Variables | Descriptive result | Proportion (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Total sample size (N) | 64 Households | Ā | |
Sex | Male | 67.19 | |
Female | 32.81 | ||
Age | Meanā=ā37.22Ā years; SDā=ā12.84 | Ā | |
Family size | Meanā=ā4.27 persons; SDā=ā1.79 | Ā | |
Levels of education | Literate | 37.50 | |
Primary education | 40.63 | ||
Secondary education | 18.75 | ||
Degree | 3.13 | ||
Occupation type | Mixed farming | 93.75 | |
Government employee | 6.25 | ||
Annual income | Meanā=ā38,935.00 ETB; SDā=ā15,533.00 | Ā | |
Livestock ownership | Yes | 87.50 | |
No | 12.50 | ||
Had enough grazing land | Yes | 20.31 | |
No | 79.69 | ||
Wanted to keep more livestock in the future | Yes | 59.38 | |
No | 40.63 | ||
Had a shortage of fodder for livestock | Yes | 73.44 | |
No | 26.56 | ||
Commonly used methods to manage and satisfy the forage requirement for their livestock | Free-range grazing | Yes | 6.25 |
No | 93.75 | ||
Cut and carry system | Yes | 42.19 | |
No | 57.81 | ||
Transhumance | Yes | 3.13 | |
No | 96.88 | ||
Purchasing additional fodder | Yes | 53.13 | |
No | 46.88 | ||
Crop residue | Yes | 54.69 | |
No | 45.31 | ||
Length of duration of residence in the area (in years) | Meanā=ā32.72Ā years; SDā=ā14.64 | Ā | |
History of settlement | Inherited land from my ancestor | 79.69 | |
Settled by my own interest in search of land | 20.31 | ||
Had the plan to stay in the area in the future | Yes | 93.75 | |
Unsure | 0.00 | ||
No | 6.25 | ||
Had private land ownership | Yes | 96.89 | |
No | 3.13 | ||
Allocated land for woodlot plantations | Yes | 95.31 | |
No | 4.69 | ||
Had a shortage of fuel wood | Yes | 82.81 | |
No | 17.19 | ||
Knew about past forest management system | Yes | 53.13 | |
No | 46.88 | ||
Had information about the concept of PFM | Yes | 84.38 | |
Unsure | 1.56 | ||
No | 14.06 | ||
Agreed to manage forests via participatory approach | Strongly agree | 82.81 | |
Agree | 6.25 | ||
Unsure | 10.94 | ||
Disagree | 0.00 | ||
Strongly disagree | 0.00 | ||
Knew that there was PFM practice in the WWF | Yes | 93.75 | |
Unsure | 6.25 | ||
No | 0.00 | ||
Agreed that the local community accepted the PFM practice in the WWF | Strongly agree | 0.00 | |
Agree | 78.13 | ||
Unsure | 21.88 | ||
Disagree | 0.00 | ||
Strongly Disagree | 0.00 | ||
Benefited due to the implementation of PFM | Yes | 82.81 | |
Unsure | 0.00 | ||
No | 17.19 | ||
Perceived benefits to the local people due to PFM | Employment opportunities | 46.89 | |
Infrastructure development | 85.94 | ||
Wood products | 10.94 | ||
Source of medicinal plants | 84.38 | ||
Source of fodder for livestock through cut and carry | 12.50 | ||
Traditional beehive keeping and source of honey | 25.00 | ||
Access to free-range livestock grazing | 23.44 | ||
Source of income from visiting eco-tourists | 31.25 | ||
Getting free transport during hardship periods | 75.00 | ||
Aesthetic and recreational values | 82.81 | ||
Knew that there was problem with the existing PFM system | Yes | 89.06 | |
Unsure | 1.56 | ||
No | 9.38 | ||
Had knowledge about the WWF | Yes | 96.88 | |
No | 3.13 | ||
Distance between the edge of the WWF and the residence area of the respondents | Meanā=ā2.88Ā km; SDā=ā7.5 | Ā | |
Had knowledge to compare the WWF before and after implementation of PFM | Yes | 85.94 | |
No | 14.06 | ||
Knew any other land use types | Yes | 96.88 | |
No | 3.13 | ||
Had tree planting and growing tradition | Yes | 95.31 | |
No | 4.69 | ||
Knew that the government had given due recognition for traditional forest management practices | Yes | 93.75 | |
Unsure | 3.13 | ||
No | 3.13 | ||
Agreed that respondents had the responsibility to protect the WWF | Strongly agree | 1.56 | |
Agree | 92.19 | ||
Unsure | 3.13 | ||
Disagree | 3.13 | ||
Strongly disagree | 0.00 |