Assessing the Impact of Productive Safety Net Program on Soil and Water Conservation Practices in the Amhara Sayint Woreda, Ethiopia

Abstract

Land degradation is a critical issue in Ethiopia, exacerbating food insecurity by reducing agricultural productivity. Soil and water conservation (SWC) practices are essential to control erosion and increase food production. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluations on the impact of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) on SWC practices. This study aimed to assess the contribution of the PSNP to SWC in the Amhara Sayint Woreda. The researchers used a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data. Multistage sampling was used to select households, and data were collected through questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, and observations. The study provided empirical evidence that the PSNP has a positive impact on SWC practices. Key factors influencing SWC participation include age, family size, education, plot size, livestock ownership, credit service, and access to extension services. The results suggest that the PSNP should improve payment for public work participants implementing SWC, undertake institutional reform, and increase public awareness of the benefits of SWC in reversing land degradation and improving food security. This study uniquely contributes to the understanding of how the PSNP influences the varying degrees of participation in SWC practices, filling a critical research gap. The findings can inform policymakers and program managers to enhance the PSNP’s effectiveness in promoting sustainable land management and food security in Ethiopia.

1. Introduction

According to the latest data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2023, the global number of people suffering from chronic undernourishment has decreased to approximately 695 million out of a total world population of 8 billion people. This represents around 1 in 11 people globally, a slight improvement from the 2012–2014 period. The vast majority of those experiencing chronic undernourishment, around 680 million people, is still living in developing countries. This represents 12.7% of the population in developing countries, or one in eight people, a slight decrease from the previous period. In contrast, the number of people experiencing undernourishment in developed countries has remained relatively low, at around 10 million, during this time. This indicates that chronic undernourishment continues to be much more prevalent in developing regions compared to developed countries (FAO, 2023) [1]. According to the latest data from the World Bank, agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa still accounts for a substantial share of GDP, around 28% on average as of 2022. However, the productivity of the agricultural sector in the region continues to lag behind other parts of the world and remains far below the region’s potential. Despite agriculture employing around 57% of the labor force, mostly in rural areas, the sector only accounts for 28% of GDP. This reflects the relatively low productivity of the agricultural sector in Sub-Saharan Africa compared to its importance in terms of employment. As a result, the rural population in the region has been unable to fully escape poverty, as they are unable to transform the low-productivity agricultural activities into more lucrative, high-productivity economic activities. This mismatch between the high reliance on agriculture and its relatively low productivity remains a key constraint to economic development and poverty reduction in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Improving agricultural productivity through investments, technology, and supportive policies will be crucial for unlocking the region’s economic potential (World Bank, 2022) [2].

The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) plays a critical role in promoting sustainable land management (SLM), which is closely linked to sustainable development. These concepts are interrelated in terms of support for vulnerable communities: PSNP provides financial and food support to vulnerable populations, helping them maintain livelihoods while engaging in sustainable land management practices. Investment in land rehabilitation: The program encourages investment in land rehabilitation and conservation practices, such as soil erosion control and reforestation, which enhance soil health and productivity. Resilience against climate change: By promoting SLM, PSNP helps communities build resilience to climate impacts, ensuring that agricultural systems can withstand environmental shocks. Long-term economic stability: Sustainable land management practices foster long-term agricultural productivity, contributing to economic stability and reducing poverty, which are key aspects of sustainable development. And finally, community empowerment: Through participatory approaches, PSNP empowers communities to take ownership of their land resources, promoting sustainable practices that align with local needs and environmental stewardship. These concepts are supported by the study performed by Tomislav (2018) [3]. According to him, sustainable development should provide a solution in terms of meeting basic human needs, integrating environmental development and protection, achieving equality, ensuring social self-determination and cultural diversity, and maintaining ecological integrity. Although the concept of sustainable development has undergone certain changes during the past, its fundamental principles and goals have contributed to a more conscious behavior adapted to the limitations of the environment. This is the reason for adopting the concept in different areas of human activities.

Numerous international organizations have been involved in the implementation of the concept, and although it has found positive implementation locally, it did not produce significant results on a global scale. This fact proves environmental problems which, 30 years after the introduction of the concept, are still ongoing. In addition, a study performed by Manioudis and Meramveliotakis (2022) [4] showed that the classical political economy provides an analytical backbone of certain elements, including the important role of history, the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach, and the analytical priority of social classes that could be critical in enriching sustainable development studies. The PSNP serves as a vital mechanism for achieving multiple SDGs, contributing to poverty reduction, food security, climate resilience, and sustainable land management, thereby fostering comprehensive and inclusive sustainable development.

In Africa, especially in Sub-Saharan countries, many people are still suffering from chronic food insecurity due to recurrent drought, low input availability, low productivity of subsistence agriculture, and widespread poverty. According to the latest data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), an estimated 281 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa were affected by food insecurity in 2022, a slight decrease from 2019 but still a significant challenge (FAO, 2023) [1]. Ethiopia continues to face the challenge of achieving food security. Recognizing the seriousness of its soil fertility problems and the necessity of improving agricultural productivity, the Ethiopian government and international donors have initiated several programs that promote yield enhancement, including the dissemination of soil and water conservation (SWC) techniques (Yesuf et al., 2017) [5]. Low productivity is associated with low adoption and adaptation of SWC technology, topographical factors, population increase, and poor policy (Gizachew, 2019 [6,7]; Gete, 2021). The government’s policy of community-based watershed development is designed to address some of these issues, with a view to making the watershed more productive and better positioned to sustain the livelihoods of households within the watershed (Ministry of Agriculture, 2021) [8]. The Amhara region remains one of the poorest in Ethiopia. It is characterized by undependable rainfall, very high land degradation, rapid population growth, and high rates of poverty and malnutrition (Bamlaku, 2018) [9]. Moreover, about 90% of its population lives in rural areas and is engaged in agriculture. The population is very young, with 55% below the age of 20 years. The region is also densely populated, with a high population growth rate (1.9%) (Central Statistical Agency, 2022) [10]. With a population of about 21.98 million over an area of 170,752 km², it has a population density of 129 persons per square kilometer. In combination with the rugged terrain, this means that little or no unused arable land is left. Food security is also threatened by frequent drought, which further contributes to food insecurity and increased need for food aid (Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Programme, 2020) [11]. Amhara Sayint Woreda is part of the Abay Beshilo Basin Livelihood Zone [12]. This zone suffers from chronic food insecurity due to erratic rains, small landholdings, degraded farmlands, infertile soil, pest infestation, livestock disease, and malaria. The population is mostly poor, and their livelihoods depend on local labor, PSNP, and firewood sales to meet their food needs. For example, the South Wollo Meher Livelihood Zone is a chronically food-deficient area. The main economy of the Livelihood Zone is the production of wheat (Triticum aestivum), teff (Eragrostis tef), red sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and pulses, supplemented by livestock rearing (sheep and cattle). The main sources of cash for the middle class and more affluent are the sale of crops, livestock, and eucalyptus trees. Migrants and local and urban laborers are the major source of labor for the sample households. Moreover, the sale of eucalyptus trees also serves as a source of income for the poor and very poor. Furthermore, the country has abundant natural resources and a favorable climate for agricultural productivity. Despite these advantages, a significant portion of the population continues to experience persistent poverty. The country began facing severe drought and famine conditions in the first half of the 1980s.

Productive Safety Net Program in Ethiopia: The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) is a well-established social protection program in Ethiopia that aims to address food insecurity and promote sustainable land management practices. The program was launched in 2005 and is jointly implemented by the Government of Ethiopia and various development partners, including the World Bank, the United States Agency for International Development [13] (USAID 2018), and the UK Department for International Development [14] (DFID 2020). The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) consists of two main components: public works (PWs) and direct support (DS). PWs offer cash or food transfers to food-insecure households in exchange for participation in community projects, like rural infrastructure and environmental rehabilitation. DS provides unconditional support to chronically food-insecure households unable to participate, including the elderly and disabled. The PSNP aims to improve household food security, reduce emergency aid reliance, promote sustainable land management, enhance community capacity for project management, and bolster the resilience of households and communities against shocks and stresses.

The PSNP has been recognized as a successful and innovative social-protection program that has had a significant impact on food security, asset building, and sustainable land management in Ethiopia [13,15,16] (USAID, 2018; World Bank, 2020; DFID, 2016). It has served as a model for other social protection programs in the region and has been the subject of extensive research and evaluation studies.

Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) aims to protect food consumption, safeguard household assets, and tackle the root causes of food insecurity. Its “productive” aspect arises from infrastructure improvements and cash-transfer impacts on the local economy (MoARD, 2021) [17]. Agriculture is vital for many African economies, contributing about 15% to GDP and employing over 60% of the labor force (Badiane & Ulimwengu, 2013) [18]. In Asia, the agricultural sector’s GDP share ranges from around 10% in China to over 25% in Vietnam and Nepal (World Bank, 2020) [15]. In Ethiopia, agriculture drives economic growth, accounting for approximately 45% of GDP and over 80% of export revenues, and employing more than 75% of the rural population (CSA, 2020) [19]. Moreover, agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopia’s economy, employing over 70% of the population and contributing significantly to GDP (World Bank, 2022) [2]. The country primarily relies on subsistence farming, with smallholder farmers cultivating crops like teff, maize, and sorghum. Traditional farming methods dominate, although there are efforts to promote modern techniques and technologies to increase productivity (FAO, 2021) [20].

Ethiopia has abundant natural resources and a favorable climate for agriculture, yet a significant portion of the population still faces persistent poverty (World Bank, 2019) [21], exacerbated by severe drought and famine conditions since the early 1980s (Berhanu, A., & Raj, A.J. 2017) [22].

Ethiopia faces significant challenges related to food insecurity, exacerbated by factors such as climate change, as erratic rainfall and prolonged droughts have severely impacted crop yields (WFP, 2023) [23]; population growth, as rapid population increase puts additional pressure on agricultural resources (World Bank, 2022) [2]; land degradation, as soil erosion and deforestation reduce land fertility, affecting food production (FAO, 2021) [20]; economic factors, as limited access to markets and financial services hampers farmers’ ability to invest in better practices (WFP, 2023) [23]; and conflict and displacement, as ongoing conflicts disrupt farming activities and displace populations, further complicating food access (World Bank, 2022) [2].

Ethiopia has faced severe drought and famine since the 1980s, worsening food insecurity and poverty (FEWS NET, 2022) [24]. In response, the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) was launched in 2005 to support economic growth through social cash transfers and labor-intensive public-works projects aimed at vulnerable households (MoARD, 2021) [17].

The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) initially covered 192 chronically food-insecure districts and expanded to 350 by 2021. Among food-insecure households, 40% receive food assistance, while 60% get cash transfers. The program features two main components: public works, which provide employment through rural infrastructure projects like road maintenance, soil conservation, and reforestation; and direct support for vulnerable households. While drought is a primary trigger for food insecurity, underlying issues such as land degradation, limited assets, low farm technology, and population pressure exacerbate vulnerability. Additionally, overexploitation of forests due to poverty and agricultural demand worsens land degradation and climate change (Brown et al., 2018) [25].

Key technological aspects of soil and water conservation (SWC) activities under the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) include the construction of terracing structures, such as stone or soil bunds, to control erosion and enhance water infiltration [15] (World Bank, 2020). Gully rehabilitation is achieved through building check dams, sediment traps, and revegetation efforts [13] (USAID, 2018). Additionally, afforestation, reforestation, and agroforestry practices are implemented to restore degraded landscapes, improve vegetation cover, and integrate trees with crops to enhance soil fertility and diversify livelihoods [16] (DFID, 2016). The program also focuses on water harvesting and irrigation systems, promoting small-scale structures and watershed management. Training, technical support, and monitoring are provided to beneficiaries to ensure effective construction and management of SWC interventions [13,15] (USAID, 2018; World Bank, 2020).

The PSNP aims to ensure food consumption and prevent asset depletion for food-insecure households while stimulating markets, improving access to services, and enhancing the natural environment. However, complex drivers of land degradation impact beneficiary participation in conservation activities (MoARD, 2021) [17] (Figure 1).

This research addresses a key gap in comprehensively evaluating the impact of the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) on soil and water conservation (SWC) practices in the study area. Although land degradation and the need for SWC are critical issues, there is insufficient research assessing the PSNP’s role in promoting these practices locally. While previous studies have examined the PSNP’s effects on broader livelihood outcomes, food security, and natural resource management, a detailed evaluation of its influence on farmer engagement in SWC activities is lacking. By focusing on Amhara Sayint Woreda, this study aims to fill this research gap and provide empirical evidence on the connections between the PSNP and smallholder farmers’ adoption of SWC practices, thereby informing program design to enhance the PSNP’s effectiveness in sustainable land management.

The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in Ethiopia is designed to enhance food security and improve livelihoods for vulnerable populations.

Table 1. Principles of Productive Safety Net Program.

Principle	Description
Food security and livelihood support	Aims to provide food or cash transfers to households facing food insecurity to meet their basic needs.
Community participation	Involves local communities in planning and implementation, ensuring that programs meet the specific needs of beneficiaries.
Public works	Requires able-bodied participants to engage in public works projects, such as infrastructure development, which can improve local resources.
Predictable support	Ensures timely and predictable transfers to help households plan for lean seasons and avoid crisis situations.
Linkages to other services	Integrates with complementary programs, such as health services, education, and agricultural support, to enhance overall effectiveness.
Resilience building	Focuses on building the resilience of households to withstand shocks, such as droughts or economic downturns.
Targeting and inclusion	Prioritizes the most vulnerable populations, including women, the elderly, and those with disabilities, through systematic targeting processes.
Capacity building	Promotes skill development and training to enable beneficiaries to improve their livelihoods and move out of poverty.
Monitoring and evaluation	Implements robust monitoring and evaluation systems to assess program effectiveness and adapt strategies as needed.

indicates the key principles of the PSNP.

Here are some potential limitations for this study. They include data availability, as limited access to historical data on soil and water conservation practices may affect the assessment of long-term impacts; sample size, as a small or non-representative sample may limit the generalizability of the findings to the broader population in the woreda; and subjectivity in reporting as self-reported data from participants may introduce biases or inaccuracies in assessing the effectiveness of conservation practices.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

Amhara Sayint Woreda is located between 11°15′ N and 11°25′ N latitudes and 38°40′ E and 39°6′7″ E longitudes, covering a total area of 1437.30 square kilometers (Figure 2). Amhara Sayint Woreda is bounded by East Legambo Woreda, West East Gojjam and South Gonder Zone, North Mekidela Woreda, Southeast Borena Woreda, and South Mehal Sayint Woreda. It has seven clusters, of which Guameda is one cluster located in Amhara Sayint Woreda, South Wollo Zone of Amhara Regional State. It is situated about 27 km away from Ajibar town, 213 km from Dessie city in the southwest direction, and about 613 km north of Addis Abeba. Guameda is bordered by Mehal Sayint woreda in the south, the North Koreb, the North Semada, the West Gojam, and the East Meles Sanga.

In the above map, a = The upper right map shows Amahara Region’s location in Ethiopia; b = the lower right map shows the zones that make up Amhara Region, South Wollo Zone, and the Amhara Sayint Woreda, where the study was located, inside the map of Amhara region; and the left map shows the study’s Kebeles in which household heads were surveyed. A Kebele is the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia.

Based on the Ethiopian traditional agro-ecologic classification, the Amhara Sayint Woreda groped as three major agro-ecological zones, i.e., Dega/Wurch, Woina dega, and kolla. The altitude of Amhara Sayint is ranges from 500 m at the bottom of the canyon of Abay to 3700 m at the highest mountain of South Wollo Zone. Guameda clusters include Kolla agro-ecological zones, and the range is approximately 500 m. The Amhara Sayint Woreda is a severely degraded region, resulting in reduced productivity and increased food insecurity. Guameda cluster has an average annual rainfall and temperature of 1165 mm and 23 °C, respectively (Kombolcha Meteorology Station Office) [26].

Two-thirds of the Amhara Sayint topography is characterized by steep slopes, with an average slope of 30° and above, particularly in the Kolla and Dega agro-ecological zones [27] (Hurni, 1988). But, in relation to these two agro-ecological zones, the Woina dega has a relatively gentle slope. However, with an alarming increase in population in the study area, farmers were forced to farm the sloppy adjacent hillsides. This activity aggravated the degradation of the soil and reduced the bush coverage of the area.

Based on the 2007 national census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) [14], Amhara Sayint Woreda has a total population of 144,972. According to the 2011 sample survey data, Sayint Woreda has a population of 154,142, of whom 75,979 are men and 78,163 are women. From the total population of Sayint Woreda, 5474, or 3.55%, are urban inhabitants. In this Woreda, a total of 34,999 households were counted, resulting in an average of 4.40 persons per household. Though, with an area of 1437.30 square kilometers, Amhara Sayint has a population density of 100.86 persons per square kilometer, which is less than South Wollo Zone’s average population density of 147.58 persons per square kilometer. The majority of the inhabitants said they practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, with 83.59% reporting that as their religion, while 16.37% of the population reported being Muslim.

The total population of the Guameda cluster of PSNP beneficiary households is 10,262, with a total of 24,668 members. From the total number of households, 9253 are beneficiaries of public work, and 1009 households are under the direct support program Amhara Sayint Woreda Agricultural Office (ASWAO).

2.2. Research Methodology

Due to the nature of the problem at hand, the intended research was designed based on quantitative data from a descriptive research approach, and binary regression models were employed in order to assess the contribution of PSNP to SWC practices through the beneficiary PSNP of public work and direct support in Amhara Sayint Woreda, Guameda cluster, and its SWC practices for the local community. And using qualitative data, we obtained focus-group discussions, questionnaires, observations, and interviews. A multistage sampling technique was used to determine the sample Kebeles and households.

The use of a multistage sampling method in this study is appropriate and justified for the following reasons. Geographical coverage: The study was conducted in the Amhara Sayint Woreda, which is a large administrative unit. Using a multistage sampling approach allows the researchers to systematically sample from the different Kebeles within the woreda, ensuring broader geographical representation. Heterogeneity of the population: Smallholder farmers in the study area are likely to have diverse socio-economic characteristics, land holdings, and exposure to the PSNP. A multistage sampling method helps capture this heterogeneity by selecting samples at different levels (e.g., Woreda, Kebele, and household). Practical feasibility: Conducting a census or simple random sampling of all households in the Woreda may not be feasible due to resource and time constraints. The multistage approach allows the researchers to focus on a manageable number of sampling units at each stage.

First, the Woreda has been purposefully selected based on their participation in the Productive Safety Net Program and on accessibility. Second, Amhara Sayint Woreda has 7 clusters, all of which are beneficiaries of the PSNP program. Due to the homogeneity of those clusters, the study area of Guameda was selected using random sampling. Third, the PSNP beneficiary has two components, such as PW participant and DS participant households, which were identified from the households list available at each of the four Kebeles of the cluster. Finally, the sample households were selected randomly from beneficiaries of PSNP public workers and direct support of PSNP.

The sample size was decided based on the sample size-determination formula, which takes care to have the sample size of the study be as representative as possible, in accordance with the time and budget billed and selected households, by using random sampling. Taking this into consideration, out of 10,262 households in the PSNP, 385 sample households were selected using the following formula adapted from Israel [28]:

$$N={\displaystyle \frac{N}{{1+N\left(e\right)}^2}}$$

where,

N = The total population of the study;

n = The required sample size;

e = The precision level, which is = (±5%) levels.

Therefore, ${\displaystyle \frac{10262}{1+10262({0.07)}^2}}=384.9$ (aproximatiley 385). Of which, proportionally, 347 of them were a PSNP beneficiary of a public-work households, and the remaining 38 were direct support of PSNP beneficiary households.

2.3. Sources and Methods of Data Collection

Both primary and secondary data were collected from the study area. Primary data were collected from a sample of 385 households, 347 public-work participants in PSNP, and 38 direct-support participants in PSNP, while secondary data were collected from the Woreda Agricultural Department. To ensure the reliability and validity of the data collected in the study, the following detailed procedures and data quality measures were taken. Questionnaire development was conducted by consulting with subject-matter experts and pretesting to ensure clarity, relevance, and appropriateness of the questions. Then, for 9 enumerators, training was given for 3 days. The training provided to the data enumerators included topics such as interview techniques, probing methods, ethical considerations, and familiarity with the questionnaire. A step-by-step procedure in data collection was followed during the household surveys, including participant recruitment, obtaining informed consent, and conducting the interviews. This was also followed by a regular supervision of enumerators and spot-checks.

The primary data were gathered from sample households using a structured questionnaire. It was prepared in English, and it was translated into Amharic, which is the local language of the study area. Before the collection of data, the questionnaire was pretested with a few individuals who were not members of the sampled households. The data were collected by eight enumerators who received training before data collection commenced. The household survey was focused on household characteristics (family size, education, sex, age category, etc.), land size, beneficiaries of public work and direct-support beneficiaries before the intervention, and other socio-economic factors.

Primary data were gathered from sample households using focus-group discussions and interviews. Key informant interviews were conducted with different individuals at different levels. At the PA level, individual interviews were conducted with two elderly people, one teacher, one KA chairperson, and four Kebele managers. Furthermore, at the Woreda level, mainly one Agricultural and Rural Development Office head was interviewed. Generally, the researcher used nine people for the interview.

Moreover, primary data were gathered from sample households using observation. During the observation period, information was also gathered from different members of the community. The SWC practices and settlement patterns were observed as part of the data-collection process.

Focus-group discussions were carried out among the agriculture-office experts, food-security experts, and natural resource-conservation experts at the Woreda level. In total, three individuals were involved. The discussions focused on the contribution of PSNP to SWC practices. Secondary data were collected from different offices of governmental and non-governmental sources located in the study area (see Appendix A).

2.4. Methods of Data Analysis

This study utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative data-analysis techniques. The quantitative analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 21. Descriptive statistics were employed to provide summary measures of the data, such as frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations. This allowed for the characterization and profiling of the study sample and key variables of interest. Additionally, a binary logistic regression model was applied. This statistical technique was used to analyze the relationship between a binary dependent variable (e.g., a dichotomous outcome) and a set of independent variables. The logistic regression allowed the researchers to identify significant predictors and understand the likelihood of the dependent variable occurring given the values of the independent variables. The qualitative data were gathered from multiple sources, including interviews, focus-group discussions, and document reviews. These textual data were analyzed using qualitative data-analysis methods. The researchers engaged in thematic coding and content analysis to identify key themes, patterns, and insights emerging from the qualitative information.

The results of the study, incorporating both the quantitative and qualitative analyses, were presented in various formats to provide comprehensive evidence and support the overall findings. These included narrative descriptions, percentages, tables, and visual representations (e.g., tables and figures). This diverse set of presentation techniques was employed to effectively communicate the nuanced and multifaceted results of the study. The combination of rigorous quantitative and qualitative data analysis, along with the thoughtful presentation of the findings, allowed the researchers to provide a well-rounded and in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

Table 2. Descriptive result for socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the sample households.

	PSNP Beneficiary				Mean Difference
Variable	Public Work		Direct Support
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	t-Value	p-Value
Education	1.69	0.461	1.66	0.481	0.037	0.463	0.394
Sex	1.64	0.480	1.63	0.489	0.011	0.135	0.794
Age	2.03	0.700	2.89	0.453	−0.860	−7.401	0.000 ***
Farm size	2.79	1.058	1.05	0.226	1.740	10.104	0.000 ***
Livestock	1.84	0.368	1.21	0.413	0.628	9.855	0.000 ***
Landholder	1.21	0.406	1.00	0.000	0.207	3.146	0.000 ***
Religion	1.08	0.273	1.00	0.000	0.081	1.822	0.000 ***
Marital status	2.61	0.813	1.84	0.886	0.763	5.441	0.722
Plot size	1.39	0.489	1.21	0.413	0.181	0.202	0.147
Distance	2.82	1.020	2.61	0.679	0.210	1.240	0.002

Note: *** means significant at 1% probability level.

below shows the socio-economic characteristics of PW and DS participant households. The result shows that, statistically, there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, family size, marital status, and land ownership before the intervention of the PSNP. Compared to DS, PW participant households had a larger family size. Similarly, compared to PW, DS PSNP participants were very young prior to the PSNP intervention.

3.2. Respondents’ Land Characteristics

Physical plot characteristics, such as slope, are the most crucial factors that influence SWC practices.

Table 3. Farm characteristics of sample household.

Variable	PSNP Beneficiaries
	PW		DS
	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Medium slope	121	22.4	9	31.3	33.7
Steep	148	42.6	17	44.7	42.85
Gentle	78	34.8	12	23.6	23.3
Total	347	100	38	100	100

below presents the most important plot-level characteristics perceived by the households in the study area. From the total sample households in four Kebeles, a majority of plots (42.8%) have steep slope farmland, while 33.7% are medium slope and 23.3% are gentle slope, in terms of slope category. Therefore, this indicated that the rate of soil erosion in the study area is very high.

3.3. Access to Credit Services

Access to credit services is another important factor that also has implications for SWC activities.

Table 4. Credit access and important uses for sample households in the study area.

Variable		PSNP Beneficiary
		PW		DS
		Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
Credit access	Yes	300	86.4	10	26.3
	No	47	13.5	28	73.68
Total		347	347	38	100
Importance of credit	Fertilizer purchase	70	20.17	8	21
	Improved seed purchase	57	16.4	10	26.3
	Livestock purchase	90	25.9	8	21
	Money to buy farm tool	30	8.6	2	5.2
	Others (education and health)	100	28.8	10	26.3
	Total	347	100	38	100

indicates the access to the credit facility and the purpose for the collection of the credit. With regard to credit access, about 86.4% and 26.3% of the sample respondents responded that they received credit from PW beneficiaries and DS beneficiaries, respectively. This showed that a majority of PW PSNP beneficiaries have been using credit as compared to DS beneficiaries. With regard to the purpose of credit usage, the majority of the respondents (28.8% of beneficiaries) used it for education and health, with 25.9% purchasing livestock. This result is supported by previous studies performed by Demissie et al. (2022) [29], who examined the access to credit services for both public works (PWs) and direct support (DS) beneficiaries of the PSNP in the Amhara region of Ethiopia. According to their findings, a higher proportion of PW beneficiaries has access to credit compared to DS beneficiaries.

3.4. Soil and Water Conservation Activities

Accordingly,

Table 5. Soil-erosion problem for sample households in the study area.

Variables		PSNP Beneficiary
		PW		DS		Total in %
		Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Soil-erosion problem	Yes	290	83.5	28	73.6	82.5
	no	57	16.4	10	26.3	17.4
	Total	347	100	38	100	100
Symptoms of soil erosion	Decrease production	120	34.5	10	26.3	33.7
	Visible rill and gully formation	110	31.7	10	26.3	31.1
	Loss of crop land	90	25.9	15	39.4	27.7
	Others	27	7.7	3	7.8	7.7
	Total	347	100	38	100	100
Cause of soil erosion	Overgrazing	150	43.2	15	39.4	42.8
	Deforestation	100	28.8	13	34.2	29.3
	Steepness	70	20.1	7	18.4	20
	Others	27	7.7	3	7.8	7.7
	Total	347	100	38	100	100
Consequence of soil erosion	Loss of productivity	110	31.7	15	39.4	32.4
	Loss of crop land	100	28.8	10	26.3	28.5
	Loss of seed	50	14.4	9	23.6	15.3
	Others	87	25	4	10.5	23.6
	Total	347	100	38	100	100

below indicates the respondents who faced soil-erosion problems, indicators of the problem as responded by sample households, individuals who applied and not applied SWC activities, and reasons for not using SWC practices. The result showed that almost similar percentages of respondents from the two groups faced soil erosion problems. This was about 83.5% from PW beneficiaries and 73.6% from DS beneficiaries, respectively. The most reported symptoms of the erosion problem for the two groups were “decreased production, visible rill and gully formation, and loss of crop land.” Concerning the cause of the soil erosion, it was overgrazing, with nearly similar percentages of 43.2% and (39.4%) of the respondents from the PW and DS beneficiaries of PSNP, respectively, and the second cause was deforestation, with a percentage of 28.8% and (34.2%) of the respondents from both beneficiary groups, respectively. And about 31.7% of PW and 39.4% of DS PSNP beneficiaries gave responses that the consequence of soil erosion was a loss of productivity in the study area.

Concerning the application of the soil and water conservation activities, nearly similar percentages of 42.3% (26.3%) of the respondents from the PW and DS PSNP beneficiaries were used, respectively (

Table 6. Frequency of beneficiary participation in PSNP program.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
PSNP participation	PW	347	89.4	90.1	90.1
	DS	38	9.8	9.9	100.0
	Total	385	99.2	100.0

).

And about 57.6% of PW and 73.6% of DS PSNP beneficiaries were not employed in any type of SWC activity. From this, we see that a majority of the sampled respondents have not used any type of soil and water conservation activities on their farmland due to their lack of knowledge about soil and water conservation practices.

Moreover, only a few respondents from the two groups who faced the erosion problem did not use SWC practices on the farmland. This was because of a lack of interest, and farm plots do not need SWC, which accounts for 28.8% (13.1%) and 14.4% (13.1%) of PSNP and DS PSNP beneficiaries, respectively.

As indicated in the above Table 6, the beneficiary’s participation in the program: of the total respondents, all 385 (100%) of them replied that their household received both food and cash support from the government’s Productive Safety Net Program, of which a majority (347) (89.4%) of them are public work beneficiaries and 38 (9.8%) are direct support beneficiaries. From these, we can understand that all respondents received food and cash assistance from the PSNP, and the majority of them are PSNP beneficiaries.

3.5. Reason of Beneficiary Participation in PSNP

The investigator was also interested in finding out the causes of beneficiaries’ participation in PSNP. The result in

Table 7. Reasons for beneficiary participation in PSNP.

S. No.	Reasons	Frequency	Percent
1	Food-insecure (hunger) due to low productivity	250	65
2	Sudden collapses in income and consumption due to climatic shocks, natural disasters, economic crises, or conflict	50	13
3	Lack of labor power due to sickness and disability of household members	60	15
4	Others, specify	24	6
Total		385	100

below reveals that, from the total maximum respondents, 250 (65%) of them said that, due to food insecurity, their beneficiaries participated in the program; 50 (13%) said sudden collapses in income and consumption due to climatic shocks, natural disasters, and economic crises were their beneficiaries; and the rest, 60 (15%), said a lack of labor power due to sickness and disability of household members; and 24 (6%) said that others were their beneficiaries. This indicated that the reason for participation was food insecurity. This result is consistent with the study performed by Berhane et al. (2014) [12] that supports the findings on the reasons for beneficiary participation in the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in Ethiopia. According to them, the primary reason for PSNP participation was food insecurity. Climatic shocks, economic crises, and lack of household labor were also identified as significant factors driving PSNP participation.

3.6. The Contribution of PSNP to Beneficiaries

The general opinion and contributions of PSNP for society are developing sustainable community assets; they improve the natural resource base and the social infrastructure, ultimately aimed at developing watersheds and thereby increasing productivity and improving livelihoods (

Table 8. Frequency that shows the contribution of PSNP to beneficiaries in the study area.

S. No.	Contribution of PSNP for Beneficiaries	Frequency	%
1	Prevent asset depletion	150	38.9
2	Improve access to services	100	25.9
3	Prevent natural-resource degradation	60	15.5
5	Improve beneficiary living conditions	55	14.2
6	Other	20	5.2
Total		385	100

). The result of the study stated that 38.9 percent of respondents in the study area contributed to the program Prevent Asset Depletion of the Beneficiaries, 25.9 percent of respondents improved access to services for beneficiaries, 15.5% prevented natural resource degradation, 14.2% improved beneficiary living conditions, and the rest, 5.2%, contributed to PSNP for beneficiaries. This indicated that the majority of respondents prevented asset depletion by contributing to the PSNP as a beneficiary. The study by Demissie et al. (2022) [29] further reinforces the understanding that the PSNP is effective in protecting the assets of chronically food-insecure households, as well as improving their access to services and natural-resource management. These contributions are aligned with the program’s objectives of building the resilience and livelihoods of the target communities.

The focus-group discussion agrees with the above respondent that there are many contributions from the PSNP project for the beneficiaries, starting with the objective. The major contribution that the respondents identified was, first, contribution asset building is one of the basic sources of additional cash income for those who are members of PSNP PW and DS project activities, and it is one of the prominent income sources that helped them support the day-to-day expenses of their households. Additional contributions include enhancing access to schools, health centers, roads, and bridges; raising groundwater; preventing natural resource degradation through soil and water conservation practices; and improving living standards through better housing, education, and healthcare. However, in the study area, these efforts did not stop asset depletion due to insufficient payments from the PSNP for beneficiaries.

3.7. The Contribution of PSNP PW to SWC Practices

The t-test result showed that there is variation between PSNP beneficiaries, both DS and PW, on the SWC practices to control soil erosion. There is a statistically significant difference between the PW and DS PSNP beneficiaries on SWC practices; at p < 0.000, the PW is greater than DS on SWC practices. PW contributes more soil and water conservation to control soil erosion than DS (

Table 9. The contribution of PSNP to SWC practices using an independent t-test.

	PSNP Beneficiary
Variables	Public Work		Direct Support
SWC	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	t-Value	p-Value
Yes	247	71.1	2	5	−13.3	0.000 ***
No	100	28.8	36	94.7	-	-
Total	347	100	38	100	-	-

Note: *** means it is significant at 1% probability level.

). This finding is consistence with a recent study conducted by Haile et al. (2021) [30] that supports the findings on the contribution of the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP)’s public work (PW) component to soil and water conservation (SWC) practices compared to the direct support (DS) component. Their study found a statistically significant difference between PSNP PW and DS beneficiaries in terms of their engagement in SWC practices (p < 0.000). Participants in the PSNP PW component were more involved in SWC practices compared to those in the DS component. The PSNP PW component contributed more to soil and water conservation activities to control soil erosion than the DS component.

As shown in

Table 10. The binary regression results indicating the impact of PSNP participation factors on SWC practices.

	B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig.	Exp(B)
Education	3.527	22.385	0.000	1	0.001 ***	0.029
Age	5.591	1.633	11.729	1	0.001 ***	268.107
Sex	12.253	5.478	5.004	1	0.025 **	209,592.615
Family size	0.868	0.576	2.272	1	0.032 **	2.382
Plot size	3.311	4.063	0.664	1	0.415	27.402
Livestock	−7.872	3.143	6.272	1	0.012 ***	0.000
Visited DA	13.784	3.515	15.377	1	0.000 ***	968,502.665
Credit	3.830	3.892	0.969	1	0.025 **	46.077
Distance	−1.887	1.574	1.437	1	0.231	0.151
Slope	7.658	2.688	8.118	1	0.004 ***	2118.388
Constant	−40.872	11.935	8.652	1	0.003 **	0.000

Note: ** and *** mean significant at 3% and 1% probability level, respectively.

below, the result of binary regression revealed that, out of 10 variables, 8 are statistically significant in explaining why a given PSNP beneficiary participates in SWC practices, including age, sex, family size, livestock holding, slope, credit, education, and visit. The model accurately predicts the value with 76.9% explanatory power. The model shows age, sex, family size, livestock holding, slope, credit, education, and visit. DA contributed significantly to the model. The model summary has, as a single variable, reduced the −2 log likelihood by 10 to 1 degree of freedom. The model, which is now collectively Nagelkerke R Square, has reduced by 92.4%, but we can see that it has the explanatory power. The Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients have shown 363.409 and significance at p < 0.05.

The contingency table for the Hosmer and Lemeshow tests shows that participation in SWC practices is predicted at 10.4 and significant at p < 0.01. To observe the degree of association between dummy explanatory variables, contingency coefficients were computed. As expected, signs such as education, age, sex, family size, credit, and visited DA were expected to be significant. In addition, livestock and distances negatively affect SWC practices, but livestock is significant, and distances are not significant.

Plot size: It is statistically not significant at the 10% level of significance. There is a positive correlation between the size of land plots and the soil and water conservation (SWC) practices among PSNP beneficiaries, as larger plots facilitate these practices, particularly bund construction. Contrary to expectations, the number of livestock owned and the distance from homesteads show a negative impact on conservation practices; however, livestock ownership is statistically significant while distance is not.

Education: It is statistically significant at the 1% level of significance. It has a positive relationship with SWC practices performed by PSNP beneficiaries. The binary regression result showed that it is expected that the more an individual is exposed to literate education, the more open he or she will be to new ideas about soil and water conservation. Education has highly significant differences between being able to read and write and not being able to read and write on soil and water conservation practices at p < 0.001, which is similar to the positively hypothesized relationship at the 0.001 significance level.

The finding of Abebe et al. (2022) [31] resulted in a similar finding to this study. The study found a statistically significant positive relationship between the level of education and PSNP beneficiaries’ engagement in SWC practices (p < 0.01). The binary regression analysis showed that, as the level of education increases, PSNP beneficiaries are more likely to adopt new ideas and techniques related to soil and water conservation. Households with a literate household head were more likely to participate in SWC practices compared to those with an illiterate household head (p < 0.001). The findings suggest that education is an important factor in determining the participation of PSNP beneficiaries in SWC practices, as educated households are better positioned to understand and adopt new sustainable land management practices.

Age of the households: It is statistically significant at the 5% level of significance. It has a negative relationship with SWC practices performed by PSNP beneficiaries. This finding is consistent with the study performed by Tesfaye et al. (2023) [32]. The study found a statistically significant negative relationship between the age of the household head and PSNP beneficiaries’ engagement in SWC practices (p < 0.05). The binary regression analysis showed that, as the age of the household head increases, the likelihood of participating in SWC practices decreases. This suggests that younger PSNP beneficiaries are more likely to adopt new SWC practices compared to their older counterparts.

Sex of the HH head: It is statistically significant at the 5% level of significance. It has a negative relationship with SWC practices performed by PSNP beneficiaries. The binary regression result showed that it is expected that the sex is statistically significant at 0.025 and has a negative relationship with participation in SWC practices at the 0.05 significant level. This implies that male-headed households were more likely to participate freely in various social organizations and be aware of PSNP project work than their counterparts. From the total beneficiaries of the PSNP program, the highest percentage is female, but the participation of females in soil and water conservation practices is low in the study area due to biological, social, and cultural problems. The result of this study is similar to the result obtained by Mersha et al. (2022) [33], who reported that sex has a negative relation between the sex of the household head and PSNP beneficiaries’ engagement in SWC practices (p < 0.05).

Family size: It is statistically significant at the 5% level of significance. It has a positive relationship with SWC practices performed by PSNP beneficiaries. It is hypothesized that the larger the number of family members engaged in agricultural activities, the greater the income from agriculture. As shown in the binary regression result, being the other variable constant, a unit increase in family size increases the participation of SWC practices by a factor of 0.868. It is also statistically significant at 0.032 for the significance level 0.05. Therefore, the beneficiary’s decision on the participation of SWC practices in such technologies becomes dependent on the availability of labor in the household during the participation of the program. It is not always the case that larger families positively affect new technology adoption. However, in the study area, increased family size highly influenced SWC practices due to salary and excess labor force. The result of this study is consistent with the study conducted by Alemu et al., 2019 [34], which states that family size had a positive and statistically significant relationship with the participation of PSNP beneficiaries in SWC practices.

Farmland distance from homestead: The results were found to be statistically insignificant. A binary logistic regression was conducted to examine the relationship between the average distance of farmland from homesteads and farmers’ participation in SWC practices, yielding insignificant results. This finding contradicts the study done by Gemechu et al. (2020) [35], which reported a positive and statistically significant relationship between farmland distance and PSNP beneficiaries’ participation in SWC practices. In their analysis, the mean distance from home to program sites was significant at the 20% level (p-value > 0.231).

Credit access: It is statistically significant at the 5% level of significance. It has a positive relationship with SWC practices performed by PSNP beneficiaries. Being another variable constant, a unit of increasing credits to beneficiaries, the participation of SWC increased by a significant at p < 0.05, which means 0.032. Utilized credit is a key factor influencing soil and water conservation practices. Credit availability may have an impact on agricultural productivity because farmers with restrictive capital constraints typically use less inputs in their production activities than farmers without restrictions. This makes it more difficult to acquire the improved agricultural technologies that are required at the appropriate time and in appropriate quantities [36]. Thus, PW use of credit is expected to be positively related to participation in SWC practices (status, intensity, and speed of technology conservation) by giving motivation to participate in the program working time rather than direct support.

Implementation strategies and methods of Productive Safety Net Program: Based on the findings from the study on the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in the Amhara Sayint Woreda, Ethiopia, here are some specific implementation strategies and methods that could be employed to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. (1) Improve beneficiary awareness and attitudes: Conduct regular, targeted information sessions and trainings for PSNP beneficiaries to enhance their understanding of the program’s objectives and the importance of soil and water conservation (SWC) practices; develop and disseminate communication materials (e.g., brochures, posters, and community meetings) to promote the benefits of the PSNP and SWC activities; and monitor changes in beneficiary perceptions and attitudes towards the PSNP through periodic surveys or focus group discussions. (2) Strengthen monitoring and evaluation: Implement a robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to track the implementation and outcomes of the PSNP, including regular site visits and inspections to assess the progress and quality of SWC activities and household-level data collection to monitor changes in beneficiary participation, income, food security, and adoption of SWC practices; periodic evaluations to assess the overall impact of the PSNP on target communities and ensure timely payments; and address any implementation challenges identified through the M&E process. (3) Provide tailored capacity building: Develop and deliver training programs for PSNP beneficiaries on topics such as sustainable land management and SWC techniques, agricultural productivity and income diversification, and household financial management and reducing dependency; and provide ongoing technical assistance and extension services to support beneficiaries in implementing and maintaining SWC practices. (4) Enhance targeting and participation: Review the PSNP’s beneficiary selection criteria and processes to ensure equitable and inclusive participation, addressing any barriers related to land ownership, age, or wage levels; engage with local communities and authorities to better understand the specific needs and challenges faced by different groups of beneficiaries; and implement mechanisms for beneficiary feedback and grievance redressal to improve the responsiveness of the PSNP. (5) Conduct regular evaluations and adjust strategies: Carry out periodic impact evaluations to assess the effectiveness of the PSNP’s implementation strategies in improving SWC practices and overall household well-being; analyze the results of the evaluations to identify successes, challenges, and areas for improvement; and regularly review and update the PSNP’s implementation strategies and methods based on the evaluation findings to ensure continuous improvement and greater impact.

4. Conclusions

The study reveals significant socio-economic differences between public works (PWs) and direct support (DS) participant households in the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) prior to intervention. Notably, PW households tended to have larger family sizes, while DS households were generally younger. This demographic variation may impact the engagement and effectiveness of soil and water conservation (SWC) practices among the two groups.

The analysis of physical plot characteristics highlights the critical role of slope in influencing SWC practices. With a majority of plots exhibiting steep slopes, the area faces high soil-erosion risks, underscoring the urgent need for effective conservation strategies. Access to credit services emerges as a pivotal factor, with PW participants benefiting significantly from credit availability compared to DS participants. The predominant use of credit for education and livestock purchases reflects the broader socio-economic challenges faced by these households.

Despite the high incidence of soil erosion reported by both groups, participation in SWC activities remains low. A lack of knowledge about SWC practices is a primary barrier, coupled with insufficient interest and perceived irrelevance of such practices to their specific farm conditions. This gap in engagement points to a need for targeted educational interventions to enhance awareness and practical skills in soil conservation techniques. Furthermore, the PSNP’s contributions to community resilience are noteworthy. The program has been instrumental in preventing asset depletion, improving access to critical services, and fostering sustainable natural resource management. However, the effectiveness of these contributions varies, with PW beneficiaries demonstrating a higher engagement in SWC practices than their DS counterparts. The findings also indicate that factors such as education, age, family size, and credit access significantly influence participation in SWC activities.

The study underscores the importance of education as a driver for adopting SWC practices, suggesting that enhanced literacy among beneficiaries can lead to greater openness to new agricultural techniques. Conversely, older household heads and female-headed households show lower participation rates, indicating potential barriers related to age and gender dynamics.

In conclusion, while the PSNP has made strides in supporting food-insecure households, there is a pressing need to improve the knowledge and engagement in SWC practices, particularly among the DS group. Future interventions should focus on tailored educational programs and resources that empower beneficiaries to implement effective conservation strategies, thereby enhancing their livelihoods and the sustainability of their agricultural practices.

5. Recommendations

This study found that the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in the Amhara Sayint Woreda, Ethiopia, has not significantly changed the levels of soil and water conservation (SWC) activities among individual beneficiaries. Based on this finding, the following policy recommendations are proposed for concerned parties:

1. Enhance beneficiary awareness: Many beneficiaries have limited awareness of the PSNP’s contributions and hold negative attitudes towards the program. Therefore, improving awareness and fostering positive attitudes towards the program’s objectives and activities is crucial. This can be achieved through targeted communication strategies that highlight the benefits of the PSNP, ensuring that beneficiaries understand how the program can enhance food security and build resilience.

2. Strengthen monitoring and evaluation: The study identified issues with the management and implementation of the PSNP, including selection bias, delayed payments, and inadequate evaluation of beneficiary progress. Strengthening monitoring and evaluation systems is essential to ensure that the program’s activities are properly targeted, implemented, and assessed. This will help maximize intended outcomes and allow for adjustments based on feedback and results.

3. Invest in capacity building: Providing beneficiaries with training and advice on dependency, soil-erosion control, and productivity enhancement is vital. Investing in capacity building aligns with the program’s goals of enhancing household and community resilience and increasing agricultural productivity and food security. Tailored training sessions can empower beneficiaries with practical skills and knowledge.

4. Promote collaboration with local organizations: Effective planning and implementation of the PSNP should involve collaboration with local organizations and community groups. Engaging these stakeholders can facilitate a better understanding of local needs and enhance program relevance. Partnerships with local entities can also improve outreach, resource allocation, and the sharing of best practices, ensuring that the program is more responsive to the specific challenges faced by communities.

5. Ensure equitable participation: The study identified factors inhibiting beneficiary participation in SWC practices, such as communal land ownership, low wages, and age-related barriers. Ensuring equitable and inclusive targeting and participation in the PSNP is essential to support the most vulnerable households and communities. Actively involving community leaders and organizations in the selection process can help address these barriers and foster a sense of ownership and responsibility among beneficiaries.