See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299409196

THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND LIVELIHOOD IMPACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL

CHANGE AND LOCAL RESPONSES A CASE STUDY ON THE DISAPPEARANCE OF
LAKE HARAMAYA IN HARAMAYA DISTRICT, OROMIYA REGION, ET....

Research · March 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2926.5049

CITATIONS READS

0 614

1 author:

Demissie Belayneh
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
7 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nutritious Maize for Ethiopia (NuME) View project

Nutritious Maize for Ethiopia (NuME) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Demissie Belayneh on 24 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (CDS)

The Socio-economic and Livelihood Impacts of Environmental

Change and Local Responses
A case study on the Disappearance of Lake Haramaya in Haramaya District,
Oromiya Region, Ethiopia

MA THESIS BY

Demissie Belayneh Zike

MAY, 2008
ADDIS ABABA

i
 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (CDS)

The Socio-economic and Livelihood Impacts of

Environmental Change and Local Responses
A case study on the Disappearance of Lake Haramaya in Haramaya
District, Oromiya Region, Ethiopia

MA THESIS BY

Demissie Belayneh Zike

Advisor:- Debela Demeke (Ph.D.)

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and indebtedness to my
advisor Dr. Debela Demeke for his constructive and invaluable comments in the course
of this thesis work. He spent a great deal of his precious time in reviewing and editing the
manuscript and the intellectual guidance he rendered me from the start to finish.

My sincere gratitude also extends to Haramaya University, my home base, and Addis
Ababa University, College of Development Studies. The former for giving me a study
leave, and the later, for covering the cost of my thesis work. I duly thank the two
institutions.

Words can not express my deepest gratitude to my intimate friends, Kumela Gudeta and
Ephrem Fufa for their unreserved co-operation and guidance during data processing from
data entry to analysis. Guys, your support and friendliness is a vital source of morale
backing to my overall effort to accomplish this study. I thank you both indiscriminately.

Last but not least, I extend special gratitude and appreciations to all staff of the
Geography and History department in Haramaya University for their kind support during
the course of my study. Above all, Mohammed Hassan of History department for his
never- to- be- mentioned encouragement and accommodation.

Above all, I extend special indebtedness and gratitude to my father, brothers and sisters,
all of them, for their morale and material support in my academic career as a whole.

iii
 ACRONNYMS

a..s.l above sea level

CRM Community resource management

CSA Central Statistic Authority

FRCRCS International Federation of Red Cross and Red

Crescent Society

NS Not Significant

PAT Population, Affluence and Technology

RWH Rain water harvesting

SD Standard Deviation

SE Standard Error

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

UGW underground water

WC water conservation

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------iii
ACRONNYMS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- v
LIST OF TABLES----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vii
LIST OF FIGURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ix
LIST OF PLATES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ix
ABSTRACT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

CHAPTER ONE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

1. INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1 Background to the study ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.2 Statement of the problem --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
1.3 Objectives of the study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
1.4 Significance of the study ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
1.5 Delimitation of the study---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
1.6 Limitations of the study ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
1.7 Organization of the paper------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

CHAPTER TWO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ---------------------------------------------------------- 11
2.1 Society- Environment inter-relationships ------------------------------------------------------- 11
2.2 Human driving forces of environmental and ecological changes ------------------------- 13
2.3 Human consequences of Environmental change -------------------------------------------- 14
2.3.1 Impacts of Environmental change: A tale of Aral Sea --------------------------------------------- 16
2.4. Human Responses to Environmental Change. ---------------------------------------------- 17
2.4.1. Theoretical Considerations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
2.4.2 Empirical Considerations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
2.5 Conceptual Framework --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26

CHAPTER THREE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------------- 30
3.1 Research design ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 30
3.2. Sources of data and methods of data collection. --------------------------------------------- 31
3.3 Sample size determination and sampling procedures --------------------------------------- 32
3.4 Methods of data analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
3.4.1 Model specification -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36

v
 3.4.2 Hypothesis and Definition of variables ------------------------------------------------------------------- 38

CHAPTER FOUR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY AREA ---------------------------------------------------------- 42
4.1 Description of the Study Area -------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
4.1.1 Location and physical settings --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
4.1.2 Socio- demographic profile -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
4.2 Background Characteristics of the Study Population ------------------------------------------- 46
4.2.1 Demographic characteristics of sample households ----------------------------------------------- 47
4.2.2 Socio-economic characteristics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49

CHAPTER FIVE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 53

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 53
5.1 Direct utilities of the lake before disappearance ---------------------------------------------- 53
5.2 The induced impacts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 56
5.2.1 Conflict over resources use -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56
5.2.2 Change in farmland under irrigation cover ------------------------------------------------------------- 59
5.2.3 Decline in agricultural productivity ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64
5.2.4 Perceived impact on household’s income --------------------------------------------------------------- 72
5.3 Household responses to disappearance of the lake ------------------------------------------ 76
5.3.1 Households Perception towards the Dryup of the Lake ----------------------------------------- 76
5.3.2 Water conservation and utilization practices ---------------------------------------------------------- 78
5.3.3 Households participation in institutional services-------------------------------------------------- 82
5.3.4 Occupational responses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85
5.4 Determinants of Household's Participation in Water Conservation Measures --------- 89
5.4.1 Household age versus participation in water conservation activities --------------------- 92
5.4.2 Household size versus participation in water conservation------------------------------------ 93
5.4.3 Literacy status versus participation in water conservation activities ---------------------- 94
5.4.4 Land size versus participation in water conservation activities ------------------------------ 95
5.4.5 Off - farm income versus participation in water conservation activities ---------------- 96
5.4.6 Access to credit service versus participation in water conservation measures ------- 97
5.4.7Fertilizer use versus participation in water conservation activities ------------------------- 98
5.4.8 Household perception versus participation in water conservation activities --------- 99
5.4.9 Participation in community resource management versus participation in water
conservation measures --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100

CHAPTER SIX ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ---------------------------------------------------- 103
6.1 CONCLUSION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 105
REFERENCE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 108
ANNEX -I Questionnaire ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 114

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3. 1 DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES ............................................................................. 41

TABLE 4. 1 AGE-SEX COMPOSITION OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS ............................................ 47

TABLE 4. 2 MARITAL STATUS OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS .............................................. 48
TABLE 4. 3 HOUSEHOLD SIZE OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS ............................................... 49
TABLE 4. 4 LABOR FORCE SIZE OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS................................................... 49
TABLE 4. 5 LITERACY STATUS OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS ............................................. 50
TABLE 4. 6 LAND SIZE HOLDING IN TIMAD OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS .......................... 50
TABLE 4. 7 LABOR - LAND RATIO OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS ........................................ 51
TABLE 4. 8 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS BY OFF-FARM
INCOME ....................................................................................................................... 52

TABLE 5. 1 REPORTED UTILITIES OF LAKE HARAMAYA BEFORE ITS DISAPPEARANCE. ....... 54

TABLE 5. 2 REPORTED QUANTITIES OF UTILITIES AND INCOMES FROM LAKE HARAMAYA
BEFORE ITS DISAPPEARANCE ....................................................................................... 55

TABLE 5. 3 HOUSEHOLDS' INCIDENTS OF CONFLICT OVER RESOURCE USE .......................... 57

TABLE 5. 4 AVERAGE PROPORTION OF LAND UNDER IRRIGATION IN 2005, 2006 AND 2007 60
TABLE 5. 5 PAIRED SAMPLE TEST OF THE MEAN AREA OF LAND UNDER IRRIGATION
BETWEEN 2005 TO 2006 AND 2006 TO 2007 ............................................................... 61

TABLE 5. 6 AVERAGE LAND UNDER IRRIGATION FOR GROUP ONE AND GROUP TWO FOR
THREE YEARS (I.E. 2005, 2006 AND 2007)................................................................... 62

TABLE 5. 7 T-TESTS FOR MEAN DIFFERENCE IN LAND UNDER IRRIGATION FOR

‘EXPERIMENTAL’ AND ‘CONTROL’ GROUPS BY YEARS (2005, 2006 AND 2007)........... 64
TABLE 5. 8 PERCENTAGE INCREASE (DECREASE OF CROP PRODUCTION PER TIMAD OVER
THREE YEARS (2005, 2006 AND 2007) ........................................................................ 66

TABLE 5. 9 T-TEST FOR THE MEAN DIFFERENCES IN PRODUCTION PER TIMAD FOR VARIOUS
CROPS OVER THREE YEARS (2005, 2006, AND 2007). .................................................. 68

TABLE 5. 10 TWO GROUP COMPARISON OF CROP PRODUCTION PER TIMAD FOR THREE YEARS
(2005, 2006 AND 2007). .............................................................................................. 70

vii
TABLE 5. 11 TRENDS IN HOUSEHOLD’S INCOME AS PERCEIVED BY HOUSEHOLD HEAD OVER
THE PAST THREE YEARS ............................................................................................... 72

TABLE 5. 12 CAUSES OF INCOME DECREASE OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS (2005, 2006 AND
2007) AS PERCEIVED BY THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS ....................................................... 72
TABLE 5. 13 PERCEIVED TRENDS OF INCOME BY GROUP OVER PAST THREE YEARS (I.E., 2005,
2006 AND 2007). ......................................................................................................... 73
TABLE 5. 14 PERCEIVED CAUSES OF DECLINE IN HOUSEHOLDS’ INCOME OVER THE PAST
THREE YEARS (I.E. 2005, 2006 AND 2007) BY GROUP .................................................. 75

TABLE 5. 15 MEASURES TAKEN BY THE HOUSEHOLDS TO OVERCOME WATER SCARCITY ... 79

TABLE 5. 16 MEASURES TAKEN BY HOUSEHOLDS TO SUFFICE WATER DEMAND BY GROUP 80
TABLE 5. 17FERTILIZER USE AND PARTICIPATION IN CREDIT OVER THE THREE YEARS BY
HOUSEHOLDS. ............................................................................................................. 83
TABLE 5. 18 PARTICIPATION IN CREDIT SERVICE BY HOUSEHOLD GROUPS OVER THREE
YEARS (2005, 2006AND 2007) .................................................................................... 84

TABLE 5. 19 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY OFF-FARM INCOME

GENERATION OVER THE THREE YEARS, 2005, 2006 AND 2007 .................................... 85

TABLE 5. 20 CROSS- TABULATION OF CHILD LABOR USE AND SCHOOL DROPOUT IN 2007 .. 87
TABLE 5. 21 PARAMETER ESTIMATES OF A LOGISTIC MODEL OF FACTORS AFFECTING
HOUSEHOLDS’ PARTICIPATION IN WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES......................... 91

TABLE 5. 22 RESULTS OF CHI-SQUARE OF INDEPENDENCE BY BACKGROUND

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS................................................................. 102
TABLE 5. 23 T-TEST RESULTS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES BY PARTICIPATION IN WATER
CONSERVATION FOR CONTINUOUS VARIABLES. ......................................................... 102

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Schematic representation of the conceptual frame work of the study

4.1 Map of the study area.

LIST OF PLATES

5.1 The wilted chat farm near the shore of former lake
5.2 Irrigation farming using underground water.
5.3 A vast field that once comprised Lake Haramaya.
5.4 Underground water bore hole.

ix
 ABSTRACT

The way human actions reshape the environment pose a new cycle of mutual determination
between the way people create and re-create their livelihoods against changes in their
environment. This must be analyzed interms of changes not only in their ecology but also in
the emerging new social dynamics. In line with this assertion, this study examines the socio-
economic and livelihood impacts of the disappearance of Lake Haramaya on the
surrounding rural households and the households’ responses to such environmental
catastrophe. Thus, the basic data used for the analysis were generated from 159 sample
households through interviews and focus group discussions. Descriptive and bivariate
methods of analysis were employed over time series data (i.e. 2005, 2006 and 2007).

Result of the impact analysis revealed that the disappearance of the lake had resulted in the
loss of direct utilities the households used to generate from the lake. These include loss of
water for livestock feeding, water for domestic consumption, irrigation and recreation.
Besides, two direct livelihood sources, fishing and ferry renting, were lost along with the
lake. The indirect impacts of the dry-up of the lake were manifested in conflict over water
use, decrease in land under irrigation, and thus decline in production of chat and vegetables
which were cultivated by irrigation. All these ultimately caused decrease in household’s
income.

Investigation into households’ response to water scarcity that was induced by the
disappearance of the lake demonstrated that the main response to such shortfall was
reclamation of underground water from previous bed of the lake. In addition, rain water
harvesting is also a prevalent responsive measure among the households. However, as water
table is continuously dropping and subsequent surge in the cost of digging water borehole,
underground water is presently an option for those ‘resource rich’ households. On the other
hand, this situation forced some households to use child labor which in turn resulted in
school dropout.

Examination of inter-household variation in the implementation of conservation practices as

a response was sought by logistic regression model. The result revealed that age of
household head, household size, literacy status, land size, access to credit service and
household’s anticipation to dry-up of the lake have significant and positive influence on
household’s application of water conservation measures as response to the disappearance of
the lake, whereas access to off-farm income and fertilizer use have significant and negative
effect. On the basis of the empirical findings, institutional and policy intervention measures
that are hoped to ease the pressure on the environment are recommended. These include
enacting and implementing policy towards sustainable use of open access resources and
controlling population size. Besides, institutional interventions which are geared towards
enhancing agricultural production through promoting sound conservation measures were
also recommended.

x
 CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study

Freshwater ecosystems, such as Lake Haramaya, which has now dried

up, provide a myriad of benefits to human wellbeing. They provide water

for drinking and sanitation, irrigation, manufacturing and serve as

sources of fish and waterfowl, as well as hosts of non-extractive benefits

including recreation, transportation, habitat for wildlife, and modification

of microclimate and dilution of pollutants (Harper, 2004).

Although more than two-thirds of the planet is covered with water, less

than 0.01 percent is readily accessible for direct human use (United

Nations, 2001). Moreover, one finds not more of this renewable

freshwater now than what existed at the dawn of human civilization (ibid,

pp 14). As a result, the size of a country’s population and the speed at

which it grows help determine the onset and severity of water scarcity.

Naturally, freshwater is distributed unevenly over the globe. Currently,

nearly half a billion people are affected by water stress or serious water

scarcity. Besides, many countries that face water scarcity are low income

countries that have a rapidly growing population and are generally

unable to make costly investments in water saving technologies (United

Nations, 2001)

1
Part of the water scarcity is explained by the very nature of the resource

by which many of the environmental issues of greatest concern, such as

depletion of fresh water ecosystems, fall under common property

resources (Kneese, 1977).

Economic theories predict and many empirical evidences demonstrate

that the unhindered access to water resources lead to overuse, misuse

and quality degradation. In the absence of effective social mechanism to

control the over usage and degradation of common property resources,

population growth will tend to exacerbate such problems. At global

aggregate, however, most environmental changes correlate well with the

variables in the “PAT” formula which ascribes human impact on the

environment to the factors of population (P), per capita resource use(A)

and the technologies (T) by which the resources are used. At regional

level however, other factors, such as institutions, policy, political

structure, trade relations, beliefs and attitudes are important (Meyer et

al, 1996)

Human-induced environmental changes are at times beneficial and at

the other times disastrous for different people in different part of the

world. Global warming, for instance, melts glaciers at higher latitudes

and adds more agricultural lands for countries located in those latitudes.

On the other hand, the same phenomenon increases heat and water

2
stress to substantially lower cropland yields and hamper the well being

of those countries located nearer to the equator. Thus, food supply crisis

and economic impacts tend to be severe for tropical countries who are

poorer and depend on agriculture (Meyer et al, 1996).

Studies on the holistic assessment of critical environmental zones in the

world examined various regions where pressures of change and physical

and socio-economic vulnerabilities appear to have come together to

produce environmental crisis of unusual severity, jeopardizing the

continued use and occupancy at existing or projected levels of population

and standard of living (Meyer et al, 1996). A striking example for this is

the shrinkage by half of the large inland Aral Sea in central Asia due to

excessive withdrawal of water for irrigation of cotton fields: The shrinkage

of Aral Sea has induced socio-economic and livelihood disasters on the

local people that eventually caused large out migration of people form the

area (postel, 1996).

The lessons from such studies imply that there exist large regions and

localities where environmental degradation is seriously jeopardizing the

socio-economic and livelihood aspects of inhabitants with its rate

outpacing the ability to adapt and respond.

In this particular study, the interest focus on analyzing the social,

economic and livelihood impacts of the sudden disappearance of Lake

3
Haramaya on the surrounding people living in Haramaya Woreda1. The

study had two phases; (a) an impact analysis of the dead lake is

undertaken using survey instruments, structured interviews, focus

group discussions and review of secondary data; and (b), responses and

means of adaptation by local people to such environmental shocks was

investigated through in-depth analysis.

1.2 Statement of the problem

At global level, freshwater supply is coming to be in short supply. As

agriculture, population and human economies have grown, global water

use has increased dramatically since the 1950’s. The consequence of

such expanding demand has become apparent in the falling of water

tables, shrinkage of lakes and wetlands and the dwindling of streams

and rivers. Around the world, such water shortages have resulted in

economic and legal conflicts. At the local level, it has incurred social,

economic and livelihood costs, especially for most rural people living in

the developing countries (Livernash and Rodenberg, 1998)

In Haramaya District, there used to be a fresh water highland lake called

Lake Haramaya, which is now literally dead. It used to provide all the

freshwater ecosystem services and a host of benefits to its surrounding

population, including the provision of water for drinking to the towns of

Harar, Aweday and Haramaya as well as Haramaya University. Besides,

1 Amharic equivalence to district

4
some people were using it for irrigation and fishing. However, in the late

2005, the vast lake that comprised Haramaya (the main), Adele and

Langay suddenly dried up. The previous services and benefits they were

rendering to the people were also lost along with the lakes. For the

irrigation dependent farmers of the surrounding areas as well as for the

towns and institutions, the option has been confined to the underground

water, which by itself has other repercussions.

Various studies have attempted to examine the consequences of such

environmental shocks on the social, economic and the livelihoods of the

surrounding population. One can draw parallel with the shrinkage of

Aral Sea where the living conditions of the nearby population have been

destroyed (Meyer et al, 1996; postel, 1996). Lessons from these studies

indicate that environmental degradation and natural resource depletion

seriously jeopardize the sustained livelihood and heath of the

surrounding population. This is manifested not only on the loss of

environmental goods and services but also in its impact on the ability to

adapt to the changes and cost of responding. Societal attempts of

adaptation to resource scarcity run the risk of giving rise to undermining

the overall adaptive capacity of societies. This problem, arising from the

need to apply an increased amount of social resources in order to adapt

to resource scarcity (e.g. water) constitutes a vicious circle that is often

neglected in research on water resources management.

5
Successful adaptation to natural resource depletion may be possible as

for instance, in the transition described by Boseup (1965), from shifting

cultivation to settled agriculture; or demographically through declines in

fertility rates and out migration etc. as adaptation mechanisms

However, for already densely populated area like Haramaya Woreda,

these could only be long term considerations while the short and

medium term reliance on such success could lead to sever socio

economic and environmental ramifications.

Most studies on Lake Haramaya have been devoted to analyzing and

investigating the causes of the deterioration and ultimate death of the

lake (e.g. Chalachew, 2004; Shibiru, 2002; Solomon, 2002). But none of

these authors have, however, attempted to investigate the human

impacts of the disappearance of Lake Haramaya on the surrounding

population, which is the main concern of this study.

It is against the above stated backdrops that this study is designed to

assess the socio-economic and livelihood repercussions of the

disappearance of Lake Haramaya on the surrounding population from

the point of view of livelihood frame work. The study exposes changes in

socio-economic variables that attribute to the loss of benefits and

services of the lake. Besides, the study also investigates local responses

and adaptation strategies by households to such environmental shocks

6
and identifies opportunities and challenges to such responses and

adaptation.

1.3 Objectives of the study

General objective

The overall objective of this study is to assess the livelihood impacts of

the disappearance Lake Haramaya on the surrounding community and

analyze local responses and adaptations to such an environmental

shock.

Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this study are to;

1. Asses the impact of the disappearance of Lake Haramaya on the

sustained livelihood of the surrounding community.

2. Examine the responses of households to such environmental shock

3 Identify the determinants of households participation in water

conservation practices as a means of response

1.4 Significance of the study

This study, which attempts to investigate the impact of environmental

change on the socio-economic and livelihoods of the surrounding people

and their adaptive responses, has multitudes of importance. Firstly, it

provides clue to the current controversies and discourses in the

academic world about human-environment relationships regarding

“future without limits” and “future with limit”. In other words, the result

7
of this study brings to light how human activities influence the bio-

physical environment which, in turn, influences the socio-economic well

being of human beings. Thus the study improves the understanding of

the problem at the local level.

Secondly, responses to resource depletion and environmental changes

may involve both sustainable and unsustainable practices. The findings

of this study identify determinants to household participation in water

conservation as responses by local people to environmental changes for

further remedy. On the other hand, the study discerns the unsustainable

practices. By so doing, it could uncover the causes and constraints to

such practices, and forwards corrective measures for implementation

both at the study site and elsewhere where there are identical problems.

Thirdly, the findings of this study can show the impacts of

environmental change. This could be of help in policy and institutional

intervention which may require the vulnerability levels as well as priority

settings of interventions in agriculture, health and infrastructure

development. Thus the outputs of this study would help in this regard.

Fourthly, the findings of this study can serve as a good input for

sustainable utilization and management of the country’s resource base in

general and its fresh water resources in particular.

8
1.5 Delimitation of the study

This study is conducted in Haramaya Woreda with the intent to analyze

the socio-economic and livelihood impacts and consequences on the host

population due to the sudden disappearance of a lake. The focus is on

the livelihood aspects of the rural households. Other aspects of the wider

community of the woreda are not considered. Besides, the ecological

impacts of the dryup of the lake are not considered in the study.

1.6 Limitations of the study

There were some unintended limitations to the findings of this study,

which was induced by the nature of the problem under investigation and

data sets.

Firstly, in line with the objectives of the study, time series data were

gathered by cracking the memories the respondents. The reliability of

such data depends mainly on respondents’ memory to the actual value of

the variable under investigation.

Secondly, some variables were treated as the determinants of

household’s implementation of water conservation measures as a

response to the water scarcity that was induced by the disappearance of

the lake. These were the socio-economic, institutional and demographic

9
variables that were hypothesized to have profound influence upon

household’s implementation of such practices as a response to the dryup

of the lake. Therefore the whole range of all determinant variables that

could affect water conservation by household are not considered as such

approaches requires further independent study of its own.

1.7 Organization of the paper

This research report comprises six chapters. Chapter one presents

introduction and statement of the problem as well as objectives and

significance of the study .Presented in this part are also delimitation and

limitation of the study.

The second chapter provides review of related literature pertaining to the

problem under investigation. Various publications having diverging and

converging views in different school of thought as well as empirical

findings by other scholars that are pertinent to the problem were

critically read and presented.

Chapter three presents research methodology. In this chapter, the study

design; types and methods of data collection; sampling method and

procedures are presented. Methods of data analysis that were adopted to

investigate the problem are also presented in this chapter.

10
The fourth chapter provides description of the study area and the study

population. Location and physical settings of the study area are

presented using available data and map. Besides, socio-economic and

demographic background of the study population is presented using

tables.

Chapter five provides results and discussion of the study. This is the

main body of the paper which presents results of data analysis and its

interpretations. It presents the direct services of the lake before it

disappeared; the induced impacts after it dried up; responses of the

households to the dryup and determinants of water conservation and

utilization measures as a response.

The last chapter provides conclusion and recommendation of the study.

CHAPTER TWO

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Society- Environment inter-relationships

Increasingly, man-environment inter-relationships are being studied in

multi-disciplinary and integrated ways. There is overall necessity

11
because no society or community so far has managed to be a fully self-

contained complex without any links to its surrounding environment

The ecological complex of communities has been analyzed by examining

interactions of five of its components. These are the environment,

population, culture, technology and organization. Any change in one of

these components will induce changes with respect to the others. Within

the five clusters of variables indicated, sets of relationships emerge

between the clusters. Besides, there may be exogenous factors in play,

including climatic change or ecological succession (to environment);

settlement by outside groups or people (to population); mission and

education (culture); development extension work (technology); indigenous

or induced administration (to organization) (Harper, 2004).

Ellen (1982) has analyzed a large number of society-environment

interactions case studies to finally summarize endogenous dynamics of

these systems. Here, the assumption is that a society with given

technology and institution will, either through expansion and derived

human pressures on the environment (notably its renewable resource) or

through continuous exploitation of finite resource, reach a state of

scarcity of one or more of its key resources. This will induce adaptation

such as a shift to other resource; shift to other technology; resource base

outside of the society’s territory.

12
Changes in technology, organization and culture thus are seen as derived

from environmental bottlenecks in sustaining a given society. This view

is then seen as a dynamic model of environment-society interactions.

However, it is confined to endogenous developments in ecological

complex with no consideration to exogenous disturbances.

2.2 Human driving forces of environmental and ecological

changes

Ecological theory emphasizes about static equilibrium some changes and

flux is the normal sate of affairs with regard to the environment (Miller,

1998). However, environmental and ecological changes today differ from

those of the past. The pace of global environmental changes has

dramatically accelerated with the most significant one now-a-days being

anthropogenic (Southwick, 1996; Stern, et al, 1992). Four types of

human variables are proximate causes or driving forces of environmental

and ecosystem change. These are population pressure; institutions,

particularly political economies that promote economic growth; culture,

attitudes, beliefs including social constructions and paradigms about

environment; and technological change (Stern et al, 1992).

Within the physical environment, ecosystems and human social systems

are interconnected and interdependent but each ecosystem has its own

internal dynamics of equilibrium. Similarly, each human system has its

13
own sources of change apart from being embedded in ecosystems.

However, the interfaces within which the dynamics of human societies

become the proximate causes of ecosystem change and the parallel

interfaces between ecosystem change and the things that humans

depend on and value matters a lot (Harper, 2004).

2.3 Human consequences of Environmental change

Environmental change is neither environmental improvement nor

environmental degradation per se. It is the characteristics of the society

interacting with the physical phenomena that makes it to be either

resources or hazards (Meyer, 1996). Zimmerman (1951) discussed that

environmental and natural resources evolve from a three way interaction

of natural, human and cultural assets. In other words, resources are not

static but expand and contract in response to human wants and human

actions.

Deciding how desirable and undesirable an environmental change is

complicated by various factors. Firstly, a single environmental change

may incur multitudes of impacts that require accurate data. Secondly, in

one type of environmental change there are gainers and losers. Thirdly,

intervention costs are to be borne by various losers and gainers with

uncertainty. Lastly, the phenomena involve the presence of risk and

blames (Harper 2004). With the intimate interaction of human social

14
system with biophysical system, degradation or depletion of

environmental goods and services would lead to deterioration and final

collapse of the livelihood of the immediate population of that locality or

region. As a result, the precautionary principle of sustainable

development dictates that even in the absence of scientific data,

countries should adopt precautionary approach to environmental

changes.

Gaps in data and scientific understanding undeniably make it difficult to

achieve consensus on actions needed to solve environmental problems

and their impacts on wider community. Nevertheless, it is widely

acknowledged that environmental actions may be warranted even when

data and theories are incomplete (United Nations, 2001). It is in this

context that the precautionary principle, endorsed in 1992 at Rio de

Janeiro that actions should not wait until scientific evidence is in place,

As outlined in paragraph 35.3 of Agenda 21 (1992) “In the case of threats

of irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific evidence

should not be an excuse for postponing actions that are justified in their

own light. The precautionary approach could provide a basis for policies

relating to complex systems that are not yet fully understood and whose

consequences of disturbances can not be predicted”.

15
In the following section, a brief review of the human consequences of

environmental change will be made with reference to the shrinkage of

Aral Sea in Central Asia.

2.3.1 Impacts of Environmental change: A tale of Aral Sea

The Aral region includes the Aal Sea Basin; the basins of the Syrdarya,

Amudarya, Tedjen and Murgab rivers; the Karakumsky Canal; small

rivers running from the West Tien Shan and areas between the rivers

and around the Aral Sea.

In the early 1960s, the former USSR government decided to begin large

scale expansion of irrigation to increase cotton fruits and vegetables

productions, and boost meat and rice production to feed the growing

population. The new large scale irrigation and the application of chemical

inputs and other human impacts have caused intensive transformation

of the natural environment, economy and the population of the region

(Postel, 1996).

The total area of the sea decreased from 67,000 to 41,000 Km2 while the

rate of salinity increased from 10percent to 28-30 percent. The lowered

water levels in the rivers and in the sea have caused intensive

desertification of coastal and delta areas. Besides, the climate in the Aral

Region became more continental and the diversity of mammals has

decreased from 70 to 30 species and of birds form 173 to 38 while 54

16
plant species were endangered. Because of the shrinkage of the water of

the sea, the former coastal port cities became inland, and a large number

of people migrated to other areas (ibid: 17)

The human consequences and indicators have included the growth of

child mortality rate, which in some areas exceeded 110 per 1000.

Further more, disease and mortality rates have grown in adult

population and a significant decline in cotton crop yield and fishing, was

recorded (Postel, 1993). It is estimated that the remediation of the area

will cost approximately 37 billion Rubles.

2.4. Human Responses to Environmental Change.

2.4.1. Theoretical Considerations

Various approaches have been taken to understand the behavior of

people before, during and after environmental changes and disasters.

They all attempt to make generalizations about the relationship between

perception and response and, in one way or another, they all address

those elements pertinent to human decision making, including economic,

social and political forces (Tobin et al, 1997). These approaches are,

however, neither independent nor mutually exclusive, but involve a

group of interacting forces which may be viewed and evaluated

17
differently. Thus discussion of the various approaches will help to

understand the complexities of the interactions involved.

2.4.1.1 Behavioral Approaches.

To examine the role and behavior of individuals in the context of

environmental change, researchers have frequently adopted a logical

positivist approach, leaning heavily on hypothesis formulation and

deductive agreement on assumptions regarding economically rational

behavior (Miller, 1998). Here the fundamental premise was that

individuals that face environmental shock would behave in an

economically rational way to maximize all outcomes. In other words,

individuals would analyze cost-benefit of their responsive actions and if

the benefits out weigh the cost of taking responsive measures, then this

would guide their behavior.

However, recognizing that such simplistic cost-benefit analysis could not

explain the decisions of most individuals and certainly could not account

for many seemingly odd activities found within environmentally stressed

zones, various models began to emerge under behavioral schools of

thought in the aim of explaining rigorously individual's responsive

behaviors to environmental change and resource scarcity.

Preference Models: This school of thought attempts to explain

individual behavior through "revealed" and "expressed" preferences, that

is, to document what people would do under given conditions of

18
environmental change and resource scarcity. Here, researchers have

adopted two broad themes. Firstly, in the revealed preferences approach

disaster victims have been surveyed to establish what they actually did

before and after environmental shock. In this way, preferences are

revealed and we can determine exactly how individuals responded to

specific shock and threats and their behavior can be related to the

cognitive (i.e. perception and attitudes) and situational (social, economic

and demographic) models (Tobin et al, 1997).

The expressed preferences approach, on the other hand, takes different

track. They argue that, since it is not always possible to interview

potential victims directly (in part because the event has not yet to occur)

it is plausible to look at what individuals perceive as acceptable behavior.

In other word, potential victims are asked to state a preferred choice of

action under a detailed or synthetic disaster conditions. Here the

problem is that individual does not always do what they say to do. This

is because expressed preferences by the individual are constrained by

socio-economic and political realities to be translated into action.

Utility Models: Burton, et al (1993) discusses individual behavior as a

choice process from among a limited number of alternatives. However,

they also point out that our understanding of these choice processes

(and hence behavior) is far from clear and might depend on socio-

economic factors. For instance, from economic perspectives, it is argued

19
that individuals assess all potential outcomes in a set of order to

determine the maximum outcome, termed as "expected utility model".

The assumption is that individuals have sufficient information and the

capacity to make "rational" decisions that will result in optimal outcome;

all decisions to respond to environmental change and resource scarcity

are thus maximized.

On the other extreme, a companion model, the "subjective utility model"

argues that individuals make choices based on subjective views of

probable outcomes, that is, decision making is constrained by personal

views or subjectivity of the individual. In the former model, economic

considerations prevail; in the later, other factors may influence decision

making. In situations of environmental change and hence resource

scarcity, individuals will consider a series of options and select those

actions perceived to provide the greatest benefit.

All these behavioral models in combination with socio-economic and

political realities on the ground would determine responsive behaviors

and then actions of individuals to environmental change and resource

scarcity

2.4.1.2 Marxist Approaches

This approach argues that individual’s response to environmental change

and resource scarcity is influenced to greater extent by the political

20
economy than any other factors (e.g. Susman et al, 1983). They argue

that environmental change and subsequent resource scarcity affect

marginalized and poorer section of the community more than others. In

looking at the vulnerability to environmental change, it is clear that not

all individuals are equally vulnerable but rather that different classes,

groups or even countries experience different degree of risk. The poorer

are generally more vulnerable than the rich; their behavior is likely to be

different and recovery for this group is usually very different (IFRCRCS,

1993).

The Marxist approach therefore, focuses on the socio-economic and

politico-economic situations than behavioral or cognitive factors. With a

situational focus, differences in vulnerability can be explained in part

through the marginalization of groups and individuals within society in

which some are less powerful than others; while still a part of the

cultural wave of society, a group or individual is marginalized within the

prevailing power structure (Burton et al, 1993). This leads to greater

vulnerability of the poor to environmental changes as they are less likely

to respond. Besides, this section of the community is forced to occupy

environmentally degraded zones as population expands and resources

are controlled by a smaller minority. Thus, the cost of environmental

change is severe and recovery is slower for the poor than the rich.

21
2.4.2 Empirical Considerations

Various factors that affect how people respond to environmental change,

and hence resource scarcity have been noted in numerous literatures

(e.g. Bosrup 1965). At either community or individual levels, victims of

environmental change could have four response options: modify the loss

burden, modify the event, modify vulnerability and/or do nothing (Tobin

and Montz, 1997). However, the choice of any of these options is

explained by various factors at various levels (i.e. at individual, group

and community levels).

At the individual level, responsive action to environmental change is

influenced by individual trait such as age, gender and family structure

(Perry et al, 1984). Personal mobility, health, functional behavior and

personal experience can have impact on response to environmental

shocks (Solomon, et al 1987). Because personal characteristics can

either constrain or enhance individual activity, they must be included to

other socio-economic determinants of individual’s responsive action to

environmental stress.

At the secondary or group level, other factors come into play (and affect

the individual level).Some variables include neighborhood characteristics,

level of social support and social involvement following the disaster

(Russel et al, 1991; Solomon, et al, 1987). For example it has been

22
suggested that in habitants of homogenous neighborhood have greater

levels of social support to take responsive measures within the social

network than those isolated in heterogeneous neighborhood

(Ollenburger, 1981).

Finally at community level, distinction was made between urban and

rural dwellers. Various authors have explored the sociology of

community and differences. They argue that responses to resource

depletion by rural people varies greatly from that of Urban dwellers as

the value set and livelihood importance of the resource varies between

the two communities (Burton, et al, 1993; white, 1974). Scale may also

be a significant factor influencing community responses. Large

communities have larger resource base compared to smaller units, but

demand on those resources are many and varied and hence response

also varies in comparison to small units. (Tobin and Montz ,1997).

On the other hand, in the events of environmental shocks and hence

resource scarcity, people adopt various strategies that range from long-

term to short-term responses (United Nations, 2001). The long-term

strategy includes search for other forms of livelihood sourcing (e.g. off-

farm job), demographics (e.g. increase or decrease in fertility) or as

described by Boserup (1965) transformation from shifting cultivation to

23
sedentary farming. The short-term response could be conservation of the

existing or threatened resources to suffice their needs.

Implementation of conservation matures by the household as a response

to environmental change and hence resource scarcity is influenced by

various factors. Burton(1993) notes that household's perception towards

the depleting resource is the important variable that influences its

response through conservation practices. In other words, households

that anticipated the inevitability of change in resource size are likely to

make preparations to respond to its scarcity than those that did not

anticipate so. Besides, according to United Nations (2001), households

that have experience in community resource management practices are

likely to apply the same on their farm yard. The same source also

indicates that availability of input services to undertake farming as well

as conservation activities have important bearing not only in conserving

the resources at their disposal but also give wider options to choose

from.

Various literatures reveal that demographic and socio-economic profiles

of farmers have profound effect on the application of various

conservation techniques as response to depleting resources at their

disposal. Household size, labor- land ratio, land size, tenure security,

24
access to off-term income, policies and laws are few to mention (Dejene,

1996; Gideon, 2003; Koning and Smaling, 2002)

Studies have shown that households with small land holdings are more

likely to apply conservation measures than households with large

holding (Bahru, 1993). On the other extreme it is largely argued that

pressure on land would lead to reduction of fallow periods and overuse of

other land resources. Thus shortage of arable land may force households

to advance marginal lands and overuse of other land resources than to

conserve them (Yeraswork, et al, 1983). Besides, land size is a source of

wealth and prestige. Households with large land size have thus adequate

income and wealth as well as risk takers to participate in conservation

practices

Large body of literature relates household size and conservation decision

by the household negatively. They argue those large households draw

labor from investment in conservation for search of food for survival

(Bekele and Holden, 1998; Bekele and Lars, 2002). The same literature

also shows that household labor size is negatively correlated with the

application of conservation techniques. They argue that, other things

being constant, large household size have large labor supply but they are

food insecure in most cases. Thus to ensure food security, they rush to

25
other income generating activities drawing labor away from investment in

conservation of resources.

Studies show mixed correlation between availability of off-farm income to

household’s application of conservation techniques as a response to

resource depilation. According to Alemu (2003), households with low off-

farm income are capable of investing in conservation measures where as

others hold this hypothesis positively and argue that households with

relatively high income are more risk takers to implement conservation

techniques than those with low income (Bekele and Lars, 2002)

With regard to households literacy status verses participation in

conservation of resources, studies reveal that literate households are

likely to conserve resources as they have general awareness about the

merits of the conservation of available resources they command (Barrow,

1995; Shibiru, 2002).

2.5 Conceptual Framework

As shown in the schematic conceptual framework overleaf, the overall

assumptions that guided this study are presented in Figure1.

Environmental change (i.e. the disappearance of Lake Haramaya) results

both direct and induced impacts upon the livelihood and institutional

26
wellbeing of the surrounding community. For the community to ensure

sustained livelihood, they have respond to such environmental shock.

However, the degree of success at household level depends on various

socio-economic, demographic and institutional factors. Therefore, the key

concepts of the model are socio-economic, demographic and institutional

factors and response of the household to the disappearance of the lake.

The socio-economic variables that could influence household response to

direct and induced impact include availability of off farm income, size of

land holding, literacy status and household anticipation to the dry-up.

On the other hand, institutional factors that may hinder or enhance

household response are credit supply, fertilizer use, tenure security and

social organization (e.g. participation in community resource

management). The demographic variables include household age,

household size and available labor force in the household.

Response in this context refers to activities undertaken by the household

to mitigate and / or control impacts induced by the disappearance of the

lake to sustain decent living. This could be conservation practices to

towards sustainable use of available resources and non conservation

measures such as search for off farm income, land intensification, out-

migration etc.

27
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND POLICY
INTERVENTION

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
(Dryup of Lake Haramaya)

LIVELIHOOD AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPACTS

DETERMINANTS OF HOUSEHOLD’S RESPONSES

SOCIO-ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC

-Land size -Service provision -Age
-Off-farm income (Credit & Fertilizer) -Household size
-Literacy status -Tenure security -Labor size
-Perception -Social organization
(CRM)

IMPACT
CONTROL IMPACT
-CONSERVATION MEASURES MITIGATIO
-NONCONSERVATION MEASURES N

Source: Authors own construction

Fig 1 Schematic representation of the Conceptual framework of the study

Thus, the responsive measures by the household induced by resource

scarcity (disappearance of the lake) are explained by socio-economic,

28
institutional and demographic factors in the existing exogenous

economic and political environment.

Responses of the households may be sustainable conservation measures

to be adopted elsewhere or unsustainable practice that may cause

further environmental trauma. Therefore, to promote the sustainable

practices and control the unsustainable ones call for policy interventions.

Conversely, the existing policy frame work may shape the households

responsive measures. However, the scope of this study is limited to the

endogenous dynamics within livelihood impacts and household response

to the disappearance of the lake.

29
 CHAPTER THREE

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design

This study adopted a mix of both qualitative and quantitative research

design. Survey data were collected using personal interviews and focus

group discussion. In order to draw sample households, multi-stage

sampling procedure was employed. The results of the interviews and

focus group discussion, which comprise primary data, were analyzed

through quantitative and qualitative method of data analysis. Besides,

secondary data were also used to supplement findings by primary data.

The impact analysis of the lake’s disappearance was conducted by inter-

group comparison and time series analysis of the sample statistics of the

households located close to the lake and those located far away. On the

other hand, analysis of household’s responses to the disappearance of

the lake was explored through data generated from the households

located close to the lake as the impact is more clearly exhibited for these

households than the group located far away from the lake. The

examination of determinants of household’s implementation of water

conservation measures (underground water reclamation, rainwater

30
harvesting or both) as a response to the dryup of the lake was

investigated only for those households located close to the lake.

For the sake of simplicity, households located close to the lake are

henceforth called ‘experimental group’ while those households located far

away from the lake are called ‘control group’. Thus it should be noted

that these references do not mean the actual experimental and ‘control

group’ of the experimental study design.

3.2. Sources of data and methods of data collection.

Both primary and secondary data were employed in this study.

A. Primary Data: These were collected via household survey and focus

group discussion. The household survey was conducted through oral

interviews (both structured and semi structured) from the sample

households. Before conducting the actual interview, questionnaires were

pre-tested to modify some of the questions which were either irrelevant,

missing or are out of context. Eight enumerators were recruited on the

basis of their academic performance and knowledge of the local language

to administer the structured interview.

Focus group discussion was conducted with elderly, officials of peasant

Association, staff of the agriculture and rural development. Three focus

group discussions, each comprising six to eight numbers, were

31
conducted. One is with the male elders in the sample Kebeles 2. The

other was with female housewives, and the third was with agricultural

experts from agriculture office.

B. Secondary Data; The secondary sources of information were collected

from published and unpublished works on agricultural production and

water resources in the study area. These were collected from regional,

zonal and woreda agriculture office as well as previous publication

related to the study area.

3.3 Sample size determination and sampling procedures

The overall sample size was determined by following standard procedure.

The underlying assumptions to determine the sample size were: the

maximum tolerable error of margin is 0.05, e=0.05; the desired level of

confidence is 90 percent which corresponds to the Z-value of 1.65; as

there was no available population estimate, the proportion of population

affected by the disappearance of the lake was estimated at 0.5 as this is

the worst case scenario. Thus, under these assumptions, the required

sample size is:

n= p (1-p)  Z /e²
Where: n= size of the sample
P= estimate of the population proportion affected by the
disappearance of the lake.
Z= the standard normal valve of the desired confidence level
= area under the normal curve to the left of Z
e = the maximum acceptable error margin (Hammond, 1978)

2 Administrative sub division of a district

32
Thus, the sample size determined under this procedure was found to be

268. However, due to observable homogeneity in the background

characteristics of the target population (i.e., only rural kebeles of the

district were covered) and resource constraints, only 200 households

were considered as overall sample size for this study.

A two stage sampling method was used to draw the sample households

for the study. Firstly, the entire rural kebeles of Haramaya District were

divided into two strata, with rural kebeles bordering the lake basin

differentiated from those that do not. Later, one rural kebele was selected

randomly from each stratum. Thus Tuji-gabissa Kebele was selected for

the stratum that borders the lake while Ifa-batee kebele was selected for

the other stratum.

The random assignment of these 200 samples to each kebele was decided

proportionally based on the size of total household numbers of the

respective sample kebeles. Thus 126 households were to be assigned to

Tuji-gabissa kebele while the remaining 74 households were to Ifa-bate

kebele.This sample size makes 17.26 percent of the overall total number

of households in each Keble.

The sample frame that constituted the names of the household heads in

each kebele was obtained from their respective kebele office and random

33
numbers were assigned to each of them for selection. After random

selection of the 112 households for Tuji-gabissa and 66 households for

Ifa-bate kebeles, field survey was conducted by hired enumerators. At

the end, the interviewers were able to access 99 households for Tuji-

gabissa kebele and 60 households for Ifa-bate, while the remaining

household heads were not present during the days of field survey. At the

end, 159 households (99 for Tuji-gabissa kebele, henceforth called

‘experimental group’; and 60 for Ifa-bate, henceforth called ‘control

group’) were interview and their responses were supplemented with

results of focus group discussion for analysis.

3.4 Methods of data analysis

The examination of households’ responses and opinions and statistical

comparison of variation in their incomes and other livelihood parameters

before and after the demise of the lake as well as determinants of

successful responses to such environmental shock was analyzed by

using both qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis.

Following the completion of data collection, data were cleaned, coded and

entered into SPSS 15.0 software programme for analysis. The specific

quantitative methods of analysis employed in this study include

descriptive, t-test for equality/inequality of means; chi-square test of

independence and logistic regression model.

34
Descriptive statistics and t-test were used to assess and investigate

variations in income, agricultural production and other livelihood

attributes lost due to the dryup of the lake in inter-group and time series

comparison of means over three years. This was hoped to provide insight

into the impact assessment of the dryup of the lake.

On the other hand, investigation into the responses of households to the

dryup of the lake was made using chi-square and logistic regression.

Here the assumption was that households responded to the dryup of the

lake by implementing water conservation measures. Thus chi-square of

independence was employed to identify possible association between the

dependent variable and a set of explanatory variables whereas t-test was

employed for justifying equality/inequality of continuous variables in the

analysis.

Besides, logistic regression model was also used to investigate and

establish relationships between the dependent variable and a set of

predictor variables. This is a model which is much useful when the

dependent variable is a dichotomy (i.e. yes/no response) and the

independent variables are of any type (i.e. either categorical or

continuous or both).

35
Due to their proximity to the lake, analysis of household's

implementation of conservation measures as a response to the dryup of

the lake is more relevant for the ‘experimental group’ than for ‘control

group’. Therefore, logistic regression model and, chi-square and t-tests

were used for analysis only for the 99 households that belong to

‘experimental group’.

On the other hand, qualitative data were analyzed by using triangulation,

compare and contrast and chronological methods, and were presented by

using narrative quotes. These were used to supplement the findings by

quantitative approach.

3.4.1 Model specification

In studies where respondents’ responses is dichotomous (e.g. yes or No)

such as participation in water conservation measures, the appropriate

model to determine factors affecting the implementation of such a

practice is logistic regression model. The model was used to estimate the

probability of households participation in water conservation measures

that takes either of the two values of Y=1 for implementation and Y=0 for

non-implementation. The functional presentation of the model is

presented below.

36
According to Gujrati (1988) and Hosmer and Lemeshow (1989), the

logistic distribution function for the use of water conservation practices

can be specified as:

1
Pi   Z
1  e i 

Where P (i) is a probability of using water conservation practice for ith

household and Z (i) is a function of m explanatory variables (Xi), and is

expressed as:

Z i    0  1 X 1   2 X 2     m X m

0 i
Where is the constant and are the coefficient parameters in the

model. The coefficients tell how the log-odds in favor of using water

conservation practices change as independent variables change by a

unit.

Therefore, in this study the binary logistic distribution function (logit)

model is selected. The model dictates that the probability of changes in

dependent variable for a unit of independent variable varies between 0

and 1. In other words, the probability that a given household implements

water conservation is 1 and 0 if the household did not. Thus a chance for

the household to be between 1 and 0 (participants and non participants

in water conservation) is a function of various independent variables. Put

37
it another way, the model identifies the contribution of each independent

variable to water conservation measures by a probability value between 0

and 1.

3.4.2 Hypothesis and Definition of variables

Dependent variable: -Household's implementation of water conservation

measures as a response to the existing water scarcity following the

disappearance of the lake. This includes underground water reclamation,

rainwater harvesting or both. The responses are Yes= 1 and No =0.

Explanatory variables

Age: - Age of the household head has important bearings in the

implementation of conservation measures. The age of a farmer can

enhance or prevent the implementations of water conservation measures.

With age, a farmer may get experience about his/her farm and can react

in favor of adoption of the practice (Young and Shortle, 1984). On the

contrary, as evidenced by previous research results, older farmers are

more likely to reject conservation practices (Gould et al, 1989). Thus

household head age is expected to have positive or negative effect on the

implementation of conservation measures.

38
Literacy Status: -. Literacy status of the household head was assumed

to increase households’ ability to obtain, process, and use information

relevant to implement water conservation measures. Literate households

are therefore expected to have higher probability of implementation of

water conservation measures.

Household Size: - Household size is an important determinant factor in

household's participation in conservation measures. This is because

large households have sufficient labor required for water conservation

activities. Thus large household size was hypothesized to have positive

and direct association with participation in conservation measures.

Land Size: - Land size is an important proxy to wealth and prestige.

Households with large landholding are rich enough to purchase inputs

required for conservation measures and also they are risk takers than

their poor counterparts. Thus households with large landholding were

hypothesized to have positive and direct correlation with implementation

of conservation measures.

Off-farm income: - Households with access to off-farm income could

have surplus financial assets to implement conservation measures than

those that do not. Households with off-farm income were hypothesized to

have positive correlation to conservation practices than those that do not

have off-farm income.

39
Participation in Credit: - Since credit service enables household to

purchase inputs needed for water conservation practices, participation in

credit service was hypothesized to have positive correlation with

conservation measures than those that did not.

Fertilized Use: Household's decision to invest in fertilizer use could be

an opportunity cost to its investment in water conservation measures.

Hence the use of purchased fertilizer by the household was hypothesized

to have negative correlation with participation in water conservation

practices.

Perception: - Is whether the household head had imagined Lake

Haramaya to dryup before its actual disappearance. Household heads

that had perceived the inevitability of the disappearance of the lake could

have made prior preparedness to response to the actual disappearance of

the lake, and hence were hypothesized to participate in conservation

measures more likely than those that did not have such perception.

Participation CRM: - Participation in CRM could have positive impact in

implementation of similar measure on individual’s own farm. Because

individuals participating in such activities could have rich experience

and have technical exposure. Thus participation in CRM was

hypothesized to have positive correlation with participation in water

conservation measures by the households.

40
Table 3. 1 Definitions of Variables

Variable name Description

Dependent variable
Implementation of Whether a household implements under ground
Water conservation water reclamation, rainwater harvesting or both;
Measures 1 if implements and 0 otherwise

Independent variables
AGE Whether the Age of the household head above or
below the median age (38 years); 1 if above the
median and 0 if below the median
HOUSEHOLD SIZE Number of persons in the household
LITERACY STATUS Literacy status of the household head; 1if
literate and 0 otherwise
LAND SIZE size of landholding in timad3
OFFINCOM Whether a household is engaged in off-farm
employment; 1 if a farmer has off-farm
employment and 0 otherwise
ACCESS TO CREDIT Whether a household has access to credit; 1 if
has access to credit and 0 otherwise
FERTILIZER USE Whether a household uses fertilizer or not; 1 if
he/she uses fertilizer and 0 otherwise
PERCEIVE Whether a household anticipated the
disappearance of the lake; 1 if household had
anticipated and 0 otherwise
PARTICIPATION IN CRM Whether a household participated in CRM; 1if a
household participated and 0 otherwise
Source: Author’s own construction

3 A local unit of land measurement equivalent to 0.25 hectare

41
 CHAPTER FOUR

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY AREA

4.1 Description of the Study Area
4.1.1 Location and physical settings

Haramaya district is located in eastern highlands of Ethiopia. The main

town of Haramaya is found on the main road form Addis Ababa at a

distance of 510km.Its astronomical location lies roughly between 90 201-

90 351 North latitude and 410 511- 420- 041 East longitude. Haramaya

district is bordered in the west and southwest by Kersa and Kurfachele

districts; in the north and northwest by rural Dire Dawa and Kombolcha.

The east, southeast and southern limits of the district is bordered by

rural Harari and Fedis district (see Fig 4.1)

The district has the total area of 550 km2 and comprises three smaller

towns; namely Haramaya (the main town), Adele and Bate. In addition,

there are 33 rural kebeles in the district.

Haramaya district is noted for its intensive agricultural practices and

cropping system. The dominant staple crop produced is sorghum where

as the dominant cash crop is chat4 (Shibiru, 2002). The district is also

4 A plant with a mild stimulant leaves commonly used in East African highlands and
Arabian Peninsula

42
noted for its rich fresh water resource. Before its disappearance Lake

Haramaya was a vital source of water for drinking, washing, irrigation,

recreation, etc. to the people of the district and surrounding towns and

institutions. That is why the central theme of this research is devoted to

assess the impact of the disappearance of this lake up on surrounding

population, and the later response to such environmental catastrophe.

Source: Own construction using available data

Figure 4.1. Map of the Study Area

43
a) Climate

Haramaya district lies between 1900 to 2450 m.a.s.l. These altitudinal

ranges gave the district Dega5 and Woinadega6 agro-ecological zones. The

mean annual rainfall is 74.1mm, with mean annual temperature of

16.90c. The dry season, with relatively less than 30 mm of rain fall per

month, extends from October to February. The main autumn rain occurs

from September to November while the smaller spring rain occurs from

March to May.

b) Geology and Soil

The present land forms that shaped Haramaya district are the product of

the late geologic activities and processes of Mesozoic era coupled with

Cenozoic events. Thus the layers of sedimentary deposits here and there

in the eastern high land of the country including Haramaya are products

of these geologic events. Old crystalline rocks, granite, and to a lesser

extent mica schist are particularly exposed on the surface through out

the district (Mohr, 1960).

Much of the agricultural soils in the catchments are very shallow

(Tamire, 1980 cited in Chalachew, 2004). There are five major types of

soils in the catchments; namely, Lithosols, Regosols, Cambisols,

5 The traditional agro ecological zone for areas lying between 2300-3300m.a.s.l
6 The traditional agro ecological zone for areas lying between 1500-2300m.a.s.l

44
Fluvisols and Vertisols. The Regosols are the dominant in the catchments

while Cambisols cover larger areas around the lake from the southwest of

west (Solomon, 2002)

c) Resource base

Haramaya district is rich in water resource. It had a fresh water lake

called Lake Haramaya from which the district got its name. Lake

Haramaya comprises Haramaya (the main), Adele and Langhay. Elders in

the area narrate that these three lakes were once adjoined as a single

lake. Studies based on aerial photographs and the bathymetric surveys

demonstrate that the main lake among these three parts of Lake

Haramaya had the surface area of 4.13 km2 in 1965. In 1996, it shrunk

to 2.03Km2, and in 2001, it became 1.79 km2 (Solomon 2002),

ultimately, it disappeared in 2004/05.

The causes of the disappearance of Lake Haramaya have been mentioned

in many literatures. Some account it to ever growing population

pressure, while still others blame climate change. The debate still goes

on but one thing is real: the lake has gone. Therefore, a repercussion of

the disappearance of the lake and the response by the surrounding

community is the main concern of this study.

45
4.1.2 Socio- demographic profile
a) Age-sex composition

According to CSA, 1996a, Haramaya district had a total population of

147,260 as of 1994. Females constitute slightly less than half (49

percent) of this population. The sex ratio was 104 males for every 100

females. Nearly 87.4 percent of this population is rural population.

b) Ethnic composition

The dominant ethnic group of the district is the Oromo which make 9

percent of the total population, followed by the Amhara (3.12 percent).

Guraghe take third position by 0.36 percent while Harari make 0.16

percent of the total population (CSA, 1996a)

c) Religious Composition

According to CSA, 1996a, Islam is the dominant religion in the district

(95.82 percent) followed by Orthodox Christian (3.11 percent)

4.2 Background Characteristics of the Study Population

Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the study population

have important bearing on the way communities utilize their resources

sustainably and respond to changes in resource base. Evidences reveal

that respondents in certain socio- economic group and with certain

demographic characteristics are likely to respond to environmental

changes than their counterparts. Therefore, in the preceding section, the

socio- economic and demographic characteristics of the sample

population will be presented and analyzed.

46
4.2.1 Demographic characteristics of sample households

a) Age-Sex composition of the sample household heads

The mean age of sample households is 40.34 years whereas the median

age is 35 years. This means 50 percent of the households are aged below

35 years old while the remainder 50 percent is above 35 years old. Table

4.1 below shows the age-sex composition of the sample graphic

characteristics of sample households. Accordingly, respondents below 65

years (active age group) make 92.6 percent. Of these, male households

make up 82.5 percent while the remaining 17.5 percent are female

households. Economically inactive age group (i.e. above 65 years old)

makes 7.4 percent.

Table 4. 1 Age-sex composition of sample households

Sex of the household head

Age group Male Female Total
N percen N percen N percen
t t t
20-24 7 4.9 2 11.8 9 5.7
25-29 20 14.1 3 17.6 23 14.5
30-34 30 21.1 4 23.5 34 21.4
35-39 19 13.4 3 17.6 22 13.8
40-44 11 7.7 3 17.6 14 8.8
45-49 16 11.3 1 5.9 17 10.7
50-54 9 6.3 0 0 9 5.7
55-59 6 4.2 0 0 6 3.8
60-64 13 9.2 0 0 13 8.2
Greater than 65 11 7.7 1 5.9 12 7.5
Total 142 89.3 17 10.7 159 100
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

47
b) Marital status of the sampled household heads

Variations in marital status have an important bearing on the size and

structures of households. Table 4.2 presents data on marital status of

the sample population. As indicated in the table, 88.1 percent of the

respondents were married. Analysis of the same data indicate that 97.5

percent of the sample population were ever married (i.e. married,

divorced, separated) while the remaining 2.5 percent were single.

Table 4. 2 Marital status of the sample households

Marital Status N percent
Married 140 88.1
Single 4 2.5
Divorced 2 1.3
Separated 13 8.2
Total 159 100.00
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008
c) Household size of the sample household

Household size of the sample population has been indicated on table 4.3

below. Accordingly, the mean household size of the sample population is

computed to be 5.7 with the median household size of 6. On the other

hand, 13.2 percent of the households have three and less members.

Household size group of 4-6 make the largest proportion (59.7 percent) of

the sample population. This implies that nearly 76.8 percent of rural

households have at least four house-hold members (see table 4.3)

48
Table 4. 3 Household size of the sample households
Household size N percent
1-3 21 13.2
4-6 95 59.7
7-9 33 20.8
Greater than 10 10 6.3
Total 159 100.00
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

d) Labor Force Size

Household labor force refers to number of household members aged 14

years and above. As indicated on table 4.4, households with labor force

of 1-3,4-6,7-9 and greater than 9, categories made up 31.4 percent, 51.6

percent, 13.8percent and 3.1 percent respectively.

Table 4. 4 Labor Force Size of sample households

Labor Force Size N percent
1-3 50 31.4
4-6 82 51.6
7-9 22 13.8
Greater than 9 5 3.1
Total 159 100.00
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

4.2.2 Socio-economic characteristics

Literacy status, land holding, labor force size and off-farm income

sourced of the respondents are important socio-economic variables for

the analysis of households ability to respond to the environmental shock.

a) Literacy status of the respondents

As the study was conducted in rural part of the country majority of the

respondents (71.1 percent) were illiterate while the remaining 28.9

percent can read, or read and write (see table 4.5 below)

49
Table 4. 5 Literacy status of the sample households
Literacy status of the respondents N percent
Illiterate 113 71.1
Read and write 41 25.8
Read only 5 3.1
Write only 0 0
Total 159 100.00
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008
b) Land size

Land is an essential production capital that has various elements in it.

The land holding of households in the study area ranges from one timad

to twelve timads with the average holding of 3.29 timads per household

whereas the median holding is 3 timads. Table 4.5 below shows the

percentage distribution of land holding. As can be seen from the table,

44.7 percent of the house holds own land size less than or equal to two

timads (half a hectare).

Table 4. 6 Land Size holding in timad of the Sample Households

Land size holding in timad N percent
Less than 2 71 44.7
2.01-4 52 32.7
4.01-6 23 14.5
6.01-8 7 4.4
Greater than 8.01 6 3.8
Total 159 100.00
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

c) Labor - Land ratio

Information pertaining to the sample households’ labor- land ratio is

presented in table 4.7 below. As can be seen nearly 70 percent of the

households have a labor-land ratio less than 2.00 where as the

50
remaining 29.2 percent of the households had labor- land ratio of greater

than 2.

Table 4. 7 Labor - Land ratio of the sample households

Labor - Land ratio N percent
Less than 2 111 69.8
2.01-4 32 20.1
4.01-6 13 8.2
6.01-8 2 1.6
Greater than 8.01 1 0.6
Total 159 100.00
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

d) Off-farm income

Off-farm income, in the context of this study, refers to any income

obtained by the households from non- agricultural activities. These may

contribute or hinders household's ability to respond to the disappearance

of the lake. To this end, respondents were asked whether they had

participated in off-form activities along with the income they obtain.

Table4.8 below presents the percentage distribution of the sample house

holds by off-farm income. Accordingly, only 20.1 percent of the sample

population was involved in off-farm activities.

51
Table 4. 8 Percentage distribution of the sample households by Off-farm
income

Off-farm Income in Birr N percent

Less than100 8 25
101-200 12 37.5
201-300 10 31.3
Greater than 300 2 6.2
Total 159 100.00
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

52
 CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is broken down into four major components. The first part

provides the description of the direct utilities that the sample households

used to obtain from the lake. The second part provides an in-depth

impact analysis of the disappearance of Lake Haramaya on the

surrounding rural communities. This is followed by the empirical

exploration of the households' response to such environmental shock.

The last part presents findings on the investigation into socio-economic

and demographic characteristics of the households versus participation

in water conservation and utilization practices in response to water

scarcity that came as a result of the disappearance of the lake.

5.1 Direct utilities of the lake before disappearance

Direct or indirect; tangible or intangible services of freshwater ecosystem

such as the disappeared Lake Haramaya are difficult to quantify.

However, attempts have been made to record and document the services

of the lake as reported by the respondents.

Table 5.1 overleaf presents the services that the sample households used

to obtain from the lake before its disappearance. Accordingly, the largest

proportion of the respondents (25.3 percent of the responses and 70.1

53
percent of the cases) used the lake as a source of water for drinking while

21.9 percent of the responses and 61.6 percent of the cases reported to

had been using the lake for watering their livestock. Besides, 21.7

percent of the responses and 61 percent of the cases responded that they

had been using the lake as a source of water for irrigation. Table 5.1 also

indicates that 18.8 percent of the responses and 52.8 percent of the

cases reported to had been using the lake as a source of direct livelihood

(i.e. ferry renting and fishing).

Table 5. 1 Reported utilities of Lake Haramaya before its

disappearance.

Utilities Counts Response Cases

(percent) (percent)
Water for irrigation 97 21.7 61
Water for Drinking 113 25.3 70.1
Live stock watering 98 21.9 61.6
Ferry renting 38 8.5 23.9
Fishing 46 10.3 28.9
Washing 55 12.3 34.6
Total 447 100.00 280.17
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

During the actual data collection in the field, respondents were asked to

report the services that are measurable. Hence the amounts of water for

drinking in Jerry can8, income (in Birr per month) from ferry renting and

fishing are presented in table 5.2 overleaf.

7 A multiple response question; a respondent may provide amore than one response for
the question asked for .In the pages that follows also, if the percentage are grater than
100,it is of a multiple response question.
8 A plastic water container that holds 20 liters

54
Table 5. 2 Reported quantities of utilities and incomes from Lake Haramaya before its
disappearance

Utilities N Mean SD
Water for drinking (in Jerry can) 113 3.9 1.7
Income from fishing (Birr/month) 17 220.4 50.4
Income from Ferry renting (Birr/month ) 38 264.2 26.8
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

As can be seen from table 5.1 and table 5.2, out of the 46 households

that reported to have been fishing from the lake, only 17 households

used it as a source of income while the remaining 29 households only for

domestic consumption.

Information generated from focus group discussion also supplements the

above quantifiable and qualitative assets of the disappeared lake. When

asked to explain the benefits they used to obtain from the lake, the

response was as follows:

It (the lake) was everything to us. We used to irrigate our farm

from it; drink its water for ourselves and our cattle; fish from
it. Every wedding ceremony was conducted at resorts nearer
to its shore. The climate was mild. But now, everything is
gone. We are living in uncertain future. Crop production is
declining from year to year and the climate is getting hotter.
As a result, we feel insecure as the rain is getting fewer and
irregular and irrigation is no longer an option for us like it
used to be.

So the above discussions and narratives clearly show that the sudden

disappearance of Lake Haramaya has incurred the local communities

various direct costs. However, these are only few of repercussions as

55
there have been many induced impacts discussed in the proceeding

section.

5.2 The induced impacts

Following environmental change as the dryup of Lake Hararmaya various

induced socio-economic impacts could set in. Varies literature reveal that

in the event of the scarcity of environmental goods such as water, fuel-

wood etc, various social disasters would follow those conditions,

especially in the rural households of the Third World and elsewhere (e.g.

Desgupta, 1992; Livernash, et al 1998). For instance child labor use is

found to be positively correlated with the scarcity of those environmental

goods.

In this section the induced impacts of the change upon the livelihood of

the community is analyzed. This includes conflict over resource use,

impact on farmland under irrigation, change in agricultural production

and household income.

5.2.1 Conflict over resources use

During the field survey, respondent households were requested to report

the frequency of the incidents of conflict with other household heads over

resource use; particularly water resource. The result has indicated an

impressive surge of conflict over water use in 2006/07. Table 5.3

56
presents frequencies of conflict by resource type over three years (i.e.

2005, 2006 and 2007).

Table 5. 3 Households' incidents of conflict over resource use

Frequency of incidents of Conflict by resource type

conflict Water Land Livestock
Year Frequency N percent N percent N percent
2005 Once 4 2.5 2 1.2 1 0.6
- - 1 0.6 - -
Twice
More than 1 0.6 - - - -
twice
Total 5 3.1 3 1.8 1 0.6
2006 Once 7 4.4 3 1.8 3 1.8
2 1.2 - - - -
Twice
More than 2 1.2 - - - -
twice
Total 11 6.8 3 1.8 3 1.8
2007 Once 14 8.8 8 5 - -
8 5 2 1.2 - -
Twice
More than 3 1.8 - - - -
twice
Total 25 15.7 10 6.2 - -
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

Conflict over water use showed steady increase from 3.1 percent in 2005

to 15.7 percent in 2007 in aggregate comparison to other resources. This

is mainly because of the prevalent shortage of water for irrigation after

the lake had dried up. To further elaborate this argument chat is the

dominant cash crop that is also consumed virtually by all households.

However, chat growing requires continuous supply of water. During the

time when the lake was in existence, this supply was sustained by the

withdrawal of water from the lake to irrigate chat. It was learned from

57
focus group discussion that during the times when the lake was there,

households near the lake and those on the upper catchments irrigate

their farm through relay of motor pumps that pump water to far away

farms. However, when the lake dried up, those near the lake began

digging water bore holes on the former floor of the lake. This time, those

households in upper catchments were sidelined as the water becomes

insufficient, and the water table is dropping sharply. This is the source of

contention between lower and upper catchment’s farming households.

On the other hand, the conflict is not limited between farmers alone. It

goes far beyond. When asked to explain causes of conflict over water use,

the response of the focus group discussion was as follows:

All our problems are rooted to the urban dwellers. They used up
the water of the lake freely for decades. And now the lake has
dried up. They have now turned to underground water. The level of
water in bore holes on which we depend for irrigation and drinking
is falling from day-to-day. We don't have shops and business
enterprises as they do. Our life is tied merely to farming…

In fact, Lake Haramaya was the source of water supply for residents of

Harar city. When the lake disappeared, the Harari Water and Sewerage

Authority had dug numerous water bore holes to supply water to city's

residents by transporting water through tanker trucks. Even before the

disappearance of the lake, there had been reports of farmers breaking

the water pipes to Harar city and use the water for irrigation. There were

even legal interventions to such acts where farmers are still in Jail. This

58
contentious scenario can be supplemented by a report on the weekly

Fortune which described the problem clearly as: “A group of rogue

farmers was accused of sabotaging water pipes which are the city's

(Harar) main water source, breaking connections and siphoning off the

escaping water for irrigation purposes. A few of the farmers are still in

jail …" (Fortune March 30, 2008; 54). Therefore, the conflict and

contentions are not limited only among the farming households.

5.2.2 Change in farmland under irrigation cover

One of the most important services of Lake Haramaya to its surrounding

communities was the provision water for irrigation to produce chat and

vegetables in particular, and other annual crops in general. Therefore, in

this section of the paper, impact of the disappearance of the lake on the

household's land under irrigation cover is analyzed. Firstly, time series

analysis of change in mean land size under irrigation for the total 159

households over three years (2005, 2006 and 2007) is examined. This is

followed by inter-group comparison and analysis of the same variable for

‘experimental’ and ‘control’ groups to get a more convincing picture and

insight into the impact of the disappearance of the lake on land under

irrigation.

During the field study, households were interviewed to report proportion

of their landholding under irrigation for the three consecutive years (i.e.

59
in 2005, in 2006 and in 2007). The result was a dramatic decline in the

mean land size under irrigation from 2005 to 2007. Table 5.4 below

presents the mean land size under irrigation from 2005 to 2007 for 159

sample households. As can be seen from the table, the average land size

under irrigation in 2005 was 1.2233 timad while it was reduced to

0.7830 timad for the year 2006. This indicates a decrease by 0.4403

timad or a 36 percent drop taking the mean of preceding year as a base.

Table 5. 4 Average proportion of land under irrigation in 2005, 2006

and 2007

Year Mean SD Mean Difference Percentage

(in timad) Decrease
2005 1.2233 1.43 - -
2006 0.7830 1.13 0.4403 36
2007 0.7390 1.11 0.044 5.6
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

Table 5.4 shows all lands under irrigation cover irrespective of water

sources that was used for irrigation. In other words, households may

irrigate their land using water of the lake (before and during 2005) or

they may use underground water or even rain water harvesting as a

source of water for irrigation. However, when mean differences between

preceding years are compared, there is considerable difference between

the mean of 2005 and that of 2006. On the contrary, the mean difference

between 2006 and 2007 is small (i.e. 5.6percent) in relation to that of

2005 and 2006(i.e. 36 percent).

60
Statistical significance of these mean differences was justified by using t-

test. Thus the mean difference of the irrigated land for 2005 and 2006

was found to be statistically significant at 99 percent confident level

where as that of 2006 and 2007 was statistically insignificant (see Table

5.5). This means that there is significant difference between mean

irrigated land in 2005 and in 2006. On the contrary, the mean land size

under irrigation in 2006 and that of 2007 is statistically not significant.

Table 5. 5 Paired sample test of the mean area of land under

irrigation between 2005 to 2006 and 2006 to 2007

Paired Mean difference SD t-value Significance

mean
2005-2006 0.44023 .848 6.548*** 0.000
2006-2007 0.04403 .366 1.516(NS) 0.132
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008
Note: *** significant at 1percent, NS not significant

This glaring difference of the average irrigated land size in 2005 and the

proceeding years (i.e. 2006 and 2007) requires further scrutiny and

analysis to clearly explain whether the difference is due to the

disappearance of the lake or other factors.

By conventional wisdom, it is agreed that the accessibility to utilization of

the water of the lake for irrigation purpose declines with the distance of

households’ location from the nearest shore of the lake. Thus the

averages size of land under irrigation for households located near the

shore of the lake (‘experimental group’) were compared with that of those

located far away (‘control group’) over the three years (2005, 2006 and

61
2007). This comparison between the two groups would help to infer how

the disappearance of the lake accounted for the dramatic decrease in

mean land size under irrigation. In addition it also helps to show how the

lake was prominent source of water for irrigation for the ‘experimental

group’ than the ‘control group’. Table 5.6 below shows the mean area of

farmland under irrigation for these two groups for three years (i.e. 2005,

2006 and 2007).

Table 5. 6 Average land under irrigation for group one and group
two for three years (i.e. 2005, 2006 and 2007)

Group Year Mean SD Difference b/n Percentage

preceding year decrease
‘experimental 2005 1.6843 1.38 - -
group’ 2006 0.9848 1.21 0.6995 41.5
2007 0.9141 1.18 0.7070 7.2
‘control 2005 0.4625 1.17 - -
group’ 2006 0.4500 0.39 0.0125 2.7
2007 0.4500 0.39 0.000 0
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

The average size of farmland under irrigation in 2005, 2006 and 2007 for

the ‘experimental group’ was 1.6843, 0.9848 and 0.9141 timads

respectively. This shows that there was a decline in mean land size

between 2005 and 2006 by 0.6995timads (41.5percent). This difference is

attributed to the dryup of the lake. On the other hand the mean

difference of 2006 and 2007 is computed to be 0.0707timads (7.2percent)

which is not as large as that of 2005 and 2006 mean difference. This is

because the lake had already dried up in the late 2005. So the mean

difference for 2006 and 2007 can be due to inter-household variations in

62
to use underground water or rain water harvesting as the lake has

already dried up before this period.

By comparison, the mean land area under irrigation for ‘control group’

was 0.4625, 0.45 and 0.45timad in 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively.

When the mean differences are compared, it shows 0.0125timad

(2.7percent) decrease for the year 2005 and 2006 and no change for

2006 and 2007. Although there is a decline in land under irrigation

between 2005 and 2006, the figure is very minute in comparison to mean

differences of the ‘experimental group’ for the same period. This result

show that the degree of decline in land under irrigation for the

‘experimental group’ could have show up in ‘control group’ had the cause

for the decline be attributed to any other factors other than the

disappearance of the lake.

Further statistical test for these mean differences supplement the above

argument in that the mean difference in land area under irrigation for

2005 and 2006 is significant for ‘experimental group’ while it is

insignificant for ‘control group’ (see Table 5.7 overleaf). This significant

difference for ‘experimental group’ is due the disappearance of the lake

which had not equally affected ‘control group’ as far as irrigation is

concerned.

63
Table 5. 7 t-tests for mean difference in land under irrigation for
‘experimental’ and ‘control’ groups by years (2005, 2006 and 2007)

Group Year Mean SD t-value Significance

Difference
‘experimental 05-06 0.699 0.80 8.67*** 0.00
group’ 06-07 0.071 0.42 1.69* 0.094
‘control group’ 05-06 0.0125 0.75 0.130(NS) 0.89
06-07 0.000 0.26 0.000(NS) 1.000
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

Note: *** significant at 1percent, * significant at 10percent, NS: Not

significant

Table 5.7 also shows that the mean difference of irrigated farmland for

2006 and 2007 is significant at 99 percent confidence level for

‘experimental group’ but not significant for ‘control group’ for the same

period. Although the lake had dried up in late 2005, those households

located too close to the lake shore can still use the remaining

underground and surface water to irrigate their farmland in 2006.This

contributed for mean difference for 2006 and 2007.

So, all the above analysis and discussions in group as well as time series

comparisons clearly show how Lake Haramaya had been important

source of water for irrigation to its surrounding rural communities.

5.2.3 Decline in agricultural productivity

In this section, the impact of the disappearance of the lake upon

agricultural productivity is analyzed. Similar to the investigation into

land under irrigation (in group as well as time series comparisons), the

64
same procedures and logic is employed to investigate the impact of the

dryup of the lake on agricultural productivity. In addition to time series

and group comparisons, impact analysis on agricultural productivity by

crop type is included to provide clearer understanding.

Plate.5.1 The wilted Chat farm near the shore of former lake

Table 5.8 below presents the average production per timad of the main

crop type produced by households over the three years. Chat production

per timad dropped abruptly by 16.1 percent in 2006 when compared to

production per timad in 2005. The other crop type that showed sharp

decline next to chat for the same period was vegetable 9 production which

decreased by 15.1 percent for the same period. Investigation during field

9 A combined production of potato, cabbage and onion.

65
survey revealed that these two groups of crops were produced mainly by

irrigation during dry seasons, though they are also produced by rain fed

agriculture. Given the very means of their production, these two groups

of crops showed such a significant decrease in productivity per timad no

sooner had the lake dried up in the late 2005.

Table 5. 8 Percentage increase (decrease of crop production per timad over three years (2005, 2006
and 2007)

Production Percentage
Crop type Year per timad Mean SD
difference
from
preceding Yr
Sorghum (in 2005 2,7456 __ __
quintal10/timad) 2006 2,7118 -1.1 2.60168
2007 2,7162 +0.2 3.6235
Maize (in quintal/timad) 2005 2,2696 __ __
2006 2,3913 +5 4.223
2007 2,4394 +6 6.162
Chat (in kg/timad) 2005 129,9904 __ __
2006 108,4353 -16.6 24.6312
2007 106,1343 _1.5 20.412
Vegetable (in kg/timad) 2005 300,0347 __ __
2006 254,7222 -15.1 60.8715
2007 248,444 -2.5 64.512
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

Table 5.8 also shows comparisons for various rain fed crops over the

period of three years whose mean differences were not only varying but

also showed less significant variation in production over the said period.

In other words, maize and sorghum production per timad revealed

relatively smaller percentage of mean difference. Besides, mean

10 Quintal is a domestic measurement unit of cereals equivalent to 100kg.

66
differences of these two crops showed varying trend. For instance, mean

difference of sorghum production for 2005 and 2006 decreased by 1.1

percent while for 2006 and 2007 it increased by 0.2 percent. On the

other extreme, comparison for maize showed steady increase from 2005

to 2007. From this analysis, one can conclude a likelihood of

independence in the production of these crops with the disappearance of

the lake.

Plate 5.2 Irrigation farming using underground water

Percentage decreases for chat and vegetable, on the other hand, was

abrupt from 2005 to 2006 showing strong association and dependence

between mean production per timad and the disappearance of the lake.

67
 But for years 2006 and 2007 the mean difference was by small margin as

the lake had already dried up.

To further substantiate the above findings that are based on percentage

differences, t-test was employed to verify statistical significance of these

mean differences. Thus table 5.9 below presents a paired sample mean

test of each crop over the three years. It shows that the mean production

per timad for chat and vegetable between 2005 and 2006 is significantly

different at 99 percent confidence level reflecting how the disappearance

of the lake had hampered their production.

Table 5. 9 T-test for the mean differences in production per timad

for various crops over three years (2005, 2006, and 2007).
Paired mean Mean t-value Significance
Difference
Sorghum 05-Sorghum 06 .0338 2.584* 0.100
Sorghum 06-Sorghum 07 0.0044 -0.820 (NS) 0.413
Maize 05-Maize 06 -.1217 -1.468 (NS) 0.146
Maize 06-Maize 07 -.0481 -0.379 (NS) 0.132
Chat 05-Chat 06 21.55 10.371*** 0.000
Chat 07-Chat 07 2.301 4.966 (NS) 0.336
Vegetable 05-Vegetable 06 45.3125 4.625*** 0.000
Vegetable 06-Vegetabel 07 6.2782 0.673 (NS) 0.504
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008
NOTE: *** Shows significant at 1percent, * significant at 10percent NS: not
significant

Table 5.9 also shows that the t-value of sorghum production for the year

2005 and 2006 is significant. In the study area, Sorghum is usually

68
intercropped on the same farmland with chat. Thus, irrigating chat would

indirectly boost Sorghum production as it is mostly intercropped with

chat prior to 2006. Therefore, after the disappearance of the lake, the

impact on production per timad was felt not only on chat and vegetable

productions but also to a lesser degree on sorghum production. For

maize production, however, the mean difference for the three years is

statistically insignificant as it is mostly produced through rain fed

farming.

Further examination of these declines in crop production per timad is

vital in order to have a more convincing picture of their causes. The

above analysis and discussions are based on the composite mean

production of the whole 159 sample household covered in this study.

However, analysis based on such approach would not provide relatively

more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the dryup of the

lake in comparison to analysis based on statistic of households that had

access to the lake and those that had limited access. Therefore, two

group comparison, i.e., ‘experimental’ and ‘control’ groups is vital for

such analysis.

Table 5.10 presents the mean production per timad for various crops

over the three years (i.e., 2005, 2006 and 2007) for ‘experimental’ and

‘control’ group. As can be seen from the table, percentage production

69
 declines for chat and vegetable was much greater between 2005 and

2006 for ‘experimental group’ than for ‘control group’

Table 5.10 Two group comparison of crop production per timad for three
years (2005, 2006 and 2007).
Crop ‘experimental group’ ( N=99) ‘control group’ (N = 60)
Year Mean Percentage t- Sign. Mean Percentage t- Sign.
Mean value Mean value
difference difference
Sorghum 05 2.82 __ __ __ 2.61 __ __ __
06 2.78 -1.4 2.46 .016** 2.60 -0.38 1.00 .322
07 2.79 +0.35 -2.68 .01*** 2.59 -0.38 1.00 .326
Maize 05 2.03 __ __ __ 2.62 __ __ __
06 2.24 +10.3 -1.52 .135 2.65 +1.15 1.00 .324
07 2.17 -3.1 1.00 .322 2.72 +2.64 -.283 .779
Chat 05 153.31 __ __ __ 88.48 __ __ __
06 120.05 -21.7 17.04 .00*** 87.76 -0.81 .258 .798
07 116.92 -2.6 1.14 .256 88.03 +0.31 1.143 .258
Vegetable 05 332.68 __ __ __ 202.08 __ __ __
06 290.46 -12.7 4.55 0.00*** 196.36 -2.83 1.42 .256
07 262.93 -9.5 6.67 0.00*** 190.41 -3.03 1.00 .325
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008
NOTE: *** show significant at 1percent, ** Show significant at 5percent
Note:- Percentage mean differences indicate differences in the means of two
consecutive years taking the preceding year as a base, and +/- sign show increase or
decrease.
-Unit of measurement for Sorghum and Maize is quintal/timad while that of chat and
Vegetable is kg/timad

Critical examination of Table 5.10 above reveals two interesting findings.

Firstly, contrary to the previous combined analysis, variations in mean

crop production over the three years are statistically significant only for

‘experimental group’. This clearly shows how the disappearance of the

lake had declined crop production for those that had close location to the

lake. Secondly, vegetable production for gross means for 2006 and 2007

was insignificant. (See Table 5.9) for gross comparison but significant for

‘experimental group’ in inter-group analysis.

70
The overall examination of the two groups shows that there is significant

decline for ‘experimental group’ than for ‘control group’. In addition,

though there were fluctuations in mean productions for ‘control group’

for every crop in all the years, none of these were statistically significant.

So by the same token, those variations in the mean production that were

statistically significant in combined sample analysis are found to be even

more significant for ‘experimental group’. Analysis by group comparison,

thus, revealed some variations that were masked during combined

sample analysis. For instance, variation in sorghum production for 2006

and 2007 were found to be significant for ‘experimental group’, while it

was not significant in combined sample analysis. Similar scenario is

observed in vegetable production for the same year.

In spite of these differences, analysis by group comparison and combined

group approach revealed one fact; that is, in both cases chat and

vegetable production between 2005 and 2006 had decreased significantly

which was undoubtly attributed to the disappearance of Lake Haramaya.

In nut shell, all the above analysis that incorporate comparisons by time

series, crop types and group, regarding crop production per timad give a

clear insight into the impact of the disappearance of the lake upon crop

production by the local community.

71
5.2.4 Perceived impact on household’s income

During the field survey, households were requested to report their own

evaluation on trends in their income over the past three years. The result

was that significant number of household heads (93.1 percent) perceived

their income as decreasing while 5.7 percent responded that their income

is increasing in the said period. (See Table 5.11)

Table 5. 11 Trends in household’s income as perceived by household

head over the past three years
Income trend N Percent
Increasing 9 5.7
Decreasing 148 93.1
No change 2 1.2
Total 159 100.0
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

Furthermore, households were asked to report the perceived causes of

decline in their incomes over the said period. Hence, responses of the

148 household heads who reported decreasing trend in their incomes is

presented on table 5.12 below. The main perceived cause of the decline

in their incomes is high cost of farm input (i.e., 46.3 percent of the

responses and 64.2 percent of the cases). The second cause is lack of

water for irrigation (i.e., 43.5 percent of the responses and 61.3 percent

of the cases). (See table 5.12).

Table 5. 12 Causes of income decrease over the past three years (2005, 2006 and 2007) as
perceived by the household heads
Percent
Causes Number Responses Cases
High cost of farm input 95 46.3 64.2

72
Lack of water for irrigation 89 43.5 61.3
Low market price for farm produces 16 7.8 10.8
Large family size 5 2.4 3.4
Total 205 100.00 139.7
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

To take the analysis one step further, responses on income trend over

the said period as well as the perceived reasons for decline in income is

examined in inter-group comparisons. Thus, Table 5.13 overleaf presents

perceived income trend by group (i.e. between ‘experimental’ and ‘control’

groups).

Table 5. 13 Perceived trends of income by group over past three

years (i.e., 2005, 2006 and 2007).
Experimental ‘control
Income Trend Group group’

N percent N perce
nt
Increasing 5 5.1 4 6.7
Decreasing 94 94.9 54 90
No change 0 0 2 3.3
Total 99 100 60 100
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

Table 5.13 shows that only 5.1 percent of the respondents from

‘experimental group’ reported increase in their income over the said

period while the figure is 6.7 percent for ‘control group’. On the other

hand, 94.9 percent of the respondents in ‘experimental group’ reported a

decreasing trend in their income while the figure is 90 percent for

‘control group’. Here, the point to ponder is that ‘control group’ is better

off both in increasing response trend of income (i.e., 6.7 percent) and in

73
proportion of respondents who reported no change in their income over

the said period (i.e., 3.3 percent). Therefore, ‘experimental group’, which

had greater accessibility to the lake before it dried up, perceive their

income as declining much more (i.e., 94.9 percent) in comparison to

‘control group’ (i.e., 90 percent).

Further investigation was made between the two groups regarding the

perceived causes of income decline by responses given and cases

involved. This was done in the hope of showing the impact of the dryup

of the lake in much clearer manner than the previous combined

frequencies of the responses and cases. Thus, Table 5.14 overleaf shows

the perceived causes of decline in households’ income over the said

period by group category.

The major perceive cause of decline in income over the past three years

for ‘experimental group’ is the lack of water for irrigation (i.e., 50 percent

of the responses and 73.4 percent of the cases). This is followed by high

cost of farm input (i.e., 42 percent of the responses and 61.7 percent of

the cases).

On the contrary, the result for ‘control group’ is the reverse of the former

group. In other words, the main perceived cause of income decline for

this group is high cost of farm inputs (i.e., 55.2 percent of the responses

74
and 68.5 percent of the cases) while the second cause is lack of water for

irrigation (i.e. 29.8 percent of the responses and 37 percent of the cases).

Table 5. 14 Perceived causes of decline in households’ income over the past

three years (i.e. 2005, 2006 and 2007) by group
‘experimental group’ ‘control group’
Causes
N Response Cases N Response Cases
(percent) (perce (percent) (perc
nt) ent)
High cost of farm input 58 42 61.7 37 55.2 68.5
Lack of water for 69 50 73.4 20 29.8 37.0
irrigation
Low market price for farm 10 7.2 10.6 2 9.0 11.1
produces
Large family size 1 0.8 1.1 4 6.0 7.4
Total 138 100.00 146.8 67 100.0 124
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

Table 5.14 reveals what had been hidden in combined analysis of

frequencies in Table 5.12. Thus, when combined sample responses are
considered, the major perceived cause of households’ income decrease
over the last three years was found to be high cost of farm inputs.
However, inter-group comparisons of responses in Table 5.14 revealed
that those households located near the lake (i.e. ‘experimental group’)
had responded contrary to this generalized conclusion. Therefore, as
presented in Table 5.14, the disappearance of Lake Haramaya had been
perceived as a major cause of households’ income loss mainly for those
households located relatively nearer to the lake shore than those located
otherwise.

75
5.3 Household responses to disappearance of the lake

In this section, responses of the households to the sudden disappearance

of the lake are presented with in-depth analysis. In this regard water

conservation measures as well as non conservation responses are

investigated in time series and group comparison approach. The later

include household’s participation in institutional services and

occupational responses triggered by the dryup of the lake.

5.3.1 Households Perception towards the Dryup of the Lake

Behavioral studies to environmental changes underline that people's

perception towards anticipated changes in their surrounding

environment has important bearings to their responses in mitigation and

adaptive actions (Tobin and Montz, 1997). In line with this argument,

therefore, it is important to assess the perception of the households to

the lake before its disappearance. This was sought through their

responses to the question whether or not she/he had ever imagined Lake

Haramaya to dry empty. The result revealed that 28 sample households

(17.6 percent) had a perception that the lake would dryup one day while

131 households (82.4 percent) had never ever thought Lake Haramaya

would dryup.

76
Asked whether they were shocked by the disappearance of the lake, 78.4

percent of the households responded that they were ‘very shocked’ while

20.1 percent responded that they ‘were shocked’ and 1.5 percent (8

households) reported that they ‘were not shocked’.

But it is almost impossible to measure the degree of shock for some one

who knew Haramaya in the past and came recently to find a once vast

lake now transformed into just a vast field. This story takes us to what

had been published on the weekly Fortune newspaper. The paper

narrates about a once resident of Haramaya who won US Visa Lottery

eight years ago. After spending eight years in USA, Chala Ahmed came

home for an extended visit in January 2008, and Fortune writes:

When he arrived it was at night, the atmosphere was dark and

quiet. Ahmed woke up the next morning and stepped out into the
early sunlight. As he stared at a vast empty field, he watched
farmers herd cattle and goats across the empty lake bed that was
once Lake Haramaya. Then he sat down on a dusty patch of grass
and cried… ‘When I left eight years ago, the lake was full, now the
lake has become nothing but a field.’ (Fortune, March 30, 2008: 54)

77
 Plate 5.3.A vast field that once comprised Lake Haramaya

It is from these degrees of distress that the proceeding section examines

the responses of the sample households to the dryup of Lake Haramaya.

5.3.2 Water conservation and utilization practices

Attempt has been made to examine changes in water conservation and

utilization practices by the sample households as a response to the

disappearance of the lake. In this regard, households were asked to

report on the measures they were using to satisfy their water demands

during and after the lake had disappeared. The results are presented in

Table 5.15 overleaf.

78
Accordingly, only 24 household (15.1 percent) of the total sampled

households were practicing underground water reclamation and rain

water harvesting during 2005. However, after the lake had dried up, in

2006, about 54.7 percent of the sample households were engaged in

underground water withdrawal and rain water harvesting, while the

figure for 2007 was 51.6 percent.

Table 5. 15 Measures taken by the households to overcome water

scarcity
2005 2006 2007
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Underground water 13 54.2 62 71.3 50 61.0
Rain water Harvesting 11 45.8 25 28.7 32 39.0
Total 24 100.0 87 100.00 82 100.0
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

From Table 5.15, one can infer that there is a steady and abrupt increase

in households who practice the conservation measures from 2005 (i.e. 24

households) to 2006 (i.e.87 households) but with subtle decline in 2007

(i.e. 82 households). Results from focus group discussion revealed that

because of continuous decline of water table, soaring prices of water

pump generators and fuel, it is becoming difficult for households to

withdraw underground water recently. Table 5.15 also supplements this

view in that underground water withdrawal used to make 71.3 percent of

the practices in 2006 while it dropped to 61.0 percent in 2007. On the

other hand, rain water harvesting, by household count increased from 11

in 2005, to 25 in 2006 and to 32 in 2007. This shows that rain water

79
harvesting is becoming an important practice to rely on as underground

water is becoming unreliable owing to the stated constraints

Plate 5.4. Underground water bore hole

Inter- group analysis was made to provide much clearer pictures of such

responses by groups. Therefore, Table 5.16 below presents the

responsive measures taken to water scarcity by group.

Table 5. 16 Measures taken by households to suffice water demand

by group
‘experimental group’ ‘control group’
Year UGW RWH UGW RWH
N percen N perce N percen N percen
t nt t t
2005 6 6.1 1 1 7 11.7 10 16.7
2006 58 58.6 14 14.1 4 6.7 11 18.3
2007 49 49.5 19 19.2 1 1.7 13 21.7
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008
NOTE: UGB= Underground water withdrawal, RWH= Rain water harvesting

80
Comparison of the two groups with regard to water conservation and

utilization practices, one can ponder intriguing points from Table 5.16.

Firstly, for the ‘experimental group’, underground water withdrawal is

the major practice to meet their water demand while for ‘control group’

rain water harvesting is the reliable and consistent practice. The sharp

increase in underground water withdrawal for ‘experimental group’ in

2006 can be attributed to the disappearance of the lake in late 2005

while the percentages for ‘control group’ is in continuous decline from

2005 to 2007 signaling the resultant drop in water table and associated

rise of its cost.

Plate 5.5. Rain Water harvesting pond

On the contrary, rain water harvesting is progressively practiced by the

two groups over the years, though the percentages are larger for ‘control

81
group’. This shows that with continuously dropping water table and

other stated costs, underground water withdrawal would be less reliable

and rain water harvesting will become the major practice by both groups

to assure their water demand, both for irrigation and consumption.

So the trend in water use followed, firstly withdrawal of surface water

from the lake for irrigation and consumption, later to withdrawal of

underground water from the very ground that used to be lake bed. And

as the later is becoming more costly and scarce with declining water

table, rain water harvesting is becoming the dominant practice to

respond to prevalent water scarcity after the lake disappeared.

5.3.3 Households participation in institutional services

With sudden disappearance of the lake, severe shortage of water set in.

This resulted in decreasing production of crops, particularly chat and

vegetables, which in turn caused soaring prices of chat that has doubled

up in present times. With such lucrative prices of chat, farmers in the

study area were striving to sustain production of this crop.

It was learned from group discussion that water for irrigating chat farm

is scarce due to the decline in water table. Hence farmers responded to

this scarcity by drilling water bore hole further deep. There is parallel

increase in the cost drilling as well as fuel for water pumping generators.

82
Therefore, this situation has led poorer farmers to search for credit (both

formal and informal) to meet these costs of underground water

reclamation while others use the credit to purchase fertilizer.

In this study, attempts have been made to analyze farmers participation

in these institutional services i.e. credit and fertilizer use as a response

to the declining agricultural production that followed the dryup of the

lake. A yes/no responses of the sample households to credit and fertilizer

use are presented in Table 5.17. Accordingly, 28.3 percent of the

households have had credit of any form in 2007, however, the figure for

2005 and 2006 were 7.5percent and 13.2percent. On the contrary,

fertilizer use had shown inconsistent trend, being 62.9 percent in 2007

57.9 percent in 2006 and 63.5percent in 2005. (See Table 5.17)

Table 5. 17Fertilizer use and participation in credit over the three

years by Households.
2005 2006 2007
N percent N percent N percent
Credit 12 7.5 21 13.2 45 28.3
Fertilizer 101 63.5 92 57.9 100 62.9
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

There is increasing trend of participation in credit than fertilizer use.

Hence it is important to analyze participation in credit by inter- group

comparison so as to validate or reject findings by focus group discussion

that associated this trend with high cost of inputs and lucrative chat

prices.

83
Table 5.18 shows the results of household’s participation in credit by

inter-group comparison. The result for ‘experimental group’ reveals a

continuous increase in household’s participation credit (i.e. 4percent,

16.2percent and 38.2percent in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively). This

is in harmony with the findings by focus group discussion which linked

participation in credit to the rising cost of water reclamation and

lucrative price of chat.

On the hand the result for ‘control group’ reveals inconsistent trend (i.e.

13.3percent, 8.3percent and 11.7percent in 2005, 2006 and 2007

respectively.

Table 5. 18 Participation in credit service by household groups over

three years (2005, 2006and 2007)

‘experimental ‘control group’

Group’ (N=60)
(N=99)

Year N percent N percent

2005 4 4 8 13.3
2006 16 16.2 5 8.3
2007 38 38.2 7 11.7
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Therefore, information gathered from focus group discussion which

correlate participation in credit to the rising cost of inputs and soaring

price of chat has some grain of truth. This is because in the analysis of

water conservation and utilization section, inter-group comparison result

84
reveals that greater percentage of households in ‘experimental group’ (i.e.

58.6 percent) responded to the prevalent water scarcity by underground

water withdrawal (see Table 5.16). Thus there is a good reason to believe

that high level of participation in credit by the ‘experimental group’

households is associated with the intent to meet cost of underground

water reclamation to sustain agricultural production. Further statistical

verification of this association is discussed in section 5.4.

5.3.4 Occupational responses

Attempts have been made to examine changes in occupation during pre

and post dryup period. Accordingly, changes in households’ participation

in off- farm income, child labor use in farming activities by households

and incident of school dropout are variables of interest to this section.

Household’s access to off-farm income generation over the three years is

presented in Table 5.19 below. Thus percentage comparison for the three

years in off- farm activities did not show consistent trend of variation. In

other words, in 2005, there were 33 households (20.8 percent) engaged

in off- farm income generation activities while the figure for 2006 had

dropped to 18.2 percent and surged to 20.1 percent in 2007.

Table 5. 19 Percentage distribution of households by off-farm income

generation over the three years, 2005, 2006 and 2007

Year Yes No Total

N percent N Percent N Percent
2005 33 20.8 126 79.2 159 100.0
2006 29 18.2 130 81.8 159 100.0
2007 32 20.1 127 79.9 159 100.0
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

85
So there seem no clear variations in off- farm income generation by the

households that could be attributed to the dryup of the lake. Like wise,

inter-group analysis of variation in off- farm income generation by

respondents didn't reveal any verifiable consistent trend for articulation.

This is because participation in off - farm income is not a matter of

choice but rather availability.

On the other end of the analysis, intents of the household to use child

labor for farming activities and incidents of school dropout revealed an

intriguing association. During interview, households were asked whether

children below ten years old were engaged in any farm activities. Hence

21 households (i.e. 13.2 percent) agreed that they do let children of that

age group work in farm activities. On the other extreme, result of

incident of school dropout in 2007 revealed that 7 households (4.4

percent) of the sample households agreed to the occurrence of the

incident on their household members.

As such, attempt had been made to investigate the association between

intents to use child labor in farm activities and incident of school

dropout. Table 5.20 presents cross- tabulation of the two variables. The

result of chi-square showed a statistically significant association (at 90

percent confidence level) between child labor use and school dropout.

86
Table 5. 20 Cross- tabulation of child labor use and school dropout in 2007

School Drop out Total

Yes No
N Percent N Precept N Precept
Child Labor Use Yes 4 57.4 17 11.2 21 13.2
No 3 42.6 135 88.8 138 86.8
Total 7 100.0 152 100.0 159 100.0
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008  -value =11.598***
2

NOTE: *** significant at 1percent

Further inter-group analysis revealed that out of the 21 households that

allow child labor use on farm, 16 households (76.2percent) belong to

Experimental while the remaining 5 households (25.8percent) belong to

‘control group’. So relative percentages comparison between the two

groups indicate that ‘experimental group’ use child labor for farm

activities than ‘control group’.

Similarly, percentages for school dropout also confirm the above finding

in that out of 7 cases of school drop out, 5 belong to ‘experimental group’

while only 2 belong to ‘control group’. From these glaring differences one

can extract important implication on the way households responded to

the disappearance of the lake. In other words, greater degree of impact

on ‘experimental group’ households as result of the dryup could have

forced them to use child labor in farming and other conservation

activities that need intensive labor.

87
 Plate 5.6 Children working on underground water bore holes

In a nutshell, results of cross- tabulation and inter-group comparison

lead to a conclusion that the disappearance of the lake had triggered

child labor use by the households as a response. Therefore the finding of

this study is in harmony with the argument forwarded by Desgupta

(1992) that environmental goods scarcity has vital bearing on child labor

use and hence demands for children.

88
5.4 Determinants of Household's Participation in Water
Conservation Measures

Several factors are responsible for inter-household variations in the

participation of water conservation activities. In this study Logistic

regression model was employed to identify the socio-economic,

demographic and institutional factors that determine participation in

water conservation measures by the households.

A total of nine variables were treated against household’s participation in

water conservation measures as a response to the prevalence of water

scarcity that was set following the disappearance of the lake. These

factors are Age, literacy status, Household size, land size, off-farm

income, participation in credit fertilizer use, household’s prior perception

towards the dryup of lake and participation in community resource

management.

The variables included in the model were tested for the existence of

multicollinearity using contingency coefficient and variance inflation

factor (VIF) for dummy and continuous variables respectively. The

contingency coefficient for the dummy variables included in the model

shows no multicollinearity problem. Similarly, the results of the variance

inflation factor confirmed absence of multicollinearity between

continuous variables.

89
With highly significant model chi-square statistics (  2 ) = 43.45 value

(with 9 degrees of freedom) and a -44.2 log likelihood ratio, the model

achieved 79.8percent correct prediction. Figures for correctly predicted

participants in water conservation measures and non-participants in

water conservation measures were 85.2percent and 71.1percent

respectively.

Among the factors considered in the model, eight variables were found to

have a significant influence on household’s participation in water

conservation measures. Of these, six variables were found to have a

significant and positive influence on household’s participation in water

conservation measures. These are household age, literacy status,

household size, land size, participation in credit and prior perception

towards the dryup of lake. On the other hand, fertilizer use and

involvement in off-farm income were found to have a significant and

negative influence on household’s participation in water conservation

measures (refer to Table 5.21).

90
Table 5. 21 Parameter estimates of a Logistic Model of factors affecting
households’ participation in water conservation measures

Explanatory variables β SE Exp(β) Significance

Household size .448** .191 1.565 .019

Land size .371** .181 1.449 .040

Age of HH head 1.243* .679 3.464 .067

Literacy status 1.396* .760 4.037 .066

Access to Off-farm income -1.459** .614 .232 .017

Access to Credit 1.351** .678 3.861 .046

Fertilizer use -1.840*** .686 .159 .007

Perception to dryup 1.341* .827 3.821 .100

Participation in CRM .522 .596 1.686 .381

Constant -2.947 1.320 0.052 0.026

Model  2 43.45***

Log likelihood= -44.2

Overall cases correctly 79.8percent

predicted

Correctly predicted WC 85.2percent

participants
Correctly predicted WC 71.1percent
Non-participants

NOTE: *** show significant at 1percent, ** show significant at 5percent.*

show significant at 10percent

β= Regression coefficient, S.E= Standard Error CRM= community resource

Management

Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008

91
In the proceeding section the result of the logistic model for each variable

is discussed in detail. Besides, the findings of the chi-square and t-test

are used to supplement the result of the model.

5.4.1 Household age versus participation in water conservation

activities

Age is an important demographic factor that may influence household's

participation in water conservation activities. By conventional wisdom,

older household heads may participate in water conservation activities by

the virtue of their experience. On the other hand, younger household

heads have the physical strength that may favor their participation in

water conservation activities than their older counterparts.

Data presented on Table 5.21 presents the household's participation in

water conservation measures by households’ median age. Accordingly,

among participant households 52.5 percent were aged above median age

while 48.5 percent were aged below the median age of the ‘experimental

group’ household heads (i.e. 38 years).

The result of logistic regression revealed that age of the household head

has a significant (at 90percent confidence level) and positive influence on

household participation in water conservation measures. Therefore, other

things being constant, the probability of the implementation of water

92
conservation measures by household heads aged above the median age

increases by a factor of 3.464. This implies that as the age of the

household heads increases, there is a higher probability to implement

water conservation activities than their younger counterpart. This can be

attributed to their long age experience and asset they have built over

those times that may be required to do so.

5.4.2 Household size versus participation in water conservation

Household size is an important demographic variable that could affect

participation in water conservation practices. The mean household size of

sample household engaged in water conservation activities was 6.164

while that of non-participants were 4.89 with mean difference of -

1.269(see Table 5.23).The t- test result showed significant mean

difference in household size (t-value = -2.68 at p < 0.001) between water

conservation practitioners and those that did not.

The result of logistic regression model disclosed that household size has

positive and significant (at 95percent confidence level) influence on

implementation of water conservation measures. Accordingly, the

probability of participation in water conservation activities increases by a

factor of 1.565 for a unit increase in household size. This could be

attributed to the fact that large sized households have the obligation to

feed many mouths which requires sustained increase in agricultural

93
production that, in turn, calls for water conservation activities. Besides,

such households would have surplus labor that could be used as input

in water conservation activities.

5.4.3 Literacy status versus participation in water conservation

activities

Literacy status of the household has an important bearing in influencing

household's participation in conservation activities. The result of chi-

square test between literacy status of the sample households to the

dependent variable indicates a significant association (  2 = 3.493, at p

< 0.1) between household's participation in water conservation activities

and literacy status (see Table 5.22).

This finding was further supplemented by the result of logistic regression

that literacy status of the households has a significant (i.e, at 90 percent

confidence level) and positive effect on household’s water conservation

decisions (see Table 5.21). Therefore, as a household becomes literate the

probability of engagement in water conservation measures increases by a

factor of 4.037. This could be explained by the fact that literate

households have better awareness, perception and decision making

capacity in relation to the merits of conservation activities than their

illiterate counterparts

94
5.4.4 Land size versus participation in water conservation activities

Land is a very important asset and source of prestige and wealth in most

rural communities. Household’s land size has an important bearing in

influencing their participation in water conservation measures.

Table 5.22 presents the mean land sizes of the sample households that

are participants and non- participants in water conservation measures.

The result shows that the mean land size in timad for households

implementing water conservation measures and those that did not is 3.6

and 2.3 timads respectively. Thus the result of t-test revealed that the

mean difference in the landholding between the two groups is

statistically significant (i.e. t- value = -3.053 at p < 0.01).

Similarly, the result of logistic regression (see Table 5.21) showed that

land size has a positive and significant (at 99 percent confidence level)

influence on household’s participation in water conservation practices.

Put it another way, the probability of household's participation in water

conservation practices increases by a factor of 1.449 for a unit increase

in land size, citrus Paribas. Thus, households with larger land holding

have better assets and wealth needed as inputs to undertake water

conservation activities as opposed to those with smaller holdings. In

95
other words, households with larger land size are usually better off and

thus can afford inputs required for conservation measures.

5.4.5 Off - farm income versus participation in water conservation

activities

Another socio-economic factor that could influence household

participation in water conservation measures is access to off-farm

income.

Data presented in table 5.22 shows that only 29.3 percent of the

households had access to off-farm income. When these households are

cross-tabulated with the dependent variable, 44.8 percent of them

implemented water conservation while the remaining 55.2 percent did

not. Thus chi-square of independence between participation in

conservation measures and access to off farm income revealed a

significant but negative association (i.e.  2 = 4.888 at p < 0.05).

The result of logistic regression model presented in Table 5.21 revealed

that access to off-farm income has a significant (at 95percent confidence

level) and negative influence on households participation in water

conservation measures. The probability of household’s participation in

water conservation measures decreases by a factor of 0.232 with

participation in off-farm income generation activities. This can be

96
justified by the fact that with participation in off- farm income generation

activities, households would have less time to spend in water

conservation activities. Moreover, to these households, agriculture could

be secondary means of livelihood next to off- farm income source. Thus

water conservation measures as a means to increase their agricultural

production is priority to those households whose agriculture is their

mainstay.

Therefore, the presupposed hypothesis of this study that household’s

access to off-farm income has positive influence on household’s

participation in water conservation measures is rejected.

5.4.6 Access to credit service versus participation in water

conservation measures

Household’s access to credit has a profound bearing on participation in

water conservation measures. Credit service enables households to

purchase inputs required to undertake conservation measures.

It was found that 36.1percent of participants and 15.8 percent of non

participants of water conservation measures had access to credit. There

was a systematic association (i.e.  2 = 4.766, at p < 0.05) between

participation in water conservation measures and access to credit (see

Table 5.22).

97
Access to credit which is significant at p< 0.05 level increases the

likelihood of participation of water conservation measure. The probability

that households who have access to credit would participate in water

conservation measures increased by a factor of 3.861(see Table 5.21)

This finding also agrees with the information gathered through focus

group discussion which noted that owing to soaring price of chat, many

households are engaged the formal and informal credits to purchase

inputs such as motor pump, canvas, etc for water conservation to

produce more chat.

5.4.7Fertilizer use versus participation in water conservation

activities

Both fertilizer and water are vital input to increase agricultural

production. Thus household could choose either one or both of these

inputs to improve their agricultural production under income and/or

resource constraints. Therefore the choice of one among the two inputs

by the household would make the other an opportunity cost, depending

on the decision by the household.

Data in Table 5.22 presents household’s participation in water

conservation measures by fertilizer use. Majority of the sample

households (68.7percent) were fertilizer users. When this data was cross

tabulated with the dependent variable there is statistically significant (i.e.

98
 2 = 4.766 at p < 0.05) but negative relation between dependent and

independent variables.

This finding was also confirmed by the result of logistic regression

presented in table 5.21. Accordingly, the probability of participation in

water conservation measures by households decreases by a factor of

0.159. Thus fertilizer use significantly (at P<0.01) hinders household’s

participation in water conservation measures. This is because, for the

households that choose fertilizer as input to boost agricultural

production water conservation practice becomes an opportunity cost as

household's income and/ or resource could not allow the implementation

of both practices at the same time.

5.4.8 Household perception versus participation in water

conservation activities

Perception of the households towards anticipated environmental change

can influence their response when the actual event of change occurs.

Hence Table 5.21 presents households that had ever imagined the

disappearance of Lake Haramaya as inevitable and those that did not.

Accordingly, only 19.2 percent of the households perceived the

disappearance of the lake as inevitable event while the remainder did

not.

99
Chi-square test of independence was employed to investigate the

association between household’s perceptions to the implementation of

water conservation measures. As a result, there is statistically significant

and positive relation between the dependent variable and independent

variable (i.e.  2 = 5.075 at p < 0.05).

Model result showed a significant (at p< 0.1) and positive relation

between households perception and participation in water conservation

measures. In other words, the probability of participation in water

conservation increased by a factor of 3.821 as household perceives the

disappearance of Lake Haramaya than otherwise. Thus it is reasonable

to believe that households that perceived the disappearance of the lake

before it actually happened are more likely to undertake precautionary

measures such as saving from their consumption to invest in water

conservation measures prior to the actual disaster period.

5.4.9 Participation in community resource management versus

participation in water conservation measures

Participation in Community resource management can influence

individual's decision in water conservation practices. Participation in

community resource management provides experience, know how and

exposure to undertake conservation measures.

100
Table 5.22 presents data on household’s participation in community

resource management versus participation in water conservation

activities. When the association was tested for independence, there is no

significant relation ship between the two variables. Besides, the result of

logistic regression model also revealed that the association between

dependent and independent variable is statistically insignificant (see

Table 5.21)

Although both the results showed statistically insignificant relationships,

the coefficient is positive. Therefore household’s participation in

community resource management had some importance in conservation

decisions. However, this study could not validate its significance by the

sample size at hand.

101
Table 5. 22 Results of chi-square of independence by background
Characteristics of the Respondents

Participation In WC
Background Characteristics Measures
Total P-
Yes
No
N percent N percent N percent
2 value
Age Below median age 29 47.5 19 50 48 48.5
.057 .812
32 52.5 19 50 51 51.5
Above median age
Literacy Illiterate 41 67.2 32 84.2 73 73.7
3.493 .062
Literate 20 32.8 6 15.8 26 26.3
Off-farm Had no access 48 78.7 22 57.9 70 70.7
income 4.888 .027
Had access 13 21.3 16 42.1 29 29.3
Credit service Had no access 39 63.9 32 84.2 71 71.7
Had access 22 36.1 6 15.8 28 28.3 4.750 .029
Fertilizer use Non- users 24 39.3 7 18.4 31 31.3
4.766 .029
Users 37 60.7 31 81.6 68 68.7
Perception not anticipated 45 73.8 35 92.1 80 80.8
on dry up 5.075 .024
Did anticipated 16 26.2 3 7.9 19 19.2
Community Non participant 36 59 23 60.5 59 59.6
resource Mgt .022 .882
Participant 25 41 15 39.5 40 40.4
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008 NB: WC= water conservation

Table 5. 23 T-test results of mean differences by participation in water

conservation for continuous variables.

Variable WC Measures N Mean t-value Significance

Non participant 38 4.8947
Household size 2.684*** 0.009
Participant 61 6.1639
Landholding in Non participant 38 2.3026
3.057*** 0.003
timad Participant 61 3.6148
Source: Based on Field Survey, 2008
NB: WC= water conservation, *** significant at 1percent

102
 CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 CONCLUSION

Despite scholarly divide on the ecological limits to the future human

wellbeing, this particular study has exposed how human being affects

and being affected by biophysical environment. In the absence of effective

social regulations and laws, the ever-growing human population,

particularly in the rural Ethiopia, exerts greater exploitation and over-

use on available natural resources, especially opens access resources

such as the disappeared Lake Haramaya. Such unlimited access and

over use/misuse of resources triggered by rapid population growth

eventually results in the degradation and ultimate disappearance of the

very resource that was vital in sustaining the livelihood of the

surrounding communities.

Part of the blame on this win-lose game could be the lack of operational

laws and policies for the rational use of these common property

resources. As a result, in many parts of the country these common

property resources are in continuous deterioration (Yeraswork, 1995).In-

fact so far there is no law or policy that would guide and restrict the use

and abuse of these resources. Under such circumstance, the question is

which lake will disappear next. In the country where overwhelming

proportion of its population is agrarian, poverty reduction and ensuring

103
food security would be in jeopardy without enforcing effective law and

policy to protect and guide the sustainable use of the very resources that

are vital to achieve such goals, let alone the moral obligation of passing

such resources to the future generation.

Findings of this study on the impact and responses to the disappearance

of Lake Haramaya revealed that much had been lost and much has to be

done to overcome the shock. There were many instances of successful

community responses to environmental change and resource scarcity, for

example, decline in fertility, land intensification, migration, etc. As such,

responses of the households in the study area to the prevailing water

scarcity following the dry-up of the lake include underground water

reclamation and Rain water harvesting practices. However, with declining

water table and high cost of inputs, reliance on underground water

would be effective only for short-term .Thus the long-term impacts and

responses as well as resource use dynamics and the determinants of

such dynamism under the existing population pressure in the area is a

theme of prominent interest for the future study.

104
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

In the absence of operational policy and institutional structures, the

depletion and ultimate disappearance of open access resources incurs

irreversible and irreparable impacts on the livelihood of the population

dependent of these resources. Therefore, no time should be spared on the

part of the government, non governmental organizations and other

stakeholders in taking interventions to restrict overuse and abuses of

these resources and enhance their sustainable use both for present and

future generations. To this end this study recommends policy and

institutional measures to be enacted and implemented.

Policy interventions should obviously be spearheaded by the government.

Thus the government should enact, implement and follow up polices

geared towards sustainable use of open access resources and reduce

population pressure on the environment. Policy instruments that would

help in sustainable use of these resources include empowering local

communities through participatory community resource management,

provision of incentives for sustainable practices and introducing market

forces. These measures could salvage misuse of the resources and

enhance sense of ownership at local level. On the other hand, policy

instrument that reduces population pressure on these resources could

105
be provision of alternatives income and employment opportunities,

reducing household size by promoting family planning programmes.

Institutional interventions by governmental and non governmental

organizations and other concerned bodies should aim on the provision of

services that would enhance agricultural production and sound

conservation practices. As confirmed by this study, households’

participation in credit service, fertilizer use and their perception to the

depletion of the lake had significant influence on the implementation of

water conservation measures. As such, provision of similar institutional

services that increase agricultural production and remedy sustainable

conservation practices should be the major focus of institutional

interventions. Therefore provision of these services along with awareness

creation in resources conservation and management practices would

help the local community to recover the impacts quickly before further

pressure is exerted on other resources in the locality.

The finding of this study disclosed that there is an excessive withdrawal

of underground water by the household’s as response to the existing

water scarcity. This is manifested in sharp decline of the water table.

Such heavy reliance on the ground water may deplete the resource in the

long run. Besides, such immense removal of underground water can

result in land subsidence, which in turn causes cracking of the buildings

106
(Strahller, 2000).Therefore, to save the resource and the repercussions of

its overuse, immediate intervention should be taken to curb this

unsustainable practice into sustainable practice (e.g. rain water

harvesting )

Finally no simple and straight forward, but multidimensional forces are

responsible for this environmental trauma. Thus, the battle should be

fought in all fronts.

107
 REFERENCE

Alemu Mekonnen (2003) ‘The Link between Environmental Change and

Poverty’ In Gideon Asfaw (ed) Environment, Poverty and Gender.
Consultation Papers on Environment No. 2 Addis Ababa: Forum for Social
Studies.

Bahiru Shikur (1993) Farmers’ Perception of Soil Erosion Problems and

their attitude towards Soil Conservation in Guraghe Highlands of
Butajira Awaraja, South Shoa. Unpublished M.A.Thesis. Addis Ababa
University.

Barrow, C. (1995) Developing the Environment: Problems and Management.

London. Longman Group.

Bekele Shifereaw and Stein Holden (1998) ‘Resource Degradation and Adoption
of Land Conservation Technologies in the Highlands of Ethiopia : a case
study of Andit Tid, North Shoa’, Agricultural Economics 18(1).

Bekele Wogayehu and Drake Lars (2002) Adoption of Soil and Water
Conservation Measures by Subsistence Farmers in Eastern Ethiopia..
Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Department of Economics.
Symposium No. 6.Paper No. 1747.

Boserup, E. (1965) The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of

Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. London: Earthscan Publishers.

Burton, I., W. Kates and G.F. White (1993) The Environment as Hazard (2nd ed)
New York. Guildford press.

108
Central Statistics Authority (1996) The 1994 Population and Housing Census:
Results of Oromiya Region Statistical Report on Population Size and
Characteristics. Vol I, part I. Addis Ababa.

Chalachew Arega (2004) Environmental Responses to Socio-Demographic

Pressures in Alemaya District. Unpublished M.Sc Thesis. Addis Ababa
University.

Dejene Aredo (1996) ‘Population Density, Cultivation Systems and

Intensifying in Pre-Industrial Agriculture: Review of literature and
illustrations from Ethiopia’, in Mulat Demeke, et al (ed.) Sustainable
Intensification of Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the Second Annual
Conference of Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa:
Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia.

Desgupta, P. (1992) Population, Resource, and Poverty. Special Issue Paper for
Natural Resources and Development, Ambio, 21(1), Feb 1992:1-16.

Ellen, R. (1982) Environment, Subsistence and System: the Ecology of Small

Scale Social Formations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fortune News Paper, Vol. 8, No. 113, March 30, 2008.

Gidion Asfaw (2003) ‘Breaking the Cycle of Recurrent Famine in Ethiopia:

Natural Resource Management and Drought related Famine
Prevention’, in Economic Focus Bulletin of Ethiopian Economic Association.
Vol.5, No.5.

109
Gould, B.W., Saupe, W.E., and Klemme, R.M. (1989) ‘Conservation Tillage: The
Role of Farm and Operator Characteristics and the Perception of Soil
Erosion’. Land Economics 65(2): 167-82

Gubrium, J.F. (1973) The Myth of the Golden Years as Socio-environmental

Theory of Aging. Springfield: Thomas Association.

Gujrati, D. N. (1995). Basic Econometrics. Third edition. McGraw hill, inc., New
York U.S.A.

Hammond, R. (1978) Quantitative Techniques in Geography: An Introduction.

New York. Oxford University Press.

Harper, C.L. (2004) Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on

Environmental Issues (3rd ed) New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Hosmer, D.W. and S. Lemeshow (1989) Applied Logistic Regression. New York:
A Willey Inter-Science Publication

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (1993) World
Disaster Report. Dordrecht.

Knees, A.V. (1977) Economics and the Environment. New York: Penguin Books.

Koning, N. and Eric Smaling (2002) Environmental Crises or “Lie of the

Land”? The Debate on Soil Degradation in Africa. Wageningen University,
North-South Center.

Livernash, R., and Rodenburg, E. (1998) Population Change, Resources and

the Environment. Population Bulletin, 53 (1), 20-21

110
Meyer, W.B. (1996) Human Impact on the Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Miller, T.G. (1998) Living in the Environment (10th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Mohr, P.A (1960) The Geology of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University College
Press.

Perry, R.W. and A.H. Mushkatel (1984) Disaster Management, Warning

Response and Community Relocation. Westport: Quorum.

Postel, S. (1996) ‘Forging a Sustainable Water Strategy’, in State of the World,

1996, Lester Brown et al, (eds). Washington DC: World Watch Institute pp.
17-21.

__________, (1993) ‘Water Scarcity Spreading’, in L. Starke (ed), Vital Signs 1993:
The Trends that are Shaping Our Future (pp106-7) New York.

Russell, D.W. and C,E. Cutrona (1991) Social Support, Stress and
Depressive Symptoms among Elderly. Journal of Psychology of Aging
6(2)190-211.

Shibiru Daba (2002) Investigation of the Physical and Socio-Economic

Determinants of Soil Erosion in Hararghe Highlands, Eastern Ethiopia.
Longautah State University.

Solomon Muleta (2002) Erosion and Sedimentation Analysis of Lake Alemaya

Catchment. Alemaya University: Unpublished M.Sc Thesis.

111
Solomon, S.D. et al (1987) Social Involvement as a Mediatory of Disaster
Induced Stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(12) 1092-1112.

Southwick, C.H. (1996) Global Ecology in Human Perspectives. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Stern, P.C., Young, O.R. and Drukenman, D. (1992) Global Environmental

Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions. Washington D.C: National
Academy press.

Strahler Alan H. and Arthur N. Strahler (1997) Physical Geography: Science

and Systems of the Human Environment. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Susman, P. et al (1983) ‘Global Disaster, Radical Interpretation’, in K. Hewitt

(ed) Interpretation of Calamites from view point of Human Ecology.
Bastion: Allen and Unwin: pp 263-72.

Tegegne Gebre Egziabher (1995) ‘Population and Renewable Resources in

Ethiopia, Focus on Forest, Rangeland and Water Resources’, Office of
the Prime Minister, The National Office of Population, Ethiopia:
Population and Development 1(1):23-28.

Tobin, G.A. and B.E. Montz (1997) Natural Hazards: Explanation and
Integration. New York: Guilford Press.

United Nations (2001) Population, Environment and Development: The Concise

Report. Economic and Social Affairs. No Eo1. x 111.15. UN, New York.

White, G.F. (1974) Natural Hazards: Local, National and Global. New York:
Oxford University Press.

112
Yeraswork Admassie (1995) Twenty Years to Nowhere: Property Rights, Land
Management and Conservation in Ethiopia. Ph.D Dissertation, Uppsala
University.

Young, C. E. and J. S. Shortle (1984) ‘Investments in Soil Conservation

Structures: The Role of Operator and Operation Characteristics’.
Agricultural Economics Research 36 (2): 10-5

Zimmermann, E.W. (1951) World Resources and Industries. New York: Harper
and Brothers.

113
 ANNEX -I Questionnaire

Addis Ababa University

Institute of Development Research
Department of Environment and Development

The Principal objective of this questionnaire is to investigate the livelihood

impacts of the disappearance of Lake Alemaya on the surrounding community,
and to explore the responses of the community to such environmental shock.
The study is intended for academic purpose. Hence, the responses from
respondents are confidential and can not be identified with the persons who
provided them. Thank you for your cooperation.
I. Identification
Name of the Enumerator
Date of interview
Name of the Kebele
Village name
II. Household characteristics
201. Name of the HH Age Sex
202. Marital Status: 1. Married n 2. Single 3. Divorced 4. Separated
203. Household Size(including HH Head
1. Male Children 2. Female Children
204. Education level 1, illiterate 2.Read 3. Write 4. Read and Write
205. Occupation: 1. Farmer 2. Civil Servant 3. Trader 4. Laborer
5. Other, (specify)
206. Religion: 1. Islam 2. Christian 3. Other (specify)
207. Land ownership 1. Own land 2. Rent in 3. Share cropping 4. Other
(specify)
208. Land size ___________(in Timad)

114
III. Impact Assessement
301. What benefits /Services have you been obtaining from Lake Alemaya
before its disappearance? (Multiple responses are possible)
1. None
2. Water for irrigation
3. Water for drinking
4. fishing
5. ferry renting
6. Water for livestock 7. Other (specify)-------------
302. If your response to Qn 301 above is 2.i.e Water for irrigation, what
proportion of your farmland (in timad) was irrigated by it: ___________
303. If your response to Qn 301 above is 3. i.e Water for drinking, please give
us your house hold’s water consumption per day in Jerry cane________
304. If your response to Qn 301 above is 4,i.e for fishing, give us the average
income (in Birr) generated per month ______________________
305. If your response to Qn 301 is 5. i.e ferry renting, give us your income
from this in Birr per month
306. If your response to Qn 301 above is 6. i.e Water for livestock, please
give us the number of livestock in counts per day______
307. Please give us the following information about your land holding and
farming practices
Information required In 2007 In 2006 In 2005
1- Total size of holding( in timad
2-Proportion under rain fed
farming (in timad)
3. Proportion Under irrigation in 1._________ 1._________ 1.________
timad. 2._________ 2._________ 2._________
1=by using water of the lake 3.__________ 3._________ 3._________
2=by using underground water
3=by using rainwater harvesting
4 Dominant crop type & grown 1._________ 1._________ 1._________
1= cash crop2= staple 2._________ 2._________ 2._________
5 No of households engaged in 1.__________ 1._________ 1._________
farm work 2.__________ 2__________. 2._________
1= Adult males 3.__________ 3.__________ 3._________
2= Adult females
3 =Children less than 10yrs old

115
 308. Has any member of the household dropped out of schooling in
1. 2005 2. 2006 3. 2007__________
309. Is there any household member who abandoned the locality?
1. Yes 2. No (skip Qn 311)
310. If your response to Qn 309 above is yes, why do you think she/he
migrated from the area?
1. . Due to marriage 2.due to decline in household income
3. In search of job else where 4. Due to personal reasons
5. Due to land scarcity 6. Due to water shortage 7.Other (Specify)___
311. Do you intend to have more children
1= Yes 2= No
312. If not, what is/are your reason?

313. Please give us information on your households incident of conflict with

others in the use of the following resources over the periods indicated
(Write 1, if Yes and 0, if No under respective column below).

Incidents of conflict Resource type

Water Land Livestock
Year Frequency
2007 Once
Twice
More than twice
2006 Once
Twice
More than twice
2005 Once
Twice
More than twice

116
 314. Please give us household’s crop production performance for the
indicated period.

Crop type Means of Area covered by

the crop
production Amount
(in timad)
1=Rain fed harvested
2=irrigation
2007 2006 2005 2007 2006 2005 2007 2006 2005
1.Sorghum(quintal)
2.Maize(quintal)
3.Teff(quintal)
4.Wheat (quintal)
5.Barley(quintal)
6.Chat( Kg)
7.Vegetables(Kg)
7.1 Potato
7.2 Cabbage
7.3 Onion
7.4 Others

315. Have you been engaged in any off farm activities? 1= Yes and 0 = No
In 2007_________ amount per month in birr_______________
In 2006_________ amount per month in birr_______________
In 2005_________ amount per month in birr_______________
316. How do you evaluate your household income over the last three years?
1. Increasing 2. Decreasing 3. No change
317. If your response to Qn 316above is’ decreasing’ what are the reasons?
1. Lack of water for irrigation
2. Low market prices for farm produces
3. High cost of living
4. increases in family size
5. high cost of farm input
6. other( specify)________

117
 IV Response Assessment
404.Do you buy /use in farm inputs?
1. Yes
2. No __________________(skip to Qn 408)
407. If yes, what motivates you to do so?
1. To get Better market prices for cash crops
2. Lesson dawn from extension workers
3. To meet high cost of living
4. Experience from neighboring farmers
5. Others (specify)
408.If your response to Qn 406 above is no, deters you from not doing it?
1. Lack of capital 4. High prices
2. Lack of awareness 5. Less adaptability of the input to my plots
3. Lack of access to inputs 6. Other (specify )_______________
409.Have you participated in credit services? 1=Yes 2=No
1) in 2005 2) in 2006 3) in 2007
410.If you respond to Qn 409 above is no, Please give us your reason:-
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
411.Please give us the following information on Farm input.
Expenditure in Birr
Farm input 2005 2006 2007
1.Water Pump
2.Water Harvesting
3.Fertilizer

4.Pesticide
5.Seeds
6.others (specify) _______________

V. Adaptation Strategies
501. Have you been engaged in water conservation practices?

118
 1=Yes 2=No
1. in 2005 2.in 2006 3.in2007
502. If yes, what motivated you to such practice?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
503.If not, what were/are your constraints?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
504.Have you been using water of Lake Alemaya for multiple purposes
before its disappearance?
1. Yes 2. No
505.if yes for what ?
1. Irrigation 3. Washing
2. Draining 4. Other(Specify__________________
506. If irrigation how did cope with water scarcity after it dried up?
1. by harvesting rain water
2. By using underground water
3. By shifting to less water dependent crops
4. By reducing water consumption
5. By shifting to rain fed farming
6. Others (Specify)
507. If your response to Qn 505 above is rain water harvesting, what are
your reasons?
1. Its accessibility/availability
2. Local availability of technology
3. Does not cause conflict with others
4. Lesson by extension workers
5. Others (specify)
508.If your response to Qn 505 above is relying on underground water, why
is that so?
1. Its availability
2. Due to proximity of my farm to underground water source
3. Local availability of technology

119
4. Lesson by extension workers
5. Other (specify)
509.If your response to Qn 505 is by’ shifting to other crop type’, which
crops are they?
510.Do you practice efficient water end use in conservation of water?
1. Yes 2. No
511If your response to Q505 is by reducing water consumption in what
ways?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
512. Did you ever imagined lake Alemaya to disappear?
1. Yes 2. No
513. If your response to Qn 511 above is Yes; what did you account for its
disappearance?
1. Punishment from God
2. Misuse and over use by both rural and urban population
3. Population growth
4. Climate change
5. Other (Specify)_________________-
514. How do you perceive the disappearance of lack Alemaya ?
1. Nothing
2. As a loss of a resource
3. As a loss of a great resource
4. Other ( specify)__________________
515. Has the disappearance of lake Alamaya affected your livelihood and
wellbeing?
1. yes 2. No
516 . If your response to Qn 514 above is ‘Yes ; in what ways if affected
your?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

120
 ___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

VI. Future plans in Resource Utilization and management.

601. Do you participate in soil and water conservation activities
1. yes (skip Qn 603) 2. No (skip Qn 602)
602. If your answer to On 601 above is yes, what motivates you to be so?
1. My understanding the symbiotic relationship between one resource and
others.
2. The fact that people depend on resources to live
3. Because it pays back
4. Other ( Specify)

603. If your response to Qn 601 above is (no) then what is/ are your
reasons?
1. Lack of awareness
2. Lack of input
3. Lack of consensus among resource users
4. Lack of interest
5. Other (specify)
604. Do you participate in community resource management at local level?
1. Yes 2. No
605. If not, why?
1. Have no idea
2. It is too expensive
3. Due to conflict over priorities
4. Lack of cooperation and leadership
5. Other (specify)
606. If your response to Qn 604 above is ‘yes’ in what ways do you
contribute?
1. Generate ideas on when and how to use resources
2. Generate required funds

121
 3. Participate in local regulation and law formulation
4. Others (specify)
607. Please give us your ratings on water conservation and utilization
strategies listed below
1st ______ 2nd ________ 3rd ______ 4th _____ 5th _______ 6th _______

1-efficient end use of available water

2-reuse of waste water
3-minimizing evaporation in the field by covering with crop residue
4-reduce wastage of water in the irrigation canal
5-rely on rain water harvesting
6-relay on underground water with drawl

608. Which of the above strategies are you applying currently to overcome
water shortage? _______________________________
609. What do you think are the constraints to local resource management
and utilization (e.g. water) in your Kebele? (Multiple responses
Possible).
1. Competition between rural and urban users
2. Competition among rural household uses
3. Lack of social regulations and laws
4. Little or no awareness of resource management
5. Lack of leadership
6. Lack of required inputs
7. Other (specify)
610. What are your future plans to conserve and manage your resources
(e.g. Soil and water)?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Thank you,

122
 123

View publication stats