agriculture

Article
Assessing the Contribution of Smallholder Irrigation to
Household Food Security in Zimbabwe
Norman Mupaso 1, * , Godswill Makombe 2 , Raymond Mugandani 3, * and Paramu L. Mafongoya 4

1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Development, Midlands State University,

Gweru P.O. Box 9055, Zimbabwe
2 Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria, Lynnwood Rd, Hatfield,
Pretoria 0002, South Africa; makombeg@yahoo.com
3 Department of Lands and Water Resources Management, Midlands State University,
Gweru P.O. Box 9055, Zimbabwe
4 School of Agriculture, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal,
Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa; mafongoya@ukzn.ac.za
* Correspondence: mupaso2@yahoo.com (N.M.); mugandanir@staff.msu.ac.zw (R.M.)

Abstract: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 seeks to end hunger and guarantee food and
nutrition security worldwide by 2030. Smallholder irrigation development remains a key strategy to
achieve SDG 2. This study assesses how smallholder irrigation contributes to household food security
in Mberengwa district, Zimbabwe. Primary data were gathered from a randomly chosen sample of
444 farmers (344 irrigators and 100 non-irrigators) using a structured questionnaire. Microsoft Excel
and Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 27 software packages were used to analyse the
data. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test, t-test, and binary logistic regression were performed. The
t-test results show significant differences in mean between irrigators and non-irrigators for household
size, the dependency ratio, farming experience, farm income, food expenditure share, and livestock
owned (p < 0.05). Irrigators had significantly higher area planted, yield, and quantity sold for maize
during the summer than non-irrigators (p < 0.05). Food Consumption Score results show that 97%
of irrigators and 45% of non-irrigators were food secure. Binary logistic regression results reveal a
significant association between food security and household size, irrigation access, and farm income
(p < 0.05). In conclusion, access to smallholder irrigation increases household food security. The
Citation: Mupaso, N.; Makombe, G.;
government and its development partners should prioritise investments in smallholder irrigation
Mugandani, R.; Mafongoya, P.L.
development, expansion, and rehabilitation.
Assessing the Contribution of
Smallholder Irrigation to Household
Food Security in Zimbabwe.
Keywords: smallholder irrigation; food security; food consumption score; Sustainable Development
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617. https:// Goal; Zimbabwe
doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040617

Academic Editor: Youhua Chen

Received: 7 March 2024 1. Introduction

Revised: 11 April 2024 The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 seeks to end hunger,
Accepted: 12 April 2024 guarantee food security and improved nutrition, and advance sustainable agriculture for
Published: 16 April 2024 all people in the world by the year 2030 [1,2]. To achieve SDG 2, there is a need to improve
food production, distribution, and access [1–3]. Global targets for SDG 2 are hindered by
poverty, climate change, conflicts, economic instability, natural disasters, and the COVID-19
pandemic [1,4]. All these factors impede food production and distribution and make it
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
more difficult for people to acquire the food they require [1,4]. Access to food is a problem
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
in most countries in the developing world [2]. The percentage of people suffering from
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
hunger in Africa is almost 20% (257 million individuals); out of this number, 237 million
conditions of the Creative Commons
reside in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [1]. In comparison, the rate of hunger is 3% in North
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
America and Europe, 6% in Oceania, 9% in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 9% in
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Asia [1,2]. Global food insecurity has been increasing since 2014, and if the current patterns
4.0/). continue, an estimated 670 million people will be undernourished by 2030 [2].

Agriculture 2024, 14, 617. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040617 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture

Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 2 of 16

Food security is defined as a situation where everyone has physical, economic, and
social access to enough food that is safe, nourishing, and meets their dietary needs and
preferences for an active and healthy life [2,3]. Food security has four dimensions, namely,
stability, availability, access, and utilisation [3–5]. Food availability means the physical
existence of enough amounts and quality of food, whether locally produced or imported [4].
Access means the ability of a household to obtain food, both physically and financially [3].
Utilization refers to whether households have the resources and knowledge to prepare and
consume food safely and healthily to meet all physiological needs [4]. Stability refers to
whether the food system can withstand shocks like natural disasters, economic downturns,
or conflicts [2,5]. Food security may be attained by addressing all these dimensions. Food
security is influenced by several variables, including population growth, income, global
warming, climate change, a lack of arable land, poor soils, insufficient water for irrigation,
technological obstacles, conflict, and poverty [1]. A food-secure household can consistently
obtain adequate and diverse foods to meet its nutritional needs [4]. Household food
insecurity can result in hunger, malnutrition, poor health, and, in extreme cases, can even
lead to death [2].
Food security and agriculture are closely related [6]. This is mainly due to the agricul-
ture sector’s role in producing food in the economy. In addition, most of the undernourished
populations in the world are smallholder farmers [7]. Consequently, there is a growing
interest among stakeholders to comprehend how agriculture interventions might enhance
the nutritional status of smallholder farmers in developing nations [7]. Investments in
smallholder irrigation are commonly used as a tool to address concerns over food and
nutrition insecurity by most governments and development partners in developing coun-
tries [3,8]. Access to smallholder irrigation enables farmers to cultivate a wider range
of crops, increase production and productivity, provide jobs, and increase farm incomes,
which can ultimately improve overall food security [9–11]. Irrigation technology reduces
households’ vulnerability to changing rainfall and temperature patterns [12].
However, the provision of irrigation infrastructure alone does not guarantee that
all farmers in a given area will be able to take full advantage of it. While some farmers
may have favourable conditions (such as the availability of water and financial resources)
to take advantage of irrigation infrastructure, others may face constraints, limiting their
ability to benefit from irrigation [8,9]. Addressing these constraints through targeted
interventions, such as providing access to finance, training, and infrastructure maintenance
support, can help more farmers in rural communities maximise the advantages of irrigation
infrastructure [3,8,9]. While higher income and wealth can provide advantages for farmers
to invest in and maintain irrigation infrastructure, it does not mean that farmers with
limited resources cannot benefit [3]. Governments, development agencies, and other
stakeholders play a crucial role in providing support mechanisms, creating an enabling
environment, and ensuring equitable access to irrigation opportunities for farmers across
income and wealth spectrums [3].
Research studies show that having access to smallholder irrigation improves house-
hold food security. For example, Adeniyi and Dinbabo [13] studied the determinants of
food security amongst smallholder irrigators in Northwest Nigeria. Using a structured
questionnaire, primary data were gathered from 306 randomly chosen households. Food se-
curity was assessed using a combination of the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)
and the Food Consumption Score (FCS). A multivariate regression model was used to
investigate variables associated with food security. The findings revealed that 55% of the
farmers were food secure. There was a significant association between livestock ownership,
farming experience, farm size, education, training, income, and household food security. In
addition, Adeniyi and Dinbabo [13] evaluated the efficiency, food security, and differen-
tiation of small-scale irrigation agriculture in Northwest Nigeria. Their study evaluated
the households’ FCSs and the technical efficiency of the farmers. A random sample of
306 smallholder farmers provided the primary data. A multinomial regression model,
a segmentation strategy utilising cluster analysis, and Pearson correlation analysis were
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 3 of 16

all used to analyse the data. Most households were food secure, with a mean technical
efficiency of approximately 86%. The observed variations in efficiency, income, and food
security were due to variations in household characteristics. The findings from these re-
search studies are consistent as they imply that smallholder irrigation improves household
food security. Similarly, Ogunniyi et al. [14] evaluated the effect of irrigation technology
adoption on crop yield, crop income, and household food security in Nigeria using the
treatment-effect approach. Primary data were gathered from a sample of 2305 households
and analysed using a combination of PSM and logistic regression. The findings show that
access to irrigation contributes positively to income, crop yield, and food security.
Research conducted by Balana et al. [15] in northern Ghana revealed that small-
scale irrigation improved household nutrition significantly. Their study used a farm
simulation model to evaluate the economic viability and potential of small-scale irrigation
to increase income and nutrition. The results revealed that the adoption of irrigation
increased net farm profit by 154%. Likewise, Wondimagegnhu and Bogale [8] carried out a
comparative study on the impact of small-scale irrigation on food security in Northwest
Ethiopia. A questionnaire was used to collect data from a total of 185 randomly chosen
households (84 irrigators and 101 non-irrigators). Data were analysed using a household
food balance model, descriptive analysis, and binary logit regression. About 85% of
irrigators and 65% of non-irrigators were food secure. The size of farmland, household
size, access to credit, irrigation, and income from rainfed crops were found to significantly
impact household food security. Their study concluded that access to irrigation improves
household food security.
Mhembwe, Chiunya, and Dube [10] researched the impact of small-scale irrigation
schemes on household food security in Shurugwi district, Zimbabwe. A qualitative method
was applied in the investigation. Primary data were gathered from 40 participants who
were purposively chosen. A total of 32 irrigators and eight government representatives
from the Department of Agritex, Mechanisation and Irrigation, and the District Administra-
tor’s office participated in their study. Data analysis was conducted using thematic analysis.
The findings show that irrigation projects improve food security and farm incomes signif-
icantly transforming the lives of rural farmers. The study concluded that having access
to irrigation improves food security. The researchers recommended that the government
and its development partners should establish new irrigation schemes and rehabilitate the
dilapidated ones.
Research conducted by Chidavaenzi, Mazenda, and Ndlovu [9] in Chipinge, Zim-
babwe, assessed how households cope with food shortages and their resilience. Their study
aimed to investigate the impact of drip irrigation on income, food security, and nutrition.
The researchers used a mixed methods approach. A semi-structured questionnaire was
administered to 40 irrigators, and a focus group discussion was also conducted. Data were
analysed using descriptive statistics, the Mann–Whitney U test, and Kruskal–Wallis H
non-parametric tests. The study found that implementing drip irrigation led to increased
household income, food production, and improved nutrition. The availability of cheap
labour and extension support were identified as the main success factors of the drip irriga-
tion project. The study concluded that developing irrigation systems is necessary to reduce
household food insecurity.
Food and nutrition insecurity remains a global concern and is more prevalent among
SSA countries, including Zimbabwe [2]. Thus, the Zimbabwean government pledges in its
National Development Strategy 1 (NDS 1) to support and guarantee food and nutrition
security for every citizen [16]. The NDS 1 seeks to enhance food self-sufficiency from
45% to 100% (between the years 2019 and 2025), reduce food insecurity to less than 10%,
and restore the country’s bread basket status by the year 2025 [16]. In Zimbabwe, an
estimated 29% of the urban population (1.5 million people) and 19% of the rural population
(1.9 million people) are food insecure [17,18]. It is reported that the high rate of poverty is
the leading cause of food and nutrition insecurity in the country [18]. Approximately 71%
of the population is classified as poor, with 29% of them being extremely poor based on
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 4 of 16

the local Total Consumption Poverty Line (TCPL), which is set at USD 2.31 per day [19,20].
Furthermore, food and nutrition insecurity were made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic’s
disruption of the nation’s food supply systems [4]. As part of its strategies to enhance
food and nutrition security, the Zimbabwean government has prioritised the development
of smallholder irrigation and the rehabilitation of dilapidated irrigation infrastructure,
as stipulated in NDS 1 [16]. The government aims to increase the land area equipped
for irrigation to at least 350,000 ha by 2025, which is more than a 90% increase from the
current 180,000 ha [16]. However, a few current studies have assessed the impact of these
irrigation investments on food security in Zimbabwe [9,10]. This study aims to investigate
the relationship between smallholder irrigation and household food security in Zimbabwe.
This study provides a valuable resource for policymakers, researchers, organizations, and
individuals interested in understanding the connection between smallholder irrigation
projects and food security.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Approach
This study employed a quantitative approach to assess the contribution of smallholder
irrigation to household food security. The quantitative approach refers to empirical re-
search that uses numerical data to determine causal and correlative relationships between
variables [21]. Quantitative researchers argue that observations must be collected and
measured for repeated incidences of social phenomena [22]. Identifying a specific social
phenomenon is possible when variables are observed over a large number of cases [21].
Thus, quantitative researchers use statistically representative samples to enhance their
confidence in the findings and generalise about the empirical world [21]. Since quanti-
tative research is objective and value-free, it focuses on social behaviour characteristics
that are quantifiable and systematic rather than merely determining and interpreting their
meanings [23].

2.2. Study Area

The study sites were Old-Biri and Biri-Extension irrigation schemes located in the
Mberengwa district of the Midlands Province in Zimbabwe (Figure 1). The study sites were
purposively selected considering that they are functional irrigation schemes located in a
semiarid agroecological region where irrigated farming is vital for food production [24,25].
Agroecological zones are geographical areas that exhibit distinct combinations of uniform
agro-climate, biodiversity, soil composition, and farming practices [24]. Mberengwa has an
average annual rainfall range of 450–600 mm [24]. The study area’s prevalence of poverty
is predicted to be 31.6% based on Zimbabwe’s TCPL of USD 2.31 per day [19]. Old-Biri and
Biri-Extension irrigation schemes are located nearby and separated by a road. The Old-Biri
irrigation scheme consists of 71 beneficiaries owning an average irrigated plot of 0.5 hectares
(ha). The scheme was commissioned in 1988 and uses a gravity irrigation system to irrigate
40.2 ha [26]. The scheme draws its water from Biri Dam. The Biri-Extension irrigation
scheme has 280 beneficiaries and was commissioned in 2005. The scheme also uses a
gravity irrigation system to irrigate 117 ha with the potential to extend to 131 ha [26]. The
scheme draws its water from the Mundi Mataga Dam. The main summer crops grown at
the schemes are maize (Zea mays), sugar beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), and groundnuts (Arachis
hypogaea), while the main winter crops grown are wheat (Triticum aestivum), green mealies
(Zea mays), cucumbers (Cucumis sativus), tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum), cabbage (Brassica
oleracea), okra (Abelmoschus esculentus), and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). The farmers in
both irrigation schemes also rear cattle, goats, sheep, donkeys, and various types of poultry.
Agriculture 2024,14,
Agriculture2024, 14,617
x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of
of1617

Figure1.1.Map
Figure Mapofofthe
thestudy
studyarea.
area.

2.3.Selection
2.3. SelectionofofRespondents
Respondents
The
Thetargeted
targetedpopulation
population was all all
was thethe
irrigators in communal
irrigators in communalirrigation schemes
irrigation located
schemes lo-
incated
semi-arid to aridtoagro-ecological
in semi-arid regions
arid agro-ecological IV and
regions IVVand
of V
Zimbabwe,
of Zimbabwe,which receive
which an
receive
average of less
an average thanthan
of less 650650mmmm of rainfall perper
of rainfall annum
annum [24].
[24].The
Theestimated
estimatedpopulation
populationofof
smallholder irrigators in these regions is 5000 farmers. An acceptable representative
smallholder irrigators in these regions is 5000 farmers. An acceptable representative sample
sam-
size was was
ple size established using
established Slovin’s
using formula
Slovin’s formula[27]. Assuming
[27]. Assuming a aconfidence
confidencelevel
levelofof95%,
95%,
and
andaa5%5%precision
precisionlevel,
level,the
thestatistically
statisticallyrepresentative
representativesample
samplesizesizewas
wascalculated
calculatedtotobebe
370
370irrigators
irrigators(Equation
(Equation(1)).
(1)).

𝑛N 5000 = 370 irrigators (1)

n= 2
= .
2
= 370 irrigators (1)
1 + N (e) 1 + 5000(0.05)
where n = sample size, N = population size, and e = level of precision. Using Equation (1),
the required
where sample
n = sample size,size
N =for this studysize,
population is 370andirrigators. The
e = level of total number
precision. UsingofEquation
irrigators in
(1),
therequired
the Old-Birisample
and Biri-Extension
size for this irrigation
study is 370 schemes is 351
irrigators. Thefarmers. Thus, all
total number of the irrigators
irrigators in
the Old-Biri
in both and Biri-Extension
irrigation schemes were irrigation
includedschemes is 351 farmers.
in the sample. Thus,a all
In addition, the irrigators
control group of
in100
both irrigation schemes
non-irrigators were included
was randomly selectedinfromthe sample. In addition,
areas adjacent to the airrigation
control group of
schemes.
100
As non-irrigators was randomly
suggested by Israel selected
[27], a review of thefrom areas adjacent
literature to the irrigation
in a discipline can guide schemes.
“typical”
As suggested
sample by Israel
sizes that [27], a review
are appropriate for aofstudy.
the literature
The control in agroup
discipline
samplecansize
guide
was“typical”
based on
sample sizes that are
similar studies [28–30].appropriate for a study. The control group sample size was based on
similar studies [28–30].
2.4. Data Collection Procedure
2.4. Data Collection Procedure
A structured questionnaire was used to collect primary data from irrigators and non-
A structured
irrigators. questionnaire
The questionnaire waswas used to collect
administered with primary
the helpdata fromtrained
of four irrigators and non-
enumerators.
irrigators. The questionnaire was administered with the help of four
The local vernacular languages of Shona and Ndebele were used during the interviews. trained enumerators.
The
To local vernacular
enhance languages validity
the instrument’s of Shonaand andreliability,
Ndebele were used during
a pre-test of the the interviews. was
questionnaire To
enhance the instrument’s validity and reliability, a pre-test of the questionnaire was con-
conducted with seven randomly selected farmers at the Biri-Extension irrigation scheme.
ducted with seven randomly selected farmers at the Biri-Extension irrigation scheme. The
The questionnaire captured household socioeconomic, demographic, agricultural produc-
questionnaire captured household socioeconomic, demographic, agricultural production,
tion, and food consumption information. The household member in charge of food prep-
and food consumption information. The household member in charge of food preparation
aration provided information on food consumption. If unavailable, another adult was in-
provided information on food consumption. If unavailable, another adult was interviewed.
terviewed. Food items that were consumed outside the home by the household or indi-
vidual members (for example, food purchased in restaurants) were excluded [2].
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 6 of 16

Food items that were consumed outside the home by the household or individual members
(for example, food purchased in restaurants) were excluded [2].

2.5. Data Analysis

The data were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2019 and Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 27. Descriptions of the analyses that were conducted follow.
i Socioeconomic characteristics
This study utilised descriptive statistics to examine the socioeconomic characteristics
of the participants. The mean, percentages, and frequencies were calculated for selected
variables. The chi-square test was used to check for associations among the categorical
variables. In addition, t-tests were utilised to ascertain whether the observed differences be-
tween selected variables were statistically significant. The analyses’ findings are presented
in tables.
ii Household food security valuation
The Food Consumption Score (FCS) index was used to assess household food security.
The FCS index was developed by the World Food Programme (WFP) in 1996 [31]. The FCS
measures the food access dimension by considering dietary diversity and the frequency
of consumption of nine food groups in the past seven days, weighted according to the
nutrition values of the food groups (Table 1) [31]. The FCS ranges from 0 to 112 and
considers both the frequency of food consumption and the nutritional significance of the
food consumed over a given period [31]. The higher the score, the better the household’s
food security status [31].

Table 1. The nine standard food groups used to calculate FCS.

Food Groups Weights

Main staples 2
Pulses 3
Vegetables 1
Fruit 1
Meat and fish 4
Milk 4
Sugar 0.5
Oil 0.5
Condiments 0
Source: VAM, WFP [31].

The FCS is expressed as shown in Equation (2).

FCS = WStaple Xstaple + Wpulse X pulse + Wvegetables Xvegetables + W f ruit X f ruit +

(2)
Wmeat Xmeat + Wmilk Xmilk + Wsugar Xsugar + Woil Xoil + Wcondiments Xcondiments

where Wi = vector of weights for food groups and Xi = vector of food consumption
frequency for food groups. Based on the FCS, food consumption is categorised as poor
(0–21), borderline (21.5–35), or acceptable (>35) [31]. The FCS measure was used to delineate
the food-secure and food-insecure households, and those with an FCS less than or equal to
35 were categorised as food-insecure and those with an FCS greater than 35 were considered
food-secure.
iii Contribution of irrigation to food security
This study used binary logistic regression to measure the contribution of smallholder
irrigation to food security. This model was chosen because it is suitable for binary de-
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 7 of 16

pendent variables, normally distributed data, and large sample sizes [32]. Food security
status was determined using the FCS. Households with an FCS of 35 or less were deemed
food-insecure (coded as 0), while those with an FCS greater than 35 were considered
food-secure (coded as 1). The likelihood of being food secure or not (PVi) depends on
socioeconomic characteristics (Xi). Equation (3) shows the model’s empirical specification.
Woleba et al. [33] used a similar model.

Prob ( Food secure = 1) = α + β1 X1 + β 2 X2 + β 3 X3 + β 4 X4 . . . . . . .. + µi (3)

where α is the slope, Prob (Food secure = 1) is the likelihood of household i being food secure,
Xi is a vector of the farmer characteristics, β i are the parameters of the exogenous variables
estimated, and µi is the error term.
The binary logistic regression model was run after checking the hypothesised ex-
planatory variables for multicollinearity. To ensure accurate predictions, the presence of
multicollinearity was tested using the variance inflation factor (VIF) for continuous vari-
ables and the contingency coefficient for discrete variables. If the mean VIF exceeds 10, the
variable is highly collinear [32,33]. A contingency coefficient that is greater than or equal to
0.75 indicates serious multicollinearity [32,33]. The Pearson Goodness-of-fit, Nagelkerke
R-squared, and Hosmer–Lemeshow tests were applied to evaluate the goodness of fit and
assess the binary logistic regression model’s overall performance [32]. For the Pearson
goodness-of-fit, if the p-value is significant (p < 0.05), it suggests a lack of fit between the
model and the data [32]. For the Hosmer–Lemeshow test, a significant p-value (p < 0.05)
suggests a lack of calibration, indicating that the model’s predictions do not align well
with the observed data [32]. The Nagelkerke R-squared ranges from 0 to 1, and it provides
a sense of how well the model predicts the binary outcomes [32,33]. Table 2 shows the
description of the independent variables chosen based on a thorough review of similar
studies [3,8,9,13,33,34].

Table 2. List of independent variables, their codes, and expected signs.

Description of Variable Unit/Code Expected Sign

Age of household head Years +
Gender of household head 1 = male, 0 = female +
Education of household head Years +
Household size Number of persons −
Dependency ratio Proportion per working-age members −
Farm size Hectares +
Irrigation access 1 = Irrigator, 0 = non-irrigator +
Farm income USD +
Livestock holding (TLU) TLU +
Extension frequency Number of visits +
− means negative, + means positive.

Justification of variables
Age of household head was measured in years. According to Woleba et al. [33], age is a
crucial factor that determines the access to land by household heads. Their study suggests
that older heads of households have accumulated years of experience and knowledge
and are likely to have more access to land than young ones. As individuals grow older,
they acquire knowledge, skills, and assets that are essential for increased agricultural
production [33]. The older the household head, the more the likelihood to be food secure.
Gender was captured as a dummy variable. Research shows that male-headed house-
holds have better access to resources and opportunities, making them more food secure
than those headed by women [33,34].
Education of household head was measured as the number of years a household head
spent attending school. It was expected that higher education levels would result in a
higher likelihood to be food secure. According to Woleba et al. [33], a more educated
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 8 of 16

household head is more likely to be aware of the benefits of modernizing agriculture,

leading to an increase in food production. With greater knowledge and understanding of
good farming practices, a more educated farmer can produce higher yields [33].
Household size was measured as the number of people who live at the same address and
share meals and common housekeeping. According to Woleba et al. [33] and Sekhampu [35],
a larger household size means more people to feed. This study hypothesises that household
size is negatively associated with food security.
The dependency ratio indicates the percentage of household members who rely on eco-
nomically active household members for their food, clothing, and education needs [36]. The
higher the dependency ratio, the less likely the level of food security [36]. Hence, this study
hypothesised that household food security and the dependency ratio are negatively correlated.
The farm size was a continuous variable captured in hectares. Generally, the larger
the farm, the more food production and farm income can be generated. Owning a larger
piece of land allows families to cultivate a variety of crops, which in turn can increase the
household food supply [33]. This study hypothesised that farm size and food security are
positively correlated.
Irrigation access was captured as a dummy variable. This study hypothesised a positive
correlation between irrigation access and food security. As per the findings of Ahmed [37]
and Feliciano [38], irrigation contributes to achieving food security by increasing crop pro-
duction, facilitating crop diversification, promoting sustainable intensification, enhancing
resilience, and generating employment and income.
Farm income was measured as a continuous variable in USD. Fanzo et al. [39] argue
that farm income is essential for households to have enough financial resources to purchase
nutritious food, and it also enables them to access a diverse range of food items, including
fresh produce, protein sources, and other essential nutrients. This study assumed that farm
income is positively correlated to food security.
Livestock holding was measured as tropical livestock units (TLUs). This measurement
included cattle, goats, and poultry. For instance, cattle provide draught power, manure
for fertilizer, income, and a store of value, contributing to food security [33]. Thus, it
is common for rural communities to invest in cattle [33]. This study hypothesised that
livestock holding and food security are positively correlated.
Extension frequency was measured as the number of visits made by extension officers
to farmers per given period. Extension services are designed to provide farmers with skills
and know-how to enhance their farm production, productivity, and food security levels [33].
We assume that extension frequency and household food security are positively correlated.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Description of the Farmers’ Socio-Economic Characteristics
The chi-square test was performed to determine if there was any association between
access to irrigation and the gender, marital status, and education level of the farmers
(Table 3). The findings show that the majority of the respondents were male, with 56.4%
being irrigators and 51% being non-irrigators. However, there was no significant association
between the farmer’s gender and access to irrigation.
Most of the respondents were married (80.8% irrigators and 85% non-irrigators), as
shown in Table 3. The chi-square test result shows that p = 0.027, which is less than 0.05,
meaning that there is an association between irrigation access and marital status at a 5%
level of significance. The reason behind this could be that the marital status of a farmer has
an impact on their access to resources, decision-making power, and responsibilities [40].
The results also show that 72.1% of the irrigators had attained secondary-level education. In
addition, 68% of the non-irrigators had achieved secondary-level education. The chi-square
test result reveals that there is an association between the level of education and irrigation
access (p = 0.05). Education plays a vital role in a farmer’s ability to access irrigation
technology. According to Achichi et al. [40], educated farmers are more likely to embrace
new technology to enhance their farming practices.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 9 of 16

Table 3. Chi-square test results.

Variable Description Irrigators (%) Non-Irrigators (%) Chi-Square (p-Value)

Male 56.4 51 0.133
Gender of household head
Female 43.6 49 (0.716)
Married 80.8 85
Marital status of 7.223 **
Divorced 6.7 0
household head (0.027)
Widowed 12.5 15
No formal education 6.7 19
Primary education 19.5 13 16.150 **
Education of household head
Secondary education 72.1 68 (0.001)
Tertiary education 1.7 0
** Significant at a 5% level.

Descriptive statistics were also performed to analyse the age, household size, depen-
dency ratio, household labour, farming experience, farm income, food expenditure share,
and livestock ownership of the farmers. We performed the t-test to check if the differences
between irrigators and non-irrigators were significant (Table 4).

Table 4. Differences in the mean for continuous variables.

Farmer Type
Variable Measure t-Value
Irrigators Non-Irrigators
Mean 51.9 51.6
Age (years) −0.324
(Standard dev) (10.6) (8.4)
Household size Mean 4.9 4.3
−3.995 **
(number of persons) (Standard dev) (1.3) (0.9)
Dependency ratio Mean 0.5 0.3
2.669 **
(proportion per working-age members) (Standard dev) (0.8) (0.4)
Mean 2.8 2.5
Household labour (number of persons) −2.405 **
(Standard dev) (1.1) (0.7)
Mean 15.8 26.5
Farming experience (years) 14.677 **
(Standard dev) (5.8) (8.6)
Mean 269.22 96.12
Farm income (USD) 13.754 **
(Standard dev) (114.4) (97.3)
Mean 25 38.9
Food expenditure share (%) 8.945 **
(Standard dev) (13.6) (13.7)
Mean 3.1 1.4
Livestock owned (TLU) 4.988 **
(Standard dev) (3.2) (1.4)
** Significant at a 5% level.

The t-test results indicate no significant difference in the ages of irrigators and non-
irrigators. The results show significant differences in household size, dependency ratio,
farming experience, farm income, food expenditure share, and livestock owned between
irrigators and non-irrigators (p < 0.05). Household members under the age of 15 years and
those above 64 years are considered dependent [36]. The results show that the dependency
ratio was higher for irrigators (50%) than for non-irrigators (30%). There is a significant
difference in the dependency ratios (p < 0.05). This means that the irrigators have more
members who are dependent on them for basic needs such as food, clothing, and education
than non-irrigators. As expected, the irrigators were found to have significantly higher farm
income compared with non-irrigators (p < 0.05). Irrigation farming is practised throughout
the year; hence, it is usually associated with more income than rainfed farming [9,10].
Rainfed farming is confined to the rainy season; thus, no farm income is generated from
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 10 of 16

crop production during the dry season. High farm incomes are usually associated with
high levels of household food security [9,10].
The findings show that the food expenditure share was less for irrigators (25%) com-
pared with non-irrigators (38.9%) (Table 4). The difference in food expenditure shares
was significant (p < 0.05). Because of their lower food expenditure shares, irrigators are
more food secure than non-irrigators [3]. A high food expenditure share indicates that a
household is struggling to meet its food needs, while a low food expenditure share may
indicate that a household is food secure [3].
Table 4 shows that irrigators have average livestock ownership of 3.1 TLUs and non-
irrigators have 1.4 TLUs. The difference in livestock owned was significant (p < 0.05).
Irrigators are more likely to invest in livestock such as cattle, which have a symbiotic
relationship with crop production as they can provide draught power and manure for
crop production, while the Stover from the irrigated crops can be used as cattle feed [33].
Livestock ownership and food security are positively correlated [33]. This study’s findings
suggest that irrigating households are more food secure than non-irrigating ones.

3.2. Contribution of Access to Irrigation to Crop Production and Productivity

An analysis of the contribution of access to irrigation to crop production was also
conducted. Communal irrigation schemes such as Old-Biri and Biri-Extension are interven-
tions designed to increase income levels and food security for rural communities [26]. The
choice of crops grown is usually influenced by the subsistence threshold, the availability of
good roads, and the distance from marketing points for the marketed surplus [41]. Table 5
shows the crops grown, area planted, yield, and quantity sold.

Table 5. Area planted, yield, and quantity sold for summer and winter crops.

Farmer Type
Season Type of Crop Variable t-Values
Irrigators Non-Irrigators
Area planted (ha) 1.14 0.03 25.849 **
Maize Yield (t/ha) 0.58 0.13 9.372 **
Quantity sold (t) 0.30 0.01 21.750 **
Area planted (ha) 0 0.01 n/a
Summer Sorghum Yield (t/ha) 0 0.04 n/a
Quantity sold (t) 0 0.01 n/a
Area planted (ha) 0.04 0 n/a
Sugar bean Yield (t/ha) 0.54 0 n/a
Quantity sold (t) 0.02 0 n/a
Area planted (ha) 0.25 0 n/a
Green mealies Yield (dozens/ha) 3510 0 n/a
Quantity sold (dozens) 850 0 n/a
Winter Area planted (ha) 0.16 0 n/a
Wheat Yield (t/ha) 2.91 0 n/a
Quantity sold (t) 0.47 0 n/a
** Significant at a 5% level, n/a means not applicable.

Table 5 shows the area planted, yield, and quantity sold for both summer and winter
crops. Irrigators also own dryland plots on which they practice rainfed crop production
during the summer season. The area planted for maize was 1.14 ha for irrigators and 0.03 ha
for non-irrigators. For the irrigators, the area under maize production during the summer
season included both rainfed and irrigated plots, which explains the higher land holding of
the irrigators. The t-test results show that irrigators had significantly higher area planted,
yield, and quantity sold of maize during the summer than non-irrigators (p < 0.01). In
addition, the irrigators grew sugar beans on an average area of 0.04 ha during the summer
season, achieving a yield of 0.54 t/ha. During the summer season, the non-irrigators also
planted sorghum (0.01 ha), obtaining average yields of 0.04 t/ha.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 11 of 16

Green mealies and wheat were grown under irrigation during the winter season.
Table 5 shows that wheat was planted on an average area of 0.16 ha, whereas green
mealies were grown on an average area of 0.25 ha. The findings imply that irrigators
produce more cereals and have greater food security than non-irrigators. The findings
are similar to those of Nhundu and Mushunje [42], who found that irrigators produce
more cereals, which makes them more food secure than non-irrigators. In general, crop
production was higher and more diverse under the irrigation farming system compared
with the rainfed farming system. The findings are consistent with those of Gebregziabher
et al. [43], who found that the productivity of crops grown under irrigation was greater
than that of rainfed crops in Tigray, Ethiopia. Irrigation improves crop production and
productivity by providing a reliable water supply, increasing crop yield, extending growing
seasons, facilitating crop diversification, and promoting, efficient resource utilization in
agricultural communities [44–46]. Understanding the crops grown in a farming system
helps researchers and policymakers develop technologies and policies to improve crop
production and productivity.

3.3. Contribution of Irrigation Access to Food Security

The respondents’ food security status is shown in Figure 2. Approximately 97% of the
irrigating households and 45% of the non-irrigating households were food secure. Thus,
irrigating households were more food secure than non-irrigating ones. These observed
differences could be attributed to differences in access to irrigation technology. For instance,
irrigators can grow crops all year round which helps to boost their household food stocks
compared with non-irrigators who only grow crops during the rainy season. The findings
concur with the prior expectation that access to irrigation increases household food security.
Wondimagegnhu
Agriculture 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW and Bogale [8] reported similar findings, where families with 12 ofirrigation
17
had higher levels of food security than those without.

Irrigators (%) Non‐irrigators (%)

100 97.4

80

60 55
Percent

45

40

20

2.6
0
Food insecure Food secure
Food security status

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Food
Foodsecurity
securitystatus.
status.

Table 66 shows
Table showsthetheresults
resultsofof
thethe
binary logistic
binary regression
logistic model.
regression The diagnostic
model. test test
The diagnostic
results indicate that there was no multicollinearity because the VIF values were less
results indicate that there was no multicollinearity because the VIF values2 were less than than
10 and the contingency coefficient values were less than 0.7 [32]. The pseudo-R value in-
10 and the contingency coefficient values were less than 0.7 [32]. The pseudo-R2 value
dicates that the independent variables account for 60.8% of the variation in food security.
The χ2 statistic for the Hosmer and Lemeshow test of 5.377 and the model fit of p = 0.717
demonstrate that the model fits the data sufficiently because the p-value is greater than
0.05.

Table 6. Binary logistic regression results.

Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 12 of 16

indicates that the independent variables account for 60.8% of the variation in food security.
The χ2 statistic for the Hosmer and Lemeshow test of 5.377 and the model fit of p = 0.717
demonstrate that the model fits the data sufficiently because the p-value is greater than 0.05.

Table 6. Binary logistic regression results.

Explanatory Variables B Wald Sig. Exp (B)

Age of farmer 0.003 0.017 0.895 1.003
Gender of farmer 0.377 0.886 0.347 1.458
Education of farmer 0.016 0.076 0.783 1.016
Household size −0.443 6.249 0.012 ** 0.642
Dependency ratio 0.515 1.385 0.239 1.673
Farm size 0.156 0.723 0.395 1.169
Irrigation access 3.477 18.646 0.000 ** 32.357
Farm income 0.010 12.140 0.000 ** 1.010
Livestock holding (TLU) 0.050 0.206 0.650 1.051
Extension frequency −0.073 2.588 0.108 0.930
Constant −0.070 0.002 0.968 0.932
Pearson χ2 5.377
Nagelkerke R2 0.608
N 444
Log-likelihood 184.936
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test 0.717
** Significant at a 5% level.

Most independent variables had expected signs except for the dependency ratio and
extension frequency (Table 6). Only three variables, including household size, farm income,
and irrigation access, had a significant correlation with food security. The age of the
farmer, gender of the farmer, education of the farmer, dependency ratio, farm size, livestock
holding, and extension frequency had no significant correlation with food security.
Household size had a negative and significant correlation with food security (p = 0.012,
which is less than 0.05). This suggests that the likelihood of a household being food secure
decreases by a factor of 0.64 if household size increases by one member. The results are
similar to those of a study carried out by Gemechu, Zemedu, and Yousuf [47], which
revealed that a bigger family size reduces the likelihood of being food secure. According to
Sekhampu [35], bigger households typically have a higher demand for food. If resources
are limited, larger households may find it difficult to access sufficient and nutritious food,
reducing food security [35].
The findings show that irrigation access has a positive and significant correlation with
food security (p = 0.000, which is less than 0.01). A unit increase in access to irrigation
increases the likelihood of a household being food secure by a factor of 32.36. The findings
are similar to the prior expectation that access to irrigation increases food security as farm-
ers can grow crops throughout the year, thus, increasing their food supplies. The results are
similar to those of research carried out by Balana et al. [15] and Wondimagegnhu and Bo-
gale [8], which found that irrigation increases household food security. Access to irrigation
enhances food security by improving crop production, enabling crop diversification, en-
hancing resilience, promoting sustainable intensification, and generating employment and
income [37,38]. Hence, government policies should enhance access to irrigation, and more
resources should be availed towards investments in irrigation infrastructure, expanding
coverage and rehabilitation of existing irrigation systems. The government of Zimbabwe
aims to increase the irrigated land area from 180,000 ha to more than 350,000 ha from 2021
to 2025, as stated in the NDS 1 [16]. This policy measure will help to increase access to
irrigation, which will in turn improve household food security in the country.
Farm income has a positive and significant correlation with household food security
(p = 0.000, which is less than 0.01). This implies that if farm income increases by one unit, the
likelihood of being food secure increases by a factor of 1.01. The findings are similar to the
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 13 of 16

prior expectation that farm income directly correlates with household food security. Money
obtained from farming can be used to buy food for the household [15]. Balana et al. [15]
and Wondimagegnhu and Bogale [8] also found similar results that farm income and
household food security are positively related. Farm income enables households to access
a diverse range of food items, including fresh produce, protein sources, and other essential
nutrients [39]. It is also important to note that the relationship between income access to
irrigation, and food security is bidirectional, with each factor influencing the others [8].
A positive feedback loop can exist, where higher income facilitates access to irrigation,
leading to improved food security, which, in turn, can contribute to increased income [8,15].
Recognizing this bidirectional relationship is important for designing comprehensive
interventions that address multiple determinants and promote sustainable improvements
in food security [8].

3.4. Food Insecurity Consumption Coping Strategies

If households fail to access enough food to meet their needs, they resort to various
consumption coping strategies that are necessary for them to survive. The four main
categories of consumption coping strategies are change in diet, reducing the number of
people to feed, food rationing, and temporary strategies that increase food supply [31].
Consumption coping strategies are commonly employed in the short run. Figure 3 shows
the various consumption coping strategies that were being utilised by households to cope
with food shortages. The coping strategies were obtained from the survey conducted14in ofthe17
Agriculture 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
study area.

Irrigators Non‐irrigators

90

80

70

60
Percent

50

40

30

20

10

0
Rely on less Borrow food Purchase Send Send Limit Reduce
preferred or food on household household portion size number of
less credit members to members to meals
expensive eat beg
food elsewhere

Consumption coping strategies

Figure3.3.Consumption
Figure Consumptioncoping
copingstrategies.
strategies.

The irrigators
The irrigators used
used four
fourconsumption
consumptioncoping
copingstrategies including
strategies relying
including on less
relying pre-
on less
ferred or less expensive food (68%), purchasing food on credit (15%), limiting portion
preferred or less expensive food (68%), purchasing food on credit (15%), limiting portion size
(4%), and reducing the number of meals (5%). Non-irrigators were
size (4%), and reducing the number of meals (5%). Non-irrigators were using seven different
seven different
consumptioncoping
consumption copingstrategies,
strategies,which
whichincluded
includedrelying
relyingononless
lesspreferred
preferredor
orless
lessexpensive
expensive
food (80%), borrowing food (25%), purchasing food on credit (6%), sending household
members to eat elsewhere (18%), begging for food (24%), limiting portion size (33%), and
reducing the number of meals eaten per day (41%). The findings show that non-irrigators
have more food insecurity coping mechanisms compared with irrigators. Non-irrigators
are more vulnerable to food insecurity compared with irrigators. It is important to note
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 14 of 16

food (80%), borrowing food (25%), purchasing food on credit (6%), sending household
members to eat elsewhere (18%), begging for food (24%), limiting portion size (33%), and
reducing the number of meals eaten per day (41%). The findings show that non-irrigators
have more food insecurity coping mechanisms compared with irrigators. Non-irrigators
are more vulnerable to food insecurity compared with irrigators. It is important to note that
these coping strategies are often adopted out of necessity and reflect the resource constraints
faced by food-insecure households. Addressing food insecurity requires comprehensive
approaches that go beyond short-term coping strategies [15]. Long-term solutions such as
investments in irrigation infrastructure help to improve access to nutritious and affordable
food, enhance income opportunities, promote sustainable agricultural practices, and build
resilience in vulnerable rural communities [3,8,9].

4. Conclusions
Smallholder irrigation development increases the chances that Zimbabwe will achieve
the global SDG 2 and the local NDS 1 goals of improving food security. This study con-
tributes to the debate on smallholder irrigation and household food security in Zimbabwe
and similar developing countries. This study’s findings suggest that irrigating households
tend to be more food secure compared with non-irrigating households. Crop production
was higher and more diverse for irrigating households compared with non-irrigating
ones. Furthermore, the FCS measure revealed that about 97% of irrigating households
were food secure compared with 45% of non-irrigating households. The binary logistic
regression results indicate that irrigation access, household size, and farm income have
a significant relationship with food security. However, the age of the farmer, gender,
education, dependency ratio, farm size, livestock holding, and access to extension had
no significant relationship with food security. Households were found to be employing
various strategies to cope with food insecurity, such as opting for cheaper and less desirable
food choices, borrowing food, buying food on credit, sending household members to eat
elsewhere, sending household members to beg, reducing portion sizes, and cutting down
on the number of daily meals consumed. Based on the results, this study concludes that
the presence of smallholder irrigation enhances crop production, productivity, and the
overall food security of households. This study recommends that the government and its
development partners should continue to invest in smallholder irrigation development in
rural areas because access to irrigation contributes positively to household food security.
Further studies should be conducted on the determinants of irrigation access in the studied
areas. Understanding the determinants of irrigation access is vital for improving house-
hold food security by increasing agricultural productivity, promoting crop diversification,
enhancing resilience to climate change, generating income, and supporting sustainable
water resource management. By addressing barriers and improving access to irrigation,
households can enhance their ability to produce food, increase their income, and improve
their overall well-being.

Author Contributions: N.M.: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation,

methodology, software, visualization, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing.
G.M. and R.M.: project administration, supervision, validation, visualization, and writing—review
and editing. P.L.M.: writing—review and editing, validation, project administration, visualization,
resources, and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was approved by the Midlands State University
Research Board Committee (20 September 2021).
Data Availability Statement: The data are available on request because of restrictions.
Acknowledgments: This work is part of a Doctoral research project by the first author supported
by the Midlands State University. The National Research Foundation of South Africa, through the
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 15 of 16

Department of Agronomy and Rural Development [grant 86893], University of KwaZulu Natal,
provided funding for the publication of this paper. The authors are grateful to the enumerators who
assisted during the data collection process. We also express gratitude to the farmers who participated
in the survey.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing Food and Agricultural
Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [CrossRef]
2. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023. Urbanization, Agrifood Systems
Transformation and Healthy Diets across the Rural–Urban Continuum; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. [CrossRef]
3. Jambo, Y.; Alemu, A.; Tasew, W. Impact of small-scale irrigation on household food security: Evidence from Ethiopia. Agric. Food
Secur. 2021, 10, 21. [CrossRef]
4. FAO. Zimbabwe|Agricultural Livelihoods and Food Security in the Context of COVID-19: Monitoring Report—May 2021; FAO: Rome,
Italy, 2021. [CrossRef]
5. Nkegbe, P.K.; Abu, B.M.; Issahaku, H. Food security in the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority Zone of Ghana: An
ordered probit with household hunger scale approach. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 35. [CrossRef]
6. Wiggins, S.; Keats, S. Smallholder Agriculture’s Contribution to Better Nutrition; ODI: London, UK, 2013.
7. Fan, S.; Rue, C. The role of smallholder farms in a changing world. In The Role of Smallholder Farms in Food and Nutrition Security;
Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 13–28.
8. Wondimagegnhu, B.A.; Bogale, B.A. Small-scale irrigation and its effect on food security of rural households in North-West
Ethiopia: A comparative analysis. Ethiop. J. Sci. Technol. 2020, 13, 31–51. [CrossRef]
9. Chidavaenzi, F.R.; Mazenda, A.; Ndlovu, N. Household survival and resilience to food insecurity through the drip irrigation
scheme in dry rural areas. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2021, 13, 1–8. [CrossRef]
10. Mhembwe, S.; Chiunya, N.; Dube, E. The contribution of small-scale rural irrigation schemes towards food security of smallholder
farmers in Zimbabwe. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2019, 11, a674. [CrossRef]
11. Endale, W.; Mengesha, Z.B.; Atinafu, A.; Adane, A.A. Food Insecurity in Farta District, Northwest Ethiopia: A community based
cross–sectional study. BMC Res. Notes 2014, 7, 1–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. FAO. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture (SOLAW)—Managing Systems at Risk; Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy; Earthscan: London, UK, 2011.
13. Adeniyi, D.A.; Dinbabo, M.F. Factors influencing household food security among irrigation smallholders in North West Nigeria.
J. Rev. Glob. Econ. 2019, 8, 291–304. [CrossRef]
14. Ogunniyi, A.; Omonona, B.; Abioye, O.; Olagunju, K. Impact of irrigation technology use on crop yield, crop income and
household food security in Nigeria: A treatment effect approach. AIMS Agric. Food 2018, 3, 154–171.
15. Balana, B.B.; Bizimana, J.C.; Richardson, J.W.; Lefore, N.; Adimassu, Z.; Herbst, B.K. Economic and food security effects of
small-scale irrigation technologies in northern Ghana. Water Resour. Econ. 2020, 29, 100141. [CrossRef]
16. Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ). National Development Strategy 1 (2021–2025); GoZ: Harare, Zimbabwe, 2020.
17. World Food Program. Zimbabwe Country Brief ; WFP: Rome, Italy, 2023.
18. Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC). Rural Livelihoods Assessment Report; Food and Nutrition Council
Zimbabwe: Harare, Zimbabwe, 2023.
19. Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency. Zimbabwe Poverty Report; ZIMSTAT: Harare, Zimbabwe, 2019.
20. Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC). Rural Livelihoods Assessment Report; Food and Nutrition Council
Zimbabwe: Harare, Zimbabwe, 2022.
21. Punch, K. Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2005.
22. Balarabe Kura, S.Y. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Poverty: Taming the Tensions and Appreciating the
Complementarities. Qual. Rep. 2012, 17, 1–19. [CrossRef]
23. Rahman, M.S. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language
“Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review. J. Educ. Learn. 2017, 6, 102–112. [CrossRef]
24. Manatsa, D.; Mushore, T.; Gwitira, T.; Wuta, M.; Chemura, A.; Shekede, M.; Mugandani, R.; Sakala, L.; Ali, L.; Masukwedza, G.;
et al. Report on Revised Agroecological Zones of Zimbabwe; Bindura University: Bindura, Zimbabwe, 2020.
25. Gumbo, D. Working Together to Respond to Climate Change. Annex I Expert Group Seminar in Conjunction with the OECD
Global Forum on Sustainable Development Zimbabwe Country Case Study on Domestic Policy Frameworks for Adaptation in
the Water Sector. WWF Southern Africa: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
26. Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisaion and Irrigation Development. Irrigation Schemes Report, Midlands Province; MAMID: Harare,
Zimbabwe, 2020.
27. Israel, G.D. Determining Sample Size; University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Institute of Food and Agriculture
Sciences, EDIS: Gainesville, FL, USA, 1992; pp. 1–5.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 617 16 of 16

28. Haji, J.; Aman, M.; Hailu, T. Impact analysis of Mede Telila small scale irrigation scheme on house poverty alleviation: Case of
Gorogutu district in eastern Haratghe Oromia national regional state Ethiopia. Int. J. Dev. Econ. Sustain. 2013, 1, 15–30.
29. Sinyolo, S. The Impact of Smallholder Irrigation and Water Security on Household Welfare: The Case of Tugela Ferry Irrigation Scheme in
KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa; School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences; University of KwaZulu-Natal: Durban,
South Africa, 2013.
30. Bacha, D.; Namara, R.; Bogale, A.; Tesfaye, A. Impact of small-scale irrigation on household poverty: Empirical evidence from the
Ambo district in Ethiopia. Irrig. Drain. 2011, 60, 1–10. [CrossRef]
31. VAM; WFP. Food Consumption Analysis: Calculation and Use of the Food Consumption Score in Food Security Analysis; Vulnerability
Analysis and Mapping Unit, World Food Programme: Rome, Italy, 2008.
32. Gujarati, D.N. Basic Econometrics, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
33. Woleba, G.; Tadiwos, T.; Bojago, E.; Senapathy, M. Household food security, determinants and coping strategies among small-scale
farmers in Kedida Gamela district, Southern Ethiopia. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 12, 100597. [CrossRef]
34. Bojago, E.; Abrham, Y. Small-scale irrigation (SSI) farming as a climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practice and its influence on
livelihood improvement in Offa District, Southern Ethiopia. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 12, 100534. [CrossRef]
35. Sekhampu, T.J. Determination of the factors affecting the food security status of households in Bophelong, South Africa. Int. Bus.
Econ. Res. J. (IBER) 2013, 12, 543–550. [CrossRef]
36. Hammer, B.; Prskawetz, A.; Freund, I. Production activities and economic dependency by age and gender in Europe: A
cross-country comparison. J. Econ. Ageing 2015, 5, 86–97. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Ahmed, J. The Role of Small Scale Irrigation to Household Food Security in Ethiopia: A Review Paper. J. Resour. Dev. Manag.
2019, 60, 20–25.
38. Feliciano, D. A review on the contribution of crop diversification to Sustainable Development Goal 1 “No poverty” in different
world regions. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 795–808. [CrossRef]
39. Fanzo, J.; Hawkes, C.; Udomkesmalee, E.; Afshin, A.; Allemandi, L.; Assery, O.; Baker, P.; Battersby, J.; Bhutta, Z.; Chen, K.; et al.
2018 Global Nutrition Report: Shining a Light to Spur Action on Nutrition. Development Initiatives: London, UK, 2018.
40. Achichi, C.; Sennuga, S.O.; Osho-Lagunju, B.; Alabuja, F.O. Effect of Farmers’ Socioeconomic Characteristics on Access to
Agricultural Information in Gwagwalada Area Council, Abuja. Discov. Agric. Food Sci. 2023, 10, 28–47.
41. Kassegn, A.; Abdinasir, U. Determinants of rural households’ livelihood diversification strategies: In the case of north Wollo zone,
Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. Cogent Econ. Financ. 2023, 11, 2185347. [CrossRef]
42. Nhundu, K.; Mushunje, A. Irrigation Development: A Food Security and Household Income Perspective, Problems, Perspectives and
Challenges of Agricultural Water Management; Kumar, M., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-953-51-0117-8. Available on-
line: http://www.intechopen.com/books/problems-perspectives-and-challenges-of-agricultural-water-management/irrigation-
development-food-security-and-household-income-perspective (accessed on 17 September 2023).
43. Gebregziabher, G.; Namara, R.E.; Holden, S. Technical efficiency of irrigated and rainfed smallholder agriculture in Tigray,
Ethiopia: A comparative stochastic frontier production function analysis. Q. J. Int. Agric. 2012, 51, 203–226.
44. Mkanthama, J.; Makombe, G.; Kihoro, J.; Ateka, E.M.; Kanjere, M. Technical efficiency of rainfed and irrigated rice production in
Tanzania. Irrig. Drain. 2018, 67, 233–241. [CrossRef]
45. Kalkidan, F.; Tewodros, M. Review on the role of small scale irrigation agriculture on poverty alleviation in Ethiopia. North Asian
Int. Res. J. Multidiscipl. 2017, 3, 1–18.
46. Makombe, G.; Namara, R.E.; Awulachew, S.B.; Hagos, F.; Ayana, M.; Kanjere, M. An analysis of the productivity and technical
efficiency of smallholder irrigation in Ethiopia. Water SA 2017, 43, 48–57. [CrossRef]
47. Gemechu, F.; Zemedu, L.; Yousuf, J. Determinants of farm household food security in Hawi Gudina district, west Hararghe zone,
Oromia regional national state, Ethiopia. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. 2016, 8, 12–18.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.