Factors Influencing the Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies: a case study
of two farming communities in rural Ethiopia
Seth Kammer
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF FOREST RESOURCES
University of Washington
December 2014
Program Authorized to Offer Degree:
School of Environmental and Forest Sciences
College of the Environment
Abstract
The majority of Ethiopians depend on agriculture for their livelihood. However, in many
areas within the country, particularly where hillsides have been cultivated, land productivity is
threatened by the effects of erosion and subsequent water and soil nutrient loss. There are
numerous agricultural practices that Ethiopian farmers can use to reduce the damaging effects
associated with erosion and water loss as it relates to hillside farming. However, despite the
prospect of land degradation, not every farmer cultivating on unleveled ground will practice soil
and water conservation (SWC) technologies.
This case study explores factors involved with the adoption of SWC technologies within
the study areas of Magersa and Konso. Data were collected through interviews and participant
observation. A mixed methods approach was used for data analyses. Results suggest that the
practice of SWC technologies within the study areas of Magersa and Konso are significantly
influenced by the awareness of SWC technologies and assistance with agricultural practices.
Organizations with the objective of increasing the practice of SWC technologies within the
communities of Magersa and Konso through heightening awareness or increasing cooperative
work efforts are encouraged to adopt one or more of the following strategies: (1) use opinion
leaders within the community to promote SWC technologies, (2) conduct training events to
qualify community members as trainers of SWC technologies, (3) establish and maintain
demonstration areas for SWC technologies, (4) encourage information and experience exchange
between farmers who have extensive experience with SWC technologies and farmers who have
relatively few experiences with SWC technologies, (5) promote cooperative work strategies
among farmers who lack resources to perform SWC technologies, and (6) adapt SWC
technologies to fit the needs and resource limitations of the farmers.
i
Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1. ETHIOPIA BACKGORUND...................................................................................................................... 3
Geography & Climate........................................................................................................................... 5
Flora & Fauna ...................................................................................................................................... 8
History................................................................................................................................................. 9
Economy & Resources ....................................................................................................................... 13
Land Tenure & Agriculture ................................................................................................................. 14
2. EROSION & WATER LOSS ................................................................................................................... 18
Soil & Water Conservation ................................................................................................................. 21
3. ADOPTION AND DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS ................................................................................... 27
Innovations ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Communication Channels .................................................................................................................. 29
Time and Innovativeness ................................................................................................................... 29
Social Systems ................................................................................................................................... 31
Understanding the Innovative-Decision Process ................................................................................ 31
4. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 33
Sibboo & Magersa Bure Woreda ..................................................................................................... 34
Karat Town and Surrounding Communities Konso Special Woreda.................................................. 36
Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 39
Soil & Water Conservation Technologies............................................................................................ 41
5. DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 44
6. RESULTS & DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 52
Awareness & Practice of SWC Technologies ....................................................................................... 52
Needs & Awareness ........................................................................................................................... 55
Communication Channels & Awareness ............................................................................................. 57
Needs & Practice of SWC Technologies .............................................................................................. 62
Help Received & Practice of SWC Technologies.................................................................................. 63
Land Area Managed & Practice of SWC Technologies......................................................................... 65
Other Factors Influencing the Adoption & Practice of SWC Technologies ........................................... 67
Limitations of Research & Researcher Bias ......................................................................................... 68
ii
7. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 69
Increase Exposure of SWC Technologies & Maximize Outreach.......................................................... 69
Cooperative Farming Groups ............................................................................................................. 72
Adapting SWC Technologies to Site .................................................................................................... 73
Further Research ............................................................................................................................... 74
References ............................................................................................................................................ 76
Appendix A: Interview Guide ................................................................................................................. 83
Appendix B: Summary of Data Fields Used for Statistical Analysis in SAS ................................................ 86
Appendix C: Results from Statistical Analyses ........................................................................................ 89
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Political boundaries of Ethiopia (modified by author from Burron 2002) ................................ 3
Figure 1.2 Map of Ethiopia depicting regions and administrative cities (Golbez 2006) ............................. 4
Figure 1.3:
cultural diversity at a glance by region: left to right - top: Afar, Harar, Gambela;
middle: Oromiya, SNNPR, Amhara; bottom: Tigray, Benishangul-Gumuz, Somali (photo credit: Wiese;
Huet; Kwekudee; Lafforgue; Furlan; OGS; Zandbergen, Santos; UNHCR) .................................................. 5
Figure 1.4: Topography of Ethiopia (Sadalmelik 2007) ............................................................................. 6
Figure 1.5: Annual precipitation in Ethiopia (adapted by author from UN-OCHA 2006) ............................ 7
Figure 1.6: Endemic flora and fauna of Ethiopia. From top left (clockwise) Ethiopian wolf (Canis
simensis), mountain nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni), Gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada), birbira
raco (Turaco ruspolii)
(photo credit: R. Jackrel; BFS; B. Shuchuck; S. Rooke; L. Peterson; Bekele-Tesemma) ............................... 8
Figure 1.7: Kingdom of Aksum, 4th - 7th centuries (Phillipson 2005) ........................................................ 10
Figure 1.8: Ethiopia, 19th century (Phillipson 2005) ................................................................................ 10
Figure 1.9: Ploughing field by oxen (photo credit: TFTFa) ....................................................................... 16
Figure 2.1: Erosion and siltation threaten this river in Ethiopia (photo credit: S. Kammer) ..................... 18
Figure 2.2: Agriculture extension worker looks over farmland expansion on erosion prone hillsides in
Ethiopia (photo credit: TFTFb) ............................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.3: Hillside farming near Lake Wenchi, Ethiopia (photo credit: S. Kammer) ................................ 20
Figure 2.4: Terracing in Konso, Ethiopia (photo credit: S. Kammer) ........................................................ 22
Figure 2.5: Construction of stone check dams in Konso, Ethiopia (photo credit: S. Kammer) .................. 23
Figure 2.6: A row of pigeon pea (Cajunus cajun) will support this soil bund in Wolkite, Ethiopia (photo
credit: TFTFc) ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.1: Categories of individuals related to innovativeness, the relative speed of innovation
adoption. Inn
...................................................... 30
Figure 3.2: The innovation-decision process (Rogers 2003) .................................................................... 32
Figure 4.1: Bure Woreda and Konso Special Woreda, Ethiopia (adapted from Golbez 2006) .................. 33
Figure 4.2: The town of Sibboo, Bure Woreda (photo credit: S. Kammer) .............................................. 35
Figure 4.3: Rainy season within Magersa (photo credit: S. Kammer) ...................................................... 35
Figure 4.4: Landscape of Magersa at the start of the dry season (photo credit: S. Kammer) ................... 35
Figure 4.5: A village within Konso, a UNESCO world heritage site (photo credit: Y. Beyene) ................... 38
Figure 4.6: Traditional houses and terracing within Konso (photo credit: V. Brown)............................... 38
Figure 4.7: Town of Karat, capital of Konso (photo credit: B. Gagnon).................................................... 38
Figure 4.8: Trenches & berms (photo credit: TFTFd) .............................................................................. 41
Figure 4.9: Successive check dams slow water and trap sediment along this roadside during the rainy
season (photo credit: TFTFe) ................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 4.10: Crop residuals are left within the fields, placed along the ridge of soil bowl structures (photo
credit: S. Kammer) ................................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 4.11: A water reservoir made from concrete and tarpaulin (photo credit: S. Kammer) ................ 43
Figure 4.12: Vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides) helps stabilize this unleveled farm land (photo
credit: A. McCausland) .......................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.13: Example of stone terracing within Konso (photo credit: S. Kammer) .................................. 44
iv
Figure 5.1: Example of first cycle coding for one interview response ..................................................... 47
Figure 5.2: Creation of a categorical hierarchy from codes to theory (adapted from Saldaña 2013) ....... 49
Figure 6.1: Percent of respondents aware of specific technologies by study area .................................. 53
Figure 6.2: Percent of respondents practicing specific technologies within study areas ......................... 54
Figure 6.3: Starting with codes and developing categories, themes, and theories with respect to the
interests of respondents (adapted from Saldaña 2013).......................................................................... 56
Figure 6.4: Sources for advisement on agricultural techniques identified by Konso respondents .......... 58
Figure 6.5: Sources for advisement on agricultural techniques identified by Magersa respondents ....... 59
Figure 6.6: Sources for assistance with agricultural activities reported by Magersa respondents ........... 64
Figure 6.7: Sources for assistance with agricultural activities reported by Konso respondents ............... 64
v
List of Tables
Table 5.1: Example of codes used during deductive and inductive data analyses .................................... 46
vi
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ivan Eastin, Stanley Asah, Patrick Tobin, and Miku Lenentine for their support
and guidance throughout the process of conducting this case study. Thanks also to my coworkers from Trees for the Future, Gabriel Buttram and Derese Kochena, without which I would
not have had so many opportunities to participate in tree planting and agroforestry events within
Ethiopia. Thanks to Moti Kenu, Masgabu Motuma, and again for Derese for their patience with
translating, Kifyalow Admasu for his dedication within the agriculture extension service, and for
Kifle Bogale, who first introduced me to the people of Sibboo and Magersa. Lastly, I want to
give a big thanks to the people of Sibboo, Magersa, and Konso for their generous hospitality
during my stay in Ethiopia.
vii
INTRODUCTION
The majority of Ethiopians depend on agriculture for their livelihood. However, in many
areas within the country, particularly where hillsides have been cultivated, land productivity is
threatened by the effects of erosion and subsequent water and soil nutrient loss. Farmers who
lack the resources to amend their soils are subject to poverty, decreased household nutrition, and
incentives to emigrate (Haileslassie et al. 2005; USAID 2008; Yisehak et al. 2013; Mengistu
2006).
Farmers cultivating unleveled land can protect their farmlands and local environment
from the effects of erosion by employing a variety of mechanical or biological measures (Adgo
et al. 2013; Haileslassie et al. 2005). Although the benefits of practicing soil and water
conservation techniques through mechanical and biological means are clear, not every farmer
within hillside agricultural communities have adopted them.
opportunity to live and work beside Ethiopian farmers, agriculture extension workers,
government workers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and community based
organizations. The first community in which I served practiced very few soil and water
conservation (SWC) strategies although the threat of erosion in that region was substantial. In
other regions of the country, however, I was exposed to communities which made extensive use
of biological and mechanical technologies to reduce damaging effects of soil and water runoff.
The differences I observed between these communities with respect to their land use systems
made me question the factors that produced these dissimilarities. I resolved to conduct the
following case study with the objective of identifying influences related to the adoption and
1
diffusion of SWC practices of two farming communities
one representing little-to-no practice
of SWC technologies and the other representing extensive use of SWC technologies.
From data gathered through interviews and participant observation within two farming
communities, I sought to identify factors that positively or negatively influenced the adoption of
SWC technologies. Understanding these factors will enhance agriculture outreach by providing
insights to improve effectiveness and efficiency of agriculture extension strategies. Given the
need for soil and water land management and the benefits of SWC technologies, this study is
valuable for individuals and organizations employed in the agriculture sector of Ethiopia.
I anticipate that the conclusions and recommendations from this report will increase
understanding of the adoption and diffusion of SWC innovations, specifically within the study
areas where data were collected, and generally contribute to the body of knowledge related to the
dissemination of SWC technologies in rural Ethiopia.
2
1. ETHIOPIA BACKGORUND
Ethiopia is a landlocked country located in the Horn of Africa, bordered by Eritrea
(north), Djibouti and Somalia (east), Sudan and South Sudan (west), and Kenya (south) (Figure
1.1). Ethiopia covers an area of 1,104,300 km 2 (roughly twice the size of Texas) though some
of its nat ional borders shared wit h Somalia and Eritrea are in dispute (CIA 2014).
Figure 1.1: Political boundaries of Ethiopia (modified by author from Burron 2002)
3
Administrative units within Ethiopia are made up of nine ethnically based regions and two
administrative cities. These regions consist of Afar, Amhara, Benishangul-Gumaz, Gambela,
Harar, Oromiya, Somali, Tigray, and Southern Nations, Nationalities,
(districts), and kebeles (municipalities, the smallest administrative unit). The two administrative
cities are Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa. See Figure 1.2 below for details of regional boundaries.
1. Addis Ababa (capital)
2. Afar
3. Amhara
4. Benishangul-Gumaz
5. Dire Dawa
6. Gambela
7. Harar
8. Oromiya
9. Somali
10. SNNPR
11. Tigray
Figure 1.2 Map of Ethiopia depicting regions and administrative cities (Golbez 2006)
Ethiopia has a population of 96,633,458 million with an annual growth rate of 2.89%.
Socially, the country is very diverse (Figure 1.3), reflected by over 70 languages spoken within
its borders. The largest ethnic groups are Oromo (34.4%), Amhara (27%), Somali (6.2%),
Tigray (6.1%), and Sidama (4%) (CIA 2014). Ethnicities are in no way bound to a particular
administrative area but tend to be more populated in one region over the next. The most widely
spoken languages reflect the population of these ethnicities: Oromo (33.8%), Amharic
the
official language of Ethiopia (29.3%), Somali (6.2%), Tigrigna (5.9%), and Sidamo (4%).
English is the major foreign language taught in primary and secondary schools (CIA 2014).
4
The major religions of Ethiopia are Ethiopian Orthodox (43.5%), Muslim (33.9%), and
Protestant (18.5%) (CIA 2014).
Figure 1.3:
cultural diversity at a glance by region: left to right - top: Afar, Harar,
Gambela; middle: Oromiya, SNNPR, Amhara; bottom: Tigray, Benishangul-Gumuz, Somali
(photo credit: Wiese; Huet; Kwekudee; Lafforgue; Furlan; OGS; Zandbergen, Santos; UNHCR)
Geography & Climate
mountain at 4,620
meters above sea level (15,157 ft.) and located in the Amhara Region within Simian Mountain
National Park. The Danakil Depression, located in the Afar region, is 115 meters (377 ft.) below
sea level and is considered to be one of hottest places in the world, with a temperatures above
120 F annual temperature of (Orlowska 2008; CIA 2014
slope gradually to drier lowlands on the peripheries and are bisected from northeast to southwest
by the Great Rift Valley (Figure 1.4). The Great Rift Valley has an average width of 50
5
kilometers and hosts a chain of lakes in southern Ethiopia (Turner et al. 2005). The plateaus on
either side of the Great Rift Valley range from 1,500 to 3,000 meters above sea level (3,280
Within Africa, 80% of land
elevations 3,000 meters or higher are located in Ethiopia (Bekele 2001).
Figure 1.4: Topography of Ethiopia (Sadalmelik 2007)
agricultural lands, provide potable water to villages or cities, and produce large amounts of
hydroelectrical energy (Solomon 2014). All of Ethiopia's rivers originate in the highlands. Most
Blue Nile flows into Sudan where it converges with the White Nile, accounting for over two
thirds of the Nile River. Other large river systems include the Tekezé, and the Baro, which make
up nearly half of the water flow from Ethiopia (Turner et al. 2005).
6
The Great Rift Valley is geologically active; earthquakes occur on occasion and there are
live volcanoes and steaming fissures in its more northern areas. Hot springs exist in several
regions throughout the country (Turner et al. 2005).
Figure 1.5: Annual precipitation in Ethiopia (adapted by author from UN-OCHA 2006)
As a result of its topographical variations, the climate in Ethiopia differs greatly from one
region to the next. Climatic regions can be divided into three basic groups: cool, temperate, and
hot, which generally correspond to the elevations: high, medium, and low lands, respectively. In
the highlands and midlands, temperatures range from 60ºF to 86ºF. In low lands, temperatures
range from 81ºF to 122ºF with varying humidity. In general, the primary rain season throughout
Ethiopia occurs between June and September. Precipitation is most frequent in the southwestern
region, less in the Great Rift Valley, and even less as one moves towards to lower elevations
(Turner et al. 2005). Refer to Figure 1.5 for details regarding annual precipitation throughout the
country.
Drought and famine are intrinsically linked because the vast majority of Ethiopians
depend on rain-fed subsistence agriculture. Within the last 50 years, the effects of drought, in
combination with warfare within Ethiopia, have cost hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians their
7
lives and/or homes. In 1973, famine caused the death of 300,000 Ethiopians while more sought
refuge by abandoning their homes. From 1984-85, famine resulted in over a million deaths and a
massive migration from Ethiopia to Somalia, Djibouti, and Sudan (Purdy 2006).
Flora & Fauna
Ethiopia is home to many endemic species of flora and fauna, including 20 mammals, at
least 30 bird species, and 13 amphibians (WWF). Among these are the critically endangered
Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), walia ibex (Capra walie), mountain nyala (Tragelaphus
buxtoni), giant root rat (Tachyoryctes macrocephalus), gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada),
Abyssinian catbird (Paraphasma galinieri), and Prince Ruspoli's turaco (Turaco ruspolii)
(Redman et al. 2009). Ethiopia also hosts hundreds of endemic plant species, including birbira
(Millettia ferruginea), addessa (Vepris dainellii), and Boswellia ogadensis (Bekele-Tesemma
2007). A selection of endemic species in Ethiopia can be seen in in Figure 1.6 below.
Figure 1.6: Endemic flora and fauna of Ethiopia. From top left (clockwise) Ethiopian wolf
(Canis simensis), mountain nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni), Gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada),
birbira (Millettia ferruginea), Abyssinian Catbird (Paraphasma
(Turaco ruspolii) (photo credit: R. Jackrel; BFS; B. Shuchuck; S. Rooke; L. Peterson; BekeleTesemma)
8
Although there are a large number of endemic species, information on the quantity and
ting biosensitive areas, attribute to the neglect of biodiversity and its current threatened state (Tadesse
1997). Aside from endemic species, Arabic coffee (Coffea Arabica), teff (Eragrostis tef), ensete
(Ensete ventricosum), noug (Guizotia abyssinica) have great, if not the greatest, genetic diversity
within Ethiopia (Dejene 2003).
History
According to fossil records, our distant ancestors, Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus) and Lucy
(Australopithecus afarensis), lived in what is currently northern Ethiopia millions of years ago.
(Gibbons 2010). Early human settlement began with hunter-gatherer societies that gave way to
more sedentary lifestyles as agriculture and animal husbandry were practiced. The
archaeological evidence suggests that humans practiced animal husbandry within the region of
Ethiopia about 8,000 years ago here and practiced agriculture roughly 2,000 or more years ago
(Aguiar 2010).
Ethiopia is one of the oldest nations in Africa, although its governance and political
borders have changed considerably over time. By the fourth century A.D., the Aksumite Empire
had developed a strong trading state that had control over the Red Sea (Figure 1.7). At its height,
the Aksumite Empire spread throughout southwest Arabia, the Nile Valley, and to what is now
Sudan, Eritrea, and northern Ethiopia. Its influence over trade controlled commerce between the
Nile Valley and Arabia, and the India and the Roman Empire. In the seventh century the
Aksumite Empire declined and moved southward where it was eventually replaced by the
9
Zagwe. The Aksumite Empire left an imprint on the succeeding dynasties by spreading
Christianity, its Semitic language, and the concept of a multi-ethnic empire-state governed by a
monarch (Turner et al. 2005). Today its heritage and cultural legacy can be see, in part, in the
giant pillars, some of which still stand erect, in Aksum.
Until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, ethnic groups and religious factions were
in regular conflict. In the mid-nineteenth century, Tewodros II was successful with reuniting the
kingdom
modern scholars have referred to this moment as the beginning of modern Ethiopian
history (Turner et al. 2005). Tewodros II was eventually succeeded by Menelik II in 1889.
Menelik II is known for his efforts to modernize the country and for successfully defending
Ethiopia from invading Italian forces (Figure 1.8). After the battle of Adwa in 1896, historically
rights to the Ethiopian region bordering the Red Sea (Eritrea) in exchange for the recognition
that Ethiopia was a sovereign country (Turner et al. 2005).
Figure 1.7: Kingdom of Aksum, 4th - 7th centuries
(Phillipson 2005)
10
Figure 1.8: Ethiopia, 19th century
(Phillipson 2005)
Menelik II spread his reign over the southern and eastern territories to form the current
nationand purposefully linking Ethiopia to foreign influences and technologies. After the death of
Menelik II in 1913, power struggles ensued but eventually brought Haile Selassie (cousin of
Menelik II) to the throne in 1930. Haile Selassie pushed to modernize Ethiopia, introducing
various Western-inspired reforms but this effort was interrupted when Italian forces again
pursued the colonization of Ethiopia in 1935. An overwhelming Italian victory forced Haile
occupation of Ethiopia from 1936 to 1941, the Italians constructed buildings and roadways but
remained limited with control throughout the country (Turner et al. 2005).
In 1941, Haile Selassie successfully acquired foreign aid to rid Ethiopia of Italian forces.
After his reinstatement, Haile Selassie was able to reclaim Eritrea and recommence his plans to
modernize Ethiopia. However, many Ethiopians felt resentment towards his imperial rule and
military officials. In
1974, this resentment set the stage for a military coup d'état led by a socialist organization that
came to be known as the Derg. In 1975, the Derg assumed governance over Ethiopia and
claimed Ethiopia a socialist state (Orlowska 2008).
The Derg initially received support by many Ethiopians because of its land tenure reform
and thorough nationalization of industries and services. However, through eliminating and
intimidating opposition parties, animosity quickly mounted against the Derg. The collapse of the
Derg in 1991 is attributed to the collapse and subsequent end of support from the Soviet Union,
famine within Ethiopia, and growing strength and resistance from Ethiopian opposition parties
(Aguiar 2010; Orlowska 2008).
11
In 1991, Haile Mariam Mengistu, head chairman of the Derg, fled Ethiopia for Zimbabwe
to escape rebel forces, chiefly the Ethiopian Revolutionary Democratic Movement (ERDM) and
Tigray Peoples' Liberation Front (TPLF). Megnistu was granted asylum in Zimbabwe. Despite
through which thousands of people were tortured and
killed as suspected enemies of the state, he remains in Zimbabwe today (Orlowska 2008).
After the collapse of the Derg regime, the ERDM and TPLF joined to create the
Ethiopian Peoples' Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which developed the Transitional
Government of Ethiopia (TGE). The TGE created a new constitution, declared Ethiopia a
Federal State, drew ethnic boundaries throughout the country, and aimed to oversee elections. In
1993, after years of developing its own identity influenced by Italian occupation, Eritrea gained
its independence from Ethiopia, leaving the country landlocked (Turner et al. 2005).
In 1994 the Ethiopian parliament approved a new constitution. Ethiopia has since been a
federal republic consisting of executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The executive branch
consists of the prime minister, who has executive power; the Council of state; and the Council of
Ministries. The legislative branch consists of a bicameral parliament, represented by the House
ade up of
federal and regional courts. There is universal suffrage for Ethiopians of and over the age of 18
(Turner et al. 2005).
Minister in 1995 (Aguiar 2010). The EPRDF won the elections in 2000, 2005, and 2010. Many
opposition parties have claimed that the EPRDF uses intimidation, force, and ballot rigging to
win elections. After the 2005 elections, the EPRDF win sparked protests that triggered nearly
12
200 casualties among civilian protesters in Addis Ababa (Aguiar 2010; U.S. Gov Press Release
2006). Meles Zenawi maintained his role as prime minister until his illness and death in 2012.
Hailemariam Desalegn succeeded Meles Zenawi and is the current Prime minister of Ethiopia.
The next elections will take place in 2015.
Economy & Resources
(CIA 2014). The most lucrative exported crop is coffee, which supports roughly half of the
co
pulses, oilseeds, sugar, and chaat. The most important form of agriculture is subsistence
farming, which produces mostly staple grains (Orlowska 2008). The service sector makes up
42.2% of GDP (CIA 2014) and consists of wholesale, retail trade, real estate, renting and
business activities. The
exported products include gold, marble, limestone, and small amounts of tantalum. Potential
export products include potash, hydroelectricity, natural gas, oil, iron ore, and geothermal energy
(Burron 2002).
of 10.6% each year between 2004 and 2011. GDP growth increased 8.7% in 2012, 9.7% in
2013, and is predicted to increase by 7.4% in 2014 (World Bank 2014). This progress was
attributed to agricultural modernization, new export sectors, international commodity demand,
and development investments by the government (World Bank 2012). However, while GDP
growth has remained high, per capita income is among the lowest in the world (CIA 2014) and
still faces many development challenges. Major obstacles in the way of continued economic
growth and stability include risks of drought, soil degradation, high population density, poor
13
transport infrastructure, and an underdeveloped private sector (USAID 2012). Only 19% of
transportation over longer distances has proven difficult and expensive (Aguiar 2010). The
frequent droughts that plague the country also prevent the creation of a self-sufficient
agricultural economy. Consequently, many Ethiopians rely on annual food assistance provided
by foreign countries and international institutions (USAID 2012).
Recent energy needs within Ethiopia have spawned projects to introduce alternative
sources, such as hydro-electricity (Solomon 2014), more efficient energy uses (e.g., more
efficient wood burning stoves, and reforestation efforts to increase fuel wood production (Holden
et al. 2003). The most notable of these projects is the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam
(GERD). When completed, the GERD could
and have enough residual for export. However, the hydrological variability and the lack of
reservoir storage capacity in its immediate location are threatened by unpredictable drought
events. The World Bank and other international donors have refused to fund GERD construction
because of this and the additional concern that the GERD has an inability to be used for anything
except for energy production. Neighboring countries, Egypt and Sudan, are opposed to the
on for centuries (Hammond 2013).
Land Tenure & Agriculture
Before Haile Salasie was removed from power in 1974, there were many forms of land
tenure. Many of these land tenure systems can be classified into one of three categories:
communal (rist), grant land (gult), and a combination of both (rist gult) (Crewett et al. 2008).
14
Rist land rights were communal and meant that both male and female descendants would
inherit land through their family membership. Inherited land was forbidden to be sold or
distributed in any way that would mean the loss of land from the family or clan to whom it
collectively belonged. Rist land rights provided general land tenure security for a community
because it guaranteed land to community members. However, through inheritance and time, land
under the rist system was fragmented and subject to competitive bargaining for land use rights
(Crewett et al. 2008).
In Gult land right systems, farmers worked the land for a tenant much like a landlord,
were those of organizations, such as the church, or they were acquired by nobles and aristocrats.
Often gult rights would be given by the Imperil State to military personal as compensation for
their service. These landowners could place arbitrary taxes on peasant farmers who lived on
their land (Jemma 2004). Where land was given by the state, land tenure was not secure, as
ownership was dependent on the ruling party remaining in power. When an individual was
granted gult land rights on top of their preexisting rist rights (rist-gult), security in continued land
ownership was greater (Crewett et al. 2008).
The exploitation of peasant farmers by their landowners in areas where gult land rights
were instated created resentment for the acting government. In 1974, after the overthrow of
Haile Selassie, the Derg introduced the agrarian reform t
the Public Ownership of Rural Lands which declared that all land belonged to the state. Once
instated, land was then distributed to each peasant family (Crewett et al. 2008).
Land reform was greeted with mixed responses. In the south, where the gult system
meant exploitation to peasant farmers, it was welcomed. In the northern regions, where families
15
generally felt they had a good land use system in place, the agrarian reform was received
negatively. Though the agrarian reform ensured peasant farmers had land to farm, efforts to
increase farming productivity failed. In some areas, land was fractured and redistributed
continuously to make up for population growth. Though the maximum land size for farmers was
set at 10 hectares, one study around Addis Ababa in 1979 showed that farmland ranged from 1 to
1.6 hectares (Crewett et al. 2008).
The fall of the Derg in 1991 brought with it expectations for land privatization.
Howev
reform (Crewett et al. 2008). The ratification of the constitution of the Federal Republic of
onuse of land for
agricultural productivity (except for cases in restoring soil fertility) could result with a
redistribution of that land at the loss of the current tenant (Crewett et al. 2008).
Figure 1.9: Ploughing field by oxen (photo credit: TFTFa)
16
The current land tenure system is debated today. The main arguments in favor for the
privatization of land claim that the current system is keeping Ethiopia from developing too
quickly, and that people with capital should be encouraged to invest in land so that they can
make it more productive. They further argue that if privatization of land was a reality, peasants
could be given loans on collateral to invest in their lands and increase their productivity.
Additionally it would allow peasants to sell their land and give it to those that have the will and
capability to make that land more productive. The argument against privatization of privately
owned land argue that the ability for peasants to sell their land would lead to their exploitation by
commercial investors or aggressive loan agencies that would leave many peasants destitute in
urban areas (Pausewang). In it uncertain what will happen to land tenure rights within the next
decade but both sides make compelling arguments.
Agriculture is the
Ethiopians. Geography and culture play a significant role in farming systems within Ethiopia.
Traditions vary from one village to the next and rural areas are often limited by their
environment, local infrastructure, and access to markets. The majority of Ethiopian farmers rely
on rain fed agriculture systems, which employ traditional technology commonly making use of
ox-and-plow cultivation (Figure 1.9). Small-scale farmers produce 94 percent
agriculture techniques are mostly limited to pesticide and fertilizer use (Gebre-Selassie & Bekele
2012). On average, 83 percent of rural households cultivate crops on less than 2 hectares and 52
percent on less than 1 hectare (FAO 2011).
Between small-scale farmers and pastoralists, Ethiopia has the greatest livestock
population size of any African nation (Negassa et al. 2011). Many Ethiopian farmers rely on
17
their livestock to supplement their household income and nutritional needs. Smallholder mixed
farming systems use their livestock for additional emergency and cash income, transportation,
farm outputs and inputs, and fuels for cooking food (Negassa et al. 2011).
2. EROSION & WATER LOSS
Soil erosion threatens agrarian societies with a loss in productivity and by undermining
long-term land management strategies and livelihoods. Erosion reduces soil health and arable
land, producing a multiplicity of negative consequences for farmer communities worldwide
(Ananda & Herath 2003). In Ethiopia soil erosion is the leading cause of land degradation,
contributing to loss of crop production, a decrease in biodiversity, food and livelihood insecurity,
siltation of waterways (Figure 2.1), shortage of fodder, and reduction of livestock productivity
(Haileslassie et al. 2005; USAID 2008; Yisehak et al. 2013; Juying 2009; Mengistu 2006).
Figure 2.1: Erosion and siltation threaten this river in Ethiopia (photo credit: S. Kammer)
Erosion is a naturally occurring process. The dynamics involved with soil erosion
include the erosivity of the eroding agent (mainly wind and water forces), the erodibility of the
soil, the slope of the land, and vegetation cover (Morgan 2005). Erosivity is the relative degree
18
of an erosive force. Water erosion commonly occurs in the form of rain, entrainment and
channeling, and flooding. During rain events, erosivity has a positive correlation with rain drop
size as well as the duration and intensity of a rain event. Waterways and floods have a greater
erosive impact when provided steeper and longer slopes (Morgan 2005; Hudson 1995). An
example of a steep slope that prone to erosion can be seen in Figure 2.1 above. The erosivity of
wind depends on wind strength, barriers (such as vegetation or intentional windbreaks), and the
aridness of the land. Wind erosion occurs through the separation of soil aggregates, suspension
and translocation of soil particles, and the creation abrasive impacts along the trajectory of the
wind (Morgan 2005; Hudson 1995).
In relation to agriculture, erodibility is the resistance of soil to detachment and transport.
Soil texture, aggregate stability, shear strength, infiltration capacity, and organic and chemical
content influence the erodibility of a given soil (Morgan 2005). Above ground, vegetation cover
reduces the impact of rain on the soil. Within the earth, roots bind the soil together, adding
structural stability and infiltrability (Valentin et al. 2005). Denuded soil is at a higher risk of soil
erosion than land with dense and uniform vegetation cover (Morgan 2005). The formation of
gullies in the Debre-Mawi watershed, Ethiopia, is largely attributed to the surface and subsurface
runoff caused by removal of vegetation (Tebebu et al. 2010).
In Ethiopia, the exploitation of natural resources and removal of vegetation for growing
crops or raising livestock are the main drivers exposing soil to wind and water erosion (Mengistu
2006). Land conversion from forests and meadows to crop and grazing land are the result of
between farmers, markets, and remote areas (Dessie & Kinlund 2008). Population pressure has
19
also contributed to the cultivation of marginal lands, consisting of naturally poor soils or steep
slopes especially susceptible to erosion (Figures 2.2, 2.3) (USAID 2008).
Figure 2.2: Agriculture extension worker looks over farmland expansion on erosion prone
hillsides in Ethiopia (photo credit: TFTFb)
Figure 2.3: Hillside farming near Lake Wenchi, Ethiopia (photo credit: S. Kammer)
20
Exploitive agricultural practices are largely motivated by poverty and land tenure
insecurity. Thirty-nine percent of Ethiopians are below the national poverty line (CIA 2014).
Poverty is closely related to environment degradation as a lack of capital restricts opportunities
to invest in land management technologies and discourages fallow periods for want of turning
quick profits (Aguiar 2010).
h lands, overstocking in communal grazing land is a
which nobody has direct responsibility and whose utilization is open to all members of a
community, and thus is
Yisehak et al. 2013). Livestock
pressures on vegetation beyond the carrying capacity compacts soil and prevents regeneration of
vegetative cover through over grazing. As with cultivated areas, the grazing lands that occupy
steep slopes are especially prone to erosion damage (Mengistu 2006).
In addition to the risk of soil loss on unleveled ground from erosion events, water loss is
also a concern. The majority of Ethiopian farmers rely on rain fed agriculture but the erratic rain
seasons that characterize the country threaten many with drought, low agricultural productivity,
and famine (FAO 2005). Soil erosion and water runoff are natural events, clearly observed on
unleveled ground and areas where vegetation is scarce or absent. However, erosion and water
loss threaten the livelihoods of hillside farmers throughout Ethiopia. Fortunately, the rate at
which erosion and water loss occur can be reduced significantly with appropriately applied SWC
technologies (Wolka 2014).
Soil & Water Conservation
The need for soil and water conservation efforts in Ethiopia was largely overlooked prior
to a drought and famine in Wollo in 1973 (McCann 1995). In response to its devastating effects,
21
the acting government (the Derg) established the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC).
address long term land management concerns through promoting reforestation and implementing
SWC technologies. Since then, the country has made considerable investments in soil and water
conservation (Adgo et al. 2010; McCann 1995; Munro 2008). A study in Tigray, northern
Ethiopia, which spanned over 30 years of documenting changes in land cover, erosion rates, and
the effects of SWC technologies through photography demonstrated soil degradation is not
irreversible; SWC technologies that employ conservation structures can have a positive impact
on land management practices (Munro 2008).
Figure 2.4: Terracing in Konso, Ethiopia (photo credit: S. Kammer)
There are many SWC technologies that have demonstrated an ability to significantly
reduce the effects of soil erosion. SWC technologies with specific regard to erosion control can
be categorized into one of three basic groups: mechanical structures, biological structures, and
22
mixed structures. Common mechanical SWC structures include terracing (Figure 2.4), stone/soil
bunds, check dams, ditches, and exclosures. Biological SWC technologies offer inexpensive
means to control erosion through the use of trees, shrubs, and grasses within land management
systems. Although biological SWC measures take more time to establish, they often provide
additional products and services aside form erosion control.
Exclosures and restricted grazing work by completely excluding animals from grazing, or
from overstocking levels that would promote erosion. A study within the Blue Nile Basin of
Ethiopia that focused on different grazing land management systems found that
grazing reduced surface runoff by more than 40% and curbed the rate of soil erosion by more
than 50% compared to freely open communal grazing systems. Its vegetation cover persisted
above 70% throughout the year, meeting the threshold level recommended to keep surface runoff
and soil loss to a mi
). Exclosures that are completely restrictive to
(Mekuria 2007).
Figure 2.5: Construction of stone check dams in Konso, Ethiopia (photo credit: S. Kammer)
23
Stone bunds and soil bunds reduce the steepness or length of a slope in intervals along a
hillside. Bunds are created by forming continuous rows of ditches and mounds along the
contours of sloped land (Figure 2.5). There are many varieties of bunds but they generally
operate in the same fashion: over time, bunds form terraces as erosive processes build up soil
behind them. In Ethiopia, a study comparing terrace adopters and non-adopters within the
highlands of the Amhara Region demonstrated that terraces have a positive impact on soil and
water conservation activities, increasing overall crop productivity, household income, and food
security (Adgo et al. 2013). Established soil and stone bunds have been demonstrated as a viable
technology in the Ethiopian highlands for reducing sheet and rill erosion while at the same time
enhancing water infiltration and increasing crop production (Juying et al. 2009).
Check dams are made from a variety of materials, such as loose rock, wire-mesh gabions,
wood, and/or concrete. Check dams are constructed within ditches or gullies and function by
segmenting water channels at intervals to reduce the velocity and erosive force of water. Over
time, sediment is deposited uphill of these structures and the steepness of slope and erosivity of
the water channels are further reduced (Nyssen et al. 2004).
Vegetation cover can reduce the effects of surface and subsurface erosion. Foliage, crop
residue, and mulch reduce the erosivity of rainsplash by intercepting rain drops. Vegetative
stocks and stems disrupt the flow of surface water and prevent entraining from forming gathering
force and becoming destructive channels. Below ground, roots keep soil aggregates intact,
reduce the leaching of macro-nutrients, and resist the translocation of soil aggregates (Morgan
2005; Zhang & Shao 2003; Mulumba & Lal 2008).
Contour farming is the practice of ploughing land, sowing seeds, and establishing crops
along the contour of sloped land (Figure 2.6). The direction of tillage can have a significant
24
influence on the translocation of soil. In a study observing the differences between vertical and
contour tilling in the Sichuan Basin of China, contour tilling reduced erosion rates between 7784% (Zhang et al. 2004). Planted densely along contour lines, certain tree, shrub, and grass
species effectively create living barriers that perform similarly to terraces, check dams, or berms
when established (Stroosnijder 2009; Dalton et al. 1996; Tadesse & Morgan 1996).
Figure 2.6: A row of pigeon pea (Cajunus cajun) will support this soil bund in Wolkite, Ethiopia
(photo credit: TFTFc)
In many SWC systems that employ vegetative control over erosion, plant species are
deliberately chosen to provide multiple benefits to make up for the crop space they require.
Additional products and services from tree and shrub species might include, but are not limited
to, fuel wood, charcoal, food, fodder, local medicine, bee forage, live fencing, windbreaks,
25
construction materials, tools, beautification, shade, mulch, and nitrogen fixation (Lasco et al.
2014; Rosenstock et al. 2014 ; Bekele-Tesemma 2007; Cornelis & Gabriels 2005).
Moringa (Moringa stenopetela) and Terminalia (Terminalia brownii) are examples of
tree species commonly grown in the southern areas of Ethiopia that provide soil stabilization and
much more. Moringa is a food staple, rich in calcium and vitamins. It also affixes nitrogen to
the soil and is useful as bee fodder. Moringa is drought resistant and can be pruned to grow well
between crops or provide shading (Jahn 1991). Terminalia coppices grow well and quickly,
providing firewood, charcoal, timber, tools and tool handles, traditional medicines, fodder, and
mulch (Bekele-Tesemma 2007). Grasses are employed in SWC designs because they can reduce
soil erosion and provide fodder, thatch for housing/shelter, and, in the case of vetiver grass
(Vetiveria zizanioides), aromatic/marketable oils (Dalton et al. 1996).
In mixed structure SWC technologies, biological and mechanical measures work together
to support each other and further reduce erosion. Mixed structure systems can better control
drainage and reduce erosion than either one alone (Herweg & Ludi 1999). Vegetative strips that
are planted alongside berms, check dams, and terraces allow water to infiltrate deeper soil and
reduce surface runoff, which is then made easier to control by the mechanical structures in place
(Nyssen et al. 2004; Belay & Bewket 2012; Gebretsadik 2014; Herweg & Ludi 1999).
Although the benefits of practicing soil and water conservation techniques through
mechanical and biological means are clear, not every hillside farming community has adopted
them. Surprisingly, SWC initiatives have had many setbacks within Ethiopia. Until the last
decade, the participation of SWC projects initiated by the Ethiopian government and outside
agencies underemphasized individual farmer investments. These programs often ignored the
perspectives and needs of farmers, resulting in cases where SWC technologies were pushed upon
26
farmers without their genuine involvement or interest and in some cases using coercion or food
incentives as the implementing strategy (Bewket 2007).
Research spanning across several communities within Ethiopia has identified the
following factors influencing whether or not SWC technologies are adopted by small-scale
farmers: the amount of labor required, perceived risks involved, a greater need for quick returns
over long term gains, land tenure issues, the degree of appropriateness of the technology to the
local environment, off-farm employment opportunities, size and quality of land cultivated, age of
the farmer, access to SWC education or training, and the complexity of design of the SWC
technology (Amsalu & Graaff 2007; Deressa et al. 2009; Herweg & Ludi 1999; Tesfaye &
Brouwer 2012). Because each farming community is situated within a unique set of
environmental, cultural, and economic circumstances, the extent to which these factors have an
influence over the practice of a SWC technology is limited to the study areas where the research
was conducted.
In the following section, an adoption and diffusion theory popularized by Everett Rogers
(2003) will be
diffusion model is useful because it provides a general
understanding of the factors associated with adopting technologies despite the characteristics of a
technology or the community to which it is introduced.
3. ADOPTION AND DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS
There are many reasons a technology could be rejected, or adopted and spread throughout
a community, region, nation, or beyond. One of the most popular models that simplifies the
complexity describing the adoption and diffusion processes is Everett Rogers diffusion and
innovation theory. According to Rogers , the diffusion of an innovation consists of four main
27
components: an innovation, communication channels, time, and members of a social system
(Rogers 2003). Each of these components has important qualities and will be discussed below.
Innovations
Rogers defines innovation as any idea, practice, technology or program that is perceived
as new by an individual or unit of adoption (i.e. community or organization) (Rogers 2003).
However general innovation is defined, each innovation is different in terms of its unique set of
attributes that can increase the likelihood and rate of its adoption. Rogers identifies five
attributes of an innovation that influence its adoption: (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility,
(3) complexity, (4) trialability, and (5) observability.
Relative advantage is the degree of which an innovation is perceived as being superior to
a former innovation it aims to replace. Rogers stresses that it is not important whether an
innovation is objectively more efficient or productive than another innovation but that it is only
perceived as such. Further, perceived advantages can be related to social factors, convenience,
atibility is the degree to which
an innovation is perceived as being consistent with existing values, past experiences, and needs
of potential adopters. Compatible innovations address specific needs of a group or individual
within an approved social structure. Incompatible innovations run contrary to the beliefs,
attitudes, norms, or environment in some way, which produces resistance to adoption.
Innovation complexity is the degree of difficulty perceived in the use or understanding of
an innovation. Simply stated, the easier it is to understand or use an innovation, the more likely
that innovation will be adopted. Trialability is the degree to which an innovation can be tested
or experimented within a given amount of time. Potential adopters reduce uncertainty related to
an innovation if they are able to investigate for themselves how the innovation can affect their
28
lives through experimentation. Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation
are made visible to others. Observability plays a large role in the diffusion process because it
stimulates discussion about innovations throughout the communities in which they are practiced
(Rogers 2003).
Communication Channels
The attributes of an innovation cannot be conveyed by their merits alone. Innovations
rely on communication channels that allow the transfer of information from one person or group
to another, either creating knowledge about an innovation, forming and changing attitudes, or
otherwise influencing a decision to accept or reject the adoption of that innovation.
Communication channels can consist of a variety of possibilities for knowledge transfer,
including mass media (T.V., radio, internet, newspapers, etc.) and/or interpersonal connections
(Rogers 2003).
Time and Innovativeness
Because all decisions to adopt or reject an innovation requires passing through stages,
time is intrinsically involved with the diffusion of innovation theory. Through time we can
measure the rate of adoption, categorize individuals or groups by their innovativeness, and better
understand the innovation-decision process (described later). Rogers defines innovativeness as
the relative time for an individual to adopt an innovation compared to the entire population of
adopters. In cases where an innovation is successfully diffused within a social system, the
number of adoptees can be graphed over time, which eventually approaches a Gaussian
distribution (Figure 3.1). Innovativeness categories are defined by the point at which adopters
dev
29
adopters include: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Figure
3.1; Rogers 2003).
Figure 3.1:
)
Earlier adopters consist of the innovators, early adopters, and the early majority. Later
adopters consist of the late majority and the laggards. Over the past several decades, diffusion
research has identified general characteristics for each category of innovativeness involving their
socioeconomic status, personality values, and communication behavior (Rogers 2003).
Innovators are primarily venturesome individuals. They are gatekeepers that introduce
new ideas from outside to the community they reside. Innovators typically are able to cope with
the risk and uncertainty involved with the adoption of innovations. Because they are not strictly
bound to the values and practices of their immediate community, they may not be well respected.
Early adopters are most noted as role models that maintain respect within their community.
They often play an advisory or leadership role and influence opinions on whether others should
adopt or reject innovations. The early majority consist of one third of total adopters and are
quicker to adopt than the average person within the adopting population. These individuals are
30
thought to be deliberate with adoption and interact regularly with their peers. However, they are
not often in the role of opinion leadership as the early adopters are.
The late majority comprise a third of the total adopting population and consist of those
who adopted just after the average time of adoption. Their later adoption is related to economic
restraints, skepticism, and peer pressure. Laggards are the last to adopt within the categories of
innovativeness. Laggards are not opinion leaders; they often have a closed network of peers, a
lack of resources, and want to be sure an innovation works before adopting it.
Social Systems
All diffusion occurs within a social boundary. This boundary is defined by Rogers as the
are engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish
2003). The units that make up a social system can be individuals or
group of any size so long as these units are invested within a common goal related to an
innovation. Social systems can either facilitate or create obstructions for the diffusion process
(Rogers 2003).
Understanding the Innovative-Decision Process
The innovation-decision model is useful for conceptualizing how the spread of ideas,
practices, technologies, or programs within a community generally occur and what factors may
be promoting or hampering their diffusion. The innovation-decision process begins with an
awareness of an innovation. Awareness is created either through chance encounters with an
innovation or through actively seeking innovation exposure according to interests, needs, or
existing attitudes. (Rogers 2003).
31
Figure 3.2: The innovation-decision process (Rogers 2003)
The innovative-decision process proceeds through five stages: acquiring knowledge,
developing an attitude towards accepting or rejecting an innovation, deciding to adopt or reject
an innovation, implementing the innovation, and confirming the results of an innovation with the
expectations that motivated its adoption (Figure 3.2). Those who adopt an innovation may find
that after implementation they are not satisfied and so discontinue its use. Similarly, those who
reject an innovation may adopt it at a later time (Rogers 2003).
The social systems that change agents interact with represent many social structures,
needs, interests, and geophysical landscapes. As such, a thorough understanding of these factors
and how they relate to the adoption of an innovation within a given community is important.
Within Ethiopia, agriculture extension agents, researchers, international government and
nongovernmental entities have spent a substantial amount of time and energy towards the
diffusion of agriculture innovations for the benefit of small-scale farmers. A site-specific
32
understanding of the adoption-decision processes within the communities where these change
agents work could save considerable resources while improving the efficacy of their outreach.
This study investigates factors influencing the adoption of SWC technologies within two
rural areas of Ethiopia so that agricultural outreach involving soil and water conservation may be
enhanced. In the proceeding section I will describe the study areas where I collected data and
provide detail as to the methods I employed to investigate factors influencing the practice of
SWC technologies.
4. METHODOLOGY
During the course of my Peace Corps service (December 2010
April, 2014), I was
exposed to farming communities that responded differently to the threat of soil erosion and
water runoff in their farms. During my initial service as a Peace Corps Volunteer I was
assigned to the kebele (smallest administrative unit) of Sibboo. Sibboo belongs to the Bure
Woreda (district) within the Oromiya Region (Figure 4.1). Within this district I worked with
agricultural extension agents and observed few SWC technologies being practiced despite the
recognition of erosion and siltation problems identified by the local agricultural extension
office.
Figure 4.1: Bure Woreda and Konso Special Woreda, Ethiopia (adapted from Golbez 2006)
33
After completion of my two-year contract as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Sibboo, I
opted to extend my Peace Corps service and provide support to Trees for the Future (TFTF), an
international NGO based out of Maryland, USA. The largest TFTF projects were located in
the Konso Special Woreda (an autonomous district) within the Southern Nations, Nationalities,
SNNPR) of Ethiopia (see Figure 4.1 above). Starting in January, 2013, I
made several project related trips to Konso and eventually relocated there until the close of my
Peace Corps service in April, 2014. Within Konso I observed farmers who made extensive use
of biological and physical structures designed to reduce erosion. Below I will provide a brief
description of the two study areas.
Sibboo & Magersa
Bure Woreda
During my initial Peace Corps assignment I lived in the town of Sibboo within the
Bure Woreda (Figure 4.2). Sibboo is roughly 660km west of Addis Ababa by road and is one
of the many small towns between the cities of Gambela (to the west) and Metu (to the east).
According to the most recent population and housing census, the town of Sibboo has a
population of 2,003 people (Central Statistical Agency, Ethiopia 2007).
Incentives for stopping in Sibboo, as with most small towns throughout the country,
relate principally to the lower costs of agricultural commodities produced locally, such as
coffee, tea, honey, local produce, and chaat (a social drug consisting of leaves which are
chewed to produce a stimulant effect). Sibboo has no bus station and less than a dozen of its
citizens own a motorized vehicle. Travel from Sibboo entails walking or hailing a bus,
motorcycle taxi, or private vehicle from the road. However, since the construction of the
Metu-Gambella Road in 2011, travel through the area has improved significantly.
34
Figure 4.2: The town of Sibboo, Bure Woreda (photo credit: S. Kammer)
Figure 4.3: Rainy season within Magersa (photo credit: S. Kammer)
Figure 4.4: Landscape of Magersa at the start of the dry season (photo credit: S. Kammer)
35
The administrative area of Sibboo consists of several smaller communities including
the village of Magersa (Figures 4.3, 4.4). Magersa consists of nearly 6,000 hectares of
undulating land, predominately loam and clay soils. Of this area, 2% is classified as flat
whereas the majority (86%) has a grade between 3 and 15%. Land use is primarily
agricultural (coffee production and animal husbandry are the most popular) although there is
an increasing trend towards growing chaat. Other commonly grown crops include corn,
sorghum, local varieties of beans, chick pea, pepper, black cumin, ginger, peanut, and sesame.
Magersa has an elevation of 1,700 meters and an average annual precipitation of 1980 mm (78
inches) (Bure Administration 2010).
Shortly after arriving, I began working with the agricultural extension agents in
Magersa whose responsibilities include advising farmers and promoting the use of beneficial
agricultural technologies. In collaboration with extension agents, I assisted in promoting
contour planting and the use of multi-purpose tree species and grasses, which are able to
mitigate the effects of soil erosion while providing additional benefits and services, such
as fuel wood, charcoal, food, fodder, local medicine, bee forage, live fencing, windbreaks,
construction materials, tools, beautification, shade, mulch, and nitrogen fixation.
Karat Town and Surrounding Communities
Konso Special Woreda
Following the conclusion of my initial two year Peace Corps contract, I extended my
service and was reassigned to work in Addis Ababa where I supported TFTF projects within
the country. The largest TFTF projects were located in the Konso Special Woreda within
SNNPR. During the period between January and April 2014, I lived in Karat (Figure 4.7), the
capital of Konso, to facilitate TFTF related activities. In association with a local NGO, the
Konso Development Association (KDA), joint TFTF-KDA projects included watershed
36
restoration, afforestation, tree nursery management, seedling distribution, modern apiculture
workshops, and several other community outreach programs designed to enhance livelihood
strategies for the Konso people.
In 2011, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) designated 5,500 hectares within Konso as a world heritage site in recognition of
within the harsh and arid environments that characterize this region (UNESCO 2014). Rural
villages within Konso are typically fortified settlements that are surrounded by stone terraces
(Figures 4.5, 4.6.). The landscape of Konso is undulating and mountainous and covers a total
of 202,286 hectares. The soils vary according to location but are typically 35% sandy, 30%
clay, and 35% loamy over the total area of Konso (Mulat 2013). Elevations within Konso
range from 500 to 2,000 meters (1,640 ft to 6541 ft) above sea level. Most of the year Konso
is dry with an erratic rainy season that produces an average annual precipitation of 623 mm
(24.5 inches) (KDA 2014).
Land use in Konso is primarily agricultural, and consists of a mixed cropping system
that makes use of an extensive area of terraced fields or otherwise modified areas of land
designed to trap water and reduce soil erosion. Sorghum, coffee, chaat, yam, corn, cassava,
sweet potato, taro and cotton are the more commonly grown crops in Konso. Trees are also
integrated within the farmlands and include various multi-purpose species such as moringa
(Moringa stenopetala), African pencil cedar (Juniperus procera), Terminalia (Terminalia
browenii), African wild olive (Olea africana), wanza (Cordia africana), Mopopaja tree
(Sterculia africana), and girar (Acacia abyssinica) (Mulat 2013).
37
Figure 4.5: A village within Konso, a UNESCO world heritage site (photo credit: Y. Beyene)
Figure 4.6: Traditional houses and terracing within Konso (photo credit: V. Brown)
Figure 4.7: Town of Karat, capital of Konso (photo credit: B. Gagnon)
38
The observed differences in the use of SWC technologies between Bure Woreda and
Konso Special Woreda represented an opportunity to define and consequently better
understand the factors that influence the adoption and diffusion of SWC technologies. To
accomplish this objective, it was essential to become familiar with small-scale farmers. To
gain insights into their agricultural practices, personal interviews and participant observation
were conducted within the two study areas that generally characterized the adoption (Konso) or
non-adoption (Bure) of SWC technologies.
Data Collection
study is
at least in part
2007). More specifically, a case study focuses on a contemporary phenomenon and considers
behavioral events of which a researcher has little or no control (Yin 1994). In addition to these
qualities, case studies are generally more accessible across a diverse audience than other types
of research and are informative to policymakers, specialists, and the general public alike (Yin
1994). The case study approach was the preferred methodology for the research design
because this study focuses on a current concern within the study areas (erosion), the data
collected was primarily qualitative, the researcher had little control over the behaviors
investigated, and the results drawn from this research were meant to provide insights to
individuals and organizations involved in the agricultural sector of study areas so that
agricultural practices could be enhanced.
The bulk of my data collection involved nearly 100 interviews performed in the village
of Magersa (49 interviews) and communities within the Konso Woreda (50 interviews). Before
39
Human Subjects Division to conduct this study (Exemption #43180). In accordance with this
exemption, individual names and the precise locations of each interview participant were kept
confidential during the interview process. After my interviews were completed, all information
that could be used to identify interviewees was destroyed to ensure participant anonymity.
I made extensive efforts to meet with farmers throughout the communities located within
the study areas. However, a lack of infrastructure and resources made this task problematic. For
this reason, interviews occurred where ever possible within houses, on farms, in market areas,
along roadsides, in fields, and in cafes, offices, and restaurants. Interview participants were
identified through non-randomized, purposive sampling. Criterion sampling was used to qualify
interview participants; each participant was 18 years of age or older, managed farmland within the
study areas, and gave voluntary, informed consent to participate in the interviews.
Interviews were semi-structured, included open and closed ended questions, and lasted
between 25-45 minutes each. The interviews were both exploratory and structured, inquiring on a
range of factors including land size, household size, area farmed, access to resources, knowledge of
SWC technologies, practice of SWC technologies, and general outlooks related to the ability of
farmers to improve soil health (see Appendix 1 for complete interview guide).
Interpreters assisted in translating the majority of the interviews and were native speakers of
the languages used in the study areas. Prior to working with the interpreters, I reviewed each
question within the interview guide to clarify what was being asked. I deviated from the interview
guide when I needed explanations to clarify questions or responses during the interview process.
This study is also informed by extensive participant-observations made throughout my
service as a Peace Corps Volunteer and as a resident living within the study areas. As a Peace
40
Corps Volunteer I closely interacted with the agriculture extension agents, NGOs and community
based associations who focused their efforts primarily in rural locations. As a resident living in
the study areas I was able to learn the local languages and cultures while developing rapport with
community members. Together my work activities and daily social interactions within the study
areas provided me with a more comprehensive understanding of farmers and farming practices
than interviews alone could have achieved.
Soil & Water Conservation Technologies
For the benefit of the reader, pictures and brief descriptions of SWC technologies mentioned in
this report are provided below. Many SWC techniques are used with others to enhance the
performance of one another.
Trenches & Berms
Trenches and berms are
established along the contour of unlevelled ground to
form barriers which prevent water and soil from
moving freely downslope. Trenches and berms are
often paired together to enhance their function of
slowing water and trapping sediment but are effective
as separate SWC technologies. Over time, as more
sediment is deposited upslope, these structures begin
to look similar to terracing.
Berms are often
reinforced with vegetation, as seen in Figure 4.7.
Stone bunds function in the same way that berms do
Figure 4.8: Trenches & berms (photo
credit: TFTFd)
but use stones instead of soil.
41
Check Dams - Check dams are barriers designed to
prevent the widening and further erosion of trenches
and gullies created from water erosion. Check dams
are typically constructed from wood posts and forest
residuals and/or stone but can be made from a variety
of material as seen in Figure 4.9. Where extensive
erosion has occurred and resources are available,
stronger check dams can be used.
Gabions, for
example, which consist of stones encased in metal
cages can add substantial resistance to erosive water
events. To reinforce check dams, vegetation is often
incorporated. Over time, trapped sediment will be
Figure 4.9: Successive check dams slow deposited behind a check dam and form an elevated
water and trap sediment along this roadside
during the rainy season (photo credit: and more level ground.
TFTFe)
Applied Organics & Soil Bowls - Organic material
provides soil nutrients and establishes cohesive soil
structure that provides resistance to wind and water
erosion. The most common forms of applied organics
within the study areas included crop residues,
compost, and animal manure.
Within Konso,
organics are often applied to soil bowl structures to
provide support to the soil, as seen in Figure 4.10.
Soil bowls are land forms which clearly resemble
their name. Their bowl shape allows for water to be
Figure 4.10: Crop residuals are left retained after rain events.
within the fields, placed along the ridge
of soil bowl structures (photo credit: S.
Kammer)
42
Water Reservoirs - Water reservoirs
are areas designated to store water
from directing runoff from rain
events. The majority of farmers do
not have the resources to create a
private water reservoir as seen in
Figure 4.11. Within Konso, several
large communal water reservoirs
have been built and are maintained
Figure 4.11: A water reservoir made from concrete and entirely by the community.
tarpaulin (photo credit: S. Kammer)
Vegetation
Strips
&
Contour
Planting - Contour planting is the
practice of planting crops, trees,
and/or shrubs along the contour of a
slope (Figure 4.12). Water and soil
moving downslope are slowed by
vegetation above and below ground.
Established vegetation following the
contour of unleveled ground reduces
the occurrence of water entrainment
Figure 4.12: Vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides) and channeling and subsequently the
helps stabilize this unleveled farm land (photo credit: A. destructive waterways that can result
McCausland)
within farm lands.
43
Terracing - Terracing is a technique
employed on hillsides to create leveled
ground.
Terracing is commonly performed
by stacking stones in successive walls along
the contours of a hillside (Figure 4.13).
Terracing requires a lot of labor with
establishment and maintenance. Overtime,
vegetative strips can also create terracing as
Figure 4.13: Example of stone terracing within sediments are deposited upslope.
Konso (photo credit: S. Kammer)
Tree Planting - Many tree species provide
soil stabilization for unleveled ground while
supplying additional products and services,
such as food, fodder, bee forage, shade and
beautification,
firewood,
fencing,
and
construction material. Trees commonly used
for SWC designs also affix nitrogen (such as
Acacia saligna in Figure 4.14), provide
Figure 4.14: An example of intercropping trees shade for coffee, and give mulch from their
(Acacia saligna) within cropland (photo credit:
fallen leaves.
S. Kammer)
5. DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis began in the field where the majority of the interviews were translated from
the local language (chiefly Amharic, Oromo, or Konso) into English. Although the interpreters
were proficient in English and in some cases had previous formal work experience as
interpreters, some data might have been altered during translation. I recorded interview
responses hand and structured responses into the categories based on the layout of the interview
44
hat did not
relate directly to the questions asked. These statements were subsequently categorized as
. Shortly after the interviews were conducted, I transcribed responses
electronically into a Microsoft Word document. Transcription of interviews involved further
organizing responses so that they fit into a uniform format that could facilitate subsequent
analysis.
Many of the questions used during the interviews were open-ended and elicited short
narrative responses. To assist with the qualitative data analysis, I used
NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software (2012). Within NVivo, interview responses were
coded, which involved a meticulous examination of words, phrases, and passages that conveyed
ideas or broad themes for the researcher
diffusion theory, previous research on the adoption of SWC technologies and from interview
responses themselves. Data were coded using a mixed methods approach guided by inductive
and deductive analyses in a rigorous iterative process. Several coding strategies described by
Saldaña (2013) were employed within NVivo to help interpret the data - primarily structured,
attribute, evaluation, initial, and holistic coding.
The deductive data analysis used structured coding based on components of the
adoptionfactors of SWC adoption recognized by previous research in Ethiopia. Data were examined for
words and phrases that were characterized by these labels (see Table 5.1 for an example of the
codes used and the descriptions associated with them). This process continued until I could no
longer identify data that fit into the deductive-based themes and categories. At the end of this
45
process, the frequency of data collected under each coded label was used to determine the extent
technologies in the study areas.
Initial Coding
Structured Coding
Table 5.1: Example of codes used during deductive and inductive data analyses
Label
Description
Opinion Leader
Individual or group referred to as a source of information or
advice for agricultural practices
Relative Advantage
Whether the SWC technology mentioned by the respondent
had a relative advantage over the traditional/conventional
technology
Compatibility
Whether the SWC technology was compatible with existing
societal norms, the local environment, and/or the needs of
respondent
Complexity
Whether the SWC technology was easy to learn, perform, or
replicate
Expensive
The respondent identified an item, service, or technology as
being expensive
Labor Intensive
The respondent identified an agriculture technology as
requiring a lot of effort, labor, or assistance from others
Lack of Grass
The respondent state that there was a problem with not having
enough vetiver or elephant grass (a grass used in many
contour planting projects to reduce erosion)
Inductive analysis was based on grounded theory which asserts that hypotheses can be
generated from qualitative data and are not dependent on a preconceived theory to explain a
phenomenon under investigation (Glasser & Strauss 1967). Where codes based on theory driven
explanations could not account for the data, inductive analysis provided a means to generate
hypotheses or provide further description of how specific factors could be contributing to the
practice of SWC technologies. Two distinct coding cycles were used to process the data in this
way.
The first coding cycle entailed a subjective process of decoding and encoding the data.
Decoding involves analyzing portions of data for its essential meaning while encoding assigns
46
words or short phrases that best describe this meaning (Saldaña 2013). Inductive data analysis
primarily involved initial coding, starting with emergent words, concepts, or phrases which the
researcher identified as being significant based on their observed frequency, patterns within the
data, and/or their relationship to the adoption of SWC technologies (see Table 5.1 above for an
example of initial coding labels and their descriptions).
Throughout the first coding cycle, the data was analyzed repeatedly to better define
codes. In many cases, codes were merged or were split to form new codes or subcategories,
depending on the broader context of the data they represented. Codes were not mutually
exclusive and data were frequently shared between two or more codes. An excerpt from the
data and an example of how interview responses were coded during the first coding cycle is
presented in Figure 5.1.
resources
vary
from
one
distribution to the next. 1Some
farmers are given good seeds and
others are not. 2It is not consistent.
The resources come from many
places, from the extension workers
and from nurseries. 3It is like a
lottery, whether or not seeds will
germinate well or the crops will
grow as they are described.
4
Sometimes this is a result of the
climate and the crops not doing
well in this community because this
site has an unfavorable climate and
5
those that gave the resource did
1
DEFECTIVE SEEDS
2
RISK
3
4
LACK OF RAIN
5
CRITICISM
Figure 5.1: Example of first cycle coding for one interview response
In the above example (Figure 5.1), the respondent described problems he encountered
with seeds and other resources provided by agriculture extension agents and tree nursery
47
managers. The codes assigned within this excerpt were chosen based on the factors I felt
might influence the adoption of SWC technologies. These codes were later grouped and
categorized with other codes.
The first cycle coding ended when I could no longer identify distinct codes and further
analysis of the data required a broader approach to determine how the codes related to each
other as well as the objectives of the research. Although first cycle coding was concerned with
creating codes, themes and categories naturally emerged from the decoding and encoding
process. During the first cycle coding process, these emergent categories and themes were
recorded for further analysis within the next coding cycle.
Second cycle coding involved the determination of themes and theories based on the
coded data from the first coding cycle. When the labels for codes became repetitive or
appeared to have relationships with other codes within the data, they were placed in unifying
and hierarchical categories and themes. The placement of codes within broader themes and
categories was also determined by their explanatory power in addressing the research question
(e.g. what factors did farmers identify as influencing the adoption of SWC technologies within
the two study areas.
A conceptual framework of how codes, categories, and themes were organized to
support emergent theories is shown in Figure 5.2. Such models were not created for each
analysis in NVivo but were useful representations of how coded data could be organized to
provide explanations related to the research question. See figure 6.3 within the results for an
example of how this model was used.
48
Figure 5.2: Creation of a categorical hierarchy from codes to theory (adapted from Saldaña
2013)
The process of creating codes to represent the data and the organization of these codes
to identify overarching themes and theories was the same throughout the second coding cycle.
However, the organizational structures varied by quantity of codes, categories, and themes
used to support the theories.
The majority of interview responses were brief
3 or 4 sentences. As a result, much of the data analysis involved magnitude coding, a process
by which numbers or words are assigned to data to measure intensity, frequency, direction,
presence, or evaluative content (Saldaña 2013). Although interview respondents were selected
based on criterion sampling (a non-probability sampling technique), statistical analyses were
undertaken in SAS (1999) to investigate the extent that these factors may have influenced the
adoption of SWC technologies.
A summary of the data fields produced through magnitude coding and later used in SAS
is presented in Appendix B of this report. Many predictor variables were considered as binary
49
in the analyses, represented by either a 1 or 0 (e.g., practiced, not practiced; aware, not aware).
Size
with more than two levels (e.g. Land
Type
Crop Movement
of Terrace
according to whether or not the
respondent indicated they were aware of specific SWC techniques
assigned within the awareness data fields did not indicate
knowledge of a given SWC technique but rather that the respondent at least recognized the
technique by name as a means to conserve soil and water on agricultural land. The data field,
corresponding to respondents from Konso was an exception to this
process. I determined that because of the community efforts required to maintain several large
water reservoirs within the study area, all respondents within Konso would be at least aware of
the practice. This was not the case for Magersa respondents because communal water reservoirs
were not present there.
epresents respondents who identified at
least one SWC technology during the course of the interview.
Practice Organics
Reservoirs
Strip
whether or not the respondent reported that they practiced a specific SWC technology (Table
5.2). For example, respondents who were
to indicate that they practiced contour
50
planting. The majority of respondents claiming to practice one or more SWC technologies was
sum total
the practice data fields listed above. The data field
A logistic regression in SAS (1999) was used to test the significance of predictor
variables (refer to Appendix B for a summary of predictor variables analyzed in SAS). Forward
and backward selection methods were used to determine which predictor variables had
significant influence on two response variables: 1) whether or not at least one SWC technology
was practiced (a binary response variable) and 2) the sum total of SWC technologies practiced
(an ordinal response variable). Significance was based on the likelihood ratio chi-squared (G2).
For predictor variables that were relevant (e.g. the variable referring to site location was
dismissed because it represented too many factors) and determined to be significant, odds ratios
were estimated.
T-tests were performed to consider differences between the two study areas and the
continuous variables, such as land area and household size. Categorical data, such as whether or
not a SWC technology was practiced or not, were analyzed to identify significant differences
between the study
-squared test.
Analyses within NVivo and SAS complimented each other and supported a robust
examination of the data.
Where data from interview responses could be quantified, statistical
analysis was conducted. Because the interview guide used to conduct the interviews was semi
structured and contained many closed-ended questions, much of the data could be examined
through quantitative analysis. The majority of the data analyzed through NVivo were responses
51
to open-ended questions, explanatory in nature, and not readily classified into categories that
would lend themselves to statistical analyses.
6. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Results from quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest that the following factors have
a significant influence on the adoption of SWC technologies for farmers within the study areas of
Magersa and Konso: awareness of SWC technology, needs and interests, communication
channels within the farming communities, whether support is received with agricultural
practices, the source of support received to perform agricultural practices, and the area of
cultivated. Details of statistical analyses are provided in Appendix C.
Awareness & Practice of SWC Technologies
Results from the statistical analysis suggest that the main driver for the adoption of SWC
technologies within the study areas was the sum total of SWC technologies of which respondents
were aware. The sum total of SWC technologies of which farmers were aware significantly
influenced whether they practice at least one SWC technology (p < 0.001). Odds ratios
indicated that farmers within Konso and Magersa were 4.2 times more likely to practice at least
one SWC technology for every SWC technology that they are aware of.
The sum total of SWC technologies of which a farmer was aware has a significant
influence on the total number of SWC technologies they practice (p < 0.001). Farmers were 6.3
times more likely to practice an additional SWC technology for every SWC technology that they
are aware of.
The results also suggest that there was a significant difference between Magersa and
Konso in relation to whether or not farmers were aware of at least one SWC technology (p =
52
0.02). The mean number of SWC technologies that Magersa respondents are aware of was 2.7.
By contrast, the mean number of SWC technologies that Konso respondents are aware of was
5.3.
Specifically, Konso farmers were significantly more aware of the following SWC
technologies, relative to Magersa farmers: trenches and check dams (p < 0.001), organic soil
amendments (p = 0.004), water reservoirs (p < 0.001), terracing (p < 0.001), and planting trees as
a means of promoting soil and water conservation (p < 0.001). Magersa farmers, by contrast,
were significantly more aware of vegetative strips as a SWC technology than were their Konso
counterparts (p < 0.001). An illustration of how respondents differed with awareness of different
Percent of Respondents Aware
SWC technologies is presented in Figure 6.1.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100%
96%
98%
92%
80%
59%
53%
43%
35%
16%
30%
47%
33%
24%
14%
6%
SWC Technologies
Magersa, n = 49
Konso, n = 50
Figure 6.1: Percent of respondents aware of specific technologies by study area
53
100%
90%
88%
Percent of Respondents Practicing
90%
80%
80%
72%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
26%
24%
14%
6%
8%
16%
12%
8%
2% 2%
10%
6%
0%
SWC Technology
Magersa, n = 49
Konso, n = 50
Figure 6.2: Percent of respondents practicing specific technologies within study areas
The results also show that there was a significant difference between Magersa and Konso
in relation to whether or not farmers practiced at least one SWC technology (p < 0.001). The
mean number of SWC technologies that Magersa respondents practiced was 0.7. In contrast, the
mean number of SWC technologies that Konso respondents practiced was 3.8. Konso farmers
are significantly more likely to practice the following SWC technologies: trenches and check
dams (p < 0.001), organic soil amendments (p < 0.001), terracing (p < 0.001) and planting trees
(p < 0.001). An illustration of how respondents from Magersa and Konso compared with respect
to practicing SWC technologies is presented in Figure 6.2 above.
Magersa respondents were substantially more aware of the vegetative strips and contour
planting than Konso respondents (Figure 6.1). However, on both accounts Magersa respondents
54
reported practicing less than Konso respondents (Figure 6.2). The disparity between knowledge
and practice observed of Magersa respondents in these instances may be explained by a variety
of factors apart from general awareness. These factors include but are not limited to the needs of
the farmers, the relative newness of SWC technologies within the Magersa community, and
available resources. These factors are explored further below.
Needs & Awareness
It is unclear whether a need influences awareness or the awareness creates a need (Rogers
2003). However, interview responses indicates that the need and the open-mindedness to learn
and practice SWC technologies were present within both communities. The majority of
respondents (97%) recognized erosion as a threat on sloped land; 38% of respondents wanted to
know more about SWC and/or modern technologies; and 36% of respondents thought
advisement and information about agriculture practices as it relates to their region was important.
Interview analyses within NVivo suggest that many Konso farmers are satisfied with the
current information they have related to agriculture technologies but reserved a general curiosity
towards modern or new technologies.
I
something beyond my knowledge. Although, if there is a new, modern technology to make use of,
I would like to know about it.
was repeated by many Konso respondents. In the
illustration below (Figure 6.3), an example is provided of how coded data within NVivo were
organized to better understand the difference of interests reported within the study areas.
55
Figure 6.3: Starting with codes and developing categories, themes, and theories with respect to
the interests of respondents. Subcategories representing Magersa and Konso respondents were
(adapted
from Saldaña 2013)
From the total responses coded to indicate an interest to learn additional agricultural
practices, 14 (28%) Konso respondents were represented. Of these respondents the primary
interest was to learn more about fertilizer use and unspecified modern techniques that might
improve production. In contrast, Magersa responses displayed a considerable amount of interest
to learn additional agricultural practices; 46 Magersa respondents (94%) reported an interest to
learn a wide range of agricultural practices. In regards to SWC practices, 35 Magersa
respondents (71%) expressed an interest to learn about SWC technologies whereas only 3 (6%)
of Konso respondents were interested in the same.
In general, Magersa respondents expressed a pronounced interest to learn agricultural
techniques with a considerable emphasis on SWC technologies. This suggests that the source of
knowledge and the transfer of information related to SWC technologies are considerably
56
different between the communities of Magersa and Konso (e.g. the majority of Konso
respondents could not name the techniques they were not familiar with or could benefit from
through learning).
Communication Channels & Awareness
Because awareness of SWC technologies is likely to have a significant influence on the
practice of SWC technologies, it is important to look at the communication channels from which
information about the SWC technologies is spread. Telecommunication, radio, and other means
of receiving information from mass media networks are not possible for many farmers within the
study areas because of the lack of infrastructure, resources, and/or technology. Instead, the
transfer of information relies primarily on face-to-face interactions with other farmers and
agricultural extension agents.
Information on SWC technologies from outside the study areas were provided by
government and non-government agencies alike. Respondents from both study areas mentioned
the only outside agency promoting new or
alternative agricultural strategies. As a temporary resident within Konso, I observed nongovernmental agricultural agencies actively introducing new concepts to farmers in an effort to
enhance agricultural practices. In many cases these agencies worked collaboratively with the
government to gain access to the communities. This is important to highlight because Konso and
Magersa differed greatly with respect to the amount of attention their farmers received from
NGO agricultural agencies.
Konso farmers appeared to have a substantial advantage, with respect to the availability
of SWC technologies. During the two years I lived near Magersa, I observed no outside
57
were no NGOs or formal agricultural community programs within the Magersa community that
aimed to introduce new or alternative agriculture technologies. Konso, on the other hand, had
several tree nurseries entirely funded from outside organizations, a community association that
worked with farmers extensively to build capacity with agricultural techniques, and a host of
researchers and tourists who hoped to observe or suggest opportunities for alternative
agricultural practices in the Konso area.
Inside influences also affect the adoption of SWC technologies. The Konso people have
been practicing SWC technologies for centuries and consequently have many elders within the
community that represent a wealth of information regarding these agricultural practices. In
contrast, farmers in Magersa have only recently begun adopting SWC technologies. Interview
responses suggest that the long history of agriculture in Konso likely has an impact on how
farmers use their community members for advisement. The Konso respondents who sought
advice about agricultural activities (74%) identified the following as sources for such advice:
elders within the community (42%), government extension agents (40%), other farmers (8%),
and relatives (10%) (Figure 6.4).
10%
Elders
8%
42%
Government
extension agents
Other farmers
Relatives
40%
Figure 6.4: Sources for advisement on agricultural techniques identified by Konso respondents
58
The non-government categories represented in Figure 6.4 (relatives, elders, and other
farmers) were not mutually exclusive. The main concept identified here is that more than half
the advice for Konso respondents came from within their communities. Elders represented the
main source of advice for Konso respondents. In general the elders represented traditional
knowledge or and an alternative source of information when government extension agents could
not fully address a concern. Nearly half of the elders were identified as local astronomers who
informed farmers when to sow seeds based on the stars present in
astronomers in each village,
There are local
In this village there are two
people who are astronomers. If these people take seeds to the field, the entire community
watches them and does the same
In contrast, the Magersa respondents who sought agricultural advisement (68%)
identified only two sources for advice; government extension agents and tree nursery managers.
For Magersa respondents, the government extension agents represent the primary source for
agricultural advisement (Figure 6.5).
6%
Government
extension agents
Tree nursery
manager
94%
Figure 6.5: Sources for advisement on agricultural techniques identified by Magersa respondents
59
Interview analysis concerning Magersa and Konso respondents, revealed that the
were commonly perceived as
More importantly, government extension agents
represented individuals who are educated, experienced, and knowledgeable with new or modern
farming practices. However, the effectiveness of extension agents - in some cases - is uncertain.
Respondents from both study areas mentioned that the extension agents did not supply enough
helpful information about SWC technologies or they were in some way restricting the willing
practice of SWC technologies by farmers:
Planting trees in the field is recommended by the agriculture extension
agents but this creates a competition with the crops. So they have to teach us
about the distances between trees and crops. The development agents say to
h
Konso respondent
lines. They say we do it wrong. We also resist making terracing structures
starting from the top of a slope, rather than from the bottom, as we do it. We
resist because we want soil to form terraces
where can you get soil for the
- Konso respondent
A person has a benefit according to their close association with the
gov
- Magersa respondent
60
Another means by which information related to SWC technologies can be communicated
is through observation. Within Magersa, there are few demonstration SWC technologies which
farmers observe. During the time spent within Magersa, I observed that the majority of the SWC
technologies implemented were recent additions to the landscape and their benefits are not yet
apparent or they were incomplete and therefore relatively nonfunctional. One Magersa farmer
described
provide any benefits
By comparison, the landscape within Konso has many long standing examples of
terracing as well as other SWC technologies. Farmers within Konso described these techniques
as beneficial and described their function with confidence because they have made observations
and seen them funct
You can compare easily the land that is
bare to a land that has tree or shrub cover
Bare land has greater
erosion problems whereas those with vegetation coverage can keep the soil from moving
On hillsides and mountain slopes the land erodes when the rains come
it washes away the fertile soil. You have to make terraces to prevent this. Also, you can plant
trees and shrubs. After this, the land keeps fertility. Otherwise just bare land is left that is not
productive
Observability of SWC technologies likely has an impact on the decision to adopt these
technologies. Risks and uncertainties associated with SWC practices are reduced by exposure
and observation of the SWC technologies. Konso farmers had many more examples of terracing
and tree planting within their farm lands than did farmers in Magersa. Observability plays a
large role in the diffusion of technologies because it stimulates discussion about innovations
throughout the communities where they are practiced (Rogers 2003).
61
The means by which SWC information travels within the two study areas were
substantially different. Konso received more advisement on SWC technologies from outside the
community, had more community members who were knowledgeable about SWC practices
(many of which are traditional), and practiced numerous long-standing SWC technologies. In
contrast, Magersa had fewer sources for agriculture advice (less exposure to technologies
existing outside the community and few community members from which to receive advisement)
and had far less demonstrable SWC technologies. These factors likely contributed to the
difference of awareness and practice of SWC technologies within the study areas.
Needs & Practice of SWC Technologies
Resource intensive SWC technologies (e.g. terracing, check dams, trenches, water
reservoirs) are those require relatively high amount of labor, time, and/or money to perform
them. Labor intensive SWC technologies did not appeal to respondents unless the alternative to
practicing them meant rapidly degraded and/or unproductive land. The majority of respondents
who practiced these technologies were those who perceived them as urgently needed or who felt
that these technologies made production possible rather than simply providing a means to
enhance agricultural practices. For example, Konso respondents reported that the absence of
physical structures or vegetation on hillsides creates a bare, unproductive land of stones. Several
farmers described the surrounding landscape of Konso as follows:
nothing is made to oppose the slope of the land, the soil can easily erode. Land structures that
where
62
The sense of urgency or necessity to practice SWC technologies like terracing was not
present with Magersa respondents. Some Magersa respondents thought that the SWC
technologies were meant for land that was already degraded. One Magersa respondent reported
that he knew how to terrace and how to plant trees and grasses for the purpose of soil and water
conservation but that he did not practice them because the surrounding area was not experiencing
a famine and therefore was not worth the investment. Another Magersa respondent shared the
same sentiment, stating
Help Received & Practice of SWC Technologies
Results suggest that farmers who received help (regardless of the source) were
significantly more likely to practice the following SWC technologies: trenches, soil bunds,
berms, soil bowls, and/or check dams (p < 0.05), adding/mixing organics into soil (p < 0.05),
terracing (p < 0.05), and using trees for soil and water control (p < 0.05).
In addition, the results suggest that the type of help received (hired labor, relatives or
neighbors, or farming groups) significantly influenced the SWC technology a farmer practiced.
Farmers who used farm groups were significantly more likely to practice trenches, soil bunds,
berms, soil bowls, and/or check dams (p < 0.001), adding/mixing organics into soil (p < 0.001),
terracing (p = 0.003), and using trees for soil and water control (p = 0.002).
Farmers who received help from relatives and/or neighbors were 3.1 times more likely to
practice an additional SWC technology, and were more likely to practice terracing (p = 0.003)
and planting trees (p = 0.003). Respondents who hired help were more likely to plant trees (p =
0.044).
63
Neighbors &
Relatives
46%
Hired Labor
19%
Assistance Received 65%
Figure 6.6: Sources for assistance with agricultural activities reported by Magersa respondents
The results suggest that there was a significant difference between farmers in Konso and
Magersa and their likelihood to receive help regardless of the source, (p < 0.001). In addition,
Konso farmers were significantly more likely to receive help from cooperative farm groups (p <
0.001) than farmers in Magersa (Figures 6.6 and 6.7).
Relatives &
Neighbors
49%
Cooperative Farm
Group 26%
Hired Labor
25%
Assistance Received 98%
Figure 6.7: Sources for assistance with agricultural activities reported by Konso respondents
64
The use of farming cooperative groups was prevalent in Konso. Farmers called these
-
f-help groups typically consist of 3
8 farmers, each of
whom assists the other members of the group and receives help from them in return. The
benefits of belonging to a cooperative farming group is that they are less expensive than hiring
labor (typically the famer who is getting assistance will host the other farmers within his group
with food and drinks) and it guarantees a source of labor that
either as a result of work or education responsibilities.
Several Magersa respondents stated that help with agricultural activities was difficult to
find. When asked where help was received when there was more work than he could manage,
No help - the individuals here work for themselves only and help
themselves
each farmer has his
own practice. There is no time to share work efforts with others
Larger households likely provide farmers with more dependable access for inexpensive
labor. Results suggest that there is a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the household
size of Magersa farmers ( = 5.3) and Konso farmers ( = 8.0). Household size has a significant
influence on the practice of SWC technologies, p = 0.012. Furthermore, for every additional
member within a household, a farmer is 1.3 times more likely to practice an additional SWC
technology.
Land Area Managed & Practice of SWC Technologies
Results suggest that the area of land managed by farmers in Konso (
3.0) and Magersa
( = 2.5) vary significantly (p = 0.03). Generally, land area did not have an effect on the practice
of SWC technologies. Land areas that were greater in size had a significant influence on the
which included the SWC technologies, trenches,
65
check dams, soil bowls, or stone bands. That is, the greater the land area managed, the less
likely a farmer was to practice either of these techniques (p =0.03). These results show a
preference for farmers to use alternative techniques when managing larger lands. More research
is needed to determined why this would be the case.
Only 6% of total respondents mentioned that a lack of land as a factor that prevented
them from practicing SWC technologies. Within Konso, concern for cultivating other land was
expressed as sourcing areas with greater fertility rather than adding to the total area of land
managed. Of the Magersa respondents, 18% stated that farm size affected their land use
strategies.
This research did not intentionally measure the influence that land fragmentation or the
distance between these fragmented lands might have had on the practice of SWC technologies.
Out of 99 respondents, 23 mentioned the number of locations on which they farmed.
Unfortunately, there was not enough data to perform a statistical analysis but it is worth
mentioning that of the respondents who included the number of locations with the total area of
land they managed, there was an average of 3 locations managed with no indication of distance
between them. One respondent managed 3 separate fields that only amounted to a single
hectare. Land fragmentation may have an impact on the practice of SWC technologies because
of the travel required. A respondent from Konso, who indicated that distance issues made it
difficult to practice SWC technologies, reported,
Now we have farmland far from our village. I have to walk 4 hours to my farm land from my
house. With the remaining time that I have available, it is necessary for me to collect water. For
this reason I lack time to practice terracing and
66
Several respondents reported that they were renting land they farmed. These respondents
reported practicing few SWC techniques because they were limited to the farming practices
desired by t
vetiver grass, fertilizer, or seeds, because they need to come through the owner of the land, not
the renter.
e no interest to ask.
and were limited in the types of practices they could employ because of their renting status.
Other Factors Influencing the Adoption & Practice of SWC Technologies
The preservation of cultural and traditional systems of agriculture within Konso was
affected to some extent by the designation of Konso as one of nine world heritage sites within
Ethiopia. In 2011, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) recognized Konso as a world heritage site and has since supported Konso in
maintaining its unique cultural landscape, of which the terracing and agricultural system is a part.
As a tourist destination, Konso communities receive a substantial amount of national and
international attention and encouragement to maintain or expand their agricultural practices,
including many SWC techniques.
The effects of international attention towards encouraging the adoption or continued
practice of SWC technologies within the Konso area can be best summarized by one respondent
at t
contribution to the world. Thank you for promoting and encouraging our practice through your
was not recognized by Ethiopia or the
world. Until recently, we had no context to appreciate our efforts
67
The SWC technologies in Konso are actively preserved and promoted through UNESCO.
In 2010, a proclamation regarding the protection of the delineated heritage site was instated so
that development would be restricted within 50 meters of its boundaries. By contrast, the
promotion of SWC technologies within Magersa outside of the role of the researcher as a Peace
Corps Volunteer, was limited to a few extension agents and tree nursery managers.
The gender of farmers may have had an influence on the practice of SWC technologies.
Female farmers represented only 4% of interviews and revealed mixed messages of how gender
may affect the practice of SWC tec
Because I am a
woman I cannot do anything. I need someone else to work my land and figure out what needs to
be done
woman.
It is difficult to get resources because I am a
The second two female respondents did not indicate whether their gender had any
effect on the farming practices or their access to resources.
There was no significant relationship found between the number of SWC technologies a
respondent was aware of and the years of farming experience a respondent had.
Limitations of Research & Researcher Bias
Interview participants were identified through non-randomized, purposive sampling due
to a lack of infrastructure and resources. Criterion sampling was used to qualify interview
participants; each participant was 18 years of age or older, managed farmland within one of the
study areas, and gave voluntary, informed consent to participate in the interviews. Results from
statistical analyses are therefore suggestive of the greater populations within the study areas.
Interviews occurred primarily outside of the
farmland and therefore the
practice of SWC technologies reported by interview responses were not verified. Consequently,
the effectiveness to which SWC technologies were practiced were not taken into account.
68
My presence as a foreigner, even after living in the study areas for months or years, may
have had an effect on responses from interview participants. My association with the local
agricultural extension agents may have given the impression to some of the respondents that I
the interview and research objectives.
7. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
There are numerous agricultural practices that farmers can use to reduce the damaging
effects associated with hillside farming and subsequent soil and water loss. However, despite the
prospect of land degradation, not every farmer will practice SWC technologies. Based on
preliminary research, results suggest that several factors influence the practice of SWC
technologies within the study areas of Magersa and Konso. As such, change agents, those
individuals or organizations within the Magersa and Konso who are striving to influence the
adoption of SWC technologies, are encouraged to practice the recommendations that follow.
Increase Exposure of SWC Technologies & Maximize Outreach
General awareness of SWC technologies is intrinsically connected to the communication
channels. Within both study areas, farmers depend primarily on face to face interactions with
SWC knowledgeable sources and through observation and evaluation of SWC technologies
themselves. Change agents should therefore implement the following tactics to increase
exposure of farmers to SWC technologies:
Identify and use opinion leaders within the community to promote SWC
technologies - Opinion leaders are individuals who have a high degree of opinion
h an individual is able to influence other individual
69
2003). Because of their advisory and role within the community, information spreads
quickly from opinion leaders. Rogers (2003) advises change agents to identify and work
with opinion leaders early to make the most efficient use of their time and resources.
Within the diffusion of innovation model opinion leaders are early adopters, those
individuals who are open to new technologies, maintain respect, and hold a leadership
(formal or informal) or exemplary role within their community.
Respondents indicated several opinion leaders that they referred to for agricultural
advisement. Within Magersa, the primary opinion leaders were the agriculture extension
agents. As the main change agent within Magersa, the Magersa agriculture extension
agents are in a unique position to promote SWC technologies with substantial support
from farmers. Within Konso, opinion leaders included agriculture extension workers but
also included community members. Change agents working within the areas of Magersa
and Konso should strive to gain the support from these community members so that the
SWC technologies they are promoting have receive greater support throughout the
community.
When seeking out opinion leaders, be aware of innovators, those individuals who
can be mistaken for opinion leaders but for their lack of followers. When change agents
focus their efforts on innovators, they may transmit a lot of information but few within
the social system will adopt to follow suit (Rogers 2003).
Conduct a training for trainers within the community
Many of the respondents
revered agriculture extension agents as individuals who are knowledgeable and
experienced with modern agricultural technologies. As such they are given a distinctive
position to influence the practice of many farmers. However, due to limited resources,
70
extension workers within the study areas are not likely to have the capacity to advise
everyone. In my experience working with an agriculture extension agent I found that
many farmers live too far away for individual advisement. This fact was made clear
during a field work event when the agriculture extension agent I was with claimed he
had never been to that area before, despite years of living in the area, the immediate
threats of erosion, and it being within his jurisdiction.
Limited budgets, the absence of all-weather roads, and transportation issues affect
farmers and change agents (not limited to the agriculture extension office). Increasing
the number of knowledgeable individuals who are able to implement and teach a given
SWC technique has the potential to substantially increase the outreach capability of a
change agency.
Change agents could overcome these barriers by seeking out capable
and motivated community members to train as auxiliary SWC technology trainers so that
agricultural outreach can be improved and farmers are provided adequate information on
SWC technologies.
Establish and maintain demonstration areas for SWC technologies
Demonstration
areas that have SWC technologies on display offer a place that can continually
communicate to farmers the effects associated with using a SWC technology.
Demonstration plots can also offer farmers the opportunity to discuss what they observe
from the technology, thereby reducing uncertainties of the technology, how the
technology functions, and what resources are involved with the implementation or the
maintenance of the technology.
Both Magersa and Konso had at least one farmer training center, an area
71
practices, providing resources, or facilitating discussion about farming practices. Famer
training centers host demonstration plots for agricultural practice and are therefore
obvious locations for demonstration sites for SWC technologies. However, other sites
could be used as well, including school grounds or communal areas elected for
restoration efforts.
Encourage information and experience exchange between farmers who have
extensive experience with SWC technologies and those without experience
An
experience exchange program can increase awareness of SWC technologies either within
a single community or between separate communities. Facilitating farmer exchange
programs that involve traveling from one region of Ethiopia to another would require
funding; most likely the change agent would need to provide financing or otherwise
encourage the community to support exchange programs across regions. Alternatively,
an exchange program could focus on the community members within a single
community, identifying farmers substantially more experienced with SWC technologies
and other farmers who are not. Aside from reducing associated costs, focusing on
exchange between a single farming community would ensure language and cultural
differences would not interfere with knowledge transfer.
Cooperative Farming Groups
Many farmers reported that they lacked time and/or labor force required to perform
agriculture activities. These obstacles may be overcome through assistance with agricultural
practices. Within Konso these limitations were addressed in part by cooperative farming groups,
-
-8 farmers
72
Cooperative farming groups similar to the one described eliminate costs associated with hiring
labor and ensure a labor force is available. Such groups should be further encouraged and within
Konso and introduced within Magersa so that more farmers are able to practice the promoted
SWC technologies despite the i
resources.
Adapting SWC Technologies to Site
Within Ethiopia agriculture extension agents, researchers, international government and
nongovernment entities have spent a significant amount of time and energy towards the diffusion
of agriculture innovations for the benefit of small-scale farmers. The social systems these
change agents interact with represent a large variety of social structures, needs, interests, and
geophysical landscapes. To successfully influence the social system assigned, change agents
need to develop rapport with these communities, identify opinion leaders, and introduce
innovations that fit the needs of individuals and groups within the communities they serve.
One of the most significant factors influencing a
new ideas or technologies is the degree to which they tailor an innovation to meet the needs and
interests of a community. With respect to promoting SWC technologies, change agents should
keep the limitations of the environment, the resources available to the majority of farmers, and
the interests of the farming community in mind. Regardless of how beneficial a SWC
technology is, if the environment is not suitable, (i.e. an essential resource is missing or the target
farmers do not have an interest or perceive a need to practice it), effort to promote such a SWC
technology will meet substantial resistance.
Traditional agricultural practices within a farming community may also present a
challenge for change agents implementing SWC technologies. For example, Magersa and Konso
differ dramatically with respect to how the communities raise their livestock. Within Magersa,
73
livestock are permitted to graze within farmlands between the harvest and sowing seasons. If
enclosures are not established or guards are not in place to prevent livestock from entering fields
where trees, shrubs, and grasses were recently planted for SWC efforts, livestock will likely
consume or otherwise destroy them. Within Konso, livestock are generally taken to graze in
communal lands that are not designated for crop production.
Further Research
The need to practice specific SWC technologies may have been perceived differently by
respondents based on the amount of rainfall received within the study areas. Magersa
respondents experienced roughly three times as much rainfall than Konso respondents and
therefore may feel less obligated to conserve water as they would be to prevent erosion. Except
for the water reservoirs, being primarily a water conservation technology, the SWC technologies
covered within this report provide both water and soil conservation. Further research is needed
to determine whether the perception of rainfall affects the adoption of SWC technologies.
Gender roles may have an impact on the amount of information to which a farmer has
access. There was not enough female representation from among respondents to determine what
impact gender might have on the access of SWC technology information. However, two out of
the four female respondents interviewed suggested that there was a gender bias in regards to
information that was accessible by farmers. Further research might focus specifically on the
accessibility of agriculture extension workers or agricultural resources for female farmers in
Konso and Magersa.
It is not clear why farmers who managed larger land areas practiced less trenches, check
dams, soil bowls, or stone bands. More research is needed to conclude why these technologies
are influenced by land size.
74
In addition, there was not enough data collected to determine whether the number of
separate locations managed by a farmer had a significant effect on practice of SWC technologies.
Land fragmentation may have an effect on the adoption of SWC technologies as distances
between cultivated lands may affect whether or not farmers have the ability to invest in their
land. Further research could determine if land fragmentation is affecting the amount of SWC
technologies Konso and Magersa farmers practice.
The promotion of culture may have an influence on the adoption of SWC technologies.
Konso represents a unique location within Ethiopia that attracts tourists in part because of its
agricultural landscape, which has been altered by its farmers. The practice of terracing and
various SWC technologies attract the attention of researchers, NGOs, and tourists alike. Further
research could explore how promotion of culture through tourism and international recognition
influenced the practice of traditional SWC and modern SWC technologies.
75
References
Adgo, E.; Teshome, A.; Mati, B. (2013). Impacts of Long-Term Soil and Water Conservation on
Agricultural Productivity: The Case of Anjenie Watershed, Ethiopia. Agricultural Water
Management, 117, 55 61.
Aguiar, M. (2010). Ethiopia. Encyclopedia of Africa. Oxford University Press. doi:
10.1093/acref/9780195337709.001.0001
Alemayehu, M.; Amede, T.; Böhme, M.; Peteres, K. (2013). Collective Management on
Communal Grazing Lands: Its Impact on Vegetation Attributes and Soil Erosion in the Upper
Blue Nile Basin, Northwestern Ethiopia. Livestock Science 157, 271 279.
Amsalu, A.; Graaff, J. (2007). Determinants of Adoption and Continued Use of Stone Terraces
for Soil and Water Conservation in an Ethiopian Highland Watershed. Ecological Economics,
61, 294 302
Ananda, J.; Herath, G. (2003). Soil Erosion in Developing Countries: A Socio-Economic
Appraisal. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 343 353
Bekele, M. (2001). Forestry Outlook Studies in Africa (FOSA). Ethiopia, Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations.
Bekele-Tesemma, A. (2001). Useful Trees and Shrubs for Ethiopia: Identification, Propagation,
and Management for 17 Agroclimatic Zones. World Agroforestry Center Nairobi, Kenya
Belay, M.; Bewket, W. (2012). Assessment of Gully Erosion and Practices for its Control in
North-Western Highlands of Ethiopia. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 69, No.
5, 714- 728
Bewket, W. (2007). Soil and Water Conservation Intervention with Conventional Technologies
in Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and Adoption by Farmers. Land Use Policy,
24, 404 416
Beyene, Y. (Photographer). Konso Cultural Landscape [Photo]. Retrieved from
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1333
BFS. Blue Forest Safaris. (Tourism Agency). No caption available [Photo]. Retrieved from
http://www.wild-about-you.com/GameMountainNyala.htm
Brown, Vicki. (Photographer). UNESCO World Heritage. [Photo] Retrieved from
http://makanaka.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/world-heritage-and-the-agrarian-trilogy
Bure Administration. (2010) Agriculture Extension Office 2010 Report. Ilubabor Zone: Bure
Burron, N. (2002). Ethiopia. Worldmark Encyclopedia of National Economies. Gale. Farmington
Hills, MI. 167-178.
Central Statistical Agency, Ethiopia (2007). Ethiopia Population and Housing Census 2007.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Central Statistical Agency Government of Ethiopia.
76
CIA. Central Intelligence Agency. (2014) Ethiopia. The World Fact Book. Retrieved September,
2014, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/et.html
Cornelis, W.; Gabriels, D. (2005). Optimal Windbreak Design for Wind-Erosion Control.
Journal of Arid Environments, 61, 315 332.
Crewett, W.; Bogale, A.; Korf, B. (2008). Land Tenure in Ethiopia: Continuity and Change,
Shifting Rulers, and the Quest for State Control. Collective Action and Property Rights. Working
Paper No. 91.
Dalton, P.; Smith, R.; Truong, P. (1996). Vetiver Grass Hedges for Erosion Control on a
Cropped Flood Plain: Hedge Hydraulics. Agricultural Water Management, 31, 91 104.
Dejene, A. (2003). Integrated Natural Resources Management to Enhance Food Security: The
Case for Community-Based Approaches in Ethiopia. Environment and Natural Resources.
Working Paper No. 16.
Deressa, T.; Hassan, R.; Ringler, C.; Alemu, T.; Yesuf, M. (2009). Determinants of
Choice of Adaptation Methods to Climate Change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global
Environmental Change, 19, 248 255.
Expansion and Forest Decline
Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography Journal Compilation. (2008): 187-203
FAO. (2005) Irrigation in Africa in figures: AQUASTAT Survey
2005. Water Reports, No. 29.
FAO. (2011) Foreign Agricultural Investment Country Profile: Ethiopia. FAO Investment Policy
Support, 7.
Furlan, U. (Photographer and Blogger). Ethiopia: Hammer Tribe [Photo]. Retrieved from
http://www.endlessroads.net/2014/03/ethiopia-hamer-tribe.html
Gagnon, B. (Photographer). (2012). Town of Konso [Photo]. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konso#mediaviewer/File:Konso.jpg
Gebre-Selassie, A.; Bekele, T. (2012). A Review of Ethiopian Agriculture: Roles, Policy and
Small-Scale Farming Systems. Global Growing Casebook: Insights into African Agriculture.
Global Growing Campaign Location, 36-65
Gebretsadik, W. (2014) Evaluation of the Adaptability and Response of Indigenous Trees to
Assisted Rehabilitation on the Degraded Hillsides of Kuriftu Lake Catchment (Debre Zeit,
Ethiopia). Journal of Forestry Research,
Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press
Gibbons, A. (2010). Our Earliest Ancestors. Smithsonian. Retrieved November, 2014, from
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-human-familys-earliest-ancestors7372974/?no-ist
77
Glasser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company
Golbez. (2006) Map of the Regions of Ethiopia in English [Illustration]. Retrieved from
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Ethiopia_regions_english.png.
Haileslassie, A.; Priess, J.; Veldkamp, E.; Teketay, D.; Lesschen, J. (2005). Assessment of Soil
Ethiopia Using Partial versus Full Nutrient Balances. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
108, 1-16.
Hammond, M. (2013) The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and the Blue Nile: Implications
for Transboundary Water Governance. Global Water Forum. Retrieved, September, 2014, from
http://www.globalwaterforum.org/2013/02/18/the-grand-ethiopian-renaissance-dam-and-theblue-nile-implications-for-transboundary-water-governance
Herweg, K., Ludi, E. (1999). The Performance of Selected Soil and Water Conservation
Measures Case Studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea. Catena, 36, 99 114
Holden, S.; Benin, S.; Shiferaw, B. Pender, J. (2003). Tree Planting for Poverty Reduction in
Less-Favoured Areas of the Ethiopian Highlands. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management
and Policy, 2 (1), 63-80.
Hudson, N. (1995). Soil Conservation. London, UK: B.T. Batsford
Huet, J-C. (Phtographer). A Man Harar [Photo]. Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jean-christophe_huet/14277158933/
Jackrel, R. (Photographer). Sanetti Wolf [Photo]. Retrieved from
http://www.ethiopianwolfproject.com/photos/ethiopian-wolves/
Jahn, S. (1991). The Traditional Domestication of a Multipurpose Tree Moringa Stenopetala
(Bak.f.) Cuf. in the Ethiopian Rift Valley. AMBIO, Vol. 20, No. 6, 244-247.
Jemma, H. (2004). The Politics of Land Tenure in Ethiopian History: Experience from the South.
Paper Prepared for XI Congress of Rural Sociology, Trondheim, Norway, July 25-30.
Juying, J.; Houyuan, Z. Zanfeng, J.; Ning W. (2009). Research Progress on the Effects of Soil
Erosion on Vegetation. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29, 85 91
KDA. (2014). Konso Development Association 2014 Report. Konso Special Woreda, Southern
Nations Nationalities and Peoples, Ethiopia.
Kwekudee. (Photographer and Journalist). (2013). Majangir Tribe Woman from fide, Gambella,
Ethiopia [photo]. Retrieved from http://kwekudeetripdownmemorylane.blogspot.com/2013/08/majangir-manjangmasong-people-nilotic.html
Lafforgue, E. (Photographer). Karrayyu warriors with his Gunfura Traditional Hairstyle in
Gadaa Ceremony Ethiopia [Photo]. Retreived from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mytripsmypics/6766246083/sizes/m/
78
Lasco, R.; Delfino, R. Catacutan, D.; Simelton, E.; Wilson, D. (2014). Climate Risk Adaptation
by Smallholder Farmers: the Roles of Trees and Agroforestry. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 6, 83 88.
McCann, J. (1995). People of the Plow: An Agriculture History of Ethiopia, 1800-1990.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
McCausland, A. (Photographer) Report on Permaculture Training in Dembe Dollo, Western
Ethiopia [Photo]. Retrieved from http://permaculturenews.org/2013/07/29/report-onpermaculture-training-in-dembe-dollo-western-ethiopia-part-1/
Mekuria, W.; Veldkamp, E.; Haile, M.; Nyssen, J.; Muys, B.; Gebrehiwot, K. (2007).
Effectiveness of Exclosures to Restore Degraded Soils as a Result of Overgrazing in Tigray,
Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments, 69, 270 284.
Mengistu, A. (2006). Ethiopia. Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles. Rome, Italy: FAO
Morgan, R. (2005). Soil Erosion and Conservation (third edition). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Mulat, Y. (2013). Indigenous Knowledge Practices in Soil Conservation at Konso People, South
Western Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Vol. 2, No.2, 1-10.
Mulumba, L.; Lal, R. (2008). Mulching Effects on Selected Soil Physical Properties. Soil &
Tillage Research, 98, 106 111.
Munro, R.; Deckers, J. Haile, M.; Grove, A.; Powesen, J.; Nyssen, J. (2008). Soil landscapes,
Land Cover Change and Erosion Features of the Central Plateau Region of Tigrai, Ethiopia:
Photo-monitoring with an interval of 30 years. Catena, 75, 55 64.
Negassa, A.; Rashid, S.; Gebremedhin, B. (2011). Livestock Production and Marketing.
International Food Policy Research Institute, ESSP II Working Paper 26
NVivo. (2012). Qualitative Data Analysis Software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 10.
Nyssen, J.; Veyret-Picot, M.; Poesen, J.; Moeyersons, J.; Haile, M.; Deckers, J.; Govers, G.
(2004). The Effectiveness of Loose Rock Check Dams for Gully Control in Tigray, Northern
Soil Use and Management, 20, 55-64.
OGS. One Green Stone. (Tourism Consultancy. Marketing. PR. Representation). Festivals of the
Ethiopian Orthodox Church [Photo]. Retrieved from http://onegreenstone.com/ethiopianfestivals/
Orlowska, I. (2008). Ethiopia, Modern. New Encyclopedia of Africa (pp.295-307). Farmington
Hills, MI: Charles Scribner's Sons
Peterson, L. (Photographer). Abyssinian Catbird [Photo]. Retrieved from
http://www.larsfoto.se/en/gallery/bird-images-from-foreign-trips/birds-and-wildlife-ofethiopia/2840-abyssinian-catbird
79
Phillipson, D.; (2005). Aksum, Kingdom of. Encyclopedia of African History, Vol. 1, pp. 496 &
503. New York, NY: Fitzroy Dearborn Taylor & Francis Group.
Pausewang, S. (undated): The Need for a Third Alternative: The Amputated Debate on Land
Tenure in Ethiopia. www.irsa-world.org/prior/XI/papers/4-8.pdf [October 2014]
Purdy, E. (2006). Ethiopia. Encyclopedia of World Poverty (pp. 324-326). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Redman, N.; Fanshawe, J.; Stevenson, T. (2009). Birds of the Horn of Africa: Ethiopia, Eritrea,
Djibouti, Somalia and Socotra. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rogers, E. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rooke, S. (Photographer). Prince Ruspolie's turaco [Photo]. Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/59894185@N06/7002541171/
Rosenstock, T.; Tully, K.; Arias-Navarro, C.; Neufeldt, H.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Verchot L.
(2014). Agroforestry with N2-Fixing Trees: Sustainable Devel
or Foe? Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 15 21
Sadalmelik. (2007). Ethiopia: Topography [Illustration]. Retrieved from
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ethiopia_Topography.png
Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications
Santos, B. (Photographer). 20110212 - B.Gumuz 224 [photo]. Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/borjamonde/5447065843/in/photostream/
SAS Institute, Inc. (1999). SAS/STAT® User's Guide, Version 8. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC
Shuchuk, B. (Photographer). Male Gelada Baboon in Simien Mountains, Ethiopia [Photo].
Retrieved from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photocontest/2012/entries/189320/view/>
Solomon, H. (2014).Danakil-Depression and Red Sea Solution to the Ecological, Political and
Economic Challenges among Nile River Basin Countries. International Conference on
Agricultural, Ecological and Medical Sciences (AEMS-2014) July 3-4, 2014. London, U.K.
Stroosnijder, L. (2009). Modifying Land Management in Order to Improve Efficiency of
Rainwater Use in African Highlands. Soil & Tillage Research, 103, 247 256.
Ethiopian
Register, Vol.4, No.4.
Tadesse, L.; Morgan, R. (1996). Contour Grass Strips: a Laboratory Simulation of their Role in
Erosion Control Using Live Grasses. Soil Technology, 9, 83-89.
80
Tebebu, T.; Abiy, A.; Zegeye, A.; Dahlke, H.; Easton, Z.; Tilahun, S.; Collick, A.; Kidnau, s.;
Moges, S.; Dadgari F.; Steenhuis, T. (2010). Surface and Subsurface Flow Effect on Permanent
Gully Formation and Upland Erosion near Lake Tana in the Northern Highlands of Ethiopia.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14, 2207 2217.
Tesfaye, A.; Brouwer, R. (2012). Testing Participation Constraints in Contract Design for
Sustainable Soil Conservation in Ethiopia. Ecological Economics, 73, 168-178.
TFTFa. Trees for the Future. (International NGO). Ethiopia - Ploughing by Oxen, Konso - July
2013 [Photo]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/plant-trees/9498790461/in/set72157632792761609
TFTFb. Trees for the Future. (International NGO). Ethiopia - Kifyalow Looks Over Degraded
Lands Near Home, Nopha - May, 2013 [Photo]. Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/plant-trees/8850944381/in/set-72157632792761609
TFTFc. Trees for the Future. (International NGO). Ethiopia - Alley Cropping Using Trees and
Shrubs on Soil Bands (vi) - August, 2013 [Photo]. Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/plant-trees/9706249147/in/set-72157632792761609
TFTFd. Trees for the Future. (International NGO). Ethiopia - World Environment Day 2012
Celebration in Konso - June 2012 (Photo). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/planttrees/7465944536/
TFTFe. Trees for the Future. (International NGO). Ethiopia - Check Dams in Chiri - May 2012
[Photo]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/plant-trees/7307825774/in/set72157629153988739
Turner, J.; Abate, Y.; Wubneh, M.; Keller, E.; Ofcansky, T. (2005). Ethiopia: a country study
(fourth edition). Washington, D.C: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.
Cultural Organization. Retrieved November, 2014, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1333
UN-OCHA. (2006). (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs).
Annual Rainfall [illustration]. Retrieved, November, 2014, from
http://reliefweb.int/map/ethiopia/ethiopia-annual-rainfall
U.S. Gov. Press. (
Department of State. Retrieved November, 2014, from
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2006/03/20060328175501wcyeroc0.7154199.
html#axzz3M3Eag8Bs
USAID. (2008). Ethiopia Biodiversity and Tropical Forests 118/119 Assessment. Retrieved
November, 2014, from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADM939.pdf
USAID. (2012). Ethiopia Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2011-2015. Retrieved,
November, 2014, from
http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/Ethiopia_CDCS.pdf
81
UNHCR. (2008). United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. No Caption [Photo] Annual
Report 2008.
Valentin, C.; Poesen, J.; Li, Y. (2005). Gully Erosion: Impacts, Factors and Control. Catena, 63,
132 153
Wiese, R. (Photographer and Journalist). No caption [Photo]. Retrieved from
http://theworldexplorer.wordpress.com/category/afar/
Wolka, K. (2014). Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures and Challenges for its
Adoption: Ethiopia in Focus Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 7(4), 185-199.
World Bank. (2014) Ethiopia Data. The World Bank. Retrieved October, 2014, from
http://data.worldbank.org/country/ethiopia
World Bank. (2012). Ethiopia Economic Update - Overcoming Inflation, Raising
Competitiveness. The World Bank. Retrieved, November, 2014, from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2012/12/13/ethiopia-economic-updateovercoming-inflation-raising-competitiveness
WWF. Ethiopian Highlands. World Wildlife Foundation. Retrieved September, 2014, from
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/ethiopian_highlands.cfm
Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research, Design and Methods (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.
Yisehak, K.; Belay, D.; Taye, T.; Janssen, G. (2013). Impact of Soil Erosion Associated Factors
on Available Feed Resources for free-Ranging cattle at Three Altitude Regions: Measurements
and Perceptions. Journal of Arid Environments, 98, 70-78.
Zandbergen, A. (Photographer). Tigray woman with a traditional hairstyle, Eastern Tigray,
Ethiopia [Photo]. Retrieved from http://kwekudeetripdownmemorylane.blogspot.com/2014/08/tigray-tigrinya-tigraybiher.html
Zhang, J.; Friellinghaus, M.; Tian, G.; Lobb, D. (2004). Ridge and Contour Tillage Effects on
Soil Erosion from Steep Hillslopes in the Sichuan Basin, China. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 59(6), 277-284.
Zhang, X-C.; Shao, M-A. (2003) Effects of Vegetation Coverage and Management Practice on
Soil Nitrogen Loss by Erosion in a Hilly Region of the Loess Plateau in China. Acta Botanica
Sinica, 45 (10), 1195-1203.
82
Appendix A: Interview Guide
General Background Information
1. Where were you born?
If the respondent was not born in the current community s/he currently resides in:
When did you come to live/work here?
Why did you come to live/work here?
2. How many people live within your compound?
3. How many hectares of land do you reside on?
4. How many hectares do you use for farming purposes?
If the area of land owned is greater than that farmed
What are the other hectares of land used for?
5. How long have you been farming?
Knowledge
1. Are you aware of any agriculture techniques that promote soil fertility?
Describe which ones you are familiar with.
Which techniques of those you mentioned do you practice on your farmland?
Would you like to learn about agriculture techniques that promote soil fertility?
2. Are you aware of any agriculture techniques that promote water conservation?
If
Describe the agricultural techniques that promote water conservation you are familiar
with.
Which techniques of those you mentioned do you practice on your farmland?
Would you like to learn about agriculture techniques that promote soil fertility?
3. Are you aware of the impact on soil and water conservation for farms residing on hillsides and
unleveled ground?
Describe how unleveled ground affects soil fertility and water availability on farmlands.
Would you like to learn about agriculture techniques that promote soil fertility?
4. Are you aware of positive effects that certain trees, shrubs, and grass varieties can play on
farmlands residing on hillsides and unleveled ground?
83
Describe the trees, shrubs, and grass species you have knowledge of and what benefits
they can have on farmland residing on hillsides and unleveled ground.
Would you like to learn about tree, shrub, and grass varieties that have a positive impact
on farm land residing on hillside and unleveled ground?
5. What agriculture techniques would you like to learn more about?
Resources
1. When you have more work than you can manage by yourself, is it possible to receive help from
others when you need it?
From who do you receive help?
2. Do you feel you have enough time to properly manage your farm land?
3. Do you feel you have access to resources such as seeds, seedlings, grasses, fertilizer, etc, if you
should want or need them?
From where do you get these resources?
4. If you have questions related to farming practices, who would you ask?
If someone is named
Why do you think that s/he is qualified to answer these questions?
5. What resources do you think would help improve your farming the most (i.e. workforce, seeds,
information, etc.)?
How could these resources improve farming in this area?
Outlook
*first 2 questions omitted
3. Has farming practices in this area changed over the years that you have lived here?
84
What do you think influenced this change?
4. Do you think land fertility changed since you have lived here?
How has it changed?
5. Do you think it is possible for people to improve or maintain the quality of their farmland through
their farming practices?
What practices improve or maintain their land?
85
Appendix B: Summary of Data Fields Used for Statistical Analysis in SAS
Table of Data Fields Used for Quantitative Analysis in SAS
Data Field
Site
Description
The study area where the interview was conducted (Magersa or
Konso).
Native to Site
The respondent was native to the district of the study area (1=yes,
0=no)
Household Size
The number of people sharing the same household as the
respondent
Land Area
Land area managed by the respondent as measured in hectares.
Log transformation (using log10) of land area was used to
normalize data
Years Farming
The number of years the respondent has been farming. Many of
the respondents had been farming their entire life. Based on the
distribution of this variable, data were collapsed into two
categories (1 =25 years or more; 0 = less than 25 years)
Land Type
land)
Fertility Change
The soil fertility in the study area was viewed by the respondent as
Improvable
The respondent thought soil fertility could improve within the
study area (1=improvable, 0=not improvable)
Aware or Not
The respondent could identify one or more SWC technique
(1=Aware of one or more SWC technique, 0=not aware)
Sum of Awareness
The sum of SWC technologies the respondent identified (sum
total of data fields involving awareness)
Help Hired
The respondent hired help to manage his/her farmland (1=help
hired, 0=help was not hired)
Help Relative or Neighbor
The respondent received help from relatives or neighbors to
manage his/her farmland (1=help from neighbor, 0=no help from
neighbor)
86
Awareness Data Fields
Help Farm Group
The respondent utilized a formal farming group to help with
managing his/her land (1=help from a formal farming group, 0=no
help from a formal farming group)
Help or Not
The respondent indicated s/he received help from at least one of
the following: contracted laborers, relatives, neighbors, or from
formal farm groups (1=yes, 0=no)
Aware of Trench Check
The respondent was aware of the following SWC techniques:
trenches, soil bunds, berms, soil bowls, check dams (1=aware,
0=not aware)
Aware of Organics
The respondent was aware of one of the following SWC
techniques: applying crop residue, compost, and manure
(1=aware, 0=not aware)
Aware of Crop Movement
The respondent was aware of crop rotation or fallow periods
(1=aware, 0=not aware)
Aware of Contour
The respondent was aware of SWC technique of contour planting
(1=aware, 0=not aware)
Aware of Reservoirs
The respondent was aware of the SWC technique of creating a
water reservoir (1=aware, 0=not aware). All respondents from the
Konso study area were assigned a 1 in this data field because the
Konso community is highly involved with maintaining several
large communal water reservoirs. The researcher determined that
because of the massive work involved (concerning hundreds of
farmers) that maintaining a reservoirs represents, all respondents
would be at least aware of the practice. This was not assumed in
Magersa because large water reservoirs were not present there.
Aware of Veg Strip
The respondent was aware of one of the following SWC
techniques: planting trees, shrubs, or grasses close together along a
contour to prevent erosion (1=aware, 0=not aware)
Aware of Terrace
The respondent was aware of terracing as a SWC technology
(1=aware, 0=not aware)
Aware of Trees
The respondent was aware of planting trees as a SWC technology
(1=aware, 0=not aware)
Practice or Not
The respondent stated s/he practiced one or more SWC technique
(1=practiced one or more SWC technique, 0=nothing practiced)
Sum of Practice
The sum of SWC technologies the respondent identified s/he
practiced
87
Practice Data Fields
Practice of Trench & Check
The respondent practiced one or more of the following SWC
techniques: trenches, soil bunds, berms, soil bowls, check dams
(1=practiced, 0=not practiced)
Practice Organics
The respondent practiced one of the following SWC techniques:
applying crop residue, compost, and manure (1=practiced, 0=not
practiced)
Practice of Crop Movement
The respondent practiced crop rotation or fallow periods
(1=practiced, 0=not practiced)
Practice of Contour
The respondent practiced contour planting (1=practiced, 0=not
practiced)
Practice of Reservoirs
The respondent practiced collecting water in a water reservoir
(1=practiced, 0=not practiced)
Practice of Veg Strip
The respondent practiced of one of the following SWC techniques:
planting trees, shrubs, or grasses close together along a contour to
prevent erosion (1=practiced, 0=not practiced)
Practice of Terrace
The respondent practiced terracing (1=practiced, 0=not practiced)
Practice of Trees
The respondent practiced planting trees as for soil and water
conservation (1=practiced, 0=not practiced)
88
Appendix C: Results from Statistical Analyses
Sum total of SWC technologies of which farmers were aware
The sum total of SWC technologies of which farmers were aware was significantly
influenced whether farmers practiced at least one SWC technology (G2 = 27.07, p < 0.001).
Odds ratios indicated that farmers within Konso and Magersa are 4.2 times (95% CI: 2.3, 7.6)
more likely to practice at least one SWC technology for every SWC technology that they are
aware.
The sum total of SWC technologies that a farmer is aware of has a significant influence
on the total number of SWC technologies they will practice (G2 = 82.25, p < 0.001). Farmers
are 6.3 times (95% CI: 4.0, 9.8) more likely to practice an additional SWC technology for every
SWC technology they are aware.
Help received and the source of help received
Results suggest that farmers who receive help (regardless of the source) are significantly
more likely to practice one the following SWC technologies: trenches, soil bunds, berms, soil
bowls, and/or check dams (
2
= 13.8, df = 1, p < 0.05), adding/mixing organics into soil (
9.6, df = 1 p < 0.05), terracing (
2=
2
=
10.2, df = 1, p < 0.05), and the use of trees as a means of soil
and water control ( 2= 15.6, df = 1, p < 0.05).
In addition, results suggest that the type of help received (hired labor, relative or
neighbor, or farming group) significantly influences the SWC technology a farmer practices.
Farmers who utilize farm groups are significantly more likely to practice trenches, soil bunds,
berms, soil bowls, and/or check dams ( 2= 22.38, df = 1, p < 0.001), adding/mixing organics into
89
soil (
2
= 16.25, df = 1, p < 0.001), terracing (
a means of soil and water control (
2
2
= 8.73, df = 1, p = 0.003), and the use of trees as
= 9.88, df = 1, p = 0.002).
Farmers who receive help from relatives and/or neighbors are 3.1 times (95% CI: 1.3,
7.8) more likely to practice an additional SWC technology, and were more likely to practice
terracing (
2
= 8.64, df = 1, p = 0.003) and planting trees (
2
= 8.95, df = 1, p = 0.003).
Respondents who hired help were more likely to plant trees (
2
= 4.03, df = 1, p = 0.044).
Household size
Household size has a significant influence on the practice of SWC technologies, G2 =
6.30, p = 0.012. Furthermore, for every additional member within a household, a farmer is 1.3
times (95% CI: 1.1, 1.6) more likely to practice an additional SWC technology.
Land area managed
Log transformation (using log10) of land area was used to normalize data. Generally, land
area managed did not have an effect on the practice of SWC technologies. Land areas that were
check dams which included the SWC technologies, trenches, check dams, soil bowls, or stone
bands. That is, the greater the land area managed, the less likely a farmer was to practice either
of these techniques (G2 = 4.52, df = 1, p =0.03). For every log10 increase of land managed,
farmers were 4.2 times less likely to practice at least one of the following: trenches, check dams,
soils bowls, and stone bands (95% CI 1.1, 16.7).
90
Site characteristics: awareness SWC technologies
The results suggest that there is a significant difference between Magersa and Konso in
relation to whether or not farmers where aware of at least one SWC technology ( 2= 5.37, df =
97 p = 0.02). The mean number of SWC technologies that Magersa respondents are aware of is
2.7, the median is 3, the mode is 2 & 3, and the standard deviation is 1.44. By contrast, the mean
number of SWC technologies that Konso respondents are aware of is 5.3, the median is 5, the
mode is 5, and the standard deviation is 0.98.
Specifically, Konso farmers are significantly more aware of SWC technologies, relative
to Magersa farmers, in the following categories: trenches and check dams ( 2= 69.71, df = 1 p <
0.001), organic soil amendments (
1 p < 0.001), terracing (
water conservation (
2
2
2
= 8.08, df = 1, p = 0.004), water reservoirs (
2
= 87.68, df =
= 36.33, df = 1 p < 0.001), and planting trees as a means for soil and
= 23.79, df = 1, p < 0.001). Magersa farmers, by contrast, are
significantly more aware of vegetative strips as a SWC technology than their Konso counterparts
(
2
= 12.63, df = 1, p < 0.001).
Site characteristics: practice SWC technologies
The results suggest that there is a significant difference between Magersa and Konso in
relation to whether or not farmers practice at least one SWC technology (
2
= 32.32, df = 1, p <
0.001). The mean number of SWC technologies that Magersa respondents practiced is 0.7, the
median is 1, the mode is 0, and the standard deviation is 0.93. By contrast, the mean number of
SWC technologies that Konso respondents practiced is 3.8, the median is 4, the mode is 4, and
the standard deviation is 0.98.
91
The results suggest that Konso farmers practice significantly more SWC technologies
than Magersa farmers in the following categories: trenches and check dams (
p < 0.001), organic soil amendments (
p < 0.001) and planting trees (
2
2
= 22.37, df = 1, p < 0.001), terracing (
2
= 69.71, df = 1,
2
= 59.92, df = 1,
= 54.98, df = 1, p < 0.001).
Site characteristics: help received
Results suggest that there is a significant difference between farmers in Konso and
Magersa and their likelihood to receive help (regardless of source,
2
= 17.8, df = 1, p < 0.001).
In addition, Konso farmers are significantly more likely to receive help from cooperative farm
groups (
2
= 27.7, df = 1, p < 0.001) than farmers in Magersa.
Site characteristics: household size
Results suggest that there is a significant difference (t = -5.34, df = 97, p < 0.001)
between the household size of Magersa farmers ( = 5.3, sd =2.6) and Konso farmers ( = 8.0, sd
=2.6).
Site characteristics: land area managed
Results suggest that the area of land managed by Konso (
3.0, sd = 1.6) and Magersa
( = 2.5, sd = 2) respondents are significantly different (t = -2.20, df = 97, p = 0.03).
92