\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Socioeconomic Driving Forces of Land use/Cover Dynamics and its Implications in Wallecha Watershed, Southern Ethiopia},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2016-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2016)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2016-01-15}
\title{Socioeconomic Driving Forces of Land use/Cover Dynamics and its Implications in Wallecha Watershed, Southern Ethiopia}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Barana  Babiso}

             \affil[1]{  Wolaita Sodo University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 12 December 2015 Accepted: 5 January 2016 Published: 15 January 2016}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


The objective of this study was to examine land use/cover dynamics and its implications in Wallecha Watershed, Southern Ethiopia. The study referred to have applied perceptions? analyses, descriptive statistics, semi-structured and face to face interviews to identify the causes of the changes. The study showed, high population pressure, which in turn leads to increasing demand for land and trees and change in farming systems, poor institutional and socio-economic settings, lack of land tenure security and inappropriate land use practices were identified as the reasons for the changes. Thus, it was understood that LU/LC is inevitable; that it was occurred at all times in the past, are presently ongoing, and are likely to continue in the future. The changes in LU/LC in the study watershed have both positive (degrading) and negative (enhancing) impacts on particular environmental and ecological changes of the watershed.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{land use/cover, dynamics, expansion, driving forces, wallecha watershed}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
and is one of the major factors of production along with labor and capital and an essential input for housing and food production. Thus, land use is the backbone of agricultural economies and provides substantial economic and social benefits. Land use change is necessary and essential for economic development and social progress.\par
Driving forces are defined by \hyperref[b9]{Holman et al. (2008)} as causes of environmental change which are exogenous to the region. This may be anthropogenic induced climate change, national and international policies or socioeconomic changes. Driving forces are the forces which cause observed landscape change. Briefly, driving forces are the factors which cause changes in a system. They may be social, economical or ecological and may have positive or negative influences.\par
A number of LULC dynamics' studies have been carried in the south west part of Ethiopia at catchment, zone, watershed and village levels. In Gibe valley, the land use changes were perceived to be caused by the combined effects of drought and migration, changes in settlement and land tenure policy, and changes in the severity of the livestock disease, try L Author: Senior Lecturer, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wolaita Sodo University, Ethiopia. e-mail: babieamado@gmail.com panosomosis \hyperref[b14]{(Robin et al., 2000)}. High population pressure, which in turn leads to increasing demand for land and trees, poor institutional and socioeconomic settings, lack of land tenure security and poor infrastructure development were identified as the reasons for the changes in Silte zone \hyperref[b5]{(Daniel, 2008)}. These village case studies in parts of the south west Ethiopia identified large scale plantations expansion, communities' crop field expansion, lack of clear land use plan, change in farming system due to population growth as the causes of the changes. In Awassa watershed, which is located in the south central rift valley of Ethiopia, forest land use change was studied from the perspective of socio-political and geographical factors. The causes for the decline were attributed to geographic properties, socio-political changes, population growth, unstable land tenure principles, agricultural development, and the improvement of transport capacity \hyperref[b8]{(Dessie and Christiansson, 2008)}. The studies referred to have applied perceptions' analyses, descriptive statistics, semi-structured and face to face interviews to identify the causes of the changes.\par
As a result, this study is used to analyze the effect of different hypothesized socio-economic drivers on shares of agricultural land, forest land, and grassland and shrub land uses in the Southern Nations and Nationalities Region of Ethiopia. In this paper the researcher intended to a) discuss the state of the socioeconomic driving forces, b) present the implications socioeconomic drivers on sustainable land management of and, c) propose a standard procedure to study driving forces of landscape change. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Description of the Study Area a) Location}]{Description of the Study Area a) Location}\par
The Wallecha catchment is found in the Southern highlands of Ethiopia, within the Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia and forms the middle course of Bilate drainage system. Astronomically, the watershed is located between 6º53?30? and 7º4?30? N Latitude and 37º48?0? and 37º59?0?E (Fig.  {\ref 1}). It is found within the edge of southern Main Ethiopian Rift System, Northwest of Lake Abaya in Southern Nations Nationalities People's Regional State. More specifically, the watershed lays in Damot Gale Woreda, located at 350km south of Addis Ababa and 153km southwest of Hawassa, capital of SNNPR. percent of the total area falls within wet dega agroclimatic zone, while the remaining 89.2 percent that has elevation between 1751 and 2300 m lies within the wet weina dega agro-climatic zone (Fig.  {\ref 2}). However, these diversified landforms are highly interactive and related to each other via drainage systems and sociocultural condition.\par
The annual average rainfall is around 1185 mm, and the mean annual temperatures fluctuate between 16 and 21°C all along the year (Fig.  {\ref 3}, and 4). The main rainy season is from April to September and presents a bimodal scheme every year. The mean annual temperature of the study area varies from 21°C in the rift valley floor to 16°C on the escarpment mainly due to variations in altitude. This climate enables a Length of Growing Period of almost 300 days. That's why Wolaita farmers carry out two cycles of seasonal cropping (the gaba during the short rainy season from February to July and the sila during the long rainy season from August to December) and sometimes an inter season cycle from December to March. The principal feature of rainfall in most parts of the study watershed is its seasonal character, poor distribution and variability from year to year (Fig.  {\ref 3}   Demographic factors play an important role in the evaluation of the current as well as the potential land use, which is the product of interaction of man with land. High population pressure is a reflection of the incidence of poverty and at the same time a key factor in accelerating deterioration of the natural resources base, particularly forest  {\ref (EFAP, 1994)}. According to the 2007 Ethiopian Population and Housing Census, the Woreda is the most populated in Wolaita zone with a total population of 154, 610 and of which 51 percent were women  {\ref (CSA, 2008)}. As to WBoFED (2013) report, currently the study watershed has a total population of 68238, of which nearly 86 percent lives in moist weina dega (Table1). The Woreda has estimated population density of settlement exceeding 781 persons per km2 which is greater than the zonal average 349 people per km2, and is one of the highest densities in Ethiopia. The growth rate would be higher than 3 percent, with an estimate of the doubling of the population from here to 24 years, which suggests that the site is "a full world which is going on filling"(Le \hyperref[b10]{Gal and Molinier, 2006)}. The area is characterized by high population density that reduced average individual land holding to less than 0.5 ha. According to CSA (2007) the working and life unity of this population is nuclear; on average, families are made up of 6 to 7 persons. Moreover, the rural population of this region is very young; 60 percent of the population is less than 20 years old.  Moreover, according to the regional statistics, the ratio of working farm population to non-working farm population is very weak (0.9 agricultural labourer for one non-working people). It indicates that the great part of the income earned by an agricultural worker will be devoted to meet not only its needs but also those for non-working people (less than 15 years old children, and old people) who depend on him. It will be very difficult to save or to reinvest what has been produced. This in turn created new demands for additional space, food and other resources.\par
ii. Farming System and Crop production\par
The farming system in the study watershed is of subsistence type. The demographic pressure and shortage of farmland has forced farmers to adopt continuous cropping systems abandoning completely even seasonal fallowing. Farmers of the study area pointed out that continuous cultivation of land are the only coping strategy they adopt to provide food for their families. It has been confirmed that the area is recurrently hit by food insecurity mainly because of population pressure, environmental degradation, erratic nature of rainfall; land shortage and lack of modern agricultural implements and input. 
\section[{iii. Land use Pattern}]{iii. Land use Pattern}\par
The land use in the study watershed is based on mixed rain-fed agriculture. More specifically, it is enset-coffee live stock system that combines annual and perennial crops with livestock production (Le \hyperref[b10]{Gal and Molinier, 2006)}. The typical household land use exhibits a spatial pattern in which homes are ringed with enset, coffee, fruit trees and spices. Farmers plant these crops closer to their houses for ease of fertilization with manure and household refuse. Distant fields are occupied by grains, root crops, grazing fields and woodlots. 
\section[{III. Methods}]{III. Methods} 
\section[{a) Data Sources and Methods of Collection}]{a) Data Sources and Methods of Collection}\par
Identifying the pattern of LU/LC and its implication on the landscape was analyzed by using biophysical and socioeconomic survey data. For this research, the necessary data were collected from both primary and secondary sources. They were derived through using questionnaires for structured interviews, semi-structured interviews for indepth face-to-face interviews with key informants, guiding questions for FGD, and checklists for field observation.\par
Data collection was done through a methodological triangulation; this entailed the use of multiple methods to study a phenomenon or a problem. 
\section[{b) Sampling Techniques}]{b) Sampling Techniques}\par
The three selected Kebele Farmers Association (KFAs) where socio-economic survey was conducted in the study watershed include: areas belong to high altitudes (Woshi Gale), middle altitudes (Fate) and lower altitudes (Ade Damot). A total of 145 households (HHs) were selected. The selected sample size was regarded sufficient because more than 5 percent of the study population was included. The sample (n=51) was 7.43 percent of the 686 HHs in Woshi-Gale; (n=42) was 7.39 percent of 568 HHs in Fate whereas it formed 7.54 percent of 689 HHs in Ade Damot KFAs were taken proportionally. Given the relative homogeneity of the subsistence farms in the two agro climatic zones in terms of physical environmental factors and resource endowments, the sample size of each agro climatic zone would be reasonably representative of the population it stood for. Moreover, knowledgeable key informants were included into the study through purposive sampling technique. 
\section[{c) Data Analysis}]{c) Data Analysis}\par
The analytical approach initiated with a background study on literatures (Fig. \hyperref[fig_4]{5}). Then a meeting was held with Wallecha watershed committees and KFA representatives. The meeting was aimed to define the key drivers of the LU/LC change that are susceptible to be affected by any of the elements generated by human activity, exploring the main driving forces affecting the environment, societal response (policy measures) to such unwanted impacts and to consider local people viewpoints about the watershed. As indicated in Table \hyperref[tab_1]{2}, 145 sample households from the three KFAs were studied, of which 38 (27\%) were female headed. They better represent as compared to the percentage of female-headed households in SNNPR (23.3\%) as well as the country as a whole (24.7\%) (CSA, 2008). As indicated in the table 2, household heads in their (25-64) age group make up 85.5 percent of the total sample households. These age groups of household heads are better experienced in land management practices as compared to the other two age groups. As revealed in FGD, young household's heads rapidly deforest their property in their first five years of forest occupation as they seek to establish their farms and provide subsistence for the household. They steadily reduce the annual rates of deforestation with length of occupation, shifting land uses to more permanent crops (enset, sugarcane) and pasture. Nearly 90 percent of the household heads are married while the remaining few are widowed, and divorced. The total population of the sample KFAs has been 1010, of which 506 (50\%) were aged less than 15 and 498 (49.4\%) adults; with a dependency ratio of 102.8 percent. The average family size in the area was 6.97, which is higher than national average (5.4) and majority of households (85\%) have 6-10 members in the family, though there exist disparity throughout the studied KFAs. In traditional society under which the farm economy and consumption tends to be mainly Familycentered; the per capita food availability declines when the number of consumer increases. This is, in fact, one of the reasons for blaming rapid population growth and the resultant large family size.\par
Therefore, under condition of degraded soil, diminished holdings and obsolete production techniques coupled with large family size, especially dependent family members can do nothing for increasing agricultural production.\par
However, according to the perception of village elders, large family size is considered to be an asset for the households; since children at the early ages engaged in looking after cattle, fetching water and fuel wood.\par
ii. Household asset ownership and technology use at Wallecha watershed As indicated in Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3}, assets such as educational attainment of household head, size of land and labor, size of livestock and input uses are the critical factors that affect wise use of resource, farm economic performance and influences food production. It is hypothesized that education would have a great influence for the awareness of farmers regarding the land use land cover change issues. In the study watershed, educational attainment of the household heads was varies at KFA level, though it was nearly 50 percent for literate and illiterate at an aggregate level.\par
Hence, it is assumed that households' food security and size of landholding have a strong positive relation. In the study area, the mean holding size per households was 0.43 ha, which is much less than the national average. Thus, the holding sizes were very small, which indicates high population pressure on existing land resources. Majority of respondents from three parts of the watershed, 49 percent in upper altitude, 48.7 percent in mid altitude and 44.2 in the lower altitude had farm sizes in the range of 0.25 to 0.5 ha. A relatively small proportion (30\%) of the total respondents indicated that their farm size was more than 0.5 ha (Fig. \hyperref[fig_5]{6} and Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3}) even though, slight differences in landholdings was observed at the different parts of the watershed.  The average numbers of fragmented plots a farmer owned and managed were 2.17. Land fragmentation is a constraint to land management and the intensity of cultivation. This was clearly observed in the study area, where peasants planted enset around their homesteads and invested more in their enset fields.\par
A great majority (90\%) of respondents stated that their holdings had decreased over the previous 26 years, for several reasons: 35 percent of the respondents reported that the 1975 land reform and its consequent land redistribution was one of the main factors, while 20 percent attributed the decrease to soil erosion and gully expansion, and 45 percent to increased population pressure.\par
At present, the main way to gain access to land in the study area is by inheritance and share cropping. Moreover, as indicated by key informant (Molliso Ade, the chairman of Fate KFA) there was also a redistribution of communal grassland performed in 2007 to farmers in order to provide land to those who were landless. However, land inheritance is weakening since land shares are too small to be shared. During the interviews of this study, old persons were asked to compare farmland sizes of the past with present sizes. They stated that 60 years ago when they were children a significant portion of the land was covered by forest and grass -unlike today. The extent of cultivated land had enormously increased over time. In particular, steep slopes and lowlands had not been cultivated earlier.\par
Older people suggested that the extent of cultivated land at present is larger than during the Imperial and the Dergue periods.\par
iii. Farming systems in the study watershed A farming system is taken to be an organized decision-making unit in which crop and/or livestock production is carried out with the purpose of satisfying the farmers. Farm as a unit, transfers input into agricultural output and which undergoes changes over time. In the process of adapting cropping patterns and farming techniques to the natural, economic and socio-political conditions of each location and the aims of the farmers, distinct farming systems are developed \hyperref[b7]{(FAO, 2006)}. Moreover, a vital factor that has led to the changes in the pattern of LU/LC is the traditional nature (i.e. inappropriate land use) of the farming system in the study watershed. 
\section[{a. Crop Production}]{a. Crop Production}\par
Crop production is an important farming practice adopted invariably by every farmer in the Wallecha watershed. Due to shortage of land, farmers are compelled to shift from extensification to intensification by increasing labour and other inputs. However, poor farmers do not have access to fertilizers due to its high prices. It is revealed in key informant interview, (Woysha Wonago, aged 68 years), stated that in the previous days growing of barley (hordium vulgarae), and enset (enset ventricosum) in high altitudes is the dominant cropping pattern in the area. But currently in response to the changing climatic condition, declining soil fertility and shrinking farm size peas, beans and wheat are phasing out of the cropping pattern at the expense of sweet potato, taro (boyna) and other HYVs. The driving forces for the expansion of "taro" would be its resistance to harsh climatic condition, and promising yield in less fertile soil, and its large potential to cover household food supply compared to other cereals. 
\section[{b. Livestock Production}]{b. Livestock Production}\par
In mixed farming practices, both livestock and crop productions are carried out simultaneously. Livestock plays an important role in supplementing the livelihood of rural community especially in those areas practicing sedentary agriculture. Besides, livestock is considered as a means of security and coping method during crop failure and natural calamities. Livestock statistics in all KFAs of Wallecha watershed was 327,615 (Woreda Agricultural Office, 2013), but due to increasing human population and shortage of grazing land, per capita livestock was below the optimal size to sustain a sedentary community. Based on the livestock census stated in Table \hyperref[tab_4]{4}, the aggregate stocking level  {\ref (16.}88 LSU per hectare) was more than the carrying capacity of the study area. According to FAO, (1986), the size of grazing land required per livestock unit (TLU) is 1.5 ha. If we consider FAO's estimate, the total grazing land required to the number of livestock unit in the study area should be 253,738.87 hectares. This is more than 25 folds from what is currently available in the study area  {\ref (10,116.72 ha)}.Therefore, in order to support the present livestock population in Wallecha watershed need additional 243,622.15 hectares of grazing land. Perhaps, the number of livestock is increasing with the population that resulted in extremely devastating effect on vegetation and soil quality in the watershed.\par
According to 62 percent of the respondents, the main factor behind the shortage of livestock feed was the expansion of cropland, 18 percent claimed it was the expansion of gullies, while 20 percent claimed that drought was the major cause. Generally, livestock grazing system is based on the cut-and-carry system, utilizing maize leaves and stalks and chopped enset leaves and stems as well.\par
From the ongoing analysis it was evident that the grass lands are over-stocked and deteriorated beyond the carrying capacity and it became the major cause for severe environmental deterioration in the watershed. This condition further aggravates condition of over grazing and soil erosion on the rangelands. The condition was clearly seen in the analysis of satellite images that shrubs and grassland has decreased by 15.62 (1.35\%) per annum during the studied period from 1984-2010 on the same watershed by (Barana B. et al., 2013). 
\section[{iv. Driving Forces for LU/LC Change in Wallecha Watershed}]{iv. Driving Forces for LU/LC Change in Wallecha Watershed}\par
LU/LC change is the result of the interplay of a complex set of drivers that range from natural processes to human intervention. Ethiopia has made three national population and housing surveys in  {\ref 1984, 1994 and 2007.} The population size of the watershed was 25,925 in 1984, 36,006 in 1994, and 59,026 in 2007. An attempt was made to estimate current population size of the watershed and it is found about 68238. The growth rates were calculated on the bases of exponential growth with the growth rate of 3.28, 3.8 and 2.9 percent between 1984-1994, 1994-2007 and 2007-2012 respectively (Table \hyperref[tab_5]{5}; Equation  {\ref 1}). Between 1984 and 2012 the population size in the watershed increased from 25,925 to 68238 which imply that the population more than doubled in size within 28 years. The age dependency ratio was 102.8 percent of which the young accounted 97.57 percent and 4.85 percent for old aged. This indicates that nearly half of the population is young and economically dependent. Hence, human pressure on land resources is not only high but may also continue to be high in the likely future.  
\section[{P2=final year population}]{P2=final year population}\par
Change in population size is the result of either natural increase or in-migration. As can be seen from Table \hyperref[tab_5]{5}, the rate of population increase in the study district has been considerable. Wallecha watershed encompasses Bodity and Shanto towns, which are the market and administrative centres. This eventually triggered the inflow of population to the town. It is evident that at present many developing countries are experiencing fast rates of urbanization, which is partly explained by population increase. Ethiopia is also experiencing a similar trend. One of the measures of urbanization is population size. This fast increasing population is resulting in mounting need for forest and other natural resource products such as wood for fuel, construction. Thus, the unprecedented urban population increase has resulted in resource loss and degradation 
\section[{Year}]{Year}\par
Population Size Growth Rate The land tenure issues in Ethiopia in general and the study watershed in particular is uncertain about farmers' security of rights to the land which in turn led for short-term needs than long-term yield. Moreover, the land tenure system which prevailed after the 1975 land reform gave land users use rights only \hyperref[b5]{(Daniel, 2008)}. This resulted in ecological damage, inappropriate or over-intensive land use and poor land management practices that aggravated LU/LC change. Perhaps, it is an imperative for policy making to design an incentive structure that would reduce forest clearing as access factors are improved and consider land tenure systems that improve security of title to and ownership of land for local communities.\par
High population pressure, which in turn leads to increasing demand for land and trees, poor institutional and socioeconomic settings, lack of land tenure security and inappropriate land use practices were identified as the reasons for the changes. Thus, this study identified tree plantations expansion, communities' crop field expansion, lack of clear land use plan, and change in farming system due to population growth as the causes of the changes. This result is in line with the findings of \hyperref[b5]{Daniel (2008)} and Abate (2011) in the parts of South Western Ethiopia and Borena Woreda in the last 31 years in the Southern Wello respectively. 
\section[{v. Implications of LU/LC changes in Wallecha Watershed}]{v. Implications of LU/LC changes in Wallecha Watershed}\par
The LU/LC is inevitable; that it was occurred at all times in the past, are presently ongoing, and are likely to continue in the future. The changes in LU/LC in the study watershed have both positive (degrading) and negative (enhancing) impacts on particular environmental and ecological changes of the watershed. Potentially, LU/LC may have positive changes and it is partly socially acceptable by the people in the study watershed to fulfill their livelihood. The changes also lead to improvements in soil management and increase in the value added to the land with the increasing population pressure. It was reported that many people plant trees to stop the expansion of gullies into their cropland and grazing areas and thereby they also met their household needs for fuel wood and other necessities. Based on the satellite image analysis on the same watershed, from 2000 to 2010, 61.8 percent of degraded lands were changed into cultivated land (Barana B. et al., 2013). The responses refer to the rehabilitation measures due to the scarcity of cultivable land taken by farmers to alleviate the adverse effects of LU/LC change on their livelihood and the environment. These implications are in a good agreement with that of \hyperref[b5]{Daniel (2008)} the case in the Upper Dijo River catchment at Silt Zone.\par
Taking into account the highly erosive rainfall and rugged topography of the terrain in the area, removal of vegetation cover in the landscape affected the hydrological processes and by implication increases the risk of soil erosion. It became clear from the group discussions that farmers are able to identify soil degradation (loss of soil nutrients and erosion) by reduced yields and followed by poor crop performance. Along the high altitudes group discussion with village elders revealed that the increasing need for fuel wood and farmland forest covers were badly damaged beyond natural regeneration rate. Thus alpine woody covers subsequently gave way to short mountain grass covers. Discussion result further confirmed that before 30 years, current cover types (short grasses and remnant bamboo forest) was occupied by highland forests, bush of herbs, thickets that sheltered numerous wild lives; suggesting that the rate of forest degradation in the area was substantial. In addition to field suvey, FGD confirmed that Bamboo (Arundinaria alpuria), Kosso (Hagenia abyssinica), Kulkual (Euphorbia abyssinica) and Zigba (Podocarpus falcatus) trees have been under great threat and are highly disturbed and encroached by cultivators. Regarding food crops, beans, peas (Pisum sativum) and other cereals and lentils (Lens culinaris) are phasing out by farmers due to their vulnerability to climatic conditions and attacks by pests and wild animals. In the aspiration to develop a SLM on the basis of agriculture and other natural resources, one must recognize the use of environment to produce goods and service, that degradation of any biological resource (in this study, reduction in forest and shrubs and grasslands) is not a sustainable practice. In fact, it is the natural resource base that enables many poor people, particularly those living in vulnerable ecosystems, to avert risks and insecurities today by diversifying their sources of livelihood.\par
From the findings it is recognized that there is a change in the environment which is clearly related to changes in the utilization of the land resources. As the farm households in the study watershed mostly depend on the agricultural sector, the agricultural developments and attempts to improve the livelihood given rise to changes in LU/LC. At times, these changes have beneficial while at other times they had negative and cause adverse impacts on the environment and people's livelihoods.  
\section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par
Socio-economic characteristics are believed to be the major determinant factors in land management practices, of which land use/land cover change is one. High population pressure, which in turn leads to increasing demand for land and trees, poor institutional and socioeconomic settings, lack of land tenure security and inappropriate land use practices were identified as the reasons for the changes. Thus, this study identified tree plantations expansion, communities' crop field expansion, lack of clear land use plan, and change in farming system due to population growth as the causes of the changes. In sum, land use change provides many economic and social benefits, but comes at a substantial economic cost to society. Land conservation is a critical element in achieving long-term economic growth and sustainable development. Land-use change is arguably the most pervasive socioeconomic force driving changes and degradation of ecosystems. Deforestation, urban development, agriculture, and other human activities have substantially altered the Earth's landscape. Such disturbance of the land affects important ecosystem processes and services, which can have wide-ranging and long-term consequences. Therefore, sustainable development policies must address driving forces responsible for these changes, not only for the sustainable management of land resources and regional development. 
\section[{VI. Acknowledgements}]{VI. Acknowledgements}\par
Many people have contributed to the success of this paper. Thank you to all my proofreaders and Debub friends. I am grateful to my interview subjects, named and unnamed, who took time from their busy schedules. 
\section[{Thanks staff members of Damot Gale Woreda}]{Thanks staff members of Damot Gale Woreda}\par
Agriculture Office for giving the required data for my study starting from the Woreda experts up to agricultural DA's in each of the study Kebeles. They welcomed me warmly, providing an unforgettable personal experience.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{42}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}and 4 Fig. 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{134}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}Fig. 1 :Fig. 3 :Fig. 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5}\includegraphics[]{image-5.png}
\caption{\label{fig_4}Fig. 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6}\includegraphics[]{image-6.png}
\caption{\label{fig_5}Fig. 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-7.png}
\caption{\label{fig_6}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.01624203821656051\textwidth}P{0.19490445859872613\textwidth}P{0.1281316348195329\textwidth}P{0.08842887473460723\textwidth}P{0.0018046709129511675\textwidth}P{0.003609341825902335\textwidth}P{0.046921443736730364\textwidth}P{0.034288747346072186\textwidth}P{0.02526539278131635\textwidth}P{0.2616772823779193\textwidth}P{0.04872611464968153\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{9}{l}{Socioeconomic Driving Forces of Land use/Cover Dynamics and its Implications}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{6}{l}{in Wallecha Watershed, Southern Ethiopia}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Year 2016\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 51\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Volume XVI Issue VI Version I\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ( B )\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Global Journal of Human Social Science -\\
\tabcellsep .\tabcellsep \multicolumn{8}{l}{.Population distribution in the watershed, 2012 (Source: WBo FED, 2013)}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{S.N AEZ}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep N\tabcellsep o\tabcellsep of\tabcellsep Area (ha)\tabcellsep Area\tabcellsep HH\tabcellsep Population\tabcellsep Population\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{KFAs}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep (\%)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep size\tabcellsep (\%)\\
1\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Moist Dega}\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1904.5\tabcellsep 18.8\tabcellsep 1486\tabcellsep 9711\tabcellsep 14.24\\
2\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Moist Weina Dega}\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 8211.5\tabcellsep 81.2\tabcellsep 5497\tabcellsep 58527\tabcellsep 85.76\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{10}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 10116\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 6983\tabcellsep 68238\tabcellsep 100\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep © 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US)\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: Source: Field survey, 2013]} 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.07555555555555556\textwidth}P{0.1511111111111111\textwidth}P{0.6233333333333333\textwidth}}
30\%\tabcellsep 23\%\tabcellsep <0.25 ha\\
\tabcellsep 47\%\tabcellsep 0.25-0.5 ha 0.5 and above\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: Source: Field survey, 2013]} 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5267605633802817\textwidth}P{0.07183098591549296\textwidth}P{0.07781690140845071\textwidth}P{0.07382629107981221\textwidth}P{0.09976525821596244\textwidth}}
Volume XVI Issue VI Version I\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Can't read and write\tabcellsep 55\tabcellsep 38\tabcellsep 44\tabcellsep 46\\
Read and write\tabcellsep 45\tabcellsep 62\tabcellsep 56\tabcellsep 54\\
Land holding (\%)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
<0.25\tabcellsep 23.5\tabcellsep 26.8\tabcellsep 17.3\tabcellsep 22.5\\
0.25-0.5\tabcellsep 49\tabcellsep 48.7\tabcellsep 44.2\tabcellsep 47.3\\
0.5 and above\tabcellsep 27.5\tabcellsep 24.5\tabcellsep 38.5\tabcellsep 30.2\\
Number of plots (\%)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
1\tabcellsep 29.4\tabcellsep 41.5\tabcellsep 32.7\tabcellsep 34.5\\
2-3\tabcellsep 57\tabcellsep 51.2\tabcellsep 42.3\tabcellsep 50.2\\
4 and above\tabcellsep 13.6\tabcellsep 7.3\tabcellsep 25\tabcellsep 15.3\\
Livestock holding (\%)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
<3\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep 49\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 45.3\\
3-5\tabcellsep 48\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 45\tabcellsep 44.3\\
5 and above\tabcellsep 15\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 10.4\\
Use of agricultural input\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Chemical fertilizer\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 54\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 48\\
Improved seed varieties\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 35\tabcellsep 31.6\\
Compost and manure\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 15\tabcellsep 20.4\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: 2 ( B )]} 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Educational level of HH (\%)}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.17839506172839506\textwidth}P{0.17839506172839506\textwidth}P{0.20288065843621397\textwidth}P{0.15041152263374485\textwidth}P{0.13991769547325103\textwidth}}
Livestock\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep TLU*\tabcellsep Density/ha\tabcellsep LSU/ha\\
Cattle\tabcellsep 128,300\tabcellsep 128,300\tabcellsep 12.68\tabcellsep 12.68\\
Donkey\tabcellsep 15134\tabcellsep 9837.1\tabcellsep 1.49\tabcellsep 0.97\\
Horse\tabcellsep 5265\tabcellsep 5265\tabcellsep 0.52\tabcellsep 0.52\\
Mule\tabcellsep 4572\tabcellsep 5257.8\tabcellsep 0.45\tabcellsep 0.52\\
Sheep\tabcellsep 78,568\tabcellsep 11,785.2\tabcellsep 7.76\tabcellsep 1.16\\
Goat\tabcellsep 56,795\tabcellsep 8,519.25\tabcellsep 5.6\tabcellsep 0.84\\
Poultry\tabcellsep 38,981\tabcellsep 194.9\tabcellsep 3.85\tabcellsep 0.19\\
Total\tabcellsep 327,615\tabcellsep 169,159.25\tabcellsep 32.35\tabcellsep 16.88\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3144308943089431\textwidth}P{0.359349593495935\textwidth}P{0.17621951219512194\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{3}{l}{The growth rates were calculated on the bases of the assumption of exponential growth:}\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{r= (1/t Log P2/P1) x100 ????????????????............Equation 1}\\
\tabcellsep Log e\tabcellsep \\
Where\tabcellsep r = growth rate\tabcellsep e = approximately 2.72\\
\tabcellsep P1= initial population\tabcellsep t= no. years between P1\& P2.\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US) s} 			\footnote{( B )} 			\footnote{Socioeconomic Driving Forces of Land use/Cover Dynamics and its Implications in Wallecha Watershed, Southern Ethiopia} 			\footnote{© 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 			\footnote{Socioeconomic Driving Forces of Land use/Cover Dynamics and its Implications in Wallecha Watershed, Southern Ethiopia © 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US) s} 			\footnote{( B )} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Gal and Molinier ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{Agricultural and economic analysis-diagnosis of Obe Jage},  		 			Le Gal 		,  		 			E Molinier 		,  		 			N 		.  		2006. Damot Gale, Wolayta.  		 			Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon 		 	 
\bibitem[Agro-Ecological Zones of Ethiopia ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{Agro-Ecological Zones of Ethiopia},  		1998. Addis Ababa.  		 			MOA (Ministry of Agriculture 		 	 	 (Supported by GTZ) 
\bibitem[Ramakrishna and Asefa ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘An Empirical Analysis of Food Insecurity in Ethiopia: The Case of North Wello’.  		 			G Ramakrishna 		,  		 			D Asefa 		.  	 	 		\textit{Africa Development}  		2002. XXVII  (1 -2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fao ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Assessment of Land Use Pressure, State and Response in Sub-Saharan Africa’.  		 			Fao 		.  	 	 		\textit{Terr Africa and the Strategic Investment Programme. State of Land and Water Internal Report-Draft},  				 (Rome: Italy)  		2006.  	 
\bibitem[Damot Gale Woreda Agricultural Office Report ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		\textit{Damot Gale Woreda Agricultural Office Report},  				 (Wolayta Zone)  		2013.  		 			WAO(Woreda Agricultural Office 		 	 
\bibitem[Mcginley and Ed (2008)]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Ethiopian montane moorlands’.  		 			M Mcginley 		,  		 			Ed 		.  		 \url{fromhttp://www.eearth.org/article/Ethiopian}  	 	 		\textit{Encyclopedia of Earth},  				 			C J Cleveland 		 (ed.)  		 (Washington, D.C)  		2008. January 20. 2013.  	 
\bibitem[Shiferaw ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Evaluating the Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics in Borena Woreda of South Wollo Highlands’.  		 			Abate Shiferaw 		.  	 	 		\textit{Ethiopia. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa}  		2011. 13 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Final report of EFAP Secretariat EFAP (Ethiopian Forestry Action Program) ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Final report of EFAP Secretariat’.  	 	 		\textit{EFAP (Ethiopian Forestry Action Program)}  		1994.  	 
\bibitem[Dessie and Christiansson ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Forest decline and its causes in the south-central rift valley of Ethiopia: human impact over a 100 year perspective’.  		 			Gessesse Dessie 		,  		 			C Christiansson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Swedish Academy of Sciences}  		2008. 37  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Woldeamlak ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Land cover dynamics since the 1950s in Chemoga watershed’.  		 			Bewket Woldeamlak 		.  	 	 		\textit{Ethiopia. Mountain Research and Development}  		2002. 22 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Babiso et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Land use/Land Cover Dynamics and its Implication on Sustainable Land Management in Wallecha Watershed’.  		 			Barana Babiso 		,  		 			Senbetie Toma 		,  		 			Aklilu Bajigo 		.  	 	 		\textit{Southern Ethiopia. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research}  		2016. XVI p. .  	 
\bibitem[Robin et al. ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Land-Use and Land-Cover Dynamics in Response to Changes in Climatic, Biological and Socio-Political Forces: the case of South Western Ethiopia’.  		 			S R Robin 		,  		 			L Russell 		,  		 			Y Kruska 		,  		 			M Nyawira 		,  		 			Andualem Taye 		,  		 			Sara Wotton 		,  		 			Woudyalew Mulatu 		.  	 	 		\textit{Landscape Ecology}  		2000. 15 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Amsalu ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Long-Term Dynamics in Land Resource Use and the Driving Forces in the Beressa Watershed, Highlands of Ethiopia’.  		 			Aklilu Amsalu 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Environmental Management}  		2006. 83 p. .  	 
\bibitem[References Références Referencias]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{References Références Referencias},  		 	 
\bibitem[Ayalew ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{Remote Sensing and GISbased LU/LC change Detection in the Upper Dijo River Catchment},  		 			Daniel Ayalew 		.  		2008. Silte zone, Southern Ethiopia. 17.  		 			Addis Ababa University 		 	 	 (Working papers on population and land use change in central Ethiopia nr) 
\bibitem[Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007 Population and Housing Census Results Add is Ababa ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007 Population and Housing Census Results’.  	 	 		\textit{Add is Ababa}  		2008.  		 			CSA (Central Statistical Agency 		 	 
\bibitem[Holman et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘The concepts and development of a participatory regional integrated assessment tool’.  		 			I P Holman 		,  		 			M D Rounsevell 		,  		 			C Audsley 		,  		 			P A Harrison 		,  		 			J A Henriques 		.  	 	 		\textit{Climatic Change}  		2008. 90 p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
