Analysis of farmers’ perceptions of bench terracing innovation in the eastern and southern Ethiopian highlands

Figures & data

Table 1. Distribution of sample districts, kebeles, and households

Woredas	Kebele (PA)	User household		Non-user household		Total sample
		Total HH	Sample	Total HH	Sample
Haramaya	Biftu-Gada	340	29	1,178	39	68
	Ifa-Oromia	163	14	1,421	47	61
	Haro-Adi	50	5	800	26	31
	Tuji-Gebissa	165	14	1,003	33	47
Soro	Bona-Dibro	346	30	337	11	41
	Arara	355	30	351	12	42
	Sundussa	448	38	384	13	51
	1^st Hankota	355	30	384	13	43
Total		2,222	190	5,858	194	384

Note: Kebele is known as the peasant association, which is the fifth-lowest administrative unit in Ethiopia.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for dummy variables differentiating users from non-users

Variables	Category	Users (n=190)		Non-users (n=194)		Adoption decision
		N	%	N	%	X^2-test
Gender	Female	17	8.9	58	29.9	26.8*
	Male	173	91.1	136	70.1
Social group	No	16	8.4	140	72.2	161.6***
	Yes	174	91.6	54	27.8
Infon. Access	No	24	12.6	155	79.8	174.5**
	Yes	166	87.4	39	20.2
Received credit	No	15	7.9	156	80.4	204.3***
	Yes	175	92.1	38	19.6
Land tenure	No	76	40	91	46.9	25.2
	Yes	114	60	103	53.1
Slope of farm	Gentle	4	2.1	91	46.9	38.34***
	Moderate	23	12.1	64	32.9
	Hilly	114	60.0	39	20.1
	Steep	49	25.8	0	0.0
Perception of LD.	Disagree	22	11.6	136	70.1	135.76 ***
	Agree	168	88.4	58	29.9

Source: Results from sample survey data (2022).

Note: *, ** and ***show significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for continuous variables differentiating users from non-users

Variables	Users (n=190)		Non-users(n=194)		Total		Adoption decision
	Mean ± STD		Mean ± STD		Mean ± STD		t-test
Education level (years)	4.38	2.38	2.08	1.24	3.23	2.87	22.06***
Active family (no.)	3.98	1.44	3.86	1.31	3.92	1.40	5.37
Contact with DAs (month)	1.08	0.87	0.46	0.50	0.77	0.77	8.45***
Farm size (in ha/timad)	1.17	0.79	0.22	0.42	0.73	0.79	14.62**
Distance of farm (minute)	9.45	2.49	11.02	4.86	9.77	5.07	−16.60***

Source: Results from sample survey data (2022).

Note: ** and ***show significance at 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

Table 4. Farmers’ perception of the attributes of bench terracing

Attributes	Descriptions	Frequency	Percent	% of Cases
Comparative Advantage (CA)	Cost-effectiveness	220	57.3	CA=57.3
	Time and effort intense	313	81.5	CA=75.8
	Long-term rewards	269	70.1
Compatibility (CO)	Fit current needs	205	53.4	CO=60.7
	Fit experiences	250	65.1
	Fit lifestyle (culture)	244	63.5
Complexity vs. Simplicity (CS)	Hard to design	307	79.9	C=80.9
	Frustrating	315	81.8
	Easy to learn	228	59.4	S=59.4
Trialability (TR)	Relaxed to scale	263	68.5	TR=63.6
	Conceivable to test	248	64.6
	Apt to the environment	221	57.6
Observability (OB)	Shareable with others	220	57.3	OB=59.8
	Opening to see results	238	62.0
	Describable outcomes	231	60.2

Source: Results from sample survey data (2022).

Note: ** and ***show significance at 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

Table 5. Farmers’ perception of the effectiveness of bench terraces

Variables	Category	Users (N=190)		Non-users (N=194)		X2 -test
		Number	%	Number	%
Rehabilitate degraded land	No	4	2.1	194	100	368.322***
	Yes	186	97.9	0	0.0
Increase crop production	No	97	51.1	194	100	125.305**
	Yes	93	48.9	0	0.0

Source: Results from sample survey data (2022).

Note: ** and ***show significance at 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

Figure 1. Bench-terrace practices in Soro and Haramaya districts.

Table 6. Perceived constraints of bench terraces by farmers

Perception statements	5-Point Likert Scale (Cronbach’s Alpha =.599)					Mann-Whitney U Test	Decision
	SA	A	NO	D	SD
It is more social capital intensive	102(26.6)	173(45.1)	47(12.2)	50(13)	12(3)	−5.24***	The null hypothesis of equal distributions has been rejected.
It is more human capital intensive	170(44.3)	149(38.8)	36(9.4)	27(7.0)	2(0.5)	−7.63***
It is more financial capital intensive	164(42.7)	179(46.6)	41(10.7)	0.0%	0.0%	−6.86***
It is more in need of natural capital	128(33.3)	197(51.3)	50(13.0)	5 (1.3)	4(1.0)	−7.13***
It needs frequent physical repair	106(27.6)	193(50.3)	83(21.6)	2 (0.5)	0.0%	−3.32**

Source: Results from sample survey data (2022).

Notes: SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, NO= No Opinion, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree.

Figure 2. Weaknesses in protection of bench-terraced sites.

Table A1. Max, min, and mean annual temperature and mean monthly rainfall (1912–2022) of Soro district.

Month	J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
Mean Monthly RF. (mm)	6.4	35.4	39.4	70.9	125.1	103.8	130.9	116.6	133	29.4	20.5	1.3
Mean Max Annual Temp. (^0C)	22	21.9	21.3	21.9	20.6	20.3	18.3	18	19.6	20.4	21.3	21.5
Mean Min Annual Temp. (^0C)	11.8	11.7	11.4	11.8	11	10.5	10.3	10.2	11	11.6	11.6	12.5
Mean Annual Temp. (^0C)	16.9	16.8	16.4	16.9	15.8	15.4	14.3	14.1	15.3	16	16.5	17

Source: Extracted from National Meteorological Services Agency (NMSA), 2022.

Table A2. Reliability statistics.

Cronbach’s Alpha	N of Items
.599	5

Table A3. Mann-Whitney test: ranks.

Bench terracing innovation	Users and non-users	N	Mean Rank	Sum of Ranks
Social capital intensive	0	194	220.16	42712.00
	1	190	164.25	31208.00
Human capital intensive	0	194	232.03	45013.00
	1	190	152.14	28907.00
Financial capital intensive	0	194	227.33	44101.50
	1	190	156.94	29818.50
Natural capital intensive	0	194	228.83	44392.50
	1	190	155.41	29527.50
Physical capital intensive	0	194	209.62	40667.00
	1	190	175.02	33253.00
Total		384

Source: Results from sample survey data (2022).

Table A4. Mann-Whitney test: frequency of bench terraces user and non-user households.

Source: Results from sample survey data (2022).

Figure A1. Geographic map of the study area.

Figure A2. Max, min, and mean annual temp. And mean monthly rainfall (1983–2022) of Haramaya district.

Source: Extracted from National Meteorological Services Agency (NMSA), 2022.