Vol. 8(46), pp.

5716-5727, 27 November, 2013

DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2013.7747
African Journal of Agricultural
ISSN 1991-637X ©2013 Academic Journals Research
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR

Full Length Research Paper

Rural households’ livelihood assets, strategies and

outcomes in drought-prone areas of the Amhara
Region, Ethiopia: Case Study in Lay Gaint District
Arega Bazezew1,2*, Woldeamlak Bewket3 and Melanie Nicolau2
1
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Bahir Dar University, P. O. Box 79, Ethiopia.
2
University of South Africa (UNISA), University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
3
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Addis Ababa University, P. O. Box 150372
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Accepted 15 October, 2013

This study examines rural livelihood strategies and food security outcomes in the drought-prone
Amhara Region of Ethiopia by focusing on Lay Gaint district as a case study site. Questionnaire survey,
key informants interview and focus group discussions were employed to collect primary data. A total of
210 households were covered by the questionnaire survey, and the questionnaire covered issues
related to household level asset ownership, crop and livestock production and engagement in non-farm
and off-farm income sources in a mix of closed and open-ended questions. Both qualitative and
quantitative methods were used for data analysis and the later included descriptive statistics and
regression modeling. A major finding is that despite the low level of productivity related to local
environmental constraints, rural livelihoods remain undiversified with small scale rain-fed agriculture
providing the primary source of livelihood for the large majority of sample households (~93% of
respondents). Only about 25% of respondents participated in some form of non-farm or off-farm
activities, but with only little contributions to their total annual incomes. The use of yield-enhancing
agricultural inputs such as chemical fertilizers and improved seeds was extremely low, and this was
attributed to the severe land degradation and rainfall variability in the area. Food insecurity is a chronic
problem in that, on average, households in the study area consume from own production for only about
six months. Improving food security of rural households in the study area requires integrated
development interventions aimed at improved natural resources management and diversification of
livelihood strategies including interventions to create non-farm employment opportunities.

Key words: Smallholder agriculture, food insecurity, livelihoods, Ethiopia.

....

INTRODUCTION

Ethiopia has about 51.3 million hectares of arable land potential however, the country is one of the poorest in the
but only about 11.7 million hectares is currently world with annual per capita income of US$ 392 which is
cultivated, just about 23% of the total cultivable area much lower than the sub-Saharan Africa average (US$
(MoARD, 2010). This indicates that, given the ecological 1,077) in the year 2009 (UNDP, 2012; World Bank,
diversity, Ethiopia has a good potential to produce a wide 2011a cited in Tsegaye, 2012). The country also suffers
variety of crops and in large quantities. Despite this from the lowest average per capita kilocalorie intake of

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].

 Bazezew et al. 5717

1,980 and high incidence of absolute poverty (USAID, problem by looking at the role of local scale agro-climatic
2012). The population living below the poverty line of less factors in household food security outcomes. In other
than US$ 2.0 a day accounts for 77.6% (Oxford Poverty words, it attempts to identify local scale opportunities and
and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), 2012). With a constraints faced by smallholder farmers because of the
low human development index of 0.383, Ethiopia is varying geographical space (Chamberlin and Schmidt,
ranked 174 out of 187 countries in UNDP’s human 2011) and households’ possession of livelihood assets.
development report of 2011 (UNDP, 2011; Shitarek, Livelihood and food security studies at the household
2012). Poverty head count indices and inequality in level facilitate identification of most appropriate livelihood
2010/2011 showed that 33.6% of the population suffers improvement strategies that could be implemented by the
from food poverty and 29.6% of total poverty (FDRE, government and communities to improve local livelihood
2012). A contributory factor to the widespread rural outcomes. Thus, the study has practical significance for
poverty and food insecurity in Ethiopia is the very low designing a more targeted and effective food security
productivity of the smallholder agriculture, which employs related development interventions in the study area, and
over 80% of the country’s population (Canali and in other similar environments in the country.
Slaviero, 2010). Smallholder farmers are the major
producers of food through low-input, rain-fed and low-
output farming systems (MoARD, 2010). MATERIALS AND METHODS
Drought, erratic rainfall, backward production
technologies, small size of farmlands, and land Description of the study area
degradation are the major causes for the low agricultural
The study was conducted in Lay Gaint district in the Amhara
productivity in Ethiopia. Among these, drought is the most Region (Figure 1). It is one of the 64 food insecure districts in the
significant trigger that often leads to transitory food Amhara Region (out of the total of 126 districts). Lay Gaint covers a
insecurity; a slight change in rainfall often leading to total area of 1320.3 km2 and has a population density of 185
dramatic declines in crop yields. For example, Oxfam persons per km2 (CSA, 2010), which is one of the highest in the
estimated that drought alone costs Ethiopia US$ 1.1 Region. Topography of the area is rugged with elevations varying
between 1200 m asl and over 4000 m asl. The area receives
billion per year (Shitarek, 2012). On the other hand,
annual rainfall of 898.3 mm. June, July and August are the rainy
because of shortage of startup capital, limited skills, weak months. The mean annual temperature ranges from 4°C (on top of
marketing systems and inadequate policy attention, Guna Mountains) to 28°C (in the Tekeze river valley). The dominant
employment opportunities in non-farm or off-farm soil types are Vertic Cambisols (Birhanu, 2009). Based on the
activities are extremely rare in rural Ethiopia (Gebrehiwot traditional agro-ecological classification system, three agro-climatic
and Fekadu, 2012). Currently over 10 million people in zones are found in the area: Kolla (hot tropical), Woina-Dega
(temperate) and Dega (cool), with an elevation of 500-1500, 1500-
Ethiopia are either chronically or transitorily food insecure 2300 and 2300-3200 m asl, respectively (Chamberlin and Schmidt,
and depend on the - government’s safety nets program 2011). Small scale mixed agriculture is the dominant source of
as the main source of income (MoFED, 2007; Ramanaiah livelihood to the local people. Barely, wheat, tef and potatoes are
and Gowri, 2011). Ethiopia is one of the poor countries the principal crops, and from the livestock cattle, sheep and goats
that heavily depend on external food support, receiving are dominant.
about 5% of the total food aid given to Africa (EEA, 2009;
Berhan, 2010). The aim of this study was to investigate Data collection and analysis
livelihood assets, strategies and food security outcomes
of rural households in a drought-prone environment in The study employed purposive, cluster and random sampling
highland Ethiopia by using the case study research methods to select the specific sample sites and households.
Selection of the study district was purposive based on the
design. The specific objectives were to: (i) Describe rural
researchers’ prior knowledge of the area. The specific Rural Kebele
households’ possession of livelihood assets; (ii) Examine Administrations (RKAs 1) were selected in a cluster sampling
livelihood strategies employed by rural households in approach where all the RKAs in the district were first clustered into
drought-prone environments and their livelihood the three major agro-ecological zones (Dega, Woina-Dega and
outcomes as measured by annual total incomes, and (iii) Kolla) and then three RKAs were selected, one each from the three
Explore determinants of livelihood outcomes of zones, in a random sampling procedure. The assumption was that
in similar agro-ecological zones households share similar livelihood
households as measured by annual total incomes. opportunities and constraints. Households in each RKA were
A few studies already exist about household livelihood further grouped into wealth categories based on information
strategies and outcomes in Ethiopia (e.g., Ellis, 2000; obtained from focus group discussions (FGDs), key informants
Yared, 2001; Degefa, 2005; Ellis and Tasew, 2005; Ayele, (KIs), authors’ prior experience and secondary sources. It was
2008; Beyene, 2008; Josef and Laktech, 2009; Fekadu, assumed that livelihood risks and shocks have different impacts on
2010; Alebachew, 2011; Chamberlin and Schmidt, 2011; households of different wealth groups. Finally, a total of 210
Adugna and Wagayehu, 2012; Gebrehiwot and Fekadu, households were sampled for a questionnaire survey from the three
RKAs using proportional stratified random sampling technique
2012). This study makes an important addition to the based on the sampling frames obtained from the RKA offices
existing literature by investigating livelihood outcomes in (Table 1). In addition to the household survey, a total of six key
the context of the sustainable rural livelihoods framework informant interviews and three focus group discussions were
and by taking into account the spatial dimension of the conducted in each of the three RKAs. The fieldwork was conducted
5718 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Figure 1. Location map of Lay Gaint district in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia.

Table 1. Sample size by agro-ecological zone and wealth categories of the study area in the Amhara Region.

Wealth Sample Questionnaire

RKAs Agro-ecology Population
category households returned
Better-off 202 10 10
Akbet Dega Middle 481 24 24
Poor 740 36 36

Better-off 188 9 9
Mesqench
Woina-Dega Middle 403 20 20
Poor 820 41 41

Better-off 175 10 9
Safda Giorgis Kolla Middle 301 20 16
Poor 790 40 36

Total 4100 210 201

between March and April 2011. taken as a proxy for the livelihood outcome of households from their
The survey questionnaire covered issues related to households’ diverse livelihood strategies, as annual incomes broadly determine
livelihood assets, crop and livestock production and engagement in food security status and wellbeing of households (Babu and Sanyal,
off-farm and non-farm activities. In-depth interviews with key 2009). Hence, the major sources of income for the households
informants and focus group discussions covered issues related to included small-scale agriculture (crop and livestock production, and
perceptions of future food security; major sources of income of sale of trees and fruits), engagement in off-farm and non-farm
households, assets owned, and required government interventions activities, participating in public works programs and receiving
to improve household level food security. The data generated by remittances. Explanatory variables for the regression modeling
the structured questionnaire were entered into the statistical included selected socio-economic and biophysical factors that are
package SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Scientists) and assumed to influence annual incomes of households in the study
analyzed using descriptive statistics and linear regression. The area.
information collected through key informant interviews and focus
group discussions were analyzed contextually to substantiate and
supplement the quantitative results from the structured Conceptual framework
questionnaire.
Linear regression modeling was used to identify significant The sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) captures what people
factors influencing household annual incomes (dependent variable possess as assets, do in order to make a living, risk factors and
for the regression modeling). Annual income of households was institutions, and policy context that enhances or hinders peoples
 Bazezew et al. 5719

livelihood outcomes. The SLF is used to identify vulnerable groups experience in farming activities are important human
of people to improve their livelihood outcomes and eliminate capital assets for households livelihoods. Among these,
poverty (Farrington et al., 1999; Kollmair and Juli, 2002). In other
skilled work force is considered a vital human resource to
words, it helps to understand how people cope with stresses and
shocks through their capabilities, assets and strategies to secure bring about development. In the study area, about 89% of
livelihood outcomes (Ellis and Allison, 2004). It also describes children were enrolled in primary and secondary schools
factors affecting household livelihoods (Kappel et al., 2010). The during the field survey, but 61% of sampled household
five components constitute SLF are vulnerability context, livelihood heads were illiterate. Only about 7% of them had some
assets, livelihood strategies, structures and processes and level of formal education. Of the total female-headed
livelihood outcomes. The vulnerability context describes the
external environment that people live in. This includes critical trends
households, only about 8% were able to read and write.
(population trends or technological trends), shocks (natural An assessment was made to see the influence of
disasters or economic inflation), and seasonality (the way prices, education on households’ vulnerability to food insecurity.
employment opportunities and production might shift with the The result revealed that 60% of the illiterate households
seasons) (Ellis, 2000; Kollmair and Juli, 2002). Livelihood assets were vulnerable to food insecurity. The average family
are the resources on which people draw in order to carry out their
size was 5.2 and the dependency ratio was 92%. Malaria
livelihood strategies (Ellis and Allison, 2004; Farrington et al.,
1999). Baumann (2002) pointed out that the single most important was identified as a major health problem in the Kolla
factor in determining the success of livelihood strategies is probably zone, while water borne diseases were reportedly
access to sufficient capital assets although the vulnerability context common in the Dega zone of the study area.
and the constraints and opportunities posed by wider institutional
processes also play a critical role for livelihood outcomes.
Transforming structures and processes include institutions, Social capital
organizations and policies that frame the livelihoods of people, and
they are found at all levels – from the household to the international Local informal institutions such as religious institutions,
level (Kappel et al., 2010).
As Baumann (2002) stated the SLF appreciates policies,
self-help groups, small credit schemes and cooperatives
institutions and processes that operate at all levels- from the were found to be the important social capital assets in the
household to the international arena. Livelihood strategies comprise study area. The different institutions are known by
a combination of activities and choices that people undertake in different local names: idir (mutual support particularly
order to achieve their livelihood goals (Ellis and Allison, 2004). related to loss of a family member due to death), equib
Livelihood strategies are complex, subjective and not necessarily
(local savings groups), and mahiber (an association for
related to short-term material gains (Baumann, 2002). Livelihood
outcomes are achievements of livelihood strategies such as more feasts and labour sharing). These institutions offer
income, increased well being, reduced vulnerability and improved mechanisms for the people to help each other in times of
food security (Shahbaz, 2008). need, solve internal conflicts, and thus reducing
powerlessness and mitigate adverse effects of immediate
social problems. These informal institutions therefore
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION support the formal political structures such as RKAs in
providing services to communities. During the field
Livelihood assets among the sample households survey, about 94, 58 and 21% of sample households
were involved in idir, mahiber and equip, respectively.
Livelihood assets owned by households represent the Twigg (2001) noted that poor societies who are well
basic building blocks with which households undertake organized and cohesive are able to cope with disaster
production, engage in labour markets and participate in events better than divided communities by race, religion,
reciprocal exchange with other households (Ellis, 2000). class or caste. In other words, people that share strong
These include skills and experience of household ideologies or beliefs and possess good experiences of
members (human capital), their relations within wider cooperation are more likely to help each other during
communities (social capital), their natural environment times of crises than people who feel fatalistic or
(natural capital), and physical and financial resources independent to each other. The more memberships a
(Gebrehiwot and Fekadu, 2012). In the study area, household has the more possibilities for it to have social
possession of these capital assets varies among networks to promote positive livelihoods.
households and by agro-ecological zones, as presented
in the following paragraphs. This reflects the fact that
different geographic locations provide different resource Physical capital
endowments, and hence people face different constraints
and employ different strategies to achieve livelihood Roads, markets, schools, health centers, shelter, access
outcomes (Barrett and Webb, 2001). to information, water harvesting and soil conservation
structures were identified as vital physical capital assets
by KIs and FGD participants. The study district’s
Human capital education office expert pointed out that the distribution of
schools was relatively better in the Dega zone compared
Household size, age, education and health status, to the other zones. The district as a whole was served by
5720 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

94 primary schools, 2 secondary schools and 1 activities were low (7.3% of total). Livestock as financial
preparatory school. It was also found out that in every assets contribute to household livelihoods in many ways.
RKA, there was one health post but there was a serious They provide cash income through sale of animals and
shortage of trained professionals; for instance, the ratio of animal products, which enables purchasing of food and
health extension workers to the population was 1:3,000. agricultural inputs as necessary. Meena and O‘Keefe
From the sampled households, about 83% of the poor (2007) added that livestock can be considered as liquid
lived in grass-thatch-roofed houses. In general, assets that can be turned into other forms of financial
infrastructure is considered an essential element to capital relatively quickly. As it can be seen in Table 6,
reducing poverty, and this is not adequately available in average annual income from the livestock sector was Birr
the study area. 15,753, which is the second largest following income
from crop production (Table 4). The other sources, food-
for-work/ cash-for-work, remittances and equib,
Natural capital accounted for estimated average annual incomes of Birr
301.8, 243.0 and 282.0, respectively, to the sample
In the study area, farmland was considered by the rural households.
households as the most important natural capital.
Availability of water, grazing land and fuel wood were
also mentioned as important natural assets by Livelihood strategies among the sample households
respondents. All of these resources were reportedly very
scarce in the study area. It was found that 92% of the Crop production
sample households did not own any grazing land.
Landholdings were in general small, and varied between Crop production is the major source of incomes and
the agro-ecological zones. The average landholdings in consumption for the majority of the sample households
Dega and Woina-Dega were 1.06 and 0.72 ha, (Table 2). The major crops grown in the Dega zone in
respectively, and the average landholding of the entire order of importance include wheat, barley, triticale, faba
sample households was 0.88 ha. By wealth categories, bean, tef and field peas. Wheat, maize, barely, tef,
better-off, middle and the poor owned on average, 0.92, triticale and sorghum are the dominant crops in the Kolla
0.88 and 0.80 ha of land, respectively. One-way ANOVA zone and almost all the crops listed are grown in the
confirmed that these differences were statistically Woina-Dega agro-ecological zone. Among the different
significant (at p < 0.01). types of crops, barley and wheat account for about 50%
About 57% of respondents had access to piped water, of the total crop production in the three agro-ecological
while 26% used unprotected springs and the rest zones. As it can be seen in Table 2, the percentage
obtained their waters from nearby rivers and streams. contributions of pulses such as faba beans and field peas
The study found that availability of water in the Kolla zone in 2010/11 were low. A previous study (Aklilu et al., 2000)
was a serious problem and on average women in this in the study area indicated that total production of the
zone traveled a round-trip of about four hours a day to major pulses such as beans and peas was declining
fetch water. Almost all households (98.9%) used fuel mainly due to recurrent drought, hail damage, soil
wood as their primary source of energy for cooking and degradation and diseases.
lighting. The sampled households traveled on average a As it is shown in Table 3, about 70% of sample
round-trip of more than three hours a day to collect fuel respondents produced below ten quintals. Those who
wood. produced above twenty quintals per year accounted for
only about 14%. Agro-ecologically, about 90% in Kolla
and 77% in Woina- Dega zone produced below ten
Financial capital quintals per year. One-way ANOVA showed that the
differences among the three zones were statistically
These refer to financial resources such as cash, liquid significant (at p < 0.001). The mean crop production of
assets (livestock, jewelry), pension, and remittances and the entire sample households was 11 quintals. The
the like (Kollmair and Juli, 2002). In the study area, the survey result from the three zones on the other hand
major sources of finance include agricultural products indicate that households need on average 20 quintals of
(crop and livestock production, fruits, eucalyptus trees), crops per year to meet the minimum food requirements of
engagement in food-for-work/cash-for-work activities, households. The study found out that households
remittances and non-farm and off-farm activities. As consume from own produce on the average for six
shown in Table 8, estimated average annual incomes months.
from the different sources were Birr 43,824.7 per Table 4 shows estimated annual income of the sample
household. From this, annual incomes from agricultural households from crop production at averages of Bega
products were dominant and accounted for 88.5% of (dry season) and Kiremt (wet season) prices for the year
total. Annual incomes from off-farm and non-farm 2010/11. The produces were expressed in terms of
 Bazezew et al. 5721

Table 2. Crop production by agro-ecological zones of the study area in the Amhara Region (in Quintals; 1 Qunital ≈ 100 kg).

Crop Dega Woina-Dega Kolla Total % of total Production per HH*

Barely 166.5 40.5 64.0 271.0 13.2 1.3
Wheat 544.0 123.8 74.0 741.8 35.9 3.7
Triticale 115.0 76.5 12.0 203.5 9.9 1.0
Tef 60.0 50.0 90.0 200.0 9.8 1.0
Faba beans 84.8 9.0 18.0 111.7 5.5 0.5
Field peas 53.0 35.5 31.0 119.5 5.6 0.6
Maize 0.0 11.0 115.0 126.0 6.1 0.7
Sorghum 0.0 72.1 53.0 125.1 6.1 0.7
potatoes 127 28.8 7.0 162.8 7.9 0.8
Total 1159.3 447.3 464 2070.3 100 10.3
Total production per HH 14.7 6.4 7.6 10.3
*HH = Household.

Table 3. Crop production by the sample households of the study area in the Amhara Region in 2010/11 (% respondents).

Crop production (Quintal) Dega Woina-Dega Kolla Total

Below 10 44.3 77.1 90.2 69.7
10-20 31.4 8.6 8.2 16.4
21-30 15.6 5.7 1.6 8.0
31-40 2.9 1.5 - 1.5
41-50 2.9 2.8 - 2.0
Above 50 2.9 4.3 - 2.4

Table 4. Estimated average incomes of the sample households from crop production of the study area in the Amhara
Region (in Birr) in 2010/11 (Birr 17.67 = US$ 1.0).

Crop Dega Woina- Dega Kolla Total % of total

Barely 1,660.0 405.0 734.4 2,799.4 13.1
Wheat 5,828.6 1,317.9 909.8 8,056.3 37.3
Triticale 1,314.3 874.3 - 2,188.6 10.1
Tef 857.1 714.3 1,475.4 3,046.8 14.1
Faba beans 771.4 128.6 265.6 1,165.6 5.4
Field peas 758.7 500.0 609.8 1,868.5 8.6
Maize - 39.3 471.3 507.6 2.3
Sorghum - 741.6 625.6 1,367.2 6.4
Potatoes 457.1 102.9 26.2 586.2 2.7
Total 11,647.2 4,823.9 5,118.1 21,586.2 100
% of total 54.0 22.3 23.7 100

monetary equivalents to enable comparisons and for a families. For that reason, estimated average prices of
better understanding of the situation. Prices of crops in crops produced in 2010/11 were taken during the field
Ethiopia are generally lower during Bega (December, survey. As shown in Table 4, Dega agro-ecological zone
January and February); and increase from the Belg accounts for the largest share of the average annual
(spring) season onwards to the Kiremt season (when it is incomes from crop production (54% of total) followed by
often highest). KIs and FGDs unanimously agreed that in Kolla zone (23.7% of total). From the different
Kiremt prices of crops peak and often become cropsgrown in the study area, wheat was a good source
unaffordable for the poor who always face scarcity of of income for the entire sample households (37.3% of
cash. Informants further noted that Kiremt is the period total) followed by barley (13% of total). From the total
when majority of the poor are unable to feed their annual income of households from wheat, Dega alone
5722 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 5. Number of livestock by agro-ecological zones of the study area in the Amhara Region in the year 2010/11.

Livestock Dega Woina-Dega Kolla Total Per household

Cows 94 44 46 184 0.9
Oxen 101 57 56 214 1.06
Calves 130 40 45 215 1.1
Sheep 397 98 141 636 3.2
Goats 19 53 85 157 0.8
Mules 19 4 8 31 0.2
Horses 31 4 0.0 35 0.2
Donkeys 52 38 55 145 0.7
Total 843 338 436 1617 8.0
Livestock/ HH 12.0 1.7 2.2 8.0 -
Total in TLUs2 336.7 128.8 156.2 621.7 -
TLUs/ HH 4.81 1.84 2.56 3.1 -
Chickens 151 81 126 358 1.8

accounted for 72% of total followed by Woina-Dega (16% composed of cattle, small ruminants and equines (Table
of total). Tef was dominant in Kolla (48% of total). 5). The sample households owned on average 8 animals.
Triticale, a newly introduced crop in the study area has The total number of chickens among the surveyed
become a good source of income for the Dega zone households was 358, with 1.8 per household. Among
(60% of total). livestock, small ruminants were dominant (48%) followed
The majority of respondents (85% of total) perceived a by cattle (about 40%) and the fewest were equines
declining trend of crop production over the past years, (12%). Equines (mules and horses) accounted for only
which was also supported by available data. For about 4% of the total livestock population. The study
instance, total cereal production was 409,877 quintals in revealed that 35.3% of the sample households were
2001 and declined to 341,400 quintals in 2011 (Lay Gaint without ox and was highly vulnerable to food shortage.
Woreda Office of Agriculture, 2011). The reasons for the Households who own less or equal to one-ox accounts
decline, as perceived by the sampled household heads for about 67% and having one ox or no ox is a serious
included soil degradation (60.7%), erratic rainfall (94%), constraint in the farming process. Key informants noted
land tenure insecurity (89.9%) water logging (29%), land that priority was given to cattle, shoats and donkeys than
scarcity (89.7%) and the rugged topography (67%). mules and horses due to their economic value and
Measures taken to maintain and improve crop production scarcity of feed. In the study area, equines (which serve
by the households include use of compost (91%), as pack animals) were dominantly owned by better-off
terracing (92%), crop rotation (74%), use of chemical and middle households. The poor without equines carry
fertilizers (48%) and tree planting (58%). The use of goods on their heads or backs from remote areas to
chemical fertilizers among the sample households was market places.
generally low; households used on average 75 kg of From the small ruminants, sheep alone accounted for
chemical fertilizers and 20 kg of improved seeds per ha in some 39% of the total number of livestock. The Dega
2010/2011. The surveyed households grew five to twelve zone with 62% of the sheep population was the suitable
different types of crops either in combination in the same area for these animals, while 54% of the total goats were
field or in small separate plots. They did not think in terms found in the Kolla zone. According to key informants, low
of either market values or land suitability in their choice of risks, less feed requirement, and rapid reproductive cycle
crops, but for self sufficiency and mitigation of risks from and speedy returns to investment make the small
crop failure. That is, if one or more of the crops fail due to ruminants the most preferred among the surveyed
unexpected weather conditions, it might be possible that households. The survey data revealed that about 20% of
other crops will survive. Specialization in terms of crop the poor had no livestock at all, while all of the better-off
choice, in the words of respondents, was equivalent to owned more than six livestock and 97% of the middle
‘storing all of one’s eggs in one basket’. Diversification households owned one or more livestock. One-way
was therefore a preferred livelihood strategy to ANOVA indicated that the differences were statistically
specialization among farmers of the study area. significant (at p < 0.01).
Annual incomes of the sample households from sale of
livestock in 2010/11 are presented in Table 6. Small
Livestock production ruminants accounted for 50% of annual incomes of
households from the livestock sector, with sheep as
The total livestock of the sample households was 1617 income sources accounting for about 33% of annual
 Bazezew et al. 5723

Table 6. Estimated average incomes of the sample households from sale of livestock (in Birr) in 2010/11 (Birr 17.67 = US$ 1.0).

Agro-ecological zone
Livestock Total % of total
Dega Woina-Dega Kolla
Cows 1,142.9 3,000.0 196.7 4,339.8 27.5
Ox 392.9 714.3 344.3 1,451.5 9.2
Calves 400.0 228.6 170.49 799.1 5.1
Sheep 2,857.1 2,008.7 295.1 5,160.9 32.8
Goats - 142.9 2,655.7 2,798.6 17.8
Mules 71.4 - 131.14 202.5 1.3
Horses 428.6 - 0.0 428.6 2.7
Donkeys 142.9 101.4 3,27.9 572.2 3.6
Total 5,435.8 6,195.9 4,121.3 15,753 100
% of total 34.5 39.3 26.2 100

income. Agro-ecologically, Dega accounts for 55.4% and fuel wood (19%) and grain trading (8.7%) (Table 7). Key
Kolla was the least (about 7% of total income). On the informants indicated that lack of employment
other hand, goats were the major sources of income in opportunities, shortage of start-up capital, limited skills,
Kolla zone (95% of total). In general, sheep in Dega, and weak marketing systems were the major reasons for
cattle in Woina-Dega and goats in Kolla were the the poor performance of non-farm activities in the study
important financial resources, which together constituted area.
about 80% of the annual income of the sample By wealth categories, average incomes from non-farm
households from the livestock sector. and off-farm activities of the better-off, middle and poor
Sample household heads were asked to mention major households were Birr 2,634, 688 and 990, respectively.
challenges faced by the livestock sector in the study This suggests that the poor were more likely to be
area. Accordingly, poor nutrition (45% of respondents), engaged in non-farm/off-farm activities than the middle-
scarcity of forage and grazing land (92% of respondents), income groups in the study area. However, the activities
shortage of water (56% of respondents), poor in which the largest number of the poor households were
management practices (23% of respondents) and engaged were food-for-work or cash-for-work (85%)
diseases (85% of respondents) were listed as the major followed by causal labor (81%), While for the better-off,
constraints to livestock production. A previous study grain milling and grain trading accounted for 98 and 87%
(Rami, 2002) reported that in Lay Gaint district no fodder of employment in non-farm/off-farm activities,
was left, the landscape was barren and full of gullies and respectively. It appears therefore that, as Ellis and Allison
livestock were emaciated. Ellis and Tasew (2005), in their (2004) argued, the better-off as opposed to the poor have
study close to the present study area, also reported greater freedom to choose among a wider range of non-
similar results in which the poorest and most vulnerable farm activities. Overall, about 25% of the surveyed
groups in rural Ethiopia suffered from scarcity of livestock households were engaged in non-farm/off-farm activities
due to animal diseases and shortage of grazing in 2010/11, which was much lower even by standards of
resources. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) average at 42% (Ellis, 2005).

Non-farm and off-farm incomes Household annual incomes as livelihood outcomes

In the study area, non-farm and off-farm activities include As it is shown in Table 8, the major sources of income for
casual labor, selling of fuel wood and charcoal, petty the sample households were categorized as agricultural
trading, handicrafts, grain milling and selling of local production (sale of trees, fruits, crops and livestock), off-
drinks. As it is shown in Table 7, the total off-farm/non- farm and non-farm activities, public works programs and
farm income per household was Birr 1075.9 (US$ 1.0 = remittances. The results indicated that income from
17.67 Birr by that time) for the year 2010/11. On per agricultural production was the dominant, distantly
capita basis, it was Birr 205.6. Josef and Laktech (2009) followed by non-farm/off-farm incomes sources (7.3%).
found an average income per capita of Birr 194 in their Non-farm/off-farm income sources had reached to 74% in
study for the whole of Ethiopia. It was found that the some countries of Africa (Tasie et al., 2012) and 46% in
largest source of income from the total was engagement Latin America (Sanchez, 2005). However, agricultural
in causal labor (25.2% of total), followed by that of production in the study area is constrained by scarcity of
income from grain milling (23.5%), sale of charcoal and farmland, land degradation, frequent drought, erratic
5724 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 7. Non-farm/off-farm incomes by agro-ecological zones (in Birr) in 2010/11 (Eth. Birr 17.67 = US$ 1.0).

Sources of non-farm/off-farm incomes Dega Woina- Dega Kolla Total Birr % of total
Grain trading 14,760 500 3,500 18,760 8.7
Livestock trading 3,000 4,300 5,000 12,300 5.7
Selling local drinks 380 1,250 6,807 8,437 3.9
Weaving 2,300 - 5,850 8,150 3.8
Selling commodities/petty trading 1,000 600 - 1,600 0.7
Carpentry - 280 - 280 0.1
Blacksmith 5,000 - 2,300 7,300 3.4
Grain milling 48,000 - 3,000 51,000 23.5
Causal labor 35,047 14,150 5,605 5,4802 25.2
Sale of dung cakes 6,000 - 3,270 9,270 4.2
Sale of charcoal and fuel wood 12,145 9,630 17,000 38,775 19.0
Sale of grass 3,080 300 2,200 5,580 2.6
Total income 1,30712 31,010 54,532 216,254 100
Total annual income per household 1,867.3 443.0 894.0 1,075.9

rainfall, scarcity of farm oxen, and low use of yield local institutions. Similarly, respondents also mentioned
enhancing inputs. It was investigated that total annual high interest rate (18%) of local microfinance institutions,
income from the different sources varied by agro- and poor infrastructure as major institutional constraints
ecological zones. Dega zone was relatively better than to their livelihoods. Land tenure insecurity, the
the other two because of more favorable environmental resettlement program and unfair distribution of food
circumstances such as a good intra-annual distribution of transfer handouts were also important institutional factors
rainfall. KIs and FGD participants informed that Woina- to households’ livelihood outcomes as cited by KIs and
Dega and Kolla zones were frequently affected by FGD participants. Degefa (2005) also indicated that
drought and farmlands were extremely degraded. In inappropriate tenure system, inefficient and unstable rural
addition, households in these two zones suffered from policies, marginalization of some groups of people and
asset poverty and overall household incomes from the lack of participation in decision-making process are
different sources were low (Table 8). power and policy bottlenecks that could result in negative
livelihood outcomes.

Mediating factors in livelihood outcomes of

households Determinants of household livelihood outcomes

The livelihood portfolio of the surveyed households was Rural households’ livelihood outcomes are generally
influenced by covariate, idiosyncratic and institutional influenced by a range of biophysical, socioeconomic and
factors. For example, access to credit, communication institutional factors. In this study, annual total income of
systems, market facilities and extension services are households was taken as a proxy to their livelihood
institutional factors that affect livelihoods of the rural poor. outcomes and hence the dependent variable for the
This means that institutions assist rural poor households regression modeling. Explanatory variables considered
to employ particular adaptive strategies to mitigate food include a range of biophysical and socioeconomic
insecurity outcomes. Targeting safety nets beneficiaries factors, a total of 12 variables (Table 9). The maximum
and creating household assets for graduation from the likelihood estimates of the multiple regression model
program are also important institutional factors in the showed that livestock ownership, fruits and trees
study area. The study revealed that 56% of sample production, access to credit, agro-ecology and
households were covered by the safety nets program of engagement in non-farm activities were the important
the government. However, 82% of the sample factors influencing annual incomes of households, and
households expressed dissatisfaction with the services thus their livelihood outcomes. The coefficient of multiple
the safety nets program; for instance, the majority of determination is 0.828, indicating that about 83% of the
respondents in the ‘poor’ income category for this study variation in total annual income of the sample households
(61.1% of the total) had no clear idea about the was captured by the model.
beneficiaries targeting and selection criteria. This As it is shown in Table 9, Agro-ecology as a variable
suggests that lack of transparency and accountability in captures influence of locational factors on household
targeting safety nets beneficiaries is a limitation of the annual incomes. It was found that households in the
 Bazezew et al. 5725

Table 8. Estimated average incomes from different sources by agro-ecological zones of the study area in the Amhara Region (in Birr) in
2010/11 (Eth. Birr 17.67 = US$ 1.0).

Source of income Dega Woina-Dega Kolla Total income % of total

Crops produced and consumed 11,647.2 4,823.9 5,118.1 21,589.2 49.3
Stored for seed reserve 435.0 332.4 349.0 1,116.4 2.5
Selling of eucalyptus tree 200.0 86.0 - 286.0 0.7
Selling of fruits (highland apple) 311.9 - - 311.9 0.7
Selling of livestock production 5,435.8 6,195.9 4,121.3 15,753 36.0
Off-farm and non-farm incomes 1,867.3 443.0 894.0 3,204.3 7.3
Public works 417.1 280.4 254.1 951.6 2.2
Gift/remittances 545.1 22.9 44.3 612.3 1.3
Total income per year 20,859.4 12,184.5 10,780.8 43,824.7 100
% of total 47.6 27.8 24.6 100

Table 9. Multiple linear regression results.

Unstandardized Standardized
Explanatory variable Unit of measurement coefficient coefficient t P value
B Std. error Beta
(Constant) 849.892 438.292 0.591 0.555NS
Categorical (1=Dega, 2= Woina-
Agro-ecology -409.078 69.228 -0.269 -5.234 0.000***
Dega, 3=Kolla)

Family size Number 236.387 22.346 0.112 1.932 0.055*

Sex of HHHs Dummy (0=F, 1=M) 605.832 42.504 0.050 0.943 0.347NS
Age of HHHs Number -8.748 15.989 -0.027 -.547 0.585NS
Education of HHHs Dummy (0=illiterate, 1= literate) 94.243 38.575 0.011 .215 0.830NS
Farm size ha -144.396 90.648 -0.014 -.294 0.769NS
Number of plots Number 352.539 72.824 0.115 2.04 0.043**
Engagement in non/off-
Dummy (0=yes, 1= no) 0.151 0.061 0.141 -2.489 0.004***
farm activities

Livestock ownership Number of livestock in TLU 145.827 30.603 0.338 4.765 0.000***
Access to credit
Dummy (0=yes, 1=no) 1.008 0.202 0.242 4.981 0.000***
services

Membership in equip Dummy (0=yes , 1=no) 0.345 0.573 0.038 .601 0.548NS
Fruits and trees Income from sale of produce in
0.565 0.093 0.311 6.068 0.000***
production Birr
NS
**Significant at 0.05; * significant at 0.1; ***Significant at 0.01; not significant; HHHs = household heads; F = 22.5; df (12, 188); p < 0.001; R =
2
0.91; R = 0.828.

Kolla and Woina-Dega areas earned less annual incomes Access to credit showed positive and significant
compared to those living in the Dega agro-ecological correlation with annual income of households (at p <
zone. This could be explained by their inaccessibility and 0.001). As credit availability increases by one unit, annual
poor infrastructure. Livestock ownership was strongly and income of households increases by a factor of 0.242. A
positively correlated to annual income of households (at similar, positive and significant credit-household income,
P < 0.001). A unit increase in livestock ownership (in relationship was reported by Beyene (2008). In the
TLU) increases annual household income by a factor of drought-prone areas of Ethiopia where crop production is
0.33. Previous studies in different parts of the country highly affected by amount and temporal distribution of
have reported similar results that livestock possession rainfall, access to credit fills food gaps of households and
positively and significantly influenced household incomes helps households to diversify their livelihood options.
(Deressa, 2010; Devereux et al., 2003; Million, 2010; Among the surveyed households, some 40% had actually
Mesay, 2009). taken credit from different sources, while almost all
5726 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

agreed that credit service was available in their area but and depend for the remaining period on the safety nets
did not take themselves. Non-farm/off-farm incomes were programme and other casual income generating
positively and significantly correlated with annual income activities.
of households (at p < 0.001). Other variables held Linear regression analysis identified livestock
constant, engagement in non-farm/off-farm activities ownership, fruits and trees production, agro-ecology/
increases households’ annual incomes by a factor of location, access to credit and engagement in non-
0.059. farm/off-farm activities as significant determinants of
Growing of fruits and trees was found to be important in annual incomes of households. Improving food security of
livelihood outcomes of households in the study area. It rural households in the study area requires integrated
was found that fruits and trees production increases rural development interventions aimed at improved
households’ annual incomes by a factor of 0.204. A natural resources management and diversification of
similar finding was reported by an earlier study that livelihood strategies including interventions to create
selling and trading of eucalyptus tree had become a main access to credit and non-farm employment opportunities.
source of income along the main road that connects In addition, geographically differentiated development
Gondar to Mekele (Rami, 2002). Number of farm plots interventions will improve household livelihood security in
owned was positively and significantly correlated with the study area, and in other similar environments in the
annual income of households; other variables held country.
constant, a unit increase in number of plots owned
increases households’ annual incomes by a factor of
0.077. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Family size showed positive and significant correlation
with household annual incomes (at p < 0.1). This result We would like to express our thanks to Lay Gaint woreda
was consistent with the findings of Tasie et al. (2012), but agriculture and food security experts and the sampled
contradicts those of Chukwuemeka et al. (2011) and households for their kind cooperation for the study.
Fausat (2012) who reported negative and significant Financial support to the study was obtained from Bahir
correlation between family size and household annual Dar University.
incomes.

Notes
Conclusions
1. The lowest tiers in the administrative structure of
This study explored livelihood assets, strategies and food Ethiopia.
security outcomes of rural households in a drought-prone 2. Tropical Livestock Unit is equivalent to a livestock
environment in highland Ethiopia by using Lay Gaint weight of 250 kg, and the conversion factors vary
woreda as a case study site and the sustainable rural according to the type of livestock. Accordingly, ox = 1.0
livelihoods (SRL) framework as a guiding conceptual TLU, cow = 1.0 TLU, sheep/goat = 0.13 TLU, calf =0.2
frame. A major finding is that despite the low level of TLU, horse/mule = 1.1 TLU, donkey =0.7 TLU (Fekadu,
productivity related to local environmental constraints, 2010).
rural livelihoods remain undiversified with small scale
rain-fed agriculture providing the primary source of
livelihood for the large majority of sample households REFERENCES
(~93% of respondents). Very few households were
engaged in off-farm/non-farm activities. Lack of access to Adugna E, Wagayehu B (2012). Causes of household food insecurity in
Wolayta: Southern Ethiopia. J. Stored Prod. Postharv. Res. 3:35-48.
non-farm and off-farm activities is perhaps a major cause Aklilu T, Aklilu A, Yigzaw D, Tilahun T (2000). Farming systems in Lay
for the low coping and adaptive capacities of households Gaint Woreda: Constraints and possible research and development
in times of food security crises. Rainfall variability was interventions. Adet Agricultural Research Center, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
found to be a major contributor for the poor performance Alebachew A (2011). Climate change and rural livelihoods in northern
Ethiopia: Impacts, local adaptation strategies and implications for
of the agricultural sector in all agro-ecological zones in institutional interventions. Forum of Social Studies, Addis Ababa,
the woreda but the problem was more severe in the Ethiopia.
Woina-Dega and Kolla agro-ecological zones, where Ayele T (2008) Livelihood adaptation, risks and vulnerability in rural
some 94 and 62%, respectively, of the food insecure Wolaita, Ethiopia. PhD dissertation, Norwegian University of Life
Sciences, UMB.
households reside. The use of yield-enhancing Babu S, Sanyal P (2009). Food security, poverty and nutrition policy
agricultural inputs such as chemical fertilizers and analysis: statistical methods and applications. Elsevier, Inc. New
improved seeds was extremely low, and this was York.
attributed to the severe land degradation and rainfall Barrett CR, Webb P (2001). Non-farm income diversification and
household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics
variability in the area. Food insecurity is a chronic and policy implication. Cornell University, USA.
problem in that, on average, households in the study area Baumann P (2002). Improving access to natural resources for the rural
consume from own production for only about six months, poor: A critical analysis of central concepts and emerging trends from
 Bazezew et al. 5727

a sustainable livelihood perspective. FAO, Livelihood Support of Tigray National Regional State, Ethiopia. J. Develop. Agric. Econ.
Program (LSP). LSP Working Paper, July 2002. 4:158-168.
Berhan G (2010). Review of Land Degradation and Land Management Josef L, Laktech M (2009). Ethiopia: Diversifying the rural economy: An
in Ethiopia Up to 2008/09. In: Edwards S (ed): Proceedings of assessment of the investment climate for small and informal
Ethiopian Environment Review. Forum for Environment, Addis enterprises. Munich Personal RePE Archive (MPRA), W orld Bank.
Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 184-211. Kappel E, Michelle P, Pedersen L (2010). The sustainable livelihoods
Beyene A (2008). Determinants of off-farm participation decision of farm approach, from a psychological perspective. Approaches to
households in Ethiopia. J. Agrekon. 47:141-161. development institute of biology, University of Aarhus.
Birhanu G (2009). Delineation of food insecure areas using remote Kollmair M, Juli G (2002). The sustainable livelihoods approach. Paper
sensing and GIS (food availability analysis): The case of south for the integrated training course of NCCR, North-South Aeschiried,
Gondar zone. MSC Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Switzerland.
Canali M, Slaviero F (2010). Food insecurity and risk management of Meena HE, O‘Keefe P (2007). Sustainable livelihoods in the context of
smallholder farming systems in Ethiopia. Ninth European IFSA vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. The Netherlands
Symposium, July 4‐7, 2010, Vienna (Austria), pp. 1267-1278. Climate Assistance Program, CEEST foundation, Netherlands.
Chamberlin J, Schmidt E (2011). Ethiopian agriculture: A dynamic Mesay M (2009). Causes of rural household food insecurity: A case
geographic perspective. Development Strategy and Governance from Kuyu district, central Ethiopia. J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 11:286-304.
Division, International Food Policy Research Institute- Ethiopia Million T (2010), Essays on contracts, risk coping and technology
Strategy Support Program II, Ethiopia. Available online at: adoption in Ethiopia. Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/esspwp17.pdf Life Sciences, Norway.
(accessed May 2013). Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) (2010).
Chukwuemeka OK, Obasi U, Innocent CE (2011). The determinants of Ethiopia’s agricultural sector policy and investment framework 2010-
income among poor farm households of the National Directorate of 2020. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), Ethiopia.
Employment (NDE), in Abia State, Nigeria. J. Sustain. Develop. Afr. MoFED (2007). Ethiopia: Building on progress: A plan for accelerated a
13:176-182. sustainable development to end poverty, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
CSA (2010). The 2007 population and housing census of Ethiopia. Available online at:
National statistical summary report, FDRE, Ethiopia. http://cooperacionetiopia.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/pasdep-
Degefa T (2005). Rural livelihoods, poverty and food insecurity in annual-progress-report-2006-2 (accessed June 2013).
Ethiopia: A case study of Ernessa and Garbi Communities in Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) (2012).
Oromiya Zone. Amhara National Regional State. Doctoral Country briefing: Ethiopia. Available online at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/
dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, (accessed May 2013).
Trondheim, Norway. Ramanaiah M, Gowri C (2011). A review of Ethiopian institutions and
Deressa T (2010). Assessment of vulnerability of Ethiopian agriculture their role in poverty reduction: A case study of Amhara credit and
to climate change and farmers’ adaptation strategies. Doctoral saving institution (ACSI). Afr. J. Bus. Manage. 5:8117-8124.
dissertation, university of Pretoria, South Africa. Rami H (2002). Food aid is not development. United Nations
Devereux S, Sharp K, Yared A (2003). Destitution in Ethiopia’s Emergency Unit in Ethiopia (UN-EUE).
northeastern highlands (Amhara National Regional State). Institute of Sanchez V (2005). The determinants of rural non-farm employment and
Development Studies of the University of Sussex, Brighton. incomes in Bolivia. Master Thesis, Michigan State University, USA.
Ellis F, Allison E (2004). Livelihood diversification and natural resource Shahbaz B (2008). Risk, vulnerability and sustainable livelihoods:
access. Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia, Insights from northwest Pakistan. Sustainable Development Policy
FAO, Livelihood Support Program. Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Ellis F, Tassew W (2005). Ethiopia Participatory Poverty Assessment Shitarek T (2012). Ethiopia Country Report (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia).
2004-05. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Available online
Development Planning and Research Department, Published by at:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachme
MoFED, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. nt_data/file/197474/Econ-Res (accessed June, 2013).
Ellis F (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Tasie CM, Offor US, Wilcox GI (2012). Determinants of off-farm income
Oxford University Press Inc. New York. diversification in rivers state, Nigeria. J. Agric. Res. 1:331-334.
Ellis F (2005). Small farms livelihood diversification and rural-urban Tsegaye M (2012). Vulnerability, land, livelihoods and migration nexus
transitions: Strategic issues in Sub Saharan Africa. In: IFPRI (ed) The in rural Ethiopia: A case study in South Gondar Zone of Amhara
Future of Small Farms: Proceedings of a research workshop, Wye, National Regional State. International Institute of Social Studies, The
UK, London, pp. 135-147. Hague, Netherlands.
Ethiopian Economic Association (EEA) (2009). The Quality of Aid in Twigg J (2001). Sustainable of livelihood and vulnerability disasters.
Ethiopia. In: Sagro A, Naerstad A (eds.) Good or bad aid for Disaster Management Working Paper: Disaster Management Institute
agricultural and rural development: Case studies and overview of (DMI), Benfield Hazard Research Center. Available online at:
support for agriculture and rural development. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, http://www.eird.org/cd/on-better-terms/docs/ (accessed June 2013).
pp. 37-49. UNDP (2011). Managing natural resources for human development.
Farrington J, Carney D, Ashley C, Turton C (1999). Sustainable United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2012). Eradicate
livelihoods in practice: Early applications of concepts in rural areas: extreme hunger and poverty in Ethiopia. UNDP Final Report, New
Natural perspective. Overseas Development. Available online at: York: UNDP.
http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/2877.pdf (accessed May 2013). USAID (2012). Improving access to family planning can promote food
Fausat AF (2012). Income diversification determinants among farming security in the face of Ethiopia’s changing climate. The David and
households in Konduga, Borno State, Nigeria. Acad. Res. Int. 2:555- Lucile Packard Foundation, Washington D.C.
56. Yared A (2001). Livelihood strategies and food security policy in
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) (2012). Ethiopia’s Ethiopia. In: Yared A (ed): Proceedings on Food security and
progress towards eradicating poverty: An Interim Report on Poverty sustainable livelihoods in Ethiopia. Forum of Social Studies,
Analysis Study (2010/11). Development Planning and Research March10-11, 2000, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 9-36.
Directorate, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fekadu N (2010). Determinants of household food security in Bulbula,
Adama Tulu Jido Kombolcha Woreda, Oromyia Region, Ethiopia. The
Ethiopian J. Sci. Sustain. Develop. 1:23-29.
Gebrehiwot W, Fekadu B (2012). Rural household livelihood strategies
in drought prone areas: a case of Gulomekeda district, eastern zone