The Status and Challenges of Soil and Water Conservation Practices on Jargie Watershed, in Takusa Woreda, North Gondar Zone, Ethiopia

THE STATUS AND CHALLENGES OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES ON JARGIE WATERSHED, IN TAKUSA WOREDA, NORTH GONDAR ZONE, ETHIOPIA

BEKALU ASAMERE LIYEW

PRINCIPAL ADVISOR: BEHAILU TADESSE (PhD)

CO –ADVISOR: ASSAYEW NEBERE (MSc)

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

UNIVERSITY OF GONDAR

OCTOBER, 2017, GONDAR, ETHIOPIA

A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Art (MA) in: Natural Resource and Environmental Management at the University of Gondar

The Status and Challenges of Soil and Water Conservation Practices on Jargie Watershed, in Takusa Woreda, North Gondar Zone, Ethiopia

BEKALU ASAMERE LIYEW Master of Art in Natural Resource and Environmental Management

Department of Geography and Environmental Studies University of Gondar

2017

Approved by

Behailu Tadesse (PhD) ______

Advisor Signature Date

Assayew Nebere (MSc)

Co-advisor Signature Date

Abraham (PhD) __

External examiner Signature Date

Getenet _

Internal examiner Signature Date

Assayew Nebere (MSc)

Head, Department Signature Date

ii Abstract

Land degradation, mainly due to soil erosion is one of the major challenges in agricultural production in many parts of the world, particularly in developing country like Ethiopia. Even though a number of soil and water conservation methods were introduced to reduce soil erosion, the adoption of these practices remains below expectations. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to investigate the status and challenges of soil and water conservation (SWC) practices, on Jargie watersheds in Takusa woreda, North Gondar, Ethiopia. In this study a mixed research design has been employed. A total sample size of 287 households was selected using stratified sampling technique based on their topography and their residence in to upper, middle and lower watershed. The household survey conducted using questionnaires, focus group discussions, and field observations were used to collect data. Percentage, One-Way ANOVA, One Sample and independent samples t-test and Binary logistic regression were among the data analyses techniques used in the study. The results show that the majority of respondent farmers have high awareness about problem of soil erosion on their farm land (90.6%). The study also reveals that 58.2% of the sampled farmers participated in the SWC practices. The majority of sampled farmers believed that soil erosion could be controlled with proper soil conservation measures. The results from One-way ANOVA indicate that there are significant differences between upper, middle and lower section of the watershed. The findings also show that educational status, landholding size, extension contact, and soil and water conservation training variables were found to be significant to affect the practice of soil and water conservation technologies. On the other hand age, slope of land, distance of farm land from home and family size are unsuccessful to predict adoption of SWC practice. The study depicts that different variables influenced the practice of SWC technologies, and should therefore be considered in planning such interventions. Thus, education and training on soil erosion and conservation has to be provided and create further awareness on an improved soil and water conservation practices are compulsory.

Key words: Land degradation, soil erosion, soil and water conservation

Acknowledgments

Above all, I thank the Almighty GOD for giving me the strength to start and go through with my studies.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisors Dr.Behailu Tadesse and Mr. Assayew Nebere for their close supervision and devotion of their precious time, valuable comments, excellent guidance, suggestion and organized ideas and interest to show the direction of the overall content of the research.

I would also like to thank the Office of Takusa Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development particularly, Ato Solomone, Ato Fikadu, and W/ro Zufan for their support in helping me out by providing relevant materials. I would like to extend my appreciation for all farmers who were participated in the data collection process, and importantly for those who give me permission to observe their farm plots.

I most deeply grateful thanks to Ato yehola, Ato Alemken, Dr.Samie, Ato Zemene,Ato Andargie Cheru, My wife W/ro Mekedes Ferede and, Our lovely daughter Betelhiem for their various form of support which all helped for the successful accomplishment this thesis.

Finally, Development agents and selected sample households are also deserved special thanks for their cooperation and hospitability during data collection.

Table of Contents

Contents page Abstract ...... i Acknowledgments ...... ii Table of Contents ...... iii List of Table ...... vi List of Figures ...... vii List of Appendix ...... viii Acronyms ...... ix CHAPTER ONE Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background of the Study ...... 1 1.2 Statement of the problem ...... 4 1.3 Objectives of the Study ...... 6 1.3.1. General Objective ...... 6 1.3.2.Specific objectives ...... 6 1.4 Research questions ...... 6 1.5 The Scope of the Study ...... 7 1.6 Significance of the Study ...... 7 1.7 Conceptual framework ...... 8 1.8 Operational definition of terms and conepts ...... 9 1.9 Organization of the Thesis ...... 9 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review ...... 10 2.1. Definition and concepts of soil and water conservation ...... 10 2.2. Land degradation in Ethiopia ...... 13 2.3. Soil and water conservation practice in Ethiopia ...... 14 2.4. Soil Erosion ...... 15 2.5. Farmers’ awareness on soil and Water conservation practice ...... 15 2.6. Challenges of Soil and Water Conservation practices ...... 16 2.6.1. Demographic variables ...... 17 2.6.2. Bio-Physical Factor ...... 18 iii

2.6.3. Socio-Economic variable ...... 19 2.6.4. Socio-psychological variables ...... 19 2.6.5. Institutional factors ...... 20 2.7. Significance of Soil and Water Conservation ...... 20 CHAPTER THREEMethods and Materials ...... 21 3.1.Description of the Study Area ...... 21 3.1.1. Physical Background ...... 21 3.1.2.Socio- Economic Background ...... 23 3.2.Research Methodology ...... 24 3.2.1. Research Design ...... 25 3.2.2.Sampling Method Determination and Sampling size ...... 25 3.2.3. Methods of data collection ...... 27 3.2.4. Methods of data analysis ...... 28 3.2.5. Model specification ...... 28 CHAPTER FOUR Data Analysis and Discussion...... 33 4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample Households ...... 33 4.2. Farmer’s Awareness between Upper, Middle and Lower group ...... 34 4.3. Status of Improved Physical Soil and Water Conservation Practices ...... 36 4.3.1. Types of Soil and Water Conservation Practices ...... 37 4.3.2.Traditional Soil and Water Conservation measures ...... 41 4.4. Farmers’ perception on SWC technologies for increasing crop productivity ...... 43 4.5. Challenges of practice Soil and Water Conservation ...... 44 4.5.1.Demographic Factor ...... 44 4.5.1.1.Age of farmers head and Family size ...... 44 4.5.1.2. Sex and Marital Status of Sampled Farmers ...... 45 4.5.1.3. Educational Status of Farmers ...... 47 4.5.2.Bio –Physical factor ...... 48 4.5.2.1.Land holding size and slope ...... 48 4.5.2.2. Distance of cultivation land from home ...... 50 4.5.3. Economic Factor ...... 51 4.5.4. Institutional Factor ...... 53 4.5.4.1. Training about SWC practice ...... 53 iv

4.5.4.2. Extension contact of the respondent ...... 54 4.6. The contribution of independent variables to explain the dependent variable ...... 56 CHAPTER FIVE Conclusion and Recommendation ...... 58 5.1. Conclusions ...... 58 5.2. Recommendation ...... 59 References ...... 60

List of Table Table 3.1 Land forms and slope of watershed ...... 22 Table 3.2 Population of the micro- watershed ...... 24 Table 3.3 Sample size of farmers from the three sections ...... 27 Table 4.1 Demographic characteristic of sample households in Jargie watershed...... 33 Table 4.2.1 ANOVA summary table of the differences among Households’ Awareness of SWC as a result of Village they live...... 34 Table 4.2.2 Scheffe’s mean comparison of awareness of households in soil and water conservation practices as a result of village they live ...... 35 Table 4.2.3 Descriptive statistics, t-test values and significance levels of households’ awareness of soil and water conservation practices ...... 35 Table 4.3.1 Binomial test of Soil and Water Conservation Practice (SWC) ...... 36 Table 4.3.2 Status of use of improved SWC practice by sample households ...... 40 Table 4.4.1 Comparison of SWC User and Non-user on Roles of SWC to Crop Productivity ... 43 Table 4.5.1 Age of the respondents and Practice of SWC ...... 44 Table 4.5.2 Family size and Practice of SWC ...... 45 Table 4.5.3 Sex of the respondents and Practice of SWC ...... 45 Table 4.5.4 Marital status and Practice of SWC ...... 46 Table 4.5.5 Slope of cultivation land and Practice of SWC ...... 49 Table 4.5.6 Land holding size and Practice of SWC ...... 48 Table 4.5.7 Educational status of the Farmer head and Practice of SWC ...... 47 Table 4.4.8 Distance of cultivation land from home and Practice of SWC ...... 50 Table 4.5.9 Type and number of livestock owned by the sample farmers ...... 51 Table 4.5.10 Off-farm activities and Practice of SWC ...... 52 Table 4.5.11 Source of training about SWC practice ...... 53 Table 4.5.12 Contact with SWC Expert DA and Practice of SWC ...... 54 Table 4.6.13 Source of information about SWC practice ...... 55 Table 4.5.14 Role of SWC practice to agricultural productivity and Practice of SWC ...... 55 Table 4.6.1 Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients ...... 56 Table 4.6.2 Pseudo R-Square ...... 56 Table 4.6.3 Parameter estimates of Binary logistic regression ...... 57

List of Figures Figure .1.1 Conceptual frameworks for challenging of SWC practices ...... 8 Figure .3.1 Location map of the study area ...... 21 Figure .3.2 Location map of the Jargie- catchment...... 23 Figure .4.1 Types of Soil and Water Conservation Practices ...... 37 Figure .4.2 Photograph to show Soil bunds in Jargie watersheds...... 38 Figure .4.3 Photograph to show Stone bunds in Jargie watersheds...... 39 Figure .4.4 Photograph to show cut off drain in Jargie watersheds...... 39 Figure .4.5 Traditional Soil and Water Conservation measures used by sample households ...... 42

vii

List of Appendix Appendix 1. Household survey questionnaires ...... 68 Appendix 2. Questionnaire Focus group discussion ...... 76 Appendix 3. Amharic Questionnaires Translation ...... 77

viii

Acronyms

ANRS Amhara National Regional State BoA Bureau of Agriculture BoFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development CSA Central Statistical Agency DA Development Agent FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FFW Food-for-Work GDP Growth Domestic Product HHs House Holds Masl Meter above sea level MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences SWC Soil and Water Conservation UN United Nation UNCCD United Nation Convention to Combat Desertification USAID United States Agency for International Development WFD Water Framework Directive WFP World Food Program

ix 1

CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1.1 Background of the Study

Land degradation is a serious global problem. It was a pressing concern for the past century too, and will remain high on the international agenda even for the rest of the 21st century. This is generally because it’s adverse impact on environment and food security, and its larger influence on the wealth of nations, it has contributed to the decline of civilization, as well as on the livelihood of almost every individual on earth (Sanders, 2004). As several studies depict, worldwide land degradation has also a significant negative implication on the rural communities.

Globally, on annual basis, due to land degradation $42 billion income and 6 million hectare of land are lost which contributes for a significant decline in agricultural production (Oldeman et al.,1991). If this trend continues, 1.4 to 2.8 percent of total agricultural, pasture, and forest land would be lost by 2020 (Scherr, 1991). However the extent, type and severity of the problem are not alike across various portions of the world. It is instead more acute, intense and severe in some parts of the world than the others. The situation is even a lot more critical in poor countries like Ethiopia (Feoli, Gallizia, & Zerihun, 2002) where subsistence production is a predominant approach of farming.

Land degradation in developing countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), is largely outcome of the existing agricultural production system, which is a resource-poor agriculture characterized by unreliable rainfall, low inherent land productivity, lack of capital, inadequate support services and poverty (Mekuria,2005, as cited in WCED, 1987,p.1).

Like many other developing countries, Ethiopian economy is characterized by an agrarian economy and about 85 % of its total population derives its means of survival from agricultural activities (Worku & Mekonnen, 2012). Moreover, the role of agriculture in the overall economy is quite significant. It accounts for 43%, 85%, 90% for the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment sources and export respectively (Mulu et al., 2016). Thus; undoubtedly, agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopia’s economy. The agricultural sector is characterized by a subsistent mixed farming, which derives the majority of rural livelihood from smallholding farmers.

Despite this, however, land degradation in the form of soil erosion and fertility depletion is serious challenge to agricultural productivity and economic growth (Lemenih , 2004).

Numerous studies indicate that land degradation in Ethiopia has become a pressing issue which affects all aspects of social, economic and political life of society. According to a recent study done by Hurni,et al (2015) the overall rain-fed agricultural area of Ethiopia covers 600,000 square kilometers. Of this estimated agriculturally productive lands, about 27 million hectares are drastically eroded, 14 million hectares are badly eroded and 2 million hectares have reached the point of no return (W Bewket & Sterk, 2002). It can therefore be noted that it is a chief challenge to agricultural development and food security of the country.

The average annual rate of soil loss in Ethiopia is estimated to be about two billion tons per year (Tamirie, 1986). Moreover, USAID, (2004) reported that the average annual rate of soil loss in Ethiopia is estimated to be 12 tons/hectare/year, and it can be even higher on steep slopes with soil loss rates greater than 300 tons/hectare/year or 250 mm/year, where vegetation cover is scant. In the highland areas, yearly net erosion (i.e. soil erosion minus soil deposition) is estimated about 940 million tons, or an average of 18 tons per hectare (Ertiro, 2006).

Various researches attempt to identify different causes of land degradation. For example, Taddese, (2001) reveals that the major causes of land degradation in Ethiopia are rapid population growth, severe soil loss, deforestation, low vegetation cover, and unbalanced crop and livestock production. The nature of various topographies, soil types, and agro ecological parameters are also additional factors which appeared to play a pivotal role in the degradation processes influenced by man (Dubale, 2001). Moreover; related studies investigate that it can also be caused by the interacting effects of different factors such as biophysical characteristics and socio-economic aspects (Leonard Berry,2003).

The consequence of land degradation would highly be complicated and be multifaceted but the immediate one could include reduction in crop yield which, in turn, resulting economic decline and social stress. The impact of erosion is particularly worse and severer in the highland parts of the country where farming is a rife practice for many centuries (Dubale, 2001). Due to probably rapid population growth, the expansion of agriculture and grazing now takes place on marginal lands, even on steep slopes or on soils of poor physical structure or low inherent property.

Agricultural expansion to these lands often results in rapid land degradation, with a subsequent decline in production in the country. The clearing of marginal forests and hills for fuels and construction purposes, large human and livestock populations complicated the problem which makes the bio-physical resources hard to conserve and utilizes sustainably. Likewise, in the Amhara Region, where excess removal of huge forests and accelerated population growth is a major factor for land degradation. It is estimated that the annual rate of soil loss in the region due to erosion is about 119 million tons, which amounts to 70 % of the total soil loss in the country as a whole (BoA, 2003). Because of soil erosion, the region account more than 50% of the estimated annual soil loss occurs in Ethiopia (Lakew et al, 2006).

In Ethiopia, efforts towards soil conservation were started since the 1970s and 1980s (Bewket, 2001). It is obvious that to reduce and reverse land degradation in general and soil erosion in particular, different soil and water conservation measures, and reforestation efforts have implemented throughout the country. The government of Ethiopia in collaboration with international donors implemented various mechanical and biological soil and water conservation (SWC) measures where farmland terracing, grass strips, waterways ,stone bund, and soil bunds are among the widely implemented practices (Alemu & Kidane, 2014).

Azene (1997) explained that only 25 % of the rehabilitation target has been accomplished and most of the physical soil conservation measures and community forest plantations were destroyed in Ethiopia. It is obvious that the failure of soil and water conservation has been due to lack of involvement of local people in planning and implementation process, poor execution and maintenance of the soil and water conservation structures, and land policy and resource management problems (Azene,1997). In Amhara region in particular, labor intensive SWC technologies have been promoted among farmers to control erosion and increase production. These technologies include line interventions such as stone bund, soil bunds, fanya Juu bunds, and agro-forestry practices state (Lakew et al. , 2006). However, most farmers have not adopted these technologies and in some cases farmers have abandoned earlier adopted technologies (Tadesse & Belay, 2004). Shiene (2012) stated that most plot-based studies are focused on assessing the severity of soil erosion in physical terms and there is a lack of information on the impact of SWC on soil fertility and agricultural production.

There are also gaps regarding not focused on the awareness, economic, social or institutional factors that affect how farmers manage their land in Amhara region in general and Takusa woreda in particular.

Takusa woreda is the part of Amhara Regional State which also affected by the different types of land degradation such as; stoniness, water erosion, flooding and sedimentation are the main problem in the study area. Some of the causes of degradation are natural hazards, cutting of trees, overuse of crop residues for animal feed and fuel wood, overgrazing, burning of forests, population growth, and expansion of agricultural lands, poverty, land ownership problems, and inappropriate agricultural practice. Hence, such conditions needed to practice soil and water conservation measurement in the country in general and Takusa Woreda in particular, so as to ensure the sustainability of the renewable resources.

Likewise, in Takusa woreda several kilometers of structural soil and water conservation measures were constructed on croplands, Jargie watershed and other micro watershed are typical examples in the study area. However, these conservation structures have not been sustainably used by the farmers and community forest plantations were destroyed even there was a problem to carried out SWC measures in the study area. This may be the nature of farming, the landscape, issues related with poor institution, free grazing, failure of land tenure, awareness problem, fragmentation of farm lands, encroachments to marginal areas, and lack of participation by the communities and limited sense of responsibility, in adequate technology, limited or no financial support to farmers’ adoption of practices, inappropriate conservation methods, and political enforcement without the willingness of the community.

Therefore, the purpose of this research is to assess the status and challenges of soil and water conservation practices and the community’s efforts to sustain and maintain SWC structures in Jargie watershed in Takusa woreda, North Gondar, Ethiopia.

1.2 Statement of the problem

The Ethiopian economy is primarily agricultural; the role of agriculture in the overall economy is quite significant. Land degradation in the form of soil erosion and declining soil quality seriously challenges agricultural productivity and overall economic growth of the country. Land degradation and natural resource depletion are resulting from various factors such as climatic

5 variations and human activities. The most affected natural resources are soils, water, natural vegetation and wildlife (Gebremedhin & Swinton, 2003). This is resulted in the decline of agricultural productivity food insecurity (Sisay, 2003). Therefore, soil and water conservation not only necessary but also a vital concern if the country wants to achieve sustainable development of its agricultural sector and its economy at large.

In Ethiopia, efforts to conserve soil resources and prevent degradation date back to the mid- 1970s and 1980s. However, the efforts put towards the promotion of the technologies so far seem to have had limited impact in increasing the sustained use of conservation measures, which has limited the sustained use of natural resources for a better production. The top-down and control type of policies have not been linked to the indigenous land conservation knowledge of the farmers as well as their local institutions, lack of awareness made the people to have limited sense of responsibility the overall resources (Lakew et al., 2006).

All the above problems are face in Takusa Woreda, which is located in Amhara region where soil and water conservation activities have been made through campaign for decades. Therefore, to ensure the sustainability of the renewable resources, sustainable conservation techniques and practices should be adopted. In parallel to this, it is very important to understand the challenges that face to practice SWC technologies. In past years, different studies have been conducted in different parts of Ethiopia focusing on adoption and challenges of land management, adoption behaviors, best practices and benefits of soil and water conservation practices. In Ethiopia, factors influencing adoption and management of SWC have been investigated (Kessler, Posthumus, & Tenge, 2008).

Although many resources like, money, labor, have been invested in the construction of SWC structures in sub-watersheds, but their socioeconomic impact and sustainability is not well studied. Therefore, designing and formulating appropriate soil conservation strategies, considering the various socio-economic, political and cultural environments are urgently needed in order to attain sustainable economic development at a national level. The purpose of this study is to investigate the sustainability of soil and water conservation measures on selected sub watersheds like, Jargie watershed found in degraded areas that many in soil and water conservation are practiced; to evaluate the importance of treating lands with biophysical SWC measures.

In addition, it also assessing different technical challenges that farmers faced at watershed level, investigates challenges related to farmer’s access to experts support, socio-economic, political and cultural environments, and look at possible conducive grounds to implement more effective soil and water conservation practices in the study area. Moreover, similar studies related to practices and challenges of SWC practices have not been conducted in Takusa Woreda. So, the researcher is inspired to assess and draw conclusions on the status and challenges of soil and water conservation measures on Jargie Watershed, in Takusa woreda, North Gondar zone of Amhara region, Ethiopia.

1.3 Objectives of the Study 1.3.1. General Objective

The general objective of this study is to investigate the status and challenges of soil and water conservation practices in Jargie watershed of Takusa woreda.

1.3.2.Specific objectives 1. To investigate status of soil and water conservation practices in the Jargie watershed. 2. To analyze the role of soil and water conservation practice in improving crop productivity. 3. To investigate the challenges of Soil and Water Conservation practices in Jargie watershed. 4. To assess the awareness of farmers on the upper, middle and lower section of the watershed.

1.4 Research questions

On the basis of the above formulated specific objectives the following research questions set.  What is the current status of soil and water conservation practices?  What role has soil and water conservation practices for agriculture crop productivity in the land?  What challenges faced the soil and water conservation practice on the watershed?  What will the farmer have awareness on soil and water conservation practice?

1.5 The Scope of the Study

The scope of this study was limited to assess the status and challenges on soil and water conservation practices in Jargie watershed in Takusa woreda. The study focused on farmers’ personal characteristics, socioeconomic status, bio-physical factor, socio-psychological factor, and institutional activity that challenge in practices SWC activities within the different landscapes (upper, middle and lower). Both quantitative data and qualitative information was gathered by using primary and secondary data sources. In addition because of the time and financial constraint the sample survey was limited to only one kebele out of 24 kebeles of Takusa woreda with 287 households was drawn.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The current trend of soil degradation in the country, particularly in the highlands, is a major constraint to the foreseen economic development of the country, so controlling the problem of soil erosion is important. In this regard many researchers and scholars conducted various researches on the problem. Clear understanding of causes and extent of soil degradation, execution of the right conservation technologies and involvement of farmers on designing and implementation has contribute to the success of soil and water conservation programs in the watershed level. In addition to these, understanding challenges of SWC practices in the study area is crucial in designing future research and development strategies. Thus, this research is significant by investigating the status and challenges on soil and water conservation practices in Jargie watershed of Takusa woreda.

In addition to this the research will provide information for policy makers, the community, individual farmers, researchers and extension staff to enhance effective and efficient SWC measures in the Jargie watershed and other areas with conditions similar to Ethiopia. It is also significant informs and assists the various government agencies and NGOs to have an insight on the implication of the ongoing soil and water conservation practices so as to enable them to consider what constitutes genuine community natural resource management practice. Furthermore, it also provides information for other researcher who desire to make future studies on soil and water conservation practices in the study area, since this research was carried out in the first time in Takusa woreda ,and there no one study has been conducted in the study area.

1.7 Conceptual framework

There are a number of factors influence investments in soil and water conservation measures. These factors mainly, personal and demographic, socioeconomic, institutional, bio-physical, and socio-psychological factors. In this study, the above factors the most importance independent variables estimated to influence on soil and water conservation practices in the study area. These factors are also shown in figure1.

Socio -Demographic Institutional factors: Bio-physical factors:

factors: -Frequency of contact with -Slope -Age of HH -Family size development agent -Soil fertility level -Sex -Level of -DA’s technological support -Distance to farm land

Education -Political factors

Soil and Water Conservation

Socio-economic factors: Socio-psychological factors: - Amount of labor - Level of awareness -Livestock wealth -Perception of technology - Land holding size & quality of land cultivation -Information seeking behavior -Off farm employment opportunities

Figure .1.1 Conceptual frameworks for challenging of SWC practices

1.8 Operational definition of terms and concepts

1.8.1 Land degradation Land degradation is defined differently by different authors. According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), land degradation is defined as a natural process or a human activity that causes the land to be unable to provide intended services for an extended time (FAO, 2004). 1.8.2 Soil erosion Soil erosion is both natural (geological) and through human induced processes caused by two agents, water and wind. Geological erosion occurs under natural conditions, where the soil loss is positively balanced by soil formation that indicates net gain (Kaihura et al., 1999). 1.8.3 Soil and Water Conservation Measures These express the soil erosion management practices which have been introduced to farmers. The term conservation means the protection of resources from destructive influences. The term soil conservation applies to the prevention of erosion on cultivated land and on other areas depends essentially on the reduction of soil detachment and runoff, and on the maintenance of adequate vegetative ground cover (Tiffen, 1998). In accordance with the modern concept on soil erosion, the definition of soil and water conservation a set of strategies for prevention of soil from being eroded from the earth‘s surface or becoming exhausted chemically by over use, or other chemical action.

1.9 Organization of the Thesis

This thesis has organized into five chapters. The first chapter is emphasis about back ground, statement of the problem, objective and significant of the thesis. Chapter two deals the relevant literature that includes definition of soil and water conservation, land degradation in Ethiopia, soil and water conservation in Ethiopia, soil erosion, farmers’ awareness on soil and water conservation practices, challenges of soil and water conservation, and significance of soil and water conservation practices. In chapter three, brief description of the study area and research methodology are presented. Survey results are analysis and discussed in chapter four. Finally chapter five presents the conclusions and recommendations that are drawn from the study.

CHAPTER TWO Literature Review

2.1. Definition and concepts of soil and water conservation

Soil is a complex mixture of eroded rock, mineral nutrients, decaying organic material, water, air and millions of microscopic organisms involved in the process of decomposing and breaking down of dead organic material. Soil has at least five main functions relevant to human life as it is explained by (Nike, 2003). Accordingly, soil serves as a medium in which crops, forest and other plants grow, for their filtering, buffering and transformation activity between the atmosphere, ground water and plant cover, servicing the environment and the people by protecting food chain and drinking water reserves, as biological habitat and gene reserve, by serving as spatial base for society‘s structures and their development ( the construction of buildings and dumping of refuse) and finally as a source of raw material ( example clay, sand and gravel for construction) and also as a reserve of water and energy. So, soil is a fundamental component in sustaining life on earth.

Water is an essential requirement for life on earth. Fresh water is a vital resource for agriculture, manufacturing, transportation and countless other human activities. Water also plays a key role in sculpturing Earth‘s surface, moderating climate and diluting pollutants. Water pollution can be traced to all sort of human activity like agriculture, irrigation, industry, urbanization and mining. One way to manage water resource is to increase the supply in a particular area by building dams and reservoirs, bringing in surface water from another area or tapping ground water. Another approach is to increase the efficiency of water use (Nick,2003) .

Soil Conservation is defined in different ways by different scholars. The term conservation means the protection of resources from destructive influences. The term soil conservation applies to the prevention of erosion on cultivated land and on other areas depends essentially on the reduction of soil detachment and runoff, and on the maintenance of adequate vegetative ground cover (Tiffen, 1998). In accordance with the modern concept on soil erosion, the definition of soil and water conservation a set of strategies for prevention of soil from being eroded from the earth‘s surface or becoming exhausted chemically by over use, or other chemical action.

It is a combination of all methods of management and land uses that safe guard the soil against deterioration by natural or man-induced factors. Soil and water conservation interventions are first a response to the perceived land degradation problem. Investments in soil and water conservation (SWC) practices enhance crop production, food security and household income (Mulu et al., 2016).

Recognizing these connections, the government of Ethiopia is promoting SWC technologies for improving agricultural productivity, household food security and rural livelihoods .Particularly in the Ethiopian highlands, different SWC technologies have been promoted among farmers to control erosion. These technologies are subdivided mechanical structures, biological structures, and mixed or Combinations structures.

Mechanical or engineering soil-conservation measures are physical measures to prevent and control erosion, which include terracing, stone bunds; check dams, ditches, and enclosures. Terracing is an agricultural technique for collecting surface runoff water thus increasing infiltration and controlling water erosion. A stone bund, depending upon the availability of stones, is laid along a contour. The contour stone bunds do not concentrate runoff but keep it spread. They also reduce the rate of runoff allowing infiltration, to conserve soil moisture for crop production, and to reduce soil erosion.

A check dam is a small, temporary or permanent dam constructed across a drainage ditch, swale, or channel to lower the speed of concentrated flows for a certain design range of storm events. A check dam can be built from logs of wood, stone, pea gravel-filled sandbags or bricks and cement. Check dams are constructed within ditches or gullies and function by segmenting water channels at intervals to reduce the velocity and erosive force of water. It is important to reduce erosion and prevent gully formation during flood and allow groundwater recharge and sediment to settle out. Change from crop to grazing land, from forest to agro forestry, from grazing land to cropland, etc. From this point of view, the use of soil and water conservation practices is various in natures, and has positive impact on soil and water conservation activities, increasing overall crop productivity, household income, and food security (Mulu et al., 2016).

Biological (agronomical) measures such as, mixed cropping, contour cultivation, mulching are usually associated with annual crops; are repeated routinely each season or in a rotational sequence; are of short duration and not permanent.

Biological soil conservation measures include; vegetative barriers, agronomic and soil Fertility improvement practices, which help in controlling surface runoff, reduce soil losses and improve productivity. Agronomic measures are practiced as the second line of defense in erosion control exercise while mechanical/physical measures are primary control measure and are often considered as reinforcement measures (MoARD, 2005). Contour farming is plough across slopes rather than up and down them in order to reduce runoff. It is one of the simplest ways to prevent soil erosion. This soil-conservation practice is useful on gentle slopes. Mulching is effective against wind as well as water erosion. Mulches reduce soil moisture evaporation and increase amount of soil moisture by addition of organic matter to soil. Whereas, mixed cropping refers to the planting of different crops in alternating strips to check flow of water. The objective is to maintain, improve or restore the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil (Tennyson, 2000).

Mixed or Combinations structures measures described above are often combined where they are complementary and thus enhancing each other and further reduce erosion. Mixed structure systems can better control drainage and reduce erosion than either one alone (Herweg & Ludi, 1999).Vegetative strips that are planted alongside check dams, and terraces allow water to infiltrate deeper soil and reduce surface runoff, which is then made easier to control by the mechanical structures (Nyssen, Moeyersons, Haile, & Deckers, 2008; Gebretsadik, 2014). However, the adoption rates of these SWC technologies vary considerably within the country (Teshome, de Graaff, & Stroosnijder, 2014), largely because investments by farmers in SWC are influenced by the ecological, economic and social impacts of the SWC technologies. Therefore, Availability of several soil and water conservation alternatives, conflicting objectives and a range of evaluation criteria of farmers hamper their decision-making and adoption of SWC measures (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006).

As Tiffen (1998) put it water conservation activities aim at increasing water availability and efficiency. Water conservation for plant production has direct benefits to a farmer through increased crop yield, reduced risk of crop failure, cultivation of higher value crops and reduced soil erosion risk. Indirect benefits include increased ground water recharge, dry season river flows and water availability. All of these benefits are translated into improvements in the productivity of land and labor resources, the standard of living and commitment to resource conservation and management.

2.2. Land degradation in Ethiopia According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), land degradation is defined as a natural process or a human activity that causes the land to be unable to provide intended services for an extended time (FAO, 2004).In addition, Hurni, et al. (2010) stated, land degradation includes all process that diminishes the capacity of land resources to perform essential functions and services in ecosystems which is caused by two interlocking complex systems: the natural ecosystem and the human social system. Interactions between the two systems determine the success or failure of resource management (Berry, 2003). Land degradation is one of the major challenges in agricultural production in many parts of the world, especially in developing nations like Ethiopia. Abou40% of the world’s agricultural land is seriously degraded, where 80% of this degradation is caused by soil erosion (Oldeman, 1991). This worldwide depletion of land resources continues to be a serious hazard, particularly, in the least developing countries, where agriculture is the main pillar of their economy.

In Ethiopia, soil erosion by water is one of the most devastating problems that threaten the sustainability of agriculture and food security (Merrey &Gebreselassie, 2011). These problems are very serious particularly in the northern areas of the country (Worku & Mekonnen, 2012). Soil erosion is a severe problem in Ethiopia, especially in the highlands because of in the area there’s much of the population is living and agriculture is intensive (Poesen & Schu, 2015).

Recently, FAO (2013) categorized the country a high risk rain-fed cropping highland with a treats of erosion, land degradation and reduced productivity. Past studies on the land degradation problem in Ethiopia, about one billion tons of topsoil are lost annually due to soil erosion (Yesuf, Mekonnen, Kassie, & Pender, 2005). The majority of the farmers in rural areas of Ethiopia are subsistence-oriented, cultivating impoverished soils on sloppy and marginal lands that are generally highly susceptible to soil erosion and other degrading forces. Moreover, population growth in the country leads to deforestation and the conversion of pastureland to crops leading to overstocking and further degradation (Yesuf et al., 2005). Crop residues are increasingly used for fuel rather than mulch. Land degradation usually results from unsustainable land use. Accelerated erosion now occurs in relation to the following human activities: overgrazing, clearing of forests, repeated fires, and poor cultivation practices, etc. It destroys land resources. All these factors lead to nutrient loss and increased erosion.

Therefore, Ethiopia suffers from problems of land degradation and low productivity. What makes these problems is that 85% of the country’s 82 million people reside in rural areas (Teka & Mengesha, 2017). Due to these facts, Ethiopia has been in a continuous struggle to achieve the three objectives of increasing agricultural production, reducing poverty, and ensuring sustainable use of the natural resources.

2.3. Soil and water conservation practice in Ethiopia

Ethiopia is one of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Its economy is mainly dependent on rain- fed agriculture .The agricultural sector is the main source of employment for about 85 percent of the population. It also contributes to a very large proportion of the country’s GDP. However, the role of this sector in alleviating poverty and food insecurity is undermined by land degradation such soil erosion and nutrient depletion (Taddese, 2001). Half of the highlands (about 27 million hectares) is significantly eroded and over one fourth (about 14 million hectares) is seriously eroded. It is also estimated that over 2 million hectares of farmland have reached the point of no return, and are unable to sustain economic production in the future (Woldeamlak Bewket & Sterk, 2003) .The rapid population increment, severe soil loss, deforestation, low vegetative cover and unbalanced crop and livestock production are the major causes of land degradation in Ethiopia (Leonard Berry,2003). The government of Ethiopia and a consortium of donors have undertaken a massive programmer of natural resource conservation to reduce environmental degradation, poverty and increase agricultural productivity and food security (Demeke, 2003).

In Ethiopia, efforts towards this conservation goal were started since the mid-1970s and 80s (Gashaw, 2015; Woldeamlak Bewket, 2007). Since then, different soil conserving technologies with a varied approach has been underway, mainly in campaigns and through food for work (FFW) incentives. The SWC works include planting trees on hillsides and catchments areas, water harvesting in drier areas, construction of earth dams, pond, gully plugging, traces, diversion of drains, and check dam (Asrat, Belay, & Hamito, 2004; Tafa et al., 2009).

For example, between 1976 and 1988, with WFD support, 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 (Woldeamlak Bewket & Sterk, 2003).

Although it is recognized that soil and water conservation practices can substantially contribute to reversing soil degradation, the performances of past and ongoing SWC programs in Ethiopia have, in most cases, been disappointing due to decisions on which type of SWC measures to use and where to use them were not made by the farmers concerned; and without considering the socioeconomic context of the farmers always brings failure in adoption of technology. It needs to be tackled through new conservation strategies, approaches and technologies (Woldeamlak Bewket & Sterk, 2003).

2.4. Soil Erosion

In Ethiopia, soil erosion is the most visible form of land degradation (Hurni et al.,1986). The most common form of erosion is the loss of topsoil under the action of water or wind. Worldwide, water erosion is accountable for 56 percent of land degradation followed by wind erosion causing 28 percent (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006). The combined effect of steep topography, high intensity rain storms, degraded vegetation, extensive cultivation, overgrazing, soil with depleted organic matter leads to sever soil erosion. According to FAO (1986 ;Asrat et al., 2004)it is indicated that over 14 million ha (27%) of the Ethiopian high lands were seriously eroded out of which about half should be completely withdrawn from agriculture to reforestation. This large amount of soil loss made the country to be described as one of the most serious erosion areas in Africa and in the world (Hurni et al.,1986). Soil erosion can be a severe problem in conventional farming, especially on steep slopes. The main effects of soil erosion include reduction of soil depth, removal of soil organic matter, removal of essential soil nutrients, and depleting in water holding capacities of soil which cumulatively lead to a decline in agricultural production (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006).For example, in 1990 alone, the estimated loss of grain production due to reduced top soil depth ranges from 57,000 to 128,000 tons (Teketay, 2017).

2.5. Farmers’ awareness on soil and Water conservation practice

Farmers may be aware of the degradation of their land, but they may not be aware of the causes and consequences. Some farmers may not recognize the problem at all or others may not care for various reasons (Kessler et al., 2008). For instance, low level of education and ignorance were causes of low level of awareness on soil erosion processes. According to Habtamu (2006) also investigates farmers with better educational attainment perceive the problem better and make decision to retain conservation structures.

Several factors influence farmers’ decisions to adopt modify or reject new SWC technologies, and these are often classified as personal, physical, socioeconomic, institutional and technological factors in the adoption literature (Gebremedhin & Swinton, 2003).

2.6. Challenges of Soil and Water Conservation practices

To overcome the problem of land degradation on agricultural productivity, Ethiopia has made efforts to launch afforestation and conservation programs with the support of both government and non-government organizations; however, success to date has been limited (Bishaw, 2017).

At present extent and speed of land degradation, particularly due to soil erosion is distinguished as a serious threat to the viability of the subsistence agriculture in the Amhara regional state (Lakew et al , 2006). In the Amhara region, different types of soil and water conservation measures (both biological and physical) are practiced; however, site suitability- of measures has not been assessed.

Knowledge of farmers' perceptions and attitudes toward land degradation is an important first step to tackling the problem. Farmers do not fully understand the causes and impacts of land degradation. Aklilu (2006) stated that identified factors that could influence adoption of different sustainable conservation techniques. According to him the household variable that is considered to have effect on the adoption of SWC technologies included age, level of education, and family size and farm experience. Similarly, the internal socioeconomic characteristics of community households like, level of education and skill and income influences degree of community participation (Tigest, 2010). When the level of education, health condition and occupational and income situation of the community members is low people feel that they have no economic power and knowledge and skill to organize themselves and run development activities and manage the same. When people have low economic power, they commit less time and resources to community work. Participation increases with better education because it enhances better organizational leadership and educated people are more likely to be receptive to new ideas, more communication and human relation skills and more understanding. Farm size also is one of the factors that affect farmer’s decision to soil conservation technologies (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006). Institutional inefficiencies in the development and delivery of relevant knowledge and assistance are asserted to be a major reason why conservation technologies are not adopted (Fentie et al., 2013).

Therefore, integration of SWC technologies into institutional, local information and assistance networks can facilitate the adoption process (Fentie et al., 2013). Several studies identified different factors of challenging SWC practices. The major ones are: Socioeconomic, demographic, institutional, socio psychological and biophysical factors.

2.6.1. Demographic variables

Household’s demographic variables are among the most common household characteristics, which are mostly associated with farmers' adoption behavior. Several studies (researches) in adoption of soil conservation are conducted in different parts of Ethiopia. According to Aklilu (2006) the household variable that is considered to have effect on the adoption of SWC technologies included age, educational level, and family size. In this study understanding to soil erosion problem and land security had no statistical support for implementation of soil water conservation practices.

The influence of farmers’ age on the adoption performance of soil and water conservation may be either positive or negative. Some studies indicate that farm experience has a positive relationship with the use of conservation practices (Herweg & Ludi, 1999 ; Demeke, 2003; Amsalu & Graaff, 2006). The long term planning horizon by younger farmers might be influence for the negative effect of age on the adoption decision of soil and water conservation practice.

Exposure to education can increase the farmers’ management capacity and reflect a better understanding of the benefits and constraints of soil conservation practices. education is associated with adoption because it is believed to increase farmers’ ability to obtain, and analyze information that helps him/her to make appropriate decision (Tigist, 2010).

Also, education increases the capacity and ability to obtain and apply relevant information concerning the use of soil conservation practices, Since educated farmers were expected to have a good knowledge of the importance of SWC technologies and hence the need to adopt the technologies (Nkonya, 2002). Family size is often reported as having both negative and positive effects on the adoption and preservation of conservation activities. In their study in the central highland of Ethiopia Demeke, (2003).identified that age of the farmers and family size had significant negative effects on the adoption of conservation practice.

The reason for this observation is likely to be land scarcity is more serious with larger families and it makes difficult to adopt some SWC technologies (Tadesse & Belay, 2004; Fentie et al., 2013). A household with a large size pays little attention to conservation activities because of the need to be engaged in off-farm activities to earn cash for buying food and other economic activities. Contrary to this finding, those households who have large family are expected to adopt or have more chance to implement the practice more than those who lack of labor or relatively less family accessibility (Kifle, Teferi, Kebedom, & Legesse, 2016). Thus, it is difficult to say that, family size affects the practice only direction.

2.6.2. Bio-Physical Factor

Steeper slope has been found to have a positive effect on the decision of SWC practices. Empirical studies in different parts of Ethiopia reported a positive and significant correlation between the slope of a farm and the decision of adopt SWC practices (Taye, 2006). Farmers’ plots with steep slopes are more involved in the continued use than those who own flat or gently sloping farmland. On steep slopes farmers are constructing soil bunds and fanya juu on their farmland to prevent soil erosion (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006).

Distance of a plot from residential areas, has negatively and significantly influences the adoption of soil and water conservation practice by farmers (Demeke, 2003). Adoption of conservation structures are retained more on plots closer to residential areas and more attention is given to nearby plots. This can be attributed to the fact that farmers give more attention to nearby plots and the maintenance and/or care given to fare distance is limited (Worku & Mekonnen, 2012).

The soil fertility condition of cultivated plots is an important factor on farmers’ decisions on the continued use of soil and water conservation practices. The level of soil fertility has a negative and significant correlation with the degree of involvement adoption and continued work. Farmers with plots with poor or low and medium soil fertility are more involved in conservation work than those who have fertile land (Teshome, Graaff, Kassie, & Stroosnijder, 2012). Accordingly, farmers with less fertile lands have needed to improve the low fertility of soil and increase the productivity of the plot, whereas farmers with very fertile lands possibly do not see the negative effects of erosion on their plots short term and no need of conserve their plots (Teshome et al., 2012).

2.6.3.Socio-Economic variable

Socio-economic variables influence farmer’s adoption behavior on soil and water conservation technologies. Many economists like, Giger (1999) argue that a major reason of the non-adoption of SWC practices is that they are not cost-effective for the farmers to apply them. The investment costs are too high, and the benefits are too low, uncertain and achieved on long-term. The economic effect is measured in terms of on-site profitability, as well as the change in the farm household’s production system. Soil conservation represents a capital investment that does not necessarily generate a new income flow, but rather reduces the rate of decay of an existing income flow. Especially physical structures like terraces imply a long payback period. While the investment costs of SWC are readily determined, measuring the benefits is more problematic.

Farm size is one of the factors that affect farmer’s decision to soil conservation technologies (Worku & Mekonnen, 2012; Tadesse & Belay, 2004).It implies that farmers with relatively larger land size had better chance of adaptation of soil conservation technologies than farmers with smaller plot of lands. The reason towards the positive relation of farm size with adoption to the fact that conservation structures occupy part of the scarce land and due to this, farmers with small plot of lands could not afford to occupy part of their land with the structures (Demeke, 2003).Contrary this, some studies have shown a negative correlation between farm size and adoption of SWC technologies. More land may reduce the need to conserve land (Gebremedhin & Swinton, 2003), while the potential loss of land for conservation may discourage investment on small farms.

2.6.4. Socio-psychological variables

Socio-psychological variables also influence household’s adoption decision of SWC technologies. In this study, socio- psychological variables were information seeking behavior, social participation, and perception of technology. Concerning social participation, different studies reported its effect in different ways. For example, Negash, (2007) reported that social participation had significant and positive relationship with adoption. Cosmo politeness is the degree of contact a farmer has with external situations of the social system. This is assumed to influence the access to information on improved farming practices as compared to other members of the group and influence adoption positively.

2.6.5. Institutional factors

A wide range of policies and intuitions may impact on decisions to invest in soil and water conservation (Gidey, 2015). Institutional inefficiencies in the development and delivery of relevant knowledge and assistance are asserted to be a major reason why conservation technologies are not adopted .Therefore integration of SWC technologies into institutional, local information and assistance networks can facilitate the adoption process.

Rahmeto (2007) which shown that frequency of contact with extension agent positively and significantly contributed to adoption. Land tenure is another variable which affects the adoption of soil and water conservation practice. Successful conservation practices need to a land tenure system that gives guarantee for continuous benefit to the farmer. Since land at present is under the control of government and it is unlikely to contribute positively for the adoption/continuous use of technology (Bishaw, 2017).

2.7. Significance of Soil and Water Conservation

No doubt that, SWC measures have positive impacts such as reducing runoff and soil erosion, improving basin hydrology, maintaining and/or improving farmland soil fertility and thereby improving/maintaining agricultural production, reducing sediment load to natural and human- made reservoirs and reducing further degradation (Nyssen et al., 2008). For instance, soil loss estimates from Soil Conservation Research Project experiments in the northwestern and north eastern highlands of Ethiopia indicated that fanyajuu bunds, on average, could reduce soil loss by 65 percent, or 25–72 tons per hectare per year (Herweg & Ludi, 1999). Soil and water conservation is important now that the soil has to be preserved and the environment kept neat, tidy, and productive in order to preserve our human health and nutrition. In addition, the role of soil and water conservation is improved water availability and fertility levels for crop production and diversification. Productivity and SWC objectives are highly complementary because conservation of soil, water and natural vegetation leads to higher productivity of crops and livestock and thus the improvement of livelihoods (Kerr, 2002).

CHAPTER THREE Methods and Materials

This chapter begins by explaining about the study area, followed by describing the target population, stating the methodology the research was employed, subsequently research design, sampling procedures and sampling determination for both qualitative and quantitative method is illustrated, and lastly data collection tools for both qualitative and quantitative method presented.

3.1. Description of the Study Area 3.1.1. Physical Background

The study was conducted on Jargie watershed in Takusa woreda, North Gondar Zone Amhara National Regional State (ANRS). Geographically, Takusa Woreda is located between 12º0'0” N– 12º30'0”N latitude and 36º30'8”E–37º0'0”E longitude, the Woreda’s capital is, Delgi, found 647 Kms far from the country’s capital Addis Ababa and 88 km away from the regional capital, Bahir-Dar and142 kms from Gondar city. It is bounded by Chilga and Dembiya Woredas in the North and Northeast, Alefa Woreda in the South, Lake Tana in the East, and Qwara and Metema in the West and Northwest.

Figure .3.1 Location map of the study area

The woreda’s total surface area is about 1852.62 km2 with varied topographic features, rugged and undulating areas representing about 70% and flat plains 30%. The agro ecological zone of the woreda is Woina Dega and Kolla 55% and 45% respectively. The Woreda lies in altitude ranging from 800 m to 2368 m .a.s.l. The mean annual rainfall (RF) ranges from 950 mm to1500 mm. The mean annual temperature ranges from 15℃ - 32℃, the highest rain fall season start from June and end on the mid of September (locally known as kiremt season), while December, January, and February are mostly the driest months in the Woreda (Takusa Woreda Agricultural Office, 2017). The dominant soil type of the woreda include Vertisols (black soils) 30%, Nitosols (red soils) 30%, and Grey (brown) 40% with fertility ranging from medium fertile (75%) to unfertile (25%) soils.

The specific site where Jargie Watershed is located in Takusa Woreda , Mekonta Aybga kebele. According to the 2017, Takusa Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development annual report the watershed has a total land area of 982 hectares. The Jargie water shed is bounded by Lake Tana in the East, the main road in the West, Delgi town in the North and Aybga in the South. This watershed consists of three villages, namely; Guangur, Mekonta, and Gibaza which are totally encompassed by the watershed. Based on the traditional climate classifications of Ethiopia, Jargie micro-Watershed lies within woyna dega category with an altitude of 1792 to 2064m.a.s.l and rainfall ranging from 900 to 1400 mm/y and the mean annual temperature ranges from 180C to 250C.The highest rain fall season start from June and end on the mid of September, while December, January, and February are mostly the driest months in the study area. It also receives small amount of rain fall in spring: March, April and May (Takusa Woreda Agricultural Office, 2017).

Table 3.1.Land forms and slope of watershed

No Land forms Area In hector % Slope

1 Mountainous 152.91 15.57 15-30

2 Hill 85.62 8.71 8-15

3 Gentle slope 177.24 18.04 5-15

4 flat / level 566.23 57.68 0-5

Source: Takusa woreda Agricultural office, 2017

Figure.3.2 Location map of the Jargie- catchment. 3.1.2.Socio- Economic Background

Based on the 2007 national census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), the woreda has a total population of 129, 097, of which 65,782 are male and 63315 female; and7087 or 5.5% urban inhabitants (CSA, 2007). The total population in the Mekonta Aybga kebele is 4829 of which 2224 male, 2605 female. But the total house hold head living in the watershed are 1019, male 792 and female 227.

Table 3.2 Population of the micro- watershed

Household heads Total Population Average family size

M F T M F T

No 792 227 1019 2224 2605 4829 5

% 77.72 22.28 100 46.05 53.95 100

Source: Takusa woreda Agricultural office 2017

Agriculture is a predominant economic activity of Takusa woreda. The agricultural system in the woreda is mixed farming system involving both rain fed crop production as a major with livestock production as supplementary in the system. There are various sources of livelihood and income for local communities living in the woreda. These include growing crops, livestock production, honey, fishery, timber and other non-timber forest products. According to data from the Woreda’s Agricultural Office, the major crops grown in the study area are both in terms of area coverage and farmer’s preferences are teff, maize, millet, and sorghum. White cumin also grown in the area as important marketable crops. In addition, vegetables also produced by using small-scale irrigation are practiced; the main vegetable crops planted by farmers are pepper, tomato, potato, onion, and cabbage. In terms of livestock in the study area, the farmers raise cattle, sheep and goats. Current status of Takusa woreda in terms of education, health service transportation and electricity are not as such enough. The community also gets water from Lake Tana, spring, rivers, and hand pumps.

3.2. Research Methodology

Research methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problems (Kothari, 2004). Therefore, research methodology is significant to give a plan on what and how to do the study which depends on the target population.

3.2.1. Research Design

In this study, the researcher had been employed mixed research design, which is both quantitative and qualitative methods to describe and evaluate the status and challenges on soil and water conservation practices in Jargie watershed of Takusa woreda. The type of procedure of the research was Sequential procedures (explanatory), in which the researcher seeks to elaborate or expand the findings of one method with another method (Creswell, 2009). Accordingly, research approach was both quantitative survey dominant method and the qualitative method was used to validate those quantitative data and to examine the status and challenges on soil and water conservation practices in Jargie watershed of Takusa woreda. Qualitative research was analyzed by using words and phrases in narration forms. Quantitative data was analyzed using mean, percentages, standard deviations, frequencies, binomial test, t-test, one-way ANOVA and Binary logistic regression. The results were presented using graphs, charts and tables.

3.2.2. Sampling Method Determination and Sampling size

The study was conducted in Jargie watershed, Takusa woreda. In the study area there is only one kebele namely Mekonta Aybga. In this study, the researcher was employed both probability and non-probability sampling techniques. Consequently, for this study 287 household farmers were selected from 1019 household farmers living in the study area by using stratified sampling techniques. To determine the required sample size of the study, the whole of Jargie watershed classified in to three groups (strata) based on their topography and relative distance to the woreda’s capital i.e. upper section with a population of 300 household head, middle section with a population of 519 house hold head and lower section with a population of 200 household head.

After stratifying the population the researcher was randomly selects the final respondents proportional to each group using a lottery method .This helps the study to assess the awareness difference among farmers in various categories on soil and water conservation practices. 287 selected the samples from the total population of 1019 household farmers by using the following Yamane’s formula (1967) cited in Robert (2012) to determine the size of the sample .The formula below was employed to calculate the sample size as:

26 n꞊ N/1+N(e)2

Where N ꞊ the study population N<10,000 n ꞊ the desired sample size e ꞊ margin of error set at 5%

For this study, Given N=1019, the researcher has used at 95% confidence level 5% margin of error. n ꞊ 1019/1+1019(0.05)2 ꞊287

These 287 participant farmers were selected from the three sections of the watershed i.e. upper section, middle section and lower section by using proportionality formula(Kothari, 2004). nh = (Nh/N)n

Where, nh= sample size of the stratum Nh= total household head in each stratum

N= total population (total head of the household in the study area) n = total sample size of the study

Upper section nh = (300/1019)287=85

Middle section nh = (519/1019)287=146

Lower section nh= (200/1019)287=56

Therefore, total 287 house hold farmers’ were selected.

Table 3.3 Sample size of farmers from the three sections

No Sections Household Sampled HH

Framers

1 Upper section 300 85

2 Middle section 519 146

3 Lower section 200 56

Total 1019 287

Source: Field survey, Jargie watersheds, 2017

3.2.3. Methods of data collection

The data for the study was generated from both primary and secondary data sources. The primary sources of data were obtained from surveys, structure questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussion, and field observation.

The survey questionnaires were comprised both closed ended and open ended questions which were distributed to respondents, and were collected by the researcher. The questions were pre– tested on selected respondents. Subsequently, on the basis of the results obtained from the pre- test, necessary modifications were made to the questions, which were used ultimately translated from English to Amharic language. The data was collected from March, 2017 – May, 2017.

Farmers survey is one of the methods used to collect the necessary data for the study. The questionnaire was divided into five main categories; each of which explored a certain aspect of awareness, attitude, the status and challenges of soil and water conservation practice.

Focus group discussion: In order to triangulate the data collected through interview and questionnaire, 8 semi-structured interview questions developed by the researcher to collect data about the status and challenges of soil and water conservation practice (See; Appendix 2). The researcher used one focus group discussion. The group was composed of 10 members that consist of agricultural experts, religious leaders, elders, and students using a supporting checklist.

The major issues included during the focus group discussions were used collected qualitative data about the major constraints of SWC related issues. Field observations were conducted throughout the whole process of the research in order to ensure the validity of the obtained information, about the physical and demographic factors of SWC practice. In this regard, the majority of the respondents’ field was observed in order to assess what they made on conservation measures constructed on their cultivated fields. Field observation were also took place by the researcher together with DAs that helps the researcher to cross-check the data that were be found through other primary and secondary data collection instruments. The Secondary data sources of information obtained and reviewed from various sources. The sources are collected from different books, journal articles, published and unpublished document, previous research works, internet website, report, plans and governments documents.

3.2.4. Methods of data analysis

The data analysis was conducted by using quantitative and qualitative descriptions. The quantitative data was analyzed by using mean, percentages, standard deviations, frequencies, binomial test, t-test, one-way ANOVA, and binary logistic regression. One way ANOVA was used to assess whether there exists a significant mean difference among the three groups of the watershed. To assess the status of soil and water conservation practices binomial test was used. The t-test was used to compare user & non-user on role of SWC practices to agriculture croup productivity. A binary logistic regression was used for the analysis of the response to questions from HH related to different variables that challenges of Soil and Water Conservation practices. Whereas, qualitative data was analyzed by using different procedures and methods which the data generated from focus group discussion, personal field observation and secondary sources. The quantitative data was also interpreted by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 20.0 software package).

3.2.5. Model specification

For this research, a model that reflects the observed status of introduced soil conservation structures on a particular farm was required. The responses of farmers fall into two categories based on their intention to practice the SWC technologies/ practices. i.e., adopting /retaining and not adopting/ not retaining in the watersheds. Such observations reflect a dichotomous variable. Therefore, in this study both, dependent and independent variables were incorporated.

Definition of Variables

Farmers’ decision about SWC practices can be conceived of having two components: whether to apply SWC practices or not. Both of these components are assumed to be influenced by a number of variables that are related to farmers’ objectives and constraints. The dependent and independent variables employed in this analysis are listed below.

Dependent variable

As we know the dependent variable is a variable that is said to be affected or explained by another variable/ variables. In this study, the dependent variables will be represents the practice of SWC by the farmers is treated as a dichotomous dependent variable. Such variable, the binary legit analysis model has dichotomous nature representing the observed status of the farmer in soil and water conservation technologies/practices. Therefore,“1”represents the user of soil and water conservation technologies/practices of sampled farms on their own plots which constructs and “2” non- user of the technologies/ practices.

Independent variables

Independent variables of the model, represents the variable which influences farmers decision to use a given soil and water conservation practices were used as personal, institutional, bio- physical ,socio-economical, and socio-psychological factors variables as follow.

Household head age: The effect of age of the farmer on conservation decision may be either negative or positive (Fentie et al., 2013). Amsalu & Graaff (2006) hypothesized that, farmers’ age and adoption of SWC is expected to relate positively. On other side, because of risk averting nature older age farmers are more conservative than the youngest one to adopt new technology (Tegene, 2000).

Educational level of the household head: It measures formal education of household head in the family. Education increases farmers’ capacity to create/innovate. Farmers having a good education level are more open to new technology. The study hypothesized that educational level would be positively related to technology adoption (Tadesse & Belay, 2004) .Some studies found a positive relationship between education and the decision to implement and maintain conservation measures (Demeke, 2003).

Education may increase households understanding on the causes and consequence of soil erosion and it is expected that educated household head can make better decision to adopt SWC measures. According to Ertiro, (2006) farmers with better educational attainment perceive the problem better and make decision to retain conservation structures. Exposure to education can increase the farmers’ management capacity and reflect a better understanding of the benefits and constraints of soil conservation practices. Also, education increases the capacity and ability to obtain and apply relevant information concerning the use of soil conservation practices, Since educated farmers were expected to have a good knowledge of the importance of SWC technologies and hence the need to adopt the technologies (Nkonya, 2002) Some studies indicate that the number of experience in farming has positive relationship with the use of conservation practices. Farming experience is another important household related variable that has relationship with adoption. Longer farming experience implies accumulated farming knowledge and skill, which has contribution for adoption (Tigist, 2010).

Livestock holding: This variable represents the livestock holding of the household in tropical livestock unit. Households that have more large number of livestock are likely to adopt the practice than others who have less number of livestock (Tegene, 1998). On the other hand, the negative influences of SWC practices related to household that have more livestock (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006).

Household size: It refers to the number of household members that living together. The influence of household size may go either way. It is expected that the existence of large number of family members with limited resource could affect household decision to implement soil and water conservation because of increase the need to food demand with limited land (Fentie et al., 2013). A household with a large size pays little attention to conservation activities because of the need to be engaged in off-farm activities to earn cash for buying food and other economical activities.

As maintaining soil conservation structure is labor intensive, if household labor is the only source of labor, households with larger household size make decision to retain structures. On the contrary, in the families with large number of mouth to feed, most of household members can be engaged in other food generating activities and hence fail to make decision to maintain and retain conservation structures (Tigist 2010).

Contrary to this finding, those households who have large family are expected to adopt or have more chance to implement the practice more than those who lack of labor or relatively less family accessibility (Kifle et al., 2016). Thus, it is difficult to say that, family size affects the practice only direction.

Farm size: This refers to total area of land a household cultivates measured in hectares. Farmers having large farm size can bear risk of loss of cultivation land from conservation structures and hence expected to influence adoption of structures positively (Ertiro, 2006).

Amsalu & Graaff ( 2006) in their study also found that, farmers who hold large farms were found to be more likely to invest in conservation technologies. Therefore, it is hypothesized that farm size and the likelihood of using soil conserving technologies are positively related.

Extension contact: This refers to the number of contacts with extension agents that the respondent made in the month. Contact with extension agent is hypothesized to increase farmers’ likelihood of adopting the technology (Tesfaye and Alemu Haily,2001). Extension service provides the necessary information to acquire new skills and knowledge related to agriculture in general. Farmers who have a frequent contact with extension agents are expected to have more information that influences farmers to implement SWC practices on his/her farm plots or the degree of access the farmer has to information from agricultural experts, has been expected to influence the conservation decision positively (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006).

Distance of the plot: It refers to the average distance of a given plots from the residence of the household in minute. Distance of plot from of residence is hypothesized to influence the decision of farmers for soil and water conservation practices negatively. According to most of literatures, farmlands situated near the residence receive attention of farmers better than long distance. Farmers whose plots are nearer to their residence apply soil and water conservation, because the time and energy they spent is lesser for nearer plots than distant plots (Gebremedhin & Swinton, 2003).

Labor available: This is the total number of family of the household who have the potential to work on the farm. It was measured in labor equivalent in man days. As soil conservation is labour intensive large households will be able to provide the required labour force for the implementation of soil conserving structures.

Hence households with higher amount of labor may be likely to control land degradation though the adoption of soil and water conservation (Tafa et al., 2009).

Off-farm income (off-farm): This variable refers to participation of the respondents in income generating activities out of his or her own farm. Income from selling of farm produce, working as laborer in other farms, etc., at the study time. It is measured by the amount of birr obtained from these activities. Off-farm income increases the probability of adoption of new technologies for additional income earned from off farm activities may argument the farmers’ financial power, which in turn enable farmers to adopt new technologies by enhancing the household’s access to inputs (Fentie et al., 2013).Therefore, it expected that participation in off-farm activities are likely to positively influence adoption SWC technologies. On the other hand, the involvement in off-farm activities and decision to adopt conservation structures are negative association (Ertiro, 2006).

Slope of the plots: Slope of the field is the only indicator used as a proxy for the erosion because of soil erosion increase with slope. Hence, slope influences soil and water conservation decision of farmers positively (Gebremedhin & Swinton, 2003; Amsalu & Graaff, 2006).

Information seeking behavior - this is defined as the degree to which the respondent is eager to get information from various sources on different roles s/he performs (Wilson, 2000). It was measured in terms of quantity and frequency of information eager to get on weighted score basis. Information seeking behavior is assumed to have positive relationship with the dependent variable.

CHAPTER FOUR Data Analysis and Discussion

This chapter deals with the analysis of the survey data and interpretation of major findings. As already noted, structured questionnaire was administered to 287 Sample respondents. Additionally, group discussion, and field observation was carried out. In this chapter the current status of the farmers’ practices on the use of soil and water conservation technologies; framers awareness, and the role of soil and water conservation practice in improving agricultural crop productivity are discussed in detail. Subsequently, the influence of different demographic, socioeconomic, physical, institutional and psychological factors on farmers’ decision on the use of introduced soil and water conservation practices were discussed consecutively.

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample Households The demographic characteristics which are age, sex, marital status, family size and educational level of the sample households are presented hereunder. Table .4.1 Demographic characteristic of sample households in Jargie watershed Personal Background Frequency Percentage (N=287) (%) Age 18-29 46 16.0 30-45 100 34.8 46-65 111 38.7 Above 65 30 10.5 Sex Male 199 69.3 Female 88 30.7 Marital Status Single 31 10.8 Married 216 75.3 Widowed 25 8.7 Divorced 15 5.2 Family Size 1-3 92 32.1 4-6 173 60.3 7-8 19 6.6 Above 9 3 1.0 Educational Level Illiterate 178 62.0 Reading and Writing 78 27.2 Primary Education 17 5.9 Secondary Education 13 4.5 Above Diploma 1 0.4

Source: Field survey, 2017.

4.2. Farmer’s Awareness between Upper, Middle and Lower group Table 4.2.1 ANOVA summary table of the differences among Households’ Awareness of SWC as a result of Village they live. Sources of Sum of df Mean F Sig. Variation squares square Awareness Between groups 2915.485 2 1457.742 10.422 0.000 of SWC Within groups 39722.243 284 139.867 practices Total 42637.728 286 Source: Field survey, 2017.

As a result analysis of variance (One Way ANOVA) was conducted to see whether there exists a significant mean difference in the awareness of households in soil and water conservation practices as a result of differences in their village. The result showed that there was significant difference in the level of awareness of households in soil and water conservation practices due to changes in their village (F (2, 284) =10.422, p<0.05). Farmers’ awareness of land degradation plays a key role in their decision making on land use and management. Farmers may be aware of the degradation of their land, but they may not be aware of the causes and consequences. Some farmers may not recognize the problem at all or others may not care for various reasons (Teshome et al., 2012). The study tried to assess farmers’ awareness on soil erosion, the introduced soil and water conservation measures taken by the farmers.

The justification related to this result may be related to factors coupled with other demographic, socio-economic, institutional, physical and psychological factors greatly affected farmer’s decision to use introduced soil and water conservation practices. Studies indicate that even though farmers are aware of the problem, their own initiative and investment to control soil erosion is minimal, even in conditions where serious erosion is recognized (Fentie et al., 2013; Abebe & Bekele, 2014).

Table 4.2.2 Scheffe’s mean comparison of awareness of households in soil and water conservation practices as a result of village they live Results of mean Comparison Village N Mean Lower Middle Upper Households’ Awareness Lower 56 45.1882 -4.06324* 4.11998 of Soil and Water Middle 146 49.3082 8.18322* Conservation practices Upper 85 41.1250 *p<0.05

Source: Field survey, 2017.

To determine the specific significant mean difference among the villages, Scheffe’s mean comparison was conducted. Scheffe’s means comparison disclosed that there is significant mean variation in the scores of awareness of households in soil and water conservation practices as it goes from lower villages to middle ones. Similarly, mean scores on awareness of households in SWC practices significantly varied between middle and upper villages. Therefore, the middle village households’ awareness of SWC practice is significantly greater than both the upper and lower village households’ awareness of soil and water conservation practices. However, significant mean variation in the scores of awareness of households in soil and water conservation practices was not observed between lower and upper villages.

Table 4.2.3 Descriptive statistics, t-test values and significance levels of households’ awareness of soil and water conservation practices

Test Mean Sig. N Mean Std. t-value df Value difference (2 tailed)

Households’ awareness of soil 287 46.491 286 0.039 and water 45 12.21 1.49129 2.069 conservation practice Source: Field survey, 2017.

The actual mean score of sample respondents on the measure of households’ awareness of soil and water conservation practices (mean=46.4913, Std =12.21) is higher than the expected mean score (expected mean=45). To find out whether the obtained mean score earlier identified is significantly higher than the expected mean score, one sample t-test was conducted and the result obtained, as Table 4.2.3 depicts. Therefore, Table 4.2.3 disclosed that the mean score on the measure of households’ awareness of soil and water conservation practices was found to be significantly higher than the expected mean score with t-values of 2.069 and 286 degrees of freedom at 0.03 9 level of significance. It means that households’ awareness of soil and water conservation practices for this particular sample is statistically significantly higher than the test value. It can be concluded that this groups of samples have awareness of soil and water conservation practices. Even though they are well aware of soil erosion problem and its mitigation, the lack of SWC structure maintenance were observed during field visit.

4.3. Status of Improved Physical Soil and Water Conservation Practices

Table 4.3.1 Binomial test of Soil and Water Conservation Practice (SWC)

Yes/No N Observed Test Exact Sig. Proportion. Proportion. (2-tailed)

Do you practice Soil and YES 167 .58 0.50 0.007 Water Conservation? NO 120 .42

Source: Field survey, 2017.

Respondents were asked to respond whether they practice the soil and water conservation activities on the study area. The results on the table above indicates that there is statistically significant difference between the observed proportion of the answer yes and the test proportion (p <0.01). In other words, the proportion of yes in this sample is significantly different from the hypothesized value of 50% for the practice of soil and water conservation on the study area. Out of 287 sample respondents, about 58 % and 42 % of sample households were users and non- users of soil and water conservation practices respectively Therefore, it can be concluded that households in the study area who practice soil and water conservation activity are significantly greater than those who do not.

4.3.1. Types of Soil and Water Conservation Practices

100

29 11 14 13

CHECK SOIL TERRA CUT OFF FANY JUU DAMS BUND CING DRAIN

Figure .4.1 Types of Soil and Water Conservation Practices

Source: Field survey, 2017.

The figure above depicts the types of soil and water conservation technology household replied to use. As a result, among 167 respondents who answered that they use soil and water conservation activity 100 (34.8%) of the respondents said that they use soil bund technology in their practice of water and soil conservation. In addition, stone bund (terraces) technology is used by 29 (10.1%) of the sample households. However, cut of drain, fanyajuu and check dams technologies are implemented by few number of respondents, i.e. 14 (4.9%), 13 (4.5%) and 11 (3.8%) respectively.

Soil bund: Stone bund is water collection channel constructed by throwing the soil down the slope of the plot to control erosion by reducing the velocity of the runoff and the slope length (Nyssen et al., 2008). According to the survey result, most of the households used soil bund at

38 least one of their farm land relative to the other practices. The survey result showed that 100(34.8%) of the households farmers’ used soil bund at least one of their plots. The proportion of soil bund was large than that of the other structures in the study area.

The possible reason could be for high proportion of soil bund to the other SWC practices is effective since to reduce runoff velocity of steep slope farm lands, the absence of stone to the less proportion of stone bunds and the soil bund requires less labor input because the excavated material from the ditch is thrown downhill.

High proportion of soil bund in the study area is similarly to the finding by (Nyssen et al., 2008) in the Northern highlands of Ethiopia which showed that, soil bund was the most widely and intensively used soil conservation structures than the other.

Figure.4.2 Photograph to show Soil bunds in Jargie watersheds.

Source: Field survey, 2017.

Stone bund (terraces): It is constructed on farm lands along the contour of farm to arrest the soil and control the run off. However, the less accessibility of stone in the study area, its time and labor intensive nature, and its being favorable breeding place for rodent often discourage farmers practicing stone terrace than soil bund in the area. Farmers use stone terraces only when their farm is near to abundant stone. However, based on the survey result 25.5% of the adopter and 31% of the non adopters used stone bund. A researcher (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006)found out high labour demand and rodent were cited problem of stone terrace by framers in Berassa watershed, Central Highland of Ethiopia.

Figure .4.3 Photograph to show Stone bunds in Jargie watersheds.

Source: Field survey, 2017.

Cut off drain: Cut off drain is another type of structural SWC practice used to protect farmlands from erosion by intercepting the runoff and safely disposes it to an out let and to a river straightforward, so that it may have to cross croplands belonging to different farmers. The survey result showed that 14(4.9% ) of households had cut off drain and waterway structures either in combination or separately that it may have to cross croplands belonging to different farmers.

Figure. 4.4 Photograph to show cut off drain in Jargie watersheds.

Source: Field survey, 2017.

Fanya juu bund: a type of SWC practices applied in small scale in the study area. It is made by digging a trench and throwing the soil uphill to form a fence. The fence is designed to trap runoff, sediment and nutrients and the ditch is also to collect overtop of sediment and runoff from the fence. During discussion with key informants, they explained that most of the farmers have little knowledge about fanya juu terraces. Even if some have awareness about the practice they show little interest to use it. The disadvantage of this structure as explained by the farmers is: even if it decreases the speed of run-off more than the soil bund; it creates water logging problem and the embankment being washed when heavy rainfall. Based on this only 4.5% of the respondents had fanya juu terraces practiced.

Check dams:-Check dams are small and low drop structures built across a gully or channel to prevent it from deepening further. The dams decrease the slope gradient, reducing the velocity of water flow and the erosive power of the runoff. The velocity, and thus the erosive capacity, is controlled by the size and location of the dams. They also promote the deposition of eroded materials to further stabilize the gully or channel. Check dams can be constructed from a wide range of materials including wood, rock and concrete, only 3.8% of the respondents had check dam terraces practiced.

Table .4.3.2 Status of use of improved SWC practice by sample households Status of use Improved SWC Frequency Percent Cumulative structure Percent Valid Never practiced 21 7.3 7.3 Partially practiced 114 39.7 47.0 Practiced 134 46.7 93.7 Modified 18 6.3 100.0 Total 287 100.0 Source: Field survey, 2017.

As one of the highland part of Amhara region, the study area seems to be exposed to degradation of natural resources, particularly vegetation and soils. Efforts have been made in Amhara regional state including the study area; mainly by Ministry of Agriculture to protect the problem. The physical soil and water conservation as ‘improved’ practices have been implemented and promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture.

According to Woldeamlak Bewket (2007) found that more than half of farmers that installed conservation structures on their fields do not have plan to maintain the structures after the project work. These indicted that, farmers had different view to maintain the soil and water conservation practices. Sample households were also asked to respond the status of their use of soil and water conservation practice. The result indicated that the majority (134 which is 46.7%) of sample households use practice soil and water conservation technology. Next to this form of soil and water conservation practice it is the partially practiced form of soil and water conservation practice that is practiced by 114 (39.7%) of the sample households. However, never practiced and modified forms of soil and water conservation practice forms are being done in the minimal level, 21 (7.3%) and 18 (6.3%) respectively.

4.3.2.Traditional Soil and Water Conservation measures

The traditional structures are similar with the improved one in terms of function. However, the need to maintenance and their effectiveness are less when compared with improved once.

Waterways are permanent structures constructed alongside the agricultural field to drain excess water comes from any direction. These structures are deeper and wider than the ditches and normally need maintenance. However, due to the relatively high labor requirement and the need to make improved by grass stripes it is difficulties to implement the practices were mentioned as major constraints by the sampled household farmers. Moreover, the practice needs the collaboration of two or more farmers to drain the runoff far away across different farmers’ farmland. During group discussion, the farmer raises lack of collaboration among farmers as the major constraints to practice waterway extensively (see figure 4.7).

Traditional ditch is used to protect the soil, nutrient and seeds from erosion. It was widely used practices by farmers in the study area for erosion control in farmlands. And it was also constructed on flat farmlands to protect water logging problem. This was a small constructed on cultivated fields using ox-plough. During the focus group discussion with farmers, it has merits and demerits. The merit of traditional ditch was described that protect soil erosion and seed from steep slope of the runoff and also needs less labor and time of construction. Its’ demerits also described, it can create sheet or rill erosions and wash away the fertile soil. The traditional cut off drain was constructed diagonal to the slope as a diversion ditch to protect cultivated land from excess run off.

Figure. 4.5 Traditional Soil and Water Conservation measures used by sample households Source: Field survey, 2017.

The pie chart described above shows the types of traditional Soil and Water conservation measures taken by sample households. The result indicated 60.98% of sample households use the traditional ditch of soil and water conservation measure. A few number of respondents (35.54% and 3.41%) replied they use waterway and cut off drains as traditional soil and water conservation measures, respectively.

4.4. Farmers’ perception on SWC technologies for increasing crop productivity

Table.4.4.1 Comparison of SWC User and Non-user on Roles of SWC to Crop Productivity Std. Mean Group N Mean df t-test Sig. Deviation Difference Role of SWC User 167 2.8982 0.30329 to Non 285 .32320 6.33 0.00 Productivity user 120 2.5750 0.49642 Source: Field survey, 2017.

Table 4.4 depicted that SWC users’ mean score on the measure of role of SWC to productivity (mean=2.898, std= 0.3033) was found higher than non-users’ mean score on the same measure. The score was further tested to determine whether the mean difference observed is significant or not. Independent samples t-test analysis showed that users’ mean score is significantly greater than non-users’ mean score on the measure of role of SWC to productivity (t=6.33, p<0.001, df=285). The result indicated that SWC users recognize the role of soil and water conservation practice more than non-users do. So, from the table 4.5, we can be understood that almost all non-users were poor perception towards SWC technology; whereas, majority of users were better perception towards technology.

During field survey, it was observed that most farmers participated in the SWC practices to avoid penalty from Kebele administrators rather than understand the role of soil and water conservation practice in improving agriculture crop productivity. Soil fertility is decreasing over time due to soil erosion resulting from improper and exploitative farming practices in the watershed. Most farmers in the watershed lack attention for the role of soil and water conservation on soil fertility. Productivity and SWC objectives are highly complementary because conservation of soil, water and natural vegetation leads to higher productivity of crops and livestock and thus the improvement of livelihoods (Kerr, 2002). Generally, the fundamental roles of SWC structures are to significantly reduce soil loss and its consequences.

4.5. Challenges of practice Soil and Water Conservation

4.5.1. Demographic Factor 4.5.1.1. Age of farmers head and Family size

Table.4.5.1 Age of the respondents and Practice of SWC Practice of SWC Total Adopters Non- Adopters Count % Count % Count % Age of the 18-29 Years 30 10.5 16 5.6 46 16.0 respondents 30-45 Years 59 20.6 41 14.3 100 34.8 46-65 Years 64 22.3 47 16.4 111 38.7 Above 65 14 4.9 16 5.6 30 10.5 Years Total 167 58.2 120 41.8 287 100 Source: Field survey, 2017. To decide the role of age in technology adoption is quite differ from one researcher to another. According to Tigist (2010) farmer increases in his/her age his/her ability to accept new technology increases. On other side, because of risk averting nature older age farmers are more conservative than the youngest one to adopt new technology (Tegene, 2000). It is usually considered in adoption studies with the assumption of that older people have more farming experience that helps them to adopt new technologies.

Cross tabulation of age groups and practice of SWC is made. The result indicated that among a total of 167 household Adopters of SWC the majority (64, 22.3%) are aged between 46 to 65 years. Similarly, the next to the above number (59, 20.9%) of household Adopters of SWC are aged between 30 to 45 years. Therefore, those aged between 30 to 65 years account a total of 123 household respondents who adopt SWC. However, those above 65 years of age and those who are aged 18 to 29 accounts a total of 44 household respondents, which is minimal in number. Hence, it can be said that ages from 30 to 65 years is appropriate for SWC practice.

Table .4.5.2 Family size and Practice of SWC Practice of SWC Total Adopters Non-Adopters Count % Count % Count % 1-3 54 18.8 38 13.2 92 32.1 4-6 106 36.9 67 23.3 173 60.3 Family size of Households 7-8 7 2.4 12 4.2 19 6.6 Above 8 0 0.0 3 1.0 3 1.0

Total 167 58.2 120 41.8 287 100 Source: Field survey, 2017.

Cross tabulation between family size of sample households and adoption of SWC practice was carried out. The result showed that 61.3% of the sample households whose family size is 4 to 6 practice SWC, which is the largest proportion. However, 58.7% of 1to 3 family size, 36.8% of 7 to 8 family size and 0% of those above 8 family size practice SWC activities. Therefore, 4 to 6 family size optimum number of family size which is favorable for the adoption of SWC practice.

4.5.1.2. Sex and Marital Status of Sampled Farmers

Table 4.5.3 Sex of the respondents and Practice of SWC Practice of SWC Total Adopters Non-Adopters Count % Count % Count % 112 39.0 87 30.3 69.3 Sex of the Male 199 respondents Female 30 10.5 58 20.2 88 30.7 Total 142 49.5 145 50.5 287 100 Source: Field survey, 2017. The farmers characteristics are directly or indirectly influence the adoption of SWC technologies for a farming system. A comparison of male and female households in their adoption of SWC practice was also carried out. As a result, the result indicated that a great proportion of male households adopt SWC practice than the proportion of female households since they are perceived in the watersheds to be more involved in day to day farming activities than female.

That is 112 of the total 199 respondents (56.3%) adopt SWC practice. But in the case of female household 30 of the total 88 female households (34.1%) adopt SWC practice. From focus group discussion, respondents stated that, why female low activity on SWC practices because of high work in the home, like, fetching water, food cooking and to support child care.

Table 4.5.4 Marital Status and Practice of SWC Practice of SWC Total Adopters Non-Adopters Count % Count % Count % Single 20 7.0 11 3.8 31 10.8 Marital Status of Married 122 42.5 94 32.8 216 75.3 the respondents Widowed 16 5.6 9 3.1 25 8.7 Divorced 9 3.1 6 2.1 15 5.2 Total 167 58.2 120 41.8 287 100

Source: Field survey, 2017.

Marital status as one factor was treated whether or not it showed differences on the level of adoption of sample households. The result showed that those households who are single (64.5%), widowed (64%) and divorced (60%) households have a great proportion of adoption of SWC practice. However, relatively the proportion of married households’ adoption of SWC is relatively minimal.

4.5.1.3. Educational Status of Farmers

Table 4.5.5 Educational status of the Farmer head and Practice of SWC Practice of SWC Total Adopters Non-Adopters Count % Count % Count % Unable to read and write 89 31.0 89 31.0 178 62.0 Read And Write 51 17.8 27 9.4 78 27.2 Educational Primary Status of the Education. 14 4.9 3 1.0 17 5.9 respondents Secondary Education. 12 4.2 1 0.3 13 4.5 Tertiary Education. 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.3 Total 167 58.2 120 41.8 287 100 Source: Field survey, 2017.

The level of education is associated with the awareness of farmers as well as productivity of agricultural sector those farmers who are literate can accept easily and they are willing and highly aware for improved soil and water conservation practice. According to Demeke (2003) the relative higher proportion of literacy has an important role to bring fast and sustainable development and has a good contribution to be perceived and aware of technology, to implement agricultural extension advice on better agricultural practices and resource use. Whether differences were observed on adoption of SWC practice, educational level of sample households’ was considered against adoption of SWC practice. The result depicted that 50% of the illiterate sample households, 65.3% of those sample households who can read and write, 82.4% of those sample households who completed primary education, 92.3% of those sample households who completed secondary education and 100% of those sample households who hold diploma and above adopt SWC practice.

From the results discussed above, it can be inferred that as the educational level increases the proportion of sample households’ practice of SWC also increases. Education may be increase households understanding on the causes and consequence of soil erosion and it is expected that educated household head can make better decision to adopt SWC measures.

4.5.2.Bio –Physical factor 4.5.2.1. Land holding size and slope

Table 4.5.6 Land holding size and Practice of SWC

Practice of SWC Total Adopters Non-Adopters

Count % Count % Count %

Less than 0.25 0 0.0 18 6.3 18 6.3

Land 0.26-0.50 15 5.2 94 32.8 109 38.0 holding size of 0.6-1.0 136 47.4 3 1.0 139 48.4 households 1.01-1.5 9 3.1 1 0.3 10 3.5 (InHectare

1.6-2.0 7 2.4 4 1.4 11 3.8

Total 167 58.2 120 41.8 287 100

Source: Field survey, 2017.

The effect of farm size on conservation decision is not clear. Large farms could reflect greater capacity that encourages conservation (Demeke, 2003). On the other hand, more land may reduce the need to conserve land (Gebremedhin and Swinton, 2003), while the potential loss of land for conservation may discourage investments on small farms.

Land size and practice of structural soil conservation measures have negative relationship. The small farm-size holders have positive attitudes towards structural soil and water conservation measures the justification may be the result of access to education. Whereas, the large farm-size holders have negative attitudes towards structural soil and water conservation measures may be these farmers lack trust on structural soil-water conservation measures as they were illiterate. As per the land holding size of sample households differences in the adoption of SWC practice are examined. The result showed that97.8 % of the sample households who possess 0.6 to 1 hectare

49 land practice SWC activity. Similarly, 90% of those who possess 1 to 1.5 hectare and 63.6% of those who possess 1.6 to 2 hectare land adopt SWC practice. However, the adoption of SWC practice by those who have less than 1 hectare land is minimal. Therefore, the results showed that the land holding size exceeding 1 hectare makes sample households to adopt SWC practices.

Table 4.5.7 Slope of cultivation land and Practice of SWC Practice of SWC Total Adopters Non-Adopters Count % Count % Count % Gentle 134 46.7 95 33.1 229 79.8 Slope of Moderate 25 8.7 19 6.6 44 15.3 cultivation land Steep 8 2.8 6 2.1 14 4.9 Total 167 58.2 120 41.8 287 100

Source: Field survey, 2017.

To determine whether relationships exist between the slope of cultivation land and adoption of SWC practices, analysis was made. The cross tabulation made for the slope of cultivation land and adoption of SWC practice depicted that 57.1% and 56.8% of households who own steep and moderate slope cultivation land use SWC practice in that order. Similarly, those sample households who own gentle slope cultivation land (which accounts about 58.5%) also use SWC practice. Therefore, great differences in the adoption of SWC practices as a function of the slope of cultivation land were not observed.

4.5.2.2. Distance of cultivation land from home

Table 4.4.8 Distance of cultivation land from home and Practice of SWC Practice of SWC Total Adopters Non-Adopters Count % Count % Count %

5-10 21 7.3 14 4.9 35 12.2 How long does Minutes it take the

distance from 10-25 79 27.5 49 17.1 128 44.6 home to Minutes cultivation

land? ≥25 67 23.3 57 19.9 124 43.2 Minutes Total 167 58.2 120 41.8 287 100.0 Source: Field survey, 2017.

The distance between the farmland and a homestead is an important factor to create an interest of soil and water conservation practice on farmers. Farm plots around homestead have always added different green manure a/compose with their cultivation land. So, plots around homestead have better in soil fertility status than fields away from homestead. According to Berhanu and Swinton (2003) in their study of investment in soil conservation in Northern Ethiopia found that plots distant from homesteads discouraged investment in soil conservation.

Sample households were asked to respond the time required to arrive from home to cultivation land. Attempt was also made to determine the link between the distance it covers and the adoption of SWC practice. 60% of the households who travel 5 to 10 minutes and 61.7% of the sample households who travel 10 to 25 minutes adopt SWC practice. 54% of the sample respondents who travel more than 25 minutes also adopt SWC practice. From the results distances taking 5 to 25 minutes are better for households to practice SWC activities.

Therefore, it has been found that distance between the farmland and a homestead is an important factor to create an interest of soil and water conservation practice on farmers. Farm plots around homestead have always supplemented with farm yard manure and better in soil fertility status than fields away from homestead. Likewise, farmers practiced mixed cropping system in their homestead and some water harvesting techniques. This in turn increases vegetation cover which directly helps in preventing soil erosion and nutrient depletion.

During the group discussion indicated that small plot of land owner ships, is resulted fragmentation of land division. This is difficult to soil and water conserve practices in a small plot of land. Often it is argued that fragmentation has a negative impact on the intensity of management of the land which in turn has influence in the productivity and degradation status of land (Woldeamlak, 2003). As well as, the farmers identified the general soil colors, 85.3% black, 11 % brown,1 % red and 2.7 % others. Farmers usually consider black color soils as fertile in the study area. This may affect farmers’ decisions on conservation because they want to take better care of fields that give better yield. Similarly, 232(80.8) of farmers were responded that productivity of the land is increase, due to different factors, and the remaining 40(14%) and 15(5.2%) of respondents were respond that yield is decrease and the same respectively.

4.5.3. Economic Factor

4.5.3.1. Livestock

Table .4.5.9 Type and number of livestock owned by the sample farmers Type of livestock No of livestock

Ox 1200 Cow 980 Heifer 578 Young bull 474 Calves 302

Goat 78 Sheep 433 Horse 94

Donkey 257

Source: filed survey, 2017

Livestock production constitutes a very important component of the agricultural economy of developing countries. It is the most important asset for rural households in the study area. Farmers use livestock for different purposes including as a source meet production, source of cash income, source of dairy production and source of manures. The major source of feed for livestock is 190 (66.2 %) of the respondents indicated Grazing, 73(25.4%) of the respondents indicated fodder 8(2.8%) of the respondents indicated Straw, 12(4.2%) of the respondents indicated Maize and Sorghum Hola and 4(1.4%) of the respondents indicated ‘Berint atela’. The livestock feed availability in the study area showed a declining trend.

The livestock increment at the village level has an important implication on degradation of communal grazing lands (Belayneh, 2005). The major livestock reared in the area are cattle, goat, sheep, donkey and horse.

4.5.3.2. Off-Farm Economic Activities

Table 4.5.10 Off-farm activities and Practice of SWC Practice of SWC Total Adopters Non-Adopters Count % Count % Count % Do your family Yes 149 51.9 79 27.5 228 79.4 members work on off-farm No 18 6.3 41 14.3 59 20.6 activities?

Total 167 58.2 120 41.8 287 100 Source: Field survey, 2017.

The practice of off-farm activities and adoption of SWC cross tabulated to identify whether there exists some kind of interrelatedness between them. The result showed that those who participate/work on off-farm activities (20.6%) involved in adoption of SWC practices. But, those who do not involve in off-farm activities (79.4%) involve in the adoption of SWC practice. Therefore, it is important to determine that those who are not involved in off-farm activities practice more on the adoption of SWC activity. The relationship between off-farm employment and adoption performance of soil and water conservation is poorly realizing. Off-farm activities may have a negative effect on the adoption behavior of SWC due to reduced labor availability.

According to Fikru (2009), when the farmer and family members are more involved in off-farm activities, the time spent on their farmland will be limited and hence the family is discouraged from being involved in construction and maintenance of SWC structures. On the other hand, off- farm activities can be a source of income and might encourage investment in farming and SWC.

4.5.4. Institutional Factor 4.5.4.1. Training about SWC practice

Table .4.5.11 Source of training about SWC practice

Frequency Percent

NGOs 7 2.4 From where you DA 122 42.5 have got training on Both DAs and NGOs 8 2.8 SWC? Others 22 7.7 Total 159 55.4 Missing System 128 44.6 Total 287 100.0 Source: Field survey, 2017.

Sample households were asked whether they have got training on SWC practices. From the total of 287 sample households, 159 households said that they have got training focusing on SWC practices. Following their response those who answered that they have got training on SWC practices were also asked who have provided them the training. Out of 159 households who have got the training 122 household respondents (76.7%) said that they have got the training from development agents only. Other 8 households have got the training from both development agents and NGOs. Therefore, household members who have got the training from development agents account a total of 130 (81.8%). Hence, it is development agents who give the training to household members more often than any group or individual else.

4.5.4.2. Extension contact of the respondent

Table 4.5.12 Contact with SWC Expert DA and Practice of SWC Practice of SWC Total Adopters Non-Adopters Count % Count % Count % Yes 155 54.0 37 12.9 192 66.9 Contact with DA No 12 4.2 83 28.9 95 33.1

Total 167 58.2 120 41.8 287 100 Source: Field survey, 2017.

Whether contacts made with development agents (DA’s) contributes to the adoption of SWC practice, cross tabulation was conducted. The result showed that 80.7% of those who made contacts with development agents adopt SWC practice. However, of those who didn’t make contact with development agents it is about 12.6% of the sample households who could be able to practice SWC activities. Hence, adoption of SWC is highly impacted by the level of contact households make with development agents.

Extension service plays a great role to increase understanding about SWC practices and the possibility of a farmer to decide to practices SWC activities. As the frequency of contact in extension service increases, it increases the possibility of the farmer to practice SWC and adopt new technologies.

Agricultural extension service in the study area has been mainly given by government organization (Office of woreda Agriculture and Rural Development) and development agent (DAs) of the peasant association. The extension service provided to farmers includes advice on livestock production, crate different entrepreneurship, crop production and protection and natural resource protection and conservation using different extension methods, like training, demonstration etc. as well as providing agricultural inputs for the farmers.

Table 4.5.13 Source of information about SWC practice

Frequency Percent

Mass Media 17 5.9 Where do you get DAs 117 40.8 information about Friends 30 10.5 SWC? Relatives 12 4.2 Total 176 61.3 Missing System 111 38.7

Total 287 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2017.

Sample households who replied that they have got information about SWC practices were also provided with a question requesting the source where they have got the information. As results indicate from the table above, 117 of the total 176 respondents (66.5%) have got the information from development agents. The other sources of information like friends, mass media and relatives have little contribution to the knowledge of sample households on SWC practices.

Table.4.5.14 Role of SWC practice to agricultural productivity and Practice of SWC Practice of SWC Total user Non-user Count % Count % Count % Role of SWC Yes 167 58.2 62 21.6 229 79.8 practice to agricultural No 0 0.0 58 20.2 58 20.2 productivity

Total 167 58.2 120 41.8 287 100.0% Source: Field survey, 2017.

The thought that sample households hold whether practice of SWC technologies improves agricultural productivity was compared with their practice of SWC. The analysis result indicated that 72.9% of the sample households, who think SWC practice, improve agricultural productivity. However, those who think SWC practice doesn’t improve agricultural productivity totally didn’t practice SWC activity. Therefore, the thought that households hold towards the role of adoption of SWC practice towards agricultural productivity determines their adoption of SWC practice. 4.6. The contribution of independent variables to explain the dependent variable

Table.4.6.1 Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients Chi-square df Sig. Step 1 Step 200.948 8 0.000 Block 200.948 8 0.000 Model 200.948 8 0.000 Source: Field survey, 2017.

The Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients table indicates that, when we consider all the predictor variables, the Model is significant (X2 = 200.948, df=84, N= 287, p <.001). To determine the impact of age, educational status, land holding size, distance of farm land from home, family size, training on SWC practice, slope of land and contact with DAs on adoption of SWC practice binary logistic regression was computed. The results are presented in the table below. As indicated in the table, the pseudo R2 value (Nagelkerke = 70.1%) indicates that age, educational status, land holding size, distance of farm land from home, family size, training on SWC practice, slope of land and contact with DAs collectively explain 70.1% of the variation in sample households’ adoption of SWC practice.

Table.4.6.2 Pseudo R-Square Step -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R Square Square 1 171.184a 0.524 0.701

Source: Field survey, 2017.

Table.4.6.3 Parameter estimates of Binary logistic regression B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp( 95% C.I.for B) EXP(B) Lower Upper Step Age .545 .301 3.284 1 .070 1.725 .957 3.112 1a Educ. Status .162 .288 .315 1 .574 1.176 .668 2.067 Contact with Das 3.221 .682 22.326 1 .000 25.056 6.586 95.323 Distance .405 .299 1.835 1 .175 1.499 .835 2.694 Family Size .487 .401 1.475 1 .224 1.627 .742 3.569 Training -1.036 .615 2.844 1 .092 .355 .106 1.183 Slope of Land -.507 .397 1.626 1 .202 .602 .276 1.313 Land Holding -2.397 .365 43.041 1 .000 .091 .044 .186 Size Constant .194 1.773 .012 1 .913 1.214 a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: age, educational status, contact with DAs, distance of farm land from home, family size, training on SWC, slope of land, land holding size. The Binary regression model was used to identify challenges that affecting soil and water conservation practice. When each of the variables are entered in to the model educational status, contacts made with DAs, land holding size and training acquired from SWC experts are each separately significantly related to the adoption of SWC practice. Contact with DAs and land holding size are significant predictors when all predictor variables are considered together. This suggests some correlation among predictors since educational status and training acquired from SWC experts were a significant predictor when used alone. Age, slope of land, distance of farm land from home and family size fail to predict adoption of SWC practice whether used alone or with the other predictors. Generally, from the tables above it can be understood that the differences on the respondents adoption of SWC practice is significantly explained by educational status, contacts made with DAs, land holding size and training acquired from SWC experts.

CHAPTER FIVE Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1. Conclusions

On the basis of the finding the following conclusions have been drawn. The data analysis shows that nearly 90.6% of the respondents are aware of the causes and effects of soil erosion and of degradation problems. Hence, farmers were able to notice the adverse effects of erosion on soil productivity, farm plot size, and on grain’s yield. The sample households have implemented different improved and conventional physical SWC practices in and outside their farm fields to control soil erosion. Stone terraces, soil bunds, fanyajuu, cut off drains and waterways were among the improved SWC practices in the study area. While conventional measures include traditional cut off drains and traditional water ways and also traditional ditches. The findings of the descriptive analysis of the use of conservation practices also indicate that 58.2% of users used soil bund at least in one of their plots. But, the majority of non-users were applied traditional physical SWC practices. Understanding of the most important determinant factors or challenges that affect farmers’ decision would contribute to the design of appropriate strategies. The introduction of effective technical change in soil and water conservation process in the study area would be a supplementary. Furthermore, maintaining the introduced technology has been challenging. The major factors include demographic and socio-economic factors (example: education, farm size, family size, age, labor availability, gender and livestock holding); institutional factors (example: extension service and SWC training) and bio-physical factors (distance of plots, farm fertility and slope). Binary logistic regression model were used to analysis the important factors with regard to the practices .The result showed that the association between practices of SWC technologies and different explanatory variables in relation to household characteristics of the study area, age , slope of land, distance of farm land from home and family size fail to predict adoption of SWC practice . On the other hand educational level, land holding size, SWC training, and extension contact are positively significantly associated.

5.2. Recommendation

Based on the above conclusions the following recommendations are suggested. The findings of the research indicate that there is an increasing trend in land degradation problem in the study area. So, soil and water conservation measures such as check dam, soil bund, stone bund, cut of drain, waterway, fanyajuu, gabion wire, bund with grass strip, micro basin ,and trench, are very helpful in increasing soil fertility and then to enhance yields. Even though farmers in Jargie watershed are well aware of the problems of soil erosion and started using SWC structures in their farm plots, most SWC structures were not regularly maintained. Thus there should be a continuous auditing, evaluation, and supervision measures.

Further, implementation of SWC should be undertaken only after thorough discussion and agreement on the fate of the structures. The community should be committed to the continued maintenance of current structures and the construction of improved soil and water conservation technologies. SWC intervention should critically consider the community’s socioeconomic, bio physical and institutional factors as well as the complexity of the technology, for effective implementation and sustainment of conservation structures. Education and training on soil erosion and conservation has to be provided and create further awareness on an improved soil and water conservation practices are compulsory. Additionally there is a need of organic oriented soil fertility management practices such as use of crop residue; planting of legumes and using of compost; and biological SWC measures have to be the integral part of soil and water conservation practices. I am also strongly recommended that minimizing number of livestock is necessary, in order to prevent overgrazing. The great measure to solve this problem is to keep cattle in stables or tied up and fed with concentrates or off farm plots. Therefore, effective policies are urgently needed to overcome the problem.

Finally, all stakeholders need to be consulted before and after adoption and implementation of SWC measures at farmland level. In the study area, the majority of farmers’ educational back ground is far poor. So it is recommended that adult literacy should be incorporated in the package of rural extension program, and its successful implementation needs to be a key aspect of it.

References

Abebe, Y., & Bekele, A. (2014). The Impact of Soil and Water Conservation Program on the Income and Productivity of Farm Households in Adama District , Ethiopia. STAR Journal, 7522(3), 198–203.

ADOPTION OF CONSERVATION TILLAGE TECHNOLOGIES IN METEMA WOREDA , NORTH GONDAR ZONE , ETHIOPIA . M . Sc Thesis TIGIST PETROS ADOPTION OF CONSERVATION TILLAGE TECHNOLOGIES IN. (2010).

Alemu, B., & Kidane, D. (2014). The implication of integrated watershed management for rehabilitation of degraded lands: case study of Ethiopian highlands. Journal of Agriculture and Biodiversity Research, 3(6), 78–90.

Amsalu, A., & Graaff, J. De. (2006). Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.01.014.

Asrat, P., Belay, K., & Hamito, D. (2004). DETERMINANTS OF FARMERS ’ WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN THE SOUTHEASTERN HIGHLANDS OF ETHIOPIA, 438(June), 423–438.

Bewket, W. (2001). The Need for a Participatory Approach to Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Case Study in Chemoga Watershed, East Gojjam. Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review, 17(2), 43.

Bewket, W. (2007). Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional technologies in northwestern highlands of Ethiopia : Acceptance and adoption by farmers, 24, 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.05.004.

Bewket, W., & Sterk, G. (2002). FARMERS ’ PARTICIPATION IN SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES IN THE CHEMOGA WATERSHED , BLUE NILE BASIN , ETHIOPIA, 200(February), 189–200.

Bewket, W., & Sterk, G. (2003). Assessment of soil erosion in cultivated fields using a survey methodology for rills in the Chemoga watershed , Ethiopia, 97, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00127-0

Bishaw, B. (2017). Deforestation and Land Degredation in the Ethiopian Highlands : A Strategy for Physical Recovery Strategy for Physical Recovery, 8(1), 7–25.

CSA. (2007). Population census. The 2007 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia: Statistical Report for Amhara Region, 7.

Demeke, A. B. (2003). Factors Influencing the adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in Northweastern Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 82.

Dubale, P. (2001). Soil and Water Resources and Degradation Factors Affecting Productivity in Ethiopian Highland Agro-Ecosystems. Northeast African Studies, 8(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1353/nas.2005.0015

Ertiro, H. (2006). Adoption of Physical Soil and Water Conservation Structures in Anna Watershed, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia. Soil and Water, (August), 116.

FAO. (1980). Land Evaluation for Development. Kenya Soil Survey, 5. Retrieved from http://library.wur.nl/isric/fulltext/isricu_i14827_001.pdf#page=37.

FAO (2004). Methodological framework for land degradation assessment in dry-lands. ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/lada/LADA-Methframwk-simple.pdf.

FAO. (2013). Status of soil resources in Ethiopia and priorities for sustainable management. GSP for Eastern and Southern Africa, 22.

Fentie, D., Fufa, B., & Bekele, W. (2013). Determinants of the Use of Soil Conservation Technologies by Smallholder Farmers: The Case of Hulet Eju Enesie District, East Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 01(04), 2321–1571.

Feoli, E., Gallizia, L., & Zerihun, W. (2002). Evaluation of environmental degradation in northern Ethiopia using GIS to integrate vegetation , geomorphological , erosion and socioeconomic factors, 91, 313–325.

Fikru A. (2009). Assessment of Adoption Behavior of Soil and Water Conservation Practices in the Koga Watershed, Highlands of Ethiopia.

Food, I., & Programme, S. (2003). Integrated food security programme south gonder - region 3,5

Gashaw, T. (2015). The implications of watershed management for reversing land degradation in Ethiopia, 4(1), 5–12.

Gebremedhin, B., & Swinton, S. M. (2003). land tenure security and public programs, 29, 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5

Gebretsadik, W. (2014). Evaluation of the adaptability and response of indigenous trees to as- sisted rehabilitation on the degraded hillsides of Kuriftu Lake Catch- ment ( Debre Zeit , Ethiopia ), 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-013-0398-x

Gidey, A. (2015). The Contribution of Soil and Water Conservation Practices towards Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in Tigray Region , Northern Ethiopia.

Giger, M. (1999). Avoiding the shortcut: Moving beyond the use of direct incentives. Development and Environment reports No. 17. Berne: CDE, University of Berne.

Herweg, K., & Ludi, E. (1999). The performance of selected soil and water conservation measures case studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Hurni, H., Abate, S., Bantider, A., & Debele, B. (2015). Land Degradation and Sustainable Land Management in the Highlands of Ethiopia, 187–207. Kaihura FBS, Kullaya IK, Kilasara M, Aune JB, Singh BR, Lal R (1999) Soil quality effects of accelerated erosion and management systems in three eco-regions of Tanzania. Soil and Tillage Research, 53(1):59-70.

Kaliisa, B. R., Muk, B., No, R. E. G., Submitted, T., Fulfilment, P., Management, I. W., & Sciences, A. (2012). Determinants of Soil Water Conservation and Nutrient Flow Management in Bufundi Sub- Catchment , Kabale District , Uganda, (September).

Kerr J., (2002). Watershed development, environmental services and poverty alleviation in India. World Dev., 30: 1387-1400.

Kessler, A., Posthumus, H., & Tenge, A. (2008). Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in five developing countries, 28, 271– 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.05.001

Kifle, S., Teferi, B., Kebedom, A., & Legesse, A. (2016). Factors Influencing Farmers Decision on the Use of Introduced Soil and Water Conservation Practices in the Lowland ’ s of Wenago Woreda , Gedeo Zone , Ethiopia, 4(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajrd-4-1-4

Kothari, C. (2004). Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Age International. https://doi.org/http://196.29.172.66:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2574/1/Research%20 Methodology.pdf.

Lakew Desta, Menale Kassie, S. Benin and J. Pender, (2008).Land degradation and strategies for sustainable development in the Ethiopian highlands: AmharaRegion Bahir Dar Ethiopia Socia-economics and Policy Research Working Paper 32.

Lemenih, M., & Thesis, D. (2004). Effects of Land Use Changes on Soil Quality and Native Flora Degradation and Restoration in the Highlands of Ethiopia.

Leonard Berry.(2003).Land Degradation in Ethiopia, its extent and impact. World Bank, Washington.

Mekuria, A. (2005). Forest conversion-soil degradation-farmers‟ perception nexus: Implication for sustainable land use in southwest of Ethiopia: In: WECD (ed.), our common future, oxford university press, UK.

Mountains, A. (2017). Degradation and Conservation of the Resources in the Ethiopian Highlands Author ( s ): Hans Hurni Published by : International Mountain Society Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/3673438 REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article :, 8(2), 123–130.

Mulu, A., Adgo, E., & Nigussie, Z. (2016). Assessment of Farmers Participation and Their Knowledge on Sustainablity of Improved Soil and Water Conservation Activities in Enebsie Sarmidir District : A Case Study of Guansa and Shola Watersheds , Ethiopia, 8(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.ajbas.2016.8.2.1163

Negash, R. (2007). Determinants of adoption of improved haricot bean production package in alaba special woreda, southern ethiopia.

Nick Middleton, (2003). The Global casino: an introduction to environmental issues. Oxford University press Inc, New York.

Nkonya, E. (2002). Soil Conservation Practices and Non -Agricultural Land Use In The South Western Highlands Of Uganda, (April).

Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Moeyersons, J., Haile, M., & Deckers, J. (2008). Dynamics of soil erosion rates and controlling factors in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands – towards a sediment budget, 711, 695–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.

Oldeman, LR. Hakkeling RTA, Sombroek WG (1991). World map of the status of human

Induced soil degradation: an explanatory note. UNEP and ISRIC: Wageningen.

Participatory, C. B. (2005). Community Based Participatory Watershed Development : A Guideline Annex Community-based Participatory Watershed Development : A Guideline Annex.

Poesen, J., & Schu, B. (2015). Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia : A review Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia : A review, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133315598725.

Publishers, T. (2017). Rural Poverty , Food Insecurity and Environmental Degradation in Ethiopia : A Case Study from South Central Ethiopia, 1(1), 59–89.

Sanders, D. (2004). Soil Conservation. Land Use, Land Cover and Soil Sciences, IV(Soil Conservation), 8.

Scherr, S. J. (1999). Soil Degradation A Threat to Developing-Country Food Security by 2020 ?

Shiene, S. D. (2012). Effectiveness of soil and water conservation measures for land restoration in the Wello area , northern Ethiopian highlands.

Taddese, G. (2001). Land Degradation : A Challenge to Ethiopia, 27(6), 815–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010190

Tadesse, M., & Belay, K. (2004). Factors influencing adoption of soil conservation measures in Southern Ethiopia: The case of Gununo area. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 105(1), 49–62.

Tafa, K., Beshah, T., Amsalu, A., Resource, N., Berehan, D., Berehan, D., … Dawa, D. (2009). Determinants of Physical Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Ethiopia ’ s Semi -Arid Tropics : The Case of Bati District. Social and Basic Sciences Research Review, 2(12), 525– 541.

Tamirie, H. (1986). Desertification in Ethiopian hig hlands.

Taye, A. A. (2006). Caring for the Land Best practices in soil and water conservation in Beressa Watershed, highlands of Ethiopia.Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen University, Netherlands.

Tegene, B. (1998). Potentials and Limitations of an Indigenous Structural Soil Conservation Technology of Welo, Ethiopia. Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review, 14, 1–18.

Tegene, B. (2000). Processes and Causes of Accelerated Soil Erosion on Cultivated Fields of South Welo, Ethiopia. Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review, 16(1), 1–22. Retrieved from http://www.ajol.info/index.php/eassrr/article/view/22703

Teka, G., & Mengesha, Y. (2017). Integrating Financial Services into the Poverty Reduction Strategy: The Case of Ethiopia 1 ., 1–43.

Teketay, D. (2017). Deforestation , Wood Famine , and Environmental Degradation in Ethiopia ’ s Highland Ecosystems : Urgent Need for Action Environmental Degradation in Urgent Need for Action, 8(1), 53–76.

Tennyson, L. (2000). CHAPTER 2 REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES, 19–39.

Tesfaye Zegaye and Alemu Haileye, 2001.Adoption of Improved maize technologies and Inorganic Fertilizer in north western Ethiopia.Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO). Research reports No.40 Addis Ababa Ethiopia. 51p.

Teshome, A., de Graaff, J., & Stroosnijder, L. (2014). Evaluation of soil and water conservation practices in the north-western Ethiopian highlands using multi-criteria analysis. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2(December), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00060.

Teshome, A., Graaff, J. De, Kassie, M., & Stroosnijder, L. (2012). Role of institutional and socio-economic factors on adoption and non- adoption of soil and water conservation technologies : Empirical evidence from the North.W Ethiopia highlands, (February 2016).

Tiffen, M. (1998). Group Action and Natural Resources, 16, 205–211.

USAID. (2004). Ethiopia Land Policy and Administration Assessment - Final Report with Appendices, (4), 110. Retrieved from http://rmportal.net/library/content/land-tenure-and- property-rights-documents/ethiopia-land-policy-and-administration- assessment/at_download/file

Wilson, T. D. (2000). H u m a n I n f o r m a t i o n B e h a v i o r.

Worku, G. B., & Mekonnen, A. (2012). Investments in Land Conservation in the Ethiopian Highlands : A Household Plot-level Analysis of the Roles of Poverty , Tenure Security , and Market Incentives, 4(6), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v4n6p32

Yesuf, M., Mekonnen, A., Kassie, M., & Pender, J. (2005). Cost of Land Degradation in Ethiopia: A Critical Review of Past Studies. International Food Policy Research Institute.

Questionnaire

UNIVERSITY OF GONDAR

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND THE HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Appendix 1: Household survey questionnaires

Dear Respondent, I am a graduate student in University of Gondar, College of social science and Humanities Department of Geography and Environmental studies Specialization on Natural Resources and Environmental Management. By now, I am going to conducting a research on the Status and Challenges of Soil and Water conservation Practices on Jargie Watershed, in Takusa Woreda. All questions to be asked are purely for academic purpose. Your individual answers will be kept strictly confidential. For this reason, your active participation and authentic responses are very important in meeting the proposed objectives of the study. Thus, I kindly request your active cooperation in responding to the following question clearly and genuinely. Thank you very much for your cooperation!

Instruction: Please give your answer by circling for the close ended questions and by writing for the open ended questions.

Part I. General information

Woreda: ------

Kebele: ------

Village: ------

Part II. Personal information 1. The composition of the households’ age and sex group?

Age group Male Female

18-29

30-45

46-65

>65

2. Marital status: 1. Single 2. Married 3.Widowed 4.Divorced 5. Separated 3. Educational status of the Farmer head? 1. Illiterate 2. Reading and writing skill 3. Primary 4. Secondary 5. Diploma and Above

4. Family size: ------

Part. III. Soil and water Conservation technologies and farmers' attitude

1. Do you have knowledge about soil and water conservation? 1. Yes 2. No 2. If your answer for question “1” is “yes”, what is your source of information?

1. Mass media 2. Extension agents (DAs) 3.Friends 4.Relatives 5. Other specifies 3. Do you practice soil and water conservation? 1. Yes 2. No 4. If your answer for question “3” is “yes”, which of the following soil and water conservation technologies are you using? 1. Check dams 2 Soil bund 3. Terracing (Stone bunds) 4. Cut of drain 5. Other specifies 5. The status of use the improved soil and water conservation structures (practices)? 1. Never practiced 2. Partially practiced3.Practiced 4. Modified 6. Do you have a contact with soil and water conservation experts (DAs)? 1.Yes 2 .No 7. How do you describe the contact you have with soil and water conservation experts (DAs experts) 1. Good 2. Limited 3. Very good 4. None 8. .Do you like trying new SWC technologies whenever they are announced to the area? 1. Yes 2. No

9. If your answer for question ‘8’ is “yes”, the reason do you like is?1. It is more effective 2. To get new method 3. It is better than traditional 4. Other specify 10. Have you ever taken trainings related to soil and water conservation? 1. Yes 2. No 11. . If your answer for question ‘10’ is “yes”, from whom you were taking? 1. NGOs 2.DA 3. Both 4. Others 12. If your answer for question ‘10’ is “no”, why you weren’t taking? 1. Shortages of time 2. Shortage of labor worker 3. The center of training long distance 4. Lack of willingness 5. Other specify 13. Do you thinkSWC technologies are important in terms of improving agriculture crop productivity? 1.Yes 2.No 14. How do you observe the productivity of soil conservation measures announced to the area compared to the traditional ones? 1. More productive than the traditional ones 2. The same as the traditional conservation measures 3. Less productive than the traditional ones 15. Are you keeping terraces constructed in your farmland 1. Yes 2.No 16. If your answer for question ‘15’ is “No” what was the reason? 1 High maintenances cost 2. Inadequate household labor to maintenance 3. Work is very tedious 4. Causes loss of land to the bund 5. Lack of willingness to implement conservation measures 6. Others specify 17. Have you participated in community conservation activities in the past five year? 1. Yes 2. No 18. If your answer for question ‘17’ is Yes”, what type?

19. What are the traditional methods that conserve soil erosion in the study area? State some of them?------Part. IV. Awareness of Soil and Water Conservation practices

Dear respondent! Please mark the scale which best describes your agreement or disagreement for each of the following statements about your perception and awareness about SWC there will be no identifying information, so please feel free to be honest in your options about your experiences based on the following scales: Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), Strongly agree (5).

No. Questionsrelated to soil and water conservation Strongly Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1 Soil erosion can be controlled through using SWC technologies 2 The stone and/or soil bund put too much land out of production 3 Soil and water conservation practice change the crop yield and yield component (biomass) 4 Land fertility rating is increasing 5 Agriculture Crop production yield rating is increasing Fodder & grass supply rating is increasing 6 Wood production rating is increasing 7

8 I have high interest or intention to accept new SWC technologies

9 The new technologies require too much labor to implement I construct modern stone and/or soil bund on my plots 10 I have obtained extension advice on soil and water conservation 11 practices frequently

12 I discuss SWC practice with other farmers I agreed on the design of current agricultural extension program 13 I am participating in the current agricultural extension program? 14 I believe that the new SWC technologies have the potential to 15 improve agriculture crop productivity

Total

Part V. Challenges of Soil and Water Conservation practices A. Institutional factors

1. Do you get advice; regarding improved SWC practices, from extension agents? 1. Yes 2. No

2. If your answer for question‘1’ is “yes”, do you think the training was helpful for your Practical soil conservation work? 1. Yes 2. No

3. How often the extension agents do visit you? 1. Once per month 2. Twice per month 3.Three times per month 4.Once per three months 5. If other specify 4. How did you construct the stone and/or soil bund in your farm plots? 1. Voluntarily 2. Forced to participate 3.For money 4. Food aid 5. What measures do take for soil conservation practice for the last five years? 1. Modern technology 2. Traditional technology 6. What traditional measures do you use to conserve soil and water? 1. Traditional ditch 2. Traditional cut off drain 3. Traditional waterway

B. Bio –Physical Factor

1. How many farm plots do you have?______

2. What is the size of landholding of the household farmers in ha? 1. < 0.25 2.0.26-0.50 3.0.6-1.00 4.1.01-1.5 5. 1.6-2.00 6F. > 2.00

3.What is the share of different land uses?

Crop land Land allocated(in ha)

Fallow land

Crop production

Grazing land

Reserved land

4. How do you observe the size of the agricultural land over time? `1. Increasing over time 2. Becoming limit 3. No change

5. If your answer for question ‘4’ is “B”, what the reason you expect to be?

1. Land degradation 2. Increasing population 3. Other reason specify

6. How do you describe the slope of your cultivation land? 1. Gentle 2. moderate 3. Steep

7. Do you think that soil erosion is a problem for your farm area? 1. Yes 2. No8. If your answer for question ‘7’ is “yes”, what are major causes of it in your area? 1. Deforestation 2. Over grazing 3. Over cultivation 4. Poor agricultural practices 5. Cultivation of steep slopes 6. Excess rainfall

9. How do you explain the degree of soil erosion in your farmland? 1. Low 2. medium 3. high 10.What do you think the effects of soil erosion? 1. Land productivity (yield) decreases 2. Change in type of crops grown 3. Reduces farm plot size 4.All 5. Others specify 11.What is soil color of your cultivation field? 1. Black 2 .Brown 3. Reddish 4.Gray 5. Other colors specify

12. How do you observethe fertility of your land? 1. High 2. Medium 3. Low

13. How do you see the productivity of your farmland over time? 1. The same 2. Increasing 3. Decreasing 4.I do not know

14. If your answer for equation ‘14’ is “Decreasing”, what the reason you expect to be?

1. High price of fertilizer 2. Mass wash 3. Unreliable rainfall 4.Frequent cultivation of land without fallowing 5. Other specify

C. Economic Factor 1. Do you have livestock to increasing the level of crop yield on your cultivated land? 1. Yes 2. No .If yes, indicates type and numbers of the livestock? Type of livestock No of livestock Ox Cow Heifer Young bull Calves . Goat Sheep Horse Donkey

2. What are the main sources of feed?(possible to give more than one answer):

1. Fodder 2. Grazing 3.Straw 4. Maize and Sorghum Hola 5.‘Berint atela’

3. How do you explainthe trend of animal feed?

1. Decreasing 2. The same 3. Increasing 4.I do not know

4. If your answer for equation ‘3’ is “1”, why for Decreasing?

1. Increasing population 2. Increasing of agricultural activity 3.Increasing settlement 4. Others

5.Do your family members work on off-farm activities? 1. Yes 2. No

6.How far from your cultivated land from your home? 1.5-10 minutes 2.16-25 minutes 3. >25 minutes

7. Do you have labor deficiency for your farm activities? 1. Yes 2. No

8. If the answer to question ‘7’ is “yes”, how do you solve labor deficiency?

1. Payment for labor 2. By cooperating with other farmers 3. If others specify

9. Which family members participate in soil and water conservation works?

1. Men 2. women 3. Children 4.all of them participate

10. What is the major occupation of your household? 1. Crop farming only 2. Livestock only 3. Mixed farming 4. Other/Mention

D. Psychological factors

1. What do you think about SWC technology in terms improving agriculture crop productivity?

1. Not important 2. Less Important 3.Important 4. More important 5.highly important

2. How do you see SWC technology when compared with Traditional way?

1. Good 2. Bad 3. I don’t know

3. If good, why you prefer SWC technology over the Traditional way?

1.It is cheaper 2. Easy to apply 3. Saving labor 4. Others (specify) ------

4. Did you believe that investment in the soil and water conservation practices is profitable in the long run? 1. Yes 2. No

5. Do you think that different landscape is a problem of soil &water conservation practices? If Yes how? If No why?

Appendix 2: Questionnaire Focus group discussion Interview on the status and challenges of SWC practice:-

This Interview is prepared and designed to collect relevant primary data related to the Status and Challenges of Soil and Water conservation Practices on Jargie Watershed, in Takusa Woreda from Mekonta aybga kebele each sample comprising selected from religion leaders(2), elders(2) students(3), and agricultural workers(3). The information obtained from this group discussion will be used only for academic purpose. Your individual answers will be kept strictly confidential. For this reason, your active participation and authentic responses are very important in meeting the proposed objectives of the study. Thus, I kindly request your active cooperation in responding to the following question clearly and genuinely. 1. What is the extent/status of soil and water conservation practice in your residence? 2. How SWC structures introduced and on what type land SWC method practiced in the study area? Why the farmers use those methods? 3. What are the changes after the conservation measures? (mention the changes for: agriculture crop productivity, soil fertility, climate change and human &animal health) 4. What are the factors affecting soil and water conservation practice? 5. What do you advise the farmer to decrease the challenge face them on SWC? 6. If the farmer destruct the constructed SWC method; what is the reason of their destruction? 7. Have you got training or awareness about the importance of soil and water conservation practice (own initiation, development agent, social leader and woreda experts)? Discuss 8. What is the plan of DAs, experts, district agricultural office for the coming five years to decrease the problem that occurs in the study area?

Thank you for your response!

Appendix 3: Amharic Questionnaires Translation በሰሜንጎንደርዞንበጣቁሳወረዳአርሶአደርገበሬዎችየሚሞላመጠየቅውድተሳታፊዎችየዚህመጠይቅአላማበጣቁሳወረዳበጃርጌተፋ ሰስየአፈርናውሃጥበቃአተገባበርላይየሚያጋጥሙችግሮችናአሁንያለበትደረጃበሚልለተዘጋጀውጥናትመረጃለመሰብሰብነው፡፡መ ጠየቁየተዘጋጀውበጎንደርዩኒቨርሲቲበጅኦግራፊትም/ትክፍልበፈተጥሮሀብትናአካባቢጥበቃየሙያዘርፍለ2ኛዲግሪማሟያጥናትነ ው፡፡የተጠየቁጥያቄዎችንበትክክልእንዲሞሉበአክብሮትእየጠየቁየሚሰጡትንማንኛውንምአስተያየትናመልስየጥናቱንግብከማሳ ካቱውጭሌላአላማየማይውልመሆኑንእገልጻለሁ፡፡

ስለትብብረዎእናመሰግናለን!!!

ክፍልአንድ፡አጠቃላይመረጃ

ወረዳ ------

ቀበሌ ------

መንደር ------ቃለ-መጠይቁየተሞላበትቀን------

ክፍልሁለት፡የአባወራ /የእማወራገበሬዎችየግልመረጃ 1. የጾታናየዕድሜስብሰጥር

የዕድሜክልል/እርከን ወንድ ሴት

18-29

30-45

46-65

ከ65 በላይ

2. የጋብቻሁኔታ? 1. ያላገባ 2. ያገባ 3. የሞተባት/በት 4. የተለያየች/የ 5. የተፋታች/ታ 3. የትምህርትደረጃ? 1. ያልተማረ 2. መጻፍናማንበብየሚችል/ትችል 3. 1ኛደረጃ 4. 2ኛደረጃ 5. ዲፕሎማናከዚያበላይ 4. የቤተሰብብዛት? ወንድ ------ሴት ------ድምር ------

ክፍልሶስት፡የአፈርናየውሃጥበቃቴክኖሎጅዎችናየአርሶአደሩእይታ 1. ስለአፈርናውሃጥበቃግንዛቤ /መረጃ/ አለዎት? 1. አዎ 2. የለኝም 2. ለጥያቄቁጥር 1 መልስዎአዎከሆነየመረጃዎምንጭምንድንነው? 1. የመገናኛብዙሃን 2. የግብርናባለሙያ 3. ከጓደኛ 4. ከከቤተሰብ 5. ሌላካለይግለፁ 3. የአፈርናየውሀቴክኖሎጅንይጠቀማሉ? 1. አዎ 2. አልጠቀምም 4. ለጥያቄቁጥር 3 መልሱአዎከሆነ፣ከሚከተሉትቴክኖሎጅየቱንይጠቀማሉ? 1. ክተራ 2. የአፈርለበስእርከን 3. እርከንስራ 4. የውሀመውረጃተፋሰስ 5. ሌላካለይግለፁ 5. የተሻሻሉአፈርናውሀአጠባበቅእንቅስቃሴዎች/መዋቅሮችበምንደረጃላይናቸው? 1. ሙሉበሙሉአልተተገበሩም 2. በከፊልተተግበርዋል 3.ተተግብረዋል 4. ተሻሽለዋል 6. ከአፈርናውሃጥበቃባለሙያጋርተገናኝተውያውቃሉ? 1. አዎ 2. የለም 7. ለጥያቄቁጥር 6 መልስዎአዎከሆነግንኙነትዎእንዴትነበር? 1. ጥሩ 2. ውስን 3. በጣምጥሩ 4.ምንም 8. በአካባቢውየተተገበረውንአዲስየአፈርናየውሀጥበቃቴክኖሎጅወደውታል? 1. አዎ 2. የለም 9. ለጥያቄቁጥር 8 መልስዎአዎከሆነየወደዱበትምክንያትምንድንነው? 1. በጣምውጤታማስለሆነ 2. አዲስመንገድስለሆነ 3. ከባህላዊመንገድስለሚሻል 4. ሌላካለይግለፁ 10. አፈርናውሃንበተመለከተከዚህበፊትስልጠናወስደውያውቃሉ? 1. አዎ 2. የለም 11. ለጥያቄቁጥር 10 መልስዎአዎከሆነስልጠናውንየሰጠውአካልማንነበር? 1. መንግስታዊያልሆኑድርጅት 2. የግብርናባለሙያ 3. ሁለቱም 4. ከሌሎች 12. ለጥያቄቁጥር10 መልስዎስልጠናአልወሰድኩምከሆነምክንያቱምንነበር? 1. የጊዜእጥረት 2. የጉልበትዕጥረት 3.የስልጠናውቦታእሩቅስለሆነ 4. የፍቃደኝነትችግር 5. ሌላካለይግለጹ 13. የአፈርናዉሃጥበቃየሰብልምርትንይጨምራልርብለዉያስባሉ? 1.አዎ 2.የለም 14. ዘመናዊየአፈርናየውሃቴክኖሎጅከባህላዊጋርሲነፃፀርውጤቱንእንዴትይገልፁታል?1. በጣምውጤታማነው 2. ከባህላዊጋርተመሳሳይነው 3. በጣምውጤታማአይደለም 15. በእርሻስራዎየእርከንስራይተገበራሉ? 1. አዎ 2. የለም 16. ለጥያቄቁጥር 15መልስዎአልተገበረምከሆነምክንያቱምንድንነው? 1. ከፍተኛገንዘብስለመጠየቅ 2. በቂየሰውጉልበትስለሌለኝ 3.የመሬትእጥረትስለሚያስከትል 4.ስራውአድካሚስለሆነ 5.ለመተግበርፍቃደኛስላልሆንኩኝ 17. በአለፉትአምስትአመታትውስጥበአፈርናውሃጥበቃተግባራትውስጥተሳትፈዋል? 1. አዎ 2. የለም

18. ለጥያቄቁጥር 17 መልስዎአዎከሆነምንአይነትነበሩ? ______19. በአካባቢውበባህላዊመንገድየሚተገበሩየአፈርናየውሃጥበቃስራዎችንዘርዝሩ? ______

ክፍልአራት፡የአፈርናውሃጥበቃአተገባበርንበተመለከተየአርሶአደሩግንዛቤ

ውድተሳታፊዎችየሚከተሉትጥያቄዎችየአፈርናየውሃጥበቃአተገባበርረገድየእርስዎንግንዛቤናእሳቤበተመለከተመረጃለማግኘትየ ተዘጋጀነው፡፡

ስለሆነምበሀሳቡበጣምካልተስማሙ (1) ካልተስማሙ (2) ገለልተኛ/ምንምአይነትሀሳብከሌለዎት (3) ከተስማሙ (4) በጣምከተስማሙ (5) በማለትመልስእንዲሰጡንእጠይቃለሁ፡፡

ተ.ቁ የአፈርውሃጥበቃበተመለከተ 1 2 3 4 5

1 የአፈርናውሃንቴክኖሎጂበመጠቀምየአፍርእጥበትንመቆጣጠርይቻላል

2 አፈርለበስወይምየድንጋይላይእርከንመጠቀምየመሬቱንምርታማነትይቀንሳል

3 የአፈርናውሃጥበቃምርትናምርታማነትላይለውጥያመጣል

4 የአፈርናውሃጥበቃየመሬቱንለምነትይጨምረዋል

5 የአፈርናውሃጥበቃየሰብልምርትንይጨምራል

6 የአፈርናውሃጥበቃየድርቆሽናየሳርንአቅርቦትይጨምራል

7 የአፈርናየውሃጥበቃየማገዶእንጨትንይጨምራል

8 አዳዲስአፈርናየውሃጥበቃቴክኖሎጅዎችንለመቀበልዝግጁነኝ

9 አዳዲስአፈርናየውሃጥበቃቴክኖሎጅዎችለመተግበርከፍተኛጉልበትይጠይቃሉ

10 ዘመናዊየሆኑየድንጋይላይናየአፈርለበስእርከንበማሳየላይእተገብራለሁ

11 አፈርናውሃጥበቃበተመለከተከግብርናባለሙያዎችሁልጊዜስልጠናአገኛለሁ

12 ስለአፈርናውሃአተገባበርከሌሎችአርሶአደሮችጋርውይይትአድርጌአለሁ

13 በአሁኑጊዜበግብርናየኤክስቴሽንፕሮግራምተስማምቶኛል

14 በአሁኑጊዜየሚተገበሩየግብርናኤክስቴሽንፕሮግራሞችበንቃትእሳተፋለሁ

15 አዲሱንየአፈርናውሃጥበቃቴክኖሎጅምርትንለመጨመርከፍተኛአስተዋጽኦአለውብየአምናለሁ

ክፍልአምስትአፈርናየውሃጥበቃለመተግበርችግሮችንበተመለከተ

ሀ/ ተቋማዊችግሮች 1. ከግብርናባልሙያአፈርናየውሃጥበቃንአተገባበርለማሻሻልምክርስልጠናአግኝቼበታለሁ? 1. አዎ 2.የለም 2. ለጥያቄቁጥር 1 መልስዎአዎከሆነስልጠናውጠቅሞኛልብለውያስባሉ?1. አዎ 2. የለም 3. ለጥያቄቁጥር 1 መልስዎአዎከሆነበምንያህልጊዜስልጠና/የምክርአገልግሎትያገኛሉ? 1. በወርአንድጊዜ 2. በወርሁለትጊዜ 3. በወርሶስትጊዜ 4. በሶስትወርአንድጊዜ 5. ሌላካለይግለጹ 4. በእርሻማሳያየድንጋይላይወይምየአፈርለበሳእርከንእንዴትይተገበራሉ? 1.በፍቃደኝነት 2. በግዳጅ 3. በገንዘብ 4. በምግብእርዳታ 5. በአለፉትአምስትአመታትምንአይነትአፈርናየውሃጥበቃመንገዶችንተጠቅመዋል?1. ዘመናዊቴክኖሎጅ 2. ባህላዊቴክኖሎጅ 6. በእርሻማሳዎላይምንአይነትባህላዊየአፈርናጥበቃቴክኖሎጅተጠቅመዋል? 1.ባህላዊጉድጓድ 2.ባህላዊተፋሰስ 3.ባህላዊቦይ ለ. የፊዚካል/ሰነምህዳርችግሮች 1. ምንያህልየእርሻቦታአለዎት?------2. የእርሻመሬትስፋትበሄክታር? 1. ከ0.25 በታች 2. ከ0.26-0.5 3. ከ0.6-1 4. 1.01-1.5 5. ከ1.6- 2..00 5. ከ2 በላይ

3. የመሬትአጠቃቀም የመሬትአይነት መሬትበሄክታር

ያልተዘራመሬት

ለሰብልምርትየሚያገለግልመሬት

የግጦሽመሬት

አስካመሬት

4. በአለፉትአመታትየእርሻቦታውስፋትእንዴትነበር/ያዩታል? 1. እየጨመረነው 2. እየቀነሰነው 3. ለውጥየለውም 5. ለጥያቄቁጥር 4 መልስዎእየቀነሰነውከሆነምክንያቱምንነበር? 1.የመሬትመበርበር 2. የህዝብብዛትመጨመር 3. ሌላካለይግለፁ 6. አብዛኛውየመሬትዎአቀማመጥምንይመስላል 1. ሜዳ 2. ዳገት 3.ገደል 7. የአፈርመሸርሸርለአካባቢውየእርሻመሬትችግርነውብለውያስባሉ? 1. አዎ 2. የለም 8. ለጥያቄቁጥር 7 መልስዎትአዎከሆነለአፈሩመሸርሸርምክንያቱምንድንነው? 1. የደንመጨፍጨፍ 2.ልቅግጦሽ 3.በተደጋጋሚመታረስ 4. አነስተኛየመሬትአጠቃቀም 5.መሬቱተዳፋትመሆን 6. ከፍተኛየሆነየዝናብመጠን 9. በእርሻማሳዎያለውንየአፈርእጥበትሁኔታእንዴትያዩታል? 1. ዝቅተኛ 2. መካከለኛ 3.ከፍተኛ 10. የአፈርመታጠብጉዳቶችምንድንናቸውብለውያስባሉ? 1. ምርትይቀንሳል 2. የመሬቱየማብቀልጊዜመቀየር 3. የማሳስፋትንይቀንሳል 4.ሁሉም 5. ሌላካለይግለፁ 11. የእርሻማሳዎየአፈርአይነትምንድንነው? 1. ጥቁር 2. ቡናማ 3. ቀይ 4. ሌላካለይግለጹ 12. የእርሻማሳዎየአፈርለምነትሁኔታ? 1. ከፍተኛ 2. መካከለኛ 3. ዝቅተኛ 13. የእርሻመሬትዎየሰብልምርትሁኔታከጊዜወደጊዜ? 1. ለውጥየለውም 2. ጨምሯል 3. ቀንሷል 4.አላውቅም 14. በጥያቄቁጥር 13 መልስዎቀንሷልከሆነምክንያቱምንድንነው? 1. የማዳበሪያመወደድ 2. የአፈርመታጠብ 3. ያልተመጣጠነዝናብ 4. መሬቱበተደጋጋሚመታረሱ 5. ሌላካለይግለፁ

ሐ. ኢኮኖሚያዊተጽዕኖ 1. ለእርሻመሬትአገልግሎትየሚጠቁሙባቸውእንስሳትአለዎትወይ? 1. አዎ 2. የለኝምመልስዎአዎከሆነየሚከተለውንይሙሉ የእንስሳትአይነት ብዛት

በሬ

ላም

ጊደር

ወይፈን

ጥጃ

ፍየል

በግ

ፈረስ

አህያ

2. የእንስሳዎችዋናየምግብምንጭምንድነው? 1.ድርቆሽ 2.ግጦሽ 3 . ሰንበሌጥ 4. የበቆሎናየማሽላገለባ 5. አተላ 3. ለእንስውለምግብነትየሚጠቀሙበትየምግብአቅርቦትሁኔታ? 1. ቀንሷል 2. ልዩነትየለውም 3. ጨምሯል 4.አላውቅም 4. በጥያቄቁጥር 3 መልስዎቀንሷልከሆነምክንያቱምንድንነው? 1. የህዝብቁጥርመጨመር 2. የግብርናተግባራትመጨመር 3. የመንደርሰፈራመጨመር 4. ሌላካለይግለፁ 5. ከቤተሰብዎከግብርናስራውጭየተሰማራአለ? 1. አዎ 2. የለም 6. የእርሻመሬትዎከመኖሪያቦታዎበምንያህልርቀትይገኛሉ? 1. ከ5-10ደቂቃ 2.ከ16-20 ደቂቃ 3. ከ25 ደቂቃበላይ 7. ለግብርናአገልግሎትየሚዉልየጉልበትችግርገጥመዎታል? 1.አዎ 2.የለም 8. ለጥያቄቁጥር 7 መልስዎአዎከሆነችግሩንእንዴትይቀርፉታል? 1. ሰራተኛበመቅጠር 2. ከሌሎችገበሬዎችጋርበመተባበር 3. ሌላካለይግለፁ 9. በአፈርናበውሃጥበቃየሚሳተፉትየቤተሰብአባላትእነማንናቸው? 1. ወንድ 2. ሴት 3.ህጻን 4. ሁሉምይሳተፋሉ 10. የቤተሰብዎዋናየስራዘርፍምንድንነው? 1. የሰብልምርት 2. የእንስሳትእርባታ 3. የሰብልናየእንስሳትእርባታነው 4. ሌላካለይግለጹ መ.የስነ-ልቦናተጽዕኖ

1. የአፈርናዉሃጥበቃየሰብልምርትንለመጨመርያለውንአስተዋጽኦእንዴትይገልጹታል? 1. ምንምጥቅምየለውም 2.ጥቅሙአነስተኛነው 3. በጣምጠቃሚነው 4. እጅግበጣምጠቃሚነው 2. ዘመናዊየአፈርናውሃጥበቃመንገዶችከባህላዊጋርሲነፃፀር? 1. ጥሩነው 2. መጥፎነው 3. አላውቅም 3. ለጥያቄቁጥር 2 መልስዎጥሩከሆነለምን? 1. ርካሽስለሆነ 2. ለመተግበርቀላልስለሆነ 3. ጉልበትሲለሚቆጥብ 4. ሌላካለይግለፁ 4. በአፈርናውሃጥበቃላይተግባራትላይመሳተፍለወደፊቱውጤታማነውብለውያስባሉ? 1. አዎ 2. የለም 5. የእርሻቦታዎአቀማመጥየአፈርናውሃተግባራትንለመተግባርእንድችግርነውብለውያስባሉመልስዎአዎከሆነእንዴትካልሆ ነምእንዴት?

2.የቡድንዉይይትንበተመለከተለባለድርሻአካላትየተዘጋጀቃለመጠየቅ

በሰሜንጎንደርዞንበጣቁሳወረዳበጃርጌተፋሰስየአፈርናውሃጥበቃአተገባበርላይየሚያጋጥሙችግሮችናአሁንያለበትደረጃላይበሚል የጥናትርዕስበመምህርበቃሉአሳመረእየተካሄደይገኛል፡፡የጥናቱአላማለጥናታዊጽሁፍመረጃለመሰብሰብነዉ፡፡መጠየቁምበመኮን ታአይብጋቀበሌዉስጥየሚኖሩለተመረጡሁለትየሀይማኖትመሪዎች፣ሁለትአዛዉንቶች፣ሁለትተማሪዎችናአራትየግብርናባለሙያ ዎችበመሆኑምየእርሰዎትክክለኛመልስለዚህጥናትአስፈላጊበመሆኑበተገቢዉሁኔታበመገነዘብበአጽዕኖትጥያቄዎችንይመልሱዘን ድበአክብሮትእጠይቃለሁ:: 1) በአካባቢዋያለውንየአፈርናየውሃጥበቃደረጃእንዴትይገልፁታል? 2) በአካባቢዋምንአይነትየአፈርናውሃጥበቃተግባራትይከናወናሉ? 3) አፈርናየውሀጥበቃከተከናወነበኋላየታዩለውጦችምንድንናቸው? 4) የአፈርናየውሀጥበቃንለማከናወንየሚያጋጥሙችግሮችምንድንናቸው? 5) የአፈርናየውሀጥበቃንለማከናወንየሚያጋጥሙችግሮችእንዴትመፍታትይቻላል? 6) የአፈርናውሃጥበቃየተሰሩተግባራትበምንሁኔታይፈርሳሉ? 7) ለአፈርናውሃጥበቃስልጠናአግኝተውያውቃሉ? 8) በአካባቢዋየሚከሰቱችግሮችንሙሉለሙሉለመቅረፍለሚቀጥሉትአምስት (5) አመታትበግብርናባለሙያዎችየታቀዱተግባራትምንምንናቸው?

ለትብብርዎበጣምእናመሰግናለን!!!

DECLARATION

First, I declare that this thesis is my work and that all sources of materials used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis which is entitled “The Status and Challenges of Soil and water conservation practices on Jargie watershed, North Gondar, Ethiopia”. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillments of the requirements for an M.A degree at the University of Gondar.

Declared by

Name: Bekalu Asamere

Signature: ------

Place: Gondar University, Gondar, Ethiopia.

Date of Submission: October, 2017.