THE EFFECT OF DEFORESTATION ON LIVELIHOODS OF LOCAL

COMMUNTY: THE CASE OF SEGODA KEBELE,TACHI GAYNT

WOREDA,

SUOTH GONDER,ETHIOPIA

BY: -BINOR TADESSE

ID no: - AGR/R/281/10
WOLAYTA SODO UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT

ADVISOR:- (AFEWREK A.)

WOLAYTA SODO, ETHIOPIA

DEC, 2020

1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to thank the almighty GOD, for he gave me health and knowledge to do
this senior research project. Secondly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor
afewerk a.for his support, guidance, suggestion, comment and encouragement through idea and
material to the development of this project. Thirdly, I would like thank tach gaynt woreda
experts, SEGODA kebele agricultural development employers and local community of the
proposed area for giving me the information honestly about the causes and effects of land
degradation on agricultural productivity. Fourthly, I would to like thank agriculetuer College of
natural resource mangemnet and its staff and also librarians for they serve as politely during
using reference books. Finally, I would like to thank my families for they support me financially.

2|Page
 Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...........................................................................................................................2
LIST OF ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................................5
List of Tables...............................................................................................................................................6
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER ONE..........................................................................................................................................8
1. INTRODUCATION................................................................................................................................8
1.1. BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................8
1.2. Statement of the Problem...............................................................................................................9
1.3. Objective........................................................................................................................................10
1.3.1. General Objective..................................................................................................................10
1.3.2. Specific Objectives.................................................................................................................10
1.4 Research Questions........................................................................................................................10
1.5 Significance of the study................................................................................................................10
1.6. Scope of the study.........................................................................................................................10
1.7 Limitation of the study..................................................................................................................11
CHAPTER TWO.......................................................................................................................................11
2. Literature of Review..............................................................................................................................11
2.1. Deforestation.................................................................................................................................11
2.2 Deforestation in Ethiopia..............................................................................................................12
2.3. Amhara Regional State Forest Resource and Derivers of Degradation...................................13
2.4. Causes of deforestation.................................................................................................................14
2.4.1. Human population growth....................................................................................................14
2.4.2. Urbanization...........................................................................................................................14
2.4.4. Logging and fuel wood..........................................................................................................14
2.4.5. Corruption and political cause..............................................................................................15
2.5. Effects of deforestation.................................................................................................................15
2.5.1. Climate change.......................................................................................................................15
2.5.2. Water and soil resources loss and flooding..........................................................................15
2.5.3. Decreased biodiversity, habitat loss and conflicts...............................................................16

3|Page
 2.6. Strategies to reduce deforestation...............................................................................................16
2.6.1. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation........................................16
2.6.2. Increase the area and standard of management of protected areas...................................17
2.6.3. Increase the area of forest permanently reserved for timber production..........................17
2.6.4. Promote sustainable management........................................................................................17
CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................................18
3. Materials and Methods..........................................................................................................................18
3.1. Description of the study area..........................................................................................................18
3.1.1. Location, Climate, and Topography of the Study Area......................................................18
3.1.2 Population...............................................................................................................................19
3.1.3 Vegetation Cover....................................................................................................................19
3.1.4 Soil type...................................................................................................................................19
3.1.5 Land use and Farming system...............................................................................................20
3.1.6 Livestock population in the study area..................................................................................21
3.2 Methods..........................................................................................................................................22
3.2.1 Data collection method...........................................................................................................22
3.2.2 Sampling Method....................................................................................................................22
3.2.3. Sampling Techniques.............................................................................................................22
3.3. Data analysis and presentation....................................................................................................22
CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................................................23
4. Result and discussion.............................................................................................................................23
4.1. Socioeconomic and demographic features of the respondents........................................................23
4.1.1. Age distribution of the respondents.........................................................................................23
4.1.2 Education level of the respondents...........................................................................................24
4.2. Livelihood categories......................................................................................................................24
4.2.1 Major forest products and extent of forest dependency......................................................25
4.2.2. major cause of deforestation in the study area........................................................................27
4.2.3. Major impacts of deforestation on local livelihoods............................................................28
4.2.4. Impact of deforestation on soil fertility status in the study area........................................28
4.3. Reduction of Agricultural productivity......................................................................................29
4.4. Impacts on water..........................................................................................................................29
4.5 improving agricultural productivity mechanisms.......................................................................30

4|Page
 4.5.1 Mechanisms used to improve agriculture.............................................................................30
4.5.2 Mechanisms used to maintain water status...........................................................................31
4.5.3 Mechanisms used to improve energy sources.......................................................................32
CHAPTER FIVE.......................................................................................................................................33
5. Conclusion and Recommendation.........................................................................................................33
5.1. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................33
5.2. Recommendation..........................................................................................................................34
5. Reference...............................................................................................................................................35
6. Questionnaires.......................................................................................................................................37

5|Page
LIST OF ACRONYMS

FAO: - Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

GDP: -Growth Domestic Product

GHG: -Greenhouse Gas

GO: -Governmental Office

ITTO:-International Tropical Timber Organization

NGO: -None Governmental Organization

NTFP: - Non-Timber Forest Products

REDD: - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

UNRISD: - United Nations Research Institute for Social development

6|Page
 List of Tables
Page

Table 3. 1. Major soil types, their constraints and opportunities…………………………………

19

Table 3.2.Land use system in the study

area..................................................................................20

Table 3.3. Livestock population in the study

area...........................................................................21

Table 4.1 Age distribution of the respondent.

Table 4.2 Educational level of the respondents

Table 4.3. Livelihood categories

Table 4.4 The major forest products the study area

Table 4.5 cause of deforestation in the study area

Table 4.6 fertility status of the soil in the study area.

Table 4.7 Agricultural productivity is decrease as a result of deforestation

Table 4.8 water status after deforestation

Table 4.9 Mechanisms used to improve agricultural productivity.

Table 4.10 Mechanisms used to maintain water status.

Table 10.11 Mechanisms to improve energy source

7|Page
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 1. Types of forest benefits before & after deforestation

Figure 2. Soil Fertility status before and after deforestation

8|Page
 ABSTRACT

The major purpose of this study was to assess the impacts of deforestation on local livelihoods of
the segoda Kebele community. This study was tried to investigate the livelihood strategies of the local
formers and extent of dependency of forest products by analyzed the different managing mechanism that
local farmers adopt to improve their productivity and energy sources. 74 sample farmer households were
taken from 1238 total households of the Kebele, based on the scientific sampling techniques and simple
random sampling techniques. Primary, which were obtained through observation, questionnaire, key
informant interview and group discussion, and secondary data obtained from the Burie Woreda
agricultural office published and unpublished documents and summarized using graphs& tables. The
study result that, the livelihood strategies of the local community were affected due to deforestation
majority of the local farmer’s livelihood ways depends on forest products before deforestation. But by the
different factors such as agricultural expansion, over population, and overgrazing the forest have been
defrosted and changed their livelihood strategies. Due to this factor declined of soil productivity, water
quality and quantity, energy resource. To improve this farmer used to practice different mechanism in the
study area.

9|Page
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCATION
1.1. BACKGROUND
Ethiopia is one of the most severely deforested countries in sub- Saharan African countries,
particularly in forest degradation which resulted in soil erosion and degradation of agricultural
land. The decline in overall stability and productivity of the country’s natural resource is the
result of complex and interrelated series of processes that were triggered by the loss of forest
cover in critical watershed (Tumcha, 2004).

Deforestation is a conventional environmental challenge substantially affecting the resilience and

distribution of forests across different boundaries. It is simply defined as the loss of trees’ cover
usually as a result of forests being cleared for other land uses (Gorte and Sheikh, 2010). Over the
years, the world has experienced unprecedented loss of its forests particularly in tropical areas,
though it is observed on a global scale that the rate of deforestation has shown sign of a decrease.
This is because the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2010) states that in the 2000s
about 13 million hectares of forest were converted to other uses – largely agriculture – or lost
through natural causes each year as compared with 16 million hectares in the 1990s. That
notwithstanding the rate of deforestation is still alarming because in 2010 it is observed that the

10 | P a g e
world had just over 4 billion hectares of forested area, which corresponds to an average of 0.6
forest per capita (FAO, 2010).

The causes of deforestation are varied but may broadly be categorized into anthropogenic and
natural factors. For the anthropogenic factors, increased wood fuel collection, clearing of forests
for agriculture, illegal and poorly regulated timber extraction, social and environmental conflicts,
increasing urbanization and industrialization are the primary known causes for the loss of forests
and woodlands (FAO, 2002). For the natural factors, the impacts of drought and natural forest
fires (Insaidoo et al, 2012).

Forests are one of the most important natural resources on the Earth. They Cover the Earth like
as green blanket. Forest not only produce innumerable material goods, but also provide several
environmental services which are essential for human beings (KAUSHIK, 2006). Forests and
their benefits provide in the form of food, income and watershed protection. They have an
important and often critical role in enabling people around the world to secure a stable and
adequate food supply. Forests also provide multiple benefits at local to global scales (FAO,
2005).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

The most severe environmental problems in least developed countries are found in rural areas
where most of the people live (Holden, 1998). The agricultural sector in Ethiopia accounts for
over 50% of the GDP and provides livelihood for over 80% of the population. Agricultural
development in Ethiopia is hampered by many factors among which deforestation is the major
one. Forests and the benefits they provide in the form of food, income and watershed protection
have an important and often critical role in enabling people around the area to secure a stable and
adequate food supply).
Even if deforestation has so many problems, sufficient studies have not been conducted in
Woynma Ambaye Kebele concerning on the effect of deforestation on local livelihood.
Therefore, this study will be conducted to understand the effect of deforestation on local
livelihood of Woynma Ambaye Kebele. Timber and NTFP are reduced due to deforestation that
impacts on the community of Woynma Ambaye Kebele.

11 | P a g e
1.3. Objective
1.3.1. General Objective
The overall objective of this study is to assess the effect of deforestation on livelihood of the
study area.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

 To assess the major causes of deforestation in the study area
 To assess socio economic effects of deforestation in the study area.
 Identify the methods to reduce deforestation

1.4 Research Questions

1.What are the major methods to reduce deforestation?
2.What are the major cause of deforestation?
3. What socio economic impacts does deforestation have?

1.5 Significance of the study

The result of the study was helpful to local community, governmental office (GO) and non-
governmental organization (NGO) by forwarding some information about the effect of
deforestation on local livelihoods of Woynma Ambaye Kebele.

1.6. Scope of the study

The study was conducted in Amhara region, West Gojjam Zone, Burie Zuria Woreda, Weyinma
Ambaye kebele on the effect of deforestation on livelihood of local community.

1.7 Limitation of the study

During collection of the study, a number of constraints are encountered us. The main limitations
were financial and time constraints. Some of the respondents are not show their willingness to
respond questionnaires and to visit the field work and most of the respondents are not voluntary
to answer the questionnaires and to visit their field. Finally, lack of enough literature and
documentation systems were also other problems which are encountered us during collection of
data.

12 | P a g e
 CHAPTER TWO

2. Literature of Review
2.1. Deforestation
Deforestation defined broadly can include not only conversion to non-forest, but also degradation
that reduces forest quality, density and structure of the trees, the ecological services supplied, the
biomass of plants and animals, the species diversity and the genetic diversity (FAO, 2005). United
Nations Research Institute for Social development (UNRISD) also defines deforestation as the loss or
continual degradation of forest habitat primarily due to human related causes. Agricultural, Urban
sprawl, unsustainable forestry practices and mining all contribute to human caused deforestation. In
this case the term deforestation used to refer to activities that use the forest, such as fuel wood
cutting, commercial logging, as well as activities that cause temporary removal of forest cover such
as the slash and burn technique, a component of some shifting cultivation agricultural system or clear
cutting. It also used to describe forest clearing for annual crops and forest loss from over grazing.

Ethiopia is a country in Eastern Africa; it has the second largest population in Africa and has
been hit by famine many times because there was a shortage of rain, and a depletion of natural
resources. (Haileselassie, 2004). Growing populations are increasing forest degradation which is
leading the country to famine. As the population continue to grow the need of the people
increase. And the country has lost 98% of its forested regions in the last 50 years (parry, 2003).

13 | P a g e
Ethiopia which is a country badly affected by deforestation and forest degradation loses
141,000hectares of natural forest each year for many reasons. If the number continues to grow
the future of the country will be very bad. Currently, the total number of the country land
covered by forest is 13,000,000 ha of land (Mongabay, 2006). Between 1990 and 2005 the
country actually lost 14 percent of its forest or 2.1 million hectares, and that indicates us
deforestation increased by 10.4 % from 1990-2005, therefore because of deforestation the
number of wild animals the country has is becoming less and less overtime. Previously the
country has around 6,603 species of plants, 839 birds, 205 mammals 288 reptiles and 76
amphibians as well (Mongabay, 2002).

2.2 Deforestation in Ethiopia

Deforestation is caused by what human beings do to the forests and can be accentuated by
drought. Generally, deforestation occurs when people clear forest for their personal need such as,
for fuel, hunting, when they need the land to grow and harvest crops, for building houses, and at
times because of religion beliefs (Sucoff, 2003).

Ethiopia is a country in Eastern Africa; it has the second largest population in Africa and has
been hit by famine many times because there was a shortage of rain, and a depletion of natural
resources. (Haileselassie, 2004). Growing populations are increasing forest degradation which is
leading the country to famine. As the population continue to grow the need of the people
increase. And the country has lost 98% of its forested regions in the last 50 years (parry, 2003).

Ethiopia which is a country badly affected by deforestation and forest degradation loses
141,000hectares of natural forest each year for many reasons. If the number continues to grow
the future of the country will be very bad. Currently, the total number of the country land
covered by forest is 13,000,000 ha of land (Mongabay, 2006). Between 1990 and 2005 the
country actually lost 14 percent of its forest or 2.1 million hectares, and that indicate us
deforestation increased by 10.4 % from 1990-2005, therefore because of deforestation the
number of wild animals the country has is becoming less and less overtime. Previously the

14 | P a g e
country has around 6,603 species of plants, 839 birds, 205 mammals 288 reptiles and 76
amphibians as well (Mongabay, 2002).

2.3. Amhara Regional State Forest Resource and Derivers of Degradation

The total forest cover of the region is estimated to about 1,288, 383 ha (8.2% of total area of the
region), of which natural forest for 2.95%, woodland accounts 4.71%, plantation for 0.4% and
riverian for 0.13%. If we add up shrub land into these values (889,911.91 ha), the vegetation
cover of the region would grow up to about 2,178,295 ha (13.85% of total area of the region).
However, based on the assessment of Bureau of Agriculture, the forest cover of the region
officially known in policies workshop as 5.91% of the total area of the region; of which Natural
high forest (0.48 % of the total area of the region), woodland (4.2%), and plantation forests (1.23
%) (Abera et al., 2008).
The direct causes and forest degradation in the region is attributed to agricultural expansion, over
grazing, fire, illegal logging, resettlements, poor forest management and utilization and
investment activities. Forest degradation is aggravated to the rearing of large number of cattle
and the grazing effect retards the growth of the newly growing forest seedlings and saplings
(ANRS-BOA, 2012). In 2000, it was estimated that some 35% of all livestock in Ethiopia were
living in Amhara region. The total annual available feed from those lands was estimated to be
around 9.1 million tons of dry matter while the total annual demand could reach 20.6 million
tons of dry matter. The underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation is associated
with absence of regional forest policy, strategy and proclamation, population growth and land
shortage (particularly Afro Alpine and sub afro alpine vegetation), weak institutional capacity,
turnover of skilled man power, lack of awareness of the community to forestry extension and
poor infrastructures (Lemenih and Woldmariam, 2010).

2.4. Causes of deforestation

2.4.1. Human population growth
Human population growth is at the root of virtually all of the world’s environmental problems.
Although the growth rate of the world’s population has slightly since the 1990s, increased by
about 77 million people each year. As the result of population growth, 2.1 percent of forest cover
deforested each year by the people in the tropical forest regions (Richard T. Forlett, 2011).

15 | P a g e
 2.4.2. Urbanization
As cities growth larger to accommodation more people cut down trees to make more rooms for
house building and roads construction (Richard T. Corlett, 2011). Urbanization directly affects
forest covers deforested with the expansion on cities more forest lands in needed to establish
housing and settlements (FAO, 2005).

2.4.3. Expansion of farming land

About 60 per cent of the clearing of tropical moist forests is for agricultural settlement with
logging and other reasons like roads, urbanization and fuelwood accounting for the rest tropical
forests are one of the last frontiers. Millions of people live on the tropical forest with less than a
dollar a day where a third of a billion are estimated to be foreign settlers. However, as the land
degrades people are forced to migrate, exploring new forest frontiers increasing deforestation.
Deforestation is proxies by the expansion of agricultural land. This is because agricultural land
expansion is generally viewed as the main source of deforestation contributing around 60 percent
of total tropical deforestation (Amor and Pfaff, 2008).

2.4.4. Logging and fuel wood

Logging does not necessarily cause deforestation. However, logging can seriously degrade
forests (Putz et al., 2001). Logging in Southeast Asia is more intensive and can be quite
destructive. However, logging provides access roads to follow-on settlers and log scales can help
finance the cost of clearing remaining trees and preparing land for planting of crops or pasture.
Logging thus catalyzes deforestation (Chomitz et al., 2007).

2.4.5. Corruption and political cause

The FAO identified forest crime and corruption as one of the main causes of deforestation in its
2001 report and warned that immediate attention has to be given to illegal activities and
corruption in the world’s forests in many countries (Anonymous., 2001b). Illegal forest practices
may include the approval of illegal contracts with private enterprises by forestry officers, illegal
sale of harvesting permits, under-declaring volumes cut in public forest, underpricing of wood in
concessions, harvesting of protected trees by commercial corporations, smuggling of forest

16 | P a g e
products across borders and allowing illegal logging, processing forest raw materials without a
license (Hermosilla, 2001).

2.5. Effects of deforestation

2.5.1. Climate change
Deforestation can change the global change of energy not only through the micrometeorological
processes but also by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because
carbon dioxide absorbs thermal infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Moreover, deforestation can
lead to increase in the albedo of the land surface and hence affects the radiation budget of the
region (Gupta et al., 2005). Deforestation affects wind flows, water vapor flows and absorption
of solar energy thus clearly influencing local and global climate (Chomitz et al., 2007).
Deforestation on lowland plains moves cloud formation and rainfall to higher elevations (Lawton
et al., 2001).

Deforestation contributes to global warming which occurs from increased atmospheric

concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) leading to net increase in the global mean
temperature as the forests are primary terrestrial sink of carbon. Thus deforestation disrupts the
global carbon cycle increasing the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Tropical
deforestation is responsible for the emission of roughly two billion tons of carbon (as CO2) to
the atmosphere per year (Houghton, 2005).
2.5.2. Water and soil resources loss and flooding
Deforestation also disrupts the global water cycle. With removal of part of the forest, the area
cannot hold as much water creating a drier climate. Water resources affected by deforestation
include drinking water, fisheries and aquatic habitats, flood/drought control, waterways and
dams affected by siltation, less appealing water related recreation, and damage to crops and
irrigation systems from erosion and turbidity (Bruijnzeel et al., 2005). Urban water protection is
potentially one of the most important services that forest provides (Chomitz et al., 2007).
Filtering and treating water is expensive. Forests can reduce the costs of doing so either actively
by filtering runoff or massively by substituting for housing or farms that generate runoff.
Deforestation can also result into watersheds that are no longer able to sustain and regulate water
flows from rivers and streams. Once they are gone, too much water can result into downstream

17 | P a g e
flooding, many of which have caused disasters in many parts of the world (Dudley and Stolton,
2003).

The long-term effect of deforestation on the soil resource can be severe. Clearing the vegetative
cover for slash and burn farming exposes the soil to the intensity of the tropical sun and torrential
rains. Forest floors with their leaf litter and porous soils easily accommodate intense rainfall. The
effects of deforestation on water availability, flash floods and dry season flows depend on what
happens to these countervailing influences of infiltration and evapotranspiration- the sponge
versus the fountain (Bruijnzeel, 2004).
2.5.3. Decreased biodiversity, habitat loss and conflicts
Forests especially those in the tropics serve as storehouses of biodiversity and consequently
deforestation, fragmentation and degradation destroys the biodiversity as a whole and habitat for
migratory species including the endangered ones, some of which have still to be catalogued.
Tropical forests support about two thirds of all known species and contain 65 per cent of the
world’s 10, 000 endangered species (Myers and Mittermeier, 2000). The biodiversity loss and
associated large changes in forest cover could trigger abrupt, irreversible and harmful changes.
These include regional climate change including feedback effects that could theoretically shift
rainforests to savannas and the emergence of new pathogens as the growing trade in bush meat
increases contact between humans and animals (Anonymous., 2005).
2.6. Strategies to reduce deforestation
2.6.1. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
Many international organizations including the United Nations and the World Bank have begun
to develop Programmes to curb deforestation mainly through Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) which use direct monetary or other incentives to
encourage developing countries to limit and/or roll back deforestation. Significant work is
underway on tools for use in monitoring developing country adherence to their agreed REDDS
targets (Chomitz et al., 2007).
2.6.2. Increase the area and standard of management of protected areas
The provision of protected areas is fundamental in any attempt to conserve biodiversity (Nepstad
et al., 2006). Protected areas alone, however, are not sufficient to conserve biodiversity. They
should be considered alongside, and as part of, a wider strategy to conserve biodiversity. The
minimum area of forest to be protected is generally considered to be 10 percent of total forest

18 | P a g e
area. 12.4 per cent of the world’s forest are located within protected areas. Tropical and
temperate forests have the highest proportions of their forests in protected areas and boreal
forests have the least (Anonymous., 2010).
2.6.3. Increase the area of forest permanently reserved for timber production
The most serious impediment to sustainable forest management is the lack of dedicated forests
specifically set aside for timber production. If the forest does not have a dedicated long-term
tenure for timber production, then there is no incentive to care for the long-term interests of the
forest. FAO (2001) found that, 89 per cent of forests in industrialized countries were under some
form of management but only about six per cent were in developing countries. If 20 per cent
could be set aside, not only could timber demand be sustainably met but buffer zones could be
established to consolidate the protected areas. This would form a conservation estate that would
be one of the largest and most important in the world (Anonymous., 2001a).
2.6.4. Promote sustainable management
In order to promote sustainable forest management, it must be sustainable ecologically,
economically and socially. Achieving ecological sustainability means that the ecological values
of the forest must not be degraded and if possible they should be improved. This means that
silviculture and management should not reduce biodiversity, soil erosion should be controlled,
soil fertility should not be lost, water quality on and off site should be maintained and that forest
health and vitality should be safeguarded. However, management for environmental services
alone is not economically and socially sustainable. It will not happen until or unless the
developing nations have a reached a stage of development and affluence that they can
accommodate the costs of doing so. Alternatively, the developed world must be prepared to meet
all the costs (Chomitz et al., 2007).

2.6.5. Strengthen government and non-government institutions and policies

Strong and stable government is essential to slow down the rate of deforestation. FAO (2010)
considered that, half of the current tropical deforestation could be stopped if the governments of
deforesting countries were determined to do so (Anonymous., 2010). Environmental NGO’s
contribution towards conservation management has been enormous. They have the advantage
over government organizations and large international organizations because they are not

19 | P a g e
constrained by government to government bureaucracy and inertia. They are better equipped to
bypass corruption and they are very effective at getting to the people at the frontier who are in
most need.

CHAPTER THREE

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Description of the study area

Tach Gayint is one of the woredas in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia. Part of the sauth
Gondar Zone, Tach Gayint is bordered on the south by the Bashilo River which separates it from
the Debub Wollo Zone, on the west by Simada, on the north by Lay Gayint, and on the east by
the Checheho River which separates it from the Semien Wollo Zone. The major town in Tach
Gayint is Arb Gebeya.The elevations of this woreda range from 750 to 2800 meters above sea
level; about 23% is classified lowland, 63% mid-level, and 23.7% uplands. Rivers and streams
include the Futan. Based on the 2007 national census conducted by the Central Statistical
Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), this woreda has a total population of 101,956, an increase of 21.15%
over the 1994 census, of whom 51,041 are men and 50,915 women; 8,000 or 7.85% are urban
inhabitants. With an area of 825.30 square kilometers,

20 | P a g e
 3.1.2 Population
segoda Kebele has total populations of 7,248 from which 3,643 are males and 3,605 are females.
The Kebele comprises 1,238 total households of which 1,077 are headed by males and the rest
161 are headed by females (Woynma Ambaye Kebele agricultural office reports, 2007).

3.1.3 Vegetation Cover

The current forest cover of segoda Kebele is estimated to be about 45.5 ha or 3% of the total
area. Out of the total forest area, 27 ha is natural and the remaining 18.5 ha is planted forest
(segoda Kebele agricultural office, 2007). There are five forest areas in the kebele. Such forests
are found on hillsides, along the rivers and around churches. All these are communally owned
forests. In some areas, forests are also found adjacent to grazing areas. Even though the coverage
is small, farm forests were also observed within crop lands and homesteads.
According to Kebele agricultural office, the trend in forest coverage of the Kebele has been
decreasing. Due to rapidly increasing population pressure, limited awareness, lack of sense of
ownership, uncontrolled settlement, and farmland expansion were some of the causes mentioned
for the declining forest cover in the area.

3.1.4 Soil type

In the Kebele there are three major soil types according to colour. The larger proportion, 97%, is
red soil while black and brown types cover 1 and 2 % of the total area respectively. According to
farmers, the area of black soil is estimated to be around 15 ha and red 10 ha addition to the
proportion of each soil types. In soil erosion, especially in the upper part of the kebele which has
undulating land, was mentioned as a serious problem. Low soil fertility was also a problem for
the farmers.
Table 3. 1. Major soil types, their constraints and opportunities

Major soil types Proportion (%) Major crops grown Constraints Opportunities
Red ”Borebor” 97 Maize, finger millet,
teff, wheat, pepper, - Low water holding - Able to grow varied
potato, barley, capacity crop types
onion, field pea, faba - Drought prone - Easy to plough

21 | P a g e
 bean - Productive

Brown ”Ashewa” 2 Onion, faba bean,

wheat, field pea, - High Soil acidity - Suitable for the
barley - Able to grow production of
limited crops vegetables and fruit
- Susceptible to soil - Not affected with
erosion water lodging
- Drought prone (no problem
yield when there is - Able to produce
shortage of rainfall) pulses better than
other soil types

Black 1 Teff, chick pea,

barley, - Soil erosion - Suitable for double
(landslides) cropping (barley-
- High Soil cracking chick pea or chick
- Ploughing pea- onion)
difficulty during
excess moisture and
dry season
- Low productivity

(Source, Woynma Ambaye Kebele agricultural office report,2008).

3.1.5 Land use and Farming system

Crop lands are individually owned while grazing areas are communal. There are, however, some
farmers who allocate some portion of their crop land for grass production. Currently, many
young farmers are landless. According to the farmers, the land redistribution, which was
conducted in 1997, was not equitable. The land distribution was conducted by a committee
which was selected from the community. Not all the land is equally fertile. Based on fertility
status, farmers categorized the land into three types: highly fertile” kelz”,” Mehakelegna” which
has medium fertility, and” Bork” which is relatively infertile. The distribution was carried out
differently from one village “Gott” to another. In some villages, the land was not classified into
the different fertility categories, and those community members who were eligible to get land
were allocated land on the basis of drawing lots. Accordingly, one might get fertile and another
might get infertile land. In some other communities, members were allowed to draw a lot from
each category based on their family size. Thus, each farmer had a chance to get land from all the
fertility categories.
Regarding crop land allocation at the household level, this is mainly decided by men. However,
farmers mentioned that women have also started to negotiate with their husbands. At the

22 | P a g e
community level, land allocation is decided by the community, Woreda and Kebele land
administration experts and committee members.

Table 3.2. Land use system in the study area

Types of land use Area coverage in ha Percentage (%)

Forest land 45.5 3

Cultivated land 1,352 77

Grazing land 246 14

Others land use 102 6

Total 1,745 ha 100%

(Source Burie woreda agricultural office report, 2008).

3.1.6 Livestock population in the study area

The farmers also dependent on the livestock production which are cattle, goats, sheep, horses,
donkey and mule are present in the kebele.

Table.3.3. Livestock population in the study area

Types of livestock Numbers Percentage of total livestock

(%)

Cattles 6,067 52.9

Goats 463 4.0

Sheep 4,455 38.9

Horses 15 0.1

Donkeys 450 3.9

Mule 18 0.2

23 | P a g e
Total 11,468 100

(Sources, segoda kebele agricultural office reports 2008)

3.2 Methods
3.2.1 Data collection method
To meet the designed objective both primary and secondary data are necessary. The primary data
was collected through questionnaires, field observation, key informal interviews (elders and
religious leader), individual interview and Group discussion that was purposely selected. A key
information has made with selected farmers who are knowledgeable about the effect of
deforestation on local livelihood of segoda Kebele at current situations and about its status of
changes. A critical field observation was used together the data such as erosion status, and other
associated problems are a result of deforestation in the study area. Qualitatively in the study area
soil is high in plains, medium in narrow valley. The questionnaires was collected in a way to
obtain the relevant and reliable data about the effect of deforestation on local livelihood of the
study area. Primary data was collected directly by voluntary interviewers.

The secondary data sources was collected from different published and unpublished documents,
projects, previous researches done and data files from the internet or websites. Both quantitative
and qualitative data types was collected from their relevant sources.

3.2.2 Sampling Method

In tach gayint woreda there are 18 Kebeles from these Kebeles segoda can be selected purposely
because of it is highly deforested. The Kebele have 21 villages from these villages 6% or 74
household was selected randomly.

3.2.3. Sampling Techniques

A random sample technique was used to select the sample household 74 respondents from the
total 1238 household of the Kebele.

24 | P a g e
3.3. Data analysis and presentation
The data was collected through questionnaires, key informant interviews and observations about
the effect of deforestation on local livelihood of the communities can be analyzed by using
descriptive statistics. The qualitative data was collected through key informal interviews and was
summarized and narrated. The quantitative data was obtained through formal surveys and was
analyzed using graphs and charts. After analyzing the data, it was interpreted thoroughly.

CHAPTER FOUR

4. Result and discussion

4.1. Socioeconomic and demographic features of the respondents
4.1.1. Age distribution of the respondents
Sex of the respondent 53 were males and 21 were female. Marriage male and females were 51
and 21 respectively. Only 2 males were unmarried.

Table 4.1 Age distribution of the respondent.

25 | P a g e
Age class Frequency of respondents percentages

18-30 26 35.1

31-45 30 40.5

46-60 16 21.7

>60 2 2.7

Total 74 100%

Source; field survey, 2007E.C

Age distribution of the respondents could be seen from table 4.1, majority of the respondents are
aged between age 31-45, which is 40.5% out of the total respondents. The second age class
between 18-30 which is 35.1% out of the total sample respondents. The rest 46-60 and >60 age
distribution are 21.7%and 2.7% respectively.

4.1.2 Education level of the respondents

Table 4.2 Educational level of the respondents

Level of Education Frequency sample respondents Percentages %

Illiterates 48 64.86

Literates 26 35.14

Total 74 100%

Educational level of the respondents out of the 74 total respondents, 64.86% where Illiterates and
35.14% where Literate. This shows that more farmers not have scientific method to protect their
forest resources (Table 4.2).

26 | P a g e
 4.2. Livelihood categories
In the study area livelihoods categories such as crop production, livestock husbandry, forest
products, business and other activities,

Table 4.3. Livelihood categories

Livelihood categories Frequency of sample respondents Percentage%

Crop production 48 64.9

Livestock production 12 16.2

Forest products 8 10.8

Business 4 5.4

Other 2 2.7

Total 74 100%

As in the table 4.3 shown in the study area crop production accounted 64.9% of the total
households in come, next to crop production 16.2% of the household income are from livestock
production. The third level of livelihood income 10.8% of household incomes are from forest
products. The rest 5.4% and 2.7% of the household incomes are from Business and other
different activities respectively.

This indicated that, majority of the farmers are depending on the crop production and livestock
production rather than forest products because of the deforestation of natural forests in the study
area. As a result of this factor, the livelihood strategies of the study area where changed to other
types of livelihood strategies as compared to previous situation due to deforestation.

This may lead the community to the fertility status of the land to decline because of continuous
ploughing and grazing of the land makes low agricultural production obtains from their farms.

4.2.1 Major forest products and extent of forest dependency

There are different forest products obtained from forest resources are, coffee, firewood, chat,
timber, homey and other indirect benefits. The forest products and their extent of dependency to
local community shown before and after deforestation in the table 4.4 below

Table 4.4 The major forest products the study area

27 | P a g e
Major types of Before deforestation After deforestation
forest benefit
Frequency of percentage Frequency of Percentage
responded respondents

Coffee 16 39

Firewood 26 16

Chat 12 35

Timber 21 2

Honey 30 9

Others 7 11

Total 74 100% 74 100%

As indicated in table 4.4 before deforestation 93.8% products like coffee, firewood, chat, timber
honey and the rest of respondents where depend on the other forest products benefits directly or
indirectly. Before deforestation, majority of the farmer’s household’s incomes where generated
from honey and firewood which is accounted 26. % and 23.2% respectively. Whereas timber,
coffee and Chat are placed as the second major household’s incomes as a result of deforestation
the extent of forest dependency have been declines. So, the local communities started to replace
the forest land to the other secondary forest products like chat and coffee. After deforestation,
their major household’s incomes are generating from chat and coffee, which accounts 31.1% and
34.8% respectively.

Fig 1. Types of forest benefits before & after deforestation

120
110 Before deforestation

100 After deforestation
90
80

28 | P a g e
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Coffee firewood Chat Timber Honey Others

4.2.2. major cause of deforestation in the study area

Table 4.5 cause of deforestation in the study area

Major cause of Deforestation Frequency of respondents Percentage %

Population growth 48 42.9%

Expansion of Agriculture 36 32.1%

Increasing firewood demand 11 9.8%

Shifting cultivation 7 6.3%

Over grazing 10 8.9%

Total 74 100%

As in dictated in table 4.5 above, 42.9% and 32.1% of cause of deforestation is population
growth and Expansion of agriculture activity. Also, the group discussion can have ranked that the
major course of deforestation population growth, expansion of agricultural activities and

29 | P a g e
increasing of fuel wood demand. Due to population growth, the demand of agricultural land,
construction materials for house building and the fuel wood demands also increased in the study
area. The requirement of the resources leads to the forest degradation. In the group discussion
concluded.

4.2.3. Major impacts of deforestation on local livelihoods

4.2.4. Impact of deforestation on soil fertility status in the study area.

Deforestation changes the status of soil fertility at where it takes place. The soil of the study area
is the easily susceptible by water erosion.

Table 4.6 fertility status of the soil in the study area.

Level of soil fertility status Before deforestation After deforestation

Sample respondents Percentage (%) Sample respondent percentage

High 63 56.2% 17 15.2%

Medium 45 40.2% 42 37.5%

Low 4 3.6% 53 47.5%

Total 74 100% 74 100%

As indicated the respondents in table 4.6 above 47.3% of te households mentioned for fertility of
the soil to be low after deforestation and only 15.2% of the responds fold, as soil fertility high
after deforestation.

Without forest cover land is not much fertile due to its easily susceptible to water erosion that
makes fertility of the soil to decline. These show that deforestation have more impacts on fertility
status of the soil.

Figure 2. Soil Fertility status before and after deforestation

30 | P a g e
80 Before deforestation

70 After deforestation

60

50

40

30

20

10

High Medium Low

4.3. Reduction of Agricultural productivity

Deforestation has a significant influence on the agricultural production, it makes the production
to decline through erosion (see table 4.7)

Table 4.7 Agricultural productivity is decrease as a result of deforestation

Respondents Frequency of respondents Percentage%

Yes 101 90.2%

NO 11 9.8%

Total 74 100%

As indicated table 4.7,90.2% of the respondents where response that their agriculture
productivity has been decreased. Only 9.8% of the rest respondents said that their productivities
are not changed otter deforestation. This indicates that deforestation has an adverse impact on
agricultural productivities of the local community through reduction in soil fertility.

4.4. Impacts on water

Table 4.8 water status after deforestation

Response Frequency of respondents Percentage%

31 | P a g e
Increased 2 11.8%

Decreased 110 98.2%

Total 100%

Deforestation affects both quality and quantity of water (table 4.8).

From the total household, 98.2% of the respondents mentioned that, the water resources have
decreased after deforestation and only 1.8% of the respondents told to increased Deforestation
decrease water status due to erosion to water body and sedimentations.

4.5 improving agricultural productivity mechanisms

For improving agricultural productivity to maintain water status and energy source after
deforestation in the study are

4.5.1 Mechanisms used to improve agriculture.

Different mechanisms used to in the community to improve agricultural productivity after
deforestation (see table 4.9)

Table 4.9 Mechanisms used to improve agricultural productivity.

Types of mechanisms Frequency respondents Percentages%

Manure/compost 44 39.3%

Crop residue 8 7.2%

Artificial fertilizer 10 8.9%

Agro forestry 22 19.6%

Crop rotation 28 25%

Total 74 100%

AS indicated in the above table 4.9, 39.3 % of the respondents used manure /compost in order to
maximize the productivity this shows that majorly of the formers in the study depends on manure
for agricultural production. The other mechanism such as crop residues a critical fertilizer, agro

32 | P a g e
 forestry and crop rotation accounted 7.2% 8.9% 19.6% and 25% respectively. The next to
manure crop rotation is practiced in the study area which is 25% of the respondents as said it

4.5.2 Mechanisms used to maintain water status.

Different mechanisms are practiced by local formers in order to maintain and regulate the water
status in the study area (see table 4.10)

Table 4.10 Mechanisms used to maintain water status.

Types of mechanism Frequency of respondents Percentage%

Terracing 22 19.6%

Planting trees 61 54.5%

Area closure 29 25.9%

Total 74 100%

This study show that above in the table 4.10 planting trees especially. Indigenous tree species
arse well adopting in the study area. Tree species maintain and regulate the ground water status
and at the same time recharge the underground water by increasing the infiltration rate of the soil
and reduces run off Around 55% of the households said that using planting trees around the
water ways and at the tip of the steep slope is to improves and maintain the ground water
recharge- The next around 26% of the households said that used to area closures methods in
order to maintain and regulate both soil and water status. This practice can not used to before
deforestation in the study area but, as a result of deforestation which causes severe soil erosion
and reduction, the local community aware to adopt the physical soil and water conservation by
collaboration with agricultural workers of the kebele. The 3rd practice to maintain and regulate
water status in the study area as around 20%

33 | P a g e
of the respondents said that terracing methods, it the best in order to maintain and regulate both
soil and water status. Therefore, the above table 4.10 show methods are the most adoptable in the
study area in order to conserve the degraded land as a result of erosion and over grazing,
especially around the steep slope area.

4.5.3 Mechanisms used to improve energy sources

Before deforestation the total source of energy in the study area natural forest. But offer
deforestation the local community depends on other sours of energy such as plantation forest,
leaves and crop residue, and kerosene (see table 4.11)

Table 10.11 Mechanisms to improve energy source

Sources of energy Frequency of respondents Percentage%

Plantation forest 46 41.1%

wow dung 2 1.8%

Leaves and crop residue 23 20.5%

Kerosene 26 23.2%

Electricity - -

Natural forest 15 13.4%

Total 74 100%

As indicated in the table 10.11 around 41% of the households are used to plantation forest for
their energy sources. The next to plantation forest around 23% of households as told kerosene for
their energy sources. The 3rd to that around 21% of households are used to leaves and residue for
their source of energy. The only around 13% of households who can live never to the natural
forest area are used to fore their energy source natural forest. Around 2% of households are used
cow dung for their cooking services.

34 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FIVE

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1. Conclusion
The result of the study indicates that, before deforestation more the community of the kebele
farmers used to different forest products, such as timber, fuel wood and other different natural
forest product benefits and service from forest resources, but after increasing deforestation the
forest dependent is reduce and the farmers starts to depends on secondary forest products such as
chat and coffee planting on their farm lands.

The most of livelihood strategy on the study area is the crop production, next to crop production
livestock production, the 3rd to livestock production, forest products, the rest of the community
livelihood on the business and other services, so that deforestation is affecting the livelihood
strategy in the local community by reducing the forest products those farmers can depending on
the forest benefits. Deforestation also have indirect impacts on the livelihood strategy in the local
community by reducing soil productivity and water status both on the quantity and quality.
Deforestation also changes climate condition have other adverse impacts on local livelihood
strategy by reducing agricultural productivities, loss of biodiversity and environmental changes.
The major cause of deforestation on the study area is growth of population and demands of
agricultural land, around 43% and 32% respectively.

35 | P a g e
 5.2. Recommendation
As the study result shows, the following recommendations were forwarded;

 On the local community of the study area, deforestation is a serious problem on livelihood
strategy, so that the government and the community should be focused on participatory forest
management and protection.
 Forest should be managed in a way that participate and community based, to improve
agricultural productivity by keeping both soil fertility and water status quantity and quality in
the study area.
 Encourage the local community use agro forestry system to improve productivity in the study
area.
 Encourage the farmers they plant indigenous tree species which are maintain and improve the
water status in the study area.
 Aware the local community about the forest values sustainability to their environmental
condition and livelihood in comes to finding out the potential solution to the area.
 Encourage the local community, to use the family planning program, to controlling the
increasing population number and deciding the agricultural land demand due to population
ratio for the next future generation to keep the forest resource.

36 | P a g e
5. Reference
Abera, W. 2008. Amhara National Regional State’s efforts towards forest cover increment. In 13-

20. Amazon Institute for Environmental Research, Belem Brazil.

Amor, D. and Pfaff, A. 2008. Early history of the impact of road investments on deforestation in
the Mayan forest. Working Paper, Nicholas School of the Environment and Sanford
School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Anonymous, 2001a. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000-Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper
140. Rome, Italy.
Anonymous. 2001b. State of the World’s Forest 2001. FAO, Rome Italy.
Anonymous. 2005. Ecosystems and Human well-being: synthesis. Millennium ecosystem
Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC.
Anonymous. 2007. Three Essential Strategies for Reducing Deforestation. Alianca da Terra,
Amigos da Terra, Instituto Centro de Vida, IMAZON, Instituto de Pesquisa da
Amazonia, Instituto Socio Ambiental, Nucleo de Estudos e Pratica Juridica
Ambiental, Faculdade de Direito- Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Woods
Hole Research Center and David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
Anonymous, 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment, 2010-Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper
163. Rome, Italy. 340p.
ANRS-BOA, 2012. GIS Based Forest Resource Assessment, Quantification and Mapping in Amhara
Region. Amhara National Regional Stateal State-Bureau of Agriculture. Bahir-Dar.

Bruijnzeel, L. A. 2004. Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soils for the
trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104: 185-228.
Bruijnzeel, L. A.; Bonell, M.; Gilmour, D. A. and Lamb, D. 2005. Forest, water and people in
the humid tropics: an emerging view. In: Forest, Water and People in the humid
tropics, eds. Bonell, M. and Bruijnzeel, L. A. Cambridge University Pres, Cambridge
United Kingdom.
Burie Zuria Woreda Office of Agriculture. 2007. Unpublished office report. Burie Zuria woreda,
Ethiopia.
Chomitz, K. M.; Buys, P.; Luca, G. D.; Thomas, T. S. and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. 2007.
conservation and development? Environment, Development and Sustainability 6: 163-178
Dudley, N. and Stolton, S. 2003. Running Pure. World Bank and WWF, Washington DC.

Ecoagriculture, eds. McNeely, J. A. and Scherr, S. J. Island Press, Washington DC.

Expanded Academic ASAP.

FAO 2005, Forest cover change and socio economic diverse in Rome.

FAO, 2002. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper No. 140.
FAO, (2010). “Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable wood fuels”, in FAO Forestry, Paper 160,

Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Viale Delle Terme di Caracalla, I-00100
Rome, Italy, pp. 5, 10 and 11

Gorte, R.W and Sheikh, P. A (2010) Deforestation and Climate Change, Congressional Research

Gupta, A.; Thapliyal, P. K.; Pal, P. K. and Joshi, P. C. 2005. Impact of deforestation on
Indian monsoon- A GCM sensitivity study. Journal of Indian Geophysical Union 9: 97-
104.

37 | P a g e
Haile Selassie, A. April 2004. Ethiopians struggle over land reform. World press Review 51.4.

Help Reduce Poverty, International Institute of Environment and Development, UK, 1-5,
Hole Research Center and David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
Hermosilla, A. 2001. Illegal activities and corruption in the forest sector. In: United State.

Holden, 1998.Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technology in Ethiopia

highland; case study in And itTid,north showa; agriculturaleconomics.vol.18 (3), pp233- 248.

Houghton, R. A. 2005. Tropical deforestation as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In:

in FAO Forestry, Paper 160, Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Viale Delle
Terme di Caracalla, I-00100 Rome, Italy, pp. 5, 10 and 11
Indian monsoon- A GCM sensitivity study. Journal of Indian Geophysical Union 9: 97-
KAUSHIK: 2006, KAUSHIK Environmental science and Engineering India.

Lawton, R. O.; Nair, U. S.; Pielke Sr., R. A. and Welch, R. M. 2001. Climatic impact of
tropical lowland deforestation on nearby Montane Cloud Forests. Science 294: 584-
587.

Lemenih, M. and Woldemariam, T., 2010. Review of Forest, woodland and bushland resources in
Ethiopia up to 2008. In: Edwards, Sue (ed.), Ethiopian Environment Review No . 1. Forum for
Environment, Addis Ababa.
management and conservation of biodiversity: An overview. Conservation Biology
Management of Tropical Forests.
Mayers, J. and Vermeulen, S. (2002) Power from the Trees: How Good Forest Governance Can improve
socio economic benefit.
Moutinho, P.; Lefebvre, P.; Lopes Silva, Jr. U. and Prins, E. 2001. Road paving, fire
MSC thesis center of land management And land Tenure, Technicheleniversitat.

Myers, N. and Mittermeier, R. A. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.

Nature 403: 853-854.
Nepstad, D. C.; Carvalho, G.; Barros, A. C.; Alencar, A.; Capobianco, J. P.; Bishop, J.;
Moutinho, P.; Lefebvre, P.; Lopes Silva, Jr. U. and Prins, E. 2001. Road paving, fire
regime and the future of Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 395-
407.
Nepstad, D. C.; Schwartzmann, S.; Bamberger, B.; Santilli, M.; Ray, D.; Schlesinger, P.;
Lefebvre, P.; Alencar, A.; Prinz, E.; Fiske, G. and Rolla, A. 2006. Inhibition of
Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology
20: 65-73.
Parry, J (2003). Tree choppers become tree planters. Appropriate Technology, 30(4), 38-39
Particular Reference to Ethiopia, Haramaya University press:Dire Dawa;Ethiopia.
perspective on the forest-climate connection: opportunity for climate mitigation,
Putz, F. E.; Blate, G. M.; Redford, K. H.; Fimbel, R. and Robinson, J. 2001. Tropical forest
regime and the future of Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 395-
Rehabilitation of degraded and secondary tropical forests.

Richard T.Corlett and Richard B.primack, 2011.Tropical rain forest an Ecological and
Sands, R. 2005. Forestry in a Global Context. CABI Publishing.
science 310; 480. 482.

38 | P a g e
Sucoff, E. (2003). Deforestation. In Environmental Encyclopedia. (P.g.358-359). Detroit: Gale.
sustainability. Environment 44: 34-42.
Van Noordwijk, M.; Agus, F.; Verbist, B.; Hairiah, K. and Tomich, T. P. 2006. Managing
watershed services in ecoagriculture land-scapes. In: The State-of-the-Art of
way of life. WRM's bulletin Nº 116, March 2007.
Woynima Ambaye Kebele. 2008. Unpublished office report. Burie Zuria woreda, Ethiopia.

6. Questionnaires
Wolayta sodo university, department of natural resource management dear the respondents, this
research questionnaire prepared to collect data for the partial fulfillment of BSc degree in natural
resource management entitled with the effect of deforestation on livelihood of local community
in the case of sauth gonder Zone, Burie Zuria Woreda segoda Kebele.

39 | P a g e
The Questionnaires about the effect of deforestation on livelihood of local community for
farmers as follow.
Thank you for your response.
Personal back Ground information
Respondents Name ____________ Woreda _________Kebele village __________
I. Sex A, Male B, Female
II. Age 18 – 30 30 – 46 46 – 60
>60
III. Educational status A, literate B, Illiterate
Questionnaires Concerning the Objective of the study
1. What do you think about the forest cover before 10 years and after 10 years around your
area?

Level Before deforestation After deforestation

High

Medium

Low

2. What is your source of income?

A. Forest product B. Crop Production C. Livestock
3. If your source of income in question no. “2” is forest product so what is your major income
among the following.
A. Timber B. Honey C. Chat D. other construction material
E. Fire wood F. Direct food
4. What change you can see after forest has been deforested around your area?
___________________________________________________________
5. What do you think about the fertility status of your land before and after deforestation
respectively?

Level Before deforestation After deforestation

High

Medium

40 | P a g e
 Low

6. If soil fertility is low after deforestation in question no. 4, is there any impact on agricultural
production:
A. Yes B. No
7. If your answer is “yes” what mechanism (methods) you are using in order to improve your
agricultural production:
A. Mannering (Compost) B. Crop residue C. Agro forestry D. Artificial fertilizer
E. Crop rotation (legume) F. Others
8. What changes have you seen after forest has been deforested? What are the energy sources
after forest has been deforested?
A. Plantation forest B. Cow dung C. Natural forest D. Kerosene
E. Electricity F. leaves and residue
9. What about the status of water in rivers or stream around your area after forest has been
deforested?
A. Decreased B. Increased
10. If your answer on question No. (9) is decreased what conservation measures do you use to
maintain water status?
A. Terracing B. Planting trees C. Area closures D. Other measures.
11. What is the major cause of deforestation?
A. shifting cultivation B. increase (use of fuel wood)
C. population growth D. expansion of agriculture

41 | P a g e