4.1. Benefits of Land Certification
Evidently, farming households were strongly convinced that land certification has brought distinctive benefits to users. These results were also supported by group discussions, which argued that the landholding certificate is being used as proof of their landholding rights and increased land tenure security. The results of this study are well aligned with the findings in literature. Studies reported that most households (81%) developed a sense of ownership following land certification in Kilite Awela’elo woreda, Tigray Region [
50]. Similarly, 100% of farmers in Worja and 97.5% in Beressa agreed that they would inherit their land [
51]. In addition, similar results in southern Ethiopia documented that land certification has contributed to increasing perceptions of tenure security among small-scale farmers [
52]. Certification is a step forward to ensure tenure security and landholding right, because land tenure security refers to the degree of confidence held by people that they will not be arbitrarily deprived of the land rights enjoyed and/or of the economic benefits. It includes both objective elements (nature, content, clarity, duration and enforceability of the rights) and subjective elements (landholders’ perception of the security of their rights) as explained by [
53,
54]. In the focus group discussion, it was reported that farm households are quite confident that the certificates will help them inherit their land to their children. However, very few participants revealed that the land certification will never provide tenure security just because the certificate is not a “Bible” or “Qur’an” and can be changed at any time if there is a change in government. Land certification has also increased land rental and sharecropping, which is also confirmed in several other studies [
50,
52,
55]. Another benefit of registration is that certificates can be used as collateral evidence to a financial institution to obtain loans for the purchase of farm inputs. This is in line with the study of Deininger [
8]. However, the focus group discussions gave evidence about the lack of awareness among farm households to use certificates as a means of obtaining farm input credits.
The revised Rural Land Administration and Use Policy (RLAUP) of the Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) Proclamation No. 133/2006 referred to in Article 24 (2) provides that the land is held jointly by the husband and the wife, and the land holding certificate shall be drawn up in the name of both spouses [
56]. Thus, the joint title implies the implementation of the land declaration, which led to an increased number of households headed also by female persons as it can be seen in
Table 3.
4.2. Perception and Confidence about Land Tenure Security after Land Certification
The land redistribution in 1997 had affected 43.4% of the investigated farming households (see
Table 5). This finding is a updated trend of the results of Deininger et al. [
55], who found in 2003 that 9% of the farmers in Ethiopia, 18% in Tigray and 21% in Amhara region were affected by land redistribution between 1991 and 1998. Another study similarly confirmed that 43% titled and 35% untitled of the sampled farmers in Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) were affected by land redistribution in 1997 [
57].
More than 80% of the investigated farming households are confident that there will be no redistribution of land over the next five years. Some of them are expecting redistribution of land caused by the change in family size and increasing trends of landless youths in the rural area that could pressure the government to launch a new land redistribution. The results of this study are in line with findings in the Tigray Region (Ethiopia) that despite the regions’ declaration of stopping further land redistribution with exceptions of settlement and irrigation areas, 30% of households are suspecting future land redistributions [
58]. Another study has shown that only 27% of farmers in Ethiopia are confident that there will not be land redistribution in the future and 9% expect that land redistribution will happen within the next five years [
55]. Given the objective of land certification, few numbers of farm households fearing redistribution of land over the next five years and those farm households need to be properly addressed by the government if land investment is to be improved.
All these studies outline a declining trend in the fear of land redistribution, which could arise from land security because of land certification. In focus group discussion, some discussants reported that redistribution is expected on land holdings held by public servants and by old-aged farmers with large sized farming land and communal grazing land. Hence, the current pressure and efforts to push and own communal lands could be rooted in such perceptions. In the district, communal grazing land has been redistributed to landless households, e.g., to women, the disabled, the youth and the poorest of poor. In the study area, governmental administrators regulate communal grazing land.
In the district close to the city of Debre Markos, some farming households fear the government’s expropriation of land at any time when the land is considered necessary for development purposes. In accordance with in the Amhara Region Rural Land Administration and Use Policy 133/2006 [
56], the government can expropriate land whenever it is deemed necessary for development purposes. The focus group discussants argued such fears in the rapid expansion of the city, which requires rural land for housing, infrastructure expansions, investments and industrialization purposes. The discussants also criticized the amount of compensations paid in case of expropriation from their land, as compensation did not consider variations in land quality and productivity such as fertility status of the land and is not flexible enough to capture changes in market prices of products and inflations. Since trees are better considered in calculating the compensation costs, farmers around city peripheries opted to plant Eucalyptus, which might cause environmental problems in the future. The results of the study were the same to that of Deininger et al. [
14], who documented that 19% of farmers expected a decrease of their farm plot size due to potential expropriation. In the focus group discussion, the majority of participants was more confident to receive compensation in cases of expropriation.
4.4. Effect of Land Certification on Land Management Practices and Crop Yield
Our study found that land certification has a positive effect on land management (see
Table 7). This finding is similar with studies reporting that households were involved in different types of long-term land investment practices after land certification and that agricultural productivity increased as compared to before certification [
50]. Similarly, studies have shown that land certification increases investment in land and land management [
39,
51]. A key motivation for issuing certificates is to increase land-related investments for sustainable land management [
14]. In addition, results gained from the focus group discussion showed that land certification addressed gender inequality problems, which have prevailed for many years. Therefore, certification significantly increased women holding rights and improved decision-making in land related issues such as land management practices. Studies confirmed that women’s willingness to work in the field and applying proper land management practices has been increased after the certification process [
51]. Improving the protection of women’s land rights after certification (based on the revised Amhara Rural Land Administration and Use (ARLAU) Proclamation No. 133/2006) may lead female farmers to take care of their farmland. This finding was supported by studies that land certification contributed to increased women’s tenure security, promoted gender equality and increased participation in land management practices [
39,
51,
52]. Similarly, studies indicated that the certificates promote gender equality and the willingness of females to work in the field [
52]. Only a few participants in the group discussion have revealed that land management practices were not based on certificates, but other parameters such as using artificial fertilizers Urea and Dap. They pointed out that land is a basic source of livelihood and that it is society’s duty to protect the land from mismanagement, such as the protection of soil erosion, in order to ensure farmers can maintain production, whether or not they have certificates. Furthermore, the participants in the focus group discussion found that even if land certification improves land management practices, some farm households cultivate steep slopes, which means a lack of proper land use systems.
Improvement of land management practices after certification has been accompanied by positive effects on crop yields [
57]. In addition, according to the report in the focus group discussion, land certification has a decisive effect on crop yields. For instance, farmers have reduced fear of short-term land redistributions and thus they are encouraged to invest in land management practices, to spend more time in their farmland and to increase the use of improved seeds and fertilizers with the aim of improving yields and farmland productivity (see
Table 8).
4.5. Factors Influencing Perceived Tenure Security
The age of the household head is positively and significantly associated with the fear of a future redistribution of land. The likelihood of perceived tenure security decreases with increasing age of the head of the household. According to
Table 9, by increasing the age of households’ head by one-year and keeping other explanatory variables constant, the odds ratio in favor of fear of a future redistribution of land increases by a factor of 0.835. In focus group discussions and key person interviews, this finding was justified that memories on previous land reforms are more evident by elder farmers, and therefore, they fear a redistribution of land in the future.
Total household size negatively affected perceived tenure security.
Table 9 shows that if households are decreased by one member, the fear of redistribution of land increases by a factor of 1.46. Thus, the head of the family is likely to have a relatively small number of dependents and a large farmland size. Land that is in excess will be taken away by the government body at any time, and that is why they are increasing their fear of redistribution of land in the future.
The educational level of the household head has a positive and significant impact on the fear of redistribution of land. Household heads who are literate are more likely (9.720 times higher) to fear a redistribution of land than illiterate household heads (
Table 9). The educational level of households increases the possibility of finding alternative employment opportunities and participating in off- farm activities; because of the above, the government is likely to take over the land at any time, and this results in the growing fear of losing farmland. This result of a household survey is in line with the revised Amhara Rural Land Administration and Use (ARLAU) Proclamation No. 133/2006, enacted in Article 12 (1a), which provides that any holder who has the right to use the land may be deprived of that right if he engages in non-farming activities and earns his livelihood there [
56]. Consequently, households fear that, as education levels increase, the likelihood of non-agricultural activity will increase, which may not be sufficient to meet the primary needs of individuals but will lead to the loss of farmland. On the contrary, this finding is not consistent with the results of the study reported by Pender et al. [
26].
The households affected by the redistribution of land in 1997 have a significant and positive relationship with the fear of redistribution of land. According to
Table 9, the increase in the number of households affected by the redistribution of land by one category in 1997, the fear of redistribution of land would increase by a factor of 7.398. However, total livestock holdings do not have a significant relationship, but there is a negative direction in the fear of redistribution of land. An increase of one unit in total household livestock holdings decreases the fear of redistribution of land by a factor of 0.838. This can be explained—as mentioned in focus group discussions—that farmers with more livestock generate additional income by selling livestock.
The model output about the total land holding size of households showed a positive and significant association with the fear of future redistribution of land. The analysis gave evidence that when total land size is increased by one hectare, the probability of the households with fear of redistribution of land in the future increases by a factor of 0.188 (
Table 9). Households with large land holdings show an increased fear about the redistribution of their land and a loss of their farmland. This result of the household survey is consistent with the outcome of the focus group discussion. The participants said that an increasing number of landless young people are threatening their farms, as food insecurity and crime/robbery are increasing. As a result, land could be redistributed from old people with large farm sizes to landless younger people. The results of the current study are supported by findings that farm households with relatively larger farms feel more insecure than those with relatively less land and the tenure security of farm households in Ethiopia is inversely related to the size of the farm [
28].
Table 5 indicates that the fear of land redistribution in general is high and smoothly higher within the next five years than beyond. Some participants in the focus group discussion indicated that there has been frequent land redistribution in past days. They do not know what is happening in the future as this depends on the government and its policy. The fear comes even in the land policy, which states that land redistribution could be possible, if the land will be needed for irrigation projects. Another fear is that the government could be substituted and afterwards the legislation would not be executed properly.
4.6. Factors Affecting Land Investment (Terracing and Manure Use)
Total land holding size of a household in generals has smooth but significant impacts on terrace construction (
Table 10). This can be explained by the fact that larger farms are associated with greater wealth and increased availability of capital, which increases the likelihood of investment in land. Rogers [
60] and Teshome et al. [
61] also referred to these farmers as innovators who accepted new technologies earlier than others. In addition, studies have shown that the size of the land has a positive effect on the adoption of land management practices. This can be attributed to the fact that conservation structures occupy part of the productive land and farmers with larger farm size can afford retaining structures compared to those with relatively smaller farm size [
62,
63]. Similar studies have shown that farmers who maintain larger farms are more likely to apply land management practices than those whose farms are relatively small [
64,
65]. In addition, one study carried out in the Ethiopian Beressa watershed confirmed that farmers with a small farm size have fewer soil and stone terraces [
66].
On the contrary, studies have explained that the majority of farmers who cultivate more land are older farmers, and often, these farmers lack the workforce [
67]. Thus, to solve labor force problems, old-age farmers hire workers who have been used to maintain conservation structures [
67]. Larger farms may find it easier to produce sufficient surpluses to build up investment by using mechanization than smaller farms [
68]. Farmers with larger parcels may allocate more land to soil conservation than those with smaller farms [
69]. This can be justified by a better perception and more experiences about soil erosion by older farmers. Therefore, older farmers are making more effort to apply land management practices compared to younger ones because of their experiences gained. The reason for this, as identified in the focus group discussions, is that elder people have increased experience, knowledge, skill and attitudes to cultivate land and have relatively large farms. Similar studies indicate the adoption of land management practices by older farmers [
64,
70]. Previous ones reported that younger farmers do not devote more effort to land management practices (cut-off drain) compared to older ones [
63,
65,
71].
In addition, the total land holding size of a household has a positive and significant impact on the use of manure before certification. Thus, the increase in total land holdings of a household by one category would increase the application of manure by a factor of 1.687 before certification (
Table 11). The majority of the participants in the focus group discussion said that as the total land holding size increases, farmers need a large number of livestock to apply manure to all their plots. However, in case the farm household does not have a large livestock, it is difficult to use manure for such a large plot of land.
The distance of a farm plot from homestead has some negative effects on the construction of terraces. Farming households with farmland near residential areas have a higher probability of building terraces than farm households with farmlands relatively far from homestead (
Table 10). This can be attributed to the fact that farming households give more attention to nearby farm plots than to distant plots. Similarly, the same is true for manure use (
Table 11). Distance also matters because manure is very bulky and therefore difficult to transport. Studies report that less time and energy are needed to manage close farmland with the result that longer walking distance between farmland and residential area reduce the adoption of land cultivation [
62,
72].
The perception of households about land degradation is a driving force to build terraces. If household heads had the perception that land is degraded, the likelihood of terrace construction is higher by a factor of 3.959 before and 4.044 after certification compared to those households that did not have this feeling (
Table 10). Similar results can be seen on the use of manure. In this case, the factors are 2.153 before certification and 6.873 after certification (
Table 11). The higher factors after certification give evidence that the land certification process also improved land cultivation practices. The positive impact of land certification on land cultivation practices was also confirmed in focus group discussions and by key informants.
It was interesting that the access to credits was significant and positively related to improving the land management practices (terracing and manure use). Farm households that have access to credit were applying terracing 2.120 times more before certification and 5.211 times more after certification (
Table 10). In the same way, a unit increase in credit access increased the use of manure by a factor of 1.862 before and 3.581 after land certification (
Table 11). Farm households with better access to loans were expected to invest more in land management practices. Studies have reported that credit services for agricultural inputs could increase the adoption of conservation measures by farmers [
71]. On the other hand, another study reported that access to credit could reduce conservation investment by enabling farmers to mask the short-term effects of land degradation [
73]. In this sense, the results of the current study are plausible.
Farm households that had access to training in land resource management applied terracing 6.284 times before certification and 9.495 times after certification (
Table 10). Land resource management training also has a positive and significant impact on the application of manure before and after land certification. The factors are similar. An additional training unit by one day in land resource management increased the use of manure by a factor of 3.995 before and 7.380 after land certification (
Table 11). This significant increase is the result of the provision of adequate information and training on land management practices. The participants in the focus group discussion also confirmed that farm households that get a higher number of trainings were motivated in the construction of terraces for their farmlands. The application of organic manure is also due to the training that farm households received in composting. Participants agreed to be more influenced by the extension services provided to them than by development workers to make such land investments. Former studies have shown that training of farmers could increase the probability of adoption, utilization and implementation of land management practices [
72]. Access to training will increase farmers’ attitudes and skills in land management and reflect a better understanding of the benefits and constraints of soil conservation. Training also improves the ability to acquire and apply specific knowledge on the use of land management activities. Previous findings showed that training increased the adoption of land management practices [
62,
65,
72,
74]. Various evidence exists regarding the relationship between the training of farmers and the application of sustainable land management practices by farmers [
75]. The results of the current study also highlighted that the influence of training offered was increased after the land certification process.
The terrace construction decision was negatively and significantly related to the fear that the government would take over land at any time before and after certification. If household heads at any time feared the government’s takeover of land, the likelihood of terrace construction is—compared to those households who did not fear this—lower by a factor of 3.923 and 2.354, respectively, before and after certification (
Table 10). Similarly, the fear of the government taking over land at any time was negatively and significantly related to the decision to apply manure before and after certification. In this case, the factors are 2.103 before certification and 1.984 after certification (
Table 11). Therefore, we can deduce that the fear of losing farmland as a result of redistribution by the government at any time was high before certification. The focus group discussion also confirmed that, before certification, there is a fear of redistribution of land and government taking over land and risk in the holding right, but after certification, the risk of redistribution of land is expected to be reduced. If the government needs the land for development purposes, the government pays compensation for the land lost.
The decision to build a terrace was related positively and significantly to the total number of livestock holdings before and after certification. A one-unit increase in livestock would increase the construction of the terrace by a factor of 0.856 before certification and 1.809 after certification (
Table 10). The probable reason is that there is a low family size, a shortage of work force and a large number of livestock. There is a possibility of selling livestock and converting to human work force. It is possible, then, to construct a terracing of the human work force gained out of the family members. The focus group discussion also confirmed that when farm households have a shortage of labor, the sale of livestock used to purchase additional human labor for the construction of terraces. Former studies also confirmed the results of this study [
62,
63,
71,
74]. Similarly, the total number of livestock holding had a significant and positive impact on the decision to use manure before and after certification (
Table 11). This is justified because the source of manure is livestock, and therefore, total number of livestock holding matters. Another explanation for the increased use of manure for agricultural production mentioned in the focus group discussions was a rise of prices for inorganic fertilizer. The size of the livestock is expected to influence the use of manure, as more livestock can produce more manure [
76]. Farmers with large numbers of livestock have more dung to improve soil fertility and in general, more capital to invest in land management practices. The number of livestock is also an indicator of wealth that may ease capital constraints. Household wealth, as indicated by the total number of livestock units, may be a sign of power and may reduce tenure insecurity [
28]. In addition, livestock is an important source of farm income and enables farmers to purchase agricultural inputs and invest in land management practices. It also serves as nonhuman labor for the construction of soil conservation structures [
66,
76]. Studies also showed that the number of livestock is an indicator of economic security, which had a positive influence on the performance of land management [
63,
71].