Skip to main content

Table 2 Multiple linear regression model to predict the views of local people towards the community forest governance, and the state forest governance in Tehulederi District

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

Variables

Views towards the community forest governance

Views towards the state forest governance

β

t

P value

β

t

P value

Intercept

− 2.54

− 3.85

–

1.93

3.04

–

Sex (female = 1; male = 2)

0.24

1.37

0.273

− 0.72

− 1.92

0.639

Age

0.83

1.93

0.324

− 0.64

− 1.72

0.381

Levels of education

0.27

3.38**

0.001

0.63

3.45**

0.001

Family size per household

0.32

3.34**

0.001

− 0.35

− 2.97**

0.002

Annual income (ETB)

− 0.43

− 4.46**

0.001

− 0.38

− 3.32**

0.001

Livestock ownership (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.36

2.86**

0.002

− 0.26

− 3.32**

0.001

Enough grazing land (no = 1; yes = 3)

− 0.72

− 1.32

0.263

− 0.43

− 0.72

0.424

Want to keep more livestock than have at present (no = 1; yes = 3)

− 0.23

− 2.94**

0.002

− 0.39

− 2.89**

0.002

Shortage of fodder for livestock (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.67

3.15**

0.001

− 0.43

− 2.94**

0.002

Length of local residence in the area (years)

0.34

0.67

0.543

− 0.25

− 1.32

0.253

History of settlement in the area

0.52

0.56

0.589

0.32

0.76

0.458

Plan to stay in the area in the future (no = 1; unsure = 2; yes = 3)

0.65

3.12**

0.001

− 0.45

− 2.97**

0.002

Private land ownership (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.43

1.35

0.363

0.45

0.65

0.451

Land size (ha)

0.11

0.44

0.671

0.42

0.44

0.635

Tree planting and growing tradition (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.42

0.89

0.432

0.18

0.83

0.631

Shortage of fuelwood (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.45

3.19**

0.001

− 0.53

− 2.89**

0.002

Accessibility to forest resources (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.63

3.18**

0.001

0.83

3.29**

0.001

Distance between the edge of the forests and the residential area of the respondents (km)

0.14

1.34

0.236

− 0.38

− 0.82

0.527

Incentives (e.g. seeds, tree seedlings, technical supports, and credits) to plant and grow trees (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.62

3.15**

0.001

0.78

2.96**

0.002

Sufficient market to sell their forest products (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.65

2.95**

0.002

− 0.62

− 1.63

0.113

Enough labour to manage trees/seedlings planted and grown by themselves (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.18

2.94**

0.002

− 0.36

− 0.89

0.351

Knowledge on the presence of traditional bylaws that restrict people and/or livestock from illegally destroying the tree seedlings planted and grown in the study site (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.84

3.17**

0.001

− 0.64

− 2.96**

0.002

  1. Minus sign indicates a negative change in attitudes. Multiple linear regression model: standardized coefficients were reported; ** Significance at the 95% confidence level. Community forest governance: R2 = 0.65 (Adj. R2 = 0.52), df = 21; F = 8.834, overall P < 0.0001. State forest governance: R2 = 0.61 (Adj. R2 = 0.49), df = 21; F = 7.956, overall P < 0.0001