Variablesa, operational definitions, measurements and response categories
| S/no. | Variable | Operational definition | Measurement | Response categories and scoring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Attitude towards converting forest land for agriculture | Respondents' evaluation of the degree to which forest conversion is considered as advantageous | A 5-item author-developed scale | Strongly Agree (4), Agree (3), Disagree (2) and Strongly Disagree (1) |
| 2 | Subjective norm of converting forest land for agriculture | Respondents' evaluation of the acceptability of forest conversion within their (respondents') social network | A 4-item author-developed scale | Totally true (3), fairly true (2) and not true at all (1) |
| 3 | Perceived control of decision to convert forest land for agriculture | Respondents' evaluation of their own independent power to decide to convert forest | A 3-item author-developed scale | Totally true (3), fairly true (2) and not true at all (1) |
| 4 | Intention to convert forest land for agriculture | Respondents' resolve to convert forest | A 3-item author-developed scale | Totally true (3), fairly true (2) and not true at all (1) |
| 5 | Forest conversion behaviour | The extent to which respondents had ever engaged in clearing out of vegetation of a forest for agricultural purposeb | A 5-item author-developed index | Yes (1), no (0) |
Item statistics and indicators of reliability of author-developed scales
| Items of the author-developed scales | Mean ± SD | Minimum | Maximum | Cronbach's alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attitude towards converting forest land for agriculture | ||||
| Converting forest land for agriculture is a good activity | 3.54 ± 0.63 | 1 | 4 | 0.836 |
| Converting forest land for agricultural use is a positive development | 3.36 ± 0.63 | 1 | 4 | |
| More forest land should be converted for agricultural use to promote food availability | 3.46 ± 0.71 | 1 | 4 | |
| Converting forest land for agricultural use is a very useful activity | 3.48 ± 0.73 | 1 | 4 | |
| Converting forest land for agricultural use is a responsible option | 3.11 ± 0.87 | 1 | 4 | |
| Subjective norm of converting forest land for agriculture | ||||
| My partner (e.g. husband/wife/cohabitor) perceives the idea of converting forest land for agricultural use as good | 2.69 ± 0.55 | 1 | 3 | 0.767 |
| It is acceptable to my neighbour(s) to convert forest land for agricultural use | 2.39 ± 0.62 | 1 | 3 | |
| My fellow farmers see the conversion of forest land for agricultural use as a good activity | 2.48 ± 0.68 | 1 | 3 | |
| In the community where I live, converting forest land for agricultural use is acceptable to them | 2.36 ± 0.70 | 1 | 3 | |
| Perceived control of decision to convert forest land for agriculture | ||||
| The decision to convert forest land for agricultural use is completely up to me | 2.52 ± 0.60 | 1 | 3 | 0.790 |
| I have complete control in deciding whether or not to convert forest land for agricultural use | 2.30 ± 0.61 | 1 | 3 | |
| If I want to, I could convert forest land for agricultural use | 2.22 ± 0.76 | 1 | 3 | |
| Intention to convert forest land for agriculture | ||||
| I will always clear forest land to expand the scope of my farming activities as long as I have the opportunity | 2.75 ± 0.53 | 1 | 3 | 0.632 |
| I have no reason not to clear forest land for agricultural purpose | 2.42 ± 0.56 | 1 | 3 | |
| I am likely to clear forest land for agriculture soon | 2.37 ± 0.72 | 1 | 3 | |
Result of linear regression analysis showing prediction of forest land conversion behaviour by intention to convert forest land for agriculture
| Model summary | Change statistics | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| multiple R | R2 | adjusted R2 | predictors | R2 change | standardised β | F statistic | p value (F change) | zero-order correlation | p value (zero-order correlation) |
| 0.222 | 0.049 | 0.046 | intention to convert forest land for agriculture | 0.049 | 0.222 | 14.50 | 0.000 | 0.222 | 0.000 |
Distribution of respondents' gender, age and education (N = 320)
| Socio-demographic characteristic | Subgroups | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | male | 198 | 61.9 |
| female | 122 | 38.1 | |
| Age* | 16–30 | 13 | 4.1 |
| 31–45 | 50 | 15.6 | |
| 46–60 | 131 | 40.9 | |
| 61–75 | 95 | 29.7 | |
| 76 and above | 31 | 9.7 | |
| Highest educational qualification | no formal education | 47 | 14.7 |
| primary education | 72 | 22.5 | |
| secondary education | 51 | 15.9 | |
| post-secondary education | 98 | 30.6 | |
| B.Sc./HND | 29 | 9.1 | |
| postgraduate | 16 | 5.0 | |
| no response | 7 | 2.2 |
Distribution of responses to items in the index of forest conversion behaviour
| Items* | Yes | No | No response |
|---|---|---|---|
| frequency (%) | |||
| Have you ever cleared forest in order to use it for agricultural purpose? | 281 (87.8) | 38 (11.9) | 1 (0.3) |
| Did you convert any forest to have the plot you currently cultivate? | 189 (59.1) | 129 (40.3) | 2 (0.6) |
| Will you consider yourself a good converter of forest for agricultural purpose? | 228 (71.3) | 85 (26.6) | 7 (2.2) |
| Have you ever advocated for the conversion of forest for agriculture as a way of boosting productivity? | 124 (38.8) | 188 (58.8) | 8 (2.5) |
| Do you seek opportunities to convert forest for agricultural purpose? | 224 (70.0) | 90 (28.1) | 6 (1.9) |
Result of stepwise multiple linear regression analysis showing a model of significant predictors of intention to convert forest land for agriculture
| Model summary | Change statistics | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| multiple R | R2 | adjusted R2 | predictors | R2 change | standardised β | F statistic | p value (F change) | zero-order correlation | p value (zero-order correlation) |
| 0.572 | 0.327 | 0.320 | attitude | 0.260 | 0.289 | 98.55 | 0.000 | 0.510 | 0.000 |
| subjective norm | 0.055 | 0.257 | 22.28 | 0.000 | 0.496 | 0.000 | |||
| perceived control | 0.012 | 0.131 | 5.02 | 0.026 | 0.398 | 0.000 | |||
Effects of gender, age and education on forest conversion behaviour
| Socio-demographic variable | Subgroups | Mean ± SD | Levene's test for homogeneity of variances | Independent samples t test | ANOVA | Eta | Eta2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene's statistic | p value | T statistic | p value | F statistic | p value | |||||
| Gender | male | 3.41 ± 1.19 | 4.623 | 0.032 | 1.174 | 0.247 | – | – | – | – |
| female | 3.25 ± 0.99 | |||||||||
| Agea,b | 16–30 | 2.38 ± 1.33 | 0.893 | 0.469 | – | – | 4.001 | 0.004 | 0.226 | 0.051 |
| 31–45 | 3.39 ± 1.22 | |||||||||
| 46–60 | 3.52 ± 1.15 | |||||||||
| 61–75 | 3.32 ± 1.00 | |||||||||
| 76 and above | 2.96 ± 1.03 | |||||||||
| Educationc | no formal education | 2.87 ± 1.00 | 4.491 | 0.001 | – | – | 4.133 | 0.001 | – | – |
| primary education | 3.55 ± 1.14 | |||||||||
| secondary education | 3.71 ± 0.94 | |||||||||
| post-secondary education | 3.30 ± 0.11 | |||||||||
| first degree | 3.00 ± 1.65 | |||||||||
| postgraduate | 3.00 ± 1.03 | |||||||||