The authors would like to make the following corrections about the published paper []. The changes are as follows:
- (1)
- In the results section, Table 2, the standard errors were supposed to be reported in parentheses, which are missing in the original Table 2. Because of the missing parentheses, the values of standard errors appear negative. There is another typo: “EU” should be replaced by word ‘’AEU” in Table 2. Authors would like to correct all standard error values and typos, so we need to replace the original Table 2:
Table 2.
Logistic regression results of determinants of participation in Forest Support (FS) programmes.
Table 2.
Logistic regression results of determinants of participation in Forest Support (FS) programmes.
| Variables | Coefficients | Marginal Effect (dy/dx) |
|---|---|---|
| Socio-demographic factors | ||
| Age of head of household (Years) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| −0.005 | −0.001 | |
| Male-headed household (Yes = 1; No = 0) | 0.236 | 0.052 |
| −0.19 | −0.041 | |
| Household head attained above primary education (Yes = 1; No = 0) | −0.339 ** | −0.074 |
| −0.169 | −0.037 | |
| Household size (Adult equivalent units-EU) | 0.035 | 0.008 |
| −0.037 | −0.008 | |
| Economic factors | ||
| Land holding size (ha) | −0.031 * | −0.007 |
| −0.016 | −0.003 | |
| Livestock income (%) | −5.80 × 10−5 | −1.27 × 10−5 |
| (4.97 × 10−5) | (1.09 × 10−5) | |
| Subsistence forest income (unprocessed forest products) (%) | −0.018 *** | −0.004 |
| −0.005 | −0.001 | |
| Charcoal income (processed forest products) (%) | −0.012 *** | −0.003 |
| −0.004 | −0.001 | |
| Cash crop income (%) | −0.023 *** | −0.005 |
| −0.005 | −0.001 | |
| Capture fish income (%) | −0.264 *** | −0.058 |
| −0.065 | −0.014 | |
| Non-farm income (%) | −0.019 *** | −0.004 |
| −0.007 | −0.001 | |
| Access factors | ||
| Walking distance from household to main road (minutes) | −0.004 *** | −0.001 |
| −0.001 | 0 | |
| Walking distance from household to public forestland (km) | −0.310 *** | −0.068 |
| −0.051 | −0.011 | |
| Household in landscapes with protected forest area (Yes = 1; No = 0) | 0.620 *** | 0.136 |
| −0.141 | −0.031 | |
| Constant | 0.878 ** | |
| −0.435 | ||
| LR X2 (14) | 197.56 | |
| Prob> X2 | 0 | |
| McFadden’s R2 | 0.13 | |
| Log-likelihood | −639.88 | |
| Observations | 1123 | 1123 |
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Standard errors in parentheses.
with
Table 2.
Logistic regression results of determinants of participation in Forest Support (FS) programmes.
Table 2.
Logistic regression results of determinants of participation in Forest Support (FS) programmes.
| Variables | Coefficients | Marginal Effect (dy/dx) |
|---|---|---|
| Socio-demographic factors | ||
| Age of head of household (Years) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| (0.005) | (0.001) | |
| Male-headed household (Yes = 1; No = 0) | 0.236 | 0.052 |
| (0.190) | (0.041) | |
| Household head attained above primary education (Yes = 1; No = 0) | −0.339 ** | −0.074 |
| (0.169) | (0.037) | |
| Household size (Adult equivalent units-AEU) | 0.035 | 0.008 |
| (0.037) | (0.008) | |
| Economic factors | ||
| Land holding size (ha) | −0.031 * | −0.007 |
| (0.016) | (0.003) | |
| Livestock income (%) | −5.80 × 10−5 | −1.27 × 10−5 |
| (4.97 × 10−5) | (1.09 × 10−5) | |
| Subsistence forest income (unprocessed forest products) (%) | −0.018 *** | −0.004 |
| (0.005) | (0.001) | |
| Charcoal income (processed forest products) (%) | −0.012 *** | −0.003 |
| (0.004) | (0.001) | |
| Cash crop income (%) | −0.023 *** | −0.005 |
| (0.005) | (0.001) | |
| Capture fish income (%) | −0.264 *** | −0.058 |
| (0.065) | (0.014) | |
| Non-farm income (%) | −0.019 *** | −0.004 |
| (0.007) | (0.001) | |
| Access factors | ||
| Walking distance from household to main road (minutes) | −0.004 *** | −0.001 |
| (0.001) | (0.000) | |
| Walking distance from household to public forestland (km) | −0.310 *** | −0.068 |
| (0.051) | (0.011) | |
| Household in landscapes with protected forest area (Yes = 1; No = 0) | 0.620 *** | 0.136 |
| (0.141) | (0.031) | |
| Constant | 0.878 ** | |
| (0.435) | ||
| LR X2 (14) | 197.56 | |
| Prob > X2 | 0.000 | |
| McFadden’s R2 | 0.13 | |
| Log-likelihood | −639.88 | |
| Observations | 1123 | 1123 |
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Standard errors in parentheses.
- (2)
Table A1.
Absolute household income in the study area.
Table A1.
Absolute household income in the study area.
| Source of Income | Mean a (SD) | Share of the Sample (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Forest subsistence income (unprocessed products) | 2630.7 (2677.2) | 33.0 (21.0) |
| Charcoal income (processed forest product) | 2224.0 (6690.9) | 11.8 (21.3) |
| Crop income, subsistence | 1457.5 (1482.9) | 19.6 (15.7) |
| Crop income, cash | 1928.5 (3237.7) | 17.2 (18.5) |
| Livestock income | 834.1 (1556.1) | 8.9 (13.6) |
| Capture fish income | 37.2 (114.1) | 0.7 (2.6) |
| Off-farm income | 211.5 (425.6) | 3.4 (7.0) |
| Non-farm income | 374.2 (806.9) | 5.5 (11.4) |
| Total household income | 9697.7 (9770.2) | 100 |
a Income is calculated as net values in Zambian kwacha (ZMW). At the time of data collection (2017–2019), 1 USD = 10.13 ZMW [109]. Standard Deviation (SD) in parentheses.
with
Table A1.
Absolute household income in the study area.
Table A1.
Absolute household income in the study area.
| Source of Income | Mean a (SD) | Share of the Sample (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Forest subsistence income (unprocessed products) | 2630.7 (2677.2) | 27.1 (15.8) |
| Charcoal income (processed forest product) | 2224.0 (6690.9) | 22.9 (39.4) |
| Crop income, subsistence | 1457.5 (1482.9) | 15.0 (8.7) |
| Crop income, cash | 1928.5 (3237.7) | 19.9 (19.1) |
| Livestock income | 834.1 (1556.1) | 8.6 (9.2) |
| Capture fish income | 37.2 (114.1) | 0.4 (0.7) |
| Off-farm income | 211.5 (425.6) | 2.2 (2.5) |
| Non-farm income | 374.2 (806.9) | 3.9 (4.8) |
| Total household income | 9697.7 (9770.2) | 100 |
a Income is calculated as net values in Zambian kwacha (ZMW). At the time of data collection (2017–2019), 1 USD = 10.13 ZMW [109]. Standard Deviation (SD) in parentheses.
The authors and the editorial office would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused to the readers and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original article has been updated.
Reference
- Kazungu, M.; Zhunusova, E.; Kabwe, G.; Günter, S. Household-Level Determinants of Participation in Forest Support Programmes in the Miombo Landscapes, Zambia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).