www.iaard.net IAARD Journals eISSN:2456-009X International Journal of Agriculture And Veterinary Sciences IAARD-International Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 3(2),20-28 Determinants Of Farmers’ Willingness To Participatein Soil And Watershed Conservation Practice: The Case Of Indris Major Watershed Tokke Kutaye Woreda; Regional State Haile Tamiru Urgessa …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... Abstract: This study attempts to identify factors that determine farmers’ willingness to participate in soil conservation and watershed practices aimed at achieving sustainable development through effective land management and watershed practice in Indris major watershed, Toke kutayeworeda, Oromia Regional State in . Primary data for the study were collected through household questionnaire surveys, focus group discussions, key informants interviews and personal observations while secondary data were collected from relevant local authority reports and records. The findings of the research showed that the district is experiencing increasing land degradation due to high topography and rapid population growth. Logistic regression model results reveal that educational status of farmers and their access to extension services have significant positive impact on farmers’ use of both soil and water conservation. The study concludes that in making interventions in land management, there should be active participation of local stakeholders, primarily the farmers. This helps to integrate indigenous land management practices and the new techniques; enhance easy adoption and sustainable use of effective soil and watershed conservation practices.

Keywords: Determinants , Participation Farmers, willingness ofFarmers, soil conservation, watershed practices; Ethiopia. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1.1 Background of the study the efforts being made, there is little adoption of introduced Ethiopia is rich by various endowment of natural conservation measures by farmers in the study area especially resource, such as land, water, minerals and forest. Even in certain programs [6]. though, for a long period of time little attention was given for In response to extensive degradation of its resource base, the conservation of these natural resources [1] . But at the besides the indigenous practices being under taken, Ethiopia recent time the government of Ethiopia gives great attention has taken some measures to mitigate the problem of soil for the conservation of these natural resources. Specially, the erosion and enhance or maintain the production potential of government gives attention and develops different guidelines agricultural land [7]. During the past decades physical soil and programs in order to reduce land degradation, especially conservation measures, such as bunds, check dams, cut of to reduce soil erosion as well as to conserve other natural drains etc were done in large quantities and millions of forest resource. From these programs the soil conservation and and multipurpose species of seedling were distributed to water shade management plays a great contribution to reduce farmers by governments and NGO’s. land degradation [2] . Farmers’ willingness to participate in soil However, land degradation in general and soil conservation and watershed practice is an important social erosion in particular still the major challenges that are factor that is so significant in determining alternatives for adversely affecting the agricultural productivity that leads to improving poor soil conservation, to reduce soil erosion as shortage of food in different part of the country; it hence the well as for improving poor land use. Understanding farmers’ call for improved land management practices [3].The broad knowledge, their willingness and the causes that affect their concept of land management practices refers to activities on participation in soil conservation and watershed practice are the land that use appropriate technologies for the the most important for promoting soil conservation in the enhancement of productive capacity of the land. Thus soil study area. It is also very important to identify how the conservation and watershed management practice approach societies are willing to participate in soil conservation and emphasizes finding economically feasible, socially watershed practice and to assess the level of understanding in acceptable and ecologically sound solutions at a local level, the communal about solutions [8]. which could promote participatory watershed management The major cause of the problem of sustainability lies practices to deal with land degradation [4]. on this resistance of some farmers who resist participating on Soil conservation and watershed management the activities they are provided for the practice. Farmers, practice is one of the main government projects that intention rather frequently ignore newly introduced technology in soil to combat land degradation and other types of natural conservation and watershed practice even when they are resources degradation and restore soil fertility in Ethiopia aware that the measures to protect and improves productivity [5].The development objective of soil conservation and of their own lands. The next activity requires identification of watershed management practice is to reduce land barriers to find solution and facilitators of adoption of the degradation, increase ownership security and improve technologies [9]. Once the barriers and facilitators are agricultural productivity of small holder farmers in the identified, recommendations can be made on appropriate intervention areas. Society's attention to the problem is steps that need to be taken to enhance the adoption of the increased and some organizations are trying to involve technologies in soil conservation and watershed practice and farmers at varying degrees and levels of activities. In spite of to promote land management practice [9].

Haile Tamiru Urgessa Page No.20 IAARD-International Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 3(2), 20-28

In Ethiopia, a significant number of studies improve the food security situation in general. have been done on land degradation and determinants of land management practices in different 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITE RATURE ON SOIL parts of the country. These works mainly water harvesting CONSERVATION AND WATERSHED PRACTICE concepts and roles of water harvesting, traditional farmers’ PRACTICES land management practices, by government and other 2.1 Concept of soil conservation practice actors, farmers’ perception on soil fertility change and Soil conservation is defines the aim of soil management as on causes of land degradation [8,4,3]. These and other related “maintenance of the organiccontent of the soil, to maintain issues are still questions to the government, policy makers fertility and retain the soil structure. Soil conservation and for concerned experts. Still in study area there is no such measures can be defined by any set of measures intended to well-organized and documented research result, which can control or prevent soil erosion, or to maintain fertility. The expose the status of promotion and factors that affect the biggestconcern of the Ethiopian agricultural sector is the farmers’ participation in soil conservation and watershed widespread degradation of landcontributing to declining practice in the study area. Of course, there are reports agricultural productivity. Soil however is only one of prepared by different governmental and non-governmental thedetermining factors of agricultural production [12]. organizations based on short visit observations in different part of country. These report results, however, are not based Nonetheless, it is not the mostimportant land on systematic analysis and are not sufficient to point out the degradation problem to farmers in neither many places, nor wide-ranging factors that affect the farmers’ participation in one that they are likely to take action to for prevention. In a soil conservation and watershed practice in the region [10]. semi-arid area, farmers may be more concerned about Also the current study is different from other in its scope, conserving water than soil. When dealing with soil objectives and methodology which others were focused on degradation and erosion one should also consider climate and part of sustainable land management and while this study water resources as important factors. In this context it is more was concentrated on concept of soil conservation and appropriate to refer to soil and water conservation (SWC) watershed practice, and the degree at which they are than to soil conservation alone. Investments in soil and water participating to overcome the socio-economic and conservation measures (construction of terraces, soil bunds, environmental impact of land degradation in relative to rapid gully treatment, irrigation, drainage, use of inorganic population growth and growing demand for cultivation of fertilizers, etc.) contribute to improved land management [13]. land which in the study area. For effective implementation of soil conservation practice, the most important activity is 2.2 Soil conservation condition in Ethiopia necessary to identify farmers’ willingness of participation in Soil erosion and its resultant factors have been highly soil conservation and watershed practice [11]. affecting productivity of Ethiopian peoples. Cognizant of Therefore, the important issues and problems that these problems, soil and water conservation technologies need to be investigated and analyzed in this study are: The were implemented in many parts of the highlands mainly major problems or factors that made users to resist or persist after 1970’s devastating famine. They were introduced in not willing to participate any in soil conservation and some degraded and food deficit areas mainly through food- watershed practice or magnitude of participation (extent) for-working incentives. Major types of conservation methods their participation and socio-economic factors that determine introduced were structural type and of these the most the farmers’ willingness to participate.Hence, the issue common were the fanyajuu and normal bunds [14].Although requires to be studied intensively and empirically. the failure of soil conservation intervention can have many causes, it resulted mainly from the fact that planners and The general objective of this study is to assess the implementing agencies ignored local biophysical and socio- factors that determine the farmers’ willingness to participate economic realities. This is essential as the planning of in soil conservation and watershed practice. It was necessary effective and efficient land management technologies that to ask the following research question: What is the current will be accepted by farmers require empirical understanding state of soil conservation practice? Which of socioeconomic of diverse socio economic variables affecting farmers’ factors determine farmers’ participation in soil conservation conservation decision. With regard to the traumatic drought and watershed management? The study watershed was and famine incidence, the national government and the purposefully selected because it is one of the Ethiopian international donor community identified land degradation as highland Districts that experience challenges of soil erosion. the underlying cause [15].

The frame work generally shows the complex The emphasis was on mechanical conservation interplay of these factors at different levels and how they measures, most of which were alien and foreign to the influence soil conservation and water shade practices which farmers. The farmers were virtually considered ignorant of in turn affect agricultural production. The study is significant SWC and were excluded from the planning, commenting on in that the identification of effective determinant factors of and implementation of those engineering solutions [16]Prior to soil conservation and water shade practices will inform the 1974 revolution, soil degradation did not get policy decision makers and instruct policy on successful food attention. Famines of 1973 and 1985 provided an impetus for security enhancement practices. As for the academics, conservation work through large increase in food aid knowledge of the factors that determine of farmers’ (imported grain and oil). Following these severe famines, willingness to participate in soil and water shed conservation then government launched an ambitious program of soil and practices can improve their ability to facility soil and water conservation supported by donor and non- watershed conservation practice by intervention measures to governmental organizations. The use of food aid as a

Haile Tamiru Urgessa Page No.21 IAARD-International Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 3(2), 20-28 payment for labor replaced voluntary labor for conservation provides [19]. campaigns [13]. 2.4.1.1Farmer Participation 2.3 Watershed Management Practices in Ethiopia If farmers' knowledge may be more; if they are Asignificant sustainable land management closer to the real local problems; if they can see things that hypothesis change in recent years encompasses assessment of experts might often miss; and if their objectives are more the impacts of management of land and water at different realistic for economic development then farmer participation field levels on the larger watershed (catchment) and even in planning, decision-making, implementation, and landscape. Because agro ecological landscapes are various, evaluation is absolutely essential. The most controversial farmers and land users have developed a extensive set of aspects of a farmer-participatory approach involve the cropping and natural resource management strategies to cope notions of ownership and empowerment which in effect with the diversity of production and ecological conditions. mean the transfer of rights of determination from Adequate treatment of the complication of agro ecological professionals and traditional decision makers to local people. conditions and cropping systems is beyond the scope of this Governments feel uncomfortable; professionals feel report [17]. humiliated; and local people may well feel perplexed. It must However, the impact of those efforts did not therefore also include confidence and capacity building, both eliminate the impact of land degradation in all manner and in the wise use of transferred power and in the new role of sustainable manner. Different reasons are often given for the professionals as facilitators [18]. lack of success. Among these the most commonly known One of the most fundamental changes in agricultural factors include failure to consider indigenous land development in recent years has been the rapid expansion of management practices, high initial costs which are not participatory approaches which involve interactive learning affordable to poor farmers and also trying to apply uniform between professionals and farmers. A growing list of techniques in different agro ecological regions [18]. Different methods now exist for (1) professionals to understand local soil and water conservation measures were developed in the people; (2) local people to inform outsiders of their needs; early 1970’s to improve land management practices. and (3) local people to analyses their own conditions. As pretty suggested the interactive involvement of many people 2.4 Participatory in soil and water shade management Issues in different institutional contexts has promoted innovation In order to solve a number of issues which have and ownership [19]. come to the forefront in recent professional understanding of the importance of farmers' own knowledge and perceptions 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY of their environment, as well as their development of 3.1 Study Area solutions and technologies of natural resource management? The study will conducted in district, Toke Scientists blame policy makers, the ineffectiveness of KuttayeWoreda, West Showa, Oromiya National Regional development efforts, rapid population growth, and inadequate State. It is located about 136 km west of Addis Ababa. West social and economic systems indeed, anything but Showa zone lies between 8 º16' – 9º 56' N latitude and 37º01' – themselves. This paper adopts positive and, hopefully, 38º4' longitude and covers an area of 21,316 km 2[20]. The optimistic themes: Sustainable land management is possible zone is characterized by various land forms like mountains, in difficult environments it is not inevitable that plateau, hills, plain and valley with altitudinal ranges of marginalized; small-scale farmers will devastation their 1000m and 35400m.a.s.l . The zone has three drainage natural resources for short-term gain. And Farmers often systems: Abay, Gibe and Awash that Guder River is tributary have the solution to their own problems and solutions which to Abay. The district is classified in to three climate zones: may differ from those promoted by external agents; the role Dega (23%), Woinadega (60%), and Kolla (17%). It of the professional is now evolving into the provider of composed of various land forms such as dissected plateaus, assistance to help unlock indigenous capability [18]. hills, plains and valleys. Banti, Daro, Simbiro, Boko, lencha, Salani and Gorfo are important mountains of the district. 2.4.1 Community participation in soil conservation and Fallowing, crop rotation, application of manure and chemical Watershed management practice fertilizers are commonly applied to maintain soil fertility [24] . The sustainable land management programs This woreda is also one of the Indris major Watershed which included in this survey was chosen on the basis of the includes Kebeles(7): Maruf, BirbirsaDogoma, HadersaBilla, importance attributed by focus group participants and Dada Galan, EmalaDaweAjo, MelkaGudine, and Bolo, stakeholders within the natural resource management sector. Odofura and Gimbi. No programs were chosen for which the research team expected to find extremely low levels of awareness on the 3.1.1 Description of the Study Watershed basis that including such programs would enable little scope The watershed is located in Toke KuttayeWoreda, to explore the factors that influence participation. The West Showa, Oromiya National Regional State. The water priorities, assumptions, objectives, and modes of analysis of shade lies between 37 o43'22.14''-37 o50'32.81''E and professionals will thus be very different from those of local 8o43'26.73''-8o33'51.04''N and covers an area of farmers. Many people argued that in many cases a knowledge 5,973ha[24].The water shade is characterized by various land system that derives from local experience may provide forms like mountains, plateau, hills, plain and valley with techniques of sustainable land management which are not altitudinal ranges of 1000m and 35400m.a.s. Those only more acceptable but also protect the environment. watersheds are such as MalkaGudane, Malkasadi, Malka Without the close involvement of farmers, such knowledge is Dale, Sumbe Malka Fane, Inqoso Kala, Laku Gadu and unlikely to be retrieved in any development or assistance Malka Galan. Astronomically, the watershed located between

Haile Tamiru Urgessa Page No.22 IAARD-International Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 3(2), 20-28

37 o43'22.14''-37 o50'32.81''E and 8 o43'26.73'' 8 o33'51.04''N, average.The altitude of the study watershed ranges and situated approximately located at about 136 km west of approximately from 2,380m to 2740m a.s.l. Agro- Addis Ababa. And about 12km West of Ambo.Eight climatically, it is classified within the Dega’ agro-climatic community watersheds, each sizing about747ha on zone which is located between 2,300m-3,000m a.s.l.[24] .

Fig1. Map of Toke kuttaye, study area

Fig 2.Indris major watershed

Therefore, the watershed is characterized by humid temperature are estimated to be 1,300mm/year and 150 C, climatic conditions and typically represents the ‘Dega’ zone respectively, taking Ambo Meteorological station (with an of the traditional agro- climatic classification system of the elevation of about 2411 m a.s.l) as a reference station. country. The average annual rainfall and the mean annual

Haile Tamiru Urgessa Page No.23 IAARD-International Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 3(2), 20-28

3.2 Source of Data for this study. Then household’s heads were selected from The study used both primary and secondary data each water shade areas by systematic random sampling .The primary data was obtained through questionnaire and through discussion with key informants in the village and interview; while secondary data was collected from books, secondary information. The total household or populations of journals articles and different reports on human population, selected water shade were 1214. agro-ecology, and land use pattern, topography, slope type, and climate was gathered from Zonal and district Agriculture Out of these 1214 of total population 170 samples and Rural Development offices. were selected as respondents by systematic random sampling The study site was selected based the degree of soil due to the household heads have homogeneous erosion, topographic variation and other factors affecting in characteristics of the population. This sample size taken by soil conservation and watershed practices The woreda has systematic sampling procedure was selected from those four about 34 kebeles out of these seven kebeles and eight water water shade household of Toke kutayeWoreda at the 2nd stage shade management practice .From eight water shade, four where selected systematic randomly by using Kothari water shade were selected by systematic random sampling formula [21]

Table 3.1: Number of households and sample size for the kebeles and water shade Water shade Kebele in which water Total population No of sample shades are found selected

Sumbe Maruf 352 49 Malka Fane Gimbibila 286 41 Malka Galan Dada Galan 281 40 Ingosokela HadersaBilla 295 41 Total 1214 170 Table 3.1 kebels sample size The questionnaires were pre tested to check their A willingness to participate decision is a qualitative decision validity and adjustments made where necessary. Since making process in which the regress and is a binary or farmers in the study area speak Afan Oromo, the dichotomous variable. Both the cumulative logistic function questionnaires that were initially prepared in English were (logit).and normal cumulative density function (CDF) could translated to Afan Oromo The questionnaires were be used to explain behavior of dichotomous dependent administered to the randomly selected household heads or variables. In some applications the normal cumulative representatives by a team of enumerators recruited and density function has been found useful [22]. trained for the purpose with close supervision by the researcher.To supplement the data collected via 3.3 The logistic regression model questionnaire, the researcher is interviewed the development The logit model which is based on the cumulative agents that was selected from each sampling unit based on distribution function for the logistic distribution, of the farm land found at different water shade, method of in soil dependent variable “y” represents farmers’ willingness to conservation and watershed practices to get information on participate or willingness not to participate. Other observable household characteristic. Based on the objectives of this socio-economic characteristics of farmers were denoted as X. study both descriptive statistics and econometric models The goal is to determine the relationship between farmers’ were employing to analyze both qualitative and quantitative socio-economic characteristics, denoted as X and the data and also by using stata 12 software. probability of farmers’ willingness to participate on In this study, descriptive statistics such as the sustainable land management which is denoted as “Y”. This arithmetic means , standard deviation, percentage and should yield two regression equations or models. The first frequency of occurrence were used to analyze data. The regression equation is for farmers not willing to participate or researcher was used qualitative method to describe the willing to participate but not able to participate (outliers) determinants of farmers’ willingness and participation critical (WTP = 0). The standard minimum criterion for true view of past and present situation of soil conservation and willingness to participate (not willing to participate): watershed practices in relation to socio-economic and log p( 0 / 1 - pi ) = f ( β0 + β ix i+ u ) = wtp £ 0….……1 political situations of the study area by using information While the second regression equation is for farmers willing collected through interview and questionnaire. The statistical to participate, and able to participate. (WTP=1): significance of the variables were tested for both dummy and log p(1 / 1 - p ) = f (β0 + β ix i+ u ) = wtp > 0 or Pi = E(Y = 1 | continuous variables using chi-square ( χ2) and t-tests Xi ) = …...2 respectively. th  m    X =represents the i explanatory variable P =the probability =Ρ ()Ζ = α + β Χ = 1 −−−−−−−−−−−−−− i i i F i F ∑ ii   []+ βα Χ  3 − ∑ i i that an individual makes a Choice (yes or no to the WTP  i=1  1+ e  α β Where question) and i are parameters to be estimated. e =represents the base of natural logarithms (2.718…) Interpretation of coefficients will be easier if the logistic odel

Haile Tamiru Urgessa Page No.24 IAARD-International Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 3(2), 20-28

[26]  m  Ζ + βα Χ can be written in terms of the odds and log of odds . The i  ∑ tit   Ρ  1+e    i = =  t =1  −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−    Ζ−  e )6( odds ratio implies the ratio of the probability that an ndividual Ρ− + i 1 i  1 e  would choose an alternative (P i) to the probability that he/she Taking the natural logarithms of equation (4) will give the would not choose it (1-Pi). The probability that he does not logit model as indicated below choose is defined  Ρ  =Ζ i α+= β +Χ β Χ +−−−−+ β Χ −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− by: i ln   11 i 22 ii mim 7 1 Ρ−  []=Ρ−  1  −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− () i 1 i  Ζ  4 1+ e i  If we consider a disturbance term, u i, the logit model Using equations (1) and (2), the odds ratio becomes becomes Ζ m i  Ρ   1+ e  Ζ i = = i −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− () α +=Ζ β +Χ U −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− 8    Ζ−  e 5 i ∑ t ti i Ρ− + i t=1 1 i  1 e  Alternatively, respectively. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Any form in soil and watershed conservation The main objective was investigating determinants practices demands labor input. Large number of non-willing of farmers' willingness to participate in in soil conservation farmers (about 14.12%) and corresponding figure for the willing farmers was 89(52.35%) reported labor shortage as a problem.Access to credit was found to affect the probability and watershed practices and maximum level of their of being willing to participate in soil conservation and participation. The questionnaire was designed in such a way watershed practices., from the total willing farmers group that it enables to collect data on personal and socio-economic about 105(61.76%) of sample respondents reported that they characteristics of farm households as well as on the farmers' can get adequate loan to purchase farm input, while willingness to participate in soil conservation and watershed 28(16.47%) of willing farmers suggested that they cannot get practices. adequate loan to purchase necessary agricultural equipment’s. Whereas about 11(6.47%) non-willing 4.1 House hold characteristics respondents suggested that they were access to credit to Of the total willing households about 106 or 62.4 purchase necessary agricultural equipment’s. And rest of % were male household heads. While 27 or 15.88% of 26(15.29) of non-willing respondent reported that they are willing farmers’ group were female household heads. And of not access to credit or loan which is necessary to purchase the total non-willing households 16 or 9.41 % were male agricultural farm inputs. Sample about 31.8% of the headed households and the remaining 21 or 12.35% house respondents have faced problems in getting adequate loan hold head were women. Of the total sample farmers the facilities. 28(16.47%) of the willing and 26(15.29%) of the maximum and minimum ages registered for willing farmers’ non-willing farmers faced the same problem. group were 75 and 22 years respectively. While the maximum and minimum ages registered for non-willing 4.2. Problem experienced in the area before soil farmers’ group were 73 and 24years respectively. The mean conservation and watershed practices Interventions age surveyed for the willing to participate is about 39.24 Accordingly, of the total sample respondent of years and for the non-willing is 40.86 years. The combined willing farmers’ about 25(14.7) reported that before soil average age for both is about 39.6 years. The mean age conservationand watershedpractice intervention there was a characteristic of the sample respondents of 170 has its own problem of potential of spring water that used for economic implication. One can easily infer and analyze that multipurpose become to decline. While 43(25.3%) of sample the mean age group of both the willing to participate and the respondent suggested that the communities faced the non-willing to participate fall in the productive age group shortage of animal feeds. And about 62(36.5%) of respondent (15-65) at 95% confidence interval. replied that they frequently affected by low agricultural yield The average family size of the sample farmers was about 6.2 or low productivity . persons on average. The differences between largest and While 6(3.52%) of non-willing farmers group smallest in family size, the largest family size were 11 and suggested that the communities in water shade mainly the smallest was 2. The average number of economically affected by Lack of potable water that used for multi- active family members (15-65 years of age) was about 3 purpose. While 10(5.88%) of non-willing respondent persons per household for willing farmers, while it was about reported that communities faced the shortage of animal feeds 2 for non-willing farmers. The average dependency ratio was .And about 14(8.23%) of respondent replied that they about 1.2077, which shows that each economically active frequently affected by low agricultural yield or low person in a household supports about one economically productivity. The survey result shows that majority of the inactive person . The mean difference of economically active willing and non-willing farmers’ affected by various family members (15-65 years) between willing farmers group problems before soil conservation and watershed and non-willing farmers group were 0.985. Educational practiceintervention in water shade area. levels of sample household significantly influence farmers’ According to the opinion of sample respondent the participation. According to the survey results, 41.76 % of the communities were benefited from water shade. Out of the willing farmers were literate, and the remaining (36.47%) total sample respondent of willing farmers about ,22(12.94%) were illiterate. On the other hand, the majority of the non- reported that they benefited from the water shade such as willing farmers (11.76 %) were illiterate, and only 10.0% traditional irrigation and good experience on water were literate. This survey results shows that 52% and 48% of management .while about 67(39.4%) suggested that they the sample respondents were literate and illiterate benefited from watershed feed for their Animals. And

Haile Tamiru Urgessa Page No.25 IAARD-International Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 3(2), 20-28

41(24.12%) of willing respondent replied that their service was calculated to be 2.45 birr per week. agricultural productivity increase as well as Ensent, From the total respondents 69 of those who are fallowing, deep tillage practices and improved potato willing to contribute labor gave reasons for their maximum plantation are some importance of water shade after willingness to contribute labor. Accordingly, 45 or 65.21% sustainable land management intervention. of respondents reported that they contribute more labor instead of money contribution because the respondent have While 9(5.29%) of non-willing respondents shortage or low income, while 20 or 28.98% reported that the suggested that benefited from the water shade by using amount that they contributed is so enough, whereas, the rest traditional irrigation and good experience on water of 4 or 5.4% stated that the government and NGO such as management. And about 14(8.23%) of non-willing GIZ should fill the gap. respondents suggested that the communities benefited from The farmers’ reported different reasons for their watershed forage for their Animals. And 41(24.12%) of non-willingness to contribute cash. Accordingly, of the 42 or willing respondent replied that their agricultural productivity 60.86% farmers who are not willing to contribute cash for increase as well as Ensent, fallowing, deep tillage practices soil conservation and watershed practice because of low and improved potato plantation. income or cash shortage, about 11 or 15.94% pointed out that The remaining about 11(6.47%) of non-willing they are not willing to contribute cash for soil conservation respondents replied that their agricultural productivity and watershed practicebecause there is no problem related to increase as well as Ensent, fallowing, deep tillage practices land degradation. About 16 or 23.18% respondents believe and improved potato plantation. And the rest of 3(1.76%) of that the soil conservation and watershed practicedo not need non-willing respondents suggested that there is no change any types of payment. even after soil conservation and watershed practice The logistic regression required five iterations to intervention. The survey result clearly describe that both generate the parameter estimates . Out of the fourteen willing and non-willing farmers benefited from water shade explanatory variables hypothesized to explain the willingness after in soil conservation practice intervention. of farmers’ to participate in soil conservation and watershed practicein the study area, Three variables were found to be The total sample sizes of the entire population significant at 1%, six were found to be significant at 5% include about 170 respondents. Of these total sample probability level. And also five variables were significant at household 133 or 78.23% of respondents are willing to l0% probability level. Therefore, a total of five variables participate in soil conservation and watershed practice in were less powerful in explaining the variations in the cash labor or materially while about 37 or 21.77% of the dependent variable since their significance level is at 10%. respondents resist or are not willing to participate in Table 33 presents the signs, magnitudes, and statistical sustainable land management practice by cash, labor or significance of the estimated parameters and how much the materially in the study area, and some of them have less observed values were correctly predicted by the logistic contribution which is estimated in smaller manner. The regression model. The T- test shows the overall goodness of average mean for both willing to participate and non- fit of the model at less than 5% probability level. willingness to participate was about 0.646 and 0.972 4.3. Discussion on Significant Explanatory Variables respectively The logistic regression model shows that out of the Of the total respondent 59 or 44.36% is willing to fourteen variables hypothesized to determine willingness of participate by contributing money or cash while the farmers’ to participate in soil and watershed conservation remaining respondents 59 or 44.36% are willing to practices, 3 were statistically significant at less than 1% such participate by contributing labor. And the rest of 15 or 11.3% as the coefficient of sex, technology and income, and 6 were of the respondents are willing to participate both by money significant at 5% probability level . probability level, whereas and labor contribution. The WTP evaluation result reveals Education, labor availability ,Age, family size, Access to that about 81.2 percent of the respondents are willing to credit and plot size were significant at less than 5%, contribute either money or labor or both for soil conservation probability level and slope of the land, Information, contact and watershed practice. Of these willing respondents, only with extension service, distance and Land ownership were about 59 respondents (44.36%) were willing to contribute significant at less than 10%, probability level . Of the 14 only money while about 15 (11.3%) were willing to explanatory variables hypothesized to influence willingness contribute both money and labor. The majority, about 59 of farmers’ to participate in soil conservation and watershed respondents (44.36 %) were willing to contribute only labor. practicefive variables ( information, distance, slope, land More specifically, above 72(42.35 %) of the surveyed owner and contact with extension service) were less powerful households are willing to contribute less than 1.0birr per in explaining farmers' willingness to participate in soil week, those respondents were who contribute minimum conservation and watershed practices, as their coefficients including those non-willing to contribute both cash and labor were significant at 10% level of significance. and 34(20.0%) are willing to pay more than 1.50birr up to Therefore, in this study only those variables, whose 2.5birr per week for soil conservation and watershed practice, coefficients were statistically significant at less than or equal 20(11.76 %) are willing to pay more than 2.50birr up to to 1% , 5% 10% probability levels, were discussed and 3.5birr per week for sustainable land management practices, recommendation as well as policy implications were made while the remaining 31(18.23%) contribute about 3.5birr up based on these variables. The coefficients of five variables to 5.5 birr per week for soil conservation and watershed those probability levels significant at 10% were not practiceand the rest of 13(7.05%) of the respondents statistically significant at the conventional probability levels contributed about 5.50birr up to 7.50birr for sustainable land implying that they were less important in explaining the management practice. The average WTP for the proposed variability in the willingness to participate in soil

Haile Tamiru Urgessa Page No.26 IAARD-International Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 3(2), 20-28 conservation and watershed practice. But those variables size are significant at (p< 0.05) and have positive association were plot size and labor availability, sex, technological with the willingness of a respondent to participate in soil and application, family size, land ownership and contact with watershed conservation practices probability level. [27, 28] extensions important to explaining the variability. In what hypothesized that age of house hold has positive effect but follows, the significant explanatory variables will be not significant effect on participation of farmers. While [9] ; discussed. Age of household head, Education level and Family Explanatory Coeff Std. Err. Z P>|z| [95% Conf. Inter] variae

sex 6.77422 2.0519 -3.30 0.001 -10.796 2.7524 slope -1.07787 .65232 1.65 0.098 -.20066 2.3564 educ 1.89027 .84006 2.25 0.024 .24377 3.536 inform 1.81581 .95646 -1.90 0.058 -3.6904 .05882 labor 1.41581 .70746 -2.00 0.045 -2.8024 -.02920 credit 1.72864 .76265 2.27 0.023 .23381 3.2233 techno -2.1613 .74449 -2.90 0.004 -3.6205 -.70214 income .014021 .00405 3.46 0.001 .00607 .02196 age .046792 .02376 -1.97 0.049 -.09336 -.00021 famisiz .833189 .39199 2.13 0.034 .06489 1.601 contac .561692 .29417 -1.91 0.056 -1.1382 .0148 distane -.54574 .28491 1.92 0.055 -.01268 1.1041 landown .654154 .36153 -1.81 0.070 -1.36274 .0544 plotsize .899207 .40015 -2.25 0.025 -1.6835 -.11491 _cons -1.4670 3.8400 -0.38 0.702 -8.993 6.0592 Positive predictive value 78.2 4% Number of obs. = 170 IncorrectPredict 21.76% LR chi2(14) = 97.88 SpecificityPr(-|~D)=0.00% Prob> chi2 = 0.000 Sensitivity Pr( +| D) 100.00 Log likelihood = -40.123124 Pseudo R2 = 0.5495

Table: 36 logistic regression result Source: model result,2015 [29] and [5] stated as education has positive impact on farmers’ major water shed , Toke Kutayeworeda. The findings of the willingness to participate in soil and watershed conservation research seem to show that the willingness of farmers’ practice. Distances from plot of land and Technological participation in soil and watershed conservation practices application are also significant at (P< 0.1) and related with respect to extensive soil erosion and land degradation negatively with the willingness of farmers to participate in due to high topography and large demand for land . Logistic soil conservation and watershed practices. Other study done regression model results point to the fact that educational by [29] hypothesized that distance negatively affects the status of farmers, farmers’, access to extension services and farmers’ participation in soil conservation and watershed farmers’ training have significant and positive impact both on practices. soil and watershed conservation practices. Age of farmers Access or contact with extension service, Income of also identified to have significant positive influence soil and household,Access to information and Land ownershipare watershed conservation practices. Access to credit is significant at (P< 0.1) and have positive relationship with the identified to have significant negative influence on willingness of a respondent to participate in soil and participation and male headed households are more likely to watershed conservation practices. conservation practice. Other remaining factors such as Plot size is significant at (P< 0.05) and has a farmers’ perception on land degradation, farm size and negative association with the willingness of a respondent to number of economically active household members’ haven’t participate in soil conservation and watershed practice. significant impact. Another study done by [5] also identified that land holding Generally, there are several major Problems in size has negative impact in soil and watershed conservation the Watershed before soil and watershed conservation practice. (P< 0.05) and have positive association with the interventions. Those problems are such as Soil erosion & willingness of a respondent to participate in soil conservation gully formation, Problem of soil fertility ,Lack of potable and watershed practice. Another study done by [29] also water, Shortage of fuel & construction wood, Shortage of identified that labor availabilityhas positive impact in soil animal feeds & productivity, Absence of modern irrigation and watershed conservation practice. practices, Problem of communication & marketing and Declining of agricultural productivity. 5. CONCLUSION Also due to active participation of different The general objective of this research is to identify stake holders; local communities benefited from water Shade factors that determine farmers’ willingness to participate in aftersoil and watershed conservation practice interventions in soil and watershed conservation practices, in case of Indris indris major water shade such as:Presence of plenty water

Haile Tamiru Urgessa Page No.27 IAARD-International Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 3(2), 20-28 resources e.g. perennial rivers, springs & wells, Highly conservation technologies: the case inebsea sarmeder, motivated & interested communities, good experience on eastern gojjam. traditional irrigation and water management, Ensent, 8. Paulos Asrat(2002). Determinant of farmers’ willingness fallowing, deep tillage practices, improved potato plantation, to participate in soil conservation practices in high land of Presence of ruminant forest, bamboo trees & wild animals Bale, Ethiopia. Alemaya. and Possess potential markets. 9. Amsalu Aklilu(2007). Long-term dynamics in land Based on the findings of the study, the following Resource use and the driving forces in the Beressa points need to be focused as possible policy implications in watershed, high lands of Ethiopia, Environmental order to promote farmers’ participation in the planning and Management,Volume 83, pp 448 implementation of soil conservation and watershed practice. 10. Sterk, G. (2003). Farmers’ participation in soil and water The result shows that literate farmers were more willing to conservation activities in Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile participate in soil conservation and watershed practicethan Basin, Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development. those who were illiterate implying that educated farmers are Volume 13, pp 189–200. more aware to reflect the problem relating to land 11. Bekele, S. (2003). 2003. Soil and water conservation degradation and farmers willingness of participation. decision behavior of Subsistence farmers in the eastern Due to extensive community, government and highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of the Hunde-Lafto different non-governmental organization such as World Bank, area. Ecological Economics. Volume 46, pp 437–451. international monetary fund and GIZ participation in soil and 12. Gebremedhin Birhane and Swinton (2003.)Investment in watershed conservation practicethe Indris major watershed or soil conservation in northern,Ethiopia catchment plays a significant contribution for local people. 13. Boetkees S(2002). Rural Credit And Soil And Water By using wide-ranging communities participation the Conservation A Case Study In Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. rehabilitation activities have made by local people Such as Mekelle. from farm land plantation degraded hillside rehabilitated, 14. Moges Abebe and Holden N.M. (2006). Farmers’ degraded gullies improved grazing land improved. perceptions of soil erosion and soil fertility loss in southern Ethiopia: Land degradation and Development. 6. Acknowledgements Volume 4, pp 164-198. Addis Ababa. The authors wish to acknowledge the 15. Daba Shibiru(2003.). Assessment of gully erosion in InternationalAssociation of Advances in Research and eastern Ethiopia using photogrammetric techniques Development (IAARD) providing a research grant to the first Catena University. author during 2017 to carry out this study at 16. Feoli et, a.(2002). Evaluation of environmental Woreda Agricultural Office, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia. degradation in northern Ethiopia using GIS to integrate The critical review and comments offered by International vegetation, Geomorphologic, erosion and socio-economic Journal of Environmental & Agriculture Research (IJOEAR) factors. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, pp is acknowledged. The assistance given from by MrLencho 313–325. Adugna to collect the data from field is acknowledged. 17. ASARECA( 2010). Assessment of Policy, Legal Frameworks and Institutional Governance Structures in 7. REFERANCE and Were Jarso Districts, Uganda. Entebbe, 1. Fanaye Tadesse(2012).Household and Plot Level ASARECA. Entebbe. impact of Sustainable landand Watershed Management (S 18. Michael Stockin(2013 ). Land management for LWM) Practices in theBlue Nile pp06-pp17 . sustainable development: Farmers' participation. Geneva. 2. WorldBank.(2006). Sustainable LandManagement 19. Million Alemayehu. (2014). The Role of Public Policies Challenges, Opportunities, and Trade-offs. The & Smallholder Agriculture to Sustainable NRM & Rural International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Development..The case of Sustainable Land Management World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 3 (4): 536-542, Program in Ethiopia. ISSN 1817-3047. 20. Pretty, J (1995).Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and 3. Tsehaye Gebrelibanos and Mohammed Assen.(2013).far Practice for Sustainability and Self-reliance. Earthscan, mers’ attitudes towards land resource conservation and its London. Geneva. implication for sustainableland management in the hirmi 21. Central statitics Agancy, CSA. (2007). Population and watershed, northern highlands of ethiopiajournal of Sustai Housing census. nable Development in Africa (Volume 15, No.1, 2013)IS 22. Cothari, (1990). Research methodology. Methods and SN: 1520-5509. Techniques.2nd revised edition. India. 4. Desta Demena Hiy. (2012). Determinants Of Farmers’ 23. Gujarat( 2004).Basic econometric,Depenedant variable Land Management Practices: The Case Of Tole District, and basic principles of Econometricss.4th edition. South , Oromia India,Gujurat 5. Tsagaye, G. (2006). Farmers’ perception of land 24. Mark Mujwahuzi and James Ngana. . ((2013)). Factors degradation and determinant of house hold food security influencing willingness to pay for watershed services in status of Bilate watershed, Ethiopia. lower Moshi, Pangani Basin, Tanzania.International 6. Asres. (2003). impact of incentive system on soil and Journal of Agr. &Env ISSN: 2307-2652: pp 57- pp 69 . water conservation activities in ambassel area, south 25. Molla Tafere, Y. (2005). Farmers’ Response And wollo, ethiopia. Willingness To Participate In Water Harvesting Practices: 7. Behilu w/Michael(2009). Determinants of adoption A Case Study In Dejen District / East Gojam Zon. decision of subsistance farmer for improved soil

Haile Tamiru Urgessa Page No.28