The role of sustainable soil management practices in improving smallholder farmers’ livelihoods in the Gosho watershed, Northwest Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study watershed, northwest Ethiopia.

Table 1. Types of soil conservation practices and value categories for index measurement

I	Socioeconomic characteristics	Definition and measurement of variables
1	Age	From 15 to 65 = 1 and greater than 65 = 0
2	sex	Gender of household head: 1 if male, 0 otherwise
3	Education	primary education and above = 2; Read and write = 1; and cannot read and write = 0
4	Family size	Family size: in number
5	Dependency ratio	in ratio value
II	Types of soil conservation practices	Value categories for index measurement
A	Structural soil conservation practices
1	Soil bund (introduced)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
2	Stone bund (introduced)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
3	Fanya juu bund (introduced)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
4	Check dam (introduced)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
5	Drainage ditches (indigenous)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
6	Cut off drain (indigenous)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
B	Vegetative soil conservation practices
1	Grass/shrubs/strip (introduced)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
2	Re-vegetation (indigenous)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
3	Area enclosure (introduced/ indigenous)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
4	Agroforestry (introduced)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
5	Exotic tree plantation (introduced)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
C	Agronomic soil conservation practices
1	Compost (introduced)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
2	Legume-cereal crop rotation (indigenous)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
3	Inter-cropping (indigenous)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
4	Crop residue incorporation in the soil (indigenous)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
5	Green manure (introduced)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
6	Liming (introduced)		Yes = 1 and No = 0
D	Combination of at least one structural, one vegetative, and one agronomic introduced or/and indigenous soil conservation practices at the particular plot		Yes = 1 and No = 0

Source: Identified by field observation combined with data adopted from Woreda agricultural office (2021).

Table 2. Livelihood capitals, their building variables, and index measurements

Livelihood capitals	Indicators/ building variables/	Measurements
Natural	Farm size	In-ha
	Livestock owned	In TLU
	Perennial crop owned	Yes = 1 and No = 0
	Crop production	Annual production in Kg
	Potable water distance	walking distance in hours
Physical	Inorganic fertilizer use	Yes = 1 and No = 0
	Access to irrigation	Yes = 1 and No = 0
	Improved seed use	Yes = 1 and No = 0
	Index of soil conservation practices	In index number
Human	Visit other model watersheds	Yes = 1 and No = 0
	Watershed development training	Yes = 1 and No = 0
	Develop technical skills from WDT	Yes = 1 and No = 0
Financial	Annual income	Annual income in ETB
	Annual saved	The annual saved in ETB
Social	Member of social institutions	Yes = 1 and No = 0
	Participation in labor sharing	Yes = 1 and No = 0
	Develop social networks with key stakeholders	Yes = 1 and No = 0

Note: TLU = Tropical livestock unit; ha = hectare; WDT = watershed development training; key stockholders include extension agents, experts, researchers, and local administrators, ETB = Ethiopian Birr.

Source:—Preliminary information from the watershed and empirical literature (Donohue & Biggs, 2015; Ingxay et al., 2015; Merritt et al., 2016; Siraw et al., 2018).

Table 3. Socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents

Variables	Categories	Non-adopter %	Adopter %	Total (100%)	Chi square (χ2)
Age group	15–65	24.8	58.9	83.7	26.56**
	>65	14.2	2.1	16.3
Sex	Female-headed	12.1	1.4	13.5	23.51**
	Male- headed	27	59.6	86.5
Education Level	Cannot read and write	18.5	3.6	21.9	78.89**
	Read and write	17	5.7	22.7
	primary education and above	3.5	51.7	55.2
Variables		Mean	Mean	Mean diff	Independent test (t)
Total family size	-	6.36	5.17	1.189	3.86*
Dependency ratio	-	1.11	0.232	0.876	11.025*

Source: Survey, 2021.

Note: ** represents significant at p < 0.01. Dependency ratio refers to the number of dependents (children < 15 years plus old people > 65) per economically active (between 15 to 65 years) member of the family.

Figure 2. Established stone bund (a), grass strips on soil bunds (b), and Fanya juu (c).

Figure 3. Shrub strips on terracing and agroforestry practice.

Table 4. Impacts of soil conservation practices on livelihood development of smallholder farmers

Capital indicators	Mean index		Independent t-test
	Adopters	Non-adopter	Mdf.	t
Average farm size	0.46	0.58	−0.12	−4.969 ^b
Livestock owned	0.60	0.20	0.4	18.321^a
Perennial crops growing	1.00	0.31	0.69	10.987 ^a
Average crop production	0.74	0.17	0.57	28.823 ^a
Potable water distance	0.05	0.19	−0.14	−14.239 ^b
Natural capital	0.57	0.29	0.28	18.332 ^a
Fertilizer use	1.00	0.98	0.07	2.058
Access to irrigation	0.38	0.04	0.34	5.930 ^a
Improved seed use	1.00	0.27	0.73	12.000 ^b
Index of soil conservation practices	0.84	0.25	0.59	55.447 ^a
Physical capital	0.80	0.37	0.43	16.311 ^a
Visit other model watersheds	0.22	0.00	0.22	4.910 ^b
Develop technical skills from WDT	1.00	0.15	0.85	17.812 ^a
Human capital	0.74	0.10	0.64	18.228 ^a
Annual income	0.70	0.16	0.54	30.033 ^a
Financial capital	0.70	0.16	0.54	30.033 ^a
Participation in labor sharing	1.00	0.95	0.05	4.294
Member of social institutions	1.00	0.98	0.02	1.000
Develop social networks with KS	1.00	0.84	0.16	3.250 ^a
Social capital	1.00	0.85	0.15	4.884 ^a
Households livelihood index	0.76	0.35	0.41	30.569 ^a

Source: Own Survey, 2021.

Note: WDT = watershed development training, KS = key stockholders, Mdf. = mean difference, ^a and ^b represent statistically significant at P < 0.001 and P < 0.05. TLU = Tropical livestock unit. Multiple responses were considered for percentage value results.

Table 5. Farmhouse responses to the usage of chemical fertilizers

Types of chemical fertilizers	Adopter (N = 86)	Non-adopter (N = 55)	Mean difference	t
UREA in kg/hectare used	166.28	247.27	−80.994	−7.072*
DAP in kg/hectare used	155.93	161.45	−5.524	−0.698
The total amount of fertilizer used	322.21	408.73	−86.518	−4.864*

Source: Own Survey, 2021. Where diff = difference * indicates a statistically significant difference at p < 0.05.

Table 6. Average annual income (Ethiopia Birr) from different means of activities

Income sources	Adopter (N = 86)	Non-adopter (N = 55)	Mean diff.	T
Crop sale**	154,834.57	91,898.81	62,938.762	30.245*
Livestock sale	14,947.67	6970.91	7976.765	22.741*
Off-farm income	233.14	2354.55	−2121.406	−6.217*
Non-farm income	446.51	936.36	−489.852	−1.716
Perennial crop sale	2491.28	255.45	2235.825	10.892*
Beekeeping income	159.88	68.18	91.702	0.932
Other income sources	447.67	174.55	273.129	0.618
Total annual income	173,563.73	102,658.81	70,904.92	30.033*
Annual mean saved	14,464	8555	5909

Source: Own Survey, 2021.

*is a statistically significant difference at P < 0.01

**Computed using the current market average price of each crop.

Figure 4. Livelihood capital variations between non-adopter and adopter households using asset pentagon.

Table 7. Results of multiple linear regression models

Factors				B	SE		t
(Constant)				.234	.013		18.710*
Indigenous soil conservation practices				.181	.049		3.694*
Introduced soil conservation practices				.192	.048		4.025*
Combination of soil conservation practices				.29	.026		11.356*
Model Summary^b
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square			Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.962^a	.925	.923			.05818
a. Predictors: (Constant), introduced soil conservation practices index, Indigenous soil conservation practices index, and combined-use of indigenous and introduced soil conservation practices index. b. Dependent Variable: Household Livelihood index

Source:—Own Survey, 2021. Note: *, B, SE, and stand for statistically significant at P < 0.001, beta coefficient, standard error, and independent t-test in that order.

Donohue, C., & Biggs, E. (2015). Monitoring socio-environmental change for sustainable development: Developing a Multidimensional Livelihoods Index (MLI). Applied Geography, 62(22), 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.05.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ingxay, P., Hirota, I., & Yokoyama, S. (2015). Access to livelihood assets under the influence of a climate event in Upland Northern Laos. Geographical Review of Japan Series B, 87(2), 131–145.

 Google Scholar

Merritt, W. S., Patch, B., Reddy, V. R., & Syme, G. J. (2016). Modeling livelihoods and household resilience to droughts using Bayesian networks. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 18(2), 315–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9650-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Siraw, Z., Bewket, W., & Degefu, M. A. (2018). Assessment of livelihood benefits of community-based watershed development in northwestern highlands of Ethiopia. International Journal of River Basin Management, 14(8), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2018.1505733

 Google Scholar