The impact of watershed development on food security status of farm households: Evidence from Northwest Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study area map.

(source: authors’ illustration).

Table 1. Description of satellite image data source and collection process

Satellite	Sensor	Path/Row	Acquisition date	Spatial Resolution	Cloud cover
Landsat 8	OLI_TIRS	169/52	3/28/2013	30m,15m(Bund 8)	0
Sentinel −2A	OLI_TIRS	169/52	2/26/2019	10m	0

Source: Geospatial data and technology center, 2019.

Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of farm households in watershed development practices (fareta districts)

1. Categorical Variables		Sample size N (%)	Project supported WSD		Community-based WSD		Chi-square (χ2)
			Freq. (n=48)		Freq(n=60)
1.1 Sex of HH	Female HH	11(10.2)	2		9		3.421*
	Male HH	97(89.8)	46		51
1.2. Education	Illiterate	35(32.4)	7		28		22.829***
	Read and write	50(46.3)	34		16
	Elementary school (1–8)	20(18.5)	7		13
	secondary school (9–10)	3(2.8)	0		3
1.3.HH Employee type	Self-employment	108(100)	48		60		-
	Contractual +daily labrour	-	-		-
1.4.HH credit use in the last 1–3 years	No	97(89.8)	42		55		.506
	Yes	11(10.2)	6		5
1.5. Have you got training in the last 2–5 years	No	17(15.7)	6		11		.684
	Yes	91(84.3)	42		49
1.6. Have you got an extension worker to visit within a month?	No	23(21.3)	15		8		5.107**
	Yes	85(78.7)	33		52
2. Continuous variables	N	mean(std.)	Men	Std.Dev	Mean	Std.Dev	t-value
2.1. Age (years)	108	50.5(11.91)	50.19	8.356	51.38	14.178	−.517***
2.2. Livestock ownership (TLU)	108	5.07(1.79)	5.594	1.691	4.66	1.780	2.771**
2.3. Family size(no)	108	5.61(1.761)	5.42	1.145	5.77	2.126	−1.027
2.4. Plot size (ha)	108	1.08(.477)	0.86	.258	1.26	0.537	−4.675***
2.5. HH nearest market distance (km)	107	4.18(2.38)	1.769	.5253	6.070	1.324	−21.006***
2.6. HH nearest FTC distance (km)	107	1.91(.650)	2.139	0.602	1.724	0.634	3.445**

***, **.* are significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

Source: Own estimation from Survey Data.

Table 3. Status of biophysical trend in the two watersheds (Mann-Whitney test)

Characteristics	Watershed site	N	Mean Rank	Value
1. Sustainability	Project-supported	48	46.02	1033.00*
	Community-based	60	61.28
2. Soil erosion	Project-supported	48	65.82	896.50***
	Community-based	60	45.44
3. Soil fertility	Project-supported	48	51.33	1288.00
	Community-based	60	57.03
4. Water availability	Project-supported	48	56.33	1352.00
	Community–based	60	53.03
5. Water quality	Project-supported	48	56.69	1335.00
	Community-based	60	52.75
6. Grazing land carrying capacity	Project-supported	48	60.06	1173.00**
	Community-based	60	50.05
7. River water volume	Project-supported	48	59.44	1203.00**
	Community–based	60	50.55
8. Spring water volume	Project-supported	48	55.24	1404.50
	Community-based	60	53.91
9. Wild Forest coverage	Project-supported	48	36.44	573.00***
	Community-based	60	68.95
10. Plantation	Project-supported	48	52.81	1359.00
	Community-based	60	55.85

***, **.* are significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

Source: Own estimation from Survey Data.

Figure 2. Precipitation trend in Feyeletebakie and alekt wonze watershed.

Table 4. Project supported WSD(Aleketwonze) land use and land cover change (2013 to 2019)

years	Column data 2019							Total	Changes (2013 to 2019)
Row data 2013	Items	Crop Land	Grazing Land	Bush Land	WetLand	Plantation	Degraded Land	2013 in ha	Change in ha.	%
	Crop Land	236.95	48.88	2.85	0.27	42.48	0	331.43	−73.83	−12.5
	Grazing Land	7.72	62.79	2.01	2.68	2.6	0	77.8	49.94	24.3
	Bush Land	0.03	0.21	5.24	0.2	1.7	0	7.38	7.94	35
	Wet Land	0.02	3.03	0	0.88	0.02	0	3.95	0.89	10.1
	Plantation	12.87	12.28	4.63	0.81	61.71	0	92.3	16.34	8.1
	Degraded Land	0.01	0.55	0.59	0	0.13	0	1.28	−1.28	−100
Total in hectare 2019		257.6	127.74	15.32	4.84	108.64	0	514.14

Source: Own estimation from Survey Data.

Figure 3. Aleketwonze watershed site land cover and land-use change between 2013 and 2019.

Figure 4. Feyeletebakie watershed site land cover and land-use change between 2013 and 2019.

Table 5. Community-based WSD (Feyeletebakie) land use and land cover change (2013 to 2019)

years	Column data 2019							Total	Changes (2013 to 2019)
Row data 2013	Items	Crop Land	Grazing Land	Bush Land	WetLand	Plantation	Degraded Land	2013 in ha	Change in ha	%
	Crop Land	231.62	58.06	6.53	0.31	8.53	5.44	310.49	−25.6	−4.3
	Grazing Land	40.89	69.94	4.22	0.79	6.7	0.48	123.02	21.99	8.2
	Bush Land	2.39	5.33	14.54	0.31	6.16	0.01	28.74	2.62	4.4
	Wet Land	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1.6	100
	Plantation	3.3	9.19	6.05	0.14	13.43	0	32.11	2.76	4.1
	Degraded Land	6.69	2.49	0.02	0.05	0.05	3.05	12.35	−3.37	−15.8
Total in ha. 2019		284.89	145.01	31.36	1.6	34.87	8.98	506.71

Source: Own estimation from Survey Data.

Table 6. Inputs and outputs used in the farmers’ farming practices

1. Imputes used	Watershed sites	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t-value
1.1.Dap fertilizer in kg	Project supported	48	29.27	45.58	.473
	Community-based	60	25.00	47.39
1.2.UREA fertilizer in kg	Project supported	48	76.06	42.51	.927
	Community-based	60	84.58	51.07
1.3. NPSS fertilizer in kg	Project supported	48	63.54	65.43	1.298
	Community-based	60	50.17	40.97
2. Improved variety/crop & breeds/in WSD(Mann-Whitney test)				N	Mean Rank
2.1. Potato variety (kg)	Project-supported			48	53.99
	Community-based			60	54.91
2.2. Barely variety(kg)	Project-supported			48	50.42*
	Community-based			60	57.77
2.3. Maize variety (kg)	Project-supported			48	47.5***
	Community-based			60	60.1
2.4. Teff variety (kg)	Project-supported			48	50.23**
	Community-based			60	57.92
2.5. Wheat variety (kg)	Project-supported			48	53
	Community-based			60	55.7
2.6.Improved cow breed (No.)	Project-supported			48	45.56***
	Community-based			60	61.65
2.7.Improved chicken breed (No)	Project-supported			48	52.5
	Community-based			60	56.1
2.8. Improved forage variety(kg)	Project-supported			48	55.48
	Community-based			60	53.72

***,**,* means significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

Source: Own estimation from Survey Data.

Table 7. Annual average crop production before and after the WSD interventions (qt/ha)

Crop type	Interventions	Mean	N	Std. Deviation	Paired t-value
Potato	Potato production before the project Potato production after the project	15.96 25.6	109 109	12.94 22.56	−7.486***
Barley	Barely production before the project Barley production after the project	4.24 6.74’	109 109	3.59 4.50	−13.700***
Maize	Maize production before the project Maize production after the project	3.39 6.46	60 60	4.16 9.71	−2.416**
Teff	Teff production before the project Teff production after the project	1.52 2.74	109 109	2.14 3.80	−6.545***
Wheat	Wheat production before the project Wheat production after the project	3.37 5.03	109 109	4.52 6.36	−7.549***

***, **,* Significant at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.

Source: Own estimation from Survey Data.

Table 8. Food security status of households in the two WSD

Food status	Watershed site	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	t-value
Food security (KCAL)	project support WSD (Alketwonze)	48	4140.15	1643.342	237.196	6.017***
	Community-based (Feyletebakie)	60	2416.18	1334.647	172.302

*** significant at 1% level. Source: Own estimation from Survey Data.

Table 9. Impact of WSD on the food security status of households (PSM)

Kernel Matching (0.5)	Treated (ATT)	Control	Difference (ATE)	Std. Err.	t-value
KCAL	3845.027	3037.854	807.173	293.204	5.382***

***means Significant at 1% level.

Source: Own estimation from survey data.

Table 10. Determinants of WSD users on food security Status (kernel Matching)

Variables	Coef.	Std. Err.	Z	P>Z	[95% Conf. Interval]
Age(years)	0.025	0.019	1.32	0.186	−0.012	0.063
Sex (male/female)	0.142	0.2136	0.536	0.4024	−0.2752	0.576
Marital status	0.162	0.413	0.27	0.519	−0.646	0.972
Family size (no)	0.217	0.551	0.39	0.693	−0.862	1.297
Employ type	0.127	0.111	0.482	0.362	−0.247	0.52
Education (school)	0.179	0.267	0.67	0.503	−0.344	0.702
Land size(ha)	1.277***	0.395	3.23	0.001	0.503	2.05
Credit use(yes/no)	1.344**	0.49	2.75	0.006	0.385	2.304
Livestock(TLU)	1.233**	0.341	2.8	0.007	0.383	2.313
HH distance to FTC(km)	−0.031**	0.014	−2.31	0.021	−0.058	−0.005
HH distance to Mkt(km)	−1.492***	0.235	−6.34	0.000	−1.953	−1.03
The slope of the land (m)	−0.314	0.972	−0.32	0.747	−2.219	1.591
Training (yes/no)	0.515**	0.243	2.12	0.034	0.039	0.991
Frequency of Ext contact(number)	0.03	0.0228	1.584	0.2232	−0.0144	0.0756
_cons	0.668	1.569	0.43	0.67	−2.408	3.744
Number of obs=130 lr chi2(10) =160.05*** prob> chi2=0.000 Pseudo r^2=0.4760 log-likelihood =88.077694

***,**,* Significant at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.

Source: Own estimation from survey data.