Table 1 Socioeconomic characteristics and descriptive results
Variables | Descriptive results | Proportion (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Total sample size (N) | 160 households | Â | |
Sex | Male | 65 | |
Female | 35 | ||
Age | Mean = 39.78 years; SD = 9.56 |  | |
Family size | Mean = 5.53 persons; SD = 2.18 |  | |
Levels of education | Literate | 38.40 | |
Primary education | 43.12 | ||
Secondary education | 16.34 | ||
Degree | 2.14 | ||
Occupation type | Mixed farming | 96.56 | |
Government employee | 3.44 | ||
Annual income | Mean = 43,975 ETB; SD = 13,964 |  | |
Length of the duration of residence in the area (in years) | Mean = 34.13 years; SD = 11.73 |  | |
Livestock ownership | Yes | 83.55 | |
No | 16.45 | ||
Had enough grazing land | Yes | 25.75 | |
No | 74.25 | ||
Wanted to keep more livestock in the future | Yes | 64.65 | |
No | 35.35 | ||
Reason to have more number of livestock | Prestige | 15.84 | |
Insurance during crop failure | 84.16 | ||
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 | 13.25 |
No | 86.75 | ||
Cut and carry system | Yes | 39.63 | |
No | 60.37 | ||
Transhumance | Yes | 54.33 | |
No | 45.67 | ||
Purchasing additional fodder | Yes | 33.53 | |
No | 66.47 | ||
Crop residue | Yes | 52.86 | |
No | 47.14 | ||
History of settlement | Inherited land from my ancestor | 76.34 | |
Settled by my own interest in search of land | 25.66 | ||
Had the plan to stay in the area in the future | Yes | 91.38 | |
Unsure | 0.00 | ||
No | 9.62 | ||
Had private land ownership | Yes | 94.63 | |
No | 5.37 | ||
Land size | 0.9 ha; SD = 0.73 |  | |
Had tree planting and growing tradition | Yes | 65.31 | |
No | 34.69 | ||
Had a shortage of fuelwood | Yes | 35.66 | |
No | 64.34 | ||
Had accessibility to forest resources | Yes | 65.12 | |
No | 34.88 | ||
Had knowledge on community forest governance | Yes | 95.55 | |
Unsure | 0.00 | ||
No | 4.45 | ||
Had knowledge on the state forest governance | Yes | 95.55 | |
Unsure | 0.00 | ||
No | 4.45 | ||
Knew that there was a problem with the existing community forest governance | Yes | 9.38 | |
Unsure | 1.56 | ||
No | 89.06 | ||
Knew that there was a problem with the existing state forest governance | Yes | 89.06 | |
Unsure | 1.56 | ||
No | 9.38 | ||
Perceived benefits to the local people due to community forest governance | Employment opportunities | 46.89 | |
Infrastructure development | 85.94 | ||
Wood products | 75.94 | ||
Source of medicinal plants | 84.38 | ||
Source of fodder for livestock through cut and carry system | 72.50 | ||
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 | 00.00 | ||
Aesthetic and recreational values | 82.82 | ||
Perceived benefits to the local people due to state forest governance | Employment opportunities | 59.07 | |
Infrastructure development | 15.36 | ||
Wood products | 10.64 | ||
Source of medicinal plants | 54.85 | ||
Source of fodder for livestock through cut and carry system | 13.93 | ||
Traditional beehive keeping and source of honey | 18.94 | ||
Access to free-range livestock grazing | 12.58 | ||
Source of income from visiting eco-tourists | 13.67 | ||
Getting free transport during hardship periods | 00.00 | ||
Aesthetic and recreational values | 78.95 | ||
Distance between the edge of the forests and the residential area of the respondents (km) | Mean = 1.67 km; SD = 3.4 |  | |
Got incentives (e.g. seeds, tree seedlings, technical supports, and credits) to plant and grow trees | Yes | 35.66 | |
No | 64.34 | ||
Had sufficient market to sell their forest products | Yes | 86.34 | |
No | 14.66 | ||
Had enough labour to manage trees/seedlings planted and grown by themselves | Yes | 91.29 | |
No | 8.71 | ||
Had knowledge on traditional bylaws that restrict people and/or livestock from illegally destroying the tree seedlings planted and grown in the study site | Yes | 63.75 | |
Unsure | 36.25 | ||
No | 0.00 | ||
Agree that the respondents had positive attitudes towards the community forest governance | Strongly agree | 82.81 | |
Agree | 6.25 | ||
Unsure | 10.94 | ||
Disagree | 0.00 | ||
Strongly disagree | 0.00 | ||
Agree that the respondents had positive attitudes towards the state forest governance | Strongly agree | 0.00 | |
Agree | 18.36 | ||
Unsure | 11.88 | ||
Disagree | 69.76 | ||
Strongly disagree | 0.00 | ||