- Email: [email protected]
Factors affecting adoption of soil and water conservation practices: The case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia
Author’s Accepted Manuscript Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices: The Case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia Daniel Asfaw, Mulugeta Neka www.elsevier.com/locate/iswcr
PII: DOI: Reference:
S2095-6339(17)30149-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.002 ISWCR113
To appear in: International Soil and Water Conservation Research Received date: 12 June 2017 Revised date: 14 October 2017 Accepted date: 25 October 2017 Cite this article as: Daniel Asfaw and Mulugeta Neka, Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices: The Case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, International Soil and Water Conservation Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.002 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices: The Case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia Daniel Asfaw1 and Mulugeta Neka2 1
Debre Tabor University, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies Email: [email protected] Phone No-+251(0)910460824 2
Bahir Dar University, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies Email: [email protected] PhonNo+251(0)918769269
Abstract In Ethiopia, soil erosion is a severe problem and a major cause of the decline of agricultural productivity. Interventions were taken by introducing soil and water conservation practices. However, the adoption of these practices is far below the expectation. The objective of this study was to examine factors affecting adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices in Wereillu Woreda. Mixed research methods design was employed in order to conduct this study. Questionnaire, focus group discussion, in-depth interview and field observation were used to collect data. A binary logistic regression model was employed to analyze the collected data. The analysis result showed that sex of household heads, education status of household heads, access to extension services and training were positively correlated at significantly level with the adoption of the introduced soil and water conservation practices. On the other hand, the age of household heads, off-farm activity, and distance of farmlands from homesteads influenced the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices negatively. The finding depicts that the identified physical, socioeconomic, and institutional factors influence the adoption of soil and water conservation so, the Woreda Rural and Agricultural Development Office and other concerned bodies should consider these influential factors to enhance farmers’ adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices and promote agricultural productivity and environmental quality. Key words: Soil erosion, SWC, Adoption of SWC, Wereillu
Introduction Soil erosion is a major environmental and agricultural problem facing human beings (World Economic Forum 2010; Blanco & Lal, 2008; Hurni, 1988). In the last 40 years, nearly onethird of the world arable land was lost by soil erosion and continues to be lost at the rate of more than 10 million hectares per year (Penning de Vries et al. 2008; Assefa, 2007; Pimental, 2006). Soil erosion continued to be a major p r o b l e m w hich causes loss of 6 million hectares of arable land in each year with the rate of 20-40 tons of soil loss per hectare per year but the renewal rate is about 1 ton of soil per year (Pimental, 1993; Hurni, 1988). It h a s caused about 85% of the world land to b e degraded and 17% of crop production to be reduced (Hurni, 1993; Scherr & Yadav, 1996). Africa is the worst erosion affected area in the world where 50% of the total erosion affected people are concentrated (FAO, 2002; Zachar, 1982). Soil erosion affects about 5 to 6 million hectares of land each year in Africa (Stocking & Murnaghan, 2001; Assefa, 2009). In Ethiopia, estimates show that 50% of its highland areas have significant s o i l erosion, 2 5 % of it was highly eroded and 4% of it is seriously eroded beyond reclamation (Kruger et al.1996; Woldeamlak & Sterk, 2002; Aklilu, 2006; Pimental, 1993). The problem is more threatening in Amhara region; about 90% of its population lives in the highlands which constitute 66% of its total land area. Out of which, 90% of this land is regularly cultivated, which exposes it to soil erosion. Areas that are severely worn away are found in Waghimra and North Wollo which are followed by North and South Gonder, South Wollo and northern part of North Shewa zones (Lakew et al. 2000; Bureau of Agriculture, 2005). South Wollo Zone is identified as chronically food deficit area (Lakewetal.2000; Eshetu and Gian, 2016,).Wereillu Woreda, which is part of this zone, has experienced high soil erosion problem. According to the Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office Report (2012), 40% of the total area of the woreda is affected by soil erosion. As it is stated in Amhara Livelihood Annual Report (2010), the woreda is the most chronically food deficit area. Since 2008, the Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development office has identified and selected 27 micro-watersheds and applied integrated watershed development programs. At the beginning of the implementation of the program in seven micro-watersheds, soil and water conservation practices were implemented. In the following years, the same actions were taken phase by phase
in the remaining watersheds that have been identified and delineated. However, the adoption of soil and water conservation practices is very low and the expected change is far below the efforts done. On the other hand, soil erosion problem increased as the utilization of land continuous without maintaining the constructed physical structures. The poor level of adoption of soil and water conservation practices is common in the developing countries. For example, a study conducted in Malawi has confirmed that dissemination and adoption of soil and water conservation innovations by farmers were still very low (Kabuli, No date). The factors that contributed to the low level of adoption were lack of provision of adequate information on the technical details of the innovation, inadequate extension services, poor linkages with research teams, illiteracy, and poor transportation and communication networks. In support of this, Sands (1986) explains that many introduced technologies have been rejected by farmers since they are simply inappropriate for the specific condition of small farm systems. Similarly, there were several factors that were barriers to full scale implementation of soil and water conservation techniques in USA in the 1980s (Dilla, 1992). Lack of awareness of soil erosion and socio-cultural, institutional, structural, economic, environmental and institutional issues were constraining factors. Attitudes towards risk are also major determinants of the rate of adoption of new soil and water conservation practices (Moscardi & De Janvry, 1977). This is especially true in the tropics where there are unreliable rainfall, major pest and disease outbreaks and widely fluctuating market prices (Rothenberg, 1985). The attitude of minimizing or avoiding risk is a matter of life and death in the developing world. In a study in Burkina Faso, Dilla (1992) acknowledges that third world farmers are very responsive to immediate observable outcomes rather than to uncertain long-term benefits. Jara-Rojas et al. (2012) explains that size of farms and the ownership of land are important variables associated with the adoption of soil and water conservation measures. Moreover, a study conducted in Tanzania enabled to identify age, sex, educational status of the head of families, and ownership of land to have significant positive effect on soil and water conservation practices. But non-farm income and distance from farmland to home were found to have significant negative effects on soil and water conservation measures (Ashoori et al. 2016). Farm
size, man power, and number of domestic animals were found to have no significant effect on soil and water conservation practices. Résistance to adopting soil and water conservation practices were attributed to lack of farmers’ awareness of soil loss caused by erosion and lack of immediate apparent financial benefits from soil and water conservation practices (Tenge et al. 2004). As agricultural experts and agricultural extension workers of Wereillu Woreda explain, once the conservation practices constructed on their farmlands, the owners of the farmlands do not maintain them. After harvesting their farmlands, they graze on crop residues. They also feed their domestic animals on shrubs and grasses which are planted for strengthening the conservation structures. Because of these reasons, new soil and water conservation practices are being implemented in the same farmlands year after year. In addition, farmers complain that constructed physical soil and water conservation practices reduce the size of their farmlands and create difficulties in plowing the farmlands. So, farmers prefer removing the conservation structures to maintaining them. So, this research examined the influential factors that affect farmers’ adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices.
Research Methods and Materials Description of the Study Area Wereillu Woreda is located between 10º50'N to 10033’N latitudes and 39º10’E to 390167’E longitudes. It is situated in South Wollo Zone in Amhara National Regional State about 482 km north of Addis Ababa. It covers a total area of 987.77 square km. Wereillu Woreda is found in Wollo Highlands (south of Amba Farit Mountain) in the North-Eastern Massif of Ethiopia. The woreda is characterized by rugged topography which comprises mountains, plains, and plateaus. The altitude of the woreda ranges from 1700 meters to 3200 meters above mean sea level. Based on 36 years (1972-2008) rainfall data obtained from Wereillu Station of Ethiopian National Meteorology Authority, the mean annual rainfall of the area is 897.9 mm. The maximum amounts of rainfall are received in the months of July and August followed by September. According to Morgan (1995), the erosivity power of rainfall is computed by
using
where
R
is
erosivity
power
of
rainfall
and
. However, EI data is not available for the Ethiopian case. Thus, another formula is adapted to Ethiopian case by Hurni (1985). The erosivity power of rainfall is computed using
. Consequently, the erosivity
power of the rainfall of the area is 496.49. The mean maximum and minimum annual temperatures of the area are 9.30C and 21.70C respectively with mean annual temperature of 15.50C. According to Amhara Livelihood Zone Annual Report (2012), the study area has two agroecological zones -Dega (temperate area) and Woinadega (sub-tropical area) which cover 72 % and 28% respectively. According to FAO (1984) soil classification, the soil types of the area are categorized as vertisols, cambisols, leptosols, and regosols. According to the Woreda Agricultural and Development Office Report (2012), 10% is fertile soil and 50% is moderately fertile and the rest 40% is degraded land. Cultivation of crops along with rearing of animals is the major farming system practiced in the area. In order to manage the soil fertility, crop rotation, contour farming, mixed cropping, fallowing, and terracing in some steep slope are practiced in the area. Rural kebeles (sub-district) development agent (DA) workers are assigned to assist farmers while they practice agricultural activities and other related natural resource management activities. The conservation activities are performed by mobilizing the masses for two months after harvesting season.
Fig 1: Map of the Study Area
Research Design and Methodology Mixed research methods design was employed in this study. Among the different types of mixed research methods, concurrent or parallel was implemented. The quantitative research method enabled to collect data on all quantified relationships between adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices and factors (household characteristics, and socio- economic, institutional, and physical factors) affecting it. Qualitative research method was used to collect and analyze qualitative data which were used to strengthen and bridge the gap in quantitative research method.
Sampling Technique and Sample Size Wereillu Woreda has 27 micro-watersheds which are grouped under their agroecological zones ( temperate and s u b - tropical watersheds). From the total watersheds, 16 and 11 of them are found in the s u b - tropical and temperate agroecological zones respectively. By employing simple random sampling technique, two watersheds from temperate and three watersheds from s u b - tropical agroecological zones were selected. They were
Dolleke,
Mesnoamba, Gollbo, Kurerebere and Amiteager watersheds. Sample household farmers from the sampled watersheds were selected by using simple random sampling technique. The sample size of the respondents was determined by Kothari (2004) sample size determination formula. From the total 1102 farm household heads, 112 respondents constituted the sample size. Finally, proportional numbers of sample respondents were taken from each sample watershed. Key informants were selected purposely from the woreda agricultural experts, agricultural extension workers, watersheds development committees, and kebele administrators. Based on data saturation, 5 key informants were employed.
Eight knowledgeable participants were
purposely selected for focus group discussion.
Data Source and Data Collection Techniques Questionnaires, in-depth interview, focus group discussion and field observation was used as the main primary data collection techniques. The questionnaire included both closed and openended questions. The questionnaire enabled to collect data from representative sample household farmers.
In-depth interview was conducted with key informants who were
considered knowledgeable about the general situation of soil and water conservation practices. In addition, the secondary data were gathered from the annual report of the related offices of the woreda, SWC manuals, different written documents, books, and statistical data about the physical and socio- economic conditions of the study area.
Data Analysis and Interpretation A binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the relationship between the dichotomous dependent variable and the independent variables (Hyeoun-Ae, 2013). It enabled to determine the impact of multiple independent variables on the dependent variable. The objective was to identify the determinant variables (Kalineza et al. 1999). The assumptions of binary logistic regression were tested before using the results of the binary logistic regression. As revealed by regression model test of coefficient table, the model was statistically significant (chi-square=103.225, p-value <0.000 with df= 10) and appropriate for the data. Concerning to the predictive efficiency of the model, it explains that 93.8% of the total 112 sample household heads included in the model correctly predicted the adoption of soil and water conservation practices. It also correctly predicted 95.6% of the adopter’s household and 90.9% of the non-adopters household in their respective categories rates
committed
in
With
regard
to
the
error
the classification table, the false positive rate (the number of errors
where the dependent is predicted to be adopter, but it is in fact non-adopter) is 4.4 % while the false negative rate (the number of errors where the dependent is predicted to be non- adopter, but it is in fact adopter) is 8.1 %.
Results and Discussions The major factors that influenced adoption of soil and water conservation practices in Wereillu Woreda were identified by analyzing the dependent variable (adoption of soil and water conservation practices) against 11 explanatory variables.
Table: 1. Binary logistic regression model result for factors influencing adoption of SWC practices
Explanatory variables
ß
S. Error
Wald
P-value
Exp(ß)
Age of HH*** heads
-.067
.033
4.016
.045**
.935
Sex of HH heads
2.680
1.241
4.661
.031**
14.582
Education status of HH
1.034
.320
10.444
.001*
2.812
Family size of HH
.183
.964
1.203
.273
1.384
Farm size of HH
-.325
.296
.036
.849
.833
Distance from home stead
-.100
.044
5.060
.024**
.905
Off- farm activity
-2.472
.957
6.675
.010*
.084
Access to Extension service
2.011
.902
4.973
.026**
7.472
Access to Training service
2.001
.858
5.438
.020**
7.395
Access to credit service
1.089
.933
1.362
.243
2.971
Note: - ** Statistically significant at 0.05 level ***
* Statistically significant at 0.01 level
Household heads
Household Characteristics and Adoption of SWC Practices Among household characteristics, the age of the household head influenced the adoption of introduced SWC practices negatively and i t was statistically significant at 0.05 level (ß= .067 and p-value=0.045).
The Wald statistics (4.016) also showed its significant
relationship. Its negative sign reflects that as the age of a farmer increases, the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation (SWC) practices decreases. This is because of the fact that as the age of a farmer increases, the acceptance level about the introduced soil and water conservation practices decreases. Old farmers become exhausted and unable to give care for their farmlands. On the other hand, younger farmers have more willingness to adopt the introduced soil and water conservation practices. The odds ratio depicts that one year increase in the age of household head decreases the adoption of introduced SWC practices by a factor of 0.935.
Similar to the finding of this study, Tiwari et al. (2008); Bekele and Drake (2003); Budry et al. (2006) reported that age of household heads was negatively correlated at statistically significant level. In the same manner, Mulugeta et al. 2001; Bekele and Holden (1999) confirmed that younger farmers are often expected to invest more in soil conservation practices. Because they are more often educated and they are more aware of soil erosion problem and its solution. Contrary to this, Fikru (2009); Chomba (2004); Francis (1999) h av e v e r i f i e d t h a t age of household heads had positively influenced adoption of SWC practices. Younger farmers are less likely to use SWC p r a c t i c e s continuously. This is due to the fact that younger farmers have small size farmlands and they are reluctant to implement the SWC practices. Educational status of household heads correlated positively with the adoption of introduced SWC practices at 0.05 level of significance level (ß=1.034; p- value=0.001). The Wald statistics (10.444) also revealed its significant association with the adoption of SWC practices (Table 1). This showed that relatively better educated farmers are engaged in the adoption of the newly introduced SWC practices. The odds ratio also revealed that educated household farmers adopted the introduced SWC practices by the factor of 2.812 than non-educated (illiterate) household farmers. Similarly, Fikru (2009); Tiwari et al. (2008); Aberha (2008); Krishna et al. (2008); Million and Kassa (2004); Abera (2003); Okoye, (1998); Gould et al. (1989) described that better education level of household heads having strong and positive relationship with farmers’ adoption of SWC conservation practices. Better exposure to education increases farmers’ better understanding of the benefits and constraints of soil conservation (King & Alderman, 2001). Contrary to this, Eleni (2008); Francis (1999) elaborated that illiterate farmers are better to be involved in the use of SWC practices than educated farmers who are usually engaged in the off-farm activity. Family size correlated insignificantly but positively with the adoption of introduced SWC practices (ß=0.183; p-value=0.273). Eleni (2008); Habtamu (2006); Million and Kassa (2004) stated similar results. They described that small sized household family is less likely to involve in retaining of soil and water conservation practices than larger sized household family. T h e larger sized family c o u l d provide the required labor for implementing and
maintaining conservation practices. But Fikru (2009); Aklilu (2006); Foltz (2003) stated that farmers with larger family sizes are less likely to continue using introduced soil and water conservation practices. Because there is competition for labor between food generating offfarm activities and investment in maintenance of soil and water conservation practices. Similarly, Budry et al. (2006); Bekele and Holden (1998) indicated that physical conservation practices occupy a large area and compete for the scarce productive land resource. Thus, households with large family sizes tend to remove the constructed physical conservation structure from their farmlands. Sex of the household heads is positively correlated with the adoption of introduced SWC practices at statistically significant level (ß=2.680; p-value=0.031) which is also confirmed by the Wald statistics (4.661). This showed that male headed households are more likely to be engaged in implementation and maintenance of SWC practices than female headed households. The odds ratio of logistic regression showed that male household heads adopted the introduced SWC practices by the factor of 14.582 than female headed households. Most of the women households rent their farmlands because of lack of labor to cultivate and conserve their farmlands. In addition, females are involved in taking care of their children, preparing food and other related tasks at home. Moreover, all female household heads are widowed or divorced and don’t have support other than their children. Corresponding to this, Aberha (2008); Eleni (2008); Krishna et al. (2008) obtained that male headed households have a higher chance to involve in soil and water conservation practices since constructing and maintaining SWC practices demand much labor. Hence, female headed households are not motivated to invest in soil and water conservation. Contrary to this, a research conducted by Fikru (2009) in Koga Watershed in Northern Ethiopia reported that gender did not have any relationship with the adoption of introduced SWC structures since women have the culture of working in their farmlands. Similarly, a research conducted by Tenge et al. (2004) explained that female headed households have adopted more than males. Most fields affected by erosion have been planted with annual food crops which are mainly cultivated by women.
Socio- Economic and Institutional factors and Adoption of introduced Soil and Water Conservation Practices The binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the size of farmlands cultivated by households had a negative and insignificant impact on farmers’ adoption of SWC practices (ß=-.325; p-value=0.849).
The negative sign shows that as the farm size increases the
probability to adopt the introduced SWC practices decreases (Table 1). In the study area, farmers with large farmlands are in their old ages. They are not engaged in constructing and maintaining of SWC practices because of lack of labor. Similarly, Garcia, (2001) reported a negative relationship between the size of farmland holding and the probability of adopting soil and water conservation practices. This is due to labor intensive nature of constructing soil conservation structures in Philippines’ upland areas. The same is true for Habtamu (2006) and Budry et al. (2006) who asserted a negative and significant relationship between farmland size and the decision to retain soil and water conservation practices. Because most farmers who cultivate large farm sizes are old aged farmers. They have short term plan and lack the labor force for maintaining conservation practices. But Fikru (2009); Eleni (2008); Million and Kassa (2004); Abera (2003) argued against this. They affirmed that farm size is associated positively and significantly with the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices. Off-farm activity is one of the important socioeconomic factors that influence farmers’ decision to adopt introduced soil and water conservation practices. The result of binary logistic regression analysis depicted that off-farm activity has a negative relationship at statistically significant level (ß= -2.472; p-value=0.010) with the adoption of introduced SWC practices (Table 1). The odds ratio of the binary logistic regression result revealed that household heads who are not engaged in off-farm activity adopt introduced SWC practices 0.084 times greater than those who are engaged in the off-farm activity. Because there is labor competition between off- farm activity and SWC practices which restrain farmers from involving in implementing and maintaining conservation practices on their farmlands. A similar result was reported by Tenge et al. (2004); Eleni (2008). They confirmed that the involvement
of farmers in off- farm activity influenced negatively the continued use of soil and water conservation practices. Contrary to this, Mulugeta et al. (2010) reported that off-farm activity is correlated positively at statistically significant level with the adoption of SWC practices. Because income from off-farm activity increases the financial potential of farmers which in turn encourages investment in soil and water conservation practices. Similarly, Krishna et al. (2008) reported similar result. They said that off-farm income served as a source of cash to invest in SWC practices and finally led to better and continued use of conservation practices. As Mulugeta et al. (2001) and Tenge et al. (2003) stated, information is basic to adopt not only new soil and water conservation practices but also other newly introduced technologies. In this respect, agricultural extension services and trainings are the basic sources of information for small holder farmers’ awareness about soil erosion and the way in which it can be tackled. Among the identified institutional factors which affect farmer’s adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices, access to extension service and training were statistically significant. Access to extension service has a positive correlation at statistically significant level (ß=2.011; p-value=0.026) with the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices which was affirmed by the Wald statistics (4.973). This explains that as farmers are supported by extension workers and know well about the benefit of conservation practices, the probability of using and maintaining the introduced soil and water conservation practices will increase. The odds ratio showed that farmers who have access to extension services adopt the introduced soil and water conservation practices by the factor of 7.472 than those who have no access to extension services (Table 1). Positive perception and attitude towards soil and water conservation practices is decisive for adopting introduced practices. Similarly, Fikru (2009); Tiwari et al. (2008); Eleni (2008); Habtamu (2006); Asrat et al. (2004); Bekele and Drake (2003) stated that farmers who receive better information from extension agents have willing to implement new soil and water conservation practices and maintain the existing practices. But low frequency of contact between farmers and extension agents result in insignificant effect.
Access to training correlated positively and significantly with the adoption of soil and water conservation practices (ß=2.001; p-value=0.020). The Wald statistics (5.438) also indicated highly significant association. The odds ratio of farmers who have access to training is greater by the factor of 7.395 than non-trained farmer household heads to the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices (Table 1). This shows that as farmers are trained about the introduced soil and water conservation practices (utilization and implementation skills), the probability of farmer’s adoption increases. In line with this, Tiwari et al. (2008); Eleni (2008); Habtamu (2006); Bekele and Holden (1998). revealed that access to training has a positive i n s i g n i f i c a n t correlation with the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices. But Fikru (2009) reported that training has positive correlation with the adoption of soil or stone bund and tree plantations. According to Tenge et al. (2004); Asrat et al. (2004); Million and Kassa (2004), better perception and knowledge of farmers about the soil erosion problem contribute significantly to the sustainable use of introduced soil and water conservation practices. So, intervention through training and extension services is a means of creating awareness and provision of support for the adoption of new technologies.
Physical Factors and Adoption of introduced Soil and Water Conservation Practices The distance of farmland from homestead is negatively correlated with the adoption of introduced SWC practices at statistically significant level (ß= -.100; p-value=0.024). The Wald statistics also (5.060) indicated that distance of farmland has a strong association with the adoption of introduced SWC practice (Table 1).
Its negative sign shows that as the
distance of farmland increases from farmers’ home, the probability of adopting introduced SWC practices decreases. The odds ratio indicated that a one minute increase in distance of farmland from a farmer’s home decreases adoption of introduced SWC practices by a factor of 0.905. In addition, f rom the total respondents, only 30 (26.9%) of them implemented SWC structures on far away farmlands. A limited number of farmers were frequently maintaining the conservation practices. This revealed that less time and energy are needed for maintaining
near farmlands than far away farmlands Thus, farmers who have farmlands far from their homes are discouraged from conserving their farmlands. Similarly, Fikru (2009); Tiwari et al. (2008); Asrat et al. (2004) reported that longer walking distance between farmlands and household residences correlated significantly and negatively to the adoption of introduced SWC practices. Because farmlands far away from homesteads require more time and energy for the conservation of farmlands. Habtamu (2006) reported that farmlands far from home do not get much attention from owners since it needs more time and energy for taking care of their farmlands. Similarly, Birhanu and Swinton (2003) and Kessler (2006) also confirmed that far away farmlands discouraged adoption of soil and water conservation practices. Conclusion The adoption of introduced SWC practices in the study area is positively influenced by the sex of household head, education status of household head, access to extension services and trainings at statistically significant level. On the other hand, the age of household heads, distances of farmlands from homesteads and off-farm activity have negatively influenced the adoption of introduced SWC practices. But family size of household, farm size and access to credit service are not statistically significant in influencing the adoption of soil and water conservation practices. This implies that the regional and local administrates should provide extension and training services on the introduced SWC practices for the farmers and agricultural extension service workers. These measures encourage farmers to take soil and water conservation practices on their farmlands. Moreover, woreda agricultural offices should take into account of these determining factors to augment the adoption of soil and water conservation practices on their farmlands.
REFERENCES Abera Brhanu (2003). Factors influencing the adoption of soil and water conservation practices, in North Western Ethiopia. Institute of Rural Development, University of Gottingen. Germany. Discussions paper No. 37. Aberha, E. T. (2008). Erosion and soil and water conservation group and environmental policy group. Continue use of soil and water conservation practices. A Case Study
in Tulla District, Ethiopia. Dissertation for Award of MSc Degree at Wageningen University, Netherlands, 57pp. Aklilu Amsalu (2006). Best practices in soil and water conservation in Beressa watershed, highland of Ethiopia. Tropical Resource Management paper. Number 36. Wageningen University, Netherlands. Amhara Livelihood Zone Report (2010). Amhara Reginal National Regional State Livelihood Annual Report, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Ashoori, D. Bagheri, A., Allahyari, M.S. and Al-rimawl, A.S. (2016). An examination of soil and water conservation practices in the paddy fields of Guilan Province, Iran. Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, 88(2): 959-971 Assefa Alemayehu, (2007). Impact of terrace development and management on soil properties in Anjeni area, West Gojjam. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Submitted to Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Assefa Derebe, (2009.) Assessment of upland erosion processes and farmer’s perception of land conservation in Debre Mewi watershed, near Lake Tana, Ethiopia. M. Sc thesis Cornell University, United States, pp. 86 Asrat, P., Belay, K. & Hamito, D. (2004). Determinants of farmers’ willingness to pay for soil conservation practices in the southeastern highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development, 15: 423–438. Bekele Shiferaw & Holden, S.T. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, north Shewa. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 18 (12):233-247 Bekele Shiferaw & Holden, S.T. (1999). Soil erosion and small holders’ conservation. decision in the high lands of Ethiopia. Journal of World Development, 27(4):739752. Bekele Wagayehu. & Drake, L. (2003). Soil and water conservation decision behavior of subsistence farmers in Eastern High land of Ethiopia: A case study of the Hunde-lafto area. Journal of Ecological Economics. 46: 437-451. Blanco, H.& Lal, R. (2008). Principles of soil conservation and management. The Ohio State University, Columbus OH, USA. Birhanu Gebremedhin & Swinton, S. M. (2003). Investment in soil conservation in northern Ethiopia: The Role of land tenure security and public programs. Journal of Agricultural Economics .29: 69-84 BoA (Bureau of Agriculture), (2005). Community-based participatory watershed planning and development. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Budry, B., Curtis, M. J., & Dennis, A. S. (2006). The adoption and management of soil conservation practices in Haiti: The case of rock walls. Agricultural Economic Review. 7 (2). Chomba, N.G., (2004). Factors affecting small holder farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation practice in Zambia. Unpublished Master Thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics. Michigan State University. Derake, E. (1996). The Economics of Soil Erosion: A model of Farm Decision making. Environmental Economic Program Discussion Paper pp. 96-01
Dialla, B.E. (1992). The adoption of soil and water conservation practices in Burkina Faso: The role of indigenous knowledge, social structure and institutional support. Arbor: A Bell and Howell Information Company. Eleni Tesfaye (2008). Determinants for continued use of soil and water conservation practices: the case of productive safety net program in Tulla District, Ethiopia, Master Thesis Unpublished. Wageningen University, Netherlands. Eshetu Seid & Gian, S. (2016). Determinants of farm household poverty status in South Wollo zone, Amhara Regional state. Punjabi University, Patiala. International Journal of research in Economics and Social Science. 6: pp.322-329. FAO (1984). World reference for soil resource. Rome, Italy. FAO (2002). Reducing poverty and hunger: the critical role of financing for food, agriculture, and rural development. Paper presented at International Conference on Financing for Development, Monterrey, Mexico, 18-22 March 2002. Fikru Assefa (2009). Assessment of adoption of soil and water conservation practice in Koga watershed, highlands of Ethiopia. Unpublished Master Thesis. Cornell University, Faculty of Graduate School. Cornell. Francis, D. K. (1999). A note on the adoption of soil conservation measures in the northern province of South Africa. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 50 (2): 336-345. Foltz, D., Jeremy (2003). The economics of water-conserving technology adoption in Tunisia: an empirical estimation of farmer technology choice. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 51 (2): 359-372. Gould, B. W., William, E. S. & Klemme, R. M. (1989). Conservation tillage: The role of farm and operator characteristics and the perception of soil erosion. Journal of Land Economics 65(2): 167 – 182. Garcia, Y.T. (2001). Analysis of farmer decision to adopt soil conservation technology in Argao. In R. A. Cramb (ed.) Soil conservation technologies for smallholder farming system in the Philippine uplands: a socioeconomic evaluation. ACIAR, Canberra, Australia. pp 160–178. Habtamu Ertiro (2006). Adoption of physical soil and water conservation structure in Anna watershed, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia. Unpublished Master Thesis. Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Hurni, H.(1985). Erosion-productivity conservation system in Ethiopia. Paper to the 4th International soil conservation conference, Maracay, Venezuela. pp.20 Hurni, H. (1988). Degradation and conservation of the resources in the Ethiopian highlands. Mountain Research and Development. 8(2/3): 123-130. Hurni, H. (1993). Land degradation, famine and land resource scenario in Ethiopia. In D.Pimental (ed). World Soil Conservation (pp 27-61). New York: Cambridge University press. Hyeoun-Ae, P. (2013). An Introduction to logistic regression: From basic concepts to interpretation with particular attention to Nursing Domain. College of Nursing, Seoul National University. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing .43 (2).
Jara -Rojas, R., Bravo-Ureta, B., and Diaz, J. (2012). Adoption of water conservation practices: A socio-economic analysis of small scale farmers in Central Chile. Agricultural Systems 110:54-62 Kabuli, A.M. (No date). Soil and water conservations innovations to address food security in Africa: role of knowledge management systems in adoptions, Malawi. Lilongwe: Bunda College of agriculture. Kalineza, H.M.M, Mdoe, N.S.Y,& Moliz, M.R.S.(1999). Adoption of soil and water conservation technology in Tanzania: A case study of Gairo. Proceedings of FAO conference Vol.4 Kessler, CA. (2006). Decisive key factors influencing farm households’ soil and water conservation investments. Journal of Applied Geography. 26: 40-60. King, E. M. & Alderman, H. (2001). Empowering women to achieve food security and education. [http.//www.ifpri.org.focus/focus06/focus06.pdf] site visited on 25/09/2012. Kothri, .C.R. (2004). Research methodology methods and techniques (2nd ). Delhi: New Age International Press. Krishna, R. Bicol Ingrid, I.P. & Giridhari, S. (2008). Determinants of farmers’ adoption of improved soil conservation technology: In a middle mountain watershed of central Nepal Environmental Management. New York: Springer. Kruger, H.J., Fantaw, B., Gebre-Michael, & Kajela, K. (1996). Creating inventory of indigenous soil and water conservation measures in Ethiopia. In C. Toulmin, I. Reij & I. Scoones (eds.) Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation in Africa. London: Earth scan. pp. 170–180. Lakew Desta, Menale Kassie & Rennin, J.R. (2000). Land degradation and strategies for sustainable development in the Ethiopian high lands: Amhara Region. ILRI, working paper No 32, Nairobi, Kenya. Million Tadess & Kassa Belay (2004). Factors influencing adoption of soil conservation measures in Southern Ethiopia: The case of Gununo area. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics. 105(1):49–62. Morgan, R. P. C (2005). Soil erosion and conservation ( 3rd ed.). New York: Blackwell Publishing. Mulugeta Dembelash & Stahar, K. (2010). Assessment of integrated soil and water conservation measures on key soil properties in South Gonder , North West Highlands of Ethiopia. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. Journal of soil Science and Environmental management 1(7):164-176. Mulugeta Enki, Kassa Belay & Legesse Dadi. (2001). Determinants of adoption of physical soil conservation measures in central highlands of Ethiopia: The case of three districts of North Shewa, Ethiopia Agricultural Research Organization, Debrezeit Research Centre, Ethiopia. Journal of Agrekon. 40(3):293-315. Okoye, C. (1998). Comparative analysis of factors in the adoption of traditional and recommended soil erosion control practices in Nigeria. Department of Natural
Resources Management and Environment. Journal of Soil and Tillage Research 45: 251 – 263. Penning de Vries F., Acquay, H., Molden, D., Scherr, S., Valentin, C. & Cofie, O., (2008). Learning from bright spots to enhance food security and to combat degradation of water and land resources. In D. Bossio & K. Geheb (eds.) Conserving land, protecting water, CABI, pp. 1-19. Pimental, D. (ed). (1993). World soil conservation. New York: Cambridge University Press, Pimental, D.(2006). Soil erosion: a food and environmental threat. College of Agriculture and Life Science, Cornell University. Journal of Environmental Development and Sustainability. Vol. 8, pp. 119-137. Stocking, M. & Murnaghan, N. (2001). Hand Book for the field Assessment of Land Degradation. London: Earth Scan Publication Ltd. Ruthenberg, H. (1985). Innovation policy of small farmers in the tropics. Oxford: Clarendon Press Sands, D.M. (1986). The technology application gap: overcoming constraints to small farm development. Rome: FAO, Research and Technology, Paper 1. Scherr, S. J. & Yadav S. N., (1996). Land degradation in the developing world: Implications for food, agriculture, and the environment to 2020, Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper14, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A, Tenge, A., De-Graaff, J. & Hella, J. P. (2004). Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in West Usambara Highlands, Tanzania. Journal of Land Degradation and Development, 15:99–114. Tiwari, K.R., Sitaula, B.K., Nyborg, I.L.P., & Paudel, G.S.(2008). Determinant of farmer adoption of introduced soil and water conservation technology in middle mountain watershed of central Nepal. Environmental Management, 42: 210-222. Woldeamlak Bewket & Sterk, G. (2002). Farmers’ perception in the soil and water conservation activities in Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile Basin. Journal of Ethiopia Land Degradation Development. 13: 189-200. Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office (2012). Wereillu woreda agricultural and rural development office annual report, Ethiopia. World Economic Forum (2010). “Biodiversity and business risk-a global risks network briefing”, a briefing paper for participants engaged in biodiversity related discussions at the World Economic Forum Davos-Klosters Annual Meeting, Cologne/Geneva, Switzerland. Zachar, D., (1982). Soil Erosion: development in soil science, Forest Research Institute, Slovak academy of science. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Zvolen, Czechoslovakia.
PII: DOI: Reference:
S2095-6339(17)30149-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.002 ISWCR113
To appear in: International Soil and Water Conservation Research Received date: 12 June 2017 Revised date: 14 October 2017 Accepted date: 25 October 2017 Cite this article as: Daniel Asfaw and Mulugeta Neka, Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices: The Case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia, International Soil and Water Conservation Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.002 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices: The Case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia Daniel Asfaw1 and Mulugeta Neka2 1
Debre Tabor University, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies Email: [email protected] Phone No-+251(0)910460824 2
Bahir Dar University, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies Email: [email protected] PhonNo+251(0)918769269
Abstract In Ethiopia, soil erosion is a severe problem and a major cause of the decline of agricultural productivity. Interventions were taken by introducing soil and water conservation practices. However, the adoption of these practices is far below the expectation. The objective of this study was to examine factors affecting adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices in Wereillu Woreda. Mixed research methods design was employed in order to conduct this study. Questionnaire, focus group discussion, in-depth interview and field observation were used to collect data. A binary logistic regression model was employed to analyze the collected data. The analysis result showed that sex of household heads, education status of household heads, access to extension services and training were positively correlated at significantly level with the adoption of the introduced soil and water conservation practices. On the other hand, the age of household heads, off-farm activity, and distance of farmlands from homesteads influenced the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices negatively. The finding depicts that the identified physical, socioeconomic, and institutional factors influence the adoption of soil and water conservation so, the Woreda Rural and Agricultural Development Office and other concerned bodies should consider these influential factors to enhance farmers’ adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices and promote agricultural productivity and environmental quality. Key words: Soil erosion, SWC, Adoption of SWC, Wereillu
Introduction Soil erosion is a major environmental and agricultural problem facing human beings (World Economic Forum 2010; Blanco & Lal, 2008; Hurni, 1988). In the last 40 years, nearly onethird of the world arable land was lost by soil erosion and continues to be lost at the rate of more than 10 million hectares per year (Penning de Vries et al. 2008; Assefa, 2007; Pimental, 2006). Soil erosion continued to be a major p r o b l e m w hich causes loss of 6 million hectares of arable land in each year with the rate of 20-40 tons of soil loss per hectare per year but the renewal rate is about 1 ton of soil per year (Pimental, 1993; Hurni, 1988). It h a s caused about 85% of the world land to b e degraded and 17% of crop production to be reduced (Hurni, 1993; Scherr & Yadav, 1996). Africa is the worst erosion affected area in the world where 50% of the total erosion affected people are concentrated (FAO, 2002; Zachar, 1982). Soil erosion affects about 5 to 6 million hectares of land each year in Africa (Stocking & Murnaghan, 2001; Assefa, 2009). In Ethiopia, estimates show that 50% of its highland areas have significant s o i l erosion, 2 5 % of it was highly eroded and 4% of it is seriously eroded beyond reclamation (Kruger et al.1996; Woldeamlak & Sterk, 2002; Aklilu, 2006; Pimental, 1993). The problem is more threatening in Amhara region; about 90% of its population lives in the highlands which constitute 66% of its total land area. Out of which, 90% of this land is regularly cultivated, which exposes it to soil erosion. Areas that are severely worn away are found in Waghimra and North Wollo which are followed by North and South Gonder, South Wollo and northern part of North Shewa zones (Lakew et al. 2000; Bureau of Agriculture, 2005). South Wollo Zone is identified as chronically food deficit area (Lakewetal.2000; Eshetu and Gian, 2016,).Wereillu Woreda, which is part of this zone, has experienced high soil erosion problem. According to the Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office Report (2012), 40% of the total area of the woreda is affected by soil erosion. As it is stated in Amhara Livelihood Annual Report (2010), the woreda is the most chronically food deficit area. Since 2008, the Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development office has identified and selected 27 micro-watersheds and applied integrated watershed development programs. At the beginning of the implementation of the program in seven micro-watersheds, soil and water conservation practices were implemented. In the following years, the same actions were taken phase by phase
in the remaining watersheds that have been identified and delineated. However, the adoption of soil and water conservation practices is very low and the expected change is far below the efforts done. On the other hand, soil erosion problem increased as the utilization of land continuous without maintaining the constructed physical structures. The poor level of adoption of soil and water conservation practices is common in the developing countries. For example, a study conducted in Malawi has confirmed that dissemination and adoption of soil and water conservation innovations by farmers were still very low (Kabuli, No date). The factors that contributed to the low level of adoption were lack of provision of adequate information on the technical details of the innovation, inadequate extension services, poor linkages with research teams, illiteracy, and poor transportation and communication networks. In support of this, Sands (1986) explains that many introduced technologies have been rejected by farmers since they are simply inappropriate for the specific condition of small farm systems. Similarly, there were several factors that were barriers to full scale implementation of soil and water conservation techniques in USA in the 1980s (Dilla, 1992). Lack of awareness of soil erosion and socio-cultural, institutional, structural, economic, environmental and institutional issues were constraining factors. Attitudes towards risk are also major determinants of the rate of adoption of new soil and water conservation practices (Moscardi & De Janvry, 1977). This is especially true in the tropics where there are unreliable rainfall, major pest and disease outbreaks and widely fluctuating market prices (Rothenberg, 1985). The attitude of minimizing or avoiding risk is a matter of life and death in the developing world. In a study in Burkina Faso, Dilla (1992) acknowledges that third world farmers are very responsive to immediate observable outcomes rather than to uncertain long-term benefits. Jara-Rojas et al. (2012) explains that size of farms and the ownership of land are important variables associated with the adoption of soil and water conservation measures. Moreover, a study conducted in Tanzania enabled to identify age, sex, educational status of the head of families, and ownership of land to have significant positive effect on soil and water conservation practices. But non-farm income and distance from farmland to home were found to have significant negative effects on soil and water conservation measures (Ashoori et al. 2016). Farm
size, man power, and number of domestic animals were found to have no significant effect on soil and water conservation practices. Résistance to adopting soil and water conservation practices were attributed to lack of farmers’ awareness of soil loss caused by erosion and lack of immediate apparent financial benefits from soil and water conservation practices (Tenge et al. 2004). As agricultural experts and agricultural extension workers of Wereillu Woreda explain, once the conservation practices constructed on their farmlands, the owners of the farmlands do not maintain them. After harvesting their farmlands, they graze on crop residues. They also feed their domestic animals on shrubs and grasses which are planted for strengthening the conservation structures. Because of these reasons, new soil and water conservation practices are being implemented in the same farmlands year after year. In addition, farmers complain that constructed physical soil and water conservation practices reduce the size of their farmlands and create difficulties in plowing the farmlands. So, farmers prefer removing the conservation structures to maintaining them. So, this research examined the influential factors that affect farmers’ adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices.
Research Methods and Materials Description of the Study Area Wereillu Woreda is located between 10º50'N to 10033’N latitudes and 39º10’E to 390167’E longitudes. It is situated in South Wollo Zone in Amhara National Regional State about 482 km north of Addis Ababa. It covers a total area of 987.77 square km. Wereillu Woreda is found in Wollo Highlands (south of Amba Farit Mountain) in the North-Eastern Massif of Ethiopia. The woreda is characterized by rugged topography which comprises mountains, plains, and plateaus. The altitude of the woreda ranges from 1700 meters to 3200 meters above mean sea level. Based on 36 years (1972-2008) rainfall data obtained from Wereillu Station of Ethiopian National Meteorology Authority, the mean annual rainfall of the area is 897.9 mm. The maximum amounts of rainfall are received in the months of July and August followed by September. According to Morgan (1995), the erosivity power of rainfall is computed by
using
where
R
is
erosivity
power
of
rainfall
and
. However, EI data is not available for the Ethiopian case. Thus, another formula is adapted to Ethiopian case by Hurni (1985). The erosivity power of rainfall is computed using
. Consequently, the erosivity
power of the rainfall of the area is 496.49. The mean maximum and minimum annual temperatures of the area are 9.30C and 21.70C respectively with mean annual temperature of 15.50C. According to Amhara Livelihood Zone Annual Report (2012), the study area has two agroecological zones -Dega (temperate area) and Woinadega (sub-tropical area) which cover 72 % and 28% respectively. According to FAO (1984) soil classification, the soil types of the area are categorized as vertisols, cambisols, leptosols, and regosols. According to the Woreda Agricultural and Development Office Report (2012), 10% is fertile soil and 50% is moderately fertile and the rest 40% is degraded land. Cultivation of crops along with rearing of animals is the major farming system practiced in the area. In order to manage the soil fertility, crop rotation, contour farming, mixed cropping, fallowing, and terracing in some steep slope are practiced in the area. Rural kebeles (sub-district) development agent (DA) workers are assigned to assist farmers while they practice agricultural activities and other related natural resource management activities. The conservation activities are performed by mobilizing the masses for two months after harvesting season.
Fig 1: Map of the Study Area
Research Design and Methodology Mixed research methods design was employed in this study. Among the different types of mixed research methods, concurrent or parallel was implemented. The quantitative research method enabled to collect data on all quantified relationships between adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices and factors (household characteristics, and socio- economic, institutional, and physical factors) affecting it. Qualitative research method was used to collect and analyze qualitative data which were used to strengthen and bridge the gap in quantitative research method.
Sampling Technique and Sample Size Wereillu Woreda has 27 micro-watersheds which are grouped under their agroecological zones ( temperate and s u b - tropical watersheds). From the total watersheds, 16 and 11 of them are found in the s u b - tropical and temperate agroecological zones respectively. By employing simple random sampling technique, two watersheds from temperate and three watersheds from s u b - tropical agroecological zones were selected. They were
Dolleke,
Mesnoamba, Gollbo, Kurerebere and Amiteager watersheds. Sample household farmers from the sampled watersheds were selected by using simple random sampling technique. The sample size of the respondents was determined by Kothari (2004) sample size determination formula. From the total 1102 farm household heads, 112 respondents constituted the sample size. Finally, proportional numbers of sample respondents were taken from each sample watershed. Key informants were selected purposely from the woreda agricultural experts, agricultural extension workers, watersheds development committees, and kebele administrators. Based on data saturation, 5 key informants were employed.
Eight knowledgeable participants were
purposely selected for focus group discussion.
Data Source and Data Collection Techniques Questionnaires, in-depth interview, focus group discussion and field observation was used as the main primary data collection techniques. The questionnaire included both closed and openended questions. The questionnaire enabled to collect data from representative sample household farmers.
In-depth interview was conducted with key informants who were
considered knowledgeable about the general situation of soil and water conservation practices. In addition, the secondary data were gathered from the annual report of the related offices of the woreda, SWC manuals, different written documents, books, and statistical data about the physical and socio- economic conditions of the study area.
Data Analysis and Interpretation A binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the relationship between the dichotomous dependent variable and the independent variables (Hyeoun-Ae, 2013). It enabled to determine the impact of multiple independent variables on the dependent variable. The objective was to identify the determinant variables (Kalineza et al. 1999). The assumptions of binary logistic regression were tested before using the results of the binary logistic regression. As revealed by regression model test of coefficient table, the model was statistically significant (chi-square=103.225, p-value <0.000 with df= 10) and appropriate for the data. Concerning to the predictive efficiency of the model, it explains that 93.8% of the total 112 sample household heads included in the model correctly predicted the adoption of soil and water conservation practices. It also correctly predicted 95.6% of the adopter’s household and 90.9% of the non-adopters household in their respective categories rates
committed
in
With
regard
to
the
error
the classification table, the false positive rate (the number of errors
where the dependent is predicted to be adopter, but it is in fact non-adopter) is 4.4 % while the false negative rate (the number of errors where the dependent is predicted to be non- adopter, but it is in fact adopter) is 8.1 %.
Results and Discussions The major factors that influenced adoption of soil and water conservation practices in Wereillu Woreda were identified by analyzing the dependent variable (adoption of soil and water conservation practices) against 11 explanatory variables.
Table: 1. Binary logistic regression model result for factors influencing adoption of SWC practices
Explanatory variables
ß
S. Error
Wald
P-value
Exp(ß)
Age of HH*** heads
-.067
.033
4.016
.045**
.935
Sex of HH heads
2.680
1.241
4.661
.031**
14.582
Education status of HH
1.034
.320
10.444
.001*
2.812
Family size of HH
.183
.964
1.203
.273
1.384
Farm size of HH
-.325
.296
.036
.849
.833
Distance from home stead
-.100
.044
5.060
.024**
.905
Off- farm activity
-2.472
.957
6.675
.010*
.084
Access to Extension service
2.011
.902
4.973
.026**
7.472
Access to Training service
2.001
.858
5.438
.020**
7.395
Access to credit service
1.089
.933
1.362
.243
2.971
Note: - ** Statistically significant at 0.05 level ***
* Statistically significant at 0.01 level
Household heads
Household Characteristics and Adoption of SWC Practices Among household characteristics, the age of the household head influenced the adoption of introduced SWC practices negatively and i t was statistically significant at 0.05 level (ß= .067 and p-value=0.045).
The Wald statistics (4.016) also showed its significant
relationship. Its negative sign reflects that as the age of a farmer increases, the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation (SWC) practices decreases. This is because of the fact that as the age of a farmer increases, the acceptance level about the introduced soil and water conservation practices decreases. Old farmers become exhausted and unable to give care for their farmlands. On the other hand, younger farmers have more willingness to adopt the introduced soil and water conservation practices. The odds ratio depicts that one year increase in the age of household head decreases the adoption of introduced SWC practices by a factor of 0.935.
Similar to the finding of this study, Tiwari et al. (2008); Bekele and Drake (2003); Budry et al. (2006) reported that age of household heads was negatively correlated at statistically significant level. In the same manner, Mulugeta et al. 2001; Bekele and Holden (1999) confirmed that younger farmers are often expected to invest more in soil conservation practices. Because they are more often educated and they are more aware of soil erosion problem and its solution. Contrary to this, Fikru (2009); Chomba (2004); Francis (1999) h av e v e r i f i e d t h a t age of household heads had positively influenced adoption of SWC practices. Younger farmers are less likely to use SWC p r a c t i c e s continuously. This is due to the fact that younger farmers have small size farmlands and they are reluctant to implement the SWC practices. Educational status of household heads correlated positively with the adoption of introduced SWC practices at 0.05 level of significance level (ß=1.034; p- value=0.001). The Wald statistics (10.444) also revealed its significant association with the adoption of SWC practices (Table 1). This showed that relatively better educated farmers are engaged in the adoption of the newly introduced SWC practices. The odds ratio also revealed that educated household farmers adopted the introduced SWC practices by the factor of 2.812 than non-educated (illiterate) household farmers. Similarly, Fikru (2009); Tiwari et al. (2008); Aberha (2008); Krishna et al. (2008); Million and Kassa (2004); Abera (2003); Okoye, (1998); Gould et al. (1989) described that better education level of household heads having strong and positive relationship with farmers’ adoption of SWC conservation practices. Better exposure to education increases farmers’ better understanding of the benefits and constraints of soil conservation (King & Alderman, 2001). Contrary to this, Eleni (2008); Francis (1999) elaborated that illiterate farmers are better to be involved in the use of SWC practices than educated farmers who are usually engaged in the off-farm activity. Family size correlated insignificantly but positively with the adoption of introduced SWC practices (ß=0.183; p-value=0.273). Eleni (2008); Habtamu (2006); Million and Kassa (2004) stated similar results. They described that small sized household family is less likely to involve in retaining of soil and water conservation practices than larger sized household family. T h e larger sized family c o u l d provide the required labor for implementing and
maintaining conservation practices. But Fikru (2009); Aklilu (2006); Foltz (2003) stated that farmers with larger family sizes are less likely to continue using introduced soil and water conservation practices. Because there is competition for labor between food generating offfarm activities and investment in maintenance of soil and water conservation practices. Similarly, Budry et al. (2006); Bekele and Holden (1998) indicated that physical conservation practices occupy a large area and compete for the scarce productive land resource. Thus, households with large family sizes tend to remove the constructed physical conservation structure from their farmlands. Sex of the household heads is positively correlated with the adoption of introduced SWC practices at statistically significant level (ß=2.680; p-value=0.031) which is also confirmed by the Wald statistics (4.661). This showed that male headed households are more likely to be engaged in implementation and maintenance of SWC practices than female headed households. The odds ratio of logistic regression showed that male household heads adopted the introduced SWC practices by the factor of 14.582 than female headed households. Most of the women households rent their farmlands because of lack of labor to cultivate and conserve their farmlands. In addition, females are involved in taking care of their children, preparing food and other related tasks at home. Moreover, all female household heads are widowed or divorced and don’t have support other than their children. Corresponding to this, Aberha (2008); Eleni (2008); Krishna et al. (2008) obtained that male headed households have a higher chance to involve in soil and water conservation practices since constructing and maintaining SWC practices demand much labor. Hence, female headed households are not motivated to invest in soil and water conservation. Contrary to this, a research conducted by Fikru (2009) in Koga Watershed in Northern Ethiopia reported that gender did not have any relationship with the adoption of introduced SWC structures since women have the culture of working in their farmlands. Similarly, a research conducted by Tenge et al. (2004) explained that female headed households have adopted more than males. Most fields affected by erosion have been planted with annual food crops which are mainly cultivated by women.
Socio- Economic and Institutional factors and Adoption of introduced Soil and Water Conservation Practices The binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the size of farmlands cultivated by households had a negative and insignificant impact on farmers’ adoption of SWC practices (ß=-.325; p-value=0.849).
The negative sign shows that as the farm size increases the
probability to adopt the introduced SWC practices decreases (Table 1). In the study area, farmers with large farmlands are in their old ages. They are not engaged in constructing and maintaining of SWC practices because of lack of labor. Similarly, Garcia, (2001) reported a negative relationship between the size of farmland holding and the probability of adopting soil and water conservation practices. This is due to labor intensive nature of constructing soil conservation structures in Philippines’ upland areas. The same is true for Habtamu (2006) and Budry et al. (2006) who asserted a negative and significant relationship between farmland size and the decision to retain soil and water conservation practices. Because most farmers who cultivate large farm sizes are old aged farmers. They have short term plan and lack the labor force for maintaining conservation practices. But Fikru (2009); Eleni (2008); Million and Kassa (2004); Abera (2003) argued against this. They affirmed that farm size is associated positively and significantly with the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices. Off-farm activity is one of the important socioeconomic factors that influence farmers’ decision to adopt introduced soil and water conservation practices. The result of binary logistic regression analysis depicted that off-farm activity has a negative relationship at statistically significant level (ß= -2.472; p-value=0.010) with the adoption of introduced SWC practices (Table 1). The odds ratio of the binary logistic regression result revealed that household heads who are not engaged in off-farm activity adopt introduced SWC practices 0.084 times greater than those who are engaged in the off-farm activity. Because there is labor competition between off- farm activity and SWC practices which restrain farmers from involving in implementing and maintaining conservation practices on their farmlands. A similar result was reported by Tenge et al. (2004); Eleni (2008). They confirmed that the involvement
of farmers in off- farm activity influenced negatively the continued use of soil and water conservation practices. Contrary to this, Mulugeta et al. (2010) reported that off-farm activity is correlated positively at statistically significant level with the adoption of SWC practices. Because income from off-farm activity increases the financial potential of farmers which in turn encourages investment in soil and water conservation practices. Similarly, Krishna et al. (2008) reported similar result. They said that off-farm income served as a source of cash to invest in SWC practices and finally led to better and continued use of conservation practices. As Mulugeta et al. (2001) and Tenge et al. (2003) stated, information is basic to adopt not only new soil and water conservation practices but also other newly introduced technologies. In this respect, agricultural extension services and trainings are the basic sources of information for small holder farmers’ awareness about soil erosion and the way in which it can be tackled. Among the identified institutional factors which affect farmer’s adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices, access to extension service and training were statistically significant. Access to extension service has a positive correlation at statistically significant level (ß=2.011; p-value=0.026) with the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices which was affirmed by the Wald statistics (4.973). This explains that as farmers are supported by extension workers and know well about the benefit of conservation practices, the probability of using and maintaining the introduced soil and water conservation practices will increase. The odds ratio showed that farmers who have access to extension services adopt the introduced soil and water conservation practices by the factor of 7.472 than those who have no access to extension services (Table 1). Positive perception and attitude towards soil and water conservation practices is decisive for adopting introduced practices. Similarly, Fikru (2009); Tiwari et al. (2008); Eleni (2008); Habtamu (2006); Asrat et al. (2004); Bekele and Drake (2003) stated that farmers who receive better information from extension agents have willing to implement new soil and water conservation practices and maintain the existing practices. But low frequency of contact between farmers and extension agents result in insignificant effect.
Access to training correlated positively and significantly with the adoption of soil and water conservation practices (ß=2.001; p-value=0.020). The Wald statistics (5.438) also indicated highly significant association. The odds ratio of farmers who have access to training is greater by the factor of 7.395 than non-trained farmer household heads to the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices (Table 1). This shows that as farmers are trained about the introduced soil and water conservation practices (utilization and implementation skills), the probability of farmer’s adoption increases. In line with this, Tiwari et al. (2008); Eleni (2008); Habtamu (2006); Bekele and Holden (1998). revealed that access to training has a positive i n s i g n i f i c a n t correlation with the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices. But Fikru (2009) reported that training has positive correlation with the adoption of soil or stone bund and tree plantations. According to Tenge et al. (2004); Asrat et al. (2004); Million and Kassa (2004), better perception and knowledge of farmers about the soil erosion problem contribute significantly to the sustainable use of introduced soil and water conservation practices. So, intervention through training and extension services is a means of creating awareness and provision of support for the adoption of new technologies.
Physical Factors and Adoption of introduced Soil and Water Conservation Practices The distance of farmland from homestead is negatively correlated with the adoption of introduced SWC practices at statistically significant level (ß= -.100; p-value=0.024). The Wald statistics also (5.060) indicated that distance of farmland has a strong association with the adoption of introduced SWC practice (Table 1).
Its negative sign shows that as the
distance of farmland increases from farmers’ home, the probability of adopting introduced SWC practices decreases. The odds ratio indicated that a one minute increase in distance of farmland from a farmer’s home decreases adoption of introduced SWC practices by a factor of 0.905. In addition, f rom the total respondents, only 30 (26.9%) of them implemented SWC structures on far away farmlands. A limited number of farmers were frequently maintaining the conservation practices. This revealed that less time and energy are needed for maintaining
near farmlands than far away farmlands Thus, farmers who have farmlands far from their homes are discouraged from conserving their farmlands. Similarly, Fikru (2009); Tiwari et al. (2008); Asrat et al. (2004) reported that longer walking distance between farmlands and household residences correlated significantly and negatively to the adoption of introduced SWC practices. Because farmlands far away from homesteads require more time and energy for the conservation of farmlands. Habtamu (2006) reported that farmlands far from home do not get much attention from owners since it needs more time and energy for taking care of their farmlands. Similarly, Birhanu and Swinton (2003) and Kessler (2006) also confirmed that far away farmlands discouraged adoption of soil and water conservation practices. Conclusion The adoption of introduced SWC practices in the study area is positively influenced by the sex of household head, education status of household head, access to extension services and trainings at statistically significant level. On the other hand, the age of household heads, distances of farmlands from homesteads and off-farm activity have negatively influenced the adoption of introduced SWC practices. But family size of household, farm size and access to credit service are not statistically significant in influencing the adoption of soil and water conservation practices. This implies that the regional and local administrates should provide extension and training services on the introduced SWC practices for the farmers and agricultural extension service workers. These measures encourage farmers to take soil and water conservation practices on their farmlands. Moreover, woreda agricultural offices should take into account of these determining factors to augment the adoption of soil and water conservation practices on their farmlands.
REFERENCES Abera Brhanu (2003). Factors influencing the adoption of soil and water conservation practices, in North Western Ethiopia. Institute of Rural Development, University of Gottingen. Germany. Discussions paper No. 37. Aberha, E. T. (2008). Erosion and soil and water conservation group and environmental policy group. Continue use of soil and water conservation practices. A Case Study
in Tulla District, Ethiopia. Dissertation for Award of MSc Degree at Wageningen University, Netherlands, 57pp. Aklilu Amsalu (2006). Best practices in soil and water conservation in Beressa watershed, highland of Ethiopia. Tropical Resource Management paper. Number 36. Wageningen University, Netherlands. Amhara Livelihood Zone Report (2010). Amhara Reginal National Regional State Livelihood Annual Report, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Ashoori, D. Bagheri, A., Allahyari, M.S. and Al-rimawl, A.S. (2016). An examination of soil and water conservation practices in the paddy fields of Guilan Province, Iran. Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, 88(2): 959-971 Assefa Alemayehu, (2007). Impact of terrace development and management on soil properties in Anjeni area, West Gojjam. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Submitted to Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Assefa Derebe, (2009.) Assessment of upland erosion processes and farmer’s perception of land conservation in Debre Mewi watershed, near Lake Tana, Ethiopia. M. Sc thesis Cornell University, United States, pp. 86 Asrat, P., Belay, K. & Hamito, D. (2004). Determinants of farmers’ willingness to pay for soil conservation practices in the southeastern highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development, 15: 423–438. Bekele Shiferaw & Holden, S.T. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, north Shewa. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 18 (12):233-247 Bekele Shiferaw & Holden, S.T. (1999). Soil erosion and small holders’ conservation. decision in the high lands of Ethiopia. Journal of World Development, 27(4):739752. Bekele Wagayehu. & Drake, L. (2003). Soil and water conservation decision behavior of subsistence farmers in Eastern High land of Ethiopia: A case study of the Hunde-lafto area. Journal of Ecological Economics. 46: 437-451. Blanco, H.& Lal, R. (2008). Principles of soil conservation and management. The Ohio State University, Columbus OH, USA. Birhanu Gebremedhin & Swinton, S. M. (2003). Investment in soil conservation in northern Ethiopia: The Role of land tenure security and public programs. Journal of Agricultural Economics .29: 69-84 BoA (Bureau of Agriculture), (2005). Community-based participatory watershed planning and development. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Budry, B., Curtis, M. J., & Dennis, A. S. (2006). The adoption and management of soil conservation practices in Haiti: The case of rock walls. Agricultural Economic Review. 7 (2). Chomba, N.G., (2004). Factors affecting small holder farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation practice in Zambia. Unpublished Master Thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics. Michigan State University. Derake, E. (1996). The Economics of Soil Erosion: A model of Farm Decision making. Environmental Economic Program Discussion Paper pp. 96-01
Dialla, B.E. (1992). The adoption of soil and water conservation practices in Burkina Faso: The role of indigenous knowledge, social structure and institutional support. Arbor: A Bell and Howell Information Company. Eleni Tesfaye (2008). Determinants for continued use of soil and water conservation practices: the case of productive safety net program in Tulla District, Ethiopia, Master Thesis Unpublished. Wageningen University, Netherlands. Eshetu Seid & Gian, S. (2016). Determinants of farm household poverty status in South Wollo zone, Amhara Regional state. Punjabi University, Patiala. International Journal of research in Economics and Social Science. 6: pp.322-329. FAO (1984). World reference for soil resource. Rome, Italy. FAO (2002). Reducing poverty and hunger: the critical role of financing for food, agriculture, and rural development. Paper presented at International Conference on Financing for Development, Monterrey, Mexico, 18-22 March 2002. Fikru Assefa (2009). Assessment of adoption of soil and water conservation practice in Koga watershed, highlands of Ethiopia. Unpublished Master Thesis. Cornell University, Faculty of Graduate School. Cornell. Francis, D. K. (1999). A note on the adoption of soil conservation measures in the northern province of South Africa. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 50 (2): 336-345. Foltz, D., Jeremy (2003). The economics of water-conserving technology adoption in Tunisia: an empirical estimation of farmer technology choice. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 51 (2): 359-372. Gould, B. W., William, E. S. & Klemme, R. M. (1989). Conservation tillage: The role of farm and operator characteristics and the perception of soil erosion. Journal of Land Economics 65(2): 167 – 182. Garcia, Y.T. (2001). Analysis of farmer decision to adopt soil conservation technology in Argao. In R. A. Cramb (ed.) Soil conservation technologies for smallholder farming system in the Philippine uplands: a socioeconomic evaluation. ACIAR, Canberra, Australia. pp 160–178. Habtamu Ertiro (2006). Adoption of physical soil and water conservation structure in Anna watershed, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia. Unpublished Master Thesis. Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Hurni, H.(1985). Erosion-productivity conservation system in Ethiopia. Paper to the 4th International soil conservation conference, Maracay, Venezuela. pp.20 Hurni, H. (1988). Degradation and conservation of the resources in the Ethiopian highlands. Mountain Research and Development. 8(2/3): 123-130. Hurni, H. (1993). Land degradation, famine and land resource scenario in Ethiopia. In D.Pimental (ed). World Soil Conservation (pp 27-61). New York: Cambridge University press. Hyeoun-Ae, P. (2013). An Introduction to logistic regression: From basic concepts to interpretation with particular attention to Nursing Domain. College of Nursing, Seoul National University. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing .43 (2).
Jara -Rojas, R., Bravo-Ureta, B., and Diaz, J. (2012). Adoption of water conservation practices: A socio-economic analysis of small scale farmers in Central Chile. Agricultural Systems 110:54-62 Kabuli, A.M. (No date). Soil and water conservations innovations to address food security in Africa: role of knowledge management systems in adoptions, Malawi. Lilongwe: Bunda College of agriculture. Kalineza, H.M.M, Mdoe, N.S.Y,& Moliz, M.R.S.(1999). Adoption of soil and water conservation technology in Tanzania: A case study of Gairo. Proceedings of FAO conference Vol.4 Kessler, CA. (2006). Decisive key factors influencing farm households’ soil and water conservation investments. Journal of Applied Geography. 26: 40-60. King, E. M. & Alderman, H. (2001). Empowering women to achieve food security and education. [http.//www.ifpri.org.focus/focus06/focus06.pdf] site visited on 25/09/2012. Kothri, .C.R. (2004). Research methodology methods and techniques (2nd ). Delhi: New Age International Press. Krishna, R. Bicol Ingrid, I.P. & Giridhari, S. (2008). Determinants of farmers’ adoption of improved soil conservation technology: In a middle mountain watershed of central Nepal Environmental Management. New York: Springer. Kruger, H.J., Fantaw, B., Gebre-Michael, & Kajela, K. (1996). Creating inventory of indigenous soil and water conservation measures in Ethiopia. In C. Toulmin, I. Reij & I. Scoones (eds.) Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation in Africa. London: Earth scan. pp. 170–180. Lakew Desta, Menale Kassie & Rennin, J.R. (2000). Land degradation and strategies for sustainable development in the Ethiopian high lands: Amhara Region. ILRI, working paper No 32, Nairobi, Kenya. Million Tadess & Kassa Belay (2004). Factors influencing adoption of soil conservation measures in Southern Ethiopia: The case of Gununo area. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics. 105(1):49–62. Morgan, R. P. C (2005). Soil erosion and conservation ( 3rd ed.). New York: Blackwell Publishing. Mulugeta Dembelash & Stahar, K. (2010). Assessment of integrated soil and water conservation measures on key soil properties in South Gonder , North West Highlands of Ethiopia. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. Journal of soil Science and Environmental management 1(7):164-176. Mulugeta Enki, Kassa Belay & Legesse Dadi. (2001). Determinants of adoption of physical soil conservation measures in central highlands of Ethiopia: The case of three districts of North Shewa, Ethiopia Agricultural Research Organization, Debrezeit Research Centre, Ethiopia. Journal of Agrekon. 40(3):293-315. Okoye, C. (1998). Comparative analysis of factors in the adoption of traditional and recommended soil erosion control practices in Nigeria. Department of Natural
Resources Management and Environment. Journal of Soil and Tillage Research 45: 251 – 263. Penning de Vries F., Acquay, H., Molden, D., Scherr, S., Valentin, C. & Cofie, O., (2008). Learning from bright spots to enhance food security and to combat degradation of water and land resources. In D. Bossio & K. Geheb (eds.) Conserving land, protecting water, CABI, pp. 1-19. Pimental, D. (ed). (1993). World soil conservation. New York: Cambridge University Press, Pimental, D.(2006). Soil erosion: a food and environmental threat. College of Agriculture and Life Science, Cornell University. Journal of Environmental Development and Sustainability. Vol. 8, pp. 119-137. Stocking, M. & Murnaghan, N. (2001). Hand Book for the field Assessment of Land Degradation. London: Earth Scan Publication Ltd. Ruthenberg, H. (1985). Innovation policy of small farmers in the tropics. Oxford: Clarendon Press Sands, D.M. (1986). The technology application gap: overcoming constraints to small farm development. Rome: FAO, Research and Technology, Paper 1. Scherr, S. J. & Yadav S. N., (1996). Land degradation in the developing world: Implications for food, agriculture, and the environment to 2020, Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper14, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A, Tenge, A., De-Graaff, J. & Hella, J. P. (2004). Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in West Usambara Highlands, Tanzania. Journal of Land Degradation and Development, 15:99–114. Tiwari, K.R., Sitaula, B.K., Nyborg, I.L.P., & Paudel, G.S.(2008). Determinant of farmer adoption of introduced soil and water conservation technology in middle mountain watershed of central Nepal. Environmental Management, 42: 210-222. Woldeamlak Bewket & Sterk, G. (2002). Farmers’ perception in the soil and water conservation activities in Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile Basin. Journal of Ethiopia Land Degradation Development. 13: 189-200. Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office (2012). Wereillu woreda agricultural and rural development office annual report, Ethiopia. World Economic Forum (2010). “Biodiversity and business risk-a global risks network briefing”, a briefing paper for participants engaged in biodiversity related discussions at the World Economic Forum Davos-Klosters Annual Meeting, Cologne/Geneva, Switzerland. Zachar, D., (1982). Soil Erosion: development in soil science, Forest Research Institute, Slovak academy of science. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Zvolen, Czechoslovakia.