AMBO UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

COLLEGE OF NATURAL AND COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE
DEPARTEMENT OF BIOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE PROGRAM

DETERMINANTS OF ADOPTION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PRACTI

CES BY RURAL HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF SELECTED VILLAGES OF TOKE
KUTAYE DISTRICT, WEST SHEWA ZONE, ETHIOPIA

THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO COLLAGE OF NATURAL COMPUTATIONAL

SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY FOR THE PARTIAL FULFILLIMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRO
NMENTAL SCIENCE.

THESIS PROPOSAL
BY:

LAMESSA DAGAFU NEGASA

ADVISOR: ALEMAYEHU NEGASA (PhD)

January 2024.
AMBO, ETHIOPIA
 APPROVAL SHEET OF THE PROPOSAL

I have gone through and checked this proposal and I prepare it for final presentation.

PG Candidate;

Lamessa Degefu -------------------------- -------------------

Name of student Signature Date

APPROVED BY;

Major Advisor;

--------------------------------- --------------------- -------------

Head of Department Signature Date

----------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------

College/Institute/Dean Signature Date

------------------------------ -------------------- ---------------

Dean of School of Graduate Studies Signature Date

------------------------------------ ------------------ -------------

I
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET OF THE PROPOSAL…………………………………………………. ....I
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………….. II&III
ACRONMYS………………………………………………………………………………...…....
IV
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1

1.1.Back ground of the Study.......................................................................................................1

1.2.Statement of the problem.......................................................................................................3

1.3.Objectives of the Study4……………………………………………………………….…...4

1.3.1.General Objective............................................................................................................4

1.3.2.Specific Objectives..........................................................................................................4

1.4.Research questions.................................................................................................................4

1.5.Significance of the study........................................................................................................4

1.6.Scope and Limitation of the study.........................................................................................5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................6

2.1.Theoretical Reviews...............................................................................................................6

2.1.1.Definition of Soil and Water Conservation.....................................................................6

2.1.2.Concepts of Soil and Water conservation.......................................................................6

2.2 .Empirical Review..................................................................................................................8

2.2.1.Soil and Water Conservatio Practice: Global context.....................................................8

2.2.2.Improved SWC practices in Ethiopia..............................................................................9

2.2.3.Determinants of adoption of SWC practices : Global context......................................10

2.2.4.Determinants of adoption of SWCpractices by rural households in Ethiopia...............11

2.2.5.Opportunities of practicing SWCpracticesby rural households in Developing

Countries.................................................................................................................................12

II
 2.2.6. Opportunities of practicing Soil and Water Conservation practices in Ethiopia.........13

2.3. Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................15

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS..............................................................................................16

3.1. Description of the Study Area.............................................................................................16

3.1.1. Topography and Soil....................................................................................................16

3.1.2. Climate.........................................................................................................................16

3.2. Research Design..................................................................................................................18

3.3. Sampling Methods and Procedure......................................................................................18

3.3.1. Determination of Sample Size......................................................................................18

3.4. Types and Sources of Data Collection................................................................................19

3.5. Methods of Data Collection................................................................................................19

3.5.1 Semi Structured interview schedule..............................................................................20

3.5.2. Key Informants’ Interview...........................................................................................20

3.5.3. Focus Group Discussion...............................................................................................20

3.6. Methods of Data Analysis...................................................................................................20

4. Work plan and Budget Break Down..........................................................................................22

4.1. Work Plan...........................................................................................................................22

4.2. Budget break down.............................................................................................................23

REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................24

III
IV
 ACRONOMY

CSA Central Statistics Agency

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FFW Food for Work

GoE Government of Ethiopia

KII Key informant interview

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

NGOs Non-Government Organizations

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

SWCPs Soil and Water conservation practice

TKDAOR Toke Kutaye District Agriculture office report

WFP World Food Program

WSHZAO West Shewa Zone Agriculture Office

CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management

SLMP Sustainable Land Management Project

PA Peasant Association

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FGD Focus Group Discussion

HHs Households

V
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Back ground of the study

Depletion of natural resources is among the most serious problems facing people worldwide, and

it is estimated that nine million hectares of land are severely degraded. However, 1.2 billion

hectares of the world's land are moderately degraded, mainly due to inappropriate agricultural

practices that lead to land degradation (Wassie, S. B. (2020). The economic progress of

developing countries depends on the performance of the agricultural sector. In Ethiopia,

agriculture generates about 50% of gross domestic product and 90% of national export earnings

MOHAMMED,N.(2022).The development of the agricultural sector depends on management

and the ability to conserve natural resources such as land, water, forests, minerals, and

wildlife(Bitew et al., 2022). However, in most steeply sloping areas, resources such as soil are

regularly washed out or eroded by runoff, followed by soil degradation in the form of soil

erosion, which affects nearly half of agricultural land and results in soil loss(Weeraratna, 2022).

Soil degradation is an environmental problem that leads to the loss of fertile topsoil, reduces the

productive capacity of the soil, and increases the risk of food insecurity. It also negatively affects

the natural water storage capacity of watersheds, man-made reservoirs and dams, surface water

quality, the aesthetic value of the landscape, and ecological balance in general (Gupta, 2019).

Ethiopian agriculture is largely dependent on rainfall, and the country has a total land area of

about 111.5 million hectares, of which an estimated 73.6 million (66%) are potentially suitable

for agricultural production (Anulo, 2018). The country loses a significant amount of soil each

year due to soil erosion. Soil degradation in the hillside areas of Ethiopia is a serious problem

1
that threatens the sustainability of agriculture (Kidane & Alemu, 2015). Various soil and water

conservation efforts have been made to reduce the problem, especially in the last quarter of the

20th century (Assefa & Hans‐Rudolf, 2016).

Soil and water conservation are therefore fundamental to the future development of the Ethiopian

economy. Soil and water conservation practices are therefore closely linked not only to the

conservation of the ecological environment but also to the sustainable development of the

agricultural sector and the economy in general (Addisu et al, 2015). Moreover, these practices

are critical to achieving food security, poverty reduction, and environmental sustainability in the

country (Emami et al., 2018).

To achieve these goals, the Ministry of Agriculture, various nongovernmental organizations, the

World Bank, the World Food Program (WFP), and donors are supporting various activities to

improve soil and water conservation at the national and local levels (Adimassu et al., 2018).

(Langdale et al., 1991)indicate that improved soil and water conservation technologies ensure

better water penetration, better soil surface enrichment, and reduced soil erosion and compaction.

Despite all concerted efforts, socioeconomic and physical constraints have resulted in inadequate

activities and minimal success in some parts of Ethiopia(OLANA, 2014). Farmers considered the

structures constraints as they did not derive immediate benefits (Tesfaye et al., 2022)and farmers

consider that these structures erected on farmlands reduce the cultivated area and are labor

intensive (A. Teshome, de Graaff, & Kessler, 2016).

Even though studies on soil-water conservation practices have been conducted in some parts of

the highlands of Ethiopia (Melaku et al., 2018). The problem of soil degradation due to soil

erosion persists. The national regional state of Oromia is severely affected by soil erosion. 90%

2
of the population is located in the highlands, which account for 66% of the total soil resources

(BELETE, 2020). Areas that are highly affected by erosion in Oromia National Regional State

are located in the West Shewa Zone (Saguye, 2017).

Much of the land in this zone is subject to severe soil erosion, deforestation, land pressure, and

land degradation (Saguye, 2017). The average annual soil loss rate is 45 tons per hectare per year

on cultivated land and 22 tons per hectare per year on pasture land in the West Shewa

Zone(Adimassu et al., 2014). As a result, the soil is no longer able to meet the rapidly growing

needs of the population (Kopittke et al., 2019). Toke Kutaye district has been continuously

exploited and degraded (Toke Kutaye District Agriculture Office, 2022). As a result, the majority

of rural inhabitants are suffering from food insecurity (Kebede Gariyo, 2017).

The study area is rainfall-dependent, has a lack of agricultural land, and topographically has

steep slopes, moderately gentle slopes, and flat plains. In addition, the economy of society is

highly dependent on the agricultural sector, especially on the production of crops that require

finely worked soil. This clearly justifies the intervention of the SWCP. Although various

conservation mechanisms were in place, rural households in the study area were reluctant to

adopt SWCPs. In many cases, the role of social, cultural, economic, and institutional factors in

the practices and adoption of SWCPs in the district is ignored or not considered when

considering rates of soil erosion, nutrient loss, and impacts on the physical environment. In

general, this research will fill in the gaps in knowledge about the determinants of SWCP

adoption by rural households.

3
 1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Throughout the country, including the study area, the government and the World Food Program

(WFP) under the Food for Work (FFW) and safety net programs to address soil erosion

(WORKINEH, G.S., & ARBAMINCH, E. (2013) have implemented various

SWCPs. However, the problem of soil erosion persists and is a major cause of food insecurity in

Ethiopia (Ahmedin,et al, 2022). In response to extensive degradation of the resource base,

different SWCPs were introduced in some degraded and food deficit areas, mainly through FFW

in the early 1980s (Gessese, H. H., & Dassa, A. R. (2022).

The sustainability of SWCPs is still a problem in some areas. In Ethiopia, many researchers have

studied the problem of soil erosion, farmers' adoption and perceptions of conservation practices,

and related problems (Abdulrashid, 2018;Tsegaye, 2019, Birhan & Tekalign, 2022); However, in

Toke Kutaye district, no studies have been conducted on natural resource conservation,

particularly on the determinants of SWCP adoption. As factors vary according to socio-

economic, biophysical, and institutional variations in the area, this study aimed to assess the

determinants of SWCP adoption in Dadagalan, Hadarsa Bila and Maruf rural villages in Toke

Kutaye district, Ethiopia. Understanding existing SWC practices, SWCP design qualities,

sustainability, and contributing factors has significant policy implications.

The district is severely affected by soil erosion and faces a variety of food production and supply

problems due to both natural and human interventions. The rate of erosion continues to increase,

and the sustainability of conservation measures remains a problem in Toke Kutaye district. There

is a gap in knowledge regarding the determinants of adoption of SWC practices in the study area.

This study therefore focused on assessing the determinants of adoption of SWC practices by

4
rural households in the study area. Understanding the determinants of adoption of SWC practices

by rural households is critical for planning and designing outreach programs to improve food

security and control soil erosion in the district.

1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1.3.1. General Objective

The general objective of the study is to assess the determinants of the adoption of soil and water

conservation practices by rural households in Dadagalan, Hadarsa Bila and Maruf.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study are:

 To examine indigenous and improved soil and water conservation practices adopted by rural
households in Dadagalan, Hadarsa Bila ,Maruf and Naga File
 To analyze the determinants of the adoption of soil and water conservation practices by rural
households in the Dadagalan, Hadarsa Bila ,Maruf and Naga File
 To explore opportunities for soil and water conservation practices in the area.

1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The study answered the following research questions

1. What are the indigenous and improved soil and water conservation practices adopted by

the rural households in the Dadagalan, Hadarsa Bila ,Maruf and Naga File

2. What are the main factors influencing the adoption of soil and water conservation

practices by rural households in the Dadagalan, Hadarsa Bila,Maruf and Naga File

3. What are the opportunities available to rural households in the study area to conserve soil

and water conservation practices in the Dadagalan, Hadarsa Bila ,Maruf and Naga File

5
 1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY AREA

The results of this study will provide valuable information to researchers, policymakers, and

development institutions working in the area to design and develop effective and sustainable soil

and water conservation practices. The results can provide site-specific information and

knowledge related to soil and water conservation practices and highlights factors that indicate

areas that require immediate action and additional research. For the zone in general and the

district in particular, it can be an opportunity to have an organized document that can serve as a

guide for future development. In addition, it can indicate directions and supply information for

further research, extension, and development efforts for non-governmental organizations whose

primary concern is SWC and sustainable development in general, and provide information for

further research, consultation, and development efforts. Researchers and extension workers could

be utilizing the results of this study to modify research and extension activities, particularly for

SWC practices.

1.6. SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The study will be conducted in three PAs of Toke Kutaye district in West Shewa Zone. Cross-

sectional data are collected in 2023/2024 and will analyze for academic purposes in 2024. The

objective is to assess the determinants of SWCP adoption. The study involves farmers,

development agents, agricultural experts, and other stakeholders to obtain comprehensive

information on the subject under consideration. The research will be limited primarily because of

its geographic, temporal, and content scope.

Geographically, the research will cover only three rural villages in Toke Kutaye district and does

not cover other parts of the country. The research is limited to cross-sectional data only.

6
Moreover, the research covers only the adoption of SWCPs and may not allow for generalized

conclusions about environmental degradation in the area. Future development and research

interventions may deal with wider geographical, temporal, and content scopes to enable sound

conclusions about land resource degradation in the study area.

7
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Theoretical Reviews

2.1.1 Concepts and Definition of Soil and Water Conservation

There are different definitions of soil and water conservation practises, either separately or

together.(Kassam et al.,2014) defined soil and water conservation as a combination of appropriat

e land use and land management practices that promote productivity and sustainable use of soil

and water resources and minimize degradation of soil and water resources. Soil conservation

practises involve managing soil erosion and its counterpart process of sedimentation, reducing its

negative impacts, and exploiting the new opportunities it creates(Jiang et al., 2014).

Their role is to control erosion and maintain soil fertility(Ruiz-Colmenero et al., 2011). The term

"soil and water conservation" encompasses traditional and improved management of "soil" and

"water" to maintain (support, enhance) the medium- to long-term productive capacity of these

resources and is a set of management strategies designed to prevent soil from being eroded from

the earth's surface or chemically, physically, and biologically altered by overuse, acidification,

salinization, erosion, etc. (Birhan & Tekalign, 2022).

Soil and water conservation practices refer to the various methods and measures used to

regenerate, rehabilitate, conserve, and sustainably use renewable soil, water, and plant resources

to improve community livelihoods and environmental protection(Reda & Gidey, 2021)

It also the practice of reducing and mitigating erosion to an acceptable level where soil loss can

be offset by natural soil development, improving the physical structure of the soil, increasing or

8
maintaining the level of organic matter, making the best use of available water, and maintaining

the level of soil fertility by reducing nutrient loss(Ahmad et al., 2020)

2.1.2. Concepts of Soil and Water conservation

When soil, a non-renewable natural resource, is ruined, it is completely lost(Mello & van Raij,

2006). Globally, about 5 to 7 million ha (22% of land suitable for sustaining agricultural

productivity) are lost to soil degradation every year, threatening the world's food security (Bashir

et al., 2017). Conservation and management of soil and water resources are important for human

well-being(López-Vicente & Wu, 2019). Soil and water conservation and sustainable use of

these assets are not only crucially important to farmers but to the entire human race for their

sustenance (TADELE TESFAYE, 2020).

Soil and water conservation refers to activities that maintain or improve the productive capacity

of land in areas where soil erosion is a problem or is likely to occur(Stavi & Lal, 2015). Soil

erosion, on the other hand, is the movement of soil from one part of the land to another through

the action of wind or water(Eswaran et al., 2019). Thus, soil erosion by water is caused by

raindrop impact surface sealing and crust formation, leading to high runoff rate and amount, high

runoff velocity on long and undulating slopes, poor structural soils with high moisture content

from frequent rainfall, and low soil strength(Alnaser & Alkhafagi, 2020). Soil erosion by wind is

caused by a lack of vegetation cover, dry, pulverized soils, high wind speeds, and poor land

management practices such as continuous tillage and overgrazing(van Huyssteen & du Preez,

2023).

Soil and water conservation measures are initially a response to the perceived problem of soil

degradation(Damtie et al., 2022). It includes all forms of human activity to protect and treat soil

9
degradation. Physical soil and water conservation practises are categorized into two categories:

conventional (indigenous) and improved practises. Whatever the measures might be, these

measures point to controlling runoff, improving soil fertility, and harvesting water(Reij et al.,

2013)In the degradation-conservation discourse, three major perspectives have recently emerged:

classic, populist and Neo-liberal(D. A. Alawa, 2016). According to the classic approach, the

problem of land degradation can be overcome by technocratic solutions, thus tending to ignore

the Socio-economic side of the problem(Blaikie, 2016).

On the other extraordinary, the populist approach puts emphasis on the play of local knowledge

and land management practices and underscores the importance of stakeholder participation in

conservation practices(Baron, 2021). In this perspective, the link between poverty and land

degradation is critical; policy formulation and action towards conservation should base itself on

local peoples ‘knowledge and land use practices(Hannam, 2022). Having a center-ground

position, the Neo-liberal approach draws from both the classic and the populist approaches. It

recognizes the classic approach in its view that innovation is accessible to control land

degradation that can be received or adapted wherever and whenever required(Qobo,

2022).Acknowledging the populist view, the neo-liberal approach puts emphasis on

empowerment of the people for their adoption or adaptation of the technologies at the farm

level(H. Zeleke, 2018). In other ways, the contention on major causes of land degradation

included in this neo-liberal see is centered on institutional failures and lack of enough incentives

for the adoption/adaptation of preservation technologies among the land users(Sharma, 2011).

This study utilizes the neo-liberal approaches its theoretical background. Therefore, it holds the

view that there is a plethora of land conservation technologies(DAVID ADIE ALAWA). The

10
issue lies in the acknowledgement and adoption of the technologies by the land users. That is the

problem of land degradation persists in Ethiopia, and elsewhere for that matter, not because of

lack of technical fixes to the problem but due to lack of sufficient consideration of

socioeconomic and institutional factors in solution prescriptions (Hayalneh Zeleke, 2018).

2.2. EMPIRICAL REVIEW

2.2.1. Investigation of Indigenous and improved SWC practice: Global context

The word “indigenous” collective and difficult to explain with a single word or statement.

Different scholars have defined the term "indigenous" differently(Hadlos, 2022). From a western

point of view, the concept of "innate knowledge" is associated with the term "primitive"(Cotting

ham, 2021). But for others, particularly those of indigenous people of Africa, Latin America,

Asia, and Oceania, indigenous knowledge is the way of knowing(Breidlid, 2013).

Comparable to Western science in that it is based on the accumulation of observation, but it is

different from science in some fundamental way(Sraku-Lartey, 2014).Here, indigenous

knowledge is a product of the culture and cognition of people who work independently of

Western ideas (Berry & Dasen, 2019). Indigenous soil conservation practices are common

among numerous indigenous peoples around the world. As a result, several types of soil

conservation practices are frequently observed among Africa's indigenous societies and

people(Yeshambel, 2013).Sub-Saharan Africa has a long tradition of soil protection. Indigenous

techniques from the precolonial era focus on erosion control in combination with water

conservation by ridging, mulching, constructing embankments and terraces, multiple cropping,

fallowing, and the planting of trees(Bizuayehu, 2021).

11
Due to severe production and productivity reductions during the 19 th and 20th centuries,

world society has started to pay attention to modernizing traditional systems of agriculture by

boosting them with different technologies(Tortella, 2000).However, this sudden modernization

system causes another devastating problem that leads to other challenges if not properly and

carefully managed (NOVELS, 2016).

2.2.2. Investigation of Indigenous and Improved SWC practices in Ethiopia

For centuries, Ethiopia has known and advanced indigenous knowledge in a wide range of fields

like soil and water conservation, seed selection, and conservation, advancement of conventional

farm implements, and development of appropriate farming systems, and adaptation of successful

coping mechanisms withstanding food insecurities through time. It has well-appreciated

indigenous technologies devised by the community, utilizing their own indigenous knowledge to

cope with harsh times and be able to sustain their livelihood (FenetahunMihertu, 2018).

Besides, traditional SWC practices are well recognized in Ethiopia; for illustration, in Gojjam,

ditch drainage causes excessive runoff, and the people of Konso have practiced terracing on their

agricultural farm land for a long period of time (T.TESFAYE,2020). However, indigenous SWC

practices in Ethiopia are poorly documented and not considered important by experts and

policymakers(Haregeweyn et al., 2015). The study also illustrated and strengthened the value of

indigenous soil and water conservation as the basis for improved conservation of soil and water

resources.

In many developing African countries, like Ethiopia, this transformation did not achieve its

intended goal of improving the agricultural system(Yigezu Wendimu, 2021). The reason for its

little success was due to poor planning, poor design, limited community participation, unsuitable

12
conservation methods, inadequate linkages with the livelihoods of the poor, and a lack of a

coordinated approach that goes beyond soil conservation to address the interlinked issues of

productivity, market access, land policy, and resource management (Biratu & Asmamaw, 2016).

To with stand soil degradation, soil and water conservation practises have been started in

different countries for many years. Likewise, SWC projects have a relatively long history in

African countries, beginning in the 1930s when the colonial governments became concerned

with the impact of soil erosion on the productivity of the land. However, awareness of soil and

water conservation by researchers and development practitioners increased (Belachew et al.,

2020).

The Derge regime was initiating a soil and water conservation programme in the highland areas

with the help of international aid, funds, and food relief in Ethiopia following the distressing

drought of the mid-1980s (Webster et al., 2020). On the one hand, long stretches of bund were

constructed, hillside areas were closed off, steep slope agriculture was abandoned, and millions

of trees were planted. On the other hand, it was very expensive (Tahir Akli, 2019).

2.2.3. Determinants of adoption of SWC practices by rural households: Global context

(Olawuyi & Mushunje, 2019) conducted a study on the determinants of adoption and use

intensity of SWC practises among smallholder farmers in Nigeria. They applied binary profit and

binomial regression models to analyse the determinants of adoption and use intensity of SWC

practises. They stated that age of the farmers, gender, years of formal education, and farm size

under cultivation were significant determinants of SWCP adoption, and based on the binomial

regression model, they revealed that age of the farmer, gender, and the size of farmland under

13
cultivation were found to affect the log counts of SWC practises adopted by smallholder farmers

significantly.

(Lasway et al., 2020) Studied the determinants of soil conservation practises among smallholder

farmers in Tanzania using secondary data from a national panel survey. They employed a binary

probit model to estimate the determinants of the adoption of soil conservation technologies.

Based on the model, they reported that access to extension services and training, as well as plot

value, had a significant positive correlation with the adoption of the introduced SWC practises.

Nonetheless, they found that soil steepness influenced the adoption and acceptance of soil

conservation practises negatively.

They concluded that the adoption of different soil conservation structures is affected by physical,

socioeconomic, and institutional factors. Based on their findings, they recommended that the

concerned bodies consider the influential factors that can affect the adoption of soil conservation

practises to enhance farmers’ adoption of soil conservation practises and advance agricultural

productivity and environmental quality.

2.2.4. Determinants of adoption of SWC practices by rural households in Ethiopia

A number of studies have been done on determinants of soil and water conservation practices

implementation/adoption.(Dilebo, 2017) Conducted a study on factors influencing adoption of

soil and water conservation efforts at household level in Aletawendo District, Sidama regions,

Ethiopia. According to the study's findings, seven variables significantly and favorably

influenced farmers' decisions towards adoption. These included the household head's education

level, training participation, overall income, farmers' perceptions of soil and water conservation,

their preferences, extension contact, and land ownership certificate.

14
(A. Teshome, De Graaff, & Kassie, 2016) used an ordered profit model to determine the factors

influencing household adoption of soil and water conservation. He discovered factors such as

cultivate labor, parcel size, instrument ownership, training in SWC, proximity to SWC programs,

social capital (such as cooperation with nearby crop owners), labor sharing Plans and public

perception of the erosion problem have a strong positive influence on the SWC's actual and final

adoption phases.

(Addisu et al., 2015)employed descriptive statistics to recognize determinants of soil and water

conservation procedures in Goromti Watershed, Western Ethiopia. They discovered that a

farmer's decision to adopt soil and water conservation practices was significantly influenced by

the slope of the land, contact with extension specialists, tenure status, age, household size, and

training.(Belachew et al., 2020)investigated determinants of the adoption of soil and water

conservation practices in the northwest Ethiopian highlands. The results revealed that there were

a 74, 56, 29 and 56% chance of choosing soil bund, stone bund, check dam, or strip cropping,

respectively. The likelihood of adopting the chosen soil and water conservation techniques was

14.2%. The model results also approved that age, sex, education level, family size, animal

holding, land size, access to credit, access to extension service and training were crucial factors

that influenced the study area's adoption of soil and water conservation practices.

(Asfaw & Neka, 2017) examined the variables influencing the adoption of conservation practices

for soil and water in the case of Ethiopia's Wereilu District in the Amhara Region. The analysis

result showed that sex of family heads, education status of family heads, access to extension

services and training were positively connected at significantly level with the adoption of the

introduced soil and water conservation practices. In another instance, the adoption of newly

15
introduced soil and water conservation practices was negatively affected by the age of family

heads, off-farm activity, and distance of farmlands from homesteads.

The finding shows that the identified physical, socioeconomic, and organizational factors

affected the adoption of soil and water conservation.Generally, the reviews of empirical studies

indicate the importance of Demographic, socio-economic, institutional, local and site specific

attributes to assess determinants of adoption of soil and water conservation technologies.

2.2.5. Opportunities of practicing SWC practices by rural households in Developing

Countries

Various studies (German et al., 2013)demonstrate the importance of community-based natural

resource management (CBNRM) based on indigenous knowledge around the world, particularly

in developing nations like Ethiopia, as a means of livelihood for the poor. According to (Smyth

& Vanclay, 2017), because poor people depend more heavily on a limited supply of natural

resources, they attach greater value to their conservation and have developed sustainable

management strategies for their direct benefit.(Galudra, 2005)also described that indigenous

communities have developed ways of life remarkably tuned to their local environments.

The long associations with their lands have resulted in the development of strong ties with their

lands, expressed in customary laws, complex religious ceremonies, symbolic activities, and an

extremely in-depth knowledge of their resources. Such knowledge may be deeply coded within

traditional lore, handed down by word of mouth to generations, and refined too. Religious

tradition and beliefs are also important factors in maintaining adherence to rules governing

common property(Norenzayan et al., 2016).

16
In several cases, use and access to the commons are restricted by local religious institutions, both

in terms of the kinds of uses and where resources may be accessed (Parry, 2009). According to

(Nampindo, 2014), over 90% of rural Africans have access to land through customary

institutions, and a quarter of the continent‘s land some 740 million hectares serves as communal

property such as forests and range-lands. CBNRM requires a local person to have a reasonable

degree of tenure control over land and resources so that they can make decisions about resource

use, access, and allocation.

A wide range of policy makers and development and conservation practitioners have supported

efforts to revitalise or strengthen local natural resource management institutions in response to a

variety of economic, social, environmental, and political pressures. progressively, debates over

local communities ‘ability to oversee their lands and natural resources are a portion and parcel of

broader battles over political and economic power and authority in African countries(Parry,

2009).

2.2.6. Opportunities of practicing Soil and Water Conservation practices in Ethiopia

Ethiopia is one of the country’s most endowed with diverse natural resources, with indigenous

conservation practises called Common Property Resource Conservation," and also endowed with

a range of fauna and flora (E. Teshome et al., 2021). According to (Wassie, 2020), the Ethiopian

highlands have been the focus of a variety of human land uses for at least four centuries and may

be longer, yet they are rich in endemic plant, bird, and mammal species. Common property

resource regimes among its numerous, different ethnic groups were formerly abundant in

Ethiopia (Moreda, 2017).

17
Communities have been using traditional methods of managing natural resources for many years,

and they still do. Many times, these traditional activities, founded on local laws, norms, and

expertise, are functionally much more representative cases of CBNRM than many of the formal,

externally funded projects and programmes that could also be considered CBNRM(Fabricius,

2013). Watershed management has a positive impact on NRC, crop livestock production and pro

ductivity, socioeconomic conditions, and livelihoods (Gebregziabher et al., 2016).

Exposure to education can improve the farmer's ‘management skills and reflect a better

understanding of the benefits and problems of soil conservation practises. Also, education

increases the capacity and ability to receive and implement relevant information regarding the

use of soil conservation practises, since educated farmers are expected to have a good knowledge

of the significance of SWC technologies and the necessity to adopt them(Amare & Simane,

2017). Certain studies indicate that the number of farming experiences has a positive relationship

with the use of preservation practises (Prokopy et al., 2008). Contrary to this finding, households

with large families are expected to adopt or have a greater chance of implementing the practise

than those with a lack of labour or a lower degree of family accessibility (Deressa et al., 2009).

Farmers with relatively larger land sizes had a better chance of adapting soil conservation

technologies than farmers with smaller plots of land (Etwire et al., 2022). Knowledge of farmers'

perceptions and attitudes towards land degradation is an important first step to solving the

problem(Pulido & Bocco, 2014).

Plot-level analysis conducted in the Blue Nile Basin reveals that plots that received sustainable

land and watershed management investments (terraces, bunds, and check dams) for 10 years had

a 24% higher value of production(Schmidt & Tadesse, 2014). However, the same source

18
suggested that SLMP must be installed for at least seven years so as to have a positive and

increasing value in production. In light of this, Schmidt and Tadesse (2014) reported that the

marginal benefit of sustaining land and watershed management investments increases over time

at an increasing rate.

(Adimassu et al.,2017) from the highlands of Tigray, Ethiopia, noted that several land

investments and land management practises have a statistically significant impact on the value of

crop production. For instance, they found that crop productivity is 18% and 64% higher in plots

with stone terraces and reduced tillage, respectively. The same source also stated that the use of

fertilizer and manure, respectively, results in 16% and 14% higher yields as compared to non-

use. In the same vein, in eastern Ethiopia, (Fontes, 2018), using first-order stochastic dominance

analysis, found that adopting SWC practise results in a higher yield and net return than non-

adopting.

Moreover, (Kassa et al., 2013) reported that the integrated SWC programme participant has on

average gained 21.2% more yearly gross income and earned 8.3% more production value per

hectare as compared to non-programme participants. Similarly, in northern Ethiopia, (Nyssen et

al., 2014), taking the farm land occupied by conservation structures into account, found that

stone bunds increased cereal and teff yields by 8 and 11%, respectively. Their analysis shows

that the mean crop yield improved by 0.58–0.65 tonnes/ha in plots covered by the stone bunds

aged 3–21 years.

19
 2.3. Conceptual Framework
Adoption of soil and water conservation practices by rural households can be influenced by their

current demographic, institutional, socio-economic, and physical characteristics. The framework

of the study consists of four key concepts about variables, as shown in Figure 1. The dependent

variable that is included in the framework for this study is the adoption of soil and water

conservation practices by rural households.

The demographic characteristics include sex, age, and family size. Non-farm activity,

educational level, and farm size of farmers are important socio-economic factors. Extension

services, training participation, and land certificates are institutional factors. Farm distance and

the slope of the farm are physical factors included in the study model. Demographic,

institutional, socio-economic, and physical characteristics are independent variables expected to

determine the adoption of soil and water conservation practices.

20
 Demographic factors
1. Sex
2. Age
3. Family size

Socio- Economic factors

Physical
1. Non-farm activity
Adoption of 2. Education
1. Farm distance
SWC practices 3. Farm size
2. Slope of farm
by rural
households.

Institutional factors.
1. Access to Extension service
2. Training
3. Land certificate
4. Land certificate

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for the Study

21
Source: Own Sketch 2023/2024

22
 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The study area, Toke Kutaye, is one of the 22 districts of the West Shewa Zone of Oromia

Regional State in Ethiopia with the total area of 788.87 square kilometers (78887 hectares)

(WOAD, 2013). Astronomically it is located between 8o 33’26‘’N – 8o 43’51‘’N Latitude and

37o 43‘22 ‘’ E to 37o50’32 ‘’ Longitude. The district borders with Midakegn district in the

North, Dirre Inchini in the South, Ambo district in the East and liban Jawi district in the West.

The district contains 23 rural villages and 4 urban kebeles (TKWADO, 2020).

3.1.1. Topography and Soil

Topographically, Toke Kutaye woreda is characterized by diversified landforms consisting of

mountain and hills 1.75%, field land scape 57%, plateaus and plains 36.3%, valleys and lowlands

2.82%. Elevation varies from 1580m to 3194 masl. The types of soil found in Toke

Kutaye woreda are red 48%, black 27% and brown 18% (TKWADO, 2020).

23
3.1.2. Climate

It has three agro-climatic zones: lowlands 18%, midland (/sub- tropical /Woina Dega) 55% and

highland (temperate/ Dega) 27 %. The district has bimodal rainy season: the summer, autumn,

and spring based on the information obtained from CSA (2010). Annual rainfall is between 800

and 1100mm. The minimum and maximum temperature is 100C and 290C respectively

(TKWAO, 2022). The total human population is 134,767 (66,492 males and 68,275 females)

(CSA, 2010). The total rural population of Toke Kutaye is about 98,865 out of which 49,456 are

male and 49,409 are female, and the urban population is about 35,902 outofwhich17,036 are

males and 18,866 are females (TKWAO, 2022).

24
 Legend

Figure 2: Map of study area.

Source: Arc GIS Software version 10.41

25
 3.2. RESEARCH DESIGN

This study will follow a descriptive research design whereby qualitative and quantitative

methods of data collection will be combined. The main methodological concern of the research

will be descriptive explanation of the responses for the given questionnaires and focus group

discussion and key informant interview. It is the fact that, descriptive research design will be

employed to assess the issues in the present study as it is found relevant to the objectives of the

study.

3.3. SAMPLING METHODS AND PROCEDURE

The study will employ a combination of purposive sampling technique and simple random

sampling technique at different stages. At the first and second stage the district and the four (4)

kebeles (Dadagalan and Hadarsa Bila (two kebeles which has high severiety),Maruf kebele

which has middle severeity and Naga File which has low severiety will be randomly selected

respectively. The selection will be made through the severity of land degradation (deep

estimation made by district agricultural office and focal person of SLM project in the district)

and to evaluate the implementation determinants of the adoption of soil and water conservation

practices by rural households of soil and water conservation practices in the study area as the

purpose is to undertake research on determinants of the adoption of soil and water conservation

practices by rural households of soil water conservation practices measures. In the third stage,

sample of farmers of rural households will be selected by simple random sampling from the four

kebeles proportional to the total household of each purposively selected rural kebeles.

26
 3.3.1. DETERMINATION OF SAMPLE SIZE

Determining the size of the universe of the frame requires demarcation of the boundary in which

this survey will conduct reasonably with the available time and financial resources. The basic

Sampling unit in this case is the farmers’ household who derive their livelihood entirely from

Agricultural activities. The sample households will select from the sampling frame by using the

simple random sampling methods. Then, a total of 356 sample households from four rural

kebeles of the district will be randomly selected from a total of 3218 farms households using

simple random sampling technique based on probability proportional to size. For this study a

simplified formula provided by Yamane, (1967) is applied to determine the required sample size

at 95% confidence level and level of precision (e) = 5 % (0.05).

Yamane, n =N/1+N (e) 2

3218
n =N/1+N (e) 2 + =
2 356
Where
n=is the sample size
1+ 3218(0.05)
N= the population size (total household size)
e=is the level of precision
Table 1: Distribution of sample households in the study area.

kebeles Status of Total number of Sample of households Sampling

severiety households from each kebeles Technique
Dadagalan high 736 81 Randomly
HadarsaBila high 692 77 Randomly
Maruf middle 590 65 Randomly

Naga File low 1200 133 Randomly

Total 3218 356

27
 3.4. Types and Sources of Data Collection

Both primary and secondary sources will be used. In this research, farmers will be the major

sources of primary data. In order to ensure the reliability and validity of the data collected,

different methods will be employed during collection of data. These methods include

observation, focus group discussion, and interview with randomly selected farmers and other key

informants.

As part of the primary data, information will also collect from woreda agricultural experts,

kebeles leaders and soil and water conservation experts. Secondary sources of information will

be used for this study include published materials such as reports, plans, official records, census

records, project reports, research papers and data files from internet/ web page.

3.5. Methods of Data Collection

The data required for this study will be collected from sample respondents using a semi-

structured interview, focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The enumerators for

the data collection will be selected based on their educational background and their ability of the

local language. The researcher methods of data collection are stated here under.

3.5.1 Semi Structured interview schedule

To collect primary data through Semi-structured interview schedule, open ended and close-ended

questionnaire will be employed relevant to the specific objectives.

Semi-structured interview schedule will be administrated for 356 farmers. Semi-structured

interview is used after being pretested for consistency, clarity, and to check its validity and

reliability as well as get the intended data.

28
 3.5.2. Key Informants’ Interview

The key informant is regarded as an” expert” or knowledgeable person who imparts important

information to the interviewer. A standardized set of questions is determined prior to the

interview. In this research, six key informants will be interviewed. The key informants will be

selected from Toke Kutaye agricultural and rural development office.

3.5.3. Focus Group Discussion

A focus group discussion is a data collection procedure in the form of a carefully planned group

discussion among about six to ten people plus a moderator and observer, in order to obtain

diverse ideas and perceptions on a topic of interest in a relaxed, permissive environment that

fosters the expression of different points of view, with no pressure for consensus (USAID, 2006).

In addition, a focus group discussion will also be conducted to triangulate responses required

using interviews. The focus group discussion will be conducted with eighteen members who

include household head. Four focus group discussions will be held in each selected kebeles. The

purpose of the focus group discussion is to generate in-depth information on some of the survey

findings.

29
 3.6. Methods of Data Analysis

The methods of data analysis will be employed by the nature of data and the specific objectives

of the study. The data collected through semi structured interview schedule in relation to the

first, second and third specific objectives will be analyzed through descriptive statistics

(frequency and percent). The summary of the qualitative data will be analyzed and presented in

words and narrations. To enable the aforementioned analysis of data that will be collected

through household questionnaire, PSS and software version 21 will be utilized. The analyzed

data will be presented in logit models such as binary regression models.

4. Work plan and Budget Break Down

This work plan outlines various activities to be carried out in the specific period and may be
changed on the base of different conditions. The work plan and budget estimate are presented in
table 1 and table 2 as bellowed.

4.1. Work Plan

Table 1: work plan for the study.

Duration/to be accomplished 2023/2024

SN Tasks
Jun Jul Aug sept Oct Nov De Jan Feb mar Apr May
c

1 Problem identification 

2 Literature Review

3 Proposal writing

4 Submission of proposal

5 Questionnaires development

30
6 Data collection 

7 Data coding and entry

8 Data analysis

9 Report writing x
andpresentation

10 Submission report x
11 Research presentations . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2. Budget break down

An indicative plan for the budget and/or logistic requirements for the execution of this thesis

research work is summarized and presented below in the form of categorical cost break down.

Table 2: stationery and materials cost for data collection.

S/N Item Unit Quantity Unit price Total price
1 Writable CD Packet 2 50.00 100.00
2 Flash Disk Pcs 1 500.00 500.00
3 Note book “ 2 50.00 100.00
4 Pen (Kenya BIC) “ 10 20 200.00
5 Red pen (Kenya BIC) “ 5 20.00 100.00
6 Field Bag “ 1 1800.00 1800.00
7 Photocopy cost Pages 1000 5 5000.00
8 Writing “ 300 20.00 6000.00
9 Printing cost “ 1000 5.00 5000.00
10 Binding Pcs 4 500 2000.00
11 Parkel Pcs 4 50 200
Total 21,000.00
Table 3: personal expenses.
S/N Item Unit Quantity Unit Payment Total
1 Transport cost _ 2500.00
2 Top up of research Monthly 5 1000.00 5000.00
3 Per diem of collector 4 days for 2 8 600.00 4800.00
collectors
Total 12,300.00
Table 4: miscellaneous cost.
No Service Required Total Cost

31
1 Communication: Telephone, Fax, Email etc. 1500.00
Total 1500.00
Table 5: Budget Summary
S/N Expenditure Category Expenditure In Birr
1 Material and Stationery 1400.00
2 Personal expense 3000.00
3 Miscellanies expense 2000.00
4 Contingency (10%) 4120.00
Total 45,320.00

32
 REFERANCES

Abdulrashid, L. (2018). FARMERS’PERCEPTION OF SOIL DEGRADATION IN SEMI-

ARID AREAS OF KATSINA STATE, NORTHERN NIGERIA. FUDMA JOURNAL
OF SCIENCES, 2(4), 136-147.
Abebe, Z. D., & Sewnet, M. A. (2014). Adoption of soil conservation practices in north Achefer
district, northwest Ethiopia. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment,
12(3), 261-268.
Addisu, D. A., Husen, M. A., & Demeku, M. A. (2015). Determinants of adopting techniques of
soil and water conservation in Goromti Watershed, Western Ethiopia. Journal of Soil
Science and Environmental Management, 6(6), 168-177.
Addisu et al. (2015). Determinants of adopting techniques of soil and water conservation in
Goromti Watershed, Western Ethiopia. Journal of Soil Science and Environmental
Management, 6(6), 168-177.
Ademe, Y., Shafi, T., Kebede, T., & Mullatu, A. (2017). Evaluation of the environmental and
economic effectiveness of soil and water conservation practices in Wenago District,
Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 9(3), 37-45.
Adimassu, Z., Langan, S., & Barron, J. (2018). Highlights of soil and water conservation
investments in four regions of Ethiopia (Vol. 182): International Water Management
Institute (IWMI).
Adimassu, Z., Langan, S., Johnston, R., Mekuria, W., & Amede, T. (2017). Impacts of soil and
water conservation practices on crop yield, run-off, soil loss and nutrient loss in
Ethiopia: review and synthesis. Environmental management, 59(1), 87-101.
Adimassu, Z., Mekonnen, K., Yirga, C., & Kessler, A. (2014). Effect of soil bunds on runoff,
soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Land
Degradation & Development, 25(6), 554-564.
Ahmad, N. S. B. N., Mustafa, F. B., & Didams, G. (2020). A systematic review of soil erosion
control practices on the agricultural land in Asia. International Soil and Water
Conservation Research, 8(2), 103-115.
ALAWA, D. A. Department of Vocational and Special Education University of Calabar,
Calabar.

33
Alawa, D. A. (2016). Agro-Ecological Degradation, Poverty Level and Farmer Education
Imperatives among Smallholder Farmers in Northern Cross River State, Nigeria.
Retrieved from
Alene, A. D., Poonyth, D., & Hassan, R. M. (2000). Determinants of adoption and intensity of
use of improved maize varieties in the central highlands of Ethiopia: a Tobit analysis.
Agrekon, 39(4), 633-643.
Alnaser, Y. R., & Alkhafagi, Q. D. (2020). SOIL SURFACE CRUST: ITS SIGNIFICANCE,
TYPES AND MECHANICS OF FORMATION. A REVIEW. Mesopotamia Journal of
Agriculture, 48(4), 75-85.
Alufah, S., Shisanya, C. A., & Obando, J. A. (2012). Analysis of factors influencing adoption of
soil and water conservation technologies in Ngaciuma sub-catchment, Kenya. African
Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 4(5), 172-185.
Amare, A., & Simane, B. (2017). Determinants of smallholder farmers’ decision to adopt
adaptation options to climate change and variability in the Muger Sub basin of the Upper
Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia. Agriculture & food security, 6, 1-20.
Amsalu, A., & De Graaff, J. (2007). Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone
terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecological
economics, 61(2-3), 294-302.
Anley, Y., Bogale, A., & Haile‐Gabriel, A. (2007). Adoption decision and use intensity of soil
and water conservation measures by smallholder subsistence farmers in Dedo district,
Western Ethiopia. Land degradation & development, 18(3), 289-302.
Anulo, T. (2018). DETEREMINANTS OF FARMERS’USE OF SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN SORO WOREDA, HADIYA ZONE, SOUTHERN
ETHIOPIA. Haramaya university,
Apata, T. G., Samuel, K., & Adeola, A. (2009). Analysis of Climate Change Perception and
Adaptation among Arable Food Crop Farmers in South Western Nigeria. Retrieved from
Asfaw, D., & Neka, M. (2017). Factors affecting adoption of soil and water conservation
practices: the case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region,
Ethiopia. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 5(4), 273-279.

34
Asnake, B., & Elias, E. (2017). Challenges and extents of Soil and Water Conservation measures
in Guba-Lafto Woreda of North Wollo, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Research and
Development, 7(2), 103-110.
Assefa, E., & Hans‐Rudolf, B. (2016). Farmers' perception of land degradation and traditional
knowledge in Southern Ethiopia—resilience and stability. Land Degradation &
Development, 27(6), 1552-1561.
Baron, R. (2021). Cultural brokerage revisited. Journal of Folklore Research, 58(2), 63-104.
Bashir, S., Javed, A., Bibi, I., & Ahmad, N. (2017). Soil and water conservation. Pakistan,
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, 263-286.
Bayard, B., Jolly, C. M., & Shannon, D. A. (2006). The adoption and management of soil
conservation practices in Haiti: the case of rock walls. Agricultural Economics Review,
7(389-2016-23356), 28-39.
Bekele, W. (2003). Economics of soil and water conservation Theory and Empirical application
to subsistence farming in the Eastern Ethiopian highlands. Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences,
Bekele, W., & Drake, L. (2003). Soil and water conservation decision behavior of subsistence
farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of the Hunde-Lafto area.
Ecological economics, 46(3), 437-451.
Belachew, A., Mekuria, W., & Nachimuthu, K. (2020). Factors influencing adoption of soil and
water conservation practices in the northwest Ethiopian highlands. International Soil and
Water Conservation Research, 8(1), 80-89.
Belay, T. T. (2014). Perception of farmers on soil erosion and conservation practices in Dejen
District, Ethiopia. International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy, 2(6),
224-229.
Belete, H. (2020). Land Degradation Problems And Management Challenges In Abichu Gnea
Woreda, North Shoa Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia.
Bernard, D., & LeClair, A. (1991). Quantum group symmetries and non-local currents in 2D
QFT. Communications in mathematical physics, 142, 99-138.
Berry, J. W., & Dasen, P. R. (2019). Culture and cognition: Readings in cross-cultural
psychology: Routledge.

35
Biratu, A. A., & Asmamaw, D. K. (2016). Farmers’ perception of soil erosion and participation
in soil and water conservation activities in the Gusha Temela watershed, Arsi, Ethiopia.
International Journal of River Basin Management, 14(3), 329-336.
Birhan, T., & Tekalign, W. (2022). Sustainable Agricultural Management of Land Using
Technology for Soil and Water Conservation within the Central Rift Valley, Central
Ethiopia. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2022.
BIRHANU, S. (2016). Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
Bitew, G., Melaku, A., & Gelaw, H. (2022). The Impact of the Expansion of Large-Scale
Agriculture in Drylands of Ethiopia; Implications for Sustainable Natural Resources
Management. Sustainable Management of Natural Resources.
Bizuayehu, T. I. O. I. S. A. W. C. P. I. G. M. W., Central Highlands Of Ethiopia (Doctoral
Dissertation). (2021). Identification Of Indigenous Soil And Water Conservation
Practices In Gara Meye Watershed, Central Highlands Of Ethiopia. Doctoral
dissertation.
Blaikie, P. (2016). The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries: Routledge.
Breidlid, A. (2013). Education, indigenous knowledges, and development in the global south:
Contesting knowledges for a sustainable future (Vol. 82): Routledge.
Clarke, R. A. (2009). Securing communal land rights to achieve sustainable development in sub-
Saharan Africa: critical analysis and policy implications. Law Env't & Dev. J., 5, 130.
Cottingham, J. G. (2021). Western philosophy: An anthology: John Wiley & Sons.
Dagne, H., Assefa, E., & Teferi, E. (2023). Sustainable Use of Soil and Water Conservation
Technologies and Its Determinants: The Case of the Handosha Watershed, Omo-Gibe
River Basin, Ethiopia. Earth, 4(2), 315-330.
Damtie, B. B., Mengistu, D. A., Waktola, D. K., & Meshesha, D. T. (2022). Impacts of Soil and
Water Conservation Practice on Soil Moisture in Debre Mewi and Sholit Watersheds,
Abbay Basin, Ethiopia. Agriculture, 12(3), 417.
Deressa, T. T., Hassan, R. M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., & Yesuf, M. (2009). Determinants of
farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia.
Global environmental change, 19(2), 248-255.

36
Dilebo, T. T. (2017). Determinants of adoption of soil and water conservation practices at
household level in Aletawendo District, Sidama Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia. World Journal
of Innovative Research, 3(4), 262510.
Emami, M., Almassi, M., & Bakhoda, H. (2018). Agricultural mechanization, a key to food
security in developing countries: strategy formulating for Iran. Agriculture & Food
Security, 7(1), 1-12.
Ertiro, H. (2006). Adoption of physical soil and water conservation structures in Anna
Watershed, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University,
Eswaran, H., Lal, R., & Reich, P. (2019). Land degradation: an overview. Response to land
degradation, 20-35.
Etwire, P. M., Koomson, I., & Martey, E. (2022). Impact of climate change adaptation on farm
productivity and household welfare. Climatic Change, 170(1-2), 11.
Fabricius, C. (2013). The fundamentals of community-based natural resource management. In
Rights Resources and Rural Development (pp. 18-58): Routledge.
Fairchild, A. O., Reed, S. D., Johnson, F. R., Anglin, G., Wolka, A. M., & Noel, R. A. (2017).
What is clearance worth? Patients’ stated risk tolerance for psoriasis treatments. Journal
of Dermatological Treatment, 28(8), 709-715.
FenetahunMihertu, Y. (2018). The Role of Indigenous People Knowledge in the Biodiversity
Conservation in Gursumwoerda, Easternhararghe Ethiopia. Annals of Ecology and
Environmental Science, 2(1), 29-36.
Fitsum, H., Pender, J., & Nega, G. (2002). Land degradation and strategies for sustainable land
management in the Ethiopian highlands: Tigray Region. Socio-economics Policy Res.
Work. Pap., 25, 1-73.
Fontes, F. P. (2018). Essays in agricultural economics. London School of Economics and
Political Science,
Galudra, G. (2005). Land tenure conflicts in Halimun area: What are the alternative resolutions
for land tenure conflicts. Case Study submitted for the joint study Rural Common
Property in a Perspective of Development and Modernization. World Agroforestry
Centre.

37
Gardner, R. L., Cooper, E., Haskell, J., Harris, D. A., Poplau, S., Kroth, P. J., & Linzer, M.
(2019). Physician stress and burnout: the impact of health information technology.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 26(2), 106-114.
Gebregziabher, G., Abera, D. A., Gebresamuel, G., Giordano, M., & Langan, S. (2016). An
assessment of integrated watershed management in Ethiopia (Vol. 170): International
Water Management Institute (IWMI).
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(1), 69-
84.
German, L. A., Mowo, J., Amede, T., & Masuki, K. (2013). Integrated natural resource
management in the highlands of eastern Africa: from concept to practice: Routledge.
Gessese, H. H., & Dassa, A. R. (2022). Analysis of Adoption and Intensity Adoption of Soil and
Water Conservation Practices: The Case of Goromti Watershed West Shewa Zone,
Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia.
Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic Econometrics” fourth edition McGraw-Hill. New York.
Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic Econometrics, Fourth Edition. Mc Graw-hill, Inc., New York.
Gupta, G. S. (2019). Land degradation and challenges of food security. Rev. Eur. Stud., 11, 63.
Hadlos, A., Opdyke, A., & Hadigheh, S. A. . . (2022). Where does local and indigenous
knowledge in disaster risk reduction go from here? A systematic literature review.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,, 103160.
Hannam, I. (2022). Soil governance and land degradation neutrality. Soil Security, 6, 100030.
Haregeweyn, N., Tsunekawa, A., Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M., Tsegaye Meshesha, D., . . .
Tegegne, F. (2015). Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia: a review. Progress in
Physical Geography, 39(6), 750-774.
Jiang, Z., Lian, Y., & Qin, X. (2014). Rocky desertification in Southwest China: Impacts, causes,
and restoration. Earth-Science Reviews, 132, 1-12.
Kassa, Y., Beyene, F., Haji, J., & Lejesse, B. (2013). Farmers perceptions of the impact of land
degradation and soil and water conservation measures in west Hareghe zone of oromia
national regional state, Ethiopa. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 3(11),
12-19.

38
Kassam, A., Derpsch, R., & Friedrich, T. (2014). Global achievements in soil and water
conservation: The case of Conservation Agriculture. International Soil and Water
Conservation Research, 2(1), 5-13.
Kassem, H. S., Bello, A. R. S., Alotaibi, B. M., Aldosri, F. O., & Straquadine, G. S. (2019).
Climate change adaptation in the delta Nile Region of Egypt: Implications for
agricultural extension. Sustainability, 11(3), 685.
Kassie, G. W., Kim, S., & Fellizar Jr, F. P. (2017). Determinant factors of livelihood
diversification: Evidence from Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1369490.
Kebede Gariyo, D. (2017). Population Dynamics And Soil Management Practices: A Case Study
Of Toke Kutaye Woreda West Shoa Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia.
Haramaya University,
Kessler, A. (2006). Moving people-towards collective action in soil and water conservation:
experiences from the Bolivian mountain valleys: Wageningen University and Research.
Kessler, C. (2006). Decisive key-factors influencing farm households' soil and water
conservation investments. Applied Geography, 26(1), 40-60.
Kidane, D., & Alemu, B. (2015). The effect of upstream land use practices on soil erosion and
sedimentation in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Research Journal of Agriculture
and Environmental Management, 4(2), 55-68.
Kopittke, P. M., Menzies, N. W., Wang, P., McKenna, B. A., & Lombi, E. (2019). Soil and the
intensification of agriculture for global food security. Environment international, 132,
105078.
Langdale, G., Blevins, R., Karlen, D., McCool, D., Nearing, M., Skidmore, E., . . . Williams, J.
(1991). Cover crop effects on soil erosion by wind and water. Cover crops for clean
water, 15-22.
Lapar, M. L. A., & Pandey, S. (1999). Adoption of soil conservation: the case of the Philippine
uplands. Agricultural economics, 21(3), 241-256.
Lasway, J. A., Temba, G. R., & Ruhinduka, R. D. (2020). Determinants of soil conservation
technologies among small-scale farmers in Tanzania; evidence from national panel
survey. African Journal of Economic Review, 8(1), 89-105.
López-Vicente, M., & Wu, G.-L. (2019). Soil and water conservation in agricultural and forestry
systems. In (Vol. 11, pp. 1937): MDPI.

39
Megersa, T. (2011). Assessing the role of traditional land management practices in improving
cropland productivity: The case of Diga Woreda, Oromia. Ambo University,
Mekuria, W., Dessalegn, M., Amare, D., Belay, B., Getnet, B., Girma, G., & Tegegne, D. (2022).
Factors influencing the implementation of agroecological practices: Lessons drawn from
the Aba-Garima watershed, Ethiopia. Frontiers in Environmental science, 1798.
Mekuriaw, A., Heinimann, A., Zeleke, G., & Hurni, H. (2018). Factors influencing the adoption
of physical soil and water conservation practices in the Ethiopian highlands.
International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 6(1), 23-30.
Melaku, N. D., Renschler, C. S., Flagler, J., Bayu, W., & Klik, A. (2018). Integrated impact
assessment of soil and water conservation structures on runoff and sediment yield
through measurements and modeling in the Northern Ethiopian highlands. Catena, 169,
140-150.
Mello, I., & van Raij, B. (2006). No-till for sustainable agriculture in Brazil. Proc. World Assoc.
Soil and Water Conserv. P, 1, 49-57.
Mengstie, F. A. (2009). Assessment of adoption behavior of soil and water conservation
practices in the Koga watershed, highlands of Ethiopia. Citeseer,
Milkias, D., & Abdulahi, A. (2018). Determinants of agricultural technology adoption: the case
of improved highland maize varieties in Toke Kutaye District, Oromia Regional State,
Ethiopia. Journal of Investment and Management, 7(4), 125-132.
Mitiku, H., Herweg, K. G., & Stillhardt, B. (2006). Sustainable land management: a new
approach to soil and water conservation in Ethiopia.
Moges, D. M., & Taye, A. A. (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(1), 56-61.
Mohammed, N. (2022). Analysis Of The Ethiopian Agricultural Export Performance: A Dynamic
Panel Data Analysis. St. Mary’S University.
Moreda, T. (2017). Large-scale land acquisitions, state authority and indigenous local
communities: insights from Ethiopia. Third World Quarterly, 38(3), 698-716.
Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. (2009). I 999: Research Methods. In: Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: African Center for ….

40
Mushir, A., & Kedru, S. (2012). Soil and water conservation management through indigenous
and traditional practices in Ethiopia: A case study. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental
Studies and Management, 5(4), 343-355.
Nampindo, S. (2014). Integrated Modeling of Land Use and Climate Change Impacts on
Multiscale Ecosystems of Central African watersheds.
Nigussie, Z., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Nohmi, M., Tsubo, M., . . . Abele, S.
(2017). Factors influencing small-scale farmers’ adoption of sustainable land
management technologies in north-western Ethiopia. Land use policy, 67, 57-64.
Norenzayan, A., Shariff, A. F., Gervais, W. M., Willard, A. K., McNamara, R. A., Slingerland,
E., & Henrich, J. (2016). The cultural evolution of prosocial religions. Behavioral and
brain sciences, 39, e1.
NOVELS, E. O. T. I. S. (2016). SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES.
KENYATTA UNIVERSITY,
Nyssen, J., Frankl, A., Haile, M., Hurni, H., Descheemaeker, K., Crummey, D., . . . Moeyersons,
J. (2014). Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian
mountain landscapes over 145 years. Science of the total environment, 485, 164-179.
OLANA, D. (2014). ASSESSMENT OF FARMERS’ADOPTION OF LAND REHABILITATION
PRACTICEs: THE CASE OF MANASIBU DISTRICT, WEST WOLLEGA ZONE,
OROMIYA REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA. ST. MARY’S UNIVERSITY,
Olawuyi, S. O., & Mushunje, A. (2019). Determinants of adoption and use-intensity of soil and
water conservation practices among smallholder farmers in Nigeria. African Journal of
Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 19(3), 14571-14586.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Collins, K. M. (2009). Call for mixed analysis: A
philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.
International journal of multiple research approaches, 3(2), 114-139.
Parry, M. L. (2009). Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change: a review of the
UNFCCC and other recent estimates.
Pender, J. L., & Kerr, J. M. (1998). Determinants of farmers' indigenous soil and water
conservation investments in semi‐arid India. Agricultural economics, 19(1-2), 113-125.

41
Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Klotthor-Weinkauf, D., & Baumgart-Getz, A. (2008). Determinants
of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. Journal
of soil and water conservation, 63(5), 300-311.
Pulido, J., & Bocco, G. (2014). Local perception of land degradation in developing countries: A
simplified analytical framework of driving forces, processes, indicators and coping
strategies. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 8(4), 105-122.
Qobo, M. (2022). Political Economy of China--US Relations: Springer.
Reda, K. T., & Gidey, D. G. (2021). Combatting Desertification Through Soil and Water
Conservation and Environmental Rehabilitation Measures: Experiences from the Tigray
Region, Ethiopia. International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2019, 89-106.
Reij, C., Scoones, I., & Toulmin, C. (2013). Sustaining the soil: indigenous soil and water
conservation in Africa: Routledge.
Ruiz-Colmenero, M., Bienes, R., & Marques, M. (2011). Soil and water conservation dilemmas
associated with the use of green cover in steep vineyards. Soil and Tillage Research,
117, 211-223.
Saguye, T. S. (2017). Determinants of the Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices
among Smallholder Farmers’ in Jeldu District, West Shewa Zone, Oromia Region,
Ethiopia. Glob. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev, 8, 96-116.
Schmidt, E., & Tadesse, F. (2014). Sustainable agriculture in the Blue Nile Basin: land and
watershed management practices in Ethiopia. Environment and Development Economics,
19(5), 648-667.
Sharma, S. (2011). World development: a critical appraisal from sustainability perspective.
Journal of Social and Economic Development, 13(2), 190-208.
Shiferaw, B., & Holden, S. T. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation
technologies in the Ethiopian highlands: a case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa.
Agricultural economics, 18(3), 233-247.
Smyth, E., & Vanclay, F. (2017). The Social Framework for Projects: a conceptual but practical
model to assist in assessing, planning and managing the social impacts of projects.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35(1), 65-80.
Sraku-Lartey, M. (2014). Harnessing indigenous knowledge for sustainable forest management
in Ghana. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 5(4), 182-189.

42
Stavi, I., & Lal, R. (2015). Achieving zero net land degradation: challenges and opportunities.
Journal of Arid Environments, 112, 44-51.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists: Cambridge university press.
Tahir Akli, M. (2019). ADOPTION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN
AGRO-PASTORAL COMMUNITIES OF AWBARE WOREDA, JIGJIGA ZONE,
SOMALI REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA. Haramaya university,
Taye, G., Poesen, J., Wesemael, B. V., Vanmaercke, M., Teka, D., Deckers, J., . . . Hallet, V.
(2013). Effects of land use, slope gradient, and soil and water conservation structures on
runoff and soil loss in semi-arid Northern Ethiopia. Physical Geography, 34(3), 236-259.
Tesfaye, B., Lengoiboni, M., Zevenbergen, J., & Simane, B. (2022). Land Preservation Uptakes
in the Escarpments of North-Eastern Ethiopia: Drivers, Sustainability, and Constraints.
Land, 11(5), 676.
TESFAYE, T. (2020). SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICE AND CHALLENGES
AMONG THE FARMERS IN ANGACHA WOREDA, KEMBATA TEMBARO ZONE,
SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA.
TESFAYE, T. (2020). SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICE AND
CHALLENGES AMONG THE FARMERS IN ANGACHA WOREDA, KEMBATA
TEMBARO ZONE, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA. Doctoral dissertation.
Teshome, A., De Graaff, J., & Kassie, M. (2016). Household-level determinants of soil and
water conservation adoption phases: Evidence from North-Western Ethiopian highlands.
Environmental management, 57, 620-636.
Teshome, A., de Graaff, J., & Kessler, A. (2016). Investments in land management in the north-
western highlands of Ethiopia: The role of social capital. Land Use Policy, 57, 215-228.
Teshome, E., Shita, F., & Abebe, F. (2021). Current community based ecotourism practices in
Menz Guassa community conservation area, Ethiopia. GeoJournal, 86, 2135-2147.
Tortella, G. (2000). The development of modern Spain: an economic history of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries (p. xvi528)Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Tsegaye, B. (2019). Effect of land use and land cover changes on soil erosion in Ethiopia.
International Journal of Agricultural Science and Food Technology, 5(1), 026-034.
van Huyssteen, C., & du Preez, C. (2023). Agricultural Land Degradation in South Africa. In:
Springer.

43
Wassie, S. B. (2020). Natural resource degradation tendencies in Ethiopia: a review.
Environmental systems research, 9, 1-29.
Webster, N., Sørensen, N. N., Rahmato, D., & Mohammed, Z. (2020). Governance, climate
change and mobility in Ethiopia: DIIS Working Paper.
Weeraratna, S. (2022). Factors causing land degradation. In Understanding Land Degradation:
An Overview (pp. 5-22): Springer.
Wolka, K., Moges, A., & Yimer, F. (2013). Farmers’ perception of the effects of soil and water
conservation structures on crop production: The case of Bokole watershed, Southern
Ethiopia. African journal of environmental science and technology, 7(11), 990-1000.
Wordofa, M. G., Okoyo, E. N., & Erkalo, E. (2020). Factors influencing adoption of improved
structural soil and water conservation measures in Eastern Ethiopia. Environmental
systems research, 9, 1-11.
WORKINEH, G. S., & ARBAMINCH, E. (2013). ADOPTION AND CONTINUED USE OF
NEW SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES IN HARARGHE
HIGHLAND: THE CASE OF GOBENSA WATERSHED, EASTERN ETHIOPIA.
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York. 123-128.
Yeshambel, M. (2013). Indigenous Knowledge Practices in Soil Conservation at Konso People,
South western Eth. J. Agric. Environ. Sci, 2(2), 1-10.
Yigezu Wendimu, G. (2021). The challenges and prospects of Ethiopian agriculture. Cogent
Food & Agriculture, 7(1), 1923619.
Zeleke, H. (2018). Determinants of adoption of soil and water conservation measures and
participation of farmers in watershed development in west hararghe zone: the case of
habro district. Retrieved from
Zeleke, H. (2018). Determinants of adoption of soil and water conservation measures and
participation of farmers in watershed development in west hararghe zone: the case of
habro district. Haramaya university,

44
 APPENDEXIS

Appendixes 1: Household survey Questionnaires

Ambo University

School of Graduate Studies

Natural and Computational Science

Department Of Biology, Environmental Science Program

Dear respondents
The main purpose of this interview program is to assess the determinants of adoption of SWC

practices in four (4) rural villages in Toke Kutaye District, West Shewa zone, Oromia Region,

Ethiopia. The information obtained will help to suggest possible solutions to the observed

problems.

The attached biographical interview schedule contains questions about the adoption of SWC

practices in your district; analyzing the determinants of SWC and future possibilities of adoption

of SWC practices, you are practicing to overcome life’s struggles. There is no right or wrong

answer. Make sure you answer every question from different aspects.

The confidentiality of your responses will be strictly maintained; so there is no provision for

writing your name in the interview paper. I assure you that the information provided is for

educational purposes only. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for contributing to

the success of my thesis.

Thank You Very Much!

Lamesa Dagafu

45
Instructions: Wrap it around your choice. Several options can be selected. Answer open-

ended questions in the space provided!

Thank you in advance for your cooperation!

General information

Region: Oromia, zone: West Shewa, District: Toke Kutaye, Village:___________________

Code: _______ Enumerator Name: ________________________________, Date of Interview

Started time ________ time finished________ Confirmed by: ______________________,

Confirmed date: __________________

Determinants of adoption of SWC practices among farmers in the study area

Part I: - Demographic factors

1.1) gender: 1) Male 2) Female

1.2) Age: _____years

1.3) Educational level: 1) Illiterate 2) Grade 1-4 3) Grade 5-8 4) Grade 9-12 5) Certified 6)

Diploma 7) Degree and above

1.4) Family size 1) 1-4 2) 5-8 3) >9

Table 1: Family composition by age

Age composition
Gender
18-30 31-50 51-64 >65 Total

Male

Female

46
Part II: - Physical factors

2.1) Farm size

5) How many hectares of land do you have? (1) <1hect. (2) 1.1-2hect. (3) 2.1-3hect. (4) 3.1-

4hect. (5) 4.1-5hect. (6) >5hect.

2.2) farm distance

6) How far is your farm field from your home?

1) 5 -10 minute walk ‘2) 10-20 minute walk 3) 20-30 minute walk 4)) More than 30 minute

walk’

7) How do you determine the distance of the farm field from your home?

1) Near 2) Medium 3) Far 4) Very far

2.3) Slope of the farm

8) How would you describe the slope of your land? 1) Flat 2) Medium 3) steep

Part III: - Socio-economic factors

3.1) non-farm activities

9) Do you or a family member participate in non-farm activities? 1) Yes 2) no

10) If yes, which of the following would you participate in?

1) Crafts 2) labor 3) petty trade 4) selling woods 5) describe others.

Part IV:-Institutional factors

4.1) Access to extension services

11) Can you access agricultural extension services?1) Yes 2) No

12) If yes, who provides extension services?1) Agriculture Office) 2) NGO, 3=specify others__

4.2) Training

47
13) Have you taken any kind of formal and informal training (experience sharing) on soil and

water conservation measures for the last two years?1) Yes 2) No

4.3) Land Certificate

14) Do you have land certificate? 1) Yes 2) No

Part V: Indigenous and Improved Soil and Water conservation practices

15) Have you taken soil and water conservation practices on your land?1) Yes 2) No

16) If (15) is yes, what type of SWCPs do you adopt in your farm?

1) Traditional/IndigenousSWCPs 2) Improved SWCPs

17) Have you done Indigenous SWCPs on your farmland? 1) Yes 2) No

18) If yes to question 16, which types of Indigenous SWCPs did you do? 1) Manuring 2) contour

ploughing 3) crop rotation 4) Indigenous waterways and cutoff drain 5) describe

other______________________

19) If you answered yes to question 16, which types of Improved SWCPs did you do? 1)

Improved soil bunds 2) Improved cutoff drain 3) Improved waterways 5) planting improved

multipurpose tree species 6) soil and stone faced bunds

20) Do you think you are adopter of SWCPs? 1. Yes 2) no

21) If yes to question 20, what are your reasons for adopting Improved SWCPs?

1) Erosion as a problem 2) continuous training 3) specify others______________

22) If (20) is no, what are the reasons?1) Poverty 2) lack of knowledge 3) Lack of equipment 4)

Insecurity of land tenure

Part VI: - Opportunities for Adoption of SWC practices in the Study Area

48
23) Are there opportunities for adoption of SWCpractices by rural farming households in your

area? (1) Yes (2) No

24) What are the most opportunities of rural farming households to practice SWC practices in

your area?

(1) Economic opportunity (2) Environmental opportunity (3) Socio-cultural Opportunity (4)

Institutional opportunity (5) If others specify.

25) Is there indigenous knowledge and local institutions on NRM especially SWC in this area (1)

Yes (2) No

26) What are the major local institutions opportunities on SWC in your area?

(1) Local religious (2) Local culture (3) Local norms and customs (4) If others specify.

27) What are the Economic opportunities for rural farming households in your area to adopt

SWC practices? Explain

(1) Availability of land (2) availability of Labor (3) availability of inputs (4) Availability

Resource endowment (5) all

28) What are the Socio-Cultural opportunities for rural farming households in your area to adopt

SWCpractices?

(1) Gender equality (2) existence of SWC Policies /regulations (3) existence Indigenous

knowledge (4) Strong community culture.

29) What are the Environmental Opportunities for rural farming households to adopt SWC

practices in your area?

(1) Good Climate (2) Vegetation cover (3) existence of Improved Soil Structure (4) Others

30) What are the Institutional opportunities for rural farming households to adopt SWCpractices

in your area?

49
(1) Availability of Extension services (2) Access to training (3) Access to credit (4) NGO project

livelihood.

Appendixes 2 : Key informant Interview

A) DAs, Supervisors, SLM Focal, SWC Experts and Natural resource Department head

1) What are the determinants of adoption SWCPs?

2) List the Indigenous SWCPs that are commonly applied in your village.

3) List the ImprovedSWCPs that are commonly implemented in your village.

4) What are the functions of the government and NGOs?

5) What is the contribution of the Development agent in SWCPs?

6) What is the extension structure and support for farmers?

7) What do you think are the reasons for farmers adopting the improvedSWCPs?

8) What do you think are those reasons that hinder farmers from adopting SWCPs?

9) How can you measure the farmer adoption rate of SWCPs?

1) High 2) moderate 3) low 4) very low

10) What opportunities are there to get involved with SWCPs in your area?

11) What would you recommend for farmers to increase their chances at SWCPs?

12) Do you believe there is adequate policy support for SWCPs (e.g. Land resources, regulatory

involvement, rules and regulations) 1) Yes 2) Not at all

13) How do you evaluate the existing ground guidelines for designing, visiting, and coordinating

SWCPs project activities in Extension services?

50
14) Why do soil and water conservation measures fail in the short run?

15) Do you think soil and water conservation measures are effective? Why?

B) For the village Chairman

1) What are the determinants of adoption of SWCPs?

2) How do you see the community adoption of indigenous and improved SWCMs in the village?

3) List the indigenous SWCMs that are commonly applied in your village.

4) List the improved SWCMs that are commonly implemented in your village.

5) What are the functions that government and NGOs perform and do not perform?

6) What do you think are the reasons for farmers adopting the Improved SWCPs?

7) What do you think are those reasons that hinder farmers from adopting SWCPs?

8) How can you measure the farmer adoption rate of SWCPs?

1) high 2) moderate 3) low 4) very low

9) What opportunities are there to get involved with SWCPs in your area?

10) What would you recommend for farmers to increase their chances at SWCPs?

C) For Model Farmers and Village Elders

1) What are the determinants of adoption of SWCPs?

2) What are the indigenous and Improved SWC activities in your area?

3) Are you currently using indigenous and Improved SWC practices in your farmland?

4) Why do soil and water conservation measures fail in the short term?

5) What do you think are the reasons for farmers adopting the ImprovedSWCPs?

51
6) What do you think are those reasons that hinder farmers from adopting SWCPs?

7) How can you measure the farmer adoption rate of SWCPs?

1) High 2) moderate 3) low 4) very low

8) What are the opportunities for SWCPs to get involved in your area?

Appendixes 3 : Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Questionnaire

1) Have you noticed that soil and water erosion is a problem in your villages?

2) If your answer to question '1' is “yes”, how do you decide?

3) What is the extent/condition of soil and water degradation in your residential area?

4) When did soil and water degradation occur?

5) What is the impact of soil and water degradation in your area?

6) If soil and water degradation is a problem in your village, what are the possible conservation

practices to solve it?

7) Who can take care measures?

8) Do you receive adequate support from agricultural experts regarding SWCPs?

9) What is the adoption rate of Indigenous and improvedSWCpractices?

10) What are the determinants of adoption of SWCpractices?

11) What opportunities do you have for SWCpractices in your area?

52
 Appendixes 4: Observation Checklist

Date of observation______________________

Place of observation farm plot___________________________

Rural Village ______________________________________________________

1. Availability of adopted indigenous and improved SWC activities of the area

2. House hold initiation in SWCPs____________________________________

3. Characteristics of implemented soil conservation structures

4. The most adopted method of soil conservation in their total size of land holding _

5. Livelihood condition of the area___________________________________

6. Observing Land use system ___________________________________________

7. Vegetation types and major crops grown in the area

8. Status of Soil Erosion

9. The availability of Institution agreements / laws monitoring the Available soil

management practices

10. Availability of local institution who support the SWCPs

11. SWCMs implemented by GO and NGO

53