See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330516777

Participatory forest management and smallholder farmers’ livelihoods

improvement nexus in Northwest Ethiopia

Article in Journal of Sustainable Forestry · January 2019

DOI: 10.1080/10549811.2019.1569535

CITATIONS READS

38 4,489

2 authors, including:

Kassahun Gashu
University of Gondar
17 PUBLICATIONS 232 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kassahun Gashu on 23 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Sustainable Forestry

ISSN: 1054-9811 (Print) 1540-756X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsf20

Participatory forest management and smallholder

farmers’ livelihoods improvement nexus in
Northwest Ethiopia

Kassahun Gashu & Omer Aminu

To cite this article: Kassahun Gashu & Omer Aminu (2019): Participatory forest management and
smallholder farmers’ livelihoods improvement nexus in Northwest Ethiopia, Journal of Sustainable
Forestry, DOI: 10.1080/10549811.2019.1569535

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2019.1569535

Published online: 20 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsf20
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2019.1569535

Participatory forest management and smallholder farmers’

livelihoods improvement nexus in Northwest Ethiopia
a
Kassahun Gashu and Omer Aminub
a
Department of Geography and Environmental studies, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia; bGondar Zuria
district Agricultural and Rural Development Office, North Gondar zone, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Participatory forest management (PFM) focuses on local communities Binary logistic regression;
as key stakeholders for sustainability. It entails access to some of or all livelihoods; participatory
of forest resources products that ensure a sustainable flow of goods forest management; peasant
association
and services. The objective of the study is to assess the contribution
of PFM practices to smallholder farmers’ livelihood improvement.
A cross-sectional survey design was employed to collect information
from randomly selected household heads in two rural peasant asso-
ciations. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics
and inferential test. The binary logistic result revealed that most of
the economic, social, biophysical, and institutional factors are signifi-
cant (P < 0.01 or P < 0.05) to influence self-reported PFM contribution
to livelihood improvement condition of the communities either
directly or indirectly. Apparently, forest resource management is
impossible without the proper participation of the local communities.

Introduction
Forests provide an important source of livelihood for local communities in Ethiopia (Jana,
Lise, & Ahmed, 2014; Siraj et al., 2018). The involvement of local communities within
forest management using a bottom-up approach can fill the gaps of top-down approaches
(Admasu, Jema, Chisholm, & Enright, 2013). The bottom-up approach of PFM has in
principle empowered local communities or villagers to gain rights and responsibilities to
own, manage and use the forest resources. It involves about giving communities and
individuals authority together with accountability. However, the practice still needs careful
implementation that is informed by case studies that propose and analyze sustainability
measures, as well as integrate bottom-up and top-down approaches for more successful
benefits (Fraser, Dougill, Mabee, Reed, & McAlpine, 2006; Kassa et al., 2017).
Many studies understand holistic approaches to forest management as the shift in
management responsibility from state-managed top-down approaches to people-centered
bottom-up paradigms. Bottom-up approaches to management have shown improved
forest conditions through collaborative management, as well as reduced rates of defor-
estation and forest degradation, particularly where the programs have been extensively

CONTACT Kassahun Gashu Kg19me@gmail.com Department of Geography and Environmental studies, University
of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia
Present address of Omer Aminu is Maksegnet Preparatory School, Maksgnet, Ethiopia
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wjsf.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
2 K. GASHU AND O. AMINU

implemented (Admassie, 2000; Agrawal, Chhatre, & Hardin, 2008; Agrawal & Ostrom,
2001; Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995; Gebreyohannes & Hailemariam, 2011).
PFM was introduced to Ethiopia during the 1990s by non-governmental organizations and
donor agencies, notably FARM Africa, SOS Sahel, GiZ (formerly GTZ) and JICA (Hailemariam,
Soromessa, & Teketay, 2015; Temesgen, Irwin, & Jordan, 2007; Terefe, 2002; Tesfaye, 2011).
These non-state actors attempted to respond to the prevailing forest management problems in
Ethiopia through the introduction, adaptation and establishment of PFM projects. The few PFM
pilot activities that started in Ethiopia include projects at Chilimo and Bonga forests by FARM
Africa at Borana, by FARM Africa, and SOS Sahel, at Adaba Dodolla by GTZ, and Belete Gera
forest by JICA (Alemtsehay, 2010; FAO, 2011; Farm-Africa, 2014; Hailemariam et al., 2015;
Temesgen et al., 2007; Terefe, 2002; Tesfaye, 2011). These pilot PFM projects attempted to
introduce the following: (i) devolution of certain bundles of property rights from the state to the
community, (ii) allowing local people to manage the forest resources sustainably, and (iii) partial
utilization of the forest resources for livelihood support. Indeed, the introduction of PFM was
expected to achieve the dual goal of contributing to sustainable management of forest resources
while simultaneously improving the socio-economic livelihood status of the local community
(Alemtsehay, 2010; Cathreien, Kate, Cecilia, & Liz, 2005; Gobeze, Bekele, Lemenih, & Kassa,
2009; Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Climate Change, 2011). This approach is now
being rolled out across the country with increasing hectares (ha) of forest being managed under
PFM systems (Mulugeta, Claire, & Yvan, 2015; Winberg, 2010). Today, there are approximately
667,498 hectares of forest that are managed via PFM throughout the country (Ameha, Larsen, &
Lemenih, 2014; Yemiru, Roos, Campbell, & Bohlin, 2010)
Similarly, PFM is implemented in Gondar Zuria district, in conjunction with the district
agricultural and rural development office and GIZ. A total of 16,142 ha is managed under
PFM which encompasses 5,171 ha of natural forest, 7,235 ha reforested forest and 3,736 ha of
mixed forest. The primary management goals of the PFM system are conserving biodiversity,
mitigating forest degradation, promoting sustainable forest management and guaranteeing
sustainable socio-economic livelihood improvement and environmental benefits for local
communities (GZDARDO, 2016; Ministry of Agriculture, 2011; Yemiru et al., 2010).
Although studies of forest-livelihood links are increasingly common for developing countries
(Kabubo-Mariara, 2013; Tadesse, Woldetsadik, & Senbeta, 2017), we have no knowledge of any
studies that have been conducted within northwestern Ethiopia. This study seeks to address this
research gap. As such, the study has two objectives: first, it investigates the level of nexus between
PFM and livelihood; second, it analyzes the contribution of PFM to livelihood improvement.

Conceptual framework
Human and natural factors determine both reductions in forest coverage and livelihood chal-
lenges for smallholder farmers’. PFM is a practical alternative for improving both forest cover
and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. However, PFM may be affected by demographic
factors (e.g., age, gender, and/or family size), socio-economic factors (e.g., income, land holding
size, and/or level of education), biophysical factors (e.g., primary sources of energy, and/or
distance between residences forest, and market) and institutional factors (e.g., availability of
farmer training centers, and/or extension support given to farmers) (Agrawal, 2001; Ameha et al.,
2014; Cathreien et al., 2005; Kabubo-Mariara, 2013). The relationships between these various
determinants of PFM success are presented conceptually in Figure 1.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY 3

Participatory forest management

Bio-physical Institutional Socio-

Demographic
factors factors Economic
factors
factors
-Age -Distance -Availability of
farmers -income
between
-Gender training centers
residence and the -Land holding
-Marital status forest -Extension size
support to
-Family size -Distance - Level of
farmers education
between
residence and the
market

Level of participatory forest management

Livelihood contribution to farmers

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of determinant factors affecting the success of PFM within Ethiopian
forest-dependent communities.

On the other hand, the level of participation of farmers in PFM resulted the farmers
can result in either direct or indirect benefits from forests such as providing alternative
incomes, increasing social cohesion and interactions, improved knowledge sharing and
collective decision-making (Engida & Mengistu, 2013). Currently, the challenge is how to
manage forest resources for multiple benefits without compromising local communities'
competing interest and managing the complex interface with wider public interest and the
forest industry. In this regard, PFM should be introduced to a community together with
a management agreement and plan that specifies rights and restrictions to the community
for forest resource utilizations.

Methods
Study area
This study was conducted in Gondar Zuria district found in western Ethiopia. Gondar
zuria is part of both the Amhara National Region State, and the North Gondar admin-
istrative zone (Figure2 below). Maksegnit town is the seat of the district. It is located
130 km and 41 km away from Bahir Dar and Gondar, respectively, which are the capital
city of the regional state and the seat of the administrative zone.
The district is located from 12º7ʹ23ʹ’N-12°39ʹ24ʹ’N and 37°24ʹ24ʹ’E-37°45ʹ43ʹ’E encom-
passing a total area of 114,982.9 km2 (Ethiopian Mapping Agency, 2016). Being part of the
4 K. GASHU AND O. AMINU

Figure 2. Location map of study areas.

North Gondar zone, Gondar Zuria district is bordered to the south by South Gondar zone,
to the southwest by Lake Tana, to the west by Dembiya, to the north by Gondar
administration, to the northeast by Wogera, and to the southeast by west Belessa
(Ethiopian Mapping Agency, 2016). The district lies between 1,800 and 2,700 m above
sea level, and houses two agro-ecological zones (woina-dega and dega). The mean annual
temperature is approximately 20.8°C (GZDARDO, 2016) and annual rainfall is approxi-
mately 950–1,035 mm (GZDARDO, 2016)
The major land use types in the district include cropland (72,750 ha), forest and shrubs
(11,073 ha), settlements and buildings (8,643 ha), river, streams and valley area (3,005 ha),
and other land use types (2,065 ha) (GZDARDO, 2016). Forest cover accounts for
approximately 14% of the district, and includes 14 nurseries (areas in which seedlings
are grown). Out of these nine nurseries are owned by three local private companies by
a project entitled Ambober, Enfrase, and Degola and two by the regional government
which is Denkath and Degoma (GZDARDO, 2016)
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY 5

The total population of the district is 230,033 (51.3% males and 48.7% females) in 2017.
Out of this total population, 87.8% exist within rural communities while remainder resides
within urban areas (Central Statistical Agency, 2017).

Data collection and statistical tests

Data were collected from primary and secondary sources. The primary data were collected
from household heads using cross-sectional surveys structured questionnaires. The survey
data were collected asking each respondent orally and conducted in each household’s
home by researchers using structured questionnaires. Secondary data were gathered from
government policy documents, reports, and other published and unpublished documents.
Two-stage sampling was used to select samples. First, the district and two sample peasant
associations (chihiramntamo and sihor-sarwuha) were selected purposively on: (i) the
basis of their population size and (ii) their location in relation to the major roads. These
variables were selected under the assumption that they would elucidate effects of forests on
the livelihood of households in these peasant associations.
Second, the household heads were finite in that the total number of members within
each peasant association was obtained from the peasant association offices and thus
known. The total number of household heads in the sampled peasant associations were
1,660 (91.9% male headed and 9.1% female-headed). Of this total number of household
heads, 804 and 856 were in the chihiramenterno and sihor-sarwuha peasant associations,
respectively. Household heads for the questionnaire survey were selected randomly using
a simple random sampling design after estimating an appropriate sample size using
a statistical estimator. De Vaus and de Vaus (2013) and Kothari (2004) suggest that the
required sample size for any quantitative research depends on the degree of accuracy
required for the sample, the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the population, the size of
the population and the research budget. Here, the precision or sampling error is decided
in terms of the proportion or percentage rather than the mean given its dependency upon
the population standard deviation, which is unavailable in our case (Kothari, 2004). The
size of the sample for any finite population can be determined by the formula specified
below (Kothari, 2004).
z2 :p:q:N
n¼ (1)
e2 ðN  1Þ þ z2 :p:q

where p = proportion agreeing, q = 1 – p; z = the value of the standard variation at a given

confidence level (1.96); n = size of sample; e = the desired margin of error (0.05); N = total
population.
The estimated appropriate sample size (n) from 1,660 total household heads within the
peasant associations was 128 household heads. A sample was selected proportionally from
each peasant association, and the sizes of the sample were 62 and 66 household heads
from the chihiramenterno and sihor-sarwuha peasant associations, respectively.
We used descriptive statistics with relative frequencies to describe the background data
of the respondents. The dependent variable self-reported PFM contribution to livelihoods
improvement within the study areas was analyzed using a binary logistic regression model,
using a response “yes” if a respondent has stated that self-reported PFM contribution to
6 K. GASHU AND O. AMINU

his/her livelihood improvement and ‘no‘ if not. Whereas other variables listed in Table 1
are considered as explanatory variables determining self-reported PFM contribution to
livelihood improvement. The pattern of association between the dependent and explana-
tory variables was assessed using Pearson’s correlation, which was also used to evaluate the
presence or absence of multicollinearity among the explanatory variables. The logistic
model form is:
Yi ¼ a þ b1 x1 þ b2 x2 þ . . . þ b10 x10 (2)

where Yi = the dependent variable (self-reported PFM contribution to livelihood improvement),

a = regression constant (Y-intercept), B1-10 = the slope of the regression lines (coefficients
indicating the degree of association between each independent variable and the outcomes),
X1-10 = independent variables (determinant factors influencing contribution of PFM to liveli-
hood improvement) using SPSS version 21.

Results
Respondents’ profiles
From 128 survey questionnaires distributed to two sample peasant associations, all 128
respondents returned a completed questionnaire (100% response rate). Table 2 presents
the summary of key demographic and socio-economic data for the surveyed respondents.
The ages of respondents range from 18 to 64+ years. The average age varied between
chihiramenterno 41 ± 21 years and sihor-sarwuha at 44 ± 23 years ((mean ± standard
deviation). Almost all of respondents fall within an active age group (14–64 years) except
a few (0.9%) above the working age group in both sites (Table 2).
As it is expected, most respondents (77%) from both peasant associations did not
attend formal education. The remaining 23% completed primary or secondary education
(Table 2). The average family size was 4.2, which is almost equal to the national average
(4.6). More than 88% of the respondents have total family sizes less than or equal to 6, but
only 11% have total family sizes greater than 6. The measured average monthly income of
respondents was 2,500 Birr.1 Approximately 87% of the respondents depend on farming
for their livelihood, while the remainder 17% obtained additional income from non-farm
activities.

Perception of smallholder farmers towards PFM for livelihood improvement

The majority of respondents’ perceived forests as valuable resources. Table 3 indicates
that the majority of respondents (80%) have knowledge about the importance of PFM
for conservation of forest resources within their communities. Many of the respondents
either strongly agreed or agreed that PFM gives authority to the communities (82%),
creates a feeling of accountability (72%), reduced deforestation (78%) and gives right to
use the forest product (66%) (Table 3). In addition, 80% of the respondents either
strongly agree or agree with supplement of their livelihood given that most of them
have limited access to farmland for cereal crops production. Teff and Maize were
1
Currently, 1 USD is exchanged into 27.75 Birr.

Table 1. Description of dependent and explanatory variables.
Variables specified in the model
PFMLH_(self-reported contribution of participatory PFMLH was assigned a value of ‘1ʹ, if a respondent has stated
forest management to livelihood improvement) that self-reported PFM has contribution to his/her livelihood
GEN_(Gender)
AGE_(Age)
FMS_(Family size)
MS_(Marital status)
EDUCL_(Educational status)
INCM_(Expected income of household head per
month)
DISTM_(Distance from home to nearby market)
DISTF_(Distance from home to nearby forest)
LHS_(Land holding size)
AFTC_(Availability of farmers training centers)
EXTN_(Extension service given to farmers)
ENGY_(Major source of energy)
*EDI-Expected Degree of Influence
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY 7
Variable definitions EDI
improvement and ‘0ʹif not.
GEN was assigned a value of ‘1ʹ, if a respondent is male and ‘0ʹ ±
otherwise.
AGE was given in years. Age is considered to be important +
since a person may increase his/her perception (e.g.
knowledge of green infrastructure) as he/she gets older.
A value of “1” was given if the age of the household head was
>30 years and a value of “0” was given if the age of the
household head was ≤ 30 years.
FMS is the number of members of household size with is one _
household head. A value of “1” was assigned if a household
head has <5family size and “0” if he/she has >5 family size.
MRS was marital status of the household head. A value of “1” ±
was given if a house hold head was legally married and “0”
otherwise.
EDUCL was measured using the attainment of grade levels by +
the household head. Education helps to raise perception level
about participatory forest management. A value of “1” was
given if the educational status of the a household head was
formally educated either primary education, secondary
education or/and college/university and “0” otherwise
INCM was the amount of money that a household head is +
expected to earn per year using the domestic currency of
Ethiopian Birr. A value of “1” was assigned to household head
is expected to earn an income per year of > 25,000 Birr and
“0” if the income of the respondent is between <18,000 Birr
(Note: citrus paribus, 50 Birr is the minimum salary a daily
laborer is expected to get per day, so for lower income
50*30 = 1,500).
DISTM was the average distance between home and nearby _
market and was measured in minutes needed to walk. An
average distance is a distance that an average man walks
every day for 30–60 minutes which is 2.5 to 5 km. It was
coded ‘1ʹ, if the average distance between household head
home and nearby market was ≤ 5km and ‘0ʹ, if it was >5km.
DISTM was the average distance between home and nearby _
forest was measured in minutes needed to walk. An average
distance is a distance that an average man walks every day for
30–60 minutes which is 2.5 to 5 km. It was coded ‘1ʹ, if the
average distance between household head home and nearby
market was ≤ 5km and ‘0ʹ, if it was >5km.
Land holding size is the size of the hectares of land that +
a household head owns. A value of “1” was assigned if
a household head has >1 hectare of land and “0” if he/she has
< 1hectare of land.
AFTC is the existence of farmers training centers in each
peasant association which helps to improve the awareness of
the benefits of participatory forest management. A value of
‘1ʹwas assigned, if there is farmers training center in each
peasant association and ‘0ʹ, if not.
EXTN is the level of training and awareness given to the +
household head about participatory forest management. It
was coded ‘1ʹ, if a household head has got extension service
about benefits if PFM to livelihood improvement and ‘0ʹ, if not.
ENGY is the type of source of energy for a household. A value _
of ‘1ʹwas coded, if a household head has got energy source
other than fuel wood and ‘0ʹ, if a household gets energy from
fuel wood (forest sources).
8 K. GASHU AND O. AMINU

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 128).

Variables Number
Gender Male 117 (91.4%)
Female 11 (8.6%)
Total 128 (100%)
Age (in years) 18–35 17 (13.3%)
36–45 37 (28.9%)
45–64 92 (71.9%)
64+ 2 (0.9%)
Total 128 (100%)
Educational level Illiterate (did not formally attend education) 99 (77%)
Literate (formally attend education) 29 (23%)
Total 128 (100%)
Marital status Married 114 (89.1%)
Divorce 3 (2.3%)
Windowed 11 (8.9%)
Total 128 (100%)
Number of family size <3 35 (27%)
4–6 79 (62%)
>6 14 (11%)
Total 128 (100%)
Expected monthly income(in Birr) <1,500 2 (0.9%)
1,500–5,000 109 (85.2%)
>5,000 17 (13.3%)
Source: Survey results

Table 3. perception of smallholder farmers toward PFM for livelihood.

Category 5 4 3 2 1
Knowledge about PFM 72 (56.2) 31 (24.2) — 25 (19.6) —
It give authority to use for the community 69 (53.9) 37 (28.9) 5 (3.9) 9 (7.0) 8 (6.3)
It creates feeling of accountability 64 (50.0) 29 (22.7) 5 (3.9) 24 (18.7) 14 (10.9)
It reduced deforestation 72 (56.2) 28 (21.9) 6 (4.7) 13 (10.2) 9 (7.0)
There was increment of forest inventory 53 (41.4) 40 (31.3) — 26 (20.3) 9 (7.0)
Have the right to use the forest product 52 (40.6) 32 (25.0) 7 (5.5) 18 (14.1) 19 (14.8)
It limit cutting tree 25 (19.5) 15 (11.7) 3 (2.3) 80 (62.5) 5 (3.9)
Limit farm land expansion 63 (49.7) 47 (36.7) 2 (1.3) 8 (6.3) 15 (11.7)
Limit using for grazing land for livestock 92 (71.8) 25 (19.5) 7 (5.5) 10 (7.8) 4 (3.1)
It gives extra work 72 (56.2) 34 (26.6) 4 (3.1) 10 (7.8) 8 (6.3)
Note: 5 = strongly agree 4 = Agree 3 = Dot decided 4 = Disagree 5 = strongly disagree; Numbers in parenthesis are
percentages; Source: Survey results.

provided as an example of important crops to generate income for local communities.

Proximity to community forests also gave opportunities to local farmers such as grass
to feed their cattle (91%), soil erosion protection (85%) and attractive ecological
scenery (87%).

Forest management practices in the district

There are local level government interventions in forest management activities within the
Gondar Zuria district including nursery development, plantation of seedlings, and protec-
tion of existing trees and forest areas. Though the available information is fragmented and
unreliable in Gondar Zuria, the government gives attention to nursery sites and plantation
of trees. More than half of the respondents (56%) stated that they actively participate in
the planting of trees either for either individual or communal purposes. This result is in
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY 9

line with Terefe (2003) who identified that the majority of people participated in planta-
tion activities mainly rather than participating in protection activities.

Determinant factors of self-reported PFM contribution to livelihood improvement

The results of the binary logistic regression analysis reveal that self-reported PFM contribution
to livelihood improvement in general. In the regression analysis, we found that the indepen-
dent variables explain 58.6% of the variability in self-reported PFM contribution to household
livelihoods status (Table 4).
Based on this result, the majority of 10 determinant factors considered in the model were
found to have a statistically significant impact in determining the self-reported PFM con-
tribution to livelihood improvement in the study areas. The nine statistically significant factors
that were identified were educational status, gender, age, home-forest distance, family sizes,
income, land holding size and awareness and training. Conversely, residence-market distance
and marital status were not found statistically significant (Table 4). The detail contribution for
each of these factors is presented below in Table 4.

PFM and demographic factors

Gender exhibits a positive effect (P = 0.01) towards contribution of PFM for livelihood
improvement (Table 4). There was a highly significant difference between males and females
on the level of self-reported PFM to livelihood improvement. There needs to more work to
integrate women into PFM, and that increased gender equity could improve PFM adoption
and implementation in the region. Thus, gender is one determinant factor for low participa-
tion within forest management. This finding is similar to that of Coulibaly-Lingani,
Savadogo, Tigabu, and Oden (2011) in Burkina Faso, where they found a highly significant
relation between gender and participation in forest conservation.
Age is also a variable that has a positive correlation with the level of self-reported PFM
to livelihood improvement. There is a highly significant difference among age categories
(Table 4), which is expected to be given that older and younger age group cannot equally
participate within forest management to livelihood improvement. This finding is similar to

Table 4. Results of binary logistic regression (entry method) model showing factors
affecting PFM (N = 128).
Variables B S.E. Sig. Exp(B)
Gender −2.477 1.021 .01** 0.084
Educational status 1.103 .551 .04* 3.015
Home-forest distance −1.462 .522 .05* 0.232
Age −.006 .021 .01** 0.994
family size .802 .359 .02* 2.231
Income 1.05 .59 .01** 1.12
Land hold size −.3.30 .149 .03* 0.719
Home-market distance −.830 .552 .13 0.436
Marital status .255 .905 .78 1.290
Awareness and training 1.225 .602 .04* 3.405
Constant 2.542 2.055 .0.01** 12.70
−2 Log-likelihood function = 101.85; X2 = 8.309; d.f. = 1; Constant = 1.529; Cox and Snell
R square = .586; Nagelkerke R square = .782
** = P < 0.01 highly significant * = P < 0.05 significant Source: Survey result.
10 K. GASHU AND O. AMINU

that of Trinh and Ranola (2010) who found that older may not be interested because they
may not have the energy to participate in doing physically hard works. So age is
a determinant factor for the level of PFM to livelihood improvement. In line with this,
a study by Chhetri (2005) investigating determinants of user participation and household
dependency in the hills of Nepal found that older age groups are less likely to participate
within forest management relative to younger age groups.
Education level (i.e., the number of year spent in school) was positively correlated with self-
reported PFM contribution to livelihood improvement (Table 4). This implies that increasing
additional years spent in school is likely to increases the likelihood of self-reported PFM to
livelihood improvement. Level of education tends to create awareness, self-reliance, self-
confidence, motivation and positive attitudes. Increasing the individual’s level of education
also increases the willingness of local communities to participate in forest management
activities. This, in turn, may improve the relationship between local communities and the
forest management authorities at the local level. However, those who are illiterate have
maintained indigenous knowledge acquired from their ancestors compared to those who
were educated in formal schooling.
Family size is one of the important demographic factors that affect self-reported PFM
contribution to livelihood improvement (Table 4). More specifically, larger family sizes lead to
higher participation within self-reported PFM to livelihood improvement. Larger family sizes
are likely to provide higher labor surplus and thus increased likelihood to engage in physically
demanding activities such as forest management to livelihood improvement.

PFM and socio-economic factors

The model results indicate that increasing landholding size by one unit, self-reported PFM
contribution to livelihood improvement will decrease approximately with a factor of 3.3
(Table 4). This implies that an increase in land size owned by a respondent decreases the
contribution of people in forest management practices. In agrarian communities, arable
land is the fundamental economic base of households. Thus, those with relatively larger
and better-quality farms are expected to benefit economically. Landholding size is nega-
tively correlated with self-reported PFM contribution to livelihood improvement. The
result implies that households cultivating small land are more dependent on forest
products than households cultivating large farmlands. This is related to the argument of
the subsistence model and circles of poverty and forest management, in which poor
households tend to clear forest due to absence, fragile and scarce resources rather than
sustainably managing the forest. FAO (2001) and Achard et al. (2002) argued that land
scarcity and ambiguous property rights contribute to grievances and power struggle
particularly when forests contain valuable resources.

PFM and biophysical factors

Distance from residence to forest is a variable that has a significantly negative effect (p < 0.05)
on self-reported PFM contribution to livelihood improvement (Table 4). The model result
implies communities in close proximity to the forest can better participate in forest manage-
ment due to convenience and effective use of extra time and energy. The result is in line with
some studies that suggest the relationship between distances from residence to local forests
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY 11

and community involvement in forest protection, resource utilization, and decision-making

was found to be negative (Chhetri, 2005; Kugonza, Buyinza, & Byakagaba, 2009). However,
distance from residence to market has no significant influence (p > .05) on self-reported PFM
contribution to livelihood improvement (Table 4).

PFM and institutional factors

Availability of training farmers' training centers, training, and awareness are some institu-
tional factors that could affect self-reported PFM contribution to livelihoods improvement.
The binary logistic regression results imply that if training and awareness increase by one unit,
self-reported PFM contribution to livelihoods improvement will increase approximately by
a factor of 3.405 (Table 4). This implies that an increase in training and awareness of the
respondent helps to increase the participation of people in PFM practices. This result
corroborates with the findings of Terefe (2003) which suggests that awareness creation
contributes to the understanding of the importance of forests users, hence encouraging
community members to participate in forest management actively. Similarly, the majority
of respondents in this study indicated that a lack of training and awareness is one of the
problems at the community level that leads to obstacles for successful PFM. Training does not
only help the community members manage the forest appropriately and hence increase forest
cover but also provides the appropriate environment for farmers to exchange views on better
agricultural production technologies and issues related to other income generating activities
(Musyoki, Pokhariyal, & Pundo, 2012).

Discussion
Although the factors influencing the success of PFM have been widely studied, no empirical
generalizations have emerged about the nexus between self-reported PFM and livelihood
improvement. The results of this study indicate that PFM has an important role to play to
improve the livelihood of poor rural communities. PFM implementations need to target the
poor and also consider household heterogeneities in forest policy formulation. Kabubo-
Mariara (2013) argued that a balanced approach to forest management should ensure that
the poor are not marginalized by the less poor in accessing environmental resources. In PFM,
where there is proper implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, thousands of hectares of
deforested land can be reforested at little cost and sustainable support of local livelihoods from
forests can be achieved over long term periods.
PFM is one of the most important manifestations of decentralization as it relates to control
of natural resources in rural areas (Pagdee, Kim, & Daugherty, 2006). Successful PFM
programs can be models of local empowerment, imbuing communities with greater authority
over the use of natural resources. Under the right circumstances, PFM can also bring
important benefits to poor people and poor communities in rural areas. In many countries,
PFM has improved livelihoods for the poor. The benefits of PFM can range from job creation
to enhanced management rights and long-term revenue-generation (Yemiru et al., 2010). For
PFM practices in developing countries to be successful, benefits to communities and sustain-
able resource conservation need to be balanced with livelihood improvement, and at the same
time these simultaneous goals need to be clear to all stakeholders. Thus, local communities
should be active players in decision-making process during project formulation and
12 K. GASHU AND O. AMINU

implementation. Appropriate awareness creation has to be given for local communities about
the need to participate, manage, and own their natural resources.
One of the limitations of this study is that our results do not necessarily suggest species
diversity and richness in PFM impact livelihood improvement as addressed by Tadesse,
Woldetsadik, and Senbeta (2016). Rather, our study focuses on the nexus between self-
reported PFM to livelihood improvement and factors which influences self-reported PFM
to livelihood improvement. PFM improves efficiency and effectiveness of forest utilization and
conservation and smartly incorporated complementary natural resource-related intervention
and income diversification activities.

Conclusion
Household contribution to livelihood improvement in the study area was determined by
demographic, socio-economic, institutional and biophysical factors. For example, as stated in
the binary logistic regression results, gender is statistically significant because males contributed
more than women in the self-reported PFM to livelihood improvement. PFM should consider
the cooperation of government development agencies, non-governmental organizations, local
communities, and religious leaders in order to support and create an enabling environment to
manage and conserve resources efficiently. Local communities still need knowledge, skill,
awareness creation, and confidence to improve the implementation of PFM. PFM programs
should be scaled up with research and should focus on providing data, information, and
guidelines for efficient forest management practices and conservation strategies.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank University of Gondar for financial support for the second author to
this research. We also thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers.

Funding
This research work was supported by the University of Gondar [Masters thesis research grant] for
the second author.

ORCID
Kassahun Gashu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3842-6333

References
Achard, F., Eva, H. D., Stibig, H. J., Mayaux, P., Gallego, J., Richards, T., & Malingreau, J. P. (2002).
Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science, 297(5583),
999–1002. doi:10.1126/science.1070656
Admassie, Y. (2000). Twenty years to nowhere: Property rights, land management and conservation
in Ethiopia. NJ, U.S, Red Sea Press.UK: intermediate technology publications Ltd (ITP).
Admasu, B., Jema, H., Chisholm, N., & Enright, P. (2013). Impact of protected forests on rural
households’ fuel tree planting in Chiro district, eastern Ethiopia. International Forestry Review,
15(1), 18–32. doi:10.1505/146554813805927228
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY 13

Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institution and sustainable governance of resources. World
Development, 29(10), 1649–1672. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8
Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., & Hardin, R. (2008). Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science,
320, 1460–1462. doi:10.1126/science.1155369
Agrawal, A., & Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use
in India and Nepal. Politics and Society, 29, 485–514. doi:10.1177/0032329201029004002
Alemtsehay, J. (2010). Determining factors for a successful establishment of participatory forest
management: A comparative study of Goba and Dello districts, Ethiopia; MA thesis The
University of I Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
Ameha, A., Larsen, H. O., & Lemenih, M. (2014). Participatory forest management in Ethiopia: Learning
from pilot projects. Environmental Management, 53, 838–854. doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0243-9
Cathreien, M., Kate, S., Cecilia, L., & Liz, T. (2005). Action research on assessing and enhancing the
impact of participatory forest management on the livelihoods of the rural poor. Nairobi, Kenya:
Over Seas Development Institute.
Central Statistical Agency. (2017). Statistical abstract. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Central Statistical
Agency.
Chhetri, K. B. (2005). Community forestry program in the hills of Nepal: determinants of user
participation and household dependency [MSc thesis]. Management of Natural Resources and
Sustainable Agriculture, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
Coulibaly-Lingani, P., Savadogo, P., Tigabu, M., & Oden, P. C. (2011). Factors influencing people’s
participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Forest Policy and
Economics, 13(4), 292–302. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.02.005
De Vaus, D., & de Vaus, D. (2013). Surveys in social research. Routledge, UK.
Engida, T., & Mengistu, A. T. (2013). Explaining the determinants of community based forest
management: Evidence from Alamata, Ethiopia. International Journal of Community
Development, 1(2), 63–70. doi:10.11634/233028791402431
Ethiopian Mapping Agency. (2016). Aerial photograph of Gondar zuria district. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:
Ethiopian Mapping Agency.
FAO. (2001). State of the world’s forests. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (2011). Participatory forest management in Ethiopia, practice and experience sub-regional office
for Eastern Africa. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Sub-regional Office for Eastern Africa.
Farm-Africa. (2014). Five years report on strengthening sustainable livelihoods and forest manage-
ment program in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Author.
Fiallo, E., & Jacobson, S. (1995). Local communities and protected areas: Attitudes of rural residents
towards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation, 22,
241–249. doi:10.1017/S037689290001064X
Fraser, E. D., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top
down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway
to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of
Environmental Management, 78(2), 114–127. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.009
Gebreyohannes, G., & Hailemariam, G. (2011). Challenges, opportunities and available good prac-
tices related to zero grazing in Tigray and Hararghe, Ethiopia. Dry lands Coordination Group
(DCG) Report, (66).
Gobeze, T., Bekele, M., Lemenih, M., & Kassa, H. (2009). Participatory forest management and its
impacts on livelihoods and forest status: The case of Bonga forest in Ethiopia. International
Forestry Review, 11(3), 346–358. doi:10.1505/ifor.11.3.3
GZDARDO (2016). Annual report for 2016 fiscal year. Maskegnit, Ethiopia
Hailemariam, S. N., Soromessa, T., & Teketay, D. (2015). Non-carbon benefits for effective implemen-
tation of REDD+: The case of Bale Mountains Eco-Region, Southeastern Ethiopia. African Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology, 9(10), 747–764. doi:10.5897/AJEST2015.1953
Jana, S. K., Lise, W., & Ahmed, M. (2014). Factors affecting participation in joint forest manage-
ment in the West Bengal state of India. Journal of Forest Economics, 20(4), 317–332. doi:10.1016/
j.jfe.2014.09.003
 14 K. GASHU AND O. AMINU

Kabubo-Mariara, J. (2013). Forest-poverty nexus: Exploring the contribution of forests to rural livelihoods
in Kenya. Natural Resources Forum, 37(2013), 177–188. doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12003
Kassa, H., Birhane, E., Bekele, M., Lemenih, M., Tadesse, W., Cronkleton, P., … Baral, H. (2017).
Shared strengths and limitations of participatory forest management and area exclosure: Two
major state led landscape rehabilitation mechanisms in Ethiopia. International Forestry Review,
19(4), 51–61. doi:10.1505/146554817822295920
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology, methods and techniques (2nd revised ed.). New Delhi,
India: New Age International (p) Ltd.
Kugonza, A., Buyinza, M., & Byakagaba, P. (2009). Linking local communities’ livelihoods and
forest conservation in Masindi district, North western Uganda. Research Journal of Applied
Sciences, 4(1), 10–16.
Ministry of Agriculture. (2011). Harmonized PFM guideline for participatory forest management in
Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Agriculture.
Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Climate Change. (2011). Forest carbon partnership facility
(FCPF) Readiness preparation proposal (R-PP). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Environment,
Forestry and Climate Change.
Mulugeta, L., Claire, A., & Yvan, B. (2015). Making forest conservation benefit local communities:
Participatory forest management in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Farm Africa.
Musyoki, D., Pokhariyal, G. P., & Pundo, M. (2012). The impact of real exchange rate volatility on
economic growth: Kenyan evidence. Business & Economic Horizons, 7(1), 59–75. doi:10.15208/beh
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y.-S., & Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What makes community forest management
successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society and Natural
Resources, 19(1), 33–52. doi:10.1080/08941920500323260
Siraj, M., Zhang, K., Xiao, W., Bilal, A., Gemechu, S., Geda, K., … Xiaodan, L. (2018). Does participatory
forest management save the remnant forest in Ethiopia? Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences, 88(1), 1–14. doi:10.1007/s40011-016-0712-4
Tadesse, S., Woldetsadik, M., & Senbeta, F. (2016). Impacts of participatory forest management on
forest conditions: Evidences from Gebradima Forest, southwest Ethiopia. Journal of Sustainable
Forestry, 35(8), 604–622. doi:10.1080/10549811.2016.1236279
Tadesse, S., Woldetsadik, M., & Senbeta, F. (2017). Effects of participatory forest management on
livelihood assets in Gebradima forest, southwest Ethiopia. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 35(8),
229–244. doi:10.1080/14728028.2017.1322920
Temesgen, T., Irwin, B., & Jordan, G. J. M. (2007). Forests, use them or lose them, an argument for
promoting forest-based livelihoods rather than alternative non-forest-based livelihoods within
PFM programmes. In E. Kelbessa (Ed.), International conference: Participatory forest management
(PFM), biodiversity and livelihoods in Africa, Government of Ethiopia in collaboration with other
stakeholders (pp. 7–17). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Farm Africa and SoS Sahel.
Terefe, D. (2003). Factors affecting peoples’ participation in participatory forest management: The
case of IFMP Adaba-Dodola in Bale zone of Oromia Region; MA thesis Addis Ababa University
School of Graduate studies Regional and Local Development Studies (RLDS)
Terefe, T. (2002). Forest dwellers’ association (WAJEB) as an approach in participatory forest
management: The case of Adaba-Dodla. MSc thesis reports No 2002: 61. Sewdish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Sweden. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2002/er01)
Tesfaye, Y. (2011). Participatory forest management for sustainable livelihoods in the Bale
Mountains, Southern Ethiopia.Doctoral Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Uppsala, Sweden.
Trinh, Q. T., & Ranola, R. F., Jr. (2010). Decision making by upland farmers on forest management
in the northwest mountainous region of Vietnam. Journal of ISSAAS (International Society for
Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences), 16(1), 68–82.
Winberg, E. (2010, June). Participatory forest management in Ethiopia, practices and experiences.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-aq407e.pdf
Yemiru, T., Roos, A., Campbell, B. M., & Bohlin, F. (2010). Forest incomes and poverty alleviation
under participatory forest management in the Bale Highlands, Southern Ethiopia. International
Forest Review, 12, 66–77. doi:10.1505/ifor.12.1.66

View publication stats