LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO LIVELIHOODS
AND LAND RESOURCES CONSERVATION IN BALE ECO-REGION, SOUTH EASTERN
ETHIOPIA
MSc THESIS
TADELE KIFLE
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY WONDO GENET COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
DECEMBER, 2016
WONDO GENET, ETHIOPIA
LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO LIVELIHOODS
AND LAND RESOURCES CONSERVATION IN BALE ECO-REGION, SOUTH EASTERN
ETHIOPIA
TADELE KIFLE
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ,NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS AND
POLICY PROGRAM WONDO GENET COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, HAWASSA UNIVERSITY WONDO GENET, ETHIOPIA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF SCIENCE IN NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS AND POLICY
DECEMBER, 2016
WONDOGENET, ETHIOPIA
APPROVAL SHEET-I
This is to certify that the thesis entitled, ‘‘Land management practices and their contribution to
livelihoods and land resources conservation in Bale eco-Region, south eastern Ethiopia``
submitted to Hawassa University, Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resources,
School of Graduate Studies, is a record of original research carried out by Tadele Kifle , under
my supervision, and no part of the thesis have been submitted for any other degree or diploma.
The assistance and help received during the course of this investigation have been properly
acknowledged. Therefore, I recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirements.
Yemiru Tesfaye (PhD) _________________ __________________
Name of Advisor Signature Date
APPROVAL SHEET-II
We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of the final open defense by Tadele
Kifle have read and evaluated his thesis entitled “Land management practices and their
contribution to livelihoods and land resources conservation in Bale eco-Region, South Eastern
Ethiopia” and examined the candidate. This is therefore to certify that the thesis has been
accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in
specialization of Natural Resource Economics and Policy.
_____________________ _______________ _____________
Name of the Chair person Signature Date
_____________________ _______________ _____________
Name of Advisor Signature Date
_____________________ _______________ _____________
Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date
_____________________ _______________ ____________
Name of External Examiner Signature Date
Final Approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the final copy
of the thesis to the CGS through the DGC of the candidate’s department.
iii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the thesis entitled “Land management practices and their contribution to
livelihoods and land resources conservation in Bale eco-Region, south eastern Ethiopia``
submitted for the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Master of Science in Natural
Resource Economics and Policy, is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in
any other university and all sources of material used for this thesis have been duly
acknowledged and references are listed at the end of the main text.
Author’s Name: Tadele Kifle Biru
Signature: ______________________
Place: Hawassa University, Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural resource.
Date of Submission: __________________
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My deepest gratitude goes to my advisor Dr.Yemiru Tesfaye, who carefully helped me in every
step of my work, insightful comments and helpful advices. The successful accomplishment of
this research would have been very difficult without his generous time devotion to comment on
the research title, proposal and the final write-up of the thesis. I have learned a lot from his
advice that significantly improved my professional capabilities.
In addition, I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Yibeltal Tebikew for his
invaluable comments and unreserved assistance for the improvement of this research and
convey me to get financial support for this study. I also like to express my gratitude to Dr.
Wolde from SHARE Bale project for his critical comment on the improvement of the proposal.
My special debt of gratitude goes to SHARE Bale project who bestowed me financial support
covering the whole cost of the research. Without this financial support, it would not have been
possible to carry out the research works in its extent.
In addition, my deepest gratitude goes to all respondents and enumerators for their willingness
to contribute to the study by being the source of necessary data and information. I would also
like to thanks each woreda agricultural office managers, experts and Bale SHARE site
coordinators Chaluma Kicha, Tegene, Tamirat and Tayir who helped me as a source of
information and facilitate data collections.
Last but not least, I am very grateful to my friends who made their effort for the
accomplishment of my study, especially Gadisa Dame, Mengistu Teshome and Sinbonan Abera
for their technical and moral encouragement throughout my study.
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BER Bale Eco Region
CI Confidence interval
CSA Central Statistics Agency
ETB Ethiopian Birr
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United State
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
FGD Focus group discussion
FTC Farmer training center
GDP Growth Domestic Product
ha Hectare
KII Key informant interview
masl. Meter above sea level
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OC Degree celsius
SLM Sustainable Land Management
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
USDA United State Development Agency
𝑥2 Chi-square
iv
TABLE OF CONTENT
APPROVAL SHEET-I .................................................................................................................... i
APPROVAL SHEET-II .................................................................................................................. ii
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
LISTS OF APPENDIXES ............................................................................................................... x
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. xi
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the problem ....................................................................................................3
1.3. Objectives of the study .......................................................................................................4
1.3.1. General objective .........................................................................................................4
1.3.2. Specific objectives .......................................................................................................4
1.4. Research questions ..............................................................................................................4
1.5. Significance of the study ....................................................................................................5
1.6 Scope and limitation of the study ........................................................................................5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 6
2.1. Concepts of land management practices .............................................................................6
2.2. Land management practices in Ethiopia .............................................................................7
2.2.1. Indigenous land management practices .......................................................................7
2.2.2. Introduced/Improved/ land management practices ......................................................8
2.3. The role of land management in livelihood and resource conservation .............................9
v
2.3.1. Land management and livelihood ..............................................................................10
2.3.2. Sustainable development in a land management context ..........................................11
2.3.3. The role of land management in rural development strategy of Ethiopia .................13
2.4. Determinants of land management practices Adoption ....................................................14
2.5. Land management challenges in Ethiopia ........................................................................14
2.5.1. Policy related challenges ...........................................................................................14
2.5.2. Limited facilities for effective extension ...................................................................15
2.5.3. Technical challenges ..................................................................................................15
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................................. 16
3.1. Study area description .......................................................................................................16
3.1.1. Location .....................................................................................................................16
3.1.2. Topography, climate and vegetation ..........................................................................17
3.1.3. Population ..................................................................................................................17
3.1.4. Economic activity ......................................................................................................18
3.1.5. Land use and agriculture ............................................................................................18
3.2. Data collection methods ...................................................................................................19
3.2.1. Sampling strategy and procedure ...............................................................................19
3.2.2. Data collection methods ............................................................................................20
3.2.2.1. Household interview ...........................................................................................20
3.2.2.2. Key informant interview/KII/ .............................................................................21
3.2.2.3. Focus group discussions /FGD/ ..........................................................................21
3.2.2.4. Observations .......................................................................................................22
3.3. Method of data analysis ....................................................................................................22
3.3.1 Descriptive analysis ....................................................................................................22
vi
3.3.2. Econometric analysis .................................................................................................23
3.3.3. Data diagnosis ............................................................................................................25
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 31
4.1. Socio-economic characteristics of the households ...........................................................31
4.1.1. Sex of respondents .....................................................................................................31
4.1.2. Family size, age and farming experience of respondents ..........................................32
4.1.3. Land holding size .......................................................................................................34
4.1.4. Access of extension service in the study area ............................................................35
4.1.5. Agricultural related credit services ............................................................................36
4.1.6. Agriculture related livelihood strategies of sample households ................................37
4.2. Land management practices .............................................................................................39
4.2.1. Land management practices for soil fertility improvement .......................................39
4.2.2. Agronomic practices ..................................................................................................42
4.2 .3. Physical land management practices ........................................................................45
4.2.4. Biological land management practices ......................................................................47
4.2.5. Management of grazing land. ....................................................................................49
4.3. Contribution of land managements to livelihoods and land resources. ............................51
4.3.1. Contribution of land management practices to income of households. .................52
4.3.2. Productivity of major crops .......................................................................................53
4.3.3. Households perception on soil erosion. .....................................................................54
4.3.4. Perception of sample households on soil fertility. .....................................................55
4.3.5. Contribution of land management practices to Environment. ..................................56
4.4. Determinants of land management practices ....................................................................59
4.5.1. Major challenges for effective land management practices ......................................66
vii
4.5.1.1 Challenges related to institutional capacities .......................................................66
4.5.1.2 Challenges related to farmers’ attitudes ..............................................................68
4.5.1.3. Challenge related to population growth, agricultural input and climate
variability .........................................................................................................................68
4.5.1.4. Challenge related livestock managements ..........................................................69
4.5.2. Opportunity of effective agricultural land management practices ............................70
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 71
5.1. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................71
5.2. Recommendations .............................................................................................................72
6. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 74
7. APPENDIXES ........................................................................................................................... 83
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Probability proportional sample size to woredas and kebeles. ......................................20
Table 2: Explanatory variables and their hypothesized effects ...................................................30
Table 3: Sex of the respondents. ..................................................................................................32
Table 4: Age, faming experience and family size distribution of sample respondents. ..............33
Table 5 : Land holding size of respondents. ................................................................................34
Table 6: Extension service of sample households. ......................................................................35
Table 7: Credit service of sample households. ............................................................................37
Table 8: Agricultural related livelihoods strategies of sample households. ................................38
Table 9: Distribution of farmers among soil fertility improving practices. .................................40
Table 10: Agronomic based land management practices. ...........................................................42
Table 11: Physical land management practices. ..........................................................................46
Table 12: Biological land management practices by sample households. ...................................47
Table 13: Grazing land maangements. ........................................................................................49
Table 14: Linkage between land management and mean annual income in Birr. ......................52
Table 15: Major crop productivity of adopters and non adopters per ha in quintal. ...................54
Table 16: Sample households perception on soil erosion. ...........................................................55
Table 17: Perception of households on soil fertility ....................................................................56
Table 18: Environmental contribution of land management practices by agro-ecology. ............58
Table 19: Resultof binary logistic regression. .............................................................................60
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Map of the study area ....................................................................................................16
x
LISTS OF APPENDIXES
Appendix 1: Survey questionnaires .............................................................................................83
Appendix 2 Farm Household level participatory environmental sustainability assessment and
performance score ranking ..........................................................................................................87
Appendix 3 : Multicolinearity test for dummy variables .............................................................89
Appendix 4: Multicollinearity diagnosis for continues variables ................................................90
Appendix 5 : Tropical livestock conversion factor ......................................................................90
xi
ABSTRACT
The broad concept of land management practices refers to activities on the ground that uses
appropriate technologies with to respective to land use system for the improvement of the
productive capacity of the land. The aim of this study was to examine land management
practices,their contribution to livelihood and land resources conservation and also to identify
determinant factors for land management adoption in Bale Eco Region, south eastern Ethiopia.
Both purposive and stratified sampling techniques were used to collect the primary data.
Secondary data were also collected from relavant sources. Bale Eco Region was stratified in to
three strata, based on agro-ecology i.e. highland, mid-altitude and lowland. Then one woreda
from each agro-ecology was purposively selected based on land management practices and
intervention of land management practices. Two kebeles were selected from each selected
woredas purposively following the criteria used to select the Woredas. Sample size was
determined by rule of thumb and 165 households were selected. Simple random sampling
technique was used to select households involved in the study. Household survey, group
discussions and key informant interviews were used to generate the data. Descriptive statics,
ANOVA, Likert scale, chi-square and binary logit model were used to analyse the data. The
study results show that inter cropping, crop rotation,mulching, animal manure, traditional
rotational grazing and traditional terrace were the common indigenous land management
practices in the study area. Where as improved terrace, compost, inorganic fertilizer, improved
crop seed, agroforestry and cutting and carrying system were improved land management
practices. The result also shown that there was income and crop productivity difference
between land management adopters and non adopters and this might be due to the adoption of
land management practices. Assesement on environmental sustainability indicators also shows
that there wa improvement of environmental sustainability due to adoption of land management
practices. Binary logistic regression outputs revealed that educational level, income, farming
experience of household head,access to extension service and livestock number were major
significant determinant variables for land management practices adoption. Lack of practical
training, low extension service, population growth and low awareness of the farmers were some
of challenges identified. The precence of different institutions working on agriculture were
found as the most important opportunities to adopt effective land management practices in the
study area. To build appropriate land management practices strengthening institution work on
land related issue and expanding agroecologically suitableble land management needs
attention.
Key word:Adoption of land management practices, Determinant of land management adoption
,Improved land management practices, Indegenous land management practices,
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The majority of the population of Ethiopia consists of farmers and they reside in rural areas and
whose life is almost entirely dependent on agriculture. Land is the most important limited natural
resource that makes up the fundamental resource base in any agricultural production system;
hence it needs to be managed effectively for the creation of wealth in many societies (Stein, et
al, 2009). Nowadays there is an increasing substantial demands placed on land resources due to
the enormous increase in the number of people living around it.
In addition, land is a very essential element of nature on which all living things directly or
indirectly depends on. Human being depends on land to produce basic necessities which include
food, clothing and shelter. Moreover, land is the principal resource of human beings in general
and agrarian society in particular.
Ethiopia is currently faced with a number of environmental concerns resulting, directly or
indirectly, from human activities and, in particular, prompted by rapid population growth,
inappropriate land use and increased livestock population pressure. These concerns range from
land degradation, due to deforestation and soil erosion, to environmental pollution (FDRE,
2001). On average, one out of every three people on earth is in some way or the other affected
by land degradation, latest estimates indicate that nearly 2 billion hectares of land worldwide
are already seriously degraded, some irreversibly (FAO, 2010).
Knowledge of farmers and scientists play a great role on how to manage agricultural land
productively and in sustainable manner. Decisions made on land management practices have
also a significant effect on environmental quality, agricultural production and land conditions as
2
a whole. These decisions also can be private decisions made by farm households and collective
decisions made by groups of farmers and communities as a whole. For example, farm
households make decisions about land use whether crop land or grazing land, the crop types to
plant, the amount of labor to use, the types and amounts of inputs, investments and agronomic
practices to conserve soil and water, improve soil fertility and reduce pest losses. According to
Ehui and Place (2006) communities can also influence land management practices adoption
through their collective decisions.
Studies conducted by Haile (2006) demonstrated that natural resource management, in general
and agricultural land management, in particular can produce significant returns, because
agriculture always served as a shock absorber for socio-economic condition of rural poor
societies those who are fully dependent on agriculture. It can also bring structural changes in
industry and other economic sectors.
Research accept that decisions concerning development are changing the economic and political
framework or local level resource management practices are made elsewhere, and that the
decision-taking actors have their own experience and knowledge systems parallel to the
scientific knowledge system. According to Sayer and Campbell (2004) such implied knowledge
systems is the key to dealing with complexity, because these systems are highly sophisticated
and characterized by adaptive systems management. Modern approaches imply that
development processes always require technology transfers from locations that are perceived as
more advanced. This has often led to overlooking the potential of local experiences and
practices (Haile et al., 2006).
3
1.2. Statement of the problem
Land resources degradation, resulting from different causes, was threatening long-term
productivity. Nowadays, land degradation is significantly reducing yield and it is more acute in
some parts of the world. For example in Central America, 75% of cropland is seriously
degraded while in Africa, 20% of the total land area is at risk of unrecovered (Sida, 2007).
In Ethiopia, the heavy dependence of people’s livelihoods on agriculture and inappropriate use
of natural resources resulted in fast and vast land degradation (Tsegaye, 2006). On the other
hand, development of agricultural sector largely depends on land productivity. According to
Dejene (2003) the magnitude of the severity of erosion 50% of the highlands are significantly
eroded, while 25% is seriously eroded.
To solve the problems of land degradation in the country, many efforts have been made since
1970s. Sustainable development and poverty reduction, socioeconomic performance and
poverty profile of Ethiopia can be achieved by increasing the agricultural activity through
sustainable land management (FDRE-SDPRP, 2002). Important strategic and policy reforms in
land management and land use planning are needed for the optimal use of land and other
resources. Moreover, to conserve biodiversity for sustainable development, appropriate land use
and management strategy is needed.
A significant number of studies have been done on land management in different parts of the
Ethiopia (Amsalu, 2006 and Heyi, 2012). These works have mainly focused on the nature of
land degradation, and soil and water conservation done by government and nongovernmental
organization. The government media also concentrated on the potential of land management
4
practices on crop yield and it lacks comprehensive assessments and evidence based analyses
regarding the tangible economic and environmental changes brought by the different land
management practices. However, as far as the investigator’s knowledge is concerned, there is
information a gap on the issue of what factors affecting decision of land management practices
and contribution of land management to household both economically and environmentally in
the study area. Therefore, this study was conducted to address this gab in general in the study
area and to add some information to the present literatures.
1.3. Objectives of the study
1.3.1. General objective
The general objective of the study is to assess different land management practices in Bale Eco-
Region and examine their contributions to livelihoods and land resources conservation.
1.3.2. Specific objectives
1. To assess indigenous and improved land management practices in Bale Eco-Region.
2. To examine the contribution of land management practices in improving livelihoods of
farmers and land resources conservation in the area.
3. To analyze principal determinants to implement alternative land management practices in the
study area.
4. To identify opportunities and challenges of land management practices in the study area.
1.4. Research questions
1. What are the indigenous and improved land management practices in the study area?
2. How does land management practices affect livelihood and land resources conservation?
5
3. What are the biophysical, institutional, social and economic factors affecting the adoption of
land management practices?
4. What are challenges and opportunities for effective land management practices?
1.5. Significance of the study
This study provided relevant and concurrent information on current land management practices
of BER; therefore it is used as bench mark for other researchers who are interested to make
another study around the topic.
Furthermore, it is useful for the government body and interested sectors of this issue by
providing overview of the current land management practices of the study area in order to take
actions to solve land management related problem.
1.6 Scope and limitation of the study
This study was conducted in BER, Bale zone, Oromia National Regional State of Ethiopia. Due
to limited time the study was limited to three woredas of BER. The contributions of land
management practices to income and crop productivity were analysed by the income and
productivity the households earn in 2016 due to lack of documentation of past income record.
6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Concepts of land management practices
The broad concept of land management practices refers to activities on the ground that uses
appropriate technologies in the respective land use system for the improvement of the
productive capacity of the land. This includes activities such as use of physical soil and water
conservation measures, soil fertility management practices, controlled-grazing, agricultural
water management, forestry and agroforestry practices (FAO, 2009).
Land management incorporates the adoption of land use systems through appropriate
management practices that enable land users to maximize the economic and social benefits from
the land while maintaining the ecological functions of the land. It can be seen from economic,
social, institutional, political and ecological dimensions. Thus, land management practices
emphasize finding economically viable, socially acceptable and ecologically sound solutions at
a local, regional, national and global level, which could promote participatory land management
practices to deal with land degradation (FAO, 2009).
Land management is a complex process, which is not only the result of will or act of land users.
Its problems and achievements go beyond the household’s domain of operation to include
actors in the surrounding environment (Hurni and Yilkal, 2007). It combines technologies,
policies and activities that are aimed at integrating socio-economic principles with
environmental concern so as simultaneously maintain production, reduce level of risk, protect
the potential of natural resources and prevent soil and water degradation, be economically
viable and be socially acceptable (Regassa, 2002).
7
2.2. Land management practices in Ethiopia
Land management in Ethiopia has evolved in to various farming systems with different level of
intensification (Wegayehu, 2006). In the same way, Bogale (2002) reported that a number of
soil and water conservation techniques have been employed by farmers, most of which have
their origin in the traditional knowledge but adapted to the present environmental and social
circumstances by experiments through generations.
According to Zeleke et al. (2006) land management practices that have applied in Ethiopia
classified into two broad categories: indigenous and introduced, with different degrees of
acceptability, areal coverage and benefits. The acceptance and implementation of these
management practices depends on the desire and willingness of farmers, which in turn request
continuous and effective performance from agricultural experts and researchers. It is not easy,
in fact, to put common criteria to categorize land management practices into indigenous and
introduced. As a result, this categorization is done based on the direct purposes of the
management techniques why farmers apply on their farmlands in the study area (Tadesse,
2011).
2.2.1. Indigenous land management practices
Indigenous knowledge includes the complex of practices and decisions made by local people. It
is based on experience passed from one generation to the next, but nevertheless, it changes,
adapts and assimilates new ideas (Oudwater & Martin, 2003). Failing et al.(2007), define local
knowledge as the full variety of insights, observations and beliefs related to a particular
decision that do not stem from conventional scientific expertise. Some of the holders of this
8
knowledge are long-time community residents, some are aboriginal people, and some are
resource users with specialized knowledge.
Indigenous land management practices are simple structures of a short-term nature that could be
reshuffled each year to make use of the soil captured above the structure and avoid rodent
production (Tsegaye and Bekele, 2010). They are built upon farmers’ indigenous knowledge as
part of their farming practices that have evolved through the course of time without any outside
institutional interventions. These technologies are one of the inherited and transferred from
generation to generation (Megersa, 2011). The most perceived and preferred indigenous land
management practices include zero-grazing, agro-forestry (woodlot), trash lines, grass strips,
minimum tillage, contour ploughing, animal manures, fallowing and biological or agronomic
methods such as cereal-legume intercropping, crop rotation and mulching, residues of crop
production (Ayalew et al., 2009).
2.2.2. Introduced/Improved/ land management practices
The introduced type of land management technologies refers to the recommended type of
structures, which have standard length, width and height. These structures have specific design
requirements and need major investments of labor in construction, often during a single period.
In most areas of Ethiopia, new land management technologies were introduced more than two
decades ago. During such span of time, the introduced technologies have been under continuous
modification, which make it very difficult to trace them back to their origins to compare them
with recent development (Tadesse, 2011).
9
The introduced land management technologies in Ethiopia includes soil/stone bunds, bench
terrace, inorganic fertilize, check dam, waterways, cut off drains, area closure and closed
gullies, hillside terrace, fanyajuu,organic fertilizer (Blata, 2010). These technologies are
comparatively had long run benefits and importance. However, the hope and desire of the
farmers was to get immediate benefits and to increase production from treated lands in order to
continue the practical application of the new technology (Amsalu, 2006). Study conducted by
Adane (2007) pointed out that farmers have blamed the new technology because of different
reason. The complains of the farmers are associated with the following drawbacks: its
narrowness for ploughing, losses of the substantial lands out of use, the breeding conditions of
rodents and weeds within structure, its difficulty in designing, demands of much labor,
encourage for formation of water logging at flat land, solidness at steep slope and artificial
water way to form gullies.
Recognizing land degradation as a major environmental and socio-economic problem, the
government of Ethiopia has made several interventions on soil and water conservation measures
in the early 1970’s to improve land management (Demena, 2012). However, the achievements
have fallen far below expectations. The country still loses a tremendous amount of topsoil and
the threat of land degradation is broadening alarmingly.
2.3. The role of land management in livelihood and resource conservation
Land is the foundation for all life-sustaining processes on earth. Land supports the vast
proportion of earth’s biodiversity and underpins a wide range of ecosystem goods and services
that humanity depends on for survival. Above all, land use in agriculture and forestry plays an
10
important role in global prosperity, benefiting billions of people who depend entirely on
farming and forest products for their livelihood (Adams & Eswaran, 2000).
However, demand for production of food, livestock feed, wood, and fiber to support a rapidly
growing population is leading to increased pressure on land resources and to unsustainable
land-use practices. Most natural ecosystems and agro- ecosystems around the world are facing
unprecedented risks of land degradation and loss of biodiversity. What makes it worse is that,
the speed, magnitude, and spatial manifestation of land degradation are further exacerbated by
effects of climate change, especially in dry lands, which are inhabited by more than 2 billion
people who depend directly on the land for their livelihoods (Adams & Eswaran, 2000) and also
stated that, globally land degradation affects 33% of the earth’s land surface, with consequences
for more than 2.6 billion people in more than 100 countries.
According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), land
degradation is considered as a reduction or loss in arid, semi arid, and dry sub-humid areas, of
the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rain fed crop land, irrigated crop
land, pasture, forest and wood lands resulting from land uses or from a process or combination
of processes consistent overtime or over geographic area (USDA, 1994).
2.3.1. Land management and livelihood
Livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and
activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and
recover from shocks and stresses and maintain and enhance its capabilities and assets both now
and in the future, whilst not undermining the natural resource base (DFID, 1999). Livelihoods
11
are shaped by policies, institutions and processes at all levels from the household to the
international.
Skills, knowledge, ability, labor and good health important to pursue different livelihood
strategies to achieve the livelihood objectives (DFID, 2000). The natural resources stocks like
land, water, wildlife, biodiversity, environmental resources from which resource flows useful
for livelihoods
The social capital which is networks and connectedness between individuals with shared
interests that increase people’s trust and ability to work together and expand their access to
wider institutions (Meser and Townstey, 2003). In farmers level they establish cooperatives to
solve their common problem together and this strength their social interactions.
Infrastructure consists of changes to the physical environment that help people to meet their
basic needs and to be more productive. Infra structure like affordable transport; secure shelter
and buildings; adequate water supply and sanitation; irrigation machinery, clean, affordable
energy; and access to information communications (Kollmair and Gamper, 2002).
2.3.2. Sustainable development in a land management context
Sustainable development considers three dimensions – environmental, economical and social
sustainability. To be sustaining these three dimensions it needs comprehensive institutions and
organization.
The environmental dimension deals with maintaining a certain stock of natural resources above
a certain quality threshold. A number of criteria to assess this dimension can be put forward.
12
These include biodiversity preservation measured against species richness, abundance,
diversity, high number of endemic species; high number of important gene pools; Rate of
irreversible resource depletion; degree and reversibility of degradation of renewable resources;
use rate of non-renewable resources against the potential use by future generations and/or the
orderly transition to renewable energy sources; reduction of adverse global impacts (Admas,
1990).
The economic dimension can be assessed as follows. Steady, continuous stream of income at
different levels; individual households, communities countries; increase food availability real
income and each; maintenance of productivity in the face of stress or shocks like human health,
natural disasters, economic conjuncture conflicts; real benefits derived from land management;
efficiency of investment through cost/benefit analysis; maintenance of a given level of
expenditure over time (Gebreselassie, 2006).
Social dimension embraces a wide range of issues that should be considered if sustainable
development aims at being socially acceptable: equiTable access to resources, equitable access
to information and services, protection of acquired rights, redistribution of wealth derived from
land use and management, active participation of all stakeholders in policy and law
development. Governmental and local accountability for resource use and good management,
respect for and valuing indigenous knowledge, local diversity and rural populations livelihood
strategies, room for social and cultural evolution without sudden disruption and fulfilling
people’s cultural and spiritual needs.
13
2.3.3. The role of land management in rural development strategy of Ethiopia
To bring about economic growth and development, various agricultural sector development
strategies have been practiced in our country. The strategies have evolved from Comprehensive
Package Programs (CPPs) of the mid 1960s and early 1970s and Minimum Package Programs
(MPPs) of the late 1970s and early 1980s to the Peasant Agricultural Development Programs
(PADEPs) of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The present federal government has developed the
Agricultural Development Led Industrialization (ADLI) strategy to improve the productivity of
the agricultural sector, with the primary objective of transforming the economy in such a way
that the relative contributions of agriculture, industry and services to economic growth.
According to Ethiopia's Development Policy & Strategies November (2002) access and use of
agricultural land is one of the most important development issues in the country. Indeed,
ensuring agricultural development and sustained high rates of growth depends on the
appropriate use of land. A fundamental aspect of the proper use of land is to guarantee the
sustainability of agricultural land and land resource.
Proper use and management of agricultural land implies improving land productivity through
encouraging different conservation and rehabilitation mechanisms and rational utilization of the
country’s land resource. This strategy is targeted mainly to chronically food-insecure, moisture
deficient and pastoral areas. The focus is on environmental rehabilitation to reverse the current
trend in land degradation, and as a source of income generation for food insecure households.
Watershed- based water harvesting and introduction of high value crops, livestock, and agro-
forestry development are new elements in the revised strategy (Demana, 2012).
14
2.4. Determinants of land management practices Adoption
In the real world, there are numerous challenging factors determining the adoption and
implementation of land management practices to prevent land degradation and to rehabilitate
degraded land (Megersa, 2011). Government policies and programs, socio-economic and
institutional factors, farmers’ local knowledge and practices, households’ endowments of
physical and human capital as well as topography, soil type and climate are the most important
factors that could influence land management practices (Tadesse, 2011). Study conducted in
Beressa watershed of Ethiopian by Amsalu (2006) identified that farmer’ age, farm size,
perceptions on technology, slope, livestock and soil fertility to have an influence in the adoption
of stone terraces. Another study by Erito (2006) focused on the adoption of physical soil water
conservation structures in Anna watershed of Hadiya Zone identified that perceptions about
soil erosion problems, farmers’ attitude towards a new technologies and participation on
conservation training have significant positive influence on farmers’ decision to retain
conservation structures.
2.5. Land management challenges in Ethiopia
2.5.1. Policy related challenges
Agricultural production sustainability can be challenged not only by long-term insecurity of
land, water, and forest resource bases, but also challenged by specific policies formulated to
protect these resource bases to enhance agricultural productivity and improve the livelihood of
rural dwellers (Rozanov, 1998). In particular the challenge in this regard relates to developing
15
the necessary capacity in terms of educational, professional, and institutional standards for the
agriculture sector (Enemark, 2005).
2.5.2. Limited facilities for effective extension
Agricultural extension is critical for the growth of agricultural sector. According to Regassa et,
al., (2013) making the extension services systematic, effective and demand driven is critical
challenge in the development of agricultural sector in general and to manage agricultural land in
particular. The national agricultural extension system also requires care full analysis of national
policy and policy makers directly or indirectly give emphasize to resolve and fulfills facilities
needed for extension. Example, limited development agent and application of information
technology tools to facilitate the work of extension service in agricultural land management are
one of the challenges related with national policy (Qamar, 2016).
2.5.3. Technical challenges
Different agricultural land management needs appropriate technical support. For example,
manure can be valuable resource if handled properly. However, unless manure application is
properly managed, excess nutrients may be applied to agricultural land. For example, if one
fails to incorporate manure into the soil, runoff may carry both soluble and sediment associated
nutrients to surface water and it may lead to water pollution. Organic fertilizer application is
also highly challenged technical subject. According to Rahman, et, al, (2009) resource
availability like animal manure is also agreat challenge to practice effective land management
practices inline with technical challenges.
16
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Study area description
3.1.1. Location
The study was conducted in Bale Eco-Region, Oromia region South East Ethiopia. Bale Eco-
Region (BER) lies 400km south east of Addis Ababa, the capital city of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia. Bale zone is geographically located between 05˚22'-08˚08'N and 38˚41-
40˚44’E (Charlene, 2013). The ecosystem services from the BER support millions of people in
the upstream (highland) and downstream (lowland) areas.The eco-region is also the source of
two important trans-boundary rivers Wabe-shebele and Genale that supports the livelihood of
large number of population in northern Kenya and Somalia.
Figure 1 Map of the study area
17
3.1.2. Topography, climate and vegetation
The annual mean temperature of the Bale zone is 17.5˚C ranging from 10˚C to 25˚C, with
annual rainfall of 875mm experienced in one long season between June and October, and one
short rainy season between March and May (Yimer et al., 2006). Distinctive endemic flora and
fauna of the Bale Mountains result from its isolation from the bulk of the Ethiopian highlands
and its topography and climatic history (Hillman, 1986, Yalden and Largen, 1992).
The Afro-alpine plateau of the central area of the BER reaches more than 4000 meters above
sea level (masl). Containing Erica and Giant lobelia (Lobelia rinchopatelum) this is the largest
remaining area of Afro alpine habitat on the African continent (BMNP, 2007). South of the
plateau the altitude falls rapidly with moist tropical forest between 2600 masl and 1500 masl.
The moist forest is characterized by Hagenia abyssinica and wild coffee (Coffea arabica).
North of the plateau habitats comprise of dry forest, woodlands, grasslands and wetlands,
largely between 2500 and 3500 masl. The dry forests contain high-value commercial species
such as Junipers procera and Podocarpus falcatus as well as Prunus africanus. The lower
altitude land of the south east of the BER, below 1500 masl, is dominated by acacia woodland
(UNIQUE, 2008; Teshome et al., 2011).
3.1.3. Population
According to Central Statics Agency (2008) Bale Zone has a total population of 1,402,492, an
increase of 15.16% over the 1994 census, of whom 713,517 are men and 688,975 women; with
an area of 43,690.56 square kilometers, Bale zone has a population density of 32.10 individuals
per square kilometer.
18
3.1.4. Economic activity
The dominant livelihood strategy in the BER, as in wider Ethiopia, is small-scale farming using
traditional technologies for low input, low output rain-fed mixed farming (World Bank, 2007
and Rosell, 2011). Crop production and live stock rearing as well as honey and coffee are the
major components of farming as a main source of income.
Households cultivate crops on distinct land plots. Most commonly cultivated crops are cereal
crops including maize, barley, teff, wheat and sorghum. Households also engage in livestock
rearing for meat and milk products, manure, drought power, transport, income sources and
skins. Rural households gather forest products which is one of their sources of income.
3.1.5. Land use and agriculture
BER known for mixed farming i.e. crop production, predominantly food crops: sorghum,
maize, barley, wheat, horse bean, field peas, potatoes, flax, Niger seed, and livestock rearing.
The highland is moderately productive; wheat, barley and pulses are dominant crops grown in
this area. Income is earned from sales of crops, livestock, fodder, and eucalyptus trees. Mid-
altitude is moderately populated; main crops grown in this agro-ecology zone are maize,
Sorghum, teff, pulses, wheat & oil seeds (Niger, sesame & flax). Households also keep
livestock (cattle & shoats). Lowland of BER was known dominated by agro pastoralist
livelihood strategies. Main crops are sorghum, teff and maize and livestock is composed of
cattle and goats. For poorer households significant part of their income is from farming, local
labor and firewood collection/sales, which they use it for purchasing part of their staple food
requirements during food shortage.
19
3.2. Data collection methods
3.2.1. Sampling strategy and procedure
Both purposive and stratified sampling techniques were used to collect the data. In the first
stage, BER (14 Woredas) were stratified based on altitude (High, Middle and Low altitude)
based on ministry of agriculture (2000) traditional agro-ecology classification i.e. area 2,300 –
3,200 masl highland, 1,500 – 2,300masl midland and 500 – 1,500masl lowland. In the second
stage, one woreda from each agro-ecology: Dinsho Woreda from highland, Haranna Bulluq
from middle altitude, Berbare Woreda, from low altitude were purposively selected based on
representativeness of the Woredas to land management practices, land management intervention
and local livelihoods.
In the third stage, two kebele were purposively selected from each selected woreda based on
adoption of land management practices and availability of interventions on land management
practices by consulting agricultural experts. Accordingly, a total of six Kebeles : Mi`o and Hora
sobba from Dinsho, Bakayye and Shawwe from Harana Bulluq, Sirrima and Gora Ido kebeles
from Barbare woreda were selected for this study.
Sample size determination was done by rule of thumb, N ≥ 50 + 8m developed by (Green,
1991), where, N, is sample size and `m` is the number of explanatory variables (Xi) where m=1,
2…14. For this study 14 independent variables were selected based on the previous literature.
Therefore; N ≥ 50 + 8m=50+8x14=165 sample household were selected to conduct the study.
20
Probability proportional sampling methods was used to determine sample proportion for each
Woredas and kebeles. Finally simple random sampling was used to select the households
involved in the study.
Table 1: Probability proportional sample size to woredas and kebeles.
Woredas Kebeles Total households How to Compute Sample Size
Barbare
Gora Ido 308 308*160/5239 12
Sirrima 1334 1334*160/5239 40
Haranna
Bulluq
Bakayye 840 840*160/5239 27
Shawwe 1324 1324*160/5239 40
Dinsho
Mi`o 602 602*160/5239 21
Haro Sobba 831 831*160/5239 25
Total 5,2339
165
Source: Own Survey (2016)
3.2.2. Data collection methods
Different data collection methods including interview with structured questionnaire; key
informant interviews, focus group discussion, and personal observations were employed to
produce primary data. Moreover, secondary data was collected from documents compiled in
woreda and kebele archives, Oromia region land proclamation documents, journals, and others
sources from concerned bureaus.
3.2.2.1. Household interview
Questionnaire containing both open-ended and closed-ended was prepared and distributed to the
sample households. Information collected consists of land management practices for effective
production and their role in the livelihood of the communities, determinants for the
21
implementation of the strategies and challenge and opportunity for proper land management
practices. The questionnaire distributed to sample household thus enabled to generate both
qualitative and quantitative data.
3.2.2.2. Key informant interview/KII/
Key informant interview involved series of open ended questions related to the study. For this
study, concerned experts and organization were interviewed i.e. one agronomist, one livestock
expert, one land administration expert and one natural resource expert were selected as KII in
each woreda and one development agent from each kebeles were also contacted. Elders who
were familiar to the study areas and knowledgeable about the research issues were selected
purposively and three elders were selected in each kebele and discussions were made with
them.
3.2.2.3. Focus group discussions /FGD/
To obtain in-depth information on concepts, perceptions and ideas, different group were
organized consisting of 6-8 households of various experiences. Therefore; two group
discussions were conducted with household purposively selected in each kebele one with men
group households and one with women group households and one group discussion at each
woreda level with woreda experts consists of three agricultural experts and three land
administration experts on general issue of current practices in managing land, opportunity,
challenges and its contribution to livelihood.
22
3.2.2.4. Observations
Observations of the environment can provide valuable background information about the
environment where this research was being undertaken. During field work, soil erosion status,
vegetation cover, current land management practices carried out by farmers in order to increase
their agricultural production and decrease environmental risky were observed.
3.3. Method of data analysis
Descriptive statistics based on percentages, frequencies, chi-square, ANOVA, Likert scale, and
Econometric model were used to analyze the data.
3.3.1 Descriptive analysis
Socioeconomic characteristics of household were analyzed by chi-square and ANOVA. Land
management practices adoptions in the study area were analyzed using chi-square.
To analysis the contribution of land management practices to livelihood and land resource
conservations; household were categorized in to two adopters and non adopters based on the
criteria of the study area. Accordingly in the study area household who practices at least two
from introduced land management practices: inorganic fertilizer, improved crop seed, compost,
agroforestry, cutting and carrying system, modern terrace and soil bund were categorized as
adopters and households who practices a maximum of one improved land management
practices were categorized as non adopters in the study area. By the above criteria, 67
households were idenfied as adopters and 98 as non adopters. Then their income,crop
productivity, their views on contribution of land management to soil erosion,soil
fertility,wildlife and environment were compared for two catagories in each agro-ecologies.
23
In this study environmental contributions of land management practice were analyzed based on
environmental sustainability indicators that developed by Yale Center for Environmental Law
and Policy (2010) and the respondents and local experts were asked to rate the status of selected
environmental sustainability indicators based on their own knowledge and experiences.
Environmental sustainability indicators such as tree covers, soil fertility, grass availability and
land degradation were used for this study based on the availability of information and their
mean score by likert scale.
3.3.2. Econometric analysis
Model specification
In adoption studies, the response to a question such as whether farmers adopt a given technology
could be yes or no, is a typical case of dichotomous variable. Logit models give guarantee for the
estimated probabilities but never lie outside (0, 1) interval and the relationship between
probability of event (𝑃𝑖) and the explanatory variable (Xi) is nonlinear (Gujarati, 2004). For this
study the logistic distribution function (logit) model was selected based on previous study by
(Yesuf et al., 2008; Deressa et al., 2010 and Temu, 2013) the determinants of land management
practices adoption done by logit model. Hosmer and Lemeshow, (1989) have also show that the
logistic model has advantages over the others in the analysis of dichotomous dependent variable. It
is relatively simple from mathematical point of view and lends it self to a meaningful interpretation.
The dependent variable was dichotomous, and equals 1 if the ith household is adopt but becomes
0 otherwise in model.
24
Following Gujrati, (1995) and Hosmer and Lemeshow, (1989) the logistic distribution function
for the adoption of land management practices can be specified as:
𝑃𝑖=1
1+ 𝑒−𝑧𝑖…………………….1
Where Pi is a probability of adopting a given practice by ith household head and 𝑧𝑖 is a function
of explanatory variables (Xi). The odds to be used can be defined as the ratio of the probability
that farmer adopts the practice 𝑃𝑖 to the probability that he or she will not adopt is 1- 𝑃𝑖.
1- 𝑃𝑖. = 1
1+ 𝑒𝑧𝑖………………………………2
𝑝𝑖
1− 𝑃𝑖=
1+ 𝑒𝑧𝑖
1+ 𝑒−𝑧𝑖= 𝑒𝑧𝑖………………….......3
𝑝𝑖
1− 𝑃𝑖=
1+ 𝑒𝑧𝑖
1+ 𝑒−𝑧𝑖=𝑒𝐵𝑜+∑ 𝐵𝑖𝑋𝑖………………4
Taking the natural logarithm of the odds ratio of equation will result in what is known as the
logit model as indicated below:
𝑙𝑛 (𝑝𝑖
1− 𝑃𝑖) = 𝑙𝑛[𝑒𝐵𝑜+∑ 𝐵𝑖𝑋𝑖]…………………5
𝑍 = 𝐵𝑜 + ∑ 𝐵𝑖𝑋𝑖………………………….6
Hence, the logit model for adoption of land management practice was a function of household
heads' age, education level,sex, family size, land size, total income, total livestock unit.
Therefore, the model employed has the following form, with error term:
𝑃𝑖 (LMPA) = 𝑍 = 𝛽0+ 𝛽1Age + + 𝛽2income + 𝛽3 land size…+ 𝛽14x114+𝜀i
Here, 𝛽0 stands for the intercept term, while Xk are the hypothesized determinants of land
management practice adoption, and 𝛽k are the parameters to be estimated.
Data was diagnoses before making the analysis to check the data whether they have defect that
influence parameter estimates and helps to take measures.
25
3.3.3. Data diagnosis
A. Multicollinarity Test
Multicollinarity problem arises due to a linear relationship among explanatory variables and for
no unique estimates of parameters (Gujarati, 2004). Variance inflation factors (VIF) technique
have been employed to detect multicollinarity in continuous explanatory variables (Gujarati,
2004) and contingency coefficient (CC) for dummies and categoricals variables.
According to Gujarati (2004) VIF (Xi) can be defined as
VIF (Xi) = (1
1−R2)
Where R2 is multiple correlation coefficients between x and other explanatory variables.
For continuous variables, according to Gujarati, (2004) if the value of VIF is 10 and above, the
variables are said to be collinear. For dummies and catagoricals variables, if the value of
contingency coefficient is greater than 0.75, the variables said to be collinear. Contingency
coefficient computed by:-
CC = χ2
1+𝑥2 Where: CC = Contingency coefficient, n= sample size. χ2= Chi-square value
B. Outlier detection
Parameter estimates are influenced by one or several observations. It is occurred as a result of
higher value of disturbance. Therefore it was checking using outlier labeling rule (Hoaglin, et
al; 1986) as:
Q3+2.2(Q3-Q1) for upper limit and
Q1-2.2(Q3-Q1) for lower limit
26
Where, Q1 &Q3 are first and third quartile of continuous data. If the data values of continuous
variables are above the upper limit or below the lower limit, they are considered to be as outlier.
Based on the outlier labeling rule formula, no outliers have been detected.
II. Description of variables
Among factors which are expected to affect households land management adoption decision,
the following variables had been considered in this study based on review of different
literatures, past research findings and investigators knowledge.
A. Dependent variable
The household adoption decision which was, the dependent variable. For the logit analysis it
was a dichotomous variable and represent the decision of household adoption of land
management. Therefore it was represented in the model by 1 if household adopt land
management practices and if 0 not adopt.
B. Independent variables
It is assumed that adoption of land management practices were affected by different factors and
the decision of households' want to adopt land management practices subject to various
relevant constraints.Which are discussed below:
Sex -Male-headed households are more likely to get information on new technologies than
female headed households. It is also argued that having a female-headed household may affect
the adoption of land management, as women may have limited access to information, land, and
other resources due to socio-cultural barriers. Study conducted by Deressa et.al.,(2009) found
27
that male-headed households were 9% more likely to conserve soil, 11.6% more likely to
change crop varieties and 10% more likely to plant trees. Depending on literature being male
household is proposed as positive effect on land management adoption.
Age -Age of the household head can be used to capture farming experience. Studies in different
parts of Ethiopia have shown a positive relationship between years of experience in agriculture
and the adoption of improved agricultural technologies (Yesuf et al., 2008; Deressaet al., 2009).
Household age is hypothesized to have positive relation to land management practice adoption.
Household family size -Households with large families may be forced to divert part of the
labor force to off-farm activities in order to earn income for buffering the consumption pressure
imposed by a large family (Deressaet al., 2009). On the other hand large family is one of the
labor sources in the household and household with large family can adopt land management
practices which need labor like physical land management practices. Accordingly household
with large family size hypothesized as positive and negative on adoption.
Farmland size, income and livestock ownership -Farmland size, income and livestock
ownership represents wealth. Studies on adoption of land management strategies indicated that
farm size has both negative and positive effects on adoption, showing that the effect of farm
size on technology adoption is inconclusive (Deressa et al., 2009; Deressa, 2010). Livestock
plays a very important role by serving as a store of value and by providing traction and manure
required for soil fertility maintenance (Barungi & Maonga, 2011). Thus, for this study, income,
farm land size and livestock ownership are hypothesized to positive relation for adoption of
land management practices.
28
Extension services -Extension services on agricultural production and information on climate,
policies, and adoption options represent access to information needed to make the decision to
adopt technology. Various studies report a strong positive relationship between access to
information and the adoption behavior of farmers (Yesuf et al., 2008; Temsegen et al., 2009;
Luk, 2011). Thus extension services hypnotized that household which contacted by extension
adopt land management practices more.
Perception of farmers on soil fertility Problem/ SOIL FERTILITY PROP.PER/. –Attitude
has been defined as the predisposition to feel, think or act in aparticular way with some degree
of consistency (Fakoya, and et al., 2007)..For example high perception in temperature change
increases the probability of using different crop varieties, changing planting dates and
irrigation. Similarly, if farmers perceive the decreasing precipitation the probability of using
soil conservation methods and irrigation was increases (Deressaet al., 2010). Households who
perceive the problem of his soil can take measurement to sustain the productivity of his land
and positive relation to land management practice adoption.
Educational status of households -Educational status of households expects that it affect land
management practice adoption positively. Education level of farmers has a great impact on the
general awareness of the adverse effects of environmental degradation (Tadla,2003).Therefore in
this study educational status of household head hyphoteised positive relation . .
Training-Training is one of the means that can be increase the awareness of individual on
technology. Training given for the farmer around farmer training center by agricultural expert
would expect that positively affect lad management practice adoption positively.
29
Market access: - Market is one of the determinants for high agricultural productivity. If the
farmers access to market and get the market where he sells his production,the farmer initiated
for more production and it assumed that farmers adopt different land management practices to
increase its production and get more profits.
Farming experience: - Eventhough experience makes the farmes with knowledge and experience
it makes familer with indigenous land management practices. With longer experience in farming a
wide knowledge and experiences are gained on the operation and conduct of traditional agricultural
activities and methods of production. Hence, farm experience is expected to influence adoption of
improved land management practices and negatively.
Credit services: - Access to credit services is associated with greater use of fertilizer and other
agricultural inputs such as improved seeds, but it has more limited impacts on other land
management practices (Tulu, 2009). For this study it is hypothesized that utilization of credit
would have positive influence on land management practices .
Agro-ecology- Difference in the agro-ecology makes land productivity due to factors like soil,
rain and topography. Therefore, the difference in agro-ecology makes the household to make
different decision on their land based on their agro-ecology. In the other case land management
practices adoption may be significant in agro-ecology based on the familiarity of the practices
based on agro-ecology.Therfore agro-ecologies were hyphotised as positive effect on adoption.
30
Table 2: Explanatory variables and their hypothesized effects
Variables Type Category Expected sign
Education level of household head Social Continuous +
Age of household head Demographic Continuous +
Family size Economic Continuous +/-
Agro-ecology Enviromental Catagorical +/-
Income Economical Continuous +
Market access Institutional Dummy +
Extension services Institutional Dummy +
Access to credit Institutional Dummy +
Farming experience Demographic Continuous -
Livestock ownership/TLU/ Economic Continuous +/-
Land holding Size Economical Continuous +
Sex of household Demographic Dummy +/-
Perception on soil fertility Biological Dummy +
Training access Institutional Dummy +/_
31
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This Section presents the results and discussion of both quantitative and qualitative analysis of
the data.. The section also consists background information‘s of respondents which were related
to land management practices, land management practice adopted by farmer, contribution of
land management practice to livelihood and analysis of determinants for adoption of land
management practices.
4.1. Socio-economic characteristics of the households
Information related to socio-economic, demographic characteristics and knowledge and attitude
of the local community were important to describe farmers land management practice and their
preference to land management practices and they are discussed below.
4.1.1. Sex of respondents
Survey result of the study shows that out of the total of sample populations, 87% were male-
headed households. According to group discussion in the study area agricultural production
activities were almost carry out by male members of the family and female were limited mostly
to performing domestic activities. This result is the same with (Benin,2006) women are also
sometimes inhibited from making decisions about land management practices while their
husbands are away.
32
Table 3: Sex of the respondents.
Variable Agro-ecology
Male
Lowland
N=52
Midland
N=67
Highland
N=46 𝑥2 value P value
Sex Frequency 45 60 37
Female
Percent 86.5 89.6 80.4
1.86 0.24 Frequency 7 7 9
Percent 13.5 10.4 19.6
Source: Own survey 2016 N indicates number of sample respondent
The above Table reveals that there were no significant difference concerning the sex of
respondent across agro-ecology. This show that in three agro-ecology, agricultural activities
carried out by men household head.
4.1.2. Family size, age and farming experience of respondents
According to this study, household size was a group of persons living together in the same
housing unit or in connected premises and have common cooking arrangements. The average
household size of the country according to central statistics agency (2007) is 3.9 persons per
household and 6 for Oromia region. The survey result indicate that there was no significant
difference in family size in three agro-ecologies, but the highland have slightly more family size
with mean value of 9 person. On the other hand, the average number of household members of
sample households indicates relatively large family sizes in the study area compared to Oromia
region. According to group discussion in the study area there was low family planning and this
is might be the factor for large family size. A study by (Yilma et al., 2010) stated that as a large
family size results in increase of food demand, it ultimately ends up with food insecurity. Hurni
(1993) which also shows that loss of land resource productivity is an important problem in
33
Ethiopia and that with continued population growth the problem is likely to be more important
in the future.
The surveyed respondents were on average 42.4 years old with standard deviation of 6.7. As
Table below shows, the average age of the respondents was within the active labor force, since
according to Central statistics agency of Ethiopia (2007) age ranges from 15-64 are considered
to be working age group. This makes farmers to participate and adopt agricultural activity
which needs more labor. The age of sample respondents does not show significant difference
across agro-ecology as shown on the Table below.
Table 4: Age, faming experience and family size distribution of sample respondents.
Variable Agro-ecology
Lowland
N=52
Midland
N=67
Highland
N=46
P value
Maximum 11 15 17
Family size Minimum 2 3 3
Mean 6 8 9 0.4
Age in year Maximum 54 40 62
Minimum 30 30 32
Mean 42 41 46 0.6
Farming experience Maximum 32 30 36
in year Minimum 8 8 10
Mean 18 15 21 0.8
Source: Own survey 2016 N indicates number of sample respondents
Farming experience is one of the most important factors that influence farmer’s knowledge of
farming system and adoption of improved farm technologies. In three agro-ecology there was
no significant difference in farming experience and almost most of the respondents had in the
34
same farming exprience category. Even though it is not significant but the highlands respondent
have large farming experience and this might be due to climate condition according to FGD.
4.1.3. Land holding size
Household land holding size is one of the factors that affect adoption of different land
management practices and food security significantly. Farmers with larger farmsizes were
expected to practice better land management practices. This is because when farmers have
larger farm sizes, they can plan different management practices at relatively lower level of
impacts to the family from failures compared to farmers with small-sized farmlands. Generally,
the land size of the sample populations indicates that the difference in land size was significant
among the three agro-ecologies, as can be seen from (Table 5).
Table 5 : Land holding size of respondents.
Variable Agro-ecology
Lowland
N=52
Midland
N=67
Highland
N=52 P value
Land Maximum
5 46.7 6.7
Holding Minimum
1 1 1.5
size in ha Mean
2.2 2.3 3.5 0.00**
Source: Own survey 2016 *** significant at 99% CI, N number of sample respondents
From the Table it was noted that there is significant in land holding across agro-ecology.
Respondent in highland have more average land size than other two agro-ecologies. According
to FGDs in the lowland and mid-altitude there was immigration in the middle of 1992 E.C
from Hararge and this may cause the shortage of land holding in the study area. KIIs and FGDs
held with farmers also indicate that shortage of land in lowland and middle altitude it might be
due to population growth dueto low family planning.
35
In tradition agriculture land is the significant production factors to the peasant farmers. In this
study it had been confirmed that land ownership was a significant factor to food security. Each
woreda land administration experts explain that 80% of households were issued first land
certification. During FGDs and KIIs they also explain that after land certification were issued
for farmers their feeling of ownership increase and they were responsible to manage their land.
Land size was considered as one of critical production factor that determines the type of crops
grown and the volume of crop produced. The same to this ideaTolessa (2002) indicated that
about 80% of the increase of agricultural output in Africa has been attained through the
expansion of cultivated land.
4.1.4. Access of extension service in the study area
Extension services consists the frequency that the households were visited by development
agent and other experts related to agricultural profession. This makes the farmer to be more
aware to adopt improved and high value land management practices which results in optimal
production.
Table 6: Extension service of sample households.
Variable Agro-ecology
Lowland Midland Highland
Total
p value N=52 N=67 N=46
Do you
get yes Frequency 19 30 32
Extension
Percent 36.5 44.7 69.2 47
10.8 .004** Service No Frequency 33 37 14
Percent 71.75 55.2 30.4 53 Source: Survey result 2016 ** indicate significant at 95 CI , N number of sample respondents
36
As indicated on the (Table 6), extension service were significant across ecological. Accordingly
household in highland 69.2 % were more access to extension. This difference was due to the
distance of the household from Woredas capital city and the number of development agent in
the Kebele. In lowland of the study area, only one development agent was present in most
kebele while in the midland and highland areas there were two and more development agents
this might be the cause for variation in Extension access among households in these areas.
Discussions in FGDs and KIIs showed that most households in the lowlands were pastoralists
and they move from place to place seasonally in order to find good pastures for their livestock
hence may have less chance of being visited by experts on regular basis. This therefore
indicates a lower likelihood of being exposed to expert’s information and less opportunity to
adopt some land management practices. Over all, agricultural extension service coverage in the
study area was 53.7% which can be considered low to adequately initiate farmers to implement
different land management practices.
4.1.5. Agricultural related credit services
Resource availability is generally expected to positively influence farmers’ land management
practices. Hence, access to credit was expected to have positive relationship with farmers’ land
management practices. Input of land management that need financial cost like in organic
fertilizer and improved crop seed have positive relation with availability of credit services. By
relaxing the financial constraints, credit helps reduce the extent to which households discount
the future and this would enable them to make more investment in land conservation (Holden
et.al. 2004).
37
Table 7: Credit service of sample households.
Variable Agro-ecology
Credit access
Lowland
N=52
Midland
N=67
Highland
N=46
Total 𝑥2value P value
Do you get Yes Frequency 32 41 32
Credit
Percent 61.5 59 69.6 63.6 0.9 0.66
Access? No Frequency 20 26 14
Percent 38.5 40.3 30.4 36.4
Source: Survey 2016 N indicates number of sample respondents
As Table above indicates, there was no significant difference across agroecology with regard to
access to credit service. As respondent reply, in three agro-ecology the source of credit to most
households were relatives and government organizations mainly Oromia Micro-Finance
Enterprise.
4.1.6. Agriculture related livelihood strategies of sample households
Several international organizations like Overseas Development Institutes (ODI) and Department
for Foreign and International Development (DFID) promote and argue that livelihood
diversification acts as a safety net for poor rural households. Study of Tolessa (2005) in Erenssa
and Garbi communities in Ethiopia have shown the need and importance of diversification for
household survival and secured livelihood.
Diversification means there could be other sources of livelihood for the household to fall back
during emergency. Livelihood diversification that does not degrade the natural resource base is
an important indicator of livelihood security and natural resource conservation in sustainable
way. From survey result, within the agricultural livelihood diversification strategies, three
38
major agricultural based livelihood strategies:Mainly crop, mainly livestock and Agropastoralist
were found among the sampled farmers in three agro-ecologies of the study area based on the
income generated from each. Consistent to this idea, according to Tesfaye (2011) the
contribution of each livelihood strategies to the income of household makes the household to
select the alternative livelihood.
Table 8: Agricultural related livelihoods strategies of sample households.
Variable Agro-ecology
Livelihood
Lowland
N=52
Midland
N=67
Highland
46
𝑥2value P value
Mainly Crop Frequency 6 10 27
Livelihood
Percent 11.5 14.9 58.3
Mainly Frequency 6 5 -
0.8 0.03**
Livestock Percent 11.5 7.2 -
Agro Frequency 40 52 19
pastoralist Percent 76.9 77.6 41.7
Source:-Survey 2016 ** shows significant at 95 CI, N number of sample respondents
As it indicated on Table, distribution of livelihoods strategies were significantly different across
agro-ecology. Hence, the majority of households in the highland areas depend on crop
production while sharecropping, and land renting are practiced in addition to cultivating
different crop types on own land. In mid-altitude and lowland areas, most of sample households
were agro-pastoralists which combine both rearing of livestock and crop production. According
to FGDs and KIIs, people in the Bale zone were totally pastoralists in the past. In middle of
1970’s, due to population growth, people in the highland areas start to cultivate crops such as
Barley, Potato, and wheat to satisfy the food demand that was increasing from time to time. In a
39
similar fashion, people in the lowland and mid-altitude areas gradually shifted to agro-
pastoralist in the middle of 1990’s due to the same reason. FGDs and KIIs also concede that
these livelihood strategy changes have both negative and positive effect on land and natural
resources. FGDs and KIIs held show that due to this livelihood change, forest land changed to
agricultural land and grazing land also diminished.
4.2. Land management practices
This section consists results and discussion of land management practices adopted in the study
area. Land management practices were classified in to four based on the litratures and discussed
below.
4.2.1. Land management practices for soil fertility improvement
Some studies have shown that farmers use various soil fertility management practices including
manure, bund, crop residue, crop rotation and cover crops (Amede et al, 2001). Most soil
fertility management practices were targeted at gaining short-term benefit from agricultural
yield. On the contrary, farmers gave less emphasis for management practices that ensure long-
term benefit of agricultural yield. Organic and inorganic sources of nutrients and agronomic
management practices are crucial to improve soil fertility status in general and for the
productivity of agricultural lands in particularly.
40
Table 9: Distribution of farmers among soil fertility improving practices.
Agro-ecology
Practices
Lowland Midland Highland
𝑥2value p value N=52 N=67 N=46 Total
Inorganic Frequency 29 32 29
fertilizer Percent 55 47.7 63 55 3.4 0.18
Manure Frequency 30 44 39
Percent 57.7 65.7 84.8 64 8.7 0.013**
Compost Frequency 15 28 24
Percent 28.8 41.3 50 40 5.5 0.2
Crop residue Frequency 40 57 32
Percent 76.9 85 69 72 1.56 0.46
Source: Survey 2016 ** indicates significant at 95% Cl, N number of sample
As shown on the Table, almost all soil fertility improvement related land management practices
adoption were not significantly different across agro-ecology except manure. DAP and UREA
fertilizers were widely applied according to farmers own preferred rate (less than the rate
recommended by research). Inorganic fertilizer adoption covers 63% in highland was the
highest;but was not significant across agro-ecology this is because most farmers 47% in three
agro-ecology were categorized as poor and does not have a capacity to buy it. Information from
FGDs indicate that most of poor farmers saw their land without using inorganic fertilizer
because of lack of money to buy fertilizer. KIIs conducted with farmers also indicates that in
lowland and mid-altitude during short rainy season this chemical fertilizers were burn the seed
and because of this reason farmers were unwilling to adopt inorganic fertilizer.
Compost, which was the most common organic soil fertility improvement practice, start to be
practiced recently year in Ethiopia. It consists of materials from crop residue, animal manure,
41
other green plants and ash. In the past, farmers used animal manure by their own knowledge
instead of using compost. Compost that was applied by farmers in their farm plots is a source of
nutrients such as nitrogen and potassium which serve as good ingredient in increasing
productivity (Michael, 2002). As it was shown in (Table 9), animal manure adoption was
significantly different across agro-ecology.This might be because in the highlands, adoption of
manure covers 84.8% and farmers mostly confine their livestock in one area and they can
therefore collect and used animal manure in their farmingland, whereas in lowland and mid-
altitude, farmers move with their livestock from place to place seasonally and thus difficult for
them to collect animal manure in one place and use it on their farmland.
In general, from the above soil fertility management practices, compost was the least adopted
by farmers in each agro-ecologies. According to information from individual interviews the
main reason was that it needs skill and high man power. The survey result also indicates that
there were low extension services regarding agricultural technology and which might be
another cause for low adoption of compost in the study area. Some training was given by
government and nongovernmental organization to increase the adoption of compost in the study
area as KIIs and FGDs result indicates but it is theoretical based.
Farmers of the study area used mulching starting from the earlier period based on their
indigenous knowledge. According to KIIs, crop residues left on the farmland improve the
fertility of soil,reduce erosion and they leave some of crop residue on their land. The adoptions
of mulching in the highland was 69% which was low compared to the other agro-ecology. This
might be in the highland they used crop residue as livestock feed during dry season.
42
4.2.2. Agronomic practices
Agronomic land management practices is integration of both indigenous and improved land
management practice which brings a sound full result regarding to production and conserving
land resource like plant, wildlife, soil micro organisms and water which are basic for human
wellbeing. As indicated in the (Table10), farmers adopts different agronomic practices like
fallowing, intercropping and crop rotation by their indigenous knowledge to improve the
productivity of their land.
Table 10: Agronomic based land management practices.
Agro-ecology
Practice
Lowland
N=52
Midland
67
Highland
46 Total 𝑥2value pvalue
Agronomic Improved Frequency 28 35 26
Practice Crop seed Percent 54 52 57 54.3 0.20 0.904
Fallowing Frequency 1 4 19
Percent 2 6 41 16 4.32 . 000**
Crop rotation Frequency 28 42 40
Percent 53.8 62.6 86.9 67.7 12.8 .002**
Intercropping
Frequency 27 49 17
Percent 51.9 73 37 53 15.1 .002**
Source: Own survey 2016 ** shows significant at 95%CI, N number of sample
Crop rotation, which was significant across agro-ecology, was more adopted than another
agronomic based land management practices. In the highland it was adopted 86.9% and this
might be because of the large landholding size in the highlands. According to FGDs, if a farmer
has small land, they cultivate only one type of crop which was more focused on their family’s
own consumptions.
43
Crop rotation is considered very effective in maintaining the nitrogen status of the soils when
leguminous plants were included in the rotation (Belay, 2000). Shortage of nitrogen is one of
the most common causes of low plant growth. Plant nutrients specially nitrogen which has been
removed by crop harvest or lost from soil by erosion must be replenished by incorporating
nitrogen fixing leguminous crop in cropping sequences for better yield. In highlands, 86.9% of
the respondents used crop rotation with barley and wheat as cereal crops and potato as root
crop. Therefore, if they grow barley in this year, they will grow potato in the next year and then
wheat in the third year. This might be different crop have different nutrient uptakes and it
facilitates soil fertility.
As indicated by survey result, in lowland and mid-altitude, adoption of crop rotation was more
than half. Farmers in these agro-ecologyies used maize and sorghum as cereal and haricot bean
as legumes crop which fixe nitrogen. Accordingly, if they grow haricot bean this year, grow
maize in the next year and sorghum in the third year. According to Belay, (2000) crop rotation
improves the soil fertility and controls the spread of weeds and insects.
With regard to the use of improved crop seed, household survey results indicated that there
were problem of getting improved crop seeds. The overall adoption of improved seeds was 53%
in the three agro-ecology of the Bale Eco Region. KIIs in the lowland indicate that there were
low access to improved crop seeds for sorghum and maize. As they explain, they used one seed
repeatedly for many years due to lack of improved crop seeds. Maize improved seed access was
slightly good when compared to sorghum according to participants of FGDs in lowland and
mid-altitude areas. In highland there was the same problem of access to improved seed of
44
potato and other vegetables like garlic. Eventhough some measurements were taken by
governmental organization but this problem was not solved.
Fallowing as a part of agronomic practice was found to be significantly different across agro-
ecology. It is the least agronomic practice adopted by the farmer 19% while the highest was in
the highlands. Respondents during group discussion were asked to explain the challenges to
practice fallowing pracices. According to those respondents, small size of their farmland to
secure the increasing household member annual food production was mentioned as a challenge
to practice fallowing management practices in their agricultural lands. Because of this limited
physical asset (land), farmers may encounter for a problem to continue crop production while
resting part of their land.
Intercropping follows specific arrangements where some legumes, animal fodder and haricot
bean are grown in rows within the main crops (maize and sorghum) in the lowland and mid-
land of study area. As indicated in (Table 10), intercropping was significant across agro-
ecology and it was more adopted in lowland and mid-altitude. According to information from
KIIs and FGDs farmers’ practices intercropping mainly to ensure the availability of food from
different crops and to obtain animal feed on continuous supply, it also improves soil fertility
through crop diversification and provide soil cover to protect the impact of rain drop on soil and
minimize erosion. Which is in agreement with the finding of Ministry of Agriculture (2001)
reported that, the aim of intercropping is to increase productivity of the land and to protect the
soil against erosion. As household interview shows the drawback of intercropping was, during
shortage of rain there was crop fall due to shortage of moisture.
45
4.2 .3. Physical land management practices
Farmers used indigenous physical land management practices starting from the ancient year
which was transfer from generation to generation with little documentation. Regarding to
physical land management practices farmers in BER use different practice to reduce soil erosion
and increase production. According to FGDs traditional terrace and counter plough were
common physical land management practices. Physical land management practices were not
restricted to individual they also practiced in communal land through Integrated Watershed
Management in three agro-ecology of the study area. These physical land management does not
achieve its intended goal in the anticipated manner due to lack of integration and less awareness
of the community towards the benefit and effectiveness of different physical land management
on the communal land as explained by participants. The same to this idea, according to Hurni
(2000) without active participation of farmers, it is impossible to minimize the problem of soil
erosion.
As natural resource experts of Berbare woreda and Dinsho explains there was gully problem in
their woreda which was beyond the capacity of the woredas, especially in lowland of Gelma
Kebele
46
Table 11: Physical land management practices.
Source: Own survey 2016 ** Indicate significant at 95% CI, N number of sample
Considering the survey result it indicates that traditional terrace and modern terrace were
significant across agro-ecology. According to FGDs, farmers in lowland and mid-altitude of the
study area their land is steep and there is high soil erosion which was a main factor for crop
production. Because of this they used traditional terrace to reduce soil erosion. They prefer
traditional terrace due to its cost wise and do not need any training and skill. As information
from KIIs the durability of this traditional terrace low and it was used only in one production
season, because it damaged by cattle easily and it does not effective to control heavy runoff
water.
Improved terrace which was least adopted by farmers covers 31% in three agro-ecology. In the
lowland and mid-altitude it was less adopted for the reason that, according to KII there is
minimum land holding size of the farmer and they believe that modern terrace make their land
Agro ecology
Practice
Lowland
N=52
Midland
N=67
Highland
N=46 Total 𝑥2𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 p value
Traditional Frequency 36 42 20
.027** Physical land terrace Percent 69 62.6 43.4 58 7.2
Management Modern Frequency 12 24 21
Practice terrace Percent 23 35 45 34.3 6.1 .04**
Soil bund Frequency 22 28 18
Percent 43 40 39 40 .11 .93
Counter Frequency 44 56 33
plough Percent 84 82 72 79.3 3.22 0.19
47
out of crop cover by taking many space and lack of awareness on the effectiveness of improved
terrace. These show that farmers consider the benefit of terrace only in crop production angle
and needs awareness on the other benefit of terrace. According to Hurni (2000) the awareness
of farmers about the problem of soil erosion, is the standing point for the application and
expansion of modern soil conservation measures. On the other hand the household’s survey also
indicates there was low extension service in lowland and mid-altitude of the study area and it
might be contribute to this low adoption of improved terrace adoption. FGDs show that
different training were given orally without practical based and this might also one factor for
adoption of improved terrace.
4.2.4. Biological land management practices
Table 12: Biological land management practices by sample households.
Agro-ecology
Biological
Agroforestry
Lowland Midland Highland
Total 𝑥2𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 p value N=52 N=67 46
Frequency 22 35 12
Land
Percent 42 52 26 40 7.66 0.022**
management
Grass strips Frequency 12 22 22
Percent 23 32 47 34 6.4 0.099
Source: Owen survey 2016 ** Indicates significant at 95 %CI, N sample respondents
Agroforestry practices have been claimed to have the potential of improving agricultural land
productivity status and alleviating adverse environmental effects in both at local and global
level (Bifarin, et, al, 2013). Similar with this, the study area had been assessed in the adoption
of agroforestry as a means of agricultural land management practices. In agro-forestry systems,
48
the tree or shrubs can be grown with crops at the same time and in the same field or in the same
field at different times. Trees help to preserve the fertility of the soil through the return of
organic matter and the fixation of nitrogen. They improve the soil’s structure and help to
maintain high infiltration rates and greater water holding capacity.
As shown on (Table 13), that agroforestry was one of the biological land management practice
adopted by household and it was significant across agro-ecology. As it shown agroforestry was
practiced more in lowland and mid-altitude than highland because of the presence of different
fruit like papaya, banana and mango. Agroforestry is not only used economic sustainability by
providing increasing crop production and source of fuel but also it conserves plants which are
environmentally suitable.During FGDs farmers explanin that the primary objectives of
agroforestry were improving soil fertility and used as shade.
Grass strip, has been planted or left to grow naturally in narrow strips along the contour at
intervals across the slope of a field. It started to practiced in the area few years ago.The grass
strips act in the same way as the crop residue barriers act, livestock feed, trapping moving soil,
slowing down moving water, and encouraging it to sink into the soil. When planted as a contour
hedge it acts as a continuous filtering system that slow down run off and collects soil sediments
at the hedge faces. Accordingly, survey result the adoption of grassstrip was less than half and
this show it was less adopted. This might be due to low extension services to wards this
practices. Grass such as elephant grass and vetber which used as forage and protects soil were
introduced by government and nongovernmental organization they were planted on individual
farm land. Household confirm that those grasses have multipurpose both as forage and protect
soil erosion.
49
4.2.5. Management of grazing land.
Livestock is one of the main livelihood strategies for many rural areas of Ethiopia in general
and for BER small holder farmers in particular because most of the household depends on
livestock directly or indirectly to fulfill their basic needs. The survey result indicates that about
65.4 % of sample households were agro pastoralists. As discussion from each woredas natural
resource management experts show that livestock rearing as usual was one of the causes for
land degradation by overgrazing and free grazing. Therefore selection of grazing management
practices is a key decision in designing an appropriate land management practices. Some comon
indigenous and introduced grazing land management practiced by farmers of the study area are
shown on the following table
Table 13: Grazing land maangements.
Agro-ecology
variables Lowland Midland Highland Total 𝑥2𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 pvalue
Traditional rotation Frequency 44 30 16
Percent 65 44 34 47 5.4 0.8
Haymaking Frequency 0 10 16
Percent 0 15 31 15.3 0.2 0.6
Cut and carring Frequency 20 31 18
Percent 39 45 39 41 3.1 0.8
Controlling Frequency 14 19 25
Countneous grazing Percent 30 28 54 37 0.11 0.06
Source own survey 2016 indicates N is sample size
50
Haymaking was one of the common grazing land management practice. This is used to control
over grazing and help to store grass for dry season. Especially in highland it was common due
to grass availability. As pointed on the (Table), 31% of sample households in highland adopt
haymaking to manage their grazing land. They grow the grass and harvest when it reaches at
flowering stage and then store it for dry season. KIIs conducted with experts indicates that there
was information gap on the time of harvesting the grass and there was some grass loose due to
inappropriate time of harvesting.
Most of sample households practices traditional rotational grazing system which starts practiced
during earliest time. Farmers of the study area classify their land into two/three and they stay
their livestock on one area for specific day and after a time they move their livestock to other
part of which was not grazed and the rotation continues like this. The problem of this practice
was, there was no time settled for rotation and carrying capacity was not considered. Grass has
its own time of regeneration and growth so proper rotation is needed to sustain important grass
species.
Controlling continuous grazing was one of traditional grazing land management practice
adopted more in highland. Controlled continuous grazing methods attempt to maintain an
optimum grazing pressure. Grazing pressure can be increased by increasing the stocking rate
(adding animals) on a pasture or by temporarily fencing out part of a pasture for hay making.
Farmers grazed their livestock on one area and they use for one season and they rest the grazing
land for some time until the grazing land become rehabilitated. To maintain a productive
pasture in a continuously grazed system, it is important to avoid overgrazing and during dry
weather periods, remove the animals and give the pasture a rest.
51
Cutting and carring system was improved grazing land management practice and it aims to
control free grazing. As KIIs held with expert confirm it adopted rapidly in short period of time
due to shortage of grazingland. In addition they confirm that forage seed like vetch, sesbania,
treelucern and elephant grass which are enriched with nutrient content also start to practiced in
the study area recently.
According to FGDs held with each woredas land administration, there was shortage of
communal grazing land due to population growth and agricultural expansion. Consistent to this
finding, KII disclosed that there was shortage of grazing land due to increased population
number which in turn caused cultivation of the earlier grazing land in order to support the large
family. Due to this communal grazing land in the study area changed to private and shifted to
agricultural land. However, the key informants added, recently farmers were advised to have
their own plots of land on which they grow varieties of grass.. Some farmers are also beginning
to grow grass along terrace lines for soil conservation and animal feeding.
4.3. Contribution of land managements to livelihoods and land resources.
Proper land management practices can generate both private and public benefits by addressing
poverty and food insecurity as well as environmental issues. In terms of private benefits it
increases and conserving natural capital including soil organic matter, various forms of
biodiversity, water resources and increasing crop production and source of fuel wood(Pretty,
2008). In regarding to public benefits they maintains environmental sustainability.
To analysis the contribution of land management practices to livelihood and land resource
conservation;household were categorized in to two adopters and non adopters based on the
52
criteria of the localiy as discussed on (section 3.3.1). Based on this criteria their income,crop
productivity, their views on contribution of land management to soil erosion,soil
fertility,wildlife and environment were compared for two catagories in each agro-ecologies.
4.3.1. Contribution of land management practices to income of households.
Income is one of the indicators for the household to stand some hard environmental problem
like drought and food shortage. In order to link the effect of land management practices on
household income, comparison of mean annual income in 2016 between adopters and non-
adopters of land management practices were used as shown on Table below.
Table 14: Linkage between land management and mean annual income in Birr.
Agro-ecology Mean income St. deviation t value P value
Highland Adopter 39055
17054 8.2 0.00***
Midland
Non adopter 33008
6518
Adopter 21365
7358
Lowland
Non adopter 20025
4394 5.3 0.08*
Adopter 27612.3
8890 9.5 0.00***
Non adopter 17316
6157
Source: Survey 2016 ****,. and *Indicates significant at 99 and 90 % CI
The income was significantly different between adopters and non adopters and this might be
due to the adoption of land management practices by households. This suggests that households
who have adopted land management practices were in better-off position to improve their
livelihood than those who have not adopted. It also shows that adopters can be able to afford
expensive synthetic fertilizers, improved seeds, keeping livestock and thus uphold their
livelihood sustainable. Similar to this idea, Parwada et al., (2010) reported that the adoption of
53
land management technologies offer opportunities of improving the quality of the resource for
poor farmers.
Considerable variation in income between adopters and non adopters in the highlands of the
BER were might be due to the advantage that the land management practices have increased
the income of household through increasing crop productivity and livestock feed availability.
The above results also reveal that land management practices has significantly contributed to
the improvement of income for adopters in the lowland agro-ecology. In particular land
management practices useful for addressing challenges of livestock feed scarcity; combating
soil erosion and moisture stress have played important roles in improving crop and livestock
productivity for improved local livelihoods in the agro-ecology.
In the same way, income difference between adopters and non adopters in midland were might
be rising from the contribution of significant adoption of land management practices like
traditional terracing and agro-forestry practices are helping household to increase production.
4.3.2. Productivity of major crops
The contribution of land management practices regarding to crop production were analyses by
taking major crop produced in the study area and comparing its mean productivity for adopters
and non adopters as shown below. The productivity of crops and land size were first measured
in local measurement and converted to Quintal and ha. For this study, sorghum, maize and teff
were used for lowland and mid-altitude and barley and wheat for highland.
54
Table 15: Major crop productivity of adopters and non adopters per ha in quintal.
Variables Crop
Mean St.dev t-value p-value
Crop Maize Adopters 19 6.1
productivity Non adopters 13 5.6 5.48 0.03**
Sorghum Adopters 21.5 3.3
0.8
Non adopters 21.6 2.1 5.3
Teff Adopters 18 8.2
Non adopters 14 7.9 2.4 0.04**
Barley Adopters 44 11.5
Non adopters 36 10 2.3 0.041**
Wheat Adopters 45 9.7
Non adopters 38.3 9.3 1.2 0.3
Source: Survey 2016: ** and * shows that significant at 95, and 90 CI respectively
Table above indicate that, crop productivity between adopters and non adopters were significant
except for wheat and this significant difference might be from land management practices
adoption because land management practices play essential role to increase agricultural
productivity. Accordingly, if farmers get sufficient crop they can sell and purchase another crop
type to feed their family a variety of food items. On the other hand, farmers with sufficient crop
production also can easily resist sudden crop failures. According to Conant, (2009) main
benefit of implementing improved cropland management practices is expected to be higher and
more stable yields, increased system resilience and, therefore, enhanced livelihoods and food
security, and reduced production risk.
4.3.3. Households perception on soil erosion.
According to KII the main problem for low productivity in the study area was soil erosion. In
the other case if soil erosion is controlled, farmers were with sufficient production and can also
55
get sufficient food during food shortage periods. Perception includes the awareness of the
individual towards certain idea or specific objectives. Sample households were asked their
opinion on the trend of soil erosion on their land.
Table 16: Sample households perception on soil erosion.
Variable Adopters Non adopters 𝑥2value P value
Soil erosion Decrease Frequency 41 47
Trend
Percent 61 48 3.5 0.02**
No change Frequency 27 50
Percent 39 51
Source; Survey 2016 ** indicates significant at 95% CI
Concerning perception of soil erosion more than half of the adopters reply that soil erosion
decreases over time. The Table above shows that the perceptions of soil erosion trend were
significant between adopters and non adopters. This significant difference might be come due to
the potential of land management practices in soil erosion control and this has great
implications on the livelihood of the community through increasing production.
4.3.4. Perception of sample households on soil fertility.
Households were asked to reponse about the fertility status of their soil. Their responds
depends on crop productivity, moisture content of the soil and erosion resistances. The survey
result indicates that there was significant difference on perception of soil fertility across agro-
ecologies. There is a general understanding that the better farmers perceive problems of their
land they use appropriate land management practice.
56
Table 17: Perception of households on soil fertility
Variable Agro- ecology
soil fertility
Lowland
N=52
Midland
N=67
Highland
46 Total 𝑥2value pvalue
Good Frequency 35 33 16
Soil fertility
percent 67.5 49.3 34.8 49.2
perception Medium Frequency 10 30 19
0.78 .04**
percent 19.1 44.8 41.9 36.6
Poor Frequency 7 4 11
percent 13.5 6 23.3 14.2
Source: Survey 2016 ** indicates significant at 95 CI, N number of sample respondents
Table above show that overall 49.2% of the sample households in three agro-ecology were
recognize that their soil is good fertile. This indicate that there is problem of soil fertility in the
study area and to tackle this problem farmers used different land management practices by their
indigenous knowlege. FGD and KII show that the cause for fertility loss was due to poor
agricultural practices and soil erosion. The result also show that the perception on soil fertility
was significant across agro-ecology. This might be due to adoption of improved land
management practices by farmers.
4.3.5. Contribution of land management practices to Environment.
Well structured land management practices have the potential to provide global environmental
sustainbility through their contribution to combating land degradation and reversing decline in
biodiversity and other ecosystem services. According to Morelli, (2011) Environmental
sustainability could be defined as a condition of balance, resilience, and interconnectedness that
57
allows human society to satisfy its needs while neither exceeding the capacity of its supporting
ecosystems to continue to regenerate the services necessary to meet those needs nor by our
actions diminishing biological diversity.
According to Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (2010) great deal of attention has
recently been focused on climate change, water quality and availability, air pollution,
deforestation and land use changes,soil, biodiversity, and the sustainability of agriculture and
fisheries.
In this study, Environmental contributions of Land management practice were analyzed by
using Environmental Performance Index (EPI) that was developed by Moore.et al. (1973).
Moore used different Environmental quality and sustainability indicators to develop
Environmental Performance Index (EPI). Based on this environmental quality indicators like;
tree diversity, vegetation covers, soil fertility, Grass availability and land degradation were used
for this study.
Respondents were asked to rate the contribution of Land management practice to
Environmental quality and sustainability indicators based on their own knowledge and
experiences and scores were assigned ranging between 0-5(lower to higher) see Annex. Then
after the rating, the response of adopters and non-adopters were analyzed separately for each
agro-ecology. The value indicates the contribution of land management practices to
Environmental quality and sustainability. The Bigger difference of score between adopters and
Non adopters assigned to each environmental quality indicator show the significant contribution
of Land management practice to Environment.
58
Table 18: Environmental contribution of land management practices by agro-ecology.
Environmental
sustainability indicators
Highland Midland Lowland
Adopters
Non
adopters Adopters
Non
adopters Adopters
Non
adopters
Land degradation 2.74 2.41 2.65** 1.36 1.88** 1.22
Soil fertility status 2.08 2.01 2.69** 2.03 2.98** 1.82
Tree cover 2.61 2.4 2.53** 1.36 1.56** 1.15
Livestock feed availability 1.51 1.34 3.14** 2.13 2.14** 1.37
Grazing land quality 1.66** 1.14 1.29 1.13 1.88** 1.01
Soil erosion 1.74 1.44 0.89 0.85 2.76** 1.42
Source: Own survey 2016 ** indicates the significant difference in mean rate score.
As shown on (Table 18), in lowland and mid-altitude most environmental sustainability
indicators assessed have shown significant. In the highland the only environmental
sustainability indicator found significantly was livestock feed this is mainly due to the
adoption of household different grazing land management like improved pasture, hay making
and traditional rotational grazing adoption. Research has documented that improved pasture
management by improving vegetation community structure (e.g. seeding fodder grasses or
legumes with higher productivity and deeper roots) can lead to higher livestock yields due to
greater availability of better quality forage with potential increased returns per unit of livestock
(Hussain, 2007).
The above Table shows that in the highland of the eco-region, land management practices
being promoted in highlands have shown little effect in improving soil fertility, vegetation
cover and sustainability of land resources use. Similar with the above survey result KIIs and
59
FGDs made with household also reveals that introduced land management practices had
contribution to Environmental performance indicators like soil fertility, soil erosion and
vegetation cover but not significant effect.
In lowland and mid-altitude land management practices had significant contribution to
environmental sustainability as environmental sustainability indicators result shows. In this
two agro-ecology soil related indicators and grazing land management show significant results.
This positive environmental sustainability might be linked to the environmental contributions
of agro-forestry, manure, grazing land management and intercropping practices.
4.4. Determinants of land management practices
Why farmers’ land management decision vary from one place to another or from one farm
household to another have been a matter of constant concern for researchers, policy makers and
planners. As indicated above, farmers in the study area practices different land management and
factor affecting the adoption of one land management practice may not affect the adoption of
other practices. It is also difficult to analysis the determinant factors for all land management
practices adoption. Therefore three land management practices compost, inorganic fertilizer and
improved terrace were selected because they were widely got the attention of government and
nongovernmental organization in the study area as explained by KIIs and their determinant
factors were analyzed using binary logit model with STATA version 12 see(Table 19).
60
Table 19: Resultof binary logistic regression.
Modern Terrace adoption Compost Adoption Inorganic fertilizer Adoption
Variables Coefficient Marginal effect P value Coefficient Margin effect P value Coefficient Marginaleffect P value
LOWLAND -0.212** -0.031 0.02 0.1441 0.012 0.99 0.27 0.041 0.75
MIDLAND -0.665** -0.161 0.04 0.335 0.082 0.16 0.044 0.01 0.8
SEX 0.263 0.036 0.753 0.114 0.028 0.871 0.258 0.009 0.64
AGE 0.198 0.025 0.78 -0.064 -0.016 0.379 0.058 0.019 0.292
TOTAL FAMILY SIZE 0.149 0.019 0.189 0.093** 0.023 0.025 0.064 0.018 0.445
EDUCATIONAL STATUS 0.392*** 0.05 0.00 0.338*** 0.084 0.00 0.267** 0.068 0.012
FARMING EXPERIENCE -0.275** -0.035 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.567 -0.138* 0.034 0.082
TLU -0.155* -0.02 0.070 0.034 0.008 0.566 0.107** 0.026 0.045
TOTAL INCOME 0.83 0.106 0.527 1.536 0.269 0.146 0.38** 0.04 0.018
EXTENSION SERVICE 0.479 0.062 0.487 1.148** 0.275 0.042 0.271 0.066 0.571
MARKET ACCESS -1.729 -0.291 0.999 -0.953 -0.234 0.517 11.496 0.958 0.994
TRAINING ACCESS 1.561 0.286 0.133 1.095 0.264 0.159 0.626 0.155 0.367
SOIL FERTILITY PROPP. 0.295 0.039 1.00 0.617* 0.153 0.060 1.39 0.334 0.995
CREDIT ACCESS 0.944 0.129 0.47 0.533 0.13 0.624 1.24 0.297 0.304
TOTAL LAND SIZE 1.366** 0.173 0.018 0.545 0.135 0.151 0.991** 0.242 0.011
CONSTANT -15.64
0.00 3.599
0.02 0.08
0.00
NB: *, ** and *** indicate significance at 90%, 95 %, and 99 %, CI respectively. Number of observation 165
LR Ch-square 137 129 102
Pro>Chi-square 0.00 0.00 0.00
Log likelihood ratio -44.5 -41 -27
Pseudo R-square 0.38 0.42 0.37
Percent of correct prediction 86 72 78
61
Output of Binary logit model revealed that adoption of land management practices were
significantly influenced by different independent variables which are described below:
Modern Terrace Addoption
The logistic regression outputs, indicated that agro-ecology, education, farming experience,
TLU and landholding size were statistically significant with the adoption of modern terrace.
In terms of Agro-ecology, highland agroecology used as reference on the model and coded as
0,1 and 2 for highland,midland and lowland respectively. Type of agro-ecology was
significantly related to the adoption of modern terrace i.e., marginal effect indicates that the
probability of adopting of modern terrace by farmers in lowland and midland agro-ecology
were 3%and16% times less likely than household in highland, respectively. This might be due
to the coverage of extension service which was less likely covered in lowland and midland as
indicated on survey result. This result is in line with Zeleke,(2014) Determinants of the
Adoption of land management strategies against climate change in northwest Ethiopia shows
significant difference in agro-ecology
Education also has positive relation with modern terrace adoption. It was expected that
education helps to enlighten people on the importance land conservation practices. As it
indicated on the above Table education was significant and result shows that if educations of
household increase by one year his probability of adoption to modern terrace increase by 5%.
Education also increases their capability to seek information and get necessary support from
government and non-government organizations. This result is consistence with (Giridhari S.
62
Paudel, 2004), better educated farmers are aware of several kinds of land conservation
measures through their good personal contacts with agencies involved in land management.
Farming experience An increase in the number of years of the household’s farm experience
decreases the decision on modern terrace adoption, as the sign was consistent with the prior
expectation. Negative relation shows that a longer experience in farming, a better knowledge,
attitude and skill was developed on the operation and conduct of traditional physical land
management practices. As the output of binary logit model shows as the farming experience
increase in one year the probability of adopting modern terrace increase by 3.5%.
TLU having more livestock makes farmers to deicide different land management practices.
Unfortunately in this study having more livestock number was negatively correlated to the
adoption of modern terrace accordingly, as the number of cattle increase by one TLU the
probability of adopting modern terrace decrease by 2% and this might be if livestock number
increase they graze freely and destruct constructed structures. On the other hand if households
posses many livestock,the leave their land for grazing land rather than adopt terrace.
Landholding size was positively affect the adoption of modern terrace and this might be as
FGDs result indicates that terrace covers large area and makes some land out of crop cover
because of this having small land makes less adoption modern terrace. Accordingly if land size
increases by one hectare the probability of adoption also increase by 17.2%. This result is the
same to study conducted by Holden and Haile, (2002) and Yesuf, (2004) which reveals positive
relation between land size and physical soil and water conservations practices.
63
Compost Adoption
The logistic regression estimates indicated that family size, education, extension services and
perception on soil fertility were statistically significant to compost adoption.
Family members are one of the labor forces for household to practice agricultural activity. The
labor requirement is substantially increased, and applies adequate amounts of green manure and
compost to their farmlands. Family members significantly affect the adoption of compost and
marginal effect indicates that addition of one family members increase the probability of
compost adoption increases by 2.3%. Despite their willingness, farmers with a relatively small
agricultural labor force cannot take care of farmlands effectively. It is beyond their capability to
meet the labor requirement for all kinds of conservation practices.
Education also significantly affect compost adoption .One year increase in school add some
value for the adoption of technology. Compost preparation needs skill and knowledge how to
prepare and time of application therefore addition of school make farmer to capture it easily.
Marginal effect indicates that addition of one year school increase the probability of adopting
compost by 8.4%. Compost is one of the long term effects and educated farmer easily
understand and believe on its effectiveness.
Extension service is significantly affecting the adoption of compost. If farmers visited regularly
by development agent and agricultural expert they are sensitive to accept technology. Farmers
who contacted by extension agent the probability of adopting compost increase by 27.5% than
those who does not contacted by extension agent regularly. Consistence with this finding,
according to Nkamleu, & Adesina, (2000) adoption rate would be high, if farmers are regularly
64
advised by competent extension agents, with adequate support materials provided in a
coordinated way.
Perception of soil fertility problem makes farmers to make the correct decision on his land.
So that Compost, one of a source for potassium is the most measurement for soil fertility
problem. The result of the model indicates that farmers those who know the status of their farm
land adopt compost more likely by 15% than who do not perceive the status of their soil.
Inorganic Fertilizer Adoption
Inorganic fertilizer adoption has been determined by several factors. The logistic regression
estimates indicated that education, farming experience, TLU, landholding size and income were
statistically significant with the adoption of inorganic fertilizer.
Educational status of household significantly affects the adoption of inorganic fertilizer
positively. As model output indicates the addition of one year school of the farmer the
probability adopting of inorganic fertilizer increases by 6.8%. Education makes the farmer to
accept new technology which increases the productivity of his land. The more the person
attained the school the more it makes a right decision on his land. This result is consistence with
studies conducted by (Bacha et al., 2001; Chilot, 2007; Maiangwa et al., 2007) which shows
positive relation between education and inorganic fertilizer adoption.
Farming experience An increase in the number of years of the household’s farm experience
decreases the decision on inorganic fertilizer adoption, as the sign is consistent with the prior
expectation. Negative relation shows that a longer experience in farming, a better knowledge,
attitude and skill is developed on the operation and conduct of traditional agricultural activities and
65
methods of production, which hinders acceptance of changes and adopt new ideas and techniques.
As model output indicates as the farming experiences increases by one year the probability of
adopting inorganic fertilizer decreases by 3.4%.
TLU theoretically, livestock can support land management practices as a source of cash to
purchase inputs such as fertilizer. The model output indicates that increasing the TLU in one
unit the the probability of adopting inorganic fertilizer increases by 2.6%. Livestock ownership
has positive impact on fertilizer adoption (Croppendstedt et al., 2003; Hagos, 2003)
Income of the household is one of the most challenging which make the farmer not to adopt to
inorganic fertilizer. Income makes farmers to buy inorganic fertilizer and increases the adoption
of this input. The model output indicates that unit increase of total average household income
per year increases the probability of adopting of inorganic fertilizer by 4%.
Land holding size-Land holding size used as the indicators of wealth and farmers who have
large number of land can sold part of his land and can buy agricultural inputs. The output of the
model also show that as land increase by one unit the the probability of adopting inorganic
fertilizer increase by 24.2%. The result of this study is the same to study conducted by Maiangwa
et al., (2007) which reveals land size positively and significantly affect adoption of inorganic
fertilizer adoption.
66
4.5. Challenges and opportunity for effective land management practices
4.5.1. Major challenges for effective land management practices
To identify major challenges of land management, discussion were made with household
respondents, agricultural experts and concerned land administration offices of each Woredas
who have mentioned major challenges in the current practices of agricultural land management
technologies. These includes shortage of inputs, poor extension and practical training,
population growth, climate variability, inappropriate implementation of policy related strategies
linked with the practice of appropriate agricultural land management options. These constraints
were also attributed to a number of indicators including low adoption of land management’s,
low productivity and inability of the woreda agriculture office to reverse the severely degraded
areas particularly gully developed over the land. Therefore they contribute their own share for
poor practice of agricultural land management in the study area which also ultimately might
have also a negative impact to agricultural productivity.
4.5.1.1 Challenges related to institutional capacities
Agricultural land management practices can be influenced by the capacity of institutions that
work with the agricultural sector. It is only when policies, strategies and programs related to
agricultural land use are effective, when adequate and strong institutional capacities can be
recognized. The capacity of the agricultural office to provide the essential incentives for
effective extension worker in agriculture, provision of trainings, credit services and its capacity
to implement the appropriate land use policy strategies that are relevant for effective
agricultural land management practices were also investigated under this study.
67
Agricultural extension is critical to introduce better agricultural practices land management
particularly to smallholder farmers in the country like Ethiopia where traditional agricultural
practice is extensively practiced (Addisu, 2011). In the study area in most kebeles there was
only one development agent worker like Sirrima Kebele and Gora Ido kebele of the study area.
This makes it a challenge to give timely needed information and advice. During group
discussion farmers explained that their source of information regarding to agricultural
technology were development agent. Some of the lowland kebele are scattered in settlement,
wide area and have steep slope and difficult to disseminate agricultural information by one
expert.
With regard to households’ accessibility for training, 70.0% of the total sample farm household
respondents responded that they participate in trainings given by Agricultural expert on how to
manage the agricultural lands. Even though there were trainings given on how to implement
agricultural land management practices in the study area, about 48% of the total respondents
also reported that trainings were given focused on theoretical aspects rather than practical issues
based on demonstration on the ground. This shows that theoretical based training does not solve
the problem of land management and farmers do not easily capture the application of the
practice. Most farmers haven’t attained formal education and find it difficult to take good notice
of theoretical based training.
As discussion with development agents and field work indicates farmer-training centers (FTC)
were established at all Kebele level in the study area. FTC allows to access information and
provide comprehensive trainings for farmers in introducing new farming practice on improved
crop cultivation, natural resource management and animal raring , on how to implement new
68
agricultural land management practices and how to reverse degraded agricultural fields. Even
though FTC were established in the study area the distribution of farm households response
underpin by the researcher’s observation indicated that training centers established in sample
Kebele were observed without complete and proper function in relation to its pre defined
objectives.
4.5.1.2 Challenges related to farmers’ attitudes
The positive attitude of the local farmers towards land management practices is a favorable
predictor for future prevention of land degradation. According to Wauters et al., (2010)
farmers’ attitude has consistently emerged as an important predictor of intentions in different
domains, including the adoption of soil erosion control practices As information of FGD and
KII shows,some farmers do not believe the effectiveness of agricultural land management
technologies rather they prefer gettingnew land by deforestation. Because of the lack of
awareness on the agricultural land management practice and they choices searching new land
rather than increasing the productivity of their land using the appropriate land management
practices. This might be because of extension service which covers only 53.7% .
4.5.1.3. Challenge related to population growth, agricultural input and climate
variability
As survey result indicate, population increase rapidly in the study area and one household on
average has a family size of 8 persons which is greater than the countery`s baseline, according
to the data of Central Statics Agency (2007).This rapid population growth can increase the
pressure of population on natural resources by deforestation to search additional land and
causes the problem of soil erosion and climate variability.
69
Regarding to input FGD and KII show that there was lacks of improved crop seed like maize in
lowland and mid-altitude of the study area and barley and vegetation on the highland. Improved
crop is one of the most important inputs to increase crop production. The respondent reply that
they discuss the problem of improved crop seed with woreda agricultural office and it does not
solved easily.
Information from KII and FGD confirm that there was climate variability and this causes the
reduction in production. Interview with development agent indicate that farmers belief that if
production decrease due to climate variability they have not interest to accept land management
practices. According to their response,particularly in lowland and mid-altitude there is high
rainfall variability and causes crop failure. Due to this farmers are unwilling to accept land
management practice introduced.
4.5.1.4. Challenge related livestock managements
Livestock production has close relationship with land management practices. Inappropriate
management of livestock does not lead to economically, socially and environmentally feasible
land management practice. In the study area especially in lowland and midland due to shortage
of land livestock are grazed in forest. KII reveal that the most challenge for land management is
poor livestock management system in the study area. Due to lack of sufficient feed for their
cattle farmers freely graze their cattle in forest and enclosed area. This can be simply destruct
physical land management practices.
70
4.5.2. Opportunity of effective agricultural land management practices
Despite, the major challenges discussed above, findings of the study obtained through KII and
FGD indicated that, there are some opportunities that enable to bring improvement in
implementing effective agricultural land management practices in the study area. Respondents
explain that national soil and water conservation plan implemented through mass mobilization
was mentioned as an opportunity to conserve soil and water resource and mitigate to climate
variability in the future.
Respondents also mentioned the establishment of FTC as a prospective ground to transfer the
necessary knowledge and technology for farmers. According to the respondents report and as
confirmed by observation, FTC were established at each Kebele of the study area. If it is well
organized with trained manpower and material with a system along the aim of its establishment,
actually it can be a future cornerstone to transfer and implement knowledge based appropriate
agricultural land management practices through transforming farmers attitude towards resource
conservation.
The emergence of different institution like participatory forest management, oromia forest and
wildlife enterprise make chance to facilitate the implementation of improved land management
practices. Though this institution there was some awareness creation on land management
practices training and this make change the attitude of people on natural resource conservation
as replied by repondents. As FGDs shows grazing land management like cutting and carrying
system and improved forage were introduced by government and nongovernmental
organization to control free grazing and it was immense advantage to integrate livestock and
effective land mand management.
71
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion
The finding of the study shown that, farmers in the study area use different indigenous and
improved land management practices on different land uses to sustain their livelihood. From
soil fertility land management practices inorganic fertilizer and compost were introduced land
management practices. In the same way manure and crop residue were indigenous soilfertilit
management practices. From soil fertility management practices compost was least adopted this
might be due lack of extension services and awareness towards the practice. Regarding to
Agronomic land management practices, fallowing,crop rotation and intercropping were
indigenous agronomic based land management practices and crop rotation was widely adopted.
Fallowing was the list adopted land management practices and adopted in highland due to
availability of land. On the other hand improved crop seed was introduced agronomic based
land management practice.
Common indegenous physical land management adopted in the area were traditional terrace and
counter ploughing. On the other case, modern terrace and soil bund where introduced physical
land management practices. The adoption of moden terrace was significant across agro-ecology
and adopted more in highland.Agroforestry,grass strips,cutting and carring,tradional rotational
grazing and haymaking were common biological and grazing land management practices
adopted in the BER.
The finding of the study also revealed that land management practices have a significant role in
improving the livelihood and land resource concervation. According to survey result, due to
72
the introducing of land management practice the availability of forage, abundance wildlife,
awareness on land degradation, and soil erosion were improved.
The adoptions of these practices were affected by social, economical, institutional and farmer’s
demographic characteristics. Binary regression model results show that, education, extension
service, access credit and farmer perception on soil, TLU and farming experience were
significantly impact on adoption of land management practices.
Weak institutional capacities, low extension and theoretical based training, climate variability,
low livestock management and the local farmers attitude towards the acceptance of agricultural
land management were the major challenges. Despite the above mentioned challenges,
emergence of different institution work on natural resource, the availability of abundant natural
resources, the establishment of farmers training center and the introduction of mass
mobilization in soil and water conservation were identified as prospective grounds to practice
more effective agricultural land management practices.
5.2. Recommendations
Stating from the above result and discussion the following recommendations are forwarded: -
To have effective land management practices the participation of local community is
crucial issue and it is better if the community participate on decision making starting
from the planning to implementation of land management practices. Strengthening of
institution like farmers training center, extension agent, credit services and market
access are also important for effective land management practices and it needs the
collaboration of regional and districts government bodies.
73
Giving emphasis to land management practices which was economically and
environmentally sustainable based on agro-ecology such as, compost, agroforestry,
improved crop seeds and physical land management practices.
Appropriate livestock management practice like cutting and carrying system and
expansion of improved forage need attention to decrease the pressure of livestock on
land resources needs attention by regional and districts government and NGOs.
Capacitating the community through practical based training and scaling up strategies of
effective land management practices were need emphasis of the regional, zonal and
districts government and NGOs.
In this study the contribution of land maangemtn to income and land resource
conservation is not depends on time series data and it is better if further study is
conduct by using time series data and effect of landmanagement practice on soil fertility
are supported by expermental work.
74
6. REFERENCES
Adams, C.R. and Eswaran, H., 2000. Global land resources in the context of food and environmental security.
Advances in land resources management for the 20th century. Soil Conservation Society of India, New
Delhi, pp.35-50.
Adams, D.A., 1993. Renewable resource policy: the legal-institutional foundations. Island press.
Adane, E., 2007. Farmers’ Perceptions on Soil Erosion Problems and Conservation Practices: The Case of Banja
Woreda in Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State, unpublished MA Thesis, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Addisu, D., 2011. Benefits and challenges of adopting soil conservation techniques in goromti watershed, central
ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, AAU).
Adesina, A.A., Mbila, D., Nkamleu, G.B. and Endamana, D., 2000. Econometric analysis of the determinants of
adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agriculture, ecosystems
& environment, 80(3), pp.255-265.
Alemu, B., 2014. Practices, challenges and prospects of agricultural land management in Machakel Woreda,
East Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia(MSc thesis, AAU).
Amede, T., 2001. Draft Paper Pathways towards Integration of Legumes into the Farming Systems of East
African Highlands. TSBF Institute, p.221.
Amsalu, A. and Adem, A., 2009. Assessment of climate change-induced hazards, impacts and responses in the
southern lowlands of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa Forum for Social Studies/Cordaid/.
Amsalu, A. and Jan de, G., 2006. Farmers’ views of soil erosion problems and their conservation knowledge in
Beressa watershed, central highlands of Ethiopia Agriculture and Human Values, 23: 99 – 108.
Ayalew, A., Deininger, K., Stein Holden and Zevenbergen, J., 2009. Rural Land Certification in Ethiopia:
Process, Initial Impact, and Implications for other African countries. World Development, 36(10), 1786–
1812.
75
Bacha, D., Aboma, G., Gemeda, A. and Groote, H.D., 2001, February. The determinants of fertilizer and manure
use in maize production in Western Oromiya, Ethiopia. In Seventh Eastern and Southern Africa
Regional Maize Conference Proceedings.
Barungi, M. and Maonga, B.B., 2011. Adoption of soil management technologies by smallholder farmers in
Central and Southern Malawi. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(3), pp.28-38.
Baumann, P., 2000. Sustainable livelihoods and political capital: Arguments and evidence from decentralisation
and natural resource management in India (p. 136). London: Overseas Development Institute.
Belay, T., 2000. Integrating indigenous and modern agricultural practices in the drought prone zone areas of
Ethiopia. In Issues in Rural Development: Proceedings of the Inaugural Workshop of the Forum for
Social Studies.
Benin, S., 2006. Policies and programs affecting land management practices, input use, and productivity in the
highlands of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Strategies for sustainable land management in the East African
Highlands, pp.217-256.
Bifarin, J. O. Folayan, A. J. And Omoniyi, L. O., 2013. Agro forestry Practice as Land Use Option fo
Sustainable Agricultural Production. A. Book. Vol. 2, pp. 069-074, Ondo State, Nigeria.
Birol E., Karousakis K., and Koundouri P., .2005. Using a Choice Experiment to Account for Preference
Heterogeneity in Wetland Attributes: The Case of Cheimaditida Wetland in Greece; Environmental
Economy and Policy Research Discussion Paper Series, Department of Land Economy and University
of Cambridge.
Blata, s.t., 2010. Land degradation and farmers’perception: the case of limo woreda, hadya zone of snnpr,
ethiopia (doctoral dissertation, school of graduate studies environmental science program thesis
submitted to school of graduate studies, AAU).
BMNP., 2007. Bale Mountains National Park: General Management Plan 2007-2017. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:
BMNP with Frankfurt Zoological Society
76
Bogale, A., 2002. Land degradation, impoverishment and livelihood strategies of rural households in Ethiopia:
farmers' perceptions and policy implication.
Bojö, J. and Cassells, D., 1995. Land degradation and rehabilitation in Ethiopia: a reassessment. World bank.
Africa region. Technical department. Environmentally sustainable development division.
Charlene, W., 2013. Forest conservation for communities and carbon. The economics of community forest
management in the Bale Mountains Eco-Region. (Unpublished phd Thesis). Landon School of Business
Conant, R.T., 2009. Rebuilding resilience: sustainable land management for climate mitigation and adaptation.
Technical Report on Land and Climate Change for the Natural Resources Management and
Environment Department. FAO. Rome.
Croppenstedt, A., Demeke, M. And Meschi, M.M., 2003. Technology adoption in the presence of constraints:
the case of fertilizer demand in Ethiopia. Review of Development Economics, 7(1), pp.58-70.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2008. Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007Population and Housing
Census: Population Size by Age and Sex. <http://www.csa.gov.et> accessed May, 2015
Damena,D., 2012. Determinants of Farmers’ Land Management Practices: The Case of Tole District, South
West Shewa Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Sustainable Development in
Africa (Volume 14, No.1, 2012).
Deininger, K., Jin, S., Adenw, B., Gebre-Selassie, S. And Demeke, M., 2003. Market and nonmarket transfers of
land in Ethiopia. World Bank, mimeo.
Dejene, A., 2003 .Integrated Natural Resource Management to Enhance Food Security; The Case for
Community Based Approaches in Ethiopia, Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper No. 16,
FAO, Rome. Pages: 1-58.
Deressa, T.T., 2010. Assessment of the vulnerability of Ethiopian agriculture to climate change and farmers’
adaptation strategies (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria).
77
Deressa, T.T., Hassan, R.M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T. and Yesuf, M., 2008. Analysis of the determinants of
farmers' choice of adaptation methods and perceptions of climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia
[in Amharic] (No. 15 (9) AMH). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Dfid, U.K., 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: DFID.
Dfid, U.K., 2000. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: DFID.
Emerson, J., D. C. Esty, M.A. Levy, C.H. Kim, V. Mara, A. De Sherbinin, and Srebotnjak, T.., 2010. 2010
Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
Enemark, S., 2005. The Emerging Land Management Paradigm-A Major Challenge for to Global Surveying
Community.
Ertiro, H., 2006. Adoption of Physical Soil and Water Conservation Structures in Anna Watershed, Hadiya
Zone, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, AAU).
Failing, L., Gregory, R. And Harstone, M., 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk
management: a decision-focused approach. Ecological economics, 64(1), pp.47-60.
Fakoya, E.O, D.K. Ojo and Oyesola, O.B., 2002. Categorization of Farmers in Relation to use of Sustainable
land Management Practice in Odo state. ASSET Journal Series A, 2:29-36.
FAO., 2001. The State of Food and Agriculture. Rome, Italy 2001.
FAO., 2010. Sustainable land management. [www.un.org] site visited on 30/4/2016.
FAO.,2005. Global forest resource assessment. Http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/24690/en FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO.,2009. Country Support Tool – for Scaling-Up Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FDRE. Population Census Commission, 2008. Summary and statistical report of the 2007 population and
housing census. Population size by age and sex.
FDRE., 2001. National Review Report on the Implementation of Agenda 21.Zero draft. A Report Prepared for
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. From
decentralization and natural resource management in India Working Paper 136. ODI,
78
FDRE., 2002. Ethiopia: Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy Programme.Addis
Ababa,Ethiopia
Gebreselassie, S., 2006. Land, Land Policy and Smallholder Agriculture in Ethiopia: Options and Scenarios.
Gujarati, D. N., 2004). Basic Econometrics (4th ed.). New Work, NY: The mcgraw−Hill Companies
Hagos, F., 2003. Poverty, institutions, peasant behaviour and conservation investment in northern Ethiopia. A
Ph.D. Dissertation Presented to the Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural
University of Norway, Ph.D. No. 2003:2, Aas, Norway.
Haile, M., Karl, H.and Birigitta ,S., 2006. Sustainable Land Management A New Approach to Soil and Water
Conservation. Land Resource Management and Environmental Protection Department. Mekelle
University, Ethiopia and Counter For Development And Environment (CDE), Swiss National Center Of
Competence In Research (NCCR) North-South University Of Bern, Switzerland.
Heyi, D.D. and Mberengwa, I., 2012. Determinants of Farmers’ Land Management Practices: The Case of Tole
District, South West Shewa Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Sustainable
Development in Africa, 14(1), p.2012.
Hillman, J. C., 1986. Bale Mountains National Park Management Plan. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ethiopian
Wildlife Conservation Organisation
Hoaglin, D.C., Iglewiez, B., and Tukey, J. W., 1986. Performance of some resistant rules for outliers labeling.
Journal of American Statistical Association 81: 991-999.
Holden, S. T. and Hailu Yohannes., 2002. Land redistribution, tenure insecurity and input intensity: A study of
farm households in southern Ethiopia. Land Economics, 78:573-590.
Holden, S., Shiferaw, B. and Pender, J., 2004. Non-farm income, household welfare, and sustainable land
management in a less-favoured area in the Ethiopian highlands. Food Policy, 29(4), pp.369-392
Hosmer, D. and Lemeshow ,S., 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. A Willey Inter- Science Publication, New
York.
79
Hurni, H., 2000. Assessing sustainable land management (SLM). Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 81(2),
pp.83-92.
Hussain, F. and Durrani, M.J., 2007. Forage productivity of arid temperate Harboi rangeland, Kalat, Pakistan.
Pak. Jounal of Botany, 39(5), pp.1455-1470.
Kollmair, M. and Gamper, St., 2002. Input Paper for the Integrated Training Course of NCCR North-South
Aeschiried, Switzerland.
Luk, K.Y., 2011. Vulnerability Assessment of Rural Communities in Southern Saskatchewan
Maiangwa, M.G., Ogungbile, A.O., Olukosi, J.O. and Atala, T.K. ,2007. Adoption of Chemical Fertilizer for
Land Management in the North-West Zone of Nigeria. Tropical Agricultural Research and Extension.
10: 33-46.
Megersa, T., 2011. Assessing the role of traditional land management practices in improving cropland
productivity: The case of Diga Woreda, Oromia (Doctoral dissertation, Ambo University).
Meser, N. and Townstey P., 2003.Local institutions and livelihoods: Guideline for analysis.
Michael, s., 2002. Linking indigenous with ‘conventional’measures for sustaianble land management in the
highlands of ethiopia: a case study of digil watershed, east gojjam (doctoral dissertation, aau).
MoA .,2000. “Agro-ecology zonations of Ethiopia,” Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MoA., 2005. Community based participatory forest management, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Morelli, J., 2011. Environmental Sustainability: A Definition for Environmental Professionals," Journal of
Environmental Sustainability: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 2.
Oromia Regional Government, 2002. The land Use and Administration Proclamation (No.56/2002) of
Oromia.Finfinne.Paper No. 4.03
Oudwater, N. and martin, A., 2003. Methods and issues in exploring local knowledge of soils. Geoderma,
111(3), pp.387-401.
Parwada, C., Gadzirayi, C.T., Muriritirwa, W.T. and Mwenye, D., 2010. Adoption of agro-forestry technologies
among small-holder farmers: A case of Zimbabwe.
80
Paudel, G.S. and Thapa, G.B., 2004. Changing farmers' land management practices in the hills of Nepal.
Environmental Management, 28(6), pp.789-803.
Pender, J., Place, F. And Ehui, S. Eds., 2006. Strategies for sustainable land management in the East African
highlands. Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
Pretty, J., 2008. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), pp.447-465.
Qamar, M.K., 2016. Modernizing national agricultural extension systems: a practical guide for policy-makers of
developing countries.
Ragasa, C., Ulimwengu, J., Randriamamonjy, J. and Badibanga, T., 2013. Assessment of the capacity,
incentives, and performance of agricultural extension agents in Western Democratic Republic of Congo.
Rahman, S., Weiderholt, R. and Ying, C., 2009. Land Application of Manure and Environmental Concerns.
Regassa, S., 2002. The economics of managing land resources towards sustainability in the highlands of
Ethiopia (Vol. 42). Margraf
Rosell, S., 2011. Regional perspective on rainfall change and variability in the central highlands of Ethiopia,
1978–2007. Applied Geography, 31(1), pp.329-338.
Rozanov, B.G.,1998. Strategies for Sustainable Food Security. Journal of Environment and Development. World
Commission for Environment.
Sida, .2007 A Background Paper Natural Resources Tenure, AA South West Shewa Zone FEDO (2008) Zonal
Statistical Abstract for 2006/07 to 2007/08, Woliso.
Stein, B., Michael, K. ,Colin, L. Susan, O. and Brett, U., 2009. Sustainable Land Management Practices for
Grazers. A Book published by Industry and Investment State of New South Wales. Sydney, Australia.
Tadesse, D., 2011. Assessment of the practices and aspects of farmland management in gozamen district, east
gojjam zone, ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, AAU).
Tedla,Sh., 2003. Ethiopians Environmental Condition: Today and Twenty five Years from Now In Economics
focus. Bulletin of Ethiopian Economics Association.Vol-5, No.5.
81
Temu, E.J., 2013. Adoption of sustainable land management technologies: revisiting impact to community
livelihood in west Usambara mountains, Tanzania (Doctoral dissertation, Sokoine University of
Agriculture).
Tesfaye, Y., 2011. Participatory forest management for sustainable livelihoods in the Bale Mountains, Southern
Ethiopia (Vol. 2011, No. 64).
Tolessa, D., .2002. Belg crop production as a strategy of households' food security: A comparative study of belg
grower and non-belg grower farmers in Munessa Woreda, Arsi Region( M. A.thesis,AAU).
Tsegaye, G. and Bekele, W., 2010. Farmers Perception of Land Degradation and Determinants of Food Security
at Bilate Watershed, Southern Ethiopia; South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Hawassa,
Ethiopia; Dire Dawa University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
Tsegaye, G., 2006.Farmer’s Perception of Land Degradation and Determinants of Household Food Security
Status at Middle Catchments of Bilate Water shade. AThesis submitted to College of Agriculture,
Department of Agricultural Economics School of Graduate studies, Alemaya University.
Tsegaye,G. and Bekele, W., 2010. Farmers Perception of Land Degradation and Determinants of Food Security
at Bilate Watershed, Southern Ethiopia; South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Hawassa,
Ethiopia; Dire Dawa University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
Tulu,T., 2009. Characteristics of property Units in Ethiopia, the pase of two pilot projects in Amhara National
Regional State. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, 6(2), 7-24.
Unique, 2010. Bale Mountain REDD Project: Protecting Highland forests in Ethiopia. Project marketing
document. Freiburg, Germany.
USDA., 1994. Agricultural resources and environmental indicators. USDA, Agricultural handbook No. 705,pp.
25-33.Washington, D.C.:USDA Watershed Development. A Guideline. Part 1 and 2. Addis Abeba,
Ethiopia.
82
Wauters, E., Bielders, C., Poesen ,J., Govers, G.and Mathijs E. Adoption of soil conservation practices in
Belgium: an examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the agri-environmental domain. Land
use policy., 2010 Jan 31;27(1):86-94.
Wegayehu, G., 2006. Determinants of farmer’s decision on Soil and Water conservation practices in Dire-Dawa
Administration. A MSc thesis, School of Graduate study, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
World Bank, 2006. Sustainable land management challenges, opportunities, and tradeoffs. Washington, DC,
USA.
Yalden, D. W. and Largen, M. J., 1992. The endemic mammals of Ethiopia. Mammal Review, 22, 115-150.
Yesuf, M., 2004. Risk, Time and land Management under Market Imperfection: Applications to Ethiopia(PhD
Thesis Gothenburg University, Sweden).
Yesuf, M., Di Falco, S., Deressa, T., Ringler, C. and Kohlin, G., 2008. The impact of climate change and
adaptation on food production in low-income countries. Evidence from the Nile Basin, Ethiopia. IFPRI
Research Brief15-11: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Yilma, M., Bogele. A. and Workneh, N., 2010. Rural Household Food Security Status and Agricultural Practices
in Assosa District. Proc. 12thannu. Confer. Agr. Econom. Soc. Ethiopia.
Yimer F., Ledin, S. and Abdelkadir,A., 2006. Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks as affected by
topographic aspect and vegetation in the Bale Mountains, Ethiopia. Geoderma, 135, pp.335-344.
Zeleke, G., Kassie, M., Pender, J. and Yesuf, M., 2006. Stakeholder analysis for sustainable land management
(SLM) in Ethiopia: Assessment of opportunities, strategic constraints, information needs, and
knowledge gaps. In Environmental Economics Policy Forum for Ethiopia (EEPFE), Addis Ababa, 96pp.
Zeleke, M.T. and Aberra, Y., 2014. Determinants of the Adoption of Land Management Strategies against
Climate Change in Northwest Ethiopia. Ethiopian Renaissance Journal of Social Sciences and the
Humanities.
83
7. APPENDIXES
Appendix 1: Survey questionnaires
1. Households Code ______________woreda___________ kebele ____________
2. Sex a. male b. female
3. Age ________
4. Family Size __________
5 .Education status ________
6. Farming experience in year’s ________
A. Information on Livestock ownership
1. Please list your livestock in number and Types in the following Table
No Types of livestock Number
Oxen
cow
heifer
Sheep
Goat
Horse
Donkey
Mule
Camel
B. Income source
1. What is your main economic activities ? a. Crop production b. Livestock C. mixing
farming d. other
2. What amount income you earn from your income source in year?
No Income source Income per year in birr Rank
3. What is your per hectare main crop production in quintal? Please list some of crop you
produce and their yield per hectare?
4. Does the production increase from the previous year? a. Yes b. no
84
C. Land management
1. How many hectare of land you have? Please fill in to the following Table
No Land use type Hectare
1 Crop Land
2 Forest
3 Grazing land
4 Construction land
5 Woodland
6 others
2. Is there soil fertility problem in your plot of land? A. Yes B. No
3. How you rate the fertility of your soil
a. Good b. medium c. poor
4. Which of the following indigenous land management you practices on your crop land?
Types of practice Land use type you use on Their constraint
1 Traditional Terrace
2 Inter cropping
3 Crop rotation
4 Fallowing
5 Mulching
6 Mono cropping
7 Counter plough
5. What management practices you apply to conserve grazing land?
a. Rotational grazing b. manure application c. control continuous grazing d. chemical
fertilizer e. others
6. Do you practice improved land management practices on your land? A. yes B. No
If yes please fill the following Table
No Management strategies Land use type you use on Source
1 Physical land managements
a.
85
b.
c.
2. Improved crop seed
3 In organic Fertilizer
4 Compost
5 Cutting and carrying system
6 Agroforestry
Others
D. contribution of Land management strategies to Livelihood and Land resource
Conservations
1. Does the implementation of land management practices bring change on your livelihood?
A. yes b. No
2. If yes, what change you see after land management practices in the following criteria
Soil erosion Crop production Livestock product Availability of forage
decrease Increase decrease Increase decrease Increase decrease Increase
Forest cover Wildlife Water availability Income
decrease Increase decrease Increase decrease Increase decrease Increase
3. Does the problem of land degradation causes migration of wildlife? a. Yes b. No
4. If you say yes, due to different land management practices does wildlife come back to their
home?
5. If you say yes please list some of
them____________________________________________
6. How you seen the trend of soil erosion in your locality? A. increase b. decrease c. no
change
E. Land Holding and Tenure security
86
1. Is the land you have now sufficient for the household? . a. Yes , b. No
2. Does the present ownership of land affect your decision to land management?
a. Yes b. No
F. Land management Related Extension Services
1. Do you get extension service on agricultural activities? _________ a. Yes b. No
2. Who provides the extension service? __ a. Development agents b. NGOs. C. Others,
specify________
4. Have you participated in training on land management for the past years? ____a. Yes b. No
5. Do you think that the training was helpful to gain knowledge and skill to solve your practical
problems? ___________ a. Yes b. No
G. Land management related credit service
1. Do you have credit access a. Yes b. No
2. Who is the source of credit? 1. Government organization____, 2. NGOs___, 3.
Relatives___4. Local lenders ___, 5. Neighbors’ ___, 6. Local credit association___, 7.
Commercial bank____
3. What was the purpose of the credit? 1. Fertilizer credit___, 2. Improved seed credit ___, 3.
Livestock credit ___, 4. Post-harvest credit ____, 5. Land management____, 6.others,
specify__________
H. Land management related inputs
1. What inputs do you need for land management? Please list them down
J. Institutional framework for land management/land management plan
1. Have you participated on land management plan held in kebele/woreda level?
a. yes b. no
2. How you plan for land management practice
a. top-down approach b. down –up approach
3. How you describe opportunities and constraints of land management to build high value land
management practice
Key informant Interview
1. What are the major types of food crop grown in your woreda/kebele__________________?
2. What are the major types of livestock in the woreda ________________
87
3. What are indigenous land management practice do the local community practice on different
land use i.e. crop land, forest, grazing, rangeland?
4. What are the constraints regarding to traditional land management practice?
5. By what criteria does the local community select each land management practice?
6. What are modern land management practices implemented in your area?
7. How you describe each land management practice regarding to reduction in soil erosion, crop
production, forest conservation, water availability, and forage and income diversification
8. Is there any wildlife come to their original home due to implementing land management
practice that migrates due land related problem? If yes please list them
9. What you thing the challenge for effective land management practice and also what are the
best remedies?
10. What are the sources of inputs required for land management?
11. Are there any credit facilities for the rural community? If yes, mention the name of credit
facilities
12. Does you/farmers feel land ownership? Please explain
Focus Group Discussion
1. What are land management practices you have been using to increase your production?.
2. What are the criteria that you use to select land management practice?
3. What are the major livelihood strategies in your area?
4. Do you really believe that land management has impact on the livelihood of the community?
5. What are the main constraints and opportunities regarding to land management practices
Appendix 2 Farm Household level participatory environmental sustainability assessment
and performance score ranking
No Biophysical
properties
assessed
Specific quality indicators Household
response
Local
experts
Remark
1 Soil quality
and
productivity
Fertility/nutrient
Moisture content/retention
capacity
Crop yield per ha
2 Tree/vegetation
cover &
biodiversity
No/abundance of tree & other
plant species
farmland covered by trees/grass
88
conservation Wildlife abundance & free
movement
Aggregate tree and biodiversity conservation quality index
3 Land
management
status
Soil stability and firmness
Soil erosion severity (gullies,
runoffs
Signs of land degradation
Presence of soil bunds, terraces.
Aggregate land management quality index
4 Livestock feed Access to year round livestock
feed
Nutrient contents of feed i.e
palatability
Overall aggregate Environmental Performance Index (EPI) value farm/land use
Key to scoring the environmental qualities of farm/rangeland (0= lowest, 5= highest)
Score Value *Characteristics of the environmental quality indicators
1=Verylow
quality
Very shallow soil, dry or water-logged soil, course texture, very low crop yield
very few /no trees on farm/range (< 10 trees/ha); very small vegetation cover (<
10% of land), signs of severe erosion and land degradation such as large gullies,
floods; highly fragmented & disturbed ecosystems, high over-grazing, little or
rare wildlife populations and poor biodiversity
2= Low quality
shallow soil, semi-dry and course texture, low crop yield few trees on
farm/rangeland ( 10-15 trees/ha) and small vegetation/grass cover (10-20 % of
land), some signs of soil erosion and land degradation, fragmented ecosystem
and low biodiversity, low over-grazing and soil compaction, some land
89
management activities such as traditional bunds or grass strips;
3=Moderate
quality
Medium soil depth, fair soil moisture and texture, moderate crop yield ,some
trees on farm/rangeland ( 15-20 trees/ha) and moderate vegetation/grass cover
(20-30 % of land), little soil erosion and land degradation, low overgrazing and
moderately disturbed ecosystem, few wildlife populations and fair biodiversity
conservation, some land management activities such as traditional bunds,
mulching, etc
4= High quality Good soil depth, good soil moisture and texture, high crop yield, high No of
trees on farm/rangeland ( 20-25 trees/ha) and good vegetation/grass cover (30-
40 % of land), no major signs of soil erosion and land degradation, sTable
ecosystem conditions, good wildlife & biodiversity status, good land
management such as agroforestry, conservation, agriculture, cut and carry,
mulching
5=Very high
quality
Deeper soil, good moisture retention and texture, very high crop yield, diverse
plant spp & abundant tree population on farm/range ( > 25 trees/ha); high
vegetation cover (> 40 % of total farmland), highly stable and well managed
land, good ecosystem conditions, abundant wildlife and biodiversity, improved
land management and environmental conservation such as agroforestry,
conservation agriculture, integrated farming, modern terraces, water ways,
mulching
Appendix 3 : Multicolinearity test for dummy variables
Agro Sex
Extension
services
Market
access Training
Soil
fertility
Credit
service
90
Agro 1
Sex 0.6 1
Extension
Services 0.25 0.026 1
Market Access 0.46 0.6 0.2 1
Training 0.42 0.021 0.03 0.2 1
Soil Fertility Problem 0.5 0.09 0.6 0.15 0.4 1
Credit 0.07 0.023 0.2 0.06 0.05 0.21 1
Appendix 4: Multicollinearity diagnosis for continues variables
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
Age 0.237 4.219
Total Family 0.688 1.453
Educational Status 0.795 1.258
Farming Experience 0.245 4.085
Total Income 0.332 3.014
Total Land Size 0.326 3.069
TLU 0.477 2.098
Appendix 5 : Tropical livestock conversion factor
Livestock TLU
Calf 0.2
Weaned Calf 0.34
Heifer 0.75
Cows/Oxen 1
Horse/Mule 1.1
Donkey 0.7
Donkey/Young 0.35
Sheep/Goat 0.13
Sheep/Goat(Young) 0.06
Camel 1.25
Poultry 0.013
91
