Livelihoods and Welfare Impacts of Forest Comanagement

Table 4

Probit regression result on factors affecting perception of programmes overall impact and accessing new income sources.

Covariates	Perceived overall impact; A		⁢Accessing new income sources; ⁢B
	Coefficients	Bootstrapped; Std. errors	Coefficients	Bootstrapped; Std. errors
District (Ntchisi = 1; Zomba = 0)	−0.89	(0.25)	−0.24	(0.24)
Better access to and availability of timber (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.06	(0.13)	0.32	(0.13)
Better access to and availability of firewood (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.49	(0.14)	−0.18	(0.13)
Better training and skill development (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.07	(0.15)	−0.21	(0.14)
Better participation in communal activity (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.34	(0.16)	0.40	(0.18)
Committee member (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.40	(0.23)	0.687	(0.21)
Acquired assets (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.50	(0.26)
Accessed new income sources (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.92	(0.23)
Accessed loans (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.69	(0.81)	0.78	(0.56)
Saving (1 = yes; 0 = no)	−0.14	(0.22)	0.19	(0.21)
Married (1 = yes, 0 = no)	0.09	(0.12)	−0.23	(0.13)
Gender of household head (1 = female, 0 = male)	−0.07	(0.23)	−0.33	(0.21)
Age of household head (in years)	−0.01	(0.01)	0.01	(0.01)
Household size (number of adults and children)	0.03	(0.05)	−0.10	(0.05)
Land size (in hectares)	0.09	(0.03)	0.02	(0.03)
Wealth indicator (ordinal scale, 4–11)	0.03	(0.06)	−0.03	(0.06)
_cons	0.04	(0.78)	−0.37	(0.71)
Prob > chi2	0.00		0.01
Number	213		213
Pseudo	0.24		0.14
Log pseudo likelihood	−101.11		−110.57

Significance levels (: 10%; : 5%; : 1%; and : 0.01%).