Determinants of farmland degradation among farming households in West Guji Zone, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.Source: Own sketch.

Figure 2. Sampling procedure. Source: Own sketch.

Table 1. Description of explanatory variables used in the model

N^o	Variables	Unit of measurement	Expected sign
1	Sex of household heads	1 if male, 0 if female	+
2	Age of household heads	Years	±
3	Family size	Number of persons within a household	+
4	Education level of household heads	Years of schooling	±
5	Livestock holding	Tropical Livestock Unit	-
6	Land-to-labor ratio	Size landholdings divided to family size	±
7	Number of plots	The number of plots of land owned by the farmer	+
8	Plot distance	Average walking minutes from homestead to the plot	+
9	Tenure	1 if the plot is owned by a farmer, 0 if it is rented	-
10	Land use	1 if the plots are mainly used for growing crops, 0 if they are used as grassland	+
11	Slope of plots	1 if the slope of the plots is moderately steep, 0 otherwise	-
		1 if the slope of the plots is steep, 0 otherwise	-
12	Soil conservation status	1 if the soil conservation structure is partially distracted, 0 otherwise	-
		1 if the soil conservation structure is totally existed, 0 otherwise	-
13	Credit use	1 if the farmer used credit, 0 otherwise	-
14	Extension contact	Number of days the farmer contacted the extension agents	-
15	Distance to market	Kilometers travelled to reach the nearest market	+

Table 2. Socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents

Variables	Obs = 385
	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Age of HH head (Years)	42.67	11.42	24	80
Family size (Persons)	8.24	2.452	3	18
Years of education (Years)	4.48	3.81	0	13
Number of plots owned (No.)	2.67	1.271	1	5
Total owned land(ha)	2.74	1.950	0.25	9
Total cultivated land(ha)	1.5	1.821	0.5	3
Land to labor ratio (%)	1.55	1.49	0.125	12
Distance from market (Minutes)	29.56	24.67	10	120
Farming experience (Years)	20.5	9.82	12	32
Tropical livestock unit (TLU)	8.29	9.85	0	71
Frequency of extension contact (No.)	1.76	1.20	1	5

Source: Survey result (2020)

Table 3. Summary statistics of categorical variables

Particulars Description		Obs = 385
		Freq.	Percent
Gender of HH	Male	376	97.66
	Female	9	2.34
Marital status	Single	5	1.3
	Married	379	98.44
	Divorced	1	0.26
Access to training service	Trained	383	99.48
	Not trained	2	0.52
Credit service	Used	49	12.76
	Not used	336	87.24
Land use	Crop land	362	94.03
	Grassland	22	5.71
	Fallow land	1	0.26
Land tenure	Owned land	314	81.56
	Rented land	71	18.44
Access to market	Accessed	369	95.84
	Not accessed	16	4.16

Source: Survey result (2020)

Table 4. Indicators and causes of degradation

Perceived indicators of farmland degradation	Percent	Rank
Removal of the soil	39.5	5^th
Soil color changes	45.7	3^rd
Rills	44.7	4^th
Gullies	58.2	2^nd
Moisture retaining capacity	31.7	6^th
Plowing problems	70.9	1^st
Perceived reasons for farmland degradation	Percent	Rank
High and intensive precipitation	33.2	3^rd
Cultivation of steep slope	20	5^th
Deforestation/removal of vegetation	44.7	2^nd
Intensive cultivation without fallow	78.4	1^st
Wind	3.5	6^th
Overgrazing	27.5	4^th

Source: Survey Result (2020)

Table 5. Traditional soil conservation structures employed by respondents

Type of structures	Percent	Rank
Traditional stone bund	43.72	6^th
Traditional ditches	57.84	2^nd
Trash lines	61.76	1^st
Terracing	51.3	3^rd
Manure	51	4^th
Crop rotation	44	5^th
Fallowing	19.2	7^th

Source: Survey result (2020)

Table 6. Improved soil conservation structures undertaken in the study area

Type of structures	Frequency	Percent
Improved soil bund	179	54.5
Improved cutoff drain	169	51.5
Fanyajuu	166	50.5
Gully measurement	154	46.95

Source: Survey result (2020)

Table 7. Ordered probit robust estimation results

Variables			Coefficient	Marginal Effects
				Y = 0	Y = 1	Y = 2	Y = 3
Sex of household heads			−0.879* (0.452)	0.184*	0.098*	−0.259*	−0.023*
Age			0.021*** (0.007)	−0.004***	−0.002**	0.006***	0.001**
Family size			−0.053* (0.030)	0.011*	0.006	−0.015*	−0.001
Education level			−0.053** (0.021)	0.011**	0.006**	−0.015**	−0.001**
Livestock ownership			−0.009 (0.007)	0.002	0.001	−0.002	−0.0002
Land to labor ratio			−0.242*** (0.064)	0.051***	0.027***	−0.071***	−0.006**
Number of plots			0.192*** (0.069)	−0.040***	−0.021**	0.056***	0.005**
Plot distance			−0.007 (0.005)	0.001	0.001	−0.002	−0.0002
Tenure			−0.212 (0.238)	0.044	0.023	−0.062	−0.0055
Land use			−0.381 (0.531)	0.080	0.042	−0.112	−0.009
Slope	Moderately steep		1.099*** (0.180)	−0.231***	−0.122***	0.324***	0.028***
	Steep		1.553*** (0.231)	−0.326***	−0.0173***	0.458***	0.040***
Soil conservation status		Partially distracted	−1.359*** (0.438)	0.285***	0.151**	−0.401***	−0.035**
		Exist	−0.275 (0.402)	0.057	0.030	−0.081	−0.007
Credit use			−0.067 (0.221)	0.014	0.007	−0.020	−0.0017
Frequency of extension contact			−0.164** (0.068)	0.034**	0.018**	−0.048**	−0.0043**
Distance to the nearest market			0.030 (0.102)	−0.006	−0.003	0.009	0.0008
Predicted probabilities (non-degraded = 0.1968; Less degraded = 0.4850; Moderately degraded = 0.2795; Highly degraded = 0.0387); No. of observations: 385, LR ⁓ χ^2 (17), Pr > χ^2: (186.37)***, Pseudo R-squared: 0.2110; Log likelihood = −348.48

Note: ***, ** and * indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively, figures in parenthesis are standard errors. Source: Computed from survey data (2020)