Access to this full-text is provided by Taylor & Francis.
Content available from Cogent Food & Agriculture
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
SOIL & CROP SCIENCES | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Determinants of soil and water conservation
practices in the West Hararghe zone of Eastern
Ethiopia
Mideksa Babu
1,2
*, Muluken Gezahegn
2
and Eric Ndemo
2
Abstract: Soil erosion causes a loss of soil fertility, which reduces crop yield and
leads to food insecurity. To curb the adversative effects of soil erosion, many efforts
have been made at the global, regional, and national levels. However, it is not
possible to generalize the factors for the adoption of soil and water conservation
(SWC) at the global and regional levels. The current dynamism is of paramount
importance to be investigated based on the real scenario of the study site.
Accordingly, this study focuses on the objectives of identifying determinant factors
to the adoption of SWC practices in the West Hararghe zone, Eastern Ethiopia. A
multistage sampling procedure using structured questionnaires was used to select
250 respondents. The collected data were analyzed using a seemingly unrelated
bivariate probit model (SUR BVPM). The study identified significant demographic,
socioeconomic, institutional, physical, and other factors in the adoption of SWC,
such as the use of a productive safety net program (PSNP) and the participation of
local farmers in technology design and implementation (PinTDI). For example, using
an additional one unit of PSNP services decreases the likelihood of adopting soil and
Mideksa Babu
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Mideksa completed his first degree in rural
development and agricultural extension from
Arba Minch University. He also completed his
master’s degree in rural development and agri-
cultural extension from Haramaya University. He
served as the leader of the Agricultural Extension
research team for over two and a half years.
Muluken G. Wordofa (Ph.D.) is an Associate
Professor in the School of Rural Development and
Agricultural Innovation (Haramaya University,
Ethiopia. He obtained his Ph.D. in Local
Development and Global Dynamics (University of
Trento, Italy) in 2015, Erasmus Mundus Double M.
Sc. in Agricultural Development from the Dresden
University of Technology (Germany) and University
of Copenhagen (Denmark) in 2010, and B.Sc.
Eric Ndemo Okoyo (PhD) is an Associate Professor
in School of Agriculture and Environmental Science,
Haramaya University. He has published more than
20 articles and 1 book in rural/ regional develop-
ment, Environmental Studies and Gender.
PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Soil and water conservation technologies can be
defined as a reasonable use of land resources,
the implementation of erosion control systems,
and the practice of suitable cropping patterns to
increase soil fertility and reduce land degrada-
tion, thereby athe meliorating livelihoods of the
local communities. Until 1974 the use and prac-
tices of soil and water conservation did not
started. Thus, in our country, the problem asso-
ciated with soil and water conservation is
becoming very serious, and policymakers and
international donors are obligated to initiate dif-
ferent soil and water conservation measures
starting in 1975 after the terrible drought and
famine of 1974. Three main practices agronomic
or biological measures, soil management strate-
gies, and mechanical or physical methods are
widely followed in our country. Thus, this study
focuses on determinants of physical SWCP (soil
bund and stone bund) by using a seemingly
unrelated Bivariate Probit Model.
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu-
tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on
which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in
a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
Received: 18 May 2023
Accepted: 02 October 2023
*Corresponding author: Mideksa
Babu, Agricultural Extension Research
Team, Mechara Agricultural Research
Center, P. O. Box 19, Mechara, West
Hararghe, Ethiopia
E-mail: mideksababu9@gmail.com
Reviewing editor:
Manuel Tejada, Cristalografía,
Mineralogíay Química Agrícola,
Universidad de Sevilla, Spain
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Page 2 of 18
stone bunds by 10.2% and 10.6%, respectively, in ceteris paribus. Our investigation
empirically contributes to the prior study and policymakers as the extension system
to the implementation of SWC lacks the ground-level context and reality that
require appropriate policy to reverse the trend.
Subjects: Development Studies; Rural Development; Sustainable Development
Keywords: adoption of soil and water conservation; seemingly unrelated bivariate probit
model; soil and stone bund; erosion
1. Introduction
Soil erosion is a common delinquent in all countries worldwide, which leads to land degradation
and refrains of ecosystem services (Kong et al., 2018). Annually, each individual is estimated to
lose 2.8–4.2 t of soil per year (Kopittke et al., 2019). Poor countries commonly face the challenges
of recourse base deterioration and less food production capacity of agricultural land (Shiferaw &
Holden, 1999). Specifically, environmental degradation and better adaptation to climate change
shocks are key challenges to the production potential of Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries
(Shimelis et al., 2017). This is mostly due to the deterioration of natural resources, which is caused
by both anthropogenic and natural factors. (Kumawat et al., 2020). Consequently, land productivity
has worsened from time to time, which is primarily known as soil erosion, due to runoff, topo-
graphic variations, slope of the land, intensive cultivation, farming on steep slopes, and deforesta-
tion (Genene & Abiy, 2014; Kedir, 2020). As recent empirical evidence shows, Ethiopia loses an
average of 12 tons/ha/year of total soil (Nega et al., 2022). Thus, soil erosion causes a loss of soil
fertility, which results in a reduction of crop yield that causes food insecurity (Belay & Eyasu, 2017).
This shows that insufficient production of food crops could be a cause for poverty and food
insecurity in Ethiopia. As a result, SWC practices were opted to minimize the problem and were
given as a crucial strategy in Ethiopia (Fontes, 2020).
Taking into account the soil erosion problem and the benefit of SWC on agricultural yield enhance-
ment, SSA countries (Tengberg & Jones, 2000) and Ethiopia have been initiated and motivated to
implement SWC practices for more than half of a century (Kedir, 2020). However, the existing SWC
practices in many parts of developing countries, especially in some parts of SSA, are applied by
indigenous knowledge and lack scientific methods. In different parts of Ethiopia, indigenous SWC was
applied, e.g. in Southern Ethiopia (Konso area), Central Ethiopia (South Shewa), and Eastern Ethiopia
(Harangue plateau) (Engdawork & Bork, 2014). The different approaches used to implement SWC in
Ethiopia are indicated in Table 1. Since the early 1980s, through food-for-work incentives, new land
conservation technologies have mainly improved in some degrading and food-deficit areas of the
Ethiopian highlands. Based on the production problem encountered by serious erosion, the
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).
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 3 of 18
Sustainable Land Management Program (SLMP) was also initiated in 2008 to reduce land degradation,
increasing land productivity, and improving farmer livelihoods in Ethiopia.
Consequently, many adoption studies have been conducted nationwide to identify determinant
factors for the adoption of SWC (Belachew et al., 2020; Mekuriaw et al., 2018; Sileshi et al., 2019;
Teshome et al., 2016; Wordofa et al., 2020). Even though there are numerous studies in Ethiopia
concerning the adoption of SWC, the empirical conclusions on determinant factors for the adoption
of SWC vary based on the agro-ecology, socioeconomic, cultural, and physical context of the area
(Adimassu et al., 2016; Bekele & Drake, 2003). Thus, it is not possible to generalize the factors of
SWC as global and local. These studies gave different implications based on the context and
methodology they used. This implies that based on the agro-ecology, socioeconomic, cultural,
and physical context of a nation, nationality, and country, there is a gap concerning the imple-
mentation and adoption of improved SWC which requires further investigation
1
.
Consequently, following the implementation of SWC practices in developing countries (De Graaff et
al., 2008), two main reasons for failure to accept SWC practices were (1) inability to recognize erosion
problem and its effects and (2) unfamiliarity with the advantages of SWC practices. Mekuriaw et al.
(2018) also indicated two main reasons for farmers being reluctant to adopt ISWC in most highland
parts of Ethiopia. According to the authors, the failures to adoption are as follows: “(1) they don’t
perceive a significant advantage to their use; rather, they see that SWC structures reduce crop yields by
narrowing formerly limited cultivable lands, and (2) lack of short- term profitable benefit.”
On the other hand (Bewket, 2007), theoretically indicated as the low adoption of SWC is the wrong
extension approach, i.e., top to down approach which lacks the community participation and considering
real farmers context in design and implementation of improved SWC. The other main factor indicated in
recent studies that discourages farmers to adopt newly improved SWC is the that the technology is not
compatible with the farming systems of the local farmers (Gedefaw et al., 2018). Thus, we want to
further investigate the approach of the extension system used as a factor and other determinants like
the use of safety net programs (PSNP users) in addition to the aforementioned socioeconomic, institu-
tional, demographic and physical factors. Why the researcher wants to include PSNP users as a factor is
that in Gemechis district of West Hararghe Eastern Ethiopia, about 8,312 HHs and 29,180 individuals are
users of PSNP in the form of direct users and public work users. Whether using PSNP services or not have
both positive and negative relationship to adoption of SWC. When farmers use PSNP as food-for-work
(public work) by participating in works like natural resource conservation mainly watershed manage-
ment to get food items, it has a positive relation to the adoption of SWC. On the other hand, when
farmers rely solely on PSNP services without putting any effort in farm activities, they become waiters
(expose to dependency syndrome) and fail to participate in SWC
2
.
Generally, there are insufficient studies on the adoption of improved SWC practices (Wordofa et
al., 2020). Thus, it is paramount to focus on an improved SWC, which is implemented by using clear
scientific methods like appropriate measurements and area of the specific structures applied by
the support of agricultural experts. Various studies have shown that there are many shortcomings
in adoption studies. In particular, in developing countries such as Ethiopia, dynamism problems
such as socioeconomic, demographic, physical, and institutional changes are occurring from time
to time (Eweg et al., 1998). Although various studies have been conducted on SWC in eastern
Ethiopia, these existing studies have not identified and investigated the best environmental and
soil conservation practices. That is, failing to distinguish and separately examine indigenous soil
and water conservation practices and improved SWC in Ethiopia and Africa. Therefore, an inde-
pendent investigation of both traditional and introduced approaches will be needed to provide
appropriate recommendations for policymakers and development actors.
This will contribute to three major issues to the following research questions:
(1) What makes soil and water conservation practices currently unusable by farmers?
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 4 of 18
(2) Does the updated information of improved SWC practices empirically recorded?
(3) Does a contextual and timely focus adoption study of SWC is available to policymakers?
Therefore, our study aimed to address the research questions by focusing on quantitative and qualitative
research approach because most of the recent articles published on the adoption study of SWC focus
more solely on the quantitative research approach, which lack qualitative phenomenon or rationaliza-
tion. Thus, it is important to apply both quantitative and qualitative research approaches to provide full
and timely required information for future research and policymakers. So, the current study initiated to
address the objectives of identifying determinant factors to adoption of SWC in Ethiopia.
2. Methodology
2.1. Description of the study area
This investigation was undertaken in Gemechis district of West Hararghe Zone Oromia regional
state in eastern part of Ethiopia (Figure 1). Gemechis district is one of the potential areas for SWC
implementation in the West Hararghe Zone.
2.1.1. Location
The district is located 343 km East of Addis Ababa at latitude 9°8’0’’ (Babu et al., 2023). It is
bounded by the Chiro district in the West and North, the Oda Bultum district in the South, and the
Mesala district in the East.
2.1.2. Demography
The total population of the district is 240,442, of which 117,817 are males and 122,625 are
females. The district also has 39,491 heads of households who are agricultural households. From
this, 34,546 are male head households and the rest 4,945 are female head households.
2.1.3. Climate and agro-ecology
Gemechis is located within 1,300–3,400 m above sea level (m.a.s.l). The minimum and maximum
annual rainfall is 800 mm and 1200 mm with an average of 850 mm. The Gemechis district receives
adequate rain twice a year, once from March to May and the other from June to September, which is a
bi-modal rainfall in nature. The minimum and maximum temperatures are 15°C and 30°C with the
average temperature of 22°C. The district was categorized into three agro-ecologies. These are high-
land, midland, and lowland agro-ecologies that cover 15%, 45%, and 40% of the district, respectively.
Sandy loam type of soil is dominantly found in the district (Geddafa et al., 2021).
2.2. Sampling design and sampling techniques
Multistage sampling techniques were used to select the samples from the study. At the first stage
Gemechis district was purposively selected for the study on the basis of the intensity of soil erosion
problem and the potential of soil practices. In the second stage, from 35 kebeles of the district, the
kebeles predominantly practiced the technology purposively selected for the study. Accordingly, four
kebeles were purposively selected because they are well known for their SWC structures. At the third
stage, from the selected kebeles, the respondents were classified into adopter and non-adopter of the
technology through stratified sampling technique. In the last stage, adopters (106) and non-adopters
(144) were selected by using simple random sampling methods from the stratified respondents.
Therefore, for this study, 250 households were selected randomly as proportion to population
size from both user and non-user among the four kebeles (Table 2). Thus, as Kothari (2004)
indicated, this proportion to population size can be calculated as follows;
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 5 of 18
where n = sample size, N = population, Z = confidence interval, P = probability of success, Q = probability
of failure, and e = error for sample size N. According to Cochran (1977), perfection may be made by
giving the quantum of crimes that are willing to tolerate in the sample estimates. Therefore, for this
study, ±5.6% level of precession (e) was used to calculate the sample size at 95% level of confidence.
2.3. Methods of data collection
Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were used to collect the data for this study.
For quantitative data collection, a household survey was conducted, and 250 respondents
answered the prepared questions in a scheduled interview in January 2020. For qualitative data,
a checklist for KII and FGD was prepared and organized. In general, nine enumerators familiar with
the local language and culture were recruited and trained to collect the survey data.
2.4. Methods of data analysis
The qualitative and quantitative data collected were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative
analysis methods for data triangulation to ensure the reliability and validity of our data. The
qualitative data collected were also analyzed qualitatively by using thematic analyzing methods.
Information from the FGD and KII was collected through both audio recordings and field notes.
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.
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 6 of 18
The audio recordings were transcribed and written down completely in English without adding or
reducing the ideas from FGD and KII. The textual information from the audio recordings and field
notes was then cleaned by removing redundant ideas and unwanted information for the study
(Babu et al., 2023). The ideas that had the same message or ideas were grouped under one
umbrella and related to other information from the FGD and KII participants. After all these steps,
the analyzed data were interpreted and reported for the study.
On the other hand, for quantitative method, we used descriptive statistics and econometric model
(SUR BVP). Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation were used to present the
summary of quantitative variables through tabulation. For qualitative dummy variables, frequency
and percentage were used to display the summary via tabulation and pie chart. Inferential statistics
such as t-test and Chi-square test were also used to test the availability of significant difference between
adopter and non-adopter of SWC in targeted area. Therefore, t-test was used to test the significant
difference between continuous explanatory variables like, age, education level, family size, cultivated
land size, farm experience, distance of farm from house, livestock holding, and frequency of extension
contact. Chi-square test were also used to test the significant difference between dummy variables like,
sex, secured land ownership right, credit services, PinTDI, perception, PSNP user, and slope of land.
2.4.1. Model specification
There are different models that are used to analyze the binary variables like logit, probit, and MNL or
MNP. However, these models fail to capture interdependence among dependent variables (Belachew
et al., 2020; Sileshi et al., 2019). Binary logit or probit models are used only for a single dependent
variable with two possible outcomes (Wooldridge, 2002). On the other hand, MNLs are used for more
than two binary dependent variables, and the outcomes are independent and mutually exclusive
(Sileshi et al., 2019). From the econometric model, BVP was employed to analyze the factors affecting
the adoption of improved SWC structures (soil bund and stone bund). BVP models have been used in
numerous studies, including Nkamleu and Manyong (2005), Yesuf and Köhlin (2009), and Amare et al.
(2012). BVP was selected due to the fact that dependent variables are dummy (adoption of soil bund
and stone bund) and also the model can capture the issues of interdependency or mutual inclusive-
ness of the dependent variables (Belachew et al., 2020; Sileshi et al., 2019). However, in such condi-
tions, logit and binary probit are unable to estimate where correlation exists (Sileshi et al., 2023).
Normally, BVP model is an estimation of the seemingly unrelated (SURE) equation model (Greene,
2009). Where it is supposed that all covariates are exogenous and estimated with maximum likelihood
(ML), BVP specification is seemingly unrelated (Jara-Rojas et al., 2013). Therefore, the current study
used BVP specifically via SUR model. Thus, it is estimated as follows:
(2)
where SB* (Soil bund) and STB* (Stone bund) show the unobserved dependent variables, SB and STB
show the observed variables 1 or 0 responses x
i
is a vector of explanatory variables, β is a vector of
ML parameters to be estimated, and (u
1
i, u
2
i) is a vector of error terms described by N, which is BVP
standard normal distribution with a correlation of diagonal elements.
It is also possible to calculate the joint odds of adopting two or more practices. For example, the
likelihood of a farmer combining two strategies is given by the following mathematical formula
(Gong et al., 2021):
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 7 of 18
where Jpsst is the joint probability of adopting soil bund and stone bund, mε is the marginal effect,
Ys is the probability of adopting the soil bund, and Yst is the probability of adopting the stone bund.
This can be applied in a case where a researcher wants to estimate the complementarity between
practices (Gong et al., 2021).
2.4.2. Marginal effects
Next to estimation of the parameters, it is important to calculate the marginal effects of the
covariates in the conditional distribution because marginal effects can determine the magnitudinal
change of conditional probability of the outcome variable by changing the value of explanatory
variable, holding all the repressors constant at some value (Wambui et al., 2015). The marginal effect
for the bivariate profit model is then given by Seyoum (2018). Thus, by following a procedure similar to
that followed by Gong et al. (2021), the marginal effect of BVP model is derived as follows:
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Soil and water practices in Gemechis District
Soil and water practices currently practiced by Gemechis district farmers were investigated in
detail (Table 3). The study descriptively indicates that traditional, improved, and non-users of any
SWC farmers are available in study area. Thus, about 56%, 33.2%, 2.4%, and 8.4% are traditional
SWC users only, both improved and traditional SWC users, improved SWC users non-user of any
SWC respectively in Gemechis District of West Hararghe Zone (Figure 2).
As we found in our study, 14.4%, 12.8%, and 6% of respondents use simultaneously soil bund with
traditional practices, both soil bund and stone bund with traditional practices, and stone bund with
traditional practices, respectively (Table 3). Therefore, we simultaneously took the users of both tradi-
tional and improved practices as adopters 35.6% (89 HHs) and users of traditional SWC solely and non-
user of any SWC as non-adopters 64.4% (161 HHs). In the study area, traditional practices such as
ditches/boy, contour plowing, cathara, and traditional terracing were commonly used by local farmers.
As we found in our study qualitatively from the FGD group, those who didn’t practice any SWC
were farmers because those their lands are flat and insensitive to any erosion. However, as we
further searched for information from KII (one of kebele administrator) towards non-users of any
SWC, they were pushed by district and kebele structures as they implemented it via a campaign on
watershed management, although they were not doing it individually on their own plot.
3.2. Results of descriptive analysis
Continuous and dummy variables considered for this study are summarized in Tables 4 and 5,
respectively. The study included approximately 40% of female and 60% of male HHs from both
adopter and non-adopter HHs. From adopters of HHs, about 51% are female HH and 49% are male
HH, and there is a solid significant difference at 1% significant level on adoption of SWC (Table 5).
Therefore, from the descriptive analysis, adopter HHs are sufficiently mature (39.55 years) in age
compared to non-adopter HHs (37.17 years) (Table 4).
Those adopter HHs were also relatively more educated (4.42) than non-adopter (3.81) HHs (See
Table 3). In terms of availability of family size, adopter HHs have a larger family size (3. 83 AER) than
non-adopter (3.42 AER) HHs. Even the difference is statistically significant at 1% significance level.
The descriptive result shown in Table 4 indicates that adopter HHs have more cultivable land and
farm experience than non-adopter HHs, which is significantly different at 1% significant level. It is
also shown that adopter HHs have more livestock in TLU significantly than (5%) non-adopter HHs.
The perception of farmers on the problem of soil erosion is the main factor to adoption of SWC
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 8 of 18
(Shiferaw & Holden, 1998). In addition, we found a descriptively significant difference between
adopter and non-adopter concerning perception to erosion, PinTDI (farmers participation in tech-
nology design and implementation), and PSNP user (using productive safety net program)(Table 5).
3.3. Results of econometric model (SUR BVP model) analysis
In this section the researcher presented the determinant factors to adoption of soil and stone
bund in Gemechis district of West Hararghe zone. Table 6 summarizes the results of the seemingly
unrelated bivariate model (SUR BVP). The model rationally fits the data with wald chi
2
(66.52) test
of statistics. The results from the SUR bivariate probit outputs indicated nine variables significantly
affect the adoption of soil bund and stone bund from 13 variables included in the model. The
researcher also computed the probability of adopting both practices jointly and failing to adopt
both practices in study area (Table 6). Thus, the probability of adopting both soil and stone bunds is
approximately 13.2%, and the probability of failing to adopt both improved practices
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.
140(56%)
6(2.4%)
83(33.2%)
21(8.4%)
250(100%)
used tradi!onal SWCP only
used improved SWCP only
used both tradi!onal and imroved
SWCP
Not used any prac!ces
Total
Figure 2.
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 9 of 18
simultaneously is 64.8%. When we separately see the probability of adopting soil bund and stone
bund, soil bund (28.3%) is more adopted than stone bund (20%) in the study area.
The probability of preferring a soil bund but not stone bund is 15.2%, which is more than the reverse of
this statement, i.e 6.9% (the probability of choosing stone bund but not soil bund) (Table 5). This is
contextually indicated that soil bund is more preferred by farmers and adopted than other improved
SWC in Gemechis district of West Hararghe zone. This might be because the implementation of soil bund
is more technically easy than stone bund. Overall, the sex of HH, level of education, farm experience,
family size, credit user, extension contact, PSNP user, perception to erosion, and PinTDI were found to be
significantly affecting the adoption of soil and stone bund in Gemechis district of West Hararghe. From
these factors, eight variables were found to be significantly affecting soil bund, whereas only five
variables significantly affect the adoption of stone bund (Table 6). But, as Table 6 indicates, four variables
commonly affect both soil and stone bund in Gemechis area. Thus, we want to present the results as
factors to adoption of soil bund, stone bund, and jointly influencing factors as follows.
3.3.1. Perception
Perception of erosion jointly influences the adoption of both soil and stone bunds positively and
significantly at 1% and 10% significant levels, respectively (Table 6). Erosion and its consequences
are the core problem to production and productivity in smallholder farmers in SSA countries.
However, taking and perceiving it as a serious problem is also another issue that has got a recent
research priority. We found that the probability of adopting an improved soil bund appeared to be
increased by increasing of the farmers’ perception on erosion. Therefore, as farmer’s perception
changes from the feel of no erosion problem to observe and feel to the presence of great erosion
problem, the probability of adopting soil bund and stone bund is increased by 16% and 9.1%,
respectively, ceteris paribus (Table 6). The prevalence of farmers’ perception on soil erosion is more
probable to motivate them for participating on adoption of SWCs (Beyene & Feyisa, 2020).
Poor perception of farmers towards SWCs discourages farmers from adopting SWCs in the
desired amount (Delibo, 2017). This shows that when a farmer considers the soil erosion problem
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.
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 10 of 18
in his area as a serious problem, he can focus on soil protection and erosion. This is to protect their
own farm land from the adverse effects of soil erosion (Wordofa et al., 2020).
This implies that awareness creation and farmer’s capacity building are of paramount impor-
tance in the problem of erosion and its consequences to change the mindset of local farmers.
Since perception is an important factor for the adoption of SWC, it is logical to policymaker and
development sectors as priority plan may possibly be given for attitudinal build and awareness
creation via short-term training and workshop.
3.3.2. Farm experience
Regarding minimizing the adverse effect of soil erosion in the study area, farm experience is found
to have a strong and positive association to adoption of soil (P < 0.05), and stone bund (P < 0.01). In
line with our study (Abebe & Bekele, 2014; Kassa et al., 2013; Wordofa et al., 2020), farming
experience of HHs positively and strongly related to the adoption of SWC. The study conducted
recently in South Nigeria also confirmed that an increase in farming experience may possibly
permit farm HHs to properly apply SWC to increase the productivity of rice in the area (Ojo et al.,
2021). Experienced farmers can judge the cost and benefit of investing in SWC and have the skill to
apply the required farm practices to conserve soil from erosion. Thus, experienced farmers are
more likely to adopt SWC practices than their inexperienced counterparts. Therefore, it is
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).
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 11 of 18
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: Chi
2
(1) = 24.87 Prob>Chi
2
= 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.
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 12 of 18
paramount important to encourage farmers exposure visit, farmers field school and field days to
conduct experience sharing program among farmers in enhancing adoption of SWC practices.
3.3.3. PinTDI
PinTDI is another factor that positively and highly influences adoption of soil bund and stone bund
at 1% and 5% significance levels, respectively. Participation in technology design and development
is an important factor in the adoption of soil and stone bunds in Gemechis district of West
Hararghe zone, Eastern Ethiopia. As we found via our study by making other factors constant,
the likelihood to adopt soil bund and stone bund is increased by a unit increment of 21.2% and
11.7%, respectively. This shows that farmers participate in technology design and implementation,
as the farmers fully know the techniques and science of application of improved SWC by them-
selves. However, most of the SWC implemented in Ethiopia before a decade obviously through top
to down approach lack farmers’ participation and the grassroots level reality. This results in low
adoption of improved SWC, which require appropriate government policy to reverse the trend.
Farm experience also jointly influenced adoption of stone bund and soil bund positively sig-
nificantly at 1% and 5% significance levels, respectively..
3.3.4. Extension contact
Extension contact positively and significantly affect the adoption of soil bund at 5% significant level.
An additional one-time frequency of contacting extension personnel may increase the likelihood to
adopt soil bund by 1.8%, ceteris paribus. This is because, when a farmer have contact with extension
agents, they may acquire different advisory services towards the technology. Farmers who have
close contact with extension agents can develop awareness and understanding of the soil erosion
problem and become encouraged to adopt improved soil measures (Wordofa et al., 2020). This is
because when farmers deal with DAs and extension agents, they can obtain advice and huge
knowledge from them. Similarly, those who gain awareness through extension workers on SWC
are more encouraged to use improved SWC practice on their farm lands than the other farmers who
didn’t get opportunity to interact with extension personnel (Abebe & Bekele, 2014; Wordofa et al.,
2020). Despite this study, some studies reported that extension contact negatively affects the
adoption of improved SWC structures (Kebede et al., 2016). Thus, having contact with an extension
agent has a probability of enhancing adoption of stone bund in the study area.
3.3.5. Family size
Family size, which is converted and measured in adult equivalent ratio, also positively and significantly
affects the adoption of soil bund in Gemechis area. Family size (measured in AER) also affects the adoption
of soil bund positively and significantly at 10% significant level. Because adoption of SWC is a labor
intensive work (Teshome et al., 2016), adult equivalent ratio of HHs becomes an important factor to be
considered in the adoption of SWC. But, there are inconsistent findings concerning the relationship
between adoption and family size of HHs. For instance, some studies have reported a negative relationship
between family size and adoption of SWC (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006; Bekele & Drake, 2003; Belachew et al.,
2020; Kassa et al., 2013; Shiferaw & Holden, 1998; Teshome et al., 2016). In contrast, others have shown a
positive relationship between adoption of SWC and family size (Abdulai & Huffman, 2014; Abebe & Bekele,
2014; Mekuriaw et al., 2018; Ojo et al., 2021). It has been suggested that large family size with more labor
endowments are more likely to adopt this effort-needed SWC technology (Abdulai & Huffman, 2014). Thus,
our study confirms the issue that adult equivalent ratio is an important factor in adopting the science and
techniques of improved SWC structures. The application of SWC requires hot force, sufficient knowledge
and skills rather than multitudes of unproductive age (high dependency ratio) (from KII discussions).
3.3.6. Sex
The sex of HH negatively and highly influences the adoption of improved soil bund at 5%
significance level in our study area. Being male or female is another important factor influencing
adoption of soil bund negatively at 5% significant level. It is not surprising that sex negatively
affects adoption of SWC, because women has a productive as well as a reproductive role in a
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 13 of 18
family, which make them more responsible for feeding the family by conserving natural resource
than male counterparts. The role of women is very high in increasing yield through investing and
assisting in investment of SWC (Bekele & Drake, 2003). So, as a number of male headed HHs
increases by a unit making other factors constant, the probability of adoption of soil bund and
stone bund decreases by 12.8% and 3.2%, respectively. The absence of a significant influence on
the sex of HH on stone bund might be due to equal gender participation on conserving soil and
mitigating erosion in study area. Because, as we informed from the FGD group, more women HHs
were participated on using of improved soil bund than male HHs since it is not as hard as stone
bund. Thus, the current study is consistent with (Amsalu & Graaff, 2006; Belachew et al., 2020;
Tesfayohannes et al., 2022). In line with this study (Bekele & Drake, 2003), the exposure of women
to the problem of soil erosion may improve the perception of the whole household about the
problem and thereby influence the decision process. However, some studies reported the positive
relationship between gender and adoption of SWC structures. As an example, Kassa et al. (Abebe &
Bekele, 2014) reported the positive and significant relationship between gender and adoption of
SWC structure. Thus, it can be concluded that as the number of women increases, the adoption
probability of improved soil bund increases.
3.3.7. Using credit
Using credit services negatively and significantly affect adoption of soil bund at 10% significant level.
The likelihood of adopting soil bund may decrease by 0.8% as an additional unit of credit services used
by farmers. This might be because farmers’ attention may goes to running a business and failing to
consider the implementation of SWC particularly and farming activities generally. Similar to our study,
Belachew et al. (2020) indicated that the farmers who access to credit and get credit services may not
use it for the intended or planned activities like managing of SWC. This implies that great attention
should be given by microfinance and credit and saving institutions to monitor farmers as they trustily
implement pardon they get via loan on the aimed and planned activities.
3.3.8. Using PSNP
Using PSNP negatively and significantly affects the adoption of improved soil bund. However, the
use of PSNP services negatively and highly influence adoption of stone bund at 5% significance
level. On the other hand, using PSNP services commonly influence adoption of soil bund and stone
bund negatively at 1% and 5% significance levels, respectively. Using PSNP is the other core factor
that negatively affects adoption of SWC in our study. Therefore, using an additional one unit of
PSNP services decreases the likelihood to adopt soil and stone bunds by 10.2 % and 10.6%,
respectively, by making other factors constant. This might be because when farmers keep only
PSNP services without paying any effort on farm activities, it makes them waiters (expose to
dependency syndrome) and fail to participate in SWC. Thus, the finding provides a direction as
policymaker and different development actors give due attention to PSNP, especially on conserving
and sustaining natural resource management like SWC.
3.3.9. Level of education
Level of education also positively and highly influences adoption of stone bund at 5% significance level.
However, some studies show that education level has a negative effect on SWC (Tesfay et al., 2018).
However, education and soil have an association because educated farmers can read and understand
well the impact of land degradation and the role of conserving both soil and water than illiterate farmers
(Wordofa et al., 2020). Some authors have indicated that educated farmers are more likely to use
appropriate SWC measures than uneducated farmers (Desta & Neka, 2017). Moges and Taye (2017)
found that the level of education of farmers is strongly associated with their perception to invest in SWC
technologies. We also found a positive and significant correlation between education and adoption of
stone bund at 5% significant level. Therefore, by making all other factors constant, an additional 1 year
school of education can increase the likelihood to adopt stone bund by 3.2%. Accordingly, our result
substantiates the findings of recent studies conducted in Ethiopia that documented the positive and
significant effect of education in fostering adoption of SWC measures (Desta & Neka, 2017; Belachew et
al., 2020, Sileshi et al., 2019a; Delibo, 2017; Wordofa et al., 2020). Thus, educated farmers can choose the
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 14 of 18
appropriate improved SWC structures to implement and can also judge the consequences of the erosion
problem than uneducated farmers (Wordofa et al., 20120). Thus, education is an important thing to help
farmers make the decision to adopt appropriate SWC technologies.
Education is significantly important to adopt SWC by following its science and techniques.
As we had formerly discussed, education level of HHs most significantly affects the adoption
of stone bund at p-value ≤0.05. Similarly the recent adoption studies of SWC conducted in
Ethiopia reported that education level is directly related to adoption of SWC practices (Sileshi
et al., 2019a; Belachew et al., 2020; Wordofa et al., 2020; Yirgu, 2022). Conversely, the study
conducted in South Nigeria reflects as education has an inverse relationship with adoption of
SWC in rice farming (Ojo et al., 2021). But, Mango et al. (2017) reported on their study as
education raises the awareness of farmer and their chance to participate in important SWC
measures.
Thus, it is clearly indicated in literature as educating local farmers is principally important
through adult education and training to enable them protect soil erosion and apply SWC for
sustainable use of land (Wordofa et al., 2020). This implies that education is an input to being
aware and informed well about the effect of adopting SWC and the techniques to be followed to
construct SWC on own farm.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
The existing SWC practices in many parts of developing countries, especially in some parts of SSA,
are applied by indigenous knowledge and lacks scientific methods. In Eastern part of Ethiopia,
particularly in Gemechis district of West Hararghe zone, both traditional and improved SWC were
applied by farmers. However, the majority of farmers (64.4%) are specifically based on traditional
SWC and fail to accept improved SWC (i.e. only 35.6% were adopter). Therefore, our study has
briefly identified some of the reasons related to farmers’ refusal to adopt improved SWC technol-
ogy, as well as their focus on traditional technologies and contributions, to research. So, the
current study identified some factors which significantly and highly determine the adoption of
improved SWC at 1% and 5% significance levels in Gemechis area. Perception to erosion, farm
experience, PinTDI, sex of HH, extension contact, level of education, and using of PSNP services are
found to highly influence adoption of improved SWC.
From the current study, we found that changing the perception of farmers on erosion problem and
revealing its consequences in real-life scenarios is paramount important to adoption of improved
SWC. Thus, to enhance the rate of adoption in the current situation, dynamism experienced and
educated farmers are required to sustain and expand the adoption of improved SWC in the study
area. Community engagement or farmer’s participation in technology (SWC) design and implemen-
tation also makes it easy, as farmers can easily accept the technology to implement on his own plot.
However, the current study indicates that participation of farmers in design and implementation
(PinTDI) of improved SWC in most parts of study area are overlooked. This results in low adoption of
improved SWC, which requires appropriate government policy to reverse the trend. On other hand,
using of PSNP is the other core factor that negatively affects adoption of improved SWC in our study.
So, using an additional one unit of PSNP services decreases the likelihood to adopt soil and stone bunds
by 10.2% and 10.6%, respectively. This is due to farmers keep aid rather than doing for themselves and
conserving natural resource for better production. Extension contact and its approach have also great
influence on adoption of improved SWC, which may require government policy to give more emphasis
to change extension system in demonstrating new technology for adoption purpose.
Therefore, our study briefly identified a few reasons associated with farmers’ refusal to adopt
improved SWC technology and their focus on traditional ones and contributed to future research.
These are: the technology is not based on the practical situation of the farmer when planning and
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 15 of 18
adaptation; there is a lack of extension system; there is a lot of expectations related to PSNP; and
there is still a knowledge gap. These are some of the indicators found by our research.
Thus, depending on the real context of study area, the current study provides the following four
major recommendations for policymakers and development actors and for further research in future:
(1) Government policy should pay close attention to the use and provision of PSNP to farmers,
because when farmers only retain PSNP services without putting any effort into agricultural
activities, they behave like server farmers (they are susceptible to dependency syndrome)
and do not participate in SWC.
(2) Short-term training and awareness raising should be provided to farmers on erosion and its
consequences.
(3) Involve farmers in the design and implementation of SWC practices.
(4) Because the researcher only focused on the adoption of ISWC and not on the level of adoption
of improved SWC, further research on the intensity of adoption of improved SWC is needed.
Abbreviations
BVP: Bivariate probit, FGD: Focus group discussion, HH:
head of household; MNL: Multinomial logit, MNP:
Multinomial probit, NGO: Non-governmental organization
KII: Key informant interview
Acknowledgments
We would cordially thank all of the enumerators, respon-
dents, and reviewers, as well as the Oromia Agricultural
Research Institute and Mechara Agricultural Research
center, for all of their support to conduct and accomplish
this study. In addition, our special thanks go to Zonal and
district experts who volunteered and supported us in col-
lecting the data for the study.
Funding
The work was supported by the No fund for publication
process Oromia Agricultural Research Institute [No].
Author details
Mideksa Babu
1,2
E-mail: mideksababu9@gmail.com
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5600-2812
Muluken Gezahegn
2
Eric Ndemo
2
1
Agricultural Extension Research Team, Mechara
Agricultural Research Center, Mechara, Ethiopia.
2
Department of Rural Development and Agricultural
Extension, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
Citation information
Cite this article as: Determinants of soil and water con-
servation practices in the West Hararghe zone of Eastern
Ethiopia, Mideksa Babu, Muluken Gezahegn & Eric Ndemo,
Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274.
Notes
According to Babu et al. (2023) Cathara is the Amharic
word used in Ethiopia for the embankment made from
soil to protect land from erosion.
Kebele: is also the term used in Amharic in Ethiopia to
indicate small village or peasant association (Babu et
al., 2023).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement
https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/7g9gzhjnvb/draft?a=
dcfb658b-a767-447c-a93b-054ada5e8c7b
References
Abdulai, A., & Huffman, W. (2014). The adoption and
impact of soil and water conservation technology: An
endogenous switching regression application. Land
Economics, 90(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.
90.1.26
Abebe, Y., & Bekele, A. (2014). The Impact of soil and water
conservation program on the income and productivity
of farm households in Adama district, Ethiopia. Science,
Technology and Arts Research Journal, 3(3), 198.
https://doi.org/10.4314/star.v3i3.32
Adimassu, Z., Langan, S., & Johnston, R. (2016).
Understanding determinants of farmers’ investments
in sustainable land management practices in
Ethiopia: Review and synthesis. Environment
Development and Sustainability, 18(4), 1005–1023.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9683-5
Amare, M., Asfaw, S., & Shiferaw, B. (2012). Welfare
impacts of Maiz Pigeonpea Intensification in
Tanzania. Agricultural Economics, 43(1), 27–43.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00563.x
Amsalu, A., & Graaff, J. D. (2006). Determinants of adoption
and continued use of stone terraces for soil and water
conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.01.014
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
Bekele, W., & Drake, L. (2003). Soil and water conserva-
tion decision behavior of subsistence farmers in the
Eastern highlands of Ethiopia: A case study of the
hunde-Lafto area. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 437–
451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00166-6
Belachew, A., Mekuria, W., & Nachimuthu, K. (2020). Factors
influencing adoption of soil and water conservation
practices in the northwest Ethiopian highlands.
International Soil & Water Conservation Research, 8(1),
80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.01.005
Belay, A., & Eyasu, E. (2017). Challenges and extents of soil
and water conservation measures in Guba-Lafto
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 16 of 18
Woreda of North Wollo, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural
Research and Development, 7(2), 103–110. https://doi.
org/10.18685/EJARD(7)2_EJARD-16-012
Bewket, W. (2007). Soil and water conservation interven-
tion with conventional technologies in northwestern
highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and adoption by
farmers. Land Use Policy, 24(2), 404–416. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.05.004
Beyene, F., & Feyisa, A. (2020). Determinants of percep-
tion on soil erosion and investment in watershed
management: Evidence from Awash Basin in
Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Management, 274
(August), 111213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2020.111213
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.).
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
De Graaff, J., Amsalu, A., Bodnár, F., Kessler, A.,
Posthumus, H., & Tenge, A. (2008). Factors influen-
cing adoption and continued use of long-term soil
and water conservation measures in 5 developing
countries. Applied Geography, 28(4), 271–280. https://
doi.org/10.1016/1234
Delibo, T. T. (2017). Determinants of adoption of soil and
water conservation practices at household level in
Aletawendo district. World Journal of Innovative
Research (WJIR), 3(4), 1–6.
Desta, A., & Neka, M. (2017). Factors influencing adoption
of SWC practices: The case of wereillu woreda (dis-
trict), South Wollo zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia.
International Soil & Water Conservation Research, 5
(4), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.
002
Engdawork, A., & Bork, H. (2014). Long-term indigenous
soil conservation technology in the chencha area.
Origin, Characteristics, and Sustainability. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-014-0527-6
Eweg, H. P. A., Van Lammeren, R., Deurloo, H., & Woldu, Z.
(1998). Analysing degradation and rehabilitation for
sustainable land management in the highlands of
Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development, 9(6),
529–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-145X
(199811/12)9:6<529:AID-LDR313>3.0.CO;2-O
Fontes, F. P. (2020). Soil and water conservation technol-
ogy adoption and labor allocation: Evidence from
Ethiopia. World Development, 127, 104754. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104754
Geddafa, T., Abera, E., Gedefa, F., & Shukla, S. K. (2021).
Determinants of smallholder farmers’ participation
and level of participation in small-scale irrigation
practice in Gemechis district, West Hararghe zone,
Ethiopia. Cogent Engineering, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.
1080/23311916.2021.1960250
Gedefaw, M., Denghua, Y., Alemu, B., Hao, W., Hao, W.,
Alemu, B., Gedefaw, G., Agitew, M., Denghua, Y., &
Yildiz, F. (2018). Evaluation of adoption behavior of
soil and water conservation practices in the Simein
Mountain National Park, highlands of Ethiopia.
Cogent Food & Agriculture, 4(1), 1513782. https://doi.
org/10.1080/23311932.2018.1513782
Genene, T., & Abiy, G. M. (2014). Review on overall status
of soil and water conservation system and its con-
straints in different agro ecology of Southern
Ethiopia. Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 4(7),
59–69.
Gong, S., Bergtold, J. S., & Yeager, E. (2021). Assessing the
joint adoption and complementarity between in -
field conservation practices of Kansas farmers.
Agricultural and Food Economics, 9(1). https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40100-021-00201-8
Greene, W. (2009). Discrete choice modeling.
Greene, W. H., Marginal effects in the bivariate probit
model (June 2012). NYU Working Paper No. EC-96-11,
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=
1293106/
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
Jara-Rojas, R., Bravo-Ureta, B. E., Engler, A., & Díaz, J.
(2013). An analysis of the joint adoption of water
conservation and soil conservation in Central Chile.
Land Use Policy, 32, 292–301. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landusepol.2012.11.001
Kassa, Y., Beyene, F., Haji, J., & Legesse, B. (2013). Impact
of integrated soil and water conservation program
on crop production and income in West harerghe
zone. Ethiopia, 1(4), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.
11648/j.ijema.20130104.11
Kebede, B., Teddy, G., Dinaw, D., & Meles, B. (2016). Soil
and water conservation practices. Economic and
Environmental effects in Ethiopia. 4(1), 169–177.
Kedir, M. (2020). Impact of soil and water conservation
practice on income in Chencha district, SNNP of
Ethiopia. 12(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7176/CER/12-
2-01
Kong, L., Zheng, H., Rao, E., Xiao, Y., Ouyang, Z., & Li, C.
(2018). Evaluating indirect and direct effects of eco-
restoration policy on soil conservation service in
Yangtze River Basin. Science of the Total Environment,
631-632, 887–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito
tenv.2018.03.117
Kopittke, P. M., Menzies, N. W., Wang, P., Mckenna, B. A., &
Lombi, E. (2019). Soil and the intensification of agri-
culture for global food security. Environment
International, 132(July), 105078. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envint.2019.105078
Kothari. (2004). Research methodology-methods and
techniques (2nd ed.). Edition.
Kumawat, A., Yadav, D., Samadharmam, K., & Rashmi, I.
(2020). Soil and water conservation measures for
Agricultural Sustainability. Soil Moisture Importance,
13. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92895
Mango, N., Makate, C., Tamene, L., Mponela, P., & Ndengu,
G. (2017). Awareness and adoption of land, soil and
water conservation practices in the Chinyanja
Triangle, Southern Africa. International Soil & Water
Conservation Research, 5(2), 122–129. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.04.003
Mekuriaw, A., Heinimann, A., Zeleke, G., & Hurni, H. (2018).
Factors influencing the adoption of physical soil and
water conservation practices in the Ethiopian high-
lands. International Soil & Water Conservation
Research, 6(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.
2017.12.006
Moges, D. M., & Taye, A. A. (2017). Determinants of
farmers’ perception to invest in soil and water con-
servation technologies in the North-Western high-
lands of Ethiopia. International Soil & Water
Conservation Research, 5(1), 56–61. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.02.003
Nega, T., Mamaru, A., Yadeta, S., Bekalu, M., & Berhanu, G.
(2022). Potential soil loss estimation for conservation
planning, upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia.
Environmental Challenges, 5(2021), 100224. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100224
Nkamleu, G. B., & Manyong, V. M. (2005). Factors affecting
the adoption of agroforestry practices by farmers in
Cameroon. Small-Scale Forest Economics,
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 17 of 18
Management and Policy, 4(2), 135–148. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11842-005-0009-6
Ojo, T. O., Baiyegunhi, L. J. S., Adetoro, A. A., & Ogundeji,
A. A. (2021). Adoption of soil and water conservation
technology and its effect on the productivity of
smallholder rice farmers in Southwest Nigeria.
Heliyon, 7(3), e06433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heli
yon.2021.e06433
Seyoum, S. (2018). Analysis of prevalence of malaria and
anemia using bivariate probit model. Annals of Data
Science, 5(2), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40745-018-0138-3
Shiferaw, B., & Holden, S. (1999). Soil erosion and small-
holders ’ conservation decisions in the highlands of
Ethiopia. World Development, 27(4), 739–752. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00159-4
Shiferaw, B., & Holden, S. T. (1998). Resource degradation
and adoption of land conservation technologies in
the Ethiopian highlands: A case study in andit tid,
North Shewa. Agricultural Economics, 18(3), 233–247.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1998.tb00502.x
Shimelis, A., Verder, A., & Boly, A. (2017). Introduction:
Understanding the Challenges of the Agricultural
sector in sub-Saharan Africa. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-76222-7
Sileshi, M., Kadigi, R., Mutabazi, K., & Sieber, S. (2019).
Determinants for adoption of physical soil and water
conservation measures by smallholder farmers in
Ethiopia. International Soil & Water Conservation
Research, 7(4), 354–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iswcr.2019.08.002
Sileshi, M., Sieber, S., Lejissa, T., Ndyetabula, D. W., Sileshi,
M., Sieber, S., Lejissa, T., Ndyetabula, D. W., & Sieber,
S. (2023). Agricultural Economics Research, policy
and practice in Southern Africa Drivers of rural
households ’ food insecurity in Ethiopia: A compre-
hensive approach of calorie intake and food con-
sumption score. Agrekon, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03031853.2023.2180041
Tengberg, A., & Jones, E. (2000). The Impact of indigenous
soil and water conservation practices on soil
productivity. Examples from Kenya, Tanzania and
Uganda. 36.
Tesfay, T., Ogbazghi, W., Singh, B., & Tsegai, T. (2018).
Factors influencing soil and water conservation
adoption in Basheri, gheshnashm and Shmangus
Laelai, Eritrea. IRA-International Journal of Applied
Sciences (ISSN 2455-4499), 12(2), 7. https://doi.org/
10.21013/jas.v12.n2.p1
Tesfayohannes, S., Kassa, G., & Mulat, Y. (2022). Impact of
soil and water conservation practices on crop income
in tembaro district, southern Ethiopia. Heliyon, 8(8),
e10126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10126
Teshome, A., de Graaff, J., & Kassie, M. (2016). Household-
level Determinants of soil and water conservation
adoption phases: Evidence from North-Western
Ethiopian highlands. Environmental Management, 57(3),
620–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0635-5
Wambui, T., Samuel, M., & Anthony, W. (2015). Bivariate
probit model for correlated binary data with applica-
tion to HIV and male circumcision. American Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 4(6), 555–561.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20150406.27
Wooldridge. (2002). Wooldridge_Panel_Data_Chapters.
pdf.
Wordofa, M. G., Okoyo, E. N., & Erkalo, E. (2020). Factors
influencing adoption of improved structural soil and
water conservation measures in Eastern Ethiopia.
Environmental Systems Research, 9(1). https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40068-020-00175-4
Yesuf, M., & Köhlin, G. (2009). WORKING PAPERS IN
ECONOMICS No 403 Market Imperfections and Farm
Technology Adoption Decisions - A Case Study from the
Highlands of Ethiopia Mahmud Yesuf Gunnar Köhlin
November 2009 ISSN 1403-2465 (online) Market
Imperfections and Farm Technology Adopti. 2473(403).
Yirgu, T. (2022). Assessment of soil erosion hazard and
factors affecting farmers’ adoption of soil and water
management measure: A case study from Upper
Domba Watershed, Southern Ethiopia. Heliyon, 8(6),
e09536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.
e09536
Babu et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2023), 9: 2267274
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2267274
Page 18 of 18
Content uploaded by Mideksa Babu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mideksa Babu on Oct 21, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
