Table 3 Results of log linear analysis between indigenous knowledge and traditional management variables, and ethnic group membership and gender of the respondent
Indigenous knowledge and traditional management variables | Source of variation | Degree of freedom | Chi-Square | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Motivation to conserve | EG | 4 | 14.49 | < 0.01 |
| Â | GG | 1 | 0.10 | 0.754 |
| Â | EG*GG | 4 | 13.11 | < 0.05 |
| Â | Likelihood ratio | 25 | 164.85 | < 0.001 |
Uses as Food | EG | 4 | 11.37 | < 0.05 |
| Â | GG | 1 | 5.12 | < 0.05 |
| Â | EG*GG | 4 | 8.23 | 0.084 |
| Â | Likelihood ratio | 28 | 157.48 | < 0.001 |
Uses as Soap | EG | 4 | 18.09 | < 0.01 |
| Â | GG | 1 | 7.30 | < 0.01 |
| Â | EG*GG | 4 | 5.58 | 0.232 |
| Â | Likelihood ratio | 16 | 104.24 | < 0.001 |
Uses in Fisheries | EG | 4 | 55.98 | < 0.001 |
| Â | GG | 1 | 1.87 | 0.172 |
| Â | EG*GG | 4 | 0.89 | 0.926 |
| Â | Likelihood ratio | 5 | 37.48 | < 0.001 |
Differentiation in fruits traits | EG | 4 | 9.54 | < 0.05 |
| Â | GG | 1 | 0.30 | 0.586 |
| Â | EG*GG | 4 | 3.03 | 0.553 |
| Â | Likelihood ratio | 13 | 82.46 | < 0.001 |
Preference in fruits traits | EG | 4 | 31.91 | < 0.001 |
| Â | GG | 1 | 1.24 | 0.266 |
| Â | EG*GG | 4 | 3.92 | 0.417 |
| Â | Likelihood ratio | 12 | 39.18 | < 0.001 |
Propagation and Regeneration practices | EG | 4 | 5.84 | 0.212 |
| Â | GG | 1 | 3.93 | < 0.05 |
| Â | EG*GG | 4 | 11.37 | < 0.05 |
| Â | Likelihood ratio | 19 | 77.04 | < 0.001 |
Management Practices to improve production | EG | 4 | 14.21 | < 0.01 |
| Â | GG | 1 | 7.95 | < 0.01 |
| Â | EG*GG | 4 | 12.50 | < 0.05 |
| Â | Likelihood ratio | 32 | 99.78 | < 0.001 |