COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL FORESTRY

FOREST COVER CHANGE AND SOCIO ECONOMIC DRIVERS IN

KAFA BIOSPHERE RESERVE, EVIDENCE FROM GIMBO AND SHISO
ENDE DISTRICTS, KAFFA ZONE, SOUTH WEST ETHIOPIA

PREPARED BY: LUWIZA WOLDE GEBRIEL

THESIS SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL FORESTRY, COLLEGE OF

AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, BONGA UNIVERSITY FOR PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF MASTERS DEGREE IN FOREST AND NATURE CONSERVATION

BONGA, ETHIOPIA
January, 2025
BONGA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL FORESTRY

PREPARED BY:

LUWIZA WOLDEGEBRIEL

ADVISOR: PROFESOR KITISSA HUNDERA

CO-ADIVSER: DR. YERICHO BIRHANU

THESIS SUBMITTED TO BONGA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL

RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL FORESTRY FOR PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF MASTERS
DEGREE IN FOREST AND NATURE CONSERVATION

BONGA, ETHIOPIA
March, 2025

2
 POST GRADUATE PROGRAMS

BONGA UNIVERSITY

APPROVAL SHEET

As thesis of this advisory, we hereby certify that we have read & evaluated this thesis entitled” Forest Cover Change and
Socio Economic Drivers in Kafa Biosphere Reserve, Evidence From Gimbo and Shisho Ende Districts, Kaffa Zone, South
West Ethiopia” we recommend that it be accepted as full filing the thesis requirement.

Major advisor Kitessa Hundera (PhD. Professor)

Signature Date 31 /03 /2017

Co-advisor Yericho Birhanu (PhD)

Signature Date / /

As member of board of Examiners of this thesis open defence examination, we certify that we have read & evaluated this
thesis prepared by Luwiza Wolde Gebriel & examined the candidate. We recommend that the thesis accepted as full filing
thesis requirement for the degree of Masters of Science in forest & nature conservation.

_________________ ________________

Name of the Chairperson Signature Date

________________________ _________________

Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date

________________________ _________________

Name of External examiner Signature Date

________________________ __________________ _________________

SGS Approval Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the

final copy of the thesis to the School of Post Graduate Post (SPGP) through the

Department/School Graduate Committee (DGC/SGC) of the candidate‟s department.

Stamp of PGP Date: _____________

i
Declaration

“I solemnly declare that this thesis is the result of my own research endeavors, conducted under the guidance of
Major advisor Kitessa Hundera (PhD. Professor) and Co-advisor Yericho Birhanu (PhD). All sources used have
been duly acknowledged and referenced according to the conventions of academic integrity and citation.

ii
Dedication
I dedicate my dissertation work to my family and many friends. A special feeling of gratitude to my loving
daughter Hiwot and sons Girum, Kidus and Ermiyas whose words of encouragement and push to finalize my
thesis My sisters Yodit and her daughter Meaza have never left my side and are very special.

iii
Contents
APPROVAL SHEET...................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Declaration ............................................................................................................................................................................ii
Dedication .............................................................................................................................................................................ii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figurers ................................................................................................................................................................. vii
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................................... viii
Abstracts ............................................................................................................................................................................ viii
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the problem ............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Research Hypothesis ................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4.1. General Objective ................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.4.2. Specific Objective ............................................................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Research questions ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.7. Significance of the study ............................................................................................................................................ 6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1. Conceptual Review .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Forest and Forest Cover Change .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2. Global overviews of forest cover change .................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1. Global Causes of forest cover change ................................................................................................................... 8
2.3. Extents of forest cover in Ethiopia .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.4. The causes of forest cover change in Ethiopia ............................................................................................................. 8
2.5. Forest Resource Management Strategies in Ethiopia ................................................................................................. 10
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS ....................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Description of Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1.1. Site selection ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.3. Topography of the study area ............................................................................................................................ 13
3.1.3. Climate of the study area (Zone et al., 2019) ...................................................................................................... 13
3.1.4. Natural Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................. 13

iv
 3.2. Socio-economic Characteristics of the Study Area .................................................................................................... 14
3.2.1. Economic Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.2. Population Characteristics.................................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Types and sources of data ......................................................................................................................................... 14
3.4 Spatial data collection methods ................................................................................................................................ 15
3.5 Field Observation ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.6 Household Survey...................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.7 Sampling design ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
 Sampling technique ............................................................................................................................................. 16
3.9. Methods of Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Accuracy Assessment...................................................................................................................................................... 18
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................ 18
4.1 Bonga priority forest cover classification .................................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Classification accuracy .............................................................................................................................................. 21
4.3 Forest covers change detection ................................................................................................................................... 22
4.4 Change detection comparisons.................................................................................................................................. 35
4.4.1 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 35
4.4.2 Farmland ............................................................................................................................................................ 36
4.4.3 Built up .............................................................................................................................................................. 36
4.4.4 Wetland .............................................................................................................................................................. 37
4.5 Deforestation rate of Bonga priority forest ................................................................................................................. 38
4.6 Driving forces of Bonga priority forest LU/LC change ............................................................................................... 40
4.6.1 Direct drivers ...................................................................................................................................................... 42
4.6.2 Indirect drivers.................................................................................................................................................... 45
4.7 Socio-economic survey .............................................................................................................................................. 48
4.7.1 Family size ......................................................................................................................................................... 48
4.7.2 Land holding ...................................................................................................................................................... 49
4.7.3 Education level ................................................................................................................................................... 50
4.7.3 Land dependent income. ..................................................................................................................................... 51
4.7.4 Woody & NTFPs uses of Bonga priority forest.................................................................................................... 53
4.8 Socio-economic influences of Bonga priority forest LU/LC change ............................................................................ 55
4.8.1 Influences on land dependent income .................................................................................................................. 55
v
5. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................................................................... 56
5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................ 56
5.2 Recommendation ...................................................................................................................................................... 57
6. References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2

List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of spatial data sets used in this study ...................................................................................................... 14
Table 2: Software used in the course of the study ................................................................................................................ 15
Table 3. Bonga priority forest LU/LC classification results of 1994, 2014 & 2024 ............................................................... 20
Table 4:-Classification accuracy of land sat image of 1994, 2014 and 2024.......................................................................... 21
Table 5: LU/LCs change detection in three periods .............................................................................................................. 22
Table 6: Change detection matrix of 1994 to 2024 ............................................................................................................... 33
Table 7. change detection matrix 2014-2024 ........................................................................................................................ 33
Table 8: Change detection matrix of 1994-2024 ................................................................................................................... 34
Table 9: Drivers of Bonga priority forest LU/LC change .................................................................................................... 41

vi
List of Figurers
Figure 1. Map of the study area ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2: Landsat image Bonga priority Forest 1994 ........................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3: Landsat image Bonga priority forestForest 2014 .................................................................................................. 19
Figure 4: Landsat image Bonga priority Forest 2024........................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5: Bonga priority closed natural forest ...................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 6: Agricultural lands in & around Bonga priority forest ........................................................................................... 36
Figure 7: Settlement in and around Bonga priority forest. .................................................................................................... 37
Figure 8: Wetland converting to agricultural land ............................................................................................................... 38
Figure 9: Bonga priority forest & non forest LU/LC in 1994, 2014 and 2024 ..................................................................... 38
Figure 11: Driving forces of Bonga priority forest cover change .......................................................................................... 42
Figure 12: Agricultural land expansion to open Bonga priority natural forest ....................................................................... 43
Figure 13: Illegal settlement in Bonga priority natural forest ................................................................................................ 43
Figure 14: Illegal logging and fuel wood extraction in Bonga priority natural forest ............................................................. 44
Figure 15: Family size per household of the study area ........................................................................................................ 48
Figure 16: an average land holding per household in hectare (ha)......................................................................................... 49
Figure 17: Family educational level .................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 18: Respondents education level ............................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 19: Annual income contribution of different land dependent incomes per household................................................. 52
Figure 20: Woody & NTFPs benefit of local households from Bonga priority forest. .......................................................... 54

vii
Acronyms

CBD Conservation on Biological Diversity

CBFED Community Based Forest Enterprise Development

CSA Central Statistical Agency

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GIS Geographic Information System

KBR Kafa Biosphere Reserve

LULC Land Use and Land Cover

MEFCC Ministry of Environment forest and Climate Change

PFM Participatory Forest Management

SEWAO Self Employed Women‟s Association

SFM Sustainable Forest Management

SWEPRS South West Ethiopia People Regional State

UNEP United Nation Environment Program

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WBISP World Bank Investment and Strategy

Abstracts
Forest cover change has significant and cumulative impact on regional and global climate changes, since
environmental problems have no boundaries and they are interrelated. To achieve the goals of this study, a variety
viii
of data were gathered from primary and secondary sources. Primary data encompassed satellite images, Google
Earth data, as well as socioeconomic and environmental information. Two districts namely Gimbo and Shishoede
on which part of KBR area was purposively selected as study area. The reason for the purposive selection of two
districts under Kafa biosphere reserve is highly covered by dense forest and share part from the national forest
priority area.

In 1994 majority of the study area were under built up and accounted for 158,146ha (56.27%) and vegetation area
accounted for 74202.3ha (26.4%). While, farmland and wetland accounted for 24762.1ha (8.81%), 23923 ha
(8.51%) respectively. In 2014, built up and farmland were the most LU/LC types which amounted to 163944ha
(58.34%) and 56595ha (20.14%), respectively. The rest LU/LC types vegetation & wetland accounted for 45522.1
ha (16.20%), 14972.3 (5.33%) respectively. Meanwhile, in 2024, built up and farmland were still the dominant
LU/LC types which accounted for 159,909ha (56.9%) and 73809.3ha (26.26%), respectively. The rest LU/LC
types vegetation and wetland accounted for 43486.05 (15.47%) & 3829.05ha (1.36%). 2014 classification
compared with 1994, agriculture and settlement were increased by 12976.3ha (53.9%) and 3915.09(19.5%),
respectively. On the other hand, closed forest, open forest and wetland were decreased by 11485ha (11.5%),
4040.7ha (10.5%) and 1365.8ha (17.6%). 20 years (1994-2014), vegetation decreased by 11,485ha (11%) (Table
6). The change detection matrix analysis showed that 12,337.3ha (12.3%) of vegetation was converted to build up
(Table 7). The average rate of change was 822.49 ha/year. The change was induced by anthropogenic factors like
extraction of woody forest products.

Key word; cover change, detection, forest, impact

ix
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Land use change has profound impacts on ecosystem service, food production and environmental balance (Yan et
al.,2023). According to Negassa et al., (2020), land cover changes affect globally the ecological systems.
Moreover, ecological systems provided by forests are also a source of livelihoods for millions of people “the

ability of a system to adjust to the unpredictability and extremes of climate change to lessen potential damages, to
take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences” (Change et al., 2023) and their disappearance
affects to the life styles of especially indigenous communities.

Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) change assessment helps to identify the degree of human interference in the
natural environment and has become increasingly significant research priority area (Mutio et al., 2023). Land use
land cover (LULC) changes are aspects of global environmental change and affect ecosystem processes and
services. For example, an increasing demand for agricultural, industrial or urban areas concessions impacts the
ability of natural forests, water bodies and grasslands to support mankind In recent decades, a large amount of
change in LULC has been observed, which was caused by different socio-economic and biophysical drivers, such
as population growth, agricultural expansion and intensification, accessibility to infrastructure/markets and water
availability or climate (Shiferaw et al., 2021).

Forests play multiple roles in climate regulation, protection from extreme events, water filtration, carbon
sequestration, and biodiversity habitat apart from providing provisioning ecosystem services such as food, timber,
and medicines. Forests regulate regional and global climate through evapotranspiration, which in turn affects the
precipitation regime and the water cycle (Chagnon & Bras, 2005). About 45% of carbon found in terrestrial
ecosystems is stored in forests, and forests sequester more than 25% of annual anthropogenic carbon emissions
from the atmosphere (Yan et al., 2023). Throughout the world, the destruction of natural forests for timber,
cropland, fuel wood, urbanization, development projects and commercial industry have had a profound impact on
rural communities and wild fauna and flora. The deterioration of the Earth‟s extensive forests has exposed critical
watersheds, thereby, accelerating topsoil erosion and sedimentation of rivers and reservoirs, and exacerbating
floods. Simultaneously, the excessive deforestation has overtaxed the land's natural resilience and the capacity to
regenerate and sustain its productive functions (Poffenberger, 2006).

1
Forests, with the majority of the world‟s terrestrial species of plants, animals, and microorganisms, are also one of
the richest biological areas on Earth (Lindenmayer et al., 2000). The World Bank's Forest Strategy notes that:
More than 1.6 billion people depend to varying degrees on forests for their livelihoods. About 60 million
indigenous people are almost wholly dependent on forests. Some 350 million people who live within or adjacent to
dense forests depend on them to a high degree for subsistence and income (Vedeld et al., 2007). Currently, global
forest cover continues to decline (Tandetzki et al., 2022). (Baker et al., 1924) predicts that the current annual
global forest loss is about 13 million hectares accounting for approximately 17 per cent of the total annual
greenhouse gas emissions (Parry & Palutikof, 2007). In the coming future, increasing global demand for food,
biofuels and natural resources gives more pressure on forests (Carlson et al., 2012)
Large number of human population depend more on agriculture, forestry, natural coffee production, fuel wood and
charcoal selling for their livelihoods that directly affect natural resources in developing countries like Ethiopia.
Local people have historically managed these Afromontane moist forests for traditional coffee production as coffee
is a major source of income for many rural areas (Beyene, 2022). This practice has been harming the forest
resource because slashing herbs and climbers has a consequence effect on biodiversity and the ecosystem of forest
areas. Deforestation and forest degradation resulting from unsustainable utilization affects the continued provision
of ecosystem services, puts in the balance the livelihoods of them who depend primarily on the forests for survival.
In Ethiopia, natural resources are under the influence of various interconnected factors like population pressure,
agricultural expansion, migration, rapid urbanization, resettlement, climate change, and environmental pollution.
Its huge population number had been putting a great burden on the sustainability of almost all types of natural
resources. There is, therefore, serious degradation of land, water, forest, rangeland, and wildlife resources that
appear to feed off each other. This results in severe soil loss, low vegetative cover, unsustainable farming practice,
continuous use of dung and crop residues for fuel, overgrazing, and destruction and/or migration of wildlife, which
again are intensifying the degradation of available resources in a vicious circle. The process ends with amplified
environmental consequences such as water quality deterioration, biodiversity decline, and averts ecosystem
services. It further recapitulates towards diverse socio-economic problems, political instability, marginalization,
poverty, and recurrent natural hazards. The Ethiopian governments have taken several steps to address these
problems like launching soil and water conservation campaign, tree planting programs, launching of green legacy
to plant trees annually and others to meet the strategy of green economy, however, there is limitation on
management of the indigenous trees and also on biosphere reserve management. Involvement of stakeholders in
forest management, such as participatory forest management (PFM), is meant to limit the access to resources that
were previously considered open to all. Unfortunately, increased regulation of a specific forest may result in

2
aggravated rates of degradation in adjacent forests, especially where these continue to be the responsibility of
government authorities.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the forest cover change and the socio economic drivers of Kafa
Biosphere Reserve by identifying the gaps and analyse the findings with recommendations which will help for who
have concern on Kafa Biosphere Reserve and working on it, for planners and also for policy makers.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Globally, forest habitats are threatened by human-induced deforestation and degradation. Despite the important
and critical role of forests‟ play in maintaining essential functions of our planet and in human welfare, the process
of converting forested land to other land uses such as cropland, pasture, mining, and urban areas is persistent
(Negassa et al., 2020). Although the rate of deforestation has slowed down in recent years, it is still alarmingly
high (Belayneh et al., 2020a). About 13 million hectares (ha) of forests were lost annually from 2010 to 2024 at the
global scale, and the extent of forest loss is higher in tropical countries (Negassa et al., 2020) where biological
diversity as well as reliance on forests for subsistence level livelihoods are the highest. Deforestation has caused
degradation of quality and amount of ecosystem services around the world reducing biodiversity, undermining the
flood retention capacity and soil stability as well as producing negative impacts on local livelihoods and regional
economies. Potential drivers would be agricultural expansion, land degradation/erosion, landslide and
deforestation, indicating that requires concerted effort to restore and manage landscapes for sustainable socio-
ecological and economic uses (Shiferaw et al., 2021)
Forest degradation is influenced by a wide range of factors such as agricultural expansion, insecure land tenure,
international markets, colonization, infrastructure and road building, urbanization, mining, grazing, uncontrolled
fire, political unrest, fuel wood extraction, and timber logging ((Lambin et al., 2003). Various demographic,
socioeconomic, biophysical, political, cultural, and technological drivers, acting individually or synergistically,
stimulate the anthropogenic activities of the agents (i.e., small farmers, ranchers, plantations, loggers) causing
deforestation or forest degradation (Lambin et al., 2003). The rates of forest cover changes in different countries or
regions are not uniform but vary over time and space (Lambin et al., 2003). In some places, forest cover is slightly
increased, while in others, it is declining. For instance, the highest percentage of annual forest loss was reported in
developing countries, particularly in Africa (at 3.94 million ha year−1), followed by South America (at 2.6 million
ha year−1) while in a few countries in Asia, Oceania, and Europe, a reverse trend of increasing forest cover has
been reported (Santoro et al., 2020) The difference in the trends in forest cover change among regions partly
reflects differences in forest management practices, policies, and weak enforcement (Addo-Fordjour & Ankomah,
2017) and the changes in land use demands (Rotich & Ojwang, 2021) that promote deforestation.

3
 The drivers of forest cover change in Ethiopia are dynamic and complex, varying in space and time depending on
diversity in vegetation types, environmental history, livelihood, and topography (Woldemedhin et al., 2022).
However, recent studies in Ethiopia have revealed that the human factor, including population growth,
uncontrolled fuel wood extraction, poverty, lack of forest and land-use policies, unstable land-tenure system, and
socio-political instability, are responsible for forest cover change (Mengist et al., 2022).
Although deforestation is a common phenomenon and affects all of Ethiopia, the highlands are the most vulnerable
area due to a long settlement and agricultural history (Belayneh et al., 2020b). Various studies have been
conducted in Ethiopia to examine forest cover change using GIS and remote sensing methods (Debebe et al.,
2023). These studies have documented that forest resources have declined in both space and time. Conversely,
other studies have reported a slight increase in forest cover in some parts of the country (Debebe et al., 2023).

Rapid population increase, high tendency of cereal cropping, abandoned settlement, commercial agriculture,
coffee investment, indistinct land use system and the likes causes the deterioration of natural forest cover in the
study area and threatens biodiversity, land quality, sustainability of traditional farming practices and the livelihood
of the local community. Following the conversion of forests, cultivated fields exhibit a significant decline in soil
fertility and an increase in soil loss as compared with the traditional agroforestry system. The establishment of a
sustainable agricultural system will require a change in model, whereby the essential values of the traditional
forest-based agricultural system are recognised, rather than the on-going replication of agricultural policies that
were developed for the open fields of central Ethiopia.

Still, forests play a major role for economic and social value for forest dwellers and have a part for the global
carbon balance. They act as both carbon sources and sinks and they have the latent to form an important
constituent to fight global climate change. Biodiversity richness indicates the conservation status and climate
change mitigation potential of the forest. However, their contribution to biodiversity conservation and economic
and social value in different forest management option at nationally designated forest is not well defined.
Therefore, the main purpose of this study has to investigate the impacts of forest cover change and its socio-
economic drivers of the study area which will contribute for developing the management plan of Kafa Biosphere
Reserve and also for policy makers.

In general, even if mankind spent thousands years to perfect inside there have been a lot of miss out in his
environment. The following sever issues were the problems which state the concept of this research.

 Forest cover change has significant and cumulative impact on regional and global climate changes, since
environmental problems have no boundaries and they are interrelated
4
 The problem of climate condition inconsistency of the study area was increasing especially there was seasonal
pattern change on rainfall and temperature.

 High rate of daily and seasonal deforestation which was used for natural resource utilization and local energy
demand satisfaction

 There is well-known science manifestation and virtual expression of theoretical and practical implementation of
boosted diverse forest which is distinctive and forms of iconic figures for the culture and ethnicity of the society

1.3 Research Hypothesis

The study area forest is still lack of enhanced implementation of natural resource development and monitoring of
biosphere reserves approaches was not well developed.

1.4 Objectives

1.4.1. General Objective

The general objective of the study is to investigate the impact of forest cover changes and socio economic drivers
of Kafa Biosphere Reserve (KBR).

1.4.2. Specific Objective

i) To determine 20 years of forest cover changes in Gimbo district and Shisho ende district under Kafa
Biosphere reserve (KBR)
ii) To ascertain the impacts forest cover change in selected study site of Kafa Biosphere reserve (KBR)
iii) To identify the Socio economic drivers of forest cover change in the study area

1.5. Research questions

i) Is change in forest cover attributed to anthropogenic activities in the study area?
ii) What is the impact of forest cover change in the study area?
iii) What are the Socio economic drivers of forest cover change in the study area

1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study

Due to time, labour and budget limitation the study delimited to forest cover change and socio economic driver in
case of kafa biosphere, south west of Ethiopia. The study area covers two kebeles from two districts namely Wana
bola of Shishoende district and Yeyibito of Gimbo district. More detail study is needed to narrow the LULC
change of this biosphere reserve and the potential socioeconomic drivers. This study was to analyse forest cover

5
change and its implication to climate change by integrating GIS and remote sensing data in Kafa zone for about 34
years for the duration of 1986 to 2020 alone.

1.7. Significance of the study

The degradation of forest has a direct influence on biodiversity, surface water quality, groundwater table decline,
extreme flooding, wild life habitat loss, and environmental degradation. As a result, it has influence on the public
economic and social deprivation, which leads for poverty. This study contributes to the conservation and
protection of forests and its biodiversity and meanwhile empowering people in order to maintain natural stability in
the studied area. The study could also contribute to environmental management plans and ideas to improve
biosphere management planning issues in the study region by providing important information for the government
and NGOs. Finally, it gives environmentalists, regional planners, and decision-makers the most up-to-date
knowledge on the possessions of forest land cover changes and economic sand social drivers of Kafa Biosphere
Reserve, so they may plan for long-term environmental development and conservation. It is also a valuable source
of information for future study projects by other scholars.

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Conceptual Review

Forest and Forest Cover Change

According to Belayneh et al., (2020a)forests and natural plantation with canopy cover greater than 10% and a
surface to 0.5 ha; determined by the presence of tree and the absence of other predominant land use, which trees
should be able to reach a minimum height of 5m. In February 2024 Ethiopia adopted a new forest definition as
follows: 'Land spanning at least 0.5 ha covered by trees and bamboo, attaining a height of at least 2m and a canopy
cover of at least 20% or trees with the potential to reach these thresholds in situ in due course‟ (Belayneh et al.,
2020)World Bank funded woody biomass investment and strategy-planning (WBISP, 2004) defines forest as
“a relatively continuous cover of trees, which are ever green or semi-deciduous only being leafless for
a short period, and then not simultaneously for all species the trees should be able to reach a minimum height of 5
m.” Forests are determined both by the presence of trees and by the absence of other predominant land uses.

Forest biodiversity refers to the biodiversity within forested ecosystems. Biodiversity is high in forests, especially
tropical forests. This is due to high energy availability, biomass and resources, and different habitats within the
forest structure. Forest biodiversity is the variability among living organisms in forest ecosystems. It comprises

6
diversity within and among species, and within and between each of the terrestrial and aquatic components of
forest ecosystems

2.2. Global overviews of forest cover change

According to (Searchinger et al., 2019) the world population become above 6.5 billion and is expected to double in
the next 50 years. Forests maintain conditions that make life possible. Forests also play an important role in the
global carbon balance, as both carbon sources and sinks. They have the potential to form an important component
in effort to combat global climate change. When forests are transformed into agriculture, the subsequent land use
systems implemented determine the amount of carbon sink potential takes place. However, now it was threatened
with elimination. A recent forest resource assessment (FAO, 2010) estimated the World forest covers 30% of the
total land area. This is approximately 4 billion hectares corresponding to 0.62 hectares per capita. This is unevenly
distributed with 62 countries of combined population of approximately 2 billion having less than 0.1 ha per capital
(FAO, 2010).

According to FAO (2007) report, the global forest coverage decreased by annual rate of 0.22 % and 0.18 %
between the period of 1990-2000 and 2000-2005 respectively. Similarly, net global change in forest area in the
period 2000-2005 is estimated at -7.3 million hectares per year (an area about the size of Panama or Sierra Leone
or equivalent to a loss of 200km2 of forest per day), down from -8.9 million hectares per year in the period 1990-
2000. In 1990 about 5 4,077,291,000 ha of the earth‟s surface was covered with forest. However, after a gap of 15
years total forest area in 2005 was estimated to be 3,952,025,000 ha (just under 4 billion ha) or 30 per cent of total
land area. This figure suggests that the world lost 3 % of its total area, an average decrease of some 0.2 % per year
between the specified periods.
Globally the extent of deforestation is not uniform as the respective management strategies vary from region to
region. For instance, the estimated forest area for Africa in 1990 was 699 million hectares (accounting for about 16
per cent of global forest area) but in 2005 it decreased to 635 million hectares (16.1 % of the global forest area)
(FAO, 2007). Thus, the continent lost more than 9 % forest area within 15 years period from 1990 to 2005.
Between these periods net annual forest loss in the continent was about 4 million hectares, this accounts almost 55
present of the global reduction in forest area. In a typical year, Africa accounts for more than half of the global
forest area damaged by wild fire. Almost 90 present of the wood removals in Africa are used for fuel, compared
with less than 40 present in the world at large. The annual rate of forest loss of the continent is still high even
though it shows decline scenario, it was 0.64 % and 0.62 % between the periods of 1900- 2000 and 2005
respectively (FAO, 2007).

7
On the contrary, the net forest area of Asia and the pacific region increased between 2000 and 2005, reversing the
down ward trend of the preceding decades. However, the increase was limited to East Asia, where a large
investment in forest plantations in china was enough to offset high rate of deforestation in other areas. Asia
suffered from a net loss of some 0.14 % (800 000 ha) per year in the 1990s. However, in between 2000 and 2005
the forest area of the continent increased by 0.18 % (1million ha) per year, primarily because of large-scale
afforestation recorded by China (FAO, 2007).

2.2.1. Global Causes of forest cover change

According to Elijah (2007) the three main causes of deforestation in the world are; agriculture (including huge
investment), infrastructure expansion and wood extraction. He asserted that the action of human beings rather than
natural forces is the sources of most contemporary change for this dynamic world. Population growth is another
major cause for deforestation and obstacle for the achievement of sustainable development. Because, Population
growth without considering environment by itself have great impact on sustainable development, so sustainable
development must be environmentally friendly (FAO, 2010).(Sisay & Gitima, 2020)

2.3. Extents of forest cover in Ethiopia

Ethiopia owns diverse vegetation resources, from tropical rain and cloud forests in the southwest and on the
mountains to the desert scrubs in the east and north east and parkland agroforestry on the central plateau (Sisay &
Gitima, 2020).

(WAKO, 2017) Ethiopia's forest resources are diverse and comprises vegetation types that range from tropical rain
and cloud forests in the southwest and south through dry forests of various complexity in the north, west, south,
and central mountains and lowlands to the desert scrubs in the east and northeast and parkland agroforestry on the
central plateau (Sisay & Gitima, 2020) (WAKO, 2017)

2.4. The causes of forest cover change in Ethiopia

Deforestation and land degradation should be seen as the most important issues threatening the survival of
Ethiopia. Floods, drought, desertification, drying of streams, and soil erosion are connected one way or another
with the process of forest exploitation and destruction. Although various potential strategies for tree planting and
natural resource conservation on the Ethiopian highlands are proposed, their successful implementation was
limited due to some socio economic and policy issues. (Bishaw, 2014)

The causes of forest loss in Ethiopia are many and interlinked. They include demand for agricultural land,
uncontrolled grazing, high population growth, settlements, fires and unrestrained harvesting of forest products

8
(Ujoh et al., 2010). As well as urbanization or growth of urban area in size and urban center, it is taking place in
the urban fringe, on former agricultural land or in the urban green resource such as urban and peri-urban forests,
orchards and woodlots (Ujoh et al., 2010). The population growth in urban area increased the demand of housing
and firewood; these conditions forced the dweller to depend highly on forest resources. Because of this great
dependency; the urban and peri urban forest area was depleted, the urban ecosystem was disturbed and loss of
genetic resources was some of the outcome of this dependency in Addis Ababa (Sisay & Gitima, 2020). The main
direct drivers of deforestation are generally agreed to be logging and the expansion of agriculture and
infrastructure. Demand for wood fuels drives much of Ethiopia‟s forest degradation. Though the role of firewood
in forest degradation is somewhat contested, charcoal dominates cooking energy choices in urban areas and
uncontrolled fires, livestock grazing in forests are widely recognized to contribute to forest degradation (Sisay &
Gitima, 2020).
Agricultural practices: Ethiopia‟s forests are increasingly under threat as the growing population requires more
fuel wood and agricultural products, which leads to farmland expansion including commercial farms (Sisay &
Gitima, 2020)For instance, the large-scale investment agricultural schemes both private ones and state-owned ones
- have been significant drivers in Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz and Afar regional states (Sisay & Gitima, 2020).
The main drivers associated with agricultural expansion are: firewood consumption and pasture land expansion
declines forest land (Sisay & Gitima, 2020). In Ethiopia, forests, woodlands and mixed-use landscapes are often
targeted for agricultural expansion as a means to maximize benefits from land-based investments while avoiding
the displacement of cropland. Increased investment is welcomed by host country governments for its opportunity
to stimulate rural economies while fostering national economic development (Dresen, 2011).
Fuel wood and charcoal: The major drivers are raising demand for forest products like fuel wood, and charcoal.
For example: in Ethiopian, Somali and Afar regional States charcoal is produced by almost all rural households as
one of the core livelihood income sources (Sisay & Gitima, 2020). According to (Sisay & Gitima, 2020), Ethiopia
harvested more than 76 million m3 of wood for fuel in 1993, and 101.1 million m3 in 2011, the most of any
country. The country consumes over 100 million m3 fuel wood each year, and in 2013 alone consumption was 124
million m3 wood products (Sisay & Gitima, 2020).
Resettlement expansion: Most of the resettlement programs recently have been undertaken in Bench-Maji, Kaffa,
Dawuro, Sheka, South Omo zones and Basketo special district as well as in the western lowlands of Tigray and
Amhara regional states throughout the year. In Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State
(SNNPRS) and Oromia National Regional State (ONRS), the resettlement sites were covered either with dense
forests or wooded grassland prior to the implementation of the resettlement. In Amhara and Tigray regions, the

9
wood land coverage reduced by 25.76% between 2000 and 2007 due to resettlement programs. Most of the
woodland has been replaced by arable land for the cultivation of cash and food crops (Sisay & Gitima, 2020).
The major issue is the annual destruction of the natural forest for agricultural expansion. According to (Dresen,
2011) the extent destruction of natural forest was estimated to currently total about 59,000 ha per annum in the
three main forested regional states of Oromia, Southern nations, nationalities and Gambella only.
The rapid forest depletion on high land areas is much more severe than the low lands. This is because the
highlands of Ethiopia, in contrast to most mountain systems outside Africa, are very suitable for human
inhabitation (Sisay & Gitima, 2020). For instance, the transformation of natural high forests into cultivated lands
and grasslands has been most intensive in the northern and northeast parts of Ethiopia over the last few centuries.
Consequently, most of the remaining high forests are nowadays concentrated in the western, southern and
southeast parts of the country (Tesfay et al., 2023)
According to the (Alexandratos Jelle, 2012)the annual rate of deforestation in Ethiopia has increased from 1%
during the period 1990-2000 to 1.1% between the years 2000-2005.The recent deforestation rate of Ethiopia
estimated about 141,000ha per year, (Mujuri, 2007). Even though deforestation continues in various parts of the
country at alarming rate, efforts are not sufficient enough to reverse and coup up the problem.
The underlying driving factors of forest cover change in Ethiopia includes economic factors (challenges to forest
management and investment), institutional factors (poor governance, and land tenure system), technological factor,
cultural factors (eco culture transformation) demographic factors (rapid population growth with high rate of natural
increase), biophysical factors including slope of land, climate variability, and droughts (Sisay & Gitima, 2020). In
the same manner, more than 50 present of the tree cover has disappeared due to indirect factors (Sisay & Gitima,
2020)

2.5. Forest Resource Management Strategies in Ethiopia

In order to increase the forest cover of Ethiopia, the policy was introduced in April 2007 by Council of Ministers
with the aim of increasing forest cover and its significance to the national economy, food security and sustainable
development of the nation. (Sisay & Gitima, 2020) According to (Alexandratos Jelle, 2012), Sustainable forest
Management “is the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their
biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant
ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to
other ecosystems”. Sustainable forest management (SFM) was recognized by the parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2004 to be a concrete means of applying the ecosystem approach. The CBD

10
ecosystem approach is defined as “is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources
that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way”.

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) was introduced to Ethiopia by some NGOs and donor agencies, notably
FARM Africa, SOS Sahel, GTZ and JICA. These non-State actors attempted to respond to the prevailing forest
management problems in Ethiopia through the introduction, adaptation and establishment of PFM projects.
Participatory Forest Managements (PFM) in Ethiopia was familiarized as one of the solutions to solve the problem
of open access to forest resources and promote sustainable forest management in the country through community
participation (Gobeze et al., 2009). Some experiences from around the world show that shifts from state- centered
policies toward solutions at the local level and international PFM conference shows, PFM resulted in successful
forest conservation and development (Temesgen et al., 2007). As the name, “participatory‟‟ indicates local
community or Indigenous people must take leading role in forest resource conservation and management.

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1 Description of Study Area
The study mainly focus on Kafa Biosphere Reserve which is one of the few remnants of old-growth montane
rainforest in Ethiopia and comprises about 244 plant species of which 30 are endemic and rich terrestrial
biodiversity of flora and fauna. It is the centre of origin of coffee (Coffea arabica) and is part of the Eastern
Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspots (CEPF, 2012). The natural forest provides ecosystem services such as storage
of carbon, biodiversity protection including in situ protection of the genetic variation of wild coffee. The area is the
most ethnically and linguistically diverse region of Ethiopia. UNESCO inscribed the Kafa Biosphere Reserve in
2010 as part of the Man and Biosphere programme. The KBR covers 7,600 km2 and more than ¾ of the Kafa
zone‟s land cover of 10,566 km2. About half of the Biosphere Reserve area is in the core, candidate core or buffer
zone, while the other half is in the transition zone.

KBR is rich in plant species such as Coffee Arabica, Pouteria adolfi-friedercii, Berasama abyssinica, Schefflera
abyssinica, Trilepsium madagascariense and Polyscias fulva. Ethiopia is the cradle of worldwide Coffee arabica,
is common in the montane rainforests in South-Western Ethiopia, and naturally grows in its original habitat (Koch
et al., 2022).

11
3.1.1. Site selection
Two districts namely Gimbo district and Shisho ende district were purposively selected from districts of Kafa zone
in Kafa Biosphere Reserve The study was conducted in Yeyibito Kebele from Gimbo district and Wana Bola
Kebele from Shisho Ende district which were also purposely selected due to closiness to the forest patches.

3.1.1. 1 Description Gimbo District and Yeyibito kebele

Gimbo district is found in Kafa Zone of the Southwest Ethiopia region located at a distance of 431 km from Addis
Ababa and 18 Km from Bonga town the capital city of Southwest Ethiopia People Regional State. The total area
of the Gimbo district is estimated to be 87186.05 hectare. The elevation in average was 2371 m.a.s.l, mean annual
rainfall is 1990 mm. Total population of the district is 103,904 with 51,673 male and 52,231 female. The total
Population of Yeyibito Kebele is Male 1893, Female 1937, total 3830 and the house hold number was Male 392,
Female 58 , Total 450 (according to woreda agriculture office ). The agricultural system is mixed farming in
which crop production is integrated with livestock which consumes the by-products of cultivation. From the total
land coverage; natural forest 22525.05 hectare, wetland 4129.5 ha, covered by Perennial crops 13773ha, 18550.98
ha, grazing land 575ha, for other purposes 5350 ha and 165 ha free from any land use system. Crop agriculture
based on weather crops like maize, teff, sorghum, wheat barley, bean etc. and heroic cultural crops /coffee/ Inset,
cabbage, sugar cane and some fruits/ regarding grass SPP native grass are predominate in the woreda.

3.1.1.2. Description of Shisho Ende District and Wanabola kebele

It is located at a distance of It is located at a distance of 511.9 km from Addis Ababa and 57 km from Bonga town
the capital city of Southwest Ethiopia People Regional State. The total area of the Shisho Ende district is
estimated to be 65,068.51 hectare. The total Population of the district is 117,236 with 58,386 male and 58,850
female . Total population of the selected kebele Wana bola is Male 3236, Female 3368, total 6604 and the house
hold number was Male 421 Female 27, Total 448 (according to district agriculture office). The elevation of the
study areas in average was 1700 m.a.s.l. The mean annual rainfall of the area is 1990 mm. Total population of the
district is 117236 with 58386 male and 58850 female and the house hold number was male 7289 and female 1007
total 8296. The agricultural system is mixed farming in which crop production is integrated with livestock which
consumes the by-products of cultivation. From the total land coverage; natural forest 22525.05 hectare, wetland
4129.5 ha, covered by Perennial crops 13773 ha, 18550.98 ha, grazing land 575 ha, for other purposes 5350 ha and
165 ha free from any land use system. Crop agriculture based on weather crops like maize, teff, sorghum, wheat
barley, bean etc. and heroic cultural crops /coffee/ Inset, cabbage, sugar cane and some fruits/ regarding grass SPP
native grass are predominate in the district.

12
Figure 1. Map of the study area

3.1.3. Topography of the study area

The study area is characterized by difference landforms such as plains, ridges, undulating plateaux and very steep
sided valleys etc. The area covers a wide range of ecological Zones. According to traditional agro-ecological
zonation system of Ethiopia, three agro-ecological zones were identifies. These are dega, weyna-dega and kola.
The weyna-dega zone covers a large portion while the kola covers a least portion of the demarcated forest area the
altitude of the area ranges from 450 to 2300m. a. s. l. The soils of the area are deep, clay red soils with an agric B-
horizon dystric-nitosols. The soils have good agricultural potentialities, good physical properties and uniform
profile. They are porous, clay-to-clay loam texture, and have low base saturation with less than 5.5 PH values and
well drained ((Zone et al., 2019)).

3.1.3. Climate of the study area (Zone et al., 2019)

The area is characterized bimodal rainfall pattern having the mean minimum & mean maximum annual rainfall is
1750 & 2200mm respectively. It has a humid climate having the mean annual temperature ranging between 15.10C
and 22.50C with warmest month of January, February and March.

3.1.4. Natural Vegetation

The forest is not uniform throughout forest within Kafa Bio Sphere Reserve due to different factors such as
climatic & human influence. Due to these influences in this region fragmented with some undisturbed forest parts
and large areas of degraded and disturbed forest, open forest and wooded shrub grassland climax vegetation type
13
are observed. Forest in the study area is classified in the vegetation of Ethiopia referred to as moist evergreen
mountane forests. The forests in this area are normally the richest in species and a source of fuel wood, charcoal
and timber (Yeshitela & Bekele, 2002). The major land cover of this forest block is forest and agriculture
associated with human settlement. The forests found in the study area are among the remnant forests in Ethiopia
where, different kinds of mammals and birds dwell.
3.2. Socio-economic Characteristics of the Study Area
3.2.1. Economic Characteristics
The main sources of livelihood are forest utilization, livestock rearing and agriculture (Melesse & Belachew,
2018). The most income sources of the population are from small-scale agriculture, wild coffee and other non-
timber forest products (Beyene, 2022).

3.2.2. Population Characteristics

Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the CSA, this Zone has a total population of 2151,716, of whom 1411,778
are men and 739,938 women; 152,036 or 7.44% are urban inhabitants. The four largest ethnic groups reported in
this Zone were the Kafficho (82.72%), the Bench (5.05%), the Amhara (3.67%), and the Oromo (3.5%); all other
ethnic groups made up 5.09% of the population. Kafa is spoken as a first language by 82.49%, 4.18%
speak Amharic, 5.13% Bench, and 3.43% speak Oromiffa; the remaining 4.77% spoke all other primary languages
reported. 61.42% of the population said they practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, 24.84% were Protestants,
6.2% were Muslim, 5.37% practiced traditional beliefs, and 1.73% embraced Catholicism (Census 2007).

3.3 Types and sources of data

To achieve the goals of this study, a variety of data were gathered from primary and secondary sources. Primary
data encompassed satellite images, Google Earth data, as well as socioeconomic and environmental information.
The satellite images were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey Center for Earth Resources Observation and
Science (USGS-EROS) website. The socioeconomic and environmental data focused on current land use/land
cover patterns and historical developments. Secondary sources, including previous research studies, were utilized
to supplement the primary data.
Table 1: Summary of spatial data sets used in this study

Dataset type Year Resolution Path/Row Source

Landsat TM 2994 30m 170/ 055 USGS
Landsat ETM+ 2014 30m 170/ 055 USGS
Landsat 2024 30m 170/ 055 USGS
OLI/TIRS

14
Table 2: Software used in the course of the study

Software Application

ARCGIS 10.8 Image processing and map preparation

ERDAS EMAGINE 2015 Image processing

MS EXCEL Chart, graphs

3.4 Spatial data collection methods

To investigate the forest cover change and rate of in the study years (1994-2024) cloud-free Landsat5

TM was downloaded from freely available United States Geological Survey (USGS). To DEM was

downloaded from freely available (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) using SRTM with 30 m x 30m

resolution. Then spatial elevation data and spatial slope data of the study area were extracted from

DEM using QGIS. The spatial data of forest cover changes for the years 1994 and 2024 were digitized

from the Google earth map of the study area.

3.5 Field Observation

Field observation was carried twice throughout the study area: one during the social data collection

period to have a broader understanding of study areas, and second, during collecting the Ground

truth points using GPS with the help of local guide and draft classified maps derived from satellite

images with reference years. Besides, interviews were held with the KIIs during the field observation.

3.6 Household Survey

The study area covered two woredas; namely Gimbo, and Shishinida. One Kebele was selected

from each Wereda using purposive sampling. The selection of the Kebeles was based on their

proximity to the forest area, their dependence on the forest for their livelihood. The poorest

15
 communities living within or nearby to forested areas are often dependent on forests for survival. The

selection of the participants were purposively who live for more than 30 years in the study area.

3.7 Sampling design

 Sampling technique
There are 12 districts including Bonga town in kafa zone, out of these two districts namely Gimbo and Shishoede
on which part of KBR area was purposively selected as study area. The reason for the purposive selection of two
districts under Kafa biosphere reserve is highly covered by dense forest and share part from the national forest
priority area, however now a days due to natural and anthropogenic factors this dense forest area is under risk.
Kafa biosphere reserve exists within seven districts of Kafa zone from these; the researcher purposively selects two
sample kebeles namely Yeyibito from Gimbo district and Wanabola from Shishoende district which have got
many interests on forest and part of them are under participatory forest management (PFM) cooperatives /groups.
Simple random sampling was used in order to select households in the study area as a sample unit for socio
economic data collection.

 Sample size

Sample size determination is not an easy task since it is affected by several factors. For instance, depends on the
type of research design, the desired level of confidence, population characteristic, cost and time availability. The
available data in Kafa zone offices revealed that the two sample kebeles of two districts have a total number of
10,434 population (Yeyibito kebele of Gimbo district 3830 and Wana bola kebele of Shisho ende district 6604,
The total house hold of the selected two kebeles was 898 (Yeyibito kebele of Gimbo district 450 and Wana bola
kebele of Shisho ende district 448 HH). To keep the representativeness of the sample in the population, the study
was used the formula given by Kothari, (2004) for sample size determination.

Where n=is a desired sample size.

z= is the standard normal deviate at the required (95%) confidence limit (1.96).
p= is 0.05 (proportion of the target population to be included in the sample).
q= is 1-p (1-0.05=0.95)
e= is the level of statistical accuracy set at 0.04
N= total number of population.
16
3.9. Methods of Data Analysis
Satellite Image and GIS Data Collection
Time series satellite images from the years 1994, 2014 and 2024 were employed to study the changes in land use
and land cover in the research. These images were sourced from USGS-EROS and comprised the Landsat
Thematic Mapper (TM), Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+), and Operational Land Imager/Thermal
Infrared Sensor (OLI/TIRS). All images used in the analysis had a spatial resolution of 30 meters and a cloud
cover of less than 10%. Further details regarding the data sources utilized in the research can be found in Table 1.
To mitigate the impact of cloud cover and seasonal fluctuations on the classification outcomes, efforts were made
to select Landsat images captured during the same season (December to February).
Image pre-processing
Before proceeding with image classification, radiometric corrections and image enhancements were carried out
using ERDAS IMAGINE 2015 software. The main purpose of this phase was to standardize the spectral properties
of the satellite images and improve overall image quality and feature clarity. Radiometric adjustments, including
haze reduction and scan line error correction, were implemented to address spectral variations caused by detector
inconsistencies and differences in radiation angles. Enhancements such as histogram equalization were employed
to enhance the visual interpretability of the images, aiding in image analysis, classification, and interpretation.
Additionally, spatial enhancement involved applying a 5 by 5 Kernel high-pass filtering convolution to the images
from the respective years. Subsequently, each image underwent clipping based on the watershed boundary after
completing the aforementioned processes.
Image classification
In this study, a hybrid classification approach was employed, combining unsupervised and supervised image
classification methods. Initially, unsupervised classification was conducted to gain insights into the general land
use/land cover (LU/LC) classes within the study area and to identify sample training locations for data collection
during fieldwork. Unsupervised classification was chosen due to its automatic nature and minimal requirement for
prior knowledge of the study area. Subsequently, following the fieldwork, supervised classification was performed
using the maximum likelihood algorithm to classify the images based on the designated training sites. The
selection of training sites was informed by the original images, outcomes of unsupervised classification, fieldwork
observations, and ancillary data (such as Google Earth). Land use land cover classes were categorized into
vegetation, wetland, and agriculture and built-up. The image classification process was carried out using ERDAS
IMAGINE 2015 software.

17
Accuracy Assessment

So as to verify to what extent the produced classification is compatible with what actually exists on the ground, it

is important to evaluate the accuracy of classification results. Accordingly error matrix was produced for all

images in this study. An error matrix is a square array of rows and columns and presents the relationship between

the classes in the classified and reference data. The reference data used for accuracy assessment were obtained

from GPS points during field work and from high resolution Google Earth. The GPS points used in classification

accuracy assessment were independent of the ground truths used in the classification.

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Bonga forest priority forest cover classification

Based on the results assessment of the Landsat image of 1994, 2014 and 2024, the map of the four
major land use types of the study area (wet land, vegetation, farm land & built up) were given on
Figure 2, 3 and 4.

Figure 2: Landsat image Bonga Forest Priority Area 1994

18
Figure 3: Landsat image Bonga Forest priority Area 2014

Figure 4: Landsat image Bonga Forest Priority Area 2024

19
Table 3. Bonga Forest Priority Area LU/LC classification results of 1994, 2014 & 2024

1994 2014 2024

No LULC Types Area_Ha Area% Area_Ha Area% Area_Ha Area%
1 Vegetation 74202.3 26.40 45522.1 16.20 43486.05 15.47
2 Wetland 23923 8.51 14972.3 5.33 3829.05 1.36
3 Farmland 24762.1 8.81 56595 20.14 73809.3 26.26
4 Built up 158146 56.27 163944 58.34 159909 56.90
Total 281033 100 281033 100 281033 100

Change
No LULC Types 1994-2014 2014-2024 1994-2024
Area_Ha Area% Area_Ha Area% Area_Ha Area%
1 Vegetation -28680.2 -10.21 -2036.05 -0.72 -30716.3 -10.93
2 Wetland -8950.7 -3.18 -11143.3 -3.97 -20094 -7.15
3 Farmland 31832.9 11.33 17214.3 6.13 49047.2 17.45
4 Builtup 5798 2.06 -4035 -1.44 1763 0.63

Rate of change
No LULC Types 1994-2014 2014-2024 1994-2024
Area_Ha Area% Area_Ha Area% Area_Ha Area%
1 Vegetation -1434.01 -0.51 -203.61 -0.07 -1023.88 -0.36
2 Wetland -447.54 -0.16 -1114.33 -0.40 -669.80 -0.24
3 Farmland 1591.65 0.57 1721.43 0.61 1634.91 0.58
4 Builtup 289.90 0.10 -403.50 -0.14 58.77 0.02

The above Figure depicted that in 1994 majority of the study area were under built up and accounted
for 158,146ha (56.27%) and vegetation area accounted for 74202.3ha (26.4%). While, farmland and
wetland accounted for 24,762.1ha (8.81%), 23,923 ha (8.51%) respectively.
In 2014, built up and farmland were the most LU/LC types which amounted to 16,3944ha (58.34
%) and 56,595ha (20.14%), respectively. The rest LU/LC types vegetation & wetland accounted for
45522.1 ha (16.20%), 14972.3 (5.33%) respectively. Meanwhile, in 2024, built up and farmland were
still the dominant LU/LC types which accounted for 159,909ha (56.9%) and 73809.3ha (26.26%),
respectively. The rest LU/LC types vegetation and wetland accounted for 43486.05 (15.47%) &

20
3829.05ha (1.36%) respectively.

4.2 Classification accuracy

Based on the result assessment of the Landsat image of TM 1994, ETM+ 2014 and ETM+ 2024 the
Producer accuracy, user accuracy, over all accuracy and kappa statistics of the study area is given in
Table 4:-Classification accuracy of land sat image of 1994, 2014 and 2024

No Land Class Year

Type 1994 2014 2024
Producer User Producer User Producer User
accuracy accuracy accuracy accuracy accuracy accuracy
1 Vegetation 87.5 71.4 70 82.4 87.5 83.3
2 Farmland 94 92.2 88 86.3 98 92.5
3 Wetland 75 85.7 72.5 70.7 95 92.7
5 Built up 93.3 100 80 92.3 76.7 100
Overall accuracy 84.5% 80.5% 91.5%
Kappa coefficient 0.81 0.75 0.89

The above table showed that overall classification accuracy and Kappa coefficient of Landsat image
TM of year 1994 was 84.5% and 0.81, respectively. The Kappa coefficient indicated that the classified
image showed good classification performance or good agreement (> 0.80). Kappa values of more than
0.80 indicate good classification performance; between 0.40 and 0.80 indicate moderate classification
performance and Kappa values of less than 0.40 indicate poor classification performance (Jensen, 2005;
Kiefer and Lillesand, 2004). Except agriculture, Producer accuracy of the all land use classes is greater
than or equal to 75 % (Annex 1, accuracy assessment of 1994).

The overall classification accuracy and Kappa coefficient of Landsat image ETM+ of year 2014 was
80.5% and 0.75, respectively. The Kappa coefficient indicated that the classified images showed
moderate classification performance or moderate agreement. Except agriculture and

21
open forest, the rest land use classes have high producer accuracy which was greater than 80% (Annex
2, accuracy assessment of 2014).
The overall classification accuracy and Kappa coefficient (Statistics) of Landsat image ETM + of year
2024 is 91.5% and 0.89, respectively. The Kappa coefficient indicated that the classified image showed
good classification performance or good agreement. All land use classless has produce accuracy of
greater than 75%, and user accuracy greater than 80% (Annex 3, accuracy assessment of 2024).

4.3 Forest covers change detection

Table 5: LU/LCs change detection in three periods

Land Change detection

Class 1994-2014 2014-2024 1994-2024
type Area % Change Change Area(ha) % Change
(ha) rate /year Area(ha % rate rate
) /year /year
Vegetation -11485 -11.5 -765.67 -5096.2 -5.71 -339.75 -16581.1 -16.5 -552.70
Farmland -4040.7 -10.5 -269.38 728.91 2.1 48.59 -3311.82 -8.6 -110.39
Wetland 12976.3 53.9 865.09 4263.84 11.5 284.26 17240.1 71.6 574.67
Built up 3915.09 19.5 261.01 2610.27 10.9 174.02 6525.36 32.6 217.51
Negative loss, but positive gain in area coverage

The above table shows that when the 2014 classification compared with 1994, agriculture and
settlement were increased by 12976.3ha (53.9%) and 3915.09(19.5%), respectively. On the other hand,
closed forest, open forest and wetland were decreased by 11485ha (11.5%), 4040.7ha (10.5%) and
1365.8ha (17.6%), respectively.
When the 2024 classification compared with 2014, open forest, agriculture and settlement were
increased by 728.91ha (2.1%), 4263.84ha (11.5%) and 2610.27ha (19.5%), respectively. On the other
hand, vegetation and wetland were decreased by 5096.2ha (5.7%) and 2506.9ha (39.1%), respectively.

Finally, when the 2024 classification compared with 1994, farmland and built up LU/LC was increased
by 17240.13ha (71.6%) and 6525.36ha (32.6%), respectively. Whereas, vegetation

22
Forest and wetland was decreased by 16581.06ha (16.5%), 3311.82ha (8.6%), and 3872.61ha (49.8%),
respectively. The detail analysis of the conversion of one land use type to other land use type was
described on change detection matrices which depict the changes in extent and directions in land use
classes (Table 3, 4 and 5).

23
Table 6: Change detection matrix of 1994 to 2024

Final state (2014)

Class type Agriculture Closed Forest Open Forest Settlement Wet land Class total
Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) %
Vegetation 20299.06 84.3 234.09 1.0 133.27 0.6 2466.88 10.2 954.26 4.0 24087.56 100
Initial state (1994)

Farmland 1457.41 1.5 86121.12 85.9 12337.3 12.3 389.85 0.4 0 0.0 100305.7 100
Wetland 11186.55 29.0 2457.91 6.4 21650.59 56.1 2645.68 6.9 637.65 1.7 38578.38 100
Built up 1242.01 6.2 0 0.0 416.5 2.1 18381.7 91.7 0 0.0 20040.21 100
Class total 37063.85 88820.77 34537.66 23955.3 6412.41 190790 100

Table 7. change detection matrix 2014-2024

Final state (2024)

Class type Agriculture Closed Forest Open Forest Settlement Wet land Class total

Area(ha) % Area(ha) % Area(ha) % Area(ha) % Area(ha) % Area(ha) %

Vegetation 31876 86.0 39.6 0.1 245.87 0.7 4587.34 12.4 315.09 0.9 37063.85 100
Initial state (2004)

Farmland 16.74 0.0 81272.3 91.5 6966 7.8 510.52 0.6 55.26 0.1 88820.77 100
Wetland 6482.19 18.8 2409.7 7.0 24652 71.4 910.67 2.6 83.11 0.2 34537.66 100
Built up 0 0.0 3.11 0.0 3395.15 14.2 20557.1 85.8 0 0.0 23955.33 100
Class total 41327.69 83724.66 35266.52 26565.60 3905.55 190790.02 100

33
Table 8: Change detection matrix of 1994-2024

Final state (2024)

Class type Agriculture Closed Forest Open Forest Settlement Wet land Class total
Area(ha) % Area(ha) % Area(ha) % Area(ha) % Area(ha) % Area(ha) %
Vegetation 20554.4 85.3 279.9 1.2 2737.89 11.4 477.85 2.0 37.52 0.2 24087.56 100
Farmland 2249.8 3.2 82213.43 82.0 14456.9 14.4 1189.49 1.2 196.11 0.2 100305.7 100
Initial state (1994)

Wetland 11453.61 29.7 1213.69 3.1 17956.82 46.5 7499.79 19.4 454.5 1.2 38578.41 100
Built up 3132.93 15.6 0 0.0 114.99 0.6 16792.29 83.8 0 0.0 20040.21 100
Class total 41327.69 102.4 83724.66 35266.6 26565.57 3905.55 191790.1 100

34
4.4 Change detection comparisons

4.4.1 Vegetation
In the first 20 years (1994-2014), vegetation decreased by 11,485ha (11%) (Table 6). The change
detection matrix analysis showed that 12,337.3ha (12.3%) of vegetation was converted to build up
(Table 7). The average rate of change was 822.49 ha/year. The change was induced by
anthropogenic factors like extraction of woody forest products (illegal logging, commercial
logging, pit sawing, fuel wood, agricultural tools and construction materials), and free grazing in
Bonga priority forest (FGDs).
In the second 10 years (2014-2024), vegetation further decreased by 5096.2ha (5.7%) and
converted to other land use types (Table 6). The change detection matrix analysis depicted that as
first 10 years, most of the vegetation was converted to farm land than other land use types
amounted to 6,966ha (7.8%) (Table 7). Its average rate of change was 464.4ha/year. When this rate
of change compared with the first 15 periods, it was decreased by 358.09 ha/year.
Meanwhile, in 20 years period of comparison (1994 to 2024), Bonga priority closed forest
decreased by 16581.1ha (16.5 %). The 20 years change detection matrix analysis showed that as
the first and second 15 years, most of the closed forest was converted to open forest amounted to
14,456.9 ha (14.4%) (Table 8). Its average rate of change was 481.9 ha/year.

Figure 5: Bonga Forest Priority closed natural forest

35
4.4.2 Farmland
In the first 10 years, agricultural land increased by 12976.3ha (53.9 %) (Table 6). The change
detection matrix analysis depicted that there is high agricultural land expansion to open forest,
closed forest and wetland amounted to 11,186.55ha, 1457.41ha and 2,878.82ha, respectively (Table
7). On the other hand, in this period, 2,466.88ha (10.6%) of agricultural land was converted to
settlement.
In the second 10 years, agricultural land further increased by 4263.84ha (11.5 %) (Table 6). Based
on change detection matrix analysis in this period as the first 15 years, high agricultural land
expansion was occurred to open forest and wetland amounted to 6,482.19ha and 2952.81ha,
respectively (Table 8). On the other hand, 4587.34ha (12.4%) of agricultural land was converted to
settlement.
The third comparison made during 1994 to 2014 described that within 10 years agricultural land
was increased by 17,240.1ha (71.6%) (Table 6). The change detection matrix analysis showed that
in this periods, agricultural land was highly expanded to open forest, wetland and closed forest
amounted to 11453.61ha, 393695ha and 3249.8ha respectively (Table 9).

Figure 6: Agricultural lands in & around Bonga Forest Priority Area

4.4.3 Built up
In the first 10 years, settlement increased by 19.5% (Table 6). The change detection matrix
analysis showed that in this period high settlement was undergoing with in open forest and
agricultural land amounted to 2645.68ha and 2466.88ha, respectively (Table 7).

36
The second comparison, in the second 10 years, settlement further increased by 10.9% (Table 6).
The change detection matrix analysis showed that settlement was mostly expanded to agriculture
land rather than other land use types amounted to 4587.34ha (Table 8).
Meanwhile, within 10 years, settlement increased by32.6 % ( Table 6). In this period 7499.79ha of
open forest, 1189.49 ha of closed forest and 477.85ha of agricultural land were converted to
settlement (Table 9).

Figure 7: Settlement in and around Bonga forest priority area.

4.4.4 Wetland
In the first 10 years, wetland decreased by 17.6 %( Table 6). The change detection matrix analysis
illustrated that in this period 2,878.82ha or 37 % of wetland was converted to agricultural land
(Table 7). Annually, 91.07 ha of wetland converted to agriculture (Table 7). As discussed in open
forest, the main cause of shrinkage of wetland was expansion of agricultural land to wetland.
In the second 10 years, wetland further decreased by 39.1% (Table 6). Based on the change
detection matrix analysis described that 2952.81ha or 46 % of the wetland was converted to
agriculture (Table 8). When compared to the first 15, the rate of change increased by
105.75ha/year. This indicated that high population growth and scarcity of agricultural land resulted
in high expansion of agricultural land to wetland.

37
The third comparison from 1994 to 2014 within 10 years 3,872.61ha (49.8%) wetland was
converted to other land use system (Table 6). The change detection matrix analysis showed that in
30 years study period 3,936.95ha or 50.6 % of wetland was converted to agriculture (Table 9)

Figure 8: Wetland converting to agricultural land

4.5 Deforestation rate of Bonga forest priority area
Both closed and open forests are categorized under forest LU/LC, but agriculture, settlement and
wetland are categorized under non forest LU/LC.

80.00 72.1
70.00 62.7 66.30
60.00

50.00
33.5 32.5 Forest land cover
40.00
% 25.6
30.00 non forest land cover

20.00

10.00

0.00
1994 2014 2024

Figure 9: Bonga priority forest & non forest LU/LC in 1994, 2014 and 2024
The above figure depicted in 1994, 72.8% of the study area was covered by forest. Whereas, 27.2%
of the study area was occupied by non forest land categories like agriculture, settlement and
wetland. After 10 years, in 2014 the forest LU/LC of the study area was further decreased to

38
64.7%. In this period about 6.9% of Bonga priority forest was deforested and converted to other
land use types.
Meanwhile, after the second 10 years, in 2014, forest LU/LC of the study area was declined to 62.4%.
In this period 2.3% of forest land was converted to other land use types. When compared to the first 10
years, deforestation rate of Bonga priority forest was decreased by 71.9%.
The above figure illustrated that, percent of annual deforestation rate of Bonga priority forest in the
first (1994-2014) and second 10 year (2014-2024) is 0.75% and 0.24%, respectively. In the second
10 years annual deforestation rate of Bonga priority forest decreased from 0.75% to 0.24%.
Whereas, 20 years annual deforestation rate of Bonga priority forest is 0.48%, which is lower than
the deforestation rate assessment done by World Bank (2005), Ethiopia„s annual deforestation rate
of 0.8% is similar to low income countries as a whole. Similarly, according to FAO (2010), annual
deforestation rate of Ethiopian forest is 0.96%. But the WBISPP
(2005) indicated the actual deforestation rate of Ethiopia forest may be close to 2%.
Therefore, in Ethiopia, different authors outlined different rate of annual deforestation. Hence,
Bonga priority forest annual deforestation rate is the least of all.
The causes of high deforestation rate of Bonga priority forest in the first 15 year is the political
vacuums occurred during government transition periods in 1991 are occasional events with pervasive
and extreme impacts on deforestation. During Ethiopian government transition period (1991-1995)
Bonga priority forest was highly deforested by agricultural expansion, illegal settlement and extraction
of woody forest products (FGD). This is in line with Bekele (2003), Ethiopia transition periods are
typically when massive resettlement and deforestation takes place, drastically changing the forest
frontier and setting the stage for ensuing deforestation processes. For example, 71% of the forestlands
of a state owned forest enterprise were converted to farmlands during the 1991 government change,
resulting in settlements and agricultural activities deep inside the forest proper (Dessie, 2007)
However, in the second 10 period annual deforestation rate of Bonga priority forest was decreased by
71.9%. This is due to forest policy formulation and implementation, PFM establishment in Bonga
priority forest.

39
4.6 Driving forces of Bonga priority forest LU/LC change
After making the series of interviews and discussions conducted with the households, respondents
pointed out that four direct and four indirect interlinked major driving forces Bonga priority forest
cover change appear to explain a large part of the study area. These driving forces are in
agreement with those identified by Ethiopia Woody Biomass Inventory and Strategic Planning
Project (1990) estimated that up to 15% of Ethiopia was forested. Since then more than 2 million
hectares have been lost. These forest losses are driven by household needs for fuel wood,
construction materials, agricultural land and livestock grazing. Combined with rapid population
growth, the pressure on Ethiopia‟s forests are high and intensifying. Summary of drivers of Bonga
priority forest cover changes is given in Table 10.

40
Table 9: Drivers of Bonga priority forest LU/LC change

No Driving forces Respondents Level of impacts total

& Values 5 4 3 2 1
1. Agricultural Respondents 133 30 9 4 0 176
expansion % 0.76 0.17 0.05 0.02 0 1
Value 3.78 0.68 0.15 0.05 0 5
2. Illegal settlement Respondents 19 120 21 11 5 176
% 0.11 0.68 0.12 0.06 0.03 1
Value 0.54 2.73 0.36 0.13 0.03 4
3. Woody forest Respondents 0 23 137 11 5 176
product % 0 0.13 0.78 0.06 0.03 1
extraction Value 0 0.52 2.34 0.13 0.03 3
4. Free grazing Respondents 0 4 7 15 150 176
% 0 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.85 1
Value 0 0.09 0.12 0.17 0.85 1
5. Population growth* Respondents 9 21 109 32 5 176
% 0.05 0.12 0.62 0.18 0.03 1
Value 0.26 0.48 1.86 0.36 0.03 3
6. Poor governance Respondents 0 10 11 127 28 176
and/or institution* % 0 0.06 0.06 0.72 0.16 1
Value 0 0.23 0.19 1.44 0.16 2
7. Accessibility* Respondents 0 2 6 18 150 176
% 0 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.85 1
Value 0 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.85 1
8. Low awareness * Respondents 0 5 8 18 145 176
% 0 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.82 1
Value 0 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.82 1

*Indirect driving forces

41
 5
5
Agricultural expansion
4
4.5
Illegal settlement
Level of impacts

4 3 3
Woody forest product
3.5 2 extraction
Free graizing
3
1 1 1 Population growth
2.5 Accessibility
2 Low awarness

Driving forces

Figure 10: Driving forces of Bonga priority forest cover change

Note; 5 = Very level high impact (81-100%), 2 = Low level impact (21-40%),
4 = High level of impact (61-80%), 1 = Very level low impact (1-20%)
3 = Medium level of impact (41-60%),

4.6.1 Direct drivers

The direct drivers of Bonga priority forest cover change which accounted for 65 % the total driving
forces are agricultural expansion, illegal settlement, and extraction of woody forest product and
free grazing in natural forest.
a. Agricultural expansion
Figure 16 illustrated agricultural expansions is the first and the main driving force which has very
high level impact (81-100%) on reducing Bonga priority forest cover changes. The 30 years (1994-
2024) change detection matrix analysis showed that 11,453.61ha of open forest and 3,249.8ha of
closed Bonga priority forest was converted to agricultural land (Table 9). The expansion of
croplands to forest and marginal lands, including continuous and over cultivation, has resulted in
shrinking Bonga priority forest cover. This is in line with driving forces of tropical deforestation
reported by Geist and Lambin (2014) the expansion of cropped land and pasture is, by far, the
leading proximate cause of tropical deforestation. It was found to lead to deforestation (96%).
Similar, the WBISPP (2004), forest clearance for agricultural expansion is the main direct cause of
deforestation. De Sherbinin (2002) also reported that even though; agricultural

42
expansion is the dominant proximate cause for LU/LC change, the tropical deforestation caused by
multiple factors rather than single variables. Therefore, humans habitual abuse of the precious
forest resource knowingly or unknowingly for immediate economic use (mainly to secure ample
cultivated lands) by ignoring the facts of their ecological as well as environmental values of forest,
and converting forest to agricultural land.

Figure 11: Agricultural land expansion to open Bonga priority natural forest

b. Illegal Settlement.
Illegal settlement is the second driving force which has high level of impact (61-80%) on
decreasing Bonga priority forest cover changes (Fig. 16). The 30 years change detection matrix
analysis of Bonga priority forest cover change pointed out that, 7,499.79ha of open forest and
1,189.49ha of closed forest was converted to settlement (Table 9. High illegal settlement was
carried out with in Bonga priority natural forest especially during transitional period of Ethiopian
government (1991-1995) (FGD).

Figure 12: Illegal settlement in Bonga priority natural forest

43
 c. Woody forest product extraction
Woody forest products extraction is the third driving force which has medium level of impact (41-
60%) on decreasing of Bonga priority forest cover changes (Fig. 16). People living within and
around Bonga priority forest uses woody forest products for subsistence purposes like for house
construction, household furniture making, agricultural tools making, fence construction, and for
fuel wood as energy source. These woody forest products were extracted from forest either legally
or illegally. Illegally pity sawing which was produced from endangered tree species like Cordial
african and Aningeria adolfi-frienderici was highly carried out in Bonga priority natural forest.
This is in line with driving forces of tropical deforestation reported by Geist and Lambin (2014)
the extraction of wood or timber, be it clear-cutting or selective timber logging, occurs in more
than half (52%), while the impact of fuel wood extraction (28%), pole wood extraction(20%), and
charcoal production (10%) tend to be lower.

According to local household perceptions, in the past 30 years, the density endangered tree species
of Bonga priority forest has been decreased by more than 50 %. Extraction of woody forest
products would affect the density of closed forest, and increases the probability of closed forest has
been converted to open forest. The LU/LC change detection matrix analysis depicted that, within
30 years 14,456.9ha of closed forest was converted to open forest (Table 9).

Figure 13: Illegal logging and fuel wood extraction in Bonga priority natural forest

d. Free grazing
Free grazing is the last direct driving force which has very low level of impact (1-20%) on reducing
of Bonga priority forest cover changes. As described in study area description, the main livelihood
of local household is mixed farming (agriculture with livestock). Livestock is an

44
integral part of the cropping system in the study area. Peoples living in the high land of study area
have large number of livestock and experienced free grazing in Bonga priority natural forest. Free
grazing has brought trampling and dying of naturally regenerated different tree seedlings. When
naturally generated tree seedlings have been suppressed and died by livestock, through time closed
forest has been converted to open forest. This is agreed with FAO (2003), estimated that over 80%
of livestock are found in the high land of Ethiopia, causing widespread overgrazing and land
degradation on both arable and grazing lands. The low survival of planted seedlings in re-
afforestation programs are lead to deforestation.

4.6.2 Indirect drivers

Four in direct driving forces of Bonga priority forest cover changes identified in the study area
which accounted for 35 % total driving forces are population growth, accessibility, low awareness
and poor governance and/ or intuitional. This is in line with Geist and Lambin (2014) at the broad
aggregate level, it is striking that synergetic driver combinations rather than single variables are
associated with tropical deforestation

a. Population growth
Population growth is the first indirect driving force which has medium level of impact (41-60%) on
reducing Bonga priority forest cover changes (Fig. 16). Population growth leads to an increasing
demand for agricultural land, which usually ends up in converting more forest land into
farmland/grazing land. Many farmers (probably the poorest) use areas that are highly susceptible to
degradation (and should not be used for agriculture). Once the productivity of their land falls below
acceptable levels, they move to new, mostly forestland that is marginal for

45
agriculture until they have to move again. Substantial increases in demand for food have resulted
in an expansion of croplands by encroaching on uncultivated areas, including closed forest, open
forests and marginal lands. This is in line with Hylander et al. (2013), increasing population growth
increases pressure on forest resources. Similarly, a recent study in developing countries by
Jorgenson and Burns (2007) linked rural population growth to higher rates of deforestation.
According to Geist and Lambin (2014) 51% tropical forest deforestation was driven by
demographic factors.
Both the gradual, slow process of natural population growth and the rapid, drastic population
increase following internal migration and settlement around forest areas are important underlying
forces (Dessie and Christiansson, 2008; Mulugeta, 2011). Such continued population pressure on
forest resources reflects the fast population growth unmatched by growth in agricultural
productivity. Rapid population growth has triggered the transformation of forest resources in many
parts of the world into other forms of agriculture. Accompanying this transformation are the
problems of socioeconomic degradation and other natural systems from global warming (IPCC,
2014b).
b. Poor governance and/or institution
Poor governance and/or institution is the second indirect driving force which has low level negative
impact (21-40%) on shrinkage of Bonga priority forest cover changes (Fig.16). The role of local
governance and institutions found in the study area play in implementing the policies and
legislation to protect and/or sustainably manage forests can be considered a potential indirect driver
of Bonga priority forest cover changes. They are facing a low good governance and enforcement of
policies and laws. This leads to accelerating deforestation activities, such as illegal logging,
encroachment within natural forest, high agricultural expansion into natural forest, unsustainable
forest management, etc. Forest regulations are generally not strictly followed. Law enforcement is
loose particularly at the lower administrative levels. There is an urgent need for increased
accountability and transparency in forestry governance. Clear objectives for forest management
undertakings are also missing. Access to available technical knowledge is very limited. There is a
lack of even the most basic databases to base decisions on in relation to forest management
policies and regulations.

46
This agreement is in line with Demel Teketay and Tesfaye Bekele ( 2005), the organizational
tradition of the Forest Service in Ethiopia is characterized by frequent restructuring. This has
led to a fast turn-over of staff, low morale of employees, discontinuation of programs and
projects, confusion of responsibilities and mandates, misplacement of documents and files
resulting in loss of institutional memories, and progressive weakening of operations. The good
intentions for a better integration of forestry and agriculture so as to create synergy, has resulted
in less attention to forestry due to sectorial competition for scarce resources.
In the study area problems related to poor forest governance and/or institution are:-
 Lack of clarity and implementation of the existing forest rules and regulations.
 Lack of transparent, accountable, capable and competent public forest service (lack of proper
and strong forest organization at different levels).
 Problems related to cross-sect oral linkages of forestry
 Incompatibility and conflicts of interest between forestry and other sectors mainly agriculture,
settlement, and investment. Agriculture is continued to be horizontally expanded at the
expense of forest and vegetation resources.
 Although, there is no policy in Ethiopia which is irrelevant to forestry, no sector has tried to
integrate itself with forestry.
 As the result, there is lack of transparency, coordination, and integration among forest related
sectors and lack of collective effort of relevant sectors against deforestation.
Therefore, the problem of poor governance and/or institution was seen mostly before eight years
ago. But now, after PFM and OFWE have been established in Bonga priority forest, the problem of
poor governance and/or institution has been much decreased (FGD).
c. Accessibility
Accessibility is the third indirect driving force which has very low level of negative impact (1-
20%) on shrinkage of Bonga priority forest cover changes (Fig.16).Accessibility means the access
of Bonga priority forest to existing transportation site. High deforestation rate was observed in the
area where the forest is more than 20km far away from available access roads. In the inaccessible

47
area where out of reach of governmental bodies for supervision and to carry out different forest
management activities, farmer‟s has been converted large area of natural forest to agricultural land.
This is observed especially in the high land area of (greater than 2200m) Bonga priority forest
where agricultural activities highly carried out.
d. Low awareness
As accessibility, law awareness is the third driving force which has very low level of negative
impact (1-20%) on shrinkage of Bonga priority forest cover changes. Because of low education
background (40.8%) of population in the study area, and low aware of the economical, ecological
and environmental consequences of deforestation, they considered natural forest as west land and
illegally encroached in natural forest.

4.7 Socio-economic survey

4.7.1 Family size

The result of the assessment of family size per household of the study area is given on Fig
9
8.3
Population growth per

7 5.4
4.6
Male
6
household

3 3.7
2.3
5 2.4 Female
13 Total
4
1994 2014 2024

Year

Figure 14: Family size per household of the study area

The above figure illustrates family size of the study area per household has been increased from
time to time. In 1994, 2014, and 2024 percent of male population is 56.5%, 55.5% and 55.5%,
respectively. This shows male is the dominant population in the study area.
An average family size per household of the study area is 2.3, 5.4 and 8.3 in 1994, 2014 and 2024
years, respectively. This argument is in line with CSA of 2007, the total number of

48
household in Kaffa Zone can be classified in to urban and rural households. That estimate number
of households are 672432 in 2014 and 6970350 in 2002. The average family size per the household
is 4 and 5 of urban and rural. Therefore, an increasing family size per household of the study area,
confirms population growth is one the underlying driving force of Bonga priority forest LU/LC
change.

4.7.2 Land holding

The assessment of average land holding in hectare (ha) per household and per family size of year
1994, 2014 and 2024 is given on Fig. 22.

4
Land holding in

3.4
3 2.8
Hectare(ha)

2 Land holding per

1.4 household
0.5 0.4
1
0 Land holding per family
1994 2014 2024 size
Year

Figure 15: an average land holding per household in hectare (ha)

The above figure illustrates an average land holding per household in 1994, 2014 and 2024 was
1.4ha, 2.8ha and 3.4ha, respectively. In the first and the second 10 years, an average land holding
per household was increased by 100% and 21.4%, respectively. From time to time farmers have
been expanded their agricultural land to forest land which resulted in decreasing Bonga priority
forest LU/LC change. Therefore, 100% increased land holding per household in agreement with
those of high deforestation rate (0.75%/year) of Bonga priority forest which was observed in the
first 10 years (Fig.15). Similarly, high agricultural land expansion was occured in the first 15 years
than in the second 10 years. That means agricultural land was increased by 53.9% and 11.5% in the
first and second 10 years, respectively (Table 6).
In contrary, and average land holding per family size of the study area was decreased equally by 20
% in the first and second 10 years (Fig. 22). This indicated that land holding per family size was
not proportionally increased with population growth. This argument is in line with Rembold

49
et al. (2002) noted that in the past, farmers in the lakes region of Ethiopia were able to compensate
for low productivity by cropping more lands but with increasing population density the size of
cropland per household is diminishing because the limits of usable land have been reached.

4.7.3 Education level

a. Family education level
The education level of family size of the study area was classified to illiterate, elementary school
(Grade 1-8), grade 9-10, preparatory school (Grade 11-12), Diploma , Degree level and above (Fig.
23).

100%

80% 59.20% 30.20% 7.20% 2.20% 0.80% 0.40%

Total
60% 0%
23.00% 11.50% 2.70% 1% 0.30%
40% 0.40% Female
36.20% 18.70% 4.50% 1.00% 0.50%
Male
20%
Illiterate Grade 1-8 Grade 9- Grade 11- Diploma Degree &

10 12 above
Figure 16: Family educational level
The above figure illustrates most of population found in the study area are illiterate (59.2%). The
elementary level (grade 1-8), grade 9-10 and grade 11-12 level of education is 30.2%, 7.5% and
2.2%, respectively. The Diploma and the Degree level of education is only 0.8% and 0.4%,
respectively. The male and female education status of the study area is 60.5% and 39.5%,
respectively. Because of the study area was dominated by cash crop (coffee and chet), most of
youths gave due attention on recent income earning activities than education (FGD). Therefore,
low education background of population in the study area(40.8%) leads to low aware of ecological
and environmental, as well as socio-economic consequences of deforestations in the long run. .

50
 b. Respondents education level
Educations levels of the respondents were classified to illiterate read and write .elementary school
(up to grade eight) and above grade eight

%
10%
Illiterate
15%
Read and write
75% Grade 1-8

Figure 17: Respondents education level

The above figure depicts 75% of the respondents are illiterate, whereas, 15 % only read and write.
Only 10% the respondents have education level up to grade eight. This indicated that as mentioned
on family education level discussion, the respondents have low knowledgeable and aware of the
socio economic and ecological consequences of Bonga priority forest deforestation.
Therefore, low education level of both respondents and family size give indication of, people
living in the study area have low aware of socio-economic and ecological consequences of
deforestation and degradation of Bonga priority forest.

4.7.3 Land dependent income.

Based on socio-economic survey assessment, the main land dependent incomes of the study area
are cereal crop, pulses, livestock, NTFPs (honey, coffee, bamboo, chat, spice and incense) and
others (oil seed, woody forest products, fruit and vegetable). Summary of land dependent income of
the study area of year 1994, 2014 & 2024 is given on Figure 25.

51
 1994 2014
51.14 250
0.3% 1%

2688.07 7129.2
7039.77
24%
35% 35%
5469.89
49%
2700
24% 5290.91
26% 523.92
373.27 3%
3%

2024
680.11
2% Cereal
Crop
Pulses
9521.25
5 8729.5
31% 29% NTFPs

687.1 Livestock
11151.93 2%
36% Others

Figure 18: Annual income contribution of different land dependent incomes per household

The above Figure showed that in 1994, cereal crop income is the leading land dependent income in
the study area and accounted for 49% of the total income. NTFPs and Livestock are the second and
the third land dependent income, and they accounted for 24% and 24%, respectively.
In 2014, cereal crop is still the leading land dependent income, and accounted for 35% of the
relative income. Livestock and NTFPs are the second and the third land dependent income, and
they accounted for 35% and 26% of the relative income, respectively.
52
Meanwhile, in 2024 NTFPs is the leading land dependent income in the study area, and contributed
to 11,151.93Birr (36%) of the relative income. Livestock and Cereal crops are the second and the
third, and they contributed to 9521.25Birr (31%) and 8,729.55Birr (28%), respectively.
Even though, the land dependent income of both cereal and pulse crops have been increased in two
study periods, their relative income contributions have been decreased. Cereal crops‟ relative
income contribution decreased by 14% and 6% in the first and second 10 years, respectively. This
indicated that decreasing Bonga priority forest cover resulted in decreasing agricultural
productivity of local households. This is in agreement with FAO (2000), reported that deforestation
and forest degradation leads to excessive land degradation, and could lead to reduced average crop
yields per unit area.
Livestock relative income contribution increased by 11% in the first 10 year, but decreased by 4%
in the second 10 years. This is because of scarcity resources to accumulate large population of
livestock. More than 30% total income contribution of livestock is in agreement with Ethiopian
Economic Association (2000), livestock contribute about 30–35% of agricultural gross domestic
product (GDP), about 13–16% of total GDP and more than 85% of farm cash income.
Therefore, decreasing Bonga priority forest cover affect negatively the regulatory function of forest
which conserves the soil fertility/productivity of the study area, which influences the productivity
of agricultural crop income of local households. This leads to shifting of land dependent income to
livestock in the high land area, and to NTFPs in the low land area of the study site.

4.7.4 Woody & NTFPs uses of Bonga priority forest

The result of the assessment of woody & NTFPs/ non woody uses of Bonga priority forest for local
households is given on Figure 26.

53
 5
5
4 4 4 4
4.5

4 3 3
Energy
3.5
Values

2 2
Construction materials
3
NTFPs
2.5

2
1994 214 2024

Figure 19: Woody & NTFPs benefit of local households from Bonga priority forest.

Notes; 5 = Very high benefit (81-100%), 2 = Low benefit (21-40%),

4 = High benefit (61-80%), 1 = Very low benefit (1-20%)
3 = Medium benefit (41-60%),

The above Figure depicted that in 1994, from Bonga priority forest, local households‟ highly
benefited (61-80%) non cash woody forest products like energy/fuel wood and different
construction materials for subsistence purposed, and NTFPs/ non woody forest products like
coffee, honey and spices. In 2014, the woody forest products benefit local households obtained
from Bonga priority forest was decreased to medium value (41-60%).But the NTFPs benefit was
the same as that of 1994.

Meanwhile, in 2024 the woody forest products local household obtained from Bonga priority forest
was further decreased to low benefited value (21-40%). But in contrary the NTFPs benefit was
increased to very highly benefited value (81-100%). As discussed in land dependent income part,
decreasing agricultural productivity resulted in shifting land dependent income from crop to NTFPs
(especially in the low land part of the study area). To enhance their livelihood income from NTFPs,
local households illegally entered to Bonga priority natural forest and carried out coffee farming
activities.

54
Therefore, declining Bonga priority forest cover resulted in decreasing almost by 40% the woody
forest products local households have benefited from the forest. This is due to increasing the time
spent to collect woody forest products from forest (fuel wood and construction materials),
decreasing the density of high valued tree species used for construction materials (e.g. Cordiaand
Aningeria tree species) and increasing dependent of local households on their own plantation
(especially Eucalyptus species) . Decreasing fuel wood energy dependent on Bonga priority forest
resulted in local households have started using caw dung and crop residue as source of energy.

4.8 Socio-economic influences of Bonga priority forest LU/LC change

Based on result assessment and discussion on socio-economic survey of the study area, Bonga
priority forest LU/LC changes negatively influences the agricultural crop productivity, non-cash
use of woody forest products, agricultural inputs and wildlife abundance of the area.

4.8.1 Influences on land dependent income

As discussed on land dependent income part, in 1994 cereal crop was the leading income in the
study area (Fig.25). In this period households are highly depends on cereal crops like coffee, maize
& wheat. But due to decreasing the productivity of agricultural land to support agricultural crops,
total income contribution of cereal and pulse crops were decreased from time to time. In 2024 year,
local households are highly depending on NTFPs and livestock income than cereal and pulse crop
incomes. Within 20 years of study period, household total income contribution of cereal crop was
decreased by 20 %. According to local farmers‟ perceptions, in the past 30 years ago, cereal and
pulses crops incomes per a unit of land have been decreased almost by three folds. As the result of
this farmers have been looking over new uncultivated lands, and expand their agricultural land to
forest to overcome the decline of agricultural income. The statistically t-test of cereal crop at 95%
confident interval is (P-value) = 0.09. This showed that the relative income contribution of cereal
crop significantly decreased in the study area.
Therefore, Bonga priority forest LU/LC changes decreases significantly cereal crop total income
contribution for local households. This agreement is in line with Garedew et al., (2009) farmers
believed that declining of crop productivity and resultant food scarcity is caused by soil degradation
due to the destruction of forests.

55
5. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion
Sequential satellite images, ERDAS imagine and GIS technologies in combination with field
observations are the best tools used for analyzing forest cover change. 20 years Bonga priority
forest cover change analysis showed that great vibrations were observed on five major land use
types identified in the study area in the two periods of comparisons have made. Closed forest is the
dominant land use type, and highly deforested by anthropogenic factors. It was decreasing at the
rate of 0.86 percent and 0.41 percent in the first and second 10 years, respectively. Deforestation
rate of Bonga priority forest was 0.48 percent in the first 10 years, but decreased to 0.24 percent
in the second 15 years. Hence, PFM implemented in Bonga priority forest plays a decisive role in
decreasing deforestation rate of Bonga priority forest in the second 10 years.
Bonga forest priority forest cover change was driven not only by single factors, but also by the
interlinked effect of different direct and indirect anthropogenic factors. Agricultural expansion,
illegal settlement, woody forest product extraction, free grazing, population growth, accessibility,
law awareness and poor governance and/or institution are the main anthropogenic driving forces
which negatively affect Bonga forest priority forest cover changes. Agricultural expansion is the
first and the main driving force of Bonga priority forest cover changes.
However, declining of Bonga priority forest cover change influences the regulatory function of
forest to conserves and enhances soil fertility which leads to deteriorating of agricultural crop
productivity of the study area. Once agricultural land productivity of local households falls below
acceptable levels, they move to new, mostly forestland that is marginal for agriculture until
they have to move again. Substantial increases in demand for food have resulted in an expansion
of croplands by encroaching on uncultivated areas, including closed and open forests. Therefore,
decreasing agricultural land productivity is the other driving force of Bonga priority forest cover
changes.
Therefore, in the past 20 years ago, immense Bonga priority forest LU/LC changes were occurred,
and the forest was disappearing annually at the rate of 0.48%. The changes were driven by
interlinked direct (65%) and indirect (35%) anthropogenic factors. The forest cover changes
negatively influence household‟s agricultural inputs, woody forest products benefit for

56
subsistence purpose and productivity of agricultural crops. Declining agricultural productivity
resulted in shifting of land dependent income from agriculture crop to livestock ranching in the
high land area, and also to NTFPs in the low land area of the study site.

5.2 Recommendation
Based on the results obtained and actual field observations made during the study, the
following recommendations are forwarded.
Population policy: Population growth is one of the driving forces Bonga priority forest LU/LC
change. To prevent the population pressure and its influences on the forest resources and there by
improve the living conditions of the inhabitants, family planning awareness creation campaigns
with adequate health services should be introduced and implemented.
Agricultural intensification: The amount of income farmers have got from their agricultural land
is not proportional to the area of land they owned. This means farmers have got small amount of
income from large area of agricultural land. The current family size of the households in the study
area will not be sustained by the existing farming practices. Hence, deforestation caused by
agricultural expansion was reduced via the introduction of agricultural intensification assisted by
improved technologies and irrigation systems where viable (subsidizing of critical inputs for poor
farmers should be considered).
Encouraging NTFPs production: If it supported by best management practices, NTFPs like
coffee, honey and spice are friendly grow with forest. As discussed on land dependent income part,
farmers gave due consideration on NTFPs (mostly on coffee, but less attention on spice and honey)
income than other land dependent incomes. Therefore, the governmental bodies found in the study
area will introduce to technology based NTFPs production and management like modern bee hive,
improved coffee variety, and honey certification program .
Encouraging private forest: Encourage private forest developers by providing incentives such as
land grants, interest free loans, technical and marketing. And also assist household and individual
tree growers to add value to their primary products, and find markets for their products. Besides

57
used as source of income for households, private forest will help to decrease pressure of
extracting woody forest products (direct drivers of forest LU/LC change) from natural
forest. So governmental bodies found in the study area will give due attention on private
forest/plantation development and management.
Strengthen governmental institution: even though PFM has been implemented on
Bonga priority forest since 2003, due to lack of transparency, coordination, and
integration among forest related sectors and lack of collective effort of relevant sectors
against forest destruction, deforestation is still continued study area especially in the
remote sites. Therefore, coordination and consolidation of governmental bodies found in
the study area will abate deforestation problems in the study area.
Future line of work: Due to time and budget constraint, my research was focused on
Bonga priority forest LU/LC change/ of deforestation. It is better if further research study
was done on forest degradation (biomass destruction) and endangered species
extinction in and surround Bonga priority forest.
 6. References
Addo-Fordjour, P., & Ankomah, F. (2017). Patterns and drivers of forest land cover changes in
tropical semi-deciduous forests in Ghana. Journal of Land Use Science, 12(1), 71–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2016.1241313
Alexandratos Jelle, N. & B. (2012). WORLD AGRICULTURE TOWARDS 2030 / 2050 The
2012 Revision PROOF COPY. ESA Working PaperThis Paper Is a Re-Make of Chapters 1-3
of the Interim Report World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050 (FAO, 2006). In Addition, This
New Paper Includes a Chapter 4 on Production Factors (Land, Water, Yields, Fertilizers).
Revised and More Re, 12(12), 146. http://www.fao.org/economic/esa
Baker, O. E., Zon, R., & Sparhawk, W. N. (1924). The World‟s Forests. In Geographical Review
(Vol. 14, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.2307/208372
Belayneh, Y., Ru, G., Guadie, A., Teffera, Z. L., & Tsega, M. (2020a). Forest cover change and its
driving forces in Fagita Lekoma District, Ethiopia. Journal of Forestry Research, 31(5),
1567–1582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-018-0838-8
Belayneh, Y., Ru, G., Guadie, A., Teffera, Z. L., & Tsega, M. (2020b). Forest cover change and its
driving forces in Fagita Lekoma District, Ethiopia. Journal of Forestry Research, 31(5),
1567–1582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-018-0838-8
Beyene, G. (2022). Comparative Study of Woody Species Composition , Diversity , Structure and
Regeneration Status in Traditionally Managed Coffee Agro-forestry System Adjacent to
Natural Forest in Gimbo District , Southwest Ethiopia.
Bishaw, B. (2014). ScholarWorks at WMU Deforestation and Land Degradation on the Ethiopian
Highlands: A Strategy for Physical Recovery. International Conference on African
Development Archives, 1–17.

Carlson, K. M., Curran, L. M., Ratnasari, D., Pittman, A. M., Soares-Filho, B. S., Asner, G. P.,
Trigg, S. N., Gaveau, D. A., Lawrence, D., & Rodrigues, H. O. (2012). Committed carbon
emissions, deforestation, and community land conversion from oil palm plantation expansion
in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 109(19), 7559–7564. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1200452109
Chagnon, F. J. F., & Bras, R. L. (2005). Contemporary climate change in the Amazon.
Geophysical Research Letters, 32(13), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022722
Change, C., Resilience, E., & Education, C. (2023). Race , Land and Climate Change : Equitable
Resilience in California.
Debebe, B., Senbeta, F., Teferi, E., Diriba, D., & Teketay, D. (2023). Analysis of Forest Cover
Change and Its Drivers in Biodiversity Hotspot Areas of the Semien Mountains National
Park, Northwest Ethiopia. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(4), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043001
Dresen, E. (2011). Forest Status of Kafa Biosphere Reserve: Final Report submitted to NABU.
Forest and Community Analysis, 1–12. WWW%3Egeosysnet.de
Fekadu Hailu, A., Soremessa, T., & Warkineh Dullo, B. (2021). Carbon sequestration and storage
value of coffee forest in Southwestern Ethiopia. Carbon Management, 12(5), 531–548.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2021.1976676 2
Gobeze, T., Bekele, M., Lemenih, M., & Kassa, H. (2009). Participatory forest management and
its impacts on livelihoods and forest status: The case of bonga forest in Ethiopia.
International Forestry Review, 11(3), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.11.3.346
Koch, O., Ibisch, P. L., & Bloch, R. (2022). Climate change and shifting land-use: Consequences
for smallholder agroforestry systems and rural livelihoods in the southwest Ethiopian
Highlands. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 46(5), 672–711.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2022.2067930

Lambin, E. F., Geist, H. J., & Lepers, E. (2003). Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in
tropical regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 205–241.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105459
Lindenmayer, D. B., Margules, C. R., & Botkin, D. B. (2000). Indicators of biodiversity for
ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology, 14(4), 941–950.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x
Melesse, B., & Belachew, K. (2018). Forest Coffee Production in Ethiopia : The Case of Gimbo
District , Kaffa Zone , Southwest Ethiopia. 42–49.

Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., & Feyisa, G. L. (2022). Forest fragmentation in a forest Biosphere
Reserve: Implications for the sustainability of natural habitats and forest management policy
in Ethiopia. Resources, Environment and Sustainability, 8(April), 100058.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2022.100058
Mujuri, E. K. (2007). Deforestation and Afforestation , a World Perspective.
Mutio, J. M., Kebeney, S., Njoroge, R., Churu, H., Ng‟etich, W., Mugaa, D., Alkamoi, B., &
Wamalwa, F. (2023). Effect of land rehabilitation measures on soil organic carbon fractions
in semi-arid environment. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1095865
Negassa, M. D., Mallie, D. T., & Gemeda, D. O. (2020). Forest cover change detection using
Geographic Information Systems and remote sensing techniques: a spatio-temporal study on
Komto Protected forest priority area, East Wollega Zone, Ethiopia. Environmental Systems
Research, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-020-0163-z

Parry, M., & Palutikof, J. (2007). C l i m a t e C h a n g e 20 0 7 : I m p a c t s , A d a p t a t i o n an

d Vu l n e r a b i l i t y E d i t e d b y. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability Edited, 229.
Poffenberger, M. (2006). People in the forest: Community forestry experiences from Southeast
Asia. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 5(1), 57–69.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2006.008683
Rotich, B., & Ojwang, D. (2021). Trends and drivers of forest cover change in the Cherangany
hills forest ecosystem, western Kenya. In Global Ecology and Conservation (Vol. 30).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01755
Santoro, A., Venturi, M., Bertani, R., & Agnoletti, M. (2020). A review of the role of forests and
agroforestry systems in the fao globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS)
programme. Forests, 11(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/F11080860
Searchinger, T., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Lipinski, B., Waite, R., Winterbottom, R., Dinshaw,
A., Heimlich, R., Boval, M., Chemineau, P., Dumas, P., Guyomard, H., Kaushik, S.,
Makowski, D., Manceron, S., & Ben, T. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future. A menu
of solutions to sustainably feed more than 9 billion people by 2050. World resources report
3
2013-14: interim findings. World Resources Institute, July, 558.
https://agritrop.cirad.fr/593176/1/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf
Shiferaw, H., Alamirew, T., Kassawmar, T., & Zeleke, G. (2021). Evaluating ecosystems services
values due to land use transformation in the Gojeb watershed, Southwest Ethiopia.
 Environmental Systems Research, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-021-00227-3
Sisay, G., & Gitima, G. (2020). Forest Cover Change in Ethiopia: Extent, Driving Factors,
Environmental Implication and Management Strategies, Systematic Review. Journal of
Resources Development and Management, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7176/jrdm/67-01
Tandetzki, J., Schier, F., Köthke, M., & Weimar, H. (2022). An evidence and gap map of the
environmental Kuznets curve and the forest transition hypothesis for estimating forest area
development. Environmental Research Letters, 17(12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/aca781
Temesgen, Z., Irwin., B., & McKee, G. J. and J. (2007). Forests, Use Them or Lose Them, an
Argument for Promoting Forest-based Livelihoods Rather than Alternative Non-forest-based
Livelihoods Within PFM Programmes. Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Biodiversity
and Livelihoods in Africa, Proceedings of the International Conference, March, 7–18.

Tesfay, F., Tadesse, S. A., Getahun, Y. S., Lemma, E., & Gebremedhn, A. Y. (2023). Evaluating
the impact of land use land cover changes on the values of ecosystem services in the Chacha
Watershed, Ethiopia‟s central highland. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators,
18(May), 100256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2023.100256
Ujoh, F., Kwabe, I. D., Ifatimehin, O. O., Ujoh, F., Kwabe, I. D., & Ifatimehin, O. O. (2010).
Nigeria Infrastructure Advisory Facility From the SelectedWorks of Dr. Fanan Ujoh
Understanding urban sprawl in the Federal Capital City, Abuja: Towards sustainable
urbanization in Nigeria Understanding urban sprawl in the Federal Capital City, Abuja: Tow.
Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 3(5), 106–113.
http://works.bepress.com/fanan_ujoh/6/http://www.academicjournals.org/JGRP
Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Bojö, J., Sjaastad, E., & Kobugabe Berg, G. (2007). Forest
environmental incomes and the rural poor. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(7), 869–879.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.05.008
WAKO, G. (2017). Challenges of Sustainable Forest Resource Management in Kokosa.
Woldemedhin, D. G., Assefa, E., & Seyoum, A. (2022). Forest Covers, Energy Use, and
Economic Growth Nexus in the Tropics: A Case of Ethiopia. Trees, Forests and People,
8(January), 100266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100266
Yan, L., Meng, S., Yang, F., Dai, X., & Wang, H. (2023). Changes in Forest Vegetation Carbon
Storage and Its Driving Forces in Subtropical Red Soil Hilly Region over the Past 34 Years:
A Case Study of Taihe County, China. Forests, 14(3), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f14030602
Yeshitela, K., & Bekele, T. (2002). Plant community analysis and ecology of afromontane and
transitional rainforest vegetation of Southwestern Ethiopia. SINET: Ethiopian Journal of
Science, 25(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.4314/sinet.v25i2.18078
Zone, K., West, S., & Alemayhu, A. (2019). Role of Participatory Forest Management in Woody
Species Diversity and Forest Conservation: The Case of Gimbo Woreda in Keffa Zone South
West Ethiopia. Journal of Environment and Earth Science. https://doi.org/10.7176/jees/9-6-01