Sustainability Assessment of Uganda’s Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale Forest Reserves

Sustainability Assessment of Uganda’s Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale Forest Reserves | 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 Sustainability Assessment of Uganda’s Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale Forest Reserves Obed Byamukama¹⃰, Wonny Ahmad Ridwan, Michael Asante Biney This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6136620/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study assesses the sustainability of Uganda's Mabira Central Forest Reserve (CFR), Budongo CFR, and Kibale National Park Forest (NPF) using the Rapid Appraisal for Forest Sustainability (RAPFOS) methodology. RAPFOS is an adaptation of Rapid Appraisal for Fisheries (RAPFISH). The ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions of the three forests were assessed to determine their sustainability status. Data from academic literature, institutional reports, and government documents from credible sources were analysed, and sustainability scores were visualized through kite diagrams, leverage plots, and Monte Carlo simulations. Results showed Kibale NPF is highly sustainable as all its sustainability scores were in the range of 76–100% in institutional, social, ecological, and economic dimensions. Budongo and Mabira displayed moderate sustainability with all their sustainability scores in the range of 51–75% in all the four dimensions. Findings indicate ecological sustainability is affected by invasive species and carbon sequestration, while economic sustainability is driven by ecotourism and forest product income. Social sustainability hinges on equitable resource access and livelihood benefits, and institutional sustainability depends on funding and stakeholder collaboration. These results highlight the need for targeted interventions focusing on the improvement of these influential attributes to ensure high sustainability of these forest reserves. Government policies and stakeholder action should target the enhancement of biodiversity conservation, sustainable economic activities, and improved governance. This research supports the Sustainable Development Goal 15, promoting the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, including forests. Forest Sustainability RAPFISH RAPFOS Mabira CFR Budongo CFR Kibale NPF Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 1 INTRODUCTION Forests play an essential role in maintaining ecological balance, conserving biodiversity, and supporting socioeconomic development. In Uganda, forests cover approximately 1.9 million hectares, representing 10% of the nation's land area [ 1 ]. These forests provide vital ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration and water cycle regulation, and serve as habitats for endangered species like chimpanzees and forest elephants. Additionally, they are integral to Uganda's economy, supplying 88% of the country’s energy, contributing 61% of tourism income, and providing employment to about one million people [ 2 ]. The forestry sector significantly enhances Uganda's GDP through the production of timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs), contributing 3.5% of GDP annually between 2016 and 2019 [ 2 ]. Despite these benefits, Uganda’s forests face significant threats that compromise their sustainability. Deforestation, forest degradation, and encroachment, driven by agricultural expansion, illegal logging, urbanization, and charcoal production, are primary challenges. The country has experienced an average annual forest loss of 122,000 hectares since 1990, with peak losses reaching 250,000 hectares per year between 2010 and 2015 [ 3 ]. Reforestation efforts, averaging only 7,000 hectares annually over the past 15 years, have been insufficient to counterbalance these losses. Weak governance, fragmented policies, and institutional inefficiencies exacerbate these issues, further undermining sustainable forest management [ 4 ]. These challenges threaten the ecological integrity, economic opportunities, and social benefits that forests provide, underscoring the urgent need for sustainable forest management (SFM). Key forest ecosystems, such as Kibale National Park Forest, Mabira, and Budongo Forest Reserves, exemplify Uganda's biodiversity and ecosystem challenges. Mabira Forest, spanning 300 square kilometers in central Uganda, plays a crucial role in biodiversity conservation and water regulation within the Lake Victoria basin [ 5 ]. Budongo Forest, covering 793 square kilometers in the northwest, is one of East Africa’s largest mahogany forests and supports diverse species [ 6 ]. Kibale National Park, encompassing 766 square kilometers in western Uganda, is renowned as the "Primate Capital of the World," hosting over 1,400 chimpanzees [ 7 ]. However, the sustainability of these forest reserves is under threat from habitat loss, biodiversity decline, resource overexploitation, and governance challenges. Forest sustainability, rooted in the principles of sustainable development, aims to balance current needs with the preservation of resources for future generations. This study assesses the sustainability of these forests using the Rapid Appraisal for Forest Sustainability (RAPFOS) framework, which evaluates ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions to identify leverage attributes that inform management decisions and conservation strategies. By utilizing this approach, the study provides an in-depth assessment of forest sustainability, offering practical insights for policymakers and stakeholders. The originality of this research lies in adapting the RAPFOS framework from the Rapid Appraisal for Fisheries (RAPFISH) methodology, traditionally used in fisheries assessments, to evaluate forest management strategies. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) is employed to visualize and analyze complex ecological and socio-economic data, bridging the gap between ecological conservation and economic benefits such as eco-tourism. This novel perspective enhances the evaluation of forest management practices and their implications for sustainability, particularly in the context of Uganda's diverse forest ecosystems. The findings align with Sustainable Development Goal 15, which promotes the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems. The findings of this research have substantial implications for policymakers, conservationists, and other stakeholders involved in forest management. By pinpointing key leverage attributes across ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions, the study underscores critical areas that necessitate targeted interventions. The results advocate for the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in decision-making processes to effectively integrate these attributes. Furthermore, the study illustrates the flexibility and applicability of the RAPFOS framework, underscoring its potential as a valuable tool for ecological research and sustainable management across various forest ecosystems. These insights are pivotal for formulating strategies that align with Sustainable Development Goal 15, ensuring the enduring sustainability of forest reserves in Uganda. In the first section, we introduce the topic, providing an overview of the research context and objectives. The second section details the methods and research procedures employed in the study. In the third section, we present the results, accompanied by a thorough discussion of their implications. Finally, the study concludes with a set of recommendations derived from the findings. 2 METHODS 2.1 Study Area Uganda is a landlocked country located in East Africa along the equator. It spans latitudes 4°12'N to 1°29'S and longitudes 29°34'E to 35°E, covering an area of approximately 241,555 km² [ 8 ]. It is bordered by Kenya to the east, South Sudan to the north, the Democratic Republic of Congo to the west, Rwanda to the southwest, and Tanzania to the south. This study examines Uganda’s three key forest reserves (Fig. 1 ). 2.1.1 Mabira Central Forest Reserve (MCFR) Gazetted in 1932, MCFR spans 313 km² across Buikwe, Mukono, and Kayunga districts. It lies between latitudes 0°24'N and 0°35'N and longitudes 32°52'E and 33°07'E, at altitudes ranging from 1,070 to 1,340m. The forest comprises flat-topped hills and shallow valleys, which serve as watersheds for rivers flowing into Lakes Victoria and Kyoga. Renowned for its biodiversity and critical ecosystem services, Mabira supports local livelihoods through timber and non-timber forest products. However, illegal logging, encroachment, and agricultural activities substantially threaten its ecological balance. 2.1.2 Budongo Central Forest Reserve (BCFR) As Uganda's most significant forest reserve, BCFR covers 793 km² across Buliisa, Hoima, and Masindi districts [ 6 ]. Located near the northern tip of Lake Albert, it lies between latitudes 1°35'N and 1°55'N and longitudes 31°18'E and 31°42'E, with altitudes ranging from 719 to 1,258 m. Its gently undulating terrain is interspersed with streams feeding into the Sonso and Weisoke rivers. Known for its mahogany trees and chimpanzee population, Budongo experiences an equatorial climate with bimodal rainfall ranging from 1,150 to 1,500 mm annually. However, unsustainable timber harvesting and encroachment undermine its long-term sustainability. 2.1.3 Kibale National Park (KNP) Initially gazetted as a forest reserve in 1932, Kibale was elevated to national park status in 1993, reducing commercial logging and other exploitative activities [ 9 ]. The park covers 795 km² between latitudes 0°13'N and 0°41'N and longitudes 30°10'E and 30°35'E, at elevations of 1,100 to 1,600 m [ 1 ]. It is a moist-evergreen forest and receives a mean annual rainfall of 1655mm (1970–2022) [ 10 ]. Known as the "Primate Capital of the World," it supports over 1,400 chimpanzees and diverse flora and fauna, making it a critical hub for biodiversity conservation. 2.2 Research Procedure This study employs a comprehensive methodology to assess the sustainability of the Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale Forest Reserves in Uganda. The research is structured around the Rapid Appraisal for Forest Sustainability (RAPFOS) framework, which evaluates ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions of sustainability. The RAPFOS framework was adapted from the Rapid Appraisal for Fisheries (RAPFISH) methodology, originally developed in 1999 by researchers at the University of British Columbia to evaluate fisheries sustainability through a multidisciplinary approach. RAPFISH utilizes multidimensional scaling (MDS) to assess sustainability across key dimensions, including ecological, economic, social, and institutional factors [ 11 , 12 ]. This method has proven effective for natural resource studies, especially in data-limited settings [ 11 ] and has been successfully modified for forestry applications to evaluate attributes such as ecological health, economic benefits, social impacts, and institutional governance [ 13 ]. Numerous studies have adapted the RAPFISH method for various ecosystems and environments. For example, [ 14 ] modified RAPFISH to RAP-SAS (Rapid Appraisal for Simple Agroforestry System) to assess the sustainability status of the Magersaren agroforestry system in Indonesia. Similarly, [ 15 ] and [ 16 ] applied the Rapid Appraisal for Tourism (RAP-Tourism) to evaluate the sustainability status of the Baturaden tourism destination and Bunaken ecotourism, respectively, in Indonesia. In this study, the RAPFOS framework was tailored by redefining its dimensions and selecting attributes from literature sources relevant to forest sustainability. Each dimension comprised six or more attributes to ensure a comprehensive evaluation [ 17 , 18 ]. Attributes were scored on a scale from 0 to 10 to reflect current conditions in each forest reserve (Table 1 ). Scores were normalized to ensure comparability across different dimensions. The research procedure followed five key steps as indicated in the flow diagram (Fig. 2 ) and highlighted below. Sustainability issues in the ecological, economic, social and institutional dimensions were identified among the three forest reserves of Mabira, Budongo and Kibale. Indicators were then chosen based on their relevance to forest management challenges. Literature Review: An extensive review of academic literature, institutional reports, and government documents was conducted to identify indicators based on their relevance to forest management challenges. This review helped establish a comprehensive understanding of the ecological, economic, social, and institutional challenges faced by the Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale forest reserves. Data Collection: Secondary data were gathered from reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journal articles, Uganda forestry management plans, environmental reports, and publications from the Uganda National Forestry Authority (NFA), the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE), and the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) (Table 1 ). The criteria for selecting data included its relevance (data specific to forest management, biodiversity, and sustainability), timeliness (data published within the last five years to capture recent trends and issues and credibility (data from authoritative and peer-reviewed sources). The data were converted into numerical scores in excel using predefined attributes for the ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions. Each indicator was scored from 0 to 10 to reflect the current conditions in each forest reserve as reflected in various literature sources. Scores were then normalized to ensure comparability across dimensions (“ Appendix 1 ”, Tables 5 —8). Data Analysis: The RAPFOS framework, performed using R-4.4.2 software for Windows was used to analyse the data. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) generated sustainability indices, while leverage analysis identified attributes with significant influence on the scores. Monte Carlo simulations addressed uncertainties. Interpretation of Results: The results were analyzed to discern patterns and provide actionable insights. This step involved a thorough examination of the sustainability indices and leverage points, leading to recommendations for targeted interventions aimed at enhancing the sustainability of the forest reserves. The insights gained from this analysis offer practical guidance for policymakers and conservationists working to improve forest management practices. Table 1 Reviewed data sources Dimension Indicator Reference Description of Indicator Ecological Rate of Forest Area Change [ 19 ] Monitors changes in forest area over time, indicating deforestation/afforestation trends. Biodiversity [ 20 , 10 , 21 , 22 , 23 ] Provides metrics on species richness and abundance within the forest reserves Carbon sequestration Uganda’s National REDD + Program/CONS/1415/00439. [ 24 , 25 , 26 ] Assesses the capacity of forests to capture and store atmospheric carbon dioxide. Soil quality [ 27 , 28 , 29 ] Evaluates soil stability, fertility, and its ability to support diverse plant and animal life. Invasive species [ 30 ] Identifies the presence and impact of non-native species that disrupt ecosystem balance. Natural recovery [ 31 ] Examines the forest's capacity to regenerate naturally after disturbances. Economic Employment in Forestry Sector [ 10 , 32 ] Details employment statistics related to the forestry sector. Contribution to GDP [ 19 ] Quantifies the economic contribution of forest-related activities to the national GDP. Variety of forest products and income [ 32 ] Evaluates the range of forest products and their economic value to local communities. Social Community Involvement [ 10 , 32 , 33 ] Discusses the extent of local community participation in forest management activities. Equity in Resource Access [ 24 , 25 ] Analyzes the fairness of resource distribution among community members. Livelihoods [ 32 ] Evaluates how forest resources contribute to the economic well-being of local communities. Conflict resolution [ 33 ] Examines mechanisms in place to address disputes over forest resource use. Education and awareness [ 24 ] Details educational programs aimed at raising awareness about forest conservation Benefit sharing [ 24 , 33 ] Describes the distribution of income from eco-tourism and other forest benefits to local communities. Institutional Existence of Forest Management Plans [ 19 ] Reviews management plans and their effectiveness. Forestry Policy Implementation Forestry strategic plan 2020–2025, National Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations 2016, [ 27 ] Reviews the availability and effectiveness of management plans for forest conservation. Stakeholder Collaboration [ 33 ] Details the cooperation between various stakeholders in forest management Funding National Forest Strategic Plan 2020–2025, [ 34 ] Evaluates the financial resources available for supporting forest conservation efforts. Table 2 Dimensions and attributes of the RAPFOS method for the study Dimension Attribute Scoring Range Ecological Forest cover change 0: Severe loss; 10: No loss Biodiversity richness 0: Declining; 10: Increasing Soil quality 0: Bad; 10: Good Carbon sequestration 0: Low; 10: High Invasive species 0: Negligible; 10: Significant Natural Recovery 0: Bad; 10: Good Economic Variety Forest products 0: Few; 10: Many Income from forest products 0: Low; 10: High Employment 0: Minimal; 10: High Ecotourism value 0: Low; 10: High Market access 0: Lacking; 10: Available Restoration costs 0: High; 10: Low Ecosystem value Social Community involvement 0: None; 10: Extensive Equity in resource access 0: Bad; 10: Good Livelihoods 0: Poor; 10: Good Conflict resolution 0: Frequent; 10: Rare Education and Awareness 0: Lacking; 10: Sufficient Benefit sharing policies 0:Absent. 10:Fully implemented Cultural value preservation 0: Neglected. 10: Highly respected Institutional Availability and effective of Management plans 0: Ineffective; 10: Effective Implementation of the National Environment Management Policy (NEMP), and the National Forestry Policy (NFP) 0: Weak; 10: Strong Stakeholder collaboration 0: None; 10: High Funding 0: Scarce; 10: Sufficient Legal Framework and Law Enforcement 0: Weak; 10: Strong Transparency 0: Bad; 10: Bad 2.3 Data Analysis 2.3.1 Sustainability Index The sustainability of Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale forest reserves was assessed across ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions. The MDS analysis in R provided a two-dimensional graphical representation, where sustainability levels were plotted on the horizontal axis (0–100 scale), and variations unrelated to sustainability were shown on the vertical axis. The sustainability index categorized performance into four levels (Table 2 ). This categorization aligns with earlier studies [ 35 , 15 , 14 ], offering a clear framework for comparing forest reserves. Table 3 Sustainability Index Categories Score Range (%) Description 0–25 Poor Sustainability 26–50 Limited Sustainability 51–75 Moderate Sustainability 76–100 High Sustainability 2.3.2 Leverage Analysis Leverage analysis was used to identify attributes with the most significant influence on sustainability scores across the four dimensions. Through systematic variation of each attribute and subsequent analysis of the impact on overall scores, this process elucidates sensitive attributes for intervention [ 36 ]. Attributes exhibiting high leverage were prioritized due to their substantial effect on sustainability outcomes. The determination of sustainable management leverage attributes of the forest ecosystems is based on the root mean square (RMS) value. The higher the value of RMS, the more sensitive that attribute is in affecting sustainability. The RMS value indicates the importance of the role of each attribute towards the sensitivity of the sustainability index [ 36 ]. Visual representations of leverage analysis results facilitate decision-makers in focusing on areas with the most significant potential for improvement [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. 2.3.3 Monte Carlo Simulation Monte Carlo simulations were used to evaluate the reliability of the sustainability scores by introducing random variations to the attribute values. This approach verified the stability of the results and addressed potential uncertainties, which could arise from several sources: (1) limited information, (2) errors in scoring due to an incomplete understanding of the research location’s conditions or misconceptions about the attributes or scoring methods, (3) data entry mistakes or missing data, and (4) the repeated stability of the MDS analysis process [ 11 , 40 ]. Additionally, Monte Carlo analysis estimated the impact of errors within a 95% confidence interval. The Monte Carlo index values were compared with the MDS index to assess the results' consistency. The stress value and termination coefficient (R²) were used to determine the need for additional attributes and to reflect how accurately the studied dimensions matched the actual situation. 3 RESULTS 3.1 Sustainability Index The sustainability index reveals varying performances across the three forest reserves. Kibale NPF excels with best scores of 85.0% in institutional, 81.7% in social, 81.5% in ecology, and 77.4% in economic dimensions, indicating high sustainability. Budongo CFR shows moderate sustainability, scoring 74.0%, 72.7%, 70.9%, and 69.274.0% in social, ecology, institutional, and economic dimensions, respectively. Mabira CFR exhibits moderate sustainability but with the lowest scores of 65%, 64.8%, 64.0%, and 61.5% for institutional, economic, social, and ecological dimensions, respectively. Table 3 summarizes these scores, and Fig. 2 presents corresponding graphs. The kite diagram (Fig. 3) offers a comparative visual representation of the sustainability performance of the three forest reserves across the four assessed dimensions. Each axis corresponds to a specific dimension, and the diagram's shape illustrates the relative performance of each reserve. As shown in Fig. 4 , Kibale NPF exhibits a broad, well-rounded shape, signifying its strong performance across all dimensions. In contrast, Mabira CFR presents a more constrained shape, underscoring its lower sustainability scores, particularly in the ecological and economic dimensions, where significant improvements are needed. These differences highlight the importance of tailored management strategies to address unique challenges and leverage strengths specific to each forest reserve. Table 4 Sustainability Index Values Forest Ecology economic Social Institutional Mabira 61.5 64.8 64.0 65.0 Budongo 72.7 69.2 74.0 70.9 Kibale 81.5 77.4 81.7 85.0 3.2 Monte Carlo Simulations Monte Carlo simulations were performed for each dimension using the scatter to assess the uncertainty and the impact of random errors. The results provide a probability distribution of the sustainability scores, helping to quantify the confidence in the sustainability performance of each forest reserve. Ecology: The Monte Carlo simulation for ecology shows a wide range of possible sustainability scores, reflecting the high uncertainty due to factors such as biodiversity loss and climate variability. Economic: The economic dimension had relatively narrower variability, with Kibale and Budongo showing more stable economic conditions than Mabira. Social: The social dimension exhibited a broader range of outcomes, indicating that social factors such as community involvement and conflict resolution have a high degree of uncertainty in their impact on sustainability. Institutional: The institutional dimension had a high variability, primarily due to the differences in governance structures and the availability of funding and resources across the reserves. 3.3 Leverage Analysis Results The leverage analysis was used to identify key attributes that most influence the sustainability status of forest reserves across ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions (Fig. 5 ). These attributes are deduced from the Root Mean Square (RMS) value, which indicates the level of influence of the attribute on the sustainability index value. High RMS values indicate the most influential attributes and low RMS values indicate attributes with small effect on the sustainability index. Invasive species (RMS = 2.6) and carbon sequestration (RMS = 2.2) emerged as the most sensitive attributes in the ecological dimension. The economic sustainability of forest reserves is most influenced by ecotourism value (RMS = 2.1) and income from forest products (RMS = 2.0). Equity in resource access (RMS = 1.24) and livelihoods (RMS = 1.35) were identified as the most critical social attributes. Institutional sustainability hinges on funding availability (RMS = 2.91) and stakeholder collaboration (RMS = 2.25). 4 DISCUSSION 4.1 Kibale National Park Forest The findings indicate that Kibale NPF excels across all sustainability dimensions, achieving scores of 81.5% in ecological, 77.4% in economic, 81.7% in social, and 85.0% in institutional dimensions. This superior performance can be attributed to robust conservation strategies, effective institutional frameworks, and significant community involvement. The forest's designation as a national park in 1993 introduced stricter protection measures, including the prohibition of resource extraction [ 41 ]. Enhanced patrolling has curbed illegal activities such as poaching and habitat destruction, contributing to increased biodiversity [ 10 ]. Continuous research has further supported biodiversity monitoring efforts [ 42 ]. The Uganda Wildlife Authority's (UWA) stewardship has been pivotal in enforcing regulations and promoting sustainable practices. Numerous studies corroborate the success in biodiversity conservation. For instance, [ 10 ] report increases in populations of bushpigs, giant forest hogs, ungulates, and elephants. [ 22 ] observed a rise in the number of diurnal primates, attributing this to the regeneration of forest areas, effective patrolling, and community outreach by UWA and its partners. [ 21 ] noted similar trends in plant population growth in their study of citropsis articulate occurrence and distribution across Kibale, Budongo, and Mabira Forest Reserves. Community participation plays a significant role in Kibale's sustainability. Approximately 54% of the local community collaborates with UWA in forest restoration and monitoring efforts, including agroforestry and carbon tracking initiatives [ 24 , 25 ]. UWA's income-sharing programs, providing 20% of total revenue to local communities, along with other household-level developmental initiatives, have enhanced local livelihoods [ 24 ]. [ 10 ] highlight the community benefits from the operations of the Makerere University Biological Field Station, which employs residents and supports various educational programs. Such integrated efforts underscore the importance of participatory forest management, although increasing the revenue-sharing quota could further bolster social sustainability. Kibale’s success exemplifies a model of sustainable forest management, balancing ecological integrity and socioeconomic benefits 4.2 Budongo Central Forest Reserve (Budongo CFR): A Balanced View on Sustainability Budongo CFR exhibits moderate sustainability, with scores of 72.7% in ecological, 69.2% in economic, 74.0% in social, and 70.9% in institutional dimensions. This moderate status is shaped by a balance of positive and negative factors that influence its overall sustainability. The implementation of Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) has played a significant role in enhancing Budongo's sustainability. CFM initiatives have promoted alternative livelihoods, offered credit facilities to community members, and reduced reliance on forest resources [ 32 ]. Conservation education programs have also contributed positively by fostering human-wildlife coexistence and raising community awareness [ 43 ]. Moreover, restoration initiatives have been instrumental in improving ecological health, helping to mitigate the adverse effects of selective logging and agricultural encroachment. Despite these efforts, several critical issues impede Budongo's progress towards higher sustainability. The prevalence of invasive species presents a significant ecological challenge, hindering the growth of timber trees and negatively affecting biodiversity [ 44 ]. Economically, while CFM has improved access to legally sourced forest products, it has not led to significant changes in household incomes. [ 32 ] noted that although CFM reduced the community's dependence on forest environmental income, it did not substantially increase overall household income, thereby limiting economic benefits. Additionally, crop-raiding by wildlife continues to cause conflicts within the community, further complicating social sustainability. These persistent challenges counteract the positive contributions of CFM and educational programs, resulting in Budongo's moderate sustainability status. Addressing these challenges is crucial for enhancing Budongo's sustainability. Efforts to control invasive species and improve biodiversity are essential for bolstering ecological health. Expanding income-generating opportunities through ecotourism or sustainable forest product enterprises could provide much-needed economic uplift. Moreover, mitigating human-wildlife conflicts through more effective management strategies will enhance social harmony and further support Budongo's sustainability. By balancing these interventions, Budongo CFR can progress from moderate to higher sustainability levels. 4.3 Mabira Central Forest Reserve (Mabira CFR) Mabira CFR ranks lowest in all dimensions, scoring 61.5% in ecology, 64.8% in economic, 64.0% in social, and 65.0% in institutional dimensions. Research supports these findings, highlighting degradation of ecological integrity and habitants for biodiversity from extensive deforestation, illegal logging, and unsustainable harvesting practices [ 45 ]. Additionally, Mabira communities derive minimal economic and social benefits from the forest, as collaborative management agreements with the National Forestry Authority (NFA) are poorly enforced and alternative livelihood projects are underfunded [ 46 ]. While limited resource extraction is permitted under these agreements, communities feel they need to be more adequately supported, exacerbating their reliance on unsustainable practices. Institutional weaknesses, including insufficient enforcement of forestry policies and inadequate staffing, further undermine sustainability efforts [ 27 ]. Mabira's proximity to industrial areas like Kampala and Jinja further exacerbates resource exploitation. Weak law enforcement has led to increased hunting, threatening biodiversity. [ 23 ] report low densities of Nahan's partridge, attributing this to high disturbance levels and degradation of the forest. [ 23 ] further indicated that hunters reportedly kill up to 18 Nahan's Partridges weekly, reducing populations of this already vulnerable species in the forest. Despite these challenges, certain areas retain high carbon stocks, indicating potential for ecological recovery [ 27 ]. Strengthening governance, increasing reforestation, and integrating community-centered conservation programs are essential strategies for reversing Mabira's negative trends. 4.4 Leverages in Forest Sustainability 4.4.1 Ecological Leverage Invasive species (RMS = 2.6) and carbon sequestration (RMS = 2.2) have emerged as the most sensitive attributes within the ecological dimension. These findings align with numerous studies emphasizing invasive species as a significant threat to forest ecosystem stability [ 44 , 47 , 48 ]. Effective management of invasive species and enhancing carbon sequestration are crucial for improving ecological sustainability across Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale forest reserves. Previous research highlights that forest management practices such as selective cutting and restoration significantly boost carbon sequestration and overall ecosystem health [ 49 , 50 , 51 ]. For instance, [ 49 ] demonstrate that restoration efforts over 50 years in selectively logged forests can surpass primary forests in carbon storage capacity. To mitigate climate change impacts, forest managers should prioritize sustainable silvicultural practices, fire risk management, and afforestation, ensuring high carbon sequestration rates. This strategy is especially critical for Mabira, where logging and encroachment severely threaten ecological integrity [ 23 ], and Budongo, where restoration programs show considerable promise despite ongoing pressures. 4.4.2 Economic Leverage The economic dimension of sustainability in these forest reserves is primarily influenced by the value of ecotourism (RMS = 2.1) and income from forest products (RMS = 2.0). Enhancing these areas can significantly improve economic outcomes. Ecotourism offers a dual advantage by generating revenue and supporting conservation efforts. It fosters employment, local entrepreneurship, and cultural heritage preservation while promoting sustainable resource use [ 52 , 53 ]. Innovative strategies, such as adopting mobile applications, could further expand forest tourism markets and enhance visitor engagement [ 54 ]. Additionally, addressing challenges in forest product markets, such as fluctuating demand and increased competition, requires informed research approaches [ 55 ]. Strengthening market linkages for sustainably sourced forest products could diversify community incomes and ensure environmental sustainability. 4.4.3 Social Leverage Equity in resource access (RMS = 1.24) and livelihoods (RMS = 1.35) were identified as the most critical social attributes. To address these issues, inclusive community engagement and equitable distribution of forest-derived benefits are essential. Studies have demonstrated that community forestry programs can significantly enhance livelihoods by improving access to natural, financial, and social assets [ 56 ]. Policymakers should consider decentralizing resource management, tailoring central forest policies to local contexts, and supporting non-forestry income-generating activities to reduce community dependence on forest resources [ 57 , 58 ]. Co-management initiatives and household-level financial programs are critical for improving the socio-economic status of forest-dependent populations, fostering a more sustainable relationship with forest resources. 4.4.4 Institutional Leverage Institutional sustainability is heavily reliant on funding availability (RMS = 2.91) and stakeholder collaboration (RMS = 2.25). Adequate financial resources are necessary for implementing robust forest management initiatives. Examples such as the Prince Albert Model Forest (PAMF) in Saskatchewan and the Brazilian Amazon Fund illustrate how funding can bolster conservation efforts, stakeholder engagement, and regional land management [ 59 , 60 ]. Conversely, declines in funding risk undermining these efforts, highlighting the need for sustainable financing mechanisms. Stakeholder collaboration is equally crucial for institutional resilience and forest sustainability. Studies have shown that inclusive governance, where diverse stakeholders, including local communities, collaborate on conservation initiatives, significantly benefits forest management outcomes [ 61 , 62 ]. Case studies from Canada and Nigeria underscore that empowering community participation builds trust, enhances local stewardship, and strengthens long-term conservation results [ 58 , 63 ]. 5 CONCLUSION This study evaluated the sustainability of Uganda's forest reserves—Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale—using the RAPFOS methodology, which assesses ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions. The findings revealed significant disparities in sustainability performance across the reserves, highlighting key areas for intervention. Ecologically, invasive species and carbon sequestration emerged as the most sensitive factors, emphasizing the urgent need for biodiversity conservation and the enhancement of ecosystem services. Economically, ecotourism and forest product revenue were identified as crucial drivers, underscoring the importance of sustainable resource utilization and market development. Socially, promoting equitable resource access and enhancing livelihoods were pivotal for improving community well-being and inclusivity. Institutionally, securing financial resources and fostering stakeholder cooperation were critical for robust governance, indicating the need for increased financial support and enhanced governance frameworks. To address these challenges, we recommend controlling invasive species, promoting the reforestation of native species, and adopting sustainable harvesting practices. Collaborative programs with local communities are essential for raising awareness and encouraging active participation in conservation efforts. Prioritizing biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration will significantly enhance ecological sustainability and contribute to the resilience of forest ecosystems. Expanding sustainable forest product markets through fair trade practices is also recommended to ensure that local communities benefit economically, thereby reducing the pressure on forest resources. Securing adequate funding for forest conservation through national and international mechanisms, including public-private partnerships, is essential. Encouraging multi-stakeholder collaboration by establishing platforms that unite government agencies, local communities, private sector stakeholders, and NGOs can improve resource management and governance. Future Research Directions This study relied on secondary data, which may not fully capture the real-time conditions of the forest reserves. Additionally, the impact of climate change on forest sustainability was not considered, despite its significant effects on forest ecosystems. Future research should incorporate primary data collection, involving on-site analysis and expert opinions from forest managers. Including the effects of climate change in sustainability assessments would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges these forests face. Declarations Data availability statement The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information files. The RAPFOS excel execution program and the corresponding files for this research can be availed on request. Author contributions All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Obed Byamukama was responsible for material preparation, data collection, analysis, and drafting the initial manuscript. Michael Asante Biney conducted interpreted the results, and critically revised the first draft. Wonny Ahmad Ridwan supervised the research, provided critical intellectual input, and reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript Financial interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Funding No funding was received for conducting this study. Clinical trial number : Not applicable. Ethics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish declarations : Not applicable. References National Forestry Authority. 2024. Land Management for Central Forest Reserves. https://www.nfa.go.ug/index.php/resources/land-management United Nations. (2020). The Second Voluntary National Review Report on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26352VNR_2020_Uganda_Report.pdf National Forestry Authority. 2015. State of Uganda's Forestry. https://www.nfa.go.ug/index.php/publications/reports/status-of-forest-cover-2016 Ikiriza, H., Yasin, I., & Nuwagira, U. (2022). Review of Deforestation in Ugandan Tropical Rainforest Reserves: A Threat to Natural Medicine. East African Journal of Environment and Natural Resources. 5(1):204–217. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajenr.5.1.742 Ministry of Water and Environment. (2017b). Revised Forest Management Plan for Mabira Central Forest Reserves for the Period July 2010–June 2020, Ministry of Water and Environment, Kampala, Uganda. https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/library/FMP%20Mabira.pdf Okimat, J. P., Ehbrecht, M., Glatthorn, J., & Babweteera, F. (2023). Effects of site conditions on regeneration of African mahogany (Khaya anthotheca) in a semi‐deciduous East African tropical rainforest. Restoration Ecology. 31(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14032. Otali, E., Hartel, J. A., Ross, E. A., Wrangham, R. W., & Machanda, Z. (2021). Holistic approach for conservation of chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1894v1 Uganda National Bureau of Statistics. 2024. Uganda Profile. https://www.ubos.org/uganda-profile/ Kolinski, L., & Milich, K. M. (2021). Human-wildlife conflict mitigation impacts community perceptions around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Diversity, 13(4), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13040145 Hou, R., Gogarten, J. F., Golooba, M., Kalbitzer, U., Kirumira, D., Omeja, P. A., ... & Chapman, C. A. (2024). Parks can effectively protect ungulates and elephants despite a constant poaching threat. Global Ecology and Conservation, 54, e03075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03075 Fauzi, A., & Anna, S. (2002). Evaluasi status keberlanjutan pembangunan perikanan: aplikasi pendekatan Rapfish. Jurnal Jurusan sosial ekonomi perikanan FPIK IPB. 4(3):43-55. Jimenez, É. A., Gonzalez, J. G., Amaral, M. T., & Fredou, F. L. (2021). Sustainability indicators for the integrated assessment of coastal small-scale fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics, 181, 106910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106910 Laitupa, J., Baskoro, M. S., Wiryawan, B., & Mustaruddin, M. (2023). Livelihoods Sustainability of Tuna Handline Fishery in Buru Island. Agrikan Jurnal Agribisnis Perikanan, 16(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.52046/agrikan.v16i1.1368 Ningsih, R. H., Afandhi, A., & Prasetya, A. (2023). Sustainability Sustainability Status Index of Simple Agroforestry of Magersaren (SAM) with RAP-SAS Method. Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan (Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Management). 13(3):462–474. https://doi.org/10.29244/jpsl.13.3.462-474. Purwaningsih, R., Annisa, H. N., Susanty, A., & Puspitaningrum, D. D. (2020). Assessment of tourism destination sustainability status using rap-tourism case of natural based tourism. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2217, No. 1). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000872. Ario, D., Karuniasa, M., Patria, M.P., & Roeroe, K.A. (2021). Assessment of Bunaken Island for sustainable tourism destination using the rapid appraisal for fisheries. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 716(1): 012094. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/716/1/012094 Nugraha, D. R., Husodo, T., & Parikesit, P. (2018). Evaluating The Level of Economic Sustainability of Forest Resources in Forest Management Unit (FMU) of Yogyakarta. Ecodevelopment. 1(1). https://doi.org/10.24198/ecodev.v1i1.37588. Saeed, N., Nam, H., Haq, M. I. U., & Muhammad Saqib, D. B. (2018). A survey on multidimensional scaling. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178155 Ministry of Water and Environment. (2016). State of Uganda’s Forestry 2016. https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/State%20of%20Uganda%27s%20Forestry-2015.pdf Ministry of Water and Environment. (2017a). Ecological Baseline Report for Mabira. https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/library/Ecological%20Baseline%20Report.pdf Wangalwa, R., Olet, E. A., Kagoro-Rugunda, G., Tolo, C. U., Ogwang, P. E., & Barasa, B. (2021). Occurrence of Citropsis articulata in tropical forests in Uganda: implication for ex situ conservation. International Journal of Forestry Research, 2021(1), 5582461. https://doi 10.1155/2021/5582461 Chapman, C. A., Gogarten, J. F., Golooba, M., Kalbitzer, U., Omeja, P. A., Opito, E. A., & Sarkar, D. (2025). Fifty+ years of primate research illustrates complex drivers of abundance and increasing primate numbers. American Journal of Primatology, 87(1), e23577. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23577 Sande, E., Akoth, S., Rutazaana, U., & Olupot, W. (2020). Status of Nahan’s partridge Ptilopachus nahani (Dubois, 1905) (Aves: Galliformes: Odontophoridae) in Uganda. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 12(15), 17063-17076. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5343.12.15.17063-17076 Uganda Wildlife Authority. (2024). Revenue Sharing. https://ugandawildlife.org/revenue-sharing/ Kigenyi, R., Kalulu, R., & Rusoke, T. (2024). The Influence of Participatory Forest Monitoring on Natural Forest Management and Community Welfare: A Case Study in Kibale National Park, Western Uganda. Journal of Global Ecology and Environment. 20(4):89–101. https://doi.org/10.56557/jogee/2024/v20i48914 Nel, A., Lyons, K., Fisher, J., & Mwayafu, D. (2018). An environmental justice perspective on the state of carbon forestry in Uganda. In Conservation and Development in Uganda. pp. 125-147. Routledge. Jjagwe, A., Bernard, B., & Kakembo, V. (2021). Land Use Cover Types and Forest Management Options for Carbon in Mabira Central Forest Reserve. Springer. P 2733–2754. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42091-8_145-1 Tamale, J., Hüppi, R., Griepentrog, M., Turyagyenda, L. F., Barthel, M., Doetterl, S., ... & Van Straaten, O. (2021). Nutrient limitations regulate soil greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical forests: evidence from an ecosystem-scale nutrient manipulation experiment in Uganda. Soil, 7(2), 433-451. Pebsworth, P. A., Hillier, S., Wendler, R., Glahn, R., Ta, C. A., Arnason, J. T., & Young, S. L. (2019). Geophagy among East African Chimpanzees: consumed soils provide protection from plant secondary compounds and bioavailable iron. Environmental geochemistry and health. 41:2911-27. Ssemanda, D. M., & Ssekuubwa, E. (2023). Broussonetia papyrifera invasion reduces the abundance and basal area of selected native timber species in a tropical moist forest in Uganda. Biological Invasions, 25(1), 165-178. Valtonen, A., Korkiatupa, E., Holm, S., Malinga, G. M., & Nakadai, R. (2021). Remotely sensed vegetation greening along a restoration gradient of a tropical forest, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Land Degradation & Development. 32(18):5166-77. Mawa, C., Babweteera, F., & Tumusiime, D. M. (2022). Livelihood outcomes after two decades of co-managing a state forest in Uganda. Forest Policy and Economics, 135, 102644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102644 Babweteera F, Mawa C, Asiimwe C, Okwir E, Muhanguzi G, Okimat JP, Robinson S. Budongo forest: A paradigm shift in conservation? In Conservation and development in Uganda 2018 Sep 21 (pp. 104-122). Routledge. Ministry of Water and Environment. (2013). The National Forest Plan 2011/12 – 2021/22.https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/National%20Forest%20Plan%20Uganda.pdf Parmawati, R., Soemarno, S., & Kurnianto, A. S. (2019). Evaluation on social capital of sustainable agroforestry system: A case from Argosari Village, Malang. Jurnal Penelitian Sosial dan Ekonomi Kehutanan, 16(3), 151-167. https://doi.org/10.20886/jpsek.2019.16.3.151-167. Pitcher, T. J., Lam, M. E., Ainsworth, C., Martindale, A., Nakamura, K., Perry, R. I., & Ward, T. (2013). Improvements to Rapfish: A rapid evaluation technique for fisheries integrating ecological and human dimensionsa. Journal of fish biology, 83(4), 865-889. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12122 Dzikrillah, G.F., Anwar, S., & Sutjahjo, S.H. (2017). ANALISIS KEBERLANJUTAN USAHATANI PADI SAWAH DI KECAMATAN SOREANG KABUPATEN BANDUNG. Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan (Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Management). 7(2):107–113. https://doi.org/10.29244/jpsl.7.2.107-113 Tatipikalawan, J. M., Haryadi, F. T., Sulastri, E., & Widi, T. S. M. (2021). A Multi-Dimensional Approach to the Sustainable Development of Moa Buffaloes in Maluku Province, Indonesia. Buletin Peternakan, 45(4), 254-261. https://doi.org/10.21059/buletinpeternak.v45i4.68838. Agussaini, H., Rujiman, R., Sirojuzilam, S., & Purwoko, A. (2021). Evaluation of coastal area development sustainability of Banda Aceh post recovery. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 881(1): 012055. https://doi:10.1088/1755-1315/881/1/012055 Kavanagh, P., & Pitcher, T.J. (2004). Implementing Microsoft Excel software for Rapfish: A technique for the rapid appraisal of fisheries status. Fisheries Centre Research University of British Columbia, Canada. https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0074801 Hartter, J., & Southworth, J. (2009). Dwindling resources and fragmentation of landscapes around parks: wetlands and forest patches around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Landscape Ecology. 24(5):643–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9339-7 Sarkar, D., Bortolamiol, S., Gogarten, J. F., Hartter, J., Hou, R., Kagoro, W., ... & Chapman, C. A. (2022). Exploring multiple dimensions of conservation success: Long‐term wildlife trends, anti‐poaching efforts and revenue sharing in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Animal Conservation, 25(4), 532-549. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12765 Walwambe, D., & Barakagira, A. (2024). The Influence of Conservation Education on Pro-wildlife Sustainability Behaviour at the Eco-centric Zone of Budongo Central Forest Reserve in Buliisa District, Uganda. https://doi.org/10.56557/jogee/2024/v20i38832 Isingoma, J., Sande, E., Kityo, R., & Hughes, D. F. (2023). Amphibian communities along a forest degradation gradient in an East African forest reserve. Ecological Informatics, 75, 102021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102021 Tugume, P., Buyinza, M., Namaalwa, J., Mucunguzi, P., Kamatenesi, M., Kakudidi, E., Kalema, J. (2016). Non-Timber Forest Products Trade and Community Livelihoods around Mabira Central Forest Reserve, Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Studies. 4(4):1. https://doi.org/10.5296/jas.v4i4.9482 Zilio, M. I., Restrepo, A. F. S., Gervazoni, P., Minuti, G., Muzón, J., Djeddour, D., ... & Sosa, A. (2025). Economic loss of ecosystem services caused by yellow flag iris and white ginger lily, two invasive alien plants in natural ecosystems of Argentina. Journal for Nature Conservation, 84, 126789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126789 Sarkar, S., & Deb, P. (2024). Community-level impacts of plant invasion in tropical forests of Northeast India. Plant Ecology, 225(10), 1079-1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-024-01456-z Kowalska, A., & Kołaczkowska, E. (2024). Invasive neophytes alter ecological functions and services of riparian hardwood forests. Ecological Indicators, 166, 112386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112386 Ruiz-Peinado, R., Oviedo, J. A. B., Senespleda, E. L., Oviedo, F. B., & del Río Gaztelurrutia, M. (2017). Forest management and carbon sequestration in the Mediterranean region: A review. Forest Systems, 26(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2017262-11205. Hou, J., Chen, Z., Tian, J., Xu, L., Zhang, Z., & He, N. (2020). Selective harvesting at rational intervals promotes carbon sequestration in temperate coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forests in China. Journal of Forestry Research. 32(3):1025–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01164-0 Liang, Y. (2024). The effects of climate change and forest management on forest carbon sequestration potential. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-3276 Henri, H., Hakim, L., & Batoro, J. (2017). Ecotourism Development Strategy of Pelawan Forest in Central Bangka, Bangka Belitung. Journal of Indonesian Tourism and Development Studies. 5(3):145–154. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jitode.2017.005.03.02 Purbaningrum, C. W. D. (2018). Community-based ecotourism as an alternative to the development of vocational tourism. Jurnal Taman Vokasi, 6(2), 170-175. https://doi.org/10.30738/jtv.v6i2.4150 Kozłowska-Adamczak, M., Jezierska-Thöle, A., & Essing-Jelonkiewicz, P. (2023). Leveraging Information and Communication Technologies in Forest Ecotourism: A Case Study from Poland. Sustainability. 16(1): 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010056 Hetemäki, L., & Hurmekoski, E. (2016). Forest Products Markets under Change: Review and Research Implications. Current Forestry Reports. 2(3):177–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-016-0042-z Ayu, H.Y., Yuwono, S.B., Kaskoyo, H., Banuwa, I.S., & Safe, I.R. (2022). Penilaian Dampak Hutan Kemasyarakatan Melalui Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. Jurnal Hutan Tropis. 10(1):47. https://doi.org/10.20527/jht.v10i1.13087. Rahman, M. M., Mahmud, M. A. A., Shahidullah, M., Nath, T. K., & Jashimuddin, M. (2016). The competitiveness of the phytosociological attributes of the protected areas in Bangladesh with that in the other tropical countries. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 35(6), 431-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2016.1202841 Hashiguchi, H., Pulhin, J.M., Dizon, J.T., & Camacho, L.D. (2016). Impacts of Community-Based Forest Management Policies Implemented by a Local Forest Institution: A Case Study from Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines. Small-scale Forestry. 15(3):335–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9324-3 Hvenegaard, G., Dunn, P., Olexson, T., Clark, K., & Carr, S. (2015). Promoting Sustainable Forest Management Among Stakeholders in the Prince Albert Model Forest, Canada. Conservation and Society. 13(1):51. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.161222. Correa, J., Van Der Hoff, R., & Rajão, R. (2019). Results-Based Forest Conservation Funding: Amazon Fund 10 Years Later, Lessons from the World’s Largest REDD+ Program. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201812.0327.v2 Massiri, S. D., Malik, A., Pribadi, H., Rahman, A., & Maiwa, A. (2024). The Role of Stakeholders and Exogenous Variables Affecting the Outcome of Social Forestry Policies in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Forestry Research. 11(2):211-27. https://doi.org/10.59465/ijfr.2024.11.2.211-227 Cudiamat, M. A., & Valdez, M. L. (2022). Community Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Awareness of the Ecological and Socio-Economic uses of Mangroves in Calatagan, Batangas, Philippines. International Journal of Conservation Science. 13(4):1319-32 Arifalo, S. F. (2024). Assessment of Community Participation in Forest Conservation in Ondo State, Nigeria. African Journal of Agriculture and Food Science. 7(3):39–55. https://doi.org/10.52589/AJAFS-FKZMK6T9 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files APPENDIX1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 28 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 24 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 20 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 27 Mar, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Mar, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Mar, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 14 Mar, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 14 Mar, 2025 First submitted to journal 01 Mar, 2025 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-6136620","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":438767598,"identity":"fc9536e2-1b29-418e-88c3-df9bae632b37","order_by":0,"name":"Obed Byamukama¹⃰","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"IPB University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Obed","middleName":"","lastName":"Byamukama¹⃰","suffix":""},{"id":438767599,"identity":"dd3a09e9-bccc-47ac-98d9-5ffef5ffefb3","order_by":1,"name":"Wonny Ahmad Ridwan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"IPB University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wonny","middleName":"Ahmad","lastName":"Ridwan","suffix":""},{"id":438767600,"identity":"f3ecf4d3-26ec-44ef-9811-40e9add78bc4","order_by":2,"name":"Michael Asante Biney","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Michael","middleName":"Asante","lastName":"Biney","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-01 22:08:08","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6136620/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6136620/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":80374169,"identity":"95c8a4b3-a0a0-41b7-bc32-6ac2e2018ecf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-11 07:26:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":77498,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocation of Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale Forest Reserves in Uganda.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6136620/v1/c0771a01c2796550b2c16b15.jpg"},{"id":80373201,"identity":"3f0a194f-6432-418a-ad09-961f03b423c1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-11 07:18:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":57514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlow diagram for the RAPFOS procedure steps for this study\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6136620/v1/533c9fb150f51e0407d79a0b.jpg"},{"id":80373202,"identity":"4c8ce672-eecc-412d-95f5-05b4b609d690","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-11 07:18:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":37832,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSustainability index scores for Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale forest reserves across ecology (a), institutional (b), social (c), and economic (d) dimensions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6136620/v1/a9fba54211748a00f139629b.jpg"},{"id":80374171,"identity":"c880f705-4261-48c8-a66e-9f6a0968d218","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-11 07:26:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":34125,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eKite Diagram for Sustainability Performance Across all Dimensions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6136620/v1/852886107a74bc30d976a870.jpg"},{"id":80373206,"identity":"42b8aadf-b669-429e-ad30-05b663eb7632","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-11 07:18:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40132,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMonte Carlo Simulation Results for (a) Ecology, (b) Economics, (c) Social, and (d) Institutional Dimensions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6136620/v1/79588635db4cc13dbac40fd3.jpg"},{"id":80373208,"identity":"39c41756-a0d7-4f43-90ea-d66d220b133a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-11 07:18:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":123785,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLeverage Analysis of attributes in ecological (a), institutional (b), social (c), and economic (d) dimensions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6136620/v1/68e2530b89f3548ff8a3981e.jpg"},{"id":80375577,"identity":"e6269617-3e66-4019-a2f2-e414ea84d9e8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-11 07:50:55","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1360918,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6136620/v1/ded585eb-56df-4682-a684-8b8f3931e454.pdf"},{"id":80373199,"identity":"b4572694-b44c-4e54-8a3b-5ce2867085ab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-11 07:18:54","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17777,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"APPENDIX1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6136620/v1/86aa8664d8f5b0eb64d6ddda.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eSustainability Assessment of Uganda’s Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale Forest Reserves\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1 INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eForests play an essential role in maintaining ecological balance, conserving biodiversity, and supporting socioeconomic development. In Uganda, forests cover approximately 1.9\u0026nbsp;million hectares, representing 10% of the nation's land area [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. These forests provide vital ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration and water cycle regulation, and serve as habitats for endangered species like chimpanzees and forest elephants. Additionally, they are integral to Uganda's economy, supplying 88% of the country\u0026rsquo;s energy, contributing 61% of tourism income, and providing employment to about one million people [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. The forestry sector significantly enhances Uganda's GDP through the production of timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs), contributing 3.5% of GDP annually between 2016 and 2019 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite these benefits, Uganda\u0026rsquo;s forests face significant threats that compromise their sustainability. Deforestation, forest degradation, and encroachment, driven by agricultural expansion, illegal logging, urbanization, and charcoal production, are primary challenges. The country has experienced an average annual forest loss of 122,000 hectares since 1990, with peak losses reaching 250,000 hectares per year between 2010 and 2015 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Reforestation efforts, averaging only 7,000 hectares annually over the past 15 years, have been insufficient to counterbalance these losses. Weak governance, fragmented policies, and institutional inefficiencies exacerbate these issues, further undermining sustainable forest management [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. These challenges threaten the ecological integrity, economic opportunities, and social benefits that forests provide, underscoring the urgent need for sustainable forest management (SFM).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey forest ecosystems, such as Kibale National Park Forest, Mabira, and Budongo Forest Reserves, exemplify Uganda's biodiversity and ecosystem challenges. Mabira Forest, spanning 300 square kilometers in central Uganda, plays a crucial role in biodiversity conservation and water regulation within the Lake Victoria basin [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Budongo Forest, covering 793 square kilometers in the northwest, is one of East Africa\u0026rsquo;s largest mahogany forests and supports diverse species [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Kibale National Park, encompassing 766 square kilometers in western Uganda, is renowned as the \"Primate Capital of the World,\" hosting over 1,400 chimpanzees [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the sustainability of these forest reserves is under threat from habitat loss, biodiversity decline, resource overexploitation, and governance challenges. Forest sustainability, rooted in the principles of sustainable development, aims to balance current needs with the preservation of resources for future generations. This study assesses the sustainability of these forests using the Rapid Appraisal for Forest Sustainability (RAPFOS) framework, which evaluates ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions to identify leverage attributes that inform management decisions and conservation strategies. By utilizing this approach, the study provides an in-depth assessment of forest sustainability, offering practical insights for policymakers and stakeholders. The originality of this research lies in adapting the RAPFOS framework from the Rapid Appraisal for Fisheries (RAPFISH) methodology, traditionally used in fisheries assessments, to evaluate forest management strategies. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) is employed to visualize and analyze complex ecological and socio-economic data, bridging the gap between ecological conservation and economic benefits such as eco-tourism. This novel perspective enhances the evaluation of forest management practices and their implications for sustainability, particularly in the context of Uganda's diverse forest ecosystems. The findings align with Sustainable Development Goal 15, which promotes the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of this research have substantial implications for policymakers, conservationists, and other stakeholders involved in forest management. By pinpointing key leverage attributes across ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions, the study underscores critical areas that necessitate targeted interventions. The results advocate for the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in decision-making processes to effectively integrate these attributes. Furthermore, the study illustrates the flexibility and applicability of the RAPFOS framework, underscoring its potential as a valuable tool for ecological research and sustainable management across various forest ecosystems. These insights are pivotal for formulating strategies that align with Sustainable Development Goal 15, ensuring the enduring sustainability of forest reserves in Uganda.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the first section, we introduce the topic, providing an overview of the research context and objectives. The second section details the methods and research procedures employed in the study. In the third section, we present the results, accompanied by a thorough discussion of their implications. Finally, the study concludes with a set of recommendations derived from the findings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Study Area\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUganda is a landlocked country located in East Africa along the equator. It spans latitudes 4\u0026deg;12'N to 1\u0026deg;29'S and longitudes 29\u0026deg;34'E to 35\u0026deg;E, covering an area of approximately 241,555 km\u0026sup2; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. It is bordered by Kenya to the east, South Sudan to the north, the Democratic Republic of Congo to the west, Rwanda to the southwest, and Tanzania to the south. This study examines Uganda\u0026rsquo;s three key forest reserves (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.1 Mabira Central Forest Reserve (MCFR)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGazetted in 1932, MCFR spans 313 km\u0026sup2; across Buikwe, Mukono, and Kayunga districts. It lies between latitudes 0\u0026deg;24'N and 0\u0026deg;35'N and longitudes 32\u0026deg;52'E and 33\u0026deg;07'E, at altitudes ranging from 1,070 to 1,340m. The forest comprises flat-topped hills and shallow valleys, which serve as watersheds for rivers flowing into Lakes Victoria and Kyoga. Renowned for its biodiversity and critical ecosystem services, Mabira supports local livelihoods through timber and non-timber forest products. However, illegal logging, encroachment, and agricultural activities substantially threaten its ecological balance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.2 Budongo Central Forest Reserve (BCFR)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs Uganda's most significant forest reserve, BCFR covers 793 km\u0026sup2; across Buliisa, Hoima, and Masindi districts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Located near the northern tip of Lake Albert, it lies between latitudes 1\u0026deg;35'N and 1\u0026deg;55'N and longitudes 31\u0026deg;18'E and 31\u0026deg;42'E, with altitudes ranging from 719 to 1,258 m. Its gently undulating terrain is interspersed with streams feeding into the Sonso and Weisoke rivers. Known for its mahogany trees and chimpanzee population, Budongo experiences an equatorial climate with bimodal rainfall ranging from 1,150 to 1,500 mm annually. However, unsustainable timber harvesting and encroachment undermine its long-term sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.3 Kibale National Park (KNP)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitially gazetted as a forest reserve in 1932, Kibale was elevated to national park status in 1993, reducing commercial logging and other exploitative activities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. The park covers 795 km\u0026sup2; between latitudes 0\u0026deg;13'N and 0\u0026deg;41'N and longitudes 30\u0026deg;10'E and 30\u0026deg;35'E, at elevations of 1,100 to 1,600 m [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. It is a moist-evergreen forest and receives a mean annual rainfall of 1655mm (1970\u0026ndash;2022) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Known as the \"Primate Capital of the World,\" it supports over 1,400 chimpanzees and diverse flora and fauna, making it a critical hub for biodiversity conservation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Research Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employs a comprehensive methodology to assess the sustainability of the Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale Forest Reserves in Uganda. The research is structured around the Rapid Appraisal for Forest Sustainability (RAPFOS) framework, which evaluates ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions of sustainability. The RAPFOS framework was adapted from the Rapid Appraisal for Fisheries (RAPFISH) methodology, originally developed in 1999 by researchers at the University of British Columbia to evaluate fisheries sustainability through a multidisciplinary approach. RAPFISH utilizes multidimensional scaling (MDS) to assess sustainability across key dimensions, including ecological, economic, social, and institutional factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. This method has proven effective for natural resource studies, especially in data-limited settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] and has been successfully modified for forestry applications to evaluate attributes such as ecological health, economic benefits, social impacts, and institutional governance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumerous studies have adapted the RAPFISH method for various ecosystems and environments. For example, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] modified RAPFISH to RAP-SAS (Rapid Appraisal for Simple Agroforestry System) to assess the sustainability status of the Magersaren agroforestry system in Indonesia. Similarly, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] and [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] applied the Rapid Appraisal for Tourism (RAP-Tourism) to evaluate the sustainability status of the Baturaden tourism destination and Bunaken ecotourism, respectively, in Indonesia. In this study, the RAPFOS framework was tailored by redefining its dimensions and selecting attributes from literature sources relevant to forest sustainability. Each dimension comprised six or more attributes to ensure a comprehensive evaluation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Attributes were scored on a scale from 0 to 10 to reflect current conditions in each forest reserve (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Scores were normalized to ensure comparability across different dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research procedure followed five key steps as indicated in the flow diagram (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) and highlighted below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability issues in the ecological, economic, social and institutional dimensions were identified among the three forest reserves of Mabira, Budongo and Kibale. Indicators were then chosen based on their relevance to forest management challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature Review: An extensive review of academic literature, institutional reports, and government documents was conducted to identify indicators based on their relevance to forest management challenges. This review helped establish a comprehensive understanding of the ecological, economic, social, and institutional challenges faced by the Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale forest reserves.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eData Collection: Secondary data were gathered from reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journal articles, Uganda forestry management plans, environmental reports, and publications from the Uganda National Forestry Authority (NFA), the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE), and the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The criteria for selecting data included its relevance (data specific to forest management, biodiversity, and sustainability), timeliness (data published within the last five years to capture recent trends and issues and credibility (data from authoritative and peer-reviewed sources). The data were converted into numerical scores in excel using predefined attributes for the ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions. Each indicator was scored from 0 to 10 to reflect the current conditions in each forest reserve as reflected in various literature sources. Scores were then normalized to ensure comparability across dimensions (\u0026ldquo;\u003cspan refid=\"Sec26\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eAppendix 1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026rdquo;, Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026mdash;8).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eData Analysis: The RAPFOS framework, performed using R-4.4.2 software for Windows was used to analyse the data. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) generated sustainability indices, while leverage analysis identified attributes with significant influence on the scores. Monte Carlo simulations addressed uncertainties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation of Results: The results were analyzed to discern patterns and provide actionable insights. This step involved a thorough examination of the sustainability indices and leverage points, leading to recommendations for targeted interventions aimed at enhancing the sustainability of the forest reserves. The insights gained from this analysis offer practical guidance for policymakers and conservationists working to improve forest management practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReviewed data sources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReference\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription of Indicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcological\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRate of Forest Area Change\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonitors changes in forest area over time, indicating deforestation/afforestation trends.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiodiversity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvides metrics on species richness and abundance within the forest reserves\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarbon sequestration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUganda\u0026rsquo;s National REDD\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Program/CONS/1415/00439.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssesses the capacity of forests to capture and store atmospheric carbon dioxide.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoil quality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluates soil stability, fertility, and its ability to support diverse plant and animal life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvasive species\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentifies the presence and impact of non-native species that disrupt\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eecosystem balance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNatural recovery\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamines the forest's capacity to regenerate naturally after disturbances.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployment in Forestry Sector\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetails employment statistics related to the forestry sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContribution to GDP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantifies the economic contribution of forest-related activities to the national GDP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariety of forest products and income\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluates the range of forest products and their economic value to local communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity Involvement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscusses the extent of local community participation in forest management activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquity in\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResource Access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalyzes the fairness of resource distribution among community members.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLivelihoods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluates how forest resources contribute to the economic well-being of\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003elocal communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConflict resolution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamines mechanisms in place to address disputes over forest resource use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eand awareness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetails educational programs aimed at raising awareness about forest conservation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBenefit sharing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescribes the distribution of income from eco-tourism and other forest benefits to local communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExistence of Forest Management Plans\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReviews management plans and their effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForestry\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy Implementation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForestry strategic\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eplan 2020\u0026ndash;2025, National Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations 2016, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReviews the availability and effectiveness of management plans for forest conservation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder Collaboration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetails the cooperation between various stakeholders in forest management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Forest Strategic Plan 2020\u0026ndash;2025, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluates the financial resources available for supporting forest conservation efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimensions and attributes of the RAPFOS method for the study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttribute\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScoring Range\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcological\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForest cover change\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Severe loss; 10: No loss\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiodiversity richness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Declining; 10: Increasing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoil quality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Bad; 10: Good\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarbon sequestration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Low; 10: High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvasive species\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Negligible; 10: Significant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNatural Recovery\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Bad; 10: Good\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariety Forest products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Few; 10: Many\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncome from forest products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Low; 10: High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Minimal; 10: High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcotourism value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Low; 10: High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarket access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Lacking; 10: Available\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRestoration costs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: High; 10: Low\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcosystem value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity involvement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: None; 10: Extensive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquity in resource access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Bad; 10: Good\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLivelihoods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Poor; 10: Good\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConflict resolution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Frequent; 10: Rare\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation and Awareness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Lacking; 10: Sufficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBenefit sharing policies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:Absent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e10:Fully implemented\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural value preservation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Neglected.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e10: Highly respected\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvailability and effective of Management plans\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Ineffective; 10: Effective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation of the National Environment Management Policy (NEMP), and the National Forestry Policy (NFP)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Weak; 10: Strong\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder collaboration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: None; 10: High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Scarce; 10: Sufficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal Framework and Law Enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Weak; 10: Strong\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransparency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0: Bad; 10: Bad\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1 Sustainability Index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sustainability of Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale forest reserves was assessed across ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions. The MDS analysis in R provided a two-dimensional graphical representation, where sustainability levels were plotted on the horizontal axis (0\u0026ndash;100 scale), and variations unrelated to sustainability were shown on the vertical axis. The sustainability index categorized performance into four levels (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). This categorization aligns with earlier studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], offering a clear framework for comparing forest reserves.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability Index Categories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScore Range (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51\u0026ndash;75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76\u0026ndash;100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2 Leverage Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeverage analysis was used to identify attributes with the most significant influence on sustainability scores across the four dimensions. Through systematic variation of each attribute and subsequent analysis of the impact on overall scores, this process elucidates sensitive attributes for intervention [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Attributes exhibiting high leverage were prioritized due to their substantial effect on sustainability outcomes. The determination of sustainable management leverage attributes of the forest ecosystems is based on the root mean square (RMS) value. The higher the value of RMS, the more sensitive that attribute is in affecting sustainability. The RMS value indicates the importance of the role of each attribute towards the sensitivity of the sustainability index [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Visual representations of leverage analysis results facilitate decision-makers in focusing on areas with the most significant potential for improvement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3 Monte Carlo Simulation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonte Carlo simulations were used to evaluate the reliability of the sustainability scores by introducing random variations to the attribute values. This approach verified the stability of the results and addressed potential uncertainties, which could arise from several sources: (1) limited information, (2) errors in scoring due to an incomplete understanding of the research location\u0026rsquo;s conditions or misconceptions about the attributes or scoring methods, (3) data entry mistakes or missing data, and (4) the repeated stability of the MDS analysis process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, Monte Carlo analysis estimated the impact of errors within a 95% confidence interval. The Monte Carlo index values were compared with the MDS index to assess the results' consistency. The stress value and termination coefficient (R\u0026sup2;) were used to determine the need for additional attributes and to reflect how accurately the studied dimensions matched the actual situation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Sustainability Index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sustainability index reveals varying performances across the three forest reserves. Kibale NPF excels with best scores of 85.0% in institutional, 81.7% in social, 81.5% in ecology, and 77.4% in economic dimensions, indicating high sustainability. Budongo CFR shows moderate sustainability, scoring 74.0%, 72.7%, 70.9%, and 69.274.0% in social, ecology, institutional, and economic dimensions, respectively. Mabira CFR exhibits moderate sustainability but with the lowest scores of 65%, 64.8%, 64.0%, and 61.5% for institutional, economic, social, and ecological dimensions, respectively. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e summarizes these scores, and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents corresponding graphs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe kite diagram (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3) offers a comparative visual representation of the sustainability performance of the three forest reserves across the four assessed dimensions. Each axis corresponds to a specific dimension, and the diagram's shape illustrates the relative performance of each reserve. As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, Kibale NPF exhibits a broad, well-rounded shape, signifying its strong performance across all dimensions. In contrast, Mabira CFR presents a more constrained shape, underscoring its lower sustainability scores, particularly in the ecological and economic dimensions, where significant improvements are needed. These differences highlight the importance of tailored management strategies to address unique challenges and leverage strengths specific to each forest reserve.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability Index Values\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eeconomic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMabira\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBudongo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e72.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKibale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Monte Carlo Simulations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonte Carlo simulations were performed for each dimension using the scatter to assess the uncertainty and the impact of random errors. The results provide a probability distribution of the sustainability scores, helping to quantify the confidence in the sustainability performance of each forest reserve.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcology: The Monte Carlo simulation for ecology shows a wide range of possible sustainability scores, reflecting the high uncertainty due to factors such as biodiversity loss and climate variability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic: The economic dimension had relatively narrower variability, with Kibale and Budongo showing more stable economic conditions than Mabira.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial: The social dimension exhibited a broader range of outcomes, indicating that social factors such as community involvement and conflict resolution have a high degree of uncertainty in their impact on sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional: The institutional dimension had a high variability, primarily due to the differences in governance structures and the availability of funding and resources across the reserves.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Leverage Analysis Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe leverage analysis was used to identify key attributes that most influence the sustainability status of forest reserves across ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). These attributes are deduced from the Root Mean Square (RMS) value, which indicates the level of influence of the attribute on the sustainability index value. High RMS values indicate the most influential attributes and low RMS values indicate attributes with small effect on the sustainability index. Invasive species (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.6) and carbon sequestration (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.2) emerged as the most sensitive attributes in the ecological dimension. The economic sustainability of forest reserves is most influenced by ecotourism value (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.1) and income from forest products (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.0). Equity in resource access (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.24) and livelihoods (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.35) were identified as the most critical social attributes. Institutional sustainability hinges on funding availability (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.91) and stakeholder collaboration (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.25).\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"4 DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Kibale National Park Forest\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings indicate that Kibale NPF excels across all sustainability dimensions, achieving scores of 81.5% in ecological, 77.4% in economic, 81.7% in social, and 85.0% in institutional dimensions. This superior performance can be attributed to robust conservation strategies, effective institutional frameworks, and significant community involvement. The forest's designation as a national park in 1993 introduced stricter protection measures, including the prohibition of resource extraction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. Enhanced patrolling has curbed illegal activities such as poaching and habitat destruction, contributing to increased biodiversity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Continuous research has further supported biodiversity monitoring efforts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. The Uganda Wildlife Authority's (UWA) stewardship has been pivotal in enforcing regulations and promoting sustainable practices. Numerous studies corroborate the success in biodiversity conservation. For instance, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] report increases in populations of bushpigs, giant forest hogs, ungulates, and elephants. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] observed a rise in the number of diurnal primates, attributing this to the regeneration of forest areas, effective patrolling, and community outreach by UWA and its partners. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] noted similar trends in plant population growth in their study of citropsis articulate occurrence and distribution across Kibale, Budongo, and Mabira Forest Reserves. Community participation plays a significant role in Kibale's sustainability. Approximately 54% of the local community collaborates with UWA in forest restoration and monitoring efforts, including agroforestry and carbon tracking initiatives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. UWA's income-sharing programs, providing 20% of total revenue to local communities, along with other household-level developmental initiatives, have enhanced local livelihoods [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] highlight the community benefits from the operations of the Makerere University Biological Field Station, which employs residents and supports various educational programs. Such integrated efforts underscore the importance of participatory forest management, although increasing the revenue-sharing quota could further bolster social sustainability. Kibale\u0026rsquo;s success exemplifies a model of sustainable forest management, balancing ecological integrity and socioeconomic benefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Budongo Central Forest Reserve (Budongo CFR): A Balanced View on Sustainability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBudongo CFR exhibits moderate sustainability, with scores of 72.7% in ecological, 69.2% in economic, 74.0% in social, and 70.9% in institutional dimensions. This moderate status is shaped by a balance of positive and negative factors that influence its overall sustainability. The implementation of Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) has played a significant role in enhancing Budongo's sustainability. CFM initiatives have promoted alternative livelihoods, offered credit facilities to community members, and reduced reliance on forest resources [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Conservation education programs have also contributed positively by fostering human-wildlife coexistence and raising community awareness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, restoration initiatives have been instrumental in improving ecological health, helping to mitigate the adverse effects of selective logging and agricultural encroachment. Despite these efforts, several critical issues impede Budongo's progress towards higher sustainability. The prevalence of invasive species presents a significant ecological challenge, hindering the growth of timber trees and negatively affecting biodiversity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Economically, while CFM has improved access to legally sourced forest products, it has not led to significant changes in household incomes. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] noted that although CFM reduced the community's dependence on forest environmental income, it did not substantially increase overall household income, thereby limiting economic benefits. Additionally, crop-raiding by wildlife continues to cause conflicts within the community, further complicating social sustainability. These persistent challenges counteract the positive contributions of CFM and educational programs, resulting in Budongo's moderate sustainability status. Addressing these challenges is crucial for enhancing Budongo's sustainability. Efforts to control invasive species and improve biodiversity are essential for bolstering ecological health. Expanding income-generating opportunities through ecotourism or sustainable forest product enterprises could provide much-needed economic uplift. Moreover, mitigating human-wildlife conflicts through more effective management strategies will enhance social harmony and further support Budongo's sustainability. By balancing these interventions, Budongo CFR can progress from moderate to higher sustainability levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Mabira Central Forest Reserve (Mabira CFR)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMabira CFR ranks lowest in all dimensions, scoring 61.5% in ecology, 64.8% in economic, 64.0% in social, and 65.0% in institutional dimensions. Research supports these findings, highlighting degradation of ecological integrity and habitants for biodiversity from extensive deforestation, illegal logging, and unsustainable harvesting practices [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, Mabira communities derive minimal economic and social benefits from the forest, as collaborative management agreements with the National Forestry Authority (NFA) are poorly enforced and alternative livelihood projects are underfunded [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. While limited resource extraction is permitted under these agreements, communities feel they need to be more adequately supported, exacerbating their reliance on unsustainable practices. Institutional weaknesses, including insufficient enforcement of forestry policies and inadequate staffing, further undermine sustainability efforts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Mabira's proximity to industrial areas like Kampala and Jinja further exacerbates resource exploitation. Weak law enforcement has led to increased hunting, threatening biodiversity. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] report low densities of Nahan's partridge, attributing this to high disturbance levels and degradation of the forest. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] further indicated that hunters reportedly kill up to 18 Nahan's Partridges weekly, reducing populations of this already vulnerable species in the forest. Despite these challenges, certain areas retain high carbon stocks, indicating potential for ecological recovery [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Strengthening governance, increasing reforestation, and integrating community-centered conservation programs are essential strategies for reversing Mabira's negative trends.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Leverages in Forest Sustainability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4.1 Ecological Leverage\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvasive species (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.6) and carbon sequestration (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.2) have emerged as the most sensitive attributes within the ecological dimension. These findings align with numerous studies emphasizing invasive species as a significant threat to forest ecosystem stability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. Effective management of invasive species and enhancing carbon sequestration are crucial for improving ecological sustainability across Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale forest reserves. Previous research highlights that forest management practices such as selective cutting and restoration significantly boost carbon sequestration and overall ecosystem health [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. For instance, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e] demonstrate that restoration efforts over 50 years in selectively logged forests can surpass primary forests in carbon storage capacity. To mitigate climate change impacts, forest managers should prioritize sustainable silvicultural practices, fire risk management, and afforestation, ensuring high carbon sequestration rates. This strategy is especially critical for Mabira, where logging and encroachment severely threaten ecological integrity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], and Budongo, where restoration programs show considerable promise despite ongoing pressures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4.2 Economic Leverage\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe economic dimension of sustainability in these forest reserves is primarily influenced by the value of ecotourism (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.1) and income from forest products (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.0). Enhancing these areas can significantly improve economic outcomes. Ecotourism offers a dual advantage by generating revenue and supporting conservation efforts. It fosters employment, local entrepreneurship, and cultural heritage preservation while promoting sustainable resource use [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. Innovative strategies, such as adopting mobile applications, could further expand forest tourism markets and enhance visitor engagement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, addressing challenges in forest product markets, such as fluctuating demand and increased competition, requires informed research approaches [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. Strengthening market linkages for sustainably sourced forest products could diversify community incomes and ensure environmental sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4.3 Social Leverage\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquity in resource access (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.24) and livelihoods (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.35) were identified as the most critical social attributes. To address these issues, inclusive community engagement and equitable distribution of forest-derived benefits are essential. Studies have demonstrated that community forestry programs can significantly enhance livelihoods by improving access to natural, financial, and social assets [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. Policymakers should consider decentralizing resource management, tailoring central forest policies to local contexts, and supporting non-forestry income-generating activities to reduce community dependence on forest resources [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. Co-management initiatives and household-level financial programs are critical for improving the socio-economic status of forest-dependent populations, fostering a more sustainable relationship with forest resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4.4 Institutional Leverage\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional sustainability is heavily reliant on funding availability (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.91) and stakeholder collaboration (RMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.25). Adequate financial resources are necessary for implementing robust forest management initiatives. Examples such as the Prince Albert Model Forest (PAMF) in Saskatchewan and the Brazilian Amazon Fund illustrate how funding can bolster conservation efforts, stakeholder engagement, and regional land management [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e]. Conversely, declines in funding risk undermining these efforts, highlighting the need for sustainable financing mechanisms. Stakeholder collaboration is equally crucial for institutional resilience and forest sustainability. Studies have shown that inclusive governance, where diverse stakeholders, including local communities, collaborate on conservation initiatives, significantly benefits forest management outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. Case studies from Canada and Nigeria underscore that empowering community participation builds trust, enhances local stewardship, and strengthens long-term conservation results [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study evaluated the sustainability of Uganda's forest reserves\u0026mdash;Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale\u0026mdash;using the RAPFOS methodology, which assesses ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions. The findings revealed significant disparities in sustainability performance across the reserves, highlighting key areas for intervention. Ecologically, invasive species and carbon sequestration emerged as the most sensitive factors, emphasizing the urgent need for biodiversity conservation and the enhancement of ecosystem services. Economically, ecotourism and forest product revenue were identified as crucial drivers, underscoring the importance of sustainable resource utilization and market development. Socially, promoting equitable resource access and enhancing livelihoods were pivotal for improving community well-being and inclusivity. Institutionally, securing financial resources and fostering stakeholder cooperation were critical for robust governance, indicating the need for increased financial support and enhanced governance frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these challenges, we recommend controlling invasive species, promoting the reforestation of native species, and adopting sustainable harvesting practices. Collaborative programs with local communities are essential for raising awareness and encouraging active participation in conservation efforts. Prioritizing biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration will significantly enhance ecological sustainability and contribute to the resilience of forest ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpanding sustainable forest product markets through fair trade practices is also recommended to ensure that local communities benefit economically, thereby reducing the pressure on forest resources. Securing adequate funding for forest conservation through national and international mechanisms, including public-private partnerships, is essential. Encouraging multi-stakeholder collaboration by establishing platforms that unite government agencies, local communities, private sector stakeholders, and NGOs can improve resource management and governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFuture Research Directions\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study relied on secondary data, which may not fully capture the real-time conditions of the forest reserves. Additionally, the impact of climate change on forest sustainability was not considered, despite its significant effects on forest ecosystems. Future research should incorporate primary data collection, involving on-site analysis and expert opinions from forest managers. Including the effects of climate change in sustainability assessments would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges these forests face.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information files. The RAPFOS excel execution program and the corresponding files for this research can be availed on request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the study\u0026apos;s conception and design. Obed Byamukama was responsible for material preparation, data collection, analysis, and drafting the initial manuscript. Michael Asante Biney conducted interpreted the results, and critically revised the first draft. Wonny Ahmad Ridwan supervised the research, provided critical intellectual input, and reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinancial interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received for conducting this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e: Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish declarations\u003c/strong\u003e: Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Forestry Authority. 2024. Land Management for Central Forest Reserves. https://www.nfa.go.ug/index.php/resources/land-management\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations. (2020). The Second Voluntary National Review Report on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26352VNR_2020_Uganda_Report.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Forestry Authority. 2015. State of Uganda\u0026apos;s Forestry. https://www.nfa.go.ug/index.php/publications/reports/status-of-forest-cover-2016 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIkiriza, H., Yasin, I., \u0026amp; Nuwagira, U. (2022). Review of Deforestation in Ugandan Tropical Rainforest Reserves: A Threat to Natural Medicine. East African Journal of Environment and Natural Resources. 5(1):204\u0026ndash;217. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajenr.5.1.742\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Water and Environment. (2017b). Revised Forest Management Plan for Mabira Central Forest Reserves for the Period July 2010\u0026ndash;June 2020, Ministry of Water and Environment, Kampala, Uganda. https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/library/FMP%20Mabira.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkimat, J. P., Ehbrecht, M., Glatthorn, J., \u0026amp; Babweteera, F. (2023). Effects of site conditions on regeneration of African mahogany (Khaya anthotheca) in a semi‐deciduous East African tropical rainforest. Restoration Ecology. 31(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14032. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOtali, E., Hartel, J. A., Ross, E. A., Wrangham, R. W., \u0026amp; Machanda, Z. (2021). Holistic approach for conservation of chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1894v1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUganda National Bureau of Statistics. 2024. Uganda Profile. https://www.ubos.org/uganda-profile/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKolinski, L., \u0026amp; Milich, K. M. (2021). Human-wildlife conflict mitigation impacts community perceptions around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Diversity, 13(4), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13040145\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHou, R., Gogarten, J. F., Golooba, M., Kalbitzer, U., Kirumira, D., Omeja, P. A., ... \u0026amp; Chapman, C. A. (2024). Parks can effectively protect ungulates and elephants despite a constant poaching threat. Global Ecology and Conservation, 54, e03075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03075\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFauzi, A., \u0026amp; Anna, S. (2002). Evaluasi status keberlanjutan pembangunan perikanan: aplikasi pendekatan Rapfish. Jurnal Jurusan sosial ekonomi perikanan FPIK IPB. 4(3):43-55.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJimenez, \u0026Eacute;. A., Gonzalez, J. G., Amaral, M. T., \u0026amp; Fredou, F. L. (2021). Sustainability indicators for the integrated assessment of coastal small-scale fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics, 181, 106910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106910\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaitupa, J., Baskoro, M. S., Wiryawan, B., \u0026amp; Mustaruddin, M. (2023). Livelihoods Sustainability of Tuna Handline Fishery in Buru Island. Agrikan Jurnal Agribisnis Perikanan, 16(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.52046/agrikan.v16i1.1368\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNingsih, R. H., Afandhi, A., \u0026amp; Prasetya, A. (2023). Sustainability Sustainability Status Index of Simple Agroforestry of Magersaren (SAM) with RAP-SAS Method. Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan (Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Management). 13(3):462\u0026ndash;474. https://doi.org/10.29244/jpsl.13.3.462-474. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurwaningsih, R., Annisa, H. N., Susanty, A., \u0026amp; Puspitaningrum, D. D. (2020). Assessment of tourism destination sustainability status using rap-tourism case of natural based tourism. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2217, No. 1). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000872. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArio, D., Karuniasa, M., Patria, M.P., \u0026amp; Roeroe, K.A. (2021). Assessment of Bunaken Island for sustainable tourism destination using the rapid appraisal for fisheries. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 716(1): 012094. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/716/1/012094\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNugraha, D. R., Husodo, T., \u0026amp; Parikesit, P. (2018). Evaluating The Level of Economic Sustainability of Forest Resources in Forest Management Unit (FMU) of Yogyakarta. Ecodevelopment. 1(1). https://doi.org/10.24198/ecodev.v1i1.37588. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaeed, N., Nam, H., Haq, M. I. U., \u0026amp; Muhammad Saqib, D. B. (2018). A survey on multidimensional scaling. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178155\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Water and Environment. (2016). State of Uganda\u0026rsquo;s Forestry 2016. https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/State%20of%20Uganda%27s%20Forestry-2015.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Water and Environment. (2017a). Ecological Baseline Report for Mabira. https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/library/Ecological%20Baseline%20Report.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWangalwa, R., Olet, E. A., Kagoro-Rugunda, G., Tolo, C. U., Ogwang, P. E., \u0026amp; Barasa, B. (2021). Occurrence of Citropsis articulata in tropical forests in Uganda: implication for ex situ conservation. International Journal of Forestry Research, 2021(1), 5582461. https://doi 10.1155/2021/5582461\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChapman, C. A., Gogarten, J. F., Golooba, M., Kalbitzer, U., Omeja, P. A., Opito, E. A., \u0026amp; Sarkar, D. (2025). Fifty+ years of primate research illustrates complex drivers of abundance and increasing primate numbers. American Journal of Primatology, 87(1), e23577. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23577\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSande, E., Akoth, S., Rutazaana, U., \u0026amp; Olupot, W. (2020). Status of Nahan\u0026rsquo;s partridge Ptilopachus nahani (Dubois, 1905) (Aves: Galliformes: Odontophoridae) in Uganda. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 12(15), 17063-17076. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5343.12.15.17063-17076\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUganda Wildlife Authority. (2024). Revenue Sharing. https://ugandawildlife.org/revenue-sharing/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKigenyi, R., Kalulu, R., \u0026amp; Rusoke, T. (2024). The Influence of Participatory Forest Monitoring on Natural Forest Management and Community Welfare: A Case Study in Kibale National Park, Western Uganda. Journal of Global Ecology and Environment. 20(4):89\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.56557/jogee/2024/v20i48914\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNel, A., Lyons, K., Fisher, J., \u0026amp; Mwayafu, D. (2018). An environmental justice perspective on the state of carbon forestry in Uganda. In Conservation and Development in Uganda. pp. 125-147. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJjagwe, A., Bernard, B., \u0026amp; Kakembo, V. (2021). Land Use Cover Types and Forest Management Options for Carbon in Mabira Central Forest Reserve. Springer. P 2733\u0026ndash;2754. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42091-8_145-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTamale, J., H\u0026uuml;ppi, R., Griepentrog, M., Turyagyenda, L. F., Barthel, M., Doetterl, S., ... \u0026amp; Van Straaten, O. (2021). Nutrient limitations regulate soil greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical forests: evidence from an ecosystem-scale nutrient manipulation experiment in Uganda. Soil, 7(2), 433-451.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePebsworth, P. A., Hillier, S., Wendler, R., Glahn, R., Ta, C. A., Arnason, J. T., \u0026amp; Young, S. L. (2019). Geophagy among East African Chimpanzees: consumed soils provide protection from plant secondary compounds and bioavailable iron. Environmental geochemistry and health. 41:2911-27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSsemanda, D. M., \u0026amp; Ssekuubwa, E. (2023). Broussonetia papyrifera invasion reduces the abundance and basal area of selected native timber species in a tropical moist forest in Uganda. Biological Invasions, 25(1), 165-178.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eValtonen, A., Korkiatupa, E., Holm, S., Malinga, G. M., \u0026amp; Nakadai, R. (2021). Remotely sensed vegetation greening along a restoration gradient of a tropical forest, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Land Degradation \u0026amp; Development. 32(18):5166-77.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMawa, C., Babweteera, F., \u0026amp; Tumusiime, D. M. (2022). Livelihood outcomes after two decades of co-managing a state forest in Uganda. Forest Policy and Economics, 135, 102644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102644\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBabweteera F, Mawa C, Asiimwe C, Okwir E, Muhanguzi G, Okimat JP, Robinson S. Budongo forest: A paradigm shift in conservation? In Conservation and development in Uganda 2018 Sep 21 (pp. 104-122). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Water and Environment. (2013). The National Forest Plan 2011/12 \u0026ndash; 2021/22.https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/National%20Forest%20Plan%20Uganda.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParmawati, R., Soemarno, S., \u0026amp; Kurnianto, A. S. (2019). Evaluation on social capital of sustainable agroforestry system: A case from Argosari Village, Malang. Jurnal Penelitian Sosial dan Ekonomi Kehutanan, 16(3), 151-167. https://doi.org/10.20886/jpsek.2019.16.3.151-167. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePitcher, T. J., Lam, M. E., Ainsworth, C., Martindale, A., Nakamura, K., Perry, R. I., \u0026amp; Ward, T. (2013). Improvements to Rapfish: A rapid evaluation technique for fisheries integrating ecological and human dimensionsa. Journal of fish biology, 83(4), 865-889. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12122\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDzikrillah, G.F., Anwar, S., \u0026amp; Sutjahjo, S.H. (2017). ANALISIS KEBERLANJUTAN USAHATANI PADI SAWAH DI KECAMATAN SOREANG KABUPATEN BANDUNG. Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan (Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Management). 7(2):107\u0026ndash;113. https://doi.org/10.29244/jpsl.7.2.107-113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTatipikalawan, J. M., Haryadi, F. T., Sulastri, E., \u0026amp; Widi, T. S. M. (2021). A Multi-Dimensional Approach to the Sustainable Development of Moa Buffaloes in Maluku Province, Indonesia. Buletin Peternakan, 45(4), 254-261. https://doi.org/10.21059/buletinpeternak.v45i4.68838. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgussaini, H., Rujiman, R., Sirojuzilam, S., \u0026amp; Purwoko, A. (2021). Evaluation of coastal area development sustainability of Banda Aceh post recovery. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 881(1): 012055. https://doi:10.1088/1755-1315/881/1/012055\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKavanagh, P., \u0026amp; Pitcher, T.J. (2004). Implementing Microsoft Excel software for Rapfish: A technique for the rapid appraisal of fisheries status. Fisheries Centre Research University of British Columbia, Canada. https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0074801\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHartter, J., \u0026amp; Southworth, J. (2009). Dwindling resources and fragmentation of landscapes around parks: wetlands and forest patches around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Landscape Ecology. 24(5):643\u0026ndash;656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9339-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarkar, D., Bortolamiol, S., Gogarten, J. F., Hartter, J., Hou, R., Kagoro, W., ... \u0026amp; Chapman, C. A. (2022). Exploring multiple dimensions of conservation success: Long‐term wildlife trends, anti‐poaching efforts and revenue sharing in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Animal Conservation, 25(4), 532-549. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12765\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalwambe, D., \u0026amp; Barakagira, A. (2024). The Influence of Conservation Education on Pro-wildlife Sustainability Behaviour at the Eco-centric Zone of Budongo Central Forest Reserve in Buliisa District, Uganda. https://doi.org/10.56557/jogee/2024/v20i38832\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIsingoma, J., Sande, E., Kityo, R., \u0026amp; Hughes, D. F. (2023). Amphibian communities along a forest degradation gradient in an East African forest reserve. Ecological Informatics, 75, 102021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTugume, P., Buyinza, M., Namaalwa, J., Mucunguzi, P., Kamatenesi, M., Kakudidi, E., Kalema, J. (2016). Non-Timber Forest Products Trade and Community Livelihoods around Mabira Central Forest Reserve, Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Studies. 4(4):1. https://doi.org/10.5296/jas.v4i4.9482\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZilio, M. I., Restrepo, A. F. S., Gervazoni, P., Minuti, G., Muz\u0026oacute;n, J., Djeddour, D., ... \u0026amp; Sosa, A. (2025). Economic loss of ecosystem services caused by yellow flag iris and white ginger lily, two invasive alien plants in natural ecosystems of Argentina. Journal for Nature Conservation, 84, 126789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126789\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarkar, S., \u0026amp; Deb, P. (2024). Community-level impacts of plant invasion in tropical forests of Northeast India. Plant Ecology, 225(10), 1079-1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-024-01456-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKowalska, A., \u0026amp; Kołaczkowska, E. (2024). Invasive neophytes alter ecological functions and services of riparian hardwood forests. Ecological Indicators, 166, 112386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112386\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuiz-Peinado, R., Oviedo, J. A. B., Senespleda, E. L., Oviedo, F. B., \u0026amp; del R\u0026iacute;o Gaztelurrutia, M. (2017). Forest management and carbon sequestration in the Mediterranean region: A review. Forest Systems, 26(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2017262-11205.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHou, J., Chen, Z., Tian, J., Xu, L., Zhang, Z., \u0026amp; He, N. (2020). Selective harvesting at rational intervals promotes carbon sequestration in temperate coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forests in China. Journal of Forestry Research. 32(3):1025\u0026ndash;1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01164-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiang, Y. (2024). The effects of climate change and forest management on forest carbon sequestration potential. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-3276\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHenri, H., Hakim, L., \u0026amp; Batoro, J. (2017). Ecotourism Development Strategy of Pelawan Forest in Central Bangka, Bangka Belitung. Journal of Indonesian Tourism and Development Studies. 5(3):145\u0026ndash;154. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jitode.2017.005.03.02\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurbaningrum, C. W. D. (2018). Community-based ecotourism as an alternative to the development of vocational tourism. Jurnal Taman Vokasi, 6(2), 170-175. https://doi.org/10.30738/jtv.v6i2.4150\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKozłowska-Adamczak, M., Jezierska-Th\u0026ouml;le, A., \u0026amp; Essing-Jelonkiewicz, P. (2023). Leveraging Information and Communication Technologies in Forest Ecotourism: A Case Study from Poland. Sustainability. 16(1): 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010056\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHetem\u0026auml;ki, L., \u0026amp; Hurmekoski, E. (2016). Forest Products Markets under Change: Review and Research Implications. Current Forestry Reports. 2(3):177\u0026ndash;188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-016-0042-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAyu, H.Y., Yuwono, S.B., Kaskoyo, H., Banuwa, I.S., \u0026amp; Safe, I.R. (2022). Penilaian Dampak Hutan Kemasyarakatan Melalui Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. Jurnal Hutan Tropis. 10(1):47. https://doi.org/10.20527/jht.v10i1.13087. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahman, M. M., Mahmud, M. A. A., Shahidullah, M., Nath, T. K., \u0026amp; Jashimuddin, M. (2016). The competitiveness of the phytosociological attributes of the protected areas in Bangladesh with that in the other tropical countries. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 35(6), 431-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2016.1202841\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHashiguchi, H., Pulhin, J.M., Dizon, J.T., \u0026amp; Camacho, L.D. (2016). Impacts of Community-Based Forest Management Policies Implemented by a Local Forest Institution: A Case Study from Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines. Small-scale Forestry. 15(3):335\u0026ndash;355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9324-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHvenegaard, G., Dunn, P., Olexson, T., Clark, K., \u0026amp; Carr, S. (2015). Promoting Sustainable Forest Management Among Stakeholders in the Prince Albert Model Forest, Canada. Conservation and Society. 13(1):51. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.161222. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorrea, J., Van Der Hoff, R., \u0026amp; Raj\u0026atilde;o, R. (2019). Results-Based Forest Conservation Funding: Amazon Fund 10 Years Later, Lessons from the World\u0026rsquo;s Largest REDD+ Program. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201812.0327.v2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMassiri, S. D., Malik, A., Pribadi, H., Rahman, A., \u0026amp; Maiwa, A. (2024). The Role of Stakeholders and Exogenous Variables Affecting the Outcome of Social Forestry Policies in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Forestry Research. 11(2):211-27. https://doi.org/10.59465/ijfr.2024.11.2.211-227\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCudiamat, M. A., \u0026amp; Valdez, M. L. (2022). Community Stakeholders\u0026rsquo; Knowledge and Awareness of the Ecological and Socio-Economic uses of Mangroves in Calatagan, Batangas, Philippines. International Journal of Conservation Science. 13(4):1319-32\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArifalo, S. F. (2024). Assessment of Community Participation in Forest Conservation in Ondo State, Nigeria. African Journal of Agriculture and Food Science. 7(3):39\u0026ndash;55. https://doi.org/10.52589/AJAFS-FKZMK6T9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-environment","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Environment](https://www.springer.com/44274/)","snPcode":"44274","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44274/3","title":"Discover Environment","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Forest Sustainability, RAPFISH, RAPFOS, Mabira CFR, Budongo CFR, Kibale NPF","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6136620/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6136620/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study assesses the sustainability of Uganda's Mabira Central Forest Reserve (CFR), Budongo CFR, and Kibale National Park Forest (NPF) using the Rapid Appraisal for Forest Sustainability (RAPFOS) methodology. RAPFOS is an adaptation of Rapid Appraisal for Fisheries (RAPFISH). The ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions of the three forests were assessed to determine their sustainability status. Data from academic literature, institutional reports, and government documents from credible sources were analysed, and sustainability scores were visualized through kite diagrams, leverage plots, and Monte Carlo simulations. Results showed Kibale NPF is highly sustainable as all its sustainability scores were in the range of 76\u0026ndash;100% in institutional, social, ecological, and economic dimensions. Budongo and Mabira displayed moderate sustainability with all their sustainability scores in the range of 51\u0026ndash;75% in all the four dimensions. Findings indicate ecological sustainability is affected by invasive species and carbon sequestration, while economic sustainability is driven by ecotourism and forest product income. Social sustainability hinges on equitable resource access and livelihood benefits, and institutional sustainability depends on funding and stakeholder collaboration. These results highlight the need for targeted interventions focusing on the improvement of these influential attributes to ensure high sustainability of these forest reserves. Government policies and stakeholder action should target the enhancement of biodiversity conservation, sustainable economic activities, and improved governance. This research supports the Sustainable Development Goal 15, promoting the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, including forests.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Sustainability Assessment of Uganda’s Mabira, Budongo, and Kibale Forest Reserves","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-11 07:18:49","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6136620/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-05-29T03:09:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-24T12:34:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"180687813978269483527525951592645050178","date":"2025-05-21T12:23:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-20T14:59:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"292256010727771000580669712652071929601","date":"2025-05-20T12:07:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"232916278920438359389378700892463485687","date":"2025-05-15T15:47:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-03-27T14:45:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"238336371308570328008094958789136102480","date":"2025-03-27T13:42:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-03-26T09:15:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-03-14T09:46:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-03-14T09:43:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Environment","date":"2025-03-01T21:54:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-environment","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Environment](https://www.springer.com/44274/)","snPcode":"44274","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44274/3","title":"Discover Environment","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"847f5037-3942-4627-b4db-7e11cbfd24fc","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-27T08:53:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-11 07:18:49","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6136620","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6136620","identity":"rs-6136620","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}