Table 4
Rate of Change of land use/land cover in Huluka Watershed
No
|
Land use/cover class
|
Change of land use/cover (%)
|
|
1979-1984
|
1984-2009
|
2009-20017
|
1979-2017
|
|
|
1
|
Forest
|
-15.4
|
-52.6
|
1.6
|
-59.3
|
|
2
|
cultivated land
|
14.5
|
53.1
|
17.1
|
105.3
|
|
3
|
Urban built-up area
|
99.5
|
21.7
|
85.7
|
351
|
|
4
|
Bush and shrub land
|
-28.1
|
-38.1
|
-28.7
|
-68.2
|
|
5
|
Bare land
|
1.7
|
17.2
|
19.1
|
41.9
|
|
6
|
Water
|
2.9
|
-7.8
|
0.1
|
-5.1
|
|
7
|
Grassland
|
10.4
|
-19.5
|
-24.3
|
-32.7
|
|
Table 5. Matrix for land use/cover change for 1979 to 2017
3.3. Drivers of Land Use/ Land Cover Change in Ambo Huluka/Ambo Town’s Watershed
Qualitative methods of data collection (focus group discussions, key informant interview, and personal observation) were employed to collect data on local residents’ perceptions on proximate and underlying causes of land use/land cover change in their area. The qualitative analysis of drivers of land use/land cover changes is presented hereunder.
3.3.1. Proximate Drivers of Land Use/Land Cover Change
1. Infrastructural Expansion:
Discussants of the focus group discussion were asked to opine on the causal linkage between infrastructure expansion and land use/ land cover change in Huluka watershed. Similar perceptions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). Accordingly, infrastructural expansion was perceived as one of the proximate causes of land use/land cover change in Huluka watershed. It was also possible to observe current expansion of infrastructures like construction of houses for Ambo University expansion (Figure 5). One of the key informants said “Infrastructural development is relevant for us as we need roads, telecommunication, and electrification. However, any infrastructural development in this watershed must not result in degradation of land resources in this watershed.”(Key informant one, Huluka Watershed). Moreover, discussants of the focus group discussion appreciated the expansion of infrastructure in Huluka watershed. However, they suggested that expansion of any infrastructure in Huluka Watershed should be preceded by appropriate environmental impact assessments to mitigate the negative impacts of infrastructural expansion. In other words, failure to institutionalize environmental impact assessment in projects of infrastructural expansions like roads and construction of houses for different purposes was claimed to result in irreversible deforestation and degradation of natural resources in Huluka Watershed.
2. Agricultural Expansion:
Discussants were asked to opine on the causal linkage between agricultural expansion and land use/ land cover change. Similar perceptions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). Discussants agreed that agricultural expansion is one of the causal factors for land use/land cover change in the watershed. The same concern was also raised by the key informants as all of them claimed that agricultural expansion is one of the causes for land use/land cover change in the watershed. It was also possible to observe current expansion of agriculture to forest areas in the watershed (Figure 6).
3. Increased Demand for Fuel Wood and Wood for Construction:
Discussants were asked to opine on the causal linkage between increased demands for fuel wood and wood and land use/land cover change in Huluka watershed. Similar perceptions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). The discussants of the focus group discussion agreed that the increase in demand for fuel wood and wood for construction is one of the causal factors for land use/land cover change in Huluka watershed. The same concern was also raised by the key informants as all of them claimed that increase in demand for fuel wood and wood for construction in their area has resulted in change in land use/land cover. It was also possible to observe current increased demand for fuel wood and wood for construction in Ambo town and Huluka watershed (Figure 7).
4. Local Environmental Factors:
Discussants were asked to opine on the causal linkage between local environmental factors like soil quality and topography and Land Use/ Land Cover Change. Similar perceptions were received across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). Participants of the focus group discussion agreed that the soil type of the watershed contributes much for land use/land cover change in the watershed due to its vulnerability to change. Moreover, hilly areas in the watershed were perceived to contribute much for land use/land cover change in Huluka Watershed. The same concern was also raised by the key informants interviewed as all of them claimed that local environmental factors (soil type and topography) are among the causes for land use/land cover in Huluka watershed. It was also possible to observe the physical impact of local environmental factors on land use/land cover in Huluka watershed (Figure 8).
5. Local Biophysical Drivers:
Participants of the focus group discussion were asked to opine on the causal linkage between local biophysical drivers like flooding and land use/ land cover change. Similar perceptions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). Discussants agreed that that flooding disaster risk is a major biophysical driver for land use/land cover change in Huluka Watershed. For instance, many of the agricultural land areas in the watershed were reported to be affected by flooding risk resulting in soil erosion, decrease in soil fertility, and decrease in agricultural production. In addition, fire risk on forests and grasses was reported as one of the local biophysical factors contributing for land use/land cover change in Huluka Watershed. Furthermore, prevalence of drought during dry season of the year was reported to affect growing plants in the watershed. The same concern was also raised by the key informants interviewed as all of them attested that local biophysical drivers are among the causes of land use/ land cover change in Huluka watershed. It was also possible to observe local biophysical drivers contributing for land use/land cover changes in Huluka watershed (Figure 9).
6. Local Social Events:
Discussants were asked to opine on the causal linkage between local social events and Land Use/ Land Cover Change in Huluka Watershed. Similar perceptions were not explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). For instance, no local social events were claimed by the discussants to be associated with land use/land cover change in both upstream and mid stream of the watershed. However, sudden displacement and abrupt policy shifts in their locality were reported as local social events contributing for land use/land cover change in low stream of Huluka Watershed. In relation to the aforementioned local social events in the low stream of the watershed, the sudden displacements of farming households associated with the expansion of Ambo University and abrupt policy shifts like land lease policy were reported to contribute for land use/land cover change in their area. The same concern was also raised by the key informants interviewed as all of them from the low stream of the watershed noted that local social events have contributed for land use/land cover change in their area.
3.3.2. Underlying Drivers of Land Use/Land Cover Change
1. Demographic Factors:
Participants of the focus group discussion were asked to opine on the causal linkage between demographic factors and land use/land cover change. Similar perceptions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). Discussants agreed that natural increase and migration into the area are demographic factors contributing for land use/land cover change in Huluka Watershed. For instance, increase in human population in the watershed was claimed by the discussants as one of the drivers for degradation of land resources in Huluka Watershed. The same concern was also raised by the key informants interviewed as all of them confirmed that demographic factors are among the major causes of land use/land cover change in their watershed. It was also possible to observe the undesirable situation of Dendi Crater Lake at the upstream of the watershed attributable to increase in human population in the watershed (Figure 10).
2. Economic Factors:
Participants of the focus group discussion were asked to opine on the causal linkage between economic factors and land use/land cover change. Similar perceptions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). The discussants agreed that market growth and commercialization, urban expansion, and price increase are the economic factors contributing for land use/ land cover change in Huluka watershed. For instance, market growth and commercialization was claimed by the discussants to encourage production of high value agricultural products like vegetables. Urban expansion was also claimed to encourage conversion of land use from agriculture to non-agricultural land use. Price increase was also claimed as one of the economic factors causing land use/land cover change in the watershed (Figure 11).
3. Technological Factors:
Participants of the focus group discussion were asked to opine on the causal linkage between technological factors and land use/land cover change in Huluka watershed. Similar perceptions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). Discussants agreed that technological factors like agro technical change (intensification) and agricultural production factors contributes for land use/ land cover change in Huluka watershed. For instance, contour farming, using improved crop varieties, and crop rotation were claimed by the discussants as agro-technical change factors contributing for land use/land cover change in upstream of Huluka Watershed (Figure 12). The same concern was also raised by the key informants interviewed as all of them confirmed that technological factors are among the factors causing land use/land cover change in Huluka watershed. It was also possible to observe the influence of technological factors on land use/land cover change at upstream of the watershed.
4. Policy and Institutional Factors:
Participants of the focus group discussion were asked to opine on the causal linkage between policy and institutional factors and land use/land cover change. Similar perceptions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). The discussants agreed that policy and institutional factors like formal policy and property right contribute for land use/ land cover change in Huluka Watershed. For instance, expansion of agriculture to forest areas and resulting deforestation and flooding risk in the watershed was claimed by the discussants to be highly associated with weak forest conservation policy and weak forest management institutional framework in the watershed. The same concern was also raised by the key informants interviewed as all of them contended that policy and institutional factors contributes for land use/land cover change in their watershed.
5. Cultural Factors:
Participants of the focus group discussion were asked to opine on the causal linkage between cultural factors and land use/land cover change. Similar perceptions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). The discussants agreed that cultural factor like public attitudes and beliefs and individual and household behavior in the watershed contribute for land use/ land cover change in Huluka Watershed. For instance, change in public attitudes and beliefs towards natural forest conservation in the watershed were claimed by the discussants to be resulted in land use/land cover change in the watershed. In other words, expansion of agricultural land to forest areas is currently much encouraged and practiced by local people in the watershed. The same concern was also raised by the key informants who also confirmed that cultural factors are among the major factors for causing land use/land cover change in Huluka watershed.
3.4. Effects of Land Use/ Land Cover Change on Residents’ Livelihoods in Huluka Watershed
Participants of the focus group discussions were asked to opine on the effects of land use/land cover change on their livelihoods in Huluka Watershed. Similar perceptions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). Accordingly, the discussants claimed the following negative effects: increased flooding risk; increased soil erosion; increased sedimentation into the lake (Dendi lake) and rivers ( Huluka, Awaro, Debis, Boji, Bolo, Aleltu, Karkaro, and Korke); decrease in soil fertility resulting from flooding risk; and change in climatic parameters (decrease in annual rainfall and increase in heat during dry season). The same concern was also raised by all the key informants interviewed who contended that the land use/land cover change in Huluka watershed has negatively affected their livelihood underpinned by degradation of natural resources.
The participants of the focus group discussion were further asked to opine on the reciprocal cause-effect relationship between flooding risk and land use/land cover change in Huluka Watershed. The discussants affirmed that flooding risk in their watershed is highly linked to land use/land cover change as deforestation aggravate flooding caused by other factors. In other words, land areas without forest cover were claimed by the discussants to be much vulnerable to flooding. On the other hand, flooding risk in Huluka watershed was claimed to contribute for land use/land cover change in the watershed. Hence, reciprocal cause-effect relationship was claimed by the discussants to exist between flooding and land use/land cover change in Huluka Watershed. The same concern was also raised by the key informants interviewed in the watershed.
Participants of the focus group discussion were also further asked to suggest effective adaptation measures for land use/land cover change in Huluka Watershed. Similar suggestions were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream).
Accordingly, the following adaptation measures were suggested by the discussants: Compost preparation and use; practicing crop rotation; effective planning to rehabilitate degraded lands through structural and non-structural soil and water conservation measures; strengthening the ongoing community-based soil and water conservation practices; institutionalizing appropriate environmental impact assessment into any local development projects; planting appropriate tree species and management on established soil and conservation structures; and establishing appropriate institutional framework for forest and other natural resources’ management.
Participants of the focus group discussion were also further asked to opine on the strengths of the current community-based soil and water conservation measures practiced in their watershed. Similar perceptions on the strengths were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). Accordingly, the discussants identified the following strengths: increased soil fertility; healing of degraded land areas; conserved soil and water resources; reduced negative impacts of flooding risk on farmers’ livelihoods; increased yield from crop production; and improved social capital among local farmers and between farmers and agricultural development professionals.
Participants of the focus group discussion were also further asked to opine on the weaknesses of the current community-based soil and water conservation measures practiced in their Watershed. Similar perceptions on the weaknesses were explored across the three streams of the watershed (upstream, midstream, and low stream). Accordingly, the discussants identified the following weaknesses: poorly supervised and managed soil and water conservation measures; appropriate tree species were not planted on the established soil and water conservation structures; rehabilitation of degraded lands was not considered in the soil and water conservation measures practiced; Some soil and water conservation measures practiced had negative downstream impacts due to poor management; established soil and water conservation structures were not protected from interference of livestock; and non-structural soil and water conservation measures (land use planning, and awareness creation and education were not well integrated into the current community-based soil and water conservation practices).