Next Article in Journal
Research on the Correlation Between Spatial Layout Characteristics and Geographical Conditions for Ethnic Minority Rural Settlements
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Streetscape Perceptions from the Perspective of Salient Landscape Element Combination: An Interpretable Machine Learning Approach for Optimizing Visual Quality of Streetscapes
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Forest Fires on Ecological, Economic, and Social Trends in Landscape Dynamics in Portugal
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/land14071407
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Practice of Community-Based Forest Management in Northwest Ethiopia

by
Tesfaye Mengie
* and
László Szemethy
Department of Agricultural Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Pécs, 7622 Pécs, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(7), 1407; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071407
Submission received: 15 May 2025 / Revised: 12 June 2025 / Accepted: 1 July 2025 / Published: 4 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Insights in Landscape Approaches for Biodiversity and Community Resilience)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) efforts are critical for sustainable natural resource governance in Northwest Ethiopia. This study investigated the various aspects of CBFM, emphasizing practical implementation in the context of the Awi Administrative Zone, Northwest Ethiopia. A structured questionnaire was handed out to 412 farmers across three districts—Dangila, Fagita Lokoma, and Banja. The quantitative data was analyzed using the Likert scale with SPSS version 23 software. Findings indicate that insufficient financial support (44%), limited community participation (30%), and weak institutional arrangements (19%) are the major factors impeding effective CBFM, with statistically significant regional variation (χ2 = 242.8, df = 3, p = 0.000). On the other side, increased awareness and international support (34%) and enhanced local participation (36%) were the leading facilitators (χ2 = 512.05, df = 11, p = 0.000). We look at the practical aspects of CBFM, from community-led conservation efforts to sustainable harvesting techniques, emphasizing the importance of indigenous knowledge alongside modern methodologies. The CBFM project in the northwest part of Ethiopia have facilitated biodiversity protection and environmental resilience by integrating local perspectives with broader developmental goals. However, obstacles such as land tenure, resource conflicts, and capacity restrictions continue, requiring adaptive methods and legislative reforms. This paper contributes to the ongoing discussion on sustainable natural resource management by offering empirical insights into the dynamics of CBFM in the Awi administrative zone of northwest Ethiopia.

1. Introduction

In tropical Africa, forests and woodlands continue to face threats from overexploitation and insufficient management, while the scattered successes in tree retention and tree cover recovery on agricultural lands are rarely documented [1]. Community-based forest management (CBFM) has been a prominent method for forest management worldwide in recent decades, encompassing a range of approaches from co-management to community-based models [2]. CBFM aims to improve local livelihoods and protect forests as a response to the adverse effects of commercial timber production and government forestry practices. CBFM receives funding from many governments, NGOs, philanthropists, and international organizations [3].
Community-based Forest management (CBFM) is the leading approach worldwide to tackle the intricate issues of sustainable natural resource governance, especially in areas where forest ecosystems are crucial for supporting livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, and climate resilience [4]. CBFM initiatives empower local communities to manage their forest resources, combining traditional knowledge with modern scientific methods through inclusive decision-making processes. This comprehensive paper provides an extensive aspect of CBFM, including knowledge systems, practical applications, institutional frameworks, and socioeconomic implications in various geographical contexts [5].
Furthermore, effective forest management is crucial in maintaining ecosystem services, reducing climate change, and protecting biodiversity [3].
CBFM emphasizes the importance of local knowledge and community involvement in developing sustainable resource management strategies [6]. Indigenous and traditional societies have deep connections with their forest plantations, including extensive ecological knowledge and refined adaptive methods passed down through generations [7]. In some cases, traditional shifting cultivation has been accused of contributing to deforestation and loss of biodiversity in places where it was not practiced in a sustainable manner [8]. Likewise, customary land use patterns have, in some instances, been inimical to conservation efforts, especially where traditional resource extraction is beyond the sustainable limit [9].
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is an important component of community-based forest management (CBFM), which holds rich information on the sustainable use of resources [10]. It is important to consider both the advantages and disadvantages of approaches. The approach referenced here involves the integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into community-based forest management (CBFM) practices [11]. This means utilizing locally rooted ecological observations and cultural practices, indigenous land use patterns, and customary governance systems to manage forests sustainably. This approach emphasizes participatory methods, where local communities play a central role in planning, decision-making, and enforcement based on their traditional understanding of the environment [11]. This participatory, culturally informed strategy enhances ecological outcomes and ensures local ownership of conservation efforts. TEK has helped in the promotion of environmentally friendly practices [11]. On the other hand, some of the traditional approaches have negatively impacted the environment [12,13]. For instance, the environmental impacts of community-based forest management (CBFM) and its associated technologies have been overwhelmingly positive [14]. CBFM has played a key role in conserving natural forests and preserving the biodiversity they support [15]. Moreover, tree-planting initiatives across farms and landscapes have enhanced soil and water conservation, increased carbon sequestration, and boosted biomass production [6]. Likewise, traditional land management systems such as shifting cultivation have sometimes conflicted with the recently introduced conservation approaches, particularly when these modern systems do not align with current ecological conditions [8,16]. Community-based Forest management (CBFM) governance has evolved significantly from its traditional roots to contemporary hybrid forms. Historically, CBFM was embedded in indigenous knowledge systems and customary practices, where elders and local leaders managed forest resources through informal rules based on spiritual beliefs, ecological understanding, and communal land tenure [17]. These traditional systems emphasized collective responsibility and sustainability. Over time, however, many countries, including Ethiopia, began to formally recognize community forest rights, integrating customary governance into legal frameworks [18]. This shift introduced structured governance mechanisms, including user associations, cooperative societies, and joint forest management models. Additionally, governance in CBFM has become increasingly participatory, involving NGOs, government agencies, and donors. These actors have contributed technical support and funding, but in some cases, they have also introduced challenges such as dependency or reduced autonomy. Recent developments emphasize inclusiveness, transparency, equitable benefit-sharing, and accountability, moving away from purely traditional authority toward more decentralized and structured models. This transformation reflects broader trends in environmental governance and the need to balance local knowledge with institutional support to achieve effective, equitable, and sustainable forest management [11,18]. However, some CBFM initiatives have been known to have failed because of power imbalances within the community. A few powerful individuals control the community and deny the other members a say [19]. There is a need to embrace TEK in sustainable forest management. The indigenous communities have developed sophisticated systems of forest management, including agroforestry and systematic harvesting, which are favorable to biodiversity and ecosystem function [20]. Through the synthesis of empirical information derived from a wide variety of geographical contexts and disciplinary perspectives, our goals were to give feedback to the policymakers and managers, guide future research endeavors, and inspire collaborative efforts towards building resilient and inclusive forest management in Ethiopia and all over the world. This study aims to examine the practice of community-based forestry in the Awi administrative zone of northwest Ethiopia. The research specifically investigates how local communities’ perceptions of forest resources are used. It also explores the challenges and opportunities of forest conservation. To guide this inquiry, the study addresses key questions: What are the forest management practices in the selected districts? What capabilities do the communities have to contribute to community-based forest management? And finally, what are the major challenges and opportunities for promoting sustainable forest management in the region?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

The study was conducted in Northwest Ethiopia (Figure 1), in the Amhara regional state of the Awi administrative zone (the latitudes 11°50′ N and 11°00′ N and the longitudes of 36°45′ E and 36°47′ E), in three interconnected districts: Dangila district (three localities including Gisa Baleegziabher, Abadra Agaga, and Chara), Fagita locoma district (three localities including Dimama Manguda, Asuha Funzit, and Dimama Mariyam), and Banja district (three localities including KuchKuch Wadana, Wusela Enjeka, and Alayita Surka). The elevation ranges from 1800 to 3100 m above sea level. Monthly average temperatures range from 17 degrees Celsius to 27 degrees Celsius, and the average annual rainfall is 1750 mm [21]. One of the most planted tree species of community forests in the study areas is the Acacia decurrens [22]. The livelihoods of communities are mostly dependent on agriculture and animal husbandry. The three districts display parallels and contrasts in their land use systems, as seen by their unique patterns of agricultural and natural resource management. A common characteristic of the villages is the existence of crop fields located beyond their respective boundaries, indicating a mutual dependence on agriculture as a substantial aspect of their lives. The soil in this area is classified as nitisol [23] which is very conducive to crop growth. Crops such as potatoes, teff, maize, wheat, barley, millets, peas, and beans are among the most important staple crops that are farmed in these districts. When it comes to the primary means by which farmers make their living, the mixed farming system is widely implemented [24]. The region is distinguished by the presence of modest landholdings that provide sustenance for the ever-increasing populations. Furthermore, all three villages from each district possess a mixture of pasture and forest regions along the closest boundary, emphasizing their exploitation of natural resources for livestock grazing and acquiring forest products. Nevertheless, despite these similarities, there are differences in the land use patterns and management approaches among the districts due to diverse socioeconomic conditions and cultural traditions. Furthermore, although the communities have common land use objectives, such as maintaining agricultural productivity and conserving natural resources, their methods of attaining these objectives may differ depending on the specific circumstances and dynamics of each community. Hence, although there are similarities in land use systems, it is crucial to acknowledge and value the distinct intricacies and dynamics that define the land management strategies of each group. These communities are distinguished by the presence of crop fields on the side opposite their individual boundaries, as well as a combination of grazing and forest areas on the boundary that are near to localities [25,26,27].
The principal differences in land use and forest management among the districts are a function of varying socio-economic levels and agricultural technology. Although all three districts have their pasture and forest areas nearer to the communities, their use of the resources is not the same. Some communities are more oriented towards grazing, while others are more oriented towards the use of forest resources for fuel, lumber, or other purposes.
Socio-economic levels also play a significant role as far as land management is concerned, since better-off communities are likely to have better land management practices than poor communities, who must concentrate on the production of food in the short term at the expense of the long term. Also, cultural trends affect land use strategies because some people’s practices include communal herding, while others employ conservationist strategies based on historical or traditional knowledge. However, the desire to sustain forest plantation is common; some localities practice higher intensity planting, while others practice traditional or subsistence cultivation. Moreover, the strategies of forest management are influenced by local institutions, customary laws, and external policies, which result in the variation in the local management structures. Some communities have well-defined and properly organized management systems, while others operate under informal mechanisms. These differences emphasize the need to take into consideration the local realities in the formulation of forest management policies to at once protect the environment and build the capacity of the community [27,28,29].

2.2. Methods

Data Collection

Spatial and vertical sampling were utilized in this investigation. At the initial stage of the research, three administrative districts out of eleven were chosen where the forest of Acacia decurrens was the most prevalent tree species. In the second round we selected three localities in each district. The third step was the selection of the agricultural specialists and local administrators who were representatives of the chosen localities that can support organizing those communities. In the study areas, local administrators and agricultural specialists serve as intermediaries between the government and the farming communities. Their established relationships with local farmers based on trust, administrative authority, and routine agricultural support were essential in identifying and mobilizing participants for the survey.
According to the statistics data from [21], the populations of the districts were as follows: Dangila 65,817, Fagita Lokoma 75,535, and Banja 45,237. From the total population residing in the selected three localities of each district, 2736 individuals were identified in Dangila, 3210 in Fagita Lokoma, and 1948 in Banja. To ensure representativeness across these areas, a proportional allocation approach was employed, whereby the sample size from each locality was determined based on its share of the total population. Following this, participants were selected through systematic random sampling, which involved choosing individuals at regular intervals from an ordered list (Figure 2). This method was applied to maintain objectivity and enhance the reliability of the sampling process across the study areas. The calculated sample size was proportionally allocated to each locality. Then the sample was selected using systematic random sampling to ensure that the sample reflected the population size of each locality. The sample size was determined by considering the desired degree of confidence, which is 95% (Z value), as well as a margin of error of 5%, in addition to the assumption that the average HH size is 5 [30].
As this study aimed to determine the challenges and opportunities, the capability of the community, and the level of community participation for CBFM by planting trees, we used a questionnaire to quantify the variability of the perception of local farmers [31].
Primary and secondary sources of information have been considered to carry out this research. For the most part, primary data sources are utilized since information obtained from first-hand sources is more intimately associated with the issue being investigated. To gather and arrange primary data, the study collected information from farmers belonging to the communities [32].
Secondary sources: various published and unpublished documents were gathered from various sources to collect secondary data that might be used to support primary material. Among the different types of documents that fall under this category are research papers, journals, reports, policy declarations, proclamations, and regulations concerning the participation of the community and the issues that pose challenges [32,33]. The household survey was conducted between 28 June and 30 September 2023. The questionnaire was developed based on a review of relevant literature on community-based forest management and tailored to the specific objectives of the study. The questions were close-ended. The structure of the questionnaire was organized into thematic sections, covering demographic information, perceptions of forest management, institutional involvement, and indigenous knowledge systems. To ensure clarity and cultural relevance, the instrument was pre-tested in a nearby locality with similar socio-ecological characteristics, and minor revisions were made accordingly before final deployment. Furthermore, the study utilized a descriptive survey technique to conduct a case study on a specific neighborhood. Close-ended questions were predominantly used in the research to ensure consistency and standardization of responses across participants, allowing for clearer comparison and analysis of the data. The local administrator with the agricultural officer was helping us in collecting the data. The survey questionnaire comprises three main elements. The initial section provides detailed information on the questionnaire’s aim and instructions on how to complete it. The second section of the questionnaire includes fundamental demographic data of the participants. The third section thoroughly analyzes the respondents’ level of participation, challenges and opportunities, capabilities, and participation of communities. All localities are overseen by a leader and manager who controls the community on behalf of the central government. It is considered that these leaders can influence the community’s participation and the government’s efforts in forest conservation and management, so leaders and managers from each local community were also interviewed [34,35].

2.3. Data Analysis

The data gathered through structured questionnaires were primarily analyzed using the Likert scale and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 23). Descriptive statistics such as frequency distributions and percentages were used to summarize demographic characteristics and key variables related to community-based forest management.
To test the association between categorical variables such as education level, land ownership, forest use, and participation in forest management activities a Chi-square (χ2) test of independence was employed. This statistical method helped determine whether there were significant differences between the observed frequencies across groups, such as between districts or demographic categories. p-value < 0.05 was used as a cut value to declare statistical significance.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

When selecting sample survey respondents, efforts have been made to include both genders. Male participants had a more significant percentage due to their association with forest management and conservation. Among the 412 selected sample respondents, 302 (73%) were male, and the remaining 110 (27%) were female (Figure 3).
The respondents’ ages are divided into five categories. The first age group was 18 to 24 years old, the second 25 to 34, the third 35 to 44, the fourth 45 to 54 and the fifth was 55 years old and above. To be chosen as a respondent, individuals must be at least 18 years old.
Accordingly, 4% of respondents were aged 18–24, 18% were aged 25–34, 48% were aged 35–54, 20% were agreed 35–44, and the remaining 10% were above 55 years old.
The educational level of the respondents reveals that 47% had completed primary education, followed by a notable proportion who were illiterate. This pattern reflects long-standing challenges related to educational access in rural farming communities. The relatively low number of individuals with college or university education suggests that higher education remains limited in this context. However, it is worth noting that those with advanced education are likely from the younger generation, possibly the children of farmers who have benefited from the improved educational opportunities in recent years.

3.2. Challenges and Opportunity of CBFM

3.2.1. Challenges of CBFM

Table 1 presents data regarding the obstacles encountered in three specific districts: Dangila, Fagita, and Banja. The obstacles can be classified into four categories: insufficient technical assistance, inadequate financial assistance, ineffective institutional structures, and restricted involvement of the local communities. The predominant difficulty mentioned in all categories is the insufficient financial support, which constitutes 44% of the overall challenges. This signifies a substantial impediment to advancement or growth in various domains. The local community’s inadequate participation is the second most mentioned concern, comprising 30% of the total. This indicates that community engagement and involvement are crucial issues that require attention. The third most prevalent obstacle, accounting for 19.2% of the overall challenges, is attributed to inadequate institutional arrangements. This suggests potential problems in governance or organizational efficiency that may impede advancement. Technical support is the least frequently reported obstacle, accounting for only 6.8% of the total. This suggests that it is a less significant issue compared to the others.
This indicates a significant difference was found in the distribution of problems among the three categories (chi-square homogeneity test: χ2 = 242.8, DF: 3 and p = 0.000). This indicates that the distribution of obstacles in terms of nature and frequency is not consistent, and there are notable differences depending on the specific region. In general, the data emphasizes significant difficulties in obtaining financial assistance, engaging the community, and establishing institutional structures. It is crucial to prioritize the resolution of these difficulties, especially regarding financial assistance. The statistically significant chi-square finding suggests that customized strategies may be required for each region to effectively address these difficulties.

3.2.2. Opportunities for CBFM

Table 2, “Opportunity of CBFM forest management”, illustrates the different ways to improve community-based forest management (CBFM) and the percentage of respondents recognizing each opportunity. The most notable opportunity identified is the increase in awareness and support from worldwide communities, acknowledged by 34% of respondents. International cooperation and lobbying are crucial in strengthening CBFM activities, highlighting the significance of gaining support across boundaries. The table highlights the importance of boosting government funding by 4% and donor support by 4% to aid CBFM projects, stressing the requirement for financial assistance from local and foreign sources. Moreover, improving community involvement is a critical opportunity, with 35% of participants admitting its importance. Emphasizing the importance of involving local populations in forest management decisions highlights the opportunity for increased cooperation and coordination between communities and governing authorities. The table underlines the potential for collaboration and partnership (4%) and harnessing technology and innovation (4%) to improve CBFM practices, underscoring the significance of modern tools and creating cooperative relationships among stakeholders. Furthermore, advocating for market-based systems (8%) encourages sustainable forest management practices by providing economic incentives. Opportunities can overlap, for example, when there is a mix of expanding community participation and awareness from foreign populations (34% of respondents) or increasing donor funding and community participation (8% of respondents). The intersections indicate possible synergies among various methods and parties in promoting community-based forest management goals. The table highlights many potentials to improve CBFM, stressing the significance of global collaboration, community involvement, financial backing, technical advancements, and cooperative relationships to advance sustainable forest management. More information can be found in the table below.

3.3. Capabilities of Local Communities for the Practice of CBFM

The table below (Table 3), shows the perceived capacity of the local community to conserve forests in the districts of Dangila, Fagita, and Banja for the sake of ecological preservation. Ability levels are divided into six categories: extremely low, moderately low, high, moderately high, very high, and extremely high. Extremely low abilities are the lowest level. A substantial amount of confidence in the local community’s ability to protect forests was demonstrated by the fact that 124 respondents, which is 30% of the total number of responses, expressed a “very high” level of competence. “Somehow high” received 103 responses, which is 25% of the total, and “high” received 69 responses, which is 17% of the total. These are the levels that follow the most popular one. The fact that this is the case suggests that a sizeable portion of the general population believes that the community possesses a significant capability for the preservation of forests. “Extremely low” (13 responses, representing for 3% of the total) and “somehow medium” (33 responses, accounting 8% of the total) are the categories that are used to describe the levels that have the fewest reports. Based on these findings, it appears that only a small percentage of people have the perception that the community has a limited capacity to conserve forests.
A substantial variation in the distribution of perceived abilities is indicated by the chi-square statistic (χ2 = 212.665) with five degrees of freedom and a p-value of 0.000. This suggests that there is a significant difference between the three districts. Considering this, it may be deduced that the perceptions of the community’s capacity to preserve trees are not uniformly distributed and that they differ greatly from one district to another. The statistical analysis of the chi-square statistic for the “extremely low” category (χ2 = 3.427) with two degrees of freedom and a p-value of 1.0 reveals that there is no significant variance in this category among the districts. To effectively assist and strengthen the community’s capacity to preserve forests in each district, it is advised that specialized strategies be devised to address the various perspectives. This will allow for the community to better preserve forests.

3.4. Communities’ Participations in Forest Management Expressed by Planting Indigenous Trees

Regarding the communities’ participation in forest management, which is expressed by planting indigenous trees, Figure 4 displays the frequency of agreement and disagreement among members of the communities that are in the districts of Dangila, Fagita, and Banja. The frequencies are shown as percentages.
18% of respondents in Dangila agree with the statement, while 16% disagree with it, indicating that there is a slight majority of people who agree with it. The largest percentage of respondents who agree with Fagita is 22%, while 18% of respondents disagree with it, demonstrating that there is a strong tendency towards agreement. Banja had the lowest numbers for both agreement and disagreement, with 13% of respondents agreeing and 12% disagreeing, which reflects a roughly equal split of opinion.
There was no significant variation in the distribution of agreement and disagreement across the districts (chi-square homogeneity test: χ2 = 1.93), df:1, p = 0.17). The observed variations in frequencies are likely attributable to random variation rather than an actual underlying difference, as indicated by a p-value of 0.17, which is greater than the customary threshold of 0.05. This suggests that the reported differences in frequencies are more likely to be due to chance rather than reflecting any statistically significant difference in community participation behaviors among the districts.
Despite the fact that Fagita demonstrates the highest degree of agreement and Banja demonstrates the lowest level of agreement, the statistical analysis suggests that these differences are not strong enough to be considered statistically significant. Therefore, the differences in replies between the districts do not indicate a substantial difference in the opinions of the community on the engagement in forest management through the planting of native trees rather than the chopping down of trees.

4. Discussion

4.1. Challenges and Opportunities of CBFM

4.1.1. Challenges of CBFM

These results underscore the importance of involving local communities in forest management. However, insufficient funding can hinder their capacity—building, training, and necessary resources for effective forest management. As supported by [36], financial constraints as a significant barrier to implementing sustainable forest management practices and achieving climate adaptation and mitigation commitments. Insufficient funding and technical capacity were identified as major challenges hindering effective forest management practices [36]. The idea, supported by [37,38], shows that successful local community participation involves formal management agreements between local communities and the government, with benefit-sharing clauses that incentivize community-led forest management. Also [39] supported that financial limitation is a challenge for the management of forests. Therefore, addressing challenges such as financial support, bureaucratic processes, and limited participation while capitalizing on opportunities like awareness enhancement and collaboration can lead to more successful CBFM projects in Ethiopia. Engaging local communities as allies is essential for sustainable forest management and resource protection for future generations.

4.1.2. Opportunities of CBFM

The analysis of responses from community members and local officials in the Awi administrative zone highlights several encouraging opportunities that could facilitate the sustainable implementation of community-based forest management (CBFM) in the region. Reference [40] found that participatory forest management (PFM) in the Jawi district of the Awi zone highlights the community’s understanding of the importance of forests for ecological balance and livelihoods. The research indicates that residents recognize the role of forests in water conservation, soil protection, and biodiversity preservation. This environmental consciousness is seen as a motivating factor for community participation in forest protection initiatives. As findings of [41,42] support, these opportunities arise from a combination of community awareness, local commitment, environmental potential, and emerging institutional support, emphasizing the importance of involving local communities in forest management to reverse degradation and sustain ecosystem services as an opportunity for fostering CBFM. Also [43] found that an opportunity lies in the high level of awareness among community members regarding the importance of forests for ecological balance, climate regulation, and livelihood sustenance.
Another promising opportunity is the willingness of community members to engage in conservation activities. The results indicate that local people are ready to contribute labor and support afforestation and reforestation campaigns when adequate support and coordination are available. This willingness creates fertile ground for mobilizing voluntary community action and fostering a sense of collective responsibility [44,45].
The existing traditional leadership structures and social norms in the localities present another strong foundation for effective CBFM [15,46]. These structures, which have long governed natural resource use through customary practices and informal institutions, are well-positioned to guide forest management in a culturally appropriate and socially accepted manner. Leveraging these local governance mechanisms can enhance legitimacy and compliance in conservation efforts.
Most respondents expressed strong concern about forest degradation and acknowledged the role forests play in water conservation, soil protection, and biodiversity preservation. This growing environmental consciousness can serve as a motivating factor for increased community participation in forest protection and restoration initiatives.

4.2. Capabilities of Local Communities for CBFM

The results show that the local communities have managed the forests and other natural resources for long time, and that it vary across different groups and contexts, emphasizing the need for personalized approaches to leverage indigenous knowledge effectively [47]. This idea is similar to a study [47] conducted among the Shekachoo people in the Sheka Biosphere Reserve (Southwest Ethiopia), which explored indigenous forest conservation and management practices. The findings of this study reaffirm the significant role that Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) plays in shaping forest management practices in the Awi administrative zone [47]. TEK was reflected in community preferences for specific conservation strategies, indigenous land use patterns, and informal institutions guiding forest access and protection. While the introduction emphasizes TEK as a foundational component of sustainable forest management, its presence in the community responses, particularly through traditional rules of access, communal herding norms, and ecological observations used for planting and harvesting, further supports its integration into current CBFM efforts [48].
The variation in management practices across the districts, as highlighted in the results, also points to the locally embedded nature of TEK and its adaptive role in resource governance [49]. However, the influence of TEK remains underutilized in formal institutional arrangements [47]. This underscores the need for forest management policies to not only recognize but also actively integrate TEK into official frameworks, ensuring that conservation strategies are context-specific, culturally resonant, and ecologically informed. Drawing from both formal knowledge systems and local traditions could enhance the resilience and effectiveness of forest governance in the region [47].
This research emphasized the importance of indigenous practices, including taboos, values, and beliefs, in protecting natural areas and sustaining resources. Indigenous knowledge encompasses the traditional practices, ecological insights, and cultural wisdom that contribute to sustainable resource management. The practice of indigenous knowledge for forest and other natural resource conservation highlights their commitment to preserving natural ecosystems and maintaining ecological balance. Their involvement in activities such as reforestation, sustainable harvesting, and fire prevention contributes to overall forest health. A study in Ethiopia’s Upper Blue Nile Basin found that local stakeholders recognize the environmental benefits of Acacia decurrens plantations, indicating an understanding of forests’ ecological significance [50]. Reference [7] showed that the Shekachoo community’s worldview regarding sacred natural sites and long-standing customs contributes to the preservation and sustainable management of forests. Research in Zimbabwe highlights that forests directly support rural livelihoods through ecosystem services, emphasizing the community’s recognition of the forests’ importance [51]. The study investigated the role of indigenous knowledge in forest conservation and management among local forest-dependent communities in the Tocha district of Dawro Zone (Southern Ethiopia). It aimed to understand how indigenous knowledge influences local people’s perception of forest decline. The findings likely resonate with the high conservation ability attributed to indigenous knowledge in the study.

4.3. Local Communities’ Participation

The level of participation of local communities in forest conservation activities varies significantly based on different factors. It is supported in [52,53] that the income level of the community can be one factor for the perception of communities for forest management. This finding highlights a potential gap in community engagement despite the importance of forest conservation due to conflict between shared resources of districts and local administrations. Such conflicts may hinder collaborative efforts and coordination among communities. The partnership between local communities and forest management projects for environmental sustainability achieves common goals [54,55]. Community-based forest management (CBFM) involves different stakeholders working together to involving communities in forestry through community participation. The study [35,56] emphasizes the importance of engaging local communities in decision-making processes for sustainable forest management. A study in Burkina Faso revealed that community members actively participate in forest management when they perceive tangible benefits, highlighting the importance of community involvement [57]. Recognizing and involving local communities in forest conservation efforts is crucial for sustainable management and biodiversity protection. Community-led initiatives play a significant role in achieving conservation goals. It is supported by [58]. Therefore, fostering active community participation and addressing conflicts related to administrative boundaries are essential steps toward effective forest conservation. Collaborative efforts can lead to better outcomes for both ecosystems and local well-being.
Based on the result, factors such as economic level, location, community dynamics, and governance structures play a crucial role in shaping community involvement in forest conservation activities. The studies [59], conducted in the Tarmaber district in the Woff-Washa forest in Ethiopia, and [60], researching people’s perceptions of community-based forest management in Tanzania, stated that participatory forest management involves formal management agreements between local communities and the government, with benefit-sharing clauses that incentivize community-led forest management. The focus has shifted from conservation alone to raising smallholders’ incomes through better market linkages and monetization of carbon stocks and watershed protection. The study also highlights the importance of community engagement in forest management. The other study by [61] factors influencing community participation in the implementation and monitoring of FLEGT-VPA in Ghana. It emphasizes the need to actively involve local people in decision-making to guarantee effective forest management. Therefore, actively involving local communities in decision-making processes and consultations within CBFM projects is crucial for sustainable forest management in Ethiopia. These efforts can lead to better conservation outcomes and benefit both communities and future generations.

5. Conclusions

This study emphasizes the practice of community-based forest management (CBFM) in Awi administrative zone, northwest Ethiopia. The study highlights that incorporating indigenous knowledge enhances forest management. Notwithstanding these accomplishments, obstacles such as insufficient financial backing, fragile institutional structures, and limited community engagement persist in obstructing the complete realization of CBFM’s potential. Overcoming these obstacles necessitates a comprehensive strategy, encompassing enhanced funding from governments and donors, capacity-building initiatives, and the creation of legal and institutional frameworks that guarantee equitable benefit-sharing. Moreover, promoting collaboration among communities, local authorities, and other stakeholders will be crucial for improving the forest management practices. This study offers an in-depth perspective on how forest management in the Awi administrative zone is shaped by the complex interaction of indigenous knowledge, practical conservation initiatives, institutional arrangements, and prevailing socio-economic conditions. Beyond reaffirming the well-established value of sustainable forest management, it highlights how localized practices and governance systems influence natural resource stewardship. The results reveal that traditional knowledge and local leadership are vital in guiding community engagement. Institutional limitations and economic challenges affect the success of conservation measures. Therefore, forest management policies must be not only environmentally sustainable but also contextually grounded, socially inclusive, and institutionally responsive.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.M. and L.S.; methodology, T.M. and L.S.; software, T.M. and L.S.; validation, T.M. and L.S.; formal analysis, T.M. and L.S.; investigation, T.M. and L.S.; resources, T.M. and L.S.; data curation, T.M. and L.S.; writing—original draft preparation, T.M. and L.S.; writing—review and editing, T.M. and L.S.; visualization, T.M. and L.S.; supervision, L.S.; project administration, T.M. and L.S.; funding acquisition, T.M. and L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed by the University of Pécs, School of Biology and Sport Biology.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks all contributors for their direction, support, and encouragement during the project. Their constructive comments, intelligent recommendations, and readiness to review my work have significantly improved its quality and depth.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

CBFMCommunity-Based Forest Management
NGONon-Governmental Organization
TEKTraditional Ecological Knowledge
SRSSystematic Random Sampling

References

  1. Mpanda, M.; Kashindye, A.; Aynekulu, E.; Jonas, E.; Rosenstock, T.S.; Giliba, R.A. Forests, farms, and fallows: The dynamics of tree cover transition in the southern part of the uluguru mountains, tanzania. Land 2021, 10, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Compendio, S.; Bande, M. Effectiveness of Community-based Forest Management Program as a Strategy on Forest Restoration in Cienda and San-Vicente, Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines. Asian J. Agric. Ext. Econ. Sociol. 2017, 15, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Arts, B.; de Koning, J. Community Forest Management: An Assessment and Explanation of its Performance Through QCA. World Dev. 2017, 96, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Duguma, L.A.; Atela, J.; Ayana, A.N.; Alemagi, D.; Mpanda, M.; Nyago, M.; Minang, P.; Nzyoka, J.; Foundjem-Tita, D.; Ndjebet, C. Community forestry frameworks in sub-Saharan Africa and the impact on sustainable development. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chirenje, L.I.; Giliba, R.A.; Musamba, E.B. Local communities’ participation in decision-making processes through planning and budgeting in african countries. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2013, 11, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fajar, N.C.; Kim, J. The Impact of Community-Based Forest Management on Local People around the Forest: Case Study in Forest Management Unit Bogor, Indonesia. J. For. Environ. Sci. 2019, 35, 102–114. Available online: https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO201918454914328.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2025).
  7. Tesfaye, B. Indigenous Knowledge and Factors Related to Practices of Forest Conservation Among Forest Dependent Communities in the Tocha District Southern Ethiopia. Agriculture. For. Fish. 2017, 6, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Agrawal, A.; Gibson, C.C. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev. 1999, 27, 629–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tucker, E.S. Facing an uncertain future (shipping). Pet. Econ. 1981, 48, 421–423. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zewdu, A.; Girma, Z.; Belay, T.; Info, A. Urban Green Space Development and Management Challenges in Debre Tabor Town. Ethiopia. J. For. Nat. Resour. 2024, 3, 44–54. Available online: https://journals.hu.edu.et/hu-journals/index.php/jfnr/article/view/1052 (accessed on 30 June 2025).
  11. Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol. Soc. Am. 2000, 10, 1251–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Preston, M.A.; Harcourt, A.H. Conservation implications of the prevalence and representation of locally extinct mammals in the folklore of Native Americans. Conserv. Soc. 2009, 7, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kakiso, T. Endangered indigenous knowledge: Assessing locally adopted tree conservation practices in Aleta Wondo district, Sidama regional state, Ethiopia. Heliyon 2023, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pagdee, A.; Kim, Y.S.; Daugherty, P.J. What makes community forest management successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2006, 19, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Winberg, E. Forestry Volunteer. In Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia, Practices and Experiences FAO Subregional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE) SFE Technical Paper; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Subregional Office for Eastern Africa: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  16. Parrotta, J.A.; Trosper, R.L. Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge: Sustaining Communities, Ecosystems and Biocultural Diversity; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yami, M.; Mekuria, W. Challenges in the Governance of Community-Managed Forests in Ethiopia: Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Birhanu, W. A History and Policy Analyses of Forest Governance in Ethiopia and REDD+. Global Environmental History. Master’s Thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  19. Blaikie, P. Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource Management in Malawi and Botswana. World Dev. 2006, 34, 1942–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Innes, J.; Joyce, L.A.; Kellomaki, S.; Louman, B.; Ogden, A.; Thompson, I.; Ayres, M.; Ong, C.; Santoso, H.; Sohngen, B.; et al. Management for Adaptation. In Adaptation of Forests and People to Climate Change—A Global Assessment Report Prepared; International Union of Forest Research Organizations: Vienna, Austria, 2009; Volume 22, pp. 135–169. Available online: www.iufro.org/ (accessed on 30 June 2025).
  21. Awi Zone Administrative Office. Awi zone popn data 2013. In 2021 General Information about Awi Administrative Zone; Awi Zone Administrative Office: Injibara, Ethiopia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  22. Chanie, Y.; Abewa, A. Expansion of Acacia decurrens plantation on the acidic highlands of Awi zone, Ethiopia, and its socio-economic benefits. Cogent Food Agric. 2021, 7, 1917150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abey, G.; Molla, E.; Selassie, Y.G.; Yirsaw, E. Effects of indigenous tree species on soil properties of Nitisols at Dangila District, North-western Ethiopia. Arab. J. Geosci. 2023, 16, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mulu, S.; Asfaw, Z.; Alemu, A.; Teketay. Determinants of Decision Making by Smallholder Farmers on Land Allocation for Small-Scale Forest Management in Northwestern Ethiopian Highlands. Land 2022, 11, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. MGashu, Y.; Mesfin, D.; Dessie, T.A. Farmer perceptions toward the adoption of agroforestry practices: A case study of northwestern Ethiopia. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2025, 9, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fassil, A.; Mazengia, E.; Gebreamanuel, B.; Dessie, Y.; Kumera, B.; Atnkut, B.; Mullualem, D.; Tsega, A.; Van Damme, P. Harvesting nature’s bounty: Exploring the ethnobotanical landscape of wild edible plants in the Awi Agäw community, Northwestern Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2024, 20, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Melaku, E.; Alemayehu, A.; Chanie, K. Investigating the Direct and Indirect Drivers of Land Use and Land Cover Change from Agriculture to Acacia Plantations in Banja District, Awi Zone, Ethiopia. East. Afr. J. Agric. Biotechnol. 2024, 7, 269–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yismaw, A. Forest Cover Change Detection Using Remote Sensing and GIS in Banja District, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Int. J. Environ. Monit. Anal. 2014, 2, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tamirat, T. Best Practices on Development and Utilization of Acacia Decurrens in Fagta Lekoma District, Awi Zone, Amhara Region; Environment, Forest and Climate Change Commission: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yemane, T. Stastics an Introductory Analysis; Herper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  31. Tesfaye, S.S. Assessment of Local Community Perception of and Attitude Towards Participatory Forest Management (PFM) System and Its Implications for Sustainablity of Forest Condition and Livelihoods: The Case of Chilimo-Gaji Forest in Dendi District, West Shewa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change 2017, 8, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Baxter, P.; Jack, S. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. Qual. Rep. 2015, 13, 544–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ajayi, V.O. A Review on Primary Sources of Data and Secondary Sources of Data. 2023. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370608670 (accessed on 30 June 2025).
  34. Tiki, L.; Marquardt, K.; Abdallah, J.M. Participatory forest management: Analysis of local forest governance and implications for REDD+ implementation in the Adaba-Dodola Forest in Ethiopia. Trees For. People 2025, 19, 100780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kahsay, G.A.; Bulte, E.; Alpizar, F.; Hansen, L.G.; Medhin, H. Leadership accountability in community-based forest management: Experimental evidence in support of governmental oversight. Ecol. Soc. 2023, 28, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shivakoti, B.R.; Lopez-Casero, F.; Maraseni, T.; Pokharel, K. Capacity building at community forestry level for synergistic implementation of NDCs’ adaptation and mitigation commitments. APN Sci. Bull. 2021, 11, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lemenih, Y.B.M.; Allan, C. Making Forest Conservation Benefit Local Communities: Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia. Farm Africa. Available online: https://www.farmafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/participatory-forest-management-in-ethiopia.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2025).
  38. Purnomo, E.P.; Ramdani, R.; Salsabila, L.; Choi, J.W. Challenges of community-based forest management with local institutional differences between South Korea and Indonesia. Dev. Pr. 2020, 30, 1082–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Plumb, S.T.; Nielsen, E.A.; Kim, Y.S. Challenges of opportunity cost analysis in planning REDD+: A honduran case study of social and cultural values associated with indigenous forest uses. Forests 2012, 3, 244–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mehari, A.B. Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org ISSN. 2018. Available online: www.iiste.org (accessed on 30 June 2025).
  41. Reynolds, T.W.; Stave, K.A.; Sisay, T.S.; Eshete, A.W. Changes in community perspectives on the roles and rules of church forests in northern Ethiopia: Evidence from a panel survey of four Ethiopian Orthodox Communities. Int. J. Commons 2017, 11, 355–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Haji, L.; Valizadeh, N.; Hayati, D. The role of local communities in sustainable land and forest management. In Environmental Science and Engineering; Springer Science and Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  43. Alemayehu, B.; Suarez-Minguez, J.; Rosette, J. Modeling the Spatial Distribution of Acacia decurrens Plantation Forests Using PlanetScope Images and Environmental Variables in the Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia. Forests 2024, 15, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Agbaje; Arifalo, S.; Fatoki, A. Determinants of Willingness to Participate in Forest Conservation Among Communities in ondo State, Nigeria. Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud. Manag. 2024, 17, 464–476. [Google Scholar]
  45. Abdeta, D. Households’ Willingness to Pay for Forest Conservation in Ethiopia: A Review; Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences: Petrská čtvrť, Czechia, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mowo, J.; Adimassu, Z.; Masuki, K.; Lyamchai, C.; Tanui, J.; Catacutan, D. The Importance of Local Traditional Institutions in the Management of Natural Resources in the Highlands of Eastern Africa; ICRAF Working Paper; World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ameneshewa, W.; Kebede, Y.; Unbushe, D.; Legesse, A. Indigenous knowledge and forest management practices among Shekachoo people in the Sheka Biosphere Reserve A case of Shato core area, South-west Ethiopia. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2023, 9, 2275937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hassen, A.; Zander, K.K.; Manes, S.; Meragiaw, M. Local People’s perception of forest ecosystem services, traditional conservation, and management approaches in North Wollo, Ethiopia. J. Env. Manag. 2023, 330, 117118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Derso, Y.D.; Kassaye, M.; Fassil, A.; Derebe, B.; Nigatu, A.; Ayene, F.; Tamer, M.; Van Damme, P. Composition, medicinal values, and threats of plants used in indigenous medicine in Jawi District, Ethiopia: Implications for conservation and sustainable use. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 23638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nigussie, Z.; Tsunekawa, A.; Haregeweyn, N.; Tsubo, M.; Adgo, E.; Ayalew, Z.; Abele, S. The impacts of Acacia decurrens plantations on livelihoods in rural Ethiopia. Land. Use Policy 2021, 100, 104928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wangchuk, J.; Choden, K.; Sears, R.R.; Baral, H.; Yoezer, D.; Tamang, K.T.D.; Choden, T.; Wangdi, N.; Dorji, S.; Dukpa, D.; et al. Community perception of ecosystem services from commercially managed forests in Bhutan. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 50, 101335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Van Khuc, Q.; Pham, L.; Tran, M.; Nguyen, T.; Tran, B.Q.; Hoang, T.; Ngo, T.; Tran, T.-D. Understanding vietnamese farmers’ perception toward forest importance and perceived willingness-to-participate in redd+ program: A case study in nghe an province. Forests 2021, 12, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Baynes, J.; Herbohn, J.; Smith, C.; Fisher, R.; Bray, D. Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries. Glob. Environ. Change 2015, 35, 226–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cronkleton, P.; Bray, D.B.; Medina, G. Community forest management and the emergence of multi-scale governance institutions: Lessons for REDD+ development from Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests 2011, 2, 451–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Soe, K.T.; Yeo-Chang, Y.O.U.N. Perceptions of forest-dependent communities toward participation in forest conservation: A case study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar. Policy Econ. 2019, 100, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Negi, S.; Pham, T.T.; Karky, B.; Garcia, C. Role of community and user attributes in collective action: Case study of community-based forest management in Nepal. Forests 2018, 9, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Friman, J. Community Forestry Management Implementation in Burkina Faso: Gendered Dynamics and Customary Complexity. Int. J. Commons 2024, 18, 444–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bodonirina, N.; Reibelt, L.M.; Stoudmann, N.; Chamagne, J.; Jones, T.G.; Ravaka, A.; Ranjaharivelo, H.V.F.; Ravonimanantsoa, T.; Moser, G.; De Grave, A.; et al. Approaching local perceptions of forest governance and livelihood challenges with companion modeling from a case study around Zahamena National Park, Madagascar. Forests 2018, 9, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tadesse, S.A.; Teketay, D. Perceptions and attitudes of local people towards participatory forest management in Tarmaber District of North Shewa Administrative Zone, Ethiopia: The case of Wof-Washa Forests. Ecol. Process 2017, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kaganga, L.; Ndumbaro, F.G.J. People’s Perception on Community-based Forest Management: The Case Study of Njombe District, Tanzania. J. Geogr. Assoc. Tanzan. 2021, 36, 97–113. [Google Scholar]
  61. Derkyi, M.A.A.; Appau, Y.; Boadu, K.B. Factors influencing community participation in the implementation and monitoring of FLEGT-VPA in Ghana. For. Econ. Rev. 2021, 3, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 01407 g001
Figure 1. The location of the study sites.
Figure 1. The location of the study sites.
Land 14 01407 g001
Land 14 01407 g002
Figure 2. Schematic representation of systematic random sampling.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of systematic random sampling.
Land 14 01407 g002
Land 14 01407 g003
Figure 3. Demographic variables.
Figure 3. Demographic variables.
Land 14 01407 g003
Land 14 01407 g004
Figure 4. Community participation in forest management expressed by planting indigenous trees. * indicates as the data is stastically significant in Chi-square.
Figure 4. Community participation in forest management expressed by planting indigenous trees. * indicates as the data is stastically significant in Chi-square.
Land 14 01407 g004
Table 1. Challenging factors for the practice of CBFM. * indicates as the data is stastically significant in Chi-square.
Table 1. Challenging factors for the practice of CBFM. * indicates as the data is stastically significant in Chi-square.
CategoriesDangilaFagitaBanjaTotalFrequency (%)
Lack of technical support10 (7%)11 (7%)7 (7%)286.8
Lack of financial support59 (42%)63 (38%)61 (59%)18344
Week institutional arrangements26 (18%)34 (20%)20 (19%)8019
Limited participation of local community47 (33%)59 (35%)34 (33%)14030
Total142 (100%)167 (100%)103 (100%)412100
X2242.8 * df = 3, p = 0.000
Table 2. Opportunities for the practice CBFM. * indicates as the data is stastically significant in Chi-square.
Table 2. Opportunities for the practice CBFM. * indicates as the data is stastically significant in Chi-square.
CategoriesDistrictsTotalFrequency (%)
DangilaFegitaBanja
Increase government support6 (4%)6 (4%)4 (4%)164
Increase donor support12 (8%)12 (7%)8 (%)328
Increase participation of local community59 (42%)48 (29%)35 (34%)14235.7
Strengthen collaboration and partnership6 (4%)6 (4%)4 (4%)164
Capacity building4 (3%)3 (2%)2 (2%)92
Leverage technology and innovation6 (3)6 (4%)3 (3%)154
Creating favorable legal policy1 (1%)0 (0%)0 (0%)10.24
Promoting market-based mechanisms7 (5%)16 (10%)8 (8%)318
Increase awareness and support41 (29%)61 (37%)39 (38%)14134
Total142 (100%)167 (100%)103 (100%)412100.00
X2512.05 * df = 11, p = 0.000
Table 3. Capability of local communities’ indigenous knowledge for forest conservation. * indicates as the data is stastically significant in Chi-square.
Table 3. Capability of local communities’ indigenous knowledge for forest conservation. * indicates as the data is stastically significant in Chi-square.
CharacteristicsCategoriesDistrictsTotalFrequencyX2
DangilaFagitaBanja
Capability of local community for conserving forest Extremely low4 (3%)6 (4%)3 (3%)133%3.427*df = 2, p = 1.0
Somehow medium12 (8%)13 (8%)8 (8%)338%
High24 (17%)27 (16%)18 (17%)6917%
Somehow high36 (25%)41 (25%)26 (25%)10325%
Very high42 (30%)52 (31%)30 (29%)12430%
Extremely high24 (17%)28 (17%)17 (17%)6917%
Total142 (100%)167 (100%103 (100%)412
X2 212.665 * df = 5, p = 0.000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mengie, T.; Szemethy, L. The Practice of Community-Based Forest Management in Northwest Ethiopia. Land 2025, 14, 1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071407

AMA Style

Mengie T, Szemethy L. The Practice of Community-Based Forest Management in Northwest Ethiopia. Land. 2025; 14(7):1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071407

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mengie, Tesfaye, and László Szemethy. 2025. "The Practice of Community-Based Forest Management in Northwest Ethiopia" Land 14, no. 7: 1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071407

APA Style

Mengie, T., & Szemethy, L. (2025). The Practice of Community-Based Forest Management in Northwest Ethiopia. Land, 14(7), 1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071407

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop