Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/influence-of-participatory-project-initiation-on-sustainable-forest-qXZVveku56
References
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
- Publisher
- Hindawi Publishing Corporation
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2020 Anthony Tabot et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- ISSN
- 1687-9368
- eISSN
- 1687-9376
- DOI
- 10.1155/2020/2648391
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Hindawi International Journal of Forestry Research Volume 2020, Article ID 2648391, 7 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2648391 Research Article Influence of Participatory Project Initiation on Sustainable Forest Management in Saboti, Trans-Nzoia County, Kenya Anthony Tabot , Ochieng Owuor, and Joash Migosi University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya Correspondence should be addressed to Anthony Tabot; tabot.tabot@gmail.com Received 11 December 2019; Revised 8 June 2020; Accepted 18 June 2020; Published 15 July 2020 Academic Editor: Nikolaos D. Hasanagas Copyright © 2020 Anthony Tabot et al. (is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Forestry related projects fail due to the lack of participation by the community during the initiation stage. (is further leads to unsustainable management of forests. (is study was undertaken to examine how participatory project initiation influences sustainable forest management in Saboti forest in Trans-Nzoia County, Kenya. Participatory Development (eory guided this study. (e explanatory research design was adopted. (e target population was 2600 community forest association (CFA) members and 15 Kenya Forest Officers. Census sampling was used in the sampling of Kenya forest Officers and simple random sampling to select community forest management members. (e sample size was 347 community forest management members and 15 Kenya forest Officers. Data were collected using questionnaires and through interview. Data were analyzed using de- scriptive and inferential statistics. Presentation of findings was carried out using tables. (ere was a significant influence of participatory project initiation on sustainable forest management (SFM) (r = 0.700, p � 0.00). (is implies that an increase in participatory project initiation improved sustainable forest management in Saboti. Participatory project initiation had a sig- nificant influence on sustainable forest management. (e community participation in initiation had a significant influence on sustainable forest management. (ere is need for forest management to involve the community members during the initiation stage of the projects in order to achieve sustainable forest management. community development are meant to be corrected by 1. Introduction community participation [7]. Adesida and Okunlola [8] assert Forests have a cultural, social, economic, and ecological value that the basis of community-based development initiatives that play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of life and consisted of the involvement of the community in project supporting natural systems in the environment. (e various user design and implementation. An enabling environment for groups, including herdsmen, hunters, firewood, and pole col- sustainability is created through community participation by lectors, benefit from exploiting forest resources in different allowing users to decide on the level of services to pay, to ecosystems [1]. Benefits accrued from the forest resource enable guide essential investment and management decisions, and to the community to appreciate that resource and use it sustainably. entrust resources in support of these choices. It is advantageous to engage the community in order to Most studies on factors touching on community partici- sustainably manage the forest resource [2], by allowing indi- pation activities have focused on population characteristics and vidual forest users to participate in decision-making [3]. Use of social and economic factors that affect forestry management local people in forest resources is beneficial when there is [9–11] and not their influence on sustainable management of ownership of the decisions made as stated by decentralization forests, (is paper seeks to bridge the knowledge gap. theory [4]. A conducive environment for policy imple- In Tanzania, the enactment of the Forest Act of 2004 mentation through community participation is required [5]. paved the way for the introduction of Participatory Forest (ere was a need for community participation in forest Management (PFM). Under the provisions of this Act, management [6] as the top-down approach inadequacies to communities residing adjacent to forests have ownership 2 International Journal of Forestry Research rights and power to share benefits accruing from forest evolve since 1992 and has encouraged changes in forest conservation and management efforts with the Tanzanian policy, legislation, and managerial practices around the government and other involved parties [12]. Effects of local world in keeping with the Forest Principles and Ecosystem participation in forest management are highly contested Approach. In many countries, public participation is throughout the literature, and thorough studies showing growing and wider forest management strategies have in- causal-effects between community participation in forest creased [19, 20]. (e findings are also more broadly accepted management and positive outcomes are insufficient [13]. and implemented. Consequently, sustainable growth relies (e Government of Kenya took knowledge of this new on capacity building. development in setting the stage for new forest management (e promotion of PFM, as well as training, on envi- policy and the enactment of Forest Act 2005. (e Act ronmentally sound technological innovations and on bio- recognizes community involvement in forest conservation diversity conservation tools [21] is another communal and livelihood improvement. A study conducted by the capacity building activity. Search for alternative livelihoods Research Action in 2009 affirms that the first pilot study on seeks to support sustainable livelihoods for adjacent forest the impact of PFM through Community Forest Associations communities in a sound governance framework. (is (CFAs) on poverty reduction was conducted in 1997 at Dida governance system covers land preparation and the mapping in Arabuko-Sokoke, Coast region [14]. of land resources by defining sensitive areas, integrated forestry management, integrated forestry enforcement, and protection of the environment. 1.1. Statement of the Problem. Under the PFM arrangement, (e neighboring towns can learn how infrastructure the Community Forest Associations (CFAs) are empowered investment and village-level development create oppor- to carry out various management activities in forest preser- tunities for rural economic growth without any donor vation, while the actual access to decision-making processes, intervention during these coordinated support workshops allocation of benefits, and the control of forests are entrusted [18]. PFM includes a shared agreed plan that defines the to the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) [15, 16]. Empirical studies functions, responsibilities, powers, and benefits of gov- have revealed that the CFAs under the PFM approach have ernmental and community bodies in order to promote played an indispensable role in enhancing forestry conser- sustainable forest resource management and vation practices in various water catchment towers, including conservation. the Mau complex, Kakamega forest, and Arabuko-Sokoke. Ongugo [17]conducted a study on the roles of CFAs in the decentralization process of the Kenyan forests. In 2009, 2.2. Community Participation. According to [22], commu- he performed a comparative analysis study on resource nity participation in forest management has always been conservation outcome (under the National park and Forest encouraged due to the tangible and intangible benefits the reserve regime) in the Mount Elgon ecosystem and estab- community gets from the forest. World Bank [1] defined lished that a flexible and community-involving system is participation as a method by which stakeholders impact more effective than a rigid and community-excluding system development initiatives [23]. Warah [24] describes forest in managing forest resources. management as a participatory method, in which interested Despite the establishment and existence of CFAs in the parties agree to that sets out their positions, advantages, forest, cases of illegal logging, grazing, and forest en- obligation, and authority for forest resource management croachment remain high in the area and, hence, aggravate and use [25]. forest destruction in the Mount Elgon ecosystem. (is raises (e Indian government introduced the National Joint a concern to the extent to which the integration of com- Forest Management in 1990, which gave communities munity participation promotes effective forest governance. greater responsibility, power, and rights in the management Additionally, most of the empirical studies have focused on of public forests Maharjan [26] in order to support their role the impact of community forest associations- (CFAs) on in forest management further. Adhikari et al. [27] found that forestry management on major water catchment towers such assets management and opportunities under the Nepalese as the Mau Complex, Kakamega Forest, and Arabuko- Community Forests Program are inadequate for people to Sokoke [17]. Still, no study has been conducted to examine participate effectively. the influence of community participation during initiation Adhikari et al., [27] stated that due to sociocultural norms, of programmes on sustainable forest management in a greater capacity, and direct access to wealth, the higher fi- relatively smaller forest area such as Saboti forest [17]. (ere nancial benefits resulting from forest products [28, 29] in was a need to determine how participatory project initiation Ethiopia encouraged households to participate. Guthiga [30] influences sustainable forest management in Saboti forest in has shown that sustainable forest management can be Trans-Nzoia County. implemented by incorporation of community participation into decision-making, organizing and implementing pro- cesses in the region of Ampa in Nigeria, on the level of 2. Literature community involvement in conserving natural resources. (e concept of involving communities in decision-making and 2.1. Sustainable Forest Management. Communities are implementing systems tends to improve environmental projected to have a role in the management of almost one- ethics, as societies understand that they live in the world [31]. third of the world’s forest area [18]. SFM has continued to International Journal of Forestry Research 3 strategic model. Participatory theorists and practitioners Tanzania has integrated communities in forest management for many years, but under small-scale arrangement. needed to develop sensitivities to cultural diversity and other particular issues that globalization theorists A study conducted by Iddi [12]on community partici- pation in forestry management in Tanzania proposed that neglected. (e lack of sensitivity has been the cause of the local groups protect and maintain some of the forests in many projects’ difficulties and delays [35]. Participatory Kilimanjaro, Rukwa, and Shinyanga. (e researchers also development theory considers development to be a process found that community-driven forests are best supported and focusing on community participation in the self-devel- effectively managed by the communities concerned. Kenya opment of the communities using available resources to has a vibrant forest sector, which plays a key role in sup- guide their future development. An individual’s interests porting economic development and growth. For many years, never conflict with those of a group. (is approach focuses Kenya has, like other developing countries, experienced high on the idea of capacity building, sustainability, and self- sufficiency. level of forest destruction and environmental degradation, a trend that forced the government to develop effective (e key principle of participatory collective development approaches is that, from the beginning of the selection of strategies for restoring the industry. In 2008, Kenya was highly affected by a lack of coherent and appropriate forest projects, all participants participate in development activities policy that enabled communities to actively participate in as priority, planning, implementation, evaluation, and forestry management programmes, according to [14]. surveillance. It also aims to protect property ownership and (e first case study on the role of communities in forest feasibility of services [36]. (e society is a good way to management through CFAs in 1997 was carried out, achieve sustainable development by engagement in decision- according to [25], on the impact of PFM on their livelihoods making and solving issues. (is research demonstrated clearly that the community development participatory ap- in the Arabuko Sokoke Forest. (e investigators also found out that, but that the neighboring communities were forced proach is useful at the grassroots level of sustainable development. to do so, and the government did not intend to engage the community in the forestry management of Arabuko-Sokoke. (e problem of forest destruction and environmental degradation was fueled by the lack of effective forest policies 3. Methodology and legislation which fostered conflict between local com- (is study adopted an explanatory research design. (e munity and state bodies as the forest resources were scarce. explanatory research design is quantitative in nature, and hypothesis is tested by measuring the relationships between 2.3. Participatory Project Initiation. (e first phase of a variables, and data are analyzed using statistical techniques. project’s life cycle is the initiation process. (e needs and (e target population comprised the 2600 members of the objectives of the project are identified throughout this phase. Saboti-Sosio Community Forest Association and 15 staff Community members have a better understanding of their working in the Saboti forest station. Yamane’s [37] formula issues and may, therefore, lead to finding a sustainable was used to get a sample size of CFA members. From the solution. (e engagement of community members in the target population of 2600 community members, a sample initiation process is important as the project should be size of 347 respondents was selected. With regard to the KFS focused on the community’s needs [32]. staff, a sample size 15 was used. (e initiation of the project involves the need for as- (e study utilized census sampling techniques to select sessment, project objectives selection, project teams, and all the KFS staff working with the Saboti forest station. other key project requirements. (is is an important project Simple random sampling was used to select the 347 step because it defines the project’s progress and sustain- community members. (e sampling unit was members of ability. According to Ehigiator [33], project startup partic- the Saboti-Sosio Community Forest Association. Primary ipation helps the project team select the most appropriate data were collected using both questionnaires and inter- intervention of the community. During this stage, the public views. Unless otherwise stated, all variables were measured participate in assessing their needs, where interventions are on a 5-point Likert scales anchored by 1 � strongly dis- developed and selected. agree/very dissatisfied to 5 � strongly agree/very satisfied. A study conducted by Titus [29] on the level of com- (e respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which munity participation in the conservation of natural resource they agree or disagree with various statements. (e in Akampa area, Nigeria, affirms that sustainable forest questionnaire was designed to address the specific management can be realized through integration of com- objectives. munity participation in decision-making, organization, and (e interview guide contained semistructured questions that implementation processes. are based on the research questions. Piloting was conducted in Maraga et al. [32] researched community involvement in the Kiptogot Forest Station. (e study utilized content validity. project life activities in the Nyando basin in Kenya River. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to determine the reliability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.743 was obtained [38]. After all data have been collected, coding was performed for analysis using 2.4. &eoretical Framework. (e participatory development the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS V23). Descriptive theory is adopted in this study [34]. A growth definition, statistics and Pearson product correlation were used. aligned with a western view of success, was introduced in the 4 International Journal of Forestry Research agreed on forest-dependent people (M � 3.80; SD � 1.31) and 4. Results wages and other benefits (M � 3.96; SD � 1.13). 4.1. Participatory Project Initiation. (e study sought to (e respondents agreed that the number of people establish how participatory project initiation influences who use forest resources is balanced (M � 4.00; SD � 1.13) forest management sustainably. (e respondent’s views on and children are educated about natural resource man- participatory project initiation were sought using means and agement (M � 4.01; SD � 1.05). Majority of respondents standard deviations. A total of 7 statements were used to agreed that destruction of forest was rare (M � 4.11; determine the participatory project initiation on a 5-point SD � 1.02) and people maintain spiritual links to the forest likert scale as presented in Table 1. (M � 4.15; SD � 0.93). Majority of the respondents agreed Majority of the respondents agreed that there was public that ecologically sensitive areas were protected (M � 4.35; participation during needs assessment (M � 4.092; SD � 0.72), ecological sites were protected (M � 4.25; SD � 1.229); management objectives were clearly described SD � 0.86), erosion was minimized (M � 4.30; SD � 0.91), (M � 4.293; SD � 0.922), and the objectives were clearly and there was significant quality of water (M � 3.89; stated based on functions of the forests, (M � 4.228; SD � 1.34). From the thirteen statements used to explain, SD � 0.963). Most of the respondents agreed that committee sustainable forest management had an overall mean of members were a representation of local diversity (M � 4.194; M � 4.02; SD � 0.79. (is implies that community mem- SD � 0.995), and the contribution of all stakeholders was bers agreed with sustainable forest management in Saboti respected (M � 3.884; SD � 1.223). (e findings agreed that forest. stakeholders’ interests were recognized (M � 4.208; During the interviews, one of the forest officers stated SD � 1.130) and the baseline studies were conducted with that ‘‘Meetings are held during the initiation stage of a project consultation during development of PFMP (M � 3.946; or management plan development. All members are invited by SD � 1.196), from the seven statements used to explain KFS. &e community gives ideas which are deliberated upon participatory project initiation (M � 4.121; SD � 0.882) im- in order to come to an agreement of what are the most plying that community members agreed with participatory preferred ideas to be incorporated in the plan. &e community project initiation in Saboti forest. identifies the gaps and intervention required in a participa- During the interview, one of the forestry officers stated tory manner. &e community also assists in giving baseline that “Meetings are held during the initiation stage of a project information for planning purposes. &e community baraza or management plan development. All members of the meeting is indeed the most preferred mode of project meetings. community are invited. &e community gives ideas which are We normally hold meetings on need basis, especially when we deliberated upon in order to come to an agreement of what are are starting new project.’’ the most preferred ideas to be incorporated in the plan. &e (e need to increase the number of people using forest community identifies the gaps and intervention required in a services and to educate children (officially and informally) on participatory manner. &e community also assists in giving natural resource use and degradation by local communities baseline information for planning purposes.” has been poorly understood by majority of the community On the participatory project initiation, the findings in- members on sustainable forest management. Spiritual con- dicated that there was public participation during needs as- nections to nature are preserved, environmentally sensitive sessment and management objectives clearly described. (e areas have been safeguarded, especially buffer areas along objectives of initiation were clearly stated basing on functions waterways, ecologically important sites are protected and of the forests. (e committee members are a representation of managed accordingly, and deforestation and other types of local diversity, and stakeholders were mutually respected. (e soil degradation are reduced to a minimum. Exposure to management always recognizes the legitimate interests of forest services is seen to be equal socially, with local citizens stakeholders, and baseline studies are conducted with con- feeling secure in terms of access to resources, and reward sultation during the development of PFMP. distribution systems are seen by local populations as fair. Ehigiator [33] agreed with these findings that the ini- In order for sustainable forest management to be real- tiation of a project involves assessment of needs, project ized, the community within which the resource is found objective selection, project team, and other critical project must value it. (ese findings agree with the fact [2] that requirements. (e project’s progress and viability were community benefits from the forest resource enable them to decided as this is an important stage. Members of the appreciate that resource and use it sustainably. Engagement community are always engaged in needs assessment. of community will ensure sustainability in the management of the resource. (e finding agreed with that of Mahanty, Guernier, and Yasmi [39] that not only emphasizes financial 4.2. Sustainable Forest Management. (e respondents from benefits but also encourages value-added research, market Saboti forest views on sustainable forest management were chain analysis, alternative forest products, and improved sought based on a scale 5 likert scale. A total of 13 items were governance in general. (is finding is consistent with forest used to explore the respondent’s views on forest manage- management. Finally, in agreement with the work of Iversen, ment, and results are presented in Table 2. (e access to Chhetry, Francis, Gurung, Kafle, Pain, and Seeley [40], good forest resources was fair (M � 3.78; SD � 1.17), local com- maintenance of the forests also encourages nonconsumptive munity feels secure (M � 3.91; SD � 1.12), and mechanisms practices such as recreation, picnic, botanical gardens, re- for sharing benefits (M � 3.80; SD � 1.28). (e respondents ligious, traditional shrines, and campsites. International Journal of Forestry Research 5 Table 1: Participatory project initiation. Mean Std. deviation (ere is public participation during needs assessment 4.09 1.23 Management objectives clearly described 4.29 0.92 Objectives are clearly stated 4.23 0.96 Committee members are a representation of local diversity 4.19 1.00 (e contribution of all stakeholders is mutually respected 3.88 1.22 Management recognizes legitimate interests of stakeholders 4.21 1.13 Baseline studies are conducted with consultation during development of plan 3.95 1.20 Mean 4.12 0.88 Table 2: Sustainable forest management. Mean Std. dev Access to forest resources is fair 3.78 1.17 Local people feel secure 3.91 1.12 Mechanisms for sharing benefits 3.80 1.28 People receive employment 3.80 1.31 Wages conform to national standards 3.96 1.13 Balance people with forest resources 4.00 1.13 Children are educated on natural resource 4.01 1.05 Destruction of forest is rare 4.11 1.02 People uphold spiritual links with the forest 4.15 0.93 Ecologically sensitive areas are protected 4.35 0.72 Sites of ecological importance are protected 4.25 0.86 Erosion and other forms of soil degradation are minimized 4.30 0.91 (ere is quality supply of water 3.89 1.34 Mean 4.02 0.79 Table 3: Pearson’s correlation results. Sustainable forest management Initiation Sustainable Pearson’s correlation 1 Forest management Sig. (2-tailed) ∗∗ Pearson’s correlation 0.700 1 Participatory project initiation Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 ∗∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Listwise N � 294. 4.3. Correlation Results. Pearson’s correlation was carried respected. (e management recognized the legitimate in- out, and results of the correlations are presented in Table 3. terests and rights of other stakeholders, and baseline studies Findings of the study indicated that there was a significant are conducted with consultation during development of influence of participatory project initiation on sustainable Participatory Forest management Plan (PFMP). (e study forest management (r � 0.700, p � 0.00). (is implies that an concluded that participatory project initiation had signifi- increase in participatory project initiation improved the cant influence on sustainable forest management. Com- sustainable forest management in Saboti. munity participation during the initiation stage was very (is implies more participatory project initiation; there important and significant. was an increase in sustainable forest management. It concurs with Mulwa [41] that community participation in need for 6. Recommendation evaluation provides a solid foundation for finding ways of solving the problem. (is agrees with Meredith and Mantel (ere is need for forest management to involve the com- [42] who describes the importance of various stages of munity members during the initiation stage of the projects in the project initiation process in the accomplishment of a order to achieve sustainable forest management. project. Data Availability 5. Conclusions (e data used to support the findings of the study are (e committee members are a representation of local di- available upon request to the corresponding author. versity, and the contribution of all stakeholders is mutually 6 International Journal of Forestry Research forest associations in management forests in Kenya,” Journal Conflicts of Interest of Sustainable Forestry, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 205–216, 2016. [15] E. Mwangi, J. Mogoi, P. Ongugo, E. Obonyo, and V. Oeba, (e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. “Communities, property rights and forest decentralization in Kenya: early lessons from participatory forestry manage- Acknowledgments ment,” Conservation and Society, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 182–194, (e research was self-funded by the principal author. [16] P. O. Ongugo, “Participatory forest management in Kenya: is there anything for the poor,” in Proceedings of the Interna- References tional Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests, Bangkok, (ailand, September 2007. [1] World Bank, “Strategic environmental assessment of the [17] Ongugo, “(e effects of internal human conflicts on forest Kenya forest act 2005: (e world bank agricultural and rural conservation and sustainable development in Kenya,” in department,” Report No. 40659-KE, (e International Bank Proceedings of the International A Paper Presented in the IASC for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, USA, Conference, Cheltenham England, July 2008. [18] FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization United Nations], [2] L. Isager, I. (eilade, and L. (omson, “People’s participation Global Forest Resources Assessment. Progress Towards Sus- in forest conservation: considerations and case studies,” in tainable Management of Forest, FAO, Rome, Italy, 2012. Proceedings of the Southeast Asian Moving Workshop on [19] S. Kumar, “Does “participation” in common pool resource Conservation, Management and Utilization of Forest Genetic management help the poor? a social cost-benefit analysis of Resources Forestry Research Support Programme for Asia and joint forest management in Jharkhand, India,” World De- the Pacific (FORSPA), (ailand, February 2001. velopment, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 763–782, 2002. [3] S. Tadesse, M. Woldetsadik, and F. Senbeta, “Forest users’ [20] M. G. Reed, “Guess who’s (not) coming for dinner: expanding level of participation in a participatory forest management the terms of public involvement in sustainable forest man- program in southwestern Ethiopia,” Forest Science and agement,” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, vol. 25, Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 164–173, 2017. no. sup9, pp. 45–54, 2010. [4] L. Tacconi, “Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: theory [21] ACCORD, Natural Resources, the Environment and Conflict, and narrative,” Global Environmental Change, vol. 17, no. 3-4, (e African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Dis- pp. 338–348, 2007. putes (ACCORD), Durban, South Africa, 2009. [5] J. Newig and O. Fritsch, “Environmental governance: par- [22] C. K. Koech, P. O. Ongugo, M. T. E. Mbuvi, and J. O. Maua, ticipatory, multi-level - and effective?” Environmental Policy “Community Forest Associations in Kenya: Challenges and and Governance, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 197–214, 2009. Opportunities,” Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Nairobi, [6] L. I. Chirenje, R. A. Giliba, and E. B. Musamba, “Local Kenya, 2009. communities’ participation in decision-making processes [23] FAO, “Participatory forest management: a strategy for sus- through planning and budgeting in African countries,” tainable forest management in africa,” in Proceedings of the Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, International Workshop on Community Forestry in Africa, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 10–16, 2013. Banjul, (e Gambia, April 1999. [7] F. Mulwa, Managing Community-Based Development: [24] S. Warah, Participatory Management of Forests and Protected Unmasking the Mastery of Participatory Development, Areas: A Trainers’ Manual, Bangkok: Regional Community Premese Olivex Publishers, Nairobi, Kenya, 2004. Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific [8] I. E. Adesida and J. Okunlola, “Effects of community par- (RECOFTC), Bangkok, (ailand, 2008. ticipation on the sustainability of rural infrastructure in ondo [25] P. Matiku, M. Caleb, and O. Callistus, “(e impact of par- state, Nigeria,” Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, ticipatory forest management on local community livelihoods Economics & Sociology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2015. in the arabuko-sokoke forest, Kenya,” Conservation and So- [9] F. Dolisca, D. R. Carter, J. M. McDaniel, D. A. Shannon, and ciety, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 112, 2013. C. M. Jolly, “Factors influencing farmers’ participation in [26] K. L. Maharjan, “Community participation in forest resource forestry management programs: a case study from Haiti,” management in Nepal,” Journal of Mountain Science, vol. 2, Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 236, no. 2-3, pp. 324– no. 1, pp. 32–41, 2005. 331, 2006. [27] S. Adhikari, T. Kingi, and S. Ganesh, “Incentives for com- [10] M. A. Salam, T. Noguchi, and M. Koike, “Factors influencing munity participation in the governance and management of the sustained participation of farmers in participatory for- common property resources: the case of community forest estry: a case study in central Sal forests in Bangladesh,” Journal management in Nepal,” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 44, of Environmental Management, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 43–51, 2005. pp. 1–9, 2014. [11] T. Getacher and A. Tafere, “Explaining the determinants of [28] T. Degeti, Factors affecting People’s Participation in Partici- community-based management of forest: evidence from patory Management of Forest: &e Case of IFMP Adaba- Alamata,” Ethiopian Journal of Health Development, vol. 1, Dodola in Bale Zone of Oromia Region MA Dissertation, Addis pp. 63–70, 2013. Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2003. [12] S. Iddi, “Community participation in forest management in [29] E. Titus and I. Edet, “Level of community participation in the the republic of Tanzania,” Ministry of Natural Resources and conservation of natural resources in Akamkpa government Tourism of Tanzania, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2010. area, sourthern cross river state, Nigeria,” Journal of Research [13] J. Ribot, Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources: and Method Education, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 30–35, 2014. Institutionalizing Popular Participation, World Resources [30] P. M. Guthiga, J. Mburu, and K. Holm-Mueller, “Factors Institute, Washington D C, USA, 2002. influencing local communities’ satisfaction levels with dif- [14] J. K. Musyoki, J. Mugwe, K. Mutundu, and M. Muchiri, ferent forest management approaches of Kakamega forest, “Factors influencing level of participation of community International Journal of Forestry Research 7 Kenya,” Environmental Management, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 696–706, 2008. [31] D. E. Jacob and A. U. Ogogo, “Community participation in protected area management: a case study of cross river na- tional park in forestry in the context of the millennium de- velopment goals,” in Proceeding of the 34th Annual Conference of the Forestry Association of Nigeria held in Osogbo, pp. p412–415, Osun State, Nigeria, 2011 December. [32] N. Maraga, K. Kibwage, O. Oindo, and O. Oyunge, “Com- munity participation in the project cycle of afforestation projects in river Nyando basin, Kenya,” International journal of current research, vol. 3, pp. 54–59, 2011. [33] P. Ehigiator, Urban Slum Upgrading and Participatory Gov- ernance (PG): An Investigation into the Role of Slum Com- munity-Based Institutions in Tackling the Challenges of Slums in Developing Nations the Case of Lagos State, Nigeria, 2013. [34] S. Waisbord, “Family tree of theories, methodologies and strategies in development communication,” Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change, Sage, (ousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [35] J. K. Coetzee, Development: &eory, Policy and Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2001. [36] S. N. V Kenya, &e Story of Children Living and Working on the Streets of Nairobi, MX Publishing, London, United Kingdom, 2002. [37] T. Yamane, Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, Harper & Row, New York, NY, USA, 1973. [38] J. R. Fraenkel and N. E. Wallen, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, McGraw, New York, NY, USA, 2000. [39] S. Mahanty, J. Guernier, and Y. Yasmi, “A fair share? Sharing the benefits and costs of collaborative forest management,” International Forestry Review, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 268–280, [40] V. Iversen, B. Chhetry, P. Francis et al., “High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: evidence from forest user groups in Nepal’s Terai,” Ecological Economics, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 93–107, 2006. [41] F. Mulwa, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Community Projects, Paulines Publications Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, 2008. [42] J. R. Meredith and S. J. Mantel, Project Management: A Managerial Approach, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 2006.
Journal
International Journal of Forestry Research – Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Published: Jul 15, 2020