Wood lot planting and management was one of the behaviours studied in the initial survey carried out 1998. The response to this behaviour was then reassessed after a deliberate extension intervention 'focusing' on specific cognitive barriers to wood lot management identified in the first survey. The assessment or second survey was conducted in the last quarter of 2001. The objective group of this deliberate intervention was rural Dagbani speaking women in the Northern Region of Ghana.
A random cluster sampling process was applied across seven communities to acquire the second sample of 270. One of the communities was known not to have been involved in the intervening 'focused' extension programme conducted between January and September 2001. The sample (28 respondents) taken from the community not exposed to the deliberate extension intervention was used as a control noted in the following report as those 'without' extension as opposed to those 'with' extension.
The following report presents the finds regarding the impact of the 'focused' extension intervention that addressed the previously identified cognitive barriers to wood lot management and tree planting. Regarding wood lot planting and care, the first survey findings can be expressed as follows:
The practice of wood lot planting and management was found to be strongly negative. However, a positive intention to plant trees in wood lots was expressed. Few influential ‘barriers’ were identified when the first sample is taken as a whole. One of the most interesting findings was that the women appeared to have overcome some of the traditional taboos to planting trees.
The key barriers identified applied specifically to the ‘displaced’[1]:
- Concern regarding social and practical support
- The practical problems of theft, animal damage and drought.
- Security of future utility
It was suggested that future extension, in the light of the positive attitude to planting wood lots, should aim at accompanying practice and consolidating the learning process, i.e. the use of ‘field demonstrations’.
Channels identified that need to be used to encouraging wood lots planting are:
- The Chief, especially in rural contexts and particularly in stable communities.
- The family unit needs to be the focus, especially for non-displaced
- groups and communities developing ideas and working together
In the analysis of the second survey, three separate comparative groups have been assessed to explore the 'focused' extension impact. A sample from the first 1998 survey of rural Dagbani speaking women is compared with the second survey sample, i.e. 'Before and After'. The change that has occurred naturally over the three year time period between the first and second surveys, i.e. in the absence of the external intervention, can also be identified by comparing the first survey sample with those not exposed to extension. The main impact of the extension is observed by comparing those 'With and Without extension', the second comparative group. Those who have 'Attended or have Not Attended' wood lot management demonstrations form the third comparative group.
The comparisons of the differences in response to the main TORA variables and sub-variables between these groups are presented in Tables 7 to 10 and Figures 14 to 19 and discussed within the following sections of this report. Non parametric statistical tests have been applied to explore the differences, i.e. the Mann Whitney U Test. Spearman Correlations have been used to identify the strength of association between the different TORA variables and thus identify changes that have occurred in the subjects' cognitive response to wood lot management.
As in the case of the adoption of improved stoves and firewood collection, the same questionnaire was applied in the second survey as in the first. When the reliability of the different scales applied to the management of wood lots were tested, all were found to have acceptable alpha coefficients, i.e. a of >0.6.
The only to principal TORA variables that demonstrated a significant change due to the influence of the 'focused' extension programme are overall wood lot management behaviour (p = 0.000) and the stated intent to undertake wood lot planting and care in the next year (p = 0.033) (Table 7). In both instances the change is positive. The other variable to register a significant positive change was the product sum measure of the subjective norm (p = 0.050). In this instance those who had attended as opposed to those who had not attended wood lot demonstrations registered the significant 'positive' normative change. Those who had attended demonstrations also registered a similar significant positive change regarding behaviour and stated intent (Table 7).
When the sample from the first survey is compared with those who had not been involved in the focused extension programme it was noted that all the scores registered against the main variables had weakened, i.e. become less positive toward wood lot planting and management[2]. This indicated that the natural trend over the past three years within the region has been negative regarding wood lots (Table 7). It is therefore claimed that the 'focused extension intervention has led to a reversal in this general negative trend.
It appears that the ownership of land and cattle has a positive influence on the attendance of demonstrations. The consumption rate of firewood is the only other descriptive variable that appears to influence attendance, the more efficient the fuel wood use the more likely they are to have attended.
In the case of those exposed to the extension programme wood lot management behaviour has improved significantly, although the mean score is still negative (-2.10 on a -10 to +10 range). Those attending demonstrations registered a slightly more positive change (-0.99) (Table 8).
The wood lot management behaviour is measured by taking the sum of ten related sub practices. Those exposed to the 'focused' education programme have registered significant positive change with regarding 7 of these sub practices.
In case of wood lot management behaviour it appears that exposure to the 'focused' extension initiative as led to significantly more positive management behaviour, particularly with regard to tree planting, wood lot management, participation with others in the process and setting aside land for wood lots. Although those that had been exposed to the extension programme indicated a strong positive change in general wood lot management, there was little change regarding the watering of saplings or the building of protective fences. Similarly, although there has been a significant increase in the incidence of women 'participating' in planting trees, the change in women planting on their own, though positive, was not significant and still remains strongly negative (-0.62 in a range of - 1.00 to +1.00) (Table 8). Women still appear hesitant to plant on their own even though those who had attended demonstrations registered a significant positive change.
Table 7: Comparison of Changes in Wood Lot TORA variables due to Extension Interventions applying the Mann-Whitney U Test
|
Wood Lot management TORA Variables |
First and Second Survey Comparison |
Involvement in Extension Programme |
Attendance of Extension Demos |
||||||
|
First N = 62 Mean |
Second N = 230 Mean |
MW Sig. |
Without Extension N = 28 Mean |
With Extension N = 202 Mean |
MW Sig. |
Not Attended N = 62 Mean |
Attended N = 168 Mean |
MW Sig. |
|
|
Wood lot planting behaviour index Range (-10 to +10) |
-6.807 |
-2.73 |
0.000 |
-7.29 |
-2.10 |
0.000 |
-7.44 |
-0.99 |
0.000 |
|
Wood lot planting intention Range (-2 to +2) |
0.840 |
0.99 |
|
0.64 |
1.04 |
0.033 |
0.60 |
1.14 |
0.003 |
|
Wood lot planting probability Range (-2 to +2) |
0.790 |
0.95 |
|
0.93 |
0.96 |
|
0.74 |
1.03 |
|
|
Attitude to wood lot planting (Statement) Range (-2 to +2) |
1.630 |
1.50 |
0.050 |
1.36 |
1.51 |
|
1.42 |
1.52 |
|
|
Wood lot planting (sum) of attitude Sbi*eI Range (-80 to +80) |
20.613 |
16.00 |
0.005 |
17.57 |
15.79 |
|
16.94 |
15.66 |
|
|
Wood lot planting subjective norm
(Statement) Range (-2 to +2) |
1.060 |
1.21 |
|
0.96 |
1.24 |
|
1.31 |
1.17 |
|
|
Wood lot planting subjective norm (sum) Smj*bj Range (-24 to +24) |
11.903 |
10.53 |
0.020 |
9.46 |
10.68 |
|
11.71 |
10.10 |
0.050 |
Table 8: Comparison of Changes in Wood lot Management Behaviour due to Extension Interventions applying the Mann-Whitney U Test
|
Wood Lot Management Behaviour |
First and Second Survey Comparison |
Involvement in Extension Programme |
Attendance of Extension Demos |
||||||
|
First N = 62 Mean |
Second N = 230 Mean |
MW Sig. |
Without Extension N = 28 Mean |
With Extension N = 202 Mean |
MW Sig. |
Not Attended N = 62 Mean |
Attended N = 168 Mean |
MW Sig. |
|
|
Planted trees |
-0.680 |
-0.170 |
0.000 |
-0.79 |
-0.09 |
0.000 |
-0.77 |
0.05 |
0.000 |
|
Planted for
firewood only |
-0.900 |
-0.370 |
0.000 |
-0.79 |
-0.31 |
0.011 |
-0.84 |
-0.19 |
0.000 |
|
Wood lot
management |
-0.610 |
||||||||