Jambo et al.

Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-021-00294-w Agriculture & Food Security

RESEARCH Open Access

Impact of small‑scale irrigation

on household food security: evidence
from Ethiopia
Yilma Jambo1, Abera Alemu2* and Workalemahu Tasew2

Abstract
Background: Adamitulu Jido Komoblcha is one of the districts located in lowland areas of the Oromia region with
irrigation potentials of 14,000 hectares out of which only 2568 hectares are under small-scale irrigation practices.
Though there are a lot of households using irrigation in the study area, the impact that it has brought on the food
security of the household is not yet well studied in the area. Several related studies reviewed lack appropriate impact
evaluation methods in studying the impact of small-scale irrigation on food security that may result in overestimation
or underestimation of the impact. To this end, the main motivation behind this study was to examine whether small-
scale irrigation in the study area is creating positive change on household food security or not using the propensity
score matching approach.
Methodology: Both primary and secondary data were collected and used in the study. The primary data were
collected from randomly selected 94 irrigation users and 100 non-user households from February to March 2018.
Secondary data were collected from a review of different works of literature. Both descriptive statistics and econo-
metric models were applied to analyze the data using Stata software version 13. The study applied the propensity
score matching (PSM) model to analyze the impact of small-scale irrigation on food security. In analyzing the impact
of small scale irrigation on food security, we have used calorie intake, crop harvest and consumption both from own
production and bought from the sale of the crop harvest produced through irrigation as an indicator of food security.
Result: The study has found that participation in irrigation is positively determined by age, education, land size,
access to extension service, and participation in off or non-farm activities. In contrast to this, participation in irrigation
is negatively determined by distance from farm plot to water source and distance from the main market. The results
of the nearest neighbor and caliper matching estimators show that participation in small-scale irrigation increased the
daily calorie intake of the small-scale irrigation users by 643.76 kcal over non-user households. Similarly, it increased
their daily calorie intake to 596.43 kcal and 591.74 kcal, respectively, with radius and kernel matching estimators. The
result further indicted that irrigation had positive impact on crop production, consumption and revenue generation
which all together indicated improvement in food security. The sensitivity analysis test shows that impact results esti-
mated by this study were insensitive to unobserved selection bias which shows it is a real impact of the irrigation.
Conclusion: It was concluded that irrigation has a positive and significant impact on household food security. Con-
cerned bodies that working on small-scale irrigation development therefore should continue investment in irrigation

*Correspondence: [email protected]
2
College of Agriculture, Faculty of Environment, Gender
and Development Studies, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material
in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat​iveco​
mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/publi​cdoma​in/
zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 2 of 16

activities for poverty reduction strategies and scale-up irrigation interventions to the other areas where there is
potentially irrigable land.
Keywords: Small-scale irrigation, Impact, Food security, Propensity score matching

Background the last three decades, sub-Saharan Africa has witnessed

Around the world, over 307 million hectares were pre- increased public and scholar’s interest in the use of small-
pared for the water system, of which 304 million hec- scale irrigation in general and small dams in particular
tares were for the full control water system and 261 [7].
million hectares were equipped for full control and irri- Ethiopia is gifted with various water resources with 12
gated [1]. Irrigation-based agriculture plays an essen- rivers, 22 natural and artificial lakes and groundwater.
tial role for global food security and for the welfare of a Water potential of the country varies from 2.6 to 13.5
large share of the world’s population, as it provides about billion ­m3 per year, which makes an average of 1575 m ­ 3
40% of the global crop production [2]. Moreover, it has of physically available water per person per year [8]. Fur-
a substantial impact on global water resources, and cur- thermore, Ethiopia has at least 5.3 million hectares of
rently about 70% of humanity’s demand for fresh water irrigation potential in which 3.7 million hectares from
originate from irrigation [3]. At the World Food Summit gravity-fed surface water, 1.1 million hectares from
in 1996, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) groundwater and 0.5 million hectares from rainwater
estimated that 60 percent of the extra food required must harvesting [9]. Though there is a huge irrigation potential
in the future come from irrigated agriculture. The Inter- in the country, majority of its population are still directly
national Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) or indirectly engaged in irregular rainfall-dependent
also estimated that current food production would have agriculture [10]. To use this irrigation potential effec-
to double within the next 25 years. To meet the food tively, the development policy of the country, regional
demand and reduce poverty, over time, the area irrigated states and non-governmental organizations are promot-
by groundwater has increased in importance around the ing small-scale irrigation scheme development so as to
world. Groundwater development has been growing at increase and stabilize food production in the country
an exceptional rate in recent decades. More reliable water [11].
delivery and declining extraction costs due to advances in In Ethiopia, the central role of irrigated agriculture
technology and, in many instances, government subsidies within the context of poverty reduction efforts is well
for power and pump installation have encourages pri- understood as it increases the production of agricultural
vate investment in tube wells. For example, in India and raw materials, exploit land and reduce dependence on
Northern China, the area irrigated by groundwater rose rain-based agriculture [12]. Use of small-scale irrigation
from about 25 percent in the 1960s to well over 50 per- has a great importance to produce more during rainfall
cent in the 1990s. The Source of irrigation water varies shortage periods. It can contribute to overall livelihood
widely between countries depending on the hydrogeolog- improvement of the rural population through increased
ical and climatic conditions and historical development income, food security, social needs fulfillment and pov-
of irrigation. Responses to a recent ICID questionnaire erty reduction [13, 14]. As a result, irrigated agriculture
of irrigation practices show that, among the major coun- currently is a priority in the agricultural transformation
tries, India has over 50 percent of its area irrigated from and food security strategy of the Ethiopia government
groundwater, followed by the USA (43 percent), China [11].
(27 percent), and Pakistan (25 percent). That percentage Adamitulu Jido Komoblcha is one of the districts
can reach as much as 80 percent in developed countries located in lowland areas of Oromia region with irrigation
[4]. potentials of 14,000 hectares. The district is endowed
As an agricultural intensification method, irrigation with four major rivers that include Bulbula, Jido, Hora
could play a dominant role in increasing agricultural Kalio and Gogessa as well as Lake Ziway for small-scale
production and productivity. Because of this, it has been irrigation schemes that cover a total of 612 ha of land
continued to be a special concern and one of the focus [15].
areas of policymakers and planners. In Sub-Saharan There are different studies that show a positive impact
Africa, there are varied water endowments where 40 of small-scale irrigation on food security. A study con-
million hectares of its land are suitable for irrigation [5] ducted by [16] in Malawi shows that more than 70% of
and irrigation development represents the most impor- all the adopters were food insecure before adoption of
tant interface between water and land resources [6]. In the irrigation but their food security has significantly
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 3 of 16

improved because of irrigation practice. A study con- Dodicha were selected randomly from the seven irriga-
ducted by [17] in Swaziland concluded that irrigation tion potential kebeles. Following this, households were
has positive impact on food security. Moreover, [18–23] stratified into irrigation user and non-user categories.
and [13] have found that irrigation has a positive impact Cochran formula [25] was used to determine the sam-
on household food security. However, the main gap of ple size considering 95% confidence level (z = 1.96), 45%
these studies is the lack of appropriate impact evaluation estimated proportion of an attribute in the population (p)
methods that may deal with the selection bias issue since and 7% level of precision (E) from 1084 total households.
irrigation participation is not random. Ignoring this may Thirdly, 94 irrigation users and 100 non-user households
result in underestimate or overestimate of impacts of were selected randomly based on probability proportion
irrigation on food security of the households. It is obvi- to sample size:
ous that food security is a cumulative effect of socio-eco-
nomic, demographic and institutional factors, not merely (Zα/2 )2 pq (1.96)2 (0.45)(0.55)
n0 = = = 194,
irrigation. Studying impact without controlling the pos- E 2 (0.07)2
sible effect of these factors may lead to biased result and
where n0 is the sample size, z is the selected critical value
conclusion. Therefore, in this study we applied propen-
of desired confidence level, p is degree of variability in the
sity matching method to control the effect of these fac-
population, q = 1−p and E is the desired level of preci-
tors to examine relatively the true impact of small-scale
irrigation on food security of households. sion. In social science survey, a commonly used margin of
error is 10% of the expected average value [26]. Accord-
ing to [27], in determining sample size 3%, 5%, 7% and
Research methodology
10% of margin of error are accepted. Bartlett [28] argue
Description of the study area
that 5% of margin of error is acceptable in determining
This study was conducted in Adamitulu Jido Komobl-
sample size. Others further argue that an acceptable mar-
cha, district located about 167 km to the south of Addis
gin of error used by survey researchers falls between 4
Ababa, capital of Ethiopia. Geographically, it is located
and 8% at the 95% confidence level [29]. However, for this
between 7004‟N to 7037 ‟North latitude and 38032
study, considering available resource to manage the study
‟E to 39004‟E longitude. The district covers an area of
we used 7% precision level to determine the sample size.
1403.3 ­km2. Altitude of the district varies between 1500
and 2328 m above sea level with annual average rainfall
759.7 mm and average temperature of 24 ℃ [15]. Accord- Data source and methods of collection
ing to the district Finance and Economic Development In this study, we collected both primary and secondary
Office [24], the district has total population of 179,840; data from different sources. Sample respondents were
out of which 51.76% is male and 48.24% is female. The primary data source for this study. To collect primary
total households of the district are 26,982 in which 20,137 data from the respondents, we developed question-
are headed by male and 6845 are headed by female. Like naires focusing on socio-economy, demographic, insti-
other parts of Ethiopia, the main economic activity of the tutional characteristics and food consumption condition
district is agriculture where 94% of its populations earn of the respondents. The questionnaire was prepared in a
their livelihood from it, while the rest depend on off- way they measure objective of the study. Following, we
farm activities such as petty trade, formal employment selected four enumerators and provided training on the
and casual wage works. The district is suitable for crop questionnaire and general data collection mechanisms
production, livestock rearing and fishery development. for 2 days. After the training, actual data collection was
In the district, maize, haricot bean, teff, wheat, barley and undertaken by those enumerators with the supervi-
sorghum are grown under rain-fed condition while veg- sion of authors to solve any problems that arise during
etables such as tomato, onion, green beans and cabbage the process of data collection. Secondary data were col-
are grown using irrigation. Cattle, sheep, goat, horse, lected from review of different documents which include
donkey, mule and poultry are the main livestock reared in research works, books, office reports, journal articles
the district [15]. A map indicating the study area location written by different scholars.
is presented in Fig. 1.
Methods of data analysis
Sampling technique In this study, we employed both descriptive statis-
Multi-stage sampling procedures were used to select tics and econometric models. Descriptive analysis was
sample respondents. First, Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha undertaken using t-test and χ2. T-test was employed
district was selected purposively because of its potential to compare mean differences between irrigation users
for irrigation. Secondly, two kebeles namely Bochesa and and non-users across continuous variables and χ2 test
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 4 of 16

Fig. 1 Map of the study area [15]

was employed to test the difference between the groups Estimating the propensity score
across categorical variables. Propensity score matching Propensity score is the probability of participation in a
model (PSM) analysis was applied to analyze impact of given intervention determined based on pre-interven-
small-scale irrigation on food security. tion characteristics. When estimating the propensity
score, two choices have to be made. The first one con-
cerns the model to be used for the estimation, and the
Propensity score matching (PSM) second one the variables to be included in this model
PSM is conditional probability that farmers adopt a new [32]. Regarding the model choice several studies aimed
technology, given pre-adoption characteristics [30]. at assessing impact analysis apply a probit/logit model
The method of matching has achieved popularity more to determine propensity score [33]. According to [34],
recently as a tool of impact evaluation. In the imple- employing probit or logit model leads to similar results
mentation process, matching is done by constructing a when estimating propensity score of an individual’s
comparison group of individuals with observable char- being adopter or non-adopter. However, due to its sim-
acteristics similar to those of the treated [31]. There plicity, this study applied logit model to estimate the
are five steps involved in implementing the PSM that propensity score of the sampled households. The model
includes estimation of the propensity scores, matching takes a value 1 for irrigation users and 0 for non-users.
treatment and control groups, checking common sup- The mathematical formulation of logit model is speci-
port condition, testing the matching quality and sen- fied as follows:
sitivity analysis [32]. However, for the simplicity and  
Pi = yi = 1/x = 1/ 1 + e(β0 +β1 xi ) .
 
clear presentation, we have merged the steps and pre- (1)
sented them as follows.
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 5 of 16

This equation can be written as: Matching irrigation users with non‑users and checking
common support region
1
Pi = , (2) In this study, we applied the most commonly used near-
1 + e−Zi est neighbor, kernel, radius and caliper matching algo-
where Pi is the probability of using irrigation and e repre- risms to match irrigation users with non-users [35]. After
sents the base of natural logarithm and Zi is the function that common support region was identified to delete all
of explanatory variables (x) observations which lie outside this region [32].
Pi = 1/ (1 + e zi) is the probability of not using irrigation
Then, the odds ratio in favor of using irrigation is given Testing the matching quality and identifying the impact
Pi
by 1−P b y taking the natural log of the equation we get A suitable indicator to assess the distance in marginal
i
the following: distributions of the X variables is the standardized bias
Pi
Li = ln[ 1−P ] = Z with the error term incorporated, the (SB) suggested by [36]. It is used to quantify the bias
i
logit model will have the following form: between treated and control groups. Mathematically esti-
mation of the impact of small-scale irrigation to a given
Z = β0 + β1 x1 + β2 x2 + β3 x3 + . . . βn xn + U , (3) outcome (Y) is specified as:
where × 1, × 2, × 3 ….xn are the explanatory variables of tATT = Yi(Di = 1) − (Di = 0), (4)
the model, β0 is the intercept β1, β2, β3…… βn are the
coefficients to be estimated in the model and U is the where τi is treatment effect (effect due to participa-
error term. Regarding variable choice, we selected 13 tion in irrigation), Yi is the outcome on household i, Di
independent variables used to determine the propensity is whether household i has got the treatment or not (i.e.,
score of the households (Table 1). whether a household participated in irrigation or not).
Two treatment effects are most frequently estimated
in empirical studies [32]. The first one is the (population)
average treatment effect (ATE) which is simply the differ-
ence of the expected outcomes:
�YATE = E(�Y) = E(Y1) − E(Y0). (5)

Table 1 Description of variables used in the logit model and their descriptive statistics
Variable code Variable description Irrigation users Irrigation Total household t-test ­(Chi2)
(n = 94) non-users (n = 194)
(n = 100)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

SEXHHD Sex of the household head (1 if household head is male, 0 85.11 14.89 90 10 87.63 12.37 1.07
otherwise)
EDULEV Education of the household head in schooling years 4.26 2.36 3.56 2.17 3.9 2.29 2.16**
AGEHHD Age of the household head in year 38.54 8.21 35.98 7.56 37.2 7.96 2.26**
HHFEX Farming experience of the household head in years 15.18 7.52 12.92 7.63 14.01 7.65 2.07**
FAMSIZE Number of people resending in the household 5.38 2.75 4.27 1.83 4.8 2.38 3.33***
DEPNDRTO Dependency ratio in number 2.07 1.2 2.14 1.43 2.11 1.32 0.33
TOCLAND Total land owned by respondents in hectares 2.1 0.88 1.56 0.7 1.82 0.83 4.77***
LIVSTO Total livestock owned by respondents in Tropical Livestock Unit 6.48 4.09 4.58 2.62 5.5 3.54 3.85***
NEAWAT​ Distance from water point to the farming plot in km 1.09 0.53 1.46 4.5 1.28 0.84 3.05***
DIMAR Distance to the main market in km 6.02 2.23 6.48 2.7 6.26 2.49 1.28
ACCEXT Access to extension service (1 if household head received train- 78.72 21.28 49 51 63.4 36.6 18.4***
ing regularly during the last 1 year prior to the survey time, 0
otherwise)
ACCRED Access to credit (1 if household head received credit from 53.19 46.81 28 72 40.21 59.79 12.79***
formal lending institutions during the last 1 year prior to the
survey time, 0 otherwise)
NONFRMA Total amount of annual non/off-farm income of the household 1673.72 2321.85 713.7 1633.8 1178.86 2049.01 3.34***
in Ethiopian birr
**
p < 0.05; ***, p < 0.01
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 6 of 16

This measure answers the question what would be the computed outcome variables with respect to deviation
effect if households in the population were randomly from the conditional independence assumption [32].
assigned to treatment. But this estimate might not be
of importance to policy makers because it includes the Literature review on food security and its measurements
effect for which the intervention was never intended. According to Maxwell [40], the concept of food security
Therefore, the most important evaluation parameter revolves around three major paradigms. The first para-
is the so-called average treatment effect on the treated digm conceptualizes food security from the global and
(ATT), which concentrates solely on the effects on the national to the household and the individual level,
those for whom the program/interventions are actually the second paradigm shift was from a food first perspec-
introduced. tive to a livelihood perspective, and the third one is from
In the sense that this parameter focuses directly on objective indicators to subjective perception. The con-
those households who participated, it determines the cept of food security has been changing from period to
realized impact of small-scale irrigation usage and help- period. During 1950s to 1970s, the focus was on national-
ing to decide whether participation on irrigation is suc- level, supply-side availability of sufficient food to feed a
cessful or not. growing population [41]. In the early 1980s, focus turned
It is given by the following formula: increasingly to the demand side of food security, to indi-
viduals’ capacities to access food in order to feed them-
tATT = E(t/D = 1) = E(Y1/D = 1) − E(Y0/D = 1).
selves. More recently, further emphasize is given to the
(6)
utilization of foods through proper nutrition, prepara-
This answers the question, how much did households tion, and feeding practices, and the stability of these
participating in irrigation benefit compared to what they conditions over time [42]. Among growing concepts of
would have experienced without participating. Data on E food security, the prevailing definition agreed upon at
(Y1/D = 1) are available from irrigation users. An evalu- the 1996 World Food Summit, is that food security exists
ator’s classic problem is to find E (Y0/D = 1). So the dif- when all people, at all times, have physical and economic
ference between E (Y1/D = 1)−E (Y0/D = 1) cannot be access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet their
observed for the same household. The possible solution is dietary needs and food preferences for a healthy and
to use the mean outcome of the comparison individuals, active life [43]. This can further be explained as achiev-
E (Y0/D = 0), as a substitute to the counterfactual mean ing food security requires that the aggregate availability
for those being treated, E (Y0/D = 1) after correcting the of physical supplies of food is sufficient, that households
difference between user and non-user households arising have adequate access to these food supplies through their
from selection effect. Thus, by rearranging, and subtract- own production, through the market or through other
ing E (Y0/D = 0) from both sides of equation, one can get sources, and that the utilization of these food supplies is
the following specification for ATT: appropriate to meet the specific dietary needs of individ-
E(Y1/D = 1) − E(Y0/D = 0) uals [44]. Hence, availability, access, utilization, and sta-
bility are now widely accepted as the four pillars of food
= tATT + E(Y0/D = 1) E(Y0/D = 0). (7) security [45].
Given these multidimensional nature of food security,
Sensitivity analysis the two notable issues in food security studies needing
This section presents the last implementation step of the attention are measurement of food security and econo-
PSM conducted to check how the finding of this study is metric model used for analysis [46]. The issue related
free from hidden bias. The basic question to be answered with econometric model was explained in the methodol-
here is whether inference about treatment effects may ogy part as a result here we will focus only on the meas-
be altered by unobserved factors [37]. The estimation urement approach. Indicators to measure food security
of treatment effects with matching estimators is based have been proposed over decades: from narrow meas-
on the unconfoundedness or selection on observables urement on specific variables to complex indexes aimed
assumption. However, if there are unobserved variables at synthesizing the multiple dimensions that character-
which affect assignment into treatment and the out- ize food security [45–48]. Several classifications have
come variable simultaneously, a ‘hidden bias’ might arise been adopted to organize the indicators. First, indicators
[38]. Since it is not possible to estimate the magnitude of of food security may synthesize information at differ-
selection bias with non-experimental data, the problem ent levels (global, national, household, and/or individ-
can be addressed by sensitivity analysis [37]. In order to ual); second, indicators may be oriented to one or more
check for unobservable biases, using Rosenbaum Bound- dimensions of the food security (availability, access, uti-
ing approach sensitivity analysis was performed on the lization, and stability); third, they can be distinguished
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 7 of 16

in static and dynamic indicators; fourth, they may privi- [57] grouped households into three categories based on
lege a particular type of information [47]. To date, no their calorie availability/adult equivalent/day: food secure
food security measure satisfies four pillars of food secu- (≥ 2100 kcal/adult equivalent/day), moderately food inse-
rity. As a result, global community has relied heavily on cure (≥ 1050 to < 2100 kcal/adult equivalent/day) and
proxy measures that attend to one, two or perhaps three severely food insecure (< 1050 kcal/adult equivalent/day).
of these axioms [45]. However, a combination of meas- Following the suggestion of FAO, WHO and UN [58],
ures and indicators is needed to fully reflect the complex in this study, food security was measured based on calo-
reality of food security in any given context [49]. Accord- rie requirement, according to age and sex of household
ing to Awoke [50] food security can be measured in dif- members. Accordingly, household calorie availability was
ferent ways depending on the purpose and scope of the computed from each food item consumed over the last 7
study. For instance, the food security can be measured by days before the survey time. Ethiopian Health and Nutri-
household survey food consumption data, caloric intake, tion Research Institute (EHNRI) conversion factor for
dietary diversity, household food insecurity access scale, kilocalories per kilogram of different food types was con-
food adequacy question and the like. When we come to sidered to calculate the calorie intake of households [59].
our case, our focus is on the impact of small irrigation The net weekly calorie availability was divided by seven
on food security at households. Considering the scope of to obtain the household daily calorie intake. Then the
the study, we measure food security using calorie intake. family size of each household was converted into adult
Furthermore, we also addressed availability component equivalent considering age and sex of each family mem-
of food security in surveying food produced through ber in the household. The daily net calorie consumption
irrigation, access component through additional food of the household was divided by the adult equivalent to
items bought from the sale of surplus production. As to obtain the daily calorie availability per adult equivalent of
stability, irrigation is believed to guarantee food security the household.
through multiple production regardless of shortage of
rainfall throughout year. In the study area, farmers able Results and discussion
to produce enough food during dry seasons in sustain- Descriptive characteristics of the respondents
able basis for their consumption and sale for additional The result of descriptive statistics presented in Table 1
income. shows that there was significant difference between
As indicated above, we used calorie intake as a proxy irrigation users and non-users in their education, age,
of food security which has been widely used by differ- farming experience, family size, land holding, livestock
ent authors as a measure of food security. It is one of holding, distance from water point to the farming plot,
the most direct indicators related to food security of access to extension service, access to credit and non/
the household [51, 52]. This method has two principal off-farm income. However, no significant difference was
advantages. It produces the most accurate measures of observed between two groups in their sex, distance to the
individual caloric intake and therefore the most accurate main market and dependency ratio. The mean age of the
measure of food security status of an individual. Second, total respondents was 37.2 years. The mean age of irri-
because the data are collected on an individual basis, it gation users was 38.54 years and the mean age of irriga-
is possible to determine whether food security status dif- tion non-users was 35.98 years implying relatively older
fers within the household [53]. There are several stud- households participate in the small-scale irrigation prac-
ies that have used calorie intake as a measure of food tices than the younger ones. The result of t-test shows
security. A study conducted by [54] considered amount that there was statistically significant mean difference
of calorie intake to categorize households as either food between irrigation user and non-user household in their
secure or insecure in examining the main determinants age at 5% significance level. The mean schooling year
of food security of the households. Gebremichael [55] in of the entire sample was 3.9 years. The average school-
his study considered calorie intake as a measure of food ing year of irrigation users and non-users was 4.26 and
security in examining the impact of Mai Nugus irriga- 3.56 years, respectively. A significant difference between
tion scheme on household food security. Similarly, [11] two groups indicates that irrigation users are better off
also measured food security in terms of calorie intake in terms of educational attainment than non-user house-
in impact analysis of small-scale irrigation schemes on holds. Average farming experience of irrigation users was
household food security in Ethiopia. Another study con- 15.18 years with standard deviation of 7.52 years as com-
ducted in Nigeria [56] employed daily calorie intake as a pared with the average farming experience of non-users
measure of food security in examining determinants of (12.92 years). The difference was statistically significant
food security among households. In assessing the food at 5% significance level. This shows that irrigation users
security status of households, Weldearegay and Tedla have relatively more experience in farming activities than
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 8 of 16

their counterparts which may result from their age dif- inputs, and hiring labor, transportation and others. In the
ference. The average family size of sample household was study area it was found that majority (78.72%) of irriga-
4.8. On average, about 5.38 individuals live in households tion users attended extension-based training regularly
who practice small-scale irrigation against 4.27 individu- while only 49% of non-users attend the training in regular
als in non-user households which implies family labor base. The result of Chi-square analysis shows that there is
demand of irrigation activities is higher than rain-fed statistically significant difference between the two groups
agriculture. The mean family size comparison between in attending extension focused training at 1% significance
the two groups revealed that there was statistically sig- level. This difference may show that irrigation needs con-
nificant difference between two groups at 1% significant tinuous training because there is continuous production
level. The mean land holding size of irrigation user and by using irrigation, which needs regular training than
non-user household was 2.1 and 1.56 ha with standard rain-fed agriculture.
deviation of 0.8 and 0.7 ha, respectively. The difference
was statistically significant at 1% significance level. This Econometric model analysis result
shows that irrigation users have relatively large land than This section presents econometric model analysis result
non-user groups. The mean livestock holding of irriga- followed to analyze the impact of small-scale irrigation
tion user and non-user household was 6.48 and 4.58 in on household food security. The procedures of the PSM
TLU, respectively. The difference was statistically signifi- model with its result are presented as follows: -
cant at 1% significant level which implies irrigation users
owned relatively more number of livestock than non- Determining the propensity score of households
user households. The study revealed that the mean dis- Here binary logistic regression model was applied to
tance from irrigation user respondents’ residence to the determine the propensity score of the sampled house-
main market was 6.02 km and it was 6.48 km for non- holds using all the hypothesized variables that were
user households showing no statistically significant dif- assumed to determine household’s decision to use small-
ference between the two groups. The mean dependency scale irrigation. The result presented in Table 2 shows
ratio of irrigation user and non-user sample household that age, education, land, distance from water point to
was 2.07 and 2.14 which also shows insignificant differ- the farming plot, market distance, access to extension
ence between the two groups. The mean distance from service, and non/off-farm income were the major vari-
water point to the farming plot was relatively lower for ables determining households’ participation in irrigation
irrigation user households (1.09 km) than non-user use.
households (1.46 km) which is significant at 1% signifi- The survey result output presented in Table 2 shows
cance level. This shows that distance is affecting non-user that education positively determines participation in
households not to participate in small-scale irrigation
activities. The average annual off/non-farm income was
larger for irrigation user household (1673.72 ETB) than
for non-user households (713.7 ETB) with statistically Table 2 Logit model output of household’s probability
of participation in irrigation use
significant difference at 1% significance level. This may
indicate from the income obtained from irrigation activi- Variables Coefficient Std. Err Z p-value
ties respondents able to diversify their source of income
SEXHHD −0.52 0.49 −0.94 0.345
to off/ non-farm earning also.
EDULEV 0.15 0.08 1.87 0.062*
The result of descriptive statistics presented on Table 1
AGEHHD 0.04 0.03 1.76 0.078*
shows that 85.11% of irrigation user households were
HHFEX 0.02 0.03 0.86 0.391
male headed implying irrigation activities are mainly
FAMSIZE 0.06 0.09 0.74 0.461
dominated by male headed households. The Chi-square
DEPNDRTO −0.03 0.19 −0.21 0.832
test result shows that, there was no statistically signifi-
TOCLAND 0.57 0.27 2.23 0.026**
cant difference in sex distribution between irrigation user
LIVSTO 0.02 0.07 0.38 0.703
and non-user households. The result of the study also
NEAWAT​ −0.42 0.34 −1.96 0.050**
indicates that about 53.19% of irrigation users obtained
DIMAR −0.14 0.11 −1.82 0.068*
credit in the past one year as compared with 28% of irri-
ACCEXT 1.24 0.52 2.96 0.003***
gation user. The Chi-square test shows that there was sig-
ACCRED 0.52 0.50 1.33 0.184
nificant difference between irrigation user and non-user
NONFRMA 0.00 0.00 2.37 0.018**
in accessing credit services at less than 1% significance
level. This indicates that irrigation activities need finance LR ­Chi2 (13) = 65.76, Prob > ­Chi2 = 0.000, pseudo-R2 = 0.2447, log likelihood
−101.49855
to carry out irrigation farming like purchasing farm *
p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 9 of 16

irrigation use at 10% significance level. This is because it takes their time and needs more cost to transport farm
education increases adoption rate of irrigation related inputs and sell their produce which discourages them
technologies and application of these technologies effec- from participating in irrigation activities. This is consist-
tively at farm plot level. A previous research finding of ent with [72]. A negative relationship between participa-
several studies shows a positive influence of education tion in small-scale irrigation activities and distance from
on irrigation adoption. Woldemariam and Gecho [60] water point to the farming plot shows that when water
found that better educated farmers have better chance to point is far from the place where crop cultivation takes
use irrigation because education equips individuals with place, it exerts additional cost for farmers to transport
the necessary knowledge of how to make living. Literate water from far distance for irrigation purpose that may
individuals are very ambitious to get information and use not be feasible for farmers which consequently discour-
it. As agriculture is a dynamic occupation, the conserva- age them not to take part in irrigation activities. A study
tion practices and agricultural production technologies conducted by [60] is similar with this result justifying
are always coming up with better knowledge. So, if the that when the farm is far from main irrigation canals, it
household head is literate, he/she will be very prone to needs high labor, financial and time costs to construct
accept extension services and irrigation use. Similarly, sub-canals towards individual farm and minimize the
[61, 62] and [63] are in agreement with this finding. chances to use irrigation water.
It was found that age positively and significantly deter- Figure 2 shows propensity score distribution and com-
mine decision to participate in small-scale irrigation mon support region for propensity score estimation. The
practices at 10% significance level. This indicate that as upper half shows the propensity score distribution of irri-
the age of the farmers increase their farming experience gation user and the bottom halves of histogram shows
increase and they will be capable to manage their farm the propensity score distribution of non-user households.
effectively including irrigation activities. This finding is The green colored (treated on support) and pink colored
consistence with [64] that shows positive relationship (untreated on support) indicates the observation in the
between age and participation in small-scale irrigation irrigation user and non-user that have suitable for com-
activities. According to this study, older farmers might parison, respectively, while the yellow colored (treated off
possess richer farming experience that could be easily support) and blue colored (untreated off support) indi-
harnessed for improved irrigation activity. cates the observation in the irrigation user and non-user
Land and amount of income earned from non/off- that were not suitable for comparison, respectively.
farm activities are positively determine participation in
irrigation at 5% significant level. A positive relationship Matching irrigation user with non‑user household
between land and irrigation participation shows that in and determining common support region
the study area most of farmers having small land size To match irrigation user with non-user households, we
participate in cultivating perennial cash crop and not applied four most widely used matching estimators like
participate in irrigation activities as their land is already nearest neighbor, caliper, radius and kernel estimators.
occupied with cash crops. There are several studies that As shown in Table 3, we try to match irrigation users
shows the positive association between land size and with non-users in common support region. Accord-
irrigation participation [65, 66] and [67]). Furthermore, ingly, 65 households from user group and 84 households
a positive relationship between irrigation use and non/ from non-user groups behave similar characteristics and
off-farm income is that irrigation by its nature needs a matched. As a result of this, 45 households (29 from irri-
finance to purchase farm equipment and hire labor. This gation user and 16 households) from non-user were dis-
is consistence with [68, 69] and [13]. carded from the study in impact assessment procedure.
Access to extension services determines irrigation par-
ticipation positively and significantly at 1% significance Impact of small‑scale irrigation on food security
level. This shows that farmers who follow agricultural Irrigation can contribute to food security in multi-
extension focused training regularly are believed to have ple ways. According to Domènech [73], irrigation can
better skill and knowledge on irrigation practices which improve the amount of food available to the household
encourages them to participate in it. This is in agreement through two main channels. The amount and diver-
with [70] and [71]. Moreover, the result of logistic regres- sity of homegrown food can improve as a result of hav-
sion shows that distance from water point to the farm- ing access to irrigation water, and households may be
ing plot and distance to the main market place negatively able to purchase more food as a result of having more
determine participation in irrigation use at 5% and 10% income from the sale of irrigated products. Further, Lip-
statistically significance level, respectively. This shows tona [74] emphasizes that irrigation boosts farm output
when market place is too far from respondent’s residence through three main ways. Firstly, irrigation improves
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 10 of 16

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Propensity Score

Untreated: Off support Untreated: On support

Treated: On support Treated: Off support

Fig. 2 Propensity score distribution and common support region

yields through reduced crop loss due to erratic, unreli- irrigation, we applied PSM to match adopters with non-
able, or insufficient rainwater supply. Secondly, irriga- adopters having similar characteristics in terms of irriga-
tion allows for the possibility of multiple cropping, and tion adoption determinants. Based on the purpose of the
so an increase in annual output. Thirdly, irrigation allows model, non-adopters is assumed to represent the pre-irri-
a greater area of land to be used for crops in areas where gation use status of the adopter households with respect
rain-fed production is impossible or marginal. Hence, to independent and outcome variables after matching,
irrigation adoption is a means for smallholder farmers the only difference would be irrigation use. That is why
to participate in multiple production year rounds which 45 households (29 from irrigation user and 16 house-
helps to increase yield and improve their food security holds from non-user) were discarded from the study in
regardless of season. It is also a means to produce a vari- impact assessment procedure and analysis was made for
ety of crops for own consumption, sell to generate rev- only the matched sample (65 households from user group
enue, and also to buy other food items for consumption and 84 households from non-user group).
which all together have implications on food security. Based on this, comparison of adopters and non-adop-
Following this argument, to capture the real impact of ters was made with respect to annual production, con-
irrigation on food security and show a clear impact path- sumption, revenue generation and additional food items
way, we considered different outcomes including crops bought and consumed with the revenue generated and
consumed from own production, additional food items their calorie intake. We have applied the most common
bought and consumed from the revenue generated with four matching algorisms (nearest neighbor radius, caliper
the sale of crops produced. Besides, the calorie intake of and kernel) to analyze the impact of irrigation on food
the household was also considered as the other indica- security.
tor of food security by this study. Therefore, taking the It was found that the type of crops majorly grown and
multidimensional impact of irrigation technology on consumed in the study area includes onion, tomato,
food security in to consideration, we tried to survey the pepper, cabbage, maize, wheat, and bean. The result of
major crops growing with irrigation, annual crop produc- this study shows that irrigation users produced more
tion, consumption, sale, revenue generated, and addi- crop than non-users across all the matching estimators
tional food items bought from the revenue generated. To (Table 3). The difference was statistically significant at a
draw inference on the impact of small-scale irrigation on 1% significance level. The implication of this is that irri-
food security, considering these outcomes in addition to gation helps adopter households to produce more crop
the calorie intake was found to be an important aspect. for consumption as well as sell for additional income
In doing this, as we have no baseline data on the status generation.
of the respondents before the adoption of small-scale
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 11 of 16

Table 3 Impact of irrigation use on crop production

Matching algorisms Outcome (kg) Irrigation users Irrigation non-users ATT difference t-value p-value
Matched ATT​ Matched ATT​
sample sample

Nearest Neighbor Onion 65 985.26 84 210.66 774.6 15.46 0.00***

Tomato 65 3743.3 84 512.95 3230.35 12.6 0.00***
Pepper 65 1740.41 84 26.15 1714.26 10.74 0.00***
Cabbage 65 3387.36 84 60.6 3326.76 9.50 0.00***
Maize 65 3468.46 84 372.30 3096.15 12.26 0.00***
Wheat 65 1142.90 84 230.49 912.41 21.26 0.00***
Beans 65 1094.12 84 243.24 850.87 21.8 0.00***
Radius Onion 65 985.26 84 230.56 754.7 15.34 0.00***
Tomato 65 3743.3 84 556.85 3186.45 14.22 0.00***
Pepper 65 1740.41 84 74.38 1666.03 10.59 0.00***
Cabbage 65 3387.36 84 151.15 3236.21 9.41 0.00***
Maize 65 3468.46 84 426.32 3042.13 12.27 0.00***
Wheat 65 1142.90 84 241.69 901.21 21.47 0.00***
Beans 65 1094.12 84 254.16 839.95 22.14 0.00***
Caliper Onion 65 985.26 84 210.66 774.6 15.46 0.00***
Tomato 65 3743.3 84 512.95 3230.35 12.60 0.00***
Pepper 65 1740.41 84 26.15 1714.26 10.74 0.00***
Cabbage 65 3387.36 84 60.6 3326.76 9.50 0.00***
Maize 65 3468.46 84 372.30 3096.15 12.26 0.00***
Wheat 65 1142.90 84 230.49 912.415 21.26 0.00***
Beans 65 1094.12 84 243.24 850.87 21.80 0.00***
Kernel Onion 65 985.26 84 229.9 755.363 15.33 0.00***
Tomato 65 3743.30 84 562.03 3181.27 14.18 0.00***
pepper 65 1740.41 84 72.30 1668.11 10.6 0.00***
Cabbage 65 3387.36 84 150.10 3237.26 9.41 0.00***
Maize 65 3468.46 84 424.3 3044.06 12.28 0.00***
Wheat 65 1142.90 84 241.31 901.59 21.47 0.00***
Beans 65 1094.12 84 254 840.11 22.13 0.00***
***
p < 0.01

The result of the nearest neighbor and caliper match- own consumption or for marketing and income genera-
ing algorism shows that the annual onion consumption tion purposes. Irrigation can therefore be an important
of irrigation users was 498.68 kg more than that of non- source of income since smallholder irrigation systems are
users. Similarly, irrigation brought a positive impact on frequently used to grow vegetables, fruits, and other cash
tomato consumption of the irrigation user households. crops that are usually marketable and highly profitable
It was found that the use of irrigation increased annual [73]. It was found that the mean annual income gener-
tomato consumption to 1831.56 kg. On the other hand, ated by irrigation users was found to be 102213.79 birr
irrigation use significantly increased pepper, cabbage, across all matching algorisms. Whereas the maximum
maize, wheat, and haricot bean consumption across all mean annual income generated by the non-users was
the applied matching algorism (Table 4). This shows that found to be 9820.47 birr with radius matching algorism.
irrigation increase consumption of these crop harvest The output of the PSM shows that surplus crop produc-
which fills the food gap they had before irrigation use. tion helped households to generate more 94553.74 birr
Moreover, it was found that respondents also sell sur- than non-users with nearest neighbor matching algo-
plus crop production to generate revenue for their liveli- rism (Table 5). It was depicted that surplus production
hood including buying additional food items. An increase of crops due to irrigation helps households to generate
in agricultural productivity as a result of irrigation adop- revue for their livelihood as well as to buy food items
tion can lead to increased food availability either for needed to complement the food requirements in addition
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 12 of 16

Table 4 Impact of irrigation use on consumption

Matching algorisms Outcome (kg) Irrigation users Irrigation users ATT difference t-value p-value
Matched ATT​ Matched ATT​
sample sample

Nearest Neighbor Onion 65 672.67 84 173.98 498.68 16.05 0.00***

Tomato 65 2262.13 84 430.56 1831.56 9.67 0.00***
Pepper 65 87.14 84 1.38 85.75 10.77 0.00***
Cabbage 65 508.32 84 9.15 499.17 9.51 0.00***
Maize 65 867.11 84 93.07 774.03 12.26 0.00***
Wheat 65 735.65 84 119.33 616.32 10.45 0.00***
Beans 65 930 84 206.75 723.25 21.8 0.00***
Radius Onion 65 672.67 84 188.87 483.79 15.27 0.00***
Tomato 65 2262.13 84 443.58 1818.54 11.56 0.00***
Pepper 65 87.14 84 4.72 82.41 10.44 0.00***
Cabbage 65 508.32 84 23.32 485 9.41 0.00***
Maize 65 867.11 84 106.58 760.53 12.27 0.00***
Wheat 65 735.65 84 115.93 619.72 10.76 0.00***
Beans 65 930 84 216 713.96 22.14 0.00***
Caliper Onion 65 672.67 84 173.98 498.68 16.05 0.00***
Tomato 65 2262.13 84 430.56 1831.56 9.67 0.00***
Pepper 65 87.14 84 1.38 85.75 10.77 0.00***
Cabbage 65 508.32 84 9.15 499.17 9.51 0.00***
Maize 65 867.11 84 93.07 774.03 12.26 0.00***
Wheat 65 735.65 84 119.33 616.32 10.45 0.00***
Beans 65 930 84 206.75 723.25 21.8 0.00***
Kernel Onion 65 672.67 84 188.38 484.28 15.25 0.00***
Tomato 65 2262.13 84 448.46 1813.67 11.51 0.00***
Pepper 65 87.14 84 4.54 82.59 10.46 0.00***
Cabbage 65 508.32 84 23.12 485.19 9.41 0.00***
Maize 65 867.11 84 106.09 761.01 22.13 0.00***
Wheat 65 735.65 84 115.43 620.22 10.76 0.00***
Beans 65 930.0 84 215.90 714.09 22.13 0.00***
***
p < 0.01

to what they produce. This finding is consistence with non-irrigating farmers R622.12. The study concluded that
different studies. A study conducted by Mangisoni [16] these positive results indicate that participating on irriga-
in Malawi shows positive impact of irrigation use on tion helps to improve farm incomes of households and is
income. This study found that a net farm income earned significant at 5% level. The survey result depicts that with
by irrigation users was US$770 compared to US$131 the revenue generated from sale of surplus crop produc-
earned by non-users. In Gambia, Von Braun [75] also tion irrigation users are able to buy foods rich in calorie.
found that cultivation of rice through irrigation system The major food items bought by irrigation users include
increased the real income of farmers by 13%. A study meat, barley, chicken, yogurt, and avocado and egg. This
conducted by Christian [76] on analysis of the impact study is consistence with Olney [77] which conclude that
of smallholder irrigation schemes on the choice of rural in comparison to the control group, the irrigation use
livelihood strategy and household food security in East- increased household consumption of micronutrient-rich
ern Cape Province used both the nearest neighbor and foods such as dark green leafy vegetables and yellow or
kernel matching methods point to identify the impact of orange fruits, eggs.
irrigation on income shows the fact that irrigation access The impact analysis result obtained using nearest
has a positive impact on total farm income. Based on this neighbor and caliper matching estimator shows that
study, the nearest neighbor matching method indicated irrigation increased the daily per capita caloric intake
that irrigator received high farm income R2044.01 and of user households by 643.76 kilocalories than non-user
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 13 of 16

Table 5 Impact of irrigation use on revenue

Matching estimator Irrigation users Irrigation non-users ATT difference (Birr) t-value p-value
Matched ATT (Birr) Matched ATT (Birr)
sample sample

Nearest Neighbor 65 102213.79 84 7660.05 94553.74 13.26 0.00***

Radius 65 102213.79 84 9820.47 92393.32 13.22 0.00***
Caliper 65 102213.79 84 7660.05 94553.74 13.26 0.00***
Kernel 65 102213.79 84 9773.26 92440.53 13.23 0.00***
***
p < 0.01

Table 6 Impact of irrigation use on calorie intake

Matching estimator Irrigation users Irrigation non-users ATT difference t-value p-value
(Kcal)
Matched ATT (Kcal) Matched ATT (Kcal)
sample sample

Nearest neighbor 65 2501.54 84 1857.78 643.76 4.08 0.000***

Radius 65 2501.54 84 1905.1 596.43 4.34 0.000***
Caliper 65 2501.54 84 1857.78 643.76 4.08 0.000***
Kernel 65 2501.54 84 1909.8 591.74 4.3 0.000***
***
p < 0.01

households. This difference was statistically significant Table 7 Result of sensitivity analysis using Rosenbaum
at 1% significance level. On the other hand, because of bounding approach
irrigation daily calorie intake of beneficiary households Outcomes eγ = 1 eγ = 1.5 eγ = 2 eγ = 2.5
increased to 596.43 kcal and 591.74 kcal, respectively,
with radius and kernel matching estimators (Table 6). The Calorie intake 0.00001 0.00178 0.020784 0.082618
difference in calorie intake is because of the large contri-
bution in calories by the meat, barley, chicken, yogurt,
and avocado and egg consumption in addition to the Dillon [79] found that irrigation significantly and posi-
consumption of onion, tomato, pepper, cabbage, maize, tively increases caloric intakes for households with access
wheat and haricot bean. From this, it is easy to conclude to irrigation. According to the study because of irrigation,
that the use of irrigation has a positive impact on food the daily caloric intake increased by 1836 cal for irriga-
security through consumption of own crop harvest, buy tors. Moreover, [80] in Malawi applied propensity score
more calorie rich food with the revenue generated from matching approach to measure the impact of irrigation
surplus production. As irrigation use enables households on food security to correct for sample selection bias aris-
to produce more than two times in a year it helps them to ing from the non-random selection of participants into
ensure their food security regardless of the season. Sev- the irrigation scheme and has found that access to irri-
eral studies are consistent with the finding of this study. A gation facilities results into increase the daily per capita
study conducted by [78] on the impact of irrigation tech- caloric intake by 10% for irrigation users compared to
nology use on crop yield, crop income and household non-users. The empirical analysis of a study conducted
food security in Nigeria using propensity score match- by [81] in Nepal shows food security is more pronounced
ing approach indicated that irrigation technology use is for those farmers who irrigation for homestead vegeta-
positively related to household food security. Another ble cultivation. Moreover, Desta and Almaz [82], Haile
study conducted by [64] in Ghana on irrigation access [83], Alemu [90], Tizita, [84], Abdissa,et,al [11] and Tes-
and per capita consumption expenditure in farm house- faw [85], Burney [86], FAO [87], Upadhyay [88], Kabunga
holds shows that irrigation access has a positive impact [89], found that irrigation adoption can significantly and
on household consumption expenditure per capita. positively contribute food security improvement.
Empirical analysis of a study conducted by [31] focusing
on impact of irrigation water scarcity on rural house-
Sensitivity analysis
hold food security and income in Pakistan indicated
Sensitivity analysis was conducted to check to what
that farmers with a water scarcity are food insecure.
extent the study was free from bias resulting from
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 14 of 16

unobservable variable. The first column of Table 7 interventions to the other areas where there is potential
shows outcome variable which bear statistical differ- irrigable land.
ence between irrigation user and non-user house-
holds while the rest of the values which corresponds
Abbreviations
to each row of the significant outcome variables are Kcal: Kilo calorie; PSM: Propensity score matching; ATT​: Average treatment
p-critical values (or the upper bound of Wilcoxon sig- effect on the treated; ATE: Average treatment effect; Km: Kilometer; MoARD:
nificance level -Sig +) at different critical value of y eγ. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; ETB: Ethiopian Birr; FAO: Food
and Agricultural Organization; WHO: World Health Organization; UN: United
The results show that inference for the impact of irriga- Nations.
tion use does not change, even though the participant
and non-participant households were allowed to dif- Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the experts agriculture office of the district for
fer in their odds of being treated up eγ = 2.5 in terms their patience and support to get the required supplementary data. Besides,
of unobserved covariates. That means for the outcome the authors would like to thank respondents for their dedicated willingness to
variable estimated, at various level of critical value participate in this study
of eγ, the p- critical values are significant which fur- Authors’ contributions
ther indicate that the study has considered important YJ: contributed to research proposal writing, data collection and supervision.
covariates that affected both participation and outcome AA: contributed data analysis and article writing. WT: contributed data inter-
pretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
variables. Thus, it is possible to conclude that impact
estimates (ATT) of this study for the outcome variables Funding
was insensitive to unobserved selection bias. No funding.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from
Conclusion the corresponding author on request.

This study analyzed the impact of small-scale irriga- Ethics approval and consent to participate
tion on household food security in Adami Tulu Jido Not applicable.
Kombolcha district. In this study, we utilized both
Consent for publication
primary and secondary data. We followed propensity Not applicable.
score matching model (PSM) approach to analyze the
impact of small-scale irrigation on the food security to Competing interests
We declare that we do not have competing interests.
fill the gap studies conducted in this field of study. We
examined the impact of small-scale irrigation on food Author details
1
security through using the most common matching College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Madda Walabu University,
Bale Robe, Ethiopia. 2 College of Agriculture, Faculty of Environment, Gender
algorisms including nearest neighbor, caliper, radius and Development Studies, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
and kernel matching estimators. The results of near-
est neighbor and caliper matching estimators shows Received: 10 August 2020 Accepted: 15 February 2021

that participation in small-scale irrigation increased

daily calorie intake of the small-scale irrigation users
by 643.76 kcal over non-user households. Furthermore,
References
the impact of small-scale irrigation was found to be 1. Frenken K, Gillet V. Irrigation water requirement and water withdrawal by
positive in radius and kernel matching estimators. It country. FAO AQUASTAT Reports. 2012.
was further also found that in the study area irrigation 2. Siebert S, Döll P, Hoogeveen J, Faures J-M, Frenken K, Feick S. Devel-
opment and validation of the global map of irrigation areas. 2005. Hydrol
use had positive impact on crop production, consump- Earth Syst. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-9-535-2005.
tion and revenue generation which helped households 3. Wada Y, Wisser D, Eisner S, Flörke M, Gerten D, Haddeland I, Hanasaki N,
to buy calorie rich foods for their household. The sensi- Masaki Y, Portmann FT, Stacke T, Tessler Z, Schewe J. Multimodel projec-
tions and uncertainties of irrigation water demand under climate change.
tivity analysis test showed that impact results estimated Geophys Res Lett. 2013. https​://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50686​.
by this study were insensitive to unobserved selection 4. FAO: Global food problems and the role of irrigation. http://www.fao.
bias and it is a real impact of irrigation. Based on this org/3/Y4854​E/y4854​e02.htm
5. Yihdego AG, Gebru AA, Gelaye MT. The impact of small – scale irrigation
result, we concluded that irrigation has positive and on income of rural farm households: evidence from AhferomWoreda in
significant impact on household food security across Tigray, Ethiopia. Int JBusiness Econ Res. 2015. https​://doi.org/10.11648​
all the matching estimators. Concerned bodies that /j.ijber​.20150​404.14.
6. Nkhoma BG. The politics, development and problems of small irriga-
working on small-scale irrigation development there- tion dams in Malawi: experiences from Mzuzu ADD. Water Altern.
fore should continue investment in irrigation activities 2011;4(3):383–98.
for poverty reduction strategies and scale-up irrigation 7. Rukuni M, Eicher CK, Blackie. Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Revolution, Revis-
ited, University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare; 2006.
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 15 of 16

8. Makombe G, Namara R, Hagos F, Awulachew SB, Ayana M, Bossio D. A 32. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation
comparative analysis of the technical efficiency of rain-fed and small- of propensity score matching University of Cologne discussion paper No.
holder irrigation in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa: IWMI. Working paper 143; 1588, Bonn Germany; 2005.
2011. 33. Endrias G, Ayalheh B, Kassa B, Eyasu E. Productivity and efficiency analysis
9. Awulachew SB, Ayana M. Performance of irrigation: an assessment at of smallholder maize producers in southern Ethiopia. J Hum Ecol. 2013.
different scales in Ethiopia. Exp Agric. 2011;47(S1):57–69. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09709​274.2013.11906​554.
10. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD). Ethiopia’s 34. Fadare OA, Akerele D, Toritseju B. Factors influencing adoption decisions
Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework: Ten-year Road Map of maize farmers in Nigeria. Int J Food Agric Econ. 2014;2(3):45–54.
(2010–2020); 2010 35. Dehejia R, Wahba S. Propensity score matching methods for non-experi-
11. Abdissa F, Tesema G, Yirga C. Impact analysis of small scale irrigation mental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat. 2012;84(1):151–61.
schemes on household food security the Case of Sibu Sire District in 36. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivari-
Western Oromia. Ethiopia Irrigation Drainage Syst Eng. 2017. https​://doi. ate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score.
org/10.4172/2168-9768.10001​87. Am Stat. 1985. https​://doi.org/10.2307/26839​03.
12. Ayele FB. Socio-economic and institutional determinants of small-scale 37. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation
irrigation schemes utilization in Bale Zone, Oromia National Regional of propensity score matching. J Econ Surveys. 2008. https​://doi.org/10.11
State. Doctoral dissertation, Haramaya University. 2007 11/j.1467-6419.2007.00527​.x.
13. Asayehegn K. Irrigation versus rain-fed agriculture: driving for households’ 38. Rosenbaum PR. Covariance adjustment in randomized experiments and
income disparity, a study from central Tigray. Ethiopia J Agricu Sci Res. observational studies. Stat Sci. 2002;17(3):286–327.
2012;2(1):20–9. 39. Caccavale OM, Giuffrida V. The proteus composite index: towards a better
14. Mehretie B, Woldeamlak B. Traditional irrigation and water management metric for global food security. World Dev. 2020. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
practices in highland, Ethiopia: case study in Dangila Woreda. Irrig Drain. world​dev.2019.10470​9.
2013. https​://doi.org/10.1002/ird.1748. 40. Maxwell S. Food security: a post-modern perspective. Food Policy.
15. Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha Agriculture and Natural Resource Develop- 21(2):155–170
ment Office. Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Unpublished report; 2018. 41. Simon M, Frankenberger T. Household food security: concepts, indicators,
16. Mangisoni JH. Impact of treadle pump irrigation technology on small- measurements. A Technical Review. New York; 1992.
holder poverty and food security in Malawi: a case study of Blantyre 42. Food and Agriculture Organization. An introduction to the basic
and Mchinji districts. Int J Agric Sustain. 2008. https​://doi.org/10.3763/ concepts of food security. Food Security Information for Action Practical
ijas.2008.0306. Guides. EC – FAO Food Security Programme. 2008. http://www.fao.org/
17. Graciana P. The impact of small scale irrigation schemes on household docre​p/013/al936​e/al936​e00.pdf
food security in Swaziland. J Sustai Dev Africa. 2011;13:102–17. 43. Food and Agriculture Organization. Declaration on world food security.
18. Issahaku IE. Impacts of small scale irrigation on food security and rural World Food Summit. FAO, Rome; 1996.
livelihoods empowerment in lawra municipality. A thesis submitted 44. Mbaga MD. Alternative mechanisms for achieving food security in Oman.
to the department of environment and resource studies, faculty of Agricu Food Security. 2013; 2:3 http://www.agric​ultur​eandf​oodse​curit​
integrated development studies, university for development studies, in y.com/conte​nt/2/1/3
partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of master of philoso- 45. Upton JB, Cisse JD, Barrett CB. Food security as resilience: reconciling
phy degree in environment and resource management, 2018. definition and measurement. Agric Econ. 2016. https​://doi.org/10.1111/
19. Dillon A. Do differences in the scale of irrigation projects generate agec.12305​.
different impacts on poverty and production? Discussion paper 01022. 46. Nkegbe PK, Abu BM, Issahaku H. Food security in the Savannah Acceler-
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2007. ated Development Authority Zone of Ghana: an ordered probit with
20. Gebregziabher G, Namara RE. Investment in irrigation as a poverty reduc- household hunger scale approach. Agric Food Security. 2017. https​://doi.
tion strategy: analysis of small-scale irrigation impact on poverty in Tigray, org/10.1186/s4006​6-017-0111-y.
Ethiopia. Econpapers. 2009;96(12):1837–43. 47. Santeramo FG. On the composite indicators for food security: decisions
21. Omilola B. Estimating the Impact of Irrigation on Poverty Reduction in matter! Food Rev Int. 2015. https​://doi.org/10.1080/87559​129.2014.96107​
Rural Nigeria. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00902. Washington, DC: Interna- 6.
tional Food Policy Research Institute; 2009. 48. May J. Keystones affecting sub-Saharan Africa’s prospects for achieving
22. Bagson E, Kuuder CW. Assessment of a smallscale irrigation scheme on food security through balanced diets. Food Res Int. 2017. https​://doi.
household food security and leisure in Kokoligu; Ghana. Res Humanities org/10.1016/j.foodr​es.2017.06.062.
Social Sci. 2013;3:17–26. 49. Carletto C, Zezza A, Banerjee R. Towards better measurement of
23. Deribe M. Impact of akaki small-scale irrigation scheme on house- household food security: Harmonizing indicators and the role of
hold food security. J Accounting Marketing. 2015. https​://doi. household surveys. Global Food Security. 2013. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.4172/2168-9601.10001​40. gfs.2012.11.006.
24. Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha Finance and Economic Development Office. 50. Mota AA, Lachore ST, Handiso YH. Assessment of food insecurity
Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Unpublished report. 2018. and its determinants in the rural households in Damot Gale Woreda,
25. Cochran WG. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 1997. Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia. Agric & Food Secur. 2019. https​://doi.
26. Fairbairn W, Kessler A. Practical advice for selecting sample sizes. https​:// org/10.1186/s4006​6-019-0254-0.
www.enter​prise​-devel​opmen​t.org/wpcon​tent/uploa​ds/Pract​ical_advic​ 51. Hoddinott J, Skoufias E. The impact of PROGRESA on food consumption.
e_for_selec​ting_sampl​e_sizes​.May20​15.pdf. Econ Dev Cult Change. 2004. https​://doi.org/10.1086/42325​2.
27. Glenn D. Israel: determining sample size. https​://www.tarle​ton.edu/acade​ 52. Gilligan D, Hoddinott J. Is there persistence in the impact of emergency
micas​sessm​ent/docum​ents/Sampl​esize​.pdf; 1992 food aid? evidence on consumption, food security, and assets in rural
28. Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC. Organizational research: determining appropriate Ethiopia. Am J Agr Econ. 2007;89(2):225–42.
sample size in survey research. Inform Technol Learning Performance J. 53. Hoddinott J. Choosing outcome indicators of household food security.
2001;19(1):43. International Food Policy Research Institute; 1999.
29. What every researcher should know about statistical significance (Octo- 54. Goshu D, Kassa B, Ketema M. Measuring diet quantity and quality dimen-
ber 2008) http://www.surve​ystar​.com/start​ips/oct20​08.pdf. sions of food security in rural Ethiopia. J Dev Agric Econ. 2013. https​://doi.
30. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in org/10.5897/JDAE1​2.141.
observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–50. 55. Gebremichael G. Impact of Mai Nugus Irrigation Scheme on Household
31. Rahut DB, Ali A, Imtiaz M, Mottaleb KA, Erenstein O. Impact of irriga- Food Security: a case study in Laelay Maichew Woreda, Central Zone
tion water scarcity on rural household food security and income in of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. M.A. Thesis. Indira Gandhi National Open
Pakistan. Water Sci Technol Water Supply. 2016. https​://doi.org/10.2166/ University, 2013.
ws.2015.179. 56. Arene CJ, Anyaeji J. Determinants of food security among households in
Nsukka Metropolis of Enugu State. Nigeria Pak J Soc Sci. 2010;30(1):9–16.
Jambo et al. Agric & Food Secur (2021) 10:21 Page 16 of 16

57. Weldearegay SK, Tedla DG. Impact of climate variability on household the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Agricultural
food availability in Tigray, Ethiopia. Agric Food Security. 2017. https​://doi. Economics). University of Fort Hare; 2007.
org/10.1186/s4006​6-017-0154-0. 77. Olney DK, Talukder A, Iannotti LL, Ruel MT, Quinn V. Assessing the
58. FAO, WHO and UN. Energy and protein requirements. Technical Report impact and impact pathways of a homestead food production pro-
Series 724. Geneva; 1985. gram on household and child nutrition in Cambodia. Food Nutr Bull.
59. Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute. Food composition 2009;30(4):355–69.
table for use in Ethiopia; 1998. 78. Adebayo O, Bolarin O, Oyewale A, Kehinde O. Impact of irrigation tech-
60. Woldemariam P, Gecho Y. Determinants of small-scale irrigation use: the nology use on crop yield, crop income and household food security in
case of Boloso Sore District, Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Am J Agric Nigeria: a treatment effect approach. AIMS Agric Food. 2018. https​://doi.
For. 2017. https​://doi.org/10.11648​/j.ajaf.20170​503.13. org/10.3934/agrfo​od.2018.2.154.
61. Kohansal MR, Ghorbani M, Rafiee H. Environmental and non–envi- 79. Dillon A. Access to irrigation and the escape from poverty: evidence from
ronmental factors affecting on the adoption of sprinkler irrigation Northern Mali. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00782. Development Strategy and
system, (case study: Khorasan Razavi Province). J Agric Econ Dev. Governance Division; 2008.
2009;17(65):97–112. 80. Nkhata R, 2014. Does irrigation have an impact on food security and pov-
62. Yigezu YA, Ahmed MA, Shideed K, Awhassan A, El-Shater T, Al-Atwan S. erty? Evidence from Bwanje Valley Irrigation Scheme in Malawi. Malawi
Implications of a shift in irrigation technology on resource use efficiency: Strategy Support Program. Working Paper 04. International Food Policy
a Syrian case. Agric Syst. 2013;118:14–22. Research Institute, Washington, DC; 2014.
63. Jahannama F. Social and economic factors affecting the adoption of 81. Namara RE, Upadhyay B, Nagar RK. Adoption and impacts of microirriga-
sprinkler irrigation system. J Agric Econ Dev. 2001;36:237–58. tion technologies: empirical results from selected localities of Maharash-
64. Kuwornu JKM, Owusu ES. Irrigation access and per capita consumption tra and Gujarat States of India. Research Report 93. International Water
expenditure in farm households: evidence from Ghana. J Dev Agric Econ. Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.; 2005.
2012. https​://doi.org/10.5897/JDAE1​1.105. 82. Dawit D, Balta A. Impacts of small scale irrigation in household food
65. Mengistie D, Kidane D. Assessment of the impact of small-scale irrigation security in Ethiopia. J Econ Sustain Dev. 2015;6(2):62–70.
on household livelihood improvement at Gubalafto District, North Wollo, 83. Gebremedhin Gebremeskel Haile and Asfaw Kebede Kasa. Irrigation in
Ethiopia. Agriculture. 2016. https​://doi.org/10.3390/agric​ultur​e6030​027. Ethiopia: a review. Acad J Agric Res. 2015;3(10):264–9.
66. Pokhrel BK, Paudel KP, Segarra E. Factors affecting the choice, intensity, 84. Tizita D. The effect of small scale irrigation on household food security in
and allocation of irrigation technologies by U.S. cotton farmers. Water. Bona-zuria District, Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia. MSc Thesis. Hawassa
2018. https​://doi.org/10.3390/w1006​0706. University, 2017.
67. Gautam TK, Dependra B, 2017. Determinants of irrigation technology 85. Tesfaw M. Small scale irrigation development. Irrigation Drainage Syst
adoptions and production efficiency in Nepal’s agricultural sector. 2017 Eng. 2018. https​://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9768.10002​06.
Annual Meeting, February 4–7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252856, Southern 86. Burney J, Naylor RL, Poste SL. The case for distributed irrigation as
Agricultural Economics Association. a development priority in Sub-Saharan Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci.
68. Regassa AE. Determinants of agro pastoralists participation in irrigation 2013;110(31):12513–7.
scheme: the case of fentalle agro pastoral district, Oromia regional state, 87. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Socio-
Ethiopia. Int J Agric Res Innovation Technol. 2015;5(2):44–50. economic Impact of Smallholder Irrigation Development in Zimbabwe:
69. Tsegaye G, Bekele W. Farmers’ perceptions of land degradation and Case Studies of Ten Irrigation Schemes. FAO Sub regional Office for East
determinants of food security at Bilate Watershed, Southern Ethiopia. and Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe; 2000.
Ethiopian J Appl Sci Tech. 2010;1(1):49–62. 88. Upadhyay B, Samad M, Giordano M. Livelihoods and gender roles in drip
70. Adeoti AI. Factors influencing irrigation technology adoption and its irrigation technology: a case of Nepal. Working Paper 87. International
impact on household poverty in Ghana. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop- Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka; 2005
ics. 2009;109(1):51–63. 89. Kabunga N, Ghosh S, Griffifiths JK. Can smallholder fruit and vegetable
71. Afrakhteh H, Armand M, Bozayeh FA. Analysis of factors affecting adop- production systems improve household food security and nutritional
tion and application of sprinkler irrigation by farmers in Famenin County, status of women? Evidence from Rural Uganda. IFPRI Discussion Paper
Iran. Int J Agric Manag Dev. 2014. https​://doi.org/10.5455/ijamd​.15862​5. 01346. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC;
72. Mango N, Makate C, Tamene L, Mponela P, Ndengu G. Adoption of 2014.
small-scale irrigation farming as a climate-smart agriculture practice and 90. Alemu M. Impact of small-scale irrigation on farm households’ food secu-
its influence on household income in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern rity: the case of Girana irrigation scheme in Kobo District, North Wollo
Africa. Land. 2018. https​://doi.org/10.3390/land7​02004​9. Zone of Amhara Region, Ethiopia Msc Thesis. Haramaya University, 2017.
73. Domènech L. Improving irrigation access to combat food insecurity
and under nutrition: a review. Global Food Security. 2015. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.09.001. Publisher’s Note
74. Liptona M, Litchfieldb J, Faurèsc J-M. The effects of irrigation on poverty: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
a framework for analysis. Water Policy. 2003;5:413–27. lished maps and institutional affiliations.
75. Von Braun J, Puetz D, Webb P. Irrigation technology and the commer-
cialization of rice in the Gambia: effects on income and nutrition. IFPRI
Research Report 75. International Food Policy Research Institute. 1989.
Washington, DC.
76. Christian M. Analysis of the Impact of Smallholder Irrigation Schemes
on the Choice of Rural Livelihood Strategy and Household Food
Security in Eastern Cape Province. Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of