IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Research article
erd

Farmers’ Perceptions on Soil Degradation and their
Criteria to Adopt Soil and Water Conservation Strategies in
Ovche Pole Region in North Macedonia
OGNEN ONCHEVSKI
Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
E-mail: ognenoncevski@hotmail.com

MACHITO MIHARA*
Faculty of Regional Environmental Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
E-mail: m-mihara@nodai.ac.jp
Received 22 January 2020

Accepted 11 September 2020(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Ovche Pole is a region in Macedonia where the main economic activity of people
is agriculture. Moderate-continental-sub-Mediterranean climatic conditions are prevalent in
the area. However, based on the data for average annual precipitations (P) and potential
evapotranspiration (PET), the region has aridity index of 0.64, thus it is classified as dry subhumid and vulnerable to desertification. The region is dominated by agriculture land whichtakes 62% of total area, followed by forests and pastures that takes 22.55% and 14%
respectively. Vertisols are the dominant soil type, taking 51.24% of total area in the region.
Climatic conditions, together with the unsustainable agricultural practices highly influence theprocess of land degradation, especially soil degradation in the region. The key for success ofany land restoration activity is the involvement of local communities. Understanding thefarmers’ perceptions on this issue is crucial for development and implementation ofsustainable resource management strategies. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to: (i)assess farmers’ perceptions on different types of soil degradation and (ii) examine farmers’
perception and motivation for adopting new SWC practices. A semi-structured questionnaire
was developed and distributed to farmers to gather primary data. Out of total population of
375 registered farmers, following convenience sampling method, 102 farmers took a part in
the questionnaire survey. Secondary data on climate/weather, land use, soils, demography was
obtained from published or unpublished sources. The results of the study show that farmers
could observe different soil degradation process on their land. Most of the farmers perceived
decline in soil moisture retention as most intense and most significant problem. For majority
of interviewed farmers, the main criteria to adopt SWC are the increased financial benefits andgains from the new measure and financial incentives provided by government institutions.
Keywords farmers’ perceptions, questionnaire survey, soil degradation, soil and water
conservation

INTRODUCTION
The Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA) project (2011) reported that “Soildegradation occurs as a result of adverse changes in the soil biological, chemical, physical and/orhydrological properties. Such changes can increase the vulnerability of the soil to further degradation”.
Although, soil degradation is influenced by local environmental conditions such as climate,topography, soil type etc., farmers with their land management practices can exacerbate degradation
processes too. Therefore, adoption of SWC measure is required to prevent or revers degradation ofnatural resources. However, achieving success in SWC programs is difficult because many constrainsplay a role. Deciding to adopt SWC measures is complicated process influenced by many factors
such as the agro- ecological conditions, socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of the farmers’
population (Calatrava et al., 2011; Pulido and Bocco, 2014). Decision to adopt SWC measures drivenⒸ ISERD

12

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

by intrinsic factors can promote long lasting behavioral change, while decisions made only becauseof extrinsic motivation factors, such as financial incentives provide less stable changes.
Understanding the motivation factors that influence farmers to implement new SWC will help
policymakers to design more effective SWC strategies and manage conservation programs more
successfully. Top-down oriented projects in general are not so successful; Development
organizations focus more on participatory methods emphasizing the importance of beneficiaries’commitment and engagement in activities (Kessler, 2006).
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this research are (i) to assess farmers’ perceptions of different types of soil
degradation and (ii) to examine farmers’ perception and motivation for adopting new SWC practices.
METHODOLOGY
Study Area Description
The region of Ovche Pole is a plain located in the east central part of Macedonia and takes an areaof 649 km2 (Fig. 1). Administratively, the region is divided into two municipal units, Sveti Nikole
and Lozovo. According the last census municipalities together had population of 21.355 people (State
Statistical Office, 2002). Highest point is on 856 m above sea level, however the average elevationof the region is between 200 and 400 meters. Three characteristically different landscape types canbe distinguished in the region. Agricultural flatland landscape on saline ground takes the flat areas
up to elevation of 350 m. specific for this area is the presence of halomorphic soils. Lowland rolling
agricultural landscape, which are the areas found up to elevation of 500 m.a.s.l. represented by hills
with mild slopes. The third specific landscape type is the lowland rolling agricultural landscape withwind hedges. Specific for this area is the presence of man-made corridors of trees and shrubs that
protect the agriculture land from the prevailing winds (Melovski et al., 2015).

Fig. 1 Geographical position of the research area (in red borders of the right picture)
The climate in the region is modified warm continental with Mediterranean influence (Zikov,
1995; Filipovski et al., 1996). Specific for this region is the occurrence of strong winds coming fromthe north-west, north, south-east direction present most of the time of the year. Analysis of climatic
data for the period between 1950 and 2000 showed that the average annual precipitation is 471.1 mm
and the average annual evapotranspiration is 734.4 mm, with an aridity index of 0.64. According to
the UNCCD this classifies the region as dry sub-humid and vulnerable of desertification (Blinkov etal., 2005; Miladinovc et al., 2006). The region is dominated by vast areas under arable fields andcroplands. Although, agriculture land takes 40 183 ha (62 % of the total land), much of the arable
land is not irrigated (Fig. 2). Forests cover 14 619 ha (22.5%) of which 2/3 are degraded, whereas
9134.38 ha (14%) are pastures (CORINE LC/LC, 2012). Vertisols are the dominant soil type in theⒸ ISERD

13

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

region, almost entirely distributed in areas where agriculture is intensively practiced. This soil typeis distributed on 33 422 ha or 51.24 % of the land (MASIS). Farmers mainly produce grains such as
wheat and barley, however there are areas where tobacco, alfalfa, melons, and vegetables arecultivated.

Fig. 2 Agriculture landscape in the research area
Data Collection and Analysis
The study was conducted from 7th of September to 7th of October 2019. Semi-structured questionnaire
was developed and distributed to farmers to gather primary data. Using convenience sampling
method, 102 farmers took a part in the questionnaire survey, out of a population of 375 registeredfarmers (MAFWM, 2019). The interviews with the farmers were done at any place they were met,
usually in the field, local bars and shops in the villages or in their homes. Part of the questions were
designed in a 5-point liker-type scale, ranging from “strongly not agree” to “strongly agree”, however
some information were gathered through ranking questions. The question statements were put in
simple language, however in case when person could not understand some part additional
explanation were given to them. The questionnaire was designed to have three sections. The firstsections, contained questions related to socioeconomic characteristic of farmers as well as the land
management practices. Second section, captured farmers’ perceptions on soil degradation. Questionsin the third section captured farmers’ perceptions on SWC and their drivers of motivation to adopt
new SWC measures. Simple descriptive statistics such us frequency distribution and percentage wereused to interpret and present data. Secondary data on climate/weather, land use, soils, demography
was obtained from published or unpublished sources. The number of registered farmers was provided
by The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFWM). Data on land use/landcover was obtained from the CORINE Land Cover (CLC2012) data set from 2012, program
coordinated by European Environmental Agency (EEA). Data from The Macedonian Soil
Information System (MASIS) was used to analyze characteristics and distribution of the soil in the
research area.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Farmers’ Perceptions on Soil Degradation Processes
Questionnaire results showed that 89% of the respondents noticed some negative changes related tosoil quality. Table 1 outlines farmers’ perceptions on the degree of intensity of soil degradation
processes on their land. The farmers could choose one response on an intensity scale with five levelsof degree ranging from no presence of soil degradation to extreme intensity of soil degradation. The
results showed that water logging and salinization and/or alkalinisation were not present at all forⒸ ISERD

14

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

91% and 82% of the farmers, respectively. However, majority of farmers reported some degree ofdegradation, for the other investigated soil degradation processes. Decline of soil moisture retention
was perceived as most insensitively present problem; 77% of the farmers reported strong and 6%
extreme degree of this type of soil degradation. For loss of fertility and loss of soil structure, majorityof the respondents’ answers ranged between light, moderate and strong. Regarding, loss of topsoil
and erosion 46% of the farmers reported light intensity, 31% reported no presence and 20% moderateintensity. However, for loss of life and biodiversity the results showed two tendencies in the response.
A group of 39% of respondents that did not notice this problem and a group of 32% reports strong
intensity of loss of soil life and biodiversity.
Regarding the perception for the time of beginning of these issues, 12% of respondents answeredthat the soil degradation issues started in the past 5 years, 35% said in the past 10 years, 25% in thepast 15 years, 15% said in the past 20 years and 13% told they don’t know. In addition, 69% of
farmers said that now they use more fertilizers compared to the past 10 years. Farmers were asked torank the soil degradation processes by the degree of significance for their farming activities. The
results from the data analysis are visually presented in Fig. 3. The sample group gave consistentanswers when ranked the 1st and 2nd most significant soil degradation issues. Decline in soil
moisture retention capacity was ranked as the most significant problem by 89% of the respondents.
The loss of soil fertility was ranked 2nd most significant issue by 75% of farmers. Loss of soil
structure and loss of topsoil and erosion were ranked 3rd and 4th most significant issues, respectively.
Loss of life and soil biodiversity was ranked 5th most significant issue. These results can be explained
if we have in mind the climatic conditions and properties of Vertisols-the dominant soil type in theregion.
Table 1 Farmers' perception on soil degradation intensity degree
Type of degradation

Intensity of soil degradation process
Not present

Light

Moderate

StrongExtremeLoss of topsoil and erosion.

31%

46%

20%

3%

0%

Loss of soil fertility

3%

17%

44%

34%

2%

Loss of soil structure

4%

24%

48%

24%

1%

Water logging of soil

91%

7%

1%

1%

0%

Loss of life and soil biodiversity

39%

14%

9%

32%

6%

Salinization and/or alkalinisation

82%

16%

2%

0%

0%

Decline in soil moisture retention

4%

4%

2%

77%

13%

Own Source: Data provided by questionnaire survey, 2019

The World Soil Resource Report (2015) notes that “the physical properties and the soil moistureregime of Vertisols represent serious management constraints. The heavy soil texture and dominationof expanding clay minerals result in a narrow soil moisture range between moisture stress and water
excess” (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015). According to Alvaro-Fuentes et al. (2008) “Soil organic
matter (SOM) is a key factor in semiarid agrosystem production” (Álvaro-Fuentes et al., 2008). In
their study on effects of soil organic matter on soil productivity, Bauer and Black (1994) concluded
that loss of fertility explained loss of productivity due to a depletion of soil organic matter.
Soil and Water Conservation Practices among Farmers
The results from the questionnaire showed that 77% of the farmers practice some measure for SWC
conservation and 23% did not. Fig. 4 shows information on the different SWC practices implemented
by farmers. Farmers practice only traditional conservation measure such as manuring, crop rotationand fallow. Except drip irrigation which is integrated by 5% of respondents, no other new
technologies or practices are implemented. The involvement of government institutions or otherⒸ ISERD

15

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

organization to support and encourage farmers in implementation of SWC is absent. The results ofthe survey showed that 96% of farmers are not familiar with government programs aimed to support
SWC. In addition, 98% of farmers have never been contacted by any institution or organization on
SWC and issues related with soil degradation.
89%
75%

52%
44%

41%

38%

16%
6%
1% 3%

12%

6%

1%

3%

36%

33%

4%

1% 2% 3%

11%
7%
2% 2%

7%

4%

1%

1st most significant 2nd most significant 3rd most significant 4th most significant 5th most significant
1- erosion and soil loss

2- loss of soil ferility

3- problem with soil structure

4- water logging

5- loss of life and bidiversity of soil

6- salinization/alkalinisation

7- decline in soil moisture retention

0- didn't answer

Fig. 3 Ranking of soil degradation issues by significanceRespondents (%)

82%

56%
48%
40%
36%

33%

17%
3%

6%

9%

12%

11% 10%
2%

8%

1%

3% 3%

4%

8%
1%

2%

4% 2%

1st most relevant criterion 2nd most relevant criterion 3rd most relevant criterion 4th most relevant criterion

To reduce inputs and costs for land management
To ensure conservation and sustainability of the natural environment
Time and labor consuming aspects
Not to take additional economic resources for implementation.
To guarantee an income for the farm in the short term
To guarantee better soil health/quality and climate change resilience
Didn't answer

Fig. 4 Distribution of different soil and water conservation practices among farmers
Farmers’ Motivation for Adopting New Soil and Water Conservation Practices
On the question if there is an interest in adoption of SWC measures among farmers, 61% answered
affirmative, 19% said that there is no interest and 20% did not know how to answer. Perception ofexisting a future risk can be a driver for behavioral change, in this case adoption of SWC measure.
Ⓒ ISERD

16

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Therefore, farmers were asked if they believe that soil degradation issues would increase, stay sameor decrease in future. Out of all, 95% answered that the soil degradation processes will increase in
future and only 3% and 2% believed that issues will stay same and decrease, respectively. In thisstudy respondents were asked to rank relevant criteria expected when adopting new SWC measure.
The results presented in Fig. 5 show that the three most relevant criteria are related to the economic
benefits of the farmers. Better soil quality and climate change resilience is on the fourth place ofimportance.
No SWC measure
Manure(Ma)30%

Fallow(Fa)23%

Respondents (%)

Crop rotation (Cr)Manure + Crop rotation
Manure + Drip irrigation
12%
6%

7%

8%

Manure + Fallow

7%

Manure + Fallow + Crop rotation

4%
1%

1%

1%

Manure+Fallow+Crop rotation+Drip irrigation
Fallow+Crop rotation

Soil and water conservation (SWC) measures

Fallow+Crop rotation+Drip irrigation

Fig. 5 Farmers' ranking of relevant criteria for adoption of SWC measure
91%

85%
77%
1-Financial supportand incentives
2-Education andtraining
3-Technical support

15%
8%

14%

8%

1%
1st most relevant need1%
2nd most relevant need

3rd most relevant needFig. 6 Ranking of relevant need for adoption of SWC measure
To extract information on what farmers need to adopt new soil and water conservation measure
they were asked to rank among: education and training, technical support and financial incentives.
Participants in the survey ranked financial support and incentives as most relevant need for adoptionof new SWC measure, technical support was ranked 2nd whereas education and training 3th most
relevant need for adoption of new SWC measure. The results are presented in Fig. 6 of thismanuscript. A study that compared results of independent research projects in five developing
countries showed that factors that motivates farmers are always context-specific and generalization
is not possible. However, in general profitability and financial benefits are common factors that
influence farmers to adopt SWC measures (de Graaff et al, 2008). Other authors had similar
conclusion that resource conservation should be accompanied by short-term economic benefits forfarmers (Pulido and Bocco, 2014). However Calatrava et al. (2011) in their study on policy measures
for agricultural soil conservation in semi-arid Mediterranean areas noted that “stakeholders statedⒸ ISERD

17

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

that the most important and effective measure is to provide technical education and information tofarmers to convince them of the benefits of conservation practice.”
CONCLUSION
General perception among the participants in the study is that biggest issues come from the decline
in soil moisture retention, decline of soil fertility, soil structure and soil erosion. Soil degradation is
induced as a result of combination of factors such as climatic conditions in the region and theproperties of the dominant soil type, however problems are exaggerated by the land management
practices. Although, 76% of the farmers of Ovche Pole region implement one or more SWC measure,most farmers execute only some traditional and very basic land management practices, new SWC
practices have been rarely or not adopted at all. Extending of the traditional measures andintroduction of new practices is needed, however this would require education, technical andfinancial support for farmers. Results of this study point out that SWC needs to be followed by shortterm financial benefits through improved production and reduced costs, which are primary interestof farmers. Therefore, as a way to promote and encourage conservation agriculture, government must
provide direct or indirect subsidies for farmers that implement SWC measures. In addition,
institutions should provide financial support and incentives for farmers in the initial phase of
implementation so they can overcome the initial investment constrains that they usually face. So far,the engagement of relevant government or non-governmental agencies to support farmers in adoptionof new SWC strategies is very low. Therefore, development of capacity of institutions andorganizations to conduct SWC programs and support farmers to implement measures on their landis needed. Commitment should be on a long term and project interventions need to have longer
project cycle. Establishment of research and demonstration sites where farmers can directly see thebenefits of SWC and be trained should be considered as appropriate strategy for long term results.
Local solutions and innovations, as well as farmer-to farmer knowledge dissemination should be
encouraged.
REFERENCES
Álvaro-Fuentes, J., López, M., Cantero-Martinez, C. and Arrúe, J. 2008. Tillage effects on soil organic carbon
fractions in Mediterranean dryland agroecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 72 (2), 541547.
Bauer, A. and Black, A. 1994. Quantification of the effect of soil organic matter content on soil productivity.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 58 (1), 185-193.
Blinkov, I., Vasilevski, K. and Miladinovic, M. 2005. An analyze of some particular conditions referred to lenddegradation and desertification processes in the Republic of Macedonia (preliminary results), Scientific
Conference Youndula 5-8.X 2005, Bulgaria.
Calatrava, J., Barberá, G. and Castillo, V. 2011. Farming practices and policy measures for agricultural soil
conservation in semi-arid Mediterranean areas: The case of the Guadalentín basin in southeast Spain. Land
Degradation & Development, 22 (1), 58-69.
FAO. 2011. Land degradation assessment in drylands: Manual for local level assessment of land degradationand sustainable land management. Part 1: Planning and methodological approach, analysis and reporting.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 28.
Filipovski, G., Rizovski, R. and Ristevski, P. 1996. Characteristic of the climate–vegetation–soil zones(regions) in the Republic of Macedonia. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Skopje.
Graaff, J. de., Amsalu, A., Bodnár, F., Kessler, A., Posthumus, H. and Tenge, A. 2008. Factors influencing
adoption and continued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in five developing countries.
Applied Geography, 28 (4), 271-280.
IUSS Working Group WRB. 2015. World reference base for soil resources 2014, update 2015. Internationalsoil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources
Reports No. 106. FAO, Rome, 18.
Kessler, C. 2006. Decisive key-factors influencing farm households' soil and water conservation investments.
Applied Geography, 26 (1), 40-60.

Ⓒ ISERD

18

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Melovski, Lj., Jovanovska, D. and Avukatov, V. 2015. Landscape diversity in Bregalnica Watershed. Finalreport of the project “Ecological Data Gap Analysis and Ecological Sensitivity Map Development for the
Bregalnica River Watershed”, Book 3, Skopje, 18-21.
Mitkova, T. and Mitrikeski, J. 2005. Soils of the Republic of Macedonia: Present situation and future prospects.
European Soil Bureau, 225-234.
Pulido, J. and Bocco, G. 2014. Local perception of land degradation in developing countries: A simplified
analytical framework of driving forces, processes, indicators and coping strategies. Living Rev. LandscapeRes, 8.
State Statistical Office. 2002. Census of population, households and dwellings in the Republic of Macedonia,
2002 - Book XIII.
Zikov, M. 1995. Climate and climate regionalization in Republic of Macedonia. Geographical consideration,
Skopje 30, 13-21.

Ⓒ ISERD

19