View/Open - Sokoine University of Agriculture

political and social conditions with different values and norms which also compactthe resource use patterns (Kamanga, Vedeld et al. 2009).As seen in Table 36, for whereas environmental income Lunenzi and Nyali onlymakes up 5% and 10%, in Masugu it accounts for as much as 54%. In addition, thereare great variations for the importance of poles and timber and charcoal (see Table39). These activities were in fact carried out almost entirely by villagers in Masugu.Table 39: Forest environmental incomes by location (USD), Kilosa District,Tanzania, 2010ForestenvironmentalresourceLunenzi(N = 60)Income(USD)%totalNyali(N =60)Income(USD)%totalMasugu(N = 60)Income(USD)%totalTotal(N =180)Income(USD)%totalCharcoal* 5,33 16 49,31 59 721.37 86 258,67 81(29)(231)(1676)(1025)Firewood 27,95 84 28 34 47,69 6 34,58 11(29)(41)(63)(46)Poles and timber* 0 0 5,19 6 70,85 8 25,35 8(0)(19)(245)(145)NTFPs 0 0 0,6 1 0,4 0 0,36 0(0)(4)(3)(3)Total 32,79 100 83,19 100 840,32 100 318,76 100N = 180, * indicates significantly difference between income groups (p < 0.05), Standard deviation inbracketsThe most interestingly and the most striking in terms of variations between wealthgroups is the fact that those with the highest overall income use a substantially higheramount of all forest products as compared to those with the lowest income, and for allbut NTFPs this is also statistically significant (see Table 40).199