See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337220716

Critical review on design Characteristics and construction of terraces on

Cultivated Slope lands in Ethiopia: Fate of soil erosion control in Glance

Article · November 2019

DOI: 10.14412/JARNR2019.194

CITATIONS READS

0 601

1 author:

Abiy Gebremicheal
Southern Agricultural Research Institute (SARI)
13 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Agricultural water management View project

Soil and water conservation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abiy Gebremicheal on 13 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Science Park Journals
Vol. 3(4), pp. 175-194, July. 2019 Journal of Agricultural Research
ISSN 2315-6279 and Natural Resources
DOI: 10.14412/JARNR2019.194
Copyright© 2019
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
Available online at
http://www.scienceparkjournals.org/jarnr

Full Length Research Paper

Critical review on design Characteristics and construction of terraces on

Cultivated Slope lands in Ethiopia Fate of soil erosion control in glance.
Abiy Gebremichael*
Soil and water conservation Researcher, Southern Agricultural Research Institute, Bonga Agricultural Research
Center, Ethiopia

INTRODUCTION
Terracing steep lands in East Africa has been an indigenous technology among densely
populated and erosion-prone highlands (Hurni, 1993). New terrace technologies have been
evolving over the years by smallholder farmers due to ever-decreasing space for cultivation of
crops. These terraces include contour bunds, “fanya juu” terraces, hillside terraces, bench
terraces, stone lines, grass strips or hedge rows and vegetative barriers (Mati, 2005). According
to SUSTAINET (2010), the physical soil and water conservation structures are permanent
features made of earth, stones or masonry, designed to protect the soil from uncontrolled runoff
and erosion and retain water where needed. Selection and design of structures depend on the
climate and the need to retain or discharge the runoff, farm sizes, soil characteristics (texture,
drainage, and depth), availability of an outlet or waterway, labour availability and cost and
adequacy of existing agronomic or vegetative conservation measures.
History of soil and water conservation (SWC) activity in Ethiopia dates back mid seventies
based on food for work (FFW), at a huge per hectare cost (Osman and Sauerborn, 2001).
Before this period, the practice was localized and in-significant. In 1970s, the Transitional Five
Year Plan (MoA, 1969) specially recommended the establishment of soil and water
conservation division within the Ministry of Agriculture. The establishment was after identifying
the problems of soil erosion in the North and Eastern part of the country and major challenges
of soil erosion on cultivated steep slopes on highlands. The traditional practices during the
period include major mechanical measures like traditional terracing in the Highlands of Tigray,
North Showa and in the case of Konso (Virgo and Muno, 1977). In 2010, the Ethiopian
government launched a land restoration program that aimed to double agricultural productivity
through improving the management of natural resources and agricultural lands. Accordingly,
respective stakeholders mobilized farmers to help with the construction of SWC measures.
Since 2010, more than 15 million people have contributed free labor equivalent of US$750
million each year (MoFED, 2010). However the problem of uniform VI of the SWC structures
and the inflexibility of untrained extension staff as well farmers unwillingness to construct SWC
structures has been major challenge. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to review and
evaluate the existing design characteristics of terraces under Ethiopian condition with respect to
available literatures.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Design of Soil and Water Conservation Terraces in Ethiopia
Summaries from Studies on Soil and Water Conservation Activities and design
In Ethiopia, the more common methods of SWC include: level contour bunds, grass strips, cutoff
drains, hill terracing and graded bench terraces (Wolde-Aregay 1996). He explains that the
design of soil conservation structures was necessity fixed to the 1-meter vertical interval in
Ethiopia regardless of the slope steepness to avoid complicated calculations and farmers could
lay out the terraces by themselves. The traditional Konso Bench Terraces are established by
building up stone embankments along the contour and gradually leveling the land in between
risers. Terraces have a long tradition in the area, and farmers (about 90% land owners) are
specialists in construction of stone walls without receiving any external support (WOCAT, 2010).
This was because, without terracing crop production would not be thinkable in a marginal area
characterized by shortage and high variability of rainfall, shallow, stony soils on steep slopes.
They make foundation up to 30cm deep. Then stone walls are gradually built up to an
impressive height of 1.5 - 2m above the ground. The design and construction of these terraces
range from elementary stone lines to sophisticated terracing infrastructures. In recognition of the
role played by Konso‟s traditional stonewalled terraces as a part of the cultural landscape, they
were designated as a world heritage by UNSECO in June 2011 (Engdawork and Bork, 2014).
In addition, Engdawork and Bork (2014) conducted survey on traditional stone terraces from the
technical point of view in Chencha-Dorze, souther Ethiopia. It was found that, method of piling
stones to build the embankment of the terraces involves placing them with decreasing stone
size from the base to the top with principle of stability. The position of the terrace wall is vertical
or slightly inclined. It is slanted at the steep slope while it is vertical at the lower slope. the height
of the terraces is often 0.7–1.5 m, only sometimes reaching up to 3 m. Along a contour, a single
long wall was not built; rather a series of shorter terrace walls were constructed. The tops of the
walls were used to grow grass and trees. The distances between the terraces along the slope
vary from 3 to 15 m. The role of social organization and the culture of the people was an integral
component in constructing and maintaining terraces. People usually construct terraces in
groups, known as debo. The formation of a debo ranges from 5 to 15 people. The members are
commonly neighbors and relatives of the person who owns the terraces. The owner is expected
to collect stones and put them at different places of the farm field ahead of the construction. In
addition, the owner should also prepare food and drinks to serve those people who participate in
terrace construction. Before the group starts to construct a terrace, some ritual activities are
conducted to ensure the longevity of the terrace where group members can comment upon and
discuss the design of a terrace which will be finalized by decision of the owner.

Summary of Mitiku et al. (2006) work suggests that, when entire catchments are being conserved through
SWC campaigns the uniform layout of the SWC structures and the inflexibility of untrained extension staff,
often paired with unwillingness to maintain SWC structures, invites technical problems which leads to
uncounted effects of ill-designed or badly maintained structures and their effect on lower lying areas as
shown in the figure1 below.
Figure 1: Failure of SWC structures in Ethiopia.
Figure 1A shows an example of failure of SWC structures in Kembata zone, Ethiopia. Erosion
rills developed on the entire slope despite intensive structural SWC. Interestingly, only the life
fence in the lower part of the photo seems capable to stop erosion. Figure 1B shows damaged
by high runoff from top as well as from middle land with wide space of terrace. Cutt-off drain and
spacing are not properly designed plus farmers unwilling to maintain it.

Terrace Design Specifications

The design aspect of terraces generally should consider factors such as of slope of land, rainfall
and runoff rates, soil characteristics, vegetative or crop cover, tillage, and cropping practices.
Moreover, the layout and design characteristics of SWC technologies are affected by local,
environmental and socio-economic factors of the area. As much as possible, most important
factors of erosion should be taken into account for improving the design and layout of SWC.
However, the assumed guideline for SWC implementation in Ethiopia have only suggested to
use slope gradient and soil depth in order to design SWC structures or measures (Hurni, 1986).
The guideline was based on the dominant limiting factors on two slope categories. For slopes
greater than 15 % however, the layout of SWC is irrespective of the gradient factor which
probably assumed a linear effect of slope on soil depth given other factors constant (Gizaw,
2010). This seems more general and needs further area specific investigation because the
available guidelines lack to include locally important erosion processes and hydraulic properties
of the soil to know what magnitude of erosion and where it occurs critically (Gizaw, 2010).
Although it could not be found practicable to assign definite values to each of these governing
factors or variables of design in determining final terrace specifications, standard specifications
can be established by using actual field and experimental data on terracing in a certain area as
a guide for terrace design in similar areas in the country. There were very limited attempts
except the work of (Hurni, 1986) and studies focusing sub-Saharan African condition
Gizaw et al. (2009) has done the technical assessment of SWC structures in Ethiopia. As he
explained, a guideline was first developed for Ethiopian condition by Hurni (1986) and he used
this guideline for evaluation of the effectiveness of structures with observation and measuring
the dimensions in the sampled fields in Angereb watershed of Lake Tana basin. He found that
the terrace width, height, length and spacing were not properly designed so that unstable and
fragmented terrace was observed to be common causes for erosion damage within the plot and
adjacent fields. The guideline was not properly applied as it was expected. And, the vertical
interval for field application was not according to guideline rather with fixed 1m for every
structure as well as any slope category. Studies also showed that contour bund construction in
the highland areas of Ethiopia, were usually designed with a standard 1 m vertical interval
(Wolde-Aregay, 1996). In design, the contour soil bunds are aligned along the contour, with
spillways set at 15-20m intervals and the catchment to cultivated ratio ranges from 5:1 to 20:1
which is highly variable interval from the runoff harvesting point of view. Since it does not
depend on rainfall intensity, under-design or overdesign is expected.

Design Characteristics of Terrace: A Guideline Currently in Action

The soil and water conservation works in Ethiopia were started before decades with traditionally
accepted designs. In 1980s different researchers like Hurni (1986) prepared guideline for the
country (Gizaw et al., 2009). Recently the guideline prepared by Ministry of Agriculture in 2005
(Lakew et al., 2005) was in action for the construction of soil and water conservation structures.
However it was better if the data was collected from fields for evaluation of design specification
effectiveness in the farmers‟ field. It was good to check the applicability. It was good to check
the applicability of the guideline on the ground. The question of „is the failure or success of SWC
structures be due to unwillingness of farmers or design problem‟ could be answered if the
assessment of technical feasibility of SWC structures were done according to above guideline.
Many studies, more than 75%, focuses on assessment of adoption or farmers interest to SWC
activities which is part of social works than technical feasibility study. This may be due to less
attention to implementation of SWC works according to guideline or experts are not applying
SWC structures according to the prepared guideline. The guideline developed by Ministry of
Agriculture in 2005 (Lakew et al., 2005) is shown below.
 Table 1: Design specification of soil and water conservation structures in Ethiopia
Name of Land use Min. technical standards
terrace
Level soil Applied on slopes above Height: min. 60 cm after compaction.
bund 3% and below 15% Base width: 1-1.2m in stable soils (1H:2V) and
Grazing lands (up to 1.2-1.5m in unstable soils (1H:1V)
5%) Top width: 30 cm (stable soil) - 50 cm (unstable
soil). Channel: shape, depth and width vary with
soil, climate and farming system.
Ties (if appropriate): tie width dimension as
required, placed every 3-6 m interval along
channel.
Length of bund: 30-60m in most cases, higher
(max 80m) on slopes 3-5%
Need to be spaced staggered for animals to cross
Layout and Vertical interval (VI)
VI: follow a flexible and quality oriented
approach:
Slope 3-8% VI = 1-1.5m.
Slope 8-15% VI = 1-2m.
Slope 15-20% VI = 1.5-2.5m (only exceptional
cases). (Note that: soil bunds > 15% to max 20%
only if space reduced and with trench, short
bunds - above 15% better apply stone faced or
stone bunds. Layout along the coutours using
line level - discuss spacing with farmers Make
bund length max 50-80m (the > the slope the <
the length)
STONE Applicable in a broad Height: 60-70cm up to 100 cm (lower side).
BUNDS range of land uses in all Total Base width: (height/2) + (0.3-0.5 m).
agro-climatic areas, Top width: 30-40 cm.
particularly in cultivated Foundation: 0.3 m width x 0.3 m depth.
lands with some level of Grade of stone face downside: 1h: 3v Grade of
stoniness stone face upper side: 1h: 4v.
Grade of soil bank (seal) on upper side: 1h: 1.5-2v.
Bunds need to be spaced staggered for animals to
cross. Max bund length 60-80 meters
Caution: (stone bunds up to 50% slope they
should not be constructed above 35% slope under
Ethiopian conditions)
STONE Applicable in a broad Grade of lower stone face: 1 horiz. to 3 vertical; a) Slope range: 3-35% max b) Follow VI from
FACED range of land uses, Grade of upper stone face (if any): based on soil soil bunds. Between slopes 5-15% add 10% to
SOIL particularly in cultivated embankment grade. Grade of soil: 1 horiz. to 1.5 distance between bunds as stability of stone faced
BUNDS lands with some level of vertical on stable soils and 1 horiz. to 2 vertical on bunds is higher than soil bunds. Slope 3-8% VI =
stoniness. unstable soil; Lower stone face riser foundation: 1-1.5 m. Slope 8-15% VI = 1-2 m. Slope 15-
0.3 depth x 0.2-0.3 width; Upper stone face riser 30% VI = 1.5-2.5 m Above 30% slope only in
foundation: 0.2 x 0.2 m; Stone size: 20 cm x 20 cm very stable soils or shift to stone bunds. c) Soil
stones (small and round shape stones not suitable); depth 50-100 cm d) Use line levels and follows
Top width: 0.4-0.5m; Height: min. 0.7 and max. 1 contours.
m (lower stone face); Channel or trench along In gentle slopes (< 8%) avoid sharp curving
 bund; Ties required every 3-6 m along along depression points and fill by plowing.
trench/channel.
LEVEL Applied generally on Height: min. 60 cm after compaction. . Base VI: follow a flexible and quality oriented
FANYA cultivated lands with width: 1-1.2m in stable soils (1 horiz: 2 vertical) approach: Slope 3-8% VI = 1-1,5 m
JUU (FJ) slopes above 3% and and 1.2-1.5m in unstable soils (1 horiz: 1 vertical). Slope 8-15% VI = 1-2 m
below 15% gradient. Top width: 30 cm (stable soil) - 50 cm (unstable Layout along the coutours using line level -
Can be applied on soil). Collection ditch: 60cm W x 50cm D. Ties: discuss spacing with farmers and in case of lateral
grazing lands with placed every 3-6 m interval along channel. Length slopes shift to soil bunds for higher water
gentle slopes at wider of bund: up to 60 m in most cases, max 80 m. FJ accumulation and apply reinforcements and keys.
intervals (up to 5%). need to be staggered to allow animals to cross
fields as required. Note: Shift to soil bunds in areas with slight
traverse slopes and apply stone keys and
reinforcements.
BENCH Applied generally on Width: For areas of cultivation by hand: 2-5m is Vertical interval is calculated as follows:
TERRAC cultivated lands and suitable. For animal driven cultivation: more than VI (meters) = S x W / 100-SU Where
E (BT) unused steep hillsides of this is desirable. The more the depth of soil and the S is the land slope (%)
slopes of average 12 to less the slope, the wider the bench terrace. Height: W is the bench width(meters)
58% considering the The height of the riser(terrace) is the vertical U is the slope of the riser, expressed as the ratio
various land use types interval (for a reverse slope the change in of horizontal distance to vertical rise
(cereal, fruits,etc.). elevation across the terrace is subtracted).
A Riser has a slope expressed as a ratio of
horizontal distance to vertical rise.
HILLSID Applicable in steep Slope range: 20-50%. (VI): 2-3m. · Cut and fill of the terrace area, · Collection of
E hillsides - community Height or stone riser:(range 0.5-0.75 m) stones from working site, light shaping (if
TERRAC closures with steep Width of terrace:(range 1.5-2m)· necessary) of side of stones with sledgehammer
ES (HTs) slopes (max 50%). In Foundation: 0.3m depth x 0.3 m width foundation· for better stability & merging, · Excavation of
dry areas and shallow Grade of stone riser: well placed stone wall (grade foundation, · Placement and building of stone
soils need to be 1:3horiz to vert.)· riser, · Small stone ties every 5 m (optional), ·
combined with other In lower rainfall areas (most cases) hillside terrace Leveling of top of terrace with an A-frame.
measures (eyebrow have 5-10% gradient back slope
basins, etc).
GRADE Applied generally on Height: min. 60 cm after compaction. Base width: Vertical intervals: flexible and quality oriented
D cultivated lands with 1-1.2m in stable soils (1 horiz: 2 vertical) and 1.2- approach. Slope 3-8% VI = 1-1.5 m. Slope 8-15%
FANYA slopes above 3% and 1.5m in unstable soils (1 horiz: 1 vertical).Top VI = 1-2 m
JUU below 15% gradient. width: 30 cm (stable soil) - 50 cm (unstable soil). Layout along the coutours but with 1% gradient
(GFJ) Like level fanya juus Drainage ditch: 60cm W x 50 cm D. Ties: placed using line level - discuss spacing with farmers
graded Fanya juus are every 3-6 m interval along channel. Length of and in case of lateral slopes shift to graded soil
best constructed in bund: up to 60 m in most cases, or max 80m on bunds
uniform terrains with gentle slopes (3-5%). Channel cross section
deep soils that do not increases towards the end because of more water
have traverse slopes concentration e.g. from 25cm depth and 50cm
(depressions), but in width to 50 and 100cm, respectively.
high rainfall areas.
Source: Lakew (2005)
EVALUATION OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS OF TERRACES IN ETHIOPIA WITH
RESPECT TO C.E. RAMSER AND M.P. COX FORMULAS
The commonly applicable designs of soil and water conservation structures were proposed by
C.E. Ramser and M.P. Cox formulas. They have different assumption on concept of considering
governing factors such as rainfall, land cover and infiltration capacity of soil. The vertical interval
between the two bunds is determined by the following formulas (GJWMA, 2011):
C.E. Ramser’s formula
The formula of C.E. Ramser did not consider the factor rather it was suggested that, for soils with high
infiltration rate and good conservation practices, then 25% extra vertical interval or extra spacing should
be used. On the other hand, in soils of low infiltration capacity and unfavourable conservation measures,
the vertical interval or the spacing should be reduced by 15%.
VI = 0.3*(S/3) +2) ………………………….…equation 1
Where;
VI is vertical interval in m
S in slope of land in %
Cox’s Formula
VI = 0.3*(SX +Y) ……………………………….equation 2
Where;
X is rainfall factor; Y is infiltration and crop cover factor. The values of X and Y are given in the table
below
Table 2: Values of Rainfall factors

Rainfall condition Value of X Annual rainfall, mm

Scanty 0.8 <640mm
Moderate 0.6 640-900mm
Heavy 0.4 >900mm

Table 3: Values of infiltration and crop cover factor, Y

Intake rate Value of X Annual rainfall, mm

Below average <3cm/hr Low coverage 1.0
Average or above >3cm/hr Good coverage 2.0
One of above factors is favorable and other is unfavorable 1.5
The slope of land is given by (GJWMA). 2011)
S = VI/HI*100 ………………………………….equation 3
S in slope of land in %
VI is vertical interval in m
HI is horizontal interval between two bunds in m
Therefore,
HI = VI/S *100
Table 4: The summary of criteria of VI calculation by Cox’s formula in the following Tables

Rainfall Soil characteristics x Y Remark*

High infiltration soil (I >3mm/h)
case 1 with good coverage 0.4 2 CFC1
Low infiltration soil (I <3mm/h)
Heavy rainfall Case 2 with good coverage 0.4 1.5 CFC2
(>900mm) Low infiltration soil (I<3mm/h) with
Case 3 low coverage 0.4 1 CFC3
High infiltration soil (I > 3mm/h)
Case 1 with good coverage 0.6 2 CFC1
Moderate Low infiltration soil (I <3mm/h)
rainfall Case 2 with good coverage 0.6 1.5 CFC2
(640-900mm) Low infiltration soil (I <3mm/h)
Case 3 with low coverage 0.6 1 CFC3
High infiltration soil (I >3mm/h)
Case1 with good coverage 0.8 2 CFC1
Scanty Low infiltration soil (I <3mm/h)
rainfall Case2 with good coverage 0.8 1.5 CFC2
(<640mm) Low infiltration soil (I <3mm/h)
Case 3 with low coverage 0.8 1 CFC3
* CFC1 is Cox’s formula case one. This classification is for the sake of referring for VI
calculations shown in Table 5 below.

The design of soil bund and stone bund was taken as a sample for evaluation of design
guideline of Ethiopia and compared and discussed in the following parts.
Table 5: Evaluation of Vertical Interval (VI) computed using different methods for constriction
of soil bund

VI VI (m)
(m) VI (m) for
Recommendation of Ra for I
for Ethiopia mF I >3cm/hr <3cm/hr HI (m) calculated (VI/S*100)
(100 Ram Ra
S %) C Ram
Ra F Ra mF C C C
(%) S% VI VI mF C (- F Et F m F (- F F F
ran (av. Ran (av. (+25 F CF 15% C re (+25 (100 15% C C C
ge ) ge ) %) C1 C2 ) 3 c. %) %) ) 1 2 3
Heavy rainfall (>900mm)
1- 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 2 2 1
3-8 6 1.5 5 1.20 0 2 7 2 2 21 25 20 17 2 0 7
8- 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.7 1 1 1
15 12 1-2 0 1.80 5 4 9 3 4 13 19 15 13 7 6 5
15- 1.5- 2.0 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.0 2.4 1 1 1
20 18 2.5 0 2.40 0 6 1 4 6 11 17 13 11 5 5 4
Moderate rainfall (640mm-900mm)
1- 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.0 1.3 2 2 2
3-8 6 1.5 5 1.20 0 8 3 2 8 21 25 20 17 8 6 3
8- 1.5 2.2 2.7 2.6 1.5 2.4 2 2 2
15 12 1-2 0 1.80 5 6 1 3 6 13 19 15 13 3 2 1
15- 1.5- 2.0 3.0 3.8 3.6 2.0 3.5 2 2 2
20 18 2.5 0 2.40 0 4 9 4 4 11 17 13 11 1 1 0
scanty rainfall (<640mm)
1- 1.2 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.0 1.7 1 3 3 2
3-8 6 1.5 5 1.20 0 4 9 2 4 21 25 20 7 4 2 9
8- 1.5 2.2 3.4 4.3 1.5 3.1 1 2 3 2
15 12 1-2 0 1.80 5 8 2 3 8 13 19 15 3 9 6 7
15- 1.5- 2.0 3.0 4.9 4.7 2.0 4.6 1 2 2 2
20 18 2.5 0 2.40 0 2 7 4 2 11 17 13 1 7 6 6
NB: I is infiltration rate; VI is vertical interval; HI is horizontal interval; Ram F(100%) means
result from direct use of Ramser‟s formula; Ram F(+25%) means result from Ramser‟s formula
on which 25% is added due to case of high infiltration; Ram F (-15%) means result from
Ramser‟s formula from which 15% is reduced due to case of low infiltration; CFC1 means result
from Cox‟s formula case 1(Table 4); CFC2 means result from Cox‟s formula case 2 (Table 4)
and CFC3 means result from Cox‟s formula case 3 (Table 4). The word guideline staring from
this page through next pages refers to VI value in design guideline of Ethiopia. From the Table 5
above, the following inferences can be obtained. For design of soil bund at heavy rainfall
condition (>900mm) and less infiltration condition (I<3cm/hr), the VI from guideline is very
approaching to VI considered by Ramser formula. However, at the case of high infiltration of soil
(I>3cm/hr), the VI from Ramser formula is 50% more than VI from guideline. This indicates that
the horizontal spacing (HI) by the guideline will be less while it was possible to widen it. VI from
the direct use of Ramser‟s formula without consideration of rainfall and infiltration rate, only 10-
20% increment was observed relative to VI of guideline.
In the case of Cox‟s formula, its VI did not approach to VI of Ethiopian condition. As the country
has high and low rainfall condition as well as variable soil properties, calibration of Cox‟s
formula for different areas may be use full. At moderate and scanty rainfall condition as well as
considered filtration conditions, the VI from guideline and from Ramser‟s formula were not
variable while that of Cox‟s formula range from 1.5 to 4.92m.
 Table 6: Evaluation of Vertical Interval (VI) computed using different methods for construction of stone bund

Rec. VI for Ram CF

Ethiopia F VI for I>3cm/h C2 VI for I<3cm/h HI calculated (VI/S*100)
S VI (100 Ram CF Ram F CF Eth Ram.F Ram F Ram F CF C1 CF CF
(%) (rec.Eth %) (+25%) C1 (-15%) C3 rec (+25%) (100%) (-15%) C2 C3
)
For moderate rainfall (>900mm)
5 1.00 1.1 1.38 1.5 1.35 0.94 1.20 20.00 28 22 19 30 27 24
10 1.50 1.6 2.00 2.4 2.25 1.36 2.10 15.00 20 16 14 24 23 21
15 2.20 2.1 2.63 3.3 3.15 1.79 3.00 14.67 18 14 12 22 21 20
20 2.40 2.6 3.25 4.2 4.05 2.21 3.90 12.00 16 13 11 21 20 20
25 2.50 3.1 3.88 5.1 4.95 2.64 4.80 10.00 16 12 11 20 20 19
30 2.60 3.6 4.50 6 5.85 3.06 5.70 8.67 15 12 10 20 20 19
35 2.80 4.1 5.13 6.9 6.75 3.49 6.60 8.00 15 12 10 20 19 19
40 2.80 4.6 5.75 7.8 7.65 3.91 7.50 7.00 14 12 10 20 19 19
50 2.80 5.6 7.00 9.6 9.45 4.76 9.30 5.60 14 11 10 19 19 19
For moderate rainfall (640-900mm)
5 1.00 1.1 1.38 1.20 1.05 0.94 0.90 20 28 22 19 24 21 18
10 1.50 1.6 2.00 1.80 1.65 1.36 1.50 15 20 16 14 18 17 15
15 2.20 2.1 2.63 2.40 2.25 1.79 2.10 15 18 14 12 16 15 14
20 2.40 2.6 3.25 3.00 2.85 2.21 2.70 12 16 13 11 15 14 14
25 2.50 3.1 3.88 3.60 3.45 2.64 3.30 10 16 12 11 14 14 13
30 2.60 3.6 4.50 4.20 4.05 3.06 3.90 9 15 12 10 14 14 13
35 2.80 4.1 5.13 4.80 4.65 3.49 4.50 8 15 12 10 14 13 13
40 2.80 4.6 5.75 5.40 5.25 3.91 5.10 7 14 12 10 14 13 13
50 2.80 5.6 7.00 6.60 6.45 4.76 6.30 6 14 11 10 13 13 13
Table 6 (continued)

Rec. for
Ethiopian I >3cm/hr I<3cm/hr HI calculated (VI/S*100)
(VI) VI VI (VI) VI (HI) (HI) (HI) (HI) HI HI HI
S VI (VI) Ram F CF CF RamF CF rec. Ram F Ram F Ram F CF CF CF
(%) (rec.Et) Ram F (+25%) C1 C2 (-15%) C3 Eth (+25%) (100%) (-15%) C1 C2 C3
For scanty rainfall areas (<640mm)
5 1.00 1.1 1.38 1.80 1.65 0.94 1.50 20 28 22 19 36 33 30
10 1.50 1.6 2.00 3.00 2.85 1.36 2.70 15 20 16 14 30 29 27
15 2.20 2.1 2.63 4.20 4.05 1.79 3.90 15 18 14 12 28 27 26
20 2.40 2.6 3.25 5.40 5.25 2.21 5.10 12 16 13 11 27 26 26
25 2.50 3.1 3.88 6.60 6.45 2.64 6.30 10 16 12 11 26 26 25
30 2.60 3.6 4.50 7.80 7.65 3.06 7.50 9 15 12 10 26 26 25
35 2.80 4.1 5.13 9.00 8.85 3.49 8.70 8 15 12 10 26 25 25
40 2.80 4.6 5.75 10.20 10.05 3.91 9.90 7 14 12 10 26 25 25
50 2.80 5.6 7.00 12.60 12.45 4.76 12.30 6 14 11 10 25 25 25
 12

10
vertical interval( VI) in meter

8 Rec. Eth.
Ram (100%)
6 Ram (25%)
CFC1
4 CFC2
Ram (-15%)
2
CFC3

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50
Slope of land (%)

Figure 2: Comparative result of VI for stone bund construction using different methods under
heavy rainfall (>900mm)

8
Vertival interval ( VI) in meter

7
6
rec.Eth
5
Ram F(100%)
4 Ram F(+25%)
3 CF C1
2 CFC2
1 Ram F(-15%)
0 CF C3
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50
Slope of land (%)

Figure 3: Comparative result of VI for stone bund construction using different methods under
moderate rainfall of (640-900mm)
 14
Vertical interval (VI) in meter
12
10 rec.Eth
8 Ram F(100%)
Ram F(+25%)
6
CF C1
4
CFC2
2 Ram F(-15%)
0 CF C3
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50

Slope of land (%)

Figure 4: Comparative result of VI computed using different methods for stone bund
construction under scanty rainfall of (<640mm)
Figure 2 up to Figure 4 were obtained from the result of computed VI in Table 6 for the case of
stone bund. From Figure 2, 3 and 4, it can be seen that the value of vertical interval (VI) for
stone bund in all methods was not significantly different up the slope of 15% except Cox‟s
method at Figure 4. However as slope increase the change of VI was not seen in the case of
guideline. This indicates that the design of the structures was applied according to slope
because it should be sensitive to the slope which is a major factor of soil erosion. It has been
also seen that, the Cox‟s formula is highly sensitive to slope than Ramser‟s formula at the case
of heavy rainfall (Figure 2). Unlike in the other cases, at Figure 3, VI by Cox‟s formula
dramatically reduced below VI by Ramser‟s formula at 25%. From the results of VI and
corresponding HI, the computation of VI in Ethiopia did not used equation 3. It was also shown
that, VI using Cox‟ formula is less sensitive to infiltration rate under high rainfall.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The design and layout of a terrace involves the proper spacing and location of terraces, the
design of a channel with adequate capacity, and envelopment of a formable cross-section.
Terrace spacing should not be so wide as to cause excessive rilling and the resultant movement
of large amount of soil into the terrace channel. The runoff from the terraced area should not
cause overtopping of the terrace, and the infiltration rate in the channel should be sufficiently
 high to prevent severe damage to crops. The effectiveness of soil and water conservation
(SWC) measures, specially the terraces in Ethiopia, was assessed by different researchers from
the point of view of its design as well as sustainability aspects of terracing. Technically the
effectiveness of terraces was affected the design of storage capacity, cross section of a terrace
and errace spacing. These design aspects are dependent on rainfall intensity with 10 years
recurrence interval or above, slope, soil characteristics, land use type and tillage methods.
Farmers‟ awareness problem to adopt the conservation technology was also quoted by many
authors as socioeconomic factor of SWC effectiveness. It was found that the terrace width,
height, length and spacing were not properly designed so that unstable and fragmented terrace
was observed to be common causes for erosion damage within the plot and adjacent fields. The
construction of SWC measures in Ethiopia were usually designed with a standard 1 m vertical
interval (VI).
Although the guideline was prepared for experts of SWC, it was not properly applied as it was
expected due to either knowledge gap or reluctance. Inappropriate technology and blanket
recommendations like the rule of 1m VI makes also the disagreement between farmer whose
land was lost and the nearer expert who mostly visits farmer. This challenge produces less
acceptance of technology for next. The current guideline was evaluated in this study with
respect to Ramser‟s formula and Cox‟s formula. Accordingly it was observed that the design of
SWC is not in consistent with both formulas considering major factors such as slope, rainfall,
and soil characteristics. Although the guideline did not use the equation of slope (eqn. 3) to
determine horizontal interval (HI), for slope less than 15%, it has been seen that Ramser‟s
formula and the guideline approaches better in most cases. Therefore with great attention to
land users, it is better to calibrate different equations for most important parameters of design
factors for the country condition.

REFERENCES
Engdawork A. and Bork H. 2014. Long-Term Indigenous Soil Conservation Technology in the Chencha
Area, Southern Ethiopia: Origin, Characteristics, and Sustainability. AMBIO, 43:932–942 DOI
10.1007/s13280-014-0527-6, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Gizaw D. 2010. Research Report for Q505 project supported by Eastern and Southern Africa Partne
rship Program (ESAPP) Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI)
Gizaw D., Andreas K., and Hurni H. 2009. Assessment of soil erosion and soil conservation practices in
Angereb watershed, Ethiopia: technological and land user context. Paper Presented for
conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management and
Rural Development University of Hamburg, October 6-8, 2009.
Gujarat State Watershed Management Agency (GJWMA). 2011. Technical Manual for Integrated
Watershed Management. Gandhinagar Governent of Gujarat.
Hurni, H., 1986. Guidelines for development agents on soil conservation in Ethiopia. CFSCDD, MOA,
Addis Ababa.
Hurni, H. 1993. Land degradation, famine, and land resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In: Pimentel, D.
(Ed.) World Soil Erosion and Conservation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, (pp. 27–62)
Lakew, D., Caucci, W. Asrat and A. Yitayew. 2005. Infotechs on Technologies for Watershed and
Natural Resource Development and Protection, Part 1 section B. In: Community based
participatory watershed development: A guideline, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa.
Mati, B. M. 2005. Overview of water and soil nutrient management under smallholder rainfed agriculture
in East Africa. Working Paper 105. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management
Institute (IWMI).
Mistry of Agriculture (MoA). 1969. Major activities in 1961 E C (Ethiopian Calendar) and current status
of activities of the Agriculture Planning Unit, Imperial Government of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, 81 pp
Mistry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED). 2010. Growth and Transformation Plan of
Ethiopia (GTP), 2010/2011-2014/15 of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE).
Mitiku, H., Herweg, K. and Stillhardt, B. 2006. Sustainable land management –A new approach to soil
and water conservation in Ethiopia. Mekelle, Ethiopia: Land resources management and
environmental protection department, Mekelle University, Bern, Switzerland: CDE, University of
Bern, NCCR North-south, 269 pp.
Osman M. and Sauerborn P. 2001. Soil and Water Conservation in Ethiopia: Experiences and Lessons;
A Review article. JSS- J Soils & Sediments 1 (2) 117 – 123
SUSTAINET(SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION INITIATIVE). 2010. Technical Manual
for farmers and Field Extension Service Providers: Soil and Water Conservation. Sustainable
Agriculture Information Initiative, Nairobi. ISBN 978-9966-1533-8-8
Virgo K. and Muno R. 1977. Soil and erosion features of the Cen- tral Plateau of Tigray. Geoderma
WOCAT. 2010. Cross-Slope Barriers. SLM in Practice by SLM Group. www.wocat.net. DESIRE-project.
2010. http://www.desire-project.eu/
Wolde-Aregay B. 1996. Twenty Years of Soil Conservation in Ethiopia. A Personal Overview.
SIDA/RSCU Technical Report No. 14. Nairobi

Cite this article as:

Abiy Gebremichael (2019). Critical review on design Characteristics and construction of

terraces on Cultivated Slope lands in Ethiopia Fate of soil erosion control in glance.
.
JARNR 3(4).160-174

https://www.scopus.com/
https://scholar.google.com/
Submit your manuscript at: http://www.scienceparkjournals.org/jarnr/submit

View publication stats