Mixed-methods analysis reveals barriers and effective strategies for community engagement in REDD+, suggesting enhanced communication for better awareness.
The purpose of this research to improve communication strategies practice by analyze the communication strategies employed by REDD+ programs to enhance awareness and understanding of sustainable forest management among local communities in the Enor District of Central Ethiopia. Guided by participatory communication theory and behavioral change theory. The research evaluates (1) the effectiveness of communication channels (e.g., community meetings, social media, printed materials), (2) the relevance, clarity, and participatory nature of REDD+ messages, and, (3) the strengths and weaknesses of awareness creation approaches. The researche used a mixed-methods approach design. The data were collected through key informant interviews, focuse group discussions and questionnaires, and analyzed with quantitative analysis (descriptive statistics, SPSS) and qualitative thematic content analysis. Findings revealed that face-to-face interactions 88% and community meetings 89% were perceived as the most effective channels, while radio 63% and printed materials 61% had shown ineffectiveness. Although participatory outreach (e.g., experience-sharing) motivated involvement in forest conservation, barriers such as inconsistent messaging 40%, language gaps 32%, and inadequate feedback 46% which hindered awareness efforts. Despite these challenges, effective communication significantly increased community support, underscoring the need for more inclusive, localized strategies. As 83% of respondent believes that the approche needs improvement Thus, these results indicate the communication strategies of the projrct needs improvement for effective awareness cration practices. Therefore, the study recommends addressing language barriers, ensuring message consistency, and integrating community feedback to strengthen REDD+ communication and long-term engagement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Worku et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: