Contribution of Fuel Wood Income from Natural Forests to Household Economy in Delanta District, Northeastern Ethiopia

. For Ethiopia’s rural homes, particularly those in the Delanta district, fuelwood is the primary energy source. Tis suggests that the impact of fuel wood from the forest to family energy use or income is signifcant. Te goal of the current study was to estimate how much annual fuel wood harvested from forests contributes to household consumption and monetary income. 96% of the forest’s income comes from fuelwood. In the study area, it contributes 2,013,539 Birr, or 33%, of all family income. 703,014 ETB, or 23.8% of the total subsistence income, and 1,310,525 ETB, or 40.65% of the total cash income of the tested households, are both covered by fuelwood from the forest. Both socioeconomic and physical characteristics close to the users infuenced how dependent a household was on fuelwood income from the forest. Te data obtained from randomly selected households by survey method have been subjected to multiple regression analysis and obtained that households’ reliance on fuelwood income from the forest was signifcantly infuenced by factors such as age, educational level, number of trees owned, distance to forest, distance to market, and nonforest income, all of which had a negative and signifcant impact. Te only signifcant factor that signifcantly and positively infuences reliance on fuelwood income from the forest is the number of family members. Terefore, preserving a natural forest through the use of alternative energy sources, such as electricity, or encouraging a plantation on one’s own property is a potential discipline for mandating climate change prevention.


Introduction
1.1.Background.One of the fundamental requirements for maintaining human life is energy.However, the majority of residents in rural areas do not have sufcient access to costefective and efcient energy sources [1,2].Te fnding of Uhunamure et al. [1] shows around 2.5 billion people utilize charcoal and frewood as their primary sources of energy for cooking and home heating.According to Mhache [3], fuelwood makes up 60-95%, 25-60%, and 5% of the total energy utilized in poor, middle-income, and wealthy nations, respectively.Other conventional biomass, such as animal waste and agricultural waste, are a signifcant source of energy in developing nations [3].Energy consumption in underdeveloped nations is defned by a complete reliance on fuel wood for domestic cooking, lighting, and heating due to its signifcantly lower cost accessibility than most alternative available forms of fuels [1,4,5].
In Africa, over 80% of the energy supply comes from wood [6].Nevertheless, frewood and charcoal are still the main sources of energy from wood in many African countries.
According to Alemayehu Zeleke and Motuma Tolera [7], biomasses such as frewood, leaves, charcoal, animal dung, and electricity are the major sources of energy in rural Ethiopia.Tis leads 88% and 91% of the households in Ethiopia to depend on frewood as a source of energy for baking and cooking, respectively.Only very few households have access to electricity mainly due to lack of access to modern energy sources and open access to natural forests [8].
Energy consumption patterns of households normally represent status and welfare as well as the stage of economic development [1].Te livelihood of rural people depends entirely or in part on products made from nearby woods, and among all forest resources, fuelwood generates the most income for rural livelihoods [9].
According to Hussain et al. [9], sales of fuelwood and timber account for 52% and 46%, respectively, of the income from wood forest products in rural areas.To reduce forest degradation and fght poverty, it is crucial to understand the economic impact of fuelwood in rural families [6].However, previous research in Ethiopia has not sufciently investigated the role that fuel wood plays in the family economy and its consumption habits.
In the Delanta district, there is no numerical value of the area covered by a forest, but the district is surrounded by hilly topographical futures covered by degraded forests, woodland, scrubland, and the scattered trees in pasture and agricultural lands.
Te ownership of these areas is government, but most of these areas are open access and naturally regenerated.Te forest has diferent uses for the local households such as fuelwood, fodder, farm machinery, building materials, and other benefts [10].Even though forest contributes fuelwood for total household energy use, most countries have no clear and reliable assessments on the amount of fuelwood collected from forest [11].In rural areas of Ethiopia, fuelwood collection from openaccess natural forest is a common activity for domestic energy consumption and income generation for households [7,8].Terefore, the study's main goal was to look at how fuelwood afects household economics in dry Afromontane forests in the Delanta district in northeastern Ethiopia.

Description of the Study Area
2.1.1.Location of the Study Area.Delanta district is located in South Wollo Zone, Eastern part of the Amhara region of Ethiopia (Figure 1).Specifcally, it is located at 38 °40′39″N and 11 °20′11″E.Te main town and large market destination of this district is Wogeltena located about 98 km away from Dessie (the main town of South Wollo Zone) and 499 km away from Addis Ababa in the northeast direction.Currently, the district has 30 rural kebeles and 3 urban kebeles, totally 33 kebeles (Delanta District Communication Afairs Ofce, 2021).

Topography.
Delanta district lies on 106,017 hectares of land, which is composed of 30% plains, 36.5% rugged terrain, 30.5% rocky land, and 3.5% mountainous land.Te northern part of the Delanta district is more of a rugged surface, while the western part is an expanse.Te elevation point of the district ranges from 1900-3800 meters above the mean sea level (m.s.l).Delanta district is circumvented by the Bashilo River, which delimits Delanta from the Tenta district and fnally fows into the Abay River (Delanta District Communication Afairs Ofce, 2021).
Te average annual temperature of Delanta district ranges between 5.9 °and 19.11 °C.Records obtained show that the maximum temperatures are between 21.2 °C and 28 °C from January to June and the minimum amount of temperature is 1.6 °C-7.1 °C from October to December (coldest month) (Delanta District Communication Afairs Ofce, 2021).

Natural Vegetation.
Te spatial distribution of natural vegetation depends on many factors.Among these factors are topography, climate, drainage pattern, and soil types are the most ones.Vegetation cover is low in Delanta district because of the long history of agriculture and high population.Woody vegetation in the district constitutes degraded forests, woodland, scrubland, and scattered trees on agricultural lands.Te degraded forests are found in the northern part of the district where the forest has now dwindled to small patches of less than 1500 hectares.Te commonly observed remaining tree species in the forest are Acacia, Juniper, Hagenia, Eucalyptus, and Cordia [10].
Te scrubland consists of low shrubs mixed with grasses and herbs.Moreover, remnant trees are observed throughout the district, mostly scattered in the cultivated landscape of low altitude [10].Te resources have no scientifc plan.Even if there is a requirement to study the area covered by the forest, there is no forest resource assessment in the randomly selected three sample kebeles.Also, I was never sure about the area of the forest in the study kebeles due to lack of budget and time to accomplish this project.

Demographic Features.
According to CSA [12], the total population of the district is 149,882, of which 72,701 (50.5%) are males and 71,181 (49.5%) are females.Delanta has a high rate of population growth that has caused crowded populations to settle over scarce land [10].
2.1.6.Economic Activities.Agriculture is the dominant economic activity in the study area.About 97% of the total district population is engaged in the agriculture sector.Delanta district is a producer of various highland legumes and oil seeds.Te district is a surplus producer and supplier of lentils, peas, chickpeas, beans, and the like.Major growing crops are barley, wheat, beans, lentils, Tef, wheat, maize, oats, and sorghum.
Te most important livestock of the district include cattle, sheep, goats, equines (horses, mules, and donkeys), chickens, and honey bees.Te livestock resource of the district is mainly indigenous, and they serve for the sources of power for plowing, transportation, milk and meat production, hide and skin production, and fuel manure 2 International Journal of Forestry Research production (Delanta District Communication Afairs Ofce, 2021).Moreover, a considerable amount of cash income is also generated from other activities, such as fuelwood production, traditional opal mining, daily wage labor, and trading.Selling fuelwood is also a widespread and relatively common activity in the study area.

Energy Sources.
In the district, traditional biomasses such as fuelwood and animal dung are the major sources of energy for both rural and urban households.Modern sources of energy such as electricity are still insufcient in both availability and afordability.Only four kebeles and three kebeles from rural and urban kebeles of the district, respectively, have electricity for a total of 33 kebeles.Tis leads the community to use traditional biomass such as fuelwood and animal dung for domestic energy in the district.Tis indicates that it is important to explore the country's potential energy sources to avail an adequate supply of energy to the society.
Connecting all kebeles to the electricity grid generated from hydropower has been difcult because of the geographical topography of the country, making it extremely costly to distribute to remote areas.Based on this situation, the extraction of frewood and the production of charcoal from montane forests to fulfll the energy requirement have a direct implication on land degradation.

Sampling Technique and Sample
Size.Delanta district was selected for the study as it is identifed as one of the areas with forest resources in the zone where there is signifcant forest and land degradation.Te sampling procedure followed for this study was multistage sampling.Accordingly, frst, out of 33 total kebeles in Delanta district, three kebeles, namely, Mesnoamba (01), Goshmeda (019), and Mistinkir kebeles (018), were randomly selected.
Te respondents of this study were rural households who extracted fuel wood for energy availability from the surrounding forest.Terefore, sample households in each village were randomly selected.Te total sample size was determined by using formula [13] (equation ( 1)).Te reason to use this formula is the total number of households is fnite, and the budget required to accomplish the direct feld measurement for fuel consumption and sale was none.So, this formula was attempted to take a small sample size from a large fnite population.Te required sample from each kebele was determined proportionally and described in Table 1.

Sources of Data.
To achieve the objective of the study, the researchers used both primary and secondary sources of data.Primary data were collected from household surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and direct measurements.Secondary data were collected from other sources such as books and journals from the Internet, Delanta district government documents, and Delanta District Communication Afairs Ofce.

Household Survey.
To gather information on the fuel sources that are available, the economic activities that take place in households, and the value that each activity adds to the household economy, a structured questionnaire was created.A total of 26 closed-ended (single response) and open-ended (many responses) questionnaires were created.Te household heads who were chosen at random received orientations prior to the administration of the surveys.For the respondents, questionnaires were written in English and translated into Amharic.
A questionnaire with three sections-household characteristics, income from agricultural operations, and income from the nearby forest-was created with the study's goal in mind.
Te questionnaire's part on household characteristics assisted in gathering information on the distribution of sexes and ages in the family, the educational attainment of family heads, the size of the home, the status of the household's members in terms of their education, and other topics.
To determine the sources of income for each individual household, many procedures, including agricultural ones, have been devised.At the time of the feld survey, details about the household's collection of forest products from the forest were listed.
In this situation, we might evaluate the family economy's income contribution from the sale of fuel woods harvested from forests.Additionally, we determined how much fuel wood each home sells each year to generate income.

Key Informant Interview.
In this study, key informants are considered as persons who are knowledgeable about fuelwood extraction from the forest, who know the economic contribution of fuelwood to the household economy, and who continuously lived for a long period of time in the community.Tey were selected by the snowball method [14].Tose who participated in the interview were developmental agencies (DAs), special women, and household heads that harvest fuelwood mainly from open-access forests to understand the person's insights, feelings, thoughts, and opinions.Tirteen structured interviews were prepared to gather data from interviewees.

Focus Group Discussion
. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with interested group members in each kebele.Te purpose of FGD was to get detailed evidence from diferent groups of people about the reliance on fuelwood income from the wooded area.Te major focus group discussion members were the Agricultural Development Agency (DA), kebele administrative, and the households that commonly produce charcoal and frewood to get detailed information from diferent groups of communities about the fuelwood production in the study area.Te participants in the focus group discussions comprised 4-5 HHs in each kebele.Te focus group discussion was handled using the prepared checklist, which holds around six questions.

Direct Measurement of Available Fuels.
Te amount of fuel consumed and sold during a seven-day period was calculated using the weight survey method [15][16][17].Tis measurement was taken by an instrument called spring balance employed by the authors of [15,17].
Te respondents selected readily available fuels as being utilized every day, and each fuel type (wood, crop residues, dung, charcoal, and kerosene) was measured physically and recorded separately.Weighed and left at each sample home were the rough estimates of the daily fuelwood needs for each household made by the respondents.Households were instructed throughout this exercise to only consume or burn fuelwood from the weighted bundles and sacks according to their separate sources of fuelwood (their own, the forest, and the market).Te weight of the bundles or sacks delivered by various sources was subtracted from the weight of the residual fuelwood the next day to determine the amount of fuelwood used [11,18].

International Journal of Forestry Research
Respondents were requested to arrange fuelwood for dimensions comparable to those utilized on the preceding day of sale to estimate the daily sale of fuelwood per household within a week.As a result, the identifed bundle of wood was weighed or measured using a spring balance before being recorded on the datasheet.Other fuels, such as animal dung for consumption and selling, were also weighted and recorded individually according to the same methodology as above and as indicated by the respondents during the interview.Kerosene usage was calculated in liters for each household.Typically, the weight of fuelwood used for one week was multiplied by 52, the number of weeks in a year [19], to determine the yearly fuelwood consumption.

Methods of Data Analysis
2.4.1.Household Survey Data Analysis.Data gathered for the study were analyzed through qualitative and quantitative methods.Te data obtained from the household surveys and direct measurements were organized and analyzed by descriptive statistics, such as frequency, percentages, mean, and standard deviation, which is used to analyze diferent socioeconomic situations.Qualitative data obtained through interviews, personal observations, and via focus group discussions were analyzed and described in the form of narration by sorting grouping views and concepts.Te data were analyzed by using [20] and STATA version 14.2.

Income of Fuel for Consumption and Sale.
In February, March, and April 2021, measurements of fuels for sale and consumption were made.Weighing solid fuels is a crucial factor to take into account when measuring fuel because it allows for an accurate calculation of consumption [21,22].Weight measurement was a more practical way to determine the solid volume because it is quicker and easier to calculate the weight of a bundle of crop residue, animal dung, or wood using a spring balance than it is to calculate the gross weight of a headload of irregularly shaped fuelwood [23].
Te annual amount of each energy source (fuels) and the reported price of each energy source (fuels) by household and market survey were multiplied to determine the income of each energy source available to the households.Te average of the mean value of the reported prices by the respondents and market survey was taken as the price of all forest and nonforest products.

Household Income Sources.
In this research, the relative fuelwood income from the forest means the income, which was contributed by fuelwood like frewood and charcoal extracted from the forest.Also, the income from forest products comprises the sale of farm equipment, forage, and timber for houses.Tis technique is comparable to that of [24].Crops, woodlots, and fruits made up agricultural products, which were sources of agricultural income.Te value of domestically consumed livestock products and the sale of animals are both included in the income from livestock.In the current study, we calculated the proportion of products sold in marketplaces and consumed by households.Products used at home were valued at what they would have cost in the local town at retail.We used the price of replacements in cases where the market price was unavailable [25].

Income Computation. According to Pokhriyal et al.
[26]'s methodology, all sources of income were included in the computation of income (equation ( 2)).All incomes were converted into Ethiopian Birr to account for it.Te calculations made to determine the annual household income are as follows: (Forest income + agricultural crop income + livestock income + off-farm income) � total annual family income. ( Total annual household income was determined by the following equation: where A tincome is the annualized total household income, and Xi is the source-specifc income.We took into account the existence of loans from each responder when calculating total annual income.Tis reduces the loan's impact on the household's overall income.Tis approach is based on the approach used by Hlaing et al. [27]. Te research area's collected forest resources included fuelwood, wood for buildings, construction, feed, and tools for farming.By multiplying the amounts with the current market values for each product and adding them up, the income from forest goods (frewood per kilogram, wood for dwellings, buildings, and feed per human load, and agricultural implements per number) is calculated by the following equation: Total forest income � (fuelwood income + income of other forest product). ( According to weight survey methodologies, the annual amount of fuelwood is used to compute the fuelwood income from the forest [15].For the purpose of determining fuelwood income for sustaining life and generating money, the measured amounts and reported prices of fuelwood used and sold by each household were used.Terefore, the annual International Journal of Forestry Research amount of fuelwood, which includes frewood and charcoal, and the reported price of the fuelwood were simply multiplied by the households to determine the fuelwood income. As long as the household could remember, all nonfuelwood product categories that were gathered and consumed in each HH were observed, and their quantities were noted.Te research of [9,25,28,29] and [27] used a methodology similar to this one.Te physical quantities and value estimates provided by the household itself, along with the current local market values, were utilized.Te amount of each product that was annually harvested, gathered, utilized, and sold, as well as the cash proceeds from sales, was reported by respondents (equation ( 5)).
Te majority of current techniques for calculating a household's reliance on fuelwood income from the forest rely on translating the measured fuelwood into monetary values and comparing them to the total household income.
Agricultural crop income � (wheat income + barley income + teff income + beans income + lentils income + sorghum income + onion income + income from own plantation + maize income + income from own plantation + income from grass). (5) It contains farming of crops for both household consumption and sale.A household survey was used to gather information on agricultural yields from the relevant households, and the local market was used to determine crop prices.To be included in this component, the income from private plantations and woodlots is also gathered and measured.
When households were recalled for a year, the total income generated from consumed and sold cattle and their products was added up (equation ( 6)).While the income from sold livestock was also computed as cash income by adding all sold livestock in a year's time using the recall method, the livestock that was consumed in the family was calculated as a subsistence income by adding its proportionate estimated price.Te annual income of livestock earned from sold and utilized animal feces, including hired labor, feed, and veterinary bills, was also taken into account in this example.
Livestock income � (goat's income + sheep income + bull's income + cow's income + hen's income + honey income + horse's income + income of animal dung + income from dairy production), (6) Off − farm income � (businessman income + government servant income + daily wage labor income). ( Salaries from private employment and pensions for the elderly are included in daily wage labor.Interviews with the interviewees also yielded information about company income and salaried government employment.

Contribution of Fuel Wood from the Forest to the
Household Economy.Data on the price of selling fuelwood should be obtained from key informants within a week since the amount of income from selling fuelwood was approximated in this study by adding up each participant's daily income over the course of a week.Te income from the amount of fuelwood consumed by each household was added up to determine the subsistence income from fuelwood.Terefore, the amount of the cash and fuelwood used for subsistence is the total income from the forest in terms of fuelwood.

Determinants of Households' Dependence on Fuelwood
Income from Forest.Dependency on fuelwood income from the forest is expressed as a proportion of total annual household income (equation ( 8)) or as a percentage of it.Tis demonstrates how heavily households rely on the sale of fuelwood obtained from the forest.Dependency on fuelwood income � income of fuelwood from forest ÷ total household income * 100, where the whole earnings from fuelwood harvested from the forest are referred to as fuelwood income.
As a set of tools for analyzing the linear relationships between two or more variables, multiple regression analysis was chosen.In this study, dependence fuelwood income from the forest serves as the dependent variable, and the independent variables are sex, age, education, household head status, family size, land size, proximity to the forest, number of trees owned, proximity to the market, and household income derived from sources other than the forest.

6
International Journal of Forestry Research A statistical method for examining the factors that infuence a household's reliance on fuel wood from forested areas is regression analysis.Te relationship is assumed to take on a broad shape known as the multiple regression model [30].
Equation of multiple regression α is the intercept, β1 is the vector of the estimated coefcient of the explanatory variable, and Y is the dependent variable (households' dependence on fuelwood that takes from the percentage of fuelwood income from the forest to the total household income), while X1, . .., Xk are the explanatory variables or the independent variables (sex, age, education level, land size, family size, distances from the forest, number of tree owned, distance from the market, and nonforest income).Tere is no wealth classifcation in this study because each criterion used for deciding the wealth status of a community such as land size and nonforest income (agriculture income, of-farm income, and livestock has diferent infuences on dependency on fuel wood income from openaccess natural forest.

Variable Selection Rationale.
Major factors that determine the households' dependency on fuelwood income from the forest include age, sex, educational status, household size, land size owned, distances to market, distances to forest, number of tree owned, and nonforest income (Table 2).

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Sample Households
3.1.1.Household Characteristics.According to Table 3, approximately 23.81% of the 126 household heads that were sampled were females.Te minimum, maximum, and average compositions of the respondents were 22, 85, and 47 years old, respectively.Of the homes, 5.56 percent were single, and 66.67% were married; the remaining 15.08 percent were divorced, and 12.70 percent were widowed.Additionally, one-third of the families have a single head that is single, divorced, or widowed.Tere were two family members as the lowest, eight as the maximum, and four as the average.59% of the sampled families were illiterate, indicating a low level of education in the area.Te majority of respondents (59.52%) were illiterate.In the sample, women head about 25% of the families.Te entire demographical features of households subjected to categorical variable are summarized in Table 3.

Landholding Size.
Tere are not many land assets in the research area.A total of 122 respondents (96.86%) have their own land, ranging in size from 0 to 2.5 ha.Four (3.14%) of the farmers share rents with people who own land to carry out their farming activities.

Number of Own Trees.
Even though land size is scarce in the study area, trees from private lands, woodlots, roadsides, and gardens are also income sources of households.Tat 92.86% of the respondents have a private plantation used for house construction, fuelwood sales, and agroforestry practices.Te mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum value of continuous variable concerning the sampled households including landholding size and number of tree owned are shortly described in Table 4.

Family Members Involved in Fuelwood Collection.
Te respondents revealed that both male and female household members are responsible for collecting fuelwood.As a result, 35% of respondents said that mothers and daughters are the main people that regularly get frewood from forests.However, according to 32% of respondents, dads and boys are also the main producers and transporters of charcoal and frewood in order to generate monetary income.Te remaining 33% of respondents said that both male and female respondents, regardless of income level, were in charge of producing income by gathering and selling fuelwood from the forest in addition to providing the household's energy needs.However, cooking and making energy-saving decisions are regarded as feminine domains.

Cash and Subsistence Income of Diferent Energy Sources.
Figure 2 also explains how to calculate the total annual income of the quantifed energy sources.Knowing the income contribution of each distinct energy source as a cash income and a means of subsistence is necessary to calculate the income of each energy source.Because the cost of energy sources per unit varies depending on quality, income comparison is a fundamental metric for evaluating the effectiveness and quality of the energy sources that are now accessible.Tis study compares the income from various fuels (energy sources) for both subsistence use and cash when they are accessible in the study location.
For the households in the sample, the total annual cash income from frewood and charcoal from the forest is 985,135 Birr and 325,390 Birr, respectively.In contrast, the biggest annual cash income per household from nonforest sources comes from charcoal (77,480 Birr), which is followed by frewood (22,854 Birr) and animal dung (17,056 Birr).In case of subsistence income, the biggest value of energy sources is frewood from the forest with a total annual income of 686,712 Birr.Tis is followed by animal dung (290,149.6Birr), nonforest frewood (141,258 Birr), and forest-derived charcoal (16,302 Birr).Tis indicates that charcoal is produced mainly for cash income generation.Terefore, frewood from the forest is the largest contributor of income as a cash and subsistence use.

Annual Income from Diferent Forest Products.
Here, we examine how these fundamental requirements are met by each of the forest products through feld research, International Journal of Forestry Research HH interviews, and key informant interviews.Te study's fndings demonstrate the vital signifcance that the natural forest in the Delanta area plays in the livelihood of rural communities by providing the primary source of income for rural households.To varying degrees, the local populations in the Delanta district rely on the extraction of forest resources for their subsistence.
Households in the study region gather and use forest goods, such as farm implements, fuelwood, feed, and building materials.While forests produce a variety of nontimber forest products, such as fuelwood, fodder, building materials, traditional medicine, honey, fruit, food, and farm instruments, the northeastern region of Ethiopia is primarily covered by the dry Afromontane ecosystem, these species include Eucalyptus globulus, E. camaldulensis, Carissa spinarum, Olea europaea ssp., Cuspidata Rhu, glutinosa ssp., Ficus palmate, Ficus vasta, Rubus apetalus, Croton macrostachyus, Juniperus procera, and Olea europaea ssp.cuspidate [36], which only contributes to the products that we have studied in this research [32,37].
Te order of percentages of forest income derived from agricultural instruments, charcoal, fence and building materials, and frewood is 3%, 0.05%, 80%, and 16%.Due to its easy access from the study area's natural forest, frewood accounts for the largest portion of the forest's income and serves as the community's major source of energy for cooking and heating.Te fndings show that frewood, which accounts for 80% of the forest's overall income, is by far the most signifcant product removed from it.Tis result is in line with that of Adanech Asfaw et al. [32], who demonstrate that fuelwood is a key product that accounts for 80% of forest income.

International Journal of Forestry Research
Table 5 shows the variety of forest products that HHs gather and how much each one contributes to the annual income needed for various daily necessities.Te fndings indicate that the aggregate yearly earnings from farm equipment, feed, fence, and fuelwood-that is, frewood and charcoal-were 15950, 58175, 2025, 1671847, and 341692 Birr, in that order.Charcoal and frewood are the two forest resources that give rural livelihoods the most income.
Tese fndings demonstrate that fuelwood extraction dominates rural lifestyles compared to other forest products since fuelwood is the most lucrative, cash-contributing, and subsistence-useful forest commodity.

Cash Income and Subsistence Use of Forest.
Trees and shrubs are utilized as various building materials and fences in the study area.Te foor, walls, poles, rafters, beams, roofng, and other components of the homes were made of these materials.Because they are only somewhat functional, fences and thatch only generate a subsistence income.Te majority of the forest is mountainous and slopes steeply, making it challenging to transport poles and timber.For traditional dwellings, woodland thatches were employed as building materials.
When taken out of the natural forest, fodder provides the community with both monetary and subsistence income.Additionally, little wood is gathered for the purpose of constructing or fxing agricultural cultivation implements, including plows, harrows, yokes, and handles (Figure 3).Tis outcome is consistent with research by Ali et al. [28], Hussain et al. [9], and Zeb et al. [38], demonstrating that forests are a signifcant source of agricultural instruments.Because of the economic worth of forest products, people relied more on the fuel wood from them to generate income than on direct consumption.Te results of this investigation are consistent with those of Babulo et al. [37].

Major Sources of Income for the Household.
Te annual average income of households from all major sources of rural livelihood in the district is presented in Table 6.Te annual income from forests, resources, agricultural products, livestock, and of-farm activities contributed 34%, 37%, 26%, and 3%, respectively.Te mean annual income per household from agriculture products and forest products was 17924.23 and 16584.45Birr, respectively.According to the study, kebeles, the income from these sources is signifcantly higher than that from other sources.Additionally, the overall mean annual income from livestock was 12868 Birr, or 26% of the total household income, and the mean annual income from of-farm activities was 1,408.333Birr.
In general, the total annual income was 6,147,960 Birr, with an average household income of 47,674.6Birr.

Relative Contribution of Fuelwood from Forest for
Household Economy.Te forest produced 2,013,539 Birr in fuelwood, which accounted for 33% of the household's total income.When compared to other income sources discovered in this study, which revealed that the NTFPs contributed signifcantly to the total household income in Ethiopia, the total income of fuelwood, or frewood and charcoal, was relatively high [39].All kebele leaders, respondents, experts, developmental agencies, and key informants concurred that HHs in the low-income category had the largest fuelwood from forest income contribution to total income (Figure 4).Te following authors [9,37,40] have also validated these fndings.
As a result, low-income households rely increasingly on forest resources.Tis is mostly due to the HHs' lack of access 0.00 2,00,000.004,00,000.006,00,000.008,00,000.00International Journal of Forestry Research to alternate sources of income, which exacerbates their poverty and may play a signifcant role in the communities' heavy reliance on forest goods.

Contribution of Fuelwood from
Forest to the Subsistence and Cash Income of HHs.Because they gather all biomass fuels from both forested and nonforest sources, every survey participant stated that they have never bought the energy sources used for cooking and heating.Table 7 shows how fuelwood from the forest helps households generate fnancial income in addition to sustaining themselves.For both monetary and subsistence use, the forest produced a total of 703,014 and 1,310,524.8ETB of fuelwood annually, respectively.Based on the monetary worth of fuelwood from the forest, people relied on it more than 0.86 times for their cash generation than for their direct use.

Determinants of Households' Dependence on Fuelwood
Income from Forest.Te defnition and measurement of dependency on fuelwood income from the forest are based on overlapping categories, such as the production and extraction of fuelwood from the forest for the provision of cash and subsistence income to the household.Te fuelwood (frewood and charcoal) net income (cash income) and the fuelwood (frewood and charcoal) collected by households, which are typically used to meet their basic needs like subsistence income, are the two main sources of fuelwood dependence on income in this study.Regression analysis reveals that households' reliance on fuelwood income from forests is determined by a number of underlying factors, including age, sex, educational attainment, family size, distance to the market, distance to the   Te fndings of the multiple linear regression analysis (Table 8) indicated that the following factors were found to be signifcant predictors of dependence on fuelwood income from the forest: age, family size, educational attainment, and distance to the market, number of trees owned, and income from sources other than the forest.Positively correlated estimated regression coefcients with the dependent variable suggest a direct positive relationship between them.Conversely, it was suggested by the predicted regression coefcients with negative signs that they had a tangential relationship with the dependent variable.Te coefcient of multiple determinations was strong, as indicated by the double-log total result (0.7469).A greater R 2 indicates a better ft between the model and the collected data.Te formula goes on to show that 74.69% of the variables that have been examined have an impact on the reliance on fuelwood income from the forest.
Tere is no multicollinearity issue with the independent variable, according to the multicollinearity test for continuous and dummy variables using the variance of the infating factor (VIF) and the contingency coefcient.Te results of the Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg heteroscedasticity test show that the model is heteroscedasticity-free.
3.4.1.Age.At p < 0.01, age showed a statistically signifcant and adverse correlation with reliance on fuelwood income from the forest.Te oldest respondents appear to be less reliant on forest fuelwood, based on the age-related negative coefcient.Te following authors [6,9,34,41,42] have also corroborated these fndings.Because they are willing to explore economic opportunities in cities to secure a bright future, younger household heads are therefore more reliant on forest resources than their older counterparts.In a similar vein, the research conducted in 2013 by Fonta and Ayuk outlines the necessity of signifcant physical power and a large workforce for forest extraction activities.Because of their greater future chances outside of the forest, persons with advanced formal education prioritize using fewer forest resources than people with informal education [2,5,9].Additionally, they possess a solid awareness of indoor air pollution and the health risks associated with fuel wood consumption in homes.

Number of Family Members.
Te number of family members was statistically signifcant and had a positive connection at p < 0.01.Tis is consistent with a previous prediction.Household size is substantially connected with dependency on fuel wood income from the forest since larger families use and sell more forest biomass for domestic energy sources [9,34,39,43].
Because there are more home workers available, a greater number of family members undoubtedly take more fuelwood from the forest resources.Te following authors [3,28,31] have also validated these fndings.Large families thus depend increasingly on forest goods to meet their basic needs due to the increase in the unemployment rate and increased subsistence needs in areas bordering on forests.

Distance to
Forest.Distance to the forest has a negative and signifcant association with dependency on fuelwood income from the forest resource at p < 0.01.Nearer households to the forest have a chance more likely to collect fuelwood from the forest, while they have a lower probability of purchasing or obtaining biomass fuels from their farmlands.Tis is consistent with the study by Rahut et al. [31] and Hussain et al. [9] where fuelwood production and consumption patterns depend on the ease of fuelwood collection.
Women are mostly in charge of gathering frewood, and thus, it is challenging for them to go large distances to the forest because it takes a lot of time and energy away from their extensive to-do list of other home duties.Terefore, to meet their energy needs, people who lived further away from the forest used frewood mixed with cattle dung more often than people who lived in or close to the forest.Tis is consistent with research by [44].In this case, there is no consideration of cost for the people that goes a large distance to meet the fuel woods because all households can cover the trip towards and forwards of the forest area with a time of less than one day, and there is no extra cost.

Distance to Market.
At p < 0.01, market distance signifcantly and negatively correlates with reliance on fuelwood income from the forest resource.Alemayehu Zeleke and Motuma Tolera [7] assert that the cost and availability of fuelwood have a big impact on how much fuelwood is used in each household.Tus, the primary factor reducing fuel wood income and consumption is distance from the market.In addition, homes located far from markets tend to extract only what they require for personal use.However, every rural region in this research area is separated from the district center by a distinct distance and is encircled by a steep topographical feature with openaccess forests.

Number of Trees Owned.
Te number of trees possessed is signifcantly and negatively correlated with reliance on fuelwood income from the forest resource (p < 0.05).When the number of trees owned on private property increases by one, the household's reliance on fuelwood income from the forest declines by 0.10047%, according to the coefcient −0.10047.Every important respondent, development facilitator, and agricultural specialist concurs that homes with more trees in their home gardens, woodlots, and roadside plantings are better equipped to gather fuelwood from their own property to meet their frewood requirements.Tese include Eucalyptus globules, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Cordia africana, Olea africana, Cupressus lusitanica, and other types of species.Also, free is this frewood.It is true that the amount of consumption is infuenced by the availability of energy sources.Tat being said, not every home will necessarily experience this.
Furthermore, signifcant factors are the types of tree, age, and production [43,45,46].A natural reaction to the increasing scarcity of fuel wood is to plant trees that grow quickly [23].Income from agriculture has a detrimental impact on a household's reliance on fuel wood from the forest because, as income rises, the household uses less contemporary energy sources.Refs.[9,34,42] have also validated these fndings.
According to Baral et al. [34], respondents with higher livestock incomes are less reliant on fuelwood income from forest resources.Tis is because livestock income reduces reliance on fuelwood income from the forest.A rise in offarm income reduces reliance on fuelwood income from the forest because individuals with more successful of-farm ventures rely less on fuelwood income from the forest because they make more money from other sources, which may divert the neighborhood from forest collection operations [9].

Conclusion
According to the results of a study on the reliance on fuelwood income from the forest, fuelwood is the most signifcant and largest product of open-access natural forests, used to raise household living standards through subsistence and fnancial use.We also looked at how, to varied degrees, all income groups in rural regions rely on fuel wood from the forest because it is a more desirable energy source than other conventional energy sources.Te income from fuelwood is essential to the daily lives of the local households, accounting for 96% of the forest's income.
With 34% of total household income, forest income is the second-largest income share.Fuelwood from the forest covers a relative contribution of 33% of the total income and 40.65% of the total annual cash income of the sampled households.Tis study also examined the determinants of dependency on fuelwood income from forest for the rural community through the OLS regression model.Based on the model, age, educational status, distance to forest, distance to market, number of trees owned, and nonforest income have a statistically signifcant negative relationship with dependency on fuelwood income from the forest, whereas family size is the only factor that has a statistically positive relationship with dependency on fuelwood from forest.
Te increasing trend in forest degradation for household fuel consumption will ultimately accelerate future emissions of greenhouse gases, which will lead to changes in global climate.Tus, opposing strategies are required to achieve the twin objectives of preserving forest carbon and meeting regional demands.
Tese strategies include expanding agricultural production on previously cleared land, implementing agroforestry, and creating alternative energy sources in addition to biodiversity conservation measures.Additionally, it is necessary to create protected areas, integrate enough law enforcement and monitoring into the current management regimes, and combine conservation and community-based management.

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: Map of the study area.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Comparison between incomes of energy sources.

Figure 3 :
Figure 3: Cash and subsistence income of the forest.

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: Relative contribution of fuel wood for household economy.

Table 1 :
Number of households sampled from kebeles.

Table 2 :
Description of explanatory variables included in the regression model.

Table 3 :
Summary statistics of categorical variables.

Table 4 :
Summary statistics of continuous variables.

Table 5 :
Summary of statistics for income of forest products.

Table 6 :
Summary of sources of income for the household.
3.4.2.Educational Status.At p < 0.05, the household head's educational background has a statistically signifcant negative relationship with their reliance on fuelwood income from the forest.Similar studies conducted in 2017 by Hlaing

Table 7 :
Household activities and their annual contribution to subsistence use and cash generation.Journal of Forestry Research et al. and 2014 by Baiyegunhi and Hassan explain why this is the case: Educated people are less likely to engage in activities that rely on the forest because they can aford more modern lifestyles, such as cooking with electricity or gas stoves or solar energy.Tey also take their attention away from farming and other subsistence pursuits. International

Table 8 :
Results of regression model for dependency on fuelwood income from the forest.Number of obs � 126, Prob > F � 0.0000, R-squared � 0.7469, Adj R-squared � 0.7272, F � 38.03, * * and * * * the level of signifcance at 5% and 1%, respectively.International Journal of Forestry Research 3.4.7.Nonforest Income.Tis aligns with an earlier hypothesis that the research demonstrated a statistically signifcant negative correlation between nonforest income and p < 0.01.Te money received from livestock, agricultural crops, and of-farm pursuits is categorized as nonforest income.Te coefcient of −0.00036 indicates that for every one Birr rise in nonforest income, the household's reliance on fuelwood income from the forest declines by 0.00036.