View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE): E-Journals

Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org

ISSN 2224-3216 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0948 (Online)
Vol.6, No.7, 2016

Climate Change Adaptation Strategies of Smallholder Farmers:

The Case of Assosa District, Western Ethiopia
Seid Sani1* Jema Haji2 (Associate professor) Degye Goshu2 (Assistant professor)
1.Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Natural Resource, Assosa University, P. O.
BOX 018, Assosa, Ethiopia
2.School of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science,
Haramaya University, P.O. BOX 138, Ethiopia

Abstract
This study identified farmers’ choice of and factors determining adaptation strategies to climate change in
Assosa district, western Ethiopia which is severely affected by climate change stresses. Both primary and
secondary data were used for the study. Primary data were collected from a randomly selected 140 sample
households through interview and focus group discussions. Relevant secondary data were also obtained from
Assosa district office of agriculture, national metrology agency and different reports. Descriptive statistics were
used to describe farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change. Multivariate probit model was estimated to
identify the factors determining households’ choice of adaptation strategies to climate change. The results of the
model pointed out that the likelihood of households to adopt irrigation, improved varieties of crops, adjustment
of planting date, crop diversification and soil conservation practices were 52.3%, 45.8%, 49.5%, 46.9% and
34.1%, respectively. The results also indicated that the joint likelihood of using all adaptation strategies was only
1.5% and the joint likelihood of failure to adopt all of the adaptation strategies was 3.5%. Moreover, Multivariate
probit model confirmed that sex, literacy status, farming experience, family size, land holding, access to credit,
access to media, extension contact, farmer to farmer extension, farm income, off/non-farm income, livestock
ownership, market distance and access to training have a statistically significant impact on climate adaptation
strategies. Therefore, policy makers should focus on the aforementioned factors to enhance farmers’ adaptation
to climate change in order to reduce their vulnerability to different shocks and seasonality as well as to improve
their livelihood.
Keywords: Climate change, Adaptation strategies, Multivariate probit model, Assosa district, Western Ethiopia

1. Introduction
Climate change is a global concern as it severely affects the livelihoods of the world community in general and
agricultural production and food security of the farming community in particular. Climate change affects
agricultural production and productivity of the rural community both directly and indirectly. It directly affects
agriculture by affecting the weather variables, which are important inputs for agricultural production, such as
temperature, solar radiation, rainfall, wind speed and humidity (Sowunmi and Kintola, 2009) and indirectly
through disease and pest outbreaks as well as favoring the development of climate related diseases like malaria
that affect the work force (Ngigi, 2009). Newton et al. (2010) also indicated that climate change affects the
complex interactions between crop and pathogens leading to increased outbreak of pests and diseases.
The impact of climate change on agricultural production is not uniform across regions of the world.
Because of greater agricultural share in their economies and limited ability to adapt developing countries are
expected to suffer more from global climate change. As depicted by Oxfam (2010), Ethiopia is especially
vulnerable to climate variability and change because large portions of the population are poor and depend on
agricultural income, which is highly sensitive to rainfall variability and change in temperature. Most of the
farmers have low access to education, information, technology, and basic social and support services, and, as a
result, have low adaptive capacity to deal with the consequences of climate change.
Particularly, the study area is highly affected by climate change and variability. As Temesgen et al.
(2008) indicated most significant climate change impact in the western part of Ethiopia is due to drought and
flood. The overall natural resources base of the region is highly degraded. This initial potential together with the
current global climate change aggravates the vulnerability of the community to climate change impacts. Various
reports agree that the region has been facing droughts that have occurred in the country indicating susceptibility
of the region to climate change. Thus, people in the region are facing a variety of shocks and become vulnerable.
However, farmers in the study area have been responding to climate change through various adaptation strategies.
But, there was no empirical study that substantiates or supports the existing adaptation strategies practiced by the
farmers in the area. To intervene the problem, which can motivate smallholder farmers adaptation to climate
change, there needs to critically investigate the adaptation strategies used and determinants of the use of the
adaptation strategies. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the adaptation strategies pursued and factors
determining the use of adaptation strategies are important to improve the response mechanisms to climate change.
Thus, these are the gaps of knowledge that this study intends to bridge. This study aimed at investigating the

9
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0948 (Online)
Vol.6, No.7, 2016

climate change adaptation strategies practiced by smallholder farmers’ in response to its adverse effects and
analyzing determinants of the use of adaptation strategies.

2. Methodology
Asosa district, the study area, is one of the 20 districts of Benishangul Gumuz region. The district is bordered by
Banbasi and Menge districts in the east; Sudan and Kurmuk in the west; Komosha and Menge districts in the
north; and Tongo and Bambasi districts in the south. Agro-ecologically, the district is mostly classified as
lowland (kola) with an average rainfall of 1275 mm per annum and an altitude range of 1300-1570 meter above
sea level. The total population of the district was 92,687, of whom about 73.98% live in rural set-ups while the
remaining 26.01% were urban dwellers (BGRSDGA, 2010).

Assosa
District

Figure 1. Location map of the study area

For this study, both primary and secondary data were used. Primary data were obtained from sample
households in the district using interview schedule and FGD. Interviews were conducted between February and
April 2014. Relevant secondary data were also collected from Assosa district office agriculture, national
metrology agency and different reports.
A two-stage random sampling technique was applied to select sample households. In the first stage, ten
peasant associations were randomly selected out of the total 74 Peasant associations in the district. In the second
stage, a total of 140 household heads were selected randomly using probability proportional to size of
households in the selected peasant associations.
As to the methods of data analysis both descriptive statistics and multivariate probit model were
employed. Descriptive statistics such as percentages and frequency were used to describe the different adaptation
strategies used by farmers in the study area.

Econometric model
Farmers are more likely to adopt a bundle of adaptation strategies to deal with a multitude of climate induced
risks and constrains than adopting a single strategy. Based on this justification, Multivariate probit model was
employed to analyze the data as it enables to analyze determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and
the possible interrelationships between different adaptation strategies. The use of climate change adaptation
strategies is modeled under the general framework of utility maximization (Nhemachena and Hassan, 2007).
The dependent variable in the empirical estimation for this study is the choice of a particular or different
adaptation option(s) from the set of adaptation measures. Following Lin et al. (2005), the multivariate probit
econometric approach for this study is characterized by a set of m binary dependent variables Yhpj such that:
(1)

(2)

10
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0948 (Online)
Vol.6, No.7, 2016

Where j=1, 2 …m denotes the climate change adaptation strategies available; is a vector of
explanatory variables, denotes the vector of parameter to be estimated, and are random error terms
distributed as multivariate normal distribution with mean value of zero and unitary variance. It is assumed that a
rational farmer has a latent variable, which captures the unobserved preferences or demand associated
with the choice of adaptation strategy. This latent variable is assumed to be a linear combination of observed
household and other characteristics that affect the adoption of adaptation strategy, as well as unobserved
characteristics captured by the stochastic error term. Given the latent nature of the variable , the estimation
is based on the observable variable Yhpj which indicates whether or not a household adopt a specific climate
change adaptation strategy. Since adoption of several adaptation strategies is possible, the error terms in equation
(1) are assumed to jointly follow a multivariate normal distribution, with zero mean value and variance
normalized to unity. The off-diagonal elements in the covariance matrix represent the unobserved correlation
between the non-deterministic component of the and type of adaptation strategies. These assumptions
mean that equation (2) gives a multivariate probit model that jointly represents decision to adopt a particular
adaptation strategy.
Table 1: Operational definition of variables
Dependent variable Measurement Hypothesis
Climate change adaptation strategies
Independent variables
Sex of HH head Dummy (0= female, 1= male) +
Farming experience Continuous (years) +
Livestock holding Continuous (TLU) +
Land holding Continuous (hectares) +
Literacy status Dummy ( 1= literate, 0= no formal education) +
Farm income Continuous (in Birr/year) +
Off/non-farm income Continuous (in Birr/year) +/-
Access to training Dummy( 1= access to training, 0=otherwise) +
Access to farmer to farmer extension Dummy( 1= if yes, 0=otherwise) +
Access to mass media(Radio) Dummy( 1= if yes, 0=otherwise) +
Family size Continuous ( number) +/ -
Frequency of extension contact Continuous ( number of visit per year) +
Access to credit Dummy( 1= if the HH get credit, 0=otherwise) -
Distance to market Continuous ( km) -

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies
In the study district, farmers have adopted different strategies to reduce the consequences of climate change so
far and to manage future patterns in climate change.
Table 2: Summary of adaptation strategies used by farmers
Adaptation strategies Number of respondents Percent (%)
Irrigation 77 55
Improved varieties 71 50.7
Adjusting planting date 69 49.3
Crop diversification 80 57.1
Soil conservation practices 51 36.4
Source: Survey result
Note that a farmer can have more than one adaptation strategy.
In the study area, about 55% of sampled respondents used irrigation as an adaptation strategy to reduce
the adverse effects of climate change. It has become widely used substitute for inadequate or unreliable
precipitation in the district since recent years. Because it provides large comparative advantage to farmers of the
district to produce different horticultural crops such as tomato, onion, pepper, head cabbage, carrot, potatoes,
sweet potato, etc to cope up the impact that climate change imposes on their livelihood. Moreover, about 50.7%
of farmers used improved crop varieties (drought resistant and short maturing varieties) as an adaptation strategy
to reduce the adverse effect of climate change.
In the study area, 49.3% of sample households used adjusting planting date, from early planting to late
planting or vice versa, as an adaptation strategy to reduce the adverse effect of climate change. The descriptive

11
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0948 (Online)
Vol.6, No.7, 2016

statistics result also revealed that about 57% of sampled households used crop diversification (mixed cropping,
intercropping and dividing farm lands into varying crops) as an adaptation strategy to reduce the adverse effect
of climate change. This because crop diversification helps farmers to spread risks associated a single or few
crop(s) (Lema and Majule, 2009).
A soil conservation practice is the other climate change adaptation strategy pursued by smallholder
farmers in the study area. Accordingly, about 36.4% of sampled households used soil conservation techniques
(Soil/stone bunds, tied ridging, ridging, etc.) as adaptation strategy to reduce the adverse effect of climate change
on farm productivity. This is because land degradation as a result of climate change is declining production and
productivity of smallholder farmers in the study area.

3.2. Determinants of Farmers’ Choice of Adaptation Strategies

To respond to climate change and reduce its negative effects farmers in the study area used irrigation, improved
varieties of crops, adjusting planting date, crop diversification and soil conservation practices as a major climate
change adaptation strategies. But, choice of an adaptation option(s) determined by a number of factors. To
analyze determinants of the choice of an adaptation option(s) the study employed Multivariate probit simulation
model. The likelihood ratio test from Multivariate probit model showed the overall significance of the model at
1% probability level and supports that choice of climate change adaptation strategies are not mutually
independent. The model results suggested that there was positive and significant interdependence between
household decisions to adapt use of irrigation and using improved varieties of crops; use of irrigation and crop
diversification; using improved varieties of crops and crop diversification; and crop diversification and soil
conservation practices. It also suggested that there was negative and significant interdependence between
household decisions to adapt use of irrigation and adjusting planting date, and using improved varieties of crops
and adjusting planting date (See appendix table 1).
Furthermore, the result of MVP model shows that the probability of households to adopt irrigation,
improved varieties of crops, adjust planting date, use crop diversification and soil conservation practices were
52.3%, 45.8%, 49.5%, 46.9% and 34.1%, respectively. The result also conveyed that the joint probability of
using all adaptation strategies was only 1.5% and the joint probability of failure to adopt all of the adaptation
strategies was 3.5%.
From the MVP model variables that are significant at less than or equal to 10% significance level are
discussed as follows (See appendix table 1).
Literacy status of the household head: This variable significantly and positively affected use of crop
diversification and soil conservation practices as adaptation strategies at 5% significance level. This implies that
being literate household head increases the use of crop diversification and soil conservation practices as an
adaptation strategy to climate change. This is because literate households can easily access information, capable
to interpret the information, easily understand and analyze the information about consequence of climate change
on productivity and benefit of crop diversification and soil conservation practices to reduce the impact of climate
change relative to those farmers with no formal education. This finding is in line with the investigation of
Temesgen et al. (2008).
Family size: It has positive and significant impact on the likelihood of using irrigation, use of improved crop
varieties and crop diversification as an adaptation strategy to reduce the negative impact of climate change. The
possible reason is that large family size is normally associated with a higher labor endowment, which would
enable a household to accomplish various agricultural tasks which are labour intensive such as diversifying farm
products, using irrigation agriculture and using new varieties of different crops which require new farm
operations. Temesgen et al. (2008) also found similar result. But, it has negative and significant impact on the
likelihood of taking adjusting planting date and soil conservation practices as an adaptation strategy to reduce the
negative impact of climate change. This could be because households with large families may be forced to divert
part of the labor force to off/non-farm activities in an attempt to earn income in order to ease the consumption
pressure imposed by a large family and this finding is in line with the finding of Belaineh et al. (2013).
Distance from the market center: It significantly and negatively affected use of adjusting planting date as
adaptation strategy. This could be due to the fact that better access to markets enables farmers to obtain
information on climate change and other important inputs they may need if they are to change their practices to
cope with predicted changes in future climate (Temesgen, 2010).
Livestock ownership: The ownership of livestock of the households has positive and significant impact on use
of soil conservation practices as adaptation strategy. The possible reason could be livestock plays a very
important role by providing traction (especially oxen) and manure required for soil fertility maintenance. The
other reason could be farmers with large herd size have better chance to earn more money to invest on tools
required for soil conservation practices (Chilot, 2007). But, livestock ownership has negative and significant
impact on use of crop diversification as adaptation strategy. The possible reason could be livestock rearing
requires a grazing land which makes livestock competent with crop production.

12
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0948 (Online)
Vol.6, No.7, 2016

Off/non-farm income: The result of the model indicated that off/non-farm income increases uptake of irrigation
and improved crop varieties as adaptation strategies to climate change. The implication of the result was that
availability of off /non-farm income improves farmers’ financial position, which, in turn, enables them to
purchase farm inputs such as seed, fertilizer and materials needed for irrigation. Aemro et al. (2012) reported
similar result.
Farm income: It has a positive and significant impact on use of improved crop varieties as an adaptation
strategy. The possible explanation is that when the main source of income in farming would increase, farmers
tend to invest on purchase of improved seed varieties which increases productivity. This result is consistent with
Temesgen et al. (2008).
Extension contact: The result of the model indicated that frequency of extension visit to the households has
positive and significant impact on use of adjusting planting date to reduce the negative impact of climate change.
This is because extension services serve as an important source of information on agronomic practices as well as
on climate that enhance their awareness about the importance of adjusting planting date as an adaptation strategy.
Aymone (2009) has found similar result.
Access to credit: The result indicated that having access to credit has a positive and significant impact on
likelihood of using improved varieties of crops and soil conservation practices. Access to affordable credit
increases financial resources of farmers and their ability to meet transaction costs associated with various
adaptation options they might want to take (Hassan and Nhemachena, 2008). Farmers with financial resources
and access to markets farmers are able to buy new crop varieties and other important inputs they may need to
change their practices to suit the forecasted and prevailing climatic conditions Temesgen et al. (2009).
Access to training: Participation in climate change related training programs is found to be positively and
significantly associated with using irrigation and adjusting planting date as adaptation strategies. This is because
farmers participated on training would have better awareness about climate change and possible adaptation
strategies. This result is consistent with the finding of Isabirye et al. (2010).
Access to media: Access to media (radio) has significant and positive impact on the use of improved crop
varieties to adapt to the negative effects of climate change. Media is used to access information and knowledge
to strengthen local agriculture system. Raising awareness of changes in climatic conditions and on new seeds and
crops variety, livestock breeds, irrigation applications, reminders about planting dates, pest and disease control
and livestock vaccinations through radio and television would have greater impact in increasing adaptation to
changes in climatic conditions.
Farmer to farmer extension: Access to farmer to farmer extension (information and input sharing) has a
positive and significant impact on the likelihood of using adjusting planting date as adaptation strategy to climate
change. Because, farm to farm extension and social network increases awareness about climate change impacts
and its adaptation strategies and also farmers share useful information with each other about the appropriate time
of planting date due to climate change. This finding is consistent with the finding of Temesgen et al. (2008).
Land holding: This variable significantly and negatively affected use of irrigation and improved crop varieties
as climate change adaptation strategies. The possible reason could be if the farmers have more land holding they
can benefit from the economic scale of it as compared with those who have small land holding. This result is
consistent with the findings of Temesgen et al. (2008).

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

Farmers adopt different kinds of adaptation strategies to reduce the negative consequences of climate change so
as to maintain and/or to improve their livelihood. Accordingly, this study pointed out that 55%, 50.7%, 49.3%,
57.1% and 36.1% of the farmers were using irrigation, improved varieties, changing/adjusting planting date, crop
diversification and soil conservation practices, respectively.
Multivariate probit model was employed to determine the factors determining farm households choice
of adaptation strategies related to climate change. The result of the model showed that farmers use irrigation and
improved varieties; irrigation and crop diversification; improved varieties of crops and crop diversification; and
crop diversification and soil conservation practices in a complementary fashion. But, farmers use irrigation and
adjusting planting date, and use of improved varieties and adjusting planting date in a substitute fashion.
MVP result also confirms that land holding, family size, off/non-farm income and access to training
have a significant impact on the use of irrigation as climate change adaptation strategy. It also showed that land
holding, family size, access to credit, access to media, farm income and off/non-farm income significantly affect
the use of improved crop varieties to adapt to climate change. Moreover, as obtained from the model result
family size, extension contact, farmer to farmer extension and distance from the market center are significant in
determining choice of adjusting planting dates as an adaptation strategy. Literacy status, family size, livestock
ownership and access to training significantly determined farmers’ use of crop diversification to adapt to climate
change impacts. Finally, literacy status, family size, access to credit and livestock ownership significantly affect
use of soil conservation practices to adapt to climate change.

13
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0948 (Online)
Vol.6, No.7, 2016

Thus, Future policy should focus on awareness creation on climate change through different sources
such as media, training and extension, facilitating the availability of credit especially to adaptation technologies,
enhancing research on use of new crop varieties that are more suited to drier conditions, improving farmers farm
and off-farm income earning opportunities, improving their literacy status, and improving their access to markets.
Moreover, encouraging informal social net-works and environmental settings enhance the adaptive capacity of
smallholder farmers. This is because improved adaptive capacity and adaptation contributes to reduce the
adverse effects of climate change and generally help agricultural as well as economic development and poverty
reduction.

5. REFERENCES
Aemro T., H. Jema and K. Mengistu, 2012. Climate change adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers: the
case of Babile district of East Hararghe zone of Oromiya regional state of Ethiopia. Journal of
Economics and Sustainable Development, 3 (14): 1-12.
Aymone, G., 2009. Understanding farmers’ perceptions and adaptation to climate change and variability: The
case of the Limpopo basin, South Africa. IFPRI Discussion paper 00849, International Food Policy
Research Institute: Washington DC.
Belaineh L., A. Yared and B. Woldeamlak, 2013. Smallholder farmers’ perceptions and adaptation to climate
variability and climate change in Doba district, west Hararghe, Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Empirical
Research, 3(3): 251-265.
Chilot Y., 2007. The dynamics of soil degradation and incentives for optimal management in Central Highlands
of Ethiopia. PhD Thesis. Department of agricultural economics, extension and rural development.
University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Hassan, R. and C. Nhemachena, 2008. Determinants of African farmers’ strategies for adapting to climate
change. Multinomial Choice Analysis, (2)1: 83-104.
Isabirye, B., M. Isabirye and M. Annel, 2010. Picturing adoption of below ground biodiversity technologies
among smallholder farmers. TROPICULTURA, 28(1): 24-30.
Lema, M.A., and A.E. Majule, 2009. Impacts of climate change, variability and adaptation strategies on
agriculture in semi-arid areas of Tanzania: The case of Manyoni district in Singida Region, Tanzania.
African Journal of Environmental Science, 3(8): 206-218.
Lin, C.J., K.L. Jensen, and S.T. Yen, 2005. Awareness of foodborne pathogens among US consumers. Food
Quality and Preference, 16: 401-412.
Newton, A.C., S.N. Johnson, and P.J. Gregory, 2010. Implications of climate change for diseases, crop yields
and food security. A paper presented in BGRI 2010 Technical Workshop, 30-31- May 2010, St
Petersburg, Russia.
Ngigi, S.N., 2009. Climate change adaptation strategies: Water resources management options for smallholder
farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Columbia University: New York.
Nhemachena, C. and R. Hassan, 2007. Micro-level analysis of farmers’ adaptation to climate change in Southern
Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00714. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington
DC.
Oxfam, 2010. The rain doesn’t come on time any more: poverty, vulnerability and climate variability in Ethiopia.
Oxfam: Addis Ababa.
Sowunmi, F.A. and J. Kintola, 2009. Effect of climatic variability on maize production in Nigeria. Research
Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 2 (1): 19-30.
Temesgen D., R.M. Hassan, A. Tekie, Y. Mahmud and C. Ringler, 2008. Analyzing the determinants of farmers’
choice of adaptation methods and perceptions of climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. IFPRI
Discussion Paper, September, 2008.
Temesgen D., R.M. Hassan, C. Ringler, A. Tekie and Y. Mahmud, 2009. Determinants of farmers’ choice of
adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change, 19:
248-255.
Temesgen D., 2010. Assessment of the vulnerability of Ethiopian agriculture to climate change and farmers'
adaptation strategies. PhD Thesis, Environmental Economics, University of Pretoria.

14
Journal of Environment and Earth Science www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-3216 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0948 (Online)
Vol.6, No.7, 2016

Appendix table 1: Multivariate probit simulation results for households’ climate change adaptation decisions
Explanatory variables Use of irrigation Use of improved Adjusting Crop Soil
crop varieties planting date diversification conservation
practices
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
(Std. error) (Std. error) (Std. error) (Std. error) (Std. error)
Sex -0.62(0.354) 0.27(0.34) 0.022(0.35) 0.063(0.33) -0.103(0.368)
Farming experience -0.001(0.015) 0.005(0.02) 0.019(0.015) -0.007(0.015) 0.014(0.016)
Literacy status 0.105(0.286) -0.07(0.28) -0.168(0.28) 0.64**(0.279) 0.69**(0.32)
Family size 0.191***(0.054) 0.21***(0.056) -0.2***(0.054) 0.15***(0.052) -0.15**(0.06)
Distance to market -0.048(0.0366) -0.047(0.037) -0.067*(0.035) -0.021(0.037) -0.039(0.039)
Livestock holding -0.025(0.042) 0.013(0.043) -0.043(0.041) -0.07*(0.04) 0.11**(0.44)
Off/non-farm income 0.074**(0.033) 0.062*(0.034) - 0.03(0.033) -0.058(0.035)
Farm income -0.063(0.154) 0.327**(0.156) - -0.169(0.162) 0.035(0.166)
Extension contact -0.081(0.065) -0.041(0.062) 0.13**(0.065) -0.001(0.063) 0.047(0.063)
Access to credit 0.055(0.248) 0.493*(0.25) -0.194(0.25) -0.099(0.245) 0.77***(0.273)
Access to training 0.592**(0.272) 0.169(0.269) -0.212(0.26) 0.51*(0.26) 0.38(0.279)
Access to media 0.293(0.299) 0.5*(0.296) -0.152(0.288) -0.194(0.287) -0.24(0.299)
Farmer to farmer ext. -0.197(0.311) 0.177(0.315) 0.882***(0.31) -0.04(0.297) 0.26(0.33)
Land holding -0.405***(0.126) -0.503***(0.136) 0.077(0.118) -0.11(0.12) -0.026(0.127)
Constant 0.914(1.621) -4.56***(1.69) 0.041(0.613) 1.14(1.67) -0.47(1.75)
Rho2 0.236*
Rho3 -0.4*** -0.44***
Rho4 0.37*** 0.25* -0.19
Rho5 0.12 -0.11 0.314** -0.02
Predicted probability 0.523 0.458 0.495 0.469 0.341
Joint probability(success) 0.015
Joint probability(failure) 0.035
Number of observations 140
Number of simulations 5
Log likelihood -371.68
Wald χ2(68) 137.13
Likelihood ratio test of Rhoij = 0, P > 0.0003
χ2(10)

15