Watershed management intervention on land use land cover change and food security improvement among smallholder farmers in Qarsa Woreda, East Hararge zone, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study modified from Vishnudas, (2006) and Mawhorter, (2010) and from experience.

Figure 2. Map of the Study Area.

Table 1. List of micro watershed management systems covered by the study.

No	Name of micro watershed	Implemented by	Agro-Ecology	Altitude	Soil type	Area in Ha	Population
							HH	Sample size
1	Andhura Kosum	Free Mass Mobilization	H/L	2000–2700	Luvisols, Lithosols, Cambisols	759.5	734	112
2	Baraka	PNSP	H/L	1900–2700	Luvisols, Lithosols, Cambisols	565.7	639	107
3	Burqa Water	SLMP	H/L	2100–2700	Luvisols, Lithosols, Cambisols	853.1	765	118
						2178.3	2138	337

PNSP = (Productive Safety Net Program), SLMP = (Sustainable Land Management Program).

Figure 3. Mean annual temperature and rainfall of Qarsa woreda (2000–2020).

Table 2. Description of Landsat image.

No.	Date production	Pass/Row	Scale	Source
1	January, 2009	166/54	30 m	Earth Explorer USGS
2	January, 2014	166/54	30 m	Earth Explorer USGS
3	January 2020	166/54	10 m	Earth Explorer USGS

Source:(Hassan et al. 2016;Mzava et al. 2019).

Table 3. Description of land use and land cover categories considered in image classification.

LULC	Description
Agricultural land	Land areas mainly under rain-fed farming of annual crops growing and perennial crops. Major, crops grown include cereals (maize, wheat, barley, etc.), spices, and cash crops (coffee/chat).
Forest land	Areas covered by large trees with open canopies including natural forests and plantations. covered by trees with a canopy cover of 40–65 percent.
Shrub/bushland	Covered by multi-stemmed scrubs, sparse small trees, and shrubby undergrowth. Found in the escarpments, on steep slopes (either at early years of enclosure or area closure)
Bare land	Areas with no or very little vegetation cover and are characterised by the shallow and rocky surface along the flooding area of the local stream valleys, over gentle and steep mountain slopes
Rural settlements	Areas occupied by residential houses of rural communities, buildings, and small towns
Waterbody	Areas covered by open waters (mainly lakes, reservoirs, streams, canals, and others)

Source: and Authors field survey and observation.

Figure 4. Land use the land cover of Burqa Water (2009–2020).

Figure 5. Land use land cover of Barka (2009–2020).

Figure 6. Land use land cover of Adhura Kusum (2009–2020).

Table 4. Matrix for land use and land cover changes for 2009–2014 in Hectares (ha).

LULC in 2009(ha)		LULC in 2014(ha)
		Bare Land	Settlement	Shrub Land	Farm Land	Forest Land	Water Body	Grand Total
LULC in 2009(ha)	Bare Land	105.86		34.22		1.30		141.38
	Settlement		95.81					95.81
	Shrub Land			28.32	91.75	0.86		120.93
	Farm Land		14.31	72.90	1600.34			1687.56
	Forest Land			0.95	13.43	64.26		78.64
	Water Body					2.56	51.50	54.06
	Grand Total	105.86	110.12	136.39	1705.53	68.98	51.50	2178.38

Table 5. Matrix for land use and land cover changes for 2015–2020 in Hectares (ha).

LULC in 2014(ha)		LULC in 2020(ha)
		Bare Land	Settlement	Shrub Land	Farm Land	Forest Land	Water Body	Grand Total
LULC in 2014(ha)	Bare Land	91.15	3.95	7.51	0.88		0.03	103.51
	Settlement		106.97					106.97
	Shrub Land	0.05	0.07	130.15	4.85	0.10	0.00	135.21
	Farm Land	0.70	11.70	8.23	1696.74	0.94	0.48	1718.79
	Forest Land			0.05	1.03278_0.055	64.97		65.02
	Water Body	0.00	0.03	0.08	0.16		48.62	48.88
	Grand Total	91.98	121.69	146.09	1701.02	66.02	49.13	2178.38

LULC = land use land cover change.

Table 6. Household response on effectiveness of watershed implementation on Biophysical land rehabilitation

No	Status after Watershed Management Interventions	Increased		Decreased		No change		Difficult to tell		Worsen
		Freq.	%	Freq.	%	Freq.	%	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
1	Reduced soil erosion	5	1.5	313	93.4	12	3.6	4	1.2	1	0.3
2	Reduced Deforestation	25	8.6	248	84.9	16	5.5	1	0.3	2	0.7
3	Overgrazing	12	3.7	283	86.5	27	8.3	4	1.2	1	0.3
4	Gully formation	23	7.1	256	79.3	40	12.4	4	1.2	0	0.0
5	Plough steep slopes	23	7.1	237	73.4	52	16.1	8	2.5	3	0.9
6	Cutting trees for fuel wood	44	13.6	224	69.1	44	13.6	11	3.4	1	0.3

Table 7. Household responses to the effectiveness of Watershed Management Practices for socioeconomic improvement.

No	Improvement after watershed management	Increase		Decrease		No change
		Freq.	%	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
1	Improvement of agricultural and rural credit after IWSM implementation	220	65.3	20	5.9	97	28.8
2	Irrigation practices after IWSM implementation	260	77.2	7	2.1	67	19.9
3	Pest infestation after IWSM implementation	238	70.6	10	3.0	89	26.4
4	Dependence on single harvest after IWSM implementation	21	6.2	266	78.9	50	14.8
5	Off-farm income improvement after IWSM implementation	294	87.2	6	1.8	37	11.0
6	Post-harvest losses after IWSM implementation	7	2.1	268	79.5	62	18.4
7	Health /malaria problem after IWSM implementation	11	3.3	295	87.5	31	9.2

IWSM = (Integrated Watershed Management).

Table 8. Household Repose on effectiveness of Watershed Management on access to water and livestock feed.

Status of Watershed Management after Interventions	Increased		Decreased		No change		Difficult to tell		Worsen
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%	Freq.	%	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Access to livestock feed	197	60.2	52	15.9	71	21.7	4	1.2	3	0.9
Access to potable water	207	63.9	35	10.8	74	22.8	7	2.2	1	0.3
Access to irrigation water	235	72.3	29	8.9	56	17.2	4	1.2	1	0.3
Crop productivity	236	72.6	26	8	53	16.3	10	3.1	0	0
Livestock productivity	188	57.5	30	9.2	86	26.3	23	7	0	0

Table 9. The number of months of food shortage before and after implementing integrated watershed management.

No of Month	Baraka WS_PNSP N = (118)		BurkaWater_SLMP N = (107)		Adhura kosum-Regular N = (112)		Total N = (337)
	Before %	After %	Before %	After %	Before %	After %	Before %	After %
1–3 month	(19) 16.1	(45) 38.1	(6) 5.6	(53) 49.5	(26) 23.2	(59) 52.7	(51) 15.1	(157) 46.6
3–6 month	(52) 44.1	(39) 33.1	(63) 58.9	(54) 50.5	(48) 42.9	(53) 47.3	(163) 48.4	(146) 43.2
7–9 month	(27) 22.9	(34) 26.3	(38) 35.5		(37) 33.0		(102) 30.3	(34) 10.1
Above 10 month	(20) 16.9	(3) 2.5			(1) 0.9		(21) 6.2%	(3) 0.89

Chi-Square = 51.846 P-Value = 0.00 before 56.616 P-value = 0.00 after.

Hassan Z, Shabbir R, Ahmad SS, Malik AH, Aziz N, Butt A, Erum S. 2016. Dynamics of land use and land cover change (LULCC) using geospatial techniques: a case study of Islamabad Pakistan. SpringerPlus. 5(1). doi:10.1186/s40064-016-2414-z.

 Google Scholar

Mzava P, Nobert J, Valimba P. 2019. Land cover change detection in the urban catchments of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Tanzania J Sci. 45(3):315–329. www.ajol.info/index.php/tjs/.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.