International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8 (2020) 80e89

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Soil and Water Conservation Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/iswcr

Original Research Article

Factors influencing adoption of soil and water conservation practices

in the northwest Ethiopian highlands
Agere Belachew a, Wuletaw Mekuria a, *, Kavitha Nachimuthu b
a
Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, University of Gondar, P.O. Box 196, Gondar, Ethiopia
b
RD National Arts and Science (Co-education) College, Erode, Tamilnadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Soil erosion has long been a problem in the Ethiopian highlands in general and Dembecha district in
Received 27 July 2019 particular. The objective of this study was to identify factors influencing adoption of soil and water
Received in revised form conservation practices. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from primary and sec-
23 January 2020
ondary sources. The primary data were collected from respondent samples and key informants through
Accepted 30 January 2020
Available online 3 February 2020
interview and personal observation. The secondary data were collected from sources such as books,
journals, statistical reports and official documents. A multistage sampling technique was applied to select
sample households. Sample sizes of 150 households were selected using simple random sampling. Both
Keywords:
Adoption
descriptive statistics and a multivariate probit econometric model were employed to analyze the data.
Multivariate probit model The model results revealed that the likelihood of decisions to adopt soil bund, stone bund, check dam
Soil degradation and strip cropping were 74, 56, 29 and 56% respectively. The joint probability of adopting the selected soil
Strip cropping and water conservation practices was 14.2%. The model results also confirmed that age, sex, education
level, household size, livestock holding, land size, access to credit, access to extension service and
training were significant factors that affected the adoption of soil and water conservation practices in the
study area. Based on our findings, the study suggests that the government and stakeholders should focus
on strengthening the provision of formal and non-formal training and facilitate an effective extension
service.
© 2020 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and
Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction 2018), which resulted in diminishing of crop and livestock pro-

Agricultural sector play a vital role to improve economic
development, enhance food security, and alleviate poverty.
Nevertheless, depletion of natural resource is one of the major
problems throughout the world. The survey report for soil degra-
dation in the International Soil Reference and Information centers
indicated that nine million hectares of land is degraded all over the
world (Mohammed et al., 2018). Ethiopia is dependent on agricul-
ture to satisfy the demands for food and other goods and services.
Conversely, the role of agriculture in improving poverty and food
insecurity is undermined owing to land degradation such as soil
erosion and nutrient depletion (Asnake, Heinimann, Gete, & Hurni,
Abbreviations: LULC, land use/land cover; m.a.s.l, meter above sea level; SWC,
soil and water conservation; TLU, tropical livestock unit.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wuletaw.mekuria@uog.edu.et (W. Mekuria).
ductivity (Akalu, DeGraaff, & Menale, 2016).
Land degradation is one of the socio-economic and environ-
mental challenges in Ethiopia, which is caused by inappropriate
agricultural practice, steepness of the farm land, undulated
topography, erratic rainfall, low vegetation cover, severe water
erosion and weak land resource management (Awulachew, 2010).
In view of that the government has approved several interventions
to reduce the episodes of land degradation. As a result, many
catchments have been covered with bio-physical terracing such as
bunds, area closure and tree plantation. Yet, the achievements are
below expectation. According to the Ethiopian Highlands Recla-
mation Study (EHRS, 2010), the cost for soil erosion is estimated 1.9
billion US dollars between 1985 and 2010. Soil erosion led to loss of
fertile soil and nutrients, which resulted in low agricultural pro-
ductivity and economic growth.
To reduce land degradation, diverse SWC (SWC) measures have
been implemented throughout the country (Adimassu, Mekonnen,
Yirga, & Kessler, 2014; Kato, Ringler, Yesuf, & Bryan, 2011). Despite

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.01.005
2095-6339/© 2020 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 A. Belachew et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8 (2020) 80e89
massively mobilized works and campaigns have been put into ac-
tion, it could not bring soil degradation to end. Hence, soil degra-
dation in the highlands of Ethiopia remains a serious problem that
threatens the subsistence agriculture. The declining of land pro-
ductivity has been more severe and critical than ever before.
Studies showed that 50% of the highlands have significant soil
erosion, 25% of it is highly eroded and 4% of the eroded land is
beyond reclamation (Akalu et al., 2016). This situation becomes
worse in the highlands where 90% of population and 66% of the
total land is located. Out of which, 90% of the land is regularly
cultivated and exposed to soil erosion (Daniel & Mulugeta, 2017).
Likewise, people who live in the study area are facing extreme soil
degradation.
Different SWC practices were introduced to Ethiopia. Various
types of terraces, area closure, and other SWC structures have been
practiced on individual and communal lands through productive
safety net and food for work programs since the 1970s and 1980s
(Yitayal & Adam, 2014). In Dembecha district both traditional and
modern SWC structures have been practiced by farmers. According
to Dembecha District Office of Agriculture (2018), the office has
planned to implement soil bund on 48746 ha of farmland for eight
consecutive years (2011e2018), but its achievement was 26124 ha,
which is lower than what was planned. In addition, check dam,
stone bund, micro-basin, water pond, waterway, area closure, crop
rotation, strip cropping, mulching, crop residue, compost, tree
plantation and other bio-physical SWC practices have been intro-
duced and practiced in the study area.
Environmental protection and soil conservation is very crucial to
enhance crop yields and ameliorate the livelihoods of rural families
(Karidjo, Wang, Boubacar, & Wei, 2018). Various SWC practices
have been tested through development projects and local knowl-
edge of farmers. It is imperative to create favorable conditions so
that large number of farmers can take advantage from SWC prac-
tices (Asnake et al., 2018). The practices fully adopted only when
their execution is sustained and fully integrated in the household’s
farming systems (Kessler, 2006). Therefore, merely the presences of
SWC practices are not lead to sustainable land management unless
the users proceed to final adoption. Despite substantial efforts have
been made to ensure ecological and economic benefits, the
implemented practices have not been widely adopted by small-
holder farmers in Ethiopia.
Even though the government of Ethiopia promoted various SWC
practices, farmers could not implement practices and improve
agricultural productivity (Asnake et al., 2018). The performances of
SWC practices are less effective and mostly undertaken in cam-
paigns without the full participation of crop producers and live-
stock keepers. Demographic, economic, institutional and physical
factors influence farmers’ decision on adoption of agricultural
technologies (Belete, 2017; Berhanu et al., 2016; Damtew, Husen, &
Demeku, 2015; Daniel & Mulugeta, 2017; Kebede & Mesele, 2014;
Mohammed et al., 2018; Mulie, 2012; Yitayal & Adam, 2014;
Zemenu & Minale, 2014). However, researches on SWC practices
among smallholders are limited and have not yet been studied in
Dembecha district, which are crucial for designing policies and
strategies (Asnake et al., 2018). Therefore, the objective of this study
was to identify factors influencing adoption of SWC practices
among farmers in the study area.
2. Methodology
2.1. Description of the study area
Dembecha district is situated in West Gojjam zone of Amhara
region, the west central Ethiopia. The district is located at a distance
of 349 km from Addis Ababa and 210 km far from Bahir Dar, the
81
regional city (Fig. 1). The total area of the district is 898.19 km2,
which embrace 25 rural and 4 urban Kebeles (the lowest adminis-
trative unit in the country). The total population of the district is
about 153,582, of which 76833 were males and 76749 were fe-
males. About 83, 11 and 6% of the district is characterized by Woina
Dega, Dega, and Kolla agro-climatic zones, respectively (Dembecha
District Office of Agriculture, 2018).
The mean annual temperature and rainfall were 28
C and
1006 mm. The altitude of the district ranges between 1500 and
2999 m.a.s.l. As the slope of land increased, the majority of farmers
were motivated to implement SWC practices that could reduce soil
erosion and mineral depletion. The land features of the district
were plain (60%), mountainous (30%) and valley (10%). During the
study period, 4647.08 ha of land accounted for forest, 1880.47 ha for
bush, 13209 ha for grazing land and 10208 ha for infrastructure and
institutions such as settlements, elementary schools, human and
animal health center, farmer training center and 233 ha was
covered by water bodies. The remaining 16757.18 ha of land was
used for different purposes like beekeeping, fattening of animals,
and roads. The soil colors in the district include red, brown and
black with 65, 25, and 10% respectively.
The majority of households produced maize, tef, wheat, Niger
seed, finger millet, barley, faba-bean and field-pea. The study dis-
trict was an eminent producer of the local alcohol-‘Araki’ prepared
from different crops mainly from lupine and millet. Animal hus-
bandry was one of the most important activities in the study area.
Ox, cow, bull, heifer, calf, donkey, sheep, goat and chicken were
commonly reared animals by sampled households in the study
area. Moreover, some households practiced modern and traditional
beehives (Dembecha District Office of Agriculture, 2018).
2.2. Research design
2.2.1. Sampling procedures and sample size determination
Quantitative and qualitative research approaches were
employed using cross-sectional survey. Multi-stage sampling pro-
cedures were carried out in order to select respondent households.
In the first stage, the study district was selected purposively based
on its accessibility for transportation and communication. In the
second stage, four study Kebeles were selected purposively. In the
third stage, respondent farmers were selected through simple
random sampling from the sampling frame with probability pro-
portional to size. The sample size was determined using a formula
adapted in Israel (1992).
N
n¼
 (1)
1 þ N e2
Where: n is the sample size, N is the population size and e is the
level of precision (8%)
The study Kebeles were Daba, Gelila, Enamora, and Yechereka-
Tsion. The size of households was 1234 in Gelila, 1284 in Daba, 445
in Enamora and 832 in Yechereka-Tsion. Thus, a total of 150 sample
households were selected.
2.2.2. Data types and method of data collection
In order to get adequate information, both quantitative and
qualitative data were collected from primary and secondary sour-
ces. The secondary data were collected from different papers, while
the primary data were collected from surveyed households sup-
plemented by key informants and field observations.
2.2.3. Method of data analysis
Both descriptive statistics and econometric models were
employed for data analysis. Multivariate Probit model was
82 A. Belachew et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8 (2020) 80e89

Fig. 1. Map of study area.

Source: Geographical information system version 10.1.

employed to analyze factors influencing adoption of SWC practices. multivariate Probit model to identify the interdependence and joint
This model was preferred due to the fact that the number of probability of success and failure among dependent variables (soil
selected dependent variables were four and non-continuous, which bund, stone bund, check dam and strip cropping).
can reproduce correlations among binary responses of multiple
8
practices (Nhemachena & Hassen, 2007). Multivariate Probit con- >
>
> SBUND ¼ X ’1 b1 þ εA
firms not only the existence of the correlation between adoption >
>
>
< STBNUD ¼ X ’ b þ εB
and non-adoption decisions but also indicates existence of in- 2 2
(2)
terdependencies among agricultural practices in both and decisions > CHKD ’
3 b3 þ ε
C
>
> ¼ X
(Seid, 2015). Univariate Probit or Logit would result inconsistent >
>
>
: ’
estimates of probablities and can lead to inconsistent results in the STPCR ¼ X 4 b4 þ ε D

presence of correlation among unobserved factors (Greene, 2008).

The selection of one type of SWCpractice would be dependent on 0 1 20 10 13
the selection of the other, given that households’ adoption de- εA 0 1 r12 r13 r14
B εB C 6B CB 1 r23 r24 C 7
cisions are interdependent, suggesting the need to estimate them B C//N6B 0 CB r21 C7 (3)
@ εC A 4@ 0 A@ r31 r32 1 r34 A5
simultaneously.
Previous studies on determinants of adoption for SWC practices εD 0 r41 r42 r43 1
were analysed using logit, tobit, and bivariant models. Neverthe-
 
less, these models do not show the interdependence among
E ε=X ¼ 0
dependent variables. Hence, multivariate Probit model can
 
consistently estimate the probablities of each and joint SWC prac-
Var ε=X ¼ 1 (4)
tices. Besides, the model showed associations among dependent
variables and estimated a number of correlated binary outcomes  
Cov ε=X ¼ r
jointly. This study considered alternative SWC structures, for which
farmers may choose different types of practices simultaneously.
Therefore, we were initiated to conduct the study using Where SBUNDj, STBUNDj, CHKDj and STPCRj were binary variables
taking value 1 when farmer j adopt SBUNDj, STBUNDj, CHKDj and
 A. Belachew et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8 (2020) 80e89
STPCRj respectively, and 0 otherwise; X1 to X4 are vectors of in-
dependent variables determining the adoption of SWC practices,
b0 s are vectors of simulated maximum likelihood parameters to be
estimated; εA to εD are correlated disturbances in a multivariate
probit model; and r’s are tetrachoric correlations between endog-
enous variables.
In the tetravariant case, there were sixteen joint probabilities
corresponding to the sixteen possible combinations of successes (a
value of 1) and failures (a value of 0). If one focus on the probability
that every outcome is a success, for instance, the probabilities that
enter the likelihood function on the adoption of SWC practices are
explained as:
PrðSBUND ¼ 1; STBUND ¼ 1; CHKD ¼ 1; STPCR ¼ 1Þ


¼ f3 b1 ’ X1 ; b02 X2 ; b03 X3 ; b4 ’ X4 ; r
 
¼ Pr εA  bX1 ; εB  bX2 ; εC  bX3 ; εD  bX4
2.3. Hypothesized variables
2.3.1. Dependent variable
In this study, soil bund, stone bund, check dam and strip crop-
ping were dependent variables. These SWC practices are the major
structures selected purposively during preliminary field assess-
ments. Soil and stone bunds have been constructed on agricultural
lands in general and croplands in particular. Check dam was the
most crucial SWC structure in different land uses that helps to
reclaim gully formation and land dissection. Strip cropping was
selected among various biological practices due to the fact that it
helps not only to conserve soil and water resources but also im-
proves the fertility status of the soil. Besides, the four selected SWC
practices were the most extensive structures in the study areas. The
empirical and operational definitions of the dependent variables
are stated as follows:
Check dam: It is an obstruction wall across the bottom of a gully
or a small river to reduce the velocity of the run-off and prevent
deepening or widening of the gully. Check dams can be constructed
in varied length from locally available materials such as stones,
wooden poles and gabions. The length of check dam depends on
the width of the gully. In the study area, these structures are mostly
constructed on gullies for protecting the expansion of gully
dissection. Farm tools used for check dam construction are the
same with that of stone bund.
Strip cropping: It is the practice of strips of two or more crops
alternately placed on the contour for various purposes. The practice
is useful for controlling soil erosion in areas where cropping system
is dominated by sparsely populated row crops. If the first strip of
crop is a row crop, which is susceptible to erosion such as sorghum
and maize, the second crop could be a crop that effectively controls
soil erosion. Hence, if the first strip is maize or sorghum, the second
can be forage or legume. Maize and sorghum are soil-depleting
crops while the legume is soil enriching.
Soil Bund: Soil bund is a physical soil conservation and water
harvesting structure built by farmers. The design of the structure is
0.5 m height and 25 cm depth on average by digging a trench
forming embankments or ridges (Hurni, 2016, p. 134).
Stone Bund: Stone bunds are barriers of stones placed at regular
intervals along the contour. The height of the stone bund varies
between 0.5 and 2 m and may be 5e10 m apart depending on the
availability of stones and the slope of topography (Megersa, 2011).
Adoption of each structure - stone bund, soil bund, check dam,
and strip cropping-assigned 1 if the sampled households adopted
these structures and 0, otherwise.
83
2.3.2. Independent variables
Factors that influence the outcome variable refer to independent
variable. In this study, the hypothesized independent variables
might affect adoption of farmers on soil bund, stone bund check
dam and strip cropping SWC practices. These factors are supposed
to affect the adoption of farmers on those SWC practices positively
or negatively significantly or insignificantly.
SEX: It is a dummy variable, 1 for male and 0 otherwise. It was
hypothesized that females are expected not to participate in SWC
practices. Evidently, women have been involved in productive as
well reproductive roles within a household. Women’s face work
loads so they have no sufficient time to get extension service about
SWC practices. Male-headed households have better access to in-
formation than female-headed households. This situation may help
(5) to adopt SWC practices.
AGE: It is the age of household heads. It is a continuous variable
measured in years. Daniel and Mulugeta (2017) found that younger
farmers spent more efforts on SWC measures compared to older
farmers. Despite younger farmers are more likely to adopt agri-
cultural technologies, age of the household-head can have a
negative or positive influence on adoption of SWC activities.
HHSIZE: Household size is a continuous variable, which refers to
the number of people who live in a household. Members in a
household have an important bearing on the adoption of labor-
intensive agricultural technologies. It is Households with larger
household size imply more human capital in terms of labor to adopt
more SWC measures. Damtew et al. (2015) and Belete (2017) found
that household with large size had more SWC practices. Therefore,
household size was expected to have a positive influence on the
adoption of SWC practices.
EDUC: Education is a discrete variable that refers to the level of
education attended by the household head. The category for edu-
cation was made based on previous studies (Erkie, 2016). Educa-
tional level of the household head assigned 1 for illiterate; 2 for able
to read and write; 3 for primary school (1e8) and 4 for secondary
school (9e12). This variable was expected to have a positive effect
on adoption of SWC practices. Educated farmers can have better
knowledge and awareness on how to conserve water and soil to
prevent run-off. They tend to recognize risks associated with soil
erosion and hence they could have tendency to spend more time
and money on SWC practices. This is because literate farmers seek
knowledge from development agents about SWC practices as well
as agricultural technologies. Educated farmers are presumed to
have exposure to new technologies and innovations, and are more
receptive to new ideas and willing to adopt SWC practices (Belete,
2017; Daniel & Mulugeta, 2017; Erkie, 2016).
EXTEN: Access to extension service refers to contact of devel-
opment agents with farers to deliver extension services. It is a
dummy variable 1 for household-heads that access to extension
service and 0, otherwise. Extension is the effort to disseminate
information on SWC practices to farmers at Kebele and sub-Kebele
levels. Extension service plays a great conscientiousness in
awareness about SWC practices and the possibility of a farmer to
decide to practice SWC activities. If farmers contact with develop-
ment agent and access to information and advice on innovations
and types of SWC measures and their use, and management of
technologies which will directly lead to enhance farmers’ in-
vestments on their land. Therefore, extension contact was expected
to have a positive and significant influence on the adoption of SWC
practices.
LIVES: Livestock size is a continuous variable, that is, the total
number of livestock holding of a farmer measured in tropical
livestock unit (TLU). Therefore, livestock size is expected to affect
adoption of SWC positively.
SLOPE: Slope is a discrete variable, assigned 1 for very steep
84 A. Belachew et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8 (2020) 80e89
farmlands, 2 for steep farmland, 3 for gentle farmlands and 4 for flat
farmland topography. Slope has been found to have a positive effect
on the adoption of soil conservation practices. The steeper the
slope, the more likely the land will be exposed to erosion. Hence, it
is believed that adoption of SWC practice tends to be likely on
steeper slopes (Belete, 2017; Damtew et al., 2015). The slope of the
land was expected to affect adoption of SWC practice positively.
TRAIN: Participating in training is a dummy variable 1 for
trained household heads and 0 otherwise. Training was expected to
have a positive and significant effect on the adoption of SWC
practices. If farmers participate in training by development agents
on SWC practices, they can be more aware of on SWC practices than
not participated. Daniel and Mulugeta (2017) reported that training
of farmers could increase the probability of adoption, utilization
and implementation of SWC practices.
DIST: Farm distance is a continuous variable. It is the distance
between household’s homes and farmlands for production activ-
ities and expressed in hours. Distance was hypothesized to be
negative on the adoption of SWC practices. If the distance between
household’s home and the farmland is long, farmers could not have
interest to manage their land. Daniel and Mulugeta (2017) and
Belete (2017) found that limited numbers of farmers were
frequently inspected and maintain their land whilst the distance
has increased. Less time and energy are needed to manage closed
farmland than far from their homes as a result they are discouraged
from conserving their farm land. It implies that longer walking
distance between farmland and residential area was reduced the
adoption of SWC practices.
LAND: Farm size stands for cultivated and fallow lands. It is a
continuous variable measured in hectare. Farm size is often corre-
lated with farm income and wealth. Therefore, those farmers with
larger farm size could have more cash to pay for wage labor while
undertaking land conservation. According to Berhanu et al. (2016)
and Belete (2017) land size is found to have positive effect on the
adoption of SWC practice. This implies that farmers with relatively
larger holdings had higher probability to apply conservation tech-
nologies. This can be attributed to the fact that conservation
structures occupy part of the productive land and farmers with
larger farm size can afford retaining structures compared to those
with relatively lower farm size. Hence, land size was expected to
have positive influence on adoption of SWC practices.
CREDIT: Access to credit service is a dummy variable repre-
sented by 1 for a household who had access to credit and 0 other-
wise. Access to credit was hypothesized to play a significant role in
enhancing the adoption of SWC practices. A study was conducted
by Zemenu and Minale (2014) on credit services for farm inputs and
consumption could increase the adoption of conservation measures
by farmers. The summary of independent and dependent variables
are shown in Table 1.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Household characteristics
Demographic attributes: The result of the survey indicated that
out of 150 total sampled household heads, 83.3% of them were male
and the remaining 16.7% of household heads were female. The
survey result indicated that 49.3% of household-heads were illit-
erate, 36.7% farmers were read and write, 12.7% had primary
educational levels and the remain 1.3% attended their secondary
education (Table 2). Most of the households were not educated and
thus might have little access to information about newly intro-
duced SWC practice in the study area.
The average age of sample household-heads was found to be
41.6 ± 8 years ranged from 22 to 70 years. The survey results
showed that the average household size was 6.9 ± 1.8. The mini-
mum and maximum size of household size was 1 and 10,
respectively.
Economic characteristics: In the study area, 60% of sampled
households could access to agricultural credit. The main source of
credit for 52.7% of households was Amhara credit and saving
institution (ACSI). Neighbors, relatives and local lenders were also
source of credit for households. About 44.7% of the households took
the credit in the form of cash, 9.3% of households accessed to credit
in kind and others 6% households took credit in the form of both in
cash and in kind to purchase improved seed, fertilizer and livestock.
However, there was no credit for SWC practice for the past three
years. The majority (40%) of respondents reported that there is lack
of credit access (Table 2). Moreover, household heads were asked
whether they need credit for SWC practices in the future and in
what form if they need. Survey result indicated about 85.3% of the
total respondents need credit for SWC practice in the form of cash
(50%), in kind (12%) and 23.3% both in cash and in kind and 14.7% of
them did not need credit for SWC practices.
The study results showed that the average livestock holding was
5.87 ± 2.0. The minimum and maximum livestock sizes were 1 and
12 TLU per household, respectively. Livestock production played
important roles. Farmers reared animals of different type for
various purposes such as food (egg, milk and meat), clothes, means
of transport and source of cash for urgent household expenses,
health insurance against various diseases in family members, house
construction, wage labor and fuel, draft power, and manure to
improve the fertility of soil in the study area. However, 97.3% of
sampled households sold their livestock, but they could not invest
money to construct SWC practices. Livestock are considered as a
measure of wealth in rural areas. Farm households having a number
of livestock are considered as wealthy farmer in the farming com-
munity. The main sources of feed for livestock in the study area
include grazing land, hay, and crop residue like stalk of maize. The
residue of local alcohol ‘Atela’ also used as source of feed for live-
stock. The land size per household varied between 0 and 3.0 ha
(Table 3). The average land size of households was 1.5 ± 0.6 ha.
There was scarcity of land in the study area due to mainly popu-
lation growth. Fallowing was not common because of small land
size, and there was also shortage of grazing land.
Institutional services: Nearly 45.3% of households accessed to
extension service regarding to SWC practices. From the total
sampled households, 44.1% of them accessed to extension service
once per year. On the other hand, 54.7% of households did not get
extension service on SWC practices. Two to three development
agents were employed in one Kebele. When the number of agents is
limited, they cannot solve or address problems regarding to crop
production, livestock production, natural resource conservation,
irrigation, cooperative and land uses. Mass media was another
means of dissemination of agricultural technologies in general and
SWC practices in particular. Since the majority of farmers are illit-
erate, mass media such as radio is important to disseminate agri-
cultural information. About 44% of households had radio through
which they accessed to information for SWC practices. Radio is the
second most frequent source of information farming practices after
development agents. Television, mobile phone and various non-
governmental actors were also important source of information.
Government and non-government organizations delivered
trainings jointly in the study area. However, the survey result
indicated that only 38% of the households were trained related to
SWC interventions. It is not only development agents and different
communication channels but also there were established com-
mittee and the selected members were responsible to mobilize
community to accomplish SWC activities in effective and efficient
way. About 6.3% of household heads were members of the
 A. Belachew et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8 (2020) 80e89 85

Table 1
Summary of descriptions and units of measurements for hypothesized variables.

Variables Description and unit of measurement

Dependent variables
SBUND Households practiced soil bund: 1 ¼ yes; 0 ¼ no
STBUND Households practiced stone bund 1 ¼ yes; 0 ¼ no
CHKD Households practiced check dam 1 ¼ yes; 0 ¼ no
STPCR Households practiced strip cropping 1 ¼ yes; 0 ¼ no
Independent variables
SEX Sex of the household head is dummy variable; 1 ¼ male and 0 ¼ female
AGE Age of the household head is continuous variable measured in years
EDUC Educational level of the household head measured in year of schooling
HHSIZE Household size is a continuous variable measured in number
LIVES Livestock holding is continuous variable measured in TLU
LAND Land size is a continuous variable measured in hectare
CREDIT Access to credit is dummy variable; 1 ¼ accessible and 0 otherwise
DIST Distance from home to farmland measured in walking minutes
SLOPE Slope of the farmland; 1 ¼ very steep,2 ¼ steep 3 ¼ gentle 4 ¼ flat
EXTEN Contact of development agents with farmers; 1 ¼ yes; 0 ¼ No
TRAIN Participation in training on SWC practices; 1 ¼ Yes; 0 ¼ No

Source: Own survey, 2018/2019

Table 2 slope the farmlands. Farmers who have farms in areas where more
Descriptive result for dummy and discrete variables. prone to soil erosion such as steep are expected to experience soil
Household characteristics Frequency Percent erosion and therefore the impact of top soil loss due to erosion was
high than flat lands. Similarly, sampled households could classify
Sex of the household heads
Male 125 83.3
their farm plot in to flat, gentle, steep and very steep slopes by their
Female 25 16.7 own observation of the landscapes based on their own indigenous
Educational level of the household heads knowledge. In the study area, the average walking distance be-
Illiterate 74 49.3 tween home of households and farmland was 21.4 ± 11.0 min. A
Able to read and write 55 36.7
household-head walked a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 50 min
Primary (grade 1e8) 19 12.7
Secondary (grade 9e12) 2 1.3 to arrive at their farmlands. Remoteness and scattered distribution
Access to credit service of farm plots are one of the factors that could hinder adopting SWC
Yes 90 60.0 practices.
No 60 40.0
Access to extension service
Yes 68 45.3 3.2. Factors influenced adoption of SWC practices
No 82 54.7
Participated in training of SWC practice
Yes 57 38.0 The main objective of this section was to examine factors
No 93 62.0 influencing adoption of SWC practices among farmers in the study
Slope class for farmlands area. Multivariate Probit model was employed to examine de-
Very steep 6 3.7
terminants of adoption on the selected SWC practices. The results
Steep 112 68.2
Gentle 26 15.9 of the model are presented in Table 4. The results showed that the
Flat 20 12.2 model fitted the data reasonably well. The Wald test was used to
Source: Own survey, 2018/2019; Note: Some of the households had farmlands from
test the model fitness, which was chi2 (44) ¼ 142.36. The
different slope classes. prob > chi2 ¼ 0.000 was significant at the 1%. It indicated that the
subset of coefficients of the model was jointly significant and that
the explanatory power of the factors included in the model was
Table 3 satisfactory. The likelihood ratio test of the null hypothesis of
Descriptive result for continuous variables. independency between the adoption of SWC practices
Household characteristics Min Max Mean SD (d21 ¼ d31 ¼ d41 ¼ d32 ¼ d42 ¼ d43 ¼ 0) was significant at 1%.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that all the d (Rho) values jointly
Age of the household-head 22 70 41.6 8.1
Household size 1 10 6.9 1.9 equal to 0 is rejected, indicating the goodness-of-fit of the model or
Total livestock size 1 12 5.8 2.0 implying that the decisions to adopt SWC practices are interde-
Total land size 0 3.0 1.51 0.61 pendent. The d values (dij) indicated the degree of correlation be-
Distance from home to farm 0 50 21.45 11.0
tween SWC practices.
Source: Own survey, 2018/2019 The simulated maximum likelihood estimation results sug-
gested that d31 (there was a positive correlation between the
adoption of check dam and soil bund and it was significant at 5%
committee. As key informant reported, being the member of significant level). Soil bund and check dam are physical SWC
committee was important to gain knowledge and easily access to practices. This finding showed that farmers who practiced soil bund
information about SWC practices. were more likely in practicing check dam. The d41 (there was a
Biophysical factors: The technical classification of slope in terms negative correlation between strip cropping and soil bund) and it
of its percentage is flat (0e3%), gentle (3e15%), steep (15e30%), and was significant at 1% significance. The negative sign indicates that
very steep (30e50) slopes (Megersa, 2011). Sampled household- farmers practiced strip cropping (biological SWC) was less likely to
heads were asked to perceive and classify their farms plots into practice soil bund. The probable reason behind negative relation-
different slope classes. The severity of erosion is determined by the ship could be soil bund is more labor consuming than strip
86 A. Belachew et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8 (2020) 80e89

Table 4
Result of multivariate probit model for SWC practices.

Soil bund Stone bund Check dam Strip cropping

Variables Coef Std err Coef Std err Coef Std err Coef Std err

SEX 0.96 0.68 0.254 0.43 0.282 0.38 0.97*** 0.37

AGE 0.08*** 0.03 0.0008 0.01 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.01
EDUC 0.01 0.23 0.72*** 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.34** 0.16
HHSIZE 0.82*** 0.16 0.068 0.08 0.13 0.095 0.198*** 0.07
LIVES 0.42*** 0.13 0.047 0.74 0.18 0.07 0.016 0.06
LAND 0.57 0.37 0.43* 0.24 0.004 0.22 0.44** 0.22
CREDIT 1.18*** 0.42 2.21*** 0.35 1.8*** 0.49 1.47*** 0.30
DIST 0.02 0.01 0.006 0.01 0.016 0.01 0.005 0.11
SLOPE 0.25 0.16 0.110 0.097 0.46 0.09 0.103 0.08
EXTEN 1.40** 0.60 0.59 0.43 0.59 0.48 0.88** 0.38
TRAIN 0.98 0.61 0.58 0.47 1.13** 0.48 0.79** 0.39
Constant 0.66 2.31 2.19 1.63 2.30 1.70 2.53* 1.41
Predicted probability 0.74 0.56 0.29 0.56
d21 (0.004)0.20
d31 (0.506**)0.23
d41 (-0.625***)0.16
d32 (0.172)0.18
d42 (0.398***)0.14
d43 (-0.439***)0.16
Number of draws 5
Wald chi2 (44) 142.36***
Likelihood ratio test of independences rho21 ¼ rho31 ¼ rho41 ¼ rho32 ¼ rho42 ¼ rho43 ¼ 0
Joint probability (success) 0.1417
Joint probability (failure) 0.107

Source: Model results Note: ***, ** and * show the values statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10% probability level respectively. Values in parenthesis indicate the degree of
correlation.

cropping. The d42 (there was a positive correlation between strip
cropping and stone bund and significant at 1% significance, led to
conclusion that farmers who practiced strip cropping was more
likely to practice stone bund. And d43 (there was a negative cor-
relation between strip cropping and check dam and it was signifi-
cant at 1% significance. Farmers who adopt strip cropping may not
adopt check dam due to lack of labor and the two SWC practices are
different, the formers is biological cropping while the later is
physical conservation.
The model results showed that the probability that farmers
practice soil bund, stone bund, check dam, and strip cropping were
74.0, 56.0, 29.0, and 56.0%, respectively. The likelihood of practicing
check dam was relatively low as compared to the probability of
practicing soil bund, stone bund, and strip cropping. This implies,
farmers were not interested to adopt check dam as compared to
other structures because that might take more time and demand
high labor and skill at the time of construction. The results of
regression are comparable with observed data computed using
descriptive statistics as indicated in Table 5.
The chi2 test showed that the separate estimation for adoption
of soil bund, stone bund, check dam and strip cropping is biased
and the decision to adopt the four practices is interdependent
household decisions. The joint probabilities of success or failure of
adopting the four types of SWC practices suggested that house-
holds were likely to adopt the SWC practices jointly. As indicated in
Table 4, the probability of farmers to adopt the four SWC practices is
14.2% implies that households were likely to succeed to choose all
selected practices at the same time is minimal. Farmers were un-
likely by 85.8% to succeed the four SWC practices.
From hypothesized independent variables, age, household size,
livestock holding, access to credit and access to extension were
significantly affect soil bund. Educational level of the household
head, land size and access to credit significantly affected the
adoption of stone bund. Access to credit and participating on
training regarding to SWC practice significantly affected adoption
of check dam. Sex, education, household size, land size, access to
credit, access to extension service and participating on training
regarding to SWC practice significantly affected the adoption of

Table 5
Types of soil and water conservation practices (multi response).

Types of soil and water conservation practices Frequency Percent Percent of cases

Physical SWC practices

Soil bund 111 22.3 74.0
Stone bund 84 17.0 56.0 56.0
Stone-faced soil bund 40 8.0 26.6 26.6
Fanyajuu 4 0.8 2.6 2.6
Micro-basin 8 1.7 5.3 5.3
Check dam 45 9.1 30.0 30.0
Water way 44 8.8 29.0 29.0
Water pond 9 1.8 6.0 6.0
Biological SWC practices
Strip cropping 82 16.5 54.7 54.7
Plantation on bund 25 5.0 16.7 16.7
Mulching and crop residue 22 4.4 14.7 14.7
Area closure 23 4.6 15.3
 A. Belachew et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8 (2020) 80e89
strip cropping in the study area. Among employed explanatory
variables, access to credit could affect adoption of all selected SWC
practices significantly and negatively.
SEX: The sex of household-head influenced the adoption of strip
cropping negatively and significantly at 1%. Being male for house-
hold head, the adoption of strip cropping could decrease by 0.97.
The negative sign indicates male-headed household could not
adopt strip cropping. In contrast, female-headed households adopt
strip cropping than male-headed household in the study area. The
reason for negative relationship, biological SWC (strip cropping)
was mainly implemented around homesteads so that female-
headed household works easy. That means in order to construct
physical SWC practice (stone bund, soil bund, and check dam)
male-headed household-heads were more participants since it
require high labor-force as compared to strip cropping as a result
female-headed household may face difficulty to adopt these prac-
tices. The other reason, female-headed households have more
knowledge on the selection of seeds to grow strip crops that used to
improve nutrient content of food or diet in daily life from annual
food crops. This result is similar with the previous studies (Belete,
2017; Daniel & Mulugeta, 2017; Tenge, DeGraaff, & Hella, 2004).
Contrary to this result, sex of the household head is positively
related with the adoption of SWC practices (Mulie, 2012; Yitayal &
Adam, 2014; Damtew et al., 2015; Belete, 2017; Mohammed et al.,
2018.
AGE: Age of the household-head influenced the adoption of soil
bund negatively and it was statistically significant at 1%. As the age
of the household head increases by one year, the probability of
practicing soil bund decreases by 0.08%. The negative sign indicated
that as the age of the household head increases, ability to adopt soil
bund decreases. This means the decision for adoption of technol-
ogies by older farmers on soil bund decreases from time to time. In
other terms, younger farmers were more willingness to adopt soil
bund. Because they were ready to seek knowledge from different
sources and they had long-term plans to conserve SWC practices.
This result is in agreement with many studies (Daniel & Mulugeta,
2017; Dessalew, 2014; Mohammed et al., 2018). They found that age
of the household-head affect the adoption of SWC practice nega-
tively. On the contrary to this finding, Fikru (2009); Zemenu and
Minale (2014); Kebede and Mesele (2014); Damtew et al. (2015)
and Berhanu et al. (2016) reported, younger farmers do not
expend more effort on SWC practice (cut-off drain) as compared to
older ones.
EDUC: Educational level of household-heads increases farmers’
ability to get and use information and improves farmers’ decision to
adopt SWC practices. The result indicated educational affected the
adoption of stone bund and strip cropping positively and significant
at 1% and 5%. This finding is in conformity with the prior expec-
tation. As the education level of the household head increased by
one year of schooling, the adoption of stone bund and strip crop-
ping increased by 0.72 and 0.34 respectively. The possible expla-
nation is that educated farmers have better knowledge on risks
associated with soil erosion and hence tend to use appropriate SWC
practices for their farm plots. This result was similar with many
research findings (Mulie, 2012; Dessalew, 2014; Kebede & Mesele,
2014; Erkie, 2016; Belete, 2017; Daniel & Mulugeta, 2017. In their
findings, education increased the adoption behavior of SWC prac-
tices. Therefore, if educational level of household head increases
the adoption level on stone bund and strip cropping increases. But
in the contrary to this result Eleni (2008) found that illiterate
farmer have better awareness on SWC than literate farmers that
engaged in off-farm activities.
HHSIZE: Household size influenced the adoption of soil bund
and strip cropping positively and negatively at 1% significant level.
The survey results showed, as the household size increased by one-
87
person, the adoption of soil bund increased by 0.82%. This means
larger households adopted soil bund more than those with small
household sizes. This implies larger households had better labor
force to construct labor intensive physical SWC practices which are
more labor demanding than biological measures. This study agreed
with several empirical findings (Belete, 2017; Damtew et al., 2015;
Berhanu et al., 2016; Dessalew, 2014; Yitayal & Adam, 2014;
Zemenu & Minale, 2014). The household size influences the
adoption of strip cropping negatively at 1% significant level. The
negative sign indicated that, as the household size increased by
one-person, the adoption of strip cropping declined by 0.19%. This is
because households with larger household size were more likely to
face food shortage. The probable reason might be practicing strip
cropping needs less demand of labor as compared to constructing
soil bunds. Aklilu (2007) also found that larger families are less
likely to continue using stone terraces.
LIVES: Livestock production is an important component in the
mixed farming systems of the study area. Livestock holding affected
the adoption of soil bund positively and significantly at 1%; as
livestock holding increased by one TLU, the adoption of soil bund
increased by 0.42%. Livestock was the major source of income, food
and asset indicating the wealth status of households which is
important to increase the availability of capital and ability of
farmers to adopt soil bund. This implies that the money earned
from the sale of livestock is important to rent labor for soil bund
construction. This result is similar with different findings (Berhanu
et al., 2016; Fikru, 2009; Mulie, 2012; Yitayal & Adam, 2014;
Zemenu & Minale, 2014).
Theses all found that livestock holdings are positively correlated
to the adoption of improved soil/stone bund terraces, cut-off drain
and tree plantation. But in the contrary to this result, Aklilu (2007)
reported that livestock holding is correlated with adoption nega-
tively. This pointed out that large livestock size discouraged farmers
from engaging in SWC practices on plots for crop production due to
the attractive income they get from livestock. The other probable
reason for positive relationship between livestock size and soil
bund could be the issue of destruction. As the size of livestock in-
creases, the probability of soil bund construction increases due to
the fact that livestock destroy soil bund during open grazing as a
result the demand and frequency of soil bund construction in-
creases. The number of cattle is an indicator of economic security
that had a positive influence on performance of SWC (Zemenu &
Minale, 2014; Berhanu et al., 2016).
LAND: It is an important independent variable affected the
adoption of SWC in the study area. Land size influenced the
adoption of stone bund and strip cropping positively at 10% and 5%
significant level respectively. This result was in line with the prior
hypothesis. As the land size increased by 1 ha, the probability of
adopting stone bund and strip cropping increased by 0.43% and
0.44% respectively. A number of researchers found that farmers
who have big farms are more likely to invest soil conservation
practices (Belete, 2017; Dessalew, 2014; Kebede & Mesele, 2014;
Mulie, 2012; Yitayal & Adam, 2014; Zemenu & Minale, 2014;
Berhanu et al., 2016). On the contrary, the result of Mohammed
et al. (2018) and Habtamu (2006) explained that most of farmers
cultivated more land sizes are older farmers and often these
farmers lack labor required for maintaining conservation
structures.
CREDIT: Access to credit is another factor that influenced the
adoption of soil bund, stone bund, check-dam and strip cropping
negatively at 1% significant level. As households accessed to credit,
the adoption of the selected SWC practices decreased by 1.18, 2.21,
1.8 and 1.47 respectively. The correlation of credit and selected SWC
practices is not in agreement with the prior hypothesis. The
negative sign indicates that households who accessed to credit
88 A. Belachew et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8 (2020) 80e89
could not adopt soil bund, stone bund, check dam and strip crop-
ping. Even if there was credit in the study area, the purpose of the
credit mainly meant for purchasing livestock, house construction,
and fertilizer or improved seed purchasing and others that fulfill
necessity inputs for household member rather than managing their
farm plot. Moreover, households who had access to credit, they
favored non/off-farm activities to improve their livelihoods rather
than constructing SWC practices. This study agree with finding of
Eleni (2008) and Berhanu, Teddy, Dinaw, and Melese (2016) who
found that access to credit affect adoption of SWC practices nega-
tively. On the contrary to this finding, Zemenu and Minale (2014)
found that access to credit affect the adoption of SWC practice
positively.
EXTEN: Extension contact influenced the adoption of soil bund
and strip cropping negatively at 5% significant level. The negative
sign indicates that as the household-head advised, the probability
to adopt soil bund and strip cropping decreased by 1.4 and 0.88
respectively. This implies there were inadequate number devel-
opment agents and they were not solely involved in agriculture and
natural resource management activities. But they involved in other
extra-curricular affairs. For instance, they engaged issues related to
political affairs. Currently farmers hesitate to contact with DAs, and
thus are less likely to accept the technology. This result match with
Berhanu et al. (2016) who reported that access to extension service
influenced the adoption of SWC practice negatively. Nevertheless,
previous studies found that access to extension service affect the
adoption of SWC practices positively and significantly (Damtew
et al., 2015; Daniel & Mulugeta, 2017; Desalew, 2014; Erkie, 2016;
Mohammed et al., 2018; Mulie, 2012; Zemenu & Minale, 2014). On
the contrary, the finding of Aklilu (2007) showed that agricultural
extension is more focused on crops and livestock production than
on SWC practices so that farmers having contacts with extension
agents tend to reduce farmers’ investments in SWC practices.
TRAIN: Training affected the adoption of SWC practices. It
influenced the adoption of strip cropping positively at 5% signifi-
cant level. The survey results showed that as participation of
training related to SWC practice increased, the adoption of strip
cropping increased by 0.79. The probable reason for adopting strip
cropping due to training could be indigenous knowledge that the
farmers acquired through intergeneration. Another reason could be
also strip cropping needs little effort in training as compared to
check dam but it does not mean that training is not necessarily for
strip cropping. This result agreed with previous research findings
(Damtew et al., 2015; Daniel & Mulugeta, 2017; Desalew, 2014;
Erkie, 2016; Mohammed et al., 2018; Mulie, 2012; Zemenu &
Minale, 2014).
Training influenced the adoption of check dam negatively at 5%
significant level. The negative sign indicates, as households’
participation in training increased, the probability to adopt check
dam decreased by 1.13. This implies that farmers cannot adopt
technologies if they do not have access to all the relevant infor-
mation, but the information they obtained was often incomplete,
mainly focused only on the technical aspects and overlooked some
key criteria from a farmer’s point of view. In order to adopt check
dam successfully and efficiently practical training is essential. Thus,
most trained farmers adopt strip cropping rather than check dam.
This result is similar with Fikru (2009) who noted that access to
training has adverse effects on the adoption of SWC technologies.
4. Conclusions
Despite agriculture is the leading sector, the Ethiopian economy
was and still characterized by low productivity in general and low
yield per unit area in particular. This is attributed to faster rate of
population growth, soil nutrient depletion, low crop productivity,
and less motivation to adopt SWC practices among farmers.
Farmers could not adopt the existing practices efficiently for longer
period of time. Adoption of SWC practice was affected by de-
mographic, economic, institutional bio-physical and institutional
factors.
A Multivariate Probit model was considered to be the most
appropriate econometric model to use to analyze determinants of
adoption of SWC practices in the study area. The model explained
interdependent relationships between various soil and water
conservation practices chosen by the farmers. Wald test and
Likelihood ratio test of independences were used for assessing
model fitness (Taye, Degye, & Assefa, 2018). The Wald test was
applied to test the model fitness and showed that the data were
statistically significant (P ¼ 0.01). This implies that the depen-
dent variables were jointly significant and interdependent while
the independent variables included in the model were accept-
able. Moreover, the likelihood ratio test in the model
(rho21 ¼ rho31 ¼ rho41 ¼ rho32 ¼ rho42 ¼ rho43 ¼ 0) was also
significant (P ¼ 0.01). Therefore, the null hypothesis that all the
(Rho) values were jointly equal to zero is rejected. The result
indicated that farmers’ adoption on various soil and water con-
servation practices were interdependent.
The empirical results showed that age, sex, educational level,
household size, livestock holding, land size, access to credit, access
to extension service and participating in training are determinants
affected the adoption of selected SWC practices in the study. These
factors could affect the adoption of SWC practice positively and
negatively. The model results revealed that some factors influenced
adoption of SWC practices positively while others influenced
negatively. The result of the study provides information to policy
makers, agricultural practitioners, and other stakeholders on how
to improve the adoption of SWC practices among farmers. Hence, in
order to increase the probability of the adoption, agricultural
practitioners should mobilize youth farmers and train them for
successful implementation of conservation.
The regional and local government should strengthen the
existing formal and informal education through facilitating all
necessary materials in the area by constructing functional farmer
training center. Policies on efficient and intensive use of the exist-
ing limited farm land can be taken as an alternative through
designing of appropriate land use plan. The government should
strengthen human capital in terms of number and creating
conducive working environment. The lending institutions need to
have continuous follow up of farmers who received credit and
whether farmers have implemented based on the intended pur-
poses or not.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank respondent farmers for their sparing
time during interview. Our gratitude goes to agricultural experts at
Dembecha district for sharing their ideas and technical supports.
References
Adimassu, Z., Mekonnen, K., Yirga, C., & Kessler, A. (2014). The effect of soil bunds on
runoff, soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the central highlands of
Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development, 25, 554e564. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ldr.2182.
Akalu, T., DeGraaff, J., & Menale, K. (2016). Household-level determinants of SWC
adoption phases: Evidence from North-Western Ethiopian highlands. Journal of
Environmental Management, 57(3), 620e636.
 A. Belachew et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8 (2020) 80e89
Aklilu, A., & DeGraaff, J. (2007). Determinants of adoption and continued use of
stone terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland
watershed. Ecological Economics, 61(2007), 294e302. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2006.01.014.
Asnake, M., Heinimann, A., Gete, Z., & Hurni, H. (2018). Factors affecting the adoption
of physical SWC practices in the Ethiopian highlands. Journal of International
SWC Resource, 6(1), 23e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.12.006.
Awulachew, B. (2010). Constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system irrigation
potential in Ethiopia. Ethiopia: International Water Management Institute.
Belete, L. (2017). Factors influencing adoption of SWC practices in the case of Damota
watershed, Wolaita zone, Southern, Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural
Science and Research, 7(1), 001-009 http://academeresearchjournals.org/journal/
ijasr.
Berhanu, A., Teddy, G., Dinaw, D., & Melese, B. (2016). SWC practices: Economic and
environmental effects in Ethiopia. Global Journal of Agricultural Economics and
Econometrics, 4(1), 169e177. http://www.globalscienceresearchjournals.org/.
Damtew, A. A., Husen, M. A., & Demeku, M. A. (2015). Determinants of adopting
practice of SWC in Goromti watershed, western Ethiopia. Journal of Soil Science and
Environmental Management, 6(6), 168e177. https://doi.org/10.5897/JSSEM150492.
Daniel, A., & Mulugeta, N. (2017). Factors influencing adoption of SWC practices:
The case of Wereillu woreda (district), South Wollo zone, Amhara region,
Ethiopia. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 5(4), 273e279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.002.
Dembecha District Office of Agriculture. (2018). Annual Report on socio economic
profile and SWC practice of Dembecha District, Ethiopia.
Dessalew, M. (2014). Determinants of farmers’ perception of SWC practices on
cultivated land in Ankesha district, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science,
Engineering and Technology Research, 2(5), 1e9. http://asetr.org/.
Eleni, T. (2008). Determinants for continued use of SWC practices: The case of pro-
ductive safety net program in Tulla District, Ethiopia.
Erkie, M. (2016). Assessment of farmers’ awareness and adoption on SWC practices:
The case of Borebor micro watershed, Dera woreda, Ethiopia. http://localhost:
80/xmlui/handle/123456789/6667.
Ethiopian Highlands Reclamation Study (EHRS). (2010). An assessment of the cause,
severity, extent and problem consequence of degradation in the Ethiopian high-
lands. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fikru, A. (2009). Assessment of adopted behavior of SWC practices in the lake Koga
watershed highlands of Ethiopia. MA Thesis. Cornell University.
Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jer-
sey: New York University, 07458.
Habtamu, E. (2006). Adoption of physical SWC structure in anna watershed, Hadiya
zone, Ethiopia. Master thesis. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.
Hurni, H., Berhe, W. A., Chadhokar, P., Daniel, D., Gete, Z., Grunder, M., et al. (2016).
SWC in Ethiopia: Guidelines for development agents (Second revised edition).
89
Bern, Switzerland: Centre for Development and Environment (CDE). University
of Bern, with Bern Open Publishing (BOP).
Israel, G. D. (1992). Sampling the evidence of extension program impact. Program
evaluation and organizational development. ISAF, University of Florida.
Karidjo, B. Y., Wang, Z., Boubacar, Y., & Wei, C. (2018). Factors influencing farmers’
adoption of soil and water control measures in Keita valley, a semi-arid area of
Niger. Sustainability, 10(288), 2e13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020288.
Kato, E., Ringler, C., Yesuf, M., & Bryan, E. (2011). SWC practices: Is a buffer against
production risk is the face of climate change? Insights from the Nile basin in
Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 42, 593e604.
Kebede, W., & Mesele, N. (2014). Farmers adoption of SWC technology: A case study
of the Bokole and toni sub Watersheds, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Science &
Development, 2(1), 35e48.
Kessler, A. (2006). Moving people-towards collective action in SWC’s Experiences from
the Bolivian mountain valleys. PhD Dissertation. Wageningen University.
Megersa, T. (2011). Assessing the role of traditional land management practices in
improving cropland productivity: The case of Diga Woreda, Oromia. MSc Thesis.
Ambo, Ethiopia: Ambo University https://hdl.handle.net/10568/24867.
Mohammed, G., Yan, D., Wang, H., Basaznew, A., Mersha, C., & Genanew, A. (2018).
Determinant factors influencing crop production and adoption of SWC practices
in Semein Mountain National park, Ethiopia. International Journal of Environ-
mental Sciences and Natural resources, 13(2), 555858. https://doi.org/10.19080/
IJESNR.2018.13.555858.
Mulie, A. (2012). Adoption of SWC practices on farmlands: The case of Karita Wuha
watershed, west Belessa district, North Gondar, Ethiopia (MSc Thesis).
Nhemachena, C., & Hassen, R. (2007). Micro-level analysis of farmers’ adaptation to
climate change in Southern africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00714.
Seid, H. (2015). Disadoption, Substitutability, and complementarity of agricultural
technologies: A random effects multivariate probit analysis. Environment for
Development. Discussion paper Series, EfD DP 15-26.
Taye, M., Degye, G., & Assefa, T. (2018). Determinants of outlet choices by small-
holders onion farmers in Fogera district, Amhara Region, Northwest Ethiopia.
Journal of Horticulture and Forestry, 10(3), 27e35. https://doi.org/10.5897/
JHF2018.0524.
Tenge, A., DeGraaff, J., & Hella, J. (2004). Social and economic factors affecting the
Adoption of SWC in West Usambara highlands, Tanzania. Land Degradation &
Development, 15(2), 99e114.
Yitayal, A., & Adam, B. (2014). The impact of SWC program on the income and
productivity of farm households in Adama district, Ethiopia. Science, Technology
and Arts Research Journal, 3(3), 198e203.
Zemenu, D. A., & Minale, A. S. (2014). Adoption of soil conservation practices in
North Achefer district, Northwest Ethiopia. Chinese Journal of Population Re-
sources and Environment, 12(3), 261e268. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10042857.2014.934953.