Physical soil and water conservation technologies including soil and stone bunds, cut-off drains and ditches/waterways were implemented in different place of Ethiopia particularly in the north and North West parts to minimize soil degradation. Regarding to this many research findings investigated the rate of soil erosion, the type of technologies adopted to reduce soil erosion and their effects on agricultural production. However their ecological and socio- economic impacts (particularly ecological impacts) were not highly investigated.
Therefore this study was conducted at Gondar Zuria Woreda Northwest Ethiopia to investigate ecological and socio-economic impacts of physical SWC technologies. For this purpose both quantitative and qualitative designs were employed. A multistage sampling approach was used to identify the research subjects. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via structured questionnaire, semi-structured key informant interview, FGDs and through field observations. The findings were analyzed with the help of descriptive and inferential statically tools. Land sat satellite image with Arc-GIS was employed to analyze the bio-physical dynamics of the study areas. Ten major factors those estimated as obstacles to implement physical soil and water conservation technologies in the study areas such as size of land; money; households labor; farmers knowledge (training); land tenure, farmers perception, sex, time and culture constraints were determined using logit regression model. Owing to this, the finding indicated that farm households who implemented each of (all) the newly installed physical SWC technologies were significantly greater than who did not implemented each of (all) technologies.
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Back ground of the Study
1.2. Statement of the Problem
1.3. Objectives of the Study
1.4. Research Question
1.5. Significance of the Study
1.6. Scope of the Study
1.7. Organization of the Paper
CHAPTER TWO
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Definition of operational terms
2.2. Global Overview of Soil Erosion
2.3. Soil Erosion in Ethiopia
2.4. Soil and Water Conservation Technology Practices in Ethiopia
2.5. Benefits of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies
2.5. Benefits of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies
2.6. Negative Impacts of Soil and Water Conservation technologies
2.6.1. Loss of cultivated land
2.6.2. Require continuous labour
2.6.3. Pest infestation
2.7. Factors Influence the Contribution of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies
2.8. Theoretical Approaches to Soil and Water Conservation
2.9. Study Framework
CHAPTER THREE
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Description of the Study Areas
3.1.1. Bio-physical background
3.1.2. Socio-economic background
3.2. Data and Methods
3.2.1. Research Design
3.2.2. Data Sources
3.2.3. Sample size and sampling procedures
3.2.4. Data Collection Methods
3.2.4. Satellite images processing
3.2.5. Method ofdata analysis
3.2.6. Variables used in the model
CHAPTER FOUR
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Households
4.1. 1. Sex characteristics
4.1.2. Age characteristics of the sampled respondents
4.1.3. Marital status and family size of the respondents
4.1.4. Educational background of the respondents
4.2. Socio- economic Characteristics of the Respondents
4.2.1. Land holding Characteristics
4.2. 2.The major sources of income for the sampled households
4.3. Physical Soil and Water Conservation Structures Practiced in the Study Areas
4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of SWC Technologies in the Study Area
4.5. Ecological Impacts of the Physical SWCT in the Study Area
4.6. The General Bio-Physical Condition of the Study Areas
4.6.1. Land Use/Cover Situtation of the Area During
4.6.2 Land Use/Cover Situtation of the Area During
4.6.3 The Land use/cover Situation in the Area in
4.6.4. The land use/cover Change (1986-2015)
4.7. Factors influencing the Contribution of SWC Technologies in the Study Area
CHAPTER FIVE
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Recommendations
REFERENCES
APPENDX
APPENDEX
LIST OF TABLES
3.1. Sample distribution of households in the selected kebeles
3.2 Number of focus group discussion
4.1. Sex distribution of respondents
4.2. Age characteristics of respondents
4.3. Marital status and family size of the respondents
4.4. Distribution of households heads by educational level
4.5. Distribution of sample households land sizes
4.6 .The major sources of income for the sampled households
4.17: Descriptions of the land cover and land use units of the study area
4.18: Land use distribution of the study kebeles for the year 1986
4.19: Land use distribution of the study kebeles for the year
4.20: Land use distribution of the study kebeles for the year 2015
4.21: Description of land use type of the study area for the year 1986, 200, 2015
4.22: The Impacts of stone bunds on crop production
4.25: Major annual crop production of the households in quintals before physical SWC Structures implemented and in the year 2016/17
4.30: the impact of ditches on households’ income
4.31: Chi-square tests for the impacts of ditches/ water way on household income
4.32: Respondents’ level of satisfaction on socio-economic benefits of physical SWC Structures
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1. Conceptual framework showing SWC technologies and their impacts
3.1. Location map of the study Woreda
4.5: Physical structures of stone bunds and ditches
4.6. Physical structure of soil bunds in Das-mariamdinizaz.
4.7. Land use map of the study kebeles during
4.8. Land use map of the study kebeles during
4.9. Land use map of the study kebeles during
4.10. Land use shifts of the study area over the last 30 years since
Acknowledgments
First my special thanks and deepest appreciation goes to my thesis advisor, Dr. Mehretie Belay for his supervision, essential data provision, valuable guidance, intellectual encouragement and vital and constructive comments. His ever honesty and willingness for help and guidance helped me to do the thesis effectively. Dr. Mehretie was with me from the beginning of topic selection up to the final stage of this paper. Therefore I want to express my greatest respect to him. I am enormously happy by his genuine repeatedly read and provided vital comments of my thesis. Next my heart thanks goes to Ato Abebe Mullugeta, Delelegn Simegnew, Fassil Taddesse, Addisu Berlie and Getahun Tegne were kindly sparing their time in giving me with important documents and insightful information that were significant to the study. The assistance of map preparation of Ato Birada Alemayhu was a great help to my thesis.
I would like thank my deepest appreciation Ato Kiflu Adane, he was greatly helped me in data collection and filed work. The honourable contribution of Sisay Getu, during my work was not forgettable. The contribution of Gondar- Zuria Woreda Agricultural Rural Development Office, Rural Development Agents and the farmers in the study kebeles were recognizable. I would like to thank staff members of Tsedda Health Science Collage for their moral encouragements and made office facilitates for my work. I thank specially Ato Zewdu Bayeh, Sema Abera, Tekeba Abtew, Abeje Tigabu, Zewudie Kassa, Tilaye Fentie and Yalemwork Alemu Finally I would like to thank my families (Seble, Havana and Danawit and my parents in general) who provided moral and encouragements during my work.
ACRONYMS
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
ABSTRACT
Physical soil and water conservation technologies including soil and stone bunds, cut-off drains and ditches /waterways were implemented in different place of Ethiopia particularly in the north and North West parts to minimize soil degradation. Regarding to this many research findings investigated the rate of soil erosion, the type of technologies adopted to reduce soil erosion and their effects on agricultural production. However their ecological and socio- economic impacts (particularly ecological impacts) were not highly investigated. Therefore this study was conducted at Gondar Zuria Woreda Northwest Ethiopia to investigate ecological and socio-economic impacts of physical SWC technologies. For this purpose both quantitative and qualitative designs were employed. A multistage sampling approach was used to identify the research subjects. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via structured questionnaire, semi-structured key informant interview, FGDs and through field observations. The findings were analyzed with the help of descriptive and inferential statically tools. Land sat satellite image with Arc-GIS was employed to analyze the bio-physical dynamics of the study areas. Ten major factors those estimated as obstacles to implement physical soil and water conservation technologies in the study areas such as size of land; money; households labor; farmers knowledge (training); land tenure, farmers perception, sex, time and culture constraints were determined using logit regression model. Owing to this, the finding indicated that farm households who implemented each of (all) the newly installed physical SWC technologies were significantly greater than who did not implemented each of (all) technologies. Moreover, from households’ questionnaire survey, it was found that constructing PSWC technologies have been positive impacts on physical ecology and socio-economic benefits in the study area. Almost (90%) FGDs participants and (87%) key informant interviews confirmed that households were aware of and verified the decline of soil erosion problems. During the discussion, they believed that applying modern innovations such as stone and soil bunds were effective measures as having the potential to improve land productivity and reducing ecological related problems of the study areas. Regarding to Land Use Land Cover Change (1986-2015) patterns for the last 30 years were observed a decrease in vegetation (shrub lands and forests) and a matching increase in bare lands and agriculture in the area. But as observed during participatory field observation (2017), the bio-physical circumstances of vegetation become rehabilitated, soil erosion on and around farm lands become declined after PSWCTs were implemented. Due to ecological rehabilitation farmers were gained vegetation and honey productions around 2017 compared to the last 15 years. Outcomes from the analysis of logistic regression show that size of land, money, households of labor, farmers knowledge (training), land tenure and perception related problems were the major factors to implement PSWC technologies for the provision of ecological and socio-economic benefits in the study areas. However, sex of the households, time and cultural constraints were not found the major factors. Thus to keeping factors that affected ecological and socio- economic contribution of PSWCTs and further benefits of these technologies, policy makers as well as stakeholders will need to focus on the new installed physical soil and water conservation technologies (PSWCTs).
KEYWORDS : Soil erosion, Physical SWC structures, Ecological impacts, socioeconomic benefits, Ethiopia
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Back ground of the Study
Soil erosion is one of the most environmental challenges faced by human society (David, 2006). It is now emerging to be a widespread environmental problem challenging agricultural production. Its impact directly and indirectly affects the quality of both human and animal life and causes food deficiency through reduction of agricultural productivity (Sentis, 2010). Research findings by Pimentel and Burgess (2013) indicate that about 10 million hectares (ha) of cropland are lost each year in the world due to soil erosion. Soil is being lost from agricultural areas 10 to 40 times more rapidly than the rate of its formation and thus impacting human food security (Pimentel and Burgess, 2013). Similarly, Melville (2006) remarks that severe soil degradation has overstated 1.2 billion ha of agricultural land worldwide (i.e. the combination of the size of China and India) since 1945. Some 80 % of this degradation has taken place in developing countries and most countries lack enough resources to reclaim degraded lands. At Global scale, agricultural activities that make the land surface more susceptible to soil erosion account for 28% (2 billion ha). Overgrazing and deforestation also account for 34% and 29% of the soil degradation, respectively (Encarta, 2009). As a consequence, two-third of the world’s population is malnourished due to the loss of productive crop lands. Hence, protecting croplands and maintaining soil fertility should be the most important and primary task of human beings.
With respect to Africa, Belay (2013) confirmed that crop yield losses due to soil erosion were predicted to range from 2 to 40%; with a mean loss of 8.2% for the whole continent and 6.2% for sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The efficiency of agricultural land has declined by 50% due to soil erosion and desertification and yield reduction due to soil erosion is estimated to range from 2 to 40% with the mean of 8.2% for the continent (Eswaran et al., 2001). Belay (2013) further stated that crop yield decline by the year 2020 would reach 16.5% for the whole continent and 14.5% in SSA if the soil erosion would have continued.
In Ethiopia soil erosion by water was the most essential concern in the mid1980s; with 27 million ha lands or almost 50% of the high land areas were considerably eroded. Moreover, about 14% million ha lands were critically eroded and over 2 million ha lands were ahead of improvement (Mushir and Kedru, 2012). The same study reported that soil erosion by water and its associated effects were severing threats to the state economy of Ethiopia. As 85% of the country’s population was depending on agriculture based livelihoods, physical soil and nutrient losses essentially led to food insecurity. According to Beyne (2011), the cost of soil erosion for the country was around USD 1.0 billion per year. From this point of view, Belay (2013) reported that almost 80% of the loss was due to decreased crop production. Severe land degradation due to soil erosion and deforestation also affected the livelihood of many farmers in most parts of highland Ethiopia (Abebe, 2015). For instance, about 2 to 4 billion tons of fertile soils are annually removed and some 20,000 - 30,000 ha agricultural lands were reported converted into unproductive wastelands due to land degradation in the northwestern highlands of the country (Assan and Beyene, 2013).
Soil erosion not merely affects land in the form of degradation but also leads to the loss of crop production; lessens in biodiversity; aggravates food and livelihood insecurity; exacerbates the scarcity of hay, and in turn shrinks the productivity of livestock resources in Ethiopia (Yisehak et al., 2013; Jiao et al., 2009; USAID, 2008).
For the Amhara Region, Beyene (2011) noted that soil loss due to water erosion to be 58% of the total loss of the country. This has already resulting the reduction of agricultural productivity by some 2 -3% per year through making a considerable area of the arable land out of production. The condition is becoming disastrous because more marginal lands on the sloping areas are being progressively cultivated.
In response to these problems, soil and water conservation (SWC) structures and land recovery projects are implemented with the help of different Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) to restore the degraded areas and stop further degradation (Amsalu, 2006; Zelleke et al., 2006) using campaign based forced labour. Building of physical SWC structures (stone and soil bunds, bench-terraces, cut-off drains, waterways, check-dams and grass-strips) in cultivated fields; reforestation of degraded hillsides; and area closures are among the measures implemented using the forced campaign labour (Abebe, 2015).
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Soil erosion in the form of sheet-wash, rill and gully formation seriously destroy agricultural lands and impacts rural livelihoods in many highland regions of Ethiopia. For instance, Belay and Bewket (2012a) found out that 82,692 tons of fertile soils were lost, 4.7 ha of agricultural lands were damaged and the livelihood of more than 3% of the people in eight villages was impacted in one cropping year due to gully erosion in the northwestern highlands of Ethiopia. On average, about 1.26 mm of soil depth or 16 tons of soils per ha were annually lost due to sheet-wash in the mentioned villages (Belay and Bewket, 2012b). In recognition to such problems, local governments and farmers started adoptions of a wide range of SWC structures.
SWC structures help to lessen slope gradient, prevent soil erosion, increase soil moisture and fertility and to increase crop yields. Through their construction, it is evident to retain a decreased and stabilized slope, a minimized water runoff and soil erosion, enhanced soil wetness and fertility, and an improved crop harvest accompanied with green environment (Andonie, 2011).
Landscapes treated with SWC structures exhibit greener and attractive scenic environment, stable atmospheric and lunar conditions, better agricultural productivity and improved rural livelihoods (Baptista et al., 2015). For example, terracing, check-dam building, water-way and cut-off drain construction, grass-strip and tree planting were some of the practices adopted by local farmers to overcome soil erosion hazards in eight villages in the northwest highlands of Ethiopia (Belay and Bewket, 2012b). Abebe (2015) indicated that the large-scale SWC conducted through mass mobilization for over thirty years in northern Ethiopia has contributed for the rehabilitation of degraded landscapes (gullies and river banks), increased recharge of underground water and soil water retention, for the reduction of surface run-off, soil erosion and material sedimentation. According to this author, the livelihood of the local people was improved through increased crop production, honey harvesting and vegetable growing.
In recognition of the benefits of SWC measures in cutting the hazards of soil erosion, the successive authorities in Ethiopia have been involved in implementing diverse SWC measures such as soil and stone-bunds, trenches, rainwater harvesting, tree planting (afforestation and reforestation of degraded landscapes) and area closures, following the 1970s droughts and famines (Bewket, 2003; Bekele and Holden, 1998, 1999). According to Hurni (1988), a total of 600,000 km of soil and stone-bunds on cultivated fields, 470,000 km hillside terraces on steep slopes, thousands of kilometers of rural roads, 80,000 ha of area closures and check-dams in gullies were implemented in ten years’ time (from 1975 to 1985). Many researchers investigated the rate of soil erosion, the type of technologies adopted to reduce soil erosion and their effects on agricultural production. However, participatory SWC (PSWC) structures (particularly those implemented in recent campaigns) have not been adequately assessed their ecological and socio- economic impacts (particularly ecological impacts) have not been clearly identified.
According to GZWARDO (2016), different PSWC technologies such as soil and stone bunds, cut-off drains, ditches/ waterways, terraces (particularly in hill sides), eye-browning, micro-water basins, gully treatment and check-dams have been implemented particularly, since the past ten years using free farmer labour campaigns, to reduce the challenge of land degradation and improve agricultural production. Authors such as Addis (2015) investigated spatial variability soil attributes; Dessie (2012) assessed the role of institution for sustainable land management in the current study areas. But ecological and socio- economic contributions of these physical SWC practices in the study woreda are not assessed by recent studies as is known to this writer, and hence, knowledge gap to intervene. The aim of this paper was to assess the ecological and socio-economic impacts of the physical SWC technologies practiced through one-into-five labor campaigns.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
The overall objective of the research was to investigate the ecological and socio-economic impact (contribution) of physical SWC practices in Gondar Zuria wordea, northwest Ethiopia. The study had the following specific objectives:
1. Identify the types of physical SWC technologies implemented in the study,
2. Assess the ecological impacts of the physical SWC technologies practiced in the study area,
3. Examine the socio-economic impacts of the physical SWC technologies in the study area,
4. Explore the factors challenging the contribution of physical SWC technologies to rural livelihoods in Gondar Zuria Woreda.
1.4. Research Question
1. What are the types of the physical SWC technologies installed in the study area?
2. How physical SWC technologies impact the physical ecology of the study area?
3. What are the socio-economic impacts of the physical SWC technologies in the study area?
4. What factors influence the contribution of SWC technologies to rural livelihoods in the study area?
1.5. Significance of the Study
The major significance for selecting Gondar- Zuria woreda for this study is yet there are no previous researches on the ecological and socio- economic impacts of physical SWC technologies practiced in the study woreda. Around 80 % of the woreda falls into the category of 8-30 degree slope and soil erosion is enormous both in cultivated and communal grazing lands. Land degradation particularly soil erosion is a critical challenge. To control soil erosion in the woreda physical SWC technologies such as stone terraces, soil and stone bunds , check dams, micro basins, cut off drains and ditches /water ways were implemented by the help of the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GIZ) and financed by the German Development Bank (KfW) and by individual farm households (Belay, 2012). However, immense soil degradation on one hand and various SWC practices implemented on the other were reported. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess the ecological and socio-economic impacts of the physical SWC technologies practiced by rural farmers. Besides this, the study can help to generate new information on the ecological and socio-economic impacts of SWC technologies that can be used as input in future planning and research.
1.6. Scope of the Study
The study was covered the ecological and socio-economic impacts of physical SWC technologies adopted by farmers in Gondar- Zuria woreda, in the northwestern highlands of Ethiopia. Three rural kebeles 1 in the upper catchment of Gumara-Maksegnit watershed were covered in the study. The types of SWC technologies practiced in the area and their impacts on the local ecology and socio-economy as well as the factors challenging the benefits of the SWC technologies to rural livelihoods were examined in detail. Regardless, the presence of various SWC technologies, this study essentially was focused on physical SWC measures and their contribution on rural farmers. Due to resource and time limitations, the practical investigation (experiment) of soil physical and chemical analysis of different factors that influence production and productivity in the study area weren’t considered in the study.
1.7. Organization of the Paper
This study was organized into five chapters. The first chapter contained the introductory part which covers the background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives, research questions, the significance and scope of the study. The second chapter consisted review of literatures related to soil erosion, SWC conservation practices, ecological and socio-economic impacts of SWC technologies, theoretical approach on SWC and the conceptual framework. The third chapter was presented a brief description on the biophysical, socio-economic background of the study area and the research methodology. The fourth chapter would deal on analysis and discussion of the study results. Chapter five provided summary and conclusion of the results and forward possible recommendations based on the results of the study.
CHAPTER TWO
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter provides the definition of operational terms, basic concepts which are relevant for the ecological and socio-economic contribution of SWC technologies to rural farmers. It also presents a brief review of soil erosion, the previous studies of SWC practices, ecological and socio-economic benefits of SWC structures, negative impacts of SWC practices and theoretical and conceptual frameworks to put suggestion for the research gaps and it could help to draw conclusions.
2.1. Definition of operational terms
Ecological:- refers to an attitude towards environmental issues; forests, plants and animal species and agricultural production and others (Jacob, 1998). In line with this study ecological refers to climate condition, forests, bare lands, plants and animal species, landscape, water recharge and constraints in the study area.
Soil and Water Conservation (SWC):- Soil and water conservation stands for actions performed at local level, which maintains or enhances the production capacity of the soil in erosion affected areas through prevention or reduction of erosion, conservation of soil moisture and maintain or improvement of soil fertility ( De Graaff et al., 2009).
SWC technologies:-are agronomic, vegetative, structures protect and control land degradation and increase production in the field (Andonie, 2011). According to this author physical soil and water conservation technologies are structural measures that often lead to a change in slope profile, are of long duration or permanent, are carried out primarily to control run off, wind velocity and erosion, often require substantial inputs of labour or money when first installed. Technologies such as terraces, banks, bunds, ditches, constructions and palisades are physical SWC technologies.
Stone bunds are embankments implemented across the land to take action as obstacle to run off and to prevent soil and water on the field. Stone bunds are 20 to 40 cm high embankments constructed along contour lines using stone fragments Nyssen et al., 2007).
Soil bunds are an embankment implemented on cultivable and non cultivable land to prevent erosion and retaining the soil moisture. It is constructing by throwing soil dug from basin down slope (Desta et al. 2005).
2.2. Global Overview of Soil Erosion
More than 99.7% of our world populations gain their food from the land and less than 0.3% from the oceans and aquatic ecosystems. Due to soil erosion about 10 million hectares of cropland are lost in each year. According to WHO and FAO statement, two-thirds of the world populations are malnourished due to the loss of productive crop lands. Soil is being lost from agricultural areas 10 to 40 times more rapidly than the rate of soil formation imperiling humanity’s food security (Pimentel and Burgess, 2013). Melville (2006) indicated that, since 1945 reasonable, cruel, tremendous soil degradation has overstated 1.2 billion hectares of agricultural land worldwide, the combination area size of China and India. Some 80 percent of this degradation has taken place in developing countries and most countries lack enough resources to re-establish degraded lands. In global, agricultural activities that makes the land surface more susceptible to soil erosion account for 28% (2 billion hectares), overgrazing for 34% and deforestation for 29% of soil degradation (Encarta, 2009).
According to Belay (2013) crop yield losses due to soil erosion in Africa were predicted to range from 2 to 40% with a mean loss of 8.2% for the whole continent and 6.2% for SSA. The author stated that crop yield decline by the year 2020 predicted to be 16.5% for the whole continent and 14.5% in SSA when soil erosion continued. Sub-Saharan Africa is mainly prone to pressure of natural resource deterioration and poverty due to high population growth, the reliance on agriculture that is susceptible to environmental alteration, the loss of natural resources and ecosystems TERRAFRICA (2011).
2.3. Soil Erosion in Ethiopia
In Ethiopia soil erosion by water contributes significantly to food insecurity among rural households and poses a real threat to the sustainability of the existing subsistence agriculture (Adugna et al., 2015; Byene, 2011; Amsalu and Graaff, 2006). Studies have reported that soil erosion and land degradation are not new phenomena in Ethiopian circumstance. It is as old as the history of agricultural itself (Mushir and Kedru, 2012; Beyene, 2011).
Soil erosion by water was the most essential concern in the mid-1980s, with 27 million hectares or almost 50% of the high land area considerably eroded 14% million hectares critically eroded and over 2 million hectares ahead of improvement (Mushir and Kedru, 2012). The same studies reported that soil erosion by water and its associated effects are expected as sever threats to the state economy of Ethiopia and, since 85% of the country’s population depending on agriculture for their livelihoods, physical soil and nutrient losses essentially lead to food insecurity. According to Beyne (2011) the cost of soil erosion for the country is around USD 1.0 billion per year. From this point of view Belay (2013) reported that almost 80% of the loss was due to decreased crop production (45% of this due to land going away cultivation and the rest 55% due to decreasing of crop yields).
Soil erosion not merely affects land in the form of degradation but also contributing to loss of crop production; lessen in biodiversity, food and livelihood insecurity, scarcity of hay, and lessening of livestock productivity in the country (Yisehak et al., 2013; Jiao et al., 2009; USAID, 2008). Similarly in the Amhara region, Beyene (2011) stated that soil loss due to water erosion is estimated to be 58% of the total soil loss in the country .This has already resulted in a reduction in agricultural productivity of 2 to 3% per year, taking a considerable area of arable land out of production. The condition is becoming disastrous because progressively more marginal land is being cultivated, even steep slopes. Owing to this Damene et al., (2013) reported unwise use of agricultural practices, accelerated population growth both human and livestock, higher rainfall intensity, uneven landscape, deforestation, and unwise use of SWC technologies were major problems for having rigorous erosion in the country.
2.4. Soil and Water Conservation Technology Practices in Ethiopia
Starting from 1970s in Ethiopia a broad application of new SWC technologies were introduced following the recognition of the severities of soil and land degradation (Belay, 2013). According to this author, the major elements of the new SWC technologies were a range of physical structures such as soil and stone bunds, hillside terraces, tree planting, area closure, waterways and drainage channels and check dams were mentioned. Additionally, Kato et al., (2009) reported that in the same period grass strips, micro-basin, contours, and irrigation (chiefly water harvesting) were widely implemented in different parts of the country.
Following the 1975 land reform, activities were initiated and enhanced soil and water conservation technologies on the part of degraded lands and were moreover expanded with the participation of the World Food Program and other NGOs since the 1980s (Bekele and Holden, 1998). For instance between 1980-2014 year, 1,045,130 hectares of farmland covered with soil/stone bunds, 2,717,793 hectares with hillside terraces, 2,098,270 km of check dams and small earth dams, 1,162,762 km cut of drains, 4,319,190 hectares were covered by afforestation and reforestation in Amhara region (WFP, 2014). The FFW and CFW programs were essentially top-down, with small participation of home beneficiaries. Additionally, the programs were paying attention on promoting conservation activities on the public lands with least consideration of individual farms. During this period, it was usual to follow any technical principle developed and tested elsewhere without integrating it into the local socio-economic or environmental conditions (Damtew, 2011).
Alemu (2009) explained that in many parts of Ethiopia, the innovative SWC technologies were introduced more than two decades ago. During this time the innovative SWC technologies have been under stable improvement, which is extremely difficult to draw them in to their originals. According to Eritro (2006) the ability of practicing physical SWC effort of the state blocked up (not a success). He explained that a lot of money has been financed for ecological rehabilitation, motivating and helping the local farmers to implement the different conservation practices but the finishing was very poor.
Owing to this, MoARD (2010) in the present government agricultural sector in general and small farmers in particular received policy attention from the economic strategy which the country followed. In the mid-1990s the government develops a strategy known as ADLI which revolves around agriculture in particular; it focuses on the enhancement of small farmers’ productivity and expansion of large scale commercial farm. In addition to this, the policy of present government gives emphasis on the proper use and management of agricultural land through different conservation and rehabilitation technologies.
2.5. Benefits of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies
Soil and water conservation technologies are essential practices for mitigating ecological degradation and enhancing the productivity of yields. More over reducing land degradation in agricultural production by means of conservation activities characterized by various income gaining strategies as well as the interrelation effects of the bio-physical and socio-economic situations (Jansen et al., 2006). Wolka (2014) reported that SWC technologies such as grass strips, bench terraces and fanya juu reduced soil loss by 40, 76 and 88%, respectively compared the plot with no technologies. The author indicated grass strips, bench terraces and fanya juu have maximized maize yields by 29.6, 101.6 and 50.4% and bean yields by 33.3, 40 and 86.7%, respectively compared to plot with no technologies. In African countries like Burkina Faso, farmers practiced SWC technologies such as contour bunds with the relevance of organic fertilizers. These conservation mechanisms helped the farmers’ further increase benefits of their livelihoods (UNEP, 2013).
SWC technologies have possible ecological benefits include regulation of watershed hydrological functions assuring base flows, reducing floods and purifying water supplies as well as carbon sequestration, and preservation of biodiversity. Socially these technologies improve food security and reduce poverty, both at household and state levels. It can also support social learning and interaction, build community spirit, preserve cultural heritage, and counter balance migration to cities. Agricultural production is protected and enhanced for small scale subsistence and large-scale commercial farmers alike, as well as for livestock keepers (WOCAT, 2007). In addition the same study reported in Australia, sugar cane farmers have started harvesting their cane without burning it and simultaneously spreading the separated residues and this helped improved biodiversity in the soil.
According to Alemayhu et al., (2013) in the Upper Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia by focusing the various SWC technologies and land management system reported that controlled grazing reduced surface run off by more than 40% than unclosed grazing. The study also reported that vegetation cover prevented the rate of soil erosion by 50% compared to freely open communal grazing systems. The studies conducted by Pender and Gebremedhin (2006) in the semi-arid highlands of Tigray, reported the relevance of SWC activities. Correspondingly the study estimated an average crop yield enhance 23 percent from plots with stone terraces and estimated the average rate of return to stone terrace investment to be 46 percent.
Moreover, studies in the Northwest high lands of Ethiopia by Belay (2013) indicated that integrated technologies (combination of indigenous and new technologies) for instance irrigation and rained, agro forestry and strip cultivation, soil and stone bunds, traditional ditches and cutoff drains are used by Ethiopian farmers and these help to spread farming activities, reduce production risks and reduce soil erosion problems.
Further studies by Adgo et al., (2013) in the high lands of Amhara Region stated that terraces have a positive impact on soil and water conservation activities, increasing overall crop productivity, household income, and food security. Established SWC (such as soil and stone bunds) technologies are important for reducing both sheet and rill erosion and also increasing water infiltration (Jiao et al. 2009).
2.6. Negative Impacts of Soil and Water Conservation technologies
2.6.1. Loss of cultivated land
The construction of physical SWC activities required cut and fills of stone and soil in graded or level alignments. This created spacing of the structures depends mainly on the gradient of the plot. For instance in the developing countries as population growth which forced to more reliant on productive plot and the decreased area of the cultivated land due to SWC structures formed obstacles (Wolka, 2014). The same study indicated that, depending on slope and structure category, considerably high proportions of productive land are occupied by structures. In view of this (for a slope category from 5 to greater than 55%) and soil stability grass strips 1-15%, bench terraces 5-42% and fanya juu 8-40 % occupy of cultivable land areas. In Ethiopia, fanya juu occupies 2-15% of the land area for a slope of 3-15%, stone bunds occupy 5-25% for a slope of 5-50% and soil bunds occupy 2-20% for a slope of 3-30% (Wolka, 2014).
2.6.2. Require continuous labour
In response to this especially in developing countries lack of contemporary technologies (machineries) the construction and the maintenance of the physical SWC structures need enormous amount of human labour. Depending on slope and soil stability, grass strips, bench terraces and fanya juu require 7-388, 66-592 and 43-388 labour day-1, respectively, to cover a one hectare land area (Wolka, 2014). According to Teshome et al., (2013) in Debre Mewi and Anjeni watersheds indicated that construction of soil bunds requires 75 and 150 persons per day (PD) ha-1 respectively. In those watersheds, stone bunds requires 125 PD ha-1 and in the Anjeni watershed fanya juu demands 150 PD ha.-1
2.6.3. Pest infestation
The local farmer assumed constructions of SWC technologies have negative impacts for agricultural products (yields). The reproduction situations of pest infestation (termites, rats, rodents and weeds) within structure affected agricultural production (Belay, 2013 and Adane, 2007).
Adane (2007) also reported on his study Banja Woreda in Awi Zone, the complains of the local farmers for the new SWC technologies were due to their negative impacts such as narrowness for ploughing, losses of the substantial lands (out of use), their difficulty in construction, required much labor, support for creation of water logging at flat, land solidness at steep slope and artificial water way to form gullies
2.7. Factors Influence the Contribution of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies
There are numerous reasons for the failure of SWC technology practices. For these reason as indicated by Belay (2013) lack of local farmers participation during planning and decision making, poor quality of structural works, use of forced labor, access to SWC education or training, land tenure insecurity, financial constraints, slow benefits from installed SWC structures and top-down approaches are mentioned. A study conducted in Beressa watershed of Ethiopia, by Amsalu (2006) identified farmers’ farm size, and perceptions on SWC technology, slope, livestock and soil fertility to have an influence in the adoption of stone terraces.
Another study by Ertiro (2006) focused on the implementation of physical SWC structures in Anna watershed of Hadiya Zone, identified perceptions about soil erosion problems, farmers’ attitude to try new technologies, participation on conservation training, plan of a farmer to continue in farming career in the next five years and farmers’ perception about effectiveness of the technology in arresting soil erosion to have significant positive influence.
The above mentioned practical studies give draw attention on factors influence the benefits of SWC technologies. However, in order to see the effect of each factor, it is important to review for this study
Perception of the farmers: - awareness the attitude of the local farmers on SWC technologies for socio-economic and ecological sustainability is the major priority management policies, then after supported by the farming societies and to which they are ready and capable to react (Bogale, 2002). Recently study conducted in central highland of Ethiopia indicated that perception of farmers on soil degradation and SWC practices have positive and significantly influence the use of soil/stone bunds. Soil erosion affects the socio-economic and ecological benefits of the farmers. Therefore they need to perceive its severity and the associated yield loss before they can consider implementing SWC practices (Yirga, 2007; Bekele and Holden 2007).
Land tenure:- According to Bekele and Holden (1998), on their findings in Andit Tid, North Shewa, the tenure structures in Ethiopia that prevent land markets are likely to be a disincentive to undertake SWC asset with long period. However, Beshah (2003) from his study in the same country found that there is no physically powerful proof for the negative consequences of land tenure in the case of SWC activities especially on arable lands.
Labor: - One of the most essential factors that influence the households’ view to implement the SWC technologies is accessibility of households work. In relation to this Tadesse and kassa (2004) in their study on factors influencing the implementation of soil conservation measures in Southern Ethiopia found that accessibility labor enhance the socio-economic benefits of the farmers. Female headed households, elders and disabled are labour constrained households and therefore find it difficult to implement SWC practices on their farmlands (kahsay, 2011). According to this author child care, house management, reproductive roles and other tasks place additional burdens on women headed households which in turn compete with their time for soil conservation. Poor households with no labour and oxen are forced to rent out their farm land which in turn has a negative impact on soil conservation practices as the lessee doesn’t tend to equally treat the land as their own.
Land: - many previous studies in different part of Ethiopia indicated that farm size has positively influenced conservation decision (Bekele and Holden, 2007; Asrat et al., 2004). Amsalu (2006) reported because conservation technologies receive more land out of production on small plots and the profit from conservation on such plots may not be sufficient to recompense for reduced production due to the loss in area devoted to conservation structure. Physical SWC technologies on small farm land also cause inconveniencies for using oxen during ploughing (Bekele and Holden, 2007).
Access to information (training) : contact to information about SWC technologies had significant effect on farmers perception of erosion problems, retaining the conservation structures and enhances the knowledge and skill they have for improved production (Bekele and Holden, 2007). Additionally, Yirga (2007) reported access to information positively and significantly related to the likely use of soil/stone bunds.
Money, time and culture: according to Andonie (2011) in the upper Citrum Watershed in West Java, Indonesia, reported that money, time and culture are factors influencing the type of SWC technologies. The authors concluded in the study lack of money is the most influencing factor to implement the structures. When farmers were occupied their time out of SWC activities, they did not apply the technologies on their farm on time and therefore time is one of the limiting factor. Regarding to culture, the author stated important SWC information transformed from parents to children. From these some farmers learned how the structures built from their parents. The source of information is significance because local information, the cultural inheritance, is spread to the next generation how to implement the structures.
2.8. Theoretical Approaches to Soil and Water Conservation
The approach to soil and water conservation has evolved through several phases, for instance classic, populist, and neo-liberal approaches.
The classic approach argued that capital-led intensification in the form of machinery and purchased inputs is the only ways to obtain a fast enough enhance productivity to feed the growing population (Mazzucato and Nineijer, 2000). Based on this approach, the extent of and solutions to the problems of land degradation are well known, but the problem is to get people to implement them (Biot et al., 1995). This school of thought identifies unwise use of land by users, which are ignorant, unreasonable and traditional, and their subsistence fundamentalism as core problem in soil and water conservation practices (Reij, 1991). Clay and Schaffer (1994) cited weakness of the classic approach as lack of farmer participation in technology design and use of command type policies for implementation of externally developed structural measures. According to Hurni et al., (2008), long-term SWC activities, such as bench terraces, need investments in many cases go beyond a farmer’s capacity.
Classical (top-down) development models are trapped in weak assumption that labour is the major constraining factor for land conservation. That is, if labour is pooled and SWC structures are established, farmers will continue to use them and enjoy benefits from SWC measures. Unluckily, this is often not the case (Hudson, 1991). Many soil conservation and land reclamation projects have been influenced by the classic approach, which has often resulted in conflict between technology and local farming and socio- economic conditions.
The populist approach: Populists are guided by the hypothesis that ‘the nature and extent of land degradation are imperfectly understood, that local people reject conservation technologies for good reasons and, in fact, adopt their own individual and collective approaches that have in the past resulted in sustainable livelihood practices’ (Biot et al., 1995). They advocate an anti-state position, and seek ways to promote people-centered, bottom-up and participatory approaches to land conservation. They support the view that decisions about land conservation should be based on farmers’ knowledge and farmers’ priorities. According to this theory, technologies will only be used if they are developed by and with farmers so as to take in to consideration their social and environmental contexts (Mazzucato and Nineijer, 2000). Contrary to the classic approach, the populist approach stressed small-scale and bottom-up participatory interventions, often using indigenous technologies and largely rejected the traditional transfer of technologies (Reij, 1991).
However, the difficulties of implementing such farmer-led participatory approaches has prompted some researchers to reject this model in favor of a broader approach, in which farmer innovation is driven by the economic, institutional and policy environment (Robbins and Williams, 2005).
The neo-liberal approach: this school of thought advocates the need to understand the present structure of political and economic incentives that prevents resource users from adopting and adapting existing soil and water management technologies (Reddy, 2005). This approach recognizes the appropriate roles for farmer innovation but brings to the centre stage the critical role of markets, policies and institutions to stimulate and induce farmer innovation, adoption and adaptation of suitable options. The critical importance of making conservation attractive and economically rewarding to farmers through productive technologies and improved access to markets is regarded as the driving force for igniting farmer investments in sustainable soil and water management options (Gebremedhin et al., 2009). According to Taffa (2008) the current rural development and soil and water conservation programs and projects are mainly guided by the populist approach, with various elements of the neo-liberal approach appearing in the process.
2.9. Study Framework
In Figure 2 below, a conceptual frame for the study is developed using variables expected to be considered in the analysis based on referring literature available in the field. The framework shows the types of SWC technologies (soil-bunds, stone-bunds, cut-off drains & water ways (traditional ditches), grass cover & tree plantations, water ponds & trenches, and area closers). These SWC technologies are expected to have both beneficial and adverse ecological and socio-economic impacts. This means that well adopted physical SWC technologies enhance ecological and socio-economic benefits while those not well installed might cause negative impacts (see, figure 2.1).
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework showing SWC technologies and their impacts
CHAPTER THREE
3. Materials and Methods
This section includes brief description of the study area, the bio-physical and socio-economic background of the study, research methodology that includes approach and design of the study, data collection tools, data sources, methods and data analysis techniques.
3.1. Description of the Study Areas
3.1.1. Bio-physical background
Gondar-Zuria Woreda is one of the 23 woredas of North Gondar Zone. It is located in northern parts of Ethiopia about 760 km northwest of Addis Ababa; between 12°7'23''N-12°39'24''N and 37°24'24''E-37°45'43''E geographic coordinates. Three rural kebeles (villages) namely (Dasmariam-Dinzaz, Degola-Chinchaye and Jaja-Bahari-Gimib) forming parts of the Gumara–Maksegnit watershed, in the upper catchment of the Lake Tana basin are the specific sites of the study (Figure 1). The typical geology is the result of the Trapp series lava flow of the Tertiary volcanic eruptions. The landscape features include mountains, undulating terrains, plains and rugged surfaces accounting for 16, 25, 54 and 5% of the total area, correspondingly. Elevation in the area ranges from 750-3086 m amsl (Addis et al., 2015). The upper landscape features of the studied kebeles are mountainous and consist of dissected topography with steep slopes. Denkez Mountain is the climax division of the study area and it is a line of separation of the Lake Tana and Tekeze basins.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 3.1 Location map of the study woreda
The typical geology is the result of the Trapp series lava flow of the Tertiary volcanic eruptions (Addis et al., 2015). The landscape features of the worada include mountains, undulating terrains, plains and rugged surfaces accounting for 16, 25, 54 and 5% of the total area correspondingly. Elevation in the area ranges from 750-3086 m amsl. The upper catchment of the watershed where the study kebeles found is mountainous and consists of dissected topography with steep slopes. Denkez Mountain is the climax division of the study area and it is a line of separation of the Lake Tana and Tekeze basins.
According to the GZWARDO (2016), the climate condition of the woreda is under the category of Dega (temperate) and Weyna-Dega (sub-tropical) agro-ecological zones. Dega covers 66% and Weyna-Dega 34 % of the entire area. The annual rainfall is ranging between 950 mm-1035 mm. More than 90% of the rainfall occurs during the three month period (June, July and August). The mean annual temperature is also ranging from 24-33 degree centigrade (°c). The average daily maximum and minimum temperatures are 28.5˚C and 13.6˚C, correspondingly. Vertisols (black clay soils), luvisols (light brown soils), nitosols (red or reddish-brown laterite soils), cambisols (dark brown soils), leptosols (lighter shallow soils occupying steeper slopes) and acrisols (grey clay soils) are the major soil groups in the woreda. The depth of soil varies from deep to moderate. The fertility status of soils is very low due to water erosion, excessive tillage and poor management practices. Gully, sheet and rill erosion types are widespread in the woreda (GZWARDO, 2016).
Information from GZWARDO (2016) indicate that arable land covers 35.49 % of the total area, 6.15 % is grazing land and the rest 22.63, 2, 21.59, and 12.14% are covered by forests, swamps, wastelands, and buildings, respectively. The natural vegetation of Gondar– Zuria woreda predominantly composed of different Agam (Carissa edulis), Girar (Acacia bussies), Bahirzaf (Eucalptus camaldulensis), Sesbania (Sesbania sesban), and Gravillia (Grevillea Australia) which used to reduce environmental degradation.
3.1.2. Socio-economic background
The projected total population of Gondar- Zuria woreda for July 2107 is 231,830 of which ≈14% are living in towns (CSA, 2013). In terms of sex allocation, 117,408, (50.6%) are males while 114,422 (49.4 %) are females. These populations live in an estimated area of 1108.53 km2 with 209.13 persons per km2 average densities. According to GZWARDO (2016), about 97.2 % of the residents are Orthodox Christians (followers of the Ethiopian Thewahdo Church) while the rest 2.8 % believe in Islam and other religions.
Agriculture is the leading economic activity and the core source of livelihood for the majority (96%) of the residents of the woreda as well as the study kebeles. In the farming system, mixed farming (crop and livestock production) is leading activity. The major crops growing in the woreda include sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), teff (Eragrostis tef), favabeen (Vicia faba), lentils ( Lens culinaris ), wheat ( Triticum vulgare ), chickpea ( Cicer areetinum ), linseed ( Linumusitats simum ), fenugreek ( Trigonella foenum-graecum ) and barley ( Hordeum vulgare ). Teff and sorghum are the main staple crops. Chick-pea is growing using moisture held in clay soils after the rainy season in the lower landscapes of the woreda. Animal rearing is also one of the occupation by which the people are rearing different types of domestic animals such as cattle, equines, sheep, goats and poultry. About 4, 1.5, 0.5 and 1% of the people in the area depend on off-farm, petty trade, handicraft and public employment works, respectively (GZWARDO, 2016).
3.2. Data and Methods
3.2.1. Research Design
For this study, concurrent mixed method research approaches involving cross-sectional and longitudinal designs were employed to generate and analyze. The cross-sectional design was employed to capture quantitative and qualitative data from household questionnaire survey, focus group discussions (FGDs), (key informant interviews, and participatory field tours. The longitudinal designs were set to generate time series data from interpretation of satellite images using the Geographical Information System (GIS) and remote sensing technologies. The data used in the study were captured from both primary and secondary sources.
3.2.2. Data Sources
For this study, both primary and secondary sources were used. Primary sources were used to collect fresh data from sample households using questionnaire surveys, observations, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). The secondary sources were used to gather supplementary information from research journals, internet sources, office reports and archives.
3.2.3. Sample size and sampling procedures
A multistage sampling approach was employed to identify the research subjects. First, Gondar- Zuria woreda was picked in purpose for it is an ideal area of new SWC technology adoption compared to other remote woredas. Then, three kebeles named Dasmariam-dinizaz, Degola-chinchaye and Jaja-Bahari-gimib were also purposively selected from 37 kebeles found in Gondar- Zuria woreda considering their rugged terrain; sever erosion effect, availability of diverse SWC structures, accessibility and prior knowledge of the researcher. In the third stage, 120 sample households (50 from Dasmariam-dinizaz, 39 from Degola-chinchaye and 31 from Jaja-Bahari-gimib) were systematically identified using the proportional to size allocation technique from stratified lists of 4683 farming households found in the kebele administration offices (Table 1). The required sample size was determined using a simplified formula provided by Yamane (1967), as follow: -
Where n is the sample size, N is the total household heads, and e is the level of precision (9%).
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Table 3.1.Sample distribution of households in the selected kebeles
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
3.2.4. Data Collection Methods
Questionnaire surveys, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs) and participatory field observations were employed to generate the data required in the study. For the questionnaire survey, both open and close format questions focusing on the types of SWC technologies, ecological and socio-economic impacts of SWC practices, and on the factors challenging the benefits of the integrated SWC practices were prepared to generate both quantitative and qualitative data. The questions were prepared in English and then translated into Amharic to ease communication with respondents. The households’ survey was carried out with the support of development agents working in the rural kebeles.
Semi-structured check lists used to generate in-depth information from purposively identified fifteen key-informants (three DAs, three Kebele leaders, and nine elderly people) who lived for long periods in the kebeles and who have detail knowledge about the selected kebeles using semi-structured interviews.
During the study, the researcher was carefully observed the situations of the study areas with the help of a checklist. A participatory field observation (supported with photographs) was carried out on the topographic features of the land, the types of SWC technologies implemented in the study areas, the ecological and the socio-economic impacts of the physical SWC technologies, and on the types of soil erosion and expected factors which affect the participation and application of SWC techniques of the farmers in the study area.
Focus group discussions were conducted to understand the current status of SWC practices, the factors influencing these technologies and the ecological as well as socio-economic impacts of SWC practices on the farmers’ livelihoods. At each kebele, there would be one FGD. The total number of participants in one FGD was contained 10 purposively selected individuals.
Table 3.2 Number of Focus group Discussion
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
3.2.4. Satellite images processing
Land use/cover situtation of the area for 1986, 2000, and 2015 were mapped from Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS) and Landsat Thematic Mapper (LTM) date. Arc-GIS tool was employed to investigate the biophysical dynamics of the study areas. At first, images were transformed to a common Universal Transfers Mercator (UTM) and geo-referenced to datum that Ethiopia has already selected by World Geodetic System (WGS-84). The images were enhanced using histogram equalization to improve the image quality. The image classification was done over the last 30 years at 15 years interval. The land cover and use change of the study area was analyzed for the three major land use types mainly vegetation, agriculture and bare lands.
3.2.5. Method ofdata analysis
Data analysis and interpretation was made using descriptive and inferential statistical tools. Mean, percentage and standard deviation were employed as descriptive statistics to analyze the household heads’ sex, age, marital status, educational status, as well as the family and land holding sizes and the income of the households. Both ecological and socioeconomic impacts of physical SWC technologies practiced in the study areas were analyzed through descriptive as well as inferential statistics tools (Chi-square, Phi). The significance relationship (association) between PSWC practices and their ecological and socioeconomic impacts was compared using the Chi-square test while their strength was predicted by Phi values. The qualitative data obtained from key informant interviews, FGDs participants and participatory field observation were concurrently analyzed in narrative way to triangulate and cross check the responses obtained from the questionnaires. The data analysis was also carried out using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) version 20 software packages.
The major factors those challenging farm households to implement physical SWC technologies for the provision of ecological and socioeconomic benefits in the study areas were evaluated using binary logistic regression model (logit model) considering continuous and dummy in nature of data. In this case, the dependent variable is binary. The Model was chosen because it is simpler for estimation and that it is a standard method of analysis when the outcome variables are dichotomous (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000). The dependent variable can be characterized as binary, taking the value of 0 or 1. The dependent variable thus takes the value of 1 if farm household heads implemented each of major types PSWC technologies in the study areas and 0 if not. In the logit regression model, parameters are determined through the maximum likelihood estimation procedure:
The probability that a technique is adopted can be specified as:
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Where Pi is the probability that farm households implemented SWC technologies given xi, where x is a vector of explanatory variables and e is the natural logarithm.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Where α + βxi = log (P1/1-Pi) and P1/1-Pi is the likelihood ratio, whose log gives the odds that farm households implemented SWC technologies. whereas: α is the constant of the equation β, is the intercept term. The regression can be expressed as:
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Where, i denotes ith farm households, (1111); Pi the probability of farm households implemented each of SWC technologies, and (1- Pi) is the probability of farm households had not implemented SWC technologies. While β0 is the intercept term, and β 1, β 2, β 3...βn are the coefficients associated with each explanatory variable X1, X2, X3…Xn the estimation form of logistic transformation of the probability of farmers’ implemented the technologies in the study areas.
3.2.6. Variables used in the model
3.2.6.1. Dependent Variable
Regarding to this study adopting SWCTs is a binary dependent variable and coded as one (1) for farm households who had implemented the technologies for ecological and socioeconomic benefits. Those households who had not adopted the technologies were denoted by zero (0).
3.2.6.2. Explanatory Variables
The explanatory variables that are considered to influence farm households SWC technologies adoption decisions for the provision of ecological and socio-economic benefits are:-
Sex: of the household heads - it is a dummy variable (if 1 is household head is male and 2 female). Sex of the household heads expected to influence rural farmers’ decision to implement Physical Soil and Water Conservation Technologies (PSWCT). Different research findings indicated that male household heads were better to construct (PSWCT) compared to female household heads. Therefore sex of the household heads may have association (correlate) with the implementation of PSWCTs.
Farmers’ level of education: - it is an ordinal variable (if household heads is illiterate = 1, can read and write = 2, attended primary school = 3 and secondary school = 4). Educational level of household heads may expect positively impact household’s decision to adopt the technologies. Owing to this various literature findings showed farmers who attended primary school and above n the problem of soil erosion and well implemented the technologies compared to illiterate household heads
Land (Farm size): - land or farm size refers the size of land possessed by farmers in hectare for agricultural production. It is a continuous variable and measured by Kada (local name) or hectare. Research finding in literature review noted that household heads having small size (farm land) may allow risk of loss of cultivation land from conservation structures and hence expected to influence adoption of structures negatively. Therefore farmers having small farm size aren’t expected to implement/adopt/ PSWCTs for the provision of ecological and socio-economic benefits.
Perception of framers on PSWCT: - it is dummy variables (if 1= household heads were perceived soil erosion on ecological and socio-economic status of the area and 2 otherwise. Farmers who perceive socio-economic and ecological problems of soil erosion associated or correlated positively and significantly with implementation of PSWCTs compared to the non-perceive once. On the contrary different research reviews concluded that farmers’ perception on soil erosion problem affects the adoption of soil conservation measures negatively and significantly
Land tenur: - It is the characteristics of tenure associated with property rights. It is a dummy variable if farm households assume the land is belongs to him in his life time takes 1 and otherwise 0.
Labour: - it is continuous variable and expected have negatively influenced household heads to construct the technologies. Household heads without labour may rent out their farm land which in turn has a negative impact on soil conservation practices. Different scholars in the field of their studies indicated that accessibility of labour enable farmers to construct the technologies and increase socio-economic benefit.
Time: - in this study time refers to the number of household heads who participate in soil and water conservation practices per month. For this reason time may expect negatively influence household heads decision to adopt the technologies, but in this study time was not influenced significantly farmers decision to adopt of the technologies. Research findings in the field of SWC practices concluded that when household heads were lost their time out of the adoption of PSWCTs, they did not apply the technologies on their farm on time and therefore time is one of the limiting factors.
Money and culture: household heads those have lots of money may be expected to appoint daily workers for the purpose of SWCTs even their family size is small. Literature reviews indicated that lack of money is the most influencing factor to implement the structures. Regarding culture farmers learned how the structures built from their parents. The source of information is significance because local information, the cultural inheritance, is spread to the next generation how to implement the structures.
Table 3.3: the descriptions of independent variables for model estimation
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
CHAPTER FOUR
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Chapter four deals with the quantitative and qualitative presentation and analysis of the data obtained from the questionnaire, semi-structured interview and discussions. It presents the discussion of the findings primarily with respect to the basic research questions. More specifically, this chapter covered the demographic characteristics of the households, socio-economic characteristics, the types of the physical SWC technologies constructed in the study area , ecological and socio-economic impact of the constructed technologies, the bio-physical descriptions of the study kebeles, factors that influencing the ecological and socio economic contribution of the physical SWC technologies to farmers were reported
4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Households
4.1.1. Sex characteristics
Table 4.1: Sex distribution of respondents
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
Table 4.1 above showed the summary of the sex characteristic analysis. Therefore from the total sample households of the three study kebelles 109 (90.8%) were male headed households and 11(9.2%) were female-headed households. The majority of the sample households were male headed households. According to the survey results as Table 4.1 shown above the sex ratio of the sampled households of the three kebeles was 1:10 female to male.
4.1.2. Age characteristics of the sampled respondents
Table 4.2: Age characteristics of respondents
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
According to the survey result (Table 4.2) above shown 14 (11.7 %) of the respondents were in the age category of 20-29 years, 30 (25%) of the respondents were found in the age group of 30-39 years,43 (35.8%) of the sampled households were in the age group of 40-49 years, and 25 (20.8%) and 8 (6.7%) of the respondents were found in the age group of 50-59 and 60-69 years respectively. From the total respondents 7 (5.8%), 3 (2.5%) and 1(0.9%) of females were in the age group of 30-39, 40-49 and 50-59 years respectively. The average age of the respondents was 43.
4.1.3. Marital status and family size of the respondents
Table 4.3: Marital status and family size of the respondents
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
According to the survey result presented in (Table 4.3) above, 8 (6.7%) of the respondents were single, 104 (86.7%) of them were married, while the reaming 6 (5%) and 2 (1.6%) of them were divorced and widowed respectively. The collected data indicated that nearly all respondents were married.
With regarding to the family size of the sampled respondents (Table 4.3) above a total of 25 (20.8%) of the respondents had up to 3 family sizes, 51 (42.5%) of them had 4-7 family sizes while 41(34.2%) and 3 (2.5%) of the respondents had the range of 8-11 and more than 11 family sizes respectively. The larger number of the respondents had the age category of 4-7 family members whereas small number of respondents had more than 11 family members. The mean family size of the respondents was 6.
4.1.4. Educational background of the respondents
Table 4.4: Distribution of households heads by educational level
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
A total of 49 (40.8%) sampled respondents couldn’t read and write, 36 (30 %) of them could read and write, 24 (20%), 10 (8.3%) and 1 (0.9%) of the respondents were followed primary first cycle, primary second cycle and secondary school respectively. About 71 (59.2%) of the respondents were more or less educated and hence this may have positive impact on their ability to obtain and apply relevant information concerning the use of physical SWC technologies and improve the awareness of a new technology to apply on their land than non-educated households.
4.2. Socio- economic Characteristics of the Respondents
4.2.1. Land holding Characteristics
The survey result indicated that all the sampled respondents have land. A total of 37 (30.8%) respondents received land only from gift of the government, 20 (16.7%) were received from rent from others, inherited from parents’ and from the government. While 31(25.8%) were received from the government, purchase and sharecropping from others. The remaining 32 (26.7%) were gained land from rent from others, government and sharecropping from others (Table 4.5). Regarding to land size, a total of 51 (42.5%) respondents had cultivated land size between 1.50-1.74 hectares. Cultivated land size holding per-hectares was greater in Jaja-bahari-ginib to compare Degola-chinichaie and Das-mariam dinizaz. While 7 (5.8%), 10 (8.3%), 14 (11.7%) and 26 (21.7%) of the sampled respondents had cultivated land size between 0.50-0.74 hectares, 0.75-0.99, 1.00-1.24, and 1.25-1.49 hectares respectively. From the total sampled respondents 12 (10%) had cultivated land size at range of 1.75-1.99 hectares. From this 3 (6%), 4 (10.3%) and 5 (16%) were found in Das-mariam dinizaz, Degola-chinichaie and Jaja-bahiriginb respectively. The average cultivated land holding of the sampled respondents were 1.41 hectares.
Conserving to the fallow land, a total of 24 (20%) respondents had fallow land size less or equal to 0.24 hectares. The remaining 23 (19.2%) and 10 (8.3%) of the respondents had fallow land size between 0.25-0.49 and 0.50-0.74 hectares respectively. But 63 (52.5%) of the sampled respondents hadn’t fallow land. The average fallow land holding of the respondents was 0.31 hectares (Table 4.5). Regarding to grazing land, the majority of the sampled respondents 63 (52.5%) had grazing lands for their livestock. From this, 21 (17.5%) had grazing land size less or equal to 0.24 hectares. And 20 (16.7%), 14 (11.7%) and 8 (6.7%) of the sampled respondents had grazing land size between 0.25-0.49, 0.50-0.74 and 0.75-0.99 hectares correspondingly. But 57 (47.5 %) of the respondents hadn’t grazing land. The average grazing land holding of the sampled respondents were 0.41 hectares (Table 4.5). A total of 26 (21.7%) of the sampled respondents had forest land. But the remaining 94 (78.3%) of the respondents hadn’t forest land. The average forest land holding of the respondents were 0.34 hectares (Table 4.5).
Table 4.5, Distribution of sample households land sizes
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
As the respondents were asked the trend of land holding per household in the last 20 years, 42 (35%) of them reported the sizes of land holding per household was decreased due to share with children and taken by government. A total of 73 (60.8%) respondents were replied the sizes of their land holding were remaining the same. Only 5 (4.2%) respondents were reported increased due to sharecropping, rent from others and inherited from their families.
FGDs and key informant interview participants concluded the land holding sizes of the farmers decreased due to high population growth (family size increased) and land degradation.
4.2.2. The major sources of income for the sampled households
The major sources of income for the sampled respondents were crop production (mainly teff (Eragrostis teff), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), wheat (Triticum aestivum), chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and barely (Hordeum). From animal production (mainly oxen, cow, sheep, goat, donkey and poultry) are reported in the order of consistent coverage. Almost the whole respondents produced at least one or more crops. From the total sampled respondents 41(34.17%), and 34(28.33%) of them replied that daily labour and natural resources (charcoal, wood etc…) are also sources of income for households respectively.
Table 4.6 .The major sources of income for the sampled households (N= 120)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
4.3. Physical Soil and Water Conservation Structures Practiced in the Study Areas
Physical SWCTs are structures that are constructed on farmlands and other degraded areas to reduce the velocity of surface runoff and to protect soil from erosion (MoARD, 2005). Accordingly, different SWCTs including micro-water basins, check-dams, soil and stone terraces, micro-ditches and cutoff drains are most commonly adopted in the study villages. The mentioned structures are dominantly implemented on communal lands with community participation through the One-into-Five labour campaigns but by individual households on farmlands. The findings revealed that from the total sample farm households (almost 64%) adopt stone bunds. Other 79.2, 72.1 and 84.7% households report that they install soil bunds, cutoff drains and traditional ditches, respectively (Table 4. 7). On the other hand, some 36.1, 20.8 and 15.3% corresponding households indicated not adopt stone and soil bunds and cut-off drains so as to reduce soil erosion, increase crop production and to minimize ecological problems. These households complain that the structures require high labour, take much time, constrain plowing operations, occupy farming spaces, and reduce yield and encourage pest infestations that damage crops. Similar problems were reported for other villages in the Northwest Ethiopia (e.g. see Belay, 2013).
Table 4.7: Major physical SWC technologies practiced by farmers in the study areas
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
The survey result (Table 4.7) indicates that the number of sample farm households who constructed the stone bunds, soil bunds, cut-off drains and traditional ditchesare significantly different from households who didn’t adopted the mentioned SWC technologies. The Chi-square values calculated for each of the technologies were 8.7 for stone bunds;38.1for soil bunds; 21.6 for cut-off drains; and 53.for traditional ditches and all with P-values of <0.05. The result in general implies that the number of households who implemented each of the SWCTs were significantly greater than those households who did not adopted the technologies.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 4.1: Physical structures of stone bunds in Dasmariam-dinzaz, Photo on February, 2017
4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of SWC Technologies in the Study Area
Table 4.8: Perceived socioeconomic impact of SWC technologies in the study area
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
Different research findings confirmed that physical SWCTs are vital practices for mitigating ecological degradation and enhancing the productivity of yields. Similarly, the studied households confirmed that SWCTs improved crop production in their localities. For instance, the frequency statistics indicated that 64% of the studied households perceive that crop yields increased after the construction of stone bunds on their farmlands (Table4.8). For crop production the Chi-square test is 11.25 and the significance value of the test for farm households who had constructed stone bunds as SWC technology is 0.001. Since this value is less than 0.05, it can be concluded that the relationship observed in the cross tabulation is real and not due to chance. Since the probability of the test statistic (0.001) is less than the probability of the alpha error rate, it is concluded that there is a significant relationship between the variables (SWC structures and, crop production). In other words, this tells that there is a statistically significant association between the improvement of crop production and the construction of SWC technologies (Table 4.8).
Phi is interpretable as a nonparametric correlation coefficient, and means just the same thing as the Pearson r in terms of the strength and direction of the relationship between these two variables. Thus, the phi value (0.318) indicates the presence of a moderate positive relationship between the two variables (SWC structures and crop production). In the above table, it can be seen that the strength of association between the variables is moderate but significant (0.318). Thus, here it is indicated that this correlation is flagged as significant, with the same p-value that was given for the chi square test. Therefore, from this statistical analysis, it is concluded that construction of stone bund have had a positive impact on the increments of crop production (p < 0.05) (Table 4.8). Similarly the study conducted by Pender and Gebremedhin (2006) in the semi-arid highlands of Tigray estimated a 20% average crop yield increment on farm fields covered with stone bunds. Nyssen et al. (2007) similarly reported an average sediment yield increment rate of 58t ha-1 yr-1 and a mean crop yield increase of 0.58 to 0.65t ha-1 yr-1 in the same Region. Established SWCTs also reduced both sheet and rill erosion and increased water infiltration and crop yields as reported in Jiao et al. (2009).
Regarding to the impacts of SWC technologies on livestock production about 79.2% farm households responded as their livestock production improved as a result of the construction of SWC technology (Table 4.8). As the respondents asked, state the reasons for increments of livestock production, they concluded the technologies helped to grow hay (fodder) and hence the trend of animal feeding increase than before. As indicated the above table the probability of the chi-square test statistic (chi-square=26.51) and p=0.000, less than the alpha level of significance of 0.05 (Table 4.8).The research hypothesis that improvement in the livestock production is related to the construction of SWC technologies is supported by this analysis. Belay (2013) similarly noted that application of integrated SWCTs (soil and stone bunds, traditional ditches and cutoff drains) reduced production risks and soil erosion hazards.
The survey result revealed that almost 72% and 84% of the respondents correspondingly confirmed implementation of the structures increased their woodlot production and income. About 40% of the households noted that honey production had increased with the physical recovery of degraded landscapes after installation of bunds (Table 4.8). For example in case of vegetable production the chi-square result is 1.11, with Df 1 and p value is 0.000 which falls below the alpha level of significance of 0.05. Therefore the difference between the observed and expected values is considerably significant.Thus, from this statistical analysis, it is inferred that constructing physical SWC structures have had positive impacts on increasing vegetable production in the study area . The probability of the chi-square test statistic (chi-square=47.44) was p=0.000, less than the alpha level of significance of 0.05. The research hypothesis that improvement in the household income is resulted from the construction of physical SWC structures is supported by this analysis.
In general, to assess the general socio-economic benefits of the practiced physical SWC technologies to farm households in the study area, respondents were asked to indicate the level of their satisfaction on the socio-economic contribution of SWC structures after applied on their farm lands. Thus, to analyze the collected data related to this specific issue, One-Sample Test was employed.
Table 4.9: Respondents’ level of satisfaction on socio-economic benefits of physical SWC structures
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
The analysis of one - sample t-test, in table 4.32, displayed the mean, df and t- value of socio-economic benefits of SWC (Table 4.9). As it can be seen in the table, the obtained mean score of socio-economic benefits of SWC (3.45, p<0.05) was greater than the test-value, which is (3.00). The t-value of socio-economic benefits of SWC (4.044) was also greater than the critical value (1.960). Thus, this mean value revealed the existence of statistically significant mean difference between the expected mean (test-value, 3.00) and the obtained mean score (3.45, p<0.05). That means, the obtained mean was significantly higher than the test-value. This mean value implies farm households agreed that after they implemented the physical SWC structures (stone bunds, soil bunds, ditches and cut-off drains) on their lands, they have got socio-economic benefits significantly.
The participants of FGDs and the key informant interviews also confirmed that the socio-economic contribution of these structures. They reported that due to the adoptions of physical SWC structures (stone bunds, soil bunds, ditches and cut-off drains), they have brought significant benefits such as the rate of soil erosion became decrease, soil fertility became improved and hence agricultural production had been increased.
Table 4.10. The observed impacts of PSWCTs on the major crops in the studied RKAs (N=111)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
However the implications of different research findings indicated that crop production increase or decrease the result of many factors such as climate condition, soil fertility, rain fall factors, soil erosion, methods of cultivating and other like, farm households in the studied RKAs were observed the increments of major crop production after the adoptions of the technologies. The collected crop data from 111 farm households indicated that total annual products of teff , wheat, sorghum (locally known as bullie) and chickpea were increased by 56, 45, 55 and 68 quintals respectively after the adoptions of the technologies (Table 4.10). The average differences respectively were 0.5, 0.4 in each and 0.6 quintals per household after the adoptions of the structures (Table 4.10). Totally, the mean major annual crop products before implementing the technologies were 18.1 quintals and after application of the structures was 19 quintals. This showed major annual crop products slightly increased. This finding was supported by Belay (2013) reported that yields increased by 7% through application of stone-bunds and no yield reduction occurred due to 8% land occupied by stone-bunds. Bekele (2003) found that plots with soil conservation mechanisms produced higher yields than those without.
The observed increments of major annual crop products were confirmed during the time of FGDs and the key informant interview participants. The participants reported that the newly installed technologies were enabled to reduce soil erosion and flooding rates, increase the moisture status of the soil, and increase the recharge of underground water and helped stable climate conditions in the areas. The majority of the participants were agreed and perceived that major annual crop production increased compared to the pervious.
One participant of the FGDs comments:
Increasing agricultural production and improving the livelihood of the farm households is one of the activities that the physical SWC technology should adders through their implementation. Therefore agricultural production and the livelihood of the households were improved as compared to the previous period.
4.5. Ecological Impacts of the Physical SWCT in the Study Area
Table 11. The impact of SWCTson soilmoistureandfertility (N=111)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
Data in Table 11 indicates that about (65%) of the farm households perceive stone bunds improve soil moisture and fertility levels on farmlands. Other (72.1%) farmers also noted soil bunds improve soil fertility and moisture conditions. Nearly (66%) and (62.2%) of the respondents reported that cut-off drains and ditches were improved soil moisture and the fertility status of the soil. Wolka (2014) revealed that stone and soil bunds reduced soil loss by 72.9 and 88.7%, respectively compared to non-protected lands. Research findings by Alemayhu et al. (2013) in the Upper Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia similarly indicated the reduction of soil erosion by some 50% on fields treated with physical SWC structures compared to freely open communal grazing fields. Eyasu and Daniel (2000) also confirmed that stone and soil bunds enhanced and amended soil fertility and nutrient levels. The reports in the preceding paragraphs thus have support from similar studies.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 4.2. Physical structure of soil bunds in Das-mariamdinizaz, Photo on February, 2017
Table 11: The impact of SWCTson forest and vegetation coverage (N=111)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey (2017)
The ecological benefit of the aforementioned conservation structures for vegetation and forest growth was also evaluated through household opinion. Accordingly, stone and soil bunds and cut-off drains were noted by over (60%) of the studied households that they benefit forest and vegetation growth (Table 11). This result has support from the study made by Nyssen (2007) in northern Ethiopia. Nyssen (2007) noted that hillside terraces reduced surface erosion initiated by rainfall runoff. He added the terraces retain surface runoff and help in moisture conservation. Trees and shrubs established along the structures safely control the flow of water by diverting runoff from upland sloping areas. The finding is supported by Jiao et al (2009) reported that soil and stone bunds have been confirmed as a practical technologies in the Ethiopian highlands for reducing sheet and rill erosion while at the same time enhancing water infiltration and increasing crop production.
During the FGDs, it was indicated that households were aware of and confirmed the existence of soil erosion problem in their farm lands. They believed that applying technologies such as stone bunds and soil bunds are effective in protecting the soil. Participants did acknowledge specially the newly introduced measures as being effective measures in arresting soil erosion and as having the potential to improve land productivity. From the majority of interviewee, it was concluded that farmers were willing to conserve their soil and water but demand more appropriate technologies, and that poorly designed practices can be the major cause of erosion in areas treated with the new technologies.
4.6. The General Bio-Physical Condition of the Study Areas
To evaluate the biophysical state of the study woreda, Land sat MSS (Multispectral Scanner) and Land sat Thematic Mapper data were accessed and analyzed and mapped using the GIS technology. Arc-GIS tools were employed to analyze the biophysical dynamics of the study area emphasizing on the major land use shifts that can be assessed with image analysis. At first, images were transformed to a common UTM and geo-referenced to datum that Ethiopia has already selected by WGS-84. The images were enhanced using histogram equalization to improve the image quality. The image classification was done over the last 30 years at 15 years interval (for1986, 2000 and 2015). The land cover and use change of the study area were analyzed for three major land use types (vegetation cover, cultivated and bare lands (see Table 4.12).
Table 4.12. Descriptions of the land cover and land use units of the study RKAs
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
4.6.1. Land Use/Cover Situtation of the Area During 1986
Referring Table 4.12, the largest part of the area (49%) in the studied RKAs in 1986 was left unused and barren. Cultivated area was occupying only 10% of the area with giving (41%) of the area to be covered by plant vegetation. By RKA, Plant cover was occupying larger area (> 61%) in Das-Mariamdinzez followed by (34.4%) in Degola-Chinchaye. But, it was with only (4.5%) in Jeja-Bahireginb. During that time (77.1%) of the land in Jeja-Bahireginb was barren giving some (18.4%) to agricultural use. In Das-Mariamdinzez, the share of agricultural use was only (7.2%) and that of barren area was (31.3%). Barren land accounted for 56.2% in Degola-Chinchaye where cultivation was covering some (9.4%) (See Figure 4.3 for more understanding).
Table 4.12. Land use/cover in 1986 by RKA
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Analysis results using Arc GIS 10.1
Figure 4.3, land Sat image TM of 1986 showing LULCC of the study area
Source; own work, 2017
4.6.2 Land Use/Cover Situtation of the Area During 2000
As shown Table 4.13 below, the land use/cover situation of the studied area during 2000, the majority of the studied RKAs (43%) were covered by unused and barren which followed by vegetation and cultivation lands accounted for (33%) and (24%) respectively. Owing to this the land use/cover situations for 2000 Land sat TM indicated most parts of the studied RKAs were covered by unused and barren lands. Unused and barren land coverage showed increase while cultivation land and plant vegetation coverage were found decrease. Intermes of RKAs, the largest portions of plant vegetation coverage was found in Das-Mariamdinzez which accounted for (48.1%) followed by (30.3%) in Degola-Chinchaye. Whereas only (3.6%) of plant vegetation coverage was found in in Jeja-Bahireginb. As the same time the cultivation lands in Jeja-Bahireginb shared (50%) while unused and barren lands accounted for (46.4%). In Das-Mariamdinzez the share of bare land was (35.6%) and cultivation land accounted for (16%). During that time almost (49.9%) in Degola-Chinchaye was covered by barren land while cultivation land accounted for (19.8%) (See Figure 4.4 for more understanding).
Table 4.13. Land use/cover in year 2000 by RKA
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Analysis results using Arc GIS 10.1
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 4.4 land Sat image TM of 1986 showing LULCC of the study area
Source; own work, 2017
4.6.3 The Land use/cover Situation in the Area in 2015
Regarding to the land use/cover situation of studied RKAs during 2015, barren land was accounted for (57%) implies that either some parts of plant vegetation or cultivation lands or both shifted in to unused and barren lands. As the same time nearly (27%) of the studied RKAs were covered by agriculture. But plant vegetation shared only (16%) (Table 4.14).The largest part of Jeja-Bahireginb was covered by cultivation lands which accounted for (76.4%). In Degola-Chinchaye and Das-Mariamdinzez the share of cultivation land were found (28.8%) and (5.4%) correspondingly. But during that time the share of plant vegetation was become decreasing compared to the time of 1986 and 2000 by accounting (22.5%) in Das-Mariamdinzez and (16.1%) in Degola-Chinchaye (Table 4.14). On the other hand the bare land cover analysis of Arc GIS for 2015 from Land sat MSS (Multispectral Scanner) and Land sat Thematic Mapper data indicated the share of Das-Mariamdinzez was found (72.1%) , however the bare land coverage in Degola-Chinchaye and Jeja-Bahireginb were accounted for (55.1%) and (21.8%) respectively. (See Figure 4.4 for more understanding).
Table 4.14. Landuse/cover of the study area during 2015
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Analysis results using Arc GIS 10.1
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 4.4, land Sat image TM of 1986 showing LULCC of the study area
Source; own work, 2017
4.6.4. The land use/cover Change (1986-2015)
As observed from Land sat MSS (Multispectral Scanner) and Land sat Thematic Mapper data of the land use/cover change analysis for the last 30 years, agricultural land and unused and barren land showed an increase of (17%) and (7.7%) respectively (Table 4.15). But during the last 30 years the coverage of plant vegetation was decreased by (24.7%). In 1986 the plant vegetation coverage of the studied area was about 4928 hectares and after 15 years (in 2000) its coverage had declined by 925.4 hectares and also further declined by 2038.6 hectares during the time of 2015 years (Table 4.15). This indicated that in the last 30 years a total of 2964 hectares of plant vegetation had shifted in to either agricultural or unused and barren lands. Regarding to agricultural and bare lands the coverage were 1209 and 5861 hectares in 1986 respectively. However after 15 years (in 2000) the coverage of agricultural land was increased by 1629.7 hectares. But bare land coverage was decreased by 704.3 hectares than before. During the time of 2015 the coverage of bare land was increased by more than double compared to the increments of 1986-2000 years. The coverage of agricultural land was increased by 411.3 hectares in 2015 (Table 4.15). Therefore it is possible to generalize that the decline of plant vegetation coverage is due to the increments of cultivation and unused and barren land types in the study area in the last 30 years.
Table 4.16. Land use/cover change (1986-2015)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Analysis results using Arc GIS 10.1
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 4.5, land Sat image TM of 1986 showing LULCC of the study area
Source; Own work, 2017
4.7. Factors influencing the Contribution of SWC Technologies in the Study Area
Stone bunds, soil bunds, cut-off drains and traditional ditches are common physical SWC structures applied by framers in the study area. Factors that affect contribution of these technologies in the study areas are assessed through the binary logistic regression model. The significance of the individual variables was tested by the Wald statistic. The exponential beta (β) in the model stands for the expected change in the odds ratio or for the unit increase in the corresponding explanatory variables. The model evaluated 10 variables (education level, lack of money, lack of land, perception of farmers, farmers’ knowledge, labour, land tenure, time constraints, sex and culture). Owing to this, the result of the logistic regression model indicated that out of the 10 explanatory variables hypothesized to influence the contribution of physical SWC technologies in the study areas, educational level, lack of land, farmers’ knowledge, labour and land tenure observed significantly influencing contribution of the technologies (Table 4.17).
The model showed that farmers’ educational level had the highest positive determining influence (Table 4.17). Perception of farmers towards SWCT use and lack of money posed influence on the contribution of the technologies. But, in the model time, sex and culture found not influencing the ecological contribution of the technologies in the study area (Table 4.17).
Table 4. 17 Regression analysis result
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
FEDUCA (Farmers level of Education): This variable has significantly influenced the ecological contribution of SWC structures at P< 0. 05 levels (Table 4.17). The odds ratio of this variable indicates that the contribution of SWC structures increases by a factor of 13.128 with a unit increase in the farmers’ level of education. . Educated farmers may have the ability to properly install the studied technologies and thus add positive benefit on the local ecology. Maddison (2006); Aberha (2008); Tiwari et al. (2008) and Fikru (2009) revealed that better farmers’ with better education level properly use SWC structures and enhance their ecological benefits. This study has support from previous similar research reports.
FARMK (farmers’ knowledge): - farmers’ knowledge was also found providing a positive impact on the contribution of SWC technologies to local ecological settings. The β value shows that this variable has increased the ecological benefit of SWC by a factor of 5.028 (Table 4.17). Farmers with good knowledge can properly implement SWCTs and increase the benefits in the local setting. This complies with the reports of Amsalu (2006); Bekele and Holden (2007); and Yirga (2007).
LAND (Land):- land is the main source of income and had significantly increased the contribution of SWCTs to local ecological conditions. The β value associated with farming land size increased the benefit by a factor of 4.163 (Table 4.17). The report has support from Asratet al. (2004); Amsalu (2006) and (Bekele and Holden (2007). Nevertheless, it contradicts with other studies that indicated SWC structures reduce the size of farming plots and reduce socioeconomic benefits of farmers (e.g. see Bekele, 2003; Adane, 2007; Belay, 2013).
MONY (Money) :- the model result indicated that the variable money is negatively significant at (P< 0. 05). The odds ratio of this variable is 0.613 indicating that it decreased the ecological contribution of SWC structures by 60% (Table 4.17). This conforms the study of Andonie (2011) that reported lack of money has negatively influenced the ecological contribution of SWC technologies.
LABOUR (Labour):- regarding to labour, the model result revealed a significant value at P< 0. 05. But, its influence was negative, meaning reducing the ecological benefits of SWCTs (Table 4.17). Construction of physical SWC structures such as soil and stone bunds require more human labour and in turn reduce their installation including the benefits. This coincides to reports in many parts of Ethiopia (e.g. Kassa, 2004; Tadesse and Kassa, 2004; Kahsay, 2011; Belay, 2013; Teshome, 2013; Wolka, 2014).
PERFARM ( perception of farmers ) : - As indicated in Table 4.17, the logistic regression model output significantly decreased the benefits of SWC structures (significant at P< 0. 05). A study conducted in north western highlands of Ethiopia by Belay (2013) indicated that lack of local farmers’ participation during planning and decision making result poor quality structural measures and hence such conditions reduce the contribution of SWC structures. The works of Bekele and Holden (2007) and that of Yirga, (2007) also support the situation.
Land tenure (LATENU):- according to Bekele and Holden (1998) the tenure structures in Ethiopia prevent land markets from gaining benefits from installing SWC structures. Beshah (2003) on the other hand argue that there is no physically powerful proof for the negative consequences of land tenure in on the benefit of SWC structures. The model result at hand (Table 4.17) indicated a positive significant value that enhances the benefit of SWC structures.
CHAPTER FIVE
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1. Conclusions
This study was conducted mainly to identify major types of physical SWC technologies implemented in the study area, ecological and socio-economic impacts of these technologies and to identify factors challenging farm households to implement PSWCTs for the provision of ecological and socio- economic benefits. Owing to this data were collected from 111 (questionnaires) farm households, FGDs and key informant interview participants as well as from participatory field observations. The findings revealed that the most common physical soil and water conservation technologies (PSWCTs) implemented in the study areas were stone bunds, soil bunds, cut-off drains and ditches were rated by 63.9%, 79.2%, 72.1% and 84.7% farm households correspondently. Data obtained from FGDs and key informant concluded that the above mentioned technologies were the most recently implemented structures in the three rural study kebeles. During participatory field observation, the researcher was checked stone and soil bunds were highly constructed in Dasmariam-dinzaz and Degola-chinchaye. Soil bunds were more implemented than stone bunds in Jaja-Bahari-gimib. Cut-off drains and ditches/ water ways were nearly implemented the whole study kebeles so as to reduce soil erosion, reduce physical ecological related problems and socio-economic benefits.
Regarding to socio-economic impacts of PSWCTs, the survey result revealed that increments of crop production, livestock and vegetation (mainly onions) production were reported by 64%, 79.2% and 72% of sample farm households. For example mean annual major crop products of each farm households before implementing the technologies was 18.1qunitals and after the adoptions of the structures was slightly increased by 0.9 was 19 quintals. About 39.6% of sample households noted that they received honey production due to rehabilitation of degraded physical landscape that enables the bees more produce honey in the areas. Concerning to ecological impacts of PSWCTs, the collected data showed that soil and stone bunds and cut- off drains have found positive impacts on improving soil fertility, in minimizing soil erosion and flooding, improving forest and vegetation coverage. However ditches/ water way not highly optional for the recovery of forests and vegetation coverage reported by 63% of farm households. The LULCC (1986-2015) patterns of the study areas indicated decrease in plant vegetation and a matching increase in bare lands and agriculture. However, the patterns of plant vegetation became decreased from 1986 to 2015; during participatory field observations (in 2017) its coverage was found rehabilitation.
Major challenges encountered during the implementation of PSWC technologies were households’ education, size of land, money, households’ labor, households’ knowledge (training), land tenure, and perception related problems were observed the major factors. Households labour, education, size of land, land tenure, farmers knowledge were found positively influenced the implementation of PSWCTs while money and perception of farm households were negatively significant < 0.05 level. But sex of the households, cultural and time constraints had no influenced farm households to implement PSWCTs for ecological and socio-economic benefits in the study areas.
5.2. Recommendations
In the findings, it is indicated that the implemented physical SWC technology did not have a significant positive impact in keeping soil fertility, minimizing the problems of soil erosion, improving agricultural productions and improving living conditions of the surrounding communities. As a result, the researcher suggested the following recommendations:
- From the findings, it is suggested that a paradigm shift is necessary to refocus the newly physical SWC practice and improve soil fertility and minimize the occurrence of soil erosion.
- Awareness creation programs should be arranged to minimize the challenges of understanding about SWC technology and practices by farm households.
- Farmers should be accessed with the necessary materials and application of SWC technology
- To improving agricultural productions of households and improving their living conditions in the study area, there is a need of involving community members in the planning and implementations of new agricultural technologies
- Farmers should be accessed with relevant solutions to solve the problems of limited access to freshwater; frequent flooding; shortage of farm land; decline of soil fertility and poor supports from agricultural experts.
REFERENCES
Abebe, G. (2015). The Contribution of Soil and Water Conservation Practices towards Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia, PhD Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Adane, E. (2007. Farmers’ Perceptions on Soil Erosion Problems and Conservation Practices: The Case of Banja Woreda in Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State, MA Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Addis, H.K., Klik, A. and Strohmeier, S. (2015). Spatial Variability of Selected Soil Attributes Under Agricultural Land use Systems in a Mountainous Watershed, Ethiopia. International Journal of Geosciences, 6 (2015), 605-613. htt://dox.dio.org/10.4236/ijg.2015.66047.
Adgo, E., Teshome, A., Mati, B. (2013).Impacts of Long-Term Soil and Water Conservation on Agricultural Productivity: The Case of Anjenie Watershed, Ethiopia, Agricultural Water Management, 117 (2013), 55- 61
Adugna, A., Abegaz, A and Cerda, A. (2015).Soil Erosion Assessment and Control in Northeast Wollega, Ethiopia, Solid Earth Discussions, 7(4), 3511-3540
Alemayehu, M., Amede, T., Böhme, M., Peteres, K. J. (2013).Collective Management on Communal Grazing Lands: It’s Impact on Vegetation Attributes and Soil Erosion in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Northwestern Ethiopia. Livestock Science, 157(1), 271-279.
Alemu, T. (2009). Effectiveness of Upland Rice Farmers-to-Farmer Seed Production- Exchange System in Fogera Woreda, South Gondar Zone, Ethiopia. PhD. Thesis Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Amsalu , A. (2006). Caring for the Land, Best Practices in Soil and Water Conservation in Beressa Watershed, Highlands of Ethiopia: Tropical Resource Management Paper No.76.149p. Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Amsalu, A. and De Graaff, J. (2006).Determinant of Adoption and Continued Use of Stone Terraces for Soil and Water Conservations in an Ethiopian High Land Watershed, Ecological Economics 61(2), 294-302
Andonie, M. (2011). Soil and Water Conservation and Rural Livelihoods in the Upper Citarum Watershed in West Java, Indonesia, Master Thesis, Centre for Development and Environment (CDE): University of Bern, Switzerland.
Asrat, P., Belay, K., and Hamito, D. (2004).Determinants of Farmers' Willingness to Pay for Soil Conservation Practices in the Southeastern Highlands of Ethiopia, Land Degradation and Development, 15 (4), 423-438.
Assan, J. K. and Beyene, F.R. (2013).Livelihood Impacts of Environmental Conservation Programs in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia, Journal of Sustainable Development, 6 (10), 87-105, http: //dx.doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v6n10p8.
Baptista I., Fleskens L., Ritsema C., Querido A., Tavares J., Ferreira A.D., Reis E.A., Gomes S. and Varela A. (2015). Soil and Water Conservation Strategies in Cape Verde (Cabo Verde in Portuguese) and Their Impacts on Livelihoods: An Overview from the Ribeira Seca Watershed , Land 2015 , 4 (1) 22-44: doi.10.3390/ land4010022.
Belay, M. and Bewket, W. (2012a). Assessment of Gully Erosion and Practices for It’s Control in Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia. The International Journal of Environmental Studies, 69 (5), 714-728: doi:10.1080/00207233.2012.702478.
Belay, M. and Bewket, W. (2012b). A Participatory Assessment of Soil Erosion and Farm Management Practices in Northwest Ethiopia: Paper Presented at the 8th International Symposium of Agro Environ 2012, 1-4 May 2012, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 9pp. Available at http://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/ AE2012/article/view File /12449/ 12539.
Belay, M. (2013). Local Land and Water Management Practices and Rural Livelihoods in Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia: Case Study in Dangila Woreda, PhD Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Belay, Y. D. (2012).Assessing the Role of Social Learning, Institutions and Social Capital for Soil Conservation in Northern Ethiopia: PhD Thesis, Centre for Development Research (CDR): University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria.
Bekele, S. and S. T, Holden (1998).Resource Degradation and Adoption of Land Conservation Technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Case Study in Andit Tid, North Shewa , Journal of Agricultural Economics, 18 (3), 233-247.
Bekele, S. and S.T Holden (1999).Soil Erosion and Smallholders' Conservation Decisions in the Highlands of Ethiopia. World development, 27 (4), 739-752.
Bekele, S. and S.T, Holden (2007).Soil and Small Holders’ Conservation Decision in the Highlands of Ethiopia, World Development, 27(4), 739-752.
Bekele, W. (2003) Economics of Soil and Water Conservation, Theory and Empirical Application to Subsistence Farming in the Eastern Ethiopian Highlands, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Beshah, T. (2003).Understanding Farmers Explaining Soil and Water Conservation in Konso, Wolaita and Wollo, Ethiopia, Tropical Recourse Management papers No, 41. Wageningen University, Netherlands.
Bewket, W. (2003).Towards Integrated Watershed Management in Highland Ethiopia: The Chemoga Watershed Case Study: PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, the Netherlands.
Beyne, K.K., (2011). Soil Erosion, Deforestation and Rural Livelihoods in the Central Rift Valley area of Ethiopia: A Case Study in Denku -Micro Watershed Oromia Region, p.90. Biot, Y., P.M. Blaikie. , C. Jackson and R.P. Jones (1995). Rethinking Research on Land Degradation in Developing Countries, Wageningen, Journal of Life Sciences, 52(4), 349-369.
Bogale, A. (2002).Land Degradation, Impoverishment and Livelihood Strategies of Rural Households in Ethiopia: Farmers Perception and Policy Implication. PhD Dissertation Institutional Change in Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bd. 8 Zugl: Berlin, Humbolds, Germany, 208 p.
Central Statistical Agency / CSA /. (2013). Population Projection of Ethiopia for All Regions at Woreda Level from 2014 – 2017: Addis Ababa.
Clay, E.J. and B.P. Schaffer (1994).Room for Man Oeuvre: An Exploration of Public Policy Planning in Agricultural and Rural Development Heinemann, London, 159p.
Damene, S., Tamene, L., and Vlek, P.L. (2013).Performance of Enclosure in Restoring Soil Fertility: A Case of Gubalafto District in North Wollo Zone, Northern Highlands of Ethiopia, Catena, 101(2013), 136–142.
Damtew, A. (2011). Benefit and Challenge of Adoption Soil Conservation Techniques in Goromt Watershed: Central Ethiopia, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
David, P. (2006). Soil Erosion a Food and Environmental Threat, Environment, Development and Sustainability, College of Agriculture and Life Science, Cornell University, 5126 Comstock Hall Ithaca, New York.
De Graaff, J., C. J. Ritsema and L. Stroosnijder. (2009).Land Degradation and Development Wagningen University: Environmental Service Group, 18p.
Desta, L., Carucci, V., Wendem-Agenehu, A. and Abebe, Y. (2005).Community Based Participatory Watershed Development: A Guideline, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Encarta (2009).1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation, All Rights Reserved.
Ertiro, H. (2006). Adoption of Physical Soil and Water Conservation Structures in Anna Watershed: Hadiya Zone, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Eswaran, H., Lal, R. and Reich, P. (2001).Land Degradation: An overview, In: Bridges et al, Editors, Responses to Land Degradation, Proc. 2nd International Conference on Land Degradation and Desertification, Khon Kaen, Thailand, New Delhi, India: Oxford Press.
Gebremedhin, B., Woldewahid, G., Dessalegne,Y., Gebey, T., and Teka , W. (2009). Sustainable Land Management through Market-Oriented Commodity Development: Case Studies from Ethiopia, Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers Project, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Working Paper 21, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 46p.
Gondar- Zuria Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office / GZWARDO / (2016), Annual Reports of Gondar – Zuria Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office: February 2016, Makisegnet.
Hudson, N.W. (1991). A Study of Reasons for Success and Failure of Soil Conservation Projects: FAO, Soil Bulletin 64. FAO, Rome.
Hurni, H. (1988).Degradation and Conservation of the Resources in the Ethiopian Highlands: Mountain Research and Development, 8 (2/3), 123-130.doi: 10.2307/3673438.
Hurni, H., Herweg, K., Portener, B. and Liniger, H. (2008).Soil Erosion and Conservation in Global Agriculture, In: Braimoh. A. K. And Vlek, P.L.G. (eds), Land Use and Soil Resources: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
Jacob, W. (1998).Meaning of Ecology: Professor, Botany Section, Department of Ecology Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, KVL Mosaik , 6 (6), 12-13.
Jansen, H., G. Rodriguez, A., Damon, A., Pender, J., Chenier, J., and Schipper, R. (2006).Determinants of Income-Earning Strategies and Adoption of Conservation Practices in Hillside Communities in Rural Honduras, Agricultural Systems, 88 (1), 92-110.
Jiao, J., Zou, H., Jia, Y., & Wang, N. (2009).Research Progress on the Effects of Soil Erosion on Vegetation, Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29 (2), 85-91.
Kahsay, T. (2011).The Effect of Land Tenure Systems on Soil Conservation Practices in Northern Ethiopia: A Case Study of Habru District in Amhara National Regional State (ANRS), Ethiopia.
Kato, E., Ringler, C., Mahmud,Y. and Bryan, E. (2009). Soil and Water Conservation Technologies: A Buffer against Production Risk in the Face of Climate Change Insights from the Nile Basin in Ethiopia, IFPRI Discussion Paper 00871.
Mazzucato, V.M and Niemeijer, D. (2000).Rethinking Soil and Water Conservation in Changing Society: A Case Study in Eastern Burkina Faso. Tropical Resource Management Papers 32: Wageningen University and Research Centre.380p.
Melville, K. (2006).Increasing Soil Erosion Threatens World’s Food Supply: Cornell University, New York, USA. In Ethiopian Highland Agro-ecosystems, Northeast African Studies, No. 8, 27–52.
MoARD (2010).The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resource Sector: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Mushir, A. and Kedru, S. (2012).Soil and Water Conservation Management through Indigenous And Traditional Practices in Ethiopia: A Case Study, Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Managemen t, 5(4), 356-365.
Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Gebremichael, D., Vancampenhout, K., D’aes, M., Yihdego, G., and Haregeweyn, N. (2007). Interdisciplinary on-site Evaluation of Stone Bunds to Control Soil Erosion on Cropland in Northern Ethiopia, Soil and Tillage Research, 94(1), 151-163.
Pender, J. and Gebremedhin, B. (2006).Land Management, Crop Production, and Household Income in the Highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: An Economic Analysis, International Food Policy Research Institute. 140p.
Pender, J., Place, F. and Ehui, S. (2006). Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands International Food Policy Research Institute 2033 K Street, N. W. Washington, D.C.
Pimentel, D. and Burgess, M. (2013) .Soil Erosion Threatens Food Production, College of Agriculture and Life Science: Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Reddy, V. R. (2005).Costs of Resource Depletion Externalities: A Study of Groundwater Over Exploitation in Andhra Pradesh, India, Journal of Environment and Development Economics, 10 (04), 533-556.doi: 10.1017 / S1355770X05002329.
Reij, C. (1991). Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation in Africa, Gatekeeper Series 27, London: International Institute for Environment and Development. 37pp.
Robbins, M. and Williams, T.O. (2005).Land Management and Its Benefits: The Challenge, and the Rationale, for Sustainable Management of Dry lands. A Paper Presented at a STAP Workshop on Sustainable Land Management. Washington DC. 59pp.
Sentis, I.P. (2010). College on Soil Physics: Soil Physical Properties and Processes under Climate Change, Hydrological Approach to Soil and Water Conservation: In I. Pla, Hydrological Approach to Soil and Water Conservation, In: "Man and Soil at the (pp. I: 65-87). Geoforma Ed. Logroño (Spain): Departament de Medi Ambient i Ciències Del Sòl Universitat de Lleida, Spain
Tadesse, M. and Kassa, B. (2004).Factors Influencing Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures in Southern Ethiopia: The Case of Gununo. Journal of Agricultural and Rural Development in the Tropics and Sub-tropics (JARTS), 105(1), 49-62.
Taffa, K. (2008). Soil and Water Conservation: Determinants of Physical Soil and Water Conservation in the Northern Ethiopia: VDM Publishing Germany, 162p.
TERRAFRICA (2011).Sustainable land Management in Practice. Guidelines and Best Practices For Sub-Saharan Africa, Field Application, Rome, Italy: WOCAT and FAO.
Teshome, A., Rolker, D., de Graaff, J. (2013).Financial viability of soil and water conservation Technologies in Northwestern Ethiopian Highlands, Applied Geography, 37(2013), 139-149.
UNEP (2013) /United Nations Environment Program/ .The Emissions Gap Report 2013: Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programmed.
USAID (2008).Ethiopia Biodiversity and Tropical Forests 118/119 Assessment: Retrieved November, 2014, from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf docs/PNADM939.pdf
WFP (2014) /World Food Program/. Report on the Cost-Benefit Analysis and Impact evaluation of SWC and Forestry Measures: Managing Environmental Resources to Enable Transitions to more Sustainable Livelihoods; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
WOCAT (2007) / World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies /.Where the Land is Greener: Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide
Wolka, K. (2014).Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures and Challenges for its Adoption: Ethiopia in Focus. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 7(4), 185-199.
Yamane, T. (1967).Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed, New York: Harper and Row.
Yirga, C. (2007). The Dynamics of Soil Degradation and Incentives for Optimal Management in Central Highlands of Ethiopia: PhD Dissertation, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Yisehak, K., Belay, D., Taye, T., and Janssens, G. P. (2013).Impact of Soil Erosion Associated Factors on Available Feed Resources for Free-ranging Cattle at Three Altitude Regions: Measurements and Perceptions, Journal of Arid Environments, 98 (2013), 70-78.
Zeleke, G., kassaie, M., and Pender, J. and Yesuf, M. (2006).Stakeholder Analysis for Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in Ethiopia: Assessment of Opportunities, Strategic Constraints, Information Needs, and Knowledge Gaps: Environmental Economics Policy Forum for Ethiopia (EEPFE) International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Policy Study, Addis Ababa.
Source of maps or figures
Map of the study Woreda (Gondar-Zuria), GIS map by the work of researcher, Dessalegne, C. (2017) : Gondar; Ethiopia
Physical structures of stone bunds in Dasmariam-dinzaz: by the researcher, Dessalegne, C. (2017) Photo on February: Gondar-Zuria Gondar; Ethiopia
Land Sat Image TM of 1986 showing LULCC of the study area, Geographical Information System (GIS) by the Researcher, Dessalegne, C. (2017) Gondar; Ethiopia
Land Sat Image TM of 2000 showing LULCC of the study area, Geographical Information System (GIS) by the Researcher, Dessalegne, C. (2017) Gondar; Ethiopia
Land Sat Image TM of 2015 showing LULCC of the study area, Geographical Information System (GIS) by the Researcher, Dessalegne, C. (2017) Gondar; Ethiopia
Land use shifts of the study area over the last 30 years since 1986-2015, Geographical Information System (GIS) by the work of researcher, Dessalegne, C. (2017): Gondar; Ethiopia
APPENDX
DEBREMARKOS UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMMANITIES
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Household Survey Questionnaire
Dear respondents: -
This questionnaire is prepared for farmer households living in the three kebeles (Dasmariyam-dinizaz, Degola-chinchaye and Jaja-Bahari-gimib) in Gondar- Zuria woreda to assess ecological and socio-economic impact of the newly installed physical soil and water conservation technologies. The questionnaires are expected to fill by the selected sample farm households. You are kindly asked to provide the appropriate answer for the following questions. Therefore, your honest and genuine participation by responding to the question is highly appreciated.
Note that: - For all closed questions put tick mark (x) where appropriate below.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
I . Household Demography (M = male, F = female, T= total)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
II. Socio-economic Characteristics of the Household
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
III. Soil and Water Conservation Technologies
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
VI. Ecological Impact of the Physical Soil and Water Conservation Technologies
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Iv. Socio-economic impact of the practiced Physical SWC Technologies to the Households
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
20. Major annual crop production of the households in quintals before physical SWC structures implemented on their land and the crop harvesting year of 2016/17 (N=111)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
21. On your judgment which crop products in quintal more increase after the construction of the technologies?
22. Which crop products decrease after the construction of the technologies?
23. Based on question 22, why these crop products in quintal decrease after the introduction of these structures?
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
24. After constructing the physical SWC technologies on your farm land, how do think the products of livestock? 1) Increase,2) Decreased
25. Why the products of livestock increase after the physical SWC structures introduced in your local area?
34. If your answers on question the products of livestock decrease, what do you think the reason?
26. What did you think the production of vegetation after you are constructing the physical SWC technologies on your plot? 1) Increased 2) Decreased
27. On your opinion the extent of your house hold income after you are applying the physical SWC practices on your plot 1) Increased 2) Decreased
28. If your answer question 27 “No” what is the main reason your household income hasn’t improved after the physical SWC structure implementing on your plot?
1. Soil erosion not reduced so that agricultural production not increase
2. The technologies reduced the space of cultivated land
3. The technologies produced pest infestation and reduced yield
4. Others / specify, if any
29. Indicate the level of your satisfaction on the socio-economic contribution of SWC structures after applied on your lands.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
V. Major Factors that influence the Contribution of physical SWC Technologies in the Study Area
30. On your final judgment, from the following table, indicate the factors that influencing the ecological benefits of the physical SWC technologies in your livelihoods.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
31. Do you think the following factors that influencing the socio-economic benefits of the physical SWC technologies in your livelihoods?
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Semi-structured Interview Check Lists with the Selected DAs, Kebele Leaders and Elderly People
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1. Do you think soil erosion is a problem in your local area?
2. What physical indicators led you to believe that soil erosion exists?
3. Which type of the physical SWC technologies currently implementing in your local area?
4. Which are more effectively important for the ecological and socio-economic benefits of the area?
5. How do you evaluate the ecological benefits of the physical SWC structures in your village in terms of soil erosion and flooding, soil moisture and fertility, forest and vegetation coverage and water accessibilities and others?
6. Do you think the physical SWC structures have gained socio-economic benefits in your village in terms of crop yield, livestock production and fodder (hay), vegetable production, household’s income and others?
7. How lack of money, labor, land, knowledge of the farmer (perception), time, land tenure and other factors influence the benefits of SWC technologies in your village?
Questionnaire for Focus Group Discussion with the Selected DAs, Model farmers and Farmers Living a Long Period in the Kebeles
1. Which physical SWC structures more effective for ecological and socio-economic benefits of your village?
2. How do you evaluate the ecological benefits of the practiced physical SWC technologies in terms of soil erosion and flooding, soil fertility status, restoration of degraded land, availability of water, forest coverage and others?
3. Discuss the socio-economic impact of the practiced physical SWC structures in terms of crop production, livestock products, and house hold income?
4. From your experience, discuss how lack of money, lack of land, perception, time constraints, knowledge, lack of labour and culture influence the ecological and socio-economic contribution of the physical SWC technologies in your local area
5. What are the challenges for constructing (implementing) the physical SWC technologies in the three kebeles ?
Check List for Participatory Field Observation
1. The type of soil erosion, its physical severity, causes and consequence in the area.
2. The type of the physical SWC technologies implementing, their maintenance on the farm land and others.
3. The ecological patterns of the kebeles in terms of water accessibility, vegetation cover, soil fertility, growing of trees and plants and the topography of the kebeles.
4. The socio-economic conditions of the area in terms of land protection, number of livestock and their fodder (hay) in the village, health, patterns of land holding and others.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Dessalegne Chanie (Author), 2020, Ecological and Socio-economic Impacts of Physical Soil and Water Conservation Practices, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/963346
-
-
-
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.