Relationships and the Determinants of Sustainable Land Management Technologies in North Gojjam Sub-Basin, Upper Blue Nile, Ethiopia

Abstract

Sustainable land management (SLM) is a leading policy issue in Ethiopia. However, the adoption and continuous use of SLM technologies remain low. This study investigates the interrelationship of adopted SLM technologies and key factors of farmers’ decisions to use SLM technologies in the North Gojjam sub-basin of the Upper Blue Nile. The study was based on the investigation of cross-sectional data obtained from 414 randomly selected rural household heads, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews. Descriptive statistics and Econometric models (i.e., Multivariate Probit and Poisson regression) were used to analyze quantitative data, while a content analysis method was used for qualitative data analysis. Results indicate that at least one type of SLM technology was implemented by 94% of farm households in the North Gojjam sub-basin. The most widely used technologies were chemical fertilizer, soil bund, and animal manure. Most of the adopted SLM technologies complement each other. Farm size, family size, male-headed household, local institutions, perception of soil erosion, livestock size, total income, and extension service increased the adoption probability of most SLM technologies. Plot fragmentation, household age, plot distance, off-farm income, market distance, and perception of good fertile soil discourage the adoption probability of most SLM technologies. To scale up SLM technologies against land degradation, it is important to consider households’ demographic characteristics, the capacity of farm households, and plot-level related factors relevant to the specific SLM technologies being promoted.

Factors Influencing Smallholder Farmers’ Decision to Abandon Introduced Sustainable Land Management Technologies in Central Ethiopia

“…According to Asfaw and Neka (2017) and Nkonki-Mandleni et al (2022), households headed by women are less likely to invest in SWC structural maintenance due to a lack of labor, less access to information and the fact that they bear additional in-house responsibilities such as cooking and taking care of the family members. This result is consistent with previous research (Gedefaw et al, 2018;Limani, 2018;Ewunetu et al, 2021;Oduniyi, 2022), which found that male-headed households are more likely to use structural SWC practices but contradicts the findings of other studies (Atnafe et al, 2015;Belachew et al, 2020) that more female-headed households are probably continuing with technology use than males.…”

“…In other words, adoptions of technology are not mutually exclusive or independent of each other (Amare et al, 2014;Mengistu and Assefa, 2019). Second, there are complementarities among SWC measures as far as factors affecting adoption statuses are concerned (Sileshi et al, 2019;Ewunetu et al, 2021). The sections that follow present the results and discussions made based on cross-sectional household survey data.…”

“…The training is intended to have a beneficial impact on SWC practice adoption (Ewunetu et al, 2021). The findings read from Table 4 further reveal that the training exposure of households to various SWC measures and associated benefits negatively and significantly affected the probability of households' being in the dis-adoption category.…”

“…To address the problems, the Ethiopian government employed a range of sustainable land management (SLM) measures since the 1970s (Limani, 2018;Ewunetu et al, 2021). In recent decades, participatory watershed management has been recognized at the national level under the framework of the national development strategy (Agidew and Singh, 2018).…”

Usage and Impacts of Technologies and Management Practices in Ethiopian Smallholder Maize Production

“…However, fertilizer was negatively correlated with manure use indicating that farmers, on average, use manure and fertilizer as substitutes rather than complements. Similar results were documented in studies on Ethiopian maize production [3,7,30,40].…”