Determinants of soil and water conservation practices in the West Hararghe zone of Eastern Ethiopia

Figures & data

Table 1. Approaches to implement SWC from past to present time in Ethiopia

SWC implementation approach	Started year	End year
Food-for-Work (FFW)	1973	2002
Managing Environmental Resources to Enable Transition To more sustainable livelihoods (MERET)	2003	2015
Productive Safety Net Programs (PSNP)	2005	Present
Community mobilization through free-labor days	1998	Present
National Sustainable Land Management Project (SLMP)	2008	2018
Development-oriented program	1980	Present

Source: Haregeweyn et al. (2015).

Figure 1. Geographical map of study area

Source: Taken from Babu et al. (2023)

Table 2. Sample size determination from sampling frame

Kebeles	Number of HH Head	% of sample HH	Number of selected HH
Lega Lafto Medaria	678	19.4	48
Walenso defo	755	21.6	54
Waltane	780	22.3	56
Walargi	1282	36.7	92
Total	3,495	100	250

Source: Secondary data from Gemechis district, 2020.

short-legendFigure 2.

Current status of soil and water conservation practices in Gemechis district.

Table 3. Statistical summary of SWC status in the Gemechis district

Status of SWC implementation of sample respondents	Frequency	%
Not used any SWCs	21	8.4
Used traditional SWC only	140	56
	161 (Non-adopter)	64.4
Improved and traditional practices
Soil bund + traditional practices	36	14.4
Stone bund + traditional practices	15	6
soil and stone bund+ traditional practices	32	12.8
Soil bund only	3	1.2
Stone bund only	2	0.8
Soil and stone bund only	1	0.4
	89 (Adopter)	35.6
Total	250	100.0
User of Traditional SWC practices
Ditches/boy	69	27.6
Contour plowing	39	15.6
Cathara	56	22.4
Traditional terracing	34	13.6
Ditches and contour plowing	25	10.0

Source: Own computation, 2021.

Table 4. Statistical description of the continuous explanatory variables

Dependent Variable	Definition
Adoption SWC dummy (1 if adopted, 0 otherwise)	Adoption of at least one of SWC
Explanatory variables	Non-adopter		Adopter
Continuous variables	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t-value	Sig.
Age of the HH (in year)	37.17	10.86	39.55	7.88	1.81*	0.07
Education level of HH (number of years in formal education)	3.81	1.72	4.42	1.88	2.6***	0.009
Family size (measured in AER)	3.42	1.1	3.83	0.89	3.01***	0.003
Cultivated land of the HHs (measured in ha)	0.52	0.32	0.72	0.31	4.83***	0.0001
Farm experience of HHs (measured in year)	21.64	0.89	28.73	12.04	4.73***	0.001
Distance of farm from house of HHs (KM)	0.86	1.46	0.78	1.08	0.455	0.324
Livestock holding in TLU	1.66	1.23	2.04	1.05	2.42**	0.016
Frequency of extension contact of HH (measured in number in a year)	3.86	2.64	4.17	2.27	0.93	0.352

***, **, and * symbols represent statistical significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.

Source: Own computation, 2021.

Table 5. Statistical description of the dummy explanatory variables

Variables	Dummy	Non-adopter (%)	Adopter (%)	Total	Chi-square test	p-Value
Sex of HH (1 =male or 0 = female)	Female	33.54	50.56	39.6	6.94**	0.008
	Male	66.46	49.44	60.4
HH have secured land ownership right (1 = yes, 0 = no)	No	50.93	47.19	49.6	0.32	0.571
	Yes	49.07	52.81	50.4
HH use credit services(1 = yes, 0= no)	No	60.25	57.3	59.2	0.20	0.650
	Yes	39.75	42.7	40.8
PinTDI	No	40	29.2	69.2	10.66***	0.001
	Yes	24.4	35.6	30.8
Perception of HH on soil erosion(1 = yes, if perceive as erosion is a problem now, 0 = otherwise)	No	54.66	31.46	46.4	12.4***	0.001
	Yes	45.34	68.54	53.6
PSNP user	No	19.6	17.6	37.2	8.86**	0.003
	Yes	44.8	18	62.8
Slope of land of head of HH (1= gentle slope, 2 = steep slope, 3 = flat slope, 4 = very steep slope, 5 = gentle and flat slope, 6 = flat and steep slope, and 7 = gentle and steep slope)|	Gentle	25.47	29.21	26.8	8.25	0.220
	Steep	25.47	21.35	24
	Flat	13.04	3.37	9.6
	Very steep	9.32	13.48	10.8
	Gentle and flat	13.04	16.85	14.4
	Flat and steep	9.94	10.11	10.0
	Gentle and steep	3.73	5.62	4.4

*** and ** symbols represent statistical significance level at 1% and 5%, respectively.

Source: Own computation (2021).

Determinant factors to adoption of SWC practices.

Table 6. Results of SUR BVP in participating improved SWC structures

Factors	Adopter of soil bund		Adopter of stone bund		Marginal effect
	Coef.(SE)	Z(P>|z|)	Coef.(SE)	Z(P>|z|)	Soil bund	Stone bund
_cons	−1.772 (0.7394)	−2.40 (0.017)**	−2.585 (0.6959)	−3.72 (0.00)***
Age of HH	0.0103 (0.0115)	0.90 (0.371)	−0.0089 (0.013)	−0.71 (0.480)	0.003	−0.01
Sex of HH	−0.4856 (0.21)	−2.35 (0.019)**	0.1344 (0.2104)	−0.64 (0.523)	−0.128	−0.03
Level of education	0.0417 (0.0544)	0.77 (0.443)	0.1353 (0.0556)	2.43 (0.015)**	0.011	0.032
Farm experience	0.0223 (0.0092)	2.42 (0.016)**	0.0305 (0.0096)	3.19 (0.001)***	0.006	0.007
Family size in AER	0.1624 (0.0954)	1.70 (0.089)*	0.0932 (0.1011)	0.92 (0.357)	0.043	0.022
Livestock Holding in TLU	0.1283 (0.0880)	1.46 (0.145)	0.0576 (0.0949)	0.61 (0.544)	0.034	0.014
Land Size in ha	−0.5402 (0.5140)	−1.05 (0.293)	0.5059 (0.4978)	−1.02 (0.309)	−0.143	−0.12
Tenure Security	0.2623 (0.1942)	1.35 (0.177)	−0.0302 (0.203)	0.15 (0.882)	0.069	0.007
Credit user	−0.0308 (0.0178)	−1.73 (0.083)*	0.0089 (0.0090)	0.99 (0.321)	−0.008	0.002
Extension contact	0.0675 (0.0342)	1.97 (0.049)**	−0.0106 (0.015)	−0.70 (0.481)	0.018	−0.01
PSNP user^a	−0.3864 (0.2113)	−1.83 (0.067)*	−0.4424 (0.222)	−1.99 (0.047)**	−0.102	−0.10
Perception to erosion	0.6076 (0.1981)	3.07 (0.002)***	0.3820 (0.2043)	1.87 (0.062)*	0.160	0.091
Slope of land	0.0691 (0.0543)	1.27 (00.203)	−0.0245 (0.056)	−0.43 (0.665)	0.018	−0.01
PinTDI^b	0.8024 (0.2285)	3.51 (0.000)***	0.4874 (0.2353)	2.07 (0.038)**	0.212	0.117
Log likelihood −213.57 /athrho 0.672 Rho 0.586* Wald Chi^2 (26) 66.52 Prob >Chi^2 0.001 N 250	Probabilities of adopting improved SWC				Mean
	Probability of adopting solely soil bund (biprob1)				0.283
	Probability of adopting solely stone bund (biprob2)				0.200
	Probability of rejecting simultaneously both soil and stone bund (biprob00)				0.648
	Probability of not accepting soil bund but the probability of accepting stone bund (biprob01				0.069
	Probability of accepting soil bund but, the probability of rejecting stone bund (biprob10)				0.152
	Probability of adopting simultaneously both soil and stone bund, respectively (biprob11)				0.132

LR test of rho = 0: Chi² (1) = 24.87 Prob>Chi² = 0.0001.

***, ** and * denote significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% probability levels, respectively, AER shows adult equivalent ratio, PSNP user^a shows user of productive safety net Program, and PinTDI^b shows participation in SWC technology design and implementation.

Source: Own computation, 2021.

Haregeweyn, N., Schu, J., Nyssen, J., Poesen, B., Tsubo, M., Tsegaye Meshesha, D., Schütt, B., Adgo, E., & Tegegne, F. (2015). Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia: A review. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 39(6), 750–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133315598725

 Google Scholar

Babu, M., Gezahegn, M., & Ndemo, E. (2023). The impact of soil and water conservation practices on food security in eastern Ethiopia. A propensity score matching approach. Agricultural Water Management, 289(2023), 108510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108510

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/7g9gzhjnvb/draft?a=dcfb658b-a767-447c-a93b-054ada5e8c7b