Inclusive Technology Performance Evaluation in the Production of Teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter)

Table 5

Farmers’ preference attributes and ranking matrix results of treatments across districts.

Weighted parameters	S ^∗ W	Sekota				Dehana				Lasta
		IKIM	IBIM	LBIM	LBFM	IKIM	IBIM	LBIM	LBFM	IKIM	IBIM	LBIM	LBFM
Grain yield	S	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
	W	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6
	S ^∗ W	6	12	18	24	6	12	18	24	6	12	18	24
Early maturity (earliness)	S	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
	W	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
	S ^∗ W	5	10	15	20	5	10	15	20	5	10	15	20
Spike length	S	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
	W	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
	S ^∗ W	4	8	12	16	4	8	12	16	4	8	12	16
Vegetative performance	S	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
	W	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
	S ^∗ W	3	6	9	12	3	6	9	12	3	6	9	12
Biomass yield	S	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
	W	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
	S ^∗ W	2	4	6	8	2	4	6	8	2	4	6	8
Tolerance to pest	S	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
	W	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
	S ^∗ W	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
∑(S^∗W)		21	42	63	84	21	42	63	84	21	42	63	84
Rank		1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4

Note. IKIM (Improved “Korra” teff variety + improved management practices), IBIM (Improved “Bosset” teff variety + improved management practices), LBIM (Local “Burssa” teff variety + improved management practices), LBFM (Local “Burssa” teff variety + farmers’ existing management practices); S: Score, W: Weight, value description (1 = very good, 2 = good, 3 = enough, 4 = poor).