COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDY

CENTER FOR FOOD SECURITY STUDIES

CONTRIBUTION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES TO

HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN ENSARO WOREDA, AMHARA NATIONAL
REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA.

BY

GETENESH ALEMAYEHU TESFAYE

JUNE, 2019
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

i
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDY
CENTER FOR FOOD SECURITY STUDIES

CONTRIBUTION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES TO

HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN ENSARO WOREDA, AMHARA NATIONAL
REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA.

BY

GETENESH ALEMAYEHU TESFAYE

ADVISOR

AMARE BANTIDER (PhD)

ATHESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF FOOD SECURITY AND DEVELOPMENT
[Link] ABEBA, ETHIOPIA.

JUNE, 2019

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

ii
 DECLARATION

First, I declare that this thesis is my original work and all sources of material used for this thesis
have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements of Master of Science degree at Addis Ababa University and is deposited at the
University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the library. I also declare
that this thesis can be submitted to any other institution, if the university found it necessary. Brief
quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that accurate
acknowledgement of source is made.
Name: _______________ Signature _____________
Place: Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa
Date of Submission: _________________

iii
 THESIS APPROVAL

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

CENTER FOR FOOD SECURITY STUDIES

This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Getenesh Alemayehu, entitled: Contribution of soil
and water conservation practices to household food security in Ensaro Woreda, Amhara National
Regional state,[Link] Submitted in fulfillment for the requirement for the Degree of Master
of science (Food security and development studies)complies with the regulations of the
University and meets the accepted standardswith respect to originality and quality.

Advisor_________________ Signature ___________ Date ___________

Signed by the Examining Committee:

Internal Examiner_________________ Signature ___________ Date ___________

External Examiner _________________ Signature ___________ Date ___________

Chairman _________________ Signature ___________ Date ___________

Final approval and acceptance of this thesis is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the
final copy of the proposal, incorporatingall the comment by Examining Board, to the council of
graduated studies (CGS)through the center academic committee (CAC) of the center.

_________________________________________________________________________
Chairperson of the center of graduated program coordinator

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Above all, I want to thank the Almighty God and the Virgin Mary for giving me the strength and
courage to accomplish this research work.

I would like to express my deepest - gratitude and appreciation to my advisor Amare Bantider
(PhD) for his dedication, encouragement, support, valuable, provision and friendly guidance
from title adjustment to thesis accomplishment.

I want to acknowledge also the Centre for Food Security Studies of the College of Development
Studies, Addis Ababa University which created conducive environment for my study. I would
like to express my respect and appreciation to Girmaye Medihin (PhD), Tinsae K/Mariam, Yared
Worku and Hiwot Tekola for supporting and providing necessary information which I need for
the development of this research report. Without their support in all directions the completion of
the work was impossible.

I want to express my deepest love and respect for my mother (AzenegashAlemu), my father
(Alemayehu Tesfaye) and all my family including Natnael Siyum and Betelhem Basaznew for
encouraging and supporting me in all my way in the course of this work and all my friends who
supported me in all aspects.

Finally, I want to thanks Bizualem Siyum and all Ensaro Woreda Agricultural and Development
experts for their support in providing necessary information, different resources and relevant data
collected from the study site with their valuable advice and assistance. And also, special thank
also goes to farmers in the study area, who were sources of data, for their time and valuable
information.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENT..................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................x
LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................................ xi
ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................ xii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the problem.......................................................................................................3
1.3 Objective of the Study........................................................................................................... 6
1.3.1 Main objective.............................................................................................................. 6
1.3.2 Specific objectives.......................................................................................................... 6
1.3.3 Research questions..........................................................................................................7
1.4. Scope of the study.................................................................................................................7
1.5 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................................7
1.6 Limitation of the study...........................................................................................................7
1.7. Ethical Considerations.......................................................................................................... 8
1.8 Organization of the study.......................................................................................................8
CHAPTER TWO............................................................................................................................. 9
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...................................................................................9
2.1 Review on Concepts and Theories of Food security and SLM............................................. 9
2.1.1 Food security concept and definition..............................................................................9
2.1.2 Techniques and methods of food security and insecurity assessment.......................... 10
2.1.3. Determinant of Food security...................................................................................... 11
2.1.4. Concepts of Sustainable land management (SLM)..................................................... 11
2.1.5 Linkages between soil and water conservation and Food security...............................14
2.2 Review of empirical findings of studies on food security and SWC nexus in Ethiopia......15
2.2.1 Food security situation in Ethiopia............................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Coping strategies practiced in Ethiopia........................................................................ 16
2.2.3. Soil erosion level, cause and its impact in Ethiopia.................................................... 16
2.2.4. Historical perspective of SWC Practices in Ethiopia.................................................. 17

vi
 2.2.5. Farmers perception on soil erosion and control measures...........................................18
2.2.6. ContributionofSWCto food security in Ethiopia......................................................... 19
2.3. Analytical framework......................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER THREE....................................................................................................................... 24
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................. 24
3.1 Description of the study area............................................................................................... 24
3.2 Study Design........................................................................................................................26
3.3 Research methods................................................................................................................ 26
3.3.1 Sample Size Determination.......................................................................................... 26
3.3.2. Sampling Procedure.....................................................................................................27
3.3.3 Data type, source and instrument..................................................................................28
3.3.4 Data Collection Procedures and Data quality............................................................... 29
3.3.5. Data Analysis Techniques........................................................................................... 30
3.3.6 Description of variables............................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER FOUR......................................................................................................................... 35
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................. 35
4.1Descriptive Statistics................................................................................................................ 35
4.1.1 Demographic and Socio-economic characteristics of study participants......................... 35
[Link] Sex, education status and off-farm participation of farm households....................... 35
[Link] Age, family size, livestock and landholding of household head............................... 36
[Link] Institutional and farm characteristics of the respondent............................................ 36
4.1.2 Type of introduced SWC technologies and implementation approaches......................... 37
4.1.3 Public campaign participation and its constraints............................................................ 39
4.1.4 Perception of respondents for soil erosion as a problem and technologies profitability.. 41
4.1.5 Adoption status of SWC technologies..............................................................................43
4.1.6 Household food security status and copying mechanism................................................. 43
4.2 Econometrics model result...................................................................................................... 45
4.2.1 Determinant factors that affecting adoption of SWC practices........................................ 45
[Link] Demographic and Socio-economic factors................................................................ 48
[Link] Household head perception........................................................................................48
[Link] Farm characteristic.....................................................................................................49
[Link] Institutional factors.................................................................................................... 49
4.2.2 Association of SWC adoption and food security status....................................................50
4.2.3Determinant factors that affecting household food security..............................................51

vii
CHAPTER FIVE........................................................................................................................... 54
[Link] AND RECOMMENDATION......................................................................... 54
REFERENCE................................................................................................................................ 56
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................... 61

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Fig 1: Analytical framework………………………………………………………... 26
Fig 2: Location of Ensaro Woreda…………………………………………………. 22
Fig. 3: Percentage of SWC technology adoption stratified by agro-ecology……….. 41
Fig. 4: Implemented technologies…………………………………………………... 36
Fig.5: Percentage of food security status stratified by agro-ecology………………. 36

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
Table 1: Distribution of Sample by Agro- ecology and Study Kebele……………………………….. 24
Table 2: Soil and Water Conservation Adoption Criteria…………………………………………….. 27
Table 3: Description of Independent Variable that Affecting Adoption of SWC……………………. 28
Table4: Distribution of Sampled Households by Sex, Education and off-farm……………………… 34
Table 5: Distribution of Sampled Households by Age, Family size, TLU, Labor and Landholding….. 35
Table 6:Farm and institutional characteristics of study participant……………………………….. 36
Table 7: Commonly implemented SWC technology stratified by agro-ecology……………………….. 38
Table 8: Household Public campaign participation level and constraints…………………………….. 39
Table 9: Perception of respondents for soil erosion as a problem and technologies profitability……… 40
Table 10:Logistic Model for adoption of SWC technologies in EnsaroWoreda…………………… 44
Table 11: Association of SWC technologies adoption with food security…………………………….. 45
Table 12: Household copying mechanism in case of food shortage…………………………………. 46
Table 13:Logistic model determinant factors for household food security in EnsaroWoreda……… 50

x
LIST OF APPENDICES

Annex Page
Annex 1: Marginal effect after logistic regression of SWC technologies model………. 56
Annex 2: Variance inflation factor for discrete and continuous variable for SWC
technologies model…………………………………………………………………… 56
Annex 3: Goodness-of-fit test for SWC technologies adoption……………………… 57
Annex 4: Marginal effect after logistic regression food security model……………… 57
Annex 5: Variance inflation factor for discrete and continuous variable for food
security model………………………………………………………………………….. 58
Annex 6: Goodness-of-fit test for food security model……………………………… 58
Annex 7: Food Composition Table for Use in Ethiopia –Part III………………………. 59
Annex 8: Adult Equivalent Conversion Factor…………………………………………. 60
Annex 9:Total livestock unit conversion factor……………………………………… 61
Annex 10: Research questionnaires…………………………………………………….. 62
Annex 11:Focus group discussion checklist…………………………………………. 66
Annex 12: key informant checklist…………………………………………………… 67
Annex 13: observational checklist……………………………………………………… 67
Annex 14: secondary data collection format …………………………………………… 67

xi
ACRONYMS

AAU Addis Ababa university

AEP Adult equivalent per person
ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency
CI Confidence interval
EHNRI Ethiopian health and nutrition research institute
EWADO EnsaroWoreda agricultural development office
ETB Ethiopian Birr
FAD Food Availability Decline
FED Food Entitlement Decline
FS Food security
FFW Food-for-work
FAO Food and agricultural organization
FGD Focus group discussion
Ha Hectare
HFBM Household Food Balance Model
GDP Gross domestic product
HHFS Household food security
HHH Household head
SWC Soil and water conservation
SLM Sustainable land management
VIF Variance inflation factor

xii
 ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to assess contribution of soil and water conservation practices to
household food security in Ensaro Woreda, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia.
Household based cross-sectional research design and mixed methods of data collection were
employed in the study. Household survey was conducted on 423 sample households those
selected from Stratified random sampled kebele. In addition; household food balance model was
used to assess household food security status. For analysis descriptive statistics mainly percent,
mean, chi-square and cross tabulation were used. Logistic regression analysis was also done to
identify determinant factors for adoption of soil and water conservation measures and food
security. Among implemented technologies all farmers used crop rotation as conservation
measures. Stone bud, compost and stone-faced soil bund were the most implemented
technologies on cultivated land which covered 54.0 %, 23.4 % and 20.6% of the technologies
respectively. The research findings revealed that 60.8% of the household were non-adopter and
39.2% was adopter of SWC technologies. And also 73.3% household was food secured but the
remaining were food in-secured. The distance to market, perception to technology profitability
and SWC training were found significant determinant factors for adoption of SWC technologies.
Whereas, family size, total land size, distance to market and adoption of SWC technologies were
the factors that affecting household food security status in the study area. As a result, all other
factors held were constant, household who adopt SWC technologies on their cultivated land were
14.8 % (0.148*100) higher probability to food secured than SWC technologies non-adopter
households. This indicates that there is significant difference between SWC technologies
adopters and non-adopters food security status. Therefore, governmental and non-governmental
organization emphases should be given for SWC technologies adoption that is suitable for their
agro-ecologies and provide training.

Key- word, Conservation measures, Adoption, Determinant factors, Food security

xiii
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Natural resources are useful raw material that came from natural environment. Since humans
worldwide obtain more than 99.7% of their food (calories) from the land and less than 0.3% from
the oceans and aquatic ecosystems, preserving cropland ,managing soil fertility should be the
highest priority to human welfare (Pimentel & Burgess, 2013). Natural resource management
refers to the management of natural resource such as water, soil, plant and animals with
particular focus on how management affects the quality of life for both present and future
generation (Henry, Murphy, & Cowie, 2018).

Agriculture sector in the world is one of the most powerful economic sectors to end extreme
poverty and to feed a projected 9.7 billion people by [Link], production and demand of
food are not balancing in the world. World Bank reports that 2.5 billion people depend on
agriculture as their main sources of livelihood. In Ethiopia, agriculture is the main sector of the
economy and contributes approximately 42% to the gross domestic product (GDP) and employs
over 80% of the population (ATA, 2013).The agricultural sector's fortune directly affects
economic development, food security, poverty alleviation and social welfare of the country.

Food security is a dynamic concept, and the level of their analysis over the years has been
considered at global, national, regional, state, household (HH) and individual level. Food
security refers to the situation “when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic
access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences
for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2010). Many people consider it as a basic human right but
approximately about 870 million peoples in the world are to have been undernourished in the
period 2010–[Link] remains a major challenge for many countries, particularly in sub-
Saharan Africa its levels rose from 777 million people in 2015 to 815 million people in 2016
(FAO et al., 2017). About 10% of Ethiopia’s citizens are chronically food insecure and this
figure rises to more than 15% during frequent drought years; 2.7 million People require
1
emergency food assistance. Currently nutritional status of under age 5 child in Ethiopian are 38
% stunted,10% wasted and 24 % are under weighted in 2016 (Taddese , 2016).

The main source of food insecurity of Ethiopia are drought and land degradation, population
pressure, instability and armed conflict (Mohamed, 2017). Land degradation in the form of soil
erosion and nutrient depletion has been a major constraint for the provision of goods and services
from rained agricultural. Land degradation associated with soil erosion has been accelerated by
exploitative and inappropriate land use and management practices (Shiferaw & Holden, 1998).

On a global scale, the loss of productive land through soil erosion globally estimates about 5-7
million ha/year (Kumar and Ramachandra, 2003) and it is estimated that soil degradation leads to
a potential loss of 20 million tonnes of grain per annum in the world (Rickson [Link]., 2015). In
Africa, 60% of its cropland is affected at various scales (Muchena [Link]., 2005). In South Africa
approximately 75% of farmers lose more than 21% of their crops yearly due to erosion and 55%
said their crops and livestock, as well as their household feeding, suffer due to the problem
(Ighodaro, Lategan,& Mupindu, 2016). Similarly, Ethiopia has high level (Hurni, 1998). To
address this challenges the government of Ethiopia and non-governmental organization
promoting soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies for improving agricultural
productivity, HHFS, and rural livelihoods, while simultaneously mitigating environmental
degradation (Teshome, de Graaff, & Kassie, 2016).

In Ethiopian, SWC programs starting in the formal way in 1970s after the famine of highly
degraded part of Tigray and Wollo area. From that time up to the late 1990s, implementation was
top-down, incentive- based (food-for-work) approach that prioritized engineering measures
(Shiferaw & Holden, 1998).However, this program was not successful and sustainable due to the
implementation approach. Currently different results suggest that watershed management had a
positive impact on natural resource conservation, crop-livestock production and productivity,
socioeconomic conditions and livelihoods when the involvement of all the stakeholders and
farmers is needed during all the phases of conservation management. However, its
implementation of the structure are difficult, due to lack of integration bio-physical measure,
absence of integrating practices, negative impact of incentives, lack of considering socio-
economic profile, low perception and participation of farmer poor conservation design, improper

2
land use less maintenance, week monitoring and evaluation of SWC are major constraints for
the implementation of SWC in Ethiopia (Fikirie& Beyene, 2017). Hence, necessary measures
must be taken to ensure voluntary participation and to remove the misunderstandings of all the
concerned participants (Akkaraboyina & Tareke, 2018).

Ethiopia has great climatic variety, from dry to wet, and also many different altitudes, from
lowlands to highlands, the same conservation technologies cannot be applied for everywhere and
also the factors affecting the adoption of SWC technologies vary from place to place. However,
contribution of SWC practices to household food security in the Ensaro, Woreda had never been
investigated. Therefore, this study tried to address contribution of SWC technologies to
household food security M, determinant factors that affecting for adoption of SWC technologies
and evaluating household food security status and copying strategies of farmers. It answered the
following research question 1) what type of introduced SWC technologies and approaches
implemented in the study area for the last ten years?2)Which factors were contributing to
adoption on SWC technologies? 3) were there significant differences in food security status of
farmers between SWC adopter and non-adopter farmers? 4) Which type of copying mechanism
farmer used by the farmers to recover in case of food insecurity?

1.2 Statement of the problem

Currently Ethiopia has serious problem on the resource of water, air and soil qualities and
quantities, and nowadays, the economic implication of land degradation with soil erosion is
aggravated in Ethiopia. Rapid population growth, cultivating steep slopes without conservation,
overgrazing and clearing of vegetation are the major cause of accelerated soil erosion. All those
factors, therefore, affect food security of poor farmer in terms of production and aggravate water
scarcity (Tamene & Vlek, 2008).

Ensaro Woreda, the study area, is one of the 24 Woredas which is found in North Shewa Zone of
Amhara National Regional State in Ethiopia. 95.33% of the people live in rural area with their
main livelihood of agriculture. In the area mixed agriculture ox-plough system is the major
farming system.

3
The degradation and loss of the soil resulting from erosion, depletion of organic matters and
nutrients are much faster than they can be re-placed in Ethiopia (Hurni 1993). Different site-
specific research also reported that annual soil loss shows spatial and temporal variations. The
significance of soil erosion in Ethiopian highlands ranged from 42 t ha-1 y-1 (Hurni, 1993) to 179
t ha-1 y-1 (Shiferaw&Holden, 1999), Amare (2007) estimated soil loss as high as 90 t/ha/yr in
Eastern Escarpment of Wello from Steep slope ;Bewket & Teferi (2009), estimated annual soil
loss 93Mgha−1 yr−1 for the entire Chemago watershed Blue Nile basin and also North East
Wollega rate of soil loss is in the range of 4.5Mgha−1 yr−1 in forestland and 65.9Mgha−1 yr−1
in crop land (Adugna, 2015).

Soil erosion is a cause of losses of soil fertility , reduce crop yield and thereby exacerbate their
risk of food security (Fikirie& Beyene, 2017). Lack of capacity to cope and also to replace lost
nutrients soil erosion is more serious in developing countries including Ethiopia (Tamene& Vlek,
2008).The loss of soil may have serious impacts on the quantity and quality of soil ecosystem
services, with serious economic, social, and political challenges.

The Ethiopian government first recognized the impact of soil erosion after the 1973–1974 famine
(Haregeweyn .et. al, 2012). This occurred in the highly degraded parts of the country,
particularly in Tigray and Wello (Herweg &Ludi, 1999). To address this challenge Ethiopian
governments have launched various campaigns on soil, land and water conservation
(Haregeweyn et al., 2015). As a result, a large number of conservation and afforestation projects
were undertaken (Hurni, 1988). A total of 1,252,000 km of terraces and bunds was constructed
and 472 million trees were planted(Osman &Sauerborn, 2001). From that time up to the late
1990s, implementation was as part of agricultural package, top-down, approaches focused
engineering measures rather than agricultural production (Woldeamlak, 2002).This did not bring
a wide dissemination and adoption of the practices by farmers because of farmers constructed
SWC practices during the campaign, but they had no interest to implement or expand these
without food for work (Shiferaw& Holden, 1998). As a result of these comparative failures, a
major rethinking of watershed management approaches was undertaken by national and
international agencies (Chimdesa, 2016).

4
Between 1995 and 2009, soil conservation activities have been undertaken as part of the
agricultural extension package of the present government through mass mobilization with a top-
down approach and without incentives for the time farmers spent on SWC activities. The
approach was to construct conservation measures at individual level but not at watershed level.
Emphasis was given to the quantity of measures rather than the quality of measures. SWC is
mainly limited to physical measures. Dis-adoption and non-adoption of SWC measures were
common phenomena in the period. This indicates that the extension system did not bring about
behavioral changes among farmers probably because the focus was on changing the farmland
rather than farmers’ behavior (Teshome et al., 2016).

In 2010 the Ethiopian government launched new a land restoration program that is Sustainable
Land Management that aimed to double agricultural productivity through improving the
management of natural resources and agricultural lands. The current approach is also mass
mobilization, but then at participatory watershed level and it intended to change the attitudes of
the farmers and ensure that the SWC structures are sustainable and effective (Mekuriaw [Link],
2018). Since 2010, more than 15 million people have contributed free labor equivalent of
US$750 million each year. Physical and biological SWC measures have been introduced in more
than 3,000 watersheds managed by local communities(CGIAR, 2015).

Several site-specific studies indicated the positive effects of various SWC structures in reduction
of soil loss (Adimassu et al., 2014; Mengistu et al., 2016), improvement of crop yields (Amare B.,
2007; Nyssen et al., 2007; Teshome et al.,2013),watershed management increase on farm income
by 50% and reduce food security by 56% and the risk of crop failure due to moisture stress and
climate shocks by up to 30% (Gebremichael, 2005) and could be part of the country’s climate-
proofing strategy.

Factors that influencing the adoption and repairing of SWC structures is site-specific in several
studies. For instance, the effects of perceived seriousness of erosion, labor availability, and farm
land size on construction and repairing of SWC structures were reported (Tadesse & Belay,
2004;Birhanu & Meseret, 2013; Asmame, 2014). Moreover, land tenure and extension services
(Asmame, 2014), access to training, membership in local organizations, number of cattle owned,

5
educational level, and off-farm income were indicated as reason for influencing adoption of the
SWC structures (Tefera & Sterk, 2010;Birhanu & Meseret, 2013).

Previously there was no empirical research conducted in Ensaro Woreda about soil erosion status
though there was observable land degradation, which was soil erosion and ensuring SWC
sustainability is a problem. To overcome these problems the last many years the governmental
and recently non-governmental organizations are supporting sustainable agricultural land
management practices as a major part of soil and water conservation practices. Since Ethiopia
has great climatic variety, from dry to wet, and also many different altitudes, from lowlands to
highlands. Similar type of SWC practices recommendations are inappropriate given the
differences in agro- ecologies and other factors (Kato et. al., 2000) because of this site-specific
research was vital. The major research gap identified in this area include absence of reliable
information on level of soil erosion, food security status ,perception of farmer on erosion and
control measures, challenges, effectiveness and contribution of implemented SWC practices to
food security improvements of farmers.

1.3 Objective of the Study

1.3.1 Main objective

The overall objective of the study was to assess contribution of soil and water conservation
practices to household food security in Ensaro Woreda, Amhara National Regional State,
Ethiopia.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

1. Identify the introduced SWC technologies and implementation approaches in the last 10
years.

2. Determine the factors that affecting adoption of Soil and water conservation technologies

3. Assess food security status and coping strategies of farm household to the problem of
food shortage.

4. Examine the contribution of introduced SWC technologies to food security of farming

household.

6
1.3.3 Research questions

 What type of introduced Soil and water conservation technologies and approaches
implemented in the study area for the last ten years?
 Which factors were contributing to adoption of Soil and Water conservation
technologies?
 Were there significant differences in food security status of farmers between Soil
and Water conservation adopter and non-adopter farmers?
 Which type of copying mechanism did farmers used to recover in case of food
insecurity?

1.4. Scope of the study

This study was conducted in EnsaroWoreda, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. This
study focused on introduced SWC technologies and implementation approaches, determine the
factor that influencing adoption of SWC technologies and food security, assess Household food
security status (HHFS) and coping mechanism of the farmer and examine its contribution on
HHFS.

1.5 Significance of the Study

Conducting research on the complex linkages among adoption of SWC technologies and its
contribution to HHFS, perception of farmers about soil erosion problem and measures, food
security status and copying mechanism in case of food insecurity would have paramount
significance. Conducting research on such contemporary issues is relevant and timely for farmers,
policy makers and adds knowledge to the existing literature on the subject area. Furthermore, this
study can be used as baseline information about contribution of SWC technologies to HHFS in
Ensaro Woreda.

1.6 Limitation of the study

Considering the time limit and objectives of the study, this study was limited to the Contribution
of SWC technologies to household food security in Ensaro Woreda, Amhara National Regional
State,[Link] period of study under consideration was limited to December 2017 to December
2018 production year.

7
The variables included focused on demographic and socio-economic, perception, institutional and
farm characteristic related factors. Moreover, the tools to measure perception of household head loss
measurement of perception such as likert scale.

1.7. Ethical Considerations

In the course of this undertaking, an appropriate acknowledgment and citation have been made
for any concepts or ideas taken from the literature. Moreover, formal letter of support was
written to Ensaro Woreda governmental concerned body from center of food security.
Explanation was given to farmer about the purpose of the research. Verbal consent from the
respondents was requested before conducting the interview. They were informed that
confidentiality of individual farmer household information was to be ensured by using unique
identifiers. There were no known risks or discomforts associated with the study. Participation in
this study was entirely voluntary and that they were free to with draw from the study at any
time without any objection.

1.8 Organization of the study

This thesis was structured in five main chapters .The first chapter has introduction of the study
that includes the background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the
study ,research question ,scope of the study, significant of the study ,limitation of the study and
ethical consideration. Chapter two presents theoretical perspective and empirical evidences
related to SWC technologies and food security with analytical framework. Chapter three
discusses the methodological approaches of the study design and research methods such as
sample size determination, sampling procedure, data type, source and instruments, data
collection procedure, data analysis and description of the variables. Chapter four constitutes of
the study to analyzed quantitatively as well as qualitatively the data gathered through different
tools concerning the contribution of SWC practices to household food security in Ensaro Woreda,
Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. Chapter five contained conclusions and
recommendation of the study

8
 CHAPTER TWO

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Review on Concepts and Theories of Food security and SLM
2.1.1 Food security concept and definition

The current broad and comprehensive definition of food security is the result of a long process
characterized by different experiences, strategies, views and actors. Food Security as a concept
originated in mid-1970s, in the discussions of international food problems at a time of global
food crisis. It was coined at FAO’s World Food Conference in 1974 (Rome) as 'availability at all
times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food
consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices’. This is the narrowest definition
of food security that attempts to explain the concept as the availability of adequate food whether
at the global, national and regional level. However, the availability of food at larger scale alone
never guarantees food security at household or individual level. Unlike the case in 1970s, the
focus of the concept of food security shifted to questions of access to food at household and
individual levels in 1980s. In 1983 FAO conceptualized food security as: ‘Ensuring that all
people at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic food that they need’,
implying that a balance should be struck between the demand and supply side of the food
security equation. AmartyaSen (1981) that argues ensuring access, Sen, explain food insecurity
occurs not because there is not enough food, but because people do not have access to enough
food.

In the 1986 Poverty and Hunger report of the World Bank, this concept of food security has been
further elaborated in terms of: ‘access of all people at all times to enough food for an active and
healthy life.’ It introduced the widely accepted distinction between chronic food insecurity,
associated with problems of continuing or structural poverty and low income, and transitory food
insecurity, which involved periods of intensified pressure caused by natural disasters, economic
collapse or conflict (FAO, 2003).

The World Food Summit (1996) adopted even a more comprehensive definition: ‘Food security,
at the individual, household, national, regional and global levels is achieved when all people, at

9
all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their
dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (FAO, 1996). In this definition
the phrase 'safe and nutritious' emphasizes food safety and nutritional composition while 'food
preferences' indicates the change of the concept from mere access to access to the food preferred.
This implies that people with equal access to food, but different food preferences, could show
different levels of food security. This definition is again refined in the State of Food Insecurity
Submit (2001) as: ‘…a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social
and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary food
preferences for an active and healthy life’.

Finally, Food security definition has been identified with the four dimensions of food security:
availability, access, utilization and stability. However, food insecurity is defined as a condition in
which people lack the basic food intake necessary to provide them with the energy and nutrients
required for fully productive lives. In theories two type of food insecurity chronic and transitory
can be distinguish (FAO, 2010).

2.1.2 Techniques and methods of food security and insecurity assessment

There are two broad approaches which are used for the analysis of famine. The first approach is
the‘Political Economy’ which pointed out a number of environmental and socio-economic
attributes which include rapid population growth, war and civil strife, drought, ecological
degradation, government mismanagement, unequal access to resources and unequal exchange,
and socio-economic and political dislocation (Da Corta 1985 cited in Getachew 1995). This
approach argues that one or a combination of these can disrupt food production which may or
may not cause production failure that results imprecise explanations of the causation of the
process of famine.

The second approach raised in response to this major weakness comprises models of famine as
Food Availability Decline (FAD) model and Food Entitlement Decline (FED) model the specific
models of famine emerged (Degafa, 2002). The central argument of the former model is that
“anything which disrupts food production such as drought or flood and population pressure can
cause famine, the logic being that a drought or flood causes crop failure and cattle death,
reducing the availability of food in the affected region, and that such a food availability decline

10
for an extended period by definition constitutes a famine” (Devereux, 1988:270). This model
also considers the declining per capita food available with Rapid population growth. The model
proves this by investigating subsistence farmers’ situation that reveals how a failure of
production during one growing season would end up with food shortage.

Due to the overemphasized food supply and undermines the demand for available [Link],
an alternative method, FED model, for the analysis of famine was pioneered by Amartya Sen
(1981). The model suggests that in addition to food availability in the economy or in the Market,
access to food plays a crucial role in securing command over food which is, in turn, determined
by production, exchange or transfer.

2.1.3. Determinant of Food security

Different factors that affecting food security status of the farmer in [Link] to
agricultural extension services, off farm income, number of oxen owned, total land size and
safety net participation are found to be the major determinants of household food insecurity that
significantly reduce the level of HHFS. Whereas age dependency ratio, family size, crop disease
incidence and fertilizer utilization are uncovered to be significant and positive covariates of
household food insecurity in Adwa Woreda (Negash& Alemu, 2013). According to Siraje &
Bekele (2013) study shows family size, age of household head, dependency ratio, livestock
disease incidence were causing food [Link],sex of household head, herd size,
income from livestock production and non-farm income were working against food insecurity.

A study conducted by Mesele, Suneetha, & Tigga (2018) , in Norther part of Tigray by using
logistic regression model livestock ownership, land holding size, age of head, amount of rain fall,
concrete river diversion and deep well irrigation were robust and positively influence food
security while family size had a negative effect.

2.1.4. Concepts of Sustainable land management (SLM)

Sustainable land management was emerged as a priority item on the international agenda in the
early 1990’s and the concept was first introduced by Smyth and Dumanski (1993). Since then
many definitions have been proposed to describe aspects of sustainable land management. Hurni
(1997) defined SLM as a system of technologies and/or planning that aims to integrate ecological

11
with socio-economic and political principles in the management of land for agriculture and other
purposes to achieve intra-and inter-generational equity.

In this connection, Gete et al.,(2006) conceptualized SLM in Ethiopian context as the use of
renewable land resources, for agricultural and other purposes to meet community needs, while
simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the
maintenance of their environmental functions through systematic use of indigenous and scientific
knowledge/technologies, proper participation of communities on the decision making process
(planning, implementation and management), and appropriate policy environments to ensure the
successful implementation of the above processes.

In sum, Sustainable land management is a very complex and challenging [Link] encompasses
biophysical, socioeconomic and environmental concerns that must be viewed in integrated
manner. This includes actions to stop and reverse degradation and mitigate the adverse effects of
misuse.

2.1.4.1Severity of soil degradation

Land degradation affected more than 3 billion hectare of the world land (Lal, 2014). As a result
more than 3 billion people suffered to this problem (Nkonya, Mirzabaev, & Braun, 2016).This
notably challenges influencing agricultural productivity and affected livelihoods of more than 1
billion people (ELD Initiative, UNEP, 2015). African agriculture remains most threatened by
land degradation and more than 60% of its cropland is affected at various scales (Muchena et al.,
2005). In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), 75% of the population derives their livelihoods from
subsistence agriculture Soil degradation induced by water erosion and its consequences are the
main concern (Tully [Link]., 2015).

Soil degradation is any process that reduces the current and future productivity of soil. Abrol and
Oman (2002) defined soil erosion physical removal and transportation of top soil from one place
and its deposition to another by various agents such as striking and moving water, blowing winds,
strong waves, snow and the forces of gravity.

12
[Link] Types and Forms of Soil Erosion

There are two main types of soil erosion, geological soil erosion and human induced soil erosion.
According to Hudson (2002) soil erosion which is accelerated by human activities is known as
man-made or accelerated erosion. Geological soil erosion is the gradual removal of soil by
natural processes acting over a very long time. There are five forms of soil erosion by water.
These include; sheet erosion, rill erosion, gully erosion, slip erosion, stream bank erosion and sea
shore erosion. Most soil erosion occurs on cultivated land in the form of sheet and rill erosion.
However, it also occurs on grassland as gullies and even in forests if they are not properly
managed (MOA, 2016).Sheet, rill, and gully erosion are the dominant processes in
Ethiopia(Gebremichael, 2005 ; Mushir & Kedru, 2012, Haregeweyn et al., 2015).

[Link] SWC practices: response to soil degradation and to improve food security

The promotion of land, soil and water conservation measures has been a widespread
development in sub-Saharan Africa in a bid to tackle degradation and improve productivity. As a
result, several governments have launched various campaigns on soil, land and water
conservation measures. Soil conservation is defined as the specific use and protection of land,
including wise choice of land use and pursuit of necessary measures of soil management and
erosion control. Soil erosion is prevented by several agronomic and biological properties.
According to Heinrich (2001) soil conservation technologies can be grouped in to two categories;
mechanical/physical and biological measures. Unfortunately, many conservation programs
designed to address soil and water degradation in the traditional agricultural sector have fallen
far short of expectations. Findings have showed that despite a number of potential soil and water
management technologies developed, adoption by farmers is still very low (Odi, 2002).

The main reason for the failure to achieve sustainable conservation structures is lack of
knowledge and skill on construction [Link] 34.38% were constructed based on the
standardized package set on the national guideline the remaining 41 terraces do not met the
minimum standards mentioned in the national standardized package (Molla& Sisheber, 2016).

13
Physical soil and water conservation are methods which aimed to reduce the velocity of surface
runoff and minimize soil erosion by shortening the length and minimizing the gradient of the
slope. They also aimed to retain water when it is needed or safely dispose excess runoff. The
structures mainly involve different types of bunds, terraces, check-dams, water diversion (cut-off
drain, water ways) and harvesting structures (micro basins). Whereas, Biological SWC measures
mainly involve tree planting in the form of afforestation or reforestation. Vegetation has a
curative and protective value (Chimdesa, 2016).

A study conducted in Iran the farmer used ratoon cropping ,crop rotation ,manure , and
conservation tillage as agronomic measures and physical measures such as plastic mulch on soil
surface on the borders of rice fields,leveling and terracing of farms, bunds, dikes and
dams ,removal of weeds and sediment from canals ,and farm drainage .Plastic mulching can
reduce soil erosion, reduce evaporation and retain moisture and suppress weed growth (Ashoori
[Link]., 2016).

2.1.5 Linkages between soil and water conservation and Food security

According to Braun et al. (2003), implementation of SWC practices improves soil fertility and
increases crop productivity, which enables farmers to grow more food, which translates into
better diets and under market conditions that offer a level playing field, into higher farm incomes.
A study conducted benchmark watershed in India, China, Thailand and Vietnam watershed
management is seen as an entry point for improving livelihoods a achieving food security and
has resulted in increasing agricultural productivity by 2 to 3 folds, doubling the family incomes,
and reducing runoff up to 66% and soil loss by 2/3rd (Wani [Link] , 2010). On the other hand ,
study conducted by Meliyo, Masuki, & Mowo, (2007) in Tanzania SWC measures contributing
to livelihood of the farmer who conserved their land had 3 to 5 folds yield increase and food
security increased from 3 to 9 months y r−1.

14
2.2 Review of empirical findings of studies on food security and SWC nexus in
Ethiopia
2.2.1 Food security situation in Ethiopia

Ensuring food security remains a challenge in a world with a growing and more demanding. In
2017, the number of undernourished people is estimated to have increased to 821 million around
one out of every nine people in the world; more than 23.2 % of the population may have suffered
from chronic food deprivation in sub-Saharan Africa(FAO et al., 2017). More than 41 % of the
Ethiopian population lives below the poverty line and above 31 million people are
undernourished. Similarly, the number of food insecure people in the country recently increasing;
which was estimated to 2.9 million in 2014 and 4.5 million in August, 2015 and more than
doubled to 10.2 million at the end of the same year. Consequently, 27 million Ethiopian became
food insecure as a result of 2015 El Niño drought and 18.1 million dependents on relief food
assistance in 2016 out of this 7.9 million supported by Ethiopian government Productive safety
net program (SNP).

Different site-specific research indicated high prevalence of food insecurity in rural farmers.
According to Negash and Alemu, (2013) study results in Tigray region Adawa district 63.33 %
of the HH has been food insecure,65.8% of household food insecure in ChifraWoreda afar
region (Siraje& Bekele, 2013). Similarly to this study a study conducted in Bilate watershed
southern part of Ethiopia by using Household Core Food Security Module 63% of the HH are
food insecure (Genene & Wegaye ,2010) , 42.9% of the HH are food insecure in rain fed area in
Ethiopia and Ambara discrete(Wani et al., 2010; Thirumarpan, 2014).

A number of factors that affecting food security situation in the world those factors are vary from
one place to place. Drought and climate change, shortage of farm land, lack of functional multi-
party democratic systems, land reform policy, lack of appropriate policies and institutions, lack
of rural infrastructures(schools, roads, markets and health), population growth and lack of
education are the major causes of food insecurity in rural Ethiopia (Sewnet, 2015). Similarly to
this Wassie & Alemu (2016)confirmed ,drought, poor health, erratic rainfall, backward
agriculture, poor infrastructure facility, natural disaster, land degradation, population pressure
and low level of technology were the major factor. Whereas, drought and land degradation,

15
population pressure, instability and armed conflict are major sources of food insecurity problems
in Ethiopia(Mohamed, 2017).

2.2.2 Coping strategies practiced in Ethiopia

Maxwell (1996) classified household responses to food insecurity into two ways coping
strategies and adaptive strategies. Adaptive strategies involve a permanent change in the mix of
ways in which food is required; irrespective of the year in question and it refer to long term
adjustment. Whereas, coping strategy defined as a mechanism by which HH or community
members meet their relief and recovery needs and adjust to future disaster related risks by
themselves without outside support (Tesfaye, 2005).

According to Maxwell et al.,(2002), there are four types of coping strategies that food insecure
households typically use: Changing the diet, increasing food supplies through non-sustainable
means,decreasing the number of individuals being fed by the HH and Rationing available foods
by reducing meal size or frequency. Siraje &Bekele, (2013) pastoralist HH in afar region
frequently use sale of sheep and goats (shoats), reducing number and size of meals; seasonal
migration (some of the family members), receiving food aid and borrowing cash or food from
neighbors or relatives as coping strategies. Similarly to this Ethiopian rural HH practiced
minimizing number and quantity of meals in a day, diversifying livelihood income sources,
migration, and wage labor (Sewnet, 2015).

On the other hand , a study conducted by Negash and Alemu, (2013), selling household asset,
leaving the entire days without eating and sending household members for beg. Almost, in all
nine regional administrations of Ethiopia rural HH use the same coping strategies such as people
use sale of livestock, agricultural employment, and migration to other areas, requesting grain
loans, sales of wood or charcoal, small scale trading and limiting size and frequency of meal as
major coping mechanisms to cope with food insecurity and harsh life (Mohamed, 2017).

2.2.3. Soil erosion level, cause and its impact in Ethiopia

Studies made in different parts of Ethiopia also reported that high level of annual soil loss show
spatial and temporal variations. According to Gebremichael (2005) estimated 57 t in North
Tigray ha−1 y−1, 93 t ha−1 y−1in the chemoga watershed Ethiopia (Bewket & Teferi, 2009), Debre

16
Mewi watershed erosion rate was 8 to 32 t ha-1 (Tana, 2010), Mushir and Kedru (2012)
estimated annual soil loss recorded in Ethiopia 114.59 tons/ha/year on the steep slopes, Haile and
Fetene (2011) estimated that about 97.04% of Kilie catchment East Showa, have 0–10Mgha-1 yr-1
the soil loss rate by water ranges from 16 to over 300Mgha-1 yr-1 in Ethiopia (Tesfaye et al.,
2014.),erosion rate and also Spatio-temporal variations that range from 4.5 Mgha-1 yr-1 in forest
to 65.9 Mgha−1 yr−1 in cropland (Adugna, 2015).

Soil erosion loss affected the agriculture sectors in the world .FAO estimates that over the past
40 years, erosion has removed nearly one-third of the world’s arable land from production
(Fischer et al., 2011),South Africa about 75% of farmers they lose more than 21% of their crops
yearly due to erosion and 55% said their crops and livestock, as well as their household feeding
(Ighodaro, Lategan, & Mupindu, 2016). Similarly ,crop fields are affected by annual soil losses
ranging from 24 to 160Mgha-1 yr-1 in western Ethiopia (Tefera& Sterk, 2010).The annual rate of
soil loss in the country is higher than the annual rate of soil formation rate.

2.2.4. Historical perspective of SWC Practices in Ethiopia

The importance of soil conservation was largely neglected in Ethiopia prior to 1974. The
problem attracted the attention of policy makers and international donors only after the
disastrous drought and famine particularly in Tigray and Wollo. An effort to halt the problem of
soil erosion started after the Ethiopian government initiated massive soil conservation programs
following the 1975 land reform. A large number of conservation and afforestation projects were
undertaken by food-for-work (FFW) programs (Hurni1988). This massive campaign in soil
conservation under FFW did not bring a wide dissemination and adoption of the practices by
farmers. This is because farmers constructed SWC practices during the campaign, but they had
no interest to implement or expand these without food for work. Most of the conservation
measures were removed after the government changed in 1991 ( Shiferaw &Holden 1998).

Between 1995 and 2009, soil conservation activities have been undertaken as part of the
agricultural extension package of the present government through mass mobilization with a top-
down approach and without incentives for the time farmers spent on SWC activities. The
approach was to construct conservation measures at individual level but not at watershed level.
Emphasis was given to the quantity of measures rather than the quality of measures. SWC is

17
mainly limited to physical measures. Dis-adoption and non-adoption of SWC measures were
common phenomena in this period. This indicates that the extension system did not bring about
behavioral changes among farmers probably because the focus was on changing the farmland
rather than farmers’ behavior. Since 2010, the government of Ethiopia has embarked again on a
massive SWC campaign. The current approach is also mass mobilization, but then at watershed
level. And there is an attempt to make such SWC program more participatory (Teshome,et al.,
2016).

The traditional and indigenous methods were applied and practiced in different part Ethiopia.
According to Amare.B ( 2007) study fourteen types of indigenous and about eleven externally
introduced and adapted SWC technologies that are currently in use in Eastern Escarpment of
Wollo such as stone, soil, and stone faced soil bund and agro ecology, Fanyajuu, tree planting,
area closure, micro basin, trench, hill side terracing, check dam and [Link] et al.,
(2018), about 87% of Ethiopian highlands were using physical SWC structures to keep the soil
on their cultivated land and to improve crop yields. On the other hand, fallowing, distribution of
manure and soil (stone) bunds are the most important conservation structures widely used in
southern Ethiopia (Mushir & Kedru, 2012). In Guba Lafto the most common physical SWC
include stone bund, stone faced soil bund, check dam, and fanya-juu terrace. Agronomic
conservation measures contour farming, mixed cropping, and crop rotation and afforestation,
agro forestry, area closure and grass strip are biological measures (Asnake & Elias, 2017).

2.2.5. Farmers perception on soil erosion and control measures

Farmers’ willingness to use SWC practices is largely determined by their knowledge of the
problem of soil erosion. Farmer’s awareness about the problem and causes of soil erosion as well
as its consequences will help to motivate farmers to use soil conservation practices(Amsalu &
Graaff, 2006). Different site specific research confirmed the majority of the farmer aware about
soil erosion and its impact on productivity (Teshome et al., 2016; Tadesse & Belay, 2004 ;Jaleta
M. et al., 2016 ; Tefera & Sterk, 2010; Adugna, 2015) but they did not invest much in SWC
measures because they do not perceive a significant advantage to their use and lack of short-
term economic benefit(Mekuriaw et al,2018). Additionally to this, farmers perception about the
technologies be able to shelter for pests, difficult to tillage , and rats, need much labor, need

18
incentives to implement, difficult to implement and reduce farm size are the factors affecting the
adoption of SWC technologies (Mushir & Kedru, 2012).

High percentage of farmers awareness and using SWC structure does not mean that so much
land is protected (Mekuriaw et al., 2018) there is a large difference in the intensity of SWC
adoption among adopter categories (Teshome, et al., 2016). Therefore, clear understanding of the
benefits of SWC structures by farmers, active involvement and technical support from the
government, and genuine participation of farmers in SWC practices are critical issues to
implement effective measures (Mekuriaw et al., 2018).

2.2.6. Contribution of SWC to food security in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, different study confirmed the positive impact of SWC measures. According to
Gebremichael (2005), it contributed on farm income and food security by 50% and 56%
respectively. Also, reduce the risk of crop failure due to moisture stress and climate shocks has
reduced by up to 30% in Northern Tigray.

According to Melaku et al., (2018 ), prediction of SWC structure impacts on runoff and erosion
processes by using SWAT model in the northern Ethiopian highlands, it reduced soil loss by 25–
38% in the treated Gumara- Maksegnit [Link] conducted in Northern Ethiopian
reported crop yields increased by 7% compared to the situation without stone bunds and also
yield increased from 632 to 683 kg ha-1 for cereals, from 501 to 556 kg ha-1 (11%) for
Eragrostistef and from 335 to 351 kg ha-1 for Cicerarietinum(Vancampenhout, Nyssen, &
Gebremichael, 2006). SWC has a significant role in maintaining and/or restoring soil fertility,
maintaining agricultural production, restoring vegetation cover, and mitigating anthropogenic
land degradation (Shiene, 2012). The study conducted by Haregeweyn et al.,( 2015), estimate a
mean seasonal runoff reduction of 40%, with large spatial variability, ranging from 4%in
AnditTid (Northwest Ethiopia) to 62% in Gununo (South Ethiopia). Similarly, soil loss was
reduced by an average of 65% because SWC technologies.

The establishment of slow forming terraces therefore is of vital importance in fighting

desertification and establishing sustainable agriculture in the Ethiopian highlands
(Vancampenhout et al., 2006).Additionally, 80 % farmers benefited from natural resources by
grazing their livestock and harvesting firewood and grasses (Eshete et al., 2015).
19
2.3. Analytical framework

This research would follow the analytical framework depicted in (Figure 1)which explains the
relationship among variables that affect adoption of SWC which in turn affects food security.
They include demographic and socio-economic factors, perception, farm characteristic and
institutional factors affecting adoption of SWC. The outcome of the study would be providing
weather adoption of SWC technologies is contributing on household food security status of the
farmer or not. The linkage and interaction of determinants of adoption of SWC between
household food security statuses are explained as follows.

Demographic and Socio-economic factors

Age the effect of age of the farmer on SWC practices may be either negative or positive .Older
age often associated with long years of farming experience could positively influence
conservation decision (Amsalu& Graaff, 2006 ; Nkegbe, 2011; Mango, et al ., 2017). In contrast,
younger farmers with longer planning perspective are likely to invest more in conservation
(Asfaw& Neka, 2017; Mountain & Park, 2018).

Sex the effect of sex may be either negative or positive SWC [Link] male headed the HH
have a higher chance to involve in SWC practice than female headed since constructing and
maintain SWC practice demand much labour and energy (Asfaw& Neka,2017). However,
Mountain & Park, (2018) stated the negative influence of sex on SWC practice. On the other
hand , sex of the household did not significant effect on SWC technologies (Mango et al., 2017;
Mekuriaw [Link] ,2018).

Family size the small sized HH family is less likely to involve in retaining of SWC technologies
practices than larger sized HH family. The larger sized family could provide the required labor
for implementing and maintaining conservation practices (Nkegbe, 2011) . However, Mango et
al., (2017) and [Link] (2018) reported, family size did not significant effect for SWC
practice.

Education better education level of HHH having strong and positive relationship with farmers’
adoption of SWC conservation practices. Better exposure to education increases farmers’ better

20
understanding of the benefits and constraints of soil conservation (Mekonnen & Abiy, 2014;
Asfaw & Neka, 2017; Mango et al., 2017; Meseret & Amsalu, 2017).On the other
hand ,education did not had significant impact on SWC technologies ( [Link] 2018).

Participation of off-farm Participation in off-farm work could keep the labor force needed for
Conservation away from the farm because of this negatively relationship between SWC practices.
(Tenge et al. 2004; Asfaw & Neka, 2017; Mountain & Park, 2018).

Livestock size on adoption decision was significantly negative. This indicates that large
livestock size discourages conservation investments, perhaps due to the tendency of HH to focus
more on livestock than on crop production (Amsalu& Graaff, 2006; Nkegbe, 2011).

Labour availability The amount of farm labor has an influence on SWC measures. This imply
that HH who have more persons full time involved in agriculture are more likely to invest in and
maintain SWC measures (Teshome, Graaff, & Kassie, 2016).

Household head perception factors

Perception of Farmers about soil erosion as a problem and understand long term technologies
profitability are one of the factors to adoption or non-adoptions of SWC(Amsalu & Graaff, 2006).
Perception erosion Farmers who perceived the problem better are expected to invest more in
conservation measures (Teshome, Graaff, & Kassie, 2016). Incontrast, Amsalu & Graaff, (2006 )
reported non-significant association SWC technologies.

SWC technologies Profitability Farmers would likely adopt conservation practices if they
perceived the long-term technologies profitable (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006).

Farm characteristic factors

Farm size the effect of farm size on impact of SWC can be positive or negative. Farmers who
hold large farms are more likely to invest in conservation (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006; Teshome,
Graaff, & Kassie, 2016).On the other hand , more land may reduce the need to conserve land
(Mountain& Park 2018).

21
Land tenure the effect of land tenure security had positively affecting on farmers' conservation
decisions (Tefera & Sterk, 2010). However, land tenure did not have significant effect on SWC
practices (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006; Mekuriaw et al., 2018).

Farm location distance of farmland from homestead is negatively correlated with the adoption
of introduced SWC technologies since it is difficult to implement and maintain regularly
(Nkegbe, 2011; Gebremedhin & Swinton , 2003 ; Asfaw & Neka, 2017).

Institutional factors

Agricultural extension service and training on SWC measures are the basic tools for
smallholder farmers to get awareness about SWC ,the mechanism how to implement it and
improve production methods because of this both of them were positively affecting SWC
measures (Nkegbe, 2011; Asfaw & Neka, 2017; Mango et al., 2017; Mountain & Park, 2018).

Market lack of market access was negatively affecting implementation of SWC Practice due to
increased production costs and unsatisfactory profit margins farmers get (Gebremedhin &
Swinton, 2003; Nkegbe, 2011).

Access to credit and ability to relax capital constraints positively affect SWC technology
adoption (Boureim, et. al, 2018).

Adoption of SWC confirmed in different study the positively impact on household food
security status of the farmer as improving soil fertility ,agricultural productivity ,income and
significantly contributing HHFS (Gebremichael ,2005;Vancampenhout et al., 2006; Wani et al.,
2010;Shiene, 2012 ).

22
 Demographic and
Socio-economic HHH Perception
factor - Soil erosion problem
-Age - Technology profitability
-Sex
-Family size
-Education level
of HHH
-participation on off Farm characteristic
farm activity - Farm size
SWC - Land tenure
-Labour availability technologies
- Livestock ownership - Farm location
adoption

Institutional factors
- Extension service
- Access to training
Food security
- Access to market
HH Food security status
-Access to credits

Fig .1 Analytical frame works Source: Derived from related literature review

23
 CHAPTER THREE

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the study area

Ensaro Woreda is one of the 24 Woredas which is found in North Showa Zone of Amhara
National Regional state in Ethiopia. Geographically the Woreda is located between 9º 35ˈ- 9º 55ˈ
latitude and 38º 40' - 39 º 10ˈ longitudes. The Woreda has one urban kebele and 12 rural kebele’s.
The capital of the Woreda is Lemmi town which is located at 130km away from Addis Ababa
and 85 km from Debir Birehan. According to Central Statistical Agency (CSA)of Ethiopia
projection from 2014 to 2017, the Woreda had a total population of 66,201 of whom 33,816 were
male and 32,385 females,4678individual were urban while 61,523 were rural.

Fig .2 Location of Ensaro Woreda (Source CSA,2018)

24
Land use category

According to EWADO (2018) land use system of EnsaroWoreda. Out of the estimated total land
area of 44,217.6 hectare; 21,465 hectare (48.5%) is arable land, 3911 hectare (8.8%) is used for
grazing, 6,707 hectare (15.2%) is covered with shrubs and afforested plants , 186.1 hectare (0.4%)
covered with water, 11,948.56 hectare (27.02%) is allocated for residential and infrastructure
development.

Climate, Soil type and vegetation coverage

According to EWADO (2018), Dega (21%), Weyinadega (46%) and kola (33%)zone are the
main agro-ecology. The average annual rainfall amount varies between 900 to 1500 mm and average
temperature is in between 18°c-30°[Link] also, clay loam, clay to clay loam and clay to silty clay
loam soil type were dominated soil type in the study area it covers 40.9%, 33.6% and 25.5%
respectively. The forest land is covered the third highest percentage of the area which covers 15.2%
of the Woredaas total area. This forest and shrubs are used as source of fire wood, forage (fodder)
especially for goat, sheep and in the nearest time the people used tree planting of cattle fodder trees
like (Saspania, Trilusern etc.)

Economic activity

Most of the people in the area are engaged in mixed agriculture. Crop cultivation and livestock
production are practiced. Crop production is entirely rainfed, except in very specific and small areas
where vegetables are cultivated based on traditional and small-scale irrigation. There are two rainy
seasons, kiremt and belg, and they are used for the cultivation of long cycle crops system and land
preparation is carried out using mainly ox-plowing but tilling by hand occurs in the hilly areas on
steeply sloping lands. Teff, wheat, barley, maize, sorghum, green paper, bean, gomenzer, pea,
nug, lentils, shimbra, guaya, telba, suff, and abish were the dominant crops of the study area .The
type of domestic animals found in the Woreda include: cattle , pack animals, sheep ,goats and
poultry(EWADO,2018).

25
Infrastructures

Regarding distribution of towns, light, schools, health services, road and [Link] Woreda
has 1 town only at for 13 kebeles. According to Woreda education office it has one secondary
school and 13 primary school. Out of 12 rural kebele only 4 kebeles had access to
[Link] to Woreda health office, also indicates that the Woreda has 13 health centers and
4 clinics distributed. In addition, the area has 4 veterinary posts with very limited service to
Woreda’s population. Amhara credit and saving institution is the only institutions who serve
credit for the communities and there is also one main road that crosses the Woreda to the
neighboring Woreda and there are some roads to link kebeles and also only one market in the
Woredafor buy agricultural inputs and sell their product as a result the farmers suffering lack of
road and transport access the majority of farming house enforced to travel on foot for long hours.

3.2 Study Design

The study was cross-sectional study design. Cross-sectional surveys are used to gather
information on population at a single point in time. And also, mixed qualitative and quantitative
approaches were used to answer the research questions outlined and address the four specific
objectives set.

3.3 Research methods

3.3.1 Sample Size Determination

Usually the sample size was determined considering the heterogeneity of the community,
complexity and coverage of the questionnaire, the time available and the funds that are feasible.
The sample size was determined using statistical formula for a population size (N) that was
greater than or equal to 10,000 recommended by Kothari (2004), which was calculated using the
following empirical formula:

Z)2 P 1 − P
n=
d2
1.96)2 (0.5)(1 − 0.5)
n= = 384
0.052

26
Z = standard normal distribution corresponding to significance level at d = 0.05 or confidence
interval (CI), 95% = 1.96, by using single population proportion formula, taking prevalence p =
(50%), marginal of error=5% and 95% CI, a none response rate of 10% the sample size was
calculated as to be 423.

Since the number of populations living at different agro-ecology zone were not the same,
proportional number of representative’s samples for each agro-ecology zones were considered
and obtained by applying the following formula.

n1= nN1/N, Where n= number of HH

N= Total HH in the Woreda that was 12056
N1= The summation of HH in each agro-ecology zone
Table 1 Distribution of sample by agro-ecology and study kebele
Agro-ecology Population Selected Kebele Allocation
zone size (N1) sample size
Dega 3537 Wekelo 124
Weyinadega 4761 Karamba 167
Kolla 3758 Beressa 132
Total 12056 3 kebele 423

3.3.2. Sampling Procedure

The representative sample was selected from the total population under the study, from the total
household farmer’s and kebele administration of Ensaro Woreda. Regarding procedure of
sampling, stratified randomly sampling design was employed. The kebeles was stratified in to
three agro-ecology zone and randomly selected three kebeles namely karamba, Wekelo and
Beressa. The kebles were selected randomly depending on the three agro-ecology zones,
proportionally allocating from each zone. Finally, HHH was selected systematic through random
sampling.

27
3.3.3 Data type, source and instrument

Types of data collected was on demographic and socio-economic and farm characteristics of
farming household head, institutional factors that affect adoption of SWC practices, perception
and knowledge of farming HHH on soil erosion as a problem and profitability of SWC
technologies, types and magnitude of SWC technologies implemented, household’s food security
status and their copying mechanism to address food insecurity. Sources of the data were both
primary and secondary data. Instruments that were used to collect the primary data include
questionnaire survey, focus group discussion (FGD), key informant interview and personalfield
observation. The detail of collection procedure is depicted here under.

[Link] Primary data

The main instrument used for data collection was a structured questionnaire, Focused Group
Discussion (FGD), key informant interview (KI) and personal field observation to address
specific objectives of the study.

Household questionnaire

Household questionnaires were open and close-ended questions that were pre-tested and also
developed in English and translated in to Amharic which is the official working language of the
Woreda. Interviews were conducted with household heads about socio-economic characteristics,
perceptions on soil erosion and conservation measures, implemented technologies on their farm
land, farm characteristics, institutional factor, food security status and coping mechanism in the
case of food shortage.

Personal field observations

From each kebeles few selected representative fields were visited to assess the existing
technologies and different management practices. Field observations were done in order to verify
and supplement the information collected during household surveys. During observation, field
notes and photographs were taken. While conducting observation, informal discussions with
farmers working on their plots were made to get further clarification on the issue of interest.

28
Focused Group Discussion (FDG)

Total of three focus group discussions were conducted. The participant was purposely selected
with groups of six to eight male and female headed farmers of various ages and adoption status
from selected kebele and were used to obtain community views on historical and current trend of
SWC practice, implementation approached, perception of farmers about soil erosion as problem
and technology profitability, food security situation of the farming household and also copying
mechanism in case of food insecurity. The discussions were guided with checklists of discussion
topics. This approach was very important to cross-validating information and filter out
controversial and contested issues through debate and dialogue on the topic of interest. This kind
of discussion also helped handle exaggerated views that might be given by some individuals
(Woldeamlak, 2003).

Key informant interview

Nine key -informants were purposely selected from Woreda agricultural office natural resource
development experts (1), agricultural extension and crop productivity expert (1),risk
management and preparedness experts(1) and also information were drawn from study kebele
agricultural extension officers(3) and community representatives(elders) (3) related to SWC
practices and food security issues.

[Link]. Secondary data

Secondary data source was also used as source of information. In this regard, additional
information was obtained from the governmental offices documents such as annual reports and
household head list at Woreda and kebele level.

3.3.4 Data Collection Procedures and Data quality

All participants (n=423) were provided with oral informed consent. Primary and secondary data
was collected. The data was collected by trained data collectors. One day of training on how to
approach and fill out the questionnaire before they visited each household and interviewed the
respondents in person and theoretical training about subject area was given for three data
collectors. And also to assure the quality of data the questionnaire were pre-tested, coding and
data cleaning (checked frequencies and cross-tab for each item) were used.

29
3.3.5. Data Analysis Techniques

Data was coded and entered in to SPSS version 23 and export to STATA version 14.2 for
analysis. Descriptive statistical summary measures (i.e. means, standard deviation, frequencies,
percentages and cross tabulation) were used to understand the collected data and also chi-square
test for determine the association between HHFS and adoption on SWC technologies.
Econometric model binary logistic regression was used to predict the relationship between SWC
adoption and independent variables tested at 5% significant [Link] logistic regression
model were used to identify the major explanatory variables for food security, which adoption of
SWC was one variable.

For this analysis post-estimation test were done after logistic regression. In order to test the
existence of multi-collinearity, both the continues and discrete explanatory variables were
checked using variance inflation factor (VIF).This statistical analysis indicates that there is no
strong association among the variables (Annex 2 and 4). And also, hetroscedasticity and
goodness -of- fit test was calculated to auto correlation and appropriateness of data with model.
The information gathered from focus group discussion, key-informant interview, and personal
field observations were analyzed qualitatively.

[Link] Assessment of household food security status

Farmers’ household food security status can be assessed using different models. For this study
Household Food Balance Model (HFBM) is applied. This equation was originally adapted by
Degefa (1996), from FAO regional food balance model and thenceforth used by different
researchers in Ethiopia which was employed to compute the net quantity of per capita [Link]
net available food per household per annum, as reported from household recall, is converted into
dietary energy equivalent using Ethiopian health and nutrition research institute EHNRI/FAO
(1998)'s Food Composition table for use in case of Ethiopia. Then, annual kcal availability per
household was converted to daily kcal per adult equivalent. Medically recommended level of
calorie per adult equivalent (2200kcal/day/person for Ethiopia) is used as a cut-off point for food
insecure and food secure households set by Ethiopian government. The model was given by the
following equation.

30
NGA = (GP + GB + FA + GG) - (HL+ GU + GS +GV)
Where,
NGA= Net grain available/year/household
GP= Total grain produced/year/household
GB= Total grain bought/year/household
FA= Quantity of food aid obtained/year/household
GG= Total grain obtained through gift or remittance/year/household
HL= Post harvest losses/year
GU=Quantity of grain reserved for seed/year/household
GS=Amount of grain sold/year/household
GV=Grain given to others within a year

3.3.5.2Econometric model to assess determinants of SWC adoption

In order to assess contribution of SWC to food security, it is felt necessary first to assess the
adoption level of SWC in the study area. Adoption of SWC technologies by a farmer was
assessed using criteria indicated in Table 2.

Table 2: SWC technologies adoption criteria.

SWC Technology Indicator
Adopter  Implement at least 50% of introduced technologies suitable to
their farming area
 Performed maintenance on SWC measures
Non-adopter  Not performed SWC at all and/or cannot performed
maintenance and implement less than 50% of the introduced
technologies
Source;Authors, 2019
Furthermore, determinants of adoption of SWC practices were analyzed by binary logistic
regression model used socio- economic, HHH perception, farm characteristic and institutional
factors as explanatory variable for adoption of SWC technologies and food security. Relationship
between farmers HHFS status and adoption of SWC technologies was analyzed by chi-square
test and also used adoption of SWC technologies as an explanatory variable for HHFS.

31
For this study, a model that reflects the determinants of adoption of SWC measures is used.
Different literature on soil and water conservation investments was assessed to select appropriate
model. Logit and probit models are popular statistical techniques in which the probability of a
dichotomous outcome (such as adopter or non-adopter) is related to a set of explanatory variables
that are hypothesized to influence the outcome (Neupane et al., 2002). However, Pindyck and
Rubinfeld (1981) acknowledged logistic probability function as computationally easier to use
than the other types. That is why logistic regression model was used for this study.

Pi = F (α + βXi) = 1 / 1 + e-(α + βXi)

Where: Subscript i denotes the ith observation in the sample; Pi is the probability that an
individual will make a certain choice given Xi; e is the base of natural logarithms and
approximately equal to 2.718; Xi is a vector of exogenous; variables α and β are parameters of
the model, β1, β2……, βk are the coefficients associated with each explanatory variables X1,
X2, …, Xn. The above function can be rewritten as:

ln [P /(1− P)]= β0 + β1 X1 + β2 X2 + ... + βk Xk

Where: P/ (1-P) is the odds (likelihoods); β0 is the intercept; β1, β2 … and βk are coefficients of
the associated independent variables of X1, X2…and [Link] effect of the independent variables
(e.g., β1) is interpreted as the odds (likelihoods) of the outcome increases or decreases by a
factor of eβ1. The quantity eβ1is called the odds ratio. The odds ratio is a measure of association
between the independent and the dependent variables. While the estimated coefficients from
logistic regression are not easily interpretable, odds ratios might provide a better summary.
Marginal effects are an alternative metric that can be used to describe the impact of independent
variable on dependent variable. Marginal effects can be described as the change in independent
variable as a function of the change in independent variable holding all other variables in the
model constant.

3.3.6 Description of variables

The dependent variable is adoption of SWC which is expressed as dummy variable; 1 for adopter
and 0 for non-adopter. The independent variables and their brief description are depicted in
Table 3.

32
Table 3: Description of independent variable that affecting the adoption of SWC technologies
Variable Code Type Description with Measurement unit Expected sign
Age HHAGE Continues Age of household heads (in years) +

Sex HHSEX Dummy 1 for male and 0 otherwise +

Family size FAMSZ Continues Size of households (in numbers) +

Education HHEDU Categorical 0 for unable to read,1foronly read and write ,2 for +
formal education (primary and secondary school)
Perception of soil erosion as PERSO Dummy 1 if erosion is perceived, 0 otherwise +
problem
Perception on SWC PERTEC Dummy 1 if perceived profitable, 0 otherwise +
technologies profitability
Participation of off-farm PARTOFF Dummy 1 if participate in off-farm work, 0 otherwise -
activity

Livestock ownership TLU Continues Total livestock availability TLU unit -

Farm size FARSZ Continues Total area of farm (cultivated land, grazing land, +
woodland, and bare land); (in ha)
Land tenure LADTE Dummy 1if has feeling land ownership ,0 otherwise +
Farm location FARLOC Continues Average distance to home to farm area(in walking -
minutes

33
Labour availability LABAV Continues Number of full time HH member engaged on farm +
activity
Extension service EXTSER Dummy 1 if farmer contact with extension worker,0 otherwise +
Training on SWC practices TRAN Dummy 1 if the farmer has been trained ,0 otherwise +
Market distance MAKT Continues The distance of home to nearest market in (Walk hr) -
Access to credit CRDT Dummy 1 if received credit, 0 otherwise +

Source: Derived from review of related literature,

34
 CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter describes the descriptive and econometric model result of the study. The descriptive
statistic result includes demographic and socio-economic characteristics, implemented SWC
technologies and implementation approach, farmer’s perception to soil erosion and control
measures, SWC adoption status,food security status and copying mechanism in case of food
insecurity. The econometric analysis section result shows the determinant factors of adoption of
SWC technologies and food security of farming household and also the role of SWC
technologies to household food security.

4.1Descriptive Statistics

4.1.1 Demographic and Socio-economic characteristics of study participants

[Link] Sex, education status and off-farm participation of farm households

A total of 423 respondents were included for the analysis of contribution of SWC practices to
HHFS from 3 agro-ecology zone of Ensaro Woreda. Among the study participants, 77.3% and
22.7%were male headed and female headed households [Link] seven percent of HHH
were unable to read and write and only 19.9 % of farming household was attending formal
education that was primary and secondary education. Out of the total respondents,only22.7 % of
the HHH were participating on off-farm activity(Table 4).Petty trade and daily labor were the
major source of off-farm activity.

Table 4: Distribution of Sampled Households by Sex, education and off-farm participation

Category Characteristics Number Percent

Sex of HHH Female 96 22.7
Male 327 77.3
Education status of Unable to read and write 241 57.0
HHH
Only able to read and write 98 23.1
Formal education 84 19.9
Off-farm activity Yes 96 22.7
No 327 77.3
Source: own survey, 2019

35
[Link] Age, family size, livestock and landholding of household head

Age of the respondents in the study Woreda ranged from 20 to 80 and the mean ages of the
respondents were46.55years with standard deviation of 10.89. The family size of sampled
respondents also ranged from 2 to 12 and the average family size was around 4.66 (5) persons
with standard deviation of 1.69. Total livestock varied from 0 to 11.93 with mean of 2.83
Tropical livestock unit (TLU).Regarding labor availability on farming, it varies ranging from 0
to 7 with mean of 1.56 persons. The average land holding size of the sampled households was
1.26 hawith minimum, maximum and standard deviation of 0.25 ha, 3.5 ha and 0.64 respectively
(Table 5).
Table 5: Distribution of Sampled Households by Age, Family size, TLU,laborand Land size
Category Minimum Maximum Mean [Link]
Age (year) 20 80 46.55 10.89
Family Size 2 12 4.66 1.69
Labor availability 0 7 1.56 0.87
Monthly income (ETB) 600 2000 114.47 266.75
livestock (TLU) 0 11.93 2.83 1.56
Total land size (ha) 0.25 3.5 1.26 0.64
Source: own survey, 2019

4.1.1.3Institutional and farm characteristics of the respondent

Amhara credit and saving institution is the only institutions who serve credit for the
communities in the study [Link] also, about 43% of the HHH were used credit .The
majority of the HHH take credit for purpose of purchased fertilizer but not any one were in use
credit for purpose of SWC technologies [Link] of the respondent, 29.8 % of the
HHH were taking training on SWC measures and implementation techniques. At woreda level,
land administration and environmental protection office were distributing land certification for
farming household as a result,all farmers had land certificate and majority of the farmers
received map of farming area. About 83% of the household head were had feeling land
ownership because of land certification with land [Link] may have their plot located in
different [Link] very closes to their homes while some may be located far from home.
This result revaled that farm location were in range of 10 minute to180 minute with mean of

36
[Link] compared agro-ecological zone farm location from their homstead Dega
agro- ecology were relatively smaller distance than the other agro-ecology. In study area ,there
were only one markets on the lemi town . The farming household were travlled with minimum
of ½ hr to 4 hours for purchasing agricultural inputs and selling their product.

Table 6; Farm and institutional characteristics of study participant

Category Characteristics Number Percent

SWC training Yes 126 29.8
No 297 70.2
Credit Yes 182 43
No 241 57
Extension service Yes 236 55.8
No 187 44.2
Land tenure Yes 351 83
No 72 17
Min Max Mean Stand .dev
Farm location minute 10 180 47.8 51.06
Distance from market hr ½ 4 2.23 0.93
Source: own survey, 2019

4.1.2 Type of introduced SWC technologies and implementation approaches

All respondents used crop rotation as measure of SWC practices. Among implemented
technologies, stone bund, compost and stone-faced soil bund were the most implemented
technologies on cultivated land. It was 54.0 %, 23.4 % and 20.6% of the technologies
respectively (Table 7).And also, traditional conservation measures were implemented on their
cultivated land such as kab, and Furrow. Whereas, area closure, afforestation and hillside terrace
were used to hillside protection and conserving degraded lands .The result shows, physical
conservation measures mainly dominated in the study area .Similarly to this study , Asnake
&Elias, (2017) reported, physical measures mainly implemented in Guba Lafto Woreda, North
Wollo. When compared to agro-ecological zone, grass strip, cut of drain and check dam were
dominated in Dega (Wekelo) agro-ecology. Whereas, stone bund, stone-faced soil bund and
compost were dominating conservation measures on Woyinadega (Karamba) and kolla (Beressa)
agro- ecology.

37
According to focus group discussion and personal observation in karamba and Beressa kebele
these kebeles had high access of stone to construct much bunds and the slop of the land were
required mainly physical measures. Whereas, in Wokelo kebele, there was shortage of stone to
construct much physical measures and the slop of the land were mostly flat. On the other
hand,out of the implemented technologies, only 2.6 % of the farming household used water
harvesting systems that were preparation of water pond. However, due to kola agro-climatic
condition, there was shortage of water resource which require different type of water harvesting
techniques recommended but there were unsatisfactory implementation in study area. According
to key informant interview, EWADO were distributing water harvesting technologies
(Geomembrane) by 30/70 credit principle but effectiveness and adoption of the Geomembrane
were very poor because of farmer’s perception on water harvesting technologies and
implementation being very limited. Some farmers used Geomembrane as construction of
livestock shelter called “Tenbera”.

Table 7: Commonly implemented SWC technologies stratified by agro-ecology

SWC technologies Wekelo Karamba Beressa Total
Number &(%) Number&(%) Number&(%) Number&(%)
Stone bund 30(13.2) 121(53.1) 77(33.8) 228(54.0)

Stone faced soil 6(7.0) 38(43.0) 43(50.0) 87(20.6)

bund
Grass strip 26(92.9) 2(7.1) 0(0.0) 28(6.6)

Check dam 37(50.7) 21(28.8) 15(20.5) 73(17.3)

Waterway 28(37.8) 28(37.8) 18(24.3) 74(17.5)

Cut of drain 24(41.4) 20(34.5) 14(24.1) 58(13.7)

Compost 6(6.1) 51(51.5) 42(42.4) 99(23.4)

Water pond. 1(0.8) 1(0.6) 9(6.8) 11(2.6)

Crop rotation 124(100) 167(100) 132(100) 423(100.0)

Total 124(29.3) 167(39.5) 132(31.2) 423(100)

Source: own survey, 2019

38
Gabion Check dam Maintenance on Stone bund Traditional kab

Fig. 3. Implemented technologies (Source: own photo, 2019)

According to qualitative data source, after harvesting and yearly public campaign periods the
farmers constructed SWC activity on their own land mainly using family labor and through
traditional practices called ‘debo’. This implies in the study area the majority of the farmers used
SWC implementation on their farm land by individual level approached than Watershed level
Similar to this study, in Wollo, farmers used debo / wenfel to construct SWC practices on their
farm land (Amare, 2007).

4.1.3 Public campaign participation and its constraints

The participation of different actors at different phases of SWC practices enhances the possibility
of achieving sustainable SWC outcomes. For the last many years governmental and recently
sustainable land management projects facilitating SWC measures to recovering land degradation
and reducing level of soil [Link] study revealed all farmers not offered any incentives for
participation in public campaign SWC activities.

Out of the total respondent, 87.7% of the household head or any member of the family
participate on yearly public SWC campaign from which 57.2 % were participating by their
interest .Whereas, 42.8% were participating without their interest (Table 8). Similarly to this
study, Akkaraboyina & Tareke, (2018) reported, 41.0% of the farmers participated in the SWC
practices by without their interest. According to the information gathered from the KII,concerned

39
persons of the government bodies and local kebeles leaders had facilitating without their interest
to participate on public campaign. FDG indicated, Farmers have different preferences with
regard to SWC approaches some farmers expected cash incentives from the government for
participating on public campaign and some of them invest their labor for their farm land rather
than public campaign.

During FDG one farmers opposing public campaign implementation approach“when he took
land by water ,the owner of the land sitting in Addis Ababa to collect money ,why not investing
my labor to conserving his land, why not government enforced and punished the owner of the
land rather routinely pushing me to participating on SWC ”.

This implies there was gap between the community and government towards SWC practices
implementation approach, this way of participation had created a challenge for the sustainability
and quality of SWC practices.

In this findings, the majority of the respondent perceived that major constraints for
implementation of SWC measures were that it required too much labor, the farmers had low
perception of soil erosion as a problem and lack of monitoring land management system and also
5.2% were other constraint for public campaigns: such as implementation [Link] of the
total study participant, 64.5% of the farming households conducted maintenance on their SWC
measures. During my observation time, after harvesting period some of the constructed measures
was damaged by livestock at a result routine maintenance was required.

40
Table8: Household Public campaign participation level and constraints
Characteristics Response Number Percent
Participating on public Yes 371 87.7
campaign SWC practices No 52 12.3
Participation way Voluntary 222 57.2
Without their interest 166 42.8
With incentive (Cash,FFW,) 0 0
Difficult to constructing introduced 44 10.4
Constraint to implement technologies
SWC technologies Required too much labor to construct 207 48.9
bund
Physical measures decrease farm land 39 9.2
/difficult to plow
Poor agricultural extension service 60 14.2
Land owners not understand impact of 93 22.0
erosion on crop
Other 22 5.2
Soil and water Yes 273 64.5
conservation structures No 150 35.5
maintained
Source: own survey, 2019

4.1.4 Perception of respondents for soil erosion as a problem and technologies

profitability

Regarding farming HHH perception about soil erosion as a problem, the survey result showed
that 82% of farmers perceived soil erosion as a problem, and they reported that high rainfall/high
run-off, deforestation and steepness of the land were the dominant cause of soil erosion which
covers 54.6%, 38.6 % and 23.9% of the response, respectively. But adoption level of the
introduced SWC technologies was unsatisfactory because the majority of the respondent was
non-adopter. Similarly to this result, Mekuriaw et al, (2018) reported that, high percentage of
farmers’ awareness and using SWC structure does not mean that so much land protected.

41
About 91.7% of the HHH perceived SWC technologies profitability from the total respondents,
44.4% of farmers evaluate the way of profitability through soil erosion rate decreasing overtime
due to SWC practices, 45.8% were observed productivity difference between conserved and non-
conserved land. This implies farmers observed SWC technologies profitability in their farm land
by different way. Also 84.4 % of the farmers believed that erosion could be halted.

Table 9: Perception of respondents for soil erosion as a problem and technologies profitability
(Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses).

Characteristics Response Number Percent

Believe soil erosion problem in yes 347 82.0
their area No 76 18.0
Heavy rainfall/ high run-off 201 54.6
Main causes of soil erosion Deforestation 142 38.6
Improper plough 23 5.4
Overgrazing 14 3.8
Steepness of the land 88 23.9
Soil being to erodible 51 13.9
Improper construction of ditch 14 3.8
Other 11 3.1
Rate of soil erosion overtime Increase 87 23.9
Moderate 121 32.4
Decrease 166 44.4
Believe that soil erosion can be Yes 357 84.4
controlled No 66 15.6
Believe profitable of SWC Yes 388 91.7
measure for long term No 35 8.3
Profitability way of SWC Erosion reduction 310 78.5
technologies Improve land productivity 181 45.8
Soil fertility maintenance 124 31.4
To increase moisture retention 47 11.9
Source: own survey, 2019

42
4.1.5 Adoption status of SWC technologies

Out of the total study participants, 60.8% of farming household was non-adopter and 39.2 %
were adopter. This implies majority of the HH in the study area were implemented less than 50%
of the recommended technologies that were suitable for their agro-ecologies and/or can’t
performed maintenance on SWC technologies. When compared to kebele wise, adoption status
in BeressaandKarambakebele was highest as compared to Wekelokebele (fig 4).

Fig. [Link] of SWC technology adoption stratified by agro-ecology

4.1.6 Household food security status and copying mechanism

Results on household food security status by using HHFB model showed that, out of the total
study participant, 73.3% were food secure and 26.7% were food insecure (Fig. 5). The total
calorie available per adult equivalent per day varied from 835.06 to 8814.49 with a mean of
2772.2. With regard to HHFS, this study reveals that majority of HH in Ensaro Woreda were
food [Link] to this study, the majority of the household were food secure in Northern
Gonder Amhara Region (Sisay,Degsew & Wuletaw,2015).Contradictory to this finding,there are
studies (Genene & Wegaye , 2010;Negash & Alemu 2013 and Siraje& Bekele, 2013) which
showed high prevalence of food insecurity in rural household.

43
According to EWADO, risk prevention and preparedness department reported there had not any
identified kebele to fill food gap which had food shortage. However, this research confirmed
26.7% out of the total participant were below the medically recommended level of calorie per
adult equivalent (2200kcal/day/person) for Ethiopia (NFS, strategy, 2002).FDG and KII data
source confirmed September and October were the period of few farmers had food gap mainly
and they also indicated rainfall variability and incidence of pests for pulse products were major
cause of food shortage. Whereas, land shortage and high cost of fertilizer were the other
suggested factors for shortage of food in the study area.

Fig. 5 .Percentage of food security status stratified by agro-ecology

Table 6 shows that, about 44.2 % of food insecure household were mainly used relied on less
preferred and less expensive food such as red sorghum its local name called Wodehaker and 32.7
% were borrowing food from friend or relatives, 26.5 % purchased food on credit and 25.7 %
work on daily labor, 9.7 % reduce amount at meal time and 3.5 % sell their livestock were the
major copying strategies for food insecure [Link] to this study,Mohamed (2017)
reveled farming household used sale of livestock, agricultural employment, and migration to
other areas, requesting grain loans, sales of wood or charcoal, small scale trading and limiting
size and frequency of meal as copying mechanism in case of food insecurity .

44
Table 6: Household copying mechanism in case of food shortage (Totals may exceed 100% due
to multiple responses).

Coping mechanism Number Percent

Rely on less preferred and less expensive food 50 44.2
Borrow food from a friend or relative 37 32.7
Purchase food on credit 30 26.5
Daily labor 29 25.7
Limit amount size at meal times 10 9.7
Selling livestock 4 3.5
Source: own survey, 2019

4.2 Econometric model result

4.2.1 Determinant factors that affecting adoption of SWC practices

In order to determine the adoption of SWC technologies there was total of 16 explanatory
variables used from demographic and socio-economic factors, HHH perception, farm
characteristic and institutional factors. The logistic regression output,marginal effect (dy/dx)
result, shows that distance to market, HHH perception to profitability of technologies and
training on SWC technologies were positively significant factors for adoption of SWC
technologies but the remaining explanatory variables have no significant effect on adoption of
technologies at 5% significant level. Detailed explanation for each explanatory variable with
adoption of SWC technologies were depicted below (Table 10).

45
Table 10: Logistic model for adoption of SWC technologies in Ensaro Woreda

Adoption Odds Ratio dy/dx Robust Z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

SWC Std. Err.
HHSEX .99488 -.001213 .2717537 -0.02 0.985 .5824559 1.699332
HHAGE 1.004692 .0011059 .0103522 0.45 0.650 .9846059 1.025189
HHEDU 1.030235 .0070363 .1468843 0.21 0.835 .7790713 1.36237
FAMSZ .8966297 .0257748 .0647994 -1.51 0.131 .77821 1.033069
LABAV 1.139071 .0307592 .1501217 0.99 0.323 .8797682 1.4748
OFFRM 1.379301 .0772559 .3704054 1.20 0.231 .8148399 2.3334778
TLU 1.039426 .0091345 .0826145 0.49 0.627 .8894867 1.214641
PERSO .9771267 0054754 .2899595 -0.08 0.938 .5462095 1.748004
LADTE .8221525 .0468867 .2382037 -0.68 0.499 .4659424 1.450683
FARLOC 1.003791 .0008939 .0021 1.81 0.070 .999684 1.007916
EXTSR 1.096376 .0217043 .2445556 0.41 0.680 .7080956 1.697567
TRAN 1.603305 .1133228 .3753728 2.02 0.044** 1.013279 2.536899
CRDT .8761325 -.03116 .1903985 -0.61 0.543 .5722545 1.341375
DMAR 1.455319 .0886367 .1778723 3.07 0.002** 1.145309 1.849243
TLDSIZ 1.016175 .0037904 .1767299 0.09 0.926 .7226541 1.428917
PERTEC 2.741169 .2052351 1.207885 2.29 0.022** 1.155732 6.501513
Cons .0816004 .0661697 -3.09 0.002 .0166515 0.3998815
Number of Obs = 423 **p value < 5%
Wald chi2(16) = 31.39
Prob> chi2 = 0.0120
Pseudo R2 = 0.0563
Log pseudo likelihood = - 267.38746

47
[Link] Demographic and Socio-economic factors

Demographic and Socio-economic factors explanatory variables including in the model were
sex,age,family size,education status, total livestock, labor availability, and off-farm activity of
household [Link] all demographic and socio-economic characteristic had positive relation with
adoption of SWC technologies except sex of household it was inversely affects adoption of SWC
technologies. Whereas, all socio-economic factors did not have significant impact on adoption of
SWC technologies in this study(Table 10).

Similarly to this study , Mekuriaw et al., (2018)confirmed that, age, sex, total livestock and
education status of household head did not have significant impact on adoption of SWC
technology. In contrary to this finding,various researchs (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006; Asfaw&Neka,
2001; Mekonnen & Abiy, 2014; Teshome, de Graaff, & Kassie, 2016; Mango et al., 2017 and
Mountain & Park, 2018) reported significant level of socio -economic status on adoption of
SWC technologies.

[Link] Household head perception

Understanding farmers’ perception of soil erosion and its impact is important in promoting SWC
technologies. This result shows that, majority of the farming HHH perceive soil erosion as a
problem on their local area and they recognized high rainfall, deforestation and steepness of the
land were the dominated cause of soil erosion. And also, majority of the HHH evaluated soil
erosion level decreased through time because of conservation measures but farmers perception
were not significant factors for this study. Similar to this finding, other studies (Tadesse & Belay,
2004 ; Tefera & Sterk, 2010; Adugna, 2015 ;Jaleta M. et al. 2016 ; Teshome et al., 2016)
reported insignificant level of soil erosion perception. Whereas, farmer perceived about long
term profitability of technologies was found to have positive relation with adoption of SWC
technologies and it was statically at 5% level of significant. The marginal effect shows that,
technologies profitability perceivers HHH were 20.5%(0.205*100) more adopters of SWC than
non-profitability perceiver, held all factors were constant. This implies that there is high
probability of investing SWC technologies to their farm land in the case of the households
understanding the long-term outcome of the conservation measures rather than those taking

48
perception of soil erosion as a problem only. Similarly, study done by Amsalu& Graaff , (2006)
showed that there is a significant association of farmers technologies profitability perception
with adoption of SWC technologies.

[Link] Farm characteristic

The current study result shows that farm location, farm size and land tenure security were
positively associated with adoption of SWC technologies but did not had significant association
with adoption of SWC technologies in Ensaro Woreda. Similar to this study, Amsalu &
Graaff,(2006) reported that land tenure system are insignificant in highland part of Ethiopia
because all farmers were feeling the sense of land ownership since they got land certification but
the study conducted by Tefera & Sterk, (2010) in Fincha watershed western part of Ethiopia
result shows, land tenure were positively significant to conservation measures.

When farmers believe the profitability of technologies and also agriculture was the only source
of livelihood, farmers’ farm size and farm location cannot be a constraint for adoption of SWC
technologies. Contrary to this,Amsalu& Graaff, (2006) and Teshome, Graaff, & Kassie, (2016)
reported that farmers who hold large farms are more likely to invest in conservation. Also,
Gebremedhin & Swinton (2003) reported when increasing farm location from farmers homestead
adoption rate should be decreased.

[Link] Institutional factors

The logistic regression model result shows that, both distance to market and training on SWC
technologies were significant factors for adoption of SWC [Link], contradictory
to our expectation access to credit were negatively, and agricultural extension service there was
positively associate with the adoption of SWC technologies but had not significant effect with
adoption of SWC technologies.

Agricultural extension service and training on SWC were the basic tools for farmers to get
awareness about SWC, the mechanism how to implement it and improve production methods
(Asfaw & Neka, 2017).According to key informant interview finding, each kebele had total of 5-
6 agricultural extension officer and also majority of the household get agricultural extension
advice. But the current study result reveals that, agricultural extension service was insignificant

49
variable on adoption of SWC [Link] head who were attaining SWC
technologies training were,11.3 %(0.113*100) more likely to adopt conservation technologies
than non-trained household, holding other factor constant. According to qualitative data source,
agricultural development office provide SWC training for selected farming household head for
purpose of guiding public campaign work for their local area and to conserve natural resource for
sustainable way. Similarly to this study, there are studies (Nkegbe, 2011; Teshome, Graaff, &
Kassie, 2016; Mango et al., 2017) which showed significant level of training on adoption of
SWC technologies.

The lack of access to market were one of the factors that were negatively affected adoption of
SWC technologies due to increased production costs and unsatisfactory profit margins farmers
get (Gebremedhin & Swinton, 2003). In contrary to this, the current study marginal effect result
shows that when distance to market increase by 1hr, being adopter of technologies was increased
by 8.8 % (0.088*100) while other things was held constant . The possible reasons for this could
be the presence of only one market for 13 kebeles farming household for selling and buying
agricultural outputs at Woreda [Link] implies the farming household was suffering to travel
long distance to get market access and also these factors may pushed HHH investing their time
for managing their land rather than frequently travelled to market. The other possible reason for
better adoption of SWC technologies in kolla and Woyinadega agro- ecology zone were slope of
land and access to input for physical measures (stone).

4.2.2 Association of SWC adoption and food security status

Out of the total respondent,83.13%SWC technologies adopter household were food secured but
only 16.87% were food in-secured. On the other hand, only 66.93%of non-adopters were food
secured and 33.07 % were food in-secured (Table 11). The Pearson chi-square result shows there
were significant association between SWC technologies adoption and household food security
status in EnsaroWoreda. Cross tabulation analysis implies that greater proportion of food
secured household were SWC technologies adopter and also chi-square results showed that had
there were significant association between adoption of SWC technologies and household food
security.

50
Table 11: Association of SWC technologies adoption with food security

SWC adopters Food security situation Total

Food secured Food in-secured
Adopter 138 28 257
83.13 16.87 100.0
Non adopter 172 85 166
66.93 33.07 100
Total 310 113 423
73.29 26.71 100
Source: own survey, 2019
Pearson chi2(1) = 13.5306 P = <0.0001

4.2.3 Determinant factors that affecting household food security

The logistic regression analysis below shows that, adoption of SWC technologies, family size,
total land size and distance to market were the major determinate factors that affect HHFS of
farming household at 5% significant [Link], all other variables did not had significant
association with household food security status.

Adoption of SWC technologies was found to have positive relation with household food security
and it was statically significant even 1% level of significant the marginal effect show as the
household who adopt SWC technologies on their cultivated land were, held other factors
constant, 14.8 % (0.148*100) higher chance of food security than non-adopter household. This
implies adoption of SWC technologies generate substantial benefit in reduction of soil erosion,
improve agricultural productivity, some of them were collected livestock feed from closure area
and conserved bund and enhance soil fertility that in turn has positive benefits on food security.

There are various studies which reveal similar findings. For instance, Haregeweyn et al.,(2015);
Melaku et al.,(2018 ) reported adoption of SWC technologies reduce soil erosion,
Vancampenhout, Nyssen, & Gebremichael, (2006), reported increased crop yield, and also
Shiene, (2012) confirmed SWC has a significant role in maintaining soil fertility, maintaining
agricultural production, restoring vegetation cover, and mitigating anthropogenic land
degradation.

51
Family size as measure as adult equivalent was the second determinant factors that inversely
affecting household food security status and it was statically significant even 1% significant level.
The marginal effect shows as family size increase by 1 member, the probability of food secured
decreased by 10.2% (0.012*100) while other things were held [Link] possible explanation
to this was that the majority of the study participant couldn’t participate on off-farm activity, as a
result, household food and non-food expenditure mainly covering from agricultural activity
creates more pressure on HHFS when a family size increase. Similarly to this result,(Siraje &
Bekele 2013;Mesele, Suneetha, & Tigga ,2018)reported,the negative effect of family size on
HHFSS.

On the other hand, total land size which was another factor that affecting household food
[Link] increased land size by 1 hectare, being food secure was increased by 13.1%
(0.131*100), other factors were held [Link] implies that when the HH had larger land size
produced more food for household consumption and for sale and better chance to food secure
than those having relatively small size. This is in line with study done in North Tigray region
which confirms similar result (Mesele, Suneetha, & Tigga , 2018).

52
Table 12 :Logistic model determinant factors for household food security in Ensaro Woreda

Food security Odds Ratio dy/dx Robust Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
HHSEX 1.26634 .0421153 .3977971 0.75 0.452 .6841657 2.343902
HHAGE 9887455 -.0019491 .0133263 -0.84 0.401 .9629684 1.015213
HHEDU .9759591 -.0041906 .1611885 -0.15 0.883 .7060704 1.34901
FAMSZ .5528543 -.1020609 .0591589 -5.54 <0.0001** .4482567 .6818591
LABAV .9076047 -.0166949 .1584057 -0.56 0.579 .6446666 1.277786
TLU 1.0774 .0128382 .0905175 0.89 0.375 .913826 1.270254
LADTE 1.217369 .0350902 .398864 0.60 0.548 .6405169 2.313734
FARLOC .99862 -.0002378 .0024242 -0.57 0.569 .9938801 1.003383
EXTSR .6398317 -.0757767 .1733269 -1.65 0.099 .376253 1.088057
ADOP 2.483448 .1481701 .716499 3.15 0.002** 1.410831 4.371546
CRDT .7856937 -.0419196 .2020753 -0.94 0.348 .4746022 1.300699
DMAR 1.460607 .0652414 .2013928 2.75 0.006** 1.114724 1.913813
TLDSIZ 2.138577 .1309023 .4561554 3.56 <0.0001** 1.407878 3.248516
INCM 9999311 -.0000119 .0004706 -0.15 0.884 .9990093 1.000854
-cons 7.57787 6.18352 2.48 0.013 1.530978 37.50811
Number of obs = 423
Wald chi2(14) = 61.90
Prob> chi2 = 0.0000
Pseudo R2 = 0.1610
Log pseudo likelihood = -205.97706
**P-value < 0.05

53
 CHAPTER FIVE

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This research, which is intended to assess contribution of SWC practices to household food
security in Ensaro Woreda, Amhara National Regional State,[Link] the result of this
study, it can be concluded that Physical measures were the dominated conservation measures in
study [Link] rotation, stone bund, stone face-soil bund, check dam, grass strip, cutoff drain,
and waterway and compost application were the major identified SWC measures on cultivated
land in Ensaro [Link] family labor and through traditional practices were the dominated
SWC implementation approaches for their cultivated land. However, public campaign was also
focused mainly on gully rehabilitation and hillside protection.

There were observed different soil and water conservation adoption status between three agro-
ecology zone in Ensaro Woreda. Woyinadega and Kolla agro-ecology was better adopter of
SWC technologies than Degaa [Link] determinant factors, HHH who perceived
long term technologies profitability, far from the market and got SWC training were more
adopter of SWC technologies than the others. This implies household head perception and
institutional factors were significantly determining adoption of soil and water conservation. But
farm characteristics, demographic and socio-economic factors, were can not significant
determine adoption of Soil and water conservation technologies,

On the other hand, the majority of the household in the study area were food secured;but there
were about 26.7% food insecure household in study area. This implies the majority of the
household achieve the recommended kilo calories available per day per adult equivalent for
Ethiopia. Food insecure household in the study area develop their own Copying mechanism in
case of food shortage. Borrow food from a friend or relatives, relying on less preferred and less
expensive food, purchased food on credit and work as daily laborer were used as household
major copying strategies in case of food shortage. Adoption of SWC technologies, land size,
distance to market and family size were factors that significantly determine household food
security in Ensaro Woreda.

54
There was significant positive association between SWC technologies adoption and household
food security. The household who adopt SWC technologies were better food secured than non-
adopter of SWC technologies.
From the conclusion made by the current study, it can be recommended that
 It is important to improve HHH perception about technologies profitability the government
by arranging experience sharing program using farmers who practice SWC technologies and
become profitable.
 Governmental and non-governmental sustainable land management facilitators should
provide practical training on SWC technologies measures and way of implementation.
 To improve adoption of SWC technologies, the farmers properly attending SWC training and
implement effective SWC measure suitable for their agro-ecologies.
 It is also important to improve household food security status by monitoring, evaluating and
facilitating recommended SWC technologies implementation.
 To improve household food security government should strength family planning program
and also the household must plan to balance family size with available resource.
 Finally, I would like to recommend similar studies to be conducted for agro-ecology zone
soil erosion level and assure the quality of implemented soil and water technologies with
standard.

55
REFERENCE

Adimassu Z.,MekonnenK.,Yirga ,C. &,Kessler,A. (2014). Effect of soil bunds on runoff, soil and
nutrient losses, and crop yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degrad Dev
25(6):554–564. https:// [Link]/10.1002/ldr.2182.
Adugna, A. , Abegaz,A.& Cerdà,A.(2015). Soil erosion assessment and control in Northeast
Wollega ,[Link] Earth Discuss.3511–3540. [Link]
Akkaraboyina, M. K., & Tareke, B. M. (2018). Community Perception And Participation
Towards Soil And Water Conservation Practices : A Case Study Of Gubalafto District Of
Amhara Region , 6(2), 832–837.
Amsalu, A., & Graaff, J. De. (2006). Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone
terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland [Link]
economics.61, 294 – 302. 1. [Link]
Amare,B.( 2007). Landscape transformation and opportunities for sustainable
land management along the Eastern Escarpment of Wello (EEW), Ethiopia. PhD
dissertation.
Ashoori, D., Bagheri, A., Allahyari, M. S., & Al-rimawi, A. S. (2016). An examination of soil
and water conservation practices in the paddy fields of Guilan province , Iran, 88, 959–971.
Asnake, B., & Elias, E. (2017). Challenges and extents of Soil and Water Conservation measures
in Guba-Lafto Woreda of North Wollo. Journal of Agricultural Research and
Development,7(2), 103–110.
Bewket, W., & Teferi, E. (2009). Assessment of soil erosion hazard and prioritization for
treatment at the watershed level : case study in the chemoga watershed , blue nile basin ,
Ethiopia, 609–622. [Link]
Birhanu, A., & Meseret, D. (2013). Structural Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Farta
District , North Western Ethiopia : An Investigation on Factors Influencing Continued Use,
7522(4), 114–121.
Brief, T. (2015). Sustaining the benefits of soil and water conservation in the highlands of
Ethiopia. [Link]
Brnham,p.,Kent,R.,Macartney,[Link] Redfer,v.(2003) .sustanabile land management..Center of
Development ,environmental and policy ,Univeristy of london,london
Boureima Y.K , Zhanqi, W , Yamba, Band Chao .W.(2018). Factors Influencing Farmers’
Adoption of Soil and Water Control Technology (SWCT) in Keita Valley, a Semi-Arid Area of
[Link].10, 288 , doi:10.3390/su10020288.
Chimdesa, G. (2016). Historical Perspectives and Present Scenarios of Watershed Management
in Ethiopia,Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Managemen.3,115–127.
[Link]
Dano, A. M., & Midmore, D. J. (2004). Evaluation of soil and water conservation technologies
in vegetable- based upland production system of manupali watershed , southernPhilippines,
ISCO,213, 1–5.
De Graaff, J., Amsalu, A., Bodnar, 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. Applied Geography,28,271–280.
[Link]
ELD Initiative, UNEP, 2015. The Economics of Land Degradation in Africa: Benefits of Action
Outweigh the Costs. Available from [Link].

56
Eshete, G., Tesfay, G., Bauer, H., Ashenafi, Z. T., de Iongh, H., & Marino, J. (2015).
Community Resource Uses and Ethiopian Wolf Conservation in Mount Abune Yosef.
Environmental Management.56(3), 684–694. [Link]
Ensaro Woreda Agricultural Development office ,(2018). Annual report,lemi Ensaro.
FAO (2010). Challenges and opportunities for carbon sequestration in grassland systems. A
technical report on grassland management and climate change mitigation. Food and
Agricultural Organization, Rome.
FAO. 2017. GIEWS country brief - Ethiopia, November 2017.
Fikirie, K., & Beyene, T. M. (2017). Soil and Water Conservation Practices on Crop Productivity
and its Economic Implications in Ethiopia :Asian J. Agric. Res., 11(4),128-136.
[Link]
Gebremichael, D. (2005). Effectiveness of stone bunds in controlling soil erosion on cropland in
the Tigray Highlands, northern [Link] Use and Management , 21, 287–297.
Genenet ,M.,& Abiy ,G.(2014).Review on Overall Status of Soil and Water Conservation System
and Its Constraints in Different Agro Ecology of Southern [Link] of Natural
Sciences Research,4(7),2224-3186.
Grepperud, S. (2003). Population pressure and land degradation in Ethiopia. Journal of
Environmental and Management,30, 18-33
Haile, G. W., & Fetene, M. (2011). Assessment of soil erosion hazard in kilie [Link]
Degrad. [Link]:/DOI: 10.1002/ldr.1082
Haregeweyn, N., Tsunekawa, A., Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M., Tsegaye Meshesha, D., …
Tegegne, F. (2015). Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia: A review. Progress in
Physical Geography, 39(6), 750–774. [Link]
Hudson, S. (2003). Option values of conservation and agricultural application to terraces
construction in Kenya. American Journal of Agricultural Economics80 (20), 409 – 418.
Hurni, H., (1993). Land degradation, famine, and land resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In:
Pimentel, D. Ed. ,Ž.World Soil Erosion And Conservation. Cambridge, 27–61
Hurni, H., 1988. Degradation and conservation of the resources in the Ethiopian highlands.
Mountain Res. Dev,8, 123–130
Hurni, H. 1998. Agroecological belts of Ethiopia. Explanatory notes on three maps at a scale of 1:
1,000,000. Soil conservation research programme. research report 43 (p. 30) Addis Abeba
and Bern: Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) (with map, scale1: 5 million).
Hurni H, Berhe WA, Chadhokar P, Daniel D, Gete Z, Grunder M, Kassaye G. (2016). Soil and
Water Conservation in Ethiopia: Guidelines for Development Agents. Second revised
edition. Bern, Switzerland: Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of
Bern, with Bern Open Publishing (BOP). 134 pp
Ighodaro, I. D., Lategan, F. S., & Mupindu, W. (2016). The Impact of Soil Erosion as a Food
Security and Rural Livelihoods Risk in South Africa,Journal of Agricultural
Science,8(8),1–12. [Link]
Kato, E., Ringler, C., Yesuf, M., & Bryan, E. (2000). Are Soil and Water Conservation
Technologies a Buffer Against Production Risk in the Face of Climate Change ? Insights
from Ethiopia ’ s Nile Basin.15–17
Kumar, R., & Ramachandra, T. V. (2003). Water soil and sediment investigation to explore
status of aquatic ecosystem. Bangalore: Centre for Ecological Sciences, India Institute of
Science.
Lapar, M. L. A., & Pandey, S. (1999). Adoption of soil conservation : the case of the Philippine

57
 uplands, Agricultural Economics 21, 241–256.
McLaughlin, D., & W. Kinzelbach (2015). Food security and sustainable resource management,
Water Resour. Res.,51, 4966–4985, doi:10.1002/ 2015WR017053
Mahdi Osman and Petra Sauerborn (2001). Soil and Water Conservation in [Link] of
Soils &Sediments 1 (2), 117 - 123 .
Mango, N., Makate, C., Tamene, L., Mponela, P., & Ndengu, G. (2017). International Soil and
Water Conservation Research Awareness and adoption of land , soil and water conservation
practices in the Chinyanja Triangle , Southern Africa. International Soil and Water
Conservation Research,5(2), 122–129. [Link]
Maxwell, D.G., 1996. Measuring food insecurity: the frequency and severity of ‘Coping
Strategies’. Food Pol., 21 (3), 291–303.
Mekuriaw, A., Heinimann, A., Zeleke, G., & Hurni, H. (2018). International Soil and Water
Conservation Research Factors influencing the adoption of physical soil and water
conservation practices in the Ethiopian highlands. International Soil and Water
Conservation Research, 6(1),23–30. [Link]
Meliyo, J. L., Masuki, K. F. G., & Mowo, J. G. (2007). Integrated natural resources management
a strategy for food security and poverty alleviation in Kwalei village , Lushoto district ,
Tanzania, 1, 781–782.
Mesele, K. A., Suneetha, P., & Tigga, A. (2018). Determinants of household food security in
southern Tigray , northern Ethiopia, 1463–1471.
Meseret, D., & Amsalu, A. (2017). International Soil and Water Conservation Research
Determinants of farmers ’ perception to invest in soil and water conservation technologies
in the North-Western Highlands of Ethiopia . International Soil and Water Conservation
Research. 5(1), 56–61. [Link]
Mohamed, A. A. (2017). Food Security Situation in Ethiopia : A Review Study, Journal of
Health Economics and Policy,2(3), 86–96. [Link]
Molla, T., & Sisheber, B. (2016). Estimating Soil Erosion Risk and Evaluating Erosion Control
Measures for Soil Conservation Planning at Koga Watershed , Highlands of [Link]
Earth Discuss. 1–23. [Link]
Melaku., Chris S. , Hubert, H. , Stefan ,S. ,Wondimu,B., Claudio, Z., Feras, Z. & Andreas, K.
(2018). Prediction of soil and water conservation structure impacts on runoff and erosion
processes using SWAT model in the northern Ethiopian highlands. Journal of Soils and
Sediments , 18:1743–1755.
Moti, J. , Menale ,K. ,Paswel M. ,Chilot ,Y. & Olaf E. (2016).Impact of improved maize
adoption on household food security of maize producing smallholder farmers in
[Link] Security ,10,81–93[Link]
Muchena, F. N., Onduru, D. D., Gachini, G. N., & Jager, A. De. (2005). Turning the tides of soil
degradation in Africa : capturing the reality and exploring opportunities, Land Use Policy
22 : 23–31. [Link]
Mushir, A., & Kedru, S. (2012). Soil and water conservation management through indeigenous
and traditional practices in Ethiopa: a case study. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental
Studies and Management,5(4), 356–365. [Link]
Negash, T., & Alemu, S. (2013). Determinants and Coping Strategies of Household Food
Insecurity in Rural Areas of Tigray : The Case of Rural Adwa Woreda, 144.
Neupane, R.P., Sharma, K.R., Thapa, G.B. (2002). Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal:
A logistic regression analysis. Agricultural Systems 72(3):177- 196.

58
Nkegbe, P. K. (2011). Smallholder Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices in
Northern [Link] & Food Economics, University
Nkonya, E., Mirzabaev, A., & Braun, J. Von. (2016). Economics of Land Degradation and
Improvement : An Introduction and Chapter Economics of Land Degradation and
Improvement : An Introduction and Overview, (November). [Link]
319-19168-3
Nyssen J, Poesen J, Gebremichael D, Vancampenhout K, D’aes M, Yihdego G, Govers G, Leirs
H, Moeyersons J, Naudts J, Haregeweyn N, Haile M, Deckers J. (2007) .Interdisciplinary
on- site evaluation of stone bunds to control soil erosion on cropland in Northern Ethiopia.
Soil Tillage Res94,151–163
Odi, T. S. (2002). ODI Food Security Briefings Sustainable Use of Soil and Water : Links with
Food Security, (February).
Pimentel, D., & Burgess, M. (2013). Soil Erosion Threatens Food Production, 443–463.
[Link]
Rickson, R. J., Deeks, L. K., Graves, A., & Harris, J. A. H. (2015). Input constraints to food
production : the impact of soil degradation, food sec.7,351–364.
[Link]
Sewnet, Y. (2015). Causes and coping mechanisms of food insecurity in rural Ethiopia, Agric.
Biol. J. N. Am.,6(5),123–133. [Link]
Shiene, S. D. (2012). Effectiveness of soil and water conservation measures for land restoration
in the Wello area , northern Ethiopian [Link] desertation.
Shiferaw, B., & Holden, S. T. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation
technologies 1n the Ethiopian Highlands : A case study in Andit Tid , North Shewa, 18,
233–247.
Siraje, I., & Bekele, A. (2013). Assessment of Food Insecurity and Coping Mechanisms among
Pastoral Households of Afar National Regional State : The Case of Chifra District , 156,
145–156.
Simeneh Demissie Walie and Getachew Fisseha(2016). Perception of Farmers Toward Physical
Soil and Water Conservation Structures in Wyebla Watershed , Northwest Ethiopia,World
Journal of Agricultural Sciences,12(1), 57–63.
[Link]
Sisay .Y, Degsew .M and Wuletaw. M (2015).The Status of Household Food Insecurity:The
Case of West Belesa, North Gondar, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. International Journal of
Scientific Research and Management ,6(6), 2321-3418.
Survey, H. (2016). Ethiopia.
Tadesse, M., & Belay, K. (2004). Factors Influencing Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures
in Southern Ethiopia : The Case of Gununo Area, 105(1), 49–62.
Tamene, L., & Vlek, P. L. G. (2008). Soil Erosion Studies in Northern [Link] Use and
Soil Resources.73–74.
Tana, L. (2010). Assessment of soil erosion processes and farmer perception of land
conservation in Debre Mewi, 10(2), 297–306. [Link]
Tefera, B., & Sterk, G. (2010). Land Use Policy Land management , erosion problems and soil
and water conservation in Fincha ’ a watershed , western Ethiopia. Land Use Policy,27(4),
1027–1037. [Link]
Tenge, A., De Graaff, J., Hella, J.P., 2004. Social and economic factors affecting the adoption of
soil and water conservation in West Usambara highlands, Tanzania. Land Degrad. Dev.15

59
 (2), 99–114
Teshome AD (2013). Financial viability of soil and water conservation technologies in
northwestern Ethiopian highlands. Applied Geogr.,37: 139-149.
Teshome, A., de Graaff, J., & Kassie, M. (2016). Household-Level Determinants of Soil and
Water Conservation Adoption Phases: Evidence from North-Western Ethiopian Highlands.
Environmental Management,57(3), 620–636. [Link]
Teshome, A., de Graaff, J., & Stroosnijder, L. (2014). Evaluation of soil and water conservation
practices in the north-western Ethiopian highlands using multi-criteria analysis. Frontiers in
Environmental Science,2: 1–13. [Link]
Thirumarpan, K. (2014). Determinants of Household Food Expenditure Among Rural
Households of Ampara District. 04th International Symposium, SEUSL, 2(May), 325–332.
[Link]
Tully, K., Sullivan, C., Weil, R., & Sanchez, P. (2015). The State of Soil Segradation in Sub-
Saharan Africa: Baselines, Trajectories, and Solutions, 6523–6552.
[Link]
Vancampenhout, K., Nyssen, J., & Gebremichael, D. (2006). Stone bunds for soil conservation
in the northern Ethiopian highlands : Impacts on soil fertility and crop yield, 90, 1–15.
[Link]
Wani, S. P., Wangkahart, T., Dixin, Y., Li, Z., & Thang, N. V. (2010). Community watersheds
for food security and coping with impacts of climate change in rainfed areas. WS3.1., 1389–
1400.
Wassie, S. B., & Alemu, G. T. (2016). state of household food insecurity in ethiopia .Journal of
Radix International Educational and Research Consortium .0–14.
Woldeamlak Bewket (2002). Land Cover Dynamics since the 1950s in Chemoga watershed,
Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Mountain Research and Development.22(3): 263-269
WFS, 1996. Report of the World Food Summit (1996). Rome, Italy: Food and agricultural
organization of the United [Link]://[Link]/docrep/003/w3548e/[Link]
accessed on march 2013.

60
APPENDICES
Annex 1, Marginal effect after logistic regression model of SWC technologies

Variable dy/dx Std. Err. Z P>z [ 95% C.I. ] X

HHSEX* -.001213 .06457 -0.02 0.985 -.127763 .125337 .77305
HHAGE .0011059 .00243 0.45 0.650 -.003666 .005878 46.5532
HHEDU .070363 .03368 0.21 0.835 -.058972 .073044 .628842
FAMSZ~e .0257748 .01709 -1.51 0.131 -.059264 .007715 4.6643
LABAV~e 0307592 .03111 0.99 0.323 -.030219 .091738 1.55556
OFFRM* .0772559 .06543 1.18 0.238 -.050979 .205491 .22695
TLU 0091345 .01879 0.49 0.627 -.0277 .045968 2.83475
PERSO~n* 0054754 .07034 -0.08 0.938 -.143338 .132388 .822695
LADTE~e* .0468867 07016 -0.67 0.504 -.184395 .090622 .829787
FARLOC~n .0008939 .00049 1.81 0.070 -.000074 .001862 47.8833
EXTSR ~e* .0217043 . 05251 0.41 0.679 -.081205 .124613 .55792
TRAN~c* .1133228 .05668 2.00 0.046 .002241 .224405 .297872
CRDT~e* -.03116 .05106 -0.61 0.542 -.131237 .068917 .43026
DMAR .0886367 .02889 3.07 0.002 .032019 .145254 2.23522
TLDSIZ~e .0037904 .04108 0.09 0.926 -.076728 .084309 1.25843
PERTEC~y* .2052351 .07255 2.83 0.005 .063034 .347437 .917258
(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from0 to 1

Annex 2 Variance inflation factor for discrete and continuous variable for adoption of
SWC technologies

Variable VIF 1/VIF

[Link] 1.18 0.845350

HHAGE 1.19 0.839982
HHEDU
1 1.16 0.863806
2 1.27 0.790336
FAMSZ 1.42 0.706148
LABAV~e 1.36 0.737414
[Link]~e 1.13 0.881315
TLU 1.41 0.710197
[Link]~n 1.13 0.886733

61
[Link]~e 1.11 0.897006
FARLOC 1.11 0.903950
[Link]~e 1.20 0.836728
[Link]~e 1.15 0.871629
[Link]~e 1.09 0.913328
DMAR 1.19 0.841082
TLDSIZ 1.20 0.831262
[Link]~e 1.07 0.934999

Mean VIF 1.20

Annex 3:Model goodness-of-fit testfor adoption of SWC

Logistic model for SWC adoption, goodness-of-fit test

Number of observations = 423
Number of covariate patterns = 417
Pearson chi2(399) = 405.42
Prob> chi2 = 0.4014

Annex 4: Marginal effect after logistic regression of food security

Variable dy/dx Std. Err. Z P>z [ 95% C.I. ] X

HHSEX* .0421153 .05775 0.73 0.466 -.071081 .155312 .77305
HHAGE -.0019491 .00232 -0.84 0.400 -.006492 .002594 46.5532
HHEDU* -.0041906 .02844 -0.15 0.883 -.059934 .051553 .628842
FAMSZ -.1020609 .01797 -5.68 0.000 -.137276 -.066846 3.98783
LABAV -.0166949 .03015 -0.55 0.580 -.075791 .042402 1.55556
TLU .0128382 .01449 0.89 0.376 -.015567 .041244 2.83475
LADTE~e* .0350902 .06036 0.58 0.561 -.083208 .153389 .829787
FARLOC -.0002378 .00042 -0.57 0.570 -.001058 .000582 47.8833
EXTSR* -.0757767 .04397 -1.72 0.085 -.161963 .010409 .55792
ADOP* .1481701 .04232 3.50 0.000 .06523 .231111 .392435
CRDT* -.0419196 .0449 -0.93 0.351 -.129923 .046084 .43026
DMAR .0652414 .02399 2.72 0.007 .018227 .112255 2.23522
TLDSIZ~ .1309023 .03683 3.55 0.000 .05871 .203094 1.25843
INCM -.0000119 .00008 -0.15 0.884 -.000171 .000147 114.473

(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from0 to 1

62
 Annex 5: Variance inflation factor for discrete and continuous variable for food security
model

Variable VIF 1/VIF

[Link] 1.17 0.853324

HHAGE 1.24 0.806509
HHEDU
1 1.14 0.873923
2 1.24 0.804664
FAMSZ 1.49 0.670321
LABAV~e 1.35 0.741060
TLU 1.36 0.736428
[Link]~e 1.11 0.901369
FARLOC 1.12 0.893768
[Link]~e 1.12 0.890257
1ADOP ~r 1.05 0.950746
[Link]~e 1.07 0.932841
DMAR 1.20 0.833376
TLDSIZ 1.20 0.835620
INCM 1.10 0.905607

Mean VIF 1.20

Annex 6:Food Composition Table for Use in Ethiopia

Food item Local name Kcal/kg
Tef, Eragrostistef (Zucc.)Trott. T’yef,dibilliq 3589
Corn (maize) ,Zea mays L. :white, whole grain Beqqollo, nech 3751
Wheat, Triticumvulgarevill.: white ,whole grain Sinidye,nech 3623
Barely ,black,hordeumvulgareL;whole grain Gebistiqure, 3708
Sorghum, Sorghum spp.: white, whole grain Masyilla,nech 3592
Broad beans, ViciafabaL. :,whole,dried Baqyla,difin 3514
[Link],Pisumsativum L.: whole, dried Ater ,difin 3553
Chickpeas,Cicerarietinum L.: whole, dried Shimnibira,difi 3723
Lentils, LenssculinarisMed.:,whole, dried Missir,difin 3522
Vetch, Lathyrussativus L.: dried Guwaya,dereq 3470
Milik ,cow ,fresh Yelamwotetyalitefela 737
Source: Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute, 1998-1997

63
Annex 7: Adult Equivalent Conversion Factor
Age group Male Female
Below 10 0.6 0.6
10-13 0.9 0.8
14-16 1 0.75
17-50 1 0.75
>50 1 0.75
Source:[Link].,(1991)

Annex 8:Total livestock unit conversion factor

Animals TLU equivalent
Calf 0.25
Heifer 0.75
Cow and oxen 0.7
Donkey 0.5
Sheep and Goat 0.1
Chicken 0.01
Source strocketal.,(1991)

64
Annex 9:Research questionnaires

A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SELECTED KEBELE HOUSEHOLD HEADS IN ENSARO

WOREDA
Dear respondent,
The main objectives of this questionnaire are used to assess contribution of soil and water
conservation practices to household food security in [Link] the partial fulfillment of
MSc. food security and development study program. Household head is the respondent of this
questionnaire. Your responses to the questions are valuable and will be held in utmost
confidentiality to be used only for the analysis of this research. In this Study, you and me would
have a short discussion of about 20-30 minutes only and I am asking you to help us. You will not
be identified by name in any case. If you accept to participate in this research, you will be doing
so voluntarily and there will not be any monetary returns.

Code No.:______________________ Name of data collector:___________

Kebele_______________________ Date:_____________

I. Socio-economic and Demographic characteristics

1. Sex of respondent? A) Male B) Female
2. Age _____________year.
3. Education level Household head? A) Unable to read and write B) Only able to read and write
C) Other (specify) level of education __________________
4. How many persons lived in your family? ___Total ,<10______,10-13 M__F___,14-
16M____F______,17-50 M_____F___, > 50 M____F______
5. How many of them fully engaged in farming activity? __________
6. Do you involve in off-farm activities? A). Yes B). No

65
7. If yes, what type of off-farm activity you participated?

S.N Activities Monthly

income
1 Petty trade
2 Salary employment
3 Handcraft
5 Grain and livestock
6 Charcoal making
7 Casual labor
8 Others
8. Do you have own livestock? A). Yes B). No
9. If yes, indicate the number of livestock you have last year?
Type of livestock Number of livestock Remark
Cow /heifer
Oxen/bull
Goat
Sheep
Donkey
Chicken
Other (specify)
10. What are the major source of your livestock feed?
A) Communal grazing lands B) Open access grazing resources C) Private grazing lands D)
Crop residue and aftermath E) Others (specify) ___________________
II. Household head Perception
1. Do you believe soil erosion is a problem in your area? A) Yes B) No
2. If yes, what are main causes of soil erosion? (multiple responses are possible)
A. Heavy rainfall/ high run-off
B. Deforestation
C. Improper plough
D. Overgrazing
E. Steepness of the land
F. Soil being to erodible
G. Improper construction of ditch

66
 H. Others (specify) _____________________________________
3. What are the symptoms of the soil erosion problem? (multiple response is possible)
A.) Decrease soil depth B.) Decreasing productivity C.) Visible rill/gully formation D)
others, specify _______________________________
4. How do you see the rate of erosion since the Derg /over time of period?
A) Increase B) Moderate C) Decrease
5. Do you believe that soil erosion can be controlled? A) Yes B) No
6. Do you or your family participating on SWC practices on your kebele? A)Yes B) No
7. If yes, how do you participating?
A) Voluntary b) without their interest c) With incentive (Cash, FFW,)
8. Is there any SWC measurement implemented in your farmland? A) Yes B) No
9. What type of technology you used? To which farm plot?
SWC technologies Homestead Farm Fram Fram Farm If yes,when
plot 1 plot2 plot 3 plot 4 invested
first(year)
Stone bund
Stone face Soil bund
Check-dam
FunyaJuu
Grass strip
Cut of Drain
Waterway
Crop rotation
Compost
Water pond
Other

10. Are your soil and water conservation structures maintained? A) yes B) No

11. Do you Believe SWC measurements are profitable for long term? A) yes B) No
12. If yes,how this profitability is expressed? (multiple responses are possible)
A. Erosion protection

67
 B. Improve land productivity
C. Soil fertility maintenance
D. To increase moisture retention
E. Other, specify _________________
13. What are the major constraints to implement SWC technologies? (multiple answers possible)
A. Difficult to constructing introduced technologies
B. Required too much labor to construct bund
C. Decrease farm land /difficult to plow
D. Poor agricultural extension service
E. Not understand erosion impact on crop
F. Others, specify______________
III. Farm characteristics
1. Total size of your farm ____________ha/timad/gemed
A) Cultivated land____B)Woodlotarea______C). Grazing area______D) Bare land___
2. What kind of slop of your cultivated land and how much of them use SWC measure?
Slop type Totalhectare/Gemed Conserved land
(%)
Flat

Moderate

steep

3. Is your land registered? A). Yes B). No C). I do not know

4. Have you received land certification? A). Yes B). No C). Do not know
5. Do you expect that you will use the land throughout your life time? A). Yes B) No
6. If you rent of land, who will be responsible for SWC?
A). Landowner’s B). Tenant’s C). Both D). No agreement E. Other
7. If you rent out of land, who will be responsible for SWC?
A). Landowner’s B). Tenant’s C). Both D). No agreement E. Other
8. If you share of land, who will be responsible for SWC?
A). Landowner’s B). Tenant’s C). Both D). No agreement E. Other
9. If you share out of land, who will be responsible for SWC?
68
 A). Landowner’sB). Tenant’s C). Both D). No agreement E. Other
10. Average minutes to require from home to farm area by walking? __________.
11. Have you seen differences in the productivity of farm lands between conserved plots and
non-conserved plots? A.) Yes B.) No
12. If yes, how are they different? (Multiple responses are possible)
A) Enhancing soil fertility B). Decreased soil erosion level C) .Increase level of
productivity D) other_________________________
13 . Have you collected animal feed from the bunds and closed areas? A) Yes B) No
14. If yes, how big per year? ____________
[Link] is your source of livestock water consumption? _________________

IV. Institutional characteristics

1. Did the extension agent visit you in the last cropping season? A).Yes B).No
2. If yes, frequency of visit?__________timeper year.
3. Did you get help or advice from extension agent about soil and water activities?
A). Yes B). No
4. Have you ever attended a farmer-training course on SWC measures?
A) Yes B).No
5. If yes, do you think the training was helpful for your Practical SWC work?
A) Yes B) No
6. Do you have an access to credit?A). Yes B). No
7. If yes, Purpose of credit (multiple response is possible)
A. To purchase fertilizer
B. To purchase seed
C. To purchase livestock
D. For SWC
E. For fattening
F. To start-off/non-farm business
G. Other, specify ________________
8. If no for question 6, why don’t you have access to credit?
A. No institution that provides credit

69
 B. High interest rate
C. Lengthy procedure
D. Collateral requirement
E. Repayment terms are unfavorable
F. Since I have no shortage of money
G. Other, specify
9. How many hours required to did you buy your agricultural inputs and sell your product to the
nearest market by walking? ___________hr.
V. Household Food security assessment and coping mechanism
Household food availability for the last oneyearDecember 2017 to December 2018
Annu Purchas Borr Food Gift losses Rese Sol Give
No Commodit al ed from owe aid or due to rved d(q n to
y harves market d obtai remitt grain for t) other
t (qt) (qt) n(qt) ance( pests, seed s
(qt) qt) disaster, (qt) (qt)
thievery
(qt)
1 Teff
2 Maize
3 Barely
4 Wheat
5 Sorghum
6 Bean
7 Pea
8 Chickpea
9 Lentil
10 Oily seed
11 Other

1. Do you milk any animal(Cow) for the last year? A) Yes B).No
2. How many animals milked?______
3. How much milk was produced per day?________litter.
4. How long the they milked ?_______month
5. What major purpose is of milked? A) ConsumptionB) sale C) both D)other
6. Do you have a food shortage problem in your household in last year? A) Yes B). No
7. If yes, for how many months per year did your household face shortage of food and which month?
____________

70
8. What is the cause of food insecurity? (Multiple responses are possible)
A. Extreme variability in rainfall/Drought
B. Incidence of pest, diseases, weed
C. soil ferity decline
D. other ( specify)
9. Number of average meals per day in the household? ____________
10. What type of coping mechanism you used when you don’t have enough food or money to
buy food in your family? (Multiples response possible)

Coping mechanism Rank

1. Rely on less preferred and less expensive food
2. Borrow food from a friend or relative
3. Purchase food on credit
5. Limit amount size at meal times
6. Restrict consumption order for small children to eat
7. Skip meals
8. Send children to eat with neighbors
9. Send household members to beg
10. Selling charcoal
11. Daily labor
12. selling livestock
13. If other specify
Thank you!

Annex 10: Checklist Questions for Focus Group Discussion

1. Which kind of approaches used by the government to facilitating for the implementation of
SWC? Which approached is preferable for farmers?
2. Which type of SWC are the most preferred technologies in your area?
3. How to evaluate agricultural extension service about soil and water conservation activities?
4. Why to farmers can’t implementing SWC technologies?

71
5. How to understand benefits/effectiveness implemented of SWC technologies?
6. How to evaluate productivity of conserved and non conserved farm land?
7. What should be done to improve implementation of soil and water conservation?
8. How many months per year did the farmer face shortage of food and which month? Why?
9. What is the real situation of SWC adopter and non adopter food security status?
10. What type of coping strategies farmers used to recover for incase of food shortage?
11.
Annex 11: Checklist for key informant interview
1. What type of introduced SWC technologies and approaches implemented in the last ten years?
2. How do you evaluate SWC implementation approaches and farmers participating level?
3. Which technologies are preferable for many farmers? Why?
4. How do you evaluate level of soil erosion year to year?
5. What is the major cause of soil erosion?
6. How do you evaluate implemented SWC practices effectiveness?
7. How do you understand the use of SWC practices for productivity and livestock feed?
8. What are the factors that affect technology adoption status of farmers?
9. How many months per year did farmers face shortage of food and which month? Why?
10. What type of coping mechanisms farmers used in the case of food shortage?
11. Is there significant difference between SWC adopter and non adopter food security status?
12. What is your suggestion to improve SWC implementation?

Annex 12: Observational checklist

1. Physical Environment (Implemented SWC practices, slop, soil type etc.)
2. Infrastructures (Road, credit institute, light, drinking water supply, market, transport,
health center access etc )

Annex 13:Secondary data collection format

1. Total size of woreda land ____________hectar.

A. Cultivated land ___________
B. Woodlot area_____________
C. Grazing area_____________
D. Bare land______________

72
2. Total Watershed coverage Woreda level-----------------hectare.
3. Soil type and major crop type
4. Farming system
5. Slop of the land
6. Rainfall amount
7. Main occupation
8. Food availability/sufficiency

73