Gully rehabilitation in southern Ethiopia – value and impacts for farmers

Gully erosion can be combatted in severely affected regions like sub-Saharan Africa using various low-cost interventions that are accessible to affected farmers. For successful implementation, however, biophysical evidence of intervention effectiveness needs to be validated against the interests and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Soil 2024-09, Vol.10 (2), p.637-654
Main Authors: Mekuria, Wolde, Phimister, Euan, Yakob, Getahun, Tegegne, Desalegn, Moges, Awdenegest, Tesfaye, Yitna, Melaku, Dagmawi, Gerber, Charlene, Hallett, Paul D, Smith, Jo U
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Community
Cost analysis
Costs
Effectiveness
Environmental impact
Experiments
Farmers
Farms
Field tests
Grasses
Gullies
Gully erosion
Local communities
Low cost
Planting
Rehabilitation
Riprap
Soil erosion
Surveys
Water conservation
Water shortages
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Gully erosion can be combatted in severely affected regions like sub-Saharan Africa using various low-cost interventions that are accessible to affected farmers. For successful implementation, however, biophysical evidence of intervention effectiveness needs to be validated against the interests and priorities of local communities. Working with farmers in a watershed in southern Ethiopia, we investigated (a) the effectiveness of low-cost gully rehabilitation measures to reduce soil loss and upward expansion of gully heads; (b) how farmers and communities view gully interventions; and (c) whether involving farmers in on-farm field trials to demonstrate gully interventions improves uptake, knowledge, and perceptions of their capacity to act. On-farm field experiments, key-informant interviews, focus group discussions, and household surveys were used to collect and analyse data. Three gully treatments were explored, all with riprap, one with grass planting, and one with grass planting and check-dam integration. Over a period of 26 months, these low-cost practices ceased measurable gully head expansion, whereas untreated gullies had a mean upward expansion of 671 cm, resulting in a calculated soil loss of 11.0 t. Farmers had a positive view of all gully rehabilitation measures explored. Ongoing rehabilitation activities and on-farm trials influenced the knowledge and understanding of similar gully treatments among survey respondents. On-farm experiments and field day demonstrations empowered farmers to act, addressing pessimism from some respondents about their capacity to do so.
ISSN:2199-398X
2199-3971
2199-398X
2199-3971
DOI:10.5194/soil-10-637-2024