Table 5 Impact of seed system interventions on select seed system performance dimensions
Seed system efficiency dimension | Burundi | Zimbabwe | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ETE model | METE (Model) | ETE Model | DiD model | CiC model | ||||
POM (Se) | (Se) | Coef. (Se) | Coef. (Se) | POM (Se) | Coef. (se) | Coef. (Se) | Coef. (Se) | |
1 | 2 | 3 (Low I)a | 4 (High I)b | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
Access to seed (improved varieties) (1 = Yes) | 0.60 (0.60) | 0.22 (0.60) | 0.29*** (0.07) | 0.27*** (0.18) | 0.14 (0.11) | 0.32*** (0.12) | 0.34*** (0.05) | 0.42*** (0.04) |
Log distance to seed market | 9.38** (4.72) | − 6.79 (4.17) | − 1.38*** (0.36) | − 0.20 (0.45) | 4.39*** (0.51) | − 1.94*** (0.26) | − 0.65*** (0.54) | − 0.62*** (0.21) |
Seed market participation (paid for seed used) (1 = Yes) | 0.63 (0.81) | − 0.02 (0.82) | 0.42*** (0.12) | 0.03*** (0.05) | 0.83*** (0.12) | 0.03 (0.12) | − 0.04 (0.06) | − 0.02 (0.06) |
AWAVA (Variety turnover) | 12.92 (7.18) | − 3.56 (7.18) | − 1.63 (1.93) | − 4.36** (2.04) | 27.72*** (10.06) | − 16.44* (9.91) | − 5.27** (2.58) | − 1.52 (5.52) |
Seed price rating (1 = high, 0 = fair) | – | – | – | – | 0.56*** (0.11) | − 0.09 (0.11) | − 0.14** (0.07) | − 0.10 (0.06) |
Seed pack size rating (1 = suitable) | – | – | – | – | 0.64*** (0.09) | 0.15* (0.09) | 0.14*** (0.06) | 0.24*** (0.09) |
Perception of seed/variety quality | ||||||||
Satisfaction with production traits | 15.12** (7.61) | − 4.64 (6.39) | − 0.08 (1.04) | 1.69*** (0.45) | 11.40*** (1.58) | 1.71** (0.86) | – | – |
Satisfaction with market traits | 6.21 (5.28) | 3.76 (4.48) | 2.75*** (0.16) | 0.73*** (0.13) | 17.31*** (2.02) | 0.04 2.09) | – | – |
Satisfaction with consumption traits | 10.29*** (2.36) | 0.31 (2.00) | 0.61 (0.53) | 1.11** (0.46) | 11.89*** (2.10) | 1.66 (2.13) | – | – |
Other covariates | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |