COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

ASSESSMENT OF FARMER’S PERCEPTION TOWARDS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF

PHYSICAL SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES ON FARMLAND; IN
CASE OF PILA KEBELE, DEBUBE ARI WOREDA, SOUTH OMO ZONE, SOUTHERN
ETHIOPIA

ASENIOR RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT NATURAL

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN PARTIAL FUL FIILLMENT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR DEGREE OF BACHLOR SCIENCE OF IN NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

BY
ELISABET ASRES (KP/RAS/013/07)

ADVISOR: YOHANNES GOLIDA (MSc.)

FEBRUARY, 2020
ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, my greatest price and gratitude be to Almighty God, who made all things work
together for good to me (Romans 8:28) and helped me in every aspects by His grace. To who is
glory forever Amen. Any work needs the effort of a number of people. This research would not
have been possible without the guidance and the help of my advisor Yohannes Golida. Thus, my
sincere thanks should go to Him for his valuable advices, constructive comments and the time
availed until the finalization of this paper. My special and grateful thank has also goes to the
farmers who willingly participated in the interview and group discussions. I would like to
profoundly thank Debub Ari woreda agricultural and natural resource development office
workers together with all respondent farmers for their willingness to provide information.
Finally, it is my privilege to thank Arba Minch University, College of Agricultural Sciences, and
Department of Natural Resource Management who gave me the chance to conduct this kind of
research project under which I gained additional skill and knowledge to solve community
problem in the near future.

I
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................................................... II

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................III

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................................IV

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1

1.1. Background..................................................................................................................................1

1.3. Objective..........................................................................................................................................2

1.3.1. General objective.......................................................................................................................2

1.3.2. Specific objectives.....................................................................................................................3

1.3. Research Questions......................................................................................................................3

1.5 . Scope of the study......................................................................................................................3

1.6. Significance of the Study.................................................................................................................3

1.7. Limitation of the study......................................................................................................................3

2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................4

2.1. Soil and water conservation.............................................................................................................4

2.2. Types of Soil and water conservation...............................................................................................4

2.2.1. Physical soil and water conservation measures..........................................................................4

2.2.2. Biological soil and water conservation......................................................................................5

2.3. Factors affecting effectiveness of physical soil and water conservation...........................................5

2.4 . Adoption of Physical soil and water conservation...........................................................................5

2.5. Farmers perception towards physical soil and water conservation....................................................6

3. MATERIAL AND METHOD.................................................................................................................8

3.1. Description of Study Area................................................................................................................8

3.1.1. Location.....................................................................................................................................8

3.1.2. Climate......................................................................................................................................8

3.1.3. Land Use type............................................................................................................................8

3.1.4. Population..................................................................................................................................8

3.2. Methods............................................................................................................................................8

3.2.1. Methods of Data collection........................................................................................................8

II
 3.2.2. Sampling techniques..................................................................................................................9

3.2.3. Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................9

4. RESULT AND DISCUSION................................................................................................................10

4.1. Demographic characteristics of respondents...................................................................................10

4.2. Farmers’ Participation on the SWC Works.....................................................................................11

4.2. Farmer Perception towards physical soil and water conservation Measures...................................11

4.3. Farmer perception towards benefits of physical soil and water conservation Measures..................12

4.4. Factors Affecting Practices of physical Soil Conservation Measures.............................................13

4.4.2 Land Size and ownership on the land........................................................................................14

4.4.3 Labor shortage..........................................................................................................................15

4.5. Physical Soil and Water Conservation Technologies......................................................................15

4.6. Farmers’ perception on effectiveness of physical SWC structures on crop yield............................16

4.7. Implementation approach for SWC works......................................................................................17

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION.........................................................................................18

5.1. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................18

5.2. RECOMMENDATION..................................................................................................................19

REFERENCE............................................................................................................................................20

APPENDIX...............................................................................................................................................22

III
 LIST OF TABLES
Table pages
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents ………………………………………..19

Table 2: Major factors of physical soil and water conservation in farmland………………… 23

Table 3: Land size of respondents …………………………………………………………….23

Table 4: Physical SWC practices ……………………………………………………………..24

Table 5: Farmers’ indicators to evaluate SWC effect in Pila kebele of Ethiopia ….…………25

Table 6: Respondents’ opinion on effects of SWC on crop yield in Pila kebele…………….. 26

IV
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CSA Central statistics agency

SNNPR Southern nation nationality and people region

WRI World Resource Institute

PRA Participator rural appraisal

SWC Soil and water conservation

SWCM Soil and water conservation measures

V
 ABSTRACT
Several soil and water conservation (SWC) practices have been developed and promoted in
different parts of Ethiopia farmland. But most farmers think about increasing size of farmland
more than constructing and maintaining physical soil and water conservation. This study was
aimed to assess the farmer’s perception towards the effectiveness of physical soil and water
conservation measures on farmland in case of Pila Kebele, Debube Ari woreda,South Omo
Zone. Formal household survey, secondary data organization, focus group discussion and field
observation were used to generate the input data using simple random sampling technique. The
result showed that the majority of the respondent farmers participated in the SWC practices as it
is guided by national program. The most important factor discouraging them from participating
freely was the perceived ineffectiveness of the soil and water conservation structures measures
under construction. Awareness about severity soil erosion as a problem, Participation in SWC
activities, level of literacy, land be absolute private property and off-farm were found to be less
significant in providing an explanation for the disinterest shown by most of the respondent
farmers towards the SWC activities except farmers willingness of participation and adoptions of
soil conservation. Therefore, the most important factors that require immediate consideration
for SWC activities in the study area are: firstly, SWC structures have to be carefully designed
and constructed taking into account ground realities in the study sites, and secondly,
participation of the household farmers has to be through their own belief regarding the
effectiveness and efficiency of the physical soil and water conservation measures.

Keywords: Adoption; soil erosion; soil and water conservation; physical, biological

VI
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background
Soil and water conservation measures are predominantly applied for the purposes of controlling
runoff and thus preventing losses of soil erosion, and reducing soil compaction maintaining or
improving soil fertility, conserving or draining water and harvesting excess water (Tideman,
1996). In Ethiopia, Several soil and water conservation (SWC) practices have been developed
and promoted to overcome Natural resource degradation in general and soil erosion in particular,
in different part of country including South Nation Nationalities Peoples’ Region (SNNPR). But
most farmers think about increasing size of farmland more than constructing and maintaining
physical soil and water conservation this affect sustainability of physical soil and water
conservation. Despite the efforts made the use of new practices by farmers has not been
widespread. Unwise management and use of natural resources is one of the major socio-
economic and environmental factors that has caused low crop yield in SNNPR. Among the
natural resources; land, soil, forest and water are the major dominant ones which plays a vital
role on food security status of households (Million and Kasha, 2004).

Ethiopian highlands have been experiencing declining soil fertility and severe soil erosion due to
intensive farming on steep and fragile land (Amsalu and de Graaff, 2006). In Ethiopia, where
agriculture is the main stay of the economy (approximately 50% of GDP, 90% of foreign
exchange earnings (EEA, 2002) an estimated half of the Ethiopian highlands’ arable lands are
moderately to severely degraded and nutritionally depleted due to over cultivation, over grazing,
primitive production techniques, and over dependence on rainfall (Hugo et al., 2002).

According to (Chizana et al, 2006), investigating farmers’ perception of soil erosion and its
impact is important in promoting soil and water conservation technologies. To minimize the
severity of the problem of soil degradation, physical soil and water conservation interventions
with some new technologies were implemented in many parts of the country during the 1970s
and 1980s. They were introduced in some degraded and food deficit areas mainly through food-
for-work programs. The major types of conservation methods were structural type, and of these
the most common were the Bench terrace, fanya juu, water way, cutoff drain, plantation pits and
soil (or stone) bunds. Hundreds of thousands of kilometers of bunds and terraces were
constructed on croplands in Ethiopia (Belay, 1992). However, reports indicated that many of
these conservation structures have either not been adopted or not been sustainably used by the

VII
farmers (Fitsum et al., 2002). Farmers that seemed to be adopting soil and water conservation
technologies due to incentives or coercive pressures often dismantled the structures partially or
completely from their cultivated land. The failure to achieve the objective of adopting soil and
water conservation technologies is attributed to both technical problems, as well as complicated
socio-economic factors (Kessler, 2006).

1.2. Statement of the problem

Soil and water conservation is critically important to reduce soil degradation and to increase soil
productivity, as well as to maintain sustainability of development. This is because physical soil
and water conservation measures can improve the physical condition of soil like soil bulk
density, soil porosity, and soil PH and soil moisture, but some factors affect physical soil and
water conservation activities. Such as technical problems, farmers perception, topography, soil
type, rainfall, etc.
Efforts made in the earlier period but soil and water conservation did not bring about significant
results, mainly because of lack of bottom-up approach. In Debub Ari woreda there is high
mobilization to construct physical soil and water conservation structures in all kebeles but from
constructed structures more than 50% are not sustainable, because of there is no continuous
maintenances of construct physical soil and water conservation structures. Uprooting this past
oversight and instating a participatory approach has strongly recommended as the right strategy
which was being practices for some years now in the study area. The study area faces different
problems that decrease land productivity. The role of physical soil and water conservation on
increasing the productivity of land may be depends on its sustainable utilization and the good
perception of the farmers. Therefore this research will analyze the extent of farmers’ perception
and participation in the current physical soil and water conservation activities in Pila kebele.

1.3. Objective

1.3.1. General objective

 To asses Farmers perception towards the effectiveness of physical soil and water
conservation measures on farmland in Pila kebele

VIII
1.3.2. Specific objectives
 To identify existing physical soil and water conservation structures in study area.

 To determine factors affecting the effectiveness of constructed physical soil and water
conservation structures on study area.

 To assess the farmers’ perception towards constructed physical soil and water
conservation structures on study area.

1.3. Research Questions

 What are the existing physical soil and water conservation structures in study area?

 What is determine factors that affecting the effectiveness of constructed physical soil and
water conservation structures on study area?

 What is the farmers’ perception towards constructed physical soil and water conservation
structures on study area?

1.5 . Scope of the study

The scope of this study would be limited to Debub Ari woreda, South Omo Zone of southern
Ethiopia. Among 41 kebeles of Debub Ari woreda the study would be focus on Pila kebele. This
is because the major problem related with sustainable utilization of soil and water conservation
measures and problems related with protecting and maintenance of soil and water conservation
measures in enhancing the land productivity for the further applications. The study would mainly
focus on the objectives that are listed above.

1.6. Significance of the Study

The study is emphasis to bring the importance of better water and conservation management
measures in the kebele. It helps the kebele to contribute proper natural resource management.

1.7. Limitation of the study

In this study the constraints that faced are shortage of finance, time and specially the shortage
of different related reference book, lack of accessibility of internet website and it is difficult to
communicate and meet with advisor because the fairness of the distance.

IX
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Soil and water conservation

The most important reason for limited use of soil and water conservation technologies is farmers’
low adoption behavior. Kessler (2006) considers soil and water conservation measures fully
adopted only when their execution is sustained and fully integrated in the household’s farming
system. Adoption of soil and water conservation measures does not automatically guarantee
long-term use. For example, when soil and water conservation measures have been established
with considerable project assistance, not all farmers may continue using the measures. Therefore,
introduction of soil and water conservation technologies may not lead to sustained land
rehabilitation unless the farmers proceed to final adoption.

SWC measures are those activities at the local level which maintain and enhance the productive
capacity of the land included soil, water and vegetation in areas prone to degradation through
reduction of soil erosion, compaction, salinity, conservation or drainage of water and
maintenance or improvement of soil fertility (WOCAT, 2007). Soil and water conservation
measures are predominantly applied for the purposes of controlling runoff and thus preventing
losses of soil erosion, and reducing soil compaction maintaining or improving soil fertility,
conserving or draining water and harvesting excess water(Tideman, 1996).

2.2. Types of Soil and water conservation

A variety of soil and conservation measures are well known, from these there are three types of
soil and water conservation measures.

2.2.1. Physical soil and water conservation measures

Physical measures are structures built for soil and water conservation. They are planned to
increase the time of concentration of runoff, thereby allowing more of it to infiltrate in to the
soil, divide a long slope in to several short ones and thereby reducing amount and velocity of
surface runoff and protect against damage due to excessive runoff (Tideman, 1996). Major
physical soil and water conservation measures are soil bund, fanyajuu, stone bund, bench terrace,
cutoff drain, waterway, check dams, planting pits and deep trenches.

X
2.2.2. Biological soil and water conservation
Agriculture and forestry are regarded as SWC measures as they can play an important role in
revitalizing soil. Biological measures for soil and water conservation work by their protective on
the vegetation cover. A dense vegetation cover prevents splash erosion, reduces the velocity of
surface runoff, facilitates accumulation of soil particles increases surface roughness which
reduces runoff and increases infiltration, the roots and organic matter stabilizes the soil
aggregates and increase infiltration (Morgan, 1999). Generally biological measures which are
vegetative stripes, protective bush lands natural drainage way protected by a permanent grasses
cover and reforestation some of them. Agronomic conservation measures are another type of
biological conservation measures function by reducing the impact of rain drops through
interception and thus reducing soil erosion and increasing infiltration rates and thereby reducing
surface runoff and soil erosion (Tideman, 1998). Generally the major agronomic conservation
measures are strip cropping, mixed cropping, intercropping, fallowing, mulching, contour
plowing, grazing management and agroforestry.

2.3. Factors affecting effectiveness of physical soil and water conservation

Effectiveness of Soil and water conservations practices are affected by so many factors. From
those factors three major factors are: - Institutional factor, Biophysical factor and socioeconomic
factor. Institutional factors that affect the effectiveness of physical soil and water conservation
practices are capacity building, resource and technical aids, leadership and management
activities, designing of SWC structures and community participation. Biophysical factors are
growth of rodent and runner grasses in constructed bunds/terraces, topography, rainfall
characteristics and soil erodibility. Socioeconomic factors such as family wealth status, number
of labour force, family size, farm size and number of livestock in household (Fikru, 2009)

2.4 . Adoption of Physical soil and water conservation

Many factors are indicated as restraining or enhancing adoption. Adoption of improved
technology is for the most part affected by farmer characteristics, farm-specific conditions,
technology characteristics (LAPAR and PANDEY, 1999) and institutional set up in which
production takes place. Adoption decision on SWC practices depends up on differences in agro
ecological and socio economic settings under which farmers operate, many of which are specific
to a particular region, village, household, or plot (Bekele & Drake, 2003; Pender et al., 2004).

XI
Farmers base their decision on specific characteristics of farm plots and the importance of the
plot to the household economy. This makes the analysis at plot level more appropriate and
informative than analysis made at household levels (Beshah, 2003; Bekele & Drake, 2003).
Adoption of soil conservation structures is a difficult concept to measure. The structures can be
considered as adopted if the land users continue to utilize them after the external assistance is
withdrawn. Although adoption of the new technologies can be effectively evaluated only after
the termination of the project, it can also be assessed by analyzing farmers’ attitudes, objectives
and desires of whether they would like to use the technologies as a part of their farming
enterprise (Woldeamlak, 2007 and Tesfaye, 2011).

2.5. Farmers perception towards physical soil and water conservation

Perception in SWC context is defined as the degree to which the farmer to use soil and water
conservation measures as controlling mechanism from erosion (Deginet, 1999). In view of this,
it would be worthwhile to evaluate the factors influencing adoption and use of soil conserving
technologies. A better knowledge of how the characteristics of individual farmers and their
farming practices affect conservation investments can help policy makers in designing more
effective conservation programs that will be better tailored to the needs of the farmers (YOUNG
and SHUTLE, 1984).

Adoption of improved/new technologies in agriculture has attracted the attention of development

economists and sociologists because the vast majority of the population in developing countries
derives its livelihood from agricultural production and because there are opportunities for
increased output and higher income levels which technological change can offer (FEDER et al.,
1985). Adoption studies relate to use or non-use of a particular technology by individual farmers
at a point in time, or during an extended period of time. Adoption therefore presumes that the
technology exists, and studies of the adoption process analyze the determinants of whether and
when adoption takes place (COLMAN and YOUNG, 1989:60). The decision to adopt a new or
improved technology/practice can be regarded as an investment decision (CASWELL et al.,
2001). This decision may involve sizeable fixed costs, while the benefits realized over time. The
choice of whether or not to adopt a new technology will, therefore, be based on a careful
assessment of a large number of technical, economic and social factors. The technical feature of
a new technology may have a direct consequence on the decision making process. It appears that
the more technically complicated the innovation, the less attractive it may be too many farmers
(COLMAN and YOUNG, 1989:60).

XII
The potential capability of the new technology, in terms of enhancing yield, reducing cost of
production and give rise to higher profit, are also substantially important. The problem, however,
is that when a technology first introduced, uncertainty with respect to its functioning under local
settings is often high. Also, it is difficult to tell its economic outcome with certainty. However,
over time, as farmers adopt and become familiar with the new technology, the uncertainty and
the cost associated with it will fall (CASWELL et al., 2001). Perceptions of soil erosion as a
problem to agricultural production and sustainable agriculture is need SWC adoption process
followed by decision to adopt soil conservation and soil conservation efforts (Ervin, 1981). It’s
also stated by different scholars like Fikru (2009) as one of the most important determinants of
soil and water conservation measures effectiveness.

XIII
 3. MATERIAL AND METHOD

3.1. Description of Study Area

3.1.1. Location
The research was undertaken in Pila kebele of South Omo Zone, SNNPR regional state, southern
Ethiopia. The study area is located at 762 Kms south of Addis Ababa, capital city of Ethiopia
and at 10 Km south of Woreda town Gazzer with an estimated area of 575.75 ha. Pila kebele is
surrounded by Neri River on South, Maki river in North, Shepi kebele in East and Gazzer town
in West direction.

3.1.2. Climate
The climate of the Dombe Pila kebele is totally weina dega agro-climate zone. Rainfall in kebele
ranges from 1500 mm per annum in the southern areas to less than 1800mm per annum in the
north. The mean annual temperature in Pila kebele varies from 15 0c in the highlands of the south
to over 200c in the lowlands of the north.

3.1.3. Land Use type

Most of the catchments of the Pila kebele are under extensive cultivation with increased land
pressure, meaning the expansion of cultivated areas in to increasingly marginal lands at the
expense of wood lands and shrub lands. Deforested areas are now confined to areas too steep and
inaccessible to farm. The flatter poorer drained bottom lands of the southern catchments are
usually not cultivated but are used for dry season grazing.

3.1.4. Population
The population density ranges from 5 to 6 persons per household. The average land holding size
of the kebele is estimated to be 0.25 ha which lies below the national average (1.2 ha) (CSA,
2010). The total population of the kebele is Male 1846, Female1644 and Total 3490

3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Methods of Data collection

Data was collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data was collected
from the sample rural households using a structured questionnaire. Secondary sources included
published and unpublished information about the title and study area, agricultural production and

XIV
soil conservation practices from regional and national sources and this information was collected
from Arba Minch University Library and Woreda and Kebele agriculture offices.

Data on soil degradation and conservation, farm household characteristics has been collected
from the respondents. The detailed information about soil-water conservation practices in the
area was gathered by the administered questionnaire and the celerity was made by the discussion
with agricultural experts.

3.2.2. Sampling techniques

The survey was covered 10% of 698 household heads randomly selected from Pila kebele by
using simple random sampling to represent samples of areas with direct intervention. With
regard to the sampling technique simple random sampling technique was used to select sample
respondents from the kebele 70 (10%) farmers would be Selected and conduct interview to
collect data about farmer’s perception on physical soil and water conservation.

3.2.3. Data Analysis

Both descriptive as well as tabulation analysis were employed for quantitative and qualitative
data analysis. The analytical techniques were applied to detect differences in the mean of one
variable between two groups of respondents. Frequency, means, ratios and percentages were
computed for different variables.

XV
 4. RESULT AND DISCUSION
This chapter is mainly concerned with the description and interpretation of the finding based on
the result of the cross sectional data collected using questionnaire that was administered to 35
sample households and data collected using focus group discussion, interview and personal
observations on the study area about demographic characteristics, and farmer perception towards
the effectiveness of physical soil and water conservation practices on farm land as well as the
factors affecting the effectiveness of the constructed physical soil and water conservation
structures on the study area

4.1. Demographic characteristics of respondents

The age of respondents was categorized in to different age groups. Age is one of the
demographic characteristics that influence the decision of farmers to soil and water conservation
practices.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents

Questions No of respondents Percentage

Age group 25-35 30 43
36-50 20 29
51-65 15 21
Greater 65 5 7
Marital status Single 5 7
Married 60 86
Divorced - -
Windowed 5 7
Age sex ratio Male 60 86
Female 10 14
Educational status Cannot read and write 30 43
Primary level (1-8) 30 43
Secondary level (9-12) 5 2
Certificate and above 5 2

Source: Own Questionnaire survey, 2020

XVI
4.2. Farmers’ Participation on the SWC Works
Perceptions of farmers on the physical SWC measures were different from the farmers to farmers
and the majority of the farmers (65%) reported that they observe change in their farm land. In the
study area, the soil conservation structures under implementation were physical soil conservation
measures; fanyajuu bunds, stone bunds, soil bunds, diversion ditches and check dams. Of these,
farmers were more willing to participate in diversion ditches and check dams’ construction than
that of stone bunds and fanyajuu bunds.

And it was mainly in the construction of this structural measure that the majority of the surveyed
farmers professed their participation were not undertaken voluntarily. Among the surveyed
farmers 53% of respondents have a very good adoption decision of soil conservation measures,
30% partially removed, and the remaining 17% of respondents totally removed conservation
structures from their plots of land

To be effective, it has to be carefully engineered; and to be sustainable, committed participation

of the stakeholders the farmers are imperative. Hence the question, were the farmers willingly
participating in the SWC works underway in their communities? As only 35–40 percent of the
interviewed farmers participated in the SWC works voluntarily. The remainder, more than 50
percent of the householders, asserted that they participated simply because they were forced to
do so by the village administration and the DAs. In the belief of many of the latter group, the
fanyajuu construction was not for the sake of conserving the farmers’ soils and lands, but to meet
demands of the government’s five-year development program. With this circumstance, where the
majority felt coerced to participate, it becomes clear that the work did not take into account
participatory principles. Why is it that the majority of the farmers were disinterested in the
conservation works meant to improve or at least maintain productivity of their plots of land?

4.2. Farmer Perception towards physical soil and water conservation Measures
Various physical soil and water conservation practices have been identified in the study area.
The area has practice physical soil and water conservation activities. 60% of respondents practice
physical soil and water conservation Measures methods however, 40% did not have any
conservation practice because of less awareness of farmers on the risk of soil erosion on yield

XVII
of crops Farmers in Pila kebele used different types of indigenous soil and water conservation
measures to conserve and maintain their farm land.

In this regard, the result of the study indicated that the majority of the respondents (65%) Saied
the factor influencing adoption of soil and water conservation measure are farmers’ perception of
erosion problem, technology attributes, the number of economically active family members, farm
size, wealth status of the farmers the location of the farm land and mechanical structures on
farmlands reduced the area of cultivable land, harbored rodents, and the construction was labor
intensive. The rest mentioned some of the factors related to the adoption of 35% observe any
change on SWC is the capacity to soil to process crops for the economic values of maintains the
health of soil for future use and soil quality is a fundamental important for agricultural
production and soil fertility important is increasingly becoming centralized in the decision on
food security, poverty reduction and environmental management.

4.3. Farmer perception towards benefits of physical soil and water conservation Measures
Perception on soil erosion problems and benefit of soil conservation measures was positively and
strongly associated with farmers’ practice of structural soil conservation measures. In fact,
farmers’ perception is one member that influences farmers’ decision to practice structural soil
conservation measures on their land.

The farmers who constructed the stone bund were highly eager on soil productivity
increment and for new technology adoption. The physical soil and water conservation
practices in the area include soil bund, fanya- juu terrace, bund stabilized with biological
measure and fanya-juu stabilized with biological measure. Fanya-juu terrace differ from
soil bund by the principle of throwing dug soil material upslope (upward direction)
opposite to soil bund which uses throwing dug soil material downward direction.65% of the
respondents in the area have practiced physical soil and water conservation structures
while 35% of the cases integrate physical and biological conservation measures to increase
crop productivities of their plot of farm lands.

XVIII
Crops planted on physical structures as biological conservation measures were multipurpose
grasses such as vetiver grass (Vetiverial zizanioides), used for stabilizing soil bund, thatching
house, mulch material and forage; Desho grass ((Pennisetum pedicelluatum) used for stabilizing
soil bund, and forage; and elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) used for stabilizing soil
bund, mulch material and forage.

As elsewhere in the country, farmers do have responsibility for the proper management of
their land. 55% of the respondents explained that awareness creation and technical
support is expected from the government. Regarding physical soil and water conservation
construction, 45% responded that they need support from the government during surveying
and layout preparation of soil and water conservation activity. Similarly, they explained that
they are responsible in contributing of labor and implementation of the advice of technical
agricultural experts.

4.4. Factors Affecting Practices of physical Soil Conservation Measures

Farmers’ application of structural soil conservation techniques could possibly be influenced by
different sides. Among major factors age, gender, household size, income, serves as house for
pests and rates, soil type and depth, topography, difficult to tillage, need much labor, need
incentives to implement, difficult to implement, education status of farmers and reduce land size
were repeatedly mentioned by many surveyed farmers. In addition, lack of information on
benefit and cost of structural soil conservation measures, distance from the homestead, level of
contact with DA’s, training on soil erosion and soil conservation techniques and length of food
secured months have significant influences on practicing structural soil conservation measures.
Among these factors some have influence practice of structural measures negatively whereas
other factors affect the practice positively.

XIX
 Table 2: Major factors of physical soil and water conservation in farmland

No Major problems respondents Percentage (%)

1 source of rodents and harmful grasses 20 28
2 Reduce farmland 20 28
3 Difficult to turn ox 10 14
4 Labor intensive 5 7
5 Difficult to implement 5 7
6 Costly 10 14
Total 70 100%
Source: Own Questionnaire survey, 2020

About 57% of the respondents suggested that there is a difference in practicing structural soil
conservation measures among male and female farmers. But 42.9% of farmers argued that male
and female farmers equally can practice and benefit from structural soil conservations, but
digging is very difficult in stony land for females.

Despite its role in accumulation of experiences and having deeper knowledge of the field, age as
a factor of soil conservation was mentioned by 59.5% of farmers.

4.4.2 Land Size and ownership on the land

As land is further fragmented, it becomes uneconomical in size and left with little room for
implementing structural soil conservation measures.

Table 3: Land size of respondents

No Land size in Ha Frequency Percentage Remark
1 <0.5 20 28
2 0.5-1 14 20
3 1-1.5 10 14
4 1.5-2 8 11
5 2-2.5 12 17
6 2.5-3 2 3
7 >3 4 6
Total 70 100
Source Questionnaire survey, 2010

XX
4.4.3 Labor shortage
The majority of households in the Pila Kebele have an adequate supply of labor that will be
needed for the farming operation in their small holdings, including SWC works. Some 53 per
cent of the total households have four to five members; and some 41 percent have six members.
However, 20 percent of the households possess only 0.6–1 ha of land. Only 26 percent of them
own more than 2 ha. This may somehow reflect the condition of the labor supply. More than 72
percent of the farmers responded that labor supply was not a constraint in their farming
operation. Hence, there is no reasonable logic to assume that any of the farmers are disinterested
in the SWC works principally because of the problem of labor shortage.

4.5. Physical Soil and Water Conservation Technologies

In the Pila kebele, the SWC technologies under implementation were physical structural
measures: fanya juu bunds, stone bunds, diversion ditches and check dams. Of these, farmers
were more willing to participate in diversion ditches and check dam’s construction than that of
stone bunds and fanyajuu bunds. Without such basic data to estimate how much runoff was
generated in the fields, it is practically impossible to determine dimensions and spacing of SWC
structures. Moreover, construction of the physical SWC structures was carried out in level and
only moderately sloping lands (20 percent slope) for fear it would collapse if built on steeper
slopes. Steeper slopes still under cultivation, which farmers would prefer to be treated, are thus
left unattended and suffer from severe damage.

Table 4: Physical SWC practices

N Physical SWC practices Unit Programs Government support Remark

o
PSNP self help Total
1 Soil bund Km 89 68 157
2 Fanyajuu Km 74 49 123
3 Bench Terrace Km 29 18 47
4 Hillside Terrace Km 3.5 2 5.5
5 Stone Bund Km 8.5 2.5 11
6 Stone Check dam M3 1453 1216 2669
7 Brush wood Check dam Km 6.5 4 10.5
8 Cutoff drain M3 1813 1623 3436
9 Water way M3 846 742 1588

XXI
10 Plantation Pit No 242813 325145 567,958
11 Bund Maintenance Km 126 86 212
12 Check dam Maintenance M3 1932 895 2823
13 Area closer Ha 83 48 131
Source: Pila kebele agricultural office, 2020

4.6. Farmers’ perception on effectiveness of physical SWC structures on crop yield

In their plot of cropland under their own management, farmers used their own criteria or
indicators to evaluate the effect of introduced SWC structures on maintaining or changing crop
yield. Observation of crop performance and yield, extent of runoff and erosion, and
sediment accumulation near structures, was commonly used for evaluation. In the kebele
crop performance and yield observation were major indicators of whether the introduced
SWC structures had decreased, maintained, increased or led to fluctuations in soil fertility
and crop yield. The perceptions of farmers concerning crop yield change, and the role of SWC
structures that improve soil for better crop yield, are further treated in what follows.

Table 5: Farmers’ indicators to evaluate SWC effect in Pila kebele of Ethiopia

Farmers’ indicators/observations No of respondent Percent
Crop performance and yield 23 32
Extent of runoff and erosion 20 28
Both (the above two) 7 10
Sediment accumulation near structures 20 28
Total 70 100
Source: (Own my survey,2020)

4.6.1 Farmers’ perception on effectiveness of physical SWC on crop yield change

In the household survey, interviewed farmers were requested to respond concerning the effects
of constructed SWC structures on their cropland, in maintaining or improving soil fertility
and thus crop yield.

XXII
 Table 6: Respondents’ opinion on effects of SWC on crop yield in Pila kebele
SWC structures effect on crop yield No of respondent Percent
Decrement 20 28
Constant 20 28
Increment 30 42
Source: Own my survey, Jan 2020

4.7. Implementation approach for SWC works

The study clearly indicated that Developmental agents took a lion of share in providing training
and remains committed on the task of extension services. Moreover, there is a chance where
training and follow up on soil and water conservation measure from Non-Governmental
Organization even though inconsistent. The current study has investigated that almost 40% of
respondents’ agreed that there is inconsistent follow up and guidance from experts.
Developmental agents and NGOs are responsible for the extension service. The extension service
is mostly 100% delivered by Developmental agents. They have evidenced that farmers are
visited nearly once per month and once per four month.

XXIII
 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion
The household survey and group discussions of the present study open that, in the study
area, physical soil and water conservation activities, particularly have a positive effect on
combatting soil erosion, and a potential for sustainable land management towards the
improvement of crop productivity, if they are properly managed. The advantages of these
physical soil and water conservation structures balanced their side-effects in the period during
which farmers observed their performance. About 87.1% of respondents in the recognized that
the structures had improved the soil and crop production by reducing soil loss and conserving
water.

Farmers perceived that, according to their own criteria for evaluating the effect of the structures,
in most cases it will not take more than two years to improve land on which the structures are
built. The performance of crops or natural grass, the presence or absences of signs of runoff and
erosion in the inter-structure area, and the accumulation of sediment near structures, were
frequently used evaluation criteria. These criteria in turn indicate a reduction of soil loss from
cropland and improved soil moisture retention. Complaints about ‘lost land’ or land occupied by
terraces were few, because of the above-mentioned advantages of the structures.

The absence or incorrect construction of supporting structures, such as cut-off drains upslope of
cropland, increases the volume of surface runoff on cropland in such a way that structures
cannot cope, and thus shortens their life and makes erosion reduction difficult. As observed
during field work, neglect of periodic maintenance activities supposed to be carried out by the
land user, such as removing sediment from the channel, repairing the embankment, reduced the
effectiveness of the structures. Effective physical SWC structure management activities are of
substantial benefit for attaining and sustaining food security in smallholder farming, through the
successful rehabilitation and management of natural resources.

XXIV
 In this context, farmers’ perceptions are critical. Therefore, there is a need for awareness
creation, and for monitoring the proper management of the existing structures, to ensure that
they function as intended, and to improve their efficiency. This can reduce ‘decreased’ or
‘fluctuating’ crop yield. In addition, suitable conservation structures, adapted to climatic
conditions and slope gradient, need to be implemented. Further research should be carried out to
investigate other benefits of the structures, e.g. social benefits. An economic analysis of costs
and benefits would provide a better overall insight.

5.2. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the assessment result of soil and water conservation activities in the area the
following recommendation could be forwarded. Farmers whose land slope is more than
10% should get continuous awareness creation (get knowledge about the benefit of
physical soil and water conservation and controlling methods through training at Farmers
Training Centers (FTCs). The specific recommendations this study envisages would enhance the
practice of soil conservation are:

1) Agricultural support programs should carefully evaluate what they are doing, their
incentive structures and so forth as they promote the soil and water conservation practices
among farmers.

2) The distribution of appropriate practices should be familiar of farmers’ role in conveying

information to their equivalent farmers.

3) The farmers’ know-how on practices related to soil conservation appears to be based on

what farmers learned from their predecessors. It is therefore, important to establish if

Improved management ability, sufficient household resources related to labor and stable tenure
status, are factors that give a farmer the capacity to act and are important for the implementation
of most of the conservation practices. Therefore, policy directions aimed at building human
capital, while at the same time reducing mortalities as a way of retaining skilled capital, is a way
forward to promote the practices. This same step will ensure a greater likelihood of farmer’s
continued use of practices.

XXV
 REFERENCE

Amsalu, A., and De Graaff, J. 2006. Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone
terraces for soil and water conservation in the Ethiopian highland watershed

Bekele S. and Holden S. 1999. Soil Erosion and Smallholders’ Conservation Decisions in the
Highlands of Ethiopia: World Development 27(4), pp 739-752; Agricultural University of
Norway, Ås, Norway

Bekele, W., Drake, L. (2003). Soil and water conservation decision behavior of subsistence
farmer s in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of the Hunde-Lafto area. Ecol.
Econ. 46(3), 437 – 451.

Beshah, T., 2003. Understanding farmers: explaining soil and water conservation in Konso,
Wolaita and Wello, Ethiopia. Tropical Resource Management Papers, vol. 41. The
Netherland, Wageningen University.

CASWEL, M., FUGLIE, K., INGRAM, C. 2001. Adoption of agricultural production practices:
Lessons learned from the US Department of Agriculture Area Studies Project. US
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, AER-792.

Chizana C., Mapfumo P., Albrechi A., Vanwuk M. and Giller K. 2006. Smallholder Farmers’
Perception on Land Degradation and Soil Erosion in Zimbabwe: African crop science
conference proceedings Vol.8.pp.1484-1490; printed in El-Minia, Egypt.

Ethiopian Economic Association (EEA), 2002. Second annual report on the Ethiopian Economy,
Vol II 2000/2001. Addis Ababa: EEA.

Fikru A, (2009). Assessment of adoption behavior of soil and water conservation practices in the
highlands of Ethiopia. Cornell University.

Fitsum H., Pender J., Nega G., 2002. Land Degradation and Strategies for Sustainable
Management in Ethiopian Highlands: Tigray Region (second edition) Socio-economic and
Policy Research Working Paper 25. ILRI. Nairobi, Kenya. PP 80.

XXVI
Greenland D.J., Bowen G., Eswaran H., Rhoades R., and Valentin C., 1994. Soil, water, and
nutrient management research - a new agenda. IBSRAM Position Paper, International
Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM), Bangkok, Thailand.

Herweg K., Ludi E., 1999. The performance of selected Soil and Water conservation measures,
case studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea. Catena 36, 99-114.

Hugo L.P., Johann B., Juergen G., Hiremagalur G., Mohammad J., Victor M., John M., Martin
O., and Mohamed S., 2002. Linking Natural Resources, Agriculture and Human Health:
Case Studies from East Africa. LEISA Magazine supplement, pp 17-20.
Hurni H., 1993. Land degradation, famine, and land resources scenarios in Ethiopia. World
soil erosion and conservation. Cambridge university press: Cambridge, UK; 27-62.

Kessler CA (2006) Decisive key factors influencing farm households’ soil and water
conservation investments. Applied Geography 26:40–60.

Lakew D., Carucci V., Asrat W. and Yitayew A. 2005 (eds). Community Based Participatory
Watershed development: A Guideline; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

LAPAR, M.L.A., PANDEY, S. 1999. Adoption of soil conservation: The case of the Philippine
uplands. Agricultural Economics 21: 241-56

Million T. and Kassa B., 2004. Factors Influencing Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures in
Southern Ethiopia: The Case of Gununo Area: Journal of Agriculture and Rural
Development in the Tropics and Subtropics 105(1), pp 49-62.

Paulos A. Kassa B. and Desta H. 2004. Determinants of Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Soil
Conservation Practices in the Southeastern Highlands of Ethiopia: Land Degradation and
Development 15: pp 423–438.

Saliba and Bromley D. 1986. Soil Management Decisions: How they be Compared and What
Variables influence them. North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics; 8 (2): pp 305

XXVII
 APPENDIX
Questionnaires

I. personal information

1. Name of respondent

2. Sex A. male B. female

3. Age

4. Marital status Single Married Divorce Widow

5. Size of farmland

II. Farmers perception on Soil and water conservation

1. Do you think that soil erosion is a problem of your farmland? A. yes B. No

2. If your response for question number 1 is yes how do you rate the degree of the problem?

A, very high B, high C, moderate D, low E, very low

3. If your response for question 2 is very high/high choose the most important cause from
the following alternatives.

A. Deforestation C, over cultivation E, steep slope cultivation

B, over grazing D, excess rainfall F, others

4. What do you think about the consequence of soil erosion

A. Decrease land productivity B, Decrease soil fertility C, Reduce soil moisture

5. Do you know type of improved physical soil and water conservation? A. yes B. No

6. If your response for question number 5 is yes, which type do you know?

A, stone bund C, cutoff drain E, bench terrace/ hillside terrace

B, soil bund/ Fanyajuu D, waterway F, others

7. There any physical SWC measures on your farm land?

A. yes B. No

XXVIII
8. If no why you didn’t apply physical SWC measures?

A, lack of awareness C, lack of equipment E, others

B, lack of technical skill D, Lack of technical support from expert

9. If yes when did you started physical SWC practice and by what approach?

A, food for work project works D, by sharing experience from other farmers

B, self-help mobilization works E, others

C, by your self

10. Size of farm land physical SWC practice constructed

11. Which of the following type of physical soil and water conservation measures are
efficient and effective to reduce the problems soil erosion?

A, stone bund C, cutoff drain E, bench terrace/ hillside terrace

B, soil bund/ Fanyajuu D, waterway F, others

12. What are major problems of physical soil and water conservation in your farmland

a) source of rodents and harmful d) Labor intensive

grasses
e) Difficult to implement
b) Reduce farmland
f) Costly
c) Difficult to turn ox
g) Others

13. Was the land gives optimum yield after the application of SWC on farmland A. yes B. No

14. If yes, what are the main benefits resulting from SWC works

 Crop productivity increase  Soil erosion decrease

 Soil fertility increase  Water Availability increase

According to your perception, how has your income changed since practicing SWC
works? A. Increased B. Declined C. remaining the same

XXIX