1 / 41

QUESTIONING CONSERVATION

QUESTIONING CONSERVATION. SOCIAL SURVEYS IN CONSERVATION BIOLOGY AS TOOLS TO DETERMINE THE POTENTIAL OF COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM EFFORTS. NATALIE J. JONES*, JERRY DADAY ¥ , MICHAEL STOKES* CHARLES KIMWELE* §

anne
Download Presentation

QUESTIONING CONSERVATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. QUESTIONING CONSERVATION SOCIAL SURVEYS IN CONSERVATION BIOLOGY AS TOOLS TO DETERMINE THE POTENTIAL OF COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM EFFORTS NATALIE J. JONES*, JERRY DADAY¥, MICHAEL STOKES* CHARLES KIMWELE*§ *Department of Biology and Center for Biodiversity Studies, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101Department of Animal Physiology, ¥Department of Sociology, Western Kentucky University, §Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya and Department of Biology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101

  2. The Potential of Community Based Ecotourism • If rural communities gain resources from CBE they are more likely to protect their environment (Ngece 2002) • Balancing the need to protect wildlife against the necessity to promote rural development is one of the most pressing issues in the developing world (Reynolds 2001) • New forms of wildlife management, like CBE have begun to lead a recovery in wildlife populations (Emerton 1998)

  3. CBE in the Taita Taveta District:A potential local for increased ecotourism • CBE could be regarded as a tool for sustainable local development in Taita Taveta, Kenya (Himberg 2004) • The Taita Taveta region is the next leader in ecotourism development (Maina 2004) • The development of ecotourism in the Taita Hills is recommended by the Cross-Border Biodiversity Project (Karanja 2002)

  4. Can community-based ecotourism meet these objectives? • Limited information is available “concerning means to assess the success of CBE” (Ross 1999). • Not all sites have the potential for long-term profitability from ecotourism (Isaacs 2000). • Actually achieving benefits for the local community is difficult (Isaacs 2000).

  5. Kasigau Region • Dispersal area for wildlife (Maina 2004) • Mt. Kasigau, an isolated peak of the Taita Hills: Recognized Biodiversity Hotspots (C.I. 2007). • Seven villages: Rukanga, Jora, Bungule, Kiteghe Makwasinyi and Kisiminyi

  6. N Study Site: Maungu Ranch (21,053ha)

  7. The Center for Conservation and Biodiversity at Kasigau Objective: To assist in the development and evaluation of a sustainable, ecologically-sound, wildlife- and ecotourism-based economic model on the community-owned Maungu Ranch Goals: • Reduce poaching and subsequent bushmeat utilization • Increase a sense of enfranchisement of these communities 3) Produce a model economic system for other rural communities in Kenya

  8. The Overall Project: Three Areas of Focus Bushmeat Utilization Community Surveys Wildlife Abundance • Establish baseline data • Use baseline data to determine CBE potential • Continue research in each area as CBE grows in the region • Monitor changes from baseline • Use data to determine the success and impact of the CBE initiatives in each category

  9. Molecular Analysis of Bushmeat Abundance: Unpublished Data • Meat samples from 73 butcheries in 14 rural towns, including Rukanga, Voi and Mariakani • 84 samples identified to species through sequence analysis of Cytochrome b • All Identified as DOMESTIC SPECIES • NO BUSHMEAT FOUND

  10. Social Surveys as Tools for Conservation • CBE requires a good understanding of the potential impact on the local community (Schmidt-Soltau 2004) • Komodo National Park Survey, Indonesia- Examined local attitudes and the effects of benefits from tourism (Walpole 2001) • Imbirikani Ranch Survey, Kenya- Collected baseline data to be used in follow-up initiatives (Warinda 2002)

  11. Hypotheses I. Due to apparent geographic, economic and demographic differences the survey responses will differ on a per question basis among the villages Null Hypothesis: There will be no significant differences per question in the survey responses among the villages. II. Due to the abundant snaring activity in the region the surveys will indicate bushmeat utilization within the villages and will not be congruent with our molecular analysis. Null Hypothesis: The survey results regarding bushmeat will be in congruence with the molecular analyses.

  12. Methods: Conducting the Surveys • Women were selected as respondents • Schedule arranged with the sub-chief of each village • Survey teams at each location were comprised of: WKU faculty and students UoN faculty and students Taita community leader(s) Sub-chief(s)

  13. Methods: Conducting the Surveys • 306 survey respondents total • Instructions were read aloud and written at the top of the survey • UoN students and faculty and the community leaders served as translators and read and wrote for respondents when necessary

  14. Methods: Conducting the Surveys • Prizes raffled as incentives for participation • Each respondent received a raffle ticket • Drawn at random when survey was complete Top Prize! A Kerosene Stove and jug of kerosene

  15. Methods: The Survey Instrument • 66 yes or no questions • Three categories: • Ecotourism • Wildlife • Bushmeat • Translated into Kiswahili • ID number and coded by village

  16. Analysis: Per Question • Number of “yes” and “no” answers were recorded • Grouped by village • Compared with the proportionally scaled average of the other villages • Chi-square test was used to determine existence of significant differences (1 df, P<0.005)

  17. Results • General: - Ecotourism - Wildlife - Bushmeat • Testing of hypothesis I • Testing of hypothesis II

  18. Ecotourism: Feelings and ExperienceMean Percentage of Respondents Answering “YES” Across Villages

  19. Wildlife: Conservation & ConflictMean Percentage of Respondents Answering “YES” Across Villages

  20. Bushmeat: Utilization and CausationMean Percentage of Respondents Answering “YES” Across Villages

  21. Hypothesis I: Due to apparent geographic, economic and demographic differences the survey responses will differ on a per question basis among the villages Null Hypothesis: There will be no significant differences per question in the survey responses among the villages.

  22. Ecotourism Significant differences between one village compared with the others

  23. Wildlife Significant differences between one village compared with the others

  24. Bushmeat Significant differences between one village compared with the others

  25. Hypothesis I: Due to apparent geographic, economic and demographic differences the survey responses will differ on a per question basis among the villages. SUPPORTED Null Hypothesis: There will be no significant differences per question in the survey responses among the villages. REJECTED

  26. Discussion:Variation Across the Villages • Basket sales affecting responses? • Lower human/wildlife conflict in Kiteghe? • Higher levels of bushmeat/poaching in Bungule? • Higher bushmeat in Kisimenyi restaurants?

  27. Family and Work-life Section • Too many missing cases to tabulate • Incorrect formatting • Married • Age/age of children • Annual income

  28. Discussion: Continued Study • Focus on determination of possible causes of variation • Look for correlation with • -Economies of the villages • -Village proximity to wildlife populations Future Research: Economic Data Geographic Data Demographic Data

  29. Hypothesis II: Due to the abundant snaring activity in the region the surveys will indicate bushmeat utilization within the villages and will not be congruent with our molecular analysis. Null Hypothesis: The survey results regarding bushmeat will be in congruence with the molecular analyses.

  30. Molecular Analysis of Bushmeat Abundance: Unpublished Data • Meat samples from 14 rural towns, including Rukanga, Voi and Mariakani, and 73 butcheries • 84 samples identified to species through sequence analysis of Cytochrome b • All Identified as DOMESTIC MEAT • NO BUSHMEAT FOUND

  31. Bushmeat: Utilization and CausationMean Percentage of Respondents Answering “YES” Across Villages

  32. Hypothesis II: Due to the apparent, abundant snaring activity in the region the surveys will indicate bushmeat utilization within the villages and will not be congruent with our molecular analysis. SUPPORTED Null Hypothesis: The survey results regarding bushmeat will be in congruence with the molecular analyses. REJECTED

  33. Discussion: Bushmeat Questions Trends of Mean Percentage of Respondents Answering “YES”

  34. Discussion: Bushmeat Questions WHO poaches? • Villagers • Acquaintances • Family • WHY do they poach? • Protect crops • For food • Sell for Money

  35. Discussion: Bushmeat QuestionsContinued Study • Where’s the bushmeat? • Is it only a localized trade? • Research the informal meat trade in Kasigau • Complete molecular analysis of remaining meat samples from urban areas and Voi restaurants

  36. Issues with the Survey • Honest Answers/ Lack of Trust • Presence of KWS • Presence of influential men from the village • Presence of “Desnaring Teams” • More Taita translators needed • Illiteracy

  37. The Overall Project: Three Areas of Focus Bushmeat Utilization Community Surveys Wildlife Abundance NEXT

  38. Future Researchfor the Overall Project: • Look for correlations of survey responses • Use the molecular analysis and survey results as a baseline for comparison as ecotourism grows in the region • Begin wildlife abundance studies in the area

  39. References Conservation International. Hotspots. 2007. <http://www.conservationinternational.org> Emerton, Lucy. 1998. Innovations for financing wildlife conservation in Kenya. Biodiversity Economist. Presented at a workshop on 1-3 May 1998. Himberg, N. 2004. Community-based ecotourism as a sustainable development option in Taita Taveta,Kenya. Expedition Reports of the Department of Geography, University of Helsinki. 40: 87-95. Isaacs, Jack C. 2000. The limited potential of ecotourism to contribute to wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28(1): 61-69. Karanja, G. 2003. Tourism impacts in Masai Mara National Reserve. IIED Wildlife and Development Series no.14. pp 5-16.Maina 2004, Ecotourism Society of Kenya. Ngece, K. 2002. Community based ecotourism: What can the people of East Africa learn from successstories elsewhere? East African Ecotourism Development and Conservation Consultants. Reynolds, J. 2001. Conservation of exploited species. Cambridge University Press, 524pp. Ross, Sheryl. G. Wall. 1999. Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice. Tourism Management 20: 123-132. Schmidt-Soltau, Kai, Dan Brokington. 2004. Social Impacts of Protected Areas. World Conservation Congress: First Global Workshop. <http://www.social-impact-of-conservation.net/> Walpole, Matthew J. Harold J. Goodwin. 2001. Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 28: 160-166. Warinda, Enock. 2002. Socioeconomic Survey and Land Use Options Analysis: Imbirikani Group Ranch, Kajiado District, Kenya. Final Report. African Conservation Centre.

  40. Acknowledgements • American Philosophical Society Lewis and Clark Fund for Exploration and Field Research • WKU Office of Graduate Studies and Research • WKU Biology Department • Applied Research and Technology Program of Ogden College • Tara Granke, Allison Harnish, Simon Kasaine, Nicole Kimwele, Pam Kimwele, Maggie Mahan, Joseph Olesarioyo, RinahShawa, Bridget Sutton, Samuel Thumbi, Richard Tsalwa, Mandy VanMeterKenya Wildlife Service: Peter Oduor, Joseph Musembi • Ezra Mdam • WKU Center for Biodiversity Studies • WKU Department of Sociology • WKU Biotechnology Center • University of Nairobi

More Related