Indria Gandhi National Open University School of Continuing Education

The School of Graduate studies

A Study on the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Motorized Water Pump for
Irrigation: the Case of South Gonder Zone, Dera Woreda, Amhara Region, Ethiopia

By
Abebe Getahun Sendek
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Master of Art Degree
In
Rural Development (MARD)

Major Advisor: Mulugeta Taye (PhD)

October, 1/2012
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled A STUDY ON THE FACTORS

INFLUENCING THE ADOPTION OF MOTORIZED WATER PUMP FOR IRRIGATION: CASE

OF DERA WOREDA. Submitted by me for the partial fulfillment of the M.A in Rural

Development to Indira Gandhi National Open University, (IGNOU), New Delhi, is

my own original work and has not been submitted earlier either to IGNOU or to any

other institution for the fulfillment of the requirement for any course of study. I also

declare that no chapter of this manuscript in the whole or in part is lifted and

incorporated in this report from any earlier work done by me or others.

Place: St. Marry University College IGNOU Coordination

Signature:

Date:

Enrolment No. 1051257

Name: Abebe Getahun Sendek

Address: Addis Ababa – Ethiopia

i
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Abebe Getahun Sendek student of M.A.(RD) from Indria Gandhi

National Open University, New Delhi was working under my supervision and guidance for

his project work for the course MRDP – 001 his project work entitled A STUDY ON THE

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ADOPTION OF MOTORIZED WATER PUMP FOR

IRRIGATION:THE CASE OF DERA WOREDA

Which he is submitting, is his genuine and original work

Signature:

Place:

Date:

Name: Mulugeta Taye (PhD)

Address of the supervisor

St. Mary’s University College

P.O.Box 437

Addis Ababa – Ethiopia

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to thank the Almighty for giving me the chance to enjoy the fruits of my endeavor.

I am very grateful to my advisor Mulugeta Taye (PhD) for accepting me as his advisee for

his professional supports and due concerns from the very start of designing the research

proposal up to thesis write-up. I also owe gratitude to Ato Molla Mohammed for his

supports in designing research questionnaire. It is my pleasure to thank Ato Wubante

Fetene my friend for his help he provided in commenting and correcting research

questionnaire and the write up methodology and showing the way to take care of the

writing style. My heart-felt appreciation goes dera woreda irrigation development agent and

agriculture office staffs without their support on the research data collection this MA (RD)

program would not have been possible. I also indebted to Ato Alebel Amera excellent

support by collecting and submitting different documents to the university and w|ro Adisie

Belay her encouragement to achieve my post graduate studies. I am very indebted to Ato

Alemnew Abay for his excellent support; especially in handling software programs.

My warm thanks are extended to my colleagues Ato Yemiyamrew Zayede for providing

computer facilities, without his support the timely completion of the thesis would has a

difficult task.

My overwhelming acknowledgment goes to Amhara National Regional State Bureau of

Agriculture and Trade and Transport for their limited support in sponsoring me to attend post

graduate studies and research work. by covering the educational and thesis fee,. without their

support the whole possess will never end up. There for I would like to thank again my sponsors’ .

Finally, I would like to convey my heartfelt gratitude to my beloved wife, W/ro Mulu Acha

her encouragement to achieve my post graduate studies.

iii
ACRONYMS

ANRS = Amhara National Regional State

BOA=Bureau of Agriculture
CIMMYT=International Center for Maize and Wheat Researcher
DAs =Development Agent
DWAFEDO=Dera Woreda Administrative Finance and Economic Development office
EPRDF=Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Force
EARO=Ethiopian Agricultural research Organization
FAO=Food and Agriculture Organization
GDP = Gross Domestic Production
LDCs=Less-Development Countries
MOA=Ministry of Agriculture
MWR=Ministry of Water Resource
NGO =Non–Government Organization
PA=Peasant Association
SPSS=Statistical Package for Social Science

iv
Executive Summary

This study was conducted in Dera woreda of South Gondar Zone with an objective to analyze

factors that influence the adoption of motorized water pump. In the process of the study both

primary and secondary data were used, and multi-stage purposive and random sampling

procedures were also used. The respondents were selected by employing probability

proportional to size (PPS) random sampling procedure. The required data were collected using

interview through structured questionnaire.

Descriptive statistics were used to understand the socioeconomic, demographic and institutional

factors while Chi-square tests were employed to examine the mean difference of adopters and

non adopters.

The socio-economic factors of this study revealed that adopters of motorized water pump

were relatively elder, have lower family size, better wealthier, involved on off-farm

activities, participate in more type of social organization, having longer farming experience

and more literate. With regard to farm characteristics adopters have low farm size, and have

lower livestock unit

With respects to extension service and information access it was found that adopters of

motorized water pump have high frequency of extension contact, and have more radio

access than the non-adopters.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION……………………………………………………………………………i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………………………………iii

ACRONYMS……………………………………………………………………………….iv

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………v

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………...vi

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………….ix

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………..1

1.1 Back ground…………………………………………………………………………..1

1.2 Statements of the Problem…………………………………………………………….6

1.3 Objectives of the study ................................................................................................. 7

1.3.1 General objective ................................................................................................... 7

1.3.2 Specific objectives ................................................................................................. 8

1.4 Important terms used in the project title ....................................................................... 8

1.5 Hypothesis of the Study................................................................................................ 9

1.6 Universe of the Study ................................................................................................... 9

1.7 Significance of the study .............................................................................................. 9

2. LITRATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………11

2.1 Differentiation of technology adopters ....................................................................... 13

2.2. Empirical studies ....................................................................................................... 14

2.3 Water Pump and pump types ...................................................................................... 20

2.3.1 Pump .................................................................................................................... 20

vi
 2.3.2 Pump types .......................................................................................................... 20

2.4 The importance of pump............................................................................................. 21

2.5 Why adoption studies are important .......................................................................... 21

3.METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………24

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA……………………………………………..24

3.2 Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 26

3.3 Data Collection Tools and Procedures ....................................................................... 27

3.4 Data processing........................................................................................................... 28

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………….29

4.1. Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics .................................................. 29

4.2 Farming Experience .................................................................................................... 38

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION…………………………………………52

5.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 52

5.2. Recommendation ....................................................................................................... 54

6. REFERENCE……………………………………………………………………………56

vii
7.ANNEX…………………………………………………………………………………..62

Annex 1. Interview Schedule for the study ...................................................................... 62

Annex 2. The primary cooperatives Information ............................................................ 66

Annex 3 . Rivers that can be used for irrigation and their potential ................................ 66

Annex 4. The distribution of motorized water pump in the study is ............................... 67

Annex 5. Amhara region irrigation development performance starting 2007-2011 by

zonal leve………………………………………………………………………………...68

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

page

Table1. Respondent educational status……………………………………………….30

Table 2. Association between age of respondents and adoption of motorized water

pump……………………………………………………………………………………………….32

Table 3. Association between wealth status and adoption of motorized water

pump………………………………………………………………………………………34

Table 4. Association between house type and adoption of motorized water

pump……………………………………………………………………………………….34

Table 5 Association between educational status and adoption of motorized water

pump……………………………………………………………………………………….36

Table6. Association between Perception of respondents about education and adoption of motorized

water pump…………………………………………………………………………………………37

Table 7. Association between of Participation in Social Organization and adoption of

motorizedwaterpump……………………………………………………………………………..38

Table.8. Association between of Farming Experience and Adoption of motorized water

pump……………………………………………………………………………………………….39

Table.9. Association between of Land holding and adoption of motorized water

pump………………………………………………………………………………………………..40

Table.10 Distribution of respondents by access of sharing and land renting …………………..40

ix
Table11. Association between availability labor and adoption of motorized water pump…………41

Table.12. Association between labor shortage operation types and adoption of motorized
waterpump……………………………………………………………………………………….42

Table.13. the system of adopter solving the problem of labor shortage during irrigation by
using water pump…………………………………………………………………………………42

Table.14. Association between distance of irrigable land from their residence and adoption
of motorizedwaterpump…………………………………………………………………………..44

Table.15. Association between to e access to extension service and adoption of

motorizedwaterpump…………………………………………………………………………….45

Table.16. Association between training and workshop access and adoption of motorized
water pump ………………………………………………………………………………………47

Table.17.Associationbetween radio access and adoption of motorized water

pump………………………………………………………………………………………47

Table.18. Association between irrigation product market and adoption of motorized water
pump………………………………………………………………………………………………..49

Table 19. Distribution of sample respondents where the farmers sell irrigation
produce…………………………………………………………………………………….49
Table20. Distribution of sample farmers feeling about the price of irrigation produce……………50

x
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Back ground

Agriculture is the leading sector in the national economy of Ethiopia, accounting for about
46% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while contributing almost 90%of export earnings
and employing 85% of the population (MOA, 2011) .The country is endowed with a wide
range of natural resources such as land, irrigation potential and agro-ecological diversities
suitable for the growing of various crops and need prime consideration and a more
systematic utilization in order to bring a sound change and sustainable growth in the
agriculture sector, which positively contributes for the overall economic development of the
country. The irrigation potential of the country is estimated to be about 3.7 million
hectares, of which about 20 to 23% is currently utilized, even there is no consistent
inventory with regard to the developed area under irrigation both traditional and modern
irrigation schemes .The major production constraints that impede the development of the
irrigation sub sector among others are predominantly primitive nature of the overall
existing production system, shortage and increased price of agricultural inputs and limited
availability of improved irrigation technologies, limited trained man power, inadequate
capacity and skills in the area of irrigation, inadequate extension services, particularly in
irrigated agriculture

Therefore, the importance of irrigation development, particularly in the peasant sub-sector

needs prime consideration to raise production to achieve food self–sufficiency and ensure
food security at household level. The irrigated agriculture can play a vital role in supplying
sufficient amount and the required quality of raw materials for domestic agro-industries and
increase export earnings.

Agriculture in the Ethiopian economy is the largest contributor that amounts 50% of
Domestic Product (GDP), employment of 80% of the population working force, and is the
main income generation sector for the majority of rural population. It also serves as the

1
main source of food, and generates 90%of the foreign exchange earnings. It provides raw
materials for more than 70%the country’s for small, medium and large agro-based
industries (USAID,1995),

Crop production is estimated to contribute on average around 60 percent, livestock

accounts for around 27 percent and forestry and other sub-sectors around 13 percent of the
total agricultural value addition (Getahun, 2003).

Irrigation technologies

Most of the irrigated land is supplied from surface water sources, while ground water use
has just been started on pilot phases in east Amhara, southern Tigray and in the Rift valley
areas .Surface irrigation methods are dominated throughout. Local factors are coming up
and actively engaged in manufacturing irrigation technologies and improved farm
implements, which could be considered as a promising step in strengthening the irrigation
sub sector (MOA, 2011)

Past studies revealed that adoption of agricultural technologies have attracted considerable
attention among development economic activities. Because the majority of the population
of less-developed countries (LDCs) derives its livelihood from agricultural production and
new technology offers opportunity to increase production and income substantially. But,
the introductions of many new technologies have been partially success as measured by
observed rates of adoption (Feder et al., 1984).

According to various estimates the potential of irrigable land in Ethiopia ranges from1.0 to
3.5 million hectares. Despite this potential, only about 160, 000 to 190,000 hectares of land
(5-10%) has been brought under irrigation. Out of this about 65,000 hectares is estimated to
be covered by traditional irrigation system. About 352,000 hectares of land is said to be
irrigable using small-scale irrigation schemes (Berhanu and Don Peden, 2003).

2
Modern water development schemes are recent phenomena in Ethiopia. The imperial
government in the 1950s took the first initiative in water resource development. Large scale
water development projects both for agricultural purposes and power generation were
constructed at the end of the 1950s. These developments were concentrated in the Awash
valley as part of the Agro-Industrial Enterprises Development Initiative.

The focus on large-scale irrigation development and the neglect of small-scale schemes was
reversed when the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) took
power in 1991. The EPRDF government put the development of small-scale irrigation
schemes and improvement of farmer-managed traditional schemes at the forefront of its
water development policy. Moreover, with the creation of the Ministry of Water Resources
(MWR), there is now a unified public agency for water resources development (Berhanu
and Don Peden, 2003).

Farmer participation has moved from a peripheral issue in irrigation management to center
stage. Once thought to be limited to small- scale traditional systems, farmer participation
and even control has become a major component of policies for irrigation development and
reform. Programs to promote farmers’ involvement range from participatory irrigation
management with farmer input as a supplement to agency management to irrigation
management transfer, in which farmers assume full responsibility for operation and
maintenance of specific units of systems. While increasing farmers’ financial contributions
or direct involvement in operation and maintenance on tertiary systems is the most common
element of such programs, a few also involve farmers in main system operation and
maintenance, decision making, and may even transfer full ownership rights and
responsibilities to farmers’ organization (Dick, 1997).
Motorized water pump is a mechanical device to increase the pressure energy of a fluid.
Generally the motorized water pump is used for raising the fluid from a lower level to a
higher level.

3
In the study area irrigation technologies and management was introduced by Koreans in
1988-1992 G.C specifically at jigna kebele by using Gumara River for developing and
producing rice and vegetables.

Motorized water pump and other irrigation technologies is introduced lately in the study
areas Dera woreda following the government’s development policy and irrigation
technologies and as well irrigation production attention given by the government and
special supports by NGOs.As a result the motorized water pump technology adoption needs
high efforts by different stakeholders. By understanding these facts the study is conducted
with the aim of analysis of factors affecting the adoption of motorized water pump in Dera
woreda. Over 90% of agricultural production depends on rain fed agriculture , which also
facing serious challenges and constraints that unable to produce sufficient production to
fulfill the food requirements of the whole nation, This indeed, the importance of irrigation
by using motorized water pump and other technologies in the overall economic
development of the country and practical demonstrations have been observed that through
irrigation there is a possibility to attain agricultural surpluses enough to satisfy the need for
domestic consumption and for external markets, of course with the required quality of
produce.

Therefore, the irrigation sub-sector need to be supported by appropriate irrigation

technologies and related research findings that would assist farmers engaged in irrigated
agriculture to increase production and productivity of irrigated crops, particularly giving
priority to high economic value crops in order to bring sound economic advantage and
alleviate food insecurity problems increase their incomes.
Increasing population pressure decreasing land holdings necessitates intensification of
production practices and using modern irrigation agricultural technologies to meet the
increasing and unlimited demand for food and income of the population

4
The advantages of using motorized water pump for irrigation creates employment
opportunity,it saves time,it helps to irrigate large plot of land within a short period of time, it brings
water from surface water sources by crossing hill area to level areas , it is portable, it can be move
place to place by persons and back animals, for food security and no need of waiting rainfall
season to produce

Amhara region has a vast water resource potential in surface water, river water, ground
water ,international river like that of the Blue Nile draining into the neighboring countries
and other rivers. Therefore there is a good opportunity to use and develop irrigation by
motorized water pump and other irrigation technologies
Over 90% of agricultural production depends on rain fed agriculture, which is also facing
serious challenges and constraints that unable to sufficient production to fulfill the food
requirements of the whole nation. This indeed, the importance of irrigation in the overall
economic development of the country and practical demonstrations of have been observed
that through irrigation there is a possibility to attain agricultural surpluses enough to satisfy
the need for domestic consumption and for external markets.

Therefore, the irrigation sub-sector need to be supported by appropriate irrigation

technologies to increase production and productivity of irrigated crops, particularly giving
priority to market oriented and high economic value crops in order to bring sound economic
advantage and alleviate food insecurity problems

According to Amhara region BOA the irrigated agriculture development department2011

and agricultural input supply and distribution department 2012 annual report indicates that
According to water potential study there is a stock of water estimated to 1.2 million
hectare of land irrigate by this different types of water resource (river,lake,ground water,
surface watered) potential ,1,812,112 hectare plough for irrigation,192,855,512 quintal of
produce was obtained from this land, more than 15 thousand of farmers participate in
irrigation

5
UP to 2012, 57,478 motorized water pump was supplied and 20,067 was distributed
,255,116 tridl pump was supplied and 10,560 was distributed ,72,052 drip irrigation
technologies was supplied and 16,895 was distributed

Even if this motorized technologies supplied and distributed to farmers there is low level of
knowhow and limited practical skills of farmers in irrigated agriculture and agricultural
irrigation technologies with predominated traditional and inefficient water management
practice
The ANRS BOA and irrigation projects were involved for the adoption and dissemination
of motorized water pump technology. However, the extents of which farmers have adopted
these motorized water pumps have not been studied and the factors affecting the adoption
of motorized water pump were not yet known

1.2 Statements of the Problem

Ethiopia is experiencing a rapid population growth (about 2.9% per annum) and the great
challenge is that the growth of the agriculture sector is not proportional with the rate of
population growth and as a result the sector is unable to fulfill the food requirements of
the whole nation and even not satisfying the need of domestic industries in supply of raw
materials with quantity and quality of produce. Crop production is mostly dependent on
rain fed agriculture, which is characterized at the same time with low crop yields, due to
erratic and uneven distribution of rainfall throughout the growing period and even crop
failures are being the common phenomenon, particularly in some drought prone areas of
the country .This fact can bring irrigation to the forefront in the national economic
development plan of the country and this indicates that there is a great need of
strengthening the national capacities and technical capabilities in the irrigation sub-sector
to make the best use of the available water and land resources for improving the irrigation
systems and increase the role of irrigated agriculture in the development of the
agriculture sector in particular and the overall economic development of the country in
general. (MOA, 2011)

6
 The rainfall, characterized with erratic nature and uneven distribution throughout the crop
–growing period. Therefore for this vagary of nature producing by using agricultural
irrigation technologies is very important

Therefore, this study is examine the factors influencing the adoption of the motorized
pump for irrigation in south Gonder zone , Dera woreda and how user and non-user
participation will be associated with different socio-economic factors of smallholders in the
study area.

The Regional Government has supply and distributed motorized water pump for irrigation
for house hold farmers in the study area and handed them over to the smallholder farmers.
However, most of the farmers around the study area do not utilize the motorized water
because of technical knowledge problems, lack of technical support of development agent
(DAs), climatic condition, fragmented of land, knowledge gap, income, initial cost of
pump, educational level, land size, the increase of fuel cost. In spite of the serious problem
of the adoption of agricultural irrigation new technology.

Therefore, I am interested to study and examine the factors influencing the adoption of the
motorized water pump for irrigation in south Gonder zone, dera woreda and how user and
non-user participation was associated with different socio-economic factors of smallholders
in the study area

1.3 Objectives of the study

1.3.1 General objective

To study and examine the factors influencing the adoption of the motorized water
pump for irrigation in south Gonder zone, Dera woreda and how user and non-
user participation will be associated with different socio-economic factors of
smallholders in the study area

7
 1.3.2 Specific objectives

1. To identify socio-economic and other factors that influences the adoption of

motorized water pump
2. To assess the role of the motorized water pump in the study area
3. To analyze factors influencing the adoption of the motorized water pump for
irrigation in the study area
4. To assess the impacts of the technologies on yields and farmers’ incomes.
1.4 Important terms used in the project title

Information: - providing information about events and conditions in society and the world,
indicating relations of power, facilitating innovations, adaptation and progress
Adoption:- is the decision to make full use of an innovation or Technology
Adoption stage:- is the final stage when you decide to continue the full use of the new
ideas. After seeing the performance of technology on a limited scale you will assess the
results of in comparison with your previous experience, the experience of your neighbor
and accordingly decide to go for adoption of technology on a large scale and continue the
adoption of technology for a longer time till you are exposed to another new technology
Innovation:- is the activity by which something new done which could be a new product ,
a better method of production, an improved and better product, a way to reduce cost or a
totally new product for anew or perceived demand. Generally according to Schumpeter
innovation is the introduction of a new product, Adoption of a new technology Opening up
of a new market, Finding out a new source of supply, Bringing about a new organization of
an industry
Creativity:- is the ability to develop new ideas which could result in new product or
services
Change:- involves the replacement of an already existing idea with another idea. Unlike
innovation, which implies adoption of an idea perceived as new, change is necessary to
involve a new idea.
Diffusion:-is the spontaneous spread (dissemination) of new idea, concept or technology
from one person or group to another

8
"Diffusion" refers to the stage in which the technology spreads to general use and
application. "Integration" connotes a sense of acceptance, and perhaps transparency, within
the user environment
1.5 Hypothesis of the Study

The two hypotheses of this study are:

Socio-economic, institutional, infrastructure and demographic factors influence
farmers’ decision to adopt motorized water pump

The physical environments of motorized water pump influence the adoption of
farmers.

1.6 Universe of the Study

The study was conducted at the Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) of south
Gondar administrative zone of Dera woredas’ on kebeles those which use motorized
pump for irrigation and three kebels shall be purposively selected for this study based
on their accessibility for transportation facility. The sample size of the study was 50
farmers from users and 50 from none users and total sample size was 100 farmers for
this study.
1.7 Significance of the study

The productivity of smallholder farmers must be increased considerably in order to be

achieve food self-sufficiency and to diversify their income source. Unless their farm
productivity and diversify increase their food self-sufficiency achievement would be in
question. In this respect, all development partners like extension educators, technical
assistants, NGOs and other development agents involved in agricultural development
must be aware and understand the impacts and factors affecting the adoption of new
technologies in order to target and extend appropriate technologies to farmers, it is also
important for policy makers to know the impact of new technologies and the critical
factors that could accelerate their use. This could facilitate efficient allocation of major
resources for research, extension and development programs, hence, this study
attempted to figure out the impact of adoption of motorized water pump on farm

9
income and factors affecting its adoption by smallholder farmers in the study area and it
is expected that this study will serve as springboard to undertake detailed and
compressive studies for other researchers.

10
2. LITRATURE REVIEW
According to Augustine L. and Mulugetta M. (2005), the simplistic definition of adoption is
basically the use of a technology. This is further elaborated as the incidence /pattern and
intensity of adoption. The incidence indicate whether a farmer has used a technology or not
and the intensity explains the degree of use of technology

Feeder et al. (1985) defined adoption as the degree of use of a new technology in a long-run
equilibrium when a farmer has all of the information about the new technology and its
potential. Therefore, adoption at the farm level describes the realization of a farmer’s
decision to implement a new technology. On the other hand, aggregate adoption is the
process by which a new technology spreads or diffused through a region. Thus, a
distinction exists between adoption at the individual farm level and within a targeted
region. If an innovation is modified periodically, however, the equilibrium level of
adoption will not be achieved. This situation requires the use of econometric procedures
that can capture both the rate and the process of adoption. As the new technology is
introduced, some farmers will experiment with it before adopting. The “rate of adoption” is
defined as the proportion of farmers who have adopted a new technology at a specific point
in time (e.g., the percentage of farmers using motorized water pump). Furthermore, the
“intensity of adoption” is defined as the level of adoption of a given technology, for
example, by the number of hectares planted /irrigated with motorized pump improved.

Chilot (1994) in his study of factors influencing adoption of new wheat technology in

selected district of Ethiopia , found that access to timely availability of fertilizer, perceived

relative profitability of the improved variety, number of extension contact and wealth

position had positively and significantly relation to new improved wheat variety adoption.

11
As of Van den Ban and Hawkins (1996) adoption of improved technologies is strongly

affected by the policy environment like input supply, market .credit, price policies and

improved supply system. Likewise, the effectiveness of extension service and other

communication media as well as farmers educational level influence the use of improved

technology adoption.

Farmers with high number of livestock have an opportunity to bear the risk that may occur

.As a result; it encourages adoption of in new agricultural technologies. In line of this,

studies of Getahun et.al (200) and Endrias, (2003) showed that the number of livestock

owned .that is expressed by Tropical livestock Units (TLUs) significantly influence the

probability of adoption of farm technologies in their respective studies.

Birhanu (2002) observed that the availability of off-farm incomes, extension contact the

total livestock owned, distance between residence and the market are found to have

appositive and significant influence the adoption decision of farmers.

Cramb, (2003) inferred that a number of farms –household factors are typically associated

with adoption,

such as, age ,education and personal characteristics of the household head,size location and

tenure status of the farm ,availability of cash or credit for farm investment,access to market

for farm produce

Determinants of technology adoption encompasses characteristics of the technology

,features, of the farming system ,market and policy environments as well as socio-

economic characteristics of the decision making unit(household, farmer Ehui et.al (2003)

12
The study conducted by Million and Belay (2004) indicated that age had aweak and at the

same time negative association with adoption .In contrary Omiti et.al (1997) investigated

positive relationship between age and adoption behavior of farmers.

2.1 Differentiation of technology adopters

The traditional adoption/diffusion continuum recognizes five categories of participants:

• Innovators :- who tend to be experimentalists and "techies" interested in technology

itself;
• early adopters:- who may be technically sophisticated and interested in technology
for solving professional and academic problems;
• early majority:- who are pragmatists and constitute the first part of the mainstream
• late majority:- who are less comfortable with technology and are the skeptical
second half of the mainstream;
• Laggards:- who may never adopt technology and may be antagonistic and critical
of its use by others. The distribution of these groups within an adopter population
typically follows the familiar bell-shaped curve.

The traditional adoption/diffusion continuum recognizes five categories of participants: 1)

innovators who tend to be experimentalists and "techies" interested in technology itself; 2)
early adopters who may be technically sophisticated and interested in technology for
solving professional and academic problems; 3) early majority who are pragmatists and
constitute the first part of the mainstream; 4) late majority who are less comfortable with
technology and are the skeptical second half of the mainstream; 5) laggards who may never
adopt technology and may be antagonistic and critical of its use by others. The distribution
of these groups within an adopter population typically follows the familiar bell-shaped
curve. Moore (1991) sees these groups as significantly different "markets" in the "selling"
of an innovation to faculty adopters. He suggests that the transition from the early adopters

13
to the early majority--one that is essential to an innovation's success--offers particular
potential for breakdown because the differences between the two groups are so striking

Early Adopters Early Majority

• Not technically focused

• Technology focused • Proponents of evolutionary
• Proponents of revolutionary change change
• Visionary users • Pragmatic users
• Project oriented • Process oriented
• Willing to take risks • Averse to taking risks
• Willing to experiment • Look for proven applications
• Individually self-sufficient • May require support
• Tend to communicate horizontally • Tend to communicate
(focused across disciplines) vertically (focused within a
discipline)

2.2. Empirical studies

Adoption is not just an issue of factor ratios. It is an issue of the overall efficiency of use
and the relative speed of growth in production. Econometric evidence from the Indian
Punjab (Sidhu, 1972) indicates that new wheat technology was not strongly biased in either
a labor saving or a capital saving. Small and large farmers achieved approximately equal
gains in efficiency. Data from the Pakistan and the Philippines indicate that although small
farmers face more constraints on obtaining irrigation and credit than large farmers, these
constraints are not large enough to cause any significant differences in yields between the
two categories of size (Ruttan and Binswanger, 1978).

In an exhaustive survey of literature on technology adoption, Feeder et al., (1985) indicated

that farm size, risk, human capital, labor availability, credit and land tenure were factors

14
that influenced technology adoption. The relationship between these variables and
adoption, however, was not consistent.

One obvious reason for differences in adoption rates in many areas is the degree to which
credit is a constraint (Feeder and Gerald, 1981). Working capital required for new
technologies (hybrid seed, fertilizer, herbicides etc.) are substantially higher than working
capital needed when using traditional technology and this can become an obstacle to the
rate or extent of adoption (Rahman, 1983). Thus, in areas where credit and cash for small
farmers is severely limited, farmers may not be able to adopt high yielding varieties and
fertilizer at the same rate even though these are divisible and require relatively small
amounts of cash.
According to Feder et.al, (1985) in their study of adoption innovation in developing

countries, factors that influence technology adoption are credit, farm size. Risk, labor

availability and human capital and land tenure. The same authors stated that farmers'

awareness about the technology can increase, if they have access to education. Education

can also directly facilitate technology adoption by increasing access to information about

alternative market opportunities and technologies.

Feder et al. (1985) attributes the diffusion path of aggregate adoption of new technologies
to the dynamics of the spread of information. In explaining and interpreting the S-shaped
diffusion curve, Mansfield (1961) hypothesized that the rate of adoption is a function of the
extent of economic merit of the technology, the amount of investment required to adopt the
technology and the degree of uncertainty associated with the technology. Hagerstand
(1967), meanwhile, offered an information transfer explanation. In contrast, Sahal (1981)
employed a learning perspective when explaining diffusion patterns.

The findings of Worman et al. (1990) in Botswana demonstrated that the percentage of
adopters among male-headed households was not significantly greater than for female and
defacto female-headed households.

15
A study carried out by Legesse (1992) in Arsi Negele, Ethiopia using probity and to bit
regression models indicate that the factors significantly influenced the probability of
adoption of improved varieties and intensity of adoption of fertilizer and herbicide include
experience, credit, expected profitability as represented by expected yield, cash availability
for down-payment, participation in farm organizations as a leader and close exposure to
technology.
Legess (1992) revealed that extension contact, poor distribution of inputs and technical

assistance, socio psychological variables such as farmers' ability, belief, habit and

customs, and expectations affect the technology adoption.

A study done by Mulugetta (1994) showed that wheat production technologies are
profitable but inputs are used sub-optimally. Mulugetta also pointed out that institutional
variables (input availability, credit access and extension contact) significantly affect the
incidence of adoption while economic factors (farm size, oxen ownership, labor
availability) influence the intensity of use.

An adoption study by Chilot et al. (1996) indicated that probit and tobit regression models
to assess factors affecting adoption of new wheat technologies in Wolmera and Addis Alem
areas found that perceived profitability of the new wheat technologies and the timely
availability of fertilizer and herbicide had significant effect on farmers’ decisions to adopt.
Distance of respondents’ homes from extension centers also influenced the probability of
adopting improved wheat variety, as well as the intensity of fertilizer and herbicide use.
Characteristics of the household and household heads had little influence on the adoption
decisions of farmers.
Chilot (1994) in his study of factors influencing adoption of new wheat technology in

selected district of Ethiopia , found that access to timely availability of fertilizer, perceived

relative profitability of the improved variety, number of extension contact and wealth

position had positively and significantly relation to new improved wheat variety adoption.

16
Another adoption study by Bekele et al. (2000) indicated that the to bit analysis revealed
that access to credit is an important factor in influencing farmer’s decision to adopt
improved wheat technologies (variety and fertilizer). Access to credit not only relaxes the
cash constraint currently existing in most farm communities, but also facilitates input
availability for farmers. Hired labor is another determinant of a farmer’s ability to adopt
higher nitrogen fertilizer rates.

Furthermore, an adoption study by Tesfaye et al. (2001), shows that farm size influenced
the adoption of improved wheat varieties positively and significantly. Participation of
farmers' on-farm demonstration also positively and significantly affected the adoption
pattern of respondents. Contacts made with extension agents, service cooperative (SC)
representatives, or PA chairmen contributed significantly and positively to adoption. Other
variables such as radio ownership contributed very little suggesting that information about
improved wheat production technologies is more effectively diffused among farmers
through other methods such as extension contact and demonstration of an improved wheat
variety. Number of livestock units, distance to a development center, and years of farming
experience did not contribute to the adoption of improved wheat varieties.

From the review of empirical studies, it could be inferred that agricultural technology
adoption and diffusion patterns are often different from area to area or location to location.
Such differences were attributed to variations in agro-climatic, information, resource
endowment and the type of technologies adopted in the respective study areas of the
sampled farmers. Hence, carrying out adoption studies to identify adoption determinants for
different areas can help in developing suitable technologies and in effectively promoting
them.
Lack of adequate information on farmers’ perception about new technologies, farm and
farmers’ characteristics often place new technologies wrong target regions where they
failed or registered with partial success. In Ethiopia with its main agriculture based
economy, the development initiatives seems to be impractical if smallholder farmers are not
provided with a full scope of means for increasing their productivity, income and standards
of living. This would be of paramount importance when it comes to motorized water pump

17
users. We know little about the kinds of situations needed to encourage farmers to use new
technologies particularly, our understanding of rural decision-making and decision-making
situation is very limited. The situation of smallholders need to be thoroughly investigated
and understand in order to design an appropriate policy.

According to Endrias 2003, the past adoption studies have tried out to identify factor
influencing towards adoption of new technologies. Results of the study indicate that there is
a low level adoption of new technologies. However, it can also be informed that the factor
influencing the adoption of innovations have not been studied in detail. It is also an accepted
fact that the factor influencing adoption of new technologies varies from one context to
another. With this observation and analysis based on the desk review it could infer that
there is a need for a study on understanding the potential influencing factors responsible for
the adoption of new technologies of a particular context. The significance of such study will
provide knowledge and information on the critical factors that can enhance adoption of
modern technologies for different development actors to enhance production and
productivity towards better social and economic life of the farming community.
Farmers with high number of livestock have an opportunity to bear the risk that may occur
.As a result; it encourages adoption of in new agricultural technologies. In line of this,
studies of Getahun et.al (200) and Endrias, (2003) showed that the number of livestock
owned .that is expressed by Tropical livestock Units (TLUs) significantly influence the
probability of adoption of farm technologies in their respective studies
The adoption of agricultural innovation in developing countries attracts considerable
attention because it can provide the basis to adopt or not adopt agricultural technologies
depend on their objective and constraints as well as cost and benefit accruing to it (Mesfin,
2005). Hence farmers will adopt only technology that suit to their needs.
Research study of Itana (1985) showed that literacy, farm size and adequacy of rainfall

affect the adoption of farm decision of farmers positively, while un availability of cash for

down payment and price of farm inputs affect's adoption decision negatively. In the same

18
study farmer’s asset position, non-farm income and price of farm output also found to be

affecting negatively the adoption decision of farmers agricultural technologies..

A study by Makokha et.al (1999), confirmed that farmers characteristics such as

participation in field days and demonstration ,attendance at workshops and seminars

contact with extension and leadership position have significant influence on perception and

hence adoption decision of farmers.

Berhanu (2002) observed that the availability of off-farm incomes, extension contact the

total livestock owned, distance between residence and the market are found to have

appositive and significant influence the adoption decision of farmers.

Cramb 2003) inferred that a number of farms –household factors are typically associated

with adoption, such as

Age: education and personal characteristics of the household head

Size ,location and tenure status of the farm

Availability of cash or credit for farm investment

Access to market for farm produce

Determinants of technology adoption encompasses characteristics of the technology

,features, of the farming system ,market and policy environments as well as socio-

economic characteristics of the decision making unit(household, farmer Ehui et.al (2003)

The study conducted by Million and Belay (2004) indicated that age had aweak and at the

same time negative association with adoption .In contrary Omiti et.al (1997) investigated

positive relationship between age and adoption behavior of farmers.

19
2.3 Water Pump and pump types

2.3.1 Pump

A pump is machine which changes fuel energy into useful water energy and needs petrol or
diesel engine or an electric motor to drive it .In special circumstances it may also be
possible to use wind or solar energy. For surface irrigation the pump lifts water from arriver
or groundwater into a channel or pipe system. For sprinkler and trickle irrigation the pump
provides the energy for the pressure and discharge needed to distribute water in the pipes to
the sprinklers and emitters, in addition to the energy needed to lift water from the source.

2.3.2 Pump types

Although there are many types of pumps and water lifts devices the most commonly used
types are the axial flow (or propeller) pump, the radial flow (or centrifugal) pump, and the
mixed flow pump. These are looked at in detail below.
Axial flow pump
An axial flow pump consists of a propeller hence its alternative name housed inside a tube,
which is located below the water level. The tube acts as the discharge pipe, and the power
unit turns the propeller by means of a long shaft running down the middle of the water at
low pressure and is ideally suited to lifting water from a river or lake to provide surface
irrigation water to a farm with open channel distribution. However, these pumps tend to be
very expensive because of the high cost of materials, particularly the drive shaft and
bearings to support the shafted propeller. For this reason there are no small axial flow
pumps manufactured of a size suitable for the small farm of 1 - 2 ha. They tend only to be
used on larger farms and for communal schemes, where several small farms are irrigated
from the same pump. They are particularly suited to paddy rice schemes because of the
large volumes of water usually needed for this crop.
Radial flow pump

Centrifugal pumps are the most common type of pump used on small schemes because they
are much cheaper than axial pumps to buy and maintain .small pump sets are often

20
readily available in most developing countries .They are best suited to sprinkler and trickle
irrigation ,where a higher pressure is needed than for surface irrigation
Mixed flow
This pump is a mixture of the axial flow and the centrifugal pump and has the advantage of
combining the best features of both pump types. Mixed flow pumps are more efficient at
pumping larger quantities of water than centrifugal pumps and are more efficient at
pumping to higher pressures than axial flow pumps. They can also operate as submersible
pumps, i.e., being completely below the source water surface (M.Kay, silsoe college, uk
and N.hatcho, 1992)

2.4 The importance of pump

• A mechanical device to increase the pressure energy of a fluid

• Generally the pump is used for raising the fluid (liquids or gases) from a lower level
(wet well,river,lake)to a higher level
• For efficiency 0r to save time and lab our within a short period of time to cultivate
a large plot of land
Pumps are used for variety of application like

Supplying of drinking water, irrigation purpose, mine water drainage

Therefore, this study was proposed to analyze factors that influence the adoption of
motorized water pump and it attempts to fill the existing knowledge gap.
2.5 Why adoption studies are important

Any technology can be create and innovate by the researchers and then disseminate to the
users .Most of the technology creation and innovation was driven by the demand of users
Therefore adoption studies are important for the following reasons
1. to identify the Innovators, Early adopters, Early majority, Late majority, Laggards
2. to identify the traditional or backward technologies that the farmers used and
compare with the modern technologies and then to update the old technology or
create and innovate new technology

21
 3. to know the number of the technology users and non users and then to supply
appropriate technology on the right time and place
4. to increase the living standard of the poor people, food in secured people
5. to design information dissemination
6. to develop inadequate agricultural development policies such studies would enhance
the development of effective polices for technology adoption.
It is well understand that technology generation and development is an iterative process
and the supply of technologies needs to be driven by demand from the users. Adoption
studies are therefore important for the following reasons:
1. To quantify the number of technology users over tome to asses impacts or
determine extension requirements. An adoption study would help as in monitoring
and feed back in technology generation. In a traditional
2. technology generation/ development and transfer continuum model, it is used that
researcher would pass the technology on to extension agents to take it to farmers
and the technology would work and be adopted by farmers. Many years of
development efforts proved that such approach has not worked. A participatory
approach to technology development and transfer model is very popular and
contribute to better technology development and transfer. Adoption studies would
provide further insights into effectiveness of technology transfer.
3. To provide information for policy reform. It is well documented that agricultural
development efforts are constrained by the lack or inadequate agricultural
development policies that support development in general and agricultural research
and development in particular. It is important that adoption studies emphasis and
understand the policy bottlenecks to technology adoption. Such studies would
enhance the development of effective polices for technology adoption.
4. To provide a basis for impacts. A number of economists have estimated the high
rate of return to investments in agricultural research. Despite this, policy makers and
donors are not convinced that their resource allocation to agricultural research
brings the desired impact and development. We are observing the downward trend
in investments in agricultural research and transfers in most areas.

22
According to Chris (2000), innovation adoption theory has been applied to wide variety of
products and services. The first step to understand the adoption of new product and services
is to understand the process used by the potential adopters to select or reject a technology.
The adoption process is found to combine five essential steps in all cases: knowledge,
presumption, decision, implementation and confirmation or denial. There broad categories
are found in all type of adoption decision and are unique within any population.
Innovations are not accepted simultaneously by all of the participants. Certain individuals
are predisposed to try out innovation first. Some people are inclined to take greater risks,
be more venturesome and tolerate and Early disappointments. This difference are based on
personality, temperament, experience and perceived need.
Innovation researcher label those individual as innovator and research find that they are
typically about 1.5 – 3% of population success with the innovator does not guarantee
success with the later adopters, but it is required step in the adoption of any innovation.
Innovators and early adopters are frequently categorized together combined; innovators and
early adopter constitute 16% of the population. Recent studies confirm that the adoption by
early adopters does not guarantee. Success with the broader population of mature, late and
laggard adopters and that “gap” may occur after the introduction of technologies to the
early adopter and innovator as Chris (2000) cited from Moore (1991)

23
3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

Location and physical features

Dera woreda (district) is one the south Gonder administrative zone woreda in Amhara

National Regional State which is found in western part of the zone. Anbesame is the

capital city of the Woreda, which is 42 km from bahirdar i.e. the capital city of the region

and 78 km from debretabor i.e. the capital city of the zone .The boundaries of the woreda

are fogera woreda in the north, eastern estie woreda in east, hulet eju woreda in south and

bahirdar zuriya woreda in the west.The woreda is divided in to three town and twenty nine

rural administrative kebeles .

Area
Dera Woreda has an area of 159.079 km2 width. The topography surface of the woreda

characterizes 20 %, mountainous 35% plain and 27% gorge

Climate
The woreda has two agro climatic zones namely Dega 15 % and W/Dega 85% and
contribute the major climatic shares of the area with the main annual rainfall ranges
between 1006 to 1500 mm
The altitude of the study ranges between 1656 ---2600 meter above sea level, the major

types of the soil in the study area are categorized as red 35% gray, 4% black and others

61%.

The major crops cultivated in the study area are teff, maize, rape seed, millet, rice. The

crops that are produced by irrigation are potato, onion, maize, cabbage, tomato In the

24
study area there are 428,578 livestock resource, out of these 39.66% is cattle, 13.48%

shoats, 3.51% equines, and 43.35% poultry the live stock resource potential

Rainfall

The annual rainfall ranges between 1006 to 1500 mm The rainfall pattern distinguishes as

high variability, uneven distribution, uncertain and erratic in nature

Land use

About 37.57 percent of the land is cultivated and used for production of annual and

perennial crops 17.42 percentage of the land covered by forests and herbs. 6.38 percent of

the land is not used for productive purposes /west land, and 18.49 percent is covered by

water, 7.24% represents for house construction and 1.415 covered by others.

Irrigation users , potential rivers ,lakes and distributed irrigation technologies

The irrigation user household was male 26,148 and female 2,740 totally 28,888 households

were irrigation users. In the woreda there are 174 rivers and 1 lake. But the main potential

once are five rivers and one lake ,namely gumara ,gelda,wojo, gebete, ankata and lake

tana , 595 motorized water pump, 282 pedal pump and 224drip irrigation technologies was

distributed (Woreda BOA ,Annex3). .

Population

The woreda has the population male 136,083 and female 137,939 totally 274,022.

Types and numbers of Cooperatives

Primary cooperatives (multipurpose, milk development, fish, irrigation, saving &credit),

and these cooperatives was 29 in number and have 16,044 members out of this 1,294 was

females (Woreda Cooperative Office Annex2)

25
Financial institutions

There are one commercial bank, one credit and saving institution and seven saving and

credit cooperatives

3.2 Sampling

Multi-stage stratified random sampling method was taken to achieve the objective of the
study. Both primary and secondary data were used for the study. All data collected from
those who have motorized water pump and no motorized water pump and these two groups
of farmers were forming the most important sources of information. The water pump user
farmer’s were considered adopter farmers whereas the non motorized water pump farmers
were referred as non adopter farmers.
Multi-stage refers to due to time availability, financial capacity and other logistics of the
researcher out of the ten zones in the Amhara region. South Gonder zone was purposely
selected based on access to irrigation and proximity.. Dera woreda was selected based on its
irrigation potential. Accordingly, three kebeles were selected, namely,
(a) Gina kebele is found near to Lake Tana and Gumara River,
(b) Qorata kebele is found to gelda river and Lake Tana and
(c) Mtili kebele is also found Gumara River and Lake Tana.
Therefore, for selection of the adopter farmers and non adopter farmers
a) In the first stage
Motorized water pump user kebeles was purposely selected based on their rivers and lake
potential, transport facilities, number of irrigation users by water pump on river and lake
schemes based on their proximity for the ease of data collection.

b) In the second stage

After identifying irrigated kebeles the respondents’ farmers was selected from the
motorized water pump user farmers and non- motorized water pump user farmers
randomly. The adopter farmers and the non motorized water pump user farmers were
identified by the kebele development agents and by the village leaders and based on their

26
lists the respondents selected randomly for this study. It covers both female and male
farmer household respondents.
Therefore, the sample size was selected depending on the number the distribution of
motorized water pump users in each kebele .Total sample size of the study area was 100
that was 50 from users and 50 from non users of farmers
3.3 Data Collection Tools and Procedures

Both primary and secondary source of data were used for this study. The primary data were

collected using personal interviews through structured interviews .To make the

communication easier during collection of data from the farmers the interview schedule

was translated into the language of respondents (local language). The primary data was

collected by using four enumerators at kebele level .The enumerators were trained and

closely supervised by the researcher. The secondary data was collected by the researcher by

using checklist guide. Secondary data were also taken from different sources such as,

woreda agriculture, cooperative, administration, finance and economic development office

as well as published and unpublished documents

Suitable techniques were employed to collect the data by considering the objectives stated

and availability of source. Hence, the data collection method was included the interview

schedule.

The interview schedule was containing mostly close-ended questions and some open-ended

questions were included. The interview schedule was pre-tested. After that the interview

schedule was standardized and finalized. Data collected for this study was cover several

topics keeping in mind objectives and hypothesis of the study such as farmer’s

characteristics and broad technological attributes as they relate to adoption improved

technologies.

27
3.4 Data processing

The completed interview schedules were scrutinized, verified edited and arranged serially.

For coding one master code sheets was prepared. Data was preprocessed using computer

SPSS software.

28
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results obtained from descriptive analysis. In the descriptive

statistics percentage and chi-square test were employed in line with different adoption

categories. The results about the significance difference between the adopters and non

adopters are also presented.

4.1. Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics

Sex

A total of 100 respondents, of which 96 male and four female farmers were interviewed

using structured questionnaire to get information on motorized water pump adoption.

Age

The age of the study subjects were ranging from 20 to 60 years; and 94% , 2% and 3% of

them were married, single and widowed, respectively.

Wealth status

The wealth status of the total respondents of the study group was 34%, 59% and 7% as

better-off, middle and poor, respectively.

Family size

The number of family size was 10%, 60%, 29% and 1% as family size groups are 1- 3, 4-

7, 8 – 10 and 11-13, respectively.

29
Educational Status

As indicated in Table 1 the respondents educational status in total is 28, 26, 24, 21

and1 as illiterate read and write only, 1 -4 grade, 5 – 8 grade, 9 – 10 grade level,

respectively. The number of male was much higher than that of the female. The illiterate

male number was much higher than the other groups while the lowest number was from

grade 9-10 Table (1).

Table 1 . Respondents educational status

Educational level Educational status by sex

Male Female Total

Number Number
Illiterate 27 1 28
Read and write 26 26
1-4 24 24
5-8 18 3 21
9-10 1 1
total 96 4 100

Farming Experience

As indicated Table 8 , the respondents farming experience were 1- 10 years, 11 – 20 years,

21– 30 years, 31-40 years and above 40 years, respectively.

30
House type

The type of house the sample households are living in were 10% grass thatched and 89%

iron corrugated sheet

Land holding

The land holding size of the study group ranged from 0. 5 hectare to 6 hectare .The

distribution of the land size was: 0.5-1ha= 20%, 1-1.5ha= 15%, 1.5-2ha = 32%, 2-2.5ha

=12% and

2.5 ha - 6ha =21% indicating that more people were having a land size that ranged between

1.5- 2 ha.

Livestock ownership

The livestock ownership of the respondents ranged from 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 and above 30

units of livestock 27.6%, 26.3%, 5.2% and above 40%, respectively

Off-farm activities.

It refers to the opportunity that the farm household had to work outside their own farm

operations

The respondents were found that 36.1% involved on off-farm and 8.5% not engaged on

off-farm activities. The finding of this study showed that most of the respondents’

livelihood depended on off-farm activities.

Membership of social organization

The distribution of the respondents was: 12.9% in ider, 3.2% in peasant association, 1.1%

in district council and 82.8% were a member of more than one types of social organization.

From this study, there was an understanding that most of the respondents were

participating and involving in some social organizations

31
4.1.1 Association between age and adoption of motorized water pump

The average age of the respondents was from 20 to 60 years, resulting non

significant difference (p.value = 0.762) between age and adoption of motorized

water pump Table (2). The result shows that as the adopter’s age increase the

number of adopters decrease. This might be because producing different vegetables

fruits and crops by irrigation is labor intensive and as their age increases they are

grouped as not an active one for agricultural works. According to Almaz Mesfin

(May, 2008) study on the performance of dairy cooperative members satisfaction in

input and output marketing decreases from the 80% to 33% as age increases from

15 to 67 years. This might be because dairy farming is labor intensive and old

people are at a disadvantage to conduct their business for reasons of physical

difficulties

Table 2. Association between age of respondents and adoption of motorized water pump

Respondent Adopter Non adopter

Age group Total

%
Number % Number %
20-30 0 0 7 12.96 7 7
30-40 20 43.48 13 24.07 33 33
40-50 12 26.09 18 33.33 30 30
50-60 11 23.91 12 22.22 23 23
60-70 3 6.52 4 7.41 7 7
total 46 54 100
2
X =9.292 P.value=0.762

32
4.1.2 Association between wealth status and adoption of motorized water pump

The survey result indicated that the wealth status of the sampled household heads: 35.79%,

62.11% and 2.11% was found better–off, middle and poor, respectively. Among the

sampled respondents the wealth status of the non adopters: 50% , 47.8 %and 2.17% was

found better–off, middle and poor respectively while the adopters was 22.45% 75.55% and

2.04% better–off, middle and poor, respectively. It was also tested statistically and its result

indicated that there is a significant difference on the wealth status of the adopter and non

adopter on motorized water pump technology.

The result showed that the wealth status and the adoption of motorized water pump has a

statistically significant relationship (p.value 0.003) indicating that wealth status has an

influence on the adoption of motorized water pump

33
Table 3. Association between wealth status and adoption of motorized water pump

Wealth Non Adopter Adopter Total

status

Number % Number % %

Better off 23 50 11 22.45 34 35.79

Middle 22 47.8 37 75.55 59 62.11

Poor 1 2.17 1 2.04 2 2.11

Total 46 49 95

2
X =11.05 p.value=0.003

4.1.3 Association between house type and adoption of motorized water pump

As indicated table (4) the adopters house type was 4.45%and 95.56% grass thatched roof and

corrugated iron roofed respectively while 14.82% and 85.18% non adopters house type was

made from grass roofed and iron sheet roofed, respectively Table(4)

Table 4. Association between house type and adoption of motorized water pump

Non adopters Adopters

House type of the
respondents %
Number % Number % Total

Grass thatched roof 8 14.82 2 4.45 10 10.11

Corrugated iron roofed 46 85.18 43 95.56 89 89.90
total 54 45 99

34
4.1.4 Association between educational status and adoption of motorized water pump

This is due to the fact that a farmer with a good knowledge can adopt a good practice to

maximize the adoption of motorized water pump and increase the use of other agricultural

and non agricultural technologies

The distribution of total sample respondents in terms of literacy level has shown that 28%,

26%, 24%, 21% and 1% illiterate, read and write 1-4grade, 5-8 grade and 9-10 grades

respectively. Among the study group, the educational status of non adopter were found

17.39%, 26.09%, 34.78%, 19.57% and 2.17% illiterate, read and write,1-4 grade, 5-8 grade

and 9-10 grade respectively, while the adopters were found 37.04% ,25.93%,14.81%and

22.22% illiterate, read and write,1-4 grade,5-8grade and 9-10 grade, respectively ( Table 5)

The majority of the adopter sample farmers who pursued grade 8 and grade 5-8 were

motorized water pump users. This can be interpreted in such a way that farmers who are

educated are more eager to grasp new ideas and allocate their resources to their best use.

Besides, they could have a better understanding of the technology and could recognize the

importance of motorized water pump for irrigation through better management

The result indicated on Table (5) shows the statistical significant relationship p.value

(0.001) , between the educational status and the adoption of motorized water pump,

indicating the positive role of education on the adoption of motorized water pump. .The

finding is in agreement with the idea of Feder et.al, (1985) who indicated that education or

awareness can directly facilitate technology adoption through increasing access to

information about alternative market opportunities and technologies.

35
Table 5. Association between educational status and adoption of motorized

water pump

Non
Educational level Adopter Adopter
Total %
Number % Number %

Illiterate 8 17.39 20 37.04 28 28

Read and write 12 26.09 14 25.93 26 26

1-4 16 34.78 8 14.81 24 24

5-8 9 19.57 12 22.22 21 21

9-10 1 2.17 0 1 1

total 46 54 100

2
x = 8.808 p.value=0.001

4.1.5 Association between Perception of respondents about education and adoption of

motorized water pump

The study result (table 6) indicated that the perception of the respondents about

education and adoption of motorized water pump was found 85% very important

9% important and 6% less important. The perception of adopters were found that

80.43% very important, 13.05% and 6.52 less important while the non adaptors

88.89% very important, 5.56% important and 5.56% less important

36
Table 6. Association between Perception of respondents about education and

adoption of motorized water pump

Non
Perception of Adopter Adopter
respondents on
education Total %
Number % Number %
Less important 3 6.52 3 5.56 6 6
Important 6 13.05 3 5.56 9 9
Very important 37 80.43 48 88.89 85 85
Total 46 54 100

4.1.6 Association between Participation in Social Organization and Adoption of

motorized water pump

From the total respondents 52 were adopters and out of these adopters 17.31%, 5.77%,

1.92% , and 75% participate in ider, peasant association, district council, more than one

organization, respectively and 82.80% the sample households were found to participate in

more than one types of social organizations. Out of 52 adopters 39 adopters were

participated on more than one types of social organization. From this study adopters are

more involved in different types of social organizations and were found to be statistically

significant Table(7).

This result is in agreement with the idea of Makokha et.al (1999), who indicated that

farmers characteristics such as participation in field days and demonstration ,attendance at

workshops and seminars contact with extension and leadership position have significant

influence on perception and hence adoption decision of farmers

37
 Table 7. Association between of Participation in Social Organization and Adoption

of motorized water pump

Non Adopters
Item social organization Adopters

Total %
Number % Number %

Ider 3 7.32 9 17.31 12 12.91

Peasant association 0 0 3 5.77 3 3.23
District council 0 0 1 1.92 1 1.08
More than one 38 92.69 39 75 77 82.80
organization members
Total 41 52 93

4.2 Farming Experience

The adopter and non adopter farming experience were one year and above 40 years. Out of

the total respondents the farming experience of adopters was 45 (45.46 %,) while the non-

adopters was 54 (54.55 %) resulting non significant differences (Table 8).

38
Table 8. Association between of Farming Experience and Adoption of motorized

water pump

Farming experience years Adopter Non Adopter

Of respondents
Total

Number % Number % %

1-10 0 0 7 12.97 7 7.07

11-20 20 44.45 17 31.49 37 37.38
21-30 11 24.45 21 38.89 32 32.33
31-40 9 20 5 9.26 14 14.15
Above 40 5 11.12 4 7.41 9 9.09
total 45 54 99

4.2.1 Association between of Land holding and Adoption of motorized water pump

The minimum size of land for adopter and non adopter was 0.5 ha .From the total sample of

respondents 28 were adopters and 48 non adopters, resulting significant differences,

indicating that land holding have a positive and significantly influence on the adoption of

motorized water pump Table (9)

39
Table 9. Association between of Land holding and adoption of motorized water

pump

Land holding size in Adopter Non adopter

ha Total %
number % number %
0.5-1 1 3.57 11 22.92 12 15.79
1-1.5 3 10.71 9 18.75 12 15.79
1.5-2 9 32.14 16 33.33 25 32.89
2-2.5 5 17.86 4 8.33 9 11.84
2.5- 6 10 35.71 8 16.67 18 23.68
Total 28 48 76
x2 = 8.986 p.value=0.004

4.2.2 Distribution of respondents by access of sharing and land renting

From the total sample of respondents, 16.27% have their own land,13.56% rent land and

10.17% by sharing of resources Table.(10)

Table 10 .Distribution of respondents by access of sharing and land renting

Access of land Adopter Non adopter

Total

Number % Number % %

ownership 23 82.14 22 70.97 45 16.27

By rent 4 14.29 4 12.90 8 13.56
By sharing 1 3.57 5 16.13 6 10.17
Total 28 31 59

40
4.2.3 Association between availability lab our and adoption of motorized water pump

Out of the total respondents 11.54 percent of adopters not faced labor shortage and 88.46

percent of adopters faced labor shortage and 38.46 percent non adopters not faced labor

shortage and 61.54 percent of non adopters faced during the irrigation season by using

motorized water pump. Labor shortage is significantly affecting in the adoption of

motorized water pump technology Table (11)

Table 11. Association between availability labor and adoption of motorized water

pump

Labor availability Adopters Non adopters Total %

Number % Number %
No labor shortage 3 11.54 15 38.46 18 27.70
Labor shortage 23 88.46 24 61.54 47 72.30
Total 26 39 65

x2=5.647 P.value=0.024

4.2.4 Association between labor shortage operation types and adoption of motorized water

pump

The result shows that out of 60 respondents 58 respondents were faced labor shortage

problems in the agricultural operation .Out of 58 respondents 20.69%, 1.73%, 5.18% ,

5.18% 8.62% and 58.62% faced problems respectively in planting , pitting , weeding ,

watering ,harvesting and at all operation Table ( 12) .

41
Table 12. Association between labor shortage operation types and adoption of

motorized water pump

types of agricultural operation and faced labor shortage

Respondents response At all
On labor shortage Planting Pitting Weeding Watering Harvesting operation Total
yes 12 1 3 3 5 34 58
(20.69%) (1.73%) (5.18) (5.18) (8.62) (58.62)

no 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
(1.73%) (1.73%)
Total 12 2 3 3 6 34 60

4.2.5 The system of adopters solving the problem of labor shortage during

irrigation by using water pump

Out of 60 respondents 33.33 percent, 43.34 percent and 23.34 percent solve labor shortage

problems by labor hiring, debo (helping each other by setting the program) and using

family labor respectively Table(13)

The result shows that most of the respondents solve labor shortage by debo and hiring labor

Table 13. The system of adopter solving the problem of labor shortage during

irrigation by using water pump

Types of solving labor shortage problem during irrigation

By using water pump
Hiring labor debo Using family labor Total

Number of 20 (33.33%) 26 (43.34) 14 (23.34%) 60

respondents

42
4.2.6 Association between distance of irrigable land from their residence and adoption

of motorized water pump

Distance of the irrigable land of the respondents in km from the residence, and walking

hours from the residence to irrigable land has been found to be positively related with

adoption. The closer the residence of the respondents to the irrigable land, more adopters

involve in motorized water pump. From the total respondents of adopters 34.79% and 45.65

% were ≤ 1km and 1-2km far from irrigable land. The larger the distance the irrigable land

from the residence the number of adopters decreased, resulting significant differences as

indicated in Table (14).

This result is in agreement within the finding of Birhanu (2002) who indicated that distance

between residence and the market are found to have a positive and significant influence on

the adoption decision of farmers. The result is also in agreement with Chilot et al. (1996)

who indicated that distance of respondents’ homes from extension centers also influenced

the probability of adopting improved wheat variety as well as the intensity of fertilizer and

herbicide use.

43
Table 14. Association between distance of irrigable land from their residence and

adoption of motorized water pump

Adopters Non adopters

distance Number % Number % Total %
<1km 16 34.79 31 88.57 47 58.02
1-2km 21 45.65 4 11.42 25 30.86
2-3km 5 10.86 0 5 6.17
3-4km 1 2.17 0 1 1.23
4-5km 2 4.34 0 2 2.46
>5km 1 2.17 0 1 1.23
total 46 35 81

x2=24.302 P.value=0.000

4. 3 Association between extension service and adoption of motorized water pump

4.3.1 Association between access to extension service and adoption of motorized water

pump

Offering extension service is one of the important agricultural extension services that is

required to increase agricultural productivity through the adoption of new technologies.

Through the extension service inputs supply, credit service, information dissemination and

technology familiarization is practiced and an enabling environment for production and

productivity improvements created and farmers’ income increment achieved. The survey

44
result showed that about 69 % of the respondents had contact with the extension agent

Table(15).

In the study area, the offices of agricultural development at woreda and kebele level

provide the extension services for the farmers. Out of the total sample farmers interviewed,

52.13% of them were adopters and 47.88% were non adopters. From the total adopters and

non adopters 89.79% and 77.78% respectively said extension access was good for

inputs/technologies supplying, timely harvesting and credit utilization and repayment,

which resulted statistically significant difference between them

Table (15)

Table 15. Association between access to extension service and adoption of

motorized water pump

Extension access Non Adopter Adopter %

Total
Number % Number %
Extension access was good 35 77.78 44 89.79 79 84.04
Extension access was not 1 2.22 0 0 1 1.06
good
Extension access was some 9 20 5 10.20 14 14.89
extent
Total 45 49 94

x2=3.003 P.value=0..004

45
4.3.2 Association between training and workshop access and adoption of motorized

water pump

Training is relatively a means of capacity building where most people tend to participate

and acquired knowledge for proper implementation and properly utilization of agricultural

technologies

Need of training or related to practical support for motorized water pump is a means to

decrease the complexity of the technology. So that the components of the training like tour,

field visit and demonstration trials positively have influenced human behavior and helps

farmers get more information and make understand about the agricultural technologies

The result shows that out of 60 respondents 6 adopters and 4 non adopters totally 10

respondents attend related to on operation /practical of water pump training and at field

demonstration day by NGO(Koreans’) at near Gumara river and woreda agriculture office

at Farmers Training Center (FTC). From 21 adopters 28.58 percent was attend this training

and 71.43 percent not attend training and 89.75 percent the non adopters were not attend

training Table ( 16)

The training was handled with the collaboration of office of woreda agriculture staffs.

46
Table 16. Association between training and workshop access and adoption of

motorized water pump

Adopter Non Adopter

Access of training Total
%
Number % Number %

Attend training
Related to operation water pump 6 28.58 4 10.26 10 16.67
Not attend training
Related to operation water pump 15 71.43 35 89.75 50 83.34
Total 21 39 60

4.3.3 Association between radio access and adoption of motorized water pump

Out of the 100 respondents 73 percent of farmers have their own radio and 23 percent did

not have radio. Out of 55 adopters 45 have their own radio and 10 have no radio and out of

41 non adopters 28 respondents have radio and 13 respondents have no radio . The result

shows that most of adopters have their own radio table (17)

Table17. Association between radio access and adoption of motorized water pump

Adopter Non Adopter

Access of radio Total %
Number % Number %

yes 45 81.81 28 68.30 73 73

no 10 18.19 13 31.70 23 23

Total 55 41 100

47
4.3.4 Association between access to credit and adoption of motorized water pump

Capital is basic in starting-up or running any business activity, be it agricultural or non-

agricultural businesses. Credit is an important institutional service to poor farmers for input

purchase and ultimately to adopt new technology. However, some farmers have access to

credit while most of the respondents did not have an access to credit for irrigation. .

The survey result indicates that 58.82% of the adopters do not have credit access related to

motorized water pump adoption to cultivate crop and fruit and vegetables.

Respondents reported about problems for credit access was related to many factors. About

10%, 33.33%, 53.33% and 3.33%, respectively was shortage of collateral, high interest rate,

bureaucracy and no special credit service for motorized water pump

4.3.5 Association between irrigation product market and adoption of motorized water

pump

The assessment of this part was to know the markets of irrigation product and farmers’

price satisfaction and family consuming abilities. The result showed that the adopters said

that 8.89% , 26.67 % and 64.44 % the respondents of the irrigation product was to sell, to

consume and for both ( to sell and to consume) respectively Table(18)

Out of 79 respondents35( 44.31% )sell their irrigation produce at their farm gate and

55.69% sell by taking to local market Table (19).

48
Table18. Association between irrigation product market and adoption of motorized

water pump

Reasons to produce
Adopters Non Adopters Total %

Number % Number %
To sell 4 8.89 2 6.06 6 7.70
To consume 12 26.67 21 63.63 33 42.30
For both 29 64.44 10 30.30 39
(for sell and consume) 50
total 45 33 78

Table 19.Distribution of sample respondents where the farmers sell irrigation produce

Irrigation produce Adopters Non Adopters Total %

market

Number % Number %
Farm gate 28 62.23 7 20.59 35 44.31
Local market 17 37.77 27 79.41 44 55.70
Total 45 34 79

4.3.6 Distribution of sample farmers feeling about the price of irrigation produce

The assessment of price feeling and satisfaction of the total respondents indicated that

30.38 % said cheap, 11.40 % said costly and 58.23% of the respondent said normal

Table (20)

49
Table20. Distribution of sample farmers feeling about the price of irrigation produce

Irrigation
product price Adopters Non Adopters Total %

Number % Number %
Cheap 20 39.22 4 14.29 24 30.38
Costly 3 5.89 6 21.43 9 11.40
Normal 28 54.91 18 64.29 46 58.23
Total 51 28 79

4.3.7 Income Assessment

Assessment was done to know the feelings of respondents of adopters and whether their

income increased as a result of producing different crops and fruits and vegetables by using

water pump. The assessment indicated that among the adopters 92.5% their income

increased and 7.5% did not increase, the reason why their income not increased was due to

the price of irrigation product was decreased

the cost of fuel for water pump was increased

the land size was not enough for irrigation

4.3.8 Annual income of motorized water pump user between the Year 2006 and 2009

The average annual income of adopters in the year (2006) was 12,589 ET Birr. In the year

(2009 ) the average annual income of adopters was 64,464.52 ET Birr. The study result

indicated that the average annual income difference of the fourth year (2009) and initial

year (2006) of adopters was indicated ET Birr 51875.50 .This also indicated that the

average annual income of adopters increased by 80.48 percent . As at December 31,2009

50
the exchange rate of 1 USD in terms of Ethiopian birr was 12.8925.The income progress in

terms of USD was 51875.50/12.8925=4,023.70 USD

The income difference was from filed crop, from live stock, fruits and vegetables, tuber

crop (potato, tomato, onion,) perennial tree and off-farm activity

51
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion

This study has attempted to identify the contextual factors that influence farmers’ adoption

of motorized water pump for irrigation in Dera woreda, South Gondar zone of Amhara

Region, Ethiopia. The socio-economic factors of this study revealed that adopters of

motorized water pump were relatively elder, wealthier, more involved on off-farm

activities, participate in more type of social organization, and the educational status was

should significance difference on the adoption of the technology

The average ages of non adopter and adopters was found to be 20 to 60 years old. From the

total respondents of adopters 20(43.48%) was the age of 30-40 years old more adopt than

other adopters .It was found to be statistically insignificant Table(1)

Sex association on adoption of motorized water pump technology male house hold was

higher than the female which could be the problem of economical or social of the female

household.

The wealth status was found that there was a statistically significant difference on the

adoption of motorized technology the wealthier the more to adopt the motorized water

pump technology and the result showed that the adopters are wealthier than the non

adopters

The farmers perception of education was showed that a significance difference on the

adoption of the technology. This is due to the fact that a farmer with a good knowledge can

adopt a good practice to adopt new technology

52
With regarded to land holding farm size was showed that a significance difference on the

adoption of the technology

Labour shortage was one of the factor which influence the adoption of motorized water

pump technology and it was found that statistically significant

With respects to extension service the adopters have better extension service, more

information and have more perception on technology adoption have more radio access than

non adopters

The extension services in the study area play the role of fast technology supply and

dissemination

So the survey result of this study showed that there was a significant difference on

motorized water pump adoption between adopters and non adopters inter ms of their access

to extension service in the study area agricultural technology training and workshop have

also appositive influence on the adoption of motorized water pump technology

Distance of the irrigable land from the farmer’s household to the residence has influence on

adoption; the larger walking hours from the residence to irrigable land and the less km from

the residence has negative and positive influence on adoption.

Finally Credit is an important institutional service to poor farmers for input purchase and

ultimately to adopt new technology. However, some farmers have access to credit while

most of the respondent did not have access credit for irrigation. . The survey result

indicates that 58.82% of the adopters do not have credit access related to motorized water

pump adoption to cultivate crop and fruit and vegetables. The researcher suggests that a

special focus on credit would enhance the promotion of water pump technology adoption

there by contributing towards achieving self-sufficiency in food production

53
 5.2. Recommendation

The study revealed that farmers’ perception on motorized water pump compared to other

irrigation technology was and positive for this new technology. This significantly affects

the adoption of motorized water technology.

However, according to surface water potential (rivers) the spread of this water pump

technology is not as expected. Thus further work is required to create awareness and

improving perception through training, education, workshop and demonstration. Therefore,

due attention should be given to perception of farmers on new technology in order to

promote adoption through provision of knowledge by strengthening frequency of extension

contact, training, farmers demonstration As the study indicated that the level of men

participation motorized water water pump technology is higher than that of women which

is 4(4% female) . The women involvement is too minimal. Therefore, women participation

is crucial for improving the existing technology for higher level of adoption.

The study finding showed that access of credit for motorized technology was less

Therefore, it should be given more attention for increasing the adoption of the motorized

water pump

Therefore, this area is a critical part gap for the credit access of motorized water pump

technology and due attention should be given

The study revealed that most of the technology 75% adopters involved more than one

types of social organization and 93% of non adopter involved more than one types of

social organization but they are not adopters . So extension workers/agents should use those

54
social organizations as a good opportunity for extension communication media for the

future intervention

Therefore, this area is a critical part gap for the spread of the technology and due attention

should be given.

55
6. REFERENCE
Amhara region Bureau of Agriculture , in irrigated agriculture core process 2012

indicator plan June, 2011, and agricultural input supply core process 2012 annual report

, Bahirdar

Augustine Langyintuo and Mulugetta Mekuria, 2005. Modeling Agricultural Technology

Adoption Using the Software STATA, CIMMYT-ALP Training Manual No.

1/2005(part two), HARARE, ZIMBABWE

Almaz Mesfin Tirfe , May,2008 Study on the performance of dairy cooperative input and

out put marketing in Astbie Womerta,Alamata and Enderta woreda in Tigray

Region, Ethiopia , Mekele University P. 60

Bekele Hundie kotu, H. Verkuijl, W. Mwangi and D. Tanner. 2000. Adoption of improved

wheat technologies in Adaba and Dodola Woredas of the Bale highlands, Ethiopia.

Mexico, d.f.:Iinternational Maize and Wheat Iimprovement Center (CIMMYT) and

Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organizaton (EARO).

Birhanu Gebremedhin and Peden, D., 2003. Policies and institutions to enhance the impact

of irrigation development in crop-livestock mixed systems in the highlands of

Ethiopia. pp.163-182. Proceedings of Conference on Challenges and Prospects of

Food Security in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 13-15 August 2003.

Ban,A.W.Van den and H.SHawkins,1996. Agricultural extension Black well Science Ltd,

Uk.

56
Berhanu Bedasa (2002) . Analysis of factors affecting the adoption of cross bred dairy cows

in the central high lands of Ethiopia .the case of two districts in north shewa zone.

Msc Thesis ,Alemaya university,Alemaya

Chris Shockman, 2000. Innovation Adoption Process For Third Party Property

Management Companies, university of California, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkely, California

Chilot Yirga, B.I. Shapiro and Mulat Demeke.1996. "Factors influencing adoption of new

wheat technologies in Wolmera and Addis Alem areas of Ethiopia." Ethiopian

Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1:63-84.

Chilot Yirga,1994 factors influencing the adoption of new wheat technologies M.sc Thesis

,Alemaya university, Alemaya

Cramb,R.A.2003. Bees and Keeping : Science ,practice and world resources .Comstock

Publishing associates (Cornell university press), Ithaca, New York.

Endrias Geta, 2003. Adoption of Improved Sweet Potato Varieties. An M.Sc Thesis

Presented To the School Graduation Studies of Alemaya University, Ethiopia

Ehui S.K, Ahmed M.M.Berhanu Gebremedhin, Benin S.E., Nin-pratt A. and Lapar Ma.l.,

2003. Ten years of livestock policy analysis .policies for improving productivity,

comprehensiveness and sustainable livelihoods of smallholder livestock products.

ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya

57
Feder, G. and G.T. O’Mara. 1981. "Farm size and the adoption of green revolution

technologies". Economic development and cultural change, 30: 59-76.

Feder, G. and R. slade. 1984. "The acquisition of information and adoption of new

technology". American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66:312-20.

Feder, G., R. E. Just and D. Zilberman. 1985. "Adoption of agricultural innovations

indeveloping countries: A survey." Economic development and cultural change,

33:255-99

Getahun Bikora, 2003. The food security challenges in Ethiopia. pp. 15-39. Proceedings of

Conference on Challenges and Prospects of Food Security in Ethiopia. Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia, 13-15 August 2003.

Getahun Degu,M.Mwangi, H. ver kuijil and A.wondimu,200.An Assessment of the

adoption of seed and fertilizer packages and the role of credit in small holder Maize

production in sidama and Noorth omo Zones, Ethiopia ,EARO,CIMMYT,Nvember

2004 p.24

Hagerstrand, T. 1967. Innovation diffusion as a spatial process. University of Chicago,

Chicago press, Chicago

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/innovation/adoptiondiffusion.htm

58
Itana Ayana,1985.An analysis of factors affecting the adoption and diffusion patterns of

packages of agricultural technologies in subsistence agriculture . A case study in

two extension districts of Ethiopia.MscThesis Almaya university.

Legesse Dadi.1992. Analysis of factors influencing adoption and the impact of wheat and

maize technologies in Arsi Negele, Ethiopia. M.Sc. thesis, Alemaya University of

Agriculture, Ethiopia

Ministry of Agriculture , Natural Resource sector guide line on , Irrigation Agronom ,

September, 2011, Addis Ababa ,Ethiopia p 2-11

Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resource Sector Guid Line on Irrigation Agronomy

,September,2011 Addis Ababa Ethiopia,p46-55

Million Taddesse and Belay Kasa,2004.Factors influencing the adoption of soil

conservation measures in south Ethiopia .The case of Gununo area .J Agricultural and rural

development in the tropics and sub tropics.105(1) : 49-62.

Mulugetta Mekuria. 1994. An economic analysis of smallholder wheat production and

technology adoption in the South Eastern highlands of Ethiopia. PH.D thesis,

Michigan State University

Mesfine Astatkie, 2005. Analysis of Factor Influencing Adoption of Triticale and Its

Impact. An M.SC Thesis Presented To the School Of Graduation Studies of

Alemaya University, Ethiopia

Mansfield,E.1961."Technical change and the rate of imitationl" Econometrica,29:741-66.

59
Makokha,M.H.Odera,II.K.Martim,J.R.Okelabo and D.M.Iruria,1999.farmers perception

and Adoption of soil management technologies in western Kenya . African crop

science journal, Vol.7

M.Kay,Silsoe College,Uk and N.Hatcho,FAO Land and water Development

Division,Small-Scale Pumped irrigation manual,Rome,1992 p18-19

Meinzen-Dick, R., 1997. Farmer participation in irrigation 20 years of experience and

lessons for the future. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. pp.

103-118.

Moore,1991DifferentiationOfTechnologyAdopters Omiti,J.M.,partan K.A.senden,J.A, and

Ehui,S.K.,1997. Economic contribution of livestock to the subsistence economy of rural

households. The case of Ethiopia

Rahaman, R. 1983. "Adoption of HYV : Role of availability of inputs and the supply side

problem." The Bangladesh development studies, 11:61-76.

Ruttan, V.W. and H.P. Binswanger. 1978. "Induced innovation and the green revolution."

In Binswanger H.P. and V.W. Ruttan (eds). Induced innovation: Technology,

institutions, and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Sidhu, S. 1972. Economics of technical change in wheat production in Pujjab, India. PH.D.

diss., University of Minnesota. Processed.

60
Sahal, D. 1981. Patterns of technological Innovation. Reading, MA: Adison, Wesley.

Sidhu, S. 1972. Economics of technical change in wheat production in Pujjab, India.

PH.D. diss., University of Minnesota. Processed.

Tesfaye Zegeye, Girma Taye, D. Tanner, H. Verkuijl, Aklilu Agidie, and W. Mwangi.

2001. Adoption of Improved Bread Wheat Varieties and Inorganic Fertilizer by

Small-Scale Farmers in Yelmana Densa and Farta Districts of Northwestern

Ethiopia. Mexico, D.F.: Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO) and

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)

Tsehaye Kidanu , April, 2008,factors affecting adoption and profitability ofm fertilizer

marketed through cooperatives in Enderta woreda , Ethiopia, Mekele University

page 75

USAID/Ethiopia. 1995. Fertilizer marketing survey: Descriptive Analysis of the findings.

Vol-1, Addis Ababa Ethiopia

Worman, F.L., C. T. Williams, and G. Heinrich. 1990: Adoption study, Spontaneous

Technology Adoption in Farmer Groups. Agricultural Technology Improvement

Project (ATIP), ATIP Working Paper Wp-34, Botswana.

61
 7.ANNEX
Annex 1. Interview Schedule for the study

This interview Schedule is developed to collect data on the factors influencing the adoption of
motorized for partial fulfillment of masters program me in rural development in South Gondar Zone Dera
Woreda.
1. General Information
2. Circle (0) the chosen answer number or letter
I. Date of Interview ---------------------------------------- Name of Interviewer ------------------------------
II. Name of Respondent ---------------------------------Kebele----------------------------head ship-------------sex---
III. Age a) 20-30 b) 30-40 c) 40-50 d) 50-60 e) above 60
IV. Wealth status a) better off b) middle c) poor
V. Marital status a) Single b) Married c) Divorce d) Widow
VI. Total Number of family size-------- a) able bodied------- b) dependent bodied ---------
VII. Educational Level: 1) illiterate 2) read and write only 3) 1-4 4)5-8 5)9-10 6)10+
VIII. Perception about the importance of education in life and development
1) less important 2) Important 3) very important
IX. How many years you live in the locality--------years
X. When did you start farming for your own? in -----------
XI. What is the type of house you own and live? a) Grass thatched roofed b) Corrugated tin roofed
3. Farm characteristic
3.1. Land holding
1. Total farm size ------hectare 2) irrigable land ----hectare3) Irrigated land------hectare
4) Annual crop land -------hectare 5) Perennial cropland ----hectare 6) Grazing land ----hectare7) Fallow land --
-htr
3.2 Did you have your own water pump? 1) Yes 2) no
3.3 If no, how do you irrigate?1) totally by rent in 2) by sharing resource 3) Other specify ----------------------
4).Distance of the irrigable land from home in Km 1) < 1 km 2) 1-2km 3) 2-3km 4) 4- 5km 5) >5km
6) if other specify--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5). Do you get inputs at the right time 1) yes 2) no
5.1) If not what is the reason?--------------------------------------------------------------------
6) How do you evaluate extension service? 1) Good 2) not god 3) some extent
4) if Other specify ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) How do you get irrigable land? 1) Ownership 2) by rent 3) by investment 4) by sharing 5) other ways

62
 8) Livestock ownership
Type of livestock Number Tropical
livestock
unit
Oxen
Cow
Heifer /Gider
Calf /Tija
Sheep
Horse
Donkey
Mule
Chicken/Dero
Bee hive
Other

9. Off- farm activities

9.1. do you and your family have involved in off-farm activities 1) Yes 2) no
9.2 If yes, which type of off - farm activity you and your family are engaged?
1) Paid daily labor 2) Petty trade 3) Handicraft (weaver) 4) Carpentry (masonry) 5) if other specify -------
10) Use of motorized water pump
10.1. Have you ever used motorized water pump?1) yes, 2) no
10.2. If yes, when did you start? in -----------
10.3 If the answer of Q10.1 is No, what is the reason? 1) None availability of motorized water pump
material
2) Not heard about introduction of the motorized water pump in the area 3) Land shortage
4) Not accustomed in the area 5) the motorized water pump is expensive
10.4. Where did you get the motorized water pump?
1) Market 2) Agriculture office 3) NGOs 4) Neighbor 5) other fellow farmers
10.5. Why did you decide to use the motorized water pump?
1) to save human lab our 2) to cultivate large area of land 3) to ensure food security 4) to increase income
5) if Other specify ------------------------------------------------------------------
10.6. From where did you first hear about the motorized water pump?
1) Development agents 2) Neighbor 3) Radio 4) Television 5) On farmers day 6) other fellow farmers
7) if Other specify --------------------------------------------------------

63
10.7. Do you get adequate motorized water pump on time? 1) Yes, 2) no
10.8. If no, what is the reason for not getting adequate motorized water pump for the cultivation of different
crops? 1) Not available in the market 2) Too expensive 3) Not available on time
4) Cash shortage 5) if other specify ---------------------------------------------------------------
10.9 Is there sufficient access of maintenance for motorized water pump? 1) yes 2)no
10.10 How do you compare the characteristics of motorized water pump with the substitute of Drip irrigation
technology, gravity/can anal irrigation technology, pedal pump technology 1) better, 2) poor, 3) no change
10.11 if your answer is better how?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.12 If your answer is poor how?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.13 if other specify---------------------------------------------------
11. Availability of Credit
11.1 Do you use motorized water pump by buying in cash 1) Yes 2) no
11.2 If the answer is “no” what is the reason?1) Do not have cash 2 ) No access of credit
3) Use the cash for other business activity 4) if other specify ----------------------------------------------------------
11.3 Have you ever received credit service for irrigation? 1) Yes, 2) no
11.4 If yes for what purpose do you use the credit?
1) For motorized water pump 2) For improved seed 3) For fertilizer 4) if other specify ---------------------
11.5 What factors hinder for the access of credit?1) Shortages of collateral 2) High interest rate 3)
Bureaucracy 4) No credit service for motorized water pump 5) if other specify -----------------------------------
12. Membership of social organization
Position
Type of organization Ordinary member Committee member Chair man/ leader

Irrigation cooperatives
Multipurpose Cooperative
saving &credit cops
Ider
Iqube
Peasant association(PA)
District council
Other specify

13. Extension services

13.1. Did you have any contact with extension agents during the last irrigation season? 1) Yes 2) no

13.2. If yes, on average how many days did the development agent contact (visit) you?
1) Once per month 2) Twice per month 3) Three times per month 4) if other specify -------------------------
13.3. Have you attending any agricultural training related to the use and operation of motorized water pump ?
1) Yes 2) no

64
If yes where Duration Title of the training Which organization gives the
training
-------------- ---------- --------------------------- -- --- -----------------------------
13.4 Have you ever attended in any practical motorized water pump field demonstration or practical workshop
arranged by any body? 1) Yes 2) No
13.5. From whom/where do you adopt the motorized water pump other than extension agents?
1) NGOs 2) Experts in woreda office 3) Radio /television 4) if other specify -------------------------------
13.6 Have you ever been observing when other farmers sale the product of irrigation? 1) Yes 2) no
13.7. Do you have radio? 1) Yes 2) no
13.8 What are the most crop types that you cultivate by irrigation by using motorized water pump?
Onion----tomato------potato-----maize------carrot----cabbage------ if others (specify) -------------
14. Labor availability
14.1. Did you face any labor shortage during the last irrigation season motorized water pump? 1) Yes 2) no
14.2 If yes, for which farm operation did you face the labor shortage by using motorized water pump in the
irrigation season? 1)for plugging 2) for planting 3) for pitting 4)weeding 5) watering 6) harvesting
14.3 How did you solve the problem?
1) Hiring 2) debo (use of communal labor) 3) using family labor 4) if other specify--------------------------
15. Market services
15.1. You are producing products with irrigation a) to sell b) to consume c) both
15.2 if it is to sell Where do you sell your irrigation product?1) At farm gate 2) Taking to local market
3) Through cooperatives 4) if Others specify -----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.3. Do you think you have received a fair price for your irrigation product? 1) Yes 2) no
15.4. What do you feel about the price of irrigation product? 1) Cheap 2) Costly 3) Normal
16. Annual Income source
16.1. What are your major sources of income?1) Field crop 2) Live stock 3) Vegetable 4) Fruit 5) Perennial
tree (eucalyptus) 6) off farm activity 7) if Other specify-----------------------------
16.2. Do you think after you use the motorized water pump your income increased? 1) yes 2) no
16.3 If the answer “no” why? 1)the price of irrigation product decrease 2)the cost of fuel for the motor was very
high
3) much cost for the maintenance of the motor 4)There was no proper storage facility 5) if Other specify ---

65
16.4. four years of Income
Before using motorized After using motorized water pump
water pump
Type of income source 1999/2000 in Birr 2000/2001 2001/2002 in 2002/2003in birr
in birr birr
From filed crop
From live stock
From vegetable
Tuber crop(potato ,carrot etc--)
From fruit
Perennial tree (eucalyptus)
From off farm activity
Total

Annex 2. The primary cooperatives Information

s/no Types of Number of members

cooperatives In number male female total
capital
1 Multi purpose 17 14057 1194 15251 9382113.59
2 Saving&credit 7 350 85 435 296480.59
3 Dairy cops 1 64 9 73 18394.50
4 Irrigation cops 3 114 1 115 Not available
5 Fish cops 1 165 5 170 175100
total 29 14,750 1,294 16,044
Source:- Dera Woreda cooperative office Amharic Version

Annex 3 . Rivers that can be used for irrigation and their potential

s/no The name the river Potential for irrigation in hectare

1 Gumara 905
2 Gelda 140
3 Gebete 5.25
4 Anqata 1
5 Sana dum 100
Source:- woreda finance and economy development bulletin May, 2009

66
Annex 4. The distribution of motorized water pump in the study is

Distributed in number
year

2006/2007
33
2007/2008
25
2008/2009
12
2009/2010 525
Total 595

Source woreda agriculture office

The pedal pump distributed in the study area until 282 and drip irrigation technology was

224

67
 Annex 5. Amhara region irrigation development performance starting 2007-2011 by zonal

leve

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Irrigate
Qut/y of Qut/y of d land Qut/y of Qut/y of Qut/y of
Name of Irrigated product Irrigate product product product product
zone land obtained d land obtained obtained Irrigated obtained Irrigate obtained
in q/t in q/t in q/t land in q/t d land in q/t

Eastgojam 45347 3391245 52056 5281496 56903 7306899 70505 7813646 76525 10916939

Awi 53491 3858631 59534 4872487 67571 7300945 74121 9873773 83168 10355133
weast 23971 3084860 29473 3546695 41296 5634851 59963 7218242 68062 8971927
gojam
N/gonder 15948 1477250 16915 1294876 31307 2736695 40310 3726618 42744 4234710

S/gonder 28896 2252217 33195 2672003 38430 3489815 53412 5820046 58416 7438477
N/wollo 14923 1078907 16938 1224643 22341 3361618 27525 2943134 27215 3647389
S/wollo 34566 2178158 36454 2046879 41405 2060507 57045 4177985 63760 4818424
N/shoa 26288 1915891 29458 2621666 35631 4994573 40732 7733473 43026 7319357
oromiya 7756 442183 6772 458262 8762 1011497 15403 1843091 14773 1450504
Waghimra 2199 43643 2583 83441 4080 104108 5604 277898 4975 4477806

sum 253,330 1972298 283378 24102448 347725 38001508 444620 51427905 483059 59600666
5
Source:- Amhara region Bureau of Agriculture, in irrigated agriculture development core
process 2012 indicator plan June, 2011 and agricultural input supply core process 2012
annual report, Bahirdar

68