Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:35:03.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Perceived Benefits of Protected Areas in the Virunga-bwindi Massif

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2018

Sarah Tolbert ,
Wellard Makambo ,
Stephen Asuma ,
Altor Musema  and
Benjamin Mugabukomeye
Sarah Tolbert*
Affiliation:
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT06511, USA Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, New Haven, CT06520, USA
Wellard Makambo
Affiliation:
International Gorilla Conservation Programme, a coalition programme of Fauna & Flora International and WWF
Stephen Asuma
Affiliation:
International Gorilla Conservation Programme, a coalition programme of Fauna & Flora International and WWF
Altor Musema
Affiliation:
International Gorilla Conservation Programme, a coalition programme of Fauna & Flora International and WWF
Benjamin Mugabukomeye
Affiliation:
International Gorilla Conservation Programme, a coalition programme of Fauna & Flora International and WWF
*
Author for correspondence: Sarah Tolbert, Email: sarah.a.tolbert@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Despite decades of continuous research highlighting the biological success of mountain gorilla conservation in the Virunga-Bwindi Massif, there is little knowledge of whether people living near the mountain gorilla parks perceive benefits from protected areas (PAs). This paper is the first study in the region to use the sustainable livelihoods framework to understand drivers of local perceptions of PA benefits. We used a logit regression to examine the relationship between household socioeconomic characteristics and the costs and benefits that 752 men and women living near mountain gorilla PAs reported. Integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) in the Virunga-Bwindi Massif have improved perceptions of mountain gorilla PAs, but they need to prioritize projects that improve human and social capital. The frustration voiced about inequitable benefit distribution highlights the need for further social equity research to ensure ICDPs, including revenue-sharing schemes, are managed transparently and equitably.

Keywords

RwandaUgandaDemocratic Republic of the Congotourism revenue sharingmountain gorillassustainable livelihoods frameworksocial equitysocial impactintegrated conservation and development projectsbasic necessities survey
Type
Non-Thematic Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 46 , Special Issue 1: Thematic Section: Forests in Flux , March 2019 , pp. 76 - 83
Copyright
© Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahebwa, WM, van der Duim, R Sandbrook, C (2012) Tourism revenue sharing policy at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda: a policy arrangements approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(3): 377–394.Google Scholar
Althor, G, McKinnon, M, Cheng, SH, Klein, C Watson, J (2016) Does the social equitability of community and incentive based conservation interventions in non-OECD countries, affect human well-being? A systematic review protocol. Environmental Evidence 5(1): 5–26.Google Scholar
Allendorf, T, Swe, KK, Oo, T, Htut, Y, Aung, M, Allendorf, K Hayek, LA et al. (2006) Community attitudes toward three PAs in Upper Myanmar (Burma). Environmental Conservation 33(4): 344–352.Google Scholar
Baker, J, Milner-Gulland, EJ Leader-Williams, N (2011) Park gazettement and integrated conservation and development as factors in community conflict at Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda. Conservation Biology 26, 160–170.Google Scholar
Baral, N Heinen, JT (2007) Resources use, conservation attitudes, management intervention and park–people relations in the Western Terai landscape of Nepal. Environmental Conservation 34(1): 64–72.Google Scholar
Bebbington, A (1999) Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development 27(12): 2021–2044.Google Scholar
Bennett, NJ (2016) Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 30(3): 582–592.Google Scholar
Blomley, T, Namara, A, McNeilage, A, Franks, P, Rainer, H, Donaldson, A Malpas, R et al. (2010) Development AND Gorillas? Assessing Fifteen Years of Integrated Conservation and Development in South-Western Uganda. London, UK: IIED.Google Scholar
Bush, GK, Ikirezi, M, Daconto, G, Gray, M Fawcett, K (2010) Assessing Impacts from Community Conservation Interventions around Parc National des Volcans, Rwanda. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA).Google Scholar
Bragagnolo, C, Malhado, AC, Jepson, P Ladle, RJ (2016) Modeling local attitudes to PAs in developing countries. Conservation and Society 14(3): 163–182.Google Scholar
Brockington, D (2002) Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, BM, Sayer, JA Walker, B (2010) Navigating trade-offs: working for conservation and development outcomes. Ecology and Society 15(2): 16.Google Scholar
Davies, R Smith, W (1998) The Basic Necessities Survey: The experience of ActionAid Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: ActionAid.Google Scholar
Davies, TE, Fazey, IRA, Cresswell, W Pettorelli, N (2013) Missing the trees for the wood: why we are failing to see success in pro-poor conservation. Animal Conservation 17(4): 303–312.Google Scholar
Emerton, L (2001) The nature of benefits and the benefits of nature: why wildlife conservation has not economically benefited communities in Africa. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, eds. D Hulme & M Murphree, pp. 208–226. Oxford, UK: James Currey.Google Scholar
Ferraro, PJ (2002) The local costs of establishing PAs in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 43(2): 261–275.Google Scholar
Ferraro, PJ (2009) Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. In: Environmental Program and Policy Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, eds. M Birnbaum & P Mickwitz, pp. 75–84. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Gautam, AP (2009) Equity and livelihoods in Nepal’s community forestry. International Journal of Social Forestry 2(2): 101–122.Google Scholar
Gray, M, Roy, J, Vigilant, L, Fawcett, K, Basabose, A, Cranfield, M, Uwingeli, P et al. (2013) Genetic census reveals increased but uneven growth of a critically endangered mountain gorilla population. Biological conservation 158, 230–238.Google Scholar
Harrison, M, Baker, J, Twinamatsiko, M Milner‐Gulland, EJ (2015) Profiling unauthorized natural resource users for better targeting of conservation interventions. Conservation Biology 29(6): 1636–1646.Google Scholar
Heinen, JT Shrivastava, RJ (2009) An analysis of conservation attitudes and awareness around Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India: implications for conservation and development. Population and Environment 30(6): 261–274.Google Scholar
Holmes, G (2007) Protection, politics and protest: understanding resistance to conservation. Conservation and Society 5, 184–201.Google Scholar
Igoe, J (2006) Measuring the costs and benefits of conservation to local communities. Journal of Ecological Anthropology 10(1): 72–77.Google Scholar
Infield, M Namara, A (2001) Community attitudes and behaviour towards conservation: an assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35(1): 48–60.Google Scholar
Jones, N, McGinlay, J Dimitrakopoulos, PG (2017) Improving social impact assessment of PAs: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 64, 1–7.Google Scholar
Karki, ST (2013) Do PAs and conservation incentives contribute to sustainable livelihoods? A case study of Bardia National Park, Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management 128, 988–999.Google Scholar
Lange, E, Woodhouse, E Milner‐Gulland, EJ (2016) Approaches used to evaluate the social impacts of PAs. Conservation Letters 9(5): 327–333.Google Scholar
Lee, TM, Sodhi, NS Prawiradilaga, DM (2009) Determinants of local people’s attitude toward conservation and the consequential effects on illegal resource harvesting in the PAs of Sulawesi (Indonesia). Environmental Conservation 36(2): 157–170.Google Scholar
McKinnon, M, Cheng, SH, Dupre, S, Edmond, J, Garside, R, Glew, L Holland, MB (2016) What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environmental Evidence 5(1): 5–8.Google Scholar
Munanura, IE, Backman, KF, Hallo, JC Powell, RB (2016) Perceptions of tourism revenue sharing impacts on Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda: a sustainable livelihoods framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24(12): 1709–1726.Google Scholar
Molenge, T (2014) Linking great ape conservation and poverty alleviation in DRC. IIED workshop report. URL http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G03825.pdf Google Scholar
Oldekop, JA, Holmes, G, Harris, WE Evans, KL (2016) A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of PAs. Conservation Biology 30(1): 133–141.Google Scholar
Persha, L Andersson, K (2014) Elite capture risk and mitigation in decentralized forest governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 24, 265–276.Google Scholar
Plumptre, A, Kayitare, A, Rainer, H, Gray, M, Munanura, I, Barakabuye, N Asuma, S et al. (2004) The Socio-Economic Status of People Living Near PAs in the Central Albertine Rift. New York, NY, USA: Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).Google Scholar
Pimbert, MP Pretty, JN (1995) Beyond conservation ideology and the wilderness. Natural Resources Forum 19(1): 5–14.Google Scholar
Robbins, MM, Gray, M, Fawcett, KA, Nutter, FB, Uwingeli, P, Mburanumwe, I Kagoda, E et al. (2011) Extreme conservation leads to recovery of the Virunga mountain gorillas. PLoS One. 6(6): e19788.Google Scholar
Sandbrook, C Adams, WM (2012) Accessing the impenetrable: the nature and distribution of tourism benefits at a Ugandan National Park. Society & Natural Resources 25, 915–932.Google Scholar
Scoones, I (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis Volume 72. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
Spiteri, A Nepal, SK (2008) Evaluating local benefits from conservation in Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area. Environmental Management 42(3): 391–401.Google Scholar
Tumusiime, DM Sjaastad, E (2014) Conservation and development: justice, inequality, and attitudes around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. Journal of Development Studies 50(2): 204–225.Google Scholar
Waylen, KA, McGowan, PJK Milner-Gulland, EJ (2009) Ecotourism positively affects awareness and attitudes but not conservation behaviours: a case study at Grande Riviere, Trinidad. Oryx 43(3): 343–351.Google Scholar
Wells, M, Guggenheim, S, Wardojo, W Jepson, P (1999) Investing in Biodiversity: A Review of Indonesia’s Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Washington, DC, USA: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Weber, W (1987) Ruhengeri and its resources: An environmental profile of the Ruhengeri Prefecture, Rwanda. Ruhengeri Resource Analysis and Management Project. URL https://rmportal.net/library/content/scapes/scapes-dec-imports/PN-ABD-046 Google Scholar
Weber, W (1989) An Analysis of Value Conflicts and Convergence in the Management of Afromontane Forests in Rwanda. Madison, WI, USA: University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
West, P Brockington, D (2006) An anthropological perspective on some unexpected consequences of PAs. Conservation Biology 20(3): 609–616.Google Scholar
Wilkie, D, Wieland, M Detoeuf, D (2015) A Guide to the Modified Basic Necessities Survey: Why and How to Conduct BNS in Conservation Landscapes. New York, NY, USA: Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).Google Scholar
Winkler, R (2011) Why do ICDPs fail? The relationship between agriculture, hunting and ecotourism in wildlife conservation. Resource and Energy Economics 33, 55–78.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Tolbert et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Tolbert et al. supplementary material(File)
File 91.3 KB