The Impact of Saraba irrigation project on food security of households: The case of

East and West Denbeya Woreda, Central Gondar Zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia

MSc Thesis

MELSEW GETNET

May, 2022

University Of Gondar, Ethiopia

i
The Impact of Saraba irrigation project on food security of households: The case of
East and West Denbeya Woreda, Central Gondar Zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Economics, School of Economics

University of Gondar

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN

DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

By: Melsew Getnet

May, 2022

University of Gondar, Ethiopia

ii
 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF GONDAR

As members of examining Board of the Final MSc Open Defense, we certify that we have read and
evaluated the thesis prepared by Melsew Getnet entitled The Impact of Saraba irrigation

project on food security of households: The case of East and West Denbeya Woreda,
Central Gondar Zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia and recommended that it be accepted as
fulfilling the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Economics (Development
Economics).

------------------------------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------

Name of Chairman Signature Date

------------------------------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------

Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date

------------------------------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------

Name of External Examiner Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the final copy of the
thesis to the Council of Graduate Studies (CGS) through the Department Graduate Committee (DGC)
of the candidate’s major department.

I hereby certify that I have read this thesis prepared under my direction and recommend that it be
accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement.

------------------------------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------

Name of Major Advisor Signature Date

iii
DEDICATION
To

iv
 STATEMENT OF AUTHOR
I hereby declare that this thesis is my bonafide work and that all sources of materials used for this thesis
have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
an advanced MSc degree at university of Gondar. I solemnly declare that this thesis is not submitted to any
other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma, or certificate.
Name: ---------------------------------- Signature: ----------------
Place: University of Gondar, Gondar
Date of Submission: ----------------

v
Abbreviations

ATT Average treatment effect on the treated

DD Double –difference

ETB Ethiopian Birr

FAO Food and Agricultural organization

FCS Food consumption score

FGD Focus group discussion

Ha Hectare

HFIAS Household Food Insecurity access scale

HH Household Head

IV Instrumental variance

PSM Propensity Score matching

RD Regression discontinuity

SD Standard deviation

SE Standard Error

UN United Nation

USA United States of America

USAID United States Aid

WB World Bank

WFP World food program

vi
 BIOGRAPHY
The author was born in south Gondar, Estie wereda in 1981EC .He completed his primary and secondary
schools (1988- 1995) and (1996-1999), respectively. After passing Ethiopian school leaving certificate
examination (ESLCE), he joined to Gondar University in September 2000 EC and graduated with BA degree
in the field of Economics in June 2002.

Starting from 2003 EC up to now he is serving in Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, Gondar District

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thanks God for blessing me with the ability and guidance to succeed in every
aspect.
I would like to gratefully acknowledge my heartfelt to my advisor Dr. Osman A. for all of his unconditional
guidance and encouragement throughout the process of the research. I also express my special thanks to my
friends those who gave their valuable suggestions.

Table of Contents

viii
Abbreviations...................................................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables....................................................................................................................................................xi
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................xii
CHAPTER ONE.................................................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of The study...................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the problem...................................................................................................................4
1.3. Objective.............................................................................................................................................5
1.4 Research questions.............................................................................................................................5
1.5 Scopes of the study..............................................................................................................................6
1.7 Organization of the paper.....................................................................................................................6
Chapter Two.......................................................................................................................................................7
2. Literature Review...........................................................................................................................................7
2. 1 Theoretical literature...............................................................................................................................7
2.1.1 Definitions and concepts of irrigation and food security.............................................................7
2.2 Empirical Literature..............................................................................................................................18
2.2.1 Impact of irrigation on food security...........................................................................................18
2.3. Conceptual frame work.......................................................................................................................24
CHAPTER THREE..........................................................................................................................................25
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................25
3.1 Description of the study area...............................................................................................................25
3.1.1 Climate............................................................................................................................................26
3.2 Research design.....................................................................................................................................27
3.3 Data type................................................................................................................................................27
3.4 Sampling techniques and procedures.................................................................................................27
3.5 Data collection method.........................................................................................................................28
3.5.1 Questionnaire method......................................................................................................................28
3.5.2 Focus Group Discussions..............................................................................................................28
3.5.3 Key informant interview...............................................................................................................28
3.6 Methods of Data Analysis....................................................................................................................29
3.6.1 Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................................................29
3.6.2 Propensity Score Matching (PSM) Model...................................................................................29
3.7 Variable Definition, Measurement and Hypothesis...............................................................................33
CHAPTER FOUR............................................................................................................................................37
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................37
ix
 4.1 Descriptive Analysis...............................................................................................................................37
4.1.2 Descriptive Statistics of HH Characteristics (For Discrete Variables)................................................37
5. References................................................................................................................................................59
Aregawi, M. H. (2014). The Impact of Small- Scale Irrigation on Rural household Food Security - Mekele
University.........................................................................................................................................................59

x
List of Tables

Table 2.1 Papers related to impact of irrigation on food security-------------------------------------

Table 3.1 sample Houshold...........................................................................................................27
Table 3.2 Description of the variables used in the model..............................................................30
Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of HH Characteristics (For Discrete Variables)--------------------
Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics of HH Characteristics (For Continues Variables)-------------------
Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of outcome variables----------------------------------------------------
Table 4.4: VIF of the continuous Explanatory Variables used in the study-----------------------------
Table 4.5: Contingency Coefficients for Dummy Variables----------------------------------------------
Table 4.6: regression table on the Impact of food security on saraba Project----------------------------
Table 4.7: Matching Performance of Different Estimators on Impact of Food Security---------------
Table 4.8: Testing covariates on the impact of food security at saraba Irrigation Project------------
Table 4.9: Impact of Irrigation on production, expenditure and FCS
on Impact of Food Security at saraba Irrigation Project-------------------------------------------------

xi
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Estimates of the relative size of irrigated area by crop in Ethiopia, 2013…………….
Figure 2.2 Conceptual framwork...................................................................................................15
Figure 3.1 Map of East and West Denbeya woreda -----------------------------------------------------20
Figure 4.1: propensity score distribution graph on Impact of Food Security -----------------------------

Figure 4.2 Kernel density for participants, non-participants and both, before matching------------

xii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Questioners ----------------------------------------------------------------

The Impact of Saraba irrigation project on food security of households: The case of
East and West Denbeya Woreda, Central Gondar Zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia

By:Melsew Getnet
ABSTRACT
xiii
The objective of this study is to examine the impact of irrigation scheme on farm households’ food security at
saraba irrigation project Central Gondar zone, East and West Denbeya Woreda. To accomplish this, the study
used the FCS, HFAIS, monthly household saving and production outcome variables to measure the household
food security. Accordingly, a two stage sampling technique was used to select a representative samples and it
collected both primary and secondary data by using questionnaires which was distributed for 400 sample of
rural farm households (122 irrigation beneficiaries and 255 non – beneficiaries, and various reports and
documents respectively. Then, the collected data was analyzed with both descriptive and econometric
techniques. In the former, it was described the observed socio demographic and economic characteristics of
sample households. Finally, it was able to found reliable results (findings) through a later technique which was a
propensity score matching model. Accordingly, the binary logistic regression result revealed that age of the
household head, marital status ,credit service, educational level, market access, use of improved seed, cultivated
land, and extension service that the households got were significantly determine or affect the irrigation status of
households (whether to being irrigation beneficiaries or not). Then, after matching or controlling the difference
in the important observable characteristics of households, the ATT result showed that the irrigation scheme has
been a significant positive effect or impact on food security by increasing the production, food consumption
score, and monthly household saving 59%, 5% and 60%.in the case of household food access insecurity scale
(HFAIS) the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were 10.7% and 52.9% respectively. This was as a
result of using irrigation by beneficiaries rather than non-beneficiary’s households. Finally, it was concluded that
the use of irrigation has been a positive and significant impact on the food security of households in the study
area. Finally, it was suggested that this food security impacts of irrigation can be intensified by creating
conditions or enabling environments that could achieve functional inclusion of the farm households in conditions
of integrated water resource management, access to and adequacy of good quality surface, modern production
technology, shift to high-value market-oriented production, and opportunities for the sale of farm outputs at
low transaction costs.

Keywords: Impact, irrigation, Food security, PSM

xiv
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of The study

Concepts of food security have evolved in the last thirty years to reflect changes in official policy thinking
(Clay, 2002; Heidhues et al, 2004). The term first originated in the mid-1970s, when the World Food
Conference (1974) defined food security in terms of food supply - assuring the availability and price
stability of basic food stuffs at the international and national level. Availability at all times of adequate
world food supplies of basic food stuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset
fluctuations in production and prices.

In 1983, FAO analysis focused on food access, leading to a definition based on the balance between the
demand and supply side of the food security equation: “Ensuring that all people at all times have both
physical and economic access to the basic food that they need” (FAO, 1983).

The definition was revised to include the individual and household level, in addition to the regional and
national level of aggregation, in food security analysis. In 1986, the highly influential World Bank Report
on Poverty and Hunger (World Bank, 1986) focused on temporal dynamics of food insecurity (Clay,
2002). The report introduced the distinction between chronic food insecurity, associated with problems of
continuing or structural poverty and low incomes, and transitory food insecurity, which involved periods
of intensified pressure caused by natural disasters, economic collapse or conflict. This was complemented
by Sin’s theory of famine (1981) which highlighted the effect of personal entitlements on food access i.e.
production, labour, trade and transfer based resources.

According to World Bank document (WB, 2021), estimated 698 million people in the developing countries
did not have enough income to obtain enough energy from their diet in 2021. The estimate of 340 million
is based on minimum calorie standard that would prevent serious health risks and stunted growth in
children. If the standard is increased to levels that allow an active working life, however, the estimate rises
to 698 million. About two- thirds of the undernourished live in South Asia and a fifth in Sub- Saharan
Africa. In all, four- fifths of the undernourished live in countries with low average incomes. In some of the
poorest countries, however, the supply of food does need to be greatly increased to reduce chronic food
insecurity.

1
If peoples are food security it is one indicator for economic growth. Based on food and agriculture
organization of the united nations (FAO) in 2012 report, in order for economic growth to enhance access
to food that is adequate in quantity (dietary energy) and in quality (diversity, nutrient content and safety),
three key steps are required. First, growth needs to reach and involve the poor and provide increased
employment and income-earning opportunities for the poor. Second, the poor need to use their additional
income for improving the quantity and quality of their diet, water and sanitation as well as on improved
health services. (The role of women is crucial in ensuring that these spending patterns are realized.) Third,
governments need to spend additional public revenues on safety nets and key public goods and services
such as education, infrastructure and public health measures. The challenge that Ethiopia faces in terms of
food insecurity is associated with both inadequate food production even during good rain years (a problem
related to inability to cope with growth of population) and natural failures due to erratic rainfall. Therefore,
increasing arable land or attempting to increase agricultural yield by, for instance, growing higher yielding
varieties of crops offers limited scope to provide food security in Ethiopia. The solution for food security
will be provided by a combination of these factors, enhancing water availability for production and
expansion of irrigation that can lead to security by reducing variation in harvest, as well as intensification
of cropping by producing more than one crop per year. This should be combined with improved
partitioning, storage and soil water-retention capacity to increase plant water availability, and use of
rainwater to overcome erratic rainfall especially in the relatively higher rainfall areas of highland Ethiopia.
(Awulachew et al, 2005)

In Ethiopian, most of the population lives in rural areas where about 95% of the agricultural product is
produced by smallholder farmers (MoARD, 2010). Agriculture is the backbone of the Ethiopian economy
as it accounts for about 80% of the population directly or indirectly involved in it. In order to enhance the
development of agriculture, the economic performers designed a national strategic plan in 1991,
Agricultural Development Led Industrialization (ADLI) that gives focus on irrigation, cooperative
societies and agricultural technologies to answer the food demand and bring socioeconomic development
in the country. Small scale irrigation development is one of the policies within this strategy. The success
full history of Asian countries for instance China in the 1960s and 1970s in accommodating the growing
population, achieving rapid economic growth and increasing employment through irrigated agriculture and
eager the Ethiopian government to give more weight to the development of irrigation scheme (Bacha et al.
2011). Based on this, the federal and the regional governments associated with other international and
local NGOs have significantly supported to rural farmers to participate and use irrigation farming. As a
2
result, the irrigated farmland, irrigation production and the number of irrigation farmers in the country
have notably increased, up to 80%, between 1990 and 2010 (CSA, 2012).

Irrigation is one means by which agricultural production can be increased to meet the growing food
demand in Ethiopia. Increasing food demand can be meet in one or a combination of three ways:
increasing agricultural yield, increasing the area of arable land and increasing cropping intensity (number
of crops per year). Expansion of the area under cultivation is a finite option, especially in view of the
marginal and vulnerable characteristics of large parts of the country’s land and also increasing population.
Increasing yields in both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture and cropping intensity in irrigated areas through
various methods and technologies are therefore the most viable options for achieving food security in
Ethiopia (IWMI, 2005).

This study investigated the impact of irrigation project on food security the case of East and West Denbeya
Woreda, Central Gondar zone, Amhara region in order to examine the impact assessment of irrigation on
food security.

3
1.2 Statement of the problem
Irrigation is one means by which agricultural production can be increased to meet the growing food
demands in Ethiopia. Increasing food demand can be meet in one or a combination of three ways:
increasing agricultural yield, increasing the area of arable land, and increasing cropping intensity (number
of crops per year) (Awulachew et al 2005).

Therefore, food security from irrigation plays a vital role for the growth of the country economy. However,
even applying different irrigation schemes in the world as well as in Ethiopia there are many people which
are food insecure. New evidence continues to point to a rise in world hunger in recent years after a
prolonged decline. An estimated between 720 to 821 million people approximately one out of every nine
people in the world is undernourished. Africa is not on track to meet the Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG) targets to end hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all
year round, and to end all forms of malnutrition. The most recent estimates show that 281.6 million
people on the continent, over one-fifth of the population, faced hunger in 2020, which is 46.3 million
more than in 2019. This deterioration continues a trend that started in 2014, after a prolonged period of
improving food security. In addition to hunger, millions of Africans suffer from widespread
micronutrient deficiencies, while overweight and obesity are already significant public health concerns
in many countries. Progress towards achieving the global nutrition targets by 2030 remains
unacceptably slow. (FAO, 2020)

According to WFP In 2022, conflict and drought, coupled with poor macroeconomic conditions, will drive
extremely high and persistent food assistance needs. In northern Ethiopia, food insecurity is expected to be
most severe, with Extremely Critical levels of acute malnutrition and. If conflict intensifies, the livelihoods
of millions more people will be disrupted, with attendant rises in food insecurity including in typically
food secure areas of the country.
Birara et al. (2015) revealed that, about 10% of Ethiopian’s citizens are chronically food insecure and this
figure rises to more than 15% during frequent drought years; 2.7 million People require emergency food
assistance in 2014 and 238,761 children require treatment for severe and acute malnutrition in 2014.
Hence, studying the topic impact of Saraba irrigation on food security is necessary.

4
Based on the impact of irrigation on food security, there are few studies Eshetu & Young-Bohk (2017),
Region & Siraw (2016), Sisay & Fekadu (2013),Tizita Damtew (2017),Zewdu, (2011);Aregawi, (2014)
and Ashenafy (2019). Among the above studies, six of them were studied in small-scale irrigation and they
have no similar demographic and institutional factors. For instance, age of house hold affects food security
positively in research conducted by Eshetu and Young-Bohk (2017) but it affects negatively in the study
by Sisay and Fekadu (2013). Still their result makes different in their independent variables.(Eshetu &
Young-Bohk, 2017) independent variables were age of household head, education al level of household
head, size of the cultivated land, number of oxen, livestock holding and income from livestock and
irrigation. Whereas Ashenafy (2019) found family size, access to credit and saving services, access to
market information, farm distance from main road and residential area distance from local market.
Moreover, they were trying to conduct by using descriptive analysis except Ashenafy (2019). But,
Ashenafy (2019) conducted his study by considering demographic and institutional variables. His did not
assess the level of food security by pillars of food security such us food availability, food access and food
utilization .They were studied the determinant factors rather the impact evaluation over beneficiaries and
non-beneficiaries. Therefore, this study is in response to the aforementioned gap. This study was different
from other studies in three perspectives. First, it used econometric analysis in addition to descriptive
analysis to see the impact of irrigation over food security in relation to beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.
Second, it tries to forward the large-scale irrigation impact and third, it incorporates the pillars of food
security as an outcome variable stated by FAO.

1.3. Objective
1.3.1 General objective

The general objective of this study was to examine the impact of Saraba irrigation project on household
food security status.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

 To measure household level food security status in Saraba irrigation project area
 To examine the impact of the project on food security in the study area.

1.4 Research questions

 What is the level of household food security around the study area?
 Does the project have impact on food security of the community?
5
1.5 Scopes of the study
1.5.1 Geographical Scope

Saraba irrigation is composed of 2 Kebeles which are project beneficiaries and 4 Kebeles which are not.
This paper will use 400 respondents from 6 Kebeles (2 from users and 4 from non-users).

1.5.2 Conceptual scope

Even though there are different scopes of impact assessment, this study was investigate only the impact of
irrigation on food security in the case of local household.

1.6 Significant of the study

The national development plan of the country is based on the second Growth and Transformation Plan
(GTP II) aiming at equitably benefiting people at all levels and bringing about structural transformation of
the agricultural sector and the overall economy. It is expected to result in a significant shift in agricultural
productivity, thereby enhancing the contribution of the sector to the economy and stabilizing the macro
economy. Central to achieving the agricultural development policy objective is the promotion of irrigated
agriculture (MoFED, 2002).
Ensuring an adequate and reliable supply of irrigation water increases yields of most crops. Along with
higher yields irrigation increases incomes and reduces hunger and poverty. Where irrigation is widely
available under nourishment and poverty are less prevalent. Even landless laborers and small holder
farmers who lack the resource to employ irrigation themselves often benefit through higher wages, lower
food prices and a more varied diet (FAO, 2003).
To this end, identifying, analyzing and understanding the effect of irrigation on household food security
would contribute to the sustainable improvement of household food security, and executing the
government strategy of poverty reduction.

Hope fully, this study also serve as source document for further study in the area at an advanced level for
graduate and undergraduate students.

1.7 Organization of the paper

This research paper is organized in five chapters. Chapter one consists of background in which facts about
agricultural production, food security and small scale irrigation in the country, statement of the problem,
objectives of the study and scope and scope and limitation of the study significance of the study are

6
described in detail. Chapter two deals review of literatures that are related to the research topic and its
objective. The third Chapter deals with methodology of the study. Chapter four deals result and
discussions of the study. The final fifth chapter compromises summery of conclusion and
recommendations. All necessary annexes and References are annexed at the end of the research report.

Chapter Two
2. Literature Review
2. 1 Theoretical literature
2.1.1 Definitions and concepts of irrigation and food security
2.1.1.1 Food Security
The concept of food security passes different stages over the last more than 50 th years. The following
statement shows the food security gradual concept. “Concerns about food security can be traced back to
the Hot Springs Conference of Food and Agriculture in 1943, since which time the issue has undergone
several redefinitions. The 1943 conference evolved the concept of a “secure, adequate and suitable
supply of food for everyone” a concept that was subsequently taken up at an international level. The
next step was the setting up of bilateral agencies by donor countries such as the USA and Canada in the
1950s whereby their agricultural surpluses would be shipped overseas to countries in need. By the 1960s
there was a growing realization that food aid could actually hamper a country’s progress to self-
sufficiency and thus was born the concept of Food for Development and in 1963 its institutional
expression, the World Food Program (WFP). However, the era of an abundance of food was coming to
an end and the 1972-4 food crisis marked the beginning of fluctuating food supplies and prices. To
counter this, insurance schemes were set up to guarantee access to food supplies and this led to enhanced
coordination among donor organizations and improved monitoring of the situation on the ground in
receiving countries” (Napoliet al 2011)

Brief (2006) states the following four widely accepted dimensions of food security:

a) Food availability: The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality, supplied
through domestic production or imports (including food aid).
b) Food access: Access by individuals to adequate resources (entitlements) for acquiring
appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Entitlements are defined as the set of all commodity
bundles over which a person can establish command given the legal, political, economic and
social arrangements of the community in which they live (including traditional rights such as
7
 access to common resources).
c) Utilization: Utilization of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health care to
reach a state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs are met. This brings out the
importance of non-food inputs in food security.

8
 d) Stability: To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access to
adequate food at all times. They should not risk losing access to food as a consequence of
sudden shocks (e.g. an economic or climatic crisis) or cyclical events (e.g. seasonal food
insecurity). The concept of stability can therefore refer to both the availability and access
dimensions of food security.
Barrett CB (2010) Food insecurity is a state in which consistent access to adequate food is limited at times
throughout the year due to a lack of money and other resources. It refers to the social and economic
problem, lack of food due to a resource or other constraints, not voluntary fasting or dieting, or because of
illness, or for other reasons. Food security is a state in which all people, at all times, have physical and
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life. 

Globally, food security depends on a range of things, including: our ability to minimize/manage/react to
climatic change and disruptions to food production by holding suitable stock levels and having
emergency distribution arrangements in place; and ensuring new technologies enhance this capacity and
do not increase the risk of major disruptions in food supply through unforeseen consequences on
ecological viability. (Rajotte, 2008) regionally and nationally it includes:

I. Maintaining the capacity to produce and/or import the food requirements of a population and
ensuring a distribution system or entitlements that enable all people within the borders to
produce or acquire the food they need (by production, purchase or special schemes);
II. Maintaining an R&D (research and development) system that includes farmers and is able to
deliver continued improvements to all aspects of production systems used by the full range of
farmers in the country and cope with variability (agro ecological and economic) and climatic
changes; and
III. Ensuring both rural and urban dwellers are able to secure their livelihoods and so have access
to the food they need, either from direct production, purchase or barter.

9
 According to Rajotte (2008), the food security concept signals are not only the global and national level
but also community and household levels. Community and household levels require:

a. Continued ability to maintain livelihoods that allow production/procurement of food needs in

an appropriate manner;
b. Use of risk management strategies suitable to local needs and customs to prevent
impoverishment;
c. Prevention of conflicts and of the use of food as a weapon;
d. Support for those in marginal areas/environments to increase productivity, or if they are forced
out for there to be alternative livelihood possibilities available; and
e. Equitable gender and inter- and intra-household distribution.(Rajotte, 2008)

2.1.1.2 Definition and History of Irrigation Development

I. definition of irrigation

Irrigated agriculture can be defined as agriculture where the supply of water is increased by artificial
means, involving the use of water control technology and including drainage to dispose of excess water
(FAO, 1999).

II. History of Irrigation practice

Irrigation is a very old practice in the world. It is an old human activity and been practiced in some parts of the
world for several thousand years. Rice has been grown under irrigation in India and Far East for nearly 5000
years. The Nile valley in Egypt and the plain of Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq were under irrigation for 4000
years (Peter, 1997).
Irrigation has formed the foundation of civilization in numerous regions for millennia. Egyptians have
depended on the Nile's flooding of the delta for years, this may well be the longest period of continuous
irrigation on a large scale. Mesopotamia, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates, was the bread basket for
the Sumerian Empire. This civilization managed a highly developed, centrally controlled irrigation system. In
that same time frame, irrigation apparently developed in present day China and in Indus basin
(Schilfgaarde,1994).

Irrigation has long played a key role in feeding expanding populations and is undoubtedly destined to play a
still greater role in the future. It not only raises the yields of specific crops, but also prolongs the effective crop-
growing period in area with dry seasons, thus permitting multiple cropping(two or three and sometimes four
10
crops per year) where only a single crop could be grown. Moreover, with the security provided by irrigation,
additional inputs needed to intensify production such as pest control, fertilizer, improved varieties and better
tillage become economically feasible. Irrigation reduces the risk of these expensive inputs being wasted by crop
failure resulting from lack of water (FAO, 1997).
According to FAO (1997), 30-40 percent of world food production comes from an estimated 260 million ha of
irrigated land or one–sixth of the world‟s farmlands. Irrigated farms produce higher yield for most crops. FAO
(2001) also reports that the role of irrigation in addressing food insecurity problem and in achieving agricultural
growth at global level is well established. Cleary irrigation can and should play an important role in raising and
stabilizing food production especially in the less developed parts of Africa South of the Sahara.

III. Irrigation practice in Ethiopia

Irrigation has its own important for agricultural growth and food security. Different writers support this
idea as Hussain (2004), forwarded that resource in agriculture, irrigation water contributes too many
productive and livelihood activities. With the common belief on the important role of irrigation in
agricultural growth, many developing Asian countries have promoted irrigation development over the last
five decades to achieve such broad objectives as economic growth, rural and agricultural development,
food security, and protection against adverse drought conditions—all expected to contribute to improved
social outcomes. Conceptually, the benefits of irrigation are realized through improvements in: agricultural
productivity per unit area and overall agricultural production, employment and wages, incomes,
consumption, food security and overall socioeconomic welfare. These benefits tend to be interrelated and
reinforce the impacts of each other. Through these benefits, irrigation water is linked to poverty alleviation
both directly and indirectly. Direct linkages operate via localized and household-level effects, and indirect
linkages operate via aggregate or sub national and national-level impacts. Irrigation can benefit the poor
through raising yields and production, lowering the risk of crop failure, and generating higher and year-
round farm and nonfarm employment. It can enable smallholders to adopt more diversified cropping
patterns, and to switch from low-value subsistence production to high-value market-oriented production.

Irrigation has long played a key role in feeding expanding populations and is undoubtedly destined to play
a still greater role in the future. It not only raises the yields of specific crops, but also prolongs the
effective crop growing period in areas with dry seasons, thus permitting multiple cropping (two or three,
and sometimes four, crops per year) where only a single crop could be grown otherwise. With the security
provided by irrigation, additional inputs needed to intensify production further (pest control, fertilizers,

11
improved varieties and better tillage) become economically feasible. Irrigation reduces the risk of these
expensive inputs being wasted by crop failure resulting from lack of water. (FAO, 1997) According to
Awulachew et al (2005), Increasing yields in both rain fed and irrigated agriculture and cropping intensity
in irrigated areas through various methods and technologies are the most viable options for achieving food
security in Ethiopia. If the problem is failure of production as a result of natural causes, such as dry-spells
and droughts, agricultural production can be stabilized and increased by providing irrigation. In line with
this idea Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) forwarded:

“The practice of irrigation consists of applying water to the part of the soil profile that

serves as the root zone, for the immediate and subsequent use of the crop. Well managed

irrigation systems are those which control the spatial and temporal supply of water so as

to promote growth and yield, and to enhance the economic efficiency of crop production.

Such systems apply water in amounts and at frequencies calibrated to answer the time

variable crop needs. The aim is not merely to optimize growing conditions in a specific

plot or season, but also to protect the field environment as a whole against degradation

in the long term. Only thus can water and land resources be utilized efficiently and

sustainably. On the other hand, poorly managed irrigation systems are those which waste

water and energy, deplete or pollute water resources, fail to produce good crops and/or

pose the danger of soil degradation. The vital task of increasing and stabilizing food

production in drought prone regions must therefore include a concerted effort to improve

on farm water management. Some traditional irrigation schemes need to be modernized

so as to achieve higher yields as well as better resource utilization”(FAO, 1997).

The development of modern irrigation has relatively recent history in Ethiopia, where as traditional
irrigation has been in existence for long periods. Private concessionaires who operated farms for
commercial cotton, sugar cane and horticultural crops started the first formal large and medium irrigation
schemes in the Awash Valley (MoA, 1993). Irrigation contributes to agricultural productivity through

12
solving the rainfall shortage, motivates farmers to use more of modern inputs and harvest throughout the
year and creates employment to members of the households especially to wife and children (FAO, 2011).
According to WSDP, 2002 irrigation in Ethiopia can be classified in to three:
1. Small-scale irrigation which are often community based and traditional methods covering
less than 200hectares.

2. Medium scale irrigation which is community based or publicly sponsored, covering 200
to 3000 hectares.

3. Large scale irrigation covering more than 3000 hectares, which is typically commercially
or publicly sponsored.

2.1.1.3. Irrigation and food security in Ethiopia

Ethiopia offers ample scope for growth in agricultural production through irrigation development as the
country is endowed with a substantial amount of water resources. Although the surface water resource
potential is impressive and underdeveloped, over-exploitation of and competition over water resources
exist in areas where irrigation is practiced intensively (Awash River and depleted lakes such as Lake
Haromaya). At the same time, the surface water resources of some of the major rivers such as Abbay
and Tekeze (both tributaries of the Nile River) are flowing in deep gorges along rugged areas that are
unsuitable for irrigation. The country, however, remains well placed to develop irrigation-based
agricultural production. In Figure 1, the inner (yellow) circles represent the estimated current irrigated
area of crops in Ethiopia. The outer circles are proportionate to the relative total area sown with these
crops: maize, sorghum, and wheat are the dominant crops. About 37 percent of all vegetable production
is irrigated with flood irrigation (156 000 hectares), and 100 percent of sugar and cotton production is
irrigated (22 000 and 80 000 hectares, respectively).(FAO /Mendes, 2015)

13
 Figure 2.1: Estimates of the relative size of irrigated area by crop in Ethiopia, 2013

As Food and agricultural organization (FAO) stated in its “Poverty reduction and irrigated agricultural
paper 1999; FAO (1999), irrigation can make a significant contribution to reducing poverty and
increasing crop production. As a social good, irrigated agriculture is a vehicle for the provision of basic
needs and the reduction of vulnerability to food insecurity. It is, and will remain, a vital activity in the
livelihoods of many small producers who value the security it provides.

Hussain (2004), supported the above idea in the following manner: the indirect linkages operate via
regional, national, and economy-wide growth effects. Irrigation investments act as production and
supply shifters, and have a strong positive effect on growth, benefiting populations in the long run.

14
Further, irrigation benefits also accrue to the poor and landless in the long run, although in the short run
relative benefits to the landless and land-poor may be small, as the allocation of water often tends to be
land-based. In spite of this, the poor and the landless also benefit from irrigation investments through
increased food supplies and lower food prices.

In other word in order to escape different food insecurity problems in Ethiopia irrigation is vital which
is the challenge that Ethiopia faces in terms of food insecurity is associated with both inadequate food
production even during good rain years (a problem related to inability to cope with growth of
population) and natural failures due to erratic rainfall. Therefore, increasing arable land or attempting to
increase agricultural yield by, for instance, growing higher yielding varieties of crops offers limited
scope to provide food security in Ethiopia. The solution for food security will be provided by a
combination of these factors, enhancing water availability for production and expansion of irrigation that
can lead to security by reducing variation in harvest, as well as intensification of cropping by producing
more than one crop per year.(Awulachew et al., 2005)

2.1.1.4 Project impact evaluation

Impact evaluations are a particular type of evaluation that seeks to answer a specific cause and effect
question:

What is the impact (or causal effect) of a program on an outcome of interest? This basic question
incorporates an important causal dimension. The focus is only on the impact: that is, the changes directly
attributable to a program, program modality, or design innovation. The basic evaluation question—what
is the impact or causal effect of a program on an outcome of interest? —can be applied to many
contexts. For instance, what is the causal effect of scholarships on school attendance and academic
achievement? What is the impact of contracting out primary care to private providers on access to health
care? If dirt floors are replaced with cement floors, what will be the impact on children’s health? Do
improved roads increase access to labor markets and raise households’ income, and if so, by how much?
Does class size influence student achievement, and if it does, by how much? As these examples show,
the basic evaluation question can be extended to examine the impact of a program modality or design
innovation, not just a program.(Paul J.et al, 2016)

Effective impact evaluation should therefore be able to assess precisely the mechanisms by which
beneficiaries are responding to the intervention. These mechanisms can include links through markets or
improved social networks as well as tie-ins with other existing policies. The last link is particularly
15
important because an impact evaluation that helps policy makers understand the effects of one
intervention can guide concurrent and future impact evaluations of related interventions. The benefits of
a well-designed impact evaluation are therefore long term and can have substantial spillover effects.
(Samadet al, 2010)

According to Samadet al (2010), the following methods were forward for impact evaluation theory to
address the fundamental question of the missing counterfactual. Each of these methods carries its own
assumptions about the nature of potential selection bias in program targeting and participation, and the
assumptions are crucial to developing the appropriate model to determine program impacts.

A. Randomized evaluations
B. Matching methods, specifically propensity score matching (PSM)
C. Double-difference (DD) methods
D. Instrumental variable (IV) methods
E. Regression discontinuity (RD) design and pipeline methods
F. Distributional impacts
G. Structural and other modeling approaches

These methods vary by their underlying assumptions regarding how to resolve selection bias in
estimating the program treatment effect. Randomized evaluations involve a randomly allocated initiative
across a sample of subjects (communities or individuals, for example); the progress of treatment and
control subjects exhibiting similar preprogram characteristics is then tracked over time. Randomized
experiments have the advantage of avoiding selection bias at the level of randomization. In the absence
of an experiment, it is also the most robust method for estimating counterfactuals; it is considered the
gold standard of impact evaluation. Some basic tests should still be considered to assess the validity of
this evaluation strategy in a given context(Paul J. et al, 2016).PSM methods compare treatment effects
across participant and matched nonparticipant units, with the matching conducted on a range of
observed characteristics. PSM methods therefore assume that selection bias is based only on observed
characteristics; they cannot account for unobserved factors affecting participation.(Samadet al, 2010)

DD methods assume that unobserved selection is present and that it is time invariant. The treatment
effect is determined by taking the difference in outcomes across treatment and control units before and
after the program intervention. DD methods can be used in both experimental and non experimental

16
settings (Samadet al, 2010). It’s outcome trends are similar in the comparison and treatment groups

17
before the intervention and that the only factors explaining difference in outcomes between the two
groups are constant over time, apart from the program itself(Paul J. et al, 2016).

IV models can be used with cross-section or panel data and in the latter case allow for selection bias on
unobserved characteristics to vary with time. In the IV approach, selection bias on unobserved
characteristics is corrected by finding a variable (or instrument) that is correlated with participation but
not correlated with unobserved characteristics affecting the outcome; this instrument is used to predict
participation. RD and pipeline methods are extensions of IV and experimental methods; they exploit
exogenous program rules (such as eligibility requirements) to compare participants and nonparticipants
in a close neighborhood around the eligibility cutoff. Pipeline methods, in particular, construct a
comparison group from subjects who are eligible for the program but have not yet received it(Samad et
al , 2010).

2.2 Empirical Literature

2.2.1 Impact of irrigation on food security
Eshetu & Young-Bohk (2017) did paper on the impact of small-scale irrigation on food security
Evidence from Ketar Irrigation Scheme, Arsi Zone, Oromiya Region, Ethiopia. The paper conducted
by logit model, descriptive and inferential statistical methods. The analyzed data revealed that small
-scale irrigation development would have positive impact on income and food security of
beneficiary households. The logit model also forwarded that: age of household head, educational
level of household head, size of cultivated land, number of oxen, livestock holding irrigation found
to be influencing household food security at significant level. On the other hand,Zewdu (2016) on
the Role of Irrigation in Household Food Security in Upper Blue Nile Basin: The Case of Jedeb
Irrigation Scheme, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Using Household food balance model SPSS
(Statistical package for social science version 12) revealed that the access to irrigation, income, farm
size, household size, livestock holding, as well as oxen ownership are the major determinants of
household food security in the study area.

From the above two studies we can observed that irrigation can increase food security. But, in their
determinant factors, Eshetu & Young-Bohk (2017) include age of household head and education
level of household head are determinant factors for food security but not in Zewdu (2016). On the

18
other hand Zewdu (2016), include income ,access to irrigation and household size as determinant
factors of food security rather than Eshetu & Young-Bohk (2017).

Researches forwarded that in the case of irrigation as significant factor for food security. As Deribie
(2015), revealed At 0.05 probability level; sex, land size (ls), educational level (ed), off farm income
, irrigation experience and distance from home to water source are significant correlates of food
security with respect to the three food security indicators (food consumption expenditure score,
copying strategy index and dietary diversity score). At 0.05 probability level; sex, off farm income
irrigation experience and distance from home to water source are statistically significant
determinants of the joint indicators and they reliably predict participation in small scale irrigation
scheme, Kapkai& Nairobi(2013),did research based on impact of irrigation scheme on food security:
a case of Wei-Wei irrigation scheme in central Pokot district, West Pokot county, Kenya. The
research respondents indicated that due to irrigation that has ensured food/abundance/security, there
has been opening of schools (primary, secondary) and tertiary colleges. People are now getting
formal education that will assist to work on the irrigation scheme. On the contrary according to
Trang & Cuong (2019), in the study of impact evaluation of irrigation on rural household welfare:
evidence from Vietnam. There is no evidence of significant impacts of communal irrigation plants
on households’ income. But,Tizita (2017)) studied in the role of small scale -irrigation in household
food security, the descriptive statistics revealed that 82% of the users and 46% of non-users are
found to be food secure while 18% of users and 56% non-users are found to be food insecure.

The major findings of the study indicate that family labor, education level, land size, access to
irrigation, health status of household are factors of food security. In line with Getnet (2011), the logit
model revealed that household size, educational status of household head, number of farm oxen,
cultivated land size, engagement in non-farming, access to irrigation and credit service were found
significant determinants. Correspondingly, the study disclosed that the long distance between
irrigated land to farmers residence, lack of cleaning and maintenance of scheme, free grazing, poor
irrigation methods and crop selection were the major constraints in the irrigation farm.

19
Having the above studies Getnet (2011) and Tizita (2017) were not found the same determinant factors.
For instance, credit service and number of oxen were determinant factors in Getne’s study but not
Tizita’s. Whereas land size forwarded in Tizita(2017) but not in Getnet (2011). Additionally, they
focused is small- scale irrigation rather than large scale irrigation.

According to Tesfayeet al(2008),concludes that small-scale irrigation is one of the viable solutions to
secure household food needs in the study area but it did not eliminate the food insecurity problem. In line
with Christine et al. (2008), The modern irrigation scheme did not affect the livelihood and food situation
directly. On the other hand, Research results indicate that households ‘access to irrigation has a
significant impact on poverty reduction. Poverty among the user is less by 5% than poverty among the
non-user. Irrigation has appositive influence agricultural development through increasing productivity,
income of household and overall family employmentBachaet al (2011).

In general, there are different researchers conducted their paper based on the impact of irrigation on food
security. The following table shows empirical literatures in their dependent variables, models they are
used, findings and limitations as the researcher reviewed.

20
 Table 2.1: Papers related to impact of irrigation on food security

No Author Dependent Model Main findings Limitation

variable
1 Eshetu & Income  Logit  Small -scale irrigation development would have positive It doesn’t include all
Young-Bohk, &Food Model impact on income and food security of beneficiary households important variables.
(2017) security  Descriptiv  Logit model indicated that: It is focuses only
e and  Age of household head small- scale
inferential  Educational level of household head irrigation
statistical  Size of cultivated land It collects data
methods  Number of oxen, livestock holding only
used  Irrigation found to be influencing house hold food from the users of
security at significant level the
program.

2 Zewdu (2016) Food  Household  The study also shows that 17.54 % and 40.62 % of irrigation It doesn’t include
security food users and non-users are found to be food insecure respectively. important variable such
balance  The regression analysis showed that access to irrigation, as:household
model income, farm size, house hold size, livestock holding, as well
 SPSS as oxen ownership are the major determinants of household
food security in the study area.

16
17
 education
status

3 Tizita (2017) Food Descriptive  The descriptive statistics revealed that 82% of the users and Considers
Security statistics, 46% of non-users are found to be food secure while 18% of Small-scale
inferential users and 56% non-users are found to be food insecure. irrigation
statistics and  The major findings of the study indicate that family labor, It doesn’t
binary education level, land size, access to irrigation, health status of include all
logistics household heads and participation in nonfarm activities has important
regression positively and significantly affected household food security. variables
were used In contrast age of household head and dependency ratio has
negatively and significantly affected household food security.
4 Getnet (2011) Food  Descriptive  The logit model revealed that household size, educational Small-scale
Security statistics, status of household head, number of farm oxen, cultivated irrigation
Household land size, engagement in non-farming, access to irrigation and
Food credit service were found significant determinants.
Balance Correspondingly, the study disclosed that the long distance
Model, binary between irrigated land to farmers residence, lack of cleaning
logit model and maintenance of scheme, free grazing, poor irrigation
and qualitative methods and crop selection were the major constraints in the
study were irrigation farm.
used

18
5 Tesfayeet Food Descriptive The study concludes that small-scale irrigation is one of the It shows the
al(2008) Security and viable solutions to secure household food needs in the study area small-scale
Econometric but it did not eliminate the food insecurity problem. irrigation is
analysis temporary
employed the solution
Heckman two- It doesn’t
step procedure include the
important
variables
6 Deribie (2015) Food Heck man two At 0.05 probability level; sex, land size (ls), educational level Small-scale
Security stage (ed), off farm income, irrigation experience and distance from irrigation
home to water source are significant correlates of food security
with respect to the three food security indicators (food
consumption expenditure score, copying strategy index and
dietary diversity score). At 0.05 probability level; sex, off farm
income irrigation experience and distance from home to water
source are statistically significant determinants of the joint
indicators and they reliably predict participation in small scale
irrigation scheme,
7 Aregawi Food Descriptive sex, education level, cultivated land, distance to FTC, access to Small-scale
(2014) Security statistics and extension services, access to credit and water availability were irrigation
Heckman‟s the determinant households‟ participation in small-scale

19
 two-stage irrigation whereas household size, cultivated land, soil fertility,
estimation total livestock household consumption.
were used
Binary Probit
model at the
first stage and
OLS model at
the second
stage
8 Kapkai& Food Descriptive scheme has opened business avenues whereby business like hard- Used only
Nairobi(2013) security analysis wares, shops, car wash, posh-mills and M-Pesa outlets. The descriptive
respondents indicated that due to irrigation that has ensured analysis
food/abundance/security, there has been opening of schools It doesn’t
(primary, secondary) and tertiary colleges. People are now include
getting formal education that will assist to work on the irrigation important
scheme. variables
9 Christine et al. Irrigation Descriptive The modern irrigation scheme did not affect the livelihood and Used only
(2008) on statistics food situation directly descriptive
livelihood analysis
and food Makes
security contradiction
related to

20
 other studies
It forwards
irrigation
scheme did
not affect the
livelihood
and food
situation
directly
10 MTONG Food Descriptive No doubt the establishment of the irrigation scheme has Used Only
A (2014) Security contributed to new life improvement perspectives for a descriptive
community that was once perceived as vulnerable, poor, fragile, statistics
exposed and incapacitated. Small-scale
irrigation
It doesn’t
include
important
variables

11 Getaneh Income Descriptive A Logit regression model developed to assess the impact of It doesn’t
(2011) and the statistics and irrigation on the likelihood of poverty controlling for other include

21
 likelihood econometric factors indicated that access to irrigation significantly reduced important
of poverty modeling was the odds that a household would be in the lowest quartile of variables
used household income, the key poverty threshold used in this study. that
measures
food security
12 Gebremichale Food Small scale irrigation is one of the viable solutions to secure It used
(2013) Security household food needs in the study area. descriptive
analysis
13 Trang & Household Fixed effect The paper finds no evidence of significant impacts of communal The paper
Cuong (2019) welfare regression irrigation plants on households’ income, income structure has no
and rice cultivation activities. evidence for
the impact of
communal
irrigation
plants on
household’s
income
It doesn’t
include
important
variables
15 Nugusse(2013) Food Farmer Education, information access, access to rural services, sufficient

22
Security survey, focus water and household sizes are the main factors that significant Small scale
irrigation
group explaining the rural people to participate and access to irrigation
discussion, at 5% level. The propensity score matching explains that the
and the mean annual income, consumption expenditure and asset
propensity accumulation for irrigation respondents was respectively 97%,
score 114% and 103% higher than that of the non-irrigation
matching. respondents. This method also shows that the investment on
small scale irrigation has no statistically significant effect on the
income allocation strategy of the respondents to healthcare and
education

23
2.3. Conceptual frame work
The conceptual framework of this study shows how the independent variables affect food

security (dependent variable). The independent variables consisting of Gender, Age, Marital

Status, Education, Access to credit, Market Access, Use of Improved seed, Size of Cultivated

Land and Access to Extension Service.

The study assumed that independent variables have an influence on food security. The
independent variables in the conceptual frame work are selected after extensive literature review
which depicted that out of many other factors that affect food security. These are the most
important and relevant ones in the study. The frame work assumes that food security is a net
result of the positive and negative effects exerted by all the independent variables on the
dependent variable. Having a positive relationship among the variables show that the food
security will expected to increase. The independent variables are expected to have a
positive/negative relationship with the dependent variable.

Independent Variables
 Gender
 Age
 Marital Status
 Education
Dependent Variable
 Access to Credit
 Distance to main Market  Food Security
 Use of Improved seed
 Size of Cultivated Land
 Access to Extension Service

Source: own computation, 2014 EC

Figure 2.1: Conceptualization of theoretical framework

24
 CHAPTER THREE

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the study area
This study will conducted in East and West Denbia woreda of Central Gondar Administrative
Zone. Central Gondar is an administrative Zone in the Ethiopian Amhara Region.

East and West Denbia woreda are one of the woredas in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia. It is
named for the former province of Dembiya, which was located roughly in the same location. Part
of the central Gondar Zone, East and West Denbia woreda is bordered on the south by Lake
Tana, on the southwest by Takusa, on the west by Chilga, on the north by Lay Armachiho, and
on the east by Gondar Zuria. Towns in Dembiya include Aymiba, Chuahit, Gorgora and
Koladiba.(Woreda’s administration office,2014 EC)

Rivers within this woredas include the Lesser Angereb and Derma, which flow south into Lake
Tana, and the Atbarah. A survey of the land in this woreda shows that 64% is arable or cultivable
and another 25% under irrigation, 6% pasture, 4% forest or shrub land, and the remaining 1% is
considered degraded or other. 287 square kilometers adjacent to Lake Tana is subject to regular
and extensive flooding. (Woreda’s administration office, 2014 EC)

The west denbeya woreda capital, chuahit, is located 687 Km North of Addis Ababa and 47 km
away from Gondar City. The woreda is mainly woyna-dega (midland) in terms of agro-
ecological setting with elevation ranging from 1700 to 2600 m above sea level. The topography
of the area is dominated by plain (flat terrain (87%). The rest is characterized by mountainous
landscape (5%), valleys (4.8%) and wetland (3.2%). Out of the total area of the woreda, 32.97%
is being used for annual crop production, 12.75% for grazing, 5.65 % for forest development,
bush and shrubs, 15.95 % is degraded (unproductive) land and the residential areas constitute
about 4.37%. The average landholding size of the households for crop production is 0.87 hectare
in the woreda. The area is endowed with potential perennial and seasonal water resources for
small-scale irrigation (Denbeya woreda Agriculture Office, 2013).

25
3.1.1 Climate
The rains usually begin in May and increase gradually in frequency to reach a maximum in July
or August. Rainfall declines rapidly after peaking; the cessation of the rains is much more abrupt
compared to its onset (MoARD, 2007).

The average daytime temperature of the study area was found to be 24ºC. Mean maximum
temperature varies from 29 ºC in April to 21ºC in July and August; mean minimum temperature
varies from 8.9 ºC in January to 15.5 ºC in May. The highest mean temperatures are always
between March and May. The mean monthly relative humidity (RH) is58.4%; RH values are
highest during the humid rainy season (75%) from July to August and lowest during March
(42.9%). The variability of RH was also lowest during the wet season. Mean monthly sunshine
hour varies from a low value of 4.4 h/d during the month of August (rainy season) to as high as
9.9 h/d during the month of December. The average monthly sunshine hour during the year is7.2
h/d and its highest variability occurred during the wet season probably because of the frequent
sky overcast (Mekonen & Kebede, 2011)

Figure 3.1 map of East and West Denbeya woreda

26
3.2 Research design
This study used descriptive research design for both qualitative and quantitative components.
Which are concerned with specific predictions, with narration of facts and characteristics
concerning individual, group or situation (C.R.Kothari, 2004)

3.3 Data type

Both primary and secondary data sources has used for this study. Primary (both qualitative and
quantitative) have been collected directly from the respondents who are users and non-users of
irrigation in each kebele. Secondary information that could supplement the primary data has
collected from published and unpublished documents obtained from, Central Gondar zone
Irrigation Development Authority, Saraba irrigation project office, East and west Denbeya
Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development office, East and west Denbeya Woreda
administration, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Amhara Irrigation
Development Authority.

3.4 Sampling techniques and procedures

To select the sample for this study, three-stage sampling method was used. In the first stage, the
Kebeles were purposely selected. In the second stage, six Kebeles was selected randomly from
both which have irrigation access and not. In the third stage, the six selected sample Kebeles
households was stratified into two strata, namely irrigation beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries,
from which sample households were selected randomly. From population of six kebeles we have
37,508 households. This study was determine the sample over the population by using sampling
formula, N is population and e is margin of error (0.05) (Yemane, 1967).

n=
N
2 =
37508
1+ N (e ) 1+ 37508¿ ¿
≈ 400 (121 Participants and 279 non-Participants)

27
Table 3.1: Sample households on Impact of saraba Irrigation Project on Food Security at Denbeya
Woreda, 2014EC (n=400)

Kebeles Total household Sample household Remark

Male Female Total Male Female Total
Seraba Dabolo 3604 3769 7373 38 40 78 121
Achera Mariam 2064 1941 4005 22 21 43 Participants
Aba Libanos 2478 2143 4621 27 23 50 279 Non-
woyna 4521 3627 8148 48 39 87 Participants
Chenker 3672 3746 7418 39 40 79
Abirjeha 2942 3001 5943 31 32 63
Total 19,281 18,227 37,508 205 195 400
Source: Denbeya woreda Administration, 2014 EC

3.5 Data collection method

Primary data has collected through various data collection instruments such as household survey,
Focus Group Discussion and key informants.

3.5.1 Questionnaire method

To generate quantitative and qualitative information at household level, household survey was
undertaken by using structured questionnaire. The household survey covers personal data,
household resources food availability, food accessibility, food utilization and food stability
issues related to irrigation practice and food security. The questionnaire prepared in English and
later translated into the local language (Amharic).

3.5.2 Focus Group Discussions

The focus group discussion (FGD) members composed of both men and women those would not
involve in the individual interviews. One focus group discussion had six to eight individuals. The
output of the discussion has used as a guide the design of household questionnaire and to get
additional supporting qualitative technique.

3.5.3 Key informant interview

The primary data has collected from sample farmers need to be further enriching by additional
information gather through key informants. Thus, intensive interview has conducted with key
28
informants. Thus, are three experts from two different departments and from each kebeles, one
community leaders.

3.6 Methods of Data Analysis

The collected data has analyzed by Stata-15 application software using descriptive and
inferential statistical tools and econometric model called Propensity Score Matching (PSM).

3.6.1 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics which include mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentages has
used in the process of describing different demographic and socio-economic status of the sample
households. In addition, t-test and chi-square test has used to test whether there are significant
mean and proportion difference between user and non-user in terms of continuous and
categorical explanatory variables.

3.6.2 Propensity Score Matching (PSM) Model

PSM is among the rigorous impact evaluation methodology commonly used by researchers
because it considers the issue of the counterfactual (What would have happened to those who
had utilized the irrigation schemes, if they had not been used it?), and overcome selection bias
due to observable differences between treatment and comparison groups. It controls for self-
selection by creating a statistical comparison group by matching every individual observation of
the treatment group with individual observations from the control group with similar observable
characteristics.

Propensity score matching (PSM) has two key underlying assumptions (Samadet al, 2010). The
first one is conditional independence; there exists a set X of observable covariates such that after
controlling for these covariates, the potential outcomes are independent of treatment status. The
other one is common support, for each value of X, there is a positive probability of being both
treated and untreated. It is used when it is possible to create a comparison group from a sample
of non-participants closest to the treated group using observable variables.

Hence, the interest of this study is to determine the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT)
of irrigation practice. But the estimation of this effect is impossible based on the before and after

29
because of absence of baseline data and it needs substituting the counterfactual mean of treated,
by the mean outcome of untreated (Caliendo and Kopeinig, 2005).

This was ensure by, let YiT and YiC are the outcome variable for users (treated) and non-users
(control groups), respectively. The difference in outcome between treated and control groups can
be seen from the following mathematical equation:

∆I =Y1-Y0

Y1: Outcome of treatment (i.e level of FCS,HFAIS , household monthly saving and consumption
expenditure on food and nonfood items) of the ith household, when he/she is users of irrigation),

Y0: Outcome of the untreated individuals (i.e. of FCS,HFAIS , household monthly saving and
consumption expenditure on food and nonfood items) for the ith household when he/she is non-
users of irrigation),

∆I: Change in the outcome as a result of irrigation schemes for the ith household.
According to Caliendo and Kopeinig (2008), there are steps in implementing PSM. These are;
estimating the probability of participation, that is, the propensity score, for each unit in the
sample, selecting a matching algorithm that is used to match users with non-users in order to
construct a comparison group; checking for balance in the characteristics of the treatment and
comparison groups; and estimating the irrigation scheme or program effect and interpreting the
results.

A) Procedures of Propensity Score Estimation

The first step in PSM method is to estimate the propensity scores by using either logit or probit
models. Either of these models is used to estimate propensity scores, P(X) using composite
characteristics of the sample households and matching will then be performed using propensity
score (p-score) of each observation.

For this study, the probability of being in the treatment group (propensity score) will be
calculated using the logistic regression function based on the covariates for everyone in the
database. In estimating the logit model, the dependent variable will be participation in the
program, which takes the value of 1 if the household participants in the program and 0 otherwise.

30
The mathematical formulation of logit model following Gujarati (2004) and the functional form
of logit model is specified as follows:
e Zi
Pi= −Zi
1+ e

Where, Pi is the probability of utilizing or users of an irrigation schemes, whereas, the

probability that a household belongs to non- user or control group is

1
1-Pi= Zi
1+ e

The ratio of the probability that a household would be in treatment group to the probability of
that it would be in non-treatment or control group is;

Zi
Pi 1+e
=
1−Pi 1+ e−Zi

Then, by taking the natural log of the above equation, we obtain:

Li=ln¿ Zi = β0 + β1 X1+β2 X 2 + . . . . . . . . . . + β Xn

Where Pi = is a probability of in the treatment group ranges from 0 to 1

Zi = is a function of n explanatory variables (x). Where, Β0 is an intercept and β1, β2, ….., βn
are slopes of the equation in the model.

Li = is log of the odds ratio, which is not only linear in Xi but also linear in the parameters.

Xi= is vector of relevant pre intervention household characteristics

If the disturbance term, (Ui) is introduced the logit model becomes:

N
Zi= βi+∑ BiXi+Ui
I=1

B) Choice of Matching Algorithm

31
There are different matching algorithms that can be used to determine the treatment effect on the
treated in PSM. But the most common matching algorithms used in PSM include: nearest
neighbor matching, radius matching and kernel matching. These matching methods use different
means of matching the treated to the control group to determine the average effect of an
irrigation schemes.

The choice of the matching algorithms would be based on the most important tests to reduce the
bias and inefficiency simultaneously. These tests include mean bias, number of matched sample,
value of pseudo R square, and number of the balanced covariates. When considering the mean
bias, the one with lowest mean bias would be a better matching algorithm. Based on number of
samples matched, the one with the highest matched number of observation would be the best.

When coming to the value of the pseudo R square after matching, the matching algorithm with
the lowest pseudo R square would be the best matching algorithm. On the other hand, the
matching algorithm with the highest number of balanced covariates would be more appropriate.

C) Checking the Region of Common Support

The common support region is the area which contains the minimum and maximum propensity
scores of treatment and control group households, respectively. Only the subset of the
comparison group that is comparable to the treatment group should be used in the analysis i.e.,
observations which lie outside this region are discarded from analysis (Caliendo and Kopeinig,
2008). Hence, an important step is to check the overlap and the region of common support
between treatment and comparison group. One means to determine the region of common
support more precisely is by comparing the minima and maxima of the propensity score in both
groups.

D) Testing the Matching Quality

The basic idea of all approaches is to compare the situation before and after matching and check
if there remain any differences after conditioning on the propensity score (Caliendo and
Kopeinig, 2005). The propensity scores themselves serve only as devices to balance the observed
distribution of covariates between the treated and comparison groups. The success of propensity
score estimation is therefore assessed by the resultant balance rather than by the fit of the models

32
used to create the estimated propensity scores. The most commonly applied approaches in
balancing covariate between treated and non-treated individuals such as standard bias, t-test,
joint significance, pseudo- R2 and bootstrapping (Ibid).

E) Sensitivity Analysis

Matching has become a popular method to estimate average treatment effects. It is based on the
conditional independence or un-confoundedness assumption which states that we should observe
all variables simultaneously influencing the participation decision and outcome variables. Hence,
checking the sensitivity of the estimated results with respect to deviations from this identifying
assumption becomes an increasingly important in the applied treatment evaluation.

3.7 Variable Definition, Measurement and Hypothesis

A) Outcome variables

I. Food consumption score (FCS): Food items are grouped into 8 standard food groups with a
maximum value of 7 days/week. The consumption frequency of each food group is multiplied by
an assigned weight that is based on its nutrient content. Those values are then summed obtaining
the FCS. 0-28 poor consumption,28-42 borderline consumption and >42 acceptance
consumption.

II. Household yearly Production (YPROD): It is a continuous variable measured in Ethiopian

birr (ETB) that a household produced in a year.

III. Household Monthly saving (MSAV): This is a continuous variable measures in Ethiopian
birr (ETB) that the household saves in every month.

IV. Household Food Access Insecurity Scale (HFAIS): This is a continuous variable with
0-27 This indicated that the total HFIAS can range from 0 to 27, indicating the degree of
insecure food access.

Treated Variable

Irrigation user non user [PartSt.]: It is a dummy variable that takes a value 1 if a household
uses irrigation and 0 do not used (otherwise).
33
B) Explanatory Variables

Gender of the household head [GNDR]: This is a dummy variable and its value is 1 if the
household head is male and 0 otherwise. In rural economies like Ethiopia, men often have better
control to household resources and decisions regarding adoption of agricultural technologies and
inputs. Due to this uneven access to resources and decision making powers, male headed
households are more likely to participate in the irrigation scheme.

Age of the household head [AGE]: This is a continuous variable measured in years. It is
assumed that younger farmers are more have enough labor, innovative, and effective; hence the
more willing to utilize irrigation than old farmers. Therefore, this study hypothesized that it
would have negative relationship with participation in irrigation scheme.

Marital status of a household head [MRTS]: it was a dummy variable which indicated that the
marital status of the household head in which, 1 if that household was married (couple), and 0
otherwise. In this case, these marital statuses would be determined the participation decision and
the outcome variable simultaneously. And it would have a positive relation with the dependent
variable.

Educational status of a household head [EDUC]: It is likely that educated farmers would more
readily adopt irrigation technologies and may be easier to train through extension support. The
variable entered in the model as dummy variable with 1 if a household head can literate and zero
otherwise, and the expected relation is positive.

Access to credit [CRDT]: This is a dummy variable with 1 for user and 0 otherwise. Access to
credit is hypothesized as having a positive relationship.

Distance to the main Market access (MRKT): This is a continuous variable measured in
kilometer. It refers to the distance between the household’s home and the nearest market. This
shows access to the market to buy input and to sell output. As the farmer is nearer to a market,
the higher will be the chance of participating in irrigation and selling farm income.
Characteristics of different localities can affect the adoption decisions (Knowler and Bradshaw
2006). It is, therefore, expected that household’s access to market have better chance to
participate in irrigation and improve household food security status.

34
Use of improved seed (SEED): improved Seed is a key input for improving crop production and
productivity. Increasing the quality of seeds can increase the yield potential of the crop by
significant folds and thus, is one of the most economical and efficient inputs to agricultural
development. Generation and transfer of improved technologies are critical prerequisites for
agricultural development particularly for an agrarian based economy such as of Ethiopian (Girma
A and Amanuel A,2017). The variable entered in the model as dummy variable with 1 if a
household head use improved seed and zero otherwise, and the expected relation is positive.

Size of Cultivated Land (CULLAND):Mulugeta (2002) and Ayalew (2003) identified that size
of cultivated land has positive impact on household food security. This variable represents the
total cultivated land size (both irrigated and rain fed) of a household measured in hectare. It is
hypothesized that farmers who have larger cultivated land are more likely to be food secure than
those with smaller area. A positive relationship is expected between household food security and
cultivated land size.

Access to Extension Service (EXSER): it is expected that extension service widens the
household‟s knowledge with regard to the use of improved variety and agricultural technologies
and has positive impact on household food security. This variable entered the model as a dummy
variable (takes a value of 1 if the household has access to extension service and 0 otherwise).

Table 3.2: Description and Measurement of Dependent and Independent (Explanatory) Variables
at East and West dembeya Woreda, 2014 EC (n=367)

Dependent Variable Definitions and Measurement Type Expected Sign

Variable

Participation Irrigation status of a household, 1 = irrigation Dummy

status beneficiaries, 0 = non-beneficiaries

35
Explanatory

GENDER Gender of the household head: 1 for male; 0 for Dummy +VE
female

AGE Age of a household head, in years Continuous -VE

Dummy
MRTS Marital status of a HH, 1 for married, 0 otherwise +VE

Dummy
EDUC Educational status of the household head (1 = +VE
literate, 0 = illiterate)

Dummy
CRDT Access to credit service, 1for Yes, and 0 for No +VE

Continuous
MRKT Access to the market +VE

Dummy
SEED Use improved seed 1for Yes, and 0 for No +VE

Continuous
CULLAND Size of Cultivated Land +VE

Dummy
EXSER Access to Extension Service +VE

36
 CHAPTER FOUR
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Descriptive Analysis
The descriptive part of this study is mainly concerned with analysis of selected demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics of sample household is vital as it would help to frame the
econometric analysis. This analysis would be made use of tools such as mean, standard
deviation, frequency and percentages. Subsequently, the details of PSM estimation would be
depicted.

A combination of different descriptive statistics was performed on the sample households’ data
to inform the subsequent empirical data analysis. To describe the sample households in this study
both continuous and discrete variables were used and the t-test and Chi-square statistics
respectively were employed to compare beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries group with respect to
some explanatory variables.

4.1.2 Descriptive Statistics of HH Characteristics (For Discrete Variables)

Among 400 respective respondents 367 were give their reply properly which incorporates
91.75%.

The survey result showed that, out of the total 367 sampled households, 79.29% were male
headed and the rest 20.71% were female headed as showed in Table 4.1 With regard to the sex
composition across irrigation beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries 83.93% and 77.25% of were
male headed households respectively. Similarly 16.07% of the beneficiaries and 22.75% of the
non-beneficiaries households were female headed. The result of the chi-squared test for the
difference in the sex of the sample households between the two (treatment and control) groups
was found to be statistically significant.

With regard to the marital status of respondents, about 90.46% of them were married (coupled)
and 9.53% were otherwise (might be divorced, widowed, etc) household heads. In addition to
this, 74.10 and 97.64 percent of household heads were the married household heads among the
beneficiary and Non-beneficiary groups respectively. In the chi-squared test of the difference in
the marital status between the beneficiaries/irrigators) and non-beneficiaries/not-irrigating)

37
households was founded that a statistically significant at 1 percent probability. This means that
both groups are full of married households.

It is widely believed that education status of household heads is a pivotal factor in affecting the
adoption of irrigation technologies and improving agricultural productivity. The education status
of household heads was found to be literate which is 31.25% for the treated households and
control households was found 9.02%. From The chi-squared test for the difference in education
status whether they are literate or illiterate was significant at 1% level.

Credit service was another activity of the households which was assumed to improve their agricultural
production. As can be observed in Table 4.1 out of the total 367 sample respondents in the two groups,
63.49% of them did not got the credit access but the rest 36.51% reported that they served from it. When
comparing between the two groups, 46.5% of user respondents and 84.3% of the non-user/ control/
respondents were not get credit. In contrast 53.5% respondents in the user group and 15.7% of the
respondents in the non-user or control group were in a position to access the credit services. The test
result of the chi-squared for the difference in utilization in irrigation schemes, the sample households
between the two groups was found to be statistically significant at 1 percent.

Use of Improved seed: use of improved seed was almost similar for both irrigators and non-
irrigators. 73.21 percent of irrigators and 58.82 percent of non-irrigators get improved seed. The
chi- square test also showed that the mean difference was statistically significant at 1 percent
probability level.

Access to extension services: The result revealed that, 38.96 percent of household heads having
access to extension contact and 61.04 percent of the household heads that not having extension
contact was food secure. This indicates that households having access to extension contacts are
more food secure than that of the households not having access to extension contacts. The chi-
square test also showed that the mean difference was statistically significant at 1 percent
probability level.

38
 Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of HH Characteristics (For Discrete Variables) at East and west Woreda,
2014EC (n=367)

Variable Total HH (367) Beneficiary(112) Non-beneficiary(255) Pr

Frequency percent Frequency percent Frequency percent

GNDR Male 291 79.29 94 83.93 197 77.25 0.011**

Female 76 20.71 18 16.07 58 22.75

MRTS Married 332 90.46 83 74.10 249 97.64 0.001**

Unmarrie 35 9.54 29 25.90 6 2.36
d

EDUC Literate 86 23.43 35 31.25 23 9.02 0.000***

Illiterate 281 76.57 87 68.75 232 90.98

CRDT Yes 134 36.51 43 29.47 26 15.7 0.000***

No 233 63.49 79 70.53 227 84.3

SEED No 76 20.70 37 33 43 16.86 0.000***

Yes 291 79.30 85 67 212 83.14

EXSER Yes 232 63.21 82 73.21 150 58.82 0.0001**

No 135 36.79 30 26.79 105 41.18

Source; Own Survey, 2014 EC

Note: ***, **, means significant at the 1%, 5% probability levels respectively

39
 4.1.3 Descriptive Statistics of HH Characteristics (For Continuous Variables)

As indicated in Table 4.2, the mean of of irrigating or treated households was 2.08 years with a
standard deviation of 13.58, whereas, the mean of age control was 2.15 years with a standard
deviation of 13.26.

The result of the t-test for the differences in age distribution between treatment and control
groups was significant at 1 percent probability.

In the case of their market access the mean value of beneficiaries is 2.47 and 0.05 standard
deviation at the same time 2.33 and 0.06 values were non-beneficiaries mean value and standard
deviation respectively. Even, there is a difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries
mean value, the level is low. This is not making difference their productivity by age. The
significant level is 1%.

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics of HH Characteristics (For Continues Variables) at East and west
denbeya Woreda, 2014 EC (n=367)

Variable Total HH (367) Beneficiary(112) Non-beneficiary(255) t-

value
mean S.D mean S.D mean S.D

2.114441 .6758792 2.082126 .0528637 .0528637

AGE 2.15625 1.0420

2.416894 .8118239 2.478261 .0538496 .0674604

MRKT 2.3375 -1.6510

CULLAND 1.847411 .79523 1.859903 .0562532 .0615713

1.83125 -0.3419

Source; Own Survey, 2014 EC

Note: ***, **, and * means significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% probability levels respectively

40
4.1.4 Descriptive Statistics on Outcome Variables
4.1.4.1 Household Food consumption score, yearly production, HFAIS and monthly saving
In the case of Food Consumption Score (FCS) level, beneficiary’s total FCS means value better
than non-beneficiaries by 19.3% from the result we can conclude that the FCS value of
beneficiaries was higher than non-beneficiaries. The t-test value indicated that it is significant at
1% level.

In the case of production, beneficiary’s total production mean value was better than non-
beneficiaries by 12%. From the result we can conclude that the production value of beneficiaries
were higher than non-beneficiaries.

So, beneficiary’s food availability was better than non-beneficiaries. The t-test value indicated
that it is significant at 1% level.
In the case of household food access insecurity scale which is developed by USAID status of
respondents, about 12. 6% of beneficiaries were responded that they were fill anxiety and
uncertainty of food, insufficient quality of food and insufficient food intake .But, 87.4% in the
non-beneficiary’s side. The test is significant at 1%. This shows that non-beneficiaries fill food
insecurity rather than beneficiaries.
In the case of household food access insecurity scale which is developed by USAID status of
respondents, about 12. 6% of beneficiaries were responded that they were fill anxiety and
uncertainty of food, insufficient quality of food and insufficient food intake .But, 87.4% in the
non-beneficiary’s side. The test is significant at 1%. This shows that non beneficiaries fill food
insecurity rather than beneficiaries.

In the case of household monthly saving, beneficiary’s total monthly saving mean value was
better than non-beneficiaries by 70%. From the result we can conclude that the saving value of
beneficiaries were higher than non-beneficiaries. So, beneficiary’s food stability was better than
non-beneficiaries. The t-test value indicated that it is significant at 1% level.

41
 Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of outcome variables at East and west denbeya Woreda, 2014 EC
(n=367)

Outcome Variable Total HH (367) Beneficiary(112) Non-beneficiary(255) t-value

mean S.D mean S.D mean S.D

2.103542 .7997018 1.937198 1.31875

FCS .0530889 .062929 0.0589***

2.743869 .9608792 2.729469 1.7625

YPROD .0679437 .0744411 0.0620**

3.032698 1.055311 3 2.075

MSAV .0753336 .0805592 0.0074*

1.441417 .4972341 1.486339 1.396739

HFAIS .0370486 .0361643 0.0000*

Source; Own Survey, 2014 EC

Note: ***, **, and * means significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% probability levels respectively

4.2 Summary of collected qualitative data

42
Even though there are 14 kebeles, the project covers only 9 kebeles. So, respondents drawn from
non- beneficiary’s kebele strongly request the government to make similar investment to expand
irrigation project to their local kebeles. The beneficiary groups raise their dissatisfaction for available
market value chain of their products. Due to this fact; they were discarded some amount of products.
Generally, as the respondents forward lack of enough fertilizer, lack of effective support by the
project coordination office, unavailability of programmed guidance and training by the government
office and ineffective water transmission based on time were the basic challenges that the
beneficiaries faced.

4.3 Econometric Analysis

An econometric model, propensity score matching model, was employed to examine the impact
of irrigation on food security. The variables included in the model were tested for the existence
of multicollinearity, if any. Contingency coefficient and variance inflation factor were used for
multicollinearity test of dummy and continuous variables respectively, heteroskedasticity, and
Normality distribution of the data were tested.
Multicolinearity problem arises when at least one of the independent variables is a linear
combination of the others. The existence of multicolinearity might cause the estimated regression
coefficients to have the wrong signs and smaller t-ratios that might lead to wrong conclusions.
There are two measures that are often suggested to test the presence of multicolinearity. These
are: Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for association among the continuous explanatory variables
and contingency coefficients for dummy variables.
VIF shows how the variance of an estimator is inflated by the presence of multicolinearity
(Gujarati, 2003). The larger the value of VIFi, the more troublesome or collinear the variable Xi
is. As a rule of thumb, if the VIF of a variable exceeds 10 (this will happen if Ri2 exceeds 0.95),
that variables are said to be highly collinear (Gujarati, 1995).

Following Gujarati (1995), the VIFj is given as:

1
VIF (Xj) = 1−Rj2

Where, Rj 2 is the coefficient of multiple correlations when the variable Xj is regressed on the other
explanatory variables.
43
Similarly, there may be also interaction between qualitative variables, which can lead to the problem
of multicolinearity. To detect this problem, coefficients of contingency were computed. The
contingency coefficient was compounded as follows:

C=
√ χ2
n+ χ
2

Where, C is coefficient of contingency, 𝟀𝟐 is chi-square test and n = total sample size.

A goodness of fit measure is a summary statistic indicating the accuracy with which a model
approximates the observed data. Since the dependent variables of the models were qualitative,
accuracy was judged in terms of the fit between the calculated probabilities and observed response
frequencies, likelihood ratio index (LRI) and log-likelihood function.

Table 4.4: VIF of the continuous Explanatory Variables used in the study

Variable VIF 𝑅𝑖2

AGE 1.12 0.10

MRKT 1.11 0.09

CULLAND 1.02 0.02

Source: Computed from the field survey data

Similarly, contingency coefficients were computed to check the existence of multicolinearity

problem among the dummy explanatory variables. The contingency coefficient is computed

√
2
χ
C=
n+ χ 2

Where, C= Coefficient of contingency

𝟀𝟐= Chi-square random variable and
N = total sample size.

Table 4.5: Contingency Coefficients for Dummy Variables

44
 GNDR MRTS EDUC CRDT SEED EXSER

GNDR 1.0000

MRTS -0.0597 1.0000

EDUC -0.0790 -0.2534 1.0000

CRDT 0.5694 0.1057 -0.1382 1.0000

SEED -0.1967 0.2273 -0.1125 0.4141 1.0000

EXSER -0.6052 0.0450 0.3004 -0.3069 -0.0104 1.0000

Source: Computed from the field survey data

Contingency coefficient value ranges between -1 and 1, and as a rule of thumb variable with
contingency coefficient below 0.75 shows weak association and value above it indicates strong
association of variables. The contingency coefficient for the dummy variables included in the
model was less than 0.75 that didn’t suggest multicollinearity to be a serious concern as depicted
on Table 4.5.
As a rule of thumb continuous variable having variance inflation factor of less than 10 are
believed to have no multicollinearity and those with VIF of above 10 are subjected to the
problem and should be excluded from the model. The computational results of the variance
inflation factor on Table 4.4 confirmed the non-existence of association between the variables
and were included in the model. Based on the VIF and contingency coefficient results the data
were found to have no serious problem of multi-collinearity. Therefore the continuous and
dummy explanatory variables were retained in the model.

After a regression, there is a variety of follow-up work that should to do. This work is done using
post estimation. By Using post estimation method Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for

heteroskedasticity and Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of GROUP was
used to check the data.

 Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: fitted values of GROUP

45
 chi2 (1) = 11.81
Prob > chi2 = 0.0006
Prob > chi2 = 0.000

 Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of GROUP

Ho: model has no omitted variables
F(3, 354) = 3768.80
Prob > F = 0.0000

Since the ‘’P’’ value is higher the null hypothesis of the constant variance. Therefore, there is no
large variation in the size of value of explanatory variable. The results of Breush-Pagan-Godfrey
test for Hetroscedasticity the tests did not detect any problem Hetroscedasticity.

This section describes the whole steps to arrive at the impact of the program. As already
discussed in the previous sections, the major purpose of the propensity score matching model is
to provide an answer for the question what would have happened to those who had used the
irrigation schemes, had they not used which requires observing outcomes of a household used
and did not used it. This section describes the whole process to arrive at the impact of the
irrigation scheme. It explains the estimation of propensity scores, matching methods, common
support region, balancing test and sensitivity analysis. It also measures the average treatment
effect on the treated (ATT) for intended outcome variables.

4.3.1 Estimates of Propensity Scores

46
This section presents the results of the logistic regression model which was used to estimate
propensity scores for matching beneficiaries with non-beneficiary’s households. Accordingly, a
binary logit model was used to estimate the propensity scores of respondents which help us to
perform matching algorithm between the treated and control groups in the study area.

In estimating the propensity scores, data from both groups were pooled such that the dependent
variable takes a value of 1 if the household was irrigation beneficiary and 0 otherwise. The
pseudo-R2 value of 0.4826 shows that, the estimated model performs well for the intended
matching exercise. A low pseudo-R2 value means irrigation beneficiary households do not have
many distinct characteristics from control households and this finding shows that there is good
match between the two groups based on pre-utilization characteristics (Caliendo and Kopeinig,
2005).

According to table 4.6 among 9 variables included in the model, 7 are statistical significant to
affect the participation of households in irrigation farming.

Marital status: It is statistically significant at 1%.it affects negatively for the adoption of
irrigation. In the case of marital status to be married or unmarried is not the reason to be
beneficiary.

Household head education level: This variable is significant at 1% level of significance level
and it has positive association with irrigation participation. The relationship between household
head education level and participation in irrigation program shows that 1 extra year of education
raises the probability of being in irrigation participation by 6 percentage points (holding other
influencing variables constant) .This variable as hypothesized affects the household’s
participation decision in irrigation in such a way those households who educated better chance to
adopt irrigation. The same result the study by Asayehegn et al. (2011) found that education plays
a key role in household decision for technology adoption.

Access to credit: It is statistically significant and economically meaningful that positively affects
the probability of adopting and utilizing irrigation at 1% of probability. Also consistent with
prior expectations, The service is returned an expected positive and significant coefficient,
suggesting that farmers who had access to credit services is better adopting irrigation farming so
as to the efficiency of farmers. It is because, households who get credit service could be involved

47
in participation decision of investments and can able to buy necessary productive inputs, they
might be engage capable to use irrigation.

Market Access: The mean distance to the market place in kilometer for the sample households
is found to be 6.7 km with a minimum of 3 km and a maximum of 13 km. The average for
households with access to irrigation is 7.3 km while the non-user households have a better access
to the market place which is 6.1 km. The mean difference between the two groups with regard to
distance from the market place is statistically significant at 1 percent probability level.

Improved seed: Increasing the quality of seeds can increase the yield potential of the crop by
significant folds and thus, is one of the most economical and efficient inputs to agricultural
development. Generation and transfer of improved technologies are critical prerequisites for
agricultural development particularly for an agrarian based economy such as of Ethiopian (Girma
A and Amanuel A,2017). This variable is significant at 1% level significance and has a positive
relationship with irrigation participation. The result shows as improved seed increases by one
timed, the probability of being an irrigator increases.

Cultivated land size: This variable is significant at 1% level significance and has a positive
relationship with irrigation participation. The result shows as the size of cultivated area increases
by one timed, the probability of being an irrigator increases. That is cultivated land size
motivates households to adopt irrigation. The implication is that the probabilities of being
irrigator increases with farm size (controlling other variables constant).

Access to extension service: The model result reveals that this variable has a significant (at 1%
level) and positive influence on the irrigation in the study area. The possible explanation is that
those farmers who have access to extension service are more likely to adopt irrigation than who
have not access to extension services (holding other variables constant). This may due to
irrigation participants who get technical advice and training or those are well aware of the
advantage of agricultural technologies and adopt new technologies. This result is consistent with
findings by Gebregziabher et al. (2009).

Table 4.6: regression table on the Impact of food security on saraba Project at East and west
denbeya Woreda, 2014 EC (n=367)

48
Logistic regression Number of obs = 367
LR chi2(9) = 245.51
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Log likelihood = -131.62955 Pseudo R2 = 0.4826

PartStatus OddsRatio Std. Err. z P>z

GNDR 10.83401 4.886691 5.28 0.360

1.216008 0.2879155 0.83

AGE 0.409

0.2625042 0.092529 -3.79

MRTS 0.000*

2.619175 0.9197613 2.74

EDUC 0.006*

15.40692 6.89
CRDT 0.000*
6.112324
1.8188 2.83
MRKT 0.005*
0.3841036
1.244902 0.4848718 0.56
SEED 0.006*

0.7873593 0.1638388 -1.15

CULLAND 0.002*

0.164357 -3.87
EXSER 0.000*
0.0766767
0.032463 0.0281619 -3.95
_cons 0.000

Source; Own Survey, 2014 EC

Note: *means significant at the 1% probability levels

4.3.2 The Common Support Region of Propensity Score

49
As stated before, three main tasks should be accomplished before one launches the matching task
itself. First, predicted values of irrigation utilization (propensity scores) should be estimated for
all user households and outside the scheme of irrigation system. Second, a common support
condition should be imposed on the propensity score distributions of household with and without
the irrigation schemes. Third, discard observations whose predicted propensity scores fall outside
the range of the common support region.
To define the region of common support by dropping observations below the maximum of the
minimums and above the minimum of the maximums of the balancing score.

The estimated propensity score matching technique is the common support condition .Before
differentiates the region of common support using color codes the upper red color indicates the
treated observations were us the lower blue color is untreated one. Thus, most of the
observations are in the common support of the region [0.1286365563, 0.9449409246]. This ensured
that there is sufficient overlap in the characteristics of treated and untreated unites to find adequate
matches .Hence, the common support assumption has been maintained. In the kernel density graph
also the propensity result is looks like similar that of the normal graph as shown graph below.

Figure 4.1: propensity score distribution graph on Impact of Food Security at Saraba Irrigation
Project at East and west Denbeya Woreda, 2014EC (n=367)

50
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Propensity Score
UntreatedTreated

Graphically, the estimated propensity scores for both irrigation user and non-user groups were
presented in Figure 4.2 using kernel density. From the figure, the normal line (the middle line)
represents the total sample household; the short dash line (left below and right upper line)
representing the propensity score of irrigation participants, while the long dash (left upper and
right below line) representing the propensity score of irrigation non-participant group.

51
 Figure 4.2 Kernel density for participants, non-participants and both, before matching

4.3.3 Matching participants to non-participants

In order to estimate the average treatment effect of irrigation program on the beneficiaries’
different matching algorithm were used. These include radius matching, neighbor matching and
kernel matching as indicating table 4.7 below.

The PSM result shows that the irrigation program has a significant effect at 1% level. Which is
the average treatment effect on treated values of food expenditure were 17.4% for all radius,
neighbor and kernel matching algorithms. On the other hand the average treatment effect of
production was 10%, 9.8% and 12% radius, neighbor and kernel matching respectively. In the
case of FCS, the average treatment effects on treated were 31.6, 32.5 and 32.9 radius, neighbor
and kernel matching respectively. The average treatment effect of HFAIS on treated is -9.780,-
9.669 and -9.882 radius, neighbor and kernel matching respectively. This indicated that the
control group food insecurity access was better than in the stated values. And finally household
52
monthly saving of treated was better in radius matching by 60% and less in neighbor and kernel
matching algorithm.

Among the above matching algorithms kernel matching is the best matching algorithm in its
highest number of observation and better average treatment effect related to radius and neighbor
matching algorithms.

Table 4.7: Matching Performance of Different Estimators on Impact of Food Security at

saraba Irrigation Project, 2014 EC (n=367)

Variable Matching method N N ATT Std. Err. T

treated controlled

Production Radius Matching 202 143 1.461 0.220 6.637

Neighbor 202 118 1.219 0.483 2.522

Matching
Kernel Matching 202 143 1.477 0.390 3.784

Food Radius Matching 202 143 31.660 2.392 13.234

Consumption
Neighbor 202 118 32.457 4.753 6.829
score
Matching
Kernel Matching 202 143 32.937 2.737 12.034

HFIAS Radius Matching 202 143 -9.882 0.323 -30.586

Neighbor 202 118 -9.669 0.454 -21.276
Matching
Kernel Matching 202 143 -9.780 0.385 -25.405
Households Radius Matching 202 143 1.122 0.271 4.146
monthly saving
Neighbor 202 118 -0.551 0.256 -2.153
Matching
Kernel Matching 202 143 -0.352 0.224 -1.572

Source, Own Survey (2014 EC)

4.3.4 Testing the balance of PSM and covariates

Table 4.8 shows the balancing test of covariates, after the matching. As indicated in the table,

53
irrigation beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries households were significantly different in terms
of certain pre-intervention characteristics. However, these differences were removed after the
matching was conducted.

Table 4.8: Testing covariates on the impact of food security at saraba Irrigation Project
2014EC (n=367)
Before Matching After
Matching
Variables Total Respondents (367) Total Respondents (367)
User Non User (255) T-value User Non-User T-value
(112) (112) (255)
GNDR 0.84158 0. 73333 2.56 0. 84158 0.75192 2.25**
AGE 45.886 45.352 0.38 45.886 42.771 2.33**
MRTS 0.85644 0.96364 -3.53 0.65784 0.95648 -0.78**
EDUC 0.31188 0.13939 3.95 0.31188 .31188 0.00
CRDT 1.8911 0.69091 4.23 1.8911 1.5458 1.18
MRKT 0.57856 0.158798 6.22 .55879 .236875 5.48***

SEED 0.75633 0.95652 -2.43 0.85644 0.91864 -1.98**

CULLAND 0.53465 0.53465 3.14 0.53465 0.53465 -2.15

EXSER 0.63258 0.78952 0.53 0.56892 0.45213 0.36

Source, Own Survey (2014 EC)

Note: ***, **, and * means significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% probability levels respectively
4.3.5 Average Treatment Effect on Treated (ATT)

In this sub-section, the study provides evidence us to whether the use of agricultural irrigation
schemes by farm households in the study area has brought a significant changes (impact) on their
consumption patterns (food and non-food expenditure) ,production (availability of food) and
food intake per 7 days(availability) of food on their food secured.

4.3.5.1 Impact of Irrigation on household food security

After controlling for pre-intervention differences in the characteristics of the beneficiaries and
non- beneficiaries households.

54
 The food intake within 7 days (FCS) per of the user households also was increased by 3.9 score
which is about 5%. Thus, Households that have irrigation access have high food consumption
score than those household who don‘t have irrigation access. In the case of food availability
(production of food) irrigation beneficiaries have better available food than non-users is about
59%. In the case of Household Food Access Insecurity Scale (HFAIS), the non-beneficiaries
degree of food insecurity increased related to beneficiaries by 11.34. This indicated that the total
HFIAS can range from 0 to 27, indicating the degree of insecure food access. As a categorical
variable, households are categorized as food secure, mildly food insecure, moderately food
insecure, or severely food insecure (Index Project, 2020) conclusions. So that the there is no a
problem of value that approach to 0 like beneficiaries (2.91) related to approach to 27 like non-
beneficiaries (14.25) (Coates, 2007).

The monthly saving related to beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were also different in their
average treatment effect on treated. It showed that the beneficiaries increased by 60%. This
indicated that the household beneficiaries were saved better than non-beneficiaries.

The relationship between consumption expenditure (for food, non-food as well as total spending)
,food consumption score ,production and HFAIS for access to irrigation is statically significant at
1% level of probability. This suggests that a relatively better quality of life was evident for
irrigation users when compared to non-irrigation user households.

Table 4.9: Impact of Irrigation on production, expenditure and FCS on Impact of Food
Security at saraba Irrigation Project 2014 (n=367)

Mean T-test
Outcome Variable Treated Control Difference S.E T-Value
Production 10.5711 9.9783 0.59 0.1884 3.15***
Food consumption score 80.5 76.6 3.9 5.4 3.5***

HFAIS 2.9158 14.2574 -11.34 6.41 -24.15***

Household monthly saving 2.87263 1.104671 1.76796 0.2555 6.92***

Source; Own Survey, 2014 EC

Note: ***, **, and * means significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% probability levels respectively

55
 CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. CONCLUSIONS

The overall intention in this study was to examine the impact of saraba irrigation project on food
security. To this end, a household consumption survey was undertaken on 367 rural households
[112treated and 255 controls] in the study area and collected both primary and secondary data.
To analyze the impact of irrigation on household food security, descriptive and econometric
analyses were employed. In a descriptive result the researcher found that the household food
consumption score (FCS) of beneficiaries of the program were increased by 29% respectively. In
addition the yearly production and household monthly saving of the beneficiaries were better
than non-beneficiaries by 12% and 70% respectively. From this the researcher has been conclude
that food availability and stability was better in beneficiaries related to non-beneficiaries. In the
case of household food access insecurity scale (HFIAS), the non-beneficiaries worried about
insecurity of food in 84.7%. From this non beneficiaries were not access their food related to
beneficiaries. As the general finding, descriptive statistics shows that availability, access,
utilization and stability of food were good in beneficiaries related to non-beneficiaries.
In the case of econometric model estimates of propensity score logistic regression was selected
so that the pseudo-R2 value of 0. 48 show that, the estimated model performs well for the
intended matching exercise. From the regression Marital status, Household head of education
level, Market Access, Improved seed, Cultivated land size, Access to extension service and credit
service that the household’s got from governmental institutions was significantly affected or
determined. Followed by the steps that there is sufficient overlap in the characteristics of treated
and untreated unites to find adequate matches in the common support region. Finally, ATT
estimates showed that the irrigation scheme has been a positive and significant impact on food
security among the irrigation beneficiaries by reducing food insecurity. The result showed that
the average treatment effect on treated (ATT) of production, food consumption score (FCS),
household monthly saving were increased by 59%, 17%, 5% and 60% respectively. In addition
to these, household food access insecurity scale (HFIAS) finding shows that ATT difference is
decreased by 11.3 (the scale value 2.9 for beneficiaries and 14.3 for non-beneficiaries). From the
econometric analysis it can be conclude that the beneficiary’s availability, utilization, access and

56
stability of food were better than non-beneficiaries. So that these results suggest that access to
irrigation has a profound impact on food security.

57
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations were drawn:
Even though, availability, utilization, access and stability of food were stated in a better manner
for beneficiaries, the differences of the result for the two groups were not as such strong as the
program is large scale irrigation. This was standing from the monitoring and evaluation
assessment drawback as the respondent stated. So, the government institution should attain the
project day and night with his improvement package for better production.

Access to credit had a positive relation with irrigation utilization in the study area, so that, the
access of credit service for all farmers is a vital role for the sake of improving productivity as
well as food security

The result of this study also revealed that access to extension services positively and significantly
affected household food security status. This means households getting extension services are
more likely food secure compared to the households not getting extension services. Therefore,
the district bureau of agriculture and rural development with development agents in each kebeles
should give trainings and experience sharing to farmers to enhance their awareness on how to
improve agricultural production, productivity and their food security status.

The coordination office should prepare programmed orientation and training for farmers so as to
effective utilization of water canal as sense of ownership.

Generally, this food security impact of irrigation can be intensified by creating conditions or
enabling environments that could achieve functional inclusion of the farm households in
conditions of integrated water resource management, access to and adequacy of good quality
surface, modern production technology, shift to high-value market-oriented production, and
opportunities for the sale of farm outputs at low transaction cost.

58
 5. References

Aregawi, M. H. (2014). The Impact of Small- Scale Irrigation on Rural household Food Security
- Mekele University.
Asres, S. B. (2018). Evaluating and enhancing irrigation water management in the upper Blue
Nile basin ,Ethiopia : The case of Koga large scale irrigation scheme Evaluating and enhancing
irrigation water management in the upper Blue Nile basin , Ethiopia : The case of Koga l.
Agricultural Water Management, 170(November 2015), 26–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.10.025

Awulachew, S. B., Merrey, D. J., Kamara, A. B., Koppen, B. Van, & Makombe, G. (2005).
Experiences and Opportunities for Promoting Small-Scale/Micro Irrigation and Rainwater
Harvesting for Food Security in Ethiopia, 86p.

Ayale, G. K. (2011). The Impact of Selected Small-Scale Irrigation Schemes on Household

Income and The Likelihood Of Poverty In The Lake Tana Basin Of Ethiopia, (July).

Bacha, D., Namara, R., Bogale, A., & Tesfaye, A. (2011). IMPACT OF SMALL-SCALE
IRRIGATION ON HOUSEHOLD POVERTY : EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE AMBO
DISTRICT IN ETHIOPIA y, 10(December 2009), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird

Bank, W. (1986). Aworld Bank Policy Study Poverty and Hunger.

Barrett CB (2010) Measuring food insecurity

Birhanu, K. T., Alamirew, T., Olumana, M. D., Ayalew, S., & Aklog, D. (2015). Irrigation &
Drainage Systems Engineering Optimizing Cropping Pattern Using Chance Constraint Linear
Programming for Koga Irrigation Dam , Ethiopia, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-
9768.1000134 Brief, P. (2006). Food Security, (2), 1–4.

C.R.Kothari. (2004). Research Methodology Methods and Techniques. New Age International
(P).

Christine, J., Willibald, L., Dominik, R., Michael, H., Bekele, S., & Fitsum, H. (2008). Impact of
irrigation on livelihood and food security in the modern Hare river irrigation scheme in Southern
Ethiopia Food. Impact of Irrigation on Poverty and Environment in Ethiopia, 210–222.

59
Coates, J. (2007). Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of
Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (v. 3), (August).

Data, A. (2020). Data 4 Diets : Building Blocks for Diet-related Food Security Analysis, (May).

Deribie, M. (2015). Impact of Akaki Small-scale Irrigation Scheme on Household Food Security.
Journal of Accounting & Marketing, 04(03). https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9601.1000140

Eguavoen, I., & Tesfai, W. (2012). Social impact and impoverishment risks of the Koga
irrigation scheme , Blue Nile basin , Ethiopia, 25(1), 39–60.

Endalew, B., Muche, M., & Tadesse, S. (2015). Assessment of food security situation in
ethiopia: A Review. Asian Journal of Agricultural Research.
https://doi.org/10.3923/ajar.2015.55.68

Eshetu, T., & Young-Bohk, C. (2017). Contribution of Small Scale Irrigation to Households
Income and Food Security: Evidence from Ketar Irrigation Scheme, Arsi Zone, Oromiya Region,
Ethiopia. African Journal of Business Management, 11(3), 57–68.
https://doi.org/10.5897/ajbm2016.8175

FAO. (1997). Small-scale irrigation for arid zones. Africa.

FAO. (1999). International Programme for Technology and Research in and, (1).

FAO /Mendes, D. M. (2015). Ethiopia Irrigation market brief. Food And Agriculture
Organization Of United Nations.

Gebremichale, G. (2013). Impact of Mai Nugus Irrigation Scheme on Household Food Security,
(November).

Hussain, I. (2004). Assessing Impacts of Irrigation on Poverty: Approaches, Methods, Case

Studies and Lessons 1 Intizar Hussain, 26–30.

Kapkai, K. J., & of Nairobi, U. (2013). Impact of Irrigation Scheme on Food Security: a Case of
Wei-Wei Irrigation Scheme in Central Pokot District, West Pokot County, Kenya Kakuko
Kapkai John a Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

60
Award of Degree in Mas. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0587/144ae0b1a0b56ae34e715ef82c4915f21e73.pdf

Mekonen, T., & Kebede, F. (2011). Suitability of Koga Watershed for Irrigated Sugarcane and
Onion Production in the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia.

MTONGA, M. (2014). Student Number : 3517-412-9 Declaration, (November).

Napoli, M., Muro, P. P. De, & Mazziotta, P. M. (2011). Towards a Food Insecurity
Multidimensional Index ( FIMI ), 1–72.

Nugusse, Z. W. (2013). Food Security through Small Scale Irrigation: Case Study from Northern
Ethiopia

Paul J. Gertler, Sebastian Martinez, Patrick Premand, Laura B. Rawlings, and C. M. J. V. (2016).
Impact Evaluation in Practice. World Bank (Vol. 53). International Bank for Reconstructions and
Development/

The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Rajotte, E. by G. T. and T. (2008). The future control of food (Earthscan). Canada.

Region, A., & Siraw, Z. (2016). The Role of Irrigation in Household Food Security in Upper
Blue Nile Basin :

The Case of Jedeb Irrigation Scheme , 1(4), 108–116.https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20160104.13

Samad, S. R. K. G. B. K. H. A. (2010). Handbook on Impact Evaluation: Qualitative Methods

and Pratices. World Bank.

Simon Maxwell and Marisol Smith. (1992). Household food security: a conceptual review.
Household food security: Concepts, indicators, measurements,.

Sisay, B., & Fekadu, B. (2013). Small-scale irrigation and household income linkage: Evidence
from Deder district, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(34), 4441–4451.
https://doi.org/10.5897/ajar12.1793

61
Tesfaye, A., Bogale, A., Namara, R. E., & Bacha, D. (2008). The impact of small-scale irrigation
on household food security: The case of Filtino and Godino irrigation schemes in Ethiopia.
Irrigation and Drainage

Systems, 22(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10795-008-9047-5

Tizita Damtew. (2017). the Effect of Small Scale Irrigation on Household.

Trang, N. T., & Cuong, N. V. (2019

62
Appendix
. tab PartStatus

status of
partticipation Freq. Percent Cum.

Non-beneficiary 183 49.86 49.86

Beneficiary 184 50.14 100.00

Total 367 100.00

. ttest AGE,by(PartStatus)

Two-sample t test with equal variances

Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]

Non-bene 183 2.590164 .0439255 .5942134 2.503495 2.676833

Benefici 184 2.222826 .060651 .8227109 2.103161 2.342491

combined 367 2.405995 .0386359 .7401573 2.330018 2.481971

diff .3673378 .0749509 .219948 .5147277

diff = mean(Non-bene) - mean(Benefici) t = 4.9010

Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 365

Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0

Pr(T < t) = 1.0000 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0000 Pr(T > t) = 0.0000

63
. teffects nnmatch (FCS YPROD) (PartStatus)

Treatment-effects estimation Number of obs = 367

Estimator : nearest-neighbor matching Matches: requested = 1
Outcome model : matching min = 16
Distance metric: Mahalanobis max = 151

AI Robust
FCS Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

ATE
PartStatus
(Beneficiary vs Non-beneficiary) -.8564198 .0386226 -22.17 0.000 -.9321186 -.7807209

. teffects nnmatch (FCS YPROD) (PartStatus)

Treatment-effects estimation Number of obs = 367

Estimator : nearest-neighbor matching Matches: requested = 1
Outcome model : matching min = 16
Distance metric: Mahalanobis max = 151

AI Robust
FCS Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

ATE
PartStatus
(Beneficiary vs Non-beneficiary) -.8564198 .0386226 -22.17 0.000 -.9321186 -.7807209

. teffects nnmatch (FCS) (PartStatus)

omvarlist or ematch(varlist) must be specified
r(100);

. teffects nnmatch (FCS _pscore) (PartStatus)

Treatment-effects estimation Number of obs = 367

Estimator : nearest-neighbor matching Matches: requested = 1
Outcome model : matching min = 1
Distance metric: Mahalanobis max = 9

AI Robust
FCS Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

ATE
PartStatus
(Beneficiary vs Non-beneficiary) .2429609 .1858166 1.31 0.191 -.121233 .6071548

. teffects nnmatch (FCS _pscore) (PartStatus)

Treatment-effects estimation Number of obs = 367

Estimator : nearest-neighbor matching Matches: requested = 1
Outcome model : matching min = 1
Distance metric: Mahalanobis max = 9

AI Robust
FCS Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

ATE
PartStatus
(Beneficiary vs Non-beneficiary) .2429609 .1858166 1.31 0.191 -.121233 .6071548

64