Questioning conservation
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 41

QUESTIONING CONSERVATION PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 103 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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* §

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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*§

*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


The potential of community based ecotourism

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)


Cbe in the taita taveta district a potential local for increased ecotourism

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)


Can community based ecotourism meet these objectives

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).


Questioning conservation

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


Study site maungu ranch 21 053ha

N

Study Site: Maungu Ranch (21,053ha)


The center for conservation and biodiversity at kasigau

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


Questioning conservation

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


Molecular analysis of bushmeat abundance unpublished data

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


Social surveys as tools for conservation

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)


Hypotheses

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.


Methods conducting the surveys

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)


Methods conducting the surveys1

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


Methods conducting the surveys2

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


Methods the survey instrument

Methods: The Survey Instrument

  • 66 yes or no questions

  • Three categories:

    • Ecotourism

    • Wildlife

    • Bushmeat

  • Translated into Kiswahili

  • ID number and coded by village


Analysis per question

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)


Results

Results

  • General:

    -Ecotourism

    -Wildlife

    -Bushmeat

  • Testing of hypothesis I

  • Testing of hypothesis II


Ecotourism feelings and experience mean percentage of respondents answering yes across villages

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


Wildlife conservation conflict mean percentage of respondents answering yes across villages

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


Bushmeat utilization and causation mean percentage of respondents answering yes across villages

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


Questioning conservation

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.


Ecotourism

Ecotourism

Significant differences between one village compared with the others


Wildlife

Wildlife

Significant differences between one village compared with the others


Bushmeat

Bushmeat

Significant differences between one village compared with the others


Questioning conservation

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


Discussion variation across the villages

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?


Family and work life section

Family and Work-life Section

  • Too many missing cases to tabulate

  • Incorrect formatting

    • Married

    • Age/age of children

    • Annual income


Discussion continued study

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


Questioning conservation

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.


Molecular analysis of bushmeat abundance unpublished data1

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


Bushmeat utilization and causation mean percentage of respondents answering yes across villages1

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


Questioning conservation

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


Discussion bushmeat questions

Discussion: Bushmeat Questions

Trends of Mean Percentage of Respondents Answering “YES”


Discussion bushmeat questions1

Discussion: Bushmeat Questions

WHO poaches?

  • Villagers

  • Acquaintances

  • Family

  • WHY do they poach?

  • Protect crops

  • For food

  • Sell for Money


Discussion bushmeat questions continued study

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


Issues with the survey

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


Questioning conservation

The Overall Project: Three Areas of Focus

Bushmeat Utilization

Community Surveys

Wildlife Abundance

NEXT


Future research for the overall project

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


References

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.


Questioning conservation

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


  • Login