Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Impact of small-scale irrigation on the livelihood and resilience of

smallholder farmers against climate change stresses: Evidence
from Kersa district, eastern Oromia, Ethiopia
Ibsa Dawid Mume a, *, Jema Haji Mohammed b, Mohammed Aman Ogeto c
a
Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Asella Agricultural Engineering Research Center, P.O.Box. 06, Asella, Ethiopia
b
School of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Haramaya University, P.O.Box. 138, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
c
School of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Haramaya University, P.O.Box. 50, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study mainly aimed to evaluate the impact of small-scale irrigation on the livelihood and
Climate change resilience of farmers toward climate change in Kersa district of the eastern Oromia region of
Livelihood Ethiopia. A sample of 288 randomly selected households (158 non-adopters and 130 adopters)
Propensity score matching
was used to gather the data. The data were analyzed using the resilience capacity index and
Resilience
Small-scale irrigation
propensity score matching methods. The resilience capacity index was utilized to summarize all
Ethiopia the resilience indicators into a single value, and propensity score matching was used to evaluate
the impact. The results of the average treatment effect on the treated analysis revealed that
adopters were better-off in crop yields by 84.72 quintals per hectare, 55641.60 birr in total in­
come, and by 2.02 resilience capacity index compared to non-adopters. The results of the study
indicate that small-scale irrigation significantly improves farm households’ livelihoods and mit­
igates the effects of climate change by enhancing their ability to respond to erratic weather
events, which builds their resilience. Therefore, policymakers should prioritize small-scale irri­
gation practices to improve rural households’ livelihoods and farmers’ resilience in areas with
irregular rainfall and a high risk of drought.

1. Introduction

Climate change is arguably the most serious and complex challenge facing today’s society, a crosscutting issue affecting several
sectors and linked to other global issues [1]. Climate change is currently regarded as the most severe environmental threat, affecting a
wide range of activities, especially in nations where agriculture is an important sector [2]. Developing nations are extremely exposed
to climate change due to their economies’ excessive reliance on climate-sensitive sectors [3,4]. Most smallholders rely on
climate-sensitive rain-fed agriculture, and the sector is more susceptible to climate change effects than other sectors [5]. The negative
consequences of climate change on agriculture are obvious, as its concerns influence the livelihoods of smallholder farmers [6].
Agricultural production systems that are predominantly rain-fed, use old technologies, and are operated by smallholder farmers are
more sensitive to the adverse effects of climate change [7]. The livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia remain seriously
threatened by the adverse effects of climate change [8]. Increased climate variability (changing rainfall patterns, increased

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Dawid Mume).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18976
Received 19 March 2023; Received in revised form 28 July 2023; Accepted 3 August 2023
Available online 9 August 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
I. Dawid Mume et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

temperature, and lower precipitation) leads to more variability in production, causing low productivity and limited coping options for
smallholder farmers [9]. The country is susceptible to the adverse effects of climate change due to its low level of economic devel­
opment and reliance on rain-fed agriculture [10].
The Climate-Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) initiative was started by the Ethiopian government to protect the nation from the
negative effects of climate change and to build a green economy that will assist Ethiopia in reaching its goal of becoming a middle-
income nation by 2025 [11]. Improving agricultural production methods is one of the pillars of CRGE in order to attain food secu­
rity and increase farmers’ incomes in order to improve resilient and climate change-adaptive systems. Adoption of climate-smart
agriculture (CSA) practices is required to meet the aforementioned goals [12]. Adopting CSA practices can help farmers become
more resilient to climatic variability and climate change [12,13]. In spite of any short-term difficulties, resilient households are those
that effectively implement climate-smart agricultural methods and eventually escape poverty and vulnerability [14,15]. Improve­
ments in farming systems through the adoption of CSA practices are essential to attaining climate resilience and enhancing sustainable
livelihoods for farmers [16]. Small-scale irrigation is one of the most important CSA practices employed in developing countries as a
climate change adaptation strategy for enhancing yields [17].
The usefulness of CSA practices in assisting farmers and their decisions about executing CSA practices and policies depend on their
local resources, situations, and agro-ecology [18,19]. To combat the adverse implications of climate change on rural livelihoods, the
adoption of CSA practices like the development of small-scale irrigation holds substantial promise for enhancing output and mini­
mizing exposure to climate volatility [17,20].
Studies indicate the various roles of small-scale irrigation schemes on the livelihood of smallholder farmers, including diversifi­
cation of crops, increased production, better income, and job opportunities [17,21]; ensuring food security and improved livelihoods
[22]; stabilizing agricultural production and improving resilience [23–25]; coping with the negative effects of climate change by
improving productivity and production volume [26–28]; and improving household income [29–31].
It is estimated that Ethiopia has an irrigation potential of 5,536,457 ha, of which 4,256,457 ha have been irrigated [32]. According
to the authors, the Oromia region has plenty of water resources and irrigable land. The region has an irrigation potential of 1.7 million
hectares of irrigable land, of which 1,350,000 ha are irrigated in different irrigation systems. In the study area, Kersa district has
diverse watercourses that seem appropriate for small-scale irrigation farming. In the district, donors such as the International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) were involved in irrigation scheme development and promotion to improve smallholder farmers’
livelihoods. More than 5071 ha of land in the district have the capacity to be irrigated, of which 2704 ha have been cultivated using
various techniques of irrigation. A total of 5834 households in the district benefited from small-scale irrigation farming [33].
Despite this potential, there is little empirical evidence on how small-scale irrigation farming influences the livelihood and resil­
ience of smallholder farmers to the effects of climate change in the study area. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess how small-
scale irrigation influenced the livelihood and resilience of farm households and to provide information for future investigations and
policy interventions. Specifically, the study was established to address the following research questions: What aspects determine the
use of small-scale irrigation? Does the use of small-scale irrigation enhance the livelihood and resilience of smallholder farmers against
the adverse impacts of climate change?

2. Research methodology

2.1. Description of the study area

The study area is located in eastern Ethiopia, approximately 478 km east of Addis Ababa. Kersa is one of the districts in the Eastern
Oromia region of Ethiopia. The estimated 199,601 people in the district are mostly rural (93.8%), with urban residents making up only
6.2% of the total population [33]. The district has a total population of 101,796 males and 97,805 females. The agro-ecology is
classified as midland (74%), highland (20%), and some lowland (6%). The average annual rainfall is 886.5 mm, and the average
annual temperature is 21.2 ◦ C.
The crop-livestock production system is the main activity of the smallholder farmers in the district to improve their livelihoods. In
order of importance, the most common cereal crops grown were sorghum, maize, wheat, barley, and pulses. Khat and vegetables are
the known cash crops. Cattle, goats, and sheep are among the livestock species reared by the community in the district. The main
economic activities were food crops, cash crops (khat), and livestock production. The most important crops sold were khat, potatoes,
and onions. Land ownership, livestock production, and other resources determine the wealth status of the district [33,34].

2.2. Sources of data and methods of data collection

For this study, primary and secondary data sources were used. The primary data were collected using a semi-structured ques­
tionnaire at the household level through interviews. The secondary data were gathered from different documents, including official
reports, published and unpublished articles, and other similar relevant documents from records of the district’s agricultural devel­
opment office and natural resources, to supplement the primary data.

2.3. Sampling procedures and sample size determination

A three-stage sampling approach was used to select the required sample households. First, Kersa district was purposefully selected
based on its susceptibility to climate change and climate variability like erratic rainfall and drought [34], and the district has broad

2
I. Dawid Mume et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

experience in implementing small-scale irrigation farming activities [13]. Secondly, four kebeles were selected randomly from 12
potential small-scale irrigation practices. Thirdly, the households were stratified into small-scale irrigation users and non-users.
Finally, 288 representative sample households (130 adopters and 158 non-adopters) were selected using systematic random sam­
pling techniques.
The proportional sampling approach was used to obtain the sample size from sample kebeles, which is calculated using the
following [35] formula, and denoted as equation (1):
(Ni )(n)
ni = ∑ (1)
Ni
∑
Where, ni - is the sample to be selected from the ith kebele, Ni -is the total population living in the ith kebele. Ni - Summation of
population in four selected kebeles, n - total sample size for the district.

2.4. Methods of data analysis

2.4.1. Descriptive statistical analysis

The descriptive statistics summarize household characteristics, while inferential statistics like the chi-square and t-test were used to
check the significance of dummy and continuous variables. STATA version 17 was employed for the analysis.

2.4.2. Measurement of households’ resilience to climate change

The estimation of the resilience of households to climate change followed an approach that was developed by Kathryn (2015),
which is called the Resilience Capacity Index (RCI). The RCI compares household resilience in a systematic manner. It was used to
summarize the different dimensions of resilience into a single number. Thus, since there are no well-defined weights assigned to the
resilience indices, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to attach relevant values to the different indices. The study
used a two-stage method to estimate households’ resilience index, estimating five major resilience blocs using principal component
analysis based on fifteen resilience indicators (Table 1) and computing the resilience index. The index was assessed based on the
resilience blocs projected. This includes access to food and income, access to assets, good agricultural practices, stability, and adaptive
capacity.
In mathematical notation, the resilience capacity index is denoted as a function of the blocs as follows and is specified as in equation
(2):
RCI = f (AFI, A, AP, S, AC) (2)

w
here, RCI is the resilience capacity index, AFI is access to food and income, A is assets, AP is good agricultural practices, S is stability,
and AC is adaptive capacity. Therefore, the resilience index is the weighted sum of the factors created and stated as in equation (3):
∑
RCI = Wj Fj (3)
i=1

w
here, Wj is the weight of variable j and Fj is the factor under attention of variable j. The weights are the proportions of variance
explained by each factor.

2.4.3. Impact of small-scale irrigation on the livelihood and resilience of farm households
In the absence of baseline data utilizing observable variables, the propensity score is computed using a logit regression model to
predict the average treatment effect of the outcome [36]. For this particular study, the outcome variables used for evaluation were

Table 1
Summary of resilience components and their indicators.
Resilience components Indicators

Access to food and income (AFI) Per-capita income of the households

Food security status of the households
Access to assets (A) Size of landholding
Livestock ownership
Good agricultural practices (AP) Amount of production
Yields/productivity

Stability (S) Drought existence

Rainfall variability
Livestock disease
Crop failure
Access to water
Access to healthy
Adaptive capacity (AC) Livelihood diversification
Access to climate information
Early warning system

3
I. Dawid Mume et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

annual income, yield, and resilience of households. The average change in the outcome variables was estimated using Propensity Score
Matching (PSM). By comparing every individual observation from the treatment group with every individual observation from the
control group that has identical observable characteristics, propensity score matching eliminates the possibility of self-selection bias
[37]. In the binary treatment of the program, the treatment indicator Di equals 1 if individual i receives treatment, and 0 otherwise.
In this study, the treatment group denotes to households that participate in small-scale irrigation farming, while the control group is
those that do not participate. The possible outcomes are then defined as Yi (Di ) for each individual i, where i = 1, 2 … n, and then the
treatment effect of individual i can be expressed as equation (4):
Tᵢ = Yi (Di = 1) − Yi (Di = 0) (4)

Where, Tᵢ is the treatment effect, Yi is the outcome on household i, and Di is a dummy indicating whether household i has received the
treatment or not. However, it should be noted that Yi (Di = 1) and Yi (Di = 0) cannot be observed for the same household at the same
time, and reliant on the position of the household in the treatment, either Yi (Di = 1) or Yi (Di = 0) is an unobserved outcome
(counterfactual outcome). Because of this, it is impossible to quantify the individual treatment effect Tᵢ; instead we have to estimate the
population average treatment effect. Hence, the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) is specified as the following equation
(5):
ATT = E(Ƭ|D = 1) = E[Y(1)|D = 1] − E[Y(0)|D = 1] (5)

Thus, the counterfactual mean for those receiving treatment is denoted by -E[Y(0)|D = 1], which is not observed. Following Caliendo
and Kopeinig [38] and further process, we have the following expression as in equation (6):
ATT = E[Y(1)|D = 1] − E[Y(0)|D = 0] = E[Y(0)|D = 1] − E[Y(0)|D = 0] (6)

ATT is the so-called ‘self-selection bias; then, the true parameters of ATT are only identified if E[Y(0)|D = 1] − E[Y(0)|D = 0] = 0. By
rearranging the equation above, equation (7) stated as follows:
[Y(0)|D = 1] − E[Y(0)|D = 0] = 0 = ATT = E[Y(1) − Y(0)] (7)
Common support region given by overlap 0 < p (D = 1/x) < 1. Ultimately, the general PSM model is specified as equation (8) as:
PSM
YATT = EP(X)|D=1 {E[Y (1) |D = 1, p(x)] − E[Y (0) |D = 0, p(x)]} (8)

This suggests that the PSM estimator is the mean difference in outcomes over the common support region, suitably weighted by the
participant’s propensity score distribution. In this situation, propensity score matching solves the effect evaluation issue by generating
control groups with propensity scores that are comparable to those of the treated. According to Caliendo and Kopeinig [38], there are
six steps to implementing propensity score matching methods: estimating propensity scores, selecting the best matching algorithm,
identifying common support region, checking the balance of covariates after matching, estimating the average treatment effects on the
treated, and sensitivity analysis.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Characteristics of sample households

The descriptive statistics suggest that men led the most households for both adopters and non-adopters of small-scale irrigation. The
results indicated that households that adopted small-scale irrigation were more male-headed than female-headed. The results of the
chi-square test for sex indicate that there was a statistically significant sex difference between the two groups at less than 5%

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of dummy variables.
Variables Adopters (N = 130) Non-adopters (N = 158) Total (N = 288)

Dummy Freq % Freq % Freq % P-value

Sex of HH Female 10 7.70 25 15.82 35 12.15

male 120 92.30 133 84.18 253 87.85 0.036**
Access credit Yes 43 33.08 31 19.62 74 25.70
No 87 66.92 127 80.38 214 74.3 0.009***
Off/non-farm Yes 63 48.46 59 37.34 122 42.36
No 67 51.54 99 62.65 166 57.64 0.057*
Membership in cooperative Yes 87 66.92 78 49.37 165 57.29
No 43 33.08 80 50.63 123 42.71 0.003***
Climate information Yes 68 52.30 34 21.52 102 35.42
No 62 47.70 124 78.48 186 64.58 0.000***
Perception of climate change Perceived 102 78.46 101 63.92 203 70.49
Not Perceived 28 21.54 57 36.08 85 29.51 0.007***

***, **, and * indicate significance at less than 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively.

4
I. Dawid Mume et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

probability level. Because female-headed individuals are more socioeconomically disadvantaged than male-headed individuals in
many ways, they are slower to adopt small-scale irrigation activities, which require time, energy, and capital. The findings also
revealed that farmers who adopted small-scale irrigation had more access to financial credit than non-adopters. The chi-square test
result revealed that the two groups’ participation in off/non-farm activities was statistically different at a level of significance less than
10% (Table 2).
Adopters had higher rates of agricultural cooperative membership and access to weather information than non-adopters. This
shows that small-scale irrigation practices are more likely to be used by farmers who are members of cooperatives and have better
access to climate information in order to mitigate the impact of climate change on farm production. Moreover, the findings showed
that adopters explicitly perceive climate change as being worse than non-adopters. This indicates that farmers who are more conscious
of climate change are adopting small-scale irrigation practices as a climate change adaptation strategy to reduce the risks of climate
change. The Pearson chi-square test also consolidates this result at less than 1% significance level (Table 2).
Furthermore, the mean age of adopters is lower than that of non-adopters, with a statistically significant difference between the two
groups at the 5% probability level (Table 3). This implies that households headed by younger people are more likely to adopt small-
scale irrigation than households headed by elders. Similarly, the results also revealed that households with a higher ratio of depen­
dence and farming distance from irrigation water sources are less likely to engage in small-scale irrigation practices. Educational level,
household size in adult equivalents, frequency of extension contact, and livestock ownership (TLU) were significant among adopters
compared to non-adopters. This shows that farmers with better education, more household size and extension contact, and more
ownership of livestock assets have a higher propensity to adopt small-scale irrigation to reduce the influence of climate change
(Table 3). Households with large family sizes in adult equivalents are motivated to participate and more likely to implement small-
scale irrigation farming than households with small family sizes since irrigation requires a larger labor force.

3.2. Measuring farm households’ resilience to climate change stresses

Small-scale irrigation practices adopters and non-adopters differed significantly in terms of resilience capacity index. Adopters
witnessed more advantages in terms of having access to assets, good agricultural practices, access to food and income, stability, and
adaptability (Table 4). All livelihood indicators significantly influence households’ resilience to climate change. This demonstrates
that the improvement in the level of resilience is a function of all the resilience dimensions. The results also show that adopters of
small-scale irrigation had better levels of resilience against the stress of climate change, but non-adopters had lower resilience. A study
by Gutu [14] and Temesgen et al. [39] found similar results.

3.3. Impact of small-scale irrigation on yield, farm income and resilience

The PSM method and its procedural steps were used to evaluate the influence of small-scale irrigation practices on annual income,
yield, and household resilience.

3.3.1. Estimation of propensity scores

The propensity score estimate revealed that the model executed effectively with a chi-square value of 99.29 and a significant
overall fitness at less than 1% (Table 5). Furthermore, the value of pseudo-R2 is lower (0.2504), showing that adopter households do
not differ significantly from non-adopter households. Age, household size, credit access, frequency of extension contacts, livestock,
dependency ratio, off/non-farm participation, cooperative membership, distance of irrigation, climate information, and perception of
climate change had a significant influence on the propensity to participate in small-scale irrigation practices in the study area.

3.3.2. Distribution of propensity scores

Propensity score matching matches each adopter based on a similar common characteristic with non-adopters. Hence, the

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of continuous variables.
Variables Adopters Non-adopters Total (N = 288)
(N = 130) (N = 158)

Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev T-value

Age 39.75 7.36 41.81 6.77 40.88 7.10 2.46**

Education 6.07 3.62 4.72 3.42 5.33 3.57 − 3.25***
Household size 6.39 1.72 5.97 1.37 6.16 1.55 − 2.28**
Extension contacts 1.66 1.03 1.37 0.76 1.50 0.90 − 2.71***
Livestock 3.27 1.43 2.52 1.71 2.86 1.63 − 3.99***
Dependence ratio 0.73 0.30 0.84 0.40 0.79 0.36 2.60***

Market distance 0.95 0.38 0.98 0.30 0.97 0.34 0.78

Cultivated land 0.30 0.13 0.28 0.13 0.29 0.13 − 1.24
Farm distance 0.58 0.15 0.61 0.08 0.60 0.12 1.92*
Farm experience 21.57 8.13 22.70 8.15 22.19 8.15 1.17

***, **, and * indicate significance at less than 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively.

5
I. Dawid Mume et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

Table 4
Mean and standard deviation for households’ resilience and its components.
Variables Adopters Non-adopters Total (N = 288)
(N = 130) (N = 158)

Mean Std. Dev Mean Std. Dev Mean Std. Dev T-value
− 10
AFI 0.543 1.050 − 0.447 0.689 2.81 × 10 1.00 9.60***
A 0.280 0.916 − 0.230 1.00 − 4.80 × 10− 09 1.00 − 4.46***
AP 0.926 0.757 − 0.762 0.247 2.20 × 10− 10 1.00 − 26.37***
S 0.409 0.991 − 0.336 0.875 1.03 × 10− 09 1.00 − 6.77***
AC 0.550 0.958 − 0.452 0.784 1.12 × 10− 08 1.00 − 9.76***
RCI 1.280 0.895 − 1.053 0.738 5.17 × 10− 09 1.419 − 24.2***

***indicates significance at less than 1% significance level.

Note:The primary characteristics of low resilience households (those with a negative mean value) were their increased vulnerability to the adverse
effects of climate change and their diminished ability to mitigate the disruptive effects. They discovered that the losses caused by climate change
provided little motivation to continue farming, prompting them to devote more effort to off-farm activities or move from rural to urban areas to
increase their income and establish sustainable livelihoods. As a result, non-adopters have the lowest level of resilience in all selected parameters,
especially agricultural production. Non-adopters have only one opportunity to produce crops through rainfall, whereas adopters produce crops two or
three times per year. This suggests that non-adopters are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. When compared to adopters, non-adopters
were food insecure and had lower per capita income. Non-adopters have less access to land and livestock holdings in the study area. Non-adopters also
had less access to climate information, did not diversify their livelihoods, and had less stability. They are not able to withstand the effects of climate
change.

Table 5
Propensity score matching estimation (logit model).
Variables Coefficient Std. Err. Z P>|z| M. effects (dy/dx)

Age of the HH − 0.070*** 0.025 − 2.77 0.006 − 0.017

Sex of HH 0.193 0.480 0.40 0.687 0.047
Education of head 0.064 0.040 1.58 0.114 0.015
Household size 0.192** 0.097 1.98 0.048 0.047
Extension contact 0.382** 0.166 2.30 0.022 0.093
Access to credit 0.722** 0.340 2.12 0.034 0.178
Livestock holding 0.318*** 0.095 3.32 0.001 0.078
Dependency ratio − 0.994** 0.410 − 2.42 0.015 − 0.244
Market distance − 0.212 0.440 − 0.48 0.629 − 0.052
Cultivated land − 0.196 1.104 − 0.18 0.859 − 0.048
Off/non-farm activity 0.618** 0.307 2.01 0.044 0.151
Membership in cooperative 0.902*** 0.313 2.88 0.004 0.216
Distance from irrigation − 2.412** 1.217 − 1.98 0.048 − 0.593
Farmers’ experience − 0.024 0.021 − 1.14 0.255 − 0.006
Climate information 1.085*** 0.308 3.52 0.000 0.264
Perception of climate 1.101*** 0.351 3.13 0.002 0.254
Constant 0.384 1.427 0.27 0.788
Number of obs = 288 LR chi2 (16) = 99.29
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Pseudo R2 = 0.2504
Log likelihood = − 148.61753 y = Pr (ACSSI) (predict) = 0.436

**, and *** indicate significance at less than 5% and 1% significance levels, respectively.

distribution supports identifying the influence of small-scale irrigation adoption on household livelihood based on total income and
yield of major crops and on the resilience of households. Fig. 1 displays the distribution of propensity scores and common support
regions. The bottom halves of the histogram indicate the propensity score distribution of small-scale irrigation non-adopter house­
holds, and the upper halves depict the propensity score distribution of small-scale irrigation adopter households. The green colored
(treated on support) and the red colored (untreated on support) indicate the observations in the adopters’ group and non-adopters that
have an appropriate comparison, respectively, while the orange colored (treated off support) and the blue colored (untreated off
support) indicate the observations in the adopters and non-adopters that do not have a suitable evaluation, respectively. The frequency
of the propensity score distribution is shown on the y-axis.

3.3.3. Identifying common support region

The assessed values of propensity scores for the sample households ranged from 0.014 to 0.984, with a mean score of 0.451. The
propensity scores for adopters range from 0.072 to 0.984, with a mean score of 0.617. Similarly, the propensity scores for non-adopters
range from 0.014 to 0.906, with a mean score of 0.315 (Table 6). The basic principle for describing the common support region is to
delete all observations whose propensity score is smaller than the minimum propensity score of adopters and higher than the maximum
of non-adopters [38]. Hence, the shared support region for both control and treated groups was found to be between 0.072 and 0.906.
Having common support states that the two comparison groups can make a match. It implies that observations with propensity scores

6
I. Dawid Mume et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

Fig. 1. Propensity score distribution and common support region.

less than 0.072 and greater than 0.906 were discarded from the impact analysis. Therefore, 29 observations (15 from adopters and 14
from non-adopters) were cast off from impact analysis, and 259 sample households were recognized in the impact assessment
procedure.

3.3.4. Choosing the best matching algorithm

To match adopters with non-adopter households in the common support region, various matching estimators were utilized. The
decision on the ultimate choice of fitting matching estimator was based on four principles: equal mean test, smallest Pseudo R-square
value, ATT result with the highest number of matched sample sizes, and insignificant likelihood ratio test. The suggestion is that a
matching estimator that balances all covariates, a smaller Pseudo R-square value, a great matched sample size, and an insignificant LR
chi-square are preferable. Caliper of radius 0.1 was found to be the best matching estimator since it had the least Pseudo R-square
(0.010), insignificant LR chi-square (LR = 3.33, p = 1.000), and large matched sample size that were 115 treated and 144 control with
a total of 259 sample households by discarding 29 unmatched from the total of 288 households.

3.3.5. Matching quality

This test balances propensity scores and covariates to determine if there are any changes between conditions before and after
matching conditioning. The results of the t-value showed that thirteen variables were statistically significant before matching; how­
ever, all the explanatory variables became statistically insignificant after matching, implying that matching helps to condense the bias
related to observable features prior to matching. Moreover, the results revealed that the mean standardized bias for all the explanatory
variables before matching was higher and in the range of 9.2%–57% in absolute value (Table 7). However, after matching, the mean
standardized bias for all the covariates decreased and ranged from 0.9% to 11.2% in absolute value, which is smaller than the rec­
ommended value of 20% [37]. This indicates a high matching quality for the matching method. As a result, the treated and control
groups had highly balanced covariates that were ready to be used in the ATT estimation process.
The joint significance test showed that the small Pseudo R-square and the insignificant likelihood ratio tests support the assumption
that both groups have the same distribution of covariates after matching. The mean bias of the covariates was minimized, from 29.3%
to 4.9%. The Beta was also minimized to 24.1%, which is less than 25% (Table 8). The results noticeably indicate that the matching
technique is able to balance the features in the comparison of the treatment and control groups. Thus, it is used to compare observed
treatment outcomes with those of a comparison group with common support to evaluate the impact of adopting small-scale irrigation
between groups of households with comparable observed features.

3.3.6. Estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT)

For this study, the ATT is estimated based on the annual household income, yield, and resilience of smallholder farmers. According

Table 6
Distribution of estimated propensity scores for sample households.
Group Obs Mean Std. dev. Min Max Cast off

Adopters 130 0.617 0.239 0.072 0.984 15

Non-adopters 158 0.315 0.226 0.014 0.906 14
Total households 288 0.451 0.276 0.014 0.984 29

7
I. Dawid Mume et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

Table 7
Balancing test for covariates.
Variables Before matching After matching

Treated Control %bias t-test Treated Control %bias t-test

Age of the HH 39.75 41.81 − 29.1 − 2.46 40.30 41.08 − 11.0 − 0.85
Sex of HH 0.923 0.841 25.4 2.11 0.922 0.917 1.6 0.14
Education of head 6.077 4.721 38.4 3.25 5.852 5.522 9.4 0.72
Household size 6.392 5.975 26.8 2.29 6.313 6.242 4.6 0.35
Extension contact 1.662 1.373 31.7 2.71 1.635 1.583 5.7 0.45
Access to credit 0.331 0.196 30.8 2.62 0.304 0.323 − 4.3 − 0.31
Livestock holding 3.279 2.524 47.7 3.99 3.116 3.17 − 3.4 − 0.24
Dependency ratio 0.736 0.848 − 31.2 − 2.60 0.755 0.732 6.4 0.50
Market distance 0.953 0.985 − 9.2 − 0.78 0.937 0.959 − 6.2 − 0.47
Cultivated land 0.302 0.282 14.7 1.24 0.298 0.295 2.5 0.17
Non/off-farm 0.485 0.373 22.5 1.91 0.435 0.458 − 4.7 − 0.35
Membership 0.669 0.494 36.0 3.03 0.635 0.627 1.5 0.12
Distance of irrigation 0.586 0.614 − 22.2 − 1.93 0.585 0.599 − 11.2 − 0.85
Farmers’ experience 21.57 22.70 − 13.9 − 1.18 21.69 21.765 − 0.9 − 0.07
Climate information 0.477 0.215 57.0 4.86 0.435 0.430 1.0 0.07
Perception of climate 0.785 0.639 32.4 2.72 0.774 0.792 − 4.1 − 0.34

to the estimates of the caliper of radius matching, access to small-scale irrigation practices had a positive and significant influence on
farmers’ annual total income, yield, and resilience. Specifically, the estimates showed that the implementation of small-scale irrigation
practices significantly improved the agricultural crop yields, total annual income, and resilience of the adopters compared to their non-
adopter counterparts.
The results of the impact analysis indicated that small-scale irrigation beneficiaries received an annual household total income of
90765.74 ETB per household, which is larger than that of non-adopters of small-scale irrigation with 35124.17 ETB annual income
(Table 9). The findings indicated that, on average, adopting small-scale irrigation practices has increased annual households’ total
income by 55641.6 ETB for adopters compared to non-adopter households. The result also showed that there was a substantial dif­
ference between the adopters and non-adopters at less than 1% significance level in terms of household annual income. This suggests
that small-scale irrigation has a positive influence on households’ earnings from both agricultural activities (cereals, livestock,
vegetable, and khat production) and non-agricultural activities (off/non-farm) in the study area. This finding is similar to the dis­
coveries of Leta et al. [29], Demsew and Ermias [30], Gadisa and Gebrerufael [31], and Abel [40], who show that small-scale irrigation
has statistically significant impacts on household annual income.
Similarly, the findings showed that the adoption of small-scale irrigation had a significant effect on the yields of major crops
(vegetables and cereals) by households during the 2021/22 cropping season. The average yields of major crop production of adopters’
households were 118.71 Qt/ha and 33.99 Qt/ha for non-adopters (Table 9). This indicated that the mean impact of adopting small-
scale irrigation practices on yield (output per hectare) for the aforementioned major crops was 84.72 Qt/ha. The result also showed
that there was a substantial difference between the two groups at less than 1% significance level. This means that because of the
adoption of small-scale irrigation, farmers improved their output by producing two or three times in a year using crop diversification
and intensification. This finding is in line with the results of Kalkidan and Tewodros [26], Mengesha [27], Abel [40], and Adebayo
et al. [41], who show that small-scale irrigation has a positive impact on the agricultural production and productivity of major farmers.
Furthermore, the implementation of small-scale irrigation practices had a significant influence on the resilience of households. As
indicated, the resilience of adopter households was 1.22 RCI and − 0.79 RCI for non-adopters. This showed that the mean impact of
adopting small-scale irrigation on households’ resilience against climate change stresses by measuring it through different indicators
and the capacity of farmers was 2.02 RCI (Table 9). The results also revealed that there was a major difference between the two groups
in terms of the resilience of the households at less than 1% significance level. Thus, because of the adoption of small-scale irrigation
practices as an adaptation approach to climate change, the adopters improved their resilience against climate change compared with
non-adopters in the study area. This is in line with the findings of Abdissa et al. [23] and Menasbo [28], who show that small-scale
irrigation practices improve the resilience of farm households against climate change pressures.

3.3.7. Sensitivity analysis

The results of the Rosenbaum rbounds (rbounds) sensitivity analysis illustrated that the effects of the adoption of small-scale
irrigation on outcome variables are insensitive to unobserved selection bias, even up to γ = 7, which is a very high value

Table 8
Tests for joint significance.
Sample Ps R2 LR chi2 p > chi2 Mean Bias Med Bias B

Unmatched 0.253 100.19 0.00 29.3 29.9 129.6*

Matched 0.010 3.33 1.000 4.9 4.4 24.1

Note: * if B>25%, R outside [0.5; 2].

8
I. Dawid Mume et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

Table 9
ATT estimation with Caliper of radius 0.1.
Outcome indicators Sample Treated Controls Difference S.E T-stat

Total income (ETB) Unmatched 94199.59 28572.03 65627.57 4264.5 15.39a

ATT 90765.74 35124.17 55641.58 5643.7 9.86a
Yield (Qt/ha) Unmatched 120.07 34.74 85.33 3.97 21.51a
ATT 118.71 33.99 84.72 5.27 16.06a
Resilience (RCI) Unmatched 1.28 − 1.05 2.33 0.09 24.24a
ATT 1.22 − 0.79 2.02 0.12 17.01a
a
Indicates significance at less than 1% significance levels.

(Table 10). This implies that the study has taken into account significant covariates that affected both participation and outcome
variables, as the p-critical values are significant for all outcome variables estimated at different levels of the critical value of gamma. As
a result, the average treatment effects estimated on the yield, annual income, and resilience of households were extremely robust
(insensitive) to the presence of unobserved features.

4. Conclusion and recommendations

The study was conducted with the major goal of evaluating the impacts of small-scale irrigation practices on the livelihood and
resilience of smallholder farmers towards climate change stresses in Kersa district, eastern Oromia, Ethiopia. The findings showed that
household size, extension contacts, credit service, livestock holding, off/non-farm activities, cooperative membership, climate in­
formation, and climate change perception had substantial positive relations with households’ adoption decisions. However, the results
also showed that the age, dependency ratio, and distance of the farm from the irrigation source had a significant adverse relationship.
Based on a sample of matched treated and untreated groups, the influence of small-scale irrigation adoption on farm household
livelihood and resilience was evaluated. The annual gross income, crop yield, and resilience of adopters and non-adopter households
were compared using a propensity score matching method. According to the estimates of the caliper of radius 0.1, the implementation
of small-scale irrigation practices had a positive and significant influence on the annual total income, yields of the main crops, and the
resilience of households. This effect was evaluated as the average treatment effect on the treated. As a result, according to the esti­
mations, adopting small-scale irrigation significantly improved agricultural yields and annual income, as well as the resilience of
adopters compared to non-adopters.
Finally, the findings prove that small-scale irrigation practices assisted farmers in becoming resilient to the effects of climate change
by increasing output and yields through crop diversification, which enhanced rural households’ standard of living. Adopting small-
scale irrigation technology can therefore significantly improve livelihoods and abate the effects of climate change stresses by
enhancing their capacity to respond to erratic rainfall events, which builds their resilience. Thus, to increase productivity and income
and mitigate the hazards of climate change, the government and other concerned bodies should support small-scale irrigation prac­
tices. Moreover, to alleviate the effects of climate change pressures in the study area as well as the nation, the government and
concerned stakeholders should seek to develop and support small-scale irrigation farming as an adaptation approach for climate
change. This can be accomplished by offering appropriate extension services through development agents, providing training, and
making credit available.

Author contribution statement

Ibsa Dawid: Conceived and designed the study; Performed the research; Analyzed and interpreted the data and wrote the paper.
Jema Haji and Mohammed Aman: Contributed analysis tools or data.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

9
I. Dawid Mume et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

Table 10
Sensitivity analysis using Rosenbaum rbounds approach.
Outcome variables eγ = 1 eγ = 2 eγ = 3 eγ = 4 eγ = 5 eγ = 6 eγ = 7

Total income 0 2.6e-11 4.3e-08 1.8e-06 0.000 0.000 0.000

Yield 0 2.5e-11 4.1e-08 1.7e-06 0.000 0.000 0.000
Resilience 0 2.3e-11 3.9e-08 1.6e-06 0.000 0.000 0.000

Note: eγ (gamma) = log odds of differential due to unobserved factors.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18976.

References

[1] G. Feulner, Global challenges: climate change, Global Challenges 1 (1) (2017) 5–6, https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.1003.
[2] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2019 (Rom, Italy).
[3] AGRA (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa), in: Africa Agriculture Status Report: the Business of Smallholder Agriculture in Sub-saharan Africa, 2018
(Issue 5). In Nairobi, Kenya.
[4] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Summary for policymakers, in: Global Warming of 1.5◦ C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global
Warming of 1.5◦ C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response,
2018.
[5] M. Mikulewicz, Politicizing vulnerability and adaptation: on the need to democratize local responses to climate impacts in developing countries, Clim. Dev. 10
(1) (2018) 18–34, https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1304887.
[6] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Climate-Smart Agriculture Source Book, 2017 (Rome, Italy).
[7] World Bank, All Countries and Economies, 2017. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/. opinion/2017/02/15/global-economy-in-2017-hope-and-uncertainty.
[8] M. Jirata, S. Grey, E. Kilawe, Ethiopia Climate-Smart Agriculture Scoping Study, FAO: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016.
[9] G. Melese, Farmer’s response to climate change and variability in Ethiopia: a Review, Cogent Food Agric. 5 (2019) 1, https://doi.org/10.1080/
23311932.2019.1613770.
[10] Z. Belay, G. Getaneh, Climate change in Ethiopia variability, impact, mitigation, and adaptation, Social Science and Humanities Research 2 (4) (2016) 66–84,
https://doi.org/10.53555/sshr.v1i4.124.
[11] FDRE (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia), Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy (CRGE), Addis Ababa, 2011.
[12] B. Tewodros, Adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices: determinants and challenges in gerar jarso woreda of Oromia, Ethiopia, MA thesis, Addis Ababa
(2018).
[13] M. Chaltu, Farmers’ Resilience to Climate Variability and Their Perceptions towards Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices in Kersa District, East
Hararghe Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, MSc Thesis, Haramaya University, 2021.
[14] B. Gutu, Measuring resilience to climate change in Ethiopia, Working paper series N◦ 268, African Development Bank, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire (2017).
[15] M. Keshavarz, R. Soltani, Assessing rural households’ resilience and adaptation strategies to climate variability and change, J. Arid Environ. 184 (2021),
104323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104323.
[16] A. Rathi, Is agrarian resilience limited to agriculture? Investigating the “farm” and “non-farm” processes of agriculture resilience in the rural, J. Rural Stud. 93
(2020) 155–164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.12.015.
[17] N. Mango, C. Makate, T. Lulseged, P. Mponela, G. Ndengu, Adoption of small-scale irrigation farming as a climate-smart agriculture practice and its influence on
household income in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa, Land 7 (2) (2018) 49, https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020049.
[18] P.K. Thornton, T. Rosenstock, W. Förch, C. Lamanna, P. Bell, B. Henderson, M. Herrero, A qualitative evaluation of CSA options in mixed crop-livestock systems
in developing countries, in: CSA: 385− 423, Springer, Cham, 2018.
[19] M. Kiros, B. Badege, I. Miyuki, B. Emiru, N. Aklilu, M.D. Caryn, B. Bernart, Climate-Smart Agriculture: Enhancing Resilient Agricultural Systems, Landscapes,
and Livelihoods in Ethiopia and beyond, World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya, 2019, p. 282.
[20] F. Kalkidan, T. Ephrem, T. Yemiru, Challenges in women-managed small-scale irrigation practices: the case of Lume district, central rift valley of Ethiopia, World
Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4 (1) (2017) 111–119.
[21] M. Dereje, K. Dessale, Assessment of the impact of small-scale irrigation on household livelihood improvement at Guba Lafto, Int. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 4 (4) (2016)
217–228, https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6030027.
[22] S. Passarelli, M. Dawit, E. Bryan, C. Ringler, Evaluating the pathways from small-scale irrigation to dietary diversity: evidence from Ethiopia and Tanzania, Food
Secur. 10 (4) (2018) 981–997, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0812-5.
[23] F. Abdissa, G. Tesema, C. Yirga, Impact analysis of small-scale irrigation schemes on household food security in the case of Sibu Sire District in Western Oromia,
Ethiopia, Irrigat. Drain. Syst. Eng. 6 (2) (2017) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9768.1000187.
[24] T.A. Abebe, The Role of Small-Scale Irrigation in Climate Change Adaptation: the Case of East Belesa District, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, MSc Thesis, Hawassa
University, Wondogenet, Ethiopia, 2019.
[25] D. Ibsa, W. Sisay, H. Abdi, Small-scale irrigation farming adoption as a climate-smart agriculture practice and its impact on household income in Ethiopia: a
review, International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture 5 (4) (2021) 584–591, https://doi.org/10.26855/ijfsa.2021.12.004.
[26] F. Kalkidan, M. Tewodros, Review on the role of small-scale irrigation agriculture on poverty alleviation in Ethiopia, North Asian International Research Journal
of Multidisciplinary 3 (6) (2017) 1–18.
[27] T. Mengesha, Small-scale irrigation development, Irrigat. Drain. Syst. Eng. 7 (1) (2018) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9768.1000206.
[28] G. Menasbo, Impact of irrigated agriculture on welfare of farm households in northern Ethiopia: panel data evidence, Irrigat. Drain. 70 (2) (2021) 306–320,
https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2545.
[29] L. Leta, A. Abayneh, T. Workalemahu, A. Abera, Impact of small-scale irrigation on household farm income and asset holding: evidence from Shebedino district,
Southern Ethiopia, Journal of Resources Development and Management 43 (2018) 1–8.
[30] M. Demsew, D. Ermias, Determinants of small-scale irrigation practices in Geray irrigation scheme, Northwest Ethiopia, The Ethiopian Journal of Social Sciences
6 (2) (2020) 20.
[31] M. Gadisa, G. Gebrerufael, The impact of small-scale irrigation on household income in central Ethiopia: empirical evidences from Walmara district, Int. J.
Agric. Biosci. 10 (2) (2021) 101–106.
[32] M. Belachew, B. Demsew, F. Minybel, The current irrigation potential and irrigated land in Ethiopia: a Review, Asian Journal of Advances in Research 13 (2)
(2022) 1–8.

10
I. Dawid Mume et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e18976

[33] KDANRO (Kersa District Agriculture and Natural Resource Office), Annual Report, 2020.
[34] T. Wondimagegn, S. Lemma, Climate change perception and choice of adaptation strategies: empirical evidence from smallholder farmers in east Ethiopia,
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 8 (2) (2016) 253–270, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-01-2014-0017.
[35] A.L. Bowley, Measurement of the Precision Attained in Sampling, Cambridge University Press, 1925.
[36] A. Abadie, D. Drukker, J.L. Herr, G.W. Imbens, Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata, STATA J. 4 (3) (2004) 290–311.
[37] P.R. Rosenbaum, D.B. Rubin, The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika 70 (1) (1983) 41–55, https://doi.
org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.
[38] M. Caliendo, S. Kopeinig, Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching, J. Econ. Surv. 22 (1) (2008) 31–72, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x.
[39] K. Temesgen, H. Jema, L. Belaineh, M. Girma, Econometric analysis of rural households’ resilience to food insecurity in West Shoa, Ethiopia, Journal of Food
Security 4 (3) (2016) 58–67, https://doi.org/10.12691/jfs-4-3-2.
[40] W. Abel, Impact of small-scale irrigation on smallholder farmers livelihood improvement: in case of Damota Gale district, Wolaita zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia,
J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 11 (5) (2019) 23–32, https://doi.org/10.7176/JESD/11-5-04.
[41] O. Adebayo, O. Bolarin, A. Oyewale, O. Kehinde, Impact of irrigation technology use on crop yield, crop income and household food security in Nigeria: a
treatment effect approach, Journal of Agriculture and Food 3 (2) (2018) 154–171, https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2018.2.154.

11