Assessment of livelihood benefits of community-based watershed development in northwestern highlands of Ethiopia

Abstract

ABSTRACT In Ethiopia, large investments have been made into watershed development activities over the past decades. There is, however, limited quantified information on ecological and socioeconomic benefits of these investments. This study assessed the livelihood benefits of community-based watershed development (CBWD) in the northwestern highlands of Ethiopia. We compared livelihood capital of rural households from three conserved micro-watersheds (Guansa, Tija Baji and Adef Wuha) and one control micro-watershed (Tata). Participatory workshops were conducted with stakeholders to identify indicators that would be affected by watershed development intervention. A cross-sectional survey research design was employed to collect information from 157 systematically selected households from the four micro-watersheds. Linear standardization method was used to produce indicators with range between 0 and 1. After standardization, we calculated the value of each type of livelihood capital and finally the overall livelihood capital indices. One-way ANOVA was used to assess mean differences in livelihood asset between conserved and non-conserved sites. The findings revealed that the overall livelihood capital indices of Adef Wuha (0.45), Guansa (0.52) and Tija Baji (0.46) were better than the control micro-watershed (0.43). The livelihood improvement was significant (P < 0.05) at Guansa while the improvement was little at Adef Wuha and Tija Baji, compared to the control watershed. Concerning individual livelihood capitals, the natural capital at Guansa, and human capital at Guansa and Tija Baji watersheds showed significant improvement. However, human capital improvement at Adef Wuha, natural capital at Tija Baji and financial capital at Guansa and Adef Wuha were not significant. It is concluded that CBWD has livelihood benefits, but extents are likely to be context specific due to differences in baseline situations. We recommend a detailed cost–benefit analysis study to evaluate benefits against investment costs.