Browse

Journals By Subject

Life Sciences, Agriculture & Food
Chemistry
Medicine & Health
Materials Science
Mathematics & Physics
Electrical & Computer Science
Earth, Energy & Environment
Architecture & Civil Engineering
Education
Economics & Management
Humanities & Social Sciences
Multidisciplinary

Books

Publish Conference Abstract Books
Upcoming Conference Abstract Books
Published Conference Abstract Books
Publish Your Books
Upcoming Books
Published Books

Proceedings

Events

Events
Five Types of Conference Publications

Join

Join as Editorial Board Member
Become a Reviewer

Information

For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Conference Organizers
For Librarians
Article Processing Charges
Special Issue Guidelines
Editorial Process
Manuscript Transfers
Peer Review at SciencePG
Open Access
Copyright and License
Ethical Guidelines
Submit an Article
Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Assessing the Socio-Economic and Biophysical Recourses for the Identification and Prioritization Constraints of Selected Watershed in Eastern Hararghe, Oromia, Ethiopia

Musa Abdella*,  Megarsa Ketama
Published in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 14, Issue 1)
Received: 5 December 2024     Accepted: 30 December 2024     Published: 10 February 2025
Views:       Downloads:
Download PDF
Abstract

Watershed development is an important component of rural development and natural resource management strategies in many countries. To implemented community based participatory integrated watershed management program by CALM P4R at selected watershed, the baseline survey study is important to solve biophysical and socioeconomic related problems. The study was conducted to assess the socioeconomic status, potential and constraints of selected watershed identified, to assess biophysical data of model watershed documented and to prioritize issues for interventions in model watershed indicated in the East Hararghe zone for further improvements to promote Sustainable and productive livelihood through the integration of different watershed components in participatory approach. Household interview and biophysical resources assessment followed by watershed mapping techniques were used for the data collection. Purposive sampling methods were used to select 121 households in three watersheds. Descriptive statistics by frequency distributions, means and percentage and diversity indices were used for data analysis. The results indicated that problems were identified and prioritized by the community of the watershed. Overall results indicated that land degradation and soil erosion were a serious concern and watershed management programs could be strengthened. Different prioritized problems in relation to soil fertility management, soil, water conservation and water shade management and Agro-forestry, forage development and forestry practices concerns across the watershed. Soil erosion control measures, soil fertility enhancement practices, SWC practices, niche compatible multipurpose trees introduction, home garden agroforestry and other interventions were proposed. Awareness creation and strengthening capacity of rural communities on integrating natural resource management technologies for effective soil and water conservation measure should be enhanced through participatory integrated watershed management were proposed.

Published in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 14, Issue 1)
DOI 10.11648/j.aff.20251401.11
Page(s) 1-22
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group
Previous article
Keywords

Watersheds, Characterization, Socio-Economic, Constraints and Potential, Interventions, Stratified Sampling, Baseline Data

1. Introduction
Land degradation has been the major problem in most developing countries of the world. Ethiopia is one of the Sub-Saharan African countries that are seriously affected by land degradation, which accounts for 8% of the global total.
[1]
Notably, land degradation in the form of soil erosion and declining fertility is a serious challenge to agricultural productivity and economic growth in Ethiopia
[2]
. Indeed, land degradation in Ethiopia is largely an outcome of the existing ‘resource-poor’ agricultural production system, which is characterized by uncertain rainfall, low inherent land productivity, lack of capital, inadequate support services and poverty. Consequently, the problem has been severe to the extent that it affected lives and livelihoods in particular and development in general. To change the situation of land degradation, the concept of watershed management was implemented in Ethiopia in 1980s as a way of redressing the degradation of the natural resource base and increasing land productivity. Although attempts to reverse land degradation following watershed approaches dated back to 1980s in Ethiopia
[3-5]
., many programs were unsuccessful, and the technologies and practices were often abandoned by farmers as soon as they stopped being forced or paid to adopt them. The major limitation of the past attempt was the dominant view that labeled watershed problems as engineering problems, and technical solutions for controlling erosion, reducing runoff and flooding, and enhancing groundwater recharge were often designed and implemented with little regard for their impacts on people’s livelihoods, on farm profitability, or on social equity. Thus, the watershed development was applied in a rigid and conventional manner without community participation and with little attention to farmer objectives and farmer knowledge as important reasons for these failures.
Ethiopia is known for having a steadily growing population, feeding the growing population either requires more production through productivity increment or increased production through area expansion. The combined effect of growing intensification, further pressure on marginal lands and lacking proper curative measures, exposed agricultural farmlands to erosion. As a result, Ethiopia is considered as one of those Sub Saharan African (SSA) countries most seriously affected by land degradation (Ethiopia Forest Climate Change Commission
[10]
. This in turn has its own negative impact on achieving food and nutrition self-sufficiency as the agriculture sector by virtue of its dependence on availability of rainfall and soils is the most vulnerable sector to the impacts of land degradation, flooding and drought. Given the severity and extent of the problem in the country, it is well believed that land degradation will still persist long. Which occurs due to rainfall, however, its impact varies considerably with the level of land management interventions. Since long, watershed management approach integrating different soil and water conservation measures remained a remedy to at least maintain these challenges to a tolerable level. Obviously, the final goal of watershed management is to reduce vulnerability of inhabitants to the adverse impacts of extreme weather induced hazards and enhance their adaptive capacity through availing water, fertile soil, and livestock feed; reducing risk of floods, and increasing household income. Baseline characterization helps understand the initial livelihood condition of the people in the watershed before intervention. It builds necessary foundation for the plan and obtains proper information for effective planning, implementation and monitoring
[6]
.
This has led to various environmental issues, including climate change, pollution, land degradation, deforestation, water scarcity, and loss of biodiversity, which pose a high risk to the country’s political, economic, and social landscape
[11]
.
The unwise utilization of natural resources and failure to protect the environment could lead to consequences such as floods, landslides, droughts, desertification, and loss of land productivity, ultimately resulting in population displacement and increased rural-urban migration
[12]
.
Nowadays, different integrated watershed development activities have been carried out in Ethiopia to reverse the ongoing situation by restoring the degraded landscapes and primarily improving the livelihood of the farming communities with the financial support provided by IDA, GEF, GIZ, and the World Bank
[13]
. Furthermore, various studies have indicated that adopting various landscape-level natural resource management strategies—such as offering better crop and vegetable varieties, initiating irrigation systems, enhancing agricultural practices, and implementing soil and water conservation techniques—has positively impacted the livelihoods of the watershed community
[14]
. As a result, the Oromia Institute of Agricultural Research initiated the Climate Action through Landscape Management project in 2022 G. C. to deliver results-oriented support and encourage field-based initiatives aimed at enhancing participatory watershed management practices to mitigate land degradation.
Consequently, the socioeconomic assessment of watersheds was identified as one of the essential proposed activities. The selected community watershed in east Hararghe zone is affected by Land degradation which is a significant drag on rural growth and poverty reduction; and reduces their resilience to climate change and undermines livelihood security. Notably, land degradation in the form of soil erosion and declining fertility is a serious challenge to agricultural productivity and economic growth in Community watershed. The problem has been severe to the extent that it affected lives and livelihoods in particular and development. The community watershed is also faced improper use of agricultural lands, lack of water supply, reduction of vegetation caver, drought impacts, over floods, increased soil erosion, decreasing of availability of water and food, decreasing of fuel, fodder and fiber at all.
Since social and economic factors typically encompass the socioeconomic aspects and provide detailed demographic and other pertinent information regarding the watershed residents and various stakeholders
[15]
., this research was designed to gather and record the baseline data on socioeconomic aspects by identifying key socio-economic challenges and opportunities in the Arado, Gohe and Yaya learning watershed for planning and impact evaluation.
To address these challenges, implementing participatory watershed management is important solution. Because of this the micro watershed are targeted under Climate Action through Landscape Management (CALM) Program. Baseline study on socio-economic and biophysical characterization and prioritization of major constraints of watersheds is rarely assessed in the study area. Therefore, this study was initiated to assess the baseline survey information on socioeconomic and biophysical characterization of watersheds as benchmark for planning selected East Hararghe watershed. Thus, the specific objectives of this study was
1. To identify major socio-economic & biophysical constraints and potentials in the watershed.
2. To integrate the socioeconomic and biophysical information for prioritizing the watersheds.
3. To document baseline information on socioeconomic & biophysical for planning and impact monitoring.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Descriptions of the Study Area
The selected watersheds in East Hararghe zone are located in the Kersa, Baile and Metta districts. The Watershed is the watershed found in kersa (Arado), Babile (Gohe) and Meta (Yaya) districts. The watershed is targeted for climate Action through Land scape Management (CALM) Project in the districts.
Figure 1. Study community watershed map.
2.2. Criteria for the Watersheds Selection
The watershed site were selected with the districts CALM focal persons and target research groups jointly involved. The criteria for the watersheds selection; Interest and commitment of local population to participate, accessibility, reversibility of degradation and potential for rehabilitation, visibility and demonstration potential, mix of different land-use, expected benefits, and success, representativeness and potential for replication elsewhere, the experience with improved natural resource management practices, as agriculture main driver of the local economy, Experience from previous projects, Achievable results with the available resources etc. Accordingly we selected three community watershed site (Kersa, Baile and Metta) districts.
Table 1. The characteristics of watersheds in the Kersa, Baile and Metta districts.

Characteristics

Kersa

Babile

Meta

Agroecological

Highland

Lowland

Midland

Geographic location

9028’23’’ N, 410 42’ 46’’ E

90 16’ 40’’ N, 42 18 26 E

90 73’ 86’’ N, 420 94’ 64’’ E

Kebeles

Lencha Wajira

Bishan Babile

Hawi Bilisuma

Watershed name

Aredo

Gohe

Yaya

Watershed area (ha)

449.799

408.461

565.739

Altitude (m.a.s.l)

2349-3231 m

950-2000 m

2275-2495 m

Location

45 km from Kersa town, 54 km from Harar, 535 km east from Addis Ababa

5 km from Babile town, 31 km from Harar, 557 km east from Addis Ababa

25 km from chelenko town, 84 km from Harar, 532 km east of Addis Ababa

Rainfall (mm)

1000-14000 mm

650-1100 mm

850 to 900 mm

Temperature

10-17.5°C

15-28°C

17 - 27°C

Total population

2010

1700

2136

Total number of HH

502

459

510

Land Holding

0.46 hectare/household

0.48 hectare/household

0.45 hectare/household

Major crops grown

Maize, Wheat, Barley and Pulses, Chat, potatoes, onion and Vegetables

Maize, Wheat, Barley and Pulses, Chat, potatoes and Vegetables

Maize, Wheat, Barley and Pulses, Chat, potatoes and Vegetables

Livestock types

Cattle, goat and sheep

Cattle, goat and sheep, camel

Cattle, goat and sheep

Major soil types

Chromic LuviSols

Leptososs

Rendzic Leptososs

Market access

15 km Water town

5 km Babile town

4 km Kulubi town
2.3. Research Methodology and Design
A multistage sampling methods were employed and selected based on their agro ecologies clustered, three watershed from each cluster were purposively selected, from each watershed, one kebele were chosen purposively, based on their criteria seated. Finally, households for interview were selected randomly in the watershed. Population size of the study was determined. Sample size was calculated with the simple random sampling method based on proportional to population size using Yamane
[7]
formula presented below
n==N1+Ne2
ε=adjusted margin of error[ε=(pe/t)=2 (0.05/1.96)=0.051]
N = minimum returned sample size, N = population size (household in the watershed) = 178, e = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion = 0.05, ρ = the number of standard deviations that would include all possible values in the range = 2, t = t-value for the selected alpha level or confidence level at 95% =1.96.
Sample size of households were selected in the community watershed. Accordingly, kersa, Meta and Babile households were selected, therefore, the total sample size 121 were interviewed.
Table 2. Sample size of households in the interviewed.

Distracts

watershed

Kebeles

Agroecology

No of HH Heads

Sample of HH Heads

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

Total

Kersa

Aredo

L. Wajira

High land

409

93

502

30

11

41

Meta

Yaya

H. Bilisuma

Mid land

410

100

510

30

10

40

Babile

Gohe

B. Babile

Low land

381

78

459

30

10

40

Total

1200

271

1471

90

31

121
2.4. Methods of Data Collection and Type of Data Collected
The data was collected at the household level using structured questionnaires. Both secondary and primary data were collected and used in this study. The main sources of secondary data were published and unpublished documents and reports and past case study papers. Primary data were collected using various instruments such as key informant interview using semi-structured checklist, group discussion and expert interview, unstructured questionnaire and field observation of events in the different concerns of watershed management.
2.4.1. Data Collection
The input of all inquiries from each individual and focus group checklists’ data were collected for analysis. Information was collected from households using a questionnaire, which comprised nine modules: Basic information on household composition and characteristics were collected. Age, gender, HH size, land holding, level of education, marital status, role of HH, role of HH were collected. Land use pattern, farm and nonfarm asset ownership, crop production in the watershed like major crops grown in the watershed, general plot information, input used, agronomic practices, crop marketing, livestock production and marketing: Livestock ownership, product and marketing, & livestock feed sources. Household income and livelihood diversification includes; household income sources and its share to the total contribution. Natural resources management (NRM). Extension services, information sources and saving and credit access. Major Constraints and major potentials/opportunities in the watershed were assessed.
2.4.2. Method of Data Analysis
The collected data were checked, arranged, coded and entered using microsoft excel and analyzed using statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS version 26.0). Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in analyzing the information collected using different instruments. Qualitative data obtained using semi-structured questionnaire; interview, observations, focal group discussion and document analysis were analyzed qualitatively using appropriate words and with other qualitative data analysis methods such as thematic analysis and others. For quantitative data, descriptive statistics such as percentages and frequency were employed to analyze the gathered data. Also the data generated through quantitative method was organized and statistical computations were made to explore the inherent relationships among the different variables. The sample type frequency, summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, percentage, tabulation and others), and cross tabulation were displayed. Pair wise ranking also were used to analysis the farmers ’constraints in socioeconomic conditions and resource-use patterns of the watershed. Using state by calculating Pearson’s correlations for each explanatory variable we can detect multi collinear. Pearson's correlations by calculating variable at 5% significant level.
3. Result and Discussion
3.1. Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents
Age of the household head: The age of the sampled household heads had a range from 20 to 60 years and the average age of the sampled household heads was 40.08 years with standard deviation of 11.07 (Table 3) This means that, on average, smallholder farmers in the study areas were relatively middle-aged household that participated in interview. Age of the household was found to be positively associated with adoption of watershed management program and statistically significant. Middle age strong labor required to maintain SWC activities than old one. This study agrees with the study by Belete L
[8]
. Family Size of the household head: The average family size of the sample farm households was 6.42 with minimum of 2 and maximum of 16 persons. Therefore, the study populations of the surveyed areas were relatively higher household sizes than national household average size of 5.1 members per household
[9]
.
Table 3. Age, family size, land holding of HH respondents (n = 121).

Variables

Kersa

Metta

Babile

Total

House hold Age

Mean

35.42

43.89

35.45

40.08

Family size

Mean

5.19

6.11

8.05

6.42

Land holding

Mean

0.46

0.45

0.480

0.471
Land holding: Average land holding size of households in the study areas was 0.431 hectare. According to the survey data, the land of the sampled household heads had a range from 0.125 to 0.475 ha and the average land of the sampled household heads was 0.471 ha with standard deviation of 0.77 and had a small average of land to agricultural production. Land shortage is cited among the priority problems faced by farmers, especially for those young household heads. Gender of the household heads. Sample households were composed of both male and female household heads. The result of the study indicated that out of the total 121 sample respondents, 97 (80%) of them were male while the rest 24 (20%) of them were female. The result revealed that the percent of male headed households of participated in watershed were higher than that of female headed households (table 4).
Table 4. Gender, Marital status and educational levels of HH of respondents (n = 121).

Gender of HH

Kersa

Babile

Metta

Total

Male

40(93.02%)

32(80%)

25(65.8%)

97(80.2%)

Female

3(6.97%)

8(20%)

13(34.2%)

24(19.8)

Total

43

40

38

121

Marital status of HH

Married

43(100%)

36(80%)

34(89.5%)

113(93.4%)

widowed

0

3(8%)

3(8%)

6(5%)

Divorced

0

0

1(2.63%)

1(0.83%)

single

0

1(2.5%)

0

1(0.83%)

Total

43

40

38

121

Education level of HH

Uneducated

12(27.91%)

15(37.5%

18(47.4%)

85(70.2%)

Informal education

7(16.3%)

0

6(15.8%)

13(10.7%)

Grade 1-4

9(20.93%)

9(15%)

3(7.89%)

21(17.36%)

Grade 5-8

6(13.93%)

12(30%)

6(15.8%)

24(19.83%)

Grade >9

9(20.93%)

4(10%)

5(13.2%)

18(14.87%)

Total

43

40

38

121

Labor contribute

100%

36(83.72%)

33(8.25%)

25(65.79%)

94(77.68%)

75%

5(11.63%)

7(17.5%)

8(21.1%)

20(16.53%)

50%

2(4.65%)

0

1(2.63%)

3(2.45%)

25%

0

0

2(5.26%)

2(1.65%)

10%

0

0

1(2.63%)

1(0.83%)

No

0

0

1(2.63%)

1(0.83%)

Total

43

40

38

121

Role of HH

HH head

42(97.7%)

38(95%)

32(84.21%)

112(92.56%)

Spouse

1(2.33%)

1(2.5%)

1(2.63%)

3(2.48%)

Son /daughters

0

1(2.5%)

5(15.8%)

6(4.96%)

Total

43

40

38

121
Marital statuses of the House hold Head: With regard to marital status, from the total sample respondents as it is indicated in the table 4: About 93.4% married, 5% widowed, 0.83% Divorced and 0.83% Single. The proportion of married respondents was much larger than the remaining widowed categories. Hence, there is real difference in marital status of watershed management in the study areas. Educational status of sample Household Head: Education is very important for the farmers to understand and interpret the agricultural information coming to them from any direction, Of the total 121 respondents, as indicated in the table 4, illiterate respondents were 70.2%, Grade 5-8 were 19.83%, Grade 1-4 were 17.36%, Grade >9 were 14.87% and informal education were 10.7% respectively. A better educated farmer can easily understand and interpret the information transferred to them by development agents and others. Labor is one of the major resources owned by farm families. Owen farm labour contribution 100% of the respondents were own only house hold head labor. With regards to the labor contribute of the respondents, 77% of the respondents were household head labor, the remaining others was family labor and others, it can be indicated that farming in the watershed was the main type of traditional farming system in study site. Role of house hold House hold Head: With role of household were 92.6% household head and 5% were son/ daughter and others 3% were spouse. Results of this study indicated that the farming systems are mostly done by household head because of the responsibilities has given to head of household in the watershed families members and presented in table 4 above.
3.1.1. Land Use Pattern, Farm and Nonfarm Asset Ownership
(i). Land Ownership
Major land use patterns and practices were indented in the three land use in the watersheds. The frequency distribution of respondents interviewed with land allocated for annual crops were 103 (85.12%), land allocated for perennial crops were 12 (9.9%), and the rest 6 (4.95%) of the respondents interviewed were pasture/shrub land, irrigated land allocated for annual crops and Plantation practiced on their farm lands in the watershed. The distribution by watershed were kersa allocated land for annual crops 83.72%, for annual crops by irrigation 4.65%, for perennial crops like chat 9.3%, and least were for shrubs land 2.33%. Babile allocated land, for annual crops 82.5%, for perennial crops 12.5%, and least were for pasture/shrubs land 5%. Meta district allocated land for annual crops 89.5%, for perennial crops 7.89%, and least were allocated for plantation 2.63% around farm boundary (Table 5).
Table 5. Land use patterns of HH of respondents (n = 121).

Land use patterns

Kersa

Babile

Metta

Total

land allocated for annual crops

35(81.39%)

33(82.5%)

34(89.5%)

103(85.12%)

Irrigated land allocated for annual crops

2(4.65%)

0

0

2(1.65%)

Land allocated for perennial crops

4(9.3%)

5(12.5%)

3(7.89%)

12(9.9%)

Fallow land/pasture/shrub land

1(2.33%)

2(5%)

0

3(2.45%)

Plantation

1(2.33%)

0

1(2.63%)

1(0.83%)
(ii). Farm Tools and Non-farm Assets Ownership
Samples household heads has (min=2 and max=20 farm tools), 100 (82.6 %) of household heads had farm tools and 21(17.4%) of household heads had non-farm assets in the watershed. Household assets are an indicator of household’s wealth and resilience during shocks and crises. Household assets are usually as stocks of capital that are exploited when they are vulnerable to various shocks. For instance, during hunger months, farmers sell or exchange their household items for money and food. This predisposes further to biting and spiral poverty. The survey has indicated that household assets range from corrugated roof house, spade, hand hoe, axe, to television, Bajaj, solar power, mobile and radio. The survey has indicated that 34 numbers of the households in kersa, 34 numbers of in Babile and 32 numbers of in metta household had a hand farm tools for farming. However, this study showed that fewer households own the tools. The table below shows the percent of the respondents who had the household asset, corrugated roof house, spade/akaafaa, hoe (gasoo), axe (qottoo), machete (haamtuu), radio, mobile phone, solar power, etc (Table 6).
Table 6. Farm tools and non-farm assets ownership of household (n = 121).

Variables

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Corrugated roof house

1.17

0.38

1

2

Hated roof house

1.95

0.21

1

2

House in town

1.93

0.24

1

2

Akafaa

1.09

0.28

1

2

Gasoo

1.33

0.47

1

2

Qottoo

1.14

0.35

1

2

Machet

1.14

0.35

1

2

Water pump

1.95

0.19

1

2

TV

1.90

0.30

0

2

Radio

1.66

0.49

0

2

Mobile phone

1.38

0.48

1

2

Solar power

1.66

0.47

1

2

Knapsack Spray

1.95

0.19

1

2

Water can

1.86

0.34

1

2

Handsaws

2.12

1.64

1

20
Farm tools and non-farm assets ownership in the three districts of household.
Figure 2. Farm tools and non-farm assets.
(iii). Major Crop Production in the Watershed
Major Crops grown in the watershed: Smallholder farmers in the watershed grow a number of food crops per unit farm whether through simultaneous or sequential intercropping systems. The major food crops include cereals: Maize 97 (82.2%), sorghum 68 (56.2%), wheat 16(13.22%), barley 32 (26.45%), Pulse, fiber and oil crops: Common bean 36(29.75%), faba bean 29(23.97%), field Pea 6(4.95%). Horticultural and root Crops: chat 96(79.34%), mango 24(19.83%), sweet potato 10(8.26%), potato 45(37.19%), onion 36(29.75%), and 30(24.79%), just mentioning a few, It is not uncommon in the smallholder that the food produced does not last the farming households to the next growing season i.e. twelve months. It is shown in the following (table 7) that there is no difference between the watershed farmers, and between the districts in terms of food crop production. In the study watershed, belg rains are used for land preparation and planting of long cycle crops such as maize and seed bed preparation for maher crops. The maher rains are used for planting of cereal crops like maize and sorghums and vegetable crops like onion and potatoes. Annual crops comprise grains and horticultural crops. Cereals (Maize, Wheat and Barley) are cultivated as a staple food crop pulses like beans, and pea are produced both for consumption and market. Potato, garlic, onion and sweet potato are the major vegetables and root crops (Table 7).
Table 7. Major crop production in the watershed by respondents (n = 121).

Major Crops grown in the watershed

Kersa

Babile

Metta

Total

Maize

40

32

25

97

Sorghum

4

38

26

68

Wheat

6

0

10

16

Barley

30

0

2

32

Common bean

18

8

10

36

Faba bean

10

9

10

29

Field bean

6

0

0

6

Chat

30

32

34

96

Mango

0

24

0

24

Sweet potato

3

0

7

10

Potato

33

0

12

45

Onion

16

0

20

36

Ground nut

0

30

0

30
As a result fallowing or rotating crops is rarely practices. About 91% percentages of respondents contained their farmland from one location and 6% has on two location. More crops growing in those watershed are maize 72(59.5%) at Kersa and Meta, sorghum more growing in Babile 32 (26.45%), cash crops like chat 6(4.95%) in meta and 2(1.6%) practiced. Concerning variety of seeds 66.94% about local seed were planted and 33.06% were improved seeds. Major respondents were obtained yield in 5.81 quintals at kesa, 6.34 quintals at babile and respondents were obtained yield in 5.35 quintals at Meta.
3.1.2. General Plot Information of Farm in the Watershed
(i). Land Ownership
A total of 112 (92.6%) respondents owned a land, the rest 9 (7.4%) shared/rented in three watershed. About 70% of respondents owned average land size (0.467 ha). Since majority of respondents continuous cultivation on the same piece of land is a common practice across study watershed. A total of 36 (29.75%) respondents indicated that their soil is Red, a total of 73 (60.33%) respondents indicated as their soil color is black, 7(5.78%) respondents indicated their soil color is grey and 5(4.13%) respondents indicated their soil color is brown. A total of 56 (45.28%) respondents were responded that their farm plots is flat, 42(34.71%) respondents their farm plots was medium, and 23(19.01%) respondents said their farm plots was steep slope. A total of 71 (58.68%) respondents were responded that their farm was low in soil fertility, 24(19.83%) respondents their farm was medium in soil fertility, and 16(13.22%) respondents said their farm was high in soil fertility. Concerning soil erosion, a total of 28 (23.14%) respondents were responded that their farm plots slightly eroded, 36 (29.5%) respondents were responded that their farm plots moderately eroded and 57 (47.11%) respondents were responded that their farm plots severely eroded.
Table 8. Plot information of farm in the watershed (n = 121).

Farm plot information

Kersa

Babile

Metta

Total

Average land size (ha)

Variables

0.46

0.46

0.45

0.467

Land ownership

Owned

37

37

38

112

Shared/rented in

6

3

0

9

Soil color

Red

4

32

9

36

Black

38

10

25

73

Grey

1

4

2

7

Brown

0

3

2

5

Plot slope

Flat

17

24

15

56

Medium

19

8

15

42

Steep

7

8

8

23

Soil fertility

Low

26

22

23

71

Medium

10

17

7

24

High

7

1

8

16

Soil erosion

Slight

15

7

6

28

Moderate

15

9

8

36

Severe

22

15

20

57
(ii). Farmers Input Used in the Watershed
Farmers in the watershed used Improved technologies under practice include application of chemical fertilizer (NPS and UREA), the use of high yielding crop varieties, and practicing compost/manure (natural fertilizer). Farmers used improved crop varieties of 30.58% and comprise 69.42% used local seeds of the total and chemical fertilizer is applied by 42.15% of the farmers while natural fertilizer is practiced by 82.64% of the farming households. The use of improved seed covers 30% of the total cropland and chemical fertilizer 42% while natural fertilizer covers 82% of the total cropland. The use of natural fertilizer is more for horticultural crops followed by permanent crops. Shortage of cash, price of fertilizer, absence of credit facilities and timely provision of chemical fertilizer are among the factors that constrain the use of chemical fertilizer.
Table 9. Farm plot information in the watershed (n = 121).

Inputs used per plots

Kersa

Babile

Metta

Total

Average seed

27

22

26

75

Improved variety of seeds

11

11

15

37

Local seeds

35

24

25

84

Average NPS

18

24

9

51

Average Urea

17

23

11

51

Conventional compost

32

40

28

100

Vermin compost

0

0

0

0

Farm yard manure

32

40

28

100

Herbicide

20

20

30

70

Insecticide

20

10

20

50

Fungicide

25

10

25

60

Yield obtained

581.94

634.50

535.1

1,751.54
(iii). Agronomic Practices
Farmers in the watershed used agronomic practices: Inter cropping, mono cropping, crop rotation, double cropping, home garden, different sowing method techniques, tillage practice, and crop residue left on their farm plots. Crop production is generally growing in the watershed about 98% of the respondents mentioned that their piece of land where they cultivated the crops. Yield of different crops as affected by location, sowing methods and variety of crops. About 90.08% of respondents indicated that they were using inter cropping cereals with pulse while the rest 74.38 %, 80.16%, and 82.64% were cereal-cereal, cereal-horticulture and cereal-fruit trees inter cropping respectively. About 89.26% of respondents indicated that they were using mono cropping while the rest 82.64 % were not using mono cropping. Concerning crop rotation cereals with pulse were dominated as respondents indicated. About 82.64% of respondents indicated that they were using 1st crop as double cropping while the rest 74.38 % were using 2nd crop as double cropping. Concerning of home garden about 92.56% of respondents indicated that they were practicing home garden while the rest 82.64 % were not practicing home garden. The respondents indicated that they were used both row planting (80.99%) and broadcasting (81.82%) sowing method techniques. The respondents indicated that they were used both conventional (81.82%) and Conservation (81.82%) tillage practice in the watershed. The respondents indicated that they were 50% crop residue left on their farm (Table 10).
Table 10. Agronomic practices in the watershed by farmers.

Farm plot information and Farmers perception

Kersa

Babile

Metta

Inter cropping

Cereals -Pulse

38

35

36

Cereal-cereal

35

25

30

Cereal-horti

35

26

36

Cereal-fruit

18

50

32

Mono cropping

Yes

37

26

37

No

34

31

35

Crop rotation

Cereals -Pulse

20

35

45

Cereal-cereal

33

46

20

Cereal-horti

20

40

40

Double cropping

1st crop

38

34

28

2nd crop

34

33

23

Home garden

Yes

32

40

28

No

44

31

37

Sowing method

Row planting

36

33

29

Broadcasting

23

38

38

Tillage practice

Conventional

34

37

28

Conservation

36

27

36

Crop residue left

0%

33

36

30

50%

32

37

33

100%

17

50

33
(iv). Crop Consumption and Marketing
The respondents said that the type of crops grown in these land classes varies from one area to another. The respondents grow maize for their own household consumption as compared to sale. Cereals crop mainly produced for consumption. Production of these crops has dropped during these three decades due to diminishing land sizes and reduced soil fertility and land use change made to chat production. The main economic activities are food crop production, cash crop production and livestock production. The major crop mainly produced for consumption and market. About 17Qt (80.95% of the cereals) for consumption, about 17Qt (85% of potato) for market, about 8Qt (75% of Onion) for market and, about 16 kg (89% of Chat) for market (Table 11).
Table 11. Household crop consumption and marketing in the watershed.

Crop Production Use (Consumption/Marketing)

Crop name

Quant./produce (kg)

Quant. Consume.

Quant. soled

Percent (%)

Consume

Soled

Maize

10

8

2

80%

20%

Sorghum

5

4

1

80%

20%

Wheat

4

4

0

100%

0%

Barley

2

1

1

50%

50%

Chat

18

2

16

11%

89%

Onion

10

2

8

25%

75%

Potato

20

3

17

15%

85%

Groundnut

1

0

1

0%

100%

Total

70

24

46

34%

66%
The respondents said that Chat, Potato, and Onion production gives high comparative advantage in marketing. As it is indicated in the table 11 Maize is widely grown in Kersa and Meta woredas while Sorghum is widely grown in Babile woreda. Wheat is widely grown in Meta, Chat is widely grown in Meta and Babile woredas while Onion is widely grown in Meta woreda. Potato is widely grown in Kersa woreda while Groundnut is widely grown in Babile woreda (Table 12).
Table 12. Household crop consumption and marketing, across watershed.

Crop name

Kersa

Babile

Meta

Total

Maize

26

13

21

60

Sorghum

1

19

3

23

Wheat

1

1

2

4

Barley

1

0

1

2

Chat

3

7

8

18

Onion

1

0

4

5

Potato

11

0

1

12

Groundnut

0

1

0

1

Total

121
(v). Livestock Production and Marketing
(a). Livestock ownership, product and marketing:
The majority of the farmers in selected watershed were mixed crop-livestock producers maximum of = 5 and minimum of = 0. Livestock including local cow, bread cow, ox, bulls, heifers, calves, sheep, goats, donkey, as well as chicken, and bee were kept by farmers in the watersheds. Both indigenous and exotics livestock were found in the watersheds. The majority of the farmers in selected watershed were mixed crop-livestock producer. Livestock species including local cow, bread cow, ox, bulls, heifers, calves, sheep, goats, donkey, as well as chicken, and bee were kept by farmers in the surveyed watersheds (Table 13).
Table 13. Livestock ownership in selected watershed.

Livestock ownership (numbers)

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Local cow

1.33

0.48

0

5

Cross bread cow

0.33

0.18

0

1

Milk

0.98

0.19

0

2

Oxs

1.97

0.20

0

4

Local Bulls

1.77

0.43

0

2

Local Heifers

1.86

0.36

0

2

Calves

1.81

0.41

0

2

Sheep

1.82

0.40

0

4

Goats

1.76

0.44

0

4

Donkey

1.53

0.34

0

2

Local Chicken

1.64

0.50

0

2

Exotic Chicken

0.63

0.20

0

1

Egg (poultry)

0.99

0.20

0

2

Traditional honey bee

1.61

0.50

0

2

Transition honey bee

0.93

0.28

0

1

Modern honey bees

0.97

0.20

0

1
In Babile the largest group of animals were cows, followed by bulls, heifers, calves, sheep, donkeys, and goats. In Kersa and Meta watersheds the livestock consisted mostly of goats followed by oxen, chickens, and poultry and honey bees. About 83% of the respondents owned some livestock in addition to engaging in crop production activities. Local cows were the most popular stock kept by about 13% of the households, followed by goats, oxen, and sheep. The average ownership of different types of animals was 1.33 (local cow), 0.33 (cross bread cow), 0.98 (milk cow), 1.97 (ox), 1.77 (local bulls), 1.86 (local heifers), 1.81 (calves), 1.82 (sheep), 1.76 (goats), 1.53 (donkey), 1.64 (local chicken), 0.63 (exotic chicken), 0.99 (poultry), 1.61 (traditional honey bee), 0.93 (transition honey bee), and 0.97 (modern honey bees). Local cows were the most popular stock kept by about 13% of the households, followed by goats (11%), Ox (10%), and sheep (10%) (Table 13).
Livestock ownership and production across watershed
Figure 3. Livestock ownership.
(b). 1. Feed sources in the watershed
Table 14. Livestock feed sources in the watershed.

Feed type for livestock

Frequency

Percent (%)

Rank

Crop residues

50

41.32

1st

Green feed (cut & carry)

35

28.92

2nd

Grazing in the field

20

16.53

3rd

Improved forages/fodder

10

8.26

4th

Concentrates of different types (Nug, cake)

6

4.96

5th

Total

121

100
Shortage of feed is one of the limiting factors in livestock production. Major feed resource for cattle: The data in table 13 indicates that the major sources of animal feed are crop residue 50(41.32%), green feed or crop straw 35(29.92%), grazing land in the field contribute 20(16.53%), improved forage covers 10(8.26%), the rest and industrial by-product 6(4.96%). However, the productivity of livestock has been decreasing substantially due to continuous drought, population pressure and shortage of grazing land into crop production.
(c). Household annual income sources
Cattle fattening, vegetable production, livestock production, and crop production are income sources of households. The main economic activities are food crop production, cash crop (chat) production and livestock production. The most important crops sold are chat, potatoes and onions. The major crops most commonly grown are Maize, Wheat, Barley and Pulse, Chat and Vegetables are the known cash crops. The watershed also suffers from problems of population pressure, land shortage, soil erosion, and droughts.
Table 15. Household income sources in the watershed.

Main sources of HH income

Average in birr

Cattle Fattening

30,000

Vegetable production

10,000

Crop production

10,000

Livestock production

8,000

Others income

5,000

Tree plantation

4,000

Fruit production

2,000
Figure 4. Income sources.
(vi). Natural Resources Management (NRM)
(a). Conservation structures using physical structures
The respondents were aware of the SWC, making physical and biological measures for conservation of natural resources. In this survey, an attempt was made to see the participation of rural households in SWC activities on their holdings by their own initiatives. Overall the knowledge of SWC benefits in farmland is medium. The respondents were asked about the indigenous soil and water conservation practices used by farmers in different watershed. The survey intended to quantify their level of use in the respective watersheds.
Physical/Mechanical SWC; Bund (soil bund (43%) more practiced at Babile and stone bund (54%) practiced at Kersa watershed). As it is indicated in the table 16 Terrace (52%), Cutoff drain (52%) and Water way (52%) are widely practiced at Kersa watershed while others is not widely practiced in Kersa woreda. Gully control like Stone Check dam (65%) were more practiced in kersa watershed, brush wood (61%) were more practiced in Meta and local material (46%) were more practiced in Babile watershed. Biological SWC; Planting grass (Vetiver grass, Elephant grass, Desho grass), and elephant grass is planting grass used by farmers of respondents. About 50% Vetiver grass were more planted in Meta watershed, 44% Elephant grass and 46% Elephant grass were more planted in Kersa and Meta watershed respectively and 43% Desho grass more planted in Meta watershed. Tree Plantation: About 17% road side plantation, 41% farm boundary plantation, 50% hedge row plantation and 5% buffer strip plantation were planted in the watershed. About 95.86% area closure were not used in the watershed while only about 4.13% were used as an area closure in the watershed. This shows that they are acquainted with integrated watershed management approaches (Table 16).
Table 16. Soil and water conservation practices used by farmers in different watershed.

Physical/Mechanical SWC

Kersa

Babile

Metta

Total

Bund (m)

Soil

27

43

30

100

Stone

54

8

38

100

Terrace (m)

Yes

52

26

21

99

No

32

36

33

101

Cutoff drain (m)

Yes

52

26

21

99

No

32

36

33

101

Water way (m)

Yes

52

26

21

99

No

32

36

33

101

Gully control

Stone Check dam

65

14

20

99

Brush wood

7

30

61

98

Local material

30

46

22

98

Biological SWC: Planting Grass

Vetiver grass

20

30

50

100

Elephant grass

44

10

46

100

Desho grass

27

30

43

100

Tree Plantation

Road side

5

3

9

17

Farm boundary

18

11

12

41

Hedge row

18

23

15

56

Buffer strip

2

2

1

5

Area closure (ha)

Yes

1

1

3

5

No

42

39

35

116
(b). Tree species existed in the watershed
One third of the total Farmers HHs, in all watersheds, planted trees mainly for construction and fuel wood production purpose. Some farmers have planted agroforestry tree species that are vital for both watershed protection and the forest yield increase. This might be due to the absence of natural forests in the vicinity where one can easily get construction wood. Most tree species existed in the watershed: Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Cordia africana, Olea europea var africana, Croton macrostachyus, Ficus vasta, Acacia Senegal, Acacia Senegal, Casuarina equisitifolia Erythrina abyssinica, Psidium guajava, Mangifera indica, Annona seneglensis, Zizipus species, Casimiroa edulis, Carissa edulis. Distribution of tree species is scattered 108(89%) and their abundance is low 98(81%) in the watershed. Land scarcity households were the main reason that trees were planted in scattered pockets instead of blocks especially for this purpose.
Table 17. Distribution of tree species.

Forms of existed tree species

Kersa

Babile

Metta

Total

Distribution

Scattered

37

40

31

108

Dense

6

0

7

13

Abundance

High

2

0

1

3

Medium

4

4

12

20

Low

37

36

25

98
(c). Tree species extinct in the watershed: Most tree species extinct in the watershed: Podocurpuse, Allophilus abssyinicus, Doviyales abysinicus, Entada abyssinica, Vernonia amygdalina, Acacia albida, Acacia dicures, Milletia fruginea, Albezzia gummifera
Table 18. Causes of extinct tree species.

Causes of extinct

Frequency

Percent (%)

Deforestation

94

77.69

agricultural expansion

23

19.01

Population growth

1

0.83

Urban expansion

2

1.65

Others

1

0.83

Total

121

100
Major causes of extinct of tree species in the watershed are deforestation (77.69%) and agricultural expansion (19%). Deforestation and agricultural expansion in Kersa and Meta were responded by 32 (26.44%) respondents in both. Babile watershed were deforested 30(24.79%) and agricultural expanded 3(2.28%) were responded by respondents.
Figure 5. Major causes of extinct of tree species in the watershed. Major causes of extinct of tree species in the watershed.
(d). Wild Life Existed in the Watershed
Distribution of wild life in the watershed is scattered 108(89.26%) in forms of existed, Abundance of wild life is also low 97(80.16%) in forms of existed in the watershed.
Table 19. Forms of extinct wild life.

Forms of existed wild life

Kersa

Babile

Metta

Total

Distribution

Scattered

37

40

31

108

Dense

6

0

7

13

Abundance

High

2

0

2

4

Medium

4

4

12

20

Low

37

36

25

97
(e). Wild life extinct in the watershed:
Major causes of extinct of wild life in the watershed are deforestation (66.94%), agricultural expansion (21.49%), Population growth (8.26%) and Urbanization (2.48). Kersa and Meta watershed were more affected in extinct of wild life in the watershed.
Table 20. Causes of extinct wild life.

Causes of extinct wild life

Frequency

Percent (%)

Deforestation

81

66.94

agricultural expansion

26

21.49

Population growth

10

8.26

Urban expansion

3

2.48

Others

2

1.65

Total

121

100
(vii). Extension Services, Information Sources and Saving and Credit Access
(a). Saving and credit access
Access to credit is an important constraint to farmers while making technology choices for maintaining reasonable consumption levels in the face of risk and managing variability in income over time. For smallholder farmers, the use of improved inputs like fertilizer and new varieties and investments in land and water management options highly depends on timely availability and input.
Table 21. Sources of credit access for farmers in the watersheds.

Sources of credit access

Frequency

Percent (%)

Government

2

1.65

Sinqee Bank

11

9.10

NGO

2

1.65

Informal sources

107

88.43

Total

121

100
Once credit is available, the cost of capital (rate of interest) influences its use. When the rate of return from the adoption of a new practice is higher than the cost of borrowing, the use of credit from a given source becomes economically attractive. Farmers also face special problems in accessing credit for consumption and medium-to-long-term investments, as many credit institutions prefer to extend credit for short-term productive activities. Spending on soil and water management may also be regarded as natural resource investments that do not provide immediate payoffs to small farmers. This makes it especially difficult to secure loans at market rates of interest. Farmers gain credit access from various sources, formal and informal. The formal sources of credit in three watersheds comprised mainly the Sinqe Bank (9.09%). The remaining 88.43% borrowed from informal sources (village moneylenders, relatives, and friends). In terms of accessibility of credit, 93(76.86%) of the sample farmers did not utilize the credit at all. About 28(23.14%) from both formal and informal sources. In three watersheds, farmers’ responses indicated that about 93 of the farmers did not use credit.
Table 22. Extension services, credit access and information sources.

Extension services, information sources and credit access

Kersa

Babile

Meta

Total

Extension services

On crop management

13

18

13

44

on dairy and livestock management

12

12

6

30

On natural resource management

3

4

11

18

On others

6

9

13

28

Credit access

Yes

18

6

4

28

No

24

34

35

93

Source of information about agricultural technologies

Fellow farmer

14

5

17

36

Zone/district Agric. Extension agent

19

28

18

65

Research Center.

2

1

0

3

Media (Radio, Television)

6

5

2

13

University

0

1

1

2

NGO

0

1

1

2
(b). Extension services for farmers
Agricultural extension services include interventions/activities by government that facilitate the access of farmers, their organizations, and other value chain actors to knowledge, information, and technologies and assist them to development. Farmers in the watershed have got the extension service on crop management 44(36.36%), dairy and livestock management 30(24.79%), On others Agricultural extension services 28 (23.14%) and natural resource management 18(14.87%).
(viii). Sources Information for Farmers
Information sources used to disseminate agricultural research findings to farmers for on farm activities include researchers, extension officers, knowledgeable farmers, research institutions; mass media, commercial and government agencies. The information obtained can help farmers identify efficiencies that lead to higher productivity and profitability, lower input costs, and optimized fertilizer use. Most farmers in the watershed have got the new technology information through DA and zone /district agricultural office (53.72%), Farmer to farmers (29.75%), and Media (Radio, Television) (10.74%). Concerning about the farmers’ food security that produced their own production and all income sources in the watershed, their family’s food security in the last 12 months were 47.11% of food shortage above 9 months next to 35.54% of food shortage up to 3 months in the watershed, about 15.7% were no surplus and no foo in year by respondents.
Table 23. Family’s food security in the last 12 months.

Food

Frequency

Percent (%)

Food surplus

2

1.65

No surplus and no foo in year

19

15.7

Food shortage up to 3 months

43

35.54

Food shortage above 9 months

57

47.11

Total

121

100
(ix). Socio-economic and Biophysical Character Relation with Watershed Management
Pearson's correlations of gender, age, family size, education, occupation, marital status, labor contribute and role of household with participation of respondents in the watershed. Middle age strong labor required to maintain SWC activities than old one. Farmers who have a large farm land are more likely to invest in soil conservation measures. Male households are better exposed to modern SWC technologies and have more power to make adoption decision than female households. A better educated farmer can easily understand the information from DA and others & transferred to others. Larger HH size with sufficient labor source tend to conservation activities due to the laborious nature of conservation work which needs more labor force. This study agrees with the study by (Belete L., 2017)
[8]
.
Table 24. Gender, age, family size, education, occupation, marital status, labor contribute and role of household with participation of respondents in the watershed.

Socio-economic characteristics

Participation in Watershed management with P value

Gender

0.013*

Age

0.027*

Family Size

0.041*

Land holding

0.020*

Education

0.022*

Occupation

0.661

Marital status

0.402

Labor contribute

0.511

Role of house hold

0.320
Correlation significant at less than 5% probability level
3.2. Bio-physical Resources Survey: Topography of Watershed
Table 25. Slope class of the selected watershed.

Watershed Landscape (relief feature) by slope-class

0-3% (flat)

>3≤8% (undulate)

>8≤15% (rolling)

>15≤30% (hilly)

>30≤50% (steep)

>50% (mountain)

Total

0.0

11.0

50.0

163.0

97.0

128.0

449

0.0%

2.4%

11.1%

36.3%

21.6%

28.5%

100%
About 0.0% of the area is flat, 2.4% undulating, 11.1% rolling; 36.3% hilly, 21.6% steep and the rest 28.5% are mountainous.
Figure 6. Topographic feature, by slope-class.
3.2.1. Land Use Land Cover Pattern of Watershed
Land use & cover of watershed: The major watershed sizes to a total of about 449 ha. Farmland comprises about 50%, homestead 3%, grazing/pastureland 2%, hillside/ degraded land 26%, shrub/bush 19% and others 0.2% of the wetland.
Figure 7. Land-use land cover pattern of watershed.
Figure 8. Land use land cover map.
3.2.2. Major Soil Types of Arado Watershed
The major soil types of watersheds in area (ha). Chromic Luvi Sols 286 ha, Eutric Cambi-Sols 99 ha, Eutric Phluvi Sols 2 ha, and Rocky Surface 62 ha.
Figure 9. Major soil types of watershed.
3.3. Major Constraints in the Watershed
The farmer’s respondents were asked what they perceived as major constraints to their agricultural production.
Land and soil related & Production related constraints
Soil erosion, soil fertility, deforestation, land shortage, and climate change, Agricultural inputs (time, price, fertilizer etc), Crop productivity, Crop disease and Storage pests.
Livestock related constraints: Feed and fodder, Grazing system and Animal disease
Major resources potentials and opportunities are existed in the watershed for development. Those resources potentials and opportunities are: Suitable agro ecology, availability of labor force, all weather road, forest resources, transport service, sand and coble stone (mining), informal institutions (dabo/guza), artificial lakes/ponds, schools, health center, river, youth and women associations, farmers’ cooperatives, livestock resources, and market access.
Table 26. Major constraints in the watershed.

Major constraints in the watershed

Frequency

Percent (%)

Ranking

Soil erosion

18

14.9

1st

Deforestation

16

13.24

2nd

Soil fertility

13

10.72

3rd

Feed and fodder

11

9.11

4th

Agricultural inputs (time, price, fertilizer etc)

10

8.33

5th

Crop productivity

9

7.41

6th

Land shortage

8

6.62

7th

Climate change

7

5.83

8th

Grazing system

6

4.92

9th

Crop disease

5

4.1

10th

Storage pests

5

4.1

11th

Animal disease

4

3.3

12th

Credit access

3

2.5

13th

Employment opportunity

3

2.5

14th

Inflation

3

2.4

15th

Total

121

100
Table 27. Major potentials /opportunities in the Watershed.

Major potentials & Natural resource

Frequency

Percent (%)

Ranking

Suitable agro ecology

18

14.9

1st

Availability of labor force

16

13.2

2nd

All weather road

13

10.7

3rd

Forest resources

11

9.1

4th

Transport service

10

8.3

5th

Sand and coble stone ( mining)

9

7.4

6th

Informal institutions (dabo)

8

6.6

7th

Artificial lakes

7

5.8

8th

Schools

6

4.9

9th

Health center

5

4.1

10th

Permanent river

5

4.1

11th

Youth and women associations

4

3.3

12th

Farmers cooperatives

3

2.5

13th

Livestock

3

2.5

14th

Market access

3

2.4

15th

Total

121

100
4. Conclusions
The study was collected the existing baseline data from Kersa, Babile and Meta district watersheds. The data was focused on the socioeconomic characterization of the production systems and resource use and management patterns. Constraints and opportunities of natural resources management in selected watershed were identified, documented and prioritized. The major constraints HHs; soil erosion, soil fertility, deforestation, land shortage, climate change, agricultural inputs (time, price, fertilizer etc), crop productivity, crop disease, pests, feed and fodder, grazing system, animal disease were identified. The major opportunities in the watershed identified: suitable agro ecology, availability of labor force, all weather road, forest resources, and transport service. The researchable issues for interventions in the watershed were identified, based on the assessment results the following recommendations given below.
5. Recommendations
Intervention area for Future Research/Recommendations are;
1. Soil fertility improvement and management:
1) Characterization of soil chemical and physical properties and parameters.
2) Introducing of organic fertilizers preparation and application system to increase integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers use.
3) Promotion of bio fertilizers and vermi-compost technologies to enhance soil fertility.
4) Providing awareness creation for farmers on preparation of organic fertilizers.
5) Promotion of inter cropping and others.
6) Promotion of compost preparation to enhance soil fertility.
2. Soil and water conservation and watershed management:
1) Rehabilitation of degraded lands activity (using Physical and Biological).
2) Promote different agronomic and physical soil and water conservation measures based on their agro-ecology.
3) Promotion of integrated conservation agriculture and
4) Promotion low-cost gully and degraded land rehabilitation.
5) Introduction of model watershed development for enhancement of soil fertility. Creating awareness on maintenance of damaged soil and water conserving structures to increases their sustainability.
6) Introducing different water harvesting technologies in the watershed.
7) Demonstration and awareness creation on farm in-situ water harvesting practices.
2. Agroforestry and plantation forestry, forage development and forestry practices.
1) Promote multipurpose fruit tree species in the watershed.
2) Introduction of agroforestry practices in area.
3) Integration of multipurpose trees with crop production.
4) Awareness creation on effects of deforestation and forest degradation on climate change.
5) Demonstrating of multipurpose tree integration with other cash crop like fruit tree.
6) Integration of forage trees with crop production for animals.
Abbreviations

CALM P4R

Climate Action through Landscape Management Program for Result

SWC

Soil and Water Conservation

SSA

Sub Saharan African

NRM

Natural Resources Management

HH

House Hold

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Science

CSA

Central Statistical Agency

DA

Development Agent

Ha

Hectare

NPS

Nitrogen, Phosphorous & Potassium
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to World Bank/MOA of Ethiopia, Oromia Agriculture Breuer and Oromia Agricultural Research Institute for the financial support to conduct Baseline Survey of Socio-economic and biophysical characterization and prioritization of major constraints of watersheds development under Climate Action through Landscape Management (CALM) Program. Fedis Agricultural Research Center for coordinating the team of data collection and facilities. East Hararghe Zonal and Districts of Agriculture Breuer Office.
Author Contributions
Musa Abdella: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Megarsa Ketama: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Habtamu, Y., Eguale, T., Wubete, A. and Sori, T., 2010. In vitro antimicrobial activity of selected Ethiopian medicinal plants against some bacteria of veterinary importance. Afr J Microbiol Res, 4(12), pp. 1230-1234.
[2] Mulugeta Lemenh (2004). Effects of land use change on soil quality and native flora degradation and restoration in the highlands of Ethiopia. Implication for sustainable land management. Swedish university of agricultural science Uppsala, Sweden.
[3] lakew, D., Carucci, V., Asrat, W., Yitayew, A. (eds) 2005. Community Based Participatory WatershedDevelopment: A Guideline. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[4] Gete, Z. 2006. Integrated management of watershed experiences in Eastern and Central Africa: Lessons from Ethiopia. In Shiferaw B and Rao KPC (eds): Integrated management of watersheds for agricultural diversification and sustainable livelihoods in Eastern and Central Africa: Lessons and experiences from semiarid South Asia. Proceedings of the international workshop held at ICRIS at Nairobi, 6-7 December2004. 120pp.
[5] Tongul H and Hobson M 2013. Scaling up an integrated watershed management approach through social protection programmes in Ethiopia: the MERET and PSNP schemes. A New Dialogue: Putting People at the Heart of Global Development 15-16 April, Dublin Ireland, 2013.
[6] Brooks, N. K., Folliot P. F., & Thames J. L. (1991). Watershed Management: A Global Perspective, Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press pp1-7.
[7] Yemane, 1967. A determination of sample size for farm households. Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods.
[8] Belete Limeni Kerse. 2017. Factors affecting adoption of soil and water conservation practices in the case of Damota Watershed, Wolayita zone, Southern Ethiopia, International Journal of Agricultural Science Research, 7(1).
[9] CSA (2007). FDRE/CSA. The 2007 population and housing census of southern nation’s nationalities and peoples” region statistical summary report, Addis Ababa.
[10] Ethiopia Forest and Climate Change Commission (2018). Ethiopia State and Outlook of the Environment 2017. Addis Ababa: Ethiopia Forest and Climate Change Commission.
[11] Dias, L. M., Kaplan, R. S., and Sing, H. (2021). Making small farms more sustainable and profitable. Harv. Bus. Rev. Business and Society.
[12] Dufera, B., Dube, D. K., and Aschalew, A. (2020). Socio-economic impacts, and factors affecting adoption of watershed management practices between the treated anduntreated micro-watersheds in the chirachasub-watershed of Ethiopia. PalArch’s J. Archaeol. Egypt/Egyptol. 17, 4528–4548.
[13] Mekuria, W., Diyasa, M., Tengberg, A., and Haileslassie, A. (2021). Effects of longterm land use and land cover changes on ecosystem service values: An example from the central rift valley, Ethiopia. Land 10, 1373.
[14] Habtamu, T. (2011). Assessment of sustainable watershed management approach case study lenche dima, tsegur eyesus and dijjil watershed. A project paper presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Professional Studies.
[15] Calderon, M. M., Anit, K. P. A., Palao, L. K. M., and Lasco, R. D. (2013). Households’ willingness to pay for improved watershed services of the layawan watershed in oroquieta city, Philippines. J. Sustain. Dev. 6: 1.

https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v6n1p1

Cite This Article
Plain Text BibTeX RIS

  • APA Style

    Abdella, M., Ketama, M. (2025). Assessing the Socio-Economic and Biophysical Recourses for the Identification and Prioritization Constraints of Selected Watershed in Eastern Hararghe, Oromia, Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 14(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20251401.11

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Abdella, M.; Ketama, M. Assessing the Socio-Economic and Biophysical Recourses for the Identification and Prioritization Constraints of Selected Watershed in Eastern Hararghe, Oromia, Ethiopia. Agric. For. Fish. 2025, 14(1), 1-22. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20251401.11

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Abdella M, Ketama M. Assessing the Socio-Economic and Biophysical Recourses for the Identification and Prioritization Constraints of Selected Watershed in Eastern Hararghe, Oromia, Ethiopia. Agric For Fish. 2025;14(1):1-22. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20251401.11

    Copy | Download 

  • @article{10.11648/j.aff.20251401.11,
  author = {Musa Abdella and Megarsa Ketama},
  title = {Assessing the Socio-Economic and Biophysical Recourses for the Identification and Prioritization Constraints of Selected Watershed in Eastern Hararghe, Oromia, Ethiopia},
  journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
  volume = {14},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-22},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20251401.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20251401.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20251401.11},
  abstract = {Watershed development is an important component of rural development and natural resource management strategies in many countries. To implemented community based participatory integrated watershed management program by CALM P4R at selected watershed, the baseline survey study is important to solve biophysical and socioeconomic related problems. The study was conducted to assess the socioeconomic status, potential and constraints of selected watershed identified, to assess biophysical data of model watershed documented and to prioritize issues for interventions in model watershed indicated in the East Hararghe zone for further improvements to promote Sustainable and productive livelihood through the integration of different watershed components in participatory approach. Household interview and biophysical resources assessment followed by watershed mapping techniques were used for the data collection. Purposive sampling methods were used to select 121 households in three watersheds. Descriptive statistics by frequency distributions, means and percentage and diversity indices were used for data analysis. The results indicated that problems were identified and prioritized by the community of the watershed. Overall results indicated that land degradation and soil erosion were a serious concern and watershed management programs could be strengthened. Different prioritized problems in relation to soil fertility management, soil, water conservation and water shade management and Agro-forestry, forage development and forestry practices concerns across the watershed. Soil erosion control measures, soil fertility enhancement practices, SWC practices, niche compatible multipurpose trees introduction, home garden agroforestry and other interventions were proposed. Awareness creation and strengthening capacity of rural communities on integrating natural resource management technologies for effective soil and water conservation measure should be enhanced through participatory integrated watershed management were proposed.},
 year = {2025}
}

    Copy | Download 

  • TY  - JOUR
T1  - Assessing the Socio-Economic and Biophysical Recourses for the Identification and Prioritization Constraints of Selected Watershed in Eastern Hararghe, Oromia, Ethiopia
AU  - Musa Abdella
AU  - Megarsa Ketama
Y1  - 2025/02/10
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20251401.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.aff.20251401.11
T2  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JF  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JO  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
SP  - 1
EP  - 22
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5648
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20251401.11
AB  - Watershed development is an important component of rural development and natural resource management strategies in many countries. To implemented community based participatory integrated watershed management program by CALM P4R at selected watershed, the baseline survey study is important to solve biophysical and socioeconomic related problems. The study was conducted to assess the socioeconomic status, potential and constraints of selected watershed identified, to assess biophysical data of model watershed documented and to prioritize issues for interventions in model watershed indicated in the East Hararghe zone for further improvements to promote Sustainable and productive livelihood through the integration of different watershed components in participatory approach. Household interview and biophysical resources assessment followed by watershed mapping techniques were used for the data collection. Purposive sampling methods were used to select 121 households in three watersheds. Descriptive statistics by frequency distributions, means and percentage and diversity indices were used for data analysis. The results indicated that problems were identified and prioritized by the community of the watershed. Overall results indicated that land degradation and soil erosion were a serious concern and watershed management programs could be strengthened. Different prioritized problems in relation to soil fertility management, soil, water conservation and water shade management and Agro-forestry, forage development and forestry practices concerns across the watershed. Soil erosion control measures, soil fertility enhancement practices, SWC practices, niche compatible multipurpose trees introduction, home garden agroforestry and other interventions were proposed. Awareness creation and strengthening capacity of rural communities on integrating natural resource management technologies for effective soil and water conservation measure should be enhanced through participatory integrated watershed management were proposed.
VL  - 14
IS  - 1
ER  -

    Copy | Download

Author Information
Download PDF
  • Abstract
  • Keywords

  • Document Sections

    1. 1. Introduction
    2. 2. Material and Methods
    3. 3. Result and Discussion
    4. 4. Conclusions
    5. 5. Recommendations
    Show Full Outline
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgments
  • Author Contributions
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • References
  • Cite This Article
  • Author Information

About Us

Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is an Open Access publisher, with more than 300 online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

Learn More About SciencePG

Products

Information

Important Link

Copyright © 2012 -- 2025 Science Publishing Group – All rights reserved.