Forest livelihood strategies under contrasting management regimes: Evidence from the Copperbelt, Eastern and North-Western Provinces of Zambia

Forests are central to rural livelihoods in Zambia’s Miombo landscapes, providing energy, food, materials, and income. Yet forest-use restrictions may affect households differently depending on market access, enforcement, and livelihood opportunities. This study examines how restricted and non-restricted forest management regimes shape household livelihood strategies in Copperbelt, Eastern, and North-Western provinces. Using survey data from 1115 households, cluster analysis identified forest livelihood strategies, while multinomial logit models estimated adjusted probabilities of strategy membership and associated household drivers. Four strategies were identified: Low-Monetisation Unprocessed Forest Products Dependents, Unprocessed Forest Products Subsistence Diversifiers, Charcoal-Oriented Mixed households, and Charcoal-Cash Specialists. Regime effects varied strongly by province. In Eastern Province, restricted landscapes increased Low-Monetisation dependence by 43.76 %age points and reduced Charcoal-Cash specialisation by 29.94 points. In North-Western Province, restrictions increased Low-Monetisation dependence by 35.11 points but reduced Charcoal-Oriented Mixed strategies by 31.40 points. In the Copperbelt, the pattern differed: restricted landscapes increased Charcoal-Cash specialisation by 9.80 points and Charcoal-Oriented Mixed strategies by 14.26 points, while reducing subsistence diversification by 26.03 points. Household education, gender, livestock ownership, landholding, residence duration, road access, and regime interactions also shaped strategy membership. The findings show that forest-use restrictions do not produce uniform livelihood outcomes. Instead, they operate as context-dependent filters, reinforcing subsistence dependence in some settings while coexisting with charcoal commercialisation in market-integrated landscapes. Effective governance requires spatially differentiated policy mixes combining conservation, enforcement, energy alternatives, tenure clarity, and livelihood support.