Impact of adopting improved Arabica varieties on the livelihood of organic coffee producers’ of Ethiopia: Continuous treatment approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Variable definitions, measurement and working hypothesis.

Variable	Variable description and measurement	Hypothesis
Treatment variables
Intensity of adoption of improved coffee Arabica varieties	Continuous; Percentage of total land area covered by improved coffee Arabica varieties
Outcome variables
Household per capita income	Continuous; Ethiopian birr
Consumption expenditure per adult equivalent	Continuous; Ethiopian birr
Calorie intake per adult equivalent	Continuous; kilocalories per adult equivalent
Explanatory variables
Age of household head	Continuous; years	+
Years of schooling	Continuous; education level attained	+
Family size	Continuous; number of family members	+
Livestock holding (TLU)	Continuous; Tropical livestock unit	+
Distance to market	Continuous; hours	–
Distance main road	Continuous; hours	–
Distance to get improve seed	Continuous; hours	–
Age square	Continuous; years square	–
Age cube	Continuous; years cube	–
TLU square	Continuous; Tropical livestock unit square	–
TLU cube	Continuous; Tropical livestock unit cube	–
Education level square	Continuous; education level attained square	+
Education level cube	Continuous; education level attained cube	+
Family size square	Continuous; number of family members square	+
Family size cube	Continuous; number of family members cube	+
Distance main road square	Continuous; hours square	–
Distance main road cube	Continuous; hours cube	–
Distance to get improve seed square	Continuous; hours square	–
Distance to get improve seed cube	Continuous; hours cube	–

Table 2. Sample households’ distribution by adoption intensity score group.

Variable	Treatment interval with GPS estimate	No.	%
Group 1	≤ 0.498753	35	29
Group 2	0.498753 to 0.731707	50	42
Group 3	≥ 0.731707	35	29

Table 3. Socio-economic characteristics of sample households by the intensity of adoption.

Variables	Description	Low		Medium		High		Total
		(N = 35)		(N = 50)		(N = 35)		(N = 120)
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Sex of the head (1 = male)	Male	33	94.29	44	88	31	88.57	108	90	1.016NS
	Female	2	5.71	6	12	4	11.43	12	10
Off-farm income participation (1 = yes)	Yes	13	37.14	7	14	8	23.53	28	23.33	6.170**
	No	22	62.86	43	86	27	79.41	92	76.67
Credit use (1 = yes)	Yes	12	34.29	17	34	11	31.43	40	33.33	0.081NS
	No	23	65.71	33	66	24	68.57	80	66.67

Note: **means significant at the 5 percent probability level.

Table 4. Socioeconomic characteristics of sample households by adoption intensity.

Variables	Status	No.	Mean	ST D	F
Age	Low	35	45.74	9.86	1.935
	Medium	50	45.24	10.26
	High	35	49.54	11.20
Education level	Low	35	6.23	2.71	0.202
	Medium	50	5.84	2.85
	High	35	6.03	2.76
TLU	Low	35	0.71	0.96	0.97
	Medium	50	0.75	1.03
	High	35	1.01	0.99
Family size	Low	35	7.43	1.93	4.744***
	Medium	50	6.42	1.28
	High	35	6.60	1.42
Farm size	Low	35	2.04	1.33	2.041
	Medium	50	1.63	1.26
	High	35	2.29	1.99
Distance to the market	Low	35	2.67	1.73	1.761
	Medium	50	2.09	1.19
	High	35	2.07	1.77
Distance to the main road	Low	35	3.74	3.17	3.272**
	Medium	50	4.65	2.58
	High	35	5.44	2.66
Distance to improved seed source	Low	35	3.89	3.50	2.03
	Medium	50	3.64	2.51
	High	35	3.76	4.60

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

Table 5. The estimated value of the generalized propensity score distribution.

Variable	No.	Mean	STD	Min	Max
Total sample	120	1.528441	0.586993	0.0293217	2.052708
Group 1	35	1.289562	0.6374005	0.0293217	2.052708
Group 2	50	1.870072	0.3042379	0.3846405	2.052354
Group 3	35	1.279274	0.6099186	0.2281389	2.052411

Figure 1. GPS-score Kernel density with common support regions.

Table 6. Balancing: test for covariate means equality³.

Variables	T-statistics of mean difference before the match						T-statistics of mean difference After the match
	0 - 0.498753		0.512194 - 0.731706		0.737704 - 0.988048		0 - 0.498753		0.512194-0.731706		0.737704 - 0.988048
	Mean Difference	T-value	Mean Difference	T-value	Mean Difference	T-value	Mean Difference	T-value	Mean Difference	T-value	Mean Difference	T-value
Age	1.269	.599	2.403	1.237	−4.096	−1.963*	1.276	.727	2.304	1.204	−3.587	−1.708
Education level	−.311	−.558	.289	.562	−.029	−.051	.262	.525	.04747	.0907	−0.408	−.684
TLU	.150	.749	.10716	.578	−.276	−1.384	−.0817	−.456	.150	.802	−0.121	−.5729
Family size	−.934	−3.043***	.594	2.057**	.235	.740	−.171	−.54693	.427	1.548	−0.117	−.364
Distance to market	−.477	−.881	.640	1.287	−.276	−.508	.140	.31266	.58748	1.1917	−0.363	−.6268
Distance main road	1.238	2.203**	−.059	−.112	−1.168	−2.074**	−.121	−.259	.314	.623	−0.661	−1.152
Dis. iimprovseed	−1.127	−1.589	1.394	2.148**	−.512	−.716	−.343	−.631	1.1925	1.8182	−0.738	−.9951
Age square	138.71	.662	231.677	1.204	−411.272	−1.992**	110.08	.661	235.06	1.240	−347.180	−1.700
Age cube	12283.1	0.743	16723.68	1.100	−31958.1	−1.959*	7721.3	.619	17956	1.201	−25864	−1.635
TLU square	.157	.240	−.005	−.008	−.152	−.232	−.100	−.167	.081	.131	−0.036	−.051
TLU cube	.538	.224	−.240	−.108	−.256	−.106	.085	.037	−.7834	−.341	0.586	.219
Education level square	−3.178	−.465	2.763	.439	−.072	−.011	3.997	.645	−.393	−.061	−3.854	−.525
Education level cube	−15.2	−.190	19.780	.269	−8.106	−.101	52.761	.720	−12.209	−.162	−38.983	−.453
Family size square	−14.871	−3.162***	9.337	2.106**	3.886	.795	−3.026	−.586	6.865	1.598	−1.331	−.260
Family size cube	−191.8	−3.116***	120.234	2.073**	50.383	.789	−45.53	−.630	91.195	1.586	−9.775	−.141
Distance main road square	−4.313	−.633	6.817	1.088	−3.708	−.544	2.204	.374	6.081	.964	−4.870	−.654
Distance main road cube	−31.20	−.396	57.066	.787	−35.933	−.456	31.036	.443	43.8	.587	−52.895	−.601
dissorimprovseed square	−8.20	−.607	19.941	1.616	−15.259	−1.134	−3.084	−.410	18.087	1.451	−13.019	−.966
dissorimprovseed cube	19.60	.065	328.797	1.187	−406.423	−1.356	−23.097	−.224	328.35	1.187	−257.910	−.893

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

Table 7. Consumption spending, per capita income, and daily calorie intake per AE for households are approximated using the dose-response function.

Variables	Calorie intake			Consumption expenditure			Per capita income
	Coef.	Std. Err.	t	Coef.	Std. Err.	t	Coef.	Std. Err.	t
Intensity of adoption	2401.19	2294.24	1.05	37592.08	21870.45	1.72*	−39387.47	20459.82	−1.93**
Intensity of adoption _square	−4474.76	2129.21	−2.10**	−37833.86	20297.23	−1.86*	20796.55	29252.27	0.71
GPS	−1729.51	859.08	−2.01**	−8690.44	8189.37	−1.06	14069	12534	1.12
GPS_ square	−13.14	334.44	−0.04	30.67	3188.13	0.01	−8310.92	4929.11	−1.69*
Intensity of adoption*GPS	2024.91	690.99	2.93***	1339.25	6587.14	0.20	1680.512	665.405	2.53**
_cons	3733.09	599.42	6.23***	28425	5714.15	4.97***	11195.02	8542.34	1.31
Adj R − squared	0.0998			0.0976			0.0464
Number of obs	111			111			111
Prob > F	0.0054			0.0049			0.0636

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

Figure 2. Adoption intensity on daily calorie intake dose-response and treatment effect.

Figure 3. Adoption intensity on consumption expenditure dose-response and treatment effect.

Figure 4. Adoption intensity on per capita income dose-response and treatment effect.