Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF
Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF
Conservation of the wild Coffea arabica populations in situ6.3.3 Reserve suitability and zonesThe areas suitable for a reserve around Yayu and their degree of suitability are mapped(Figure 6.5). The summary of the results of zoning and reserve suitability classification arepresented in Tables 6.5 and 6.6. From all possible solutions of the order-weighted average(OWA), the result obtained by using order weights 0.6, 0.25, 0.15 was used for the finalzoning of the reserve, as the resulting suitability map included much of the undisturbed forestand was nearly a risk-averse solution with an ANDness of 0.725 (Figure 6.5; Table 6.4).The OWA2 (without constraint) option of reserve suitability (Figure 6.5a) showsthe potential forest areas that could fall within the three suitability classes. However, mostareas in the landscape are currently used by the local people for coffee production, farmingand settlement (Figure 6.4). Using such areas as constraint resulted in the suitability mapOWA1 in Figure 6.5b. Exclusion of such areas reduced the areas in different suitabilityclasses available for the reserve (Table 6.5).Table 6.5. Areas (in ha) in different reserve suitability classes. Note: *-stands formultiplication. B- available for conservation, while C or Constraints are areas usedby local people, and not available for strict conservation.Highly Moderately Slightly TotalSuitable suitable suitable areaA. Total area without constraint (OWA-2) (= B+C) 16754 15564 4268 36586B. Undisturbed natural forest (OWA1) 8030 2167 1 10198a. Percent undisturbed forest of total (=a/A*100) 21.9 5.9 0.0 27.9C. Areas of constraint (=b+c) 8724 13396 4267 26387b. Farm and settlement 4229 10263 2292 16784c. Forests managed for coffee production 4495 3133 1975 9603d. Percent farm and settlement of total (=b/A*100) 11.6 28.1 6.3 45.9e. Percent managed forest of total (=c/A*100) 12.3 8.6 5.4 26.2f. Percent of constraint areas to the total (=C/A*100) 23.8 36.6 11.7 72.1About 22% and 6% of the total area of the landscape fall into the classes ‘highly’and ‘moderately’ suitable for reserve, respectively. The highly and moderately suitable areascover almost the entire undisturbed forest, which is about 28% of the total landscapeconsidered in this study (Table 6.5). The local people currently use about 72% of the area,either as managed forests for coffee production (26%) or as farmland and settlement areas(46%).117
Conservation of the wild Coffea arabica populations in situabFigure 6.5. Suitability classes for coffee gene reserve. (a) OWA-2, shows potential suitability classes without constraints (b)OWA1, is when land-use right claimed by people is used as a constraint.118
- Page 74 and 75: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 76 and 77: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 78 and 79: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 80 and 81: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 82 and 83: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 84 and 85: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 86 and 87: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 88 and 89: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 90 and 91: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 92 and 93: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 94 and 95: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 96 and 97: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 98 and 99: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 100 and 101: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 102 and 103: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 104 and 105: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 106 and 107: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 108 and 109: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 110 and 111: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 112 and 113: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 114 and 115: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 116 and 117: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 118 and 119: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 120 and 121: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 122 and 123: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 126 and 127: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 128 and 129: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 130 and 131: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 132 and 133: Conclusions and recommendations7 CO
- Page 134 and 135: Conclusions and recommendations3. R
- Page 136 and 137: ReferencesBatisse M. 1986 Developin
- Page 138 and 139: ReferencesDavis A.P. and Rokotonaso
- Page 140 and 141: ReferencesESRI. 1996. ArcView GIS:
- Page 142 and 143: ReferencesIUCN 1992. Protected Area
- Page 144 and 145: ReferencesMesfin Ameha and Bayetta
- Page 146 and 147: ReferencesSmith R.F. 1985. A histor
- Page 148 and 149: ReferencesVan Jaarsveld A.S., Freit
- Page 150 and 151: Appendices9 APPENDICESAppendix 1 Li
- Page 152 and 153: AppendicesD. repandum (Vahl) DC, [H
- Page 154 and 155: AppendicesSapotaceaeAningeria altis
- Page 156 and 157: AppendicesAppendix 3 Families of va
- Page 158 and 159: AppendicesAppendix 5. ANOVA tables:
- Page 160 and 161: AppendicesAppendix 7 Height class d
- Page 162 and 163: AppendicesGFUNDFOR OLSFOR SF-NEW SF
- Page 164 and 165: AppendicesAppendix 10. List of loca
- Page 166 and 167: AppendicesNumber Family name Scient
- Page 168 and 169: AppendicesNumber Family name Scient
- Page 170 and 171: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am very grateful
Conservation of the wild Coffea arabica populations in situ6.3.3 Reserve suitability <strong>and</strong> zonesThe areas suitable for a reserve around Yayu <strong>and</strong> their degree of suitability are mapped(Figure 6.5). The summary of the results of zoning <strong>and</strong> reserve suitability classification arepresented in Tables 6.5 <strong>and</strong> 6.6. From all possible solutions of the order-weighted average(OWA), the result obtained by using order weights 0.6, 0.25, 0.15 was used for the finalzoning of the reserve, as the resulting suitability map included much of the undisturbed forest<strong>and</strong> was nearly a risk-averse solution with an ANDness of 0.725 (Figure 6.5; Table 6.4).The OWA2 (without constraint) option of reserve suitability (Figure 6.5a) showsthe potential forest areas that could fall within the three suitability classes. However, mostareas in the l<strong>and</strong>scape are currently used by the local people for coffee production, farming<strong>and</strong> settlement (Figure 6.4). Using such areas as constraint resulted in the suitability mapOWA1 in Figure 6.5b. Exclusion of such areas reduced the areas in different suitabilityclasses available for the reserve (Table 6.5).Table 6.5. Areas (in ha) in different reserve suitability classes. <strong>No</strong>te: *-st<strong>and</strong>s formultiplication. B- available for conservation, while C or Constraints are areas usedby local people, <strong>and</strong> not available for strict conservation.Highly Moderately Slightly TotalSuitable suitable suitable areaA. Total area without constraint (OWA-2) (= B+C) 16754 15564 4268 36586B. Undisturbed natural forest (OWA1) 8030 2167 1 <strong>10</strong>198a. Percent undisturbed forest of total (=a/A*<strong>10</strong>0) 21.9 5.9 0.0 27.9C. Areas of constraint (=b+c) 8724 13396 4267 26387b. Farm <strong>and</strong> settlement 4229 <strong>10</strong>263 2292 16784c. Forests managed for coffee production 4495 3133 1975 9603d. Percent farm <strong>and</strong> settlement of total (=b/A*<strong>10</strong>0) 11.6 28.1 6.3 45.9e. Percent managed forest of total (=c/A*<strong>10</strong>0) 12.3 8.6 5.4 26.2f. Percent of constraint areas to the total (=C/A*<strong>10</strong>0) 23.8 36.6 11.7 72.1About 22% <strong>and</strong> 6% of the total area of the l<strong>and</strong>scape fall into the classes ‘highly’<strong>and</strong> ‘moderately’ suitable for reserve, respectively. The highly <strong>and</strong> moderately suitable areascover almost the entire undisturbed forest, which is about 28% of the total l<strong>and</strong>scapeconsidered in this study (Table 6.5). The local people currently use about 72% of the area,either as managed forests for coffee production (26%) or as farml<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> settlement areas(46%).117