Assessing the role of community participation in integrated watershed management in Dandi Lake watershed Dandi district, West Showa, Oromia, Ethiopia

Abstract

Integrated watershed management is the method of overseeing human exercises and characteristic assets on a water shed basis, taking into consideration social and financial concerns. It is an ever-evolving hone including the administration of arrive, water, biota, and other assets and it requires involvement of strong institutions at the grass root level. Most watershed projects were not successful due to a lack of effective community participation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the contribution of community participation in integrated watershed management schemes in the Dandi lake watershed (Ethiopia) for long-term water resource conservation initiatives and short-term livelihood activities that enables the communities of the study area to meet their needs. Questionnaires, FGD, key informant interviews, personal observation were used as data collection tools. The collected data were organized and categorized according to the intended objectives and analyzed in qualitative and quantitative methods. The result of the study showed that role of community participation in participatory watershed management was examined by involvement in different management phases, 65.1% were involved only in the implementation stage, only 27.6% of respondents confirmed as they involve in all stages, 5.9 and 1.3% of sampled respondents witnessed as they are only involved in planning and mapping stage of watershed management. This study revealed that community participation in water shade management was hindered due to shortage of resources, interest, and previous experience, as well as peer pressure. In the meantime some successful efforts have been made on different land uses meant to reduce natural resource degradation and food security problems. These efforts include, contribution of delivered extension service, infrastructure provision and maintenance. The study also realized and proved the existence of unused development potential to improve the livelihood situation of the watershed community. This study came up with a good managerial implication, typically, it enhances Community engagement status by increasing its visibility and understanding of issues and empowers communities to have a say in decisions that affect their lives, cities and neighborhoods. The watershed management guidelines have to be clear to the community.

Introduction

The first generation of watershed management operations in developing countries gave priority to the protection of downstream assets, and tended to adopt engineering solutions. In the 1990s, a new generation of developing country watershed management operations focused more on the problems of natural resource management and poverty reduction in upland areas, using farming systems and participatory approaches (Darghouth et al. 2008). As highlighted in Wani et al (2003), watershed management lessons should be used to improve the overall implementation of watershed programs in the country.

Watershed management is a process in which people are involved in the process for the sustainability of intervention measures and in the process, peoples’ power in the decision has paramount importance (Winnegge 2005). The organization started intervention measures in the West Shewa zone in 1997 mainly focusing on Land Use Planning in Oromia. After five year duration of the project, the approach was changed to integrated participatory watershed management which was whole inclusive approach (rehabilitation of the natural resource base, agricultural management, infrastructure management, and capacity building schemes) (Dandi district report 2009).

However, the efforts done so far through this program have been evaluated and well-documented except for community adoption of soil and water conservation measures. Most watershed projects did not address the fairness issues of beneficiaries’ community participation, scaling up approaches, monitoring, and evaluation (Joshi et al. 2000; Kerr et al. 2002). Moreover, most of these projects were not successful due to a lack of effective community participation, limited sense of responsibility over assets created, inefficient implementation methods, inadequate policies lack of cooperation among stakeholders, unmanageable planning units, and evaluation techniques for their feedback (Tesfaye Habtamu 2011).

Watershed management intervention measures are needed due to different human made activities including human settlements, improper land use and other associated anthropogenic effects in and around Lake Dandi. Tolera Kuma and Yohanis Hailu (2022) reported that the anthropogenic effects in and around the reservoir have been degrading its quality and quantity progressively due to prospective sources of water contaminant, but monitoring studies and management action were not fairly practiced.

In the study area there has been a lack of maintenance and scaled out of already implemented intervention measures, this is because of many reasons that should be explored through research. For instance: lack of awareness, lack of commitment of stakeholders and demographic-related issues seemed to be issues studied and no research or case studies were conducted and documented, which has contributed to recognizing the gaps and taking corrective measures. The community participation is less considered. Thus this study aimed to assess and find the possible reasons for the participation of the community in watershed management schemes. However, currently, the implemented watershed management intervention measures were not continued as they had been in Dandi Sulu and other watershed sites in the district. Taking these problems into consideration, this study highlighted the evaluation and documentation of the integrated participatory watershed management in and around Dandi Lake.

In the present time, the trends of community participation in Ethiopia in general and the study area in particular has not relatively got a chief priority so far. Therefore, this study aimed to fill this knowledge gap pertaining to community participation in integrated watershed management schemes in the Dandi lake watershed areas.

Materials and methods

Description of the study area

West Showa has 22 districts those Dandi district is one located in West Showa of the Oromia region in Ethiopia. The town of the district is located 100 km from Finfinne, the capital city of Ethiopia, and 25 km from Ambo, the capital city of West Showa Zone with an area of 820 hectares (Degefu and Nair, 2014). Geographical the Dandii district is located between 8°43'N-9°17'N latitude and 37° 47'E-38° 20'E longitude. The study area was conducted in Dandi lake watersheds in Dandi Sulu rural kebele, Dandi district West Showa, Oromia Regional state, Ethiopia. The study area is located 59 km Distance from the zone capital, 125 km from Finfinne, and 25 km from Ginchi. The Watersheds are found in the Haro Dandi watersheds which drains to the river called Haro Dandi which in turn drains to the river Huluka (Dandi District Agricultural Management Office 2019; see Fig. 1 as well).

Fig. 1

Map of study area

Agro ecologically, Dandi District has a tropical climate and the mean maximum temperature was 23.3 °C; while, the minimum temperature is 9.6 °C (Dandi District Agricultural Management Office, 2018). Attitudinally, the district is divided into 29% high land (Dega) and 71% moderate (Wayne Dega). The Dandi District has a total area of 79,939.29 hectares with an average altitude between 2000 and 3,288 m.a.s.l (CSA 2007). The watersheds area falls under the altitudinal range of 2200–3090 m.a.s.l which is characterized by a Dega agro-climatic zone with a slightly found Wurch zone at the top of the watershed. The annual average rainfall of the district is 900–1400 mm and rainfall of the area is bimodal, with unpredictable short rains from March to April and the main season ranging from June to September. The erratic nature of the rainfall made farming unpredictable and generally put it at a low level of productivity (Dandi District Agricultural office 2018). The population of the Dandi district is 209,554, it has 38 rural kebeles and seven urban and semi-urban out of which three towns like Ginchi, Asgori, and Boda have municipal status (Dandi District Agricultural Management Office 2019).

Research design

Qualitative and quantitative research designs were applied. The data generated from key informants’ interviews, FGD and field observation were analyzed by using qualitative techniques whereas quantitative research design was used to quantify some numerical data to be obtained from the sampled survey. Likert scale was also employed to gather information concerning the participation of the local community mainly on soil erosion, area closure, and their participation in watershed management.

Sampling techniques and sample size determination

The district was selected from West Showa Zone and Dandi Lake Watershed was selected from the three NGO-based watershed management sites (Bite, Adei, and Dandi lake integrated Watershed). Among these sites, Dandi lake integrated Watershed was purposely selected. Determining the size of the universe of the frame requires demarcation of the boundary in which this survey was conducted reasonably with the available time and financial resources. The basic sampling unit, in this case, was the farmers’ „households who derive their livelihood entirely from agricultural activities. The sample households were selected from the sampling frame by using simple random sampling methods. The total population was 1504 households living in kebele. The researcher takes 152 out of the total population. The sample size was determined using statistical procedures. The estimation of the population proportion, p = 0.1110 was used, as this value gives a sample size sufficiently large to guarantee an accurate prediction, at a 95% confidence interval and 5% error of estimation. The following formula was used to decide the sample size (Naing et al. 2007).

$n= \frac{\mathrm{P}\left(1-\mathrm{P}\right){\mathrm{z}}^{2}}{{\mathrm{E}}^{2}}$, Where- n = sample size, z = level of confidence = 1.96 which means 95%

E = maximum allowable error = 0.05 which means 5%, P = estimate of population = 0.1110.

$n= \frac{0.1110\left(1-0.1110\right){1.96}^{2}}{{0.005}^{2}}= \frac{0.3790 }{ 0.0025}$ =151.63≈152.

Data sources

Both primary and secondary sources of data were used for this study. The primary data were collected from respondents of the questionnaire, focus group discussion, key informant interview, and direct observation techniques in the field. While secondary data sources were project documents and reports.

Method of data analysis

As stated above a wide array of data collection strategies were employed together with a vast amount of evidence during a case study for analysis. The major task during analysis was organization, generating categories of them and patterns, coding the data, reviewing the emergent ideas, summarizing, and searching for an alternative explanation. Based on the scale, type, and nature of the topic, the data collected was discussed, interrelated, and analyzed by using both quantitative and qualitative methods of data analysis to assess the community participation in integrated participatory watershed management in the Dandi district, west Shewa zone. The quantitative used to analyze and present questionnaires data, which were gathered from respondents were simple statics (basic statics) like frequencies, cross tabulation, tables, graphs, pie charts of SPSS 20 (statistical package for social science), and binary logistic regressions are computed for the analysis. In addition, figures indicate best watershed management taken through field observation was present and discussed based on their durability and their importance for soil fertility increments and so on. FGDs, field observation, and key informant interviews on watershed management, soil erosion problems, deforestation, and challenges face were analyzed qualitatively by using percentages, figures, and tables.

Results and discussion

General characteristics of respondents

To achieve the objectives of the study, 152 sample respondents were selected for interview. Accordingly, the majority 48.7% of respondents are found in the middle age group 30–64. Moreover, the remaining 29.6 and 21.7% were found in the younger and older age group, respectively. Based on the response given in (Table 5) population proportions, 86.2% of sampled respondents were from male-headed households and the other 13.8% were from female-headed households. More than half 53.3% of sampled respondents have no formal education and the other 43.4 and 3.3% have followed formal education from elementary to high school, respectively. A greater proportion 73.4% of sampled respondents were married and the remaining 9.2, 9.9, and 7.2%were single, divorced, and widowed, respectively. As the land is the basic unit of production and major livelihood source of respondents 32.9% have 1.51–2.5 ha of land. About 30.9, 25 and 11.2% have 2.51–3.5 ha, 0.25–1.5 and > 3.5 ha, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1 Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents.

Role of community participation in participatory WSM of Dandi lake

Community participation in watershed management cycle in the study area

Community plays a great role in a different phases of the project life cycle starting from problem identification up to monitoring and evaluation. Participatory watershed management: is defined as a process whereby users define problems and priorities, set criteria for sustainable management, evaluate possible solutions, implement programs, and monitor and evaluate impacts (German et al. 2012). Participatory Watershed Management encourages all stakeholders to jointly negotiate their interests, set priorities, evaluate alternatives, and implement and monitor outcomes as reported by Dejene Teressa (2018).

As depicted in (Table 6), out of the total sample of respondents 65.1% were involved only in the implementation stage of WSM. Moreover, only 27.6% of respondents confirmed as they involve in all stages of WSM. The remaining 5.9 and 1.3% of sampled respondents witnessed as they are only involved in the planning and mapping stage of WSM (see Table 2). This shows little room given for community involvement in all stages of WSM and this is the main source of bottlenecks for further sustainability of the projects in the study area.

Table 2 Community participation in WSM at different phases.

External factors that affect role of community participation in WSM

In the study area number of factors are identified as they influence community participation in watershed management. Accordingly, farmers were asked to identify these bottlenecks and 62.5% of respondents decide on as lack of awareness was the major challenge. Moreover, the remaining 27, 9.9, and 0.7% confirmed as short time benefit expectations, the low commitment of stockholders, and other factors (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Challenges of Community participation in WSM in the Study Area

The roles of gender in watershed management

As mentioned in the book African women’s management and communication network gender roles and characteristics in almost all societies have gone through many recent adjustments and changes in response to technological change, which has led to massive economic and social changes in all parts of the world. The survey result shows that in the study area the role of gender was examined that 82.8% of the respondent mention the role of the male in PIWM was high at different a phase during each activity (see Fig. 3). In the opinion of the, focus group discussion and key informant interview, Male Households have a probability of getting more access to information than female household heads. Dovers (2001) confirmed that women farmers tend to be aware at a lower rate than men because of limited access to information and resource. In the same way, the majority of interviewed respondents mentioned that the activities and the role of females in watershed management were less in the study area than the male because females have double responsibility and additional domestic work. Focus group discussions with females in the study area also showed that watershed inhabitants’ females are spending a lot of their time collecting fuels, fetching water, visiting markets, doing kitchen work and other double responsibilities were in the hands of females. Lack of awareness and cultural restrictions of the study area was additional constraint. Generally, being a male or a female household head influences community participation in watershed management of the study area.

Fig. 3

Role of Gender in community participation

Typology of participation in the study area

The types of participation in the study area were evaluated to know the role that the communities had played. Moreover, from secondary data and key interviews, it was found that people adopt the participatory approach gradually. Opinions of sampled respondents were assessed for the type of participation that ensure sustainability and increase people participation. 1.3% of respondents agreed that self-mobilization typology of participation is more convincing, 2.6% respondents agreed that if the typology of participation would be passive (unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without any listening to people’s responses) 39.5% of respondents agreed that if the typology of participation would be functional that is people participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, 37.5% of respondents agreed that if the typology of participation would be participation for material incentive (People participate by providing resources, such as labor, in return for food, cash, or other material incentives) and the rest 2% of respondents agreed that if the typology of participation would be interactive participation (People participate in joint analysis, the formation of new local institutions, and the groups take control over local decision) (See Table 3).

Table 3 Level of community participation in study area.

Besides this sampled respondents were assessed that in the study area the decisions were given based on the interest of different organizational bodies. As explained in Table 4 59.2% of the respondents responded that the decision which was given in their watershed was based on the interest of all communities in the watershed, all watershed committees, all stakeholders, and NGOs, 34.2% response the decision was based only on community watershed committee, and 6.6% of their response that the decision which was given in the study area was based on the interest of stakeholder only (see Table 4). The finding is contradicted by Emiru Dibaba (2012) who reported that there was a consolation type of relation between type of participation and community activity in the study area.

Table 4 Decision making bodies in the study area.

Percentage of training and event attendants

Delivery of training was a component of watershed management activity considered an external factor that influence the role of community participation. Sampled respondents were posed to survey questionnaire and their response is shown in Fig. 4. Of the 152 respondents, 80% of them participated in different training and answered that their participation in different training and events such as field day, awareness creation, pear-to-pear learning, and experience sharing improved their role in the watershed. While the rest 20% did not participate in any training or event but they agreed that, it has heightened contribution to improving the role of the participating community.

Fig. 4

Participation of community in training

In many situations, communities need to learn new skills to become familiar with new technology before they effectively adopt new ideas and practices. Training can take place in a village at a farmer’s field or in a farmers’ training center. In this study, training refers to the community’s participation in introduced integrated participatory watershed management at the district, kebele, sub-kebele, and watershed level, at their village, or on their plots (see Fig. 5). The information obtained and the knowledge and skill gained through training accelerate communities’ decisions on conservation practices (Bekele and Holden 1998). Participation in training is expected to positively influence community participation behavior. The result of the survey questionnaire and discussion with FGDs shows that they trained in awareness creation, capacity building, the benefit of watershed management, and experience sharing, natural and manmade disasters, and the status of natural resources was given. Therefore, training the participants, who are the implementer of the desired objective is the factor that influences the adoption of WSM practice in the study area.

Fig. 5

Experience sharing of community in study area

As mentioned below figure the respondents’ period and length of time that they have been visited by extension workers were explained as 71.7, 21.7, and 6.6%, respectively, sometimes during the peak period of farming and harvesting, twice a month and every month was given by respondents (see Fig. 6). Additionally, the FGDs and key informants explain turn by turn the service given by extension workers was not satisfactory because they were visited at some time during the peak period of farming and harvesting, twice a month and every month. The finding is similar to Gebremedhin (2004) who reported that there was agricultural extension agents had statistically significant impacts on community participation in WSM.

Fig. 6

Period and length of time that the communities have been visited by extension worker

Role of stakeholders in integrated participatory WSM

The role of strong institutions at the grass root level is crucial for successful watershed management. In the context of watershed management, two kinds of institutions need to link and interact frequently with each other one involving the internal stakeholders and the other involving the external stakeholders (Farrington and Lobo 1997). The first is at the community level in the form of self-help groups, user groups, or watershed communities. These groups are to be empowered and need to be federated at the watershed level for providing a forum for collective action. The second set of institutions includes external agencies such as government, non-government organizations, local administration, and researchers. These institutions need to work together for synergy and give top priority to capacity building and financial sustainability of grass root level institutions. The report of Dejene Teressa (2018), the local communities’ involvements in watershed management activities through mobilizing local resources in the form of cash, labor, materials, managerial and political support which are critical to program success.

A response given from sample respondents in (Table 5) and supported by FGDs the role of stakeholders that out of 11 stakeholders the community satisfied by the service which was given by the district agriculture and rural management office their engagement and commitment, 69% was high and the next was district rural road authority and district health office, respectively. The FGDs strongly comments and the key informant interview was decided that the committee men’s and unity of stakeholders was with the sky-scraping problem. They did not base on the strategy of WSM practice and they did not have uniform committee men’s and goals.

Table 5 Role of stakeholders.

Determinants of community participation in WSM

Demographic characteristic

Survey of demographic and socio-economic data: gender, age of household heads, educational level of the household head, family size, the number of livestock owned, land holding size, and marital status of the household head were considered as factors that influence community participation in participatory watershed management scheme in the study area. Mainly using interview schedule, data from focus group discussions were collected; key informant interview field observation and these variables were analyzed and described as follows.

Sex

Of the total of 152 sample respondents, male-headed household accounts for 85.5% and the remaining 14.5% were female-headed counterparts. In the opinion of the respondent, focus group discussions and key informant interviews male households have a probability of getting more access to information than female household heads. Shibru (2003) confirmed that women farmers tend to be aware at a lower rate than men because of limited access to information and resource. The majority of interviewed respondents mentioned that the activities and the role of females in watershed management were less than that males because of females have double responsibility and additional domestic work. Female focus group discussion conducted in the study area responds that they spend a lot of their time collecting fuels, fetching water, visiting markets, doing kitchen work, and other double responsibilities were in the hands of females. The FGDs explain that the lack of awareness and cultural restriction of the study area was additional constraint. This shows that the participation of males and females was different and the male was the greatest. Their participation is seen in (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7

Community participation

Therefore the relation between sex of respondents and community participation in watershed management of the study area was tested statically and there was significance at 1% which has an implication of a significant difference being male or female toward participation in watershed management. (χ² = 14.471, DF = 1, and P < 0.012).

Educational level

It was important to indicate the level of education of household heads has an impact on natural resources conservation. According to information gathered during the questionnaire survey, the educational status of the household heads indicated that in the study area about 43.8% “illiterate”, 23.3% can read and write, and 31.9% of the HHHs were attended elementary school education, and 1% secondary education level. The result indicated that most of the sampled farmers in the area are not educated and thus may have little access to information about newly introduced natural resource conservation practices. The educational level of the household head was negatively associated with practices of watershed management in the study area (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8

Educational level of the respondents

Marital status

Of the total of 152 sample respondents 73.7% were married, single heads of households constituted 9.2% of the total, 9.9% of the heads of households were divorced and 7.2% of the heads of households were widowed (see Table 6).

Table 6 Marital status of respondents in Dandi lake WSM.

The response of single respondents showed that because of many reasons their participation is varying. Of 9.2% of single respondents, 45% of them, who have better family backgrounds actively participate in watershed management schemes hence, they will be responsible if their family passes away. While 35% of single respondents, who live in a large family but small land holding size, responded that, they did not have a willingness to participate in watershed management and they only participate to benefit from the payments and training delivered. The rest 20% of respondents said that they did not participate in the watershed hence they have other livelihood alternatives and the belief that they have a short life in the study area from 9.2% of divorced respondents, 35% of them answered that they participate in watershed management schemes to live in harmony with the society and maintain their norm and culture. These respondents strongly believe that community participation has a great contribution to tie the social-economic, and environmental benefits and sharing ideas. While 65% of the respondents answered that whether to participate or not participate in watershed management schemes brought nothing.

Family size

The family size of respondents ranges from 1 to 12 with an average family size of 6.03 persons per household. About 23.7% of the respondents have a family size of 3 or less, 29% have 4–6 family members, 40.9% have 7–9 family members and 6.6% have 10–12 family members (Table 7).

Table 7 Family size of the respondent in study area.

Decline farmland, increase deforestation, increase soil erosion, food insecurity, and poverty were created by increasing the population density. An increasing number of household dependents in the area may indicate the high pressure on the natural resource which leads to land degradation in general and poor participation of the community in integrated participatory watershed management. This reality was reported during FGDs that, land holding size with family number did not proportional. The number of family sizes in the study area was increasing from time to time and the land was remaining the same and there was a fragmentation of land.

Economic variable

Land size

The result of the survey shows that 24.3% of sampled households have less than 1.5 hectares, 32.2% of them have 1.51–2.50 hectares, 30.3%, of them have 2.51–3.5 hectares, 10.5% of them have 3.51–13 hectares and the rest 2.6% of them were landless. The survey result showed that the minimum land holding size of the respondent was 0.25 hector and the maximum holding size of respondents was 13 hectares. The average land holding size of the majority of the communities in the watershed ranges between 2.0 and 3.0 hectares (see Table 8).

Table 8 Land holding size of the respondent.

Livestock ownership

According to key informants of the watershed and direct observation, major communal grazing areas are not available. The community uses for grazing the place where seedlings are planted and many cattle at one place for a long period. In general, livestock has its impacts on the natural resource in watershed management when livestock did not properly manage. The watershed community was asked about the size of the land that is used for grazing for livestock decreased because the grazing land was changed to crop production plots as the result of a shortage of farmland.

Livestock species including cattle, goats, sheep, donkeys, horses, mule (see Fig. 9), and poultry were kept by communities in the study area. As mentioned above and shown in Table 9) and during FGDs having many heads of livestock has an impact on community participation in watershed management of the study area. Because most of the time the community who have many heads of livestock spent their time searching for feed and fetching water. Even if the reality hypothesized that livestock contributes about one-third to the agricultural sectors, nearly 15% of the total GDP. Livestock ownership increases adoption is expected to increase because its services contribute to wealth status (Chilot et al. 1996; Habtemariam 2004).

Fig. 9

Impact of livestock numbers on community participation in WSM

Table 9 Impact of livestock numbers on community participation in WSM.

Access to information

The community must know about the availability of new technologies and this knowledge must extend to knowledge about the returns from adoption, which is a risky world that requires judgments about alternative possible outcomes of yields and profits. Full information about profitability and risk is rarely available for new technologies, simply because they are new (Mccornick et al. 2003). Respondents were asked how they get and access watershed management-related information. Of the 152 respondents, 83.6% have freely got and accessed any information related to watershed management interventions. While 16.4% of them do not have, information related to watershed management interventions (Table 10; Fig. 10).

Table 10 Access to information in study area.

Fig. 10

Modern beehives given to community by GIZ-sun Oromia

The finding is similar to Shibru (2003) indicated that information provided through extension channels and access to information increased farmers’ awareness and commitment to soil fertility problems and the adoption of composting techniques as soil fertility management options.

Types of off-farm activities

Respondents’ engagement in off-farm activities was assessed that about 22.4% of the sampled households did not involve in off-farm activities and 77.6% of them participated in off-farm activities. Due to a shortage of labor, the priority of the whole family was engaged in short-term agricultural activities. From focus group discussion, respondents explained that all school-aged children spend half-day of their time in school; and hence, households have a problem of labor shortage to participate in watershed management and other agricultural activities. Of the 77.6% engaged in off-farming activities, 25.7% of them engaged in trading, 9.9% sold their labor, 32.9% sale varies seedlings, and 11.8% engaged in both pity trade and sale of seedlings, and the rest 19.7% were engaged in other types of off-farm activities.

Income generated from off-farm work is expected to have a positive influence, in this case, the implication is that HHs with off-farm incomes are better risk takers, in watershed management practices than those without off-farm income. On the other hand, off-farm income may have a negative influence, if the HH’s off-farm employment opportunities cause labor shortages that restrict the HHs’ ability to build watershed management practices. People’s participation in watershed management interventions was affected by off-farm activities they engaged in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11

Types of off farms activities at study area

Institutional factors

Tenure security

Of 152 sampled respondents, 93.4% of them answered that they cultivate their land and the rest 6.6% of them answered that they were not cultivating their land (Table 11). Data from focus group discussion have shown that landless households and those who possess small areas of farmland derive their livelihoods and produce food crops by different means. These landless and small areas of farmland owners produce crops through cropland contractual agreements, labor contribution, and oxen contribution and then share what they harvest with those farmers who have their farmland. The land renter (contractor) and the one who agreed to share crops were not usually bothered about the long-term benefit of introduced SWC measures but rather the short-term benefit of agricultural products. Therefore, HHs who rent land or who practice sharecropping do not manage the land as the owner of the land (Fig. 12).

Table 11 Land owned and tenure security in the study area.

Fig. 12

Access to extension service

Infrastructure

One spring and 9 km of road maintenance have been implemented in the watershed. The newly constructed spring water is serving 37 HHs living in the watershed. The road was accessed at any time for vehicles. But as mentioned during FGDs the problem of the road was solved by the government and the participation of the community but the problem of water was still strong. Regarding the technical quality of the spring, it is generally poor due to the lack of a fence, exposed pipe, lack of space for water collection, and improper location of the spring and the scheme requires reconstruction. The overall sustainability status of the water points is generally medium. Technical and economic sustainability needs some improvements. Generally, the respondent, FGDs, and Key informants interview mentioned that during the discussion and interview time regarding infrastructure there was a lack of electricity, market, FTC, water, and Vehicles (transportation) were strong and crucial problems (see Table 12).

Table 12 Access to infrastructure.

Environmental factors

Status of natural resources around Dandi lake watershed

People’s observation of the status of natural resources, mainly forests, water, wildlife, and soil of the study area were evaluated to know their understanding and contribution to the management of these resources in return to examine their participation (see Table13). The above table shows peoples’ knowledge in recognizing their area, it was the observation collected through focus group discussion. Women respondents have more knowledge of their area than men; since they were related to the distance they had frequently traveled to collect fuel and wood fetch water and observed wild animals while they were in the forest. Men respondents answered that they were evaluated the decreased status of natural resources by the shortage of construction wood, farm tools, the disappearance of hunted animals, and lack of forest trees for hanging traditional beehives. In general, all the respondents agreed that decreased status of the natural resource was the major push factor for their participation in integrated watershed management. Inline to this study, Tolera Kuma and Yohanis Hailu (2022) reported that Borta Reservoir had been showing signs of water quality loss due to stressors from anthropogenic sources from domestic wastes and pollutants from agricultural lands.

Table 13 People’s knowledge of status of natural resource

Conclusion and recommendations

Conclusion

The finding of the study showed that participation of the community occurred starting from assessment of the problem, prioritizing the problem assessed, mapping or delineation of the study area, planning the activities, implementing what is planned, monitoring and evaluating and maintaining activities which communities have to be played their role at a different phase of watershed management process in the study area. Therefore, the study particularly identified the problems related to community participation such as lack of electricity, market, FTC, water, and Vehicles (transportation) were strong and crucial problems. The result of the study also indicated that participation of the community was maximum and high at the implementation stage and generally the overall community participation in the implementation phase was rated as high.

To sum up, the major determinants of community participation in WSM in the study area were identified as demographic factors (gender, age of household, educational status of the household head marital status, family size) and economic factors (the number of livestock owned, landholding size). Besides this decision which was made in the watershed management process was based on the interest of all communities, WS committee, stakeholders, and NGO and considering the interest of only the watershed management committee. The issue of tenure security has an impact on watershed management. That is those who have no land can rent their land; the land renter and the one who was involved in sharecropping were not bothered about the long-term benefit of the introduced SWC Measure but rather the short-term benefit of agricultural products. The result of this study observed that there was unspoilt management potential to improve the livelihood situation of the watershed community. To sum up, participatory watershed management encourages all stakeholders to jointly negotiate benefits, set priorities, evaluate alternatives, implement and monitor results for a better sustainable development.

Recommendations

Based on the outcomes of this research the following points are recommended:

• Assessing community participation in the participatory integrated watershed management process is not only to protect and conserve the environment but also to contribute to livelihood security.

• All the stakeholders should be involved at various management stages of watershed activities, with the ultimate objective of sustainability. The participation of the community was the key point to successfully addressing the goal of the watershed management process.

• The rules, norms, and measures formulated for WSM were clearly on the paper. But the awareness and implementation of the rule were its constraints. Governments, NGOs, Stakeholders, and any concerned bodies have to work on the awareness creation and capacity-building watershed management strategy.

• The community must be satisfied by Extension service;—Regular communication between farmers and DAs is a key area of attention. The Reality reported by the Focus group during the discussion was that DA was visiting the community sometime during the peak period of farming and harvesting in the study area. Generally, the watershed management guidelines have to be clear to the community and follow-up by the stakeholder in the study area.