Abstract
The study assessed the impact of participatory forest management (PFM) on household attitudes towards conservation and management of Arabuko–Sokoke Forest. The results obtained show that the impact of the forest on households was positive and higher in households in PFM zones than in those in non-PFM zones. There were higher proportions of households in PFM zones than in non-PFM zones, although it was a good objective to create the forest. They have good relations with the forest, benefit quite a deal from it as they obtain forest-related products from the forest; and want it protected. Also, the land adjacent to the forest has higher positive impact on household livelihood than the land further away. Higher proportions of households in non-PFM zones than PFM zones have poor relations with the forest as they are unhappy with the fact that the forest is linked to livestock deaths through tsetse fly, crop damage by wild animals, and predation of livestock without income generating activities to offset these losses. The study concluded that PFM is an asset for forest conservation in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. Key words: Participatory forest management, household, benefit, cost, Arabuko-Sokoke
Highlights
In most parts of Africa, forest departments were set up to manage forest reserves in order to maintain colonial authorities‟ user rights to valuable timber, and in part to protect important watersheds, ecosystems, and habitats (McGregor, 1991a)
63% (n = 300) of the households thought that the impact of the forest was moderate on livelihood management, while 22% (n = 103) thought that positive impact was low and 15% (N = 72) argued that the impact of the forest was high on household livelihood management (Table 1)
The proportions of households who thought that the forest has moderate negative impact on livelihood were significantly higher than those who thought that the forest has high negative impact and low positive impact on household livelihood (X2 = 1458; P
Summary
In most parts of Africa, forest departments were set up to manage forest reserves in order to maintain colonial authorities‟ user rights to valuable timber, and in part to protect important watersheds, ecosystems, and habitats (McGregor, 1991a). The governments in eastern and southern Africa failed to evict people and this led to the realization that co-management approaches that involve greater role of local communities, the rural and urban poor as well as the private sector in the management of forests is the only solution (Barrow et al, 2002). Co-management captures the idea that rights and responsibilities should be shared among those who lay claim to the environment or natural resources. The dynamism inherent in the co-management process was highlighted in relation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
