QUESTIONING CONSERVATIONQUESTIONING CONSERVATIONSOCIAL 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 42101 Department 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 The Potential of Community Based EcotourismEcotourism

• 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:CBE in the Taita Taveta District:

A potential local for increased ecotourismA 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 ecotourismCan community-based ecotourism meet these objectives? 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).

Kasigau Region 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: Study Site: Maungu Ranch (21,053ha)Maungu Ranch (21,053ha)

N

The Center for Conservation and The Center for Conservation and Biodiversity at KasigauBiodiversity 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:1) Reduce poaching and subsequent bushmeat utilization2) Increase a sense of enfranchisement of these

communities3) Produce a model economic system for other rural

communities in Kenya

The Overall Project: Three Areas of FocusThe Overall Project: Three Areas of Focus

Bushmeat Utilization Community Surveys Wildlife Abundance

1. Establish baseline data

2. Use baseline data to determine CBE potential

3. Continue research in each area as CBE grows in the region

4. Monitor changes from baseline

5. Use data to determine the success and impact of the CBE initiatives in each category

Molecular Analysis of Bushmeat Molecular Analysis of Bushmeat Abundance: Unpublished DataAbundance: 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 FOUNDG A C C C G T A A T A T A A G C C T C G T C C T A C G T G C A T A T A T A A G C A G A T A

G A C C C G T A A T A T A A G C C T C G T C C T A C G T G C A T A T A T A A G C A G A T A160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204

1816

0

Fragment41redite

d

Social Surveys as Tools for ConservationSocial 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)

HypothesesHypotheses

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.

• 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 studentsUoN faculty and studentsTaita community leader(s)Sub-chief(s)

Methods: Conducting the SurveysMethods: 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 SurveysMethods: Conducting the Surveys

• Prizes raffled as incentives for participation

• Each respondent received a raffle ticket

• Drawn at random when survey was complete

Methods: Conducting the SurveysMethods: Conducting the Surveys

Top Prize!

A Kerosene Stove and jug of kerosene

Methods: The Survey InstrumentMethods: The Survey Instrument

• 66 yes or no questions

• Three categories:– Ecotourism– Wildlife– Bushmeat

• Translated into Kiswahili

• ID number and coded by village

Analysis: Analysis: Per QuestionPer 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)

ResultsResults

I. General: - Ecotourism - Wildlife - Bushmeat

II. Testing of hypothesis I

III. Testing of hypothesis II

Village #

Bungule 53

Kiteghe 40

Kisimenyi 56

Makwasinyi 41

Rukanga 54

Jora 62

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

Is tourism important to your village? 99.0

Would village benefit from more tourism? 96.1

Acquaintances received $ from tourists? 57.2

Have you sold hand-made items to tourist? 56.9

Family received $ from tourists? 47.1

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

Is protecting wildlife important? 89.9

Is killing wildlife necessary to protect crops? 50.0

Have wild animals destroyed your crops? 93.8

Has home been damaged by wildlife? 17.3

Have you been injured from wildlife? 16.3

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

Do villagers kill wild animals to protect crops? 46.1

Do villagers purchase wild animal meat for food? 43.8

Do villagers kill wild animals for food? 42.2

Do villagers sell wild animals for money? 36.6

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.

EcotourismEcotourism

Question Village “YES” Responses

P value

3- Have you sold hand-made items to tourist?

MAKWASINYI <0.0001

KISIMENYI <0.0001

6- Would village benefit from more tourism?

MAKWASINYI =0.0091

JORA =0.0114

9- Have you received money from tourists visiting?

BUNGULE <0.0001

Significant differences between one village compared with the othersSignificant differences between one village compared with the others

Wildlife

Question Village “YES” Responses P Value

15- Have you been injured from wildlife?

BUNGULE =0.0062

16- Has family member been injured wildlife?

RUKANGA <0.001

KITEGHE <0.0001

17- Have villagers been injured by wildlife?

JORA =0.0005

KITEGHE <0.001

18- Has home been damaged by wildlife?

BUNGULE <0.0001

19- Is protecting wildlife important?

MAKWASINYI =0.0164

20- Is killing wildlife necessary to protect crops?

JORA =0.0047

Significant differences between one village compared with the othersSignificant differences between one village compared with the others

Question Village “YES” Responses P Value

23- Do villagers kill wild animals for food?

KITEGHE =0.019

MAKWASINYI =0.016

27- Do acquaintances kill wild animals for food?

BUNGULE =0.0065

28- Do acquaintances sell wild animals for money?

BUNGULE =0.0355

29 Do acquaintances kill wild animals to protect crops?

RUKANGA =0.0288

31- Do family members kill wild animals for food?

KITEGHE =0.0144

40- Have you eaten a meal at a local restaurant?

KISIMENYI =0.0017

KITEGHE =0.0152

41- Do you think wild meat is being served in restaurants?

KISIMENYI =0.0264

JORA =0.0189

Significant differences between one village compared with the othersSignificant differences between one village compared with the others

Bushmeat

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

3- Have you sold handmade items to tourists?

Mwakasinyi <0.0001

Kisimenyi <0.0001

16- Has a family member been injured by wildlife?

Kiteghe <0.0001

17- Have villagers been injured by wildlife?

Kiteghe <0.001

27- Do acquaintances kill wild animals for food?

Bungule =0.0065

28- Do acquaintances sell wild animals for money?

Bungule =0.0355

40- Have you eaten a meal at a local restaurant?

Kisimenyi =0.0017

41- Do you think wild meat is being served in restaurants?

Kisimenyi =0.0264

Discussion:Discussion:Variation Across the VillagesVariation Across the Villages

•Basket sales affecting responses?

•Lower human/wildlife conflict in Kiteghe?

•Higher bushmeat in Kisimenyi restaurants?

•Higher levels of bushmeat/poaching in Bungule?

Family and Work-life SectionFamily and Work-life Section

• Too many missing cases to tabulate

• Incorrect formatting – Married– Age/age of children– Annual income

Discussion: Continued StudyDiscussion: 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 DataGeographic Data Demographic Data

Hypothesis II: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 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 FOUNDG A C C C G T A A T A T A A G C C T C G T C C T A C G T G C A T A T A T A A G C A G A T A

G A C C C G T A A T A T A A G C C T C G T C C T A C G T G C A T A T A T A A G C A G A T A160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204

1816

0

Fragment41redite

d

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

Do villagers kill wild animals to protect crops? 46.1

Do villagers purchase wild animal meat for food? 43.8

Do villagers kill wild animals for food? 42.2

Do villagers sell wild animals for money? 36.6

Hypothesis II: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

Do villagers kill wild animals to protect crops? 46.1Do villagers purchase wild animal meat for food? 43.8Do villagers kill wild animals for food? 42.2Do villagers sell wild animals for money? 36.6

Do acquaintances kill wild animals to protect crops? 43.5Do acquaintances purchase wild animal meat for food? 35.6Do acquaintances kill wild animals for food? 33.0Do acquaintances sell wild animals for money? 27.5

Do family members kill wild animals to protect crops? 38.9Do family members purchase wild animal meat for food? 37.3Do family members kill wild animals for food? 18.0Do family members sell wild animals for money? 11.8

Trends of Mean Percentage of Respondents Answering “YES”Trends of Mean Percentage of Respondents Answering “YES”

WHO poaches?1. Villagers2. Acquaintances3. Family

Discussion: Bushmeat Questions

WHY do they poach?1.Protect crops2.For food 3.Sell for Money

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

• Honest Answers/ Lack of Trust

• Presence of KWS

• Presence of influential men from the village

• Presence of “Desnaring Teams”

• More Taita translators needed

• Illiteracy

The Overall Project: Three Areas of FocusThe Overall Project: Three Areas of Focus

Bushmeat Utilization Community Surveys Wildlife Abundance

NEXT

Future ResearchFuture Research for the Overall Project:for 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

ReferencesConservation 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.

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements• American Philosophical Society Lewis and Clark Fund for Exploration and Field ResearchAmerican Philosophical Society Lewis and Clark Fund for Exploration and Field Research• WKU Office of Graduate Studies and ResearchWKU Office of Graduate Studies and Research• WKU Biology DepartmentWKU Biology Department• Applied Research and Technology Program of Ogden CollegeApplied Research and Technology Program of Ogden College• Tara Granke, Allison Harnish, Simon Kasaine, Nicole Kimwele, Pam Kimwele, Maggie Mahan, Tara Granke, Allison Harnish, Simon Kasaine, Nicole Kimwele, Pam Kimwele, Maggie Mahan,

Joseph Olesarioyo, Joseph Olesarioyo, RinahRinah Shawa,Shawa, Bridget Sutton, Samuel Thumbi, Richard Tsalwa, Mandy Bridget Sutton, Samuel Thumbi, Richard Tsalwa, Mandy VanMeterKenya Wildlife Service: Peter Oduor, Joseph Musembi VanMeterKenya Wildlife Service: Peter Oduor, Joseph Musembi

• Ezra MdamEzra Mdam• WKU Center for Biodiversity StudiesWKU Center for Biodiversity Studies• WKU Department of SociologyWKU Department of Sociology• WKU Biotechnology CenterWKU Biotechnology Center• University of Nairobi University of Nairobi