Comparative Profitability Analysis of Monoculture and Intercropping Land-Use Systems: The Case of Smallholder Farmers in North-Western Ethiopia

Abstract

Tree plantations have become a common economic activity in the Ethiopian Highlands, particularly in our study areas. This is mainly due to the degradation and restrictions of natural forests, the introduction and expansion of fast-growing tree species, and the potential short-term economic benefits of woodlot plantations. Our research was conducted in Dangila and the nearby Adiskedam Woreda in North-western Ethiopia to evaluate the profitability of monoculture and intercropping land-use systems. We used the land expectation value (LEV) model developed by Faustmann to assess the profitability of the different land-use systems in the study area. We obtained production costs and benefits of the land-use system from the farmers through questionnaires and key informant interviews. Data analysis was carried out using Excel (2016) and SPSS statistical software. The findings revealed that the Acacia decurrens (Ad) farming practice showed the highest LEV at all interest levels, followed by intercropping land use. At a 15% interest rate, the eucalyptus with maize (E + M) land-use system was the second most profitable with a value of 3677.5 USD. However, at 5% and 2% interest rates, the Ad with maize (Ad + M) land-use system demonstrated the second highest LEV of 14,585.6 and 39,695.1 USD, respectively. The M land-use system had the lowest LEV at all interest rates except at a 15% interest rate. The sensitivity analysis showed that fluctuations in product prices significantly impacted all land use systems, except M. In addition, changes in interest rates were the secondary factor affecting the Ad, E, and Ad + M land-use systems. The LEV of M monoculture was notably influenced by the wage rate; however, it had the least impact on the other land-use systems. Taking into account the interests of farmers, the profitability of land-use systems, and the perception of farmers concerning adjacent land productivity, Ad and Ad intercropping with the M farming systems are recommended, and identifying the optimal mix of intercropping and optimum tree rotation age is fundamental in the future, which could increase productivity and make the farmer more profitable.

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Introduction and Justifications

The majority of Ethiopia’s populace resides in rural areas and heavily depends on agriculture and natural resources. With the increasing demand for food, livestock feed, and energy, there has been a noteworthy surge in land conversion for agricultural purposes [1–3], particularly forest and pastureland, which leads to the deterioration of land resources as cumulative effects [4]. In response to these issues, the Ethiopian government has initiated the establishment of protected forest areas and devised a strategy to counter this situation through tree-planting activities [5].

Tree plantations have become a widespread economic activity in the Ethiopian Highlands, primarily due to the degradation and access restrictions of natural forests, the introduction and expansion of fast-growing tree species like eucalyptus (E) species [6], as well as the awareness of smallholders about the financial benefits of plantations [7–9]. In the studied areas, farmers have replaced their farmlands, mainly cropland and rangeland, with E and Acacia decurrens (Ad), unlike most of the other areas in the country [1, 2], primarily due to their rapid growth and potential short-term economic benefits from the sale of wood products and charcoal [10–12]. This transition has primarily led to the conversion of crop and rangeland to woodlot management, which improved the forest cover at a rate of 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2015 [13]. Other authors also present evidence of increase in land use of Ad in comparison with agriculture, grassland, and wetlands [5, 14]. The introduction of these species has improved land-use diversity in the study area through intercropping land-use systems [13, 15], enabling the cultivation of crops or livestock feed alongside trees as intercrops, particularly during the first 2 years of plantation. Furthermore, the value of wood in the country has increased due to the rising need for firewood consumption caused by population expansion, construction material needs, and other socioeconomic situations [12, 16].

Following the land-use diversification in the study area, some authors study on Ad land-use system [17, 18] using a cost-benefit analysis model. However, this research used the land expectation value (LEV) model for two main reasons: (1) to include the environmental value of trees that are not considered during the benefits model and (2) the past studies were only focused on Ad woodlots, even though there is a diversified land-use system, but we focused not only on Ad but also compared the profitability of intercropping land-use systems, sole plantations, and maize (M) land-use systems using the LEV model. Furthermore, we did a sensitivity analysis that was not covered during the past studies since prices of products and capital have continued to fluctuate over time; a sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the effects of the change in prices of products, the wage rate, and the interest rate on the LEV of the land-use systems.

Broadly, this study sought to assess the profitability of tree plantations (Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Ad) as well as M and tree–M intercropping land-use systems in North-western Ethiopia’s Amhara Region. Farmers can leverage the findings of this research to determine and allocate their limited resources toward more financially rewarding agricultural practices. Furthermore, this information can foster constructive dialog between farmers and local land-use planning authorities within the study area.

1.1. Outline

1. Abstract and funding

2. Introduction

⁃ Background information

⁃ Justifications

⁃ Objectives

3. Methodology

⁃ Land expectation value formulas:

• Acacia decurrens

• Maize

• Intercropping and

• Eucalyptus

⁃ Study area and data collection

4. Results and discussion

⁃ Comparison of LEV of land-use systems

⁃ Comparison of LEV of land-use systems when the wage rate increased by 20%

⁃ Comparison of LEV of land-use systems when the product price increased by 20%

⁃ Sensitivity analysis (when the price product, interest rate, and wage rate changes)

5. Conclusions and recommendations

6. Acknowledgment

7. References

2. Methodology

Efficiency in land use is achieved when the land is used to create the highest rent or land values. Various criteria can be used to evaluate an investment in forestry and other land use options. The net present value, benefit-cost ratio, and internal rate of return are some of the most widely used land-use valuation models [19, 20]. However, the criteria may not always be the same; when two crops have different duration, to use the net present value model, the present value should be annualized or convert the value to an equivalent term at a given period. For this condition, we can use the special case of the net present value of perpetual land management, which is equivalent to the LEV [21]. Annual crops that have been produced in perpetual conditions also use the Faustmann model to compute the land value [22].

The Faustmann method compounded all costs and revenues, except for the cost of land, until the end of the rotation to calculate a net future value for each rotation [23]. This calculated net present value forms the LEV and indicates the maximum value for the land. Depending on the conditions and types of farming activity used, the original Faustmann formula can be extended to accommodate the annual income flow from tree plantations and other land-use systems.

The LEV equation for Ad is as follows [21]:$$\begin{array}{}\text{(1)}& {\text{LEV}}_{\text{Ad}}=\frac{{-\mathrm{C}}_{\text{reg}}\mathrm{x}{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}}+{\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{h}}}{{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}}-1},\end{array}$$where LEV_Ad is the LEV of Ad starting from bare land assuming perpetual land management; C_reg is the regeneration cost of Ad; q^T is the interest factor at T time; ${\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{h}}$ harvesting value of Ad; and T is rotation time.

The LEV equation for M is as follows [22]:$$\begin{array}{}\text{(2)}& {\text{LEV}}_{\mathrm{M}}={\text{NR}}_0+\frac{{\text{NR}}_{\mathrm{M}}}{\mathrm{i}},\end{array}$$where LEV_M is the LEV of M assuming perpetual land management; NR₀ is the net revenue of the first M production (3 months); NR_M is the net revenue of M after the first production under the perpetual production; and i is the interest rate in the local area.

The LEV equation for intercropping has been extended from the original Faustmann model to account for the annual cashflow from tree plantings and maize.$$\begin{array}{}\text{(3)}& {\text{LEV}}_{\text{Ad}ᴖ\mathrm{M}}=-{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{x}{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}}+\frac{\text{RM}\mathrm{x}{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}-1}+\text{Vh}}{{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}}-1},\text{(4)}& {\text{LEV}}_{\mathrm{E}ᴖ\mathrm{M}}=-{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{x}{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}}+\frac{\text{RM}\mathrm{x}{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}-1}+\text{Vh}}{{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}}-1},\end{array}$$where LEV_AdᴖM is the LEV of intercropping of Ad and M assuming the perpetual production; Ct is the total cost of production; RM is the revenue of maize during the first year; and LEV_EᴖM is LEV of intercropping of E and M assuming the perpetual production.

The LEV equation for E has been extended from the original Faustmann model to account for cashflow from future tree management and final tree harvest.$$\begin{array}{}\text{(5)}& {\text{LEV}}_{\mathrm{E}}=-{\mathrm{C}}_{\text{reg}}+\frac{{\text{NR}}_1}{{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}1}}+\frac{{\text{NR}}_2}{{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}2}}+\frac{{\text{NR}}_3}{{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}3}}+\frac{{\mathrm{q}}^{{\text{NR}}_4/\mathrm{T}1}-1}{{\mathrm{q}}^{\mathrm{T}3}},\end{array}$$where LEV_E is the LEV of E plantation assuming the perpetual production; Creg is the total cost of regeneration; NR₁, NR₂, NR₃, and NR₄ are net production during the first, second, third, and fourth harvests; and q^T1, q^T2, q^T3, and q^T4 are interest factors used during 5, 10, 15, and 20 years of harvests.

2.1. Study Area and Data Collection

Dangila Woreda is one of the districts in Awi zone Amhara region, Ethiopia. Geographically, Dangila is found 11.3° 15′ N and 36°50′ E with an elevation of 2137 m above the sea level. This district has been practicing different land-use systems and it has the potential for the production of many crops and is favorable for livestock farming. The general climate is moist subtropical and limited coverage of cold and warm climates. It has a mean annual temperature of about 17°C and a mean annual rainfall is 1578 mm. The dominant soil types are Acrisols and Nitosols [24]. E species have been successfully expanded across the Northern and north-western highlands [25]. Besides eucalyptus species, Ad has been grown extensively in the Amhara region, Northwestern Ethiopia [17]. These two species are the dominant and economically important species in the study area.

Three kebeles were selected based on the resource of tree plantation and maize production practices from Dangila and neighboring Adiskedam woreda, Amhara region. Data for monoculture eucalyptus, monoculture maize, and intercropping land-use systems were collected from Dangila woreda (Gult Abshikan and Gaita), whereas data for monoculture Ad were collected from the neighboring kebele of Adiskedam Woreda. Purposive sampling was used to select the kebele and household farmers. In total, 50 households were considered for the financial and perception data collection in Dangila woreda (Gult Abshikan and Gaita kebelle) and Adiskedam woreda (Abona kebele), and one group discussion was attended in Gult Abshikan kebelle. Three types of interest rate levels were identified in the study area. Higher interest rates (15%) from the credit organizations, mid (5%) from the social and religious groups, and lower (2%) interest rates were identified from the payment of land rent and the price of land.

The tree plantation management has a unique and essential feature in the study area. Mostly, in the first year of tree establishment, farmers do not plant trees without mixing them with crops. Once the farmer prepares the land for crop production, they plant tree seedlings after 35/40 days of sowing the crops. They use a rotation of 5 years for Ad. The farmer harvests E mostly within 5 years and uses a coppice system for the next generation. The price of E was, therefore, collected for the last 20 years, i.e., up to a third coppice. The average price for E was determined by four farmers from each stand, with the exception of the third coppice, which had three farmers (stands without harvest, first coppice, second coppice, and third coppice). Financial data were collected for Ad over 5 years (Table 1), for E over 21 years (Table 2), and for M over 1 year (Table 3), as presented above. These data were recorded in Excel, and the LEV model was employed to calculate the profitability of each land use system. Sensitivity analysis was also used to forecast the effects of product price, wage, and interest rate changes on LEV.

Table 1

The average cost structure of monoculture Acacia decurrens plantation for 1 ha of land (developed by authors).

Year	Activities	Measurements	Quantity	Cost ($)
0	Land preparation	Man/day	21	91
	Seedling number	Number	29,500	486.7
	Planting labor	Man/day	21	91.2
1	Seedling replacement	Number	6000	93.8
	Seedling rep. labor	Man/day	4	19.5
	Weeding/tending labor	Man/day	10	43.4
5	Harvesting/charcoal production labor	Man/day	109.7	482.5
	Transportation	Sacs (50 kg)	3100.0	215.4

Table 2

The average cost structure of a monoculture eucalyptus plantation for 1 ha of land (developed by authors).

Year	Activities	Measurements	Quantity	Cost ($)
0	Land preparation labor	Man/day	31.64	139.96
	Seedling number	Number	14,727.41	199.50
	Planting labor	Man/day	18.43	81.90
1	Seedling replacement number	Number	1443.43	22.06
	Seedling replacement labor	Man/day	6.94	31.24
	Weeding/tending labor	Man/day	13.75	62.57
5	Cleaning and fencing			201.26
6	Coppice Mg’t			50.69
10	Cleaning and fencing			201.26
11	Coppice Mg’t			50.69
15	Cleaning and fencing			201.26
16	Coppice Mg’t			50.69
20	Cleaning and fencing			201.26
21	Coppice Mg’t			50.69

Table 3

The average cost structure of monoculture maize production for 1 ha of land (developed by authors).

Year	Activities	Measurement	Quantity	Cost ($)
0	Land preparation labor	Man/day	64	294.55
	Seed cost	10 kg	3.5	80.24
	Fertilizer cost	50 kg	4	119.49
	Sowing labor	Man/day	16	75.03
	Weeding labor	Man/day	32	150.05
	Herbicide cost	Litter	2	49.32
	Harvesting labor	Man/day	20	97.26

3. Results and Discussion

One of the primary factors influencing household decisions to invest in tree growth is the profitability of the investment. In this study, all land-use systems demonstrated profitability across all interest rate levels. Notably, due to the higher market price of Ad, its land-use system exhibited the highest LEV at every interest rate level, as illustrated in Figure 1. The financial data were collected for one production cycle for both E and Ad. Specifically, the data encompassed the last 5 years for Ad and 20 years for E. This extended time frame for E has contributed to a lower average price for the monoculture eucalyptus land-use system, especially in light of the recent increase in wood prices in the study area. At a 15% interest rate, the E + M combination ranked as the second-most profitable land-use system, following Ad. In contrast, at the lower interest rates of 5% and 2%, the Ad + M farming system achieved the second highest LEV, again trailing Ad. The M land-use system consistently exhibited the lowest LEV across all interest rate levels, with the exception of the 15% scenario. This diminished profitability is largely due to the higher labor investment required for maize cultivation compared to the other land-use systems. The labor-intensive nature of M farming, coupled with rising labor costs, adversely affects its economic viability, particularly at lower interest rates. This trend highlights the relative advantages of tree-based systems such as Ad and the E + M combination in delivering superior financial returns.

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

Several scholars have conducted comparative analyses of the financial returns associated with tree-based land-use systems and cereal crop farming systems. Comparing our results with other studies, one should note that the methods of use would differ between studies. These include techniques of accounting for planting costs and other inputs, sample sizes considered, and locally known interviewers are some of the differences to be noted [26]. Ad was the most profitable land-use system, followed by intercropping and E. However, a notable exception to this pattern is the performance of M, which outperformed E at a 15% interest rate. This finding can largely be explained by the labor dynamics in the study area, where tree-based systems, such as those involving Ad and E, require significantly less labor input than maize cultivation. As labor costs continue to rise in the region, the economic efficiency of tree-based systems becomes increasingly apparent, contributing to their higher profitability compared to labor-intensive crops like M. Kassie et al. [17] conducted a detailed examination of Ad-based farming systems in northwestern Ethiopia. The study highlighted the significant financial advantages of Ad plantations, noting that farmers in the region earned three to five times higher net benefits from these plantations compared to traditional cereal crops, such as teff, wheat, and barley. Further evidence supporting the economic superiority of wood-based monoculture systems comes from Ayana and Lejissa [27], who investigated land-use profitability in southern Ethiopia. Their research concluded that wood-based monoculture systems, such as those utilizing Ad, consistently outperformed both monoculture cereal crop systems and tree-cereal mixed farming systems. In line with the abovementioned articles, the expansion of Ad tree woodlots has been established by the local farmers in the last decade in the study area to generate cash income by producing charcoal [5]. However, when comparing the LEV of E with Ad in our study, Ad demonstrated a superior financial performance. This is largely attributed to the lower average price of E, which was derived from historical data over the past 20 years. Although the price of wood has increased more recently in the study area, the long-term average price for E remained relatively low compared to Ad. As a result, despite the recent surge in wood prices, the financial returns from Ad plantations were consistently higher due to its stronger market performance and greater profitability over time.

Since wage rates and product prices fluctuate over time in the study area, these changes have significantly impacted the LEV of various land-use systems. The dynamic nature of wage and price adjustments has resulted in substantial shifts in the profitability and sustainability of each land-use option. When wage rates and product prices change by 20%, these fluctuations can either enhance or diminish the financial viability of different land-use systems. Figures 2 and 3 provide a detailed analysis of how a 20% increase or decrease in wage rates and product prices affects the LEV of different land-use systems in the study area.

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

In Figure 2, the analysis reveals that E plantations outperform M production at all interest rate levels when the wage rate increases by 20%, assuming a constant product price. E proves to be a more resilient option in scenarios where labor costs rise, given its lower labor requirements compared to M. At a lower interest rate of 2%, E is the second-best land-use system, reflecting its relatively favorable financial returns in conditions of minimal discounting. At a 5% interest rate, E ranks as the third-best land-use option, indicating that it remains competitive at moderate interest levels. However, at a 15% interest rate, the LEV of E plantations drops to the second lowest among the compared systems, just above M. This decline is primarily due to the longer production cycle of E, combined with the relatively low mean price of wood over the past 20 years. Despite recent increases in wood prices, the long-term price trend has been modest, which reduces the profitability of E plantations at higher discount rates, where future returns are more heavily discounted. Since M production consumes more labor compared to the other land-use systems, it had the least LEV than the other land-use systems. A study conducted in the highlands of Awi Zone, Ethiopia, indicated that farmers are deriving significant economic benefits from Ad plantations while simultaneously conserving their soils. The findings reveal that all financial viability indicators demonstrate the high profitability of investing in Ad compared to annual crops [10].

Similarly, a study done in Hainan, China, by Guo et al. [21] found that the profitability of tea production significantly declined and ultimately became unprofitable when the wage rate increased by 30% or more. This decline was primarily attributed to the higher labor costs associated with tea production, which is inherently labor intensive. As wage rates rose, the cost of maintaining tea plantations and harvesting tea leaves increased, eroding profit margins and making the cultivation of tea less economically viable. This case underscores the sensitivity of labor-dependent agricultural systems to fluctuations in wage rates, highlighting the potential challenges faced by farmers in adapting to rising labor costs.

Figure 3 illustrates the changes in LEVs when product prices increase by 20% while maintaining a constant wage rate. At higher interest rates of 15%, the M land-use system achieved the second-best LEV, following Ad. However, as interest rates decline to 5% and 2%, M becomes the least profitable land-use option. Overall, an increase in product prices at a constant wage rate led to heightened profitability across all land-use systems. Notably, the M land-use system experienced a more significant increase in profitability compared to the other systems at higher interest rates. This trend underscores the sensitivity of agricultural profitability to market price fluctuations, particularly in labor-intensive systems like M, which can capitalize on favorable market conditions despite its overall lower LEV at reduced interest rates. Both rubber–tea intercropping and rubber monoculture become more profitable when the rubber price increases [21]; however, in our study both timber and M product prices increased by 20%, causing higher LEV of M land-use system compared to others except the Ad land-use system. This may have resulted due to a longer rotation period of wood harvest in both intercropping and E land-use systems. In the other condition, the product price of Ad was higher since its charcoal product had better quality and price in the study area, which caused better LEV under all conditions.

Given the rapid fluctuations in product prices, wage rates, and interest rates in the country, conducting a sensitivity analysis is crucial. This analysis allows for the evaluation of how these changes can impact the profitability of various land-use systems. By understanding the relationships between these economic factors and their effects on financial outcomes, stakeholders can make informed decisions and develop strategies to mitigate risks associated with market volatility. The results of sensitivity analyses are presented in Figures 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), and 4(e). With the exception of the M land-use system, the LEV of all other land-use systems was significantly influenced by product prices, as illustrated in Figures 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d). When these variables experienced increases or decreases of 20% or more, it became evident that all land-use systems exhibited greater sensitivity to changes in product prices compared to fluctuations in other variables such as wage rates and interest rates. Some authors discussed the sensitivity of different land use under different variables. Changes in commodity prices have a significant impact on profitability, particularly in woodlot and home garden agroforestry systems, as highlighted by Bekele [19]. She further explained that a 10% reduction in the price of the main product of home garden agroforestry has a reduction of 104,245 ET birr (3621 USD) per hectare of production, which is 33.3% of the net present value of the land-use system. The second most important variable that influenced the profitability of E, Ad, and intercropping of Ad with M land use was the interest rate. Rubber–tea intercropping was more sensitive to the interest rate change because it needs more investment at the beginning of the production cycle than the monoculture tea and rubber farming system [21]. In this study, the timber-based land-use system needs more investment due to higher seedling costs. The variable that less affects most of the land-use system except M was the wage rate. M land use was more affected by the wage rate due to the high-wage labor needed for M production. Our social data also supported that M production needs more labor (90%) compared to plantation land-use systems. Moreover, there is a shortage of labor during the on-farm season due to labor migration from rural areas to towns. This shows that labor has become a limiting factor in the region, which could influence the profitability of the land-use system and lead to a shift toward a low labor-farming system. A study conducted in Menagesha Suba, Ethiopia, found that homestead and combined homestead land-use systems were particularly affected by changes in labor costs. This heightened sensitivity is primarily attributed to the labor-intensive nature of the homestead land-use system, which relies heavily on manual labor for tasks such as planting, maintenance, and harvesting [28]. Likewise, a study in China, Hainan, proved that monoculture tea production needs more labor than rubber tree farming. The LEV of tea decreased below the rubber and rubber–tea intercropping, when the wage rate increased by 15% and became unprofitable under 30% of wage increment [21].

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

Under the different market conditions, the price of products is determined differently and could influence the profitability of the land-use system. In a closed market economy, all prices of products are determined by the domestic market. However, in a partially open market economy, only certain product prices are determined by the domestic market [29] and our country follows such kinds of market conditions. Timber product markets are located at different locations on the roadside in the study area, which lacks an organized market environment. These could make timber prices more affected by the local market and plantation land-use profitability is more sensitive to product price change compared to crop land-use system.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

In the country, both cereal and wood products are insufficient. There is a tradeoff between cereals and wood products in the study area; increasing the production of timber products means reducing cereals products. This study sought to assess the profitability of tree-based monoculture as well as M and tree-maize intercropping land-use systems in North-western Ethiopia’s Amhara Region. Financial data for monoculture eucalyptus, monoculture maize, and intercropping land-use systems were collected from Dangila woreda (Gult Abshikan and Gaita), whereas data for monoculture acacia decurrens were collected from the neighboring kebele of Adiskedam Woreda. The Faustmann method and others driven from it were also used to evaluate the land-use system in the study area.

In conclusion, all land-use systems analyzed in the study area were found to be profitable under the current cost and return conditions. Notably, the land-use system involving Ad demonstrated the highest LEV at every interest rate level, primarily due to its elevated market price. However, taking into account the interests of farmers, the profitability, and the perception of farmers concerning adjacent land productivity, Ad, and Ad intercropping with the M farming system should be promoted. The land-use change in the study area is shifting in a positive direction, reflecting an increasing adoption of more profitable and sustainable practices. This transition indicates that farmers are recognizing the economic advantages of Ad and its potential for intercropping with maize. Yet, the expansion of E land-use should be limited, considering its impact on the neighboring land productivity and lower benefits compared to the Ad land-use system. However, we did not study either the optimal mix of maize and tree plantation or the optimal rotation age of the plantation due to a lack of data. The land-use comparison was not based on an optimum condition; rather, it was based on current farmer practices. Therefore, further study is needed to make it sufficient for ranking. In the future, it is necessary to identify the optimal mix of intercropping and optimum tree rotation age, which could increase productivity and make the farmer more profitable.

Funding

The authors would like to thank the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) for the financial support to conduct this research in Ethiopia, as well as the two-year scholarship coverage in Germany (750 euros in the first and 850 euros in the second years) [30].

References

[1] D. A. Malede, T. Alamirew, J. R. Kosgie, T. G. Andualem, "Analysis of Land Use/Land Cover Change Trends Over Birr River Watershed, Abbay Basin, Ethiopia," Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, vol. 17,DOI: 10.1016/j.indic.2022.100222, 2023.

[2] M. S. Regasa, M. Nones, D. Adeba, "A Review on Land Use and Land Cover Change in Ethiopian Basins," Land, vol. 10 no. 6, pp. 585-618, DOI: 10.3390/land10060585, 2021.

[3] A. Wassie, F. J. Sterck, D. Teketay, F. Bongers, "Effects of Livestock Exclusion on Tree Regeneration in Church Forests of Ethiopia," Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 257 no. 3, pp. 765-772, DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.07.032, 2009.

[4] E. Molla, K. Getnet, M. Mekonnen, "Land Use Change and its Effect on Selected Soil Properties in the Northwest Highlands of Ethiopia," Heliyon, vol. 8 no. 8,DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10157, 2022.

[5] T. Endalew, M. Anteneh, "Acacia decurrens Tree Plantations Brought Land Use Land Cover Change in Northwestern of Ethiopia," SN Applied Sciences, vol. 5 no. 11,DOI: 10.1007/s42452-023-05523-4, 2023.

[6] B. Zerga, B. Warkineh, D. Teketay, M. Woldetsadik, M. Sahle, "Land Use and Land Cover Changes Driven by Expansion of Eucalypt Plantations in the Western Gurage Watersheds, Centeral-South Ethiopia," Trees, Forests and People, vol. 5,DOI: 10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100087, 2021.

[7] A. Birara Dessie, T. Mire Abate, T. Melese Mekie, "Eucalyptus: The Popular Exotic Tree Crop in Ethiopia," Acta Scientific Agriculture, vol. 3 no. 9, pp. 50-56, DOI: 10.31080/ASAG.2019.03.0607, 2019.

[8] S. B. Wassie, "Natural Resource Degradation Tendencies in Ethiopia: A Review," Environmental Systems Research,DOI: 10.1186/s40068-020-00194-1, 2020.

[9] G. Y. Wendimu, "The Challenges and Prospects of Ethiopian Agriculture the Challenges and Prospects of Ethiopian Agriculture," Cogent Food & Agriculture, vol. 7 no. 1,DOI: 10.1080/23311932.2021.1923619, 2021.

[10] Y. Chanie, A. Abewa, "Expansion of Acacia decurrens Plantation on the Acidic Highlands of Awi Zone, Ethiopia, and its Socio-Economic Benefits," Cogent Food & Agriculture, vol. 7 no. 1,DOI: 10.1080/23311932.2021.1917150, 2021.

[11] Z. Nigussie, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn, "The Impacts of Acacia decurrens Plantations on Livelihoods in Rural Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, vol. 100,DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104928, 2021.

[12] B. Zerga, B. Warkineh, D. Teketay, M. Woldetsadik, "Perceptions on Impacts of Competition of Eucalypt Plantations With Other Land Uses on the Rural Livelihood in the Western Gurage Watersheds, Central-South Ethiopia," Research Square, vol. 12 no. 5, 2021. https://europepmc.org/article/PPR/PPR349614

[13] M. Wondie, W. Mekuria, "Planting of Acacia decurrens and Dynamics of Land Cover Change in Fagita Lekoma District in the Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia," Mountain Research and Development, vol. 38 no. 3, pp. 230-239, DOI: 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00082.1, 2018.

[14] A. Afework, A. S. Minale, D. Teketay, B. Terefe, "Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Acacia decurrens Plantations in Awi Zone Highlands, Northwest Ethiopia," Papers in Applied Geography, vol. 9 no. 4, pp. 442-463, DOI: 10.1080/23754931.2023.2243956, 2023.

[15] A. Kassie, E. Adgo, H. Kassa, Z. Nigussie, A. T. and N. H. Tsugiyuki Masunaga, Acacia decurrens Tree-Based Farming System for Improving Land Restoration and Income: A Case Study of Farmers’ Practice in Northwestern Ethiopia, 2016.

[16] G. M. Bona, Z. D. Yigezu, "Rural Energy Source and its Contribution to Climate Change: The Case of Negele Arsi District, Oromia Region, Ethiopia," The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2024 no. 1,DOI: 10.1155/2024/9309905, 2024.

[17] A. Kassie, E. Adgo, H. Kassa, "Acacia decurrens Tree-Based Farming System for Improving Land Restoration and Income: A Case Study of Farmers’ Practice in Northwestern Ethiopia (Issue January 2016)," ,DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4672.6165, 2015.

[18] Z. Nigussie, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn, "Factors Affecting Small-Scale Farmers’ Land Allocation and Tree Density Decisions in An Acacia decurrens -Based Taungya System in Fagita Lekoma District, North-Western Ethiopia," Small-Scale Forestry, vol. 16 no. 2, pp. 219-233, DOI: 10.1007/s11842-016-9352-z, 2017.

[19] S. Bekele, Financial Analysis of Smallholder Farmers’ Woodlot and Homestead Agroforestry Systems and its Implications for Household Income Improvement; the Case of Hawassa Zuria, Ethiopia (Issue November), 2018.

[20] J. B. Friday, C. Cabal, J. Yanagida, Financial Analysis for Tree Farming in Hawaii, 2000.

[21] Z. Guo, Y. Zhang, P. Deegen, H. Uibrig, "Economic Analyses of Rubber and Tea Plantations and Rubber-Tea Intercropping in Hainan, China," Agroforestry Systems, vol. 66 no. 2, pp. 117-127, DOI: 10.1007/s10457-005-4676-2, 2006.

[22] S. H. Bullard, T. J. Straka, "Basic Concepts in Forest Valuation and Investment Analysis," Global Property Investment,DOI: 10.1002/9781444347289.ch5, 2011.

[23] B. T. J. Straka, "Valuation of Bare Forestland and Premerchantable Timber Stands in Forestry Appraisal," Journal of the ASFMRA, pp. 142-146, DOI: 10.1007/s005350200048, 2007.

[24] A. Getnet, A. Abiyu, G. Kendie, T. S. Biazen Endalamaw, A. Tsegaye, Gondar, "Evolution and Magnitude of Land Cover Changes in Fagita Lekoma District, Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia Menale," Proceedings of the 9th Annual Regional Conference on Compeleted Research Activities of Forestry, pp. 24-30, 2017.

[25] A. Abiyu, D. Teketay, G. Gratzer, M. Shete, "Tree Planting by Smallholder Farmers in the Upper Catchment of Lake Tana Watershed, Northwest Ethiopia," Small-Scale Forestry, vol. 15 no. 2, pp. 199-212, DOI: 10.1007/s11842-015-9317-7, 2016.

[26] B. D. Matthies, A. A. Karimov, "Financial Drivers of Land Use Decisions: The Case of Smallholder Woodlots in Amhara, Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, vol. 41, pp. 474-483, DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.012, 2014.

[27] A. N. Ayana, L. T. Lejissa, "Comparative Economic Analysis of Three Competing Land Use Types in Southern Ethiopia: Tools for Informed Decision-Making on Land Use Choices," Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, vol. 9 no. 1, pp. 37-45, 2018.

[28] L. A. Duguma, "Financial Analysis of Agroforestry Land Uses and its Implications for Smallholder Farmers Livelihood Improvement in Ethiopia," Agroforestry Systems, vol. 87 no. 1, pp. 217-231, DOI: 10.1007/s10457-012-9537-1, 2013.

[29] P. Deegen, A. Halbritter, "The Pure Market Allocation of Land Between Forestry and Agriculture," Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 97, pp. 122-131, DOI: 10.1016/J.FORPOL.2018.09.014, 2018.

[30] Y. B. Belay, Profitability Analysis of Selected Land-Uses for Smallholder Farmers in Northwestern of Ethiopia, 2019.