Crop diversification analysis on red pepper dominated smallholder farming system: evidence from northwest Ethiopia

Ecological Processes

Table 2 Tobit regression result on status and intensity of crop diversification

Variables	Coefficient	Std. Err.	t value	Probability coefficient	Intensity coefficient
Age of household (year)	0.001^***	0.0004	2.59	0.002^***	0.0008^***
Sex (1 = male, 0 otherwise)	0.05^**	0.02	2.46	0 .15^*	0.03^***
Literacy status (1 = literate, 0 otherwise)	0.01	0.007	1.39	0.03	0.007
Farm experience (year)	− 0.0005	0.0004	− 1.29	− 0.001	− 0.0003
Family size (AE)	− 0.004	0.003	− 1.29	− 0.01	− 0.003
Land size	0.05^***	0.005	9.39	0.11^***	0.03^***
Livestock holding (TLU)	− 0.00001	0.00001	− 0.77	− 0.00003	− 9.65e-06
Fragmentation (number)	− 0.02^***	0.005	− 4.45	− 0.06^***	− 0.02^***
Fertility of soil ((1 = fertile, 0 otherwise)	− 0.003	0.011	− 0.29	− 0.01	− 0.002
Distance to development center (km)	− 0.002^*	0.001	− 1.76	− 0.005^*	− 0.002^*
Access to extension(1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	− 0.02	0.010	− 1.42	− 0.03	− 0.01
Access to credit ((1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	− 0.007	0.008	− 0.94	− 0.02	− 0.005
Market information (1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	0.005	0.009	0.60	0.01	0.004
Market distance (km)	0.003	0.0008	3.46	0.01^***	0.002^***
Cooperative membership (1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	0.007	0.008	0.92	0.02	0.005
Participation of off income (1 = yes, 0 otherwise)	− 0.03	0.008	− 3.86	− 0.07^***	− 0.02^***
Constant	0.68	0.028	24.26
	Number of obs = 385 LR chi²(16) = 149.52^*** Pseudo R² = − 0.3166 Log likelihood = 310.92

Dependent variable = decision and extent of crop diversification
***, **, and * show the value statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively