DSpace Institution

DSpace Repository http://dspace.org

Rural Development and Agricultural Extension Thesis and Dissertations

2019-12-24

þÿDETERMINANTS OF FARMER S
WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
PRACTICES IN CASE OF GUNA
BEGEMIDIR DISTRICT, NORTH
WESTERN AMHARA REGION OF ETHIOPIA

Mengistu, Hone

http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/10071
Downloaded from DSpace Repository, DSpace Institution's institutional repository
 BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
PROGRAM: RURAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

DETERMINANTS OF FARMER’S WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN SOIL AND

WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN CASE OF GUNA BEGEMIDIR DISTRICT,
NORTH WESTERN AMHARA REGION OF ETHIOPIA

MSc. Thesis

By

Mengistu Hone Kebede

November, 2019

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

 BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
PROGRAM: RURAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

DETERMINANTS OF FARMER’S WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN SOIL AND

WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN CASE OF GUNA BEGEMIDIR DISTRICT,
NORTH WESTERN AMHARA REGION OF ETHIOPIA

MSc. Thesis

By

Mengistu Hone Kebede

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science (MSc) in Rural Development Management Program

November, 2019

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

ii
 THESIS APPROVAL SHEET
As a member of the Board of Examiners of the Master of Sciences (MSc.) thesis open
defense examination, we have read and evaluated the thesis paper prepared by Mr. Mengistu
Hone entitled on ‗Determinants of Farmers’ Willingness to participate in Soil and water
conservation practices; the Case of Guna Begemidir Woreda, Ethiopia. We examined the
candidate, and recommended that the thesis paper be accepted as fulfilling the thesis
requirement for the degree of Master of Science (MSc.) in Rural Development
Management.

Board of Examiners

Wondimagegn Chekol(PhD) _______________ _______________

Name of External Examiner Signature Date

Girmachew Seraw(PhD) _________________ _______________

Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date

Almaz Gizew(PhD) _________________ _______________

Name of Chairman Signature Date

iii
 DECLARATION
This is to certify that this thesis entitled ‘Determinants of Farmers’ Willingness to
participate in soil and water conservation practices the Case of Guna Begemidir
Woreda, Ethiopia’’ submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
degree of Master of Science in ―Rural Development Management‖ to the Graduate
Program of College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University by Mr.
Mengistu Hone (ID. No. BDU1018173PR) is an authentic work carried out by him under our
guidance. The matter embodied in this project work has not been submitted earlier for award
of any degree or diploma to the best of our knowledge and belief.
Declared by:

Candidate Name: Mengistu Hone Signature________ Date ___________

Confirmed by:

Major Advisor Name: Assefa Abelineh (MSc.) Signature________ Date ___________

Co-advisor Name: Beneberu Assefa (PhD) Signature ________ Date ___________

iv
 DEDICATION
To my lovely brother Mr. Zehiwot Hone and my colleague Ato Binega Fentaye; they are
still fresh in my memory and deserve great credit for my current achievement. And, for those
people who fall in love and made sacrifications for it.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First of all, I would like to thank the almighty ‗GOD’ for his generous time to let me
accomplish everything I start and also for helping me to go through every event successfully
up to this minute.

Secondly my deepest thanks goes to my advisor, Mr Assefa Abelineh (MSc.) and my co-
advisor Beneberu Assefa (PhD); this is because the completion of this work may not have
been possible without their generous devotion from the early design of the research proposal
title and to the final write-up of this thesis paper. Thus, I thank them for their genuine and
energetic encouragement, suggestion; insight and guidance to complete this thesis paper.

I further extend my gratitude to Bahir Dar University College of Agriculture and

environmental sciences in providing internet and computer services and also other facilities
for the accomplishment of my thesis. In addition I am very grateful to thanks all my
supporters during data collection. By this, my special thanks should go to the kebele
administrators, agriculture office experts, development agents, and rural households of Guna
Begemidir District who provided me invaluable information.

Last but not least my special thanks go to my families and brother for being with me and
providing moral and financial support as well as their encouragement.

vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS

AGRA Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa

CSA Central Statistics Agency

DLDD Desertification Land Degradation and Drought

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HHHs Household heads

HHs Households

MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

NBE National Bank of Ethiopia

PEDD Planning and Economic Development Department

PPS Probability Proportional to Size

SD Standard Deviation

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

SRS Systematic Random Sampling

SWC Soil and Water Conservation

UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

UNDP United Nation Development Program

WEF World Economic Forum

WTP Willingness to participate

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS page

THESIS APPROVAL SHEET........................................................................ III

DECLARATION .............................................................................................. IV
DEDICATION .................................................................................................... V
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................. VI
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................. VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................. VIII
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. X
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... XI
LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................ XII
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... XIII
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background of the Study ............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 3
1.3. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................. 6
1.3.1. General Objective .................................................................................................... 6
1.3.2. Specific Objectives .................................................................................................. 6
1.4. Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 6
1.5. Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 6
1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study .............................................................................. 7
1.7. Organization of the Thesis ........................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................ 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 8
2.1. The Concept of Natural Resource Degradation ......................................................... 8
2.2. Causes of Land Degradation ........................................................................................ 9
2.3. Overview of Soil and Water Conservation Practices .............................................. 10
2.4. A livelihoods Approach to Soil and Water Conservation ....................................... 12
2.5. Some Common Structural SWC Practices .............................................................. 13

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENT (Continued)
2.6. Smallholder Farmer’s Participation in SWC Practices .......................................... 14
2.7. Smallholder Farmer’s Willingness to Participate in SWC Practices..................... 15
2.8. Determinats of Farmers Willingness to Participate in SWC .................................. 17
2.9. Empirical Studies ........................................................................................................ 18
2.10. Conceptual Framework of the Study ...................................................................... 25
CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................... 27
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 27
3.1. Description of the Study Area.................................................................................... 27
3.2. Research Design .......................................................................................................... 28
3.3. Sampling Methods and Sample Size Determination ............................................... 29
3.4. Data Collection Methods and Sources of Data ......................................................... 31
3.5. Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................................... 34
3.6. Working Hypotheses and Variable Specification .................................................... 38
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................. 44
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................. 44
4.1. Descriptive Analysis .................................................................................................... 44
4.1.1. The Common SWC Practices ............................................................................... 44
4.1.2. Household‘s Level of Participation ....................................................................... 48
4.1.3. Household‘s Willingness to Participate in SWC Practices .................................. 50
4.2. Econometric Analysis ................................................................................................. 60
4.2.1. Result of Logistic Regression Model ..................................................................... 60
4.2.2. Discussion of Results of the Study ........................................................................ 64
CHAPTER FIVE............................................................................................... 67
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 67
5.1. Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 67
5.2. Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 69
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 71
APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 78
BIBLOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................................................... 92

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1. Summary of some different studies related to SWC practices in Ethiopia .......................... 22

2. List of household heads in each kebeles .............................................................................. 30
3. The summary of explanatory variables used in the model .................................................. 42
4. Common SWC practices in the study area .......................................................................... 44
5. The HHs response on different levels of participation in SWC practices ........................... 48
6. Participation of HHs in three phases of SWC practices ...................................................... 49
7. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables of sampled HHs ......................................... 53
8. Descriptive statistics of continues variables grouped by WTP on SWC practices .............. 56
9. T-test for continues variables grouped by willingness ........................................................ 58
10. The chi-square test for dummy/categorical variables ........................................................ 59
11. Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients ............................................................................... 61
12. Model Summary................................................................................................................ 61
13. Hosmer and Lemeshow Test .............................................................................................. 61
14. Classification Table ........................................................................................................... 61
15. Binary Logistic Regression Model output ......................................................................... 62

x
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page

1. Conceptual frame work of the hypothesized factors that influence the WTP ..................... 26
2. Location and map of the study District ............................................................................... 28
3. Sampling techniques and procedures ................................................................................... 30
4. Individual household‘s interview ......................................................................................... 32
5. Focus group discussion with representatives of the rural community ................................. 33
6. HHs level of participation in SWC practices ....................................................................... 49
7. The proportion of the HHs willingness to participate in SWC practice .............................. 50
8. The reason to HHs willing to participate in SWC ............................................................... 51
9. The reason for HHs not willing to participate in swc participate ....................................... 52

xi
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix page

1. Codes for slope range................................................................................................... 78

2. Conversion factors used to compute man equivalent ................................................. 78
3. Conversion factors used to compute tropical livestock units....................................... 78
4. VIF test for continuous variables ................................................................................. 79
5. Contingency coefficients for categorical variables ...................................................... 79
6. Multicollinearity diagnostic test .................................................................................. 80
7. Correlation coefficient of independent variables ......................................................... 81
8. Summary of Questionnaires ......................................................................................... 82
9. Focus Group Discussion Questions ............................................................................. 90
10. Key informants iinterview questions ........................................................................ 91

xii
 ABSTRACT
Soil erosion is one of the most severe environmental problems in Ethiopia. Achieving
sustainable pathways out of land degradation problem and poverty require active
participation of people in SWC conservation practices. The objective of this study was to
assess the determinant factors for farmers’ willingness to participate in soil and water
conservation practices in Guna District, Ethiopia. The study employed both primary and
secondary data collection methods. The primary data were collected from 200 households
using interview schedule. To analyze the collected data, the study employed frequency,
percent, inferential statistics and binary logistic regression model. The study shows, stone
bund, cut-off drain, tracing, and contour farm were the most common SWC practices in the
study area. From sampled HHs 58.5% were not willing and 41.5% were willing to
participate in SWC practices. HHs participation in planning and in evaluation of SWC
practices was low, but high at implementation phase. Household heads type, age, educational
status, land size, perception, access to training , family size, frequency of visit with extension
experts, and off-farm income were found more powerful to explain HHs willingness to
participate in SWC practices. Of these, land size and family size have negative influence on
willingness. The study concludes that the participation of most households were through
forced and without their initiation; and above half of sampled HHs were not willing to
participate leads unsustainability of soil and water conservation practices in the study area.
The study suggests that, the District agricultural office and concerned stakeholders should
consider the involvement of HHs at the very initiation of planning and designing for SWC
practice as well as evaluation phase. The District SWC experts should encourage farmers
who are participating in soil and water conservation practices by their willingness.
Moreover, enhancement of farmer’s willingness should be taking the first place than forcing
them to participate in SWC practices. Finally, the extension experts and any concerned body
should provide formal and informal education, and training for farmers to increase their
understanding of conserving soil, and awareness creation.

Keywords: Willingness to Participate, Logit Model, Soil Conservation Practices, Soil Erosion

xiii
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study

The economies of most countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including Malawi, Ethiopia and
Zambia, are some of the agro-based countries of which smallholder farmers are major food
producers (Nelson, et al., 2017). The agricultural sector is the most important sector in the
Ethiopian economy which contributes 34.9% to GDP, 90% of export earnings and 67.3% of
employment (NBE, 2018). And also this sector's fortune directly affects economic
development, food security, poverty alleviation and social welfare. However in sub-Saharan
Africa, fluctuations in production and volatility of markets have affected development of the
sector (Kassie, et al., 2012).

But, the promotion of land, soil and water conservation measures has been a widespread
development in sub-Saharan Africa in a bid to tackle degradation and improve productivity.
As a result, several governments have launched various campaigns on soil, land and water
conservation measures (Nelson, et.al., 2017).This is because of the importance of the
agricultural sector is more obvious, especially in rural areas, where families depend heavily
on agriculture alone to make a living(Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA),
2013).

Though the economic development of developing countries depends on the performance of

the agricultural sector, and the contribution of this sector depends on how natural resources
are managed. Unfortunately, in the majority of developing nations, the quality and quantity of
natural resources are decreasing resulting in more severe droughts and floods (Fikru Assefa,
2009).

Ethiopia, being among these developing countries, has heavily relied on its environmental
and agricultural resource base for the past years. In general, agriculture in the country is
characterized by limited use of external inputs and continuous deterioration of the resources.
Hence, Ethiopia for the last couple of decades has faced serious ecological imbalances
because of large scale deforestation and soil erosion caused by improper farming practices,
destructive forest exploitation, wild fire and uncontrolled grazing practices. This has resulted

1
in declining agricultural production, water depletion, disturbed hydrological conditions, and
enhance poverty and food insecurity (Daniel Danano, 2002).

Land degradation particularly soil erosion is one of the most severe environmental problems
in Ethiopia. Achieving sustainable pathways out of land degradation problem and poverty
require active participation of people in conservation practices and recognize the farmer‘s
willingness in soil and water conservation practices. Despite, land is a vital resource for
producing food, preserving biodiversity, facilitating the natural management of water systems
and acting as a carbon store; and appropriate land management can protect and maximize
these services for society. Conversely, desertification, land degradation and drought (DLDD)
have accelerated during the 20th and 21st centuries (Belay Kasey, 2017).

The productivity of land is diminishing at an alarming pace and every year, 5-7 million
hectare of agricultural land is lost worldwide (Nyssen et al. 2009). Higher input may offset
lower productivity in the industrial countries, but most developing countries like Ethiopia
lack the capabilities for this. Although the problem of soil erosion is as old as settled
agriculture, its extent and impact on human welfare and global environment are more now
than ever before (UNCCD, 2013).

Since the 1970s soil erosion has been identified as the most severe environmental problem in
the highlands of East African countries including Ethiopia (Gebremedhin, 2003). In Ethiopia,
new land conservations were started in soil erosion and food deficit areas through food-for-
work in the 1970 and 1980s (Shiferaw and Holden, 1998). However, the interventions needed
improvement to maximize the benefit and balance the current and future generation's need
(Shimeles, 2012).

Currently, even if Ethiopia government is undertaking community participatory measures to

conserve land, but still now there is the need to improve on mobilizing local people in
conservation. This is because of organized effort of local community and their large
contribution to conserving soil erosion are depends on understanding how farmers value the
soil conservation, and are willing to participate in soil and water conservation activities are
very crucial (Abrham et al, 2016).

In Amhara regional state, particularly in South Gondar zone, soil erosion is one of the most
serious environmental problems especially on the farm and communal land. Even if in the
county efforts to curb the soil erosion problem are always in action, inappropriate use of land

2
and absence of active local people mobilization are the main cause of soil erosion.
Particularly, soil erosion in Guna begemidir District is severely affecting communal and
cultivation lands. Unrestricted access (free grazing), traditional land use, and lack of
awareness, absence of appropriate sustainable soil conservation measures and mainly absence
of active participation of community are the main cause for soil erosion in the woreda. Thus
this environmental problem has an impact on the well-being of the community in the study
area (annual report of woreda agriculture office, 2018).

Therefore, the challenge is how to overcome environmental degradation that affects the
livelihood of the people in the country in general and Guna Begemidir woreda in particular.
Soil and water conservation is one of the strategies to improve environmental degradation.
Hence, soil and water conservation strategy requires active participation of farmers and
understands how farmers are willing to participate for soil and water conservation activities
in the study area (Woreda agriculture office annual report, 2018).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Soil erosion is one of the most serious environmental problems in the highlands of Ethiopia.
The prevalence of traditional agricultural land use and the absence of appropriate resource
management often result in the degradation of natural soil fertility. This has important
implications for soil productivity, household food security, and poverty in those areas of the
country (Teklewold and Kohlin, 2011). And also, Soil erosion is a major environmental and
agricultural problem facing human beings, particularly soil loss through water erosions is one
of the serious environmental problems which are affecting the economy (Semu Arayaselassie,
2018).

Soil erosion affects about 5–6 million hectares of land each year in Africa (Assefa, 2009). In
Ethiopia, estimates show that 50% of its highland areas have significant soil erosion, 25% of
it was highly eroded and 4% of it is seriously eroded beyond reclamation (Aklilu, 2006). But,
in Ethiopia, new land conservations were started in soil erosion and food deficit areas through
food-for-work in the 1970 and 1980s (Shiferaw and Holden, 1998). However, the
interventions were not as expected and it needed improvement to maximize the benefit and
balance the current and future generation's need by increasing the participation of local
community members to SWC practices (Shimeles, 2012, and Nigatu et al, 2017).

3
Hence, the average annual rate of soil loss in the country is estimated to be 42
tons/hectare/year which results to 1 to 2% of crop loss, and it can be higher on steep slopes
where the vegetation cover is low. This makes the issue of soil conservation not only
necessary but also a vital concern if the country wants to achieve sustainable development of
its agricultural sector and its economy at large (Gebrelibanos Gebremedhin, 2012). This is
because of soil erosion is the most dangerous ecological process observed in Ethiopia,
particularly in study area, degrading the precious soil resources which are the basis of
agricultural production and food for the country‘s people and which provide numerous other
ecosystem services (Hurni, et al., 2016).

In the study woreda, there where have been physical soil and water conserving practices that
promoted in a greater extent in the early 1970s by using FFW program benefits through
public mobilization. The German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) documented the situation of
the conservation structures introduced in the area was indicated that the structures were
considered ineffective and subsequently destroyed by many of the farm households in the
area (GTZ, 2002).

Even if the efforts to curb soil erosion problem in the country, particularly in the study area
are always in action, but inappropriate use of land and absence of active local people
mobilization are the main cause of soil erosion. The rapid population increment, severe soil
loss, deforestation, low vegetative cover and unbalanced crop and livestock production are
the major causes of land degradation in Ethiopia, also the same as in the study area (Paul‘s
Asrat, 2006).

Although different soil and water conservation structures have extensively been introduced
over the past decades, sustained use of the measures was not as expected. The limited success
of those efforts highlights the need to better understand the factors that influence sustainable
use of structural soil and water conservation measures (Solomon Berhanu, 2016).

Particularly; soil erosion in the study area is severely affecting communal and cultivation
lands. This is due to the interventions undertaken in the past as well as currently doesn‘t
consider the willingness of land owners to participate on soil and water conservation
practices. And also the past interventions didn‘t make a deep agreement between farmers and
governmental organization regarding to conservation practices particularly at the household
level. Unrestricted access (free grazing), traditional land use, and lack of awareness, absence

4
of appropriate sustainable soil conservation measures and mainly absence of active
participation of community are the main cause for soil erosion in the woreda. Thus, still now
this environmental problem has an impact on the well-being of the community in the study
area due to unfortunate interventions (woreda agriculture office, 2018).

The country, particularly the study area still loses a tremendous amount of fertile topsoil, and
the threat of land degradation is broadening alarmingly (Teklu and Gezahegn, 2003). This is
mainly because farmers‘ perception of their environment has been misunderstood partly in
the country. It is misunderstood partly because outsiders, both scholars and policy makers,
who write about farmers and formulate policies, often, have a limited understanding of the
farmers‘ attitude towards the environment (Paulo‘s Asrat, 2002).

As Abrham, et al. (2016) indicates a better understanding of farmers‘ participation and their
knowledge behavior is vital for designing plausible policies that could encourage the
sustainable use of improved SWC measures. However, farmers believed that SWC works
were done through enforcement. These mean that, the farmers participation in SWC works
was to avoid penalty rather than they do real SWC work for sustainable land management.
This indicated that the practices did not consider the participatory principles

Past SWC interventions were mainly focused based on giving some incentives for participant
smallholder farmers in the form of either food for work or cash for work, but their
participation was not based on their willingness without any short-term incentive (Wagayehu,
2003). This is because the campaigns that have been undertaken in Ethiopia, particularly in
the study area for soil and water conservation practices have been failed to consider local
peoples‘ willingness to participate for such projects from the very initiation of conservation
measures. This motivates that, there is a need to study on household‘s willingness to
participate in SWC practices and providing in-depth information for design of policies and
strategies that promote resource conserving land use with the active participation of local
people and understand the farmer‘s consideration on the soil conservation activities at farm
lands as well as communal land of study area. Hence, the main objective of this paper is,
therefore to assess and identifying the determinants of households willingness to participate
to stop or reduce the negative effects of soil erosion in the study area (Guna Begemidir
Woreda).

There is no more empirical study on soil conservation that concerned to the household‘s
willingness to participate in a farm as well as on communal lands in Amhara, Ethiopia in

5
general and the study area in particular. Therefore, this kind of research helps the government
and any concerned agent for intervention mechanisms and mobilizes the farmers for
conservation. The study is limited to examining farmers‘ WTP for bio-physical soil
conservation practices in Guna Begemidir Woreda, South Gondar Zone of Amhara, Ethiopia.
It is therefore, very necessary to induce in every one‘s mind the importance of conserving soil
resources. Hence, in this study, an attempt would be made to assess local people‘s
willingness to participate for conservation practices.

1.3. Objectives of the Study

1.3.1. General Objective

The overall objective of the study is to assess the determinant of farmers‘ willingness to
participate for soil and water conservation practices in Guna begemidir woreda.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

To identify the common structural SWC measures in the study area
To investigate the level of farmers participation in SWC practice
To analyze the farmers willingness to participate in SWC practice
To identify factors that determines farmers‘ willingness to participate in SWC
practices

1.4. Research Questions

 What are the common structural soil and water conservation measures in the study
area?
 What are the extents of farmer‘s participation in SWC practice?

 What are the determinants of farmers‘ WTP in soil and water conservation practices?

1.5. Significance of the Study

The purpose of this research is to investigate the farmers‘ willingness to participate in soil
and water conservation practices. This study would provide relevant and concurrent
information on current farmers‘ willingness to participate in SWC practices.

Furthermore, it is useful for the government body and interested sectors of this issue by
providing overview of the current farmers‘ willingness to participate for SWC practices of

6
the study area in order to take actions to solve land degradation. Normally, understanding the
factors leading to households‘ willingness to participate in soil conservation practices would
be help policy makers to design and implement more effective soil conservation plans.

In addition, this study is essential to provide secondary data to other researchers to conduct
further research on this issue by providing information about the study area in relation to
farmers‘ WTP on SWC practices. It would be contribute to the development process of
Woreda, Zone, Region as well as the country. Besides, it will serve as source of material.

1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study

Examining of the farmers‘ willingness to participate in SWC practices is not easy. However
this study has been conducted in South Gondar Zone, Guna Begemidir Woreda at household
level and other geographical areas are not included in the study due to the limited availability
of resource to undertake the study at a wider scale. To get in-depth information regarding to
study issue and for the sake of managing the collected data, this study was limited to Guna
begemidir woreda in south Gondar zone of Amhara Regional State, and a total of 200
sampled respondents from five kebele were undertaken.

Furthermore, the study was limited only to assess the determinant factors of smallholder
farmer‘s willingness to participate in commonly identified soil and water conservation
practices in Guna begemidir Woreda particularly at five Kebeles those were representative
for the study area.

1.7. Organization of the Thesis

The Thesis is organized in to five chapters. The chapter one elaborates the introduction part
of the study; including back ground of the study, problem statement, objectives, and research
questions, significance of the study, as well as scope and limitation of the study. Chapter two
presents literature review; which encompasses explanation, empirical studies and conceptual
framework. Chapter three deal with the description of the study area and research
methodology which includes both qualitative and quantitative approaches of the study. In
chapter four the results and discussions are presented and finally, chapter five presents the
conclusions and policy implication of the study.

7
 CHAPTER TWO

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In this section, relevant and available literature on the subject of the study reviewed
exhaustively. This chapter is mainly concerned with the review on soil and land degradation
problem, natural resources conservation techniques and overview of people‘s participation on
SWC practices. Finally, some studies that have been done in Ethiopia and elsewhere were
reviewed.

2.1. The Concept of Natural Resource Degradation

Agriculture is the dominant economic sector in Ethiopia that accounts for about 34.9% of the
GDP, and 90% of the foreign exchange earnings, and supports about 67.3% of the
employment (NEB, 2018). The vast majority of the population lives in rural areas and derives
their livelihoods directly or indirectly from agriculture. The agricultural sector is
predominantly the major part of production is for household consumption. A mixed farming
system, involving both crop production (predominantly rain-fed) and livestock rearing
activities, is the dominant type of production system (MOFED, 2010).

However, soil degradation in the highlands of Ethiopia is a serious problem that threatens the
sustainability of agriculture (Nyssen, et al., 2004). Soil erosion is a process as old as the
history of agriculture in the country, but it becomes more severe as land degradation and
climatic variability increased.

Ethiopia is one of the Sub-Saharan Africa countries most severely affected by the problem,
and water erosion is prominent. The northern Ethiopian Highlands are at high risk of
desertification (Nyssen, et al., 2004). A large body of literature exists which describes and
analyses the main causes and consequences of land degradation. Land degradation mainly
due to soil erosion and nutrient depletion, has become one of the most important
environmental problems in the country. Coupled with poverty, fast growing population and
policy failures, land degradation poses a serious threat to national and household food
security (Shiferaw and Holden, 1998).

According to Gebreegziabher, et al. (2006), in Ethiopia where deforestation is a major

problem, many peasants have switched from fuel wood to dung for cooking and heating
purposes, thereby damaging the agricultural productivity of cropland.

8
Although some factors like shortage of rainfall are among the influential contributing factor
to the low and declining agricultural productivity in Ethiopia, the major one is reduced soil
fertility (FAO, 2007). This is manifested by the decline of crop yields; decline of water and
forest resources and by gully formation across the grazing and ploughing fields.

The complex inter-linkages between poverty, population growth and environmental

degradation offer another dimension to the problem of land degradation (UNDP, 2004;
Nyssen et al., 2009). In recent years, rapid population growth has brought several changes.
Farm holdings have become smaller and more fragmented. Farmers cultivate fragile margins
on steep slopes previously used for grazing. Many households, particularly those owning
little land or with large families, have reduced fallow periods.

As a cumulative effect of continuous land degradation, ever increasing population pressure,

and inappropriate development policies, since the devastating famine in 1973/74, Ethiopia
became recipient of food aid. Despite this widespread problem, in Ethiopia, prior to 1974, the
importance of conserving farmland was largely neglected. The problem attracted the attention
of policy makers only after the devastating famine problem in 1973/74. After the 1973/74
famines, that coincided with and/or triggered a change of regime in the country, the
government has initiated a massive program of afforestation and soil conservation with the
support of international organizations. Packages of soil and water conservation programs
were prepared for implementation through Food-For-Work schemes (Wagayehu, 2003).

2.2. Causes of Land Degradation

Land degradation is the result of complex interactions between physical, environmental,
biological, socio-economical, and political issues of local, country wide or global nature. But,
the major causes of land degradation are caused by the mismanagement of land by the
respective local uses (Gebremedhin, 2004).

The causes of land degradation can be grouped in to proximate and underlying factors. The
proximate causes of land degradation include cultivation of steep slopes and erodible soils,
low vegetation cover of the soil, burning of dung and crop residues, declining fallow periods,
and limited application of organic or inorganic fertilizers. The underlying causes of land
degradation include such factors as population pressure; poverty; high costs or limited access
of farmers to fertilizers, fuel and animal feed; insecure land tenure; limited farmer knowledge
of improved integrated soil and water management measures; and limited or lack of access to

9
credit. The proximate causes of land degradation are the symptoms of inappropriate land
management practices as conditioned by the underlying factors. Hence, efforts for soil
conservation need to address the underlying causes primarily, as focusing on the proximate
causes would mean addressing the symptoms of the problem rather than the real causes
(Gebremedhin, 2004).

According to Abebe Gidey (2015), and Solomon Berhanu (2016), both environmental and
socio-political factors have contributed to the poor performance of Ethiopian agriculture.
Environmental factors include the dissected terrain, the cultivation of steeper slopes, erratic
and erosive rainfall, and so on. Socio-political factors include the top down approach adopted
by bodies intervening to improve soil and water conservation. Farmers have been minimally
involved in soil conservation activities and indigenous knowledge has been undermined
within planning, design, and implementation processes. As a result, soil and water
conservation programs have to date proved to be highly unpopular among farmers.

In response, the government of Ethiopia attempted to combine incentives with participatory

approaches to soil conservation. However, real participation of beneficiaries has not been
realized in the country. Perhaps as a result, the adoption of soil conservation practices
remains low. Moreover, the use of indirect economic incentives such as credit supply,
extension services, reduction of land taxes, input and output price support and market
development has been limited. These experiences indicates that there is a need to use both
direct and indirect incentives combined with real participation of beneficiaries if effective and
sustained soil conservation effort is to take place (Gebremedhin, 2004).

2.3. Overview of Soil and Water Conservation Practices

Following the 1972/73 drought, the former government of Ethiopia initiated a program of soil
conservation and afforestation. A watershed treatment approach was adopted for the program
and the following three major conservation activities were undertaken : a) physical
conservation or structural measures on farm lands which included tied ridges, soil or stone
bunds and various types of terraces; b) soil conservation on grazing land which combined
area closure and re-vegetation with fodder trees or shrubs; c) soil conservation on forest land
which encompassed hillside terracing, planting of multipurpose tree species and fruit
(Berhanu, 2002; Wagayehu, 2003; Aklilu, 2006).

10
Reports frequently publish statistics illustrating the apparent decline of the land resource base
utilized by farmers. Many empirical studies conducted in the different parts of the country
have reported that crop land expanded in to marginal areas at the expenses of natural
vegetation covers). And also due to the high concentration of both human and livestock
population in the highlands of Ethiopia, the continued intensive cultivation in the region
exacerbated by inappropriate land use practices, a stagnant productive technology, and other
factors have culminated in the present conditions of near ecological disaster (Tsehaye and
Mohammed, 2013).

The expansion of cultivated land, commonly in to steep marginal lands without putting in
place necessary soil and water conservation measures, led to soil loss from erosion. Hence,
the argument to the contrary, that in some places population growth and agricultural
intensification have been accompanied by improved rather than deteriorating environmental
quality in Kenya and Nigeria. (Tiffen, 1998), does not seem to show the general trend of the
success of conservation in Ethiopia.

Hence, despite intensive soil and water conservation practices for more than three decades
ago, adoption of the intervention in Ethiopia is considerably rather low. This fact is
frequently attributed, among other things, to the top-down approach in extension activities,
standard-mainly structural-soil and water conservation technologies, and lack of awareness of
land degradation by the land users (Aklilu, 2006; Mitiku et al., 2006; Woldeamlak, 2007).

The low level of achievement of conservation program in different parts of the country came-
up with different factors indicates for the low level of success of the initiative mainly due to
institutional factors. During planning SWC intervention, top-down approach was pursued
where government officials tell peasant association what to do to get the food aid. This
approach gave local people little opportunity for discussion and participation on the initiative
(Solomon Berhanu, 2016).

Between 1978 and 1985 when a massive conservation intervention was underway in the
history of the country‘s soil conservation, only 7% of the highlands were provided with
treatment of the conservation work. This made the initiative to be hardly able to address the
problem of soil erosion. Besides, farmers construct conservation structures mainly to obtain
food payment. This payment made farmers see the conservation measures belonging to the
government rather than themselves. This in turn resulted in poor quality of conservation

11
structures constructed on the farmlands. Very often, farmers destroy these structures to obtain
additional food for maintaining destroyed structures (Solomon Berhanu, 2016). Conservation
initiatives that have been launched mainly focused on physical conservation measures. Other
conservation measures such as biological and agronomic conservation practices that could
have potential to provide incentive for adoption have been overlooked.

The failure of soil and water conservation measures may be attributable to the defective
approaches employed for adoption. Farmers have been minimally involved in soil
conservation activities, their indigenous knowledge has been undermined in planning, design,
and implementation processes of introducing conservation technologies. As a result, soil and
water conservation programs have not been popular among most farmers. Government
policies concerning landholding, marketing, pricing, credit and resettlement have discouraged
long-term investment and exacerbated these deficiencies. So often, resource users have been
blamed for the failure of the plans without any attempt being made to analyze their
circumstances (CSA, 2008; Sorensen and Bekele, 2009).

However, in the absence of sound land use policies, this pressure coupled with many other
physical, socio –economic and political factors has led to a serious degradation of the land
(Berhanu, 2002; Woldeamlak, 2002; Wagayehu, 2003; and Aklilu, 2006). Because of these
challenges, the effectiveness of soil and water conservation is low and even terraces and
check dams constructed on farm or grazing lands did not stay long.

2.4. A livelihoods Approach to Soil and Water Conservation

The sustainable livelihoods framework provides a holistic analytical tool for investigating
investment decisions within the context of diverse livelihood strategies. The livelihoods
approach starts with an analysis of people‘s livelihoods and how these have been changing
over time. The key challenge in the coming years will addressing the diverse and potentially
conflicting demands of humans and other forms of life, while ensuring that future generations
have the same potential to use soils and land of comparable quality. In a multi-level
stakeholder approach, down to earth action will have to supplement with measures at various
level, from households to communities, and from national policies to international
contentions (Abebe Gidey, 2015: as Cited from Hurni, 1988).

12
2.5. Some Common Structural SWC Practices

Stone faced soil bunds: Stone faced soil bund is an embankment constructed partly from
stone on down slope side for reinforcing the structure and partly from soil along the contour.
It is constructed in agricultural lands with a slope ranging from 3% - 30% gradient (MoARD,
2010).

According to Solomon Berhanu, (2016); 38.3% constructed stone faced soil bund are
employed in increasing productivity by minimizing run-off and reducing slope steepness.

Stone bund: Stone bunds are stone embankments constructed across the slope to slow down
runoff and to retain sediments on their upslope. The purpose is to reduce soil erosion from the
farm land and conserve soil moisture and their by improve land productivity. These structures
are recommended to be constructed on the farm land with slope ranging between 3% up to
30% (MoARD, 2010).

According to Solomon Berhanu,(2016), the study revealed that ,from the total 32.98% of
the respondents indicated stone bund conservation practice are used to maximize productivity
by reduce loss of soil and conserve soil and moisture. The local farmers employed such
structures in areas where there are enough amounts of stone. The focus group participants
stated that, construction of stone bund contribute in alleviating soil erosion on their farm land.
But most households were not voluntary to build stone bund since the conservation structure
reduce the extent of the farming land, hinder grazing, oxen plowing and harbor pests.

Cut of drain: The cut-off drain is an open channel aided with embankment on their down
slope position. This type of conservation method were constructed across a slope to intercept
runoff coming from higher ground areas, which is finally entered in to a natural or
anthropogenic water ways. However, according to the perception of respondent, the
traditional cuts off drain structures create soil erosion after some years. As proofed by in
depth interview and group discussion, the cutoff drains initiate the development gullies
(Solomon Berhanu, 2016).

Soil bund: Soil bund is constructed with water collection channels at the upper side of the
farmland along the contour. By reducing the slope length, it protects farm land from run-off.
Mainly soil bunds are constructed in fields that have slope of less than 10%. This method is

13
important in controlling soil loss, enhancing soil moisture retaining capacity and ultimately
increasing productivity of farm land (WFP, 2005).

The study conducted by Solomon Berhanu,(2016); shows 10.64% of household respondents

are implemented soil bund on their farm land used to increase soil fertility by protecting soil
erosion and collecting rain water .Also by reducing the slope length, it protects farm land
from run-off.

2.6. Smallholder Farmer’s Participation in SWC Practices

People‘s participation has become rhetoric these days in developing countries. Participation
means different things to different people. In common parlance it is used to mean an act or
fact of partaking in‘. Participation means a dynamic group process in which all members of a
group contribute, share, or are influenced by the interchange of ideas and actives toward
problem solving or decision- making. There is no universally acceptable measure or index of
people‘s participation. One could use as a crude measure of participation such as proportions
of the target group of people who participated in various stages of a program, who adopted
various recommended measures and practices, and who expended their time and money on
participation in collective action (Singh, 1991).

The participation of people‘s in watershed development and management programs is crucial

for their successful and cost effective implementation. This is so because the watershed
requires that every field/parcel of land location in a watershed/ be treated with appropriate
soil and water conservation measures and used according to its physical capacity. For this to
happen, it is necessary that every farmers having land in the watershed accepts and
implements the recommended watershed development plan. There are some components of a
watershed development plan such as bund construction, leveling, etc. which can be
implemented by the farmers involved acting individually and there are many other items such
as check dams, waterways, etc., that can be implemented only through collective action of the
farmers. This means that for successful implementation of watershed development plan,
people‘s participation is necessary for action on their individual farm as well as on common
property land resource in the watershed. Like other agricultural and rural development
programs, in most cases, SWC programs suffer due to inadequate people‘s participation
(Abayneh Mekonnen, 2011).

14
Mahesh Kumar, (2018) it is, therefore, necessary for successful implementation of
development programs that the factors affecting people‘s participation are identified and
necessary measures for securing the needed participation adopted. The participation of
people‘s in SWC practices are convened in to three phases; such as participation at
implementation phase, participation at planning phase and after implementations like
maintenance of the physical structures that are practiced for conservation of soil as well as
water. The participation of various stake holders, including farmers was found to be lower in
planning and monitoring phases, for effective working the involvement is needed during all
the phases. Processes of internal sense making and actor specific perceptions are important
for the spread of soil and water conservation measures (Yinager, 2012).

According to Mahesh Kumar and Belay, (2018), the study shows that; the level of
participation of different categories of the community in SWC practices was assessed and
identified that the community in general is having good participation, whereas the
participation of women were medium and youth participation was lower. According to the
information gathered from the focus group discussion women in the study area spent most of
their time in domestic activities, whereas the youth group focused on off farm income
generating activities. It was learnt that land distribution was done before 27 years in the study
area and farmers with less than 40 years age did not have enough farm land.

Also the level of participation of different actors and HHs at different levels and phases of
SWC practices enhances the possibility of achieving sustainable outcomes. The household
heads participation in different levels of participation were participate by simply accept the
announcement, information giving, consultation, material incentive, functional, interactive,
and self initiation ways of participation levels (Mahesh Kumar, 2018). However it is
necessary to note that the significant involvements of the stakeholders during the various
phases were: implementation-high, planning-low and monitoring-no participation. Due to the
lack of active participation in all the phases of setting out these measures, there is a
significant under progress in achieving the intended goals (Mahesh Kumar, 2018).

2.7. Smallholder Farmer’s Willingness to Participate in SWC Practices

According to Mahesh Kumar (2018); the community participation was found to be higher,
however the participation of women was moderate and participation of youth was lower in

15
SWC campaign. Most of them participated without properly understanding the importance of
these measures, but through force and for the payment they had received.

Misperception was higher among communities; they opined that the measures were taken for
the benefits of the government and not for the individuals. Participation in SWC practices are
different from willingness to participate in SWC practices. This is because participation may
be concern for involvement of peoples in SWC practices by any means either voluntary or by
enforcement, but willingness to participate is peoples able to participate only by their
interest/volunteers (Mahesh Kumar and Belay, 2018). This is because of the processes of
internal sense making and actor specific perceptions are important for the spread of soil and
water conservation measures (Yinager, 2012).

According to Abayneh, (2011) and Solomon, (2016); the education level of the household
head was found to have a positive and significant impact on farmers‘ willingness to
participate in soil conservation practices, implying that educated farmers where more opt in
understanding the problem of soil erosion and could easily decide to take part willingly.
Farmer‘s perception of erosion hazard was found strongly and positively associated with
farmers‘ willingness to participate in soil conservation practice. About 80 % of the
respondents who were willing to participate in soil conservation practice perceived soil
erosion as a problem.

Also, Non-crop land affects the willingness of the farmers to participate. This is because as
more land is put out of production, the farmers realize a reduction in their productive land
and tend to be unwilling to invest in conservation measures. Conservation undertaking in the
past was positively related to the participation. Because of farmer who knows the available
option for taking soil erosion is more responsive to conservation undertakings. The attitude of
the farmers towards soil conservation was found to affect positively the willingness to
participate in soil conservation practices. This is possibly because of responsiveness to soil
conservation technology which will differ positively with the strength of conservation related
attitude (Abayneh, 2011).

The decision to participate in environmental schemes is influenced by a set of explanatory

variables. However, the choice of these variables often lacked a firm theoretical basis. Much
of the research on the role of environmental schemes have addressed farmer‘s behavior in
relation to policy objectives and farming context. In general, decision was influenced by the

16
consequence of particular policy on the farm income. The study has examined the life cycle
and succession factors, such as, age, farming experience, availability of a successor to take
over the benefit, farming intention in the future and conservation undertaking in the past.
Similarly, physical farm factors (percentage of total area under crops, grassland area, total
labor available, slope etc.) were considered to be important in the uptake of environmental
schemes in agriculture (Abayneh, 2011, and Abebe Gidey, 2015). Among large number of
factors, which have been related to farmer‘s willingness to participate in soil conservation
practices, demographic factors, institutional factors, socio-economic and physical factors are
the most to influence farmers‘ WTP.

2.8. Determinants of Farmers Willingness to Participate in SWC

According to Derajew et al (2013), study on examined the socio- economic, institutional and
technical factors that determine the use of improved soil conservation technologies in East
Gojjam Zone, Hulet Eju Enesie district. The results of this study indicated that educational
level of the household head; extension contact; and slope of the plot positively and
significantly affect farmers' willingness for conservation decision and the extent of use of
improved soil conservation technologies. Whereas: distance of the plot from residence,
livestock holding and fertility of farm plot affect negatively and significantly farmers'
conservation decision and the extent of use of improved soil conservation technologies.

According to Abayneh (2011); the factors that determine farmer‘s willingness to participate
in SWC are farmer‘s behavior in relation to policy objectives and farming context. In general,
decision was influenced by the consequence of particular policy on the farm income; Factors,
such as, age, farming experience, availability of a successor to take over the benefit, farming
intention in the future and conservation undertaking in the past. Similarly, physical farm
factors (percentage of total area under crops, grassland area, total labor available, slope etc.)
were considered to be important in the uptake of environmental schemes in agriculture ( as
Abayneh, 2011 cited from : Wynn et al, 2001) based on the findings of past studies, on
farmers willingness and decisions on investment and participation in commons. Among large
number of factors, which have been related to farmer‘s willingness to participate in soil
conservation practices are: age of household head, Education, Area of total cultivated land,
Fertility category of a farm plot,: Perception of a household head on soil erosion problem,
Security of the land, Distance of the a farm plot from residence and Extension contact of a
household head have to influence farmers‘ decision in the study area.

17
According to the survey result, soil erosion was severe on farm plots and communal grazing
lands at rainy or summer season. This shows that the major causes of soil erosion in the study
area is water erosion. Hence, this is a call for community awareness about the problem and
causes of soil erosion as well as its consequences will help to motivate farmers‘ willingness
to participate in soil and water conservation practices (Bamlaku et al, 2015).

2.9. Empirical Studies

According to Abrham, et al. (2016), a better understanding of farmers‘ participation and their
knowledge behavior is vital for designing plausible policies that could encourage the
sustainable use of improved SWC measures. The study show that most of farmers
participated in SWC works. However, farmers believed that SWC works were done through
enforcement. These farmers participation in SWC works to avoid penalty rather than they do
real SWC work for sustainable land management. Most of farmers‘ participate in the
implementation phase of SWC practices in both watersheds. This indicated that the practices
did not consider the participatory principles. Most of the farmers are well aware about the
SWC measures and they also believed SWC measures can control soil erosion problems in
the study watersheds.

According to Abayneh Mekonnen, (2011: cited from Bekele and Holden, 1998);Most
empirical studies on land degradation analyze the impact of physical factors like topography,
climate and soil, farming practices and population pressure on soil erosion.

Geeta(2006); the study on Dimensions and Determinants of Peoples‘ Participation in

Watershed Development Programmes in Rajasthan; The study has revealed that institutional
effectiveness is the key factor towards guaranteeing involvement of the people in watershed
program. Often, the in-house skills for development of local institutions are not adequate. At
times government organizations subcontract social organization to NGOs. But this should
only be an interim arrangement, while government organizations develop these skills.
Otherwise, they will continue to consider peoples‘ participation a discrete activity, such as
establishing a committee or informing villagers about project plans, rather than a process that
should underline every activity (Semu Arayasilasie, 2017).

Also, frequent visits of the extension staff are essential for motivating and mobilizing local
support, formation of groups, facilitating planning, efficient implementation and evaluation.
The regular interaction between extension personnel and beneficiaries helps in identifying the

18
problems and constraints and evolving solutions in a participatory way. Capacity building
through training of beneficiaries is essential for creating awareness and involvement.
Depending upon the resource-base, farmers should be imparted training not only in soil and
water conservation practices but also in suitable enterprises for higher income generation.
This will also provide incentive to stay in the countryside productively and contribute to the
resource conservation process (Merkineh Mesene(2017).

Gebremedhin (2004) conducted a study on community participation, and the study showed
that every year, considerable resources were invested in SWC works. However, these
activities did not reach the required level and also sustainability was still a point of
discussion.

Dawit.T(2014) conducted a study on the impacts and impediments of community

participation on SWC to sustainable land resource management in Laelay Michew Woreda,
Tigray, Ethiopia. The study results indicated that, level of education, health status; income
and social facilities like transportation and communication determine the participation of the
community in SWC practices.

Simeneh and Getachew (2016) studied about the perception of farmers toward physical SWC
structures in Wyebla Watershed, Northwest Ethiopia, majority of sampled respondents had
awareness on the problem of soil erosion on their farm lands, but they had argued that soil
erosion reduces crop production and this could be solved through appropriate SWC measures.
However, in order to achieve better sustainability the critical areas to be concentrated
included planning, implementation and maintenance phases through awareness creation,
capacity building and motivating real community participation.

Nigatu et al, (2017).studied on the farmer‘s perceptions regarding soil erosion and
conservation practices concluded that socio-economic and biophysical factor such as
uncontrolled (free) grazing, distance between homestead and farm land and farmers‘ low
level of the economic capacity were the main challenging problem in order to implement
SWC measures in the study area.
According to Mahesh Kumar and Belay, (2018) study on Community Perception and
Participation towards Soil and Water Conservation Practices at Gubalafto District of Amhara
Region, Ethiopia; the study shows that the community participation was found to be higher,
however the participation of women was moderate and participation of youth was lower in

19
SWC campaign. Most of them participated without properly understanding the importance of
these measures, but through force and for the payment they had received.

The participation of various stake holders was found to be lower in planning and monitoring
phases, for effective working the involvement is needed during all the phases. Misperception
was higher among communities; they opined that the measures were taken for the benefits of
the government and not for the individuals. The variations among the level of perceptions
with regards to the three agro-ecological areas were insignificant. The attitudes of the
participants showed that these measures are benefiting the government policies and not to the
individuals. They were involved in the activities by force and payment; necessary measure
must be taken up to change this attitudinal behavior (Abebe Gidey, 2015, and Mahesh Kumar
and Belay, 2018).

According to Abrham, et al, (2016); the study that examines the farmers‘ participation and
their knowledge on sustainable use of improved soil and water conservation activities in
Enebsie Sarmidir District: The results revealed that most farmers (85.6%) were participated
in SWC practices. However, most of them involved through enforcement (59.9%) at
implementation phases (75.2%) of soil and water conservation practices. Farmers were more
interested in participating soil and water conservation activities when they have steep slope of
farmland and they also observed short term effect of conservation to arrest soil. On the other
hand, poor effectiveness of the structures and unfair selection of farmers for layout and
design activities are reluctant farmers to participate. There is significant difference on
benefits of soil and water conservation (P<0.01) and effectiveness of soil and water
conservation (P< 0.01) between the study watersheds. The study concluded that farmers
should have awareness on the benefits of conservation measures and on how to design soil
and water conservation technologies before being involved in planning, implementation and
evaluation of the outcomes for the sustainability of soil and water conservation technologies.

The study on peoples‘ participation in watershed development programmes in Rajasthan has

revealed that a very low proportion of beneficiaries are contributing at different stages of the
programme in terms of either labor or finances or both. The determinants of participation
have been identified using Tobit regression. The institutional effectiveness has been found as
the key factor towards guaranteeing involvement of people in the watershed programme. The
other factors positively related with peoples‘ participation are training of farmers, age, and

20
frequency of the visit of extension workers. A negative relationship has been found between
participation and off-farm income (Geeta Bisaria, et al, 2006).

Daniel Danano (2002); a study was undertaken to assess the constraints to sustainable soil
and water conservation interventions and develop effective strategies to the soil and water
conservation program in Ethiopia. The methodology used in identifying the constraints were
the collection of information from the beneficiaries and field staff across the country,
analyzing results of field trials, observations and review of study reports and relevant
documents. Some of the major constraints identified were low awareness of the beneficiaries
on the problem of soil erosion and the impact of soil conservation measures in combating the
problem, lack of genuine participation on the part of farming population, ineffective technical
packages fitting to local conditions, lack of policies etc. Promoting participation, formulation
of sound policies, proper livestock management, formulation of appropriate technological
packages, pursuing watershed planning and implementation approaches and promotion of
income generating activities were the strategies suggested to tackle these constraints.

According to Mahesh Kumar and Belay (2018); Descriptive and inferential data analyses
were applied in the study and the results showed that 66.7% of the farmers participated in the
soil and water conservation practices by force and for payments. It was found that the
participation of various stake holders was lower in the planning and monitoring phases and
higher in the implementation phase. Misperception about the importance of soil and water
conservation was existed within the community, and a single factor ANOVA indicated that
there were no remarkable variations among the three agro ecological zones of the study
district on the level of misperception. This indicates level of perception depend on
households attitude, but not based on agro ecological zone variations of the district.

21
Table 1. Summary of some different studies related SWC practices in Ethiopia

No Studied by Year of Objective of the study Types of data Sources of Methods of data Methods of data
study used data collection analyses
in GC

1 Mahesh 2018 To assess the levels of Both qualitative Both Interviews FGD, Descriptive,
Kumar and perception and and quantitative Secondary , field observations inferential
Belay participation of the primary and secondary data
community towards SWC sources sources and a single
practices, in Gubalafto, factor ANOVA
Amhara, Ethiopia were used

2 Miheretu 2017 To investigate the Both qualitative Both Using a survey Using
and Yimer determinants of farmers‘ and Secondary questionnaire multinomial
adoption of land quantitative primary logit model
management practice in sources (MNL).
the Gelana sub
watershed, Northern
highlands of Ethiopia

3 Nelson, et al 2017 To investigate the Both qualitative Both Double-bounded Both the Probit
farmers‘ willingness to and quantitative Secondary dichotomous format and Bivariate
pay for improved SWC primary of contingent Probit models
practices on communal sources valuation method is were estimated
land in Kuyu woreda, used
North Shoa, Oromia
Ethiopia.

22
4 Anteneh, et 2014 To identify major factors Both qualitative Both using semi- Tobit
al affecting farmers and quantitative Secondary structured Regression
‗maintenance decision of primary questionnaire Model was
introduced SWC sources employed
technologies

5 Nigatu, et al 2017 To assess farmers Both qualitative Secondary Reviewing of Narration and
perception on SWC and quantitative sources different literature‘s tabulated
practices on crop
productivity and identify
major constraint‘s in
SWC practices in
Ethiopia

6 Solomon 2016 To assess factors that Both qualitative Both Interview, FGD and Data was
Berhanu determines the adoption and quantitative Secondary questionnaire analyzed by
of soil and water primary binary logistic
conservation practices in sources regression
Libo Kemkem woreda. model, t-test
and chi-square
tests.

7 Derajew, et 2013 To examined the socio- Qualitative and Both primary Interview, focus Two-limit
al economic, institutional quantitative and secondary group discussion Tobit model
and technical factors that method data were and questionnaire was used
determine the use of collected Descriptive
improved SWC statistics were
technologies in East also used
Gojjam Zone

23
8 Bamlaku ,et 2015 To assess Smallholder Qualitative and Primary and Questionnaire, Descriptive
al Farmer‘s Willingness to quantitative secondary interview,FGD statistics and
pay for Improved SWC cross tabulation
Practice: in Abaro- Toga CVM, ,bi-and
Watershed Ethiopia multivarite
Probit model

9 Abrham, et 2016 To examines the farmers‘ Qualitative and Both primary Formal and Data were
al participation and their quantitative and secondary informal surveys analyzed with
knowledge on sustainable method data were were undertaken descriptive
use of improved SWC collected statistics and
activities in Enebsie cross tabulation
Sarmidir District

10 Desalew 2017 To analyze major Both qualitative Secondary Review of literature Descriptive
and Aklilu determinants of farmers‘ and quantitative sources and ,data collected analysis (
perception to invest in primary from Field survey frequency and
SWC technologies sources by interview percentage)
schedule
Binary logit
model used

11 Teshome et 2016 To assess Farmers‘ Both qualitative Both Using a survey multinomial
al, perceptions about the and quantitative Secondary questionnaire logit model
influence of land quality, primary (MNL)
tenure systems on SLM sources

24
2.10. Conceptual Framework of the Study

The conceptual framework below speculates different determinant factors for HHs WTP for
soil and water conservation practices. The conceptual framework has formulated to deal with
farmers‘ willingness to participate in physical and biological soil and water conservation
practices of the study area. This is to explore; the commonly practiced SWC practice, need to
improvement of SWC practices, need to compare effectiveness of SWC practices, need to get
sustain soil and water conservation practices in Guna Begemidir District of South Gondar
zone Amhara region. This was doing through identification of determinant factors of local
people‘s willingness to participate in SWC practices. These determinate factors has
categorized as institutional factors, socioeconomic factors, and biophysical factors. The
institutional factors are those that related with governing policy in general, environmental
policy in particular. Institutional factors, such as: land tenure security, access to training,
extension contact and social position of the household heads.

The socio-economic factors are those that referred to household characteristics. Socio-
economic factors like age of the household heads, sex of the HHs, family size of HHs,
livestock holding, farming experience, educational status, off-farm income, and farmers‘
perception
The physical factors are those that related with topography, ecology of the study area. The
physical factor includes: farm plot size, distance from homestead, and effectiveness of past
soil and water conservation practices.

25
 Guna Begemidir Woreda

Physical SWC Biological

practices
Performance of Past &Current SWC practices
interventions of SWC Practices

Farmers‘ Willingness to Participate in SWC Practices

Socio-economic factors:
Age of HHs
Off-farm income
Sex of the HHs
Family size of HHs
Livestock holding
Farming experience
Educational status
Farmer‘s perception
Physical factors:
Institutional factors: Farm land size
Land tenure security
Distance from homestead
Access to training
Extension contact Past SWC practices
Social Position

Figure 1. Conceptual frame work of the Hypothesized factors that influence the WTP
Source: own, 2019 with modification of Kibrome (2017)

26
 CHAPTER THREE

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the Study Area

This study has been conducted in Guna begemidir district of South Gondar Zone, Amhara
regional state, Ethiopia. The study area is located at 690 kms North-West of Addis Ababa, the
capital city of Ethiopia; at130 kms North West of Bahirdar, capital city of Amhara, and at
29kms North West of South Gondar Zone. Its specific location lies between 11032‘- 12003‘
latitude and 37031‘- 38043‘ longitude with an estimated area of 1118 km2. The Woreda is
bordering: Lay gaint Woreda in the West, Farta Woreda in the East, Ebinat Woreda in the
North and Estie Woreda in the South (PEDD, 2002).

The entire area of the study district has a topography characterized by extremely high relief in
the upper watershed of the Blue Nile River system. Over 70 percent of the land area is
characterized by gently inclined hills and gully landscape. This makes the area highly
exposed to serious soil erosion problem (Abera Berhanu, 2003).

Guna begemidir Woreda is the newly emerged woreda from Farta woreda, and the woreda
has a total of 18 kebeles .The altitude of the study area varies between 1900 and 4035 meter
above mean sea level with topography of gentle to undulating (Yitbarek, 2007). In terms of
climatic condition the study district has average annual minimum, maximum and mean
temperatures respectively 9.7, 22, 15.5°C. The rainfall pattern is unimodal, stretching from
May to September. The annual rainfall ranges between 1097 and 1954 mm with a long term
average of 1448 mm (Yitbarek, 2007)

The district is known with mixed farming zone where crop and livestock enterprises are
interacting in the system. Livestock plays a significant role in the system. It is the major
source of draft power and it also serves as a source food and source of cash (Yitbarek, 2007).
According to woreda agriculture annual report (2017), both crops and livestock productions
are equally important at Dega and Woyina Dega areas of the Woreda. But crop production is
practiced more with that of livestock production. Therefore, in the area soil erosion is very
serious due to the slope of land and crop production practices. The woreda development of
infrastructures such as health service (both human and livestock) and education services,

27
communication network, availability of marketing road etc. are important for sustainable
agricultural development in the overall development of the economy in general.

Figure 2. Location and map of study area

3.2. Research Design

Design of the study is non-experimental method based on different cross-sectional data
collection techniques. With respect to the objectives and nature of research questions of the
study, combination of both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques has been
employed. In this section, techniques and procedures of sampling and sample size
determination, sources and types of data, principles of data collection, definition of terms and
methods analysis are discussed in detail. The overall research design involved the following
processes in general:

 Investigation of existing secondary data/information on the research topic

 Preliminary information gathering on the case study area, and then developing of
structured questioners E.g.:- on population size in districts and kebeles
administrations

28
  Decision on sample size and selection of sample locations, collecting of data, analysis
of the collected data and the like.

3.3. Sampling Methods and Sample Size Determination

The study has been used by mixing of both qualitative and quantitative descriptive survey.
An important decision that has to be taken while selecting a sampling technique is about the
size of the sample. Appropriate sample size depends on various factors relating to the subject
under investigation including time, cost and degree of accuracy. In line with this, four-stage
sampling procedure was used to select sampled respondents.

In the first step; South Gondar Zone and Guna Begemidir Woreda were selected purposively.
This is because of the area is mostly vulnerable by soil erosion. Therefore the researcher
selects the study area to assess the farmers or the community member‘s willingness to
participate for improved soil and water conservation practices that exist in the area. This
mean that the district is purposefully selected based on the fact that in the area the existence
of communal land and erosion severity.

Then at the 2nd stage, a total of five Kebeles namely: Atkena, Gentegna, Tadomender,
Amjaye and Adeder were selected from a total of 18 kebeles of Guna begemidir Woreda by
using simple random sampling technique. Afterwards, lists of HHs in each kebele were
obtained from the respective kebele offices. With the lists, a systematic random sampling
procedure was used to select the total sample households. After selecting the sample Kebeles,
the researcher try to determine the sample size using (Yamane, 1967) formula.

The formula given as:

Where: sample size, 𝑒= precision at 0.07, N= Total population.

The Numbers of HHs in Amjaye, Adeder, Gentegna, Tadomender, and in Atkena Kebele
were 1332,553,889, 598 and 1360 respectively. The total households were 4732 and based on
the above formula the actual sample size for this study was 200. For the 3rd stage proportional
to population size (PPS) based on HHs is essential to determine the number of respondent
from five Kebeles.

29
Table 2. List of household heads in each kebeles

No Kebeles Total households Sampled households

1 Adeder 553 25

2 Amjaye 1332 55

3 Atkena 1360 56

4 Gentegna 889 37

5 Tadomender 598 27

Total 4732 200

Sources: Each kebeles administrative office

Finally, systematic random sampling technique (SRS) was used to select 200 sampled
respondents

South Gondar Zone

Purposively

Guna Begemidir

Amjaye Adeder Atkena Tadomender Gentagna Simple random

(1332) (553) (1360) (598) (889)

55 25 56 27 37 PPS

200 HHs SRS

Figure: 3. Sampling Techniques and Procedure

30
 3.4. Data types, Sources and Data Collection Methods

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. The data that would be collected for
this study involved both primary and secondary sources. The primary data sources include
farmers, development agents of the kebeles and soil and water conservation experts of the
five site selected kebeles in the Woreda. Secondary data was collected from published and
unpublished materials that are being available in libraries of BDU and other relevant
institutions that have direct related to the study. These source materials were journals,
workshop proceedings, thesis, dissertation, books agricultural reports, discussion papers, and
statistical abstracts collected from zonal, district and kebele level offices of agriculture.
Primary data collection was conducted through following data collection techniques:

Questionnaire: The semi structured and structured questionnaire has been piloted by
administering it to select some respondents from nearby kebeles of the district for further
modification on its content, ordering of questions and clarity. Based on the results obtaining
from the pre-test, necessary modifications had made on the questionnaire. To generate
quantitative and qualitative information at household level, household interview survey had
used by developing open and close ended questionnaires.

These questionnaires were written in English language and translated in to Amharic to make
questions simple and clear for the respondent and to facilitate data collection during
household survey. The questionnaire has been pre-tested to evaluate for consistency, clarity
and to avoid duplication and to estimate the time requirement during data collection.

Thus, primary data had obtained from sample respondents using household interview
schedule method to get first-hand information about the participation of HHs in soil and
water conservation practices as well as their willingness and determinants of household‘s
willingness to participation for soil and water conservation practices in the study area.
Sample respondents of this study were household heads.

31
a b

c) d

Figure 4. (a, b, c, d): Individual household‘s interview

Field Observation: Observation has done to the type of farmers‘ bio-physical soil and water
conservation practices and its effectiveness on their farm lands, topographic situations was
observed. This was activated with the assistance of chairperson of the kebeles and
development agents of the selected areas.

32
Focus Group Discussions (FGD): To get qualitative data focus group discussions had
carried out with farmers practicing different soil and water practices on their farm land. Two
focus group discussions have undertaken in two representative site kebeles of the woreda.
The number of participants in each group ranged from 6–8 farmers. The selection of
participants have made based on their landholding, farm experiences, farm characteristics,
age and sex. In addition, it concentrated on knowledge of soil fertility, skill, and local
participation in soil and water conservation in their farming experience.

Figure 5. FGDs with representatives of the rural community

Key Informant Interview: Interview made with key informants (elderly farmers, peasant
association of the kebeles working on SWC. In depth interview was presented with
development agents of the kebeles and soil and water conservation experts in each selected
kebeles. Types of SWC activities, major Challenges in relation to soil and water conservation
practices, lessons training in the implementation of SWC was discussed.

Generally interview, focused group discussions and filed observation has been used to gather
in-depth information which is difficult to collect through structured questionnaire as well as
to triangulate the information gathered through structured questionnaire. Transect walk across
different plots also used in order to obtain all the necessary physical information about the
area and to characterize and understand biophysical and terrain features such as topography,
erosion hazard, land uses, slope characteristics, structural soil and water conservation
practices.

33
 3.5. Data Analysis Methods

For the analysis of the collected data descriptive and econometric methods were employed.
The descriptive techniques such as frequency, mean, standard deviation, and percentage were
computed for different variables. With regard to econometric analysis, binary choice models
are appropriate when the decision making choice between two alternatives depends on the
characteristics of the problem. Three types of models have been proposed in the econometric
literature for estimating binary choice models: the linear probability, logit, and probit models
represented by linear probability function, logistic distribution function, and normal
distribution function, respectively (Gujarati, 2004).These functions were used to approximate
the mathematical relationships between explanatory variables and the decision to participate
that is always assigned qualitative response variables.

The data analysis had been carried out using the stata, MS-excel as well as SPSS (version
22.0) software packages.

Model Specification

For this study, a model that reflects the determinants of willingness to participation for
structural soil and water conservation measures on any particular farm would be required.
Different literature on soil and water conservation investments would be assessed to select
appropriate model. Logit and probit models are popular statistical techniques in which the
probability of a dichotomous outcome (such as willing or not willing) is related to a set of
explanatory variables that are hypothesized to influence the outcome (Gujarati, 1999).

Logit model was used to estimate dependent dichotomous variables. Although linear
probability model is the simplest method, and that it assumes the conditional probability
increases linearly with the value of explanatory variables. Unlike linear probability model,
logit model guarantees that the estimated probabilities increase but never step outside the 0 -
1 interval and the relationship between probability (Pi) and explanatory variable (Xi) is
nonlinear (Gujarati, 1999).

The logit model has been widely used in many fields for categorical nature of data. In
practice many researchers choose the logit model because of its comparative mathematical
simplicity (Gujarati, 2004).By the nature of data a binary logit model has been chosen for this
study. The model enables the determination of the factors influencing willingness to

34
participate in soil and water conservation in the context of individually specific data on
binary/dichotomous outcome/ choices.
Following Maddala (1992) and Gujarati (2004) the logistic distribution for the willingness to
participate in conservation practices can be specified as:

Where: Subscript I denotes the ith observation in the sample; Pi is the probability that an
individual will make a certain choice given Xi; e is the base of natural logarithms and
approximately equal to 2.718; Xi is a vector of exogenous; variables α and β are parameters
of the model, β1, β2……, βk are the coefficients associated with each explanatory variables
X1, X2, …, Xn. The above function can be rewritten as:

Logit (pi) =

Where:

P/ (1-P) are the odds (likelihoods);

β0 is the intercept;

β1, β2 … and βk are coefficients of the associated independent variables of X1, X2…and Xk..

The effect of the independent variables (e.g., β1) is interpreted as the odds (likelihoods) of the
outcome increases or decreases by a factor of eβ1. The quantity eβ1is called the odds ratio. The
odds ratio is a measure of association between the independent and the dependent variables.
If β < 0, the likelihood of the outcome decreases; if β > 0, the likelihood of the outcome
increases and if β = 0, the independent variable does not have any effect on the likelihood of
the outcome. It should be noted that the estimated coefficients reflect the effect of individual
explanatory variables on its log of odds {ln[P/( 1- P)]}. The positive coefficient means that
the log odds increase as the corresponding independent variable increases and the inverse is
true for negative coefficients (Gujarati, 2004).The coefficients in the logistic regression are
estimated using the maximum likelihood estimation method.

Assessment of the Fitting Model

After estimating the coefficients in equation 3.2 above, there are several steps involved in
assessing the appropriateness, adequacy and usefulness of the model. First, the importance of

35
each of the explanatory variables would be assessed by carrying out statistical tests of the
significance of the coefficients. Then the overall goodness of fit of the model would be
tested. Additionally, the ability of the model to discriminate between the two groups defined
by the response variable is evaluated. Finally, if possible, the model is validated by checking
the goodness of fit and discrimination on a different set of data from that which would be
used to develop the model.

The Wald Statistic

The Wald test is a way of testing the significance of particular explanatory variables in a
statistical model. The Wald statistic is an alternative test which is commonly used to test the
significance of individual logistic regression coefficients for each predictor variable. The
Wald test approximates the likelihood ratio test, but with the advantage that it only requires
estimating one model.

The Wald test statistic is: , But Wald =

Each Wald statistic is compare with a distribution with one degree of freedom. For each
explanatory variable in the model there were associated parameters. If, for a particular
explanatory variable, or group of explanatory variables, the Wald test is significant, then we
would conclude that the parameters associated with these variables are not zero, so that the
variables should be included in the model. If the Wald test is not significant then these
explanatory variables can be omitted from the model.

Hypothesis testing

Ho: Bj=0. VS HA: Bj≠ 0 at α level of significance.

Decision rule: We reject the null hypothesis Ho if the value of Zcalis greater than the value of

Zα/2

Or, we reject the null hypothesis (Ho) if the p-value less than value

Conclusion: if the null hypothesis is rejected: we conclude that at least one of the
independent variables is significant in the model.

36
Likelihood-Ratio Test
An alternative and widely used approach to testing the significance of a number of
explanatory variables is to use the likelihood ratio test. This is appropriate for a variety of
types of statistical models. Agrestic (2002) argues that the likelihood ratio test is better,
particularly if the sample size is small or the parameters are large. The likelihood-ratio test
uses the ratio of the maximized value of the likelihood function for the full model (L1) over
the maximized value of the likelihood function for the simpler model (L0). The likelihood-
ratio test statistic equals:

)  2log( Lo )  log( L1 )..................................................................................3.3

Lo
 2 log(
L1

It is compared with a χ2 distribution with 1 degree of freedom. This log transformation of the
likelihood functions yields a chi-squared statistic.

Goodness of Fit of the Model

The goodness of fit or calibration of a model measures how well the model describes the
response variable. Assessing goodness of fit involves investigating how close values
predicted by the model with that of observed values.

The Hosmer Lemeshow Test

The final measure of model fit is the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic, which
measures the correspondence between the actual and predicted values of the dependent
variable. The Hosmer Lemeshow test is a commonly used test for assessing the goodness of
fit of a model and allows for any number of explanatory variables, which may be continuous
or categorical. The test is similar to a χ2 goodness of fit test and has the advantage of
partitioning the observations into groups of approximately equal size, and therefore there are
less likely to be groups with very low observed and expected frequencies. In this case, better
model fit is indicated by a smaller difference in the observed and predicted classification. The
test hypothesis can be formulated as:

Ho: The model is good to fit the data.

H1: The model is not good to fit the data.

Decision rule: We do not reject the null hypothesis if the p value >α value=0.05.

37
Odd ratio: An important interpretation of binary regression model uses the odd ratio. The
odd ratios of response (the odd of success) are given as:

Odd = .

The ratio of probability of success to probability of failure is odds of success. Exp(β j) where,
j=1,2………j is factor by which the odds of occurrence of success change by a unit increase
in the ith independent variable

3.6. Working Hypotheses and Variable Specification

Studies made on farmers‘ decision on willingness to participation for soil conservation

structures and related theories indicated that wide range of social, demographic,
socioeconomic, physical and institutional factors influence for willingness to participation.
Hence, based on previous studies and experience, potential explanatory variables that can
influence decision of farmers are identified and they are presented below (table 3.2).

The Dependent Variable of the Model: The dependent variable is a binary choice variable
and measuring the willingness of households to participate for soil and water conservation
practices. The value of the dependent variable takes 1 for the ―willing‖, zero for ‗‘not-
willing‘‘.

The Independent Variables of the Model: the probability or the level of farm household‘s
WTP for soil and water conservation depends on various factors such as poverty and
household characteristics, than only farm characteristics. Based on the findings of past studies
on household‘s willingness to participation to SWC practices and decisions on investment
and participation, the following variables are hypothesized to determine smallholder farmers
willingness to participation in soil and water conservation practices.

Age of the household head (AGE): This is a continuous variable indicating the age of the
household head in years. The age of farm household head may have either negative or
positive effect on soil conservation willingness. Older age may shorten planning time horizon
and reduce the WTP; or it may relate to farm experience and increase willingness to improve
the soil for better productivity (Tessema and Holden, 2006). The longer farming experience,
here equated with the older farmers is expected to have a positive effect on conservation
decision. On the other hand, young farmers may have a longer planning horizon and, hence,

38
may be more likely to invest in conservation. Yitayal (2004), Tessema and Holden (2006),
found a negative and significant relationship, on the contrary, Demeke (2003), found a
positive relationship between age and soil conservation investment decisions. So, the effect of
age of the household head to willingness to participation for soil conservation can be positive
or negative.

Education status of the Household head (EDUCATION): This variable, which takes a
value 1 if the household head is educated and 0, otherwise. Education has been shown to be
positively correlated with farmers‘ willingness to participate in SWC practices. Household
heads with better education are expected to understand consequences of degradation and be
willing to invest more in soil conservation (Tessema and Holden, 2006). Paulos Asrat (2002)
reported a positive relationship. It had a positive and strong relationship with the dependent
variable showing that literate household heads were more to recognize the advantages of soil
conservation and willing to take part in it. Similarly, Yitayal (2004), in his study in Jimma
Zone found a positive relationship. So, the expected sign of education status of the household
head is positive.

Social Position (SPOSITION): Is a dummy variable which takes 1 if the household has
some social position in its community; 0, otherwise. Social position of the household head is
expected to affect willingness to participation positively. This is because households who
have a social position in the community provides a chance to be more aware for conservation
activity due to gain of different information from DAs or other extension experts,

Household head family Size (FSIZE): It is a continuous variable which refers to the number
of family members of the household and it indicates the number of available labor force in
man equivalent. This explanatory variable is included because it affects the labor supply at
household level. Some soil conservation technologies are labor intensive and this may have a
positive implication on whether the household can decide to participate in the soil
conservation practices.

Sex of the Household Head (SEX): This is recorded as dummy variable (1=male,
0=otherwise) and is included in the model to find out the influence of gender for soil
conservation willingness to participation. Male farmers have a probability of getting more
access to information than female household heads. Doss and Morris (2001), as it is cited in
Behailu (2009), confirmed that women farmers tend to adopt improved technologies at a
lower rate than men because of limited access to information and resource. This can be

39
further justified that soil conservation structures need intensive labor so male headed
households are expected to be more willing than female headed households. It is, therefore,
hypothesized that household head being male would have a positive influence on the WTP.

Farm land Size (FASIZE): It is a continuous variable expressed in terms of hectares of

cultivable land owned and expected to have a positive effect on the willingness of farmers to
participation for the soil conservation. This is because farmers who have more cultivable land
are expected to be more willing to devote some land for soil conservation structure and are
expected to willing for the soil conservation practices. This hypothesis is similar to the
findings of (Paulos Asrat, 2002), where a total cultivable land was found to be positively
associated with willingness to participation for soil conservation.

Off-farm income: It is a continuous variable which gets total ETB per study year by
participation in off-farm activities. Participation of household head in off-farm activities were
avail cash for buy SWC construction materials and getting additional income to full fill some
expenditure in the family. A study by Habtemariam, (2004) suggested a positive effect of off-
farm participation on technology introduction. Therefore, off-farm employment is likely to be
positively related to WTP for SWC practices and able to participation.

Farmers’ perception of erosion hazard (PERCEPTION): This is a dummy which takes 1

if the household perceives the problem of soil erosion, zero otherwise. The recognition of the
soil erosion problem is considered to be vital for soil conservation decision. In other words,
farmers who have already perceived the problem of soil erosion are more likely to be willing
to participate in soil conservation activities than those who have not perceived the problem
(Paulos Asrat, 2002). Thus, the perception variable would be expected to be strongly and
positively associated with farmers‟ willingness to participation for soil conservation.

Distance to the farm plot (DISTANCE): This is a continuous variable which refers to the
amount of time in minutes that a farmer spends to reach to the farm plot from home. The
average time the farmer must travel from the residential area to the farm plot may have an
effect on the willingness to participation for conservation practices. It is hypothesized that the
further away the residential area of the household from the farm plot, less is expected to be
willing to participate in soil conservation practices because it is expected to compete with
doing of off farm activity than involve in SWC practices. So, distance to the farm plot is
expected to have a negative effect on WTP.

40
Total livestock holding (TLU): This refers to the total number of livestock (measured in
Tropical Livestock Units, TLU) the farmer owns. In Ethiopia, livestock are important source
of cash income, manure and source of power for cultivation. It is, therefore, hypothesized that
the higher the livestock holding the higher the household would be willing to participation for
soil conservation practices. This is because of conservation activities provide a good sources
of fodder and other feeds for the livestock‘s.

Perception to Security of Tenure (TENURE): A dummy variable, which is a proxy for

security of land tenure that takes a value 1 if the peasant considered that he/ she would be
able to use the plot area at least during his/her life time, zero otherwise. The incentive to land
improvement decision is based on part of secured future access to land. Hence, a positive
effect would be expected.

Frequency of extension contact (FREQEXTENSION): This is continuous variable which

is the number of days that the farmers contact with extension agent in a year. Extension is a
way of building the human capital of farmers by exposing them to information that reduces
uncertainty (Birhan Sisay, 2009). In this study this variable is expected to affect willingness
for soil conservation of farmers positively. This is because extension intervention is expected
to strengthen technology usage of the farmers which further improves the income status and
thus resulting in increase in the willingness of the households to use soil conservation
practices.

Access to training: This is a dummy variable which is the availability of training that the
household gets in the past year. Training might give relevant information on SWC and might
enhance willingness to participation. However, from the result of (Fikru Assefa, 2009),
shows access to training had a significant negative effect on use of some swc, because the
information they were get about that practice is often incomplete relative to other practices.
But, it is hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship with soil conservation
practices.

Farming experience of farmers’ in SWC practices: This is continuous variable which is

the number of years the farmers have farming experience in SWC practices. As expected
sign, farming experience that were farmers has positive relationship with the probability of
being participate in SWC practice integrated. It shows that as farming experience of
household heads increases, the probability of households for participate in integrated SWC

41
practices tend to increase. The findings of Kibrome (2017) a significant positive relationship
was found between farmers‘ previous experience and current insight of SWC practices.

Past SWC practices effectiveness: - A variable, which takes a value 1 if the farmer has
perceived that past SWC activities were effective and sustainable and 0 otherwise.
Sustainability and effectiveness of SWC practices that have been undertaken in the past
makes land users to be more receptive to conservation structures (Abayneh Mekonnen, 2011).
Therefore, conservation undertaking in the past which is a proxy variable for technology
awareness was hypothesized to have a positive effect on the willingness to participate in
conservation works.

Table 3. The summary of explanatory variables used in the model

Variables Description Data type Unit Hypothesized

Age Age of the respondent Continuous Years -Ve

Education Respondent Educational Dummy 1=educated,0=not +ve

status educated

Sex Sex of respondent Dummy 1=male,0=female -ve

Family size Family size of the Continuous Man equivalent +ve

respondent

Past SWC Effectiveness of Past Dummy 1=yes , 0=no +ve

SWC activity

Off-farm Off-farm income of Continuous ETB/annum +ve

income
respondent

Farm size Size of land holdings Continuous Hectare +ve

Extension Extension contact Continuous Days/year +ve

Access Frequency

Social Position Social Position of Dummy 1=have +ve

respondent participated ,0

42
 otherwise

Farmers‘ Farmers‘ perception of Dummy 1=have perception, +ve

perception erosion hazard 0=otherwise

Farm distance Distance to homestead Continuous Minutes -ve

Security of Respondent perception Dummy 1=Yes, +ve
land tenure to Security of tenure 0=otherwise

Livestock Livestock holding Continuous TLU +ve

holding

Training access Taken Training in Dummy 1=Yes, 0=No +ve

SWC

Farm exp Farm experience in Continuous Years +ve

SWC

43
 CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the result and interpretation of the analytical findings derived from
primary data gathered from 200 sampled household heads that analyzed using both
descriptive statistics and econometric models. Descriptive statistics were employed to
describe the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the sampled household heads.
An econometric analysis used to identify determining factors affecting the household‘s
willingness to participate in soil and water conservation activities in the study. All reported
that they have participated in some soil and water conservation activities. However, their
willingness to participate differs widely between households. And also this chapter discussed
the result with the support of some previous works.

4.1. Descriptive Result of the Study

4.1.1. The Common Soil and Water Conservation Practices

Based on the survey, there were eight major soil and water conservation practices (physical
and biological) that have been identified by the local development agent during key-
informant interview and FGD in the study area. Hence; to prevent land degradation,
especially soil erosion, in the study area farmers use a number of physical and biological soil
and water conservation practices. These conservation measures include mulching, traditional
and newly introduced cut-off drains, plantation of trees, stone bunds, soil bund, stone faced
soil bund, contour farming, check dam, and fallowing of the farm land for some periods of
years.

Table 4. Common SWC practices in the study area

No Do you participate in …….? Frequency Percent

Contour farm No 62 31.0

Yes 138 69.0
Mulching No 122 61.0
Yes 78 39.0
cut-off drain No 66 33.0
Yes 134 67.0
Check- dam No 139 69.5

44
 Yes 61 30.5
Tree planting No 124 62.0
Yes 76 38.0
Stone faced soil bund/trace No 105 52.5
Yes 95 47.5
Soil bund construction No 107 53.5
Yes 93 46.5
Stone bund construction No 94 47.0
Yes 106 53.0

Contour farming: Contour farming is a practice of cultivating the land along contours of
equal elevation in order to reduce the runoff on lands with a slope over 6 %( Solomon
Berhanu, 2016). It is used alone or in combination with other conservation practices such as
cut-off drains and plantation of different trees. As indicated in Table 4; of the sampled
respondent, 69% did participate and commonly used contour farming. Whereas the rest of
62(31%) did not use this conservation measure. The result indicates that, most farmers in the
study area were participating in contour faming to conserve their land from erosion. This may
be due to their familiarity to this type of conservation practices.

Mulching: Another biological soil conservation practice common in the area is leaving crop
residues on the field after harvest. In the study area farmers are generally not attempting to
use crop residues to improve the fertility of soil. The survey results showed that most of the
users are implementing this measure in order to protect the soil from erosion (see Table 4).
Of the sampled respondent, 39% participated and commonly used mulching. Whereas, 61%
of sampled HHs did not use mulching conservation practices on their farm land. During the
transect walks with the farmers, there were only small amounts of crop residues visible in
farm plots. Key informants indicated that the farmers had serious fuel wood and animal feed
shortages and therefore gradually used the crop residue for off-plot purposes.

Most of the farm households in the area, especially women members, collect crop residues
from the field for animal feed and fuel wood. Some of the residues from cereals (wheat,
barley and teff) and legumes (haricot beans and pea beans) are stored in the home compound
and sold as fodder or used to feed livestock during the dry season.

45
Cut-off drains: The survey result shows that almost 67% of the farmers construct these cut-
off drains1to prevent loss of seeds, fertilizers, manure and soil due to water flowing onto the
plot from uphill. But 33% were not used it. The excess water is disposed away from the field.
However, according to farmer opinions, some of the traditional drain structures enhance soil
erosion through time. Transect walks with the key informants confirmed this, revealing
several gullies between farm boundaries that were started by the cutoff drains. Farmers in the
study area are, therefore, reluctant to establish this type of SWC practice. SWC technicians
believe that by better surveying, the performance of the cutoff drains can be improved.

Check- dam: According to the survey result shows that about 30.5% of sampled HHs was
participating to construct this type of soil conservation practices. Whereas, the rest 69.5%of
sampled households were not used and participate. Transect walks with the key informants
confirmed this; Farmers in the study area are, therefore, reluctant to establish this type of
SWC practice. SWC technicians believe that by better surveying, the performance of the
cutoff drains can be improved.

Plantations: The survey result shows that 38% of the sampled respondents were participate
on planting of trees and other non-crop plants sometimes together with other conservation
practices. Whereas the most 62% were not used this conservation measures (Table 4).During
the transect walks, trees and other plants such as sisal were observed to be planted along the
contour in order to reduce runoff and conserve the soil and water around the root of the
plants. In general these plants are drought tolerant, not edible and therefore not destroyed by
animals in the area. Another advantage is that farmers use these to mark the border between
adjacent fields. However key informant interview and FGDs revealed that non-edible plants
were not acceptable by smallholder farmers to planting. This is because of the farmer‘s
approaching to get a multi-purpose tree species‘.

Stone-faced-soil bunds: these are a combination of stone-soil for the conservation of soil
and most of the time undertaken where stones and soils are much available in farmlands. As

1
Cut off drains are both traditional and newly introduced SWC, one of the physical structures
commonly constructed by digging a trench in order to divert the run off before reaching the
farmland.

46
indicated in the above table 4 about 47.5% of the sampled respondent were participate and
the remaining 52.5% were not used this soil conservation practices.

During focus group discussions and key informants in the communal land especially around
the mountainous area, farmers were constructing stone-faced-soil bunds because of the cash
they would earn from food- for -work program. It was learned that farmers are well aware of
erosion problem in the area. Moreover, they agree that bund terraces are effective in
protecting the soil. SWC measures like, stone and soil bunds, were widely acknowledged as
being effective measures in arresting soil erosion and as having the potential to improve land
productivity. Nevertheless, due to the top-down approach (haven‘t participation of
development agents with local farmers), acceptance of these soil and water conservation
practices by the farmers appears less likely.

Stone bunds: Stone bunds are widely practiced where there is no shortage of stones to
construct and when the farm lands are sloppy. The introduced stone bunds are widely
distributed in catchments where severe soil erosion problems occur. These structures have
similar characteristics in terms of effect, purpose and time of construction with that of soil
bunds.

As indicated in the above table 4 about 53 % of the sampled respondent were participate and
the remaining 47% were not used this soil conservation practices. However, stone bunds are
permanent and less durable structures constructed on gentle and stepper slopes. Soil and/or
small and medium size stones are the main materials required for the construction of these
structures.

Soil bunds: As indicated in the above table 4 about 46.5% of the sampled respondent were
participate and the remaining 53.5% were not used this soil conservation practices. These are
embankments‘ constructed from soil along the contour with water collection channel or basin
at it s upper side. These bunds are constructed by throwing soil dug from basin down slope.
These structures are effective in controlling soil loss, retaining moisture and eventually
enhancing productivity of the land. Yet, since they are porous by their nature and constructed
along the contour, farmers complained their water logging effect and frequent destruction
from high runoff accumulation on embankments. Soil bunds are less permanent and durable
structures mostly y applied on rain fed, flat and gentle slopes in the study area. Hand shovel,
locally known as akafa is the main farm tool used for the construction of improved Soil bund.
These structures are constructed during dry season before land preparation.

47
During discussions with key informants in each of the study areas, the farmers mentioned that
ineffective designs by the development agents are responsible for causing gullies. Farmers
use mostly soil/stone bunds that are impermeable intended to maintain all rainfall but when
overtopped at one location will cause gullies unless they have specially designed spillways
and protected soils below.

4.1.2. Households Level of participation

Table 5. The HHs response on different levels of participation in SWC practices

Levels of participation Frequency Percent

Simply accept the announcement 110 55.0

Information giving 13 6.5

Consultation 7 3.5

Material incentive 30 15.0

Functional 22 11.0

Interactive 2 1.0

Self initiation 16 8.0

200 100.0
Total

From the above table, the households heads participation in different levels of participation
were revealed as about 55.0 %,6.5%,3.5%,15.0%,11.0%,1.0% and 8.0% of sampled
respondents were participate by simply accept the announcement, information giving,
consultation, material incentive, functional, interactive, and self initiation ways of
participation levels. This result shows that, 55% of the most sampled HHs was participating
by inforcement or to be free from penalty. Whereas, about 8% of sampled HHs were
participate by self initiation. To mean that only few of the sampled HHs were participate in
SWC practices by their willingness.

48
Figure 6. HHs level of participation in SWC practices
As indicated above (figure, 6) 110(55%) of the most sampled HHs were participate by
inforcement and to be free from penality. Whereas only 16(8%) of sampled respondents were
reached at self mobilization/initation level. The result indicates that the average number of
beneficaries did participate in SWC at the lowest level. Wheras only 8% of them did
participate the highest level of participation.Therefore it needs more additional works for why
local peoples were not make the first to participate by their interest.

Table 6. Participation of HHs in three phases of SWC practices

Participation phases HHs willing to participate in soil & water conservation practice
Not-Willing Willing Total
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Planning No 115 57.5 56 28.0 171 85.5
Yes 2 1.0 27 13.5 29 14.5
Implementation No 43 21.5 21 10.5 64 32.0
Yes 74 37.0 62 31.0 136 68.0
Evaluation No 115 57.5 66 33.0 181 90.5
Yes 2 1.0 17 8.5 19 9.5

As the survey result shows that about only 14.5% of sampled household heads did participate
at planning phase of soil and water conservation practices. Whereas; the most and (85.5%)

49
HHs did not participate at planning phase. This shows that soil and water conservation
measures are designed and planned by development experts of each kebeles and some very
few numbers of smallholder farmers who have a social position within the kebeles. And also
among the participant HHs only 13.5% were participate willingly in planning phase of SWC
practices.

As the survey result shows that about 68% and 9.5% of sampled household heads were
participate at implementation and evaluation phase of soil and water conservation practices
respectively. Whereas; 32% HHs was not participating at implementation phase due to
different reasons. And also; the most and (90.5%) HHs was not participating at evaluation
phase. This shows that soil and water conservation measures are evaluated by development
experts of each kebeles and some very few numbers of smallholder farmers who have a social
position within the kebeles. And also among the participant HHs only 8.5% were participate
willingly in evaluation phase of SWC practices.

In general, participation of local peoples who are the land owners at implementation phase of
soil and water conservation practices was found high/maximum. However participation of
local peoples who are the land owners at planning phase of soil and water conservation
practices were found low and also at evaluation phase were found very low.

4.1.3. Households Willingness to Participate in SWC Practices

Figure 7. The Proportion of HHs willingness to participate in SWC practice

50
As shown in (figure, 7) above,117 (58.5%) of respondents replied they were not willing and
83 (41.5%) were willing to participate in soil conservation practices. This shows that most
household heads are not willing to participate in soil conservation practices.

Figure 8. The reason to HHs willing to participate in SWC

Source: Own survey data, 2019

From the above (figure, 8) shows, the reason for HHs willingness to participate in soil and
water conservation practices were due to effectiveness of past SWC practices and the HHs
would have gains better yield. And also self motivation,HHs who have a chance to visit other
conserved area, having of their own land and have an option for grazing land to his/her
livestock would have push the HHs to willingly participate in SWC practices. As indicated in
the above figure, among sampled HHs; 24(12%), 16(8%), 13(6.5%), 12(6%), 10(5%), and
8(4%) of the HHs were willing to participate in SWC due to effectiveness of past SWC
practices, gains better yield, self motivation/interest, visit other conserved area, having of
their own land and have an option for grazing land respectively.

As shown in the (figure 9) below, some of the main reasons for households not willing to
participate in soil and water conservation practices were, the SWC practices ideas were not
raised by land owner HHs, no deep agreement between extension experts and farmers, past
SWC practices in the study area were not effective/stay long period after constructed,
nonexistence of option for grazing, no enough labor/labor shortage, and lack of interest. The

51
three listed at first were the foremost reasons for HHs unwillgness to participate in SWC
participate.

From focus group discussions, some additional reasons for farmers not willing to participate
on SWC practices were raised as the site selection for conservation was not considered local
community member‘s interest, no nursery site exist for tree planting, difficulty to ploughing
for land after soil/stone bund were constructed and also it hosts for different rodents and
insects.

As the key informants said that, farmers were not willing to participate in SWC practices due
to some reasons, such as they need some incentive from government after conservation
activities, they want to planted multi-purpose trees like mango, gesho, papaya, banana and
the like, but we couldn‘t provide such seedlings to farmers because we haven‘t more nursery
site in the woreda; farmers dislike the time period for mass mobilization to SWC practices,
and also don‘t believe and give attention for SWC to increase crop productivity rather than
fertilizer usage. In general, from key informant interview and FGD, in the study area SWC
practices were done mostly through enforcements and by applying penalty for not-participant
households

Figure 9. The reason for HHs not willing to participate in SWC participate
Source: Own survey data (2019)

52
Table 7. Descriptive statistics for dummy/categorical variables of sampled HHs

Categorical Variables Willingness to participate in soil conservation practice

Not-willing Willing Total
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Slop of farm very steep 23 11.5 9 4.5 32 16.0
land steep 39 19.5 23 11.5 62 31.0
gentle 26 13.0 21 10.5 47 23.5
flat 29 14.5 30 15.0 59 29.5
Sex of HHs female 12 6.0 9 4.5 21 10.5
male 105 52.5 74 37.0 179 89.5
Marital status Married 83 41.5 60 30.0 143 71.5
of HHs Divorced 21 10.5 15 7.5 36 18.0
Single 13 6.5 8 4.0 21 10.5
Educational Not 77 38.5 26 13.0 103 51.5
status of HHs Educated
Educated 40 20.0 57 28.5 97 48.5
Do you have No 110 55.0 50 25.0 160 80.0
social position Yes 7 3.5 33 16.5 40 20.0
Perception of No 96 48.0 41 20.5 137 68.5
soil erosion Yes 21 10.5 42 21.0 63 31.5
hazard
Change in No 91 45.5 49 24.5 140 70.0
yield after past Yes 26 13.0 34 17.0 60 30.0
SWC practices?
HHs taken any No 107 53.5 44 22.0 151 75.5
training for SWC Yes 10 5.0 39 19.5 49 24.5
HHs feel land No 88 44.0 39 19.5 127 63.5
belongs at Yes 29 14.5 44 22.0 73 36.5
his/her life time
Effectiveness No 91 45.5 51 25.5 142 71.0
of past swc Yes 26 13.0 32 16.0 58 29.0
practices
Source: Own survey data, 2019

53
As indicated in cross tabulation (table 7) above, about 32(16%), 62(31%), 47(23.5%), and
59(29.5%) of sampled HHs had very seep .gentle and flat farm lands respectively. From these
the HHs those have farm land slops, 9(4.5%), 23(11.5%), 21(10.5%), and 30(15%) were
willing to participate and 23(11.5%), 39(19.5%), 26(13%), and 29(14.5%) were not willing to
participate in soil conservation practices, respectively. This shows that farm land slope
variations are not necessary to motivate the smallholder farmer‘s willingness to participate in
soil conservation activities.

As the survey data result shows 21(10.5%) of sample households were female headed HHs,
12 (6%) are not willing and 9(4.5%) were willing to participate in soil conservation practices.
The rest 179(89.5%) of sample households were male headed HHs. Of these, 105(52.5) %
were not willing and 74(37%) were willing to participate in soil conservation practices.

Among 143(71.5%) married sampled HHs 60(30%) were willing and 83(41.5%) were not
willing to participate in soil conservation practices. About 36(18%) divorced sampled HHs
15(7.5%) were willing and 21(10.5%) were not willing to participate in soil conservation
practices. And the rest 21(10.5%) single sampled HHs 8(4%) were willing and 13(6.5%)
were not willing to participate in soil conservation practices. This shows that from each
marital status category most respondents were not willing to participate in soil conservation
practices.

Regarding to educational status, 97(48.5%) and 103(51.5%) of sample households were

educated and not educated respectively. From educated 57(28.5%) were willing and 40(20%)
were not willing to participate in soil conservation practices. And from not educated 26(13%)
were willing and 77(38.5%) were not willing to participate in soil conservation practices.
This shows that the educated HHs were more likely participate in soil conservation practices
and vice versa.

As indicated in cross tabulation (table 7) above, 40(20%) of sample households who have a
social positon.Of these, 33 (16.5) % were willing and 7(3.5%) not willing to participate in
soil conservation practices. The rest 160(80%) of sample households do not have a social
position in the kebeles. Of these, 50 (25) % were willing and 110 (55%) were not willing to
participate. As shown in the result a household head that have asocial position/responsibility
in the kebeles would motivate for participation. This may be due to social position creates an
opportunity to contact experts and easily access information and also more responsive for soil
conservation practices.

54
From household heads who replied soil erosion as a problem, 42(21%) were willing and
21(10.5%) not willing for soil conservation practices. And, from those who replied soil
erosion as not a problem, 41(20.5%) were willing and 96(48%) not willing for soil
conservation practices. This implies, most farmers were unwilling to participate in soil
conservation practices as perceiving that soil erosion is not a problem. This is may be due to
lack of knowledge or their lands were not exposed by erosion.

As the survey data result shows 60(30%) of sample households were believed that past SWC
practices increase crop production. of these 34(17%) were willing and 26(13%) not willing to
participate in soil conservation practices. The majority 140(70%) of sample were not
believed that past SWC practices increase crop production. From these, 49(24.5%) were
willing and 91(45.5%) not willing to participate in soil conservation practices. As the time of
interview schedule, most farmers replied that to increase yield using fertilizer (URA and
DAP) is more preferable. This is the reason why most farmers were not willing to participate
in soil and water conservation activities.

As indicated in cross tabulation (table 7) above, 49(24.5%) of sample households had taken
training. Of these, 39 (19.5) % were willing and 10(5%) not willing to participate in soil
conservation practices. The rest 151(75%) of sample households didn‘t taken any training
regarding to SWC practices in the kebeles or else. Of these, 44 (22) % were willing and 107
(53.5%) were not willing to participate. From the result most farmers who had taken training
were more likely to participate in SWC practices and vice versa. This is because a household
head who had taken any training for SWC practices would increase their knowledge for the
importance of SWC practices. in addition, the information from FGD, in study area, there
were not more access to training on soil and water conservation and this is recommend for
development agent and extension experts aimed at giving formal and informal training at
household level.

Regarding to land tenure security, about 73(36.5%) of sampled respondent were feels their
land belongs to at least on his/her life time. Of these 44(22%) were willing to participate and
the rest 29(14.5%) were not willing to participate in SWC practices. From 127(63.5%) of
sampled respondent those were feels their land not belongs to on his/her life time 39(19.5%)
were willing and 88(44%) were not willing to participate in soil conservation practices. As
the result indicates, most farmers were not believed that land belongs to their life time. Hence

55
this may be the farmers believed that the land is belongs to the government and then they feel
in unenthusiastic way.

As the survey data result shows 58(29%) of sample households believed that past SWC
practices were effective. Of these 32(29%) were willing and 26(13%) not willing to
participate in soil conservation practices. The majority 142(71%) of sample HHs not
believed that past SWC practices SWC practices were not effective. Of these 51(25.5%) were
willing and 91(45.5%) not willing to participate in soil conservation practices. As the time of
interview schedule, most farmers replied that past SWC activities were not effective and
sustainable. This is the reason why most farmers were not willing to participate in soil
conservation activities.

Table 8. Descriptive statistics of continues variables grouped by WTP on SWC practices

Willingness to participate in SWC

Variables Not- Willing (83)

willing(117)
Mean SD Mean SD
Age of respondent (in years) 39.09 10.045 52.57 11.035
Farm experience of HHs 15.2906 10.22848 25.5181 11.98003
Family size (in man equivalent) 3.9756 2.08735 3.8090 2.09912
Total farm land size( in ha) 1.0363 .64766 1.1747 .65418
Distance to farm plot in (kms) 5.0107 2.81169 4.1657 2.96532
Number of livestock of in (TLU) 2.1931 2.83834 2.8688 2.92628
Frequency of visit by expert(in 3.9402 3.47228 7.8916 6.06069
No)
Off-farm income (in ETB) 11941.8803 10235.14263 16072.2892 11303.49949
Source: own survey data 2019

As indicated in (table 8) above, the mean age of willing HHs (mean = 52.57, SD=11.035)
was larger than not willing HHs (mean = 39.09, SD=10.045) to participate in SWC practices.
As the result shows HHs whose age were more likely to participate than younger. This is due
you to as a farmer‘s age increases they had more experience than the youth HHs.

As the survey data revealed that, the mean farm experience of willing HHs (mean = 25.5181,
SD=11.98003) was larger than not willing HHs (mean = 15.2906, SD=10.22848) to

56
participate in SWC practices. As the result shows HHs who had more farm experience were
more aware for SWC to participate than HHs who had less farm experience. This is due you
to as a farmer‘s experience increases they had positive relationship between previous
experience and current perception of SWC practices.

Regarding to household heads family size in man equivalent, the mean family size for willing
household heads (mean=3.8090, SD=2.09912) was smaller than not willing mean family size
(mean=3.9756, SD=2.08735) to participate in soil and water conservation practices. From
these, it is likely that large families do not spend their money on conservation practices;
rather they spend it for food and other basic necessities.

As indicated in table 4.6 above, the mean farm land of willing HHs (mean=1.1747,
SD=.65418) was larger than not willing HHs (mean=1.0363, SD= 64766) to participate in
SWC practices. As the result shows HHs who had large farm land were more likely to
participate than smaller land owners. Farmers who operate on larger farms can allocate some
part of the land than those who have small farms. Therefore, it is anticipated that farm size
and the likelihood of using soil-and-water conserving technologies are positively correlated.

The mean distance farm plot of willing HHs (mean=4.1657, SD=2.96532) was smaller than
not willing HHs (mean=5.0107, SD=2.81169) to participate in SWC practices (table 7). As
the result shows, HHs whose farms are nearer to their residence use soil-conserving
technologies because the time and energy they spend is lesser for nearer farms than distant
farms. Therefore, distance from residence more likely affects conservation practices
negatively.

As the survey data revealed that, the mean livestock number of willing HHs (mean=2.8688,
SD=2.92628) was larger than not willing HHs (mean=2.1931, SD=2.83834) to participate in
SWC practices. As the result shows HHs who had more number of livestock were more
aware for SWC to participate than HHs who had less livestock numbers. This is due you to as
a farmer‘s livestock increases they want to additional livestock fodder from tree planting.

The mean frequency of extension contact of HHs (mean=7.8916, SD=6.06069) for willing
was larger than with not willing HHs (mean=3.9402, SD=3.47228). These should be related
with access to information on SWC practices. Hence HHs whose extension contact was
increase the HHs decision to participate in soil and water conservation practices.

57
As the survey data revealed that, the mean off-farm income of willing HHs (mean =
16072.2892, SD=11303.49949) was larger than not willing HHs (mean = 11941.8803,
SD2=10235.14263) to participate in SWC practices. As the result shows HHs who had more
off-farm income were more aware for SWC to participate than HHs who had less off-farm
income. This is due you to as a farmer‘s off-farm income increases they had enough source of
income to feed their family and they would participate in SWC practices.

Table 9. T-test for continues variables grouped by willingness

Variables WTP in SWC Observation Mean SD
practice T-test
Age of respondent Not willing 117 39.09 10.045 8.975*
Willing 83 52.57 11.035
Farm experience of Not willing 117 15.2906 10.229 6.486*
the respondent Willing 83 25.5181 11.981
Family size (in man Not willing 117 3.9756 2.08735 -.555
equivalent) of the Willing 83 3.8090 2.09912
respondent
Total farm land Not willing 117 1.0363 .64766 1.483
size Willing 83 1.1747 .65418
Distance to farm Not willing 117 5.0107 2.8117 -2.05**
plot Willing 83 4.1657 2.965
Number of Not willing 117 2.1931 2.84 1.638
livestock ( TLU) Willing 83 2.869 2.9263
Frequency of visit Not willing 117 3.9402 3.473 5.834*
by experts Willing 83 7.8916 6.061
Off-farm Not willing 117 11941.88 10235.143 2.692*
income(ETB) Willing 83 16072.29 11303.5
Note: *, ** indicates level of significance at one and five percent level respectively

As the t-test table shows in the above (table 9), among eight continuous variables‘; age of the
households, farm experiences of the respondent, distance to farm plot of the respondent,
frequency of respondents contact with extension experts and total amount of off-farm income

2
SD=standard deviation

58
inquire by the household heads from different off farm activities were found significantly
difference at less than five percent. And, the remaining variables, HHs family size, total farm
land, and number of livestock were found insignificant for willingness to participate in soil
and water conservation practices.

Table: 10. The chi-square test for dummy/categorical variables

Categorical variables WTP in soil & water conservation practices
Not-willing(117) Willing(83) X2
Frequency % Frequency %
Educational status of Not 77 38.5 26 13.0
HHs Educated 23.120*
Educated 40 20.0 57 28.5
HHs feel land No 88 44.0 39 19.5 16.690*
belongs at his/her life Yes 29 14.5 44 22.0
time
Do you have taken No 107 53.5 44 22.0
any training for swc Yes 10 5.0 39 19.5 38.789*
practices
Do you observe No 91 45.5 49 24.5 8.121*
change in yield after Yes 26 13.0 34 17.0
past swc practices
HHs perception of No 96 48.0 41 20.5 23.994*
soil erosion hazard Yes 21 10.5 42 21.0
Do you have social No 110 55.0 50 25.0 34.621*
position Yes 7 3.5 33 16.5
Effectiveness of past No 91 45.5 51 25.5 6.290*
swc practices Yes 26 13.0 32 16.0
Marital status of HHs Married 83 41.5 60 30.0 .113(Ns )
Divorced 21 10.5 15 7.5
Single 13 6.5 8 4.0
Sex of HHs Female 12 6.0 9 4.5 .018(Ns )
Male 105 52.5 74 37.0
Slop of farm land very 23 11.5 9 4.5
steep 4.94(Ns )
Steep 38 19.0 23 11.5
Gentle 27 13.5 21 10.5
Flat 29 14.5 30 15.0
Note:*=significant at the five level of significance, X2= Chi-square, Ns=non-significant
Source: own survey data, 2019

According to the result of chi- square test shown in (table 10) above, willingness to
participate in soil and water conservation practices of household has association with social

59
position status, educational status, access to training, feeling on land tenure security, and
perception of HHs at 1% level of significance. On the other hand, slope of farm land, sex and
marital status of household head do not have association to willingness to participate in soil
and water conservation practices.

4.2. Econometric Analysis

In this section, there is identification of the relative importance of personal, socio-economic,

and institutional variables which affect smallholder farmers‘ decisions to willingly participate
in soil and water conservation structures. These determinant variables are discussed with the
support of other previous related study findings.

4.2.1. Result of Logistic Regression Model

A logit model was applied to estimate the effect of the hypothesized explanatory variables on
the probabilities of HHs willingness to participate on soil and water conservation practices
looking closely in to the relation of dependent variable to the explanatory variables for a
household who has either willing them or not. Willingness to participate on soil and water
conservation practices acted as a dichotomous dependent variable representing 1 as HHs
willing to participate on soil and water conservation practices and 0 otherwise.

Multicollinearity3 diagnostics test was done to check the presence of high colinearity among
and between each independent variable. Different methods were employed to check the
presence of multicollinearity for continuous and discrete explanatory variables. Variance
Inflating Factor (VIF) was used to check for multicollinearity problem among and between
continuous variables and for discrete variables coefficient of contingency (CC) was computed
using SPSS software. For this case, based on the results of the diagnostic tests for continuous
variable, age and farm experience were found to be highly correlated and associated with one
another and farm experience of household head was excluded from the analysis.

3
As Gujarati (1999) noted ―multicollinearity is a question of degree and not of kind. The meaningful
distinction is not between the presence and the absence of multicollinearity, but between its various
degrees‖. At present, there is no single measure of multicollinearity. But there are some indicators
such as the tolerances and Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) that provide us with some clue about the
existence of multicollinearity.
60
Table 11. Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 151.909 19 .000
Block 151.909 19 .000
Model 151.909 19 .000

It is the measure of overall fit of the model. Reject H0 when p-value of the omnibus tests

statistics less than a-value (0.05) significance level. So from the above (table, 11) output p-

value of step, block and model less than 0.05. Therefore reject H0 and conclude that at least

one variable significant to the model.

Table 12. Model Summary
Step -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square
1 119.542a .532 .717
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 7 because parameter estimates changed by less
than .001.
The log likelihood ratios for all cases were significant at the p < 0.05 probability level. This
indicates that there exists useful information in the estimated logit model. The Cox and Snell
R-square is an attempt to provide a logistic regression equivalent to coefficient of
determination. From table (table, 12) Nagelkerke R-square, 71.7% of the willingness to
participate was explained by the model (table, 13) below.
Table 13. Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Step Chi-square df Sig.
1 6.509 8 .590
The Hosmer and Lemeshow test show that the binary logistic regression model fits the data.
As shown in (table, 13) above, the model is appropriate since sig. value is 0.59 which is
above 0.05.

Table 14. Classification Table

Observed Predicted
Willingness to participate in SWC
practice Percentage
Not willing Willing
WTP in soil & Not-willing 107 10 91.5
water conservation Willing 15 68 81.9
practice
Overall Percentage 87.5

61
Model Fit test Estimation

In this estimation, it has assessed that what percent of observation the model correctly
classified predicts. In this case, 87.5% of the cases are correctly classified (table, 14). The
proportion of correctly classified predicts have interpreted as a measure of how good the
model is.

Table 15. Binary Logistic Regression Model output

Variables B S.E. Exp(B)
Slope
Slope(1) -.209 .768 .811
Slope(2) .462 .769 1.587
Slope(3) .389 .777 1.475
Age .169 .031*** 1.184
Sex(1) -.537 1.073 .584
Marital status
Marital status(1) -1.240 .851 .289
Marital status(2) -.770 .850 .463
Education(1) 1.380 .566** 3.974
Social position(1) 1.019 .982 2.771
Family size -.277 .148* .758
Land size -1.485 .602* .227
Distance land .094 .107 1.098
Num_livstok .183 .114 1.201
percept(1) 1.639 .735** 5.149
Change yield(1) -.484 .706 .616
Freq_vist .138 .080* 1.149
Training(1) 2.301 .626*** 9.985
Land tenure(1) .360 .610 1.434
Off-farm income .000 .000* 1.000
Constant -8.919 1.878*** .000
Note: ***, **, * indicates significant at the one, five and ten level of significance,
respectively
(Source: Model Output)

62
Among the explanatory variables hypothesized to influence willingness of farmers‘ to
participate in soil conservation practices eight variables were more powerful in explaining
HHs willingness (table, 15).

Age and training were found significant at less than1% level of significance. Educational
status, land size, and perception were found significant variables at less than 5% level of
significance. Family size, frequency visit, and off farm income were significant at less than
10% level of significance. Of these lands size and family size have negative impact. The rest
variables; slope, marital status, sex, social position, distance to land, number of livestock,
change in yield and land tenure were found not significant.

From the variables in regression table, the final logistic regression model for the willingness
to participate in soil and water conservation practices of a household using the 8 variables is
written as:

The final logistic regression model equation(4.1) imply, as age increases by one year, the
farmer‘s willingness to participate in soil and water conservation practice is 1.184 times more
likely to increase. Educated farmers willingness to participate in soil and water conservation
practice was 3.974 times more likely than not educated farmers. As land size increases by one
hectare; the farmer‘s willingness to participate in soil and water conservation practice is
likely to reduce by 22.7%. Farmers who believe in (perception) soil erosion as a hazard were
5.149 times more likely willing to participate in soil and water conservation practice than
those who do not perceive soil erosion as a problem.

Regarding to training, farmers who get training were 9.985 times more likely willing to
participate in soil conservation practice than those who do not get any training. While family
size increases by one, the farmer‘s willingness to participate in soil conservation practice is
likely to reduce by 24.2%. As frequency of visit by extension worker increases by one, the
farmer‘s willingness to participate in soil conservation practice is 1.149 times more likely.

63
 4.2.2. Discussion of Results of the Study

As the results of the logit regression analysis are presented in (Table, 15), the determinant
factors that determine the household‘s willingness to participation in SWC practices the
followings are powerful and significant. Hence the variables were discussed as below:

Age of household heads: Age has positive impact on willingness to participate in soil
conservation practices. This indicates as age of farmer increases their farm experience also
increases. Again this suggests they were interested or willing to participate in Soil
Conservation Practices. As the result revealed, that younger farmers do not expend more
effort on soil and water conservation measures, compared to older ones. The positive
association between age and willingness to participate in conservation programs basically due
to the long year farming experiences of older farmers. Therefore, they were more aware of
the problems of erosion and the importance of soil and water conservation practices. Another
reason for the expected positive relationship between age of HH head and conservation effort
is that older farmers have sufficient land for using SWC structures while younger farmers do
not. This result is consistent with (Aklilu and Jan De, 2007, and Fikru Assefa (2009). But,
this result contradicts the findings of Desalew Meseret and Aklilu Amsalu (2017) that
investigated the negative association between age and willingness to participate in
conservation programs basically due to the older farmers may be reluctant to invest and
participate in conservation activates compared with younger farmers.

Education Status of the HHs: Status of education had appositive relationship. This shows
that educated household heads were more prefer to recognize the advantages of soil
conservation and were willing to take part in soil conservation activities. This could possibly
be because education reflects acquired knowledge of environmental amenities. As the result
indicates in (table 15), educated farmers willingness to participate in soil conservation
practice was 3.974 times more likely than not educated farmers. This confirms that Education
has positively correlated with farmers‘ willingness to participate in soil conservation
activities. But this is inconsistent with the finding of Birhan (2009).However the finding were
consistent with (Fikru Assefa, 2009; Abayneh Mekonnen, 2011; Dawit, 2014), and Desalew
Meseret and Aklilu Amsalu, 2017) were found that education of the HH head was positively
related to the willingness to participate in SWC practices. Therefore, if the amount of
educated people increases, SWC measures sustainable development will be improved.

64
Farm Land Size: Household owing large land size does not recognize investing in soil
conservation practices to take care for their land and not consider future generations land
resources. This was due to consider the land is enough without conservation as suggested by
some households during interview. And those owing small land size; they were willing to
take care of their limited land. The result is inconsistent with the finding of (Fikru Assefa,
2009).

Perception of soil erosion as problem: households perceiving soil erosion as problem are
almost 5.149 times more likely willing to practice in soil and water conservation (Table, 15).
The recognition of the soil erosion problem is considered to be vital for soil conservation
decision. In other words, farmers who have already perceived the problem of soil erosion are
more likely to be willing to participate in soil conservation activities than those who have not
perceived the problem. Thus, the perception variable was expected to be strongly and
positively associated with farmers‘ willingness to participate in soil conservation practice.
The survey result shows that the respondents who were willing to participate in soil
conservation practices perceived soil erosion as a problem in their area were very large with
that of non willing farmers perceived soil erosion as a problem in their area. This result is
consistent with (Fikru Assefa, 2009; and Abayneh Mekonnen, 2011).

Access to Training: as the study result shows farmers who get training were almost 10 times
more likely to willing to participate in soil conservation activities than those who didn‘t get
training. Training had a positive impact on farmers‘ willingness in soil conservation.
However, the study of Fikru Assefa (2009) shows that access to training had a significant
negative effect on use of cut-off drains due to incomplete information forwarded. But the
reason for positive effect of training access was the household who had gets complete
information about SWC practices.

Frequency of Visit (getting extension services): it was found to have positive impact. If an
extension worker visits the farmer and gave consultancies on soil conservation measures, the
farmer may be initiated to do conservation practices on his motivation. He may also have an
opportunity to ask and select best suit to his land. It represents the access of information,
assistance and visit to the farmers by the development agents per year. Increasing the number
of visits made by the development agents have positive relation with the HHs decision to
participate on soil and water conservation practices which results from accelerated effective

65
dissemination of soil and water conservation information to the farmers. The result is
consistent with the finding of (Birhan Sisay, 2009).
Family Size: In this study family size had negative relation to households‘ willingness to
participate in soil conservation. That is, in a large family size, the willingness to participate
was less. This may be due to schooling. They may be far from the area and not able to
participate. As the result shows, the family size of households has an impact on the
investment in all soil and water conservation practices. This is because a one-man equivalent
increase in family size decreases the willingness of HHs to participate in SWC practices by
24.2%. It is plausible that large families do not spend their money and time on conservation
practices; rather they spend it for doing other activities to get additional income to feed their
family and fulfill other basic necessities. Moreover as population increases, landholding per
household gradually decreases which in turn has a negative impact on soil and water
conservation. Similarly (Amsalu, 2006) and (Fikru Assefa (2009), were found that family
size had negative relation to households‘ willingness to participate in soil conservation.

Off-farm income: it is an income measured in birr and obtained from other farm activities
without his/her own farm land activities such as, fattening of ox, beehives, poultry
production, by renting/sharing of others land and the like. Off farm income was found to be
positively related to willingness to participate in soil conservation practices. Even though the
coefficient seems small, it was considered as one factor to judge farmers willingness to
participate in soil conservation practices. If a farmer has high off-farm income, he may use
more time to conservation practice rather than devoting in finding another income. The result
is inconsistent with the finding of Birhan Sisay (2009), who founds that negatively relation
with SWC practices and the result shows, farmers who involve in off-farm income generating
activities are likely to put less effort in maintenance and construction of SWC structures.

66
 CHAPTER FIVE

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusion

Based on the result and discussion of the study, outlined in the previous chapter the following
ideas were concluded:

In the study area land degradation is threatening the overall sustainability of agricultural
production. Hence, Soil erosion is a major cause of land degradation in the study area. Based
on the result, to prevent land degradation; especially soil erosion in the study area farmers use
a numbers of physical and biological soil and water conservation practices.

As identified by the local development agent during key-informant interview and FGD in the
study area there were eight major soil and water conservation practices. These conservation
measures include mulching, traditional and newly introduced cut-off drains, plantation of
trees, stone bund, soil bund, stone faced soil bund, contour farming, and check dam.

From sampled household heads 58.5% were not willing and 41.5% were willing to
participate in soil conservation practices. This shows that most household heads were not
willing to participate in soil and water conservation practices.

As the chi square test indicates, willingness to participate in soil conservation practices of
household has association with social position status, educational status, access to training,
feeling on land tenure security, and perception of HHs at less than 1% level of significance.
On the other hand, slope of the farm land, sex and marital status of the household head do not
have association to willingness to participate in SWC practices. This shows that majority of
the categorical variables have a strong association with HHs willingness to participate in
SWC practices in the study District.

The binary logistic regression model result identified household heads age, educational
status, farm land size, perception towards soil erosion as a problem, access to training ,family
size, frequency of visit by extension experts , and off farm income were found more
powerful to explain the reason for household heads willingness to participate in soil and
water conservation practices. Of these, land size and family size have negative association to
willingness.

67
Participation of household heads who are the land owners at implementation phase of soil and
water conservation practices was found high. However participation of household heads who
are the land owner at planning and designing phase of soil and water conservation practices
were found low and also at evaluation/maintenance phase were found very low.

As the FGD imply, the reason for HHs not willing to participate in SWC practices were the
ideas of SWC practices at first were not raised by land owner farmers. These indicate that
still now in the study area the SWC interventions are practiced through a top-down approach
and by enforcement. This means that the intervention is for the sake of reporting, but not to
bring real SWC intervention and benefited to the small holder farmers.

Even if households have constructed by any means, it has not in existence after a year later
they have abandoned. This might be because of it was not constructing based on the willing
of the local community, but being free from penalty. SWC practices that undertaken in the
study area were not sustainable and success as expected, because of feeble and lack of
genuine extension service forwarded from extension experts, DAs, NGOs and other
concerned governmental organizations for short term as well as long term benefit of SWC
practices.

Farmer‘s perception on soil erosion as a problem is one of the determinant factor for the
decision of HHs to participate in SWC practices. This implies that not all individual
household heads have his/her own perception in evaluating the problem, causes and
consequences of soil erosion.

Mostly uneducated households and households not undertaken any training regarding to
SWC measures forced to unwilling to participate in any soil and water conservation practices.
This implies that, the household heads may have low awareness and understanding for the
consequence of erosion hazards on their livelihoods.
In general, understanding of personal, socio-economic, institutional and physical factors
would contribute to the design of appropriate strategies to achieve technical change in soil
and water conservation process in the study area. Therefore, the study indicates that the
participation of most households were through enforcement and without their curiosity. And
also at the design and planning of SWC practices the involvement of local people were not
considered and the ideas for SWC practice were not raised by households.

68
The majority of sampled HHs was not willing to participate in SWC practices, and this leads
unsustainability of soil and water conservation practices in the study area. Finally, the study
concludes that, the most intervention of SWC practices was not acceptable by land owners
and not being effective as expected due to neglecting of local smallholder farmers
participation at the very initiation and also past intervention was based on providing of
incentives/short term benefit to the farmers rather to train and aware for both short term and
long term benefits of SWC practices at the study area.

5.2. Recommendation
Based on the result and conclusion of the study the following points were recommended:

HHs participation at planning and designing as well as evaluation phase for soil and water
conservation practice were low and this leads less effective and unsustainability of the
practices, therefore, the woreda agricultural office, development agent‘s, and concerned
stakeholders should consider the involvement of HHs at the very initiation of planning and
designing for SWC practice as well as in evaluation phase.

Based on the information from FGD, in study area, the reason for HHs not willing to
participate in SWC practices were the ideas of SWC practices at first weren‘t raised by land
owner farmers. Therefore, development agents or any concerned body should provided
opportunities for land owner farmers to raise their ideas freely and made a deep agreement
with them for the importance of SWC practices.

Based on the information from FGD, in study area, access to training on soil and water
conservation was low and poor in quality of giving valuable information. Natural resource
conservation experts and agricultural extension professionals should encourage and provide
technical training to farmers who are practicing soil conservation at their own initiative and
using their indigenous knowledge.

The government and any concerned body should provide both formal and informal education
for farmers to increase their understanding for the positive impact of conserving soil, and
awareness creation and enhancement of farmer‘s willingness should be taking the first place
than forcing them to apply SWC practices.

As the result shows frequency of visit by extension experts was very crucial to increase the
household heads willingness to participate in soil and water conservation practices; therefore,
69
development agents and any concerned body should provide opportunities to contact with
farm households for sharing of necessary ideas and to forward complete information about
soil and water conservation practices.

Development agents should provide opportunities in sharing of HHs experience of soil and
water conservation practices between the willing and not-willing households. And also,
development agents and any concerned body should provide opportunities in sharing of HHs
who had more farm experience with HHs who had less farm experiences on soil and water
conservation practices.

Respondents also reported that most of SWC measures constructed on their plot were
implemented through the top-down approach without the agreement and willingness of the
land owners. The farmers ‗ideas, local experience, and their willingness were extremely
overlooked. Overall results indicate that the farmers‘ willingness to participate on SWC
practices was strongly correlated with physical, socioeconomic, institutional and attitudinal
factors. Therefore, any SWC plans should consider the farmers‘ willingness and factors
impeding their willingness to participation before introducing soil and water conservation
practices. And also any concerned stakeholders‘ should crate strong awareness for the
farmers about the overall benefits and challenges of the soil and water conservation practices.

The government and any concerned body should follow down-top approach and include
farmers in any decision making processes. Indeed, farmers should become aware of the long-
term benefits from SWC practices and will be initiated to implement soil and water
conservation practices on their own farmlands. And also multipurpose SWC practices should
be address in the study area to strengthened mixed farming system; this is because of to
maintain livestock production and increase other source of income for local community
smallholder farmers. Unless it is difficult to improve SWC practices without local farmers
able to gain of both short and long term benefits from SWC practices.

Finally, in order to sustain SWC practices; policymakers, agricultural office of the study area,
extension experts and development agents should give due attention for those significant
variables that determine farmers, willingness to participate in SWC measures. The researcher
also invites others those are interested to study on the issues of analyzing determinants of
farmer‘s willingness to participating by both labor and money contribution for SWC practice.

70
 REFERENCES

Abayneh Mekonnen, (2011). Studies on Factors that Determine Farmers Willingness to

Participate in Soil Conservation Practices at Gindeberet Woreda, West Shoa Zone of
Oromia Region, Ethiopia
Abebe Gidey (2015). The Contribution of Soil and Water Conservation Practices towards
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia: Addis Ababa
University, Ethiopia.
Abera Berhanu. (2003). Factors influencing the adoption of soil and water conservation
practices, in North Western Ethiopia: Germany: Institute of Rural Development,
University of Gottingen
Abrham Mulu, Enyew Adgo and Zerihun Nigussie (2016). Assessment of Farmers
Participation and Their Knowledge on Sustainability of Improved Soil and Water
Conservation Activities in Enebsie Sarmidir District: A Case Study of Guansa and
Shola Watersheds, Ethiopia
Adugnaw Berhanu and Desalew Meseret, (2013). Structural Soil and Water Conservation
Practices in Farta District, Northwestern Ethiopia: An Investigation on Factors
Influencing Continued Use. Journal of Science, Technology and Arts Research 2(4):
114-121.
Agrestic, A. (2002). Categorical Data Analysis .2nded, John Wiley and Sons, New York
Aklilu, A. & Jan de, G. (2006), Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces
for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed: Ecological
Economics in Press, pp.69-83
Aklilu, A., & Jan de, G. (2007). Determinants of adoption and Continued use of stone
terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian Highland watershed:
Ecological Economics, 61, 294–302.
Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), (2013). Africa Agriculture Status Report:
Focus on staple crops. Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa.Nairobi, Kenya
Amirnejad, H.; AtaeiSalout, K. (2012). Economic Valuation of environmental resources
Avay-e-Masih Publication, sari, Iran (In Persian)
Amsalu, A. (2006). Caring for the Land Best Practices in Soil and Water conservation in
Beressa Watershed, Highland of Ethiopia: Tropical Resource Management Paper
No.76: Wageningen University.

71
Anteneh T, Tilaye T, Yihenew G (2014). Determinants of Maintenance Decision of
Introduced Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Fagita Lekoma District, North
West Highlands of Ethiopia: Ethiop J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 5(1):1-17.
Bamlaku Ayenew, Yirdaw Meride (2015). Smallholder Farmer‘s Willingness to pay for
Improved Soil and Water Conservation Practice: A Contingent Valuation Study in
Abaro- Toga Watershed Ethiopia
Behailu W. (2009). Determinant of Adoption Decision of Subsistence Farmers for Improved
SWC Technologies: The Case of Inebsea Sarmeder, EsternGojjam, ANRS, Ethiopia.
MSc. Thesis, Haramaya University: Haramaya, Ethiopia
Belay Kasey, & Eyasu, E., (2017). ‛Challenges and extents of SWC measures in Guba-Lafto
Woreda of North Wollo, Ethiopia‘,Journal of Agricultural Research and
Development , Volume Vol. 7(2), pp. 0103-0110.
Berhanu Afro , Teddy G. Black, Dinaw Defar and Meles B. Nega (2016): Soil and water
conservation practices: economic and environmental effects in Ethiopia: Global
Journal of Agricultural Economics and Econometrics, Vol. 4 (1), pp. 169-177,
Berhanu, A. (2002). Soil Degradation and Economic Evaluation of Smallholder Farm
Investment in Soil Conservation in Hararghe Highlands of Ethiopia: The Role of
Local Conservation Measures. PhD thesis University of Hanover, Germany
Berhanu, G., Swinton, S.M. (2003). Investment in SWC in Northern Ethiopia: The Role of
Land Tenure and Public Programs. Agricultural Economics 29: 69-84
Birhan Sisay. (2009).Factors affecting the Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices
in North Eastern Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA) (2008), Summery and statistical report of the 2007
population and housing censes Population size by age and sex, United Nation
Population Fund (UNFPA). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp 7-19.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA) (2013). Population Projection of Ethiopia for all Regions:
at District Level from 2014 – 2017. CSA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Daniel Danano (2002). Soil and Water Conservation Techniques and Strategies for Food
Security and Poverty Alleviation, Ethiopia; 12th ISCO Conference Beijing 2002
Dawit, T. (2014). Impacts and impediments of community participation on soil and water
conservation to sustainable land resource management in Laeley Maichew Woreda,
Tigray, Ethiopia‘, MA. Thesis, Department of Geography and Environmental
Studies, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia

72
Demeke, B. (2003). Factors influencing the adoption of soil conservation practices in North
western Ethiopia. Institute of Rural Development University of Gottingen D-37073
Gottingen-Waldweg 26
Derajew Fentie, Bekabil Fufa, Wagayehu Bekele (2013). Determinants of the Use of Soil
Conservation Technologies by Smallholder Farmers: The Case of Hulet Eju Enesie
District, East Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Food
Sciences (ISSN: 2321 – 1571) Volume01.
Desalew Meseret and Aklilu Amsalu, (2017).Determinants of farmers‘ perception to invest in
soil and water conservation technologies in the North-Western Highlands of
Ethiopia: International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 5, 56–61.
Fikru Assefa. (2009). Assessment of Adoption Behavior of Soil and Water Conservation
Practices in the Koga Watershed, Highlands of Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis, Cornell
University
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2007).Statistical database for Ethiopia, available
at www.foastat.fao.org
Gebreegziabher, Z., Van Kooten, and D.P.Van Soest. (2006). Land degradation in Ethiopia:
What do stoves have to do with it? Contributed paper at International Association of
Agricultural Economists: Gold Coast Australia
Gebrelibanos Gebremedhin, (2012). Households‘ willingness to pay for soil conservation
practices in Adwa woreda, Ethiopia: a contingent valuation study.
Gebremedhin Yihdego (2004). Community Participation and Sustainable Soil and Water
Conservation Management: The Case of Zala-Daget Project: Dogu‘a Tembien
Woreda-Tigray Highlands. Unpublished Master Thesis, Addis Ababa University,
School of Graduate Studies, Addis Ababa
Gebremedhin, B., Swinton, S.M., (2003). Investment in soil conservation in northern
Ethiopia: the role of land tenure security and public programs. Agricultural
Economics 29, 69–84.
Geeta Bisaria (2006); Dimensions and Determinants of Peoples‘ Participation in Watershed
Development Programmes in Rajasthan; Agricultural Economics Research Review
German Technical Cooperation (GTZ/IFSP) (2002), The Integrated watershed management
approach in IFSP South Gondar, Debre-Tabor, Ethiopia
Gujarati, D.N, (1999). Essentials of Econometrics Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, USA
Gujarati, D.N., (2004). Basic Econometrics, Fourth Edition. Mc Graw-hill, Inc., New York

73
Habtemariam Abate, (2004). The comparative Influence of Intervening variable in the
adoption of Maize and Dairy Farmers in Shashemene and Debrezieit, Ethiopia: PhD
Thesis, University of Pretoria
Hurni Hans (2016). Soil and Water Conservation in Ethiopia: Guidelines for Development
Agents Second revised edition. Bern, Switzerland: Centre for Development and
Environment (CDE), University of Bern; with Bern Open Publishing (BOP) 134 pp.
Kassie M, Zikhali P, Manjur K, Edwards S (2012). Adoption of sustainable agriculture
practices: Evidence from a semi-arid region of Ethiopia. Nat Resou Forum 33:189–
198
Kibrom Tadele (2017).Comparative Analysis Of Farmers‘ Participation In Indigenous And
Modern Soil And Water Conservation Practices In Raya-Alamata And Atsbi-
Womberta Woreda, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia; Addis Ababa
Lakew Desta, Menale Kassie, S. Benin, & J. Pender (2000), Land degradation and strategies
for sustainable development in the Ethiopian highlands: Amhara Region. Socio-
economic and policy research working paper 32. ILRI (International Livestock
Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 122
Lulseged Tamene & Quang Bao Le & Paul L. G. Vlek. (2014). A Landscape Planning and
Management Tool for Land and Water Resources Management: An Example
Application in Northern Ethiopia. Water Resource Manage 28, 407–424
Maddala, G.S., (1992).Introduction to Econometrics. Second Edition; New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company
Mahesh Kumar, and Belay (2018). Community Perception and Participation towards Soil and
Water Conservation Practices: A Case Study of Gubalafto District Of Amhara
Region, Ethiopia
Merkineh Mesene.(2017). Extent & Impact of Land Degradation and Rehabilitation
Strategies: Ethiopian Highlands; Global Journals Inc. (USA)
Miheretu, B. A. (2014). Farmers‘ Perception and Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation
Measures: the case of Gidan Wereda, North Wello, Ethiopia. Journal of Economics
and Sustainable Development Vol.5, No.24
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (MoARD), (2010). Sustainable Management
Technologies and Approach in Ethiopia. Published by Sustainable Land
Management Project (SLMP) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

74
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED) (2011), Ethiopia: Sustainable
Development and Poverty Reduction Program. The Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. (MoFED). (2010). National Income
accounts, Ministry of Finance and Economic development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Mitiku H, Brigitta S, Karl H. (2006). Sustainable land management. A new approach to soil
and water conservation in Ethiopia, Mekelle, Ethiopia
National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE), (2018). Annual Report 2017/18; Addis Ababa: National
Bank of Ethiopia
Nelson Mango, Clifton Makate, Lulseged Tamene , Powell Mponela ,and Gift Ndengu
(2017). Awareness and adoption of land, SWC practices in the Chinyanja Triangle,
Southern Africa: International SWC research 5,122–129
Nigatu Dabi,Kalkidan Fikirie and Tewodros Mulualem,.(2017). Soil and Water Conservation
Practices on Crop Productivity and its Economic Implications in Ethiopia: Asian
Journal of Agricultural Research, pp128-136.
Nyssen, J, Poesen J, Deckers, J. (2009). Land degradation and soil and water conservation in
tropical highlands, Soil and Tillage Research 103: 197–202.of bamboo forest: In
Bambasi district, BenishangulGumuz regional state, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis,
Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia
Paulos Asrat. (2002). Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in soil conservation
practices in the high lands of Bale: In Dinsho farming systems area. MSc Thesis,
Haramaya University, Haramaya Ethiopia
Planning and Economic Development Department (PEDD), (2002). South Gondar
Administrative Zone Planning and Economic development annual statistical abstract
(unpublished document), Debre Tabor, Ethiopia
Semu Arayaselassie, (2018). A rievew on the impact of soil and water conservation for
improved agricultural production in Ethiopia: J Agri.1(1):9-12
Shiferaw and Holden, (1998). Resource Degradation and Adoption of Land Conservation
Technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Case Study in Andit Tid, North Shewa.
Agri Econ 18:233–247
Shimeles Damene. (2012). Effectiveness of soil and water conservation measures for land
Restoration in the Wello area, Northern Ethiopian highlands, PhD thesis Bonn
University, Germany

75
Simeneh, D. & Getachew F., (2016). Perception of farmers toward physical SWC structures
in Wyebla Watershed, Northwest Ethiopia. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences
Solomon Berhanu. (2016). Assessment of factors determine farmers adoption behavior of soil
and water conservation practice Libo Kemkem Woreda, Addis Ababa University
College of Social science studies: Master‘s thesis, in Geography and Environmental
studies, Addis Ababa; Ethiopia
Sorensen PN, Bekele S. (2009). Nice children do not eat a lot of food: Strained livelihoods
and the role of aid in north Wollo, Ethiopia. Forum for Social Studies, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, pp 5-230.
Strock, H. Berhanu, Adnew; Bezabih, Emana; A., Borowiecki and Shimelis, W/Hawariat
(1991). Farming Systems and Farm Management Practices of Smallholders in the
Hararghe Highlands. Farming Systems and Resource Economics in the
Tropics.Vol.II, Germany: Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel.
Taffa Tulu. (2002). Soil and Water Conservation for Sustainable Agriculture Pubs: Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Tekelu, E., and Gezeahegn, A. (2003). Indigenous knowledge and practices for soil and water
management in East Woellga: Conference on International agricultural Research and
development. Göttingen, October 8-10, 2003
Teklewold, H., and Kohlin, G. (2011). Risk Preferences as Determinants of Soil
Conservation in Ethiopia: Soil and Water Conservation Society, Journal of Soil and
water Conservation 66(2): 87-96
Tesfaye A, Negatu W, Brouwer R, Vander Z (2014).Understanding soil conservation
decision of farmers in the Gedeb watershed, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. P 25
Teshome A, de Graaff J, Menale K (2016). Household-Level Determinants of Soil and Water
Conservation Adoption Phases: Evidence from North-Western Ethiopian Highlands.
Environ. Manage. 57:620-636
Tessema, W., and Holden, S. (2006). Soil Degradation, Poverty, and Farmers‟ Willingness to
Invest in Soil Conservation: A case from a Highland in Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian
Economic Association, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the
Ethiopian Economy, Vol. 2, pp 147- 164
Tiffen, M. (1998). Demographic and sustainable land use in H. P. Blume and et al : of toward
sustainable land use. Furthering cooperation between people and Institutions volume
I and II: Advances in Genecology

76
Tsehaye, G. and Mohammed, A. (2013). Farmer‘s attitudes towards land resource
conservation and its implication for sustainable land management in the Hirmi water
shed and adjacent agro-ecosystem, Northern highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of
sustainable development in Africa 15:43-55.
United Nation Convention to Combat Desertification. (UNCCD). (2013). Economic
assessment of desertification, sustainable land management and resilience of arid,
semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas: 2nd scientific conference 9-12 April 2013 -
Bonn, Germany
United Nation Development Program (UNDP). (2004). Human Development Report 2004,
United Nations Development Programme http://www.undp.org/hdr
Wagayehu, B. (2003). Economics of Soil and Water Conservation: Theory and Empirical
Application to Subsistence Farming in the Eastern Ethiopian Highlands. Doctoral
Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Science
Woldeamlak, B. (2007). Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional
technologies in northwestern highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and adoption by
farmers, Land Use Policy 24 404–416
Woreda office of Agricultural and Rural Development, (2018). Annual report, Guna Begemidir
Woreda, Amhara Region of Ethiopia (unpublished)
World Economic Forum (WFP), (2005). Draft report on the cost-benefit analysis and impact
evaluation of soil and water conservation and forestry measures, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia
Yinager, D. (2012). Assessing the role of social learning, institutions and social capital for
soil conservation in Northern Ethiopia: Doctoral Thesis Centre for Development
Research, Vienna
Yitayal, A. (2004). Determinant of Use of Soil Conservation Measures by Small Holder
Farmers; in Gimma Zone, Dedo District. An MSc Thesis Presented to School of
Graduate Studies of AlemayaUniverstity.
Yitbarek. T (2007), Economic valuation of gully rehabilitation, a case study at Farta woreda,
South Gondar M.Sc. thesis: Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia

77
 APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Codes for slope range

Code Description Slope range (%)

1 Very steep Above 15
2 Steep 11-15
3 Gentle /rolling 2-10
4 Flat 0-2

Source: Tafa Tulu, (2002)

Appendix 2. Conversion factors used to compute man equivalent

Age group Male Female
<10 0.0 0.0
10-13 0.2 0.2
14-16 0.5 0.4
17-50 1 0.8
>50 0.7 0.5
Source: Storck, et, al. (1991)

Appendix 3. Conversion factors used to compute tropical livestock units

Animal Category Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU)
Ox 1.10
Cow 1.00
Heifer 0.50
Bull 0.60
Calves 0.20
Sheep 0.13
Goat 0.09
Donkey 0.50
Horse 0.80
Mule 0.70
Poultry 0.01
Source: Storck, et, al. (1991

78
Appendix 4. VIF test for continuous variables

Variable VIF 1/VIF

Farmex 4.40 0.227447
Age 4.19 0.238466
Land_size 1.85 0.540552
Num_livstok 1.44 0.693309
Freq_vist 1.40 0.715798
Off_farm_i~e 1.19 0.836923
Distance_l~d 1.19 0.837764
Family_size 1.17 0.856100
Mean VIF 2.10

Appendix 5. Contingency coefficients for categorical variables

Slope Sex Martia~s Educat~n Social~n percept Change~d Training |Ltenure

pasteffects
Slope 1.0000
Sex 0.0317 1.0000
Martial stats 0.0895 -0.2635 1.0000
Education 0.0565 0.0060 -0.0274 1. 0000
Social_postion 0.0729 -0.1957 0.0448 0.3652 1.0000
percept 0.0687 -0.1189 0.0391 0.2465 0.4682 1.0000
Change yield 0.0595 -0.0961 0.0587 0.1288 0.2455 0.2372 1.0000
Training 0.0019 0.0434 0.0502 0.0520 0.1511 0.2394 0.2106 1.0000
Latenure 0.0497 -0.0791 0.0858 0.2825 0.3220 0.2908 0.5462 0.1718 1.0000
Pasteffectvns 0.0533 -0.1405 0.0557 0.1515 0.2865 0.2783 0.9282 0.1740 0.5683
1.0000

79
Appendix 6. multicollinearity diagnostic test

Variable VIF 1/VIF

Age 64.53 0.015497
slope 59.39 0.016838
Farm_ex 16.53 0.060484
Sex 11.55 0.086543
Pastswc_ffectivenes 11.48 0.087118
Change yield 11.11 0.090027
Land size 8.23 0.121514
Marital status 6.10 0.163965
Family size 5.85 0.170967
Freq_vist 5.31 0.188172
Distance_land 5.05 0.197840
Off_farm_income 3.47 0.288502
Social_pos~n 2.94 0.340184
Num_livstok 2.74 0.364577
Land tenure 2.67 0.375150
percept 2.61 0.382545
Education 2.61 0.383211
Training 1.67 0.599656
Mean VIF 12.44

80
Appendix 7. Correlation coefficient of independent variables
Slope Age Sex Martia~s Educat~n Farmex Social~n

Slope 1.0000
Age 0.1221 1.0000
Sex 0.0317 -0.0604 1.0000
Martial_st~s 0.0895 0.0278 -0.2635 1.0000
Education 0.0565 0.0997 0.0060 -0.0274 1.0000
Farmex 0.1493 0.8698 -0.0281 0.0368 0.0915 1.0000
Social_pos~n 0.0729 0.1617 -0.1957 0.0448 0.3652 0.1813 1.0000
Family_size 0.0311 0.2436 -0.1348 0.0380 -0.2318 0.2694 0.0395
Land_size 0.0284 0.3428 -0.1762 0.1543 -0.0283 0.3900 0.1633
Distance_l~d -0.2283 0.0472 0.0810 -0.1504 -0.1653 -0.0143 -0.2286
Num_livstok 0.0384 0.1681 -0.1096 0.1391 -0.0018 0.2012 0.1638
percept 0.0687 0.1117 -0.1189 0.0391 0.2465 0.1201 0.4682
Change_yield 0.0595 0.0859 -0.0961 0.0587 0.1288 0.1105 0.2455
Freq_vist 0.0659 0.1655 -0.1727 0.1187 0.2691 0.2014 0.6782
Training 0.0019 0.2849 0.0434 0.0502 0.0520 0.2074 0.1511
Land_tenure 0.0497 0.1289 -0.0791 0.0858 0.2825 0.1121 0.3220
Off_farm_i~e 0.0293 0.1265 -0.0094 0.0934 0.1331 0.1788 0.3570
pasteffect~s 0.0533 0.0353 -0.1405 0.0557 0.1515 0.0650 0.2865

Family~e Land_s~e Distan~d Num_li~k percept Change~d Freq_v~t

Family_size 1.0000
Land_size 0.2717 1.0000
Distance_l~d -0.0812 0.0648 1.0000
Num_livstok 0.2088 0.5407 0.0713 1.0000
percept 0.0454 0.1918 -0.4116 0.0023 1.0000
Change_yield -0.0798 0.0692 -0.1532 -0.0067 0.2372 1.0000
Freq_vist 0.0133 0.3433 -0.3035 0.2207 0.5028 0.2859 1.0000
Training 0.0459 0.0117 -0.0948 0.0905 0.2394 0.2106 0.1408
Land_tenure -0.0402 0.1142 -0.1784 0.1014 0.2908 0.5462 0.3711
Off_farm_i~e 0.0325 0.3076 -0.1027 0.1205 0.1065 0.1656 0.3287
pasteffect~s -0.0766 0.0646 -0.1992 0.0115 0.2783 0.9282 0.3086

Training Land_t~e Off_fa~e pastef~s

Training 1.0000
Land_tenure 0.1718 1.0000
Off_farm_i~e 0.0557 0.2041 1.0000
pasteffect~s 0.1740 0.5683 0.1818 1.0000

81
Appendix 8. Summary of Questionnaires
Instructions for enumerators: Name of the enumerator----------------------- signature ------date---

1. Tell the purpose of the study and introduce yourself before you starting interview

2. For all closed questions please circle as well as tick the choice where appropriate

General information

Name of the PA ----------------------------- Name of the respondent ----------------------------------

1. Agro climatic characteristics

1.1 Agro ecology: dega=1, Woyna dega =2, kola=3

1.2 Rain fall: High =1, normal, = 2, Low = 3

1.3 slope the land: 1= very steep, 2= steep, 3= gentle, 4=flat

2. Household characteristics

No Characteristics Choices Responses

1 Age In Years

2 Gender Male = 1, female = 0

3 Marital status Married = 1, divorced =2, single = 3

4 Religion Orthodox = 1, Protestant = 2, Muslim = 3, Others = 4

5 Education level educated = 1, not- education =0

6 Farming experience‘s In years

7 Social position No=0, have a social position=1

82
3. Household composition by age group

Age category Numbers (put at first said males and next females)

Inactive (less than 14)

Active (15—64)

Inactive (greater than 64)

4. Farm characteristics

No Classification of land Way of answering Answers

1 Total farm size In timad/ha

2 Cultivated land In timad/ha

3 Grazing area In timad/ha

4 Fallow land In timad/ha

5 Others, (Specify) In timad/ha

6 Distance to the farm plot In Km

4. Levels of participation

No Levels Yes No Remark

1 Simply accept the announcement

2 Information giving

3 consultation

4 Material incentives

83
5 Functional = part with in the decision process

6 Interactive/joint

7 Self-mobilization/self initiation

HHs participation in three phases of SWC practice

HHs participation in planning of SWC practice

HHs participation in implementation of SWC practice

HHs participation in self-evaluation/ maintenance of SWC practice

5. Types of swc practices and ways of participation

1. How you participate in SWC practices1=voluntary, 2=forced, 3=no participate

*Code for participation both in physical and biological SWC measures 0=no 1=yes

No Physical swc measures no yes Biological swc measures no yes

1 Terrace Crop rotation

2 Couture bunds Intercropping

3 Grass strip Fallowing

4 Stone faced soil bunds Mixed cropping

5 Soil bunds Mulching

6 Stone bunds Planting

7 Cut-off drain Contour farming

8 Fanyajuu Reforestation

9 Others Afforestation

84
6. Livestock Ownership

Types of livestock No of livestock owned No of livestock sold Income from livestock

Oxen

Cows

Heifers

Calves

Bulls

Sheep

Goats

Donkeys

Mules

Horse

Poultry

Bee colonies (hives)

Total

What grazing system Controlled grazing =1, Cut and carry system =2, Free grazing =3, Others,
practiced in the area? (Specify)=4

7. Labor Availability

No Labor Availability Way of answering Answers

1 Is the farmer has labor shortage? Yes = 1, No = 0

2 If yes to 2, which kind of farm Crop production =1 livestock production = 2

activities? SWC activities =3 others (specify) = 4---

85
8. Willingness towards participation on swc practices

No Questions regarding to respondents willingness yes No remark

1. Are you Willing to participate in swc practices

2. Are you willing to contribute money to swc practices?

3. Would you be willing to contribute labor to swc?

4. Do you Willing to participate in soil bund construction process

5. Do you Willing to participate in stone bund construction process

6. Do you Willing to participate in tracing construction process

7. Do you Willing to participate in plantation of tree

8. Do you Willing to participate in check dam construction process

9. Do you Willing to participate in cut off drain construction process

10. Do you Willing to participate in contour farm construction

process

11. Do you Willing to participate in mulching construction process

Reasons for farmer willingness to participate in SWC yes No remark

practices

1 Have better gain of yield

2 Effectiveness(stay long periods)

3 I have seen other conserved area

4 Have own land

5 Option for grazing

86
6 I have interest

If others

Reasons for farmer not willingness to participate in SWC yes No remark

practices

1 The idea is not raised by the farmers

2 No deep agreement b/n farmer

3 No effective swc practices

4 No option for grazing

5 Have no own land

6 Labor shortage

7 Lack of money

8 Lack of interest

Others…

9. Awareness towards Soil Erosion and Erosion Hazards

a) Do you perceived the problem of soil erosion in your area? Yes =1, No =0
b) Do you aware for soil erosion will affect your farmland in the future if situations remain
unchecked? Yes = 1, No = 0
c) Do you know the existence of SWC practices? Yes =1, no=0, if no why? Labor shortage = 1, lack
of money =2, lack of interest=3, others (specify) =4……………………
d) Have you taken any of the following measures because of erosion?
Abandoned your cultivated land = 1, Expanded to marginal land = 2, Have taken off farm
employment = 3, others (specify) = 4…………………………………………………..

87
e) How is the fertility of your farmland after SWC measures have been used? (As perceived by the
farmer)
Fertile = 1, Moderate fertile = 2, Infertile = 3, others (specify) = 4
f) If not fertile, what was the cause of infertility?
Intensive cultivation for many years = 1, Erosion = 2, Do not know = 3, others (specify) = 4---
g) Do you observe change in the level of crop yield on your cultivated land after SWC measures have
been used?? Yes =1, No =0

10. Research and Extension Service

1. Distance to the nearest research center --------------Km

2. Distance to the nearest development agent center-------------Km

3. Frequency of visit by development workers per year--- ------days.

4. Did you participate in on-farm research/demonstration/ field day about swc? Yes = 1, No = 0

5. Did you get extension training on SWC practices so far? Yes =1, No =0

6. If yes, would you please mention the type of training? --------------------------------------------

7. Are there any NGO‘s working on SWC? Yes = 1, No = 0

8. If yes, mention some of them (NGOs) ----------------------------------------------

9 Have you been advised by any of these organization to undertake SWC practice? Yes=1, No = 0

10. In which kinds of SWC programs have you been involved?

Food for work = 1, money for work = 2, safety net = 3, free = 4, others (specify) =5……………

11. Technological Option

1. Do you use fertilizer on your farm to maintain soil fertility? Yes =1, No =0

2. If yes, amount per hectare in Kg ----------------

88
3. How do you see the difference between using fertilizer and soil conservation measures as a means
of maintaining soil fertility?

Fertilizer is more important and preferable = 1, Soil conservation is more important and preferable =2
both have to be used in combinations =3 others (specify) =4-----------------

12. Land Tenure and Ownership Right

1. For how long have you been with your farm? --------------------------Years

2. Do you feel secure that the land belongs to you at least in your life time? Yes =1, No = 0

3. If no, what are the reasons ----------------------------------------------------------------------------?

4. What is the problem with the existing land tenure system? --------------------------------------

5. How does the current land tenure system affect the use of soil conservation practices? -------

13. Income Source

1. What are you main source of income (in order of important)

Crop sale = 1, Livestock sale= 2, off-farm income =3, others (specify) = 4……………

2. If off-farm activities are used as income sources, indicate them in order of importance.

Poultry = 1, fattening = 2, Beekeeping = 3, others (specify) = 4……………….

3. What was the estimated amount of off-farm income in birr (recent year)? ----------------------

14. Credit Access:

1. Did you receive any credit service during the last year? Yes=1,No = 0

2. If yes, for what purpose receive? ------------------------------

3. If yes, did you repay your loan? Yes =1, No= 0

4. If no why? -------------------------------------

89
15. General Questionnaire

1. What intervention must be used for better implementation of swc practices in the future in your
area? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Ay idea with regard to swc practice --------------------------------------------------

3. Any idea with regard to the negative impact if swc practice? -----------------------

Appendix 9: Focus Group Discussion Questions

1. What is/are the common SWC practices in the area?

2. How can you plan SWC practices in your locality ( hint bottom-up, top dawn, participatory)

3. How can you express the willingness of the farmers to participate in SWC practices

4. How do you observe and judge the sustainability of SWC measures that are already done
before in your farm land or else?

5. How you evaluate the effectiveness of SWC practices that you have done before?

6. How the communities participate in maintenance of SWC practices

7. Why you remove SWC measures form your farm plots?

8. Do you get adequate support concerning to SWC from agricultural experts? What are those?

9. What benefits do you get from SWC measures implemented on your farm?

10. What limitation do you face from these SWC measures implemented on your farm plots?

11. What are the main problems associated with willingness to participate SWC practices
implementation

12. What do you recommend for these mentioned problems

90
Appendix 10: Key informants iinterview questions
1. What type of conservation measures is being implemented?

2. Who designs the conservation structures?

3. What is the role of the DAs, SWC and agricultural experts in the conservation intervention?

4. How do you get the effectiveness of soil conservation SWC measures in controlling soil
erosion problems?

5. What are the major factors affecting the farmers for willingness to participate SWC practices
in the study area?

6. How do you see the participation of farmers in SWC works in individual farm lands as well as
communal lands?

7. Which class of the community is more responsible in the SWC works?

8. What comments do you have on the planning, implementation and evaluation of SWC
measures in your woreda and the study area?

Thanks for your collaboration in advances!

91
 BIBLOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Mengistu Hone was born in Farta Woreda, South Gondar Zone of Amhara Regional State of Ethiopia,
in September 1994. He attended his primary education at Adeder and Amjaye elementary school. He
also attended his secondary and preparatory school education at Kimir Dingay Secondary and
Preparatory High School in south Gondar zone. After completion of his high school education, he
joined Jimma University College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine (JUCAVM) in October
2013 and graduated with BSc Degree in Rural Devevolopment and Agriculture Extension in June
25/2015. Soon after his graduation, Woreta trade and development office employed him at trade
licenses officer. After two year experience the author joined at Bahir Dar University College of
Agriculture and Environmental since in October 2018 to pursue of his MSc. degree in Rural
Development Management in Regular Program.

92