ACCESS AND UTILIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION

BY RESETTLER FARMING HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF METEMA

WOREDA, NORTH GONDAR, ETHIOPIA

M. Sc. Thesis

DANIEL TADESSE

April, 2008
Haramaya University
ACCESS AND UTILIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION
BY RESETTLER FARMING HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF METEMA
WOREDA, NORTH GONDAR, ETHIOPIA

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Rural Development and

Agricultural Extension, School of Graduate Studies
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

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

SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE (RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION)

By
Daniel Tadesse

April, 2008
Haramaya University
 SCHOOL GRADUATE STUDIES
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

As Thesis Research advisor, I here by certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis
prepared, under my guidance, by Daniel Tadesse, entitled: Access and Utilization of
Agricultural Information by Resettler Farming Households: The Case of Metema
Woreda, North Gondar, Ethiopia. I recommend that it be submitted as fulfilling the Thesis
requirement.

Ranjan S. Karippai (PhD) _________________ _______________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Ranjitha Puskur (PhD) __________________ _______________

Co –Advisor Signature Date

As member of the Board of Examiners of the [Link] Thesis Open Defense Examination, We
certify that we have read, evaluated the Thesis prepared by Daniel Tadesse and examined the
candidate. We recommended that the Thesis be accepted as fulfilling the Thesis requirement
for the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Rural Development and Agricultural
Extension).

______________________ _________________ _______________

Chairperson Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _______________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _______________

External Examiner Signature Date

ii
 DEDICATION

I dedicated this thesis to

My mother Mantegbosh Anberbir
My wife Banchamilak Mihret
and
My son Yonatan Daniel

iii
 STATEMENT OF AUTHOR

First, I declare that this thesis is the result of my own work and that all sources or materials
used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis is submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced [Link]. degree at Haramaya University and to
be made available at the University’s Library under the rules of the Library. I confidently
declare that this thesis has not been submitted to any other institutions anywhere for the award
of any academic degree, diploma, or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that
accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation
from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by Dean of the
School of Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in
the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from
the author.

Name: Daniel Tadesse Signature: ……………………

Place: Haramaya University

Date of Submission: April, 2008

iv
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born in North Gondar Administrative Zone of the Amhara National Regional
State in 1973. He completed his primary education in Meseret primary school. He attended his
junior and high school education at Fasiledes Comprehensive High School (Gondar Town).
He then joined Awassa Agricultural College in November 1994 and graduated with [Link].
degree in Plant Production Dry Land Farming in July 1998.

After his graduation, he worked in the Agricultural Development Bureau of the Amhara
National Regional State, North Gondar Administrative Zone, Adi Arkay District in the title of
Crop Protection Expert from August 1998 up to 2002. He then shifted to Metema District from
August 2002 within the same Organization and served as Extension Team Leader until he
joined Haramaya University for his postgraduate study in July 2005. The author is married and
has one son.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I want to give my thanks to Almighty God. I would like to extend my
heartfelt thanks to my major advisor Dr. Ranjan S. Karippai, as without his encouragement
and guidance, the completion of this work may not have been possible. Thus, I am very much
indebted to him for all his support and willingness to advise me on my family issue and to
successfully finalize the thesis. Special appreciation also goes to my co-advisor Dr Ranjitha
Puskur, as she added valuable and constructive comments in the proposal and thesis.

I would like also to express my sincere appreciation to IPMS/ILRI Project for giving me the
scholarship and covering full funding of my [Link] degree. I would like to thank Metema
woreda IPMS pilot learning site staff Ato Worku Teka and Ato T/Haymanot Siyoum who
facilitated data collection smoothly in the field.

My sincere and special thanks should go to Dr. Tesfay Lemma for his facilitation role to join
post graduate program, and also I would like to acknowledge all RDAE department students
specially Minyahel Fekadu for his contribution and sharing part of my life.

I also remain thankful to Matema Woreda ARDO Experts Shumet Gobeze, Gizat Anteneh,
Getasew Aginche, Daniel Fantahun, Bewketu Amare and Ato Meseret Yirga who assisted me
in the field data collection during that extreme hot temperature time (41- 44 oC) with patience,
commitment and dedication.

Finally, I acknowledge many individuals: my family Ato Wosenge Tadesse and his family,
Zewudu Belay, Bizunesh Belay, Hana Belay; to my friends Mitiku Frew, Messie Asefa should
deserve acknowledgement for their moral, wishes and encouragement to accomplish my study
successfully.

vi
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACSI Amhara Credit and Saving Institution

ADLI Agricultural Development Led Industrialization
AKI Agricultural Knowledge and Information
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
BFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development
BoANR Bureau of Agricultural and Natural Resources
CSA Central Statistics Authority
DAs Development Agents
EIPRTP Ethiopia Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
ETV Ethiopia Television
ETB Ethiopian Birr
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FHHs Female headed households
HYV High Yielding Varity
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
MHHs Male headed households
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
NBE National Bank of Ethiopia
NRM Natural Resource Management
PA Peasant Association
PADETES Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System
S.D Standard Deviation
UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
WARDO Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHOR IV
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VI
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS VIII
LIST OF TABLES XI
LIST OF FIGURES XIII
LIST OF APPENDICES XIV
ABSTRACT XV
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem 3
1.3. General Objective of the Study 4
1.4. Specific objectives of the Study 4
1.5. Scope and Limitation of the Study 5
1.6. Significance of the Study 5
1.7. Organization of the Thesis 6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Review of Agricultural Knowledge and Information 7
2.1.1 Operational definitions 7
2.1.2 Concept of agricultural knowledge and information 8
2.1.3. The role of agricultural knowledge and information in agricultural development 9
2.1.4 Sources of agricultural knowledge and information 10
2.1.5. Knowledge sharing and communication network 11
2.2. Role of Agricultural Extension Service 13
2.3. Information-Seeking Behavior 15
2.4. Empirical Studies on Access to Different Extension Service and Mass Media 16

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

2.5. Empirical Studies on Factors Affecting Access and Utilization of Agricultural

Information 17
2.5.1. Household’s personal and demographic variables 17
2.5.2. Household’s socio-economic variables 22
2.5.3. Institutional factors 23
2.5.4. Psychological factors 25
2.6. Conceptual Framework of the Study 27

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 29
3.1. Description of the Study Area 29
3.2. Sample Size and Method of Sampling 32
3.3. Data Type, Sources and Method of Data Collection 34
3.4. Methods of Data Analysis 35
3.4.1. Descriptive statistics 35
3.4.2. The Tobit model 36
3.5. Definition of Variables and Hypothesis 41
3.5.1. Dependent variables 41
3.5.2. Definition of independent variables and hypothesized relations 41

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 46

4.1. Access to and Utilization of Accessible Agricultural Information 46
4.1.1 Access to and utilization of knowledge and information from group extension
methods 47
4.1.2. Access to and utilization of information from individual extension method 68
4.1.3. Mass media exposure of settler farmers and utilization of agricultural information
70
4.1.4. Information access and sharing by local information network 73
4.2. Level of Agricultural Information Access and Utilization 75
4.2.1. Level of agricultural information access 75
4.2.2. Level of agricultural information utilization 77

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

4.3. Responsiveness and Potential of extension service in addressing farmers problems 79

4.3.1. Responsiveness of extension service 79
4.3.2. Potential of extension service in addressing farmers’ problem 82
4.4. Description of Independent Variables 84
4.4.1. Description of personal characteristics of the sample respondents 84
4.4.2. Description of socio-economic characteristics of the sample respondents 91
4.4.3. Description of institutional characteristics of the sample respondents 96
4.4.4. Description of psychological characteristics of sample respondents 105
4.5. Relationship between dependent and independent variables 112
4.6. Results of the Tobit Econometric Model 115
4.6.1. Determinants of agricultural information access and intensity of access and
utilization and intensity of utilization 117
4.7. Constraints of Access to and Utilization of Agricultural Information 127
4.7.1. Constraints that Inhibit settler farmers from Access to agricultural information 127
4.7.2. Constraints that Inhibit settler farmers from Utilization of the accessible
agricultural information 130

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 132

5.1 Summary 132
5.2. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations 137

6. REFERENCES 141
7. APPENDICES 151
Appendix I. Supportive and Detail Tables Containing Results 152
Appendix II. Household Level Interview Schedule 158

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Distribution of sample respondents in sample PAs 34

2. Participation in crop production training and utilization of information by settlement
category 49
3. Participation in crop production training and utilization of information by sex 50
4. Participation in livestock production training and utilization of information by settlement
category 52
5. Participation in livestock production training and utilization of information by sex category
53
6. Participation in NRM training and utilization of information obtained by settlement
category 57
7. Participation in NRM training and utilization of information by sex category 58
8. Utilization level of natural resource production and conservation training 59
9. Participation in seasonal extension orientation 60
10. Place of seasonal extension orientation provision 61
11. Utilization level of agricultural information from seasonal extension orientation 62
12. Respondents’ participation in field day in the last two years (2005-2006) 63
13. Utilization level of different agricultural information from field day 64
14. Respondents’ participation in demonstration (2005 – 2006) 65
15. Utilization level of different agricultural information from demonstration 66
16. Respondents’ participation in extension visits (2005 – 2006) 67
17. Utilization level of different agricultural information from extension visits 67
18. Agricultural information provision through formal extension advisory service 68
19. Utilization of agricultural information from formal extension advisory service 69
20. Agricultural information access from mass media based on settlement category 71
21. Agricultural information utilization level from mass media 72
22. New settlers’ major agricultural information sources in major crops 73
23. Participation of all respondents in local information exchange 74
24. Responsiveness of extension service for the farmers’ problems 79
25. Potential of extension service in addressing the farmers’ problems 83
26. Mean age difference of respondents based on settlement category 84
27. Education level of the respondents by settlement and sex categories 85
28. Mean agricultural information access and utilization of respondents based on sex 86

xi
 LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

29. Respondents facing Health problems in 2005 and 2006 87

30. Mean number of days the respondents sick per year’ 2005/2006 88
31. Interest of staying in settlement program 90
32. Mean agricultural information access and utilization score of respondents based on
settlement category 91
33. Mean annual on-farm income difference between settlement and sex categories 92
34. Mean off-farm income difference between settlement and sex categories 93
35. Movement of settler out of village to generate income and to visit native area 94
36. Days spent out of village to generate income and to visit native area in 2005/06 95
37. Financial form of Credit access from formal and informal institutions (2005/06) 97
38. Credit access in both cash and kind from formal institutions (2005/06) 98
39. Average amount of credit obtained by settlement categories in 2005/06 100
[Link] amount of credit obtained by sex of respondents in 2005/06 101
41. Frequency of visiting the nearby market based on settlement categories 102
42. Distance of market in KM from the respondent residence 103
43. Respondents’ participation in formal and informal organizations based on settlement and
sex category 104
44. Mean social participation score difference based on sex category 105
45. Level of attitude towards improved farming based on settlement and sex categories 107
46. Degree of innovation proneness based on settlement and sex categories 108
47. Level of production motivation based on settlement and sex categories 110
48. Degree of information seeking behavior based on settlement categories 112
49. Relationship between dependent and discrete/dummy independent variables 113
50. Relationship between dependent and continuous independent variables 113
51. Variance inflation factor for the continuous explanatory variables for both dependent
variables 116
52. Contingency coefficient for dummy and discrete independent variables 116
53. Maximum Likelihood Estimates of Tobit model for access and utilization dependent
variables 125
54. Marginal Effects of agricultural information access and utilization determinant variables
126
55. Rank order of information access constraints given by sample respondents (n= 160). 127
56 Rank order of constraints to utilize the agricultural information 130

xii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Conceptual Framework of the study 28

2. Map of Metema woreda (IPMS, 2005) 31
3. Sampling procedure 33
4. Distribution of respondents based on access to agricultural information categories 76
5. Distribution of respondents based on agricultural information utilization categories 78

xiii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Table Page

1. The most relevant agricultural activities required information 152

2. Measurement of frequency of information access and utilization 153
3. Distribution of sample household heads based on access category 155
4. Distribution of sample household heads based on utilization category 155
5. Type of disease affected the respondents 155
6. Major activity utilized credit from formal and informal institute either in cash or kind 156
7. Original and current number of new settler farmers 156
8. Descriptions of independent variables. 157

xiv
 ACCESS AND UTILIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION BY
RESETTLER FARMING HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF METEMA WOREDA,
NORTH GONDAR, ETHIOPIA

ABSTRACT
The Government of Ethiopia has been implementing a resettlement program in Metema
woreda in Amhara region since 2003. Previously in the Derge Regime, another resettlement
program has been implemented in 1985 and voluntary settlers were in-migrating even before
that. Extension service is mandated to assist them in order to improve the production and
productivity of the farmers, enabling them to achieve food security and income generation.
This study is aimed at assessing the new and previous settler farmers’ access to and utilization
of agricultural information from the extension service and as well as to identify the influencing
factors. A two stage random sampling technique was employed and in the first stage of
sampling, three PAs were selected purposively and the respondents were stratified into new
and previous settler categories. In the second stage, probability proportional to size sampling
technique was applied to each stratum. Finally, 160 sample respondents were selected using
simple random sampling technique and interviewed using pre-tested structured interview
schedule. Fifteen percent of respondents were female headed households. Both primary and
secondary data were collected and analyzed to understand various aspects of access and
utilization of agricultural information of farmers. Qualitative data were used to supplement
quantitative data. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and Tobit model. Except
from seasonal extension orientation and mass media, in all cases there was significant
difference between new and previous settlers’ access to and utilization of agricultural
information. In all extension methods, there were highly significant differences between male
and female headed households in obtaining agricultural information, in the favor of males.
The female headed respondents utilized the obtained information with comparable to male
headed households. The agricultural information and support for utilization provided by the
extension service were biased towards the previous settlers and males, and consequently the
new settler farmers’ and female headed households agricultural information access and
utilization was very limited. The survey finding reveals that the current extension service has
limited responsiveness, gender sensitivity and poor potential of addressing farmers’ need. In
the absence of responsive extension service that understands and addresses interests of
various groups of farmers, the purpose of resettlement program would not be fulfilled. Result
of the econometric model indicated that, settlement category, education level, settlement
orientation, innovation proneness, production motivation, age of household head, frequency
of market visiting and credit access had influence on the access to and utilization of
agricultural information. The overall finding of the study underlined the importance of well
organized agricultural information provision and supporting utilization of information
through the delivery of credit and technologies based on the farmers’ problem and need.
Institutionalized and genuine resettlement program information provision in the highland also
required. Therefore, policy and development interventions should give emphasis to
improvement of such institutional support system so as to enhance the production and
productivity of agriculture and to achieve the desired poverty reduction strategy in the
resettlement program.

xv
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background

In most developing countries agriculture is the most important economic activity providing
food, employment, foreign exchange and raw material for industries. In Ethiopia agriculture
plays a major role in the country’s economy. Agriculture accounts for about 45.5% of GDP,
85% of the employment and 94% of Ethiopia’s exports (NBE, 2002 as cited in Endrias, 2003)
and in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia, for instance, agriculture accounts for 63% of the
regional GDP, and nearly 90% of the population derives its livelihoods from agriculture and
related activities (BFED, 2004).

The agricultural production system in Ethiopia is highly dominated by traditional farming and
the application of modern inputs has been extremely limited. As a result, yields of various
crops are very low. In the absence of an efficient agricultural sector, countries like Ethiopia
severely suffer from the inability to feed themselves and to depend on food imports and food
aid (Tsegaye, 2003). A significant proportion of the population, particularly in the developing
world has been suffering from hunger and malnutrition. Especially in Ethiopia, according to
Samuel (2006), the number of people needing food aid has been increasing. Over a period of
two and half decades, the proportion of the population deemed food insecure rose from 5% in
the 1970s to over 20% in 2003. Workneh (2004) also explained that, about 22 % of Ethiopians
were in need of food aid in 2003.

Rapid growth of population, environmental degradation and low agricultural production and
productivity are major problems faced by the country. The Government of Ethiopia is
currently giving attention to strategies of achieving food security and poverty reduction.
According to EIPRTP (2000), regional Governments have identified various projects to tackle
the problem of food insecurity which arise either from extremely small size of landholdings or
drought proneness in dry-land agriculture. Beside these activities, the Government of Ethiopia
planned resettlement program as one means of poverty reduction strategy.

Different political regimes in Ethiopia implemented resettlement program as a strategy of

responding to the problems of highland vulnerable areas. Under this program, farmers living
in marginal highland areas of the country are being moved to more fertile and low population
density lowland areas.

Agriculture in Ethiopia had not been open to outside information due to many factors and
consequently, its technological progress has been restrained for a long time. It is a fact beyond
dispute that technology can play an important role in increasing production, income and
efficient use of resources for the economic development of the country (Tsegaye, 2003). As
Habtemariam, (2004) stated a thriving agricultural economy is critical for reducing poverty,
ensuring food security and managing natural resources, and to this effect, agricultural
extension is expected to play an acceleratory role.

With the aim of increasing production efficiency and improving the livelihoods of the rural
population, in 1995 the Federal Government of Ethiopia proposed the Participatory
Demonstration and Training Extension System (PADETES) as a national extension
intervention program. The aim of the Government was to reach as many smallholder farmers
as possible in a relatively short time. PADETES, promotes diffusion and adoption of extension
packages, which consist of four elements namely, technological package, credit, appropriate
communication methods and provision of technologies with the aim of increasing productivity
of resources, income and improving the life of rural people (Tsegaye, 2003). The Government
considers that agricultural information will be provided through PADETES.

In most cases, farmers differ in their access to and utilization of agricultural information from
extension service and other sources. Such diversity among farmers could be related to various
personal, social, economical, or institutional factors. Understanding reasons behind such
diversity and farmers current level of access and utilization of agricultural information is of
paramount importance. To enhance the production and productivity of agriculture, farmers
should have access to well organized and relevant information and proper and sufficient
utilization of agricultural information requires good facilitation.

This study is designed to analyze in-depth the farmers’ access and utilization of agricultural
information in Metema woreda as well as to identify influencing factors to make useful policy

2
recommendations, to facilitate meaningful interventions in the areas of agricultural extension
so that relevant information is provided in a timely manner.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Starting from 2003, the Government of Ethiopia has been implementing a resettlement
program in different parts of the country by mobilizing people from the drought-prone areas to
the relatively unpopulated fertile low land areas.

In Amhara region, Metema woreda is one of the selected settlement areas and the settlement
activity was taken up during 2003-2005. Previously in the Derge Regime, in the year 1985
another resettlement program has been implemented and voluntary settlers were in-migrating
even before that. Consequently, the previous settlers and new settlers are living and practicing
different agricultural activities such as crop production, livestock production and natural
resource production and management in the settlement area to improve their livelihood.

For all settlers, particularly for new settlers having poor agricultural experience in the new
agro ecology, the Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development office (WARDO), particularly
the extension team, is expected to assist and provide agricultural information in order to
improve the production and productivity of the farmers, enabling them to achieve food
security and income generation.

The new settlers, previously living in high lands, are now living in low land areas. From the
farming system point of view, these two areas are quite different, and especially the type of
crop, type of livestock production and management, type of vegetation and management
practices are not similar to those in highland.

The new settlers do not have enough know-how of the new farming system to produce
agricultural products efficiently to be food secure. Their natural resource management and
utilization, for generating income have always been criticized by previously settled farmers,
due to the importance of vegetation cover in existing agro ecology. Moreover, the new settlers

3
have no access to credit from cooperatives for the purpose of agricultural technology
utilization due to their instability and lack of collateral.

To alleviate these problems, the extension service is expected to play a significant role by
providing adequate and relevant agricultural information. But, the woreda extension staff has
not been able to adequately support them due to the limited number of extension staff during
the resettlement program implementation and the new settlers have been highly unsatisfied
with and critical of the extension team.

This study while understanding the access and utilization of agricultural information services
in the settlement areas of the woreda. Also attempts to identify the constraints and factors that
influence provision of agricultural information to make useful policy recommendations, to
facilitate meaningful interventions.

1.3. General Objective of the Study

To assess the settler farmers’ access to and utilization of relevant agricultural information, and
to identify the demographic, socio-economic, psychological and institutional factors that affect
access and utilization of agricultural information by settler farmers.

1.4. Specific objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of the study are:

1. to assess the previous and new settler farmers’ access to relevant agricultural information,
2. to assess the previous and new settler farmers’ utilization of relevant agricultural
information,
3. to assess the responsiveness and potential of extension service in addressing new and
previous settler farmers needs
4. to identify the factors influencing access and utilization of agricultural information by
previous and new settler farming households in the study area.

4
Research Questions

1. What is the level of access to agricultural information of new and previous settler
farmers?
2. What is the level of utilization of agricultural information of new and previous settler
farmers?
3. How the extension service quickly responds and addressing farmers need.
4. What are the factors that influence access and utilization of agricultural information for
both categories of settler farmers?

1.5. Scope and Limitation of the Study

The scope of the study was to examine the level of access to and utilization of agricultural
information by previous and new resettler farming households, in three PAs of one woreda,
namely Metema in North Gondar and focused on the contribution and constraints of existing
information flows in the on-going resettlement program.

Even though 50% of the new settlement PAs were included in the sample, it may have a
limitation of representing all the previous settlers’ PAs relative to the total woreda coverage.
One concern of the research was to know whether the new settler farmers are in a position to
manage the new farming system efficiently or not. The mobility of new settler farm
households to serve as hired labor in agricultural investment areas, off farm activities and to
visit their family in their native area were the other limitations. These situations have
contributed to reducing the probability of getting good representative sample households.

1.6. Significance of the Study

To bring about agricultural development, the provision of agricultural information plays a

decisive role. Agricultural information can flow to different farm households from different
sources. Currently beside the indigenous farm experience, Government designed programs
contribute to provide agricultural information in order to improve the life of rural people.

5
Empirical studies on the settlers’ access to and utilization of agricultural information have not
been conducted in Metema Woreda so far, though successive settlers have come to inhabit the
woreda.

The previously settled farmers who have been living in the area for more than 15 years, have
enough know-how of their farming system. But the new settlers who came from the highland
to lowland agro-ecology require tailored and intense provision of agricultural information
compared to the previous settlers. However, both settlers have been provided with similar
agricultural information while following the same extension approach.

All development actors like extension services, NGOs and other development agencies
involved in agricultural development, especially in resettlement program, must be aware of the
need to understand the constraints and factors influencing the level of the access to and
utilization of agricultural information and understand the gaps to take remedial action. It is
important for policy makers to understand whether the existing agricultural information
services, beside the local knowledge flows, assures the desired resettlement based food
security strategy and to make useful policy changes to facilitate meaningful interventions in
the settlement areas during the transition period.

1.7. Organization of the Thesis

This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter one introduces the back ground and
problem under the study area, and the research objectives. Chapter two deals with a review of
the literature that includes conceptual explanation of agricultural knowledge and information,
Role of agricultural extension service, empirical studies on factors affecting access and
utilization of agricultural information, and Conceptual Framework of the study.

In chapter three, research methodology including description of the study area, sample size
and method of sampling, data types and sources and methods of data collection, methods of
data analysis and definition of variables and hypothesis are presented. The research findings
are presented and discussed in chapter four. Finally chapter five presents the summary,
conclusions and recommendations of the study.

6
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Review of Agricultural Knowledge and Information

2.1.1 Operational definitions

‘Access’: is defined as receiving messages related to agricultural production activity from

different sources and extension methods such as mass media, extension service (advisory
service, orientation about seasonal activities information, training, field days, demonstration,
visits), on-farm research, etc including its frequency.

‘Utilization’: relates to the use or converting into action the accessed agricultural messages by
the settler farm households to perform the agricultural production activity. The frequency of
converting received messages into action is also considered.

‘Agricultural information’ : is operationally defined as the various sets of information and

messages that are relevant to agricultural production activities of farmers such as crop
production and protection, animal production and management, and natural resource
production and conservation. In the context of this study, agricultural information does not
include market information.

‘New settlers’: are those farmers who came from highland areas and settled after 2003, in the
current Government resettlement program.

‘Previous settlers’: are those farmers living in the woreda and resettled before 2003,
including those settled by the Derge Government resettlement program, returned from Sudan
and voluntary settlers.

‘Seasonal extension orientation about seasonal activities’: is one method of extension

service where the DAs disseminate various seasonal agricultural information to the mass of
the farmers through different meetings and other social gatherings. The information mainly

7
focuses on awareness of pest assessment, introducing different agricultural technologies
appropriate to the season, occurrence of unseasonal rain during harvest time etc.

2.1.2 Concept of agricultural knowledge and information

Some people use the words Information and Knowledge interchangeably. However, these are
two different but linked concepts. Different people define the word knowledge in different
ways. According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia dictionary:
• Knowledge is "information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and
reflection. It is a high-value form of information that is ready to apply to decisions and
actions." (Davenport et al., 1998).
• "Knowledge is the human expertise stored in a person’s mind, gained through
experience, and interaction with the person’s environment."(Sunasee and Sewery,
2002).
Some other authors defined it as:
• Knowledge is a range of information gained from experience about technology,
environment and farming related conditions (Hedja, 1999)
• Knowledge is information in the context to produce an actionable understanding
(Ermias, 2004).
Regarding the definition of information:
• Samuel (2001) defined agricultural information as the data for decision-making and as
a resource that must be acquired and used in order to make an informed decision.
Umali, (1994) classified agricultural information into two broad groups: pure
agricultural information and agricultural information inherently tied to new physical
inventions. Pure agricultural information refers to any information which can be used
without the acquisition of a specific physical technology. On the other hand,
agricultural inventions or technologies are those that come in the form of agricultural
inputs, management technologies facilitating farm management, and marketing and
processing equipment.

8
Drawing on the various definitions, the researcher conceptualized agricultural information as
both agricultural messages via extension and embodied in agricultural technologies and shared
between the actors in the agricultural extension system. Also knowledge is a range of
information gained from interaction and information combined with experience, and it is
organized and interpreted by the human mind with confident understanding for the purpose of
decisions and actions.

There are various types of knowledge depending on its functions and its carrier systems, for
example, agricultural knowledge, management knowledge, manager knowledge etc.
Knowledge varies depending on cultural, social, and economical factors. The type of
knowledge people have depends on their age, sex, occupation, labor division within the
family, enterprise or community, socio-economic status, experience, environment, history, etc.

Knowledge can also be seen from the view point of coverage and degree of understanding of
certain things such as: common knowledge is held by most people in a community; e.g. almost
everyone knows how to cook rice (or the local staple food); shared knowledge is held by
many, but not all community members; e.g. villagers who raise livestock will know more
about basic animal husbandry than those without livestock; specialized knowledge is held by a
few people who might have had special training or an apprenticeship; e.g. only few villagers
will become healers, midwives, or blacksmiths (FAO, 2004). Therefore knowledge can be
categorized depending on our interest using various criteria.

2.1.3. The role of agricultural knowledge and information in agricultural development

In this dynamic world, the rural people’s information requirement is increasing constantly.
Agricultural knowledge is changing rapidly; it is obvious that the development of agriculture
is highly dependant on the new knowledge and information. According to FAO (2002), rural
communes need a wide variety of information such as availability of agricultural support
services, Government regulations, crop production and managements, disease outbreaks,
adaptation of technologies by other farmers, wages rates, and so on. The content of the
information services needs to reflect their diverse circumstances and livelihoods. Therefore,

9
information can be seen as the basic element in any development activity and it must be
available and accessible to all farmers in order to bring the desired development.

Literature reveals that investment in people is an attractive development option. Peasants’

responses to price and profit incentives, the abilities of producers to cope with risk and
manage new technology were enhanced by human resource investments in schooling.
Relatively few studies have examined the payoff from primary education for persons engaged
in agriculture. A review (World Bank 1980, as cited in Tweeten, 1997 ) found that four years
of primary education raised farm output by 13 percent on average if complementary inputs
(improved seed, irrigation, transport to market etc) were available and by 8 percent if
complementary inputs were not available. Either directly or indirectly, knowledge and
information has a significant role in agricultural development.

The contribution of agricultural information is not limited to surplus food production areas.
Small scale farmers in marginal areas also require knowledge and information for better
achievement of household food security and consequently national food security. Moreover,
according to FAO (2002), improved household food security requires good decision making
by rural women and men, for which better grassroots information availability is imperative.

2.1.4 Sources of agricultural knowledge and information

It is important to realize that knowledge and information is dynamic and continuously

changing to respond to the changing environment. According to Samuel (2001), there are three
major organizations, which generate agricultural information in Ethiopia. These are
Government agricultural extension systems both at federal and regional levels, Central
Statistical Authority (CSA) and research institutions. The CSA is responsible mainly for
macro-level data and statistics, whereas the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) and
Regional Agricultural Bureaus are also mandated by law to collect process and disseminate
data with respect to the performance of agricultural projects and programs. Agricultural
research centers generate and disseminate technical data on new findings and other

10
recommendations. Therefore, knowledge is produced in agricultural research either in
conceptual form or embedded in material and disseminated through different channels.

According to Fekadu (1997), though knowledge is produced through agricultural research, it is

not the only avenue for knowledge generation. Learning from experience, interaction and
farmers’ experimentation are other sources. Salomon and Engel (1997) indicated that farmers
have been innovators for centuries, based on their own on-farm experimentation.
Acknowledging farmers' expertise, involving them in setting the research agenda and/or as
partners in research can lead to additional forms of learning and innovation.

Farming families, agricultural cooperatives, agri-businesses, agricultural press, and extension

service can serve as source of AKI for the farmers. Especially extension services can be seen
as a good source, because extension services can tap a wide variety of information and have
several partners. Generally, there is a multitude of actors who can be considered as the sources
of agricultural knowledge and information.

2.1.5. Knowledge sharing and communication network

Communication can be defined "the exchange of messages" between two or more partners, or
establishing "commonness" between two or more parties through a particular medium, or an
active, dynamic process in which ideas and information are exchanged leading to modification
of people's knowledge, attitudes and practices (Burnett, 2003). The knowledge sharing and
communication network of AKI is highly variable, very complex and dynamic. The presence
of high diversity in the nature, attitudes and experience, leads to the existence of different
communication networks.

To boost the economy, producers should have the right kind of knowledge and information.
However, there are gaps between what certain individuals and what other individuals know in
any society, even in a homogenous society such as farmers. The consequences of these gaps
can often be serious, amid poverty. Not everyone in an economy could have the right kind of
knowledge and information to produce output efficiently. People are poor not because of lazy,

11
they may be hard working people but lack of proper knowledge and information (Suhermanto,
2002).

To close this gap Suhermanto (2002), suggested that two ways of distribution of knowledge
and information. First, public sector or government-facilitated efforts might close the gap
through the distribution of knowledge and information to the needy. Such government-assisted
programs includes, for examples, training, media, publications, leaflets, and the opening of
educational institutions. The obtained information from this method also share through local
information exchange system, according to Ejigu et al., (1999), farmers participating in the
PRA training reported that they had expanded their knowledge and understanding of local
problems. Many farmers involved in training activities reported that they had shared
information with other farmers, and a few trained farmers took on a training role themselves,
motivated to defend new technologies and to demonstrate technologies to other farmers.

Secondly, communication among individuals can help knowledge and information to be

transmitted from one individual to another. According to Katungi 2006, a household can
participate in information exchange as an information receiver, information provider (sender)
or both. There is a links among the households in form of clubs (associations) and/or private
social networks. Associations describe finite closed groups with a common interest while
private networks refer to a set of bilateral links the household is directly connected to. The
linkages between these households are used in the exchange of resources based on norms of
reciprocity. Let information be one of those resources that households exchange among
themselves through their links. This allows us to model the social network as exogenous to
information exchange. Each household can engage in information exchange with other
households it has a direct link with, whether through associations or private networks. Thus,
information from other households, indirectly linked to the household, is only accessed from
direct contacts through the other established links (Katungi, 2006).

Social institutions and the underlying social norms within a village influence the extent to
which rural households interact and hence the rate at which information is exchanged. Six
social institutions were identified in the context of rural Uganda, where households meet and

12
interact: places of worship, market place, weddings or other related celebrations, school open
days, village meetings. Places of worship are the most common social institutions in rural
areas for both men and women. As a forum for the exchange of goods, markets are organized
weekly, biweekly or monthly and constitute an important place where agricultural information
is exchanged (ibid)

To strengthen these information exchanges, extension can serve as information source and
information exchange facilitator. The learning opportunities in local market areas are the main
(informal) means for information dissemination across a community. Therefore, agricultural
extension service is expected to contribute the well functioning of the existing local
information exchange, taking into account the diverse sources of information.

2.2. Role of Agricultural Extension Service

The scope and definition of extension service have changed over time. Moris (1991) defined
extension as the mechanism for information and technology delivery to farmers. Purcell and
Anderson (1997) define extension as a ‘process that helps farmers become aware of improved
technologies and adopt them in order to improve their efficiency, income and welfare’.
Gradually the role and definition of extension became more and wider than the former view.
According to Vanclay and Lawrence (1996), today extension has become a discipline in
search of a paradigm, yet we continue to see changes in extension ideology away from the
“linear model” of technology transfer (e.g. from one-to-one patronizing extension to group-
based co-learning activities). Extension is evolving to be a co-learning process. It has
recognized that multiple sources of knowledge and innovation exist, and that farmers should
have more control over the information they need and over the way it is delivered. As a result,
extension is becoming “demand-pull” rather than “science-push”.

According to Berhanu et al., (2006), extension service is a service of information, knowledge

and skill development to enhance adoption of improved agricultural technologies and
facilitation of linkages with other institutional support services (input supply, output marketing

13
and credit). Therefore, the role of extension service has been changed from technology
transferring service to information and knowledge brokering and facilitator role.

Agricultural advisory services in developing countries today have assumed a much more
holistic and facilitators role, and the field staff of an agricultural advisory service is not just a
conduit of information, but an advisor, facilitator, and knowledge broker (Alex et al., 2002
cited in Birner et al., 2006). Today’s understanding of advisory services goes beyond training
and sending messages, and includes assisting farmers to organize and act collectively,
addressing processing and marketing issues, and partnering with a broad range of service
providers and rural institutions. Farmers are seen as partners in the technology generation
process, rather than as simply recipients of technology (Birner et al., 2006).

Extension systems are under pressure. Those involved such as a farmer, extension agent, a
farmers' union and research institute are becoming more diverse. Current economic trends
including liberalization and privatization are stimulating the development of new industries
and the participation of new actors, such as NGOs and private firms, in rural development. All
this means that the roles played by extension and research in agricultural development are
changing very fast (Salomon and Engle 1997).

Kalaitzandonakes (1999) said that historically there have been strong arguments for public
investment in knowledge generation and transfer activities. The basic argument is that
knowledge is by nature a “public good” and, therefore, the private sector would be unwilling
to invest in fundamental research. But in recent years, the traditional agricultural knowledge
system has been undergoing significant change. Extension services have been privatized in
many parts of the world or have become parts of technology packages offered by input
suppliers, integrators, independent consultants, and other entrepreneurs. Similarly, private
investments in research have continued to rise. Therefore, private investment in knowledge
generation and transfer has increased because knowledge assets are gradually becoming less
"public" in nature.

14
Guided by market-led and demand-driven perspectives, national and international efforts to
revitalize agricultural advisory services have resulted in a variety of institutional reforms
(Rivera and Alex, 2005 cited in Birner et al., 2006): Decentralization, deconcentration,
contracting/outsourcing, public-private partnerships, and privatization have started to
transform conventional models of public sector agricultural advisory services. Revitalizing
public sector advisory services has also been an important reform strategy. In addition, new
actors have entered the scene to provide and finance advisory services, including non-
Governmental organizations (NGOs), farmer organizations and community-based
organizations. Private sector companies provide embedded advisory services, which are
integrated in commercial transactions such as sale of inputs or contract farming (Katz, 2006
cited in Birner et al., 2006). In the case of Ethiopia, even if different NGOs partially engage in
the provision of AKI to the rural people, it is highly dependent on the public extension service.

2.3. Information-Seeking Behavior

Information seeking behavior is a broad term encompassing the ways individuals articulate
their information needs, seek, evaluate, select, and use information. In other words,
information-seeking behavior is purposive in nature and is a consequence of a need to satisfy
some goal. In the course of information seeking, the individual may interact with people,
manual information systems, or with computer-oriented information systems. According to
Pettigrew (1996), information-seeking behavior involves personal reasons for seeking
information, the kinds of information which are being sought, and the ways and sources with
which needed information is being sought. Barriers that prevent individuals from seeking and
getting information are also of great importance in understanding the information-seeking
behavior of individuals and organizations. Information use is a behavior that leads an
individual to the use of information in order to meet his or her information needs. Information
use is an indicator of information needs, but they are not identical.

15
2.4. Empirical Studies on Access to Different Extension Service and Mass Media

A major task in agricultural development is the transfer of improved technologies to farmers

(Pipy, 2006). Farmer’s access to different information sources helps them to get information
about improved technologies and enhance the adoption of new innovations. Conducting
various extension events plays an important role in the provision of different agricultural
information and consequently enhances the utilization of the accessed information. Such
events include contact with DAs, training, demonstration, and field days or visits etc.

Different findings reveal that participation in different extension events positively influences
the utilization of different agricultural technologies. For instance, Tesfaye et al. (2001)
reported that participation in on-farm demonstration and attendance of training contributed
positively to farmers’ adoption decision. In the same line, Yishak (2005), in his study of
determinants of adoption of improved maize technology in Damote Gale wereda found that
farmers’ participation in demonstration had positive and significant relationship with adoption.
Similarly, the relationship between farmers’ access to extension services and adoption has
been repeatedly reported as positive and significant by many authors. Nkonya et al. (1997)
reported that visit by extension agents had positive influence on improved maize and fertilizer
in Northern Tanzania. Many other authors such as Kansana et al. (1996) indicated that
participation in training, access to communication sources and number of information sources
had significant association with level of knowledge and adoption of improved wheat varieties.
The implication is that emphasis has to be given to advising farmers, training, participation in
demonstration, and field days to provide relevant agricultural information and to enhance the
utilization of improved agricultural technologies.

Other sources of information such as mass media and neighbor farmers in the area are also
important in diffusion of agricultural innovations. Particularly, interpersonal communication
networks among farmers are important and reported in many studies to have significant
influence on farmers’ adoption decision. Mass media also play a great role in provision of
information in shortest possible time over a large area. Yahaya (2002) explained that, trends in
Nigeria’s agricultural development scenario show that mass media have tremendous potentials

16
for agricultural information dissemination. Many studies reported the positive and significant
relationship of mass media with adoption of agricultural technologies. In line with this, Yishak
(2005), in his study on determinants of adoption of improved maize technology in Damote-
Galewereda, Wolaita, Ethiopia indicated that ownership of radio and participation in
demonstration had positive influence on adoption of improved maize technologies.

2.5. Empirical Studies on Factors Affecting Access and Utilization of Agricultural

Information

A number of empirical studies have been conducted by different people and organizations on
the adoption of different agricultural technologies both outside and within Ethiopia. On the
other hand, there is limitation of empirical studies related to the factors influencing access to
and utilization of agricultural information. Therefore, in this study partly utilization of
different agricultural information is expressed interns of technology utilization, because
agricultural knowledge and information can be accessed, shared and utilized through material
embodied form. The literature review mainly based on different utilization of agricultural
technologies such as cereals and horticultural crops. For simple presentation, the variables are
categorized as household personal and demographic variables, socio-economic factors,
psychological variables and institutional factors.

2.5.1. Household’s personal and demographic variables

Household’s personal and demographic variables are among the most common household
characteristics which are mostly associated with farmers' access and utilization behavior. From
this category of variables age, sex and education were reviewed in this study but there is a
limitation of empirical study on other variables.

Age is also one of demographic character important to describe households and can provide a
clue as to age structure of the sample and the population too. Young farmers are keen to get
knowledge and information than older farmers. It may be also older farmers are more risk

17
averse and less likely to be flexible than younger farmers and thus have a lesser likelihood of
information utilization and new technologies.

With regard to age, different studies report different results. Haba (2004), he assessed that the
willingness to pay for agricultural information delivery technologies such as print, radio,
farmer-to-farmer, expert visit, and television. He revealed that, as age increased, the
willingness to pay for these agricultural information delivery technologies decreased, meaning
that older farmers were less willing to get information than younger ones. On the other hand,
study condacted by Katungi (2006), on social capital and information exchange in rural
Uganda reveal that older men are less likely to engage in simultaneous receiving and
providing of information, perhaps due to the low ability to communicate associated with old
age. All this points assure that, as age increase the getting of agricultural information also
decrease.

Regarding the utilization of agricultural information, a study conducted by Teklewold et al.,

(2006) on the adoption of poultry technology, in Debre Zeit, Ethiopia, indicated that farmers'
decision on level of adoption of exotic poultry breed were negatively influenced by age of the
household head. Mulugeta, (1994) in his study on smallholder wheat technology adoption in
South Eastern high lands of Ethiopia reported that age had a negative effect on the adoption of
wheat technologies. On the other hand, Kidane (2001) in the study he conducted on factors
influencing adoption of improved wheat and maize varieties in Hawzien Wereda of Tigray
found that age is negatively related with farmers’ adoption of improved wheat variety.
However, there are also others who reported positive relationship of age with adoption. For
instance, Asante-Mensah and Seepersad (1992) conducted study on factors affecting adoption
of recommended practices by cocoa farmers in Ghana and reported positive relationship of age
with adoption. Therefore, from these result, getting of agricultural information and utilization
resemble to the younger age.

Gender is another factor that limits access to and utilization of AKI. Due to the prevailing
socio-cultural values and norms males have freedom of mobility, participate in different
meetings and trainings consequently have greater access to information. A study conducted by

18
Katungi (2006), reveal that male-headed households tend to build and maintain larger network
ties with relatives and friends than female-headed households.

Male-headed households are said to have better access to agricultural information than female-
headed households, which is attributed to negative influence of cultural norms and traditions
(Habtemariam, 2004). A study conducted by Pipy (2006) reveals that, their were significant
difference between male and female in poultry production information source and utilization
of information. Yahaya (2001) reported similar results in previous studies that sourcing of
agricultural information and utilization is along gender lines. They had posited that women are
less likely to participate because they have limited time to access or utilize available
information due to pressure of household responsibilities. Married women in particular are by-
passed in the transfer of improved agricultural technologies assuming that they will get the
information through their husbands (EARO, 2000). But, Saito and Weidemann, (1990)
reported that for most of the women, relatives and friends were the source of information;
nearly one-third had acquired their knowledge from the extension service, and only 1% had
heard of the technologies from their husbands.

Studies conducted by Ellis (1992) and Green and Ng’ong’Ola, (1993) indicated that female-
headed households had less access to improved technologies, credit, and land and extension
service. According to EARO (2000), female farmers are not considered and their agricultural
activities and/or issues concerning them have been the last priorities in the country’s
agricultural research agenda, and so lacked improved extension packages and services that
assist them to improve their productivity. This report explains that often it is observed that
major emphasis in agriculture is given to men’s activities while the role of women and
children in the Ethiopian farming systems has been ignored (EARO, 2000).

Women play a critical role in agriculture and it is recognized that the Ethiopian agricultural
extension system suffers from a number of weaknesses in its services for rural women.
According to Habtemariam (1996), Policy makers and administrators typically still assume
that men are the farmers and women play only “supportive role” as farmers’ wives. This
attitude by both planners and implementers has significant adverse effects on women’s access

19
to agricultural extension services On the other hand, Dagnachew (2002), states that extension
efforts and technological packages usually address men farmers. Extension agents are most
likely to visit male farmers than female farmers. The low level of women’s education and
cultural barriers prevent them from the exposure to extension channels by their initiative. The
male-dominated extension system also often restrains from contacting and working with
women due to the strong taboos and value systems in the rural areas.

Habtemariam’s (1996) study shows that, there is a gender bias against women and among
extension workers. Extension services in Ethiopia are male- dominated and working mainly
with male farmers, partly for cultural reasons and partly because the extension system itself
has traditionally relied on the use of contact farmers, whose criteria for selection tended to
exclude female farmers. The author stated that, the extension services were managed in a top-
down fashion, which was reflected in extension program planning. This gives a very little
opportunity for grass root extension staff to take the initiative and respond to local demands in
any significant way. Similarly, the management and organization of the extension service did
not allow for great deal of teamwork and there was little emphasis on multidisciplinary
approaches to problem solving.

Generally, extension services frequently fail to provide adequate information to women

farmers through failing to recognize their specific needs. In addition to their productive tasks
they are frequently over burdened with household responsibilities which they cannot delegate,
they are often less educated than men and have a more limited access to resources such as
credit. If an extension program deals effectively with those constraints, it will be easier for
women farmers to get involved in activities (FAO, 1996), and women have not benefited as
much as men have from publicly provided extension services (World Bank, 1995).

According to FAO (2002), “Rural women and girls usually have less access than men to
information and new technologies. Without equal access to information, they are at a
disadvantage in making informed choices about what to produce and when to sell their
products”.

20
Finally the researcher concluded that, agricultural extension as an educational and
communication tool makes a vital contribution to agricultural production and rural
development. It is thus important to provide women farmers in both male and female-headed
households with efficient, effective and appropriate technology, training and information.
However, it is a mistake to view “rural women” as a homogeneous social classification or to
drive policies and services for women in agriculture that are not based on empirical research
which capture their diversity. The consequence is that extension service needs to be adapted to
circumstances as there is no one-package extension model, which can work for all women in
all places.

With regard to education, there is a general agreement that education is associated with
receiving, absorbing, agricultural information and utilization of information. Because
education is believed to increase farmers’ ability to obtain, process and analyze information
disseminated by different sources and helps him to make appropriate decision to utilize
agricultural information through reading and analyzing in a better way.

A study conducted by Katungi (2006), on social capital and information exchange in rural
Uganda reveal that, among women’s; more educated women are more likely to engage in two-
way information sharing, so that more educated farmers have more information access. Pipy,
(2006), found that, significant difference between different educational level in poultry
production sources of information and utilization of information.

Several studies conducted by Itana (1985); Chilot et al (1996); Kansana (1996); Mwanga et al
(1998) and Tesfaye et al (2001) have reported that education had positive and significant
relationship with adoption. Similarly, Nkonya et al (1997) reported positive relationship of
education with adoption and intensity of adoption improved maize seed indicating that each
additional year of education increases probability and intensity of adoption by 5%. In the same
line several authors reported significant and positive relationships that exist between formal
education and literacy level and adoption (Freeman et al, 1996; Haji, 2003; Habtemariam,
2004). Also Legesse, 1992; Teressa, 1997; Walday, 1999; Mulugeta, 2000 have reported that
education has positive relation with adoption behavior.

21
On the other hand, study conducted by Tesfaye (2003), on soil and water conservation
practices in Wello, Wolaita and Konso areas of Ethiopia revealed that there is no variation
between literacy and illiteracy rates in terms of soil and water conservation practices.

Farming experience is another important household related variable that has relationship with
the production process. Longer farming experience implies accumulated farming knowledge
and skill which contributes to utilization of agricultural technologies. Many studies supported
this argument. A study in Ghana on factors influencing adoption of recommended cocoa
production practices by Asante and Seepersad (1992) indicated positive relationship of
experience in cocoa farming with adoption of recommended cocoa production practices, and
Endrias (2003) reported positive relationship of farming experience in sweet potato production
with adoption of sweet potato varieties. Legesse (1992); Kidane (2001); Yishak (2005) and
Melaku (2005) reported similar results. Contrary to this, Gockowski and Ndoumbe (2004)
reported negative relationship of farming experience with adoption of intensive mono-crop,
horticulture in southern Cameroon.

2.5.2. Household’s socio-economic variables

Knowledge systems are dynamic, people adapt to changes in their environment and absorb and
assimilate ideas from a variety of sources. However, knowledge and access to knowledge are
not spread evenly throughout a community or between communities. People may have
different objectives, interests, perceptions, beliefs and access to information and resources.
Knowledge is generated and transmitted through interactions within specific social and agro-
ecological contexts. It is linked to access and control over power. Differences in social status
can affect perceptions, access to knowledge and, crucially, the importance and credibility
attached to what someone knows. Often, the knowledge possessed by the rural poor, in
particular women, is overlooked and ignored (FAO, 2004). Therefore, the access to
information highly depends on the individual social and economic status.

Among different factors, annual farm income obtained from sale of crop and/or livestock are
important income sources in the rural households. Off-farm activities are the other important

22
activities through which rural households get additional income. The households’ income
position is one of the important factors determining access to and utilization of agricultural
information and different improved technologies.

Regarding annual farm income, almost all empirical studies reviewed show the effect of farm
income on household’s adoption decision to be positive and significant. For example, Kidane
(2001); Degnet et al (2001) and Getahun (2004) reported positive influence of household’s
farm income on adoption of improved technologies. In the same line, Gockowski and
Ndoumbe, 2004 found positive effect of cocoa revenue on intensive mono-crop horticulture.

The income obtained from off-farm activities helps farmers to purchase farm outputs. Review
of some of the past empirical studies shows that, the influence of off-farm income on adoption
varies from one study to the other. However, majority of the studies reported positive
contribution of off-farm income to household’s adoption of improved agricultural
technologies. For instance, Birhanu(2002); Getahun (2004); Kidane (2001) and Mesfin (2005)
have found positive significant relationship of off-farm income with adoption.

2.5.3. Institutional factors

In the context of this study, institutional factors include various formal and informal
institutions, and organizations. These factors facilitating and enhancing the access and
utilization of agricultural information such as credit, social participation, enhancing farmers’
participation and joint planning, development agents’ support, visiting market place and
different formal and informal social organizations.

Credit has strong and significant influence in determining use of combined packages
depending on the production type. It helps in alleviating current financial constraints
enhancing the use of technology packages correspondingly. Survey results by Saito et al.
(1994) in Nigeria showed that a major reason for smallholders not using fertilizer was lack of
cash, highlighting the importance of short-term credit. Different studies have shown that
access to credit plays a significant role in enhancing the use of improved varieties (Legesse,

23
1992; Chilot et al., 1996; Teressa, 1997; Lelissa, 1998; Bezabih, 2000; Tesfaye et al., 2001).
All of them reported that access to credit, had a significant and positive influence on the
adoption behavior of farmers regarding improved technologies. However, Jabbar and Alam
(1993) found that access to credit was not significantly related with adoption.

Regarding the relationship between sex and credit, provision of credit is almost exclusively
made to men, thereby ignoring the independent roles of women in dual (husband- wife)
households, and the high proportion of female- headed farm steadies (Doyle et al, 1985). The
major reasons why credit is less available to women are (a) they have no land- title as
collateral (land- titles are generally held in the men’s name) and (b) the credit is frequently
made available through cooperatives of which membership is mostly for male. Lack of credit
prevents women from investing in equipment and inputs that could alleviate the drudgery of
their daily tasks, improve their productivity, and/or provide additional sources of income with
which to improve the welfare of the family (Carr, 1985).

In agricultural development, the importance of social capital (multidirectional social network)

is perceived as a willingness and ability to work together. The very likely assumption on
which the relationship between social capital and adoption is anchored is that neighboring
agricultural households are, de facto, members of a social structure who exchange information
about improved agricultural practices. Rogers (1995) concludes that: “The heart of the
diffusion process consists of interpersonal network exchanges … between those individuals
who have already adopted an innovation and those who are then influenced to do so”.
Similarly, the findings of Habtemariam (2004) also detected a positive relationship between
social participation and adoption of all dairy practices.

Therefore, social participation has a role in information exchange. Other reports indicate that,
membership and leadership in community organization assumes that farmers who have some
position in PA and different cooperatives are more likely to be aware of new practices as they
are easily exposed to information (Freeman et al, 1996; Chilot et al, 1996; Van den Ban and
Hawkins, 1996; Asfew et al, 1997; Habtemariam, 2004). Asres (2005) reported that social

24
participation was statistically insignificant in access to and utilization of reproductive,
productive and community role information of women.

Regarding the planning approach of extension service, a study in Tigray reveals, extension
package program has been implemented in a top-down manner based on a quota system.
Despite much resistance, DAs forced farmers to join the extension program because they are
evaluated based on the number of farmers adopting new technologies (amount of fertilizer,
seed etc distribution) (Mamusha, 2005). Within this situation the information provision of
extension agent will bias towards the achievement of annual quota plan rather than addressing
the farmers’ problem and information needs. The consequences of this situation will affect the
better functioning of extension system for farmer’s agricultural development. To assure the
need of farmers’ agricultural information provision, the planning process should be bottom-
top, based on the farmers’ problem, aspirations, needs, resource, and environment.

Market distance and frequency of market visiting is also another factor in the dissemination of
agricultural information and utilization. A study conducted in Uganda explained that, market
serve as forum for the exchange of goods, and organized weekly, biweekly or monthly and
constitute an important place where agricultural information is exchanged and men go to
markets more often than women (Katungi E, 2006). Moreover farmers located near to a
market will have a chance to get information from other farmers and input suppliers. The
closer they are to the nearest market, the more likely it is that the farmer will receive valuable
information (Abadi, 1999; Roy, 1999). Therefore, the frequency of market and distance from
residence play important role in the access and utilization of agricultural information.

2.5.4. Psychological factors

Psychological factors also plays influential role in the access of agricultural information and
technology utilization. In this study attitude towards improved farming, innovation proneness,
production motivation and information seeking behavior were considered as important
variable having influence on access and utilization of agricultural information.

25
Attitudes are usually defined as a disposition or tendency to respond positively or negatively
towards a certain thing (idea, object, person, and situation). They encompass, or are closely
related to, our opinions and beliefs and are based upon our experiences. Since attitudes often
relate in some way to interaction with others, they represent an important link between
cognitive and social psychology (Kearsley, 2008). . In this study, attitude towards improved
farming is defined as the degree of positive or negative opinion of respondent farmers towards
improved farming. Positive attitude towards improved farming is one of the factors the can
speed up the farm change process. Attitude formation is also a prerequisite for behavioral
change to occur. A study conducted in Adami Tulu District, Ebrahim (2006) reported that
attitude towards change was statistically significant relation with dairy adoption.

Innovation proneness in this study was operationally defined as the receptivity of the
individual to new ideas related to different agricultural information. A study conducted in Dire
Dawa administrative council, eastern Ethiopia, Asres (2005) reported that innovation
proneness was statistically significant relationship with access to productive role information
and utilization of accessible development information of women.

Information seeking behavior was also one of the hypothesized variables that influence access
and utilization of agricultural information. This variable is reflecting the degree at which the
respondent was eager to get information from various sources on different agricultural
activities. Information seeking behavior was assumed to have positive relationship with the
access and utilization of agricultural information. From the previous study Deribe Kaske
(2007), found that there was significant and positive relationship between information seeking
behavior and knowledge of dairy farming. Also Asres (2005), found that similar finding
between information seeking behavior and productive role of women, and utilization of
development information. This indicated that as respondents’ information seeking behavior
increases, their utilization of accessible information also increases.

26
2.6. Conceptual Framework of the Study

To enhance the agricultural production and productivity in developing countries, access to and
effective utilization of agricultural information by farmers play crucial roles. Due to different
external and internal factors (such as high illiteracy level of farmers, limited application of
modern inputs, poor provision of agricultural information, etc) Ethiopian agricultural sector
remains under low production and productivity. To enhance the production and productivity,
one of the options would be to increase farmers’ access to and effective utilization of
agricultural information through identifying and working on the problem that affects the extent
of access and utilization of agricultural information. This can be done through analyzing the
personal, socio- economical, institutional and psychological factors that might significantly
influence information access and utilization.

This study assumes that the farmers in Ethiopia are embedded with a lot of complex roles and
constraints in the agricultural production sector. But the existing traditional system persists
from generations to generations. This is mainly due to the fact that the exposure to modern and
scientific information on agricultural activities and utilization of agricultural information and
technologies remain limited. Consequently, the development of agricultural sector constrained
from progress though it is the backbone of the country economy.

In this study, efforts were made to identify factors affecting access and utilization of
agricultural information from literature, practical experiences and field observations of the
research.

The conceptual framework of this study is based on the assumption that the access and
utilization of agricultural information are influenced by a number of personal, socio-
economical, institutional and psychological factors of the farmers. The conceptual framework
presented in Figure 1 presents the most important variables hypothesized to influence the
access to and utilization of agricultural information by farmers in the study area.

27
 1. Farmer’s age 1. Mobility of
Demographic Variables

Socio-Economic Variables
2. Sex of respondent:
respondents
3. Education level
2. on farm income:
4. Settlement category
5. Health Status of H.H 3. off farm income
6. Settlement
orientation

Access

Utilization

1. Information seeking 1. Social participation

Psychological variables

Institutional Variables
behaviour: 2. Frequency of market

2. Attitude towards visiting

improved farming 3. Access to credit:

3. Production motivation: 4. Distance to

market
4. Innovation proneness

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the study

28
 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The first section of this chapter describes some features of the study area. In section two
sampling method and in section three data types, sources and collection methods are
discussed. Methods of data analysis are discussed in section four. Finally, definition of
variables and the hypothesized relations are presented in section five.

3.1. Description of the Study Area

Metema woreda is located in the North West part of Ethiopia and western part of Amhara
Regional State; about 1405 km from Haramaya University, 900 km northwest of Addis Ababa
and about 160 km west of Gondar town. Metema is found North of Quarra and Alefa, west of
Chilga, south of Tach Arma-Choho woredas and east of Sudan border. It is one of the 18
woredas in North Gondar Zone and is subdivided into 18 PAs and 2 town kebels.

According to the WARD office Plan for 2006/07, 31691 households and 96,550 people living
in the woreda. Out of the total households and total population, during data collection 4,907
households and 11,682 population were new settlers. The original number of new settlers was
19,420 households and 32,016 total population.

The original residents of the area are Gumuz. Until recently, they practiced slash and burn and
hunting wild animals. They produce sorghum as the staple which is the major food crop in the
area. Since the settlement programmes of the last and current Governments, the population of
natives became smaller.

According to IPMS (2005), the altitude of Metema ranges from as low as 550 to 1608 meter
(m asl) while the minimum annual temperature ranges between 22oC and 28oC. Daily
temperature becomes very high during the months of March to May, where it may get to as
high as 43oC. The mean annual temperature is 31oC. Nearly all of the land in the woreda is in
the lowlands except some mountain tops. Metema is one of the woredas in the country where
the climate is harsh and Government provides a 30% hardship allowance for employees.

29
According to the available data, the mean annual rainfall for the area ranges from about 850 to
around 1100 mm to 90% of the woreda. Metema has a unimodal rainfall. The rainy months
extend from June until the end of September. However, most of the rainfall is received during
the months of July and August (IPMS, 2005).

The soils in the area are predominantly black and some are soils with vertic properties, having
excessive cracks as deep as 0.75 m in some places during the dry seasons. According to the
woreda Office of Agriculture, the total area of the woreda is about 440,000 ha. Much of the
woreda is under Acacia dominated forest with grass under growth. Metema is one of the
woredas where gum and incense are collected.

According to the woreda Agricultural and Rural Development office 2005/2006 annual crop
production plan, sesame, sorghum and cotton cover around 95% of the woreda cultivated area
and other crops cover the remaining 5%. The yield of sorghum is between 18 and 20 qt/ha,
while that of sesame is between 4 and 6 qt/ha and cotton yield about 8 qt/ha.

Livestock is an integral part of the farming system. The cattle population in the Woreda is
quite high (average livestock holding per household is 6.7). Production of cattle (milk, meat),
goat (meat) and poultry is a common practice. Cattle are exported to Sudan while goats are
mainly produced for the local market.

Commercial farmers use tractors for ploughing. Oxen are used to plough fields for all crops
and to thresh sorghum, while donkeys are used for transporting produce and water by the
smallholder farmers. Despite the large population of livestock, especially cattle and goats,
productivity is low as in many other parts of Ethiopia (IPMS, 2005).

Woreda office of agriculture experts believe that livestock feed is not a limiting resource in the
woreda. However, the farmers in the woreda do not make hay and dry season feed remains a
problem. This is especially because farmers burn grasses for eliminating ticks and initiating
new grass growth during the rainy season.

30
The study woreda has two extension teams under Woreda Agricultural and Rural
Development office. The first team covers half of the woreda and the other covers the
remaining. Under the approved Government office structure both extension teams together
have 16 experts (subject mater specialists) and 11 other technicians, but at the time of survey
only 5 experts and 1 technician were deployed under the team. A total of 54 DAs in all 18 PAs
(three DAs per PA) were deployed and they were accountable to the extension team.

Out of 18 PAs, only 8 PAs have local markets, and the rest use the nearest PA markets for sale
and purchase of goods. In 2008, there were about 18 primary agricultural cooperatives, 4
irrigation cooperatives, one fattening cooperative and one union organized and serving the
woreda farmers. The primary agricultural cooperatives, cooperative union and Amhara Credit
and Saving Institution provide agricultural inputs and credit services.

Figure 2. Map of Metema woreda (IPMS, 2005)

31
3.2. Sample Size and Method of Sampling

Sampling is a technique, which helps us in understanding the parameters or characteristics of

the universe or population by examining only a small part of it. Therefore it is necessary that
sampling technique be reliable (Chandan, 1998). Appropriate sample size depends on various
factors relating to the subject under investigation like the time, cost, degree of accuracy
desired etc. (Rangaswamy, 1995). But the sample size and the sample selection process
procedure should assure the representative-ness of the population.

Sample size determination has its own scientific approach. But in this study to determine
sample size, different factors such as research cost, time, human resource, environmental
condition, accessibility and availability of transport facilities were taken into consideration. By
taking these factors into account, 170 household heads were selected and out of these 10 of
them were reserve from 3 PAs.

Two stage sampling was applied to select the sample households. The woreda has a total of 18
Peasant Association (PAs) and 2 town kebeles. Among these 18 PAs, resettlement program
has been implemented only in six PAs during the past three years.

In the first stage of sampling from these six PAs (Kumer afitit, Kokit, Village 6 7 8, Das-
gundo, Awassa and Tumet-mendoka), three PAs (Village 6 7 8, Das-gundo and Tumet-
mendoka) were purposively selected on the basis of accessibility and high intensity of new
settler population.

Due to the high mobility of new settlers as hired labor and to visit native area had affected the
proportional balance of the two groups within the PA, and therefore it was impossible to apply
probability proportional to size in each PA directly.

In the second stage of sampling, the settlers were stratified into new and previous settlers
within the three sample PAs, including female headed households. 80 sample respondent for
new settler category and 80 for previous settler category were allocated equally. These sample

32
respondents allocated for three PAs with their respective category using probability
proportional to size sampling technique. Finally, the sample household farmers have been
selected randomly from the two categories based on their proportions. A total of 160 sample
households were selected from new and previous settler farmer’s categories (80 new and 80
previous settlers). The woreda Rural and Agricultural Development office strives to address
needs of at least 15% of female farmers, and therefore, 15% of the sample in each PA under
each of the settlement categories were chosen to be Female Headed Households.

All the Development Agents in the sample PAs and all the woreda Extension staff members
were included in the data collection to generate qualitative supplemental data.

Metema Woreda
18 PAs

Purposively 3 PAs

Das-gundo Village 6 -7 -8 Tumet- mendoka

- Stratify into new and previous
- PPS applied 80 H.H for new
and 80 for previous

New Settler Previous Settler New Settler Previous New Settler Previous
M= 21, F=4 M= 26, F=3 M= 20, F=4 Settler M= 27, F=4 Settler
M= 13, F=2 M= 29, F=7

SRS applied in new &

previous settler group

New Settler Previous Settler

Sample H.H Sample H.H
M= 68, F=12 M= 68, F=12

Figure 3. Sampling procedure

The details of final household sample selected is presented in Table 1.

33
Table 1. Distribution of sample respondents in sample PAs

Number of sample
Settlement Total number of households *
Sample PAs respondents **
category
MHHs FHHs Total MHHs FHHs Total
Previous Das-gundo 561 42 603 26 3 29
settlers Village 6 7 8 281 28 309 13 2 15
Tumet- mendoka 624 112 736 29 7 36
Sub total 1466 182 1648 68 12 80
New
settlers Das-gundo 453 68 521 21 4 25
Village 6 7 8 435 76 511 20 4 24
Tumet- mendoka 583 75 658 27 4 31
Sub total 1471 219 1690 68 12 80
Grand total 2937 401 3338 136 24 160
Source: * Metema WARDO, ** Own survey results 2007

3.3. Data Type, Sources and Method of Data Collection

To elicit the necessary information for a given study, first we should determine the type of
data that needs to be gathered and the source from which the data is to be collected. Both
qualitative and quantitative, and primary and secondary data had been collected to answer the
research questions, and objectives of the study. It includes; demographic, environmental,
socio-economic, institutional, behavioral, as well as access and utilization of agricultural
information services that had been provided to both categories of farmers. It had been gathered
through formal survey, interview and through discussions and observations.

The primary data sources were both new and previous settler farmers, as well as DAs and
subject matter specialists (as supplemental data) on various aspects of access and utilization of
agricultural information by farmers. The primary quantitative data were collected from the
respondents using a pre- tested, structured interview schedule by four bachelor degree holding
and two diplomas holding well trained enumerators, closely supervised by the researcher.

34
Primary data collection method included structured interview schedule with open-ended and
closed-ended questions. Restructuring has been done using sufficient number of non-sample
respondents through pilot study in order to suitably modify the questionnaire and facilitate
smooth administration.

Secondary quantitative data were collected through personal interviews and reviewing
secondary data documents from sources such as reports, and documents from WARDO by
enumerators and researcher and previous research results by researcher. Secondary data
sources were documents, reports of DAs and woreda rural development and agricultural
office, and other related institutions.

Qualitative data were collected through discussion with focus groups and key-informants, field
visits, and observations, this served as a supplementary to quantitative data. Focus group
discussion was held on in specific topics with small groups of people that consist of 8 farmers
(4 new and 4 previous settler farmers) who have intimate knowledge about the topic under
consideration. Checklist with key questions had been used to spark out the discussion to obtain
qualitative data from focused-group members, Key-informants, the officials and other
functionaries.

3.4. Methods of Data Analysis

3.4.1. Descriptive statistics

The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistical tools including mean,
percentage, ranking, standard deviation, T-test, χ2-test, Cramer’s V, Gamma, Spearman
Correlation Coefficient (rho), and Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r)
(Sarantakos, 1988) based on the level of measurement of the variables involved, i.e. the
nominal, ordinal, and interval/ratio levels. Descriptive statistical tools were employed to see
difference, strength, and direction of relationships in level of access and utilization of
agricultural information by previous and new settlers in the study area.

35
The chi-square test was used to examine whether the obtained data and their differences were
significant, or whether the variables in question were related to each other, However, Chi-
squire values depend very much on the size of the sample, making it difficult for the
researcher to determine whether differences in the results were due to the nature of the
relationship between the variables or due to sample size. To determine the strength of the
relationship as well as to see whether differences were due to sample size, two measures were
commonly employed for nominal level of measurement the φ (read Phi) coefficient or
Cramer’s V, and Gamma and Spearman Correlation Coefficient indicate the significance,
strength, and direction of the relationship between the row and column variables of a cross-
tabulation, and appropriate when the variables are ordinal and categorical variables; whereas
Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) for interval/ratio level variables
(Sarantakos, 1988). The ranges of the values of Phi coefficient and Cramer’s V are between 0
(no association) and 1(Perfect association). In general, if the value is close to 0 the strength of
the relationship is fairly weak, if it is about 0.4 to 0.7 it is moderate; and if it is above 0.8 it is
strong or very strong. Where as the value of the test statistics of Gamma, Spearman
Correlation Coefficient, and Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient range from –1
to 1. Phi (φ) coefficient is used for 2 x 2 tables of nominal variables. When it relates to tables
larger than 2 x 2 tables, Cramer’s V was used to nominal level variables.

3.4.2. The Tobit model

Discrete regression models are models in which the dependent variable assumes discrete
values. The three most commonly used approaches to estimating such models are the linear
probability models (LPM), the logit Model and the probit models (Amemiya, 1981; Gujarati,
1988). The linear probability model has an obvious defect in that the estimated probability
values can lie out side the normal 0-1 range. The fundamental problem with the LPM is that it
is not logically a very attractive model because it assumes that the marginal or incremental
effect of explanatory variables remains constant, that is Pi= E (Y=1/X) increases linearly with
X (Gujarati, 1988). Due to the defects of the linear probability model, Logit and probit Models
are the convenient functional forms for models with binary endogenous variable (Amemiya

36
1981; Gujarati, 1988). The choice between the two is one of mathematical convenience and
ready availability of computer programs (Gujarati, 1988).

There is also a broad class of models that have both discrete and continuous parts. One
important model in this category is the Tobit. Tobit is an extension of the Probit Model and it
is really one approach to dealing with the problem of censored data (Johnston and Dinardo,
1997). Some authors call such models Limited Dependent Variable Models because of the
restriction put on the values taken by the regressand (Gujarati, 1995).

The use of Tobit models to study censored and limited dependent variables has become
increasingly common in applied social science research for the past two decades (Smith and
Brame, 2003).

The dependent variable of Tobit model has continuous value, which should be the intensity,
the use and application of the technology. As observed in different empirical studies this
variable can be expressed in terms of ratio, actual figure and log form depending on the
purpose of the study. For example in their study of factors influencing adoption of fertilizer,
Nkonya [Link], (1997) considered fertilizer applied per hectare as the dependent variable of the
tobit model.

The study of farmers agricultural information access and utilization based up on dichotomous
regression models have attempted to explain only the probability of gating and utilizing the
agricultural information, but not the extent and intensity of accessing and utilizing, so that it
may not provide much information about the farmers level of access and utilization. A strictly
dichotomous variable often is not sufficient for examining the intensity of usage for such
problems.

Consequently, in this study the ratio of actual gained farmers’ agricultural information access
from different sources to potential information access score was taken as a dependent variable
of the tobit model. The same is true for utilization dependent variable.

37
Model specification

The econometric model applied for analyzing factors influencing access and utilization of
agricultural information is the Tobit model shown in equation (1). This model was chosen
because it has an advantage over other discrete models (LPM, Logistic, and Probit) in that; it
reveals both the probability of access and utilization, and the intensity of access and
utilization. Following Maddala (1992), Johnston and Dinardo (1997) and Green (2000), the
Tobit model for the continuous variable (in this study access and utilization) can be defined as:

AIi*= B0 + BiXi + Ui
AIi=AIi*if B0 + BiXi +Ui>0................................................................................. (1)
=0 if B0 + BiXi +Ui ≤0
Where:
AIi= is ratio of access (utilization) index for ith farmer
AIi*= is the latent variable and the solution to utility maximization problem of intensity of
access (utilization) subjected to a set of constraints per household and conditional on being
above certain limit,
Xi= Vector of factors affecting access (utilization) and intensity of access (utilization),
Bi= Vector of unknown parameters, and
Ui= is the error term which is normally distributed with mean 0 and variance σ2.

The model parameters are estimated by maximizing the Tobit likelihood function of the
following from (Maddala, 1997 and Amemiya, 1985).

⎛ AI −βi Xi ⎞
1 ⎛ − βi X i ⎞
L= Π ƒ ⎜⎜ i ⎟
⎟⎟ Π F ⎜ ⎟ (2)
AI i *> 0 σ ⎜ σ AI i *≤ 0
⎝ σ ⎠
⎝ ⎠
Where ƒ and F are respectively, the density function and cumulative distribution function of
AIi*. Π means the product over those i for which AIi* ≤ 0, and Π means the product
AI i ≤ 0 AI i >0

over those i for which AIi*>0.

38
An econometric software known as “Limdep” was employed to run the Tobit model. It may
not be sensible to interpret the coefficients of a Tobit in the same way as one interprets
coefficients in an uncensored linear model (Johnston and Dinardo, 1997). Hence, one has to
compute the derivatives of the estimated Tobit model to predict the effects of changes in the
explanatory variables.

According to Johnston and Dinardo (1997) and Nkonya et al. (1997), McDonald and Moffit
(1980) proposed the following techniques to decompose the effects of explanatory variables
into access (utilization) and intensity effects. Thus; change in Xi (explanatory variables) has
two effects. It affects the conditional mean of AIi* in the positive part of the distribution, and it
affects the probability that the observation will fall in that part of the distribution. Similarly, in
this study, the marginal effect of explanatory variables was estimated as follows.

1. The marginal effect of an explanatory variable on the expected value of the dependent
variable is:
∂Ε( AI i )
= F ( z ) βi (3)
∂X i
βi X i
Where, is denoted by z, following Maddala, (1997)
σ
2. The Change in the probability of information access (utilization) of a technology as
independent variable Xi changes is:
∂F ( Z ) β
= ƒ (z) i (4)
∂X i σ
3. The change in the intensity of information access (utilization) with respect to a change in an

explanatory variable among accessed (utilized) is:

⎡ f ( z) ⎛ f ( z) ⎞ ⎤
2
∂E ( AI i / AIii* > 0)
= β i ⎢1 − Z −⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (5)
∂X i ⎢⎣ F ( z ) ⎜⎝ F ( z ) ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎦
Where,
F (z) is the cumulative normal distribution of Z,

39
ƒ(z) is the value of the derivative of the normal curve at a given point (i.e., unit normal
density),
Z is the z-score for the area under normal curve,
β is a vector of Tobit maximum likelihood estimates and σ is the standard error of the error
term.

Before running the Tobit model all the hypothesized explanatory variables were checked for
the existence of multi-collinearity problem. There are two measures that are often suggested to
test the existence of mulit-collineality. These are: Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for
association among the continuous explanatory variables and contingency coefficients for
dummy variables. In this study, variance inflation factor (VIF) and contingency coefficients
were used to test multicollinearity problem for continuous and dummy variables respectively.
1
According to Maddala (1992), VIF can be defined as: VIF (Xi) = ,Where Ri2 is the
1 − Ri2

squared multiple correlation coefficient between Xi and the other explanatory variables. The
larger the value of VIF, the more troublesome. As a rule of thumb, if the VIF of a variable
exceeds 10 (this will happen if Ri2 exceeds 0.95), that variable is said to be highly collinear
(Gujarati, 1995).

Similarly, contingency coefficients were computed for dummy variables using the following
formula.

χ2
C=
n+ χ 2

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

For dummy variables if the value of contingency coefficient is greater than 0.75, the variable
is said to be collinear (Healy, 1984 as cited in Mesfin, 2005).

40
3.5. Definition of Variables and Hypothesis

3.5.1. Dependent variables

The dependent variables in this study are access to agricultural information and utilization of
agricultural information by the settler farmers from different agricultural information sources.
Both dependent variables were designed to measure the agricultural information access and
utilization of new and previous settler farmers. In order to measure the farmers’ access to
agricultural information, 26 information requiring activities and seven agricultural information
sources and methods were identified initially in collaboration with woreda extension staff.
Then, the information access of respondents from each source was rated using properly
designed frequencies. This gave a possible maximum score of 82 for access to agricultural
information.

The same procedure was applied to agricultural information utilization from the accessed
agricultural information. But the difference is that the information utilization of the 26
agricultural activities identified were rated using another set of utilization frequencies. This
gave a possible maximum utilization score of 88.

3.5.2. Definition of independent variables and hypothesized relations

The following independent variables were hypothesized to influence the access and utilization
of agricultural information in the study area. The 17 hypothesized explanatory variables are
defined and explained here.

I. Demographic Variables
1. Age of the household head (AGE): It is measured in terms of the respondent’s number of
years of age at the time of data collection. Even though previous studies provide
differential result, that young farmers are keen to get knowledge and information than
older ones. Increase in age might lead to less utilization due to the elder farmers might be
more or less risk averse to new technologies. However, it was expected that, increase in
age would have an influence on level of access and utilization of agricultural information
either negatively or positively.

41
2. Sex of respondent: Sex refers to biological differentiation of human being. It is nominal
variable used as dummy (1 if male, 0 otherwise). Due to many socio-cultural values and
norms males have freedom of mobility and participation in different meetings. Evidence in
the literature indicates that female-headed households have less access to and utilization of
agricultural information and improved technologies, credit, land, and extension service.
Gender difference is found to be one of the factors influencing access to and utilization of
agricultural information. So it is hypothesized that male household farmers would have
more access to agricultural information and utilize it more effectively.

3. Education level - measured in terms of 1=illiterate, 2=functionally literate, 3=primary

school, 4=secondary school and others. The educational level of the individual is one of
the important factors capacitating the individual to receive, absorb and utilize new ideas to
be more productive. Therefore it was assumed that the level of education attained by the
household head would enhance the access to and utilization of agricultural information.

4. Health Status of the household head: - measured in number of days per year that the
household head is sick (out of farming work in 2005-2006). To acquire and utilize
agricultural information, physical wellbeing of the farmer is important. Sick household
farmer will face the problem of getting information or a restricted access to and utilization
of agricultural information than a healthy household head. Therefore, good health of a
household head is expected to influence positively access to and utilization of agricultural
information.

5. Settlement orientation: indicates whether respondents plan to live in the new settlement
area permanently or not. This variable is measured based on the feeling of stay in the new
settlement area. 1= I don't want to stay here, 2= I am not sure how for how long to stay,
3= Permanently as a farmer. When a settler farmer plans to live in the new settlement area
permanently or for a prolonged time he/she will more likely devote to get and utilize
agricultural information to enhance production and income, than farmers planning to stay
for a short period of time to earn and save money to maintain their native area/ highland
living. So it is hypothesized that farmers having an objective to live for longer period of

42
 time in the settlement area would have more access to and utilization of agricultural
information.

6. Settlement category: is nominal variable used as dummy (1 if previous settler, 0 new

settler). ‘Previous settlers’: are those farmers living in the woreda and settled before 2003
including those settled by the Derge Government resettlement program and voluntary
settlers. ‘New settlers’ are those farmers who came from highland areas and settled after
2003 in the current Government’s resettlement program. The previous settlers are more
familiar with the agro ecology, have good communication with the DAs, access to credit;
and are relatively resource rich. Consequently, they have high access to agricultural
information and utilization than the new settlers.

II. Socio-Economic Variables

7. On farm income: is a continuous variable and measured in birr. This refers to annual farm
income obtained from sale of crop and livestock. The amount of income left from
consumption could be used for purchase of farm inputs. High income earned from the
agricultural activities increases the farmers’ financial capacity and increases the
probability of investing in new agricultural technologies, and owning radio and television
that leads to more information access. Therefore, farm income expected to positively
influence access to and utilization of agricultural information.

8. Off-farm income: is a continuous variable and measured in birr. This refers to annual
income obtained from different agricultural activities as hired labor. To earn this income,
settler farmers may move out of village for prolonged time and/or may spent more time
out of their farm, and hence may not be able to access agricultural information being
provided at PA level and consequently lack information and knowledge for utilization.
Therefore, off-farm income is expected to influence negatively access to and utilization of
agricultural information.

9. Mobility of respondents: measured in number of days spent per year out of village to visit
their native area and out of village to be hired. Settler farmers moving to visit family in

43
 their homeland and to generate income as hired labour in off-farm activities and in
agricultural investment areas might not participate in agricultural training at the kebele
level. So it is hypothesized that more mobile farmers will have limited access to and
utilization of agricultural information and than those who remain in their home.

III. Institutional Variables

10. Access to credit: is measured in amount of birr that respondents received in the form of
credit over the last two years (2005-2006) from Governmental or non-governmental
organizations. Credit provision from formal institutions mostly supported by agricultural
production and protection training and awareness creation in order to achieve the desired
purpose of credit. It is expected that those who have better access to credit will be more
inclined to seek agricultural information and utilize agricultural technology packages.
Therefore, this variable is expected to influence the dependent variables positively.

11. Frequency of market visits: is the number of times the farmers visit local markets in a
certain period (1= Some times, 2= Once per week, 3= More than once in a week). Farmers
who visit markets more often have opportunity to obtain information from other farmers
and agricultural input suppliers and this variable was expected to influence positively the
access to and utilization of agricultural information.

12. Market distance: will be measured based on distance of market in Km from the residence
of respondent. Farmers residing near the market will have a chance to get information
from other farmers. This variable is expected to positively influence the access to and
utilization of agricultural information.

13. Social Participation: is measured in terms of degree (1= member, 2= committee member,
3= leader) and frequency of participation (0= never, 1= sometimes, 2= whenever
conducted) in different social organizations. The sum of both frequencies was used to
arrive at a social participation score. Affiliation and involvement in social activities or in
any formal (such as market cooperative, School council etc) or non formal organization
(Iqub, Religious club etc) will give higher exposure to new information and consequently

44
 encourage utilization. Therefore this variable is expected to influence access to and
utilization of agricultural information positively.

IV. Psychological variables

14. Attitude towards improved farming: is operationally defined as the degree of positive or
negative opinion of respondent farmers towards improved farming. Positive attitude
towards improved farming is one of the factors that can speed up the farm change process.
Attitude formation is a prerequisite for behavioral change to occur. It was hypothesized
that positive attitude towards improved farming influences access to and utilization of
agricultural information.

15. Innovation proneness: will be measured based on rapidity of accepting new idea relative
to others (3 = whenever I come across a new idea, 2 = after consulting others who are
more knowledgeable, 1= after most of the people accept it, 0= never) and is based on the
receptivity of the individual to new ideas. Farmers having quickly accepting behaviour
will have higher probability of utilizing agricultural information. So this variable is
expected to influence positively access to and utilization of agricultural information.

16. Production motivation: will be measured based on the number of agricultural

technologies that farmers’ plan to use in next year’s cropping season to increase
production. Farmers having such behaviour will search for information and technology to
produce more. Therefore, this variable is expected to influence access to and utilization of
agricultural information positively.

17. Information seeking behaviour: will be measured based on the farmer’s effort to get a
range of information; and frequency and range of sources considered. When the person is
eager to get information from various sources, he/she will have be motivated to access and
consequently utilize the agricultural information. So this variable would have positive
influence on access to and utilization of agricultural information.

45
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The first section of this chapter discusses the findings of the study including access to and
utilization of agricultural information from different sources and methods. The second and
third sections discuss the level of access to and utilization of agricultural information, and
responsiveness and potential of extension service in addressing farmers’ problems. The forth
section includes household characteristics, socioeconomic, psychological and institutional
variables related to access and utilization agricultural information. The fifth section
summarizes the relationship between dependent and independent variables. All the above
sections analyzed and presented using descriptive statistical tools to compare and contrast
different characteristics of the sample households, and to measure the difference, strength,
direction and relationships between mean of compared groups. Sixth section of this research
presents the influence of independent variable on dependent variable using Tobit model.
Finally, the constraints of access to and utilization of agricultural information are presented in
section seven.

4.1. Access to and Utilization of Accessible Agricultural Information

In the study area, agricultural extension services serve as the major source of agricultural
knowledge and information, and few others such as non-governmental organizations and on-
farm research activities are partly involved in the process of agricultural knowledge and
information provision. Generally, the provision of agricultural information to the rural people
in the study area highly depends on the public extension service.

To analyze the agricultural information access of the respondent farmers, discussion was held
with the experts and DAs to identify the major information provision methods in the study
area. Other information sources from literature review such as mass media were added. The
major information provision methods considered included advisory service, extension
orientation about seasonal activities, training, visits, demonstration, field days and mass media
access. In addition to the information dissemination methods, it is important to investigate
what relevant agricultural information was provided by the WARDO. The most important and

46
relevant 26 agricultural activities in crop, animal and natural resource production and
protection were identified (Appendix Table 1).

Obtaining agricultural information from these methods by itself is not enough to ensure
agricultural development, unless it is utilized effectively. Therefore, the information utilization
of those earlier identified 26 activities were rated with properly designed frequencies from the
above seven methods (Appendix Table 1 and 2). Finally, information was gathered through
interview to assess the level of information accessed and utilized. The survey results are
presented under three main extension methods (Group Extension Methods, Individual
Extension Methods and Mass Media) and local information exchange.

4.1.1 Access to and utilization of knowledge and information from group extension
methods

Development Agents at the Woreda and PA levels strive to bring agricultural development
through change in knowledge, skills and attitude among the farmers. To achieve these, they
have been following different extension methods, group extension method being the
predominant. These group extension methods include training, extension orientation about
seasonal activities, farmers’ field day, demonstrations and visits out of the woreda. The survey
findings with regard to settler farmers access to and utilization of agricultural information
through these methods are presented here.

[Link]. Access to and utilization of agricultural information from training

Data was collected on the training conducted in crop, livestock and natural resource
conservation and management in the last two years (2005-2006) and utilization of the
information obtained. In this survey, the composition (different agricultural technologies and
improved practices) and frequency of training and information utilization were taken into
account.

47
[Link].1. Access to and utilization of information from crop production training

The study area has low crop diversification compared to other woredas in Amhara region due
to the nature of agro ecology. According to IPMS (2005), three crops (cotton, sesame and
sorghum) cover around 90% of the woreda’s cultivated area. This research focuses on the
newly expanded fruit and vegetable crops in addition to the three major crops produced in the
woreda.

In this survey, the access and utilization of agricultural information from trainings on crop
production such as cotton, sesame, sorghum, fruit and vegetable were addressed separately
and different activities in each crop were considered. In the case of cotton, sesame and
sorghum production, trained farmers were asked about the utilization level of high yielding
variety, seed rate and line sowing, fertilizer application, time and frequency of weeding,
herbicide and pesticide application, and time of picking /shattering/threshing based on the
information they obtained and depending on the crop type.

In the case of fruit and vegetable production; irrigation management and production practices
were considered. Finally, the average information access and utilization frequencies of that
crop were taken to be the access and utilization levels for the respondent. Tables 2 and 3
present access to and utilization of agricultural information in crop production training for
cotton, sesame, sorghum, fruit and vegetable based on settlement and sex categories
respectively.

As indicated in Table 2, more number of previous settlers had a higher opportunity to

participate in trainings related to cotton, fruit and vegetable production, while only previous
settlers participated in sesame and sorghum trainings. Generally the training activities were
very limited and the limited participation of new settlers’ participation was very pronounced.

48
Table 2. Participation in crop production training and utilization of information by settlement category

Number of participants in training Utilization of information

Previous Total
Type of Previous
New settlers settlers (N=160) Frequency of New settlers Total
Responses
training settlers
(N=80) (N=80) utilization
№ % № % № % № % № % № %
Cotton Yes 1 1.3 17 21.3 18 11.3 Rarely 1 100 1 5.88 2 11.8
production No 79 98.7 63 78.7 142 88.7 Occasionally 0 .0 3 17.65 3 11.8
Often 0 .0 13 76.47 13 76.5
Total 1 100 17 100 18 100
Sesame Yes 0 0 11 13.7 11 6.9 Often 0 .0 10 100 10 100
production No 80 100 69 86.3 149 93.1 Total 0 .0 10 100 10 100
Sorghum Yes 0 0 13 16.3 13 8.1 Occasionally 0 .0 1 7.7 1 7.7
production No 80 100 67 83.7 147 91.9 Often 0 .0 12 92.3 12 92.3
Total 0 .0 13 100 13 100
Fruit and Yes 1 1.3 7 8.7 8 5.0 Whenever needed 1 100 6 100 7 100
vegetable No 79 98.7 73 91.3 152 95.0 Total 1 100 6 100 7 100
At lest one Yes 1 1.3 21 26.3 22 13.8 Yes 1 100 20 95.2 21 95.5
crop training No 79 98.7 59 73.7 138 86.2 No 0 0 1 4.8 1 4.5
Source: Own survey data, 2007;

49
Table 3. Participation in crop production training and utilization of information by sex

Number of participants in training Utilization of information

Female Male Total Female Male Total

Responses
Type of training
(N=24) (N=136) (N=160)
№ % № % № % № % № % № %
Yes 1 4.2 17 12.5 18 11.3 1 100.0 17 100.0 18 100.0
Cotton production No 23 95.8 119 87.5 142 88.8 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0
Yes 0 0 11 8.1 11 6.9 0 0 10 90.9 10 90.9
Sesame production No 24 100 125 91.9 149 93.1 0 0 1 9.0 1 9.0
Yes 2 8.3 11 8.1 13 8.1 2 100 11 100 13 100
Sorghum production No 22 91.7 125 91.9 147 91.9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yes 0 0 8 5.9 8 5.0 0 0 7 87.5 7 87.5
Fruit and vegetable No 24 100 128 94.1 152 95.0 0 0 1 12.5 1 12.5
Yes 2 8.3 20 14.7 22 13.8 2 100.0 19 95.0 21 95.5
At lest one crop training No 22 91.7 116 85.3 138 86.3 0 .0 1 5.0 1 4.5
Source: Own survey data, 2007;

50
Even though statistically chi-square test may not be valid to analyze the difference between
the two groups as more than 20% of cells have less than 5 respondents, the survey data clearly
indicate the highly significant difference between training participation of new and previous
settlers categories. This limited training provision is not adequate for the new settlers to
become familiar with the new agro-ecology and crops they have to cultivate. The survey
results reveal that few farmers were invited repeatedly for training programs. During group
discussion, it was mentioned that participation in training is biased towards the resource rich
farmers and those having good relations with the DAs. The DAs justified this on the grounds
that these were model farmers, who are assumed to play an important role in the dissemination
of new agricultural information.

Only one and two of the female headed households (FHHs) participated in cotton and sorghum
trainings respectively, while none of them participated in sesame, fruit and vegetable training
(Table 3). This clearly demonstrates that extension training provision is biased towards male
headed household heads (MHHs). Such situations restrict the role of women in agricultural
development.

Almost all the settler farmers who attended cotton and sorghum training utilized the
information, though with different degrees of utilization. Only two previous settler farmers
who participated in sesame, fruit and vegetable production training did not utilize the
information (Table 2), but all the women farmers who were trained utilized the information
obtained (Table 3). Lack of input supply and labour were cited as the major reasons for not
utilizating the information.

[Link].2. Access to and utilization of information from livestock production training

Livestock production is one of the major farming activities in the study area, especially goat
production, cattle fattening and honey production. In addition to these activities, this survey
tried to assess the access to and utilization of information on other related issues such as
animal feed collection and preservation methods. The survey results are presented in Tables 4
and 5.

51
Table 4. Participation in livestock production training and utilization of information by settlement category

Number of participants in training Utilization of information

Previous Total
Previous
Type of training New settlers settlers (N=160) New settlers Total

Responses
settlers
(N=80) (N=80)
№ % № % № % № % № % № %
Goat production and Yes 2 2.5 9 11.3 11 6.9 1 50 6 66.7 7 63.6
handling No 78 97.5 71 88.7 149 93.1 1 50 3 33.3 4 36.4
Yes 3 3.7 9 11.3 12 7.5 2 66.7 6 66.7 8 66.7
Modern honey production
No 77 96.3 71 88.7 148 92.5 1 33.3 3 33.3 4 33.3
Yes 0 .0 5 6.3 5 3.1 0 .0 4 80 4 80
Cattle fattening No 80 100.0 75 93.7 155 96.9 0 0 1 20 1 20
Animal feed collection Yes 2 2.5 6 7.5 8 5 2 100 4 66.7 6 75
and preservation No 78 97.5 74 92.5 152 95 0 0 2 33.3 2 25
Total respondents who Yes 4 5.0 10 12.5 14 8.7 3 75.0 7 70.0 10 71.4
participated in training No 76 95.0 70 87.5 146 91.3 1 25.0 3 30.0 4 28.6
Source: Own survey data, 2007;

52
Table 5. Participation in livestock production training and utilization of information by sex category

Number of participants in training Utilization of information

Female Male Total Female Male Total

Responses
Type of training
(N=24) (N=136) (N=160)
№ % № % № % № % № % № %
Goat production and Yes 2 8.3 9 6.6 11 6.9 1 50 6 66.7 7 63.6
handling No 22 91.7 127 93.4 149 93.1 1 50 3 33.3 4 36.4
Modern honey Yes 2 8.3 10 7.4 12 7.5 1 50 7 70 8 66.7
production No 22 91.7 126 92.6 148 92.5 1 50 3 30 4 33.3
Yes 1 4.2 4 2.9 5 3.1 1 100 3 75 4 80
Cattle fattening No 23 95.8 132 97.1 155 96.9 0 0 1 25 1 20
Animal feed collection Yes 2 8.3 6 4.4 8 5.0 1 50 5 83.3 6 75
and preservation No 22 91.7 130 95.6 152 95.0 1 50 1 16.7 2 25
Total respondents who Yes 2 8.3 12 8.8 14 8.8 1 50 9 75 10 71.4
participated in training No 22 91.7 124 91.2 146 91.3 1 50 3 25 4 28.6
Source: Own survey data, 2007;

53
Only 2.5% (2) of the new settlers and 11.3% (9) of the previous settlers participated in training
related to goat production focusing on the extension package components and management.
Among them, 50% of new settlers and 33.3% of previous settlers were not utilizing the
obtained information. Lack of labour and theft of goats were the major reasons cited for non-
utilization.

7.5% (12) of the respondents have been trained in modern honey production, and of these
3.7% (3) were new settlers and 11.3% (9) were previous settlers. 66.7% and 66.7% of new and
previous settlers respectively utilized the information with different degrees. The remaining
did not and cited unsuitability of the technology to the existing agro ecology as the main
reason.

3.1% (5) of respondents were trained in cattle fattening, and all of them were previous settlers.
Mainly resource rich farmers are invited to trainings as it is assumed that they will have the
resources to build and sustain an enterprise. The new settlers are generally resource poor and
have a high mobility and are assumed not to be able to manage such enterprises. Among the
trained farmers, 20% respondents did not utilize the information due to labour scarcity, while
the remaining utilized the information as and when needed.

In the study area, there is surplus animal feed during wet season and there is serious scarcity in
dry season; so that animal feed collection and preservation method training were provided for
the farmers for own cattle feed utilization and marketing purpose. Based on this idea, training
was delivered for a total of 5% (8) respondent farmers and among them, 2.5% (2) and 7.5%
(6) were among the new settlers and previous settlers respectively. Among the trained farmers,
75% of respondent farmers have utilized the accessible information but not 25% of
respondent. As the respondents farmers explained, animal feed scarcity is not their major
problem, so they do not have interest to carry out this activity. This result indicates that,
invitation of farmers for training had its own limitation.

54
Regarding the distribution of trained farmers based on sex (Table 5), two FHHs were obtained
information in various livestock production and management aspect. The proportions of
women participation in goat production and handling, modern honey production, cattle
fattening, Animal feed collection and preservation training were higher than male headed, but
their proportion is lower from the total female respondents’, due to repeated participation of
two females. Among them, 50% of FHHs utilized the accessible information. In the study area
women are more responsible for animal production and management aspects, so that the
participation of women in training has great role in the agricultural development.

Overall, 4 new settlers and 10 previous settlers were trained in different livestock production
and management aspects. This survey result reveals that the training opportunities for both
settlers were very limited, and relatively the new settlers access to training was limited than
the previous settlers.

[Link].3. Access to and utilization of information from natural resource conservation

and management training

In the study area, the majority of the land is covered by natural forest and the coverage of
planted forest is very low or almost none. The previous and new settler farmers’ demands of
wood depend for this resource. According to WARDO, the rate of depletion of this natural
resource is accelerating at an arming rate, especially due to the current resettlement program.
The new settlers are utilizing trees for house constriction, fencing, cooking and to earn income
by selling for small town peoples for house constriction. Demand of cultivable land also the
other factor that enhances forest clearing. Based on this, currently the WARDO is providing
agricultural information related to natural resource production and conservation. Therefore,
this information was considered as relevant information.

Under natural resource production and conservation such as importance of tree plantation,
forest firebreak line establishment, community forest utilization and management, soil fertility
maintenance, and utilization of fuel saving stoves were addressed separately. Tables 6 and 7

55
present access to and utilization of agricultural information in natural resource production and
management activities based on settlement and sex categories respectively.

From the total respondents, 11.9% (19) farmers were trained in natural resource management
(NRM) and conservation in the last two years (2005 - 2006). Among them, 3.8% (3) were
within new settlers and 20% (16) within previous settlers (Table 6). The proportion of
participant women in this training is nearly equal to males. This survey result indicates that,
like other trainings the participation of both categories of settlers was limited, and especially
that of the new settlers.

Except one previous settler farmer almost all of the settler farmers who attended natural
resource management and conservation training utilized the information, though with different
degrees of utilization (Table 6). Similarly, all the women farmers who were trained utilized the
information obtained (Table 7).

56
Table 6. Participation in NRM training and utilization of information obtained by settlement category

Number of participants in training Utilization of information

Previous Total
Type of training accessed and Previous
New settlers settlers (N=160) New settlers Total

Responses
utilized settlers
(N=80) (N=80)
№ % № % № % № % № % № %
Yes 1 1.3 11 13.8 12 7.5 1 100 11 100 12 100
Importance of tree plantation No 79 98.8 69 86.3 148 92.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forest firebreak line Yes 1 1.3 7 8.8 8 5.0 1 100 7 100 8 100
establishment No 79 98.8 73 91.3 152 95.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Community forest utilization Yes 1 1.3 11 13.8 12 7.5 1 100 11 100 12 100
and manag. No 79 98.8 69 86.3 148 92.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yes 1 1.3 11 13.8 12 7.5 0 0 11 100 11 91.7
Soil fertility maintenance No 79 98.8 69 86.3 148 92.5 1 100 0 0 1 8.3
Yes 3 3.8 15 18.8 18 11.3 3 100 14 93.3 17 94.4
Fuel saving stoves No 77 96.3 65 81.3 142 88.8 0 0 1 6.7 1 5.6
Total respondents participation Yes 3 3.8 16 20.0 19 11.9 3 100 15 93.8 18 94.7
in NRM training No 77 96.3 64 80.0 141 88.1 0 0 1 6.3 1 5.3

57
Table 7. Participation in NRM training and utilization of information by sex category

Number of participants in training Utilization of information

Type of training Female Male Total Female Male Total

Responses
accessed and utilized (N=24) (N=136) (N=160)
№ % № % № % № % № % № %
Importance of tree Yes 1 4.2 11 8.1 12 7.5 1 100 11 100 12 100
plantation No 23 95.8 125 91.9 148 92.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forest firebreak line Yes 0 0 8 5.9 8 5.0 0 0 8 100 8 100
establishment No 24 100.0 128 94.1 152 95.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Community forest Yes 1 4.2 11 8.1 12 7.5 1 100 11 100 12 100
utilization and manag. No 23 95.8 125 91.9 148 92.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yes 1 4.2 11 8.1 12 7.5 1 100 10 90.9 11 91.7
Soil fertility maintenance No 23 95.8 125 91.9 148 92.5 0 0 1 9.1 1 8.3
Yes 3 12.5 15 11.0 18 11.3 3 100 14 93.3 17 94.4
Fuel saving stoves No 21 87.5 121 89.0 142 88.8 0 0 1 6.7 1 5.6
Total respondents Yes 3 12.5 16 11.8 19 11.9 3 100 15 93.8 18 94.7
participation in NRM
21 87.5 120 88.2 141 88.1
training No 0 0 1 6.3 1 5.3
Source: Own survey data, 2007

58
To examine the over all information utilization level of NRM, average utilization level of
obtained information (average utilization of various activities such as importance of tree
plantation, forest firebreak line establishment, community forest utilization and management,
soil fertility maintenance, and utilization of fuel saving stoves) were analyzed and the result
presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Utilization level of natural resource production and conservation training

Average utilization of natural resource training

Settlement Whenever
Never Rarely Total
category needed
№ % № % № % № %
New settlers 0 0 2 66.7 1 33.3 3 100.0
Previous settlers 1 6.3 0 0 15 93.8 16 100.0
Total 1 5.3 2 10.5 16 84.2 19 100.0
Source: Own survey data, 2007

More proportion of the previous settlers utilized the obtained NRM information in a better
level than the new settlers. This is because the previous settlers living in a stable situation than
the new settlers, and relatively feel as co-exist with natural resources. As indicated in the
survey, the number of farmers who participated in training, especially the new settlers was
very low and it is difficult to expect behavioral change with this limited information provision.

[Link]. Access to and utilization of information from seasonal activity orientation

Among group extension methods, extension orientation about seasonal activities was used by
DAs as the major mechanism for disseminating agricultural information in the study area, to
group of farmers during different meeting and or other social gatherings. The information
shared through this channel may not have in-depth content. Mainly focuses on current
situation of pest incidence, different agricultural technologies appropriate to the season,
occurrence of unseasonal rain during harvest time etc and the survey result is presented as
follows.

59
Table 9. Participation in seasonal extension orientation

Responses Settlement category

New settlers Previous settlers Chi-square
Total
(N=80) (N=80) test
№ % № % № %
Yes 44 55.0 41 51.3 85 53.1
No 36 45.0 39 48.8 75 46.9 0.226 N.S

Sex category
Female Male Total
(N=24) (N=136) (N=160)
Yes 8 33.3 77 56.6 85 53.1
No 16 66.7 59 43.4 75 46.9 4.441**
Source: Own survey data, 2007; **, N.S = Significant at 5% and not significant

In this group extension method, only 53.1% (85) of respondents received current and seasonal
agricultural information from DAs. Among them 55% (44) of the new settlers and 51.3% (41)
of the previous settlers were received agricultural information through this extension method.
Mostly the new settlers are invited for meeting by kebele and woreda administrators to solve
different conflicts within them; for relief distribution; to discuss social institution support
problems; such as maintenance of drinking water pump, health treatments etc. The new
settlers also having a habit of participation in any meeting which is developed in highland
before came to new settlement area. So the occurrence of these situations contributes for
dissemination of agricultural information. Chi-square test (X2 – 0.226, p- 0.635) indicates that
there was no significant difference in agricultural information access from this method
between settlement categories.

Concerning female and male respondents 33.3 % and 56.6% of respondents respectively
obtain information from this extension method. Chi-square test indicates that there was
significant difference in agricultural information access from this method between MHHs and
FHHs. This due to the frequent participation of males in various meeting and social gathering
than females.

60
Table 10. Place of seasonal extension orientation provision

Place of information provision

Settlement Meetings for Meetings
Church/ In the Personal
category other held for
mosque market contacts
purpose extension
№ % № % № % № % № %
New settlers 5 11.4 1 2.3 29 65.8 9 20.5 44 100
Previous settlers 3 7.3 0 0 29 70.7 9 22 41 100
Total 8 6.4 1 1.2 58 68.2 18 21.2 85 100
Source: Own survey data, 2007

DAs use different meetings and social gathering of farmers to disseminate information. Table
10 shows that, 6.4%, 1.2%, 68.2% and 21.2% of respondents were getting seasonal
agricultural information in the church/ mosque, in the market; meeting held for other purpose
and meeting held for extension purpose respectively. Among farmers who access information
on this method, more than half stated that the information provision was during a meeting held
for other purpose (such as meeting held for security issue, committee election, to discuss and
resolve different social conflict etc). As the result the time allocated for agricultural
information sharing is usually not more than half an hour, so it is difficult to obtain enough
and detailed information about different agricultural issues within this short period of time.
However, this extension method plays the major role in disseminating agricultural information
for most of the respondents in the study area.

61
Table 11. Utilization level of agricultural information from seasonal extension orientation

Frequency of utilization Chi-square

Settler category Rarely Sometimes Always Total test
№ % № % № % № %
New settlers 13 29.5 9 20.5 22 50.0 44 100.0
Previous settlers 9 22.0 7 17.1 25 61.0 41 100.0
Total 22 25.9 16 18.8 47 55.3 85 100.0 1.064 N.S

Female 1 12.5 1 12.5 6 75.0 8 100.0

Male 21 27.3 15 19.5 41 53.2 77 100.0
Total 22 25.9 16 18.8 47 55.3 85 100.0
Source: Own survey data, 2007; N.S = not significant

As indicated in Table 11, among respondents who obtain information from this method, all of
them utilized the information in different degree of utilization. From this extension method,
both new and previous settlers accessed and utilized with nearly equal proportion. Regarding
male and female, slightly more utilization level of information resembled to female headed
respondents. In this extension method some of the messages may not be difficult for
implementation. Chi-square test indicates that, there was no significant difference in extension
orientation about different seasonal activities information utilization between settlement
categories.

[Link]. Access to and utilization of information from farmer’s field day

A field day is one of the important group extension methods, because it allows individuals to
reinforce their interest by viewing tangible evidence. Within this group extension method,
exchange of farmers’ idea has an important role in the transmission of information and
knowledge sharing. Also farmers easily understand the information provided in such a
method. The respondent farmers were asked their participation in field days and utilization of
information over the last two years (2005-2006) and the results is presented in as follows.

62
Table 12. Respondents’ participation in field day in the last two years (2005-2006)

Responses Settlement category

New settlers Previous settlers Total Chi-square
(N=80) (N=80) (N=160) test
№ % № % № %
Yes 4 5.0 11 13.8 15 9.4
No 76 95.0 69 86.2 145 90.6 3.605*

Sex category
Female Male Total
(N=24) (N=136) (N=160)
Yes 1 4.2 14 10.3 15 9.4
No 23 95.8 122 89.7 145 90.6
Source: Own survey data, 2007, *= significant at less than 10% probability level

Among the total respondents, only 9.4% (15) farmers have participated in field days, from
these 5% (4) and 13.8% (11) were among new and previous settlers respectively. Field day
participation of the respondent farmers was very low in number; especially the new settlers’
participation. Chi-square test (X2 – 3.605, p= 0.058) and Cramer’s V (0.150, p= 0.058)
indicate that, there was significant difference in field day participation between settlement
categories at 10% probability level, with the previous settlers having higher participation than
the new settlers. The reason of this issue is that, the previous settlers are resource rich and
having capacity to utilize agricultural technology, so that the invitation of field day biased
towards the previous settlers. Regarding the frequency of participation, all of the participants
were involved once per year.

In female and MHHs, 4.2% and 10.3% have participated in field day respectively. In this
extension method the participation of FHHs is lower than males. In the study area mostly the
majority of males are involved in various agricultural activities in the field than females. In
addition to this, due to the usual social system the development agents biased towards males.

63
Table 13. Utilization level of different agricultural information from field day

Frequency of utilization
Settler category Rarely Sometimes Always Total
№ % № % № % № %
New settlers 0 .0 3 75.0 1 25.0 4 100.0
Previous settlers 0 .0 0 .0 11 100 11 100.0
Total 0 .0 3 20.0 12 80.0 15 100.0

Female 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 100.0

Male 0 .0 3 21.4 11 78.6 14 100.0
Total 0 .0 3 20.0 12 80.0 15 100.0
Source: Own survey data, 2007

From the new settlers, 75% farmers have utilized the accessed information sometimes, and
from the new settlers and previous settlers 25% and 100% utilized the accessible information
always respectively. From this extension method, the new settlers’ utilization level was lower
than the previous settlers’ utilization level. The reason is probably most of the previous settlers
spending more time in their agricultural activities and has resource, but the new settler partly
spent their time in other income generating activities out of their farm in order to survive and
lack resource for technology implementation. As shown in Table 13, the FHHs more utilized
the obtained information from this method, than MHHs. But only one female respondent
examined due to limited number of women’s participation in field day.

[Link]. Access to and utilization of information from demonstration

Among group extension methods, demonstrations can play an important role to illustrate and
explain a new production method, a new tool or to show results. This method is very important
like field days. The participation and utilization of obtained information from demonstration is
presented in Table 14 and 15.

64
Table 14. Respondents’ participation in demonstration (2005 – 2006)

Responses Settlement category

New settlers Previous settlers Total Chi-square
(N=80) (N=80) (N=160) test
№ % № % № %
Yes 4 5.0 15 18.8 19 11.9
No 76 95.0 65 81.3 141 88.1 7.227***

Sex category
Female Male Total
(N=24) (N=136) (N=160)
Yes 1 4.2 18 13.2 19 11.9
No 23 95.8 118 86.8 141 88.1
Source: Own survey data, 2007, ***= significant at less than 1% probability level

Table 14 shows that, out of the total respondents 11.9% (19) have participated in different
demonstrations and among these 5% (4) and 18.8% (15) were new and previous settlers
respectively. Like field day, the participation of the respondent farmers was very low in
number, especially that of the new settlers’ participation. Chi-square test (X2 – 7.227, p=
0.007) and Cramer’s V (0.0.213, p= 0.007) indicate that, there was significant difference
participation in demonstration between new and previous settlement categories at 1%
probability level, and that the previous settlers’ participation was higher than the new settlers.
The reason of this issue is similar to like that of field day. All of the participants were involved
once per year.

Among the total respondent, 4.2% and 13.2% of female and male households have
participated in demonstration respectively. The participation of MHHs is higher than females.
The reason of this difference is similar to like that of field day

65
Table 15. Utilization level of different agricultural information from demonstration

Frequency of utilization
Settler category Rarely Sometimes Always Total
№ % № % № % № %
New settlers 0 .0 4 100 0 .0 4 100.0
Previous settlers 0 .0 1 6.7 14 93.3 15 100.0
Total 0 .0 5 26.3 14 73.7 19 100.0

Female 0 .0 0 .0 1 100 1 100.0

Male 0 .0 5 27.8 13 72.2 18 100.0
Total 0 .0 5 26.3 14 73.7 19 100.0
Source: Own survey data, 2007

Regarding the utilization of information obtained from demonstration, 100% and 6.7% of new
and previous settlers’ respondent respectively have utilized the information sometimes, and
from the previous settlers 93.3% utilized the accessible information always. In this extension
method, the new settlers’ utilization level also lower than the previous settlers. The low
utilization of demonstration information of new settlers is like that of field day reason. The
information utilization of FHHs from this method is higher than MHHs. As mentioned in field
day, examining only one respondent for comparison is difficult due to limited women’s
participation in field day.

[Link] Information acquisition from visits and utilization of information

Visiting successful agricultural production activities outside the woreda is also an important
group extension method, because it allows individuals to see what they have been hearing
about, thus providing the opportunity for building the desired attitude towards the innovation.
This has great contribution in information and knowledge sharing. In the study woreda, some
farmers were invited to visit areas where successful agricultural activities are practiced such as
modern apiculture production, application of broad bed maker (BBM), irrigation management
etc. These situations give opportunity to the farmers to see how a new technology has been

66
tried, tested, adopted or adapted by other farmers and to see technologies developed by other
farmers.

Table 16. Respondents’ participation in extension visits (2005 – 2006)

Responses Settlement category

New settlers Previous settlers Total
(N=80) (N=80) (N=160)
№ % № % № %
Yes 1 1.3 8 10.0 9 5.6
No 79 98.8 72 90.0 151 94.4
Sex category
Female Male Total
(N=24) (N=136) (N=160)
Yes 0 0 9 6.6 9 5.6
No 24 100.0 127 93.4 151 94.4
Source: Own survey data, 2007,

Table 16 shows that out of the total respondents 5.6% (9) have participated in different visits
and among these 1.3% (1) and 10% (8) were new and previous settlers respectively. In the
case of visits out of the woreda, like field day and demonstration the participation of the
respondent farmers was very low, especially that of the new settlers’. All the participants have
participated once per year. In this extension method all of participants are male headed
household. The reason of this difference is similar to like that of field day. The utilization level
of information obtained from visits presented in Table 17.

Table 17. Utilization level of different agricultural information from extension visits

Frequency of utilization
Settler category Rarely Sometimes Always Total
№ % № % № % № %
New settlers 0 .0 1 100.0 0 .0 1 100.0
Previous settlers 0 .0 0 .0 8 100.0 8 100.0
Total 0 .0 1 11.1 8 88.9 9 100.0
Source: Own survey data, 2007

67
From this method, one new settler and eight previous settlers have accessed different
agricultural information and utilized at different levels. From the new settlers one farmer
utilized the information sometimes, and from the previous settlers all of them utilized always
the accessible information. Similar to other information utilization, the previous settlers’
agricultural information utilization was better than the new settlers’ utilization level like that
of field day and demonstration..

4.1.2. Access to and utilization of information from individual extension method

In addition to group extension method, the DAs provide formal extension advisory service to
the farmers. Under this service, development agent and individual farmers will communicate
about different agricultural issues. This individual communication method helps to identify
and analyze the main problems facing an individual farmer or household and to provide advice
on the best actions to overcome them. Besides this, it serves as one means of introducing new
agricultural information to the farmers. Table 18 and 19 presents the information provision
and utilization of formal extension advisory service.

Table 18. Agricultural information provision through formal extension advisory service

Responses Settlement category

New settlers Previous settlers Total Chi-square
(N=80) (N=80) (N=160) test
№ % № % № %
Yes 12 15.0 33 41.3 45 27.5
No 68 85.0 47 58.8 115 72.5 13.635***
Sex category
Female Male Total
(N=24) (N=136) (N=160)
Yes 3 12.5 42 30.9 45 28.1
No 21 87.5 94 69.1 115 71.9 3.410*
Source: Own survey data, 2007, ***, * = significant at 1% m and 10% probability level

68
From the total respondents 27.5% (45) farmers have accessed formal extension advice from
the DAs, and out of these, 15% (12) and 41.3% (33) were among new and previous settlers
respectively. The formal extension advice service was provided to limited numbers of
respondent farmers, especially the new settlers’. Chi-square test (X2 – 13.635, p= 0.000) and
Cramer’s V (0.292, p= 0.000) indicates that, there was significant difference in formal
extension advice service provision between settlement categories at less than 1% probability
level.

Based on sex category, 12.5% of female and 30.9% of MHHs obtain information from DAs.
Generally the survey results indicate that MHHs had more agricultural information access than
FHHs. Mostly this service provided through DAs and because of top to bottom annual quota
planning approach DAs’ frequently focus on those having resource rich and MHHs than
female to secure their evaluation efficiency.

Table 19. Utilization of agricultural information from formal extension advisory service

Frequency of utilization
Settler category Rarely Sometimes Always Total
№ % № % № % № %
New settlers 5 41.7 3 25.0 4 33.3 12 100.0
Previous settlers 9 27.3 14 42.4 10 30.3 33 100.0
Total 14 31.1 17 37.8 14 31.1 45 100.0

Female 1 33.3 0 .0 2 66.7 3 100.0

Male 13 31.0 17 40.5 12 28.6 42 100.0
Total 14 31.1 17 37.8 14 31.1 45 100.0
Source: Own survey data, 2007;

In this extension service, 41.7%, 25% and 33.3% of new settler farmers have utilized in rarely,
sometimes and always frequencies respectively. From previous settlers, 27.3%, 42.4% and
30.3% have utilized rarely, sometimes and always respectively.

69
From this extension method the proportion of new settlers was higher at rarely utilization
level. But the previous settlers’ proportions were higher in sometimes utilization level and
both of them utilized with nearly equal proportion at always utilization rate. Generally, the
survey result indicates that, except slight variation, there was similar utilization in formal
extension advisory service information utilization between settlement categories. The demand
of advisory service mostly focuses on the farmers’ problem. Therefore, the new settlers can
utilize the accessible agricultural information from formal extension advice, if the service
provider gives attention to them.

Regarding utilization of the accessible information based on sex, female headed respondents
slightly more utilized the obtained information than males. The proportions of female in
utilization analysis were lower than males due to the limited participation of in this extension
method. The survey result indicates that; female farmer can utilize agricultural information,
once appropriate information is provided to them.

4.1.3. Mass media exposure of settler farmers and utilization of agricultural information

Mass media play a great role in provision of information and creating awareness in shortest
time possible over large area of coverage. As far as awareness is a prerequisite for behavioral
change, its role cannot be underestimated. Furthermore, its influence can be expressed through
other effects like enhancing favorable attitude and overall good perception about new
innovations.

In the study area, almost all the respondents produce high value crops such as sesame and
cotton, so that some of the framers can afford to purchase radio and television. In all three
sample PAs, some farmers provide television show service at the center of the kebele around
the residence of the farmers. By considering this, amongst different mass media, radio,
television, leaflets and newsletter (reading material), and posters contribute to the
dissemination of agricultural information with different degrees. The information access of
settler farmers from mass media is presented in Table 20.

70
Table 20. Agricultural information access from mass media based on settlement category

Settlement category
Previous
New settlers Total
Mass media type Responses settlers (N=80 χ2-value
(N=80 ) (N=160)
)
№ % № % № %
From Radio Yes 41 51.3 37 46.3 78 48.8
No 39 48.8 43 53.8 82 51.3 0.400 N.S

From Television Yes 20 25.0 24 30.0 44 27.5

No 60 75.0 56 70.0 116 72.5 0.502 N.S

From leaflet and Yes 12 15.0 8 10.0 20 12.5

news letter No 68 85.0 72 90.0 140 87.5 0.914 N.S

From posters Yes 5 6.3 3 3.8 8 5.0

No 75 93.8 77 96.3 152 95.0 0.468 N.S

At lest one mass Yes 46 49.5 47 50.5 93 100

medium No 34 50.7 33 49.3 67 100 0.026 N.S
Source: Own survey data, 2007; N.S = not significant difference

Out of the total respondents, 48.8%, 27.5%, 12.5% and 5% of farmers obtained information
from radio, television, leaflet and news letter, and posters respectively. As the result reveals,
most of respondents obtain information from radio, due to the high number of radio owner
ship. Regarding the information obtain from leaflet and posters were lower proportion, due to
the poor availability and high illiteracy level. Statistically there was no significant difference
in mass media access between settlement categories. The same was true for frequency of mass
media access.

71
Table 21. Agricultural information utilization level from mass media

Frequency of information utility from mass media

Type of mass media Always when
Never Sometimes Total
utilized there is need
№ % № % № % № %
Radio 3 3.8 48 61.6 27 34.6 78 100.0
Television 18 40.9 21 47.7 5 11.4 44 100.0
Reading material 4 20.0 14 70.0 2 10 20 100.0
Posters 1 12.5 7 87.5 0 .0 8 100
Source: Own survey data, 2007;

Among radio program information accessed respondents, 61.6% and 34.6% of respondents
have utilized in the frequency of sometimes and always when there is need, respectively. But
the remaining 3.8% did not utilize the accessible information. Unsuitability of information to
the prevailing agro-ecological condition and inability to consider the farmers experience were
the major reasons explained by respondents.

Regarding the utilization of agricultural information from television program, 47.7% and
11.4% of respondents utilized in the frequency of sometimes and always when there is need
respectively. The remaining 40.9% did not utilize the accessible information. The major
reasons for not utilizing the accessible television program are it is not timely provided, it is
ideal (difficult to implement), information unsuitability of information to the prevailing agro-
ecological condition, unsuitability to the farmers economic status and inability to consider the
farmers experience.

From the accessible reading material information, 20% did not utilize the accessible
information but the remaining 70% and 10% of respondents utilized in the frequency of
sometimes and always when there is need respectively. Reasons for utilization are the
information is ideal and unsuitability of information to the prevailing agro-ecological
condition. Even though the farmers explain these issues, their reading and understanding level
also determine the information utilization.

72
Among picture message (poster) information accessed respondents, 12.5% did not utilize the
accessible information but the remaining 87.5% respondents utilized the information in
sometimes frequency. Farmers explained that, information from posters are difficult for
implementation.

4.1.4. Information access and sharing by local information network

In the preceding section of the survey result reveals that, all respondents particularly the new
settlers have limited agricultural information access from different methods of agricultural
extension methods and other sources. But these settlers are more or less practicing and
producing different agricultural products. Therefore, in this section the respondents’
agricultural information access from the local information exchange were addressed with
regard to three major crops and the result presented as follow.

Table 22. New settlers’ major agricultural information sources in major crops

Production activities requiring agricultural information

Information sources Cotton Sesame Sorghum

The previous settler 67 83.8 68 85.0 70 87.5

Development Agents 13 16.3 12 15.0 10 12.5
Own experience 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 80 100.0
Source: Own survey data, 2007

As indicated in Table 22, the new settler respondents were asked to evaluate their major
agricultural information sources in the production process after arriving in the study area.
Among the new settlers, 87.5% and 12.5% of respondents explained that the previous settler
and the development agents were their agricultural information sources, respectively.
Therefore, this result assures that, the new settlers are highly depending on the local
information exchange system than the information provision of extension service.

73
Table 23. Participation of all respondents in local information exchange

Participation in local New settlers Previous settlers Total

information exchange (N=80 ) (N=80 ) (N=160)
Yes 69 86.3 71 88.8 140 87.5
No 11 13.8 9 11.3 20 12.5
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 160 100.0
Source: Own survey data, 2007

To examine the participation of individuals in information communication among the

community, all respondents were asked to explain their involvement in the dissemination of
the obtained information to other farmer, neighbors, friends etc (Table 23). The result shown
that, 87.5% of respondents were participated in local information exchange during different
meeting, social gathering time and religious issues such as in market places, edir, senbete,
committee meetings, public meetings etc. Therefore, these results assure that, the local
information exchange network plays important role in the dissemination of agricultural
information.

Summery Of Access to and Utilization of Agricultural Information

The survey result of access to agricultural information indicate that, among different extension
methods/sources, relatively more number of respondents have obtained information from mass
media, seasonal extension orientation and extension advisory service in rank order. Even if
these methods play a great role in the disseminating agricultural information and contributing
to awareness creation to the majority of respondents in shortest period of time, but the
information shared through this channel may not have in-depth content to build the farmers
implementation skill. In both settlement categories the rank to these methods is similar, but
their proportion of participation is different. The proportion of respondent’s participation in
training, field day, demonstration and visits out of the woreda were very low. But these
methods are very important in the exchange of farmers’ idea, knowledge sharing and
illustration, and to explain new production methods. The knowledge gained from these
methods also improves the farmers’ skill and encourage the utilization of information.

74
Moreover, the new settlers agricultural information access from local information were more
dominant than the support of extension service.

Regarding the utilization of the obtained information, the more accessible information
dissemination methods are found as low utilizable and the less accessible one are more
utilizable information. More utilization of agricultural information were observed from visit,
training, field day and demonstration. But the utilization level of advisory service, seasonal
extension orientation and mass media were very low compared to others. This true to the
overall information accessed respondents and previous settler category view. But, from the
new settlers’ side the information obtained from seasonal extension orientation, advisory
service, training and field day methods were more utilized than others.

All these results tell us the previous settlers need more tangible and observable extension
methods such as visit, demonstration, field day and training. But the new settlers utilize the
information obtained from any sources. The probable reason of this issue is that, the previous
settlers are lack trust the benefits of the extension service support due to the previous quota
and forced extension participation.

4.2. Level of Agricultural Information Access and Utilization

4.2.1. Level of agricultural information access

In 1995 the Federal Government of Ethiopia proposed the PADETES as a national extension
intervention program. PADETES combines technology transfer and human resource
development, and promotes the participation of farmers in the research process (Percy, 1997
cited in Ejigu et al., 1999). Therefore, the Government considers agricultural information will
be provided through this channel for the purpose of human resource development and in
Ethiopian condition the provision of agricultural information to the rural people highly
depends on the public extension service.

75
Based on this fact, the respondents’ overall level of agricultural information access from
extension service was addressed in detail. As discussed in section 4.1 and 3.5.1, early
identified 82 maximum potential score of access to agricultural information were categorized
into three groups known as low access, medium access and high access. The respondent
farmers’ category was identified based on the sum of frequencies of their access to agricultural
information. Those 29 farmers having zero agricultural information access were categorized as
‘no access’ farmers. Finally, the survey result reveals the following different level of
agricultural information access and for simple observation, the categorization of different level
of agricultural information access values are presented in graph as follows in Fig 4. (Detail
data presented in Appendix Table 3.)

90 New settlers
81.2 Previous settlers
80
70 67.5
Percent of respondents

60
50
40
30 18.8
17.5 15
20
10 0 0 0
0
No Access Low Access Medium AccessHigh Access
Access categories

Figure 4. Distribution of respondents based on access to agricultural information categories

From total sample households (160), 0 (0%) were with high access, 12 (7.5%) were in medium
access, 119 (74.4%) were in low access, and 29 (18.1%) had no access (Appendix 3). The
levels of agricultural production information access of new and previous settlers were also
found in different level.

76
Nearly equal proportion of new and previous settlers found without agricultural information
access from extension service. The remaining new settlers were found at low information
access level. But the previous settlers were found towards the low and medium information
access level. However, both of the settler categories did not have ‘High accesses’ to
agricultural information. Generally the agricultural information access of both settlers were
limited, and especially the new settlers agricultural information access was extremely limited
than the previous settlers. This finding reveals that, for all farmers particularly for new settlers
the contribution of agricultural extension in information provision and human resource
development is not attractive.

4.2.2. Level of agricultural information utilization

The same procedure was applied to utilization of agricultural information. From 160 sample
respondents 29 farmers were not access to agricultural information from all sources and
methods. Based on the operational definition of agricultural information utilization, these
farmers are excluded from utilization analysis and the remaining 131 farmers are considered
through out this section. The respondent farmers’ categories were identified based on the sum
of frequencies of utilization from their accessible agricultural information. Those farmers
having zero utilization of agricultural information were categorized as ‘Not utilized’ farmers.
Finally the respondent households categorized into high utilization, medium utilization, low
utilization and no utilization level. Based on this method the survey result reveals the
following different level of utilizations. For simple observation, the categorizations of
different levels of agricultural information utilization values are presented in graph as follows
in Fig 5. (Detail data are presented in Appendix Table 4.)

77
 100 95.4 New settlers
90 Previous settlers
80 75.8
Percent of respondents

70
60
50
40
30 16.7
20
4.6 3 4.5
10 0 0
0
No Utilization Low Utilization Medium Utilization High Utilization
Utilization categories

Figure 5. Distribution of respondents based on agricultural information utilization categories

In the case of utilization of the obtained information, among the total sample respondents
(131), 3 (2.3%) were in high utilization, 11 (8.4%) were in medium utilization, 112 (85.5%)
were in low utilization, and 5 (3.8%) were in no utilization categories of HHs (Appendix 4.).
The utilization levels of agricultural production information in new and previous settlers were
also found in different level. The new settlers did not achieve both medium and high level of
agricultural information utilization. The maximum information utilization score of new and
previous settlers were 18 and 61 with mean 3.78 and 14.65, and standard deviation of 3.02 and
19.19 out of 88 scores.

More proportion of previous settlers are found in low and medium level of utilization, but the
new settlers’ proportions were higher in ‘no utilization’ and ‘low utilization’ categories. From
this result we can understand that both settlement categories, especially most of the new
settlers had limited utilization of agricultural information. In the group discussions, participant
of new settler farmers clarified that “the provision of credit from formal institution was biased
to the previous settlers and they are resource poor to utilize different agricultural
technologies”.

78
To analyze the extension service and farmers’ attachment in depth, the respondent farmers
were asked to evaluate the responsiveness and potential of extension service in addressing
their problems and the survey findings are presented in the next section.

4.3. Responsiveness and Potential of extension service in addressing farmers problems

4.3.1. Responsiveness of extension service

Responsiveness of the extension service is operationally defined as the ability of the extension
service to respond as fast as possible based on the farmers needs regarding technical support
and request of different agricultural technologies related to crop production (cotton, sesame,
sorghum, fruit and vegetable), livestock production and management (goat production and
handling, modern honey production, fattening and other related issues such as animal feed
collection and preservation), and natural resource production and conservation. More
responsive extension service will solve the farmers’ problems, by seeking solution from
wherever it is available, even if they do not have information on their hand. Such situations
enhance the farmers to utilize the delivered agricultural information. In this study, respondents
were interviewed to get their opinion about the responsiveness of extension service and the
survey result is presented as follows in Table 24.

Table 24. Responsiveness of extension service for the farmers’ problems

Response of respondent farmers

Responsiveness of
I didn't ask
extension service Yes No Total
support
related to
№ % № % № % № %
Cotton production 42 26.3 43 26.9 75 46.8 160 100.0
Sesame production 33 20.6 32 20.0 95 59.4 160 100.0
Sorghum production 52 32.5 55 34.4 53 33.1 160 100.0
Fruit and vegetable 14 8.8 23 14.4 123 76.8 160 100.0
Livestock 24 15.0 28 17.5 108 67.5 160 100.0
Natural resource 71 44.4 37 23.1 52 32.5 160 100.0
Source: Own survey data, 2007

79
As indicated in Table 24, among the total respondents, 26.3% (42) of the respondent farmers
said the current extension service provide technical support and awareness creation in different
cotton related agricultural technology issues based on their request quickly. Almost equivalent
proportion of farmers 26.9% (43) of the respondents said the current extension service did not
give technical support and awareness creation in different cotton related agricultural
technology issues based on their request as they required. But 46.8% (75) of the respondent
farmers didn’t ask support related to cotton crop production. But, almost all of the respondent
farmers are participated in cotton production. Cotton production has a lot of production
problems such as flee beetle and bollworm pests, and market problem etc. Due to these
reasons, its productivity and area coverage is decreasing from year to year. Still the
development agents did not offer solution to these problems, especially during pest
occurrence.

Regarding sesame crop, 20.6% (33) of the respondent farmers said the current extension
service provides technical support and awareness creation in different sesame related
agricultural technology issues based on their request. Almost equivalent proportion of farmers
20% (32) of the respondents said the current extension service did not give technical support
and awareness creation in different sesame related agricultural technology issues based on
their request. But 59.4% (95) of the respondent farmers didn’t ask support related to sesame
crop production. Similarly sesame production covers large area prior to cotton. But huge
amount of production reduces due to sesame bug storage pest. Also the farmers are producing
this crop in a traditional way, due to the unavailability of agricultural technologies such as
high yielding Varity seeds. But the extension service did not respond to their problems.

In the case of sorghum crop technical support and awareness creation of different technologies
32.5% (52) and 34.4% (55) of the respondents said the current extension service is ‘yes it is
responsive’ and ‘not responsive’ respectively. But, 33.1% (53) of the respondent farmers
didn’t ask for support related to sorghum crop production. This crop serves as staple food in
the study area. Currently the production of this crop follows traditional production system.
Except the application of 2-4D herbicide from black market, there is no specially intervention
of extension service in this crop.

80
In fruit and vegetable production 8.8% (14) and 14.4% (23) of the respondent farmers said the
current extension service provides technical support and awareness creation related
agricultural technology issues based on their questions and not responsive respectively. But
76.8% (123) of the respondent farmers didn’t ask support related to this activity. Among the
respondent farmers only 11.25% (18) of them are participated in fruit and vegetable
production using irrigation, but part of the remaining farmers also producing vegetables using
rain during summer time. As the group discussion participants raised “repeatedly we were
asked support to protect pest occurrence in fruits and vegetables, particularly in pepper crop,
but no one did not solve our problem”

In the case of livestock production and management, among the total respondents 15% (24)
and 17.5% (28) of the respondent farmers said the current extension service is ‘yes it is
responsive’ and ‘not responsive’ respectively in technical support and awareness creation in
different livestock related agricultural technology issues based on their question. But the
majority 67.5% (108) of the respondent farmers didn’t ask for support related to livestock
production and management. High population of cattle, goat and poultry is found in the study
area and livestock can be taken as one of the major production activity. The occurrence of
repeated animal disease caused large losses in production, so that repeatedly the farmers
needed support. But the farmers reveal that, “during the occurrence of different disease
repeatedly the woreda agricultural office can not able to respond timely, so that we are losing
large number of goats every year.

Concerning natural resource production and conservation issues 44.4% (71) and 23.1% (37) of
the respondent farmers indicated that the current extension service is ‘responsive’ and ‘not
responsive’ respectively, and 32.5% (52) of the respondent farmers didn’t ask for support
related to natural resource production and conservation issues.

This survey result indicates that the majority of respondents indicated ‘no responsive’ and ‘I
didn’t ask support’ responses. This tells that the current extension system has poor,
responsiveness and linkage with the farmers and the farmers didn’t have interest to work with
the service provider. As raised in farmers’ group discussion, before developing this attitude,
the farmers were asking support repeatedly. As result most of the farmers are using the

81
previously introduced knowledge and their traditional knowledge in the production process.
Currently, the farmers are treating and injecting own cattle and goats them selves. Therefore,
in the absence of responsive extension service, providing different relevant and utilizable
agricultural information to the farmers will not be as expected. At the same time the farmers
will not be encouraged to get and utilize agricultural information from the extension service.

4.3.2. Potential of extension service in addressing farmers’ problem

Potential of the extension service in addressing farmers’ interest was operationally defined as
the ability of the extension service providing agricultural information through technical
support and different agricultural technologies related to cotton, sesame, sorghum, maize,
fruit, vegetable, livestock, natural resource production, management, handling, conservation
and management based on the farmers problems and interests. If the extension service is
demand driven, the farmers will be eager to communicate with DAs and the utilization rate of
agricultural information and technologies will increase, and then the service will solve
farmers’ problems.
According to FAO (2002), rural community needs a wide variety of information. The content
of the information services needs to reflect their diverse circumstances and livelihoods. So in
this study, the farmers were asked to evaluate the provision of agricultural information and
agricultural technologies in relation to their problems and interests. Based on this idea, the
farmers’ responses are organized as follows in Table 25.

82
Table 25. Potential of extension service in addressing the farmers’ problems

Potential of Response of respondent farmers

extension service Yes No No opinion Total
addressing farmers
№ % № % № % № %
problem related to
Cotton crop 67 41.9 16 10.0 77 48.1 160 100.0
Sesame crop 50 31.2 15 9.4 95 59.4 160 100.0
Sorghum crop 82 51.3 21 13.1 57 35.6 160 100.0
Fruit and vegetables 37 23.1 0 .0 123 76.9 160 100.0
Livestock 53 33.1 0 .0 107 66.9 160 100.0
Natural resource 101 63.1 4 2.5 55 34.4 160 100.0
Source: Own survey data, 2007

This survey result indicates that, the majority of respondents (except sorghum production and
natural resource technologies) explained ‘not addressing our interest’ and ‘no opinion to
evaluate this issue’. This tells us the current extension system didn’t work based on the
farmers’ problems and the farmers did not build confidence on the extension service as
agricultural solution provider. In the group discussions, participant farmers clarified that “they
are not involved in the problem identification and planning process. The DAs and PA
administrator will force us to receive the agricultural technology through quota system. As
well, we are not benefited from the new technologies. Because of these reasons we are not
interested to establish close contact with the DAs”.

As discussion held with the woreda experts and DAs revealed that, “The regional Government
prepares annual plan and sends to the woredas. The woreda offices are expected to implement
the plan accordingly. This shows that, the current planning approach is top down. The success
of such approach is negligible and mostly leads to failure. Now the farmers think of the
extension service as the enemy of the farmer, instead of a supporter”. Therefore, in the
absence of addressing farmers’ interests and demand driven extension service, the farmers
may not be interested to search and receive agricultural information from the extension service
and consequently utilization agricultural information and technology can not be expected.

83
4.4. Description of Independent Variables

In this section, descriptions of personal, socio-economic, institutional and psychological

characteristics are presented and discussed in detail. These are the hypothesized variables that
may influence the dependent variables, access and utilization of agricultural information.

4.4.1. Description of personal characteristics of the sample respondents

Personal characteristics include the variables such as age, sex, education level, health status of
the household head, settlement category and settlement orientation. The survey results are
presented in detail as follows:

[Link]. Age of the household head

The mean age of total sample households was 37.47 years with standard deviation of 9.35. The
maximum age for the sample farmers was 70 years while the minimum was 20 years. The
mean age of respondents based on settlement category is shown below in Table 26.

Table 26. Mean age difference of respondents based on settlement category

Settlement category N Mean Std. Deviation T= value

New settlers 80 34.90 8.534
Previous settlers 80 40.04 9.471 3.604***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; *** Significant at 1%

The average ages of the new settlers and previous settlers were 34.90 and 40.04 with standard
deviation of 8.53 and 9.47 respectively. There is significant mean difference between both
categories (t= -3.604) at 1% probability level. Therefore, it can be concluded that the new
settlers are younger than the previous settlers.

84
[Link]. Education status of sample household heads

The survey result reveals that the education status of farmers in the study area is considerably
low. The majority of the respondent farmers, 73.8% (118), did not have formal education, and
out of this 27 settlers are functionally literate. The education status of sample respondents is
presented in Table 27.

Table 27. Education level of the respondents by settlement and sex categories
Settlement category
Previous
Education category New settlers Total χ2-value Gamma
settlers
№ % № % № %
Illiterate 39 48.7 52 65.0 91 56.8
Functionally literate 18 22.5 9 11.2 27 16.9
Elementary school 22 27.5 12 15.0 34 21.3
Secondary school 1 1.3 7 8.8 8 5.0
Total 80 100 80 100 160 100 12.298*** -.194 N.S
Sex of respondent:
Female Male Total
Illiterate 22 91.7 69 50.7 91 56.9
Functionally literate 1 4.2 26 19.1 27 16.9
Elementary school 1 4.2 33 24.3 34 21.3
Secondary school 0 .0 8 5.9 8 5.0
Total 24 100 136 100 160 100
Source: Own survey data, 2007; N.S, *** = not significant at 10% and significant at 1%

As indicated in Table 27, among the total respondents, 56.8% of the sample household heads
were illiterate, 16.8% were functionally literate, 21.3% were at elementary school education
level, and 5% had attended high school education.

The illiteracy level of previous settlers was higher than the new settlers, and functionally
literate and elementary school level of the respondents were higher in the new settlement
category. But at secondary school level the previous settlers’ category was higher. Result of
Chi-Square test (χ2=12.298) indicated that there was a significant education level difference

85
between new and previous settlement categories at less than 1% probability level. The value of
Gamma and its sign (-.194) indicates that the relationship between educational level and
settlement category is weak and better educational level towards the new settler side.

Table 27 shows that, functionally literate, elementary school and secondary school level of
females’ proportion were lower than that of the male respondents. Moreover, the illiteracy
level of female is higher than that of the male farmers.

[Link]. Sex of respondents

In Table 28, with regard to sex category, mean agricultural information access score of female
and male respondents were 3.25 and 7.88 score respectively. Based on the survey result,
agricultural information access of females were very low. Result of independent sample t-test
indicated that there was significant mean agricultural information access score difference (t= -
3.539, P= 0.001) among different sex categories at 1% significance level. Generally, MHHs
had more agricultural information access than FHHs.

Mean agricultural information utilization score of female and male respondents were 6.71 and
9.56 score respectively. Even though the mean score of agricultural information utilization
shows difference between male and female respondents, the result of mean test using
independent t- test indicated that there was no significant mean agricultural information
utilization score difference (t= -0.681, P= 0.497) between male and female categories at 10%
significance level.

Table 28. Mean agricultural information access and utilization of respondents based on sex

Information access Information utilization

Sex categories N Mean score S.D N Mean score S.D
Female 24 3.25 4.06 8 6.71 8.56
Male 136 7.88 11.82 123 9.56 15.35
Total 160 131
T= value -3.539*** 0.681 N.S
Source: Own survey data, 2007; ***, N.S = significant at 1% and not significant

86
[Link]. Health status of household

To accomplish the agricultural activities as required, the farmers need to be healthy. As well to
get and utilize agricultural information, physical well being of the farmer is needed. A sick
household farmer will face problem in getting information about the management aspect of the
farm or will have a restricted access and utilization of agricultural information than a healthy
household head. Hence, this study has tried to assess the household heads’ health situation and
the survey results are presented in Table 29.

Table 29. Respondents facing Health problems in 2005 and 2006

Settlement category
New settlers Previous settlers Total
№ % № % № %
No 31 38.8 50 62.5 81 50.6
Yes 49 61.3 30 37.5 79 49.4
Total 80 100 80 100.0 160 100
χ2-value 9.026 ***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; *** significant at 1%

During 2005-2006, among the new settlers 61.3% and among previous settlers 37.5% farmers
were sick and their farm activities were affected. To check the relationship of the health
problem of the respondents and settlement category, a chi-square test was conducted and the
result showed that there was significant difference in health problems between settlement
categories, and it was significant (χ2-9.026), at 1% probability level. This indicates that, the
new settlers are facing health problem than the previous settlers. However, between male and
female, there was no statistically significant difference in health problem.

Regarding the type of disease (Appendix Table 5), 77.6% and 53.3% of new and previous
settler respondents, respectively, were affected by malaria. Even though both new and
previous settlers live around similar village, as indicated in Table 35, the majority of the new
settlers were involved in out of village hired labor in agricultural investment areas and the

87
malaria protection facilities were poorer than farmers living in their home. Moreover, as the
results of the group discussion participants indicated, relatively new settlers had poorer
economical and nutritional status.

To examine the influence of this issue on farming activity, the number of days the farmers
were sick was considered. Finally, the number of average days per year was analyzed using t-
tests to see the mean difference between the two settlement groups. The findings of the survey
of the two are presented in Table 30.

Table 30. Mean number of days the respondents sick per year’ 2005/2006

Settlement category N Mean Std. Deviation T= value

New settlers 80 19.43 25.610 2.815***
Previous settlers 80 9.68 17.423
Source: Own survey data, 2007; *** = significant at 1%

The range of days the farmers sick was between 0-130 days per year. The mean sickness days
of the new settlers per year were higher (19.43 days) than that of previous settlers (9.68 days)
per year. There was significant mean difference between both settlers categories (t= 2.815) at
1% probability level. These days were exactly the critical land plowing, weeding and crop
harvesting periods. The numbers of sickness day’s female and male-headed respondents were
13.29 and 14.77, respectively. There was not significant difference between male and female
headed sample respondents in mean sickness days.

[Link]. Settlement orientation

Previously the population density of Metema woreda was very low, but it is gradually
increasing due to the high rate of in-migration. The survey result indicates that among
respondent farmers 3.8%, 50%, 42.4% and 3.8% were settled during Derge Government

88
settlement program, current Government settlement program, voluntary settlers and those
returned from Sudan /Lagin/, respectively.

In the study area, resettlement program have been done for the last three years (2003-2005).
But as indicated in Appendix Table 7, majority of new settlers went back to their homeland.
From the original number of 19,420 [Link] and 32,016 total populations of new settlers, only
4,907 households and 11,672 total populations remain in the area, i.e. 25% and 36% of the
new settlers H.H and family, respectively remain in the area. Based on this issue, the
researcher has tried to assess from the remaining settlers whether they have plan to live in the
new settlement area permanently or not.

Based on the survey result, 92.5% of new and 95%previous settler farmers were having
information about the new settlement area. However, 7.5% and 5% of new and previous settler
respondents, respectively, did not have clear information about the new area. Statistically there
was no significant difference between new and previous settlers. But the realness of the
information varies between them.

During group discussion the new settlers explained that, “We expect benefited from the
participation of resettlement program such as land, one year relief, constructed house, bones of
4,000 E.T birr, gift of oxen for traction etc. However, we did not get the benefits as they have
promised earlier. The propaganda provided by the current local Government responsible
bodies in highland areas regarding resettlement program was very much exaggerated. It was
wrong and it was simply done to fulfill their settlement quota”. The participants stated the
main reason for going back to 74.73% of the new settlers H.H and 63.54% of population to be
this reason (Appendix Table 7).

Therefore, farmers having such type of feeling can not be expected to have a plan to live in the
new settlement area permanently or for a prolonged time and consequently they will not
search to get and utilize agricultural information to get more production and income, to have
food security than farmers having comfortable psychological feeling. Regarding the interest of
staying in settlement program, the survey result is presented as follows in Table 31.

89
Table 31. Interest of staying in settlement program

Settlement category
Interest of staying New settlers Previous settlers Total
№ % № % № %
I don't want to stay here 13 16.2 4 5.0 17 10.6
I am not sure for how long to stay 14 17.5 12 15.0 26 16.3
Will stay permanently as a farmer 53 66.3 64 80.0 117 73.1
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 160 100.0
Chi-square value 5.953*
Source: Own survey data, 2007; * = significant at 10%

As indicated in Table 31, from the remaining settlers, 33.7% and 20% of the new and previous
settlers, respectively (the first two group of farmers) did not have interest or they are not
confident in feeling to stay in the settlement area, but the remaining 66.3% of new settlers and
80% of previous settlers had feeling to stay permanently in the settlement area. Statistical test
(χ2- 5.953, p= 0.51) indicates that there was significant difference in their feeling to stay in the
new area between settlement categories at 10% probability level.

[Link]. Settlement category:

To analyze the mean agricultural information access scores difference between new and
previous settler categories, t- test was conducted and the following result was obtained. For the
total sample the maximum score was 55 and the lowest was zero with mean 7.19 and standard
deviation of 11.13 out of 82 total score. As indicated in Table 32, mean agricultural
information access score of new and previous settlers were 3.76 and 10.61 score respectively.
Based on the survey result, mean agricultural information access scores of new settlers were
lower than the previous settlers. Result of t-test indicated that there was significant mean
agricultural information access score difference (t= -4.080, P= 0.000) between new and
previous settlement categories at 1% significance level. From this survey result, we can
understand that both settlement categories, especially most of the new settlers have limited
access to agricultural information.

90
Table 32. Mean agricultural information access and utilization score of respondents based on
settlement category

Settlement category Information access Information utilization

N mean S.D N mean S.D
New settlers 80 3.76 3.85 65 3.78 3.02
Previous settlers 80 10.61 14.51 66 14.65 19.19
Total 160 7.19 11.13 131 9.26 14.78
T= value -4.080*** -4.544***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; ***, Significant at 1%

Regarding the utilization of accessed agricultural information for the total sample, the
maximum score was 61 and the lowest was zero with mean 9.26, and standard deviation of
14.78 out of 88 total score. The score distributions of the respondent farmers were highly
dispersed. As indicated in Table 32, mean agricultural information utilization score of new and
previous respondents were 3.78 and 14.65 with standard deviation of 3.02 and 19.19 score,
respectively. Based on the survey result, mean agricultural information utilization score of
new settlers were very lower than the previous settlers. Result of t-test indicated that there was
significant mean agricultural information utilization score difference (t= -4.544, P= 0.000)
between the settlement categories at 1% significance level. From this survey result we can
understand that both settlement categories, especially most of the new settlers had limited
utilization of agricultural information.

4.4.2. Description of socio-economic characteristics of the sample respondents

Socio-economic factors are related to the position of the respondent farmers in society, which
is determined by various social and economic variables such as on farm income, off farm
income and mobility of respondents. The survey results are presented in detail as follows.

91
[Link]. On-farm income

On-farm income refers to annual farm income obtained from sale of crop, livestock and
livestock products. The amount of income left from consumption could be used to purchase
new agricultural inputs and machineries, and increase the probability of owning radio,
television etc.

The survey result reveals that the on-farm income of total sampled households from crop and
livestock were 4560.99 and 1335.26 ETB, respectively. From this data, we can observe that
cash crop production was the highest income source of the respondent farmers. Generally, the
maximum total annual on-farm income was 39300.00 ET birr while the minimum was zero,
and mean annual on-farm income of total sample respondents was 5896.26 with standard
deviation of 6731.11 ETB and the relative on-farm income distributions of the sample
household were highly dispersed. The mean on-farm income based on settlement and sex
category is presented as follows in Table 33.

Table 33. Mean annual on-farm income difference between settlement and sex categories

Std.
Settlement category N Mean t- value
Deviation
New settlers 80 3215.50 2715.83
Previous settlers 80 8577.00 8322.18 t= -5.478***

Sex category
Female 24 3685.63 3146.27
Male 136 6286.36 7117.16 t = -1.757*
Source: Own survey data, 2007; *** significant at 1%

The new and previous settlers’ on-farm mean annual income was 3215.50 and 8577.00
respectively. The previous settlers mean annual on-farm income was greater and there was
highly significant income difference between both settlers categories (t= -5.478) at less than

92
1% probability level. Regarding female and male sample household respondents, the mean
annual on-farm income were 3685.63 ETB. Males mean annual on-farm income was greater
and there was significant mean difference between both sex categories (t= -1.757) at 10%
probability level (Table 33).

[Link]. Off-farm income

The maximum total annual off-farm income was 7200.00 ET birr while the minimum was zero
and mean annual off-farm income of total sample respondents were 425.44 with standard
deviation of 1036.79 ET birr and the relative off-farm income distributions of the sample
household were highly dispersed. The mean off-farm income based on settlement and sex
category is presented as follows.

Table 34. Mean off-farm income difference between settlement and sex categories

Std.
Settlement category N Mean t- value
Deviation
New settlers 80 484.46 949.76
Previous settlers 80 366.43 1119.98 t= 719N.S
Sex category
Female 24 281.25 545.30
Male 136 450.88 1100.46 t = 0.738 N.S
Source: Own survey data, 2007; N.S = not significant difference

Mean annual off-farm incomes of the new and previous settler were 484.46 and 366.43 ET
birr respectively. Regarding female and male sample households respondents, mean annual
off-farm incomes were 281.25 and 450.88 ET birr respectively. As shown in Table 34,
statistically there was no significant difference between new and previous settlers’ categories.
Similarly, there was no significant difference in mean annual off-farm income between female
and male respondents.

93
[Link]. Mobility of respondents

There is a mobility of new settler farmers out side their village to visit their native area and to
generate income as hired labour in different off-farm activities. Regarding this issue the
agricultural development agents mostly criticize the mobility of the new settlers for prolonged
time out their village, as they miss participating in different agricultural trainings and capacity
building activities at kebele and woreda level. So, this variable was hypothesized as more
mobile farmers would have limited access and utilization of agricultural information than
others remaining in their home. Based on this idea the survey result is presented in Table 35 as
follows.

Table 35. Movement of settler out of village to generate income and to visit native area

Settlement category

Cramer's V
Response

Previous

χ2-value
Type of
New settlers settlers Total
movement
№ % № % № %

To generate Yes 17 21.3 5 6.3 22 13.8

income No 63 78.8 75 93.8 138 86.3
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 160 100.0 7.589*** 0.218***
To visit Yes 42 52.5 28 35.0 70 43.8
native area No 38 47.5 52 65.0 90 56.3
Total 80 100 80 100 160 100 4.978** 0.176**
Source: Own survey data, 2007; ***, ** = Significant at 1% and 5%

As indicated in Table 35, 21.3% of new and 6.3% of previous settlers involved in out of
village income generating activities (in 2005/2006). Settler farmers were working as a hired
labor in ‘Delello’, ‘Mertrad’ and even in Sudan agricultural investment area (around the
border of Ethiopia and Sudan) for prolonged time. Chi-square test (χ2= 7.589) and Cramer's V
(0.218) indicate that there is significantly difference between settlement categories in
movement of farmers out of village to generate income at 1% probability level. Therefore,

94
more number of new settlers were not accessing different extension interventions because they
were not available around their home.

Out of the total respondents, 52.5% of new and 35% previous settlers have moved out of
village to visit their native area in the year 2005/2006. The proportions of new settlers were
higher than that of the previous settlers. As the survey result reveals, reasons of visiting were
to visit relatives, for recreation, to bring family, to mobilize other people for settlement and to
get cultural medicines. Moreover, during group discussion, the participant farmers indicated
that some of the new settler farmers had a fear of loosing land ownership in their native area
based on Government resettlement strategy. At the same time these farmers are involved in
crop production simultaneously in their native area and settlement area. This tells us mobility
of new settler farmers occur during the production season. Therefore, the farmers will lack
important agricultural information provided by extension service and technical support during
critical time of production. This makes them generally unstable and inefficient in accessing
and utilizing agricultural information. Chi-square test (χ2= 4.978) and Cramer’s V (0.176)
indicated that there is significant difference in movement of farmers to visit native area
between settlement categories at 1% probability level. The number of days spent out of village
is presented as follows in Table 36.

Table 36. Days spent out of village to generate income and to visit native area in 2005/06

Settlement Days spent Std.

Reasons N Mean t- value
category Min Max Deviation
to generate New settlers 80 8.93 0 78 19.12
income Previous settlers 80 2.86 0 62 12.27 2.388**
To visit native New settlers 80 21.91 0 150 30.92
area Previous settlers 80 7.63 0 60 12.68 3.824***
Total days New settlers 80 30.84 0 150 34.03
Previous settlers 80 10.49 0 92 18.84 4.680***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; **, *** significant at 5% and significant at 1%

95
As indicated in Table 36, the average days spent out of village to generate income of the new
settlers and previous settlers were 8.93 and 2.86, respectively. Range of days spent for new
and previous settlers were 0 - 78 and 0 - 62 days, respectively. There is significant mean
difference between both categories (t= 2.388) at 5% probability level. The new settlers spent
more time out of village than the previous settlers. The average number of days spent to visit
native area by the new settlers and previous settlers were 21.96 and 7.63, respectively. Range
of days spent for new and previous settlers were 0-150 and 0-60 days, respectively. There is
significant mean difference between both categories (t= 3.824) at 1% probability level.

Generally the total average days spent out of village to generate income and to visit native area
of the new settlers and previous settlers were 30.84 and 10.49 with standard deviation of 34.03
and 18.84 respectively. There is significant mean difference between both categories (t=
4.680) at 1% probability level. Therefore, the new settlers spent more time out of village than
the previous settlers. This implies that the new settlers were not stable in the new settlement
area. Within this instability it was difficult to access recent agricultural information and
utilizes technologies in the settlement area.

4.4.3. Description of institutional characteristics of the sample respondents

Institutional characteristics include the variables that may influence respondent farmers’
access to and utilization of agricultural information, such as access to credit, frequency of
market visiting, distance of market, and social participation.

[Link]. Access to credit

In the selected all sample PAs credit institutions such as Amhara credit and saving institution
and rural farmers’ cooperatives provide credit service for farmers. In this study getting credit
for utilization of different agricultural production issues is considered as a proxy of ‘credit
accesses’.

The availability of financial resource has a decisive role in the agricultural production process.
Access to credit can address the financial constraints of farmers. Mostly the provision of

96
agricultural credit from formal institution is supported by awareness creation and training in
order to achieve the credit desired goals. Farmers having credit access, also have good
communication with DAs. Moreover, those farmers having access to credit will have a
tendency to search agricultural information and utilize agricultural technologies than farmers
who do not have an access. Based on this the variable was hypothesized as influencing
positively the access and utilization of agricultural information.

In addition to the information from WARDO, during group discussion, farmers were asked to
identify the credit source institutions. Accordingly, most of the respondents use Amhara Credit
and Saving Institution (ACSI), cooperatives, and local moneylenders as sources of credit in
the study area. Based on the source of credit, ACSI and Cooperatives are categorized as
formal institutions and local moneylenders as informal one. For deeper analysis of the
respondent farmers’ access to credit from formal and informal credit institutions, data was
separately presented in Table 37.

Table 37. Financial form of Credit access from formal and informal institutions (2005/06)

Formal institutions Informal money lender

Responses New Previous New Previous
Total Total
settlers settlers settlers settlers
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
No 80 (100) 40(50) 120 (75) 43 (53.8) 53 (66.3 ) 96 (60)
Yes 0 (0) 40 (50) 40 (25) 37(46.2) 27 (33.7) 64 (40)
Total 80 (100) 80 (100) 160 (100) 80 (100) 80 (100) 160 (100)
Chi-Square 53.333*** 2.604 N.S
Cramer's V 0.577*** 0.128 N.S
Source: Own survey data, 2007; N.S, *** = not significant at 10% and significant at 1%

The result of the above table shows that, among the total 160 respondents 75% of the
respondents had no access to credit from formal institutions in (two years) 2005-2006
production year. Among those (n =40) who have access to credit, all 100% respondents were

97
previous settlers. But the new settlers did not have credit access from formal institutions in the
specified two years. Chi-square test (χ2= 53.373) and Cramer's V (0.577) indicate that there is
significant, but with moderately strong relationship between credit access from formal
institution and settlement categories at 1% probability level. Therefore, from formal
institution, new settlers had not credit access.

Among the total of 160 respondents, 40% had access to credit from informal institutions (local
money lenders) in 2005-2006 production year. Among these farmers, 46.2% were new settlers
and 33.7% previous settlers. Statistically chi-square test (χ2= 2.604) and Cramer's V (0.128)
have indicated that there was no significance difference between credit access from informal
institution and settlement categories. Therefore, both settlers’ categories had equal accesses to
credit from informal institution.

Table 38. Credit access in both cash and kind from formal institutions (2005/06)

Formal institutions
Responses χ2= test Cramer's V
New settlers Previous settlers Total
N (%) N (%) N (%)
No 74 (92.5) 37 (46.25) 111(69.4)
Yes 6 (7.5 ) 43 (53.75) 49 (30.6)
Total 80 (100 ) 80 (100 ) 160(100) 40.272*** 0.502***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; *** significant at 1%

Among the total of 160 respondents, 69.4% of the respondents had neither cash nor kind form
(credit in the form of technology) of credit access from formal institutions in 2005-2006
production year, but 30.6% had access to credit (Table 38). Among those (n =49) who have
access to credit, 7.5% were among new and 53.75% were among previous settlers. Statistically
chi-square test (χ2= 40.272) indicate that there is significant difference between new and
previous settlement categories in access to cash and kind form of credit from formal institution
at 1% probability level. Therefore, the credit access of new settlers in the form of financial and
kind form credit, from formal institution were very limited.

98
Not being accessed to credit from formal and informal institutions in the study area had
various reasons. From the respondents, view the major three reasons of new settlers for not
getting credit from formal institution in cash form were credit providers lack trust on stability,
credit not allowed for settlers, and lack of credit provision in their rank order respectively.
Formal institutions particularly cooperative leaders explain that they were trying to provide
credit for new settlers before, but some of the new settlers went back to their homeland
without repaying the loan, and therefore, they restrict to provide credit for such settlers. From
this result we can observe that the financial limitation of the new settlers in rural areas was one
of the common problems facing, but credit providers still did not strive to alleviate the new
settlers’ problem. Within this situation, the new settlers will be affected to obtain agricultural
information and to utilize different modern agricultural technologies.

From respondents view, the major reasons for not getting credit from informal lender in cash
form were credit rate is high, lack of interest to take credit from informal lender, interest and
religion conflict, lack of interest to borrow, credit providers not thrusting them, and collateral
problem in their rank order respectively. The major two reasons of both settlers’ categories
were similar i.e credit rate is high and lack of interest to take credit from informal lenders.

During group discussion, the farmers explained that the interest rate to informal loans was
50% for 3-4 months. Even if informal lending was the only credit option of the new settlers,
but within this credit rate it is difficult to take risk and invest in agricultural technologies, so
that the new settlers were restricted in utilizing different modern agricultural technologies and
also discouraged to search agricultural information.

In the group discussion and responses of respondents reveal that the major activities utilizing
credit are labor cost for weeding, oxen rent or purchase /traction purpose/, goat production
package, labor cost for crop harvest, home consumptions, H.Y.V and Herbicides (in Appendix
Table 6). Therefore, almost all of the credits were aimed at agricultural activities.

Average amount of loan obtained from formal institutions (including kind credit), informal
institutions and total credit access were 1075.73, 514.88 and 1590.61 ETB, respectively. From

99
this data, we can observe that the respondent farmers obtain highest amount of credit from
formal institutions. The relative credit distributions of the sample household were highly
dispersed. The new and previous settlers’ average of two years credit access was presented in
Table 39.

Table 39. Average amount of credit obtained by settlement categories in 2005/06

Settlement Std.
Institutions N Mean t-Value
category Deviation
Formal institution New 80 59.96 242.94
previous 80 2091.50 2881.40 -6.284***
Informal lenders New 80 436.25 824.40
previous 80 593.50 1741.80 -0.730N.S
Total credit New 80 496.21 840.50
previous 80 2685.00 3526.49 -5.400***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; N.S, *** = not significant at 10% and significant at 1%

The average amount of new and previous settlers’ loan from formal institutions was 59.96 and
2091.50 ETB, and loan from informal lender were 436.25 and 593.50, respectively. As
indicated in Table 39, in both cases the previous settlers’ access to credit was greater than the
new settlers. From formal institutions, the new settlers did not have cash credit access, but
they had limited credit access in the kind form. There was highly significant mean difference
between both settlers’ categories (t= -6.284) at less than 1% probability level. Regarding the
amount of money borrowed from informal lender there was no significant difference between
both categories of settlers.

In general, the average annual total credit access of new and previous settler categories were
496.21 and 2685.00 with standard deviation of 840.50 and 3526.49 ETB respectively and
there was highly significant difference in mean annual total credit access between both
settlers’ categories (t= -5.400) at less than 1% probability level. Therefore, the average annual
credit access of the previous settlers was higher than the new settler farmers. But the new

100
settler’s credit access from the informal lender was comparatively and statistically similar to
the previous settlers.

Table [Link] amount of credit obtained by sex of respondents in 2005/06

Sex of Std.
Institutions N Mean t-Value
respondent Deviation
From formal institution Female 24 1058.33 1533.09 -0.040 N.S
Male 136 1078.80 2390.69
From informal lenders Female 24 100.00 258.76 -3.591***
Male 136 588.09 1460.48
Total credit Female 24 1158.33 1513.97 -0.825 N.S
Male 136 1666.90 2946.31
Source: Own survey data, 2007; N.S, *** = not significant at 10% and significant at 1%

There was no significant mean difference between male and female respondents in the case of
credit access from formal institutions. This is because of formal credit institutions have gender
disaggregated annual plan in their credit system. From informal lenders, the females credit
access was limited than males. This is because the informal lenders usually give special
attention regarding the efficiency of the farmers in the farming activities to repay the loan, and
such evaluation will be taken as guarantee of the loan in addition to the collateral. Therefore,
in such cases the FHHs will not be the best options for lenders. From informal institutions
there was highly significant credit access mean difference between both sex categories (t= -
3.591) at less than 1% probability level. In general, the annual total mean credit access of
females and males were 1158.33 and 1666.90 ETB, respectively, and there was no significant
difference in mean annual total credit access between males and females.

[Link]. Frequency of market visits

Access to market was measured based on the frequency of market visiting. Farmers having
more frequency of visiting market will have a chance to get information from other farmers,

101
agricultural input suppliers etc. This variable was expected to influence the access and
utilization of agricultural information positively. The survey results are presented in Table 41.

Table 41. Frequency of visiting the nearby market based on settlement categories

Settlement category
Frequency New settlers Previous settlers Total
№ % № % № %
Not at all 5 6.2 9 11.2 14 8.8
Some times 63 78.8 47 58.8 110 68.8
Once per week 12 15.0 19 23.8 31 19.4
more than once in a week 0 .0 5 6.2 5 3.1
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 160 100.0
Chi-Square 10.051**
Source: Own survey data, 2007; ** significant at 5%

Among the new settlers, 15.0 8% and 78.8% of respondents were visiting the market once in a
week and some times, respectively, but among the previous settlers 6.2%, 23.8%, and 58.8%
were visiting more than once in a week, once per week and ,some times, respectively.
However 6.2% of the new and 11.2% of the previous settlers were not visiting market through
out the year. Therefore, regarding the absence of visiting and more frequent visiting, the
proportion of previous settlers were higher than the new settlers, but the new settlers had
slightly lower visiting frequency. Chi-Square test indicates that there was a difference in
frequency of market visiting between settlement categories (χ2= 10.051, p= 0.018) at 5%
probability level.

[Link]. Distance from market

Farmers having nearness to market will have a chance to get information from other farmers
and input suppliers in the market place. Moreover, the nearness of market increase access to
and utilization of agricultural inputs due to advantage of minimum transportation cost. The
survey result is presented in Table 42.

102
Table 42. Distance of market in KM from the respondent residence

Settlement categories N Mean S.D t-Value

New settlers 80 19.96 9.166
Previous settlers 80 16.91 4.798
Total 160 2.637***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; *** = significant at 1%

When the sample households considered independently into new and previous settlers, the
mean distance of market from the residence were 19.96 and 16.91 km, respectively. From this
data we can observe that the previous settlers were living slightly nearer to the market than the
new settlers. Even if the Government plan to settle the new and previous settlers in a mixed
way (around the same village) to share the utilization of different infrastructure and
institutions, the entire new settlers village did not follow this pattern and part of the new
settlers village were established in a dispersed manner, and especially this problem appear in
Tumet –Mendoka PA. Standard deviation value of the new settlers from mean distance market
describes this issue (table 42). T-test indicates that there was significant mean market distance
difference between both settlers’ categories (t= 2.637, p= 0.009) at 1% probability level.
Therefore, the new settlers are not benefited from the market distance to exchange of
agricultural information, utilization of agricultural information and technologies.

[Link]. Social Participation

The person’s affiliation and involvement in social activities or the involvement of a person in
any formal (such as market cooperative, School council etc) or non formal organization (Iqub,
Religious club etc) will provide opportunities for higher exposure to various kinds of
information exchange, and consequently enhance utilization of information. The survey result
for this is presented in Table 43.

103
Table 43. Respondents’ participation in formal and informal organizations based on settlement
and sex category

Settlement category

Reponses New settlers Previous settlers Total χ2-value

№ % № % № %
Yes 42 52.5 53 66.3 95 59.4
No 38 47.5 27 33.7 65 40.6
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 160 100.0 3.135*
Reponses Sex of respondent: χ2-value
Female Male Total
Yes 8 33.3 87 64.0 95 59.4
No 16 66.7 49 36.0 65 40.6
Total 24 100.0 136 100.0 160 100.0 7.938***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; ***, * = Significant at 1% and 10% probability level

Regarding the new and previous settlers’ participation in different formal and informal social
organizations, as presented in Table 43, among 160 respondent farmers, more than half
(59.4%) were having involvement in different formal and informal organizations. Among this,
the participation of previous settler in formal and informal institutions is higher than the new
settlers’ participation. Chi-square test (χ2= 3.135) indicates that there is significant difference
between settlement categories in social participation at 10% probability level. Therefore, more
number of previous settlers were participating in different formal and informal organizations.
Even if the number of previous settlers’ involvement in different social organizations was
higher, the survey detailed result shows that there was no significant difference in mean
degree of social participation, frequency of social participation and mean total participation
score between them.

Regarding the females and males participation in different formal and informal social
institutions, as presented in Table 43, only 33.3% of females were involved in any formal and
informal institutions. Chi-square test indicates that there is significant difference in social
participation between sex categories (χ2= 7.938, p= 0.005) at 1% probability level of

104
significance. Therefore, the participation of females in different formal and informal
institutions is lower than males’ participation. Regarding the participation score, the survey
result is presented as follows in Table 44.

Table 44. Mean social participation score difference based on sex category

Types of participation Sex category N Mean S.D t- value

Degree of social Female 24 0.63 1.173
participation Male 136 1.53 1.870 -3.139***
Frequency of social Female 24 0.83 1.465
participation Male 136 2.17 2.529 -2.511**
Total score of social Female 24 1.46 2.62
participation Male 136 3.70 4.37 -2.433**
Source: Own survey data, 2007; **, ***, Significant at 5% and 1%

As indicated in Table 44, the mean degree of social participation, frequency of social
participation, and total social participation score of female household is lower than the males.
In all cases the results assure that the participation of male settlers in formal and informal
organization was higher than the female settlers. An independent sample t- test indicated that
there was significant mean degree, frequency, and total social participation score differences
between female and male categories (t= -3.139, P= 0.003) (t= -2.511, P= 0.013) (t= -2.433, P=
0.016) at 1%, 5% and 5% significance level respectively. This implies, MHHs had more
affiliation and involvement in social activities and their involvement in any formal or informal
organization will have a higher exposure for different information.

4.4.4. Description of psychological characteristics of sample respondents

Psychological characteristics include the variables of psychological dimension of individual

respondent such as attitude towards improved farming, innovation proneness, production
motivation and information seeking behavior are addressed in this study.

105
[Link]. Attitude towards improved farming

Farmers' attitude as measured by the Likert Scale (3 point scale) which is designed to analyze
the influence of attitude towards improved farming on access and utilization of agricultural
information. Accordingly, different attitude statements were presented to the sampled
households. Hence, a total of 4 attitude statements (two positive and two negative statements)
were developed and all four statements were presented to all respondents. The response for
each question was coded with numbers (3= Agree, 2= Neutral and 1= Disagree for positive
statements and (1= Agree, 2= Neutral and 3= Disagree for negative statements). Finally, by
summing up the value of each statement, and divided by the number of sentences were taken
as the mean value of the respondent as negative, neutral, and positive attitude values in
attitude towards improved farming.

Reliability analysis was undertaken for all statements to see the degree of scale reliability of
each attitude statement and to determine potential items which influences respondents' attitude
towards improved farming. The alpha ( α ) level of all statements is 0.616. In all items there
was no value of greater than 0.616, so that all sentences are reliable to estimate respondents'
attitude.

According to the result of the study, respondents were categorized into three categories 6.3%,
30.6% and 63.1%, distributed in negative attitude, neutral ,and positive attitude, respectively
based on their score (Table 45). Therefore, the majority of interviewed farmers in the study
area show neutral and positive attitude towards improved farming.

106
Table 45. Level of attitude towards improved farming based on settlement and sex categories

Settlement category
Previous
Level of attitude New settlers Total χ2-value Gamma
settlers
№ % № % № %
Negative attitude 3 3.8 7 8.8 10 6.3
Neutral 26 32.5 23 28.8 49 30.6
Positive attitude 51 63.7 50 62.4 101 63.1
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 160 100.0 1.794 N. S
Sex of respondent:
Female Male Total
Negative attitude 4 16.7 6 4.4 10 6.25
Neutral 11 45.8 38 27.9 49 30.63
Positive attitude 9 37.5 92 67.7 101 63.12
Total 24 100.0 136 100.0 160 100 9.972*** 0.537***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; ***, N.S = Significant at 1% and not significant difference

Even though the previous settler farmers had slightly greater negative attitude towards
improved farming, almost nearly equal proportion of both settlers have positive attitude
towards improved farming. Chi-Square tests (χ2= 1.794, p= 0.408) indicate that there was no
significant difference between settlement categories in attitude towards improved farming.

The proportions of female respondents were higher in negative attitude and neutral attitude
towards improved farming. But more proportion of male farmers have positive attitudes
towards improved farming. Chi-Square tests (χ2=9.972, p= 0.007) indicated a significant
difference between male and female categories at less than 1% probability level, and Gamma
(= 0.537, p= 0.008) indicates there was significant, strong and positive relation towards male
at less than 1% probability level. Therefore, males have more positive attitude towards
improved farming than females. The possible reason of this difference is mostly the farming
activity and information provision was biased to the male side, so females may not have
awareness about the relative advantage of agricultural technologies and improved farming to
develop positive attitude.

107
[Link]. Innovation proneness

In the first stage, the respondent farmers were asked about the type of agricultural
technologies utilized and measured how quickly accepting these technologies based on pre-
specified measurements. The more frequent of accepting level were taken as the behavior of
the farmers. The survey result reveals the following finding in Table 46.

Table 46. Degree of innovation proneness based on settlement and sex categories

Settlement category
Quickness of
Previous
accepting new New settlers Total χ2-value Gamma
settlers
idea
№ % № % № %
Slowly accepting 28 35.0 26 32.5 54 33.8
Medium 48 60.0 38 47.5 86 53.8
Quickly accepting 4 5.0 16 20.0 20 12.5
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 160 100.0 8.437**
Sex of respondent:
Female Male Total
Slowly accepting 13 54.2 41 30.1 54 33.8
Medium 8 33.3 78 57.4 86 53.8
Quickly accepting 3 12.5 17 12.5 20 12.4
Total 24 100.0 136 100.0 160 100 5.677*** 0.334***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; **, *** = Significant at 1% and 5% level

According to the result, 12.5% of the respondents were accepting and utilizing new ideas
immediately after getting information or training, and others 53.8% of respondents were
accepting after consulting others who are more knowledgeable and having some experience in
using the information. The remaining 33.8% of the respondents accept and utilize new idea
after most of the people have accepted or adopted it. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
majority of the interviewed farmers in the study area needed certain type of demonstration
before accepting new agricultural technologies.

108
Almost equal number and proportion of previous and new settlers show the behavior of
accepting new idea slowly and more proportion of previous settlers resemble towards the
behavior of quickly accepting new idea than the new settlers. Chi-Square tests (χ2= 8.437, p=
0.015) indicated that there was significant difference between new and previous settler
categories in innovation proneness at 5% probability level. Therefore, the previous settlers
have slightly faster behavior of accepting new ideas than the new settlers.

Regarding the females and males, equal proportions of both sex accept new ideas quickly and
larger proportion of females were accepting new information very slowly than males. But the
proportion of males accepting new idea in medium speed was greater than that of females.
Chi-Square tests (χ2=5.677) indicate that there is a significant difference in quickly accepting
new agricultural technologies between sex categories at 1% probability level. Therefore,
behavior of males was quicker than females in accepting new agricultural technologies. The
possible reason of this difference is that mostly the male farmers are focusing in different
farming activities and considering the farm activities as their major duty, but most of the
female farmers rent their land for other farmers; as a result not involved directly like male
farmers in the farming activities. The other possible reason might be females are not fully
addressed in the process of new agricultural information provision, and that the absence of
newly repeated information and training may not fully express the innovation proneness of
females.

[Link]. Production motivation

Production motivation was operationally defined as the desire of the farmer to produce more
and more in the production process. Hence, the respondent farmers were asked about his/her
wish or plan at what level he/she needs to increase the production (4 point scale), methods
followed to improve the production (4 point scale), and number of agricultural technologies
that farmers’ plan to use in next year annual cropping season (maximum six number of
technologies taken from the survey result). A total of 14 points score were considered to
determine this variable. Finally, by assumption of normal distribution the scores were
(minimum = 0, maximum=14, mean =6.5 and Std. deviation = 4.7) divided into low, medium,

109
and high production motivation. Finally, the survey result reveals the following finding in
Table 47.

Table 47. Level of production motivation based on settlement and sex categories

Settlement category
Level of production
New settlers Previous settlers Total χ2-value
motivation
№ % № % № %
Low 26 32.5 18 22.4 44 27.5
Medium 50 62.5 39 48.8 89 55.6
High 4 5.0 23 28.8 27 16.9
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 160 100.0 16.184***
Sex of respondent:
Female Male Total
Low 11 45.8 33 24.3 44 27.5
Medium 11 45.8 78 57.4 89 55.6
High 2 8.2 25 18.3 27 16.9
Total 24 100.0 136 100.0 160 100.0 5.158*
Source: Own survey data, 2007; ***, * = Significant at 1% and 10%

Based on normal distribution result, respondents were categorized into three, and 27.5%,
55.6% and 16.9% were low, medium, and high production motivation, respectively based on
their scores. The majority of the respondents were found in medium production motivation.

The production motivation of previous settlers was 22.4%, 48.8% and 28.8% in low, medium
and high production motivation, respectively. Relatively the majority of the new settlers (95%)
proportion was found in low and medium production motivation, but the majority of the
previous settlers (77.6%) were found in medium and high level of production motivation. Chi-
Square tests (χ2= 16.184) indicate that there was significant difference between new and
previous settlers in production motivation behavior at 1% probability level. Therefore, the
previous settlers have more motives to produce more than the new settlers.

110
Relatively the majority of females (91.8%) were found in low and medium production
motivation, but the majority of males (75.7%) were found in medium and high level of
production motivation. Chi-Square tests (χ2= 5.158) indicate that there was significant
difference between sex categories in production motivation at 10% probability level.
Therefore, the male respondents have more production motivation behavior than female
respondents. The possible reason for this difference is that mostly the majority of male-headed
farmers have a full time involvement in different farming activities than FHHs; as a result the
male farmers may think and plan for more agricultural production, but most of the time female
headed farmers rent their land instead of actively involving themselves and planning to use
different agricultural technologies.

[Link]. Information seeking behavior

In this section, first six major agricultural information sources (office of agriculture,
radio/television, input dealers, market place, friends/neighbors and other farmers) and 13
major agricultural activities in the study area were identified in consultation with woreda
experts. The information needs of these agricultural activities were rated in 3 level frequency
(0 = Never, 1 = Some times, 2 =Always), and depending on the need to get new information,
each respondent was evaluated out of 26 scores. Totally this variable have 32 scores value.

Hence, the respondent farmers were asked the number of their agricultural information source
(out of six) and frequency of need to get new information to increases the production (out of
26). Finally, by assumption of normal distribution the scores were (minimum = 0, maximum=
31, mean = 16.9 and Std. deviation = 7.4) divide to low, medium and high information seeking
behavior. The survey result reveals the following finding in Table 48.

111
Table 48. Degree of information seeking behavior based on settlement categories

Level of Settlement category

information seeking New settlers Previous settlers Total Chi-Square
behavior № % № % № %
Low 13 16.3 11 13.7 24 15.0
Medium 62 77.4 48 60.0 110 68.7
High 5 6.3 21 26.3 26 16.3
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 160 100.0 11.795***
Source: Own survey data, 2007; *** Significant at 1%

Based on normal distribution result (Table 48), the respondents were categorized into three
categories with 15.5%, 68.7% and 16.3% in low, medium and high information seeking
behavior, respectively. The majority of the respondents were found in medium information
seeking behavior.

The majority of new settlers were found in low and medium level of information seeking
behavior, but the majority of previous settlers are found in medium and high level of
information seeking behavior. Chi-Square tests (χ2= 11.795) indicate that there was significant
difference between new and previous settler in level of information seeking behavior at 1%
probability level. Therefore, the previous settlers had more information seeking behavior than
the new settlers. Regarding the information seeking behavior of male and female respondents,
chi-Square test (χ2= 4.468) indicates that there was no significant difference between them.

4.5. Relationship between dependent and independent variables

Before passing to the Tobit econometric model analysis part, it is probably important to
summarize the degree of association between dependent and independent variables, so that
this section covers the findings on relationship between dependent and independent variables
(11 continuous and 6 dummy/discrete). To analysis the relationship between dependent and
independent variables Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation and Spearman’s rho were
employed for continuous and for discrete/dummy variables respectively. The summarized
results are presented in Table 49 and 50.

112
Table 49. Relationship between dependent and discrete/dummy independent variables

Access Utilization
Variables
rho p rho p
Demographic variables
1 Sex of respondent 0.185** 0.019 0.038 N.S 0.668
2 Education level 0.306*** 0.000 0.156* 0.074
3 Settlement category 0.216*** 0.006 0.284*** 0.001
4 Settlement orientation 0.012 N.S 0.876 0.009 N.S 0.916
Institutional variables
1 Frequency of market visiting 0.339*** 0.000 0.205** 0.019
Psychological variables
1 Innovation proneness 0.631*** 0.000 0.602*** 0.000
***, **, *, N.S = significant at 1%, 5%, 10% level and not significant at 10% ; rho = Spearman’s rho
Source: survey data analysis result

Table 50. Relationship between dependent and continuous independent variables

Access Utilization
Variables
r p r p
Demographic variables
1 Age of respondents -0.163** 0.039 -0.100 N.S 0.254
2 Health status of H.H -0.202** 0.011 -0.235*** 0.007
Socio-economic variables
1 On farm income 0.163** 0.040 0.179** 0.041
2 Off farm income 0.008 N.S 0.921 0.017 N.S 0.848
3 Mobility of H.H -0163** 0.039 -0.085 N.S 0.332
Institutional variables
1 Social participation 0.310*** 0.000 0.232*** 0.008
2 Credit Access 0.318*** 0.000 0.324*** 0.000
3 Distance of market -0.261*** 0.001 -0.236*** 0.007
Psychological variables
1 Attitude towards improved farming 0.294*** 0.000 0.226*** 0.009
2 Production motivation 0.615*** 0.000 0.573*** 0.000
3 Information seeking behavior 0440*** 0.000 0.360*** 0.000
***, **, N.S = significant at 1%, 5% level and not significant at 10% ; rho = Spearman’s rho
Source: survey data analysis result

113
The result of the correlation analyses shown that, among seventeen (17) explanatory variables
fifty of (15) of them had shown significant relationship with access to agricultural information.
Accordingly, education level, settlement category, frequency of market visiting, social
participation, distance of market, credit Access, attitude towards improved farming,
production motivation , innovation proneness and information seeking behavior at 1%
significant level; and sex of respondent, age of respondents, health status of H.H, on farm
income and mobility of H.H at 5% significant level. Among these significant variables age,
health status, mobility of H.H and distance of market had shown negative relationship. But
settlement orientation and off farm income did not have significant relation with agricultural
information access.

On the other hand, among these seventeen (17) explanatory variables, twelve (12) of them had
shown significant relationship with utilization of agricultural information. Accordingly,
settlement category, innovation proneness, health status of H.H, social participation, credit
access, distance of market, attitude towards improved farming, production motivation and
information seeking behavior at 1% significant level; frequency of market visiting and on farm
income at 5% significant level and education level at 10% significant level. Among these
significant variables health status and distance of market had shown negative relationship. But
the remaining five variables sex of respondent, settlement orientation, age of respondents, off
farm income and mobility of H.H did not have significant relationship with the utilization of
agricultural information.

In the case of settlement orientation variable, correlation analysis shows that there was no
significant relationship with access and utilization of agricultural information. But the result of
Tobit model reveal that (section 4.6.1), this variable have strong influence on access to and
utilization of agricultural information. This difference exhibits the absence of linear relation
ship with the dependent variable.

114
4.6. Results of the Tobit Econometric Model

In the preceding parts of this thesis, the descriptive analysis and bivariate analysis of important
independent variables, which are expected to have influence on access to and utilization of
agricultural information have been presented. Identification of these factors alone is however
not enough to stimulate policy actions unless the relative influence of each factor is known for
priority based intervention.

In this section, the econometric model known as Tobit model was used to see the relative
influence of different demographic, socio-economic, institutional and psychological variables
on access and intensity of access, and utilization and intensity of agricultural information
utilization. List of variables to be included in the model are presented in Appendix 8. Prior to
the estimation of the model parameters, it is crucial to look into the problem of
multicollinearity among the potential candidate variables

Test for Multicollinearity

Before running the Tobit model all the hypothesized explanatory variables were checked for
the existence of multi-collinearity problem. There are two measures that are often suggested to
test the existence of mulit-collineality. These are: Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for
association among the continuous explanatory variables and contingency coefficients for
dummy/discrete variables.

1
According to Maddala (1992), VIF can be defined as: VIF (Xi) = , Where Ri2 is the
1 − Ri2
squared multiple correlation coefficient between Xi and the other explanatory variables. A
statistical package known as SPSS was employed to compute the VIF values. Once VIF values
were obtained the R2 values can be computed using the formula. To this end, the variance
inflation factor (VIF) and contingency coefficient test was computed for separately for the two
dependent variables (Table 51 and 52).

115
Table 51. Variance inflation factor for the continuous explanatory variables for both
dependent variables

Access to Utilization of
Variables
Tolerance VIF Tolerance VIF
AGERESP .843 1.186 .851 1.175
HEALTHHH .936 1.069 .900 1.111
ONFARINC .703 1.423 .706 1.416
OFFINCO .957 1.044 .937 1.067
MOBILITY .779 1.284 .804 1.244
SOCIALPA .778 1.285 .838 1.193
CREDIT .670 1.492 .681 1.468
MARKTDIS .757 1.321 .725 1.379
ATTCIMFA .721 1.386 .820 1.220
PROMOTIV .442 2.260 .599 1.668
INFOSEEK .590 1.695 .618 1.619
Source: Computation from field survey data, 2007.

Table 52. Contingency coefficient for dummy and discrete independent variables

Access to Utilization of
Variables
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 SEXRESP 1 1
2 EDULEVEL 0.284 1 0.272 1
3 SETLMEOR 0.031 0.188 1 0.078 0.202 1
4 MARKTFRE 0.188 0.212 0.163 1 0.068 0.224 0.241 1
5 SETTLCAT 0 0.267 0.189 0.243 1 0.047 0.258 0.186 0.169 1
6 INNOPRON 0.185 0.361 0.129 0.308 0.224 0.060 0.371 0.173 0.277 0.246
Source: Computation from field survey data, 2007.

116
The values of VIF for continuous variables were found to be less than 10. To avoid serious
problem of multicollinearity, it is quite essential to omit the variables with VIF value greater
than or equal to 10 from Tobit analysis. Based on VIF result, the data have no serious problem
of multicollinearity in access to agricultural information dependent variable. But one
independent variable information seeking behavior VIF value on the dependent variable
utilization of agricultural information shows greater than 10 values, so that this value should
be dropped from the Tobit model analysis.

Similarly the contingency coefficient result indicates that the data have no serious problem of
multicollinearity. The variable access to agricultural information and utilization of agricultural
information was used as a continuous dependent variable. Eventually, 11 continuous and 6
discrete, a total of 17 independent variables for access dependent variable were used in the
Tobit model. Similarly 10 continuous and 6 dummy/discrete, a total of 16 independent
variables for utilization dependent variable were used in the Tobit model (Information seeing
behavior dropped from the Tobit model analysis).

4.6.1. Determinants of agricultural information access and intensity of access and

utilization and intensity of utilization

Estimates of the parameters of the variables expected to determine the access and intensity of
agricultural information access of respondents are presented in Table 53. A total of 17
explanatory variables were considered to be included into the econometric model out of which
eight variables were found to be significantly influence access and intensity of agricultural
information access. These include settlement category, education level, settlement orientation,
innovation proneness and production motivation at 1% significance level; and age of
household head, frequency of market visiting and credit access at 5% significance level.

A total of 16 explanatory variables were considered to be included into the econometric model
out of which eight variables were found to significantly influence agricultural information
utilization and intensity of agricultural information utilization. These include, education level,
settlement category, innovation proneness and production motivation at 1% significance level;

117
age of household head and settlement orientation at 5% significance level; and frequency of
market visiting and credit utilization at 10% significance level (Table 53).

Age: The result of the study has shown that age of household head was negatively influenced
access and intensity of agricultural information access at 5% significance level. The probable
reason of this result is that the young farmers are eager and need information, but the older
farmers are not. The study conducted by Haba (2004) in Rwanda reveals that, older farmers
were less willing to get information than younger ones. Similarly, Katungi (2006), on his
social capital and information exchange study in rural Uganda reveal that older men are less
likely to engage in simultaneous receiving and providing of information, perhaps due to the
low ability to communicate associated with old age. As indicted in Table 54, a unit increase in
age of the household head would decrease the probability of agricultural information access
and intensity of access by 0.026% and 0.001% respectively.

This variable also negatively influences agricultural information utilization and intensity of
agricultural information utilization at 5% significance level. One of the possible reasons for
negative relationship is that, elder people are usually reluctant to utilize different new
information or agricultural technologies due to their risk aversive behavior. But young farmers
are sensitive to get and consequently utilize information and agricultural technologies. As
indicted in Table 54, a unit increase in age of the household head would decrease the
probability of agricultural information utilization and intensity of utilization by 0.070% and
0.020% respectively.

Regarding the utilization of agricultural information, a study conducted by Teklewold et al.,

(2006) on the adoption of poultry technology, in Debre Zeit, Ethiopia, indicated that farmers'
decision on level of adoption of exotic poultry breed were negatively influenced by age of the
household head. Mulugeta, (1994), in his study also reported that, age had a negative effect on
the adoption of wheat technologies in South Eastern high lands of Ethiopia. In the same line,
Kidane, (2001) on the study he conducted on factors influencing adoption of improved wheat
and maize varieties in Hawzien Wereda of Tigray found that age was negatively related with
farmers’ adoption of improved wheat variety.

118
Education level: It has a positive influence on agricultural information access and intensity of
access at 1% significance level and accounted for about 5.5% of the variation (Table 53). This
result indicates that, encouraging the rural people’s education will enhance the interest of
getting, understanding of scientific agricultural information. As indicted in Table 54, an
increase in household’s education level by one unit results in an increase in the probability of
agricultural information access and intensity of access by 0.47% and 0.12% respectively.

This variable has also a positive influence on utilization of agricultural information and
intensity of utilization at 1% significance level and accounted about 4.7% of the variation
(Table 53). This result shows that improvement in the rural people’s education program will
enhance the utilization of agricultural information and technology. As indicted in Table 54, an
increase in household’s education level by one unit results in an increase in the probability of
agricultural information utilization and intensity of utilization by 0.92% and 0.67%
respectively.

One of the possible reasons for this relation is, as the farmers’ education level increase the
ability to obtain information, process, understand and consequently utilization of agricultural
information also increase. Also such farmers had good communication with the DAS and
served as model farmers, so that they will have more exposure for agricultural information,
information utilization and technology utilization.

The finding of this study is in agreement with many of the previously conducted studies. A
study conducted by Katungi (2006), reveal that, educated farmers have more information
access. Pipy, (2006), also found that, significant difference between different educational level
in poultry production sources of information and utilization of information. Others like (World
Bank 1980, 48 as cited in Tweeten, 1997) found that, as the level of education increase, the
utilization of agricultural input also increase. Similarly, Itana (1985); Chilot et al. (1996);
Kansana (1996); and Tesfaye (2001) have reported positive and significant relationship of
education with adoption. Therefore either directly or indirectly understanding levels of farmers
have role in agricultural development.

119
Settlement category: As indicated in Table 53, this variable has positively influenced access
and intensity of agricultural information access at 1% significance level. This variable
accounted about 9.9% of the variation in access and intensity of agricultural information
access. As indicted in Table 54, a household’s head being previous settler, results in an
increase in the probability of agricultural information access and intensity of access by 0.70%
and 0.20% respectively

Utilization of agricultural information and intensity of utilization also influenced by settlement

category at 1% significance level. This variable accounted about 11.9% of the variation in
agricultural information utilization and intensity of utilization. The descriptive statistics result
of this variable clearly indicated that agricultural information utilization inclines towards the
previous settler side. Therefore, attention should be give for new settlers in agricultural
information provision and other facilities for utilization. As indicted in Table 54, a
household’s head being previous settler, results in an increase in the probability of agricultural
information utilization and intensity of utilization by 2.1% and 1.3% respectively.

The descriptive analysis result clearly indicated that, agricultural information provision
generally biased towards the previous settler side. The new settlers are being ignored in the
provision of agricultural information and not considered as one development actor. Also
previous settlers have more familiarity with the existing agro ecology, good communication
with the DAs, they are resource rich etc, so that they are suited to agricultural information
access than the new settlers, especially these situations have attractive future for quota
extension system.

Settlement orientation: From the currently resettlement program only 25.27% of H.H remain
in the new settlement area, but the remaining 74.73% of H.H returned to their original place.
From the remaining settlers, those having poor feeling of staying in the settlement area were
found with poor agricultural information access than having good interest of staying. The
model result indicates that, this variable positively and significantly influenced access and
intensity of agricultural information access of respondents at 1% significant level and
accounted for 6.5% of the variation. As indicted in Table 54, a unit increase in household’s

120
feeling of staying in the new settlement area would increase in the probability of agricultural
information access and intensity of access by 0.52% and 0.15% respectively.

Those farmers having good interest of staying in the new settlement area, also shown
progressive utilization of agricultural information than having poor feeling of staying in the
settlement area. This variable positively and significantly influenced agricultural information
utilization and intensity of utilization of respondents at 5% significant level and accounted for
4.7% of the variation. As indicted in Table 54, a unit increase in household’s feeling of staying
in the new settlement area would increase in the probability of agricultural information
utilization and intensity of utilization by 0.99% and 0.69% respectively. Therefore, to achieve
successful resettlement program, attention should be given during the provision of
resettlement program information in the highland areas, with clear idea about the new
settlement area, activities and resettlement program.

Access to credit: it has positive and significant influence on agricultural information access
and intensity of access at 5% significance level and accounted for 0.01% of the variation. The
provision of agricultural credit access from formal institution is usually supported by
agricultural information from DAs and cooperatives, depending on the purpose of credit
addressing agricultural technologies. Probably also those farmers having access to credit will
be enhanced to search agricultural information in order to utilize different agricultural
technologies. Farmers having credit access also will have good communication with DAs.
These entire situations lead them to obtain and utilize agricultural information than those who
have no access to formal credit. As indicated in the descriptive statistics part, the credit
accesses of new settlers especially from the formal institutions were extremely limited.
Therefore, the new settlers were not benefited from this advantage. A unit increase in
household’s credit would increase in the probability of agricultural information access and
intensity of access by 0.001% and 0.001% respectively.

Access to credit had positive and significant influence on the likelihood of agricultural
information utilization and intensity of utilization at 10% significance level and accounted for
0.01% of the variation. From this result it can be stated that those farmers who have access to

121
formal credit for production packages are more probable to utilize agricultural information and
technologies than those who have no access to formal credit. As indicted in Table 54, a unit
increase in household’s credit would increase in the probability of agricultural information
utilization and intensity of utilization by 0.001% and 0.001% respectively. As indicated in the
descriptive statistics part, the credit accesses of new settlers especially from the formal
institution were extremely limited. Therefore the new settlers were not benefited from the
utilization of cash requiring agricultural information and technology utilization.

As indicated in Appendix Table 6, the major purpose utilizing the credit service was related to
agricultural activities. Therefore, those farmers having more credit access invested on different
agricultural technologies. That implies the accessible information was changed into practice.
Especially those farmers having credit access from formal institution would be closely
supported and supervised by DAs, so that they will be directly engaged to utilize the
accessible agricultural information. Similar to this research finding, different studies had
shown that access to credit plays a significant role in enhancing the use of improved varieties.
(Legesse, 1992; Chilot et al., 1996; Teressa, 1997; Lelissa, 1998; Bezabih, 2000; Tesfaye et
al., 2001) they reported that access to credit had a significant and positive influence on the
adoption behavior of farmers regarding improved technologies. Therefore, the access of credit
had important role in the utilization of agricultural information.

Frequency of visiting nearby market: It is one of the important events that play a role by
serving as the source of agricultural information for farmers. The result of the study has shown
it has a positive influence on access and intensity of access at 5% significance level and
accounted for about 6.1% of the variation. During group discussion, the participants explained
that the market area and the office of DAs were found around the same site at the center of
PA; hence, the farmers were using that market day to visit DA’s concerning different issue of
agricultural problems. Farmers also indicated the presence of agricultural information
exchange with the neighbor PA farmers during that day through their social communication
network. Moreover, almost all interviewed DA’s explained that market day is the best day to
communicate with the farmers and incorporate in their plan to use that day as one way of
disseminating current agricultural issues. As indicted in Table 54, an increase in household’s

122
market visiting frequency by one unit results in an increase in the probability of agricultural
information access and intensity of access by 0.50% and 0.14% respectively

Frequency of market visiting by household head has also positively influenced agricultural
information utilization and intensity of utilization at 10% significance level and accounted
about 4.9% of the variation. As indicted in Table 54, an increase in household’s market
visiting frequency by one unit results in an increase in the probability of agricultural
information utilization and intensity of utilization by 0.80% and 0.34% respectively. Probably
repeated local market visiting helps them to buy different agricultural input available in the
shop such as insecticides, herbicides. Input distributions are also carried out around this area.
Therefore, more frequent visiting of market have important role in the sharing and utilization
of agricultural information. In line with this research, study conducted by Katungi (2006) in
Uganda reveals that, meetings in market places play important role for the exchange of
agricultural information.

Innovation proneness: has positively influenced access and intensity of agricultural

information access at 1% significance level. This variable accounted about 16% of the
variation in access and intensity of agricultural information access. As indicted in Table 54, an
increase in household’s level of innovation proneness by one unit results in an increase in the
probability of agricultural information access and intensity of access by 1.51% and 0.53%
respectively

The model result shown that, utilization and intensity of utilization of agricultural information
positively influenced by this variable at 1% significance level. Those farmers having the
behavior of quickly accept or adopt new idea will be utilizing different agricultural
information than those slowly accept. This variable accounted for about 1.5% of the variation
in agricultural information utilization and intensity of agricultural information utilization. As
indicted in Table 54, an increase in household’s level of innovation proneness by one unit
results in an increase in the probability of agricultural information utilization and intensity of
utilization by 3.46% and 1.10% respectively.

123
The presence of such behavior enhances the farmers to get agricultural information due to
their behavior of quickly accept or adopt new idea and consequently utilize the accessible
agricultural information than other farmers. Farmers having such type of behavior will be seen
as a model farmer in the rural area; especially DAs had good communication with such type of
farmers. Similar to this research finding, a study conducted in Dire Dawa administrative
council, eastern Ethiopia, Asres (2005) reported that innovation proneness was statistically
significant relationship with access to reproductive, productive and community role
information of women.

Production motivation: It is one of the important variables that explain the motivation
behavior of individual. It influenced access and intensity of agricultural information access
positively at 1% significance level and accounted about 1.8% of variation. As indicted in
Table 54, a unit increase in household’s level of production motivation would increase in the
probability of agricultural information access and intensity of access by 0.15% and 0.02%
respectively.

Production motivation has a positive influence on agricultural information utilization and

intensity of utilization at 1% significance level and accounted about 1.6% of variation (Table
53). The probable reason of this is, farmer having strong desire to produce more and more in
the production process, will seek and utilize more information and agricultural technologies.
As indicted in Table 54, a unit increase in household’s level of production motivation would
increase in the probability of agricultural information utilization and intensity of utilization by
0.33% and 0.12% respectively.

124
Table 53. Maximum Likelihood Estimates of Tobit model for access and utilization dependent variables

Access to Utilization of
Explanatory
Estimated Standard P-
Variables Estimated Coefficients Standard Error t-ratio P-value t-ratio
Coefficients Error value
Constant -1.209 0.156 -7.758*** .0000 -1.005 0.162 -6.212*** 0.000
AGERESP -0.003 0.002 -2.075** .0380 -0.003 0.002 -2.092** 0.036
SEXRESP 0.047 0.045 1.042 .2973 0.006 0.047 0.159 0.873
EDULEVEL 0.055 0.015 3.672*** .0002 0.047 0.015 3.053*** 0.002
SETTLCAT 0.099 0.033 2.98*** .0029 0.119 0.034 3.470*** 0.000
HEALTHHH -0.001 0.001 -1.364 .1727 -0.002 0.002 -1.268 0.204
SETLMEOR 0.065 0.02 3.176*** .0015 0.047 0.020 2.277** 0.022
ONFARINC 0.001 0.001 1.619 .1055 0.002 0.001 1.330 0.183
OFFINCOM -0.001 -0.001 -0.413 .6797 -0.001 0.001 -0.650 0.515
MOBILITY -0.001 0.001 -0.193 .8466 -0.002 0.001 -0.971 0.331
CREDIT 0.001 0.001 2.034** .0420 0.001 0.001 1.771* 0.076
MARKTFRE 0.061 0.024 2.54** .0111 0.049 0.026 1.900* 0.057
MARKTDIS -0.001 0.002 -0.267 .7897 -0.001 0.002 -0.131 0.895
SOCIALPA 0.003 0.003 1.004 .3156 0.002 0.003 0.538 0.590
ATTCIMFA 0.013 0.008 1.533 .1252 0.010 0.009 1.141 0.254
INNOPRON 0.160 0.026 6.225*** .0000 0.15 0.028 5.718*** 0.000
PROMOTIV 0.018 0.004 4.232*** .0000 0.016 0.004 3.780*** 0.000
INFOSEEK 0 0.002 0.139 .8895 -- -- -- --
Sigma 0.15 0.009 16.346*** .0000 0.149 0.009 15.907*** 0.000
Log likelihood function = 55.06819 Log likelihood function = 59.28520
2
ANOVA based fit measure(R ) =0.493797 ANOVA based fit measure (R2) = 0. 413066
p= 0.000 P= 0.000
Source: survey data model output (2007
***, ** = Significance at 1% and at 5% probability level respectively

125
Table 54. Marginal Effects of agricultural information access and utilization determinant variables

Access Utilization
Change in Change in the Change in
Change in the
intensity of probability of intensity of
Variables probability of
agricultural Total change agricultural agricultural Total change
agricultural
information information information
information access
access utilize utilize

ONE -.09491 -.00011 -1.10848 -.19674 -.00735 -.94077

SECANEPR .00704 .00201 .08227 .02133 .01321 .10199
EDULEVEL .00474 .00121 .05531 .00923 .00671 .04414
SETLMEOR .00529 .00151 .06181 .00991 .00691 .04738
MARKTFRE .00506 .00141 .05910 .00806 .00345 .03856
AGERESP -.00026 -.00001 -.00305 -.00070 -.00020 -.00333
CREDIT .00001 .00001 .00001 .00001 .00001 .00002
INNOPRON .01510 .00532 .17633 .03463 .01102 .16560
PROMOTIV .00158 .00021 .01848 .00335 .00120 .01603
Source: survey data model output.

126
4.7. Constraints of Access to and Utilization of Agricultural Information

The study also tried to identify different constraints that hinder the effectiveness of
agricultural information access and utilization. To identify constraints in accessing and
utilization of agricultural information, experts’ suggestion and literature review were
considered ahead of data collection. In the next stage, further refining and adjustment were
taken during the pilot study. Respondents were asked to evaluate as ‘not a constraint’,
‘somewhat important constraint’ and ‘very important constraint’ for each of the listed items
based on his/her feeling. For each problem 0, 1 and 2 values were given corresponding to the
degree of the constraints. Finally, the sums of each constraint, values were taken as the scores
of that problem. The highest score was taken as the major constraint and the least score was
taken as the minor problem of access to and utilization of agricultural information.

4.7.1. Constraints that Inhibit settler farmers from Access to agricultural information

The rank constraint to all respondents and separately based on settlement categories are
presented as follows.

Table 55. Rank order of information access constraints given by sample respondents (n= 160).

Previous
New settlers Total
No Constraint of Access settlers
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
1 Lack of DAs appropriate support 109 1 102 1 211 1
2 Lack of money (earlier thinking that
unable to implement) 105 2 76 3 181 2
3 Low educational level 89 4 91 2 180 3
4 Development agent’s bias 90 3 75 4 165 4
5 Long distance of institutions 67 5 64 5 131 5
6 Cultural influence 42 6 52 6 94 6
7 Information not address my interest 32 7 44 7 76 7
Source: own survey data, 2007

127
As indicated in Table 55, poor support of DAs was the first rank of agricultural information
access constraint as revealed by the total respondents. This problem was the first rank for new
and previous settlers. During group discussion as the farmers said, “even if enough number of
DAs assigned at PA level, but all of them are living at the center of PA without visiting and
supporting the farmers’ agricultural activities”. In public extension system, the provision of
agricultural information highly depends on the Government employed DAs. In the absence of
appropriate support of DAs, the provision of agricultural information could not be successful.

The second constraint described by all respondents was isolation of farmers from the contact
of development agents by considering themselves as extremely poor, (thinking ahead that
unable to implement if I get information). This was the second rank constraint for new settlers
and third rank for previous settlers. These farmers believe that, the issue of modern
agricultural information finally requires money and not considering as their issue, due to their
poor finical capacity. Therefore these farmers are isolated from development agents and
discourage to search or give attention to modern agricultural information.

The third constraint indicated by all respondents was their low educational level. This problem
was in forth rank for new settlers and second rank for previous settlers. As described in the
group’ discussion, their low educational level limited them from many things. This constraint
described by the respondents as, ‘we are illiterate; mostly we could not understand easily the
modern agricultural technologies. If we were educated, we can read written material and
accept the new idea as the DAs want’. The respondent farmers strongly believed that educated
farmers can understand and search for the modern agricultural information.

The fourth constraint revealed by total respondents was development agent’s bias. A
development agent bias was the third rank problem for new settlers and forth ranks for
previous settlers. Most of the new settler farmers believed that, DAs had frequent contact with
the previous settler farmers and gave less attention to the new settlers. On the other hand,
some of the previous settlers also believed that invitation of training and good communication
of DAs were biased towards the resource rich farmers. Therefore, in the absence of fair
development agent communication, the agricultural information access will be limited and the

128
farmers will be developing extreme dislike for agricultural institutions. But, the DAs also
justify that those farmers they contacted were the model farmers and plays important role in
the dissemination of new agricultural information

The fifth constraint revealed by the respondents was long distance of institutions (development
agents’ and PA administration office). This problem was the fifth rank for both settlers
category. The detail concept of this problem was partly related to the first problem. The DAs’
office found at the center of peasant association. Some of the farmers’ residence found far
from the PA center (18 km) and the DAs did not visit those farmers frequently. These farmers
are expected to travel long distance to get agricultural assistance from the DAs. Especially, the
newly established new settlers’ villages are far away from the DAs office which exposes them
for this problem.

The sixth constraint revealed by the respondents was cultural influence and it has similar rank
for both settlers’ category. As the respondent farmers explained that, cultural/religious issues
influence on their contact with the development agents. For example, “Our religion (Muslim)
does not allow taking credit with annual interest rate but creating good communication with
DAs has an influence to take input with credit,”. Therefore, in order to alleviate this problem,
they were limiting communication with the DAs.

The seventh constraint revealed by the respondents was information not required to me (not
addressing my interest). This problem was the seventh rank for both settlers. As the group
discussion participant farmers clarify that, “the development agent efforts do not address our
immediate problems while they will force us to take different agricultural inputs without our
interest through quota system. And also we are not benefited from the new technologies. In
order to alleviate this problem, we were limiting communication with the DAs”. Therefore,
they are not interested to create close contact with the development agents.

129
4.7.2. Constraints that Inhibit settler farmers from Utilization of the accessible
agricultural information

The study of identifying constraint that inhibit utilization of agricultural information is one of
important factor that helps to make some amendments in the information provider side and to
create good enabling situation for utilization of information.

Reasons for not utilizing the accessible information for each method/sources were presented in
access to and utilization of agricultural section (section 4.1). In this section, all the respondents
were asked to reveal the constraints of agricultural information utilization. The major
constraints are presented in the following Table.

Table 56 Rank order of constraints to utilize the agricultural information

Previous
New settler Total
No Constraint of utilization settler
Score Rank Score Rank score Rank
1 Lack of credit for technology input purchase 149 1 66 4 215 1
2 Not suitable to the agro-ecological con 73 4 95 1 168 2
3 Not suitable to my economic status 111 3 55 6 166 3
4 It is not timely /season relevant 68 5 88 2 156 4
5 Lack of land 131 2 15 7 146 5
6 Thief problem 62 6 78 3 140 6
7 The information is for ideal conditions
only 60 7 58 5 118 7
Source: own survey data, 2007

Lack of credit for technology input purchase was the first rank of constraint to utilize
agricultural information. It was the first and forth rank of new and previous settlers’ farmers’
problem respectively. In the study area, usually every household employ daily laborer in his
farm land due to the labor demanding nature of cash crop management. Beside the utilization
of different agricultural technologies, such situation leads them to look credit supply.

Unsuitability of the information to the prevailing agro-ecological conditions was the second
rank of problem to all respondents. During group discussion the farmers explained that most

130
of the information provided by the DAs not suitable to the existing situation. For example the
DAs always telling them the importance of artificial fertilizer, but lack of soil fertility is not a
major problem and it has toxic effect to plants in that locality due to high temperature.
Similarly, the information of broad bed maker is not fitting to the area due to high sticky
nature of the soil and unavailability of oxen for repeated plowing.

The third constraint described by respondents was unsuitability of the information to the
farmers’ economic status. These groups of respondents have different agricultural information.
But, they don’t want to take risk by investing on these technologies, due to their low risk
bearing capacity. It is the third and sixth rank of problem for new and previous settlers
respectively.

Lack of agricultural information provision in the appropriate time is the forth problem reveal
by respondent. Some of agricultural information not provided in the appropriate season and
time. For example, the DAs provide the availability of high yielding varity of seed information
during the sowing time after farmers prepared their own local seed.

Lack of own land is fifth problem. Some of the previous settlers, particularly the new settlers
are plowing rented land from other farmers. This group of farmers not interested to utilize
fertilizer, herbicides, soil conservation and fertility maintenance technologies etc on rented
land, due to the low guarantee of next cropping season utilization.

Thief problem is another constraint revealed by respondent. The presence of illegal livestock
market in Ethiopia-Sudan border inhibits them to utilize different agricultural technologies
related to livestock. So that farmers mostly selling their oxen immediately after sowing the
crop. Specially, fattening and other cattle related technologies are not utilized due to this
problem.

The last constraint revealed by all the respondents was the information are ideal and difficult
to implement. Some of the information provided by DAs are difficult to convert into practice,
specially agricultural information obtained from different mass media. Therefore farmers need
certain type of demonstration.

131
 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

Starting from 2003 the Government of Ethiopia has been implementing a resettlement
program in different parts of the country by mobilizing the people from the drought-prone
highland areas to the relatively unpopulated fertile low land areas. In Amhara region Metema
woreda is one of the selected settlement areas and the activity was done for the last three years
(2003-2005).

For the farming households that are newly settled, the farming system in the new area is not
similar to their experience in highlands. So extension service is expected to assist and provide
agricultural information in order to improve the production and productivity of the farmers,
enabling them to achieve food security and income generation. Therefore, this study is aimed
to assess the new and previous settler farmer access to and utilization of agricultural
information from the extension service and as well as to identify constraints and influencing
factors access to and utilization of agricultural information.

A two stage random sampling technique was employed to identify PAs and then respondents.
In the first stage of sampling, three PAs were selected purposively from six settlement PAs
and the respondents were stratified into new settler and previous settler categories. Equal
numbers of sample respondents were allocated for each category and sex was also considered.
In the second stage of sampling, probability proportional to size sampling technique was
applied to each stratum and 160 sample [Link] drawn from these stratum based on the stratum
proportion. Farmers were interviewed using pre-tested and structured interview schedule.

The primary data sources were both new and previous settler farmers, as well as DAs and
subject matter specialists on various aspects of access and utilization of agricultural
information of farmers. Secondary data sources were documents, reports of DAs and woreda
rural development and agricultural office, and other related institutions. The sources of
qualitative data were previous and new settler farmers through focus group discussion, key

132
informant interviews and personal observations. The qualitative data have served as a
supplementary to quantitative data.

Data were analyzed using descriptive statistical tools such as mean, percentage, ranking,
standard deviation, T-test, χ2-test, Cramer’s V, Gamma, Spearman Correlation Coefficient
(rho), and Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) (Sarantakos, 1988) based on
the level of measurement of the variables involved. Tobit model was used to analyze the
influence of several independent variables on access to and utilization of agricultural
information.

In the study area agricultural extension service is the major source of agricultural information.
Seven agricultural information sources and methods, and 26 information requiring relevant
agricultural activates were identified with the collaboration of woreda experts and DAs. The
respondents’ information accesses to those 26 activities from the seven information sources
and methods were rated with properly designed access frequencies. The same procedure was
applied for utilization of agricultural information from the accessed information.

The settler farmers’ agricultural information access from training related to cotton; sesame,
sorghum, vegetable and fruit production, from livestock production training; goat production,
cattle fattening and modern honey production, from natural resource production and
conservation aspects; importance of tree plantation, forest firebreak line establishment,
community forest utilization and management, soil fertility maintenance, and utilization of
fuel saving stove information were assessed separately. Statistically there were significant
difference between new and previous settlement categories and the new settlers training access
was limited than the previous settlers.

From the total respondent, 16.67% (4) of FHHs and 22.79% (31) MHHs obtain information
from training in different agricultural activities. The proportion of FHHs participation in
different crop production, livestock and natural resource conservation and management
training were lower than MHHs. Moreover, their proportion seems more or less good
participation of females, but their number is small due to low sampling size. Generally, the

133
training provision from extension service biased towards male headed household heads. Such
situations restrict the role of women in agricultural development.

Among group extension methods, the participation of both settler categories in field days,
demonstration and visit out of the study area were also very low in number; especially the new
settlers’ participation and agricultural information access from these methods were limited and
statistically there was significant difference between new and previous settlement categories.
Similarly the FHHs’ agricultural information accesses from these methods were lower than
MHHs, especially the participation in visiting program all of them were males. Therefore, the
new settlers and FHHs’ agricultural information access were poorer than the previous settlers’
and males headed households respectively.

In addition to group extension method, the DAs also provide formal extension advisory
service to the farmers. From this important extension method, the information access of the
respondent farmers was very low in number, especially the new settlers’ and FHHs’ access
was very limited and there was highly significant formal extension advice service difference
between the two settlement categories and sex categories. Also less frequent contact between
DAs and respondent farmers prevailed to the new settlement and female category.

Generally, except from seasonal extension orientation and mass media information access, in
all cases the extension service, the support of DAs and provision of agricultural information
biased towards the previous settler side, so that the new settler farmers’ agricultural
information access was very limited. Within this limited agricultural information provision,
especially the new settlers will not be efficiently familiarized and productive in the new agro
ecology. From the survey result, frequency of information access reveals that, only few
farmers were invited repeatedly for training program.

In the case of female respondents, the over all participation in training, field day,
demonstration, visits, seasonal extension orientation and individual advisory service were
biased towards the MHHs, so that the female farmers’ agricultural information access was
very limited. To improve the rural women’s economic status and to bring agricultural

134
development, attention should be given for them in agricultural human resource development.
Within this limited females’ agricultural information access and undermining their role,
agricultural development will not be successful.

Regarding the utilization of accessible agricultural information, except few respondents the
majority of the farmers utilized the accessible sesame, cotton, sorghum, fruit and vegetable
agricultural information with different degree of utilization. Livestock production such as goat
production, cattle fattening, honey production and animal feed collection and preservation
methods more than 63% of respondents utilized the accessible information with different
degrees of utilization. In natural resource production and conservation information, except few
farmers all of them have utilized the accessible information with different degrees of
utilization with more frequent utilization levels for the previous settlers. The female headed
respondents utilized the obtained different training information comparable to MHHs.
Therefore, these points assure that the farmers can utilize agricultural information, if they
exposed to well-organized agricultural information. But the information accesses were limited,
especially for new settlers and FHHs.

The information utilization of new settler respondent farmers from field days, demonstration
and visit was lower than the previous settlers like training information utilization. But in the
orientation of different seasonal activities there was no significant difference between new and
previous settlers’ categories. The information utilization of female headed farmers from these
extension methods were slightly higher than male farmers. But their participation in these
extension events were very limited.

Even though the information utilization of new settlers from individual extension method was
lower than the previous settler, statistically there was no significant difference between the
two settlement categories. The information utilization of females headed farmers from this
service is slightly higher that males, but their participation was poor like the above extension
events.

135
To analyze the extension service and farmers’ attachment in depth, the respondent farmers
were asked to evaluate the responsiveness and potential of extension service addressing their
problems. This survey result indicates that the majority of respondents laid on ‘no responsive’
and ‘I didn’t ask support’ or ‘no opinion’ responses. This tells us the current extension system
has poor linkage with the farmers and the farmers didn’t have interest to work with the service
provider. If the extension service lacks information to respond timely and solve the farmers’
problem, it will be expected to provide from whenever it is available. Therefore, in the
absence of appropriate responsive extension service, it can not be expected to provide different
relevant and utilizable agricultural information to the farmers and the farmers will not be
encouraged to get and utilize agricultural information from extension service.

Regarding the potential of extension service addressing farmers problem, this survey result
revealed that the majority of respondents lay on ‘not addressing our interest’ and ‘I did not
asked support to evaluate this issue’ responses. This tells us that current extension system
didn’t working based on the farmers’ problems and the farmers did not build confidence as the
extension service is an agricultural solution provider, so that the majority of the farmers did
not ask support from the service provider. In the presence of this entire problem, the WARDO
still follow top down planning approach and the farmers did not involve in the problem
identification and planning process. Therefore, in the absence of addressing farmers’ interest
and demand driven extension service, the farmers may not be interested to search and receive
agricultural information from the extension service and consequently utilization of agricultural
information can not be expected.

Variation in access to and utilization of agricultural information among the sample households
was assessed in view of various factors theoretically known to influence farmers’ access to
and utilization of scientific agricultural information. Result of different descriptive statistics
indicated that most of the hypothesized variables were significantly related with farmers’
access to and utilization of scientific agricultural information.

To analysis the relative influence of different variables on access and utilization of agricultural
information, Tobit econometric model was applied separately for both dependent variables.

136
The result of the analyses shown that, among different factors influencing access to
agricultural information a total of seventeen (17) explanatory variables were included into the
model and out of these eight (8) of them had shown significant relationship with access to
agricultural information. Accordingly, settlement category, education level, settlement
orientation, innovation proneness and production motivation influenced at 1% significance
level; and age of household head, frequency of market visiting and credit access at 5%
significance level. Except age of household head, all of shown positive relationship with
access to agricultural information.

On the other hand, to identify factors influencing utilization of agricultural information a total
of sixteen (16) explanatory variables were included into the model and out of these nine (8) of
them had shown significant influence on utilization of agricultural information. Accordingly,
education level, settlement category, innovation proneness and production motivation
influenced at 1% significance level; age of household head and settlement orientation at 5%
significance level; and frequency of market visiting and credit utilization at 10% significance
level. Except age of household head, all of shown positive relationship with utilization of
agricultural information.

5.2. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

On the basis of this study, the following recommendations are suggested for practical action.

1. This research result in the settlement category variable clearly indicated that agricultural
information provision and utilization were generally biased towards the previous settler side.
During data collection time, enough number of diploma holder DAs were deployed at PA
level. But the woreda SMS team could not able to support, supervise, evaluate and monitor
different physical activities and human resources at PA level due to lack of finical resource
and lack of management and field experience. Therefore, before implementing new
resettlement program the Government should strengthen the extension staff in the above
limitations and strategic extension service plan including monitoring and evaluation should
be prepared ahead, for all settlers particularly for new settlers.

137
2. Findings of this study indicated that the agricultural information access of all settlers,
particularly the new settlers was very low and its role in human recourse development was
underestimated in the study area. Enhancing participation of farmers in various areas of
human resource development is the best option for empowering farm operators for better
utilization of scientific agricultural information and technologies. More utilization of
agricultural information was also observed in visit, training, field day and demonstration
extension methods. Therefore, it is recommended that extension should strengthen human
recourse development through well organized, training, field day, demonstration and visits.
In the study area, even if the FTCs are constructed they are yet not operational. Fulfilling of
demonstration material, selection of interested and functional literate farmers (at least) and
providing pedagogy training of for DAS are required. Organizing and running of FTC
should not be left for tomorrow.

3. The settlement orientation results revealed that, from the current resettlement program
participants only 25.27% of the new settlers H.H are sustained in the settlement program.
But the remaining 74.73% have returned to their original place. The new settlers were
having higher expectation of different things from the participation of resettlement program,
so the majority of the new settlers had dissatisfaction to remain in the new settlement area.
The finding also revealed that farmers from the remaining settlers, those having poor feeling
of staying in the settlement area were found to have poor agricultural information access and
utilization. Therefore, it is recommended that the provision of resettlement program
information in the highland areas should be institutional (avoiding massive campaign and
non professional involvement) and genuine in order to achieve the desired poverty reduction
strategy.

4. In this research, the credit provision finding shows that, there was significant difference
between new and previous settlers farmers, in the favor of previous settler. In the study area,
the provision of credit usually supported by agricultural information in order to achieve the
intended credit goals, so that getting of credit have role in the agricultural information
access. The availability of current financial resource has a decisive role in the agricultural
production process. Especially the new settlers can be seen as resource poor farmers and at
early stage provision of credit should be mandatory. Therefore it is recommended that by
designing integrated plan and follow-up system between agricultural office, cooperatives

138
 and other local micro-finance institutions credit provision should be deviced to the new
settler farmers, especially at early stage of their agricultural development in order to achieve
the desired resettlement strategic plan. Beside such credit approach, organizing and
promotion of saving and loan associations might be another possible option particularly
among new settler, since they are being marginalized by the formal credit institutions in the
study are. The experience of village saving and loan associations have found to be successful
in different parts of the country.

5. Result of descriptive statistics indicated that, the current extension system in not responsive
for farmers’ need of support and technology requirements. In addition to this problem,
technical supports and provision of agricultural technologies of extension service did not
address the farmers’ agricultural problems. On the other hand, the DAs and non agricultural
professionals forced the farmers to take agricultural input through campaign approach. The
major reason of this issue is that planning approach is top to bottom and it is a supply driven
system. Also extension professionals spending more time in non agricultural activities
through campaign approach such as loan repayment, land tax collection, land distribution in
the agricultural investment area, minimization of student dropout in the rural elementary
school, mobilizing the rural people for latrine preparation etc. So that in the absence of joint
planning and participation of farmers, appropriate professionals support, it can not be
expected to address the farmers’ problems in order to solve the production constraints. Also
farmers may not build confident in the current extension provision. Therefore, it is
recommended that planning system should be participatory, bottom to top approach based on
the farmers’ problems and demands, and agricultural extension support should be
institutional (avoiding non-agricultural professionals support) in order to solve all the above
complex problems. To make this in reality, the regional government responsible bodies and
planners should be convinced.

6. The descriptive statistics result indicates that, there were statistically significant different
agricultural information accesses between MHHs and FHHs, so that male respondents were
more benefited form different extension service. The survey result shows that; once
appropriate agricultural information is accessible for females, they can utilize it as male
farmers, so that the participation of women farmers in various areas of extension
programmes can play a role in the agricultural development. Therefore, it is recommended

139
 that DAs, professional experts, administrative bodies, planners, and related organizations
first, should be build positive attitude towards the importance and role of women in the
agricultural development. Secondly they should have to identify relevant agricultural
activities in consultation with women in order to address their own needs. Finally well
organized agricultural information should be provided in order to enhance their productivity
in the agricultural development, in a gender sensitive manner.

7. From this survey results, we can observe that education level had significant and positive
relationship with access and utilization of agricultural information. This result shows that
education level of farmers has a role to increase the ability to obtain, process and use of
agriculture related information and use technologies in a better way. Therefore, due
emphasis has to be given towards strengthening rural education at different levels for youth
and adults.

140
 6. REFERENCES
Abadi, A. K. and D.J., Pnnel, 1999. A Conceptual Frame Work of Adoption of an Agricultural
Innovation. Agricultural Economics, University of Western Australia, Perth, 2(9): 145-154.

Amemiya, T., 1981. Qualitative response models: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature.
19: 1483-1536.

Amemiya, T., 1985. Advanced Econometrics. T.J. Press, Pad stow Ltd: Great Britian.

Asante M. S. and Seepersad, J.,1992. Factors influencing the Adoption of Recommended

Practices by Cocoa farmers in Ghana. Journal of Extension Systems,Vol. 8, No 1.

Asfew Negassa, K., Gungal, W., Mwangi, and Beyene Seboka, 1997. Factors Affecting
Adoption of Maize Production Technologies in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 2: 52-69.

Asres Elias, 2005. Access and Utilization of Development Communication by Rural Women
in Dire Dawa Administrative Council, Eastern Ethiopia. [Link]. Thesis, Alemaya University.
34p.

Berhanu Gebremedhin, Hoekstra D and Azage Tegegne. 2006. Commercialization of

Ethiopian agriculture: Extension service from input supplier to knowledge broker and
facilitator. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project
Working Paper 1. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 36 pp.

Bezabih Emana, 2000. The role of new crop varieties and chemical fertilizer under risk: the
case of smallholders in Eastern Oromia, Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hannover,
Germany.

BFED (2004). Development Indicators of Amhara Region 2003/200. Bahir Dar. Ethiopia.

Birhanu Bedassa, 2002. Analysis of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Cross-bred dairy Cows
in Central High lands of Ethiopia. The Case of Degam and Girar Jarso Districts, North Shoa
Zone,Ethiopia [Link] (Unpublished) Presented to School of Graduate Study of Alemaya
University.

141
Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A.,
Spielman, David J., Horna, D., Benin, S., Cohen, M. (20006). FROM “BEST PRACTICE”
TO “BEST FIT”: A Framework For Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services
Worldwide. IFPRI. Washington, DC.

Burnett, H., 2003. The influence of communication on the success of micro and small
business: a case study, AGSE, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn Victoria,
Australia.

Carr, M. 1985. Technologies for rural women: Impact and dissemination, in technology and
rural women. pp.115-53. In: I. Ahmed and A. Unwin (eds). Conceptual and empirical issues,
London.

Chandan, J.S., 1998. Statistics for Business and Economics. Vikas Publishing House Put Ltd,
New Delhi.

Chilot Yirga, Shapiro, B.I., and Mulat Demeke, 1996. Factors influencing the adoption of new
wheat technologies in Wolmera and Addis Alem Areas of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Addis Ababa. 1(1).

Dagnachew Tesfaye, 2002. Factors hampering women farmers’ involvement in current

extension packages: case studies of Sulta and Mulu districts of Ethiopia, Senior Research
Report, Alemaya University.

Degnet et al., 2001. Adoption High Yielding Varieties of Maize in Jimma Zone. Evidence
from Farm Level Data. Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 5 (1&2).

Deribe Kaske, 2007. Agricultural Information Networks Of Farm Women And Role Of
Agricultural Extension: The Case Of Dale Woreda, Southern Nations, Nationalities &
Peoples’ Region. [Link]. Thesis, Alemaya University. 74p.

Doyle, J.J., B.E. Gandin and A. Paling, 1985. Women and agricultural technology:
understanding the needs of both the direct users and the ultimate beneficiaries of ilrad’s
research. In women and agricultural technology: Relevance for research. Report from the
CGIAR inter-center seminar on women and agricultural technology. Rockefeller.

142
EARO, 2000. Institutionalizing Gender Planning in Agricultural Technology. Generation and
Transfer Processes, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ebrahim Jemal, 2006. Adoption dairy innovations: its income and gender implications in
Adami Tulu district. Unpublished [Link]. Thesis, Haramaya University.

EIPRTP, November 2000. Ethiopia, Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2000/01-
2002/03. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. [On line]. Available on
[Link] Accessed 3-7-2006

Ejigu Jonfa, Pound, B., Endreas Geta, Ousman Surur, and Furgassa Bedada, 1999.
Institutionalization of Farmer Participatory Research in Southern Ethiopia, A Joint Learning
Experience. By the European Union (EU) [On line]. Available on
[Link] Accessed 3-6-2006

Ellis, F., 1992. Peasant Economics, Farm Households and Agrarian Development Cambridge
University Press, New York,U.S.A

Endrias Geta, 2003. Adoption and Improved Sweet Potato Verities in Boloso Sore Woreda,
Southern Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics Department. Unpublished [Link]. thesis. Alemaya
University.

Ermias Sehai, June 30th - July 1st, 2004. Improving Productivity & Market Success of
Ethiopian Farmers, Knowledge Management, Alternative Approaches. Project Launching &
Planning Workshop. ILRI, Ethiopia. [On line]. Available on [Link]
[Link]/content/files/Documents/workshops-Meetings/Project_Launching/KM%20in%20
IPMS%20 (Ermias).pdf. Accessed 18-7-2006

FAO, 1996. Improving Extension work with Rural Women. Food and Agricultural
Organization the United Nations Rome, Italy.

FAO, 2002. Report of The Second Consultation on Agricultural Information Management.

Rome, Italy. [On line]. Available on [Link]

FAO, 2004. WHAT IS LOCAL KNOWLEDGE? Training Manual “Building on Gender, Agro
biodiversity and Local Knowledge”. [On line]. Available on
[Link]
[Link]. . Accessed 3-6-2006

143
 Fekadu Beyene, 1997. Integration of Farmers’ Knowledge into Agricultural Research:
Challenges and Strategies: the case of Ada’a District, Central Oromia (Ethiopia), Wageningen
Agricultural University, The Netherlands.

Freeman, H.A., Ehui, S.K, and N. G/silassie, 1996. The Role of Credit in the Uptake of
Improved Dairy Technologies. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural economics. 1: 11-17

Getahun, D., 2004. Assessment of Factors Affecting Adoption of Wheat Technologies and Its
Impact: The Case of Hula Woreda, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis (Unpublished) Presented To School
of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Pp. 1.

Gockowski, J. and Ndoumbe, M., 2004. The Adoption of Intensive Mono-Crop Horticulture in
Southern Cameroon. Elsevier B.V: Younde, Cameroon.
Http://[Link].

Green, D.A.G., and D. H., Ng’ong’ola, 1993. Factors affecting fertilizer adoption in less
developed Countries: An application of multivariate logistic analysis in Mali. Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Vol. 44, No.1, 103-113.

Green, W.H., 2000. Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall International, Inc, New York
University, New York, U.S.A.

Gujarati, D.N., 1995. Basic econometrics. 3rd edition, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York

Gujarati, D.N., 1988. Basic Econometrics, M.C. Graw Printing Press, U.S.A.

Haba Sharon, (2004). Factors influencing the willingness to pay for agricultural information
delivery technologies by cooperative-oriented agribusinesses in Rwanda: evidence from the
Abahuzamugambi Coffee Growers Cooperative of Maraba. Master's thesis, Texas A&M
University. Available electronically from [Link] .

Habtemariam Abate, 2004. The comparative influence of intervening variables in the adoption
behavior of maize and dairy farmers in Shashemene and Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. Ph. D. Thesis,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 294p.

Habtemariam Kassa, 1996. Agricultural Education, Research and Extension in Ethiopia:

Problems and Linkages. In: Mulat, D., Aregay W., Tesfaye Z, Solomon B., Sustainable

144
Intensification of Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the Second Conference of the
Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia, held in Addis Ababa 3-October 1996.
Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, pp 229-236.

Habtemariam Kassa, 2004. Agricultural Extension with Particular Emphasis on Ethiopia.

Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute, Addis Ababa, pp 80.

Haji Biru, 2003. Adoption of Cross bred Dairy Cows in Aris Zone. The Case of Tiyo and
Lemu Bilbilo Woreds. [Link] Thesis (Unpublished), School of Graduate Studies of Alemya
University, Alemaya.

Hedija Mohammed, November, 1999. Investigation on Smallholders’ Behavior As Factors

Influencing Farm Performance in Ethiopia: The Case of Smallholders in Eastern Hararghe. M.
Sc. Thesis, Department of Holiculture, Hanover University.

IPMS, 2005. METEMA PILOT LEARNING SITE DIAGNOSIS AND PROGRAM DESIGN.
[On line]. Available on. [Link] Date
accessed 13/8/.200.

Itana Ayana, 1985. An Analysis of Factors Affecting the Adoption and Diffusion Patterns of
Package of Agricultural Technologies in Subsistence Agriculture: A Case Study in Two
Districts of Ethiopia. [Link]. Thesis [Resented to School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa
University.

Jabbar, M. A., and M. Shahe Alam, 1993. Adoption of modern rice varieties in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, XVI, 2 (1993): 77-95.

Johnston,J. and Dinardo,J. 1997. Econometrics Methods. Fourth Edition, The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc, New York, U.S.A.

Kalaitzandonakes, N. (1999). The Agricultural knowledge system: Appropriate roles and

interactions for the public and private sectors. University of Missouri AgBioForum, 2(1), 1-4.
[On line]. Available on the World Wide Web: [Link] Date accessed
13/8/.200.

Kansana, H.S., Sharma, R.P., and Sharma, S.K., 1996. Knowledge and Adoption of Wheat
Technologies among Contact and Non-Contact Farmers. Agricultural Science, Digest Karnal,
16:154-156.

145
Katungi E, 2006. Gender, Social Capital and Information Exchange in Rural Uganda IFPRI
and Melinda Smale, IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) CAPRi Working
Paper No. 59, University of Pretoria. Uganda. [On line]. Available on
[Link] Accessed March 31, 2008.

Kearsley G., 2008. Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory into Practice
Database. [Online]. Available on [Link]

Kidane Gebremariam, 2001. Factors Influencing the Adoption of New Wheat and Maize
Varieties in Tigray, Ethiopia: The Case of Hawzien Woreda. M.S.C. Thesis Presented To
School Of Graduate Studies Of Alemaya University, Ethiopia. 140p.

Legesse Dadi, 1992. Analysis of Factors Influencing Adoption and The Impact of Wheat and
Maize Technologies in Arsi Negele. Ethiopia. Unpublished M. thesis, Alemaya University of
Agriculture.

Lelissa Chalchissa Argeta, 1998. The Determinants of Adption, Intensity and Profitability of
Fertilizer Use, The case of Ejere District, West Shewa. An [Link]. Thesis, Addis Ababa
University, Ethiopia.

Maddalla, G.S., 1992. Introduction to Econometrics: 2nd ed. Business Economics: University
of Florida and Ohio state University, Mac Milan publishing Company, New York.

Maddala, G.S., 1997. Limited Dependent and Quantitative Variables in Econometrics.

Cambridge University Press.

Mamusha Lemma, Oct 11-13, 2005. Conference on International Agricultural Research for
Development. The Agricultural Knowledge System in Tigray, Ethiopia: Empirical Study about
its Recent History and Actual Effectiveness. Department of Agricultural Communication and
Extension. University Hohenheim. [On line]. Available on
[Link] Accessed 3-7-2006.

Mcdonald, J.F., and R.A. Moffit,1980. “The uses of Tobit Analysis.” Review of Economics
and Statistics 62(2):318-321.

Melaku Gorfu, 2005. Adoption and Profitability of Kenyan Top Bar Hive Beekeeping
Technology. Study in Ambasal Woreda of Ethiopia. Msc. Thesis (Unpublished) Presented to
School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University.

146
Mesfin Astatkie, 2005. Analysis of factors Influencing Adoption of Triticale and its
[Link] Case Farta Wereda. Msc. Thesis (Unpublished) Presented to School of Graduate
Studies of Alemaya University.

Moris J. 1991. Extension alternatives in tropical Africa. Overseas Development Institute,

London, UK.

Mulugeta Enki, 2000. Determinants of Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in Central

Highlands of [Link] Case of three Districts of Selale. [Link]. Thesis
(unpublished).School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University: Alemaya.

Mulugeta Enki, Belay Kassa and Legesse Dadi, 2001. Determinants of Adoption of Soil
Conservation Measures in Central Highlands of Ethiopia. The Case of Three Districts of North
Shoa. Agrekon, Vol.40, No 3.

Mulugeta Mekuria, 1994. An Economic Analysis of Smallholder Wheat Production and

Technology Adoption in the South Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia. PhD. Thesis, Michigan
State University.

Mwanga, J., A. Mussie, W., Mwangi, and H. Verkuijl, [Link] of Improved Wheat
Technologies by Small-Scale Farmers in Mbeya District of Southern Highlands, Tanzania. In
the Tenth Regional Wheat Workshop for Eastern, Central and Southern Africa. University of
Stellenbosch, Southern Africa, 14-18 September 1998.

Nkonya, E. et al., 1997. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Maize Seed and Fertilizer in
Northern Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 48, No 1.

Pereek Udai and T.V. Rao, 1992. First Handbook of Psychology and Social Instruments.
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabiad.

Pettigrew, K. E. 1996. Modeling the information seeking of professionals. Library Quarterly,

66(2). 161-193.

Pipy F. O, 2006. Poultry Farmers’ Utilization of Information in Lagelu Local Government

Area, Oyo State of Nigeria International Journal of Poultry Science 5 (5): Pp. 499-501. [On
line]. Available on [Link] Accessed March 20, 2008.

147
Purcell DL and Anderson JR. 1997. Agricultural research and extension: Achievements and
problems in national systems. World Bank Operations Evaluation study, World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA.

Rangaswamy, R., 1995. A textbook of Agricultural Statistics. Weley Eastern Lmited, New
Delhi.

Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, New York: Free Press.

Roy, B.C., T.S. Bhogal and L.R. Singn, 1999. Tenancy and Adoption of New Farm
Technology: A Study in West Bengal, India; Bangladesh Journal Economics, xxii 1(1999): 39-
49.

Saito, K., and Weidemann, C. J., 1990. Agricultural extension for women farmers in Africa.
Washington, DC: World Bank.

Saito, K., Hailu Mekonen, and Spurling, D. 1994. Raising the Productivity of Women in Sub-
Saharan Africa. The International Bank for Construction and Development of the World Bank,
Washington D.C, USA. 110pp.

Salomon, L. and Engel, (1997). Networking for innovation: A participatory actor-oriented

methodology. Royal Tropical Institute, KIT Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Samuel Gebre-selassie, 2001, The Development of Integrated Management Information

System for Agricultural Extension institutions of Developing Countries , The case of Oromia
Agricultural Development Bureau of Ethiopia, Shaker Verlag. Germany. [On line]. Available
on, [Link] . Accessed March 31,
2008.

Samuel Gebreselassie, 2006. Food Aid and Small-holder Agriculture in Ethiopia: Options and
Scenarios. A paper for the Future Agricultures Consortium workshop, Institute of
Development Studies, 20-22 March 2006. [On line]. Available on, [Link]
[Link]/pdf%20files/SG_paper_1.pdf

Sarantakos, R., 1988. Social Research, Second Edition. Macmillan Press Londen.pp350

148
Smith, D.A. and R. Brame, 2003. Tobit Models In Social Science Research: Some Limitation
and a More General Alternative. Sociological Methods and Research. 31:364 –388.

Suhermanto H, 2002. Knowledge and Information Transfer in Indonesia's agricultural Society.

Department of Economics, Claremont Graduate University Indonesia. [On line]. Available on.
[Link] Accessed March 31,
2008.

Teklewold H, Dadi L, Yami A and Dana N 2006: Determinants of adoption of poultry

technology: a double-hurdle approach. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 18,
Article #40. [On line]. Available on [Link] tekl18040 .htm.
Accessed March 31, 2008.

Teressa Adugna, 1997. " Factors Influencing the Adoption and Intensity of Use of
Fertilizer:The Case of Lume District, Central Ethiopia, Quarterly Journal of International
Agriculture, 36: 173-187.

Tesfaye Beshah, 2003. Understanding Farmers: Explaining Soil and Water Conservation in
Konso, Wolaita and Wello, Ethiopia. Tropical Resources Management Papers
[Link] University: The Netherlands.

Tesfaye Zegeye, Bedassa Tadesse, and Shiferaw Tesfaye, 2001. Determinants of high yielding
maize technology adoption. Empirical evidence from Southwestern Oromia. Research Report
No. 38. Ethiopia Agricultural Research Organization (EARO), 2001. 39p.

Tsegaye Tadesse, 2003. The Impact Of The Participatory Demonstration And Training
Extension System On Production And Income Of The Farmers In Potential Areas Of The
Amhara Regional State Ethiopia: The Case of Yilmana Densa Woreda. Agricultural
Economics Department. Unpublished [Link]. thesis. Alamaya University. Ethiopia.

Tweenten, Luther G., (1997). Invest in People In: Tweenten, Luther G. and McClelland,
Donald G., (1997). Promoting Third World Development and Food Security. 1st edition
Westport, Connecticut, London Printed in U.S.A.

Umali, Lisa Schwartz, Dina L. 1994. Public and private agricultural extension: Beyond
traditional frontiers. World Bank Discussion Papers. 236, 15-26.

149
Van den Ban and Hawkins, H.S, 1996. Agricultural Extension, Second edition. Blackwell
Sciences Ltd. Carlton, Victoria, Australia.

Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G., 1996. Farmer Rationality and the Adoption of Environmentally
Sound Practices: A Critique of the Assumptions of Traditional Extension. Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension Vol. 1. No. 1. (On-line journal).

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia dictionary. Undated. What is Knowledge? [On line].
Available on [Link]
Accessed 23-6-2006

Wolday Amha, 1999. Improved Seed Marketing and Adoption in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal
of Agricultural Economics. 3:41-80.

World Bank, 1995. Toward Gender Equality: The Role of Public Policy. The World bank,
Washington D.C.

Workneh Negatu, 2004. Reasons for Food Insecurity of Farm Households in South Wollo,
Ethiopia: Explanations at Grassroots. Institute of Development Research (IDR), Addis Ababa
University, Ethiopia. [On line]. Available on, [Link]

Yahaya, M.K., 2001. Media use pattern of Women farmers in Northern Nigeria: Imperatives
for Sustainable gender sensitive extension delivery. African Crop Science Proceedings. Part 2,
Vol. 5: 747-754.

Yahaya, M.K., 2002. Outreach Communication Strategy in Community Mobilization for

Reproductive Health Education in Niger state of Nigeria. J. Social Sci., 6: 189-196.

Yishak Gecho, 2005. Determinants of Adoption of improved Maize Technology in Damote

Gale Woreda, Wolaita, Ethiopia. [Link] (Unpublished) Presented to School of Graduate
Study of Alemaya University.

150
7. APPENDICES

151
Appendix I. Supportive and Detail Tables Containing Results

Appendix Table 1. The most relevant agricultural activities required information

No Agricultural activities
1 Related to cotton
1.1 HYV type and utilization of cotton training
1.2 Seed rating and sowing online of
1.3 Apply fertilizer of cotton training
1.4 Time of weeding and frequency of weeding of cotton training
1.5 Apply pesticides for bollworm
2 Related to sesame
2.1 Seed rating of sesame
2.2 Time and frequency of weeding of sesame
2.3 Time of threshing/shattering of sesame
3 Related to sorghum
3.1 Seed rating and sowing online of sorghum
3.2 Apply fertilizer of sorghum
3.3 Time of weeding and frequency of sorghum
3.4 Applying herbicide and pesticides for sorghum _
3.5 Time of Harvesting and threshing
4 Related to livestock production and management
4.1 Goat production and handling
4.2 Poultry production
4.3 Modern honey production
4.4 Animal feed collection and preservation
4.5 Fattening plantation
5 Related to Natural resource
5.1 Importance of tree plantation
5.2 Forest firebreak line establishment
5.3 Community forest utilization and management
5.4 Soil fertility maintenance
5.5 Fuel saving stoves
6 Related to fruit and vegetable production
6.1 Production using irrigation
6.2 Vegetables Cultivation
6.3 Fruit Cultivation training

152
Appendix Table 2. Measurement of frequency of information access and utilization

Frequency of Frequency of
No Agricultural activities per training information information
access utilization
1 Training
1.1 Related to cotton
1.1.1 HYV type and utilization of cotton training
1.1.2 Seed rating and sowing online of
1.1.3 Apply fertilizer of cotton training

3= More than twice per two year

Time of weeding and frequency of weeding of
1.1.4
cotton training

2= Twice per two year

1= Once per two year

2= Occasionally
1.1.5 Apply pesticides for bollworm

1= Rarely

3= Often
1.2 Related to seasme
1.2.1 Seed rating of sesame
1.2.2 Time and frequency of weeding of sesame
1.2.3 Time of threshing/shattering of sesame
1.3 Related to sorghum
1.3.1 Seed rating and sowing online of sorghum
1.3.2 Apply fertilizer of sorghum
1.3.3 Time of weeding and frequency of sorghum
1.3.4 Applying herbicide and pesticides for sorghum _
1.3.5 Time of Harvesting and threshing
1.4 livestock production and management
1.4.1 Goat production and handling
1.4.2 Poultry production
3= More than twice per two year
2= Twice per two year two year

1.4.3 Modern honey production

1.4.4 Animal feed collection and preservation
1= Once per two year

1.4.5 Fattening plantation 2= Whenever needed

1.5 Related to Natural resource
1= Rarely

1.5.1 Importance of tree plantation

1.5.2 Forest firebreak line establishment
1.5.3 Community forest utilization and management
1.5.4 Soil fertility maintenance
1.5.5 Fuel saving stoves
1.6 Related to fruit and vegetable production
1.6.1 Production using irrigation
1.6.2 Vegetables Cultivation
1.6.3 Fruit Cultivation training

153
Appendix Table 2. Measurement of frequency of information access and utilization (continued)

Frequency of information
No Agricultural activities per training Frequency of information access
utilization
1= Once a year
2 Advisory service
2= Once in six month 1= Rarely
3= Once in three months 2= Sometimes
2.1 Extension advice per year 4= Once in a month 3= Always
5= More than once a month
3 Seasonal activity orientation 1= Once and more per month 1= Rarely
2= 1-2 in three month 2= Sometimes
3.1 extension orientation about seasonal activities 3= 1 in six month 3= Always
4= 1 in a year
4 Frequency of participation in Field day 1= Once per yea 1= Rarely
5 Frequency of participation in Demonstration 2= Once per six month r 2= Sometimes
6 Frequency of participation in visits 3= More than once in three month 3= Always
7 Mass media 1= Some times 1= Some times
7.1 From radio 2= Once in a week 2= Always when there is
7.2 From television 3= Daily need
7.3 From leaflet and news letter
7.4 From posters

154
Appendix Table 3. Distribution of sample household heads based on access category

Settlement category
New settlers Previous settlers Total
Access level
(N= 80) (N=80 ) (N=160)
No % No % No %
No Access 15 18.8 14 17.5 29 18.1
Low Access 65 81.2 54 67.5 119 74.4
Medium Access 0 .0 12 15.0 12 7.5
High Access 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0
Total 80 100.0 80 100.0 160 100.0

Appendix Table 4. Distribution of sample household heads based on utilization category

Settlement category as new and previous settle

New settlers Previous settlers Total
Utilization level
(N=64 ) (N=65 ) (129)
No % No % No %
No Utilization 3 4.6 2 3.0 5 3.8
Low Utilization 62 95.4 50 75.8 112 85.5
Medium Utilization 0 .0 11 16.7 11 8.4
High Utilization 0 .0 3 4.5 3 2.3
Total 65 100.0 66 100.0 131 100.0

Appendix Table 5. Type of disease affected the respondents

Settlement category
Previous χ2- Cramer's
Type of disease New settlers Total
settlers value V
No % No % No %
Malaria 38 77.6 16 53.3 54 68.4
Water born 4 8.2 2 6.7 6 7.6
Wound 1 2.0 1 3.3 2 2.5
Other diseases 6 12.2 11 36.7 17 21.5
Total 49 100.0 30 100.0 79 100.0 6.932* 0.296*

155
Appendix Table 6. Major activity utilized credit from formal and informal institute either
in cash or kind

From formal institutions From informal lenders

Activities Settler categories Settler categories

No New Pre. Total Rank New Pre. Total Rank
1 For weeding labor cost 0 19 19 1 20 17 37 1
For ox rent or purchase
2 /Traction purpose/ 3 15 18 2 13 3 16 2
3 Got production package 1 5 6 3
4 Crop harvest 0 1 1 6 0 5 5 3
5 For house consummations 0 2 2 5 3 1 4 4
6 For H.Y.V 2 1 3 4
7 Herbicides 1 1 2 5
Total 6 43 49 37 27 64

Appendix Table 7. Original and current number of new settler farmers

Remaining new
Original number Current number settlers as % of
original
Household Population Household population Household population
No Settlement PAs № № № № in % in %
1 Dasgundo 3365 6367 666 1939 19.79 30.45
2 Vilage 6,7,8 3070 6847 901 2435 29.35 35.56
3 Kokit 997 1262 229 448 22.97 35.50
4 Kumer 480 998 149 427 31.04 42.79
5 Tumet 5049 6472 993 1564 19.67 24.17
6 Zebachibahir 1463 2267 385 961 26.32 42.39
7 Awssa 3718 6288 1338 3534 35.99 56.20
8 Metema Yohanis 1278 1515 246 364 19.25 24.03
Total 19420 32016 4907 11672 25.27 36.46
Source: Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office (2007)

156
Appendix Table 8. Descriptions of independent variables.

Variable name Description Variable type Value

SEXRESP Sex of respondent Dummy Takes a value of 1 if the male and
0 otherwise
EDULEVEL Education level Ordinal scaled 1= illiterate,2= functionally
literate, 3= primary, 4= secondary
school
SETLMEOR Settlement Ordinal scaled 1= I don't want to stay here, 2= I
orientation am not sure how for how long to
stay, 3= Permanently as a farmer
MARKTFRE Frequency of Ordinal scaled 1= Some times, 2= Once per week,
market visiting 3= More than once in a week
SETTLCAT Settlement Dummy Takes a value of 1 if the if
category Previous settlers, 0 new settlers
INNOPRON Innovation Ordinal scaled 0= never, 1= after most of the people
proneness accept it, 2 = after consulting others
who are more knowledgeable, 3 =
whenever I come across a new idea,
AGERESP Age of Continuous Measured in years
respondents
HEALTHHH Health status of Continuous Measured in No of days
H.H
MOBILITY Mobility of H.H Continuous Measured in No of days
SOCIALPA Social Continuous Measured in scores
participation
CREDIT Credit Access Continuous Measured in birr
MARKTDIS Distance of Continuous Measured in Km
market
ATTCIMFA Attitude towards Continuous Measured in scores
improved farming
PROMOTIV Production Continuous Measured in scores
motivation
INFOSEEK Information Continuous Measured in scores
seeking behavior
ONFARINC On farm income Continuous Measured in birr
OFFINCO Off farm income Continuous Measured in birr

157
Appendix II. Household Level Interview Schedule

Household Level Interview Schedule

Name of Respondent (including grandfather) __________________________________ Code _____

Woreda _________________ Kebele __________________
Village _______________________ Date of interview (day/month/year): _______________________________
Name of enumerators: ______________________________
Questionnaire checked by: ______________________ Date questionnaire checked: ___________________

1. Are you head of the household?

a. Yes b. No

2. List down the members of your family including the respondent (use the column head code)

No Name Sex Age Educational level Remark

1=male 1= illiterate, 2= read and write, (e.g. Grade
0=femal 3= primary, 4= secondary, level)
e 5=others
1
2
3
4

3. Sex of the respondent? 0. Female 1. Male

4. No of family members? (including husband and wife) male ----- Female --- Total -----
5. Religion of the respondent?
1. Muslim 2. Orthodox 3. Catholic
4. Protestant 5. Others (specify)
7. In which settlement program came to Metema?
1. Derg 2. Current government
3. Voluntary settler 4. Return from Sudan/Lagin/

8. If yes, for how long participated (staid in metema) in the resettlement program? ---- years

9. Do you have low land corps management experience (cotton, sesame, sorghum etc…) in previous area
where you came?
0. No 1. Yes

10. If yes, for how long experience? _________ Years

Health Status

11. Do you face health problem in 2005 & 2006 production years?
0. No 1. Yes
12. If yes? What disease/problem and for how many days you were sick (out of farming work)?

No Disease type N.o of days sick per year

2005 2006
1 Malaria
2 Water born
3 Wound
4 Others (specify)
5 Cumulative of Malaria and others
sum

158
Settlement orientation

13. Did you get brief information about resettlement issue before you left your native area?
0. No 1. Yes

14. If yes, how did you get the promise information?

0. No concern 1. Not true 2. Very slight/negligible
3. Incomplete 4. Complete .

15. For how long do you want to stay here (in the new area)?
1, I don’t want to stay here 2, I am not sure for how long to stay
3, permanently as a farmer 4, others (specify)

16. Land size

Land resource Unit of Size of land

measurement
1 Owned land
1.1 In 2005 under cultivation hectare
1.2 In 2005 under fallow >>
1.3 Rented out in 2005 >>
2 Other lands
2.1 Rented in 2005 hectare
2.2 Investment land rent >>
3 Others (specify)

On farm income

17. Crop production and income of 2005/06 production year

area Produced in Product Product sold

crop under (quintals) consumed by the Quantity Price per Quintal Income in
the crop household in quintal (average in Birr
(ha) (quintal) 2006)
Cotton
Sesame
Sorghum
Maize
vegetables
Fruit
Others (specify)
18. Livestock status and income of 2006 year

Current livestock resources Income From

Sale in 2006 (In Birr)
livestock Current Unit price Total price No of Quantity Total price
species number (birr) Birr animals Sold in 2006
Cow
Oxen
Sheep
Goat
Donkey
Camel
Hen
Egg
Others

159
Off farm income and Mobility of respondents

19. Did you get income around the village in the 2006 from the following sources?
0. No 1. Yes

Total days Average daily Total income

Unit In 2006 wage/ price rate In 2006
No Item (Birr) (Birr)
1 Within the village as hired labor days
2 From wood sale days
3 From Animal feed Sale days
4 From Caro /Donkey track/ days
5 Small Hotel days
6 Traditional waving
7 School guard
8 Flourmill
9 From land rent and local brewery
10 Others (specify) days

20. Did you move out of your village to work as hired labor in 2006 (E.C)?
0. No 1. Yes

21. If yes, how long per year?

Total
Year No of Days the household spent out of village as hired labour days
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
1 2005
2 2006

22. If yes, how much income out of the village as hired labour in 2006?

Total days Average daily wag/ Total income

Item Unit In 2006 price rate (Birr) In 2006 (Birr)
1 In agri. investment area as hired labor days
2 On distant farms as hired labour (local days
rich farmers farm)
3 In the near town as hired labour days
4 Others (specify) days
23. Do you move out of your village in the last two years to visit your native area?
0. No 1. Yes
24. If yes, how long per year?

Total
Year No of Days spent out of village to visit your native area No of
days
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
1 2005
2 2006

25. If yes, what was the reason to visit the native area?
1. Family bad situation 2. Weeding 3. to visit my relatives
4. to keep my land in Dega 5. For recreation 6. To bring my family
7. To mobilize other people for settlement 8. To get cultural medicine
9. When I am moving for trading 10. To harvest my crop in native area

160
 Social particpation

26. Do you have membership/official status in any formal and informal organization or association? (Tick
the degree and frequency of participation) (Social Participation)

Formal & Informal institutions Frequency of participation in

Degree of participation
meetings
No Leader Committe Member Whenever Some Never
(3) e member (1) Conducte times (0)
(2) d (2) (1)
1 District council
2 PA council
3 Religious club
4 Marketing cooperative
5 Union
6 School council
7 Irrigation association
8 Participation in on farm research
9 Women’s associations
10 Health committee
11 Youth group
12 HIV clubs
13 Iqub
14 Land administration committee
15 Others (specify)

Mass media information access and utilization

27. How frequently did you have access and utility to media for the last two years/2005/06/? (Tick below)

Frequency of information access Rank Frequency of accessible Rank Reaso

Mass media on information utility n based on n for
type Daily Once Some Never based on Always Some Nev utility not
Cod (3) in a times (0) accessibili when times er utilize
e week (1) ty there is (1) (0)
(2) need
(2)
01 Radio
02 Television
03 News paper
04 Posters
05 Leaflets

28. If not utilized the accessible information, what was the reason? (write the code in the above table)

Code Constraints of utilization

1 It is not timely /season relevant
2 I am not familiar for this technology
4 My land is rented for others
5 Lack of credit for technology input purchase
6 It is not suitable to the prevailing agro-ecological conditions
7 Knowledge and information do not consider experience
8 I did not sow crop that require fertilizer
9 Others (specify)

161
 Advisory service information access and utilization

29. Did you get formal extension advice in 2006 year?

0. No 1. Yes

12.1 If no, what was the reason? Tick below

Code Constraints of access
01 Lack of money (earlier thinking about unable to implement)
02 Information not relevant to me (not important)
03 Information not required to me (not address my interest)
04 Poor communication with DA
05 Even if DA available, but did not have appropriate support
06 Long distance of institutions
07 Development agent bias
08 Lack of interest
09 Others (specify)
30. If yes, who encourage the advice (tick below)?
1, extension agent 2, Both extension agent and me 3, voluntary 4,Others

31. If yes, how frequently do you get extension advice per year?

1, Once a year 2, Once in six month 3, Once in three months

4, Once in a month 5, More than once a month

Seasonal orientation information access and utilization

32. Did you get extension orientation about seasonal activities in 2006?
0. No 1. Yes
33. If no, what was the reason? Use question No 12.1 codes) ___________
34. If yes, how frequently per year?

1, 1 in a year 2, 1-2 in six month 3, 1-2 in three month 4, Once a month

35. If yes, in which place?

1, In the church 2, In the mosque 3, In the market

4, In meeting held for other purpose 5, In meeting held for Extension purpose
6, Personal contact 7, Others (specify)

Training information access and utilization

36. Did you get training related to cotton production during the last two years/2005/06?
0. No 1. Yes
37. If yes, how frequently did you get training related to the recommendations of Cotton crop and utilization
of the accessible information in the last two years?

Subjects of Reason for not

Productive roles training obtained Utilization of information utilize
Never Rarely Occasion Often use question No
Yes No (0) (1) ally(2) (3) 11.1 code
1 HYV type and utilization
2 Seed rating and sowing online
3 Apply fertilizer of
4 Time and frequency of weeding
5 Apply pesticides for bollworm
others (specify)

162
 38. Did you get training related to sesame production during the last two years/2005/06?
0. No 1. Yes

39. If yes, how frequently did you get training related to the recommendations of sesame crop and
utilization of the accessible information in the last two years?

Reason for not

Productive roles Subjects of Utilization of information utilize
training obtained use question No
Never Rarely Occasionall Often 11.1 code
Yes No (0) (1) y(2) (3)
1 Seed rating of sesame
2 Time and frequency of
weeding of sesame
3 Time of
threshing/shattering of
sesame
4 others (specify)

40. Did you get training related to sorghum production during the last two years/2005/06/? 0.
No 1. Yes
41. If yes, how frequently did you get training related to the recommendations of sorghum crop and
utilization of the accessible information in the last two years?

Reason for
Productive roles Subjects of Utilization of information not utilize
training obtained use question
Never Rarely Occasionally Often No 11.1 code
Yes No (0) (1) (2) (3)
1 Seed rating and sowing
online of sorghum
2 Apply fertilizer of sorghum
3 Time of weeding and
frequency of sorghum
4 Applying herbicide and
pesticides for sorghum _
5 Time of Harvesting and
threshing
others (specify)
42. Have you ever attend training related to livestock production during the last two years?
0. No 1. Yes

163
 43. If yes, how long per year and at what level utilize it?

Year Frequency of getting information Utilization of information Reason for not

Training Title utilize
Once per Once per six Once per three More than once in Never Rarely Whenever
use question No
year month month three month (0) (1) needed

2005

2006
11.1 code
(1) (2) (3) (4) (2)
1 Goat production and handling
2 Poultry production
3 Modern honey production
4 Animal feed collection and
preservation
5 Fattening plantation
others (specify)

44. Have you ever attend training related to natural recourse conservation and management during the last two years?
0. No 1. yes

45. If yes, how long per year and at what level utilize it?

Year Frequency of getting information Utilization of information Reason for not

Training Title Once per Once per six Once per three More than once in Never Rarely Whenever utilize
year month month three month (0) (1) needed use question No
2005

2006

(1) (2) (3) (4) (2) 11.1 code

1 Importance of tree plantation
2 Forest firebreak line establishment
3 Community forest utilization and
management
4 Soil fertility maintenance
5 Fuel saving stoves
others (specify)
47. Have you ever attend training related to fruit and vegetable production, post harvest handling and management during the last two years?
0. No 1. Yes

48. If yes, how long per year and at what level utilize it?

164
 Training Title Year Frequency of getting information Utilization of information Reason for not
Once per Once per six Once per three More than Never Rarely Whenever utilize
year month month once in three (0) (1) needed use question No

2006

2006
(1) (2) (3) month (2) 11.1 code
(4)
1 Production using irrigation
2 Vegetables Cultivation
3 Fruit Cultivation
4 others (specify)

Local information exchange

50. Where did you get the knowledge of cotton, sesame and sorghum management practice after arriving in Metema woreda?

Wher did you get the knowledge

No Source of Knowledge of these crops? Rank
cotton sesame sorghum Major source of knowledge at
the beginning
1 The previous settler
2 Development Agents
3 Owen experience

51. After getting different new agricultural information from development agents and other sources, do you discuss with others to disseminate the
information?
0. No 1. Yes 2. I didn’t get information
Field day, Demonstration and Visits information access and utilization

52. Have you ever participated in the following extension events (Field days, Demonstration and Visits) over the last two years?
0. No 1. Yes

165
No Extension Events Did you participated in the Frequency of events Remark
last 2 years?
Yes No Once per Once per Once and more
year (1) six per three month
month (3)
(2)
1 Field days
2 Demonstration
3 Visits
4 All

53. If not participated what were the reasons?

1. Not invited 2. I was busy
3. I am not interested 4. In my thinking not relevant
5. I don’t have information about good works 6. Others (specify) If no participated, what was the
reasons?

Information seeking behavior

54. Where is the source of your current agricultural information regarding the following activities?

Current Information source

Activities related to MoA Radio Input Market Friends/ other no Others Sum of
(6) /TV dealers place neighbors farme where (specify sources
rs )
1 Cotton production
2 Sesame
3 Sorghum
4 Goat production
5 Poultry production
6 Modern honey production
7 Milking procedure
8 Animal feed collection
and preservation
9 Importance of tree
plantation
10 Community forest
utilization and
management
11 production using
irrigation
12 vegetables Cultivation
13 fruit Cultivation
14 others (specify)

166
55. How often you need to get new information on the following activities (information seeking behavior)

Activities Always (2) Some times Never

(1) (0)
1 Cotton production and management
2 Sesame production and management
3 Sorghum production and management
4 Goat production and handling
5 Poultry production
6 Modern honey production
7 Milking procedure
8 Animal feed collection and preservation
9 Importance of tree plantation
10 community forest utilization and management
11 production using irrigation
12 vegetables Cultivation
13 fruit Cultivation
14 Others (specify)
Innovation proneness

56. Did you previously utilize Agricultural technologies related to cotton, sesame, sorghum, livestock, natural resource,
fruit and vegetable production? (in 2005/06)(Tick No, Yes )

57. If yes, what were the technologies? Tick, how the respondent accept/adopt the new idea

Agricultural technologies Tick How do you accept/adopt a new idea?

Yes No 1 2 3
1 Cotton HYV
2 Sesame HYV
3 Sorghum HYV
4 Fruit Vegetable HYV
5 Maize HYV
6 Fertilizer use
7 compost
8 Herbicide utilization/round up/
9 Herbicide utilization/2-4D/
10 Insecticide
11 Poultry production
12 Modern honey production
13 Animal feed collection and
preservation
14 Cattle fattening
15 Milk churner
16 Motor utilization
17 Pedal pump utilization
18 New forest tree
19 fuel saving stove
Others (specify)
1= After most of the people accept/adopt it?
2= After consulting others who are more knowledgeable and using it?
3= Whenever I come across a new idea such as after getting training, field visiting etc...

167
58. How quickly you wish to accept and adopt a new different idea in your life? (Out of agricultural technologies for
those not utilize agricultural technologies)

How do you accept/adopt a new idea?

Activities (similar to the above measurment)
0 1 2 3

Responsiveness and potential of Extension service addressing farmers problem

59. Did the extension provide technical support and different agricultural technologies related to cotton as fast as
possible based on your question? ( fill the following responsiveness table)

60. Did the extension provide technical support and different agricultural technologies related to cotton based on your
interest? ( fill the following farmers problem table)

Responsive ness of Extension Addressing farmers problem

service
Activities I didn’t ask No Yes It I didn’t ask No problem Yes It is
support (0) (1) is fast(2) support (0) solving (1) problem
solving (2)
I Related cotton
II Related to sesame
III Related to sorghum
IV Related to livestock
V Related to horticulture
VI Related to natural resource

Production motivation

61. Are you satisfied with the current level of production in your farming?
0. No 1. Yes
62. If no, how much you work to increase in future?
1. No plan to increase 2. by 25%
3. by 50 % 4. by double or more
63. How do you wish to improve your production?
1. with out any improving as it is 2. by adding more land
3. by improving my practices 4. by asking to other who produce more than me

64. Do you have a plan to use different or new agricultural technology in next cropping season?
0. No 1. Yes
65. If no plane to use agricultural technology, what was the reason?
1. Lack of money 2. Lack of awareness to new technologies
3. Lack of interest 4. I don’t want to stay here
5. Technologies are not profitable 6. Others (specify)
66. If yes, which technologies (list below and rank based on your interest)?

Rank
Technologies /Based on appropriate
for you/

168
Attitude towards improved farming

67. To what degree do you agree on the following statement?

1. We should do farming the way our ancestors did

1, Strongly Agree 2, Neutral 3, Disagree
2. Farming should be considered as a way of life and not as business
1, Strongly 2, Agree 3, Neutral Disagree
3. Change in traditional farming is always good and shall be encouraged
3, Strongly Agree 3, Neutral Disagree

[Link] agricultural knowledge and information is important in life and development

3, Strongly Agree 2, Neutral 1, Disagree

Credit access

68. Do you have credit access in money form from the government in the last two years /2005-2006/ to purchase
agricultural technologies?
0. No 1. Yes
69. If no access, what were the reasons?

1. No credit provision 2. Credit rate is high 3. Collateral problem

4. Lack of credit interest 5. Timely I have money 6. Biasness of PA administrator
7. Credit not allowed for settlers 8. Frighten of group credit system
9. My religion prohibited lending money with rate. 10. Credit providers not believe me
11. Lone repayment not consider crop production price fluctuation
12. PA administrator categorized me as persons lack capacity to repay lone 13. Others (specify).

70. Do you have credit access in money form from the informal lender in the last two years /2005/2006/ to purchase
agricultural technologies?
0. No 1. Yes
71. If no access, what were the reasons? /Use question No 36.1 chooses/

72. Did household have got agricultural credit the previous two years from formal credit institutions to purchase
agricultural technologies? (2005 & 2006)?
0. No 1. Yes
73. If yes, for what purpose and how much Birr?

2005 2006
purpose of credit Amount of birr Amount of birr
1 For H.Y.V
2 Fertilizer
3 Got production package
4 For Ox rent or purchase /Traction purpose/
5 For Weeding labor cost
6 Herbicides
7 Insecticides
8 Motor pump/ for irrigation/
9 Pedal pump /for irrigation/
10 Animal fattening
11 Modern hives
12 BBM
13 For house consummations
14 Crop harvest
15 others (speify)

169
74. If not get, what were the reasons? /Use question No 36.1 chooses/

75. Did household have got agricultural credit the previous two years from informal credit institutions to purchase
agricultural technologies? (2005 & 2006)?
0. No 1. Yes

76. If yes, for what purpose and how much Birr?

2005 2006
purpose of credit Amount of birr Amount of birr
1 For H.Y.V
2 Fertilizer
3 Got production package
4 For Ox rent or purchase /Traction purpose/
5 For Weeding labor cost
6 Herbicides
7 Insecticides
8 Motor pump/ for irrigation/
9 Pedal pump /for irrigation/
10 Animal fattening
11 Modern hives
12 BBM
13 For consummations
14 Crop harvest
15 others (specify)

77. If not get to credit, what were the reasons? /Use question No 36.1 chooses/

Market Visiting frequency and distance

78. How frequently do you visit the near by market?

1. Not at all 2. Some times 3. Once per week 4. more than once in a week

79. If yes, what was the reason of marketing visiting?

1. To purchase and sale [Link] get market information 3. Others (specify)
80. How far your residence from the following market? -------K.M or hr.

Natural resource production and conservation

81. How many trees used during the last two years (2005-06) for the following purpose? Tick the sources.

Two Where is the source?

Materials Local years
unit consum From natural From own From Others
ption forest plantation market (specify)
1 For cooking
2 Foe house construction
3 For fencing
4 For farm implements
5 For house furniture
6 other (specify)

82. How many tree planted in homestead in the last two years? ---------- in 2005 and ----------in 2006

170
 Constraint of agricultural information access and utilization

83. Identify the degree of the following constraints in access to AKI by the respondents in three point scale.

/ Tick once for each/

No Constraints of Access Very Somewhat Not constraint
important important
constraint constraint
1 Lack of money (earlier thinking about unable to
implement)
2 Information not required to me (not address my
interest)
3 Long distance of institutions
4 Development agent bias
5 Even if DA available, but did not have appropriate
support
6 Lack of awareness
7 Cultural/ religious influence
8 Low educational level
9 Others (specify)

84. Identify the rank order of the following constraints in utilization of AKI by the respondents in the order of their
importance

Constraints of utilization / Tick once for each/

No Very Somewhat Not constraint
important important
constraint constraint
1 It is not timely /season relevant
2 Knowledge and information do not consider
experience/indigenous knowledge/
3 The information is for ideal conditions only
4 I am not interested in using them
5 Lack of credit for technology input purchase
6 It is not suitable to the prevailing agro-ecological
conditions
7 Not suitable to my economic status
8 Lack of land
9 Others (specify)

171