The World’s Largest Open Access Agricultural & Applied Economics Digital Library

This document is discoverable and free to researchers across the

globe due to the work of AgEcon Search.

Help ensure our sustainability.

Give to AgEcon Search

AgEcon Search
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu
[email protected]

Papers downloaded from AgEcon Search may be used for non-commercial purposes and personal study only.
No other use, including posting to another Internet site, is permitted without permission from the copyright
owner (not AgEcon Search), or as allowed under the provisions of Fair Use, U.S. Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C.

No endorsement of AgEcon Search or its fundraising activities by the author(s) of the following work or their
employer(s) is intended or implied.
 Sustainable Agriculture Research; Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024
ISSN 1927-050X E-ISSN 1927-0518
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ About Choices of Sustainable

Land Management Practices in West Wollega Zone, Oromia Region,
Ethiopia
Addisu Raga1 & 2, Professor Fekadu Beyene3, Professor Jema Haji4 & 5 & Assistant Professor Chanyalew Siyum
1
Lecturer and program advisor at different area, Ethiopia
2
PhD student at Haramaya University, Ethiopia
3
Professor of institutional and resources economics at the School of Rural Development Innovation, Haramaya
University, Ethiopia
4
Professor of agricultural economics at the School of Agricultural Economics, Haramaya University, Ethiopia
5
Assistant Professor Chanyalew Siyum (PhD)at the School of Rural Development and innovation Research
directorate, Ethiopia
Correspondence: Addisu Raga, Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Tel: 251-911-064-348. E-mail:
[email protected]

Received: November 27, 2023 Accepted: January 6, 2024 Online Published: January 18, 2024
doi:10.5539/sar.v13n1p74 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v13n1p74

Abstract
Background: Due attention has recently been given to the choices of sustainable land management practices
(SLMPs) to reduce land degradation and improve the livelihood of smallholder farmers in developing countries.
A rising number of people believe that Sustainable Land Management is an essential strategy for enhancing food
security. For generations, Ethiopia has been regarded as a hotspot of land degradation, posing a severe threat to
agricultural productivity leading to widespread rural poverty. Hence, this study aimed at identifying the
determinants of smallholder farmers’ choice of SLMPs in the West Wollega zone, Oromia region of Ethiopia
using the Multivariate Probit (MVP) model.
Results: Results of the MVP model show that the predicted probabilities of adopting organic fertilizer, area
closure, soil and water conservation, crop rotation, and compost were 37.2, 35.3, 40.5, 38.3, and 38.5%
respectively. The MVP model results also show that the five SLMPs are complementary and the probability that
households choose all five SLMPs was 23% which is low. Further, results of the MVP model show that
cooperative membership, model farmer contact, farm size, non-farm income, credit, farm experience, perceived
soil erosion, social capital, livestock owned, farmland slope, NGO intervention, information access, and training
have a significant positive influence while age, family size, and perceived input cost significantly and negatively
impacted the choice of SLMPs by households in the study area.
Conclusions: The findings of the study confirm that socioeconomic, household, farm and institutional
characteristics of the households have a significant impact on the choices of SLMPs and hence the need to focus
on the above-mentioned factors to enhance the choices of SLMPs and reduce land degradation problem in the
study area. The results also highlight the significance of environmentally-friendly policies, which include
sustainable development, SLMPS plan determination, environmental permits, and incentive programs for
managing the sustainability of land management performance in land-use policy within the local context.
Keywords: land degradation, sustainable land management practices, Multivariate Probit model, adoption, and
west Wollega zone
1. Background
Land degradation is a global issue affecting rural communities that rely on farmland resources, making them
vulnerable to poverty. It lowers agricultural productivity, enhances desertification, biodiversity loss, the cost
involved with food and energy security, disturbance of the socioeconomic system, and loss of human livelihoods
(Salih et al., 2017). According to Le et al. (2016), over 40% of the world’s degraded lands occur in areas with the
highest incidence of poverty indicating the linkage between poverty and land degradation. The causes and

74
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

drivers of land degradation are complex, interactive, and self-reinforcing both across areas and generations
(Gebreselassie et al., 2016). As a result, around 1.5 billion people worldwide are affected by land degradation,
which covers roughly 23% of the world’s land surface and is expanding at a rate of 5 to 10 million hectares per
year (Pingali et al., 2014). For instance, due to the adverse effects of land degradation, about a quarter of the
world’s seven billion people experience food insecurity (FSIN, 2018). From this, soil erosion has been identified
as a leading driver of land degradation resulting in desertification in many dryland and non-dryland areas
(Haregeweyn et al., 2017; FAO, 2019a; Fenta et al., 2020; Prăvălie et al., 2021).
According to a global meta-analysis synthesis, soil erosion causes a global median loss of 0.3% of annual crop
yield, with a total loss of 10% projected for 2050 (FAO, 2019a). This yield loss due to continued soil erosion
could be equivalent to removing 4.5 M ha yr-1 of crop production (FAO & ITPS, 2015; FAO, 2019a). Moreover,
as per recent projections, the rate of soil erosion will increase by up to 66% globally between 2015 and 2070
(Borrelli et al., 2020).
According to estimates, land degradation affects 46% of Africa’s land area, affecting at least 485 million (65%)
people and costing USD 9.3 billion per year. This revealed that between 75 and 80% of the continent’s farmland
appears to be degraded, with annual nutrient losses ranging from 30 to 60 kilograms per hectare (AGNES, 2020).
As a result of these hazards, a sizable portion of the $7 billion in agricultural productivity was lost due to land
degradation between 2000 and 2012 (David & Michae, 2013).
Similarly, Ethiopia is one of the worst-affected countries with significant land degradation and its negative
effects on farm productivity, food security, and the well-being of communities (Berendse et al., 2015; Brevik et
al., 2015; Taddese, 2018; Abiye, 2019). The agricultural sector has significant importance in many developing
countries’ economies and community livelihoods, as it contributes significantly to the country’s GDP, creates
employment opportunities, and ensures a steady supply of domestic food (Bisht et al., 2020; Dixon et al., 2001).
Agriculture is also the primary sector in Ethiopia, where nearly 84% of the population is directly dependent on
agriculture, land degradation is a serious issue that must be addressed (Nigussie et al., 2017a). Agriculture, for
example, contributes significantly to the country’s economic growth (Belachew et al., 2020; Collier & Dercon,
2014). On the other hand, the agricultural sector is still dealing with natural resource depletion, land degradation,
soil erosion, climate change, and a lack of modern/productive inputs, to name a few (Belachew et al., 2020;
Kagoya et al., 2017). As a result, while this sector faces threats from land degradation, there is no doubt that it is
a more pressing issue for Ethiopia’s agriculture-based economy and farmers’ livelihoods (Nigussie et al., 2017a;
Miheretu & Yimer, 2017; Abera et al., 2020).
In this regard, sustainable land management practices (SLMPs) are widely acknowledged as critical to slowing
land degradation, preventing desertification, and restoring degraded lands (Eekhout & de Vente, 2022).
Researchers, land users, and other stakeholders have been working on issues related to land degradation and the
adoption of various SLMPs for decades. As defined by WOCAT (2021), SLMP refers to both technologies and
an approach. However, there has been little systematic documentation of the successes or associated challenges.
Monitoring and evaluation, in particular at the household level, have received insufficient attention (Studer et al.,
2016). Hence, the choices of SLMPs must be documented and shared to provide options for better land use
management under varying conditions, to promote practice upscaling and sharing, and to design a sustainable
and inclusive policy environment (Mudhara et al., 2016).
Moreover, top-down planning methodologies, a lack of community input, weak institutional frameworks, and a
lack of local implementation capacity all contribute to the ineffectiveness of land management practices in
achieving the desired results (Tongul & Hobson, 2013). There are also issues with policy enforcement that have
contributed to the failure of sustainable land management efforts in various parts of the country to achieve their
intended goals. According to the findings of Nkonya et al. (2013) and von Braun et al. (2013), a lack of strong
policy action and a low level of evidence-based policy framework are critical challenges to the effectiveness of
SLMPs.
To combat and mitigate the interconnected effects of land degradation, the government and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) promoted the SLMP program to reverse the negative effects of land degradation, though
progress and success varied across the countryside (Zerihun et al., 2017). This demonstrates and emphasizes the
fact that household participation in SLMP is influenced by their geographical location as well as their
understanding of the extent of land degradation trends (Tesfa & Mekuriaw, 2014).
Land management practices in Ethiopia, according to studies such as those conducted by Abebaw et al. (2011) and
Befikadu & Frank (2015), have fallen far short of expectations, and land degradation, primarily due to soil erosion,
remains widespread. Other recent empirical studies in Ethiopia have looked at the adoption of SLMPs and their

75
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

impact on land degradation in various parts of the country, including Haftu et al. (2019), Senbetie et al. (2017),
Paulos and Belay (2017), Tesfaye (2017) and Schmidt & Tadesse (2017). Their findings show that farmers’ use of
SLMPs remains low, and the country is losing a significant amount of fertile topsoil.
Furthermore, empirical studies have demonstrated the benefits of SLMPs, in increasing productivity and
improving smallholder livelihoods (e.g., Haregeweyn et al., 2015; Karidjo et al., 2018). However, the effectiveness
of the government’s actions to support the scaling up of SLMPs in the country’s various agroecological zones
requires comprehensive studies conducted in different locations over time. As a result, a more in-depth
investigation is required to better understand the factors influencing households’ decisions to participate in SLMPs
in these various socioeconomic settings: economic, ecological, geographical, and livelihood perspectives.
Typically, a combination of environmental, social, economic, and political factors that are extremely particular to
households and the context in which they are implemented have created barriers for smallholder farmers to
engage in SLMPs (Bisaro et al., 2011; Cordingley et al., 2015). Due to the failure of one-size-fits-all solutions to
address, particularly at the local level, the current study’s focus on the factors that influence farm households’
participation in SLMPs is very crucial. To this effect, it is critical to investigate what specifically influences
households’ decisions to adopt SLMPs in the west Wollega zone, Oromia region of Ethiopia, to develop policy
options and support systems that could improve smallholder farmers’ adoption level to enhance agricultural
production and productivity by rehabilitating the degraded lands.
2. Methods
2.1 Description of the Study Areas
This study was conducted in the West Wollega zon
e, which is one of the 20 administrative zones of the Oromia region of Ethiopia. Administratively, the zone has
21 districts, of which 19 are rural and two of them are urban administrations which were further subdivided into
543 kebeles 489 peasant associations, and 54 urban dweller associations. The population size of the zone is
estimated as 1,741,567 out of which 864,277 or 49.6% are male, while 877,290 or 50.4% are female
(WWZARDO, 2021). The total household size of the sampled districts was about 97,5offrom which 69571 are
male and 27,928 are women heads.
West Wollega zone is located between 8012’-10003’N latitudes and 34008 -36010’E longitudes, located in the
western part of the Oromia region, bordered by Benishangul Gumuz regional state in the North West and North
East and Kelem Wollega Zone in the West. In the east it is bordered by East Wollega zone while in the south it is
bordered by Gambela Regional state and Illubabor zone. West Wollega zone is found at an altitude ranging
from1300 - 2,600 meters above sea level.
The zone has three agro-ecological zones which comprise 15.5% highland, 65.4% midland, and 19.1% lowland.
The zone has a bimodal type of rainfall and receives an annual rainfall which ranges between 300 to 2,000 mm,
while the average temperature is between 10°C and 30°C. The area of the Zone is estimated to be 1,274,501
hectares (West Wollega Zone, Statistics Office Report, 2021). The total population of the five districts is
estimated as 564538 (32.4%) of the total population out of which 287520 are males and 277,018 are females.

34°50'0"E 35°10'0"E 35°30'0"E 35°50'0"E

±
ETHIOPIA
STUDY AREA

Ü
9°20'0"N 9°40'0"N 10°0'0"N

9°0'0"N 9°20'0"N 9°40'0"N 10°0'0"N

±
OROMIA

km
0 15 30 60
9°0'0"N

WEST WOLLEGA LEGEND

± Nejo
Boji dirmaji
Genji
Gimbi
Mene sibu
34°50'0"E 35°10'0"E 35°30'0"E 35°50'0"E

Figure 1. Geographical location of the study area and districts

76
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

2.2 Data Types, Sources, Sampling, and Data Collection Methods

2.2.1. Data Types, Sources, and Methods of Collection
The data from primary source were collected from sampled farm household heads using structured questionnaire,
key interview and focus group discussion while secondary data were collected from various published
documents, zonal agricultural offices, websites, etc through desk review
2.2.2. Sampling Design
A multi-stage sampling technique was used to randomly select 426 households from five districts. The data for
this study was gathered using a multi-stage sampling technique to select the study districts, kebeles (It refers to
the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia), and sample households for the study. In the first stage, the zone was
stratified based on agro-ecologies and five districts (three from midland and one each from low and highland),
namely Ganji, Gimbi, Boji Dirmaji, Nejo, and Mana-Sibu were randomly selected based on probability
proportional to size. In the second stage, 15 kebeles were randomly and proportionally chosen from the sample
districts those have practices of the SLMP technology. Likewise, the households in each sample kebele were
divided into two groups (adopters and non-adopters of SLMPs). In the third stage, using proportionate
probability sampling based on the size of the households in each kebele, 426 farm households (201 adopters and
225 non-adopters) were randomly selected from both strata. For this study, the sample size of 426 households
was determined using the Cochran (1963) formula.
Table 1. Distribution of sample farm households by districts and kebeles
Districts Total population Total number of households Adopters Non-Adopters Sample size
Najo 30,211 2666 63 69 132
Gimbi 18081 1591 36 43 79
Ganji 9842 874 20 23 43
Boji-Dirmaji 10299 918 22 23 45
Mana-Sibu 29067 2577 60 67 127
Total 97,500 8626 201(47.18%) 225(52.82%) 426
Source: Own survey data (2021)

2.3 Data Analysis

Household survey data were first into STATA version 15 and then coded for descriptive and inferential statistics.
Descriptive statistics such as frequency, mean and standard deviation were used to describe households’
socio-economic, demographic, and institutional characteristics whereas the multivariate probit (MVP) model was
used to identify determinants that are likely to influence farmers’ choices of SLMPs. MVP model was selected
with the justification that the SLMPs themselves and the unobserved error terms might depend on each other and
that a household may adopt more than one practice (Yu et al., 2008).
Following Greene (2003), the MVP regression model is specified as:

{ (1)
Where j=1, 2 …, m denotes the SLMPs available, Xhpj is a vector of explanatory variables, denotes the vector
of the parameters to be estimated, and are random error terms distributed as a multivariate normal
distribution with zero mean and unitary variance. It was assumed that a rational farmer has a latent
variable, which captures the unobserved preferences or demand associated with the jth choice of SLM
strategies. This latent variable is assumed to be a linear combination of observed household and other
characteristics that affect the adoption of SLMPs, as well as unobserved characteristics captured by the stochastic
error term. Given the latent nature of the variable the estimation is based on the observable variable
which indicates whether or not a household adopts a specific SLMP. Since the adoption of several SLMPs is
possible, the error terms in equation (1) are assumed to jointly follow a multivariate normal distribution with
zero conditional mean and variance normalized to unity.
The off-diagonal elements in the covariance matrix represent the unobserved correlation between the stochastic
component of the jth and mth type of SLMPs. This assumption means that equation (1) gives a MVP model that
jointly represents the decision to adopt a particular SLMP.

77
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

Table 2. Summary statistics and definition of variables used in MVP model

Variable Description of variables Mean S.D
Dependent variable
Sustainable Land Management Adopted SLMPs 0.47 0.50
Practices (SLMPs) (1 = yes; 0 = otherwise)
Organic fertilizer (OF) Adopted organic fertilizer 0.33 0.47
(1 = yes; 0 = otherwise)
Area closure (AC) Adopted area closure 0.32 0.47
(1 = yes; 0 = otherwise)
Soil and water Adopted soil and water conservation practice 0.44 0.50
conservation (SWC) (1 = yes; 0 = otherwise)
Crop rotation (CR) Practice crop rotation 0.41 0.49
(1 = yes; 0 = otherwise)
Compost (C) Adopted compost 0.40 0.49
(1 = yes; 0 = otherwise)
Independent variables
Age Age of the head (years) 43.07 11.17
Family size Number of members in the household 5.86 0.13
Perceived costs of inputs 1 if fair, 0 if otherwise 0.42 0.49
Farming experience Number of years into farming 16.00 0.55
Farm size Size of farmland (ha) 2.12 1.69
Non-farm income Annual non-farm income in Birr 6568.33 9077.72
Level of education Years of education of the head 3.91 3.83
Extension contacts Frequency of contacts per year 5.44 5.95
Access to information 1 if head has access to information, 0 otherwise 0.75 0.43
Access to credit 1 if head has access to credit, 0 otherwise 0.43 0.50
Training 1 if head received training, 0 otherwise 0.28 0.45
Model farmer contact Number of contacts that the head made 8.30 7.82
with the model farmers per year
Social capital 1 if the head has network, 0 otherwise 0.74 0.44
Land slope 1 if flat, 0 otherwise 0.24 0.43
Perceived soil erosion hazards 1 if yes, 0 otherwise 0.34 0.48
Membership in cooperative 1 if yes, 0 otherwise 0.45 0.50
Access to NGOs 1 if NGOs are available in the area, 0 otherwise 0.69 0.46
Livestock Livestock owned in TLU 11.12 8.39
Source: Authors computation.

78
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

Table 3. Test for multicollinearity and heteroscedasticity

Multicollinearity VIF
Livestock 4.36
Model farmer 3.56
Farm experience 3.20
Coop membership 3.07
Access to credit 2.84
Education level 2.47
Non-farm income 2.19
Training 1.85
Perceived costs of inputs 1.58
Land size 1.55
Age 1.49
Slope type 1.47
Access to information 1.28
Access to NGOs 1.27
Perceived soil erosion 1.22
Social capital 1.22
Family size 1.17
Mean VIF 2.11
Heteroscedasticity
Test χ2-value P-value
Breusch-Pagan (BP) test 120.76 0.00

3. Results of the Study

3.1 Descriptive Statistics Results
Descriptive statistics results of the smallholder farmers in the study area are presented in Table 2. Results show
that 33% of the farmers have adopted Organic Fertilizer (OF), 32% have adopted Area Closure (AC), 44% have
adopted Soil and Water Conservation (SWC), and 41% have adopted Crop Rotation (CR) while 40% of the
farmers have adopted Compost (C) as SLMPs in the study areas to reverse effect of land degradation and
rehabilitate the degraded farmlands.
3.2 Econometric Model Results
3.2.1 Test for Multicollinearity and Heteroscedasticity
Multicollinearity refers to the presence of linear relationships among the explanatory variables included in the
model. In the presence of multicollinearity (independent variables in a model are correlated), the model results in
wrong signs of coefficients, high standard errors of coefficients, and high R2 value even when the parameter
estimates are not significant (Wossen et al., 2017). The variance inflation factor (VIF) for each variable was
evaluated to check for multicollinearity. If the VIF exceeds 10, that variable is said to be highly collinear and can
be excluded from the model. The results of the multicollinearity test are presented in Table 3 above. Results
show that the mean value is 2.11 and none of the variables included in the model has VIF greater than 10. This
indicates that there is no multicollinearity problem in the dataset and hence all the explanatory variables are
included in the model. The result of the heteroscedasticity test is also presented in Table 3. The χ2-value (120.76)
is statistically significant at a 1% probability level, indicating that there exists heteroscedasticity in the dataset.
Hence, the robust standard error is used in the analysis.
3.2.2 Model Fitness, Probabilities, and Correlation Matrix from MVP Model
The correlation coefficient among the SLMPs (ρij) was determined to assess if these practices are complementary
and/or substitutable. The results show that the correlation coefficients of six combined practices, namely ρ21
(area closure and organic fertilizer), ρ31 (SWC and organic fertilizer), ρ41 (crop rotation and organic fertilizer),
ρ51 (compost and organic fertilizer), ρ42 (crop rotation and area closure), and ρ43 (crop rotation and SWC) were
positive and statistically significant at less than 10% probability levels indicating the complementarity of these
practices and that farmers implement multiple SLMPs at a time in the study areas. The rest of the combinations
of SLMPS, on the other hand, have proved neither complementarity nor substitutability in their application.
Farmers usually construct physical structures on highly depleted land and apply an organic fertilizer to

79
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

rehabilitate soil fertility (Samuel et al., 2022).

Results presented in Table 4 further assessed the chance of farmers adopting these SLMPs. As a result, the
likelihood of implementing organic fertilizer, area closure, SWC, crop rotation, and compost preparation are
37.2%, 35.3%, 40.5%, 38.2%, and 38.5% respectively, indicating the importance of all these practices in
choosing to the impacts of land degradation.
Table 4. Model fitness, probabilities, and correlation matrix of SLMPs
Variables Organic Fertilizer Area closure SWC Crop rotation Compost
Predicted probability 0.372 0.353 0.405 0.382 0.385
Joint probability of success 0.230
Joint probability of failure 0.496
Estimated correlation of SLMPs (Pair-wise correlation coefficients)
ρ21 0.298**
ρ31 0.343**
ρ41 0.344***
ρ51 0.267*
ρ32 0.163
ρ42 0.317***
ρ52 0.180
ρ43 0.239**
ρ53 0.114
ρ54 0.134
Likelihood ratio test of ρ21 = ρ31 = ρ41 = ρ51 = ρ32 = ρ42 = ρ52 = ρ43 = ρ53 = ρ54 = 0:
chi2(10) = 23.3156 Prob > chi2 = 0.0096
Number of draws = 5
Number of observations = 426
Log likelihood = -492.0966
Wald chi2(85) = 578.46
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

3.2.3 Parameter Estimates of the MVP Model on the Determinants of Adoption of SLMPs
According to the model results, 13 explanatory variables had a statistically significant effect on SLMPs (use of
fertilizer, area closure, SWC, crop rotation, and compost). These include cooperative membership, non-farm
income, model farmer contact, perceived costs of inputs, credit access, farming experience, social capital,
livestock holding, the slope of the farmland, access to information, and NGO intervention in the village have a
significant positive influence in the participation of SLMPs in the study area. However, the age of the household
head, and household size, have a significant negative influence. The results on the significant variables are
presented below.
Age of the household head: This is an important variable hypothesized to influence the choice of SLMPs in the
study area. Age has a significant negative influence on the adoption of SLMPs such as area closure and compost
at less than 5% probability levels.
Family size: It has a negative and significant effect on the likelihood of choosing area closure and crop rotation
at less than 10% significant levels.
Membership in cooperative: This variable has a positive and statistically significant effect on the adoption of
area closure, crop rotation, and compost at less than a 1% significance level and a significant positive impact on
SWC at a 10% significance level.
Non-farm income: The total income generated from non-farming activities has a positive and significant effect
on the adoption of organic fertilizer and SWC at less than a 1 % significance level while it affects crop rotation
at a 10 % level of significance.
Perceived costs of inputs: It is one of the primary factors that are positively impacting the adoption of compost
as SLMP for sustaining and reversing the adverse effects of land degradation in the study area.
Access to information: It has a significant positive effect on crop rotation as SLMP at less than 5% significance
level. Access to high-quality, relevant, and up-to-date information is critical in the adoption of different

80
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

agricultural technologies.
Model farmer contact: Model farmer contact has a positive and significant effect on the adoption of organic
fertilizer at less than one percent significance level.
Credit access: Credit access by farm households significantly and positively affects the choices of organic
fertilizer, area closure, and SWC, at less than 10% significance levels. This finding suggests that farm
households with access to credit are more likely to implement these SLMPs for soil fertility management and
improved crop production.
Farming experience: It is another important factor related to farm households’ choice of SLMPs in the study
area. In this study, the household head’s farming experience had a positive and significant influence on the
adoption of fertilizer, area closure, SWC, crop rotation, and compost at less than 10% significance levels.
Social capital: It is affecting the choice of SLMPs, particularly the use of organic fertilize at less than 1%
significance level. Belonging to a specific social group is crucial in a circumstance where there is asymmetric
information about various agricultural production and agricultural productivity methods.
Livestock holding: It is used as a proxy for measuring wealth or household asset possession and found to have a
positive and significant effect on the decision to adopt area closure, SWC, crop rotation, and compost as SLMPs
at less than 1% significance level.
Farm slope: Keeping all other variables constant in the model, the slope of the farmland has a positive and
significant influence on the likelihood of adoption of compost as SLMP at 1% level of significance.
Access to NGOs: It has a significant positive impact on the adoption of compost, organic fertilizer, and area
closure at less than 10% significance levels. An NGO intervention in the community helps to raise awareness
about the importance and role of soil fertility management practices in agricultural productivity improvement.
4. Discussions of the Results
4.1 Descriptive Statistics Results Discussions
The empirical results of the current study demonstrate that a variety of factors affect farmers’ decisions regarding
the adoption of SLM practices The following discussion examines the key predictors that account for the factors
that influence household adoption of SLM practices in the study area. The descriptive statistics results in Table 2
confirmed that the adoptions of organic fertilizer and area closure are the least adopted practices while the
remaining three practices received similar attention from the adopters. The mean age of the farmers was found to
be 33 years indicating that they are still active and productive. We also found that the average family size,
farming experience, size of farmland, income from non-farm activities, years of formal education, extension
contacts, contacts with model farmers, and livestock owned are 5.86, 16 years, 2.12 ha, 6568.33 Birr, 5.44, 8.30
and 11.2 TLUs respectively. About 42% of the farmers perceived the costs of inputs are fair, 75% had access to
information, 43% had access to credit from formal sources which might have contributed to the adoption of
SLMPs, only 28% had received training on natural resource management, 74% had some form of social
networks, only 24% had farmland with flat slope, 34% had perceived soil erosion on their lands, about 45% of
the farmers belonged to farmers cooperatives, while 75% of them had access to NGOs.
4.2 Econometric Model Results Discussions
The variance inflation factor (VIF) for each variable was evaluated as shown in the table 3 above to check for
multicollinearity. And the mean value is 2.11 and none of the variables included in the model has VIF greater
than 10. This indicates that there is no multicollinearity problem in the dataset and hence all the explanatory
variables are included in the model. The result of the heteroscedasticity test is also presented in Table 3. The
χ2-value (120.76) is statistically significant at a 1% probability level, indicating that there exists
heteroscedasticity in the dataset. Hence, the robust standard error is used in the analysis.
The joint probabilities of success or failure of adopting the five types of SLMPs suggested that households were
likely to adopt the SLMPs jointly. As indicated in Table 3, the probability of farmers adopting the five SLMPs is
23% indicating that households were less likely to succeed to choose all the selected practices at the same time.
That means farmers were unlikely by 73% to succeed in choosing all five SLMPs. The model results of the study
on the significant variables are presented and discussed in Table 4 below.
In this particular study, age has a significant negative influence. This means more likely due to the fact that older
farmers are more risk averse and young farmers are more willing to seek knowledge from a variety of sources
and had long-term plans to preserve SLMPs. This result is consistent with studies conducted by many scholars
(Awotide et al., 2014; Milkias & Abdulahi, 2018; Simtowe et al., 2016) who confirmed that older farmers have

81
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

less updated information on agricultural technologies than younger farmers. This could also be explained by the
fact that younger farmers were more likely employed due to better education, greater access to information, and
a longer planning horizon for the reasons that some of the SLMPs are more likely to take time labor.
On the contrary, studies such as Beshir (2014), Feyisa (2020), and Amanuel et al. (2018) found a positive and
significant effect of age on the adoption of SLMPs and argue that older farmers are better at evaluating the pros
and cons of agricultural technologies compared to younger farmers and that younger farmers do not put in more
effort, while older farmers with more experience are more likely to adopt the technology.
Different study finding shows that the adoption of SLM practices has been positively correlated with the
availability of labour, indicating that households with larger family sizes are more likely to adopt more than their
counterparts. However, this current study shows that in the study area, there is a circumstance in which the
majority of household members may be responsible for a higher proportion of dependents, primarily children
and elders. Therefore, households with larger family sizes but a lower labour force may prefer to spend the
majority of their time generating daily income, such as from off/non-farm jobs, in order to pay for their daily
needs rather than devoting their time and labour to SLMPs.
Further, this implies that the probability of adoption of these SLMPs decreases with the size of the household
members. These results might be related to the fact that households with large family members outlay their
income more on consumption rather than investing in SLMPs (Challa & Tilahun, 2014). However, this result
contradicted the conducted in Ethiopia who claimed that household size has a positive significant influence on
SLMPs (Gebrelibanos & Abdi, 2012; Haftu et al., 2019).
The association cooperative membership variable has a statistically significant positive impact on the adoption of
SLMP. This suggests that SLMP-adopting households have higher association membership rates. The
association's adoption of SLMP can help farmers who use it by providing them with access to better land fertility
maintenance, as would be expected. This outcome is consistent with the conclusions made by Bakhsh et al.
(2012).
Hence, the decision of households to adopt SLMP is influenced by their participation in cooperative
membership-holding. Households in cooperative groups were discovered to be more likely to adopt SLM
practices than non-member households. This result suggests that households that are members of farmers’
agricultural cooperatives are more likely to adopt these SLMPs than their counterparts due to the fact that
farmers have developed into a vital network that offers different types of assistance to farmers, including
financing and technical assistance. This finding is consistent with the findings of Ogada et al. (2014) and Ojo et
al. (2019), who discovered that membership in farmers’ associations, facilitated the adoption of agricultural
technology in Kenya.
Participating of households in off-farm or non-farm activities has an impact on households’ decision to adopt
SLMP. This could be because households who earn more money from sources other than agriculture are more
likely to use SLMPs as they are more likely to overcome the financial barriers required to undertake practices
(Ponguane & Mucavele, 2018; Kousar & Abdulai, 2016; Challa & Tilahun, 2014). However, the findings of this
study contradict with those of Mekuriaw et al. (2018) and Asfaw & Neka (2017), who discovered that
participation in non-farm activities have a negative impact on households’ willingness to implement SWC on
their farmlands.
One of the important factors that restrict the adoption of agricultural technology is the cost of inputs for the
adoption of SLMPs. Clearly, the high cost of agricultural technology is a major barrier to adoption, according to
many studies. Djibo & Maman's (2019) .Hence, in line with different studies’ results to study the determinants of
agricultural technology adoption, improved seed adoption is negatively impacted by high input costs while
organic fertilizer use is positively impacted. Challa & Tilahun (2014) discovered that household heads' attitudes
towards the fairness of the cost of inputs specifically, the cost of improved seed are influenced by the adoption of
modern agricultural technology in west Wollega, Gulliso district, Ethiopia.
The perception of the cost of inputs in regard to its affordability and accessibility affects household adoption
decisions in the study area. This is more likely because of cost of materials for making compost is less as
compared to other inputs like commercial fertilizer for land fertility maintenance. Hence, increased technology
adoption suffers as a result of high agricultural input prices, according to Djibo & Maman’s (2019) study on
factors influencing the use of agricultural technology in Niger.
Access to high-quality, relevant, and up-to-date information is critical in the adoption of different agricultural
technologies. This could be because farmers who have regular access to information from a variety of sources

82
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

are more likely to be informed about potential SLMPs, success stories, and how to overcome land degradation
challenges over time (Adjepong et al., 2019; Bekele & Drake, 2003; Mekuriaw et al., 2018).
Model farmer contact has a positive and significant effect on the adoption of SLMPs among households in the
study area. This is because model farmer contact increases sharing with practically tested practices, experiences,
skills, knowledge, and information that could easily facilitate in promoting perception and the choice of options
to look after their plot to reduce hazards of land degradation effectively (Belay et al., 2017). Further, this could
be explained by the fact that as farmers to farmers’ contact increases their understanding of indigenous
knowledge to evaluate their land degradation status and to use SLMPs to improve land fertility maintenance and
crop production over time (Alhassan et al., 2018a).
The adoption of SLMPs is more likely promoted as a result of credit services to address any financial constraints
for the adoption of these practices. This conclusion is supported by the findings of Haftu et al. (2019), Adeyemo
et al. (2017), and Zemenu & Minale (2014) in their respective studies who argue that financial support is an
important factor that encourages smallholder farmers to adopt land management practices. On the contrary, to
this finding Eleni (2008) and Berhanu et al. (2016) discovered that access to credit hurts the adoption of SWC
practices. This further implies that adopting a different SLMP will be more likely if it has financial support or
backup. Due to the high capital requirements of implementing SLMP on a farm, having access to financial
assistance will motivate the farmers to make investments and adopt sustainable land management practices. The
findings of Adeyemo et al. (2017), who discovered that accessing credit facilities encourages the adoption of
land management practices, are consistent with this outcome.
Households with years of experience are more likely to have found success with a variety of SLMPs, leading to
the adoption of numerous sustainable land management techniques. The result suggests that more experienced
farmers understand the value of SLMPs and adopt them more than less experienced farmers. According to
Shiferaw & Holden (2008) and Yenealem et al. (2013) experienced farmers are better equipped to identify soil
erosion problems than less experienced farmers and have a higher likelihood of taking part in land management
initiatives. This finding is also consistent with the findings of Aminu et al. (2018) and Mugisha & Alobo (2012)
who discovered that having a substantial level of experience always helps smallholder farmers devise a strategy
to deal with land degradation problems through the use of various land management practices.
Being a part of different social groups positively and statistically significantly affected the adoption of all
agricultural technologies covered in the study, demonstrating that belonging to different social groups raises the
likelihood of adoption. Participation in social groups can improve societal ties. This is because it helps farmers to
share information and learn from one another (Feyisa, 2020; Ketema et al., 2016).
In this particular study, it was discovered that livestock ownership as a proxy for wealth or household asset
possession measured using TLU had a favorable and significant impact on the choice to adopt the dominant
SLM practices. Compared to households with small livestock units, those with large livestock units are more
likely to adopt technology. This is so that households with a lot of livestock will be better able to afford and have
access to new agricultural technologies. The research by (Abay et al., 2016; Feyisa, 2020) found the same
conclusion regarding conformity using technology This further illustrates that households who own large herd
sizes have the chance of overcoming the costs of adopting SLMPs as compared to their counterparts. The
likelihood of adopting area closure, SWC, crop rotation, and compost is higher for households owning large herd
sizes as compared to households owning small herd sizes. This is because households having large livestock will
have better financial standing to afford and possess new agricultural technologies (Abay et al., 2016; Feyisa,
2020; Tesfaye & Brouwer, 2016; Senbetie et al., 2017). This was also raised during the focus group discussions,
and they confirmed that households with larger sizes of livestock have a greater willingness to adopt SLMPs.
One of the critical factors that affect farmers' choice of adoption of SLMP is limited by slope types among
households in the study area. The results imply that owners of gentle farmland are more likely to adopt compost
than owners of flat plots. This might be related to the fact that plots with a steeper slope have more runoff water
and are therefore more likely to be prone to land degradation. This finding is in line with the findings of
Wagayehu (2003) and Haftu et al. (2019), who discovered that gentle slope plots have a significant positive
effect on the adoption of various SLM technologies. However, it contradicted, the studies by Asrat & Simane
(2017b), Kassie et al. (2009), and Wossen et al. (2015) suggested that farmers invest in adoption strategies in
plots with a relatively plane slope than likely to be more vulnerable to any development practices.
The availability and interventions of NGOs in the study area influence the adoption of SLMP among households
in the study area. This could be because NGOs provide farmers with training as well as resources on SLMPs in
particular, capacitating households through experience sharing and frequent and site-specific extension services.

83
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

As a result, because most NGOs provide practical training and materials provision, households will have the
opportunity and capacity to participate in the management of their agricultural land by implementing organic
fertilizer, area closure, and compost. According to Assefa & Hans-Rudolf (2016), farmers who participated in
NGOs’ training on NRM projects were more knowledgeable about soil erosion and conservation than those who
did not.
Table 5. Multivariate probit simulation results on the determinants choice of SLMPs
Variable Organic fertilizer Area closure SWC Crop rotation Compost
Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err.
Age -0.006 0.009 -0.022** 0.009 -0.020 0.015 -0.015 0.010 -0.027*** 0.011
Education level -0.004 0.034 0.013 0.034 0.023 0.048 0.029 0.039 0.023 0.038
Family size -0.053 0.034 -0.072** 0.034 -0.075 0.051 -0.077* 0.040 0.002 0.041
Model farmer 0.048*** 0.017 0.022 0.017 0.013 0.023 0.028 0.020 0.020 0.023
Land size 0.025 0.065 -0.052 0.062 0.161 0.112 -0.065 0.069 0.060 0.075
Access to information -0.078 0.275 -0.453 0.301 -0.628 0.406 0.728** 0.366 0.429 0.332
Perceived cost of input -0.070 0.206 0.317 0.209 -0.194 0.348 0.322 0.235 0.541** 0.239
Coop membership 0.218 0.273 1.267*** 0.271 0.759* 0.391 0.807*** 0.289 0.896*** 0.300
Access to credit 0.557** 0.240 0.460* 0.247 1.020*** 0.313 0.443 0.286 0.219 0.300
Farm experience 0.024* 0.013 0.033** 0.014 0.040** 0.018 0.036** 0.017 0.002 0.013
Access to NGOs 0.409* 0.239 0.571** 0.251 -0.289 0.376 -0.131 0.262 0.693*** 0.253
Training 0.017 0.222 0.338 0.223 0.542 0.341 0.118 0.254 0.214 0.287
Non-farm income 0.000*** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000*** 0.000 0.000* 0.000 0.000 0.000
Soil erosion hazard 0.147 0.192 0.096 0.197 -0.040 0.294 0.085 0.226 -0.242 0.240
Social capital 0.771*** 0.256 -0.118 0.258 0.125 0.331 -0.104 0.298 -0.224 0.309
Livestock 0.015 0.012 0.031*** 0.012 0.051*** 0.018 0.047*** 0.014 0.056*** 0.014
Slope type 0.208 0.198 0.001*** 0.191 0.278 0.298 0.324 0.230 0.715*** 0.243
Constant -2.275*** 0.475 -0.954** 0.452 -1.804** 0.733 -1.163** 0.511 -2.176*** 0.541

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Land degradation is the most critical environmental problem limiting agricultural productivity in Ethiopia in
general and in the west Wollega zone in particular. Even though. SLMPs contribute significantly to the reduction
of land degradation, but farmers’ adoption of these practices is low in the study area. Moreover, very limited
studies have been conducted on household-level determinants of choice of SLMPs in general and the study area
in particular. This shows that in biophysically and socioeconomically diverse countries like Ethiopia, local
specific studies provide more information for policymakers to design effective interventions demanded as policy
frameworks to minimize the blanket recommendations.
Therefore, this study examined factors that influence the adoption of SLMPs by farm households in the study
area. The study used primary cross-sectional data collected from 426 farm households using multistage random
sampling methods from five randomly selected districts and fifteen kebeles of the west Wollega zone, Oromia
region, Ethiopia. Both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from household surveys and FGDs
respectively. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a Multivariate Probit model. Results show that
the rate of adoption of organic fertilizer, area closure, SWC, crop rotation, and compost as SLMPs were 33, 32,
44, 41, and 40% respectively. MVP model results showed a strong correlation between the various SLMPs,
demonstrating that households adopted a variety of interdependent SLMPs. The practices were therefore
complementary rather than supplementary or having a synergetic effect on one another. Model results also show
that the predicted probabilities of adopting organic fertilizer, area closure, soil and water conservation, crop
rotation, and compost were 37.2, 35.3, 40.5, 38.3 and 38.5% respectively showing similarity of the importance of
these SLMPs to reverse the impact of land degradation and rehabilitate the degraded lands in the study area. Also,
the output of the MVP model indicates that the probability that farm households choose all the SLMPS is 23%
which is lower.
Further, the results of the MVP model show that 13 explanatory variables had a significant effect on the choice
of SLMPs. Family size, agricultural cooperative membership, non-farm income, model farmer contact, credit
access, farming experience, social capital, livestock holding, slope of the farmland, access to information and
access to NGOs have a significant positive influence while age of the household head and perceived costs of
inputs have a significant negative influence on the adoption of SLMPs in the study area.
As a result, the study recommended that local and regional governments develop specific programs to address
the constraints, thereby scaling up and encouraging the adoption of SLMPs in the study area. This could be
achieved by policy and development interventions that focus on all socio-economic, demographic and

84
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

institutional factors that influence SLMPs in response to reversing the significant impacts of land degradation in
the study area.
Households should use of labor-saving technologies and adopt modern livestock production systems to enhance
their adoption rate and reduce the impact of land degradation. Households' access to non-farm
income-generating activities and credit has to be prompted through policies strengthening the services of rural
microfinance and establishing formal and informal saving institutions for different provision options. In addition,
community-based organizations like farmer cooperative groups, NGOs, and different experience-sharing
modalities such as model farmers’ contacts through preparing different forums like field days should be
promoted to improve their adoption rates. Special focus should be given to middle-aged farmers with reach
experience in farming will enhance the adoption of SLMPs in the study area. Furthermore, it is critical to
advance and update natural resource management and usage regulations by articulating land use and
management directives and strengthening the current extension services.
Acknowledgements
The College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Haramaya University has expedited the entire study
process. The authors also greatly appreciate the valuable contributions of Mezan-Tepi University for the support
they provided during the study.
Authors contributions
Professor Fekadu Beyene (Ph.D.), Professor Jema Haji (Ph.D.), and Assistant Professor Chanyalew Siyum
(Ph.D.), all were accountable for the study's design from the outset to the final manuscript writing up. The
manuscript was eventually made improvements after numerous revisions made by all authors. And lastly, the
final manuscript was read and approved by all authors
Funding
No funding was received for this research
Contributions
All authors contributed to the production of this manuscript. All authors read, commented, added concepts from
the very beginning, and approved the final manuscript for submission.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Informed consent
Obtained.
Ethics approval
The Publication Ethics Committee of the Canadian Center of Science and Education.
The journal’s policies adhere to the Core Practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Provenance and peer review
Not commissioned; externally double-blind peer reviewed.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data
are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Data sharing statement
No additional data are available.
Open access
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.

85
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

References
Abay, K. A., Berhane, G., Taffesse, A. S., Koru, B., & Abay, K. (2016). Understanding Farmers’ Technology
Adoption Decisions: Input Complementarity and Heterogeneity. ESSP Working Paper 82, Ethiopian
Strategy Support Program (ESSP), Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI), International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Abebaw, S., Penporn J., & Vute W., (2011). Analysis of factors affecting adoption of soil conservation measures
among rural households of Gursum district. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 32(3), 503-515.
Abera, W., Tamene, L., Tibebe, D., Adimassu, Z., Kassa, H., Hailu, H., Mekonnen, K., Desta, G., Sommer, R., &
Verchot, L. (2020). Characterizing and evaluating the impacts of national land restoration initiatives on
ecosystem services in Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development, 31, 37-52.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3424
Abiye, W. (2019). Review on impacts of land degradation on agricultural production in Ethiopia. Journal of
Resources Development and Management, 57, 21-20.
Adeyemo, R. A., Oladoja, A. M., Famakinwa, M., & Alabi, D. L. (2017). Assessment of utilization of soil
management practices among arable crop farmers in Ogun State: Implication for sustainable agriculture in
Nigeria. Economics, Engineering, Agriculture and Rural Development, 17(3), 37-46.
Adjepong, K., Deladem J., Agyire-tettey F., & Bruce D. (2019). Assessment of the determinants that influence
the adoption of sustainable soil and water conservation practices in Techiman Municipality of Ghana.
International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 7(3), 248-257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2019.04.003
AGNES (Africa Group of Negotiators Experts Support). (2020). Land degradation and climate change in Africa.
Policy Brief No. 2. Retrieved from
https//agnes-africa.org/wp-content/uploads/07/Policy-brief-2Land-degradation_Final_09032020.pdf
Alhassan, S. I., Shaibu, M. T., Kuwornu, J. K. M., & Damba, O. T. (2018a). Assessing smallholder women farmers’
adaptive capacity to climate change and variability in the Northern Region of Ghana: A Composite Index
Approach. Journal of Energy and Natural Resource Management, 1, 1-9.
Amanuel, W., Yimer, F., & Karltun, E. (2018). Soil organic carbon variation in relation to land use changes: The
case of Birr watershed, upper Blue Nile River Basin, Ethiopia. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 42(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41610-018-0076-1
Aminu, F. O., Rosulu, H. O., Balogun, E. O. S., & Babawale, O. H. (2018). Analysis of adoption of sustainable
land management practices for yam production in Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science
Practices, 3(6), 154-160. https://doi.org/10.31248/JASP2018.115
Asfaw, D., & Neka M. (2017). Factors affecting adoption of soil and water conservation practices: the case of
Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia. International Soil and Water
Conservation Research, 5(4), 273-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.10.002
Asrat, P., & Simane B. (2017b). Household- and plot-level impacts of sustainable land management practices in
the face of climate variability and change: Empirical evidence from Dabus Sub-basin, Blue Nile River,
Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0148-y
Assefa, E., & Hans-Rudolf, B. (2016). Farmers’ perception of land degradation and traditional knowledge in
southern Ethiopia—Resilience and stability. Land Degradation and Development, 27(6), 1552-1561.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2364
Awotide, B., Abdoulaye, T., Alene, A., & Manyong, V. (2014). Assessing the extent and determinants of doption of
improved cassava varieties in South-West Nigeria. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 6(9),
376-385. https://doi.org/10.5897/JDAE2014.0559
Bakhsh, K., Hassan, I., Khurshid, W., & Hassan, S. (2012). Econometric analysis of adoption of water
conservation practices: a case of cotton crop. Journal of Agricultural Research, 50(3), 445-455.
Befikadu, A., & Frank W. (2015). Determinants of WTP and WTA in watershed management for a better PES
intervention in the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Paper prepared for presentation at the “2015 World Bank
Conference on Land and Poverty”. The World Bank - Washington DC, March 23-27, 2015.
Bekele, W., & Drake L. (2003). Soil and water conservation 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.

86
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

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 and Water Conservation
Research, 8(1), 80-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.01.005
Belay, A., John, W. R., Teshale, W., & John, F. M. (2017). Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and
determinants of their adaptation decisions in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security,
6(24), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0100-1
Berendse, F., van Ruijven, J., Jongejans, E., & Keesstra, S. (2015). Loss of plant species diversity reduces soil
erosion resistance. Ecosystems, 18, 881-888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9869-6
Berhanu, A., Teddy, G., Dinaw, D., & Melese, B. (2016). SWC practices: Economic and environmental effects in
Ethiopia. Global Journal of Agricultural Economics and Econometrics, 4(1), 169-177.
Beshir, H. (2014). Factors affecting the adoption and intensity of use of improved forages in North East
Highlands of Ethiopia. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 4, 12-27.
https://doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2014/5481
Bisaro, A., Kirk, M., Zimmermann, W., & Zdruli, P. (2011). Analyzing new issues in desertification: Research
trends and research needs. Institute for Cooperation in Developing Countries.
Bisht, I. S., Rana, J. C., & Ahlawat, S. P. (2020). The future of smallholder farming in India: Some sustainability
considerations. Sustainability, 12(9), 3751. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093751
Borrelli, P., Robinson, D. A., Panagos, P., Lugato, E., Yang, J. E., Alewell, C., Wuepper, D., Montanarell, L., &
Ballabio, C. (2020). Land use and climate change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015-2070).
National Liberary of Medicine, 117(36), 21994-22001. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001403117
Brevik, E. C., Cerdà, A., Mataix-Solera, J., Pereg, L., Quinton, J. N., Six, J., & Van Oost, K. (2015). The
interdisciplinary nature of Soil. Soil, 1, 117-129. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-117-2015
Challa, M., & Tilahun, U. (2014). Determinants and impacts of modern agricultural technology adoption in West
Wollega: The case of Gulliso district. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 4(20), 63-77.
Collier, P., & Dercon S. (2014). African agriculture in 50 years: smallholders in a rapidly changing world? World
Development, 63, 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.10.001
Cordingley, J. E., Snyder, K. A., Rosendahl, J., Kizito, F., & Bossio, D. (2015). Thinking outside the plot:
addressing low adoption of sustainable land management in sub-Saharan Africa. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 15, 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.010
Dixon, J. A., Gibbon, D. P., & Gulliver, A. (2001). Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’
Livelihoods in a Changing World. Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Djibo, O., & Maman, N. M. (2019). Determinants of agricultural technology adoption: farm households’
evidence from Niger. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 11(1), 15-23.
https://doi.org/10.5897/JDAE2018.0998
Eekhout, J. P. C., & de Vente, J. (2022). Global impact of climate change on soil erosion and potential for
adaptation through soil conservation. Earth Science Review, 226, 103921.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.103921
Eleni, T. (2008). Determinants for continued use of SWC practices: The case of productive safety net program in
Tulla district, Ethiopia. Master thesis, SWC Group and Environmental Policy Group.
FAO and ITPS. (2015). Status of the World’s Soil Resources. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf
FAO. (2019a). Soil erosion: the greatest challenge to sustainable soil management. Rome. Licence: CC
BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO P.100. Retrieved from
http:www._iam.it/uploads/attachments/794/web Sustainable_land_management_and_land Restoration pdf
Fenta, A. A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M., … Kurosaki, Y. (2020). Land susceptibility
to water and wind erosion risks in the East Africa region. Science of Total Environment, 703, 135016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135016
Feyisa, B. W. (2020). Determinants of agricultural technology adoption in Ethiopia: A meta-analysis. Cogent Food
& Agriculture, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1855817

87
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

FOA. (2019a). Soil erosion: the greatest challenge to sustainable soil management. Rome.
FSIN. (2018). Global report on food security. 2018, 1-195.
Gebrelibanos, G. G., & Abdi, K. E. (2012). Valuation of soil conservation practices in Adwa Woreda, Ethiopia: A
contingent valuation study. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 3(13), 22221700.
Gebreselassie, S., Kirui, O. K., & Mirzabaev, A. (2016). Economics of land degradation and improvement in
Ethiopia. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement-A Global Assessment for Sustainable
Development. Springer, pp. 401-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19168-3_14
Haftu E., Teklay N., & Metkel A. (2019). Factors that influence the implementation of sustainable land
management practices by rural households in Tigriai Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Ecological Processes,
8(14), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-019-0166-8
Haregeweyn, N., Tsunekawa, A., Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M., Tsegaye, M. D., Schött, B., Adgo, E., &
Tegegne, F. (2015). Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia: a review. Progresses in Physical Geography,
39(6), 750-774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133315598725
Haregeweyn, N., Tsunekawa, A., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M., Meshesha, D. T., Fenta, A. A., Nyssen, J., & Adgo, E.
(2017). Comprehensive assessment of soil erosion risk for better land use planning in river basins: case
study of the upper Blue Nile River. Science of Total Environment, 574, 95-108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.019
Karidjo, B. Y., Wang, Z., Boubacar, Y., & Wei, C. (2018). Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of soil and water
control measures in Keita valley, a semi-arid area of Niger. Sustainability, 10(288), 2e13.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su100 20288
Kassie, M., Zikhali P., Manjur K., & Edwards S. (2009). Adoption of organic farming technologies: Evidence
from semi-arid regions of Ethiopia. Natural Resources Forum, 33, 189-198.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2009.01224.x
Ketema, M., Kebede, D., Dechassa, N., & Hundessa, F. (2016). Determinants of adoption of potato production
technology package by smallholder farmers: Evidences from eastern Ethiopia. Review of Agricultural and
Applied Economics, 19(2), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.15414/raae.2016.19.02.61-68
Le, Q. B., Nkonya, E., & Mirzabaev, A. (2016). Biomass productivity-based mapping of global land degradation
hotspots. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement-A Global Assessment for Sustainable
Development. Springer, pp. 55-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19168-3_4
Mekuriaw, A., Heinimann, A., Zeleke, G., & Hurni, H. (2018). Factors influencing the adoption of physical soil
and water conservation practices in the Ethiopian highlands. International Soil and Water Conservation
Research, 6(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.12.006
Mihertu, B. A., & Yimer, A. (2017). Determinates of farmers adoption of land management practice in
Gelanasub-watershed of northern highlands of Ethiopia. Ecological Processes, 6(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-017-0085-5
Milkias, D., & Abdulahi, A. (2018). Determinants of agricultural technology adoption: the case of improved
highland maize varieties in Toke Kutaye district, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Investment and
Management, 7(4), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jim.20180704.13
Mudhara, M., Critchley, W., Di Prima, S., Dittoh, S., & Sessay, M. (2016). Community Innovations in
Sustainable Land Management: Lessons from the Field in Africa. Routledge/Earthscan Studies in Natural
Resource Management. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315641003
Mugisha, J., & Alobo, S. (2012). Determinants of land management practices in theagricultural highlands of
Uganda: A case of Kabale highlands in Western Uganda. In: Third RUFORUM Biennial Conference, 24-28
2012. Entebbe, Uganda.
Nigussie, A., Adugna A., Ajema L., Shimber T., & Taye E. (2017a). Effects of planting density and number
vertical on yield and yield component of south Ethiopia coffee selections at Awada, Sidama zone, Southern
Ethiopia. Academic Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Research, 5(4), 313-319.
Nkonya, E., Von Braun, J., Alisher, M., Bao Le Q., Ho Young, K., Kirui, O., & Edward, K. (2013). Economics of
land degradation initiative: methods and approach for global and National Assessments. ZEF- discussion
papers on development policy no. 183, Bonn. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2343636

88
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

Ogada, M. J., Mwabu, G., & Muchai, D. (2014). Farm technology adoption in Kenya: a simultaneous estimation of
inorganic fertilizer and improved maize variety adoption decisions. Agriculture and Food Economics, 2(12).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-014-0012-3
Ojo, T. O., Baiyegunhi, L. J., & Salami, A. O. (2019). Impact of credit demand on the productivity of rice farmers
in South West Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Behavioural Studies, 11(1), 166-180.
https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v11i1(J).2757
Paulos, A., & Belay, S. (2017). Household- and plot-level impacts of Sustainable land Management Practices in
the face of climate variability and change: Empirical evidence from Dabus Sub-basin, Blue Nile River,
Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Food Security, 6(61), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0148-y
Pingali P., Schneider K., & Zurek M. (2014). Poverty, agriculture and the environment: the case of Sub-Saharan
Africa. In: Marginality. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7061-4_10
Ponguane, S., & Mucavele, N., (2018). Determinants of agricultural technology adoption in Chokwe district,
Mozambique. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 86284.
Prăvălie, R., Patriche, C., Borrelli, P., Panagos, P., Roșca, B., Dumitraşcu, M., Nita, I., Săvulescu, I., Birsan,
M.V., & Bandoc, G. (2021). Arable lands under the pressure of multiple land degradation processes: A
global perspective. Environmental Research, 194, 110697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110697
Salih, A., Ganawa, E., & Elmahl, A. (2017). Spectral mixture analysis (SMA) and change vector analysis (CVA)
methods for monitoring and mapping land degradation/desertification in arid and semiarid areas (Sudan),
using Landsat imagery. Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 20, S21-S29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2016.12.008
Samuel, D., Agajie, T., & Beza, E. (2022). Determinants of adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies
and practices in the coffee-based farming system of Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security, 11(42), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00385-2
Schmidt, E., & Tadesse, F. (2019). The impact of sustainable land management on household crop production in
the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development, 30, 777-787.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3266
Senbetie, T., Tekle, L., & Sundaraa, R. D. (2017). Factors influencing the adoption of sustainable land
management practices among farmers: The case of Boloso sore district in Wolaita zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia.
International Journal of Current Research, 9(7), 5423624244.
Shiferaw, B., & Holden, S. (2008). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the
Ethiopian high lands: 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
Simtowe, F., Kassie, M., Diagne, A., Asfaw, S., Shiferaw, B., Silim, S., & Muange, E. (2011). Determinants of
agricultural technology adoption: The case of improved pigeonpea varieties in Tanzania. Quarterly Journal of
International Agriculture, 50(4), 325-345.
Studer, R. M., Providoli, I., & Liniger, H. (2016). Sharing knowledge to spread sustainable land management
(SLM). In I. Chabay, M. Frick, & J. Helgeson (Eds.), Land Restoration (pp. 543-545). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801231-4.00035-5
Taddese, S. (2018). The impacts of land degradation on crop productivity in Ethiopia: A review. Journal of
Environment and Earth Science, 8(11), 102-106.
Tesfa, A., & Mekuriaw, S. (2014). The effect of land degradation on farm size dynamics and crop-livestock
farming system in Ethiopia: A Review. Open Journal of Soil Science, 4(1), 1-5.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2014.41001
Tesfaye, A., & Brouwer R. (2016). Exploring the scope for transboundary collaboration in the Blue Nile River
Basin: downstream willingness to pay for upstream land use changes to improve irrigation water supply.
Environment and Development Economics, 21, 180-204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X15000182
Tesfaye, S. (2017). Determinants of adoption of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices among
smallholder farmers’ in Jeldu district, West Shewa zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Journal of Science
Frontier Research, 17(1), 118-127.
Tongul, H., & Hobson M. (2013). Scaling up an integrated watershed management approach through social
protection programmers in Ethiopia: the MERET and PSNP schemes. FAO, Sustainable Forest

89
http://sar.ccsenet.org Sustainable Agriculture Research Vol. 13, No. 1; 2024

Management (SFM) Toolbox.

von Braun, J., Gerber, N., Mirzabaev, A., & Nkonya, E. M. (2013). The economics of land degradation (No.
147910). University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF), Bonn.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2237977
Wagayehu, B. (2003). Theory and empirical application to subsistence farming in the Ethiopian highlands. PhD
dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
WOCAT. (2021). The world overview of conservation approaches and technologies [online]. Retrieved from
https://www.wocat.net/en
Wossen, T., Berger, T., & Di Falco, S. (2015). Social capital, risk preference and adoption of improved farm land
management practices in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 46, 81-97.
https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12142
WWZARDO (West Wollgaga Zone Agricultural and Rural Development Office) (2021). Annual report, Gimbi.
Yenealem, K., Fekadu, B., Jema, H., & Belaineh, L. (2013). Impact of integrated soil and water conservation
program on crop production and income in West Harerghe Zone, Ethiopia. International Journal of
Environment Monitoring and Analysis, 1(4), 11-120. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijema.20130104.11
Yu, L., Hurley T., Kliebenstein J., & Orazen P. (2008). Testing for complementarities and substitutability among
multiple technologies: The case of U.S. hog farms. Working Paper No. 08026. Ames, IA, USA: Iowa State
University, Department of Economics.
Zemenu, D. A., & Minale, A. S. (2014). Adoption of soil conservation practices in North Achefer district,
Northwest Ethiopia. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 12(3), 261-268.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2014.934953
Zerihun, N., Tsunekawa, A., Nigussie, H., Enyew, A., M., Nohmi, M., … Abele, S. (2017). Farmers’ perception
about soil erosion in Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development, 28, 401-411.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2647

90