
impacts of smallholder farmers’ participation in multiple output markets: Empirical
evidence from Tanzania. PLoS ONE, 16(5 May), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250848
Marechera, G., Macharia, I., Muinga, G., Mugo, S., Rotich, R., Oniang, K., Karanja, J.,
Obunyali, C., & Oikeh, S. O. (2019). Duration analysis of DroughtTEGO hybrid maize
adoption in Kenya. Agricultural Science Research Journal, 9(5), 48–60.
https://www.aatf-africa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/George-Marechera-et-al-July-
2019.pdf
MBEYAGALA, E. K., AMAYO, R., & OBUO, J. E. P. (2016). Adaptation of introduced
mungbean genotypes in Uganda. African Crop Science Journal, 24(2), 155.
https://doi.org/10.4314/acsj.v24i2.4
Meskel, T. W., Ketema, M., Haji, J., & Zemedu, L. (2020). Welfare Impact of Moringa
Market Participation in Southern Ethiopia. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 9(3), 98.
https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v9n3p98
Mmbando, F. E., Wale, E. Z., & Baiyegunhi, L. J. S. (2015a). Determinants of smallholder
farmers’ participation in maize and pigeonpea markets in Tanzania. Agrekon, 54(1), 96–
119. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2014.974630
Mmbando, F. E., Wale, E. Z., & Baiyegunhi, L. J. S. (2015b). Welfare impacts of smallholder
farmers’ participation in maize and pigeonpea markets in Tanzania. Food Security, 7(6),

87
 1211–1224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0519-9
Mmbando, F., Mbeyagala, E., Binagwa, P., Karimi, R., Opie, H., Ochieng, J., Mutuoki, T., &
Nair, R. M. (2021). Adoption of improved mungbean production technologies in selected
east African countries. Agriculture (Switzerland), 11(6), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11060528
Mota, F. M., Balla, D. S., & Doda, M. B. (2021). Response of Mung Bean Varieties (Vigna
radiata L.) to Application Rates and Methods of Blended NPS Fertilizer at Humbo.
International Journal of Agronomy, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3786720
Mulwa, C., Marenya, P., Rahut, D. B., & Kassie, M. (2017). Response to climate risks among
smallholder farmers in Malawi: A multivariate probit assessment of the role of
information, household demographics, and farm characteristics. Climate Risk
Management, 16, 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.01.002
Mwangi, M., & Kariuki, S. (2015). Factors Determining Adoption of New Agricultural
Technology by Smallholder Farmers in Developing Countries. Issn, 6(5), 2222–1700.
www.iiste.org
Mwinkom, F. X. K., Damnyag, L., Abugre, S., & Alhassan, S. I. (2021). Factors influencing
climate change adaptation strategies in North-Western Ghana: evidence of farmers in the
Black Volta Basin in Upper West region. SN Applied Sciences, 3(5), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04503-w
Nair, R., Schafleitner, R., Easdown, W., & Ebert, A. (2016). Legume improvement program at
AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center : Legume Improvement Program at AVRDC –
The World Vegetable Center : Impact and Future Prospects. January 2014.
https://doi.org/10.5937/ratpov51-5488
Niftiyev, I. (2021). Understanding Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in the Azerbaijan
Economy: Case Studies of Vegetable and Fruit Sectors. SSRN Electronic Journal,
2021(4), 0–3. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3782426
Odendo, M. ;, Obare, G., & Salasya, B. (2010). DETERMINANTS OF THE SPEED OF
ADOPTION OF SOIL FERTILITY- ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES IN WESTERN
KENYA By. Joint 3rd African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE) and 48th
Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference.
Ogada, M. J., Rao, E. J. O., Radeny, M., Recha, J. W., & Solomon, D. (2020). Climate-smart
agriculture, household income and asset accumulation among smallholder farmers in the
Nyando basin of Kenya. World Development Perspectives, 18(April), 100203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100203
Ojo, T. O., & Baiyegunhi, L. J. S. (2020). Determinants of credit constraints and its impact on
the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies among rice farmers in South-West
Nigeria. Journal of Economic Structures, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-020-
00204-6

88
Poolsawas, S., & Napasintuwong, O. (2019). Speed of hybrid maize adoption in Thailand: An
application of duration analysis. Journal of the International Society for Southeast Asian
Agricultural Sciences, 25(2), 1–13.
Rubhara, T. T., Mudhara, M., Oduniyi, O. S., & Antwi, M. A. (2020). Impacts of cash crop
production on household food security for smallholder farmers: A case of shamva
district, zimbabwe. Agriculture (Switzerland), 10(5).
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10050188
S.Suthar and S.Kukreja. (2021). Effect of different levels of spacing and organic fertilizers on
growth and yield of summer moong ( Vigna radiata L .). 8(5), 626–632.
Sánchez-Toledano, B. I., Kallas, Z., Rojas, O. P., & Gil, J. M. (2018). Determinant factors of
the adoption of improved maize seeds in Southern Mexico: A survival analysis approach.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103543
Sarkar, J., Saha, S., & Agrawal, S. (2014). An Efficient Use of Principal Component Analysis
in Workload Characterization-A Study. AASRI Procedia, 8(October), 68–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aasri.2014.08.012
Schreinemachers, P., Sequeros, T., Rani, S., Rashid, M. A., Gowdru, N. V., Rahman, M. S.,
Ahmed, M. R., & Nair, R. M. (2019). Counting the beans: quantifying the adoption of
improved mungbean varieties in South Asia and Myanmar. Food Security, 11(3), 623–
634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00926-x
Scientific, T. C., Cuddy, S. M., Scientific, T. C., Ahmad, M., Scientific, T. C., & Khaliq, T.
(2022). Profitability analysis and extent of female labour participation in mung bean
production in Punjab ,. May. https://doi.org/10.25919/f6h5-k692
Sequeros, T., Ochieng, J., Schreinemachers, P., Binagwa, P. H., Huelgas, Z. M., Hapsari, R.
T., Juma, M. O., Kangile, J. R., Karimi, R., Khaririyatun, N., Mbeyagala, E. K., Mvungi,
H., Nair, R. M., Sanya, L. N., Nguyen, T. T. L., Phommalath, S., Pinn, T., Simfukwe, E.,
& Suebpongsang, P. (2021). Mungbean in Southeast Asia and East Africa: varieties,
practices and constraints. Agriculture and Food Security, 10(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00273-7
Sequeros, T., Schreinemachers, P., Depenbusch, L., Shwe, T., & Nair, R. M. (2020). Impact
and returns on investment of mungbean research and development in Myanmar.
Agriculture and Food Security, 9(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00260-y
Shikur, Z. H. (2022). Wheat policy, wheat yield and production in Ethiopia. Cogent
Economics & Finance, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2079586
Silva, K. N. N., & Broekel, T. (2017). Factors Constraining Farmerss Adoption of New
Agricultural Technology Programme in Hambantota District in Sri Lanka: Perceptions of
Agriculture Extension Officers. SSRN Electronic Journal, 378–398.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2910350
Simtowe, F., Asfaw, S., & Abate, T. (2016). Determinants of agricultural technology adoption

89
 under partial population awareness: the case of pigeonpea in Malawi. Agricultural and
Food Economics, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-016-0051-z
Tabe Ojong, M. P. J. R., Hauser, M., & Mausch, K. (2022). Does Agricultural
Commercialisation Increase Asset and Livestock Accumulation on Smallholder Farms in
Ethiopia? Journal of Development Studies, 58(3), 524–544.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2021.1983170
Tana, T., Fenta, B. A., & Dechassa, N. (2022). Effects of Maize and Mung Bean Intercropping
on Performance of the Effects of Maize and Mung Bean Intercropping on Performance
of the Component Crops and System Productivity. January.
Teame, G., Ephrem, S., Lemma, D., & Getachew, B. (2017). Adaptation Study of Mung Bean
(Vigna Radiate) Varieties in Raya Valley, Northern Ethiopia. Current Research in
Agricultural Sciences, 4(4), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.68.2017.44.91.95
Tehulie, N. S., Fikadu, T., & Purba, J. H. (2021). Response of Mungbean [Vigna radiata
(L.)Wilczek] Varieties to Plant Spacing under Irrigation at Gewane, Northeastern
Ethiopia. Agro Bali: Agricultural Journal, 4(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.37637/ab.v0i0.613
Temeche, D., Getachew, E., Hailu, G., & Abebe, A. (2022). Effect of Sorghum -Mung Bean
Intercropping on Sorghum -Based Cropping System in the Lowlands of North Shewa,
Ethiopia. Advances in Agriculture, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6987871
Tesfamicheal Wossen, A. (2015). Climate Variability , Social Capital and Food Security in
Sub-Saharan Africa : Household Level Assessment of Potential Impacts and Adaptation
Options. 490.
Tessema, Y. A., Joerin, J., & Patt, A. (2019). Crop switching as an adaptation strategy to
climate change: the case of Semien Shewa Zone of Ethiopia. International Journal of
Climate Change Strategies and Management, 11(3), 358–371.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2018-0043
Tun, Y. Y., & Phyo, A. (2019). Economic Analysis of Green Mung Bean in Selected Area ,
Myanmar. 8(12), 394–401. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20203145
Tun, Y. Y., Phyo, A., Taw, N. P., & Taw, N. P. (2020). Economic Analysis of Production and
Marketing Activities of Mung Bean (Green gram) Farmers in Selected Areas in Yangon
Region, Myanmar. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 11(22), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.7176/jesd/11-22-01
Umata, H. (2018). Evaluation of Adaptability of Mung Bean Varieties in Moisture Stress of
Eastern Harerghe Zone. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal,
13(2), 49–52. https://doi.org/10.19080/artoaj.2018.13.555880
Verbeek, M. (2007). A guide to modern econometrics. In Applied Econometrics (Vol. 8, Issue
4).
Wang, Y., Liu, G., Guo, E., & Yun, X. (2018). Quantitative agricultural flood risk assessment

90
 using vulnerability surface and copula functions. Water (Switzerland), 10(9).
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091229
Wouterse, F., Andrijevic, M., & Schaeffer, M. (2022). The microeconomics of adaptation:
Evidence from smallholders in Ethiopia and Niger. World Development, 154, 105884.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105884
Wps, C., Dercon, S., Gilligan, D. O., Hoddinott, J., & Woldehanna, T. (2007). growth and
poverty in fifteen Ethiopian villages.
Wu, M., Zhu, Y., & Yang, Q. (2022). Diversification or specialisation? Farmers’ cropping
strategy and economic performance under climate change in China. International
Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 14(1), 20–38.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2021-0031
Yanos, M. H. A., & Leal, R. C. (2020). Mungbean (Vigna radiata) as a Source of Income
among Farmers. GATR Journal of Business and Economics Review, 5(1), 10–17.
https://doi.org/10.35609/jber.2020.5.1(2)
Yehuala, K., Daneil, A., Abiro, T., Amsalu, A., & Dejene, M. (2018). Participatory on farm
evaluation of improved mungbean technologies in the low land areas of North Shewa
Zone Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural
Development, 10(8), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.5897/jaerd2018.0962
Zamrodah, Y. (2016). 済無 No Title No Title No Title. 15(2), 1–23.
Zegeye, M. B., Fikire, A. H., & Assefa, A. B. (2022). Impact of Agricultural Technology
Adoption on Food Consumption Expenditure: Evidence from Rural Amhara Region,
Ethiopia. Cogent Economics and Finance, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.2012988
Zone, S. (2016). Household level determinants of adoption speed of soil fertility boosting
technology : a duration analysis approach of compost in Toke Kutaye District. 14(14),
113–118.

91