The study was 360 household heads who lived in the selected Keeble’s in Farta Woreda which has a significant effect on grazing land degradation.
Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents: - Age, relationship (marital status), and educational background contribute to the formation of the problem.
Table 2. Age distribution of the respondents
Categories
|
20-30years
|
31-40years
|
41-50years
|
Above 50years
|
Total
|
Frequency
|
18
|
184
|
132
|
26
|
360
|
Percentage
|
5
|
51.1
|
36.7
|
7.2
|
100
|
According to Table 2. Age distribution of the respondents, The majority of the respondents were in the middle age group, implying that a large number of middle-aged household heads, who are more productive through various grazing land management activities on their farmland, also have noticeable human power who are older and equipped with a high level of experience and knowledge gained from their years of experience.
Table 3. Relationship (marital status) and educational background of the respondents
Count
|
General characteristics of marital status of respondents
|
Total (%)
|
Single
|
Married
|
Divorced
|
Widowed
|
Frequency (%)
|
9(2.5)
|
328(91.1)
|
10(2.8)
|
13(3.6)
|
360(100%)
|
Count
|
General characteristics of educational Status
|
Total (%)
|
Illiterate
|
Read and write
|
Elementary
|
Secondary
|
Above
|
Frequency (%)
|
131(36.4)
|
75(20.8)
|
89(24.7)
|
39(10.8)
|
26(7.2)
|
According to Table 3, the majority of the study's sample household heads are married and illiterate, indicating that they have a stable life, which has a favorable impact on grazing land degradation, and they lack grazing knowledge developed through contemporary education.
Status of Grazing Land in the area
Table 4. Types of grazing land that the farmers feed their livestock in the study area
Item
|
Do you have communal grazing land?
|
Total (%)
|
Yes
|
No
|
Frequency (%)
|
211(58.6)
|
149(41.4)
|
360(100)
|
Item
|
Do you have private grazing land
|
Total (%)
|
Yes
|
No
|
Frequency (%)
|
86(23.9)
|
274(76.1)
|
360(100)
|
Item
|
Have grazing area fits with the number of livestock?
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
Total (%)
|
Frequency (%)
|
63(17.5)
|
297(82.5)
|
360(100)
|
Item
|
Do you feel that the productivity of your grazing land has declined?
|
Total (%)
|
Yes
|
No
|
Frequency (%)
|
285(79.2)
|
75(20.8)
|
360(100)
|
The land has the potential to yield grazing cattle and wildlife if it is grazed. (Allen, Fontaine, Pope, & Garmestani, 2011). Grazing areas in developing countries provide a variety of goods and services with significant economic, social, cultural, and biological value locally, nationally, and worldwide, in addition to securing livelihoods. (Mussa et al., 2016). For this reason, farmers have grazing land to feed their livestock. According to Table 4. Types of grazing land that the farmers feed their livestock in the study area, to feed their cattle, the vast majority of responders have access to community grazing pasture. 211 respondents (58.6%) said they have communal grazing land, whereas 274 (76.5%) said they have no private grazing property, indicating that a small percentage of respondents do not have private grazing land. Instead of using their field for animal grazing, the farmers used it for agricultural cultivation. The result is consistent with (Wolde et al., 2018), Individual households allocated extremely little land for private grazing areas and improved forage grounds, according to the data.
Table 5. Status of grazing land in the study area
Count
|
- Do you integrate rainwater harvesting into grazing?
|
Total (%)
|
Yes
|
No
|
Frequency (%)
|
123(34.2)
|
237(65.8)
|
360(100)
|
Count
|
- What kinds of strategies do you employ?
|
Total (%)
|
Stubble mulching
|
cover bare lands by forest and grass
|
Contour bunds
|
Others
|
Frequency (%)
|
123(34.17)
|
190(52.77)
|
27(7.59)
|
20(5.55)
|
360(100)
|
As shown in Table 5. Status of grazing land in the study area, the majority of the respondents’ responses indicated that there was no integrated rainwater harvesting implemented on grazing land which was 237 (65.8%). From this result, there is not so much integrated rainwater harvesting implemented on grazing land that has been undertaken to rehabilitate the declining productive capacity and degraded grazing lands.
Concerning the different types of integrated rainwater harvesting technologies constructed on grazing land; out of 123 respondents who said there were integrated rainwater harvesting technologies constructed on 90 (73.2% of them reported that the degraded and less productive grazing land was covered bare lands by forest and grass. The result is supported by field observation which, assures that there were not enough integrated rainwater harvesting technologies constructed by the communities on grazing land to rehabilitate the degraded areas. But on a small area, there were covered bare lands and stubble grazing land protects from an animal implemented grazing land area.
Table 6. Effects of grazing land degradation
Count
|
- How do you see the productivity and size of grazing land over time?
|
Total (%)
|
Increasing
|
Decreasing
|
Remains the same
|
Frequency (%)
|
23(6.4)
|
241(66.9)
|
96(26.7)
|
360(100)
|
Count
|
- What are the impacts of declining productivity and size of grazing land?
|
Total (%)
|
Animal death
|
Livestock price
|
Drying up of water
|
Others
|
360(100)
|
Frequency (%)
|
51(21.2)
|
133(55.2)
|
36(14.9)
|
21(8.7)
|
Count
|
- Is there the decline of soil fertility in your grazing land?
|
Total (%)
|
Yes
|
No
|
360(100)
|
Frequency (%)
|
321(89.2)
|
39(10.8)
|
As indicated in Table 6. Effects of grazing land degradationthe capacity for the productivity size of grazing land has been decreasing over time, with 241 (66.9%) being the most recent figure. This is due to a variety of factors, including grazing lands changing to farmland due to the passing of cropland borders, high grazing land distribution among local communities, transferring of grazing land to youth for use as farmland, and high degradation of grazing land due to overgrazing. Reduced land productivity and size effect a big number of people throughout a large area of the globe, resulting in extreme poverty and hunger. It can be defined as any unfavorable change or disturbance to land that affects human activities such as agriculture around the world. (Mermut & Eswaran, 2001). As a result, as grazing area productivity and size fall over time, farming systems' production capacity decreases.
Factors that Contribute to Grazing Land Degradation on a statistical model
As a result, multiple regression models were used to identify the effect of predictor independents variables on the dependent variable.
Table 7. Multiple regression results
Model
|
Coefficients
|
Unstandardized Coefficients
|
S.Coefficient
|
t
|
Sig.
|
Collinearity
|
β
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
Tolerance
|
VIF
|
1
|
Constant
|
1.812
|
.340
|
|
5.329
|
.000
|
|
|
Land Holding size of the HH
|
-.021
|
.011
|
-.095
|
-1.953
|
.032**
|
.848
|
1.154
|
Livestock size owned by the HH
|
.013
|
.046
|
.036
|
.279
|
.012**
|
.752
|
1.151
|
Frequency of extension service
|
-.064
|
.045
|
-.069
|
-1.398
|
.034**
|
.892
|
1.187
|
Access, training on Grazing land degradation
|
-.059
|
.070
|
-.041
|
-.842
|
.400
|
.922
|
1.085
|
Grazing distance to residence
|
-.098
|
.046
|
-.107
|
-2.129
|
.034**
|
.885
|
1.130
|
Slope type of the grazing land
|
.188
|
.053
|
.185
|
3.582
|
.000*
|
.835
|
1.197
|
Government policy
|
.052
|
.032
|
.079
|
1.629
|
.104
|
.937
|
1.067
|
Traditional grazing practices
|
.389
|
.100
|
.192
|
3.895
|
.000*
|
.912
|
1.296
|
Bush encroachment
|
.205
|
.086
|
.127
|
2.368
|
.018**
|
.771
|
1.297
|
Climate change (RF and Temp)
|
.175
|
.088
|
.109
|
1.989
|
.048**
|
.734
|
1.363
|
a. Dependent Variable: grazing land degradation
NB: * and ** indicate a significant level
|
Climate change
Climate change is a major factor in grazing land degradation. It is viewed as a major ecological element impacting rangeland dynamics in Sub-Saharan Africa. (Hoffman & Vogel, 2008). As climate elements like rainfall and temperature vary over time, grazing land ecosystems are diminishing. To evaluate the significant prediction level of climate change on grazing land, this study used a multiple regression model. According to the results of the multiple regression analysis, climate change is a significant predictor of the dependent variable, grazing land degradation. Table 7. Multiple regression results, (β=0.175, t=1.989, p<0.048) with a positive coefficient. This means that when the number of climate parameters such as temperature and rainfall was changed by one, the dependent variable, the rate of grazing field degradation, increased by 0.175 while the other predictor variables remained unchanged. The findings revealed that one of the key causes of grazing land degradation in the study area was climate change. This indicates that grazing area degradation would rise if the climate changed in terms of rainfall and warmth, and vice versa. Changes in grazing land productivity, land use patterns, and grazing land-dependent livelihoods. Both rainfall and temperature variations have an impact on the degradation of grazing land. The result is supported by the finding of (McNeely & Falci, 2004), who noted that Ethiopia's dry land rangelands are vulnerable to climatic change and fluctuation, a problem that affects a wide range of sectors, including biodiversity (flora and fauna), agriculture, human health, and water. Invasive species may spread faster as a result of climate change.
Slope type of the grazing land
One of the key elements contributing to significant grazing ground degradation is the degree of inclination of the grazing field. Farmers used to graze their cattle on steep slopes of land that were unsuitable for cultivation. (Price et al., 2011). However, such type of grazing land is easily exposed to severe land degradation agents. The steeper the slope of the land, the higher the probability of the area being degraded. The multiple regression results Table 7. Multiple regression results indicated that in the study area the slope of the grazing land was a significant predictor of the dependent variable, (β=0.188, t=3.582, p=0.000). For an increase, the steepness of the grazing land, the dependent variable, the rate of grazing land degradation, increased by a value of 0.188, when keeping other things remain constant. The findings suggests that the slope of the study area's grazing field was one of the primary elements influencing the likelihood of grazing land creation. The outcome matches the researcher's field observations. The researcher discovered that grazing fields on steep slopes were more badly deteriorated than those on moderate slopes.
Encroachment of the Bush
Bush encroachment is the spread of plant species into areas where they were previously absent. They are migratory species that impede indigenous species' growth and development. Rapid encroachment and plant invasions, notably in Ethiopia, have been widely recorded as a common form of grazing land degradation. (Angassa & Oba, 2008). The result of the multiple regression model showed that Table 7. Multiple regression results, Bush encroachment was a significant predictor of the dependent variable (β=0.205, t=2.368, p=0.018) at a 5% significant level. Its coefficient is positive indicating that the variables have positive relationships. This means the greater the spread of bush encroachment plant species into the grazing lands, the higher the extent of grazing land degradation. The slope of bush encroachment is β= 0.205 indicating that for an increasing spread of bush encroachment plant species, the dependent variable, grazing land degradation, increased by a value of 0.205. From this result, one can understand that the study area grazing land is invaded by the spread of new coming bush encroachment species and it is one of the factors which increase the formation of grazing land degradation. The result is supported by the idea that Ethiopia has a more rangeland area currently Cattle, lambs, and other livestock are unable to enter and eat because the area is heavily plagued with bush encroachment species, primarily Acacia spp. (Tsegaye et al., 2010).
Grazing distance to the residence
One of the factors that influences farmers' decisions to practice overgrazing is the time it takes them to get to the grazing land. As a result, the survey findings revealed that were positive the multiple regression results Table 7. Multiple regression results indicated that grazing distance to the residence was a significant predictor of the dependent variable, grazing land degradation β= - 0.098, t=-2.069, p= 0.039) with a negative coefficient. The slope of β=-0.098 suggested that there is an inverse link between grazing distance to a house and grazing land degradation, with an increase in the time it takes to get to the grazing land resulting in a factor of 0.098 reduction in the rate of grazing land degradation. As a result, grazing grounds located far from the farmer's home are less likely to be damaged by overgrazing practices and are less susceptible to deterioration. The information gathered from an interview and FGD participants in 2020 backs up the survey results. Grazing fields are positioned at various distances from the participants' homesteads, they said. Some are close by, while others are further away.
Human-Induced Factors Contributed to Grazing Land Degradation
Grazing landholding size
Grazing land is an important component of the country's agricultural productivity. Farmers with little grazing lands are expected to overgraze because they don't have any other options for raising their livestock. As a result, the multiple regression model result indicated that adequate access to grazing land held by farmers was found to be a negative significant predictor of the dependent variable, grazing land degradation, (β= -0.021, t= -1.951, p=0.032) at a 5% level of significance Table 7. Multiple regression results, The slope of = -.021, indicating that there is an inverse link between appropriate grazing landholding and grazing land degradation, with a unit increase in adequate access to holding grazing land resulting in a factor of 0.021 reduction in the extent of grazing land degradation. As a result, areas with appropriate grazing landholding are less likely to be affected by grazing land degradation than regions with insufficient grazing landholding. As a result of this finding, farmers with small grazing lands are more likely to practice overgrazing than those with big grazing lands, implying that grazing landholding size is one of the key variables contributing to grazing land degradation. The result supported by (Neves, Heneine, & Henry, 2014), Both in terms of grazing area and range productivity, the grazing resource on which they rely is limited or diminishing. These imbalances in the grazing land range system have already led to overgrazing and grazing land degradation, with overgrazing being one of the key factors contributing to rangeland degradation.
Livestock size
Natural resources are used to meet the needs of the cattle population. Households with large cattle put a strain on existing natural resources such as grass, forest, and land, causing degradation. Overgrazing activities rise as the size of a household's livestock grows. Households with a big number of livestock require a significant amount of grazing pasture to feed their animals; otherwise, they will overgraze the tiny amount of grazing ground available. The result of the multiple regression model identified the effects of the predictor variable of livestock size owned on the dependence of grazing land degradation. The result indicated that the livestock size owned by the households was a significant predictor of the dependent variable, grazing land degradation (β=0.013, t=0.279, p=0.012) with a positive coefficient Table 7. Multiple regression results this implies that with a unit increase in the livestock size, the dependent variable, rate of grazing land, increased by a value of 0.013, and other variables remain constant. As a result, one of the variables contributing to grazing ground degradation is cattle size. Overgrazing increases as the amount of animals owned by households grows over time, and the pace of grazing ground degradation rises. Grazing land degradation is less likely to damage places with fewer livestock households than those with a large livestock population on their grazing lands.
Frequency of extension service by the government
In Ethiopia, grazing land regulations were developed using ranch models as an alternative to communal and private grazing grounds, without considering the environmental implications of shifting land usage (Awulachew et al., 2007). One of the variables that predicted the rate of grazing area degradation was the frequency of government extension services. The result of multiple logistic regression indicated that it was a predictor of the dependent variable, grazing land degradation β= - 0.064, t=-1.398, p= 0.034) with a negative coefficient. The slope of β -0.064 indicated that there is an inverse relationship between the frequency of government extension service regarding grazing land management and grazing land degradation, with an increase in the frequency of government extension service leading to a factor of -0.064 reduction in the rate of grazing land degradation. Table 7. Multiple regression results other variables remain constant Low grazing land degradation allows for frequent government extension services. As a result, areas with a sufficient frequency of government extension service are less likely to suffer from grazing land degradation than those with a low frequency of government extension service. The information gathered from interview and focus group participants in 2020 supports the survey results. The participants responded that places that received a high frequency of extension help were more likely to safeguard grazing land before it degraded, as well as execute multiple conservation measures to repair degraded land. As a result of this finding, one may deduce that the regularity with which the government provides extension services on grazing land management is one of the major influences.
Traditional grazing practices
Different techniques have been employed by communities to protect grazing grounds from degradation. To safeguard grazing areas from degradation, these groups have traditionally used herd diversity, mobility, and community land free-ranging. (Oba & Kotile, 2001). There is also a modern method, which is an important strategy used by farmers to use scarce grazing land (vegetation and water) resources and a practice established to cope with the hard environment. However, in Ethiopia, their sophisticated way of protecting grazing areas from deterioration continues to be underappreciated. The multiple logistic regression model result Table 7. Multiple regression results also showed that traditional grazing practices implemented by the household heads were found to be significant predictors of the dependent variable, flood hazard, (β=0.389, t=3.895, p=0.000) at a 1% level of significance and has a positive coefficient. The slope of β= 0.389, indicated that there is a direct relationship between traditional grazing practices and the grazing the land degradation. Other things remain constant, a unit increase in traditional grazing practice would lead to an increase in the rate of grazing land degradation by a factor of 0.148. This implied that in a given area their traditional grazing practice there is poor grazing land management. Hence, areas which are highly developed by traditional grazing practices are more likely to be affected by grazing land degradation than areas that are developed by modern grazing land degradation practices. The result is consistent with the finding of (Yeneayehu, Wang, Xu, & Girma, 2018), Traditional grazing practices are gaining popularity these days, and concerned groups aren't recognizing or recognizing contemporary grazing, which has failed to curb overgrazing and grazing area degradation. However, the Multiple regression model result indicated that access to training and government policy on grazing land degradation were insignificant predictors variables of the dependent variable, access to training (β=-0.059, t=-0.842, p=0.400 and β=0.842, t=1.629, p=0.104 respectively. This means that these variables are no more successful than the significant predictor variables in explaining the high rate of grazing land degradation in the study area.
Local Communities' Response to Grazing Land Management Practices
Knowledge of current grazing land resources by local communities is essential for future grazing land productivity and sustainability. The presence and performance of local-level institutions and organizations are crucial to the success of public policies aimed at improving natural resource management. (Rasmussen & Meinzen-Dick, 1995). Community-based natural resource management is becoming more widely regarded as a viable alternative to state-owned resource privatization. (Gibson et al., 2002).
Local Communities' Role in Grazing Land Management Practices
Grazing land degradation spread quickly as a result of the combined effects of both natural and human-made induced variables, resulting in a reduction in grazing land production potential. As a result, grazing land rehabilitation is becoming a more critical tool for managing, conserving, and repairing damaged grazing land. To rehabilitate damaged grazing land, local communities needed to know how it worked before it was modified to reassemble it and restore important processes(Yeneayehu et al., 2018).
Table 8. Role of the local community in grazing land management
Count
|
Is it possible to stop or reduce the problem of overgrazing land degradation?
|
Total (%)
|
Yes
|
No
|
I don't know
|
Frequency (%)
|
154
|
95
|
11
|
42.8
|
Count
|
Is there a role for the community in the management of grazing land resources?
|
Total (%)
|
Yes
|
No
|
360 (100)
|
Frequency (%)
|
137(38.1)
|
223(61.9)
|
Count
|
Have a mechanisms to rehabilitate degraded grazing land and protect overgrazing?
|
Total (%)
|
Yes
|
No
|
360(100)
|
Frequency (%)
|
109(30.3)
|
251(69.7)
|
As can be seen in Table 8. Role of the local community in grazing land management above regarding communities understanding the majorities’ response shows that when local communities and other responsible bodies are willing to understand the sensitivity of the problems and forward response it is possible to minimize the overgrazing land degradation problem (154 (42.8%)). From this result, we can understand that local communities of the study area have an opinion of it is possible to minimize the overgrazing land degradation problem by forwarding their response, and due to this communities do not play any role to manage the grazing land resources (223(61.9%)), which means that the communities play less role to control their grazing land resource, as indicated by interviews and FGD participants. In addition, there is no community-based participatory approach designed by the government which improves communities’ role in grazing land management. The majority of the respondents have not used any mechanisms to rehabilitate degraded grazing land and protect overgrazing. This implies that because of several reasons the household head who used any possible mechanisms to rehabilitate degraded grazing land and to protect overgrazing among the farmers is low (251(69.7%).
Measures were taken by Local Communities to Rehabilitate Degraded Grazing Land
Table 9.Communities' response to rehabilitating degraded grazing lands and overgrazing
No
|
Items
|
Alternatives
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
1
|
Rotation of grazing land
|
Yes
|
315
|
87.5
|
No
|
45
|
12.5
|
2
|
Grazing land enclosures
|
Yes
|
193
|
53.6
|
No
|
167
|
46.4
|
3
|
Minimize animal size
|
Yes
|
328
|
91.1
|
No
|
32
|
8.9
|
4
|
Grazing Management
|
Yes
|
209
|
58.1
|
No
|
151
|
41.9
|
5
|
Keeping from illegal grazing practices
|
Yes
|
202
|
56.1
|
No
|
158
|
43.9
|
6
|
Reseeding /planting indigenous plant
|
Yes
|
84
|
23.3
|
No
|
276
|
76.7
|
Rotation of grazing land: according to Table 9.Communities' response to rehabilitating degraded grazing lands and overgrazing , the majority's response indicated that local communities are taking rotation of grazing land as a major measure to rehabilitate degraded grazing lands and to protect overgrazing. They shift their animals from one grazing land to the other within a maximum of day intervals of 315 (87.5%)
Grazing land enclosures: It is closing off the land from any animal contact. Regarding the local community's response to rehabilitating degraded grazing land and protecting overgrazing; as shown in Table 9.Communities' response to rehabilitating degraded grazing lands and overgrazing out of the total sampled households 193 (53.6%) reported that they used grazing land enclosure measures to rehabilitate degraded grazing land and protect overgrazing. The result is similar to the finding of (Alkuam, Mohammed, & Chen, 2017), It is widely practiced in different parts of Ethiopia on the methods that made grazing degraded grazing land area free for a specified period. The field observation and during the field observation further corroborate the conclusion.
Minimize animal size: It is the decreasing of the number of livestock from their home temporarily or permanently through selling or another way due to a shortage of grazing land animal forage. According to the survey result Table 9.Communities' response to rehabilitating degraded grazing lands and overgrazing the result implies that the majority of the sample respondents have used minimizing animal size measures to rehabilitate degraded grazing land and to protect against overgrazing. This measurement is clearly used by the majority of the communities in the study area.
Grazing Management: It is based on a balance between livestock population and forage availability. The survey result Table 9.Communities' response to rehabilitating degraded grazing lands and overgrazing shows the result implies that in the study area a significant number of the participant household heads used grazing management measures to rehabilitate the grazing land degradation. The result is supported by (Nativio et al., 2009). Grazing management is the most promising grazing land management strategy for restoring damaged grazing fields because it promotes the strength of mature perennial grasses.
Keeping from illegal grazing practices: It is the protection of the grazing land from illegal animals that create damage to it. According to Table 9.Communities' response to rehabilitating degraded grazing lands and overgrazing the result implies that in the study area a high number of households have used keeping from illegal grazing measures to rehabilitate the grazing land degradation.
Reseeding /planting indigenous plants: On and around the grazing pasture, new and indigenous plant spaces are planted as animal nourishment. This technique is extremely useful and vital for regions that have seen lengthy vegetation decline and need to be successfully recovered in a short amount of time by introducing native grasses that are well adapted to the harsh environment of that area. . Table 9.Communities' response to rehabilitating degraded grazing lands and overgrazing shows that the majority of the local communities were not used reseeding /planting indigenous plants measures to rehabilitate the grazing land degradation. The result is inconsistence with (Tilahun, Makinde, & Malonza, 2017), In East Africa, grass reseeding technology has been utilized to successfully rehabilitate damaged rangelands.