Belayneh Yerssie

College of Development Studies
Center of Environmental Studies
Thesis on:
Assessment of Determinants of Climate Smart Agriculture Practice

Adoption in Gozamin District, North West Ethiopia
By: BelaynehYerssie … GSR/8955/12

Advisor: Belay Simane (Professor)
A thesis Submitted to the Center of Environmental Studies, College of

Development Studies, Addis Ababa University in Partial Fulfillment for the
Requirement of MA Degree in Development Studies (Environment and
Sustainable Development).
September, 2021
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

DECLARATION
I BelaynehYerssie, Registration NumberGSR/8955/12, do hereby declare that this thesis is

my original work and that it had not been submitted partially; or in full, by any other person
for an award of degree in any other University.
Submitted by:
Full Name…………………………………….. Signature……….…… date………………..
Approved by:
This thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as University supervisor.
Name of Advisor ………...……………………. Signature ……………… date…………….

APPROVAL
I undersigned certify that they have read and hereby recommend to Addis Ababa University
to accept the thesis submitted by BelaynehYerssie and entitled “Assessment of determinants
of climate smart agriculture practice adoption in Gozamin district, North West Ethiopia” in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of a Master of Arts Degree in
Development Studies (Environment and Sustainable Development)
Submitted by:
Full Name: ……………………………………..…. Signature ………….. date ………..….
Approved by:
Name of Advisor…………………………………. Signature ……………. date …………….
Name of Supervisor ……………………………… Signature ……………. date …………….
Name of Internal Examiner ……………………… Signature ……………. date ...………….
Name of External Examiner……………………… Signature ……………. date ...………….
Name of Head of Department…………………… Signature………………date ……...…….

Acknowledgement
First and for most I would like to thank the almighty God without whom nothing is happened.
Then my great gratitude goes to my advisor Professor Belay Simane for his constructive
advises, encouragement and morale.
My next gratitude goes to my beloved wife and my kids for their support during my study
and thesis work. Finally, I would also like to thank Experts in Gozamin District Office of
Agriculture staffs for their cooperation and kindness in providing me with access to
information.
II | P a g e
Table of Contents
DECLARATION.......................................................................................................................................... I
APPROVAL ................................................................................................................................................. I
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................................... II
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 5
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................. 6
Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ 8
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 9
1.1. Background and Justification of the Study .............................................................................. 9
1.2. Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................................... 10
1.3. Basic Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 11
1.4. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................................. 12
1.4.1. General Objective ............................................................................................................. 12
1.4.2. Specific Objectives ............................................................................................................ 12
1.5. Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 12
1.6. Scope of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 12
1.7. Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER TWO: LITREATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 14
2.1. Theoretical Literature .............................................................................................................. 14
2.2. Empirical Literature ................................................................................................................. 16
2.3. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................ 21
3.1. Description of the Study Area .................................................................................................. 21
3.2. Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 22
3.3. Research Methods ..................................................................................................................... 22
3.3.1. Study Population and Sampling Frame .......................................................................... 22
3.3.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques ........................................................................... 23
3.3.3. Data Sources and Data collection Instruments .............................................................. 24
3.3.4. Methods of Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 24
3.3.5. Model Specification ............................................................................................................... 25
3|Page
3.4. Reliability and Validity of the Instruments ............................................................................ 28
3.5. Ethical Considerations.............................................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 29
4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 29
4.2. Results of Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................... 29
4.2.1. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics ....................................................... 29
4.2.2. Types of the Adopted Climate Smart Agriculture Practice .......................................... 31
4.2.3. Extension Service and Training Characteristics ............................................................ 32
4.2.4. Asset Ownership Related characteristics ................................................................................ 35
4.3. The Adoption Level of Climate Smart Agriculture ............................................................... 37
4.4. Results of the Econometric Model ........................................................................................... 38
4.4.1. Goodness Fit of Binary Logistic Regression ................................................................... 38
4.4.2. Result of Binary Logistic Regression Analysis ............................................................... 39
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 45
5.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 45
5.2. Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 46
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 48
ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................. 52
4|Page
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Variable Definition and Expected Signs ………………………………………...…. 26
Table 4.1. Respondent’s age and family size characteristics …………………………………. 28

Table 4.2. Respondent’s sex and education characteristics ………………………………….… 29
Table 4.3. Distribution of the respondent’s source of income ……………………………...…………… 30
Table 4.4. Distribution of types of climate smart agriculture practice adopted ……………...… 31
Table 4.5. Respondent’s farm experience and land size ……………………………………….. 32
Table 4.6. Distribution of respondent’s access to training, extension service, access to market,
Access to credit and membership of agricultural association………………………. ……….... 33
Table 4.7. Respondents land holding right, non farm income, livestock ownership and
information characteristics ………………………………………………...…………………….35
Table 4.8. Distribution of respondents CSA adoption and distance from farm land …….…….. 37
Table 4.9. Determinants of the adoption of climate smart agriculture in the study area ………..39
Table 4.10. Determinates of adoption of CSA using odds Ratio ……………………………..…42
5|Page
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Conceptual framework developed by the researcher (2020) ………………………………. 19
Figure 3.1. Map of the study area ………………………………………………………………………. 20
Figure 0-1 Climate variability perception category of participants computed from STATA …. 36
6|Page
Acronyms
CSA Climate Smart Agriculture
CSAT Climate Smart Agricultural Technology
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GDoFEDGozamin District Office of Finance and Economic Development
IFAD International Food and Agriculture Development
KM Kilo-Meter
UNEP United Nation Environment Program
WFP World Food Program
7|Page
Abstract
Climate change impacts on production are expected to translate into economic impacts at
various scales. At farm level, climate change will cause reduced income for households which
will limit the capacity to acquire assets. However, the existing empirical literature shows
different factors contribute for the adoption of climate smart agriculture practice. The purpose of
this study was to identify the factors of assessment of determinants of climate smart agriculture
practice adoption in Gozamin district, North West Ethiopia. This study used a cross sectional
survey research design. Structured interview questionnaire with 323 sample respondents were
held to collect primary data from the sample respondents, who were selected using probability
sampling technique supplemented by key informant interview. Descriptive statistics and binary
logistic regression model were used to identify demographic, socio-economic and extension
service determinants that determine the assessment of climate smart agricultural practices
adoption in the study area. The result show that 43.34% of the household heads adopted climate
smart agriculture. The resulting distribution show that, climate smart agriculture practices: crop
rotation (25.53%), inter-cropping (20.57%), soil and water conservation (16.31%), organic
fertilizer (15.6%), agroforestry (8.51%), mulching (4.96%), improved grazing (4.26%),
improved seed (2.13%) were adopted by the respondents in the study area. The study found that,
variables such as sex, educational status, access to extension service, credit and training are
significantly and positively affects the assessment of climate smart agriculture practice adoption
in the study area. Whereas, land size significantly and negatively affects the adoption of climate
smart agriculture practice in the study area. Thus, in the process of adoption of climate smart
agriculture, these variables should be considered by the agriculture sector decision makers,
donor agencies at different level and individual farm household heads.
Key Words: Adoption, Climate Smart Agriculture, Gozamin, Logit Regression Model
8|Page
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and Justification of the Study
Climate change has become a global threat as its impacts are noticeable in all sectors in general
and the agricultural sector is more sensitive to climate change in particular. Almost all or most of
the communities in developing counties are agrarian. The effect of climate change is pervasive
especially in Africa and sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2016).
Agriculture in Africa must undergo a major transformation in the coming decades in order to
meet the intertwined challenges of achieving food security, reducing poverty and responding to
climate change without depletion of the natural resource base. Although agriculture looms large
in the economy of Africa, employing more than 60% of the population and contributing 25-34%
of the GDP, productivity is low and food insecurity is high. Reviewing the different dimensions
of food insecurity around the world (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2014).
Ethiopia is a vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change mainly due to its high
dependence on rain-fed agriculture, low adaptive capacity and a higher reliance on natural
resources base for livelihood, among others (EPCC, 2015).
The agriculture of Ethiopia is characterized by low productivity (FAO, 2016). In developing

countries, where the economy is heavily relay on agriculture, development of the agricultural
could be the most efficient poverty reduction measure. Yet, agricultural expansion for economic
development which comes at the expense of soil, water, biodiversity and forest conflicts with the
nation’s green economy development goals, and often compromises production and development
in the longer term. Ethiopia has initiated Climate-Resilient Green Economy initiative to protect
the country from the adverse effects of climate change to realize its ambition of reaching middle
income status in 2025 (FDRE, 2011).
Persistent land fragmentation and declining farm size that seriously leading to land degradation,
deterioration of soil fertility, low agricultural productivity and undermine the sustainability of the
agricultural sector in the study area. Consequently, farmers have started cultivating steep slopes
and communal grazing lands, clearing forests and endangering biodiversity which is a means for
climate change induced problems. Soil acidity, soil fertility and soil erosion are major production
9|Page
constraints in the study area (setotaw et al.2020).According to Alemayehu (2019) smallholder
farmers in the study area produce crops on marginal lands and live in areas with poor access to
markets and technical assistance in the form extension service and rural credit.
The existed literatures show that adoption of climate smart agriculture is negligible in most of
the rural areas. This implies that if the problem is not solved, it is difficult to maximize
agricultural productivity in particular and to achieve sustainable development in general.
Therefore, this study is aimed to identify the determinants that affect the climate smart
agriculture practice adoption in Gozamin district, North West Ethiopia.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Climate change impacts on production are expected to translate into economic impacts at various
scales. In a farm level, climate change will cause reduced income for households which will limit
the capacity to acquire assets and meet their social cost (Belay and Getaneh, 2016).
Agriculture remains vital to the economy of Ethiopia and its development has significant
implications for poverty reduction (FAO and UNEP, 2015). Climate change increasingly affects
agriculture and results in socio-economic consequences for national economies and individuals.
However, the adoption of climate smart agriculture is not well studied, especially in a rural
agricultural area, including the study area.
Global warming, drought and extreme weather are frequently fluctuating yields and quality of
crops produced (Arman et al, 2016). To fulfil the Climate Resilient Green Economy target,
Climate Smart Agriculture practices are needed. In the national appropriate mitigation actions,
the planned mitigation technologies and practices by agriculture sector is presented practicing
composting 80000 KM2 of cropland and agroforestry on 261840 square kilometers (FDRE,
2011).
Melaku et al. (2016) asserted there is a lack of specific and adequate research findings on climate
smart agriculture practices in Ethiopia for the various agro-ecology, soil type, rainfall pattern,
farming system, temperature and moisture ranges. A study conducted at national level in
Ethiopia has identified that the adoption rate of CSA practices is low and there is a gap in
research at local level regarding CSA scoping study. Williams et al. (2015) confirmed that there
10 | P a g e
is no as such a climate smart agriculture practice but the natural, bio-physical, socioeconomic,
institutional and development situation of the local area determines the context with in which the
climate smartness is evaluated and recommended.
On the other hand, previous Studies found that different variables determine the adoption of CSA
practice in different area. Francis Maguza-Tembo et al (2017) found that age, sex, location,
farmer type, off-farm participation, land ownership, climate variability knowledge and credit are
among the factors. Whereas Zakari S., (2019) argues that access to training, membership of an
organization, source of income, family size and livestock ownership are the determinants to
adopt climate smart agriculture.
Abegunde V., (2019) in his study identified farming experience, farm size, agricultural
extension, media, membership of an agricultural association and perception of climate change
determines adoption CSA. AryalP., et al (2018) focus on demographic and socio-economic
characteristics. Saha K., et al (2019) found occupation, family size, farm size, farming
experience, cattle ownership, annual income, market difficulty, access to farm information,
training, organization affiliation and perception of climate change are determinant variables of
adoption of climate smart agricultural technology.
However, there are still inconsistencies in variable and in significance as well. Some of them
used descriptive statistics and others used different models for data analysis. Therefore, this gap
initiated to undertake this study which aims to assess the determinants of Climate Smart
Agriculture practice adoption in Gozamin District, North West Ethiopia to fill the existing
knowledge gap and to contribute to the existing limited literature.
1.3. Basic Research Questions
• What is the adoption level of climate smart agriculture practice in the study area?
• What are the determinant factors affecting the adoption of climate smart agriculture
practice in Gozamin District?
11 | P a g e
1.4. Objectives of the Study
1.4.1. General Objective
The general objective of this study was to Assess the Determinants of Climate Smart Agriculture
Practice adoption in Gozamin District, North West Ethiopia.
1.4.2. Specific Objectives
• To assess the adoption level of climate smart agriculture practice among household heads.
• To identify the determinants of adoption of climate smart agriculture practice in a study
area.
1.5. Significance of the Study
Climate change is a major threat for agricultural sector and the high vulnerability of the sector
demands adoption of climate smart agricultural practices to keep sustainability. On the other
hand, identification of the determinants to adopt climate smart agriculture is the most crucial for
agriculture and climate change sector policy makers, decision makers and to those future
researchers on this cross-cutting issue.
1.6. Scope of the Study
The study would be made to have spatial and thematic delimitation. Spatially, the study was
conducted in Gozamin District of North West Ethiopia. The primary focus of this research was
on the climate smart agricultural practice adoption. Thematically, the study was delimited to
examine the adoption status of climate smart agriculture in the study are and to identify the major
determinants that affect climate smart agriculture practice adoption in the rural context.
1.7. Limitations of the Study
Some of the limitations in this study are described as follows: the findings of this study cannot
necessarily represent all factors determining the adoption of climate smart agriculture. Therefore,
it is suggested that other researchers to include more factors which are expected to have effect on
the adoption of climate smart agriculture. The other limitation of this study is that, the result is
12 | P a g e
not generalized to other districts with different agro-ecology zone. Despite these limitations, the
researcher has paid due attention to ensure the reliability and validity of the collected data.
13 | P a g e
CHAPTER TWO: LITREATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, the researcher reviewed some theoretical and empirical works on the adoption of
climate smart agriculture practice, which have received a great deal of attention in development
literature and national plans of many countries. Thus, this chapter contains the conceptual and
theoretical frameworks, empirical works conducted on the adoption of climate smart agriculture
and finally the conceptual framework is included.
2.1. Theoretical Literature
Climate-smart agriculture, a concept developed by Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), is

an approach to developing the technical, policy and investment conditions to achieve sustainable
agricultural development for food security under climate change (FAO, 2013).
The emerging of CSA can be note to have started after the Hague conference where countries
met to discuss the adverse effect of climate change and how to mitigate the effects. This
conference led to a number of actions and policies to be implemented in order to achieve its
objectives (FAO, 2015).
Lipper and Zilberman (2018) however noted that the term "CSA" was widely adopted before the
development of a formal conceptual framework and tools to implement the approach, leading to
considerable variation in meanings applied to the term, hence some controversies in the use of
the term. At the same time, the aforementioned authors argue that no specific guidance was
provided by the FAO on how to define a CSA practice, or prioritize amongst objectives, to
develop site specific CSA solutions.
In the broader Ethiopian context, climate smart agriculture practices (CSA) and technologies are
being implemented within the framework of integrated watershed management, which
incorporate a wide range of practices in crop and livestock production including agroforestry,
crop rotation and intercropping as well as soil and water conservation measures such as
soil/stone bunds, terracing, infiltration ditches, and tie ridges among others (FAO, 2016).
CSA is being promoted for the adaptation and mitigation of climate change and variability in
many places. In terms of outputs, the concept of CSA has been well articulated. CSA should help
14 | P a g e
to improve farm productivity, increase resilience to weather extremes and decrease greenhouse
gas emissions wherever possible (FAO, 2010; Steenwerth et al., 2014).
Ethiopia signed and ratified many of the international conventions and protocols related to
climate change and land degradation including the united-nations framework convention on
climate change, the convention on biological diversity and the United Nations (UN) convention
to combat desertification. In Ethiopia there are policies and strategies relevant to CSA includes
the climate resilient green economy strategy, national adaptation program of action, Ethiopian
program of adaptation to climate change, nationally appropriate mitigation actions, rural
development policy and strategies, growth and transformation plan, Ethiopia’s Agricultural
Sector Policy and Investment Framework, Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation,
Environmental Policy of Ethiopia (Melaku et al., 2016).
About 48% of Africa’s population or approximately 450 million people live in extreme poverty,
on less than US$1.25 per day, with 63% of the continent’s poor living in rural areas depending
on agriculture for their livelihoods (World Bank, 2015).
Lehmann et al. (1998) climate smart agricultural technologies have potential in addressing loss
of soil fertility and land degradation. Climate smart agriculture technologies including
agroforestry, use of organic manure and conservation agriculture have emerged as a sustainable
land management practice.
Thangata et al. (2007) found that many smallholder farmers are in a state of poverty and cannot
afford to purchase industrial inputs to improve yields therefore climate smart agricultural
technologies play an important role to improve yields. Climate-smart agriculture include proven
practical techniques like; mulching, intercropping, conservation agriculture, crop rotation,
integrated crop livestock management, agroforestry, improved grazing, and improved water
management. These technologies involve innovative practices such as better weather forecasting,
more resilient food crops and risk insurance.
Fischer et al., (2002) and Boko et al., (2007) indicate that climate change will cause a wide-
ranging decline in most of the crops such as sorghum, maize, millet and groundnuts in several
countries such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Zambia, Ghana and Gambia. Yields from crops that
rely on rainfall could drop by 50% by 2020 and dwindle 16 net revenues from crops by 90% by
15 | P a g e
2100 in some countries, worsening food insecurity and putting millions of persons at risk of
starvation, with Africa expected to account for the majority by 2080s particularly small-scale
farmers.
Adaptation in agriculture has increasingly gained attention with its application taking different
dimensions such as transformation of whole farming systems, modifications of existing systems
and adoption of practices such as soil and water conservation, agroforestry (Meridian Institute,
2011).
2.2. Empirical Literature
Temesgen et al. (2014) Ethiopia is vulnerable to climate variability and change, and it frequently
faces climate related hazards, commonly drought and floods. The variability of rain fall and the
increasing temperature were a cause for frequent drought and famine, and putting disastrous
impact on the livelihood of the peoples.
Francis M., et al (2017) conducted a study on determinants of climate smart agriculture technologies
adoption in the Drought Prone Districts of Malawi using a Multivariate Probit Analysis. The study
reveals that gender, age, location, farmer type, level of education, livelihood status/off-farm
participation, land size and ownership, household income, household expenditure, anticipated
weather pattern, climate variability knowledge, access to credit affects the adoption decision of
Climate Smart Technologies significantly.
ZakariS., et al (2019) undertake a study and their econometric models revealed that access to
credit service, access to training, membership of an organization, source of income, family size
and ownership of animal of traction influence significantly and positively the adoption of these
climate smart agriculture technologies and practices.
Pagliacci F., et al, (2020) in their study findings highlight that non-financial factor should be
considered in order to design more effective schemes to prompt farmers to adopt and continue
such practices over the long run. Their finding also stresses the need to complement financial
support with proactive information-based instruments.
16 | P a g e
Tran N., et al (2019)in their study showed that gender, age, number of family workers, climate-
related factors, farm characteristics, distance to markets, access to climate information,
confidence on the know-how of extension workers, membership in social or agricultural groups
and attitude toward risk were the major factors affecting the decision to adopt climate smart
agriculture technologies. However, the effects of these factors on the adoption of climate smart
agricultural technologies varied across three provinces. These technologies when adopted tend to
increase NRI but the increase is much greater when these are combined.
Abegunde V., et al, (2019) in their study on the adoption of climate smart agriculture identified
that, educational status, farm income, farming experience, size of farmland, contact with
agricultural extension, exposure to media, agricultural production activity, membership of an
agricultural association or group and the perception of the impact of climate change were found
to be statistically significant and positively correlated with the level of CSA adoption.
Furthermore, off-farm income and distance of farm to homestead were statistically significant
but negatively correlated with the Climate Smart Agriculture level of adoption. They argue that
climate change-related education through improved extension contact and exposure to mass
media can strengthen integrated farm activities that bolster farm income.
Belay et al, (2017) in their study on climate smart agriculture found that 90% of farmers have
already perceived climate variability and 85% made attempts to adapt using practices like crop
diversification, planting date adjustment, soil and water conservation and management,
increasing the intensity of input use, integrating crop with livestock, and tree planting. Their
result found that education, family size, gender, age, livestock ownership, farming experience,
frequency of contact with extension agents, farm size, access to market, access to climate
information and income were the key factors determining farmers’ choice of adaptation practice.
Maharjan S., et al (2018) conduct a study on the issue and their finding show significant
correlations between multiple Climate Smart Agricultural Practices, indicating that their
adoptions are interrelated, providing opportunities to exploit the complementarities. The results
confirm that both the probability and intensity of adoption of climate smart agriculture practices
are affected by numerous factors, such as demographic characteristics, farm plot features, access
to market, socio-economics, climate risks, access to extension services and training. Farmers
17 | P a g e
who perceive high temperature as the major climate risk factor are more likely to adopt crop
diversification and minimum tillage. Farmers are less likely to adopt site-specific nutrient
management if faced with short winters; however, they are more likely to adopt minimum tillage
in this case. Training on agricultural issues is found to have a positive impact on the likelihood
and the intensity of climate smart agricultural practices adoption.
NdambiriH., et al (2019)in their study on climate smart agriculture practice found that, social
factors (age and sex) were found to significantly relate to adoption of climate smart agriculture.
Land size and income facilitate the adoption of CSA practices. Land ownership increases the
likelihood of farmers adopting strategies that capture the returns from their investment. Most of
the training that they have received has been mainly through workshops, field day and group
training.
SuruguM., et al (2019) studies the determinants of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) Adoption
among Smallholder Food Crop Farmers in the Techiman Municipality, Ghana. The results
indicate that the CSA practices implemented by most of the farmers include using personal
experience to predict weather events, reliance on radio/television to access weather information,
minimum tillage, use of organic manure and forestation. Economic, environmental, socio-
cultural and institutional factors influenced CSA adoption.
Saha K., et al (2019) investigates factors affecting to adoption of climate-smart agriculture

practices by coastal farmers in Bangladesh. Their results revealed that farmers mainly perform
CSA practices to cope with the effects of climate change, such as salinity, floods, cyclones,
storm surge, and droughts. The practices are saline tolerant varieties, submergence-tolerant
varieties, drought resistant varieties, an early variety of rice, Sorjan method, pond side vegetable
cultivation, watermelon cultivation, sunflower cultivation, plum cultivation, relay cropping, urea
deep placement, organic fertilizer, mulching, rainwater harvesting, and seed storage in plastic
bags. The logit model indicates that farmer’s level of education, occupation, family size,
cultivated farm size, farming experience, cattle ownership, annual income, market difficulty,
access to farm information, training experience, organization affiliation, and perception of
climate change, all affect farmers’ selection of adaptation strategies for climate change.
18 | P a g e
Wamalwa W., (2017) undertake a study on the adoption of climate smart agricultural practices
among small scale farmers of kitutu and nyaribarichache in kisii county, kenya. climate smart
practices, adoption of climate smart practices was shown to be enhanced by higher income level,
educational level, size of the farm, farming experience, knowledge of the practices, weather and
climate information based on chi-square test results, which were within the significant level.
Gicheha1 G., et al (ND) conducted a study on advancing climate smart agriculture: adoption
potential of multiple on-farm dairy production strategies among farmers in Murang’a County,
Kenya. Their findings show interdependence of the strategies with complementarily and
substitutionaly relationships among the practices. The interdependence can facilitate the tailoring
of suitable packages of strategies which are interrelated to optimize their synergies. Capital,
gender, water availability, market access and infrastructure and social networks were found to be
the most important determinants of adoption decision as well as the intensity of adoption.
NyengereJ., (2015) in his study on socioeconomic factors affecting the adoption of use of
organic manure as climate smart agriculture technology in Malawi. The findings showed that
education, household size and income were significant at 0.05level of significance. Since
education, total annual income and size of the household were said to influence use of organic
manure then they deserve particular attention in developing plans and implementation of this
climate smart agricultural technology.
19 | P a g e
2.3. Conceptual Framework
Based on the theoretical and empirical literature discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs,
climate smart agriculture practice adoption is influenced by a multitude of determinants. To align
the conceptual framework with the research objectives, adoption of climate smart agriculture
practice is the dependent variable and the mentioned independent variables. The conceptual
framework for this study showed in the following figure.
Demographic & socio-economic variables

- Age
- Sex
- Education
- Family size
- Source of income
Extension & Training Variables

- Farming experience Adoption of climate
- Access to extension smart agriculture
- Access to training
- Access to credit
- Association membership
- Access to market
- Climate variability knowledge
Asset Ownership
- Access to radio/television
- Livestock ownership
- Off-farm participation
- Land ownership
- Land size
Figure: 2-1 Conceptual Framework Developed by the Researcher, (2021)
20 | P a g e
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section elaborates the study area and methodological approaches that the researcher used to
achieve the study objectives set in chapter one. Here, the research design as broad blue print that
includes sampling procedure, the data source and instruments used, method of data analysis and
interpretation, variables and model specification were presented here under in detail.
3.1. Description of the Study Area
According to GDoFED (2020) Gozamin district is found in Amhara national regional state, East
Gojjam zone of north western part of Ethiopia, which is 270 km far from the regional capital
Bahir Dar and 300 km far from Addis Ababa.
Source: Google Map
Figure: 3.1. Map of the study Area
21 | P a g e
The agro-climatic zone of the district varies from Kolla, WoinaDega and Dega. The annual
rainfall of the Woreda varies from 1000–1510 mm per year. The mean minimum temperature for
the district is 8.50C to mean maximum temperature of 300C.According to the census report
made by CSA, 1994, the total population size of the district is about 1,700,331. The over
whelming majority of the population in the district is living on Agriculture producing varieties of
crops such as teff, cereals, oil seeds, pulses and rearing of livestock.
The woreda shares boundary with Debre Elias located to west,Sinan lies to the north, Aneded
located to the east and finally Abay River to the south. The geographic location extends from 90
58.4 ½to 100 38 ½ North latitude and 370 24 ½to 370 54.6 ½ East longitude. Gozamin district
has an aerial size of 1,800 km2. The Woreda hosts a topographic variation that extends from 920
m.a.s.l to 3700 m.a.s.l, which forms the Choke Mountain range.
3.2. Research Design
This study used a survey research method since it is based on households’ survey as a unit of
analysis. Therefore, the study was conducted based on cross-sectional data collected by
structured interview with the help of pre-tested questioners to identify assessment of
determinants of climate smart agriculture practice adoption in Gozamin district.
3.3. Research Methods
3.3.1. Study Population and Sampling Frame
The study area, Gozamin district is selected purposively among 17 rural districts in East Gojjam
Zone, because of my exposure to know the area well. According to GDoFED (2020) the district
is divided by 25 rural administrative “kebeles” which has 25,184 households. Households are the
smallest sampling units for this study and the heads of each household will be served as a target
study population. The district is characterized by three agro-ecological zones (Dega, Woynadega
and Kola). Thus, the three agro-ecological zones formed the base for three different clusters of
“kebeles.” Because, except agro-ecology differences, all rural kebeles of the district has almost
similar characteristics in socio-economic and cultural practices. Out of these, one kebele from
each agro-ecology cluster (i.e., Gedemala, Enerata and MayAngetam) are selected randomly,
22 | P a g e
considering the time and cost limitations of the researcher. Thus, three kebeles selected randomly
from each cluster with 3389 household heads formed the sample frame for this study.
3.3.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques
The probability and non-probability sampling techniques were used in this study. Simple random
sampling technique was used from the probability sampling techniques to select three “kebeles”
with a total of 3389 household heads. According to Yamane (1967) a simplified formula to
calculate sample sizes assuming a 95% confidence interval and p = 0.05 level. Thus, the sample
size was calculated as:
N 3389
n= = = 357
1 + N(e)2 1 + 3389(0.05)2
Where n is the sample size, N indicates the size of population, and e is the level of accuracy.
Since, the target population is less than 10,000 the desired sample size is adjusted using finite
population correction formula. Because a given sample size provides proportionately more
information for a small population. Thus, the sample size is adjusted as:
n 357
fn = n−1
= 357−1 = 323
1+
N 1+ 3389
Where: fn = The adjusted sample size
n = The sample size which is 357
N= The target population size, which is 3389
Based on the sample size determination formula the sample size of the study is made to be 323
household heads. According to Bhattacherje (2012) systematic sampling technique involves a
random start and then proceeds with the selection of every kth household head from that starting
point onwards (k = N/n), where k is the ratio of sampling frame size N and desired sample size n.
Hence, this study used this method to select every 9th household head from “kebele” name list in
three “kebeles” until the total sample size of the study reached.
23 | P a g e
Further, key informants were selected for key informant interview from Gozamin District
Agriculture office and East Gojjam Zone Department of Agriculture having deep information
about the issues as a result of their official responsibility and professional role.
3.3.3. Data Sources and Data Collection Instruments
The study used both primary and secondary sources of data using different data collection
instruments that enabled to achieve the objectives of the study. The primary data was collected
from sample household heads and key informants in the study area of Gozamin District. The
study used structured questionnaires and key informant interview guidelines as a data collection
instrument.
Structured interview questionnaire was prepared and translated to Amharic which is the local
language in the study area. These techniques were used to collect cross sectional data from
primary sources which are administered by the interviewers in the district who take research
course under close supervision of the researcher. The interviewers were well oriented by the
researcher and familiarized on the interview process, purpose of the study and how to approach
the respondents ethically to generate the right and consistent data.
Key Informant Interview was held with district and zonal agriculture development experts,
coordinators and head of the office. This enabled the researcher to get qualitative data to explain
the adoption of climate smart agriculture practice. Secondary data was also the other source to
collect data from published and unpublished materials (like; sectoral reports, previous researches
and regulations) in relation to this study were reviewed well.
3.3.4. Methods of Data Analysis
The collected data was analyzed by using qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative
analysis was used to present results from the key informant interview and some results from
questionnaires asking about reasons and justifications. It was presented in the form of narrations
and statements to support the findings of the study. On the other hand, the statistical analysis was
taking a form of descriptive and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics was presented as
frequency, percentage, tables, mean and standard deviation to describe the socio-economic
characteristics of respondents.
24 | P a g e
The inferential statistics were used to identify the determinants of adoption of climate smart
agriculture. Binary logistic regression was employed to estimate the level of determination of
demographic and socio-economic variables on the dependent variable. Then the collected data
was entered, cleaned and analyzed using STATA data analysis tool.
3.3.5. Model Specification
The dependent variable in this study is adoption of climate smart agriculture which was
measured as a binary outcome. Adoption of climate smart agriculture practice is a dichotomous
variable, best measured in terms of adopter and non-adopter by the households. According to
Thangata et al. (2007) and Lehmann et al., (1998) climate-smart agriculture includes proven
practical techniques like mulching, intercropping, conservation agriculture, soil and water
conservation, crop rotation, integrated crop livestock management, agroforestry, improved
grazing, and improved water management. Therefore, in this study a respondent who adopt one
of these technologies was considered as adopter of climate smart agriculture. Thus, in order to
identify determinants of the adoption of climate smart agriculture practices, binary logistic
regression model was used. This model is a statistical technique for predicting the probability of
an event, given a set of predictor variables.
The effect of predictor variables is usually explained in terms of odds ratio and hence the name
logistic regression, also called the log-odds function. This model applies maximum likelihood
estimation after transforming the dependent in to a logit variable. Binary logistic regression is
one part of logistic regression which is predictive model that can be used when the outcome
variable is categorical variable with two choices and the independent variables are of any type.
Binary logistic regression has other application of combining the dependent variables to estimate
the probability that particular event will occur, that is a subject which was a member of one of
the groups defined by the dichotomous dependent variable. Due to the above-mentioned issues,
the binary logistic model of adoption of CSA in this study is specified as:
′
𝑒 𝛽𝑜 +𝛽1 𝑋1 +⋯+𝛽𝑘 𝑋𝑘 𝑒𝑋 𝛽
𝑃𝑖 = =
1 + 𝑒𝛽𝑜 +𝛽1 𝑋1 +⋯+𝛽𝑘 𝑋𝑘 1 + 𝑒 𝑋 ′ 𝛽
25 | P a g e
Where, Pi = is the probability of adoption. Hence, the logit transformation of Pi given as follows:
𝑃𝑖
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑡(𝑃𝑖 ) = 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( ) = 𝛽𝑜 + 𝛽1 𝑋1 + ⋯ + 𝛽𝑘 𝑋𝑘
1 − 𝑃𝑖
Where
𝑃𝑖 : Is the probability of adoption
𝛽0 : Is the intercept term
𝛽𝑖 : The coefficient of xi
𝑋𝑖 : Are the explanatory variables
A binary logistic regression model used to determine the relationship between a dichotomous
dependent variable and a group of predictor variables. More formally, let y be the binary
outcome variable indicating adopter or non-adopter with one or zero and p be the probability of y
to be one,
𝑃 = 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏 (𝑦 = 1).
Let x1... x10 be a set of predictor variables. Then the logistic regression of y on x1... x10
estimates parameter values for β0, β1. . . β10 via maximum likelihood method of the following
equation.
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑡(𝑝) = log (𝑝⁄(1 − 𝑝)) = 𝐵0+ 𝐵1 ∗ 𝑋1 + ⋯ + 𝐵10 ∗ 𝑋10
Given the above stated model of binary logistics, the likelihood of the farmers to adopt CSA is
1
given by the expression𝑝𝑖 = 1−𝑒−𝑧𝑖
where 𝑧𝑖 = 𝛽1 + 𝛽2 𝑋𝑖 while the probability of not adopting
1
climate smart agriculture is given as 1 − 𝑝𝑖 = . Hence, the log of the odds ratio is the
1 + 𝑒 𝑧𝑖
𝑝
natural log of the two probabilities i.e. (1−𝑝𝑖 ) (Gujarati, 2004).
𝑖
The independent variables in this study are identified based on the existing empirical literatures
and actual conditions in the study area which are useful to explain the dependent variable.
26 | P a g e
Table 3.1: Definition of Variables and their Expected Signs
Variables Definition of variables Measurement Expected sign
Dependent variable
Adoption of Farmer’s adoption of climate smart Binary

CSATechnology agriculture (1, if yes, otherwise 0)
Independent Variables
Age Age of the respondent in years Continuous +
Sex Sex of the household head Binary +
Education level Year of schooling Categorical +
Family size Number of family members in the household Continuous +
Off farm income Participation in non-farm activities Dummy -
Land size The amount of land size in hectare Continuous -
Access to extension Access to agriculture extension service Categorical +
Access to credit Household heads access to credit from Categorical +

financial institutions
Climate variability Farmers perception on climate variability Ordered +
Source of income The main income source of the household Categorical -
Farming experience Farming experience in year Continuous -
Access to training Access to agriculture related trainings Binary +
Access to market Access to market for products Binary +
Livestock ownership Household heads livestock ownership Binary -
Land ownership Household heads land use right certificate Binary +
Membership Agricultural association membership Binary +
Distance Distance from home to farmland Continuous -
Radio/Television Radio/TV ownership of the household Binary +
Source: Derived from literature review, 2021
27 | P a g e
3.4. Reliability and Validity of the Instruments
The reliability of the questionnaires used in the study was assured through critical and successive
review of this instrument for data collection by academicians where relevant changes and
additions were made where necessary. On the other hand, to assure validity, questionnaires were
designed on the basis of previous studies’ questionnaires and review of related literatures and
objective realities of the study area. Furthermore, to make the instruments even more suited to
the rural household in the study area. In addition, a pilot test was conducted by some sample
questioners to refine the methodology before administering the final data collection. The
structured questionnaires were tested on potential respondents to make the data collecting
instrument’s objective, relevant, suitable to the problem and reliable.
3.5. Ethical Considerations
The study tried to keep the data collection effort in line with ethically acceptable guideline. First,
the researcher got a written consent of the concerned agriculture institution. Added to this, all
participants included in the study were duly informed about the purpose of the study and their
willingness was secured before filling up the questionnaire and conducting key informant
interview. The study also maintained the confidentiality of the identity of each participant.
28 | P a g e
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Introduction
This segment presents the thesis result and discussion of the study in line with objectives set in
chapter one of this study. The first part of this chapter presents the results on respondents’
characteristics, summary statistics of main variables using descriptive statistics and qualitative
support. Moreover, the appropriateness test of the model is presented before getting into the parts
presenting binary logistic regression model estimation results. The main part of this chapter
presents the results from estimation of the econometrics models of adoption of climate smart
agriculture, where significant predictors of adoption of climate smart agriculture are identified
and discussed coherently with relevant findings of other studies.
4.2. Results of Descriptive Statistics
4.2.1. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics
The study surveyed a total of 323 sample respondents through interview questionnaires which
makes the response rate for the study to be 100% without default from the expected sample size.
The results presented in this study are based on this number of sample respondents from the
study area. Looking first to the age of respondents, Table 4.1.Shows that, the average age was
38.22 years with standard deviation of 9.44 from the mean age of the respondents. The result
indicated that most of the respondents of the study were adults given the mean value of age with
its average variation. When the age variation is considered, the respondents have a huge
difference in their age where the minimum age was 26 years while the maximum respondent is
aged 68. The wide gap in age between sampled respondents enables to better understand the
adoption of climate smart agriculture practice among households of different age level.
Table 4.1. Respondent’s age and family size characteristics

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Age 323 38.22291 9.442528 26 68
FamSize 323 4.294118 1.157019 3 6
Source: 2021 field survey
29 | P a g e
The results in Table 4.1 also indicates that, the average family size of respondents was 4.29
members with standard deviation of 1.15 from the mean family size of the respondents. The
result indicated that most of the respondents of the study have nuclear family given the mean
value of family size with its average variation. When the family size variation is considered, the
respondents have a reasonable difference in their family size where the minimum family size was
3 members while the maximum respondent family sizes are 6 members. The reasonable gap in
family size between sampled respondents enables to better understand the adoption of climate
smart agriculture practice among households.
The estimation result in Table 4.2 on the sex of respondents indicates that the highest proportion
in this study is contributed by male respondents which makes (80.19%) of the total sample
respondents, whereas female respondents have a lesser contribution, which accounts (19.81%).
The resulting data from respondents also gives a clue that the majority of male household heads
tend to engage in the outside works of agricultural practice.
Table 4.2. Respondent’s sex and education characteristics
Variable Freq. Percent Cum.
Sex
Female 64 19.81 19.81
Male 259 80.19 100
Total 323 100
Education
No formal schooling 153 47.37 47.37
Grade 1-8 78 24.15 71.52
Grade 9-12 58 17.96 89.47
TVET Diploma and above 34 10.53 100
Total 323 100
30 | P a g e
Further, on educational qualification of respondents of the study, the result in Table 4.2 shows
that most of the participants (47.37%) have no formal schooling followed by primary school
attendants, which account (24.15%) as a manifestation of how much as the household heads are
less involved to adopt the technologies of climate smart agriculture. The key informant interview
with the locality government experts also supported this argument that low level of formal
education is a hurdle to adopt climate smart agriculture. On the other hand, respondents who
have secondary school and college level and above educational status accounts (17.96%) and
(10.53%) respectively.
Table 4.3. Distribution of the respondent’s source of income
Source of income
Crop production 181 56.04 56.04
Livestock rearing 2 0.62 56.66
Non-farm income 5 1.55 58.2
Mixed 135 41.8 100
Total 323 100
Source: 2021 survey
The resulting distribution on the sources of income of the respondents show that, (56.04%) are
engaged in crop production for their income, (41.8%) of the respondents are engaged in mixed
agricultural activity. Whereas, (0.62%) and (1.55%) of the respondents in the study area are
engaged in livestock rearing and non-farm income respectively.
4.2.2. Types of the Adopted Climate Smart Agriculture Practice
The classification of types of climate smart agricultural practices into different types in the study
area is based on the literatures reviewed and manuals for climate smart agricultural development
practice. The resulting distribution show that, climate smart agriculture practices: crop
rotation(25.53%), inter-cropping (20.57%), soil and water conservation (16.31%), organic
fertilizer (15.6%), agroforestry (8.51%), mulching (4.96%), improved grazing (4.26%),
improved seed (2.13%) were adopted by the respondents in the study area.
31 | P a g e
Table 4.4. Distribution of types of climate smart agriculture practice adopted by respondents
types of CSA practiced Freq. Percent Cum.
soil and water conservation 23 16.31 16.31
using organic fertilizer 22 15.6 31.91
inter cropping 29 20.57 52.48
Agroforestry 12 8.51 60.99
crop rotation 36 25.53 86.52
Mulching 7 4.96 91.49
improved grazing 6 4.26 95.74
improved seed 3 2.13 97.87
improved water management 2 1.42 99.29
Others 1 0.71 100
Total 141 100
Further, the least majority of respondents, accounts (1.42%) and (0.71%) adopted improved
water management and other climate smart agriculture technologies respectively.
4.2.3. Extension Service and Training Characteristics
The descriptive summary statistics result on extension service and training characteristics of the
respondents, as presented in table 4.5 show that the farm experience of households, the mean
length of farm experience was 20.46 years with standard deviation of 8.00 from the mean length
of farm experience of the respondents. The result indicated that most of the respondents have a
relatively long period of stay in practicing farming, given the mean value of length of farm
experience with its average variation. The minimum year of farm experience is 3 years, whereas
the maximum year of farm experience was 35 years in the study area.
32 | P a g e
Table 4.5. Respondent’s farm experience and land size
Farm Experi~e 323 20.4644 8.000842 3 35
Distance 323 1.294427 0.666943 0.1 2.6
Land Size 323 0.939412 0.594084 0.2 2
Further, the result on distance of respondents from their home to farm land shows that, the mean
distance was 1.29 kilometer with standard deviation of 0.66 from the mean distance of the
respondents. The result indicated that most of the respondents have a reasonable distance from
their farm land given the mean value of its average variation. The minimum distance was 0.1
kilometer while the maximum distance was 2.6 kilometers from their home to farm land. The
gap in distance between sampled respondents enables to observe the adoption of climate smart
agriculture practices among households.
Further, the result in table 4.6 from summary statics on the extension service show that,
(43.03%) of the respondents have access to extension service. Whereas, (56.97%) of the
respondents have no access to extension service. The result is supported by the findings of key
informant interview, in which inconsistent and/or absence of extension service is creates a gap to
accelerate the adoption rate of climate smart agriculture in the study area.
Table 4.6. Distribution of respondent’s access to training, extension service, access to market,
Access to credit and membership of agricultural association.
Access to training
No 186 57.59 57.59
Yes 137 42.41 100
Total 323 100
Extension Service
No 184 56.97 56.97
Yes 139 43.03 100
33 | P a g e
Total 323 100
Access to market
No 123 38.08 38.08
Yes 200 61.92 100
Total 323 100
Membership Asso
No 194 60.06 60.06
Yes 129 39.94 100
Total 323 100
Access to credit
No 193 59.75 59.75
Yes 130 40.25 100
Total 323 100
Looking to the variable access to credit in table 4.6 above shows that, 40.25% of the respondents
have access to credit service from financial institutions, whereas the vast majority of respondents
contributing (59.75%) have no access to credit service. The result indicates that most of the
respondents have no sufficient access to finance from financial institutions to engage in non-farm
sectors and to adopt and expand climate smart agriculture technologies.
The result of descriptive statistics on the variable access to training indicates that, (42.41%) of
the respondents have access to training on agricultural development (including climate smart
agriculture) practice. Whereas, the rest 59.59% of the respondents have no access to agricultural
trainings. The result indicates that most of the respondents are not trained to create fertile ground
for climate smart agriculture in the study area.
The result from descriptive statistics table 4.6 shows that, only 39.94% of the respondents are
members of the rural agricultural associations in the study area. While most of the respondents
are not member in any of the agriculture associations, which accounts (60.06%) of the total
respondents.
34 | P a g e
According to the result from the descriptive statistics table 4.6 above , most of the respondents
have access to market for their agricultural products, which accounts (61.92%) of the
respondents. On the other hand (38.08%) of the respondents have no access to nearby market for
their agricultural products. The result indicates that most of the respondents are living in the far
rural marginalized areas with no market infrastructure.
4.2.4. Asset Ownership Related characteristics
The descriptive result on asset ownership related characteristics of the respondents is presented
in table 4.7 as follows. Looking to landholding (79.26%) of the total sampled respondents have
certified land use right, where as the rest (20.74%) have no land use right, who use land by rent
and share cropping contracted from those who have land use ownership right and from their
parents.
Table 4.7. Respondents land holding right, non farm income, livestock ownership and
information characteristics

Landholding right S
No 67 20.74 20.74
Yes 256 79.26 100
Total 323 100
Non-farm income
No 230 71.21 71.21
Yes 93 28.79 100
Total 323 100
Livestock ownership
No 73 22.6 22.6
Yes 250 77.4 100
Total 323 100
Owning radio/television
No 83 25.7 25.7
35 | P a g e
Yes 240 74.3 100
Total 323 100
In the above Table 4.5 looking to the land size of respondents, the average land size was 0.93
hectares with standard deviation of 0.59 from the mean land size of the respondents. The result
indicated that most of the respondents have less than a hectare of land given the mean value of its
average variation. Considering the variation, respondents have a huge difference in their land
size where the minimum land size was 0.2 hectare while the maximum respondents have 2
hectares of land. The clear difference in land size between sampled respondents enables to better
understand the adoption trends of climate smart agriculture among households.
According to table 4.7above, A smaller number of respondents are participating in non-farm

income generating activities contributing about (28.79%) of the total sampled respondents while
the majority of the proportion belongs to non-participants in non-farm income generating
activities, which are (71.21%).
Moreover, the result in the above table 4.7 show that most of the respondents (77.4%) are the
owners of livestock assets. On the other hand, the rest (22.6%) of the respondents have no
livestock assets.
Moreover, the summary result from descriptive statistics shows that, majority of the respondents
have radio or television, which accounts (74.3%) of the respondents. Whereas, (25.7%) of the
respondents have no radio or television. From the result we can understand that most of the
respondents have access to information including climate change and climate agriculture through
radio or television.
Based on the result observed from Figure 4.1 that the majority of the respondents (49.85%) and
(17.03%) agree and strongly agree on climate variability in the study area respectively. This
clearly manifested that most of the respondents agree and perceive that climate variability is
there is the study area. On the other hand (21.98%) and (7.12%) of the respondents disagree and
strongly disagree on the existence of climate variability respectively. The rest of the respondents
(4.02%) of the respondents are in a neutral category.
36 | P a g e
7.121%
17.03%
21.98%
4.025%
49.85%
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Figure 4.2.4-1 Climate variability perception category of participants computed from STATA
Findings from key informants reveal that, farmers have good awareness on climate variability in
the study area. They mention deforestation, soil erosion and degradation and extinction of wet-
lands are the major problems that affect climate variability in the study area. Sustainable Land
Management (SLM), Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Africa (ISFM), Livestock and
Fisheries Sector Development Project (LFSDP), Green Innovation Center (GIC), Sasacawo
Global (SG) are among the projects that support the area in relation to climate smart agriculture.
According to the key informants the annual productivity of their land increases when they adopt
climate smart agriculture technologies.
4.3. The Adoption Level of Climate Smart Agriculture
The descriptive statistics result on the respondent’s adoption distribution of climate smart
agriculture in table 4.8 show that the least majority of respondents adopted climate smart
agriculture in the study area.
37 | P a g e
Table 4.8. Distribution of respondents CSA adoption and distance from their farm land

Adoption of CSA
No 183 56.66 56.66
Yes 140 43.34 100
The descriptive statistics result in Table 4.8 on the respondent’s adoption of climate smart
agriculture practice indicates that (43.34%) of the respondents adopted climate smart agriculture.
On the other hand (56.66%) of the respondents are not adopters of the climate smart agriculture
in the study area. The key informant was also supporting this finding of low status of climate
smart agriculture adoption.
4.4. Results of the Econometric Model
4.4.1. Goodness Fit of Binary Logistic Regression
The goodness of fit of a model measures how well the model describes the response variable.
Assessing goodness of fit involves investigating how close values predicted by the model are to
the observed values. The appropriateness of the fitted logistic regression model needs to be
examined before it is accepted for use as in the case of all regression models.
The validity of inferences drawn from modern statistical modeling techniques depends on the
assumptions of the statistical model being satisfied. In order for the analysis to be valid, our
model has to satisfy the assumptions of binary logistic regression, such as: logistic regression
requires the dependent variable to be dichotomous. The dependent variable is binary outcome
taking 1 for adoption of climate smart agriculture and 0 for those not adopted. Larger samples
are needed than for those in linear regression analysis. A minimum of 50 cases per predictor is
recommended for logistic regression. Here in this study 323 sample respondents are involved.
There should be no high multi co linearity among the predictor variables. We do not have one
unique method of detecting it or measuring its strength, but there are some rules of thumb. For
instance, variance inflation factor test used to check the existence of the problem.
38 | P a g e
4.4.2. Result of Binary Logistic Regression Analysis
Binary logistic regression is used to analyze relationships between a dichotomous dependent

variable and independent variables. Logistic regression combines the independent variables to
estimate the probability that a particular event will occur. In this study, logistic regression was
performed to assess the effect of independent variables on the adoption of climate smart
agriculture among rural households. The result of the binary logistic regression obtained from the
STATA output is given in Table 4.9 which displays the coefficient, standard error, significance
level and confidence interval.
Therefore, this study used a binary logistic regression model to estimate the parameters of
determinants of the adoption of climate smart agriculture. The estimated model coefficients
cannot be interpreted directly but they tell us much about the direction and significance of the
predictor variables. Hence, in this study the determinants are identified by using the coefficients,
while the magnitude of influence is expressed using the odds ratio.
Table 4.9. Determinants of the adoption of climate smart agriculture in the study area
Logistic regression Number of obs = 323
Wald chi2(19) = 114.11
Prob > chi2 = 0.000
Log pseudo likelihood = -34.8923 Pseudo R2 = 0.8421
Robust
Adoption Coef. Std. Err. Z P>z [95% Conf. Interval]
Age 0.030492 0.039964 0.76 0.445 -0.04783 0.108819
Sex 1.061238 0.560473 1.89 0.058 -0.03727 2.159744
Edu
Grade 1-8 2.07702 0.977968 2.12 0.034 0.160239 3.993801
Grade 9-12 2.612697 1.011426 2.58 0.010 0.630339 4.595055
Diploma and above 0.318006 0.763008 0.42 0.677 -1.17746 1.813474
FamSize 0.579015 0.456753 1.27 0.205 -0.3162 1.474234
39 | P a g e
LivestockHolding -1.72832 0.967466 -1.79 0.074 -3.62452 0.167875
farmExperiance -0.02782 0.037051 -0.75 0.453 -0.10044 0.044802
LandSize -2.10685 0.795414 -2.65 0.008 -3.66583 -0.54786
CVariability 0.162095 0.31734 0.51 0.609 -0.45988 0.78407
Extension 5.928385 0.980616 6.05 0.000 4.006413 7.850358
NonAgriIncome -1.16949 0.790107 -1.48 0.139 -2.71808 0.379089
Credit 1.418885 0.747722 1.9 0.058 -0.04662 2.884392
Training 5.740284 1.106676 5.19 0.000 3.571239 7.909328
Land_holding -0.5847 0.75494 -0.77 0.439 -2.06435 0.894958
Distance -0.01978 0.473116 -0.04 0.967 -0.94707 0.907507
AccessMarket 0.938568 1.425282 0.66 0.510 -1.85493 3.732069
MembershipAsso 0.332662 0.800496 0.42 0.678 -1.23628 1.901605
Radio_TV 0.613912 1.358397 0.45 0.651 -2.0485 3.27632
_cons -8.04326 2.447039 -3.29 0.001 -12.8394 -3.24716
Based on the binary logistic regression result, looking first at the variable sex, the estimated
binary logistic regression coefficient shows that sex of the respondents significantly affects the
adoption of climate smart agriculture in a positive direction. The regression result indicated that
being male increases the likelihood of adopting climate smart agriculture among respondents,
which is significant at 95% confidence interval. The positive effect may be because of the male
exposures to practice agricultural practices.
Further, the estimated logistic regression coefficients shows that education level (grade 1-8 and
grade 9-12) significantly affects the adoption of climate smart agriculture in a positive direction.
The regression result indicated that joining grade 1-8 and grade 11-12 increases the likelihood of
adopting climate smart agriculture among respondents which is significant at 95% confidence
interval. The positive effect of education may be attributed to the increased understanding of
environmental degradation and climate change problems compared to those of the respondents
with no formal schooling.
40 | P a g e
On the other hand, the estimated logistic regression result coefficient show that land size
significantly determines the adoption of climate smart agriculture among farmers in a negative
direction. As the land size of the farmers increases the likelihood of adopting climate smart
agriculture decreases among respondents which is significant at 95% confidence interval. The
negative direction may be because of the farmer’s wrong perception on the large size of their
holding make them less concerned to climate change issues.
Further, the estimated binary logistic regression result coefficient indicates that access to
extension service significantly and positively determines the adoption of climate smart
agriculture among farmers. Thus, when the farmers have access to extension service, the
likelihood of adopting climate smart agriculture increases among respondents which is
significant at 99% confidence interval. The positive effect may be because of the extension
service empowers the individual farmers attitude and awareness on climate smart agriculture.
Moreover, the estimated logistic regression coefficient indicates that credit significantly
determines the adoption of climate smart agriculture among farmers in a positive direction.
When farmers have access to credit from financial institutions, their likelihood of adopting
climate smart agriculture increases among respondents which is significant at 95% confidence
interval. The positive direction may be because of farmer’s financial capacity to practice better
and environmentally friendly agricultural technologies.
Finally, the estimated logistic regression result coefficient indicates that access to training
significantly affects the adoption of climate smart agriculture in a positive direction. When
farmers have access to training, their likelihood of adopting climate smart agriculture increases
among respondents which is significant at 99% confidence interval. The positive direction may
be because of the farmer’s skill and enhanced capacity.
As the binary logistic regression model revealed in Table 4.10 below, sex, educational status,
land size, access to extension service, access to credit and training are found to be significant in
determining the probability of farmers to adopt climate smart agriculture. We can interpret odds
ratio in terms of the change in odds. If the value exceeds one, then the odds of success (being
adopter) is increases, if the value is less than one, any increase in the predictor variables leads to
a minimize in the odds of adoption of climate smart agriculture. The odds ratio gives the relative
amount by which the odds of the outcome increase (if odds ratio >1) or decrease (if odds ratio<1)
41 | P a g e
when the value of predictor is increased by 1 unit. Therefore, odds ratio was computed to be used
in order to show the magnitude of determination of independent variables on the dependent
variable the adoption of climate smart agriculture practice. Based on this, the binary logistic
regression result displayed the proportional odds ratio as presented in Table 4.10: below.
Table 4.10. Determinates of adoption of CSA using odds Ratio

Wald chi2(19) = 114.11
Prob > chi2 = 0
Log pseudolikelihood = -34.8923 Pseudo R2 = 0.8421
Robust
Adoption Odds Ratio Std. Err. Z P>z [95% Conf. Interval]
Age 1.030962 0.041201 0.76 0.445 0.953291 1.114961
Sex 2.889946 1.619736 1.89 0.058 0.963417 8.66892
Edu
Grade 1-8 7.980647 7.804814 2.12 0.034 1.173791 54.26072
Grade 9-12 13.63578 13.79157 2.58 0.010 1.878247 98.99356
Diploma and above 1.374384 1.048666 0.42 0.677 0.30806 6.131713
FamSize 1.784281 0.814975 1.27 0.205 0.728911 4.367691
LivestockHolding 0.177582 0.171804 -1.79 0.074 0.026662 1.182788
farmExperiance 0.972566 0.036035 -0.75 0.453 0.904443 1.045821
LandSize 0.121621 0.096739 -2.65 0.008 0.025583 0.578183
CVariability 1.175971 0.373183 0.51 0.609 0.631359 2.190368
Extension 375.5476 368.2681 6.05 0.000 54.94939 2566.653
NonAgriIncome 0.310524 0.245348 -1.48 0.139 0.066002 1.460952
Credit 4.13251 3.089967 1.90 0.058 0.954448 17.89269
Training 311.1527 344.3451 5.19 0.000 35.56064 2722.561
Landholding 0.557275 0.420709 -0.77 0.439 0.1269 2.447233
Distance 0.98041 0.463848 -0.04 0.967 0.387874 2.478136
42 | P a g e
AccessMarket 2.556317 3.643472 0.66 0.510 0.156463 41.76541
MembershipAsso 1.394676 1.116432 0.42 0.678 0.290463 6.696635
Radio_TV 1.847645 2.509834 0.45 0.651 0.128929 26.47816
_cons 0.000321 0.000786 -3.29 0.001 2.65E-06 0.038885
The predicted result of the binary logistic regression indicted that holding other factors constant,
being male increases the odds of adoption of climate smart agriculture, compared to the based
category being female. Thus, being male increases the odds of adopting climate smart agriculture
by 2.88 times. This may be because of the male dominancy in the rural areas in practicing the
agricultural activities and socio-economic exposures to practice climate smart agricultural
practices. The result is in line with the findings of Francis M. et al., (2017); Tran N. et al.,
(2019); Belay et al., (2017) and Ndambiri H. et al., (2019), they found that sex of the respondent
was the significant determinant for the adoption of climate smart agriculture.
Further, the predicted result from binary logistic regression indicted that holding other factors
constant, going from no formal schooling to primary school (1-8) increases the odds of adopting
climate smart agriculture practice by 7.98 times, compared to those who have no formal
schooling. In addition, when educational status of the respondents going from no formal
schooling to secondary school (9-12), it increases the odds of adopting climate smart agriculture
practice by 13.63 times, compared to those who have no formal schooling. This may be because
of the power of formal education in increasing the awareness of farmers in understanding
changes in their physical environment. The result is in line with the findings of Francis M et al,
(2017);AbegundeV. et al, (2019); Belay et al, (2017) and Wamalwa W., (2017) found that level
of education as a significant factor on the adoption of climate smart agricultural practice among
household heads.
The result revealed that assuming all other factors remains constant, a unit increase in land size
of the respondents decreases the adoption of climate smart agriculture practice by 0.12 times.
This may be because of the farmer’s view that of their land as large enough and poor awareness
on climate change. This result is in line with the result of study conducted by Francis M et al,
(2017); Abegunde V. et al, (2019); Belay et al, (2017) and Ndambiri H. et al (2019), argue that
size of farm land as a major determinant for the adoption of climate smart agricultural practices.
43 | P a g e
Moreover, the logistic regression results displayed in Table 4.10 show that, assuming all other
factors remains constant, getting access to extension service increases the probability of adopting
climate smart agriculture practice by 375 times. The possible explanation for this might be
access to extension service gives an insight to climate smart agriculture and extension service
provision of knowledge and practice. The result is in line with the findings of Abegunde V. et al,
(2019) and Belay et al (2017) they argue that access to extension service has a significant
positive effect on the adoption of climate smart agriculture practice.
The other regression result revealed that assuming all other variables remains constant; the
access to credit increases the odds of adopting climate smart agriculture by 4.13 times compared
to those who have no access to credit from financial institutions. This might be because of the
farmer’s financial capacity to exercise climate smart agriculture technologies. This result is in
line with the findings of Francis M. et al, (2017) and Zakari S. et al (2019) who found that access
to credit has a significant and positive effect on the adoption of climate smart agriculture.
Finally, the binary logistic regression result show that, assuming all other variables remains
constant, the access to training increases the odds of adopting climate smart agriculture by 311
times compared to those who have no access to training on the agricultural sector. This might be
because of the farmer’s understanding and knowledge on climate change and environmental
degradation. Evidence from key informant interview also indicated that there is a problem of
getting right training on climate smart agriculture. This result is in line with the findings of
Zakari S. et al, (2019) and Maharjan S. et al (2018) argue that farmers who have access to
training on agricultural development have significant and positive effect on the adoption of
climate smart agriculture practice.
44 | P a g e
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion
From the binary logistic regression, different factors were identified on the adoption of climate
smart agriculture practice in the study area Gozamin District. To give conclusions about the
determinants of the adoption of climate smart agricultural practice, the researcher combined both
descriptive and inferential analysis results together. The researcher focused on the mean values
of continuous variables and percentages of the categorical response variables besides with key
informant result to identify the determinants determining the adoption of climate smart
agricultural practice.
In the descriptive part of the study the result showed that the least majority of respondents
adopted climate smart agriculture practice, whereas most of the respondents are found to be non
adopters. From the resulting distribution this study can conclude that, among the climate smart
agriculture practices: the respondents adopted crop rotation, inter-cropping, soil and water
conservation, organic fertilizer, agro-forestry, mulching, improved grazing, improved seed are in
the study area. Thus, based on the study findings crop rotation, inter-cropping, soil and water
conservation and organic fertilizer are the most adopted CSA practices in the study area.
The study can conclude that, male’s participation in adopting climate smart agriculture practice
is too dominant compared to females. The observed dominance of male adopters is partly
associated with the long-time superiority of men in the rural economic activities including
agricultural and resource management. The average age of the respondents is 38 years, which is
dominated by adult household heads. Most of the participants have no formal schooling. From
the result the study can conclude that less than half of the respondents have access to agriculture
extension and training services on climate smart agriculture. Evidence from key informant
interview also indicated that there is a problem of getting right training and extension especially
related climate smart agriculture.
From the binary logistic regressions, the study can conclude that sex, educational (grade 1-8 and
grade 11-12), extension service, credit and training have a significant and positive effect on the
adoption of climate smart agriculture. Thus, the increase in these variables results in increases
the likelihood of adopting climate smart agriculture in the study area.
45 | P a g e
On the other hand, land size has a significant and negative effect on the dependent variable
adoption of climate smart agriculture. The increase in this independent variable undervalued the
likelihood of adoption of climate smart agriculture among farmer households. Considering the
results of odds ratio, the increase in this independent variable, the likelihood of farmer
households to adopt climate smart agriculture decreases.
5.2. Recommendations
Based on the conclusion reached above this study suggests the following recommendations as
per the findings of the cross-sectional study. Thus, the following recommendations are suggested
for district level government actors and stakeholders to improve the adoption status of climate
smart agriculture practice.
Joint effort is needed among the agriculture sector institutions and concerned stakeholders as
well as non-governmental organizations with full involvement of the practitioner farmers to
improve and enhance the adoption status of climate smart agriculture practices.
Increasing the gender mainstreaming activities is needed to bring participate more women into
the adoption of climate smart agriculture. Education should be enhanced that increases the level
of knowledge of farmer households to raise their likelihood of adoption of climate smart
agriculture practice. Further, the study recommends that the variable access to extension service
is crucial for the adoption of climate smart. Therefore, the district should continue supporting
farmers in demand driven extension service to enhance climate smart agriculture and promote
sustainable agriculture in the country.
Since access to credit was found as a significant factor to adopt climate smart agriculture, finance
institutions need to have system to lend for climate smart agriculture technologies. This should
be supported by government policies and guidelines.
As the finding revealed that the variable access to training is crucial for the adoption of climate
smart agriculture. Therefore, the agricultural sector in general and the district in particular should
continue and strengthen trainings on climate smart agriculture practices in order to contributing
to green development strategy of the country. On the other hand, widespread awareness creation
should be created to break the view of farmers with a relatively large land size and not sensitive
46 | P a g e
to adopt climate smart agriculture. Likewise, elevating the level of awareness on environmental
degradation and climate change is needed.
47 | P a g e
REFERENCES
➢ Abrham Belay, John W. Recha, TeshaleWoldeamanuel and John F. Morton (2017).

Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and determinants of their adaptation
decisions in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Agriculture and food security: DOI
10.1186/s40066-017-0100-1
➢ Alemayehu (2019). Adaptation strategies by smallholder farmers to increase crop
production under the changing climatic conditions the case of gozamin district, east
gojam, ethiopia
➢ Arman G. et al, (2016). A National Adaptation Program of Action: Ethiopia’s responses to
climate change, world development perspectives 1, 53-57.
➢ AshenafiGebru, (2006). The determinants of modern agricultural inputs adoption and their
productivity in Ethiopia: The case of Amhara and Tigray Thesis, Addis Ababa
university.
➢ Belay Zerga and GetanehGebeyehu (2016). Climate Change in Ethiopia: Variability,
Impact, Mitigation, and Adaptation, International journal of research and development
organization.
➢ Boko, M., I.Niang, A.Nyong, Vogel, C., A.Githeko, M.Medany, et al. (2007). Africa.
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. In M. Parry, J. P. O.F.
Canziani, P. v. Linden, & C. Hanson, Contribution of Working Group 11 to the Fourth
Assesment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge.UK:
Cambridge University Press.
➢ EPCC (2015). Ethiopian Panel on Climate Change: First Assessment Report, Working
Group I Report on Climate Change over Ethiopia, Physical Science Basis. Ethiopian
Academy of Sciences.
➢ FAO (2010). Climate Smart Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food
Security, Adaptation, and Mitigation. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations, Rome, Italy.
➢ FAO (2015). FAO: AG: Conservation agriculture. Retrieved August 21, 2016, from
http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/
➢ FAO, (2016). Ethiopia Climate-Smart Agriculture Scoping Study. Addis Ababa.
48 | P a g e
➢ FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2014). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Strengthening
the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome: FAO.
➢ FDRE, (2011). Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy: Green economy strategy.
Addis Ababa.
➢ Fischer, G., Shah, M., Tubiello, F., & Van Velhuizen, H. (2005). Socio-economic and
Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture:AnIntergrated Assesment,1990-2080.
Philosophical Transaction Son Royal Society, 360 (1463), 2067-2083
➢ Francesco Pagliacci, Edi Defrancesco, Daniele Mozzato, Lucia Bortolini, Andrea
Pezzuolo, Francesco Pirotti, Elena Pisani, Paola Gatto, (2020). Drivers of farmers'
adoption and continuation of climate-smart agricultural practices. A study from
northeastern Italy.
➢ Francis Maguza-Tembo, Abdi-Khalil Edriss and Julius Mangisoni (2017). Determinants of
Climate Smart Agriculture Technology Adoption in the Drought Prone Districts of
Malawi using a Multivariate Probit Analysis. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension,
Economics & Sociology 16(3): 1-12, 2017; Article no. AJAEES.32489 ISSN: 2320-7027
➢ Isaac Wafula Wamalwa (2017) ADOPTION OF CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES AMONG SMALL SCALE FARMERS OF KITUTU AND NYARIBARI
CHACHE IN KISII COUNTY, KENYA. MSc. Env. Studies and Sustainability Science
➢ Jabulani Nyengere (2015) Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Adoption of Use of Organic
Manure as Climate Smart Agriculture Technology in Malawi. International Journal of
Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
➢ Jeetendra Prakash Aryal, M.L. Jat, Tek B. Sapkota, Arun Khatri-Chhetri, Menale Kassie,
Dil Bahadur Rahut, SofinaMaharjan, (2018). Adoption of multiple climate-smart
agricultural practices in the Gangetic plains of Bihar, India, International Journal of
Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 10 Issue: 3, pp.407-427,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-02-2017-0025.
➢ Joyce Njuguna, Joyce Njuguna and Hillary Ndambiri (2019). Factors Affecting the
Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices among Smallholder Farmers in
Bungoma County, Kenya. the international journal of humanities & social studies ISSN
2321 – 9203
49 | P a g e
➢ Lehmann J, Peter I, Steglich C, Gebauer G, Huwe B, and Zech W (1998). Below-ground
interactions in dry land agroforestry. Fort Ecol and Manag 111, 157-169
➢ Lipper, L. and Zilberman, D. (2018). A Short History of the Evolution of the Climate
Smart Agriculture Approach and Its Links to Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture
Debates. Springer International Publishing, Cham.
➢ MelakuJirata, Sebastian, G., & Edward, K. (2016). Ethiopia Climate Smart Agriculture
Scoping Study. FAO, Addis Ababa.
➢ Meridian Institute. (2011). Agriculture and Cimate change: A Scoping Study. Meridian
Institute. Washington, DC, USA: Meridian Institute.
➢ Milton Kumar Saha, Akm Abdul Ahad Biswas, Md. Faisal, JavedMeandad, Ryhan
Ahmed, Joy Prokash , Faisal Mahmud Sakib (2019) Factors Affecting to Adoption of
Climate-smart Agriculture Practices by Coastal Farmers’ in Bangladesh. American
Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development Vol. 4, No. 4, 2019, pp. 113-121:
http://www.aiscience.org/journal/ajesd
➢ N C Maindi, I M Osuga1 and M G Gicheha1 (ND) Advancing climate smart agriculture:
adoption potential of multiple on-farm dairy production strategies among farmers in
Murang’a County, Kenya.
➢ Negatua W. and Parikhb A., (1999). The impact of perception and other factors on the
adoption of agricultural technology in the Moret and Jiru Woreda (district) of Ethiopia.
Aglicultural Economics 21 (1999) 205-216.
➢ Nhat Lam Duyen Tran, Roberto F. Rañola, Jr, Ole Sander Bjoern, Wassmann Reiner,
Dinh Tien Nguyen and Nguyen Khanh Ngoc Nong (2019). Determinants of adoption of
climate-smart agriculture technologies in rice production in Vietnam:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1756-8692.htm
➢ Samuel WenigaAnuga, Chris Gordon, Emmanuel Boon, Justice Musah-IssahSurugu
(2019). Determinants of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) Adoption among Smallholder
Food Crop Farmers in the Techiman Municipality, Ghana. Ghana Journal of Geography
Vol. 11(1), 2019 pages 124 – 139 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/gjg.v11i1.8
➢ Seydou Zakari, Mathieu Ouédraogo, TougianiAbasse& Robert Zougmoré (2019).
Farmer’s Prioritization and Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Technologies
50 | P a g e
and Practices. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences June 2019, Vol. 8, No.
1, pp. 176-185 ISSN: 2334-2404
➢ Steenwerth, K. L., A. K. Hodson, A. J. Bloom, M. R. Carter, A. Cattaneo, C. J. Chartres,
J. L. Hatfield, K. Henry, J. W. Hopmans, W. R. Horwath, B. M. Jenkins, E. Kebreab, R.
Leemans, L. Lipper, M. N. Lubell, S. Msangi, R. Prabhu, M. P. Reynolds, S. S. Soils, W.
M. Sischo, M. Springborn, P. Tittonell, S. M. Wheeler, S. J. Vermeulen, E. K.
Wollenberg, L. S. Jarvis and L. E. Jackson. (2014). Climate-Smart Agriculture Global
Research Agenda: Scientific Basis for Action. Agriculture and Food Security, Vol. 3
➢ TemesgenGashaw, Amare Bantider& Hagos G/Silassie (2014). Land Degradation in
Ethiopia: Causes, Impacts and Rehabilitation Techniques. Journal of Environment and
Earth Science. 4(9).
➢ Tewodros Beyene, (2018). Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices
➢ Thangata, PH, Mudhara M, Grier C, & Hildebrand PE (2007). Potential for Agroforestry
Adoption in Southern Africa: A Comparative Study of Improved Fallow and Green
Manure Adoption in Malawi, Zambia & Zimbabwe. Ethnobotany Research and
Applications. Retrieved from www.ethnobotanyjournal.org/ vol5/i1547-3465-05-067
➢ Victor O. Abegunde, Melusi Sibanda, and Ajuruchukwu Obi (2019). Determinants of the
Adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices by Small-Scale Farming Households in
King Cetshwayo District Municipality, South Africa.
➢ Williams, T., Kinyangi, J., Nyasimi, M., Speranza, C., Amwata, D., & Rosenstock, T.
(2015). Climate Smart Agriculture in the African Context. Feeding Africa.
➢ World Bank (2015). World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C., World Bank
51 | P a g e
ANNEXES
Addis Ababa University

College of Development Studies
Center for Environment and Sustainable Development
Dear/Sir/Madam,
This is a structured interview questionnaire prepared to undertake a study entitled “Determinants

of Adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture Practice in Gozamin District, East Gojjam Zone,
Amhara Region, North West Ethiopia”.
Dear respondent, I am BelaynehYersie, a post graduate student in a Center for Environment and
Sustainable Development, College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa University. Currently,
I am planning to undertake a research in order to complete the requirements for Master of Arts
(MA) degree in Development Studies (Environment and Sustainable Development) given by
College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa University.
The research is conducted purely for academic purpose and all the information given are treated
as confidential and will not be used for other purposes. I also assure you that no personal identity
will be disclosed to third parties. I am so grateful to you by giving reliable and appropriate data
and information.
Thank you for your time and cooperation
Code -------------------------
Date of interview -----------------
I. Structured Interview Questionnaire

1. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics
52 | P a g e
S.No Items Options
1.1. Age of the household head in years? -----------------------------
1.2. Sex of the household head? 0. Male

1. Female
1.3. What is your level of educational? 1. No formal school
2. Grade 1-8
3. Grade 9-12
4. TVET Diploma and above
1.4. How many individuals in your family? -----------------------------
1.5. What is your source of income for your means of 1.Crop production
living? 2.Livestock rearing
3.Off farm income
4. Mixed
2. Extension Service and farm related characteristics

S. No Items Options
2.1. Do you adopt climate smart agriculture (CSA) 0. No
technologies on your land? 1. Yes
2.2 If your answer for question number 2.1. Is yes, please 1. Soil and water conservation
select which type of CSA you adopt? More than one 2. integrated watershed management
selection is possible. 3. use of organic manure
4. conservation agriculture
5. intercropping
6. improved water management
7. Agroforestry
8. crop rotation
9. Mulching
53 | P a g e
10. Improved grazing
11. Integrated crop livestock
management
12. improved seed
2.3. How many years you practice farming in this kebele? ----------------------
2.4 Do you have your own land? 0. No

1. Yes
2.5. What is your total land size in hectare? ---------------------
2.6 Do you have access to extension service? 0. No

1. Yes
2.7 Do you participate in off-farm activities? 0. No
1. Yes
2.8 Are a member of farmers association in your area? 0. No
1. Yes
2.9 Do you have your own livestock? 0. No
1. Yes
3. Knowledge and training related variables
S. No. Items Options

3.1. Do you have access to credit from financial 0. Yes
institutions? 1. No
3.2 Do you have access to agricultural trainings? 0. No
1. Yes
3.3 Do you agree that, there is a climate variability in 1. Strongly agree
your area? 2. Agree
3. Neutral
4. Disagree
5. Strongly disagree
54 | P a g e
3.4 Do you have access to market for your agricultural 0. No
products? 1. Yes
3.5. Do you have radio/television in your home? 0. No
1. Yes
3.6. What is the distance between your home and farm --------------------------------------------
land in km?
Thank you in advance for your time!
55 | P a g e
II. Key Informant Interview Guidelines
1. How do you explain the farmer’s awareness on climate variability?

2. What are the major problems that affect climate variability in your area?
3. Is there any support from NGOs on adoption of climate smart agriculture?
4. Do you think that climate smart agriculture will protect your environment?
5. What merits do you get from CSA technology in your land?
Thank you for your time!
56 | P a g e
. sum Age FamSize farmExperiance LandSize distance
Age 323 38.22291 9.442528 26 68

FamSize 323 4.294118 1.157019 3 6
farmExperi~e 323 20.4644 8.000842 3 35
LandSize 323 .9394118 .5940836 .2 2
distance 323 1.306192 .6624995 .2 2.6
57 | P a g e
sex of the
respondent Freq. Percent Cum.
female 64 19.81 19.81

male 259 80.19 100.00
Total 323 100.00
. tab Edu
educational status of
farmers Freq. Percent Cum.
No formal schooling 153 47.37 47.37

Grade 1-8 78 24.15 71.52
Grade 9-12 58 17.96 89.47
TVET Diploma and above 34 10.53 100.00
Total 323 100.00
. tab LivestockHolding
Livestock
ownership Freq. Percent Cum.
No 73 22.60 22.60
Yes 250 77.40 100.00
Total 323 100.00
58 | P a g e
Do you
adopt SWC
practices Freq. Percent Cum.
No 183 56.66 56.66

Yes 140 43.34 100.00
Total 323 100.00
. tab Type_CSA
types of CSA practiced Freq. Percent Cum.
0 182 56.35 56.35

soil and water conserva 23 7.12 63.47
using organic fertilizer 22 6.81 70.28
inter cropping 29 8.98 79.26
agro forestry 12 3.72 82.97
crop rotation 36 11.15 94.12
mulching 7 2.17 96.28
improved grazing 6 1.86 98.14
improved seed 3 0.93 99.07
improved water management 2 0.62 99.69
others 1 0.31 100.00
Total 323 100.00
59 | P a g e
Do you have
access to
extension
service? Freq. Percent Cum.
No 184 56.97 56.97

Yes 139 43.03 100.00
Total 323 100.00
. tab credit
do you have
access to
credit Freq. Percent Cum.
No 192 59.44 59.44

Yes 131 40.56 100.00
Total 323 100.00
. tab training
have you
ever got
agricultura
l related
trainings? Freq. Percent Cum.
No 186 57.59 57.59

Yes 137 42.41 100.00
Total 323 100.00
60 | P a g e
Wald chi2(19) = 114.11
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Robust
Adoption Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
Age .0304921 .0399635 0.76 0.445 -.0478349 .1088191

sex 1.061238 .5604727 1.89 0.058 -.0372685 2.159744
Edu
Grade 1-8 2.07702 .9779675 2.12 0.034 .1602385 3.993801
Grade 9-12 2.612697 1.011426 2.58 0.010 .630339 4.595055
TVET Diploma and above .318006 .763008 0.42 0.677 -1.177462 1.813474
FamSize .5790154 .4567528 1.27 0.205 -.3162037 1.474234

LivestockHolding -1.728323 .9674656 -1.79 0.074 -3.624521 .1678746
farmExperiance -.0278171 .0370513 -0.75 0.453 -.1004363 .0448021
LandSize -2.106847 .7954136 -2.65 0.008 -3.665829 -.5478648
CVariability .1620945 .3173401 0.51 0.609 -.4598807 .7840698
Extension 5.928385 .9806163 6.05 0.000 4.006413 7.850358
NonAgriIncome -1.169493 .7901073 -1.48 0.139 -2.718075 .3790885
credit 1.418885 .7477216 1.90 0.058 -.0466226 2.884392
training 5.740284 1.106676 5.19 0.000 3.571239 7.909328
Land_holding -.5846973 .7549401 -0.77 0.439 -2.064353 .8949581
distance -.019784 .4731162 -0.04 0.967 -.9470747 .9075068
AccessMarket .9385675 1.425282 0.66 0.510 -1.854934 3.732069
MembershipAsso .3326622 .8004958 0.42 0.678 -1.236281 1.901605
Radio_TV .6139116 1.358397 0.45 0.651 -2.048497 3.27632
_cons -8.043264 2.447039 -3.29 0.001 -12.83937 -3.247157
61 | P a g e
Wald chi2(19) = 114.11
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Robust
Adoption Odds Ratio Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
Age 1.030962 .0412008 0.76 0.445 .9532912 1.114961

sex 2.889946 1.619736 1.89 0.058 .9634174 8.66892
Edu
Grade 1-8 7.980647 7.804814 2.12 0.034 1.173791 54.26072
Grade 9-12 13.63578 13.79157 2.58 0.010 1.878247 98.99356
TVET Diploma and above 1.374384 1.048666 0.42 0.677 .3080595 6.131713
FamSize 1.784281 .8149753 1.27 0.205 .7289109 4.367691

LivestockHolding .1775819 .1718044 -1.79 0.074 .0266619 1.182788
farmExperiance .9725662 .0360348 -0.75 0.453 .9044427 1.045821
LandSize .1216209 .0967389 -2.65 0.008 .025583 .578183
CVariability 1.175971 .3731829 0.51 0.609 .6313589 2.190368
Extension 375.5476 368.2681 6.05 0.000 54.94939 2566.653
NonAgriIncome .3105242 .2453475 -1.48 0.139 .0660017 1.460952
credit 4.13251 3.089967 1.90 0.058 .9544475 17.89269
training 311.1527 344.3451 5.19 0.000 35.56064 2722.561
Land_holding .5572745 .4207089 -0.77 0.439 .1269004 2.447233
distance .9804104 .4638481 -0.04 0.967 .387874 2.478136
AccessMarket 2.556317 3.643472 0.66 0.510 .1564633 41.76541
MembershipAsso 1.394676 1.116432 0.42 0.678 .2904625 6.696635
Radio_TV 1.847645 2.509834 0.45 0.651 .1289285 26.47816
_cons .0003213 .0007861 -3.29 0.001 2.65e-06 .0388846
62 | P a g e

Belayneh Yerssie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Belayneh Yerssie

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Belayneh Yerssie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

College of Development Studies

Center of Environmental Studies

Assessment of Determinants of Climate Smart Agriculture Practice

By: BelaynehYerssie … GSR/8955/12

A thesis Submitted to the Center of Environmental Studies, College of

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

I BelaynehYerssie, Registration NumberGSR/8955/12, do hereby declare that this thesis is

Full Name…………………………………….. Signature……….…… date………………..

Name of Advisor ………...……………………. Signature ……………… date…………….

Full Name: ……………………………………..…. Signature ………….. date ………..….

Name of Advisor…………………………………. Signature ……………. date …………….

Name of Supervisor ……………………………… Signature ……………. date …………….

Name of Internal Examiner ……………………… Signature ……………. date ...………….

Name of External Examiner……………………… Signature ……………. date ...………….

Name of Head of Department…………………… Signature………………date ……...…….

Table 3.1. Variable Definition and Expected Signs ………………………………………...…. 26

Table 4.1. Respondent’s age and family size characteristics …………………………………. 28

Table 4.3. Distribution of the respondent’s source of income ……………………………...…………… 30

Figure 2.1. Conceptual framework developed by the researcher (2020) ………………………………. 19

Figure 3.1. Map of the study area ………………………………………………………………………. 20

CSA Climate Smart Agriculture

CSAT Climate Smart Agricultural Technology

FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GDoFEDGozamin District Office of Finance and Economic Development

IFAD International Food and Agriculture Development

UNEP United Nation Environment Program

WFP World Food Program

1.1. Background and Justification of the Study

The agriculture of Ethiopia is characterized by low productivity (FAO, 2016). In developing

1.2. Statement of the Problem

1.3. Basic Research Questions

1.4.1. General Objective

1.4.2. Specific Objectives

1.5. Significance of the Study

1.6. Scope of the Study

1.7. Limitations of the Study

2.1. Theoretical Literature

Climate-smart agriculture, a concept developed by Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), is

2.2. Empirical Literature

Saha K., et al (2019) investigates factors affecting to adoption of climate-smart agriculture

Demographic & socio-economic variables

Extension & Training Variables

Figure: 2-1 Conceptual Framework Developed by the Researcher, (2021)

3.1. Description of the Study Area

Source: Google Map

Figure: 3.1. Map of the study Area

3.2. Research Design

3.3. Research Methods

3.3.1. Study Population and Sampling Frame

3.3.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

Where: fn = The adjusted sample size

n = The sample size which is 357

N= The target population size, which is 3389

3.3.3. Data Sources and Data Collection Instruments

3.3.4. Methods of Data Analysis

3.3.5. Model Specification

𝑃𝑖 : Is the probability of adoption