457
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 presents a summary of key demographic and socio-economic characteristics
by technology and farmer category. In terms of gender composition, the sample was
dominated by male-headed households across all the technologies and the pooled
sample, with 172 (86.0%) households being headed by males while 28 (14.0%)
were headed by females. The mean age across all the four technology adopters and
non-adopters hovered around 40. The mean age of adopters and non-adopters for
maize-legume intercropping was 44.5 and 43.8, respectively, while that of legumemaize rotation was 44.2 and 43.9 for adopters and non-adopters, respectively. The
mean age for the total sample was 44.1 years. Landholding size did not vary much
among the four technologies and farmer groups. However, it is worth noting that for
legume-maize rotation, adopters had considerable higher landholding size of 2.1 ha
against 1.8 ha for non-adopters, on average. For improved seed, both adopters and
non-adopters had almost the same landholding size of 2.0 and 2.1 ha, respectively,
while adopters of inorganic fertilizer had an average total landholding size of 2.0 as
compared to non-adopters with 2.2 ha, while the total sample had an average landholding size of 2.0 ha.
Access to FISP coupon voucher reflects government support towards improving
smallholder farmer access to productive resources. Table 2 shows that access to
FISP coupon was higher among adopters for inorganic fertilizer, improved seed and
legume-maize rotation. For instance, 95 (62.1%) inorganic fertilizer adopters had
access to FISP coupons, while only 19 (40.4%) of the non-adopters had access to
FISP coupons. On the other hand, 58 (37.9%) of inorganic fertilizer adopters and 28
(59.6%) inorganic fertilizer non-adopters had no access to FISP coupons. As for
improved seed, 91 (60.3%) of the adopters had access to FISP coupons against 60
(39.7%) who did not. This means that having access to FISP coupon does not guarantee adoption of inorganic fertilizer and improved maize seed but rather redemption of that coupon as some farmers who accessed the FISP coupons had sold them
to fellow farmers and vendors.
3.2 Factors Influencing Adoption of ISFM Technologies
Table 3 presents the results of the multivariate probit model for the factors influencing adoption of ISFM technologies. The model fits the data well with the
Waldx
2
(37) = 258.25; p = 0.0000, thereby rejecting the null hypothesis that all
regression coefficients are jointly equal to zero. The results justify the application of
the MVP model as shown by the likelihood ratio test for the overall correlation of
error terms as indicated by correlation coefficients (rho) [x
2
(6) = 17; p = 0.0080)].
This implies that the null hypothesis that the error terms are not correlated is rejected
Determinants of ISFM Technology Adoption and Disadoption Among Smallholder…
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 presents a summary of key demographic and socio-economic characteristics
by technology and farmer category. In terms of gender composition, the sample was
dominated by male-headed households across all the technologies and the pooled
sample, with 172 (86.0%) households being headed by males while 28 (14.0%)
were headed by females. The mean age across all the four technology adopters and
non-adopters hovered around 40. The mean age of adopters and non-adopters for
maize-legume intercropping was 44.5 and 43.8, respectively, while that of legumemaize rotation was 44.2 and 43.9 for adopters and non-adopters, respectively. The
mean age for the total sample was 44.1 years. Landholding size did not vary much
among the four technologies and farmer groups. However, it is worth noting that for
legume-maize rotation, adopters had considerable higher landholding size of 2.1 ha
against 1.8 ha for non-adopters, on average. For improved seed, both adopters and
non-adopters had almost the same landholding size of 2.0 and 2.1 ha, respectively,
while adopters of inorganic fertilizer had an average total landholding size of 2.0 as
compared to non-adopters with 2.2 ha, while the total sample had an average landholding size of 2.0 ha.
Access to FISP coupon voucher reflects government support towards improving
smallholder farmer access to productive resources. Table 2 shows that access to
FISP coupon was higher among adopters for inorganic fertilizer, improved seed and
legume-maize rotation. For instance, 95 (62.1%) inorganic fertilizer adopters had
access to FISP coupons, while only 19 (40.4%) of the non-adopters had access to
FISP coupons. On the other hand, 58 (37.9%) of inorganic fertilizer adopters and 28
(59.6%) inorganic fertilizer non-adopters had no access to FISP coupons. As for
improved seed, 91 (60.3%) of the adopters had access to FISP coupons against 60
(39.7%) who did not. This means that having access to FISP coupon does not guarantee adoption of inorganic fertilizer and improved maize seed but rather redemption of that coupon as some farmers who accessed the FISP coupons had sold them
to fellow farmers and vendors.
3.2 Factors Influencing Adoption of ISFM Technologies
Table 3 presents the results of the multivariate probit model for the factors influencing adoption of ISFM technologies. The model fits the data well with the
Waldx
2
(37) = 258.25; p = 0.0000, thereby rejecting the null hypothesis that all
regression coefficients are jointly equal to zero. The results justify the application of
the MVP model as shown by the likelihood ratio test for the overall correlation of
error terms as indicated by correlation coefficients (rho) [x
2
(6) = 17; p = 0.0080)].
This implies that the null hypothesis that the error terms are not correlated is rejected
Determinants of ISFM Technology Adoption and Disadoption Among Smallholder…