1

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION ON THE EFFECTIVENEES OF SOIL AND WATER

CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN GAMO HIGHLANDS THE CASE OF DITA

WOREDA, SOUTH WESTERN ETHIOPIA.

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

DEPARTEMENET OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

ADVISOR: ABERA UNCHA (PHD)

BY: WORKNESH WOGASO

ARBAMINCH, ETHIOPIA

JULY 2016

2

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION ON THE EFFECTIVENEES OF SOIL AND WATER

CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN GAMO HIGHLANDS: THE CASE OF DITA

WOREDA, SOUTH WESTERN ETHIOPIA.

A Thesis Submitted to the College of Social Sciences and Humanities School of

Graduate Studies, ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCINCE

IN GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (SPECIALIZATION IN

ENVIRONMENT CHANGE MANAGEMENT)

Worknesh Wogaso

July 2016

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY, ARBA MINCH

i

APPROVAL PAGE

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

I hereby certify that I have read and evaluated this Thesis entitled on FARMER’S

PERCEPTION ON THE EFFECTIVENEES OF SOIL AND WATER

CONSERVATION PRACICES IN GAMO HIGHLANDS THE CASE OF DITA

WOREDA, SOUTH WESERN ETHIOPIA.

I recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement.

Abera U. (PhD) ________________ ___________________

Major Advisor signature Date

As a member of the Board examiners of the M.SCI Thesis Open Defense Examination, I

certify that I have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Worknesh Wogaso and

examined the candidate. I recommend that Thesis the be accepted as fulfilling the Thesis

reqasuirements for the Degree of Master of science in Geography and Environmental

studies ( SPECIALIZATION IN ENVIRONMENT CHANGE MANAGEMENT ).

________________ _____________ _______________

Chairperson Signature Date

______________ ________________ ________________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

_______________ _______________ ______________

External Examiner Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the Thesis is contingent upon the submission of its final

copy to the council of Graduate Studies (SGS) through the candidate’s department or

school graduate committee (DGC or SGS)

ii

DECLARATION

This is to certify that the work is entirely my own and not of any other person, unless

explicitly acknowledged (including citation of published and unpublished sources).I

solemnly declare that this thesis has not been submitted in any form to any University or

other institution for assessment of academic purposes for award of academic degree,

diploma or certificate, and any other purpose.

Worknesh Wogaso _________________ _______________

Signature Date

iii

CERTIFICATION

Here as Arba Minch University Advisor, I certify that the thesis entitled “FARMER’S

PERCEPTION ON THE EFFECTIVENEES OF SOIL AND WATER

CONSERVATION PRACICES IN GAMO HIGHLANDS THE CASE OF DITA

WOREDA, SOUTH WESERN ETHIOPIA”, was carried out by Worknesh Wogaso

Wola my supervision and hereby I recommend this, this is for examination.

Abera Uncha (PHD.)

Signature-------------- Date------------------

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page Number APPROVAL PAGE ..................................................................................................................... i

DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................ ii

CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... x

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ xi

CHAPTER -ONE........................................................................................................................ 1

1. INTORODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Background of the Study .................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 2

1.3. Objective 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. The scope of the Study ..................................................................................................... 5

1.7. Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................... 5

1.8. Organization of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 5

CHAPTER-TWO ........................................................................................................................ 7

2. REVEIW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................................................... 7

2.1. Definition of Community- Based SWC Conservation ......................................................... 7

2.2. Community- Based Conservation ................................................................................... 7

2.3. Soil and Water Conservation Technologies in Africa ........................................................ 8

v

2.4. Soil and Water Conservation in Ethiopia .......................................................................... 9

2.5. Sustainable soil and water Conservation and participation .............................................. 10

2.6. Assessment of soil and water conservation ................................................................. 10

2.7. Indigenous and Modern Soil and Water Conservation .................................................... 12

2.8. Farmers’ Perception of Soil Erosion ............................................................................... 12

2.8.1. Farmers’ perception towards soil and water conservation measures .......................... 14

2.9. The major Factors Determine Soil and Water Conservations Measures ........................... 15

CHAPTER-THREE .................................................................................................................. 17

3. Study Area and Research Methodology ................................................................................. 17

3.1 Description of the study area ........................................................................................... 17

3.1.1. Location and area .................................................................................................... 17

3.1.2. Topography and Drainage ........................................................................................ 19

3.1.3. Climate .................................................................................................................... 19

3.1.4 Vegetation, Wildlife and Soil types .......................................................................... 19

3.2. Demographic and socio-Economic characteristics of the study area ................................ 20

3.2.1. Demography and settlement pattern ......................................................................... 20

3.2.2. Major land use and economic activities .................................................................... 20

3.3 Research Methodology .................................................................................................. 20

3.3.1 Research Design ..................................................................................................... 20

3.3.2 Data Sources............................................................................................................. 21

3.3.3 Sample size and Sampling Technique ........................................................................ 21

3.3.4. Instruments of Data Collection ................................................................................. 22

3.3.4.3 Focus Group Discussion ........................................................................................ 23

3.3.5. Methods of Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 24

CHAPTER-FOUR .................................................................................................................... 25

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 25

4.1. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents ........................... 25

4.1.1. Family size .............................................................................................................. 25

4.1.2. Sex, age and marital status of the households ........................................................... 26

4.1.3. Educational background ........................................................................................... 28

4.1.4. Land holding ........................................................................................................... 29

4.1.5.Farm plot by slope .................................................................................................... 30

vi

4.1.6. Livestock ................................................................................................................. 31

4.2. Farmers’ Awareness of Soil conservation measures ........................................................ 33

4.3. Assessment on Community Based SWC Measures in the study area ............................... 34

4.3.1. Soil /Stone bunds ..................................................................................................... 35

4.3.2. Cut off drains ........................................................................................................... 36

4.3.3. Check dams ............................................................................................................. 36

4.4. Community Based Soil and Water Conservation Practice................................................ 41

4.4.1. The existing structural arrangement for SWC at wareda level ................................... 41

4.4.2. On and off farm SWC in the study area ................................................................... 42

4.5. The Major Causes of Soil Erosion .................................................................................. 45

4.6 Farmer’s perception to consequences of soil erosion ........................................................ 47

4.7. The effectiveness and Sustainability of the SWC Techniques .......................................... 50

4.7.1 Indigenous SWC practices ....................................................................................... 50

4.7.2 Effectiveness of Structural Soil Conservation ............................................................ 51

4.7.3 Modern Soil Conservation Practices.......................................................................... 51

4.8. SWC Measures and Impact of Soil Erosion..................................................................... 52

4.8.1. Assessment of farmers’ participation and perception on soil erosion ....................... 53

4.8.2 Farmers’ Expression of Soil Erosion by Degree of Severity ...................................... 55

4.8.3. Farmers’ training on SWC practice .......................................................................... 56

CHAPTER- FIVE ..................................................................................................................... 57

CON CULUTION AND RECCOMANDATIONS .................................................................... 57

5.1. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 57

5.2. Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 59

6. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 60

APPENDIX- I ........................................................................................................................... 69

Appendix- II ............................................................................................................................. 75

Appendix- III ............................................................................................................................ 76

APPENDIX -IV ........................................................................................................................ 77

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Sample size selection .......................................................................................22

Table 2 Sample Size for Key Informant Interview ........................................................23

Table 3 Sample Size for FGD .......................................................................................24

Table 4 Family size of the Respondents .........................................................................25

Table 5 Sex, Age and marital status of the households ...................................................27

Table 6 Educational Background of the Respondents. ....................................................28

Table 7 Land size of the respondents .............................................................................29

Table 8 Farm plot slope characteristics of sample respondents .......................................30

Table 9 Livestock size of households ............................................................................32

Table 10 Response of Farmers’ Awareness on Soil conservation measures ...................34

Table 11 Types of soil erosion control measures being practiced in study area ..............35

Table 12 Indigenous SWC Implemented by the respondents ..........................................37

Table 13 Farmer’s response on improved soil and water conservations practice .............38

Table 14 Farmer’s response on problems related to improved SWC. ..............................39

Table 15 On farm and Off farm practice ........................................................................43

Table 16 Percentage Distribution of Respondents on the causes of soil erosion. .............45

Table 17 Farmer’s response on the consequences of soil erosion ...................................48

Table 18 Techniques more efficient for SWC ................................................................49

Table 19 Farmer’s response on the effectiveness of Indigenous SWC ............................50

Table 20 Farmer’s response on the effectiveness of Indigenous SWC ............................51

Table 21 Farmers’ perceived impact of SWC measures ................................................52

Table 22 Particicipation of the respondent in SWC. .......................................................53

Table 23 Reasons for Yield Reduction in the Study Area. (n=130) ................................54

Table 24 Farmers’ perception on the Degree of Severity of soil erosion after

conservation ...........................................................................................................55

Table 25 Farmers training practice .................................................................................56

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Llocation of the study area ..............................................................................18

Figure 2 Soil bund in the study area ...............................................................................35

Figure 3 Stone bund in the study area ............................................................................36

Figure 4 The existing structural arrangement for SWC at woreda level ..........................41

Figure 5 Off farm SWC in megesa Bobe kebele ............................................................44

Figure 6 On farm conservation in Giyasa kebele ............................................................45

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I admire the almighty God for keeping me healthy and energetic to successfully

undertake the course work, field and to compile this thesis manuscript.

I feel great pleasure to place on record my deep sense of appreciation and heartfelt

thanks to my major advisor Dr. Abera Uncha for his constant supervision and

valuable suggestions comments and systematic guidance to improve the content of this

paper.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Arba Minch University, department of

Geography and Environmental Studies for their arrangement of this program and other

assistance toward the research. My heartfelt thanks are for my father Ato Wogaso Wola

and my husband Ato Okanto Oycha for their indispensable moral and financial support

from the beginning to the end of the thesis work. Heartfelt thanks also go to my brother

and my sisters for their support throughout my study.

Finally my friends Ato Mulu Negash. My appreciation also goes to my students and

Dita Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development office staff for providing relevant

data. Special thank also goes to farmers in the study area who were sources of data, for

their time and valuable information while interview and observation.

x

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADIAR Agronomic Development Department, Institute of Agricultural Research

CFSCD Community Forestry and Soil Conservation Department

CP Community Participation

EGS Employment Generation Schemes

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FDREEPA Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Environmental Protection Authority

DWAO Dita Woreda Agricultural Office

GDP Gross Domestic Product

LLPA Local Level Participatory Approach

MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PADETS Participatory Demonstration, Extension and Training Systems

SLM Sustainable Land Management

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

SSWCM Sustainable Soil and Water Conservation Management

SWC Soil and Water Conservation

SWCM

TLU

Soil and Water Conservation Management

Total Livestock Unit

UNCED United Nation Conference on Environmental and Development

UNEP United Nations Environmental Program

WAE Water Aid Ethiopia

WOCAT

WSSP

World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies

Water Supply and Sanitation Policy

xi

ABSTRACT

A number of soil and water conservation methods were introduced. Consequently, the

government has invested in sustainable soil and water conservation (SWC) measures. This study

was conducted at Dita Woreda in south West GamoGofa zone of the Southern,

Nation,Nationalites Regional State. The study area is typical for the high potential barely

production, mixed farming, and cereal crops in the Southwestern Ethiopian highlands. Land is a

precious natural resource which demands efficient management in order to use it in a sustainable

manner. The objective of the study was Farmers perception on the effectiveness of soil and water

conservation practices in Gammo highlands and to evaluate how well implemented measures

address to specification and to describe tradition and improved concentration measure. Survey

questionnaire were administered to 130 farmers selected from the study area and 8 respondents

for interview and 6 respondents for focus group discussion. Data collection tools included

questionnaire, focus group discussions, key informant interview and field observation include

data analysis. The results indicate that majority of sample farmers have good opinion on soil

and water conservation. It was found that farmer’s decision to adopt and use SWC measures is

influenced by different factors. Farmer’s positive attitude towards SWC technology, farmer’s

participation SWC trainining high erosion problem ,steep slope, farmer’s perception of erosion

as problem have significance positive influence on farmer’s adoption of SWC technologies.

Consequently, the result shows that the majority of the respondent farmers participated in the

SWC their will. farmers well understood the results of severe soil erosion on their farms and

recognized as loss of topsoil, reduction of yield over time, loss of vegetation cover and grasses,

Structural soil conservation measures practiced in the study area included cutoff drains, soil

bunds, waterways, check dams. Yet farmers have been using biological and agronomic soil

conservation measures either separately or in combination with structural soil conservation

measures. Practices of structural soil conservation measures have been influenced by many

factors. Among these factors such as farmers’ experience, educational, gender, lack of training,

income of hous hold, government policies and strategies and physical factors were observed.

Therefore, the most important factors that require immediate consideration for SWC activities in

the study area are participation of the household farmers has to be through their own conviction

regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of the soil conservation structures. The government

should be implemented clear policy and strategies about SSWC as well as the communities’ are

also should take the responsibility natural resource protection by participating in SWC

1

CHAPTER -ONE

1. INTORODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study The backbone of the agrarian economy in most developing countries is rain fed

agriculture. The economic development of developing countries depends on the

performance of the agricultural sector, and the contribution of this sector depends on how

the natural resources are managed (Fikru, 2009).

Soil is an essential input to agricultural production, especially for countries like Ethiopia,

where agriculture is the backbone of the economy and the livelihood of the majority of

the population depends on agriculture. This naturally abundant resource plays an

important role for its productivity (Israel, 2011). However, soil erosion is recognized as

one of the most serious, common and widely spread and well known environmental

problem facing human society associated with agricultural land uses and intensive uses of

soil throughout the world (Davis, 2006).

Soil degradation is common phenomena in eastern Africa highlands, where it causes wide

spread soil degradation cultivation on steep slopes and overgrazing are the main factors

that accelerated soil erosion in Ethiopia. Such unsustainable and exploitative land use

practice is due to an increasing demand for food, fiber, and fodder by the growing human

and livestock population are responsible for accelerated soil erosion in many parts of

Ethiopia (Abate, 2011). Soil erosion is the main form of land degradation, caused by the

interacting effects of factors, such as biophysical characteristics and socio-economic

aspects. Degradation resulting from soil erosion and nutrient depletion is one of the most

challenging environmental problems in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian highlands have been

experiencing declining soil fertility and severe soil erosion due to intensive farming on

steep and fragile land (Akililu and de Graaff, 2006).

Soil and water conservation measures have been carried out in different parts of the

country that have been recommended for minimizing soil loss by erosion. For a number

2

of years, the communities of Ethiopia have been carrying out traditional soil and water

conservation measures. Soil and water conservation measures that have been used

include: the construction of terraces, reforestation, forestation of areas that have not been

used for cultivation, inter cropping, controlling livestock population, the protection of

regenerating natural vegetation, soil bunds, and micro basin (Shibru, 2010). Farmers are

initially obligated to participate in the construction of conservation structures because this

is undertaken through group labor. Although food aid has helped to fight hunger in

famine-stricken areas, it has not been successful in improving soil and water conservation

in the long run (Akililu and de Graaff, 2004).

Sustainable land or soil and water conservation in the Ethiopian context defined as the

use of renewable land resources for agricultural and other purposes to meet individual

and community needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential

of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions through

systematic use of indigenous and scientific knowledge or technologies (MoARD, 2007).

In this regard, sustainable land management involves more than the use of physical soil

conservation measures, it also includes the use of appropriate soil fertility management

practices, agricultural water management, forestry and agro forestry practices forage and

land management, and the application of these measures in a more integrated way to

satisfy. Community needs while solving ecological problems (MoARD, 2007).

1.2. Statement of the Problem Nowadays, many communities worldwide face serious environmental degradation,

including deforestation, over grazing, soil erosion, over exploitation of biodiversity and

water pollution problem, which are certainly resulted from all associated with

mismanagement of natural resource (Gomeje, 2014). In fact, soil erosion is now one of

the most widely spread environmental problems facing at globally (David, 2006).

Soil erosion in association with inappropriate land management practices is one of the

main factors causing degradation. Poor land and water management practices and lack of

effective planning and implementation approaches for soil conservation are responsible

for accelerating degradation on agricultural lands and siltation of lakes and reservoirs

downstream. Most soil and water conservation planning approaches rely on empirical

3

assessment methods by experts and hardly consider farmers’ knowledge of soil erosion.

Conservation programs relied on coercive approaches and performed poorly (Yohannis

and Herweg, 2000).

Ethiopia is one of the most densely populated countries in Africa with over 90% of the

population deriving their livelihood from agriculture and natural resource-based

enterprises (Bekele and Holden, 1998). In Ethiopia, land degradation, low and declining

agricultural productivity, and poverty are severe and interrelated insecurities that totally

appear to feed off each other. Since the early 1980’s, the donors and the government have

supported large efforts to promote soil conservation and environmental rehabilitation in

Ethiopia. In the recent past soil conservation measures relied largely on Food for Work

(FFW) programs as an incentive and emphasized on labor-intensive conservation

activities such as terracing, building bunds and planting trees (Bekele and Holden, 1998).

But the consensus appears to be that many past soil conservation programs were

disappointing for a number of reasons: they used an unsound “environmental narrative”

to promote large scale, top down interventions; gave inadequate consideration to farmers’

perspectives, constraints, and local conditions; provided limited options to farmers; and

in some contexts promoted options of very limited profitability (Bojo and Cassels 1995;

Hoben 1996; Bekele and Holden 1999). “One- size fits-all” approaches will not solve

land management problems in the heterogeneous environment of the Ethiopian highlands

(MoARD and World Bank, 2007).

GamoGofa zone has been exploited and degraded continuously. As a result, majority of

rural inhabitants are suffering from food insecurity. This is mainly because of that the soil

is incapable to support cultivation caused by soil erosion and its related problems. In the

area, erosion problems and measures to tackle were rarely investigated. Although soil

conservation methods are widely represented as having significant environmental,

economic, social and political benefits for both individual landholders and the wider

community, adoption of such measures is commonly perceived to be slow. Consequently,

severe erosion continues to affect the farmers’ livelihoods. The rich top-soils have been

4

washed off by runoff and the remaining sub-soils are exposed and generally deficient in

available minerals. Perceiving soil erosion as a problem by farmers is an important

determinant of conservation practice. Moreover, the farmers’ attitude towards the soil

conservation and implementation of measures can be influenced by different issues. Yet,

factors affecting practice of soil conservation measures by farmers have not been closely

examined in the area and often poorly understood. This study, therefore, attempted to

investigate farmers’ perception on soil erosion and soil conservation measures in Dita

Woreda GamoGofa zone,SNNPRS,Ethiopia

1.3. Objective of the Study

1.3.1 General objective

The general objective of the study is to assess farmer’s perception on the effectiveness of

soil and Water Conservations practice in Gamo highlands, southern Ethiopia.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

Specific objectives of the Study are:

1. To assess the awareness and perception of farmers on the effectiveness of

soil and water conservation SWC practice;

2. To evaluate farmers perception on the effectiveness of soil and water

conservation practice on production in the study area ;

3. To examine the trend and the current status of local communities

participation in SWC practice;

4. To identify farmers perception on the impacts of soil and water

conservation on soil fertility improvement in the study area

1.4. Research Questions 1. How much is the effectiveness of community based soil and water conservation?

2. What is the awareness and perception farmers about community based SWC

practice?

3. How is the trend and current local community participation in SWC?

4. What are the impacts of soil and water conservation practice on soil fertility?

5

1.5 Significance of the Study The information that is generated by this study is help the government, especially

agricultural sector, NGOs, researchers, and the community at large. The result of this

study were have serve to identify the effects of community based sustai7nable soil and

water conservation to provide more information for different institution, donors and

policy makers to formulating future environmental policies and strategies at the local

level about soil degradation. This study also encourages and helps to conduct further

research in other area of the country and in order to increase the overall understanding of

soil and water conservation.

1.6. The scope of the Study This study focused on the farmers perceptions on the effectiveness of soil and

water conservation practice in Gamo high land, in Dita Woreda,South Western Ethiopia.

The study was conduct only in to three Kebeles. Namely , Genakere, Megesa Bobe

and Giyasa. These Kebeles were purposively selected due to budget and time constraints

and effects of community based soil and water conservation is highly practiced

1.7. Limitations of the Study

The study has some limitations encountered from different angles. These include shortage

of time, financial constraints, and the unavailability of recorded data with regard to soil

types and the land management practices being practiced in the study area. The other

limitations were farmers’ awareness to provide appropriate response about the size of

their plot of land and problem of access to key informant such as Development Agents

because they were usually engaged in various activities or workshops and trainings.

1.8. Organization of the Thesis

The thesis constitute five chapters. The first chapter contain the introductory part of the

thesis such as statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions,

significance of the study, scope of the study , limitations of the study. The second chapter

is include review of related literatures which are relevant with the research topic.

The third chapter provides details about the background of the study area such as physical

settings including location, climatic and socio-economic conditions, research

6

methodology and procedures employed to collect data and analysis of the data presented.

The fourth chapter presents the findings. Finally, chapter five will give summery,

conclusion and possible recommendation based on the results of the study.

7

CHAPTER-TWO

2. REVEIW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Definition of Community- Based SWC Conservation Community-based conservation is not possible without an understanding of the term

“community.” This section is an overview of research on internal community dynamics

and the complexity of defining “community.” The central issue emerges from the

research surveyed is that “community” cannot be understood as a monolithic whole or

uniform entity. One of the perceived benefits of community-based conservation is that,

because it entails a more equitable and democratic treatment of community members, it is

more ethical than classical approaches to conservation. It is also more effective, thanks to

the improved community attitudes toward conservation that it engenders (Mbaiwa, 2005).

This view is particularly evident in studies that emphasize community empowerment as

the most important factor in success (Kull, 2002).

2.2. Community- Based Conservation According to Cock and Fig, (2000) community based conservation can be seen at one end

and from one extreme in which conservation agencies retain control but consult with

local communities in planning and implementation. At the other end, there is a situation

where local communities are completely in control. Community - based conservation is

therefore that type of conservation which ensures equity in participation (Summers,

1999).

Community’ refers to the group of stakeholders in the land resources conservation

programmers’. It also refers to a group of people who have a historical relationship with

the land. (Isaac and Mohammed ,2002) . The line between soil and water conservation

(SWC) technologies for crop production is very thin. SWC can be described as activities

that reduce water losses by runoff and evaporation, while maximizing in-soil moisture

storage for crop production. Ditches, construction of earth and some stone bunds, and

vegetative barriers are normally defined as soil and water conservation (SWC) structures,

and are primarily promoted to reduce soil erosion. On sloping lands, terracing is

8

necessary for reducing overland flow rates thereby, contributing to water and nutrient

conservation. Although terracing steep lands in East Africa has been an indigenous

technology among some communities, new methods have been evolving over the years as

the need to be innovative with ever-decreasing space for cultivation grows with the

population, especially in the densely populated and erosion-prone highlands (Critchley,

2000). Grass strips are the least costly and least labor-demanding soil conservation

structures

2.3. Soil and Water Conservation Technologies in Africa Since agriculture, environment and farmland management are interlinked, the

performance of agricultural productivity and environmental health of a country, mainly

where agriculture is the main stay of the national economy, depend on the

appropriateness of the management techniques to be practiced on farm plots. The

management practices to be implemented have negative and positive effects. Land

degradation is the most serious problem which results inappropriate application of

farmland management practices (Dave and Katewa 2008). Soil erosion has been regarded

as the most serious and wide-spread forms of land degradation, and itself a cause of

fertility decline, through removal of organic matter and nutrients.

Evidence is accumulated that fertility decline which is the summary of changes in soil

physical structure and water holding capacity, chemical loss of plant nutrients and

acidification, and biological (lowering of soil organic matter, with associated decline in

the activity of fauna), is extremely widespread in areas that have been under annual

cropping and consequently opens the way for serious environmental deterioration

(Young, 1998). Water and soil nutrient management form a critical component of

agricultural production. Water and nutrient conservation technologies are dictated by the

need for soil conservation on usually very steep slopes while draining excess runoff

safely, the need for water harvesting and conservation in the drier areas, the available

technology, which is usually manual or draught animal, and labor. (Mutunga et al. 2001).

According to Mulugeta and Stahr (2010), water erosion is the most threatening and

degradation processes in the world and accounts for 56% of the total degraded land

surface of the world. In Africa alone, it is estimated that five to six million hectares of

9

productive land are affected by water erosion each year. Erosion reduces root depth,

removes soil organic matter and nutrients and decreases water holding capacities of the

soils

2.4. Soil and Water Conservation in Ethiopia Currently rapid deforestation is taking place in the tropics and damaging the thin layer of

soil that is fragile and quickly washed away when exposed to the heavy rain. Globally,

agricultural activities that makes the land surface more susceptible to soil erosion account

for 28% (2 billion hectares), overgrazing for 34% and deforestation for 29% of soil

degradation (Tekalegni , 2011).

Population pressure, mismanagement of agricultural lands, deforestation and overgrazing

area among the major causes of soil erosion and environmental degradation. The average

annual rate of soil loss in Ethiopia is estimated to be 12 tons/hectare/year, and can be

even higher on steep slopes (greater than 300 tons/hectare/year or about 250 mm/year)

where vegetation cover is scant(Alemu 2000).

Moreover, it keeps proper soil compaction; maintain or improve soil fertility and

conserve or drain water. Physical soil conservation structures are the permanent features

made of earth, stones. They are designed to protect the soil from uncontrolled runoff or

erosion, and to retain water where it is needed. In steep land farming, physical structures

such as rock barriers and contour bunds; waterways such as diversion ditches, terrace

channels and grass waterways; and, stabilization structures or dams, windbreaks, and

terraces such as diversion, retention and bench, are often necessary The construction of

physical structures is often labor intensive since steep slopes make construction difficult.

Thus, both construction and maintenance require long-term collaborative effort by

farmers, the local community and the government (Tekalegni , 2011).

People were already aware of the negative consequences of soil erosion on agricultural

production and the environment centuries ago. As a result, soil and water conservation

practices exist as indigenous knowledge in some areas of Ethiopia (Nyssen et al. 2007;

Watson and Currey 2009).The Konso terraces are estimated to be older than 400 years.

Some rudimentary and poorly established terraces depicted on older aerial photographs

and physical remnants can also be observed in different parts of the northern highlands.

10

This is an indication of indigenous knowledge on SWC practices, and terracing is not

only limited to the Konso area but is also found in other parts of the country.

2.5. Sustainable soil and water Conservation and participation Sustainable conservation is both directly and indirectly the focus of this study and it is

also supposed to be the wish and expectation of both governments and donor

organizations. Unfortunately, the process of ensuring sustained conservation has been a

difficult task for a country that almost entirely depends on others for survival., and the

maintenance of their environmental functions (Herweg et al., 2006).

Ethiopia, being one of the poorest countries in the world, may continue to find it difficult

to provide adequate funding that would ensure sustainable conservation and rehabilitation

works (Indexmundi, 2009). Other reasons attributable to this are: the habitual payments

for conservation and rehabilitation works in Ethiopia; the effect of the short term duration

of government and/or donor funded conservation projects; and lack of capacity to

maintain existing conservation structures while at the same time, ensure continuous

survival and well being of local people who are directly affected by land resource

degradation. To be sustainable, community participation, community capacity building,

unconditional roles of governments and donor agencies and effective joint management

and coordination of conservation projects have to be ensured. The nation’s economy is

mainly dependent on rain fed agriculture, which accounts for half the GDP, 60% of

exports and 80% of employment Water Aid Ethiopia (WAE, 2008).

2.6. Assessment of soil and water conservation For quite a long time, soil and water conservation has been considered a more or less

technical issue, based on years of dominantly biophysical problem-oriented research on

factors such as climate, soils, topography, vegetation, etc. Consequently, many SWC

guidelines were published with dominantly technical character Much less information

is available concerning solution-oriented research including that addresses, among

other things, also negative side effects, about the compatibility of technical solutions

with prevailing socio-cultural and economic settings of a specific area, and about the

process of adapting SWC to such settings (Liniger and Cahile, 2002).In the 1980s,

SWC in Ethiopia focused on preventing further decline of the remaining soil resources

11

and to rehabilitate already degraded soils. It was most unfortunate that the issue of

resource management was split into different tasks addressed by different ministries and

departments, e.g. controlling soil erosion (Community Forestry and Soil Conservation

Department; SCRP) and agricultural production Agronomic Development Department,

Institute of Agricultural Research – without appropriate coordination. Ethiopian farmers

began on a large scale, removing and modifying SWC schemes that were previously

established by the government under the food for work program. These reactions can be

seen as an eye-opener for many SWC experts who had to learn that SWC could only be

made effective if it’s economic viability and social acceptability is given the same

attention as ecological soundness and technical feasibility.

The poor conservation practices that cause land degradation in sub- Saharan Africa

countries cut across sectors of agricultural practices, works and construction. Some of

these include insufficient lengths of drainage network, over - grazing of rangelands,

drainage constructed to earths’ beds and the use of heavy machinery. Others are: absence

of crop rotation and manure; planted trees and shrubs which do not survive because of

lack of proper and adequate nurturing; poor human attitude, as when some politicians and

individuals chop down trees planted by their political opponents; plugging of soil which

leads to decline of soil organic matter of between 25 and 40 percent, thereby exposing

land to wind and water erosion (UNEP,1998).

Thus, the past and present human intervention in the utilization and manipulation of

environmental resources have had unanticipated consequences (Oldeman, 1994). These

interventions and manipulations are particularly crucial in the sub - Saharan Africa

region, where unsustainable conservation practices have been identified as a threat to

sustainable land uses. This study also notes that governments’ disregard for traditional

solutions to land degradation negatively affects conservation efforts. Further focuses

attention on poor practices, so as to include the impact of a chain of international trade

and economic practices which result in low prices for agricultural and livestock

commodities. This forces most developing countries to promote adverse land use

practices with the intention of earning foreign exchange assistance in small scale

irrigation project indicate that same irrigation scheme are not operating the full potential

12

land same is not function at all due to factor related to shortage of water damage the

structure of and poor water management (FAO, 2008).

2.7. Indigenous and Modern Soil and Water Conservation In the emerging global knowledge economy a country’s ability to build and mobilize

knowledge capital, is equally essential for sustainable land management as the

availability of physical and financial capital (World Bank, 1997). The basic component of

any country’s knowledge system is its indigenous knowledge. It encompasses the skills,

experiences and insights of people, applied to maintain or improve their livelihood

Because of rapidly changing natural environments and fast pacing economic, political

and cultural changes on a global scale, indigenous knowledge is at risk. Practices vanish,

as they become inappropriate for new challenges or because they adapt too slowly.

However, many practices disappear only because of the intrusion of foreign technologies

or development concepts that promise short-term gains or solutions to problems without

being capable of sustaining them. The tragedy of the impending disappearances of

indigenous knowledge is most obvious to those who have developed it and make a living

through it. But implications for others can be detrimental as well, when skills,

technologies, artifacts, problem solving strategies and expertise are lost (Kibwana et al.,

2001).

Farmers in Ethiopia have a wide variety of indigenous land management techniques that

they have been employing for generations though some of them are in danger of being

lost (Desalegn, 2001). These measures are broadly grouped as physical, vegetative, and

agronomic methods. These measures are the result of a gradual learning process and

emerge from a knowledge base accumulated by rural people by observation,

experimentation, and a process of handing down through generation people’s experience

and wisdom (Krüger, 1996). These practices are also shaped by and emerge from a

detailed understanding of local conditions, and are modified in response to changing

socio-economic, political and ecological conditions.

2.8. Farmers’ Perception of Soil Erosion Perception is the process whereby sensory stimulation is translated into organized

experience. That perception is the joint product of stimulation and of the process itself. In

13

most empirical studies, perception is defined as an attitudinal process explained by the

psychological state of an individual that is determined by individual characteristics,

socio-economic, institutional and physical factors. The main prerequisite for attaining

sustainable land management is the formulation of appropriate resource management

policies, which are supported by the farming communities and to which they are willing

and able to respond (Ayalneh, 2003). The responses, commitments and responsibilities

required for the success of such policies still depend on the knowledge and perception of

the problem by smallholder farmers. To identify changes, which occur in the state of

nature, it is valuable to get insights on the awareness of the physical processes and the

changes of land management systems and visions and sense of control over the land that

the local people have becomes paramount important.

With regard to this, Atakilte (2003) states that the local people have a detailed

understanding of the biological and the physical elements of their environment. This view

is consistent with the social learning perspective, which claims that different actors

perceive different things according to their engagement with their immediate

environment. Therefore, resource users have their own reasons for what they do with

their resources, their perception of the process and whether they see any problem or not

(Leeuwis, 2004).

Local people’s visions and sense in terms of managing and controlling problems related

to soil erosion were positive and strong. Ayalneh (2003) found out that farmers’

perception of soil fertility status as fertile, moderately fertile, and degraded is harmonious

with what was developed by the International Society of Soil Science. Furthermore, he

stresses that through their several years of observation on farming and grazing land and

with the knowledge handed down to them by their ancestors, farmers acquired diverse

information to recognize extreme indicators of land degradation. Farmers’ perceptions

can have a major bearing on land management. Although farmers are often more acutely

aware of the condition of their land than is sometimes assumed by experts, they may not

be fully aware of land degradation. Thus, the perception variable is expected to have a

strong relationship with decision-making on land management practices (Bekele and

Holden, 1998). Soil degradation is often a very slow process and may be almost invisible.

14

Farmers thus may not observe ongoing erosion or nutrient depletion problems, or

perceive them as immediate problems.

2.8.1. Farmers’ perception towards soil and water conservation measures

Farmers’ perception of soil erosion plays a key role in their decision making on SWC

practices. Different farmers may have different attitudes towards soil conservation.

Farmers’ perception affect the selection and continued use of soil conservation practices

(Bandara and Thiruchelvan, 2008). Sometimes farmers who have good attitudes also may

not practice soil conservation at a good level due to other factors influencing their

practices. However, agricultural planners and scientists forget that farmers, best

understand their own lands and objectives (Taangahar et al, 2011). While national policy

and top down agricultural development strategies have their place, these may only be

implemented through the active participation of farmers. It is the farmers who mobilize

their resources and take risks, to assist their crops overcome soil constraints on

productivity. Many farmers are aware of land degradation, but their priorities are food

production and income generation during the current or next cropping cycle, rather than

in the more distant future (Taangahar et al, 2011).

Understanding farmers’ perception of soil erosion and its impact is important in

promoting soil and water conservation technologies (Chizana et al, 2006). Soil erosion is

an insidious and slow process therefore farmers need to perceive its severity and the

associated yield loss before they can consider implementing soil and water conservation

practices. Perceiving the soil erosion problem and positive effect of soil and water

conservation measures also provides stimulus to and shapes opinions about to adopt

conservation practices that stop the problem (Habtamu, 2006). Practice of traditionally

known soil conservation methods tends to be influenced by some factors. For instance,

farmers well know the importance of crop residues in enhancing soil fertility. However,

crop residues and animal dung is used for fuel energy and other home use. FAO (2005)

described that removal of plant materials impoverishes the soil, as it is no longer possible

recycle the nutrients present in the residue.

15

2.9. The major Factors Determine Soil and Water Conservations

Measures There is a general consensus that it is far less expensive to prevent land degradation via

the application of good management based on both cultural and scientific knowledge than

to rehabilitate degraded land. Because several natural (such as climate change) and

manmade factors like misaligned policies and incentives as well as weak enforcement

capabilities of policies put hindrances on activities to be practiced to assure sustainable

land management (World Bank, 2008).

In the world there are numerous factors that determining farmland management practices

to prevent land degradation and/or to rehabilitate degraded land. Of these, government

policies and programs, socio-economic and institutional factors, education, farmers’ local

knowledge and active participation, endowments of Physical and Human capital as well

as topography and climate are the most determinant factors (Fikiru, 2009).

Sex of farmers: The sex of the household heads was including different between male

and female in the variation of SWC practice. Most of the land management practices

require more labor force. Hence, male headed households are expected to better

undertake different land management practices, as better endowed with labor. Women are

often faced with more labor constraints than male farmers and male-headed households.

Women are also sometimes inhibited from making decisions about land management

practices while their husbands are away (Benin, 2006).

Age: The effect of age of the farmer on conservation decision may be either negative or

positive (Demke, 2003).The longer farming experience her quoted with the older farmer

is expected to a positive effect on conservation decision. On other hand young farmer

may have longer planning horizon and hence may more likely to invest in conservation.

Older age often associated with long years of farming experience could positively

influence conservation decisions. In contrast, younger farmers with longer planning

horizons are likely to invest more in conservation (Aklilu and Graff, 2006).

Educational background: The literacy status of farmers is useful to know their

perception about the current situation of environmental problems. Education level of

farmers has a great impact on the general awareness of the adverse effects of

environmental degradation (Shibru, 2003). Education increases person’s awareness of his

16

environment and one’s ability to acquire and process information about his environment

and to detect changes in it. Education also in general increases the facility and speed by

which new skills and techniques can be learned and new alternatives, when judged

desirable and can be adopted and implemented. Thus, other things being equal, it is

eminently reasonable to expect that education will enhance the probability of adopting a

new, presumably superior, technology (Shibru, 2003).

Family size: reface to the total number of family members. The existence of large

number of family members with limited resource could affect land degradation due to

increasing demand for food with limited land resource. This may be due to the

relationship between large family size and corresponding higher demand for food in

household (Wogayehu, and Drake 2003). The fact that household with large size would

find it difficult to build soil conservation structures which put part of the arable land out

of production there by reducing total production of the household, and also they might

spend much of time on off/non-farm activities to satisfy the higher demand for food in

the household.

Land holding size: The total size of landholdings by the household. Improved soil

conservation structure may take some area out of production. Farmers who managed

large size plots can allocate part of the land for soil conservation than those who have

smaller farms Farmers who operate on larger farms can allocate some part of the land

than those who have small farms. Therefore, it is anticipated that size of landholding and

the likelihood to adopt improved soil conservation technologies will have appositive

correlation (Wogayehu and Drake, 2003)

17

CHAPTER-THREE

3. Study Area and Research Methodology

3.1 Description of the study area

3.1.1. Location and area

The study area is conducted at Dita woreda in Gammo-Gofa Zone Southern Ethiopia .It is

one of the 15 Woredas of Gamo –Gofa zone. The astronomical location of the woreda is

607’12” -6023’24” north latitude and 37021’36’’-37033’00” east longitude.

In terms of relative location, it shares boundaries with Chencha Woreda in the east,

Kucha Woreda in the north, Dara-malo in the west and Bonke and Arbaminch Zuria in

the south. It is located about 6o km from Arbaminch which is the capital city of Gammo-

Gofa Zone and 563km from Addis Ababa. The total area of the woreda is 288.3km2.

18

Figure 1 Llocation of the study area

19

3.1.2. Topography and Drainage Dita woreda is composed of various landforms such as mountains, plateaus, hills, plains

and valley. Wusha, Lanta and Milo are some of the major plateau mountain found in the

woreda.Dita woreda is drained by many small streams and river like Deme, Gayna,

Donba, Gulade,Hararie , Gunzama and Gufe.Generally the woreda lies within altitudinal

range of 1340m-3568m amsl and has a total area 288.3km2.

3.1.3. Climate

The study area is classified in to two agro climatic zones, Dega 60% and Woina Dega 40%

agro climatic conditions.

3.1.3.1 Temperature

Dita woreda has cool and warm temperature. The average maximum temperature is

22.5oc, which occur in the months of December to January. The lowest minimum

temperature is 10.1oc which occurs in the months of June to August.

3.1.3.2. Rainfall

The rainfall of the study area is a bi-modal. It has higher rain fall during kiremet and Belg

season(June July ,August and March ,April and May).The woreda receives a mean

annual rain fall it varies from 2200mm-3500mm and its altitude ranges from 1340m-

3568m amsl.

3.1.4 Vegetation, Wildlife and Soil types

The spatial distribution of vegetation depends on many factors. Among these factors

climate, drainage pattern and soil types plays vital roles. There are different types of trees

available in study area such as Bamboo tree, Juniperus –procera, Podocarpus falcatus,

Olea ecropea and ecucelametes . Since it is one of the area where agriculture activities

has been practiced for long period of time and population pressure forest cover has been

minimized. Regarding to wild animals, there are different species of wild animals in the

study area such as Hyena, Apes, monkey, fox, rabbit and birds e.t.c.

According to Dita Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office Report (2015)

the major soil types of the study area are vertisols, luvisols, cambisols and nitosols.The

20

soil fertility has decreased significantly because topography of the study area and human

population pressure.

3.2. Demographic and socio-Economic characteristics of the study area

3.2.1. Demography and settlement pattern

The total population of Dita Woreda is 105,371of which 51,632(49%) are males and

53,739(51%) are females. Total household heads of the woreda is 13096 of which are

males12730 and 366 females. The population density of the woreda is about 365 persons

per square kilometer (Dita Woreda Finance and Economic Development Office, 2015).

The area is characterized by rapid population growth..Crude density of the woreda is

about 365p/km2 .The sex structure of the study area is almost balanced. However the

study is dominated by young age population, old age population is much smaller than the

other composition. This indicates that the study area is characterized by high dependency

ratio with low life expectancy similar with other parts of Ethiopia.

According to Dita woreda agricultural and Rural Development Office (2015) most of the

population lives in rural area. 95% of people live in rural area and the remaining 5% are

urban dwellers. The majority of the population in the rural areas depends on agriculture

practicing mixed farming, livestock husbandry and crop production simultaneously.

Small business and manufacturing are the major economic activities in the urban areas.

3.2.2. Major land use and economic activities

Dita Woreda covers the total area of 288.3 km2 (31840 hectares) Cultivated. The type

of land use includes areas intensively cultivated peasant mixed agriculture that is land

used for rain fed peasant cultivation of grains as well as sedentary peasant livestock

grazing. .

3.3 Research Methodology

3.3.1 Research Design

Research design is important because it provides a structure or framework for collecting

and analyzing information for the research. As indicated ,the aim of the study is to assess

21

the community based sustainable soil and water conservation in Gamogofa Zone, Dita

woreda.To achieve this goal mixed research design was used. The design allowed to

explore wide range of data regarding indigenous and modern technologies of SWC which

have been collected with the help of data gathering tools such as questionnaire, interview,

and observation as well as FGD. The data were interpreted by quantitative and qualitative

approaches. In quantitative approaches, structured data obtained by questionnaire were

categorized and computed making use of simple statistical tools like mean and

percentages supported by discussions. In qualitative approaches data gathered through

interview, FGD and field observation were described and were incorporated in the

analysis. Results were displayed by tables.

3.3.2 Data Sources The researcher used both primary and secondary sources. Primary data source was used

to gather first hand information to achieve the objective. The primary data was collected

through Questionnaire, observation, interview and focused group discussion.

Secondary data collected by using already available sources of information such as

published and unpublished documents. This includes, CSA, governmental office, and

reports from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). The data were collected from

Woreda Agricultural office.

3.3.3 Sample size and Sampling Technique The study was conducted in Dita Woreda. According to annual statistical information

obtain from the Woreda Agricultural office; there are 24 Kebeles in Dita Woreda in

2016. Out of these, three(3) Kebeles were, purposively selected for this study. Namely

Ganakare, Meggesa bobe, and Giyassa. The main reasons for the selection of these three

Kebeles was due to land degradation severity, community participation in SWC adoption

and difficult nature of topography.

The total households of these three Kebeles are 2594. Of these 5% sample size

households was taken. As per this, 130 sample holds were proportionally selected from

each Kebele. In addition to these the researcher selected 8 respondents for interview and

6 respondents for FGD.

22

Sample size Determination

This investigator used the formula for the marginal error to determine how large a sample

is needed to attain a desired degree of precision A representative sample size with known

confidence and risk levels was selected, based on the work of Yamane (1967).

n = ( )( )

= n = . . ( . )

. . ( . ) ∗ . =130( sample size)

where

no = sample size

z = confidence interval corresponding to a level of confidence ( 1.96)

p = population proportion (29%)

N = population size (2594

e = precision or error limit (0.05)

Table 1 Sample size selection

Dita Woreda Finance and Economic Development Office, 2015

No Name of Kebeles Total

Households

Sample

Size

Sample%

1 Genakere 1104 55 2.11

2 Meggesa bobe 570 29 1.115

3 Giyyasa 920 46 1.77

Total 2594 130 5

These households again shall be randomly selected from each village (locally known as

Got)by simple random sampling technique(lottery method).On the other hand ,key

informants such as community leaders, Development agents, Woreda agricultural experts

and zone agricultural experts will be included,for data collection using interview?

3.3.4. Instruments of Data Collection

The study were designed to carefully and adequately gather primary data making use of

questionnaire, key informant interview, focus group discussion and field observation. As

well, the secondary data will be collected through content or document analysis.

23

3.3.4.1 Questionnaire

Questionnaire were used as a data collection instrument, because of its advantages to

involve large number of respondents and ease of administration, and the results being

readily analyzed. The researchers has prepared both open ended and close ended

questionnaires on wider variety of issues pertaining to SWC technologies which were

translated into vernacular language of the study area (Gammogna), and developed on the

basis of the objectives of the study. These questionnaires were administered by the

investigator and trained assistants.

3.3.4.2 Key Informant Interview

Interview method were particularly suitable for intensive investigations and allowed the researcher and respondents to ask and respond freely (Kothari, 2004).The researcher conducted interview with respondents from different sections of the community such as Development Agents, head of the Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development, model farmers, kebele leaders and elderly farmers.

Table 2 Sample Size for Key Informant Interview

Source: Field survey, 2016

No Position Numbers of Interviewer

1 Development agent 3

2 Land & Natural resource protection

Office

2

3 Elders 3

Sub total 8

3.3.4.3 Focus Group Discussion The focus group were designed to consist from model farmers, elders and kebele leaders

who have been selected from the sample kebele. Then in-depth discussion was guided by

investigator to have the experiences and constraints of the informants over the utilization

of SWC practices. In order to make the discussion fruitful, model farmers, kebele leaders

and elders were considered to be appropriate to participate, because they will be expected

to have better experiences and information on farmer’s perception on soil and water

conservation.

24

Table 3 Sample Size for FGD

Source: Field survey 2016

No Position Numbers of respondents

1 Model farmers 2

2 Local leaders 2

3 Woreda agricultural and Rural

development office

2

Sub total 6

3.3.4.4 Field Observation Observation techniques were a method by which an individual or individuals gather first

hand data on programs, processes, or behaviors being studied. They provided evaluators

with an opportunity to openly go through the relevant topics. It was used to gather

primary information with regard to the current conditions of cultivated lands, the

observable management practices and the surrounding environmental conditions relating

to the farmers perception onSWC practices through careful observation around the lands

of the study area.

3.3.5. Methods of Data Analysis

After data collection from primary and secondary sources through questionnaires, semi-

structured interview, structured observation, and FGD and document analysis were

completed, and then data were be analyzed and interpreted qualitatively and

quantitatively. Quantitative data were processed and analyze using / SPSS / and the

result were displayed in the form of statistical tables, pie charts and bar graphs followed

by detail description. Simple statistical descriptions like mean and percentage was

employed for the quantitative analysis.

The qualitative data gathered from semi-structured interview and structured observation

was identified, organized, categorized and analyzed by verbal description and

interpretation. The socio economic data obtained from survey were analyzed using SPSS

and field survey data collected using GPS were imported into Arc GIS version 9.3 and

manipulated accordingly. Top sheets of the study area were scanned and analyzed in GIS

software

25

CHAPTER-FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents

4.1.1. Family size Family is one of the social institutions that has vital role in the process of socialization

and performing collective work. The nature and size of family affects the degree of SWC.

Table 4 Family size of the Respondents

Source: Field survey, 2016

Family size Frequency Percent

<3 34 26.15

4-6 38 29.23

7>10 32 24.61

>10 26 20

Total 130 100.0

As shown in Table 4, The number of family members of the households varies from 1 -

12. The family size less than 3 account for 26.15%. The majority of the respondents

were in the categories of 4-6 family members which account for 29.23%. Those persons

with family size between 7 and 9 accounts for 24.61%, and the remaining 20% had

family size above 10 of the sampled households. The average family size in the study

area is 6.4. Having large family size is the good indicator of high rate of population

growth, low level of family planning services. The study conducted in Sodo district by

Bo Malmberg and Tsegaye Tegenu by (2007) also supports this finding. According to

their survey one family have minimum of 6 Childs and maximum 12 children. As the

number of children increase pressure on land increase which affects conservation

negatively. Having large family size could result in also demands more land for

agriculture. This could affect soil erosion due to increasing demand for land. This finding

supported by (Wegayehand Drake, 2003). The existence of large number of family

members with limited resource could affect soil degradation due to increasing demand for

26

food with lmited land resource. According to the interview result, large family size is

very important for soil conservation measures because having a small number of children

requires additional labor from out of family to construct and maintain soil conservation

structures.

Tesema and kebede (2008) also found out the significant negative effect of family size on

farmers' conservation decision, which implies that households with large family size are

not likely to continue using the SWC.

Generally, Having large number of children will be growing demand for land, and that in

the future, the pressure on land resources may become much more severe on the available

limited arable land and shortage of employment opportunity in other sectors. The

existence of large number of family members with limited resource could affect SWC

practice.

4.1.2. Sex, age and marital status of the households

As it is shown in table 5, the survey result indicated that, out of 130 sample household

heads, males constituted 42.3% while female heads were only 57.7%. 61.5% of the

respondents were married and 6.15% was widowed. The remaining 23.07 and 9.23%

were singles and divorced, respectively

27

Table 5 Sex, Age and marital status of the households

Source: Survey data , 2016

Variables Categories Frequencies Percentage

(%)

Sex of household Male 55 42.3

Female 75 57.7

130 100%

Marital status married 80 61.5

Single 30 23.07

divorced 12 9.23

Widow 8 6.15

130 100

Age categories

20-40 46 35.38

41-65 74 56.92

>65 10 7.69

Total 130 100.0

For analysis the age of the respondents ( table 5) has been categorized in to three age

groups: 35.38% are 20-40 years 56.92% are between 41-65 years 7.69% over 65 years.

Most of the household heads (56.92%) are in the age category from 41-65years. Farmers

28

in this age group are to have a good understanding of the problem of soil erosion. Due to

this they are more interested in soil and water conservation practices. The proportion of

elderly farmer (3%) of an age group can be an hindrance to participating in soil and water

conservations measures. However, these farmers usually implicated and accepted soil and

water conservation practices. Kibemo 2011 also state that the aged farmers have troubles

with practicing structural soil conservation on their fields. On the other hand, aged

persons practice less labor demanding technologies such as simple cutoff drains, contour

plugging, planting grasses and use of other agronomic conservation measures.

4.1.3. Educational background

The Educational background of sampled households can be grouped in to six educational

categories: illiterate, read and write elementary school education, secondary school

education, preparatory and college graduate.

Table 6 Educational Background of the Respondents.

Source: Field survey, 2016.

Variables Categories Frequency Percent

Can not read and write 40 30.76

Read and write

27 20.77

elementary school education(1-

8)

25 19.23

secondary school education(9-

10)

20 15.38

Preparatory (11-12) 13 10

college graduate 5

3.84

Total 130 100.0

The educational background of the sampled households constitute, 30.76% of the

respondent can not read and write, The educational status of a society, particularly

29

literacy level, is among the key factors determining development and growth (Todaro

and Smith, 2009). 20.77% of the respondents who have no formal education but they

read and write, 19.23% of the respondents who attended elementary school, 15.38% of

the respondents attended secondary school and 3.84% of the respondents were college

graduates. Level of education is one of the demographic features of households which

has crucial role to increase information about environmental problems such as causes and

consequences of soil erosion and conservation practices in particular. Better educated

households have more realistic perception about soil erosion problem and more

knowledge related to SWC and can easily get involved in conservation activity.

Similarly, (Fikiru, 2009) states that education enables farmers to tackle SWC using

various ways of soil fertility improving practices

4.1.4. Land holding Table 7 Land size of the respondents

Source: Field survey data , 2016

Variables Categories

Frequency

Percent

0.1-0.9 34 26.15

Landholding size(ha) 1.0-2.0 46 35.38

2.1-3 18 13.85

3.51- 4 23 17.69

>4 9 6.92

Total 130 100.0

Regarding land ownership Table 7, Reveals that almost all of the studied farmers have

their own land. From the sampled households 26.15% posses 0.9ha-1hectare of land,

35.38% had land area between one to two hectares, 13.85% had between two hectare and

three. About 17.69% owned between 3.51ha -4ha of the land and 6.92% of the sample

household heads have responded that they own above four hectares.

Most of the agricultural land in the study area has so far been sub divided in to the small

land plots. Minimum and maximum sizes of landholding were 0.25ha and 5 ha

30

respectively. According to the Interview results the resource person and farmers indicated

that the land they cultivate is insufficient to support their households.

According to the Focus group discussion with DA’s, those who are holding large size of

farm land are positive towards soil and water conservation measures while those who

are holding small size of farm have negative attitudes towards structural soil conservation

measures. Amsalu and Graaff (2007), similarly found that farmers who have a larger

farm are more likely to invest in soil conservation measures because they have the funds

to do so.

The interview result also indicates that in addition to the variation in the land holding

size the fragmentation of the land (plot) and the scatterings is important factor in

application of SWC practices. Some times even, those who have large land holding are

also unable to implementation of SWC practices because of excessive land fragmentation

and scattering of plot.

Finally the variation of the landholding size has its own negative effect to implement soil

and water conservation. Moreover, the land is fragmented into a number of small separate

plots, which supports findings by Benjamin et al., (2007) that describes the average

land holdings in Ethiopia falling from 0.5 ha per person in 1960 to 0.11 ha per person in

1999. There was a significant variation in the size of land holdings among householders.

4.1.5.Farm plot by slope

Naturally the steeper the slope of afield the greater the amount of soil loss from erosion

by water. Soil erosion by water also increases as the slope length increases due to the

greater accumulation of runoff.

Table 8 Farm plot slope characteristics of sample respondents

Variables Frequency Percent

Flat 27 20.8

Gentle 35 26.9

Steep 68 52.3

Total 130 100.0

31

The slope of a plot also affects the adoption of SWC structures because the steeper the

slope, the more likely the land will be exposed to degradation. Hence, it is believed that

adoption of physical land structures tends to be likely on steeper slopes. The quality and

physical feature of the plots determine the decision to invest in a farm plots

improvement. Based on the observation of the sample households as well as expert

evaluation of DA’s each farm plot is classified depend on topography in to flat

“Heramo” gentle slope “Boha” and steep and mountain ”Lanta”. Out of the whole plots

of sample farmers households about 20.8%, 26.9%, 52.3% are flat, gentle and steep

slope respectively.

Their results suggest that a farmer who operates a field with steeper slope is more likely

to adopt the SWC technology. Focus group discussions also revealed that more than half

of the farmers have been cultivating erosion prone areas. It was revealed that there are

some sloppy areas that should not be under cultivation due to their nature, but are now

coming under cultivation due to population pressure. This is a major challenge that seems

to exacerbate soil erosion. Key informant interview also confirmed that the slope of the

farm land is highly related to the degree of involvement in management activities.

Farmers living on steep slopes are involved more in the continued use of SWC measures

than those who own flats or gently sloping farm lands.

4.1.6. Livestock

Livestock comprises cattle, sheep, goat, horse and donkey. They are the major assets of

the households to generate income from sale and could supply manure and provide

oxen to serve as source of labor for agriculture. According to interview responses there

was shortage of animal feed and shortage of grazing area are common problems in live

32

Table 9 Livestock size of households

Source: Field survey, 2016.

Live stoke types Frequency TLU

Sheep 646 83.9

Goats 342 44.6

Donkey 40 25.3

Horse 213 28

Caw 886 886

Total 1937 1067.8

Conversion factor used for TLU was: Heifer 0.75, Cow and Ox 1.00, Horse and Mule

1.10, Donkey 0.70, Sheep and goat 0.13 (Storck et al., 1991 in Misganaw, 2008).

As per table 9, Survey result shows that Total livestock Unit (TLU) is the total livestock

owed by the household is measured by TLU and total livestock of all the sample

households was 1067.8TLU. However, soil erosion was identified as a major problem by

significant number of households. A shortage of feed is associated with expansion of

agricultural land which had encroached much of the grazing areas (serious land use

change). In the area, there is litle grazing land for livestock, as observed by the researcher

during field observation, and this is a serious problem associated with soil erosion.

Grazing of pastures by two or more species of animals (sheep,goats,cattle etc.) has

advantages. Animal species differ in the types of forage they prefer. cattle prefer legumes

over grasses, while sheep prefer immature grasses and weeds over legumes. Goats

consume shrubby vegetation, in addition to forage plants. Sheep, goats, and cattle tend to

be complementary in their grazing habits; thus, two or more animal species together can

better utilize the forage.

However, focus group discussion participants revealed that the number of livestock

increased at the village level. Livestock increase at the village level has an important

implication on degradation of communal grazing lands (Belayneh, 2005). This is

33

negative impact on SWC because of overgrazing of land, destroying conservation such

as water ways, stone bunds. This is in line with the finding of (Woldeamlak 2003) who

found that over grazing is believed to result in land degradation and also low animal

productivity. Finally both livestock production and soil need proper care to support

livelihood of the people.

4.2. Farmers’ Awareness of Soil conservation measures Table 9 indicates that , 85.4% of respondents indicates that the respondents were aware

of the mixed cropping, 92.3% of the respondents were aware about the importance of

application of Crop rotation. The interviewer mentioned that they usually combine

different types of legumes with wheat and barley. This method increases crop density,

diversity and ground cover and hence protects the soil from erosion. Crop rotation is one

of the most important means of improving soil fertility as well as conserving the soils. It

is a system by which nitrogen restoration is attained by alternating different types of

crops on the same cultivated land. This practice is considered to be very effective in

maintaining the nitrogen status of the soils where leguminous plants are included in the

rotation (Belay, 2000). This is a practice of alternating crops of different families every

year in a field in order to reduce incidences of crop diseases and pest attacks as well as

contribute to improved soil composition ( chomba, 2004)

However, currently due to population increase and the smallness of land holding size

proper rotational practices decrease and hence households face serious problems in soil

fertility maintenance 69.2% of the respondents were aware about a forestation. Besides a

forestation activity they improve degraded vegetation by area closure that also helps in

soil and water conservation. Thus, they are reducing the pressure by human and that of

animals and are practicing sustainable utilization of forest. The forest in Gina is managed

by the government. 57.7% respondents were aware about fallowing, Following is a

traditional practice of leaving the land out of production for 3-5 years for the purpose of

restoring soil fertility and minimizing soil loss aces or platforms, which resemble steps,

for the purposes of more effective farming.

During discussions with the elders it was learned that through time, the traditional

fallowing periods are practiced less and less as a result of the increasing population

pressure and decreasing agricultural productivity 61.5% of the respondents were aware

34

of contour plowing, 42.3% respondents were aware about agro forestry and 73.1%

respondents were aware about terracing. The FGD added that there are of different

factors which limit them to implement. The factors which are affecting them are shortage

of land , education and training, poverty, socio-economic problems.

Therefore, Awareness is an important process on the use of sustainable SWC practices by

farmers more awareness should be created to these farmers of the importance of SWC for

the sustainability of agriculture and environment using different media.

Table 10 Response of Farmers’ Awareness on Soil conservation measures

Source: Field Survey, 2016

No

Practices Aware Not Aware

Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

01 Mixed cropping 111 85.4 19 14.6

02 Crop rotation 120 92.3 10 7.7

03 A forestation 90 69.2 40 30.8

04 Fallowing 75 57.7 55 42.3

05 Contour plowing 80 61.5 50 38.5

06 Agro forestry 55 42.3 75 57.7

07 Terracing 95 73.1 35 26.9

4.3. Assessment on Community Based SWC Measures in the study area The researcher observed soil and water conservation measures during the time of the data

collection in the study area. The farmers in the study area were involved in soil and water

conservation method in their Kebeles and individual farming land. The study area also

practice SWC management system in the form of a campaign for one month in which

every community member participates. According to focus group discussion majority of

the farmers participated in SWC managements system starting from 2011. While some of

the farmers refused to practice because they have small land holding size and off farm

activity. Some widely used structural soil conservation measures are described in the

following few sections.

These farmers suggested things that are expected from the government such as financial

and material support, continuous training, experience sharing and incentives that should

35

be given for the community to understand and implement the SWC measures. The

government plans to achieve more than 6.8 million ha of degraded areas have been

rehabilitated through community participation and the plan is to cover 15 million

hectares with soil and water conservation activities ( Ethiopian Herald , 2012).

Table 11 Types of soil erosion control measures being practiced in study area

Source: Dita Woreda Agricultural Office, 2016

Types of conservation practices Unit Performance Participant (campaign)

Soil bund / Stone bund Km 105 2500

Cut Off drain Km 230 458

Check dams Km 150 286

Terrace construction Km 806 1456

Planting Number 66,800 23,670

4.3.1. Soil /Stone bunds

As shown in table 11, about 105 k.m soil bund was constructed by public participation in

the study area by 2007. This is an embankment constructed by throwing the soil dug from

basin to uphill and the aim of this practice is to reduce and stop erosion and increase

water holding capacity of the soil so as to enhance crop yield. The aims of the stone/soil

bunds are : prevention of the accumulation of runoff water along the slope, colluviation

and decrease of the slope steepness. Water infiltration which contributes to a visibly

better growing of the crops and to water table rising. ( Dita Woreda Agricultural Office,

2016).

Figure 2 Soil bund in the study area

36

Figure 3 Stone bund in the study area

4.3.2. Cut off drains

Locally called by farmers “Zara” are one of the physical structure constructed by tilling

or digging the soil deep in order to divert the runoff before reaching the farmland to

discharge flow of water into river channel or stream channel. As Shawn in Table 11, like

other structural soil conservation measures, cutoff drains are constructed during dry

season to avoid impediment to land preparation for main cropping season. This structure

is a graded channel constructed mainly in moist area to intercept and divert the surface

runoff from higher slopes and protect downstream cultivated land or village. On the

contrary, cutoff drains in dry area are used to divert runoff and additional water into

cultivated fields to increase soil moisture. Between 2014 and 2015 the district agricultural

and rural development office constructed 230 km cutoff drains on erosion prone areas.

Dita Woreda Nature& Agricultural Office, 2016)

4.3.3. Check dams

Check dams are soil and water conservation structure which are constructed with mix of

medium and large size stones. The length of check dams depend on the width of farm

plot. In study area these structured mostly constructed on plot located between hills with

purpose of protecting the formation of gullies. Constriction check dams also require more

time and labor. Moreover improved checks dams are used on farm plot were the use of

other types of soil and

water conservations structure is not effective. Nowadays, creation of awareness among

community supported the gully rehabilitation and construction of check dams in the

37

community roads and in farm fields is widely used. Therefore check dams is the most

effective practices of adoption of soil and water conservation measures that help to plug

the gully and to increase the wetness of the soil.( Dita Wareda Agricultural Office, 2016).

Table 12 Indigenous SWC Implemented by the respondents

Source: Field Survey, 2016

Indigenous SWC SWC being

practice in study area

Gana

kare

Giyasa Megesa

Bobe

Frequen

cy

Percentage

Physical

SWC

Stone bund 35 24 15 74 27.6

Traditional check

dam

23 18 17 58 21.6

Furrow 26 19 19 54 20.14

Terracing 28 31 40 99 36.94

Traditional waterway 14 13 9 37 13.8

Biological

SWC

Grass strip 16 20 30 56 20.89

Planting trees 51 37 32 110 41.04

Area closure 18 15 11 44 16.41

Agro forestry 29 34 16 78 29.10

According to Table 12, Indigenous SWC practices were implemented by the household

heads. The most widely implemented physical measures were terracing (36.94%),

followed by stone bund (27.6%). 21% of the respondent practice traditional check dam,

20.14% uses furrow and the rest 13.8% using traditional water way. On moderately

sloping areas the farmers construct the soil bunds for erosion control. On steep eroded

bare lands stone terraces are most used structures in the study area. As it is stated by the

key informants the stone terraces are considered effective in erosion control. In the study

area the respondents have constructed soil bund and stone bund in the common eroded

lands especially around the mountainous area. These structures are barriers of stones or

soils or a combination of the two that are constructed along the contour. The structures

are believed to serve the purpose of slowing down the run-off as well as trapping eroded

38

soil (Abera , 2003). Participants of FGD responded that these SWC measures demand

intense labor, and therefore, a family with large labor force tends to be successful in

achieving the goal of implementing sustainable SWC, while those with low labor force

were found to be lagging in the practice.

Significant proportion, 41.04% of the household heads have reported to engage in

planting various types of plants for their own purpose which indirectly assisted soil

conservation. Agro forestry 29.10%, grass strip 20.89% and area closure 16.41% were

found to be least implemented vegetative measures in the study area. In the interview the

resource person pointed out that Vetiver grass is being propagated mainly by root

division in the study area. Almost all framers in the study area who used Vetiver grass for

soil and water conservation were using this easy method. Vetiver grass was planted on

plot of voluntary farmers since 2004. This measure has double advantage; for soil

conservation and for animal feeding.

Finally, Participants advocated that the advantage of indigenous SWC practices is in

improving soil fertility and ensuring sustainability is unquestionable. However, they said,

these practices demand high labor. While conducting field observation, the researcher

watched gullies and rills which resulted from mismanaged contours and water ways in

areas of steep slope.

Table 13 Farmer’s response on improved soil and water conservations practice

Source: field survey, 2016

Improved SWC Frequency Percent

stone bund 11 8.5

cut off drain 15 11.5

water ways 24 18.5

planting trees 31 23.8

stone and soil bunds 29 22.3

stone band and planting trees

Total

20

130

15.4

100

39

The implementations of modern SWC technologies were found to be lower in study area.

The most widely and intensively used technologies in the study area were planting trees,

stone and soil bund and water ways. Out of the total farm plots covered in the study area

about 23.5%, 22.3%, 18.5% were covered by modern SWC respectively. On moderately

sloping areas the farmers construct the soil and stone bunds for erosion control but most

of the time farmer of use soil bund.

As the key informants stated that if shortage of stone is exist on their farm area they were

used soil bund structures. Modern soil bund constructed for reduction of runoff speed,

accumulation and soil on the farm plots are the effect of the structure. Modern stone bund

was permanently and durable structures constructed on gentle slopes. Soil or small and

medium size stone are the main materials require for the construction of these structures.

During focus group discussions farmers are well aware of erosion problem in the area.

When traditional structure compared with improved structures they have similarities in

terms of effect and purpose of the structure.

Table 14 Farmer’s response on problems related to improved SWC.

Source; field survey 2016

The interview result indicates that the main difference between the traditional and

modern is effectiveness of structural soil and water conservations. However they raised

problem associated with the use of improved measures. The households were asked to

Problem related to

practice

Soil and stone

Bund

Agro forestry

Grass Strips

Application of

manure

Water ways

Fre. Percent Fre. Percent Fre. Percent Fre. Percent

Needs much human

power

28 21.5 38 29.2 27 20.7 51 39.2

Reduce farm land size 44 33.8 40 30.8 36 27.7

Difficult to implement 33 25.4 47 36.2

Lack of grass species --- ---- 52 40

Difficult for oxen 25 19.3 14 10.8

Lack of knowledge

how to apply

---- ----- 56 43.1 29 22.3

40

identify the problem that related to soil/stone bund conservation strategies. Even though

most of the respondents used soil bund for protection of soil erosion, about21.5% of the

respondents identified for major problems is it require large labor to implement. About

33.8% of the respondents mentioned soil bund conservation reduce farm land size, 25.4%

replied that it is technically difficult to implement it.

Similarly farmers were ked is there the problem related grass strips conservation

strategies. The respondents identifies three major problems these include lack of grass

species, reduce farm plot, and require large labor force. 40% of the respondents identified

lack of grass species as a major problem, about 30.8% mentioned it reduce size of farm

plot and 29.2% mentioned that improved SWC requires much labour force. Farm

households were asked to identify the problem that is related to water ways conservation

strategies. About 39.2% of the respondents identified intensive human labour is the

major problem to implement, about 27.7% mentioned water ways conservation strategies

reduce farm land size, 12.1% replied that it is technically difficult to implement it. About

22.3% reported lack of knowledge how to apply and the remaining 10.8% difficult for

oxen.

Participants of the FGD reported that the earlier SWC approaches had significant impact

on contemporary activities of soil conservation. Many farmers were compelled to

participate in the food-for-work conservation programs implemented in the 1980s and

consequently failed to maintain the physical structures adequately. In addition, key

informants disclosed although different SWC structures were introduced during the Derg

regime, they were not successful. As noted by farmers, structural soil conservation

measures are labour intensive reduce farm land, difficult to implement and obstacle for

oxen plough. Accordingly, farm households preferred to practice traditionally known

SWC measures such as cutoff drains, waterways, and other fertility enhancing methods

like leaving crop residues on field, because these are less expensive and demands less

labor, might not obstacle for oxen plough and make movement easier.

41

However, the current government tried to adopt and implement different SWC structures

which raised the awareness and participation of the farmers in alleviating soil erosion.

Lack of proper implementation and follow-up of management structures were the main

obstacles to reduce the rate of soil erosion. The majority of peasants have revolted against

the acceptance of modern technology (Eyasu, 2002). Therefore farmers underline the

disadvantages of soil bund, grass trip and water ways should be tolerated in view of the

protection they give to their farm plots. The concerned body like government should

support in this regard technical support from experts to design the SWC measures is

mandatory, though farmers have awareness to soil erosion problem continuous training

and experience sharing and incentives should be given for the community to understand

and implement the new SWC measures.

4.4. Community Based Soil and Water Conservation Practice

4.4.1. The existing structural arrangement for SWC at wareda level

At the Woreda level, the main organizations directly contributing to the SWC are the

Woreda Administration, Agricultural Offices, Mining and Water Resources Office and

local NGO.

and

Figure 4 The existing structural arrangement for SWC at woreda level

Source : Dita Woreda agricultural office, 2016.

Mining and water office

Agricultural office

Wareda administration

Local NGOs

Kebele administrations

(group)

(group that consist of five members)

42

The organizations in the administrative wing provide administrative support while the

others provide technical financial and material support to the lower levels depending on

their objective and responsibility. However, the existing organization which is

responsible for SWC activities at the village level is the government administration

executive council. Below the executive council, the village people are organized into a

group locally called “Aleqa” which consists of 30-40 people. Both the Village and the

Aleqa have elected leaders. Except certain individual works, all planned SWC activities

are led and coordinated by these government bodies .(Dita Woreda Agricultural Office,

2016).

Different SWC tasks are assigned and fulfillment of responsibilities is enforced by the

village leadership. The village executive council groups the community members who are

capable to perform the physical work into a group of five and assigns a group leader,

which they call “Lapun woysha ” or to mean the group that consist of seven members.

The group leader works with the group; coordinates and controls group works and

submits reports to the village leaders.

In figure (3) the community members parcipating in SWC through cooperation among

each other because they believe each landholder gets the opportunity to get his/her plot of

land conserved. However, the major problem observed was Landless farmers are

dissatisfied and complain that they are not beneficiaries. Open grazing is also another

major problem causing the destruction of the physical and biological conservation

(both stone and grass bunds) works.

4.4.2. On and off farm SWC in the study area The following table explains about the participation of farmers in on farm and off farm

conservation.

43

Table 15 On farm and Off farm practice

Source : Field survey, 2016

Variables Yes No

Do you practice

SWC on your farm

land

Frequencies Percent Frequencies Percent

88 67.7 42 32.3

Off farm

conservation

77 59.2 53 40.8

Is soil erosion can

observed on your

land

80 61.5 50 38.5

Is erosion can be

controlled

122 93.8 8 6.2

According to Table 15, 67.7% of the household heads practice SWC on their lands.

59.2% farmers are participating in off farm conservations practice. On farm conservation

of SWC works on private lands ( figure 5). According to FGD on farm conservation was

conducted by the mobilization of the community. Most of the individual farmers do not

take any major responsibility to conserve, maintain and protect their plot of land. In the

study area overgrazing is the major problem causing the destruction of the physical and

biological conservation (both stone and grass bunds) works on farm conservation.

Because they use as an alternative to grazing their livestock on farmlands. Off farm

conservation is when the community participate on out of farm land or common lands

(figure 4). More than half (61.5%) of the respondents in the study area believe that

erosion can be controlled. On the other side 93.8% of the respondents experienced soil

erosion on their land and the remaining 6.2% of the respondents reported that soil

erosion can not seen in their lands. The respondent who have not practice any SWC

measure do not perceive soil erosion problems on their fields. This indicates that

44

awareness about soil erosion problems influences the households with regard to the SWC

practice.

According to Woreda agricultural Bureau, Off farm conservation is practiced by

community out of cultivated lands. Farmers can not actively participate on off-farm

activities. This may have a negative effect on the SWC due to reduced labor availability.

When the farmer and family members are more involved in off-farm activities, the time

spent on their farmland will be limited and hence the family is discouraged from being

involved in construction and maintenance of SWC structures. On the other hand, off-farm

activities can be a source of income. The major off-farm activity was collecting

firewood. Other activities were petty trade, pottery and daily labor.

Figure 5 Off farm SWC in megesa Bobe kebele

45

Figure 6 On farm conservation in Giyasa kebele

4.5. The Major Causes of Soil Erosion Regarding the farmer response on the causes of soil erosion, some farmers have clear

idea of why they have erosion problem. The awareness of causes of soil erosion is

different from farmers to farmers that means some farmers perceived most of the above

mentioned as problems and some farmers one or two of the problems as a major causes of

soil erosion.

Table 16 Percentage Distribution of Respondents on the causes of soil erosion.

Source; Field survey 2016

No

Causes

Yes No

Fre. % Fre. %

01 Poor farming practices 90 69.2 40 30.8

02 Human population pressure 100 76.9 30 23.1

03 Over grazing 80 61.5 50 38.5

04 Rugged topography 78 60 52 40

05 High rain fall 95 73 35 27

06 Absence of crop rotation 70 53.8 60 46.2

07 Defforestation 50 38.5 80 61.5

Table 16 shows that Population pressure and poor farming practices are the cause of soil

erosion (76.9%) and (69.2% respectively. Also 61.5% of the respondents replied that

46

overgrazing is the causes of soil erosion. The question behind this is the scarcity of

grazing land for the tremendous increment of livestock population. During focus group

discussion respondents raised scarcity of grazing land as challenging problem. “Having

large number of livestock is nothing for me without grazing land” quoted from one

respondent during FGD. Overgrazing results when livestock density becomes excessive

and too many animals are grazed at the same area of rangeland, leading to degradation of

vegetation and the compaction and erosion of the soil. The degradation of sparse

rangeland vegetation by overgrazing exposes the soil erosion by water (Figure4.13).

Livestock pressure and poor stock management (Mainly based on the free grazing

system) are other major sources of land degradation as causes of soil erosion. Also the

respondent replies that 53.8%, 60%, 73% rugged topography, absence of crop rotation,

high rainfall were causes of soil erosion respectively.

The researcher observed large parts of the study area which are deforested due to human

population growth. People changed forest land into agricultural lands. This removal of

vegetation cover is the driving force in to soil erosion. The average family size was 6.4

per house hold with growth rate of 2.6. When youngsters were married they were given

small land from their parents, with its corresponding increased demand for crop, grazing

land, and fuel wood. During the focus group discussions the model farmers were asked

why they are clearing forest resources. They revealed that the main reason is due to high

demand for arable land by the growing population, as a result forest area were cleared

and changed into farm lands. This finding is similar with (Gedion, 2003) who found that

the destruction of forests is caused for most part by land clearance for agricultural

purposes. On the other hand according to interviews results some people depend up on

collecting fire wood and charcoal production for the markets as the source of their

livelihood and as the off-farm employment. When people lack access to alternative

sources of livelihood, there is a tendency to exert more pressure on the few resources that

are available to them.

Therefore, the FGD commented that the solution for minimizing or stopping

deforestation in the study area is first to aware the society about the outcomes of

deforestation. Secondly, to provide material and financial support for those depend on

these activities. Thirdly to give land for cultivation, finally formulate polices to protect

47

forest resources. This supports the works of Aklilu and Graaff, (2006); Woldeamlak,

(2003), which stated the underlying cause for the excessive soil loss is unsustainable

exploitation of land resource via clearing of natural vegetation for fuel wood and other

uses and expansion of cultivation and grazing lands.

Key informants disclosed that variations in the causes of soil erosion occurred as a result

of different factors which include variation of topography which in turn causes the slope

to vary between the sample Kebeles Information from focus group discussion supported

what was found out by the result of the questionnaire. The existence of livestock in

relatively large number coupled with limited grazing land exacerbated soil erosion.

Furthermore, population pressure, which led to over cultivation as the root cause of soil

erosion was exhibited with varying degree in the study area.

However, households were aware that the causes of soil erosion were: deforestation,

cultivation, continuous cultivation and human/livestock tracks, all these are related to the

mismanagement of the land resources such as soil and forests. The perception of the

households as to the causes of soil erosion is in line with studies conducted by others

(Titilola, 2008), who report that the most frequent cause of soil erosion stem from

excessive human pressure or poor management of the land, overgrazing, over-cultivation

of crop land and deforestation, are the main culprits.

Therefore, Erosion results directly in the loss of topsoil and reduction of soil fertility,

both of which lead to lower crop yields. Controlling the population growth rate is

important not only for the present but also for generations to come. Sustainable

agricultural practices will make significant differences in erosion control. Conservation

tillage, crop rotations, planting, and cover crops will all help reduce soil erosion. The

development agents assigned to the area and the experts at district level are fortunate in

that the households are willing to mobilize the community to tackle the problem.

4.6 Farmer’s perception to consequences of soil erosion

During data collection the respondents were also asked to give their consent about the

consequences of soil erosion. This was done to assess their perception level. The data

presented in table(17) is also in rank order to show the distribution of the respondents

based on their free responses to the issue and analyzed based on this fashion.

48

Table 17 Farmer’s response on the consequences of soil erosion

Source :Field survey, 2016.

Consequences of soil erosion 1st 2

nd 3

rd

Fr. % Fr. % Fr. %

Loss of crop production 66 50.8 20 15.4 19 14.6

Gully formation 64 49.2 24 18.5 20 15.4

Migration 43 33.1 36 27.7 29 22.3

Loss of livestock 62 47.7 28 21.5 24 18.5

Loss of fertile soil 67 51.5 34 26.2 10 7.7

As shown in table 17, 50.8 percent of the sample farmers believed that loss of crop

production was the most important consequence of soil erosion followed by 51.5% of the

farmers who considered that loss of fertile soil was the consequence of soil erosion.

Interestingly, 49.2%, 47%, 33.1% responded that the primary consequence of soil

erosion was gully formation, loss of livestock and migration respectively. Gully erosion

in the overgrazed area was the source of most of the soil loss. All the parameters

indicated in the table are consequences of soil erosion though the degree of severity

varies. The overall impact of soil erosion means a loss of land productivity with reduced

farm income which directly affects the livelihoods of the rural population with in the

area.

During the focus group discussion, the farmers were asked to discuss the effects of soil

erosion on their living condition and its socio-economic indicator. The results revealed

that most of the farmers living conditions are deteriorating from time to time due to

decreasing in crop production, resulting from soil erosion. Previously, crop production

mainly, maize, sorghum, and barley were the source of income in addition to home

consumption. But present days it is challenging for source of income and it is not

sufficient to feed our family they said. Due to declining of crop yields, and the resulting

income reduction and the progressive price increment of fertilizer the farmer inability to

afford it. The finding can be realized by (Moges and Holden, 2006), land degradation

49

through erosion is a major cause of poverty in rural areas of developing countries. All the

parameters indicated in the table are consequences of soil erosion though the degree of

severity varies. The overall impact of soil erosion means a loss of soil productivity with

reduced farm income which directly affects the livelihoods of the rural population with in

the area. Finally the immediate consequence of soil erosion is reduced crop yield

followed by economic decline and social stress.

Table 18 Techniques more efficient for SWC

Source: Field survey, 2016

Techniques Frequency Percent

Indigenous 28 21.5

Modern 38 29.2

Both 64 49.3

Total 130 100.0

The above table indicates that (21.5%), and 49.3% of the respondents concerning with

SWC structure are effective in controlling soil erosion recommended both the modern

and indigenous SWC structure. 29.2% are in favor of the modern and 21.5 % are in favor

of indigenous method. According to focus group results integration of the Indigenous and

new technologies with due attention to the best local practices is preferable. In addition to

this, farmers require training on soil and forest conservation, crop production and yield

maximization, yield storage system, enhancing soil fertility and land use. Training and

education on soil erosion and land management practice need to be provided to create

further awareness on resources conservation. Farmers have awareness for conservation

structures to sustain land productivity. They are still using conservation measures, which

are important for short span of time. This suggests that efforts of training farmers towards

the newly introduced SWC technologies are very important.

50

4.7. The effectiveness and Sustainability of the SWC Techniques

4.7.1 Indigenous SWC practices

The major traditional SWC technique applied on croplands of the villages which are

effective include mixed cropping crop rotation and terracing.

Table 19 Farmer’s response on the effectiveness of Indigenous SWC

Source: Field survey, 2016

Practices Effective Not Effective

Mixed cropping 113 86.9 17 13.1

Crop rotation 101 77.7 29 22.3

Afforestation 84 64.6 46 35.4

Fallowing 70 53.8 60 46.2

Contour plowing 96 73.8 34 26.2

Terracing 98 75.4 2932 24.6

Agroforestery 90 69.2 40 30.8

The survey result indicated in table 19 mixed cropping 86.9 ranked first by almost all

respondents as it is effective in improving crop land productivity and crop rotation

77.7% ranked second.

The traditional practices are efficient in controlling soil loss in some cases, but

should be modified and developed further. All focus groups discussion participants

agreed that the choice of the appropriate technique depends on the type of soil and

topography of the land to be conserved. The techniques required for on-farm

conservation and off-farm conservation also might differ.

However, produced legumes cropping such as beans and peas, and they are basically

produced in the form of intercropping and crop rotation. The use of crop rotation helps to

increase soil organic matter, reduce erosion and bring biological diversity back to the soil

(Tolera ,2011). Farmers consider a leguminous crop as to maintain soil fertility through

intercropping. Legumes production is not widely and intensively practiced as compared

to other cereal crops which cover only the principal reason is farmers argue that legumes

naturally require more fertile soil than other crops. This hinders farmers who do not

51

widely practice the method and also expands their productivity with better fertility

management.

4.7.2 Effectiveness of Structural Soil Conservation Table 20 Farmer’s response on the effectiveness of Indigenous SWC

Source : Field survey, 2016

Structural Soil Conservation Measures Frequency Percent Percentage

Effective 98 75.4

Not Effective 32 24.6

Do not know

0 0

Farmers in the area under study used different types of improved soil conservation

practice like: improved stone bund, improved cut off drain and cheek dam. As depicted in

table 20, structural soil conservation measures are effective for 75.4% farmers. 24.6 %

farmers did not recognize the effectiveness and productivity of structural soil

conservation measures because they have hardly put in structures on their land.

Specifically, in the point of view of some interviewers bunds have received better

attention than other structures owing to its convenience to implement and maintenance. .

4.7.3 Modern Soil Conservation Practices Modern soil conservation practices are newly introduced methods of soil conservation

which were widely applied in the study area. The non indigenous soil conservation

practices were introduced with the objectives of conserving, developing and

rehabilitating degraded lands and increasing food security through increased food

production (MoARD, 2003). Sample households were asked whether they have been

using modern soil conservation practices in their farm lands or not. Out of total sampled

household heads 35.9% of the respondents have constructed soil bunds on their farm

fields applied modern soil conservation practices in the study area. Widely applied

modern soil conservation practices in the study area include fanaya juu, soil bunds, grass

strip, improved cut-off drains, introduced tree planting and basins.

52

4.8. SWC Measures and Impact of Soil Erosion The importance of SWC measures in controlling soil erosion was not a new concept to

the farmers in the research area, we wished to evaluate the effect of SWC measures on

soil productivity and the expectations farmers had on installed SWC measures. The

majority of farmers perceived that SWC measures increased crop yield, prevent soil

erosion and improved soil-water retention capacity of the soil.

Table 21 Farmers’ perceived impact of SWC measures

Source: Field survey, 2016.

N0 What SWC can influence Yes (%) No (%)

frequency Percent frequency Percent

01 Prevent soil erosion 108 83.1 22 16.9

02 Improved soil fertility 113 86.9 17 13.1

03 Increased crop yield 101 77.7 29 22.3

04 Improve soil water retention 87 66.9 43 33.1

As shown in Table 21, 77.7% of the farmers perceived that SWC measures increased

crop yield and majority of the farmers perceived that it prevents soil erosion and

improved soil-water retention capacity of the soil. But small number of farmers 22.3%

believed that SWC measures can not increase productivity. 86.9% of the farmers

perceived that SWC can improve soil fertility, Only 13.1% respondents replied that SWC

can not improve soil fertility. 83.1%, 66.9 farmer perceived that SWC can prevent soil

erosion and improve water retention capacity respectively. The result of study by

Herweg et al., (2006) also confirms that soil conservation can improve moisture retention

during low‐rainfall periods and thereby reduce moisture stress and enhance plant growth.

This implies that farmers were likely to invest in simple and cheap short-term benefit

measures rather than to go for the recommended mechanical structures such as terraces

and soil bunds. Because of the top-down enforcement to adopt mechanical SWC

measures that were not properly implemented, farmers had formed an opinion that

conservation measures were less successful in soil erosion control. According to the

Woreda Land and Natural Resource Protection Bureau “farmers perceived that

conservation measures were stopping soil erosion phenomenon, based on the

performance of the SWC on their fields, despite the positive perceptions they had for the

53

SWC measures”. This finding is similar with the study by (Woldeamlak, 2003)

which showed that the major cause of disinterest shown by most of the farmers

towards the SWC activities is their perceived ineffectiveness of these technology.

4.8.1. Assessment of farmers’ participation and perception on soil erosion

Table 22, shows that to identify the farmers willingness to participate or forced to

participate in the SWC works underway in their communities. Agricultural Office was

the oversee of the work and implementation was by farmers and facilitation by extension

workers/development agents and to be sustainable, committed participation of the

stakeholders.

Table 22 Particicipation of the respondent in SWC.

Source: Field survey 2016

Are the farmers willingly participating in

the SWC works underway in their

communities?

Frequency Present

Voluntary 90 69.2

Forced 38 29.2

Other 2 1.6

Table 22, shows farmers’ participation in SWC activities that were being carried out

69.2% of the farmers participated in the SWC works on their own will. The remaining

29.2% and above of the householders asserted that they participated simply because they

were forced to do so by the Kebele Administration and the DAs. In the belief of many of

the later group, the SWC construction was not for the sake of conserving the farmers’

soils and lands, but to meet demands of the Government’s five-year development

program. In such a circumstance where the majority felt forced to participate, it becomes

clear that the work was not based on participatory principles.

In the study area farmers generally have developed experience about the effects of

erosion on crop yields and have understanding of soil erosion problems. Their replies

were unanimously positive to the question concerning knowledge about yield reducing

effect of soil erosion and the benefit of soil and water conservation.

54

Table 23 Reasons for Yield Reduction in the Study Area. (n=130)

Source ; Field survey, 2016.

Variable SA Agree Undecided Disagree SD

Fre

.

% Fre % Fre

.

% Fre % Fre

.

%

Soil

Erosion

84 64.7 32 24.6 2 1.5 5 3.8 7 5.4

Rainfall

Variability

38 29.3 27 20.8 5 3.8 54 41.5 6 4.6

Nutrient

Reduction

87 66.9 37 28.6 2 1.5 2 1.5 2 1.5

Weeds 71 54.6 49 37.7 3 2.3 4 3.1 3 2.3

The survey result shows (table23) that 64..7% of the respondents strongly agreed that soil

erosion can reduce crop yields, 24.6% of respondent agreed on soil erosion can reduce

crop productivity. Moreover, since erosion reduces the depth of the top soil and its

moisture-holding capacity, the loss of organic-rich topsoil is a constraint to improved

production. Further, the interviews reply that the farmers’ understanding of soil fertility

change largely influenced by the lack of managements practices while 1.5% of the

respondents disagreed. only 29.3% strongly agreed, 20.8% respondent agreed and 41.5%

respondent disagreed on rainfall variability can reduce crop yield.

The result indicated that rainfall variation was not a severe problem in the area since the

study area has a long period of rainy season compared with the other parts of the country

66.9%, 54.6% of the respondents replied that Soil nutrient reduction and weeds were also

other factors that contributed to crop yields reduction respectively. All the above factors

affect farmers’ decision whether to adopt the introduced SWC measures or not. In

addition, old respondents considered pests and diseases as great threats to their livelihood

than soil erosion, and showed very little interest on technologies that mainly focus on soil

conservation. Soil erosion factors like deforestation, overgrazing, and intensive use of

55

marginal lands without replenish the lost nutrient, rainfall variability and weeds were

reported as the major causes for farm size reduction and declining of yield (Fikru, 2009).

Most of the farmers have agreed that the crop yields reduced rapidly if cultivated land is

used for consecutive years without any conservation. This has indicated also that farmers

understand both the advantages and disadvantages of soil and water conservation

techniques to mitigate the effect of soil erosion and moisture stress. Finally, soil fertility

was the most important factor for crop production because of this Sustainable soil and

water conservation systems must be developed to reduce further soil degradation and

restore the productivity of the eroded land.

4.8.2 Farmers’ Expression of Soil Erosion by Degree of Severity

Table 24 Farmers’ perception on the Degree of Severity of soil erosion after conservation

severity of soil

erosion

Frequency Percent

Low 3 2.3

Medium 48 36.9

High 79 60.8

Total 130 100.0

According to the Table 24, 60.8% of the farmers mentioned that there is severity of soil

erosion on their lands and only 2.3% of them indicated that there is no erosion problem

on their farmlands. All interviewed respondents agreed that there is severe degree of soil

erosion problem on their lands. Regardless of their gentle slope of the land Farmers have

good perception of severity of soil erosion. Household profiles land holding and

occupation and the socio economic conditions of the farmers in the study area is more or

less similar but there are certain physical features variation. The investigator has made

discussion with local leaders and model farmers during group discussion time on the

issue of farmers perception and their action on soil erosion The main reason given by

model farmers for not using improved SWC measures, despite the perception of soil

erosion were lack of labor. According to FGD these two reasons were inter linked. They

said household heads were mostly engaged in non-farm activities which hindered them

56

from deciding on use of improved soil and water conservation technologies. Therefore, it

can be inferred that perception of farmers on soil erosion was an important issue and

necessary condition to decide on use of improved conservations technologies by farmers

in the study area.

4.8.3. Farmers’ training on SWC practice

Table 25 Farmers training practice

Source: Field survey, 2016

Have get training on SWC

practice

Frequency Percent

No 29 22.3

Yes 101 77.7

Total 130 100.0

In the study area most of the farmers get training on soil and water conservation. About

77.7% of the sample respondents got training on SWC applications and 22.3% never get

SWC training. Farmers who have no access to training have gained experience from their

neighbors and traditionally from their elders. Moreover, giving training on soil

conservation measures improves the relationship between farmers and DAs and

encourages them to implement new conservation measures.

As the model farmers stated, the training must not be only on newly introduced

conservation measures, but also the experts should provide awareness on traditionally

practiced ones because the latter ones served as the ground for the effectiveness of the

former ones in terms of creating

awareness and addressing the importance of soil conservation measures in controlling

erosion and enhancing soil moisture. Moreover, the focused group discussion stated that

the time, which development agents stay on their respective working area, was very few.

In the selected Kebeles, there are 9 DAs three in each Kebeles and have different

responsibility such as natural resources.

57

CHAPTER- FIVE

CON CULUTION AND RECCOMANDATIONS

5.1. Conclusion Soil degradation has been identified as one of the most serious problems that threaten the

sustainability of agriculture in Ethiopia. In an effort to address these problems, the basic

paradigm and approach to soil and water conservation has itself evolved over time.

The major causes of soil erosion were found to be higy population pressure, over grazing

and unwise utilization of land which could result from deforestation and small land

holding size. Different erosion controlling measures such as terracing, traditional water

way, grass strip and planting trees have been implemented by farmers in the study area.

However, the efforts made by the farmers to control soil erosion were found to be

inconsistent and inefficient. The study identified that indigenous SWC technologies

implemented by the farmers included physical biological management measures.

However, the efforts were found to be less effective because in the practices farmers

largely focused on farmland and the nature of these indigenous SWC technologies tend to

be laborious and also affected by land fragmentation, slope. It was disclosed by the study

that the application of modern SWC improved stone and soil bund, planting trees.

Furthermore, farmers themselves have been resisting against the newly introduced SWC

technologies. The involvement of farmers in trainings, discussions and forums with

respect to SWC practices was limited. The majority of the respondent farmers

participated in the SWC their will. farmers well understood the results of severe soil

erosion on their farms and recognized as loss of topsoil and loss of vegetation cover and

grasses, Structural soil conservation measures practiced in the study area included cutoff

drains, soil bunds, waterways, check dams. Yet farmers have been using biological and

agronomic soil conservation measures either separately or in combination with structural

soil conservation measures. Practices of structural soil conservation measures have been

influenced by many factors. Among these factors such as farmers’ experience,

educational, gender, lack of training, income of house hold, government policies and

strategies and physical factors were observed.

58

The major finding of the study are: The majority of farmers in the study area had no

education or cannot read and write and therefore, suffered from difficulty of receiving

and implementing information regarding new SWC technologies

The study also found that indigenous SWC practices implemented by the farmers were

included: Traditional stone bund, terracing, traditional check dams, agro forestry,

planting trees, Fallowing, Crop rotation. Furthermore, application of modern SWC

improved soil/soil bund, cut off drain, planting were practiced by the community.

The study shows that the existences of SWC in the study area was identified by indicators

like existence of gullies, reduction in soil capacity to grow crops and prevalence of barren

land. The major causes of soil erosion were found Human population, poor farming

practice, over cultivation and improper utilization of land which could result from

deforestation and small land holding size.

Regarding the awareness and perception of the community most farmers were aware of

crop rotation following , terrace construction and planting trees but because of different

factors affecting to implement them include education, lack of training ,small land

holding size and socio economic problem. Though the awareness of the community the

cause for soil erosion problems in study area were population pressure. Inadequate

understanding of local conditions by experts, farmers resistance and low awareness

towards new SWC practices to become in unsatisfactory.

The study shows that earlier SWC, inadequate understanding of local conditions by

experts, farmers resistance and low awareness towards new management characterized

the adopted SWC practices to become ineffective and below expectation.

Accordingly, farmers’ lack of education resulted in the difficulty of receiving and

implementing information regarding new land management technologies. Farmers were

benefited from SWC practices, how ever it is not effective to the level it was intended.

This was due to shortage of technical support and the old traditional management of

resources, which has had led to problem of soil erosion and improper utilization of

resources.

59

Population pressure on farm land affects farm SWC in the study area 2.6 annual increase

of population number compete on finite scarce resource of land to earn his livelihood, in

turn affects farm land. A major change in awareness and sustainable natural resource

management needs to occur, based on much wider adoption of locally available

erosion indicators explored through interactive participatory approaches. In the process

of community participation and interaction farmers understand and gain knowledge

of short-term erosion indicators in order to design protection measures before long-term

impacts develop Farmers’ decisions pertaining to SWC are largely determined by their

knowledge of the problem and the perceived benefits from conservation

5.2. Recommendations Educating farmers have positive impact on the implementation of SWC measure.

So it is important for farmers to get at least basic education through adult

education program to help them receive and implement newly introduced SWC

technologies.

Because of this community must participate SWC practice to solve the problem.

The community small participate in soil and water conservation programs.

The lasting solutions to the problem of soil erosion should include minimizing

population pressure on the resources, technological improvements in agriculture

and development of the other sectors of the economy and Involvement of the local

people. Effective implementation and service of family planning is recommended

to reduce increasing population number

Training and experience sharing program should be given to the local farmers on

use of traditional and modern SWC management practices for up scaling.

The traditional and the new SWC techniques which is in practice now, should be

strengthened. This may also include the involvement of individuals, the

community and inter village cooperation.

.

.

60

6. REFERENCES

Abera Biranu. 2003. Factor influencing the adaption of soil and water conservation

practice in north west Ethiopia .

Abate Shifaraw. 2011. Estimating soil loss rate for soil conservation planning in the

Brenna Woreda South wollo high lands, Ethiopia. Journal of Sustainable

development in Africa (Volume13, No.3, 2011).

Alemu Mekonnen. 2000. Hand Book on Vetiver grass technology: From Propagation to

utilization for Ethiopia. GTZ, South Gonder, Ethiopia.

Amsalu Aklilu; Graaff J.D. 2004. Farmers’ Views of Soil Erosion Problems and

theirConservation Knowledge at Beressa Watershed, Central Highlands Ethiopia,

Volume 23 pp. 99-108.

Aklilu Amsalu and D.J.Graff. 2006. Farmers’ Views of Soil Erosion Problems and their

Conservation Knowledge at Beressa Watershed, Central Highlands of Ethiopia,

Environmental Management, Volume 23,pp. 99-108.

Akililu Amsalu and D.J. Graaff. 2007. Determinants of adoption and continues one

terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed.

Ecological Economics.

Antoci A., Russu P., Ticci, E. 2009. Distributive impact of structural change: Does

environmental degradation matter? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics.

Atakilte Barihe. 2003. Soil conservation, land use and property right in northern

Ethiopia. Understanding environmental change in smallholder farming systems.

Doctoral Thesis

Ayalneh Demmuse. 2003. Integrated national resources management to enhance food

security. The case of community based approaches in Ethiopia, FAO, Rome, Italy

Bandara D. and Thiruchelvam, S. 2008. Factors Affecting the Choice of Soil

Conservation PracticesAdopted by Potato Farmers in Sri Lanka.

Bekele S. and Holden, S.1998. Resource Degradation and Adoption of Land

Conservation. Technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A case study in Andit

Tid, North Shewa;Agricultural Economics.

61

Bekele Wegayehu and Drake, L. 2003. Soil and water conservation decision behavior of

subsistence farmers in the eastern highlands of Ethiopia. A case study of the

Hunde-Laffto area. Ecological Economics.

Belay Tegene. 2000. “Integrating Indigenous and Modern Agricultural Technologies in

the Drought- prone Areas of Ethiopia”. Zenebework Tadesse(ed.) Issues in Rural

Development: Proceedings of the Inaugural Workshop of the Forum for Social

Science Studies, 18 Sep. 1998, Addis Ababa, Forum for Social Science Studies

Browder, J.O. 1989. Fragile Lands of Latin America: Strategies for

SustainableDevelopment. Boulder, USA, Westview Press

Belayneh Legesse. 2005. Community participation in development.Nine Plagues and

Twelve Commandments.Community Development Journal

Benin, S. and Pender J. 2003. Policis for Sustainable Land Management in the East

African Highlands. Summary of Papers and Proceedings conference. addis ababa:

Berhanu Gebremedhin and M. Swinton. 2002. Investment in Soil Conservation in

Norhtern Ethiopia: the role of land tenure security and public programs.

AgriculturalEconomics.MichiganState.UniversityWww.sciencedirect.Comor

Bihar,

Bo Malmberg and Tsegaye Tegenu. 2007. Population Pressure and Dynamics of

Household Livelihoods in an Ethiopian Village:

Chizana Mapfumo, Albrechi A., Vanwuk M. and Giller K. 2006. Smallholder Farmers

‘Perception on Land Degradation and Soil Erosion in Zimbabwe: African crop

science conference proceedings Vol.8.pp.1484-1490; printed in El-Minia, Egypt

Chonba,G. 2004. Factors Affecting Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption Of Soil And Water

Conservation Practices In Zambia.

Critchley W.R.S. 2000. Ground truthing. New perspective on soil erosion and

conservation in the tropics.

Cock, J. and D. Fig. 2000. From colonial to community based conservation:

Environmental Jus Development and Change. Development Report. Oxford

University

Dave D. and S. Katewa. 2008. Textbook of Environment and Ecology, Cengage

Learning, Delhi, India.

62

Davis U.C. and Lawrence. 2006. Understanding soil erosion in irrigated agriculture.

University of California division of agriculture and natural resources, department

of land, air and water resources. Publication 8196 .

Demeke, A.B. 2003. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in

NW Ethiopian: Discussion paper No.37. Institute of Rural Development.

University of Goettingen

Desalegn Rahamato. 2001. “ The Landscape of Development: A complex Reality.”

Keynote Address. In Food Security through Sustainable Land Use: Population,

Environment and Rural Development Issues for Sustainable Livelihoods in

Ethiopia,

Ethiopian Herald. 2 May, 2012..

Falkenmark M. Rockström J. and Karlberg L. 2009. Present and future

waterrequirements for feeding humanity. Food Security 1: 59-69.

FAO(Food and Agricultural Organization). 1999. Prevention of land degradation,

enhancement of Carbon sequestration and conservation of biodiversity.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2007. Enhancing Stakeholder Participation in

National Forest Programmers. Forestry Policy Brief. Feting EBay, Mistake

Hailed, Waters-Bayer, A. 1996.

FAO( Food and Agricultural Organization). 2005. The Importance of Soil Organic Matter

Key to Drought Resistant Soil and Sustained Food: No.31, Rome, Italy

FAO(Food and Agricultural Organization). 2008. Forest and Energy. Forestry Paper

154, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome,Italy.

FAO(Food and Agricultural Organization). 2011. Thirty-seventh session Rome,

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Environmental Protection Authority. 2012.

Fikiru Asefa. 2009. Assessment of Adoption Behavior of Soil And Water Conservation

Practices In The Koga Watershed, Highlands Of Ethiopia.

Gebremedhin Yihdego. 2004. Community Participation And Sustainable Soil AndWater

Conservation Management. The Case Of Zala-Dage Project:Dogu’a Tembien

Woreda Tigray Highlands.

Gedion Asfaw. 2003. Environment and Environmental Change in Ethiopia, Consultation

Papers on Environment, no. 1, March 2003. Addis Ababa

63

Gilligan, D.O. and Hoddinott, J., 2007. Is there persistence in the impact ofemergency

food aid? Evidence on consumption, food security, and assets in rural Ethiopia.

American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89:225

Gizaw Desta and Hans Hurni. 2011. Farmers’ Participatory Soil Erosion Assessment and

Soil Conservation Improvemen

Dita Woreda Administration Office. 2013. Profile on the Socio-economic Condition of

the Woreda.

Gomeje Amsalu. 2014. Opportunities, Challenges and prospect of community based

natural resource management area: A case of menz-Guassa community

conservation area.

Habtamu Ertiro. 2006. Adoption of Physical Soil and Water Conservation Structures in

Anna Watershed, Hadiya Zone: [MA Thesis], Addis Ababa University, Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia

Handingham T. 2003. Decentralization and Development Planning: Some Practical

Considerations,Development, planner, Scot

Wilsonwww.transportbblinks.org/transport_links/filearea/publications/1_802_Dec

entralisation %20and%20Development%

Helland, J. 2004. Study of the Impact of the Work of Save the children Norway in

Ethiopia: Building Civil Society. Chr. Michelson Institute’

Herweg K., Mitiku Haile, and B. Stillhardt. 2006. Sustainable land management –A new

approach to soil and water conservation in Ethiopia.

Hurni, H. 2000. Assessing Sustainable Land Management. Agriculture, Ecosystems

Guidelines for development agents on soil conservation in Ethiopia.MOA, Addis

Ababa.

Indexmundi, 2009.available at ;http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.spx?c=et&v=67.56

Isaac and N. Mohammed. 2002. Co- managing the commons in the new South

Africa:Room for Manoenvre? An occasional paper series (CBNRM) University

of Zimbabwe.

Israel Tesema. 2011. Soil erosion risk assessments with RUSLE and GIS in Dire dam

water shed.

64

Kassaa Habtemariam. 2008. Agricultural extension in Ethiopia, Digest of Ethiopian

national policy strategies and program. Addis Abeba.

Kassie, M. Zikahli, M. P., Pender, J. and Kohlin, G. 2010. The economics of sustainable

land management practices in the Ethiopian Highlands. Journal of Agricultural

Economics 61(3): 605-627.

Kibemo Detamo. 2011. Farmers’ Perception on Soil Erosion and Their Use of Structural

Soil Conservation Measures in Soro District, Southern Ethiopia

Kibwana. P.,Hulme, D. and M. Murphree. 2001. Community conservation in

Africa.Pages 1-9, in D.Hulme and M. Murphree, editors. African wildlife and

livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation. James

Currey, Oxford, UnitedKingdom.

Kruger, H. J. 1996. Creaing an inventory of indigenous soil and water conservation

measures in Ethiopia. 171p.

Kull, C. 2002. Empowering pyromaniacs in Madagascar: Ideology and legitimacy in

community-based natural resource management.

Leeuwis C. 2004. Communication for rural innovation. Rethinking Agricultural

Extension. Third Edition, Black Well.

Liniger, H.P. and Cahill. 2002. Categorization of SWC Technologies and Approaches –

a global need? Proceedings of ISCO Conference 2002, Vol. III: Beijing

Mbaiwa. J. 2005. Wildlife resource utilization at Moremi Fame Reserve and Khwai

community area in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Environmental

Management

Mekuria Argaw. 2005. Forest conservation-soil degradation-farmers perception Nexus:

implication for sustainable land use in the south west of Ethiopia in Ecology and

Development series No.26 2005. Center for development and research. University

of Bonn.

MoARD. 2007. Maharashtra Journal of Extension Education, land husbandry in

Ethiopia”, Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor Ministry of

Agriculture and Rural Development 2007.

Moges Abebe and N.M. Holden. 2006. Farmers’ perceptions of soil erosion and soil

fertility loss in southern Ethiopia: Land degradation and Development.

65

Morgan P.C.P., 2005. Soil erosion and conservation. 3rdCranfield UK: Blackwell

publishing, 2005

Mulugeta Demelash and Karl Stahr. 2010. Assessment of integrated soil and water

conservation measures on key soil properties in South Gonder, North-Western

Highlands of Ethiopia

Mutunga K., Critchley W., Lameck P.; Lwakuba, A.; Mburu, C. 2001. Farmers’

initiatives in land husbandry. Promising technologies for the drier areas of East

Africa. Technical Report No. 27. Nairobi.

Norton. D.I. Shainberg, L. Cihacek and , H. Edwards, 1999. Erosion & soil Chemical

properties.

Nyssen J., Mitiku Haile, Descheem Aeker. 2004.; Erosion-caused soil fertility

degradation: analysis and evaluation of nutrient export and associated costs from

micro-dam catchments of Tigray – Northern Ethiopia

Nyssen J. Poesen J, Gebremichael D, Van campenhout K, D’aes M, Yihdego G,

GoversG, Leirs H, Moeyersons J, Naudts J, Haregeweyn N, Haile M, and Deckers

J. 2007. Interdisciplinary on-site evaluation of stone bunds to control soil erosion

on cropland in Northern Ethiopia.

Olddeman,G. 1994. The global extent of soil degradation. In: Greenland, D.J. and

Szabolcs (eds.). Soil resilience and sustainable landor Co-existence? Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Orgut/Dangro. 1996. Natural Resource, Demography and Socio Economics: Sida Pretty,

J. N. and P. Shah, 1996. Making Soil and Water Conservation Sustainable: From

Coercion and Control to Partnerships and Participation. Land Degradation and

Development, Vol. 8.

Shibru Tefera. 2010. Land Degradation And Farmers’ Perception: The Case Of Limo

Woreda, Hadya Zone Of Snnpr, Ethiopia

Stroosnijder, L. 2009. Modifying land management in order to improve efficiency of

rainwater use in the African highlands. Soil and Tillage Research 103:247-256.

Summers, R. 1999. Legal and institutional aspects of community - based wildlife

conservation in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia. Act juridical . Vol. (sa).

66

pp 188-210. Research in Africa. London: Institute for Development Policy and

Management.

Taangahar. B, Quintana, S.C. Pereira, A.G., , Ituarte, L.M. and Mateos, B.P. 2001.

Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance

alternatives: A case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga). Ecological Economics 68: 990-

1005.

Tekalegni Negash. 2011. Farmers’ Perception on the Role of Vetiver Grass in Soil and

Water Conservation in South Western Ethiopia:-The Case of

TulubePeasantAssociation; Metu District.2011

Tekelu Erkossa and Gezeahegn Ayale . 2003. Indigenous knowledge and practices for

soil and water management in East Wolega Ethiopia. Conference on International

agricultural Research and development.Göttingen, October 8-10, 2003.

Tiffen M. 1995. More people, Less Erosion, Environmental Recovery in Kenya. New

York: John Wiley and Sons.

Tigist Y. 2009 Assessment of hydrological controls on gully formation near Lake,

Northern highlands of Ethiopia. MS Thesis.

Titola. T. 2008. Environmental degradation and its implications for agricultural and rural

development: The issue of land erosion. Journal of Sustainable Development in

Africa

Todaro, M. & Smith, S. 2009. Economic Development, 10th edition, Pearson Education

Limited, England.

Unger, W. Paul. 2006. Soil and Water conservation handbook. Policies, practices

conditions and terms. Binghamton, : The Haworth Press.

UNEP (United Nation Environmental Program). 2000. Forestation project in Kano and

Jigawa. initiative on success stories in land degradation/ desertification control.

UNEP (United Nation Environmental Program). 1998. Protecting our planet –Securing

our future. Linkages among global environmental issues and human needs.

UN. 2007 .World population properties: The 2006 revision highlights. New York

WAE.(WaterSupplyandSanitationPolicy.:http://www.ethiopia

market.com/bid/2008/jan08.

67

Wagayehu Bekele. 2003. Economics of Water and soil conservation: theory and

empirical application to sustainable farming in the eastern Ethiopian highlands,

doctoral thesis, Swedish, university of agricultural sciences Uppsala Sweden.

Wallace K.J. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solution.

Biological Conservation

Watson EE, Currey, J. 2009. Living terraces in Ethiopia: Konso landscape, culture and

development. Eastern African Series

Wils, F. 2001. Empowerment and its evaluation: a framework for analysis and

application. ISS working papers No. 340. Hague: ISS.

Wogayehu Bekele and Drake L. 2003. Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation

Measures by Subsistence Farmers in the Eastern Ethiopia: Presented at the 17th

World Congress of Soil Science, Bangkok, Thailand.

Woldeamlak Bewket. 2003. Land degradation and Farmers’ Acceptance and Adoption of

Conservation Technologies in the Digil Watershed, Northwestern High Lands of

Ethiopia: Social Science Research Report No. 29. Addis Ababa.

Woodroffe Rosie. 2005 Thirgood, Simon, and Rabinowitz, Alan.People and Wildlife,

ConflictorCo-existence?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005

World Bank. 1997. Knowledge and Skills for the Information Age, The First Meeting of

the Mediterranean Development Forum. Mediterranean Development

Forum,URL: http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/technet/mdf/objectiv.htm

World Bank. 2008. Sustainable Land Management Sourcebook: Agriculture and Rural

Development, World Bank, Washington DC.

WSS. 2008. Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation Progress Report of the 21stcentury

New York

Yenealem Kassa, Fekadu Beyene, Jema Haji, BelainehLegesse. Impact of Integrated Soil

and Water Conservation Program on Crop Production and Income in West

Harerghe Zone, Ethiopia. International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and

Analysis.201

YIRGA. C. 2007. The dynamics of soil degradation and incentives for optimal

management in the central highlands of Ethiopia. PhD thesis. Pretoria, South

Africa.

68

Yohannes Geberamicael and Karl Herweg. 2000. From indigenous knowledge to

participatory technology development.

Young, A. 1998. Land Resources Now and for the Future, Cambridge University Press,

London. and Environmental Degradation and Carrying Capacity in

DebayTilatginWoreda Zewdie, S. 1999. A Study on Agricultural Production,

East Gojam

69

APPENDIX- I ARBAMINCH UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTATAL STUDIES

Questionnaire to be filled by Household Heads.

The main objective of the study is to assess farmer’s perception on the effectiveness of

soil and water conservations. As a result; I kindly ask you to share your opinion and

experiences. The genuine response you provide is highly valuable

and determines the effectiveness of this investigation. I hope that the research out comes

contribute to the improvement of training programmers’ in land management practices.

N.B No need of writing your name on the questionnaire.

Yours faithfully

Part one – Background information of the respondent

Region………..Zone………….Woreda…………..Name of interviewer…………..Date

of interview……………..Starting…………Finishing time………….Checked

by……………..Date of checked…………………

1. Name of Kebeles _____________

2. Sex: A. Male B. Female (mark “X”)

3. Household size Male Female ( mark” X”)

4. Educational background of the household head

A. cannot read and write B. read and write

C. elementary school D .secondary school E. tertiary and

above

5. Age of the head of household A. 20-40 B. 41-65 C. >65

6. Marital status of the respondent A. Married B. single C. divorce D.

widow

7. Family size A.>3 B.4-6 C.7-10 D.>10

70

8. Religion: A. Orthodox B. Protestant C. Muslim D. Catholic E.

Please specify others

9. Household Resource Number of live stock?

Name Number

Cow

Oxen

Donkey

Sheep

Goat

Mules

Horses

Other(specify)

Part Two. Physical and biological Soil Conservation Related Information (Mark ‘x’

)

1. Do you own land? A. Yes B. No

2. If your answer for question number 1 is yes specify the size in hectare-------

3 .Do you participate in SWC? A. yes B. No

4. How do you participate in SWC?

A. With the community organize by the Kebele administrative B .Individual

on my own land C. In groups with working groups D .Others

(please specify)

5. Do you implement Indigenous SWC practices in your land

A. yes B. No

6 If you response is yes to question 5 which these practices of have you implemented

A. stone bond B. furrows C. terraces D. water way E.

traditional check dam F. Run off diversion H. others (specify)

7. Do you know the existence of improved soil and water conservation?

A. yes B. No

71

8. If yes which types do you practice? (Multiple answers is possible) A. stone bund

B. soil bund C. cut off D. water ways E. planting trees

9. Problems related to improved SWC?

10. Do you plant trees on your farm? A. Yes B. No

11. If your answer for question number 10 is yes for what purpose?

A. fuel wood B building material C .soil fertility D. others

(specify)

12. Effectiveness of Structural Soil Conservations

Structural Soil Conservation

Measures

Very

effective

Effective Less effective

Effective

More Effective

Don't Know

Problem related practice Soil and stone

bund

Agro forestry

Grass trip

Application of

manure

Water ways

Require large labor

Reduce farm land size

Difficult to implement

Lack of grass species

Difficult for oxen

Lack of know how to

applied

72

Part three. Question related to the awareness and perception of respondent in SWC

1. Do you participate in soil and water conservation in your area? A. yes B.

No

2. If your answer is yes, specify-------

3. Are the local method to avoided soil erosion? A. yes B. No

4. If yes what are they and what is the advantage of that? --------------------------------------

5. Do you believe erosion can be controlled, A. yes B. No

6. If yes on what ways----------------------------------------------------

7. Do you use the same kind of practice to maintain or soil fertility of your cultivated

land? A: Yes B: No

8. If yes specify------------------------------------------------

9. Is there a decline in yield from your farm land?

Variable Agree Disagree SA SD Undecided

Soil Erosion

Rainfall Variability

Nutrient Reduction

Weeds

10. If your answer is yes, please indicate the causes of production decline-------------------

11. Are the farmers willingly participating in the SWC works

underway in their communities?

Yes No

Voluntary

Coerced

Other

73

12Are you aware of the following practices?

Practices

Yes No

Mixed cropping

Crop rotation

A forestation

Fallowing

Contour ploughing

Agro forestry

Terracing

13. Do you practice off farm and on farm conservation? A. yes B. NO

14. If yes specify-----------------------------------------------------

15. Degree of erosion problem on the plot A) high B) medium C)

low

16. The possible causes of soil erosion your locality?

Causes

Strongly

agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

disagree

Poor farming practices

Human population pressure

Over grazing

Rugged topography

High rain fall

Absence of crop rotation

Defforestation

74

17. Rank the following the consequences of soil erosion

No consequences of soil erosion Rank the following the consequences of soil erosion

1st 2

nd 3

rd 4

th 5

th 6

th

01 Loss of crop production

02 Gully formation

03 Migration of people

04 Loss of livestock

05 Loss of fertile soil

06 Others

07

18 .Do you practice structural soil conservation on your farm? A) high B)

medium C) low

19. Level of on farm flooding before conservations A) high B) medium

20. Is there any improvement of soil erosion in your farm? A) Yes B) No

21. If yes please explaining----------------------------------------------------------------

22. How do you evaluate the level of soil conservation on your farm at this time?

A .high B. medium C .low D. under control

23. What factors determining farmers’ influence SWC in your area.

A.Education Income B. Gender C .Farmer Experience D. Government

Policies &Strategies E. topography F. ether specify

75

Appendix- II ARBAMINCH UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

7.4 Observation checklist

Name of Kebeles ---------------------------- Date --------------------------------

No Observation of the researcher checklist

1 Training of farmers on SWC

2 Their socio economic condition

3 Participation of soil conservation measures

4 Presence of Severity soil erosion area

5 the existence of soil and water structure is reduce soil

erosion in the area

6 the current conservation measures

7 Forest coverage of study area

8 community answer the problem of SWC

9 existence of SWC structure

76

Appendix- III ARBAMINCH UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Focused Group Discussion Guiding Protocols for the farmers’ household heads

1. What is the current and previous attempt made by your community to adder’s soil

erosion problem? What do you think about soil erosion

2. Explain the indigenous SWC you are implementing

3. Specify the modern SWC you are implementing

4. What mechanism the societies use to solve the problem of SWC? Do you believe the

existing conservation are appropriate and sustainable?

5. How can local community be involved in conservation of soil and water?

6. What is the future of community based conservations in Dita Woreda.

7. Have you ever got opportunity to participate in community discussions, trainings or

forums regarding SWC practices? Explain briefly

8. Compare the advantage & disadvantage of soil and water conservation in your

locality?

77

APPENDIX -IV ARBAMINCH UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

INTERVIEW GUIDES FOR KEY INFORMANTS

Background Information of the interviewees

Name of Kebele ---------------------- Respondent Name ---------------------------------

Sex ---------------------------------------- Age ----------------------------------------

1.How do you describe the overall conditions of the existing soil erosion and SWC

practices in your Woreda?

2.What are the objectives of the Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office

regarding SWC? What is the structural arrangement?

3.What types of indigenous SWC practices are being carried on by farmers?

4. What are the newly introduced methods of SWC? Among newly introduced method

of SWC, what is the type of SWC adopted well?

5.Do you belief farm size, Age, sex land tenure and labor shortage affect adoption of land

management? If yes how?

6.Have you conducted/ participated in trainings, community forums, discussions with

respect to land management practices? a. yes b. no

7.From your point of view what are the main challenges when you work with community

in development process.

8.Physical improvement of soil and water conservation structure? If yes who constructed

the structure?

9. Are people participating in conservation method? If yes commitment of the community

to participate in SWC If No what is the problem to participate SWC in Dita Woreda?

Filename: NEW P{R.docx Directory: C:\Users\workie\Desktop Template: C:\Users\workie\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dotm Title: Subject: Author: workie Keywords: Comments: Creation Date: 9/29/2016 1:24:00 AM Change Number: 52 Last Saved On: 9/29/2016 2:03:00 PM Last Saved By: workie Total Editing Time: 103 Minutes Last Printed On: 9/29/2016 5:16:00 PM As of Last Complete Printing Number of Pages: 90 Number of Words: 24,015 (approx.) Number of Characters: 136,890 (approx.)