Quantifying Firewood Extraction in a Protected Forest: Local Dependence and Policy Challenges in Lake Malawi National Park

Quantifying Firewood Extraction in a Protected Forest: Local Dependence and Policy Challenges in Lake Malawi National Park | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Quantifying Firewood Extraction in a Protected Forest: Local Dependence and Policy Challenges in Lake Malawi National Park Tamano Hayashi, James Banda, Patrick Chinguwo, Marlene Chikuni, and 5 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6820708/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Firewood continues to be the dominant energy source for rural communities across Sub-Saharan Africa, with significant implications for forest conservation, especially in protected areas. This study presents a rare quantitative assessment of firewood extraction within the Cape Maclear Peninsula (CMP) forest of Lake Malawi National Park (LMNP), a recognized World Heritage Site. Drawing on household surveys, carefully calibrated with direct measurements, we estimated an overall annual firewood collection of 11,976.34 megagrams—or 3.07 m³ per hectare each year—across 11 communities. Our findings clearly indicate strong community dependence on these protected forests, with 88% of households using firewood and 77% gathering it themselves. Even with the Resource Use Programme (RUP) established to regulate access, the firewood extraction rate per unit area significantly exceeds those documented in comparable ecosystems. The study also identified household size, reliance on biomass, and a lack of off-park alternatives as key drivers of this extraction. Our results underscore the urgent need to integrate tree planting and agroforestry initiatives into conservation policy and to encourage the adoption of improved cookstoves. Introducing alternative livelihood sources will also help ease pressure on the natural resources of LMNP. Consequently, this study offers crucial evidence to help balance biodiversity and ecosystem conservation with the energy needs of surrounding communities, demonstrating the importance of localized, data-driven strategies for protected area management. firewood protected area deadwood Lake Malawi National Park community-based natural resource management Sub-Saharan Africa Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction 1.1. Problem Statement and Background Firewood and charcoal are the main household energy sources in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), providing over 90% of the domestic energy in rural areas (FAO, 2017 ; Sulaiman et al., 2017 ). In countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia, more than 90% of rural households rely on firewood, a pattern seen across the region (Mendum & Njenga, 2018 ). This reliance stems from limited access to modern energy alternatives (Bamwesigye et al., 2020 ) and is expected to increase as populations grow (IEA, 2022 ). However, the widespread use of biomass fuels is linked to deforestation and forest degradation. Firewood and charcoal collection is the second largest driver after commercial logging in SSA (Hosonuma et al., 2012 ; Sassen et al., 2015 ). In these regions, communities heavily depend on forest resources, deforestation and forest degradation cause more than just a reduction in carbon sequestration, water quality deterioration, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss. They also have a significant effect on people's quality of life by affecting energy and food security, health, and cultural identity (Adom et al., 2024 ; Feintrenie et al., 2019 ; FAO, 2020 ; Mapulanga & Naito, 2019 ; Olesen et al., 2022 ). 1.2. Shifting Conservation Approaches and the Evidence Gap Conservation strategies in SSA have changed significantly over the past few decades. Historically, many protected areas have used a top-down, exclusionary approach, often called "fortress conservation". This approach marginalizes local communities by restricting their access to land and resources. Rooted in colonial legacies, these approaches treat landscapes as wilderness with no human presence, undermining indigenous ecological knowledge and increasing distrust between residents and conservation authorities (Berkes, 2007 ; DeGeorges & Reilly, 2009 ; Neumann, 2003 ). Owing to widespread criticism of conservation’s ineffectiveness and social injustices, alternative frameworks such as Community-Based Conservation (CBC) and Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) emerged in the 1980s (DeGeorges & Reilly, 2009 ; Foyet, 2024 ). These bottom-up, rights-based approaches aim to involve communities in natural resource management. They do this by giving local people more independence, access rights, and decision-making power. CBNRM seeks to balance conservation’s ecological goals with the socioeconomic needs of local populations, offering a more holistic and equitable model of stewardship. Today, CBC and CBNRM initiatives have been implemented in several African protected areas, including Botswana’s Okavango Delta and Namibia’s Namib-Naukluft National Park (Mbaiwa, 2004 ; Snorek & Bolger, 2022 ). While these initiatives show promise, many have struggled to meet both their conservation and community objectives. Common challenges include insecure land and resource rights, weak community institutions, limited benefits for livelihoods, and poor governance (DeGeorges & Reilly, 2009 ; Zyambo, 2018 ). These issues often lead to a disconnect between conservation goals and what communities truly need, which threatens the long-term success of both. A critical, yet often overlooked, aspect of CBNRM implementation is the lack of quantitative data on resource extraction. Even though participatory management emphasizes local use rights and monitoring, empirical evaluations of how much biomass is being removed or if such use is ecologically sustainable are rare. A notable exception is the study reported by Sassen et al. ( 2015 ), who assessed the ecological impacts of firewood collection in a Ugandan protected forest. However, few studies have measured the amount collected per unit area, especially in areas managed under a structured CBNRM program. This lack of evidence makes it difficult to evaluate trade-offs effectively between conservation and sustainable resource use. 1.3. Study Context and Contribution Lake Malawi National Park (LMNP), a UNESCO World Heritage Site in southern Malawi, offers a unique opportunity to study how community livelihoods and protected forest use interact. The Park encompasses both enclaved (e.g., Chembe, Msaka) and adjacent communities (e.g., Kasankha, Mjogo), all of which heavily rely on firewood for domestic energy. Recognizing this dependence, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) of Malawi has implemented the Resource Use Program (RUP), a CBNRM-based initiative that permits deadwood collection from the park under regulated conditions (Department of National Parks and Wildlife, 2019 ). The most comprehensive prior assessment of firewood use in LMNP was conducted 30 years ago, from 1993–1994, by Abbot & Homewood ( 1999 a). They estimated household consumption in enclaved villages and compared it to the park’s estimated deadwood supply. The limitations of this study include the assumption that the amount of firewood used by households represents the amount collected and the exclusion of adjacent communities from the survey, despite their known use of the LMNP forest resources. Furthermore, as three decades have passed since that initial pioneering survey, the relationship between local communities and the LMNP forest resources has likely changed due to socioeconomic shifts. This study addresses these gaps through a household-level, empirical assessment of firewood extraction by both enclave and adjacent communities that use forests in LMNP’s Cape Maclear Peninsula (CMP) area. By combining survey-based firewood collection data with forest area metrics, we provide one of the few per-area estimates of biomass extraction in a CBNRM-managed protected area. This level of quantitative detail is rare in studies of forest use under participatory conservation programs, especially within national parks. Additionally, this research analyzes the socioeconomic factors influencing how much firewood households collect, such as household size, income activities, and access to off-park sources. These data contribute to the development of targeted interventions, including agroforestry, private woodlots, and energy-efficient cookstoves, that can mitigate extraction pressure on LMNP. This study forms a central component of a broader, multi-phase research initiative that seeks to evaluate the sustainability of forest use under the RUP in LMNP. Specifically, it provides detailed estimates of household-level firewood collection from the CMP forest, which will be directly compared with independent estimates of annual deadwood production in a companion study. Together, these integrated datasets offer a robust foundation for assessing whether current extraction levels are ecologically sustainable and for guiding more adaptive, evidence-based conservation strategies that balance ecological and community needs. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study area Lake Malawi National Park is located at the southern tip of Lake Malawi on the Nankumba Peninsula in Mangochi District, southern Malawi (14°02′S, 34°53′E). The park covers 9,410 hectares, comprising 8,710 hectares of land and 700 hectares of lake. The CMP area of LMNP, which is located at the northern end of the Nankumba Peninsula, forms the largest terrestrial segment at 6,550 hectares and was the primary focus of this study (Fig. 1 ). The landscape of the CMP area is characterized by rocky granite hills covered in miombo woodlands, with Brachystegia microphylla as the dominant canopy species, along with dense tall grass cover. Its elevation ranges from 500 to 1,143 m above sea level. The region experiences unimodal rainfall pattern, with an average annual precipitation of 762 mm, with most falling between November and April, followed by an extended dry season from May to October. Legally, the DNPW manages LMNP and operates the RUP, which permits communities to collect firewood and thatch grass under specific conditions (Department of National Parks and Wildlife, 2019 ). Firewood collection is allowed only if it is carried out by female villagers on designated days (Tuesdays and Saturdays); a collection permit, which costs 50 Malawi Kwacha (MWK), must be acquired; and the use of knives, axes, or similar tools is prohibited. Since the cutting of live trees is strictly forbidden, only deadwood can be collected. Despite these regulations, a 2023 UNESCO monitoring mission reported increasing degradation in the LMNP forests, leading to calls for more adaptive management approaches, including habitat protection and ecosystem monitoring (UNESCO, 2023 ). 2.2. Target Communities To evaluate forest resource use within the CMP area of LMNP, this study surveyed all communities known to collect resources from the CMP forest. In rural Malawi, ‘communities’ often correspond to villages governed by a Village Head or a Group Village Head who oversees several villages. Additionally, functional boundaries are formed based on physical geography and the jurisdiction of local governance structures such as the Village Natural Resources Committee (VNRC). On the basis of these considerations, we identified 11 distinct communities for household-level data collection (Table 1). The demarcation of these communities considered administrative status, geographic proximity, and VNRC coverage. For example, the enclave villages of Mvunguti, Zambo, and Chizale, although previously studied as separate units, are actually governed by a single village head and share one VNRC. Therefore, we treated them as a single survey unit, which we refer to here as “Kankuta”. Among the 11 communities, eight (e.g., Chembe, Madothi, Msaka, and Kankuta) are surrounded by the park and the lake (enclaves), whereas Kasankha, Mjogo, and Mambayie are adjacent to the park just outside. These communities differ in their access to forests and their livelihoods, both of which influence patterns of forest use. Demographic trends highlight the increasing pressure on the CMP forest. The population of Mangochi District reached 1,148,611 in 2018, a 44% increase since 2008, which exceeds the national average growth rate (NSO, 2018). Since the LMNP establishment in 1977, the population of enclaved villages has grown significantly. For example, Chembe (GVH Chembe and GVH Madothi) has expanded 7.2-fold, whereas Msaka and Kankuta have each quadrupled in size compared with earlier reported data (Abbot, 1996 ; Grenfell, 1993 ). Comparable long-term data for adjacent communities are not available, but current trends suggest similar growth. 2.3. Data collection This study employed a household survey and direct field observations to quantitatively assess firewood extraction and explore patterns of forest resource use across 11 communities around the CMP forest. The household survey was conducted between April and May 2023. Field surveys, which measure the weights of the collected firewood bundles, took place in August 2023 and March 2025 to cover both the dry and rainy seasons. 2.3.1. Household Survey A semi-structured questionnaire was given to 490 households, approximately 9% of the estimated 8,608 households in the study area. Between 33 and 53 households were surveyed in each of the 11 target communities (Table 1). A purposive/targeted sampling method was used to ensure a broad and balanced representation across sites. The survey covered the following topics: socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., household composition, income sources, energy sources and cookstoves used); forest resource use (types of forest products collected, both from inside and outside LMNP); and firewood procurement and use (number of collectors in the household, frequency of collection trips, procurement methods and uses). Additionally, the enumerators directly observed and recorded three key resource-related features at each household: (1) live fences, which are commonly used for boundary demarcation and sometimes provide edible leaves and firewood; (2) improved cooking stoves (locally called Changu Mbaula or Chitetezo Mbaula ); and (3) fish-smoking ovens, which represent small-scale commercial uses of firewood. 2.3.2. Interview Process The surveys were conducted by trained enumerators, including Malawian university students and local volunteers. All field staff received training in survey content, ethical research protocols, and interviewing techniques. This was followed by supervised pretesting of the questionnaire in a community not included in the study. Any adult household member present at the time of the visit was interviewed. In 84% of cases, this was the household head or their spouse. Overall, 78% of the respondents were women, reflecting the common gendered division of labor in firewood collection, whereas 32% were men (some interviews involved both). The interviewers explained the research’s purpose, and all the participants provided verbal informed consent. This was performed in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants. 2.3.3. Firewood Bundle Weight Measurement To estimate actual firewood collection volumes, we directly measured the weights of firewood bundles in both the dry and rainy seasons. In total, 44 bundles were weighed in August 2023 (dry season), and 48 were weighed in March 2025 (rainy season). Measurements were taken along major access roads bordering the CMP forest. Firewood collectors were weighed using a 150 kg-capacity digital scale, first while carrying the collected firewood bundle and then without it. The difference was recorded as the weight of the bundle. These direct measurements helped us convert the number of firewood collection times from the household survey into monthly estimates of firewood collected per household in kilograms. 2.4. Data analysis The socioeconomic characteristics of households, energy use, and forest resource collection patterns in the 11 communities surveyed were summarized by descriptive statistics. 2.4.1. Estimation of Household and Community-Level Firewood Collection Monthly household firewood collection (in kilograms) was estimated via the following formula: Monthly firewood collection (kg) = NC × WCF × 4.345 × ABW , Here, NC is the number of collectors per household, WCF is the weekly collection frequency, 4.345 is the average number of weeks per month, and ABW is the average bundle weight. For households reporting no firewood collectors, the collection quantity was set to zero. The mean number of firewood collectors per household and times of firewood collection per collector were calculated for each community. These averages were then multiplied by the total number of households in each community to estimate monthly firewood extraction at the community level. The overall firewood extraction from the CMP forest was calculated based on the average number of household survey responses and the total number of households in the 11 communities (8,608 households). 2.4.2. Statistical Analyses To compare the weights of firewood bundles collected during the dry and rainy seasons, Student’s t test was conducted. Differences in household firewood collection between communities were assessed via one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). When the significance level of the ANOVA was less than 0.05, Tukey's HSD post hoc test was applied to pinpoint specific differences among the communities. To identify the socioeconomic factors driving firewood collection, a generalized linear model (GLM) was built with monthly household firewood collection (in kilograms) as the dependent variable. The explanatory variables included geographic location (enclave vs. adjacent community), household size, number of females aged 10–64 years (as a proxy for potential firewood collectors), purpose of firewood use (household tasks and small-scale business), principal components derived from household income sources and energy use (via principal component analysis), presence of live fences and improved cookstoves, number of fish-smoking ovens, and whether firewood was collected from outside LMNP. The number of females aged 10–64 served as a proxy for potential collectors because survey results revealed that 99% of firewood collectors, with an average age of 30, fall within this demographic range. To handle multicollinearity among explanatory variables, principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to household income sources and energy use variables before model fitting. Variance inflation factors (VIFs) were also calculated to further assess multicollinearity. All analyses were performed via R version 4.4.1, which uses the ‘t.test’, ‘aov’, ‘prcomp’, and ‘glm’ functions, as well as the ‘vif’ function from the ‘car’ package. 3. Results 3.1. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics A total of 490 households were surveyed across 11 communities surrounded by or adjacent to the CMP forest (Table 1). The average household size in the sample was 5.55 individuals (90% CI = ± 0.17), with only slight differences among communities. Among these individuals, females aged 10–64 years averaged 2.67 individuals per household (90% CI = ± 0.09). Households reported various income sources, reflecting both land-based and aquatic livelihoods. These included fishing; fish processing and trade; agriculture; retail; the sale of firewood, charcoal, and timber; tourism-related activities; and various forms of piecework and formal employment (Table 2). Fishing and fish-related commerce were the most important, accounting for an average of 39% of household income. These lake-based livelihood activities were common in most communities but were notably absent in Mambayie, a village located inland and without direct access to Lake Malawi. Agriculture is another important livelihood, but its contribution varies significantly among communities. For example, it accounted for approximately 25% of household income in Katukumala but only a minimum of 0.6% in Kafukuta. Similarly, reliance on selling forest products (firewood, charcoal, and timber) differed greatly: it contributed to an average of 28% of household income in Mjogo, compared with just 4% in Msaka. Tourism-related income was observed only in the villages of GVH Chembe and GVH Madothi, as well as in the Kasankha community, which has tourist accommodations. These economic patterns highlight the heterogeneous socioeconomic landscape in the CMP area, with important implications for how much communities depend on forest resources and conservation strategies. 3.2. Household Energy Use and Cooking Practices Across all surveyed communities in the CMP area, firewood remains the main source of household energy. On average, 88% of households reported using firewood for domestic purposes, with community-level rates ranging from 81% in Chembe to 97% in Kasankha (Table 3). Charcoal use was also widespread but showed greater variation between communities. The highest usage rate was observed in Muonda, where 90% of households used charcoal, nearly double the 44% rate reported in Kasankha, where charcoal use was lowest. Access to modern energy sources such as electricity remains extremely limited. Muonda recorded the highest level of access, with 35% of households using electricity, whereas in Mambayie, no households reported any electricity access. Solar panels, although used across most communities, had an overall adoption rate of just 9%. Other energy sources, including maize cobs (cobs after the corn grains have been removed, locally known as Zitsononkho ), briquettes, and fossil fuels, play a minor role and are used by only a small fraction of households. In addition to fuel types, the cooking technologies used also affect household energy dynamics and fuel efficiency. Traditional three-stone open fires were the most common cooking method, with an average usage rate of 68% across communities (Table 4). Their use was particularly common in Kankuta (92%) and least common in Kafukuta (40%). Charcoal braziers were also widely used, reported by 61% of households on average. Despite the introduction of improved cooking stoves in communities around LMNP in 2017 (DNPW, 2019), promoted by USAID's FISH project, the adoption rate of these stoves remained low in the study area, averaging only 16%. Adoption was highest in Mambayie and Kasankha (exceeding 30%) but extremely limited in Kafukuta and Muonda, where fewer than 6% of households reported using improved stoves. These patterns highlight the continued reliance on traditional biomass fuels and the low adoption of fuel-saving technologies. This suggests significant potential for targeted energy interventions that could both reduce pressure on forests and improve household well-being. 3.3. Firewood Procurement and Use Firewood collection patterns across communities surrounding the CMP forest are strongly dependent on direct collection from natural sources. Overall, 77% of the firewood used by the surveyed households was gathered directly from the park and within the village itself (Table 5). In contrast, firewood from private woodlots made up only 3% of procurement methods, highlighting the limited development of privately managed firewood sources in the region. The community-level variation was clear. Chembe showed the greatest reliance on direct collection (93%), indicating a particularly strong dependence on nearby forest resources. Conversely, Muonda had the highest rate of firewood production from private land (15%), suggesting some diversification of sources. In Mjogo, a relatively high proportion of firewood was bought (39%), whereas in Mambayie, gifting between households played a more notable role, accounting for 13% of firewood access. Regarding firewood use, 85% of households reported using it for domestic purposes, with cooking being its universal function across all communities (Table 6). Additionally, 17% of households used firewood for small-scale economic activities, such as preparing snacks for sale, smoking fish, brewing, or selling firewood itself. Community-level differences were notable: while 97% of households in Kasankha used firewood for cooking, only 73% in Muonda did so, suggesting some reliance on alternative fuels. Conversely, Muonda had one of the highest proportions of firewood use for small-scale businesses, whereas Kasankha had the lowest (8%). The types of forest products collected from LMNP reflect the multipurpose value of the park’s ecosystems (Table 7). Firewood was the most collected resource, with over half of the households in all the communities except Mjogo reporting collection. In Mjogo, only 36% of households collected firewood from the park, likely because of access constraints or alternative sourcing strategies. Thatching grass also featured prominently, collected by most households in most communities, although Mjogo again showed the lowest proportion at 33%. Other resources collected from LMNP include grass for making tools (mats, brooms, fences), medicinal plants, edible wild plants, fencing branches, mushrooms, honey, and small amounts of timber, soil, and stones. These uses vary by community and underscore the broader subsistence role of park forests beyond just energy needs. While some households collect firewood from outside LMNP, this practice varies unevenly across communities. In Kafukuta and Kasankha, over 61% of households accessed off-park firewood sources, whereas fewer than 8% in Chembe. Live fences, a potential source of supplementary firewood, were also unevenly distributed. For example, more than half of the households in Nkhono had live fences, whereas none were recorded in Mambayie. These results suggest that despite some diversification in sourcing and usage, most households remain highly dependent on the LMNP forests for firewood, especially for essential domestic functions such as cooking. 3.4. Firewood collection quantities and extraction pressure A total of 92 firewood bundles were weighed to estimate the average of the collected bundle weight: 44 during the dry season and 48 during the rainy season. The mean bundle weight was 37.78 kg (90% CI = ± 3.10) in the dry season and 34.95 ± 2.60 kg in the rainy season. A t test revealed no statistically significant seasonal difference (t = 1.08, df = 87.79, p = 0.2852). Therefore, an overall average bundle weight of 36.30 ± 2.01 kg was used for all subsequent calculations. Using household survey data and bundle weight measurements, the average monthly firewood collected per household was estimated. Across all the communities, the average number of firewood collectors per household was 0.83 ± 0.06, and each collector made 0.88 ± 0.07 collection trips per week. These estimates revealed substantial variation between communities (Table 8). The total monthly firewood collected across all 11 communities was estimated at approximately 998.03 megagrams (Mg) (Table 8). This corresponds to an annual extraction of 11,976.34 Mg from the CMP forest. The CMP forest of 6,550 ha and a community population of 40,415 resulted in a per capita firewood collection rate of 0.81 kg per person per day and a per hectare extraction pressure of 1.83 Mg per hectare per year. This integrated estimate establishes a critical baseline for evaluating the sustainability of firewood extraction from the CMP forest. It also forms the foundation for comparison with other protected and nonprotected forest sites, as discussed further in the Discussion section. 3.5. Community-level variation in firewood collection Significant variation was observed in household firewood collection levels among the 11 communities surrounding the CMP forest. A one-way ANOVA revealed that the average amount of firewood collected per household differed significantly across communities (F = 2.439, p = 0.0076; Fig. 2 ). Subsequent post hoc comparisons via Tukey’s HSD test revealed two statistically significant pairwise differences: between Kankuta and Kafukuta (p = 0.04925) and between Kankuta and Mjogo (p = 0.04982). Kankuta, an enclave community within LMNP, recorded the highest average household firewood collection, with a monthly mean of 257.13 kg. In contrast, Mjogo reported the lowest average value of 83.64 kg, indicating that firewood collection in Kankuta was approximately three times greater than that in Mjogo. While Kankuta’s elevated collection levels might suggest a pattern of greater dependence in enclave communities, no consistent trend supported this assumption across all enclaves. Other enclave communities presented moderate to low levels of firewood collection, similar to or lower than those of adjacent communities. 3.6. Socioeconomic Drivers of Household Firewood Collection To explore the socioeconomic factors determining household-level firewood collection, a GLM was applied, with the estimated monthly amount of firewood collected per household used as the dependent variable. Before model construction, PCA was conducted to reduce dimensionality and address The PCA of income sources identified four principal components that together explained 84% of the total variance (Table 9). PC1 captured the variation in income from fishing, PC2 captured that from fish processing and trade, PC3 captured that from retail activities, and PC4 captured that from agriculture. Similarly, the PCA of energy use revealed three principal components that explained 78% of the variance (Table 10), with PC1 reflecting charcoal use, PC2 electricity use, and PC3 firewood and solar energy use. The GLM results indicated that household size (p = 0.002) and the use of firewood for housework (p < 0.0001) had statistically significant positive effects on firewood collection volume (Table 11). In contrast, collecting firewood from areas outside LMNP was significantly and negatively associated with the amount collected from the park (p < 0.0001), indicating that access to alternative firewood sources helps reduce pressure on protected forests. The model explained approximately 19% of the variance in household firewood collection (R² = 0.19). The results of the VIF analysis revealed no severe multicollinearity among the predictors. 4. Discussion 4.1. Heavy Dependence on Protected Forests for Firewood This study reveals that communities using LMNP’s forest resources are consistently highly dependent on firewood. On average, 88% of the households reported using firewood, and 77% collected it directly, mainly from LMNP’s protected forests. Most households relied on firewood solely for cooking, and 17% also used it for small-scale commercial activitie. These figures align with regional data across SSA, where over 90% of rural households use solid biomass fuels (FAO, 2017 ; Sulaiman et al., 2017 ; Zulu & Richardson, 2013 ). Malawi’s Fifth Integrated Household Survey similarly reported that 91% of rural households use firewood for cooking (World Bank Group, 2022 ). What distinguishes the CMP area is the disproportionate reliance on protected forests for firewood. In Ethiopia, for example, Mekonnen et al. ( 2017 ) reported that 74% of households collected firewood at least partly from their own farms, reflecting widespread agroforestry. In the CMP area, only 3% of households sourced firewood from private plantations, underscoring the lack of fuelwood-focused tree planting in the area. Some of the collected firewood is not only used by households but also sold. In the villages, an average of 13.98 kg of small firewood bundles are sold at an average price of 2,250 MWK (2024 survey, unpublished data). Based on this unit price, one collected firewood bundle (average weight 37.78 kg) is worth approximately 6,080 MWK, yet a firewood collection permit costs only 50 MWK. The fact that the LMNP forests serve as a cheap source of firewood allows collectors to earn cash income and ensures a stable fuel supply for subsistence, even for the most vulnerable, while further increasing dependence on the LMNP forests. Under such circumstances, efforts to restrict firewood access without offering viable alternatives could severely threaten household welfare. In the target communities, firewood is the primary fuel used for cooking and is essential for daily life. Other authors have reported that energy-related interventions must address livelihood vulnerability and energy security simultaneously (Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008 ; Köhlin et al., 2011 ). Thus, any conservation policy under the RUP should be linked with programs that support firewood alternatives, efficient energy use, and increased cash income. Despite government initiatives such as the improved cookstove program, which aimed to distribute 2 million stoves by 2020 (Jagger & Perez-Heydrich, 2016 ), adoption remains low, with only 16% of households reporting the use of improved cookstoves. Given that previous studies have shown that such technologies reduce firewood use by 20–56% (Ochieng et al., 2013 ; Singh et al., 2014 ), expanding access to efficient stoves should be a conservation and energy policy priority. One strategy for implementing this type of intervention is to determine why the adoption rate remains low despite perceived advantages. Our findings also indicate that the amount of firewood collected per household varies across communities. In addition to livelihoods and simple geographical classifications, factors such as ease of access to forests, enforcement of park regulations, and community involvement in RUP may play decisive roles in shaping firewood collection behavior. Understanding these community-specific factors is essential for designing effective and community-sensitive conservation strategies. 4.2. Firewood collection intensity and its sustainability This study estimated that a total of 11,976.34 Mg of deadwood is collected annually from the CMP forest. This results in a per capita firewood collection rate of 0.81 kg per person per day and a per hectare extraction pressure of 1.83 Mg per hectare per year. To allow comparison with other studies that estimate wood extraction in terms of volume, we converted the weight into cubic meters using the mean wood density for tropical Africa (0.598 g/cm³) reported by Chave et al. ( 2009 ). The resulting annual volume is approximately 0.50 m³ per person per year and 3.06 m³ per hectare per year. This level of extraction is considerably higher than that in other protected or community-managed areas in SSA. In southeastern Cameroon, Lhoest et al. ( 2020 ) reported per-person rates as high as 1.17 kg per day but only 0.20–0.69 Mg per hectare per year. In Kenya’s Koibatek Forest Zone, Rono et al. ( 2019 ) estimated firewood extraction at just 0.24 m³ per hectare per year. Even in Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda, where per capita extraction was relatively high (1.1–2.0 m³ per person per year), firewood harvesting has occurred across broader forest landscapes (Sassen et al., 2015 ). Despite all these sites being under some form of protection, higher extraction rates by the CMP-using communities could be due to exclusive reliance on a spatially constrained forest. The RUP in LMNP restricts firewood extraction to deadwood collected by hand on designated days. However, additional pressures such as illegal logging and uncontrolled bushfires, particularly in the dry season, worsen forest degradation, as previously noted by Abbot & Homewood ( 1999 a) and Abbot & Mace ( 1999 b). These pressures were not quantified here, suggesting that our results may underestimate the true extraction burden. Moreover, deadwood plays crucial ecological roles, including nutrient cycling, soil moisture retention, and habitat provision for organisms (Harmon et al., 2004 ; Stokland et al., 2012 ). Sustained removal without regeneration could undermine forest health and long-term resilience. A concurrent study estimating deadwood productivity in LMNP will complement this analysis and help assess sustainability more rigorously. 4.3. Determinants of and variations in firewood collection Our statistical analyses revealed that household size and the use of firewood for domestic purposes significantly predict collection volume. Similar findings have been reported across SSA (Brouwer & Falcão, 2004 ; Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008 ). Notably, households that collected firewood from outside LMNP reported significantly lower extraction from protected forests, reinforcing the value of alternative sources such as farm trees and community woodlots in reducing park pressure (Mekonnen et al., 2017 ). However, live fences, which are often promoted as supplementary biomass sources, did not significantly affect firewood collection. Their low prevalence (22%) and limited tree density may explain their minimal contribution. The data highlight the need for integrated land-based interventions, including agroforestry, tree planting on farmland, and promoting private woodlots. Given the intense land-use competition in Malawi (Government of Malawi, 2016 ), introducing and promoting tree planting that aligns with agricultural productivity (e.g., agroforestry) is essential for long-term impact. 4.4. Comparison with Historical Data: Abbot & Homewood ( 1999 a) Abbot & Homewood, ( 1999 a) conducted the first quantitative assessments of firewood use in LMNP. On the basis of household surveys from the enclave villages of Chembe (GVH Chembe and GVH Madothi), Msaka, and Kankuta, they estimated per capita firewood use at 10.1 kg per week, or approximately 1.44 kg per day. In comparison, our current study estimates per capita collection at 0.81 kg per day in the same communities. This decrease may reflect the increased use of alternative energy sources, notably charcoal and electricity, which were not covered in earlier studies, despite population growth. Moreover, the 1999 study assumed that all firewood was sourced from LMNP. In contrast, we observed that some firewood is now transported from external areas by bicycle and car and sold within the communities. Although the exact volume remains unquantified, this dynamic represents an important shift in energy provision that partially offsets park dependency. Abbot and Homewood estimated that 4,433 Mg of firewood were consumed annually by three enclaved communities in 1993. In contrast, our current estimate for all 11 CMP-using communities is 11,976.34 Mg per year. This nearly threefold increase reflects not only broader geographic coverage, including adjacent villages, but also substantial population growth. Although per capita firewood collection has declined, overall extraction pressure on the CMP forest has likely intensified. This study represents one part of a coordinated research initiative, which also includes a parallel effort to estimate annual deadwood production across the CMP forest. By integrating extraction and regeneration data, we aim to assess whether current firewood use remains within ecologically sustainable limits and to inform improvements to the RUP. This integrative approach provides a foundation for evaluating long-term sustainability and developing context-specific management strategies. 4.5. Limitations and Future Directions While this study provides one of the few quantitative assessments of firewood extraction in a protected area under a CBNRM framework, several limitations remain. The reliance on self-report survey data introduces potential recall biases. Seasonal variations were not fully captured, and firewood collected for ceremonial or temporary migration-related use may be underrepresented. The analysis would benefit from incorporating spatial data on forest structure, deadwood density, and accessibility. Finally, while our GLM captured key drivers of household-level variation, ethnographic insights and participatory monitoring could provide a deeper understanding of motivations, enforcement dynamics, and perceptions of sustainability. 5. Conclusion This study provides one of the few quantitative estimates of firewood extraction intensity in a CBNRM-managed protected area. It highlights the critical role of household size, firewood reliance, and access to alternative sources in shaping extraction behavior. Despite national efforts to promote improved cookstoves and diversify energy access, most households remain heavily dependent on firewood collected from within LMNP, raising substantial concerns about ecological sustainability. Our per-hectare extraction estimates, paired with community-level differences and socioeconomic predictors, offer valuable guidance for evidence-based conservation. Expanding off-park fuelwood sources, supporting agroforestry, and improving access to efficient cooking technologies are essential next steps. This study also contributes to a broader research initiative aimed at comparing firewood collection with natural deadwood regeneration in LMNP. Such integrated assessments are key to evaluating whether current extraction remains within sustainable limits and to guiding future management under the RUP framework. Achieving long-term sustainability will require not only technical interventions, but also inclusive governance that balances conservation with community needs. Declarations 7. Acknowledgments We extend our sincere gratitude to our Malawian field assistants, university student enumerators, and all community members who generously shared their time and insights. We also thank LMNP and DNPW for their invaluable support. We specifically acknowledge Prof. Tetsu Sato and Prof. Bosco Rusuwa for their instrumental leadership in both securing the funding and executing the project, as well as for providing insightful comments on this manuscript. 8. Funding This research was generously supported by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) through the SATREPS program (Grant No. JPMJSA19007, Title: Establishment of a Sustainable Community Development Model based on Integrated Natural Resource Management Systems in Lake Malawi National Park). 9. Ethical Approval and Consent This study received ethical approval from the University of Malawi Research Ethics Committee (UNIMAREC) (reference number P.05/23/248). Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants, and all research was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines. 10. Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 11. Data Availability The datasets generated during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions and agreements with local communities but may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. 12. Author Contributions Conceptualization: TH; Methodology: TH, JB, PC, MC, YK, JM, PM, SY; Data collection: TH, JB, YK, NM, JM; Analysis: TH; Writing – original draft: TH; Writing – review & editing: All authors References Abbot JIO (1996). Rural Subsistence and Protected Areas: Community Use of the miombo woodlands of Lake Malawi National Park. University of London. Abbot JIO, Homewood K (1999). A history of change: causes of miombo woodland decline in a protected area in Malawi. The Journal of Applied Ecology , 36(3), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00413.x Abbot JIO, Mace R (1999). Managing Protected Woodlands: Fuelwood Collection and Law Enforcement in Lake Malawi National Park. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology , 13(2), 418–421. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.013002418.x Adom RK, Reid M, Afuye, GA et al. (2024). Assessing the implications of deforestation and climate change on rural livelihood in Ghana: A multidimensional analysis and solution-based approach. Environmental Management , 74(6), 1124–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02053-6 Bamwesigye D, Kupec P, Chekuimo G et al. (2020). Charcoal and wood biomass utilization in Uganda: The socioeconomic and environmental dynamics and implications. Sustainability , 12(20), 8337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208337 Berkes F (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 104(39), 15188–15193. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702098104 Brouwer R, Falcão MP (2004). Wood fuel consumption in Maputo, Mozambique. Biomass & Bioenergy , 27(3), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.01.005 Chave J, Coomes D, Jansen S et al. (2009). Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecology Letters , 12(4), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01285.x DeGeorges PA, Reilly BK (2009). The realities of community based natural resource management and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability , 1(3), 734–788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1030734 Department of National Parks and Wildlife. (2019). Lake Malawi National Park WORLD HERITAGE SITE Management Plan 2019–2024 . Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Malawi. FAO (2017). Incentivizing Sustainable Wood Energy in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Way Forward for Policy-Makers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500 .14283/i6815en FAO (2020). Global forest resources assessment 2020: Country report Malawi . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Feintrenie L, Betbeder J, Piketty MG et al. (2019). Deforestation for food production. In Food systems at risk. New trends and challenges . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. https://doi.org/10.19182/agritrop/00089 Foyet M (2024). Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in southern Africa: history, principles, evolution and contemporary challenges. Namibian Journal of Environment , 9, 1–15. Government of Malawi. (2016) National Forest Policy 2016 . Department of Forestry、Lilongwe. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mlw190487.pdf Grenfell SA (1993). Lake Malawi National Park Management and Development Plan. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Malawi. Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ et al. (2004). Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. In Advances in Ecological Research (pp. 59–234). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2504(03)34002-4 Hiemstra-van der Horst G, Hovorka AJ (2008). Reassessing the “energy ladder”: Household energy use in Maun, Botswana. Energy Policy , 36(9), 3333–3344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.05.006 Hosonuma N, Herold M, De Sy V et al. (2012). An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters: ERL [Web Site] , 7(4), 044009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009 IEA. (2022). Africa Energy Outlook 2022 . International Energy Agency, Paris. https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2022 Jagger P, Perez-Heydrich C (2016). Land use and household energy dynamics in Malawi. Environmental Research Letters , 11(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/125004 Köhlin G, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK et al. (2011). Energy, Gender and Development: What are the Linkages? Where is the Evidence? The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5800 Lhoest S, Vermeulen C, Fayolle A et al. (2020). Quantifying the use of forest ecosystem services by local populations in southeastern Cameroon. Sustainability , 12(6), 2505. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062505 Mapulanga AM, Naito H (2019). Effect of deforestation on access to clean drinking water. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 116(17), 8249–8254. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1814970116 Mbaiwa JE (2004). The success and sustainability of community-based natural resource management in the Okavango delta, Botswana. The South African Geographical Journal , 86(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2004.9713807 Mekonnen D, Bryan E, Alemu T et al. (2017). Food versus fuel: examining tradeoffs in the allocation of biomass energy sources to domestic and productive uses in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics , 48(4), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12344 Mendum R, Njenga M (2018). Integrating wood fuels into agriculture and food security agendas and research in sub-Saharan Africa. Facet , 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2017-0032 National Statistical Office. (2018). 2018 Malawi Population & Housing Census . National Statistical Office, Malawi. https://malawi.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/resource-pdf/2018%20Census%20Preliminary%20Report.pdf Neumann RP (2003). The Production of Nature: Colonial Recasting of African Landscape in Serengeti National Park. In K. S. Zimmerer & T. J. Bassett (Eds.), Political Ecology. The Guilford Press. Ochieng CA, Tonne C, Vardoulakis S (2013). A comparison of fuel use between a low cost, improved wood stove and traditional three-stone stove in rural Kenya. Biomass & Bioenergy , 58, 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.017 Olesen RS, Hall CM, Rasmussen LV (2022). Forests support people’s food and nutrition security through multiple pathways in low- and middle-income countries. One Earth , 5(12), 1342–1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.11.005 Rono KK, Kapiyo RA, Bosire EK (2019). The ecological effects of wood fuel extraction on the gazetted forests within koibatek zone, Mau forests complex, Kenya. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development , 8(5). https://doi.org/10.24940/ijird/2019/v8/i5/may19011 Sassen M, Sheil D, Giller KE (2015). Fuelwood collection and its impacts on a protected tropical mountain forest in Uganda. Forest Ecology and Management , 354, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.037 Singh S, Gupta GP, Kumar B et al. (2014). Comparative study of indoor air pollution using traditional and improved cooking stoves in rural households of Northern India. Energy for Sustainable Development: The Journal of the International Energy Initiative , 19, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2014.01.007 Snorek J, Bolger D (2022). Can the center hold? Boundary actors and marginality in a community-based natural resource management network. Ecology and Society: A Journal of Integrative Science for Resilience and Sustainability , 27(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-13512-270341 Stokland JN, Siitonen J, Jonsson BG (2012). Ecology, biodiversity and conservation: Biodiversity in dead wood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139025843 Sulaiman C, Abdul-Rahim AS, Mohd-Shahwahid HO et al. (2017). Wood fuel consumption, institutional quality, and forest degradation in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from a dynamic panel framework. Ecological Indicators , 74, 414–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.045 UNESCO. (2023). Report on the joint world heritage centre/iucn reactive monitoring mission to lake Malawi National Park (Malawi) (n 289) . United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. World Bank Group (2022). Malawi – Country Climate and Development Report: Clean Cooking Sector Background Note . World Bank, Washington, DC. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099545210272215738/pdf/P1772200f17fda0aa0b22c04835f7a20cfa.pdf Zulu LC, Richardson RB (2013). Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development: The Journal of the International Energy Initiative, 17(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.007 Zyambo P (2018). What is limiting success of community-based approach to conservation of natural resources in southern Africa? Journal of Ecology & Natural Resources , 2(4). https://doi.org/10.23880/jenr-16000139 Tables Tables 1 to 11 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Tables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6820708","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":470166082,"identity":"abdcb4db-a721-4f37-b636-dabfce84847e","order_by":0,"name":"Tamano Hayashi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ryukoku University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tamano","middleName":"","lastName":"Hayashi","suffix":""},{"id":470166083,"identity":"de6decf3-5f55-4890-830a-0d21b2cf5610","order_by":1,"name":"James Banda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Monkey Bay Capture Fisheries Research Centre","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"James","middleName":"","lastName":"Banda","suffix":""},{"id":470166084,"identity":"dce131e7-bc30-4b9d-82e5-d9cfc4dec26e","order_by":2,"name":"Patrick Chinguwo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of National Parks and Wildlife","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Patrick","middleName":"","lastName":"Chinguwo","suffix":""},{"id":470166085,"identity":"2450c5ee-1a1e-486f-9407-484602873190","order_by":3,"name":"Marlene Chikuni","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Malawi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marlene","middleName":"","lastName":"Chikuni","suffix":""},{"id":470166086,"identity":"7068a63e-249c-44d5-8822-bcf2bf2333a9","order_by":4,"name":"Yasuko Kusakari","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Tokyo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yasuko","middleName":"","lastName":"Kusakari","suffix":""},{"id":470166087,"identity":"3954c290-71df-4616-a941-e7772930c48f","order_by":5,"name":"Nicholas Mantis","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sustainable Cape Maclear","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nicholas","middleName":"","lastName":"Mantis","suffix":""},{"id":470166088,"identity":"9c4d7b90-69e6-480e-97de-5329d5fa2d60","order_by":6,"name":"John Matewere","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sustainable Cape Maclear","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"John","middleName":"","lastName":"Matewere","suffix":""},{"id":470166090,"identity":"be14039c-45d0-47b6-a7cb-db9ab58ba424","order_by":7,"name":"Placid Mpeketula","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Malawi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Placid","middleName":"","lastName":"Mpeketula","suffix":""},{"id":470166092,"identity":"f501023a-8b1e-4397-8bc8-c11d3263ba96","order_by":8,"name":"Shigeru Yanaka","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tottori University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shigeru","middleName":"","lastName":"Yanaka","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-04 12:53:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6820708/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6820708/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84549712,"identity":"6368ee3c-2b6a-4aa8-bb61-1fe015af3576","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-13 09:58:01","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":585482,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocation of Lake Malawi National Park, the Cape Maclear Peninsula area and the enclaves and adjacent communities.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6820708/v1/34884f8ee06f2db45287576c.png"},{"id":84549899,"identity":"77fdd2a2-4324-49a7-a643-b6e500545416","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-13 10:06:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":24535,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage and 90% CI of amount of firewood collected by household among 11 communities\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6820708/v1/ba84396fe3123b8dba5c09b7.jpg"},{"id":88356150,"identity":"789b92e0-cc2e-4b04-b6b9-c017a3986700","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-05 15:17:09","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1505603,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6820708/v1/2de5504d-3ba0-4b18-8c3c-d3410a29588e.pdf"},{"id":84549707,"identity":"119b11b2-fb34-448f-94ee-9e2f679d58d5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-13 09:58:01","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":292706,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6820708/v1/58e9e4c0c3180466deb4c4e0.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Quantifying Firewood Extraction in a Protected Forest: Local Dependence and Policy Challenges in Lake Malawi National Park","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1. Problem Statement and Background\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirewood and charcoal are the main household energy sources in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), providing over 90% of the domestic energy in rural areas (FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Sulaiman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia, more than 90% of rural households rely on firewood, a pattern seen across the region (Mendum \u0026amp; Njenga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This reliance stems from limited access to modern energy alternatives (Bamwesigye et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and is expected to increase as populations grow (IEA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the widespread use of biomass fuels is linked to deforestation and forest degradation. Firewood and charcoal collection is the second largest driver after commercial logging in SSA (Hosonuma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Sassen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In these regions, communities heavily depend on forest resources, deforestation and forest degradation cause more than just a reduction in carbon sequestration, water quality deterioration, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss. They also have a significant effect on people's quality of life by affecting energy and food security, health, and cultural identity (Adom et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Feintrenie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mapulanga \u0026amp; Naito, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Olesen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2. Shifting Conservation Approaches and the Evidence Gap\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eConservation strategies in SSA have changed significantly over the past few decades. Historically, many protected areas have used a top-down, exclusionary approach, often called \"fortress conservation\". This approach marginalizes local communities by restricting their access to land and resources. Rooted in colonial legacies, these approaches treat landscapes as wilderness with no human presence, undermining indigenous ecological knowledge and increasing distrust between residents and conservation authorities (Berkes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; DeGeorges \u0026amp; Reilly, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Neumann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOwing to widespread criticism of conservation\u0026rsquo;s ineffectiveness and social injustices, alternative frameworks such as Community-Based Conservation (CBC) and Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) emerged in the 1980s (DeGeorges \u0026amp; Reilly, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Foyet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These bottom-up, rights-based approaches aim to involve communities in natural resource management. They do this by giving local people more independence, access rights, and decision-making power. CBNRM seeks to balance conservation\u0026rsquo;s ecological goals with the socioeconomic needs of local populations, offering a more holistic and equitable model of stewardship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eToday, CBC and CBNRM initiatives have been implemented in several African protected areas, including Botswana\u0026rsquo;s Okavango Delta and Namibia\u0026rsquo;s Namib-Naukluft National Park (Mbaiwa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Snorek \u0026amp; Bolger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). While these initiatives show promise, many have struggled to meet both their conservation and community objectives. Common challenges include insecure land and resource rights, weak community institutions, limited benefits for livelihoods, and poor governance (DeGeorges \u0026amp; Reilly, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Zyambo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These issues often lead to a disconnect between conservation goals and what communities truly need, which threatens the long-term success of both.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA critical, yet often overlooked, aspect of CBNRM implementation is the lack of quantitative data on resource extraction. Even though participatory management emphasizes local use rights and monitoring, empirical evaluations of how much biomass is being removed or if such use is ecologically sustainable are rare. A notable exception is the study reported by Sassen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), who assessed the ecological impacts of firewood collection in a Ugandan protected forest. However, few studies have measured the amount collected per unit area, especially in areas managed under a structured CBNRM program. This lack of evidence makes it difficult to evaluate trade-offs effectively between conservation and sustainable resource use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.3. Study Context and Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLake Malawi National Park (LMNP), a UNESCO World Heritage Site in southern Malawi, offers a unique opportunity to study how community livelihoods and protected forest use interact. The Park encompasses both enclaved (e.g., Chembe, Msaka) and adjacent communities (e.g., Kasankha, Mjogo), all of which heavily rely on firewood for domestic energy. Recognizing this dependence, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) of Malawi has implemented the Resource Use Program (RUP), a CBNRM-based initiative that permits deadwood collection from the park under regulated conditions (Department of National Parks and Wildlife, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most comprehensive prior assessment of firewood use in LMNP was conducted 30 years ago, from 1993\u0026ndash;1994, by Abbot \u0026amp; Homewood (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003ea). They estimated household consumption in enclaved villages and compared it to the park\u0026rsquo;s estimated deadwood supply. The limitations of this study include the assumption that the amount of firewood used by households represents the amount collected and the exclusion of adjacent communities from the survey, despite their known use of the LMNP forest resources. Furthermore, as three decades have passed since that initial pioneering survey, the relationship between local communities and the LMNP forest resources has likely changed due to socioeconomic shifts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses these gaps through a household-level, empirical assessment of firewood extraction by both enclave and adjacent communities that use forests in LMNP\u0026rsquo;s Cape Maclear Peninsula (CMP) area. By combining survey-based firewood collection data with forest area metrics, we provide one of the few per-area estimates of biomass extraction in a CBNRM-managed protected area. This level of quantitative detail is rare in studies of forest use under participatory conservation programs, especially within national parks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, this research analyzes the socioeconomic factors influencing how much firewood households collect, such as household size, income activities, and access to off-park sources. These data contribute to the development of targeted interventions, including agroforestry, private woodlots, and energy-efficient cookstoves, that can mitigate extraction pressure on LMNP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study forms a central component of a broader, multi-phase research initiative that seeks to evaluate the sustainability of forest use under the RUP in LMNP. Specifically, it provides detailed estimates of household-level firewood collection from the CMP forest, which will be directly compared with independent estimates of annual deadwood production in a companion study. Together, these integrated datasets offer a robust foundation for assessing whether current extraction levels are ecologically sustainable and for guiding more adaptive, evidence-based conservation strategies that balance ecological and community needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Study area\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLake Malawi National Park is located at the southern tip of Lake Malawi on the Nankumba Peninsula in Mangochi District, southern Malawi (14\u0026deg;02\u0026prime;S, 34\u0026deg;53\u0026prime;E). The park covers 9,410 hectares, comprising 8,710 hectares of land and 700 hectares of lake. The CMP area of LMNP, which is located at the northern end of the Nankumba Peninsula, forms the largest terrestrial segment at 6,550 hectares and was the primary focus of this study (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe landscape of the CMP area is characterized by rocky granite hills covered in miombo woodlands, with \u003cem\u003eBrachystegia microphylla\u003c/em\u003e as the dominant canopy species, along with dense tall grass cover. Its elevation ranges from 500 to 1,143 m above sea level. The region experiences unimodal rainfall pattern, with an average annual precipitation of 762 mm, with most falling between November and April, followed by an extended dry season from May to October.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLegally, the DNPW manages LMNP and operates the RUP, which permits communities to collect firewood and thatch grass under specific conditions (Department of National Parks and Wildlife, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Firewood collection is allowed only if it is carried out by female villagers on designated days (Tuesdays and Saturdays); a collection permit, which costs 50 Malawi Kwacha (MWK), must be acquired; and the use of knives, axes, or similar tools is prohibited. Since the cutting of live trees is strictly forbidden, only deadwood can be collected. Despite these regulations, a 2023 UNESCO monitoring mission reported increasing degradation in the LMNP forests, leading to calls for more adaptive management approaches, including habitat protection and ecosystem monitoring (UNESCO, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Target Communities\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo evaluate forest resource use within the CMP area of LMNP, this study surveyed all communities known to collect resources from the CMP forest. In rural Malawi, \u0026lsquo;communities\u0026rsquo; often correspond to villages governed by a Village Head or a Group Village Head who oversees several villages. Additionally, functional boundaries are formed based on physical geography and the jurisdiction of local governance structures such as the Village Natural Resources Committee (VNRC).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOn the basis of these considerations, we identified 11 distinct communities for household-level data collection (Table 1). The demarcation of these communities considered administrative status, geographic proximity, and VNRC coverage. For example, the enclave villages of Mvunguti, Zambo, and Chizale, although previously studied as separate units, are actually governed by a single village head and share one VNRC. Therefore, we treated them as a single survey unit, which we refer to here as \u0026ldquo;Kankuta\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmong the 11 communities, eight (e.g., Chembe, Madothi, Msaka, and Kankuta) are surrounded by the park and the lake (enclaves), whereas Kasankha, Mjogo, and Mambayie are adjacent to the park just outside. These communities differ in their access to forests and their livelihoods, both of which influence patterns of forest use.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemographic trends highlight the increasing pressure on the CMP forest. The population of Mangochi District reached 1,148,611 in 2018, a 44% increase since 2008, which exceeds the national average growth rate (NSO, 2018). Since the LMNP establishment in 1977, the population of enclaved villages has grown significantly. For example, Chembe (GVH Chembe and GVH Madothi) has expanded 7.2-fold, whereas Msaka and Kankuta have each quadrupled in size compared with earlier reported data (Abbot, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Grenfell, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Comparable long-term data for adjacent communities are not available, but current trends suggest similar growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Data collection\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis study employed a household survey and direct field observations to quantitatively assess firewood extraction and explore patterns of forest resource use across 11 communities around the CMP forest. The household survey was conducted between April and May 2023. Field surveys, which measure the weights of the collected firewood bundles, took place in August 2023 and March 2025 to cover both the dry and rainy seasons.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1. Household Survey\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA semi-structured questionnaire was given to 490 households, approximately 9% of the estimated 8,608 households in the study area. Between 33 and 53 households were surveyed in each of the 11 target communities (Table\u0026nbsp;1). A purposive/targeted sampling method was used to ensure a broad and balanced representation across sites.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe survey covered the following topics: socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., household composition, income sources, energy sources and cookstoves used); forest resource use (types of forest products collected, both from inside and outside LMNP); and firewood procurement and use (number of collectors in the household, frequency of collection trips, procurement methods and uses).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the enumerators directly observed and recorded three key resource-related features at each household: (1) live fences, which are commonly used for boundary demarcation and sometimes provide edible leaves and firewood; (2) improved cooking stoves (locally called \u003cem\u003eChangu Mbaula\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003eChitetezo Mbaula\u003c/em\u003e); and (3) fish-smoking ovens, which represent small-scale commercial uses of firewood.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2. Interview Process\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe surveys were conducted by trained enumerators, including Malawian university students and local volunteers. All field staff received training in survey content, ethical research protocols, and interviewing techniques. This was followed by supervised pretesting of the questionnaire in a community not included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAny adult household member present at the time of the visit was interviewed. In 84% of cases, this was the household head or their spouse. Overall, 78% of the respondents were women, reflecting the common gendered division of labor in firewood collection, whereas 32% were men (some interviews involved both).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe interviewers explained the research\u0026rsquo;s purpose, and all the participants provided verbal informed consent. This was performed in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3. Firewood Bundle Weight Measurement\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo estimate actual firewood collection volumes, we directly measured the weights of firewood bundles in both the dry and rainy seasons. In total, 44 bundles were weighed in August 2023 (dry season), and 48 were weighed in March 2025 (rainy season). Measurements were taken along major access roads bordering the CMP forest. Firewood collectors were weighed using a 150 kg-capacity digital scale, first while carrying the collected firewood bundle and then without it. The difference was recorded as the weight of the bundle.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese direct measurements helped us convert the number of firewood collection times from the household survey into monthly estimates of firewood collected per household in kilograms.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe socioeconomic characteristics of households, energy use, and forest resource collection patterns in the 11 communities surveyed were summarized by descriptive statistics.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.4.1. Estimation of Household and Community-Level Firewood Collection\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMonthly household firewood collection (in kilograms) was estimated via the following formula:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMonthly firewood collection\u003c/em\u003e (kg)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eNC\u003c/em\u003e \u0026times; \u003cem\u003eWCF\u003c/em\u003e \u0026times; 4.345 \u0026times; \u003cem\u003eABW\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHere, \u003cem\u003eNC\u003c/em\u003e is the number of collectors per household, \u003cem\u003eWCF\u003c/em\u003e is the weekly collection frequency, 4.345 is the average number of weeks per month, and \u003cem\u003eABW\u003c/em\u003e is the average bundle weight. For households reporting no firewood collectors, the collection quantity was set to zero.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe mean number of firewood collectors per household and times of firewood collection per collector were calculated for each community. These averages were then multiplied by the total number of households in each community to estimate monthly firewood extraction at the community level. The overall firewood extraction from the CMP forest was calculated based on the average number of household survey responses and the total number of households in the 11 communities (8,608 households).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.4.2. Statistical Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo compare the weights of firewood bundles collected during the dry and rainy seasons, Student\u0026rsquo;s t test was conducted. Differences in household firewood collection between communities were assessed via one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). When the significance level of the ANOVA was less than 0.05, Tukey\u0026apos;s HSD post hoc test was applied to pinpoint specific differences among the communities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo identify the socioeconomic factors driving firewood collection, a generalized linear model (GLM) was built with monthly household firewood collection (in kilograms) as the dependent variable. The explanatory variables included geographic location (enclave vs. adjacent community), household size, number of females aged 10\u0026ndash;64 years (as a proxy for potential firewood collectors), purpose of firewood use (household tasks and small-scale business), principal components derived from household income sources and energy use (via principal component analysis), presence of live fences and improved cookstoves, number of fish-smoking ovens, and whether firewood was collected from outside LMNP.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe number of females aged 10\u0026ndash;64 served as a proxy for potential collectors because survey results revealed that 99% of firewood collectors, with an average age of 30, fall within this demographic range. To handle multicollinearity among explanatory variables, principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to household income sources and energy use variables before model fitting. Variance inflation factors (VIFs) were also calculated to further assess multicollinearity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll analyses were performed via R version 4.4.1, which uses the \u0026lsquo;t.test\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;aov\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;prcomp\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;glm\u0026rsquo; functions, as well as the \u0026lsquo;vif\u0026rsquo; function from the \u0026lsquo;car\u0026rsquo; package.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA total of 490 households were surveyed across 11 communities surrounded by or adjacent to the CMP forest (Table\u0026nbsp;1). The average household size in the sample was 5.55 individuals (90% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17), with only slight differences among communities. Among these individuals, females aged 10\u0026ndash;64 years averaged 2.67 individuals per household (90% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHouseholds reported various income sources, reflecting both land-based and aquatic livelihoods. These included fishing; fish processing and trade; agriculture; retail; the sale of firewood, charcoal, and timber; tourism-related activities; and various forms of piecework and formal employment (Table 2). Fishing and fish-related commerce were the most important, accounting for an average of 39% of household income. These lake-based livelihood activities were common in most communities but were notably absent in Mambayie, a village located inland and without direct access to Lake Malawi.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgriculture is another important livelihood, but its contribution varies significantly among communities. For example, it accounted for approximately 25% of household income in Katukumala but only a minimum of 0.6% in Kafukuta. Similarly, reliance on selling forest products (firewood, charcoal, and timber) differed greatly: it contributed to an average of 28% of household income in Mjogo, compared with just 4% in Msaka.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTourism-related income was observed only in the villages of GVH Chembe and GVH Madothi, as well as in the Kasankha community, which has tourist accommodations. These economic patterns highlight the heterogeneous socioeconomic landscape in the CMP area, with important implications for how much communities depend on forest resources and conservation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Household Energy Use and Cooking Practices\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcross all surveyed communities in the CMP area, firewood remains the main source of household energy. On average, 88% of households reported using firewood for domestic purposes, with community-level rates ranging from 81% in Chembe to 97% in Kasankha (Table\u0026nbsp;3). Charcoal use was also widespread but showed greater variation between communities. The highest usage rate was observed in Muonda, where 90% of households used charcoal, nearly double the 44% rate reported in Kasankha, where charcoal use was lowest.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccess to modern energy sources such as electricity remains extremely limited. Muonda recorded the highest level of access, with 35% of households using electricity, whereas in Mambayie, no households reported any electricity access. Solar panels, although used across most communities, had an overall adoption rate of just 9%. Other energy sources, including maize cobs (cobs after the corn grains have been removed, locally known as \u003cem\u003eZitsononkho\u003c/em\u003e), briquettes, and fossil fuels, play a minor role and are used by only a small fraction of households.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn addition to fuel types, the cooking technologies used also affect household energy dynamics and fuel efficiency. Traditional three-stone open fires were the most common cooking method, with an average usage rate of 68% across communities (Table 4). Their use was particularly common in Kankuta (92%) and least common in Kafukuta (40%).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCharcoal braziers were also widely used, reported by 61% of households on average. Despite the introduction of improved cooking stoves in communities around LMNP in 2017 (DNPW, 2019), promoted by USAID\u0026apos;s FISH project, the adoption rate of these stoves remained low in the study area, averaging only 16%. Adoption was highest in Mambayie and Kasankha (exceeding 30%) but extremely limited in Kafukuta and Muonda, where fewer than 6% of households reported using improved stoves.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese patterns highlight the continued reliance on traditional biomass fuels and the low adoption of fuel-saving technologies. This suggests significant potential for targeted energy interventions that could both reduce pressure on forests and improve household well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Firewood Procurement and Use\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirewood collection patterns across communities surrounding the CMP forest are strongly dependent on direct collection from natural sources. Overall, 77% of the firewood used by the surveyed households was gathered directly from the park and within the village itself (Table 5). In contrast, firewood from private woodlots made up only 3% of procurement methods, highlighting the limited development of privately managed firewood sources in the region.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe community-level variation was clear. Chembe showed the greatest reliance on direct collection (93%), indicating a particularly strong dependence on nearby forest resources. Conversely, Muonda had the highest rate of firewood production from private land (15%), suggesting some diversification of sources. In Mjogo, a relatively high proportion of firewood was bought (39%), whereas in Mambayie, gifting between households played a more notable role, accounting for 13% of firewood access.\u003c/p\u003eRegarding firewood use, 85% of households reported using it for domestic purposes, with cooking being its universal function across all communities (Table 6). Additionally, 17% of households used firewood for small-scale economic activities, such as preparing snacks for sale, smoking fish, brewing, or selling firewood itself. Community-level differences were notable: while 97% of households in Kasankha used firewood for cooking, only 73% in Muonda did so, suggesting some reliance on alternative fuels. Conversely, Muonda had one of the highest proportions of firewood use for small-scale businesses, whereas Kasankha had the lowest (8%).\u003cp\u003eThe types of forest products collected from LMNP reflect the multipurpose value of the park\u0026rsquo;s ecosystems (Table 7). Firewood was the most collected resource, with over half of the households in all the communities except Mjogo reporting collection. In Mjogo, only 36% of households collected firewood from the park, likely because of access constraints or alternative sourcing strategies. Thatching grass also featured prominently, collected by most households in most communities, although Mjogo again showed the lowest proportion at 33%.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther resources collected from LMNP include grass for making tools (mats, brooms, fences), medicinal plants, edible wild plants, fencing branches, mushrooms, honey, and small amounts of timber, soil, and stones. These uses vary by community and underscore the broader subsistence role of park forests beyond just energy needs.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhile some households collect firewood from outside LMNP, this practice varies unevenly across communities. In Kafukuta and Kasankha, over 61% of households accessed off-park firewood sources, whereas fewer than 8% in Chembe. Live fences, a potential source of supplementary firewood, were also unevenly distributed. For example, more than half of the households in Nkhono had live fences, whereas none were recorded in Mambayie.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese results suggest that despite some diversification in sourcing and usage, most households remain highly dependent on the LMNP forests for firewood, especially for essential domestic functions such as cooking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Firewood collection quantities and extraction pressure\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA total of 92 firewood bundles were weighed to estimate the average of the collected bundle weight: 44 during the dry season and 48 during the rainy season. The mean bundle weight was 37.78 kg (90% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.10) in the dry season and 34.95\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.60 kg in the rainy season. A t test revealed no statistically significant seasonal difference (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.08, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;87.79, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.2852). Therefore, an overall average bundle weight of 36.30\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.01 kg was used for all subsequent calculations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003eUsing household survey data and bundle weight measurements, the average monthly firewood collected per household was estimated. Across all the communities, the average number of firewood collectors per household was 0.83 \u0026plusmn; 0.06, and each collector made 0.88 \u0026plusmn; 0.07 collection trips per week. These estimates revealed substantial variation between communities (Table 8).\u003cp\u003eThe total monthly firewood collected across all 11 communities was estimated at approximately 998.03 megagrams (Mg) (Table 8). This corresponds to an annual extraction of 11,976.34 Mg from the CMP forest. The CMP forest of 6,550 ha and a community population of 40,415 resulted in a per capita firewood collection rate of 0.81 kg per person per day and a per hectare extraction pressure of 1.83 Mg per hectare per year.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis integrated estimate establishes a critical baseline for evaluating the sustainability of firewood extraction from the CMP forest. It also forms the foundation for comparison with other protected and nonprotected forest sites, as discussed further in the Discussion section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Community-level variation in firewood collection\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant variation was observed in household firewood collection levels among the 11 communities surrounding the CMP forest. A one-way ANOVA revealed that the average amount of firewood collected per household differed significantly across communities (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.439, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0076; Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Subsequent post hoc comparisons via Tukey\u0026rsquo;s HSD test revealed two statistically significant pairwise differences: between Kankuta and Kafukuta (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04925) and between Kankuta and Mjogo (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04982).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKankuta, an enclave community within LMNP, recorded the highest average household firewood collection, with a monthly mean of 257.13 kg. In contrast, Mjogo reported the lowest average value of 83.64 kg, indicating that firewood collection in Kankuta was approximately three times greater than that in Mjogo.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhile Kankuta\u0026rsquo;s elevated collection levels might suggest a pattern of greater dependence in enclave communities, no consistent trend supported this assumption across all enclaves. Other enclave communities presented moderate to low levels of firewood collection, similar to or lower than those of adjacent communities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.6. Socioeconomic Drivers of Household Firewood Collection\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo explore the socioeconomic factors determining household-level firewood collection, a GLM was applied, with the estimated monthly amount of firewood collected per household used as the dependent variable. Before model construction, PCA was conducted to reduce dimensionality and address\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe PCA of income sources identified four principal components that together explained 84% of the total variance (Table\u0026nbsp;9). PC1 captured the variation in income from fishing, PC2 captured that from fish processing and trade, PC3 captured that from retail activities, and PC4 captured that from agriculture. Similarly, the PCA of energy use revealed three principal components that explained 78% of the variance (Table\u0026nbsp;10), with PC1 reflecting charcoal use, PC2 electricity use, and PC3 firewood and solar energy use.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe GLM results indicated that household size (p = 0.002) and the use of firewood for housework (p \u0026lt; 0.0001) had statistically significant positive effects on firewood collection volume (Table 11). In contrast, collecting firewood from areas outside LMNP was significantly and negatively associated with the amount collected from the park (p \u0026lt; 0.0001), indicating that access to alternative firewood sources helps reduce pressure on protected forests.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe model explained approximately 19% of the variance in household firewood collection (R\u0026sup2; = 0.19). The results of the VIF analysis revealed no severe multicollinearity among the predictors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Heavy Dependence on Protected Forests for Firewood\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study reveals that communities using LMNP\u0026rsquo;s forest resources are consistently highly dependent on firewood. On average, 88% of the households reported using firewood, and 77% collected it directly, mainly from LMNP\u0026rsquo;s protected forests. Most households relied on firewood solely for cooking, and 17% also used it for small-scale commercial activitie. These figures align with regional data across SSA, where over 90% of rural households use solid biomass fuels (FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Sulaiman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Zulu \u0026amp; Richardson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Malawi\u0026rsquo;s Fifth Integrated Household Survey similarly reported that 91% of rural households use firewood for cooking (World Bank Group, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat distinguishes the CMP area is the disproportionate reliance on protected forests for firewood. In Ethiopia, for example, Mekonnen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) reported that 74% of households collected firewood at least partly from their own farms, reflecting widespread agroforestry. In the CMP area, only 3% of households sourced firewood from private plantations, underscoring the lack of fuelwood-focused tree planting in the area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome of the collected firewood is not only used by households but also sold. In the villages, an average of 13.98 kg of small firewood bundles are sold at an average price of 2,250 MWK (2024 survey, unpublished data). Based on this unit price, one collected firewood bundle (average weight 37.78 kg) is worth approximately 6,080 MWK, yet a firewood collection permit costs only 50 MWK. The fact that the LMNP forests serve as a cheap source of firewood allows collectors to earn cash income and ensures a stable fuel supply for subsistence, even for the most vulnerable, while further increasing dependence on the LMNP forests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnder such circumstances, efforts to restrict firewood access without offering viable alternatives could severely threaten household welfare. In the target communities, firewood is the primary fuel used for cooking and is essential for daily life. Other authors have reported that energy-related interventions must address livelihood vulnerability and energy security simultaneously (Hiemstra-van der Horst \u0026amp; Hovorka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; K\u0026ouml;hlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, any conservation policy under the RUP should be linked with programs that support firewood alternatives, efficient energy use, and increased cash income.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite government initiatives such as the improved cookstove program, which aimed to distribute 2\u0026nbsp;million stoves by 2020 (Jagger \u0026amp; Perez-Heydrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), adoption remains low, with only 16% of households reporting the use of improved cookstoves. Given that previous studies have shown that such technologies reduce firewood use by 20\u0026ndash;56% (Ochieng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Singh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), expanding access to efficient stoves should be a conservation and energy policy priority. One strategy for implementing this type of intervention is to determine why the adoption rate remains low despite perceived advantages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings also indicate that the amount of firewood collected per household varies across communities. In addition to livelihoods and simple geographical classifications, factors such as ease of access to forests, enforcement of park regulations, and community involvement in RUP may play decisive roles in shaping firewood collection behavior. Understanding these community-specific factors is essential for designing effective and community-sensitive conservation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Firewood collection intensity and its sustainability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study estimated that a total of 11,976.34 Mg of deadwood is collected annually from the CMP forest. This results in a per capita firewood collection rate of 0.81 kg per person per day and a per hectare extraction pressure of 1.83 Mg per hectare per year. To allow comparison with other studies that estimate wood extraction in terms of volume, we converted the weight into cubic meters using the mean wood density for tropical Africa (0.598 g/cm\u0026sup3;) reported by Chave et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The resulting annual volume is approximately 0.50 m\u0026sup3; per person per year and 3.06 m\u0026sup3; per hectare per year.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis level of extraction is considerably higher than that in other protected or community-managed areas in SSA. In southeastern Cameroon, Lhoest et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) reported per-person rates as high as 1.17 kg per day but only 0.20\u0026ndash;0.69 Mg per hectare per year. In Kenya\u0026rsquo;s Koibatek Forest Zone, Rono et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) estimated firewood extraction at just 0.24 m\u0026sup3; per hectare per year. Even in Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda, where per capita extraction was relatively high (1.1\u0026ndash;2.0 m\u0026sup3; per person per year), firewood harvesting has occurred across broader forest landscapes (Sassen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Despite all these sites being under some form of protection, higher extraction rates by the CMP-using communities could be due to exclusive reliance on a spatially constrained forest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe RUP in LMNP restricts firewood extraction to deadwood collected by hand on designated days. However, additional pressures such as illegal logging and uncontrolled bushfires, particularly in the dry season, worsen forest degradation, as previously noted by Abbot \u0026amp; Homewood (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003ea) and Abbot \u0026amp; Mace (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003eb). These pressures were not quantified here, suggesting that our results may underestimate the true extraction burden.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, deadwood plays crucial ecological roles, including nutrient cycling, soil moisture retention, and habitat provision for organisms (Harmon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Stokland et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Sustained removal without regeneration could undermine forest health and long-term resilience. A concurrent study estimating deadwood productivity in LMNP will complement this analysis and help assess sustainability more rigorously.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Determinants of and variations in firewood collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur statistical analyses revealed that household size and the use of firewood for domestic purposes significantly predict collection volume. Similar findings have been reported across SSA (Brouwer \u0026amp; Falc\u0026atilde;o, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Hiemstra-van der Horst \u0026amp; Hovorka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, households that collected firewood from outside LMNP reported significantly lower extraction from protected forests, reinforcing the value of alternative sources such as farm trees and community woodlots in reducing park pressure (Mekonnen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, live fences, which are often promoted as supplementary biomass sources, did not significantly affect firewood collection. Their low prevalence (22%) and limited tree density may explain their minimal contribution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data highlight the need for integrated land-based interventions, including agroforestry, tree planting on farmland, and promoting private woodlots. Given the intense land-use competition in Malawi (Government of Malawi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), introducing and promoting tree planting that aligns with agricultural productivity (e.g., agroforestry) is essential for long-term impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Comparison with Historical Data: Abbot \u0026amp; Homewood (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003ea)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbbot \u0026amp; Homewood, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003ea) conducted the first quantitative assessments of firewood use in LMNP. On the basis of household surveys from the enclave villages of Chembe (GVH Chembe and GVH Madothi), Msaka, and Kankuta, they estimated per capita firewood use at 10.1 kg per week, or approximately 1.44 kg per day. In comparison, our current study estimates per capita collection at 0.81 kg per day in the same communities. This decrease may reflect the increased use of alternative energy sources, notably charcoal and electricity, which were not covered in earlier studies, despite population growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the 1999 study assumed that all firewood was sourced from LMNP. In contrast, we observed that some firewood is now transported from external areas by bicycle and car and sold within the communities. Although the exact volume remains unquantified, this dynamic represents an important shift in energy provision that partially offsets park dependency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbbot and Homewood estimated that 4,433 Mg of firewood were consumed annually by three enclaved communities in 1993. In contrast, our current estimate for all 11 CMP-using communities is 11,976.34 Mg per year. This nearly threefold increase reflects not only broader geographic coverage, including adjacent villages, but also substantial population growth. Although per capita firewood collection has declined, overall extraction pressure on the CMP forest has likely intensified. This study represents one part of a coordinated research initiative, which also includes a parallel effort to estimate annual deadwood production across the CMP forest. By integrating extraction and regeneration data, we aim to assess whether current firewood use remains within ecologically sustainable limits and to inform improvements to the RUP. This integrative approach provides a foundation for evaluating long-term sustainability and developing context-specific management strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5. Limitations and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile this study provides one of the few quantitative assessments of firewood extraction in a protected area under a CBNRM framework, several limitations remain. The reliance on self-report survey data introduces potential recall biases. Seasonal variations were not fully captured, and firewood collected for ceremonial or temporary migration-related use may be underrepresented.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis would benefit from incorporating spatial data on forest structure, deadwood density, and accessibility. Finally, while our GLM captured key drivers of household-level variation, ethnographic insights and participatory monitoring could provide a deeper understanding of motivations, enforcement dynamics, and perceptions of sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides one of the few quantitative estimates of firewood extraction intensity in a CBNRM-managed protected area. It highlights the critical role of household size, firewood reliance, and access to alternative sources in shaping extraction behavior. Despite national efforts to promote improved cookstoves and diversify energy access, most households remain heavily dependent on firewood collected from within LMNP, raising substantial concerns about ecological sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur per-hectare extraction estimates, paired with community-level differences and socioeconomic predictors, offer valuable guidance for evidence-based conservation. Expanding off-park fuelwood sources, supporting agroforestry, and improving access to efficient cooking technologies are essential next steps. This study also contributes to a broader research initiative aimed at comparing firewood collection with natural deadwood regeneration in LMNP. Such integrated assessments are key to evaluating whether current extraction remains within sustainable limits and to guiding future management under the RUP framework. Achieving long-term sustainability will require not only technical interventions, but also inclusive governance that balances conservation with community needs.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch3\u003e7.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Acknowledgments\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe extend our sincere gratitude to our Malawian field assistants, university student enumerators, and all community members who generously shared their time and insights. We also thank LMNP and DNPW for their invaluable support. We specifically acknowledge Prof. Tetsu Sato and Prof. Bosco Rusuwa for their instrumental leadership in both securing the funding and executing the project, as well as for providing insightful comments on this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e8.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Funding\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was generously supported by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) through the SATREPS program (Grant No. JPMJSA19007, Title: Establishment of a Sustainable Community Development Model based on Integrated Natural Resource Management Systems in Lake Malawi National Park).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e9.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Ethical Approval and Consent\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study received ethical approval from the University of Malawi Research Ethics Committee (UNIMAREC) (reference number P.05/23/248). Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants, and all research was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e10.\u0026nbsp;Competing Interests\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e11.\u0026nbsp;Data Availability\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions and agreements with local communities but may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e12.\u0026nbsp;Author Contributions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: TH; Methodology: TH, JB, PC, MC, YK, JM, PM, SY; Data collection: TH, JB, YK, NM, JM; Analysis: TH; Writing – original draft: TH; Writing – review \u0026amp; editing: All authors\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbbot JIO (1996). Rural Subsistence and Protected Areas: Community Use of the miombo woodlands of Lake Malawi National Park. University of London.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbbot JIO, Homewood K (1999). A history of change: causes of \u003cem\u003emiombo\u003c/em\u003e woodland decline in a protected area in Malawi. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Applied Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, 36(3), 422\u0026ndash;433. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00413.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00413.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbbot JIO, Mace R (1999). Managing Protected Woodlands: Fuelwood Collection and Law Enforcement in Lake Malawi National Park. \u003cem\u003eConservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology\u003c/em\u003e, 13(2), 418\u0026ndash;421. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.013002418.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.013002418.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdom RK, Reid M, Afuye, GA et al. (2024). Assessing the implications of deforestation and climate change on rural livelihood in Ghana: A multidimensional analysis and solution-based approach. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, 74(6), 1124\u0026ndash;1144. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02053-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00267-024-02053-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBamwesigye D, Kupec P, Chekuimo G et al. (2020). Charcoal and wood biomass utilization in Uganda: The socioeconomic and environmental dynamics and implications. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, 12(20), 8337. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su12208337\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su12208337\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerkes F (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\u003c/em\u003e, 104(39), 15188\u0026ndash;15193. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702098104\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.0702098104\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrouwer R, Falc\u0026atilde;o MP (2004). Wood fuel consumption in Maputo, Mozambique. \u003cem\u003eBiomass \u0026amp; Bioenergy\u003c/em\u003e, 27(3), 233\u0026ndash;245. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.01.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.01.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChave J, Coomes D, Jansen S et al. (2009). Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. \u003cem\u003eEcology Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 12(4), 351\u0026ndash;366. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01285.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01285.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeGeorges PA, Reilly BK (2009). The realities of community based natural resource management and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, 1(3), 734\u0026ndash;788. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su1030734\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su1030734\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDepartment of National Parks and Wildlife. (2019). \u003cem\u003eLake Malawi National Park WORLD HERITAGE SITE Management Plan 2019\u0026ndash;2024\u003c/em\u003e. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Malawi.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2017). Incentivizing Sustainable Wood Energy in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Way Forward for Policy-Makers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.14283/i6815en\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2020). \u003cem\u003eGlobal forest resources assessment 2020: Country report Malawi\u003c/em\u003e. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeintrenie L, Betbeder J, Piketty MG et al. (2019). Deforestation for food production. In \u003cem\u003eFood systems at risk. New trends and challenges\u003c/em\u003e. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.19182/agritrop/00089\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.19182/agritrop/00089\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoyet M (2024). Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in southern Africa: history, principles, evolution and contemporary challenges. \u003cem\u003eNamibian Journal of Environment\u003c/em\u003e, 9, 1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of Malawi. (2016) \u003cem\u003eNational Forest Policy 2016\u003c/em\u003e. Department of Forestry、Lilongwe. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mlw190487.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mlw190487.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrenfell SA (1993). Lake Malawi National Park Management and Development Plan. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Malawi.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ et al. (2004). Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. In \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Ecological Research\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 59\u0026ndash;234). Elsevier. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2504(03)34002-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/s0065-2504(03)34002-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHiemstra-van der Horst G, Hovorka AJ (2008). Reassessing the \u0026ldquo;energy ladder\u0026rdquo;: Household energy use in Maun, Botswana. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 36(9), 3333\u0026ndash;3344. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.05.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.enpol.2008.05.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHosonuma N, Herold M, De Sy V et al. (2012). An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Research Letters: ERL [Web Site]\u003c/em\u003e, 7(4), 044009. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIEA. (2022). \u003cem\u003eAfrica Energy Outlook 2022\u003c/em\u003e. International Energy Agency, Paris. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2022\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJagger P, Perez-Heydrich C (2016). Land use and household energy dynamics in Malawi. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Research Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 11(12), 1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/125004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/125004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eK\u0026ouml;hlin G, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK et al. (2011). \u003cem\u003eEnergy, Gender and Development: What are the Linkages? Where is the Evidence?\u003c/em\u003e The World Bank. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5800\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1596/1813-9450-5800\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLhoest S, Vermeulen C, Fayolle A et al. (2020). Quantifying the use of forest ecosystem services by local populations in southeastern Cameroon. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, 12(6), 2505. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su12062505\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su12062505\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMapulanga AM, Naito H (2019). Effect of deforestation on access to clean drinking water. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\u003c/em\u003e, 116(17), 8249\u0026ndash;8254. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1814970116\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.1814970116\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMbaiwa JE (2004). The success and sustainability of community-based natural resource management in the Okavango delta, Botswana. \u003cem\u003eThe South African Geographical Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 86(1), 44\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2004.9713807\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03736245.2004.9713807\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMekonnen D, Bryan E, Alemu T et al. (2017). Food versus fuel: examining tradeoffs in the allocation of biomass energy sources to domestic and productive uses in Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eAgricultural Economics\u003c/em\u003e, 48(4), 425\u0026ndash;435. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12344\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/agec.12344\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMendum R, Njenga M (2018). Integrating wood fuels into agriculture and food security agendas and research in sub-Saharan Africa. \u003cem\u003eFacet\u003c/em\u003e, 3(1), 1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2017-0032\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1139/facets-2017-0032\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Statistical Office. (2018). \u003cem\u003e2018 Malawi Population \u0026amp; Housing Census\u003c/em\u003e. National Statistical Office, Malawi. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://malawi.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/resource-pdf/2018%20Census%20Preliminary%20Report.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://malawi.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/resource-pdf/2018%20Census%20Preliminary%20Report.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeumann RP (2003). The Production of Nature: Colonial Recasting of African Landscape in Serengeti National Park. In K. S. Zimmerer \u0026amp; T. J. Bassett (Eds.), Political Ecology. The Guilford Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOchieng CA, Tonne C, Vardoulakis S (2013). A comparison of fuel use between a low cost, improved wood stove and traditional three-stone stove in rural Kenya. \u003cem\u003eBiomass \u0026amp; Bioenergy\u003c/em\u003e, 58, 258\u0026ndash;266. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlesen RS, Hall CM, Rasmussen LV (2022). Forests support people\u0026rsquo;s food and nutrition security through multiple pathways in low- and middle-income countries. \u003cem\u003eOne Earth\u003c/em\u003e, 5(12), 1342\u0026ndash;1353. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.11.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.oneear.2022.11.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRono KK, Kapiyo RA, Bosire EK (2019). The ecological effects of wood fuel extraction on the gazetted forests within koibatek zone, Mau forests complex, Kenya. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Innovative Research and Development\u003c/em\u003e, 8(5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24940/ijird/2019/v8/i5/may19011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24940/ijird/2019/v8/i5/may19011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSassen M, Sheil D, Giller KE (2015). Fuelwood collection and its impacts on a protected tropical mountain forest in Uganda. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management\u003c/em\u003e, 354, 56\u0026ndash;67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.037\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.037\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh S, Gupta GP, Kumar B et al. (2014). Comparative study of indoor air pollution using traditional and improved cooking stoves in rural households of Northern India. \u003cem\u003eEnergy for Sustainable Development: The Journal of the International Energy Initiative\u003c/em\u003e, 19, 1\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2014.01.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.esd.2014.01.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSnorek J, Bolger D (2022). Can the center hold? Boundary actors and marginality in a community-based natural resource management network. \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society: A Journal of Integrative Science for Resilience and Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, 27(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/es-13512-270341\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/es-13512-270341\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStokland JN, Siitonen J, Jonsson BG (2012). Ecology, biodiversity and conservation: Biodiversity in dead wood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139025843\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/cbo9781139025843\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSulaiman C, Abdul-Rahim AS, Mohd-Shahwahid HO et al. (2017). Wood fuel consumption, institutional quality, and forest degradation in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from a dynamic panel framework. \u003cem\u003eEcological Indicators\u003c/em\u003e, 74, 414\u0026ndash;419. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.045\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.045\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNESCO. (2023). \u003cem\u003eReport on the joint world heritage centre/iucn reactive monitoring mission to lake Malawi National Park (Malawi) (n 289)\u003c/em\u003e. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Bank Group (2022). \u003cem\u003eMalawi \u0026ndash; Country Climate and Development Report: Clean Cooking Sector Background Note\u003c/em\u003e. World Bank, Washington, DC. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099545210272215738/pdf/P1772200f17fda0aa0b22c04835f7a20cfa.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099545210272215738/pdf/P1772200f17fda0aa0b22c04835f7a20cfa.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZulu LC, Richardson RB (2013). Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development: The Journal of the International Energy Initiative, 17(2), 127\u0026ndash;137. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZyambo P (2018). What is limiting success of community-based approach to conservation of natural resources in southern Africa? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ecology \u0026amp; Natural Resources\u003c/em\u003e, 2(4). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.23880/jenr-16000139\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.23880/jenr-16000139\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 11 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e\n"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"firewood, protected area, deadwood, Lake Malawi National Park, community-based natural resource management, Sub-Saharan Africa","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6820708/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6820708/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eFirewood continues to be the dominant energy source for rural communities across Sub-Saharan Africa, with significant implications for forest conservation, especially in protected areas. This study presents a rare quantitative assessment of firewood extraction within the Cape Maclear Peninsula (CMP) forest of Lake Malawi National Park (LMNP), a recognized World Heritage Site. Drawing on household surveys, carefully calibrated with direct measurements, we estimated an overall annual firewood collection of 11,976.34 megagrams\u0026mdash;or 3.07 m\u0026sup3; per hectare each year\u0026mdash;across 11 communities. Our findings clearly indicate strong community dependence on these protected forests, with 88% of households using firewood and 77% gathering it themselves. Even with the Resource Use Programme (RUP) established to regulate access, the firewood extraction rate per unit area significantly exceeds those documented in comparable ecosystems. The study also identified household size, reliance on biomass, and a lack of off-park alternatives as key drivers of this extraction. Our results underscore the urgent need to integrate tree planting and agroforestry initiatives into conservation policy and to encourage the adoption of improved cookstoves. Introducing alternative livelihood sources will also help ease pressure on the natural resources of LMNP. Consequently, this study offers crucial evidence to help balance biodiversity and ecosystem conservation with the energy needs of surrounding communities, demonstrating the importance of localized, data-driven strategies for protected area management.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Quantifying Firewood Extraction in a Protected Forest: Local Dependence and Policy Challenges in Lake Malawi National Park","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-13 09:57:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6820708/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5ae040bc-8e3b-45f3-b05e-5a4df84ade89","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 13th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-05T15:09:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-13 09:57:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6820708","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6820708","identity":"rs-6820708","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}