Addis Ababa University

Schools of Graduate Studies

Regional and Local Development Studies (RLDS)

The Impact of Urban Expansion on The Livelihood of

Peri-Urban Farming Communities In Alamgena Town

By:
Eyasu Shishigu

The Thesis is Submitted to School of Graduate Studies ofAddis

Ababa University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree ofMA in RLD5.

Addis Ababa University

July 2007
 THE IMPACT OF URBAN EXPANSION ON THE
LIVELIHOOD OF PERI-URBAN FARMING
COMMUNITIES IN ALAMGENA TOWN

. \
,-/

By:
Eyasu Shishigu

Approved by Board of Examiners.

J~~~ .~. Adviser

~~-----

b ..-.G:.. ~ vv..S fY\\''t --5 u.S\- ce......\. . . -~

---4--"-- ,-,
Examiner (I nterna l) Signature

Examin er (External) Signatu re

 Acknowledgments

Yl1y attempts alla'Ejforts wou[cf na've not 6een rearizeawithout goas orr miglity hand, 'First auafor most

Jre aeserve to 6e acliJw'wCecfgeafor liis ull,umitea liefp,

~iI1y heart furr acliJlOwCecfgmel1t goes to my alfviser, !lJr WOlldimu }l6e)e, witli out liis varua6Ce alia

col1structi've ad'vice tftis thesIs wou[cf liave 1I0t 6eell materiarizea.

:Num6er oj peopres' neart furc cooperation ana encouragements nas contri6uteafor tne success of my stud),

~Hy tfiall/iJ goes to my famiues, my fatner alIa my sisters, wlio contri6utea a Cot for the success of my stud),

Yl1y gratituae nos arso goes to }lto :Niguse Yl1ellgesha, wfio naa sponsorea me auring my first year stud) time,

!lJagmawit 'Teffera, wfio assist my stud) 60tfi in morar encouragement ana printing papers, }lster 'Tirulleh,

wfio pro'viae aeriar pfiotos for tfiis tne51S, Yl1inyafiiC gatew al1a'Yusuj}l.6ao, wfio give l/Ie tfieir computers for

eaitillg tfiis tfie51s, I ao not faiC to acliJlOwCecfge Sa6a g/,Egzia6fier, tfie typist of tfiis tfiesis,

Last 6ut not Ceast, l/Iy choir mem6ers ana aCC otner peopCes wfio were praying for my success aeserve my

acliJwwCeagmellt,
 Table of Contents

Page
Aclmo wledg ments ...... .. ... . ...... ......... ... . ... . ... . ......... . ..... .....
...... .. ... .. .. .... .. ........ ..... .i
Li st of Table s ......... .... .. ... .. . ..... . .. ...... . ... , ..... . .. ..... . ... .. ..... ....
....... ... . ..... .. .. ..... ....... v
List of Annex es ...... ..... .... .. . ... ... .... .. .... ...... .. ....... .. ... . .... .... ...
......... ..... ......... . ... .... vi
Acron yms .... ... ......... ... . .. ... ......... ......... ......... ......... .. . .. .........
... ......... ......... ......... .. vii
Abstr act ......... ........ ......... ......... .. .. ... .... ...... ......... ......... .........
......... ......... ......... .... viii

CHAP TER ONE ....... ... ..... .. ... ........ ........ .. ... .. ........ ..... .. ... ... .. ........
....... ........ .. 1
1. Introd uctio n ...... .. ..... ... .. ... ... ........ ..... ..... ..... . ...... ........ ........
..... ........ ........ 1
1.1. Back groun d of the Study Area .. ........ ... ..... ... ..... .. ... ... ........
.. ..... ..... .... 2
1.2. State ment of the Problem .. ....... ....... ........ ........ ........ ........
........ ........ . 3
1.3 . Objec tive of the Study ... .... ...... ...... .... .. .... .. ....... ...... ... ....
.... .... .... ........ 5
1.4. Resea rch Ques tions ..... .. ... ........ ........ .. .... ........ .... ... .. ... ...
..... ........ ..... . 5
1.5. Meth odolo gy ... ........ ....... .... ... ........ ... ........ ........ . .... ........
........ .... ........ 6
1.5.1 Study Site Selec tion .... .... .. ... .... .. .. ..... ... ........ .. ........ ....
... .. ........ ..6
1.5.2 Samp ling .. ... .... .. .. .... ..... .. .... ... .... .... ........ ... .... ...... .... ... .....
... .......
... 6
1.5.3 Key Inform a nts .. ........ ........ ...... ... ........ .... ........ ........ .......
........ ...... 7
1. 5.4 Focu s Grou p Discu ssion ........ ........ .... .. ....... .. ..... .. ........
........ ....... 7
1. 5 .5 Sourc e of Secon dary Data ........ ..... .... ..... .. ... .... .... .. ... .....
... ......... ... 7
1. 5.6 Analy s is of the Findi ngs .... .. ... ........ . ... ..... ........ .. ...... ........
.. ........ . 8
1.6 Scope of the Stud y ........ ........ .. ........ ... .... ...... . ... ..... .. .... ...
..... ...... .... ..... 8
1.7 Limit ations of the study ....... .... ........ ...... ........ ...... ..... .. ...
..... ... ........ .... 8
1.8 Organ izatio n of the the s is .. ... .. .. ........ ........ ...... . .... .. ..... .. ...
... .. ........ . .. .. 8
CHAP TER TWO ....... ..... .... .. .. ........ ........ ........ .. .. ..... .. ... ..... ........
.... ..... ........ .. . 9
Revie w of Litera tures .. .. .... ... ........ ........ ........ ....... .. ... ... ..... ...
........ ........ ........ 9
2. 1 Ecolo gical argum ent of Urba n Expa nsion .... .. .... . .. .. .. .....
.. .... .... .. ..... 10
2.2 Caus es of Urba n Expa nsion ...... ........ ..... .. .. ........ . ........ ...
... ....... .... .... 11
2.3. Cons equen ce of Urba nizati on ........ ........ ........ ..... ..... ... ..
..... ........ ... .. 13
2.4. Decis ion Maki ng on Urba n Expa nsion ... .... ........ .. .. ... ....
.... ... ....... 15
2 .5. Urba nizati on a nd Chan ge of livelih ood ........ ...... .. .. ... ........
. ........ ...... 15
2.6. Li veliho od ........ ........ ... .. ........ ........ .. ..... ..... . .. ...... ... ........
.... ........ ... 17
 2.6.1 . Liveli hood Asset s ...... .. ........ .... .. .. .... .. .. ...... . .. ... ..... ... ...
.... .... ... ... 16
2.6.2 Livel ihood Strate gies ..... ....... .. .. ... .. ........ ... ........ ........ ........
... .... .. . 17
2.6.3 . Liveli hood analy sis ..... .... ... .............. ................................................
............. 17
CHAPTER THRE E ........ ..... ........ .. ..... ...... .. .. ... .... ... ........ ... ....
....... .. .. .... ... .. .. 20
GROWTH OF THE TOWN ........ .. ...... ... ..... .. .. ... .. ........ . ........ ........
........ ........ 20
3 .1 Histo rical Overv iew ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ....... .. ... ........
. ... ... .. .. ... 20
3.2. Popu lation Grow th of the Town .. .. .. .. .... .... .. .... .. .. ........ ....
.. .... .. ........ . 21
3.3 Grow th of the town in terms of Ch ange of econo mic activi
ty ........ .... . 22
3.4 Spatia l Exten t of Urba n Built u p Area ........ .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. ...... ... .. ... 24
3.5 Plann ing and Expa nsion in Alam gena Town ........ ... ..... ..
.. ... ... ... .. ...... 26
3.5 . 1 Plann ing ........ .. ..... .... .. .... .. .. .. ........ ........ .... .. ........ ........
...... .. ....... 26
3.5 .2. Natur e of the Expa nsion ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .......
.... ........ 27
3.5.2 . 1 Expa nsion befor e 2002 : Dema nd Drive n ........ .. ... .......
.. . 28
3.5.2 .2. Expa nsion a fter 2002: Supp ly Drive n .... .. .. .. .. .... .. ...
.. ... 28
CHAPTER FOUR ....... ........ .... ........ ...... ...... ... ... ... ... .. .... ..... ...
.. ... .. ...... ........
. 30
ANALYSIS OF THE FIND INGS ........ .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .... .. .. .... ...... .. ...
.... .. ... ........ .. . 30
4. 1 Gene ral backg round of the respo nden ts .. .. ........ .. .. ... ... .......
... .... ....... 31
4.1.1 . Physi cal backg round of th e study sites ........ . .. .... .. ... ...
........ ..... . 3 1
4.1.2 . Socio -econ omic backg round ........ ........ ........ .... .. ........
...... ...... .. . 33
4.2. Imple ment ation of land expro priati on and fa rmers motiv
e ....... ...... 35
4 .2 . 1 Imple ment ation stage ........ ........ ........ ........ ...... .. .. ......
.. .. .. ........ .. 35
4.2.2 Farm e rs respo nse ..... .. ........ .... .... .... ........ .. ........ ........ .
.... .. ... .. ... .. 38
4.3 Comp ensat ion and a llotm ent of benef its to the farme rs ......
... .... .. .. .. . 40
4.3 .1 Comp ensat ion paym ent proce sses .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. ..
.. ... .... ...... .40
4.3 .2 Prom ised and Obtai ned Benef its ........ ........ ........ .. .. ......
. .. . .. ... .. ... 42
4.3 .3 Farm e rs Attitu de towar ds the Benef its Obta ined ...... .....
.. .. .. .. ..... 44
4.4 Impa ct of expan sion on the livelih ood of Farm ers .. .... .. ..
........ . .. ... ..... 46
4.4.1 . Econ omic Statu s of the Farm e r befor e Expa nsion . .. ..
.. .. ........ .... 46
4.4 .2 Analy sis of Impact of Expa nsion on Asset s of the Farm
ers ........ . 49
4.4.2 .1 Impa ct on La nd Hold ing ........ ... .... ........ .... .... ...... ... ..
... .. 49
4.4 .2 .2.Im pact on Other Asset s . .. ....... ...... ........ ... .. .. ... ... ........
... 54
 4.4. 2.2 .1 Impa ct on Dome s tic Anim a ls ..... ... .... .... ....... ....... ..
54
4.4 .2 .2 .2 Impa ct on Pe rman e nt Plant s ... ..... .... ........ .... .. .......
55
4.4. 2 .2. 3 Impa ct on Numb er of Hous es ... ........ ... .. ...... ... .. .....
56
4.4. 3 . Impa ct of Expa n s ion on Fa rme rs' Incom e ........ . ........ ........
....... . 56
4.4.4 Mean s of Survival and Job Acces sibilit ies a fter Expro pria
tion ... . 59
4.4. 5 Socia l and Envir onme ntal Impa ct ........ ........ ........ ....
...... .... ..... . 57
4.4. 5. 1 Envir onme ntal Cons eque nce of the Expa nsion .... ... ..
.... 57
4.4. 5. 2 . Socia l conse quen ce of the expa nsio n ........ . ........ .. ........
58
4.4. 6 . Copin g m ech a nis m ........ .... ..... .. ........ ... .... .... ........ .. ...
.... .. ..... ..... 59
4.4 .7 Fa rmers ' Probl ems to Ad a pt Urban ways of Life . ..... ........
........ ... 65
CHAP TER FIVE ...... ... ...... .. ... ..... ... .. .. ... ........ ..... ...... .. . ... ......
.. ... ........ ... ...62
Conc lusion a nd Reco mme ndati ons ........ . .. ........ ........ . ... .. ........
........ ........ 6 2
5.1 Conc lusio n .... .. ...... .. .... .. ... ..... ..... .. ........ ..... ........ . .. .... ..
........ .. ..... ...62
5.2 Recom mend a tions ..... .. .. .. ... ...... ... .... ... ... ... ..... .... ... .......
... .. ... ........ . 65
Refer en ce
Anne xes
 List of Table

Page
Table 3 .1 Alem gen a Town La nd Cover j Use (1972 -2007 ) ... ....
..... .... ... .. .. .. 26
Table 3 .2 Muni cipa l Land suppl y by Func tion ... .. ........ ........ .
.. ... .. ..... ........ . 30
Table 4.1 socio econo mic backg round of the re s pond e nts ...
........ .. ... ........ . 33
Table 4.2 Awa r e ne ss of farme r s a bout urban expan sion befor
e their la nd
expro priate d ..... ........ . ........ ........ ........ ... ...... ........ . ........ ........
.... ..... 36
Table 4.3. Fa rmers who did not get enou gh time to prepa re
thems elves
before expro priati on of their la nd s and there r espon se . ... ... ........
... 37
Table 4.4 Fa rme rs respo n se towar d s expro priati on of their la
nd .. ........ ... ... 38
Table 4.5 Farm e rs' attitu de towar ds expan sion ... .. ... .. ... ........
. ...... .. ...... ... .. 39
Table 4.6 Bene fit s fa rmers go t becau se of expan sion ........ ........
. ........ ........ 44
Table 4.7 Farm ers' h appin ess with the benefits they h a ve
obtai ned . ...... 45
Table 4 .8 Farm e r s feelin g a bout the b en efit they obtai ned ........
... ...... ... ..... 45
Table 4.9 Farm e rs a n swer for the quest ions wh er e the lost prope
rty gon e
does ....... .. .... .. ... .. .. ... ....... ........ ..... ........ .... .. ........ ........ .... .... ....
.. ..... 54
Table 4.10 Reaso n for the declin e of incom e ... .. .. .... ........ ........
. ....... ...... ..... 57
Table 4. 11 Mean s of live lihood for th e prece ded 12 m on t h s
after
expro priati on .. ........ ..... ..... ....... ........ ........ ........ ... ..... .. ... .. .. ..
... .. .. ... 55
Table 4.12 Fa rmers ' Probl em to Get Job a fter Expa nsion . ........
.. ... .. ..... ..... 56
Table 4.13 Easy Acces sib le Job s for Fa rmers after Land Expro
priati on ..... 56
Table 4 .14 Exist ence of Envir onme nta l Pollu tion ........ .. ... .....
... ..... .. ... ... ..... 57
Table 4. 15 Socia l relati on of farme rs in comp ariso n with the
previou s ... .... 59
Table 4. 16 Farm ers copin g mech a nism ........ ........ ... .. ...... ....
.. ....... .. .... ....... 65
Table 4.17 Probl em s Farm ers Faced to Adap t Urba n Ways of
Life ..... ........ 66
 List of Annexes

Annex 1- Questioners and guidelines

Annex 2- Revised Plan of the town

VII
 Acronyms

BOFED Bureau of Oromiya Finance and Economic Development

BOWUD Bureau of Oromiya Work and Urban Development
CSA Central Statistics Authority
EPRDF Ethiopian People Revolutionary Democratic Front
ETCA Ethiopian Tra nsport Construction Authority
FDRE Fede ral Democ ratic Re public of Ethiopia
NUPI Na tional Urban Pla nning Institute.
OBPED Bureau of Pla nning and Economic Development
ONRS Oromiya National Regional State
ORAAMP Office for the Revision of Addis Ababa Ma ster plan

VII I
 Abstract

Urban ce" ters are expanding towards their periphery rescuing the livelihood of
farmin g communities. Alamgena town has been expanding towards the periphery
sin ce its foundation. Th e expansion has two characteristics, demand driven expansion
and supply driven expansion. Expansion before 2002 was caused by increased land
demand while expansion after 2002 is caused by supply driven expansion. The second
expansion is the result of revision of the town's plan by BOWUD. Th e plan has brought
646.9 hectares of land for urban use from the surrounding rural areas.
Implementation of the expansion plan has bee n done through expropriation of land
from (armers holding and as a result, more than 300 (arm el's became land less.
Th e thesis dealt about the impact o( the expansion on the livelihood of these farm ers.
Surveying, key informant in depth interview, (ocu s group discussion and personal
obse rvatif''1s are the methods employed in the thesis.
Result o( th e (indings shows that implemenll..llion o( land expropriation was not
participatory and hence (armers' resistance was obse rved. In order to control (armers '
resistance the implementers use force, which create hostility among farm ers towards
government o((icials.
Compensation payment bases have don e at (ederal and regional governm ent level.
Th e amount o( income disconnected was what farm ers got as compensation. During
implementation though the government promised bene(its to the farm ers, they fail to
fUlfill all the promised benefits to the (armers. Th e expansion has destroyed (ann ers'
assets throu g h expropriating their land. Following thiS, they became job insecure. 1.ack
of du e follow up (rom conce rned organization, lack of knowledge how to us their
money and lack o( sill and education are the problems (arm ers face while they are
adapting urban ways o( Ii(e.
In order to alleviate farmers from their problem, Government, NGOs and private
investors should put their effort for farm ers.

IX
 CHAPTER ONE

1. Introduction

The process of urban expansIOn m ay involve both intern a l reorganization

and out ward expansion of the physical structure of urban areas (Tommy,
1996). Such process of urban expansion is a worldwide phenomenon, which
can be seen in the history of all urban centers . Such horizontal outward
expansion of urban centers can result in loss of agricultural lands and
natural beauties (Minwuyelet, 2004).

For instance, urban centers of countries like England, USA and others h ave
expanded horizontally with the loss of agricultura l land . During 1930s,
England and Wales experienced the loss of 240000 hectares of farmla nd p er
year (UN habitat, 2003).

It is no t only loss of agricultura l la nd but a lso displacement of peasants and

change of their livelihood is a result of urban expansion. Globally, 10 million
peo ples are displaced because of developmental activities in each year.
Among these peoples, 6 millions are displaced because of urban
development each year. (Cernea, 1997).

In the past three de cades, African cities growth has manifested by their hi gh
populatio. growth. The increase in their population is surprising, even its
rate is higher than the growth rate of the national population growth rates
in almost a ll counties of the continent. (Birhanu, 2005) Such population
pressure causes horizontal expansion of African cities. The horizonta l
expansion of cities is at the expense of prime agricultural la nd s and
agricultural productivity.
In Ethiopian urban history, a s of other African urban cente rs, we can see
rapid growth, which results in loss of agricultural livelihood. The growth
rates of Ethiopian urban centers were registered to be 5. 1% per a nnu m
(Minwuyelet, 2004).

1.1. Background of the Study Area

Alamgena town is found in southwest Shewa a dministration zon e of

Oromiya r egion . It is located between 8°54'7 " Nand 8°57'28 " N latitude and
380 38'7" E and 38 041 '13" E lon gitude. Relat ive ly the town is found along
Addis Ababa Jimma road at 20 Km far away from th e centre of Addis Ababa
and 5 km from Seb eta. The distance of the town from the southern border of
Addis Ababa (Ka rako re) is 7 km.

The total area of the town is estima ted to be 1355 .22 h ec ta r e s including the
expan s ion sites . The total area h a s been a llocated to different land u ses .
The existing land u ses are ; Industry, residence , commercial a rea, recreation,
mining a nd agriculture. Because of its vicinity to Addis Ababa , the town h a s
high growth pote ntia l.

According to Sebeta municipality social a ffairs office estima tion the to tal
population of the town in 2 007 is 15265.

Regarding socia l se rvices, there is one governm ent and more than five
private primary schools . Ther e is a lso one private collage in the town.
Students, who complete their primary education, will go to eithe r Sebeta or
Addis Ababa for secondary education.

Since the existing m a rket is not a dequa t e to m eet the goods demand , m os t
dwelle r s of the town purchase goods from S ebeta and Addis Aba ba.
Agri cultural produ cts are mainly purchased from Sebe ta w hile processed
goods a re bought from Addis Ababa.

The h ealth sector is not yet develo ped in the town . Since ther e is only one
government h ealth post and one private small clinic, the patients from
Al a mge na town go to Sebeta for treatment. Patients who n eed fur th er
treatmen t a re re ferred to Addis Ababa.

2
This can tell us how the town infrastructures are not sufficient for the
dwellers and hence depends on Addis Ababa (ORAAMP, 2000b).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

The basic problem is that urban growth causes considerable increase in

competition for scarce land in the inner city, which relate with high and
rising land value. The urban poor, in particular, face great difficult in
competin g for inner location and are often forced to go to the periphery. As a
result, urban areas expanded towards the fringe (UNCHS, 1991) .

As the cit:9 is expandin g fast to its adjacent areas, settlem ent pattern wi ll be
unplanned, extensive fertile farmland will consumed and peasants either be
displaced or become urban dwellers. As a result, farmers depart from
agriculture and consequently agricultural production declined. (Shuaib
Lawsa, 2005) Such trend is a serious challenge of city governments In

managing the city's development dynamic (ORAAMP, 2000a).

The Ethiopian urban centers are expanding in an unexpected rate resulting

in loss of prime agricu ltura l land, loss of agricultural production, peasant
displacement and change of their livelihood. The situation is worst in Addis
Ababa and its surrounding towns.

Since Alamgena town is situated near to Addis Ababa, large number of

peoples, who cannot get land in the inner city migrated to the town In

search for land (ORAAMP, 2000a). Moreover, peoples from Sebeta prefer
Alamgena for residence . According to Sebeta municipali ty techni cal
department archive, many peoples who are living in Sebeta h ave registered
for housin g land from Alamgena Town. All this, in collaboration with the
development of squ atter settlem e nts a long Addis Ababa Jimma road, exerts
pressure on the town's land. Consequently, the shape of the town became
elongated . The Town's plan, which was prepared in 1998, has failed to

3
control this irregularity of the town an d hence revlsmg the plan became
essential. BOWUD planning experts revise the plan through incorporating
farmlands from surrounding rural areas .

S ince Implementation of the plan has been done through expropriation of

land from farmers holding, it results in loss of land from farmers holding.
Following these, m ore than 300 farmers became landless and urbanized.

Land expropriation is still on going. For the coming year , the municipality
has planed to give housing plots for more than 3000 registered la nd seekers
and 40 hec tares of land for investors . This will results in a dditiona l loss of
land from farmers holding.

Though urban expansion is such a wide problem, which is a challenge for

urban governance a nd planers in Alemgena town , the issue is not yet
researched. The available researches a re on Addis Ababa expansion and its
impact on the livelihood of the displace d farm communities (Feyera, 2005;
Feleke, 2006)

Having this in mind, the thesis deals with about the impact of Alamgena
town expansion on th e livelihood of the peri urban farming communiti es
whose land is expropriated .

4
1.3. Objective of the Study

The general objective of the th esis is to analyze the impact of urban

expansion on the livelihood of pe ri - urban agricultura l communities whose
la nd is expropriated .

Along with major obj ective, the specific objectives are:

To investigate cau ses a n d extent of Ala m gena town expansIOn a fter
2 002.
To assess the implementa tion of land expropriation and farm ers'
opmlOns.
To ;nvestigate the benefits of the expansion for th e farmers and their
response.
To analyze impacts of the expansion on fa rme rs ' assets.
To a nalyze accessibility of the farmers to diffe rent livelihood
strategies.
To assess the farme rs' coping mechanisms to adapt urban ways of life
a nd th eir problem.

1.4. Research Questions

The thesis is going to answer the following resear ch questions

What are the causes a nd extent of Alamgena town expan s ion after
2 002?
How did the government implemen t expa nsion program and what a re
farm ers ' opin ion towards implem en tation?
What benefits did t h e farmers received? And wh at was their r espon se?
What a r e th e impacts of the expansion on fa rmers' assets?
Do farm e rs h ave access to different livelihood strategies?
What are farme r s ' coping m ech a nis ms a nd their problem s in a dapting
urban ways of life?

5
 1.5. Meth odol ogy

In order to answ er the above resea rch quest ions, the resea
rch has used
both prima ry and secon dary sourc es of data. Surve y, key infor
mant in de pth
inte rview , fo c us group discu ssion and perso nal obser
vation s are the
meth ods used in this study .

1.5.1 Study Site Selection

The re are three expan sion sites: two indus trial and one reside
nti a l. The first
indus trial site (Kera bu) is found at the get of the town when
one come s from
Addis Abab a. The secon d indus trial site (Daleti) is found
a long Butag ira
road. The resid entia l site is found in front of the first
indus trial site
(Kera bu). It stretc hes all the way back to Ethio pian Trans
port corpo ration
Autho rity (ETCA) traini ng cente r. For the purpo se of
this study , one
indus trial site has been select ed. For select ion, the follow ing
two criter ia are
used.
1. Thl" numb er of farme rs who lost their farml and.
2 . Year after la nd expro priati on

Based on the first criter ia, 197 and 23 farme rs were those
who lost their
land in Kerab u site a nd Dalet i s ite respe ctively. For the secon
d criter ia, land
expro priati on in Dalet i site has been done in 2006 where as
in Kerab u site it
starte d in 2001 . So based on the criter ia Kerab u site is
select ed for the
purpo se of this study .

1.5.2 Sampling

After site selec tion is comp leted, samp ling of samp le house
hold farme rs has
been doT'~. In resid entia l site the total numb er of house holds
whos e land is
expro pr iated is 92 and in the indus trial site 197. For
the purpo se of
struc tu red quest ion e r surve y, 40% (37 hous ehold s) from reside
ntial site and
40% (79 house holds ) from indus trial site are select ed from
the samp le frame
using syste m a tic samp ling techn ique.

6
Out of the total nin e industries , based on their duration in the area, five are
selected.
In order to e nri ch the d a ta, out of the total 2000 n ew comers, based on their
duration in th e a rea, 50 responde nts are selected for surveying.

1.5.3 Key Informants

In ad dition to structured interview with selected sample hou seholds, in

depth inte rview with k ey informant from fa rme rs , pla nne rs a nd municipal
workers has been conducted to supplement the data ob tained from survey.
Based on their age a nd dura tion in the town, 3 farmers from re side ntia l site
and 4 irom industrial site have been selected. The planners and
implem e nters have been interviewed about the cause of expansion,
participa tion of fa rme rs a nd how they are handling complaints of
unsatisfied farm ers .

1.5.4 Focus Group Discussion.

In order to see th e collective view of fa rmers a nd to substantiate the data

o bta ined with the a bove methods, focus group discussion h a s a lso been
conducted. Based on their age homogeneity, 4 groups are formed, two from
residential s ite a nd two from industrial site . Each group is consisted of six
members for discussion .

1.5.5 Source of Secondary Data

In o rder to complete this resear ch different lite ratures, r eports, books,

magazines, a erial photos a nd unpublished office documents are used.
Additionally land use m a p, exp a nsion p lan a nd location m a p of the town a re
used .

7
1.5.6 Analysis of the Findings

SPSS software is used for data processmg. For analysis, both qualitative
and quantitative methods like percentage, means, mode, and range are
employed.

1.6 Scope of the Study

Analysis of livelihood is about what assets combine with which livelihood

strategy in order to achieve a certain output under a given institutional
settings. In this context, livelihood analysis encompasses assets, livelihood
strategies, th e available institutional settings and livelihood outcomes. The
scope of this thesis is limited to the impact of expansion on farmers' assets,
livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes. Here, farmers' job is their
strategy and their income is the output.
Geographically the study is limited to Alamgena town, all parts of kebele 02
a nd som" parts of kebele 03 , where the kerabu indus trial site is found.

1.7 Limitations of the study

Absence of written documents about th e town, lack of the town 's detail map,
munici pal officials' workloads, and displacements of officials from their
previous position are the limitations encountered in the thesis.

1.8 Organization of the thesis.

The thesis is organized into five chapters . The fir st chapter is about
in troductory part. The second chapter is review of the literature and the
third chapter discusses growth of the town since its establishment. The
fourth chapter is a ll about impact of the expansion on the farmers'
livelihood. The last c h apter is conclusion and recommendation part of the
study.

8
 CHAPTER TWO

Review of Literatures

Urbanization can be identified by four common characteristics found at

d ifferent levels of complexities, d e pending on the r a te a n d intensity of
urbanization. These characteristics a re:
1. th e maj or economic activity found in the area
2. la b or division, which is a ccompanied by social complexities
3. High population de nsity and
4 . The development of coordination a nd control mecha nisms based on
membership a pproaches. (Boskoff, 1962)

Ka itz a nd Hym a n (1971) diffe re ntiate urba n areas from rura l b ased on work
h a bit of peoples. In urban areas peo ples are not de pe ndent on family based
ac tivates like farming a nd animal breeding for their livelihood. People III

urban area work in diversified commercial a nd industria l activates or III

se rvice areas for which s ome kind of specialized skills or knowledge are
required.

Other scholars (Clina rd a nd Meier, 1979) characterize urbanism by

heterogeneous population with dive rsity of background and interest. In
a ddition , urban populations are characterized by living very close to each
other a nd by complex divisions of labor, class structure and physical
dimension of the popula tion size.

Urba ni zation therefore, can be defined as a complex of social economiC

c ultura l a nd ecological complex, which produce positive and / or negative
developments in any or a ll of the above a spects . (Clina rd and Meie r, 1979 ;
kaitz and Hyman, 197 1; Boskoff, 1962)

9
2.1. Ecological Argument of Urban Expansion

First, the concept of succession, formulated by plant and animal ecologists

used to describe the evolution of natural communities by sequent
replaceme nt. Later, sociologists at the University of Chicago redefined
succession to mean the invasion and occupation of one social area by
members of another and usually different social group. These social areas
were described as exhibiting regular spatial dimensions and similar relative
locations from city to city. Initia lly, these were identified as a series of
concentric rings about the city center, then as sectors of differing status, or
as isolated nuclei. (Leven, 1968)

Growth occurs through simple extension. In the concentric model, each

zone expands and replaces another of lower density and with lower rent-
paying occupants, reflecting a process of invasion and succession. In most
instances these movements originate from the city center, following
established gradients based on age of developm ent and accessibility
differentials. In theory, each area witnesses a selective a daptation to those
functions for which it is most suited, particularly those, which are capable
of outbidding others in the competition for location. The obvious driving
mechanisms in this traditional model, a lthough generally ign ored in the
lite rature, are growth and o bsolescence. (Larry S., 1971)

The traditional ecological model of succession must be expanded. It should

include both shifts in the relative position of sites in the location bidding
process and adj ustme nts within the individual building unit or
establishme nt. The largest proportion of such change clearly derives from
external factors, which affect prices, values, and a ttitudes toward reuse of
each site. The most obvious of these factors is growth itself. Growth involves
an adjustment to increased size or to structural change, or both. As a
result, changes in land requirements and attributes within the city alter
relative demands and prices for different locations . Similarly, changes in

10
economIc viability, technology, space preferences, and the like, produce
furth e r de mands for adjustment in the behavior of activities and social
groups , a nd thus III the resulting patterns of land and building
occupancy.(Larry S., 1971)

2.2 Causes of Urban Expansion

There are two causes of urban expansIOn; urban development a nd

popula tion growth. The first causer of urban expansion to the periphery is
thrived , lp by economic development projects or urban clearance or
industrialization. (David , 1979)
Because of economic liberalization, technological diffusion from developed
nation to developing nations in search of cheep energy and labor create over
urbanization. (Allen C. a nd Jeffery G., 1984)
Timber Lake (1984) explains the new economic order as the cause for the
recent rapid urbanization of the periphery . All defused technologies and
industries from d eveloped nation to least developed nation need space for
estahlishment.

Space IS a lso needed for soclO-economlC infrastructure, such as

comm un '~ation and road n etwork that reqUIre reorganization and
r edevelopment of the space already inhabited (Cernea, 1995)
These factors increase land demand, which is accompanied by physical
expansion of the existed urban areas towards the periphery, where rural
settlements is found.

Population is the main cause of urban expansIOn. It is the change of

popula tion s ize because of natural increase and in-migration. The increase
in population leads to increase in land demand in urban a reas. In order to
meet this demand pushing the urba n boundary ''towards periphery is the
available solution.

11
Between the two components of population change migration IS more
importa nt tha n n a tura l inc rease in urban a reas. Rural urba n migration
especia lly in developing countries is high due to unba lance economiC
d eveloplJ1e nt rural and urba n areas. Peoples a re a ttracted by employmen t
opportunity and education available in urban areas . (Allen C. and Jeffery
G ., 198 4)

Ra pid City growth implies heavy rural -urba n migration. In deed

de mographers have show us that the more ra pid, th e city growth, the more
important in migra tion as a share of the city population increase . (Allen C.
a nd J effery G. , 1984)

In the las t five decades the world witnessed an unprecedented rate of

po pulation growth (1.2% p er a nnum) accompa nied by urban explosion. The
World urba n popula tion was only 2% in 1980 and it became 48% in 2001. It
is expected to rise to about 57% in 2025 amounting to an increase of 1.5
billion people with in a space of 25 years. (UN - Habit, 2003)

The global urban share of population in 2001 was a bout 0.8% varymg
be tween a bout 1.6% for a ll African countries to about 0.3% for all developed
countries (Un -Habit, 2001)

Africa is the fastest urbanizing reglOn m the World. (Foeken & M.wangi,
2000; Nuwagaba, 1996'; Gugle r, 1996) Its urban popUla tion IS doub ling
a lmost every 2 0 years. The rural population is growing at a rate of 2 .5% per
a nnum, while the urba n popula tion is experiencing a 5-10% growth per
a n num, (UN, 1998). Such urban popula tion increa se creates add itional
urban land demand that require the out ward expan s ion of the boundary of
the towns .

12
Other Causes

Allen C. a nd Jeffery G (1 984) have iden tified three cau ses of urban
expanSlOn .
l. High-income peoples go to th e periphery in search of wide land for
dwe lling. This will lead to the expan sion of the city boundary.
2. The low-in com e p eoples wh o cannot a fford land price of city cen ter
w ill go to the periphery in search of cheap la nd. Because of such
process urban sprawl will be formed.
3. Bntr epren eurs and investors in order to control the strategic
position for market accessibility prefer to invest at the n ear
periphery of the city. After investors a nd e ntrepren eurs,
agglomerate surrounding city center the boundary of the city will
expand In order to incorpora te them in to the municipal
management.
Cloudia (2005) has identified four causes of urban expansion in th ird World
cities. These are :
1. The pnce and productivity ch a nge In m anufacturing and
agriculture,
2. Lubor for ce growth.
3. Capital accu mula tio n in manufactur ing.
4. Accumulation in rural a nd urban housing stocks.

2.3. Consequence of Urbanization

Analysists and policy m arkers are a little divided on the city growth
pro ble m. Pessimists advocate the third world's inability to cope with th e
social overh ead requirements of rapid urban growth a nd high urba n
de nsities. They view the third world city growth as anothe r example of the
"tragedy of the common", the classic example of the over use of a collective
r esource.

13
In contrast, optimists vIew city growth as a central force ralsmg average
living standards. They view urbanization as the natural out come of
eco nomic development and a necessary requirement for the more rational
use of ec cnomic resources. (Allen C. and Jeffery G., 1984).
Shuaib (2005) has also seen urbanization as a means that give opportunity
to n ew urban development.

The a bove two idea s are based on two consequence of urbanization, positive
and negative planners and policy analysists are disagrees among themselves
on these possible two consequences of urban growth. Whatever the cause
any urban centers grow horizontally with these two possible consequences,
positive and negative

The growth of cites in the regIOn IS often accompanied by a number of

serious ,..,roblems, notably environmental degradation, which negatively
a ffect living condition at both local and global scale is the one among many
impacts (ESWA, 2001)

Large urban population translated in to high consumption levels of non-

renewable resources, which can exhaust cities' environmental support
capac ities. Through observing past expenences, m general high
urbanization has meant lower a ir qua lity everywhere. (ESCWA, 2001)

Env ironmental consequences of urbanization are not only air and water
pollution. Urban heat, which increase level of surface ran off and high flood
frequ e nc J
and loss of natural habitats have been described among
environmental consequences of urbanization. (Stephan and Yuonne, 2005)

Urbanization is ofte n considered as a threat to farmland Shuaib (2005)

mentioned urbanization has come up with serious loss of arable lands.
Many research results indicate that the expansion of urban centers towards
periphery results in land conversion , which leads to loss of agricultural

14
land, agricultura l productivity, agricultural labor, natural vegetation , open
space, and decline in extent of wet lands and wild life h abitats. (UDR, 1999)

In America, lands, which were covered by farms, wet lands and desert lands
during 1900, have now been transformed in to human settlements with in
100 yeas. (UDR, 1999) In Egypt, more than 10% of the national's most
productive land has been lost to city expansion. (Harday, et aI., 2001)

The land use conversion from urban has followed by change of livelihood in
rural areas. Since the re is no land to cultivate the x-farmers, need to ch ange
their livelihood strategies to urban way of living. To generalize th e impact of
urban expansion on the life of farmers Mohan (1996) h as said that
"The poor farmers are the net losers w hile largely better off urban settlers
get the benefit of obtaining land at subsidized price"

The other consequences of urban expansion are increasing municipal costs.

Municipalities are responsible to provide infrastructures for the extended
areas. This will incur the municipal to additional costs. (H a ll, et a i, 2000)

2.4. Decision making on urban expansion

The key issue facing public sector decision makers at the local, national and
international leve ls is not whether or not urban expansion will ta~e place,
but rather what is likely to be the scale of urban expansion and what needs
to be done now to adequately prepare for it. The message is quite clear
developing country cities should be making serious plans for urban
expansion, including planning for where this expansion would be most
easily accommodated, how infrastructure to accommodate a nd serve the
projected expansion is to be provided and paid for and how this can be done
with minimum environmental impact. (Angel,S. and D.L Civoc, 2005)

Given the economic, social and environmental implications of the inevitable

explosive growth of urban populations in developing countries, the absence

15
of a coordinated proactive approach is astounding. This lack of attention is
the product of several factors, including politicians' short planning horizons;
governments' unwillingness to accept urbanization as a positive trend and
to prepare for orderly urban expansion; planners' preference for ambitious
and utopian master plans (that, ultimately, have little prospect of being
implemented) ; and the failure of international organizations to push this
agenda. (Angel,S. and D.L Civoc, 2005)

The inevitable growth of developing-country cities and their peri-urban

surroundings, demands a coo rdinated and proactive approac h. Within the
overall framework, there must be a new set of realistic, equitable a nd
enforceable r egulatory regimes. In this process, care should be taken not to
disturb sensitive lands and watersheds. Provisions for land, infrastructure
and services for the poor should be a key concern. The local population
should be involved in any discussion of future growth in order to guarantee
people's rights while increasing the success rate of planning efforts. (WRI,
1996)

2.5. Urbanization and Change of livelihood

It is an established fact that the urbanization process brings about changes

in the way of life of people. The change takes place in all socio-economic and
cultural lives of people. (Andargachew, 1992)

The loss of land from farmin g, because of urban expansion, pushed peoples
out of farm. The phenomenon is directly attributed to change in property
rights. (Roth, 1996) Change in property right causes land less ness, which is
a result of either the loss of land for housing, as the city sprawl out ward, or
it may be a result of environmental damage. (D aniel, M. et a i, 1999)
Such phenomenon, land less ness, made its impact on livelihoods In the
peri-urban a rea. In other word land lass ness causes loss of agricultural
live lihood (Roth, 1996).

16
 In summ ery urban expan sion resul ts in chang e of prope
rty right which
bring land less ness . Land lessn ess is accom panie d by loss
of agric ultura l
livelih ood.

2.6. Livelihood

Liveli hood can be defin ed as the totali ty of mean s by which

peopl e get by
over time. Lautz e et al (2003 ) and Masfi eld (2001 ) defin es
livelih ood as the
activi ties, the asset s and acces s that toget her deter mine the
living gaine d by
an individual or hou sehol d .
The most ~requently used defin ition of livelih oods is cham ber and Conw ay's
defin ition :

"A livelih ood comp nses the capab ility, asset s and activi
ties
requi red for a mean s of living" (Cham bers and Conw ay, 1992,
cited in CHF, 2003)

All defin itions indic ate mean s of living , which can be achie
ved throu gh
ilctivi ties using the availa ble asset s. There fore, livelih ood can
also be define d
as a mean s of surviv al, which can be achie ved throu gh comb
ining differ ent
asset s with differ ent strate gies to get livelih ood outpu
ts unde r certai n
envir onm, nt.

2.6.1. Livelihood Assets

There a r e five core asset s or capit als which house holds

build their
livelih ood . (IDS, 1998; Carne y 1998; DFID , 2000 , DFID , 1999)
These are:
a . Huma n capital: Repre sents the skills , know ledge , motiv
ation and
abili ty to labor a nd good healt h that toget her enabl e peopl
e to pursu e
differ ent liveli hood strate gies.

17
 b. Natural capital: Represents the n atural resource stock, such as la nd ,
water, forests and minerals, from which resource flow and services
use full for livelihoods are derived.
c. Financial capital: Denotes the financial resources that people use to
achieve their livelihood objectives. It includes savings and credit,
remittance and other liquid assets.
d. Social capital: Represents the social resources up on which people
draw in pursuit of their live lihood objectives. These are social
n etworks, relationships, shared values trust and culture.
e. Physical capital: Comprises the basic infrastructure and producer
goods needed to support live lihoods . These assets divided in to two:
househo ld level assets and community level assets. The household
level asset includes holding of livestock, machineries, farm and off
farm equipments, seeds and fertilizers, etc . The community level asset
includes roads, buildings etc.

2.6.2 Livelihood Strategies

The term livelihood strategies is used to indicate the range and combination
of activities and choice that people undertake in order to achieve th eir
livelihood objectives (Carney, 1998).

There are different ways of categorizing household livelihood strategies a nd

income sources. Income sources can be categorized as those activities that
are natural resources based activities and non natura l resource based
activities. (Ellis, 1998) Others categorize household income sources as farm
incomes, off farm income, non-farm income and remittance income from
migratory labor. (Scoones. W, 2002)

18
2.6.3. Livelihood Analysis

The key ques tion to be asked in any a nalysis of sustainable livelihood is; in
a give n particular context ; policy setting, politics, history, agro ecology and
socio-economic conditions what combination of livelihood assets result in
the ability to follow what combination of livelihood stra t egy with what out
co m es? (IDS , 1998)

Livelihood a n a lysis seeks to understa nd the fac t that lie behind people's
choice of livelihood strategy . (D FID, 1999) . Livelihood a nalysis also shows
how the diffe r ent livelihood strategies of the household relate to each other ,
it recognizes that poor p eople simultaneously undertake a range of different
activities and seek to achieve ra nge of livelihood out comes (Masfield , 2001).
There a re va rious ways of undertaking livelihood ana lysis to unde rstand
hou sehold livelihood dive rsity. Marry (2001) grouped the approaches in to
three categories:
1. Circumspective approach: Refers to understa nding livelihood diversity
a t a momen t of tim e.
2. Retrospective approach: Refers to understa nding livelihood change
over time.
3. Prospective approach: Refers to the a nalysis of effects of policies; a
commitment to change mind set a mongst government officials,
planners, donors , NGOs etc, the development of specific rationa les for
interve ntion a t various levels a nd procedures for monitoring and
evalu a tion.

19
 CHAPTER THREE

GROWTH OF THE TOWN

This chapter deals with growth of the town since before Italians occupation.
The fir st part is about historical background of the town. This part of the
c h apter is presented based on primary data gathered from in depth
interview with e lders, who have lived in the town since Italians.

The second part of the chapter deals with population growth of the town
since Italian. Interview with old people, office documents from kebele and
municipality, OBPED statistical abstract and CSA publications are the
sources of data.

The th ird part of the chapter is about economic growth of the town SInce
Italian. Interview with elders a nd municipality documents a re sources of
data for this part.

The fourth part is about spatial extent of built up area of the town SInce
Itali an. T - present this part, aeria l and Satellite photos are used. 1972 and
1994 aerial photos and 2007 Satellite image are the sources of data used to
s how the extent of built up urban areas in different time intervals.
The last part of this chapter is about planning and nature of the expansion
of the town . In terview with p la nners , review of municipal five-year report
and pe rsonal observation are sources of data for this part.

3.1 Historical Overview

Probably, a t the beginning of 20 th c few peoples, not more than 100, had
been living in the town. These peoples migrated to the town from different
parts of Le country. The Amharas, fr om Merhabete, a nd the Oromos, from
differe n t parts of the country were the first settlers in this area.

20
On his way to Jimma, Emperor Minillik II asked the name of the place and
the people told him that the place had not had a name. Then he named it
"Alamgena". Then the name "Alamgena" becomes the name of the place .
"Alamgena", is the Amharic word, which literally means yet not developed .

The location of the town, presence of Empress Mennen's silo and Italian
occupation has contributed a lot for growth of the town. Since the place is
located along Addis Ababa Jimma road, traders who com e from and go to
Jimma use the place as a bulk break point. The Empress had brought
peoples who guard h er s ilo. The Italian during their occupation had built
prison and weapon storage at the entry of the town, "/centery" . Following the
constru ction of the prison, many people migrated to this place in search of
their relatives, who are prisoners of Italian. All these situations contributed
to the growth of the town.

After Italian left Ethiopia, the weapon store and the pnson changed into
police station and latter administration office for Alamgena wereda.
Alamgena, then b ecome the capital of Alamgena wereda. During Emperor
Hailesilase regime, royal families owned the land.

After the fall of the regime, the town has administered under s h ewa province
and the wereda renamed as Awraja. The wereda capita l had been shifted to
sebeta town and as a result, Alamgena town became special kebele
administered under Sebeta municipality.

After Derg, though municipal administration continues as it was, some

adm inistrationa l reforms h ave been carried out. The name of Awraja
changed in to Wereda with the same capital and Alamgena kebele became
first kebele 01 then kebele 02.

21
3.2. Population Growth of the Town

Thriving back to early history of the town, the population of the Alamgena
was small, not more than 100 people. During the time of Hailesilase, the
population had shown sharp increment. The construction of Empress
Mennen's silo and the Ita lian occupation was the main forces that attracted
people to the town. In the same period, the establishment of ETCA offices,
garage a nd camp has a lso contributed to the increase of the town's
population.

Unlil the first national population and housing census of 1984, the town's
exact number of population was not known. The 1984 national population
a nd housing census result for Shewa province shows that the number of
population of Alemgena town was 2786, of which 1317 are males and the
rest were fem a les. (CSA, 1984)

The second national population and housing census of 1994 result for
Oromiya region shows that the number of population of Alamgena town was
4654; of which Males were 2197 and females were 2457. The computed
annual growth rate between the two censuses, a te n yeas growth rate , was
5 .53 %. (CSA, 1994) The percentage change between the two censuses was
40.07%. The growth rate of the town's population was higher than the
national growth rate.

From the census result, it can be concluded that migration is the maJor
responsible factor for such high growth rate. The 1994 population and
housing census result shows that out of the total population migrants were
2124, which is 45.6% of the total population . Of which 128 1 are from other
urban areas and 843 are from rural areas. Urban to urban migration
accounts 60.3% of a ll migration to the town. The proximity of the town to
Addis Ababa is the reason for such high rate of urban to urban migration.

22
Based OJ" its growth ra te , population of the town has calculated to be 6250
in 2 000 (OBPED, 2 000). The percentage change between 1994 and 2000 ,
which is a 6 years inte rval , is 25.54% . Howeve r , to made comparison
between the two ce nsuses a nd betwee n 1994 and 2000 population
percentage changes, the six-year population percentage change between the
two censuses need to calculate. The six-year percentage population growth
was 24. 04%. Ther e is a s light p ercentage increment between the two time
intervals , 1984-1994 a nd 1994-2 000.

Since its fou ndatio n , the town 's popula tion has been growing with different
ra te of c hange over time. The h ighest growth was recorded a fter 2 000 .
Accordin!5 to Sebeta municipality social a ffa irs office population record, the
population of the town is 15265 in 2 007. The popula tion percentage change
between 2 000 and 2007 is 59 .05 %, which is more tha n h alf of the base
year population . Prepa ration of la nd for reside ntial purpose in the town
a long with other factors is the main pooling factor of population to th e town
s ince 2003.

In ge n eral, since the est a blishme nt of the town, the popUla tion keeps on
growing. It is an es tablished fact that as population grows d em and for land
a lso incr eases . In order to meet this dema nd the town has physically
exp and ed to the pe riphery.

3.3 Growth of the Town in terms of Change of Economic Activity

Transformation of land use s from rural to urba n will a lways accompanied

by transformation of the dominant economic activity. The n atural resource
base activities , such as agriculture, cha nged to non-natural resource base
ac tivities, industry and s ervices .

Thriving back to early history of the town, probably during Imperia l per iod,
there was ethni c based la bor division. The Amha ras we r e wavers and
artesian whil e th e Oromos were farmers. The Gurages were m e rch a nts.

23
The growth of the town's population results in land use segregation . The
center became residence and commercial s ites while the surrounding
periphery became farmland.

Along with intr oduction of economic sector s, the labor division In the town
h as grown. Establishments of ETCA in Alamge na town results In

introduction of new labor division; government employers have arrived In

the town. Construction of Alamgena primary and junior secondary school

has a lso created new labor division to the town; teachers added to th e
existing labo r division. The workers in both la bor divisions who came to be
employed in th e town are from different ethnic backgrounds. As the
economiC sectors increased from time to time, ethnic based labor division
has became less important.

Following ch ange of economic order of the country from command economy

to market economy, private investors began to flow to th e town.
The phenomenon accompanied by existence of additional labor division in
the town. The position of th e town and government attitude towards
investment paves the way to growth of private investors in the town.
Currently, there are 79 industries registered in the town. Among these 22
are operating and 3 are under construction the r est are not yet operational.

In general, from economic hi story of the town, growths of economic sector s

were accompanied by growth of labor division over time. Currently, industry
workers, governme nt employers, merchants and service providers such as
transport, hotels and recreation centers are the existing labor division in the
town .

24
 3.4 Spatial Extent of Urban Built up Area

Any urban cente rs pass throu gh differ ent stage s of grow

th, rangi ng from
Tuku l settle ment to mega cities with ch ange of their size and
shape s.
The urba n built up area of Alam gena is growi ng from time
to time. In early
time, proba bly 1935, it was looks like a villag e. As time passe
s gradu ally,
the spatia l exten t of the built up a rea has expan ded horiz ontall
y towar ds the
perip hery. As can be seen from the Map 1 the total urban built
up area was
124.9 hecta res in 1972. The expan sion follows the main road
towar ds Addis
Abab a d: ··ectio n.

The total built up area has incre ased to 450.4 hecta res
in 1994. The
expan sion in this time was not only towar ds Addis Abab a
direct ion , it has
also goes in to the rural areas , which are situa ted at left and
right sides of
the main road (Map 1) .

The expan sion has conti nues reach ing its peak in 2003
, where the
expan sion plan, which is pre pared by BOW UD, provi des addit
ional land for
urban use. The pla n has incor pora ted 646.9 hecta res of land
to urban use.
Curre ntly total area of the town, inclu ding the expan sion
sites is 1355. 2
hecta res. (See Map below )

Durin g these three time inte rvals , as the town exp a nd s, la

nd use chang es
a r e obser ved . Agric ultura l la nd uses, Resid ential land uses,
indus trial land
uses and other s are the obser ved land use ch anges . (Tabl e
3. 1)

25
Table 3.1 Alem gena Town Land Cove r/Use (1972 -2007 ).

Years
Land 1972 1994 2007
cover / use
Resid ential 112.8 3 450.4 1102. 0 6
Agric ultura l 1230 .3 892.7 3 3.76
Indus tria l - - 223.6
Other s* 1 12 .07 12.07 25.76
*Chur ch, Mosq ues, Gover nmen t organizatIOns and schoo l.

Eve n thoug h , Bour ne, L.S (1971 ) urban land use succe
ssIOn matri x IS
essen tial to show the town 's land succe ssion , it is diffic ult
to show it with
the availa ble data. Howe ver, other resea rcher s will do it to
show land use
succe ssion of the town.

26
 38 39'
6
38· 40' 38°4 1'
ETHIOPIA

8°57'
W
*E - s 8057

1
L

8 56'
6
1- - 1m(/§§/////JV//7////~//§/#//§/7JVJV//ff- -( \ 1 8°56'
Legend

Asphalt

Town Expanstion (Year)

<lIIJTlP 1972

§ 1994
2007
8°55, 1
To Se5eta

~~ l· --- I 1 8°55'

38°39' 38·40' 38°41'

Alem Gena Town Expanstion (1972-2007)

Source:- EMA, Aeria l PhotO,1972,1994 and Google earth 2007

27
3.5 Planning and Expansion in Alamgena Town.

3.5.1 Planning

The town h as got its first pla n in 1998 pre pared by BOWUD . The plan was
prepar ed with the objective of proper utilization of the available land .
According to the plan, land use of the town h as b een sub divided into
resid enti a l land use, urban agri cultural land use, industrial land use,
servi ce land uses a nd open spaces.

Many factors have contributed to the fa ilure of th e plan. According to

BOWUD pla nners' team, the rural Wereda administra tors la nd a llocation
system, d evelopme nt of squatter se ttlements along the main road around
Kerabu and the [ormation of elongated shape of the town a re the m ajor
problems observed in the a rea. To overcome these problems, BOWUD
planner s revised the existing plan of the town . Accordingly, a 10-year
development plan with Welete co rridor was prepared in 200 2 . Proper
management of the available land, reshaping the elongated shape of the
town a nd protecting squatter development was the objectives of preparing
the revised plan of the town.

The plan h as provided 646.9 hectares of land for urban use from the
s urrounding rural areas. Ou t of these, 4 23 .3 hectares are for residentia l
la nd use a nd 223 .6 h ec tares are for industrial land uses . The industria l
la nd use areas located at Daleti and Kerabu, which are 88.1 hec tares a nd
135.5 hecta r es res pectively. (Annex 2)

Acco rding to the plan, the land uses h ave divided into three. Reside ntial a nd
co mme rcia l la nd uses, which is found at the right side of the m a in road as
on e comes [rom Addis Ababa a nd th e previous built up areas. The second
type is industria l land use that exists a t the left s ide of reside ntial a nd
commercia l site a nd at Butajira roa d. The third typ e is urba n agriculture
a nd ope n s p aces.

28
3.5.2 Nature of the Expansion

The n ature of expansion of Ala m gen a town has two characteristics, demand
driven expan sion and s upply driven expansion . Expansion before 2002
c h a racterized by demand driven expa nsion and expa nsion after 2002 is
c h a r acterized by s upply driven expansion.

3.5.2.1 Expansion before 2002: Demand Driven

The n ature of expansion before 2 002 was because of the incr ease in la nd
deman d . La nd demand in the town is a fun ction of population growth ,
which is highly a ffected by the town's proximity to Addis Ababa a nd
establishment of differe nt government a nd priva te organizatio ns. It is a n
established fact that land is a fixed r esource that cannot increase or
d ec rease. In order to m eet th e demand, pus hing the town's boundary
toward s its pe riphery is the available solution. Such trend of the expansion
h as leads to the conclusion that exp a nsion before 2002 is a result of
increase in land de mand in the town.

3.5.2.2. Expansion after 2002: Supply Driven

Revision of the 1998 pla n is the cause for exp ansion of Alamgena town a fter
2002. With the o bj ectives of compacting shape of the town, controlling
spontan eous urba n sprawl a nd squatter d evelopment, BOWUD planners
h ave prmid ed additional urban land through incorporating the surrounding
fa rmland s into urba n land uses. Following land supply, people a r e attrac ted
to area. In o ther word , la nd supply attr acts d em and .

29
 Table 3.2 Municipal Land supply by Function
Supplied land by use lype

Year Reside ntial Commercial Industrial Service and

La nd (M2) Land (M2) Land( M2) other land Total
use(W)
200 1 14200 10000 17565 Not avai la ble 44865
2002 7200 12500 119669 105000 244369
2003 141000 25027 193524 16000 375551
2004 226600 13905 432220 56000 728725
2005 4666920 12185 44529 37650 561284
Total 855920 73617 807507 214650 1951794
..
Source: FIve-year report of the munICIpa lity

From the above Table, 85.59 hecta res of land allocated to residential land
uses a nd 111.29 hectares has been given for commercial, industrial and
other uses during 2 001 - 2005 .

More over, according to interviewed 5 investors, the attr active land lease
price a nd land supply pull them to invest in the town. Additionally, all 50
interviewed new comers said they are attracted by land supply of the
municip&,ity. Therefore, one can say that land supply caut;es expansion
Alamgena town.

30
 CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS

This chapter deals with the impact of Alamgena town expansIon on the
livelihood of per urban farming communities. Expansion after 2002 has
been done through expropriation of land from the farmers. In order to
analyze the consequence of expansion on farmers' livelihood, different
methodological triangulation has been used. Surveying, key informant in
depth interview, focus group discussion and personal observation are the
methods employed.

The first part of this chapter is about general background of the

re spondents. It briefly explains physical and socio economic background of
the study sties . The second part is about implementation of land
expropriation and reaction of farmers towards implementation of land
expropriation Program. The third part is about compensation payment
process and decision about the amount to be paid. Infrastructure allotment
and Farmers' attitude towards the benefits is included in this part of the
chapter.

The fourth part deals with the impact of expansion on the live lihood of the
farmers. Here more emphasis is given to assets of the farmers. Social and
Environmental impact of expansion is analyzed in this part. The last part of
the chapter deals with farmers' coping mechanism and the problem they
face wh ile they are adapting urban ways of life .

31
4.1 General background of the respondents

Before a n a lyzing the findin gs, it is essential to in troduce phy sical a nd socio-
economic backgr ounds of the respond en ts. The following discussion is
a bou t the gen eral backgrounds of the respondents.

4.1.1. Physical backgrounds ofthe study sites.

As mentioned in methodological pa rt th e expa nsion s ites are three : two

industria l la nd use sties and one reside ntial land use site. For this study
purpose one industria l s ite, Kera bu s ite, and the residential site a re
selected.

Physical setting of t h e industria l la nd use site looks like nucleated rural

se ttlem ent type. At the fron t side of t heir r esident, towards th e m a in road,
th eir farmland was exis ted before expropriation. At the back of their vi llage,
irrigation farmland is found. Vegetable like carrot, onion, cabbages and
other vegetables are products of the area. Under ground water is the source
of irri gation water. They dig a deep pond , with a minimum depth of 10 m e ter
to find water. After they finish digging the ponds, they construct wooden
wall a long the inne r s ides of t he pond for protection of soil s lide. At its
mou th, th e pond is protected with fences . Exce pt drinking, th e water is used
for dome stic co nsumption . A road that connects th eir irrigation la nd with
the main road, whic h p a sses throu gh their r esidence, is ava ilable .

The p hys ical setting of r esidential site is differ ent from industrial s ite .
Before e"pansion, farmers were living in a form of d econcentrate rural
settlement. Their fa rmlands, which were used for cereal production, were
found immed iately a fte r farmers's reside n ce . However, after la n d
expropriation, th ese fa rmers totally becam e urban ized.

32
4.1.2. Socio-Economic Background

Table 4.1 Socio Econom ic Background of the Respondents

Vari a bles Industrial site Residential site
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Sex Male 68 86.8 29 78.4
Female 11 13.9 8 21.6
Age <30 2 2.8 1 2 .7
30-40 16 20.3 9 24.3
41 -50 26 32.9 11 29.7
>50 35 44.3 16 43.2
Single - - 2 5.4
Marriage Married 75 94 .9 29 78.4
Divorced - 1 2.7
Widowed 4 5 .0 5 13.5
Family size <5 4 2 .1 10 2.7
5-10 60 75.9 21 56 .8
>10 15 19.0 6 16.2
In Alamgena 75 94.9 36 97.3
Place of 2.7
Out of Alamgena 4 5 .1 1
birth
Illiterate 36 45.6 17 45 .9
Educational Read a nd write 13 16.5 7 18.9
Back ground 1-6 10 12.7 7 18.9
7-8 15 19.0 1 2 .7
9-12 5 6.3 3 8.1
12 + - 2 5.4
Daily labor 7 8.9 18 48.6
Job Private 29 36.7 7 18.9
Public e mploy - 7 18. 9
Private small 4 5.0 1 2 .7
industry employ
House wife 3 3 .8 2 5.4
Irrigation fa rm 32 40.5 2 5.4
Nojob 4 5.0 -
Year of la nd Before 1994 - 3 8 .1
expropriation Betwee n 1994 -
(Ethiopian 77 97 .5 34 91.9
1996
calendar) Afte r 1996 2 2.5 - -

33
Socio-economi c backgrounds of th e r esponde nts a re prese nted in Table 4. 1.
Out of the total 79 selected r espondents , 68 m a les and 11 female s Re found
in the ir.'iustrial site. The figure for residentia l site shows that out of the
total 37 selected respondents, 7 8.4% a re male and 21.6% are fem a le.

From the age data, in industria l site 26 res pondents a re aged between 41 -50
years old. Thirty- five are a bove 50 years old . Respondents who a re between
3 0 a nd 40 years old are 16 and the remaining 2 are b elow 30 years old.
From the figures, the m ajority of the responde nts (44.3%) are above 50
years old.

In residential s ite, only one respondent is aged below 30 years old .

Res pondents whose age is a bove 50 years old are 4 3 .2 % of the total
re spondf''lts. Those re sponde nts whose age is betwee n 3 0 and 4 0 are
24. 3%. Th e remaining 29.7% are aged between 41 and 50 years.
As th e data shows, from both sites the m ajority of the respondents a re
a bove 50 years old .

All, except four, respondents in the industrial site a re married. In re s idential

site, thou g h la rge proportion of the respondent a re married (78.4%), there
are s ingles, divorced a nd widowed . Singles are 5.4% where a s 2 .7 a re
divorced . The re maining 13 .5% are widowed.

Family size of the respond ents, from both s ites, ra nges b etwee n 2 to 14. On
ave rage, q household has 7 fa mily membe r s in industrial site and 5 family
m e mbe rs in residential site.

Except four respondents , in industria l site none are migra nts. Only one
respond e nt from residential site is immigra nt to the town.

Educational background data of the respond ents shows that in industrial

s ite, most of them a re not grade 12 completes. Only 6.3% of the responde nts

34
are able to a ttend high school level education. The majority of the
respondents (4 5 .6%) are illiter ates.

In residen tial site though majority of the responde n ts (45.9%) are illiterate,
th e re are few respondents who attend above grade 12 (5.4%). Therefore, in
both site many of the respond e n ts a re illiterate.

Regardinp; their socia l r ela tion, according to key inform a nts, in industrial
s ite farmers h ave strong relation among themselves. All a r e relatives to each
oth er. Th ey are rela ted to each oth er by eith e r m arriage or blood. In th e
residential s ite, the social relation is limited to social institutions like iddir,
equb, se nbe te a nd neighborhood.

Economic background of the respondents shows th at all, except four ,

respondents in both s ites are doing income gener ating jobs. In industrial
site, farming (vegetable production) is the dominant economic activity.
About 40.5% of the respondents are engaged on it. In residential site, daily
labor is the dominant economic activity; for about 48 .8% of the resp ond ents
are en gaE,cd in it.

4.2 Implementation of land Expropriation and Farmers Response

A year a fter th e r evision of 1998 plan of the town, in 2003, la nd

expropriation in industrial site r each es its peak. Ou t of the total
respondents in this site, 36.7% h a d lost their la nd in this year. Two year
a fter the revision of the 1998 pla n of th e town, 2004 land expropriation in
residential site reach es its peak wh e re 89 .2% of the r espondent h as lost
th eir land.
4.2.1 Implementation Stage

The farn, ~ rs wer e not aware of th e expanslOn program until their la nd is

expropriated. Out of the total selected sample respondents from residential
site, 94.6% said th at they d id not know about th e expansion program un til
th eir la nd was expropria ted. In industrial site, out of the total 79

35
 respo nden ts 97.5% did not know abou t la nd expro priati on
until their land
was expL,priat ed. (Tabl e 4.2)

Table 4.2 Awar eness of Farm ers abou t Urban Expa nsion befor
e Their Land
Expro priate d.
Resid ential site Indus trial site
Frequ ency Perce nt Frequ ency Perce nt
Yes 2 5.4 2 2.5
No 35 94 .6 77 97.5
Total 37 100 79 100

One of my key infor mant s has told me "Whe n I saw peopl

e meas uring my
farml and, I appro ached them and asked what they were doing
on my land.
They told me that they came from muni cipali ty to expro
priate my land. I
oppo sed them , but nobod y was willin g to give me attent ion".

Table 4.3 show s farme rspre awar eness and their respo nse to the
gover nmen t. Ninet y two point two perce nt of the respo nden ts from
indus tria l site answ ered that they did not get enou gh
time to prepa re
them selve s befor e expro priati on of their land. Amon g these
respo ndent s, 40
(54.8) are those who refus ed to give their land at the requi
red time . Thirty -
three respo nden ts (45 .2%) left their land with out objec tion.
Simil arly, the
data from resid entia l site show s that 86 .5% of the total
respo ndent s
answ ered that they did not get enou gh t ime to prepa re them
selve s before
expro priati on of their land. Amon g these farme rs, none
of them has
negot iated with the gover nmen t for addit ional time. Twen
ty-tw o of them
(68.8% ) refus ed to hando ver their land at the r equir ed
time and the
rema ined 10 respo nde nts (31.2 5%) leave their land with out
objec tion.
Many of key infor mant s and discu ssant s of focus group said
that giving out
their land at the time set by the gover nmen t witho ut objec
tion does not

36
 mean that they are happy and accep t land expro priati on but
it is becau se of
their li mited powe r to resist the gover nmen t action .

Table 4.3. Farm ers who did not get enoug h time to prepa
re them selve s
befor e expro priati on of their lands and there respo nse.
Farm ers, who did not get
Site,; Farm ers who did enoug h time, respo nden ts
not ge t enou gh
time befor e Refus ed to Leave their
expro priati on of leave their land witho ut
their lands land at the objec tion
requi red time.
F % F % F %
Indus trial 73 92.2 40 54.8 33 45 .2
site
Resid en tial 32 86.5 22 68.8 10 31.25
site

From the above data, one unde rstan ds that there was no
consu ltatio n with
the farme rs on imple ment ation . This appro ach of the gover
nmen t paves the
way for fa rmers ' appri se . As show n in Table 4.3, major ity of
the farme rs did
not leave their la nd as reque sted by the gover nmen t.

In order to imple ment the progr am, gove rnme nt takes

forcef ul m easur e
a ga inst farme rs who refus ed to leave their land. A key
infor mant from
muni cipali ty has inform ed that if the farme rs were not convi
nced to leave
the land , the imple ment ers would use force. More over,
the respo ndent
farme rs have also witne ssed the forced imple ment ation of
the progr am . All
k ey infor mant s and a ll atten dants of focus group
discu ssion have
m e ntion ed that they could even not speak in front of offici
als abou t their
right while their land is expro priate d . Farm ers were put in
jail for oppos ing
la nd expro priati on.

The surve y resul t, prese nted in Table 4.4, also show s the forcef u l
imple ment ation land expro priati on.

37
 Table 4.4 Farmers response towards expropria tion of th eir land.
Sites
Industria l site Residential site
F % F %
Accept with out 2 2 .5 3 8. 1
obj ection
Resis ted and forced 75 94 .9 13 35.1
to leave m y la nd
First r esisted the m 2 2 .5 21 56.8
convin ced to level
my land

In t he industrial site out of the total 79 responde nts, only two accept
expropriation of their la nd without objection. The majority of the
respondents (94 .9 % ) are those who r esisted and fo rced to leave their la nd.

In the residential sit e, out of the total 37 r espondents, only three accept
expropriation of th eir la nd. The majority (56.8%) of the respondents first
resisted and th e n convin ced to leave th eir land. The remaining 35. 1% a re
those who r esisted until they are forced to leave their la nd. These responses
of t he farm e rs indicate how the implem e ntation was forceful.

4.2.2 Farmers response

The meA.sures taken by the gove rnmen t created hostili ty towards

government offic ia ls. Fa rmers expressed their hostility toward s the
governmen t in diffe rent word s. The industria l site fo cus group discussion
s peak ers has pointed out that "all governme nt policies at higher level IS

good but when it com es to lower level implem e nters, like municipa li ty, IS

really offen s ive". This expres sion tells us how the farmers develop hostility
toward s govern ment officials who are workin g at lower level.

During fo cu s group di scu ssion with eleven farmers from indus tria l site, they
express their disappointmen t by saying "Look my h a ir; it was black like

38
yours before I lost my land but now it became white this is because of my
land." As I observe all of them except one person have white hair.

These expressions indicate how implementation of the expansion program

was offt''1sive for the farmers. As presented in Table 4.5, the farmers
inconvenience was not on expansion program but they a re against the way
the government implement it.

Out of the total 37 sampled households from residential site, 40.5% agree
with the expansion program. Twenty four point three percent of the
respondents did not support the expansion program while 38% of the total
79 respondents from industrial site agree with the expansion program.
Twenty six point six percent of the respondents are those who disagree with
the program. Thirty five point one percent of th e respondents from
residential site and 35.4% of the respondents from indus trial site neither
agree nur disagree with the expansion program. Their neutra lity is
emanated from their dissatisfaction.

Table 4.5 Farmers' a ttitud e towards expansion

S ites Agree Disal ree Indifferen t
F % F % F %
Industrial 30 38.0 21 26 .6 28 35.4
site
Residential 15 40 .5 9 24 .3 13 35.1
site

In conclusion, SInce implementation of urban expansIOn program In

Alamgena town was not preceded by consultation with the farmers, it
results in confrontation with farmers. The farmers' resistance leads to forced
implementation of land expropriation, which again creates hostility towards
government officials.

These observations coincide with Scudder and Colson's (1982) model of

successful resettlement project at site preparation stage. The model states

39
that at initia l stage of site preparation, respect and r egard for the interest of
project-affected peoples (farmers) is less. More attention is given for the sake
of advan cin g th e interest of investors. This action of the government will
lead to the creation of a period of stress a nd hostility towards government
and its officials by the fa rmers.

4.3 Compensation and Allotment of Benefits to the Farmers

4.3.1 Compensation Payment Processes

Office of th e presid ent of ONRS wrote a letter to OBWUO on October 3, 1997

about compensation to be p a id for fa rmers whose land to be expropriated
for investments . According to the letter, the base for estimation is
agricultural productivity of th e land in monetary values. Therefore, the base
for calculating the amount of compensation was the amount of income
disconnected due to land expropriation . Based on this, co mpensation
amou nt was computed by taking the precedent 5 years average production
harvested from the land and multiplying by 10 (year factor).

Five year after the letter, 2002, executive council of the region decided to
reduce the year factor from 10 to 5. The reason for reducing the year factor
was it amounts the compensation cost b eyond payment capacity of the
government.

In 2005, FORE has issued procla mation No. 455/2005 to guide the
expropriation of land holdings for public purposes and payment of
compe nsation. Part 3 of the proclamation h as set the bases for amount of
compensation payment for la nd expropriation. The bases are; current
repayment cost of the properties, which are lost due to expropriation, cost
in curred for the improvements made to the land and other elements such as
cost of removal, transportation cost for properties, reconstruction cost,
whic h w •.l relocate, and income discontinued due to expropriation . The
proclamation empowers reglOns to Issue directives for the proper

40
implementation of this proclamation. Weredas and urban administrators are
responsible for determining types of compensation, valuation of properties
and com~ li ance of landholders handling.

In 2 006, the executive council of ONRS has revised the compensation

payment lD accordance with the amendments of proclamation No.
455/2005. They change year factor from 5 year to 10 year and consider
properties situated on the land and improvements made to the land by the
la ndholders.

In practice, the municipality has considered only the disconnected income

earned from the land. The compensation payment before September 2006
was based on 5-year production . The amount of many paid for the farmers
were 0.7n birr per one meter square . The compensation did not consider
any property on the land and improvement made to the land by the
landholder. As key informants from both industrial and residential sites
inform, thought the government took properties on the land, they were not
paid any compensation for the property.

Compensation after September 2006 is computed based on 10 years year

factor that increased compensation per meter square from 0.70 birr to 5.50
birr. Still the compensation did not consider properties on the land and
improvement made to th e land by the landholders.

The implementation a nd the ONRS's revised bases for calculation of

compensation amounts mismatch. The elements in the revised issue include
properties on land and improvement made to th e land . However, in practice
no farmer has got compensation for the properties lost.

There is also a mismatch between proclamation No 455/2005 and revised

compensation payment criteria of ONRS lD 2006 . ONRS's revised
compensation payment criteria consider only amount of lDcome

41
disconnected because of expropria tion, properties on the land a nd
improvement made to the land by the landholders.

In general, it can be concluded that as the proclamation goes down steps

towards implemente rs , more amendments have been omitted.

4.3.2 Promised and Obtained Benefits

The benefits promised to and obtained by the farmers have been classified
in to three: mon ey, private infrastructure and communal infrastructure.
Electric, water and telephone are private infrastructure and road , school
health institution and market are communal infrastructure.
As the survey result shows, 94.6% of the respondents from r esidential site
proved that the government has promised to give money compensation,
housing plot, urban services, job opportunity and training. Among the
..
promises majority of farmers (73%) got only money compensation, 13.5% of
got nothing.
•
In the industria l s ite a lmost all respondents , 97.5%, have witnessed that the
governm ' :11: has promised to give money compensation , housing plot, u rban
services, job opportunity and training. However, th e fu lfilled promIses, as
majority of the respondents (65 .8%) answered, were only money
compe nsation. Thirty four point two percent of the respondents got nothing.
All respo ndents got h ousing plot for themselves. In fact, 1 1 farmers from
industrial site a nd some other farmers who refused to take what they called
"u nfair" money did not get compensation.

Regarding infrastructures, from the fie ld observation road connected to the

main road, electric, pipe water and tele phone delivered to the residential
site. In industrial site except for industries, th ese urban services are not
provided to th e farmers . The available urban infrastructures a re not the
result of expansion but farmers have brought it to their village by
themse lves before expansion . The focus group discussion shows that they

42
have cor ,tructed a tertiary road by their own labor and they have brought
electricity by their own money before the implementation of the expansion.

From the survey result, (Table 4.6) 64 .9% of respondents from residentia l
site have answered that they obtained electric, pipe water and telephone for
their house. In industria l site, only 12.7% of the total respondents answer
as they h ave got e lectric, water and telephone for their house.

Ninely seven point two percent of the r espondents in residential site said
that they have got communal infrastructures like school and road . From
industrial site, 16.5% of the total 79 respondents are those who witnessed
as they have got road a nd school.

The aforeme ntioned data tells that the farmers in residential site have
benefited more with communal infrastructures than farmers from industria l
site. Regarding the private infrastructure, it is same as to the communal
infrastructure where by residential site farmers a r e benefited more than
those in the industrial s ite.

Out of 50 interviewed new comers, 82% responded that they offered jobs for
the farmers and a ll the 5 interviewed investor s a nswered that th ey gave job
opportunity for the farmers who are able to compete.

Tal·~e 4.6 Benefits farmers got because of expansion .

Sites
Ben efits Industria l site Residential site
F % F %
E lectric, water 10 12.7 24 64 .9
telephone
Clinic and 1 l.3 2 5.4
market
Road and 13 16.5 36 97.2
school
Money 52 65.3 27 73 .5
compensation
Nothing 27 34.2 5 13.5

43
4.3 .3 Farmers Attitude towards the Benefits Obtained

As presented in Table 4 .7 Majority of farmers (96.2%) from industrial site

we re not happy with the benefit they earn ed. Only 1. 3% of the r espondents
are happy with some of the benefit and the remaining 2 .5% happy with a ll
the bent-fits they received. The same is true for residential site. Majority
(56.8%) of the total respondents are not happy with the be nefits they
obtained. Only 2.7% of the respondents are happy with it. The remaining
30. 5% are happy with some of the benefits . The data implies that the benefit
allotted to the farmers were disappointing.

Table 4.7 Farmers' happiness with the benefits they have obtained .
Industrial site Residential site
All Some None All Some None
F % F % F % F % F % F %
2 2 .5 1 1.3 76 96.1 1 2 .7 15 30.5 21 56.8

As prese nted in Table 4.8, in industrial site , 75 .9% of the total respondents
are highly di ssatisfied and discouraged with what they got. Only 2.5% are
satisfied with the benefit. In residential site, 51.4 % of the total respondents
are dissatisfied w ith the benefits they obtained and 24.3% are highly
dissatisfied and discouraged.

Table 4.8 Farmers feeling about the benefit they obtained.

Sites

Feeling about the Industrial site Residentia l site

benefit F % F %
Satisfied 2 2.5 I 2.7
Dissatislled 12 15 .2 19 51.4
Highly dissatisfied 60 75.9 9 24.3
and discouraged
Indifferent 2 2.5 7 18.9
Non response 3 3 .8 1 2.7

44
Both tables (Table 4 .7 and Ta ble 4.8) show tha t respondent in indus tria l site
are more dissa tisfied tha n respond ents in r esidential site. From my personal
observation, r espondents from industria l site are more offended when they
are talkin g about the issue of land expropriation. Most of them are a ngry
when they express their feeling towards the benefits. Though respondent in
residential site are dissatisfied with the benefit they got, I did not see any
person who is very a ngry and offended.

In residential site, out of the total 28 dissatisfied respondents, o nly 8

(28 .6%) respondents applied their dissatisfaction to the concerned
government body. In industrial site, out of the total 72 d issatisfied
re s ponde nts, 54 (75%) of the respondents applied their d issa tisfaction to the
con cern ed government body. Of these 8 compla ints in residential site, 7
(8 7 .5%) have got disappointing a nswer fr om the gove rnme nt officials. In
industrial site out of the to tal 54 applicants, 47 (87%) have got
di sappointing a nswer.

Fro m the data , one unde rsta nds that the benefits a llotted to the fa rmers
were not in favor of farmers' interest. Th e government way of handling
compliar ~e shows how the farmers were m arginalized a nd get little attention
from the governme nt.

4.4 Impact of expansion on the livelihood of Farmers

Before analyzi ng the impact of urban expansion on livelihood of farm ers, it

is important to analyze their economic statu s before expansion.

4.4.1. Economic Status of the Farmer before Expansion.

Since rural livelihood is more de p endent on land , analyzing farmers land

holding get priority in this study.
In indusL,ial site, there were 226 h ectares of land holding under 79 selected
sam ple household s . In average each households had 2.86 h ectares of land

45
holding. The maximum land holding s ize for one household was 8 hectares.
Two households had held the maximum amount of land for each . There was
no land balding less than 1 hector for a household. Many of the respondents
(26 .6%) had 3 hectares of land holding.

In residential s ite, there was a total 77.4 hectares of land holdings under 37
selected sampled households. The average holding size of one household
was 2.09 hectares and the maximum holding size was 5 hectares. Two
households had held the maximum amounts of land for each. No household
had less than 0 .5 hectare of land. Seven farmers had 1.5 hectares of land
holding for each.

For comparison, the average holding size in residential site IS lesser than
industrial site average holding size by 0.77 h ectare (26.9 %) of land. The
maximum holding size in industrial site was 8 hectares while in residential
s ite it was 5 hectares. The minimum size of land holding by a farm
household in industria l site was 1 hectare and in residential site, it is lesser
by 0.5 hectare (50 %). The data in general shows that a farm household In

industrial site held more land than the residential site .

Analysis of farmers' assets such as domestic animals, permanent plants and

number of houses comes next to land holding analysis.

There were 2053 domestic animals in industrial s ite owned by 79 selected

sample households. Among these, livestock were 965 , poultries were 969
and pack animals were 119. On average, a household has 12 livestock and
1 pack animal. The maximum number of livestock owned by a h ousehold
was 50 a nd pack animal was 4 . Two households had 50 livestock each and
8 households had 4 pack animals each. Forty-three house hold s had no
pack a nimals. No household had less than 5 livestock.

In the residential site, the total numbers of domestic animals owned by 37

selected sample households were 1386. Of these, livestock were 520, pack

46
animals we re 84 and the remammg 782 were poultries. On average, a
house hold had 14 livestock and 2 pack animals . The maximum number of
livestock owned by a household was 85 and the maximum number of pac k
animals owned by a household was 6. Out of the total sampled households,
one household had 85 livestock and another one had 6 pack animals. The
minimum a mount of livestock owned by a household was 2. Sixteen
house ho1rjs had no pack animal.

As can be seen from the above data presentation average livestock owned by
a household is higher by 14.3% in residential s ite than the industrial site.
Average pack animal owned by a household in residential site was higher by
50% than the industrial site. In the residential site, maximum number of
livestock owned by a household was higher by 35 livestock (41.2%) than the
industrial site . The comparison on maximum number of pack a nimals
owned by one household shows that in residential s ite it was higher by
33.3% than the industrial site.

Totally 9">2674 permanent p lants were owned by sampled house holds in

industrial site. On average, a household h a d 12059 permanent plants. The
maximum numbe r of pe rmanent plants owned by one household was
100000 (8 households had for each) . The minimum number of permanent
plants owned by a household was 2.

In resid e nti a l site , there were total of 49924 permanent plants owned by 37
households. On ave rage, each household has 1349 permanent plants. The
maximum amount of p e rmane nt pla nt owned by a household was 10000;
where as the minimum amount was 1. Thirteen point five percent of the
total respondents h a d 150 permanent plants each.

The average holding of permanent plant per hou seh old was higher in
industrial site th a n th e residential site by 11.2%. The maximum amount of

47
permanedt plant own ed by a house hold was also higher in indus trial site by
10% than residential site.

In industr ial s ite, a ll sampled households h ad a totally of 316 rooms. On

ave rage, a h ouse h old had 4 rooms. Maximum number of room owned by
one household was 11 w h e re as the minimum was 1.

The total number of rooms owned by 37 sampled households in residential

s ite was 122 . On aver age, a household had 3 rooms. The m aximum number
of room owned by one h ou seh old was 1 1 where as the minimum was 1.

For comparison, as the d a ta shows, there was more number of room s In

industrial s ite tha n the r esidential site .

The in com e data of the respondents' shows that three farmers h ad earned
less than 151 birr per month. Twenty-nine respondents had earned 15 1-500
birr per m o nth. Respondents who earn 501- 1000 birr per month were 27.
Eigh t respondents h ad earned 1001-1 500 birr per month and two
respondents h a d earned 1501-2000 birr per month . The remaining 10
respondents had earned more than 2 000 birr per m onth. Three thousand
Birr Per month was the m aximum a mount of income earned per month
where as 100 birr were the minimum a mount of monthly income earned by
the fa rm ns per month .

In reside nti a l s ite, seven respondents had earned 15 1-500 birr per month.
The m aj ori ty of the respondents (2 6 ) had earned 501 - 1000 birr p er month .
Three resp ond e nts had earned 100 1-1500 birr p er m onth . The remaining
one res pondent h as earned m ore than 2001 birr pe r month. One thousand
five hundred Birr per month was the maximum amount of m oney earned by
a h ousehold a nd th e minimum amount of monthly income earned by one
household per month was 300 birr.

48
To ge neralize, fa rme r s from indus tria l site wer e rich e r tha n farm er s In

res ide n tial site farm ers before la nd exprop riation .

4.4.2 Analysis of Impact of Expansion on Assets of the Farmers

4.4.2.1 In .pact on Land Holding

As d iscus sed in ch a pter 3, th e revised pla n of th e town h as provided land

for urban u se from t h e s urrounding rural a r ea . Implem e ntatio n of the plan
h as foll owed by expropria tion of la nd from fa rme r s holding.

The ex pan s ion progr a m re sulted in loss of 193 .62 hect a r es of la nd fr om 79

selected sample h ouse h olds from industria l s ite . The to ta l la nd size left for
79 h ou seh olds is only 32 .48 h ecta r es . Following this , th e average h olding
s ize of a h ou seh old h a s declined from 2 .86 h ectares to 0.4 1 h ectare . This
means, on average, o n e h ou sehold h a s lost 2.4 h ecta res of land . The
maximui .. la nd h olding size has d eclined by 8 7 .5% a nd th e minimum
h olding s ize d eclined by 98.8% . Sixteen point five p er cent of t h e total
responde n ts were left with 0. 5 h ecta re s of la ndholding.

The r esiden tia l s ite, 37 selected sa m ple h ouse h olds lost a tota l of 74 .86
h ectar es of la nd a nd wer e left w ith 2.54 h ectar es . The total h oldin g size h as
d eclin ed by 96 .7% . The ave rage h olding s ize of on e h ouseh old h as a lso
declined from 2 .09 h ectare to 0. 069 h ectare, whi ch m ean s th at on e
h ou seh old in a ve rage , h as lost 2 .0 2 h ectares (9 6 .7% of the p reviou s h olding)
of la n d becau se of urba n expa n sion . The maximum holding s ize , which was
5 h ectare, h as declined to 0. 5 hecta re . The minimum s ize of la nd holding
h as d eclined by 0.48 h ec ta r e (96%). Majority of the re s p onde nts (67.6%) a re
le ft with 0. 05 h ectares of la nd.

To ta l la nd holdin g s ize in indu stria l s ite h as d eclined by 8 5 .6% wh ere as in

residentia l s ite it d eclined by 96 .7% . The percentage ch a n ge shows th at
more la n d is exp ropria ted from residen tial site tha n industria l site .

49
 In avera ge, th e res identi al s ite farm e rs lost m ore land than
the indus trial
site farme rs.

The reaso n for su ch uneq ua l expro priati on of la nd Size, be

tween reside ntial
site and indus tria l s ite is their geogr aphic al locati on wh
e re fa rmers in
indus tria l site were situa ted a little farthe r from the main
road than the
rcside ntial s ite . The expan sIOn h as not ye t a ffects
their veget able
produ ction s land it only expro priate their ce rea l produ
ction land . In
reside nti " l site, a ll farme rs lost a ll of their land excep
t their home
comp ound . They are tota lly en gulfed by expan ding urban area.

4.4.2.2 Impac t on Other Assets.

Becau se of urban expan sion, fa rmers lost their la nd . The expan

sion did not
direct ly a ffect their prope rty but, indire ctly, throu gh expro priati
ng their land
it a ffect oth er farme rs ' prope rties.

Table 4.9 prese nts wh e r e farme rs' prope rties, excep t land,
has gone after
th eir la nd is expro priate d . From reside ntial site 83.8% a nd
from ind u strial
site 62% of the total respo nden ts s a id that they sold t h eir
p r opert ies . These
respo nse;; of the fa rmers indic ate how the expa n s ion indire
ctly affect s their
prope rties oth e r than la ndho lding .

Table 4.9 Farm e rs' Resp onse on where their Prope rty has
gon e a fte r Lan d
Expro priati on.
Resid ential site Indus tria l site
F % F %
Sold 31 83 .8 49 62
Cons umed 6 16.2 30 38
To tal 37 100 79 100
Fa rmers asset , other tha n land h oldin g, a n a lyzed in this
thesis are their
dome stic a nima ls, perm anen t pla nts a nd roo m numb er.

50
 4.4.2.2.1 Impac t on Dome stic Animals

The dome stic anim als in indus trial site owne d by 79

select ed samp le
hous e holds h ave declin ed by 81.6%. Curre ntly the total dome
s tic anim als
left with the farme rs are only 377 . The avera ge numb er of
livest ock owne d
by one house hold h as declin ed to 2 . Lives tock h ave declin
ed by 83.3% .
Follow in g expr o priation of their land , 46 respo nden ts were
left with no
livest ock.

The reside ntial s ite data s hows that a fter expan sion the numb
er of dome stic
an ima ls owne d by 37 respo nden ts h as declin ed by 83.3% . They
left with 238
dome stic anim a ls . The avera ge numb er of lives tock owne d by
one h ouseh old
h as declin ed by 79%. Each h ou sehol ds in avera ge, h as left
with 3 livest ock.
Followin ~' expro priati on of their land, 16
hous e h olds are left with no
livest ock. Avera ge numb e r of pack a nima ls own ed by one
house hold has
declin ed by 39.2% .

For comp ariso n in indus tria l site, the total numb er of dome
stic a nimal s has
declin ed by 8 1.6% while in r eside ntia l site it d ecline d by 83
.3%. This mean s
more dome stic a nima ls have lost in resid ential s ite th a n indus
trial site.

4.4.2.2.2 Impac t on Perm anent Plants

Thc a m ount of perm anen t plant s m indus tria l site owne d by

79
r espon d e nts , which was 9526 74 , h as declin ed by 95.9% a nd
becam e 38880 .
The a verag e amou nt of perm anent plant owne d by on
e hou sehol d has
declin ed by 51% a nd b ecom es 492. Fourteen house holds
left with no
pe rma n ent p lants.

In resid e ntia l s ite, the total numb er of perm anen t pla n

ts owne d by 37
samp led house holds has declin ed by 99. 13% and b ecam e
436 . The avera ge
numb er of p erma nent pla nt owne d by a hous ehold h as
a lso declin ed by
99.13 % a nd becom e 12. Twen ty-fou r hou sehol d s left with
n o perm a nent

51
 plant s . Obvio usly, from the data, more n u mber of perm anen
t p lants are lost
in reside ntial site than indus trial site.

4.4.2. 2.3 Impac t on Numb er of Hous es

Amon g a ll farme rs' asset s analy zed above , the impa ct on

numb e r of room s
in the study area is excep tiona l. Beca use of u rban expan
sion, a ll other
asset s decre ased in terms of its quant ity. Neve rthele ss, th
e room numb er
incre ased in its quant ity.

The total n umbe r of room s owne d by 79 respo n dents , in

in dustr ial site,
have incre ased by 25.47 % and becom e 424. The avera ge
n umbe r of room s
owne d by one h ouseh old has also incre ased by 25.5% a n d
b ecom e 5.
In reside ntial site, numb er of room s owne d by 37 selec
ted samp le
house holds has incre ased by 40.78 % and becam e 206.T
h e avera ge room
numb er owne d by one h ouseh old h as a lso incre ased by 45.6%
and becom e
S IX .

In comp arison , th e resid entia l site samp le house hold s h

ave more room s
than the m dustr ial site samp le h ouseh olds after expan sion
.

In concl usion , excep t room numb er, all oth er farme rs'
asset s like lan d,
dome s tic anim als, a n d perm anen t plant s are affect ed negat
ively. The impac t
is more prono unced in resid entia l site than indus trials site.

4 .4 .3. Impact of Expansion on Farmers' Income

Urba n expan sion d id not di rectly affect incom e of the

farme rs, rathe r
affect ed it t hroug h affect ing sourc es. For major ity of
th e respo ndent s,
(96 .2%) from indus tri al site and 94.6% from resid entia l site
farm ing was the
on ly sou:--;e of incom e befor e expan sion. Farm activit ies are
very depen dent
on availa bility of land. Th is mean s if there is no enou
gh land to be
cultiv a ted there wi ll be no farm and farm relate d incom e.

52
 As h as bee n found out In this study , farme rs have lost their land due to
urban expan sion. The loss of land is follow ed by loss
of agricu ltural
Produ ction. Loss of agric ultur al produ ctivit y mean s loss
of agricu l tural
incom e . More over, out of the total 79 respo nden ts from indus
trial site, 77
confi rmed the declin e in their incom e . Out of the total 37
respo nden ts from
resid e ntia l site, 26 h ave confi rmed the declin e of their incom
e . Accor ding to
th em , lack of farml a nd, lack of regul a r incom e and lack
of job a r e the
reaso ns for the declin e of their incom e. Out of 77 respo
nden ts from
indus trial site, 57.1 % respo nded, lack of farml and is the reaso
n for declin e
of the ir incom e . In a dditio n , out of 26 respo nde n ts from
r eside n tial site,
42.3% respo nded that the reaso n for the declin e of their
incom e is lack of
farmlanC: . Thirt ee n perce nt of 77 respo nden ts from indus
trial site and
15.4% of 26 respo nden ts from reside ntial site have attrib uted
absen ce of job
for the declin e of their incom e . The rest 42.3% of 26 respo
nden ts from
resid e ntia l site and 29.9% of 77 respo nden ts from indus tria
l s ite, reaso n ed
lack of regul ar incom e for the declin e of their incom e . (Table
4.10)
Table 4.10 Reaso n for the declin e of incom e .
Rea sons Resid entia l Indus trial site
F % F %
No regul a r incom e 11 42.3 23 29.9
Nojo b 4 15.4 10 13 .0
No fa rm land 11 42.3 44 57.1
Total 26 100 77 100

Abse nce of job and r egula r incom e resul ted from loss of
agric ultura l land.
The refore , h aving these prem ises, chang e on farme rs' incom
e is a resul t of
urban expan sion.

In indus trial s ite, there were only three respo nd ents who
used to earn less
than 151 birr per mont h befor e expan sion. After expan sion,
this numb e r
reach ed to 47. Twen ty- five respo nden ts earn betwe en 151
a nd 500 birr per
mont h. Resp onden ts who u sed to earn betwe e n 501
a nd 1000 before
expan sion we r e 27 but this d ecrea sed to five a fter exp a nsion
. Respo nd ents

53
who used to earn between 1000 and 1500 birr per month were eight before
expan sion and after expansion , this number declined to 1 after expansion .
Before expansion, 10 respondents h a d earned more than 2000 birr per
month. After expansion, no respondent earns more than 2000-birr income
per month. After expa nsion, only one respondent can get income between
150 1 and 2000. After exp a nsion, the average monthly income of one
h ouseh old h as d eclined by 647.59 Birr pe r month (70. 7% of the previous
income). The maximum monthly income earned by one household has a lso
dec lined by 1000 Birr and minimum a mount declined by 100 Birr. Because
of expansion, 2.5% of the total respondents h ave no income at a ll currently.

In th e residential site, no respondent used to earn less than 15 1 birr per

m onth before expansion. After expansion, 17 respondents are earning less
than 15 1 birr per month. Re s pondents who earned between 151 and 500
birr per month were seven before expa nsIOn . Afte r expa nsion, 20
respondents a re earnin g between 151 a nd 500 birr per month . Thirty
respondLlts had earned more than 500 birr per month before exp a nsion.
However, after expansion no r espondent earn more than 500 birr per
month . Average monthly income of one household has declined by 461.1
Birr. The maximum amount of incom e earned by one house hold per month
has a lso d eclined by 500 Birr. In this site , 21.6% of the total respondents
have no monthly income after expansion.

4.4.4 Means of Survival and Job Accessibilities after Exprop riation

From the residential site, 62.2% of the total respondents and 22.8% from
industrial site have been jobless for the preceded 12 months a fter their la nd
exp ropric.~e d . Out of the total re spondents, who were working for the
preceding 12 months after land expropriation, 33 from industria l site and 1
from residential site were e n gaged in agr iculture. Twenty-eight r esponde nts
from industria l site and 13 r esponde nts from residential site were engaged
in non-agric ultural work. Among those who did not e n gage in any work for

54
the preceding 12 months, 20 respondents from residential site and 7
responders from industrial site used the compensation for consumption .
One respondent from residential site and 5 respondents from the industrial
si te re lied on remittance (Table 4.11).

Table 4 . 11 Means of livelihood for the preceded 12 months after

expropriation .
Means of livelihood Residential site Industrial site
F % F %
Agricultural 1 2.7 33 41.8
Non agriculture 13 35 .1 28 35.4
Compensation money 20 54.0 7 8.9
Remittb..lce 1 2.7 5 6.4
Puel wood carrying 0 0 6 7.6
House rent 2 5.4 0 0
Total 37 100 79 100

After land expropriation, except one, residential site respondents have

departed from agriculture . Majority of industria l site respondents are still
engaged in agriculture.

Following land expropriation, in both residential and industrial site, getting

jobs for the farmers became difficult. Out of the total respondents in
residential site, 70.3% face difficulty to get job. In industrial site, 68.4% of
the total respondents face difficulty to get job.

According to the survey result, 2 1.6% of the total respondents from

residential site a nd 6.3% of the total respondents from industrial site, said
absence of adequ ate job is the major problem. Others 13.5% of the total
respondents from residential site and 10.1% of the total respondents from
indu stria l site cited their age as a problem to get job. The remaining 35.1 %
of the total respondents from residential site and 51.9% of the total
respondents from industria l site have mentioned lack of education and skill
as a problem to get job.

55
4.4.5 Social and Environmental Impact

Following impleme ntation of the expansion plan, in industrial site, many

investors came to the area for investment. In reside ntial site, more than
2000 households came to the a reas.

4.4.5.1 Environmental Consequence of the Expansion

As shown in Table 4.14, in industria l site, farmers have witnessed the

presence of noise, a ir a nd water pollutions created by the newly planted
industries. Out of the tota l 79 selected sample househ olds, 15.2% has
w itnessed the existence of noise pollution only . Two point five percent of the
total r es ponde nts have witnessed the existence of water pollution only and
3.8% of th e total respondents have witnessed the existence of air pollution
only. The majority of respondents (60.8%) have witnessed the existence of
air , water and noise pollution. The remaining 12.7% of the respondents
indicated the absence of environmental pollution in the area.

From residential s ite, farmers confirmed the presence of air and nOise
pollution only . Out of t h e total 37 r espondents , 5.4% has witnessed the
presen ce of noise pollution only. E ight point one percent of the total
r espondents witnessed the presence of air pollution only. Air and water
pollutions are felt by 8 . 1% of the respondents . Majority of them (78.4%) said
that the re is no environmental pollution.

Table 4.14 Existence of Environme nta l Pollution

Types of Industrial site Residen tial s ite
pollution Frequency % Frequency %
Sound pollution 12 15 .2 2 5.4
Wate r pollution 2 2.5 - -

Air pollution 3 3.8 3 8 .1

Air and sound - - 3 8.1
pollution
Air, sOl""1.d and 48 60.8 - -
water pollution
No pollution 14 17.7 29 78.4
Total 79 100 37 100

57
 Out of the tota l 50 interv iewed n ew com ers, 2% h as fe lt
th e existe nce of
envir o nme n tal pollu tion while 98% did not feel a ny form
of envir onme ntal
pollu tion cause d by indus tri es. From the data, the
prese nce of
envi ro nm enta l pollu tion in reside ntial site is not as such
prono unced . In
indu s tri a l s ite, as m ajority of the r espon dents indic
ate , there IS
e nviro nmen tal probl em.

4.4.5.2. Social Cons eque nce of the Expansion

Table 4.15 prese nts socia l re lation s of farme rs b efore and

a fter expan sion .
From a ll indus trial site r espon d ents, 7.6% said that their socia
l rela tion h a s
declin ed from the previ ous . Twen ty-sev en point eight perce
nt of the total
respo nde nts answ ered that their socia l relati onshi p has
enhan ced a nd
25.3% oj th e respo nden ts said they did not obser ve differ en
ce on their social
relati on a mong the mselv es. Thirty -four point two perce nt of
the respo nden ts
said their socia l r elatio n a mong them selve s h as much more
enha nced than
befor e. The re main ing 5.15% said their socia l rela tion
h as much more
declin ed tan befor e .

Major ity of the r eside ntia l site respo nden ts (62 .2%) reply
indic ates that
there is no chang e of socia l relati onshi p. Five point four
perce nt of the
respo nden ts s a id their re lation declin ed and 13 .5% r espon
ded that their
social relati on has incre ased. Farm ers' socia l r elatio n amon
g th emsel ves
seem s to be a ffe c ted a little by the expan sion progr a m
. The impac t of
expan sion in indus trial site affect s farm ers' socia l relati on positi
vely while in
r eside nti a l site it has no impa ct.

58
 Table 4.15 Socia l relati on of farme rs in comp ari son with the
previ ous
Socia l Relat ion amon g Indus trial site Resid en tia l site
farme rs Fr~quency % Frequ en cy %
Decli ned 6 7.6 2 5.4
Incre ased 22 27 .8 5 13 .5
Mu ch more d ecline d 4 5 .1 5 13 .8
Much more incr eased 27 34 .2 2 5.4
No ch ange 20 25 .3 23 62.2
Total 79 100 37 100

4.4.6. Coping Mech anism

The loss of land leads fa rme rs to ch a nge their livelih ood

strate gies from
agri cultu ral to non - agric ultur al live lihood strate gy. The
s itua tion in
indu stria l site is a bit differe nt from that of reside ntial site
. In indus trial
s ite, s ince their veget able la nd h as not yet been expro
priate d, farmi ng
activi ties are not inte rrupt ed . In reside n tial site, farme rs
becam e totally
urban ized a nd as a resul t, th ey totally d epart from agricu lture
.

From Table 4.16, in reside ntial s ite, out of the total 37

respo ndent s 13
(35 .1 %) have becom e daily la bore rs . Seven (1 8 .95) r es pond
ents are rentin g
their hou se. One respo nden t h as living with farmi ng by r
e nting land from
farme rs living in other p lace . Othe rs seven (18 .9%) r esp onde
nts employed in
gover nme n t organ izatio n. The r em ai ning nine (24. 3%) r espon
de nts are still
doing nothi ng a nd they are consu ming the comp ensat ion .

Resp onses of farme rs from indus tria l site ind icates th at

m ajorit y of them
(51.9% ) are e n gaged In veget able produ ctio n. Twen
ty-on e (26 .6%)
respo nde nts h ave becom e daily labor ers a nd 11 (1 3 .9%)
respo ndent s
becam e petty tr a d ers. The rema inin g six (7.65 %) respo nden
ts are still doing
nothi ng ~ .l.d are consu min g the comp a nion .

59
 Table <! . 16 Farmers coping mechanism
Coping m echanism Residen tial site Industrial site
F % F %
Daily labor 13 35. 1 21 26.6
Farming 1 2.7 41 51.9
House rent 7 18.9 - -
Employing in government 7 18.9 - -
organization Cguard)
Consuming compen sation 9 18 .9 6 7 .6
money
Petty trade - 24 .3 11 13 .9

From my personal ob servation, there a re farm ers wh o are en gaged in water

selling 8n d lorry driving in industria l site. Almost all farmers have
constructed additional room s for renting in residential s ite .

Though th ese farme r are struggling to recover from the Shock (loss of their
assets), majority of them are not satisfied w ith their livelihood strategy. Out
of the total r espondents from residential site, 40.5% are among those who
are satisfied with their livelihood strategies. In industrial site, 16.5% of the
total respondents arc satisfied with their livelihood s trategy. The rest 59 .9%
from residentia l site a nd 83.5% from industria l s ite are n ot satisfied with
the ir livelihood strategies.

4.4.7 Farmers' Problems to Adapt Urban ways of Life

Farmer s h ave mentioned many problems they face while they a re struggling
to adapt urban ways of life . Lack of knowledge how to use their money, lac k
of foll ow up from the conce rned organization a nd lack of s kill and knowledge
are the problems farm ers faced in adapting urban ways of life.

Out of t h e total 79 respond ents from industria l site, 12 .7% answer lack of
knowledge how to utilize their money is the problem they have faced to
adopt urban way of life . Twe n ty- seven p er ce n t of the total respondents from
residential s ite have faced the same problem . Out of the total respondents

60
from residential site, 21.6% said that lack of follow up from the concerned
organization is a proble m they fa ced to adapt urban ways of life. Out of the
total respondents from the industria l site, 68.4% said that lack of follow up
from the concerned organization is a problem they have faced while they are
struggling to adapt urban ways of life . Three point eight p ercent of th e total
respondents from industria l site and 32.4% of the total respondents from
re sidential site are those who answer lack of skill a nd knowledge as a
proble m they have faced to adapt urban ways of life. The remaining 15.2%
from industrial site and 18.9% from reside ntial site do not have any problem
to adapt urban was to life.

Table 4.17 Problems Fa rmers Faced to Adapt Urban Ways of Life

Problems Industrial site Residential site
F % F %
Lack of knowledge how to use 10 12 .7 10 27
monev
Lack of ''1llow up from 54 68.4 8 21.6
concerned organization
Lack of skill and knowledge 3 3 .8 12 32.4
No oroblem 12 15.2 7 18.9
Total 79 100 37 100

Key informants from municipality also confirmed the lack of follow up from
the governme n t . They realize this as their failure.

In order to tackle this problem, the municipality has intended to mobilize

the fa rme rs with their resource. The municipality planned to organized
fa rme rs b ased on their inte rest. They h ave also p lanned to fin a nce farmers
who finished their money by consuming.

61
 CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion

Urban expa nsion towards the periphery can be caused by eith er population
pressure or urban development or investment gr owth or combination of a ll
these factors.

Horizontal expansion of towns is at the expense of prime agricultural lands,

wh ich result in loss of agricultura l livelih ood at the fringe land. The problem
is worse in third world cities, like Ethiopia. Because of its primacy, the
problem of horizontal expansion is often observed in Addis Ababa and the
surrounding town s .

Since Alamgena town is one of th e towns situated surrounding Addis Ababa,

there is high demand of land both for reside n tial a nd industria l purpose.
Since early time Alamgena town has been expanding h orizontally towards
its periphery. By o bse rving history of the town, two types of expan sIOn ,
demand driven and s upp ly driven expansion are identified . Expansion
before 2 00 2 is characterized by demand drive n expansion while expansion
after 2002 is supply dri ven expan sion.

The second type of expansion is a result of revis ion of t h e 1991 plan of the
town. With the obj ective of controlling squatter settlements and reshaping
the shape of the town, the plan has provided 646.9 h ectares of land for
urban u se. The la nd, which is provided for urban use was from the
s urrounding rural la nd uses .

Im plementation of th e plan h as been done through expropriation of land

from farmers. Following land exp ropr iation, more than 300 farm e rs became
la nd less .

62
Thi s thesis h as dealt with impact of Alamgena town expansion on th e
livelihood s of these fa rm ers . More emphasis is give n to the impact of the
expansion on farmers' asset.

Findings of th e study show that during implem e ntation of land

expropriation, lack of con sulta tion with the farm ers resulted in resistance
from the farm e rs. In order to implem en t the program gove rnmen t has forced
to use power, whic h creates h os tility towards the governme nt offi cia ls.

During expropriation , the governmen t has provided compe n sation m oney to

the farm e rs . The a mount of compe nsation h as been decided at federal and
regio n al government level. The a m ount of compensa tion pa id for the fa rmers
was only the 5 years incom e fa rme rs lost from their la nd .
Thou gh the governme nt promised to provide urba n infrastructures, job
opportumty, training, housing plot a nd money compe n sation for th e
farm er s, they fa iled to fulfill a ll the promised be n efits.

In residential s ite , farmer s have got urban infrastructures and

compen sation mon ey with h ousing plot while the indus trial site farmers
have got only money com pensation and housing plot. Major ity of farm er s
from b oth s ite a re not happy with the benefi ts they h ave received, they a re
rath er disappointed and di scourage.

The expa n sion, through expropriating farmers' land, d estroys oth er assets of
the farm e r s . The loss of their asset results in decline of their monthly
inco m e. Except numbe r of rooms, a ll other assets of the farmer s have
declined after la nd expropria tion .

Following expropria tion of farmland, the r eside ntia l site fa rme rs tota lly
departed from agri culture . The industrial site fa rme r agricultura l activity
has limited to vegetable production .

63
 Old age, lack of skill a nd educa tion are probl ems farme r s
faced to get j o b
after la nd expro priati on . Da ily labor, guard , p etty tr a d
e and veget able
produ ction a re curre ntly the availa ble jobs for t h e farme r
s. These jobs are
not secur ed a nd reliab le, some times farme rs can work and
other time they
cann ot get these jobs. Cons equen tly, lack of reliab le jobs
r esults in lack of
r egula r incom e for the farme rs.

The prese nce of envir onme ntal pollu tion in r eside ntial site
IS not as s u ch
prono unced but in indus tria l s ite, there is envir onme ntal probl
em.
Farm ers' socia l rela tion amon g them selve s a ffecte d a little
by the expan sion
progr a m. The impa ct of exp a n sion in indus trial site affect
s farme rs' social
r elatio n positively while in reside ntial site it h as n o impac t .

As can b e see n from the findin gs of th e s tudy daily labor , house

rent, guard ,
petty tra de a nd veget able produ ction is farme rs copin g m
echan is m to the
shock .

Lack of know ledge on how to use their mone y, lack of

follow up fr om
conce rned organ izatio n and lack of skills a nd know ledge
are the probl ems
farme rs have faced while they are stru ggling to a dopt urban
ways of life .

64
5.2 Reco mme ndati ons

Based on the findin gs t h e follow ing point s a re put as possi ble

sugge stio ns .
.,. Since imple ment ation of th e p la n lacks con s ulta tion with
th e farm e rs,
fa rme rs were obsta cles to th e imple ment a tion of t h e progr a
m. In order
to avo id such probl ems, it is recom mend ed to co n sult
with the
farm e rs befor e imple m entin g the progr a m . Cons ultation poin
ts s hould
be on the fu tur e fate of the farm ers .
.,. The re is fail ure of fulfill ing the prom ised be n efits. Such
failur e m ay
aggra vate farm e rs ' oppos ition to gove rnme nt d evelo pmen tal
activi ties .
There fore, the gover nmen t shou ld be a ble to fulfill a ll the
prom ised
b enefi ts to the fa rme rs .
.,. Regar ding the be n efits obtai ned by the farme rs, they are
not satisf ied
with wha t they h ave got. The gover nmen t in collab oratio
n with
inves tors and n ew co m e r s shoul d maxim ize the ben efits
of farme rs.
Facto ries s h ould give priori ty to the farme rs on nonp
rofess ion a l
work s .
.,. Lack of s kill a nd Know led ge a nd follow up from the
con cern ed
organ izatio n a re th e fa rmers ' probl em in ad a p ting urba n ways
of life.
The governme nt, priva te secto rs, wh o inves t on farme rs
la nd and
NG Os (char i ty organ izatio ns) sh ould be involv ed in advis ing,
traini ng
a nd equip ping th e farm ers .
.,. Since land expro priati on in this area IS at its infan t stage , furthe r
resea r ch is esse ntia l for the futur e .
.,. The probl ems of indus tria l pollu tion, 111 indus tria l site, need caref ul
m onito ring in ord e r to prote ct the envir onme nt from
irreve rsible
da mage . Each indus try sh ould h ave e n viron ment a l mana
gem e nt
syste m a nd the gove rnme nt shoul d h ave soun d and tra
nspar ent
moni toring syste m . The muni cipa lity shoul d be em powe red
to co ntrol
indus trial pollu tions.

65
 Refe renc e

Acho -chi (1998 ) .Hum an Interf erenc e and Envir onme ntal Instab ility:
Addr essin g the Envir onme ntal conse quenc es of Rapid Urban
Grow th in Bame nda, Came roon. Envir onme nt and Urban izatio
n
Journ al, Vol. 10. No .2. Unive rsity of Buea , Came roon.
Addis Abab a Muni cipali ty (2002 ). City Devel opme nt Plan 2001-
2010. Addis
Abab a.
Allen C .Kelley and Jeffer ay Gwill iamso n (1984 ). What Drive
rs Third World
City Grow th? A Dyna mics Gener al Equil ibrium Appro
ach.
Princ eton Unive rsity, New Jerse y.
And a rganc hew Tesfa ye (1992 ). The Socia l Cons equen ces
of Urban izatio n.
The Addis Abab a Exper ience . Ethio pian Journ al of Devel
opme nt
Resea rch. Vol. 14. No.I. Addis Abab a Unive rsity.
Angel , S., S. C. Shep pard, and D. L. Civco (2005 ). The Dyna
mics of Global
Urban Expan sion. Wash ingto n, D.C .: Trans port and Urba n
Deve lopm ent Depa rtmen t, the World Bank
Birha nu Zelek e (2005 ) . Impa ct of urban redev elopm ent on
the Liveli hood of
displa ced peopl e and urban devel opme nt in Addis Abab a.
The
Case of Casa nchis Local Devel opme nt. MA Thesi s, Addis Abab
a
Unive rsity.
Bosko ff, A. (1962 ). The Socio logy of Urban Regio n. New
York, Apple ton-
Centu ry Croft s.
Cern ea M. (1995 ) Unde rstan ding and Preve nting Impo verish ment from
Displ acem ent. Refle ctions on the state of the know ledge , keyno
te
addre ss. First intern ation al confe rence on DID, Refug ee studi
es
progr am, Oxfor d.
_ _ _ (1997 ). Imple ment ing the sustainabl e rura l livelih
ood appro ach.
In Carn ey (eds.) .Susta inabl e Rural Liveli hoods . What Contr ibutio
ns
Can We Make ? Depa rtmen t of In terna tiona l devel opme nt.
Notti ngham , Russ e ll press limite d .
 _ _ _ _ _ (1998 ). Impo veris hmen t or Socia l Justi ce? A Mode
l for Plann ing
Reset tleme nt. In H.M. Math ur and D. Mars den, (eds.)
Deve lopme nt Proje cts and Impov erish ment Risks : Reset tling
Project-Aff ected Peopl e in India. Delhi . Oxfor d U.P.
CHF- Partn ers (2003 ). Strate gic Plann ing Fram ework . Ottaw
a, Cana da,
Claud ia Maria D. Aleid a (2005 ). Forec ast Mode ls of Urban
Grow th and Land
Use Chan ge to Asse ss Huma n Vulne rabili ty Resul ting from Threa
ts
to water resou rces . Brazi lian Natio nal Instit ute for Socia
l
Resea rch. Brazi l.
Clina rd, Mars hal B. and Robe rt F. Meier (1 979). The Socio
logy of Devia nt
Behav ior. Fist Editio n, New York.
CSA (1984 ) Popu lation and Hous ing Cens ures Resu lt for
Shew a Provi nce.
Addis Abab a.
(1994 ) Popu lation Hous ing Cens us Resul t for Orom iya Regio
n. Addis
Abab a
___ (1998 ) Popu lation Projection for Orom iya Regio n. Addis
Abab a.
___ (2000 ). Statis tical Abstr act. Addis Abab a
___ (2006 ). Statis tical Abstr act. Addis Abab a.
Danie l Maxw ell, Bogu e,D.J , claws on, M(19 96). Farm ing in the
Shad ow of the
City: Chan ges in Land Rights and Liveli hoods in Peri Urban Accra
.
TWPR , Vol. 21 No.4. Liver pool Unive rsity.
David Clark (1979 ). Interd epend ent Urba nizati on In an Urban World: a
Histo rical Over View. Royal Geog raphi c Socie ty. The Geog raphi
cal
Journ al Vol. 164. Part 1. Lond on.
DFID (1999 ) . Susta inabl e Liveli hoods Guide line Sheet . Lond
on.
_ _ (2000 ). Susta inabl e Liveli hoods Guide line Sheet s: Sectio
n Eight. Lond on
Ellis, F. (1 998). Livel ihood Diver sifica tion and Susta inabl e Rural
Liveli hoods .
In Cerne y (eds .).Sus taina ble Rural Liveli hoods . What Contr ibutio
ns
Can we Make ? Depa rtmen t of Intern ation al devel opme nt.
Notti ngh am, Russe ll press limite d.
 ESCW A (2001 ) . Susta inabl e Urban Devel opme nt: A Regio nal
Pe rspective on
Good Urban Gove rnanc e. UN , New York.
Fele ke Tadel e (2006 ) . The Impa ct of Urban Deve lopme
nt on Peasa nt
Comm unity in Ethio pia. MA. Thesi s . Addis Abab a Unive rsity.
Feye ra A:Jdis sa (2005 ). Urban Expa nsion and the Liveli hood
of the Peri-u rban
Agric ultura l Comm unity: The case of Addis Abab a. M.A, Thesi
s
Addis Abab a Unive rsity.
Foe k en, and M. Wang i (2000 ). Incre asing food secur ity
throu gh urban
farmi ng in Nairo bi. In N. Bakk er, (eds.) Grow ing Cities , Grow
ing
Food: Urban Agric ulture on the Policy Agen da. Felda fing DSE,
Germ any.
Foeke n , Dick and Tekk egne Nina (1 994). Tied to the Land: Living
Cond itions
of Labor ers on Large Farm s in Trans Nzoio Distri et, Kenya
.
Arebu ry.
Gugle r J nseph y (1996 ). The Urban Trans forma tion of the Devel
oping Would.
Oxfor d Unive rsity Press .
Ha ll P ., Meail le R. and Wa ld L. (2000 ). Urban Factu re. A globa
l Agen da for
Twen ty firs centu ry cities . New York.
Ha rd ay, Verb urg P. H. a nd Chen , Y. (2001 ). Envir onme
ntal Probl ems in
Urban ized World Findi ng Solut ions for Cities in Africa, Asia
and
Latin Amer ica. Lond on.
IDS (1998 ).Sus taina ble Rural Liveli hoods . A frame work for
analy sis. Work ing
pape r 72, Brigh ton , UK.
Ka itz, Edwa rd M. and Herbe rt Harve y (1971 ) . Urban Plann
ing for Social
Welfa re: A mode l cites Appro ach. New York, Prage r Publi sher
La rry S. Bour ne (1971 ). Physi cal Adju stmen t Proce sses
and La nd Use
Succe ssion : A Conc e ptual Revie w and Centr al City Exa
mple.
Pe rspec tives on Urban Spati al Syste ms. Econ omic Geog
raphy
Journ al, Vol. 47, No . 1.
Lautz, Andrew K. and Loith . M (2003). Risk and Vulnerability in Ethiopia:
Learning from the Past. Responding to the Present. Preparing for
the Future. A report for USAID.
Leven, C. (1968). Towards a Theory of the City. Urban Development Models.
Special Report 97. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board.
Masefiled, A. (2001). Chronic Food Insecurity in Ethiopia: Looking through a
liveli hood lens . In Yared (eds.) Food Security and Sustainable
Livelihood in Ethiopia. Proceeding of the symposium of the FFSS.
Addis Ababa.
Minwuyelet Melesse (2004). City Expansion, Squatter Settlements and
policy implications in Addis Ababa. The Case of Kolfe Keranio
sUb-city. Ethiopian Journal of the Social Science and Humanities .
Vol. II. No.2 Add is Ababa University.
Mohan , G. (1996) Decentralization and Adjustment In Ghana: A Case of
Diminished Sovereignty. Political Geography.
Marray. C. (2 001). Livelihood research: Some Conceptual and Methodological
Issues. Department of sociology, chronic poverty research,
un iversity of Manchester.
NUPI (2 003). Urban Development Policy Design; Review and Assessment of
Planning Land and Housing Issue. Addis Ababa.
Nuwagaba,A. (1996). Urbanization and Environmental Crisis in Ugandan city:
Implications for Environmental Management and Sustainable
Development. Eastern African Social Science Research Review.
OSPED (2001). The Regional State of Oromiya Statistical Abstract. Finfine.
ORAAMP (2000 a). An Over All Assignment of Addis Ababa Metropolitan
Area. Addis Ababa.
ORAAMP (2000 b). Report of Metropolitan and Addis Ababa Area on Physical
Features and Sub- Surface Resources. Addis Ababa.
Proclamation No . 455/2005: FDRE Expropriation of Land Holdings for
Public Purposes and Payme nt of Compensation Proclamation.
Roth, M. (1996 ). From Administrative Allocations to Commercial Land
Trans actions : Factors Market Constraints to Economic Growth in
Three Peri-urban House hold Economies . Madiso land tenure
cen ter.
Schoon es, [ and Wolmer , W. (2002 ). Path Ways of Change in Africa: Crops,
Livestock and Livelihoods in Mali, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. IDS,
Uni versi ty of Sussex.
Scudder T. and Colson E . (1982). From Welfare to Development. A
Conceptual Framework for Analysis of Dislocated People in
Involuntary Migration and Resettle ment. Colorado, West View
Press.
Shuaib Lwasa (2005). Urban Expansion Process of Kampala in Uganda:
Pe rspective on Contrasts with Cities of Developed Countries.
Geography departments , Makere re Unive rsity .
Stephan Pawe it and Yuonne Golding (2005). The spatial Impact of Urban
Compaction: A Fine Scale Inves tigation Based on Me rsey side.
Town plan ning review. vol. 76. No .2 . Liverpool university process.
Timbe rl a k e, M. (eds.) (1984). Urbanization in the World Economy. London
Academi c Press.
Tommy Firman (1 996) . Land Conversion and Urban Development in the
Northern Region of West J ava, Indonesia. An Inte rnational
Journal For Research in Urban and Regional Studies. Vol.
3 4 ,No.7 University of Glasgow.
UDR (1999). Analyz ing Land use Change in Urban Environment. USGS Fact
shee t 188.
UN (1998) . World Urbanization Prospects: the 1996 Revision. UN De partme nt
of Economic and social affairs, Population division, New York.
UN -Habit (2 003). African Regional Imp lementation Review for the commission
on sustainable Development. Report on Human Settlements,
Earthsca n Publication, London .
UNC HS (199 1). Evaluation of Re location Experie nce . Ge neva .
UN - Habi tat (2001). The State of the World 's Cities. New York
World Resources Institu te (WRI) (1 996) . World Resources 1996-97: A Guide
to the Global Environment: The Urban Environment. New York a nd
Oxford: Oxford University Press .
 Annex 1 : Questionnaires and Guidelines .
Questionnaires 1 : For selected sample household heads
I. Background ofthe respondent
1. Address
l. Ind u stria l site 2 . Residentia l s ite
2. Age _ _ __
3 . Sex 1. Mal e 2 . Fem a le
4 . Ma ri tal s ta tu s 1. Single 2 . Ma rrie d
3. Divorced 4. Widowed 5 . Sepa rated
4. Level of Education
l. Illite ra te 2. Read a nd write 3 . Primary (1 -6)
4 . Junior secondary (7- 8) 5. Se condary (9- 12 ) 6 . 12+
6. Fa m ily s ize _ _ _ __
1. Ma le _ _ _ __ 2 . Female_ _ _ _ __
7. Place o f bir th
1 . In Ala mge n a 2 . Out of Ala mgena
9 . If your p la cc of birth is not Alamgena, wh y do you c a me h e re?

l. 3 ea r ch for Job 3 . To live with m y fa milies / p a rents

2 . Search for la nd 4. Others , specify _ _ _ _ _ _ __
10. Occupa tion
1. Private 3. Priva te s m a ll-scale indus try e m p loyee
2. Public employee 4. Housewife
5 . O th e r s , s pe cify _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1 1. When d oes you r land is expropria te d? _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

II Participation in the expansion plan

1. Are you aware of the urba n expa nsion program in your vicinity?
l. Ye s 2 . No
2 . If yes , 'lOW?
l. through m ass orie nta ti on 2 . through form a l tra inin g or se mina r
3 . through con s u lta tion with th e plann e r s
 4. Others, specify _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
3. What was your reaction whe n you were asked to leave your farmland?
(Only one answe r)
1. Agree without objection
2 . Objected a nd forced to leave
3 . First objected but finally co nvinced to accept
4. Did you partic ipate in decision -m aking process in the implementation of
lan d expropriation program?
1. Yes 2.No
5 . If yes, what a re the b enefits you obtained from participating in decision-
making process?
1. Raise own need 2. Express own concern / opinion
3. Created access to benefit packages
4. Created opportuni ty to livelihood m eans
5. Nothing 6. Others, specify _ __ _
6. Did you have representative in d ecision making on benefit package
allotment?
1. Yes 2. No
7. If yes, how was it represe nted?
1. through local community lead ers
2 . Through individual interested groups
3 . Through elected committee 4. Through kebele Administration
5. Jon 't know 6 . Others , specify _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
8. Who were the main d ecision make rs in determining the a mount of be nefit
packages to the community? (Only one answer)
1. Government body 2.local community committee
3. Both 4 .do not know 5. Others, specify _ _ _ __
9 . Did you get e n ou gh time to prepare yourself to give your farmland?
1. Yes 2. No
10. If no, what was your reaction? (Only one answer)
1. Refu sing to leave th e land o n the required time
 2. Leavin g th e land with out objection
3 . Negotiate with government agencies for a dditiona l time
4. Others. Specify _ _ _ _ _ __
1 l. Do you generally a pprove or disapprove the expansion policy?
(Only one answer)
1. Approve 3 . In differe nt
2 . 'Iisapprove 4. Do no t know

III. Benefit of expansion for the farmers .

I. Whe n you were asked to leave your farmla nd, what were the benefits
promised to be a llotted to you as compe nsation?
1. Money compensation 4. Job opportunity
2. Housing plots 5. Tra ining to develop s kill
3. Access to service 6. O th e rs, specify _ _ _ __
2. Whi ch of the benefit did you get at last?
1. Money compe nsa tion 4. Job opportunity
2 . Housing plots 5 . Training to develop s kill
3. Access to ser vices 6. Othc rs, specify _ _ __
3 . In whi ch of th e benefit a re you happy a bout?
1. Money compensa tion 4. Job opportunity
2. Housing plots 5 . Training to develop s kill
3. Access to services 6 . Others, specify _ _ __
4. What was you r reactio n towa rds the a mount of the b enefit allotted to
you? (Only one a nswer)
1. Satisfied 3. Indiffe re nt
2. Dissatisfi ed 4. Highly dissatis fi ed and discouraged
5. If not satisfi ed , did you apply your disappointme n t to the concerned
ins tit, tion on the amount of the bene fit provid ed'?
1. Yes 2. No
6. If yes, w h at respon se did you get? (Only one a n swer)
1. Satisfactory 3 . Unsatisfactory
 2. Very satisfaction 4. Disappointing
7. To which of the urba n services did you get access due to urban
expan sIOn .
1. Road 1. Yes 2 . Yes
2. Electric 1. Private owned 2 . Shared 3. Absent
3. Water supply 1. Private owned 2. Shared 3. Absent
4 . School 1. Yes 2. No
5 . Telephone 1. Yes 2 . No
6. Clinic and other h ealth institution 1. Yes 2. No
7. Ma rket 1. Yes 2. No
8. Credit service 1. Yes 2. No
9. Public Transport 1. Yes 2. No
10. Others, S p ecify _ _ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

IV. Impact of the expansion program on the Livelihood of the peri

urban farm communities and their coping mechanism
1. Were you engaged in productive act ivity or work during the fir st 12
month of land expropria tion?
1. Yes 2.No
2. If yes, what was the major activity?
1. Agriculture 2. Non- agr iculture
3. If your a nswer question 2 is no, what was your livelihood m eans
1. Serving in so m eone 's house for food 2. Begging
3. Consuming the com pensation money 4 . Daily labor
5 . Collec ting fuel wood 6. Othe r , specify _ _
4. Do you get j ob easily n ow tha n before expansion?
l. Yes 2 No
5. If no, what is the reason? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __
6. Do you h a ve job now 1. Yes 2. No
7 . I f yes, w hat type of work is it?
1. Self employment 4 . Employee of NGO
 2. Employee of government organization 5 . Daily la bor
3. Employee of Private firm 6. Other, specify_ _ _ _ __
8. Did you have incom e other agriculture?
1. Yes 2 . No
9. If yes what was it? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
10. Do YvLl h ave income other than your work now?
1. Farm in com e somewh ere else with re latives
2. Renta l incom e 3. Remitta nce s
4. Others, specify_______ 5. No income

11. Is your monthly income bette r than before land expropriation?

1. Yes 2. No
12. If no, what IS the reason? 1. No regular income 2 . No job
3 . No farm la nd 4. Others , specify_ _ _ __ __
13 . How much is your hou sehold gross income now? _____Birr
14. How muc h you earn p er month before land expropriation. _ _ birr
15. Wha ~ ty pe of job is accessible to you?
1. Da ily la bor 3. House work 2. Guarding 4.0thers, specify _ __
16 . What is the major problem you faced to a dapt urba n life?
1. Lack of knowledge in finance utiliza tion
2 . Lack of due follows up from concerned in stitution
3 . Lack of skill / knowledge for job opportunity
4 . Discrimination by the new settlers
5 . Othe rs , specify _ _ __
17 . What is your co ping m ec hanism in adapting urban was of life?
 Impact of the expansion on the assets of livelihood

18. What was the total possession of the household before and after land
expropriation?
Before expropriation now
1. Land (hecto r)
2. Ox (numbe r)
3. Cow (number)
4 . Sheep (number)
5 . Goat (number)
6 . /-'oultry (numbe r)
7. Perma n e nt plant (no .)
8 . House (room no.)
9. Othe rs
19. Where did the lost prospe rities gone?
1. Soled 3. Consumed
2. Expro pria ted 4. Others, specify _ _ _ __
2 0 . Do you h ave more asset s now than before land expropriation?

l. Yes 2 . No
2 1. Are you satisfied with your live lihood strategy now before land
expl ,;pria tion?
1. Yes 2. No
22. If no , for which of the foll owing reasons do you prefe r rura l way of life?
1. For food is secure for my family 2 . S imple and c h eap life
3. Easily access to dive rsified live lihood m ean s for fami ly
4. Strong social a nd cultura l ties. 5 . Others, specify _ _ __

23. Do you think you h ave secured source of income tha n b e fore?
1. Yes 2 . No
24. [s your social li fe affected by expansion?

1. "es 2. No
25. How do you compare your social life with before and after expansion?

26 . Is there any environmental problem caused by the industries?

1. Yes 2. No
27. If yes, what kinds of environmental pollution a re observed?

28. Any co mme nt for subjection about the expansion

Questioner 2: For planners and implementers

1. Address : 1. Oromiya urban planning institute 2. Sebeta
municipality
2. Level of education: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
3. Your position_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
4. Year o. service in this position._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
5. Wha t are the causes of the expansion of the town? What factors lead to
th e preparation of expansion pla n for the town? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6 . What was the objective of the expansion? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
7. Current development thinking is strongly a dvice to follow bottom up
ap proach for a n y d evelopme nt activities. But, farmers were not participated
in planning and impleme ntation process. What was your reason for not to
participate the farmers? What is your view about bottom up and top down
a pproac h? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
8 . Wha t benefits is promised to the fa rmers? Why did you fail to give all the
promisee' benefits to the farmers? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
9. Do you think th e a llotted benefits are fair a nd e nough to the farm ers?
Give yo ur a nswer in terms of a) Land productivity b) Living cost c) Economic
background of the farme rs ._ _ _ _.c.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
10. As th e farmers respond indicates , they are not satisfied with what they
have got. How do you h a ndle their compliance? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
11. As a government agency, did you assist the farmers to a dapt urban ways
of life? If you have done a ny thing to them please mention. _ _ _ _ _ __
12. What do you intend to do to sustain their livelihood? Mention the
program or a n y project if you h ave. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __

Questionnaire 3: For new comers

1. Sex 1. Male 2. Female

2. Marital status 1. Single 2.Married 3. Divorced
4. Separated 5 . Widowed
3. Why do you come to Alamgena town?

4 What benefits do you gave to the fa rmers?

5 What benefit do you get from the fa rmers?

6. Is there any environmental problem caused by industries?

7. Is there any environmental problem caused by farmers?

Questionnaire 4: Guideline for Key Informants

Adders: _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __

Age __ Sex _ __ Marital Status _ _ _ _ __

Level of Education _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1. What do you think of the motive & objectives of land expro priation?
How was it sleeted and implemented? Probe for involvement and
challenges of the community.
2. What benefits the do the farmers obtained m case of land
expropriation?
 3. What is the present co ping mech a nism (livelihood sustenance) of the
a ffected faming community at household level?
4. Discuss the changes that occurred in the life of th e fa ming community
in a d a pting urban way of life (positive and n egative)?
5 . What role could the governme nt a nd non gove rnme nta l institution play
in improving the life of the local peop le affected by expansion?
(Capacity building Social organization a nd stren gth ening the availa ble
in s titutions) .
6 . Discus the . impac t of urban expansIOn on social , economic and
environme nt (Impacts before and after implementation)
8. Discus general problems, fears, prospects, ince ntives a nd other
aspects of the land expropria ted farming community with referen ce to
urban exp ansio n .
9. What would you recommend in similar activates elsewh ere for
pla nners policy m a k er s improving the livelihood of the people a ffected
by urban exp a nsion?

Questionnaire 5: Guideline for Focus group Discussion

Warm up - List th e main development problem program being carried

your locality.
1. Discus on the factors that contribute to the expansIOn program to
your area a nd level of how the farmers pa rticipa tion in the planning
an d imple m e ntation process of the expansion program.
2. Di scuss on the reaction of the farmers on the benefit p ackages
provided, appropriateness, a nd fa ir distribution of it for the fa rmers .
3 . Discu ss on th e a d vantages a nd d isadvantages of urban expan sio n in
terms of social & eco n o mic aspects.
4 . Discuss on the coping m ech a nism for livelihood s trategy of the
community at house h old level and victims of the socia l group; I. e.
m eans or sources of incom e, o pportunity to job, a nd incom e squinty.
 5. Discuss whether the farmers have built its capacity in adapting urban
life a nd effec tive utilization of resources (finance, human, physical
and natural with cases .)
6. Discuss whether the training and technical support or acquired skill
and knowledge enabled the farmers organize, m a n age and control own
proj ect or private business venture (if any list down).
7. Discuss wh eth er the land expropriated farming community's life
im, roved or dete riorated .
8 . Discuss the factor s that contributed to the success / failure of the
livelihood strategies of the house hold: problems b efore a nd after land
expropriation
Questionnaire 6: Guide line for discussion with Industry owners.

1. Why do you choose this site?

2. Where do you sell your product?
3. How many workers do you have?
4. From wh ere do you employ them
• Professiona l workers
• Nun-professional worke rs
5. How many x-farmers do you employ in your organization?
6. What benefit does your organization a llot to the Farmers?

• Infrastructure • Job opportunity

7. Did you pay compensation to the farmers?

• In money
• Materials a nd Opportunities
8. In general, what is your attitude about the expansion program and
th e feature opportunities a nd challenges for the growth of your
oqmnization in relation to the urban expansion?
Annex 2. Revised Plan of the Town
 . . . . . . . . . HHfil mU~~~
.. .. .. . . .. . . . .

"

...
-. .. .. .. .f.
.. . .
.. . .. £ .

·ota I a rea of ,. ·Alamgena

cale : 1/2500
 . .
~ + ... + -+ ... + .. + I~~~~
+ + + + -+ -+ + II+~
+ + +

... -+
..

+
..

..
·· .·',...,F
:·+ ..
+ ..

,~~
'L..J"'f.9\l~~l9I

++++++ +

.+++t i+ +

++++++++

Residential site
Scale : 1/1 5 00
 . \
I.,
\
i'
: OJ
\
\
+ ",
~, q J..
f .; ~0
+
." \ \
" I + )/
J 1/ ;/ , I
."
, ". J,.I 11..."" / -1- / /
;,,/;.+,
,

~ / / /7/

f+
(

,+
+
/
/ .I
'

~( +
/ V/0 + I + /
I I ."
+
,.

+
."
f(
""
+ . It
" i "" I
/ ; +/
! ,\ I I f;

f IJ
.+ ;.r :
, I + + + T~
+
"

+ i)
i .,,/
/
rI I,i, j f
/,
I .,
.....
1/ ""
+
."
+
."
' + I +
I I
+ + + + 0 + '+
.
+ \+17 1+/ / ~
I I I
/~ j +
-
'
+ '
'
EJ '
+
.,
+ , + ." \ +
\

t ,:. ~ I~: + + " 41 + + + / + ' ,.

'III;; I 1'1 : f i ~ +, ~:., +r - :

\\\ I L
,:,1 1\\\+ / 1 y
II I
rf \ •
."
+
... ,
"
.
, ~ y
. .
1\ \\ ' ~\ '
"' ~
') \f'rr
~) r
. TO'
,+ r.
Kerabu Industrial site
Scale: 1/800
 II - / I , .,.
", II ___11
XI k f'!Eill
+ II IY .,11
V i -I , '
IlZT . +
~ \1,,,
,~ I r:l/I"
'>n> j',/
+
+----. +
/ 11 ______I I
. I
-L

co, II ,, ,

~ < ,,/rl
I 1' "
+ / 1'1 I Hf / I
1'1 I
I
1\
~,, '
~-...........

", ; : ·" "

~-.
-<:3 j j.
~I

'IL ,,'
, ' ' -s +
I L.",..J ~-\ I- \
-

\
/
i
M il
/
"
,•

't \ 'I i \1 1 'I i ' " ,

Friai site
+
ti 1 A dl:1S
J e
' 'SQc~aale : 1 / 0
6 0
- - -
+

-T i l R U-
T AJlRA
...
 DECLARATION

The thesis, my original work , has not been presented for a degree in other university
and all sources of materials used for the thesis have been duly acknowledged .

Name: Eyasu Shishigu

Signature~
July 2007.