\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Farmers Perception on SWC practices, and its Implication on Land
Degradation in Guduru District, Western Ethiopia}



\author[1]{Getachew Zeleke}%
\author[2]{Mengistu Welemariam}%
\affil[1]{Wollega University}%
\affil[2]{Aksum University}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 08, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Ethiopia is one of the well-endowed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa in
terms of natural resources. However, land degradation is a major problem
in the country. The objective of this study was to assess farmers'
perception on soil and water conservation (SWC) practices and its
implication on land degradation. Data were collected using
questionnaires, interviews, and focus group discussions from 117
randomly selected households. The result indicated that the perception
of farmers on SWC practices was significantly influenced by age, sex,
marital status, household size, educational qualification, farm-size
(ha), farmers' experience, distance from the homestead, and household
income. Besides, greater than 50\% of the respondents were aware of the
causes of land degradation by indicating population growth,
over-cultivation, overgrazing; soil erosion, poor farming practices, and
poverty as the major causes. Furthermore, most of the respondents
(\textgreater{}75\%) were aware of the consequences of land degradation
by pointing out the loss of agricultural productivity, the difficulty of
farming, and loss in livestock productivity as the major ones. Moreover,
about 72.5\% of the respondents indicated that land degradation on their
farm-field was severe. The SWC measures practiced in the study area
include cutoff drains, contour farming, waterways, check dams,
fallowing, application of manures, and soil bunds. Thus, it can be
concluded that the perception of SWC practices is affected by many
factors. Besides, land degradation in the study area can be deceased
first by creating awareness in the society on the consequences of land
degradation and then implementing SWC measures.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Introduction}

\textbf{Background}

Land degradation is a long-term decline in ecosystem functions caused by
disturbances from which land cannot recover unaided (Bai \emph{et al} .,
2008). Land degradation occurs as a result of anthropogenic activities
and climatic variations (Ahmed and Pandey, 201. It includes all
processes that diminish the capacity of land resources to perform
essential functions and services in ecosystems (Hurni \emph{et al} .,
2010). It is caused by the natural ecosystem and the human social
system. Interactions between the two systems determine the success or
failure of resource management (Berry, 2003).

Land degradation has become an important concern affecting food security
affecting peoples' livelihood (Bezuayehu \emph{et al} ., 2002).
Over-grazing, deforestation, agricultural expansion and backward
agricultural practices are considered as the major causes of land
degradation (Stocking and Murnaghan, 2000; FAO 2004; FRA, 2005).

Ethiopia is one of the well-endowed countries in SSA (Sub-Saharan
Africa) in terms of natural resources (Gete \emph{et al} ., 2006).
However, land degradation is a major problem. The major driver is the
conversion of forest into agriculture and inappropriate agricultural
practices. The Ethiopian population has been growing at a fast rate from
12 million at the beginning of the 1900s to 74 million in 2007, i.e., at
a rate of \textless{}1.3\% before 1950 and 2.6\% between 1994 and 2007
(CSA, 2008) which is now greater than 110 million (FDRE, 2018). Due to
the favorable climatic conditions, the Ethiopian highlands have a long
history of settlement and sedentary agriculture, and as a result, the
density of the human and livestock population is high (Sonneveld and
Keyzer, 2003). The problem is very serious particularly in steep lands
where rain-fed agriculture constitutes the main livelihood of the people
(Shiferaw and Holden, 2001). This diminished potential productivity and
the economic utility of the land (Mitiku \emph{et al} ., 2006).

Land degradation due to soil erosion and nutrient depletion is
considered as the main problem constraining the development of the
agricultural sector in Ethiopia (Amsalu and de Graaff, 2007; Tefera and
Sterk, 2010). It also directly threatens the long-term growth of
agricultural productivity, food security, and the quality of life
(Shiferaw \emph{et al} ., 2009).

Efforts to conserve soil and water resources and prevent land
degradation date back to the mid-1970s and 80s in Ethiopia (Bekele and
Holden, 1998). Since then many public organizations and NGOs have been
involved in addressing the widespread problem of land degradation. SWC
works have been carried out through campaign. Incentives like food for
work or cash for work were used as instruments to stimulate farmers to
put up the structures even in their fields. However, the efforts put
towards the promotion of the technologies so far seem to have had a
limited impact in increasing the sustained use of conservation measures
(Eshetu, 2004). The limited success of the efforts highlights the need
to better understand the factors that encourage/discourage the adoption
and the sustainable use of conservation practices (Belay, 1992). The
adoption of improved technology is for the most part affected by farmer
characteristics, farm-specific conditions, technology characteristics,
and institutional set up in which production takes place (Bekele and
Holden, 1998).

The most important reason for the limited use of SWC technologies is
farmers' low perception and adoption behavior. According to Kessler
(2006), SWC measures fully adopted only when their execution is
sustained and fully integrated into the household's farming system.

Soil and water conservation efforts have focused on highly degraded
areas with limited production potential in the district. Marginal steep
lands have been terraced with a few structural SWC measures (Guduru
district agricultural office, 2019). Despite the promotion, the adoption
of SWC practices by farmers has been limited. Farmers of the study area
have limited information on the management of land degradation and SWC
practices. For example, most farmers have not implemented stone bund
terraces because they assume it decreases the cropland (Guduru district
agricultural office, 2019) as a result, land degradation remains a major
threat to agricultural production. Thus, there is a need to assess
farmers perception of SWC practices and its implication on land
degradation. Therefore, the objective of this study was specifically to
assess farmers perception of SWC practices and the causes and
consequences of land degradation.

\par\null

\textbf{Materials and Methods}

\section*{Description of the study
area}

{\label{description-of-the-study-area}}

Guduru District is one of the 11 districts found in Horo Guduru Zone in
the Oromia region, western Ethiopia. It is 275km far from the capital
city of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. Geographically, it is located between
8\textsuperscript{o}54'0''N to 9\textsuperscript{0}42'0'' N Latitude and
37\textsuperscript{o}16'0'' to 37\textsuperscript{0}40'0'' E Longitude
(\textbf{Fig.1} ). The major soil type are Nitisols characterized by low
pH. The topography of the area is characterized by mountainous
(1288.5ha), flat (45,189.70 ha) and undulating (44,177.3 ha) of land
(GDANRO, 2019)

The district experiences two rainy seasons, Belg and Kiremt. Belg is the
short rainy season and lasts between March and May. Kiremt season (June
--August) is very intensive and, hence, the severity of soil erosion is
high during these three months. The mean annual rainfall ranged
1500mm-1896mm (Guduru district natural resources management office,
2019). The temperature range is from 10 to 15 in a wet season and 15 to
25 in a dry season and the average temperature is 19 degrees centigrade
(Guduru meteorology office, 2005). The major land uses in the area are
cultivated land (34365ha), forest (20365ha), grazing land (10161.29ha)
and the rest are swampy area, water body, and wasteland.

The total population of the district was 98,622 (Guduru district finance
economic development office, 2019). Out of this 48,848 were males and
49,084 were females. Besides more than 85\% of its population depends on
agriculture for their livelihoods and practiced mixed crop-livestock
farming systems.

\textbf{Methods of Data Collection}

For conducting the study two main data sources were used. These were
primary and secondary sources. The primary data were collected through
field observation, focus group discussion, key informant interview, and
household survey. The household survey was used to collect qualitative
data. Before conducting the questionnaire survey, the draft
questionnaire was given considerable attention to develop
understandable, unambiguous, and well-targeted questionnaires by
avoiding confusing and incomprehensible terms that can erode the
confidence of the respondents. The testing of the questionnaire was done
in the actual study area to cross-check the relevance of its contents.
The secondary data were collected by reviewing the available project
documents, reports, and research papers.

\textbf{Determination of sample size}

The basic sampling unit was the farmer's household who derive their
livelihood entirely from agricultural activities. The sample households
were selected from the sampling frame by using simple random sampling
methods. The total population of the three kebeles was 716 households
(Table 1)\emph{.} A sample size of 117 households out of the total
population was considered for data collection because of their
homogenous characters. The estimation of sample size from the total
population was done according to Naing \emph{et al. (} 2007)

\subsection*{Sampling technique}

{\label{sampling-technique}}

Guduru District has 25 kebeles and from these, three kebeles were
selected. The selection of the kebeles was based on the severity of land
degradation and the implementation of SWC and management practices, and
farmers' awareness of land degradation in the area. Thirty-nine (39)
household heads from each kebele (i.e., Dilalo Bero, Hula Guto, and
Gudane Sirba) which account for a total of 117 sample households from
the three kebeles were selected randomly.

\subsection*{Data analysis}

{\label{data-analysis}}

The collected data were coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS). Quantitative data was analyzed using
descriptive statistics like percentages and means. Chi-square was also
used to see the relationship between farmers' perception and the
affecting factors.

\textbf{Results and Discussion}

\section*{Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the
Respondents}

{\label{demographic-and-socio-economic-characteristics-of-the-respondents}}

The perception of farmers on the application of SWC and management
practices was influenced by different factors (Table 2). These factors
include age, household size, and income, educational status of farmers,
landholding size, farmers' experience. Besides, lack of information on
benefit and cost of SWC measures, distance from the homestead, level of
contact with developmental agents (DA's), lack of training on
conservation techniques have significant influences on practicing SWC
measures.

\subsection*{Age of household heads}

{\label{age-of-household-heads}}

The results in Table 2, showed about 4.27\% of household heads were less
than 18 years old, about 69.23\% were between 18-49 years old and 26.5
\% were above 50 years old. The average age of participated farmers was
33, with a minimum age of 20 years and a maximum of 80 years. The study
revealed that age had a significant (p\textless{}0.001) effect on
perception and adoption of SWC practices. Households argued that older
farmers couldn't make activities that require hard work like soil bund
and stone terracing. Thus, the aged farmers have trouble with practicing
SWC in their fields. On the other hand, aged persons practice less labor
demanding technologies such as simple cutoff drains, contour plowing,
planting grasses, and use of other agronomic conservation measures. This
supports the works of Taye (2006) and Bekele and Drake ( 2003) who
stated that younger farmers with longer planning horizons are likely to
invest more in SWC practices as compared to aged farmers. According to
Okoba (2005), older members of households, having longterm interaction
with their environment were able to compare past and present production
trends when describing the patterns of land degradation.

\textbf{Sex}

As SWC practices is aimed at combating land degradation, it must be
implemented on both sexes of a community. As indicated in Table 2, there
was a significant (p\textless{}0.001) difference in practicing SWC
measures due to sex. It was found that 85.5\% of the households were
males farmers and 14.5\% were female farmers. Most of the female farmers
had less interest to construct SWC practices, but they need help from
elsewhere. As a result, the majority of female farmers apply less SWC
measures in their farmland. Some practice cutoff drains and waterways.
Besides, 25\% of females responded that they have much workload and home
care despite involvement in farm activities that need much effort and
investment to increase production. The adoption of SWC practices is
influenced by the sex of household head (Asfaw and Neka, 2017).

\textbf{Marital status}

The marital status of respondents (Table 2) showed that about 86.32\% of
the respondents were married while, 4.27\% of the populations were
unmarried, 1.7\% were divorced and, 7.69\% of the populations were
widowed. It indicated that marital status significantly
(p\textless{}0.05) affected the perception and adoption of SWC
practices. The majority of the households responded that the SWC
practices were left for married household heads. Marital status also had
an implication on the size and structure of families in a household and
hence on practicing SWC measures (Asfaw and Neka, 2017).

\textbf{Household size}

The household size is one of the determinant factors which affected SWC
practices. The chi-square test results (Table 2) indicated that there is
a significant (p\textless{}0.05) relationship between household size and
SWC measures. The household with less than 4 members make up 23\%,
households while, with 5-8 members constitute 52.99\%; households with
9-10 make up 14.95\% and households above11 constitute the remaining
5.98\%. The sample survey of households of the district implies that
many rural households (85 percent) had at least 5 members per household
head.

The study results revealed that the majority of respondents agreed on
having a large number of children or a large family size is important.
The size of family members can be seen from two different angles. The
first when there is a large family size in which the majority of family
members are capable of working and it is very important for practicing
SWC measures. On the other hand, having a small number of children
requires additional labor to construct and maintain SWC measures and as
the result of the shortage of working forces, they reject SWC measures.
This is in with the findings of Drake (2003) in eastern Ethiopia.

\subsection*{Educational level}

{\label{educational-level}}

The literacy level of farmers brought differences in awareness about SWC
practices and its effect on land degradation. Educational level
significantly (p\textless{}0.05) affected the perception and adoption of
SWC practices. The result in Table 2, indicated that 52.14\% of the
respondents were illiterate, 37.60\% of the respondents attended primary
school and, about 10.26\% of respondents attended secondary school
(9-12) and above. Level of education is one of the demographic features
of households that play a crucial role to increase farmers knowledge
about land management practice and give awareness to the causes and
consequences of land degradation. As the educational status of a
household head increases, it is assumed to increase the transfer of
relevant information. This finding is supported by Shibru (2003) who
reported education enables farmers to tackle land degradation using
various ways of SWC practices.

\subsection*{Household incomes}

{\label{household-incomes}}

The data given in Table 2, indicated the percentage distribution sample
household heads by income. Accordingly, about 57.26 \%t of the
respondents had a mean annual income of less than 25,000 birr and about
38.46.5\% of respondents had a mean annual income between 25,000 to
35,000 birr. While about 4.27\% of the respondents had a mean annual
income of 35,000 to 55,000 birr.

This indicated that even the construction of a single soil bund can cost
much money and needs a large number of labor forces and give a better
role for large family members.

The chi-square result (Table 2) revealed that there is a significant
(p\textless{}0.05) relationship between income and conservation
practices. According to the respondents, income is one of the factors
which affect soil and conservation practices. Accordingly, farmers who
faced labor shortage and no money to pay, reject the construction of
physical SWC measures, and then shifted their decisions towards the
practice of biological SWC measures that might not compensate the
benefit of SWC measures in controlling soil loss. This indicated that
even the construction of a single soil bund can cost much money and
needs a large number of labor forces and give a better role for large
family members. This implied that there was a lack of interest in SWC
measures when there is a lack of money and a shortage of labor.

\subsection*{Landholding size}

{\label{landholding-size}}

Land size is an important factor that affects the practice of SWC
measures. The landholding of farmers in the study area varied from less
than 0.25 hectares to more than 2 hectares with an average holding of
0.43 hectares per household. As it can be seen from Table 2, the
households with less than 0.5 hectares make up to 65.81\%, households
with 0.51 hectare to 1.0 ha constitute 24.79\% and households with 1.01
hectare to 1.50 hectare make up 4.27\%. The household more than 2
hectares constitute 5.13\%. Pressure on land at the household level has
been increasing as long as the population growth is increasing.

Land size and practices of SWC measures have a significant relationship.
According to the respondents, those farmers having a large size of
farmland practice SWC measures whereas those with small size of farms
have negative attitudes towards practicing SWC measures (Table 2). These
farmers lack trust in SWC measures as they have poorly participated in
the planning and designing of the SWC program. Hence, farmers in the
study area perceived to reject SWC methods because more than half of the
farmers had land size below half hectares. The most important reason is
those with small land size believe establishing conservation methods
occupy space and diminish cultivated land. This intention of farmers was
supported by the finding of Assefa (2009). Constructing soil bunds
causes for a decrease in farmland size (Shiferaw and Holden, 1998).

\textbf{Farming Experience}

There has been little information on the role of experience or years
farming in the literature to date. About 62\% of participants responded
that when the farming years increase the implementation of SWC measures
increased as well. farming years are positively related to the adoption
of conservation practices. Norris (1987) found that farmers with more
experience were more likely to adhere to SWC practices.

\subsection*{Distance from homestead}

{\label{distance-from-homestead}}

Distance from cultivation land to homestead influence the practice of
SWC measures. The chi-square test result indicated that there is a
significant relationship between distance from the homestead and
practicing SWC measures. It was observed that the majority of the
respondents' farmland was far from their homestead. Only 11.11\% and
29.06\% of the respondents had cultivation land near and moderate to
their residence respectively, and 59.83\% of respondents' cultivation
land was far from their residence. As the distance of farmland increases
from farmers' homes, the probability of adopting SWC practices decreases
(Asfaw and Neka, 2017).

The feasible explanation is that the nearer the cultivation fields to
the homestead, the frequent the land management and SWC practices
(Assefa, 2009). When runoff comes, farmers are ready to protect the soil
and maintain the damaged bunds and check dams in the nearer fields.
However, farmers having land far from their residence usually do not
visit their cultivation field regularly except during harvesting and
planting season. Thus, if the farm field is located near the farmhouse,
it becomes easier to manage and receives better attention (Chomba,
2004).

\section*{SWC measures practiced in the
area}

{\label{swc-measures-practiced-in-the-area}}

\subsection*{Cutoff drains}

{\label{cutoff-drains}}

The minimum used SWC measures in the study area were cutoff drains 7.7\%
and with a mix of contour farming SWC practices. This structure is a
graded channel constructed mainly in moist areas to intercept and divert
the surface runoff from higher slopes and protect downstream into
cultivated land or village. It is constructed during the dry season to
avoid barriers to land preparation for the main cropping season. On the
contrary, cutoff drains in dry areas are used to divert runoff and
additional water into cultivated fields to increase soil moisture but
there is a limitation in practicing measures in the study area. The
farmers construct such structures to prevent loss of seeds, fertilizers,
and soil due to excessive run-off coming from uplands of the terrain.
This structure is constructed mainly by oxen-drawn plow, and reinforced
by stones, wood blocks of soils with grass. Here the difference is that
the structures are maintained by local materials and are not causing
serious problems in the area.

\subsection*{Waterways}

{\label{waterways}}

Waterways can be natural or manmade drainage channels to receive
diverted runoff from cutoff drains in the upper slope. In the study
area, about 12.0\% of the respondents (Table 3) responded that they
practice waterway with the integration of other conservation practices.
The waterway carries the excess runoff to rivers, reservoirs, or gullies
by creating more erosion damage.

\textbf{Soil Bunds}

Soil bunds are constructed during the dry season that does not interfere
with land preparation for cropping. It increases soil productivity by
capturing moisture and crop yields over time. About 69.2\% of the
household heads in the study area practice soil bunds (Table 3).
However, the disadvantage of this structure as explained by the farmer
is that it requires a lot of maintenance in a short period due to being
filled with soil immediately after heavy rainfall and did not allow oxen
plow. It is mainly implemented on cultivated land with slopes in the
range of 8\% to 25\%, but also on grazing land with gentle slopes at
wider intervals (Lakew \emph{et al} . 2005). Since the beginning of
introduced SWC measures in 2004, there was a continuous construction of
soil bunds, yet there is an interruption in implementation. In 2013,
2014 and 2015 the length of constructed, maintained and preserved soil
bund in the study area was 108.42km, 95.5 km and 85.5 km respectively
(Guduru district office of agriculture, 2019)

\textbf{Check dams}

Dominantly, the brush-woods and soils are used to construct check dams
and about 29.6 \% of the farmers use it with a mix of other SWC measures
(Table 2). Diverting runoff from the cultivated field to the main and
community road is very common in the study area. Tree branches and
grassed soil are traditionally used to construct check dams, and
effectiveness is constrained by erosive of rainfall and size of the
channel.

\textbf{Agronomic management practices}

\subsection*{Mixed cropping and crop
rotation}

{\label{mixed-cropping-and-crop-rotation}}

Farmers were asked why they preferred mixed farming and crop rotation.
About 93.2\% and 83.7\% of the farmers responded that they preferred
mixed farming and crop rotation respectively on their farm. This is due
to small landholding and large family size. Besides, mixed cropping is
important for soil fertility. Finally, for those who have a small size
of land, mixed cropping is important to get different types of crops at
a time.

\subsection*{Contour Farming}

{\label{contour-farming}}

Contour farming is a practice of cultivating the land along the contour
line to reduce the runoff on a steep slope area. The study showed that
this type of conservation practices were most often used by the farmers.
From the sample household heads, 79.49\% applied the contour farming
with a mix of the other conservation measures including cut off drain,
fallowing, waterways, and application of manure. While the farmer plows
the land along the contour for the preparation of an appropriate seedbed
for production, it serves the purpose of conserving the soil from
erosion.

\subsection*{Fallowing}

{\label{fallowing}}

Most of the land under this treatment is highly degraded to the extent
of almost reaching a point of no return or recover within a short time.
It is a traditional practice of leaving the land out of production for
3-5 years to restore soil fertility and minimize soil loss. Generally,
farmers leave the land or fallowing after all the soils removed from the
land and the land is unable to produce under normal conditions, and only
stones are found exposed on the land. Only 16.24\% of the respondents
apply fallow as a SWC measure. The farmers learned that through time
traditional fallow periods have become very short and rare in the areas
as a result of the high population pressure and associated low
agricultural productivity.

\subsection*{Application of manure}

{\label{application-of-manure}}

Farmers didn't apply manure on the soil, which was rather simply thrown
near the homestead. During the survey, however, it was found out that
since the last 4-5years the farmers used the manure to improve the
fertility of soil. The main reason farmers shifted to this practice was
attributed to the skyrocketing price of inorganic fertilizers which are
unaffordable by the farmer. But currently, only 12.82\% of the
respondents practice this measure, as there is a very critical shortage
of fuelwood and not much livestock in the area.

The practical observations, discussions, and interviews indicated that
other management practices are going in the study area. Some of the
farmers prepared compost from animal manures, plant leaves as well as
crop residues to maintain soil fertility. But it needs knowledge and
training to prepare effectively according to the respondents. Therefore
it requires trainers who are ready and have a good knowledge regarding
the instructions of better compost preparation. Some of the farmers used
crop residues maintaining soil fertility through the shifting of animal
feeding beds.

\textbf{Factors that limit the implementation of land management
practices}

Different factors limit farmers to implement different land management
practices in the study area (Table 4). The major factors affecting them
were lack of training (78.1\%), inefficient support from developmental
agents (70.0\%), limited support from district agricultural office
(53.6\%), and lack of good relationship between farmers which
constitutes 43.1\% respectively. According to the respondents, those
farmers who lack trust in conservation measures poorly participate in
the training, planning, and design of SWC program. Besides, due to
inefficient support from developmental agents and limitations from the
district agricultural office, farmers were less committed to practice
SWC. According to Shiferaw and Holden (1998), the lack of attention on
natural resources leads to drought and reduced household income, in
turn, affect farmers that entirely engaged in agricultural activities in
the Ethiopian highlands.

\textbf{Institutional factors that influence SWC practice}

\section*{Source of information}

{\label{source-of-information}}

The results (Table 5) showed that friends and relatives were indicated
by 80\% of respondents as the most significant source of information.
About 62.5\% of the respondents used \emph{Keble} leaders as a source of
information. While about 59.3\% and 53.7\% of the respondents got
information from extension or developmental agents and through
electronic media (radio) respectively. Others were aware of the problem
of land degradation through interaction with neighbors.

The respondents agreed that land degradation could be minimized in the
study area first through creating awareness on the society about the
outcomes of land degradation. Secondly, giving material and financial
support to those who depend upon these activities. Thirdly, giving land
for cultivation which they depend upon crop production and finally
formulating and implementing policies to protect land degradation. This
is supported by the works of de Graaff (2008) who stated that the
underlying cause for the excessive soil loss is unsustainable
exploitation of land via poor resources utilization and expansion of
cultivated and grazing lands. As the study area is more susceptible and
relatively highly populated and increasing intensification and
continuous cultivation on sloping lands without fallowing or
conservation measures was a serious threat to sustainable land use
management\emph{.}

\section*{Lack of adequate training}

{\label{lack-of-adequate-training}}

More than half of the farmers in the study area didn't get training on
SWC practices. About 63.5\% of the sample households never get training
on SWC applications and 31.9\% have got only limited training and only
5.6\% have received adequate training. Farmers who have not accessed to
training have gained experience from their neighbors and traditionally
from their elders.

According to focused group discussion farmers require training on SWC
for enhancing soil fertility, crop production and yield maximization,
and appropriate land use. Training and education on SWC and land
management practices need to be provided to create further awareness of
resource conservation. The construction of SWC requires relatively
frequent training and appraisal. Moreover, giving training on SWC
measures improves the relationship between farmers and DAs and
encourages them to implement new conservation measures.

\textbf{Lack of Communication}

Access to information and contact with DA has a role in the practice of
SWC measures. Communication between farmers and extension agents in the
study area was poor and not built up very much. The study revealed that
about 37.5\% of the farmers had contact with development agents. Of
these farmers, 25\% have good contact and practiced SWC measures on
their land. About 11.8\% of the farmers practiced SWC measures on their
fields with the assistance of DA (Table 6). However, 62.5\% of
respondents had poor or no contact with development agents and had poor
supervision and support from extension agents. Extension services are
important to enhance farmers' confidence in SWC activities and to
encourage them take possible risks associated with the initiatives
(Biratu and Asmamaw, 2016).

Having good relations with DA helps farmers in reducing hazards
associated with soil erosion and conservation by providing information.
This shows that it is not sufficient to have extension support but the
aim or purpose of the extension service should also relate to the
continuation of expressed satisfaction with the technical support are
not more involved in the continued work. This is in line with the study
by Chomba (2004) who got a large proportion of farmers who had limited
contact with conservation workers.

\subsection*{Farmers' perception on the causes of land
degradation}

{\label{farmers-perception-on-the-causes-of-land-degradation}}

The farmers' perceived that their land is being degraded. About 60\%
responded that decreased crop productivity was the consequence of land
degradation, and about 85\% of the respondents agreed the degradation
was more severe in the last five years (Table 7). The result indicated
that the main causes of land degradation was population growth responded
by 77.78\% of the population, over-cultivation (76.07\%), overgrazing
(73.50\%), poor farming practices (54.70\%), and poverty responded by
51.28\% of the sample households. This showed that relatively the
majority of the farmers were aware of the causes of land degradation. It
is worth that population growth may not be the cause of land degradation
but rather the land use activities or practices adopted by that
population. It was reported that a high population can be an incentive
for SWC practice (Tiffen \emph{et al.} 1994).

\section*{Farmers' perception on the consequences of land
degradation}

{\label{farmers-perception-on-the-consequences-of-land-degradation}}

The results indicated that most of the respondents were aware on the
consequence of land degradation by indicating the loss of agricultural
productivity results from land degradation responded by 90.6\% of the
population, followed by the difficulty of farming (86.2\%) and loss in
livestock productivity (75.6\%) (Table 8). But most of the respondents
(78.1\%, 75.6\%, 71.8\%, \%, 61.2\%) were not aware of drought,
desertification, migration, and landlessness were the consequences of
land degradation respectively.

Similarly, from the group discussion, farmers responded that land
degradation is affecting their living and their socio-economic
conditions. The results revealed that most of the farmers living
conditions are deteriorating from time to time due to decreasing crop
production, resulting from land degradation. According to the
respondents, previously crops produced mainly wheat, sorghum, beans, and
pea were the source of income in addition to home consumption. But at
present, it is challenging to be a source of income and it is not even
sufficient to feed their family. Due to the decline in crop yield, and
the resulting income reduction and the progressive price increment of
fertilizer and the farmer' inability to afford it, farmers are becoming
food insecure. The finding is in line with Moges and Holden (2006) who
reported land degradation through soil erosion is a major cause of
poverty in rural areas of Ethiopia. In many areas, farming populations
have experienced a decline in farm income. The immediate consequence of
land degradation is reduced crop yield followed by economic decline and
social stress (Moges and Holden, 2006).

\subsection*{Conclusion}

{\label{conclusion}}

The dominantly practiced SWC measures in the area include cutoff drains,
waterways, soil bunds, fallowing, and application of manure. The
majority of farmers in the study area had no enough perception of the
unique benefit of different types of conservation structures. Thus, the
practice of different types of SWC method is limited. The practice of
SWC measures was affected by age, sex, education level, household size,
land size, off-farm activities, distance from homestead, contact with
DAs, and training on SWC measures. Crop production is deteriorating from
time to time due to land degradation and poor SWC practices. To solve
the problem there is a need to aware of the society about the causes and
consequences of land degradation and then implement SWC practices.

\textbf{References}

Ahmad N, and Puneeta P. 2018. Assessment and Monitoring of Land
Degradation Using Geospatial Technology in Bathinda District, Punjab,
India. Solid Earth, 9:75--90. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-9-75-2018

Amsalu A, de Graaff J. 2007. Determinants of adoption and continued use
of stone terraces for SWC in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecological
Economics \textbf{61} (2-3):294-302. DOI:~10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.01.014

Assefa D. 2009. Assessment of upland erosion processes and farmer's
perception of land conservationin DebreMewi watershed, near LakeTana,
Ethiopia (M. Sc thesis). United States: Cornell University.

Asfawa D, Neka. 2017. 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 \textbf{5} :273-279.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.002

Bai ZD, Dent L, Olsson M. 2008. Schaepman. Global assessment of land
degradation and improvement. Identification by remote sensing. No.
2008/01 in. ISRIC-World Soil Information, Wageningen.

Bekele W, Drake L. 2003. Soil and Water Conservation Decision Behavior
of Subsistence Farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: a Case
Study of the HundeLafto Area. Journal of Ecological
Economics,\textbf{46:} 61-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00166-6

Belay T. 1992. Farmers' Perception of Erosion Hazards and Attitudes
towards SWC in Gunono, Wolayita, and Southern Ethiopia: Ethiopian
Journal of Development Research. \textbf{14} : 31--58.
DOI:~10.1080/15715124.2016.1167063

Berry L. 2003. Land degradation in Ethiopia: its impact and extent in
Berry L, Olson J. and Campbell D (ed): Assessing the extent, cost, and
impact of land degradation at the national level: findings and lessons
learned from seven pilot case studies. Commissioned by global mechanism
with support from the World Bank.

Bezuayehu T, Gezahegn A, Yigezu A, Jabbar M, Paulos D. 2002.Nature and
causes of land degradation in the Oromiya Region: socioeconomic and
policy research working paper 36. International Livestock Research
Institute.

Biratu AA, Asmamaw DK. 2016. Farmers' Perception on Soil Erosion and
Participation in Soil and Water Conservation activities in the Gusha
Temela Watershed, Arsi, Ethiopia. International Journal of River Basin
Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2016.1167063

CSA (Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia) .2008. Summary and
statistical report of the 2007 population and housing census. CSA
(Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia), Addis Ababa.

Chomba, GN. 2004. Factors Affecting Smallholder Farmers' Adoption of
Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Zambia. M.Phil. Thesis,
Michigan State University.

de Graaff J, Amsalu A, Bodn\selectlanguage{ngerman}ár F, Kessler A, Posthumus H, Tenge A. 2008.
Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and
water conservation measures in five developing countries. Appl Geogr.
28(4):271--80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.05.001

Drake L. 2003.Adoption of SWC Measures by Subsistence Farmer in Eastern
Ethiopia: Presented at the 17th World Congress of Soil Science, Bangkok,
Thailand.

Eshetu Z. 2004. Natural N\textsuperscript{15}abundance in soils under
young-growth forests in Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and
Management\textbf{187} (2-3):139-147.

Eswaran H, Lal R, Reich PF. 2001. Land Degradation: An overview. In
Bridges, E.M., I.D, Hannam, and L.R. Oldeman, F.W.T penign de vries,
S.J. Scherr, and S.Sompatpanit (eds.).Responses to land Degradation.
Proc. 2nd international conference on land degradation and
desertification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ethiopian Highlands
Agro Ecosystems. http://muse.jhv.edu/journals/Northeast.

FAO. 2003. Towards sustainable agriculture and rural development in the
Ethiopian highlands Proceedings of the Technical Workshop on Improving
the Natural Resources Base and Rural Well-being. November 25-27, Bahir
Dar, Ethiopia.

FRA. 2005. Global forest resource assessment (FRA): 15 key findings.
http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/data/fra2005/kf/common/GlobalForest
A4.

Gete Z, Menale K, Pender J, Mahmud Y. 2006. Stakeholder Analysis for
Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in Ethiopia: Assessment of
Opportunities, Strategic Constraints, Information Needs, and Knowledge
Gaps. Environmental Economics Policy Forum for Ethiopia (EEPFE). Pp4-91.

Hurni H, Solomon A, Amare B, Berhanu D, Ludi E, Portner B, Birru Y, Gete
Z. 2010. Land degradation and sustainable land management in the
highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of American Science \textbf{5} (1):58-
69.
DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1099-145X(199811/12)9:6\textless{}529::AID-LDR313\textgreater{}3.0.CO;2-O

Kessler A. 2006. Moving people-towards collective action in SWC's
Experiences from the Bolivian mountain valleys. PhD Dissertation,
Wageningen University.

Mitiku H, Karl H, Brigitta S. 2006.Sustainable land management- A new
approach to SWC in Ethiopia. DOI: 10.7892/boris.19217

Moges A, Holden M. 2006. Farmers perceptions of soil erosion and soil
fertility loss in southern Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development
18: 543-554. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.795

Norris, P.E. 1987. 'Virginia farmers' SWC decisions: Tobit. An
application Tobit.

Okoba BO, Sterk G. 2006. Farmers' identification of erosion indicators
and related erosion damage in the Central Highlands of Kenya.
Catena\textbf{65} (3):292--301. DOI:~10.1016/j.catena.2005.12.004

Shibru T. 2010. Land Degradation and Farmers' Perception: The Case of
Limo Woreda, Hadya Zone of SNNPR, Ethiopia. MSc thesis, Addis Abeba
University, Addis Abeba.

Shiferaw B, Holden S. 1998. Resource Degradation and Adoption of Land
Conservation Technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A case study in
AnditTid, North Shewa. Agricultural Economics \textbf{18} : pp 233-248.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1998.tb00502.x

Shiferaw B, Holden T. 2001. Farm-level benefits to investments for
mitigating land degradation: empirical evidence from Ethiopia. Environ.
Dev. Econ \textbf{6} :335-358. DOI:~10.1017/S1355770X01000195

Shiferaw B, Okello J, Reddy R. 2009. Adoption and adaptation of natural
resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections
on key lessons and best practices. Environ. Dev. Sustain\textbf{11}
:601-619. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-007-9132-1

Sonneveld BGJS, Keyzer MA. 2003. Land under pressure: Soil conservation
concerns and opportunities for Ethiopia. L Degrad Dev.\textbf{14}
(1):5--23. DOI:10.1002/ldr.503

Taye AA. 2006. Caring for the Land Best practices in soil and water
conservation in Beressa watershed.

Tefera B, Sterk G. 2010. Land management, erosion problems and SWC in
Fincha'a watershed, Western Ethiopia. Land Use Policy\textbf{27}
:1027-1037. DOI:~10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.01.005

Tiffen M, Mortlimore M, Gichuki F. 1994. More people less erosion'
hypothesis: environmental recovery in Kenya. London: John Wiley.

Table 1. Distribution of sample households in the study area\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Kebeles} & \textbf{Total household} & \textbf{Sample
size}\tabularnewline
Dilalo Bero kebele & 278 & 39\tabularnewline
Hula Guto & 225 & 39\tabularnewline
Gudane Sirba & 213 & 39\tabularnewline
\textbf{Total} & \textbf{716} & \textbf{117}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\par\null

Table 2. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of households,
and SWC practices\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllll@{}}
\toprule
Age of household head & Less than 18 years & 5 & 4.3 & &\tabularnewline
& Between 19-48 & 81 & 69.2 & 171.75 & 0.001\tabularnewline
& Above 50 years & 31 & 26.5 & &\tabularnewline
Sex of household head & Male & 100 & 85.5 & 173.50 &
0.001\tabularnewline
& female & 17 & 14.5 & &\tabularnewline
Marital status & Single & 5 & 4.3 & 183.10 & 0.02\tabularnewline
& Married & 101 & 86.3 & &\tabularnewline
& Divorced & 2 & 1.7 & &\tabularnewline
& Widow & 9 & 7.7 & &\tabularnewline
Educational level & Illiterate & 62 & 53.0 & &\tabularnewline
& Primary school & 43 & 36.8 & 187.20 & 0.03\tabularnewline
& Secondary school & 12 & 10.3 & &\tabularnewline
Family size & 1-4 & 27 & 23.1 & &\tabularnewline
& 5-8 & 63 & 53.8 & 181.03 & 0.02\tabularnewline
& 9-10 & 20 & 17.1 & &\tabularnewline
& Above 11 & 7 & 6.0 & &\tabularnewline
HH income per year & \textless{}2500 birr & 98 & 83.8 & 174.30 &
0.05\tabularnewline
& 2500-3500 birr & 11 & 9.4 & &\tabularnewline
& 3500-5500 birr & 8 & 6.8 & &\tabularnewline
Major sources of income & Sales of production & 85 & 72.6 &
&\tabularnewline
& Sales of animal feed & 8 & 6.8 & &\tabularnewline
& Off-farm income & 9 & 7.7 & &\tabularnewline
& Income from government & 10 & 8.5 & &\tabularnewline
& Income from NGO & 5 & 4.3 & &\tabularnewline
Farm size (ha) & \textless{}0.5 ha & 86 & 73.5 & 180.00 &
0.04\tabularnewline
& 0.5ha-1.0ha & 12 & 10.3 & &\tabularnewline
& 1ha-1.5ha & 4 & 3.4 & &\tabularnewline
& 1.5ha-2ha & 6 & 5.1 & &\tabularnewline
& \textgreater{}2ha & 9 & 7.7 & &\tabularnewline
Distance from homestead & Near (10-30 minute) & 13 & 11.11 & 186.70 &
0.02\tabularnewline
& Medium (31-35minute) & 34 & 29.06 & &\tabularnewline
& & & & &\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllll@{}}
\toprule
& \textbf{SWC practices} & \textbf{SWC practices} & \textbf{Frequency} &
\textbf{Frequency} & \textbf{Percent} & \textbf{Percent}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
& Soil bund & Soil bund & 81 & 81 & 69.2 & 69.2\tabularnewline
& Cutoff drain & Cutoff drain & 9 & 9 & 7.7 & 7.7\tabularnewline
& Waterways & Waterways & 14 & 14 & 12.0 & 12.0\tabularnewline
& Check dams & Check dams & 13 & 13 & 11.1 & 11.1\tabularnewline
\textbf{Agronomic management practices always} & \textbf{Always} &
\textbf{Always} & \textbf{Some times} & \textbf{Some times} &
\textbf{Never} & \textbf{Never}\tabularnewline
& \textbf{Frequency} & \textbf{\%} & \textbf{Frequency} & \textbf{\%} &
\textbf{Frequency} & \textbf{\%}\tabularnewline
Mixed cropping & 109 & 93.2 & 7 & 6.2 & - & -\tabularnewline
Crop rotation & 98 & 83.7 & 13 & 11.2 & 7 & 6.2\tabularnewline
Contour plowing & 91 & 77.5 & 18 & 15.0 & 9 & 7.5\tabularnewline
Fallowing & 11 & 9.3 & 20 & 16.8 & 86 & 73.7\tabularnewline
Organic manure & 26 & 21.8 & 51 & 43.7 & 40 & 34.3\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Table 4. Factors that limit land management practices\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Factors} & \textbf{Frequency} &
\textbf{Percentage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Lack of training & 91 & 78.1\tabularnewline
Inefficient support from developmental agents & 82 & 70\tabularnewline
limited support from district agricultural office & 63 &
53.6\tabularnewline
Lack of good relationship between farmers & 50 & 43.1\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Table 5. Respondents sources of information on land degradation and SWC
practices\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule
Respondents Sources of Information & Frequencies &
Percentage\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Friends and relatives & 94 & 80.0\tabularnewline
Keble leaders & 73 & 62.5\tabularnewline
Developmental Agents (DA) & 69 & 59.3\tabularnewline
Electronic media (TV, radio, etc) & 63 & 53.7\tabularnewline
Trainings on SWC & 32 & 27.5\tabularnewline
Schools & 15 & 12.5\tabularnewline
Others & 13 & 11.2\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}







Table 6. Farmers contact with DA and practice of SWC\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Contact with DA} & \textbf{Number of responses} & \textbf{Number
of responses}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\textbf{Contact} & \textbf{Frequency} & \textbf{Percent}\tabularnewline
Good & 45 & 38.1\tabularnewline
Very good & 13 & 11.8\tabularnewline
Poor & 59 & 50.0\tabularnewline
\textbf{Total} & \textbf{117} & \textbf{100.0}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Table 7. Farmers perception and causes of land degradation (n= 117)\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llll@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Famers perception} & \textbf{Response} & \textbf{Frequency} &
\textbf{Percent}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Perceived productivity of land & Increasing & 37 & 31.6\tabularnewline
& Decreasing & 60 & 51.3\tabularnewline
& Constant & 20 & 17.1\tabularnewline
Land degradation severity over the past 5 years & More severe & 100 &
85.5\tabularnewline
& Less severe & 10 & 8.5\tabularnewline
& No change & 7 & 6.0\tabularnewline
\textbf{Causes} & \textbf{Response} & \textbf{Frequency} &
\textbf{Percent}\tabularnewline
Over cultivation & No & 28 & 23.93\tabularnewline
& Yes & 89 & 76.07\tabularnewline
Overgrazing & No & 31 & 26.5\tabularnewline
& Yes & 86 & 73.5\tabularnewline
Rapid population Growth & No & 26 & 22.22\tabularnewline
& Yes & 91 & 77.78\tabularnewline
Poor farming practices & No & 53 & 45.3\tabularnewline
& Yes & 64 & 54.7\tabularnewline
Poverty & No & 57 & 48.72\tabularnewline
& Yes & 60 & 51.28\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Table 8. Farmers' awareness on the consequence of land degradation\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Consequences of land degradation} & \textbf{Aware} & \textbf{\%}
& \textbf{Unaware} & \textbf{\%}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Loss of agricultural production & 106 & 90.6 & 11 & 9.4\tabularnewline
Difficulty for farming & 101 & 86.2 & 16 & 13.8\tabularnewline
Loss in livestock productivity & 89 & 75.6 & 11 & 9.4\tabularnewline
Drought and poverty & 25 & 21.38 & 92 & 78.63\tabularnewline
Landlessness & 28 & 23.93 & 89 & 76.07\tabularnewline
Desertification & 33 & 28.21 & 84 & 71.80\tabularnewline
Migration & 45 & 38.46 & 72 & 61.54\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Figure-1-study-area/Screen-Shot-2020-08-07-at-1.52.16-PM}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

