Arba Minch University School of Post Graduate Studies Department of Geography and Environmental Studies School of Humanity and Social Science

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF HUMANITY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

FARMERS‟ PERCEPTION OF LAND DEGRADATION: THE CASE OF DOYOGENA WOREDA KAMBATA TEMBARO ZONE OF SOUTH NATION, NATIONALITY AND PEOPLE REGION

BY: Samuel Abebe

Advisor: Yechale Kebede (PhD)

AMU

ETHIOPIA

FARMERS‟ PERCEPTION OF LAND DEGRADATION: THE CASE OF DOYOGENA WOREDA KAMBATA TEMBARO ZONE OF SOUTH NATION, NATIONALITY AND PEOPLE REGION

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

By: Samuel Abebe

Advisor: Yechale Kebede (PhD)

AMU, 2014 Arba Minch, Ethiopia

APPROVAL PAGE

ARBA MINCH UNVERSITY SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF HUMANITY AND SOCIAL SECIENCE

This research entitled with “Farmers‟ Perception of Land Degradation: the Case of Doyogena Woreda, SNNPR, and Kambata Tembaro Zone” has been approved by the following advisors, examiners and department in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of master in Department of Geography and Environmental science in Land Resource Management.

By: Samuel Abebe

Approved By the Board of Examiners

Dr, Yechale Kebede. ------Advisor Date Signature

------External examiner Date Signature

------Chairman Date Signature

------Geography Dep.Head Date Signature

iii

DECLARATION

This undersigned declare that thesis „Farmers‟ Perception of Land Degradation: the case of Doyogena Woreda Kembata Tembaro Zone South Nation, Nationality and People Region‟ entitled is my original work and this thesis was not presented in other institutions by any else. All the sources of material that the researcher used for this thesis have been highly acknowledged.

Mr. Samuel Abebe …………………………… Name of student Signature

ABSTRACT

Land degradation has been the most serious problem that has treated the life of millions of people in Ethiopia. The causes of land degradation are complex and diverse. Although influenced by natural and socio-economic factors, land degradation in Ethiopia is mainly a function of growing population exploitative substance agriculture and rudimentary production methods but the problem is not noticed and perceived by all farmers at the same fashion and level. Thus, the study is aimed to evaluate the status of farmers‟ perception of land degradation and management practices in doyogena woreda. A three-stage systematic sampling procedure was employed to select three sample kebeles and 129 sample household heads to collect primary data. Interview and observation were also used to collect the relevant data. Descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis and Likert scale were employed to show the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents. As the study has been shown the farmers‟ perception of steep slope , human population pressure, soil erosion, deforestation, over cultivation, planting eucalyptus tree, lack of fertilizers, overgrazing, poor farming practice and absence of crop rotation as the cause of land degradation were found relatively reported by majority of the respondents except few educated farmers. For many farmers reported that difficulty for farming increased of requirements of fertilizers, loss of agricultural production, poverty and economic backwardness, landlessness and migration as consequence of land degradation in study area. Concerning the perception to land management practices, closure of grazing land, terracing and tree planting are said to have been the least perceived as management practices used by farmers except those who attached their life with in education. On the other hand, organic manure, mulching, crop rotation, and tree planting were indicated as the frequently used soil management practices by large house hold size. Pertaining the sources of information for farmers‟ friends and relatives were found as the most important one. As the chi-square analysis has been shown age, education and household size were major factors that influence perception of farmers. Therefore, continuous education, training and disseminating information is very important to arouse farmers‟ perception of land degradation and management practices by considering their current perception level in the study area.

Key words: Farmers perception and land degradation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Above all I am honored when I thank and glorify the king of Heaven and Earth Lord Jesus Christ who is the ultimate means of my success. I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my advisor and instructor Dr, Yechale Kebede, in especial way for his unreserved advice, nice consultation, devotion to teach and provision of important reference materials that are much useful for this research work. My special and very big gratitude extended to Meseret Merkos for her encouraging and sisterly support and advice while I was doing this research. I wish to address my heartfelt thanks to my Mather Abebech Ersado, My Brather Desta Abebe, and My Steters Alemitu and Amharech Abebe for their unreserved assistance and encouragement throughout my education life.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration………………………………………………………………………………………………...….iv

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………….….v

Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………………………………vi

Table of Content …………………………………………………………………………………………….vii

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………….x

List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………...xi

Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………………………………….xii

CHAPTERONE: INTRODUCTION…………………………...…..…………………………… 1

1.1 Background of the study ...... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ...... 3

1.3 Objective of the Study ...... 5

1.3.1 Specific objective ...... 5

1.4 Research Questions ...... 5

1.6 Scope of the Study ...... 6

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE…………………………………....7

2.1 Conceptual and Theoretical Framework ...... …7

2.1.1 Meaning of Land Degradation ...... 7

2.1.2 Problem of Land Degradation in Ethiopia ...... 9

2.2. Causes of Land Degradation ...... 10

2.2.1 Wood land clearing ...... 10

2.2.2 Use of dung and crop residues ...... 10

2.2.3 Natural Conditions ...... 11

2.2.4 Population Growth ...... 11

2.2.4 Land Ownership ...... 11 vii

2.2.5 Rural Markets ...... 11

2.2.6 Backward Agricultural Technology ...... 12

2.2.7 Lack of awareness for the environment ...... 12

2.3 Consequences of Land Degradation ...... 12

2.4 Farmers‟ Perception on Land Degradation ...... 14

2.5 Land Management Practices ...... 16

2.6 Factors Determine Farmers‟ Perception towards Land Degradation and Management Practices ...... 18

2.5.1 The effect of Age, Educational status and Access to Information on land degradation and land management practices ...... 19

CHAPTER THREE: DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH METHODOL…………………………………………………………………………………….22 2

3.1. Description of the Study Area ...... 22

3.1.1 Location ...... 22

3.1.2 Topography ...... 23

3.1.3 Soil ...... 23

3.1.4 Climate ...... 23

3.1.5 Vegetation Cover ...... 24

3.1.6 Population ...... 24

3.1.7 Crop Production: ...... 24

3.1.8 Livestock Production: ...... 25

3. 1.9 Agriculture and Land use System ...... 25

3.2 Data Source and Methodology...... 26

3.2.1 Household survey: ...... 26

3.2.1 Sources of Data and methods of collection ...... 27

viii

3.2.4 Methods of data analysis ...... 27

CHAPTER FOUR : DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATIO….……30

4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents ...... 30

4.2 Farmers‟ Perception of the Causes of Land Degradation ...... 34

4.2.1 Farmers Perception of the Consequence of Land Degradation ...... 35

4.3 Farmers‟ Perception on Erosion Problems ...... 35

4.4 Farmers‟ Perception of Land Management Practice ...... 41

4.4.1 Farmers Use of Land Management Practices ...... 42

4.5 Farms level of perception towards different type of Land Management Practices...... 44

4.5.1 Farmers‟ Information Source of Land Management Practices ...... 46

4.6 Factors that Determine Farmers‟ Perception of Land Degradation in Study Area ...... 47

4.6.1 Age and Perception ...... 48

4.6.2 Educational status and perception of farmers ...... 51

4.6.3 Family size and perception ...... 54

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………...….....58

5.1 Conclusion ...... 58

5.2 Recommendation ...... 61

Reference..………………………………………………………………………………………….62

Appendex-1...………………………………………………………………………………………68

Appendex-2.………………………………………………………………………………………..76

LIST OF TABLES Table page

Table3.1 The study Kebeles in the Woreda…………………………………………………...…..27 Table 4.1 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Respondents………………...30 Table 4.2 Livestock Possession of Respondents…………………………………………….……32 Table 4.3 Distance from home to farm land………………………………………………...... …..34 Table 4.4 Farmers‟ perception of the Causes of Land Degradation………………………….…...35

Table 4.5 Farmers perception of the Consequence of land degradation……………………...…...36 Table 4.6 Agricultural land and productivity ……………………………………………..………36

Table 4.7 Respondent perceived scores on different land suitability criteria by slope position...... 37

Table 4.8 Farmers‟ perception of Land Management Practices …………………………………...41 Table 4.9 Land management practices……………………………………………………………..43 Table 4.10 Attitude test of different land management practices ……………………………..…..44 Table 4.11 Age and farmers perception on Causes of Land Degradation…………………………48 Table 4.12 Age and farmers‟ perception on consequence of Land Degradation…………………..49 Table 4.13: Age and farmers perception on land management practice………………………...... 50 Table 4.14 Educational background and farmers‟ perception on cause of Land Degradation….....51

4.15 Educational background and farmers‟ perception on consequence of Land Degradation…...52

Table 4.16 Educational background and farmers‟ perception on land management practice ….....53 Table 4.17 Family size and farmers‟ perception on cause of Land Degradation……………….... 55 Table 4.18 Household size and farmers‟ perception on consequence of Land Degradation………..56 Table 4.19 Household size and farmers‟ perception on land management………………….………57

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig page

Fig. 3.1: location Map of study Area……………………………………………………………….22 Fig 4.3 Indicator of soil erosion on Farmers land ………………………………………………….38 Fig4.1 Degraded land in Lemi-suticho near to „FTC‟………………………………………………………40 Fig 4.5 causes of soil erosion in study area……………………………………………………...... 40 Fig 4.2: Land Management Practice in Wagebeta-Heba and Sarara (Desho grass)……………………42 Fig4.6: Farmers‟ information source for land management practice………………………...…….47

ACRONYMS:

AEZ Agro-ecological Zone

BoA Bureau of Agriculture

CSA Central Statistical Authority

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FTC Farmers Training Center

KMG Kembat Ment Gezma

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GLASOD Global Assessment of Soil Degradation

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IK Indigenous Knowledge

M.a.S.I Meter above Sea Level

NGO Non-Government Organization

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

xii

PSNP Productive Safety Net Program

SNNPR Southern nation, Nationalities and Peoples Region

SSA Sub, Saharan Africa

SWC Soil and Water Conservation

UNDP United Nation Development Partners

WFP World Food Program

xiii

CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Land degradation can be defined as the process that lowers the quality of land to be productive mainly because of human activities that come from lack of appropriate environmental knowledge, attitude and practices. It is caused by a combination of natural and human processes. The human processes that cause land degradation are a result of inappropriate land use practices, namely over cultivation, overgrazing and deforestation (Lakewet. al, 2000).

As a result of land degradation in most developing countries, in particular, agricultural productivity showed a dramatic decline and reached the level beyond the subsistence requirement of a household. For instance the productivity of some lands in Africa has declined by 50% due to soil erosion and desertification. Yield reduction in Africa due to past soil erosion may range from 2 - 40% with a mean loss of 8.2% for the continent (Dregne, 2000).

The Ethiopian highlands provide basic ecosystem services that of regional and global environmental significance. These highlands account for more than half of the total area of the highlands of Africa and play a significant role in the regional climate. More importantly, from these highlands originate international rivers watering the arid and semi-arid lowlands and the neighboring countries. In terms of genetic resources, the Ethiopian highlands are known to be one of the twelve tourism centers of the world (Tewolde, 1990).

The region (Ethiopian highlands), however, has been experiencing severe land degradation problems that are emanating from the demands of the growing human and livestock populations. This environmental situation not only undermines the agricultural production capacity but also threatens the ecological sustainability of the region (Ibid).

Ethiopia is losing 1.5 to 2, billion tons of top soil annually which is equivalent to a monetary value of US $1to2 billion per year by erosion. If this soil is conserved, it could have produced 1to1.5 million tons of grain that can be added to the country‟s harvest. Furthermore the country losses around, 4mm depth of soil as estimated per year exceeding the rate of soil formation in Africa which is more than 0.25 mm annually. If this loss of soil depth continued without taking any measures to conserve it, Ethiopia could losses almost all of its top soil with 100 to 150 years (Girma 2001).

The Decline of agricultural productivity in the highlands of Ethiopia has been largely associated with high population density, deforestation and intensive cultivation of steep slopes without effective conservation measures. Realizing the national and global importance, governmental and non-governmental institutions have made various attempts to avert the trend of degradation. But despite the heavy capital and human resources investment, the results remain disappointing (Hudson, 1991).

Some experts think that farmers are ignorant of the seriousness of the on-going land degradation and are reluctant to change. Awareness, perceptions and attitudes towards the problem of resource degradation is one of the many socioeconomic, cultural and psychological factors which are known to influence acceptance and recognition of the problem as such is the first step towards taking curative as well as preventive measures (Hudson, 1991).

Generally, it is rather common that public awareness and perception concerning the need for soil and water conservation is low. Two reasons can be mentioned, first, land degradation as a process is gradual and long-term. Its effect on crop yield is often felt or recognized after decades following the initiation of the degradation process, Second, the process is in its obscure nature, and hence, incomprehensible for one without the requisite skills (Osgood, 1992).

However, previous approaches made no positive changes with respect to the rate of land degradation, primarily because they hardly considered farmers‟ perceptions of the land degradation and Soil, Water Conservation measures. Thus, experts need to seek existing knowledge, perception and opinions of farmers before enforcing new recommendations (Hudson,

1991). There is also need to evaluate farmers on the performance of the existing conservation measures and their expectations and experiences. Such knowledge could probably improve fieldworkers‟ approach when working with farmers.

1.2 Statement of the Problem Ethiopia is one of the African countries where deforestation and degradation of the land largely impedes socio-economic development (Ginjo, 2000). The country is undeniably confronted with the problem of producing enough food for its fast growing population on the one hand, and protecting the resource base upon which this is dependent on the other. Maintaining a sustainable balance among those two has been a major challenge for the country (Melaku, 2000).

According to Paulos (2001) due to various internal and external pressures, Ethiopia has not been able to maintain its economic, political and social development for many years. Natural resources are particularly affected by the slow progress in economic development. In turn, natural resource degradation has been a major environmental, socioeconomic and policy challenge in the country. Specifically, land degradation due to soil erosion, nutrient depletion, rapidly growing population and deforestation has become a serious issue of the country. The situation of land degradation has negatively affected the agricultural sector to a larger extent and the overall economy as well as the livelihood of its people (Aklilu, 2001). Therefore, the country is facing serious problems of environmental (land) degradation. This problem involves population growth and agricultural stagnation because of soil erosion and nutrient depletion (Alemneh, 2003).

Natural resource degradation in Ethiopia has been going on for centuries in different parts of the country (Shibru & Kifle, 1998). Land degradation process such as land and soil degradation and overgrazing are as old as human settlements and land use history. However, population pressure in many areas has accelerated these processes (Ludi, 2002). Pressure on arable land is growing, forcing people to convert more marginal lands to arable land and this leads to further soil erosion. On the other hand, former areas used as grazing land are converted to arable lands. Because forest resources are very few and further decreasing, people are forced to use animal dung as a fuel wood substitute; organic matter is thus not brought back to the soil but used for other purpose (Ludi, 2002).

Farmers‟ decisions to preserve natural resources generally and land and water particularly are mainly determined by their awareness of the problems and perceived benefits of conservation (Aklilu& Giraf, 2004). The responses, dedication and responsibilities required for the success of formulation of suitable resource management policies depend on insight of the problem by small holder farmer (Ayalneh, 2003).

The assumption that farmers have a poor perception of erosion problems and limited conservation knowledge has contributed to the external development of conservation technologies. Nonetheless, little confirmation exists in the literature that farmers‟ decision is any more or less rational than recommendations based on professional advice (Aklilu, 2006). Thus, erosion and conservation cannot be understood without studying how people use the land and the reasoning that guides their decision about land use (Aklilu, 2006).

Like other parts of the country population pressure and overgrazing are identified as the main factors of land degradation presently observed in the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State. Excessive deforestation often as function of growing demand for fuel wood and cultivation land have had another equally significant implication on the soil erosion, land degradation and disturbance in hydrologic regime (RCS, 2003).

The understanding of the multiplicity nature of the problem of land degradation is very crucial and a prerequisite to take any meaningful measure to control, or to minimize its effect, (Leakemariam, 2000).

Majority of the research works that have been done on the issue related to farmers perception of land degradation focuses either at national level or specific areas particularly in the Northern part of the country. And the so far identified socio-economic and cultural factors by other researchers in other case areas may be different from the study area under consideration. Because it is obvious that people in different societies or cultural groups have different cultural elements, and perceptions and other social value and belief system. In this regard, one of the main reasons for conducting of this research in Doyogena woreda is that to identify these specific socio-economic and cultural factors that may be more important to the study areas.

Therefore, the main focus of this research is to evaluate farmers‟ perception of the land degradation and management practices. Secondly, to analyze some of the factors (age, education and household size) that determine farmer‟s perception towards land degradation and management practices. Thirdly, to determine the level of use of land management practices. Finally to identify the source of information for farmers in sustainable land management practices.

1.3 Objective of the Study The general objective of this study is to evaluate farmers‟ perceptions of land degradation processes and the existing conservation measures in Doyogena Woreda, Southern Ethiopia.

1.3.1 Specific objective The specific objectives of the study are:  to describe the existing socioeconomic factors causing decline in soil fertility,  to assess farmers‟ perception of land degradation and its impact on productivity,  to identify the traditional practices used by households to control soil erosion, enhance soil fertility, and increase crop and livestock productivity.  to assess level of farms‟ perception about of the existing soil and water conservation measures and identifies constraints to adaptation

1.4 Research Questions . What are the socio-economic characteristics of small scale farmers in study area? . What factors causes land degradation in the study area? . How do farmers perceive land degradation and its impact on land productivity? . What traditional practices are employed by farmers to control land degradation and to improve productivity?

1.5 Significance of the Study

While, the study was carried out for Academic purpose and it is limited to a single Woreda specifically in three kebele, the findings shall contribute deepen the perception of farmers‟ towards land degradation and management practices in general and the study area in particular. Therefore the outcomes of the study will be used in formulating future environmental policies

and strategies at the local level. As well as it will be used to have a better understanding of the kind of training which is required for farmers in the area. Above all the research is the first of its kind in the study area. So that it may be used to inducement for further research to refine the conceptual and methodology of the present study.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study was to evaluate farmers‟ perceptions of land degradation (cause & consequence) and the existing traditional conservation measures at local level. In addition, to this the studies try to show further explanations on one of the single factor of land degradation (soil degradation) in study area. There are a number of factors that affects farmers‟ perception towards land degradation and management. It constitutes the demographic, socio-economic, cultural and psychological factors. Even though, those factors are several in number they are interrelated and multiple. The next list of determining factors such as age; educational status and household size were taken into account to the sake of these studies. This was due to the time and budget constraints for further study of the rest of the factors. Finally the study is restricted to small geographical area, i.e. a single Woreda within which only three farmers‟ kebeles were surveyed in Doyogena woreda, Kambata Tembaro Zone of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People‟s Region.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES

2.1 Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

2.1.1 Meaning of Land Degradation Land degradation has been defined in several ways. Some of the definitions are very general and include all types of processes leading to a negative change in productivity of land under all types of uses. It is sometimes taken as synonymous with soil degradation. Strictly speaking, land degradation is more than the degradation of the soil and soil degradation is just an aspect of land degradation; in agrarian countries such as Ethiopia (Woldamlak, 2003).

Land degradation is a broad, composite, and value-laden term that is complex to define but generally refers to the loss or decline of biological and/or economic production. It is a concept in which the value of biophysical environment is affected by one or more combination of human- induced processes acting upon the land (Eswaran, 2001).

Soil degradation is a narrower term and a component of land degradation. It refers to a process that lowers the soils current and/or potential capacity to produce goods and services. Soil erosion is the wearing a way of land surface by the action of water or wind. Six specific processes are recognized as the main contributors to soil degradation: water erosion, wind erosion, water logging, excess salts, chemical degradation, biological degradation and physical degradation (MoARD, 2007).

Land degradation refers to the process of soil degradation through water erosion and loss of vegetative cover, leading to reduced productivity of the land in the densely settled or exploitatively used regions of Ethiopia (Daniel, 2000). Most cost estimates of land degradation do not distinguish between soil erosion, soil degradation and land degradation and many studies have misused soil degradation and soil erosion to be synonymous with land degradation. Because these studies neglect the impact of lost vegetation, chemical and/or biological soil degradation and other processes (where they exist), their results only partially estimate the cost-

and hence greatly obscure the true cost of land degradation. Understanding the contribution of each component of degradation to the total cost of land degradation is vital, not only for appreciating the type and degree of the problem but also for appropriate policy interventions (MoARD, 2007).

One more conceptual issue is related to aggregating or scaling up the cost of land degradation. On-site costs of land degradation are always estimated on a small scale, such as the plot, farm, or village and then scaled up to the farming system, regional or national level (MoARD, 2007). In the land degradation-conservation discourse, three major perspectives have recently emerged: classic, populist and neo-liberal (Woldamlak, 2003).

Based on the classical approach, the problem of land degradation can be overcome by technocratic solutions, thus tending to ignore the socioeconomic side of the problem. On the other extreme, the populist approach puts emphasis on the role of local knowledge and land management practices and underscores the importance of stakeholders‟ participation in conservation activities (Ibid).

In this perspective, the link between poverty and land degradation is critical; policy formulation and action towards conservation should base itself on the local peoples‟ knowledge and land use practices. Taking the middle ground position, the neo-liberal approach draws from both the classic and the populist approaches. It acknowledges the classic approach in its view that technology is available to control land degradation that can be adopted or adapted wherever and whenever required (Ibid).

Acknowledging the populist view, the neo-liberal approach puts emphasis on the empowerment of people for their adoption of the technologies at the farm level. In other ways, the argument on major causes of land degradation incorporated in this neo-liberal view is centered on institutional failures and lack of adequate incentives for the adoption/adoption of conservation technologies among land users (Ibid).

2.1.2 Problem of Land Degradation in Ethiopia

Land degradation including desertification and deforestation occurs in worldwide with its most severe negative implication on the rural communities. The problem is more diverse in Africa; where 43% of the land is affected by land degradation ranging from moderately to severely due to human activities and it threats millions of people by starvation. Annually $42 billion income and 6 million hectare of land are lost globally due to land degradation and decline in agricultural production .The degradation is caused by soil erosion, loss of soil fertility and soil cover and chemical pollution. Furthermore, over cultivation, overgrazing, and deforestation are the underlying causes of land degradation in rural areas (UNDP, 2004).

Mostly, Land degradation which manifested in the form of soil erosion, soil nutrient depletion and soil moisture stress is a major challenge facing many East African countries. In the last several decades one of the most challenging issues Ethiopia as one of East African countries, has faced is the problem of land degradation. The problem has been highly pronounced in the highland parts of the country. However, there is still a belief that the high lands are not as such degraded, rather they have adequate fauna and flora, dependable soil and climatic condition which is suitable to gain high level of agricultural production. In the long run the highlands would become one of the most degraded areas in sub-Saharan African, if it is not in worldwide (Terrefe, 2002).

Moreover, Ethiopia is losing 1.5 to 2, billion tons of top soil annually which is equivalent to a monetary value of US $1to2 billion per year by erosion. If this soil is conserved, it could have produced 1to1.5 million tons of grain that can be added to the country‟s harvest. Furthermore the country losses around, 4mm depth of soil as estimated per year exceeding the rate of soil formation in Africa which is more than 0.25 mm annually. If this loss of soil depth continued without taking any measures to conserve it, Ethiopia could losses almost all of its top soil with 100 to 150 years (Girma 2001).

Not only this, according to EPA, state of environmental report in (2003), in Ethiopia, in the lands which is not covered by vegetation and where there is no soil conservation practice nearly 400

tons of fertile soil is lost per hectare annually. Such kind of land degradation has been resulted in the decline of agricultural yield and to a complete loss in the productive capacity of the land and death of people due to famine and starvation in the high lands of country where 95% of crop cultivation practiced. It has also serious effect on social and economic development of the country due to the fact that development activities totally rely on its land resources (Nurhussen, 2002).

Furthermore, as estimated the amount of soil the country losses as a result of water and wind erosion reaches 1.5 to 1.9 billion tons per year. Out of this total loss 45% of soil degradation occurs in cultivated land and 21% occurs on overgrazed rangeland (EPA, 2003).

Generally this severe land degradation is a direct outcome of unwise agricultural activities in the past. Especially soil erosion taken as one of the major of all environmental degradation processes that severely threaten the survival of life in Ethiopian high lands (Zelealem, 2007).

2.2. Causes of Land Degradation In eastern Africa the cause of land degradation can be grouped in to proximate and underlying causes. The proximate causes are cultivation of steep slopes, repeated cultivation of land, clearing of forests or wood lands, use of dung and crop residues, decline fallow period and limited application of organic fertilizers .These cause of land degradation are the indicator of inappropriate land management practices. The underlying cause of land degradation includes population pressure, poverty and high costs of fertilizers (B.Gebremedin, 2004). In Ethiopia both causes are the reason for land degradation

2.2.1 Wood land clearing In the rural area clearing of forest take place in order to have cultivable land for increasing rural population. This conversion of forestland to cropland accelerates soil erosion by wind and running water. The change in land use can also change the hydrological run off by declining infiltration and increasing surface run off (Grima, 2001, Berry, 2003).

2.2.2 Use of dung and crop residues Loss of soil fertility also occurs when organic content of the soil is low due to wide spread uses of animal dung and crop residues for domestic fuel consumption than it is left on the land as

manure for the soil. As fuel wood supply decline grows worse, rural communities have to collect fuel wood from very far distance and this result in substitution of fuel wood by animal dung and crop residues. Especially, in intensively cultivated rural areas and in the drought prone degraded areas of the North and the East animal dung almost has already replaced fuel wood as a main house hold energy source (Dainel, 1990).

2.2.3 Natural Conditions The physical environmental conditions of Ethiopia, which causes land degradation, include rainfall variability from year to year and place to place, particularly in the drier parts of the highlands. The sequence of drier years with reduced vegetation cover followed by wetter years with heavy rainfall is favorable to high levels of soil loss. Additionally, the physical landscape of the Ethiopian Highlands with gorges, steep slopes and other topographic barriers restricts the development of effective internal marketing systems in some areas (Berry, 2003).

2.2.4 Population Growth In Ethiopia high rate of population growth is inversely related with the pattern of agricultural production, which is still essentially small holder relying on expanding the farmland, often into marginal land, rather than adopting intensification techniques. There is also still a strong tendency to hold wealth as livestock, often cattle, further impacting grazing land (Ibid).

2.2.4 Land Ownership Ethiopia has seen a number of changes in land ownership, which continue to provide uncertainty to the farmer and to rural communities. The traditional feudal system was followed by a communal form of government ownership and while policies now have changed, that land owners allowed to pass user right to legal heirs at the regional and local level (Ibid).

2.2.5 Rural Markets An important part of moving to sustainable land management is the development of an appropriate rural infrastructure to encourage alternative livelihoods and to develop local and regional markets. This infrastructure is lacking in Ethiopia greatly restricting the flow of economic goods and agricultural production from areas of surplus to areas of deficit (Ibid).

2.2.6 Backward Agricultural Technology As illustrated above most of agriculture in Ethiopia is still low technology and is inadequately equipped to deal with drought and famine. Fertilizers because of cost or availability factors are not in general use and traditional organic fertilizer is increasingly being used as fuel. A modest transformation in technology is likely to be an important component of successful sustainable agriculture (Berry, 2003).

2.2.7 Lack of awareness for the environment Lack of environmental awareness concerning the linkage between environment and development in general, weak participation of the people and community based organization in environmental management activities are some of the environmental challenges of Ethiopia face now days. In addition poor agricultural practices together with lack of awareness and consciousness contribute a lot to the degradation of natural resources such as destruction of forests, degradation of soil and water resources. (Girma, 2001)

2.3 Consequences of Land Degradation Land degradation has already resulted in noticeable and wide ranging effects in the Ethiopian community-both rural and urban. According to Aggrey-Mensah, quoted in (Aklilu, 2001) has categorized such effects into non-economic and economic. The effects of land degradation on the individual, the community or the nation as a whole, are hard to quantify owing to the length of time over which degradation takes place (Aklilu, 2001). a) Non-Economic Consequences Some of the effects of land degradation which could be categorized as non-quantifiable (or very hard to quantify) include (Aklilu, 2001):- 1. Loss in Water Resource Due to depletion of forests and the resultant increase in runoff, the storage of water has greatly diminished and a large number of water points for human and animal use have dried up. 2. Loss in Livestock Production Land degradation leads to decrease both in the quality and number of livestock; any change in livestock sectors has tremendous effects on the living standards of the rural people as a whole: - First, in places where the wheel has not yet penetrated, animal transport still provides a reliable and well suited mode of transport. Second, oxen are extensively used for traction power.

3. Unemployment and Out-Migration Where agricultural and livestock production reach very low levels are a result of reduced cultural land yields, a situation will be created where there is insufficient land leading to shrinkage of the average farm size which, in turn, creates a disguised unemployment. Ethiopia may stand number one in Africa (perhaps in the world) to witness the power of land degradation depriving people out of their homes. In 1984/85 more than half a million people were forced to leave their homes, mainly in the highly eroded northern regions in the southwestern parts which are less degraded so far. 4. Long Walking Distance Plots have been abandoned and given up grazing owing to the persistent erosion. It is reported that “about 20,000 to 30,000 hectares of land in the highlands are abandoned each year because cropping can no longer be supported by the soil” (Berhanu, 1998 as quoted in Aklilu, 2001). The consequence is the use of marginal lands on steep slopes or relatively unsuitable soils. 5. Shortage of Food-Malnutrition Dung is by and large the most readily available source of energy for cooking in rural Ethiopia. Its value as fuel is more appreciated and recognized than its use as fertilizers. It has been estimated that the burning of dung for fuel instead of using it as fertilizers causes an annual reduction in grain production by some 550,000 tons (Mekurai, 2005). This in turn leads to shortage of food and malnutrition. 6. Lack of Fire Wood and Building Materials Over much of northern Ethiopia, most of the land is absolutely treeless, so much so that in some rural areas only stones are used for building houses, and cow dung for fuel, wood, even for plows and other implements, is very scarce, and farmers have to walk long distances into the more remote valleys to get it‟ (Mesfin, 1984 quoted in Aklilu, 2001). b) Economic Consequences The average soil loss rate for the whole country was estimated at be 12 tons per annum, while the absolute total yearly loss was estimated at 1.5 billion tons (Muluneh, 2001). Soil erosion in 1990 has cost the nation an annual loss of grain production estimated at about 40,000 tons. The permanent in the values of the country‟s soil resources caused by erosion in 1990 was estimated to be Birr 59 million (EPA, 1997).

Livestock plays a number of vital roles in the rural and national economy, but according to one estimate, some 2 million hectares of pasture land will have been destroyed by soil erosion between 1985 and 1995. Land degradation is estimated to have resulted in an annual loss of livestock production in 1990 equivalent to 1.1 million tropical livestock units (TLUs), and, unless arrested, will rise to 2.0 million TLUs or to 10 percent of the current national cattle herd by 2010 (MoARD, 2007)

2.4 Farmers’ Perception of Land Degradation Studies on perceptions of environmental matters have become important as they shed more insights into areas of conflict between scientists and local communities, and how these differences in perception help or hinder efforts in environmental management. Differences in perception can also occur among people living in the same location, sharing the same resources. It is equally important to understand the basis for these differences and how they influence the use of natural resources (Kikula, 1994).

According to Hurni (1985), "low perception of local peasants" about the problem of land degradation is a problem that needs to be circumvented for soil water conservation efforts in the Ethiopia. On the other hand, in his study in southern Ethiopia, Belay (1992) concluded that farmers have a good perception of the problem of soil erosion, but a "wrong perception of topsoil depth" (farmers thought that it was deeper than it actually was). Berry (2003) also believed that there has been some level of awareness of the problem of land degradation throughout the country and, so, a range of traditional conservation measures was in place.

A study of Ethiopian farmers' attitudes to land degradation and conservation by Admassie and Gebre (2002) indicated that farmers were aware of the problems of land degradation. Erosion was identified as the main cause of land degradation, followed by drought, deforestation, rainfall, and improper farming practices.

According to the farmers, the effects of land degradation were famine, drought, reduced yield, and poverty. Soil and water conservation activities undertaken by farmers prior to the food-for- work projects were mainly construction of drainage canals and ditches as well as soil and stone bands. Farmers also practiced following, mulching and crop rotation. Among the food-for-work

activities, soil bunds, hillside terraces, reforestation, and stone bands were considered by farmers to be the most effective for soil and water conservation. In the Gunono area of Wolayita, 80 % of the farmers were of the opinion that soil bounds increase yields, 7 % responded that there is no change, 6 % did not know, and 7 % did not construct bounds or terraces at all (Gebre, 2002).

Farmers' perceptions and attitudes can have a major relevance to land management and land use. Researchers argue that local people's perception of environment, their interests and priorities constrain their action to prevent land degradation (Chambers, 1993). By its nature, soil degradation is often a very slow and long term process and may be almost invisible. Farmers thus may not observe ongoing erosion or nutrient depletion problems, or perceive them as immediate problems.

According to Woldamlak (2003) farmers were describing the indicators of soil erosion: gully/rill formation, exposed underground rocks, landslides, washes away of crops, shallowing of soils and situations of the soil. These are soil traits that appear in a much later stage of soil degradation, after the soil organic matter and nutrients in the soil are removed. Similarly farmers‟ indicators of soil fertility decline include stunted crops, yellowing of crops, weed infestation, and change of soil color to red or gray, traits that appear in the later phase of soil fertility decline. This suggests the process is in its obscure nature, and hence, incomprehensible for one without the basic skills, it is recognized only after reaching some threshold levels, a point where it is usually difficult for the subsistence farmers to arrest it with their meager resources and technical capabilities. If farmers respond to soil erosion at this stage, the probability of reversing the fertility status to its earlier value would be difficult.

Therefore, the recognition of the problem as early as possible by the recourse user or managers is very essential for taking effective remedial as well as preventive measures. Unless the land managers perceive soil degradation as a major determinant of decreasing crop yields the trend will certainly not be reversed by only external body efforts. In some cases, farmers do accurately perceive land degradation as a problem, but they may not be induced to act to reverse it. They may attribute the problem to natural or divine causes beyond their control. They may understand that the problem is affected by their own actions, although the alternatives that they are aware of

to address the problem may be too costly relative to the perceived near term benefits. The benefits of larger-term practices like terracing may not be recognized within short time and in some cases; conservation measures reduce farmers' yields in the near term by reducing cropped area or harboring pests (Herweg & Ludi, 1999). These problems are compounded if farmers discount the future heavily as a result of poverty and/or credit constraints (Holden & Shiferaw et. al, 2001).

2.5 Land Management Practices Traditionally through time, farmers have developed different land management practices of their own. With those practices, the farmers are able to sustain their production for centuries. Until now, those technologies are playing a significant role in the production of subsistence agriculture. Among the traditional land management techniques that have been practiced by Ethiopian farmers, the major ones include: plowing of narrow ditches on sloping fields to control run-off, farmland terraces, traditional ditches and furrows, contour plowing, fallowing, crop rotation, farm yard manure and agro-forestry (Betru,2003).

Large-scale efforts for implementing natural resource conservation and development programs had taken place to reverse the problem of land degradation in Ethiopia starting from the1970s. The programs mainly focused on soil and water conservation and rehabilitation of degraded land through building physical structures and a forestation measures (Alemneh, 2003; Woldamlak, 2003; Aklilu, 2006). These projects were supported by development food aid and the first food for work-supported soil and water conservation activities were started in Ethiopia in 1971 and that was in Tigray. Next to that in 1972, it was started in Wollo; these activities were supported by U.S. food under PL 480 project to carry out a forestation, and construction of low cost rural roads and small water projects. Then it was replaced by food for work projects that were funded by World Food Program (WFP) in 1974, commenced primarily due to drought and famine of 1973/74. The main activities under those projects were reforestation and soil and water conservation in the drought prone areas of the country (Betru, 2003).

Then after the relatively small-scale and fragmented food for work projects of WFP were consolidated in 1980 under one support known as rehabilitation of forest, grazing and agricultural lands. That project marked the beginning of large-scale soil and water conservation

program in Ethiopia. Starting from that time, watershed or catchments approach became the strategy of government. That has been government‟s conservation strategy for about one and a half decades. The major elements of the soil conservation activities were a range of physical structures such as farmland and hillside terracing, cutoff drains and waterways, micro-basins, check dams, water harvesting, structure like pond and farm dams, spring development, reforestation, area closure and management and gully rehabilitation. At the beginning it was carried out in 19 catchments, nevertheless by 1990, it was scaled up to 117 catchments with a total area of 3.5 million hectares (Betru, 2003).

However, it is widely recognized that the projects had little success in meeting their objectives; and land degradation has continued to be the most serious environmental problem especially in the highland Ethiopia. Among others, the top-down nature of conservation approaches in the development and transfer of technologies considerably contributes to the ineffectiveness of the strategies and the failure of the projects (Almneh, 2003, Woldamlak, 2003; Aklilu 2006). Moreover, various socio-economic, cultural and political constraints, improper planning; inadequate resource allocation; and recurrent drought were also known to dilute much of the efforts, (Yeraswork, 2000; Woldamlak, 2003; Alemneh 2003; Alemayehu 2006). Alemeneh, (2003) in his work identified the following four major problems of large- scale soil conservation efforts of the 1970s and 80s irrespective of some important ecological benefits drawn from the projects: “First, these structural conservation measures were found to be costly; Second, farmers were reluctant to adopt such labor-intensive measures (without getting tangible benefits in terms of food and income).Third there was little systematic effort made to incorporate indigenous soil and water conservation techniques and not to consider the loss of farm land for conservation. Finally there was no obvious relationship between these large investments on land rehabilitation on one hand and improvement in the food security and income of farmers on the other.”

The efforts to tackle the problem of land degradation starting from the 1970s have been significant. The largest of all the efforts was the one that has been undertaken between 1976 and 1988 with international communities‟ support, particularly WFP. During that period, 800,000 km of soil and stone bunds and 600,000 km of terraces were installed. Moreover, 500 million tree

seedlings were planted, 100,000 hectare of degraded lands were closed for natural regeneration and check dams were constructed along gullies of tens of thousands of kilometers long (Eyasu,2002; Woldeamlak, 2003). These conservation and rehabilitation works were undertaken on only 7% of the total land area that needs treatment and with that rate it was estimated that treating all the remaining could take seven decades (Woldeamlak, 2003). Moreover, the achievements of the intervention were at the end evaluated to be ineffective, insufficient and unsustainable (Woldeamlak, 2003).

2.6 Factors that Determine Farmers’ Perception towards Land Degradation and Management Practices People perceptions, whether narrow or broad in scope, shape the atmospheres on which environmental struggle is resolved. Therefore, understanding how people consider and perceive environmental issues is one of the areas needed in policy formulation with regard to environmental issues. Public understanding of the general environment-population, related issues is crucial to focus of successful conservation efforts (Karen et al., 1995).

The farmers‟ perception of the problems of land degradation is determined by a number of socioeconomic and biophysical factors. The factors include access to information, education, and age, household size, resource endowment, farming practices, productivity, farm-characteristics and distance from home to farm land (Giraff & Franzel, 1999).

Nigatu and Parihk (1999) state that identifying and analyzing the factors that influence farmers‟ perception is the key step to facilitate the development and transfer of appropriate technologies. The attitude has been defined as the predisposition to feel, think or act in a particular way with some degree of consistency (Fakoya, and et al., 2002). The way people hold the environmental resources and systems will in the long run, determine their attitude towards environmental changes and action (Adekoy, 1997).

Farmers‟ decisions to conserve natural resources generally and land particularly are largely determined by their knowledge of the problems and perceived benefits of conservation (Aklilu and Giraff, 2004). There are many demographic and socioeconomic factors that determine farmers‟ awareness and attitude towards land degradation and management. Among the factors the focus of this study is on age, educational background and access to information.

2.6.1 The effect of Age, Educational status and Access to Information on land degradation and land management practices

The effect of age of the farmer on conservation decision may be either negative or positive (Blaikie and Brook, 1987). Older age often associated with long years of farming experience could positively influence conservation decisions. In contrast, younger farmers with longer planning horizons are likely to invest more in conservation (Aklilu, 2006).

In some studies negative correlation between age and perception towards environment is observed. For instance, according to the study conducted by Torgler and et. al. (2005), older people are found to be more risk averters than the younger ones. On the other hand, international institute for environment and development indicated that in Tanzania there is a positive attitude towards environmental issues at the younger and older age (Flinton, 2003).

The literacy status of farmers is useful to know their perception about the current situation of environmental problems. Education level of farmers has a great impact on the general awareness of the adverse effects of environmental degradation (Shibru, 2003). Education increases a person‟s awareness of his environment and one‟s ability to acquire and process information about his environment and to detect changes in it. It also enhances one‟s ability to identify alternatives and to assess and compare the benefits and cost associated with each of the alternatives, possibly under different states of nature (Jannsson, 2009).

Education, also in general increases the facility and speed by which new skills and techniques can be learned and new alternatives, when judged desirable and can be adopted and

implemented. Thus, other things being equal, it is eminently reasonable to expect that education will enhance the probability of adopting a new, presumably superior, technology (Ibid).

Exposure to education can increase the farmers‟ management capacity and reflect a better understanding of the benefits and constraints of soil conservation. Also, education increases the capacity and ability to obtain and apply relevant information concerning the use of land conservation practices (Morgan, 1995). However, sometimes it is not the “book literacy” that may be important in the farmer‟s adoption decision, but what Hagman, Chuma and Gundani (1997) referred to as “land literacy” Thus, authors found in Southern Zimbabwe that those farmers who understood the dynamics of their environment were more effective in their soil conservation and water management strategies.

Studies by Ervin and Ervin (1982) in Monrce country, Missouri, USA, indicated that the number of conservation practices applied by farmers was significantly influenced by the two major factors; education and perception of the degree of erosion problem. In fact, the former may influence very much the later. Similar results were obtained by Demeke (2001) in a study of the factors that influenced the adoption of soil conservation practices in Ethiopia.

Households with better education are expected to be more aware of new technologies and thus more likely to adopt them. The impacts of education on land management practices are mixed, but with education generally favoring land investments and improved land management practices (Pender and Gebremedhin, 2004).

Access to information (through media or extension services) is an important variable that shape farmers perception of land degradation problem. The farmers who had a radio (who often listen to) were more aware of land degradation problems than those who did not.

Jamison and Lawrence (2002) indicated that information provision through extension channels increased farmers‟ awareness of land degradation problems and the adoption of composting techniques as land management option. The numbers of extension workers with experience of land conservation, the access of the farmers to extension staff and the perceived relevance of

their recommendations will influence whether an extension service is successful or ineffective. In western Kenya, access to information on land management technologies strongly determines the adoption of technologies than many other factors commonly considered important, such as the gender of the household head, household wealth, farm size, or participation in local organizations (Benin, S. and eat. al., 2002).

In their national sample, Deininger et al. (2003) found that access to agricultural extension (within the Woreda) was positively associated with farmers‟ investments in planting trees and especially in constructing terraces. Contrary to this in Tigray, Pender and Gebremedhin (2004) found that contact with agricultural extension agents had statistically insignificant impacts on farmers‟ land investments, annual land management practices, and use of inputs.

CHAPTER THREE

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the Study Area

3.1.1 Location Doyogena is one of the seven words in KambataTambaro Zone. It shares boundaries with Hadiya zone in the North and West, Angecha woreda in the North East, Kachabira woreda in the South. The woreda is situated at a latitudinal and longitudinal rage of 7015‟ 00‟‟ N - 70 31‟ 00‟‟ N and 370 44‟ 00‟‟E - 370 53‟ 00‟‟E respectively (map 3.1.). In terms of administration, Doyogena Woreda is sub-divided into 13 rural and 2 urban kebeles. Its main town, Doyogena is located at about 259 Kms South West of Addis Ababa and 171 Kms Northwest from Hawassa (the capital city of south nation, nationalities and people region) and 67 Kms from the zonal capital, Durame to the Northwest direction. (Doyogena woreda transport office, 2013).

Fig. 3.1: location Map of study Area (Source: Ethio-GIS)

3.1.2 Topography

The nature of topography of a particular geographic entity has multi-dimensional implications upon the development of physical infrastructure, human way of life, the type of production of crops, the land use conditions and the type of flora and fauna exists. The relief of the study area is characterized by some plain, plateau, rugged and ridge terrain, which are generally high lands. The elevation ranges seem 1900m to 2800m above sea level; the highest place in the study area is Gomorra hill which is approximately 2800m peak. The slopes of the study area are categorized as gently sloping, moderately sloping and steep slope. Therefore, the majority of land in study kebeles is moderately sloping slope (Doyogena Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office Report, 2013).

3.1.3 Soil The wide diversity in climate, topography and vegetation cover in the study area has given rise to marked variations in soils, even within a relatively small area. No detailed soil surveys are being carried out in Doyogena woreda. However, according to the woreda officials report of ( 2013 ), and households‟ field observation, there are three types of soils. These are, clay soil (34.6%) covers five and half kebeles of the study area, which is followed by Vertisols (Merere) (33.1%) in four and half kebeles which characterized by its vertic nature and water logging property. This soil is too hard when dry and too heavy when wet. This soil has two classes: tikur merere which is black vertic soil and keyi merere which is red vertic soil. Tikur merere is highly vertical and also water logging is higher than keyi Merere. Gurracha (Mollisols) is a dark top soil with high organic matter content. This soil is more fertile and suitable for almost all the crops (Erkossa and Ayele, 2003). The third type of soil is loam soil (32.3%) that covers five kebeles. It is the most fertile and productive soil.

3.1.4 Climate According in to Doyogena woreda Agricultural and rural development office report 2013, the climate of the study area is a typical of moist dega and woina degaas the Ethiopian agro ecological zone. The annual average minimum and maximum temperature of the study area is 10ºc and 16 ºc respectively. Its mean annual temperature is about 15.5ºc. The total annual rainfall of the study area ranges between 1200-1600mm.There is four specific rain seasons. The first rain

season from February to May (Galata chooussana (in kembatgna) or Belg in Amharic). The second rain season from June to August (matossana (in kembatgna) or Kermit in Amharic). The third rainy season when the rain became rare and unpredictable in September and November (djabeltchoussana in kembatgna) and the fourth one is a dry season in December and January (aguissana in kembatgna).

3.1.5 Vegetation Cover The study area is an old history of land use with high erosion damages, especially with increasing slope. As the remnants of tree species (scattered here and there) despite the area has once been covered by dense forest. However, currently the vegetation cover has been removed due to expansion of agricultural land and rapidly growing population , and replaced by cultivation fields and plantation of exotic species such as eucalyptus globules (Nachbahirzafi), eucalyptus camaldulensus (Kay bahirzafi), Juniperus procera (Faranjitid), Gravilearobusta; and to some extent indigenous trees species scattered here and there such as Cordiaafricana (Wanza), Hagenia abyssinica (Koso), Podocurpus gracilior (Zigba), Olea Africana (Weyira), Aningeria altissima (Kerero), Croton machrostachus (Bisana), Ficus vusta (Warika), Ficussur (Shola), Vernoniaamygdolinica (Grawa), Phytyolaalodicandera (Endod) , Ehretiaa byssinica (Korch), Euphorbia ampliphyla (Kulkual) , Arundodonax (Shimboko), Bamboo tree, Prunus Africana (Habashatid), Euphorbia tirucalli (Kinchib) and others in dega and woina dega parts. (Doyogena Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office Report, 2013).

3.1.6 Population Doyogena woreda has an estimated total population of 93,265 of whom 49% were males and 51% were females. Out of this, the number of household heads is 10,226 (CSA, 2007).

3.1.7 Crop Production: The bimodal type of rainfall gives a wide opportunity for the study area to produce crops and use the same land twice a year (Belg and Keremit). However, Keremit (summer) is the main growing season during which most of the total cultivable land is cultivated. The major annual crops grown in the study area are cereals: wheat (Triticum), teff (Eragrosisteff), barely (HordeumVulgare) and in some extent maize (Zea Mays), pulses: haricot bean, bean and pea, root crops: potato, and perennial crops: enset (false banana). Wheat, potato, and enset are the most widely grown crops and they are the primary assets of the households in the study area.

3.1.8 Livestock Production: Farmers in the study area pursue mixed agriculture in which crops and livestock production is an important component. They are the secondary assets of the households and play an important role in crop production. Cattle, goats, sheep, horses, mules, and donkeys are the major type of livestock rearing in Doyogena Woreda. From the total livestock found in the study area cattle occupied the highest share of the livestock found in the study area.

3. 1.9 Agriculture and Land use System Agriculture is the major occupation of the people in the study area. The major crops grown in the study area include cereals (maize, sorghum, barley, wheat, tiff), pulses (beans, soybeans), and root crop (potatoes). A very small fraction of farmers produces vegetables or fruits. These crops are grown mainly in homestead gardens or where irrigation exists. Perennial crops such as enset, stimulants (coffee, chat) are also grown in considerable amounts. Livestock are also very important to agriculture in the Woreda.

Most of the farmers build their houses at the top of the slope. However, same family built their houses in the middle of the slope due to high population density. The enset plantation stands just behind the house in order to facilitate the transport of livestock waste which is essential for the fertility of plantation. Near to the house (garden) there are several plants, for instance maize, local cabbage, marrow, tobacco, coffee trees and traditional medicine plants. Below there are annual crop fields, where the reproduction of fertility is mainly based on the contribution of chemical fertilizers.

The woreda has an estimated population of 126,786 cattle, 27,488 sheep, 24,395 goats, 7839 horses, 15934 donkeys, 5820 miles and 78563 chickens. Donkeys are the most common pack animal. The availability of feed and water are serious constraints to livestock production in the Woreda. Communal grazing areas (same part of Woreda), private pastures and crop residues are the principal sources of feed.

3.2 Data Source and Methodology

3.2.1 Sampling Techniques: It was an important step for the researcher to determine the sample size of the household head to get the desired result. Depending up on the total the population size and total number of farmers‟ kebeles of the study area the most appropriate techniques of sampling design were employed. The selection of farmers‟ kebeles administrative unit and household head, the researcher used three steps. The first step was the selection of the desired number of the most vulnerable area to the land degradation in the study Woreda. In this case, among the existed 15 farmers kebeles, of which 3 were the most vulnerable to land degradation, namely: Wage beta- Heba, Sarara and Lemi-Suticho, were selected. (map3.1). The selection was based on contact to Woreda agricultural office experts. The next step was selection of the sample household heads which was obtained proportionally to these kebeles population size. The sample frame for each selected kebeles was prepared and the desired number of sample size was determined, and the sample is selected systematic way using the systematic sampling procedure to select a total of 129 sample households which were later interviewed using structured questionnaires (Appendices).

It is known that sample size depends on the variability of a population to be sampled and taking time, cost and accessibility. Given the relative homogeneity of the subsistence farmers in the study kebeles in terms of physical environmental factors and resource endowments, (5%) this number was considered maximum which could be handled effectively within the research time and budget. Table1 shows some details about the study kebeles. Sample frame developed by the following systematic sampling formula: Key: N= Total population K= Sampling interval n=Sampling size . Therefore K=N/n 2580/129 = 20 or K is 20

Table3.1 sample size of the study Study kebeles Total number Sample size by % Sample Sampling house hold of households household heads included heads (Every kth) Lemi-suticho 783 1.51 39 Sarara 725 1.39 36 20th Wagebeta-Heba 1072 2.09 54 Total 2580 5 129 Source: Own survey, 2013/14

3.2.2 Sources of Data and Methods of Collection Both primary and secondary data were generated by employing quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative methods involve the use of household survey while the qualitative methods used include: focus group discussion, key informant interview and direct personal observation.

Primary Data Collection

I. Household survey

Structured survey questionnaire was used to obtain information from selected samples of 129 households from three kebeles. In this survey, household demographic characteristics, household socio-economic characteristic, cause of land degradation, consequence of land degradation, soil erosion and land management practice were obtained. In order to conduct the household survey, 5 enumerators (3 from Wagebeta heba, 1 from Lemi-suticho and 1 from Sarara) were assigned in the data collection process. Data collectors were composed of teachers and development agents who have education background of diploma and they were oriented by the researcher before launching the survey to make them understand the purpose of the survey and to familiarize them with the questionnaires.

II. Key informant interviews

A key informant interview is particularly important in getting information pertinent to land management practices. Through such instrument, information regarding the views of experts from woreda agriculture and rural development office, officials of Non–government organizations (NGOS) working on environmental conservation, development agents (Das) kebeles administrators and community elders of the respective sample kebeles was collected.

III. Focus Group Discussion

The focus group discussion was used as one of the critical source of primary data in addition to the household surveys. It was carried out in the three sampled rural kebeles. Each focus group consisted of a minimum 5 and maximum 10 volunteers from the target population. The discussants were selected based on their equal status of social, intelligent and educational background in order to avoid bias. The researcher presented various guidelines, questions to the discussants to express their own perceptions and response regarding the research problem under investigation. This technique has enabled to explore what they know or think about the research problem that the questions would cover, and then to verify, confirm and add depth to the results of the household survey. IV. Personal observation Direct personal observation encompassed visit of cultivated and uncultivated land, topography, vegetation cover, settlement pattern and the overall aspect of land management practices of the study area. Thus the researcher‟s opinion based on his visit of the study area was included in analysis.

Secondary Data Sources The secondary data sources were collected from published and unpublished materials, which include books, journals, periodicals, scientific research works and office records

3.2.3 Methods of Data Analysis

The data gathered from the field was analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative data further arranged and structured into tabular form with frequency and percentage

and finally interpretation and discussion was made to get final result. Analyses of information obtained through interview with different groups of people (elders and Development Agents) and observation on land degradation problem and management practices were mostly in qualitative form. The information gathered through these instruments was used to support the quantitative data analysis. The Chi-square test was employed to identify possible associations between each independent variable such as age, sex, educational background, household size and the dependent variable (perception) within the study area. The significance is determined at P-values less than 0.05 at 95% confidence level. If P-value greater than 0.05 shows that there is no a significant association between two variables.

CHAPTER FOUR

Data Analysis, Presentation and Interpretation

4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

Sex and Age of the respondents

According, in to Table 4.1 about 75.2% of the respondents‟ age range between 15-64 years, whereas the remaining 24.8% are above >65 years old. Similarly, based on the above table 4.1 the majority of the respondents were male (93.8%), whereas, female household heads constituted only about (7%) of the total sampled population. This clearly showed that a good number of respondents are at a working age or economically active age group.

Household size The distribution of respondents‟ household size was determined based on the number of people per household sampled population. Accordingly the household family size constituted 1-3 (11.6%), 4-6 (20.6%), 7-9 (49.6%) and 10-12 (18.6%) respectively. From this, it is possible to learn that about half (49.6%) of the respondents have a family size of 7-9, which in turn indicates high population number in the study area (see table 4.1).

Education

About 80% the sample respondent cannot read and write, whereas about 37 (28.7%) of the respondents reported that they can read and write. The remaining 14(10.9%) and 9(0.8%) have attended secondary school, and above grade ten respectively. This indicate that farming in the study area is more practiced by illiterate household heads, which might have an adverse contribution in the adoption of conventional soil management practice and in-depth understanding of land degradation and related phenomena .

Land holding Size of the Respondents According to table 4.1, almost all of the respondents 128 (99.2%) have their own land. of the total only 1 (0.8%) of the respondents is rent their land to other farmers. As reported by farmers it is because they rent their limited amount of land to fulfill their basic needs.

The result also shows that the average land holding size per household was 0.5-1ha. But more than half of them have holdings less than 0.5 hectares (table 4.1). Moreover, the land is fragmented into a number of small separate plots. Farmers‟ responses also revealed the existing land shortage.

Out of 129 total interviewed farmers, 84.6 percent of them reported that their present land holdings are too small compared to the land needs of the household and they are not in a position to inherit the land to their children. The Remaining 15.4% respondents‟ reported that the present land holding size is just enough compared to their family size.

Off-farm activities

Cash income for household financial requirements is mainly generated from the sale of livestock and crop sale. A limited number of households generate off-farm income. For instance, only 19.4% of all the households surveyed were engaged in off-farm activities. Hence, in spite of the fact that agricultural land is under intense pressure (80.6%), lack of alternatives which helps to absorb the excess manpower and reduce the burden on the land would likely aggravate the problems of land degradation and nutrient loss on arable land could be more significant (Table 4.1). It is apparent from the foregoing observation that there is intense pressure on the village‟s land due to increasing family size (average family size 7-9), limited arable and grazing land, and insignificant employment opportunity. Limited arable land and rapid population growth have increased pressure on the forest and grazing land resources besides aggravating soil degradation via extended farming into steep and marginal areas, shortened fallow system, and tilling more frequently. As a result of such land clearing activities, which usually involve deforestation and burning of vegetative covers from steep lands, more and more land is exposed to different land degradation problem for instance; water erosion, soil fertility decline, deforestation and forest degradation. Such chain reactions of land degradation may lead to complete dry out of springs, desertification, etc. in the near future in the study area.

Table 4.1 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Respondents

Variables Categories Frequency Percentage

Sex of the Male 121 93.8 respondents Female 8 6.2 Age of the 0-14 - - respondents 15-64 97 75.2 >65 32 24.8 Household size of the 1-3 15 11.6 respondent 4-6 26 20.2 7-9 64 49.6 10-12 24 18.6 Education level of the Cannot read& write 77 59.7 respondents Reading &writing 37 28.7 Attended secondary level 14 10.9 Attended above grade 10 1 0.8 Own land Yes 128 99.2% No 1 0.8 Land size (Ha) <0.5hac 67 51.9 0.5hac-1.0hac 35 27.1 1.0hac-1.5hac 19 14.7 1.5hac-2.0hac 8 6.2 Off-farm activities Yes 25 19.4 No 104 80.6 Source: own survey, 2013/14

Livestock Most household heads have some livestock (table 4.2). Livestock is an integral part of the farming system in the study area. It contributes a lot to rural livelihood. Oxen provide draught power needed for the farming. Sheep, cows, goats and chicken are very important sources of cash and food. Similarly, donkeys, mules and horses are used to transport people and goods from place to place. Livestock ownership is also used as a measure of wealth status of households; hence social stigma is attached to the number of livestock owned regardless of economic value and the feed shortage. As learnt during field observation there is a serious shortage of animal feed in the study area. This was also strengthened during focus group discussion; Farmers

reported that feed shortage is currently the biggest obstacle to keeping livestock. In the “Kiremt” season, the livestock is dependent on heavily degraded (overgrazed) communal lands and crop residues collected in “bega” season. In the “bega” season, crop residues are the main feed. The Focus Group Discussants further reported that grazing areas on their farm land was decreasing. Table 4.2 Livestock Possession of Respondents

No Livestock type Number of livestock Number of household 1 Oxen 127 67 2 Caws 110 49 3 Goats 59 16 4 sheep 193 56 5 Chicken 243 59 6 Horses 21 21 7 Mules 14 14 8 Donkeys 6 6 Source: own survey, 2013/14

Distance between Home and Farm land It was found that distance between the farm lands and homestead is an important factor in the adoption behavior of soil and water conservation (Shiferaw and Holden, 1998). In the study area farmers reported that the distance from their home to farmland is near (58.9%), moderately (30.2%), far (8.5%) and very far (2.3%) (See table 4.3). The scattered and far away fields are one of the factors that discourage farmers from adoption of soil and water conservation measures. This was supported by the study of Holden and Shiferaw (2001) founded that some farmers undertake soil and water conservation work during the evening, making it difficult to go to the field that's located far from home. Table 4.3 Distance from home to farm land No Variable Freq % 1 Near 76 58.9 2 Moderate 36 30.2 3 Far 11 8.5 4 Very far 3 2.3 Source: own survey, 2013/14

4.2 Farmers’ Perception of the Causes of Land Degradation

Table 4.4 shows respondents‟ perception of the presence of land degradation on their farm land and the causes for these problems. The result indicates that the highest number of respondents were aware of the existence of land degradation in one or the other way. Thus, according to the respondents the followings are identified as the major causes of land degradation in the study area; steep slope (97.7%), human population pressure (96.1%) and soil erosion (96.9%). Similarly, many farmers‟ attributed it to (89.9%) deforestation, over cultivation (86.0%), lack of fertilizers (67.4%), overgrazing (61.2%), and poor farming practice (54.3%). Compared to others, planting eucalyptus tree and absence of crop rotation were understood by lesser number of respondents (33.3%), and (30.2%) respectively, as a cause of land degradation. This result clearly indicates that a good number of respondents in the study area Well aware of the cause of land degradation. Table 4.4 Farmers‟ perception of the Causes of Land Degradation Aware Not Aware No Cause of land degradation Freq % Freq % 1 plowing Steep slope 126 97.7 3 2.3 2 Human population pressure 124 96.1 5 3.9 3 Soil erosion 117 90.7 12 9.3 4 Deforestation 116 89.9 13 10.1 5 Over cultivation 111 86.0 18 14.0 6 Planting eucalyptus tree 43 33.3 86 66.7 7 Lack of fertilizers 87 67.4 42 32.6 8 Overgrazing 79 61.2 50 38.8 9 Poor farming practice 70 54.3 59 45.7 10 Absence of crop rotation 39 30.2 90 69.8 Source: own survey, 2013/14

4.2.1 Farmers Perception of the Consequence of Land Degradation As can be seen from table 4.5, the perception level of respondents towards the consequence of land degradation varies from variable to variable. The results indicate that all of the respondents were aware of the loss of agricultural productivity results from land degradation. Similarly, the majority of the respondents were aware of increases of the requirement of fertilizer (79.1%), difficulty of farming (79.8%) and loss in agricultural productivity (99.2%), and migration (59.7%) as the consequence of land degradation in study area. However, landlessness (36.4%), were not identified by most of the respondents as the consequence of land degradation. This clearly indicated that farmers in study area previewed that ongoing land degradation problem and it consequences. This supported by Admassie and Gebre (2002) farmers were aware of the problems of land degradation. Table 4.5 Farmers perception of the Consequence of land degradation Consequence of land degradation Aware Not aware Freq % Freq % Difficulty for farming 103 79.8 26 20.2 Increase of requirements of fertilizers 102 79.1 27 20.9 Loss of agricultural production 128 99.2 1 0.8 Poverty and economic back wardens 101 78.3 28 21.7 Landlessness 47 36.4 82 63.6 Migration 77 59.7 52 40.3 Source: own survey, 2013/14

4.2 Farmers’ Perception on Soil Degradation

As it shown in Table 4.6, Farmers have good acquaintance of identification of soil fertility based on their color. Accordingly, about 51.9% and 39.5% of the discussants reported that the color of soil on their farm is dark/ black and reddish respectively. Whereas11.6% and 2.3% of the respondents identified grayish to other soil color. They further described that dark brown soil is very fertile and provide high yield unlike the grayish and reddish soil. In addition to this the majority (67.4%) of sampled farmers reported that currently the fertility and much productivity of soil are declining (73.6%), (See table 4.3).

As pointed out in the preceding section, farmers perceived soil erosion as a problem of their farming. On top of this, it is understood that farmers are acquainted with soil erosion from observations of their surroundings, and accumulated experiences. Environment lends them with traditional knowledge that could be experienced through the passage of time and shared with each other that could either strengthen or weakens the farmer's practices. Table 4.6 Agricultural land and Productivity

No Variable Categories Freq %

1 source of labor used for farming 1. Family labor 118 91.5

2.Hired labor 7 5.4

3.Group labor 4 3.1

3 slope of farm land 1. Flat 5 3.9

2. Gently undulating 8 6.2

3. Moderately steeping 28 21.7

4. Steeply sloping 88 68.2

9 Soil color Grayish 15 11.6

Reddish 44 34.1

Dark/ black 67 51.9

Other 3 2.3

Source: own, survey2013/14

4.7 Respondent Perceived scores on different land suitability criteria by slope position

loss Soil Soil fertility Crop productio n

High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low

freq freq

Slop type Slop % type Slope freq % freq % freq % % freq % freq % freq % freq %

(in (in

Flat degree)3 8 6.2 29 22.5 92 71.3 73 56.6 48 37.2 8 6.2 86 66.7 36 27.9 7 5.4

Gently Gently undulatin g degree)6 77 59.7 34 26.4 18 14.0 58 45.0 39 30.2 32 24.8 24 18.6 78 60.5 27 20.9

Moderatel steeping y indegree) 18 73 56.6 42 32.6 14 10.9 26 20.2 43 33.3 60 46.5 24 18.6 78 60.5 27 20.9

in in

degree) Steep slope 25 105 81.4 21 16.3 3 2.3 22 17.1 38 29.5 69 53.5 9 7.0 52 40.3 68 52.7 N.B MacGreor (1957) Source: own, study 2013/14

As it was indicated in table 4.7 farmers‟ perception of land productivity and how it was affected by erosion due to slope; farmers were interrogated on what criteria they used to determine good soils. Farmers identify/classify fields based on certain critical criteria. In this study only three land suitability criteria were considered i.e. soil erosion status, level of soil fertility and crop yield production potential. In the study area most field holdings tended to stretch from the flat slope to very steep slope segments. Therefore farmers were in a position to express their perceptions for each slope position.

The majority of farmers perceived that steep slope; moderately steeping and gently undulating

slopes were landscape segments with high risk of soil erosion and low levels of soil fertility resulting in low crop production. Gentle undulating slopes clearly ranked fairly showing moderate yield potential. The farmers‟ description is in agreement with scientific knowledge that acknowledges effects of slope steepness on land productivity (Morgan, 1996). Other scientific experiments agree with farmers‟ observation (Daniels et al., 1985). The farmers‟ knowledge is also in agreement with findings by Steiner (1998) on farmers in Rwanda who associated soil suitability with slope position. Steeper slopes generally had shallower soils whereas on plateau and foot slopes fine textured soils dominated, implying soils of high fertility

Fig 4.3 Indicator of soil erosion on Farmers land Source: own, study 2013/14

Farmers in the study area also mentioned some similar indicators of soil fertility loss and existence of severe soil erosion with varying levels. The respondents further reported that they understood and related the existence of soil erosion on their plots to the development of gullies and rills in their farms as well as the truncated topsoil. And thus, 51%, 27%, 21% and21% of the farmers suggested, absence of fertile top soil, slope steepness, root exposure and rills and gully development respectively as the major indicators of the existence of soil erosion problem on their cultivated fields. The remaining 9% of respondent forwarded stoniness of soil as indicators of the presence of soil erosion on their farm land (see fig 4.3).

During focus group discussion in Lemi-suticho kebele an elderly farmer forwarded his long time experience/observation regarding the loss of soil fertility and declining of productivity: “The fertility of the land is dead now; you can see from the ground with your naked eye. Do you see what is going on in our farm land? Look at that mountainous farm land? Please? Is it Green? Covered by forest or different plantation? No, No, now it is useless land, but, never has been so before this land was highly productive, especially wheat, potato, barley and the area was covered by different indigenous forest, but to that all was changed due to expansion of farmland and high pressure of the populations as well as severe erosion rate. I harvest minimum of ten quintals from a piece of land only five years back. The trend was completely changed in these few years, a year back; I only harvested 2 and ½ quintals from the same piece of land after adding the same seed and nearly the same amount of fertilizers. Whenever it rains, the soil; the seeds, fertilizers and everything run away along with the flood. The land is highly steep slope area, it never holds water. The fertile part of the land is already gone. Being bored at this I have followed the land I had.‟‟.(See fig 4.1). Fig 4.1 Degraded lands in Lemi-Suticho near to „FTC‟

Source: Field photo, 2013/14

Among interviewed farmers in fig 4.5, 20.1%, 15.5% and 14% farmers attributed the causes for soil erosion as slope steepness, terms of land preparation for cropping and unceased cultivation

in steep slope areas, respectively. Fig 4.5 causes of soil erosion in study area

Source: field survey, 2013/14 As the study area is highly populated, absence of fallowing period and repeated preparation of the land for cropping makes the soil easier for soil erosion. This clearly provides support for the conclusion of Bekele and Holden (1998) who stated that vast areas of the highlands of Ethiopia could be classified as suffering from severe to moderate soil degradation. Increasing intensification and continuous cultivation on sloping lands without the supplementary use of soil amendments and conservation practices poses a serious threat to sustainable land use. In addition, Brown and Wolf (1984) stated that the apparent increase of soil erosion over the past generation is not the result of a decline in the skills of farmers but rather the result of the pressures on farmers to produce more. Hence, farmers of the study area were aware of soil

erosion, but they are forced to intensify and produce more food crops for their basic livelihood, this is due to high population pressure.

4.4 Farmers’ Perception of Land Management Practice As can be seen from table 4.8 almost all the respondents‟ were aware of the mixed cropping as land management practice. Most of the respondents‟ were aware of the importance of application of organic manure (89.1%), closure of grazing land (88.4%), terracing (84.5%), crop rotation (78.3%), mulching (76.0%), Tree planting (75.2%), rotational grazing (72.9%) and contour plowing (72. 9%). Only about 30% of the sampled farmers, which is the best proportion, were aware of fallowing as a land management practice. Table 4.8 farmers‟ perception of Land Management Practices

No Land management practices Aware Not Aware 1 Mixed cropping 126 97.6 3 2.4 2 Organic manure 115 89.1 14 10.9 3 Closure of grazing land 114 88.4 15 11.6 4 Terracing 109 84.5 20 15.5 5 Crop rotation 101 78.3 28 21.7 6 Mulching 98 76.0 31 24.0 7 Tree planting 97 75.2 32 24.8 8 Rotational grazing 94 72.9 35 27.1 9 Fallowing 38 29.5 91 70.5 10 Contour plowing 94 72.9 35 27.1 Source: own survey, 2013/14

4.4.1 Farmers Use of Land Management Practices

Soil is an important resource, which needs much attention in its use and management. Because soil is formed slowly, it is essentially considered as a finite resource. Soil erosion is a major contributor to the prevailing food insecurity in Ethiopia. The soil loss by erosion is severe in highlands and continuous to threaten man‟s wellbeing as bulks of country‟s people are reliant on agricultural production (Aklilu, 2006). Farmers are aware of declining yields from their farms from year to year, but often unable to regain productivity because of increasing soil erosion. Fig 4.2: Land Management Practice in Wagebeta-Heba „Adama‟ „Got‟ and Sarara (Desho grass)

Source: field photo 2013/14 Source: field photo 2013/14

Table 4.9 below indicates that the majority (72.9%) or mean (2.3023) of the respondents often use mixed cropping method to keep soil fertility. The next largest frequently used method of soil and land management in the study area is the use of organic manure (62.8%). In this case farmers use organic manure in the homesteads, which is easy and accessible for the farmers to use and load it from their home. During the focus group discussion a very few number of participants said that they used organic manure to fertilize their land that is far away from their home. This in turn shows that most of the farmers apply organic manure for farmland which is near to their home. According to the farmers this is due to the steepness of the farm land. Among the sampled farmers in the study area about 52% reported that they practices contour plowing to prevent soil loss, due to the steepness of the farm lands.

As to planting tree about 60.5% the respondents reported that they often practiced it in order for keeping their land from being eroded. Recently, farmers plant shrubs, saspania and grass with the

help of NGO (inter – aid) and government, at the line of erosion, making fence by along the borders of plot of cultivable land and the erosion lines. This has multiple benefits, it keeps on going fertile soil that increases productivity and keeps further losing of the soil. The reaming land management practice terracing reported by about, 54% rarely used method.

Table 4.9 land management practices

Land management Very often Often Rarely Never No Practice Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % 1 Mixed cropping - - 94 72.9 31 24.0 4 3.1 2 Organic manure 2 1.6 81 62.8 40 31.0 6 4.7 3 Closure of grazing land - - 33 25.6 77 59.7 19 14.7 4 Terracing - - 41 31.8 70 54.3 18 14.0 5 Crop rotation 5 3.9 36 27.9 81 62.8 7 5.4 6 Mulching - - 62 48.1 48 37.2 19 14.7 7 Tree planting - - 78 60.5 45 34.9 6 4.7 8 Rotational grazing - - 28 21.7 85 65.9 16 12.4 9 Contour plowing 9 7.0 67 51.9 42 32.6 11 8.5 10 Fallowing - - 11 8.5 33 25.6 85 65.9 Likert-Type Scale: 1=Very often, 2=Often, 3= Rarely, 4=Never. Source: own study, 2013/14.

According to sampled respondents‟ about 48.1% often practiced mulching to manage their land, whereas the remaining 37.2% reported that they rarely used but 14.7% never practice mulching to manage their land. Closure of grazing land and rotational grazing were identified as often used practices by 25.6% and 21.7% of the sampled respondents respectively. As to fallowing, only about 8.5% of the respondents replied that they often practiced on their farm land. The rest about 25.6% pointed out they used rarely, where as 65.9% never practice fallowing. This is so because farmers have no as such large land size to use such methods. Fallowing can be practiced when farmers have an alternative ample land otherwise the farmers are forced to use the same land again and again. This also related to high population density that the study area possessed.

4.5 Farmers level of perception towards different type of Land Management Practices. Table 4.10: Attitude test of different land management practices C o d A different land management practices Agree Disagree Undecided Freq % Fre % Freq %

K1 Tree planting is good for proper land use 121 93.8 5 3.9 3 2.3 Growing two or more crops in the same piece of land can 111 86 11 8.5 7 5.4

E1 reduce land degradation problem

E2 Covering the surface with grass or crop residues reduce 124 96.1 4 3.1 1 0.8 soil loss. Contour plowing is important in sloppy areas because it 124 96.1 3 2.3 2 1.6

E3 reduces the rate of soil erosion. It is preferable to keep the land under forest cover rather 120 93.0 2 1.6 7 5.4

K2 than securing an additional piece of farmland by deforestation It is possible to manage grazing land by moving the stock 108 83.7 11 8.5 10 7.8

N1 from one pasture to another. Closure of grazing land is essential since it helps the 119 92.2 5 3.9 5 3.9

N2 grass to recover.

E4 Crop rotation maintains soil fertility. 103 79.8 15 11. 11 8.5 6

E5 Terracing helps us to reduce run-off and the rate of 92 71.3 26 20. 11 8.8 erosion 2

E6 Plowing sloppy area aggravates soil erosion Problem. 114 88.4 4 3.1 11 8.5

Land certifications enhance land management and crop 122 94.6 3 2.3 4 3.1

U1 Productivity.

N3 The livestock population pressure/overgrazing/ can 109 84.5 8 6.2 12 9.3 changes a fertile land to useless deserts Source: own study, 2013/14.

Key: E= Agricultural land management N= Grazing land management K = Forest land management U= Land certification and land management

A. Agricultural land management As can be seen from the above table (Table 4.10) the majority of the respondents have reflected their agreements of the items labeled with E1- E6, as a land management practice. Accordingly, growing two or more crops in the same piece of land can reduce land degradation problem, covering the surface with grass or crop residues reduce soil loss, contour plowing is important in sloppy areas because it reduces the rate of soil erosion, crop rotation maintains soil fertility, Terracing helps us to reduce run-off and rate of erosion, and plowing sloppy area reduces soil erosion problem in agricultural land were perceived as land management practice by good number of respondents.

However, 8.5%, 3.1%, 2.3%, 11.6%, 20.2%, and 3.1% of the respondents for E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 and E6 respectively reported their disagreement regarding these items as land management practices. On the other hand 5.4%,0.8%,1.6%,8.5%,8.8% and 8.5% of the respondents declined to report their agreement or disagreement whether the items labeled E1,E2,E3,E4,E5, and E6 respectively have contributed for land management or not.

B. Grazing land management

Regarding to grazing land management coded by N1, N2 and N3 farmers responded that, it is possible to manage grazing land by moving the stock from one pasture to another (83.7%); Closure of grazing land is essential since it helps the grass to recover (92.2%) and the livestock populations pressure/overgrazing/ can change a fertile land to useless deserts (84.5%). However, 8.5%, 3.9% and 6.2% of the respondents reported their disagreement of the items coded as N1, N2, and N3 have relation with land management practices in one or the other way. On top of this N1, N2, and N3 that accounted 7.8%, 3.9% and 9.3% of the respondent respectively reported undecided (table 4.10).

C. Forest land management

As indicated in Table 4.10 for item coded by K1 and K2 respondents reported their agreement; Tree planting is good for proper land use (93.8%) and it is preferable to keep the land under forest cover rather than securing an additional piece of farmland by deforestation was reported by (93.0%) of the respondents as contributive to land management practice.

D. Land certification and land management As can be seen from table 4.10 the majority of the respondents in the surveyed household have reported that land certification enhance land management practice and productivity. Among the sample respondent 94.6% of them agreed that land certification contributed to land management practice and inturn to increase productivity. During focus group discussion also farmers mentioned the other importance of land certification, such as to inherit land to their children, to reduce border conflicts between plots, to get credits farming inputs, to receive compensation if the land is taken away and to promote female farmers to have equal access in agricultural activity as the male counterpart.

It was only 2.3% of the sample farmers reported their disagreement that land certification did not contribute land management practice and productivity. During focus group discussion few farmers also reflected their view that they don‟t care about whether they have a certificate or not, and mentioned that they are always secured about their land as they are paying land tax, and willing to practice land management as land is the only source of their livelihood. The remaining 3.1% of the respondents were declined to express their agreement on the same issue.

4.5.1 Farmers’ Information Source of Land Management Practices As learnt during interviews, farmers‟ perceived the causes and consequences of land degradation and soil erosion on their livelihood at varying levels. Training and education, about land management practice need to be provided to create further awareness on resource conservation. Farmers also reported their need for training on soil and water conservation, crop production and yield maximization, yield storage system, enhancing soil fertility and land tenure and land use.

A good number of the discussants during FGD forwarded that they have gained experience from their neighbors and traditionally from their elders. Farmers adjacent to each other can acquire

experience in either strength or weakness of specific soil conservation measures from nearby farmers and neighboring kebeles and friends.

As fig 4.6, shows that friends and relatives were indicated by 48.06% of respondents‟ as the main source of information. About 30% of the respondents reported they used extension agents‟ while source. About 14% of the respondents use radio as a source of information. A surprisingly small number of the respondents indicated training in SWC, schools and television as a source of information which accounted for 3.88%, 2.33% and 2.33% respectively. This finding was supported by the view of Anholt (1994) that the rise in farmers preferring other farmers as a firsthand information source may be due to the apparent ineffectiveness in the public extension in developing countries.

Fig 4.6: Farmers‟ information source for land management practice Source: own study, 2013/14

4.6 Factors that Determine Farmers’ Perception of Land Degradation in Study Area

4.6.1 Age and Perception Age of farmers has a direct relationship with perception of cause of land degradation and land management practice. Economically active age group (15-64) were relatively better in their perception level than economically dependent (old age, >65) farmers on cause, consequences and conservation practice of land degradation. This is because economically active age farmers mostly had chance to participate in the community based organizations, contact with any environmental protecting agents and extension agents. Thus, they simply get information about problems of soil erosion and related issues than old age farmers who had no much access to participate in the above mentioned organizations. In addition, farmers who had information access and training have opportunity to arouse their perception than those who had no information access and training. This finding is in line with the findings Aklilu, (2006), younger farmers with longer planning horizons they are likely to invest more in conservation practices. The following table 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 Shaw the relationship between farmers age and perception of cause, consequence and land management practice in study area. Table 4.11: Age and farmers perception on Causes of Land Degradation Age categories Age categories Chi- Cause of land degradation 15-64 >65 square p-value Freq % Freq % Steep slope 96 99.0 30 93.8 2.885 0.152* Human population pressure 96 99.0 28 87.5 8.495 0.013** Soil erosion 95 97.9 21 65.6 27.725 0.000** Deforestation 93 95.9 23 71.9 15.296 0.000** Over cultivation 93 95.9 18 56.2 31.467 0.000** Planting a eucalyptus tree 13 13.4 30 93.8 69.903 0.000** Lack of fertilizers 66 68.0 21 65.6 0.064 0.481* Overgrazing 73 75.3 6 18.8 32.369 0.000** Poor farming practice 52 53.6 18 56.2 0.068 0.479* Absence of crop rotation 13 13.4 26 81.2 52.514 0.000** (Source: own study, 2013/14). * Statistically not significant** statistically significant

According to table 4.11, Economically Active farmers‟ 99.0%, 75.3, 95.9%, 99.0%, 97.9%, 95.9% and 95.9% reported that they are aware of land degradation caused by steep slope, Overgrazing, Human population pressure, soil erosion, Deforestation and over cultivation respectively. But Economically Dependent (≥65) farmers responded on the same issue less than economically active age groups except steep slope as cause of land degradation; 93.8 % (steep slope), 56.2% (overgrazing), 87.5 (human population pressure), 65.6 % (soil erosion), 71.9 % (deforestation), 56.2% (over cultivation). However, 93.8% (Planting eucalyptus trees) and 81.2% (absence of crop rotation) are indicated as cause of land degradation by high numbers of economically dependent farmers. This clearly show that the variation of perception of farmers indicating cause of land degradation in relationship with age study area in. The X2 also indicated that Statistically significant association between age and farmers perception of cause of land degradation; Human population pressure, soil erosion, deforestation, over cultivation, planting of eucalyptus tree, overgrazing and absence of crop rotation at P-value less than 0.05. Table 4.12 Age and farmers‟ perception on consequence of Land Degradation Age Age 15-64 >65 Consequence of land degradation Freq % Freq % Chi-x2 p-value Difficulty for farming 73 75.3 30 93.8 5.113 0.017** Increase the requirements of fertilizers 73 75.3 29 90.6 3.434 0.049** Loss of agricultural production 97 100 32 100 3.055 0.248* Poverty and economic backwardness 79 81.4 20 67.2 2.281 0.105* Landlessness 21 21.6 26 81.3 36.906 0.000** Migration 48 49.5 29 90.6 16.926 0.000** * Statistically not significant** statistically significant Source: own study, 2013/14.

According to Chi-x2 result loss of agricultural production was indicated as a consequence of land degradation by all of the respondents in different age groups (Table 4.12). While there is difference of perception on indicating the consequence of land degradation by two age groups, such as; difficulty for farming, increase the requirements of fertilizers, poverty and economic backwardness, landlessness, migration, desertification, drought and famine.

Among economically dependent age groups (>65) a good number of respondents reported that the consequence of land degradation such as difficulty of farming (93.8%), increase of the requirements of fertilizers (90.6%), poverty and economic backwardness (68.8%), landlessness (81.3%), and migration (90.6%) indicated as consequence of land degradation. The X2 also indicated that statistically significant association between age and farmers perception of consequence of land degradation; difficulty for farming, increase the requirements of fertilizers, landlessness and desertification, drought and famine at P-value less than 0.05. A significant association means that economically active age group farmers are better ware of the consequence of land degradation Table 4.13 Age and farmers‟ perception on land management practice. Age 15 -64 >65 Chai- P –value No Land management system Freq % Freq % square 1 Mixed cropping 97 100 29 90.6 9.310 0.014** 2 Organic manure 83 85.6 32 100 5.181 0.014** 3 Closure of grazing land 83 85.6 31 96.9 2.994 0.070* 4 Terracing 82 84.5 28 87.5 0.168 0.465* 5 Crop rotation 69 71.1 32 100 11.798 0.000** 6 Mulching 68 70.1 30 93.8 7.370 0.000** 7 Tree planting 67 69.1 30 93.8 7.856 0.000** 8 Rotational grazing 66 68.0 22 68.8 0.006 0.562* 9 Contour plowing 72 74.2 28 87.5 2.433 0.091* 10 Fallowing 13 13.4 25 78.1 48.507 0.000** (Source: own study, 2013/14). *statistically insignificant, ** statistically significant

According to table 4.13, closure of grazing land, terracing, rotational grazing and contour plowing were perceived as land management practice by a good number of both economically active and economically dependent age group. Thus, there was no as such significant difference between the two.

However, the remaining practices such as mixed cropping, organic manure application, crop

rotation, mulching, tree planting, and fallowing were perceived as management practices by a good number of economically active age group and account relatively better perception than economically dependent age group sampled farmers except for following.

As it indicated in table 4.13 the chi-square result showed significant association between economically active age group farmers and perception of many land management practices. This can clearly indicate that, economically active age group farmers have at a better perception level to these management practices than the economically dependent age group. And, all the p-value of mixed cropping, organic manure application, crop rotation, mulching, and tree planting, fallowing less than the significance level of less than 0.05.

4.6.2 Educational status and perception of farmers

Educational level of farmers has a great impact on the general perception of the adverse effects of environmental degradation (Shibru, 2003). The data presented in table (4.14, 4.15 and 4.16) indicated whether there is a relationship between educational level of farmers and their perception as cause, consequence and land management practice. Table 4.14 Educational background and farmers‟ perception cause of Land Degradation

Respondents educational background Causes of land Chi- degradation Can‟t read Read and Attended Attended square p-value and write write secondary above level grade ten Fr % Fr % Fr % Fr % Steep slope 74 96.1 37 100 14 100 1 100 2.074 0.217* Population pressure 72 93.5 27 100 14 100 1 100 3.513 0.078* Soil erosion 66 85.7 35 94.6 14 100 1 100 4.077 0.039** Deforestation 65 84.4 36 97.3 14 100 1 100 6.479 0.008** Over cultivation 61 79.2 35 94.6 14 100 1 100 7.672 0.000** Planting a eucalyptus tree 37 48.1 3 8.1 2 14.3 1 100 22.387 0.000** Lack of fertilizers 49 63.6 26 70.3 12 85.7 - - 4.843 0.093* Overgrazing 39 50.6 26 70.3 13 92.9 1 100 11.438 0.000** Poor farming practice 42 54.5 22 59.5 5 35.7 1 100 3.189 0.333* Absence of crop rotation 35 45.5 4 10.8 - - - - 21.576 0.000** (Source: own study, 2013/14). * Statistical insignificant ** statistically significant

The literary status of farmers is useful to know their perception about the current situation of land degradation problems. Table 4.14 clearly show that respondent who attended above secondary level and grade ten better in their perception on the causes of land degradation than those educational background below secondary level. The chi-square also indicated that statistically significant association between educational background and respondents‟ response on: soil erosion, deforestation, over cultivation, planting eucalyptus tree, overgrazing and absence of crop rotation at p-value <0.05. A significant association means that farmers who attached their life in one way or another way have had a better perception of the cause of land degradation problem.

4.15 Educational background and farmers‟ perception on consequence of Land Degradation

Educational background of respondents Consequence of land degradation Can‟t read Read and Attended Attended Chi- p-value and write write secondary above square level grade ten Fr % Fr % Fr % Fr %

Loss of agricultural 77 100 37 100 14 100 - - 1.290 0.000** production Increase of requirements of 57 74.0 32 86.5 12 85.7 1 100 3.052 0.384* fertilizers Difficulty for farming 67 87.0 24 64.9 11 78.6 1 100 7.884 0.048** Migration 50 64.9 17 45.9 10 71.4 - - 6.068 0.108* Landlessness 39 50.6 6 16.2 2 14.3 - - 16.787 0.001** Desertification, drought 45 58.4 14 37.8 2 14.3 - - 12.183 0.007** and famine * Statically insignificant **statistically significant Source: own study, 2013/14.

The above table 4.15 indicated that, the perception of farmers to consequence of land degradation increased with increasing of educational level of sampled farmers in the study area. The farmers who had attended above grade ten have better perception of the consequences of land degradation than those who attended secondary, lower and illiterate. The chi-square result confirmed that there is a significant association between educational level and perception of farmers about loss of agricultural production, difficulty for farming, landlessness at p-value <0.05.

However the chi-square results shows there is no significant association between farmers‟ educational level and perception to; increase of requirements of fertilizers and migration as consequence of degradation at p-value <0.05. Table 4.16 Educational background and farmers‟ perception on land management practice

Land management Respondents educational background practice Can‟t read Read and Attended Attended Chi- p-value and write write secondary above square level grade ten Fr % Fr % Fr % Fr % Mixed cropping 76 98.7 37 100 12 85.7 1 100 10.079 0.018** Organic manure 76 98.7 24 64.9 14 100 1 100 31.640 0.000** Closure of grazing land 67 87.0 35 94.6 11 78.6 1 100 2.973 0.396* Terracing 67 87.0 30 81.1 13 92.9 - - 7.134 0.068* Crop rotation 77 100 9 24.3 14 100 1 100 88.923 0.000** Mulching 74 96.1 9 24.3 14 100 1 100 75.900 0.000** Tree planting 63 81.8 26 70.3 7 50.0 1 100 7.386 0.061* Rotational grazing 59 76.6 19 51.4 9 64.3 1 100 7.930 0.047** Contour plowing 71 92.2 14 37.8 14 100 1 100 47.315 0.000** Fallowing 32 41.6 5 13.5 1 7.1 - - 13.725 0.003** * Statistically insignificant and ** statistically significant Source: own study, 2013/14. As table 4.16 shows there is a significant association between educational level of farmers and farmers‟ perception to land management practices specifically, mixed cropping ( x2=10.079, at p-

value <0.05), organic manure(x2=31.640, at p-value <0.05), crop rotation(x2=88.923, at p-value <0.05),Mulching (x2 =75.900, at p-value <0.05), Rotational grazing(x2=7.930, at p-value <0.05), Contour plowing(x2= 47.315, at p-value <0.05) and Fallowing(x2=13.725, at p-value<0.05). This indicated that farmers who attended higher education level were found at a good perception than those who attended lower level or illiterate. That means the perception level of farmers about land management increase as increase of education level of farmers. However, the chi-square result indicated land management of farmers practice like closure of grazing land, terracing and tree planting has no a significant association with the educational background of farmers at p-value less than 0.05. This findings supported by finding of Pender & Gebremedhin (2004) which stated that farmers with better education are expected to be more aware of land management practices and thus, more likely to practice them.

4.6.3 Household size and perception Family size is an important demographic variable that affect the perception level of farmers about land degradation; causes, consequences and land management practice. The data presented in table 4.17, 4.18 and 4.19 below indicated that whether there is a significant relationship between family size of respondents and their perception of the causes and consequences of land degradation and land management practice or not in the study area. This findings was supported by Alebachew (2002), the size of household has determinant role in the perception level of farmers. In his finding the size of house hold has a positive correlation with farmer‟s perception of soil erosion and deforestation problems. Other similar studies (Endrias et al., 2005) indicated that a large family size, implying available of labor for different farm activities. Thus, a household with large family size is expected to adopt wide range of conservation techniques compared to a household with small family size.

Table 4.17 Household size and farmers‟ perception on cause of land degradation Respondents household size 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 Chi- Cause of land degradation Fr % Fr % Fr % Fre % square p-value Steep slope 15 100 25 96.2 60 93.8 24 100 3.119 0.374* Human population pressure 15 100 26 100 54 84.4 24 100 2.541 0.468* Soil erosion 13 86.7 26 100 53 82.8 23 95.8 6.188 0.103* Deforestation 13 86.7 24 92.3 50 78.1 24 100 9.349 0.025** Over cultivation 13 86.7 2 7.7 38 59.4 24 100 8.090 0.044** Planting a eucalyptus tree 3 20.0 16 61.5 39 60.9 - - 40.424 0.0001** Lack of fertilizers 11 73.3 21 80.8 26 40.6 21 87.5 6.280 0.099* Overgrazing 10 66.7 14 53.8 40 62.5 22 91.7 25.183 0.0001** Poor farming practice 8 53.3 4 15.4 33 51.6 8 33.3 5.993 0.112* Absence of crop rotation 2 13.3 26 100 63 - - 28.953 0.000** (Source: own study, 2013/14). * Statistically insignificant ** statistically significant Key: small family size 1-3 and 4-6 but large family size 7-9 and 10-12. Based on Table 4.17, steep slope, human population pressure, soil erosion, lack of fertilizers and poor farming practice were perceived almost equally by both large and small household in which the p-value is greater than significance level 0.05. The chi-square test also confirmed that there is no significant association between family size and the causes of land degradation in the study area on those mentioned causes of land degradation and farmers family size. But, the remaining only such as, absence of crop rotation, overgrazing, planting a eucalyptus tree, over cultivation and deforestation were more perceived by farmers with large household size than that of small household size as causes of land degradation. The chi-square test ensured that there is a significant association between household size and those mentioned causes of land degradation at p-value less than 0.05.

Table 4.18 Household size and farmers‟ perception on consequence of land degradation

Respondents household size

Consequence of land Chi-

3 6 9

- -

degradation - square p-value

1 4 7 10

q q q q

Fre % Fre % Fre % Fre % Loss of agricultural and 15 100 26 100 63 98.4 24 100 1.024 0.796* production Increase of requirements of 14 93.3 21 80.8 46 71.9 21 87 4.922 0.178* fertilizers Difficulty for farming 8 53.3 20 76.9 58 90.6 17 70.8 12.522 0.006** Migration 9 60.0 12 46.2 42 65.6 14 68.3 2.936 0.402* Landlessness 4 26.7 2 7.7 39 60.9 2 8.3 34.667 0.0001** Desertification, drought and 10 66.7 6 23.1 41 64.1 4 16.7 24.627 0.0001** famine * Statistically insignificant ** statistically significant Source: own study, 2013/14.

As illustrated in table 4.18, loss of agricultural production, increase of requirements of fertilizers, migration and poverty and economic backwardness were perceived as the consequence of land degradation in study area by both group of sampled farmers in the study area, but the chi- square test indicated that consequence, p-value is greater than 0.05, this imply that there is no statistically significant relation between these consequences of land degradation and family size/household size. However, difficulty for farming, landlessness and desertification, drought and famine were mentioned by respondent as consequence of land degradation that has a statistically significant relationship with the family size at p-value 0.05 (see table18).

Table 4.19 Household size and farmers‟ perception on land management

Respondents household size 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 Chi- Land management practice Freq % Freq % Freq % Fre % square p-value Mixed cropping 14 93.3 25 96.2 64 100 23 95.8 3.391 0.335* Organic manure 12 80.0 24 92.3 62 96.9 17 70.8 13.83 0.003** Closure of grazing land 12 80.0 23 88.5 57 89.1 22 91.7 1.307 0.728* Terracing 13 86.7 24 92.3 56 87.5 17 70.8 5.285 0.152* Crop rotation 10 66.7 20 76.9 58 90.6 13 54.2 15.16 0.002** Mulching 10 66.7 20 76.9 55 85.9 13 54.2 10.45 0.015** Tree planting 9 60.0 17 65.4 55 86.9 16 66.7 8.094 0.044** Rotational grazing 12 80.0 21 80.8 41 64.1 14 58.3 4.441 0.218* Contour plowing 10 66.7 22 84.6 52 81.2 16 66.7 3.898 0.273* Fallowing 1 6.7 3 11.5 32 50.0 2 8.3 25.91 0.000** * Statistically insignificant ** statistically significant Source: own study, 2013/14.

As can see from table 4.19: mixed cropping, closure of grazing land, terracing, rotational grazing and contour plowing perceived almost equally by both farmers with small and large family size. As the chi-square test indicated p-value of each practice is greater than 0.05, there is no a significant association between family size and land management practices. On the other hand, organic manure, crop rotation, mulching, tree planting and fallowing were relatively more perceived by farmers with large family size than that of small family size. The chi-square test ensured that there is of a significant association between large family size and farmers‟ perception to those land management practice at a p-value is less than 0.05.

CHAPTER FIVE

Summery, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summery Land degradation has been the most serious problem that has treated the life of millions of people in Ethiopia. The causes of land degradation are complex and diverse. Although influenced by natural and socio-economic factors, land degradation in Ethiopia is mainly a function of growing population exploitative substance agriculture and rudimentary production methods.

In view of this fact, this study has assessed the perception of farmers towards land degradation and management practice and thus the following conclusion are drown.

Regarding the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of respondents specifically the sex composition 93.8% are males and 6.2% are females similarly 75.2% of the respondents are with age range of 15-64 whereas 24.8% respondent age is above 65 years. Pertaining the educational status of the respondents, 59.7% reported that they cannot read and write, 28.7% read and write, 10.9% attended secondary level and 0.8% the of respondents attended above grade ten. This clearly indicated that a significant number of the respondents are illiterate that could have its own impact on the adoption of land management practice in the study area. The finding of the study has also showed that the land holding size ranges from less than 0.5 to 1 ha. Accordingly 51.9% of the respondents owned less than 0.5, 27.1% reported that their holding size ranges from 0.5 to 1 ha, where as 14.7% and 6.2% respondents owned 1ha to 1.5 ha and 1.5 to 2 ha respectively. The result of this finding showed that more than half of the respondents owned less than 0.5ha of land.

Concerning to farmers perception to causes of land degradation, steep slope was pointed out by (97.7%), human population pressure (96.1%), soil erosion (90.7%), deforestation (89.9%), over cultivation (86.0%), lack of fertilizers (67.4%), overgrazing (61.2%), poor farming practice (54.3%) and absence of crop rotation is identified by 30.2% of respondents as the causes of land degradation in the study area.

On top of these, farmers‟ responses have shown that consequences of land degradation in the study area include: difficulty for farming (79.8%), increasing in the requirement of fertilizers (79.1%), and loss of agricultural production (99.2%), poverty and economic backwardness (78.3%). landlessness (36.4%), migration (59.7%), and desertification, drought and famine (47.3%).

The study result has also shown that 51, 27, 21,21and 9% of the respondents, respectively, reported that absence of fertile top soil, slop steepness, rills and gully development, root exposures and stones of soil are the indicators of soil erosion in the study area. Whereas 20.1%, 15.5%, 13.9%, 12.4%, 10.08%, 9.3%, 7.75%, 6.98% and 3.8% of the farmers indicated that slope steepness of cultivate land, term of land preparation for cropping, ceaseless cultivation and absence of fallowing, intensity of rainfall, type of soil and erodiabilty, absence and delay of soil conservation method, over grazing and insufficient and delay of fertilizers use are perceived as the causes of soil erosion and indicators of the consequence of soil erosion in the study area respectively.

The finding of the study has also indicated the respondents perception level on land management practices, 97.6%, 89.1%, 88.4%, 78.3%, 76.0%, 75.2%, 72.9% and 72.9% of the farmers respectively agreed that, mixed cropping, organic manure, closure of grazing land, terracing, crop rotation, mulching, tree planting, rotational grazing, contour plowing and fallowing were understood as land management practice in the study area.

The study also further indicated that among the different information sources that the farmers used to raise their perception level about land degradation in general and soil erosion in particular as well as the different land management practice thus friends and relatives (48.06%) were reported as the most important source of information for farmers in the study area. In addition extension agents, radio, training in SWC, television and schools were suggested as the other important information source.

From the study it was also learnt that among many factors that determine the farmers‟ perception of land degradation and management practice; age, educational back ground and family size, topography, information access and training were found to be the main ones in study area. This study result also show that there is a significant association between farmers‟ age and their

perception to cause of land degradation, consequence of land degradation and management practices. Economically active age group of respondents (age 15-64) were better in their perception to land degradation and management practice than economically dependent age groups (old age or >65) farmers. Economically active age group farmers were found to better in perception because they have access to information though contact with different organizations and extension agents that of economically dependent age groups. Regards to educational background farmers who attached their life with education (read and write, attended secondary level and attended above grade ten) were found at a better perception level than those who don‟t or illiterate. This indicated the statistically significant association between education and farmers perception about cause, consequence and land management practice in the study area. In addition to this significant association also observed between land degradation cause, consequence and land management practice with family size in the study area.

Generally, the perception of farmers in this study is different from one attribute to the other pirating land degradation cause consequence and management practice.

5.2 conclusions

Based on the findings of this study, one could infer that there is a remarkable perception in the issues related to land degradation and management practices. However, perception of farmers is the importance of land management practices like fallowing to be too low.

 Even though, mass media, schools and tannings are believed to be among the most important tools for perception rising in environment protection and natural resource management, the extent to which this tools has been used and the result of such use has not been adequately investigated. Assessment of the source of information of farmers in land management practice shows that only small portion of farmers indicated radio, television, training in SWC, school, and extension agent as a source. There is an opportunity to mass media and schools to raise community properly.  The respondent of this research had a positive perception in most of the issues related to the land management practices. Their perception, however, some of the practices like fallowing seems unfavorable. In line with this, most of them didn‟t apply different land

management techniques frequently, except contour plowing, closure of grazing land and organic manure.  A significant association was found between farmers of different age groups in their perception of land degradation problem and management practices. An active age group farmer of age 15-64 seems relatively better perceived of the problem of land degradation and management practices.  Farmers those attached their life with in education perceived better than those who did not. The association is significant. It is in accordance with the findings of other studies that education is one of the factors that determine the perception level of farmers toward land degradation and management practices.

5.2 Recommendation The findings of this study indicated that there is land degradation problem in the study area. Different land management activities were practiced in order to conserve resource base and to maximize agricultural production. Even if these efforts were made by government and NGOs none of the interventions can efficiently curb the problem. Therefore, based on the findings of the study, the following actions that are believed to play significant role in improving the land management practice by increasing farmers‟ perception level in land degradation are recommended  Governmental and Non-government organization such as Kenbat Ment Gezma, Inter- Aid, Idr, religious leaders and well known elders should work on training to create awareness and balance fertility rate of human population with existing natural resources. This can be achieved by resettlement program, continuous training and awareness creation on family planning, technological improvements in agriculture and development of other sectors of the economy to minimize burdens on natural resource.  Continuous training should be provided to farmers by extension agents, model farmers, and environmental protection agent and health extension in corporation with community to create better understanding of the problem of soil/ land degradation and the management practice in the study area.

 It is important to support established environmental protecting clubs at the school level by facilitating different training programs regarding the causes, consequences and management practice of land degradation in the study area.  Finally, as this study is focused on certain variables related to land degradation cause, consequence and management practices as well as factor that determine farmers‟ perception. Further research undertakings are expected to breach the gap and to bring productivity in the study area.

REFERENCE: Abiy K. 2007. Soil Degradation Assessment along the Slope Gradient of the Cultivated Field in Adulala Mariyam-Wakemia Catchment, Adama Woreda, East Shoa Zone: [MA Thesis],Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Adekoya, A.E. (1997) An Analysis of Farmers Participation in Agro-forestry in Oyo state. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation of the Department of Agricultural Extension services. University of Ibadan.

Aklilu Amsalu and Graff, (2004). Farmers’ Views of Soil Erosion Problems and Their Conservation Knowledge at Beressa Watershed, Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Agriculture and Human value 23.

……… (2006). Caring for the Land. Best Practices in Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Beressa Watershed, highlands of Ethiopia. Tropical resources management papers No.76 (2006) Wageningen, the Nether lands.

Aklilu Dalelo. (2001). Natural Resource Degradation and Famine: Assessment of Students’ Awareness and Views. Flensburg, Germany.

Alebachew Tedesse. (2002): Farmer’s Awareness about Land Degradation and Their Attitude towards Land Management in South, Nation Nationality Sidama Zone, Ethiopia Msc thesis. AAU.

Alemayehu Tafesse (2006). Water Shade Management Approach in Reversing Soil Degradation; Ethiopian Experience and Lessons Learnt. The Role of the River Nile in poverty Reduction and economic Development in the Region, Proceedings of the Conference held at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa Conference Hall Addis Ababa.

Alemneh Dejene (2003) Integrated Natural Resource Management to enhance food security: the case of community base approach in Ethiopia. Environmental natural resource service research extension and training division FAO sustainable development, working paper UNS, Rome.

B. Gebremedin (2004). Economic incentives for soil conservation in the Eastern Africa. International livestock Research institute o(ILRI)Addis Ababa Ethiopia

Bekele Bishaw and Holden. 1998. Deforestation and Land Degradation in Ethiopia Highlands: A strategy for Physical Recovery. Oregon state University Corvallis NE African Studies.

Belay Tegene. (1992). Farmers Perceptions of Erosion Hazards and Attitude Towards soil

Berhe Wolde-Aregay and P. A. Chadhokar. (1993). Soil conservation: An Ethiopian experience.

Brown L. and Wolf E. 1984. Soil Erosion: Quiet Crisis in the World Economy: World watch Paper 60 September 1984.

Berry, L.(2003) .Land Degradation in Ethiopia: Its Extent and Impact.

Betru Nedessa (2003). Principles and Techniques for Biological Soil Conservation, Soil Water Conservation Division. Guideline No.3,MoA.ETH/2488/III.

Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. A. Thrupp, eds. (1993). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. London: IT Publications.

Dainel Gamachu. (1990). Environment and Mass poverty Ethiopia: Rural Development options, London and New Jersey.

…………… (2000) Aspect of climate and Water Budget in Ethiopia, AAU press, Addis Ababa.

Deniel Teketay, Ludi, E (1985) Deforestation, Wood famine and Environmental Degradation in Ethiopia‟s Highlands Ecosystems: Urgent needs for Action. Northeast African Studies vol.8 No.1

Deininger, K (2003): land policies for growth and poverty reduction: key Issue and challenge Ahead. USA.

Demeke, A.B. 2001. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in NW Ethiopian: Discussion paper No.37. Institute of Rural Development. University of Gottingen.

Dregne, H.E. (2000). Erosion and Soil Productivity in Africa. Journal of Soil and Water

conservation. DoyogenaWoreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office (2013).Annual reports for the years 2013G.C. Amharic version.(Unpublished report).DoyogenaWoreda Agriculture and Rur Development Office Doyogena, Ethiopia.

EPA (Environmental protection Authority). (1997). the conservation strategy of Ethiopia; volume I. The Resource Base, its utilization and Planning for sustainability. Addis Ababa.

………. (2003). State of Environmental report for Ethiopia Addis Ababa

Ervin, A.C., and E.D. Ervin. (1982). Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypothesis, Evidence, and Implications. Land Economics.

Eswaran. (2001). Land Degradation: An Overview. Responses to Land Degradation 2nd International Conference on Land Degradation and Desertification, Khon, Kaen, Thailand. Oxford Press, New Delhi, India. Fakoya, E.O, D.K. Ojo and O.B. Oyesola, (2002): Categorization of Farmers in Relation to use of Sustainable land Management Practice in Odo state. ASSET Journal Series A2.

Gebre Yntiso (2002). Differential Reestablishment of Voluntary and Involuntary Migrants: The Case of Metekel Settlers.” Africa Study Monograph, Vol. 23.

Ginjo, G. (2000). Expereince of selected NGs in Natural Resources Management in Ethiopia symposium of forum for social studies. Addis Ababa 15-16 sept 2000 in Zenebework Tadesse ed.2001.

Giraff and Franzel (1999): The farmers' perception of the problems of soil erosion and soil fertility. Ethiopia Journal of Development Research V.20.

Girma, T. (2001). Land degradation: A challenge to Ethiopia. Herweg K. 1993. Problems of Acceptance and Adaptation of Soil Conservation in Ethiopia: Topics in Applied Resource Management, Vol. 3. GM with WB support.

Herweg, K. and Ludi, E. (1999). The Performance of Selected Soil and Water Conservation Measures-case Studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea. Catena, Vol. 1-2.

Holden, S.T, Shiferaw. (2001): market imperfections and land productivity in the Ethiopian highlands. Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Hudson, N, (1991) A study of the reason for the success of failures of soil conservation projects. FAO. Rome. Hurni, H. (1985). Land Degradation, Famine and Land Resource Scenarios in Ethiopia. In: World Soil Erosion and Conservation, Pp 27-62, (Pimental, D. Ed.). Cambridge. UK. II, the SAGE publication.

………. 1990. Degradation and Conservation of Soil Resources in the Ethiopia Highlands. In Messerli, B. and Hurni, H. (eds.). African Mountains and Highlands Problems and Perspectives. Marceline, Missouri: Walsworth Press Co.

Jamison D.T. and Lawrence J. Lau. (2002). Farmer Education and farm Efficiency. A world Bank Research Publication the Jonn Hopkins University presses. Baltimore man gland, USA.

Jannsson, T. (2009). Value Types and Environmental Concern as Determinants of sustainable vacation choice ume„a‟ university Sweden.

Karen L, McKee, Mendelssohn, Irving A.; Materne, Michael D., (1995): Salt marsh dieback in coastal Louisiana: survey of plant and soil conditions in Barataria and Terrebonne basins, June 2000-September 2001.

Kikula (1994) Environmental management in Tanzania, challenges of the 21st century.

Leakemariam Demissie. (2000). Environmental Protection and mass communication in Ethiopia. Environment and development in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the symposium of the forum for social studies A.A., 15-16 sept. 2000 Zenebework Tadesse (ed.), 2001. Forum for social studies. Ludi E (2002). Economic Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation: case studies for the highlands of Amhara Region, Ethiopian African Studies series A18, University of Berne, Switzerland.

Mekuria Argaw (2005). Forest conservation-soil degradation-farmers perception Nexus: implication for sustainable land use in the south west of Ethiopia in Ecology and Development series No.26 2005. Center for development and research university of Bonn.

Melaku Worede. (2000). Agro-biodiversity and food security in Ethiopia, proceedings of the Symposium of the Forum for social studies Addis Ababa 15-16 sept.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD). (2007). Thematic papers on Land

Morgan, R.P.C (1996). Soil Erosion and Conservation. 2nd ed. Longman Group. UK limited

Muluneh Wolde Tsadiq (2001). Impact of Population Pressure on Land Resources as Reflected in Land Use/Land Cover Changes in Ethiopia. Lessons Learned from West Guraghe land" In Taye Assefa (ed) Food Security Through Sustainable Land Use. Population, Environment and Rural Development Issues for Sustainable Livelihood in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.

Narhussen,T. (2002). Challenge and Strategies to wards sustainable use in "North Wollo” zone of Amhara National Regional state.

Negatu W. & Parikh A., (1999). The impact of perception and other factors on the adoption of agricultural technology in the Moret and Jiru Woreda (district). V. 21.

Osgood, B.T. (1992). Public awareness in soil and water conservation programs. In Conservationpolicies for sustainable hill slope farming, edited by S. Arsyad, I. Amien, T. Sheng and W. Moldenhauer, 255-260. Ankey: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America.

Paulos, D. (2001). Soil and Water Resource Degradation affecting productivity in Ethiopian highlands agro ecosystem. North East African studies vol.8 No.1.

Pender, J., and B. Gebremedhin (2004) . Impacts of policies and Technologies in Dry land Agriculture. Evidence from northern Ethiopia. In S.C. Rao.

Shibru Tedla and Kifle Lemma. (1998). Environmental Management in Ethiopia. Have the National conservation plans worked. Environmental forum publication series No.1. Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA), Addis Ababa.

Shibru Tedla.( 2003) : Ethiopians Environmental Condition: Today and Twenty five Years from Now” In Economics focus. Bulletin of Ethiopian Economics Association. Vol-5.

Shiferaw, B. and S. Holden (1998). „„Farm-level benefits to investments for mitigating land degradation: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia.‟‟ Environment and Development Economic .

Stiener, R. (1998). Conservation agriculture as practiced in Tanzania: three case studies. Nairobi.

Terrefe Degefa (2002). Land Tenure Links to Environmental Degradation. Cases from Rural Villages of Central Ethiopia 1991-1997).

Tewolde-Birhan Gebre-Egziabher. (1990). The roots of ecological crisis in Ethiopia. A paper presented at the First National Resources Conservation Conference. Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa. United Nation Development partners (2004). Reclaiming the land sustaining lively hoods New York Woldeamlak B. (2003). Towards Integrated Watershed Management in Highland Ethiopia: The Chemoga Watershed case Study; [PhD Thesis], Wageningen University, Tropical Resource Management Papers, No. 44, Wageningen.

Woldeamlak B. (2003). Towards Integrated Watershed Management in Highland Ethiopia: The Chemoga Watershed case Study; [PhD Thesis], Wageningen University, Tropical Resource Management Papers, No. 44, Wageningen.

Yeraswork Admassei. 2000. Twenty years to Nowhere: property rights, land management and conservation in Ethiopia. The red sea press, Inc.

Zelealem Abebe (2007).The Ethiopian Highland Ecosystem. Green forum conference proceeding No. 1 edited by Seyoum Mengistu.

APPENDEX-1

Arba Minch University Department of Geography and Environmental Education A Questionnaire to be completed by Farmers of Doyogena Woreda

The basic objective of this survey is to collect tangible information on Land degradation and farmers‟ perception in Doyogena woreda.

Dear respondent, this questionnaire has only a research purpose. The outcome of this research will help to understand land degradation and you perception, which in turn help to enhance agricultural production.

Key: 1. The response you give will not have any negative impact on you. 2. No need of writing your name on the questionnaire. 3. Please respond it freely and forward what you think it correct. Yours faithfully! Samuel Abebe

Date of interview: Day ____ Month ____ Year ______Interviewed by: ______Region: ______Zone: ______Woreda: ______Kebele: ______Part-I: Respondents Household Composition and Demographic Data 1.1. Age of household head: ______.

1.2. Sex of household head: 1. Male 2. Female 1.3 Size of household: ______.

1.4 What is the composition of the household by age, size and sex group?

No. Age Group Male female Total 1 0-14 2 15-64 3 >64 Total

1.5. Your educational level. 1. Cannot read and write 2. Reading and writing 3. Attended secondary level 4. Attended above grade 10

Part- II: Land and Landholding Characteristics of Respondent

2.1. How many hectares of land do you own? 1. <0.5 ha 2. 0.5 ha-1.0 ha 3. 1.0 ha-1.5 ha 4. 1.5-2.0 2.2. Are you cultivating all your own land? 1. Yes 2. No 2.3. If no, what are the reasons? 2.4. Are all your fields in one unit? 1. Yes 2. No 2.5. How distant is the farm land from your home? 1. Near 2. Moderate 3. Far 4. Very far 2.6. What is the distance from your home to a less fertile plot (in km)? 2.7. Has the size of your cultivated land changed? 1. Yes 2. No 2.8 If you answer to Qes No2.7 is „yes‟, has it: 1. Increased 2. Declined 3. Remained the same

2.9. If it has decreased, what are the reasons…………………………………………………… 2.10. Do you engaged in any off-farm employment? (1). Yes (2). No 2.11. If your answer to Qes 2.9 „Yes‟ above, what type of work do you do? 2.12. If you feel that land is becoming scarce, why? ______2.13. Compared to the land needs of your household now, how do you rate your present land holdings? 1. More than enough 2. Just enough 3. Too small 2.14. What is the source of labor used on your farm? 1. Family labor 2.Hired labor 3.Group labor 2.15. How do you perceive the fertility of your land? 1. Improving 2. Constant 3. Declining 4. Do not know 2.16. If the fertility of your land is declining what is the indicator? ______. 2.17. If the fertility of your land is declining, what could be the cause? ______. 2.18. How do you perceive the productivity of your land? 1. Increasing 2. Decreasing 3. Constant 4. Do not know 2.19. If the yield from your land is decreasing, what could be the reason behind? (More than one answer is allowed): 1. Absence of fallowing 2. High cost of chemical fertilizers 3. Unreliable rainfall 4. Erosion/runoff 5. Over cultivation 6. Other reason______2.20. How do you describe the slope of your land? 1. Flat 2. Gently undulating 3. Moderately steeping 4. Steeply sloping

2.21. Do you perceive that the slope has impact on productivity of your land? 1. Certainly 2. Never 3. Uncertain 2.22. Which land do you perceive more productive? 1. Flat 2. Gently undulating 3. Moderately steeping 4. Steeply sloping 2.23. How do you see agricultural land over time? 1. No change 2. Becoming scarce 3. Increasing over time 4. Do not know 2.24. If the agricultural land is becoming scarce, what could be the reason behind? 1. Population pressure 2. Land degradation 3. Expansion of forest 4. Taken by government 5. Taken by other organization 6. Other reason______2.25. Do you think that livestock contribute to land degradation?

1. Yes 2. No

Part-III cause, consequence of land (Soil) degradation

3.1 do you believe that there is land (Soil ) degradation problem in your locality? 1. Yes 2. No

3.2 What are the possible causes of land degradation in your locality? (More than one is possible)

1. Soil erosion 2. Over cultivation 3. Lack of fertilizers 4. Human population pressure 5. Steep slope 6. Deforestation 7. Poor farming practice. 8. Absence of crop rotation 3.3 What are the consequences of land degradation in your land? (More than one is possible) 1. Difficulty for farming 2. Increase of requirements of fertilizers 3. Loss of agricultural production 4. Poverty and economic back wardens 5. Landlessness 6. Migration 7. Desertification, drought and famine 3.4 What is the color of the soil in your cultivation field? 1. grayish 2. Reddish 3. Dark/black 4. Other

3.5 What are the indicators of soil erosion in your land?

No. Indicators Orders/ranks 1 Rills and Gully development 2 Observing the color of soil 3 Accumulation of dump near to valleys 4 Stoniness of soil 5 Slope Steepness 6 Absence of fertile topsoil 7 Root exposure 8 Poor crop and grass growth

3.6 What condition brings soil erosion in your land? (Put in order from most to least important)

No. Causes of Soil Erosion Rank (1, 2…) 1 Slope steepness of the cultivation land 2 Ceaseless cultivation and absence of fallowing 3 Types of soil and erodiabilty 4 Intensity of rainfall 5 Absence and delay of SCM 6 Insufficient and delayed fertilizer 7 Deforestation and desertification 8 Overgrazing 9 Terms of land preparation for cropping

3.7 What is the effect of soil erosion on your land?

No Effect Rank 1 Loss of top soil 2 Reduction in yield over time 3 Reproduction of gullies 4 Loss of vegetation cover and grasses 5 Change in soil color 6 Required high input and management 7 Lack of farm land and grazing field 8 Desertification and out migration Other

3.8 How you identified levels of soil loss, soil fertility and crop yields along different slope positions

Soil Crop

Soil loss fertility production

Slope type

High

Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Flat (in degree) 3

Gently undulating (in degree) 6 Moderately steeping (in degree) 18 Steep slope (in degree) 25

3.9. Which type of erosion is severe in your land? (More than one is allowed) 1. Sheet erosion 2. Rill erosion 3. Gully erosion

Part-IV: Land (Soil ) management practices 4.1. Do you perceive that the crop yield is increasing with conservation practices? 1. Yes 2. Never 3. Do not know 4.2 Are you aware of the following sustainable land management practices? Practices Yes No Mixed cropping Organic manure Closure of grazing land Terracing Crop rotation Making water ways Mulching Tree planting Rotational grazing Contour plowing Fallowing

4.3. At what extent do you use the above practices? Practices Very much Often Rarely Never Mixed cropping Organic manure Closure of grazing land Terracing work Crop rotation Making water ways Mulching Tree planting Rotation grazing Contour plowing Fallowing

4.4. What is your source of information for the above land management practices? 1. Friends and relatives 2.Radio 3. Extension agents 4. Television 5. Trainings in SWC 6. Print media 7.Schools If any (specify) ______4. 5. Are there any local methods used to prevent soil erosion? 1. Yes 2. No 4. 6. If your answer to Qes 4.5 is „yes‟, which of the following measures do you practice? 1. Cultivation along the contour 2. Terracing 3. Strip-cropping along the contour 4. Bonding 5. Vegetative and crop cover 6. Grassed waterways 7. Tree planting 8. Check dams 9. Other (specify

Part V: Attitude Test Read each of the following statements very carefully and decide whether you „Agree‟, „Disagree‟ or „Undecided‟, put an (√) mark inside the appropriate box that indicates your opinion.

No A different land management practices/Item Agree Disagree Undecided

1 Tree planting is good for proper land use 2 Growing two or more crops in the same piece of land can reduce land degradation problem 3 Covering the surface with grass or crop residues reduce soil loss. 4 Contour plowing is important in sloppy areas because it reduces the rate of soil erosion. 5 It is preferable to keep the land under forest cover rather than securing an additional piece of farmland by deforestation 6 It is possible to manage grazing land by moving the stock from one pasture to another. 7 Closure of grazing land is essential since it helps the grass to recover. 8 Crop rotation maintains soil fertility. 9 Terracing helps us to reduce run-off and the rate of erosion 10 Plowing sloppy area reduces soil erosion Problem. 11 Land certifications enhance land management and crop Productivity. 12 The livestock population pressure/overgrazing/ can changes a fertile land useless deserts

APPENDEX-2

i. INTERVIEW GUID LINE PREPARED FOR SELECTED FARMERS  Institutional relationships  Household conditions and assets ownership  Agriculture/ constraints in crop production  Food security status  Local participation in resource management  Income and expenditure  Coping strategies/ livelihood diversification  Awareness of land degradation  Trends in agricultural production  Community participation in decision making.  Indigenous or modern knowledge about SWC ii. INTERVIEW GUID LINE PREPARED FOR DAs AND AGRICULTURAL OFFICE EXPERTS  Awareness of land degradation  Household conditions and asset ownership  Agriculture/ constraints in crop production  Indigenous or modern knowledge about SWC  Soil fertility management practices.