environments

Article
Impact of Differences in Land Management on
Natural Vegetation in Semi-Dry Areas: The Case
Study of the Adi Zaboy Watershed in the Kilite
Awlaelo District, Eastern Tigray Region, Ethiopia
Ryunosuke Ogawa 1 , Masahiro Hirata 1, *, Birhane Gebreanenia Gebremedhin 2 ,
Satoshi Uchida 3 , Toru Sakai 3 , Kazuhisa Koda 3 and Koichi Takenaka 3
1 Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Inada-cho, Obihiro, Hokkaido 080-8555, Japan;
[email protected]
2 College of Dry Land Agriculture and Natural Resources, Mekelle University, Tigray Region, Mekelle,
P. O. Box 231, Ethiopia; [email protected]
3 Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, 1-1 Ohwashi, Tsukuba,
Ibaraki 305-8686, Japan; [email protected] (S.U.); [email protected] (T.S.);
[email protected] (K.K.); [email protected] (K.T.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +81-155-49-5485




Received: 29 October 2018; Accepted: 19 December 2018; Published: 21 December 2018


Abstract: The search for a sustainable land management has become a universal issue. It is especially
necessary to discuss sustainable land management and to secure a site with enough feed supply
to improve the lives of the farmers in the Ethiopian Highlands. This research studied the Adi
Zaboy watershed in Tigray in order to reveal the changes in land management, assess how the
different forms of land management affected the vegetation through unsupervised classification
and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) analysis with geographic information system
(GIS) 10.5 using a WorldView-2 satellite image taken in September 2016 and field investigation,
and consider how to allow both environmental preservation and sustainable use of feed resources.
The land management types at the research site were classified as “seasonally-closed grazing land”,
“prohibited grazing and protected forest land”, and “free grazing land”. On comparing the NDVI of
each type of land management, it was found that the seasonally-closed grazing land makes it highly
possible to secure and supply feed resources by limiting the grazing period. The expansion of the
prohibited grazing and protected forest land is likely to tighten the restriction on the use of resources.
Therefore, sustainable land management to secure feed resources may be possible by securing and
actively using seasonally-closed grazing land, securing feed by a cut-and-carry, and using satellite
images and GIS.

Keywords: Ethiopia; sustainability; land management; satellite image; normalized difference

vegetation index (NDVI)

1. Introduction
The search for a sustainable land management that can maintain the balance of preservation and
use of environmental resources has become a universal issue. The alpine region of northern Ethiopia
located over 2000 m above sea level is made up of a steep terrain created by abrupt uplift in the
Pliocene period (about 2.58 million to 5 million years ago) and the Pleistocene period (about 10,000 to
2.58 million years ago). Furthermore, the unstable rainfall and frequent drought make this region
very susceptible to soil erosion and soil fertility decline. This is why the region has a high risk of

Environments 2019, 6, 2; doi:10.3390/environments6010002 www.mdpi.com/journal/environments

Environments 2019, 6, 2 2 of 13

desertification and it is less than suitable for agricultural production [1]. However, the people residing
in this region have made a living mainly through farming and raising livestock. The rapid increase
in population led to the expansion of croplands, which were developed from natural grasslands that
were used as grazing land [2]. Furthermore, it is reported that the croplands have extended to the
steep hills with a slope of more than 30% between 1957 and 1982 [3]. Ethiopia is also the country
with the most livestock in all of Africa, and according to the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia [4]
statistics, there are 53.4 million cattle, 25.5 million sheep, and 22.8 million goats raised in Ethiopia.
Hawando’s [5] investigation in 1994 reported that 75% of the livestock in Ethiopia were raised in
alpine regions higher than 1500 m above sea level. This is because the farm work including plowing,
transporting and threshing in the alpine region heavily relies on animal power. The livestock herds
used as animal power intensively utilized the natural grasslands in the alpine region as grazing land.
There was a great increase in soil erosion, a decrease in forests and natural grasslands, and a significant
depletion of vegetation in alpine regions with a high risk of desertification as a result of cropland
expansion from the rapid population increase and the use of natural resources through grazing of
livestock used as animal power [6,7].
The Ethiopian government implemented various preservation activities from having experienced
such land degradation. There are two major activities of note. The first are the Soil and Water
Conservation (SWC) programs started in the mid-1970s with the funding from the World Food Program
(WFP) and other various aid organizations. The SWC programs improved agricultural technology and
created small dams and stone bunds to prevent soil erosion. The government instructed the SWC to
launch the program in many alpine regions. The second is area enclosure, an activity that was started
in the 1980s to recover natural vegetation in the degraded hill regions. The area enclosure prohibited
farmers from grazing livestock and using natural resources in the degraded hill region. Its activities
also included afforestation [8]. When the area enclosure was launched in 1980, it was implemented
on more than 80,000 hectares of hill region in Tigray, northern Ethiopia. However, in the period of
military regime, the military depleted vegetation once again when they utilized the natural vegetation
that had been protected inside the area enclosure until 1985. After the military regime transitioned to
the democratic regime in 1991, the preservation activities of the area enclosure resumed, expanding
the area of area enclosure in Tigray from 143,000 hectares in 1996 to 895,220 hectares in 2011 [8–11].
In Tigray Region in northern Ethiopia where preservation activities had been conducted
intensively, the effectiveness of the SWC programs is assessed by demonstrating the mechanism
and the quantitative assessment of soil erosion [12,13]. The preservation effort of area enclosure is also
assessed by identifying the amount of biomass, tree density, number of tree species, and vegetation
coverage [14–16]. In addition to the impact assessment on the preservation activities, Babulo et al. [17]
assessed the importance of environmental resources, including herbaceous plant species in the grazing
land and woody plant species used as firewood, for the farming households in their livelihood strategy.
Furthermore, high-resolution satellite images were used to create an extensive land-cover map to
analyze the changes in land cover [18,19]. Haregeweyn et al. [20] summarized more than 258 studies,
including the framework for policies on preservation activities and case studies on soil erosion and
preservation activities. The Tigray Region received the Future Policy Gold Award from the World
Future Council in August 2017 for these governmental preservation and research activities [21].
However, some researchers are concerned that the Ethiopian government’s preservation policies
for protecting vegetation may cause a negative effect on the farmers who had been utilizing the natural
grassland’s resources. The expansion of the area enclosure, which prohibits livestock grazing and
gathering of woody plant species for firewood essential to a farm living, may cause serious problems
for farmers, such as a decrease in the number of livestock that a farmer can raise in a region [22,23].
According to Hirata et al. [22], the decrease in the number of livestock in the Tigray farming villages
may increase the likelihood of causing problems, such as (1) a shortage of oxen that are vital to farming
if there is an accident, (2) the inability to obtain a substantial cash income from the sale of livestock,
and (3) a lack of nutrients in a farmer’s diet from the reduced amount of milk. It is necessary to
Environments 2019, 6, 2 3 of 13

discuss sustainable land managements and to secure a site with enough feed supply to improve the
lives of the farmers. Therefore, it is also necessary to discuss how these farmers, who had been using
these natural resources all their lives, managed the land, analyze how the land management affected
natural vegetation, and discuss land managements that can both preserve natural vegetation and
secure feed supply.
The decision making regarding a farmer’s use of land is strongly influenced by the government
system [24]. To discuss the relationship between the government and natural vegetation in Ethiopia,
Lanckriet et al. [25] divided the major historical events into the following three eras: (1) the feudal
era (before the start of the civil war in 1974), (2) the military junta and civil war period (1975 to 1990),
and (3) the post-war period (after 1991). This research divided and discussed the Ethiopian political
structure changes under three periodical classifications: The Imperial era (before 1975), the Socialist
era (1975 to 1990), and the Democratic era (after 1991). The boundaries and regulations on land
management have changed along with the changes to the political system. People’s use of land for
various purposes affects the natural conditions, including the land’s vegetation. Therefore, the changes
to land management associated with the political system up to this point is thought to have affected
the present formation of natural vegetation.
This research studied Adi Zaboy watershed in Kilite Awlaelo district in the eastern Tigray Region
in Ethiopia in order to (1) reveal the changes in land management by farmers in the Imperial era,
the Socialist era, and the Democratic era, (2) assess how the different forms of land management
affected the vegetation through satellite images and field investigation, and (3) consider how the land
should be used to allow both environmental preservation and sustainable use of resources for feed
supply. The Adi Zaboy watershed was selected for this research, because there were various land
managements beyond administrative divisions and it seemed to be an appropriate area for assessing
how a land management might affect vegetation.

2. Research Site and Methods

2.1. Overview of the Research Site

The research site was conducted in Adi Zaboy watershed located at 13◦ 38’30” to 13◦ 40’30” N
latitude and 39◦ 34’0” to 39◦ 36’0” E longitude in southern Kilite Awlaelo district, Tigray Region,
in northern Ethiopia. The total area of the watershed is 8.84 km2 , where 53.0% of the area is used by the
Kihen community, 45.0% is used by Agulae town, 1.5% is used by the Measnu community, and 0.5% is
used by the Mahbere Weyni community (Figure 1). This research reported on the land management
by farmers from the Kihen community and Agulae town, which combined, make up more than 98%
of Adi Zaboy watershed. The topographical information on the Adi Zaboy watershed was obtained
from the AW3D Digital Surface Model with a 30-m spatial resolution.W3D Digital Surface Model with
a 30 m spatial resolution is a dataset created by resampling the Digital Surface Model obtained from the
Panchromatic Remote-sensing Instrument for Stereo Mapping (PRISM) on Advanced Land Observing
Satellite, known as “Daichi”, from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) to a horizontal
resolution of 30 m [26]. The elevation difference in Adi Zaboy watershed is 290 m (maximum elevation
of 2315 m above sea level, minimum elevation of 2025 m above sea level), and 24% of Adi Zaboy
watershed is on a slope of more than 10◦ .
The average monthly temperature in Wukro town in the highland of northern Ethiopia is constant
at about 20 ◦ C throughout the year. The highest average monthly temperature is about 30 ◦ C and the
lowest average monthly temperature is about 10 ◦ C. According to the meteorological data recorded
by Wukro Town National Meteorological Agency [27] from 1992 to 2013, the average annual rainfall
is 572 mm, making it possible to consider this research site as a semi-dry region. The amount of
rainfall fluctuates a lot from year to year with 984 millimeters of rainfall in 2000, but only 305 mm in
1992. The rainfall is primarily concentrated between June and September. There is a mix of natural
grasslands and rain fed croplands in the Adi Zaboy watershed. The farmers use two oxen to plow the
Environments 2019, 6, 2 4 of 13
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

farmers
rain fed mainly graze
croplands, cattle,
and their goats, sheepare
main crops and donkeys
barley, in the
wheat, andnatural grassland
teff. The Kihen andin Agulae
the Adifarmers
Zaboy
watershed.
mainly graze cattle, goats, sheep and donkeys in the natural grassland in the Adi Zaboy watershed.

Figure
Figure 1.1. Location
Location of the Adi
of the Adi Zaboy
Zaboy watershed
watershedstudy
studyarea,
area,Agulae
Agulaetown,
town,and
andthe
the Kihen
Kihen community
community in
in
thethe Kilite
Kilite Awlaelo
Awlaelo district,
district, eastern
eastern zone,
zone, Tigray
Tigray region
region in northern
in northern Ethiopia
Ethiopia andand topography
topography of Adi
of the the
Adi
ZaboyZaboy watershed.
watershed.

2.2.
2.2. Survey
Survey Method
Method for
for Land
Land Uses
Uses and
and Land
Land Management
Management

AA local
local investigation
investigationandandsurveys
surveyswere
wereconducted
conductedfor foraamonth
montheach
eachininSeptember,
September,20162016and
andJuly,
July,
2017. MT (52 years old at the time) from the Kihen community and GH (51 years old at the time) from
2017. MT (52 years old at the time) from the Kihen community and GH (51 years old at the time) from
Agulae town,who
Agulae town, who areare knowledgeable
knowledgeable aboutabout theland
the local local land management,
management, accompanied accompanied the
the exploration
exploration of Adi Zaboy watershed to identify the administrative divisions and the land
of Adi Zaboy watershed to identify the administrative divisions and the land management. A GPS
management.
(GARMIN GPSMAP A GPS60CSx
(GARMIN42205)GPSMAP
was used 60CSx 42205)
to obtain was used
the location to borders.
of the obtain the location of the
borders.
Both MT and GH were also interviewed on the land use, the management method, the changes to
thoseBoth MT and and
boundaries, GH were also interviewed
the history of croplandon the landin
expansion use,
thethe management
Imperial era, themethod,
Socialist the
era,changes
and the
to those boundaries, and the history of cropland expansion in the Imperial era, the Socialist era,atand
Democratic era. BH (78 years old at the time) from the Kihen community and MY (73 years old the
the Democratic
time) from Agulae era. town
BH (78were
years oldinterviewed
also at the time) from theabout
to learn Kihenthe
community
situationand MYthe
before (73Imperial
years olderaat
the time) from Agulae town were also interviewed to learn about the situation before the Imperial
in 1975.
era in 1975.
2.3. Satellite Image Processing
2.3. Satellite Image Processing
The research used multispectral orthographic images taken on 8 September 2016 by the
WorldView-2
The research usedWorldView-2
Satellite. multispectralis orthographic
an 8-band multispectral commercial
images taken satellite designed
on 8 September 2016 by and
the
developed by Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp and operated by Digital Globe Corporate
WorldView-2 Satellite. WorldView-2 is an 8-band multispectral commercial satellite designed and [28].
These images,
developed by with a 2-meter ground
Ball Aerospace resolution,Corp
& Technologies haveand
beenoperated
processed
byorthographically and resampled
Digital Globe Corporate [28].
These images, with a 2-meter ground resolution, have been processed orthographically and
resampled by cubic interpolation. The satellite image of WorldView-2 consists of eight bands. The
Environments 2019, 6, 2 5 of 13

by cubic interpolation. The satellite image of WorldView-2 consists of eight bands. The red Band
5 (630–690 nm) and infrared Band 7 (770–895 nm) were used to calculate normalized difference
vegetation index (NDVI) in this research. The research used the satellite images taken in September,
because it was during the rainy season when the vegetation level was high, and the condition of the
vegetation showed up well in the images.
The research utilized the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) as the index for assessing
vegetation. NDVI can evaluate the amount and condition of vegetation from the difference in the NDVI
values. Calculations of NDVI always result in a number that ranges from −1.0 to +1.0. Very low values
of NDVI (0.1 and below) correspond to barren areas of rock, sand, or snow. Moderate values represent
shrub and grassland (0.2 to 0.3), while high values indicate temperate and tropical rainforests (0.6 to
0.8) [29]. The NDVI relates to the photosynthetic activity of living plants. The higher the NDVI value,
the more “green” the cover type. In other words, the NDVI increases as the quantity of green biomass
increases [30]. Tilahun’s [31] research on the surrounding Adi Zaboy watershed areas was referenced
to classify the areas using NDVI to assess the vegetation in this research. The area with NDVI of less
than 0.1 was classified as “water or building”, NDVI of 0.1 to 0.2 was classified as “small vegetation”,
NDVI of 0.2 to 0.4 was classified as “medium vegetation”, and NDVI of more than 0.4 was classified
as “high vegetation”. The small, medium and high vegetation represent coverage rates of natural
vegetation in Adi Zaboy watershed of less than 20%, 20%–45% and more than 45%, respectively.
Iterative self-organizing (ISO) cluster unsupervised classification with the WorldView-2
multispectral orthography images was used to categorize the croplands in Adi Zaboy watershed,
referenced the ground-truth data, and then its accuracy was evaluated by the field survey data at
101 points in croplands. The unsupervised classification using the ISO data analysis technique method
is a mechanical classification method, which creates pixel clusters based on the homogeneity and
distance of the spectral values [32]. The ISO cluster unsupervised classification is widely used as the
tool to categorize cropland [33]. The unsupervised classification for processing NDVI and finding
croplands distribution was interpreted using Esri ArcGIS 10.5.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Land Managements of Natural Grassland

The land managements were classified into free land, free grazing land, seasonally-closed
grazing land, and prohibited grazing and protected forest land. The free land is a land that has
no designated use. There are houses and buildings built on the free land in the Adi Zaboy watershed.
Farmers are free to develop the land for grazing or farming, and to collect fallen branches for fuel
or herbaceous plant species for feed. The free grazing land is a land used for livestock grazing.
Like the free land, farmers are free to graze livestock and collect branches and herbaceous plant
species. However, a meeting of farmers from each village decided on a new cropland development on
an as-needed basis based on the situation with the cropland or the grazing land. The seasonally-closed
grazing land is a land that prohibits grazing only during the rainy season when vegetation grows from
the concentrated rainfall. Its primary purpose is to secure feed for oxen that are essential to farming.
People are also prohibited from gathering herbaceous plant species during the period when grazing is
prohibited, but they are permitted to collect fallen branches throughout the year. The development of
new croplands is not prohibited, but it is currently not taking place. These land managements were
arranged voluntarily by farmers in a meeting, and the violators were fined. The prohibited grazing and
protected forest land is a land where the government-led afforestation and water and soil conservation
activities, such as building stone bunds for soil erosion prevention, were implemented. It is believed
to have the same type of land management as the area enclosure previously presented by Nedessa
and Ali et al. [8]. The government prohibits grazing in the prohibited grazing and protected forest
land all year to prevent livestock from destroying the stone bunds and damaging the young planted
trees. Farmers are only permitted to gather herbaceous plant species, and they are prohibited from
Environments 2019, 6, 2 6 of 13

collecting fallen branches and developing new croplands. The government also prohibits cutting
down of trees under all the land managements. A violation of government regulations is a criminal
act. When the types of land management are classified from the perspective of livestock grazing
restrictions, the free land and the free grazing land are the areas where the farmers could freely graze
their livestock; the seasonally-closed grazing land is the land where the farmers decided to limit
grazing by season; and the prohibited grazing and protected forest land involves the areas where the
government completely prohibited grazing activities (Table 1).

Table 1. Land managements in the Adi Zaboy watershed study area.

Land managements Cropland Fallen Branch Cut and Carry Tree

Grazing
(local name) Developing Collecting of Grasses Logging
Free land (Bada meret) # # # # ×
#
Free grazing land (Habar meghatsi meret) # # # ×
Farmers decision
Seasonally-closed
# #
grazing land # # ×
Seasonally No area anymore
(Hizaeti meret)
Prohibited grazing and
protected forest land × × × # ×
(Deni meret)
#: Available. ×: Not available.

3.2. Changes in the Seasonally-Closed Grazing Land

According to BH, the Adi Zaboy watershed used to be covered with forests with large trees that
were taller than the farmers, like Acasia spp. and Olea europaea before 1975 (Imperial era). The farmers
from the Kihen community and Agulae town grazed their livestock freely while they stayed in the Adi
Zaboy watershed for an extended period. The farmers also freely developed croplands and cut down
trees. This is how vegetation gradually depleted in the Adi Zaboy watershed.
As vegetation receded before 1975, the farmers from the Kihen community established the
seasonally-closed grazing land, which limits livestock grazing, in the Adi Zaboy watershed (Figure 2:
I-Seasonal). The seasonally-closed grazing land is locally called as Hizaeti meret. The farmers from the
Kihen community used the places near a water source and the village to continue to freely graze their
livestock and cut trees, and the places far from a water source and the village were established as the
seasonally-closed grazing lands. In the seasonally-closed grazing land in the Imperial era, the farmers
were prohibited from all livestock grazing from mid-July until December, a period which included the
rainy season when vegetation grew from the concentrated amount of rain so that they could secure
feed resources. The farmers were permitted to graze only oxen from early January to April, when feed
resources started becoming scarce during the dry season. In the latter half of the dry season, they were
permitted to take day-trip grazing to the seasonally-closed grazing land with the cows in May and
June, because the feed resources became scarce at the free grazing land where they normally grazed.
The voluntary grazing restriction at the seasonally-closed grazing land determined at the farmers’
meeting was started to supply enough quality feed resources for oxen working in the farms when it
became difficult to secure enough quality feed throughout the year.
This regulated grazing restriction started in the Imperial era before 1975 and is still in place today.
The residents regard it as a form of traditional land management. The seasonally-closed grazing land
in the natural grassland of Agulae town gradually expanded after the socialist era and the democratic
era. The grazing restriction regulation changed after the democratic era in 1991. Until then, the grazing
of oxen was only permitted between early January and April, but it also became possible between
September and October (Figure 3). The factor that relaxed the oxen grazing restriction is thought to be
the expansion of the prohibited grazing and protected forest land, which will be explained in later
sections. Currently, there are 5.6 km2 of seasonally-closed grazing lands, which constitute 65.2% of the
Adi Zaboy watershed used by the farmers from the Kihen community and Agulae town.
Environments
Environments 2018, 5, 2x FOR PEER REVIEW
2019, 6, 77of
of 14
13

Figure 2. Changes in land management in the Adi Zaboy watershed during the imperial, socialist,
and democratic eras.

This regulated grazing restriction started in the Imperial era before 1975 and is still in place
today. The residents regard it as a form of traditional land management. The seasonally-closed
grazing land in the natural grassland of Agulae town gradually expanded after the socialist era and
the democratic era. The grazing restriction regulation changed after the democratic era in 1991. Until
then, the grazing of oxen was only permitted between early January and April, but it also became
possible between September and October (Figure 3). The factor that relaxed the oxen grazing
restriction is thought to be the expansion of the prohibited grazing and protected forest land, which
will be explained in later sections. Currently, there are 5.6 km2 of seasonally-closed grazing lands,
which constitute 65.2% of the Adi Zaboy watershed used by the farmers from the Kihen community
Figure
and Agulae 2.town.
Figure 2. Changes
Changes in
in land
land management
management in
in the
the Adi
Adi Zaboy
Zaboy watershed
watershed during
during the
the imperial,
imperial, socialist,
socialist,
and
and democratic
democratic eras.
eras.

This regulated grazing restriction started in the Imperial era before 1975 and is still in place
today. The residents regard it as a form of traditional land management. The seasonally-closed
grazing land in the natural grassland of Agulae town gradually expanded after the socialist era and
the democratic era. The grazing restriction regulation changed after the democratic era in 1991. Until
then, the grazing of oxen was only permitted between early January and April, but it also became
possible between September and October (Figure 3). The factor that relaxed the oxen grazing
restriction is thought to be the expansion of the prohibited grazing and protected forest land, which
will be explained in later sections. Currently, there are 5.6 km2 of seasonally-closed grazing lands,
which constitute 65.2% of the Adi Zaboy watershed used by the farmers from the Kihen community
and Agulae town.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Changes
Changes of
of grazing management in
grazing management in the
the Adi
Adi Zaboy
Zaboy watershed
watershed (Modified
(Modified from
from [22]).
[22]).
3.3. Changes in the Prohibited Grazing and Protected Forest Land
According to BH, farmers from the Kihen community established a seasonally-closed grazing
land on top of a hill with severe vegetation depletion before 1975. The government planned to plant
Eucalyptus trees in the seasonally-closed grazing land on this hilltop with severe vegetation depletion.
At the same time, the government designated the afforested land as the prohibited grazing and
protected forest land (Figure 2: First Forest). The prohibited grazing and protected forest land is called
Deni meret.
The prohibited grazing and protected forest land where Eucalyptus trees were first planted in the
Adi Zaboy watershed lasted two years, but the trees did not survive. The failed prohibited grazing and
protected forest land was switched to a free grazing land. In its place, the government planted more
Figure
eucalyptus 3. Changes
trees of another
on top of grazing management
hill nearby in
tothe Adi Zaboy
establish watershed
a new (Modified
prohibited fromand
grazing [22]).
protected
forest land (Figure 2: Second Forest). The reforestation of the prohibited grazing and protected forest
Environments 2019, 6, 2 8 of 13

land through afforestation expanded under the government initiative after 1975 (Figure 2: S-Forest).
Furthermore, most of the free grazing land was changed to the prohibited grazing and protected forest
land by the government after 1991 under the pretext of environmental conservation of land with severe
vegetation depletion (Figure 2: D-Forest). As a result, 54% of the land belonging to Kihen Community
in Adi Zaboy watershed became a prohibited grazing and protected forest land, and the lands far
from a water source and relatively far from the villages were left as a seasonally-closed grazing land.
The increase in the prohibited grazing and protected forest land in Adi Zaboy watershed since 1991 and
the increase in the seasonally-closed grazing land established by the villages to secure feed for the
oxen shrunk the free grazing land even more (Figure 2: D-Free grazing). There are currently 2.9 km2 of
prohibited grazing and protected forest lands in Adi Zaboy watershed, which make up 33.6% of the
Adi Zaboy watershed used by the farmers from the Kihen community and Agulae town.

3.4. Spatial Distribution of Cropland Use-Land Cover

According to BH, there were no regulations on cropland development inside Adi Zaboy watershed
before 1975. Hence, the farmers from the Kihen community and Agulae town individually developed
their own croplands and many households developed farms on the natural grasslands. With the
arrival of the socialist era in 1975, the government seized all cropland ownership and the right to
use the cropland was distributed according to family composition using a lottery system [34,35].
Farmers were prohibited from developing new croplands during the Socialist era between 1975 and
1991. The croplands were redistributed after 1991. The croplands existing inside Adi Zaboy watershed
today are lands that were developed freely in the imperial era. There are approximately 1.82 km2 of
croplands, which constitute 20% of the Adi Zaboy watershed used by the farmers from the Kihen
community and Agulae town. Eighty-five percent of these croplands are mixed with seasonally-closed
grazing land and 86% of the croplands are located on a relatively level land with less than a 10◦
slope. (Table 2). Figure 4 shows the results of spatial distribution of classified croplands in Adi Zaboy
watershed. Its accuracy was 83% from the field survey data at 101 points.

Table 2. Spatial distribution of croplands by the land management and slope in Adi Zaboy watershed.

Ratio of Croplands to Land Managements

Seasonally-Closed Prohibited Grazing and Free Grazing Land
Land Management Type
Grazing Land Protected Forest Land and Free Land
Croplands (km2 ) 1.55 0.23 0.01
Ratio (%) 85.1 12.6 0.5
Ratio of Croplands to Slope
Slope 0–5◦ 5–10◦ 10–15◦ 15–20◦ 20–25◦
Cropland (km2 ) 0.79 0.79 0.20 0.03 0.00
Ratio (%) 43.6 43.5 10.8 1.9 0.2

The expansion of croplands meant that the natural grasslands were developed. The livestock
currently mainly grazes in the seasonally-closed grazing land. The seasonally-closed grazing lands
where livestock can graze also shrunk from the expansion of croplands, resulting in the decrease of
natural grasslands that can supply feed. With the croplands taking up the relatively level lands with
less than a 10◦ slope, it meant that the steeper lands with more than a 10◦ slope were used for grazing
land. It is believed that this led to the reduction of livestock feed supply, depletion of vegetation on the
slopes from the grazing, and increase in risk of soil erosion.
Environments 2019, 6, 2 9 of 13
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Spatial
Spatial distribution
distribution of
of croplands
croplands in
in Adi
Adi Zaboy
Zaboy watershed.
watershed.

3.5. NDVI Assessment

Table 2. of Vegetation
Spatial distribution in Each Land
of croplands by theManagements
land management and slope in Adi Zaboy watershed.
As the results of analyzingRatio the ratio of NDVI value
of croplands in the
to land natural vegetation according to indicators
managements
of small, mediumLand and high, the Seasonally-
water or buildingProhibited
was 0.6%, 1.1% grazing and 0.3%, the small vegetation was
0.6%, 0.2% and 2.6%,
management the medium vegetation was 25.5%, 32.1%,
closed grazing and protected forest and 53.9%,Free
and grazing
the high land
vegetation was
73.3%, 66.6%, andtype 43.2%, respectively, in the prohibited grazing and free land
land land and protected forest land classification,
the seasonally-closed grazing
Croplands (km²) land classification
1.55 and the free
0.23grazing land (Figure0.01 5). When comparing
the ratios of high vegetation
Ratio (%) in each type
85.1 of land management,
12.6 the prohibited grazing
0.5 and protected
forest land was 73.3%, the seasonally-closed grazing land was 66.6%, and the free grazing land was
Ratio of croplands to slope
43.2%, showing that the prohibited grazing and protected forest land tended to have the highest
Slope 0–5° 5–10° 10–15° 15–20° 20–25°
ratio of high vegetation. On the other hand, when the ratios of medium vegetation were compared,
Cropland (km²) 0.79 0.79 0.20 0.03 0.00
the prohibited grazing and protected forest land was 25.5%, the seasonally-closed grazing land was
Ratio (%) 43.6 43.5 10.8 1.9 0.2
32.1%, and the free grazing land was 53.9%. This high vegetation ratio indicated that wild herbaceous
and woody plant species were able to flourish during the 20 years of restriction on the use of natural
3.5. NDVI Assessment of Vegetation in Each Land Managements
resources when most of the free grazing land had been converted into a prohibited grazing and
As the
protected results
forest land of
whenanalyzing the ratiowas
its classification of established.
NDVI valueLike in the natural
the past vegetation
researches, according
it is believed to
that
indicators of small, medium and high, the water or building was 0.6%, 1.1%
natural vegetation can recover in the prohibited grazing and protected forest land [14,36]. In addition, and 0.3%, the small
vegetation
many was 0.6%,activities
conservation 0.2% and(SWC) 2.6%, and
the medium vegetation
afforestation activitieswashave25.5%, 32.1%,
been and out
carried 53.9%, and the
within the
high vegetation was 73.3%, 66.6%, and 43.2%, respectively, in the prohibited
prohibited grazing and protected forest land by local farmers. Therefore, stone bunds and planted grazing and protected
forest land
woody classification,
plants can keep rainthewater
seasonally-closed
flowing on the grazing
slope.landIt wasclassification
considered and thevegetation
that free grazing land
growth
(Figure
was 5). When
positively comparing
promoted by thethe ratios of
increase of soil
highmoisture
vegetationcontentin each type[37].
increase of land
The management,
seasonally-closed the
prohibited grazing and protected forest land was 73.3%, the seasonally-closed
grazing land has 6.6% less high vegetation than the prohibited grazing and protected forest land. grazing land was
66.6%, andits
However, theratio
free of
grazing land was 43.2%,
high vegetation showing
is 23.5% higherthat
thanthethe prohibited grazing
free grazing landand protected
where forest
livestock is
land tended
freely to have
dispatched. the highest
Therefore, ratio ofthat
it showed highthevegetation. On the other
grazing restriction during hand, whenseason
the rainy the ratios of
in the
medium vegetation
seasonally-closed were land
grazing compared,
enhanced the prohibited
the growth grazing and protected
of wild herbaceous andforest
woody land
plantwasspecies
25.5%,andthe
seasonally-closed
promoted grazing
regeneration land was 32.1%,
of vegetation and the
from seeds andfree grazingwhich
fruition, land was 53.9%.the
increased This high vegetation
capacity to secure
ratio indicated that wild herbaceous and woody plant species were able to flourish during the 20
years of restriction on the use of natural resources when most of the free grazing land had been
converted into a prohibited grazing and protected forest land when its classification was established.
 and protected forest land [14,36]. In addition, many conservation activities (SWC) and afforestation
activities have been carried out within the prohibited grazing and protected forest land by local
farmers. Therefore, stone bunds and planted woody plants can keep rain water flowing on the slope.
It was considered that vegetation growth was positively promoted by the increase of soil moisture
content increase [37]. The seasonally-closed grazing land has 6.6% less high vegetation than the
prohibited grazing and protected forest land. However, its ratio of high vegetation is 23.5% higher
Environmentsthan
2019, 6, free
the 2 grazing land where livestock is freely dispatched. Therefore, it showed that the grazing 10 of 13
restriction during the rainy season in the seasonally-closed grazing land enhanced the growth of wild
herbaceous and woody plant species and promoted regeneration of vegetation from seeds and
and supply fruition,
morewhich increased
livestock feedthe capacity to Also,
resources. secure the
and spray
supply of
more livestockmanure
livestock feed resources.
during Also, the
grazing period
sprayisofsupplying
which results livestock manure during
organic grazing
matter andperiod which results
nutrients into the is supplying
soil would organic matter and
positively promote the
nutrients into the soil would positively promote the growth of wild herbaceous plants and wild wood
growth of wild herbaceous plants and wild wood plants in the seasonally-closed grazing land.
plants in the seasonally-closed grazing land.

Figure of
Figure 5. Ratio 5. Ratio of normalized
normalized difference
difference vegetation index
vegetation index(NDVI) values
(NDVI) in each
values inland management
each land management
type in the Adi Zaboy watershed in September 2016.
type in the Adi Zaboy watershed in September 2016.
3.6. Compatibility of Environmental Preservation and Securing of Feed Resources
3.6. Compatibility of Environmental Preservation and Securing of Feed Resources
The Ethiopian government announced that they planned to afforest 20,000 km2 of land, reforest
2
1000 km2 of government
The Ethiopian land, and improve maintenance
announced on 30,000
that they km 2 of natural
planned grasslands20,000
to afforest by 2030km
[38]. of
Hence,
land, reforest
2 it is believed that the prohibited grazing and protected forest land
2 will
1000 km of land, and improve maintenance on 30,000 km of natural grasslands by 2030 [38]. become more expanded
Hence, it isthroughout
believedEthiopia
that theinprohibited
the future. The expansion of the prohibited grazing and protected forest land
grazing and protected forest land will become more expanded
throughout Ethiopia in the future. The expansion of the prohibited grazing and protected forest land
is also likely to tighten the restriction on the use of natural resources in Adi Zaboy watershed for the
Kihen community and Agulae town farmers [39]. On the other hand, the zero grazing movement
has been implemented in Tigray Region since 2006 out of necessity in raising livestock. This system
improves the cattle breed as well as the grassland, so that the farmers can cut and carry the feed
resources and raise the livestock in a stall instead of leaving them out in the pasture [40,41]. The Tigray
farmers are searching for a livestock-rearing method that can secure both livestock feed and vegetation
preservation without the unlimited use of feed resources.
Gebremedhin et al. [42] believed that a proper management of livestock is important to
a sustainable and environmental development of mixed crop-livestock farming from an economic
perspective, and that a proper management of livestock requires a sustainable use of grassland and
a mitigation of the feed shortage problem.
The result of the vegetation assessment in this research using local investigation and satellite
images also showed that the traditional seasonally-closed grazing land makes it highly possible to
secure and supply valuable livestock feed resources by limiting the grazing period, which enhances the
Environments 2019, 6, 2 11 of 13

growth of wild herbaceous and woody plant species and promotes vegetation regeneration through
seeds and fruition.
Based on the information above, environmental preservation and sustainable land management to
secure feed resources may be possible by determining the appropriate period and number of livestock
that can be grazed, and routinely assessing the amount and condition of herbaceous and woody plant
species in the seasonally-closed grazing land and the prohibited grazing and protected forest land by:
(1) securing and actively using seasonally-closed grazing land that has a grazing restriction during
the rainy season, (2) securing livestock feed resources by a cut-and-carry method from the expanding
prohibited grazing and protected forest land, and (3) using satellite images and GIS.

4. Conclusions
In the northern part of the Ethiopian highlands, it is necessary to discuss sustainable land
managements and to secure a site with enough feed supply to improve the lives of the farmers as well
as conservation activities. The purpose and results of this research are summarized below.

1. To reveal the changes in land management by farmers in the imperial era, the socialist era,
and the democratic era. The land managements were classified into free land, free grazing land,
seasonally-closed grazing land, and prohibited grazing and protected forest land in the study
area. Free grazing lands have decreased from the Imperial era to the democratic era. From the
viewpoint of environmental protection, the government-led prohibited grazing and protected
forest land are expanding during the democratic era. The expansion of the prohibited grazing
and protected forest land has been tightened the restriction on the use of natural resources for
feed supply.
2. To assess how the different forms of land management affected the vegetation through satellite
images and field investigation. It was shown that the prohibited grazing and protected
forest land keeps more vegetation by grazing restriction and conservation activities than the
seasonally-closed grazing land and the free grazing land. The seasonally-closed grazing land
also has kept vegetation as compared with the free grazing land. It was considered that the
grazing restriction during the rainy season in the seasonally-closed grazing land enhanced the
growth of wild herbaceous and woody plant species and promoted the regeneration of vegetation
from seeds and fruition, which increased the capacity to secure and supply more livestock
feed resources.
3. To consider how the land should be used to allow both environmental preservation and
sustainable use of resources for feed supply. Expansion of prohibited grazing and protected
forest land led to a limitation of the resources for feed supply available to farmers. For the point
of securing feed resources, it is necessary not to decrease the area of seasonally-closed grazing
land any more, and furthermore, important to promote the positive cut-and-carry activity from
prohibited grazing and protected forest land. The strategy shown in this study was considered to
be a possible sustainable land management method to secure resources for feed supply.

Author Contributions: R.O., M.H., B.G.G., T.S., K.K., and K.T. carried out field surveys. M.H. supervised
the research work and the manuscript. S.U. and T.S. made valuable comments on the analysis of the data.
K.T. managed and supervised field surveys. R.O. analyzed data and wrote the manuscript.
Funding: This study was partly funded by the Research Program entitled “Forest and Farmland Conservation for
Watershed Management in the Ethiopian Highlands (FFCW) research project” from Japan International Research
Center For Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS) in the 2017 fiscal year and the Grant-in-Aid from the Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science, Japan (Project Number: 17H01639) in the 2014 fiscal year.
Acknowledgments: The authors owe a great deal of thanks to the local farmers in Tigray for offering their
hospitality and kindness.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Environments 2019, 6, 2 12 of 13

References
1. Gebremichael, D.; Nyssen, J.; Poesen, J.; Deckers, J.; Haile, M.; Govers, G.; Moeyersons, J. Effectiveness of
stone bunds in controlling soil erosion on cropland in the Tigray Highlands, northern Ethiopia. Soil Use
Manag. 2005, 21, 287–297. [CrossRef]
2. Alemayehu, F.; Taha, N.; Nyssen, J.; Girma, A.; Zenebe, A.; Behailu, M.; Poesen, J. The impacts of watershed
management on land use and land cover dynamics in Eastern Tigray (Ethiopia). Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2009, 53, 192–198. [CrossRef]
3. Zeleke, G.; Hurni, H. Implications of land use and land cover dynamics for mountain resource degradation
in the Northwestern Ethiopian highlands. Mt. Res. Dev. 2001, 21, 184–191. [CrossRef]
4. Central Statistical Agency (SCA). Agricultural Sample Survey; CSA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2013.
5. Hawando, T. Desertification in Ethiopian highlands. Rala Rep. 1997, 200, 75–86.
6. Stahl, M. Environmental degradation and political constraints in Ethiopia. Disasters 1990, 14, 140–150.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Nyssen, J.; Poesen, J.; Moeyersons, J.; Deckers, J.; Haile, M.; Lang, A. Human impact on the environment in
the Ethiopian and Eritrean highlands—A state of the art. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2004, 64, 273–320. [CrossRef]
8. Nedessa, B.; Nyborg, I.; Ali, J. Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area
Enclosure Management: A Case Study from Ethiopia; Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) Report; Drylands
Coordination Group: Oslo, Norway, 2005; p. 38.
9. Tigray Forestry Action Plan (TFAP). Tigray Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources Development, Regional
Government of Tigray; Tigray Forestry Action Plan: Mekelle, Ethiopia, 1996.
10. Regional Land Use Planning Division (RLUPD). Report of Environmental Protection, Land Administration and
Use Authority of Tigray; Regional Land Use Planning Division: Mekelle, Ethiopia, 2000.
11. Yami, M.; Mekuria, W.; Hauser, M. The effectiveness of village bylaws in sustainable management of
community-managed exclosures in Northern Ethiopia. Sustain. Sci. 2013, 8, 73–86. [CrossRef]
12. Esser, K.; Vågen, T.G.; Haile, M. Soil conservation in Tigray, Ethiopia. Noragric Rep. 2002, 5, 1–21.
13. Nyssen, J.; Poesen, J.; Moeyersons, J.; Haile, M.; Deckers, J. Dynamics of soil erosion rates and controlling
factors in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands–towards a sediment budget. Earth Surf. Process. Landf.
2008, 33, 695–711. [CrossRef]
14. Birhane, E.; Teketay, D.; Barklund, P. Enclosures to enhance woody species diversity in the dry lands of
eastern Tigray, Ethiopia. East Afr. J. Sci. 2007, 1, 136–147. [CrossRef]
15. Descheemaeker, K.; Nyssen, J.; Rossi, J.; Poesen, J.; Haile, M.; Raes, D.; Deckers, S. Sediment deposition and
pedogenesis in exclosures in the Tigray Highlands, Ethiopia. Geoderma 2006, 132, 291–314. [CrossRef]
16. Mekuria, W.; Veldkamp, E.; Haile, M.; Gebrehiwot, K.; Muys, B.; Nyssen, J. Effectiveness of exclosures to
control soil erosion and local communities perception on soil erosion. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 4, 365–377.
17. Babulo, B.; Muys, B.; Nega, F.; Tollens, E.; Nyssen, J.; Deckers, J.; Mathijs, E. Household livelihood strategies
and forest dependence in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agric. Syst. 2008, 98, 147–155.
[CrossRef]
18. Belay, K.T.; Van Rompaey, A.; Poesen, J.; Van Bruyssel, S.; Deckers, J.; Amare, K. Spatial analysis of land cover
changes in eastern Tigray (Ethiopia) from 1965 to 2007: Are there signs of a forest transition? Land Degrad.
Dev. 2015, 26, 680–689. [CrossRef]
19. Kindu, M.; Schneider, T.; Teketay, D.; Knoke, T. Land use/land cover change analysis using object-based
classification approach in Munessa-Shashemene landscape of the Ethiopian highlands. Remote Sens.
2013, 5, 2411–2435. [CrossRef]
20. Haregeweyn, N.; Tsunekawa, A.; Nyssen, J.; Poesen, J.; Tsubo, M.; Tsegaye Meshesha, D.; Tegegne, F.
Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia: A review. Prog. Phys. Geog. 2015, 39, 750–774. [CrossRef]
21. Ina, W.; Ingrid, H.; Fiona, C. Combating Desertification and Land Degradation: The World’s Best Policies; World
Future Council Foundation: Hamburg, Germany, 2017.
22. Hirata, M.; Ogawa, R.; Birhane, G.; Takenaka, K. Recent decrease in the number of livestock and its causes in
agro-pastoralists of Ethiopia highland—From the case study in the southern part of Kilite Awlaelo District,
South East Tigray Region-. J. Arid Land Stud. 2018, 28, 1–15. [CrossRef]
Environments 2019, 6, 2 13 of 13

23. Mekuria, W.; Veldkamp, E.; Tilahun, M.; Olschewski, R. Economic valuation of land restoration: The case of
exclosures established on communal grazing lands in Tigray, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2011, 22, 334–344.
[CrossRef]
24. Hagos, F.; Pender, J.; Gebreselassie, N. Land Degradation and Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in
the Ethiopian Highlands; Socio-Economics and Policy Research Working Paper; ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD):
Nairobi, Kenya, 2002; Volume 25, pp. 1–73. ISBN 9291460982.
25. Lanckriet, S.; Derudder, B.; Naudts, J.; Bauer, H.; Deckers, J.; Haile, M.; Nyssen, J. A political ecology
perspective of land degradation in the north Ethiopian highlands. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 521–530.
[CrossRef]
26. Tadono, T.; Ishida, H.; Oda, F.; Naito, S.; Minakawa, K.; Iwamoto, H. Precise global DEM generation by
ALOS PRISM. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2014, 2, 71. [CrossRef]
27. National Meteorological Agency (NMA). Meteorological Data of Wukro; NMA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2014.
28. Worldview-2 Earth Observation Satellite. Available online: https://www.aerospace-technology.com/
projects/worldview-2/ (accessed on 18 June 2018).
29. Weier, J.; Herring, D. Measuring Vegetation (NDVI & EVI); NASA Earth Observatory: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
30. Deering, D.W.; Rouse, J.W.; Haas, R.H.; Schall, J.A. Measuring forage production of grazing units from
Landsat MSS data. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of the
Environment, 6–10 October 1975; pp. 1169–1178.
31. Tilahun, A. Application of GIS for Estimation of Brightness Temperature using Landsat Data in Kilite
Awulalo, Tigray Ethiopia. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 40, 16–23.
32. Ajith, K.; Geethalakshmi, V.; Ragunath, K.P.; Pazhanivelan, S.; Panneerselvam, S. Rice Acreage Estimation in
Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu Using Lands at 8 OLIIMAGES and GIS Techniques. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci.
2017, 6, 2327–2335. [CrossRef]
33. Namita, M. Kulkarni. Crop Identification Using Unsuperviesd ISODATA and K-Means from Multispectral
Remote Sensing Imagery. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2017, 7, 45–49. [CrossRef]
34. Cohen, J.M.; Weintraub, D. Land and Peasants in Imperial Ethiopia. The Social Background to a Revolution;
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1975.
35. Bereket, K. Land Tenure and Common Pool Resources in Rural Ethiopia: A Study Based on Fifteen Sites.
Afr. Dev. Rev. 2002, 14, 113–149. [CrossRef]
36. Yami, M.; Gebrehiwot, K.; Moe, S.; Mekuria, W. Impact of area enclosures on density, diversity, and
population structure of woody species: The case of May Ba’ati-Douga Tembien, Tigray, Ethiopia. Ethiop. J.
Nat. Res. 2006, 8, 99–121. [CrossRef]
37. Nyssen, J.; Poesen, J.; Descheemaeker, K.; Haregeweyn, N.; Haile, M.; Moeyersons, J.; Deckers, J. Effects of
region-wide soil and water conservation in semi-arid areas: The case of northern Ethiopia. Z. Geomorphol.
2008, 52, 291–315. [CrossRef]
38. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy; Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011.
39. Mekuria, W.; Veldkamp, E.; Haile, M.; Nyssen, J.; Muys, B.; Gebrehiwot, K. Effectiveness of exclosures
to restore degraded soils as a result of overgrazing in Tigray, Ethiopia. J. Arid Environ. 2007, 69, 270–284.
[CrossRef]
40. Gebreyohannes, G.; Hailemariam, G. Challenges, Opportunities and Available Good Practices Related to Zero
Grazing in Tigray and Hararghe, Ethiopia; Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) Report; Drylands Coordination
Group: Oslo, Norway, 2011; p. 66.
41. Shapiro, B.I.; Gebru, G.; Desta, S.; Negassa, S.; Nigussie, K.; Aboset, G.; Mechal, H. Ethiopia Livestock Master
Plan, Roadmap for Growth and Transformation, A Contribution to the Growth and Transformation Plan II(2015-2020);
ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD): Nairobi, Kenya, 2015; pp. 1–142. ISBN 9291464252.
42. Gebremedhin, B.; Pender, J.; Tesfay, G. Collective action for grazing land management in crop–livestock
mixed systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Agric. Syst. 2004, 82, 273–290. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).