DOI: 10.5061/dryad.2jm63xt10
title: Community perceptions and governance of tree planting schemes in Ethiopia: Insights for sustainable ecological and socioeconomic outcomes

description: Historically, tree planting was primarily implemented to achieve economic
 functions; more recently, environmental and social goals have also been
 emphasised. This is due to the realisation that schemes operate in a
 socioecological system; hence, understanding and fulfilling local social
 (community) interests is imperative. We conducted 13 focus group
 discussions and 40 interviews with communities at 13 Ethiopian tree
 planting scheme sites to evaluate their perceptions of the landscape
 challenges, scheme governance processes, and to identify areas for
 improvement. We analysed the survey responses qualitatively and scored the
 level of community satisfaction with the governance of each scheme. The
 results indicated that the communities understood and felt the impact of
 the landscape challenges while being optimistic about tree planting
 schemes' potential to avert these issues. However, the communities
 differed markedly in their satisfaction with the scheme's governance,
 indicating that the degree to which schemes met their goals was related to
 the community's satisfactory engagement. Most respondents discussed
 issues about proper community consultation, engagement,
 institutionalisation, and capacity building, starting from the input phase
 to the scheme governance process. We concluded that communities'
 perceptions are valuable at all scheme phases and should be employed to
 improve a scheme's governance, outputs, and impacts. We hope the
 results will help to encourage local communities' participation in
 steering and refining the governance of inclusive and appealing tree
 planting schemes with sustainable ecological and socioeconomic outcomes.
description: Case study selection and engagement with community
 representatives In identifying relevant tree planting
 schemes, we noted no consolidated register of schemes in Ethiopia, nor do
 all schemes appear in scientific literature. Therefore, we used various
 methods, including checking organisational websites, networks and Google
 search engines to identify (donor and implementer) scheme websites. We
 also conducted informal consultations to identify suitable schemes by
 visiting various organisations (including the government Forestry
 Commission, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, and the
 Ethiopian Civil Society Coordination Office), networking events, and
 offices of programs that coordinate and implement tree planting schemes
 across Ethiopia. In these visits, we collected data about the schemes and
 their activities, details about their donors, partners, location of
 implementation, and their overseeing organisations. The selection of the
 schemes was based on their (1) inclusion of a tree planting activity, (2)
 implementation in communal areas, (3) status as either ongoing or phased
 out in the last decade, and (4) distribution over broad geographic areas.
 The selection did not consider the location, species planted and scale of
 schemes. We identified 33 schemes, from which we selected 13 (Figure 1),
 with the remainder (20) excluded as they were in contextually comparable
 areas to those already selected or in geographic areas with security
 issues limiting our ability to access the communities. We created a
 profile for each selected scheme (See .csv format data below).
 After selecting the 13 tree planting schemes, we communicated
 with the implementing organisations to gain first-hand information from
 the managers and scheme documents about the community and their
 involvement in the scheme governance. Then, we confirmed that schemes
 worked with community representatives (from different social strata:
 women, men, elderly, youths, farmers, livestock herders, landless, local
 government administrators, religious leaders, and 2 to 3 village heads)
 elected by the community for the scheme governance process. We undertook
 focus groups with  10–14 representatives per scheme. We selected these
 representatives, considering they reflect the social group they
 represented in their thoughts and ideas, which could provide insight into
 the community's concerns and attitudes. We also selected three
 households from each community by randomly walking through villages to
 three local households, which are adjacent (within about 100 m from the
 tree planting site) and those that are distant (about 400 meters away from
 the planting site). The household members were selected to supplement the
 focus group discussions as the focus group discussants are, in most cases,
 involved with the scheme; it was assumed that the household members would
 provide a check to see if the focus group discussants represented the
 community in their responses. Scheme context
 The selected schemes were implemented in three agroecological
 zones (warm/humid, cool/subhumid and cool/semi-arid; Table 1). Ten schemes
 were initiated primarily to fight landscape degradation, and the other
 three were to conserve the natural forest habitat by integrating
 sustainable utilisation of non-timber forest products. The implementers
 were from local to international and governmental to intergovernmental
 organisations. The local communities selected to be part of these schemes
 comprise 500 up to 12000 households. The schemes received grants of
 between USD 0.24 and 10 million from various sources (Table 1).
 Focus group discussions and interviews Between
 January and April 2022, we undertook focus group discussions with
 community representatives. At the beginning of the sessions, which lasted
 90–120 minutes, we explained the purpose of the research, and participants
 agreed and signed the informed consent form along with the confidentiality
 assurance forms while also giving permission to record the process. We
 facilitated the focus groups by ensuring inclusive and focused discussions
 and, as observers, capturing group dynamics and contextual insights.
 During the facilitation, we encouraged diverse perspectives adapted to
 group dynamics. After each focus group discussion, we
 interviewed three randomly selected community members. These interviews
 lasted 30–45 minutes and used the same guiding questions (Supporting
 information S1. Guiding questions list) as the focus groups.
 In the focus group and the interview sessions, we stimulated the
 discussions and supplemented the qualitative responses by initially asking
 respondents to score their satisfaction with the scheme phases, input,
 throughput, and output phases (van Tatenhove, 2013). To help with the
 scoring, we presented and explained the five-score Likert scale categroies
 and the associated numeric values (Highly satisfied (5), Satisfied (4),
 Neutral (3), Dissatisfied (2), and Highly dissatisfied (1)) to
 respondents, thereby gathering responses in writing from each participant.
 In cases where there are outlying responses, their reasoning was taken as
 'quotes' for the qualitative data to identify the diversity of
 responses. We used semi-structured guiding questions
 (Supporting information S1. Guiding questions list) to initiate, direct,
 and prompt the discussions with the focus group discussants and household
 interviewees. The guiding questions are selected to understand the
 communities' overall perception of their surroundings, including the
 key topics, such as (1) the communities' perception of the land
 degradation challenges which prompted the tree planting, (2) the
 importance of tree planting schemes, (3) the satisfaction with the
 governance phases (input, throughput, and output), and (4) the approaches
 communities propose for the amendment of current and design of future
 schemes. The guiding questions and the research method for this study were
 reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Coventry University under
 approval number P115392. Analysis We
 analysed the data qualitatively by transcribing the recorded interviews
 and focus groups verbatim. Transcripts were initially coded in NVIVO
 Version 13 (Santo-Tomás Muro et al., 2022) using an inductive process
 (logical process based on experiences, observations, and facts (Sauce
 & Matzel, 2017)) to evaluate and collate findings from each of the
 focus groups/interviews into themes related to the guiding questions
 (Fleming et al., 2019; Metcalf et al., 2015). We stratified the responses
 during the transcription from the different social groups (female, male,
 elderly, youth, farmers, livestock herders, landless, local government
 administrator, religious leaders, village heads from 2-4, and people with
 disabilities. An inductive approach (where we collected and observed data
 to form some patterns and generalisations) was used to examine the coded
 data in more detail and to organise themes relating to the guiding
 questions. The analysis involved an iterative process that linked the
 different perceptions of study participants by reading transcripts and
 comparing them with relevant literature and their interpretations (Drury
 et al., 2011). Findings are supported with illustrative quotes, the source
 of which is identified using the type of data collected like 'focus
 group' or 'Interviewee', using social group respondents
 represented like 'elderly' or 'female' and the scheme
 number where we conducted the focus group or interviews like 'Scheme
 1'. We assumed that the community considered the
 tree planting scheme satisfactory if and when it fulfilled the three
 phases of successful participation during the governance process (van
 Tatenhove, 2013; Yitbarek et al., 2025). These include the input phase,
 which is when schemes engage the community during the initiation and
 planning process; the throughput phase is when schemes improve the quality
 and transparency of their governance by engaging communities in the
 decision-making process during the intervention and monitoring and
 evaluation process; and output phase is when schemes deliver the community
 sought and relevant outputs, outcomes, and impacts (van Tatenhove, 2013;
 Yitbarek et al., 2025). Accordingly, in evaluating the community's
 satisfaction with the study schemes, we averaged the respondents'
 satisfaction scores for each scheme site and the three scheme phases of
 input, throughput, and output (complete detailed data from the Dryad
 Digital Repository https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.2jm63xt10 (Yitbarek et al., 2025)). References Drury, R., Homewood, K., & Randall, S. (2011). Less is more: The potential of qualitative approaches in conservation research. <em>Animal Conservation</em>, <em>14</em>(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00375.x Fleming, A., O’Grady, A. P., Mendham, D., England, J., Mitchell, P., Moroni, M., & Lyons, A. (2019). Understanding the values behind farmer perceptions of trees on farms to increase adoption of agroforestry in Australia. <em>Agronomy for Sustainable Development</em>, <em>39</em>(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0555-5 Metcalf, E. C., Mohr, J. J., Yung, L., Metcalf, P., & Craig, D. (2015). The role of trust in restoration success: Public engagement and temporal and spatial scale in a complex social-ecological system. <em>Restoration Ecology</em>, <em>23</em>(3), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12188 Santo-Tomás Muro, R., Rodríguez Romero, E., & Sáenz de Tejada, C. (2022). <em>Methodological Design and Application of NVIVO for a Perceptual Analysis of Green Infrastructure in the Periphery of Madrid</em> (pp. 82–96). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04680-3_6 Sauce, B., & Matzel, L. D. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In J. Vonk & T. Shackelford (Eds.), <em>Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior</em> (pp. 1–8). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1045-1 van Tatenhove, J. P. M. (2013). How to turn the tide: Developing legitimate marine governance arrangements at the level of the regional seas. <em>Ocean & Coastal Management</em>, <em>71</em>, 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.11.004 Yitbarek, T. W., Wilson, J. R. U., & Dehnen-Schmutz, K. (2025). Investigating tree planting in Ethiopia and the extent to which scheme implementation aligns with good governance practices. <em>Journal of Environmental Management</em>, <em>373</em>, 123475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123475
description: # Community perceptions and governance of tree planting schemes in
 Ethiopia: Insights for sustainable ecological and socioeconomic outcomes
 We have submitted our raw data
 (Tree_Planting_Schemes_Context_and_Community_Perception_data.csv) ##
 Description of the data structure in the .CSV file ### Files and variables
 ###### File:
 Tree\_Planting\_Schemes\_Context\_and\_Community\_Perception\_data.csv
 ##### Variables: The file contains Columns A to BU, where the first raw is
 the 'Column Headings' for each column describing what the raw
 variables stand for, while Columns B to BU represent the variables for the
 'numbered schemes' in Column (A). The variable 'NA'
 stands for ‘Not Available’ wherever we couldn’t access data |
 Column A to BU  | Column Headings | Description of column contents | |
 :-------------- | :--------------------------------------------- |
 :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | A | Numbered Schemes | Scheme numbers are used in the data to avoid conflict of interest with scheme implementers who opted not to be named | | B | Organisation type  | Organisation types implementing the tree planting schemes | | C | Scheme type | A scheme could be a project, an initiative, or a programme led by different organs | | D | Ethnic group | The Ethnic group where the schemes are implemented | | E | Agroecological zone | Where a scheme is implemented | | F | Number of Planted trees | Number of trees planted by the scheme         'NA' stands for ‘Not Available’ wherever we couldn’t access data | | G | Beneficiary Households Number | Those intended to benefit from the implementation of a scheme | | H | Scheme size with mean of 1 district 35000ha | The scheme selected district where it is implemented | | I | GRANT SIZE In USD  | The scheme budget for implementing its activities                                                               'NA' stands for ‘Not Available’ wherever we couldn’t access data | | J | Grant source  | Grant type and source, which could be UN organisations and Bilateral organs like Embassies  | | K | Scheme priority  | The priority target why as scheme is implemented could be ecological or socio-economic, or both | | L | Implementation land ownership | The land where the scheme is implemented is either owned by individual beneficiaries or communally or by the government  | | M | Beneficiaries organised status | Some schemes organised beneficiaries while others used already existing beneficiary institutions  | | N | Planting approach  | Schemes used approaches like Agroforestry, mountain restoration, et, to plant trees depending on their target | | O | Scheme Planted species | Scheme planted tree species names (scientific and local)   | | P | Scheme initiated year,  | The year when a scheme started its activities | | Q | Year a scheme phased out | The year the scheme implementer stopped its investment and left scheme sites | | R | Focus Group Discussants number | Number of community representatives that participated in the focus groups | | S | Interview participants number | Number of community members that participated in the interview | | T to AG | IPFG (F, M, E, Y, Fa, H, L, A, R, V 2-4 and D) | Input phase focus group (F) Female, (M) Male, (E) Elderly, (Y) Youth, (Fa) Farmers, (H) Livestock Herders, (L) Landless, (A) local government Administrator, (R) Religious leaders, (V) Village heads from 2-4 and (D) Disadvantaged representative discussants satisfaction score where 5 is Highly satisfied, 4 is Satisfied, 3 is Neutral, 2 is Dissatisfied, and 1 is Highly dissatisfied                                                                  'NA' stands for ‘Not Available’ wherever we couldn’t access data | | AH to AK | IPI (F1&2 and M1&2) | Input phase (F)Female and (M) Male household interviewees satisfaction score   where 5 is Highly satisfied, 4 is Satisfied, 3 is Neutral, 2 is Dissatisfied, and 1 is Highly dissatisfied                                                                  'NA' stands for ‘Not Available’ wherever we couldn’t access data | | AL to AY | TPFG (F, M, E, Y, Fa, H, L, A, R, V 2-4 and D) | Throughput phase focus group (F) Female, (M) Male, (E) Elderly, (Y) Youth, (Fa) Farmers, (H) Livestock Herders, (L) Landless, (A) local government Administrator, (R) Religious leaders, (V) Village heads from 2-4 and (D) Disadvantaged representative discussants satisfaction score where 5 is Highly satisfied, 4 is Satisfied, 3 is Neutral, 2 is Dissatisfied, and 1 is Highly dissatisfied                                                  'NA' stands for ‘Not Available’ wherever we couldn’t access data | | AZ to BC | TPI (F1&2 and M1&2) | Throughput phase (F) Female and (M) Male household interviewees satisfaction score   where 5 is Highly satisfied, 4 is Satisfied, 3 is Neutral, 2 is Dissatisfied, and 1 is Highly dissatisfied | | BD to BQ | OPFG(F, M, E, Y, Fa, H, L, A, R, V 2-4 and D) | Output phase focus group (F) Female, (M) Male, (E) Elderly, (Y) Youth, (Fa) Farmers, (H) Livestock Herders, (L) Landless, (A) local government Administrator, (R) Religious leaders, (V) Village heads from 2-4 and (D) Disadvantaged representative discussants satisfaction score where 5 is Highly satisfied, 4 is Satisfied, 3 is Neutral, 2 is Dissatisfied, and 1 is Highly dissatisfied                                                  'NA' stands for ‘Not Available’ wherever we couldn’t access data | | BR to BU | OPI (F1&2 and M1&2) | Output phase (F) Female and (M) Male household interviewees satisfaction score   where 5 is Highly satisfied, 4 is Satisfied, 3 is Neutral, 2 is Dissatisfied, and 1 is Highly dissatisfied                                                                  'NA' stands for ‘Not Available’ wherever we couldn’t access data |