ARBAMINCH UNIVERSITY

COLLGE OF NATURAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY

Assessment of soil practice of farmer in Woyeborenakebele in Mirababayaworeda

in Gamo Zone SNNPR Ethiopia.

Prepared by:- ID No
Timothos Yaekob SNS/2551/09

ADVISOR: Matewos Masne (Msc)-

January, 2021

ARBAMINCH, ETHIOPIA.
 Declaration
I, declare that the research work initiated on “Assessment of soil practice of farmer in Woye
borena kebele in Mirab abaya woreda in Gamo Zone SNNPR Ethiopia” Submitted by me for
the award of the degree of bachelor of in Biology at Arba minch University under my guidance
of Matewos Masne (MSc). It is original work and it hasn't been presented for the award of any
other degree.

Prepared By
Timotewos Yakob
Sign ____________________________
Date ___________________________
 A Senior Project Paper Submitted to Biology Department, College of Natural Science,
Arbaminch University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of
Science (BSc) in Biology.

Approval sheet

This project work entitled “Assessment of soil practice of farmer in Woye borena kebele in
Mirab abaya woreda in Gamo Zone SNNPR Ethiopia” is

Submitted by:- ID No. Signature

Timothos Yaekob …………………… SNS/2551/09 …………

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Biology.

Approved by:

Name signature date

Matewos Mazne …………… ……………….

Advisor

……………………………. …………… ……………….

Examiner

……………………………. …………… ……………….

Head of department

………………… ………………… …………………

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................................................................................i
Abbreviation (Acronomy)..........................................................................................................................ii
List of table/figure....................................................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................iv
1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Back ground and justification..........................................................................................................1
1.2 statement of the problems..............................................................................................................2
1.3 Objective of the study.....................................................................................................................3
1.3.1 General objectives....................................................................................................................3
1.3.2 Specific objectives....................................................................................................................3
1.4 Research question...........................................................................................................................3
1.5 Significance of the Study.................................................................................................................3
1.6 Scope of the Study...........................................................................................................................4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................................................5
2.1 Concept of soil erosion....................................................................................................................5
2.2 Approaches to soil conservation.....................................................................................................6
2.3 Soil conservation practices..............................................................................................................7
2.4 The concept of managing land resources towards sustainability..................................................10
2.5. Vegetative or Biological Soil-Conservation Measures...................................................................10
2.5.1 Strip cropping.........................................................................................................................11
2.5.2 Crop rotation...........................................................................................................................11
2.5.3. Intercropping.........................................................................................................................12
2.6 Physical soil management Practices..............................................................................................12
2.6.1 Conservation tillage....................................................................................................................13
2.7 Population pressure and land degradation...................................................................................14
2.8 Farmers’ perception of soil erosion...............................................................................................15
2.9 Soil Organic Matter........................................................................................................................17
3. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................18
3.1. Study Area Description.................................................................................................................18
3.2 Study Design..................................................................................................................................18
3.3 Sample size determination and sampling technique.....................................................................18
 3.1.1Sample size determination.......................................................................................................18
3.4 Data collection methods...............................................................................................................19
3.5 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................................19
4.1 Fertility status of soil in the area...................................................................................................20
4.2 Farmers’ perception on soil erosion occurrence, its cause and risk..............................................20
4.3 Indigenous soil and water conservation practices.........................................................................22
4.4 Responsibility of farmers and government for land management................................................22
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................24
5.1 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................24
5.2 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................24
6. References...........................................................................................................................................26
7. Appendices..........................................................................................................................................30
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset I would like to praise the everlasting father and the prince of love and peace the
almighty God who always let the bulk of unfinished work to be completed at a moment. Next to
that I would like to thanks Arbaminch University College of natural science department of
Biology for its encouraging support and effort to undertaken this research. I have grateful to our
respected advisor Matewose Mazne (Msc), for this consistent insolvable to the comments and
follow up right from start to the completion my work.

i
 Abbreviation (Acronomy)
BPLM: Biological And Physical Land Management
BLM: Biological Land Management
CSA: Central Statistics Authority
CEC: Cation Exchange Capacity
FAO: Food And Agricultural Organization
FFW: Food For Work
FSDPP: Food Security, Disaster Prevention And Preparedness
MoARD: Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development
TBPLMP: Traditional Biological &Physical Land Management Practice
SPSS: Statistical Package For Social Science
SC: Soil Conservation

ii
 List of table/figure
Table1. Causes of soil fertility losses…………………………………………………………20

Table2. Farmer’s perception on defining soil erosion occurrence on farmland………………..21

Table3. The response of farmers on their expectation from the Government for land
management……………………………………………………………………………………22

Table4. Response of farmers on their awareness, their responsibility of land management…..23

iii
 ABSTRACT
Farmers’ perception and indigenous knowledge to conserve natural resources in general and
soil and water conservation in particular have received little emphasis in Ethiopia. This study
aimed to understand farmers’ perception on prevalence of soil erosion and their indigenous
mechanism in soil erosion control and soil fertility management. The study was conducted in
October, 2021/22 in purposively selected area of woye kebele in mirab abaya southern,
Ethiopia. Data was collected using household interviews where a total of 100 farmers were
randomly selected and interviewed. It was identified that the land allocated for the agricultural
land and forest land showed an increasing trends since five years back in all study districts
while the land allocated for grazing was degreasing. This was due to conversion of grazing
land and other marginal lands in to cropland to satisfy an increased food demand. Water and
wind erosions are the two major types of soil erosion identified in this particular study. Heavy
and erratic rain fall, topography and deforestation are the major causes of soil erosion in all
study area. To tackle the soil erosion problem, framers are using different physical structures
such as soil bund, cutoff drains and micro basins. In addition, crop rotation, compost, animal
manure and intercropping are also the major biological soil and water conservation activities
practiced by the farmers. In their decisions for fertilization or production farmers use yield
response, soil color, vegetation cover, soil type and topography as soil fertility indicators.
Chemical fertilizers, though perceived expensive, are still the dominant strategy used by
farmers to increase production. In addition, farmers’ perception and training on use of other
alternative organic fertilizer is very low in all study areas.
Keywords: Farmers’ practice; Soil erosion; Soil; Water conservation

iv
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Back ground and justification
Agriculture is a back bone of the economy of Ethiopia and a way of life for which agricultural
land is an indispensable resource on which the welfare of the society is built on. The livelihood
of the vast majority of the population depends directly or indirectly on this sector. Needless to
mention, such dependence obviously leads to increased vulnerability of the economy to
problems related to land degradation (Wegayehu, 2003). Though agricultural land in Ethiopia
has provided a means of livelihoods for the majority of the population, land resources are facing
increasing degradation mainly due to soil erosion by surface runoff water in the form of sheet
and rill erosion. The problem is particularly severe on cultivated marginal and sloping land
because such areas are generally susceptible to soil erosion (Tadesse and Belay, 2004;
Greenland et al., 1994). Soil erosion is greatest on cultivated land where average annual soil
loss was 42 t/ha/yr (Hurni, 1990). The Soil Conservation Research Project (SCRP) has
estimated an annual soil loss of about 1.5 billion tons from the highland. According to the
Ethiopian Highlands Reclamation Study (EHRS, 1984) soil erosion is estimated to cost the
country 1.9 billion US$ between 1985 and 2010. Soil erosion and nutrient depletion presents a
threat to food security and sustainability of agricultural production in many developing
countries. Betru (2003) reported that, Ethiopia losses around 2 billion tons of fertile soil and
subsequently losses 2% of the annual grain production, which is roughly equivalent to 120, 000
tons of cereal per annum (Mesfin, 2004). According to Mesfin (2004), the annual loss in grain
production due to erosion in 2000 was 170,000 tones. This shows the loss of income in terms of
lost agricultural production of US $150 million. The Ethiopian highlands have been
experiencing declining soil fertility and severe soil erosion due to intensive farming on steep
and fragile land (Abegaz, 1995). To increase agricultural production and to conserve land
resources in sustainable farming, different strategies have to be introduced targeting
conservation agriculture (CA). Conservation agriculture is an interdisciplinary and synergetic
set of principles to combat soil fertility loss, soil structure degradation, reduced water use
efficiency and rapidly declining production levels (Kaumbutho and Josef, 2007). Conservation
agriculture is not an actual technology; rather, it refers to a wide array of specific technologies
that are based on applying one or more of the three main conservation agriculture principles

1
(IRRR and ACT, 2005 cited in Kaumbutho and Josef, 2007). The application of the three
principles include: minimal soil disturbance (reduce the intensity of soil tillage), cover the soil
surface permanently and diversify crop rotation (Ibid). Among conservation agriculture
technologies, soil and water conservation measures (better soil erosion control, better soil water
infiltration capacity), agronomic soil fertility management technologies/practices (mulching,
organic matter incorporation, crop rotation, integrated soil fertility management), integrated
weed management, integrated pest and disease management, post harvest techniques and
mechanization (specialized) implements are the major ones. The rate of soil loss in Ethiopia
was put in severity levels as, very high (>100 t/ha/yr); high (50-100 t/ha/yr); moderate (10-50
t/ha/yr); low (1-10 t/ha/yr) and no erosion (<1 t/ha/yr) (Hurni, 1983). Farmers in the area
practice crop production on slope land due to different causes like shortage of land. In addition,
the crops being cultivated were those requiring frequent tillage to fine the soil that could
aggravate soil erosion and therefore, the importance of this research was roughly to assess and
discuss how soil erosion was highly occurring especially on slop farmland and what type of
conservation methods were practiced by farmers and thereby to identify farmers' adaptation
mechanisms to mitigate soil erosion in the area.

1.2 statement of the problems

Different explanations have been given to the low performance of agriculture in Ethiopia.
Commonly mentioned problems are drought, war, pests, insecurity of land tenure, population
pressure, soil erosion, overgrazing, deforestation, lack of efficient rural organizations, stagnant
technology, distorted economic policies, weak institutional supports, etc.Farmers’ decisions to
conserve natural resources in general, and soil and water in particular are largely determined by
their knowledge of the problems and perceived benefits of conservation (Amsalu and Graff,
2007). In Ethiopia, however, farmer perceptions of soil erosion and soil fertility management
problems and farmers conservation practices have received little emphasis either in status
analysis or use in conservation planning. This study will help to understand perceptions of
farmers and prevalence of soil erosion, identifying the dominant soil erosion types and farmers’
soil erosion control mechanisms, identifying soil fertility management practices in the area, and
problems and opportunities of both erosion and fertility management of soils to device future
research directions for the benefits of farmers. Insights into these issues are of paramount

2
importance for the country’s research and extension systems in promoting sustainable land-
management practices in Woye borena kebele in Mirab Abaya woreda.

1.3 Objective of the study

1.3.1 General objectives

Assess soil conservation practice of farmer in Woye Barana kebele, Mirab Abaya
woreda, Gamo Zone, southern Ethiopia.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this study will be:-
 To identify farmers’ soil erosion control mechanisms in the study areas,
 To identify the dominant soil erosion types and prevention mechanism in woye borena
kebele
 To assess soil fertility management practices in the Woye borena kebele.

1.4 Research question

1. What do farmers do to conserve soil on their farms?

2. How can constraints to promote SC assessment practices be overcome?

3. What are the determinants of SC or assessment practice among small farmers within and
across socio-economic and agro-ecological environments?
4. What are farmers’ responses to the SC initiatives introduced by the assessment of SC?

1.5 Significance of the Study

Formal and organized intervention in soil conservation in Ethiopia dates back to the 1970s. This
is mainly triggered by the famine relief operation from 1973 onwards, which is further
intensified by another famine in 1984. The focus of intervention over the last three decades was
mainly technical without due consideration of social, economic and institutional factors. This
study, which focused on an understanding of farmers’ views, is of paramount importance to the
country’s natural resource management. This study comes up with a suggestion for a strong
farmers’ participatory framework that will guarantee a technology generation and utilization
process that takes into account farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices that ultimately

3
determine the kind of land-use techniques that will be adopted. Thus, understanding farmers’
current land-management practices is a good entry point.

1.6 Scope of the Study

This study was conducted in Mirab Abaya Woreda in Woye borena kebele title of an
assessment of soil conservation among in woye borena kebele only due to time and other
constraints this senior project only focused an assessment of soil conservation practices in the
study area.

4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Concept of soil erosion
Less than a quarter of the earth’s land area has the potential to be agriculturally productive and
almost all of it is already under cultivation. Although the remaining land is of marginal quality
for agriculture, it is increasingly under pressure in many parts of the world. Moreover, human
population is increasing at a shockingly high rate and the productive capacity of soil resources
necessary to sustain that population is increasingly decreasing because of soil degradation
(Gete, 2000). Soil is the basic natural resource for sustenance of life on the planet. The use of
this resource should not cause its degradation or destruction because the existence of
humankind depends on the continued productivity of the soil, but the problem is that an over
exploitation of resources without due attention to the management aspects. According to Hurni
(1993), over 90% of all human food and livestock feed is produced on land, on soils of varying
quality and extent. Hence, our well-being is highly dependent on the potential of soils
throughout the world and the way we manage them. The laws of market demand and supply are
simply applied to resource allocation without being fully conscious of the complexity of
institutions on which contracts in actual markets crucially depend. Most studies on soil erosion
analyze the impact of physical factors like topography, climate and soils, farming practices and
population pressure on soil erosion. These analyses suggest interesting causal relationship that
shed light on the impact of population pressure on resource degradation. When the population-
land ratio increases, the processes of intensification takes place and threaten the sustainability
and productivity of natural resources (Pender, 1998). On the other hand, from a Boserupian,
perspective the scarcity of land induced by population pressure would increase the drive to
invest in land quality (Boserup, 1965). Population growth may induce farmers to make labor-
intensive investments in land improvement and soil management, such as constructing terraces,
composting or mulching (Tiffenet al., 1994). Population growth may also induce beneficial
changes in markets and institutions or investments in infrastructure (Pender, 1998). Therefore,
far from being a purely technical problem of soil science or plant nutrition, the case of soil
erosion as problem is economic, social and institutional. The perception of soil erosion as
purely technical (physical, chemical and biological) problem needs to be reconsidered. An
alternative and broad perception focusing on institutional, social and economic considerations is

5
required to understand the principal causes of these problems, and to prescribe innovative
policies to reverse soil erosion problem in these areas (Ayalneh, 2003).

2.2 Approaches to soil conservation

In the course of history of soil and water conservation, in various approaches have been
followed. A study carried out for the World Bank has identified three main approaches towards
dealing with difficulties of land degradation in developing countries, which are neither strictly
sequential in their historical development nor mutually exclusive. These approaches include;
the classic (technical), populist and neo-liberal approaches (Biotetal., 1995). The classic
approach takes for granted that the extent of and solutions to the problems of land degradation
are well known, but the problem is to get people to implement them. It identifies
mismanagement of land by users, which are ignorant, irrational and traditional and their
subsistence fundamentalism as the core problems in soil and conservation (SC) practice. Many
SC projects in developing countries failed to take into account the factors determining resource
users’ land management decisions and collapsed shortly after special incentives and subsidies
are no longer available. The typical to failures with this approach has been to find “escape
hatches”, blaming unfavorable weather conditions, lack of cooperation by different
governments, lack of political will and lack of cooperation from farmers (Million, 2001).
Contrary to the classic approach, the populist approach argues that the nature and extent of land
degradation are imperfectly understood, that local people often reject conservation technologies
for good reasons and in fact adopt their own individual resort to their own practices and
adaptations. The idea of this approach call for site-specific participatory study and design using
a multidisciplinary approach by teams of specially trained and oriented natural and social
scientists in combination with local farmers and resource users and organizations. Indigenous
technical knowledge is being taken seriously and new forms of constructive dialogue between
resource users and scientists, for example participatory rural appraisal (PRA) continued to be
developed. However, the populist approach is not applied on a widely expanded basis and is
unrealizable on a large scale (Ayalneh, 2003). The neo-liberal approach shares some views with
the classic with regard to soil and water conservation technology. While assuming problem
definition unproblematic, this approach claims that incentive structures motivate farmers to
adopt these technologies, through extension. These approaches have influenced a number of
projects in several countries, including Ethiopia, by laying foundation for soil and water

6
interventions (Tesfaye, 2003). Nowadays, rural development projects and soil and water
conservation projects are mostly guided by the populist approach, with some elements of the
neoliberal approach appearing in the process.

2.3 Soil conservation practices

Soil and water conservation practices consist of biological, mechanical measures and
institutional arrangements. The first category refers to particular management practices that
make use of agronomic skills and biological material rather than physical structures.
Mechanical practices, on the other hand, refer to practices that involve physical structures, often
with a barrier function. Institutional arrangements refer to land tenure arrangements, forms of
labor sharing, and so forth that may also contribute to maintenance of soil fertility (Grohs,
1994). Soil conservation involves the use of biological and physical measures to offset the
effect of land degradation. Biological or agronomic measures refer to farming practices, which
help to minimize erosion, improve fertility and soil structures. Physical or structural measures
include earthworks aimed at controlling and diverting the run off in the arable areas. These
measures are applied to maximize infiltration, to drain excess water from rainstorms and to
retain moisture in the soil. However, this study is concerned with the physical conservation
measures practiced by farmers in the study area (Hoben, 1996). Soil conservation interventions
are first a response to the perceived land degradation problem. It includes all forms of human
actions to prevent and treat soil degradation (Grohs, 1994, cited in Demeke, 1998). Physical
soil and water conservation practices are categorized into two: traditional (indigenous) and
improved practices. Whatever the measures might be, these measures aim to control run off,
improve soil fertility and harvest water. Indigenous soil and water conservation (ISC) is defined
to be a practice or idea generated locally or imported from outside and transformed by the local
people and interpreted in their way of life. Whereas, Kruger et al. (1997), understood traditional
conservation measures as arming practices that have evolved through the course of time without
any known outside institutional interventions and which have some soil conservation effects.
Various mechanical, biological and agronomic techniques used by farmers in various
combinations are incorporated in the term. The traditional soil and water conservation(SC) are
simple structures of a short-term nature that could be reshuffled each year to make use of the
soil captured above the structure and avoid rodent production (Wagayehu, 2003). These
structures are much more flexible and tend to spread labor requirements for construction and

7
maintenances (Scooneset al., 1996). They are frequently site specific and accordingly vary in
purpose. They may harvest water in lowland areas (with the help of tied ridges, level physical
soil conservation structures); conserve soil in-situ (traditional stone and soil bunds); dispose of
excess water from croplands during heavy rains; improve drainage and conserve soil while
simultaneously increasing soil fertility (agro forestry, mixed cropping and intercropping)
(Hans-Joachim Kruger et al., 1996). The dynamic nature of the technologies and their
adaptability to the changing conditions is the fundamental feature of indigenous technologies.
This dynamic interpretation of ISWC leads to a wide-ranging perspectives on technology
(Yohannes, 1999). Unlike outsiders who often maintain a single objective, farmers are faced
with multiple objectives in their livelihood. In addition, farmers' ISWC does not aim at merely
protecting the soil or improving the moisture level. They make compromises with their multiple
objectives, resources, level of the erosion problem, urgency of the HH needs, profitability, etc.
Therefore, the best soil conservation practice from farmers' perspective is not necessarily that
which conserves the most soil (Kerr and Sanghi, 1993). In view of this, farmers often favour SC
practices that give them a quick benefit, while minimizing soil erosion (Tesfaye, 2003). The
improved type of soil and water technologies refers to the recommended type of structures,
which have standard length, width, and height (Wegayehu, 2003). These structures have
specific design requirements and need major investments of labour in construction, often during
a single period (Scooneset al., 1996). Hence, this particular measure has been widely
constructed within the food for work (FFW) programme areas (Wagayehu, 2003). In most areas
of Ethiopia, new SWC technologies were introduced more than two decades ago. During such
span of time, the introduced SC measures have been under continuous modification, which
make it very difficult to trace them back to their origins to compare them with recent
development. The modified type of structures refers to those practices in which farmers have
constructed with their own preferred length, spacing and /or height that are different from
recommended type (Wagayehu, 2003). Farmers' responses to externally imposed SC methods
are highly shaped by their indigenous practices that are embedded in their local institutions and
culture (Tesfaye, 2003). On this issue found out that under small farming households different
types of modifications are made in time and space. Some modifications are done at micro level
(plot), where the local people are not easily observed by their surroundings let alone by an
outsider. Hence, in this study also minor modifications of original technologies are referred to

8
as adopted. The three SC structures differ in their initial labor requirement, area lost to
conservation structures, durability, flexibility and effectiveness of the structures. When
Wagayehu (2003) analyses these differences he found out that the recommended type of
structure involves a higher cost in terms of both labor requirements and area lost to
conservation structures. According to MoARD (2005), the labor requirement for initial
construction of improved structures is estimated to be about 150 person days and 250 person
days per kilometer for soil bunds and stone bunds respectively. Whereas, the initial labor
requirement for check dam is 2 person day per cubic meter. The same source revealed that, with
respect to the effectiveness of the structures in reducing soil loss, the recommended type of
structures, which has a shorter slope, length, spacing between consecutive structures, is
expected to be more effective particularly on steeper plots. The recommended and to some
extent the modified type of structures are long-term structures that will stay in place for several
years. The modified and traditional types of structures have the advantage of flexibility to
adjust to specific farm and plot characteristics. In this study, however, in order to better capture
household's conservation decision with respect to SWC, different types of physical SWC
measures used by farmers in the study area were grouped in to two categories: traditional and
improved SC measures. Traditional measure consists of soil bund, stone bund, tied ridge,
diversion channel and check dam. Whereas, improved soil conservation measures include those
technologies introduced by SC Programe operating in the study area such as soil bund, stone
bund and check dam. Farmers who retained and renewed conservation structures built on the
plot by FFW and those farmers who constructed a similar type of structure on their plot by their
own initiative were considered as adopters in this study. The latter is because experience from
the area and other parts of the country proved that most farmers destroyed the structures
(Admassie, 1995; Hoben, 1996; Shiferaw and Holden, 1998 Cited in Wagayehu, 2003)
Soil conservation must be an integral component of intensified agriculture-the choice of
adequate conservation measures will need to be based on an assessment of the form and
intensity of the degradation process, and the choice of management practices adapted to the
environmental conditions, economic feasibility, and the social acceptability of the proposed
control techniques. It is vital that land resources be protected. Yet it must be realized that
farmers will do so only when they are given the motivation and the means to do so (John Wiley
& Sons Ltd., 1987)

9
2.4 The concept of managing land resources towards sustainability
Sustainability in agriculture and more specifically in land use has been on the top of priority list
of natural management issues in developing countries. Sustainable soil management means
cropping, pastoral and forestry use of the limited and only partially renewable resources soil,
water and plant nutrients to safeguard soil productivity also for future generations and prevent
or reverse degradation process (Senait, 2002).The objective of sustainable land management is
to harmonize the complementary goals of providing environmental, economic and social
opportunities for the benefit of present and future generations, while maintaining and enhancing
the quality of the land (soil, water and air) resource. There are various technical solutions
recommended for managing land towards sustainability. Techniques aimed at erosion control
include contour tillage, minimum/zero tillage, construction of physical soil conservation
measures, etc. Soil nutrient replenishment has to be achieved through organic and inorganic
fertilizer applications. Traditional erosion control practices, for example; mulch application and
long-term fallow management no longer keep pace with the increasing frequency of land use.
They include the stabilization of the soil by stone lines, terraces, herbal (grass) strips and
various forms of agro forestry measures, for example; planting and management of trees, shrubs
and windbreaks hedges .However, these technical solutions alone are not the remedy for the
problem (Senait, 2002). To understand soil erosion we must be aware of the political and
economic factors affecting land users’ and preventing soil erosion requires political, economic
and technical changes. Land management measures need to be adapted to specific soil and
landscape characteristics such as soil texture or terrain slope and to socio-economic
circumstances of the largest population. This study mainly focuses on the role of socio-
economic circumstances, farmers’ perception, and land tenure system in land management.

2.5. Vegetative or Biological Soil-Conservation Measures

Biological soil conservation measures include; vegetative barriers, agronomic and soil fertility
improvement practices, which help in controlling surface runoff, reduce soil losses and improve
productivity. Agronomic measures are practiced as the second line of defense in erosion control
exercise while mechanical/physical measures are primary control measure and are often
considered as reinforcement measures (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001)

10
2.5.1 Strip cropping
Strip cropping is a cropping practice where strips of two or more crops are alternately placed on
the contour for erosion control. The practice is useful for controlling soil erosion in areas where
cropping system is dominated by row (sparsely populated) crops. If the first strip of crop is a
row crop or a crop, which is susceptible to erosion such as sorghum and maize, the second crop
should be a crop that effectively controls soil erosion. Hence, if the first strip is maize or
sorghum, the second should be forage/food legume that forms dense ground cover. Maize and
sorghum are soil-depleting crops while the legume is soil enriching. Other crop that can
effectively control the impact of raindrops and runoff can be grown in alternate strips with
crops such as maize and sorghum. In strip cropping, erosion takes place from the strips of row
crops and the soil removed from these strips is trapped in the strips planted with soil conserving
crops. Strip cropping for erosion control is not normally required on slopes less than 3%, and
can be effective up to 10% if well designed. However, on steeper slopes it may be necessary to
support it with additional vegetative barriers such as grass strips and hedgerows of grass or
shrubs. Strip cropping is best suited to well drained soils. On poorly drained soils, it can result
in water logging. Strip widths vary with the severity of erosion, but are generally between 15
and 45 meters. Narrower strips on steep slopes and wider strips on gentle slopes.

2.5.2 Crop rotation

Crop rotation is a practice of growing different crops one after another on the same piece of
land, season after season or year after year. It is a valuable traditional practice, which plays an
important role in maintaining ecological stability and improving agricultural productivity. If the
same crop is grown on a piece of land year after year, the soil nutrient depletes sharply and as a
result yield decreases. Nevertheless, if different crops are rotated, the depletion of soil nutrient
and the decline in crop yields is minimized. Crop differs in their effect on soil. Some crops
restore or build fertility of the soil, while others deplete its fertility. For instance, legumes fix
atmospheric nitrogen and hence enrich soil fertility. Forage legumes and grasses provide good
ground cover that protects soil erosion and enriches the soil with organic matter, which in turn
improves the structure and biological activities. Cereals such as sorghum and maize deplete soil
fertility. Crop rotation, in addition to fertility restoration and soil and water conservation use, is
a traditional cropping practice for controlling diseases, pest and weed infestation. Different
crops are not equally susceptible to pests or diseases. Growing the same crop every year leads

11
to build up of pests and diseases in the field, which attack that particular crop. Crop rotation
maintains or improves productivity as a result of improved fertility of the land and reduced
pest/diseases problems. Different crops vary in their response to different pests and diseases.
Some crop are resistant to some pest and disease including weeds, while others are susceptible.
Sorghum is more susceptible to the parasitic weed (striga) than leguminous crop(e.g.
chickpea)and oil crop (Noug).Therefore, it is advisable to grow legumes or oil crops after
sorghum than growing sorghum after sorghum or millet after sorghum and vice-versa.( Ministry
of Agriculture,2001).

2.5.3. Intercropping
Intercropping is a practice of growing two or more crops at the same time on the same piece of
land. While the principles and objectives of intercropping and mixed cropping are the same, the
patterns are different. Intercropping follows specific arrangements. It is not difficult to
distinguish the rows of the main crops from that of companion crops in intercropping.
However, in mixed cropping, two or more crops are mixed up and broadcast over the field so
that one cannot distinguish the rows of one crop from another. The aim of intercropping is to
increase productivity of the land and to protect the soil against erosion. The intercrop stand
makes better use of the available environmental resources. Intercropping reduces the problem
of soil erosion. If properly applied intercropping could be a solution to low crop yield and soil
erosion in row crops. Fodder legumes tend to produce more biomass than food legumes and the
amount of nitrogen fixed is proportional to their biomass. The inclusion of forage legumes in
intercropping increases the level of atmospheric nitrogen utilization. Nitrogen will be available
to the main crop from root and nodule decay of intercropped leguminous crops (Ministry of
Agriculture, 2001).

2.6 Physical soil management Practices

Soil management practices refer to the practices, which improve the physical, chemical and
biological properties of the soil for enhancing germination, establishment and crop growth.
Whereas the agronomic soil conservation practices described below contribute to the restoration
and maintenance of soil properties. Soil organic matter management and conservation tillage
practices are key tools in soil management practices (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001).

12
2.6.1 Conservation tillage
Conservation tillage is a tillage practice aimed at creating favorable soil environment for
germination, establishment and plant growth. Conservation tillage is designed to avoid the
tillage operations that destroy soil structure, which initiate problems of surface sealing and soil
compaction. This umbrella term can include reduced tillage, minimum tillage, no-till, direct
drill, mulch tillage, stubble-mulch farming, trash farming, strip tillage, plough-plant .In
countries with advanced soil conservation programs, particularly the USA and Australia, the
concept of conservation tillage is the main theme of the recommendations for cropland, and it is
also being taken up quickly in other areas, for example southern Brazil. The application is
mainly in mechanized high production farming with good rainfall, or for the control of wind
erosion where there is large-scale mechanized cereal production. It is less applicable to low
input level crop production, or subsistence agriculture. The principles are equally effective in
any conditions - to maximize cover by returning crop residues and not inverting the top soil,
and by using a high crop density of vigorous crops. Conservation tillage also has the advantage
of reducing the need for terraces or other permanent structures. However, there are several
disadvantages which hinder the application of conservation tillage in semi-arid conditions:
dense plant covers may be incompatible with the well-tested strategy of using low plant
populations to suit low moisture availability; crop residues may be of value as feed for
livestock; planting through surface mulches is not easy for ox-drawn planters although there
may be no problem with hand jab planters tillage includes zero tillage, reduced/minimum
tillage, mulch tillage, and strip or zero tillage. All conservation tillage operations are aimed at
controlling soil degradation and improving soil productivity. Zero tillage is a tillage in which
land remains untilled before planting, but planting furrow or hole is opened at planting.
Minimum /Reduced tillage is a tillage practice in which the least possible tillage operation is
performed to break up hard pans/compacted layers to increase infiltration, water storage
capacity of the soil and to minimize resistance to root development Mulch tillage is a tillage
operation, which follows the principles of least soil disturbance and maximum crop residue
application/maintenance. The crop residue is incorporated into the soil. The practice also
includes in-situ mulch management system where residue of dead or chemically killed cover is
left in place. Strip/Zonal tillage is a tillage practice in which the seedbed is divided into two that
is seedling zone and soil management zone (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001).

13
2.6.1.1 Contour cultivation
Contour cultivation and planting is a practice of ploughing land and planting crops along a
contour line. Carrying out cultivation and planting on the contour reduces soil erosion from
slope. In dry areas, contour cultivation can be adjusted to standard ridge and furrow system to
make it effective in controlling soil erosion and moisture conservation in dry areas. The most
effective way to reduce soil erosion and conserve soil moisture is by minimizing the rate of
runoff.

2.6.1.2 Mulching/crop residue management

Mulching is the covering of the soil with crop residues such as straw, maize or sorghum stalks
or standing stubble. The cover protects the soil from raindrop impact and reduces the velocity
of runoff. Mainting crop residues or mulches on the farm controls effectively soil erosion and
has considerable potential for the restoration and maintenance of soil fertility. Mulching is one
of the most effective methods to minimize erosion. A crop residue covering the ground
intercept raindrop impact, preventing splash erosion, slow down the water flows and increases
the infiltration rate. It also encourages insects and worms to take holes into the ground, thus
increasing the permeability of the soil (Ministry of Agriculture, 2001)

2.7 Population pressure and land degradation

The population pressure concept is a relative and a dynamic concept the extent of which at a
given point in time is determined by taking into account endowment of natural resource, human
capability, cropping system and production technologies in use and alternative employment/
income opportunities within and outside an area which are by themselves subjected to change
(Tesfaye, 2003). In connection to this the same source further point out that as population
growth increase fallowing and crop rotation as traditional soil fertility maintenance practice are
substantially reduced or totally cease to exist. This would lead to soil mining and decline in per
capita output unless significant investment is made in drainage terracing and most importantly
in soil fertility management. Any measure aiming at restoring soil fertility if it is to have
sustainable beneficial effect on the livelihood of the rural households has to be related to the
causes of degradation, and not just visible system (Ayalneh, 2003). The main causes of land
degradation problems are very complex and attributed to both physical and socio- economic
factors. Many empirical studies have indicated that the main facets of land degradation such as
deforestation, overgrazing, cultivation of marginal lands and soil fertility depletion can attribute

14
to population pressure. Methodology, classify the causes of soil erosion, which is the main form
of land degradation in developing countries in to physical factor and human factors. This source
further explained that population growth and apparently decline in holdings (fragmentations)
are the first most important perceived causes of human induced land degradation. As population
increases many farming, households are pushed to poor marginal agricultural land where
inadequate and unreliable rainfall, adverse soil condition, fertility and topography limit
agricultural productivity and increase the risk of chronic land degradation Among different
form of land degradation processes in Ethiopia soil erosion by water is the most important
environmental problem that possesses an ominous treat to the food security of the population
and future development prospects of the country (Hurni, 1988). This process has been
accelerated by population growth that has brought with it more deforestation. With the increase
of population pressure development of agricultural production involves an increased risk of
land degradation through deforestation and expansion to new marginal lands that are often
fragile and susceptible to erosion.

2.8 Farmers’ perception of soil erosion

Perception is the process whereby sensory stimulation is translated into organized experience.
That perception is the joint product of stimulation and of the process itself. In most empirical
studies, perception is defined as an attitudinal process explained by the psychological state of
an individual that is determined by individual characteristics, socio-economic, institutional and
physical factors. The main prerequisite for attaining sustainable land management is the
formulation of appropriate resource management policies, which are supported by the farming
communities and to which they are willing and able to respond (Ayalneh, 2003). The responses,
commitments and responsibilities required for the success of such policies still depend on the
knowledge and perception of the problem by smallholder farmers. To identify changes, which
occur in the state of nature, it is valuable to get insights on the awareness of the physical
processes and the changes of land management systems and visions and sense of control over
the land that the local people have becomes paramount important. With regard to this, Atakilte
(2003) states that the local people have a detailed understanding of the biological and the
physical elements of their environment. He adds the land degradation problem was real issue
and problems that the local people experience in their farming system. Regarding the farmers’
perception on soil degradation, Biota et al. (1995) suggests that the views of different actors in

15
land management should be considered, because all have their own perceptions on land
degradation and the criteria to be used for it. This view is consistent with the social learning
perspective, which claims that different actors perceive
different things according to their engagement with their immediate environment. Therefore,
resource users have their own reasons for what they do with their resources, their perception of
the process and whether they see any problem or not (Leeuwis, 2004). Local people’s visions
and sense in terms of managing and controlling problems related to soil erosion were positive
and strong. Ayalneh (2003) found out that farmers’ perception of soil fertility status as fertile,
moderately fertile, and degraded is harmonious with what was developed by the International
Society of Soil Science. Furthermore, he stresses that through their several years of observation
on farming and grazing land and with the knowledge handed down to them by their ancestors,
farmers acquired diverse information to recognize extreme indicators of land degradation.
Farmers’ perceptions can have a major bearing on land management. Farmers who have already
perceived the problem of soil erosion are more likely to be willing to practices land
management activities (Tesfaye, 2003; Pauloset al., 2002). Although farmers are often more
acutely aware of the condition of their land than is sometimes assumed by experts, they may not
be fully aware of land degradation. Thus, the perception variable is expected to have a strong
relationship with decision-making on land management practices (Ervin and Ervin, 1982;
Bekele and Holden, 1998). Soil degradation is often a very slow process and may be almost
invisible. Farmers thus may not observe ongoing erosion or nutrient depletion problems, or
perceive them as immediate problems. Even if farmers do accurately perceive land degradation
as a problem, they may not be induced to act to reverse it. They may attribute the problem to
natural or divine causes beyond their control (Ervin and Ervin, 1982). On the other hand, they
may understand that the problem is affected by their own actions, but the alternatives that they
are aware of to address the problem may be too costly relative to the perceived short-term
benefits. In some cases, conservation measures reduce farmers’ yields in the short term by
reducing cropped area or harboring pests. These problems are compounded if farmers discount
the future heavily as a result of poverty and/or credit constraints (Bekele and Holden,
1998).Thus; many farmers require food-for-work to voluntarily participate in soil conservation
programme. On the other hand, some farmers may have attitudes favoring conservation; that is,
they may obtain psychological benefits from taking actions to conserve the land, regardless of

16
the economic benefits (Singh et al., 1986). If such attitude can be effectively promoted,
promotional efforts could be more effective in the long run than using subsidies or compulsory
approaches to promote conservation

2.9 Soil Organic Matter

Soil organic matter is plant and animal residence in the soil in various stage of decomposition
(Gardiner and Miller, 2004). It has a number of positive effects such as it is a sources of 90 to
95 percent of the nitrogen in unfertilized soil, is the major source of both available phosphorous
and available sulfur, contributes to the cation exchange capacity (CEC): often furnishing 30 to
70 percent, increases water content and air and water flow rate, supply carbon for many
microbes that perform other beneficial functions in soil, when it is left of top of soil against
changes in acidity on toxicity (Gardiner and Miller, 2004).So, that help to sustain soil fertility
by improvising retention of mineral nutrients of soil flora and fauna. It’s also a key factor
associated with improvement of decline of soil fertility (Brawn et al,. 1994) which plays an
important part in establishing the intrinsic property of soils. Organic matter enhances the soil in
many ways. It is also important for physical, chemical and biological soil properties. The
organic matter builds and improves soil structure, thereby, improving soil drainage, infiltration
of water in to the soil, aeration and water holding capacity. The improved soil structure results
in well-developed plant root system and healthier, more disease resistant crops. Soil organic
matter increases the cation exchange capacity of a soil and provides of neutralizing or buffering
effect on soil pH (preventing rapid changes in pH). Soils that are high in organic matter
contents have water stable aggregates that bind soil particles together and are resistant to being
broken down by the impact of raindrops. Organic matter depilation has been by far one of the
most problems leading to soil degradation. This situation must be reversed and accumulate
carbon in the soil which help preventing soil degradation). It is affected by the kind of farming
and soil fertility management practices for instance; in his study reported that continuous
cultivation becomes the major causes of most organic matter losses. Continuous cropping can
also reduce soil organic matter or soil organic. Thus, assessment of soil organic matter is a
valuable step towards identifying the overall quality of soil. Table below shows that the rating
of soil organic matter categories.

17
3. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY
3.1. Study Area Description
This research was conducted in SNNPR in Gamo Zone, Arba Minch zuria in Mirab Abaya
woreda in Woye borena kebele. Arba Minch zuria woreda is 505km from Addis Abeba
Ethiopia 115 from welayita sodo. Mirab abaya Zuriya woreda farmers association with a
population of around 5000 clustered densely on the top of a hill is located on the rift valley
above the west shore of lake baya at 80 0 21N and 570 61E. The are covers approximately 30
squares kilometer. The altitude of the study are ranges between 2200m and 2400m above sea
level (Gessessew bugssa, et al., 2014).

3.2 Study Design

A cross-sectional study design will be employed information regarding to the knowledge of
personal practioners will be first gather from local people in the site and the selection of key
informants take place with local administration elders and development against when recording
knowledge held by the local people or by certain social groups such as women and elders the
choice of key informants is dictated (Martin, 1995).

The study makes use the primary source of data. The primary source of data is from the key
informants such as experts, workers, coordinators, governmental officials, and the peasant
association of the rural people. Thus, information is gathered through semi-structure
questionnaires, interviews, and key informants discussion. It is analyzed by employing
descriptive statistical techniques.

3.3 Sample size determination and sampling technique

3.1.1Sample size determination

The sample size was determined by using statically formula.

n= (Za⁄̸2) ²P(1-P) d
̸ ² (Daniel,1996)

a = Significance level (0.05)

P=Population proportion (0.5)

(Za⁄̸2) ² = Standard normal k5²

18
 n =384

3.4 Data collection methods

For qualitative data; observation, individual and group interview and discussions are the main
methods uses for data collection where semi-structured interview have been used primarily.
Besides these, transect survey is also undertaken. During the survey, discussion is carried out
with different groups of farmers. Observations and identifications of biological and physical
land management practices practiced in the study area are also done .The proposal and four
enumerators have collect all these data until the end of the fieldwork. The primary data required
for the quantitative study are collect from sample households through formal survey using a
structured interview schedule. However, before the actual data collection, several preparatory
activities were carried out. First, four enumerators were trained for one day in class room on the
objectives, content of the questionnaire and method of data collection; and second, one day
practical field training on the types, identification and assessment of biological and physical
land management practices. Four development agents of Agricultural Development Office
(enumerators) who have better knowledge and experience on the farming and land management
system of the study area were participated in data collection both at household and field level

3.5 Data Analysis

The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical methods such as percentage and frequency
and presented in the form of tables. For the purpose Microsoft Excel 2007 is uses.

19
 4. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Fertility status of soil in the area
The fertility level of farmland in the area was assessed physically as well as using interview.
Most of the farmers, of the cases, responded their soil fertility status being under medium.
Respondents explained that the main causes of the soil degradation are dominantly continuous
farming and soil erosion respectively. However, 74% of farmers do not consider soil
degradation as priority problem because of different economic (input cost) as well as social
(land rent and share cropping) reasons (Table 1).

Table 1. Causes of soil fertility losses.

Main causes frequency percentage

Soil erosion 35 35%

Continuous farming 51 51%

Not using fertilizer 9 9%

No decrease in soil fertility 5 5%

Total 100 100%

4.2 Farmers’ perception on soil erosion occurrence, its cause and risk
As it was indicated in Table 2, farmers have different understanding and explanation about the
soil erosion occurrence. However, it is clear from the data that a farmer could observe whether
soil erosion exists when,

20
Table2. Farmer’s perception on defining soil erosion occurrence on farmland.

Explanation from the Frequency Percent

respondents

Top soil color change to red 6 17

Crop yield reduce annually 3 9

Black soil collected on furrow 6 17

in farm

Sandy soil occur on top of 4 11

farmland

Fertile soil seen down slop in 5 14

furrow

Rills observed on farmland 2 6

after rain

Deposited soil seen on tree 4 11

root

Red soil upslope and black 1 3

soil down slop in furrow

Deposited soil on level land 3 9

after rainfall

Indifference 1 3

Total 35 100

4.3 Indigenous soil and water conservation practices

Farmers in woye borena kebele in mirab abaya woreda used different types of indigenous soil
and water conservation measures to conserve and maintain their farm land. From the study it

21
was observed that farmers were resistant to construct physical structures and give priority for
indigenous ones because, the introduced one compete for land, it requires

40

35

30
Conserved

25
type of

20
practices

15 4.4
10

Responsibility of farmers and government for land management

As elsewhere in the country, farmers do have responsibility for the proper management of their
land. 40% of the respondents explained that awareness

Table 3. The response of farmers on their expectation from the Government for land
management.

Farmers’ expectation from the government for land Percent

management

Monitoring and evaluation of land management 8.6

Surveying and layout preparation of SWC 31.4

Providing important materials for us 14.3

Awareness creation 40

Providing technology and experts 5.7

total 100

22
Table 4. Response of farmers on their awareness, their responsibility of land management

Response on farmers’ awareness on their responsibility of land Percent respondents

management

Properly managing land according to experts advice 14

Controlling soil erosion is my mandate 3

Contributing for labor for activities done on my land 40

Construction of soil bunds 43

Total 100

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions
Soil erosion is a threat to the decline of agricultural productivity in Gamo zone Mirab abaya
district as it affects the crop production significantly. The study area, Woye borena kebele, is
characterized by steep and undulating terrain being cultivated for annual crop like maize, millet,
chili pepper. The area also receives intense and heavy rain during rainy season concentrated in
few months (June to September). The low fertility of the soil in the area was due to continuous

23
cultivation and soil erosion from sloppy farmland. Farmers revealed that cultivating slope land
is due to shortage of land for crop production. Their indigenous system to cope up with soil
erosion was observed as the method with two advantages, that is, controlling erosion
temporarily and increasing fertility for next season by decomposed trashesBesides, the heavy
dependence of society on agricultural sector mainly on production of millet and pepper,
cultivating millet and pepper aggravates soil erosion due to its requirement of very fine soil.
Combined with heavy rainfall during the same period, fine soils are washed away, that demands
soil and water conservation intervention. In this regard, the result of assessment in the study
area showed a range of conservation measureswere introduced with the objective of conserving,
developing and rehabilitating degraded agricultural lands and increasing food security through
increased food production and/or availability. These measures were categorized into indigenous
and introduced types. Indigenous methods used were contour farming, furrow making, making
trash line across slope on contour, gulgualo, gilalo and leaving crop residue on farmland.
Similarly, introduced measures practiced in the area include soil bund, terrace, bund and
stabilized with biological measure. The biological measures planted on physical structures were
multipurpose grasses such as vetiver grass, desho grass and elephant grass. Farmers who have
good awareness to sustainable land use have an interest to adopt introduced soil conservation
structures to be more effective in preventing soil erosion and ensuring sustainability of yield.

5.2 Recommendations
 Training and experience sharing program should be given to the local farmers on use of
traditional land management practices for up scaling.
 A combination of traditional biological and physical land management practices should
be practiced for effective cropland improvement.
 Agro forestry and experience of leaving indigenous trees practices on farm is important
in improving cropland productivity and environmental stability.
 Contour farming practices should be practiced for improving water use efficiency of the
crop and controlling run off.
 The sequence of crop rotation (non-legumes with legume crop) should be kept, which is
a base for the effectiveness of the other practices.
 Appropriate plant seedling of leguminous trees, which used for agro forestry and grass
strip purpose should be provided to the local farmers.

24
  Due attention should be given to leave and incorporate crop residues in the soil, which
maintain organic matter and increases water infiltration by reducing run off.
 A set of traditional biological and physical land management practices are effective in
rain water management and soil conservation measures on land with less than 8% slope.

6. References
1) Admassie, (1995). Indigenous and improved soil and water conservation structures
1. Atakilte, B. (2003). Soil conservation, land use and property right in northern Ethiopia.
Understanding environmental change in smallholder farming systems. Doctoral Thesis
2. Ayalneh, D. (2003). Integrated national resources management to enhance food
security.The case of community based approaches in Ethiopia, FAO, Rome, Italy 1-44

25
3. Barber, R. (1984). An assessment of the dominant soil degradation processes in the
highlands their impacts and hazards. Ethiopian highlands reclamation Study. Land use
Planning and Regulator Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
4. Bardhan, P. (1989) Alternative approaches to the theory of institutions in economic
development In population growth and agricultural change in Africa, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
5. Bauer, A. & Black, A.L. (1994). Quantification of the effect of soil organic matter
content on soil productivity. Am. J. Soil Sci. Soc., 5: 185-193.
6. Bekele, S. and Holden, ST. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land
conservation technologies in the Ethiopian highlands: A case study in Andi Tid, North
Shewa. Agricultural Economics, 18: 233-247
7. Bekele, W,andDarke, L. (2003). Soil and water conservation decision behavior of
subsistence farmers in the eastern highlands of Ethiopia a case study of the Hunde-Lafto
area. Ecological Economics 46:437-451
8. Belay, T. (1992). “Farmers’ perception of erosion hazards and attitude towards soil
Conservation in Gununo, Welayita.” Ethiopia Journal of Development Research.
9. Biot, Y., Blaikie, P.M., Jackson, C.and Jones, R.P. (1995). Rethinking research o land
degradation in developing countries. The World Bank, Washington D.C
10. Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural growth: The economics of agrarian
change under population pressure. Allen Unwin. London
11. CAB International, (1997).Crop residues in sustainable mixed crop/livestock farming
system, New York,USA
12. Central Statistic Authority, (2007). Ethiopian housing and population censuses program
Addis Ababa
13. David Sanders, (2004). Soil conservation, in Land use ,Land Cover and Soil Sciences,
[Ed,and Willy H, Verheye], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS),
14. Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK,
15. De Roo, A.P. (1993). Modeling surface run-off and soil erosion in catchments using
geographical information system. PhD Dissertation. University of Utrecht. The
Netherlands.

26
16. Ervin, A. and Ervin, D.E. (1982). Factors affecting the use of soil conservation
practices: Hypotheses, evidence, and policy Implications. Land economics, 58(3): 277–
292.
17. Food and Agriculture Organization,( 2008). Web site. “Conservation Agriculture.”
18. Food and Agriculture Organization (1974). Tree planting practices in African
savannahs. FAO Forestry Development
19. Gardiner, D.T. and Miller, R.W. ( 2004). Soils in Our Environment. tenth ed. Pearson
Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NewJersey. 07458
20. GeteZeleke, (2000). Landscape dynamics and soil erosion process modeling in the
Northwestern Ethiopia highlands. African Studies Series. University of Berne
Switzerland
21. Grohs , (1994).Physical soil and water conservation practices; Cited in demeke,1998
22. Hoben, (1996). Indigenous and improved soil and water conservation structures
23. Haile Fesseha (2007). Land Degradation Assessment At Idris Resettlement
Scheme,KaftaHumeraWoreda, Western Zone of Tigray, Ethiopia. M.Sc., Thesis,
Environmental Science, Addis Ababa University,
24. Hurni, H. (1988). Degradation and Conservation of the Resources in the Ethiopian.
Highlands Mountain research and Development,
25. Hurni, H. (1993). Land degradation, famines and resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In:
Pimental, D. (Ed). World soil erosion and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
26. Lal R, (1990). Soil erosion in the tropics: Principles and management. New York.
27. Lal R, (1995) Sustainable Management of Soil Resources in the Humid Tropics. United
Nations University Press, Tokyo
28. Lee, D.R. ( 2005). “Agricultural Sustainability and Technology Adoption: Issues and
Policies for Developing Countries,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics

29. Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for rural innovation. Rethinking Agricultural

Extension. Third Edition, Black Well. Joshua O, Ogunwole, Bharat
R.MatthewP,McCarteny,andBiranu Z.(2010).Biophysical Aspects of landscape soil
quality improvement for sustainable Agricultural productivity in Ethiopian

27
 highlands(draft) Juma, N.G. (1998). The pedosphere and its dynamics: a systems
approach to soil science. Volume 1. Edmonton, Canada, Quality Color Press Inc. 315
pp.
30. McGarry, Des. (2000). Optimising soil structure condition for cropping without tillage.
Soil and Tillage Conference Paper. ISTRO, July 2000.
31. Million, T. (2001). Factors influencing the adoption of soil conservation practices in
Wolaita Zone. M. Sc Thesis. Alemaya, Ethiopia. (MOA)Ministry of Agriculture.,
2001.Soil and water conservation. Guide line for Ethiopia. pp 151-169
32. Ministry of agriculture and rural development, (2005). Community Based Participatory
Watershed Development. A Guideline. Part 1 and 2. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
33. MoA-Ministry of Agriculture (1989). Anger Gutin Resettlement Afforestation and
Rural infrastructure Development Project: Preparation Report in Two volumes (volume
2 Annexes)
34. Olsen, S.R. Cole, C.V., Watnahe, F.J. and Dean, L.A. (1954).Estimation of available
phosphorous in soils by extraction with Sodium bicarbonate, U.S. Department Agr.
Circ. 939
35. Paulos, A. (2002). Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in soil
conservation practices in the highlands of Bale: The case of Dinsho farming system
area.
36. Pender, J. (1998). Population growth, agricultural intensification, induced innovation
and natural resource sustainability: An application of neoclassical growth theory.
Agricultural Economics, 19: 99–112.
37. Sasakawa Africa Association, (2008). Web site. “Country Profile: Ethiopia.”
http://www.saatokyo. org/English/country/ethiopia.shtml. Accessed April 2009
38. Senait R. (2002). The economics of managing land resources towards sustainability in
the High lands of Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation. University of Hohenheim, Germany.
39. Singh, B., Squire, T. Strauss, J. (1986). Agricultural household models. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
40. Scoones I., Margisoni, J., and Phiri GS. (1996). Sustaining the soil: New perspectives
on local conservation techniques: International institute for environment and
development, UK

28
 41. Shiferaw and Holden, (1998). Indigenous and improved soil and water conservation
structures (Cited in Wagayehu, 2003)
42. NewYork and Geneva: UN/UNCTAD. Wagayehu, B.(2003). Economics of soil and
water conservation: Theory and empirical application to subsistence farming in the
eastern Ethiopian highlands. PhD Dissertation,Uppsala.
43. Walkly, A. (1947). Critical examination of rapid method for determining organic carbon
in soils, effect of variation in digestion conditions and an inorganic soil constituent. Soil
Science, 632.251
44. Wood, P.A. (1990).Natural resource management and rural development in Ethiopia. In:
Pause Wang, S., Cheru, F., Brune, S., Chole, E., (Eds). Ethiopia: Rural development
options. Zed Books Ltd, London and New Jersey

7. Appendices
General information

1. Respondent name:________________________________________
2. Sex: 1) Male 2) Female
3. Age: ________years

29
4. Marital status: 1) Single 2) Married 3) Divorced (separated) 4. Widow 5) No
applicable
5. Education level_______________ grade ……………………..
6. Do you have labor shortage for your farm activities? 1) Yes 2) No
7. If the answer to question 6 is yes, how do you solve labor shortage? 1) Hiring labor 2) By
cooperating with other farmers (mirab abaya zuriya ) 3) Others, specify___________ 4) NA
5) 1 &2
8. If labor is hired, what type of labor do you hire? 1) Casual 2) permanent 3) both 4)
NA
9. Can you easily get labor whenever you need? 1) Yes 2) No 3) NA
10. Which family members participate in soil and water conservation works? 1) Men 2)
women 3) Children 4) all of them participate
11. Do you or your family member work on off – farm activities? 1) Yes 2) No
12. Do you think that soil erosion is a problem for your farm plots? 1) Yes 2) no
13. what do you think is the consequences of soil erosion? 1) Land productivity (yield) decline
2) Change in type of crops grown 3) Reduces farm plot size 4) all 5) 1&3 6) others
(specify) _______

30