Skip to main content

Table 2 Socio-economic characteristics and descriptive results

From: Perceptions and attitudes of local people towards participatory forest management in Tarmaber District of North Shewa Administrative Zone, Ethiopia: the case of Wof-Washa Forests

Variables

Descriptive result

Proportion (%)

Total sample size (N)

64 Households

Ā 

Sex

Male

67.19

Female

32.81

Age

Meanā€‰=ā€‰37.22Ā years; SDā€‰=ā€‰12.84

Ā 

Family size

Meanā€‰=ā€‰4.27 persons; SDā€‰=ā€‰1.79

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€‰=ā€‰38,935.00 ETB; SDā€‰=ā€‰15,533.00

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€‰=ā€‰32.72Ā years; SDā€‰=ā€‰14.64

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€‰=ā€‰2.88Ā km; SDā€‰=ā€‰7.5

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