Adama Science and Technology University

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

CAUSES OF DEFORESTATION IN NEJO WOREDA, WESTERN ETHIOPIA

BY:

GIRMA SHUMETA

MA THESIS SUBMITTED TO

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

AUGUST, 2017

ADAMA, ETHIOPIA

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

As Thesis advisor, I hereby certify that I have read and evaluated this Thesis prepared, under my guidance, by Girma Shumeta Abdeta entitled “Determinants of Deforestation in Nejo Wereda, Western Ethiopia” I recommend that it be submitted as fulfillment of the Thesis requirement.

MR.GEZMU HUNDE ______

Advisor Signature Date

BY GIRMA SHUMETA ABDETA

APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS

As member of the Board of Examiners of the MA Thesis Open Defense Examination, we certify that we have read, evaluated the Thesis prepared by Girma Shumeta Abdeta and examined the candidate. We recommended that the Thesis be accepted, as fulfilling the Thesis requirement for the Degree of Master of Art in Geography and Environmental Studies. Name ______Chairman Signature Date ______Advisor Signature Date ______External Examiner Signature Date ______Internal Examiner Signature Date ______DGC Chairman Signature Date

DECLARATION

First, I declare that this thesis is my original work and that the sources of all the material used in thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for MA degree at Adama Science and Technology University. It has also been deposited at the University Library to be made available for borrowers in accordance with the rules of the library. I solemnly declare that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma, or certificate. Brief quotations from this thesis are not allowable without special permission provided that accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

Name: ______Signature:______Place: Adama Science and Technology University, Adama Date of Submission:______

BIOGRAPHY

The author was born inWestWellega, Nejo Wereda in May10, 1978 from his father Shumeta Abdeta and his Mother Tabote Ganfure. He completed his primary and junior secondary school education at Gori Elementary School and his secondary education at Nejo Secondary and preparatory school. After successfully passing the Ethiopian Higher Education Entrance Certificate Examination (EHECE), he joined Mada Walabu University and graduated on July 26, 2001 with B.A degree in Geography and Environmental Studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank God for helping me to successfully completion of this work. I convey my deepest thanks to my major advisor Mr.Gezmu Hunde for giving me constructive advice and guidance starting from the proposal writing to the completion of the research work. I thank him since without his encouragement, suggestion; insight, guidance and professional expertise, the completion of this work would not have been possible. My heart-felt also goes to my instructor Mr.Urgessa Hundara(PHD fellow) for his valuable professional advice. I would like to thank Nejo Wereda Agriculture and Rural Development office for their valuable assistance during the fieldwork. My special and particular thanks to Ato Dula Tamesgen for his providing me necessary facilities during fieldwork.I am highly indebted to my motherTabote Ganfure and my brother Merga Shumeta and all others who are the source of special strength towards the successful completion of this study. Finally, my gratitude goes to all my family and relatives who gave me courage to conduct the thesis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS Page Acknowledgement ………………………………………………………………………..…. i Tables of Contents………………………………………………………………………...... ii List of Tables………………………………………………………………………..………. iii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..… iv List of Acronyms……………………………………………………………………...... v Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..…... Vi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………….……. 1 1.1 Background of the Study ………………………………………………………….……. 1 1.2. Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………….…….. 2 1.3. Objectives of the Study ………………………………………………………….…...... 3 1.3.1General Objective ………………………………………………………….……... 3 1.3.2 Specific Objectives ……………………………………………………….……… 3 1.4. Research Questions ……………………………………………………………….……. 4 1.5. Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………..…… 4 1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study……………………………………………….……... 5 1.7. Organization of the Thesis…………………………………………………….………... 5 CHAPTERTWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE……………………….……… 6 2.1 Concepts of Deforestation ……………………………………………………….……... 6 2.2. The Root Problems of Deforestation …………………………………………….……. 7 2.2.1 Agriculture as a Cause of Deforestation ………………………………….…..... 9 2.2.2 Energy Sources Causing Deforestation………………………………….……… 10 2. 2.3 Population Pressure as a Cause of Deforestation……………………….……… 10 2.2.4 Poverty -Deforestation Nexus…………………………………………….…..… 11 2.3 Socio economic and Environmental Impacts of Deforestation………………….………. 12 2.4 Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………..… 13 2.5 Empirical Literature…………………………………………………………………..… 14

2.6. Literature Gap………………………………………………………………………..….. 15 CHAPTER THREE: DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA AND RESEARCHH METHODS AND MATERIALS…………………………………………………………. 16 3.1 Description of the Study Area…………………………………………………….……... 16 3.1.1 Location and Physical Background……………………………………….…….... 16 3.1.2 Demographic and Socio economic Activities …………………………….……... 19 3.2 Research Methods and Materials………………………………………………….……. 21 3.2.1 Research Design and Approaches ……………………………………….……… 21 3.2.2 Sources and Types of Data ……………………………………………….……... 21 3.2.3 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination …………………….…… 22 3.2.4 Data Collection Methods ………………………………………………….…….. 24 3.2.5 Data Analysis Techniques ………………………….………………………..…. 25 3.2.6 Data Reliability and Validity ……………………………...... 25 3.2.7 Ethical Consideration of the Study……………………………………………… 26 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ……………………………………… 28 4.1. General characteristics of sample respondents………………………………………… 28 4.1.1 Demographic Characteristics of Sample Respondents…………………………. 28 4.1.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Sample Respondents……………………….. 32 4.2. Deforestation and Related Issues……………………………………………………… 36 4.3 Impacts of Deforestation…………………………………………………………….... 40 4.4 Causes of Deforestation………………………………………………………………… 41 4.5. Population Pressure Causing Deforestation……………………………….……………. 43 4.6. Agriculture as a Cause of Deforestation……………………………………………… 48 4.7. Energy Consumption as Determinants of Deforestation ……………………….………. 52 4.7.1 Sources of Energy in Rural areas………………………………………….……….. 52 4.8. Degree of Association Between Demographic Factors and Deforestation…….……….. 56 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………….………. 64 5.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….……… 64 5.2 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………….……… 66

iii

References……………………………………………………………………………… 68 Annex I …………………………………………………………………………………. 75 Annex II ……………………………………………………………………………….. 83 Annex III………………………………………………………………………………... 84

List of Tables Page Table 3.1: Population Statics of Nejo Wereda…………………………………………...... 19 Table 3.2: Proportionate Sizes of Sample Households………………………………….. 23 Table 3.3: Relationship Between Independent and Dependent Variables………………. 27 Table 4.1: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Age…………………………….. 29 Table 4.2: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Sex…………………………….. 30 Table 4.3: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status………………….. 30 Table 4.4: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Family Size……………………. 31 Table 4.5: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Education Level……………….. 32 Table 4.6: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Occupation…………………….. 33 Table 4.7: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Income Level………………….. 34 Table 4.8: Existence of Deforestation…………………………………………………... 36 Table 4.9: Cutting Living Forest………………………………………………………... 37 Table4.10: Current Trend of Deforestation……………………………………………… 38 Table4.11: Forest Conservation Strategy………………………………………………... 39 Table4.12: Causes of Deforestation…………………………………………………….... 42 Table4.13: Settlement expansion, Degree of Population Growth, Family Preference and Seasonal Movement of People………………………………………………. 44 Table4.14: Agricultural Practices, Techniques, System, Land acquisition, Types of Crops and Forest Clearing…………………………………………………… 48 Table4.15: Energy Consumption and its Shortage………………………………………. 54 Table4.16: Cross Tabulation of Education level vs Family size………………………… 56 Table4.17: Cross Tabulation of Family size vs Marital Status………………………….. 57 Table4.18: Cross Tabulation of Family Size vs Firewood Consumption………………... 57 Table4.19: Correlation of Family size vs Firewood, Education level, and Land holding size…………………………………………………………………………... 58 Table4.20: Parameter Estimates of Deforestation in Nejo Wereda……………………… 60

List of Figures Page

Figure2.1: Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………... 13

Figure3.1: Location of Nejo woreda in its National and Regional Settings…………. 17 Figure4.1: Land holding size of Respondents…………………………………………... 35 Figure4.2: Impacts of Deforestation……………………………………………………. 40 Figure4.3: Settlement Expansion Across Forest Area………………………………….. 47 Figure4.4: Agricultural Expansion……………………………………………………. 51 Figure4.5: Sources of Energy in Rural Areas…………………………………………. 53 Figure4.6: Amount of Firewood Load Consumed per day…………………………… 55

List of Acronyms CIA: Central Intelligence Agency FAO: Food and Agricultural Organization

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

GIS: Geographic Information System IEA: International Energy Agency ITTO: International Tropical Timber Organization LDCs: Least Developed Countries

MDG: Millennium Development Goal NWAO: Nejo Woreda Agricultural Office NWEO: Nejo Woreda Education Office NWHO: Nejo Woreda Health Office SLM: Sustainable Land Management SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Science USAID: United States Agency for International Development UNDP: United Nation Development Program WBISPP: Woody Biomass Inventory and Strategic Planning Project

vii

Abstract Though forests play critical environmental and economic roles for the sustainability of life on earth, the quantity and quality of forests are declining from time to time. The study explores determinants of deforestation in Nejo Wereda Western Wollega, Oromia National Regional state, Ethiopia. Questionnaire, interview, focus group discussion and field observation were conducted. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to assess the existence of deforestation. The logistic regression analysis results showed that there was association between education level, income level, marital status, family size, land holding size, firewood consumption and age of household heads with forest loss at p<0.05. The findings of the analysis revealed that the forest resources have been utilized in unsustainable manner due to population pressure with increasing woody biomass demand and traditional agricultural practices. The results indicated that fire wood collection, expansion of agricultural land and population growth are the major causes of forest destruction. To overcome such problems: rural people should use local innovative methods like bio gas and wood saving stove, technological inputs with intensive farm techniques and strong family planning with awareness creation campaigns

viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 .Background of the Study

The world faces socio-economic and environmental challenges due to deforestation. Problems related to environment like forest degradation, deforestation, over- extraction of both renewable and nonrenewable natural resources are controversial issues throughout the world (Bedru, 2007). The livelihood of most rural people of developing countries is strongly linked to natural resources like forest. Forest products are used among rural societies as energy sources, food items, materials for different purposes. At national and local levels, deforestation has been suggested to be linked to rural population pressure, subsistent farming, firewood collection and large scale development projects (FAO, 2010).

South America and Africa suffered the largest net-loss of forests from 2000 to 2005 – about 4.3 and 4.0 million hectares per year respectively. North and Central America and Oceania had a net- loss of forest about 350,000hectares in the same period (ITTO, 2002).

Deforestation is being considered as socio-economic and environmental problems (Mulugeta and Zenebe , 2011). In Ethiopia, forests are still degrading at an alarming rate with only a little percent of forest cover compared to the estimated initial coverage. The human and natural factors are responsible for the gradual decline in the vegetation cover of the country which leads to deforestation (Desta, 2001)

In Ethiopia the fast growing population that has led to increasing demand for farmland, wood for construction, unsustainable harvest for timber and fuel wood extraction, high urbanization rate, road construction and over grazing is taken as the major causes of environmental degradation and forest depletion (Tola, 2005 and UNDP, 2012).

Policy makers need to know where deforestation is taking place. The policy makers need to identify the causes and impacts of deforestation. Identifying the causes enables them to prioritize the allocation of scarce human and financial resources for the prevention and rehabilitation of deforestation (Simula, 2009).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Given their role in human well being, the state of forests is important to all of us. Scholars forward that it is important to conduct studies on the factors that determine the success of common forest management (Agrawal, 2001; Poteete and Ostrom, 2003). The exploitation of forest resources coupled with lack of proper management of the environment has resulted in their depletion.It is important to distinguish between deforestation, meaning permanent clearing of tree cover from an area, and forest degradation, which is the loss of forest quality and diversity and reduction of the capacity of forest to provide goods and services (FAO, 2002).

From the perspective of international forest related reporting, coherent, comparable and harmonized definition of deforestation is desirable (FAO, 2009). Deforestation is the continuous cutting down of forests without any replacement activities which completely converts forest area to another land use or the long-term reduction of the tree canopy cover due to proximate and underlying factors (FAO, 2000). The importance of forest for the functioning of living things in general and particularly as a source of livelihood for the community dwelling nearby the forest is understandable (USAID, 2008).

Though forests play such critical environmental and economic roles for the sustainability of life on earth, the quantity and quality of forests are declining from time to time. According to (Winberg ,2010), between 1955 and 1979, over 77 % of the Ethiopia‟s forested area was disappeared and it continues to lose 8% of its remaining forests annually due to deforestation. In Ethiopia, deforestation is a process that erodes the highest and greatest use of forests to a level that may inhibit its sustainability and ultimately result in deforestation (Desta, 2001). The steadily growing population pressure and agricultural expansion in Ethiopia causes unsustainable forest utilization which is ultimately leading to deforestation (Fayera, 2011)

Various empirical studies indicated that both small and large scale agriculture, urban sprawl, infrastructural development and natural factors were taken as driving forces for deforestation. However, subsistent agriculture, energy consumption and demographic factors exacerbate deforestation in the study site. As of the researcher‟s occasional observation, deforestation presents a crisis of many dimensions in the study site. Undoubtedly, this unsustainable forest encroaches

reduces forest quality which in turn brings about environmental and socio-economic problems on the local communities in specified study site. So far no study has been conducted on determinants of deforestation in the study site. Therefore, the researcher intends to find out the problem under investigation to identify the socioeconomic and demographic factors that exacerbate deforestation in specified study site.

1.3. Objectives of the study

1.3.1 General Objective

The study investigates the determinants of deforestation in Nejo wereda, western Ethiopia.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The study was undertaken to achieve the following specific objectives:

1. explain agricultural practices causing deforestation in the study site. 2. identify demographic factors causing deforestation in the study site. 3. examine the energy sources of the rural population in the study site.

1.4. Research Questions

This research attempts to answer the following questions:

1. How is the agricultural practice of the area be a cause of deforestation in the study site? 2. What demographic factors exacerbate deforestation in the study site? 3. What are the energy sources that results in depletion of forests in the study site?

1.5 Significance of the study

The findings of this research can be used as input for various agencies and organizations involved in forest related issues. Thus, planners, project designers and policy makers towards forestry program can be assisted with the research in their future activities. Above all, the findings can fill the knowledge gap of the farmers in relation to deforestation. Hence, the farmers of the study area

can be the major beneficiaries of the findings of the study. The academia can also use the findings of the study as input. The output of this research is also essential for natural resources managers, development agents, fund providers, socio-economic development planners and environmentalists in order to have appropriate environmental protection and development interventions. The research also provided the local society with good awareness about deforestation. The research provides farmers with good understanding of the impacts of deforestation on their socioeconomic situation. The findings of the research could also enable the researcher to forward the remedial measures toward deforestation. The research benefits the farmers and forest users in socioeconomic aspect. Therefore, the research helps any readers providing them with detail information about determinants of deforestation in the study site. However, the case was not well investigated in the study site that requires further investigation. Therefore, the researcher intended to assess causes of deforestation in the study site. Furthermore, the study examined the socioeconomic activities undertaken in the study site. The research would serve as a good basis for forthcoming researchers who have strong desire to carry out a research on deforestation in the study area or elsewhere. 1.6 Scope and limitations of the study

The study was undertaken in Nejo Wereda,Oromia Regional State, Western Ethiopia because the wereda is highly affected by deforestation. Three rural kebeles were selected mainly because of the severity of the problem in the selected kebeles. However, due to time, budget and labor constraints it was too tedious and out of the reach to include all kebeles. Thus, the study was conducted on three kebeles from the rural areas of the wereda. The thematic area of the study focuses on determinants of deforestation in general and socioeconomic and demographic factors in particular. The research was conducted from September, 2016 to August, 2017. The scope of this study was confined to demographic factors, energy consumption and agricultural practices as determinants of deforestation. Although assessing the overall determinants would enable the inhabitants to aware the causes of deforestation, the study was bounded on a limited causes of deforestation. A very few respondents were not willing to give information related the questions.

1.7 Organization of the Thesis

The thesis is organized in five chapters. The first chapter is an introduction part, which comprises background of the study, problem statement, and objectives of the study, significance of the study, limitation of the study and scope of the study. The second chapter starts with the definition of important concepts and terms that leads to a more detailed review of literature on deforestation, agriculture, population and energy consumption nexus deforestation. The third chapter focused on the description of the study area, socioeconomic and demographic aspects, methods and materials employed in the study. The fourth chapter is devoted to the results and discussion of the survey. The final chapter provides conclusions and recommendations of the study.

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 The Concepts of Deforestation

This tries to deal with theoretical, conceptual and empirical literature review related with determinants of deforestation. Theoretical literature review tries to capture the theoretical background related to factors responsible for deforestation. The empirical literature review addresses the main empirical results obtained by various studies.

Deforestation is one of the critical issues in our global climate change era. It leads to two important environmental challenges, loss of biodiversity and increasing of greenhouse gas emission. Many efforts have been introduced, developed and implemented. However, a declining forest cover still presents. Since deforestation is a complex and intertwined issue, understanding its complexity and context on which it is debated is crucial (Indarto et al., 2016).

Attempts to regulate and manage forest lands occurred well before the 19thcentury in Rome, Middle East, China and Western Europe. Wars and political instability interfered with these efforts: so destructive uses of forests are common in the more densely populated countries. Early settlers regarded forests as impediments to cultivation and sought to remove them as quickly as possible. One half of the wood consumption is used as fuel, cooking and heating uses and the rest one half is utilized for industrial proposes. Out of the total forestry products, fuel uses account for over 80 % of lumber consumption in most developing countries. At one time nearly one third of the earth‟s surface was tree-covered, but currently 25 million acres per year are removed throughout the world(Mesay, 2008).

Three percent of the earth's forest cover was lost between 1990 and 2005 and there has been no significant decrease in the rate of deforestation over the past 20 years (FAO, 2009). The annual rate of deforestation is about 13 million hectares per year. Deforestation is the changes within the forest which negatively affect the structure or function of the site and thereby lower the capacity

to supply products and services. Deforestation takes different forms particularly in open forest formations deriving mainly from human activities such as overgrazing, overexploitation, repeated fires and shifting cultivation (FAO, 2006).

In most cases, deforestation is a gradual reduction of biomass, changes in species composition and decrease in forest quality leading to forest degradation. Forest degradation is the reduction of the capacity of a forest to provide goods and services (FAO, 2002). Unsustainable logging practices can contribute to deforestation if the extraction of mature trees is not accompanied with their regeneration or if the use of heavy machinery causes loss of productive forest area.

Deforestation is the continuous cutting down of forests without any replacement activities with completely conversion of forest area to another land use or the long-term reduction of the tree canopy cover due to proximate and underlying factors (FAO, 2011). The current deforestation rate particularly in less developing countries is the worry of world Community because its impact is dangerous to all countries (Terefe, 2003). 2.2. The Root Problems of Deforestation

Deforestation is the loss or continual depletion of forest habitat due to either natural or human related causes. As of (Geist and Lambin , 2001) deforestation occurs due to human induced factors. Agriculture, urban sprawl, unsustainable forestry practice contributes to human caused deforestation. Deforestation is the removal of forest cover to an extent that allows for alternative land use (FAO, 2002).

The total net change in tropical forest area in the period 2000–2010 is estimated at 5.2 million hectares per year, an area slightly bigger than the size of Costa Rica, or equivalent to a loss of more than 140 square kilometers of forest per day (FAO, 2010).Direct conversion of forest area into small-scale permanent agriculture accounts for approximately 60% of the total deforestation whereas direct conversion of forest area into large-scale permanent agriculture accounts for 10% (FAO, 2002).

Ruthless profit-making is taken as main cause for the removal of forest resources (Ahimed,2002).Due to irrational profit making, forest cover, timber, fuel wood, forest food,

medicinal plants and wildlife are decreasing gradually. Former forest land is severely damaged by the excessive harvesting of wood and/or non wood forest products. Poor farming system, repeated fire, overgrazing cause damage to soil and vegetation to a degree that inhibits or severely delays the re-establishment of forest after abandonment.

The destruction of forests began from the formation of early civilizations. The unethical persuasion of profit by industrial capitalism has led to the global annihilation of forests and the planet has experienced an unprecedented high rate of destruction of forests since 1850s. Deforestation also includes areas where the impact of disturbance, over-utilization or changing environmental conditions affects the forest to an extent that it cannot sustain a tree cover above the 10% thresholds (wilsson, 2002).

The loss of forest area during 1980-1990 was estimated to 163 million hectares or 94.5%was in the tropics only (FAO, 1995).Thus between 1960 and 1990, there was a steep rise in the decadal rate of deforestation worldwide with Brazil having the highest annual rate. The global data show that Atlantic coast of Brazil, Philippines, Madagascar, and Sumatra have lost between 85% and 95% of their forests due to ruthless corporate industrial exploitation (ITTO, 2002). A degraded forest delivers a reduced supply of goods and services from a given site and maintains only limited biological diversity. It has lost the structure, function, species composition and or productivity normally associated with natural forest type expected at that site. Deforestation is conversion of forest to another land-use or the long-term reduction of the tree canopy cover below the minimum 10 percent thresholds (FAO, 2001).

The Growing population is demanding ever-larger forest supplies and increasing numbers of people are settling and recreating on the primary forest resources for large cities. Despite their economic and environmental value, Ethiopian forests are under threat. The growing population requires more fuel wood and more agricultural production, in turn creating needs for new farmland; both of which accelerate deforestation and forest degradation ( Minahan , 2000 cited in Abay, 2013).

2.2.1 Agricultural practices as a cause of Deforestation

Agriculture is estimated to be the proximate driver for around 80% of deforestation worldwide. Commercial agriculture is the most important driver of deforestation in Latin America accounting for 2/3 of total deforested area. In Africa and subtropical Asia it accounts for around 1/3 of deforestation and is of similar importance to subsistence agriculture. Findings on global patterns of deforestation indicate that commercial timber extraction and logging activities account for more than 70% of total deforestation in Latin America and subtropical Asia. Agriculture is the most significant driver of deforestation, but with differences in geographic distribution of the importance of commercial versus subsistence agriculture. (USAID, 2008).

For decades the common view was that growing populations of shifting cultivators and smallholders were the main driver of forest changes. More recently, it is shown that commercial actors play a larger and increasing role in the expansion of agriculture into forests and for many countries commercial agriculture is dominant over subsistence agriculture (Boucher et al., 2011).

Scientists today agree that agricultural expansion is the most important direct driver of land use change globally, followed by infrastructure development and wood extraction. Deforestation, mainly conversion of forests to agricultural land continues at an alarmingly high rate – about 13 million hectares per year (FAO, 2006). As Ethiopia is characterized by fast population growth rate which in turn resulted in severe population pressure on the land and other natural endowments such as water and forest across the country. Particularly the highland section of the country is characterized by persistent land fragmentation and persistently decreasing per capita landholdings. 36.3% of the farming households in the country have only 0.5 or less hectare of farmlands and 62.3% owned only 1.0 or less hectare of land. Other several studies throughout the country also indicate that the average landholding size is very small. Currently, about 50 % of the households own no land and only very few of them have reasonable land size in in the country (CSA, 1998). 2.2.2 Energy Consumption as a Driver of Deforestation

Fuel wood collection and charcoal production in forests are the most devastative drivers of deforestation in large parts of the world (Baland et al., 2010a).More than 70% of sub-Saharan Africa‟s population depends in large measure upon forests and woodlands for livelihoods. 60 % of Africa‟s energy demand is met by forests. As Ethiopia has a largely rural population, and a great portion of the people do not have access to electricity or other energy sources, 96% of energy in Ethiopia comes from forests, in the form of wood fuel, mostly for cooking and heating(Melca, 2008).

Ethiopia is one of the least developed countries in the world. Ethiopia has one of the lowest rates of access to modern energy services; its energy supply is primarily based on biomass.With an average annual income of 120 US$ per capita, approximately 40% of its 85 million inhabitants live below the poverty line (UNDP, 2010a).

An estimated 12% of the Ethiopian population has access to electricity. Only 85% of the Ethiopians living in rural areas, where there is a significant bias between the power supply of urban and rural population. Only 2% of the rural but 86% of the urban residents has access to electricity (World Bank, 2008).

2.2.3 Population pressure as a determinant of deforestation

Expanding population growth is considered as the major cause of deforestation. Population increase combined with economic growth has resulted in a higher demand for housing and construction, which in turn has resulted in increased demand for wood (USAID, 2008). Extreme levels of population pressure adversely results in deforestation. There is a strong link between population growth and deforestation. The rapid increasing population pressure in Ethiopian highlands has led to vast changes in land use pattern mainly caused by increasing crop production. In this region cultivated lands showed slow but continuously increasing trend at the expense of forest and grasslands over the last four decades (Gete, 2000 cited in Mesfin, 2006). Under scarce land, degraded environment, vulnerability to starvation increases with a decreasing in land to man ratio. At the beginning of the twentieth century around 420,000 square kilometers (35% of Ethiopia‟s land) was covered by trees but recent research indicates that forest cover is

now less than 14.2% due to population growth. Despite the growing need for forested lands, lack of education has led to a continuing decline of forested areas (Parry, 2003). As agriculturally based population density increases in and near forested areas, the strongest relationship between population growth and deforestation occurs, as local people and young migrant families arrive at the forest frontier and clear land to provide more area for subsistence farming. The poorer the soil quality, the lower the agricultural production per hectare, and the more land per capita is likely to be cleared.

2.2.4 Poverty as a Driving Force of Deforestation

Environmental sustainability is one pillar of sustainable development and eradication of poverty is the core goal of the MDGs. In order to properly understand the sustainable development-MDG linkage, it is essential to grasp the environment-poverty nexus.Many studies have argued that there is a strong linkage between environment and poverty for many years in least developing countries (Jehan and Umana, 2003). The life of households is directly and indirectly dependent on the natural resources especially the common properties like forest resources (Bhattacharya and Innes, 2006). Poverty again affects the forest resources in different ways. Poor people are forced to deplete resources to increase economic growth of countries at the expense of environment. In that sense they are more victims rather than degraders of the environment. Thus there exists a two-way relationship between poverty and environment in the developing countries. Poverty causes environmental degradation, and in turn, the degradations in environment exacerbate poverty. Again, poverty itself is a product of unequal resource distribution between groups and classes (Rahman, 2000). 2.3 Socio Economic and Environmental Impacts of Deforestation

The negative consequences of deforestation are reductions in wildlife numbers, land degradation and soil erosion, reduced water availability, less wildlife tourists, more travel time to collect ﬁre wood and minor forest products, and reduced ability to support grazing livestock. In 1990 alone, for instance, reduced soil depth caused by erosion resulted in a grain production loss of 57,000tons (at 3.5 mm soil loss) to 128,000 tons (at 8 mm soil depth) (Mekonnen and Köhlin, 2008).

Deforestation has led to the depletion of soil nutrients, contributing to low agricultural productivity and limited domestic food supplies in sub-Saharan Africa. It has also led to acute shortage of fuel wood and results Women in rural developing countries are forced to walk long distances with heavy burden of wood. Furthermore, there has been loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity as a result of fragmentation and loss of critical ecosystem linkages and overexploitation of the natural habitat (ITTO, 2002). Loss of tropical forest impacts soil erosion and soil infertility, loss of biodiversity, increase CO2 level, change and reduction in precipitation pattern, increase in global surface temperature (Houghton, 2005 cited in Abay,2013). The deforestation of trees not only lessens the amount of carbon stored, it also releases carbon dioxide into the air. This is because when trees die, they release the stored carbon. Deforestation releases nearly a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere per year, though the numbers are not as high as the ones recorded in the previous decade. Forests are complex ecosystems that influence almost every species on the planet (Alina, 2015). Loss of habitat can lead to species extinction. It also has negative consequences for medicinal research and local populations who rely on the animals and plants in the forests for hunting and medicine. Without trees, the soil is free to wash or blow away, which can lead to vegetation growth problems. Soil erosion can also lead to silt entering the lakes, streams and other water sources. This can decrease local water quality and contribute to poor health in populations in the study area

2.4 Conceptual Framework of the Study

This Conceptual framework shows determinants of deforestation. The major dependent variable that constitutes the conceptual framework for this study is existence of deforestation. This dependent variable is affected by different demographic and socio-economic factors. Independent variables are mainly demographic including age, family size, and marital status of the respondents. There are also certain socio-economic variables like education level, income level, and farm land size, agricultural activities and energy consumption have strong relation with deforestation.

In the conceptual frame work the arrow tells the influence of the independent variables on the dependent variable. A dependent variable was expected to be affected by the independent variables

positively or negatively. The figure below shows the relationship found between dependent and independent variables.

Determinants of deforestation socio-economic factors -Energy sources Demographic factors -Agricultural practices - -Family size Level of income -Age -Land holding size -Marital status -Education level

Deforestation

Source:Adopted from Mesfin Duguma (2006) Figure2.1 Conceptual framework

2.5 Empirical Literature

Several studies have been conducted on deforestation and various causes have been identified as the driving forces of deforestation. The development of mostly unregulated national and global market economies, combined with corporate decision-making to make short-term private profits whenever and wherever possible, has contributed considerably to deforestation in the region. Individuals and corporations acting rationally in the pursuit of their own short-term private advantages have contributed to the partial destruction of a vast public good, the rain forests of the Brazilian Amazon; an irrational outcome that is not in the best interest of current or future generations (Samuel ,2011).

94.8% of the respondents indicated that they have observed deforestation in Sub urban areas of Arba Minch Zuria Wereda. This is similar to the observation of vegetation change in which majority of respondents agreed that they have observed deforestation in their area. Therefore, from the responses of the sampled household heads it is clear to understand that deforestation is understood by most community members in the study area. Evidences from this study revealed that majority of the respondents (42 %) reported that one of the causes of deforestation is bringing forest land into agriculture, 29.1% of the respondents showed that the need for fuel wood is another cause of deforestation. Livestock grazing and fodder was reported by 7 % of the respondents as the cause of deforestation. Similarly, 4.6% of the respondents answered that settlement is the other cause of deforestation (Lanteno, 2013). During the last two decades, agricultural expansion, logging, development, and other human activities caused the deforestation of more than 120,000 square kilometers each year(Frederick, 2004).The analyses results showed that accelerated urbanization rates, spurred in a significant number of countries by oil and mineral booms, has driven Sub-Sahara African deforestation during the post millennium period (Tomas, 2013). This showed a very high degree of association between dependence on oil and mineral exports and deforestation rates at (r2 = 0.900, p = 0.014). Urban population growth, as in other Sub-Sahara African countries, has continued at high rates (+4.15% per year between 2000 and 2005). In this context, smallholders' reliance on the shifting cultivation of cash crops has, if anything, increased, the Democratic Republic Congo deforestation became more urban focused at the same time that its magnitude has increased.

2.6 Literature Gap

The massive removal of vegetation cover is the driving force behind deforestation. This loss is largely due to an expanding population, with its corresponding increased demand for crop, grazing land, and fuel wood. In addition, there is a loss of soil nutrient and a reduction in water holding capacity (Demel, 2001cited in Lanteno, 2013). Deforestation in Ethiopia is considered a result of many causes; some natural, but mainly due to human actions, including farmland expansion, unclear land tenure rights, poor economic conditions, population growth, market (wood extraction), and biophysical and socio-political factors (Garedew et al., 2009 cited in Lanteno, 2013). Unsustainable exploration of forest resources is considered as a threat to the country‟s

forests woodland resources (Sam, 2011 cited in Bedilu, 2016). Deforestation is the largest anthropogenic (human-caused) source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, ranging between 6 percent and 17 percent (Alina, 2015). Several studies have been conducted in Ethiopia concerning deforestation. Despite this, large areal coverage of forest has been found to be decreasing from time to time in NejoWereda. Therefore, the paper is aimed at finding population growth, traditional energy consumption and rural farming system as determinants of deforestation with special emphasis to the study site where it is not well documented. Documenting reliable information is helpful for improving and planning sustainable resource utilization. Therefore, the study was conducted with the objective to address the gap.

CHAPTERTHREE: DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1 Description of the Study Area

3.1.1 Location and Topography

NejoWereda is located in western wellega zone of Oromia Regional State at about 499km to western direction from Addis Ababa. The astronomical position of the wereda extends from 9024‟N to 9042‟N latitude and 350 18‟E and 35036‟E longitude (NWAO, 2016). In its relative location, the area is situated in West wellega zone of Oromia National regional state. It shares its administrative boundary in Eastern part with Boji Dirmaji, in its Northern part with Benishangul regional state, in its western part Kiltu Kara Wereda, Jarso Wereda in its Southern part and BojiCokorsa in its Southwestern part.

Source: Ethiopian Mapping Agency, 2017:CSA, 2007 Fig 3.1 The study map of Nejo woreda

According to the data obtained from (Nejo Wereda Agricultural office, 2016), the total area of the wereda is 95800hectares. The wereda was once covered by dense forest (NWAO, 2016). Currently, due to population pressure, agricultural practices and energy consumption it is hardly possible to see the original dense forests. However, the ruminants are found scattered on few places of few kebeles such as Agalo Bassi, Obora Komis, Lomicha Dulo, and Amuma Dila among the other. The status of land use characteristics are shown as follows: cultivable land29289.6 hectares, cultivated land 43934.39hectares, grass land 852.5 hectares and others like gorges, swamp forest consist of 4566.52 hectares. The study site covers 17157hectares of forest areas (NWSLMPO, 2016).

An annual rainfall ranges from around 1350mm-2300mm(NWAO,2016). The minimum rainfall occurs during autumn and spring seasons. The maximum rainfall occurs during summer season. Its average temperature ranges from 180-280celcious(NWAO,2016).The minimum temperature occurs during summer season where as the maximum temperature occurs in winter season (NWAO, 2016).

The agro climatic situation under the study area is characterized as wainadaga (94%) and daga (6%) (NWAO, 2016). The agro climatic zone is dominantly wainadaga which is covered by dense population. Majority of the kebeles administration units are located in wainadega agro climatic zone.Two of the study selected kebeles (Gute Weni and Bushane Aleltu) is located in this climatic zone. Five of the kebele administration units(Amuma Aleltu,Amuma Giorgis,Gida Dale, Buke Gori and Kiltu Gulu) are located in dega agro climatic zone. The altitude of the wereda ranges from 1600m-2250m(NWAO,2016).

The topography of the wereda is characterized mostly by highlands with major rivers. The nature of the topography provides the wereda with sufficient water sources. Nejo Wereda is an area of productive soil which is dominantly nitosoil which accounts for 95percent. Clay and other soil also consist of 5percent (NWAO, 2016). Many permanent and seasonal rivers are found in the wereda. The permanent rivers of the wereda include Alaltu, Aghar, Dila, Kujur, Komis and Gennasi and all these rivers are found in Abay drainage basin. Alaltu is the river that cross Nejo town dividing into two and currently used as one of the sources of drinking water for the population of the town. Nejo town is the capital town of the wereda as well as administrative town in the wereda (NWAO, 2016).

3.1.2 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics

A. Population

The total population of the wereda is 152741(CSA, 2015 cited in NWAO, 2016).The male and female populations are 74874 and 77867 respectively. The total household heads of the wereda population are 33786(NWAO,2016).The male household heads are 31994 and the female household heads are 1792(NWAO,2016).The study population of the three selected kebeles is 7065.The male and female populations are 4050 and 3015 respectively. The total household heads of the study population in the three selected kebeles is 1786. The male distribution of household heads are1623 and the female household heads are 163 respectively (NWAO,2016).

Table 3.1Population Statistics in Nejo Wereda from 2007-2016 Year Total population 2007 118040 2008 121463 2009 124985 2010 128609 2011 132338 2012 136175 2013 140124 2014 144256 2015 148437 2016 152741 Source: ( NWAO, 2016)

As indicated in table 3.1 above, population increases from time to time. This reveals that population shows rapid increment from 2007 to 2016 in the study site. Annual Population increases by 2.9% and the household size grows by 4.8% in the study area (NWAO, 2016). This implies the number of family is highly increasing which leads to resource over utilization.

Additional document from agricultural office inferred that population density of the study area is 159/km2. This reveals that large numbers of people are concentrated over a small land size that may cause deforestation in the study area.

B. Livelihood

The major economic activity in the study area is a mixed agriculture where production of crops and animal rearing are undertaken. More or less the livelihood strategy of residents is dominated by subsistence farming (NWAO, 2016). Few number of people involve in livestock rearing. Cattle population is the dominant livestock population in the wereda which accounts for 75.3% of livestock population. Rearing of sheep in the wereda contribute for 12.3% of the total livestock population. In addition goat, donkey, mule and horse account for 8.3, 4.3, 0.21 and 0.01percents respectively.

Crop farming and livestock rearing are the backbone of Ethiopian economy. It supports about 85% of the country‟s GDP, 85%foreign exchange earnings and supports, though insufficiently, 85% of the work force (Berry, 2003). Agriculture is also an important economic sector in Oromia region hence over 90% of the people of the region live in the rural area and engaged in agriculture as the source of livelihood.

C. Health Facilities

The infrastructural expansion of the wereda includes roads, education and health facilities. No standardized road infrastructure in rural areas. However, Nejo wereda is crossed by one asphalt road. The wereda has five health centers in the rural areas.There are about 13 clinics with one governmental clinics and 12 privately owned clinics and there are about 5 health centers in the woreda (NWHO, 2016).

D. Educational Facilities

The study area has 77 total schools which consist of two kindergarten, seventy one primary schools, five high schools and one preparatory school .The total students consist of 32,392 students. These total students consists of about 29,152 primary school students (both first and

second cycle students), about 3030 high school students, and about 210 preparatory level students (NWEO, 2016).

3.2 Research Methods and Materials

3.2.1 Research Design and Approach

Research needs design before commencement of data collection (vaus, 2001). Accordingly the researcher has used a cross sectional survey in the research process. Cross-sectional survey helps to sort out the existence and magnitude of causal effects of one or more independent variables upon a dependent variable. Therefore, the research design incorporated the overall framework of the research process with the help of cross-sectional survey.

Research Approach: The Researcher incorporated both quantitative and qualitative research approach (Cresswell, 2009). The researcher applied a mixed research approach to triangulate numerical and non numerical data. Therefore, the researcher employed quantitative approach for questionnaire survey and qualitative approach for focus group discussions and key informant interviews and finally mix them up.

3.2.2 Sources and Types of Data

The researcher used qualitative and quantitative sources of data. The researcher collected quantitative data through questionnaire. The qualitative data was collected using interview and focus group discussion and expressed interns of words or statement.

A.Types of Data

The researcher obtained primary types of data from rural development agents, elders, questionnaire survey respondents, focus group discussants, key informants, experienced local farmers and experts with extensive experiences. Therefore, the researcher obtained firsthand information through triangulated methods. Additional sources of data were also obtained from wereda agricultural and forestry management office.

The secondary types of data were published and unpublished documents. Therefore, the researcher obtained secondary types of data from preexisting documents mainly from the wereda agricultural office.

3.2.3 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination

Kebeles were first purposively selected based on severity of the problems. The researcher selected three rural kebeles out of forty nine kebeles. The researcher selected kebeles in consultation with experienced experts like:DA,forestry supervisers and kebele leaders. The researcher selected respondents of the questionnaire survey based on probability sampling. The proportionate samples assigned were selected systematically from the total listing of the kebele population.The researcher determined the sample sizes from the total household heads of the study population with the help of statistical algorism in order to control sampling errors within 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error as in (Yamane, 1967 cited in Yilma, 2005).Therefore, the researcher selected 1786 target population out of 7065 base population.

Thus, this study used the following formula to calculate sample size:

n = ( )

Where:

n - Sample size

N - Total number of household heads in the three Kebeles. e - Margin of error 5% (0.05).

1 - Probability of the event occurring.

Therefore = = 327 ( ) ( )

Therefore, the researcher selected 327 sample sizes out of 1786 household heads. The proportionate samples were calculated using proportionate numbers of household heads based on the total household heads of the study population and total sample sizes.The respondents were selected systematically from the total listing of the kebele household heads using the formula:k=N/n

Therefore, Sample size for Gute Weni Kebele : =101

BushaneAlaltu: =103

AmumaAlaltu: =123

Table:3.2: proportionate sizes of allocated sample household heads

Sample Totalhou Proportionate Sample Respondents Who didn‟t respond rural sehold Samples b/c of unforeseen kebeles heads reason Mal Fem Male Femal Male Femal Male Femal Total e ale e e e Gute weni 553 503 50 101 92 9 88 7 95 4 2 6 Bushane 563 520 43 103 95 8 93 8 101 2 - 2 Alaltu Amuma 670 600 70 123 110 13 110 10 120 - 3 3 Alaltu Total 1786 162 163 327 297 30 291 25 316 6 5 11 3

Source: Nejo Wereda Agricultural office, 2016

3.2.4 Data Collection Tools

Questionnaire: The questionnaire was prepared to collect information regarding household heads characteristics, existence of deforestation, agricultural practices, population pressure and sources of energy in the study area. The questionnaire was prepared initially in English and translated into „Afan Oromo„language because all respondents speak Afan Oromo. The questionnaire was pretested on randomly selected few household heads, enumerators were trained how to fill the questionaire and the final survey was administered.

Focus Group Discussion: The researcher employed this tool for qualitative analysis. Three sessions of focus group discussions consisting of eight members from the local elders, women, kebele manager were held to get deeper insight on determinants of deforestation for one hour in each three kebeles. The researcher conducted discussions with four local elders those are expected to be well experienced about deforestation. The researcher also had a discussion with three women and one kebele manager in each kebele because they are believed to be familiar with the issue under investigation. The focus group discussants provided the researcher with information regarding source of energy, population growth and agricultural practices that helps the researcher to assess causes of deforestation. The focus group discussions were handled using a checklist prepared by the researcher. The ideas of focus group discussion were written on paper.

Interview: Key informant interviews were conducted three development agents,one wereda agricultural expert, one forestry supervisor, one wereda land and environmental protection office and one local farmer. The researcher has collected information from 7 key informants. These interviewees provided the researcher with information concerning deforestation and its determinants such as population growth, source of energy and agricultural practices. Information from interviewees was written on paper by the researcher.

Observation: Field observation was conducted across forest area and household heads‟ home before conducting the main survey to understand land use characteristics, livestock types, farming techniques, the living condition of the farmers, energy sources and to observe agricultural practices that have been adopted by local farmers in the area. Informal discussion with local farmers was

also held for some general information of the topic. The researcher conducted observation in order to have an understanding on the biophysical settings such as damaged forest, settlement pattern, source of energy and agricultural practice adjacent to forest. Therefore, the researcher has observed the physical environment of the study area to supplement data collected through questionnaire survey, interviews and focus group discussion. The researcher also took images of the real phenomenon like deforested area due to agricultural expansion, settlement pattern using camera.

3.2.5 Data Analysis Techniques

Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentages, cross tabulation, mean, maximum, minimum, standard deviation and graphs were employed to analyze the results. The researcher employed inferential statics with the help of SPSS software version20. To examine the research questions, the researcher employed a binary logistic regression to assess if the independent variable(s) predict the dependent variable. The binary logistic regression is an appropriate statistical analysis when the purpose of research is to assess if a set of independent variables predict a dichotomous dependent variable. Evaluation of the logistic regression model includes the overall model evaluation and a classification table showing the percentage of correct predictions. In this study, the overall model significance (model fitness) for the binary logistic regression results were examined using the χ2 omnibus test of model coefficients with p<0.05. Nagelkerke-R2 was examined to assess the percentage of variance accounted for by the independent variables. Generally speaking, the higher the R-squared statistics, the better the model fits the data. The qualitative data was analyzed based on researcher‟s judgment using narrations.

3.2.6 Data Validity and Reliability

Validity and reliability in their continuum should be recognized in every scientific research, as they are ways to establish a truth in a multiple way (Golafshani, 2003).Moreover, the researcher has observed methodological aspect on previous researches and scholarly articles written to keep constructive validity of the study. To certify the reliability, the researcher has carried out pilot survey before the actual commencement of field data collection to ensure the logical sequences and general suitability of the questions prepared for household heads questionnaire survey. The

researcher has undertaken pilot survey prior to actual survey in order to prove legibility, formats and logical sequences of questions for actual survey. The researcher distributed 10 questions to make the research valid and reliable before actual survey. Questionnaires were pre-tested by ten of farmers from one kebele to check the validity of the tool prior to the distribution of final questions. Based on the feedback obtained from the pilot test, the necessary corrections were made. In this, redundant questions were rearranged from population pertaining part. In the end, the questionnaire were redistributed to the respondents and then collected, analyzed and presented.

To keep the reliability during qualitative research process, the researcher has kept himself in a good interpersonal relation with research participants. The researcher collected appropriate data to keep reliability. The researcher kept reliability of the research by triangulating qualitative and quantitative data. Therefore, the researcher made close supervision of data enumerators to keep reliability of the research.

3.2.7 Ethical Consideration of the Research process

Ethical consideration has been seriously taken into account so that the concern, integrity, anonymity, consents and other human elements of the participants, discussants, and interviewees would be protected. The key informants were requested for their voluntariness by informing the objectives and outcomes of the research before embarking on the real data collection process. They were assured that any information concerning them will never be passed to other unauthorized persons or institutes without their consent. The names of the respondents were not specified in any part. The selected study participants were requested kindly whether they agree to participate in the study or not.

Table 3.3:The relationship between Independent and dependent variables.

Variables Code Independent Variables Relationship Code Dependent Variable X1 Age of household heads in year _ Y1 Existence of Deforestation X2 Marital status of household heads + X3 Educational status of household _ heads in class levels X4 Firewood consumption in human + loads X5 Family sizes in head count + X6 Income of household heads in birr _ X7 Land holding size of household + heads in hectares

Source: empirical study

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General Characteristics of the Sample Respondents

This paper aims at discussing some issues of deforestation, especially from socioeconomic and demographic perspective. The discussion covers the proximate-underlying causes of deforestation. This indicated the description of the sample respondents by demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the household heads. Among the 327 sample household heads, the majority actually 316 of respondents have answered/given responses to the questions incorporated in the questionnaire (see appendix I for the detail of the questionnaire). The analysis carried out in this study relied only on the data that came from these 316 respondents. Among these 101 (about 31 percent) were from Bushane Aleltu kebele , 95(25 percent) from Gute Weni kebele whereas the remaining 120 (44 %) were from Amuma Aleltu Kebele. To this effect, about 316 rural household heads were surveyed systematically from the three kebeles (Bushane Aleltu,Amuma Aleltu and Gute Weni kebeles) in Nejo Wereda. The data that came from the rural household heads survey was analyzed to describe the sample household heads in terms of demographic and socioeconomic factors and determinants of deforestation.

4.1.1 Demographic characteristics of sample respondents

The data that came from the rural household heads survey was analyzed to describe the sample household heads in terms of demographic factors and its association with determinants of deforestation. The demographic characteristics of respondents were to be considered based on family sizes, age, marital status and sex of household heads.

Table 4.1 Percentage distribution of sample household heads by Age Variable Categories Rural Kebeles administrations AmumaAleltu BushaneAleletu GuteWeni Total N % N % N % N % Age of 20-40years 40 33.3 34 33.7 38 40.0 112 35.4 HHS 41-64years 65 54.2 49 48.5 40 39.6 154 48.7 >65years 15 12.5 18 17.8 17 17.9 56 15.8 Mean 47 SD 13.276 Minimum 20 Maximum 91 Source: Household Field Survey, 2017

Table 4.1 depicts that majority of the respondents (84.1%) were mixed up of both adult group and young age groups; which were economically productive and rich in experiences. Only15.8% of respondents was regarded as old age. Demography in this respect is an important factor for development and youths are one of the main economic assets for a country. The elder groups were assumed to be well experienced to provide necessary information on the issue under investigation. The average age of respondents is 47years.The age of household heads deviates from the mean by13.376%. The minimum and maximum age of respondents is 20 and 91 years old respectively. This showed that the youngest and eldest person in the study population were 20 and 91years respectively. But there are still a significant proportion of households headed by household heads between 41-64 years old with in the three kebeles. This age distribution of household heads looks similar in the three sample kebeles.The old age distribution in the three kebeles are proportional except in the lowest old age distribution accounting 12.5% in Amuma Aleltu kebele. The youngest age category considered to be active to participate in important issues such as agricultural activities, housing, firewood collection (Hardee et al., 2010). This revealed that majority of respondents are economically active age groups. Therefore, these age groups are sensitive to

resource utilization which leads to resource depletion. This indicates that the older people are less likely to utilize forest products compared to the younger ones. This was as result of the forest related work requires more physical strength and the younger people remained more active while the older people may find themselves unable to perform. Table 4.2 Percentage distribution of respondents by Sex. Variables Categories Rural Kebeles administrations Amuma/Aleltu Bushane/Aleletu Gute/Weni Total No % NO % NO % NO % Sex of Male 110 91.7 93 92.1 88 93 291 92 household Female 10 8.3 8 7.9 7 7.4 25 8 heads Total 120 100 101 100 95 100 316 100 Source: Household survey, 2017 Characterizing the household heads demographically, the majority 110 (91.7%) and 93 (92.1%) and 88(93%) from Amuma Aleltu,Bushane Aleltu and Gute Weni kebeles respectively were male headed household heads. As indicated in table 4.2, the overall percentage of respondents (92%) were male headed household heads. Only a little proportion actually 8% from the three kebeles represents female headed household heads. Thus, the researcher may expect that men control all the resources and they are decision makers in economic, political and social affairs while the women become the receptor of all issues guided by men. This can be attributed to the cultural factors as men are traditionally assumed to be eligible for landownership rights in the family. Thus, inheritance of land in the family belongs to husbands and the right to inherit land was obvious to sons. Table4.3 Percentage distribution of respondents by marital status. Rural kebele administrations

Variables Categories Amuma Aleltu Bushane Aleltu Gute Weni Total No % No % No % No %

Marital Married 110 92 86 85.1 84 88.4 280 88.6 status of Single 5 5.0 5 1.6 household Divorced 5 4.2 7 6.9 4 4.0 16 5.1 Widowed 5 4.2 3 3.0 7 7.4 15 4.7 Total 120 100 101 100 95 100 316 100 Source: Household Field survey , 2017 The household heads in the three kebeles were also described by marital status. Majority of the household heads in the area (actually about 88.6%) are married. There was about 1.6% percentage distribution of being single unmarried where as 5.1% and 4.7% were divorced and widowed respectively. This showed that there is a variation between being married and being single unmarried, divorce and widowed. Marital status as a demographic variable is expected to influence forest coverage.Therefore, people who are married are more sensitive to forest utilization. Table 4.4 Percentage distribution of respondents by family size Variable categories Rural kebele administrations Amuma Aleltu Bushane Aleltu Gute Weni Total No % No % No % No % Family 1-3person 15 12.5 14 14 25 26 54 17.1 size of 4-6person 100 83.3 76 75.2 61 64 237 75 household >7persons 5 4.1 11 11 9 9.5 25 7.9 heads Total 120 100 101 100 95 100 316 100 Mean 5 SD 1.81 Minimum 2 Maximum 11 Source: Household Field survey , 2017 The next variable associated to demographic characteristics are the household variation in the percentage distribution of household sizes. Majority of the household heads, (75%) have family sizes between 4 and 6 persons. As indicated in the table 4.4, 17.1% of respondents‟ family sizes ranges between 1-3 persons. 7.9% of the respondents‟ family sizes accounts for more than 7 persons. The average family size of respondents in the study site is 5 persons in head count. The

minimum family size was 2 persons where as the maximum family size of respondents were 11 persons in head count. The standard deviation of family size is 1.81 which showed deviation of family size from the mean.Therefore, large family is expected to influence forest resources.

4.1.2 Socioeconomic characteristics of sample respondents

The socio-economic characteristics of survey respondents is measured based on educational background, level of income, land holding size, sources of energy, occupation. Education is the most important factor in every aspect of socio economic life of the community. Development theories teach that education is a powerful instrument of economic, social and cultural changes (Monyo, 2003). A community cannot foster development without an educated population. Businesses, large or small, are likely to choose to invest in rural areas if skilled or trainable human resources are available. It is accepted that farmers with basic education are more likely to adopt new technology and become more productive. With basic education they are better equipped to make more informed decisions for their lives and for their communities and to be active participants in promoting the economic, social and cultural dimensions of development. Table4.5: Percentage distribution of the sample respondents by Education level Variables Categories Rural Kebeles administrations AmumaAleltu BushaneAleltu Gute Weni Total NO % NO % NO % NO % Education can‟t read/write 60 50 56 55.4 63 66.3 179 56.6 status of Can read/write 40 33.3 32 31.7 24 25.3 96 30.4 household 1-8grade 17 14.2 10 9.9 4 4.2 31 9.8 heads 9-10grade 3 2.5 3 3.0 4 4.2 10 3.2 Total 120 100 101 100 95 100 316 100 Source: Household heads survey result,2017 Many of the respondents (about 56.6%) in the study area unable to read/write, that is, this percentage of the rural household heads didn‟t have access to formal or informal education

Compared to the proportion of those who are able to read/write, 30.4% of the respondents have access to basic education or any informal education where as 9.8% have gone to primary school. 3.2% of the respondents have joined secondary education. Much larger proportion, about 66.3% of the sample household heads in Gute Weni Kebele were unable to read/write or have no access to any form of education. For this fact, there can be an assumption that unwise use of natural resources specifically clearing forest, in the study area can be influenced by level of education of the respondents. Education is an input in awareness creation about forest conservation and increases the participation of the people (Chetri, 2005 cited in Abay, 2013).Therefore, we can conclude that low education status can aggravate deforestation. Table 4.6 Percentage distribution of respondents by their occupation Variables Categories Rural Kebeles administrations AmumaAleltu BushaneAleltu Gute Weni Total No % No % No % No % Main Farming 115 95.8 97 96 92 96.8 310 96.2 occupation of Civilservant 5 4.2 4 4.0 3 3.2 12 3.7 hhhs Total 120 100 101 100 95 100 316 100

Source: Household survey result, 2017 The sample household heads were asked about the main occupation/primary means of livelihood in Nejo wereda. About 95.8%, 96% and 96.8% of the sample households from Amuma Aleltu ,Bushane Aleltu and Gute Weni Kebeles respectively have said that they are farmers. No other means of livelihood is chosen except the few (4.2% from Amuma Aleltu Kebele, 4.0% from Bushane Aleltu and 3.2% from Gute Weni Kebele) said that they are civil servants respectively. Occupation of the respondents is an important socioeconomic factors expected to determine the livelihoods of the rural areas. As indicated in table 4.6 above, 96.2% of the respondents are agrarians and agricultural practices are expected to exacerbate deforestation where as 3.7% of the respondents are civil servants. Therefore, the more tendency to primary economic activity results in over exploitation of forest resources.

Table 4.7 Percentage distribution of respondents by income level Variabes Categories Rural Kebeles administrations AmumaAleltu BushaneAleltu Gute Weni Total No % No % No % No % Annual <5000birr 90 75 87 86 79 83 256 81 income of 5000- household 10000birr 25 21 14 14 13 13.7 52 16.5 heads >10000birr 5 4.2 3 3.2 8 2.5 Total 120 100 101 100 95 100 316 100

Minimum 1000 Maximum 31000 Mean 5218.1 SD 3508.7 Source: Household survey result, 2017 The advantage of analyzing the income of the respondents was to know the relation with fuel wood consumption that accelerates deforestation. Hence, the output of the above table 4.5 revealed that about 81% of the respondents in the three kebeles earn below 5000 birr per annum. Only 16.5% of the respondents earn between 5000-10000 birr per annum where as 3.2% of the respondents earn morethan10000birr per annum. The maximum and minimum annual income of household heads is 31000 and 1000 birr respectively. The standard deviation of the household head‟s income is 3508.7. The mean of the household head‟s income is also 5218.1.The information from the table 4.5 showed that household heads earn5218.1birr in average. The household head‟s income deviates from the mean by 3508.7.

From this the researcher understood that most respondent‟s income was at the lower level which may have an implication on forest utilization. Increase in income level of the household leads to energy transition in that it increases the probability of consuming modern fuels while reduced income increases the probability of consuming the traditional fuels. Poor people are obliged to exploit whatever resource they may have access (Malagnoux, et al., 2007). Environment-poverty nexus is a two-way relationship. Poverty affects the environment in different ways: poor people are forced to deplete the environment, increase economic growth of countries at the expense of environment, and by inducing societies to downgrade environmental concerns (Jehan and Umana, 2003).Therefore, we can associate that majority of the respondents 81% earns <1000birr and 98% consume traditional fuels(see figure 4.5) Figure showing land holding size distribution by respondents

6% 6% 24% 9% <1hectare 1.1-2hectares 2.1-3hectares 3.1-4hectares 55% >4hectares

Source: Household field survey,2017 Figure4.1 Land holding sizes of household heads

Figure 4.1 depicts majority of the respondents (55%) replied that they holds land ranging between 1.1-2hecteres of farm lands and 24% of the respondents said that they holds less than 1hectare.9% of the respondents hold farm land between 2.1-3hectares. Only 6% of respondents hold 3.1- 4hrctares of land where as 6% of the respondents hold more than 4hectares. The average land holding sizes of respondents is 2.21hectares with the standard deviation of 1.81.This indicates that

land holding sizes deviates from the mean by 1.81.The minimum and maximum land holding size of respondents is 0.3 and 8 hectares respectively. This may show low land holding sizes as compared to the increasing demands of farm lands. This information revealed that majority of the respondents have low land holding size that increases the demand for agricultural land.Therefore, as the demand for land use increases forest depletion also increases.

4.2 Deforestation and Related Issues Deforestation serves as a proxy for the loss of critical ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as increased risk of soil erosion in steeply sloped areas (Dasgupta et al., 2004).Though forests have a huge significance in environmental and socio-economic development of most African countries; the rate of deforestation is very high due to poor forest management practices. Rural people in developing countries living in or adjacent to forests depend on forest resources for a wide range of products and services (Hansen et al., 2006). The forest provides material benefits that could support the livelihood of communities. Trees are very important to the rural households in providing an array of products, particularly fuel wood.

The population density of the developing countries is already higher than the agricultural production of the arable land, which leads to natural resource misuse. Therefore, population growth, resource management and degradation are central elements for sustainable ecosystem functioning. Conversely, resource deterioration cumulatively leads to environmental depletion (Antoci et al., 2009 cited in Bekele, 2014).

Table 4.8 Existence of deforestation

Variables categories Frequency Percent Existence of Yes 283 89.3 deforestation in No 33 10.4 respondents‟ Total 316 100.0 locality Source: Household survey result, 2017 Household heads were also asked whether or not they had observed deforestation in their area. Evidences from table 4.8 indicated that majority of the respondents, about 89.6% agreed that forest

is depleted and recognized this as a problem. A few numbers of respondents, only 10.4% disagree to the existence of deforestation. The study area was vulnerable to deforestation due socioeconomic and demographic factors. Surprisingly an area of 315 hectares of forest was cleared from 2012 to 2016(NWAO, 2016).According to information from agricultural experts forest depletion is going on in the specified study site. Therefore, from the responses of the sampled household heads it is clear to understand that deforestation is understood by most community members in the study area. According to experienced farmers in the study villages the local area was covered by forest some two decades ago. During that time forest coverage were an important habitats for a great diversity of wild life. As stated by key informants forest was highly depleted in the study area because people in rural areas heavily relied on forest products. According to local elders the primary economic activities are more experienced in rural areas which are related to forest. However, deforestation had placed the wild life population and biodiversity at great risk.With regard to the responses of the respondents, through field observation, the researcher realized the prevalence of deforestation in the localities of respondents in general and in individual farmers‟ farm lands in particular. Whenever the researcher compare what had been practically observed on the ground and the responses of the respondents, it is possible to conclude that there is loss of forest cover due to population growth, woody biomass consumption and traditional farming system. Deforestation and the resulting environmental degradation is a major problem in Ethiopia and a key factor challenging food security, community livelihood and sustainable development, especially since 94% of the population relies on wood-based and biomass fuel for household energy ( Bishaw, 2001). Table 4.9 Cutting living forest for local consumption Do you Cut living forest Frequency percent Yes 246 77.8 No 70 22.2 Total 316 100 Source: Household Field Survey, 2017 Table 4.9 indicated majority of the respondents (77.8%) said they cut living forest for different purposes. A few respondents about 22.2% said they do not cut living trees. As indicated by interviewees rural people cut living branches of trees for fence, home furniture, lumbering, fuel

wood and crop production. As indicated by focus group discussants, people clear forests adjacent to their farm land for crop production. Information from local elders indicated that people uses trees for cooking and backing due to lack of alternative energy sources in the study site. According to development agents majority of the rural people are illiterate and they cut trees for their own purpose without considering the adverse impacts of deforestation. Accordingly rural people perceive that forest is freely given and replenish itself without human interference. Thus,wecanconclude that people use not only the dead plants but also a living braches that exacerbate deforestation. As agriculturally based population density increases in and near forested areas, the strongest relationship between population growth and deforestation occurs, as local people and young migrant families arrive at the forest frontier and clear land to provide more area for subsistence farming ( Suzi Kerr., et al 2003 cited in Frederick, 2004). Table 4.10 Current trend of deforestation Trend of deforestation Frequency Percent Decreasing 62 19.6 Increasing 146 46.2 Remain constant 108 34.2 Total 316 100 Source: Household survey result, 2017 As evidences shown in table 4.10, 46.2% of the respondents replied that deforestation is increasing. Information from key informant interviews indicated forest is still declining because the strategy of forest conservation is weak that it could not accommodate the rate at which forest is depleting. A few numbers of respondents (19.6%) said deforestation is decreasing. Others (34.2%) said deforestation is neither decreasing nor increasing. As per development agents though conservation strategy was designed, rural people have no attention for its implementation. Additional information from key informants stated that however, area enclosure and tree planting were practiced in some parts of the study site; it couldn‟t replenish the depleted forest. The current deforestation rate particularly in less developed countries is the worry of world Community because its impact is dangerous to all countries. Global demand for wood products is increasing but the forest resources of the world are decreasing (FAO, 2005). Therfore,we can generalize that deforestation is increasing due to heavy reliance of people on forest products.

Table 4.11Forest conservation strategy. Variable categories Frequency Percent Conservation yes 90 28.5 Strategy no 105 33.2 Some what 121 38.3 Total 316 100 Source: Household Field Survey, 2017 Table 4.11 indicated 33.2% of the respondents said no forest conservation strategy in the three study kebeles. According to information from interview of development agents and forestry supervisors there was very weak and weak management related to forest conservation. Added to this 38.3% of the respondents replied that there is forest conservation to some extent. Only 28.5% of the respondents are aware of forest conservation. The National Conservation Strategy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia identifies deforestation as a major problem not only in the forest proper, but also in how it impacts upon other sectors such as crop farming, animal husbandry, water resources, and wildlife habitat ( Bishaw and Abdelkadir, 2003). As indicated by development agents though forest conservation strategy was launched by government, it was not implemented in the study site due to lack of follow up by concerned bodies and low awareness of local community. As indicated by key informants, though tree planting and area closure were under taken, forests could not be regained because of adverse impacts of crop production, population growth and firewood collection as well as low attention to protect plants from illegal encroachment. As clearly indicated by key informants, there was no legal action against individuals cutting, collecting and selling natural vegetation resources in the study area. Unsustainable exploration of forest resources is considered as a threat to the country‟s forests woodland resources. Clearance of forests and woodlands areas for different uses is common in

most parts of Ethiopia (Sam, 2011 cited in Bedilu, 2016). However, the basic causes of cutting forest are similar throughout the country. They steam from growing demand for land and forest products and the lack of sustainable resource management due to the economic, social and institutional constraints. This can be concluded as the conservation strategy is not sufficient to replenish depleted forest in the study area.

4.3 Impacts of deforestation

Deforestation is one of the most important factors threatening the survival of people in Ethiopia (Bishaw, 2009 cited in Lateno, 2013). The major effects of deforestation have been deterioration of ecological systems with results in negative impacts on soil fertility, water flows and biological diversity. Deforestation has led to the decline in crop and livestock production and productivity, which threatens the livelihood of the population in the study area. Environmental degradation as a result of deforestation has reduced the goods and services that the community had access thereby negatively affecting their standard of living. Figure showing Percentage distribution of Impacts of deforestation 27.5 percent

21.5 19.9

16.8 14.2

loss of Climate soil erossion low land biodiversity change productivity degradation

Source: Household survey result, 2017 Figure 4.2 impacts of deforestation

Figure 4.2 indicated soil is highly vulnerable to deforestation. According to evidences from this figure deforestation results in soil erosion(27.5%), loss of biodiversity(21.5%), land degradation(19.9%), decline in productivity(16.8%) and climate change(14.2%) are the negative consequences of deforestation in the study area. According to the key informants, deforestation also results in loss of wild life, by seriously reducing biodiversity. A number of wild animals were found in the forest such as tiger, lion, monkey, and apes which are disappeared now from the area. From all the interviews, discussions and field observation, it was found that deforestation is widespread phenomena in the study area that negatively affected community. As per women in the study area the community members are forced to reduce the quantity of food per meal per day, reduce the number of meals taken per day, cultivate marginal land and the shortage of fuel wood in the area forced to travel long distances to collect wood for fuel and much of their time is taken up in collecting wood. The focus group discussants and key informants told the researcher that a number of life forms were destroyed from the locality due to forest loss. Due to massive felling down of trees, various species of animals are lost. They lose their habitat and forced to move new location. Some of them are even pushed to extinction. As stated by local elders, soil removes its fertility which results in decline of productivity. The key informants indicated deforestation has intensified land degradation. As learnt from key informants held with experts and development agents, deforestation affects hydrological cycle, as the contribution of forests in cycling water through evapo-transpiration is reduced. In turn, these changes lead to reduction in annual rainfall resulting in frequent failure of crops that affects livelihoods of the households in the area. Deforestation also depletes moisture in the soil and affects biomass production by altering the cycle of nutrients. The misuse of the natural resources leads to irregularity or intermittency and reduction in rainfall and such conditions do not favor any form of productive cultivation (Kobbail, 2012). This misuse of resources also has its own negative impact on active participation of the community and results conflict among users and non users. Clearances of forests have forced several of these animals to shift from their native environment. Due to this several species are finding it difficult to survive or adapt to new habitats.

4.4 Causes of Deforestatation

The causes of Ethiopian deforestation are manifold and have been recorded through Ethiopian history in association with settlement patterns and agricultural practices. Deforestation has spread since the beginning of the twentieth century as a result of dynamic demographic, political, economic and social conditions (Assefa and Bork, 2013).

Table 4.12 Percentage distribution of respondents on the causes of deforestation causes of deforestation Answer No % Population growth 83 26.3 Firewood consumption 96 30.4 Agricultural practices 92 29.1 Construction purposes 19 6 Termites 26 8.2 Total 316 100 Source: Household survey result, 2017 Table 4.12 indicated that 30.4% of the respondents replied that firewood consumption was the causes of deforestation in the study area. According to the results shown in table4.12, 26.3% of the respondents replied that forest is being depleted due to increasing number of people. This fact has been confirmed by the focus group discussants and key informants that people settle on new land due to population growth leading to deforestation. As stated by key informants people occupy new forest land due to increasing number of family. From the total sample respondents, 29.1% of them agree that the major cause of forest depletion in the study area was agricultural practices. A study report compiled by (UNFCCC, 2005 cited in Lateno, 2013) has shown that approximately 80% of the deforestation in the world today is attributed to agriculture. According to key- informants, agriculture was mentioned as the major source of livelihood for most rural households in the study area. Accordingly, maize, fruits and vegetables (banana, mango, avocado), cotton, sweet potato, sorghum and teff etc were some of the cereals and fruits important to support the livelihoods of the local communities. The farmers in the study area also told the researcher that they are extending the farm lands to the fragile forest ecosystem in an attempt to meet the increasing demand for food. The uncontrolled population growth and the associated subsequent

increase in demand for food to support the surplus population could also contribute for further deforestation. Therefore, the only chance the respondents have to increase food production is increasing agricultural land at the expense of forest areas. In fact most farmers of the study area obtain additional agricultural land in the form of crop sharing and contract. As per Kebele leaders the depletion of forest resources from time to time is for satisfying different needs of the communities. He also added that because of lack of alternatives to livelihood for local communities, they devastated in spite of their highly dependency on forests and its products. Among informants, one of the local farmers in the study area said that expanding agricultural activities were the only options sustaining our life. He further explained that, instead of using the land for forests, it was better for us to use for agriculture, because different agricultural products take few time to get the outcomes, but in case of forests it takes long time to get its outcomes. Regarding income generation, the respondent added that agricultural products took the highest contribution than forest products for local communities‟ livelihood. Direct conversion of forest area into small-scale permanent agriculture accounts for approximately 60% of the total deforestation whereas direct conversion of forest area into large-scale permanent agriculture accounts for another 10% (FAO, 2002). As indicated in the table4.12, 6% of respondents said that people clear forests for construction purposes. Ethiopia losses 100,000-200,000 hectares of forest land every year due to demands for house construction and house hold furniture (Gashew, 2001 cited in Bedilu, 2016). Others (8.2%) also stated that termite causes deforestation in the study site. Therefore, the results revealed that population growth; firewood collection, crop production, construction and termite were the main causes of deforestation. Vegetations have been cleared for the purpose of settlement, firewood, construction materials and farmlands. Local elders and key informants told the researcher that some areas which had been once covered by forests some two decades back are currently devoid of natural vegetation. 4.5 Population pressure as a determinant of deforestation Population and deforestation are interconnected phenomenon. People clear forests for socioeconomic interests. Population size also determines deforestation. Large number of people relies on forest products for energy consumption in rural areas. The rapid increasing population pressure in Ethiopian highlands has led to vast changes in land use pattern mainly caused by

increasing agricultural production. In this region cultivated lands showed slow but continuously increasing trend at the expense of forest and grasslands over the last four decades (Gete, 2000 cited in Mesfin, 2006). It increases demand for biomass as a source of fuel, leading to deforestation and increased burning of dung and crop residues, thus increasing the problems of erosion and nutrient depletion. We can conclude that population growth increases the demand for livestock products and therefore leads to increased livestock numbers, causing overgrazing and consumption of crop residues by animals. Table4.13 Settlement expansion, degree of population growth, family preference and seasonal movement of people. Variables Categories Frequency Percent Does Settlement expansion causes Yes 279 88.3 deforestation No 37 11.7 Total 316 100.0 Degree of population growth Rapid 186 58.9 very rapid 108 34.2 Slow 22 7.0 Total 316 100.0 Do you prefer large family size Yes 210 66.5 No 106 33.5 Total 316 100

Do you make a seasonal Yes 269 85.1 movement to areas where there is No 47 14.9 access to farm land? Total 316 100 Source: Household survey result, 2017 As of table 4.13 majorities of the respondents (88.3%) said that settlement expansion causes deforestation where as 11.7% were not. During Dargue regime the subsequent famine prompted the survival mechanism among Ethiopian subsistence farmers to migrate from the north(Amhara) to Southwest Ethiopia in search of not only humanitarian aid camps, but also arable land where they could continue to maintain agricultural output. However, as all the readily accessible land in lower elevations was already occupied, the new immigrants had no choice but to settle in remote

locations at higher elevations and clear the land of trees to make a living where the profits to be made from farming are much lower due to the lower soil quality and greater transportation costs (Getahun et al., 2013). The local elders told the researcher that youngsters occupy new lands after marriage. According to focus group discussants a newly married youngsters occupy near forest area due to lack of farm land shared from their family. This revealed that settlement accelerates deforestation due to increasing number of people. As per information from development agents rural farmers clear forest areas for agricultural purposes when soil loses its fertility due to the fact that as a number of family increases the demand for agricultural land also increases. Focus group discussants told the researcher as a number of people increases the demand for forest products also increases which results in forest depletion. The growing population is demanding ever-larger forest supplies and increasing numbers of people are settling and recreating on the primary forest resources (Minahan, 2000 cited in Abay, 2013). During face-to-face interview with key informants and selected experts from wereda office of land administration and environmental protection, it was expressed that it is a reality that population growth exacerbates deforestation in the study area. According to these informants, farmers need large farm land sizes because; the number of family size is increasing. According to evidences from focus group discussion cultivable land is constant while the number of family is increasing which results in shortage of farm land. The population density of the developing countries is already higher than the agricultural production of the arable land, which leads to natural resource misuse. Resource deterioration cumulatively leads to environmental deterioration ( Antoci et al., 2009 cited in Bekele, 2014). According to evidences from (NWAO, 2016) population increases by 2.9% and the household size grows by 4.8% in the study area. As indicated in Table4.13 majority of the respondents (58.9%) answered population is growing rapidly. Experts from Wereda Agricultural Office told the researcher that statistics of population shows increament from year to year. According to (NWAO, 2016) the population density of the wereda is 159/km2. This implies 159 persons occupied over 1km2 in the study area. This revealed that population is increasing fast that increases demand in forest products. As evidences from key informants and focus group discussants people‟s livelihood relies on crop production and firewood as the main energy sources. This implied rapid population

growth which has led to over utilization of traditional energy in rural areas. Therefore, the researcher concluded that majority of the study area relied on agriculture for their livelihood and agricultural expansion for crop production results in forest depletion. Population pressure has been the major driver of the problem, and has resulted in extensive conversion of forest and vegetation- covered lands into cultivation and grazing land (Scherr, 2000 cited in Bekele, 2014). Therefore, as population increases the need for agricultural land and amount of energy consumption increases. Among the most devastative factor is prevailing rapid population growth that has been exerting serious stress on natural resources in Ethiopia. The population growth rate of Ethiopia is 3.21 percent per year, one of the highest rates in the world. This has created a severe burden on lands in Ethiopia particularly in the highlands where 80% of the human population lives (Aklilu, 2006 cited in Messay, 2011). As a result of the scarcity of land in the highlands, the farmers have been forced to cultivate marginal areas (areas of very steep slopes, shallow soils, etc). Additional evidence from table4.13 indicated that 66.5% of respondents said that they prefer large family size. Only 33.5% of respondents do not prefer large family size. As stated by key informants people prefer large family size because children are considered as assets and grantee at old age. Therefore, the researcher concluded that people encourage large family size which results in resource scarcity leading to overexploitation of the limited resources in the study area. Results from this table4.13indicated that 85.1% of respondents replied that they move from their home lands to other areas where there are sufficient lands. Only 14.9% of respondents do not move to other areas. Key informants told the researcher that agrarians move from place to place to access to farm land particularly during summer season. One of the local elder told the researcher that forest areas are occupied by newly married youths since 2010(look at figure4.3 below). The figure taken during the field survey displays the newly built up area and the settlement expanding across free land.

(Photo taken by writer, April, 2017 Figure 4.3 Settlement expansions across forest area

4.6 Agricultural practices as a cause of deforestation

Forest clearance to facilitate expansion of agricultural land is driven not only by population growth, but also low agricultural production rates. Table 4.14 Agricultural practices, techniques, system, land acquisition, types of crops and forest clearing. Variables Categories Frequency Percent Main agricultural Crop production 262 82.9 activities Off farm activities 19 6.0 Livestock production 35 11.1 Total 316 100 Clearing forest land Yes 271 85.6 to get farm land No 45 14.2 Total 316 100.0 How you acquire Inheritance 183 57.9 your farm land by government 102 32.3 free access to land 31 9.8 Total 316 100.0 Farming system Traditional farming 279 88.3 practiced Use of Modern inputs 37 11.7 Total 316 100.0 Types of crops Cereals crops 291 92.1 produced on farm Oil seeds 25 7.9 lands Total 316 100 Agricultural Oxen plow techniques 312 98.7 techniques used on Human labor 4 1.3 farm plots Total 316 100 Source: Household survey result, 2017 As indicated by table 4.14 majority of the respondents, 82.9% said crop productions (maize, sorgum,millet and teff) were the main agricultural practices in their locality. A few number of respondents (6%) replied that they live based on off farm activity. Others about, 11.1% take part in animal rearing. As evidences from focus group discussion indicate a few numbers of people‟s

livelihoods relied on metal and wood work due to mainly lack of farm land. Key informants told the researcher that there are a number of people with scarce farm lands and these people involve in rearing of cattle and sheep. Agriculture is the dominant sector of the Ethiopian economy, with 85% of the population living in rural areas. Agriculture provides about 52% of the country's gross domestic product, 80%of its employment, and 90% of its export earnings (World Bank, 2000).Ethiopia's economy is largely dominated by subsistence agriculture particularly; crop and livestock farming are the principal practices. Mixed farming dominates the highlands, with crop and livestock farming practiced in the same management unit. The production system is mainly rain fed, subsistence-based, and smallholder-oriented (CIA,2001). Table 4.14 indicated that majority of the respondents (85.6%) replied that they involved in clearing forests to get farm land. As per information from focus group discussants, crop production is a dominant economic activity in the study area and people clear forest area to expand farm lands. Local elders told the researcher that people clear forests adjacent to their farm land due to shortage of agricultural land. As indicated by local elders, farmers are exposed not only to shortage of farm lands but also loss of soil fertility. As key informants indicated land is one of the necessary constraints of the households in the study area. Focus group discussants told the researcher that newly formed household heads have no option to get farmlands elsewhere except sharing from their parents. Forest clearance to facilitate expansion of agricultural land is driven not only by population growth, but also low agricultural production rates. In some areas majority of the farming households cultivate plots less than 0.5 hectares in size, which is usually insufficient for providing nutrition all year round, and which in turn drives the clearance of even more marginal land. Low productivity combined with further declines in soil fertility from lack of forest cover, soil erosion, erratic rainfall, pests and diseases, and an inability to purchase fertilizers and improved seed because of a lack of off-farm employment further compounds the problem of deforestation (Assefa and Bork, 2013).This death of fertile land and alternative employment to supplement farm income is critical in continuing deforestation practices. Traditionally, subsistence or smallholder farmers farmed only the most suitable land in relatively flat areas with access to nearby roads and near settlements with complementary job opportunities.

Table 4.14 indicates, majority of respondents (57.9%) acquired their farm lands through inheritance. During field survey, many farmers reported that they do not have enough agricultural land to produce enough food for their family. A few number of respondents (9.8%) said that they occupied the land without any legal procedure. Only 32.3% of the respondents got their land by government distribution. Therefore, this revealed the inherited land could not be proportional to the large family size (see table 4.4). As indicated by focus group discussants and key informants they inherited a small amount of plots of land which was insufficient for an increasing number of family sizes. Sharing of the farmland has further aggravated the problem of farm land fragmentation and resulted in difficulty to practice land management activities on small size plots (Senait, 2002). Table 4.14 stated that majority (88.3%) of respondents said they practiced traditional farming system. Only 11.7% of respondents replied they use modern inputs on their farm lands. As per information from development agents, a few number of farmers practiced modern means of agriculture like extension package, crop rotation, use of modern input. The wereda experts told the researcher that farmers apply extensive agriculture which covers large areas of farm land with low technological input due to inability to cope up with agricultural intensification. This revealed that farming practice is influential factors on the problem under investigation. According to evidences from focus group discussion there is poor farming system in rural areas that intensify deforestation. As information obtained from key informant interviews, people clear large areas of forest for crop production using their own oxen. Others key informants indicated that they plow their land using land leasing for crop sharing. The more tendency to primary economic activities leads to the more resource exploitation. An ongoing exponential population growth, the large proportion of people who are employed in subsistence farming and the slow adoption of modern farming techniques lead to deforestation (Getahun et al.,2013). Additional evidence from table4.14 indicated that 92.1% of respondents replied that they produce cereal crops on their farm lands. Only7.9% of respondents said they produce oil seeds in small amount. People converts forests to some other land cover, almost always to crops, pastures, or plantations such as oil palm (Sills, 2008 cited in Fekadu, 2015). Key informants told the researcher that people in the study site dominantly exercise shifting cultivation and hoe culture and level of

food crop production in these communities is subsistence, while they have the custom of consuming and living on cereal crops. Information from farmers indicated that Crops such as sorghum, maize and teff are the major cereals grown in the area and they occupy the largest proportion of the cultivated land. Oil crops such as groundnut are grown mainly as cash crops. Additional Evidences from the table 4.14 revealed that surprisingly 98.7% of the respondents use oxen plow technique on their farm lands where as 1.3% of the respondents use human labor to till their farm lands. This revealed that no one of the local farmers use modern farm machines on their farm lands. These traditional techniques of land tillage follows decline in productivity which exposes farmers to extensive agriculture. During field work, the researcher has observed that large forest area cleared for crop production. Figure showing farm land expansion across forest land

Photo taken by the writer, 2017 Figure 4.4 Agricultural expansion

4.7 Energy consumption as a cause of deforestation

Fuel wood is a significant source of energy in both developing and developed countries. It is estimated that about 45 percent of the wood consumed in the world is used for home heating and cooking. Ethiopian‟s per capita consumption is about 1.5 m3 of fuel wood per year. As in any rural areas of Ethiopia, the source of energy in the study area is largely biomass energy, particularly trees. Fuel wood is used as fuel for both cooking and lighting. Consequently, vast numbers of trees are cut each year, adding significantly to the rate of deforestation (Desta, 2001cited in Lateno, 2013). 4.7.1 Sources of Energy in Rural Areas Ethiopia‟s national energy balance is dominated by traditional (biomass) fuels. The fact that the majority of biomass supplies are coming from an unsustainable resource base coupled with the use of very low efficiency household cooking appliances poses serious environmental concerns. Biomass resources include wood, agricultural residue, municipal waste and bio fuels. Wood and as well as livestock residue are used beyond sustainable yield with negative environmental impacts. Owing to rapidly growing population, however, the nation‟s limited biomass energy resource is believed to have been depleting at an increasingly faster rate. The energy sector relies heavily on biomass energy resources, consumed by household sector. Biomass energy supplies are coming mainly from unsustainable resource base (WBISPP, 2005).

Figure showing percentage distribution of energy sources in rural areas

firewood crop residue

98%

Source: Household Field survey, 2017 Figure 4.5 Sources of energy in rural areas

Figure 4.5 indicated that 98% of respondents replied that firewood was the main source of energy in the study site. A few number of respondents (2%) said they use crop residue as a supplementary energy sources. Information from local elders indicated that firewood was a dominant energy source in the rural areas and households in rural areas use firewood for cooking and lighting. Energy consumption pattern, the main characteristics of developing countries are their dependence on biomass fuel particularly on forest resources which is strongly seen in Ethiopia too (Asress, 2002). The rural areas in developing countries mainly depend on traditional biomass as fuel (Eshete et al., 2006). For Ethiopia, the main sources are woody biomass, animal dung and crop residue. According to the focus group discussants and information from key informants, people heavily use wood and other forest products for cooking due to lack of alternative energy sources. For example information from all focus group discussants and around 98%, 2% sample respondents from figure 4.5 revealed that, their major sources of fuel for cooking was firewood, and other agricultural residue respectively. Regarding this, focus group discussants and key

informant interview participants confirmed that villagers depend heavily on forest resources to meet energy demands. This revealed alternative modern energy sources are not widely developed in the study site and high demand for fuel wood in Ethiopia causes an acute scarcity of wood. Information from key informants indicated that parts of the tree used by respondents for different purposes in the Study area varied considerably. As stated by focus group discussants, although the majority of local people concentrated very much on the use of deadwood, there was also a clear tendency towards the use of living branches as sources of wood products rather than using the whole tree. As (Zewdu et al., 2010) noted that one challenge Ethiopia faces in light of managing forest resources for multiple purposes including carbon is that the national energy balance is dominated by fuel wood, which is the main source of energy for both urban and rural areas, accounting for over 90% of the primary total energy supply. From this, one can understand that, cutting of wood for energy sources is not only the major problem of deforestation in the study area but also the country at large. In a low technology and poverty-stricken society like Ethiopia, the main source of fuel for cooking and heat is wood or charcoal made from wood, and this is one of the chief causes of deforestation. Wood is the primary source of household energy consumption in most rural areas and in poorer households in urban areas. It is used for cooking, heating, lighting, brewing and smithing. Even relatively modern facilities can be dependent on fuel wood. For example ( Assefa & Bork, 2013 ) report that hotels and higher educational institutions and schools in Southern Ethiopia use wood for energy, mainly for catering. In these areas wood is cheaper than electricity and is readily available in comparison with the unreliability of electricity supplies. Table4.15 Energy consumption and its shortage Variables scale Frequency Percent Do you think woody biomass consumption Yes 275 87.0 exacerbates deforestation No 41 13.0

Is there shortage of energy in your locality? Yes 300 94.9 5.1 No 16 100 Total 316

Source: Household Field Survey, 2017

Table 4.15 indicated majority of respondents (87.0%) clearly stated that biomass consumption exacerbates deforestation in the study site. Additional evidence in table 4.15, indicated majority of the respondents (94.9%) said there was scarcity of energy in rural areas. Surprisingly, 99.4% of respondents replied that there were no alternative energy sources in the study site. Information from focus group discussion revealed that people are forced to use firewood as a dominant energy sources in the rural areas due to scarcity of modern energy sources like electricity. As indicated by key informants people consume firewood in their daily life due to lack of electricity in rural areas. People cut trees for the sake of energy consumption. Therefore, we can understand that massive destruction of forests cause deforestation. Figure showing amount of firewood consumption in human loads

percent 81.3

15.5

3.2

one load two loads Three loads

Source: Household Field Survey, 2017 Figure 4.6 firewood load consumed per day

Figure 4.6 indicated majority of respondents (81.3%) replied that they collect one human load of firewood per day. Others (15.5%) said they collect two human loads of wood per day. This

revealed that nearly the entire respondents collected more than one load of wood for cooking. Others (3.2%) also replied that three loads of firewood were consumed in a day. Similar study indicated that nearly 2.5 billion people throughout the world depend on wood fuels for cooking (Legros et al., 2009).As key informant interviewees and focus group discussants indicated people cut li ving trees to use as firewood which results in deforestation. As indicated by key informants one person from the family collect firewood per day interchangeably. This revealed that using firewood damage forest cover in rural areas. 4.8 Degree of Association Between variables Table 4.16 Cross tabulation of education level vs family size Varia Categories family size of household head Total X2 p- ble 1-3persons 4-6persons >7persons No % value Educa can't read and 51 116 12 179 57 63.71 0.000 tion write level can read and write 1 90 5 96 30.4

1-8grade 2 26 3 31 10 9-10grade 0 5 5 10 3.2 Total 54 237 25 316 100 Source: Household Field Survey, 2017 Table4.16 indicates large family size were not well educated. Education level has to do with family size, which in turn, has a direct or indirect effect in the wise utilization of resources. Cross tabulation was applied to investigate, if there was statistically significant association between family size and education level. The output of the above table4.16 reveals that there was strong relationship between education level and the family size at(x2=63.71, p=0.000). This implies those households with relatively low education level have large family sizes. The result also revealed that with increasing level of education the number of family size decreases. Evidences in table4.16 stated that 57% of respondents with family size between 4-6 persons can‟t read and write. Thus, anyone can understand that household heads with low level of education tend to consume more resources unwisely. Large family size also needs more agricultural land which was one of attributes for the depletion of the surrounding vegetation resources in the study area.

Table 4.17 Cross tabulation of family size vs marital status of respondents Variable Categorie Family size of household heads Total X2 p-value s 1- 4-6person >7pers No % 3persons on Marital Single 5 0 0 5 1.6 95.8 0.000 status of Married 46 222 12 280 88.6 76 househol divorced 0 12 4 16 5.1 d heads widowed 3 3 9 15 5 Total 54 237 25 316 100 Source: Household Field Survey, 2017 Results of the table4.17 indicate that 88.6% of respondents are married. This shows statistically significant association among family size and marital status of household heads. The output of table4.17 revealed that there was a strong relationship between family size and marital status of households with(x2=95.876, p= 0.000). This indicated those household heads with relatively large family size were married. Thus, anyone can conclude that respondents who are married have large family size which results in increase in demand of forest resources. Table 4.18 Cross tabulation of family size vs firewood consumption Firewood consumption in human Total X2 p- Variable Categories load value

1load 2loads 3loads No % Family 1-3persons 51 3 0 54 17.1 32.94 0.000 size in 4-6persons 192 40 5 237 75 head >7persons 14 6 5 25 8 count Total 257 49 10 316 100 Source: Household Field Survey, 2017 Table 4.18 indicated that household heads with large family size consume more energy. Table 4.18 revealed the statistically significant association among family size and firewood consumption.

The output of the above table4.18 reveals that there was strong relationship between firewood consumption and the family size with(x2=32.94, p-value= 0.000). This revealed that 75% of respondents with relatively larger family size (4-6persons) need more energy. With the increase of family size there was also increase in demand for large amount of firewood loads. Thus, consuming large amount of traditional energy sources was one of the factors for the depletion of the surrounding vegetation resources. In line with this (Bereket, 2001) stated that the major user of energy in the household, accounting for 98.4% of the overall energy consumption. Therefore, the researcher concluded that biomass energy is the dominant energy sources for the rural people and the demand in energy consumption increases with increasing family size in the study area. Table 4.19 Pearson Correlation of Family size vs Firewood loads, education level and land holding size. Family size Firewoodloads Education Land holding consumed per day level size family size Pearson 1 .257** .311** .296** correlation Sig.(2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 316 316 316 316 Firewood Pearson .257** 1 .718** .569** loads correlation consumed Sig.(2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 per day N 316 316 316 316 Education Pearson .311** .718** 1 .624** level correlation Sig.(2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 316 316 316 316 Land Pearson .296** .569** .624** 1 holding correlation size Sig.(2-tailed .000 .000 .000 N 316 316 316 316 Source: Compiled from house hold survey, 2017

Pearson correlation was applied to investigate, if there was statistically significant association among family size, fire wood loads, education level and land holding size. The output of the above table4.19 reveals that there was positive relationship between wood consumption as fuel with the Family size. This implies those household heads with relatively larger family size consume more fuel wood. With an increase in family size there was also an increase in amount of fire wood. Thus, fire wood consumption of the rural area was one of attributes for the depletion of the surrounding vegetation resources. The consumption in energy is directly correlated with the size of population and with the availability of biomass energy. Additional evidence in this table indicated that family size and land holding size have significant association at p<0.05 significance level. The analysis result also showed that there was strong relationship between family size and education level at p<0.05 significance level. Therefore, we can conclude that these explanatory variables have linear relationship and influences forest coverage in the study site.

Table 4.20 Parameter Estimates of Deforestation in Nejo Wereda. Independent variables Existence of deforestation β SE Wald Df Sig. Exp(β) 95%c.l for Exp(β) Lower Upper Firewood in human 2.766 .823 11.28 1 0.001 15.891 3.164 79.804 loads 3 Age of household heads -2.196 .708 1 0.002 0.111 0.028 0.446 9.619 Education level of 1.838 .4811 14.61 1 0.000 6.285 2.449 16.126 household heads 7

Marital status of -5.781 .108 27.22 1 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.027 household heads 7

Family size of 1.988 .794 6.271 1 0.012 7.289 1.540 34.578 household heads

Income level of -1.922 .834 5.313 1 0.021 0.146 0.029 0.750 household heads Land holding size of 1.908 .3841 24.71 1 0.000 6.739 3.176 14.297 household heads 6

Constant 0.897 1.429 .394 1 0.530 2.452 Omnibus Chi-square x2=96.620, p=0.000 Nagelkerke R-square R2=0.540 Source: Household Field Survey, 2017 Variable(s) entered: Firewood in human loads, Age in head count, Education level of household heads, marital status of household heads, Family size of household heads, Income level of household heads, Land holding size of household heads.

Firewood in human loads: The results in table 4.20 above indicated that there were strong association between traditional energy consumption and existence of deforestation. The analysis result revealed that firewood consumption was statistically significant at (β=2.766, p=0.001).Therefore, we can conclude that energy consumption exacerbates deforestation in the study site. This can be interpreted as increase in amount of fire wood consumption increases deforestation. We can then say that increase in one load of firewood consumption increases deforestation 16 times. Education level of household heads: The logistic regression analysis reported that there was relationship between education level and forest loss. Obviously level of education is believed to be a very important indicator of deforestation. Majority of the respondents (56.6%) couldn‟t read and write. As stated in table 4.3, only 12.2% of the respondents have joint formal education. As indicated in table 4.20 the overall level of education came to be one of the significant variable that affect forest coverage among household heads at (β=1.838, p=0.000).This is because low level of education was more likely to expose farmers to deforestation. Household heads level of education as a demographic variable, showed significant association with deforestation. Therefore, the researcher concluded that increase in one unit of illiteracy increases deforestation by 6 times in the study site. Age of household heads: The study revealed that the household heads age was statistically significant at (B=-2.196, p=0.002).This revealed that there is significant association between farmers age and forest utilization. As table 4.1 above indicated, the mean age of respondents is 47 which is economically active age group and sensitive to resource utilization. It was statistically significant that adult age groups were exposed to deforestation. Therefore, we can conclude that age category is more influential to the existence of deforestation. Thus, increase in old age group results in decrease in deforestation because they are thought to be less active age group in resource exploitation. Therefore, increase in one year age reduces deforestation by 0.28 times. Family size of household heads: As shown in Table 4.20 there was a statistically significant association between family size and forest loss. That is household heads with higher family size tend to have exploit resources more than those small household sizes. The degree of association between these variables is found to be strongly significant actually to the error less than 5% look at (β=1.988, p=0.012). From this one can conclude that with increasing numbers of family sizes,

there has been a related change in the pattern of socioeconomic activities like agriculture and energy consumption which is still essentially small holder relying on expanding the cultivated area, often into marginal land (vegetation area). The results revealed that the larger family sizes have a greater demand of forest products which can exacerbates deforestation. Therefore, as a numbers of family increases the amount of energy consumed would also be increased and the need to have large farm land size also increases. Thus, one person increase in family increases forest depletion 7 times. Income of household heads: Additional evidence from table4.20 showed that income was statistically significant at (-1.922, p=0.021).The results revealed that the overall income level and deforestation is inversely related. This indicated that as income level of household heads increases deforestation decreases. As majority (81%) of respondents earn income below 5000birr per annum. Thus, low income level influences deforestation. This showed that decrease in income forces people to relay on primary economic activities and consume more traditional energy. Thus, inability to buy agricultural inputs exposes farmers to apply extensive agriculture rather than adopting intensification techniques. Therefore, one unit increase in income reduces deforestation 0.146 times. Land holding sizes of household heads: Land holding size is a socioeconomic factors determining deforestation. Table 4.20 showed that land holding size was statistically significant at (1.908, p= 0.000). The result showed that as shortage of farm land increases the rate of forest depletion increases. As indicated in figure 4.1 the average land holding size of respondents is 2.21hectares which is thought to be small for agricultural activities to support their livelihoods. This revealed that people with scarce farm lands tends to move to marginal lands to expand agricultural areas which would exacerbate deforestation in the study site. Therefore, the researcher concluded that the need to increase farm lands increases forest depletion. Marital status of household heads: Table 4.20 showed the association between marital status and forest depletion. Table 4.20 revealed that there was statistically significant association between overall marriage status and deforestation at (β=-5.781, p=0.000).Therefore, probability of being married, single unmarried, divorce and widowed were seen as a factor of deforestation in the study site. Thus, as a number of being single unmarried, divorce and widowed increases deforestation

increases. As a number of being married increases the demand for forest resources also increases which would exacerbate deforestation in the study site. The study employed binary logistic regression analysis to test the significance association between explanatory variables and dependent variable. For analysis purpose, the study considered socioeconomic and demographic variables such as age, family size, marital status, education level, firewood consumption, farm land size and income. The study results showed that age, family size, education level, firewood consumption, farm land size, income level and marital status were statistically significant at (p<0.05) for the dependent variable. The study also employed chi-square to test the association between socioeconomic and demographic variables. The overall model significance for the binary logistic regression was examined using the χ2 omnibus test of model coefficients. The overall significance and fitness of the logistic model was determined by its chi- square test at (x2=96.620, p=0.000). Thus, the explanatory variables can significantly predict the dependent variable. The model fetidness of the analysis was determined by R-square coefficient with 0.540 which showed the explanatory variables explained the dependent variable by 54%.

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

The purpose of this study was to investigate determinants of deforestation. Thus, this chapter presents conclusions of the study and possible recommendations based on the results and discussions. 5.1 Conclusion In this finding majority of the respondents responded that forest is depleted and recognized this as a problem due to different causes like socioeconomic and demographic factors. This misuse of resources is not only adversely affecting forest resources but also had negative impact on nearby life forms. The finding of the research also showed that high population growth rate and the subsequent rising demands for crop land, construction material, fuel wood, settlement and termites were the main factors responsible for the decline of forest resources. Though people involve in forest conservation practices, illegal cutting of tree, fuel wood collection of living trees and harvesting other forest products in the specified study area is still going on due to weak legal action on illegal users and lack of alternative energy sources as well as weak conservation measures. Different analytical techniques were applied to analyze the available information. Percentage was used to identify the existence of deforestation in the study site. Descriptive statistics such as mean, frequency, percentage, cross tabulation with chi-square test and standard deviation were employed to test the association between sampled household heads‟ characteristics and deforestation. The descriptive analysis results showed that there was a significant association between socioeconomic and demographic variables. The logistic regression result showed that there was statistically significant association between deforestation and majority of socioeconomic and demographic variables. The socioeconomic factors such as land holding size, education level, income and fuel wood consumption also influences forest coverage in the study site. The descriptive results indicated that demographic factors like age, family size and marital status were significantly associated with forest depletion. Majority of adults inherited small farm land size and engaged in clearing forests adjacent to their farm land. Household family size also influences forest coverage with p<0.05. The result indicated that as family size increases the demand for forest products increase. The major reason was large family members have a greater demand for forest products such as firewood, agricultural land and construction materials. The

qualitative sources of data obtained through interview and focus group discussion were employed to supplement the logistic regression and descriptive results. The descriptive results of the study showed that agriculture was the main cause of deforestation in the study site. Accordingly farmers plow their land through traditional method using oxen plow techniques. Evidences from key informants and focus group discussants showed that the way farmers acquire farm land, shortage of farm land, the techniques they use on their farm land exacerbate deforestation. The regression result indicated that land holding size was statistically significant at p<0.05. The analysis results on domestic energy consumption had shown that majority of the respondents in the study area used firewood for domestic energy due to absence of alternative energy sources. The descriptive results showed that majority of respondents consume traditional energy sources and the regression results revealed firewood consumption was statistically significant at p<0.05. The three objectives were fitted to logistic regression supplemented by descriptive results of questionnaire survey and qualitative information from key informants and focus group discussants. The study employed binary logistic regression analysis to test the significance of the explanatory variables with dependent variable. For analysis purpose, the study considered socioeconomic and demographic variables such as age, family size, marital status, education level, firewood consumption, farm land size and income. The study results showed that age, family size, education level, firewood consumption, farm land size, income level and marital status were statistically significant at (p<0.05) for the dependent variable. The study also employed chi-square to test the association between socioeconomic and demographic variables. The overall model significance for the binary logistic regression was examined using the χ2 omnibus test of model coefficients at(x2=96.620, p=0.000). Thus, the explanatory variables can significantly predict the dependent variable. The model fetidness of the analysis was determined by R-square coefficient with 0.540 which showed the explanatory variables explained the dependent variable by 54%. Generally the findings identified from the analysis revealed that the forest resources have been utilized in unsustainable manner due to population pressure with increasing woody biomass demand and traditional agricultural practices.

5.2 Recommendations Based on the research findings, the following recommendations are considered to be vital in reducing deforestation and enhancing sustainable forest management and conservation in the study area: The results indicated that firewood collection, expansion of agricultural land and population growth are major problems of forest destruction. To overcome such problems, legal actions should be taken on illegal users and public awareness strategy should be grounded in credible, up-to-date and based on relevant information in order to change public attitudes and behaviors; heavy extension efforts are needed to highlight people‟s awareness about the causes of forest depletion, to reduce forest depletion and encourage tree planting. Moreover, Forestry-related information is better to promote through formal and informal education sectors.  The study revealed that there was increasing family size which has strong association with deforestation. Thus, to prevent the population pressure and its impact on the forest resources and thereby improving the living conditions of the inhabitants, strong family planning, and awareness creation campaigns with adequate health services should be introduced in the study area.  The gap between demand and supply for fuel wood is increasing with time. It is better to bring significant change in forest resources depletion through identifying alternative sources of energy under top priority. Using local innovative methods like bio gas and wood saving stove.  In addition to awareness creation, dissemination of energy efficient technologies and alternative energy may decrease the burden of forest resources and woodlands.  Therefore, improved saving stoves for fuel wood should be widely introduced and distributed until energy transition process achieves in long run since the elements of wood are extensively used in the rural areas. Therefore, the rural population should be encouraged to use alternative energy sources.  The study result indicated that farm land size of household heads have significant association with deforestation, therefore the researcher suggests, the rural people should use technological inputs like farm equipments, selective seeds, irrigation implementation and intensive farm techniques to protect agricultural expansion in the forest area, there

should be strong effort for the enforcement and realization of forest policy, rule and regulation that protect the forest from damage.  The study revealed that there was low level of literacy and when the overall level of education increased people‟s understanding toward forest resources utilization increased. Therefore, findings suggest that forestry research program should be prepared and focus on providing data, information and guidelines for efficient forest management practices and conservation strategies, providing new resilience and adaptive species of plants to the environment, reforestation planning and development, agro forestry practices and social/participatory forestry initiatives. Therefore, any development activities, particularly, agricultural activities practiced in rural areas must be environmentally friendly.  Incentives should be provided to encourage investment in forestry development and conservation as well as to encourage participation of the community. Recruiting professional staff at appropriate time and appropriate place, key messages, promotional vehicles and potential sponsors should be identified. The best solution to deforestation is to curb the felling of trees, by applying the existing rules and laws to govern it. Trees are being planted under several initiatives every year, but they still don‟t match the numbers of the ones we‟ve already lost. Thus, cutting must be replaced by planting young trees to replace the older ones that were cut.

References AbayTafere.(2013).Factors affecting forest user‟s participation in participatory forest management. Evidence from Alamata Community Forest, Tigray; Ethiopia. Agrawal, A.(2001). Common Property Institution and Sustainable Governance of Resources. World developmentvol.29.No.10,pp 1649-1672, 2001 published by Elsevier science Ltd. Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Rome. Italy. Ahmed, A. I. Mahbub Uddin .(2002).Baseline Socio-Economic Survey--Phase One Under Forestry Sector Project (ADB Project BAN NO.1486). Final Report. (Dhaka: Kranti Associates Ltd.) Alina Bradford.(2015).A cleared forest in Riau Province,Sumatra,Indonesia. Asress W/Giorgis .(2002) Overview of Energy States and Trends in Ethiopia. Energy in Ethiopia: Status, Challenges and Prospects. -Proceedings of Energy Conference 2002. Professional Associations‟ Joint Secretariat, Addis Ababa AssefaTagne and Bork.(2013). Deforestation and Forest Management in Southern Ethiopia: Investigations in the Chencha and Arbaminch Areas. Environmental management, 53:284-299 Baland, J.M., P. Bardhan, S.Das . (2010a). the Environmental Impact of Poverty: Evidence from Firewood Collection in Rural Nepal, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 59(1): 23–62.

BediluTesfaye.(2016). Impact of Urban expansion on Forest resources: The case of Birbir Town, Gamo Goffa Zone, Snnpr, Ethiopia

Bedru Babulo .(2007). Economic valuation and Management of Common-Pool Resources: the case of enclosures in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Doctoral dissertation

Bekele Dawit.(2014). The status of community participation in the rehabilitation of degraded land. a case study of shebedino woreda, sidama zone, southern ethiopia.

Bereket Kebede, Abebe Shimelis and Mokonnen Taddesse .(2001). Affordability of Fuels and Patterns of Energy Demand in Ethiopia. Nairobi: Kenya. Berry. (2003). Land Degradation in Ethiopia: Its extent and Impact. Commissioned by the GM with WB support

Bhattacharya, H. and Innes, R. (2006). Is There a Nexus between Poverty and Environment in Rural India? Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California-2006.

Bishaw Badege and AbdelkadirAbdu.(2003).Agroforestry and Community Forestry for Rehabilitiation of Degraded Watersheds on the Ethiopian Highlands. Available at http://etff.org/Articles/Agroforestry_and_Community_forestry_Bishaw_and_Abdelkadir.p df .The case of community based approaches in Ethiopia, FAO, Rome, Italy 1-44

BishawBadege.(2001).Deforestation and Land Degredation in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Strategy for Physical Recovery. Northeast African Studies, 8(1), 7-25.

Boucher DH, Elias P, lininger,May-Tobin C, Roquemore S and saxon E.(2011). The root of problem; what is deriving tropical deforestation today? CIA.(2001).TheWorldFactbookEthiopia.http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/et.html Collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Creswell,J.W.(2009).Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approach (3rd.),London:SAGE publications . Dasgupta, N.(2004). Implicit in group favoritism, out group favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17, 143-169. DestaHamito.(2001).Research Methods in forestry. Principles and practices with particular references to Ethiopia. Larenstein University of professional Education, Deventer.The Netherlands, pp.682 Eshetu Zawude, Moges Yohannes and Nune Sisay.(2006). Ethiopian forest resources: Current status and future management options in view of access to carbon finances. Ethiopian Climate Research and Networking and the United Nations Development Programme, Addis Ababa

FAO. (1995).Forest Resource Assessment 1990-Survey of Tropical Cover and Study of Change process.FAO Forestry paper130.Rome.152pp. FAO .(2000).On Definitions of Forest and Forest Change. Forest Resources Assessment Program, Working Paper 33. www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp FAO.(2001).Global Forest resource Assessment2000.Committee on forestry, FAO forestry paper147.Rome, Italy FAO. (2002). Proceedings; Second export Meetings on Harmonizing Forest related Definitions for use by various Stakeholders, Rome FAO. (2005). Economic and Social Significance of Forests For Africa's Sustainable Development Accra,Ghana

FAO.(2005).State of the World‟s forests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

FAO .(2006).Global Forest Resources Assessement2005: progress toward sustainable forest Management. United Nations FAO Forestry paper147. Rome, Italy.

FAO .(2009). Towards defining degradation, by Markku Simula FRA working paper 154. Rome. FAO .(2010). Global Forest Resource Assessment 2010. Full report.FAO forestry paper 163, Rome FAO .(2010). Progress towards Sustainable Forest Management; Global Forest Resources Assessment main report FAO-forestry paper -163. FAO.(2011).Tropical Deforestation: Causes, Consequences and Some Land Use Alternatives2Rondônia,BrazilUNEPFeb52007.http://na.unep.net/digital_atlas2/webatlas. php?id=29 09/02/2011 Fayera Senbeta.(2011). Moist Montane Forest in Ethiopia: Status, Potential, Contribution, Challenges and Recommendations .pp103-134 Fekadu Gurmessa.(2015).Research Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Management. Vol. 4(5), pp. 216-224, May, 2015

Ferederick A.(2004).Population growth, Biodiversity and Changing Climate, Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science 4 (2003).

Geist H and Lambin E 2001 What drives tropical deforestation? A meta-analysis of proximate and underlying causes of deforestation based on subnational case study evidence Land-Use and Land-Cover Change (LUCC) Project, International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), LUCC Report Series: 4

Getahun Kefelegn,Van Rompaey, A., Van Turnhout, P. and Poesen, J. (2013). Factors controlling patterns of deforestation in moist evergreen Afromontane forests of Southwest Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management, 304, 171-181 Golafshani, N.(2003).Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research: PP 597- 606. Hansen, K.K, & N, Top. (2006). Natural Forest Benefits and Economic Analysis of Natural Forest Conversion in Cambodia, Working Paper 33. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute Indarto, Jarot and Mutaqin, Dadang J. (2016). An overview of theoretical and empirical studies on deforestation. Published in: Journal of International Development and Cooperation, Vol. 22, No. 1 & 2 (1 March 2016): pp. 107-120. ITTO .(2002). ITTO Guidelines for the Reforestation, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded Land Secondary Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Development series no.13 yokohama, Japan. Jehan, S. and Umana, A. (2003). The Environment-poverty Nexus Development Policy Journal in India‟s Joint Forest Management program. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meetings of the International Society for New Institutional Economics (ISNIE), Barcelona,September 22-24

Kobbail, k. (2012). Local People Attitudes towards Community Forestry Practices:A Case Study of Kosti Province-Central Sudan MA thesis Department of Social Forestry, College of Forestry and Range Science

Lateno Langano.(2013).Impacts of Deforestation on the livilihoods of people in Arba MInchZuria Wereda;The case of sub urban Areas of Arba Minch Town,Southern Ethiopia.

Legros, G., Havet, I., Bruce, N., Bonjour, S. (2009).The Energy Access Situation in developing countries; a review focusing on the least developed countries and Sub- Saharan Africa. New York, United Nation Development Program

Malagnoux M., Sène, E.H., and Atzmon, N. (2007). Forests, Trees and Water In Arid Lands: A delicate balance.FAO Forestry Department. Rome

Melca Mahiber.(2008).Communal Forest Ownership: An Option to Address the Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Ethiopia. Proceeding of a Workshop held at Chilimo Forest Mesay Mulugeta.(2008).Introduction to Economic Geography. Unpublished Lecture notes ,Adama Science and Technology University, Adama, Ethiopia. Mesay Mulugeta.(2011).Determinants of Agricultural productivity and Household Food Security. Case studies from Kuyu District, Central Ethiopia. Mesfin Duguma.(2006). Farmers‟ Perception on Soil erosion and Decision on Land Management in Assosa woreda, Ethiopia Mokonnen Alemu and kohlin.G(2008). Biomass Fuel Consumption and dung use as manure: Evidence from Rural Households in Amhara Region of Ethiopia. Environment for Development Discussion paper series IFD DP:8-17 Monyo, H. (2003). Education for Rural Development Towards New Policy Responses: Food and Agricultural Organization. Mulugeta Lemenih and ZenebeMokennen .(2011). Combretum Terminalia broad-leaved deciduous forests. In: Forest types in Ethiopia: Status, Potential contribution, Challenges and Recom northwestern Ethiopian highlands. African Studies Series. University of Berne Switzerland, NWAO.(2016).Nejo Wereda Agricultural Office. Climate and Demographic Aspect. Oromia National Region State, Ethiopia. NWEO.(2016).Nejo Wereda Education Office. Education distribution.Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. NWHO.(2016).Nejo Wereda Health Office.Health facilities.Oromia National Region State, Ethiopia.

NWSLMPO.(2016). Nejo Wereda sustainable Land Management program Office. Socio Economic Condition.Oromia National Region State, Ethiopia.

Parry, J .(2003). "Tree choppers become tree planters," Appropriate Technology, 30(4), 38-39. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 538367341)

Rahman, A. (2000). General Problems of Environmental Overcrowding, from which both Women and Men may suffer, link closely with Women‟s specific freedom from the constant bearing and rearing of Children that Plagues the lives of Young Women in many Societies in the Developing World. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000, p. 195. Report, 8(4), Samuel M.(2011).A critical study of the literature about deforestation in Brazil Amazon. Senait Regassa.( 2002). The economics of managing land resources towards sustainability in the highlands of Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation. University of Hohenheim, Germany. Simula Marku.(2009). Towards Defining Forest Degradation: Comparative Analysis of existing definitions. Forest Resources Assessment. Pp 57. Working Paper 154. FAO, Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/k6217e/k6217e00.pdf Terefe, D. (2003). Factors Affecting People‟s Participation in Participatory Forest Management: The case of IFMP Adaba-Dodola in Bale zone of Oromia Region; MA Thesis Addis Ababa University School of Graduate studies Regional and Local Development Studies (RLDS) Tola Gemechu.(2005). Prospects of Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Livelihood development in wondo genet area, southern Ethiopia. MA Thesis Addis Ababa university school of graduate studies regional and local development studies Tomas K.(2013).The national determinants of deforestation in Sub Sahara Africa. Published 22 July 2013.DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0405 UNDP.(2010). Ethiopia, United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) National Report of Ethiopia Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Environmental Protection Authority

USAID. (2008).Ethiopian Biodiversity in Tropical Forest 118/119 Assessment. EPIQC: EPP-100- 03-00014.00, Task Order 02. Vaus,D.(2001).Research design in social research. London:The Good research guide for small scale social research projects .(3rd Ed).Berkshire: Open unvirsity press. WBISPP.(2005). A National Strategic Plan For The Biomass Energy Sector, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa Wilson, Edward O,(2002).The future of life. (Newyork: Alfred A.knopf) Winberg, E.(2010). Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia, practices and Experiences Forestry Volunteer Food and Agriculture Organization Sub Regional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE), Addis Ababa. Food and Agriculture Organization Sub Regional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE), Addis Ababa, June 2010 WorldBank.(2000).The World Bank Group Countries: Ethiopia. Washington, D.C. http://www.worldbank.org/afr/et2.htm World Bank.(2008). http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSTATINAFR/Resources/LDB-Africa- 12-2-08.pdf Yilma Muluken.(2005).Measuring rural Household Food Security Status and its Determinants in Benishangul Gumuz Region in Ethiopia: The case of Asossa wereda. An MSc thesis presented to the shcool of graduates of Alamaya University,Alaamaya.147pp Zewude Eshete.Yitebitu Moges. and Nune Sisay.(2010). Ethiopian Forest Resources: Current Status and Future Management Options in View of Access to Carbon Finances Prepared for the Ethiopian Climate Research and Networking and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

APPENDICES

Annex I: Questionnaire to be filled by Sample Rural Farm Household heads. Dear Respondents, My name is Girma Shumeta. I am a MA student at Adama Science and Technology University in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies. Currently I am conducting a research entitled Determinants of Deforestation in Nejo Woreda,Western Ethiopia. This questionnaire is designed for two reasons:-

 To explore the determinants of deforestation in Nejo Woreda of three purposely selected rural kebele administration units.  To enable the researcher to write thesis on the issues for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Arts in Geography and Environmental Studies.

The information gathered through this questionnaire will be used by the researcher strictly for academic purpose. Your careful and honest responses determine the success of the study and the researcher as well. Thus, you are kindly requested to complete the questionnaire carefully and honestly. Your response will be kept confidential. Please, read the instruction under each item in the questionnaire carefully before you give your response. If you want to change any of your responses, make sure that you have cancelled the unwanted ones. You have to return the questionnaire to the person from which you received and completed as soon possible after completion.

Hence; taking the above objectives into consideration, you are kindly asked to provide the appropriate answer for the following questions.

Thank you in advance for your kind and cooperation

A. Answer for the following questions regarding Demographic and Social Characteristics of Household head Region: ______Zone: ______Wereda: ______1. Sex of the household head: 1.Male 2. Female 2. Age of the household head: ______in year 3. Educational Status of household head: 1) can‟t read and write 2) Can read and write 3) 1-8 grades 4) 9-10 grades 5.above grade 10 4. Marital Status of household head: 1.Single 2.Married 3.Divorced 4.Widowed 5. What is the total number of your Family? ______in head count.

6. What is your main occupation? 1. Farming 2. Civil servant 3.Off farm 4.if others specify

7. What is your annual income? 1.<5000 birr. 2. 5000-10000 birr. 3.>10000 birr.

8. What is your total farm land size in hectares? 1. <1hectare. 2. 1.1-2hectares. 3. 2.1-3hectares. 4. 3.1-4hectares. 5.>4hectares.

B. Give answer for the following questions pertaining to deforestation and related issues.

9. Do you observe deforestation in your area? 1.Yes 2.No

10. If your answer to Q no 9 above is yes, please indicate your reason------

11. Do you cut living forest for any purpose? 1. Yes 2. No

12. If your answer to Q no 11above is „yes‟ please, indicate your reason______

13. How do you describe the trend of deforestation in your locality? 1. Decreasing 2. Increasing 3.remain the same

14. What do you think is the major cause of deforestation in your area?

1. Population pressure 2. Firewood consumption 3.Agricultural practices 4.construction purposes 4.Termites 5. If others specify______

15. What do you think is the main impact of deforestation in your locality?

1. Loss of biodiversity 2. Climate change 3.soil erosion 4.low productivity 5.land degradation 6.If others specify------

16. Is there forest conservation strategy in your area? 1. Yes 2. No 3. To Some extent

17. If your answer to question no 16 above is 2, state your reasons______

C. Answer to the questions pertaining to agricultural practices.

18. Do you clear forest area to get farm land? 1. Yes 2.No

19. If your answer to question no18 above is „‟yes‟‟, specify your reasons ______

20. How do you acquire your farm land? 1. Inheritance 2. By government 3.Accessed free land?

21. What is the main agricultural activity in your locality? 1. Crop production 2.Off farm activity 3. Livestock production 4.Comercial production 5.If others specify------

22. Do you think crop production causes deforestation in your locality? 1. Yes 2. No

23. If your answer to question no 22 above is yes, what would be the solution? Specify______

24. What type of farming system do you practice on your farm land? 1.Traditional 2.Modern

25.If your answer to Q no 24 above is 1,how you practice?------

26. What agricultural techniques do you use to till your farm lands?

1. Oxen plow techniques 3. Modern farm machines

2. Human labor 4. If others specify

27. What types of crops do you produce on your farm land?

1. Cereal crops 2. Oil seed crops 3. If others specify

D. Answer to the questions pertaining to demographic factors (population pressures)

28. Does settlement expansion exacerbates deforestation in your locality? 1. Yes 2.No

29. Do you make a seasonal movement to other areas where there is abundant agricultural land? 1.yes 2..no 30. How do you observe the extent of population growth in your locality?1.Rapid 2.Very rapid 3.Slow 4.Very slow

31. Do you prefer large family size? 1.yes 2. No

32.If your answer to Q no 31 above is yes, mention your reason------E. Answer to the questions pertaining to energy sources of household head

33. What is the main source of energy in your locality? 1. Firewood 2.Electricity 3. Crop residue 4.Charcoal

34. Do you think woody biomass consumption exacerbates deforestation in your area? 1. Yes 2. No

35. If your answer to question no 34 above is „‟yes‟‟, please, indicate the reason______

36.Is there any alternative energy sources in your locality? 1.yes 2.No

37.If your answer to Q no 36 above is „2‟, what do you recommend?

38. Is there shortage of energy in your locality? 1. Yes 2.No

39. How many human loads of firewoods do you consume per day ? 1. One load 2.Two loads 3.Three loads 4.above three loads

Kabajamoo Hirmaattota Hundaaf MaqaankooGirmaaShuummataajedhama.YerooammaaYuniveristiiSaayinsiifiTeeknolojiiAdaamaat ti damee barnoota Saayinsii Hawaasaa, Mummee Jii‟ogiraafitiin barnoota digirii 2ffaa barachaan jira. Haaluma kanaan barnoota xumuruuf qo‟annoo fi qorannoo mata duree„Determinants of deforestation,‟ jedhu aanaa Najjoo irratti hojjechaan jira. Isiins qo‟annoo fi qorannoo kanaaf gaaffii gaafatamu akka deebistaniif jiraattota ganada kana keessaa tasaan filatamtaniittu .Haaluma kanaan qo‟annoo fi qorannoon raawwachaa jiru kun bu‟aa qabeessumaa sagantaalee misoomaa bosonaa yeroo darbee ilaaluun, hojjiiwwan gara fuulduraatti karoora keessa galuu qaban akka hammataman gochuuf shoora ol-aanaa taphata. Kanaaf gaafannoo kanaaf deebii isiin deebistan bu‟aa qabeessaa fi qo‟annoo fi qorannoo kana dhugaa qabeessa taasisuuf ni gargaara. Maqaan keessan karaa kamiinuu adda bahee qo‟annoo fi qorannoo kana keessatti hin ibsamu. Akkasumas gaaffiiwwan gaafatameef kan isiniif hingallee deebisuu dhiisuun ni danda‟ama. Dhuma irratti gaaffiiwwan kana deebisuuf yeroo keessan aarsaa gootanii deebii kennuun waan nagargaartaniif guddaa galatoomaa! A. Odeeffannoo waliigalaa: Gaaffiwan abbaa/ haadha warraa ilaalchisanii dhihaatan akkaataa gaafatamtaniin deebisaa. Naannoo______Godina______Aanaa______1. Saala 1. Dhiira 2. Dubara 2. Umrii Abbaa/Haadha Warraa ------3. Sadarkaa barnootaa: 1. Kan dubbisuu fi barreessuu danda‟u 4. Sadrkaa 2ffaa (9-10) 2. Kan dubbisuu fi barreessuu hin dandeenye 5. Sadarkaa barnootaa ol-aanaa 3. Sadrkaa 1ffaa (1-8) 4. Haala fuudhaa fi heerumaa? 1/ Kan hin fuunee/hin heerumne 2/ kan fuudhee/kan heerumte 3/ kan hiikee/hiikte 4/ kan jalaa du‟e /duute 5. Baay‟ina namootaa maatii kee keessa jiraatu meeqa?/ lakkoofsaan/……………… 6. Hojii itti bulmaataa maatii kee maali? 1.Qonna 2.Hojii mootummaa 3.Daldala 4.kan biroon yoo jiraate ibsi------

7. Galiin kee Waggaan meeqa ta‟a? 1.qarshii 5000gadi 2. Qarshii 5000-10000 3. qarshii10000 ol.

8.Ballinni lafa qonnaakee heektaaraan meeqa ta‟a? 1.<1heektaara 2.1.1-2heektaara 3. 2.1- 3heektaara 4.3.1-4heektaara 5. >4heektaara ol.

B.Cirama Bosonaa ilaalchisee deebii gaaffiwan gaditti dhihaatan filadhu.

9.Ciramni bosonaa naannoo kee ni jiraa? 1.Eeyyee 2.Lakkii

10.Gaaffii 9ffaaf deebiinkee eeyyee yoo ta‟e,wantoota cirama bosonaan walqabatan ibsi

11.Bosona guddachaa jiru cirtee ni fayyadamtaa? 1.eeyyee 2. Lakkii

12. Gaaffii 11ffaaf deebiinkee eeyyee yoo ta‟e,sababa isaa ibsi

13.Yeroo ammaa kana naannoo keetti sadarkaa ciramni bosonaa irra jiru maal fakkaata? 1.Hir‟achaa jira 2. Dabalaa jira 3. Jijjiirama hin qabu.

14. Sababni ijoon cirama bosonaa naannoo keetii maal fa‟i? 1.baayinni uummataa dabaluu 2.Qoraan nyaata bilcheessuuf funaanuu 3.hojii qonnaa 4. Meeshaalee ijaarsaa 5.Rimma 6.kan biroon yoo jiraate ibsi------

15. Dhiibbaa guddaan cirama bosonaan dhufu kami? 1. Lubbu qabeeyyiin dhibamuu.2.Faalama cleensaa 3. Dhiqama biyyee 4. Oomishni xiqqaachuu 5.manca‟uu lafaa 6.kan biroon yoo jiraate ibsi------

16. Tarsiimoon kunuunsa bosonaa naannookee hijiirra oolaa jiraa ? 1. Eeyyee 2. Lakkii 3. Hamma tokko

17.Gaafii 16ffaaf deebiin kee lakkii yoo ta‟e, sababa isaa ibsi------

C. Gaaffiwan sochii qonnaan wal qabataniif deeebii kenni.

18. Lafa qonnaa argachuuf bosona ni cirtaa ? 1. Eeyyee 2. Lakkii

19. Gaaffii 18ffaaf deebiinkee eeyyee yoo ta‟e,sababni maal ta‟a ______

20. Lafa qonnaakee akkamitti argatte? 1. Dhaalaan 2. Mootummaan kan kenne 3. Lafa walaba ta‟e qabachuun

21. Hojii qonnaa kam keessatti hirmaatta? 1.Midhaan oomishuu 2.Hojii qonnaan alaa 3.Horii hrsiisuu 4.Oomisha gurgurtaa 5.Kan biroon yoo jiraate ibsi------

22. Naannoo keetti midhaan oomishuun cirama bosonaaf sababa ni ta‟aa? 1. Eeyyee 2. Lakkii

23. Gaaffii22ffaafdeebiin kee eeyyee yoo ta‟e, furmaatni isaaa maal ta‟a jettee yaadda?------

24.Mala qonnaa akkamitti fayyadamtee oomisha qonnaa adeemsista? 1.Mala aadaa 2. Mala ammayyaa 3.kan biroon yoo jiraate ibsi------

25.Gaaffii 24ffaaf deebiin kee lakkoobsa 1 yoo ta‟e, akkamitti oomishta? Ibsi------

26.Meeshaa/Oogummaa akkamiitti fayyadamtee qonnaa geggeessita? 1.Sangaan qotuu 2.Humna namaa 3.maashina qonnaa ammayyaawaa.4. kan biroon yoo jiraate ibsi------

27.Lafa qonnaakeerra gosa oomisha akkamii oomishtaa? 1. midhaan nyaataa 2.midhaan zayitaa 3. Kan biroon yoo jiraate ibsi------

D. Gaaffiwan dhiibbaa baayinni uummtaa bosona irratti fiduun wal qabataniif deebii kenni.

28. Qubsumni uummataa cirama bosonaa ni hammeessaa? 1. Eeyyee 2. Lakkii

29. Gara lafti qonnaa ga‟aan jiruti godaanuun qonna ni geggeessitaa? 1.eeyyee 2. lakkii

30.Naannoo keetti haalli dabalamina uummataa akkami? 1. Ariitiin 2.baayyee ariitiin 3. Suuta 4. Baayyee suuta.

31.Maatii baayyee qabaachuu ni filattaa? 1.eeyyee 2. Lakkii

32.Gaaffii 31ffaaf deebiin kee eeyyee yoo ta‟e, sababa isaa ibsi------

E.Gaaffiwan itti fayyadamina annisaan wal qabataniif deebii kenni.

33. Naannoo keetti maddaa annisaa maal fa‟a fayyadamta ? 1. Mukeen/ qoraan 2.Elektiriksiitii 3.Qola midhaan irraa oomishame 4.Cilee

34.Annisaa mukeenii heddumminaan faayyadamuun cirama bosonaa ni hammeessa jettee yaaddaa? 1.eeyyee 2. Lakkii

35.Gaaffii 34ffaaf deebiin kee eeyyee yoo ta‟e,sababa isaa ibsi------

36.Maddi annisaa dabalataa naannookee ni jiraa? 1.eeyyee 2.lakkii

37.Gaaffii 36ffaaf deebiinkee lakkii yoo ta‟e,fala maal keessa ibsi------

38. Naannoo kee hanqinni annisaa ni jiraa? 1. Eeyyee 2. Lakkii

39. Guyyaatti qoraan ba‟aa namaa hammam fayyadamta? 1. Ba‟aa tokko 2. Ba‟aa lama 3. Ba‟aa sadii 4. Ba‟aa sadii ol.

Annex II

I. Check list for key informant interviews

1. What are the major causes of deforestation in your area? 2. How agricultural practices influence deforestation? 3. Do you think agricultural expansion causes deforestation? State briefly

4. Is there shortage of farm land in your area? If so how you get farm land? 5. What are the main sources of energy in your area? Describe briefly

6. Do you think firewood collection exacerbates deforestation? Justify

7. How population growth exacerbates deforestation? Describe briefly.

8.How do you describe the trend of deforestation in your area? Justify briefly

9. What are the socio economic and environmental impacts of deforestation?

10. What are the forest conservation strategies in your area? Justify.

11. What are your recommendations toward deforestation?

ANNEX III

II. Check list for focus group discussion

1. Main causes of deforestation.

2. Energy sources of household heads vs deforestation

3. Agricultural practices causing deforestation

4. Population pressure causing deforestation

7. Socioeconomic and environmental Impacts of deforestation.

8. Forest conservation strategy.

9. The past and current status of deforestation and your recommendation