Why smallholders stop engaging in forest activities: the role of in-migration in livelihood transitions in forested landscapes of southwestern Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest decline and degradation are particularly high in the tropics and pose a risk to those who depend on forest resources. The in-migration of smallholders to forest frontiers can fuel transitions of livelihoods and land and resource use. However, the conditions under which in-migration contributes to such transitions remain poorly understood. With this study, we aim to investigate the influence of in-migration, together with other non-demographic factors, on the livelihoods of local and migrant communities. As a case study, we chose the Guraferda district, a hotspot of rural in-migration and forest loss in southwest Ethiopia, where the forest-based local population experienced a rapid transition to agriculture-based livelihoods. We used 224 household surveys in three different kebeles (smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia) and applied descriptive and analytical statistics to understand how and why the forest activities of local and migrant groups have changed since a major resettlement program was launched in 2003. The findings were contextualized by local expert knowledge to assess forest loss and the role of in-migration in livelihood transitions and deforestation. Forest cover in Guraferda declined partially because of the in-migration of smallholders from agricultural-based systems, and insecure land tenure, but also considerably because of the expansion of commercial agriculture. With the decline in forest, the local population adopted migrants’ agricultural practices, a trend further encouraged by agricultural policies and barriers to participation in forest management for locals. Our study challenges simplified assumptions in in-migration–deforestation debates by showing that governmental policies, land tenure, and natural-resource access are mediating the impact of migration on livelihood transitions and deforestation. We conclude that securing land tenure and equal access to natural resources for frontier residents and promoting a mix of agricultural and forest livelihood activities can reduce adverse impacts in in-migration areas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".