Skip to main content

Advertisement

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  
Sex Male 67.19
Female 32.81
Age Mean = 37.22 years; SD = 12.84  
Family size Mean = 4.27 persons; SD = 1.79  
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 Mean = 38,935.00 ETB; SD = 15,533.00  
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) Mean = 32.72 years; SD = 14.64  
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 Mean = 2.88 km; SD = 7.5  
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