Table 1. Social capital comparison of adopters and non-adopters

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Hospital Live Delivery Captured Maternal Death

Advertisements

and Statistics, 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-8. doi: /ajams-4-1-1

before and after rehabilitation

Ringe stage of malaria parasite under microscope

Intermediate-level learner

Test (Haemodialysis patients) Controls (health care workers)

Research, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 6, doi: /education

Table 4. Filter Sand Sieve Analysis

Figure 3. Comparison of class performance

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

osteoporosis among the studied working women (n= 365)

Research, 2017, Vol. 5, No. 4, doi: /ajnr-5-4-6

SON Nurse Practitioner Blackboard Community

Table 3. Comparison of NS1 Antigen Assay and Platelet Counts

Major Works Under MGNREGA.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Financial Characteristic

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

% Asian/Pacific Islander

Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio

Table 11. Chi-Square Analysis Based on Grade Shift for Study Group

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 3. Educational Qualification of Respondance

Variables Coefficient Prob.

Table 4. Percentage of post-harvest waste reported by the farmers

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Year range Rainfall (mm) ∆s in rainfall Temp (°C) ∆s in temp RH (mm)

Table 1. Mean score of GAP perception of the farmers’ understanding

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Rating of Water Quality

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio

Table 1. Rice yield in MT (Source-USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service)

Number of categories that are mentioned (0% < categories < 5%)

Table 7. Status of CF in Nepal as of 2009

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Entrapment Efficiency (%) ± S.D.

Table 1. LLC Academics Outcome Report ( )

Research, 2017, Vol. 5, No. 5, doi: /ajphr-5-5-5

Number of questionnaires sent out

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

Phyaical Quantity of Lost Output Taka Equivalent / yr (Million)

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics (N=72)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 4. Summary of Multi ways ANOVA results

Table 2. Drug use among family members and friends of the students

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 3. Correlation of PC, MC, RC & IC at the Supervisory level

chemistry that are involved in peer group

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 3. (d) Summary of two way ANOVA for overall adjustment

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Category Quantity Secondary school 3 Student participant

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 1. Illiteracy distribution by Gender and Place (No. in million)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Compressive Strength difference at 1 week (MPa)

Table 2. Correlation of PC, MC, RC & IC at Non-Executive level

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Educational Attainment

Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig Health Between Groups

Table 6. Range Comparisons amongst Subgroups and grade levels

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Presentation transcript:

Table 1. Social capital comparison of adopters and non-adopters Social capital indicators SWC PET Adopters (N=131) Non-adopters (N=267) 2-test Adopters (N=226) (N=172) (%) P-value Iddir (funeral insurance)+ 91.60 82.78 0.018** 84.07 87.64 0.310 Ikkub (informal saving)+ 15.27 8.42 0.037** 9.73 11.80 0.504 Debo (labor sharing)+ 22.90 23.44 0.904 23.45 23.03 0.921 Jarsumma (resolution)+ 25.95 0.26 0.000*** 19.47 10.11 0.010** Agric. Producers+ 4.58 1.47 0.059* 3.10 1.69 0.364 Water use group+ 0.76 0.550 1.77 0.56 0.276 Watershed group+ 3.82 1.83 0.229 Forest use group+ 1.53 0.00 0.041** 0.88 0.208 Business group+ 0.134 3.98 0.007*** Connection to local government+ 0.73 0.026** 1.33 2.25 0.482 Women association+ 14.50 4.40 8.41 6.74 0.532 +indicates the dummy social capital membership ***, **, * shows significance at =1%, 5% and 10% respectively Source: Own data. Nizam A. Husen et al. Social Capital and Agricultural Technology Adoption among Ethiopian Farmers. American Journal of Rural Development, 2017, Vol. 5, No. 3, 65-72. doi:10.12691/ajrd-5-3-2 © The Author(s) 2015. Published by Science and Education Publishing.