views and attitudes of local people towards community

RESEARCH Open Access

Views and attitudes of local people towardscommunity versus state forest governancein Tehulederi District, South Wollo, EthiopiaBirhan Ali Woldie1 and Solomon Ayele Tadesse2*

Abstract

Introduction: Restoring the degraded sites with vegetation cover is an optimal solution to mitigate environmentaldisasters. Starting from the 1980s, donor-assisted land rehabilitation activities were taking place in Tehulederi District,South Wollo, Ethiopia. Meanwhile, majority of the forests were destroyed; part of the problem was associated with thetop-down approach of forest management. The challenge is, therefore, to find a system of management that canenhance the combined effect of both the community and the state. The community forestry (i.e. a forest developmentactivity which is practiced and managed collectively by the community members on their communal land) is one suchalternative. The objectives of the study were to (1) examine the views and attitudes of local people towardscommunity versus state forests governance and (2) evaluate the management practices implemented in thecommunity versus state forestry and their implications on the forest status and the livelihood of local people.

Methods: A structured questionnaire consisting of closed- and open-ended questions was developed to collectquantitative data from randomly selected households. Moreover, key informant interviews and focus groupdiscussions were conducted to gather qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression wereused to analyze and interpret the quantitative data. The data obtained through key informant interviews andfocus group discussions were synthesized and narrated using a qualitative method.

(Continued on next page)

* Correspondence: [email protected] of Natural Resources Management, College of Agriculture andNatural Resource Sciences, Debre Berhan University, P.O. Box 445, DebreBerhan, EthiopiaFull list of author information is available at the end of the article

© The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a linkto the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Woldie and Tadesse Ecological Processes (2019) 8:4 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-018-0157-1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1186/s13717-018-0157-1&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

(Continued from previous page)

Results: Several socioeconomic variables significantly affected the views and attitudes of local people towardscommunity versus state forests governance. Generally, local people had positive views and attitudes towards thecommunity forestry. Over 83% of the respondents agreed to accept and practice community forestry. In contrast,about 70% of the respondents had negative views and attitudes towards the state forestry. The positive viewsand attitudes of local people towards the community forestry may be connected with the perceived benefits (e.g. infrastructure development, source of medicinal plants, wood products, and source of fodder) and the values(e.g. aesthetic and recreational) that local people expect from the community forest. However, the negative viewsand attitudes of local people towards the state forestry could be attributed to the fact that the community mayhave limited access to forests when they are exclusively managed by the government. Moreover, such forestmanagement may aggravate antagonistic relationship between the government and local people and be manifestedas forest use conflicts. The results obtained from key informant interviews and focus group discussions suggested thatthe community forest had a better status than the state forest. This may have resulted from the relative advantage ofthe community forestry to make better use of the community forest, manage it more sustainability, and contributemore equitably to satisfy local livelihoods than does the state forestry. The respondents also illustrated the dependenceof local people on forests, utilization, protection, management, and silvicultural schemes implemented in thecommunity versus state forests.

Conclusions: The findings emphasize the importance of collective decisions in forest management and governance.The intervention for a legal framework and institutional development particularly through formal recognition of localpeople’s ownership and right over the use of forests is indispensable towards sustainable forestry.

Keywords: Environmental disaster, Focus group discussion, Forest utilization and management, Household survey, Keyinformant interview, Sustainable forestry

IntroductionThe forests in Ethiopia are being degraded at an alarm-ing rate of 150,000 to 200,000 ha year−1 (EFAP 1994).Hence, restoring the degraded sites with vegetation is es-sential to mitigate environmental disasters in Ethiopia.Since the beginning of the 1980s, donor-sponsored landrehabilitation has been implemented in different parts ofthe country. South Wollo is one of the regions in north-ern Ethiopia that attracted the attention of some of theearly land rehabilitation programmes in the country.This was partly due to the fact that the 1973 famine wasassociated with activities, such as deforestation andclearing of forests for crop cultivation (Admassie 1995;Pankhurst 2001; Abiyu 2005). Moreover, the famine inSouth Wollo had political implications in that it wastaken as the fault of the regime under Emperor HaileSelassie I and was one of the immediate causes for itsdownfall. Therefore, the succeeding socialist governmenthad to show concern. To start with, hillside exclosuresand reforestation activities began on the basis of afood-for-work programme, whereby peasants were givengrain and oil for planting seedlings, building terracesand micro-dams (Admassie 1995; Bekele 2003).Despite the efforts made to alleviate the problems of

forest degradation, the results were not impressive, es-pecially when one considers the labour and moneyinvested in the whole programme as compared to whatwas achieved. This is because little attention was givento the views and attitudes of local people towards forest

conservation programmes and to identify their prior-ities. For example, in most conservation programmes,local people were neither consulted nor included in theplanning process (Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015). Oncethe forest rehabilitation projects which were run bydonor agencies had been completed, it was not possiblefor local people to shoulder the responsibility to imple-ment and continue the objectives of those projects(Tekle 1999). According to Stahl (1990), the forest re-habilitation policy was not consultative and supportiveof local people in Ethiopia, rather it was prescriptiveand commandist. For instance, it only emphasized thenumber of seedlings planted rather than caring for thesurvival, management, and utilization of the plantedtrees. Moreover, more attention was given to the num-ber of seedlings planted on the closed hillsides fromhuman and livestock interferences rather than focusingon how to manage the vegetation (Bekele 2003).Many hillside exclosures were destroyed during the

transition period after the change of the Dergue gov-ernment in 1991. One of the most important reasonsfor the destruction of hillside exclosures witnessed in1991 in Ethiopia was the ambiguous and uncertain landuse right and ownership system (Admassie 1995; Leme-nih and Bekele 2007; Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015).This suggests that the land tenure system of an areanegatively affects land management practices; hence, itdetermines the success of forest conservation. This isbecause clearly defined property rights can contribute

Woldie and Tadesse Ecological Processes (2019) 8:4 of 20

greatly to reversing forest degradation problems. Forexample, Ezra and Kassahun (1988) reported that theuncertainty about ownership and rights of the use oftree plantations contributed to the low performance offorest development in Ethiopia. In many instances,farmers were not allowed to graze their livestock or cutgrass inside the exclosures. Moreover, there was no co-herent national forest policy, legal frameworks, andguidelines on the utilization of trees planted in thecommunity forests (Dejene 1990). Even though farmersplanted tree seedlings, they were not sure what wouldhappen to their trees or who was going to use themlater. In addition, there was no follow-up of the plantedseedlings and no regular reports after the year of planting.For example, it was difficult to come up with reliable fig-ures on the survival rate of the tree seedlings in the foodfor work programmes during the Dergue regime.The government of Ethiopia has recently begun to

recognize the necessity of people’s participation in forestmanagement. This has come about as a result of bothlocal initiatives (Wily 2002), for example, the case inTigray and Amhara regions, woodlots, and non-govern-ment-sponsored pilot projects (Lemenih and Bekele2007). Although these forest developments are encour-aging, it was observed that the implementation strategyis based on the application of state-derived rules, inorder to achieve state objectives. So, it has resulted innumerous, often widespread, protests and conflicts be-tween the local people and the state. Therefore, an im-portant question for Ethiopia is: “is it possible tomaintain good forest stand when decisions concerningon the use and management are taken through commu-nal collective action for community objectives ratherthan for the state objectives? An answer to this questionwould be useful as a guide in developing forest manage-ment strategies and plans through the implementationof the community forestry approach.Optimal forest management is, therefore, dependent

upon views (e.g. experience and knowledge) and attitudesof local people who are naturally linked with the forestlandscape and through their active participation in forestmanagement (Tesfaye et al. 2012; Ameha et al. 2014; Kel-boro and Stellmacher 2015). Various studies also notedthat previous benefits and values can affect views and atti-tudes of local people towards forest conservation andmanagement (e.g. Tadesse and Teketay 2017; Siraj et al.2018). This is because values are the most important andcentral elements in a person’s system of views and atti-tudes (Oskamp 1977; Woltamo 1997).Views and attitudes are positive or negative responses

of people towards a certain event (e.g. community ver-sus state forests governance) (Jotte 1997; Kelboro andStellmacher 2015). Thus, negative or positive views andattitudes of local people towards community versus

state forests will likely affect their contribution andparticipation in the management of forests. Views andattitudes of local people can be affected by their behav-iours (Jotte 1997; Woltamo 1997; Kellert et al. 2000).Hence, understanding how behaviour affects views andattitudes of local people is of paramount importancefor conservation and sustainable utilization of foreststhrough introducing and implementing appropriate for-est management and governance, especially in develop-ing countries, such as Ethiopia, where local people aredirectly dependent on forest resources to meet theirneeds (Tesfaye et al. 2012; Ameha et al. 2014; Tadesseand Teketay 2017).At present, community forestry has been seen in a

number of catchments/woodlots in Tehulederi District,South Wollo, Ethiopia. However, no quantitative andqualitative studies were so far conducted to justify howcommunity forest management serves as an alternativeto state forest so as to enhance the condition of the for-est resources. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate theviews and attitudes of local people towards communityversus state forests governance. Accordingly, the fol-lowing three questions were addressed in the presentstudy: (1) Has the implementation of community forestmanagement been a failure or a success so far? (2) If so,where has it been achieved? (3) If not, why not? One ofthe assumptions for this study was that the conven-tional approach (i.e. when forests are managed andgoverned by the state) to forest conservation is not ef-fective because the forests are subjected to illegal accessand/or unregulated utilization. In contrast, the commu-nity forestry approach alleviates the existing excessivepressure on forests by regulated access as the localcommunities become caretakers of the community for-ests. The objectives of the study were to (1) examinethe views and attitudes of local people towards commu-nity versus state forests governance and (2) evaluate themanagement practices implemented in the communityversus state forestry and their implications on the foreststatus and the livelihood of local people.

MethodsStudy areaThe study was conducted in Tehulederi District, SouthWollo, situated in the eastern margin of North CentralMassif, about 415 km from the northeast of AddisAbaba, Ethiopia. Bededo Kebele was purposely selectedfor this study because it was the only kebele in Tehule-deri District that contained both community- andstate-owned forests. Kebele is the smallest administra-tive unit in Ethiopia. Bededo Kebele is geographicallylocated at 11° 14′ N and 39° 46′ E (Fig. 1), with an aver-age elevation of 2350 m above sea level, and covers atotal area of 1545 ha. It has 1035 households. The total


population size of the study area was 6199 inhabitants.The livelihood of the local people mainly depends onsubsistent farming, in which livestock husbandry andcrop productions play a major role. The climate of thestudy site is characterized by wet seasons that mostlyoccur from July to September (long rainy season), lo-cally known as Kiremt, and February to May (shortrainy season), locally known as Belg. There is a long dryperiod from the end of September to February, and ashort dry spell in June (Bekele 2000). The mean annualprecipitation was 1030 mm, and the mean monthlytemperature was about 21 °C (Abiyu 2005).The natural vegetation is broadly classified as Juniper-

sus procera forest or dry, single dominant ‘Afromontaneforest’ with Junipersus procera and Olea europea as thedominant species. At higher elevations, the remnants ofthe original Afromontane forest occur as secondary for-est, with Junipersus procera, Olea europea, and Afrocar-pus falcatus being the dominant tree species (Friis 1992;Bekele 2000; Abiyu 2005). The site was a pioneer areafor implementing government-sponsored reforestationprogramme in South Wollo, which has had continuousdonor support since the 1980s (Abiyu 2005). Accordingto the records available at the local district forestry of-fice, a total of 126 ha of forests were managed by thecommunity. However, the remaining 761 ha of the for-ests were managed by the district office of agriculture.

The study site was one of the oldest vegetation res-toration areas in South Wollo and was not a completevictim of forest destruction during the change of thegovernment in the early 1990s (Bekele 2000; Abiyu2005). Since the beginning of 1980s, a donor-assistedhillside reforestation programme has been going on inBededo Kebele, as one of the principal responses foralleviating the problems caused by the widespread lossof trees and forest cover. Being financially supportedby non-governmental organizations, the forestry de-partment established community nurseries and pro-duced and planted millions of tree seedlings withcommunity labour on communal lands (personal com-munication with Tehulederi District AdministrativeOffice, March 2016).

Survey procedureA preliminary survey was carried out to get better in-formation about the study site and the relevant type ofdata to be collected. A structured questionnaire com-prising closed- and open-ended questions was prepared(Tesfaye et al. 2012; Tadesse and Kotler 2016; Tadesseand Teketay 2017) that likely affect the views and atti-tudes of local people towards community versus stateforests in Tehulederi District. On the basis of forestgovernance arrangements (Paudyal 1996), i.e. commu-nity and state forests, and in line with the Amhara

Fig. 1 Map of the study area


National Regional State forest proclamation and regula-tion, community forests are defined as forests wherecommunities do have the control over and claim owner-ship. However, forested areas under the direct control ofthe district forestry department, and without any form ofcollective action/participation by local people, have beenconsidered as state forests (ANRS-BOA 1999).Most socioeconomic-, knowledge-, and experience-

measuring questions were measured in nominal scaleand rated using 3 = yes, unsure = 2, and 1 = no. Largervalues expressed greater views. Age, family size, lengthof local residence, annual income, land size, and levelof education were measured in continuous quantitativevalues. Views towards community versus state forestswere measured using 3 = yes, unsure = 2, and 1 = no,where larger values reflected positive views towardscommunity versus state forests. To quantify the atti-tudes of the respondents towards community versusstate forests, Likert scale was employed and rated using5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = unsure, 2 = disagree,and 1 = strongly disagree (Cohen et al. 2000; Hren etal. 2004; Tadesse and Teketay 2017). Larger valuesreflected positive attitudes of the respondents either to-wards the community forest governance or the stateforest governance or both.To complement the household survey, key informant

interviews and focus group discussions were conductedto examine the management practices implemented inthe community versus state forests (Kelboro and Stell-macher 2015). The key informant interviews and focusgroup discussions were carried out using a checklistwhich addressed the themes of the dependence of localpeople on forests, utilization, protection, and develop-ment practices, held in community and state forestsfound in Tehulederi District.

Data collectionHousehold surveyThe household survey was conducted through administer-ing structured questionnaire by interviewing householdsliving in Bededo Kebele. The household survey is helpfulto collect quantitative data. Following Tadesse and Tafere(2017) and Tadesse and Teketay (2017), the questionnairewas developed by considering socioeconomic variables,such as sex, age, family size, level of education, length oflocal residence, occupation type, history of settlement,livestock and land ownership, land size, annual income,accessibility to forest resources, knowledge on traditionalbylaws that restrict people and/or livestock from illegallydestroying the tree seedlings planted and grown in thestudy site, and distance between the edge of the forestsand the residential area of the respondents. The question-naire was administered to a total of 160 households. Thedata were collected via house-to-house interviews.

Key informant interviewsKey informants (i.e. persons who are supposed to beknowledgeable of their locality and have good knowledge(Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015) about community andstate forests governance) were selected in consultationwith development agents and kebele administrators. Thekey informants were mainly elderly men and women, re-ligious leaders, and opinion makers in the community.The interviews were also conducted with developmentagents, kebele administrators, and experts working atTehulederi District Office of Agriculture. A total of 25individuals were interviewed through this method.

Focus group discussionsFocus group discussions were conducted with a group ofindividuals who were believed to be equally interested oraffected by the topic being discussed. The discussionwas guided by a facilitator during which group memberswere encouraged to talk freely and spontaneously abouta certain topic, but if possible, to come up with sharedviews and opinions, so that opinions within the groupon the issue being discussed were synthesized and nar-rated. The results were the outcome of the group inter-actions but not the views of an individual. Three focusgroup discussions (i.e. male group, female group, andyouth group) were conducted. Each focus group con-tained ten members. A checklist was used as a memoryguide to facilitate the focus group discussions (Kelboroand Stellmacher 2015). All the focus group discussionswere tape-recorded, and short notes were also taken.The whole data were collected in May 2016.

Independent variablesFollowing Tadesse and Tafere (2017) and Tadesse andTeketay (2017), the independent variables were derivedfrom the following 22 questions. These were (1) sex, (2)age, (3) level of education, (4) family size, (5) annual in-come, (6) livestock ownership, (7) enough grazing land,(8) shortage of fodder for their livestock, (9) want tokeep more livestock than have at present, (10) length ofresidence in the area (in years), (11) history of settle-ment in the area, (12) plan to stay in the area in the fu-ture, (13) private land ownership, (14) land size (ha),(15) tree planting and growing tradition, (16) shortageof fuelwood, (17) accessibility to forest resources, (18)distance between the edge of the forests and the resi-dential area of the respondents (km), (19) incentives(e.g. seeds, tree seedlings, technical supports, andcredits) to plant and grow trees, (20) sufficient marketto sell their forest products, (21) enough labour tomanage trees/seedlings planted and grown by them-selves, and (22) knowledge on traditional bylaws thatrestrict people and/or livestock from illegally destroyingthe tree seedlings planted and grown in the study site.


Dependent variablesThe two types of dependent variables were derived fromthe following four statements: (1) views towards the com-munity forest governance, (2) views towards the state for-est governance, (3) consent that the respondents hadpositive attitudes towards the community forest govern-ance, and (4) consent that the respondents had positive at-titudes towards the state forest governance.

Data analysesDepending on the nature of the data, methods of qualita-tive and quantitative analyses were used to analyze and in-terpret the data. For example, the data obtained throughkey informant interviews and focus group discussionswere synthesized and narrated using a qualitative method.However, descriptive statistics, such as mean, standarddeviation, and proportion, were used to analyze house-hold characteristics. Multiple linear regression modelset at α = 0.05 was used to analyze and predict thevalues of the dependent variables. After accounting formultiple comparisons (22 tests per dependent variable)with a Bonferroni correction, P ≤ 0.002 was consideredsignificant. The Bonferroni correction was computed bydividing 0.05 to 22 which was equal to 0.002. This isbecause Bonferroni correction is a safeguard againstmultiple tests of statistical significance on the samedata falsely giving the appearance of significance (Mor-zillo et al. 2007; Tadesse and Kotler 2016; Tadesse andTafere 2017; Tadesse and Teketay 2017). The analyseswere undertaken by using SPSS version 16.

ResultsHousehold surveyA total of 160 persons responded to the questionnairesurvey. Majority of the respondents (65%) were males,and the average age of the participants was 39.8 yearswith a standard deviation of 9.6. The average family sizein a household was 5.5 persons. Regarding the level ofeducation, more than two fifths (43%) of the partici-pants went to primary school. Most of the respondents(97%) engaged in mixed farming, and the average an-nual income of the participants was about 43,975 Ethi-opian Birr (ETB).1 On average, the respondents hadlived in Bededo Kebele for about 34.1 years. The largestproportion (84%) of the participants had livestock. Ma-jority of the participants (84%) claimed that they had abigger number of livestock used to serve as insuranceduring crop failure. Nearly three fourths (74%) of therespondents did not have enough grazing land. In con-trast, the larger percentage (65%) of the participantswanted to keep a bigger number of livestock than hadat present. Thus, more than half (54%) of the partici-pants practiced cut and carry system to manage theshortage of fodder for their livestock (Table 1).

Regarding the history of settlement, about threefourths (76%) of the participants noted that they hadinherited land from their ancestors. Similarly, about91% of the respondents planned to stay in the area inthe future, and 95% of the respondents had their ownprivate lands. The average land size was about 0.9 ha.Majority of the respondents (65%) noted that they hadtree planting and growing tradition. More than threefifths (64%) of the participants noted that they did nothave a shortage of fuelwood. This is because majorityof them (65%) stated that they had access to forest re-sources. Most of the respondents (96%) had equalknowledge on community versus state forests govern-ance (Table 1).Majority of the participants (89%) noted that they did

not know any problem with the existing communityforestry in Bededo Kebele. In contrast, an equal propor-tion of the respondents (89%) noted that they knew thatthere was a problem with the existing state forest gov-ernance. Hence, most of the participants noted that theperceived benefits to the local people due to the pres-ence of the community forest included infrastructuredevelopment (86%), source of medicinal plants (84%),aesthetic and recreational values (83%), wood products(76%), and source of fodder for livestock through cutand carry system (73%). In contrast, majority of theparticipants briefed that the perceived benefits to thelocal people due to the presence of the state forest in-cluded aesthetic and recreational values (79%), employ-ment opportunities (59%), and source of medicinalplants (55%) (Table 1).The average distance between the edge of the forests

and the residential area of the participants was about1.67 km. More than half (64%) of the respondents notedthat they did not get incentives (e.g. seeds, tree seed-lings, technical supports, and credits) to plant and growtrees. In contrast, majority of the participants (86%)noted that they had sufficient market to sell their forestproducts. Similarly, most of the respondents (91%)stated that they had enough labour to manage trees/seedlings planted and grown by them (Table 1).More than half (64%) of the respondents noted that

they had knowledge on the traditional bylaws that re-strict local people and/or livestock from illegally destroy-ing tree seedlings planted and grown in Bededo Kebele.As a result, majority of the participants strongly agreed(83%) that they had positive attitudes towards the com-munity forestry. In contrast, more than three fifths(70%) of the respondents noted that they disagreed tohave positive attitudes towards the state forest (Table 1).The multiple linear regression model revealed that sev-

eral socioeconomic variables significantly affected theviews of local people towards the community forest gov-ernance. Overall, the multiple linear regression model


Table 1 Socioeconomic characteristics and descriptive results

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 thearea (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 andsatisfy the forage requirement fortheir 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


Table 1 Socioeconomic characteristics and descriptive results (Continued)


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 forestgovernance

Yes 95.55

Unsure 0.00

No 4.45

Had knowledge on the state forestgovernance

Yes 95.55

Unsure 0.00

No 4.45

Knew that there was a problem with theexisting community forest governance

Yes 9.38

Unsure 1.56

No 89.06

Knew that there was a problem with theexisting state forest governance

Yes 89.06

Unsure 1.56

No 9.38

Perceived benefits to the local people due tocommunity 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 cutand carry system

72.50

Traditional beehive keeping and sourceof honey

25.00

Access to free-range livestock grazing 23.44

Source of income from visiting eco-tourists 31.25

Getting free transport during hardshipperiods

00.00

Aesthetic and recreational values 82.82

Perceived benefits to the local people due tostate 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 cutand carry system

13.93

Traditional beehive keeping and sourceof honey

18.94

Access to free-range livestock grazing 12.58

Source of income from visiting eco-tourists 13.67

Getting free transport during hardshipperiods

00.00

Aesthetic and recreational values 78.95

Distance between the edge of the forests andthe 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 plantand grow trees

Yes 35.66

No 64.34


explained about 52% of the variance on the views of localpeople towards the community forestry. Similarly, themultiple linear regression model suggested that numeroussocioeconomic variables significantly affected the views oflocal people towards the state forest governance. In gen-eral, the model explained about 49% of the variance onthe views of local people towards the state forest (Table 2).The multiple linear regression model showed that a

number of socioeconomic variables significantly af-fected the attitudes of local people towards the commu-nity forest governance. Generally, the multiple linearregression model explained about 47% of the varianceon the attitudes of local people towards the communityforestry. Similarly, the multiple linear regression modelsuggested that numerous socioeconomic variables sig-nificantly influenced the attitudes of local people to-wards the state forest governance. Overall, the modelexplained about 42% of the variance on the attitudes oflocal people towards the state forest (Table 3).

Key informant interviews and focus group discussionsDependence of local people on forestsSoil and water conservation is one of the most import-ant benefits derived from community and state forestsin Tehulederi District that the majority of participantsbelieved. According to the participants, both commu-nity and state forests located on the hillsides in Tehule-deri District provide soil and water conservation as wellas serve as natural habitats for wild animals. Some par-ticipants even cited examples of appreciably changedland cover and consequently reduced environmental

degradation, gullies healed, springs developed, grasscover that has visibly increased on what was once bareland, and an increase in the availability of wood prod-ucts, because most of the land was formerly in a de-graded condition. This notion of associating theavailability of fodder, fuelwood, and construction woodas a result of land rehabilitation was common amongyouth, men, and women groups. All groups had a simi-lar story when they compared the effects of deforest-ation and the benefits of reforestation in TehulederiDistrict. For example, elders expressed their views oncommunity versus state forests by comparing them tothe difference between a person with a nice suit andone without. According to their expression, forests rep-resent a memory of the natural environment of thepast.All the participants in the focus group discussions, ir-

respective of age and sex, noted the advantage of com-munity forest over the conventional forest (i.e. the statemanaged forest), in that the collection of branches anddried leaves is possible. Specifically, the use of con-trolled grazing during extended drought periods, andthe availability of grass and construction wood from thecommunity forest, has attracted them. According to thewomen group, the community forest has created a relieffor the local people, who previously had to buy fuel-wood from other areas for high cost. Most participantsacross all social groups appreciated the community for-est for its role in community development activitiesand social services, domestic purposes, and as a sourceof income to support their families during extended

Table 1 Socioeconomic characteristics and descriptive results (Continued)


Had sufficient market to sell theirforest products

Yes 86.34

No 14.66

Had enough labour to manage trees/seedlingsplanted and grown by themselves

Yes 91.29

No 8.71

Had knowledge on traditional bylaws thatrestrict people and/or livestock from illegallydestroying the tree seedlings planted andgrown in the study site

Yes 63.75

Unsure 36.25

No 0.00

Agree that the respondents had positiveattitudes towards the community forestgovernance

Strongly agree 82.81

Agree 6.25

Unsure 10.94

Disagree 0.00

Strongly disagree 0.00

Agree that the respondents had positiveattitudes towards the state forest governance

Strongly agree 0.00

Agree 18.36

Unsure 11.88

Disagree 69.76

Strongly disagree 0.00


droughts and hardship periods. Participants in allgroups pointed out so far that the government had noshare from the outputs of the community forest; theyindicated the benefits totally drained to the localpeople. In contrast, participants of the focus group dis-cussions argued that they were denied access to thestate forest. Among elders, one said vividly that ‘man-aging while sustainably utilizing forests’. The women’sgroup gave support, stating that there were instanceswhere women were caught by guards and sent to localcourts, where they were fined while found in the stateforest. Irrespective of their ages and sex, all the partici-pants in the focus group discussions appreciated their

customary rules which constitute an equitable distribu-tion of the benefits and sanctions for malpractices inthe community forest. The results of the interview withelders (i.e. men and women) revealed that land shortagewas the main bottleneck for planting and growing treeson their own farmlands.

Forest utilizationAccording to the key informants, tree harvesting eitherfor private or community development activities andsocial services requires decision and approval of thecommunity members. They noted that such removalor utilization is limited to construction wood and

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

Variables Views towards the community forestgovernance

Views towards the state forestgovernance

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 theresidential area of the respondents (km)

0.14 1.34 0.236 − 0.38 − 0.82 0.527

Incentives (e.g. seeds, tree seedlings, technicalsupports, 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 plantedand 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 thatrestrict people and/or livestock from illegallydestroying the tree seedlings planted andgrown in the study site (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.84 3.17** 0.001 − 0.64 − 2.96** 0.002

Minus sign indicates a negative change in attitudes. Multiple linear regression model: standardized coefficients were reported; ** Significance at the95% 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


fuelwood, through controlled harvesting of matureplantation forest in favour of saplings. For example,during the field visits, coppice stands of Eucalyptusglobulus and stumps of Cupressus lusitanica were ob-served. As the participants in the group discussionnoted, a pressing need, especially of very poor farmers,including returning soldiers and resettlers, those whosehouses have accidentally been burnt, for the purposesof burial, house construction and farm implementswould qualify with the kebele executive committee forthe release of poles. According to the participants, the

use of dead logs (i.e. standing dead and wind-fallentrees) instead of saplings, and controlled grazing dur-ing extended drought periods, was allowed. Fuelwoodcollection was normally allowed in the community for-est as long as the wood was dry. During the survey, nodry wood (i.e. standing or fallen trees) was observed.This was probably an indication of the intensity offuelwood collection in the community forest. Accord-ing to the participants in all groups, other non-timberforest products that were collected from the communityforest included local medicines, ropes, mushrooms, and

Table 3 Multiple linear regression model to predict the attitudes of local people towards the community forest governance, andthe state forest governance in Tehulederi District

Variables Attitudes towards the community forestgovernance

Attitudes towards the state forestgovernance

β t P value β t P value

Intercept − 3.29 − 2.82 – 2.67 2.89 –

Sex (female = 1; male = 2) 0.15 1.14 0.352 − 0.14 − 1.87 0.231

Age 0.24 1.09 0.651 − 0.16 − 1.48 0.432

Levels of education 0.36 2.75** 0.002 0.32 2.96** 0.002

Family size per household 0.47 2.840** 0.002 − 0.21 − 3.08** 0.002

Annual income (ETB) − 0.22 − 3.10** 0.001 − 0.16 − 2.72** 0.002

Livestock ownership (no = 1; yes = 3) 0.64 2.77** 0.002 − 0.07 − 3.36** 0.001

Enough grazing land (no = 1; yes = 3) − 0.14 − 0.66 0.523 − 0.15 − 0.62 0.543

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

− 0.03 − 2.86** 0.002 − 0.06 − 3.29** 0.001

Shortage of fodder for livestock (no = 1; yes = 3) 0.16 1.19 0.244 − 0.07 − 0.49 0.665

Length of local residence in the area (years) 0.60 0.27 0.762 − 0.14 − 0.73 0.474

History of settlement in the area 0.29 0.21 0.845 0.23 0.14 0.893

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

0.42 2.92** 0.002 − 0.10 − 3.29** 0.001

Private land ownership (no = 1; yes = 3) 0.14 1.18 0.253 0.09 0.22 0.644

Land size (ha) 0.11 0.29 0.785 0.27 0.23 0.764

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

0.01 0.69 0.651 0.07 0.65 0.726

Shortage of fuelwood (no = 1; yes = 3) 0.31 2.96** 0.002 − 0.30 − 2.94** 0.002

Accessibility to forest resources (no = 1; yes = 3) 0.52 4.02** 0.0001 0.69 3.12** 0.002

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

0.15 1.17 0.254 − 0.04 − 0.31 0.768

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

0.11 2.64** 0.002 0.23 3.38** 0.001

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

0.54 3.30** 0.001 − 0.33 − 1.33 0.199

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

0.15 3.17** 0.001 − 0.04 − 0.31 0.768

Knowledge on the presence of traditional bylaws thatrestrict people and/or livestock from illegallydestroying the tree seedlings planted andgrown in the study site (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.27 3.30** 0.001 − 0.33 − 3.36** 0.001

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 = 0.58 (Adj. R2 = 0.47), df = 21; F = 7.934, overall P < 0.0001. State forest governance: R2 = 0.53 (Adj. R2 = 0.42), df= 21; F = 6.858, overall P < 0.0001


stones. As to the key informants, forest damage beforecommunity management included illegal cutting and graz-ing activities, farm expansion on the foothills, debarkingof live trees, and cutting young trees for fences and sticks.In general, local people showed positive attitudes towardsthe appropriate use of the community forest in TehulederiDistrict.The results obtained from both key informant inter-

views and focus group discussions (i.e. male, female,and youth groups) confirmed that in the state forest,harvesting of construction wood and poles—even fromplantations—forest pasture/grazing, the collection ofdead logs (i.e. standing dead and wind-fallen trees), andthe collection of dry wood and fuelwood were banned.However, in some cases, villagers were allowed to col-lect minor forest products, such as traditional medi-cines, but only for domestic use.

Forest protectionAt present, community forest is the property of the com-munity so that the right to use and protect is vested onthe local people. For example, the local people organizedguards to monitor adherence to the rules. The communityitself pays the salary of the guards. The forest guards pa-trol the community forest and report offences to the vil-lagers. In addition, each villager takes an interest in whatis going on in the community forest. For example, villagersenforce protection through participation and sanctions.These are reinforced by customary rules and are consti-tuted at the village level through the involvement of vil-lage elders, who are perceived as the wise persons in thecommunity. Traditional leaders also establish themselvesas important stakeholders at community-level undertak-ings gelagay dagna (i.e. ‘mediating juror’). Moreover, localinstitutions at community and village level played a part inresolving conflicts and constraining wrongdoers. For ex-ample, accused persons were given an opportunity to de-fend themselves and have the right to appeal. The level ofpenalties varied with the violation of customary rules,which were subject to graded sanctions based on the ser-iousness and the context of an offence. For example, illicittree felling, grazing in a non-grazing area, and grazingout of season carried a heavy penalty in the form of de-terrent fines, social exclusion, and confiscation of valu-able property. However, less destructive activities, suchas unauthorized use of the forest for farm implementsand collection of branches for fuelwood, carried lighterpenalties.As participants in all focus group discussions argued,

the situation has completely changed today. They, asstakeholders, feel a sense of ownership and responsibilityfor whatever is going on in the community forest. Forexample, in addition to preventing non-villagers fromdestroying the forest, community members themselves

control each other in preventing the misuse of the com-munity forest. Villagers have to keep each other in checkbecause villagers as collective are responsible for theprotection of the community forest.According to the evidence obtained during the focus

group discussions, there are indigenous institutions thatfacilitate to arrest the person who illegally cut trees inthe community forest but not red-handed. Since thenumber of guards was limited (i.e. each one had to pa-trol large areas, and illegal cutting often took place atnight), the chances of a guard catching the culprit werelimited. Hence, local communities expected local insti-tutions to play a part. This included the qire dagna, i.e.the burial association leader, who was expected to bringmembers together for an oath-taking ceremony mehalla,and people had to walk on the bele, i.e. stick of a sheikswearing that was not involved. If caught, a culprit couldbe excommunicated through ostracism semona. Somegrave disputes could be taken to the Abegar, i.e. spiritualleaders, who are called dem adraqi (i.e. blood dryers) tobe dealt with their local court erekebot yifetta.According to the key informants, the state forest was

well protected, since there was little or no disturbancein terms of cutting for fuelwood and building poles.However, in the community forest, there was evidenceof footpaths throughout the area, indicating frequentvisits by villagers, probably, among other reasons, tocollect fuelwood, dried leaves and branches, and herbalmedicines. Moreover, grazing has rendered the commu-nity forest to have an open floor in some places as therewere browsed plants observed in the area.According to the key informants, all authority con-

cerning management of the state forest was exclusivelyvested on Tehulederi District forestry department. Themanagement practice so far consisted of guarding thestate forest. The participants in all focus group discus-sions confirmed that they could not harvest any woodproducts from the state forest. However, the localpeople could harvest grass for fodder if they had a li-cence from Tehulederi District Forestry Office. Theparticipants of the focus group discussions confirmedthat timber harvesting was banned. However, majorityof the participants noted that illegal tree cutting atnights was common in the state forest. For example, ac-cording to the key informants, the District Forestry De-partment filed about 20 cases from 2008 to 2011.About half of those cases were concerned with the pos-session of illegally obtained poles, while illegal grazingin the state forest accounted for 40% of the cases andvery few cases (10%) involved actual illegal tree cuttingin the state forest. According to the key informants andparticipants in all focus group discussions, when thenumber of cases of illegal activity is considered at thestate forest in Tehulederi District, the practice of


guarding has apparently not yet produced positive re-sults as expected. The Tehulederi District forestry staffalso expressed their views on the law enforcement thathas been generally constrained by lack of adequatepersonnel. Participants in the focus group discussionsreported that guards patrol only in the nearby areas dur-ing the daylight hours; however, those who cut trees tendto operate during the nighttime.

Management and silvicultural schemesAccording to the key informants, since the inception ofthe community forest management and governance inTehulederi District, local communities have increasedtheir participation in the management of the communityforest. Activities in which they participated include attend-ance at forest meetings, forest patrols, enrichment plant-ing and replanting trees in open areas, weeding newlyplanted seedlings, cut and carry of grasses, gap restoration,forest boundary resurveying, raising seedlings in commu-nity nursery, coppice thinning (i.e. mainly of Eucalyptusglobulus), pruning branches (i.e. mainly of Cupressus lusi-tanica), and construction of water-harvesting structures(i.e. hillside trenches and micro-basins) on hill slopes. Forexample, during the field survey, pruned trees of Cupres-sus lusitanica were observed in the community forest.However, this practice had not yet been adopted in thestate forest. For example, during the survey, standing deadand fallen trees were observed in the state forest. This isbecause the district forestry office so far failed to producea workable forest management plan to the state forest inTehulederi District.

DiscussionHousehold surveyStudies on views and attitudes of local people towardscommunity versus state forests governance and manage-ment are lacking in Ethiopia (Tesfaye 2011; Tesfaye et al.2012). This study was the first attempt that examined theviews and attitudes of local people towards communityversus state forests governance, conservation, and man-agement interventions, identifying sources of conflicts andproposing solutions in future management and policy de-cisions in Tehulederi District. This is because views andattitudes are understood to be important antecedents ofpeople’s behaviour in relation to forest conservation andmanagement (Jotte 1997; Oskamp 1977; Kelboro andStellmacher 2015). Several studies also considered viewsand attitudes of local people as a major topic, mostly, inrelation to forest conservation and management (e.g.Agarwal 2001; Mehta and Heinen 2001; Kideghesho et al.2007; Lee et al. 2009; Tesfaye 2011; Tadesse and Tafere2017; Tadesse and Teketay 2017).Generally, the present study revealed that local

people had positive attitudes towards the community

forest governance in Tehulederi District. For example,over 83% of the respondents agreed to accept and prac-tice community forestry. This is because local peopleget regulated access to forest resource when it belongsto the community. So, the positive attitudes of localpeople towards the community forestry may be con-nected with the perceived benefits (e.g. infrastructuredevelopment, source of medicinal plants, wood prod-ucts, and source of fodder for livestock through cut andcarry system) and the various perceived values (e.g. aes-thetic and recreational) that local people expect fromthe community forest. Local people likely obtain vari-ous benefits from the forest when it is managed bythem. It is widely documented that the decision by localpeople on whether or not to participate in communityforestry is largely determined by perceived values (Elias2004; Tesfaye et al. 2012; Tadesse and Tafere 2017;Tadesse and Teketay 2017). Resource use conflicts willbe also resolved when the forest is managed by thelocal community (Regassa 2003; Tesfaye 2011; Tesfayeet al. 2012; Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015; Tadesse andTeketay 2017). Furthermore, the presence of commu-nity forestry will reduce the burden of illegal exploit-ation on the state forest. This is because local peoplewill have their own communal forest on which they canhave access to the various values of the forest. Thepresence of community forestry also increases the senseof ownership and use right to the local people so thatthey will actively participate in managing the forest re-source. Hence, local people showed their keen interestin the implementation of community forestry because ithelps combat the threatening environmental problemsand also obtain other useful forest products. As a re-sult, majority of the respondents expressed their readi-ness and willingness to participate in community forestmanagement in Tehulederi District.In contrast, the study showed that about 70% of the re-

spondents had negative attitudes towards the state forestgovernance. The negative attitudes of local people towardsthe state forest could be attributed to the fact that localpeople may have limited access to the various values of theforest when it is exclusively managed by the state withoutthe direct involvement of local people. This is because localpeople do not develop a sense of ownership when the for-est is exclusively managed by the state (Agarwal 2001;Regassa 2003; Elias 2004; Tesfaye 2011; Tesfaye et al. 2012;Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015). Moreover, such kind offorest management and governance may aggravate antag-onistic relationship between the state and the local people,and thus, it can be manifested as forest use conflict.The findings acquired through the multiple linear regres-

sion model revealed that several socioeconomic variablessignificantly affected the views and attitudes of local peopletowards the community forestry practiced in Tehulederi


District. As revealed from their coefficients, those whowere more educated, had more number of family size, hadlivestock, had a shortage of fodder for their livestock, hadthe plan to stay in the area in the future, had a shortage offuelwood, had accessibility to forest resources, got incen-tives (e.g. seeds, tree seedlings, technical supports, andcredits) to plant and grow trees, had sufficient market tosell their forest products, had enough labour to managetrees/seedlings planted and grown by themselves, and hadknowledge on the presence of traditional bylaws that re-strict people and/or livestock from illegally destroying treeseedlings planted and grown in the area significantly hadpositive views and attitudes towards the community for-estry implemented in Tehulederi District. However, thosewho had high annual income and wanted to keep morelivestock than had at present significantly had negativeviews and attitudes towards the community forestry foundin the district (Tables 2 and 3).One of the possible reasons why more educated

people had positive views and attitudes towards thecommunity forestry might be connected with their un-derstanding about the various expected values gener-ated by the community forest. When people have moreextended family size, they may be more dependent onforests to meet their basic needs. Hence, they would de-velop positive views and attitudes towards the commu-nity forest. On the other hand, when people have alarge number of livestock, but a shortage of fodder, theymay satisfy the fodder requirement through cut andcarry system from the community forest so that theywould develop positive views and attitudes towards thecommunity forest. When respondents have the plan tostay in the area in the future, they may be more con-cerned about their environment. As a result, they maydevelop positive views and attitudes towards the com-munity forestry. This is because community forest pro-vides local people with various values (e.g. ecological,economic, and social). One of the benefits of the pres-ence of community forest in Tehulederi District to thelocal people is the provision of fuelwood. Thus, whenthe local people have a shortage of fuelwood, it is clearthat they will likely develop positive views and attitudestowards the community forest. When local people haveaccess to forest resource, it is obvious that they will de-velop positive views and attitudes towards the commu-nity forestry approach. This is attributed to the factthat the community forest is accessible to local people(e. g. regulated forest use).When local people are provided with incentives, such

as seeds, tree seedlings, technical supports, and creditsto plant and grow trees, they will be more interested toparticipate in community forestry. In return, they willlikely develop positive views and attitudes towards thecommunity forestry. When respondents have sufficient

market to sell their forest products, it is clear that theywill participate in community forest. This is becausethe different forest products will be sustainably har-vested from the community forest (Elias 2004; Tesfaye2011; Tesfaye et al. 2012). So, it serves as a source ofincome to local people and leads them to develop posi-tive views and attitudes towards the community for-estry (Tadesse and Teketay 2017). When local peoplehave enough labour to manage trees/seedlings plantedand grown by them, they will be more interested to par-ticipate in community forestry because forest conserva-tion and development absorb a high number of labours(Tadesse and Tafere 2017). Hence, local people willhave positive views and attitudes towards the commu-nity forestry. When local people have knowledge on thepresence of traditional bylaws that restrict people and/or livestock from illegally destroying tree seedlingsplanted and grown in the area, they may be more inter-ested to grow trees. This is because the seedlings areprotected from illegal anthropogenic disturbances (Tes-faye et al. 2012; Tadesse and Teketay 2017). As a result,local people may have positive views and attitudes to-wards the community forestry.However, the increase in negative views and attitudes of

local people towards the community forestry with the in-crease in annual income of the respondents suggested thatpeople with high annual income may not be directlydependent on forest products to satisfy their livelihoods(Elias 2004; Tesfaye et al. 2012; Tadesse and Teketay 2017).As a result, they will likely develop negative views and atti-tudes towards the community forestry. Moreover, respon-dents who want to keep more livestock than have at presentmay need an additional free-grazing area to satisfy the fod-der requirement for their livestock. These people may fearthat the expansion of community forest in the area will limitthe availability of grazing land for their livestock (Tadesseand Teketay 2017). Hence, they will develop negative viewsand attitudes towards the community forest management.The results generated through the multiple linear re-

gression model showed that a number of socioeco-nomic variables significantly affected the views andattitudes of local people towards the state forest gov-ernance. As revealed from their coefficients, those whowere more educated, had accessibility to forest re-sources, and got incentives (e.g. seeds, tree seedlings,technical supports, and credits) to plant and grow treessignificantly had positive views and attitudes towardsthe state forest implemented in Tehulederi District. Incontrast, those who had more number of family size,had high annual income, had livestock, wanted to keepmore livestock than have at present, had a shortage offodder for their livestock, had the plan to stay in thearea in the future, had a shortage of fuelwood, and hadknowledge on the presence of traditional bylaws that


restrict people and/or livestock from illegally destroying treeseedlings planted and grown significantly had negative viewsand attitudes towards the state forest (Tables 2 and 3).Like the community forestry, when local people are

more educated, they will have good knowledge tounderstand the different values expected from forests.As a result, they will likely develop positive views andattitudes towards the state forest. Moreover, when localpeople have access to forest resources, they may developpositive views and attitudes towards state forestry. This isbecause they will likely satisfy their livelihoods from theforest via exploiting inside the state forest. In addition,when local people are provided with incentives (e.g. seeds,tree seedlings, technical supports, and credits) to plantand grow trees by themselves (Tadesse and Teketay 2017),they will develop positive views and attitudes towards thestate forest because of the expected benefits generatedfrom the state forest.The negative views and attitudes of local people towards

the state forest with the increase in family size suggestedthat they will be more worried to feed their family mem-bers by increasing their land size. However, when there isa state forest in the area, they will be afraid of facing ashortage of land to expand their crop production. Hence,they may develop negative views and attitudes towards thestate forestry. Like the community forestry, when the an-nual income of local people increases, they will be lessdependent on forest products to support their livelihoods(Tadesse and Teketay 2017). As a result, they will probablydevelop negative views and attitudes towards the state for-est. When local people have livestock, or want to keepmore livestock than have at present, or have a shortage offodder for their livestock, they may need a free-grazingarea to meet the forage requirement for their livestock(Tesfaye 2011). However, local people might be punishedif they are arrested while illegally grazing their livestockinside the state forest. As a result, they will developnegative views and attitudes towards the state forest.When local people have the plan to stay in the area in

the future, they may be more concerned about their en-vironment to satisfy their livelihood. One of the meansby which they can meet their livelihood is through agri-culture. So, they need more land to expand farming ac-tivities. If there is a state forest in the area, it may inturn limit their access to expand their agricultural land(Elias 2004; Tesfaye 2011). As a result, they may de-velop negative views and attitudes towards the stateforest. Moreover, if local people have a shortage of fuel-wood, they may not be interested to see the state forestin the area. This is because they are usually denied bylaw to collect fuelwood in the state forest. As a result,they may develop negative views and attitudes towardsthe state forest. Moreover, when respondents haveknowledge on the presence of traditional bylaws that

restrict people and/or livestock from illegally destroyingtree seedlings planted and grown in the state forest,they will be afraid of the punishment if they arearrested while committing illegal activities (i.e. livestockgrazing, fuelwood collection, and tree cutting) (Elias2004; Tadesse and Tafere 2017; Tadesse and Teketay2017). Hence, they will likely develop negative viewsand attitudes towards the state forest.Generally, views and attitudes of local people towards

community and state forests can be positively influencedby increasing their knowledge and benefits (Agarwal 2001;Elias 2004; Tesfaye 2011; Tesfaye et al. 2012; Kelboro andStellmacher 2015; Tadesse and Teketay 2017). More im-portantly, public awareness programmes and conservationeducation can assist in improving the views and attitudesof young people towards community and state forests gov-ernance and management. Promoting direct participationof local residents in decision-making and implementationof appropriate community and state forests strategic planscan also mitigate potential conflicts and assure long-term public supports towards the management of for-ests. Hence, by comparing views and attitudes quanti-fied and presented in this baseline study as well asresults from future replication of this study, re-searchers can provide relevant quantitative and quali-tative information for decision-makers and forestconservation managers to deal with potential conflictof interests between community versus state forestsand the needs of the local people.

Key informant interviews and focus group discussionsDependence of local people on forestsIn developing countries, such as Ethiopia, majority oflocal people are directly dependent on forest resourcesto meet their livelihoods, including fuelwood, food,fodder, timber, honey, and charcoal production (EFAP1994; Evangelista et al. 2007). Unlike the community-based forestry, the findings of this study suggested thata protectionist approach to forest conservation andmanagement by the state may marginalize forest-dependent households, without providing them withalternatives. This may eventually result in inequitywithin communities and could also be a potentialthreat to the long-term sustainability of the forest re-sources especially in the developing countries (Bekele2003). For example, a lack of forest products/timberavailability, resulting from a protectionist approach bythe state, may place the remaining forest areas underincreasing extraction pressure, as communities seek al-ternatives sites for timber collection. Ezra and Kassa-hun (1988) also reported that the uncertainty aboutownership and rights of the use of tree plantationscontributed to the low performance of the forestry de-velopment programme in Ethiopia. A sense of forest


ownership or secured user rights to forests is criticalfor active engagement of local communities in forestresource management (Ellsworth and White 2004).Hence, ensuring the sustainable management of theremaining forest resources in Ethiopia needs appropri-ate policies, which take into consideration the histor-ical and legitimate rights of the local communities(EFAP 1994).

Forest utilizationUnder the influence of tribal kings or elders, differentcommunities practice varying systems of sustainable forestproduction through practicing coppicing, low-impact har-vesting, and rotational harvesting (Mandondo 2003). Inthe present study, the state forest was not able to meet theneeds of the local community, neither regarding to thecommunity development activities and social services norfor farmers’ consumption needs, particularly for construc-tion wood, firewood, and forest pasture during droughts,despite its stable structure (i.e. healthy forest) and higherbasal area (i.e. biomass) (Woldie and Tadesse, unpublisheddata). One of the reasons for this situation was the strictprotection-oriented, passive non-participatory approachadopted by the state in the management of the state forestin Tehulederi District. According to Bekele (2003), such aconventional approach in the management of forests iscommon in Ethiopia. Lemenih and Bekele (2007) alsonoted that the state monopoly of property ownership de-graded not only the forest access rights of local people inEthiopia but also their ancient traditional systems (e.g. theGada system of the Borana Oromo) of forest resourcemanagement, including local knowledge and institutions.There could be several reasons for the adoption of the

protectionist approach in the management of forests by thestate (i.e. by the district forestry department). However,concerns over the risk of degrading the forest resourcethrough unsustainable utilization may be the most import-ant factor contributing to this approach in Ethiopia(Admassie 1995; Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015). In thiscontext, optimum utilization of the state forest, with dueconsideration to the requirements of the local community,is one of the key issues that call for consideration in themanagement of the state forest. This could be achievedthrough effective training and extension activities, which in-crease the confidence of the state on yield-based active for-est management. According to Agrawal and Clark (2000), iflocal communities are effectively involved in forest conser-vation, the benefits they receive would create incentives forthem to become good stewards of natural resources.The protectionist approach of the state forest govern-

ance has not only affected the general availability of theforest products to the communities but may also havenegative implications for the management of the com-munity forest. Previous studies also suggested that the

type of forest ownership influences its status, condi-tions, and way of its management (Wily and Mbaya2001; Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015). The focus groupdiscussions revealed that the negative impacts arisingfrom such an approach are more directed towards thepoor farmers, particularly landless households, becausethere will be less opportunity for private forestry tosupplement the forest products obtained from the com-munity forest. Moreover, a lack of disposable incomewill prevent a household from purchasing the requiredforest products from a secondary source (Wily andMbaya 2001).

Forest protectionDespite the effective role of local institutions in control-ling free-range livestock grazing, illicit tree felling, andsharing benefits, the agreements and arrangements are in-formal and not legally binding (Heinen and Mehta 1999;Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015). So, clarification and en-forcement of the rights and responsibilities of all stake-holders are essential. For example, a good policy ofenvironment protection and legal framework facilitatesenforcement mechanisms with gradual sanctions. Thus,legal recognition of local institutions and endorsement oftheir bylaws are essential elements to encourage invest-ment in forest resource management (Heinen and Mehta1999; Bekele 2003; Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015). For ex-ample, a clear definition of rights, returns and responsibil-ities, and adequate incentives are important for thesustainability of people-centred management of naturalresources (Kajembe et al. 2005). A case study in Tanzaniashowed that the government alone was not able to protectand manage the forest resources sustainably (Blomley2006). Hence, establishing legal institutions and govern-ance that enhance community involvement in forest man-agement, together with clarification of ownership and userrights, is seen as one of the optimal solutions (FAO 2000;Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015) to promote forest develop-ment and sustainable utilization in Tehulederi Districtand elsewhere in Ethiopia.

Management and silvicultural schemesTraditional resource management system containedprecise controlling instruments and mechanisms, basedon shared norms, and values and regulations, based inturn on community-specific customary laws (Admassie1995; Pankhurst 2001; Lemenih and Bekele 2007; Kel-boro and Stellmacher 2015). Community-based forestmanagement system reduces forest resources degrad-ation while improving rural livelihoods (Kellert et al.2000; Malla et al. 2003). For example, in the early1980s, the Nepalese government realized the role andvalue of the local communities in sustainable forestmanagement and began community forestry as a forest


management system (Joshi 1997). In the present study,it was observed that community-based forestry enabledlocal communities to adopt the customary forest man-agement regime in Tehulederi District. Because of theirknowledge and traditional practices, indigenous peopleand their communities probably may have a vital partto play in the management of the nearby forests; localinstitutions may make better use of the forests (Heinenand Mehta 1999; Elias 2004), manage them more sus-tainably, and contribute more equitably to their liveli-hoods than the state forest department. Similar findingsin Tanzania were also suggested by Kajembe et al.(2003) that community-based forestry initiatives thatstart with ‘grassroots’, rather than being government-led, are usually more resilient and successful in themanagement of forest resources.On the other hand, if communities are not involved

in active forest management, it is likely that they willharvest the forests at an unsustainable rate. Moreover,illegal forest encroachment becomes intense when localpeople are denied their access to forests (FAO 2000;Kelboro and Stellmacher 2015; Tadesse and Teketay2017). The results of the present study suggested thatwhen local stakeholders participate in decision-makingand get benefits, this may have given local people asense of ownership and use right, and an understandinghow to realize sustainability and direct economic bene-fits from their community forest. Similar results werereported by Odera (2004) that in many countries,people have developed positive attitudes towards in-creased stakeholder participation in forest management,generally banking on an enhanced flow of benefits andforest contributions to the local livelihoods. Murphree(2000) also exemplified his findings that rural peopleand communities become more responsible with re-spect to forest management, as their rights becomeclearer and the benefits are significant; this in turn cre-ates favourable stakeholder relations in forest manage-ment and governance. Ostrom (1992) argued that forresource users to participate in management initiatives,the benefits should exceed the costs.The present study suggested that besides their direct

contribution to forest management and silvicultural ac-tivities, such as forest patrols, enrichment planting andreplanting trees in open areas, weeding newly plantedseedlings, gap restoration, forest boundary resurveying,raising seedlings in community nursery, coppice thin-ning, and pruning branches, local people carried outland management activities in community forest, in-cluding construction of water-harvesting structures (i.e.hillside trenches and micro-basins) on hill slopes. Thereare several convincing examples where local communi-ties have shown great appreciation towards forests asthey have acquired through community-based forest

management, by providing their labour voluntarily andkeeping degraded forest sites for long-term benefits soas to allow enhanced future benefits (Kajembe et al.2003). However, Campbell et al. (2003) argued that,with the declining of the joy from the satisfaction of re-capture forests, some local communities have begun toshow impatience with perpetuated central government’scontrol over forests. They find government’s in-kindsupport, including contributions to community infra-structure development, is limited and inadequate.

ConclusionIn developing countries, such as Ethiopia, forest con-servation and management by exclusively restrictinghuman activities cause conflicts between the local com-munities and the state and, in turn, lead to further for-est degradation. This is because natural resources, suchas water and forests, are not only the socioeconomicbuffer of the poor, but they are also essential elementsfor the livelihood development of the rural communi-ties. The change in forest management from fully cen-tralized control (e.g. the state forest governance) of theresource towards a more participatory approach (e.g.the community forestry) had many positive impacts onthe forest and the local people as evidenced by the find-ings of the present study where distinct difference wasobserved between community and state forests inTehulederi District. While emphasizing views and atti-tudes of local people towards community versus stateforests, the present study contributed to improvedknowledge on human dimensions. This may motivateforest managers to include local people during theprocess of formulating community versus state forestsmanagement strategies and plans. In the context ofcommunity-based forest management, participants’ un-derstanding or view of the purpose and the implicationof the arrangement with respect to their interest andthus the attitudes they form influence the willingnessand commitment for its implementation. This is a use-ful result for forest conservation managers, land useplanners, and policy- and decision-makers because thechange in views and attitudes of the rural people to-wards community forestry is important for conserva-tion and sustainable utilization of the remnant forestresource in Tehulederi District and elsewhere.In the present study, the community forestry showed

effective management, as it is evident by relativelyhigher forest health (e.g. good forest structure main-tained through regulated use). Hence, the study re-vealed that, compared to the state forest, local peoplehad more positive views and attitudes (83%) towardsthe community forest governance. Even though forestshave been classified into community- and state-owned,local people are aware of the multi-functioning and


have gained multiple benefits from them. Under commu-nity forestry management, local people have more accessto resources and more forest-related activities for improv-ing the forest status and productivity. The community for-estry in Tehulederi District is not only implemented forthe benefits of the communities themselves, but it is alsoused to complement state and public purposes of conser-vation. The positive changes in forest status provide evi-dences of ecological sustainability of the resource, and thefindings also signify to some extent the success of forestconservation efforts by the local communities. As thecommunity and state forests included in the present studyare situated in very similar ecological and socioeconomicsettings, the results thus provide evidence for the relativeadvantage of community forestry over the complete gov-ernment control of the forest resource.This study investigated appropriate management

strategies and techniques about community versus stateforests in Tehulederi District. This may assist forestmanagers, local communities, and private and publicsectors in addressing opportunities and challenges forconserving and managing forests. Other than academicpurposes, it is believed that the findings of this studygenerated quantitative and qualitative scientific infor-mation for policy-makers and planners that guide themtowards better and more informed decision-making forthe establishment of community versus state forestsgovernance and implementation that is geared towardscommunal forest management and, thereby, to achievethe broader goal of poverty reduction in Ethiopia.Therefore, effective conservation and sustainable use offorests need the full involvement of many stakeholders,including the local communities.Based on the findings of the present study, the follow-

ings are recommended:

� Operational strategies developed by the localcommunities are not static but have evolvedthrough pressure and internal need under thechanging circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary tobuild up the body of new knowledge on communityforest management that recognizes the balance ofecological and sociocultural bases and roles ofcommunities in forest management in response totheir need for short-term and long-term benefits.

� Forest development strategies and managementplans should be based on site-specific biophysicalconditions, historical background, and dynamism ofcommunities, in association with the externalcircumstances.

� In forest areas that are under collective managementor accessed by the communities in the nearby areasto maintain their livelihood, support to formulatebylaws would be an effective strategy.

� There might be uncertainty concerning acommunity’s capacity to manage forest resourcessustainably. Therefore, external or co-monitoringmechanisms should be developed to ensure that theyare managed by many stakeholders, including thelocal communities.

� Collaboration among concerned bodies, namelygovernmental and non-governmental organizations,researchers, extension workers, administrativebodies, and local people, is quite essential for thesustainable management and utilization of the forestresources in study site and elsewhere in Ethiopia.

� Restoring the degraded forests, which provide woodand non-wood products for a large proportion ofthe rural population in Tehulederi District, is acritical issue as they also contribute to environmentalservices and sustainability.

� Increasing the knowledge and awareness level of thelocal communities about community versus stateforests governance, management, and sustainableutilization is crucial to introduce and effectivelyimplement those forestry practices.

� Farmers should be encouraged to involve in problemdefinition, the design of possible forest managementsolutions, and evaluation of the proposedtechnological solutions.

� Integrating indigenous knowledge with modernconservation approaches in the planning andimplementation process is crucial to improve andpromote local participation in conservation andmanagement of forests. This is because indigenousknowledge not only provides relevant informationon the use of the forest resource but alsocontributes valuable information on how tomaintain and conserve it.

� Impact of changes in forest product availability ondifferent socioeconomic groups (i.e. rich, medium,and poor people) within the community should befurther studied in the future.

� Private forestry (i.e. is a forest developmentactivity which is practiced and managed by anindividual farmer or a person on his/her ownprivate land or plot) constitutes an importantsource of subsistent products in TehulederiDistrict, but how private forestry is emerging tocope with the challenges arising from the changein dependencies of rural households betweencommunity, government, and private resources isnot known yet. So, this is another important areato be studied in the future.

Endnotes11 21.43 ETB = 1 USD at the time when this study was

conducted.


AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Drs. Mulugeta Zewdie and Melaku Bekelefor their invaluable comments at the earlier period of this research. Theauthors also warmly thank Dr. Jeremy Flower for editing the earlier versionof the manuscript which helped much to improve the final version. Theauthors are indebted to thank Zeray Tadesse, Demere Hailu and the localfarmers in the Bededo Kebele who helped to handle the field datacollection. The staff members in Tehulederi District, particularly at the officeof Agriculture deserve warm acknowledgments. We also thank the editor-in-chief of Ecological Processes and the two anonymous reviewers whosecomments helped much to improve the earlier version of the manuscript.

FundingThe authors would like to forward their gratitude to the Swedish InternationalDevelopment Agency (SIDA), Demand Driven Action Research (Horne Africa-Regional Environment Network) and Amhara National Regional State Bureau ofAgriculture (ANRS-BOA) for all sources of funding that helped the designof the study, field data collection, analyses, interpretation of the data, andwriting the manuscript.

Availability of data and materialsPlease contact the authors for data requests.

DeclarationsNot applicable in each section.

Authors’ contributionsBAW designed and conducted the field research, analyzed the data, anddrafted the manuscript. SAT interpreted the results and helped in writing themanuscript. Both authors read, revised, and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participateNot applicable in this section.

Consent for publicationNot applicable in this section.

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in publishedmaps and institutional affiliations.

Author details1Sustainable Natural Resources Management Association (SUNARMA), P.O.Box 11, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia. 2Department of Natural ResourcesManagement, College of Agriculture and Natural Resource Sciences, DebreBerhan University, P.O. Box 445, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia.

Received: 26 September 2018 Accepted: 27 December 2018

References(EFAP) (Ethiopian Forestry Action Program) (1994) Final report. Vol. 3: issues and

actions. EFAP Secretariat, Addis AbabaAbiyu A (2005) Effects of different restoration strategies on vegetation and soils

in Tehuledere district, South Wollo, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis. Institute of ForestEcology, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna

Admassie Y (1995) Twenty years to nowhere – property rights, land managementand conservation in Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation. Uppsala University, Uppsala,Sweden

Agarwal B (2001) Participatory exclusions, community forestry and gender: ananalysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev 29:1623–1648

Agrawal A, Clark CG (2000) Communities and environment. Rutgers UniversityPress, New Brunswick

Ameha A, Larsen HO, Lemenih M (2014) Participatory forest management inEthiopia: learning from pilot projects. Environ Manag 53:38–54

ANRS-BOA (Amhara National Regional State Bureau of Agriculture) (1999) ForestDevelopment, Conservation and Utilization Proclamation No 002/1999.ANRS-BOA (Amhara National Regional State Bureau of Agriculture), Bahir Dar

Bekele M (2003) Forest property rights, the role of the state, and institutionalexigency: the Ethiopian experience. Doctor’s dissertation. Swedish Universityof Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

Bekele T (2000) Plant population dynamics of Dodonaea angustifolia and Oleaeuropaea ssp. cuspidata in dry afromontane forests of Ethiopia. ActaUniversitatis Upsaliennsis. Comprehensive Summaries of UppsalaDissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology, Uppsala, p 559.47

Blomley T (2006) Mainstreaming participatory forestry within the localgovernment reform process in Tanzania. Gatekeeper series 128. InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development, London

Campbell BM, Shackleton S, Wollenberg E (2003) Overview of institutionalarrangements for managing woodlands. In: Kowero G, Campbell BM, SumailaUR (eds) Policies and governance structures in woodlands of Southern Africa.CIFOR, Bogor. Carelica 14, pp 1–388

Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2000) Research methods in education, 5th edn.RoutledgeFalmer, London

Dejene A (1990) Environment, famine and politics in Ethiopia: a view from thevillage. Lynne Rienner, London, p 128

Elias K (2004) People’s perception of forest and livelihood in joint forestmanagement area, Chilimo, Ethiopia. Unpublished MSc thesis. SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, Skinnskatterberg

Ellsworth L, White A (2004) Deeper roots: strengthening community tenuresecurity and community livelihoods. Ford Foundation. Available at http://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/exported-pdf/ellsworthwhite2004deeperroots.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2018

Evangelista P, Swartzinski P, Waltermire R (2007) A profile of the mountain nyala(Tragelaphus buxtoni). African Indaba 5:1–48

Ezra M, Kassahun B (1988) A review of the community forestry programme and anevaluation of its achievements: a socio-economic survey. SIDA, Addis Ababa

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2000) Community involvement in forestmanagement: first experiences from Tanzania. The Gologolo Joint ForestManagement Project: a case study from the West Usambara Mountains, by S.Iddi. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Community Forestry inAfrica. 26–30 April 1999, Banjul, the Gambia, pp 153–162

Friis I (1992) Forests and forest trees of northeast tropical Africa. Kew BulletinAdditional Series XV:1–396

Heinen JT, Mehta JN (1999) Conceptual and legal issues in the designation andmanagement of conservation areas in Nepal. Environ Conserv 6:21–29

Hren D, Lukic IK, Marusic A, Vodopivec I, Vujaklija A, Hrabak M, Marusic M (2004)Teaching research methodology in medical schools: students’ attitudestowards and knowledge about science. Med Educ 38:81–86

Joshi AL (1997) Community forest in Nepal: 1978–2010Jotte Z (1997) Folklore and conservation in Nigeria: using PRA to learn from elders.

Ichire Ojating and the students of the Federal University of Agriculture, LondonKajembe GC, Monela GC, Mvena ZSK (2003) Making community-based forest

management work: a case study from Duru-Haitemba village forest reserve,Babati, Tanzania, in policies and governance structures in woodlands ofsouthern Africa, edited by G Kowero, BM Campbell & UR Sumaila. Centre forInternational Forestry Research, Jakarta, pp 16–27

Kajembe GC, Nduwamungu J, Luoga EJ (2005) The impact of community-basedforest management and joint forest management on the forest resourcebase and local people’s livelihoods: case studies from Tanzania. Centre forApplied Social Sciences and Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies.CASS/PLAAS Occasional Paper Series No. 8

Kelboro G, Stellmacher T (2015) Protected areas as contested spaces: Nech SarNational Park, Ethiopia, between ‘local people’, the state, and NGOengagement. Environ Dev 16:63–75

Kellert SR, Mehta JN, Ebbin SA, Lichtenfeld LL (2000) Community natural resourcemanagement: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Journal of Society and NaturalResources 13:705–715

Kideghesho J, Roskaft RE, Kaltenbornb P (2007) Factors influencing conservationattitudes of local people in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Int J BiodiversConserv 16:2213–2230

Lee TM, Sodhi NS, Prawiradilaga DM (2009) Determinants of local people attitudestowards conservation and the consequential effects on illegal resource harvestingin the protected area of Sulawesi (Indonesia). J Environ Conserv 36:157–170

Lemenih M, Bekele M (2007) Best practices, lesson learnt and challengesencountered the Ethiopian and Tanzanian Experiences. FARM-Africa/SOS-Sahel. Available at https://theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdf/PFM%20lessons%2C%20challenges%20and%20best%20practices.pdf.Accessed 20 July 2018


http://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/exported-pdf/ellsworthwhite2004deeperroots.pdf



https://theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdf/PFM%20lessons%2C%20challenges%20and%20best%20practices.pdf

https://theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdf/PFM%20lessons%2C%20challenges%20and%20best%20practices.pdf

Malla YB, Hari RN, Branney PJ (2003) Why aren’t poor people benefiting morefrom community forestry. J For Livelihood 3:78–92

Mandondo A (2003) Situating Zimbabwe’s natural resource governance systemsin history. CIFOR. Available at https://www.cifor.org/library/716/. Accessed 18Aug 2018

Mehta JN, Heinen JT (2001) Does community-based conservation shapefavorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. EnvironManag 28:165–177

Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Garner N, Liu J (2007) Resident attitudes towards blackbears and population recovery in East Texas. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:417–428

Murphree MW (2000) Community based conservation: old ways, new myths andenquiring challenge in College of African Wildlife Management. AfricanWildlife Management in the New Millennium, Mweya

Odera J (2004) Lessons learnt on community forest management in Africa.National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, p 76

Oskamp S (1977) Attitudes, values and opinions. Prentice Hall, Englewood cliffsOstrom E (1992) The rudiments of a theory of the origins, survival and

performance of common property institutions. In: Bronkey D (ed) Making thecommons work: theory, practice and policy. ICS Press, San Francisco

Pankhurst A (2001) State and community forests in Yegof, South Wollo, Ethiopia.MARENA working paper, no. 6. Brighton: University of Sussex. Paperpresented at the second workshop on participatory forestry in Africa, 18–22February 2002, Arusha, Tanzania

Paudyal BR (1996) Comparison of benefit-sharing arrangements in joint forestmanagement in India and community forestry in Nepal: Some lessonslearned. Proceedings of the Social Forestry Seminar, Australian NationalUniversity, 18 June 1996

Regassa A (2003) Impact of WAJIB forest management on structure andregeneration of indigenous tree species the case of Adaba-Dodola regionalforest priority area. MSc thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciencesand Wondo Genet College of Forestry, Wondo Genet, p 40

Siraj M, Zhang K, Xiao W, Bilal A, Gemechu S, Geda K, Yonas T, Xiaodan L (2018)Does participatory forest management save the remnant forest in Ethiopia?Proceedings of the National Academy of India Section B. Biol Sci 88:1

Stahl M (1990) Environmental degradation and political constraints in Ethiopia.Disaster 14:140–150

Tadesse SA, Kotler BP (2016) Attitudes of local people towards the mountainnyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni) in Munessa, Ethiopia. Afr J Ecol 54:488–499

Tadesse SA, Tafere SM (2017) Local people’s knowledge on the adverse impactsand their attitudes towards growing eucalyptus woodlot in Gudo BeretKebele, Basona Worena District. Ethiopia Ecol Processes 6:37

Tadesse SA, Teketay D (2017) Perceptions and attitudes of local people towardsparticipatory forest management in Tarmaber District of North ShewaAdministrative Zone, Ethiopia: the case of Wof-Washa Forest. Ecol Process 6:17

Tekle K (1999) Land degradation problems and their implications for foodshortage in South Wollo, Ethiopia. Environ Manag 23:419–427

Tesfaye Y (2011) Participatory forest management for sustainable livelihoods inthe Bale Mountains, Southern Ethiopia. Doctoral dissertation. SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, p 109

Tesfaye Y, Anders R, Folke B (2012) Attitudes of local people towards collectiveaction for forest management: the case of PFM in Dodola area in the BaleMountains, Southern Ethiopia. Int J Biodiver Conserv 21:245–265

Wily LA (2002) Participatory forest management in Africa. An overview ofprogress and issues. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/pdf/006/Y4807B/Y4807B03.pdf. Accessed 25 August 2018

Wily LA, Mbaya S (2001) Land, people and forests in eastern and southern Africaat the beginning of the 21st century: the impact of land relations on the roleof communities in forest future. Forest and Social Perspectives inConservation, IUCN Eastern Africa Programme, the World ConservationUnion. Available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2000-019-07.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.

Woltamo T (1997) The development of gender knowledge and gender typedbeliefs in preschool years. MSc thesis. Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa


https://www.cifor.org/library/716/

http://www.fao.org/docrep/pdf/006/Y4807B/Y4807B03.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/pdf/006/Y4807B/Y4807B03.pdf

https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2000-019-07.pdf

https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2000-019-07.pdf

views and attitudes of local people towards community

Documents