International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 273–279

HOSTED BY
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Soil and Water Conservation Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/iswcr

Original Research Article

Factors affecting adoption of soil and water conservation practices: The

case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region,
Ethiopia
Daniel Asfaw a,n, Mulugeta Neka b
a
Debre Tabor University, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Ethiopia
b
Bahir Dar University, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Ethiopia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In Ethiopia, soil erosion is a severe problem and a major cause of the decline of agricultural productivity.
Received 12 June 2017 Interventions were taken by introducing soil and water conservation practices. However, the adoption of
Received in revised form these practices is far below the expectation. The objective of this study was to examine factors affecting
14 October 2017
adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices in Wereillu Woreda. Mixed research
Accepted 25 October 2017
methods design was employed in order to conduct this study. Questionnaire, focus group discussion, in-
Available online 27 October 2017
depth interview and field observation were used to collect data. A binary logistic regression model was
Keywords: employed to analyze the collected data. The analysis result showed that sex of household heads, edu-
Soil erosion cation status of household heads, access to extension services and training were positively correlated at
SWC
significantly level with the adoption of the introduced soil and water conservation practices. On the other
Adoption of SWC
hand, the age of household heads, off-farm activity, and distance of farmlands from homesteads influ-
Wereillu
enced the adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices negatively. The finding depicts
that the identified physical, socioeconomic, and institutional factors influence the adoption of soil and
water conservation so, the Woreda Rural and Agricultural Development Office and other concerned
bodies should consider these influential factors to enhance farmers’ adoption of introduced soil and
water conservation practices and to promote agricultural productivity and environmental quality.
& 2017 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and
Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Soil erosion is a major environmental and agricultural problem
facing human beings (Blanco & Lal, 2008; Hurni, 1988; World
Economic Forum, 2010). In the last 40 years, nearly one- third of
the world arable land was lost by soil erosion and continues to be
lost at the rate of more than 10 million hectares per year (Assefa,
2007; Penning de Vries et al., 2008; Pimental, 2006). Soil erosion
continued to be a major problem which causes loss of 6 million
hectares of arable land in each year with the rate of 20–40 t of soil
loss per hectare per year but the renewal rate is about 1 t of soil
per year (Pimental, 1993; Hurni, 1988). It has caused about 85% of
the world land to be degraded and 17% of crop production to be
reduced (Hurni, 1993; Scherr & Yadav, 1996). Africa is the worst
erosion affected area in the world where 50% of the total erosion
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dasfaw69@gmail.com (D. Asfaw),
mulugetaalmi@gmail.com (M. Neka).
Peer review under responsibility of International Research and Training Center
on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press.
affected people are concentrated (FAO, 2002; Zachar, 1982). Soil
erosion affects about 5–6 million hectares of land each year in
Africa (Assefa, 2009; Stocking & Murnaghan, 2001). In Ethiopia,
estimates show that 50% of its highland areas have significant soil
erosion, 25% of it was highly eroded and 4% of it is seriously eroded
beyond reclamation (Aklilu, 2006; Kruger, Fantaw, Gebre-Michael,
& Kajela, 1996; Pimental, 1993; Woldeamlak & Sterk, 2002).
The problem is more threatening in Amhara region; about 90%
of its population lives in the highlands which constitute 66% of its
total land area. Out of which, 90% of this land is regularly cultivated,
which exposes it to soil erosion. Areas that are severely worn away
are found in Waghimra and North Wollo which are followed by
North and South Gonder, South Wollo and northern part of North
Shewa zones (Lakew, Menale, & Rennin, 2000; Bureau of Agri-
culture, 2005). South Wollo Zone is identified as chronically food
deficit area (Eshetu & Gian, 2016; Lakew et al., 2000,). Wereillu
Woreda, which is part of this zone, has experienced high soil erosion
problem. According to the Woreda Agricultural and Rural Devel-
opment Office (2012), 40% of the total area of the woreda is affected
by soil erosion. As it is stated in Amhara Livelihood Zone Report
(2010), the woreda is the most chronically food deficit area.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.002
2095-6339/& 2017 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
274 D. Asfaw, M. Neka / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 273–279
Since 2008, the Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development
office has identified and selected 27 micro-watersheds and applied
integrated watershed development programs. At the beginning of
the implementation of the program in seven micro-watersheds,
soil and water conservation practices were implemented. In the
following years, the same actions were taken phase by phase in
the remaining watersheds that have been identified and deli-
neated. However, the adoption of soil and water conservation
practices is very low and the expected change is far below the
efforts done. On the other hand, soil erosion problem increased as
the utilization of land continuous without maintaining the con-
structed physical structures.
The poor level of adoption of soil and water conservation
practices is common in the developing countries. For example, a
study conducted in Malawi has confirmed that dissemination
and adoption of soil and water conservation innovations by
farmers were still very low (Kabuli). The factors that contributed
to the low level of adoption were lack of provision of adequate
information on the technical details of the innovation, in-
adequate extension services, poor linkages with research teams,
illiteracy, and poor transportation and communication net-
works. In support of this, Sands (1986) explains that many in-
troduced technologies have been rejected by farmers since they
are simply inappropriate for the specific condition of small farm
systems. Similarly, there were several factors that were barriers
to full scale implementation of soil and water conservation
techniques in USA in the 1980s (Dialla, 1992). Lack of awareness
of soil erosion and socio-cultural, institutional, structural, eco-
nomic, environmental and institutional issues were constrain-
ing factors.
Attitudes towards risk are also major determinants of the
rate of adoption of new soil and water conservation practices
(Moscardi & De Janvry, 1977). This is especially true in the tro-
pics where there are unreliable rainfall, major pest and disease
outbreaks and widely fluctuating market prices (Ruthenberg,
1985). The attitude of minimizing or avoiding risk is a matter of
life and death in the developing world. In a study in Dilla (1992)
acknowledges that third world farmers are very responsive to
immediate observable outcomes rather than to uncertain long-
term benefits.
Jara -Rojas, Bravo-Ureta, and Diaz (2012) explains that size of
farms and the ownership of land are important variables asso-
ciated with the adoption of soil and water conservation measures.
Moreover, a study conducted in Tanzania enabled to identify age,
sex, educational status of the head of families, and ownership of
land to have significant positive effect on soil and water con-
servation practices. But non-farm income and distance from
farmland to home were found to have significant negative effects
on soil and water conservation measures (Ashoori, Bagheri, Alla-
hyari, & Al-rimawl, 2016). Farm size, man power, and number of
domestic animals were found to have no significant effect on soil
and water conservation practices. Résistance to adopting soil and
water conservation practices were attributed to lack of farmers’
awareness of soil loss caused by erosion and lack of immediate
apparent financial benefits from soil and water conservation
practices (Tenge, De-Graaff, & Hella, 2004).
As agricultural experts and agricultural extension workers of
Wereillu Woreda explain, once the conservation practices con-
structed on their farmlands, the owners of the farmlands do not
maintain them. After harvesting their farmlands, they graze on
crop residues. They also feed their domestic animals on shrubs and
grasses which are planted for strengthening the conservation
structures. Because of these reasons, new soil and water con-
servation practices are being implemented in the same farmlands
year after year. In addition, farmers complain that constructed
physical soil and water conservation practices reduce the size of
their farmlands and create difficulties in plowing the farmlands.
So, farmers prefer removing the conservation structures to main-
taining them. So, this research examined the influential factors
that affect farmers’ adoption of introduced soil and water con-
servation practices.
2. Methods and materials
2.1. Description of the study area
Wereillu Woreda is located between 10°50'N to 10°33′N lati-
tudes and 39 °10’E°10′E to 39°167’E longitudes 10°-21'N to 10°-57′
N and 39°-20'E to 39°-36′E (Fig. 1). It is situated in South Wollo
Zone in Amhara National Regional State about 482 km north of
Addis Ababa. It covers a total area of 987.77 square km. Wereillu
Woreda is found in Wollo Highlands (south of Amba Farit Moun-
tain) in the North-Eastern Massif of Ethiopia. The woreda is char-
acterized by rugged topography which comprises mountains,
plains, and plateaus. The altitude of the woreda ranges from
1700 m to 3200 m above mean sea level.
Based on 36 years (1972–2008) rainfall data obtained from
Wereillu Station of Ethiopian National Meteorology Authority, the
mean annual rainfall of the area is 897.9 mm. The maximum
amounts of rainfall are received in the months of July and August
followed by September. According to Morgan (2005), the erosivity
power of rainfall is computed by using R = EI30/100 where R is
erosivity power of rainfall and EI iskenetic energy of rain drops.
However, EI data is not available for the Ethiopian case. Thus,
another formula is adapted to Ethiopian case by Hurni (1985). The
erosivity power of rainfall is computed using R = − 8.12 + .562*P .
Consequently, the erosivity power of the rainfall of the area is
496.49. The mean maximum and minimum annual temperatures
of the area are 9.3 °C and 21.7 °C respectively with mean annual
temperature of 15.5 °C.
According to Amhara Livelihood Zone Annual Report (2012),
the study area has two agroecological zones -Dega (temperate
area) and Woinadega (sub-tropical area) which cover 72% and 28%
respectively. According to FAO (1984) soil classification, the soil
types of the area are categorized as vertisols, cambisols, leptosols,
and regosols. According to the Woreda Agricultural and Develop-
ment Office Report (2012), 10% is fertile soil and 50% is moderately
fertile and the rest 40% is degraded land. Cultivation of crops along
with rearing of animals is the major farming system practiced in
the area. In order to manage the soil fertility, crop rotation, con-
tour farming, mixed cropping, fallowing, and terracing in some
steep slope are practiced in the area. Rural kebeles (sub-district)
development agent (DA) workers are assigned to assist farmers
while they practice agricultural activities and other related natural
resource management activities. The conservation activity es are
performed by mobilizing the masses for two months after har-
vesting season (Fig. 1).
2.2. Research design and methodology
Mixed research methods design was employed in this study.
Among the different types of mixed research methods, concurrent
or parallel was implemented. The quantitative research method
enabled to collect data on all quantified relationships between
adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices and
factors (household characteristics, and socio- economic, institu-
tional, and physical factors) affecting it. Qualitative research
method was used to collect and analyze qualitative data which
were used to strengthen and bridge the gap in quantitative re-
search method.
 D. Asfaw, M. Neka / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 273–279
Fig. 1. Map of the Study Area.
2.3. Sampling technique and sample size
Wereillu Woreda has 27 micro-watersheds which are grouped
under their agroecological zones (temperate and sub-tropical
watersheds). From the total watersheds, 16 and 11 of them are
found in the sub-tropical and temperate agroecological zones re-
spectively. By employing simple random sampling technique, two
watersheds from temperate and three watersheds from sub-tro-
pical agroecological zones were selected. They were Dolleke,
Mesnoamba, Gollbo, Kurerebere and Amiteager watersheds.
Sample household farmers from the sampled watersheds were
selected by using simple random sampling technique. The sample
size of the respondents was determined by Kothri (2004) sample
size determination formula. From the total 1102 farm household
heads, 112 respondents constituted the sample size. Finally, pro-
portional numbers of sample respondents were taken from each
sample watershed.
Key informants were selected purposely from the woreda
agricultural experts, agricultural extension workers, watersheds
development committees, and kebele administrators. Based on
data saturation, 5 key informants were employed. Eight knowl-
edgeable participants were purposely selected for focus group
discussion.
2.4. Data source and data collection techniques
Questionnaires, in-depth interview, focus group discussion and
field observation was used as the main primary data collection
techniques. The questionnaire included both closed and open-
275
ended questions. The questionnaire enabled to collect data from
representative sample household farmers. In-depth interview was
conducted with key informants who were considered knowl-
edgeable about the general situation of soil and water conserva-
tion practices. In addition, the secondary data were gathered from
the annual report of the related offices of the woreda, SWC man-
uals, different written documents, books, and statistical data about
the physical and socio- economic conditions of the study area.
2.5. Data analysis and interpretation
A binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the
relationship between the dichotomous dependent variable and the
independent variables (Hyeoun-Ae, 2013). It enabled to determine
the impact of multiple independent variables on the dependent
variable. The objective was to identify the determinant variables
(Kalineza, Mdoe, & Moliz, 1999). The assumptions of binary logistic
regression were tested before using the results of the binary lo-
gistic regression.
As revealed by regression model test of coefficient table, the
model was statistically significant (chi-square¼103.225, p-value
o.000 with df ¼ 10) and appropriate for the data. Concerning to
the predictive efficiency of the model, it explains that 93.8% of the
total 112 sample household heads included in the model correctly
predicted the adoption of soil and water conservation practices. It
also correctly predicted 95.6% of the adopter's household and
90.9% of the non-adopters household in their respective categories
With regard to the error rates committed in the classification
276 D. Asfaw, M. Neka / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 273–279

table, the false positive rate (the number of errors where the de- level (ß ¼ 1.034; p- value ¼ .001). The Wald statistics (10.444) also
pendent is predicted to be adopter, but it is in fact non-adopter) is revealed its significant association with the adoption of SWC prac-
4.4% while the false negative rate (the number of errors where the tices (Table 1). This showed that relatively better educated farmers
dependent is predicted to be non- adopter, but it is in fact adopter) are engaged in the adoption of the newly introduced SWC practices.
is 8.1%. The odds ratio also revealed that educated household farmers
adopted the introduced SWC practices by the factor of 2.812 than
non-educated (illiterate) household farmers.
3. Results and discussions Similarly, Fikru (2009); Tiwari et al. (2008); Aberha (2008);
Krishna, Bicol Ingrid, and Giridhari (2008); Million and Kassa
The major factors that influenced adoption of soil and water (2004); Abera (2003); Okoye (1998); Gould, William, and Klemme
conservation practices in Wereillu Woreda were identified by (1989) described that better education level of household heads
analyzing the dependent variable (adoption of soil and water having strong and positive relationship with farmers’ adoption of
conservation practices) against 11 explanatory variables. SWC conservation practices. Better exposure to education in-
creases farmers’ better understanding of the benefits and con-
3.1. Household characteristics and adoption of SWC practices straints of soil conservation (King & Alderman, 2001). Contrary to
this, Eleni (2008); Francis (1999) elaborated that illiterate farmers
Among household characteristics, the age of the household are better to be involved in the use of SWC practices than educated
head influenced the adoption of introduced SWC practices nega- farmers who are usually engaged in the off-farm activity.
tively and it was statistically significant at .05 level (ß ¼ .067 Family size correlated insignificantly but positively with the
and p-value ¼ .045). The Wald statistics (4.016) also showed its adoption of introduced SWC practices (ß¼ .183; p-value ¼.273).
significant relationship. Its negative sign reflects that as the age of Eleni (2008); Habtamu (2006); Million and Kassa (2004) stated
a farmer increases, the adoption of introduced soil and water similar results. They described that small sized household family is
conservation (SWC) practices decreases. This is because of the fact less likely to involve in retaining of soil and water conservation
that as the age of a farmer increases, the acceptance level about practices than larger sized household family. The larger sized fa-
the introduced soil and water conservation practices decreases. mily could provide the required labor for implementing and
Old farmers become exhausted and unable to give care for their maintaining conservation practices. But Fikru (2009); Aklilu
farmlands. On the other hand, younger farmers have more will- (2006); Foltz and Jeremy (2003) stated that farmers with larger
ingness to adopt the introduced soil and water conservation family sizes are less likely to continue using introduced soil and
practices. The odds ratio depicts that one year increase in the age water conservation practices. Because there is competition for la-
of household head decreases the adoption of introduced SWC bor between food generating off-farm activities and investment in
practices by a factor of .935. maintenance of soil and water conservation practices. Similarly,
Similar to the finding of this study, Tiwari, Sitaula, Nyborg, and Budry et al. (2006); Bekele and Holden (1998) indicated that
Paudel (2008); Bekele and Drake (2003); Budry, Curtis, and Dennis physical conservation practices occupy a large area and compete
(2006) reported that age of household heads was negatively cor- for the scarce productive land resource. Thus, households with
related at statistically significant level. In the same manner, Mu- large family sizes tend to remove the constructed physical con-
lugeta, Kassa, and Legesse (2001); Bekele and Holden (1999) servation structure from their farmlands.
confirmed that younger farmers are often expected to invest more Sex of the household heads is positively correlated with the
in soil conservation practices. Because they are more often edu- adoption of introduced SWC practices at statistically significant
cated and they are more aware of soil erosion problem and its level (ß ¼2.680; p-value ¼ .031) which is also confirmed by the
solution. Contrary to this, Fikru (2009); Chomba (2004); Francis Wald statistics (4.661). This showed that male headed households
(1999) have verified that age of household heads had positively are more likely to be engaged in implementation and maintenance
influenced adoption of SWC practices. Younger farmers are less of SWC practices than female headed households. The odds ratio
likely to use SWC practices continuously. This is due to the fact of logistic regression showed that male household heads adopted
that younger farmers have small size farmlands and they are re- the introduced SWC practices by the factor of 14.582 than female
luctant to implement the SWC practices. headed households. Most of the women households rent their
Educational status of household heads correlated positively with farmlands because of lack of labor to cultivate and conserve their
the adoption of introduced SWC practices at .05 level of significance farmlands. In addition, females are involved in taking care of their
children, preparing food and other related tasks at home. More-
over, all female household heads are widowed or divorced and
Table: 1
Binary logistic regression model result for factors influencing adoption of SWC
don’t have support other than their children.
practices. Corresponding to this, Aberha (2008); Eleni (2008); Krishna
et al. (2008) obtained that male headed households have a higher
Explanatory variables ß S. Error Wald P-value Exp(ß) chance to involve in soil and water conservation practices since
Age of HH*** heads  .067 .033 4.016 .045** .935
constructing and maintaining SWC practices demand much labor.
Sex of HH heads 2.680 1.241 4.661 .031** 14.582 Hence, female headed households are not motivated to invest in
Education status of HH 1.034 .320 10.444 .001* 2.812 soil and water conservation. Contrary to this, a research conducted
Family size of HH .183 .964 1.203 .273 1.384 by Fikru (2009) in Koga Watershed in Northern Ethiopia reported
Farm size of HH  .325 .296 .036 .849 .833
that gender did not have any relationship with the adoption of
Distance from home stead  .100 .044 5.060 .024** .905
Off- farm activity  2.472 .957 6.675 .010* .084 introduced SWC structures since women have the culture of
Access to Extension service 2.011 .902 4.973 .026** 7.472 working in their farmlands. Similarly, a research conducted by
Access to Training service 2.001 .858 5.438 .020** 7.395 Tenge et al. (2004) explained that female headed households have
Access to credit service 1.089 .933 1.362 .243 2.971
adopted more than males. Most fields affected by erosion have
Note: - ** Statistically significant at .05 level * Statistically significant at .01 level. been planted with annual food crops which are mainly cultivated
*** Household heads. by women.
 D. Asfaw, M. Neka / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 273–279
3.2. Socio- economic and institutional factors and adoption of in-
troduced soil and water conservation practices
The binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the size of
farmlands cultivated by households had a negative and insignif-
icant impact on farmers’ adoption of SWC practices (ß ¼  .325;
p-value ¼ .849). The negative sign shows that as the farm size
increases the probability to adopt the introduced SWC practices
decreases (Table 1). In the study area, farmers with large farm-
lands are in their old ages. They are not engaged in constructing
and maintaining of SWC practices because of lack of labor.
Similarly, Garcia (2001) reported a negative relationship be-
tween the size of farmland holding and the probability of adopting
soil and water conservation practices. This is due to labor intensive
nature of constructing soil conservation structures in Philippines’
upland areas. The same is true for Habtamu (2006) and Budry et al.
(2006) who asserted a negative and significant relationship be-
tween farmland size and the decision to retain soil and water
conservation practices. Because most farmers who cultivate large
farm sizes are old aged farmers. They have short term plan and
lack the labor force for maintaining conservation practices. But
Fikru (2009); Eleni (2008); Million and Kassa (2004); Abera (2003)
argued against this. They affirmed that farm size is associated
positively and significantly with the adoption of introduced soil
and water conservation practices.
Off-farm activity is one of the important socioeconomic factors
that influence farmers’ decision to adopt introduced soil and water
conservation practices. The result of binary logistic regression
analysis depicted that off-farm activity has a negative relationship
at statistically significant level (ß ¼  2.472; p-value ¼ .010) with
the adoption of introduced SWC practices (Table 1). The odds ratio
of the binary logistic regression result revealed that household
heads who are not engaged in off-farm activity adopt introduced
SWC practices .084 times greater than those who are engaged in
the off-farm activity. Because there is labor competition between
off- farm activity and SWC practices which restrain farmers from
involving in implementing and maintaining conservation practices
on their farmlands. A similar result was reported by Tenge et al.
(2004); Eleni (2008). They confirmed that the involvement of
farmers in off- farm activity influenced negatively the continued
use of soil and water conservation practices.
Contrary to this, Mulugeta and Stahar (2010) reported that off-
farm activity is correlated positively at statistically significant level
with the adoption of SWC practices. Because income from off-farm
activity increases the financial potential of farmers which in turn
encourages investment in soil and water conservation practices.
Similarly, Krishna et al. (2008) reported similar result. They said
that off-farm income served as a source of cash to invest in SWC
practices and finally led to better and continued use of conserva-
tion practices.
As Mulugeta et al. (2001) and Tenge et al. (2003) stated, in-
formation is basic to adopt not only new soil and water con-
servation practices but also other newly introduced technologies.
In this respect, agricultural extension services and trainings are the
basic sources of information for small holder farmers’ awareness
about soil erosion and the way in which it can be tackled. Among
the identified institutional factors which affect farmer's adoption
of introduced soil and water conservation practices, access to ex-
tension service and training were statistically significant.
Access to extension service has a positive correlation at sta-
tistically significant level (ß ¼ 2.011; p-value ¼ .026) with the
adoption of introduced soil and water conservation practices
which was affirmed by the Wald statistics (4.973). This explains
that as farmers are supported by extension workers and know well
about the benefit of conservation practices, the probability of using
and maintaining the introduced soil and water conservation
277
practices will increase. The odds ratio showed that farmers who
have access to extension services adopt the introduced soil and
water conservation practices by the factor of 7.472 than those who
have no access to extension services (Table 1). Positive perception
and attitude towards soil and water conservation practices is de-
cisive for adopting introduced practices. Similarly, Fikru (2009);
Tiwari et al. (2008); Eleni (2008); Habtamu (2006); Asrat, Belay,
and Hamito (2004); Bekele and Drake (2003) stated that farmers
who receive better information from extension agents have willing
to implement new soil and water conservation practices and
maintain the existing practices. But low frequency of contact be-
tween farmers and extension agents result in insignificant effect.
Access to training correlated positively and significantly with
the adoption of soil and water conservation practices (ß ¼ 2.001;
p-value ¼ .020). The Wald statistics (5.438) also indicated highly
significant association. The odds ratio of farmers who have access
to training is greater by the factor of 7.395 than non-trained
farmer household heads to the adoption of introduced soil and
water conservation practices (Table 1). This shows that as farmers
are trained about the introduced soil and water conservation
practices (utilization and implementation skills), the probability of
farmer's adoption increases.
In line with this, Tiwari et al. (2008); Eleni (2008); Habtamu
(2006); Bekele and Holden (1998). revealed that access to training
has a positive insignificant correlation with the adoption of in-
troduced soil and water conservation practices. But Fikru (2009)
reported that training has positive correlation with the adoption of
soil or stone bund and tree plantations. According to Tenge et al.
(2004); Asrat et al. (2004); Million and Kassa (2004), better per-
ception and knowledge of farmers about the soil erosion problem
contribute significantly to the sustainable use of introduced soil
and water conservation practices. So, intervention through train-
ing and extension services is a means of creating awareness and
provision of support for the adoption of new technologies.
3.3. Physical factors and adoption of introduced soil and water
conservation practices
The distance of farmland from homestead is negatively corre-
lated with the adoption of introduced SWC practices at statistically
significant level (ß ¼  .100; p-value ¼ .024). The Wald statistics
also (5.060) indicated that distance of farmland has a strong as-
sociation with the adoption of introduced SWC practice (Table 1).
Its negative sign shows that as the distance of farmland increases
from farmers’ home, the probability of adopting introduced SWC
practices decreases. The odds ratio indicated that a one minute
increase in distance of farmland from a farmer's home decreases
adoption of introduced SWC practices by a factor of .905. In ad-
dition, from the total respondents, only 30 (26.9%) of them im-
plemented SWC structures on far away farmlands. A limited
number of farmers were frequently maintaining the conservation
practices. This revealed that less time and energy are needed for
maintaining near farmlands than far away farmlands Thus, farm-
ers who have farmlands far from their homes are discouraged
from conserving their farmlands.
Similarly, Fikru (2009); Tiwari et al. (2008); Asrat et al. (2004)
reported that longer walking distance between farmlands and
household residences correlated significantly and negatively to the
adoption of introduced SWC practices. Because farmlands far away
from homesteads require more time and energy for the con-
servation of farmlands. Habtamu (2006) reported that farmlands
far from home do not get much attention from owners since it
needs more time and energy for taking care of their farmlands.
Similarly, Birhanu and Swinton (2003) and Kessler (2006) also
confirmed that far away farmlands discouraged adoption of soil
and water conservation practices.
278 D. Asfaw, M. Neka / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 273–279
4. Conclusion
The adoption of introduced SWC practices in the study area is
positively influenced by the sex of household head, education
status of household head, access to extension services and train-
ings at statistically significant level. On the other hand, the age of
household heads, distances of farmlands from homesteads and off-
farm activity have negatively influenced the adoption of in-
troduced SWC practices. But family size of household, farm size
and access to credit service are not statistically significant in in-
fluencing the adoption of soil and water conservation practices.
This implies that the regional and local administrates should
provide extension and training services on the introduced SWC
practices for the farmers and agricultural extension service
workers. These measures encourage farmers to take soil and water
conservation practices on their farmlands. Moreover, woreda
agricultural offices should take into account of these determining
factors to augment the adoption of soil and water conservation
practices on their farmlands.
References
Abera, B. (2003). Factors influencing the adoption of soil and water conservation
practices, in North Western Ethiopia. Germany: Institute of Rural Development,
University of Gottingen (Discussions paper No. 37).
Aberha, E. T. (2008). Erosion and soil and water conservation group and environ-
mental policy group. Continue use of soil and water conservation practices. A Case
Study in Tulla District, Ethiopia (p. 57) Netherlands: Dissertation for Award of
MSc Degree at Wageningen University.
Aklilu, A. (2006). Best practices in soil and water conservation in Beressa watershed,
highland of Ethiopia. Tropical Resource Management paper. Number 36. Nether-
lands: Wageningen University.
Amhara Livelihood Zone Report (2010). Amhara Reginal National Regional State
Livelihood Annual Report, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Ashoori, D., Bagheri, A., Allahyari, M. S., & Al-rimawl, A. S. (2016). An examination of
soil and water conservation practices in the paddy fields of Guilan Province,
Iran. Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, 88(2), 959–971.
Asrat, P., Belay, K., & Hamito, D. (2004). Determinants of farmers’ willingness to pay
for soil conservation practices in the southeastern highlands of Ethiopia. Land
Degradation & Development, 15, 423–438.
Assefa, A. (2007). Impact of terrace development and management on soil properties
in Anjeni area, West Gojjam (Unpublished Master's thesis). Ethiopia: Submitted
to Addis Ababa University.
Assefa, D. (2009). Assessment of upland erosion processes and farmer's perception of
land conservation in Debre Mewi watershed, near Lake Tana, Ethiopia (M. Sc
thesis). United States: Cornell University.
Bekele, S., & Holden, S. T. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land con-
servation technologies in the Ethiopian highlands: A case study in Andit Tid,
north Shewa. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 18(12), 233–247.
Bekele, S., & Holden, S. T. (1999). Soil erosion and small holders' conservation.
decision in the high lands of Ethiopia. Journal of World Development, 27(4),
739–752.
Bekele, W., & Drake, L. (2003). Soil and water conservation decision behavior of
subsistence farmers in Eastern high land of Ethiopia: A case study of the
Hunde-lafto area. Journal of Ecological Economics, 46, 437–451.
Birhanu, G., & Swinton, S. M. (2003). Investment in soil conservation in northern
Ethiopia: The role of land tenure security and public programs. Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 29, 69–84.
Blanco, H., & Lal, R. (2008). Principles of soil conservation and management. Co-
lumbus OH, USA: The Ohio State University.
BoA (Bureau of Agriculture), (2005). Community-based participatory watershed
planning and development. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Budry, B., Curtis, M. J., & Dennis, A. S. (2006). The adoption and management of soil
conservation practices in Haiti: The case of rock walls. Agricultural Economic
Review, 7(2).
Chomba, N. G. (2004). Factors affecting small holder farmers' adoption of soil and
water conservation practice in Zambia (Unpublished Master Thesis). Department
of Agricultural Economics. Michigan State University.
Dialla, B. E. (1992). The adoption of soil and water conservation practices in Burkina
Faso: The role of indigenous knowledge, social structure and institutional support.
Arbor: A Bell and Howell Information Company.
Eleni, T. (2008). Determinants for continued use of soil and water conservation
practices: The case of productive safety net program in Tulla District, Ethiopia
(Master Thesis Unpublished). Netherlands: Wageningen University.
Eshetu, S., & Gian, S. (2016). Determinants of farm household poverty status in
South Wollo zone, Amhara regional state. Punjabi University, Patiala. Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Economics and Social Science, 6, 322–329.
FAO (1984). World reference for soil resource. Rome, Italy.
FAO (2002). Reducing poverty and hunger: the critical role of financing for food,
agriculture, and rural development. Paper presented at International Con-
ference on Financing for Development, Monterrey, Mexico, 18-22 March 2002.
Fikru, A. (2009). Assessment of adoption of soil and water conservation practice in
Koga watershed, highlands of Ethiopia (Unpublished Master Thesis). Cornell:
Cornell University, Faculty of Graduate School.
Foltz, D., & Jeremy (2003). The economics of water-conserving technology adoption
in Tunisia: An empirical estimation of farmer technology choice. Economic De-
velopment and Cultural Change, 51(2), 359–372.
Francis, D. K. (1999). A note on the adoption of soil conservation measures in the
northern province of South Africa. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50(2),
336–345.
Garcia, Y. T. (2001). Analysis of farmer decision to adopt soil conservation tech-
nology in Argao In: R. A. Cramb (Ed.), Soil conservation technologies for small-
holder farming system in the Philippine uplands: a socioeconomic evaluation.
Canberra, Australia: ACIAR.
Gould, B. W., William, E. S., & Klemme, R. M. (1989). Conservation tillage: The role of
farm and operator characteristics and the perception of soil erosion. Journal of
Land Economics, 65(2), 167–182.
Habtamu, E. (2006). Adoption of physical soil and water conservation structure in
Anna watershed, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia (Unpublished Master Thesis). Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University.
Hurni, H.(1985). Erosion-productivity conservation system in Ethiopia. Paper to
Proceedings of the 4th International soil conservation conference, Maracay,
Venezuela. pp.20.
Hurni, H. (1988). Degradation and conservation of the resources in the Ethiopian
highlands. Mountain Research and Development, 8(2/3), 123–130.
Hurni, H. (1993). Land degradation, famine and land resource scenario in Ethiopia
In: D. Pimental (Ed.), World Soil Conservation (pp. 27–61). New York: Cambridge
University press.
Hyeoun-Ae, P. (2013). An Introduction to logistic regression: From basic concepts to
interpretation with particular attention to nursing domain. College of nursing,
Seoul National University. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 43(2).
Jara -Rojas, R., Bravo-Ureta, B., & Diaz, J. (2012). Adoption of water conservation
practices: A socio-economic analysis of small scale farmers in Central Chile.
Agricultural Systems, 110, 54–62.
Kabuli, A.M. (No date). Soil and water conservations innovations to address food
security in Africa: role of knowledge management systems in adoptions, Ma-
lawi. Lilongwe: Bunda College of agriculture.
Kalineza, H.M.M, Mdoe, N.S.Y,& Moliz, M.R.S.(1999). Adoption of soil and water
conservation technology in Tanzania: A case study of Gairo. Proceedings of FAO
conference Vol.4.
Kessler, C. A. (2006). Decisive key factors influencing farm households' soil and
water conservation investments. Journal of Applied Geography, 26, 40–60.
King, E. M. & Alderman, H. (2001). Empowering women to achieve food security
and education. [〈http.//www.ifpri.org.focus/focus06/focus06.pdf〉] site visited
on 25/09/2012.
Kothri, C. R. (2004). Research methodology methods and techniques ((2nd). Delhi:
New Age International Press.
Krishna, R., Bicol Ingrid, I. P., & Giridhari, S. (2008). Determinants of farmers' adoption
of improved soil conservation technology: In a middle mountain watershed of
central Nepal Environmental Management. New York: Springer.
Kruger, H. J., Fantaw, B., Gebre-Michael, & Kajela, K. (1996). Creating inventory of
indigenous soil and water conservation measures in Ethiopia In: C. Toulmin,
I. Reij, & I. Scoones (Eds.), Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous Soil and Water Con-
servation in Africa (pp. 170–180). London: Earth scan.
Lakew Desta, Menale Kassie & Rennin, J.R. (2000). Land degradation and strategies
for sustainable development in the Ethiopian high lands: Amhara Region. ILRI,
working paper No 32, Nairobi, Kenya.
Million, T., & Kassa, B. (2004). Factors influencing adoption of soil conservation
measures in Southern Ethiopia: The case of Gununo area. Journal of Agriculture
and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 105(1), 49–62.
Morgan, R. P. C. (2005). Soil erosion and conservation ((3rd ed.). New York: Blackwell
Publishing.
Mulugeta, D., & Stahar, K. (2010). Assessment of integrated soil and water con-
servation measures on key soil properties in South Gonder, North West high-
lands of Ethiopia. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. Journal of Soil
Science and Environmental Management, 1(7), 164–176.
Mulugeta, E., Kassa, B., & Legesse, D. (2001). Determinants of adoption of physical
soil conservation measures in central highlands of Ethiopia: The case of three
districts of North Shewa, Ethiopia agricultural research organization, Debrezeit
research centre, Ethiopia. Journal of Agrekon, 40(3), 293–315.
Okoye, C. (1998). Comparative analysis of factors in the adoption of traditional and
recommended soil erosion control practices in Nigeria. Department of Natural
Resources Management and Environment. Journal of Soil and Tillage Research,
45, 251–263.
Penning de Vries, F., Acquay, H., Molden, D., Scherr, S., Valentin, C., & Cofie, O.
(2008). Learning from bright spots to enhance food security and to combat
degradation of water and land resources In: D. Bossio, & K. Geheb (Eds.), Con-
serving land, protecting water (pp. 1–19). CABI.
Pimental, D. (Ed.). (1993). World soil conservation. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pimental, D. (2006). Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. College of
agriculture and life Science, Cornell University. Journal of Environmental De-
velopment and Sustainability, 8, 119–137.
Ruthenberg, H. (1985). Innovation policy of small farmers in the tropics. Oxford:
 D. Asfaw, M. Neka / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 273–279
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
Sands, D. M. (1986). The technology application gap: Overcoming constraints to small
farm development. Rome: FAO, Research and Technology (Paper 1).
Scherr, S. J., & Yadav, S. N. (1996). Land degradation in the developing world: Im-
plications for food, agriculture, and the environment to 2020, Food, Agriculture,
and the Environment Discussion Paper14. Washington, D.C., U.S.A: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Stocking, M., & Murnaghan, N. (2001). Hand book for the field assessment of land
degradation. London: Earth Scan Publication Ltd.
Tenge, A., De-Graaff, J., & Hella, J. P. (2004). Factors influencing adoption and con-
tinued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in West Usam-
bara highlands, Tanzania. Journal of Land Degradation and Development, 15,
99–114.
Tiwari, K. R., Sitaula, B. K., Nyborg, I. L. P., & Paudel, G. S. (2008). Determinant of
farmer adoption of introduced soil and water conservation technology in
279
middle mountain watershed of central Nepal. Environmental Management, 42,
210–222.
Woldeamlak, B., & Sterk, G. (2002). Farmers' perception in the soil and water
conservation activities in Chemoga watershed, blue Nile Basin. Journal of
Ethiopia Land Degradation Development, 13, 189–200.
Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office (2012). Wereillu woreda agri-
cultural and rural development office annual report, Ethiopia.
World Economic Forum (2010). Biodiversity and business risk-a global risks net-
work briefing, a briefing paper for participants engaged in biodiversity related
discussions at the World Economic Forum Davos-Klosters Annual Meeting,
Cologne/Geneva, Switzerland.
Zachar, D. (1982). Soil Erosion: development in soil science, Forest Research Institute,
Slovak academy of science. Zvolen, Czechoslovakia: Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company.