Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environmental Science and Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci Towards sustaining watershed management practices in Ethiopia: A synthesis of local perception, community participation, adoption and livelihoods Fekadu Mengistu a, *, Engdawork Assefa b a Debre Berhan University, Ethiopia b Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Watershed management Perception Participation Livelihoods Sustainability Gibe basin of Ethiopia ABSTRACT The sustainability of the environmental management programs such as watershed intervention program relies on the understanding of the nexus of the community’s perception, participation, and livelihoods. However, there are little studies on the interactions of these very important parameters. This study examined the nexus of farmers’ perception, participation, livelihoods and their implication for sustaining watershed management program in Ethiopia, case of upper Gibe basin. To this end, household survey, focus group discussion and key informant interview were employed to collect and analyze the data. Likert-scale was used to rate the indicators or items of perception, participation, socio-ecological indicators; Coefcient of Crobach alpha to test the reliability of items; Independent t-test to compare the mean value of livelihood assets between program participant and non- par- ticipant households and Rader diagram to depict the overall livelihood assets value. Descriptive (mean, per- centage) analysis was use summarize the results of local perception, community participation, socio-ecological benefts of watershed management while, chi-square statistics were applied to analyze the association between important components of watershed management such as local perception, community participation, intensity of adoption and livelihoods. The results of the study indicated that local communities were well aware of the degradation of watershed as a problem constraining agricultural production in their farm lands and surrounding landscapes. Problems of watershed degradation were better perceived in the upper and middle topographic settings and for watershed program participant households implying the need for site-specifc appropriate wa- tershed management alternatives. While the ecological benefts of watershed management were perceived better in the upper topographic areas, the socio economic benefts were in the middle and lower areas suggesting an integrated approach to address the biophysical and socioeconomic conditions. The overall community partici- pation index value showed moderate levels of participation indicating that only some decisions were taken in consultation with local people. Specifc adoption rates for many of the practices and the intensity of adoption were low. There were gaps in the progress of the fve dimensions of livelihood assets-human, natural, fnancial, social, physical. The interaction of perception, participation and livelihoods in watershed management practices suggested more participatory and integrated approach need to be encouraged to upscale and sustaining of watershed management practices. Less awareness and extension services, lack of fnance, interest in short-term agricultural production are the major challenges constraining the sustainability of watershed management. Hence, local administrators and planners need to recognize heterogeneity in households’ socio economic and topographic specifc characteristics as well as the aforementioned constraints so as to involve community fully in various activities of watershed management. The nexus between watershed management and ecosystem ser- vices, climate change and variability are areas for future research. 1. Introduction A watershed can be defned as any surface area from which runof resulting from rainfall is collected and drained through a common outlet (Kumar and Sharma, 2013). The term is synonymous with a drainage basin or catchment area (Desta et al., 2005). It is a hydrologic unit that has been described and used both as a bio-physical unit and as a socio-economic unit for planning and implementing resource https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.019 Received 7 February 2020; Received in revised form 11 June 2020; Accepted 22 June 2020 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: fekadumengistu97@yahoo.com (F. Mengistu), eassefat5@gmail.com (E. Assefa). Environmental Science and Policy 112 (2020) 414–430 1462-9011/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. T