Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 1 Socioeconomic characteristics and descriptive results

From: Views and attitudes of local people towards community versus state forest governance in Tehulederi District, South Wollo, Ethiopia

Variables Descriptive results Proportion (%)
Total sample size (N) 160 households  
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