Impact of Soil and Water Conservation on Crop Productivity:

case of Gerado Kebele Habru Woreda

Prepared by:
1. Sisay mesele (WOUR/2230/06)
2. Asneka Alemu Fente (WOUR/2209/06)

Advisor: Ermias Bidirie

A Research paper

Submitted to the Department of Soil and Water Resources Management, College of Agriculture,
Wollo University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Bachelor Science Degree in
Soil and Water Resources Management

Dessie, Ethiopia
March 2016
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and for most, we would like to express our endless feeling to the almighty God who helps in
all aspects of our life. Secondly, we would like to express our deepest gratitude for our advisor Mr.
Ermias.B for professional advice and encouragement in preparing this senior research paper. We
would like to express special thanks to the Habru woreda agricultural office of staff member and
srinka agricultural research office of staff member.

Finally, we would like to thanks all that helps us both directly and indirectly.

2|Page
Table of Contents
Acronyms.........................................................................................................................................................4
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................7
1.1Background of the study.........................................................................................................................7
1.2. Statement of the problem.....................................................................................................................8
3.1. Significance of the study............................................................................................................................8
1.4. Objective of the study...........................................................................................................................8
1.4.1. General objective...........................................................................................................................8
1.4.2. Specific objectives..........................................................................................................................8
1.6. Limitation of the study..........................................................................................................................9
2. LITERATUR REVIEW....................................................................................................................................10
2.1. Soil erosion..........................................................................................................................................10
2.2. Soil and water conservation................................................................................................................10
2.3. Purpose of soil and water conservation measures..............................................................................11
2.3. Types of soil and water conservation measures..................................................................................11
2.3.1. Mechanical SWC measures...........................................................................................................11
2.3.2 Biological soil and water conservation measures..........................................................................11
2.3.3. Agronomic measures....................................................................................................................12
2.4. Impact of soil and water conservation on crop production.................................................................12
2.5 The effect of soil and water conservation on farmers income.............................................................13
3. METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................................14
3.1Description of the study area................................................................................................................14
3.1.1Location..........................................................................................................................................14
3.1.2 Topography and climate................................................................................................................14
3.1.3 Human population.........................................................................................................................14
3.1.4 Land use.........................................................................................................................................14
3.1.5 Crop production.............................................................................................................................15
3.2. Methods of data collection..................................................................................................................15
3.3 Sample size...........................................................................................................................................15

3|Page
 ...............................................................................................................................................................15
3.4 Methods of data analysis......................................................................................................................15
4. RESULT AND DISCATION.............................................................................................................................16
4.1. Household personal characteristics.....................................................................................................16
4.1.2 Educational distribution of sample respondent.............................................................................17
4.3. Impact of SWC measure on crop production.......................................................................................17
4.4 Type of soil and water conservation in the study area.........................................................................18
4.5 effect soil and water conservation on income of farmers....................................................................19
5. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................20
6. RECOMMENDATION..................................................................................................................................21
7. APPENDEX..................................................................................................................................................24

4|Page
Acronyms
HWARDO Habru Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office
CSA Central Statistics Agency
FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
MOWR Ministry of Water Resource
NGO Non- Governmental Organization
SWC Soil and Water Conservation practice
MASL Meter above sea level

GDP Gross development plan

5|Page
 ABSTRACT
Land degradation in the form of soil erosion by water and nutrient depletion in the high
lands of Ethiopia has reached the point where it has become increasingly difficult even
to maintain the present level of production of crop. However, soil erosion continued to
be the major agricultural problem. Hence the conservation of these resources (soil and
water) should be given a due attention and the achievement of this approach
(conservation) can be grasped from farmers since they are the ones mostly affected and
the ones benefit. The central objective of this study was to assess the impact of soil and
water conservation on crop productivity in the cause of Grado kebele Grado gott. The
data collected primary and secondary data source were analyzed by using simple
random sampling method. The study was deal with the impact of SWC on crop
production, type of SWC measure and effect of SWC on farmers income. It can be
concluded from the analysis that the SWC have the impact of conserving the significant
amount of soil and water as well as increasing productivity. However to make these
SWC activity more sustainable it is better to give more attention for SWC measure.

6|Page
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1Background of the study
Soil and water are the most important basis of life on which cultivation is carried out. From past
records of an achievement, history tells us civilization and fertility of soil is closely interlinked
(Taffa, 2002) Soil erosion is defined as detachment, transportation and deposition of soil particles
from one place to another under the influence of wind, water or gravity force (Ibid, 1998). Soil
erosion which may be called the creeping death is a worldwide problem. It affects the land from
which the soil is washed, damages the area down streams by floods and sediments are the
detrimental to the economy, because it lowers the overall income of onsite and offsite farms
(Suresh, 2002). Today soil erosion is almost universally recognized as serious threat to mans well
being. For developing nations, soil erosion is the most chronic environmental and economic
burdens (Taffa, 2002).

Soil erosion is natural process that can occur without human intervention. However, this process
has been accelerated by population growth that has brought within more deforestation and
expansion of agricultural production in to marginal land, which is fragile and susceptible to erosion
.The impact of soil erosion is complex leading to reduction in soil depth and moisture storage
capacity together with soil nutrient losses and ultimately results in reduce agricultural production
and productivity (Ibid, 1998).

In Ethiopia soil erosion is recognized as one of the on-site issue of individuals in terms of reduced
yield and off-site cost of the whole society as a result of externality. Erosion removes top soil
15/30 cm layer that is chemically active part such as organic matter content and clay friction
(Renard, 1997). Now a day almost no part of earth surface that is not used by human being.
Agriculture widely spread in the developed and developing countries. Therefore, agricultural
activities materially alter the spreads of erosion process. Nearly all agricultural operation tends to
encourage erosion (Hudson, 1995). SWC is essential to protect the productivity of land of the
world. Especially in our country Ethiopia where drought famines and food cause crop damage
almost every years. SWC is not only increase crop yield but also prevent flood and deterioration of
land surface.

7|Page
Ethiopia estimated soil erosion is 13tons per hectare of which 45% is from crop land .In addition,
soil conservation research project estimated an average soil loss of 42tones per hectare per year on
cultivated lands and maximum of 300-400 tons per hectare per year in highly erodible cultivated
fields (Daniel, 2001). At the present extent and speed of soil degradation, particularly due to soil
erosion is distinguished a serious threat to the viability of the subsistence agriculture in Amhara
regional state (Lkew et al,. 2005).However, its production and productivity is highly influenced by
soil erosion. Accordingly, this study was conducted in Habru woreda Grado kebele Gerado gote
with the objective of to assess the impact of soil and water conservation on crop productivity.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Soil and water degradation is the common problems in our country Ethiopia. Farmers in erosion
suspected area faced with some problems like low crop productivity, and land degradation, less
fertility of soil and generally food insecurity (Taffa, 2002). It is continuing to be an extremely
serious problem until different conservation activities undertaken. In addition, water conservation
practice even though; the importance of SWC is not doubtful the farmers as well as the community
as whole did not understand its effects. Therefore this research will plan to investigate the impact
of SWC on crop productivity.

3.1. Significance of the study

The study will be vital in providing information through its recommendation to the concerned
body of subjected matter. The study will provide a wider opportunity to the society to understand
the impact of soil and water conservation on crop productivity in Habru Woreda Gerado kebele.

1.4. Objective of the study

1.4.1. General objective
 To assess the impact of soil and water conservation on crop productivity in Gerado
kebele ,Gerado kebele Habru Woreda

1.4.2. Specific objectives

 To assess the impact of SWC practice on crop production
 To identify the various soil and water conservation practice in the study area
 To assess the overall effect of SWC on farmers income

8|Page
1.6. Limitation of the study
During this study the researcher faced with different problems. From these problems is time,
money or financial shortage, distance of place to information gathered area (study area), lack of
true information and lack of computer access.

9|Page
2. LITERATUR REVIEW
2.1. Soil erosion
According to (MOWR, 2006), Ethiopia is believed to have considerable land and water resource
suitable for agriculture, about 73.6 million hectare of the county`s land area is estimated to be
potentially suitable for agriculture. The surface and ground water resource of countries are
estimated to be 122 and 2.6 billion m3 respectively.

According to Taffa (2002) in Ethiopia 88% of human population, 60% livestock and 90% of the
agricultural suitable areas are concentrated in highland more than 1500masl. According to (Lal,
2002) globally about 2 billion hectares of land area is subjected to man induced soil degradation.
Of this, the land area degraded by water erosion is estimated at 1100 million hectares while 550
million hectare is eroded by wind. Although many countries are suffering from the problems of
accelerated soil erosion, it is becoming seriously in developing nations, particularly in Africa
(Beny,2003), Africa followed by south Asia where both water and wind erosion are serve
problem . Ethiopia is among the Sub-Saharan Africa countries where soil erosion by water
constitutes degradation (Hurni, 1993), these process has been accelerated by population growth
that has brought with is more differentiation and expansion of agriculture production info marginal
lands which are fragile and capacity to erosion (EJNR, 2008).

2.2. Soil and water conservation

SWC is an activity at the local level which enhances the productive capacity of soil in erosion-
prone areas through reduction of erosion, conservation of moisture and improvement of soil
fertility. Soil conservation is a suitable use of soils by maintaining its potential under fertility
without interrupting the needs and aspiration of future generation. This is important especially in
the subsistence based economy whose economic activities predominantly on agriculture (Hurni
1990).In Ethiopia significant soil and water conservation activities were implemented during the
1970 and 1980s by mobilizing farmers through their peasant association, mainly in food for work
program(Bewket, 2007).Soil and water conservation is physical or biological application of land
and water management knowledge in systematic manner for sustainable food production (Agassi,
1996).

10 | P a g e
2.3. Purpose of soil and water conservation measures
Soil and water conservation measures are predominantly applied for the following purpose; Such
as to control erosion, to reduce soil compaction, to maintain or improve soil fertility, to conserve
or drain water, to harvest (excess) water. (Tidemann, 1996).

2.3. Types of soil and water conservation measures

A variety of soil and water conservation measure are well known. Those technologies can be
differentiated by type. As many among them fulfill several function simultaneously these are
classified in to physical measures (also termed as mechanical / technical measures), biological
measures (also termed as vegetative measures), and agronomic measures (sometimes called best
management practices). (Kruger et al., 1997)

2.3.1. Mechanical SWC measures

According to (Taffa, 2002), in the area where sheet and gully erosion exit, erosion control by
vegetation means is not completely effectively and mechanical controls becomes necessarily.
Ferederick et al. (1993) Stated that the principle involved in physical or mechanical measures is to
minimize the concentration of run off to rain water to inflator in the soil and less water follows
down the slop of the land at non erosive velocity. However, (Taffa, 2002) state that since
mechanical protection is expensive and time consuming they deserves care full thoughts and
planning. Firstly, because mechanical works are expensive and secondary man made works are
generally subjected to wear and tear and their effectiveness would be short lived unless they are
educate repaired and maintained. Therefore, only high valued arable land would justify this costly
mechanical measure. But it plays a vital role in controlling soil erosion on agricultural lands and
strengthens biological control measures (Suresh, 2002).

2.3.2 Biological soil and water conservation measures

It is a measure that is applied by covering the surface of the land by vegetation or other dead and
live organism to reduce soil erosion, to improve the quality and fertility of soil (Amanuel, 2002).
Biological measures by soil and water conservation work by their protective impact on the
vegetation cover. Dense vegetation cover prevents splash erosion, reduces the velocity of surface
runoff, facilitates accumulation of soil particles, increases surface roughness which reduces runoff
and increase infiltration, the roots and organic matter stabilize the soil aggregates and increase
infiltration (Morgan 1999;Richter 1998;Hurni et al.,2003 ).

11 | P a g e
Taffa (2002) state that, vegetation cover increase the supply of organic matter to soil by root
growth and the most commonly used type of biological soil and water conservation are mulching,
strip cropping, cover crop, crop rotation and green manure of the adoptable vegetable materials. So
the additions of this organic matter favor water observation by improving the water holding
capacity of the soil. Some of the principal method by which vegetation is used to measure the
conversation of soil is crop rotation, counter farming and strip cropping.

2.3.3. Agronomic measures

Agronomic soil and water conservation measures function by reducing the impact of rain drops
through interception and thus reducing soil erosion and increase infiltration rate and thereby
reducing surface runoff and soil erosion (Tidemann, 1996).Some of agronomic measures can be
applied together with physical or biological soil and water conservation measures. In some
systems they may be more effective than structural measures (Heathcoat, 1998).Agronomic soil
and water conservation measures includes strip cropping, inter cropping, mix cropping ,mulching,
contour ploughing ,agro forestry (kruger et al., 1997,Lal, 1995 and Tidemann, 1996).

2.4. Impact of soil and water conservation on crop production

Impact is defined as the effect of intervention on its surrounding in terms of technical, economic,
socio-cultural, institutional and environmental factors (Rossi et al., 2004). The impact of soil and
water conservation may be expected positive or potential negative impacts. The expected
positive impact includes increase crop yield, income increased by receiving incentive and
subsidies, supply of tools for construction and maintenance, control erosion, while the potential
negative impact of soil and water conservation include increase labor demand for soil and water
conservation measures, decreased time for other production, loss of farm or grazing land area
with the structures or measure (Mitiku et al., 2006).

The soil system remains a major determinant of crop production when compared with plant
genetic potential and weather because of environment it root growth (Olson et al., 1999). Thus
increasing and sustaining agricultural production should aim not only at sustaining level of useful

12 | P a g e
biological productivity but also at ensuring that the system is stable enough to maintain soil
quality (Dudal, 1981).

The key soil characteristic that affect agricultural yield sustainability are nutrient content, water
holding capacity, organic matter content, soil reaction, top soil depth, salinity and soil
biomass(Norton et al.,1999).

Erosion can also have a direct effect on production though the formation of rill and the
subsequent washing out seeds or though accumulation of eroded materials on germinated crops
(Ludi, 2004).In general the loss of organic matter and minerals influence crop production.

2.5 The effect of soil and water conservation on farmers income

The agricultural sectors in Ethiopia are the main source of employment and contribute to very
large portion of the country’s GDP (World Bank 2011). To maintain farm income and reduce
externalities associated with erosive agricultural technique, considerable effort have been
directed to word identifying and promoting profitable soil conservation strategies in low income
countries (Shively, 1997).The use of conservation practice in agricultural production is determined
by different income earning strategies themselves and in combination with some of the
biophysical and socio economic conditions (Jansen et al., 2006)

In the livelihood strategies improved production and productivity is the major target. Productivity
and conservation objectives are highly complementary, because conservation of soil and water
leads to higher productivity of crop thus improve farmers income (Kerr, 2002)

13 | P a g e
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1Description of the study area
3.1.1Location
The study was conducted in Amhara Regional State, North Wollo Zone Habru district Gerado
kebele Gerado got. Gerado kebele is located between town of Mersa and Town of Woldia around
Srinika. The distance of Gerado got from Mersa 14km and from Woldia 12km. According to
Sirinka Agricultural Research Center (SARC, 2007) its geographic location is at 11 0 north latitude
and 370 east longitudes and cavers an area of 1288 hectare and Gerado gote 381 hectare.

3.1.2 Topography and climate

Gerado kebele is categorized under high latitude agronomic zone with an elevation of 1713-1900
masl. The weather condition in the area includes 70% of Woyna Dega and 30% of Kolla. The
average annual rain fall is 136 mm and its distribution is uncertain. The mean daily maximum
temperature is 35.50c and the mean daily minimum temperature is 170c.

3.1.3 Human population

Accordingly to CSA (2007) the study area has an estimated total population of 2105, of which
1099 are male and 1006 are female and Gerado gote estimated total population of 280, of which
169 are male and 111 are female

3.1.4 Land use

The study area consists of four land different land uses as shown in table 1

14 | P a g e
 No Land use type Total area(ha) Percentage (%)
1 Agricultural land 206 54.1
2 Grazing land 98 25.7
3 Forest land 57 15
4 Bare land 20 5.2
Total 381 100
Source (HWARDO, 2008)

3.1.5 Crop production

The area characterized by mixed farming system, where the life of people depended on crop and
livestock production. Crop production one of the most important subsectors of the area. The major
cultivated crop in the study area were maize, sorghum, teff and wheat are dominantly grown.

3.2. Methods of data collection

The data was collected using both primary and secondary data sampling methods. The primary
data were collected through interviews, questionnaires, observations and discussions. Secondary
data were collected by reviewing from different documents in agricultural offices, journals and
published books. The methods employed for primary data collection was from household surveys
using simple random sampling method and secondary data was selected using people (house hold)
living in the study area.

3.3 Sample size

In order to determine the sample size simple random sampling was used. The total population
number of Gerado kebele Gerado gote 280, from this the total household of this gote were 103, and
from this household 30% households were used in order to collect information of data for
interview and question.

3.4 Methods of data analysis

After gathering all necessary qualitative and quantitative data, analysis was performed. Data was
analyzed on the base of data gathered. Therefore, the primary data that collected through
questionnaire were analyzed through simple random sampling method of simple statics such as
percentage and table. On the other hand, the secondary data that collected by interview were

15 | P a g e
analyzed based on the response of respondents by using simple random sampling method and
finally developed interpretation and summarized.

4. RESULT AND DISCATION

The result obtain in this research were based on the survey conducted in the study area. Most
the household that interviewed were familiar with modern and traditional SWC practices. During
the survey activity, different aspects were included such as household characteristics, effect of
SWC on crop yield and effect of SWC on farmer’s income.

16 | P a g e
4.1. Household personal characteristics
The characteristics of sample respondent such as age, sex and educational status are presented in
the following table

Table;1 Household personal characteristics

Sex No respondent Percentage (%)

Male 18 58
Female 13 42
Total 31 100
Age range (Year) No Percentage (%)
18-30 8 25.8
31-43 16 51.6
44-56 4 12.9
Above 57 3 9.7
Total 31 100
Family size No respondent Percentage (%)
<3 6 19.3
4-7 11 35.4
8-11 10 32.3

Above 12 4 13
Total 31 100
(Source semi structured survey,2008)

As shown in the table 1; male take the largest percent (58 %) than the female (13 %) this can
indicate that it has some negative effect on the conservation practice because the participation of
females in SWC measure have great role to make it effective and sustainable.

Age distribution of sample respondent show that, more than half of the respondent were found
in the age of 31-43 years, which was about 51.6 % and the lowest age range of respondent were
found above 57 years, which was about 9.7 %.This indicate that since, 51.6 % of the respondents
were found in productive age, they have a great role in making SWC measures to be effective and
sustainable. Because, people in productive age can do any SWC work. This is difficult for people
found in the age of above 57 years old.

17 | P a g e
Family distribution of sample of about 35.4 % of respondent has family size of 11 individuals. This
indicates that those farmers who large family size have high labor force and were assumed have
ability to construct conservation structure.

4.1.2 Educational distribution of sample respondent

Educati Male Percent Female Percentage Male Percentag
on respon age (%) responden (%) and e (%)
dent t Female
Illiterat 5 19.3 9 29 15 48.3
e
Literate 12 38.7 4 13 16 51.7
Total 18 58 13 42 31 100
(Source; primary data collection, 2016)

Education of respondent shows 51.7 % of respondent was access to get education. Farmers who
are literate are expected to be more likely to use SWC technology. While 48.3 % of respondent
were unable to read and write, since educational status of female were low it can affect the
conservation practice.

4.3. Impact of SWC measure on crop production

Table 6; Impact of SWC on cop production

Crop Crop NO respondents Percent (%)

yield(quintal/ha/year yield(quintal/ha/year)
) before SWC after SWC
1-4 5-10 14 45.2

4-8 10-15 10 32.2

8-12 15-20 7 22.6

(Source; filed survey 2008)

As indicated on the above table 22.6% of households before SWC structure they obtain only 8-12
quintal/ha/year and after SWC structure they obtain 15-20 quintal /ha/year. From these we
conclude that crop yield after SWC structure constructed is more than before SWC structure is
constructed. (Kerr, 2006) crop productivity and SWC are highly complementary, because
conservation on soil and water leads to higher productivity of crop.

18 | P a g e
4.4 Type of soil and water conservation in the study area
Table7; Type of SWC in the study area

Type of SWC Total area(ha) Percentage (%)

Soil bund 39 19.5
Stone bund 50 25
Fallow 23 11.5
Water ways 20 10
Contour plough 38 19
Crop rotation 30 15
Total 200 100
(Source; field survey, 2016)

According to table 7; above most of the farmer (25 %) were practiced the stone bund. Laying
stone bund in field is a well known technique to check runoff and to control erosion and is the
most widely practiced technique by farmers (UNFCCC, 2012). Similarly, in the study area stone
bund is form a barrier that slows dawn water runoff, allow rain water to seep into the soil and
spread more evenly over the land. Result from his study that the vegetation cover increases the
supply of organic matter to the soil. The soil bund reduces soil losses; improve availability of
organic matter input for improvement and offered animal feed.\

4.5 effect soil and water conservation on income of farmers

Table 8; effect of SWC on farmer’s income

19 | P a g e
 Assets NO respondent Percentage
Change their house 10 32.2
Save money in the 6 19.4
bank
Both change their 7 22.6
house and save money
in the bank
Other 8 25.8
Total 31 100
(Source; Filed survey, 2008)

From the above table 8; income sample respondents shows respondent were change their house
32.2 %. 19.4 % of the respondent saved money in the bank, other 25.8 % of respondent were
built house in the town, bought car and respondents family getting enough food (three times per
day) and happy. This shows SWC measures effective and sustainable.

20 | P a g e
5. CONCLUSION
Soil degradation is the most series problem and threat to crop production, food security and natural
resource conservation.SWC is essential to protect lands from erosion. There are different SWC
measures which control erosion such as physical or mechanical, biological or vegetative and
agronomic soil and water conservation measures. The objective of this paper was to know the
productivity of SWC practice on crop productivity; to identify varies SWC practice in the study
area and to observe the result of conservation activity.

This study was under taken in Habru woreda Gerado kebele, which affected by soil erosion. Soil
erosion is a natural process that can occur without human intervention. But that has accelerated
by population growth that has brought with it more deforestation and expansion agricultural
land. SWC measures are one of the mechanisms used to solve this problem in the area.

The common SWC measure that was carried out in the area is soil bund, stone bund, fallowing,
water ways, contour plough and crop rotation.

Income of respondent were increase by conserving soil,32.2% change their house,19.4% of

respondent saved their money in the bank and the other25.8% of respondent were built house in
a town, getting enough food (three times per day) and happy.

The study clearly shows that improving the crop productive capacity of land which is prone to soil
erosion without soil conservation is impossible. Therefore construction of soil conservation
structure in the degraded land is very important to conserve the soil and increase crop yield.

21 | P a g e
6. RECOMMENDATION
SWC measure is one of the mechanisms used to rehabilitate the degraded land area. So, in order
to make the soil and water measure more effective, sustainable and increase crop productive
capacity of land in the study area, the following recommendation is recommended for the
concerned body:

 In order to make SWC practice sustainable, it is better if more structure is building and
keeping by concerned body.
 It is better if more attention is given for integrated SWC measures to make it more
sustainable.
 It is better if participation of female in education and conservation activity highly
increased, in order to make the SWC measures more effective.
 It should be better, if grazing activity is not undertaken, in order to protect the undertaken
conservation structure from damage.
 Improving crop productive capacity of land which is prone to soil erosion without soil
conservation is impossible, it better to construct soil conservation structure in the
degraded land is very important to conserve the soil and increase crop yield.

22 | P a g e
6. REFERENCE
Agassi.M, 1996 Soil and water conservation manual REL MAI Kenya, PP 5-22
Amanuel, 2002. Soil and water conservation manual for RCCMA Kenya, PP 32-48

CSA, (2007). Population and housing census of Ethiopia result, South Wollo zone Amhara
Region part V; statically report on household size and population number, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Beny.A, 2003. Integrated natural resources management to enhance food security the case

For community based approaches Ethiopia NO-16-27

Bewket W, 2007. Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional Technologies in
Northwestern highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and adoption by farmers land
Use policy, 24:404-41
Daniel.M, 2001. Soil and water conservation manual (guideline) for Ethiopia. Soil and water
Conservation Team, natural resource management and regulatory, ministry of
Agriculture Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Dudal.R, 1981. An evaluation of conservation need in soil conservation program and prospect
UK, pp;3-12
FAO (1993).Ethiopia land use production region and farming system inventory champen, Rome

Federick.R. Lous. M and Thompson, 1993, Soil and soil fertility. Soil erosion and its control.
Oxford University, press
Hndson.N, 1995. Soil conservation, BT BATSFORD. Fourth edition London metrology for sub
Watershed development planning and implementation. Harer, Ethiopia,

Hurni.H, 1993.Land degradation, famine and land resource scenario in Ethiopia campaiges
University press, pp; 27-62

23 | P a g e
Hurni. H, 1996. Precious earth; from soil and water conservation to sustainable land

Management; Berene.pp; 23-38.

Kerr, J, 2002. Watershed development, environmental services and poverty alleviation in

Indian. World Dev., 30:1387-1400.

Kruger.H et al., 1997. Creating an inventory of indigenous soil and water conservation

Measures in Ethiopia. Pp; 10-15.

Ludi, E, 2004, Economic analysis of soil conservation; case studies from the high lands of
Amhara region, Ethiopia, Land use policy 17; 321-336.
Lai.R (2001). Soil degradation by erosion .land degradation and development 12:519-39
Lal R, 1995. Sustainable management of soil resources in the humid tropics. United Nations

University press, Tokyo.

Lakew.D, 2005.Community based watershed development .Ministry of agriculture and

development, Adise Abeba.

Ludi, E., 2004. Economic analysis of soil conservation: case studies series A18, Institutes of

Geography, Bern, Switzerland pp; 1-5.

Mitiku.et al., 2006. Sustainable land management, A New Approach to soil and water

Conservation manual in Mekelle Ethiopia 269p.

Morgan, R, 1995. Soil erosion and conservation .second edition Longman, Newyork, pages: 198.

MOWR, (2002). Ethiopia water resource management, policy, Addis Ababa Ethiopia-37P
Norton.D, 1999. Erosion and soil chemical properties, in soil quality and soil erosion USA;
Pp;39-56.

Olson et al., 1999. Erosion Impacts on crop yield for selected soils of the north central

United States pp: 259-284.

Suresh. R, 2002. Soil and water conservation engineering manual pp; 85-90.
Taffa, 2002. Soil and water conservation for sustainable agriculture. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

24 | P a g e
Tidemann. E, 1996. Watershed management Guidelines for Indian Conditions, Omega Scientific

Publisher, New Delhi, Indian.

7. APPENDEX

1. Back ground
A. Name of respondents--------------------sex-----------age--------

B. Name of households------------------------------------male--------------female--------

C .Educational status-----------------------------

D .Marital status------single-------married-----------divorced-----

1.1. Asset of households

Bull---------- Calf------------------- Donkey--------------------

Ox------------ sheep------------------- Cow--------------------------

Goat----------- Mule-------------------- Chicken---------------------

2. Land holding size in hectares? _________

3. Do you have a problem of erosion in your farm? _________

4. Do you have constructing SWC structure on your land?

Yes---------

No---------

5. If your answer yes. What type Structure?

6. Do you have get benefit by constructing soil and water conservation structure?

Yes---------

25 | P a g e
No-------

7. If your answer is yes in the above question two what is the benefit?

Crop yield quntal per hectares year’?

8. Do you have own land do not covered by SWC?

Yes-------

No---------

9. If you answer is yes in question 8 , Did you get the same yield to land do not covered by SWC?

YES--------

NO-------

10. How much areas is covered with soil and water conservation practice in hectares? ______

11. Which practices are more favorable in your gote? _________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

12. By constructing SWC structure on your land you get benefits?

Yes------------

No---------------

13. from the above questions, if your answer is yes which one from the following?

.Change house

.Built house in town

.Save money in bank

Built house in town

.Other

26 | P a g e