The importance of different forest management systems for people’s dietary quality in Tanzania

TL;DR

In Tanzania, individual trees and forests managed with local participation improve people's diets more than government-controlled forests.

Contribution

The study shows that participatory forest management and small tree patches improve dietary quality more than traditional forest reserves.

Findings

More unclassified tree cover is linked to better protein, iron, zinc, and vitamin A intake.

Participatory Forest Management is associated with higher energy and micronutrient adequacy.

Government-controlled forests do not show positive dietary benefits compared to other systems.

Abstract

A large body of literature has shown that forests provide nutritious foods in many low- and middle-income countries. Yet, there is limited evidence on the contributions from different types of forest and tree systems.

Here, we focus on individual trees and smaller forest patches outside established forest reserves as well as different forest management systems.

We do so by combining novel high-resolution data on tree cover with 24-h dietary recall surveys from 465 women in Tanzania.

We show that people with more unclassified tree cover (i.e., individual trees and small forest patches) in their nearby surroundings have more adequate protein, iron, zinc, and vitamin A intakes. We also find that having a nearby forest under Participatory Forest Management (PFM) system is associated with higher adequacy levels of energy, iron, zinc and vitamin A. By contrast, tree cover within other types of forest (e.g., Government Forest Reserves and Government Forest Plantations) is not positively associated with people’s dietary quality.

Our key finding is that having individual trees, smaller forest patches and/or forest under PFM in close proximity is more beneficial for people’s diets than other types of established forests. Our results highlight the nutritional importance of trees outside established forests and question the often-assumed benefits of forests if these are made inaccessible by social barriers (e.g., legislation). Finally, our results emphasize the need to distinguish between different forest management systems when studying forest-diet linkages.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-024-01961-6.

Figures