<%BANNER%>

An Evaluation of Collaborative Resource Management and the Measurement of Illegal Resource Use in a Ugandan National Park

University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019202/00001

Material Information

Title: An Evaluation of Collaborative Resource Management and the Measurement of Illegal Resource Use in a Ugandan National Park
Physical Description: 1 online resource (152 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Solomon, Jennifer N
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: africa, collaborative, conservation, fishing, kibale, management, park, poaching, randomized, resources, response, survey, technique, uganda, wildlife
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Protected area management in developing countries faces the challenges of building support for conservation among neighboring residents and monitoring the social and ecological impacts of conservation programming. This study examines a collaborative resource management (CRM) program at Kibale National Park, Uganda that allows residents to fish inside the park. Like other integrated conservation and development programs, the goals are to help alleviate poverty and build support for conservation and conservation-related behaviors. I empirically analyze the program's impact using an 81-item personal survey, with 94 CRM fishers and 91 respondents in a control group and additional data from a focus group, semi-structured interviews, and document review. Results show fishers earned significantly more income (median=U.S. $376.02) than the control group (median= U.S. $196.19, U=2953.50, p < 0.001), and tribal affiliation influenced earnings. Fishers reported significantly more positive attitudes toward park staff than the control group (all p-values < 0.05) and indicated more support for conservation (U=2906.5, p < 0.01). Although CRM fishers deterred illegal activity, some may also extract resources illegally. Management recommendations include increased monitoring of fishers and their harvest levels, ecological studies of the fishery, and a seasonal moratorium. Results of the CRM fishing survey indicated few respondents divulged illegal behavior when directly questioned; yet illegal resource use is a major threat to conservation worldwide. To manage effectively, the number of people engaging in illegal activities needs to be estimated. However, people violating the law seldom identify themselves for fear of retribution. A second survey was conducted with 251 residents to test the use of the randomized response technique (RRT) to better measure illegal activities. The RRT allows respondents to disclose sensitive information because the interviewer cannot ascertain an individual?s true response to the incriminating question. Estimates of six types of illegal resource use, such as removing plants and snaring wildlife, were compared using surveys with the RRT versus direct questioning. The RRT survey method yielded an estimate of significantly more illegal activity than direct questioning for each type of illegal resource use (all p-values < 0.001). This suggests the RRT is a potentially powerful tool for understanding conservation threats in the developing world.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jennifer N Solomon.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Jacobson, Susan K.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0019202:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019202/00001

Material Information

Title: An Evaluation of Collaborative Resource Management and the Measurement of Illegal Resource Use in a Ugandan National Park
Physical Description: 1 online resource (152 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Solomon, Jennifer N
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: africa, collaborative, conservation, fishing, kibale, management, park, poaching, randomized, resources, response, survey, technique, uganda, wildlife
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Protected area management in developing countries faces the challenges of building support for conservation among neighboring residents and monitoring the social and ecological impacts of conservation programming. This study examines a collaborative resource management (CRM) program at Kibale National Park, Uganda that allows residents to fish inside the park. Like other integrated conservation and development programs, the goals are to help alleviate poverty and build support for conservation and conservation-related behaviors. I empirically analyze the program's impact using an 81-item personal survey, with 94 CRM fishers and 91 respondents in a control group and additional data from a focus group, semi-structured interviews, and document review. Results show fishers earned significantly more income (median=U.S. $376.02) than the control group (median= U.S. $196.19, U=2953.50, p < 0.001), and tribal affiliation influenced earnings. Fishers reported significantly more positive attitudes toward park staff than the control group (all p-values < 0.05) and indicated more support for conservation (U=2906.5, p < 0.01). Although CRM fishers deterred illegal activity, some may also extract resources illegally. Management recommendations include increased monitoring of fishers and their harvest levels, ecological studies of the fishery, and a seasonal moratorium. Results of the CRM fishing survey indicated few respondents divulged illegal behavior when directly questioned; yet illegal resource use is a major threat to conservation worldwide. To manage effectively, the number of people engaging in illegal activities needs to be estimated. However, people violating the law seldom identify themselves for fear of retribution. A second survey was conducted with 251 residents to test the use of the randomized response technique (RRT) to better measure illegal activities. The RRT allows respondents to disclose sensitive information because the interviewer cannot ascertain an individual?s true response to the incriminating question. Estimates of six types of illegal resource use, such as removing plants and snaring wildlife, were compared using surveys with the RRT versus direct questioning. The RRT survey method yielded an estimate of significantly more illegal activity than direct questioning for each type of illegal resource use (all p-values < 0.001). This suggests the RRT is a potentially powerful tool for understanding conservation threats in the developing world.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jennifer N Solomon.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Jacobson, Susan K.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0019202:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





AN EVAUATION OF COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND THE
MEASUREMENT OF ILLEGAL RESOURCE USE IN A UGANDAN NATIONAL PARK




















By

JENNIFER N. SOLOMON


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007





































O 2007 Jennifer N. Solomon









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My dissertation committee has been a source of advice, inspiration and support throughout

the course of this study. I thank my advisor, Susan Jacobson, who has delivered much

appreciated level-headed advice and support throughout my years at UF. Without Susan's

encouragement to "just check it out" I never would have gone to Kibale. Her honest approach to

advising and genuine enthusiasm inspires.

My gratitude goes to Colin and Lauren Chapman for their support and gentle

encouragement. They do amazing work in Kibale and their continued efforts provide one of the

finest examples of how scientists can carry out research-oriented conservation work. Colin

provided insight, and thoughtful advice throughout the course of the study.

Ken Wald of the Department of Political Science has had a tremendous effect on my

graduate career. His class, "Survey Research" proved to be the most valuable course for my

research in Uganda. Not only is he a gifted teacher, but he also delivers sagacious advice in a

timely manner. The second part of this dissertation would never have occurred if it was not for

his encouragement and guidance.

Chuck Adams in the Department of Food and Resource Economics has delivered superb

advice throughout the course of my graduate studies. We met when I was considering carrying

out my research in Central America on the lobster fishery and despite the change of focus over

the years he has remained a steadfast supporter. His wise suggestions and boundless enthusiasm

has made working with him a pleasure.

I thank Mark Hostetler for encouraging me to investigate statistical methods for addressing

confounding variables. His queries propelled me toward understanding a broader range of

statistical methods. His thoughtful comments strengthened my dissertation.









I am indebted to Ivy Ming-Liu, a statistician at Victoria University of Wellington, New

Zealand and a graduate of University of Florida. Ivy provided valuable insight into the analysis

of the data and shared a significant amount of time with me, explaining the pros and cons of

different statistical tests. I also thank Alisa Coffin who generously provided her time and skills

while mapping the GPS data.

In Uganda I relied heavily upon a group of assistants. All of them worked in tough

conditions over long hours in remote locations. Karungi Edith was one of the first field

assistants that I hired. In the region there are few women that serve as field assistants and in my

opinion this is a loss to researchers. Edith was one of the most reliable and trustworthy

assistants. Mukwenda John was also reliable, proved excellent at trouble-shooting and

maintained accurate financial records. Kakooza Micheal proved to be a talented interviewer.

Birungi Sixtus joined the team later in the research and immediately proved to be an asset to the

team .

The communities that I worked in provided hospitality and kindness. Their contribution to

the research is perhaps the greatest. Community members provided both valuable time and

information. It is my intention that they own the results of this research.

Financial support for this dissertation came from generous organizations. Research was

supported by grants or fellowships from: University of Florida' s Tropical Conservation and

Development Program, National Security Education Program (David L. Boren fellowship), and

the U.S. Fulbright program. I thank the Ugandan Council of Science and Technology and

Uganda Wildlife Authority for granting permission to carry out this study. Makerere University

Biological Field Station provided me a home for the duration of my research. Kibale National

Park staff imparted support and insight into resource management around the park. Arthur










Mugisha, at the time the Executive Director of Uganda Wildlife Authority, also provided support

and down-to-earth advice.

I am fortunate to have so many friends to thank for supporting me throughout the course of

my graduate career. Their ability to make me laugh, trouble-shoot and encourage sustained me

throughout my studies. Although the dissertation is complete, I will continue to reap the benefits

of these friendships for years to come.

My parents, Alan and Livvy Solomon, have always encouraged me to do what I love. I am

thankful for their kind words, love and support over the many years of my graduate education.

Numerous times my sister Michelle has traveled around the world to visit me. She has been one

of my staunchest supporters. I thank her for all of her love and look forward to many more

shared j ourneys in all corners of the world.

My family has sacrificed a great deal to realize this dissertation, especially in the past 2

years. My partner Mike and I shared many adventures during the course of my graduate work.

He "commuted" from the Amazon so I could continue my research, endured mango flies,

discovered the source of mango flies in our house in Uganda (thank goodness), engaged in losing

battles with safari ants invading our home at 2AM, and investigated venomous snakes while

wearing flip-flops. He has been extremely generous with time as well as in caring for our son,

Sky. Mike has provided solid critiques and endless advice on my work throughout. His positive

nature, humor and smile have made life a wonderful journey. Without him this world would be

a dull place. My son Skyler is perhaps the most fruitful result of our time spent in Uganda.

Although the work on the dissertation took place at a slower pace following Sky's birth, I have

no regrets. He is the light of my life and I wouldn't have wanted to miss his first two years for

anything.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. ...............3.....


LI ST OF T ABLE S ............ ...... ._ ._ ...............9....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............10....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 1 1..


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............13.......... ......


2 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............17........... ...


Background ............... ... .. ......... ... ........... ... ...........1
History of CRM from Paternalism to Participation ................. ...............18..............
Literature Review ............... .......... .... ... ........1
Poverty and Conservation of Natural Resources .................. ...... ............ ............... ....19
Should conservation and development be programmatically linked? ................... ...20
Measuring poverty............... ...............23
Poverty in Uganda ................. .. .... .. ....... .........__.........2
Support for Conservation and Pro-Environmental Behavior .......__. ......... .......... .....24
Support for conservation .............. ...............25....
Behavior ................ ...............27.................
Conclusion ................ ...............32.................


3 AN ANALYSIS OF A COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FISHING
PROGRAM' S IMPACT ON POVERTY, SUPPORT FOR CONSERVATION, AND
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR AT KIBALE NATIONAL PARK, UGANDA....33


Collaborative Resource Management in Uganda .............. .. ...............33...
CRM Conceptual Framework and Obj ectives in Uganda ................ ............ .........3 3
Coordination and Capacity-building .............. ...............34....
Location of CRM programs...................... ..... .....................3
Collaborative Resource Management in Kibale National Park............... ..................3
Research Hypotheses ................. ...............35.................
M ethods .................................... .... ........ ..... .......3
Site Profile -Lake Kabaleka, Kibale National Park ................. ........._........._..._..3 6
Fishing Specific Issue Agreement ................. ...............37........... ...
Data Collection and Sources .............. ...............38....

Analy si s ................. ...............42.......... .....
Re sults ................ .......... ... ........ ..... ..........4
Socio-demographic Variables .............. ...............44....
Covariates ................ ...............44.................












Livelihood-related Data............... ...............45..
Costs of Fishing-related Assets ................. ...............46___.....
Other Indicators of Wealth ............ ........... ...............46.....

Support for Resource Conservation............... ..............4
Relationship with Park Staff ........_................. ............_........4
Support for Kibale National Park ........._..._.. ...._._. .......... ...........4
Support for Conservation Scale............... ...............48.
Pro-environmental Behaviors ........_................. ..........._.......... 4
Illicit Behaviors ............... ........ ... ............4
Knowledge of Local Environmental Laws ........_................. ............... 50.....
Discussion ................. ......._._. .... ...............50.....

Impact of CRM on Poverty .............. ............... .......51
Impact of CRM on Support for Conservation ................ ...............52........... ..
Support for Conservation Scale............... ...............52.
Impact of CRM on Pro-Environmental Behaviors ................. ................ ......... .53
Impact of CRM on Illicit Behaviors ............... .... .......... .............. .. ..........5
Other Considerations for CRM Management: Accuracy of UWA records .................. ..55
Limitations of Study .............. ...............55....
Recommendations...................... .. .. .......5
Encourage Ecological Studies of the Resource ................. ...... ..... ................ ......5
Diversify Fishers' Income Base by Instituting a Seasonal Moratorium on Fishing........57
Increase Monitoring and Evaluation .............. ...............57....
M measure Program Outputs ................... .. .......... .... ...............59....
Future Research: Broaden the Definition of Poverty ................. ......... ................59

4 ESTIMATING ILLEGAL RESOURCE USE AT A UGANDAN PARK ............................78


Introducti on ................. .. ........ ...............78.......
Randomized Response Technique ................. ...............80........... ....
M ethods .............. ...............82....

Study Site............... ...............82..
Data Collection ................. ...............83.................
Survey Instrument .............. ...............83....
Data Analysis............... ...............87
Re sults ................ ...............87.................
Discussion ................... .. ....... ..... ... ......... .... ..........8

Application of RRT in the Developing World ............ ..... .__ ........._.......8
Other Potential Applications .............. ...............90....
Constraints to Using RRT .............. ...............90....
Future Considerations............... .............9


5 CONCLU SION................ ..............9


Conclusion for Collaborative Resource Management Study ............... ..... ....__.............97
Implications of Collaborative Resource Management Findings for Conservation .........97
Recommendations to Uganda Wildlife Authority ............ ......__ ............. ..98
Conclusion for Randomized Response Technique Study ......____ ........_ ..............99












Randomized Response Technique as a Methodological Tool in Conservation ............100

APPENDIX


A ENGLISH/RUKIGA LANGUAGE VERSION OF COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT SURVEY .............. ...............101....


Knowledge of Park-Related Laws and Programs ................. ...............101..............
Park Staff ..................... .. ....... ........0
Support for Kibale National Park ................... ............. ... ........ ...............105
Support for Consumption of Resources in Kibale National Park ................. ................ ...106
Perceived Benefits from the Park ........._.. ..... ._._ ...............107..
Household Profile ........._.. ..... ._ ._ ...............112....
Behaviors ........._.. ..... _. __ ...............117....
Perception of Enforcement ........._.. ..... ._._ ...............119...

B ENGLISH/RUTORO LANGUAGE SURVEY OF RANDOMIZED RESPONSE
TECHNIQUE SURVEY .............. ...............120....


Socio-Demographics............... ..........12
Rating Benefits/Costs .............. ...............124....
Neighb or' s B ehavi or ................. ...............126........ ....
Kibale-Related Questions ............ ....._._._ ...............127....
Support for Conservation............... .............12
B ehavi or .................. ....._.._ ........_.._.........1 1
Resource-Related Questions ........._._.._......_.. ...............133....
Socio-Demographics............... ..........13

C PHOTOS USED TO CARRY OUT RANDOMIZED RESPONSE TECHNIQUE ............136

LIST OF REFERENCES ............ ...... ..__ ...............140..


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............_...... .__ ...............152...










LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1 Categorizations of wealth used to rank the wealth of survey respondents by local
community leaders ........... __..... ._ ...............62....

3-2 Socio-demographic variables of interest ................. ...............63........... ...

3-3 Costs to fishers per activity ................. ...............66...............

3-4 Comparison of individual support for conservation items for fishers and control
group .............. ...............67....

3-5 Comparison of pro-environmental behaviors for fishers and control group ................... ...72

3-6 Comparison of illegal behaviors and opinions of behaviors for fishers and control
group .............. ...............74....

3-7 Comparison for individual knowledge of local environmental laws .............. .... ........._...76

4-1 Brief explanation of steps carried out during randomized response technique
questioning ................. ...............93.................

4-2 Comparison of two methods to quantify illegal resource use in Kibale National Park,
U gand a ................. ...............93.......... .....

4-3 Effectiveness of two methods to quantify illegal resource use in two communities
near Kibale National Park, Uganda .............. ...............94....

4-4 Maj or concerns when using randomized response technique and ways to minimize
concerns in this study ................. ...............95................











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Map of Uganda with protected areas noted ................. ...............16..............

3-1 Conceptual framework for this assessment of Uganda Wildlife Authority's
collaborative resource management program .............. ...............60....

3-2 Home regions of fishers participating in collaborative resource management ..................6 1

4-1 Decision tree .............. ...............96....

A-1 Photo representing collection of charcoal ...._.._.._ ........._.._......_ ..........13

A-2 Photo representing hunting ........._.._.. ...._... ...............137...

A-3 Photo representing collection of poles ....__. ...._.._.._ ............ ............3

A-4 Photo representing collection of timber ...._.._.._ .........._. ...._.._ ...........3

A-5 Photo representing collection of firewood ........._._. ........... ...._... ...........3

A-6 Photo representing grazing .............. ...............139....









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

AN EVALUATION OF COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND THE
MEASUREMENT OF ILLEGAL RESOURCE USE INT A UGANDAN NATIONAL PARK


By

Jennifer N. Solomon

August 2007

Chair: Susan K. Jacobson
Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

Protected area management in developing countries faces the challenges of building

support for conservation among neighboring residents and monitoring the social and ecological

impacts of conservation programming. This study examines a collaborative resource

management (CRM) program at Kibale National Park, Uganda that allows residents to fish inside

the park. Like other integrated conservation and development programs, the goals are to help

alleviate poverty and build support for conservation and conservation-related behaviors. I

empirically analyze the program's impact using an 81 item personal survey, with 94 CRM

fishers and 91 respondents in a control group and additional data from a focus group, semi-

structured interviews, and document review. Results show fishers earned significantly more

income (median=U.S. $376.02) than the control group (median= U.S. $196.19, U=2953.50,

p<0.001), and tribal affiliation influenced earnings. Fishers reported significantly more positive

attitudes toward park staff than the control group (all p-values <0.05) and indicated more support

for conservation (U=2906.5, p<0.01). Although CRM fishers deterred illegal activity, some may

also extract resources illegally. Management recommendations include increased monitoring of

fishers and their harvest levels, ecological studies of the fishery, and a seasonal moratorium.









Results of the CRM fishing survey indicated few respondents divulged illegal behavior

when directly questioned; yet illegal resource use is a maj or threat to conservation worldwide.

To manage effectively, the number of people engaging in illegal activities needs to be estimated.

However, people violating the law seldom identify themselves for fear of retribution. A second

survey was conducted with 25 1 residents to test the use of the randomized response technique

(RRT) to better measure illegal activities. The RRT allows respondents to disclose sensitive

information because the interviewer cannot ascertain an individual's true response to the

incriminating question. Estimates of six types of illegal resource use, such as removing plants

and snaring wildlife, were compared using surveys with the RRT versus direct questioning. The

RRT survey method yielded an estimate of significantly more illegal activity than direct

questioning for each type of illegal resource use (all p-values <0.001). This suggests the RRT is

a potentially powerful tool for understanding conservation threats in the developing world.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

When a Westerner mentions "Africa" the image that most often comes to mind is one of

wild animals on endless grassy plains. Rarely, if ever, do Westerners envision the people that

share the land with the wildlife (Adams & McShane 1992). It is these people that have the most

impact on the survival of the wildlife. And in general, these people are poor. Africa harbors

some of the poorest countries on earth.

Conservation would not be necessary if it were not for humans' impact on the

environment. Human activities have been destructive, but they also have the potential to be

productive. We, as a society, are now in a race to conserve what is left of some of the most

spectacular natural areas, as well as species, on this planet. The ways in which our natural

resources are managed will inevitably influence the future of what we choose to conserve.

Today's conservation management options are diverse, ranging from fortress conservation,

also known as the "fences and fines" approach which is usually driven by governments, to

internally-motivated conservation proj ects which are often initiated and managed by community

members (Gavin et al. 2007). In between on the management continuum is collaborative

resource management (CRM). The term, CRM, can be used to describe different types of

conservation programs, but in general it means that management of a resource is shared by at

least 2 different stakeholders and resources are managed for a specific benefit, thereby implying

some level of development for the user. The underlying assumption is that the benefit is one of a

quidpro quo nature, allowing local people to benefit or be compensated in lieu of something

foregone, often lost access to resources (Alpert 1996; Scott 1998). Many CRM programs fall

under integrated conservation and development proj ects (ICDPs), since CRM programs hope to

achieve conservation of a resource or habitat in addition to livelihood improvement. The CRM










program examined in this dissertation is an ICDP which was established in Kibale National Park

(KNP), Uganda in 2000.

Within the past 20 years, ICDPs have become very popular with conservation and donor

communities. Unfortunately, positive outcomes that meet the dual objectives of conservation

and development have been elusive. Although donors are hard-pressed to Eind concrete data

indicating that ICDPs are a fruitful strategy, the lack of alternatives and the intuitive appeal of

ICDPs have ensured that they will remain a tool for conservation. Advocates of ICDPs (e.g.,

Wilshusen et al. 2002) defend conservation and development programming, pointing out that the

failures have been due to process and not necessarily fundamental conceptual flaws. Validating

the ICDP process, however, has been hampered by a lack of proper assessments. My dissertation

contributes to knowledge on the efficacy of ICDPs in achieving their dual goals of conservation

and development.

This dissertation is two-part; using a survey, focus group, semi-structured interviews and

document review, the first part analyzes the impact of Uganda Wildlife Authority's CRM Eishing

program in KNP on poverty, support for conservation, and conservation-related behaviors.

Collaborative resource management in KNP permits select residents to use certain park

resources; in the case of this study the resource is fish. The need to understand the impact of

illegal resource use associated with CRM led to exploration of a new method to investigate this

phenomenon. The second part of the dissertation includes the results of a methodological

experiment aimed at providing data about illegal resource use.

Uganda is an ideal place to carry out these studies. Uganda holds an impressive array of

biodiversity that is threatened by high population pressure bordering national parks of global

significance (Figure 1-1). Its governmental wildlife management authority has been exploring










innovations in conservation management, especially strategies to reduce conflict between people

that reside near or in protected areas and park authorities (Scott 1998). Collaborative resource

management has been one such strategy. Uganda Wildlife Authority's CRM program aims to

reduce poverty, improve relations with park staff and community members as well as encourage

pro-environmental behavior in the park. The CRM program in KNP is in its infancy; the fishing

program began in 2000. My study examines early results, following the first three years of the

CRM fishing program, and answers the following questions: "Is the CRM program alleviating

poverty?" and "Does the CRM program influence support for conservation and conservation-

related behaviors?"

One of the results of the CRM Eishing survey research was that local people residing

around KNP divulged few illegal behaviors to Ugandan survey assistants. The second part of this

dissertation, a direct result of this finding, examines the effectiveness of the randomized response

technique (RRT) in estimating illegal resource use in a Ugandan community. Illegal resource

use is considered a maj or threat to conservation in protected areas throughout the world, yet

accurately estimating the number of people illegally using resources has been difficult.

Randomized response technique is unique in allowing respondents to disclose sensitive

information because the interviewer can not ascertain an individual's true response to the

incriminating question. A common technique used in asking sensitive questions in the health

sciences, RRT has never been used in a developing country on topics of natural resource use

with populations that are semi-literate. This study takes the first step toward developing and

testing a potentially powerful tool for understanding conservation threats in the developing

world.































Semulifa NP 7* Mount EI ign NP

INenrarl illiL..i~ le P
Moul'dins N P I
~1
take ~ur Edwe,4 .BenEllaethNP

BNbLnl Lake Mbuaur MP
-- Lake victoria

Mgsshnge GPrille NP



Figure 1-1. Map of Uganda with protected areas noted (Uganda Wildlife Authority 2006).









CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Background

Uganda's colonial history has shaped its current conservation policies and practices.

State initiatives to conserve Uganda's diverse but dwindling habitats and species have been

guided by a framework devised early in the 20th century (Hulme 1998). A prime component of

this colonial legacy has been a protectionist orientation which frames Ugandan natural resource

users as the conservation 'problem' and aims to achieve conservation obj ectives by not

permitting resource users to access areas of conservation value. Wild animals are further

protected by a ban on hunting of most wild species. Unfortunately, this protectionist stance has

not effectively halted exploitation (Hulme 1998).

Forbidding people who live near parks to utilize resources has created strong negative

emotions towards the protected areas and the government among people living near national

parks (Mugisha & Jacobson 2004; Naughton-Treves 1996; Nepal & Weber 1995). Exacerbating

these emotions are the incidences of crop-raiding by animals such as elephants, baboons, and

chimpanzees (Naughton-Treves 1996). As one farmer explained, "These animals leave us poor

and hungry...Why should we starve so that baboons may eat?" (Naughton-Treves 1997 p.3 5).

This negative attitude towards the park and the wildlife within it has been the source for various

interventions to provide benefits to protected area neighbors and reduce illegal, uncontrolled use

of park resources. One such intervention is collaborative resource management (CRM).

Collaborative resource management seeks to improve conservation outcomes by addressing

poverty. The program allows people residing near select protected areas in Uganda to utilize

park resources. By doing so, CRM aims to alleviate poverty, increase support for conservation,

and encourage pro-environmental behaviors.









Collaborative resource management is a broad term, often couched under "community-

based conservation", used to describe partnerships between different stakeholders concerning

management of land and/or natural resources. There are a vast array of terms that can include

CRM proj ects, one of the more common being integrated conservation and development (ICDPs)

(Adams & Hulme 2001; Timmer & Juma 2005). The name CRM itself implies that management

of the resource is, in effect, joint and resources are managed for a specific benefit, thereby

implying some level of development for the user. The underlying assumption is that the benefit

is one of a quid pro quo nature, allowing local people to benefit or be compensated in lieu of

something foregone, often lost access to resources (Alpert 1996; Scott 1998).

History of CRM from Paternalism to Participation

Collaborative resource management is the direct result of what some experts believe to be

the failed conservation regime of fortress conservation, also known as the 'fences and Eines'

approach (Inamdar et al. 1999; Songorwa 1999; Wilshusen et al. 2002). Fortress conservation,

originally the dominant paradigm in the Hield, advocates a strict protectionist approach towards

the conservation of natural resources. In the past 20 years though, a new "narrative" has arisen,

namely community-based conservation (Adams & Hulme 2001; Western 2001). Community-

based conservation advocates argue that conservation must be integrated with the interests and

wishes of local people (Adams & Hulme 2001). The arguments for espousing this approach are

based on both ethical (the rights and well-being of local people) and practical (the need for local

support given limited conservation funds) concerns (Adams & Hulme 2001; Brechin et al. 2002;

Wilshusen et al. 2002).

For several decades now the term "local participation" has been used widely in

community-based conservation. More recently though there has been a distinction made

between "beneficiary participation" and "participatory participation" (Scott 1998). Benefieiary










participation, a common concept in ICDPs, implies that certain stakeholders, usually local

people, receive benefits as compensation for something foregone. In these programs, decision-

making power rests with an external stakeholder, usually a governmental body or non-

governmental organization, but not with the local people. Participatory participation intends that

all stakeholders have decision-making authority and substantial input into proj ect management

(Scott 1998). In essence, CRM is about participation and partnerships. It advocates that local

people, who are often affected by conservation initiatives, should have a prominent voice in

conservation-related decisions if they so wish. Moreover, they should be able to shape and steer

the direction of the conservation proj ect.

The following section of this chapter highlights the literature that relates to the primary

obj ectives of CRM: poverty alleviation and natural resource conservation, support for

conservation, and pro-environmental behaviors. Literature pertaining to the randomized

response technique is covered in Chapter 4.

Literature Review

Poverty and Conservation of Natural Resources

The United Nations (2003) estimates that worldwide 900 million people live in rural areas

in absolute poverty (defined as deprivation of a human's basic needs) depending largely on

natural resources for their livelihoods. Those who are currently chronically poorly will be the

same people who will be in severe poverty by 2015; and the chronic poor tend to live in rural

locales, closest to areas of conservation concern (Hulme & Shepherd 2003). Therefore it is not

surprising that poverty and natural resource conservation, especially in developing countries, are

perceived to be intimately connected.


1 Chronic poverty involves "significant capability deprivations for a period of five years or
more" (Hulme & Shepherd 2003 p 404-405).









The connection between poverty alleviation and the environment revolves around the

sustainable use of resources. Poverty does not encourage people to act with long-term

sustainability in mind (Lieberson et al. 2003). The United States Agency for International

Development (USAID), a maj or donor to developing nations worldwide, believes that countries

such as Uganda need to sustainably use resources to pull themselves out of poverty and therefore

they fund conservation programs that encourage donor recipients to raise their incomes

(Lieberson et al. 2003). USAID programming of this type is grounded in the idea that income

generation will promote conservation when linked to conservation techniques and hence the

people, the country and the environment will benefit (Lieberson et al. 2003). This is a common

belief among other multilateral donors (e.g., World Bank, International Monetary Fund), and

serves as the primary assumption for ICDPs, which aim to achieve "site-based conservation with

social or economic development goals or components" (Wells et al. 2004 p. 399).

Should conservation and development be programmatically linked?

Despite the links made by the ICDP literature and maj or donor agencies such as USAID, it

is hotly debated whether conservation and poverty alleviation programs should attempt to

achieve both goals simultaneously (Adams et al. 2004; Newmark & Hough 2000; Wilkie et al.

2006). Instituted in 2000, the United Nation' s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) include

both environmental sustainability and development obj ectives, but they are distinctly separate.

Some experts believe that conservation efforts are being superseded by poverty alleviation

objectives (Adams et al. 2004). From a pragmatic stance, both conservation and development

proj ects, as well as developing country governments, often have limited finances available.

Spreading thin resources even thinner may result in even fewer success stories (Alexander 2000;

Wells et al. 2004). Additionally, some wonder if the goals of conservation and development are

even compatible, as conservation of natural resources may negatively impact development, and









development may impair or restrict conservation efforts (Barrett & Arcese 1995; Hughes &

Flintan 2001; Kellert et al. 2000; Rao & McGowan 2002; Sunderlin et al. 2005).

In general, few win-win cases can be found in the ICDP literature (Barrett & Arcese 1995;

Brandon & Wells 1992; Hughes & Flintan 2001; Kellert et al. 2000; Marcus 2006; Newmark &

Hough 2000; Sunderlin 2006; Wainwright & Wehrmeyer 1998). The effect of long-lasting

positive benefits is elusive (Adams et al. 2004). Overall it appears that such proj ects produce

modest cash or income benefits and may not affect a great portion of the communities.

Experience has demonstrated that ICDPs promise more than they achieve (Timmer & Juma

2005; Wells et al. 2004).

Advocates of ICDPs (Wilshusen et al. 2002) defend conservation and development

programming, pointing out that the failures have been due to process and not necessarily

fundamental conceptual flaws. Validating the ICDP process, however, has been hampered by a

lack of proper evaluation. The lack of monitoring and evaluation tools in ICDPs has led to

difficulty in establishing a causal link between conservation programs and poverty alleviation

(Hughes & Flintan 2001, Timmer & Juma 2005). Timmer and Juma (2005 p. 34) note, "without

hard data and information, it is difficult to establish whether community-based conservation

proj ects are having the desired impact on either livelihoods or biodiversity." Therefore the

analysis of the effectiveness of such proj ects is minimal. Timmer and Juma (2005) explain that

the lack of data may be due, in part, to a fear of decreased funding of proj ects if they were not to

demonstrate the anticipated results (Timmer & Juma 2005; Wells et al. 2004). No

comprehensive review of ICDPs in terms of evaluating their effectiveness at alleviating poverty

has been carried out (Robinson & Redford 2004). Robinson and Redford (2004) note only two

ICDPs have demonstrated positive monetary returns for participants: CAMPFIRE (Communal









Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) and a program carried out in the

Mamiraua Sustainable Development Reserve in the Amazon region of Brazil. CAMPFIRE, a

program that allows for controlled international sport-hunting of wildlife, reports large returns

($4.9 million between 1989 and 1996) for its participants (Getz et al. 1999). Robinson and

Redford (2004) note that average income of Eishermen in Mamiraua increased from R$320 to

R$845 over a 2 year period due to an increase in fish production from managed lakes in the

reserve .

In order to decrease poverty, one needs to understand the causes of poverty. One of the

reasons ICDPs may not decrease poverty may be the myriad causes of poverty. There is no

"one-stop-shop" solution to tackling poverty. Also whereas most ICDPs work on the micro-

level, poverty may be caused or exacerbated by exogenous influences (Bonger 2000; Rao &

McGowan 2002; Sunderlin et al. 2005). In addition, even if poverty alleviation is achieved it

does not mean that conservation gains will be made (Robinson & Redford 2004).

As Belsky (2003) writes, "But no effort can survive, let alone succeed, if the maj ority of

local residents continue to bear the large proportion of the costs of environmental conservation

while marginally sharing in its benefits" (p. 100). The intuitive appeal of this comment, as well

as the lack of promising alternatives, is most likely why donors continue to fund such proj ects

despite the lack of success stories (Wells et al. 2004).








2 Those Eigures include all income though, not just Einancial gains from fishing, but the authors
of the study believe that because no other large sources of revenue were introduced in the period
that the maj ority of the increase is due to fishing revenues (Viana et al. 2004).









Measuring poverty

Many different definitions of poverty abound (Buchanan 2006) and measurement of

poverty can be complex (Adams et al. 2004). Poverty is a multi-dimensional, dynamic process

(Rao & McGowan 2002) and occurs in developed and developing countries.

In the past, the term poverty alleviation suggested simply raising incomes, but today the

term also has broader implications. Traditional, income-based measures of poverty are used by

the MDG' s, as well as the World Bank, which defines extreme poverty as living on less than

U.S.$1 per day (measured in 1985 purchasing power parity dollars) (Buchanan 2006; Thomas

2000). The World Bank also defines those living in poverty as earning less than U.S.$2 per day

(Thomas 2000). Both of these definitions involve measurements using poverty lines. Absolute

poverty measures poverty by estimating the cost of a basket of basic necessities. Households

earning less than the cost of the necessities are deemed poor. By taking a percentage of the

median (or mean) income of a country, relative poverty is defined (Thomas 2000). Households

earning less than this figure are considered to be living in poverty. All of these types of

definitions involve income poverty.

The United Nations calls for a broader definition of poverty encompassing a variety of

different variables, creating a multi-dimensional definition of poverty (Thomas 2000). The

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) realizes that lack of income may not include all

of those that live in poverty. UNDP states that poverty "is the denial of choices and

opportunities for living a life one has reason to value" (UNDP 2006). To account for this

broader definition of poverty the UNDP uses both the Human Development Index (HDI) and

Human Poverty Index (HPI) which combine a series of different variables (e.g., health,

education, longevity, social exclusion) (Thomas 2000).









Poverty in Uganda

Although Uganda has experienced impressive economic growth in the past decade, it

remains one of the world' s poorest nations, ranking 144th out of 177 countries on UNDP's 2003

Human Development Index (UNDP 2003). Even though economic growth in Uganda has been

good, poverty is increasing, especially among the poorest members of society. Most benefits

from economic growth go to the wealthiest 20% of the populace (UNDP 2003). Thirty-four

percent of the population lived in poverty in 2000, and according to the 2002/3 Ugandan

National Household Survey this figure increased to 38% (UNDP 2003). This equates to

approximately 9 million Ugandans living on less than U.S.$1 a day (United States Agency for

International Development 2005). The largest group of the impoverished are farmers, who

primarily live in rural areas, where 96% of Ugandans reside (Lieberson et al. 2003; UNDP

2003). Per capital income in 2002 was U.S. $330 (UNDP 2003).

Support for Conservation and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Local peoples' support for and participation in conservation programs are necessary

components for their sustainability (Alexander 2000; Jacobson et al. 2006). Therefore, their

perceptions about programs and the protected area, as well as their behavior, are critical

components in the protection of resources (Alexander 2000). Researching attitudes, which refers

to an individual's evaluation of a person, concept, entity, or action (Pierce et al. 2001), may

illuminate support for environmental policies and possibly behavior (Gelcich et al. 2005;

Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002; Rauwald & Moore 2002) and may be correlated with the success of

a protected area (Struhsaker et al. 2005). Today, attitudinal and behavioral surveys are

commonly used to gauge the effect of conservation and development programs on community

members, as well as provide guidance for such programs (Fiallo & Jacobson 1995; Gillingham &

Lee 1999; Infield & Namara 2001; Parry & Campbell 1992).










Support for conservation

Support for conservation may be influenced by many factors. In the community-based

conservation literature education, wealth, age, residence time, economic activity, gender,

ethnicity, resource use, awareness of environmental issues, participation in conservation

activities, costs of living near a PA, benefits received from conservation and knowledge have all

been measured and relationships with support for conservation identified (Spiteri & Nepal 2006

and references therein). Some studies have found certain predictors of variables to be positive

correlates while others have found no relationship. For example, while wealth has been found to

be positively correlated with support for conservation in some studies (Infield 1988, Mordi 1991,

Newmark et al. 1993), other studies have found no relationship (Marcus 2006, Sah & Heinen

2001). Similarly, educational level has been found to be positively correlated with support for

conservation by Infield (1988) in his work in Uganda, and Marcus (2006) in Madagascar, while

other researchers report no relationship in other parts of Africa (Boer & Baquete 1998; Parry &

Campbell 1992). These types of Eindings may be due to myriad variables that influence those

sites, as well as methodology. Additionally, perhaps in some cases such variables are not causal

variables. The importance of social context in influencing support for conservation cannot be

underestimated (Gelcich et al. 2005). For example, De Boer and Baquete (1998) found that local

people at four different sites surrounding one reserve in Mozambique had differing levels of

support of conservation and resource use patterns; due to this, they recommended site-specific

resource management plans to ensure success.

Attitudes of local residents towards a protected area and support for its conservation have

been shown to be influenced by the benefits perceived by residents, the costs/damaging

consequences of the conservation area, and socio-demographic variables, as well as the

relationship with protected area staff. While research suggests that providing benefits to local









people results in support for conservation (Abbot et al. 2001; Arjunan et al. 2006; Bauer 2003;

Boer & Baquete 1998; Hamilton et al. 2000; Lewis et al. 1990; Mehta & Heinen 2001; Newmark

et al. 1993), the extent and nature of the benefits matter. If benefits are small in relation to the

costs of living near a protected area or distribution of such benefits is inequitable, perceived

benefits have been found to have little influence on attitudes (Gillingham & Lee 1999). Parry

and Campbell (1992) found that despite substantial benefits received in a community-based

project, negative conservation attitudes existed. They attributed this to the local peoples' lack of

resource management decision-making power. Thus, benefits, costs, equitable distribution and

decision-making power are all correlates of pro-conservation attitudes in community-based

conservation. Notable costs include: resource use restrictions, damage to crops by wildlife, loss

of livestock, and human injuries/fatalities from wildlife (Boer & Baquete 1998; Fiallo &

Jacobson 1995; Newmark et al. 1993; Parry & Campbell 1992). Additionally, socio-

demographic factors play a role in a person's support of conservation (Boer & Baquete 1998;

Infield 1988; Spiteri & Nepal 2006).

In general, studies have found "high levels of public support for conservation in principle,

but a pronounced lack of support for the external institutions responsible for the implementation

of conservation strategies" (Gillingham & Lee 1999 p. 218). Local people often hold negative

attitudes of protected area staff sometimes due to costs such as evictions from the PA and

resource use constraints (Newmark et al. 1993). Poor relations with park staff can contribute to

negative attitudes toward a protected area (Fiallo & Jacobson 1995).

The limited empirical research that has been conducted on support for conservation

associated with conservation programs near protected areas in Uganda is similar to the patterns

found in the broader literature. For example, in their review of a seven-year-old community










conservation program around Lake Mburo National Park (LMNP), Uganda, Infield and Namara

(2001) note that the proj ect, which generated mostly community-level benefits such as

infrastructure improvement, did not improve attitudes about the protected areas on a community-

level. However when they examined areas where the program focused with those where it did

not, they found a difference in attitudes, with areas that received the program expressing more

positive attitudes. The authors also write that damage from crop-raiding wildlife influenced

perceptions of the park, a commonly noted trend in the literature. The type of benefits received

also impacted attitudes towards LMNP. Infield and Namara (2001) found that the conservation

programs in LMNP effectively built the perception that the park provides benefits to a portion of

the population, but at the same time half of the study population still recognized no benefits from

the park. The data prompted the authors to surmise that the costs of living near the park for at

least one-half of the population may be too great compared with the benefits received from the

program.

Mugisha' s (2002) comparison of attitudes between people that live near parks that have

community-based conservation (CBC) programs and people living near parks that have no CBC

programs found few differences between the two groups. People living near CBC parks did not

perceive personal benefits as strongly as those people surveyed at non-CBC parks. One of the

reasons cited for this was the denial of access to resources found within the park. Such denial

may be associated with harassment from park guards, resulting in a negative relationship with

park staff (Mugisha 2002).

Behavior

"Behavior" refers to a particular action (Monroe 2003), such as the setting of wire snares,

or the chopping of wood for use as fuel. In Uganda, as in many tropical locations, areas of high

conservation significance are under considerable stress, surrounded by human populations whose









densities are high and mounting. Changing the behavior of people that live on the edge of these

conservation islands is at the core of conservation and development programs which hope to

reduce pressure from humans on natural resources by providing livelihood alternatives for

program participants.

Some environmental organizations continue to use a model, from the 1970's, which states

that environmental knowledge will influence environmental attitudes resulting in pro-

environmental behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002). However, researchers have recognized

that the attitude behavior correspondence model may be too simplistic as a multitude of variables

impact behavior, and attitudes may not necessarily correlate with behavior (Kollmuss &

Agyeman 2002; McKenzie-Mohr 2000; Olli et al. 2001).

Understanding human behavior is a critical component in creating successful conservation

programs. In developing countries, around protected areas, many behaviors of interest are non-

sanctioned activities that few local people wish to disclose to program designers who may be

viewed as outsiders in externally-driven programs. In part, social marketing sheds some light on

such a conundrum, and for this reason it is highlighted here. It calls for comprehension of

barriers to behaviors, encouraging an understanding of those who carry out an activity and those

that do not (Jacobson et al. 2006, McKenzie-Mohr 2000). Although this understanding usually

revolves around the behavior that is to be encouraged (e.g., composting, use of fuel-efficient

stoves), it can likewise be for the behavior that is to be discouraged (e.g., hunting).

Applying techniques developed in the field of marketing to social problems, social

marketing has been widely used in developing nations in the field of health sciences to change

behavior related to infectious diseases such as HIV (Andreasen 1995). Recently it has been used

to address environmental behavior (Jacobson et al. 2006).









In developing nations, the barriers to changing a behavior can be formidable. For example,

hunting activity may be driven by: culture, the need for a basic necessity (food/protein), the ease

of obtaining meat, and/or the lack of financial resources necessary to acquire it in a market.

Costs to hunting might be the time needed to participate in the hunt or the chance of being

apprehended by park authorities. Convincing people that hunting should not occur requires an

understanding of why people hunt and the costs and benefits involved in hunting. The first step

in social marketing is to identify the barriers to a behavior, and that requires understanding the

"customer" by listening to him/her (Andreasen 1995).

Few studies have been able to link perceived benefit of a protected area' s conservation

program in a developing nation with a change in behavior (Moorman 2006). This may be due to

the fact that the behavioral changes that are the focus of such studies are often illegal, and

therefore gathering information from people about such activity is challenging due to a

respondents' reluctance to disclose such sensitive information (Solomon et al. 2007). Social

marketing has a history of addressing sensitive information through its success in dealing with

subjects such as sexually transmitted diseases, abortion issues, and drug use. Social marketing

research shows that perceived costs and benefits are linked to behavior (Jacobson et al. 2006).

Providing incentives (e.g., access to resources inside a protected area) or disincentives (e.g., loss

of participating in a CRM program) in order to encourage a particular behavior may be

particularly useful in situations where reasons for an individual to change his/her behavior are

negligible (Jacobson et al. 2006).

In the case of ICDPs, behavior may be best understood theoretically in the context of the

reasonable person model. The reasonable person model addresses the complex nature of

behavioral predictors by recognizing that an individual's circumstances play a fundamental role









in his/her behavior (Kaplan 2000). It posits that by recognizing human proclivities as well as

circumstances that serve as the foundations for motivations, it may be viable for individuals to

act with the environment in mind. Being sensitive to the needs of people, recognizing their

inclinations, and ensuring they do not feel helpless are important components in creating a

platform for pro-environmental behavior (Kaplan 2000).

Correlates of environmental behavior are not as well-studied as those of conservation

attitudes (Olli et al. 2001). In general, studies have shown that benefits generated from ICDP

proj ects do not generate sufficient incentives to dissuade participants from changing their

environmental behaviors in favor of the protected area (Gartlan 2004; Emerton 2001, Lewis &

Phiri 1998; Wells et al. 2004). However, Lewis et al. (1990) did find that providing monetary

benefits from safari concessions in Zambia changed locals' behavior, resulting in a reduction in

poaching. An ecotourism project in Honduras generated significant community benefits and

resulted in less hunting and agricultural clearing (McShane and Newby 2004). Also, costs

associated with carrying out a behavior directly impact behavior (Marcus 2006; Milner-Gulland

& Leader-Williams 1992). For example, Milner-Gulland and Leader-Williams (1992) found that

the chance of being captured by law enforcement authorities, as well as the type of penalty

incurred, influenced decisions of whether or not local people poached elephants and rhinoceros.

The reasonable person model posits that helplessness is to be avoided at all costs and

participatory problem-solving is to be encouraged. Feeling helpless dissuades people from

engaging in behavioral change. For example, if people can't solve their own problems they will

feel helpless to enact behavioral change. An example from Uganda may revolve around crop-

raiding, which is hypothesized to affect local people's behavior (Infield & Namara 2001;

Naughton-Treves 1996). Even if a wild animal inflicts damage on crops, local people are not










permitted to kill it (except if it is classified by Uganda Wildlife Authority as a pest such as

baboons). Collaborative resource management may reduce feelings of helplessness, as it

encourages people to become involved in conservation and management of the park.

The type of benefit received is believed to influence pro-environmental behavior. It is

thought that benefits that accrue directly to the individual are more likely to impact

environmentally-related behavior to favor conservation than those that generate community-level

benefits (Kiss 2004). For example, conservation contracts which reward individual signees with

direct payments (i.e., performance payments) for a pre-determined conservation outcome can

result in behavioral changes (Ferraro 2001). However not all proj ects which boost incomes

promote conservation. Some studies have found that increasing living standards encourages

resource use (McShane & Newby 2004 and references therein, Trujillo 1998). A seven-year-old

community conservation program around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda, generated

community-level benefits such as infrastructure improvement, as well as individual benefits;

however it did not change behavior such as illegal hunting (Infield & Namara 2001).

Participation, a core building block in community-based conservation, is another key

ingredient in the reasonable person model. The reasonable person model contends that providing

people a meaningful way to participate in problem-solving can encourage pro-environmental

behavior. Participatory participation has been a challenge for conservation, with a large amount

of variation in the level of local participation within ICDPs (Wells et al. 2004). Theoretically,

ICDPs may empower people with information and encourage them to participate in problem-

solving, but most proj ects are externally-driven, and the framework for local participation may

not exist, creating significant challenges in ICDPs (Wells et al. 2004).









Conclusion

Integrated conservation and development proj ects involve combining conservation

obj ectives with development needs. Due to the lack of monitoring and evaluation tools in ICDPs

it is difficult to determine whether they are having their desired impacts on livelihoods or

conservation. My thesis helps to fill this gap for collaborative resource management by

empirically analyzing if Kibale National Park' s CRM fishing program is meeting select

objectives which are common to conservation and development programs. In this study I answer

two questions: Is the CRM program alleviating income poverty? And if so, does the CRM

program influence support for conservation and encourage pro-conservation behaviors?









CHAPTER 3
AN ANALYSIS OF A COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FISHING
PROGRAM' S IMPACT ON POVERTY, SUPPORT FOR CONSERVATION, AND PRO-
ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR AT KIBALE NATIONAL PARK, UGANDA

Collaborative Resource Management in Uganda

Collaborative resource management (CRM) is one of a variety of approaches used by the

Community Conservation department of the Uganda Wildlife Authority (the governmental body

charged with management of Uganda's protected areas). The Community Conservation

department works with people living around protected areas using tools such as education and

awareness programming, conflict resolution, revenue-sharing and collaborative resource

management (Uganda Wildlife Authority 2000). In essence CRM in Uganda is a "rights for

responsibilities" strategy that grants people certain rights to use natural resources, participate in

policy development and management and take up some responsibilities to monitor and regulate

harvests as well as other tasks (Chhetri et al. 2003).

CRM Conceptual Framework and Objectives in Uganda

The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) lists obj ectives of CRM proj ects, such as:

garnering cooperation for conservation of the protected area; overcoming conflict with

communities neighboring the protected area; providing local people opportunities to protect the

park, thereby reducing management costs; supporting local livelihoods; contributing to poverty

alleviation; and maintaining traditional knowledge (UWA 2000).

In Uganda, there are two different CRM approaches being used by UWA; the Specific

Issue Approach and the Integrated Collaborative Management Approach (UWA 2000). The

Specific Issue Approach concerns a particular problem or issue of interest to community

members and to protected area managers, while the Integrated Collaborative Management

Approach covers a broad array of issues. With the latter approach trade-offs may exist between









communities and UWA. For example, the community may be asked to cease use of certain

resources in exchange for assistance with crop-raiding animals (UWA 2000). This study

examines a program that uses the Specific Issue Approach.

The Specific Issue Approach involves discussion with a community to reach a written

agreement regarding a problem or issue of interest to both the community and the protected area

managers. For example, the issue might be access to grazing lands inside the protected area or

use of trees that grow along the park' s boundary. Discussion with both parties may involve

negotiation regarding the terms of the agreement. The written agreement details the shared

responsibilities and benefits, monitoring and control mechanisms, as well as conditions for

revocation or renewal of the agreement (UWA 2000).

Coordination and Capacity-building

Coordination of CRM programs with protected area staff is essential to the success of

CRM. In its CRM literature, UWA notes that a consistent message as well as application of

protected area policy, legislation and by-laws is necessary for neighboring communities (UWA

2000). Law enforcement rangers have to be knowledgeable regarding the CRM agreements in

each community so that enforcement is uniform. Community conservation rangers also must be

aware of patrol activities and law enforcement issues so they do not provide erroneous

information to community members. Therefore, development of a CRM agreement must involve

all protected area staff (community conservation, law enforcement, tourism, research and

monitoring staff). If necessary, UWA notes that district extension staff may be involved in CRM

agreements if alternative resources outside of the protected area are necessary. Mutual trust is a

necessary component of CRM agreements. All parties need to be trained so that they can

confidently contribute to CRM processes.









Location of CRM programs

Uganda Wildlife Authority believes that CRM will be most successful in areas where

resource use has been ongoing for long periods. Ideally, such use should be important to the

livelihoods of the community members. Furthermore, the use of resources would not be easily

deterred by law enforcement approaches. CRM may also be successful in communities where

there is ongoing conflict between the community and protected area staff as a result of staff

restricting use of resources. UWA notes that CRM is not appropriate in cases where severe

conflicts exist (e.g., agricultural encroachment into the park, boundary disputes), existing law

enforcement approaches are successful, and where there are species that require a high level of

protection and therefore may be negatively impacted by CRM proj ects.

Collaborative Resource Management in Kibale National Park

Information regarding CRM was provided to communities in sensitization programs by

UWA in 1997. In 1999 UWA implemented CRM as a management strategy at Kibale National

Park (KNP). By 2003 KNP had established several Specific Issue agreements covering the

following resources/issues: rattan cane, fishes, beekeeping, and coffee, water for cattle, Girewood,

and eradication of exotic species. At the time of this study, at least three other protected areas in

the country were also using specific issue collaborative resource agreements. This study

examines the impacts of the fishing Specific Issue agreement at Lake Kabaleka.

Research Hypotheses

Two groups of individuals were surveyed: fishers and a group of people that served as a

comparison group, hereafter called the control group. The general obj ectives of CRM outlined

in the conceptual framework for this study were derived from UWA documents (Ogwal 2003,

UWA 2000) (Figure 3-1). Based on these objectives, the following hypotheses were tested:

1. CRM fishers exhibit less signs of poverty than the control group.









2. CRM fishers express more support for conservation than the control group.

3. CRM fishers express evidence of more pro-environmental behaviors than the control
group.

4. CRM fishers report fewer illicit behaviors than the control group.

The first hypothesis, regarding poverty, will be tested by comparing self-reported incomes,

and wealth indicators of fishers and the control group. The second hypothesis is tested

comparing the results of Likert items examining support for the park, park staff and consumption

of park resources for the two groups. The third and fourth hypotheses will test for differences in

behaviors by comparing the results of questions asking about pro-environmental acts (e.g.,

removal of wire snares from the park) and illegal activities (e.g., hunting) respectively.

Methods

Site Profile -Lake Kabaleka, Kibale National Park

Kibale National Park (KNP), a 795km2 forest remnant in western Uganda has been listed

as one of the highest conservation priority sites on the African continent, surrounded by some of

the densest human population in all of Africa (Cordeiro et al. 2007, Naughton-Treves et al.

2007). Kibale harbors an exceptional diversity of non-human primates (Struhsaker 1981).

People surrounding the park practice subsistence agriculture and use forest products to augment

their livelihoods (Chege et al. 2002). In the 1970s and 80s, when the protected area was a forest

reserve and game corridor, approximately 13,000 people lived within its boundaries. In 1992

these people were evicted from the area and the national park was gazetted in 1993 (Chege et al.

2002). Illegal resource use is a maj or threat to the biodiversity in the park (Mugisha 2002,

Mugisha and Jacobson 2004). Crop-raiding as well as resource use restrictions have resulted in

local residents' negative attitudes about the park (Mugisha 2002; Naughton-Treves 1996).









Fishing Specific Issue Agreement

The fishing Specific Issue agreement is for the Kayanj a landing site located on Lake

Kabaleka in the south-western portion of the park (Figure 3-2). Instituted in 2000, the agreement

covers fishermen, boat owners and fish mongers, collectively called fishers. Prior to this

agreement, all fishing was considered illegal inside the protected area. This Specific Area

Agreement was instigated by UWA to curb illegal fishing, which was rampant on Lake Kabaleka

(0. Biira, personal communication). At the time of the study the local chairman of the Kayanja

landing site region served as the liaison between UWA and the fishers. Data collection sheets

were provided to the group by UWA, and the local chairman and another fisher were involved in

collecting data on fish harvested and gear utilized and reporting them to UWA. UWA supplied

suggestions for net sizes to fishers, but there were no catch restrictions. Although there was still

no formal, written contract at the time of the study, fishermen were issued identification cards by

UWA following the program's inception indicating their involvement in CRM.

Located within the southern boundary of Kibale National Park, Lake Kabaleka is a shallow

water lake (usually not greater than 2-3 m deep) measuring approximately 100 ha (Melnychuk &

Chapman 2002). Home to various indigenous and introduced tilapiine cichlids, it is located

within the Lake George swamp system and is of high conservation value, as Lake George is a

wetland designated as a Ramsar site of international importance (Ramsar Convention Secretariat

2006).

The fishery is primarily composed of four species; mudfish (Claria~s gariepinus), lungfish

(Protopterus aethiopicus) and tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus and O. leucostictus). Fishing is

carried out by using nets or hooks. Fishermen noted that while the lungfish and mudfish are

primarily caught with hooks, tilapia is usually caught with nets. Although two different landing

sites exist on the lake, Kayanj a Landing site is the only one where legal fishing takes place under









the CRM program. Unless a person is fishing under the CRM agreement all other fishing within

the park is illegal.

Data Collection and Sources

The survey research was conducted during June 2003-January 2004, during which the

CRM fishing program was 3.5-4 years old. Three primary data collection methods were

employed: standardized surveys, open-ended interviews, and a focus group. A review of

program-related documents also was undertaken to provide a comprehensive understanding of

the CRM fishing program.

A structured survey which included a combination of open and fixed response questions

was conducted with a census of 94 fishermen, fish mongers and boat owners. A stratified

random sample of 101 individuals who reside in the communities where the fishermen's primary

residences are located served as the control group. I acquired a list of 95 fishers involved in

CRM from a local council leader for the area who was responsible for filling out resource data

sheets for Uganda Wildlife Authority. Of the 95 fishers, some fish, some own a canoe and fish,

and others fish and buy and sell fish (fish mongers). Fishers use nets or hooks or a combination

of the two methods to catch fish. The fishers surveyed resided in 27 different communities and

represented 17 different ethnic groups.

Due to the fact that no baseline data were available, a control group was selected for

comparative purposes. In selecting the control group, I attempted to match for sex, geographical

location, age and wealth ranking in selecting the stratified random sample which made up the

control group. Due to the considerable distance between communities, the study area was

divided into seven regions. To create the control group, seven communities were selected, one

in each region, where the majority of the fishermen resided. The local chairman of each selected

community provided a list of all household heads in the community and their ages. Following









the wealth ranking exercise described below, I randomly selected the equivalent number of males

(all Eishers were male) that fell into the same age class and wealth ranking group as there were

fishers that resided in the region. Ideally I would have compared fishers to other fishers not

involved in CRM but this was not possible as there were no other fishers in these communities.

During the initial phases of the research I was unsure of the number of fishers in the CRM

program. I originally thought there might be less than 30 fishers. I was concerned that the

sample size was going to be small. Due to this I utilized a wealth ranking exercise to ensure that

I would not be comparing fishers who may be of one wealth class to a control group that, if

randomly selected, may not have enough respondents of a similar wealth class to statistically

compare the two groups. I used a wealth ranking exercise (Adams et al. 1997; Slocum et al.

1995) in which several local community leaders in each village were surveyed. Community

leaders assisted in modifying four wealth categories that had been previously used in

development research in Uganda. These categories, in order from the poorest category to the

wealthiest are: cannot manage, earns slowly, have something, and can manage (International

Institute for Sustainable Development 2003) (see Table 3-1 for description of categories).

Leaders were asked to sort local residents into the four categories according to the leaders'

perceptions of how they ranked in terms of their wealth (Bernard 2002).

The survey was designed and pilot-tested in two communities surrounding Kibale National

Park (KNP). As the study detailed here is part of a larger study on CRM around KNP, and there

existed limited numbers of CRM programs around KNP, two communities that were not part of

any collaborative management program were used in the pilot study. The survey was divided

into six sections: 13 items covered support of conservation, three items related to benefits

received from park, 21 questions covered the respondents' household profile which included










socio-demographic variables to be used as poverty indicators, nine items related to behaviors,

eight items tested knowledge of environmentally-related laws; and 5 items covered involvement

in the collaborative resource management program (Appendix A). As this study is part of a

larger study on KNP's CRM programs, survey questions asked were general to CRM and not

specific to the CRM fishing program.

Prior to conducting interviews, local council leaders were consulted to obtain permission to

conduct the survey and discuss the intentions of the research. The survey was conducted in one

of three languages; English, the national language of Uganda, Rutoro, or Rukiga. Two men and

one woman fluent in the vernacular languages of the area were trained to administer the survey.

Respondents were asked what language they preferred and the survey was delivered in that

language. Responses to the survey were written in English, but all interviews, except one, were

conducted in one of the local languages. The average time for the fishers to complete the survey

was 64 min (range: 40-101 min), the same as the control group (range: 33-160 min). Ten

respondents in the control group did not know of Kibale National Park, while all fishers knew of

the park' s existence. Respondents that did not know of the existence of the park were dropped

from the analysis. One person in each of the control and fisher groups refused to participate in

the survey. To verify that surveys were completed by respondents, I randomly selected 5% of

fishers and the control group and went to their homes to ask them if they did indeed complete the

survey .

The wording of some questions related to support for conservation was reversed during the

design phase of the survey to prevent response bias. All negatively worded items were reverse

scored resulting in a 5-point Likert scale with anchor points of 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =









strongly agree. The lower end of the scale indicates weak support of conservation and higher

figures indicate a pro-conservation response.

All knowledge of local environmental laws items were answered with yes, no or don't

know. All negatively worded items were reverse scored. An eight point knowledge scale was

created with correct answers receiving a "1" and all others a "O".

Illegal resource collection is very difficult to measure accurately (Infield & Namara 2001;

Moorman 2006; Solomon et al. 2007) (see following chapter for a comprehensive review of the

topic). When piloting for the survey portion of the study began I found that most people did not

disclose illegal behavior, even when they were repeatedly promised that their responses would be

kept confidential. The wording of the behavior questions went through several iterations during

the pilot phase of the survey. I used a balanced question concerning the placement of snares

inside the park. A balanced question is designed to encourage respondents to provide their true

response by theoretically reducing the effects of social desirability, usually by preempting the

question with a statement saying that some people do the sensitive behavior of interest, others do

not (Weisberg et al. 1996).

A focus group (Bernard 2002) consisting of 8 fishers was conducted in Hima, the closest

large town to Lake Kabaleka, for a duration of approximately 75 minutes. One male, unknown

to the group, and fluent in the local languages, translated and helped to coordinate the focus

group. I had two main obj ectives for the focus group: gather economic data and discuss the

benefits and weaknesses of the CRM program. Additionally, a seasonal activities calendar

(Slocum et al. 1995) was produced by participants to examine seasonal variance of fishing

activities. I asked the local council leader to invite several fishermen, canoe owners and fish

mongers as I wanted to obtain financial data for their occupations. One fisherman, two fish










mongers, two canoe owners, two fishers/canoe owners, and one fish monger/canoe owner

attended the focus group. I asked each Hisher to record via secret ballot their fishing activity (fish

mongering, fisherman, boat owner), how much they earned on a good day, how much they

earned on a bad day and how many days on average they worked. Participants free listed

(Bernard 2002) all items associated with fishing, fish mongering, and canoe owning, the current

cost of each item, and how long each item lasts. Participants then worked in groups of two,

listing the benefits and weaknesses of the CRM program, which were then reported to the group

as a whole for discussion.

Analysis

Survey data were entered into an SPSS 10.0 for statistical analysis. Most responses are not

normally distributed, including the Likert and dichotomous response items. P values of <0.05

were considered statistically significant. Socio-demographic characteristics of the fishers and the

control were described and compared using Pearson's chi-square. I compared income data,

support for conservation, and behavior items between fishers who were identified as part of the

CRM program (treatment group) and residents who were not part of the program (control group).

In selecting the control group, I attempted to match for sex, age, geographical location, and

wealth through a wealth ranking process. To help control for potential confounding, all socio-

demographic variables that differed significantly between the fishers and control group were

analyzed for associations. Point-biserial correlation (Tpb) acquired using a Pearson's product

moment correlation coefficient (Pearson's r) was used for associations between dichotomous

variables and Likert response items. Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs) was used for

continuous variables and Likert response items. Dichotomous response variables and

dichotomous response items were analyzed using the Phi coefficient. In the case of tribes, where

multiple responses were provided, Pearson's chi-square and Phi was used to determine specific










categories for analysis with each of the response items. All socio-demographic variables that

differed significantly between the two groups and were found to have statistically significant

associations with the response variables were then included in models when examining if

differences existed between the fishers and control.

Continuous response variables were analyzed using a general linear model. The general

linear model is thought to be robust against assumptions of normality (Field 2005). In one case,

the model resulted in a violation of one of the maj or assumptions of analysis of covariance:

homogeneity of regression slopes. These data were subsequently analyzed with the Johnson-

Neyman technique using SAS software.

Five-point Likert response items were analyzed for differences between fishers and the

control using a proportional odds model. In cases where the assumption of parallel lines was not

met (p-values <0.05), multinominal logistic regression was used. Dichotomous response

variables that had covariates were analyzed for differences between fishers and the control using

binary logistic regression. In cases where the confounding variables were not well suited to the

model, as indicated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic, all potential confounding variables were

added to the model and were removed manually, one by one. Socio-demographic variables were

removed if the Wald statistic' s p-value was larger than 0. 1 and the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic' s

p-value remained above 0.05 following the removal of the variable (I. Liu, personal

communication). Differences between nominal data were analyzed using Pearson's chi-square

tests. Chi-square results that had expected frequencies of <5 were analyzed using the Fisher' s

exact test.

Economic data gathered from the focus group with Hishers were entered into Microsoft

Excel for computations. During the focus group I collected data on the types of Eshing-related









assets, quantity owned and used, and the length of time on average that an item would last. I

chose not to use straight line depreciation (i.e., liquidation value) because it does not "capture the

productive value of these items to their owners" (Wallace 2004, p.57). Instead, I accounted for

the replacement value of the items by calculating a yearly cost for each item.

Results

Socio-demographic Variables

Seven of the 21 socio-demographic variables differed between fishers and the control

group (Table 3-2). All respondents were male, with the average age of Eishers being 3 1 years

(SD=12.5) and the control group being 34 (SD=11.2). Significantly fewer fishers reported being

married than the control group 0C2(1)=5.18, p<0.05). Fishers also had significantly lower

education levels than the control group OC2(2)=12.18, p<0.01), were more likely to have been

evicted from the park 0C2(1)=14.36, p<0.01), and reportedly experienced significantly less crop

raiding by wildlife 0C2=9.92, p<0.01). The number of respondents surveyed within each region

(noted in Table 3.2 as straight-line distance from park border) differed significantly between the

two groups 0C2=14.71, p<0.05). Tribal composition differed significantly among the two groups,

as did their main income sources; 87% percent of fishers listed fishing as their main source of

income, while 58% of the control group listed farming.

Covariates

Of the seven socio-demographic variables that differed significantly between fishers and

the control group only one, tribe, consisted of multiple categories. Nineteen different tribal

affiliations were recognized during the survey. Because some tribes had few respondents,

making it difficult for statistical analysis, I chose to run analyses with the tribal groups that had

at least 5 respondents. Phi was used to determine specific categories for analysis with each of

the response items. Only one of the categories, namely the Bakonjo tribe, was significant OC21)









9.78, Phi=0.230, p<0.01), and therefore was determined to be a possible covariate. Tables 3-3 -

3-7 list all individual items and significant covariates, which when appropriate, were controlled

for in the following analyses.

Livelihood-related Data

The median annual self-reported gross income for fishers was U. S. $376.02 (SD=403.48)

while the control group's median was U.S. $196.19 (SD=538.21). Fishers (m place=10608)

earned significantly more than the control group (m place=78.32; U=2953.50, p<0.001). The

only covariate for income was the Bakonj o tribe. Using a general linear model when income is

stratified for Bakonj o, fishers that are Bakonj o (n=12) earn on average U. S. $399.3 8 more than

Bakonj o people in the control group (n=29) (Wald=6.52 (1), p<0.05). A significant negative

association exists between Bakonj o and income (rpb =-0.204, p<0.01, n=184). Therefore people

who are Bakonj o are likely to have a lower income than people who are not Bakonj o.

Fishers earned 70% (U. S. $261.58, SD=291.20) of their annual median income from

fishing activities alone. Fishers in the focus group reported that on a bad day of fishing they

earned on average U.S. $0.91, while on a good day U.S. $3.13. Fisher families also consume

fish, and this benefit is not accounted for in this analysis.

The maj ority of fishers (83%) reported that they are financially better off compared to

before they started their fishing activities. On average fishers had been collecting the resource

for 7.3 years. Of the 94 fishers in the study, approximately half of them (43) engaged in fishing

activities prior to the year 2000 when the CRM fishing program was instituted. Of those 49

fishers who started collecting when the CRM program started, 84% reported being financially

better off than before they started fishing activities, and 81% of those who were engaged in



SUgShl,835=U.S.$1, June 2, 2003 exchange rate (Bank of Uganda)









fishing activities prior to the implementation of the CRM program TepOrted being financially

better off compared to before they started fishing in KNP.

On average, fishers completing the survey reported carrying out fishing activities on a

monthly basis for 4.7 days per week, with an average of three weeks worked per month. Time

spent on a collecting trip (which includes travel time to and from the site collection area)

averaged approximately 6.7 hours. On average, fishers reported collecting 9 fish per day (min 2,

max 35).

Costs of Fishing-related Assets

Forty-five percent of fishers use a combination of hooks and nets, while 52% use solely

hooks and 3% solely nets. I calculated the costs of net assets assuming that fishers work 5 days

per week for 36 weeks per year (Table 3-3). According to these data, annual median net incomes

of fishers from fishing activity alone may range from U.S. $213.26 (for a fish monger) to U.S.

$248.32 (for a fishermen exclusively using hooks and not paying a canoe owner for use of a

boat).

Other Indicators of Wealth

Local community leaders placed eight (9%) fishers in the lowest wealth category, "cannot

manage" during the wealth ranking exercise. Forty-nine (58%) fishers were categorized as

"earns slowly". Twenty-five (29%) fishers were placed in the "have something" category and 3

(4%) were in the highest wealth category, "can manage".

Land holdings ranged from 0 acres (n=2) to 21 acres for the fishers; while the control

group ranged from 0.3 to 20 acres. Although no difference was found between the two groups in



2 Fishers were not asked if their fishing activities prior to implementation of CRM were carried
out at Lake Kabaleka, therefore it is not prudent to conclude that they were illegally fishing in
Lake Kabaleka.









terms of acreage holdings, 20% of the fishers did not know the amount of acreage they held. The

fishers did not differ from the control group in other wealth-related assets such as wall materials,

roof materials, painted houses, personal transportation, and eligible children attending school,

number of wives, or number of goats (Table 3 -2).

Support for Resource Conservation

There were no significant differences between the fishers and the control group on five

items that asked about consumption of natural resources inside the park (Table 3-4). In general,

both groups tended to support resource conservation. The distribution of scores for the

statement, "Poor people need the wildlife in the park for meat" was bimodal. Approximately

half of the respondents agreed with this statement, while half disagreed with it (Table 3 -4).

Relationship with Park Staff

Three items evaluated respondents' relations with park staff. The three items showed

significant differences between the fishers and the control group (Table 3-4); fishers responded

more positively towards park staff than the control group (Table 3-4).

Support for Kibale National Park

Five items measured support for Kibale National Park (Table 3-4). For these items no

differences between the two groups were found. Only one question resulted in the maj ority of

people indicating weak support for conservation respondents believe that their villages do not

benefit from tourists that come to visit the park.

Perceived benefits: After controlling for education, income and crop-raiding experience,

significantly more fishers than control group respondents agreed with the statement, "The park

provides benefits to you." (Wald = 34. 18 (1), p=<0.001). Both fishers and the control group

listed resource-related benefits from the park as the most valuable benefit. The maj ority of

fishers (93%, n=82) that agreed or strongly agreed that benefits existed listed resources










(primarily fish) from the park as the most valuable benefit while only 42% (n=22) of the control

did the same. Two fishers listed rainfall as the most valuable benefit, while 29% (n=15) of the

control group listed rainfall as the most valuable benefit. During the focus group fishers listed

five other benefits of participating in the CRM program: fish as a source of food for home

consumption, sustenance for families, job opportunities, local development, and socialization

with other fishers.

Support for Conservation Scale

The thirteen items noted above were designed to measure support for conservation. Five

of the scaled items were removed from the final conservation-related measure due to poor inter-

item reliability. The scale to measure support for conservation was constructed from 8 items

(Table 3-4). Overall mean support for conservation on a scale of 1 to 5 was 3.16 (SD=0.6322).

Fishers' scores (m place=97.91) were significantly higher than the control group (m

place=770.02; U=2906.5, p<0.01). Fishers' unadjusted mean support was 3.28 (SD=0.6101)

and the control group was 3.02 (SD=0.63 17). Reliability analysis of the eight items revealed a

Cronbach's alpha of .74 with an inter-item mean of .26. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)

with the covariates income (rs=0. 153, p<0.05, n=173) and distance of region from park border

(rs=0. 167, p<0.05, n=168) revealed a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of regression

slopes, in particular a significant interaction with income. Because of such a violation, it is

reasonable to conclude that there is a significant difference between the two groups (Engqvist

2005). Using the Johnson-Neyman technique to analyze the regression slopes results in a

significant difference between the two groups when income is less than U.S. $602.16, while

there is no significant difference between the two groups when income is greater than U.S.

$602. 16. The majority of respondents (66 % of fishers and 75% of the control) reported incomes

of less than U.S. $602.16.









Pro-environmental Behaviors

Three items measured behaviors related to deterring illegal activity in the park (Table 3-5).

Preventing illegal activity, in particular extinguishing bush fires and removing wire snares that

are used for hunting, was noted by UWA as of importance in evaluating the success of the CRM

program. After controlling for eviction from the park as well as being of the Bakonj o tribe, a

statistically significant difference existed between fishers and the control group for the item

regarding extinguishing bush fires (Wald=10.79 (1), p<0.01). After controlling for eviction from

the park and income, a statistically significant difference also existed between fishers and the

control group for the item concerning removal of wire snares (Wald=3.810 (1), p=0.05). In these

two cases, fishers reported more pro-environmental actions than the control group (Table 3-5).

No difference between the two groups was found when respondents were asked about the

number of times they reported illegal acts in KNP in the past year (Wald=0.967 (1), p=0.325).

Illicit Behaviors

No statistically significant difference was found between the fishers and the control group

when respondents were asked the following "balanced" question, "Some people place snares in

Kibale National Park, other people do not. Have you or people from your household placed

snares/traps inside of Kibale National Park in the past year?" Only one respondent, a fisher,

answered in the affirmative in response to the question. Five other statements referred to the

following activities: hunting in crop fields outside of the park, collection of firewood, collection

of water and hunting within the park. There were no statistically significant differences between

fishers and the control group for any of the hunting related questions and very few respondents

responded in the affirmative to these items (Table 3-6). Significantly more fishers responded

"yes" to the statement, "Firewood is scarce and the park has a lot of wood therefore there is no

problem if you go and take some firewood from inside of the park" (f(~1)=1 1.082, p<0.01), with










approximately 23% of Eishers replying yes in comparison to 6% of the control group (Table 3-6).

Similarly, after controlling for marriage, the responses of Eishers were significantly different

from the control group in response to the statement, "Water is plentiful in the park therefore you

sometimes go to the park to collect it." (Wald=5.253 (1), p<0.05).

Knowledge of Local Environmental Laws

Eight items measured knowledge of local environmental laws (Table 3-7). The mean

knowledge score for fishers was 7.5 (SD=0.7) and for the control group, 7.6 (SD=0.73). Fishers

did not differ in their knowledge of local environmental laws (m place= 89.68) from the control

group (m place=96.43; U=3964.50, p>0.05), even after controlling for the covariates education

(rs=0. 199, p<0.01i, n=185), distance rs=0.242, p<0.01, n=178) and crop-raiding (rpb=0.-0. 157,

p<0.05, n=184) using a general linear model (SE=0. 113, t=0.280, p=0.780). None of the

individual items differed significantly between the fishers and the control group. Sixty-one

percent of the fishers and 69% of the control group answered all eight questions correctly.

Discussion

To a great extent, Uganda Wildlife Authority's CRM program at Lake Kabaleka in Kibale

National Park is meeting its obj ectives. Fishers perceive benefits from the park more than the

control group. Fishers participating in the CRM program at KNP were found to have higher

incomes and more positive relationships with KNP staff than the control group. Fishers also

support conservation in general more than the control group.

The CRM fishing program also had negative impacts. Although some fishers are actively

protecting the park from illegal activities, some may also extract resources without permission,

such as firewood and water. The implementation of CRM contributed to pressure on the fish

stock. The CRM program encouraged fishing, with approximately 50% of fishers starting

fishing activities at Lake Kabaleka shortly after the commencement of the CRM program.










Impact of CRM on Poverty

Fishers had almost double the gross income as the control group, and 83% reported being

better off compared to before they started the fishing CRM program. The results indicate that

significant benefits are limited to people in the Bakonj o tribe. This does not necessarily mean

that Bakonj o is the limiting factor as being Bakonj o could be associated with other variables that

were not measured, for example, fishing skills or marginalization. Data indicate that being a

member of the Bakonj o tribe is associated with low income levels. Therefore the results show

that the poorest of the poor are significantly improving their income as a result of the fishing

CRM program.

Specific indicators of wealth (e.g., painted houses, goat ownership, metal roofing etc.) did

not differ between the two groups. This may be because the wealth ranking exercise which

resulted in crude measurements of wealth and was used to select the control group did an

adequate j ob in ascertaining wealth.

The CRM program focuses on increasing income however it does not truly address poverty

alleviation, as defined by the United Nations Development Program (United Nations

Development Program 2003). For example, it does not directly increase access to health care or

educational opportunities. In this sense, a CRM program alone will probably not meet the broad

obj ective of poverty alleviation. This fishing CRM program increases income for a select group

but does not dictate how fishers spend their earnings. This is a choice of the participants

themselves. However, a measure of poverty championed by Sen (1999) is "choice." Increased

income does allow fishers more options than the control group respondents who have less gross

income. For example, with more income fishers may be able to pay transportation costs to

better health care centers outside of their immediate, rural community. Transportation costs are

high in the region and may hinder access to regional health centers that may offer different









treatment options. Additionally, increased income may provide children access to secondary

education centers that are outside their villages of primary residences.

Impact of CRM on Support for Conservation

Many more fishers than control group respondents agree that the park provides benefits to

them. Fishers reported better relationships with park staff than the control group, yet, in general,

no difference was noted among the two groups for the individual items concerning support for

conservation of the park. This result is similar to what has been found in some other community

conservation proj ects where relationships with park staff improve but a change in attitude

regarding conservation of the protected area in general is negligible (Arjunan et al. 2006; Hulme

& Murphree 2001).

It is not surprising that fishers reported better relationships with park staff considering that

fishers are permitted to be inside the park and have frequent interaction with park staff at the

landing site from which they fish. Control group respondents, who have little reason to be inside

of the park legally, are more likely questioned if found inside the park by park staff and possibly

sanctioned. Park staff is often called on in times of trouble, for example, when crop-raiding by

wild animals occurs. At such times, residents may transfer their anger on to park staff, resulting

in a poor relationship. Mugisha (2002) found that residents living near parks with community-

based conservation (CBC) programs, including KNP, reported more cordial relations with park

staff compared to people neighboring parks with no program CBC programs.

Support for Conservation Scale

Based on the support for conservation scale, the maj ority of fishers are more supportive of

conservation than the maj ority of the control group. Fishers earning above U.S. $602 did not

differ from the control group, although these people are the minority of those surveyed. These









results indicate that there may be some threshold effect and earning relatively larger incomes

does not ensure increased support for conservation.

Impact of CRM on Pro-Environmental Behaviors

One of UWA' s obj ectives with the CRM program is to have fishers engage in pro-

environmental behavior. Fishers benefit from the fish resource inside the park and therefore

should have more of a vested interest in protecting the park. It appears that some fishers are

actively protecting the park, by preventing at least one bushfire and/or removing snares in the

year prior to the survey. Although a statistically significant difference exists between fishers and

the control when it comes to extinguishing bushfires or removing snares inside the park, this may

be a result of the fact that many respondents in the control group are not as likely to visit the park

on a regular basis, as they have little legal reason to be there. However, although fishers may be

engaging in pro-environmental behaviors, after controlling for covariates the data indicated that

they are not reporting illegal behavior more than the control group. This is disconcerting as KNP

has limited staff to effectively manage illegal acts and UWA documents indicate one of CRM

obj ectives is to reduce management costs by encouraging CRM participants to protect the park.

Reporting illegal acts may be more time consuming compared to preventing bushfires or

removing snares as fishers would have to locate park staff to report illegal activities. Although

park staff is located at various outposts around the park, the distances between villages and

outposts are often quite considerable for people to travel on foot or by bike.

Impact of CRM on Illicit Behaviors

With the increasing sensitivity of the topic, fewer respondents provided affirmative

responses to the illicit behavior items. Using balanced questioning, only one person admitted to

placing snares inside the park. One percent of all respondents admitted to hunting inside of the

park. Six percent of all respondents admitted to placing snares/traps in their crop fields. More










respondents admitted to collecting firewood (14%) and water (11%) from the park. Although the

sensitivity of the questions most likely affected the number of respondents that admitted to an

act, it is also likely that fewer people hunt than collect resources that are needed on a daily basis

such as firewood and water.

The number of responses for less sensitive questions regarding collection of firewood and

water were significantly different between the fishers and control group, with more fishers

replying "yes" to those items. Fishers are more likely to be inside of the park than the control

group members because they are permitted to be there and therefore the temptation to

opportunistically extract resources illegally may be larger in comparison to the control group.

Some fishers may not believe such activities to be illegal, possibly because they have not been

sanctioned for them or because of bribery involving UWA guards (Struhsaker et al. 2005, see

Infield & Namara 2001 for discussion of bribery and abusive behavior by park guards).

Although this study demonstrates that local people are very familiar with the select local

environmental laws covered in the survey, results of two items suggest fewer fishers may

understand regulations regarding illegal placement of snares and grazing of domestic animals

inside the park than the control group members. This trend and the disclosure of illicit activity

are troublesome, as they imply that resources such as firewood are being extracted from the park

illegally while fishers are inside of the park. In times of livelihood-related stress, fishers may

extract more resources found within the park (Twyman 2000).

This study shows that CRM was positively associated with some behaviors to help protect

park resources. Its affect on curbing illegal exploitation was difficult to assess the long-term

effects of the program on exploitative behaviors will need to be monitored considering the

complex nature of the predictors of pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002).









Other Considerations for CRM Management: Accuracy of UWA records

UWA records on CRM participation need to be updated. A report issued in 2003 noted that

30 fishermen were provided with resource identification cards and 15 boats were registered with

the Fisheries Department (Ogwal 2003). When I undertook this study in 2003, 95 individuals

were identified as CRM fishers by the community leader in charge of filling out resource data

sheets. All fishers interviewed were fishing from the KNP Kayanj a landing site and believed

they were part of the CRM program.

Limitations of Study

Support for conservation, behaviors, and benefits from CRM programs are not static. This

study is a current snapshot of the fishing CRM program in its early stages, but in reality it is a

moving target. Recent events in communities involving the protected area and/or protected area

staff will undoubtedly influence support for conservation (Hill 1998; Infield & Namara 2001).

For example, changes in crop raiding by wildlife may result in negative attitudes, or the

construction of a health clinic using tourism revenue from the protected area may increase the

number of people with positive attitudes about the protected area.

The absence of baseline data is a limitation of this study. This prevented analysis of

specific changes or improvements in support for conservation, behaviors or poverty levels of

CRM participants. Ideally respondents would have been randomly assigned to both a treatment

and control group. Participants in the CRM program may already differ markedly from their

peers in variables other than those noted, as they chose to participate in the program. For

example, I was unable to control for factors such as societal and personal influences. The control

group used was the best available comparative group for the fishers. If the CRM fishing

program did not exist fishers would more than likely be similar to the control group, as no legal

fishing exists in the park and not one of the 101 people surveyed for the control group fished.









This study only included men and therefore we can say little of conservation attitudes and

behaviors of women. We can not assume homogeneity within a village, as gender as well as life

circumstances play a role in support for conservation and resource-related behavior (Coomes

2004, Hill 1998).

Recommendations

At the time of this study the fishing CRM program in Kibale National Park was in its

infancy. Monitoring of a program in its early stages will lessen the risk of failure in meeting its

stated obj ectives because important programmatic changes are more likely to be made (Lewis &

Phiri 1998). Recommendations to improve the CRM program follow.

Encourage Ecological Studies of the Resource

The CRM program encouraged fishing, with approximately 50% of fishers starting fishing

activities at Lake Kabaleka shortly after the commencement of the CRM program. This increase

in pressure on the resource base requires careful management so as to not reduce stock size over

time. Although Uganda Wildlife Authority supplies net size recommendations to CRM fishers,

such size requirements may not be adequate because the species fished as well as the ecology of

Lake Kabaleka are not sufficiently studied to determine sustainable harvesting rates. No quotas

are in place to prevent over-fishing as sustainable harvest rates have not been established. This

is a common problem with many ICDP proj ects, with some proj ect managers choosing not to

greatly restrict harvest because of fear of losing community support (Newmark & Hough 2000).

Ecological studies of the fishery should be carried out to scientifically inform management

decisions. There is a move to manage fisheries on an ecosystem-wide basis rather than fish stock

alone (Jorgenson & Muller 2000). Lake Kabaleka would be a good place to practice such a

strategy, as it is located within a protected area. Makerere University, Uganda' s most prominent

educational institution, has a biological field station in Kibale National Park. Through KNP's









institutional ties with the university, applied research on the fishery and the area surrounding it

should be encouraged.

Diversify Fishers' Income Base by Instituting a Seasonal Moratorium on Fishing

Because fishers earn such a large proportion of their income from only fishing activities,

there is a need for them to diversify their income base (Koziell and McNeill 2002). Fluctuations

in the quantity and sizes of fish are bound to change, especially if monitoring and management

are not inherent in the CRM process. Additionally, if monitoring does become more stringent, it

may result in a call for a reduction in total allowable catch thereby requiring livelihood

alternatives for fishers. If a stochastic or exogenous event such as disease were to limit the fish

supply then these fishers would lose their livelihood base. In this sense, fishing activities are

risky. Moreover, studies report that when financial and/or natural resources are not available,

people tend to use forest/protected area resources as safety nets or insurance to ensure their needs

are met (Bush et al. 2006; Coomes 2004). This could put the protected area's resources at risk if

such "hungry gaps" induced by exogenous events do occur (Bush et al. 2006). To ensure

diversification and limit reliance of individuals on the fishery, it may be helpful for UWA to

implement a seasonal moratorium on fishing. This approach would require policing of fishers,

which is warranted, as it appears that fishers may be using certain park resources without

permission (e.g., firewood, water).

Increase Monitoring and Evaluation

Three particular results of this study point to the need for increased monitoring and

evaluation by UWA: compared to figures in UWA documents, there are many more fishers who

believe they are part of the CRM fishing program, approximately one-half of CRM fishers

started fishing at the inception or following the institution of the CRM program, and some fishers

are extracting other controlled resources found within the park. The first two findings indicate









greater pressure on the fishery than originally intended by UWA. The third finding noted above

is not surprising, as it is known that even when resource extraction is regulated, it is likely that

individuals will modify their behavior to make such regulation less effective than originally

intended (Hilborn et al. 1995).

Although greater oversight of the CRM program may be required, it is understandably

difficult as the number of rangers available for such a task is limited. At the time of the research,

KNP had a total of 29 rangers (of which 3 were drivers) covering the entire 795 km2 park (M.

Okirina, personal communication). Financial and logistical constraints also contribute to

monitoring problems (Chhetri et al. 2003).

In light of the limited capacity to monitor the fishery, I recommend that UWA expand its

current system of monitoring to a participatory adaptive management system (Gavin et al. 2007).

At the time of the study two fishers collected data on fish harvested and gear utilized. These data

are only collected if at least one of the two fishers is present at the site. Data are not reliable, as

fishers may undervalue their catches (Ogwal 2003). A monitoring system should be instituted

that includes all fishers. The results of the fishers' record keeping should be returned to them by

KNP's Research Warden in a culturally appropriate format (e.g., a meeting and/or poster that

could be placed at the landing site) on a regular basis.

In addition to participatory monitoring and evaluation, educational seminars should be

provided to fishers so that they can understand the dynamics of the fishery and the need for

biological information. UWA should tap into the expertise of both national and foreign

researchers who study in and around KNP for such public education endeavors. Participatory

monitoring and educational seminars could lead to participatory problem-solving in the future.

According to the reasonable person model (Kaplan 2000), participatory problem- solving is a key










component in eliciting behavioral change. Working with experts is important to participatory

problem-solving (Kaplan 2000). Interaction with researchers may aid fishers in exploring

problems with the CRM Eishery and potential solutions. Transparent monitoring and evaluation

activities, in addition to education, may create a vested interest in creation of a sustainable

fishery and lessen the risk of its collapse.

Measure Program Outputs

Defining success in terms of conservation and development is a very necessary part of

programs and one that can not be overlooked. Including measurable outputs and monitoring

them over time is essential for defining a successful program (Margoluis and Salafsky 1998).

Program documents for the CRM program do not indicate measures of success, but rather

general objectives.

Future Research: Broaden the Definition of Poverty

In recent years, researchers have started to measure poverty alleviation not by income

alone but rather by outcomes, examining what a person is capable of doing with his/her resources

(Sen 1999; Shepherd 2004). In terms of addressing poverty alleviation I recommend a follow-

up survey to examine the long-term effects of the CRM Eishing program, particularly how the

increased income provided by the program has been used by resource users. Did the children of

fishers attend school for more years than the control? Did fishers and family members have

better access to health care? By examining capabilities and not simply assets or income, the

outcomes of the CRM program can be more comprehensively evaluated.











































Increase pro-
environmental behaviors


Income

Wealth indicators
(e.g., number of
goats, roofing
material)


Relationship with
park staff

Support for
conservation of park
and its resources


Permit access to
select resources
inside of the
protected area





Provide direct
benefit from the
park


Increase support
for conservation


Contribute to
poverty alleviation


Preventative
behavior (e.g.,
removing snares)

Illegal behavior
(e.g., hunting)


Figure 3-1. Conceptual framework for this assessment of Uganda Wildlife Authority's
collaborative resource management program


Collaborative resource management programs



















Home Regions of Fishers

Participating in Collaborative Resource

Management, Kibale National Park


Figure 3-2. Home regions of fishers participating in collaborative resource management


N
,,L
I
I
s


Leg end
SI~bale National Park
Fishers' horne regions
Fort Portal
O Lake Kabaleka


0 3 6 12 18 24

























Earns Slowly







Have Something


Can Manage


Most
Wealthy


Table 3-1. Categorizations of wealth used to rank the wealth of survey respondents by local
community leaders (Modified from the International Institute of Sustainable
Development 2003)


Category
r ,,,+Cannot Manage


Description of Individuals in Category
Dependent on others
Cannot manage on their own
Struggle to Eind food and manage Einances
Rely on assistance from other community
members
May be older or sickly

Unpredictable earnings/a~ssets
May earn on a seasonal basis or might have
short-term contractual work at unpredictable
intervals
May work for others and receive small sums
of money

Some earnings/a~ssets
May earn money on a regular basis
May have animals/crops that provide them
with food on a daily basis

Regular earnings/a~ssets
Earn regularly and have assets such as a
permanent house and/or their own motorized
transportation (a moped or car)
May emploV others to do labor for them


Leaist
Wealthy


1









Table 3-2. Socio-demographic variables of interest
Variable Fishers Control group Pearson's p
%o (n) %o (n) Chi-
square
Respondent' s age (in years) 4.121 0.13


18-30
31-50
>5 1
Marital Status
Married
Single
Number of people residing in
respondent' s residence
0-2
3-6
7-10
>11
Have children
Number of children

1-4
5-8
9 or more
Residence time
<5 years
5-9 years
10-14 years
15-20 years
>21 years
Education level
No formal education
Primary (1-7 years)
Secondary or more(> 8 years)
Evicted from park
Yes
No
Land tenure
Leasehold
Customary
Rented
Public land
Bought land


62 (58)
32 (30)
6 (6)

76 (67)
24 (21)


23 (22)
52 (49)
20 (19)
4 (4)
78 (73)

22 (21)
48 (45)
26 (24)
4 (4)

22 (20)
21 (19)
11 (10)
21 (19)
26 (24)

22 (21)
68 (64)
10 (9)

43 (40)
57 (54)

10 (9)
19 (17)
35 (31)
13 (11)
23 (20)


47 (43)
42 (38)
1 1(10)

89 (81)
11 (10)


17 (15)
56 (51)
21 (19)
7 (6)
86 (78)

13 (12)
52 (47)
25 (23)
10 (9)

14 (13)
20 (18)
18 (16)
14 (13)
34 (31)

12 (11)
59 (54)
29 (26)

17 (15)
83 (74)

2 (2)
23 (21)
26 (24)
14 (13)
34 (31)


5.179


1.716


<0.05


0.63


2.00
4.395


0.16
0.22


4.907


12.184 <0.01



14.363 <0.001


8.258 0.083









Table 3-2. Continued
Variable Fishers Control group Pearson's p
%o (n) %o (n) Chi-square


0.607


Payment or no payment for land
Pays or paid for land (lease, rented or
bought)
No payment for land (public or
customary)
Acreage
<1 acre
1.1-2
2.1-3
3.1-4
4.1 or more
Tribal groups (with >5 respondents)
Batoro
Bakiga
Bakonj o
Banyankole
Bafumbira
Respondent' s first ranked
occupation
Farmer
Fisher
Other
Problem with crop raiding


0.44


68 (60)

32 (28)


38 (26)
24 (18)
19 (14)
7 (5)
16 (12)

37 (35)
20 (19)
13 (12)
9 (8)
5 (5)


10 (9)
87 (82)
3 (3.2)

16 (15)
84 (79)

22 (19)
78 (69)

68 (63)
32 (30)

90 (75)
10 (8)



64 (60)
36 (34)


63 (57)

37 (34)


48 (43)
24 (22)
9 (8)
6 (5)
13 (12)

26 (24)
13 (12)
32 (29)
7 (6)
7 (6)


58 (53)
0 (0)
42 (38)

36 (33)
64 (58)

14 (13)
86 (78)

78 (71)
22 (20)

83 (68)
17 (14)


4.902


0.3





<0.05


11.033


143.093 <0.001


9.923


1.626


2.456


1.973


2.814


<0.01


0.20


0.12


0.16


0.09


Painted house
Painted
Not painted
Roof Material
Iron
Grass-thatched
Walls of house
Mud
Plaster
Has own transportation
(includes bicycles, mopeds,
cars etc.)
Yes
No


52 (47)
48 (44)









Table 3-2. Continued
Variable Fishers Control Chi- p
%o (n) group square
%o (n)
All eligible children attend school 2.385 0.12
Yes 93 (52) 98.5 (64)
No 7 (4) 1.5 (1)
More than one wife 0.597 0.44
Yes 14 (13) 10 (9)
No/Not applicable 86 (81) 90 (80)
Number of goats 1.047 0.59
1-2 goats 49 (20) 44 (20)
3-4 goats 32 (13) 27 (12)
5 or more goats 19.5 (8) 29 (13)
Straight-line distance (in meters) 14.71 <0.05
region is from KNP border
696 5.8 (5) 8.8 (8)
2102 2.3 (2) 9.9 (9)
3461 12.8 (11) 7.7 (7)
6426 61.6 (53) 41.8 (38)
6654 4.7 (4) 13.2 (12)
14056 3.5 (3) 8.8 (8)
15369 9.3 (8) 9.9 (9)










Table 3-3. Costs to fishers per activity
Activity Maj or expenditures Cost (in U.S.$) per
year based on 5-day
work week over 36
weeks/yr.
Net fishing Nets, tarps, matches, soap for cleaning 26.14a
nets, payment to canoe owner

Hook fishing Hooks, thread, tarps, matches, payment to 13.26 a
canoe owner

Fish mongers Bicycle, bicycle repairs, basket, medical 48.32b
certificate, license, stall/space for
selling, table, knife, panga, bucket,
plastic bags

Canoe owners Timber to construct canoe, nails, 45.12 b~c
carpenter, repair work, payment to
Uganda Wildlife Authority, payment to
Fishery Department
a These figures do not account for the amount paid by fishers to canoe owners, which is variable.
Fishermen will share the use of canoes among themselves. Fishers reported that some fishermen
pay canoe owners up to U.S. $5.45 per month for use of the canoe. b The estimated costs for
both the fish mongers and canoe owners may be over-estimates, as I assumed that both groups
were following federal regulations for their activities. For example, fish mongers are required to
have a medical certificate, as well as a license to sell their fish. This figure is based on a canoe
life of 3.5 years. Over half of this figure consists of U. S. $2.72 monthly payments to Uganda
Wildlife Authority for access to the lake. Canoe owners pass this fee on to fishers that use their
boats.









Table 3-4. Comparison of individual support for conservation items for fishers and control group
Item Item responses Fishers Control Significant df Chi-square
%o (n) group covariates (Likelihood p
%o (n) Correlation ratio a or
coefficient b Wald d)


Consumption of Natural Resources
*People should be allowed to collect
any resource from the park.


Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree


1.1 (1)
64.9 (61)
3.2 (3)
24.5 (23)
6.4 (6)


6.6 (6)
60.4 (55)
3.3 (3)
26.4 (24)
3.3 (3)


Distance to park 1
0.167
<0.05
168
Education
0.164
<0.05
185
Evicted from
park
-0.209
<0.01
182


0.116
(Wald)


0.734


If there were no laws regulating access
to resources, all the wildlife in the
park would not be killed. a


*What people need from the forest,
grasslands, lakes and wild animals is
more important than protecting the
forest, grasslands, lakes and wild
animals.


Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree


54.3 (51)
43.6 (41)
0 (0)
1.1 (1)
1.1 (1)
2.1 (2)
68.1 (64)
5.3 (5)
21.3 (20)
3.2 (3)


52.7 (48)
45.1 (41)
0 (0)
2.2 (2)
0 (0)
2.2 (2)
73.6 (67)
3.3 (3)
17.6 (16)
3.3 (3)


1 0.04
(Wald)


0.84




0.452


1 0.565
(Wald)









Table 3-4. Continued
Item Item responses Fishers Control Significant df Chi-square
%o (n) group covariates (Likelihood p
%o (n) Correlation ratio a or
coefficient b Wald d)


Poor people need the wildlife in the Strongly disagree 1.1 (1) 2.2 (2) -1 0.652 0.42


park for meat.


Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree


51. 1 (47)
3.3 (3)
38 (35)
6.5 (6)
23.4 (22)
68.1 (64)
1.1 (2)
5.3 (5)
1.1 (1)


43.3 (39)
4.4 (4)
41.1 (37)
8.9 (8)
21.3 (19)
71.9 (64)
0 (0)
6.7 (6)
0 (0)


(Wald)


Wild animals are not very valuable
because they do not bring money to
Uganda. a


Bakonj o
-0.148
0.046
183
Marriage
0.167
<0.05
183

Distance to
park
0.190
<0.05
168
Crop-raid
-0.186
<0.05
175


1 0.005
(Wald)


0.942


Relationship with Park Staff
Your relationship with staff from
Kibale National Park has not been
good.a


Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree


9.6 (9)
87.2 (82)
1.1 (1)
1.1 (1)
1.1 (1)


9.8 (8)
63.4 (52)
14.6 (12)
11 (9)
1.2 (1)


1 6.422
(Wald)


<0.05









Table 3-4. Continued
Item Item responses Fishers Control Significant df Chi-square
%o (n) group covariates (Likelihood p
%o (n) Correlation ratio a or
coefficient b Wald d)


*Park staff do not take time to listen to
the troubles of people who live in this
village.


*Park staff take local people to be
wrongdoers.



Support for Kibale National Park
*People are poor because they live near
the park.


Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree


1.1 (1)
59.6 (56)
5.3 (5)
26.6 (25)
7.4 (7)
4.3 (4)
72.3 (68)
1.1 (1)
16 (15)
6.4 (6)

0 (0)
47.9 (45)
4.3 (4)
37.2 (35)
10.6 (10)


0 (0)
21.3 (19)
5.6 (5)
57.3 (51)
15.7 (14)
0 (0)
55.6 (50)
4.4 (4)
30 (27)
10 (9)

1.1 (1)
53.8 (49)
2.2 (2)
34. 1(31)
8.8 (8)


Income
0.188
<0.05
181


1 25.776
(Wald)


<0.001


1 9.487
(Wald)


<0.01





0.850


Education
0.156
<0.05
185
Evicted from
park
-0.175
0.018
182


4 1.369
(Likelihood
ratio)









Table 3-4. Continued
Item Item responses Fishers Control Significant df Chi-square
%o (n) group covariates (Likelihood p
%o (n) Correlation ratio a or
coefficient b Wald d)


Management of Kibale National Park is
not your responsibility but that of the
government of Uganda.a


*The park does not provide benefits to
you. a


Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree


19.1 (18)
68.1 (64)
1.1 (1)
11.7 (11)
0 (0)
20.2 (19)
73.4 (69)
0 (0)
5.3 (5)
1.1 (1)


22.2 (20)
68.9 (62)
0 (0)
8.9 (8)
0 (0)
5.6 (5)
52.8 (47)
0 (0)
38.2 (34)
3.4 (3)


Education
0.205
<0.01
184


3 0.923
(Likelihood
ratio)


1 34.182
(Wald)


0.820


Education
0.155
<0.05
183
Income
0.180
<0.05
181
Crop-raiding
-0.153
<0.05
182
Income
0.269
<0.001
178
Distance to park
0.169
<0.05
173


:0.001


*Your village does not benefit from
tourists that come to visit the park. a


Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree


1.1 (1)
27.2 (25)
9.8 (9)
58.7 (54)
3.3 (3)


0 (0)
20.5 (18)
5.7 (5)
71.6 (63)
2.3 (2)


1 0.740
(Wald)


0.390









Table 3-4. Continued
Item Item responses Fishers Control Significant df Chi-square
%o (n) group covariates (Likelihood p
%o (n) Correlation ratio a or
coefficient b Wald d)


*Kibale National Park should be given Strongly disagree 6.4 (6) 7.9 (7) Education 1 0.098 0.754
to Ugandans living around the park for Disagree 52.1 (49) 53.9 (48) 0.302 (Wald)
conversion to agriculture. Neutral 1.1 (1) 3.4 (3) <0.001
Agree 33 (31) 28.1 (25) 183
Strongly agree 7.4 (7) 6.7 (6)
* Item was used to construct eight item conservation scale.. a Question has been reverse worded for analysis. b Dichotomous socio-
demographic variables were analyzed using point-biserial correlation coefficient (rpb) (Pearson's r) ; all other variables were analyzed
using Spearman's rho. Multinominal regression analysis was used. d A proportional odds model was used.









Table 3-5. Comparison of pro-environmental behaviors for fishers and control group
Item Fishers % (n) Control Significant df Walde
group % (n) covariates
Correlation
coefficientb


How many times in the past year have you
prevented bush fires in KNP?a


Evicted
from park
0.233
<0.01
182
Bakonj o
-0.186
<0.05
185
Evicted
from park
0.187
<0.05
182
Income
0.180
<0.05
184


10.79 <0.01


70.2 (66)
12.8 (12)
17 (16)


95.6 (87)
2.2 (2)
2.2 (2)


1-2 times
>3 times


How many times in the past year have you
reported an illegal activity in KNP? a

1-2 times
>3 times


0.967 0.325


79.8 (75)
13.8 (13)
6.4 (6)


91.2 (83)
3.3 (3)
5.5 (5)









Table 3-5. Continued
Item Fishers % (n) Control Significant df Walde
group % (n) covariates
Correlation
coefficientb


In the past year how many times have you Evicted 1 3.810 0.05
removed wire snares from KNP? a from park
0 88.3 (83) 98.9 (90) 0.198
>1 times) 11.7 (11) 1.1 (1) <0.01
182
Income
0.165
<0.05
184
a1 Scale was collapsed to allow for statistical analysis. bDichotomous socio-demographic variables were analyzed using point-biserial
correlation coefficient (rpb) (Pearson's r) ; all other variables were analyzed using Spearman's rho. Wald score indicates a
proportional odds model was used (for dependent variables with multiple categories) or logistic regression (for dependent variables
with dichotomous response) was carried out in order to control for significant covariates.










Table 3-6. Comparison of illegal behaviors and opinions of behaviors for fishers and control group
Item Fishers % Control Significant df Chi-square p
(n) group % (n) covariates (Pearson's
Correlation or Waldb)
coefficienta


- 1.00


Some people place snares in KNP, other people do not. Have
you or people from your household placed snares/traps inside
of KNP in the past year?
Yes
No
Sometimes you have to place snares/traps in your fields to
prevent animals from raiding your crops?
Yes
No
Since animals from the park raid crops, it is your right to go to
the park to hunt animals.
Yes
No
Firewood is scarce and the park has a lot of wood therefore
there is no problem if you go and take some firewood from
inside the park.
Yes
No
Meat is scarce and sometimes you have to hunt inside of KNP
to find it.
Yes
No


1.1 (1)
98.9 (93)


5.3 (5)
94.7 (89)


1.1 (1)
98.9 (93)



22.8 (21)
77.2 (71)


2.1 (2)
97.9 (92)


0 (0)
100 (91)


6.6 (6)
93.4 (85)


0
100 (90)


1 0.134
(Pearson's)


0.714



0.937



<0.01


Marriage
-0.147
<0.05
184


1 0.006
(Wald)


1 11.082
(Pearson's)


5.6 (5)
94.4 (85)


0
100 (91)


0.5 0









Table 3-6. Continued
Item Fishers % Control Significant df Chi-square p
(n) group % (n) covariates (Pearson's
Correlation or Waldb)
coefficienta


Water is plentiful in the park therefore you sometimes go to Marriage 1 5.253 <0.05
the park to collect it. -0.173 (Wald)
Yes 17.4 (16) 4.4 (4) <0.05
No 82.6 (76) 95.6 (87) 183
aFor correlations between dichotomous variables tables Phi was used to test for strength of association. For continuous/interval socio-
demographic variables Pearson's r was used for analysis. b Logistic regression was used to control for significant covariates. cA
Fisher' s exact test was used.









Table 3-7. Comparison for individual knowledge of local environmental laws
Knowledge statements True Fishers Control group Significant df Chi-square p
or False % correct (n) % correct (n) covariates (Pearson' s or
Correlation Wald)
coefficient a


N/Ab


People are permitted to hunt all wild
animals in the protected area.
Grazing of animals is not allowed
inside the protected area.
Anybody is allowed to live inside of
the protected area.
Placing snares inside the protected
area is prohibited.
A person needs to get permission
before he or she can collect
resources inside the protected area.






Placing snares in your fields is
permitted by park staff if an animal
has been raiding your crops.
People are allowed to make charcoal
inside Kibale National Park.


False

True

False

True

True








False


False


100 (94)

86.2 (81)

97.9 (92)

88.3 (83)

94.7 (89)








93.6 (88)


100 (94)


100 (91)

94.5 (86)

98.9 (90)

95.6 (87)

86.8 (79)


1 3.658
(Pearson's)


1 3.313
(Pearson's)
1 0.63
(Wald)


0.06

1.0 0

0.07

0.427d


Bakonj o
-0.191
<0.01
185
Income
0.171
<0.05
184


0.5 0


96.7 (88)


100 (91)


N/Ab










Table 3-7. Continued
Knowledge statements True Fishers Control group Significant df Chi-square p
or False % correct (n) % correct (n) covariates (Pearson' s or
Correlation Wald)
coefficient a



Only foreigners are permitted to visit False 88.3 (83) 83.5 (76) Crop- 1 0.040 0.842e
Kibale National Park. Ugandans are Raiding (Wald)
not. -0.185
<0.05
183
Distance to
park
0.195
<0.01
178
aFor correlations between dichotomous variables tables Phi was used to test for strength of association and Spearman's rho was used
with continuous level socio-demographic variables. b N/A=Not applicable. No statistic is calculated because the item is a constant. A
Fisher' s exact test was used. d Logistic regression was used to control for covariates. e Final logistic regression model included
Bakonjo tribe variable as well as covariates noted.









CHAPTER 4
ESTIMATING ILLEGAL RESOURCE USE AT A UGANDAN PARK

Introduction

Illegal resource use threatens conservation in national parks in the developing world

(Skonhoft & Solstad 1996; Albers & Grinspoon 1997; Bruner et al. 2001), yet determining the

extent of illegal resource use is challenging (Leader-Williams et al. 1990). Natural scientists

have used a variety of techniques to estimate illegal resource use including measurement of

stocks over time (e.g., via aerial surveys, camera trapping, ground transects), counting the

number of known-violators and calculating patrol effort, and signs of illegal activity (e.g.,

poachers, camps, fresh carcasses and direct and clandestine observation) (Leader-Williams et al.

1989; Lewynsky 1986; Smith et al. 1989; Smith & Smeltzer 1991). In fisheries, illegal catch has

been estimated by observer programs, comparison of reported landings with market sales, and

review of logbooks coupled with interviews (Pitcher et al. 2002). Social scientists have used

different methods to estimate levels of illegal resource use, relying on economic modeling,

ethnology, decision tree analyses, focus groups, market studies, and self-reporting (Damania et

al. 2003). Resource managers may rely on key informants for information regarding illegal

resource activity.

The effectiveness of these techniques for quantifying illegal resource use is limited by

methodological constraints. Often the techniques do not account for the number of people

violating the law and therefore have limited policy implications. There may be one person in

particular, an outside group of individuals, or a vast maj ority of a community's population

collecting resources illegally. Additionally, these techniques can be time-consuming and

financially burdensome, especially in developing countries where resources are stretched thin

over large geographical areas.









From a programmatic perspective it is essential to accurately quantify the number of

people illegally using resources within a protected area. Today's resource managers have many

different options (e.g., increased regulation, community-based programs, integrated conservation

and development strategies) to address illegal resource use. By understanding who illegal

resource users are (e.g., young males, low income earners) and how many of them exist (e.g., a

small proportion of a community or a maj ority) resource managers can use such data to guide

programmatic decisions, thereby increasing the likelihood that conservation goals will be

achieved.

People violating the law often do not wish to identify themselves for fear of retribution.

Asking a person directly if he or she has violated the law may not produce a true response.

Surveys have been used to determine illegal resource use, but since this is a sensitive topic the

results of direct questioning are suspect. Issues likely to be sensitive or embarrassing tend to be

underreported in surveys (Locander et al. 1976; Fowler & Mangione 1990; Azfar & Murrell

2005).

Sensitive issues are "ones that seem threatening in some way to those being studied"

(Renzetti & Lee 1993, p. 4). There is a cost (either real or perceived) associated to those

participating in the study. This cost goes beyond time and possibly money. There are

psychological costs, such as shame or embarrassment, and possible unwelcome consequences

(Renzetti & Lee 1993). Mistrust and concealment on the part of the respondent may be the result

of possible sanctions upon revelation of having committed a sensitive behavior. This can

negatively impact data collection, decreasing the accuracy of information and producing

questionable results.









An alternative method for studying sensitive behaviors is the randomized response

technique (RRT) (Warner 1965). To date, no studies have used RRT to examine rates of illegal

resource use in the developing world, where rural populations may be illiterate, biodiversity

levels high, and staff and funds limited for conservation research and programming. The

challenge is to develop a method that can be applied at little cost in communities of diverse

ethnicities or illiterate populations. This paper presents the results of the first adaptation of RRT

to meet this critical conservation challenge.

Randomized Response Technique

The randomized response technique increases the respondent' s propensity to respond, as

well as the inclination to respond more accurately than direct questioning (Umesh & Peterson

1991). Warner (1965) designed an initial RRT using two questions that were related (e.g., "I am

a member of a secret society." and "I am not a member of a secret society.") to evaluate the

proportion of people that engage in the sensitive behavior. The respondent rolls a die and

depending on the outcome of the roll answers one of the questions. The respondent is instructed

to answer the sensitive question if, for example, numbers 1 through 3 are the outcome of the die

roll. Otherwise, the non-sensitive question is answered. The administrator of RRT does not know

which question the respondent answers, as the administrator does not witness the die roll, but the

proportion of answers to the sensitive question can be determined by the probability of getting

the die numbers that correspond with the sensitive question. Therefore, there is no way of

knowing the answer an individual provides, but the proportion of sensitive questions the entire

sample answers can be estimated. In essence the technique is useful in developing aggregate

estimates of illegal behavior.

Modifications of RRT have been used to research a variety of sensitive behaviors such as

voting practices, abortions, tax evasion, and drug use (Wright 1980; Umesh & Peterson 1991;









Schill & Kline 1995; Houston & Tran 2001). Some studies have used RRT in relation to

exploitation of natural resources (Chaloupka 1985; Schill & Kline 1995; Wright, 1980), yet none

have been carried out in the developing world to examine illegal resource use in parks.

Applying RRT to illegal use of natural resources in developing countries is challenging.

The RRT has been used in a number of health studies in developing countries with illiterate or

semiliterate populations. A study in Turkey found education level to be the most significant

correlate with successfully using the RRT method to estimate rates of induced abortions (Tezcan

& Omran 1981). Only one-half of the illiterate women surveyed were able to successfully

respond to the RRT method. Efforts to survey women regarding induced abortion using RRT

with illiterate populations in Taiwan report similar findings (I-Cheng et al. 1972).

This study makes some unique adaptations to the RRT method to examine illegal resource

use in a developing country for a population that is partially illiterate. I surveyed two

communities around Kibale National Park in western Uganda. Kibale National Park has

widespread problems with poaching of natural resources (Mugume 2000; Kooj o 2001; Mugisha

& Jacobson 2004; Chapman et al. 2005). Despite the evidence, in a separate study I* conducted

in other communities around Kibale National Park when directly questioned only 2 of 452

respondents admitted to illegally placing snares to trap animals inside of the park during the past

year.

I examine the effectiveness of using the RRT technique to assist park management in

assessing the extent of illegal resource use at Kibale National Park. I test the hypothesis that if




SThis chapter is reproduced from Solomon, J., S. K. Jacobson, K. Wald, and M. Gavin. 2007.
Estimating Illegal Resource Use at a Ugandan Park with the Randomized Response Technique.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 12(2):75-88. Only one change has been made for the purpose of
this dissertation; the word "we" has been changed to "I".









respondents find it undesirable to admit to illegal resource use, then estimates of illegal resource

use when measured by RRT will be higher than when measured by direct questioning.

Methods

Study Site

Two communities on different sides of the park, Bitanga and Kiwambal were selected with

marked differences in their residence time and land tenure in order to understand results in

response to possible community effects. Established in 1986, Bitanga lies on the southwestern

border of the park. The approximately 170 households derive much of their income from

agriculture. The park land running adj acent to the community is primarily composed of

grasslands and young secondary forest. Many (75%) of the survey respondents in Bitanga have

resided there for less than 10 years, and 97% reported living on public land. Over a 2.5-year

period (January 2001-June 2003) Uganda Wildlife Authority cautioned, prosecuted or fined a

total of 86 individuals for illegally collecting resources inside KNP; 27% resided in Bitanga.

Kiwamba, established in 1960, is composed of approximately 120 households and borders

the park' s eastern side. The park land adj acent to the community is comprised primarily of old

growth forest. Seventy-three percent of Kiwamba' s respondents indicated that they had lived in

the community for over 21 years. The maj ority of Kiwamba' s respondents had purchased the

land they lived on (56%) or held customary tenure (37%), inheriting the land from family

members. Only 2 % of park violators arrested or cautioned by the Uganda Wildlife Authority for

illegal activities over the 2.5 year period noted above resided in this community.







1 Names of communities have been changed because illicit behavior was disclosed and the
maj ority of household heads in each community participated in the survey.









Data Collection

Prior to conducting household interviews, local council leaders granted permission to

conduct the study. The survey was delivered in one of three local languages: Rutoro, Rukiga or

Rukonj o, by three male assistants trained in the survey technique and fluent in these languages.

Based on a sketch of each community, each survey administrator went door to door,

requesting to speak with the head of the household in their designated area. Survey

administrators greeted the household head and then read an informed consent which explained

that the survey was being undertaken by a student who was studying natural resource

management. If the household head was not available, the administrator asked for an appropriate

hour to return when the household head would be available. If nobody was home, the

administrator would return at least three times to contact the household head.

The survey was administered to a total of 251 heads of households between April and

May of 2004 in Bitanga and Kiwamba. The goal was to survey all household heads in both

Bitanga (N = 170) and Kiwamba (N = 120). Eighty-nine percent (n = 151) of household heads in

Bitanga completed the survey and 83% of Kiwamba' s household heads were surveyed (n = 100).

The cooperation rate was 100% for those contacted.

Responses to the survey were directly translated into English at the time of the interview

by the survey administrator. The average time to complete the survey was 87 minutes. Survey

administrators did not ask for names of people that they interacted with while administering

surveys.

Survey Instrument

A method known as "translation/back-translation" was used to increase the reliability of

the translated survey instrument (Behling & Law 2000). First, a bilingual individual translated

the source language (English) survey into the target language. Second, the draft target language









survey was translated back into the source language by a second bilingual person who was

unfamiliar with the wording of the original source language document. Then the back-translated

document was compared with the original. Finally, if considerable differences existed between

the two documents a draft with adjustments was made to eliminate the differences (Behling &

Law 2000).

The face-to-face survey was composed of five sections: socio-demographic and economic

data; attitudes toward park staff, the park and consumption of park resources; perceived benefits

and costs associated with the park; and questions regarding local environmental law. In the

section on resource collection which is discussed here, respondents were asked about illegal

collection of the six most common illegally extracted natural resources from the park based on

Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) records. Approximately half of the survey respondents

randomly received the randomized response questions first, followed by direct questioning;

while the other half received the direct question and then the randomized response question. I

analyzed only the first set of questions that respondents answered to avoid response order bias.

I used the paired-alternative RRT format, also known as the 'two unrelated questions'

technique (Fox & Tracy 1986). My RRT methodology evolved with pilot tests of several

techniques such as using hand-drawn pictures of people engaging in illegal activities, to

maximize the effectiveness of the method with illiterate respondents. Respondents indicated that

photographs were easier to interpret than drawings, so models (volunteers from a local

community) were photographed engaging in 6 illegal behaviors (collecting firewood, poles, and

timber, grazing animals, making charcoal, hunting animals). I used black and white photos that

showed little detail, but rather depicted the behavior at a glance. All photos were placed in the

same size and color cardboard envelope and were replaced if they showed signs of wear.










I pilot tested several obj ects to use for the non-sensitive question. In this case, I needed to

use something that could be easily recognized so that the respondent would know what it

represented, but not overtly suggestive of other things. Photographs of playing cards had

gambling implications for respondents and a photo of a Ugandan Hyve-cent coin which has a

picture of a fish suggested illegal Eishing. I selected a U.S. penny because respondents did not

Eind it suggestive of anything. The following is the RRT survey disclosure (see Table 4-1 for

brief explanation of RRT steps) that was read to each respondent prior to their participation in

the RRT portion of the survey:

"I have a few more questions for you.

First, I need you to flip this coin. Let me show you what you are going to

do. You flip the coin like this. (Survey administrator flips coin.) And then look at

what it lands on. There are two choices, it may land showing you a head, or it

may land showing you a building. Don 't tell me what it lands on. You just need to

remember what it lands on, but don 't tell me what it landed on. It is your secret.

Next, I am going to show you two pictures. One is of a coin 0I ithr a head on

it, similar to the one you may see on the coin. On another is a picture depicting an

activity you may have done inside Kibale National PaiI ku~ ithou,/t permission since

the year 2000 began (collecting firewood, charcoal, grazing animals, hunting

animals, collecting timber, poles). I am going to put both of these pictures in

envelopes and place the envelopes in the bag. You will choose one of the

envelopes. It is random. I don 't know which one you will choose.

Open up the envelope and look at the picture. Don 't tell me which one you

are looking at. If you are looking at the head, tell me "y/es if you saw a head









when you flipped the coin. If you saw a building [back of coin], then tell me "no "

If you are looking at the picture, tell me yes, if you have ever gone to the park

since 2000 to do the particular activity In without permission depicted in the

picture. If you have not gone to the park to do it, tell me no. Please be howlill\ ~I irlh

me, as I have no way of knowing which picture you are looking at. "



Following this description the survey administrator demonstrated a sample RRT question

with the respondent. If there were any questions, the survey administrator would answer them.

Prior to starting the RRT questions, the survey administrator gave the large, black plastic bag to

the respondent. Each respondent was asked to make sure nothing was in the bag. Before placing

the photos in the bag, the survey administrator would explain what each photo depicted (e.g., the

photo of the snare depicted hunting in the park since the year 2000, the photo of the person with

the bag of charcoal depicted making charcoal in the park since the year 2000). After respondents

answered "yes" or "no" they were instructed to place the photo they chose back in the bag, shake

it and return the bag to the survey administrator. This ensured that when the administrator went

to replace a photo there would be no way of knowing what photo the respondent had chosen

since both photos would be in the bag.

Direct questioning of respondents asked, "Since 2000 began have you done any of the

following activities in the park without permission: collect firewood?; hunt animals?; make

charcoal?; collect timber?; graze animals?; or collect poles?


2 The phrase "without permission" was included because in certain circumstances respondents
may have received permission from local authorities to extract resources or they may have paid a
bribe to local rangers to extract resources, possibly believing that this then made the extraction
legally permissible. The purpose of the study is to examine the effectiveness of RRT in
estimating illegal resource extraction and therefore it was our intent to clarify that we were not
referring to cases where it was legal or respondents believed it legal to extract resources.









Data Analysis

I used the following formula (Fox & Tracy, 1986) to estimate the proportion of the

surveyed population that performed the illegal collection of each resource:

Xx =([h-(1-p)Hy,]/p)

with a variance of

Var(Xx)= h(1- h)/np2

Hy,= known proportion of the non-sensitive behavior

h = observed proportion of "yes" responses

p = probability of answering the sensitive behavior question

n = sample size

The probability that a respondent answers "Yes" to the innocuous question ("Did you see a

head when you flipped the coin?) is 0.5, while the probability of picking the photo with a picture

of the coin head is 0.5. Therefore, the probability of a respondent answering "Yes" in response to

the innocuous question is 0.5 0.5 = 0.25. The limit to the answer of Yes questions is therefore

0.25 N where N is the number of respondents. The remainder of "Yes" answers are in response

to the question regarding the illegal activity. Since the probability of a respondent answering the

innocuous question is 0.5 assuming an equal chance of picking either photo from the bag, the

number obtained is doubled to provide an estimate of the number of respondents who would

answer "Yes" to the question regarding the illegal activity. A design tree illustrating the method

is depicted in Figure 4-1.

Results

Approximately 29% of respondents had no formal education, while 59% had at least some

primary education, 10% had some level of secondary education and 2% had some

college/technical education. Females composed 12% of the respondent pool. The response rate










was 100%. One survey was omitted because the elderly respondent was unable to see the picture

on the coin used in the RRT portion of the survey and therefore could not answer any of the RRT

questions.

The combined results from the two communities revealed that estimates of illegal resource

use when measured via RRT are significantly higher (binomial tests p < 0.001) than when

measured by direct questioning for all resources (Table 4-2).

Separating the data between the two communities results in larger estimates of illegal

resource use when measured using RRT than with direct questioning in all resource categories in

both communities, except for illegal grazing by the community of Kiwamba (Table 4-3).

Discussion

The RRT was a viable method of estimating illegal resource use around Kibale National

Park. This study demonstrates that RRT provides a much higher estimate for illegal activities

(firewood collection, hunting, charcoal production, timber collection, grazing of animals, pole

collection) than direct questioning in almost all cases, which supports other evidence of common

illegal resource use.

In only one case concerning illegal grazing by Kiwambans did RRT result in a smaller

estimate than direct questioning. Kiwamba residents tended to report more illegal behaviors

during direct questioning than Bitanga residents. Over a two and half year period for which I

have sanctioning data from Uganda Wildlife Authority, more people were arrested in Bitanga (n

= 23) than in Kiwamba (n = 2). Kiwambans may not be so fearful of admitting to illegal behavior

since so few are sanctioned for it. Because Kiwamba residents have more secure and longer land

tenure, they may feel more comfortable in revealing their activities when directly questioned.

Since most of Bitanga' s residents at the time of the survey were in a tenuous position in terms of

land tenure they may be less trusting of newcomers asking them about their illegal resource use,









possibly believing that they would be removed from the land. These differences underscore the

need to examine results by community and not necessarily by combining community-level data.

Communities surrounding parks are heterogeneous, and park policy needs to reflect the varying

use patterns surrounding parks and to target subsets of users to create effective programs.

Application of RRT in the Developing World

Many potential applications of RRT exist for both researchers and conservation

practitioners concerned with natural resource management, especially those in developing

countries. By using visual cues, my RRT model eliminates the need to use words or numbers in a

survey therefore it is especially valuable in the developing world, where populations living

around protected areas often have low literacy rates and reside in rural areas with limited

educational opportunities and high poverty levels.

Randomized response technique can estimate the number of people involved in illegal

resource extraction and therefore can be used in concert with biological surveys (e.g., rapid

assessment programs) to more fully understand the dynamics of resource use around protected

areas (Parker & Carr 1992). In the developing world RRT could be incorporated into

participatory rural appraisal programs to better comprehend the resource use of local

communities (Chambers 1994). Randomized response technique could be used to both set

conservation action priorities and evaluate the effectiveness of conservation programs. For

example, RRT can be used as a means of improving threat reduction analysis (Salafsky &

Margoulis 1999; Mugisha & Jacobson 2004) by allowing practitioners to quantify the level of

threat posed by illegal activities, particularly if the method can be developed to quantify the

amount of resources being used. Randomized response technique also could be more broadly

applied to test the effectiveness of different conservation strategies, ranging from community-









based proj ects aimed at improving livelihoods to increased enforcement measures for deterring

illegal resource extraction.

Other Potential Applications

The application of RRT is not limited to examining illegal resource extraction. Any

behavior or attitude that may be undesirable to reveal is a prime candidate for RRT research. In

the developing world, where some researchers work in cultures not similar to their own, getting

people to reveal undesirable attitudes and behaviors can be a daunting task. Many examples exist

where RRT would be an excellent tool for use in human dimensions survey research. Examples

include: research regarding human-wildlife disease transmission which may inquire about

people's hygienic habits in areas where human settlements abut protected areas (e.g., the

outbreak and potential crossover of scabies from humans to endangered mountain gorilla

populations); research by conservation agencies regarding their own polices or practices where it

may not be culturally acceptable for a respondent to be critical; research regarding attitudes

toward a government's policies where it may be perceived by respondents to be risky to provide

disparaging answers.

Constraints to Using RRT

Comparisons of the randomized response method to direct questioning do not always find

that RRT has increased the number of people disclosing a sensitive item (Buchanan & Tracy

1982; Umesh & Peterson 1991). Results of a meta-analysis of 32 comparative studies found that

RRT yields more positive results as the sensitivity of the study topic increases (Lensvelt-Mulders

et al. 2005).

When using direct questioning to investigate sensitive issues researchers' primary concern

is a true response. When a researcher decides to use RRT to estimate sensitive issues, a host of

potential constraints arise (Buchanan & Tracy 1982; Fox & Tracy 1986; Umesh & Peterson










1991; Berrens et al. 1997). Table 4-4 outlines the maj or concerns generated by RRT as well as

ways my study minimized limitations, such as mechanical errors, respondent recall, and

statistical noise.

The process of carrying out an RRT design can be confusing; hence mechanical error

becomes a maj or concern. I addressed this limitation by thoroughly piloting and providing a

simple explanation of the RRT process that was delivered to the respondent. Survey

administrators also were well-trained in the process. Each administrator gave a RRT example to

the respondent prior to delivering the actual RRT items in an effort to minimize mechanical

errors as well as reduce the chance that the respondent feels a trick is inherent in the process.

Additionally, I used a fairly easy RRT process. A RRT study carried out with women in Turkey

found that the ease of using the device as well as understanding it was associated with education

level. Illiterate women had the most difficulty using and understanding the randomizing device

used in the study (Tezcan & Omran 1981). Adapting the device to suit educational levels of

respondents is advisable and therefore I adapted the RRT process to be suitable for respondents

that had little formal education.

Statistical noise is an inherent part of RRT, but it can be adjusted according to the priorities

of the research (Fox & Tracy 1986). In essence a trade-off exists between allowing for the

respondent to feel confident that their response is confidential and an acceptable variance. The

probability of answering the sensitive question impacts the variance. A small p value (the

probability of answering the sensitive question) affords the respondents greater protection since

they have less chance of selecting the sensitive question. But a small p value also means that the

sampling variance will increase. Therefore a balance needs to be attained when designing the

research so that the probability of receiving the sensitive question is "comfortable" for the










respondent and the variance is not so great as to swamp any possible results. When dealing with

extremely sensitive issues it might be preferable to choose a smaller p value as to increase

cooperation (Fox & Tracy 1986). Populations that are not familiar with probability theory are

especially at risk to fear trickery and therefore a randomizing device that permits the respondent

to clearly comprehend the process is essential. For this reason I chose ap value of 0.50.

Randomized response technique items usually ask for the respondent to recall a certain

event, therefore recall bias is another maj or concern for the design of an RRT item. Although

such events, especially when they are illegal, may seem memory-worthy, research shows that

certain events come to mind more easily than others. For example, a study in Taiwan found that

women were able to recall more readily complicated abortions that might have resulted in

hospitalization than abortions that were without complications (Barreto et al. 1992). In their

extensive report on self-reporting crime, Junger-Tas and Marshall (1999, p. 51) note the use of

"anchor points" to provide a reference point to a respondent. In this study, I used the year 2000

as an anchor point since the turn of the millennium was a noteworthy event in rural communities

in Uganda, as it was for much of the world.

Future Considerations

This study demonstrates that RRT holds promise in providing more accurate estimates of

illegal resource use by rural populations residing near protected areas. It also affirms the need for

further application of innovative RRT methodology in the field of natural resource management,

such as an adaptation in the future to estimate quantities of illegal resources extracted from

protected areas. Resource managers in developing countries are often short on time and funding

and therefore development of a simple and fast methodology using RRT can be a vital

conservation tool.









Table 4-1. Brief explanation of steps carried out during randomized response technique
questioning
Step Actions
1 Respondent flips penny
Notes side it lands on without disclosing it to interviewer

2 Interviewer places 2 photos into a bag; one photo depicts the illegal
behavior, the other photo is a picture of the head side of the
COin

3 Respondent randomly selects one photo from the bag

4 Respondent answers "yes" or "no" in response to the question depicted by
the chosen photograph without disclosing which photograph was picked


Table 4-2. Comparison of two methods to quantify illegal resource use in Kibale National Park,
Uganda
Resource Estimated Variance of RRT Proportion from Statistical
proportion from estimate direct significance of
randomized questioning b difference
response (n=119) between
technique (RRT)a proportions
(n=132)
Charcoal 0.516 0.008 0.025 p<0.001
Hunting 0.394 0.007 0.017 p<0.001
Poles 0.622 0.007 0.403 p<0.001
Timber 0.258 0.007 0.042 p<0.001
Firewood 0.682 0.007 0.37 p<0.001
Grazing 0.288 0.007 0.135 p<0.001
a Proportion x 100 =estimated % of surveyed population illegally extracting resource from
protected area. b Proportion x 100 % of surveyed population illegally extracting resource from
protected area











Table 4-3. Effectiveness of two methods to quantify illegal resource use in two communities near Kibale National Park, Uganda
Bitanga Kiwamba
Estimated Variance Proportion Statistical Estimated Variance Proportion Statistical
proportion of RRT from direct significance proportion of RRT from direct significance
from estimate questioning of difference from estimate questioning of difference
randomized (n=73) between randomized (n=46) between
response proportions response proportions
technique techniques
(RRT) a (n- 54)
(n= 78)
Resource
Charcoal 0.576 0.013 0.027 <0.001 0.426 0.018 0.022 <0.001
Hunting 0.474 0.013 0 <0.001 0.278 0.018 0.043 <0.001
Poles 0.448 0.013 0.274 <0.01 0.870 0.016 0.609 <0.001
Timber 0.192 0.012 0.014 <0.001 0.352 0.018 0.087 <0.001
Firewood 0.526 0.013 0.219 <0.001 0.908 0.015 0.609 <0.001
Grazing 0.32 0.012 0.055 <0.001 0.24 0.017 0.261 N.S.o
aProportion x 100 =estimated % of surveyed population illegally extracting resource from protected area.. bProportion x 100 = % of
surveyed population illegally extracting resource from protected area. cN.S. Nonsignificant









Table 4-4. Maj or concerns when using randomized response technique and ways to minimize
concerns in this study
Maj or Concemns How I Minimized Concemns


Mechanical
Error/Game-like
(I-Cheng 1972)




Belief of Trickery
(I-Cheng 1972)






Statistical Noise (Fox
& Tracy 1986)

Recall Bias
(Junger-Tas &
Marshall 1999)


-Simplified explanation of RRT process
-Trained survey administrators thoroughly in the RRT process
-Began RRT section with example, where respondent
administered a RRT question to the survey administrator
-Chose locally relevant and easily understandable RRT devices
(coin, photos)
-Asked respondents in piloting phase if they suspected trickery
and modified RRT process accordingly
-Provided example of RRT with roles of survey administrator
and respondent reversed
-Used 50% probability for receiving sensitive question to
increase respondent cooperation
-Provided multiple verbal assurances of anonymity
- Chose highest probability of selecting sensitive question
possible to ensure less variance
- Selected large sample size
- Used prominent locally-known historical event (the start of the
new millennium) as anchor point to aid respondents in recalling
time frame













Stage 1: Flip Coin


P1=0.50
Heads





Tails
P2=0.50




Stage 2: Sensitive Question







Sensitive
P1=0.50 Question








P2=0.50Phtof

Coin Head


Yes


xy,= 0.25
~ Yes




xy~n= 0.25 No


Figure 4-1. Decision tree (adapted from Chaloupka 1985)









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

Conclusion for Collaborative Resource Management Study

This study reports results from the CRM fishing program at Lake Kabaleka in Kibale

National Park (KNP), Uganda. Beginning in 2000, the collaborative resource management

(CRM) program allowed individuals to legally fish at Kayanja landing site. Approximately 70%

of fishers' income was derived from fishing activities alone. Fishers reported higher incomes

than their control group, although when adjusting for confounding variables income was found to

be significantly different between fishers and the control group for one tribal group. Fishers

were also more supportive of conservation in general. Fishers reported a better relationship with

park staff than the control group, although no difference was found between the two groups for

individual items regarding support of the park and resource conservation. While some fishers

are actively protecting the park by preventing bush fires, removing wire snares/traps, they also

may be extracting resources illegally. CRM increased pressure on the fishery with

approximately 50% of fishers only starting to fish in the lake after implementation of the CRM

program.

Implications of Collaborative Resource Management Findings for Conservation

While CRM may be a viable tool to positively impact park relations, increase support for

conservation and raise incomes, CRM can also increase pressure on protected resources. This

result reinforces the need to examine unintended consequences of conservation-related

programming both prior to implementation as well as throughout the proj ect' s lifespan. Viewing

CRM programs as experiments in progress rather than established programs is a necessity and

for this reason an adaptive management approach is critical.









Although previous studies have noted that ICDPs may encourage in-migration to the

proj ect location (McShane and Newby 2004), little research has focused on changing livelihood

strategies or the impact those changes have on individuals, communities and resources. In this

study, over 50% of Eishers were new to fishing activities and fishing became their maj or source

of income. The program did not supplement income, but rather completely redefined

livelihoods. This impact of the program has inherent dangers, both for the people involved in the

program, as well as the resource base. Exogenous and stochastic events can influence both the

needs of people as well as resource availability. Income diversification should be ensured as an

essential component of both conservation and development programming.

Recommendations to Uganda Wildlife Authority

Uganda Wildlife Authority's CRM program at Lake Kabaleka in Kibale National Park is

meeting its obj ectives but some worrisome trends need to be addressed. With Hishers heavily

reliant on fishing activities for income, evidence of illegal resource extraction, and program

induced shifts in livelihood strategies there is greater pressure on the resource than originally

intended. To address these concerns, I recommend:

Ecological studies: At the time of the research UWA had not determined sustainable

harvest rates for the fishery. Ecological studies of the fishery should be carried out to

scientifically inform management decisions. Through KNP's institutional ties with Makerere

University, applied research on the fishery and the area surrounding it, should be encouraged.

Fishers' involvement in the research process could increase support for sustainable harvest

estimates. Additionally, such institutional ties can be used to encourage a comprehensive study

to understand resource extraction within the park. The reasonable person model (Kaplan 2000)

underscores the need to understand peoples' life circumstances. Such data are needed to

determine what resources are being used by whom and for what purposes.









Institute a seasonal moratorium: Fishers need to diversify their income base to provide a

safety net for their livelihoods. To ensure diversification and limit reliance of individuals on the

fishery, it may be helpful for UWA to institute a seasonal moratorium on fishing.

Increase monitoring and evaluation: Although greater oversight of the CRM program

may be required, it is understandably difficult as the number of rangers available for such a task

is limited. In light of the limited capacity to monitor the fishery, participatory adaptive

management should be instituted. The results of the fishers' record keeping should be returned

to them by the KNP Research Warden in a culturally appropriate format on a regular basis.

Additionally, educational seminars should be provided to fishers so they can understand the

dynamics of the fishery and the need for biological information. UWA should tap into the

expertise of both national and foreign researchers who study in and around KNP for such

educational endeavors. Transparent monitoring and evaluation activities, in addition to

education, may create a vested interest in creation of a sustainable fishery and lessen the risk of

its collapse.

Since Uganda Wildlife Authority is managing a conservation proj ect that includes a

development component, the program needs to ensure the ecological value of the area is not

sacrificed for the socio-economic and attitudinal gains of the CRM fishing program. IfUWA

can ensure that ecological integrity is maintained through proper monitoring and evaluation,

more CRM programs may be valuable in creating more positive relations between local

residents, and more support for conservation.

Conclusion for Randomized Response Technique Study

During the course of the CRM study, very few survey respondents admitted to illegal

resource use, despite the fact that it has been reported as one of the largest threats to KNP

(Mugisha 2002). As a result of this difficulty, I evaluated the effectiveness of the randomized









response technique (RRT) in quantitatively estimating illegal resource use around KNP.

Estimates of six types of illegal resource use when measured by RRT were significantly higher

than when measured by direct questioning.

Randomized Response Technique as a Methodological Tool in Conservation

Poaching is considered one of the greatest threats to protected areas in Africa (Kaltenborn

et al. 2005). Changing peoples' behavior requires a comprehensive understanding of the people

that are participating in such acts (Kaplan 2000). It is very challenging to persuade people to

admit to illegal resource use. The RRT addresses this challenge by ensuring anonymity to

respondents, encouraging them to provide truthful responses.

Many potential applications of RRT exist for both researchers and conservation

practitioners concerned with natural resource management, especially those in developing

countries. By using visual cues, the RRT model presented in this study eliminates the need to use

words or numbers in a survey. Therefore it is especially valuable in the developing world, where

populations living around protected areas often have low literacy rates and reside in rural areas

with limited educational opportunities and high poverty levels. The RRT developed in this study

is not limited to research regarding illegal resource extraction. Any behavior or attitude that may

be socially undesirable is well-suited for this RRT method.









APPENDIX A
ENGLISH/RUKIGA LANGUAGE VERSION OF COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT SURVEY

1. Interviewer' s Code (Enamba yowakubuza)
2. Respondent ID number (Akamayiso ko'orabuzibwa)
3. Date (Ebiro byokwezi)
4. Start time (Eshaaha yokutandika):
5. Language Used( Orurimi wagamba):
6. Village Name (Eizina ryekyaro)
7. Distance to Park Boundary (Ni mairo zingahe okurugaha kuhika ahi park eratangirira)
(km)
8. Parish Name (Eizina ryomuruka):
9. Registered resource user y/n
9A. Resource

Knowledge of Park-Related Laws and Programs

Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge. I just want to know
what you think. Do not worry if you do not know an answer to a question. If you do not know,
just tell me. (Ndakushaba kugarukamu ebibuzo ebi kubigarukamu okusigyikirira ha magezi gawe
nkoku orabimanya. Ndenda kumanya kusha nkoku oratekateka. Otakafayo ku'orabe otaramanya
ekyokugarukamu. Omukyinakubuza. Kandi ku orabe otaramamya ongambire.)

10. Is there a protected area owned by the government nearby? (hariho omwanya
ogurinzirwe ogu govumenti erareberera aha mpaha?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)




























Proceed to true/fa~lse questions If ye~s,
proceed to
true/false
Please answer the following statements with questions
yes, no or don't know. (Ndakushaba kungarukamu mubibuzo ebi nay ee
nebishuba nainga na tinkamanya, okusigyikyira nkoku orabe wahurira.)


11A. If yes
(Yego) :


11B. If
no or don't
know (Ingaha
minga
tinkamanya):
Do you
know of
Kibale
National Park
(nomanya park
ya Kibale)?


What is the
name of the
protected area
closest to your
house? (eizina rya
park eyeri haihi
nenju yawe
niriha?)


Name provided
(Eizina
eriy agamb a) : ...

Don't know
(Tinkamanya):


Yes
(Yego) :

No
(Ingaha) :

Don't know
(Tinkamanya):


If no, proceed to
questions on separate
demographics sheet

go namazima. Ingaha


12. People are permitted to hunt all wild animals in the protected area. (Abantu
baraikyirizibwa kuhiga enyamaiswa ezo mu Park ya Kibale.)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

13. Grazing of animals is not allowed inside the protected area. (Kurisa amatungo
tikuraikyirizibwa omunda ya park.)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

14. Anybody is allowed to live inside of the protected area. (Abantu baraikyirizibwa kutura
mu park.)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)









15. Placing snares inside the protected area is prohibited. (Okutega emitego omunda ya
park barakuzibira.)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

16. A person needs to get permission before he or she can collect resources inside the
protected area. (Omuntu aretagyisa kutunga orusa atakagire kugira ekyobutungyi ekyiyaiha mu
park.)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

17. Placing snares in your fields is permitted by park staff if an animal has been raiding
your crops. (Kutega emitego omuntabire yaawe kuraikirizibwa abakozi bapark kuba
enyamishwa ija kwona ebyokurya byaawe.)

a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

18. People are allowed to make charcoal inside Kibale National Park.
(Abantu baraikirizibwa kwosya amakara omunda ya Kibale National Park.)

a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

19. Only foreigners are permitted to visit Kibale National Park. Ugandans are not.
(Abanyamahomga bonka nibo baraikirizibwa kubunga omunda ya Kibale National Park.
Abanya Uganda tibakabikiriza.)

a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

20. Spearing of baboons that have raided crops is permitted with permission from park
staff. (Kucumita enkobe ezirona ebyokurya barakwikiriza watunga orusa kuruga habakozi bomu
park.)

a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)









21. To whom does Kibale National Park belong? (Eirindiro rya Kibale mra nebererwa
oho?)

Now I am going to read you some statements that people have made about the park and its
lands. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, are neutral, disagree or strongly
disagree. Sometimes I will also ask you to tell me the reason why you answered the way you
did. There are no right or wrong answers, I am only asking you for your opinion. If you do not
understand a question, please ask me to repeat it. (Mbwenu naza kukushomera ebi abandi bantu
baragamba ahari park na ni'taaka ryayo. Ndakushaba ongambire ku orabe ori, kuhamisiriza ngu
nkwe kiri kandi ninkahe ahi araikyiriza kyonka ota kahamiza kyimwe, kandi ninkahe ahi
arabanganisa, na ninkahe ahi orange, na ninkahe ahi orangira kimwe. Kandi obundi bwire mbasa
kukubuza nahabwenkyi orangarukamu nkoku wangarukamu. Tihariho answer/engarukamu,
ahikyire rundi egwire. Oihireho ninkubuza habwokutekateka kwawe. Ku orabe otayetegyereza
ekibuzo ndakushaba ongambire nkigarukemu.)

Park Staff

22. Your relationship with staff from Kibale National Park has been good. (Enkolengane
yawe na abakozi ba Kibale park bubaire buri burungyi.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

22a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwenkyi orangarukamu engarukamu egyo?)

23. Park staff do not take time to listen to the troubles of people who live in this village.
(Abakozi bo mu park tibakagyira obwire bwo kuhurikyiza ebizibu bya abantu abaratura omuri
ekyi kyaro.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

24. Park staff take local people to be wrongdoers. (Abakozi ba park baratwaza abantu ba
burijo nka enkozi zebibi.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)









Support for Kibale National Park


25. People are poor because they live near the park. (Abantu baba abooro habwokutuura
hamushikye gwa park?)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

26. Management of Kibale National Park is your responsibility as well as the government
of Uganda. (Okureberera park ya Kibale nobujunanizibwa we hamwe na government ya
Uganda.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

27. The park provides benefits to you. (Park erakuretera amagoba.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

27a. If agree or strongly agree; in your opinion, what are those benefits?

Please rank those benefits you mentioned from best benefit to lesser benefits. (Which
benefits you the most?)(Ku orabe ori kwikyiriza/ kwikyiraza orahamisiriza; ni birungyi kyi,
kandi .)

(Obihe enamba oratandika nekyira kukyirayo oburungyi kuhika ahari ekyitaine ebirungi
migasho mingyi.)
Benefit (Ebirungyi) Rank (Omwanya Ogukiratwara)



28. Your village benefits from tourists that come to visit the park.
(Ekyaro kyawe kiriagira ebyomugasho ebikiratunga ababungi biija kubunga omu Kibale
National Park.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)










28a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwekyi oragarukamu ogu muringo?)

29. Kibale National Park should be given to Ugandans living around the park for
conversion to agriculture. (Eirindiro rya Kibale bashemerire kurihereza abantu abanya Uganda
abaritwire hamushikye bakarihindura eryo kuhingwamu.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

Support for Consumption of Resources in Kibale National Park

30. People should be allowed to collect any resource from the park. (Abantu bashemerire
kwikyirizibwa kwiha kyoona ekyo butungyi kuruga mu park.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

30a. Why? (Habwekyi?)

3 1. If there were no laws regulating access to resources, all the wildlife in the park would
be killed. (Kuba hatarabireho ebiragiro ebirazibira kwiha ebyobutungyi mu park. Ebikoko
byona ebyo mwihamba byo yisirwe.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

32. These days, animals that live in the park are important sources of meat for people
living around the park. (Biro ebi, enyamaiswa eziratura mu park nebyomugasho mu enyama.
Habwa'bantu abatura haihi na park.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

32a. (if agree) What types of animals from the park are important sources of meat?
(Ku orabe waikiriza) (Ni nyamaiswa kyi kuruga omu park ezine emigasho mu nyama.)









33. What people need from the forest, grasslands and lakes is more important than
protecting the forest, grasslands, lakes and wild animals. (Ebya, abantu ebibarenda kuruga mu
mahamba, nomunyanj a bine emigasho, kukyira kurinda enyanj a, eihamba nenyamaiswa zaryo.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

34. Poor people need the wildlife in the park for meat. (Abantu abooro barenda
enyamishwa ezo mu park kuziryamu enyama.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

34a.Why did you answer that way? (Habwekyi oragarukamu ogu muringo?)

35. Wild animals are very valuable because they bring money to Uganda. (Enyamishwa
nezo muhendo/omugasho habwokuba zirareta esete mu Uganda.)
a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye)
b. Agree (Kwikyiriza)
c. Neutral (Kubanganisa)
d. Disagree (Kwanga)
e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

35 a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwekyi oragarukamu ogu muringo?)

Perceived Benefits from the Park

36. If you could collect any resource from Kibale National Park that you wanted, what
would you collect? Please rank order them. (Ku wakubeire oine akyobutungyi ekyoraiha mu
park ya Kibale akyorenda, woyihireyo kyi. Ndakushaba ebihe enamba okubire.)
Products (Ekintu waihayo) Rank(Enamba/omwanya ogukiratwara)










37. Lots of people use resources from Kibale National Park. Please list what products you
actually get from Kibale National Park in both the wet and dry seasons for your:
(Abantu bingyi barakoresa ebyobutungyi kuruga omu Kibale National Park. Ndakushaba
ongambire ebyobutugyi ebyoraiha mu park ya Kibale eby'o mubwire bwenjura na nomubwire
bwomusana habwe:
Daily needs? (Byetagwa bya burij o?)
For sale? (Ebyo kuguza?)
Other needs (Ebyetagwa ebindi?)

Subsistence needs (daily needs) (Ebyetagwa bya burijo)
Type of products (Nikintukyi) Use of products (Omugasho gwakyo)





Commercial needs (for sale) (Ebyokuguza) (ebyamaguzi)
Type of products (Nikintukyi) Use of products (Omugasho gwakyo)





Other needs (Ebyetagwa ebindi)
Type of products (Nikintukyi) Use of products (Omugasho gwakyo)





For each item collected:
38. Name of item
Do you collect the resource every month of the year or seasonally?
(Ebyomugasho ebyoihaga omu park, obihayoga buli mwezi ninga buli season?)









If collected monthly
38a. If monthly, how many weeks
per month do you collect the resource?
(Kworabe obihayo buli mwezi
orakolesa wiiki zingahe mu mwezi
gumwe?)



38b. How many trips do you make
per week?(Omu wiiki emwemu orazayo
emirondi ingahe?)

38c. For each of the items you collect
from Kibale National Park, how many
working hours do you spend on each
collecting trip, including time traveling to
and from the area to collect the resource?
(Habwa buri kintu ekyoraiha mu park ya
Kibale. Orakozesa eshaaha zingahe habwa
buri murundi, otairemu obwire obwo
kugyenda nokugaruka kuruga omu kicweke
ahi waiha ekyobutungyi?)

38d. What amount do you collect on
each trip? (Oraihayo ebintu biringana
nkahe?)

3 8e. If you could not get the item
from Kibale National Park, how much
(Ugandan shillings) would you be willing
to pay for the item (in order to get it)? (do
not forget to include units)
(Ku wakubaire otari wokwihayo
ekintu mu park ya Kibale, wosaswire senate
zinghe, habwekyo kintu kukitunga?)


If collected seasonally
38a. If seasonally, how many months
of the year do you collect it? And
38 b. How many weeks per month do
you collect it?
(Kworabe obiihayo buli
season,orakolesa wiiki zingahe mu mwezi
gumwe?)

38c. How many trips do you make
per week?(Omu wiiki emwemu orazayo
emirondi ingahe?)

3 8d. For each of the items you collect
from Kibale National Park, how many
working hours do you spend on each
collecting trip, including time traveling to
and from the area to collect the resource?
(Habwa buri kintu ekyoraiha mu park ya
Kibale. Orakozesa eshaaha zingahe habwa
buri murundi, otairemu obwire obwo
kugyenda nokugaruka kuruga omu kicweke
ahi waiha ekyobutungyi?)

38e. What amount do you collect on
each trip? ()raihayo ebintu biringana
nkahe?)

3 8f. If you could not get the item
from Kibale National Park, how much
(Ugandan shillings) would you be willing
to pay for the item (in order to get it)? (do
not forget to include units)
(Ku wakubaire otari wokwihayo
ekintu mu park ya Kibale, wosaswire senate
zinghe, habwekyo kintu kukitunga?)


39. Is permission needed to collect these resources in the park?
(Oretagisha orusa kwiha ekyobutungi omu park?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

40. Does the use of these products damage the park? (Kukozesa kwebyo bintu kurasisa
park?)
a. Yes (Yego)









b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

40a. If yes; which items collected damage the park and how do they damage it?
(Ku erabe yego, ni kintu ki ekyoraihayo kusisa park kandi kiragisisa bata?)

For registered resource users only:

41. How many shillings do you earn per month/per season from collecting
(rattan cane, bee products, or fish)? (Ni senate zingahe ezoratasya buri
kwezi naiga buli season kuruga mu kushoroza? (Enga/obwokyi, ebyenyanj a)

Sente ............... ............. shillings (note ifper month, or per season)

42. Do you consider this amount a (Notekateka ezo senate :
a. Large part (Nezekicweka kihango)
b. Medium part or (Nekyarwagati)
c. Small part (Nekiweka kiche)

Of your monthly income? (Habwentasya yawe eya buli kwezi?)

43. For how long have you been collecting the resource? (Omazire bwireki orikwiha
ebyobutubgi eki?)

44. Before you became a registered resource user did you collect the resource? (kare
otakehandikyise kukozesa ebyobutungyi okaba orazayo kwihayo ebyobutungyi?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

44a. If yes; from where did you collect the resource? (ku erabe yego, ninkahe ahi wabaire
araiha ebyobutungyi?)
a. Inside of Kibale National Park (Omunda ya KNP)
b. Outside of Kibale National Park (Aheru ya KNP)

45. Compared to before you started collecting the resource inside of the park, are you
economically better off, worse off, or about the same? Why?
(Noyenengesha ote obuwabire otaine ekyoriha omunda ya park omubyamaguzi, orikurungi
munonga, kubi munonga, ninga tariho mpiduka yoona. Habwenki?)










Feels (Embera):
1. Better-off (Kuba kurungyi
kukyiraho)


Reasons (Enshonga)
1.

2.


2. Worse off (Kuba kubi munonga
kushembayo)


3. Just the same (Kushushana)













(Akacweka)

46. Sex:
1. Female (Oryo omukazi)
2. Male (Oryo omusheija)

47. What is your age? (Oine emyaka ingahe?)

48. What is your marital status? (Oine amaka?)
a. Married( oine omusheij a married female)
(oine omukazi married male)
b. Single (taine musheija unmarried female)
(taine mukazi unmarried male)
c. Widowed (enfakazi)
d. Other (ebindi)


48a. If married, (man): do you have more than one wife? yes, no
if yes, how many do you have?
(woman) does your husband have more than one wife? yes, no
If yes, how many wives including yourself does he have?

(Ku orabe osweire oine abakazi barengire hari omwe? ) yego, ingaha
Ku erabe yego oine bangahe?

(Omukazi) (Omusheij a wawe aine omukazi orengire hari omwe) yego, ingaha
(Ku erabe yego nibangahe naniiwe wayebarramu?)

49. What is the age and sex of all the people who cook, eat and live in this household?
(emyaka eyabantu ob'o rateka mukarya kandi mukara hamwe abasheij a n'abakazi? )
Se Emyaka) ane<10 ane 11-20 ane 21-30 ane 41-50 ane>51
Female (Abakazi)
Male (Abasheij a)

50. Do you have any children? (Oine abaana?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)

50a. If yes, how many do you have? (Oine bangahe?)

50b. Are all of your children that are eligible (age), attending primary school?
(Abaana baawe abakubire barashoma mu primary, barashoma boona?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)


Household Profile










50c. If no, why are they not attending school?
(nahabwenki batara shoma?)

51. What is the highest level of education you have attained? (Okwega kwawe
okurakyirayo nikuha?)
a. No formal education (Toregyire)
b. Primary education (Okega puraimare)
c. Lower secondary (sl-4) (Okega seniya zahasi)
d. Upper secondary (s5-6) (Okega seniya zahaiguru haya)
e. College (ttes) (Okega omumatendekero za college)
f. University (Univasite)

51la. If married, what is the highest level of education your spouse has attained ? (if the
person has more than one wife, ask this of the oldest wife.) (Oswirwe/osweirwe, okwega
kwamukazi wawe/omusheij a wawe kuraingana nkahe) ?
a. No formal education (Toregyire)
b. Primary education (Okega puraimare)
c. Lower secondary (sl-4) (Okega seniya zahasi)
d. Upper secondary (s5-6) (Okega seniya zahaiguru haya)
e. College (ttes) (Okega omumatendekero za college)
f. University (Univasite)

52. What is your tribe? (Eihanga lyawe niriha?) (Batoro, Bakiga, Bahororo, Banyankole,
Banyarwanda or other)

53. Were you or members of your family evicted from Kibale in the early 1990s (iwe
nanga abeka yawe bakabingwa kuruga mu lhamba lya Kibale kare mumyaka ye 1990)?
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

54. How long has your household been settled here (in this particular community? (eka
yawe amazire bwirekyi eratura mukyaro ekyi mpaha?)
A)<5 years b)5-9 years c)10-14 years d)15-20 years e)>21 years

54a. (If settled in the last 5 years (1998 and later) (Ku orabe otwire hanu kumara emyaka
etaano yonka 1998 nokugaruza haiguru)from where did you shift (Okaruga nkahe okwij a kutura
omuri ogu mwanya)?

54b. (If settled in the last 5 years (1998 and later) (Ku orabe otwire hanu kumara emyaka
etaano yonka 1998 nokugaruza haiguru) Why did you choose to settle in this area( Habwekyi
wacwiremu ku tura muri ogu mwanya/ekyaro) ?










55. What are your household' s main sources of income presently? (Entasya yeka yawe
obwahati neha?)
Which activity is the most profitable? (Kandi ni murimo kyi ogurakyira
kukugobeesa?)(Rank them) (Ogihe enamba) 1=most profitable

Present economic activities Rank
(Emirimo yentsya obwahati) (Omwanya ogweratwara omukutahiza)







56. What were your household's main income sources 1 year ago? (Entasya yeka yawe
omumwaka oguhingwire ekaba eraruga nkahe?)
Which activity was the most profitable? (Ni murimokyi ogwakyizire
kukugobeesa/kukutahiza ) (Rank them) (Ogihe enamba)

(If the income sources have changed) (Entasya eheraruga ekahinduka); Why have your
income sources changed? (Habwenkyi entasya yawe aheraruga habairemu empinduka)?
Household income Rank Cause of change (Ekyaresire empinduka)
sources 1 years ago (Omwanya)
(Entasya yeka mu
mwaka 1 enyima)







57. What would you say your household's income is in shillings per month or per season?
(Notekateka entasya yekayanyu omukwezi kumwe nainga mu season emwe, erainegana senate
zingahe?)










58. How do you compare yourself with other people in your village who have the same
size and fertility of land, but who live farther away from the park? (Iwe oregeranisa ote nabandi
bantu mukyaro kyawe abaine ebibiira kandi bine orwezo nkekyawe kandi ebiringana
nomubuhango. Kyonka batatwire haihi na park?)

Feels (Embera): Reasons (Enshonga)
1. Better-off (Kuba kurungyi kukyiraho) 1.




2. Worse off (Kuba kubi munonga kushembayo) 1.




3. Just the same (Kushushana) 1.



59. The land you live on is (Nitaaka kyi eryotwiremu):
a. Leasehold (official title) (Eryekyapa)
b. Cu stomary tenure (Ery obugwetwa/obu si ka)
c. Rented (Orapangyisa)
d. Public lands (Kalandalanda)
e. Bought land (Kugura ekibira)
f. Other (Ebindi)
g. Don't know (Tinkamanya)
h. Mailo land (Ekibira kya bakama ba tooro)

60. How many acres (of those checked above) do you have (Kandi riraingana hika
zingahe)?

61. Has your work or somebody from your household ever been related to Kibale National
Park? (Omurimo gwawe nainga ogwomuntu womunju yawe gwine akakwate na Kibale?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

61a. If yes, in what capacity was (or is) your work related to KNP? (Ku erabe yego, gukaba
guri nainga nogwa kakwatekyi?)










62. Does this household own any means of transport? (Omuka egi mwine ekiruka kyoona
ekyi murakozesa nkentambura?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

62a. If yes; what type of transport? (Ku erabe yego nikiruka kiiha eki mwine?)
a. Car/truck (Matooka ence/empango)
b. Motorcycle (Pikipiki)
c. Bicycle (Egaali)
d. Boat (Eryato)
e. Other (Ebindi)

63. Do you keep any animals? (Hariho ebikoko byoona ebi mutungire?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

63a. If yes; what types of animals do you keep and how many? Ku erabe yego; ni bikoko
biiha ebimutungire?)

Animal (Ebikooko) Number (Omuhendo)
Cattle (Ente)
Goat (Embuzi)
Chicken (Enkoko)
Guard dogs (Embwa)
Pigs (Empunu)
Other (Ebindi):

64. Do you or a member of your household have a bank account?
(Iwe nainga abatuzi bomunju yaawe hariho alikwahura esente mubank?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

65. Do you face a problem of crop-raiding by wild animals from the park? (Oine ekizibu
kyo kwonerwa enyamaiswa ezo mwihamba eziraruga mu park?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)











66. What meat have you eaten in the past year? (Ninyamaki eyiwarirho omuwaka
oguhwire?)
(Write the number assigned to particular animal on your data sheet.)


1. Giant forest hog
2. Bush pig
3. Bush buck
4. Red duiker
5. Blue duiker
6. Guinea fowl
7. Crested francolin
8. Chicken
9. Cow
10. Goat
11. Buffalo
12. Other


1. Ensenge
2. Empunu (domestic or wild?)
3. Engabi
4. Ensuku
5. Enende
6. Entajumba
7. Endahi
8. Enkoko
9. Ente
10.Embuzi
11. Embogo
12. Ebindi


a. O times


b. 1-2 times


c. 3-4 times


d. >5 times


69. Reported an illegal activity in Kibale National Park? (Waratabarize emirimo
etaraikyirizibwa mu Park ya Kibale?)
a. O times b. 1-2 times c. 3-4 times d. >5 times


Behaviors


67. Some people place snares in Kibale National Park, other people do not. Have you or
people from your household placed snares/traps inside of Kibale National Park in the past year?
(Hariho abantu abaratega emitego omu Kibale National Park iwe rundi abantu bomuli eji
nju hariho arategire emitego omu Kibale National Park omuwaka oguhwire?)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No(Ingaha)
c. Other (Ebindi)
d. Don't know(Tinkamanya)

How many times in the past year have you:
Nemirondi ingahe eyiwategiregire emitego omwaka oguhwire:

68. Prevented bush fires in Kibale National Park? (Kutangira omuriro omu Park ya
Kibale?)











70. Removed wire snares from Kibale National Park? (Kutegurura emitego kuruga mu
Park ya Kibale?)
a. O times b. 1-2 times c. 3-4 times d. >5 times

Now I am going to read you some statements about your opinions and activities.
Remember, as I have said before, there are no right or wrong answers. (Obu ndaza kukushomera
ebi bigambo. Mukutekateka kwawe nomikorere. Oijuke, enyimaho mbaire nagambire, tihariho
engarukamu ehikyire nainga eye'gwire. Ninkushaba ongambire ku orabe, noikyiriza
orakihimisiriza, noikyiriza, orabamganisa, torakyiriza orangirakimwe.)

71. Sometimes you have to place snares/traps in your fields to prevent animals from
raiding your crops. (Haliho obwaratega onitego omundimiro yaawe kuzibira ebikooko kwona
ebyokurya.)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

72. Since animals from the park raid crops, it is your right to go to the park and hunt
animals. (Ku enyamaiswa kuruga mu park ziraij a kwona ebyokurya, tiburi bugabe bwawe
kugenda mu park okahiga enyamaiswa .)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

73. Firewood is scarce and the park has a lot of wood therefore there is no problem if you
go and take some firewood from inside of the park. (Enku tizirarebeka, kandi park eine enku
nyingi, mbwenu hariho eshonga kuba ogenda okagira eziwaiha omunda ya park.)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

74. Meat is scarce and sometimes you have to hunt inside of Kibale National Park to find
it. (Enyama terakyira kurebeka kandi akaire akandi oine kuza kuhiga munda ya park ya Kibale
kugi sherura.)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

75. Water is plentiful in the park, therefore you sometimes go to the park to collect it.
(Amiizi nimingi omu park, hariho obworazaya kivenda amiizi.)
a. Yes (Yego)
b. No (Ingaha)
c. Don't know (Tinkamanya)










Perception of Enforcement


76. If a person enters the park illegally to extract a resource his/her chance of getting
apprehended by park authorities is:
(Kuba omuntu agenda mu park ataikyirizibwe, okwihamu ekyobutungyi. Ogwe,,
omugisha gwe ogwokufubirwa abakuru ba park nigushushakyi:)
a.Very high (Nogwa haiguru munonga)
b. High (Nogwahaiguru)
c. Medium (Nogwa rwagati)
d. Small (Nimuche)
e. Very small (Nimuche munonga)
f. Don't know (Tinkamanya)

77. What would occur if you were caught in Kibale National Park illegally extracting
resources? (Ni kiiha ekyakubasa kubaho kuba okwatirwa mu park ya Kibale oraihamu
ebyobutungyi otaikyirizibwe?)
a. Fined (Oratangibwa)
b. Jailed (Barakukoma/kukusiba)
c. Taken to LC 1(Barukutwara owa LC1)
d. Don't know (Tinkamanya)
e. Other (Ebindi) (specify):

Thank you so much for your time. I have asked you many questions, now do you have any
questions?

78. (Observe the exterior of the house; is it painted?)
a. Yes
b. No

79. (Observe the roof-material of the main house and circle appropriately)
a. Iron sheets (Amabate)
b. Tiles (Amategura)
c. Concrete (Ceminti n'amabare)
d. Polythene paper (Ekivera)
e. Grass-thatched (Obunyasi)
f. Debe roof (Debe)

80. What kind of walls does the house have?
a. Brick
b. Mud
c. Plaster
d. Other

81. End time (Eshaaha yokumara)









APPENDIX B
ENGLISH/RUTORO LANGUAGE SURVEY OF RANDOMIZED RESPONSE TECHNIQUE
SURVEY

1. Respondent ID number (Rukugarukamu akokurorwaho)
2. Interviewer's Code (Kikaguzibwa)
3. Variation of Survey: A/B ?
4. Date (Ebiro by6mwezi)
5. Start time (Esaha yokutandiika)
6. Language Used: 1 = Rutooro; 2=Rukiga 3=English
7. Translator Used? Yes/No
8. Village Name (Ekyaro)
9. Parish Name (Omuruka)

Socio-Demographics

In the first part of the interview, I will ask you questions about yourself and your family.
(Omu kicweeka kinu ekyokubanza, ninyiga kukukaguza ebikaguzo ebirikukwata hali ime
na' maka gawe.)

10. Sex(oliki): a. Female (Mukazi)
b. Male (Musaija)

11. What is your age (Oine emyaka ingaha)? ........

12. What is your marital status (Oine eka?)?
a. married oswirwe (married female)
oswire (married male)
b. single toswirwe (unmarried female)
toswire (unmarried male)
c. widowed mufakati (widowed)
d. Other ebindi (other)

12 a. If married, (man): do you have more than one wife? Yes, No
if yes, how many do you have?
(woman) Does your husband have more than one wife? Yes, No
If yes, how many wives does he have including yourself!
(Obworaba oswire: oine abakazi abarukukira hali omu? Ego, Nangwa
Obweraba ego: oine abakazi baingaha? )
(Obworaba oswirwe : omunyoro wawe aine abakyara abarukukira hali omu? Ego, Nangwa
Obweraba ego, aina baingaha obu naiwe ovebaliremu? )










13.What is the highest level of education you have attained? (Okusoma okuwatungire
okurukukirayo nukuha?)
a. No formal education (Atasome)
b. Primary education (Akamara idara lya'puraimare)
c. Lower secondary (sl-4) (Akamara idara lya siniya)
d. Upper secondary (s5-6) (Akamara idara lya haya)
e. College (ttes) (Akamara itendekero)
f. University (Akamara university)

13a. If married, what is the highest level of education your spouse has attained ? (if the
person ha~s more than one wife, a~sk this of the oldest wife.) (Obu oraba oswire/oswirwe,
okusoma kwamunyoro/mukyara wawe okurukukirayo okuyatungire nikuha)?
a. No formal education (Atasome)
b. Primary education (Akamara idara lya'puraimare)
c. Lower secondary (sl-4) (Akamara idara lya siniya)
d. Upper secondary (s5-6) (Akamara idara lya haya)
e. College (ttes) (Akamara itendekero)
f. University (Akamara university)

14. Now I would like you to tell me the age and sex of all the people who cook, eat and
live in this household? (Baine emyaka ingaha boona abantu abarukucumba, nibalya kandi
nibarara omuka enu? Olimuki? )

Sex Ane (Emvaka) <10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >51
Female (Mukazi)
Male (Musaija)

15. How many children have you produced? (Oine abana baingaha abu wazire? )

15 a. Are all of your children that are eligible (age), attending primary school? Abaana
baawe abasemeriire kuba nibasoma mu bitebe ebya primary, boona nibasoma?
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)

15. B. If no, why not? (Obubaraaba batarukusoma habwaki?)

16. What is your tribe? (Ihanga lyawe oli muki?) (Batoro, Bakiga, Bahororo, Banyankole,
Banyarwanda or other)

17. How long has your household been settled here (in this particular community) (Iwe
omazire kasumiki neka yawe otembwire hanu (omukikaro kinu)?

At <5 b 5-9 c 10-14 d 15-20 e >21









17 a. (If settled in the last 5 years (1999 and later) (Obworaba otembwire emyaka etaano
enyuma (1999 no-kweyongeraho) from where did you shift ? (Okafuruka/okarugirra nkaha?)

17 b. (If settled in the last 5 years (1999 and later) (Obworaba otembwire emyaka etaano
enyuma (1999 no-kweyongeraho). Why did you choose to settle in this area? (Habwaki
okakomamu kutembura omukikaro kinu?)

18. What are your household' s main sources of income presently? (Kiki ekirukutahiza
entashya yeka yawe biro binu?) Which activity is the most profitable? (Mulimoki
ogurukutahiza rundi ogurukugobesa muno?) (rank them) (1=most profitable) (Gihe enamba
nosigikira ogwokubanza nogukweyongeraho omuntashya.)

Present economic activities (emirimo Rank (enamba)
eventashya kasumi kanu)







19. Have your income sources changed since the year 2000? (Entashya yawe
ya'kahinkukireho kwiha omwaka gwe 2000?)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)

19 a. If yes, please indicate how they have changed and the reason for the change.
(Bweraba ego, nikusaba onyoleke nikwo ehindukire kandi ne'nsonga habwakyi
ehindukire.)

Household income source Cause of change
(please order from oldest to most recent (#1 is (Ekyalesere
oldest and #5 is most recent) empindahinduka)










20. What would you say your household's income is in schillings per month or per season?
(Entashya yeka yanyu omusente buli kwezi rundi buli season nizingana zingaha?) (Note: if
seasonal write note how many seasons per year.)

21. The land you live on is (Itaaka oine riri):
a. Official land title (Lyekyapa )
b. Customary tenure (Lyobugwetwa)
c. Rented (Lyempangisa)
d. Public lands (Kalandalanda)
e. Bought land (Likagurwa)
f. Other (Ebindi)
g. Don't know (Tindukumanya)
h. Mailo land (Ly'obukama bwa tooro)

22. How many acres (of those checked above) do you have (Oine hiika zingaha? (hali eryo
itaaka eligambirweho)?

23. Does this household own any means of transport? (Eka enu ine entambura yoona?)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)

23 a. If yes; what type of transport? (Ebweraba ego, ntamburaki?)
a. Car/truck (Motor car/ roole)
b. Motorcycle (Piikiipiiki)
c. Bicycle (Egaali)
d. Boat (Eryato)

24. Do you keep any animals? (Oine ebitungwa ebyo'linzire?)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)

24 a. If yes; what types of animals do you keep and how many? (Ebweraba ego, bisoroki
ebyokulinda kandi bingaha?)

Animals (Ebisoro) Number (Enamba)
Cattle (Ente)
Goat (Embuzi)
Chicken (Enkoko)
Guard dogs (Embwa)
Pigs (Empunu)
Other (Nebindi):











Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge. I just want to know
what you think. Do not worry if you do not know an answer to a question. If you do not know,
just tell me. (Nosabwa kugarukamu ebikaguzo binu kurungi muno omukwetegeza kwawe.
Ninvenda kumanya kiki ekyorukutekereza. Otafayo obworaba otarukumanya, ongamibire.)

25. Is there a protected area owned by the government nearby? (Haroho ekikaro
ekya'government ekinyakulinzirwe haihi?)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)


25 a.What is the name Name provided 25 b. Do you know Yes (ego)
of the protected area (ibara lihairwe) of Kibale National
closest to your house Park(omanyire No (nangwa)
(ibara ly'ekikaro kinu Don't know irindiro ly'e
ekinyakulinzirwe haihi (tindukumanya) bihangwa erya
muno n'enju yawe Kibale)?
nikiha ?)


If namne provided is correct, proceed If yes, If no, thank the
If incorrect, ask 25b. proceed respondent and complete
questions at end of survey

Rating Benefits/Costs

Now I would like to ask you about how you are affected by the park. Remember there are no
right or wrong answers. We just want your opinion. (Hati ninyenda kukukaguza nkoku paaka
erikukutwaza. Ijuka nkokuhataroho ekig'arukwanu ekigwiire, byona bihikire habwokuba
ninyenda entekereza yaawe.)

26. The park provides benefits to you. (Park ekuletera amagoba.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

26 a. If agree or strongly agree; in your opinion, what are those benefits? (Ebya magoba
binu nibiha obworaba noyi'kiriza?)


A. If yes (obweraba
ego) :


B. If no or don't
know (obweraba
nangwa rundi
tindukumanv)









b. Please rate those benefits you mentioned using the scale provided. At one end of the
scale (5), the benefit you mentioned may be very trivial, while at the other end of the scale, the
benefit you mentioned may be very important to you(1). (Amagoba ganu gahe amadara.)

Very important Very trivial
(Amagoba (Amagoba
agamani) mataito muno)

1 2 3 4 5


27. The park hurts you. (Paaka nekusaasa.)

a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

27 a. (if strongly agree/agree) in your opinion, list the ways you are hurt by the park.
(Oboraba no yikiriza, ebyamagoba binu nibiha.)

Please rate the items you listed using the scale provided. (1=hurts you very much, 5=hurts
you very little). (Bine eno)

Hurts you very Hurts you very
much little
(Nekusaasa (Nekusaasa
munono) kataito)
1 2 3 4 5

27 b. Do you feel you benefit more from the park than it hurts you?
(Nkoku orukwe hura, nogira paaka nekuletera ebyomagoba kukira nkoku erukusera? )
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)









Neighbor's Behavior


Please use the "ladder" to indicate how strongly you feel about the following descriptions
of your neighbor' s behavior. At one end you may believe that your neighbor' s behavior is very
acceptable (#1), at the other end you may believe that your neighbor' s behavior is very
unacceptable (5). Again, remember, there are no right or wrong answers. I am just asking for
your opinion. After asking you how you feel, i will ask you why you feel that way. (Nibusaba
okozese idara kworeka nikwo okwehurra habigambo ebinkukwataho enyetwaza ya mutahi
wawe. Aharubaju rumu enyetwaza ya' mutahi wawe nosobora kuhurra neyikirizibwa muno (1).
Kandi orubaju orundi etakwikirizibwa nakati (5). Ijuka ngu busaho ekigarukwamu ekihikire
rundi ekigwire. Kwihaho ninkaguza kwolikutekereza. Obundamara kukukaguza nkoku
olikwehurra, ninyij a kuku kaguza habwak noyehurra nkoku wangambira.


Very acceptable Acceptable Neutral Unacceptable Very unacceptable
behavior behavior (Ninsobona behavior behavior
(Nikikirizbwa (Nikikirizibwa) kukyigumyo) (Tikinkwikinzibwa) (Tikirikwikirizibwa
muno) nakati)

1 2 3 4 5

28. A neighbor goes to the park and collects water. (Mutahi 'wawe kugya mu paaka
kuletayo amaizi.)
a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?)

29. A neighbor goes to the park to collect firewood. (Mutathi wawe kugya mupaaka
kusenyayo enku.)
a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?)

30. A neighbor goes to the park to graze animals. (Mutahi wawe kugenda kulisiza
mu'paaka.)
a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?)

31. A neighbor goes to the park to collect poles. (Omutahi kugenda mu paaka kutemayo
emiti ).
a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?)

32. A neighbor sends a child to the park to collect herbal medicinal plants. (Mutahi wawe
kutuma omwana mupaaka kuserrayo omubazi.)
a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?)

33. A neighbor goes to the park to set snares in hope of acquiring meat. (Mutahi wawe
omunaku kugenda mu'paaka akaserrayo omukubi.)
a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?)









34. A neighbor goes to the park to make charcoal. (Mutahi wawe kugenda mu'paaka
kwihayo amakara.)
a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?)

35. A neighbor enters the park to collect timber. (Omutahi kugenda mu'paaka kuletayo
embaho.)
a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?)

Kibale-Related Questions

36. How do you compare yourself with other people in your village who have the same
size and fertility of land, but who live farther away from the park? (Iwe noyerenga ota naabantu
abandi mukyaro kyawe abanyakwine itaka lyorwezo no bwingi kyonka batarukwikara haihi na
paaka?)


Feels: (Embera) Reasons (Ensonga)
1. Better-off (Kurungiho)

2. Worse off (Kubi muno)

3. Just the same (Kwisanaisana)


37. Were you or members of your family evicted from Kibale in the early 1990s? (Iwe
rundi abeka yawe bakabingwaaga omwirindiro lyebihangwa erya Kibale National Park omu
myaka ya 1990 nekyatandiika)?
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

38. Has your work or the work of somebody from your household ever been related to
Kibale National Park? (Omulimo gwawe rundi omuntu ondi kuruga omuka yawe gwine
akakwate/obuzale nirindiro lyebihangwa erya Kibale?)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

38 a. If yes, in what capacity was (or is) the work related to KNP? (Ebweraba ego,
mulingoki omulimo gwali rundi gwine obuzale/akakwate na knp?)

39. Do you face a problem of crop-raiding by wild animals from the park? (Oine ekizibu
ekyokwonerwa ebyokulya enyamaiswa ezo mu park?)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)










40. Other than your fields that are close to your home, do you have other fields are closer
to the park border? (Oihire ho emisiri yaawe enyakuli haihi neeka, oine endi yoona,
erikusangwa haihi nensaro ya paaka?)

a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

Support for Conservation

Now I am going to read you some statements that people have made about the park and its
lands. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, are neutral, disagree or strongly
disagree. Sometimes I will also ask you to tell me the reason why you answered the way you
did. There are no right or wrong answers, I am only asking you for your opinion.. If you do not
understand a question, please ask me to repeat it. (Hati ningenda kukusomera ebigambirweho
abantu hali park nitaaka lyayo. Ninkusaba ogambire obworaba nokigumiza kimu, nokigumya,
nosobora kukigumya, tokukigumya rundi torukukigumya nakake. Akaire akandi ninyija
kukukaguza kungambira ensonga habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu. Busaho ebigarukwamu
ebihikire rundi ekigwire, oihireho ninkukaguza omu'ntekereza yawe. Obworaba otetegerize
ekikaguzo, ninkusaba ongambire nkigarukemu.

41. Your relationship with staff from Kibale National Park has been good. (Enkoragana
yawe n'abakozi ba Kibale National Park ebaire nungi.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

41 a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?)

42. Park staff do not take time to listen to the troubles of people who live in this village.
(Abakozi aba park tibarukufayo kutunga obwire kuhuliriza ebizibu by'a bantu abarukwikara
omukyaro kinu.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)










43. Park staff take local people to be wrongdoers. (Abakozi aba park nibatwara abantu
ababulikiro kuba nkozi z'ebibi.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

44. People are poor because they live near the park.
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

45. Management of Kibale National Park is your responsibility as well as the government
of Uganda. (Kurolerra Kibale National Park bujunanizibwa bwawe hamu na government ya
Uganda.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

46. Kibale National Park should be given to Ugandans living around the park for
conversion to agriculture. (Kibale National Park esemerire kuhebwa abantu ba Uganda
abarukwikara haihi na park nukwo bakorremu ebyobulimi.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

47. Kibale National Park should be given to Ugandans living around the park for
conversion to grazing lands. (Irindiro lyebisoro eya Kibale National Park basemerire barihe
abantu abalikulikara haihi balihindutemu eryo kulisizamu.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)










48. People should be allowed to collect resources from the park. (Abantu basemereire
kwikirizibwa kwiha mu paaka ebibakwetaaga.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

48 a. Why? (Habwaki?)

49. If there were no laws regulating access to resources, all the wildlife in the park would
be killed. (Kakuba hataroho ebiragiro ebyokutanga kukozesa eby'obuguda, ebisoro byoona ebyo
mu park bya kwisirwe.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

50. These days, animals that live in the park are important sources of meat for people
living around the park. (Biro binu, enyamaiswa ezo ezirikwikara omu park zine omugaso omu
nyama hali abantu abarukwikara haihi na park.)

50 a. (If agree) What types of animals from the park are important sources of meat?
(Ebweraba ninkigumya) /nyamaiswaki kuruga mu park ezine omugaso omu nyama?)

51. What people need from the forest, grasslands and lakes is more important than
protecting the forest, grasslands, lakes and-wild animals. (Abantu ebi barukwetaga omu kibira,
mu park, n'omunyanj a bine omugaso gw' amani kukira kulinda ekibira hamu n' enyamaiswa
ezirumu.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

52. Wild animals are very valuable because they bring money to Uganda. (Enyamaiswa
zina omugaso muno habwokuba zireta senate omu Uganda.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

52 a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu mulingo ogu?)











53. Wild animals should be protected for future generations.
(Enyameiswa zisemerire kurindwa habwa ensinganto ezo busumi bwo mumerso
(oburukwij a).
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

53 a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu mulingo ogu?)

54. Local people benefit from Kibale National Park. (Abantu ababulikiro bagoba ahaki
Kibale National Park.)
a. Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno)
b.Agree (Ninkigumya)
c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya)
d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya)
e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

54 a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu mulingo ogu?)

Behavior

I have a few more questions for you.

First, I need you to flip this coin. Let me show you what you are going to do. You flip the
coin like this. (Flip coin.) And then look at what it lands on. There are two choices, it may land
showing you a head, or it may land showing you a building. Don't tell me what it lands on. You
just need to remember what it lands on, but don't tell me what it landed on. It is your secret.

Next, I am going to show you two pictures. One is of a coin with a head on it, similar to
the one you may see on the coin. On another is a picture depicting an activity you may have
done inside Kibale National Park without permission since the year 2000 began (collecting
firewood, charcoal, grazing animals, hunting animals, collecting timber, poles ). I am going to
put both of these pictures in envelopes and place the envelopes in the bag. You will choose one
of the envelopes. It is random. I don't know which one you will choose.

Open up the envelope and look at the picture. Don't tell me which one you are looking at.
If you are looking at the head, tell me "yes" if you saw head when you flipped the coin. If you
saw the building, then tell me "no." If you are looking at the picture, tell me yes, if you have
ever gone to the park since 2000 to do the particular activity without permission depicted in the
picture. If you have not gone to the park to do it, tell me no. Please be honest with me, as i have
no way of knowing which picture you are looking at.

(Nyine ebikaguzo ebindi bitaito. Ninvenda obake esimoni enu. Leka nkwoleke
ekyokurorraho. Esimoni no gibaka oti (baka), nukwo no rora kiki ekyagya haiguru. Haroho









ebisani bibiri ebisobora kwija haigu ru: nihasobora kwija omutwe, rundi ekyombeko. Iwe
otanyoleka nikiha ekiraij a haiguru, oinireho oikale nokijuka; enu nsita yawe.

Hanyima nj akukwoleka ebisani bibiri. Kimu kiroho esimoni eroho omutme, nigwisana
nko gwo subora kurora hasimoni. Ekisani ekindi nikyoleka ebintu ebyo sobora kuba waka
kerahoga omupaaka otaikirizibwe kwiha omuwaka gwe'nkumi-ibiri gutandika. Kusenya enku,
kwokya amakara, kulisa, kuhiige, kwihayo embaho, kutema emiti. Ninyij a kuta ebisani bibiri
binu omu nsahu, nukwo okomemu kimu. Okomemu otarozereho. Oihemu kimu oroleho;
otangambira nikiha ekyoyihiremu. Obworaba norona omutwe, ngambira oti "ego" obworaba
obeinege omutwe mukubaka esimoni. Obworaba obeinege ekyombeko, ongambire oti
"nangwa". Obworaba norora ekisani kindi, ngambira "ego" obworaba wakagyaga mupaaka
kwiha ogwenkumi' ibirigutandika kukora ekirikwo lekwa otaikirizibwe. Obworaba
otakagyayoga kukikora, ngambira "nangwa."

Nikusaba ombere wamazima habwokuba tiharoho nkoku nsobora kumanya kisaniki
ekyorukuroraho.

a. Coin and firewood (Esimonineuku)
b. Coin and charcoal production (Esimoni na makara)
c. Coin and hunting (Esimoni no kuhiiga)
d. Coin and poles (Esimoni ne miti)
e. Coin and grazing (Esimoni nokhiisa)
f. Coin and timber (Esimoni ne mbaaho)

The following questions involve your activities in the park since the year 2000 began.
Please feel at ease to tell me what you have done, as this information is private and I will not ask
for your name. (Hati twahika hakicweka kyokumalirra. Kinu kirimu ebikorwa byanyu mu paaka
kwiha ogwe nkumi ibiri gutandika. Ninkusaba oingambire ebiwaka koraga otaine kutiina kwona
habwokuba bulikintu kyona nikiikara kiri kyensita, kandi niibara'lyawe tinkwij a kulikukaguza.)

Since 2000 began have you done any of the following activities in the park without
permission:
(Kwiha ogwe nkumi ibiri gutandika, wakakoraga kimu hali ebyagya kugambwaho hali
paaka otainekwikirizibwa:
61. Collect firewood? Kusenyayo enku?
62. Hunt animals? Kuhiigayo?
63. Make charcoal? Kwokyayo amakara?
64. Collect timber? Kwihayo embaaho?
65. Graze animals? Kulosizaayo?
66. Collect poles? Kutema yo emiti?

Please answer the following statements with yes, no or don't know. (Nosabwa
kugarukamu binu ebikaguzo na ego, nangwa rundi tindukumanya.)

67. People are permitted to hunt all wild animals in the protected area. (Abantu
nibaikirizibwa kuhiga enyamaiswa zo'mukisaka omu'kikaro ekinyakulinzirwe.)










a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

68. Grazing of animals is not allowed inside the protected area (Kulisa ebisoro
tukulikwikirizibwa omunda ye' kikaro ekirinzirwe.)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

69. Placing snares inside the protected area is prohibited (Kutega emitego omunda
y'ekikaro ekinyakulinzirwe nikitangwa.)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

70. A person needs to get permission before he or she can collect resources inside the
protected area. (Omuntu nayetaga kutunga okwikirizibwa kubanza nukwo asoroze ebyentahya
kuruga omunda y'ekikaro ekinyakulinzirwe.)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

71. Placing snares in your fields is permitted by park staff if an animal has been raiding
your crops. (Okutega emitego omu misiri nikirizibwa abakozi bomu park kakuba ebisoro biba
nibyoona.)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

72. People are allowed to make charcoal inside Kibale National Park. (Abantu
baraikirizibwa kwosya amakara omunda ya Kibale National Park.)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

73. If baboons are raiding your crops, you are permitted to kill them with a spear. (Kuba
enkerebe nizona emisiri no'yikirizibwa kuzita nichumu).
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

Resource-Related Questions

We have come to the last series of questions. Again, please feel at ease to be honest with
me, as what you are sharing with me is private and I will not ask for your name. (Twahika









ha'bikaguzo byokumalirra. Ninyongera kukusaba kuhuurra otatinire kandi ombere wamazima
habwokuba ebyolikungambira nsinta yange naiwe; kandi tinkwijakukukaguza ibara lyawe.)

74. Kibale became a national park in 1993, eleven years ago. Before it became a national
park, did you go to the area now called Kibale National Park to collect resources? (Kibale
ekaforwa paaka omumwaka gwa 1993,emyaka ekuminagu mu evenyuma. Etakafwokere paaka
wagyaga mukicweka kinu hati ekirikwetwa Kibale National Park kwihayo ebyobutungwa
byona.)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

75 a. If yes, what did you collect? Ebweraba ego, (Bworabe oikirize wayihayoga ki?)

76. If you were allowed to collect any resource from Kibale National Park that you wanted,
what would you collect? Please rank order them. (Kakuba noikirizibwa kuosoroza ebyobuguuda
byoona ebyorukwetaga okuruga omu national park eya Kibale, osobora kwihayoki? (Nosabwa
kubiha enamba omu order).
Products (Ebintu oihire mu park) Rank (Enamba zabyo)






77. If a person enters the park illegally to extract a resource his/her chance of getting
apprehended by park authorities is: (Kakuba omuntu ataha omu park ataine ekiragiro
kyokwikirizibwa okwihamu ekyobuguda akozeseze omugisagwe natunga okufubirwa abakuru ba
park)
a. Very high (Muno muno)
b. High (Muno)
c. Medium (Kake)
d. Small(Kataito)
e. Very small (Kataito muno)
f. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

78. What would occur if you were caught in Kibale National Park illegally extracting
resources? (Kiki ekirukubaho kakuba okwatirwa omwirindiro lyebihangwa erya Kibale otaine
kiragiro noihamu ebyobuguda?)


Socio-Demographics

I have asked you many questions. Thank you for answering them. Do you have any
questions for me? (Nkukagurize ebikaguzo biingi; webale muno kubigarukamu. Iwe oina
ekakaguzo kyona?)











79. (Observe the exterior of the house; is it painted?)
a. Yes (Ego)
b. No (Nangwa)
c. Don't know (Tindukumanya)

80. (Observe the roof-material of the main house and write it down)
a. Iron sheets (Amabate)
b. Tiles (Amategura)
c. Concrete (Cement n' amabale)
d. Polythene paper (Obuyera)
e. Grass-thatched (Obunyansi)
f. Debe roof (Edebe)

81. What kind of walls does the house have?
a. Brick
b. Mud
c. Plaster
d. Other

82. End time (Esaha y6kumara)
GPS coordinates:









APPENDIX C
PHOTOS USED TO CARRY OUT RANDOMIZED RESPONSE TECHNIQUE


Figure A-1. Photo representing collection of charcoal


































Figure A-2. Photo representing hunting



































..
Cv


Figure A-3. Photo representing collection of poles


Figure A-4. Photo representing collection of timber

































Figure A-5. Photo representing collection of firewood


Figure A-6. Photo representing grazing










LIST OF REFERENCES


Abbot, J. I. O., D. H. L. Thomas, A. A. Gardner, S. E. Neba, and M. W. Khen. 2001.
Understanding the links between conservation and development in the Bamenda highlands,
Cameroon. World Development 29: 1115-1136.

Adams, A. M., T. G. Evans, R. Mohammed, and J. Farnsworth. 1997. Socioeconomic
stratification by wealth ranking. World Development 25:1165-1172.

Adams, J. S., and T. O. McShane 1992. The Myth of Wild Africa. University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.

Adams, W. M., R. Aveling, D. Brockington, B. Dickson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, D. Roe, B. Vira,
and W. Wolmer. 2004. Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty. Science
306:1146-1149.

Adams, W. M., and D. Hulme. 2001. If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is
the question? Oryx 35: 193-200.

Albers, H. J., and E. Grinspoon. 1997. A comparison of the enforcement of access restrictions
between Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve (China) and Khao Yai National Park (Thailand).
Environmental Conservation 24:351-362.

Alexander, S. E. 2000. Resident attitudes towards conservation and black howler monkeys in
Belize: the Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environmental Conservation 27:341-350.

Alpert, P. 1996. Integrated conservation and development projects: examples from Africa.
BioScience 46:845-856.

Andreasen, A. R. 1995. Marketing Social Change. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Fransico, CA.

Arjunan, M., C. Holmes, J.-P. Puyravaud, and P. Davidar. 2006. Do developmental initiative
influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from the Kalakad-
Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 79:188-197.

Azfar, O., and P. Murrell. 2005. Identifying reticent respondents: assessing the quality of survey
data on corruption and values. Social Science Research Network
http://ssrn.com/abstract=870887 Last accessed May 7, 2007.

Barreto, T., O. M. R. Campbell, J. L. Davies, V. Fauveau, V. G. A. Fillippi, W. J. Graham, M.
Mamdani, C. I. F. Rooney, and N. F. Toubia. 1992. Investigating Induced Abortion in
Developing Countries: Methods and Problems. Studies in Family Planning 23:159-170.

Barrett, C. B., and P. Arcese. 1995. Are integrated conservation and development projects
(ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa. World
Development 23: 1073-1084.










Bauer, H. 2003. Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon. Environmental
Conservation 30: 175-181.

Behling, O., and K. S. Law 2000. Translating questionnaires and other research instruments:
Problems and solutions. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Belsky, J. M. 2003. Unmasking The "Local." Page 321 in S. R. Brechin, P. R. Wilshusen, C. L.
Fortwangler, and P. C. West, editors. Contested Nature. State University of New York
Press, Albany.

Bernard, H. R. 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Berrens, R. P., A. K. Bohara, and J. Kerkvliet. 1997. A Randomized Response Approach to
Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
79:252-266.

Biira, O. 2004. Community Conservation Warden, Kibale National Park.

Boer, W. F. D., and D. S. Baquete. 1998. Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of
rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental
Conservation 25:208-218.

Bonger, T. 2000. Resources, Poverty and Human Development in Rural Uganda. Africa
Development XXV:31-76.

Brandon, K., and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and parks: design dilemmas. World
Development 20:557-570.

Brechin, S., P. Wilshusen, C. Fortwangler, and P. West. 2002. Beyond the square wheel: Toward
a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as a social and political
process. Society and Natural Resources 15:41-64.

Bruner, A. G., R. E. Gullison, R. E. Rice, and G. A. B. d. Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of parks
in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125-128.

Buchanan, S. 2006. Defining poverty- the poverty of definition. Devforum.

Buchman, T. A., and J. A. Tracy. 1982. Obtaining Responses to Sensitive Questions:
Conventional Questionnaire versus Randomized Response Technique. Journal of
Accounting Research 20:263-271.

Bush, G., S. Nampindo, C. Aguti, and A. Plumptre. 2006. The Value of Uganda's Forests: A
livelihoods and ecosystems approach.

Chaloupka, M. Y. 1985. Application of the randomized response technique to marine park
management: An assessment of permit compliance. Environmental Management 9:393-
398.










Chambers, R. 1994. The origin and practice of PRA. World Development 22:953-969.

Chapman, C. A., T. T. Struhsaker, and J. E. Lambert. 2005. Thirty years of research in Kibale
National Park, Uganda, reveals a complex picture of conservation. International Journal of
Primatology 26:539-555.

Chege, F., G. Onyango, C. Drazu, and S. Mwandha. 2002. Kibale and Semuliki Conservation
and Development Proj ect End of Phase III / End of Proj ect Evaluation Report. IUCN.

Chhetri, P., A. Mugisha, and S. White. 2003. Community resource use in Kibale and Mt Elgon
National Parks, Uganda. Parks 13:28-38.

Coomes, O. T., B. L. Barham, and Y. Takasaki. 2004. Targeting conservation-development
initiatives in tropical forests: insights from analyses of rain forest use and economic
reliance among Amazonian peasants. Ecological Economics 51:47-64.

Cordeiro, N. J., N. D. Burgess, D. B. K. Dovie, B. A. Kaplin, A. J. Plumptre, and R. Marrs.
2007. Conservation in areas of high population density in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological
Conservation 134:155-163.

Damania, R., R. Stringer, K. U. Karanth, and B. Stith. 2003. The economics of protecting tiger
populations: Linking household behavior to poaching and prey depletion. Land Economics
79:198-216.

Emerton, L. 2001. The Nature of Benefits and the Benefits of Nature. Pages 208-226 in D.
Hulme, and M. Murphree, editors. African Wildlife & Livelihoods. James Currey Ltd,
Oxford, UK.

Engqvist, L. 2005. The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of
behavioral and evolutionary ecology studies. Animal Behaviour. 70:967-971

Ferraro, P. J. 2001. Global Habitat Protection: Limitations of Development Interventions and a
Role for Conservation Performance Payments. Conservation Biology 15:990-1000.

Fiallo, E. A., and S. K. Jacobson. 1995. Local communities and protected areas: attitudes of rural
residents toward conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental
Conservation 22:241-249.

Field, A. 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Fowler, F. J., and T. W. Mangione 1990. Standardized survey interviewing: Minimizing
interviewer-related error. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Fox, J. A., and P. E. Tracy 1986. Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Sage
Publications, Inc., Beverly Hills.










Gartlan, S. 2004. Land Tenure and State Property: A Cmparison of the Korup and Kilum ICDPs
in Cameroon. Pages 208-231. in T. O. McShane, and M. P. Wells, editors. Getting
Biodiversity Proj ects to Work. Columbia University Press, New York.

Gavin, M.C., A. Wali, and M. Vasquez. 2007. Parks, people and participation: towards
collaborative and community-based natural resource management. In: S. Kindon, R. Pain
and M. Kesby (Eds.), Connecting People, Participation and Place: Participatory Action
Research Approaches and Methods. hr press. London: Routledge.

Gelcich, S., G. Edwards-Jones, and M. J. Kaiser. 2005. Importance of Attitudinal Differences
among Artisanal Fishers toward Co-Management and Conservation of Marine Resources.
Conservation Biology 19:865-875.

Getz, W. M., L. Fortmann, D. Cumming, J. d. Toit, J. Hilty, R. Martin, M. Murphree, N. Owen-
Smith, A. M. Starfield, and M. I. Westphal. 1999. Sustaining Natural and Human Capital:
Villagers and Scientists (community-based natural resource management in Africa).
Science 283: 1855.

Gillingham, S., and P. C. Lee. 1999. The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the conservation
attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environmental
Conservation 26:218-228.

Hamilton, A., A. Cunningham, D. Byarugaba, and F. Kayanja. 2000. Conservation in a region of
political instability: Bwindi Impenetrable forest, Uganda. Conservation Biology 14:1722-
1725.

Hilborn, R., C. J. Walters, and D. Ludwig. 1995. Sustainable Exploitation of Renewable
Resources. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 26:45-67.

Hill, C. M. 1998. Conflicting attitudes towards elephants around the Budongo Forest Reserve,
Uganda. Environmental Conservation 25:244-250.

Houston, J., and A. Tran. 2001. A Survey of Tax Evasion Using the Randomized Response
Technique. Advances in Taxation 13:69-94.

Hughes, R., and F. Flintan. 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A
Review and Bibliography of the ICDP Literature. International Institute for Environment
and Development, London.

Hulme, D. 1998. Community Conservation in Practice: A Case Study of Lake Mburo National
Park. Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Great
Britain.

Hulme, D., and M. Murphree. 2001. Community Conservation as Policy; Promise and
Performance. Pages 280-297 in D. Hulme, and M. Murphree, editors. African Wildlife &
Livelihoods. James Currey Ltd, Oxford, UK.










Hulme, D., and A. Shepherd. 2003. Conceptualizing chronic poverty. Pages 403-424 in D.
Hulme, and A. Shepherd, editors. Special issue on "Chronic poverty and development
policy." World Development.

I-Cheng, C., L. P. Chow, and R. V. Rider. 1972. The Randomized Response Technique as Used
in the Taiwan Outcome of Pregnancy Study. Studies in Family Planning 3:265-269.

International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2003. A guide for field proj ects on adaptive
strategies. http ://www.iisd.org/casl/CASLGuide/WealthRanknht Last accessed
February 23, 2006.

Inamdar, A., H. d. Jode, K. Lindsay, and S. Cobb. 1999. Capitalising on Nature: protected area
management. Science 283.

Infield, M. 1988. Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and a local conservation
area in Natal, South Africa. Biological Conservation 45:21-46.

Infield, M., and A. Namara. 2001. Community attitudes and behaviour towards conservation: an
assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park,
Uganda. Oryx 35:48-60.

Jacobson, S. K., M. McDuff, and M. Monroe 2006. Conservation Education and Outreach
Techniques. Oxford University Press, U.K.

Jorgenson, S., and F. Muller. 2000. Ecosystems as complex systems. Pages 2-16 in S. Jorgenson,
and F. Muller, editors. Handbook of ecosystem theories and management. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.

Junger-Tas, J., and I. H. Marshall. 1999. The Self-Report Methodology in Crime Research.
Crime and Justice 25:291-367.

Kaltenborn, B. P., J. W. Nyahongo, and K. M. Tingstad. 2005. The Nature of Hunting around the
Western Corridor of Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. European Joumnal of Wildlife
Research 51:213-222.

Kaplan, S. 2000. Human Nature and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Journal of Social
Issues 56:491-508.

Kellert, S. R., J. N. Mehta, S. A. Ebbin, and L. L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community Natural
Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric, and Reality. Society and Natural Resources
13:705-715.

Kiss, A. 2004. Making Biodiversity Conservation a Land-Use Priority. Pages 98-123 in T. O.
McShane, and M. P. Wells, editors. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work. Columbia
University Press, New York.










Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research
8:239-260.

Kooj o, S. M. 2001. An Evaluation of Chimpanzee Censusing Techniques and an Estimation of
Snare Density in Kibale National Park. Masters Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala,
Uganda.

Koziell, I. And C. McNeill. 2002. Building on Hidden Opportunities to Achieve the Millennium
Development Goals: Poverty Reduction through Conservation and Sustainable Use of
Biodiversity. United Nationals Development Programme, Equator Initiative, New York,
New York.

Leader-Williams, N., S. D. Albon, and P. S. M. Berry. 1990. Illegal exploitation of black
rhinoceros and elephant populations: Pattemns of decline, law enforcement and patrol effort
in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. The Journal of Applied Ecology 27: 1055-1087.

Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M., J. J. Hox, P. G. M. v. d. Heijden, and C. J. M. Maas. 2005.
Metaanalysis of randomized response research: Thirty-five years of validation.
Sociological Methods Research 33:319-348.

Lewis, D., G. B. Kaweche, and A. Mwenya. 1990. Wildlife Conservation: An Experiment in
Zambia. Conservation Biology 4:171-180.

Lewis, D. M., and A. Phiri. 1998. Wildlife snaring an indicator of community response to a
community-based conservation proj ect. Oryx 32: 1 11-121.

Lewynsky, V. A. 1986. Evaluation of special angling regulations in the Coeur d'Alene River
Trout fishery. Master's thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow.

Lieberson, J., D. Ray, D. Stryker, and L. Vanderslice. 2003. Poverty Reduction in Uganda; A
Background Paper. United States Agency for International Development; Bureau for
Policy and Program Coordination.

Liu, I. 2007. Senior Lecturer. School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science. Victoria
University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Locander, W., S. Sudman, and N. M. Bradbumn. 1976. An investigation of interview method,
threat and response distortion. Journal of American Statistical Association 71.

Manstead, A. S. R. 1996. Attitudes and Behavior in G. R. Semin, and K. Fielder, editors.
Applied Social Psychology. Sage Publications, London, England.

Marcus, R. R. 2006. Seeing the forest for the trees: Integrated Conservation and Development
Proj ects and local conservation in Madagascar. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary
Journal 29:381-398.










Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and
Monitoring Conservation and Development Proj ects. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000. Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An introduction to Community-
Based Social Marketing. Journal of Social Issues 56:543-554.

McShane, T. O., and S. A. Newby. 2004. Expecting the Unattainable: The Assumptions Behind
ICDPs in T. O. McShane, and M. P. Wells, editors. Getting Biodiversity Proj ects to Work.
Columbia University Press, New York.

Mehta, J. N., and J. T. Heinen. 2001. Does community-based conservation shape favorable
attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management
28:165-177.

Melnychuk, M. C., and L. J. Chapman. 2002. Hypoxia tolerance of two haplochromine cichlids:
swamp leakage and potential for interlacustrine dispersal. Environmental Biology of Fishes
65:99-110.

Milner-Gulland, E. J., and N. Leader-Williams. 1992. A model of incentives for the illegal
exploitation of black rhinos and elephants: poaching pays in Luangwa Valley, Zambia.
Journal of Applied Ecology 29:3 88-401.

Monroe, M. C. 2003. Two Avenues for Encouraging Conservation Behaviors. Research in
Human Ecology 10:113-125.

Moore, D.S. 1995. The Basic Practice of Statistics. New York, New York. Freeman and Co.

Moorman, R. S. 2006. Benefits of local residents visiting La Selva Biological Station, Costa
Rica. Environmental Conservation 33:89-99.

Mordi, A. R. 1991. Attitudes Toward Wildlife in Botswana. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York,
New York.

Mugisha, A. 2002. Evaluation of Community-Based Conservation Approaches: Management of
Protected Areas in Uganda. Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=727390011&sid=4&Fmt=2&clientId=75 11&RQT=3
09&VName=PQD Last accessed May 7, 2007.

Mugisha, A. R., and S. K. Jacobson. 2004. Threat reduction assessment of conventional and
community-based conservation approaches to managing protected areas in Uganda.
Environmental Conservation 31:233-241.

Mugume, S. 2000. Snare removal program in Kibale National Park: A preliminary report. Pan
Africa News. December 2.










Naughton-Treves, L. 1996. Uneasy Neighbors: Wildlife and Farmers Around Kibale National
Park, Uganda. Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=739442181l&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=75 11&RQT=3
09&VName=PQD Last accessed May 7, 2007.

Naughton-Treves, L. 1997. Farming the Forest Edge: Vulnerable Places and People around
Kibale National Park, Uganda. Geographical Review 87:27-46.

Naughton-Treves, L., D.M. Kammen, and C. Chapman. 2007. Burning biodiversity: Woody
biomass use by commercial and subsistence groups in western Uganda' s forests.
Biological Conservation 134:232-241.

Nepal, S. K., and K. E. Weber. 1995. Prospects for coexistence: Wildlife and local people.
Ambio 24:238-245.

Newmark, W. D., and J. L. Hough. 2000. Conserving Wildlife in Africa: Integrated Conservation
and Development Proj ects and Beyond. BioScience 50:585-592.

Newmark, W. D., N. L. Leonard, H. I. Sariko, and D. G. M. Gamassa. 1993. Conservation
attitudes of local people living adj acent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biological
Conservation 63: 177-183.

Ogwal, J. J. 2003. Fish Resource Harvesting in Lake Kabaleke (Kayanj a Landing Site) 2000-
2002. Uganda Wildlife Authority, Kibale Conservation Area.

Okirina, M. 2004. Assistant warden, Law enforcement, Uganda Wildlife Authority, Kibale
National Park.

Olli, E., G. Grendstad, and D. Wolleback. 2001. Correlates of Environmental Behaviors.
Environment and Behavior 33: 181-208.

Parker, T. A., and J. L. Carr. 1992. Status of forest remnants in the Cordillera de la Costa and
adj acent areas of southwestern Ecuador. RAP working paper #2. Conservation
International, Washington D.C.

Parry, D., and B. Campbell. 1992. Attitudes of rural communities to animal wildlife and its
utilisation in Chobe Enclave and Mababe Depression, Botswana. Environmental
Conservation 19:245-252.

Pierce, C. L., M. J. Manfredo, and J. J. Vaske. 2001. Social Science Theories in Wildlife
Management in D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer, editors. Human Dimensions
of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.

Pitcher, T. J., R. Watson, R. Forrest, H. Valtyjsson, and S. Guenette. 2002. Estimating illegal and
unreported catches from marine ecosystems: A basis for change. Fish and Fisheries 3:317-
339.










Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2006. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. www.ramsar.org.
Last accessed August 10, 2006.

Rao, M., and P. J. K. McGowan. 2002. Wild-Meat Use, Food Security, Livelihoods, and
Conservation. Conservation Biology 16:580-583.

Rauwald, K. S., and C. F. Moore. 2002. Environmental Attitudes as Predictors of Policy Support
Across Three Countries. Environment and Behavior 34:709-739.

Renzetti, C. M., and R. M. Lee 1993. Researching sensitive topics. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.

Robinson, J. G., and K. H. Redford. 2004. Jack of all trades, master of none: inherent
contradictions amond ICD approaches. Page 442 in T. O. McShane, and M. P. Wells,
editors. Getting Biodiversity Proj ects to Work. Columbia University Press, New York.

Sah, J. P., and J. T. Heinen. 2001. Wetland resource use and conservation attitudes among
indigenous and migrant peoples in Ghodaghodi Lake area, Nepal. Environmental
Conservation 28:345-356.

Salafsky, N., and R. Margoluis. 1999. The threat reduction assessment (TRA): Approach to
measuring conservation success. A practical and cost-effective framework for evaluating.
Conservation Biology 13:830-841.

Schill, D. J., and P. A. Kline. 1995. Use of random response to estimate angler noncompliance
with fishing regulations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:721-73 1.

Scott, P. 1998. From Conflict to Collaboration: People and Forests at Mount Elgon, Uganda.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

Shepherd, G. 2004. Poverty and Forests: Sustaining Livelihoods in Integrated Conservation and
Development in T. O. McShane, and M. P. Wells, editors. Getting Biodiversity Projects to
Work. Columbia University Press, New York.

Skonhoft, A., and J. T. Solstad. 1996. Wildlife management, illegal hunting and conflicts. A
bioeconomic analysis. Environment and Development Economics 1.

Slocum, R., L. Wichhart, D. Rocheleau, and B. Thomas-Slayter, editors. 1995. Power, Process
and Participation Tools for Change. Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd, London.

Smith, D. R., D. R. Anderson, and J. F. Smeltzer. 1989. Assessment of the Violation-Simulation
Method. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:179-184.

Smith, D. R., and J. F. Smeltzer. 1991. Occurrence of Fishing without a License on the Cache la
Poudre River, Colorado. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:109-1 12.










Solomon, J., S. K. Jacobson, K. Wald, and M. Gavin. 2007. Estimating Illegal Resource Use at a
Ugandan Park with the Randomized Response Technique. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
12(2):75-88.

Songorwa, A. N. 1999. Community-Based Wildlife Management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the
Communities Interested? World Development 27:2061-2079.

Spiteri, A., and S. K. Nepal. 2006. Incentive-Based Conservation Programs in Developing
Countries: A Review of Some Key Issues and Suggestions for Improvements.
Environmental Management 37: 1-14.

Struhsaker, T. T. 1981. Forest and primate conservation in East Africa. African Journal of
Ecology 19:99-144.

Struhsaker, T. T., P. J. Struhsaker, and K. S. Siex. 2005. Conserving Africa's rain forests:
problems in protected areas and possible solutions. Biological Conservation 123:45-54.

Sunderlin, W. D. 2006. Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and
Vietnam: An assessment of the potential. Forest Policy and Economics 8:3 86-396.

Sunderlin, W. D., A. Angelsen, B. Belcher, P. Burgers, R. Nasi, L. Santoso, and S. Wunder.
2005. Livelihoods, Forests, and Conservation in Developing Countries: An Overview.
World Development 33: 13 83-1402.

Tezcan, S., and A. R. Omran. 1981. Prevalence and Reporting of Induced Abortion in Turkey:
Two Survey Techniques. Studies in Family Planning 12:262-271.

Thomas, A. 2000. Poverty and the "End of Development" in T. Allen, and A. Thomas, editors.
Poverty and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Timmer, V., and C. Juma. 2005. Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Reduction Come
Together in the Tropics. Environment:26-44.

Trujillo, H. A. G. 1998. Sustainability of Ecotourism and Traditional Agricultural Practices in
Chiapas, Mexico. Engineering. Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=734377381&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=75 11&RQT=3
09&VName=PQD Last accessed: May 7, 2007.

Twyman, C. 2000. Livelihood Opportunity and Diversity in Kalahari Wildlife Management
Areas, Botswana: Rethinking Community Resource Management. Journal of Southern
African Studies 26:783-806.

Uganda Wildlife Authority. 2000. Uganda Wildlife Authority Collaborative Management
Strategy. Kampala, Uganda.

Uganda Wildlife Authority. 2006. Map of Uganda' s National Parks.
http ://www.uwa.or.ug/parks.html Last accessed: December 5, 2006.










Umesh, U. M., and R. Peterson. 1991. A critical evaluation of the randomized response method.
Sociological Methods and Research 20:104-138.

United Nations Development Program. 2003. Human Development Report 2003: Millenium
Development Goals: A Compact among Nations to End Human Poverty.
http://hdr.undp. org/reports/global/2003/ Last accessed January 15, 2007.

United Nations Development Program 2006.
http://hdr.undp. org/hdr2006/stati stics/indices/default. cfm Last accessed: August 3, 2006.

United States Agency for International Development. 2005. USAID/Uganda Annual Report.
Washington, D.C.

Viana, J. P., J. M. B. Damasceno, L. Castello, and W. G. R. Crampton. 2004. Economic
Incentives for Sustainable Community Management of Fishery Resources in the Mamiraua
Sustainable Development Reserve, Amazonas, Brazil. Pages 139-154 in K. M. Silvius, R.
E. Bodmer, and J. M. V. Fragoso, editors. People in Nature. Columbia University Press,
New York.

Wainwright C. and W. Wehrmeyer. 1998. Success in Integrating Conservation and
Development? A Study from Zambia. World Development 26(6):933-944.

Wallace R. H. 2004. The Effects of Wealth and Markets on Rubber Tapper Use and Knowledge
of Forest Resources in Acre, Brazil. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL. http://etd.fcla. edu/UF/UFE0007082/wallace~r.pdf Last accessed: May 7,
2007.

Warner, S. L. 1965. Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer
bias. American Statistical Association Journal. March:63-69.

Weisberg, H. F., J. A. Krosnick, and B. D. Bowen 1996. An Introduction to Survey Research,
Polling, and Data Analysis. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.

Wells, M. P., T. O. McShane, H. T. Dublin, S. O'Connor, and K. Redford. 2004. The Future of
Integrated Conservation and Development Proj ects: Building on What Works. Pages 397-
421 in T. O. McShane, and M. P. Wells, editors. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work.
Columbia University Press, New York.

Western, D. 2001. Taking the broad view of conservation A response to Adams and Hulme.
Oryx 35:201-203.

Wilkie, D. S., G. A. Morelli, J. Demmer, M. Starkey, P. Telfer, and M. Steil. 2006. Parks and
People: Assessing the Human Welfare Effects of Establishing Protected Areas for
Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology 20:247-249.

Wilshusen, P., S. Brechin, C. Fortwangler, and P. West. 2002. Reinventing a square wheel:
Critique of a resurgent "protection paradigm" in international biodiversity conservation.
Society and Natural Resources 15: 17-40.









Wright, V. L. 1980. Use of Randomized Response Technique To Estimate Deer Poaching.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 8:342-344.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jennifer N. Solomon was born in 1971 in Hudson, New York. Raised in Spencertown,

New York, she graduated from Chatham High School in 1988. The next year was spent in

Lucelia, Sao Paulo, Brazil, where she was a Rotary Intemnational Exchange student. In 1993 she

earned a B.A. in environmental studies and political science from State University of New York

at Buffalo. After graduation she moved to the western part of the United States where she

worked in the fields of environmental education and political research. In 1995 she joined the

Peace Corps in Nicaragua where she worked with a Dutch non-govemnmental organization

training primary and secondary school teachers to incorporate environmental education into

the curricula. After her Peace Corps experiences, she traveled throughout Central and

South America and co-directed an environmental education program in Ecuador. In 2000 she

earned a M.A. in environmental policy from Tufts University. The same year she entered the

Ph.D. program in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at University of Florida. Upon completion

of her Ph.D. program Jennifer will pursue work in the conservation and development field.





PAGE 1

1 AN EVAUATION OF COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND THE MEASUREMENT OF ILLEGAL RESOURCE USE IN A UGANDAN NATIONAL PARK By JENNIFER N. SOLOMON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Jennifer N. Solomon

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My dissertation committee has been a source of advice, inspiration and support throughout the course of this study. I thank my adviso r, Susan Jacobson, who has delivered much appreciated level-headed advice and support th roughout my years at UF. Without Susans encouragement to just check it out I never woul d have gone to Kibale. Her honest approach to advising and genuine enthusiasm inspires. My gratitude goes to Colin and Lauren Chapman for their support and gentle encouragement. They do amazing work in Kibale and their continued efforts provide one of the finest examples of how scien tists can carry out research-ori ented conservation work. Colin provided insight, and thoughtful advice th roughout the course of the study. Ken Wald of the Department of Political Science has had a tremendous effect on my graduate career. His class, Sur vey Research proved to be the most valuable course for my research in Uganda. Not only is he a gifted teacher, but he also delivers sagacious advice in a timely manner. The second part of this dissertation would never have occurred if it was not for his encouragement and guidance. Chuck Adams in the Department of Food and Resource Economics has delivered superb advice throughout the course of my graduate studies. We met when I was considering carrying out my research in Central America on the lobste r fishery and despite the change of focus over the years he has remained a steadfast supporter. His wise suggestions and boundless enthusiasm has made working with him a pleasure. I thank Mark Hostetler for encouraging me to investigate statistical methods for addressing confounding variables. His queri es propelled me toward unde rstanding a broa der range of statistical methods. His thoughtful co mments strengthened my dissertation.

PAGE 4

4 I am indebted to Ivy Ming-Liu, a statisticia n at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand and a graduate of Universi ty of Florida. Ivy provided valu able insight into the analysis of the data and shared a signi ficant amount of time with me, e xplaining the pros and cons of different statistical tests. I al so thank Alisa Coffin who generous ly provided her time and skills while mapping the GPS data. In Uganda I relied heavily upon a group of assistants. A ll of them worked in tough conditions over long hours in remote locations Karungi Edith was one of the first field assistants that I hired. In the region there are fe w women that serve as field assistants and in my opinion this is a loss to researchers. Edith was one of the most reliable and trustworthy assistants. Mukwenda John was also reliab le, proved excellent at trouble-shooting and maintained accurate financial records. Kakooza Mi cheal proved to be a talented interviewer. Birungi Sixtus joined the team later in the resear ch and immediately proved to be an asset to the team. The communities that I worked in provided hos pitality and kindness. Their contribution to the research is perhaps the greatest. Comm unity members provided both valuable time and information. It is my intention that they own the results of this research. Financial support for this disse rtation came from generous or ganizations. Research was supported by grants or fellowships from: Univ ersity of Floridas Tr opical Conservation and Development Program, National Security Educati on Program (David L. Boren fellowship), and the U.S. Fulbright program. I thank the Ugandan Council of Science and Technology and Uganda Wildlife Authority for gran ting permission to carry out this study. Makerere University Biological Field Station provided me a home for th e duration of my research. Kibale National Park staff imparted support and insight into resource management around the park. Arthur

PAGE 5

5 Mugisha, at the time the Executive Director of Uganda Wildlife Authority, also provided support and down-to-earth advice. I am fortunate to have so many friends to thank for supporting me throughout the course of my graduate career. Their abili ty to make me laugh, trouble-s hoot and encourage sustained me throughout my studies. Although the di ssertation is complete, I will c ontinue to reap the benefits of these friendships for years to come. My parents, Alan and Livvy Solomon, have always encouraged me to do what I love. I am thankful for their kind words, love and support ov er the many years of my graduate education. Numerous times my sister Michel le has traveled around the world to visit me. She has been one of my staunchest supporters. I thank her for all of her love and look forward to many more shared journeys in all corners of the world. My family has sacrificed a great deal to realize this dissertation, especially in the past 2 years. My partner Mike and I shared many advent ures during the course of my graduate work. He commuted from the Amazon so I could co ntinue my research, endured mango flies, discovered the source of mango flies in our house in Uganda (thank goodness), engaged in losing battles with safari ants invadi ng our home at 2AM, and investigated venomous snakes while wearing flip-flops. He has been extremely generous with time as well as in caring for our son, Sky. Mike has provided solid critiques and endl ess advice on my work throughout. His positive nature, humor and smile have made life a wonderfu l journey. Without him this world would be a dull place. My son Skyler is perhaps the most fruitful result of our time spent in Uganda. Although the work on the dissertation took place at a slower pace following Skys birth, I have no regrets. He is the light of my life and I wouldnt have wanted to miss his first two years for anything.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......10 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................13 2 BACKGROUND AND LI TERATURE REVIEW................................................................17 Background..................................................................................................................... ........17 History of CRM from Pate rnalism to Participation.............................................................18 Literature Review.............................................................................................................. .....19 Poverty and Conservation of Natural Resources.............................................................19 Should conservation and developmen t be programmatically linked?......................20 Measuring poverty....................................................................................................23 Poverty in Uganda....................................................................................................24 Support for Conservation and Pro-Environmental Behavior........................................... 24 Support for conservation..........................................................................................25 Behavior...................................................................................................................27 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .........32 3 AN ANALYSIS OF A COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FISHING PROGRAMS IMPACT ON POVERTY, SUPPORT FOR CONSERVATION, AND PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR AT KIBALE NATIONAL PARK, UGANDA....33 Collaborative Resource Management in Uganda...................................................................33 CRM Conceptual Framework and Objectives in Uganda...............................................33 Coordination and Capacity-building...............................................................................34 Location of CRM programs.............................................................................................35 Collaborative Resource Management in Kibale National Park.......................................35 Research Hypotheses.......................................................................................................35 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........36 Site Profile Lake Kabale ka, Kibale National Park........................................................36 Fishing Specific Issue Agreement...................................................................................37 Data Collection and Sources...........................................................................................38 Analysis....................................................................................................................... ....42 Results........................................................................................................................ .............44 Socio-demographic Variables.........................................................................................44 Covariates..................................................................................................................... ...44

PAGE 7

7 Livelihood-related Data...................................................................................................45 Costs of Fishing-related Assets.......................................................................................46 Other Indicators of Wealth..............................................................................................46 Support for Resource Conservation.................................................................................47 Relationship with Park Staff............................................................................................47 Support for Kibale National Park....................................................................................47 Support for Conservation Scale.......................................................................................48 Pro-environmental Behaviors..........................................................................................49 Illicit Behaviors.............................................................................................................. .49 Knowledge of Local Environmental Laws......................................................................50 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........50 Impact of CRM on Poverty.............................................................................................51 Impact of CRM on Support for Conservation.................................................................52 Support for Conservation Scale................................................................................52 Impact of CRM on Pro-Environmental Behaviors..........................................................53 Impact of CRM on Illicit Behaviors................................................................................53 Other Considerations for CRM Management: Accuracy of UWA records....................55 Limitations of Study........................................................................................................55 Recommendations................................................................................................................ ...56 Encourage Ecological Studies of the Resource...............................................................56 Diversify Fishers Income Base by Instit uting a Seasonal Moratorium on Fishing........57 Increase Monitoring and Evaluation...............................................................................57 Measure Program Outputs...............................................................................................59 Future Research: Broaden the Definition of Poverty......................................................59 4 ESTIMATING ILLEGAL RESOURCE USE AT A UGANDAN PARK............................78 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........78 Randomized Response Technique..........................................................................................80 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........82 Study Site..................................................................................................................... ....82 Data Collection................................................................................................................83 Survey Instrument...........................................................................................................83 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. .87 Results........................................................................................................................ .............87 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........88 Application of RRT in the Developing World................................................................89 Other Potential Applications...........................................................................................90 Constraints to Using RRT...............................................................................................90 Future Considerations......................................................................................................92 5 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... ..97 Conclusion for Collaborative Resource Management Study..................................................97 Implications of Collaborative Resource Management Findings for Conservation.........97 Recommendations to Uga nda Wildlife Authority...........................................................98 Conclusion for Randomized Response Technique Study.......................................................99

PAGE 8

8 Randomized Response Technique as a Me thodological Tool in Conservation............100 APPENDIX A ENGLISH/RUKIGA LANGUAGE VERSIO N OF COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SURVEY................................................................................................101 Knowledge of Park-Related Laws and Programs.................................................................101 Park Staff..................................................................................................................... .........104 Support for Kibale National Park.........................................................................................105 Support for Consumption of Resources in Kibale National Park.........................................106 Perceived Benefits from the Park.........................................................................................107 Household Profile.............................................................................................................. ...112 Behaviors...................................................................................................................... ........117 Perception of Enforcement...................................................................................................119 B ENGLISH/RUTORO LANGUAGE SURV EY OF RANDOMIZED RESPONSE TECHNIQUE SURVEY......................................................................................................120 Socio-Demographics.............................................................................................................120 Rating Benefits/Costs.......................................................................................................... .124 Neighbors Behavior............................................................................................................ .126 Kibale-Related Questions.....................................................................................................127 Support for Conservation......................................................................................................128 Behavior....................................................................................................................... .........131 Resource-Related Questions.................................................................................................133 Socio-Demographics.............................................................................................................134 C PHOTOS USED TO CARRY OUT RA NDOMIZED RESPONSE TECHNIQUE............136 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................140 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................152

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Categorizations of wealth used to ra nk the wealth of survey respondents by local community leaders.............................................................................................................62 3-2 Socio-demographic variables of interest............................................................................63 3-3 Costs to fishers per activity.............................................................................................. ..66 3-4 Comparison of individual support for c onservation items for fishers and control group.......................................................................................................................... ........67 3-5 Comparison of pro-environmental be haviors for fishers and control group......................72 3-6 Comparison of illegal behaviors and opini ons of behaviors for fishers and control group.......................................................................................................................... ........74 3-7 Comparison for individual knowle dge of local environmental laws.................................76 4-1 Brief explanation of steps carried out during randomized response technique questioning.................................................................................................................... .....93 4-2 Comparison of two methods to quantify ille gal resource use in Kibale National Park, Uganda......................................................................................................................... ......93 4-3 Effectiveness of two methods to quan tify illegal resource us e in two communities near Kibale National Park, Uganda...................................................................................94 4-4 Major concerns when using randomized response technique and ways to minimize concerns in this study.........................................................................................................95

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Map of Uganda with protected areas noted.......................................................................16 3-1 Conceptual framework for this asse ssment of Uganda Wildlife Authoritys collaborative resource management program....................................................................60 3-2 Home regions of fishers participatin g in collaborative resource management..................61 4-1 Decision tree.............................................................................................................. ........96 A-1 Photo representing co llection of charcoal........................................................................136 A-2 Photo representing hunting..............................................................................................137 A-3 Photo representing collection of poles.............................................................................138 A-4 Photo representing collection of timber...........................................................................138 A-5 Photo representing co llection of firewood.......................................................................139 A-6 Photo representing grazing..............................................................................................139

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN EVALUATION OF COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND THE MEASUREMENT OF ILLEGAL RESOURCE USE IN A UGANDAN NATIONAL PARK By Jennifer N. Solomon August 2007 Chair: Susan K. Jacobson Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Protected area management in developing c ountries faces the challenges of building support for conservation among neig hboring residents and monitori ng the social and ecological impacts of conservation programming. This study examines a collaborative resource management (CRM) program at Kiba le National Park, Uganda that a llows residents to fish inside the park. Like other integrated conservation and development pr ograms, the goals are to help alleviate poverty and build support for conserva tion and conservation-related behaviors. I empirically analyze the programs impact us ing an 81 item personal survey, with 94 CRM fishers and 91 respondents in a control group and additional data from a focus group, semistructured interviews, and docum ent review. Results show fish ers earned significantly more income (median=U.S. $376.02) than the control group (median= U.S. $196.19, U =2953.50, p<0.001), and tribal affiliation influenced earni ngs. Fishers reported significantly more positive attitudes toward park staff than the control group (all p -values <0.05) and indicated more support for conservation ( U =2906.5, p <0.01). Although CRM fishers deterr ed illegal activ ity, some may also extract resources illegall y. Management recommendations include increased monitoring of fishers and their harvest levels ecological studies of the fish ery, and a seasonal moratorium.

PAGE 12

12 Results of the CRM fishing survey indicated few respondents divulge d illegal behavior when directly questioned; yet ill egal resource use is a major thr eat to conservation worldwide. To manage effectively, the number of people engagi ng in illegal activities needs to be estimated. However, people violating the law seldom identify themselves for fear of retribution. A second survey was conducted with 251 residents to test the use of the randomized response technique (RRT) to better measure illegal activities. The RRT allows respondents to disclose sensitive information because the interv iewer cannot ascertain an indi viduals true response to the incriminating question. Estimates of six types of illegal resource use, such as removing plants and snaring wildlife, were compared using survey s with the RRT versus direct questioning. The RRT survey method yielded an estimate of signi ficantly more illegal activity than direct questioning for each type of illegal resource use (all p -values <0.001). This suggests the RRT is a potentially powerful tool for understanding cons ervation threats in th e developing world.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION When a Westerner mentions Africa the imag e that most often comes to mind is one of wild animals on endless grassy plains. Rarely, if ever, do Westerners envision the people that share the land with the wildlife (Adams & McShan e 1992). It is these people that have the most impact on the survival of the wildlife. And in general, these people ar e poor. Africa harbors some of the poorest countries on earth. Conservation would not be necessary if it were not for humans impact on the environment. Human activities have been destruc tive, but they also have the potential to be productive. We, as a society, are now in a race to conserve what is left of some of the most spectacular natural areas, as well as species, on this planet. The ways in which our natural resources are managed will inevitably influence the future of what we choose to conserve. Todays conservation management options are diverse, ranging from fortress conservation, also known as the fences and fines approach which is usually driven by governments, to internally-motivated conservation projects whic h are often initiated and managed by community members (Gavin et al. 2007). In between on the management continuum is collaborative resource management (CRM). The term, CRM, can be used to describe different types of conservation programs, but in general it means that management of a resource is shared by at least 2 different stakeholders and resources are managed for a specific benefit, thereby implying some level of development for the user. The under lying assumption is that the benefit is one of a quid pro quo nature, allowing local people to benefit or be compensated in lieu of something foregone, often lost access to resources (Alper t 1996; Scott 1998). Many CRM programs fall under integrated conservation and development pr ojects (ICDPs), since CRM programs hope to achieve conservation of a resource or habitat in addition to livelihood improvement. The CRM

PAGE 14

14 program examined in this dissertation is an ICDP which was established in Kibale National Park (KNP), Uganda in 2000. Within the past 20 years, ICDPs have beco me very popular with conservation and donor communities. Unfortunately, positive outcomes that meet the dual objectives of conservation and development have been elusive. Although donors are hard-pressed to find concrete data indicating that ICDPs are a fruitful strategy, the lack of alternatives and the intuitive appeal of ICDPs have ensured that they will remain a tool for conservation. Advocates of ICDPs (e.g., Wilshusen et al. 2002) defend conservation and de velopment programming, pointing out that the failures have been due to process and not necessarily fundamental conceptual flaws. Validating the ICDP process, however, has been hampered by a lack of proper assessments. My dissertation contributes to knowledge on the efficacy of ICDP s in achieving their dual goals of conservation and development. This dissertation is two-part ; using a survey, focus group, semi-structured interviews and document review, the first part analyzes the impa ct of Uganda Wildlife Authoritys CRM fishing program in KNP on poverty, support for conser vation, and conservation-related behaviors. Collaborative resource management in KNP perm its select residents to use certain park resources; in the case of this study the resource is fish. The need to understand the impact of illegal resource use associated w ith CRM led to exploration of a new method to investigate this phenomenon. The second part of the disserta tion includes the result s of a methodological experiment aimed at providing data about illegal resource use. Uganda is an ideal place to carry out these studies. Uganda holds an impressive array of biodiversity that is threatened by high population pressure bord ering national parks of global significance (Figure 1-1). Its gove rnmental wildlife management authority has been exploring

PAGE 15

15 innovations in conservation manage ment, especially strategies to reduce conflict between people that reside near or in protected areas and park authoritie s (Scott 1998). Collabo rative resource management has been one such strategy. Uga nda Wildlife Authoritys CRM program aims to reduce poverty, improve relations with park sta ff and community members as well as encourage pro-environmental behavior in the park. The CRM program in KNP is in its infancy; the fishing program began in 2000. My study examines early re sults, following the first three years of the CRM fishing program, and answers the following questions: Is the CRM program alleviating poverty? and Does the CRM program influen ce support for conservation and conservationrelated behaviors? One of the results of the CRM fishing survey research was that local people residing around KNP divulged few illegal behaviors to Ugandan survey assistants. The second part of this dissertation, a direct resu lt of this finding, examines the effectiveness of the randomized response technique (RRT) in estimating illegal resource use in a Ugandan community. Illegal resource use is considered a major threat to conserva tion in protected areas throughout the world, yet accurately estimating the number of people ille gally using resources has been difficult. Randomized response technique is unique in allowing respondents to disclose sensitive information because the interviewer can not as certain an individuals true response to the incriminating question. A common technique used in asking sensitive ques tions in the health sciences, RRT has never been used in a developi ng country on topics of natural resource use with populations that are semi-literate. This st udy takes the first step toward developing and testing a potentially powerful tool fo r understanding conservation threats in the developing world.

PAGE 16

16 Figure 1-1. Map of Uganda with protected ar eas noted (Uganda Wildlife Authority 2006).

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW Background Ugandas colonial history has shaped its current conservation po licies and practices. State initiatives to conserve Ugandas diverse but dwindling habitats and species have been guided by a framework devised early in the 20th century (Hulme 1998). A prime component of this colonial legacy has been a protectionist orientation which frames Ugandan natural resource users as the conservation problem and aims to achieve conservation objectives by not permitting resource users to access areas of conservation value. Wild animals are further protected by a ban on hunting of most wild specie s. Unfortunately, this protectionist stance has not effectively halted exploitation (Hulme 1998). Forbidding people who live near parks to ut ilize resources has cr eated strong negative emotions towards the protected areas and th e government among peopl e living near national parks (Mugisha & Jacobson 2004; Naughton-Trev es 1996; Nepal & Weber 1995). Exacerbating these emotions are the incidences of crop-raid ing by animals such as elephants, baboons, and chimpanzees (Naughton-Treves 1996). As one fa rmer explained, These animals leave us poor and hungryWhy should we starve so that baboons may eat? (Naughton-Treves 1997 p.35). This negative attitude towards the park and the w ildlife within it has been the source for various interventions to provide benefits to protected area neighbors and reduce illegal, uncontrolled use of park resources. One such intervention is collaborative resource management (CRM). Collaborative resource management seeks to improve conservation outcomes by addressing poverty. The program allows peopl e residing near select protected areas in Uganda to utilize park resources. By doing so, CRM aims to a lleviate poverty, increase support for conservation, and encourage pro-environmental behaviors.

PAGE 18

18 Collaborative resource management is a br oad term, often couched under communitybased conservation, used to describe partners hips between different stakeholders concerning management of land and/or natural resources. Th ere are a vast array of terms that can include CRM projects, one of the more common being in tegrated conservation and development (ICDPs) (Adams & Hulme 2001; Timmer & Juma 2005). The name CRM itself implies that management of the resource is, in effect, jo int and resources are managed fo r a specific benefit, thereby implying some level of development for the user The underlying assumption is that the benefit is one of a quid pro quo nature, allowing local people to bene fit or be compensated in lieu of something foregone, often lost access to re sources (Alpert 1996; Scott 1998). History of CRM from Paternalism to Participation Collaborative resource management is the direct result of what some experts believe to be the failed conservation regime of fortress conservation, also know n as the fences and fines approach (Inamdar et al. 1999; Songorwa 1999; Wilshusen et al. 2002). Fortress conservation, originally the dominant paradigm in the field, ad vocates a strict protectionist approach towards the conservation of natural resources. In the past 20 years though, a new narrative has arisen, namely community-based conservation (Adams & Hulme 2001; Western 2001). Communitybased conservation advocates argue that conservati on must be integrated with the interests and wishes of local people (Adams & Hulme 2001). The arguments for espousing this approach are based on both ethical (the rights and well-being of local people) a nd practical (the need for local support given limited conservation funds) concerns (Adams & Hulme 2001; Brechin et al. 2002; Wilshusen et al. 2002). For several decades now the term local pa rticipation has been used widely in community-based conservation. More recentl y though there has been a distinction made between beneficiary participati on and participatory particip ation (Scott 1998). Beneficiary

PAGE 19

19 participation, a common concept in ICDPs, imp lies that certain stakeholders, usually local people, receive benefits as compensation for so mething foregone. In these programs, decisionmaking power rests with an external stak eholder, usually a governmental body or nongovernmental organization, but not w ith the local people. Participat ory participation intends that all stakeholders have decision-making authority and substantial input into project management (Scott 1998). In essence, CRM is about participation and partnershi ps. It advocates that local people, who are often affected by conservation initiatives, should have a prominent voice in conservation-related decisi ons if they so wish. Moreover, they should be able to shape and steer the direction of the conservation project. The following section of this chapter highlights the literature that relates to the primary objectives of CRM: poverty alleviation and natural resource conservation, support for conservation, and pro-environmental behaviors. Literature pertaining to the randomized response technique is covered in Chapter 4. Literature Review Poverty and Conservation of Natural Resources The United Nations (2003) estimates that wo rldwide 900 million people live in rural areas in absolute poverty (defined as deprivation of a humans ba sic needs) depending largely on natural resources for their livelihoods. Those who are currently chronically poor1 will be the same people who will be in severe poverty by 201 5; and the chronic poor tend to live in rural locales, closest to areas of conservation concer n (Hulme & Shepherd 200 3). Therefore it is not surprising that poverty and natura l resource conservation, especially in developing countries, are perceived to be intimately connected. 1 Chronic poverty involves signifi cant capability deprivations fo r a period of five years or more (Hulme & Shepherd 2003 p 404-405).

PAGE 20

20 The connection between povert y alleviation and the envi ronment revolves around the sustainable use of resources. Poverty does not encourage people to act with long-term sustainability in mind (Lieberson et al. 2003). The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a major donor to developi ng nations worldwide, believes that countries such as Uganda need to sustainably use resource s to pull themselves out of poverty and therefore they fund conservation programs that encourag e donor recipients to raise their incomes (Lieberson et al. 2003). USAID programming of th is type is grounded in the idea that income generation will promote conservation when linked to conservation techniques and hence the people, the country and the environment will be nefit (Lieberson et al. 2003). This is a common belief among other multilateral donors (e.g., Worl d Bank, International Monetary Fund), and serves as the primary assumption for ICDPs, whic h aim to achieve site-based conservation with social or economic development goals or components (Wells et al. 2004 p. 399). Should conservation and developmen t be programmatically linked? Despite the links made by the ICDP literature and major donor agencies such as USAID, it is hotly debated whether conservation and pove rty alleviation programs should attempt to achieve both goals simultaneously (Adams et al. 2004; Newmark & Hough 2000; Wilkie et al. 2006). Instituted in 2000, the United Nations M illennium Development Goals (MDGs) include both environmental sustainability and development objectives, but they are distinctly separate. Some experts believe that conservation effort s are being superseded by poverty alleviation objectives (Adams et al. 2004). From a pragma tic stance, both conservation and development projects, as well as developing country governments, often have limited finances available. Spreading thin resources even thinner may resu lt in even fewer success stories (Alexander 2000; Wells et al. 2004). Additionally, some wonder if the goals of conservation and development are even compatible, as conservation of natural re sources may negatively impact development, and

PAGE 21

21 development may impair or restrict conser vation efforts (Barrett & Arcese 1995; Hughes & Flintan 2001; Kellert et al. 2000; Rao & McGowan 2002; Sunderlin et al. 2005). In general, few win-win cases can be found in the ICDP literature (Barrett & Arcese 1995; Brandon & Wells 1992; Hughes & F lintan 2001; Kellert et al. 2000; Marcus 2006; Newmark & Hough 2000; Sunderlin 2006; Wainwright & Wehr meyer 1998). The effect of long-lasting positive benefits is elusive (Adams et al. 2004). Overall it appears that such projects produce modest cash or income benefits and may not affect a great portion of the communities. Experience has demonstrated that ICDPs prom ise more than they achieve (Timmer & Juma 2005; Wells et al. 2004). Advocates of ICDPs (Wilshusen et al. 2002) defend conservation and development programming, pointing out that the failures have been due to process and not necessarily fundamental conceptual flaws. Validating the ICDP process, however, has been hampered by a lack of proper evaluation. Th e lack of monitoring and evalua tion tools in ICDPs has led to difficulty in establishing a causal link between conservation programs and poverty alleviation (Hughes & Flintan 2001, Timmer & Juma 2005). Ti mmer and Juma (2005 p. 34) note, without hard data and information, it is difficult to establish whether community-based conservation projects are having the desired impact on either livelihoods or biodiversity. Therefore the analysis of the effectiveness of such projects is minimal. Timmer and Juma (2005) explain that the lack of data may be due, in part, to a fear of decreased funding of project s if they were not to demonstrate the anticipated results (Ti mmer & Juma 2005; Wells et al. 2004). No comprehensive review of ICDPs in terms of evaluating their eff ectiveness at al leviating poverty has been carried out (Robinson & Redford 2004) Robinson and Redford (2004) note only two ICDPs have demonstrated positive monetary re turns for participants: CAMPFIRE (Communal

PAGE 22

22 Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Re sources) and a program carried out in the Mamiraua Sustainable Development Reserve in the Amazon region of Brazil. CAMPFIRE, a program that allows for controlle d international sport-hunting of wildlife, reports large returns ($4.9 million between 1989 and 1996) for its partic ipants (Getz et al. 1999). Robinson and Redford (2004) note that average income of fishermen in Mami raua increased from R$320 to R$845 over a 2 year period due to an increase in fish production from managed lakes in the reserve2. In order to decrease povert y, one needs to understand the causes of poverty. One of the reasons ICDPs may not decrease poverty may be the myriad causes of poverty. There is no one-stop-shop solution to tackling poverty. Also whereas most ICDPs work on the microlevel, poverty may be caused or exacerbated by exogenous influences (Bonger 2000; Rao & McGowan 2002; Sunderlin et al. 2005). In addition, even if poverty allevi ation is achieved it does not mean that conservation gains w ill be made (Robinson & Redford 2004). As Belsky (2003) writes, But no effort can su rvive, let alone succeed, if the majority of local residents continue to bear the large propor tion of the costs of environmental conservation while marginally sharing in its benefits (p. 100). The intuitive appeal of this comment, as well as the lack of promising altern atives, is most likely why donors c ontinue to fund such projects despite the lack of success st ories (Wells et al. 2004). 2 Those figures include all income though, not just financial gains from fishing, but the authors of the study believe that because no other large s ources of revenue were introduced in the period that the majority of the increase is due to fishing revenues (Viana et al. 2004).

PAGE 23

23 Measuring poverty Many different definitions of poverty a bound (Buchanan 2006) and measurement of poverty can be complex (Adams et al. 2004). P overty is a multi-dimensional, dynamic process (Rao & McGowan 2002) and occurs in developed and developing countries. In the past, the term poverty alleviation sugge sted simply raising incomes, but today the term also has broader implicati ons. Traditional, income-based measures of poverty are used by the MDGs, as well as the World Bank, which de fines extreme poverty as living on less than U.S.$1 per day (measured in 1985 purchasing po wer parity dollars) (Buchanan 2006; Thomas 2000). The World Bank also defines those living in poverty as earning less than U.S.$2 per day (Thomas 2000). Both of these definitions involv e measurements using poverty lines. Absolute poverty measures poverty by estimating the cost of a basket of basic necessities. Households earning less than the cost of th e necessities are deemed poor. By taking a percentage of the median (or mean) income of a country, relativ e poverty is defined (T homas 2000). Households earning less than this figure are considered to be living in poverty. All of these types of definitions involve income poverty. The United Nations calls for a broader defi nition of poverty encompassing a variety of different variables, creating a multi-dimensi onal definition of poverty (Thomas 2000). The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reali zes that lack of inco me may not include all of those that live in poverty. UNDP states that poverty i s the denial of choices and opportunities for living a life one has reason to value (UNDP 2006). To account for this broader definition of poverty the UNDP uses both the Human Development Index (HDI) and Human Poverty Index (HPI) which combine a se ries of different variables (e.g., health, education, longevity, social exclusion) (Thomas 2000).

PAGE 24

24 Poverty in Uganda Although Uganda has experienced impressive ec onomic growth in the past decade, it remains one of the worlds poorest nations, ranking 144th out of 177 countries on UNDPs 2003 Human Development Index (UNDP 2003). Even though economic growth in Uganda has been good, poverty is increasing, especially among the poor est members of society. Most benefits from economic growth go to the wealthiest 20% of the populace (UNDP 2003). Thirty-four percent of the population lived in poverty in 2000, and according to the 2002/3 Ugandan National Household Survey this figure incr eased to 38% (UNDP 2003). This equates to approximately 9 million Ugandans living on less th an U.S.$1 a day (United States Agency for International Development 2005). The largest group of the impoverished are farmers, who primarily live in rural areas, where 96% of Ugandans reside (Lieberson et al. 2003; UNDP 2003). Per capita income in 2002 was U.S. $330 (UNDP 2003). Support for Conservation and Pro-Environmental Behavior Local peoples support for and participati on in conservation programs are necessary components for their sustainabili ty (Alexander 2000; Jacobson et al. 2006). Therefore, their perceptions about programs and th e protected area, as well as their behavior, are critical components in the protection of resources (Alexand er 2000). Researching at titudes, which refers to an individuals evaluation of a person, concep t, entity, or action (P ierce et al. 2001), may illuminate support for environmental policies an d possibly behavior (Gelcich et al. 2005; Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002; Rauwald & Moore 2002) and may be correlated with the success of a protected area (Struhsaker et al. 2005). Today, attitudina l and behavioral surveys are commonly used to gauge the effect of cons ervation and developmen t programs on community members, as well as provide guidance for such programs (Fiallo & Jacobson 1995; Gillingham & Lee 1999; Infield & Namara 2001; Parry & Campbell 1992).

PAGE 25

25 Support for conservation Support for conservation may be influenced by many factors. In the community-based conservation literature education, wealth, age, residence time, economic activity, gender, ethnicity, resource use, awaren ess of environmental issues, participation in conservation activities, costs of living near a PA, benefits received from c onservation and knowledge have all been measured and relationships with support fo r conservation identified (Spiteri & Nepal 2006 and references therein). Some studies have found certain predicto rs of variables to be positive correlates while others have found no relationship. For example, while wealth has been found to be positively correlated with support for conser vation in some studies (Infield 1988, Mordi 1991, Newmark et al. 1993), other studies have f ound no relationship (Marcus 2006, Sah & Heinen 2001). Similarly, educational level has been found to be positively correla ted with support for conservation by Infield (1988) in his work in Ug anda, and Marcus (2006) in Madagascar, while other researchers report no relationship in other parts of Africa (Boer & Baquete 1998; Parry & Campbell 1992). These types of findings may be due to myriad variables that influence those sites, as well as methodology. Additionally, perhap s in some cases such variables are not causal variables. The importance of social context in influencing support for conservation cannot be underestimated (Gelcich et al. 2005 ). For example, De Boer a nd Baquete (1998) found that local people at four different sites surrounding one reserve in Mozambique had differing levels of support of conservation and resource use patterns ; due to this, they recommended site-specific resource management plans to ensure success. Attitudes of local residents towards a protecte d area and support for its conservation have been shown to be influenced by the benefits perceived by residents, the costs/damaging consequences of the conservation area, and so cio-demographic variables, as well as the relationship with protected area st aff. While research suggests th at providing benefits to local

PAGE 26

26 people results in support for conservation (Abbot et al. 2001; Arjunan et al. 2006; Bauer 2003; Boer & Baquete 1998; Hamilton et al. 2000; Lewis et al. 1990; Mehta & Heinen 2001; Newmark et al. 1993), the extent and nature of the benefits matter. If bene fits are small in relation to the costs of living near a protected ar ea or distribution of such bene fits is inequitable, perceived benefits have been found to have little influe nce on attitudes (Gillingha m & Lee 1999). Parry and Campbell (1992) found that despite substant ial benefits received in a community-based project, negative conservation attitu des existed. They attributed this to the local peoples lack of resource management decision-making power. T hus, benefits, costs, equitable distribution and decision-making power are all co rrelates of pro-conservation at titudes in community-based conservation. Notable costs include: resource use restrictions, damage to crops by wildlife, loss of livestock, and human injuri es/fatalities from wildlife (B oer & Baquete 1998; Fiallo & Jacobson 1995; Newmark et al. 1993; Parry & Campbell 1992). Additionally, sociodemographic factors play a role in a person s support of conservati on (Boer & Baquete 1998; Infield 1988; Spiteri & Nepal 2006). In general, studies have found high levels of public support for conservation in principle, but a pronounced lack of support for the external institutions responsible for the implementation of conservation strategies (Gillingham & L ee 1999 p. 218). Local people often hold negative attitudes of protected area sta ff sometimes due to costs such as evictions from the PA and resource use constraints (Newmark et al. 1993). Poor re lations with park sta ff can contribute to negative attitudes toward a protec ted area (Fiallo & Jacobson 1995). The limited empirical research that has been conducted on support for conservation associated with conservation programs near protect ed areas in Uganda is similar to the patterns found in the broader literature. For example, in their review of a seven-year-old community

PAGE 27

27 conservation program around Lake Mburo National Park (LMNP), Uganda, Infield and Namara (2001) note that the project, wh ich generated mostly community-level benefits such as infrastructure improvement, did not improve atti tudes about the protecte d areas on a communitylevel. However when they examined areas wh ere the program focused with those where it did not, they found a difference in attitudes, with areas that received the program expressing more positive attitudes. The authors also write that damage from crop-raiding wildlife influenced perceptions of the park, a commonly noted trend in the literature. The type of benefits received also impacted attitudes towards LMNP. Infiel d and Namara (2001) found that the conservation programs in LMNP effectively built the perception that the park provides be nefits to a portion of the population, but at the same tim e half of the study population stil l recognized no benefits from the park. The data prompted the authors to surmise that the costs of living near the park for at least one-half of the population ma y be too great compared with th e benefits received from the program. Mugishas (2002) comparison of attitudes between pe ople that live near parks that have community-based conservation (CBC) programs a nd people living near parks that have no CBC programs found few differences between the two groups. People living near CBC parks did not perceive personal benefits as strongly as those people surveyed at non-CBC parks. One of the reasons cited for this was the denial of access to resources found within the park. Such denial may be associated with harassment from park gu ards, resulting in a ne gative relationship with park staff (Mugisha 2002). Behavior Behavior refers to a particular action (Monr oe 2003), such as the se tting of wire snares, or the chopping of wood for use as fuel. In Ug anda, as in many tropical locations, areas of high conservation significance are unde r considerable stress, surro unded by human populations whose

PAGE 28

28 densities are high and mounting. Changing the beha vior of people that live on the edge of these conservation islands is at the core of cons ervation and development programs which hope to reduce pressure from humans on natural res ources by providing livelihood alternatives for program participants. Some environmental organizations continue to use a model, from the 1970s, which states that environmental knowledge will influence environmental attitudes resulting in proenvironmental behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2 002). However, resear chers have recognized that the attitude behavior correspondence model ma y be too simplistic as a multitude of variables impact behavior, and attitudes may not necessa rily correlate with behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002; McKenzie-Mohr 2000; Olli et al. 2001). Understanding human behavior is a critical component in cr eating successful conservation programs. In developing count ries, around protected areas, many be haviors of interest are nonsanctioned activities that few local people wish to disclose to program designers who may be viewed as outsiders in externally-driven programs. In part, social marketing sheds some light on such a conundrum, and for this reason it is highl ighted here. It calls for comprehension of barriers to behaviors, encouragi ng an understanding of those who carry out an activity and those that do not (Jacobson et al. 2006, McKenzie-Moh r 2000). Although this understanding usually revolves around the behavior that is to be en couraged (e.g., composting, use of fuel-efficient stoves), it can likewise be for the behavior that is to be discouraged (e.g., hunting). Applying techniques developed in the field of marketing to social problems, social marketing has been widely used in developing nati ons in the field of health sciences to change behavior related to infectious diseases such as HIV (Andreasen 1995). R ecently it has been used to address environmental be havior (Jacobson et al. 2006).

PAGE 29

29 In developing nations, the barriers to changing a behavior can be formidable. For example, hunting activity may be driven by: culture, the n eed for a basic necessity (food/protein), the ease of obtaining meat, and/or the lack of financial resources necessary to acquire it in a market. Costs to hunting might be the time needed to participate in the hunt or the chance of being apprehended by park authorities. Convincing pe ople that hunting should not occur requires an understanding of why people hunt a nd the costs and benefits involve d in hunting. The first step in social marketing is to iden tify the barriers to a behavior, and that requires understanding the customer by listening to him/her (Andreasen 1995). Few studies have been able to link perceived benefit of a protected areas conservation program in a developing nation with a change in behavior (Moorman 2006). This may be due to the fact that the behavioral ch anges that are the focus of such studies are often illegal, and therefore gathering information from people a bout such activity is challenging due to a respondents reluctance to disclose such sensi tive information (Solomon et al. 2007). Social marketing has a history of addressing sensitiv e information through its success in dealing with subjects such as sexually transmitted diseases, a bortion issues, and drug use. Social marketing research shows that perceived costs and benefits are linked to behavior (Jacobson et al. 2006). Providing incentives (e.g., access to resources inside a protected area) or disincentives (e.g., loss of participating in a CRM program) in order to encourage a particular behavior may be particularly useful in situations where reasons for an individual to change his/her behavior are negligible (Jacobson et al. 2006). In the case of ICDPs, behavior may be best understood theoretically in the context of the reasonable person model. The reasonable pers on model addresses th e complex nature of behavioral predictors by recognizi ng that an individuals circumst ances play a fundamental role

PAGE 30

30 in his/her behavior (Kaplan 2000). It posits that by recognizing human proclivities as well as circumstances that serve as the foundations for mo tivations, it may be viable for individuals to act with the environment in mind. Being sensit ive to the needs of pe ople, recognizing their inclinations, and ensuring they do not feel he lpless are important components in creating a platform for pro-environmenta l behavior (Kaplan 2000). Correlates of environmental behavior are no t as well-studied as those of conservation attitudes (Olli et al. 2001). In general, studies have shown that benefits generated from ICDP projects do not generate suffici ent incentives to dissuade participants from changing their environmental behaviors in favor of the pr otected area (Gartlan 2004; Emerton 2001, Lewis & Phiri 1998; Wells et al. 2004). Ho wever, Lewis et al. (1990) di d find that providing monetary benefits from safari concessions in Zambia changed locals beha vior, resulting in a reduction in poaching. An ecotourism project in Honduras generated significant community benefits and resulted in less hunting and agricultural clea ring (McShane and Newby 2004). Also, costs associated with carrying out a behavior directly impact behavi or (Marcus 2006; Milner-Gulland & Leader-Williams 1992). For ex ample, Milner-Gulland and Leader-Williams (1992) found that the chance of being captured by law enforcement authorities, as well as the type of penalty incurred, influenced decisions of whether or not local people poach ed elephants and rhinoceros. The reasonable person model posits that helplessness is to be avoided at all costs and participatory problem-solving is to be encour aged. Feeling helpless dissuades people from engaging in behavioral change. For example, if people cant solve their own problems they will feel helpless to enact behavioral change. An example from Uganda may revolve around cropraiding, which is hypothesized to affect local peoples behavior (Infield & Namara 2001; Naughton-Treves 1996). Even if a wild animal inflicts da mage on crops, local people are not

PAGE 31

31 permitted to kill it (except if it is classified by Uganda Wildlife Authority as a pest such as baboons). Collaborative resource management may reduce feelings of helplessness, as it encourages people to become involved in conservation and management of the park. The type of benefit received is believed to in fluence pro-environmental behavior. It is thought that benefits that accrue directly to the individual are more likely to impact environmentally-related behavior to favor conservation than those that generate community-level benefits (Kiss 2004). For example, conservation c ontracts which reward i ndividual signees with direct payments (i.e., performance payments) for a pre-determined conservation outcome can result in behavioral changes (Ferraro 2001). However not all projec ts which boost incomes promote conservation. Some studies have found that increasing living standards encourages resource use (McShane & Newby 2004 and referen ces therein, Trujillo 1 998). A seven-year-old community conservation program around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda, generated community-level benefits such as infrastructu re improvement, as well as individual benefits; however it did not change behavior such as illegal hunting (Infield & Namara 2001). Participation, a core building block in co mmunity-based conservation, is another key ingredient in the reasona ble person model. The reasonable pe rson model contends that providing people a meaningful way to participate in pr oblem-solving can encourage pro-environmental behavior. Participatory participation has been a challenge for conservatio n, with a large amount of variation in the level of lo cal participation within ICDPs (W ells et al. 2004). Theoretically, ICDPs may empower people with information and encourage them to participate in problemsolving, but most projects are externally-drive n, and the framework for local participation may not exist, creating significant challe nges in ICDPs (Wells et al. 2004).

PAGE 32

32 Conclusion Integrated conservation and development projects involve comb ining conservation objectives with development needs. Due to the lack of monitoring and ev aluation tools in ICDPs it is difficult to determine whether they are having their desired impacts on livelihoods or conservation. My thesis helps to fill this gap for collaborative resource management by empirically analyzing if Kibale National Park s CRM fishing program is meeting select objectives which are common to conservation and de velopment programs. In this study I answer two questions: Is the CRM progr am alleviating income povert y? And if so, does the CRM program influence support for conservation and encourage pro-cons ervation behaviors?

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 3 AN ANALYSIS OF A COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FISHING PROGRAMS IMPACT ON POVERTY, SUPPORT FOR CONSERVATION, AND PROENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR AT KI BALE NATIONAL PARK, UGANDA Collaborative Resource Management in Uganda Collaborative resource management (CRM) is one of a variety of approaches used by the Community Conservation department of the Ug anda Wildlife Authority (the governmental body charged with management of Ugandas prot ected areas). The Co mmunity Conservation department works with people li ving around protected areas using tools such as education and awareness programming, conflict resolution, revenue-sharing and collaborative resource management (Uganda Wildlife Authority 2000). In essence CRM in Uganda is a rights for responsibilities strategy that gr ants people certain rights to use natural resources, participate in policy development and management and take up some responsibilities to monitor and regulate harvests as well as other tasks (Chhetri et al. 2003). CRM Conceptual Framework and Objectives in Uganda The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) lists objectives of CRM projects, such as: garnering cooperation for conservation of th e protected area; overcoming conflict with communities neighboring the protected area; prov iding local people opportunities to protect the park, thereby reducing management costs; supp orting local livelihoods; contributing to poverty alleviation; and maintaining trad itional knowledge (UWA 2000). In Uganda, there are two different CRM a pproaches being used by UWA; the Specific Issue Approach and the Integr ated Collaborative Management Approach (UWA 2000). The Specific Issue Approach concerns a particular problem or issu e of interest to community members and to protected area managers, while the Integrated Collaborative Management Approach covers a broad array of issues. With the latter approach trade-offs may exist between

PAGE 34

34 communities and UWA. For example, the community may be asked to cease use of certain resources in exchange for assistance with crop-raiding animals (UWA 2000). This study examines a program that uses the Specific Issue Approach. The Specific Issue Approach involves discus sion with a community to reach a written agreement regarding a problem or issue of intere st to both the community and the protected area managers. For example, the issue might be acce ss to grazing lands inside the protected area or use of trees that grow along the parks bounda ry. Discussion with bot h parties may involve negotiation regarding the terms of the agreement. The written agreement details the shared responsibilities and benefits, monitoring and c ontrol mechanisms, as well as conditions for revocation or renewal of the agreement (UWA 2000). Coordination and Capacity-building Coordination of CRM programs with protected area staff is essential to the success of CRM. In its CRM literature, UWA notes that a consistent message as well as application of protected area policy, legislation and by-laws is necessary for nei ghboring communities (UWA 2000). Law enforcement rangers have to be kno wledgeable regarding the CRM agreements in each community so that enforcement is uniform. Community conservation rangers also must be aware of patrol activities and law enforcemen t issues so they do not provide erroneous information to community members. Therefore, development of a CRM agreement must involve all protected area staff (community conservati on, law enforcement, tourism, research and monitoring staff). If necessary, UWA notes that district extension staff may be involved in CRM agreements if alternative resources outside of th e protected area are necessary. Mutual trust is a necessary component of CRM agreements. All pa rties need to be trai ned so that they can confidently contribute to CRM processes.

PAGE 35

35 Location of CRM programs Uganda Wildlife Authority believes that CRM will be most successful in areas where resource use has been ongoing for long periods. Ideally, such use should be important to the livelihoods of the community members. Furtherm ore, the use of resources would not be easily deterred by law enforcement approaches. CRM may also be successful in communities where there is ongoing conflict between the community and protected area staff as a result of staff restricting use of resources. UWA notes that CRM is not appropriate in cases where severe conflicts exist (e.g., agri cultural encroachment into the pa rk, boundary disputes), existing law enforcement approaches are successful, and where there are species that require a high level of protection and therefore may be nega tively impacted by CRM projects. Collaborative Resource Management in Kibale National Park Information regarding CRM was provided to communities in sensitization programs by UWA in 1997. In 1999 UWA implemented CRM as a management strategy at Kibale National Park (KNP). By 2003 KNP had established seve ral Specific Issue agreements covering the following resources/issues: rattan cane, fishes, b eekeeping, and coffee, water for cattle, firewood, and eradication of exotic species. At the time of this study, at least three other protected areas in the country were also using sp ecific issue collaborative re source agreements. This study examines the impacts of the fishing Specific Issue agreement at Lake Kabaleka. Research Hypotheses Two groups of individuals were surveyed: fish ers and a group of peopl e that served as a comparison group, hereafter called the control group. The general objectives of CRM outlined in the conceptual framework for this study were derived from UWA documents (Ogwal 2003, UWA 2000) (Figure 3-1). Based on these objecti ves, the following hypotheses were tested: 1. CRM fishers exhibit less signs of poverty than the control group.

PAGE 36

36 2. CRM fishers express more support for c onservation than the control group. 3. CRM fishers express evidence of more proenvironmental behavior s than the control group. 4. CRM fishers report fewer illicit behaviors than the control group. The first hypothesis, regarding poverty, will be tested by comparing se lf-reported incomes, and wealth indicators of fishers and the c ontrol group. The second hypothesis is tested comparing the results of Likert items examining support for the park, park staff and consumption of park resources for the two groups. The third a nd fourth hypotheses will test for differences in behaviors by comparing the results of questi ons asking about pro-environmental acts (e.g., removal of wire snares from the park) and illegal activitie s (e.g., hunting) respectively. Methods Site Profile Lake Kabale ka, Kibale National Park Kibale National Park (KNP), a 795km2 forest remnant in western Uganda has been listed as one of the highest conservati on priority sites on the African continent, surrounded by some of the densest human population in all of Africa (Cordeiro et al. 2007, Naughton-Treves et al. 2007). Kibale harbors an exceptional diversit y of non-human primates (Struhsaker 1981). People surrounding the park practice subsistence ag riculture and use forest products to augment their livelihoods (Chege et al. 2002). In the 1970s and 80s, when the protected area was a forest reserve and game corridor, approximately 13,000 people lived within its boundaries. In 1992 these people were evicted from the area and the national park wa s gazetted in 1993 (Chege et al. 2002). Illegal resource use is a major threat to the biodiversity in the park (Mugisha 2002, Mugisha and Jacobson 2004). Crop-raiding as well as resource use restrictions have resulted in local residents negative attitudes about th e park (Mugisha 2002; Naughton-Treves 1996).

PAGE 37

37 Fishing Specific Issue Agreement The fishing Specific Issue agreement is fo r the Kayanja landing site located on Lake Kabaleka in the south-western po rtion of the park (Figure 3-2). Instituted in 2000, the agreement covers fishermen, boat owners and fish mongers, collectively called fisher s. Prior to this agreement, all fishing was considered illegal inside the protected area. This Specific Area Agreement was instigated by UWA to curb illegal fishing, which was rampant on Lake Kabaleka (O. Biira, personal communication). At the time of the study the local chairman of the Kayanja landing site region served as th e liaison between UWA and the fishers. Data collection sheets were provided to the group by UWA, and the local chairman and another fi sher were involved in collecting data on fish harvested and gear util ized and reporting them to UWA. UWA supplied suggestions for net sizes to fishers, but there we re no catch restrictions. Although there was still no formal, written contract at the time of the st udy, fishermen were issued identification cards by UWA following the programs inception indicating their involvement in CRM. Located within the southern boundary of Kibale National Park, Lake Ka baleka is a shallow water lake (usually not greater than 2-3 m deep) measuring approximately 100 ha (Melnychuk & Chapman 2002). Home to various indigenous and intr oduced tilapiine cichlids, it is located within the Lake George swamp system and is of high conservation value, as Lake George is a wetland designated as a Ramsar site of interna tional importance (Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2006). The fishery is primarily compos ed of four species; mudfish ( Clarias gariepinus ), lungfish ( Protopterus aethiopicus ) and tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus and O. leucostictus ). Fishing is carried out by using nets or hooks. Fishermen noted that while the lungfish and mudfish are primarily caught with hooks, tilapia is usually caught with nets. Although two different landing sites exist on the lake, Kayanja Landing site is the only one where legal fishing takes place under

PAGE 38

38 the CRM program. Unless a person is fishing unde r the CRM agreement all other fishing within the park is illegal. Data Collection and Sources The survey research was conducted duri ng June 2003-January 2004, during which the CRM fishing program was 3.5-4 years old. Th ree primary data collection methods were employed: standardized surveys, open-ended interviews, and a focus group. A review of program-related documents also was undertaken to provide a comprehensive understanding of the CRM fishing program. A structured survey which included a combin ation of open and fixed response questions was conducted with a census of 94 fishermen, fi sh mongers and boat owners. A stratified random sample of 101 individuals who reside in the communities where the fishermens primary residences are located served as the control gr oup. I acquired a list of 95 fishers involved in CRM from a local council leader for the area who was responsible for filling out resource data sheets for Uganda Wildlife Authority. Of the 95 fi shers, some fish, some own a canoe and fish, and others fish and buy and sell fish (fish mongers). Fishers use nets or hooks or a combination of the two methods to catch fish. The fishers surveyed resided in 27 different communities and represented 17 different ethnic groups. Due to the fact that no baseline data were available, a control group was selected for comparative purposes. In selecting the control group, I attempted to match for sex, geographical location, age and wealth ranking in selecting th e stratified random sample which made up the control group. Due to the considerable di stance between communities, the study area was divided into seven regions. To create the control group, seven communities were selected, one in each region, where the majority of the fishermen resided. The local chairman of each selected community provided a list of a ll household heads in the commun ity and their ages. Following

PAGE 39

39 the wealth ranking exercise described below, I ra ndomly selected the equiva lent number of males (all fishers were male) that fell into the same age class and wealth ra nking group as there were fishers that resided in the regi on. Ideally I would have compared fishers to other fishers not involved in CRM but this was not possible as there were no other fishers in these communities. During the initial phases of the research I was unsure of the number of fishers in the CRM program. I originally thought th ere might be less than 30 fisher s. I was concerned that the sample size was going to be small. Due to this I utilized a wealth ranking exercise to ensure that I would not be comparing fishers who may be of one wealth class to a control group that, if randomly selected, may not have enough respondents of a similar wealth class to statistically compare the two groups. I used a wealth ranking exercise (Adams et al. 1997; Slocum et al. 1995) in which several local community leader s in each village were surveyed. Community leaders assisted in modifying four wealth ca tegories that had been previously used in development research in Uganda. These categories, in order fr om the poorest category to the wealthiest are: cannot manage, earns slowly, have something, and can manage (International Institute for Sustainable Deve lopment 2003) (see Table 3-1 for description of categories). Leaders were asked to sort local residents into the four categories according to the leaders perceptions of how they ranked in term s of their wealth (Bernard 2002). The survey was designed and pilot-tested in two communities surrounding Kibale National Park (KNP). As the study detailed here is part of a larger study on CRM around KNP, and there existed limited numbers of CRM programs around KNP, two communities that were not part of any collaborative management program were used in the pilot study. The survey was divided into six sections: 13 items cove red support of conservation, thr ee items related to benefits received from park, 21 questions covered the respondents household profile which included

PAGE 40

40 socio-demographic variables to be used as povert y indicators, nine items related to behaviors, eight items tested knowledge of environmentally -related laws; and 5 items covered involvement in the collaborative resource management program (Appendix A). As this study is part of a larger study on KNPs CRM programs, survey qu estions asked were ge neral to CRM and not specific to the CRM fishing program. Prior to conducting interviews, local council leaders were cons ulted to obtain permission to conduct the survey and discuss the intentions of the research. The survey was conducted in one of three languages; English, th e national language of Uganda, Ru toro, or Rukiga. Two men and one woman fluent in the vernacula r languages of the area were traine d to administer the survey. Respondents were asked what language they pref erred and the survey wa s delivered in that language. Responses to the survey were written in English, but all interviews, except one, were conducted in one of the local langua ges. The average time for the fi shers to complete the survey was 64 min (range: 40-101 min), the same as the control group (range : 33-160 min). Ten respondents in the control group di d not know of Kibale National Pa rk, while all fishers knew of the parks existence. Respondent s that did not know of the existence of the park were dropped from the analysis. One person in each of the control and fisher groups refused to participate in the survey. To verify that surveys were comp leted by respondents, I randomly selected 5% of fishers and the control group and went to their home s to ask them if they did indeed complete the survey. The wording of some questions related to s upport for conservation was reversed during the design phase of the survey to pr event response bias. All negatively worded items were reverse scored resulting in a 5-point Likert scale with anchor points of 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =

PAGE 41

41 strongly agree. The lower e nd of the scale indicates weak support of conservation and higher figures indicate a pro-co nservation response. All knowledge of local environmental laws it ems were answered with yes, no or dont know. All negatively worded items were reverse scored. An eight poin t knowledge scale was created with correct answers receiv ing a and all others a Illegal resource collection is very difficult to measure accurately (Infield & Namara 2001; Moorman 2006; Solomon et al. 2007) (see followi ng chapter for a comprehe nsive review of the topic). When piloting for the survey portion of the study began I found that most people did not disclose illegal behavior, even when they were re peatedly promised that their responses would be kept confidential. The wording of the behavior questions went through several iterations during the pilot phase of the survey. I used a balanc ed question concerning the placement of snares inside the park. A balanced que stion is designed to encourage respondents to provide their true response by theoretically reducing the effects of social desi rability, usually by preempting the question with a statement saying that some people do the sensitive behavior of interest, others do not (Weisberg et al. 1996). A focus group (Bernard 2002) consisting of 8 fishers was conducted in Hima, the closest large town to Lake Kabaleka, for a duration of approximately 75 minutes. One male, unknown to the group, and fluent in the local languages, translated and helped to coordinate the focus group. I had two main objectives for the focus group: gather economic data and discuss the benefits and weaknesses of the CRM program. Additionally, a seasonal activities calendar (Slocum et al. 1995) was produced by participan ts to examine seasonal variance of fishing activities. I asked the local council leader to i nvite several fishermen, canoe owners and fish mongers as I wanted to obtain financial data for their occupations. One fisherman, two fish

PAGE 42

42 mongers, two canoe owners, two fishers/canoe owners, and one fish monger/canoe owner attended the focus group. I asked each fisher to reco rd via secret ballot thei r fishing activity (fish mongering, fisherman, boat owner), how much they earned on a good day, how much they earned on a bad day and how many days on averag e they worked. Participants free listed (Bernard 2002) all items associ ated with fishing, fish monge ring, and canoe owning, the current cost of each item, and how long each item lasts. Participants then worked in groups of two, listing the benefits and weaknesse s of the CRM program, which we re then reported to the group as a whole for discussion. Analysis Survey data were entered into an SPSS 10.0 for statistical analysis. Most responses are not normally distributed, including the Likert and dichotomous response items. P values of 0.05 were considered statistically signi ficant. Socio-demographic characteristics of the fishers and the control were described and compared using Pear sons chi-square. I compared income data, support for conservation, and behavior items between fishers who were identified as part of the CRM program (treatment group) and residents who were not part of the program (control group). In selecting the control group, I attempted to match for sex, age, geographical location, and wealth through a wealth ranking process. To help control fo r potential confounding, all sociodemographic variables that diffe red significantly between the fi shers and control group were analyzed for associations. Point-biserial correlation ( rpb) acquired using a Pearsons product moment correlation coefficient (Pearsons r ) was used for associations between dichotomous variables and Likert response items. Spearmans correlation coefficient ( rs) was used for continuous variables and Like rt response items. Dichot omous response variables and dichotomous response items were analyzed using the Phi coefficient. In the case of tribes, where multiple responses were provided, Pearsons chi-s quare and Phi was used to determine specific

PAGE 43

43 categories for analysis with each of the response items. All socio-demographic variables that differed significantly between the two groups and were found to have statistically significant associations with the response variables were then included in models when examining if differences existed between the fishers and control. Continuous response variables were analyzed using a general linear model. The general linear model is thought to be robust against assumptions of normality (Field 2005). In one case, the model resulted in a violation of one of the major assumptions of analysis of covariance: homogeneity of regression slopes. These data were subsequently analyzed with the JohnsonNeyman technique using SAS software. Five-point Likert response items were anal yzed for differences be tween fishers and the control using a proportional odds model. In case s where the assumption of parallel lines was not met ( p -values <0.05), multinominal logistic regr ession was used. Dichotomous response variables that had covariates were analyzed for differences between fisher s and the control using binary logistic regression. In cases where th e confounding variables were not well suited to the model, as indicated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow stat istic, all potential confounding variables were added to the model and were removed manually, one by one. Socio-demographic variables were removed if the Wald statistics p -value was larger than 0.1 and the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics p -value remained above 0.05 following the rem oval of the variable (I. Liu, personal communication). Differences between nominal data were analyzed using Pearsons chi-square tests. Chi-square results that had expected frequencies of <5 we re analyzed using the Fishers exact test. Economic data gathered from the focus group with fishers were en tered into Microsoft Excel for computations. During the focus group I collected data on the types of fishing-related

PAGE 44

44 assets, quantity owned and used, and the length of time on average that an item would last. I chose not to use straight line de preciation (i.e., liquidation value) because it does not capture the productive value of these items to their owne rs (Wallace 2004, p.57). Instead, I accounted for the replacement value of the items by cal culating a yearly cost for each item. Results Socio-demographic Variables Seven of the 21 socio-demographic variables differed between fishers and the control group (Table 3-2). All respondents were male, w ith the average age of fishers being 31 years (SD=12.5) and the control group being 34 (SD=11.2). Significantly fewer fishers reported being married than the control group ( 2(1)=5.18, p<0.05). Fishers also had significantly lower education levels than the control group ( 2(2)=12.18, p<0.01), were more likely to have been evicted from the park ( 2(1)=14.36, p<0.01), and reportedly expe rienced significantly less crop raiding by wildlife ( 2=9.92, p<0.01). The number of responden ts surveyed within each region (noted in Table 3.2 as straightline distance from park border) di ffered significantly between the two groups ( 2=14.71, p<0.05). Tribal composition differed significantly among the two groups, as did their main income sources ; 87% percent of fishers listed fi shing as their main source of income, while 58% of the control group listed farming. Covariates Of the seven socio-demographic variables th at differed significantl y between fishers and the control group only one, tribe, consisted of multiple categories. Nineteen different tribal affiliations were recognized during the surve y. Because some tribes had few respondents, making it difficult for statistical analysis, I chose to run analyses with the tribal groups that had at least 5 respondents. Phi wa s used to determine specific cate gories for analysis with each of the response items. Only one of the categorie s, namely the Bakonjo tribe, was significant ( 2(1)=

PAGE 45

45 9.78, Phi=0.230, p<0.01), and therefore was determined to be a possible covariate. Tables 3-3 3-7 list all individual items and significant covariates, which when appropriate, were controlled for in the following analyses. Livelihood-related Data The median annual self-reported gros s income for fishers was U.S. $376.021, (SD=403.48) while the control groups median was U.S. $196.19 (SD=538.21). Fishers ( m place=10608) earned significantly more than the control group ( m place=78.32; U =2953.50, p <0.001). The only covariate for income was the Bakonjo tribe. Using a general linear model when income is stratified for Bakonjo, fishers that are Bakonjo (n=12) earn on average U.S. $399.38 more than Bakonjo people in the control group (n=29) (Wald=6.52 (1), p <0.05). A significant negative association exists between Bakonjo and income ( rpb =-0.204, p <0.01, n=184). Therefore people who are Bakonjo are likely to have a lower income than people who are not Bakonjo. Fishers earned 70% (U.S. $261.58, SD=291.20) of their annual median income from fishing activities alone. Fisher s in the focus group reported that on a bad day of fishing they earned on average U.S. $0.91, while on a good day U.S. $3.13. Fisher families also consume fish, and this benefit is not accounted for in this analysis. The majority of fishers (83%) reported that they are financially better off compared to before they started their fishing activities. On average fishers had been collecting the resource for 7.3 years. Of the 94 fishers in the study, approx imately half of them (4 3) engaged in fishing activities prior to the year 2000 when the CRM fishing program was instituted. Of those 49 fishers who started collecting when the CRM pr ogram started, 84% reported being financially better off than before they started fishing activ ities, and 81% of those who were engaged in 1 UgSh1,835=U.S.$1, June 2, 2003 exchange rate (Bank of Uganda)

PAGE 46

46 fishing activities prior to the implementation of the CRM program2 reported being financially better off compared to before they started fishing in KNP. On average, fishers completing the survey reported carrying out fishing activities on a monthly basis for 4.7 days per week, with an average of three weeks worked per month. Time spent on a collecting trip (which includes travel time to and from the site collection area) averaged approximately 6.7 hours. On average, fishers reported co llecting 9 fish per day (min 2, max 35). Costs of Fishing-related Assets Forty-five percent of fisher s use a combination of hooks a nd nets, while 52% use solely hooks and 3% solely nets. I calculated the costs of net assets assuming that fishers work 5 days per week for 36 weeks per year (Table 3-3). Acco rding to these data, annual median net incomes of fishers from fishing activity alone may range from U.S. $213.26 (for a fish monger) to U.S. $248.32 (for a fishermen exclusively using hooks and not paying a canoe owner for use of a boat). Other Indicators of Wealth Local community leaders placed eight (9%) fish ers in the lowest wealth category, cannot manage during the wealth ranking exercise. Fo rty-nine (58%) fishers were categorized as earns slowly. Twenty-five (29%) fishers were placed in the have something category and 3 (4%) were in the highest wea lth category, can manage. Land holdings ranged from 0 acres (n=2) to 21 acres for the fishers; while the control group ranged from 0.3 to 20 acres. Although no di fference was found between the two groups in 2 Fishers were not asked if their fishing activit ies prior to implementation of CRM were carried out at Lake Kabaleka, therefore it is not prudent to c onclude that they were illegally fishing in Lake Kabaleka.

PAGE 47

47 terms of acreage holdings, 20% of the fishers di d not know the amount of acreage they held. The fishers did not differ from the control group in other wealth-related assets su ch as wall materials, roof materials, painted houses, personal trans portation, and eligible children attending school, number of wives, or numbe r of goats (Table 3-2). Support for Resource Conservation There were no significant diffe rences between the fishers and the control group on five items that asked about consumption of natural resources inside the pa rk (Table 3-4). In general, both groups tended to support resource conserva tion. The distribution of scores for the statement, Poor people need the wildlife in th e park for meat was bimodal. Approximately half of the respondents agreed with this statement, while half di sagreed with it (Table 3-4). Relationship with Park Staff Three items evaluated respondent s relations with park sta ff. The three items showed significant differences between the fishers and th e control group (Table 3-4); fishers responded more positively towards park staff th an the control group (Table 3-4). Support for Kibale National Park Five items measured support for Kibale Nationa l Park (Table 3-4). For these items no differences between the two groups were found. Only one question resulted in the majority of people indicating weak support for conservation respondents believe that their villages do not benefit from tourists that come to visit the park. Perceived benefits : After controlling for education, in come and crop-raiding experience, significantly more fishers than control group respondents agreed w ith the statement, The park provides benefits to you. (Wald = 34.18 (1), p =<0.001). Both fishers and the control group listed resource-related benefits from the park as the most valuable benefit. The majority of fishers (93%, n=82) that agreed or strongly ag reed that benefits existed listed resources

PAGE 48

48 (primarily fish) from the park as the most valuab le benefit while only 42 % (n=22) of the control did the same. Two fishers listed rainfall as the mo st valuable benefit, while 29% (n=15) of the control group listed rainfall as th e most valuable benefit. Du ring the focus group fishers listed five other benefits of partic ipating in the CRM program: fish as a source of food for home consumption, sustenance for families, job opport unities, local development, and socialization with other fishers. Support for Conservation Scale The thirteen items noted above were designe d to measure support for conservation. Five of the scaled items were removed from the fina l conservation-related measure due to poor interitem reliability. The scale to measure support for conservation was constructed from 8 items (Table 3-4). Overall mean support for conser vation on a scale of 1 to 5 was 3.16 (SD=0.6322). Fishers scores ( m place=97.91) were significantly higher than the control group ( m place=770.02; U =2906.5, p <0.01). Fishers unadjusted mean support was 3.28 (SD=0.6101) and the control group was 3.02 (SD=0.6317). Reliability analysis of the eight items revealed a Cronbachs alpha of .74 with an inter-item m ean of .26. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the covariates income ( rs=0.153, p <0.05, n=173) and distance of region from park border ( rs=0.167, p <0.05, n=168) revealed a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes, in particular a significant interaction w ith income. Because of such a violation, it is reasonable to conclude that th ere is a significant difference between the two groups (Engqvist 2005). Using the Johnson-Neyman technique to analyze the regression slopes results in a significant difference between the two groups when income is less than U.S. $602.16, while there is no significant difference between the tw o groups when income is greater than U.S. $602.16. The majority of respondents (66 % of fisher s and 75% of the control) reported incomes of less than U.S. $602.16.

PAGE 49

49 Pro-environmental Behaviors Three items measured behaviors related to deterr ing illegal activity in th e park (Table 3-5). Preventing illegal activity, in pa rticular extinguishing bush fires and removing wire snares that are used for hunting, was noted by UWA as of im portance in evaluating the success of the CRM program. After controlling for eviction from the park as well as being of the Bakonjo tribe, a statistically significant differe nce existed between fishers an d the control group for the item regarding extinguishing bus h fires (Wald=10.79 (1), p <0.01). After controlling for eviction from the park and income, a statistically significant difference also existed between fishers and the control group for the item concerning removal of wire snares (Wald=3.810 (1), p =0.05). In these two cases, fishers reported more pro-environmenta l actions than the control group (Table 3-5). No difference between the two groups was f ound when respondents we re asked about the number of times they reported illegal acts in KNP in the past year (Wald=0.967 (1), p =0.325). Illicit Behaviors No statistically significant difference was found between the fisher s and the control group when respondents were asked the following b alanced question, Some people place snares in Kibale National Park, other people do not. Ha ve you or people from your household placed snares/traps inside of Kibale Na tional Park in the past year? Only one respondent, a fisher, answered in the affirmative in response to the question. Five other statements referred to the following activities: hunting in crop fields outsid e of the park, collection of firewood, collection of water and hunting within the park. There were no statistically significant differences between fishers and the control group for any of the hun ting related questions a nd very few respondents responded in the affirmative to these items (Tab le 3-6). Significantly more fishers responded yes to the statement, Firewood is scarce and the park has a lot of w ood therefore there is no problem if you go and take some fi rewood from inside of the park ( 2(1)=11.082, p <0.01), with

PAGE 50

50 approximately 23% of fishers replying yes in comp arison to 6% of the control group (Table 3-6). Similarly, after controlling for marriage, the resp onses of fishers were significantly different from the control group in response to the statement, Water is pl entiful in the park therefore you sometimes go to the park to collect it. (Wald=5.253 (1), p <0.05). Knowledge of Local Environmental Laws Eight items measured knowledge of local envi ronmental laws (Table 3-7). The mean knowledge score for fishers was 7.5 (SD=0.7) a nd for the control group, 7.6 (SD=0.73). Fishers did not differ in their knowledge of local environmental laws ( m place= 89.68) from the control group ( m place=96.43; U =3964.50, p>0.05), even after controlling for the covariates education ( rs=0.199, p <0.01, n=185), distance rs=0.242, p <0.01, n=178) and crop-raiding ( rpb=0.-0.157, p <0.05, n=184) using a general linear model (SE=0.113, t=0.280, p =0.780). None of the individual items differed significantly between the fishers and the control group. Sixty-one percent of the fishers and 69% of the control gr oup answered all eight questions correctly. Discussion To a great extent, Uganda Wild life Authoritys CRM program at Lake Kabaleka in Kibale National Park is meeting its objectives. Fishers pe rceive benefits from the park more than the control group. Fishers participating in the CRM progr am at KNP were found to have higher incomes and more positive relationships with KN P staff than the control group. Fishers also support conservation in general mo re than the control group. The CRM fishing program also had negative im pacts. Although some fishers are actively protecting the park from illegal activities, some may also extr act resources without permission, such as firewood and water. Th e implementation of CRM contribu ted to pressure on the fish stock. The CRM program encouraged fishing, with approximately 50% of fishers starting fishing activities at Lake Kabaleka shortly after the commencement of the CRM program.

PAGE 51

51 Impact of CRM on Poverty Fishers had almost double the gross income as the control group, and 83% reported being better off compared to before they started the fishing CRM program. Th e results indicate that significant benefits are limited to people in the Bakonjo tribe. This does not necessarily mean that Bakonjo is the limiting factor as being Bakonjo could be associated with other variables that were not measured, for example, fishing skills or marginalization. Data indicate that being a member of the Bakonjo tribe is associated with low income levels. Ther efore the results show that the poorest of the poor ar e significantly improving their inco me as a result of the fishing CRM program. Specific indicators of wealth (e.g., painted hous es, goat ownership, metal roofing etc.) did not differ between the two groups. This may be because the wealth ranking exercise which resulted in crude measurements of wealth a nd was used to select the control group did an adequate job in asce rtaining wealth. The CRM program focuses on increasing income however it does not truly address poverty alleviation, as defined by the United Nati ons Development Program (United Nations Development Program 2003). For example, it does not directly increase acce ss to health care or educational opportunities. In this sense, a CRM program alone will probably not meet the broad objective of poverty alleviation. This fishing CRM program increases income for a select group but does not dictate how fishers spend their ear nings. This is a choice of the participants themselves. However, a measure of poverty cham pioned by Sen (1999) is c hoice. Increased income does allow fishers more options than th e control group respondents who have less gross income. For example, with more income fish ers may be able to pay transportation costs to better health care centers outside of their immediate, rural commun ity. Transportation costs are high in the region and may hinder access to regional health cent ers that may offer different

PAGE 52

52 treatment options. Additionally, increased in come may provide children access to secondary education centers that are outside thei r villages of primary residences. Impact of CRM on Support for Conservation Many more fishers than control group respondents agree that the park provides benefits to them. Fishers reported better rela tionships with park staff than the control group, yet, in general, no difference was noted among the two groups fo r the individual items concerning support for conservation of the park. This result is similar to what has be en found in some other community conservation projects where relationships with park staff improve but a change in attitude regarding conservation of the prot ected area in general is negligib le (Arjunan et al. 2006; Hulme & Murphree 2001). It is not surprising that fisher s reported better relationships w ith park staff considering that fishers are permitted to be inside the park and have frequent interaction with park staff at the landing site from which they fish. Control group respondents, who have little reason to be inside of the park legally, are more lik ely questioned if found inside the park by park staff and possibly sanctioned. Park staff is often called on in times of trouble, for example, when crop-raiding by wild animals occurs. At such times, residents may transfer their anger on to park staff, resulting in a poor relationship. Mugisha (2002) found that residents living near parks with communitybased conservation (CBC) programs, including KNP, reported more cordial relations with park staff compared to people neighboring pa rks with no program CBC programs. Support for Conservation Scale Based on the support for conservation scale, the majority of fishers are more supportive of conservation than the majority of the control group. Fisher s earning above U.S. $602 did not differ from the control group, alt hough these people are the minority of those surveyed. These

PAGE 53

53 results indicate that there may be some thres hold effect and earning rela tively larger incomes does not ensure increased support for conservation. Impact of CRM on Pro-Environmental Behaviors One of UWAs objectives with the CRM program is to ha ve fishers engage in proenvironmental behavior. Fishers benefit from th e fish resource inside the park and therefore should have more of a vested inte rest in protecting the park. It appears that some fishers are actively protecting the park, by pr eventing at least one bushfire a nd/or removing snares in the year prior to the surve y. Although a statistically significant difference exis ts between fishers and the control when it comes to exti nguishing bushfires or removing snares inside the park, this may be a result of the fact that many respondents in th e control group are not as likely to visit the park on a regular basis, as they have little legal reason to be there. However, although fishers may be engaging in pro-environmental behaviors, after cont rolling for covariates th e data indicated that they are not reporting illegal beha vior more than the control group. This is disconcerting as KNP has limited staff to effectively manage illega l acts and UWA documents indicate one of CRM objectives is to reduce management costs by encouraging CRM partic ipants to protect the park. Reporting illegal acts may be more time cons uming compared to preventing bushfires or removing snares as fishers would have to locate park staff to report ille gal activities. Although park staff is located at vari ous outposts around the park, the di stances between villages and outposts are often quite considerable fo r people to travel on foot or by bike. Impact of CRM on Illicit Behaviors With the increasing sensitivity of the topi c, fewer respondents provided affirmative responses to the illicit behavi or items. Using balanced questioning, only one person admitted to placing snares inside the park. One percent of all respondents admitted to hunting inside of the park. Six percent of all respondent s admitted to placing snares/traps in their crop fields. More

PAGE 54

54 respondents admitted to collecti ng firewood (14%) and water (11% ) from the park. Although the sensitivity of the questions most likely affected the number of respondents that admitted to an act, it is also likely that fewer people hunt than collect resources that are needed on a daily basis such as firewood and water. The number of responses for less sensitive quest ions regarding collection of firewood and water were significantly differe nt between the fishers and control group, with more fishers replying yes to those items. Fishers are more like ly to be inside of th e park than the control group members because they are permitted to be there and therefore the temptation to opportunistically extract resource s illegally may be larger in comparison to the control group. Some fishers may not believe such activities to be illegal, possibly beca use they have not been sanctioned for them or because of bribery invo lving UWA guards (Struhsaker et al. 2005, see Infield & Namara 2001 for discussion of brib ery and abusive behavior by park guards). Although this study demonstrates that local peopl e are very familiar with the select local environmental laws covered in the survey, re sults of two items sugge st fewer fishers may understand regulations regarding il legal placement of snares and grazing of domestic animals inside the park than the control group members. This trend and the disclosure of illicit activity are troublesome, as they imply that resources such as firewood are being extracted from the park illegally while fishers are inside of the park. In times of livelihood-related stress, fishers may extract more resources found within the park (Twyman 2000). This study shows that CRM was positively associated with some behaviors to help protect park resources. Its affect on curbing illegal e xploitation was difficult to assess the long-term effects of the program on exploitative behavior s will need to be monitored considering the complex nature of the predictors of pro-envi ronmental behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002).

PAGE 55

55 Other Considerations for CRM Management: Accuracy of UWA records UWA records on CRM participation need to be updated. A report issued in 2003 noted that 30 fishermen were provided with resource identifi cation cards and 15 boats were registered with the Fisheries Department (Ogwal 2003). When I undertook this study in 2003, 95 individuals were identified as CRM fishers by the community leader in charge of filling out resource data sheets. All fishers interviewed were fishing from the KNP Kayanja la nding site and believed they were part of the CRM program. Limitations of Study Support for conservation, behaviors, and benef its from CRM programs are not static. This study is a current snapshot of the fishing CRM program in its early stages, but in reality it is a moving target. Recent events in communities involving the protect ed area and/or protected area staff will undoubtedly influence support for c onservation (Hill 1998; Infield & Namara 2001). For example, changes in crop raiding by wild life may result in negative attitudes, or the construction of a health clinic using tourism revenue from the protected area may increase the number of people with positive atti tudes about the protected area. The absence of baseline data is a limitation of this study. This prevented analysis of specific changes or improvements in support for conservation, behaviors or poverty levels of CRM participants. Ideally respondents would have been randomly assign ed to both a treatment and control group. Participants in the CRM pr ogram may already differ markedly from their peers in variables other than those noted, as th ey chose to participat e in the program. For example, I was unable to control for factors such as societal and personal influences. The control group used was the best available comparative group for the fishers. If the CRM fishing program did not exist fishers would more than lik ely be similar to the control group, as no legal fishing exists in the park and not one of th e 101 people surveyed for the control group fished.

PAGE 56

56 This study only included men and therefore we can say little of conservation attitudes and behaviors of women. We can not as sume homogeneity within a vill age, as gender as well as life circumstances play a role in support for cons ervation and resource-rela ted behavior (Coomes 2004, Hill 1998). Recommendations At the time of this study the fishing CRM program in Kibale National Park was in its infancy. Monitoring of a program in its early stages will lessen the risk of failure in meeting its stated objectives because important programmatic changes are more likely to be made (Lewis & Phiri 1998) Recommendations to impr ove the CRM program follow. Encourage Ecological Studies of the Resource The CRM program encouraged fishing, with ap proximately 50% of fishers starting fishing activities at Lake Kabaleka shor tly after the commencement of the CRM program. This increase in pressure on the resource base requires carefu l management so as to not reduce stock size over time. Although Uganda Wildlife Authority suppli es net size recommendations to CRM fishers, such size requirements may not be adequate because the species fished as well as the ecology of Lake Kabaleka are not sufficiently studied to de termine sustainable harvesting rates. No quotas are in place to prevent over-fishing as sustainable harvest rates have not been established. This is a common problem with many ICDP projects, with some project managers choosing not to greatly restrict harvest because of fear of losing community support (Newmark & Hough 2000). Ecological studies of the fishery should be carri ed out to scientifica lly inform management decisions. There is a move to manage fisheries on an ecosystem-wide basis rather than fish stock alone (Jorgenson & Muller 2000). Lake Kabale ka would be a good place to practice such a strategy, as it is located within a protected area. Makerere Univ ersity, Ugandas most prominent educational institution, has a bi ological field station in Kibale National Park. Through KNPs

PAGE 57

57 institutional ties with the university, applied research on the fishery and the area surrounding it should be encouraged. Diversify Fishers Income Base by Instit uting a Seasonal Moratorium on Fishing Because fishers earn such a large proportion of their income from only fishing activities, there is a need for them to dive rsify their income base (Koziell and McNeill 2002). Fluctuations in the quantity and sizes of fish are bound to ch ange, especially if monitoring and management are not inherent in the CRM pro cess. Additionally, if monitoring does become more stringent, it may result in a call for a reduction in total allowable catch there by requiring livelihood alternatives for fishers. If a st ochastic or exogenous event such as disease were to limit the fish supply then these fishers would lose their livelih ood base. In this sense, fishing activities are risky. Moreover, studies report th at when financial and/or natura l resources are not available, people tend to use forest/protected area resources as safety nets or insurance to ensure their needs are met (Bush et al. 2006; Coomes 2004). This could put the protected areas resources at risk if such hungry gaps induced by exogenous events do occur (Bush et al. 2006). To ensure diversification and limit reliance of individuals on the fishery, it may be helpful for UWA to implement a seasonal moratorium on fishing. This approach would require policing of fishers, which is warranted, as it appears that fisher s may be using certain park resources without permission (e.g., firewood, water). Increase Monitoring and Evaluation Three particular results of this study point to the need for increased monitoring and evaluation by UWA: compared to figures in UWA documents, there are many more fishers who believe they are part of the CRM fishing pr ogram, approximately one-half of CRM fishers started fishing at the inception or following the institution of the CRM program, and some fishers are extracting other controlled re sources found within the park. The first two findings indicate

PAGE 58

58 greater pressure on the fishery than originally intended by UWA. The third finding noted above is not surprising, as it is known that even when resource extraction is regulated, it is likely that individuals will modify their behavior to make such regulation less effective than originally intended (Hilborn et al. 1995). Although greater oversight of the CRM progr am may be required, it is understandably difficult as the number of rangers available for such a task is limited. At the time of the research, KNP had a total of 29 rangers (of which 3 were drivers) covering the entire 795 km2 park (M. Okirina, personal communication). Financial an d logistical constraint s also contribute to monitoring problems (Chhetri et al. 2003). In light of the limited capacity to monitor the fishery, I recommend that UWA expand its current system of monitoring to a participatory adaptive management system (Gavin et al. 2007). At the time of the study two fishers collected data on fish harvested and gear utilized. These data are only collected if at least one of the two fishers is present at the site. Data are not reliable, as fishers may undervalue their catches (Ogwal 2003) A monitoring system should be instituted that includes all fishers. The re sults of the fishers record keep ing should be returned to them by KNPs Research Warden in a culturally appropria te format (e.g., a meeting and/or poster that could be placed at the landing site) on a regular basis. In addition to participatory monitoring a nd evaluation, educational seminars should be provided to fishers so that th ey can understand the dynamics of the fishery and the need for biological information. UWA s hould tap into the expertise of both national and foreign researchers who study in and around KNP for such public education endea vors. Participatory monitoring and educational seminars could lead to participatory problem-solving in the future. According to the reasonable pe rson model (Kaplan 2000), participat ory problemsolving is a key

PAGE 59

59 component in eliciting behavioral change. Work ing with experts is important to participatory problem-solving (Kaplan 2000). Interaction with researchers may aid fishers in exploring problems with the CRM fishery a nd potential solutions. Transp arent monitoring and evaluation activities, in addition to educat ion, may create a vested interest in creation of a sustainable fishery and lessen the risk of its collapse. Measure Program Outputs Defining success in terms of conservation and development is a very necessary part of programs and one that can not be overlooked. Including measurable outputs and monitoring them over time is essential for defining a su ccessful program (Margoluis and Salafsky 1998). Program documents for the CRM program do not indicate measures of success, but rather general objectives. Future Research: Broaden the Definition of Poverty In recent years, researchers have started to measure poverty alleviation not by income alone but rather by outcomes, exam ining what a person is capable of doing with his/her resources (Sen 1999; Shepherd 2004). In terms of a ddressing poverty alleviation I recommend a followup survey to examine the long-term effects of the CRM fishing program, particularly how the increased income provided by the program has been used by resource users. Did the children of fishers attend school for more years than the co ntrol? Did fishers and family members have better access to health care? By examining capabilities and not simply assets or income, the outcomes of the CRM program can be more comprehensively evaluated.

PAGE 60

60 Figure 3-1. Conceptual framework for this a ssessment of Uganda Wildlife Authoritys collaborative resource management program Collaborative resource management programs Permit access to select resources inside of the p rotected area Provide direct benefit from the park Contribute to poverty alleviation Increase support for conservation Increase proenvironmental behaviors Relationship with park staff Support for conservation of park and its resources Preventative behavior (e.g., removing snares) Illegal behavior (e.g., hunting) Income Wealth indicators (e.g., number of goats, roofing material) General objectives Select Indicators

PAGE 61

61 Figure 3-2. Home regions of fishers particip ating in collaborativ e resource management

PAGE 62

62 Table 3-1. Categorizations of wea lth used to rank the wealth of survey respondents by local community leaders (Modified from the In ternational Institute of Sustainable Development 2003) Category Description of Individuals in Category Cannot Manage Dependent on others Cannot manage on their own Struggle to find food and manage finances Rely on assistance from other community members May be older or sickly Earns Slowly Unpredictable earnings/assets May earn on a seasonal basis or might have short-term contractual work at unpredictable intervals May work for others and receive small sums of money Have Something Some earnings/assets May earn money on a regular basis May have animals/crops that provide them with food on a daily basis Can Manage Regular earnings/assets Earn regularly and have assets such as a permanent house and/or their own motorized transportation (a moped or car) May employ others to do labor for them Least Wealthy Most Wealthy

PAGE 63

63 Table 3-2. Socio-demographic variables of interest Variable Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Pearsons Chisquare p Respondents age (in years) 4.121 0.13 18-30 62 (58) 47 (43) 31-50 32 (30) 42 (38) 51 6 (6) 11 (10) Marital Status 5.179 <0.05 Married 76 (67) 89 (81) Single 24 (21) 11 (10) Number of people residing in respondents residence 1.716 0.63 0-2 23 (22) 17 (15) 3-6 52 (49) 56 (51) 7-10 20 (19) 21 (19) 11 4 (4) 7 (6) Have children 78 (73) 86 (78) 2.00 0.16 Number of children 4.395 0.22 0 22 (21) 13 (12) 1-4 48 (45) 52 (47) 5-8 26 (24) 25 (23) 9 or more 4 (4) 10 (9) Residence time 4.907 0.3 5 years 22 (20) 14 (13) 5-9 years 21 (19) 20 (18) 10-14 years 11 (10) 18 (16) 15-20 years 21 (19) 14 (13) 21 years 26 (24) 34 (31) Education level 12.184 <0.01 No formal education 22 (21) 12 (11) Primary (1-7 years) 68 (64) 59 (54) Secondary or more( 8 years) 10 (9) 29 (26) Evicted from park 14.363 <0.001 Yes 43 (40) 17 (15) No 57 (54) 83 (74) Land tenure 8.258 0.083 Leasehold 10 (9) 2 (2) Customary 19 (17) 23 (21) Rented 35 (31) 26 (24) Public land 13 (11) 14 (13) Bought land 23 (20) 34 (31)

PAGE 64

64 Table 3-2. Continued Variable Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Pearsons Chi-square p Payment or no payment for land 0.607 0.44 Pays or paid for land (lease, rented or bought) 68 (60) 63 (57) No payment for land (public or customary) 32 (28) 37 (34) Acreage 4.902 0.3 1 acre 38 (26) 48 (43) 1.1-2 24 (18) 24 (22) 2.1-3 19 (14) 9 (8) 3.1-4 7 (5) 6 (5) 4.1 or more 16 (12) 13 (12) Tribal groups (with 5 respondents) 11.033 <0.05 Batoro 37 (35) 26 (24) Bakiga 20 (19) 13 (12) Bakonjo 13 (12) 32 (29) Banyankole 9 (8) 7 (6) Bafumbira 5 (5) 7 (6) Respondents first ranked occupation 143.093 <0.001 Farmer 10 (9) 58 (53) Fisher 87 (82) 0 (0) Other 3 (3.2) 42 (38) Problem with crop raiding 9.923 <0.01 Yes 16 (15) 36 (33) No 84 (79) 64 (58) Painted house 1.626 0.20 Painted 22 (19) 14 (13) Not painted 78 (69) 86 (78) Roof Material 2.456 0.12 Iron 68 (63) 78 (71) Grass-thatched 32 (30) 22 (20) Walls of house 1.973 0.16 Mud 90 (75) 83 (68) Plaster 10 (8) 17 (14) Has own transportation (includes bicycles, mopeds, cars etc.) 2.814 0.09 Yes 64 (60) 52 (47) No 36 (34) 48 (44)

PAGE 65

65 Table 3-2. Continued Variable Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Chisquare p All eligible children attend school 2.385 0.12 Yes 93 (52) 98.5 (64) No 7 (4) 1.5 (1) More than one wife 0.597 0.44 Yes 14 (13) 10 (9) No/Not applicable 86 (81) 90 (80) Number of goats 1.047 0.59 1-2 goats 49 (20) 44 (20) 3-4 goats 32 (13) 27 (12) 5 or more goats 19.5 (8) 29 (13) Straight-line distance (in meters) region is from KNP border 14.71 <0.05 696 5.8 (5) 8.8 (8) 2102 2.3 (2) 9.9 (9) 3461 12.8 (11) 7.7 (7) 6426 61.6 (53) 41.8 (38) 6654 4.7 (4) 13.2 (12) 14056 3.5 (3) 8.8 (8) 15369 9.3 (8) 9.9 (9)

PAGE 66

66 Table 3-3. Costs to fishers per activity Activity Major expenditures Cost (in U.S.$) per year based on 5-day work week over 36 weeks/yr. Net fishing Nets, tarps, matches, soap for cleaning nets, payment to canoe owner 26.14a Hook fishing Hooks, thread, tarps, matches, payment to canoe owner 13.26 a Fish mongers Bicycle, bicycl e repairs, basket, medical certificate, license, stall/space for selling, table, knife, panga, bucket, plastic bags 48.32b Canoe owners Timber to construct canoe, nails, carpenter, repair work, payment to Uganda Wildlife Authority, payment to Fishery Department 45.12 b,c a These figures do not account for the amount paid by fishers to canoe owners, which is variable. Fishermen will share the use of canoes among themse lves. Fishers reported that some fishermen pay canoe owners up to U.S. $5.45 per month for use of the canoe. b The estimated costs for both the fish mongers and canoe owners may be over-estimates, as I assumed that both groups were following federal regulations for their activitie s. For example, fish mongers are required to have a medical certificate, as well as a license to sell their fish. c This figure is based on a canoe life of 3.5 years. Over half of this figure cons ists of U.S. $2.72 monthly payments to Uganda Wildlife Authority for access to the lake. Canoe ow ners pass this fee on to fishers that use their boats.

PAGE 67

67Table 3-4. Comparison of individual support for c onservation items for fishers and control group Item Item responses Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficient b p n dfChi-square (Likelihood ratio c or Wald d) p Consumption of Natural Resources *People should be allowed to collect any resource from the park. Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1.1 (1) 64.9 (61) 3.2 (3) 24.5 (23) 6.4 (6) 6.6 (6) 60.4 (55) 3.3 (3) 26.4 (24) 3.3 (3) Distance to park 0.167 <0.05 168 Education 0.164 <0.05 185 Evicted from park -0.209 <0.01 182 1 0.116 (Wald) 0.734 If there were no laws regulating access to resources, all the wildlife in the park would not be killed. a Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 54.3 (51) 43.6 (41) 0 (0) 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1) 52.7 (48) 45.1 (41) 0 (0) 2.2 (2) 0 (0) 1 0.04 (Wald) 0.84 *What people need from the forest, grasslands, lakes and wild animals is more important than protecting the forest, grasslands, lakes and wild animals. Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 2.1 (2) 68.1 (64) 5.3 (5) 21.3 (20) 3.2 (3) 2.2 (2) 73.6 (67) 3.3 (3) 17.6 (16) 3.3 (3) 1 0.565 (Wald) 0.452

PAGE 68

68Table 3-4. Continued Item Item responses Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficient b p n dfChi-square (Likelihood ratio c or Wald d) p Poor people need the wildlife in the park for meat. Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1.1 (1) 51.1 (47) 3.3 (3) 38 (35) 6.5 (6) 2.2 (2) 43.3 (39) 4.4 (4) 41.1 (37) 8.9 (8) 1 0.652 (Wald) 0.42 Wild animals are not very valuable because they do not bring money to Uganda. a Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 23.4 (22) 68.1 (64) 1.1 (2) 5.3 (5) 1.1 (1) 21.3 (19) 71.9 (64) 0 (0) 6.7 (6) 0 (0) Bakonjo -0.148 0.046 183 Marriage 0.167 <0.05 183 1 0.005 (Wald) 0.942 Relationship with Park Staff Your relationship with staff from Kibale National Park has not been good.a Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 9.6 (9) 87.2 (82) 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1) 9.8 (8) 63.4 (52) 14.6 (12) 11 (9) 1.2 (1) Distance to park 0.190 <0.05 168 Crop-raid -0.186 <0.05 175 1 6.422 (Wald) <0.05

PAGE 69

69Table 3-4. Continued Item Item responses Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficient b p n dfChi-square (Likelihood ratio c or Wald d) p *Park staff do not take time to listen to the troubles of people who live in this village. Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1.1 (1) 59.6 (56) 5.3 (5) 26.6 (25) 7.4 (7) 0 (0) 21.3 (19) 5.6 (5) 57.3 (51) 15.7 (14) Income 0.188 <0.05 181 1 25.776 (Wald) <0.001 *Park staff take local people to be wrongdoers. Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 4.3 (4) 72.3 (68) 1.1 (1) 16 (15) 6.4 (6) 0 (0) 55.6 (50) 4.4 (4) 30 (27) 10 (9) 1 9.487 (Wald) <0.01 Support for Kibale National Park *People are poor because they live near the park. Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 0 (0) 47.9 (45) 4.3 (4) 37.2 (35) 10.6 (10) 1.1 (1) 53.8 (49) 2.2 (2) 34.1 (31) 8.8 (8) Education 0.156 <0.05 185 Evicted from park -0.175 0.018 182 4 1.369 (Likelihood ratio) 0.850

PAGE 70

70Table 3-4. Continued Item Item responses Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficient b p n dfChi-square (Likelihood ratio c or Wald d) p Management of Kibale National Park is not your responsibility but that of the government of Uganda.a Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 19.1 (18) 68.1 (64) 1.1 (1) 11.7 (11) 0 (0) 22.2 (20) 68.9 (62) 0 (0) 8.9 (8) 0 (0) Education 0.205 <0.01 184 3 0.923 (Likelihood ratio) 0.820 *The park does not provide benefits to you. a Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 20.2 (19) 73.4 (69) 0 (0) 5.3 (5) 1.1 (1) 5.6 (5) 52.8 (47) 0 (0) 38.2 (34) 3.4 (3) Education 0.155 <0.05 183 Income 0.180 <0.05 181 Crop-raiding -0.153 <0.05 182 1 34.182 (Wald) <0.001 *Your village does not benefit from tourists that come to visit the park. a Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1.1 (1) 27.2 (25) 9.8 (9) 58.7 (54) 3.3 (3) 0 (0) 20.5 (18) 5.7 (5) 71.6 (63) 2.3 (2) Income 0.269 <0.001 178 Distance to park 0.169 <0.05 173 1 0.740 (Wald) 0.390

PAGE 71

71Table 3-4. Continued Item Item responses Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficient b p n dfChi-square (Likelihood ratio c or Wald d) p *Kibale National Park should be given to Ugandans living around the park for conversion to agriculture. Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 6.4 (6) 52.1 (49) 1.1 (1) 33 (31) 7.4 (7) 7.9 (7) 53.9 (48) 3.4 (3) 28.1 (25) 6.7 (6) Education 0.302 <0.001 183 1 0.098 (Wald) 0.754 Item was used to construct eight item conservation scale.. a Question has been reverse worded for analysis. b Dichotomous sociodemographic variables were analyzed usi ng point-biserial correlation coefficient ( rpb) (Pearsons r ) ; all other variables were analyzed using Spearmans rho. c Multinominal regression analysis was used. d A proportional odds model was used.

PAGE 72

72Table 3-5. Comparison of pro-environmenta l behaviors for fishers and control group Item Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficient b p n df Waldc p How many times in the past year have you prevented bush fires in KNP?a 0 1-2 times 3 times 70.2 (66) 12.8 (12) 17 (16) 95.6 (87) 2.2 (2) 2.2 (2) Evicted from park 0.233 <0.01 182 Bakonjo -0.186 <0.05 185 1 10.79 <0.01 How many times in the past year have you reported an illegal activity in KNP? a 0 1-2 times 3 times 79.8 (75) 13.8 (13) 6.4 (6) 91.2 (83) 3.3 (3) 5.5 (5) Evicted from park 0.187 <0.05 182 Income 0.180 <0.05 184 1 0.967 0.325

PAGE 73

73Table 3-5. Continued Item Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficient b p n df Waldc p In the past year how many times have you removed wire snares from KNP? a 0 1 time(s) 88.3 (83) 11.7 (11) 98.9 (90) 1.1 (1) Evicted from park 0.198 <0.01 182 Income 0.165 <0.05 184 1 3.810 0.05 a Scale was collapsed to allow for statistical analysis. b Dichotomous socio-demographic variable s were analyzed using point-biserial correlation coefficient ( rpb) (Pearsons r ) ; all other variable s were analyzed using Spearmans rho. c Wald score indicates a proportional odds model was used (for dependent variables with mu ltiple categories) or logistic regression (for dependent varia bles with dichotomous response) was carried out in order to control for si gnificant covariates.

PAGE 74

74 Table 3-6. Comparison of illegal behaviors and opinions of behaviors for fishers and control group Item Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficienta p n df Chi-square (Pearsons or Waldb) p Some people place snares in KNP other people do not. Have you or people from your household placed snares/traps inside of KNP in the past year? 1.00 c Yes 1.1 (1) 0 (0) No 98.9 (93) 100 (91) Sometimes you have to place snar es/traps in your fields to prevent animals from raiding your crops? 1 0.134 (Pearsons) 0.714 Yes 5.3 (5) 6.6 (6) No 94.7 (89) 93.4 (85) Since animals from the park raid crops, it is your right to go to the park to hunt animals. Yes 1.1 (1) 0 Marriage -0.147 <0.05 1 0.006 (Wald) 0.937 No 98.9 (93) 100 (90) 184 Firewood is scarce and the park has a lot of wood therefore there is no problem if you go and take some firewood from inside the park. 1 11.082 (Pearsons) <0.01 Yes 22.8 (21) 5.6 (5) No 77.2 (71) 94.4 (85) Meat is scarce and sometimes you have to hunt inside of KNP to find it. 0.5 c Yes 2.1 (2) 0 No 97.9 (92) 100 (91)

PAGE 75

75Table 3-6. Continued Item Fishers % (n) Control group % (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficienta p n df Chi-square (Pearsons or Waldb) p Water is plentiful in the park therefore you sometimes go to the park to collect it. Marriage -0.173 1 5.253 (Wald) <0.05 Yes 17.4 (16) 4.4 (4) <0.05 No 82.6 (76) 95.6 (87) 183 aFor correlations between dichotomous variable s tables Phi was used to test for stre ngth of association. For continuous/interva l sociodemographic variables Pearsons r was used for analysis. b Logistic regression was used to c ontrol for significant covariates. cA Fishers exact test was used.

PAGE 76

76Table 3-7. Comparison for individual know ledge of local environmental laws Knowledge statements True or False Fishers % correct (n) Control group % correct (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficient a p n df Chi-square (Pearsons or Wald) p People are permitted to hunt all wild animals in the protected area. False 100 (94) 100 (91) N/Ab Grazing of animals is not allowed inside the protected area. True 86.2 (81) 94.5 (86) 1 3.658 (Pearsons) 0.06 Anybody is allowed to live inside of the protected area. False 97.9 (92) 98.9 (90) 1.0 c Placing snares inside the protected area is prohibited. True 88.3 (83) 95.6 (87) 1 3.313 (Pearsons) 0.07 A person needs to get permission before he or she can collect resources inside the protected area. True 94.7 (89) 86.8 (79) Bakonjo -0.191 <0.01 185 Income 0.171 <0.05 184 1 0.63 (Wald) 0.427d Placing snares in your fields is permitted by park staff if an animal has been raiding your crops. False 93.6 (88) 96.7 (88) 0.5 c People are allowed to make charcoal inside Kibale National Park. False 100 (94) 100 (91) N/Ab

PAGE 77

77Table 3-7. Continued Knowledge statements True or False Fishers % correct (n) Control group % correct (n) Significant covariates Correlation coefficient a p n df Chi-square (Pearsons or Wald) p Only foreigners are permitted to visit Kibale National Park. Ugandans are not. False 88.3 (83) 83.5 (76) CropRaiding -0.185 <0.05 183 Distance to park 0.195 <0.01 178 1 0.040 (Wald) 0.842e a For correlations between dichotomous variables tables Phi was used to test for st rength of association and Spearmans rho was u sed with continuous level so cio-demographic variables. b N/A=Not applicable. No statistic is calc ulated because the item is a constant. c A Fishers exact test was used. d Logistic regression was used to control for covariates. e Final logistic regression model included Bakonjo tribe variable as well as covariates noted.

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 4 ESTIMATING ILLEGAL RESOURCE USE AT A UGANDAN PARK Introduction Illegal resource use threatens conservation in national parks in the developing world (Skonhoft & Solstad 1996; Albers & Grinspoon 1997; Bruner et al 2001), yet determining the extent of illegal resource use is challenging (Leader-Williams et al. 1990). Natural scientists have used a variety of techniques to estimate illegal resource use incl uding measurement of stocks over time (e.g., via aerial surveys, camera trapping, ground transects), counting the number of known-violators and calculating patrol effort, and signs of illegal activity (e.g., poachers, camps, fresh carcasses and direct and cl andestine observation) (Leader-Williams et al. 1989; Lewynsky 1986; Smith et al. 1989; Smith & Sme ltzer 1991). In fisheries, illegal catch has been estimated by observer programs, comparison of reported landings with market sales, and review of logbooks coupled with in terviews (Pitcher et al. 2002). Social scientists have used different methods to estimate levels of ille gal resource use, relying on economic modeling, ethnology, decision tree analyses, fo cus groups, market studies, and self-reporting (Damania et al. 2003). Resource managers may rely on key informants for information regarding illegal resource activity. The effectiveness of these techniques for quantifying illegal res ource use is limited by methodological constraints. Often the techniqu es do not account for the number of people violating the law and therefore have limited policy implications. There may be one person in particular, an outside group of individuals, or a vast majori ty of a communitys population collecting resources illegall y. Additionally, these technique s can be time-consuming and financially burdensome, especially in developi ng countries where resour ces are stretched thin over large geographical areas.

PAGE 79

79 From a programmatic perspective it is esse ntial to accurately qu antify the number of people illegally using resources wi thin a protected area. Todays resource managers have many different options (e.g., increased regulation, community-based progr ams, integrated conservation and development strategies) to address illega l resource use. By understanding who illegal resource users are (e.g., young male s, low income earners) and how many of them exist (e.g., a small proportion of a community or a majority) re source managers can use such data to guide programmatic decisions, thereby increasing the likelihood that conserva tion goals will be achieved. People violating the law often do not wish to identify themselves for fear of retribution. Asking a person directly if he or she has viol ated the law may not pr oduce a true response. Surveys have been used to determ ine illegal resource use, but sin ce this is a sensitive topic the results of direct questioning are suspect. Issues likely to be sensitive or embarrassing tend to be underreported in surveys (Locander et al. 1976; Fowler & Mangione 1990; Azfar & Murrell 2005). Sensitive issues are ones that seem threatening in some way to those being studied (Renzetti & Lee 1993, p. 4). There is a cost (eithe r real or perceived) associated to those participating in the study. This cost goes beyond time and possibly money. There are psychological costs, such as shame or embarra ssment, and possible unwelcome consequences (Renzetti & Lee 1993). Mistrust and concealment on the part of the respondent may be the result of possible sanctions upon revelation of ha ving committed a sensitive behavior. This can negatively impact data collection, decreasing the accuracy of information and producing questionable results.

PAGE 80

80 An alternative method for studying sensitiv e behaviors is the randomized response technique (RRT) (Warner 1965). To date, no studies have used RRT to examine rates of illegal resource use in the developing world, where rural populations may be illiterate, biodiversity levels high, and staff and funds limited for conservation research and programming. The challenge is to develop a method that can be applied at little cost in communities of diverse ethnicities or illiterate populati ons. This paper presents the results of the first ad aptation of RRT to meet this critical conservation challenge. Randomized Response Technique The randomized response technique increases the respondents propensity to respond, as well as the inclination to respond more accurately than direct questioning (Umesh & Peterson 1991). Warner (1965) designed an in itial RRT using two questions th at were related (e.g., I am a member of a secret society. and I am not a member of a secret society.) to evaluate the proportion of people that engage in the sensi tive behavior. The res pondent rolls a die and depending on the outcome of the roll answers one of the questions. The re spondent is instructed to answer the sensitive question if, for example, numbers 1 through 3 are the outcome of the die roll. Otherwise, the non-sensitiv e question is answered. The admi nistrator of RRT does not know which question the respondent answers, as the ad ministrator does not witness the die roll, but the proportion of answers to the sensitive question ca n be determined by the probability of getting the die numbers that correspond with the sensi tive question. Therefore, there is no way of knowing the answer an individual provides, but th e proportion of sensitive questions the entire sample answers can be estimated. In essence th e technique is useful in developing aggregate estimates of illegal behavior. Modifications of RRT have been used to resear ch a variety of sensit ive behaviors such as voting practices, abortions, tax evasion, and drug use (Wright 1980; Umesh & Peterson 1991;

PAGE 81

81 Schill & Kline 1995; Houston & Tran 2001). Some studies have used RRT in relation to exploitation of natural resources (Chaloupka 198 5; Schill & Kline 1995; Wright, 1980), yet none have been carried out in the developing world to examine illegal resource use in parks. Applying RRT to illegal use of natural resource s in developing countries is challenging. The RRT has been used in a number of health st udies in developing countri es with illiterate or semiliterate populations. A study in Turkey found education level to be the most significant correlate with successfully using the RRT method to estimate rates of induced abortions (Tezcan & Omran 1981). Only one-half of the illiterate women surveyed were able to successfully respond to the RRT method. Efforts to survey women regarding induced abortion using RRT with illiterate populations in Taiwan report similar fi ndings (I-Cheng et al. 1972). This study makes some unique adaptations to the RRT method to exam ine illegal resource use in a developing country for a population th at is partially illite rate. I surveyed two communities around Kibale National Park in we stern Uganda. Kibale National Park has widespread problems with poaching of natura l resources (Mugume 2000; Koojo 2001; Mugisha & Jacobson 2004; Chapman et al. 2005). Despit e the evidence, in a separate study I* conducted in other communities around Kibale National Pa rk when directly questioned only 2 of 452 respondents admitted to illegally plac ing snares to trap animals inside of the park during the past year. I examine the effectiveness of using the RRT technique to assist park management in assessing the extent of illegal resource use at Kibale National Pa rk. I test the hypothesis that if This chapter is reproduced from Solomon, J ., S. K. Jacobson, K. Wald, and M. Gavin. 2007. Estimating Illegal Resource Use at a Ugandan Park with the Randomized Response Technique. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 12(2):75-88. Only one change has been made for the purpose of this dissertation; the word w e has been changed to I.

PAGE 82

82 respondents find it undesirable to admit to illegal res ource use, then estimates of illegal resource use when measured by RRT will be higher than when measured by direct questioning. Methods Study Site Two communities on different sides of the park, Bitanga and Kiwamba1 were selected with marked differences in their residence time and land tenure in order to understand results in response to possible community ef fects. Established in 1986, Bitanga lies on the southwestern border of the park. The approximately 170 house holds derive much of their income from agriculture. The park land running adjacent to the community is primarily composed of grasslands and young secondary forest. Many (75%) of the survey responde nts in Bitanga have resided there for less than 10 years, and 97% re ported living on public land. Over a 2.5-year period (January 2001-June 2003) Uganda Wildlife Authority cautioned, prosecuted or fined a total of 86 individuals for illegally collecting resources inside KNP; 27% resided in Bitanga. Kiwamba, established in 1960, is composed of approximately 120 households and borders the parks eastern side. The park land adjacent to the community is comprised primarily of old growth forest. Seventy-three per cent of Kiwambas respondents indi cated that they had lived in the community for over 21 years. The majority of Kiwambas respondents had purchased the land they lived on (56%) or held customary tenure (37%), inheriting the land from family members. Only 2 % of park vi olators arrested or cautioned by the Uganda Wildlife Authority for illegal activities over the 2.5 year period noted above resided in this community. 1 Names of communities have been changed because illicit behavior was disclosed and the majority of household heads in each co mmunity participated in the survey.

PAGE 83

83 Data Collection Prior to conducting household interviews, local council lead ers granted permission to conduct the study. The survey was delivered in one of three local languages: Rutoro, Rukiga or Rukonjo, by three male assistants tr ained in the survey technique and fluent in these languages. Based on a sketch of each community, each survey administrator went door to door, requesting to speak with the head of the household in their designated area. Survey administrators greeted the house hold head and then read an informed consent which explained that the survey was being undertaken by a student who was studying natural resource management. If the household head was not availabl e, the administrator asked for an appropriate hour to return when the household head w ould be available. If nobody was home, the administrator would return at least thr ee times to contact the household head. The survey was administered to a total of 251 heads of households between April and May of 2004 in Bitanga and Kiwamba. The goal was to survey all household heads in both Bitanga (N = 170) and Kiwamba (N = 120). Eighty-nine percent ( n = 151) of household heads in Bitanga completed the survey and 83% of Kiwambas househ old heads were surveyed ( n = 100). The cooperation rate was 100% for those contacted. Responses to the survey were directly translat ed into English at th e time of the interview by the survey administrator. The average time to complete the survey was 87 minutes. Survey administrators did not ask for names of people th at they interacted wi th while administering surveys. Survey Instrument A method known as translation/b ack-translation was used to increase the reliability of the translated survey instrument (Behling & La w 2000). First, a bilingual individual translated the source language (English) surv ey into the target language. Second, the draft target language

PAGE 84

84 survey was translated back into the source language by a second bilingual person who was unfamiliar with the wording of the original sour ce language document. Then the back-translated document was compared with the original. Finall y, if considerable differences existed between the two documents a draft with adjustments was made to eliminate the differences (Behling & Law 2000). The face-to-face survey was composed of five sections: socio-demographic and economic data; attitudes toward park staff, the park and consumption of park resources; perceived benefits and costs associated with the park; and questi ons regarding local environmental law. In the section on resource collection whic h is discussed here, responde nts were asked about illegal collection of the six most common illegally extr acted natural resources from the park based on Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) records. Appr oximately half of the survey respondents randomly received the randomized response questi ons first, followed by direct questioning; while the other half received the direct ques tion and then the randomized response question. I analyzed only the first set of questions that respondents answer ed to avoid response order bias. I used the paired-alternative RRT format, also known as the two unrelated questions technique (Fox & Tracy 1986). My RRT methodology evolved with pilot tests of several techniques such as using handdrawn pictures of people engagi ng in illegal activities, to maximize the effectiveness of the method with il literate respondents. Res pondents indicated that photographs were easier to interpret than dr awings, so models (volunteers from a local community) were photographed engaging in 6 illeg al behaviors (collecting firewood, poles, and timber, grazing animals, making charcoal, hunting an imals). I used black and white photos that showed little detail, but rather depicted the behavior at a glance. All photos were placed in the same size and color cardboard envelope and we re replaced if they showed signs of wear.

PAGE 85

85 I pilot tested several objects to use for the non-sensitive question. In this case, I needed to use something that could be easily recognized so that the respondent would know what it represented, but not overtly s uggestive of other things. Phot ographs of playing cards had gambling implications for respondents and a phot o of a Ugandan five-cent coin which has a picture of a fish suggested illegal fishing. I selected a U.S. penny because respondents did not find it suggestive of anything. The following is th e RRT survey disclosure (see Table 4-1 for brief explanation of RRT steps) that was read to each respondent prior to their participation in the RRT portion of the survey: I have a few more questions for you. First, I need you to flip this coin. Let me show you what you are going to do. You flip the coin like this. (Survey administrator flips coin.) And then look at what it lands on. There are two choices, it may land showing you a head, or it may land showing you a building. Dont tell me what it lands on. You just need to remember what it lands on, but dont tell me what it landed on. It is your secret. Next, I am going to show you two pictur es. One is of a coin with a head on it, similar to the one you may see on the coin. On another is a picture depicting an activity you may have done inside Kibale National Park without permission since the year 2000 began (collecting firewood, charcoal, grazing animals, hunting animals, collecting timber, poles). I am going to put both of these pictures in envelopes and place the envelopes in the bag. You will choose one of the envelopes. It is random. I dont k now which one you will choose. Open up the envelope and look at the picture. Dont tell me which one you are looking at. If you are looking at the head, tell me yes if you saw a head

PAGE 86

86 when you flipped the coin. If you saw a build ing [back of coin], then tell me no. If you are looking at the picture, te ll me yes, if you have ever gone to the park since 2000 to do the particular activity without permission2 depicted in the picture. If you have not gone to the park to do it, tell me no. Please be honest with me, as I have no way of knowing wh ich picture you are looking at. Following this description the survey administrator demonstrated a sample RRT question with the respondent. If there we re any questions, the survey ad ministrator would answer them. Prior to starting the RRT questions, the survey admi nistrator gave the large, black plastic bag to the respondent. Each respondent was asked to ma ke sure nothing was in the bag. Before placing the photos in the bag, the survey administrator would explain what each photo depicted (e.g., the photo of the snare depicted hunting in the park since the year 2000, the ph oto of the person with the bag of charcoal depicted making charcoal in the park since the year 2000). After respondents answered yes or no they were instructed to place the photo they chose back in the bag, shake it and return the bag to the survey administrator. This ensured th at when the administrator went to replace a photo there would be no way of knowing what photo the respondent had chosen since both photos would be in the bag. Direct questioning of respondents asked, Since 2000 began have you done any of the following activities in the park without permission: collect firewood?; hunt animals?; make charcoal?; collect timber?; gra ze animals?; or collect poles? 2 The phrase without permission was included b ecause in certain circumstances respondents may have received permission from local authorities to extract resources or they may have paid a bribe to local rangers to extrac t resources, possibly believing that this then made the extraction legally permissible. The purpose of the study is to examine the effectiveness of RRT in estimating illegal resource extraction and therefore it was our intent to clarify that we were not referring to cases where it was legal or responde nts believed it legal to extract resources.

PAGE 87

87 Data Analysis I used the following formula (Fox & Tracy, 1986) to estimate the proportion of the surveyed population that performed the illegal collection of each resource: Xx = ( [ (1p) y ] / p ) with a variance of Var(Xx)= (1)/np2 y = known proportion of the non-sensitive behavior = observed proportion of yes responses p = probability of answering the sensitive behavior question n = sample size The probability that a respondent answers Y es to the innocuous question (Did you see a head when you flipped the coin?) is 0.5, while th e probability of picking the photo with a picture of the coin head is 0.5. Therefore, the probability of a respondent answering Yes in response to the innocuous question is 0.5 0.5 = 0.25. The limit to the answer of Yes que stions is therefore 0.25 N where N is the number of respondents. The remainder of Yes answers are in response to the question regarding the ille gal activity. Since the probability of a res pondent answering the innocuous question is 0.5 assuming an equal chan ce of picking either photo from the bag, the number obtained is doubled to provide an esti mate of the number of respondents who would answer Yes to the question re garding the illegal activity. A de sign tree illustrating the method is depicted in Figure 4-1. Results Approximately 29% of respondents had no formal education, while 59% had at least some primary education, 10% had some level of secondary education and 2% had some college/technical education. Females composed 12 % of the respondent pool. The response rate

PAGE 88

88 was 100%. One survey was omitted because the elde rly respondent was unabl e to see the picture on the coin used in the RRT portion of the survey and therefore could not answer any of the RRT questions. The combined results from the two communities revealed that estimates of illegal resource use when measured via RRT are si gnificantly higher (binomial tests p < 0.001) than when measured by direct questioning fo r all resources (Table 4-2). Separating the data between the two communitie s results in larger estimates of illegal resource use when measured using RRT than with direct questioning in all resource categories in both communities, except for illegal grazing by the community of Kiwamba (Table 4-3). Discussion The RRT was a viable method of estimating i llegal resource use around Kibale National Park. This study demonstrates that RRT provides a much higher estimate for illegal activities (firewood collection, hunting, charcoal producti on, timber collection, grazing of animals, pole collection) than direct questioning in almost a ll cases, which supports other evidence of common illegal resource use. In only one case concerning il legal grazing by Kiwambans did RRT result in a smaller estimate than direct questioning. Kiwamba reside nts tended to report mo re illegal behaviors during direct questioning than Bitanga residents. Over a two and half year period for which I have sanctioning data from Uga nda Wildlife Authority, more peopl e were arrested in Bitanga ( n = 23) than in Kiwamba ( n = 2). Kiwambans may not be so fearfu l of admitting to illegal behavior since so few are sanctioned for it. Because Kiwa mba residents have more secure and longer land tenure, they may feel more comfortable in reve aling their activities wh en directly questioned. Since most of Bitangas residents at the time of the survey were in a tenuous posit ion in terms of land tenure they may be less trusting of newcomer s asking them about thei r illegal resource use,

PAGE 89

89 possibly believing that they would be removed from the land. These differences underscore the need to examine results by community and not n ecessarily by combining community-level data. Communities surrounding parks are heterogeneous, and park policy needs to reflect the varying use patterns surrounding parks and to target subs ets of users to create effective programs. Application of RRT in the Developing World Many potential applications of RRT exist for both researchers and conservation practitioners concerned with na tural resource management, es pecially those in developing countries. By using visual cues, my RRT model elim inates the need to use words or numbers in a survey therefore it is especially valuable in the developing world, wh ere populations living around protected areas often have low literacy ra tes and reside in ru ral areas with limited educational opportunities a nd high poverty levels. Randomized response technique can estimate th e number of people i nvolved in illegal resource extraction and therefore can be used in concert with biologi cal surveys (e.g., rapid assessment programs) to more fully understand the dynamics of resource use around protected areas (Parker & Carr 1992). In the developi ng world RRT could be incorporated into participatory rural appraisal programs to better comprehend the resource use of local communities (Chambers 1994). Randomized response technique could be used to both set conservation action priorities and evaluate th e effectiveness of conservation programs. For example, RRT can be used as a means of im proving threat reduction analysis (Salafsky & Margoulis 1999; Mugisha & Jacobson 2004) by allo wing practitioners to quantify the level of threat posed by illegal activities, particularly if the method can be developed to quantify the amount of resources being used. Randomized res ponse technique also could be more broadly applied to test the effectiveness of different conservation strategies, ranging from community-

PAGE 90

90 based projects aimed at improvi ng livelihoods to increased enfor cement measures for deterring illegal resource extraction. Other Potential Applications The application of RRT is not limited to examining illegal re source extraction. Any behavior or attitude th at may be undesirable to reveal is a prime candidate for RRT research. In the developing world, where some researchers work in cultures not simila r to their own, getting people to reveal undesirable attitudes and behavi ors can be a daunting ta sk. Many examples exist where RRT would be an excellent tool for use in human dimensions surv ey research. Examples include: research regarding hu man-wildlife disease transmission which may inquire about peoples hygienic habits in areas where human settlements abut protected areas (e.g., the outbreak and potential crossover of scabies from humans to enda ngered mountain gorilla populations); research by conserva tion agencies regarding their own polices or practices where it may not be culturally acceptable for a respondent to be critical; research regarding attitudes toward a governments policies where it may be perceived by respondents to be risky to provide disparaging answers. Constraints to Using RRT Comparisons of the randomized response met hod to direct questioni ng do not always find that RRT has increased the number of people disclosing a sensitive item (Buchanan & Tracy 1982; Umesh & Peterson 1991). Results of a meta-analysis of 32 comparative studies found that RRT yields more positive results as the sensitivity of the study topic increases (Lensvelt-Mulders et al. 2005). When using direct questioning to investigate sensitive issues researchers primary concern is a true response. When a researcher decides to use RRT to estimate sensitive issues, a host of potential constraints arise (Buchanan & Tracy 1982; Fox & Tracy 1986; Umesh & Peterson

PAGE 91

91 1991; Berrens et al. 1997). Table 4-4 outlines the major concerns generated by RRT as well as ways my study minimized limitations, such as mechanical errors, respondent recall, and statistical noise. The process of carrying out an RRT design can be confusing; hence mechanical error becomes a major concern. I addressed this limitation by thoroughly piloting and providing a simple explanation of the RRT process that was delivered to the respondent. Survey administrators also were well-trained in the pro cess. Each administrator gave a RRT example to the respondent prior to delivering the actual RRT items in an effort to minimize mechanical errors as well as reduce the chance that the respon dent feels a trick is i nherent in the process. Additionally, I used a fairly easy RRT process. A RRT study carried out with women in Turkey found that the ease of using the de vice as well as understanding it was associated with education level. Illiterate women had the most difficulty using and understanding the randomizing device used in the study (Tezcan & Omran 1981). Adapting the device to suit ed ucational levels of respondents is advisable and ther efore I adapted the RRT process to be suitable for respondents that had little formal education. Statistical noise is an inherent part of RRT, but it can be adjusted according to the priorities of the research (Fox & Tracy 1986). In essence a trade-off exists between allowing for the respondent to feel confident that their response is confidential and an acceptable variance. The probability of answering the sensitive question impacts the variance. A small p value (the probability of answering the sens itive question) affords the res pondents greater protection since they have less chance of selecting the sensitive question. But a small p value also means that the sampling variance will increase. Therefore a bala nce needs to be attained when designing the research so that the probability of receivi ng the sensitive question is comfortable for the

PAGE 92

92 respondent and the variance is not so great as to swamp any possibl e results. When dealing with extremely sensitive issues it might be preferable to choose a smaller p value as to increase cooperation (Fox & Tracy 1986). Populations that are not familiar with probability theory are especially at risk to fear trickery and theref ore a randomizing device that permits the respondent to clearly comprehend the process is e ssential. For this reason I chose a p value of 0.50. Randomized response technique items usually ask for the respondent to recall a certain event, therefore recall bias is another major concern for the design of an RRT item. Although such events, especially when th ey are illegal, may seem memo ry-worthy, research shows that certain events come to mind more easily than ot hers. For example, a study in Taiwan found that women were able to recall more readily complic ated abortions that might have resulted in hospitalization than abortions th at were without complications (Barreto et al. 1992). In their extensive report on self-reporting crime, Junger-T as and Marshall (1999, p. 51) note the use of anchor points to provide a reference point to a respondent. In this study, I used the year 2000 as an anchor point since the turn of the mille nnium was a noteworthy event in rural communities in Uganda, as it was for much of the world. Future Considerations This study demonstrates that RRT holds promis e in providing more accurate estimates of illegal resource use by rural populati ons residing near protected areas. It also affirms the need for further application of innovative RRT methodology in the field of natural resource management, such as an adaptation in the future to estimat e quantities of illegal resources extracted from protected areas. Resource managers in developi ng countries are often short on time and funding and therefore development of a simple a nd fast methodology using RRT can be a vital conservation tool.

PAGE 93

93 Table 4-1. Brief explanation of steps carri ed out during randomized response technique questioning Step Actions 1 Respondent flips penny Notes side it lands on without disclosing it to interviewer 2 Interviewer places 2 photos into a bag; one photo depicts the illegal behavior, the other photo is a pi cture of the head side of the coin 3 Respondent randomly selects one photo from the bag 4 Respondent answers yes or no in response to the question depicted by the chosen photograph without disc losing which photograph was picked Table 4-2. Comparison of two methods to quantify illegal resource use in Kibale National Park, Uganda Resource Estimated proportion from randomized response technique (RRT)a (n=132) Variance of RRT estimate Proportion from direct questioning b (n=119) Statistical significance of difference between proportions Charcoal 0.516 0.008 0.025 p <0.001 Hunting 0.394 0.007 0.017 p <0.001 Poles 0.622 0.007 0.403 p <0.001 Timber 0.258 0.007 0.042 p <0.001 Firewood 0.682 0.007 0.37 p <0.001 Grazing 0.288 0.007 0.135 p <0.001 a Proportion x 100 =estimated % of surveyed popul ation illegally extracting resource from protected area. b Proportion x 100 = % of surveyed populatio n illegally extracting resource from protected area

PAGE 94

94 Table 4-3. Effectiveness of two methods to quantify illegal resource use in two commun ities near Kibale National Park, Uganda Bitanga Kiwamba Resource Estimated proportion from randomized response technique (RRT) a (n=78) Variance of RRT estimate Proportion from direct questioningb (n=73) Statistical significance of difference between proportions Estimated proportion from randomized response techniquea (n= 54) Variance of RRT estimate Proportion from direct questioningb (n=46) Statistical significance of difference between proportions Charcoal 0.576 0.013 0.027 <0.001 0.426 0.018 0.022 <0.001 Hunting 0.474 0.013 0 <0.001 0.278 0.018 0.043 <0.001 Poles 0.448 0.013 0.274 <0.01 0.870 0.016 0.609 <0.001 Timber 0.192 0.012 0.014 <0.001 0.352 0.018 0.087 <0.001 Firewood 0.526 0.013 0.219 <0.001 0.908 0.015 0.609 <0.001 Grazing 0.32 0.012 0.055 <0.001 0.24 0.017 0.261 N.S.c a Proportion x 100 =estimated % of surveyed population il legally extracting resource from protected area.. b Proportion x 100 = % of surveyed population illegally extracti ng resource from protected area. cN.S. Nonsignificant

PAGE 95

95 Table 4-4. Major concerns when using randomi zed response technique and ways to minimize concerns in this study Major Concerns How I Minimized Concerns Mechanical Error/Game-like (I-Cheng 1972) -Simplified explanation of RRT process -Trained survey administrators thoroughly in the RRT process -Began RRT section with ex ample, where respondent administered a RRT question to the survey administrator -Chose locally relevant and easily understandable RRT devices (coin, photos) Belief of Trickery (I-Cheng 1972) -Asked respondents in piloting phase if they suspected trickery and modified RRT process accordingly -Provided example of RRT with roles of survey administrator and respondent reversed -Used 50% probability for rece iving sensitive question to increase respondent cooperation -Provided multiple verbal assurances of anonymity Statistical Noise (Fox & Tracy 1986) Chose highest probability of selecting sensitive question possible to ensure less variance Selected large sample size Recall Bias (Junger-Tas & Marshall 1999) Used prominent locally-known hist orical event (the start of the new millennium) as anchor point to aid respondents in recalling time frame

PAGE 96

96 Stage 1: Flip Coin Stage 2: Sensitive Question Figure 4-1. Decision tree (a dapted from Chaloupka 1985) P1=0.50 P2=0.50 Heads Tails Sensitive Question Photo of Coin Head P1=0.50 P 2 =0.50 Yes N o 1Yes N o y =0.25 y= 0.25

PAGE 97

97 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Conclusion for Collaborative Resource Management Study This study reports results from the CRM fish ing program at Lake Kabaleka in Kibale National Park (KNP), Uganda. Beginning in 2000, the collaborative resource management (CRM) program allowed individuals to legally fi sh at Kayanja landing site. Approximately 70% of fishers income was derived from fishing act ivities alone. Fishers reported higher incomes than their control group, although when adjusting for confounding variables income was found to be significantly different between fishers and th e control group for one tribal group. Fishers were also more supportive of cons ervation in general. Fishers re ported a better re lationship with park staff than the control group, although no di fference was found between the two groups for individual items regarding support of the park an d resource conservation. While some fishers are actively protecting the park by preventing bush fires, rem oving wire snares/traps, they also may be extracting resources illegally. CRM increased pressure on the fishery with approximately 50% of fishers only starting to fish in the lake after implementation of the CRM program. Implications of Collaborative Resource Management Findings for Conservation While CRM may be a viable tool to positivel y impact park relations, increase support for conservation and raise incomes, CRM can also in crease pressure on protected resources. This result reinforces the need to examine unint ended consequences of conservation-related programming both prior to implementation as well as throughout the projec ts lifespan. Viewing CRM programs as experiments in progress rather than established programs is a necessity and for this reason an adaptive management approach is critical.

PAGE 98

98 Although previous studies have noted that ICDPs may encourage in-migration to the project location (McShane and Newby 2004), little research has focused on changing livelihood strategies or the impact those changes have on individuals, communities and resources. In this study, over 50% of fishers were ne w to fishing activities and fish ing became their major source of income. The program did not supplement income, but rather completely redefined livelihoods. This impact of the program has inhe rent dangers, both for the people involved in the program, as well as the resource base. Exogenous and stochastic events can influence both the needs of people as well as resource availability. Income diversification should be ensured as an essential component of both conser vation and development programming. Recommendations to Uganda Wildlife Authority Uganda Wildlife Authoritys CRM program at La ke Kabaleka in Kibale National Park is meeting its objectives but some worrisome trends need to be addressed. With fishers heavily reliant on fishing activities for income, eviden ce of illegal resource extraction, and program induced shifts in livelihood strategies there is greater pressure on the re source than originally intended. To address these concerns, I recommend: Ecological studies: At the time of the research UWA had not determined sustainable harvest rates for the fishery. Ecological studi es of the fishery should be carried out to scientifically inform management decisions. Through KNPs institutional ties with Makerere University, applied research on the fishery and the area surroundi ng it, should be encouraged. Fishers involvement in the research process could increase support for sustainable harvest estimates. Additionally, such in stitutional ties can be used to encourage a comprehensive study to understand resource extraction within the pa rk. The reasonable person model (Kaplan 2000) underscores the need to understand peoples life ci rcumstances. Such data are needed to determine what resources are being used by whom and for what purposes.

PAGE 99

99 Institute a seasonal moratorium: Fishers need to diversify thei r income base to provide a safety net for their livelihoods. To ensure divers ification and limit reliance of individuals on the fishery, it may be helpful for UWA to in stitute a seasonal moratorium on fishing. Increase monitoring and evaluation: Although greater oversigh t of the CRM program may be required, it is understandab ly difficult as the number of rangers available for such a task is limited. In light of the limited capacity to monitor the fishery, pa rticipatory adaptive management should be instituted. The results of the fishers record keeping should be returned to them by the KNP Research Warden in a culturally appropriate format on a regular basis. Additionally, educational seminars should be prov ided to fishers so they can understand the dynamics of the fishery and the need for biol ogical information. UWA should tap into the expertise of both national and foreign resear chers who study in and around KNP for such educational endeavors. Transparent monitori ng and evaluation activit ies, in addition to education, may create a vested inte rest in creation of a sustainabl e fishery and lessen the risk of its collapse. Since Uganda Wildlife Authority is managi ng a conservation project that includes a development component, the program needs to ensu re the ecological value of the area is not sacrificed for the socio-economic and attitudina l gains of the CRM fish ing program. If UWA can ensure that ecological integrity is main tained through proper monitoring and evaluation, more CRM programs may be valuable in crea ting more positive relations between local residents, and more support for conservation. Conclusion for Randomized Response Technique Study During the course of the CRM study, very few survey respondents admitted to illegal resource use, despite the fact that it has been reported as one of the largest threats to KNP (Mugisha 2002). As a result of this difficulty, I evaluated the effectiveness of the randomized

PAGE 100

100 response technique (RRT) in quantitatively estimating illegal resource use around KNP. Estimates of six types of illegal resource use when measured by RRT were significantly higher than when measured by direct questioning. Randomized Response Technique as a Methodological Tool in Conservation Poaching is considered one of the greatest th reats to protected areas in Africa (Kaltenborn et al. 2005). Changing peoples behavior requires a comprehe nsive understanding of the people that are participating in such acts (Kaplan 2000). It is very challenging to persuade people to admit to illegal resource use. The RRT addr esses this challenge by ensuring anonymity to respondents, encouraging them to provide truthful responses. Many potential applications of RRT exist for both researchers and conservation practitioners concerned with na tural resource management, es pecially those in developing countries. By using visual cues, the RRT model presented in this study eliminates the need to use words or numbers in a survey. Therefore it is es pecially valuable in th e developing world, where populations living around protected ar eas often have low literacy ra tes and reside in rural areas with limited educational opportunitie s and high poverty levels. Th e RRT developed in this study is not limited to research regard ing illegal resource extraction. Any behavior or attitude that may be socially undesirable is well-suited for this RRT method.

PAGE 101

101 APPENDIX A ENGLISH/RUKIGA LANGUAGE VERSIO N OF COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SURVEY 1. Interviewers Code (Enamba yowakubuza) 2. Respondent ID number ( (Akamayiso koorabuzibwa ) ) 3. Date (Ebiro byokwezi) 4. Start time (Eshaaha yokutandika): 5. Language Used( Orurimi wagamba): 6. Village Name (Eizina ryekyaro) 7. Distance to Park Boundary (Ni mairo zingahe okurugaha kuhika ahi park eratangirira) (km) 8. Parish Name (Eizina ryomuruka): 9. Registered resource user y/n 9A. Resource Knowledge of Park-Related Laws and Programs Please answer the following questions to the be st of your knowledge. I just want to know what you think. Do not worry if you do not know an answer to a question. If you do not know, just tell me. (Ndakushaba kugarukamu ebibuzo eb i kubigarukamu okusigyikirira ha magezi gawe nkoku orabimanya. Ndenda kumanya kusha nkoku or atekateka. Otakafayo kuorabe otaramanya ekyokugarukamu. Omukyinakubuza. Kandi ku orabe otaramamya ongambire.) 10. Is there a protected area owned by the government nearby? (hariho omwanya ogurinzirwe ogu govumenti erareberera aha mpaha?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya)

PAGE 102

102 11A. If yes (Yego): 11B. If no or dont know (Ingaha ninga tinkamanya): What is the name of the protected area closest to your house? (eizina rya park eyeri haihi nenju yawe niriha?) Name provided (Eizina eriyagamba): Dont know (Tinkamanya):_______ ____ Do you know of Kibale National Park (nomanya park ya Kibale)? Yes (Yego):__________ No (Ingaha):___________ Dont know (Tinkamanya):______ Proceed to true/false questions Please answer the following statements with yes, no or dont know. (Ndakushaba kungarukamu mubibuzo ebi nay ego namazima. Ingaha nebishuba nainga na tinkamanya, okusigyikyira nkoku orabe wahurira.) 12. People are permitted to hunt all wild animals in th e protected area. (Abantu baraikyirizibwa kuhiga enyamaiswa ezo mu Park ya Kibale.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 13. Grazing of animals is not allowed insi de the protected ar ea. (Kurisa amatungo tikuraikyirizibwa omunda ya park.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 14. Anybody is allowed to live inside of the pr otected area. (Abantu baraikyirizibwa kutura mu park.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) If yes, proceed to true/false questions If no, proceed to questions on separate demographics sheet

PAGE 103

103 15. Placing snares inside the protected area is prohibited. (Okutega emitego omunda ya park barakuzibira.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 16. A person needs to get permission before he or she can collect resources inside the protected area. (Omuntu aretagyisa kutunga or usa atakagire kugira e kyobutungyi ekyiyaiha mu park.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 17. Placing snares in your fields is permitted by park staff if an animal has been raiding your crops. (Kutega emitego omuntabire ya awe kuraikirizibwa abakozi bapark kuba enyamishwa ija kwona ebyokurya byaawe.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 18. People are allowed to make charco al inside Kibale National Park. (Abantu baraikirizibwa kwosya amakar a omunda ya Kibale National Park.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 19. Only foreigners are permitted to visit Kibale National Park. Ugandans are not. (Abanyamahomga bonka nibo baraikirizibwa ku bunga omunda ya Kibale National Park. Abanya Uganda tibakabikiriza.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 20. Spearing of baboons that have raided crops is permitted with permission from park staff. (Kucumita enkobe ezirona ebyokurya ba rakwikiriza watunga orusa kuruga habakozi bomu park.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya)

PAGE 104

104 21. To whom does Kibale National Park belong ? (Eirindiro rya Ki bale mra nebererwa oho?) Now I am going to read you some statements th at people have made about the park and its lands. Please tell me whether you strongly agre e, agree, are neutral, disagree or strongly disagree. Sometimes I will also ask you to tell me the reason why you answered the way you did. There are no right or wrong answers, I am only asking you for your opinion. If you do not understand a question, please ask me to repeat it (Mbwenu naza kukushomera ebi abandi bantu baragamba ahari park na nit aaka ryayo. Ndakushaba ongambire ku orabe ori, kuhamisiriza ngu nkwe kiri kandi ninkahe ahi araikyiriza kyonka ota kahamiza kyimwe, kandi ninkahe ahi arabanganisa, na ninkahe ahi oranga, na ninkahe ahi orangira kimwe. Kandi obundi bwire mbasa kukubuza nahabwenkyi orangarukamu nkoku wanga rukamu. Tihariho answer/engarukamu, ahikyire rundi egwire. Oihire ho ninkubuza habwokutekateka kwawe. Ku orabe otayetegyereza ekibuzo ndakushaba ongambire nkigarukemu.) Park Staff 22. Your relationship with staff from Kibale National Park has been good. (Enkolengane yawe na abakozi ba Kibale park bubaire buri burungyi.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 22a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwe nkyi orangarukamu engarukamu egyo?) 23. Park staff do not take time to listen to the tr oubles of people who liv e in this village. (Abakozi bo mu park tibakagyi ra obwire bwo kuhurikyiza ebizi bu bya abantu abaratura omuri ekyi kyaro.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 24. Park staff take local people to be wrongdoers (Abakozi ba park baratwaza abantu ba burijo nka enkozi zebibi.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

PAGE 105

105 Support for Kibale National Park 25. People are poor because they live near the park. (Abantu baba abooro habwokutuura hamushikye gwa park?) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 26. Management of Kibale National Park is your responsibility as well as the government of Uganda. (Okureberera park ya Kibale nobujunanizibwa we hamwe na governmenti ya Uganda.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 27. The park provides benefits to you (Park erakuretera amagoba.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 27a. If agree or strongly agree; in your opinion, what ar e those benefits? Please rank those benefits you mentioned from best benefit to lesser benefits. (Which benefits you the most?)(Ku orabe ori kwikyiriza/ kwikyiraza orahamisir iza; ni birungyi kyi, kandi.) (Obihe enamba oratandika nekyira kukyirayo oburungyi kuhika ahari ekyitaine ebirungi migasho mingyi.) Benefit (Ebirungyi) Rank (Omwanya Ogukiratwara) 28. Your village benefits from touris ts that come to visit the park. (Ekyaro kyawe kiriagira ebyomugasho ebikir atunga ababungi biija kubunga omu Kibale National Park.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe)

PAGE 106

106 28a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwekyi oragarukamu ogu muringo?) 29. Kibale National Park shoul d be given to Ugandans living around the park for conversion to agriculture. (Eirindiro rya Kibale bashemerire kurihereza abantu abanya Uganda abaritwire hamushikye ba karihindura eryo kuhingwamu.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) Support for Consumption of Resou rces in Kibale National Park 30. People should be allowed to collect any re source from the park. (Abantu bashemerire kwikyirizibwa kwiha kyoona ekyo butungyi kuruga mu park.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 30a. Why? (Habwekyi?) 31. If there were no laws regulating access to re sources, all the wildlife in the park would be killed. (Kuba hatarabireho ebiragiro eb irazibira kwiha ebyobutungyi mu park. Ebikoko byona ebyo mwihamba byo yisirwe.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 32. These days, animals that live in the park are important sources of meat for people living around the park. (Biro eb i, enyamaiswa eziratura mu pa rk nebyomugasho mu enyama. Habwabantu abatura haihi na park.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 32a. (if agree) What types of animals from the park are important sources of meat? (Ku orabe waikiriza) (Ni nyamaiswa kyi kur uga omu park ezine emigasho mu nyama.)

PAGE 107

107 33. What people need from the forest, grassl ands and lakes is more important than protecting the forest, grasslands, lakes and wild animals. (Ebya, abantu ebibarenda kuruga mu mahamba, nomunyanja bine emigasho, kukyira kur inda enyanja, eihamba nenyamaiswa zaryo.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 34. Poor people need the wildlife in the park for meat. (Abantu abooro barenda enyamishwa ezo mu park kuziryamu enyama.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 34a.Why did you answer that way? (Habwekyi oragarukamu ogu muringo?) 35. Wild animals are very valuable because they bring money to Uganda. (Enyamishwa nezo muhendo/omugasho habwokuba zirareta esete mu Uganda.) a. Strongly agree (Kwikiriza nohamiza kimye) b. Agree (Kwikyiriza) c. Neutral (Kubanganisa) d. Disagree (Kwanga) e. Strongly disagree (Kwangyirakimwe) 35 a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwekyi oragarukamu ogu muringo?) Perceived Benefits from the Park 36. If you could collect any res ource from Kibale National Park that you wanted, what would you collect? Please rank order them. (Ku wakubeire oine akyobutungyi ekyoraiha mu park ya Kibale akyorenda, woyihireyo kyi. Ndakushaba ebihe enamba okubire.) Products (Ekintu waihayo) Rank(Enamba/omwanya ogukiratwara)

PAGE 108

108 37. Lots of people use resources from Kibale National Park. Pleas e list what products you actually get from Kibale National Park in both the wet and dry seasons for your: (Abantu bingyi barakoresa ebyobutungyi kuruga omu Kibale National Park. Ndakushaba ongambire ebyobutugyi ebyoraiha mu park ya Kiba le ebyo mubwire bwen jura na nomubwire bwomusana habwe: Daily needs? (Byetagwa bya burijo?) For sale? (Ebyo kuguza?) Other needs (Ebyetagwa ebindi?) Subsistence needs (daily n eeds) (Ebyetagwa bya burijo) Type of products (Nikintukyi) Us e of products (Omugasho gwakyo) Commercial needs (for sale ) (Ebyokuguza) (ebyamaguzi) Type of products (Nikintukyi) Us e of products (Omugasho gwakyo) Other needs (Ebyetagwa ebindi) Type of products (Nikintukyi) Us e of products (Omugasho gwakyo) For each item collected: 38. Name of item Do you collect the resource every mont h of the year or seasonally? (Ebyomugasho ebyoihaga omu park, obiha yoga buli mwezi ninga buli season?)

PAGE 109

109 If collected monthly If collected seasonally 38a. If monthly, how many weeks per month do you collect the resource? (Kworabe obihayo buli mwezi orakolesa wiiki zingahe mu mwezi gumwe?) 38a. If seasonally, how many months of the year do you collect it? And 38 b. How many weeks per month do you collect it? (Kworabe obiihayo buli season,orakolesa wiiki zingahe mu mwezi gumwe?) 38b. How many trips do you make per week?(Omu wiiki emwemu orazayo emirundi ingahe?) 38c. How many trips do you make per week?(Omu wiiki emwemu orazayo emirundi ingahe?) 38c. For each of the items you collect from Kibale National Park, how many working hours do you spend on each collecting trip, including time traveling to and from the area to collect the resource? (Habwa buri kintu ekyoraiha mu park ya Kibale. Orakozesa eshaaha zingahe habwa buri murundi, otairemu obwire obwo kugyenda nokugaruka kuruga omu kicweke ahi waiha ekyobutungyi?) 38d. For each of the items you collect from Kibale National Park, how many working hours do you spend on each collecting trip, including time traveling to and from the area to collect the resource? (Habwa buri kintu ekyoraiha mu park ya Kibale. Orakozesa eshaaha zingahe habwa buri murundi, otairemu obwire obwo kugyenda nokugaruka kuruga omu kicweke ahi waiha ekyobutungyi?) 38d. What amount do you collect on each trip? (Oraihayo ebintu biringana nkahe?) 38e. What amount do you collect on each trip? ()raihayo ebintu biringana nkahe?) 38e. If you could not get the item from Kibale National Park, how much (Ugandan shillings) would you be willing to pay for the item (in order to get it)? (do not forget to include units) (Ku wakubaire otari wokwihayo ekintu mu park ya Kibale, wosaswire sente zinghe, habwekyo kintu kukitunga?) 38f. If you could not get the item from Kibale National Park, how much (Ugandan shillings) would you be willing to pay for the item (in order to get it)? (do not forget to include units) (Ku wakubaire otari wokwihayo ekintu mu park ya Kibale, wosaswire sente zinghe, habwekyo kintu kukitunga?) 39. Is permission needed to collect these resources in the park? (Oretagisha orusa kwih a ekyobutungi omu park?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 40. Does the use of these products damage the park? (Kukozesa kwebyo bintu kurasisa park?) a. Yes (Yego)

PAGE 110

110 b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 40a. If yes; which items collected damage the park and how do they damage it? (Ku erabe yego, ni kintu ki ekyoraihayo kusisa park kandi kiragisisa bata?) For registered resource users only: 41. How many shillings do you earn per month/per season from collecting __________________(rattan cane, bee products, or fish)? (Ni sente zingahe ezoratasya buri kwezi naiga buli season kuruga mu ku shoroza? (Enga/obw okyi, ebyenyanja) Sente.shillings ( note if per month, or per season ) 42. Do you consider this amount a (Notekateka ezo sente): a. Large part (Nezekicweka kihango) b. Medium part or (Nekyarwagati) c. Small part (Nekiweka kiche) Of your monthly income? (Habwe ntasya yawe eya buli kwezi?) 43. For how long have you been collecting th e resource? (Omazire bwireki orikwiha ebyobutubgi eki?) 44. Before you became a registered resource user did you collect the resource? (kare otakehandikyise kukozesa ebyobutungyi okaba orazayo kwihayo ebyobutungyi?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 44a. If yes; from where did you collect the resource? (ku erabe yego, ninkahe ahi wabaire araiha ebyobutungyi?) a. Inside of Kibale National Park (Omunda ya KNP) b. Outside of Kibale National Park (Aheru ya KNP) 45. Compared to before you started collecting the resource inside of the park, are you economically better off, worse off, or about the same? Why? (Noyenengesha ote obuwabire otaine ekyorih a omunda ya park omubyamaguzi, orikurungi munonga, kubi munonga, ninga tari ho mpiduka yoona. Habwenki?)

PAGE 111

111 Feels (Embera): Reasons (Enshonga) 1. Better-off (Kuba kurungyi kukyiraho) 1. 2. 3. 2. Worse off (Kuba kubi munonga kushembayo) 1. 2. 3. 3. Just the same (Kushushana) 1. 2.

PAGE 112

112 Household Profile (Akacweka) 46. Sex: 1. Female (Oryo omukazi) 2. Male (Oryo omusheija) 47. What is your age? (O ine emyaka ingahe?) 48. What is your marital status? (Oine amaka?) a. Married( oine omusheija married female) (oine omukazi married male) b. Single (taine musheija unmarried female) (taine mukazi unmarried male) c. Widowed (enfakazi) d. Other (ebindi) 48a. If married, (man): do you have more than one wife? yes, no if yes, how many do you have? (woman) does your husband have more than one wife? yes, no If yes, how many wives includ ing yourself does he have? (Ku orabe osweire oine abakazi bare ngire hari omwe? ) yego, ingaha Ku erabe yego oine bangahe? (Omukazi) (Omusheija wawe aine omuk azi orengire hari omwe) yego, ingaha (Ku erabe yego nibangahe naniiwe wayebarramu?) 49. What is the age and sex of all the peopl e who cook, eat and live in this household? (emyaka eyabantu obo rateka mukarya kandi mukara hamwe abasheija nabakazi? ) Sex ( Emyaka) age 10 age 11-20 age 21-30 age 41-50 age 51 Female (Abakazi) Male (Abasheija) 50. Do you have any children? (Oine abaana?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) 50a. If yes, how many do you have? (Oine bangahe?) 50b. Are all of your children that are e ligible (age), atte nding primary school? (Abaana baawe abakubire barashoma mu primary, barashoma boona?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha)

PAGE 113

113 50c. If no, why are they not attending school? (nahabwenki batara shoma?) 51. What is the highest level of educ ation you have attained? (Okwega kwawe okurakyirayo nikuha?) a. No formal education (Toregyire) b. Primary education (Okega puraimare) c. Lower secondary (s1-4) (Okega seniya zahasi) d. Upper secondary (s5-6) (Okega seniya zahaiguru haya) e. College (ttcs) (Okega omumatendekero za college) f. University (Univasite) 51a. If married, what is the highest level of education your spouse has attained ? (if the person has more than one wife, ask this of th e oldest wife.) (Oswirwe/osweirwe, okwega kwamukazi wawe/omusheija wawe kuraingana nkahe) ? a. No formal education (Toregyire) b. Primary education (Okega puraimare) c. Lower secondary (s1-4) (Okega seniya zahasi) d. Upper secondary (s5-6) (Okega seniya zahaiguru haya) e. College (ttcs) (Okega omumatendekero za college) f. University (Univasite) 52. What is your tribe? (Eihanga lyawe ni riha?) (Batoro, Bakiga, Bahororo, Banyankole, Banyarwanda or other) 53. Were you or members of your family evic ted from Kibale in the early 1990s (iwe nanga abeka yawe bakabingwa kuruga mu lh amba lya Kibale kare mumyaka ye 1990)? a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 54. How long has your household been settled he re (in this particular community? (eka yawe amazire bwirekyi erat ura mukyaro ekyi mpaha?) A) 5 years b)5-9 years c)1014 years d)15-20 years e) 21 years 54a. (If settled in the last 5 years (1998 and later) (Ku orabe otwire hanu kumara emyaka etaano yonka 1998 nokugaruza haiguru)from where di d you shift (Okaruga nkahe okwija kutura omuri ogu mwanya)? 54b. (If settled in the last 5 years (1998 and later) (Ku orabe otwire hanu kumara emyaka etaano yonka 1998 nokugaruza haiguru) Why did you c hoose to settle in this area( Habwekyi wacwiremu ku tura muri ogu mwanya/ekyaro) ?

PAGE 114

114 55. What are your households main sources of income presently? (Entasya yeka yawe obwahati neha?) Which activity is the most profitable ? (Kandi ni murimo kyi ogurakyira kukugobeesa?)(Rank them) (Ogihe enamba) 1=most profitable Present economic activities (Emirimo yentsya obwahati) Rank (Omwanya ogweratwara omukutahiza) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 56. What were your households main income s ources 1 year ago? (E ntasya yeka yawe omumwaka oguhingwire ekaba eraruga nkahe?) Which activity was the most profita ble? (Ni murimokyi ogwakyizire kukugobeesa/kukutahiza ) (Rank them) (Ogihe enamba) (If the income sources have changed) (Ent asya eheraruga ekahi nduka); Why have your income sources changed? (Habwenkyi entasy a yawe aheraruga habairemu empinduka)? Household income sources 1 years ago (Entasya yeka mu mwaka 1 enyima) Rank (Omwanya) Cause of change (Ekyaresire empinduka) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 57. What would you say your households income is in shillings per mo nth or per season? (Notekateka entasya yekayanyu omukwezi kumwe nainga mu season emwe, erainegana sente zingahe?)

PAGE 115

115 58. How do you compare yourself with other pe ople in your village who have the same size and fertility of land, but w ho live farther away from the park? (Iwe oregeranisa ote nabandi bantu mukyaro kyawe abaine ebibiira kandi bine orwezo nkekyawe kandi ebiringana nomubuhango. Kyonka batatwire haihi na park?) Feels (Embera): Reasons (Enshonga) 1. Better-off (Kuba kurungyi kukyiraho) 1. 2. 3. 2. Worse off (Kuba kubi munonga kushembayo) 1. 2. 3. 3. Just the same (Kushushana) 1. 2. 59. The land you live on is (N itaaka kyi eryotwiremu): a. Leasehold (official title) (Eryekyapa) b. Customary tenure (Eryobugwetwa/obusika) c. Rented (Orapangyisa) d. Public lands (Kalandalanda) e. Bought land (Kugura ekibira) f. Other (Ebindi) g. Dont know (Tinkamanya) h. Mailo land (Ekibira kya bakama ba tooro) 60. How many acres (of those checked above) do you have (Kandi riraingana hika zingahe)? 61. Has your work or somebody from your househol d ever been related to Kibale National Park? (Omurimo gwawe nainga ogwomuntu wom unju yawe gwine akakwate na Kibale?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 61a. If yes, in what capacity was (or is) your work related to KNP? (Ku erabe yego, gukaba guri nainga nogwa kakwatekyi?)

PAGE 116

116 62. Does this household own any means of tr ansport? (Omuka egi mwine ekiruka kyoona ekyi murakozesa nkentambura?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 62a. If yes; what type of transport? (Ku erabe yego nikiruka kiiha eki mwine?) a. Car/truck (Matooka ence/empango) b. Motorcycle (Pikipiki) c. Bicycle (Egaali) d. Boat (Eryato) e. Other (Ebindi) 63. Do you keep any animals? (Har iho ebikoko byoona ebi mutungire?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 63a. If yes; what types of animals do you k eep and how many? Ku erabe yego; ni bikoko biiha ebimutungire?) Animal (Ebikooko) Number (Omuhendo) Cattle (Ente) Goat (Embuzi) Chicken (Enkoko) Guard dogs (Embwa) Pigs (Empunu) Other (Ebindi): 64. Do you or a member of your household have a bank account? (Iwe nainga abatuzi bomunju yaawe hariho alikwahura esente mubank?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 65. Do you face a problem of crop-raiding by wi ld animals from the park? (Oine ekizibu kyo kwonerwa enyamaiswa ezo mwihamba eziraruga mu park?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha)

PAGE 117

117 66. What meat have you eaten in the pa st year? (Ninyamaki eyiwarirho omuwaka oguhwire?) (Write the number assigned to particular animal on your data sheet .) 1. Giant forest hog 1. Ensenge 2. Bush pig 2. Empunu (domestic or wild?) 3. Bush buck 3. Engabi 4. Red duiker 4. Ensuku 5. Blue duiker 5. Enende 6. Guinea fowl 6. Entajumba 7. Crested francolin 7. Endahi 8. Chicken 8. Enkoko 9. Cow 9. Ente 10. Goat 10.Embuzi 11. Buffalo 11. Embogo 12. Other 12. Ebindi Behaviors 67. Some people place snares in Kibale Nationa l Park, other people do not. Have you or people from your household placed sn ares/traps inside of Kibale Na tional Park in the past year? (Hariho abantu abaratega emite go omu Kibale National Park iwe rundi abantu bomuli eji nju hariho arategire emitego omu Kiba le National Park omuwaka oguhwire?) a. Yes (Yego) b. No(Ingaha) c. Other (Ebindi) d. Dont know(Tinkamanya) How many times in the past year have you: Nemirundi ingahe eyiwategiregire emitego omwaka oguhwire: 68. Prevented bush fires in Kibale National Park? (Kutangira omuriro omu Park ya Kibale?) a. 0 times b. 1-2 times c. 3-4 times d. 5 times 69. Reported an illegal activ ity in Kibale National Pa rk? (Waratabarize emirimo etaraikyirizibwa mu Park ya Kibale?) a. 0 times b. 1-2 times c. 3-4 times d. 5 times

PAGE 118

118 70. Removed wire snares from Kibale Nati onal Park? (Kutegurura emitego kuruga mu Park ya Kibale?) a. 0 times b. 1-2 times c. 3-4 times d. 5 times Now I am going to read you some statemen ts about your opinions and activities. Remember, as I have said before, there are no right or wrong answers. (Obu ndaza kukushomera ebi bigambo. Mukutekateka kwawe nomikorere. Oijuke, enyimaho mbaire nagambire, tihariho engarukamu ehikyire nainga eyegwire. Ninkushaba ongambire ku orabe, noikyiriza orakihimisiriza, noikyiriza, orabam ganisa, torakyiriza orangirakimwe.) 71. Sometimes you have to place snares/traps in your fields to prevent animals from raiding your crops. (Haliho obwaratega onite go omundimiro yaawe kuz ibira ebikooko kwona ebyokurya.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 72. Since animals from the park raid crops, it is your right to go to the park and hunt animals. (Ku enyamaiswa kuruga mu park ziraija kwona ebyokurya, tiburi bugabe bwawe kugenda mu park okahiga enyamaiswa .) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 73. Firewood is scarce and the park has a lot of wood therefore there is no problem if you go and take some firewood from inside of the park. (Enku tizirarebeka, kandi park eine enku nyingi, mbwenu hariho eshonga kuba ogenda oka gira eziwaiha omunda ya park.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 74. Meat is scarce and sometimes you have to hu nt inside of Kibale National Park to find it. (Enyama terakyira kurebeka ka ndi akaire akandi oine kuza kuhiga munda ya park ya Kibale kugisherura.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 75. Water is plentiful in the park, therefore you sometimes go to the park to collect it. (Amiizi nimingi omu park, hariho obworazaya kivenda amiizi.) a. Yes (Yego) b. No (Ingaha) c. Dont know (Tinkamanya)

PAGE 119

119 Perception of Enforcement 76. If a person enters the park illegally to extract a resource his/her chance of getting apprehended by park authorities is: (Kuba omuntu agenda mu park ataiky irizibwe, okwihamu ekyobutungyi. Ogwe,, omugisha gwe ogwokufubirwa abakuru ba park nigushushakyi:) a.Very high (Nogwa haiguru munonga) b. High (Nogwahaiguru) c. Medium (Nogwa rwagati) d. Small (Nimuche) e. Very small (Nimuche munonga) f. Dont know (Tinkamanya) 77. What would occur if you were caught in Kibale National Park illegally extracting resources? (Ni kiiha ekyakubasa kubaho kuba okwatirwa mu park ya Kibale oraihamu ebyobutungyi otaikyirizibwe?) a. Fined (Oratangibwa) b. Jailed (Barakukoma/kukusiba) c. Taken to LC 1(Barukutwara owa LC1) d. Dont know (Tinkamanya) e. Other (Ebindi) (specify): Thank you so much for your time. I have asked you many questions, now do you have any questions? 78. (Observe the exterior of the house; is it painted?) a. Yes b. No 79. (Observe the roof-material of the main house and circle appropriately) a. Iron sheets (Amabate) b. Tiles (Amategura) c. Concrete (Ceminti namabare) d. Polythene paper (Ekivera) e. Grass-thatched (Obunyasi) f. Debe roof (Debe) 80. What kind of walls does the house have? a. Brick b. Mud c. Plaster d. Other 81. End time (Eshaaha yokumara)

PAGE 120

120 APPENDIX B ENGLISH/RUTORO LANGUAGE SURVEY OF RANDOMIZED RESPONSE TECHNIQUE SURVEY 1. Respondent ID number ( ( R R u u k k u u g g a a r r u u k k a a m m u u akokurorwaho ) ) 2. Interviewers Code (Kikaguzibwa) 3 3 V V a a r r i i a a t t i i o o n n o o f f S S u u r r v v e e y y : : A A / / B B ? ? 4. Date (Ebiro bymwezi) 5. Start time (Esaha yokutandiika) 6. Language Used: 1 = Rutooro; 2=Rukiga 3=English 7. Translator Used? Yes/No 8. Village Name (Ekyaro) 9. Parish Name (Omuruka) Socio-Demographics In the first part of the interview, I will ask you questions about your self and your family. (Omu kicweeka kinu ekyokubanza, ninyiga kukuk aguza ebikaguzo ebirikukwata hali ime namaka gawe.) 10. Sex(oliki): a. Female (Mukazi) b. Male (Musaija) 11. What is your age (Oine emyaka ingaha)? .. 12. What is your marital status (Oine eka?)? a. married oswirwe (married female) oswire (married male) b. single toswirwe (unmarried female) toswire (unmarried male) c. widowed mufakati (widowed) d. other ebindi (other) 12 a. If married, (man): do you have more than one wife? Yes, No if yes, how many do you have? (woman) Does your husband have more than one wife? Yes, No If yes, how many wives does he have including yourself? (Obworaba oswire: oine abakazi abarukukira hali omu? Ego, Nangwa Obweraba ego: oine abakazi baingaha? ) (Obworaba oswirwe : omunyoro wawe aine aba kyara abarukukira hali omu? Ego, Nangwa Obweraba ego, aina baingaha obu naiwe oyebaliremu? )

PAGE 121

121 13.What is the highest level of educati on you have attained? (Okusoma okuwatungire okurukukirayo nukuha?) a. No formal education (Atasome) b. Primary education (Akamara idara lyapuraimare) c. Lower secondary (s1-4) (Akamara idara lya siniya) d. Upper secondary (s5-6) (Akamara idara lya haya) e. College (ttcs) (Akamara itendekero) f. University (Akamara university) 13a. If married, what is the highest level of education your spous e has attained ? ( if the person has more than one wife, ask this of the oldest wife.) (Obu oraba oswire/oswirwe, okusoma kwamunyoro/mukyara wawe okurukukirayo okuyatungire nikuha)? a. No formal education (Atasome) b. Primary education (Akamara idara lyapuraimare) c. Lower secondary (s1-4) (Akamara idara lya siniya) d. Upper secondary (s5-6) (Akamara idara lya haya) e. College (ttcs) (Akamara itendekero) f. University (Akamara university) 14. Now I would like you to tell me the age and sex of all the people who cook, eat and live in this household? (Baine emyaka i ngaha boona abantu abarukucumba, nibalya kandi nibarara omuka enu? Olimuki? ) Sex Age (Emyaka) 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >51 Female (Mukazi) Male (Musaija) 15. How many children have you produced? (O ine abana baingaha abu wazire? ) 15 a. Are all of your children that are elig ible (age), attending primary school? Abaana baawe abasemeriire kuba nibasoma mu bitebe ebya primary, boona nibasoma? a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) 15. B. If no, why not? (Obubaraaba batarukusoma habwaki?) 16. What is your tribe? (Ihanga lyawe oli muki?) (Batoro, Bakiga Bahororo, Banyankole, Banyarwanda or other) 17. How long has your household been settled he re (in this particular community) (Iwe omazire kasumiki neka yawe ot embwire hanu (omukikaro kinu)? A) 5 b)5-9 c)10-14 d)15-20 e) 21

PAGE 122

122 17 a. (If settled in the last 5 years (1999 a nd later) (Obworaba otembwire emyaka etaano enyuma (1999 no-kweyongeraho) from where did you shift ? (Okafuruka/okarugirra nkaha?) 17 b. (If settled in the last 5 years (1999 and later) (Obwor aba otembwire emyaka etaano enyuma (1999 no-kweyongeraho). Why did you choos e to settle in this area? (Habwaki okakomamu kutembura omukikaro kinu?) 18. What are your households main sources of income presently ? (Kiki ekirukutahiza entashya yeka yawe biro binu?) Which activity is the most profitable? (Mulimoki ogurukutahiza rundi ogurukugobesa muno?) (rank them) (1=most profitable) (Gihe enamba nosigikira ogwokubanza nogukweyongeraho omuntashya.) Present economic activities (emirimo eyentashya kasumi kanu) Rank (enamba) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 19. Have your income sources changed si nce the year 2000? (Entashya yawe yakahinkukireho kwiha omwaka gwe 2000?) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) 19 a. If yes, please indicate how they ha ve changed and the reason for the change. (Bweraba ego, nikusaba onyoleke nikwo eh indukire kandi nensonga habwakyi ehindukire.) Household income source (please order from oldest to most recent (#1 is oldest and #5 is most recent) Cause of change (Ekyalesere empindahinduka) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

PAGE 123

123 20. What would you say your households income is in schillings per month or per season? (Entashya yeka yanyu omusente buli kwezi rundi buli season nizingana zingaha?) (Note: if seasonal write note how many seasons per year.) 21. The land you live on is (Itaaka oine riri): a. Official land title (Lyekyapa ) b. Customary tenure (Lyobugwetwa) c. Rented (Lyempangisa) d. Public lands (Kalandalanda) e. Bought land (Likagurwa) f. Other (Ebindi) g. Dont know (Tindukumanya) h. Mailo land (Lyobukama bwa tooro) 22. How many acres (of those checked above) do you have (Oine hiika zingaha? (hali eryo itaaka eligambirweho)? 23. Does this household own any means of tr ansport? (Eka enu ine entambura yoona?) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) 23 a. If yes; what type of tran sport? (Ebweraba ego, ntamburaki?) a. Car/truck (Motor car/ roole) b. Motorcycle (Piikiipiiki) c. Bicycle (Egaali) d. Boat (Eryato) 24. Do you keep any animals? (Oine ebitungwa ebyolinzire?) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) 24 a. If yes; what types of animals do you keep and how many? (E bweraba ego, bisoroki ebyokulinda kandi bingaha?) Animals (Ebisoro) Number (Enamba) Cattle (Ente) Goat (Embuzi) Chicken (Enkoko) Guard dogs (Embwa) Pigs (Empunu) Other (Nebindi):

PAGE 124

124 Please answer the following questions to the be st of your knowledge. I just want to know what you think. Do not worry if you do not know an answer to a question. If you do not know, just tell me. (Nosabwa kugarukamu ebik aguzo binu kurungi muno omukwetegeza kwawe. Ninyenda kumanya kiki ekyorukutekereza. Otaf ayo obworaba otarukumanya, ongamibire.) 25. Is there a protected area owned by the government nearby? (Haroho ekikaro ekyagovernment ekinyakulinzirwe haihi?) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) A. If yes (obweraba ego): B. If no or dont know (obweraba nangwa rundi tindukumanya): 25 a.What is the name of the protected area closest to your house (ibara lyekikaro kinu ekinyakulinzirwe haihi muno nenju yawe nikiha ?) Name provided (ibara lihairwe) Dont know (tindukumanya) 25 b. Do you know of Kibale National Park(omanyire irindiro lye bihangwa erya Kibale)? Yes (ego) No (nangwa) If name provided is correct, proceed If incorrect, ask 25b. If yes, proceed If no, thank the respondent and complete questions at end of survey Rating Benefits/Costs Now I would like to ask you about how you are a ffected by the park. Remember there are no right or wrong answers. We just want your opinion. (Hati ninyenda kukukaguza nkoku paaka erikukutwaza. Ijuka nkokuhatar oho ekigarukwanu ekigwiire, byona bihikire habwokuba ninyenda entekereza yaawe.) 26. The park provides benefits to you. (Park ekuletera amagoba.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 26 a. If agree or strongly agree; in your opinion, what are those be nefits? (Ebya magoba binu nibiha obwor aba noyikiriza?)

PAGE 125

125 b. Please rate those benefits you mentioned us ing the scale provided. At one end of the scale (5), the benefit you mentioned may be very trivial, while at the other end of the scale, the benefit you mentioned may be very important to you(1). (Amagoba ganu gahe amadara.) Very important (Amagoba agamani) 1 2 3 4 Very trivial (Amagoba mataito muno) 5 27. The park hurts you. (Paaka nekusaasa.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 27 a. (if strongly agree/agree) in your opinion, list the ways you are hurt by the park. (Oboraba no yikiriza, ebyamagoba binu nibiha.) Please rate the items you listed using the scale provided. (1=hurts you very much, 5=hurts you very little). (Bine eno ) Hurts you very much (Nekusaasa munono) 1 2 3 4 Hurts you very little (Nekusaasa kataito) 5 27 b. Do you feel you benefit more from the park than it hurts you? (Nkoku orukwe hura, nogira paaka nekuleter a ebyomagoba kukira nkoku erukusera? ) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa)

PAGE 126

126 Neighbors Behavior Please use the ladder to indicate how str ongly you feel about the following descriptions of your neighbors behavior. At one end you may be lieve that your neighbors behavior is very acceptable (#1), at the other end you may believe that your neighbors behavior is very unacceptable (5). Again, remember, there are no right or wrong answers. I am just asking for your opinion. After asking you how you feel, i w ill ask you why you feel that way. (Nibusaba okozese idara kworeka nikwo okwehurra habi gambo ebinkukwataho enyetwaza ya mutahi wawe. Aharubaju rumu enyetwaza ya mutahi wawe nosobora kuhurra neyikirizibwa muno (1). Kandi orubaju orundi etakwikiri zibwa nakati (5). Ijuka ngu busaho ekigarukwamu ekihikire rundi ekigwire. Kwihaho ninkaguza kwo likutekereza. Obundamara kukukaguza nkoku olikwehurra, ninyija kuku kaguza ha bwak noyehurra nkoku wangambira. Very acceptable behavior (Nikikirizbwa muno) 1 Acceptable behavior (Nikikirizibwa) 2 Neutral (Ninsobona kukyigumyo) 3 Unacceptable behavior (Tikinkwikinzibwa) 4 Very unacceptable behavior (Tikirikwikirizibwa nakati) 5 28. A neighbor goes to the park and collect s water. (Mutahi wawe kugya mu paaka kuletayo amaizi.) a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?) 29. A neighbor goes to the park to collect firewood. (Mutathi wawe kugya mupaaka kusenyayo enku.) a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?) 30. A neighbor goes to the park to graze animals. (Mutahi wawe kugenda kulisiza mupaaka.) a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?) 31. A neighbor goes to the park to collect pol es. (Omutahi kugenda mu paaka kutemayo emiti ). a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?) 32. A neighbor sends a child to the park to colle ct herbal medicinal pl ants. (Mutahi wawe kutuma omwana mupaaka kuserrayo omubazi.) a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?) 33. A neighbor goes to the park to set snares in hope of acquiring meat. (Mutahi wawe omunaku kugenda mupaaka akaserrayo omukubi.) a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?)

PAGE 127

127 34. A neighbor goes to the park to make charcoal. (Mutahi wawe kugenda mupaaka kwihayo amakara.) a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?) 35. A neighbor enters the park to collect tim ber. (Omutahi kugenda mupaaka kuletayo embaho.) a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?) Kibale-Related Questions 36. How do you compare yourself with other peop le in your village who have the same size and fertility of land, but w ho live farther away from the pa rk? (Iwe noyerenga ota naabantu abandi mukyaro kyawe abanyakwine itaka lyor wezo no bwingi kyonka ba tarukwikara haihi na paaka?) Feels: (Embera) Reasons (Ensonga) 1. Better-off (Kurungiho) 2. Worse off (Kubi muno) 3. Just the same (Kwisanaisana) 37. Were you or members of your family evic ted from Kibale in the early 1990s? (Iwe rundi abeka yawe bakabingwaaga omwirindiro lyebihangwa erya Kibale National Park omu myaka ya 1990 nekyatandiika)? a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 38. Has your work or the work of somebody fr om your household ever been related to Kibale National Park? (Omulimo gwawe r undi omuntu ondi kuruga omuka yawe gwine akakwate/obuzale nirindiro lyebihangwa erya Kibale?) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 38 a. If yes, in what capacity was (or is ) the work related to KNP? (Ebweraba ego, mulingoki omulimo gwali rundi gwine obuzale/akakwate na knp?) 39. Do you face a problem of crop-raiding by wi ld animals from the park? (Oine ekizibu ekyokwonerwa ebyokulya enyamaiswa ezo mu park?) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya)

PAGE 128

128 40. Other than your fields that are close to your home, do you have othe r fields are closer to the park border? (Oihire ho emisiri yaawe enyakuli ha ihi neeka, oine endi yoona, erikusangwa haihi nensaro ya paaka?) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) Support for Conservation Now I am going to read you some statements th at people have made about the park and its lands. Please tell me whether you strongly agre e, agree, are neutral, disagree or strongly disagree. Sometimes I will also ask you to tell me the reason why you answered the way you did. There are no right or wrong answers, I am only asking you for your opinion.. If you do not understand a question, please ask me to repeat it. (Hati ningenda kukusomera ebigambirweho abantu hali park nitaaka lyayo. Ninkusab a ogambire obworaba nokigumiza kimu, nokigumya, nosobora kukigumya, tokukigumya rundi torukuki gumya nakake. Akaire akandi ninyija kukukaguza kungambira ensonga habwaki ongaruki remu omulingo ogu. Busaho ebigarukwamu ebihikire rundi ekigwi re, oihireho ninkukaguza omuntekerez a yawe. Obworaba otetegerize ekikaguzo, ninkusaba ongambire nkigarukemu. 41. Your relationship with staff from Kiba le National Park has been good. (Enkoragana yawe nabakozi ba Kibale National Park ebaire nungi.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 41 a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu omulingo ogu?) 42. Park staff do not take time to listen to the troubles of people who live in this village. (Abakozi aba park tibarukufayo kutunga obwire kuhuliriza ebizibu bya bantu abarukwikara omukyaro kinu.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

PAGE 129

129 43. Park staff take local people to be wrongdoe rs. (Abakozi aba park nibatwara abantu ababulikiro kuba nkozi zebibi.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 44. People are poor because th ey live near the park. a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 45. Management of Kibale National Park is your responsibility as well as the government of Uganda. (Kurolerra Kibale National Park bujunanizibwa bwawe ha mu na government ya Uganda.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 46. Kibale National Park shoul d be given to Ugandans living around the park for conversion to agricultu re. (Kibale National Park esemer ire kuhebwa abantu ba Uganda abarukwikara haihi na park nukwo bakorremu ebyobulimi.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 47. Kibale National Park shoul d be given to Ugandans living around the park for conversion to grazing lands. (Irindiro lyebisoro eya Kibale National Park basemerire barihe abantu abalikulikara haihi balihindutemu eryo kulisizamu.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake)

PAGE 130

130 48. People should be allowed to collect resour ces from the park. (Abantu basemereire kwikirizibwa kwiha mu paaka ebibakwetaaga.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 48 a. Why? (Habwaki?) 49. If there were no laws regulating access to re sources, all the wildlife in the park would be killed. (Kakuba hataroho ebiragiro e byokutanga kukozesa ebyobuguda, ebisoro byoona ebyo mu park bya kwisirwe.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 50. These days, animals that live in the park are important sources of meat for people living around the park. (Biro binu, enyamaiswa ezo ezirikwikara omu park zine omugaso omu nyama hali abantu abarukwikara haihi na park.) 50 a. (If agree) What types of animals from the park are important sources of meat? (Ebweraba ninkigumya) /nyamaiswaki kuruga mu park ezine omugaso omu nyama?) 51. What people need from the forest, grassl ands and lakes is more important than protecting the forest, grasslands, lakes and wild animals. (Abantu ebi barukwetaga omu kibira, mu park, nomunyanja bine omugaso gwamani kukira kulinda ekibira hamu nenyamaiswa ezirumu.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 52. Wild animals are very valuable because they bring money to Uganda. (Enyamaiswa zina omugaso muno habwokuba zireta sente omu Uganda.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 52 a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu mulingo ogu?)

PAGE 131

131 53. Wild animals should be prot ected for future generations. (Enyameiswa zisemerire kurindwa habw a ensinganto ezo busumi bwo mumerso (oburukwija). a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 53 a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu mulingo ogu?) 54. Local people benefit from Kibale Nationa l Park. (Abantu ababulikiro bagoba ahaki Kibale National Park.) a.Strongly agree (Ninkigumya muno) b.Agree (Ninkigumya) c. Neutral (Ninsobora kukigumya) d. Disagree (Tindukukigumya) e. Strongly disagree (Tindukukigumya nakake) 54 a. Why did you answer that way? (Habwaki ongarukiremu mulingo ogu?) Behavior I have a few more questions for you. First, I need you to flip this coin. Let me show you what you are going to do. You flip the coin like this. (Flip coin.) And then look at what it lands on. There are two choices, it may land showing you a head, or it may land showing you a bu ilding. Dont tell me what it lands on. You just need to remember what it lands on, but dont te ll me what it landed on. It is your secret. Next, I am going to show you two pictures. One is of a coin with a head on it, similar to the one you may see on the coin. On another is a picture depicting an activity you may have done inside Kibale National Pa rk without permission since th e year 2000 began (collecting firewood, charcoal, grazing animals, hunting animals, collecting timber, poles ). I am going to put both of these pictures in envelopes and plac e the envelopes in the bag. You will choose one of the envelopes. It is random. I dont know which one you will choose. Open up the envelope and look at the picture. Dont tell me which one you are looking at. If you are looking at the head, te ll me yes if you saw head when you flipped the coin. If you saw the building, then tell me no. If you are lo oking at the picture, tell me yes, if you have ever gone to the park since 2000 to do the partic ular activity without perm ission depicted in the picture. If you have not gone to the park to do it, tell me no. Pleas e be honest with me, as i have no way of knowing which pi cture you are looking at. (Nyine ebikaguzo ebindi bitaito. Ninye nda obake esimoni enu. Leka nkwoleke ekyokurorraho. Esimoni no gibaka oti (baka), nu kwo no rora kiki ekya gya haiguru. Haroho

PAGE 132

132 ebisani bibiri ebisobora kwija haigu ru: nihasobora kwija omutwe, rundi ekyombeko. Iwe otanyoleka nikiha ekiraija haiguru, oinireho oikale nokijuka; enu nsita yawe. Hanyima njakukwoleka ebisani bibiri. Ki mu kiroho esimoni eroho omutme, nigwisana nko gwo subora kurora hasimoni. Ekisani eki ndi nikyoleka ebintu ebyo sobora kuba waka kerahoga omupaaka otaikirizibwe kwiha omuwak a gwenkumi-ibiri gutandika. Kusenya enku, kwokya amakara, kulisa, kuhiige, kwihayo emba ho, kutema emiti. Ninyija kuta ebisani bibiri binu omu nsahu, nukwo okomemu kimu. Okomem u otarozereho. Oihemu kimu oroleho; otangambira nikiha ekyoyihiremu. Obworaba norona omutwe, ngambira oti ego obworaba obeinege omutwe mukubaka esimoni. Ob woraba obeinege ekyombeko, ongambire oti nangwa. Obworaba norora ekisani kindi, ngambira ego obworaba wakagyaga mupaaka kwiha ogwenkumiibirigutandika kukora ekir ikwo lekwa otaikirizibwe. Obworaba otakagyayoga kukikora, ngambira nangwa. Nikusaba ombere wamazima habwokuba tiharoho nkoku nsobora kumanya kisaniki ekyorukuroraho. a. Coin and firewood (Esimonineuku) b. Coin and charcoal production (Esimoni na makara) c. Coin and hunting (Esimoni no kuhiiga) d. Coin and poles (Esimoni ne miti) e. Coin and grazing (Esimoni nokhiisa) f. Coin and timber (Esimoni ne mbaaho) The following questions involve your activitie s in the park since the year 2000 began. Please feel at ease to tell me wh at you have done, as this information is private and I will not ask for your name. (Hati twahika hakicweka kyokuma lirra. Kinu kirimu ebikorwa byanyu mu paaka kwiha ogwe nkumi ibiri gutandika. Ninkusaba oi ngambire ebiwaka koraga otaine kutiina kwona habwokuba bulikintu kyona nikiikara kiri kyensit a, kandi niibaralyawe tinkwija kulikukaguza.) Since 2000 began have you done any of the fo llowing activities in the park without permission: (Kwiha ogwe nkumi ibiri gutandika, wa kakoraga kimu hali ebyagya kugambwaho hali paaka otainekwikirizibwa: 61. Collect firewood? Kusenyayo enku? 62. Hunt animals? Kuhiigayo? 63. Make charcoal? Kwokyayo amakara? 64. Collect timber? Kwihayo embaaho? 65. Graze animals? Kulosizaayo? 66. Collect poles? Kutema yo emiti? Please answer the following statements with yes, no or dont know. (Nosabwa kugarukamu binu ebikaguzo na ego, nangwa rundi tindukumanya.) 67. People are permitted to hunt all wild an imals in the protected area. (Abantu nibaikirizibwa kuhiga enyamaiswa zomuki saka omukikaro ekinyakulinzirwe.)

PAGE 133

133 a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 68. Grazing of animals is not allowed insi de the protected area (Kulisa ebisoro tukulikwikirizibwa omunda ye kikaro ekirinzirwe.) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 69. Placing snares inside th e protected area is prohibited (Kutega emitego omunda yekikaro ekinyakulinzirwe nikitangwa.) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 70. A person needs to get permission before he or she can collect resources inside the protected area. (Omuntu nayetaga kutunga okwik irizibwa kubanza nukwo asoroze ebyentahya kuruga omunda yekikaro ekinyakulinzirwe.) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 71. Placing snares in your fields is permitted by park staff if an animal has been raiding your crops. (Okutega emitego omu misiri nikiri zibwa abakozi bomu park kakuba ebisoro biba nibyoona.) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 72. People are allowed to make charcoal inside Kibale Nati onal Park. (Abantu baraikirizibwa kwosya amakara om unda ya Kibale National Park.) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 73. If baboons are raiding your crops, you are permitted to kill them with a spear. (Kuba enkerebe nizona emisiri no yikirizibwa kuzita nichumu). a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) Resource-Related Questions We have come to the last series of questions. Again, please feel at ease to be honest with me, as what you are sharing with me is private and I will not ask for your name. (Twahika

PAGE 134

134 habikaguzo byokumalirra. Ninyongera kukusaba kuhuu rra otatinire kandi ombere wamazima habwokuba ebyolikungambira nsinta yange naiw e; kandi tinkwijakukukaguza ibara lyawe.) 74. Kibale became a national park in 1993, elev en years ago. Before it became a national park, did you go to the area now called Kibale National Park to collect resources? (Kibale ekaforwa paaka omumwaka gwa 1993,emyaka ekum inagu mu eyenyuma. Etakafwokere paaka wagyaga mukicweka kinu hati ekirikwetwa Kibale National Park kwihayo ebyobutungwa byona.) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 75 a. If yes, what did you collect? Ebwera ba ego, (Bworabe oikirize wayihayoga ki?) 76. If you were allowed to collect any resource from Kibale National Park that you wanted, what would you collect? Please rank order th em. (Kakuba noikirizibw a kuosoroza ebyobuguuda byoona ebyorukwetaga okuruga omu national park eya Kibale, osobora kwihayoki? (Nosabwa kubiha enamba omu order). Products (Ebintu oihire mu park) Rank (Enamba zabyo) 77. If a person enters the park illegally to extract a resource his/her chance of getting apprehended by park authorities is: (Kakuba omuntu ataha omu park ataine ekiragiro kyokwikirizibwa okwihamu ekyobuguda akozeseze omugisagwe natunga okufubirwa abakuru ba park) a. Very high (Muno muno) b. High (Muno) c. Medium (Kake) d. Small(Kataito) e. Very small (Kataito muno) f. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 78. What would occur if you were caught in Kibale National Park illegally extracting resources? (Kiki ekirukubaho kakuba okwatirwa om wirindiro lyebihangwa erya Kibale otaine kiragiro noihamu ebyobuguda?) Socio-Demographics I have asked you many questions. Thank you for answering them. Do you have any questions for me? (Nkukagurize ebikaguzo b iingi; webale muno kubigarukamu. Iwe oina ekakaguzo kyona?)

PAGE 135

135 79. (Observe the exterior of the house; is it painted?) a. Yes (Ego) b. No (Nangwa) c. Dont know (Tindukumanya) 80. (Observe the roof-material of the main house and write it down) a. Iron sheets (Amabate) b. Tiles (Amategura) c. Concrete (Cement namabale) d. Polythene paper (Obuvera) e. Grass-thatched (Obunyansi) f. Debe roof (Edebe) 81. What kind of walls does the house have? a. Brick b. Mud c. Plaster d. Other 82. End time (Esaha ykumara) GPS coordinates:

PAGE 136

136 APPENDIX C PHOTOS USED TO CARRY OUT RA NDOMIZED RESPONSE TECHNIQUE Figure A-1. Photo representi ng collection of charcoal

PAGE 137

137 Figure A-2. Photo representing hunting

PAGE 138

138 Figure A-3. Photo represen ting collection of poles Figure A-4. Photo represen ting collection of timber

PAGE 139

139 Figure A-5. Photo represen ting collection of firewood Figure A-6. Photo representing grazing

PAGE 140

140 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbot, J. I. O., D. H. L. Thomas, A. A. Gardner, S. E. Neba, and M. W. Khen. 2001. Understanding the links between conservation and development in the Bamenda highlands, Cameroon. World Development 29 :1115-1136. Adams, A. M., T. G. Evans, R. Moha mmed, and J. Farnsworth. 1997. Socioeconomic stratification by wealth ranking. World Development 25:1165-1172. Adams, J. S., and T. O. McShane 1992. The Myth of Wild Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Adams, W. M., R. Aveling, D. Brockington, B. Di ckson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, D. Roe, B. Vira, and W. Wolmer. 2004. Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty. Science 306 :1146-1149. Adams, W. M., and D. Hulme. 2001. If community c onservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx 35 :193-200. Albers, H. J., and E. Grinspoon. 1997. A comparison of the enforcement of access restrictions between Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve (China ) and Khao Yai National Park (Thailand). Environmental Conservation 24 :351-362. Alexander, S. E. 2000. Resident attitudes towards conservation and black howler monkeys in Belize: the Community Baboon Sanctu ary. Environmental Conservation 27 :341-350. Alpert, P. 1996. Integrated conservation and de velopment projects: examples from Africa. BioScience 46 :845-856. Andreasen, A. R. 1995. Marketing Social Change Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Fransico, CA. Arjunan, M., C. Holmes, J.-P. Puyravaud, and P. Davidar. 2006. Do developmental initiative influence local attitudes toward cons ervation? A case study from the KalakadMundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. J ournal of Environmental Management 79 :188-197. Azfar, O., and P. Murrell. 2005. Identifying reticent respondents: assessing th e quality of survey data on corruption and values. Social Science Research Network http://ssrn.com/abstract=870887 Last accessed May 7, 2007. Barreto, T., O. M. R. Campbell, J. L. Davies, V. Fauveau, V. G. A. Fillippi, W. J. Graham, M. Mamdani, C. I. F. Rooney, and N. F. Toubi a. 1992. Investigating Induced Abortion in Developing Countries: Methods and Probl ems. Studies in Family Planning 23 :159-170. Barrett, C. B., and P. Arcese. 1995. Are integr ated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 23 :1073-1084.

PAGE 141

141 Bauer, H. 2003. Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30 :175-181. Behling, O., and K. S. Law 2000. Translating ques tionnaires and other re search instruments: Problems and solutions. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Belsky, J. M. 2003. Unmasking The "Local." Page 321 in S. R. Brechin, P. R. Wilshusen, C. L. Fortwangler, and P. C. West, editors. Contes ted Nature. State University of New York Press, Albany. Bernard, H. R. 2002. Research Methods in Anth ropology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Berrens, R. P., A. K. Bohara, and J. Kerkvliet. 1997. A Randomized Response Approach to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Amer ican Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 :252-266. Biira, O. 2004. Community Conservation Warden, Kibale National Park. Boer, W. F. D., and D. S. Baquete. 1998. Natura l resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation 25 :208-218. Bonger, T. 2000. Resources, Poverty and Huma n Development in Rural Uganda. Africa Development XXV :31-76. Brandon, K., and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for pe ople and parks: design dilemmas. World Development 20 :557-570. Brechin, S., P. Wilshusen, C. Fortwangler, a nd P. West. 2002. Beyond the square wheel: Toward a more comprehensive understand ing of biodiversity conservati on as a social and political process. Society and Natural Resources 15 :41-64. Bruner, A. G., R. E. Gullison, R. E. Rice, and G. A. B. d. Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291 :125-128. Buchanan, S. 2006. Defining povertythe poverty of definition. Devforum. Buchman, T. A., and J. A. Tracy. 1982. Obtaining Responses to Sensitive Questions: Conventional Questionnaire versus Random ized Response Technique. Journal of Accounting Research 20 :263-271. Bush, G., S. Nampindo, C. Aguti, and A. Plum ptre. 2006. The Value of Uganda's Forests: A livelihoods and ecosystems approach. Chaloupka, M. Y. 1985. Application of the rando mized response technique to marine park management: An assessment of permit compliance. Environmental Management 9:393398.

PAGE 142

142 Chambers, R. 1994. The origin and pr actice of PRA. World Development 22 :953-969. Chapman, C. A., T. T. Struhsaker, and J. E. La mbert. 2005. Thirty years of research in Kibale National Park, Uganda, reveals a complex pictur e of conservation. Inte rnational Journal of Primatology 26 :539-555. Chege, F., G. Onyango, C. Drazu, and S. Mwandha. 2002. Kibale and Semuliki Conservation and Development Project End of Phase III / End of Project Evaluation Report. IUCN. Chhetri, P., A. Mugisha, and S. White. 2003. Co mmunity resource use in Kibale and Mt Elgon National Parks, Uganda. Parks 13 :28-38. Coomes, O. T., B. L. Barham, and Y. Taka saki. 2004. Targeting conservation-development initiatives in tropical forests: insights from analyses of rain forest use and economic reliance among Amazonian peasants. Ecological Economics 51 :47-64. Cordeiro, N. J., N. D. Burgess, D. B. K. Dovi e, B. A. Kaplin, A. J. Plumptre, and R. Marrs. 2007. Conservation in areas of high population de nsity in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation 134 :155-163. Damania, R., R. Stringer, K. U. Karanth, a nd B. Stith. 2003. The economics of protecting tiger populations: Linking household be havior to poaching and prey depletion. Land Economics 79 :198-216. Emerton, L. 2001. The Nature of Benefits and the Benefits of Nature. Pages 208-226 in D. Hulme, and M. Murphree, editors. African Wildlife & Livelihoods. James Currey Ltd, Oxford, UK. Engqvist, L. 2005. The mistreatment of covariate in teraction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary eco logy studies. Animal Behaviour. 70 :967-971 Ferraro, P. J. 2001. Global Habitat Protection: Li mitations of Development Interventions and a Role for Conservation Performance Payments. Conservation Biology 15 :990-1000. Fiallo, E. A., and S. K. Jacobson. 1995. Local comm unities and protected area s: attitudes of rural residencts toward conservation and Machal illa National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 22 :241-249. Field, A. 2005. Discovering Statis tics Using SPSS. Sage Publi cations. Thousand Oaks, CA. Fowler, F. J., and T. W. Mangione 1990. Sta ndardized survey interviewing: Minimizing interviewer-related error. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Fox, J. A., and P. E. Tracy 1986. Randomized Re sponse: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Sage Publications, Inc., Beverly Hills.

PAGE 143

143 Gartlan, S. 2004. Land Tenure and State Property: A Cmparison of the Korup and Kilum ICDPs in Cameroon. Pages 208-231. in T. O. McShan e, and M. P. Wells, editors. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work. Colu mbia University Press, New York. Gavin, M.C., A. Wali, and M. Vasquez. 2007. Parks, people and participation: towards collaborative and community-b ased natural resource management. In: S. Kindon, R. Pain and M. Kesby (Eds.), Connecting People, Pa rticipation and Place: Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods. In press London: Routledge. Gelcich, S., G. Edwards-Jones, and M. J. Ka iser. 2005. Importance of Attitudinal Differences among Artisanal Fishers toward Co-Managemen t and Conservation of Marine Resources. Conservation Biology 19 :865-875. Getz, W. M., L. Fortmann, D. Cumming, J. d. To it, J. Hilty, R. Martin, M. Murphree, N. OwenSmith, A. M. Starfield, and M. I. Westphal. 1999. Sustaining Natura l and Human Capital: Villagers and Scientists (community-based natural resource management in Africa). Science 283 :1855. Gillingham, S., and P. C. Lee. 1999. The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environmental Conservation 26 :218-228. Hamilton, A., A. Cunningham, D. Byarugaba, and F. Kayanja. 2000. Conservation in a region of political instability: Bwindi Impenetrab le forest, Uganda. Conservation Biology 14 :17221725. Hilborn, R., C. J. Walters, and D. Ludwi g. 1995. Sustainable Exploitation of Renewable Resources. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 26 :45-67. Hill, C. M. 1998. Conflicting attitudes toward s elephants around the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Environmental Conservation 25 :244-250. Houston, J., and A. Tran. 2001. A Survey of Tax Evasion Using the Randomized Response Technique. Advances in Taxation 13 :69-94. Hughes, R., and F. Flintan. 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A Review and Bibliography of the ICDP Litera ture. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Hulme, D. 1998. Community Conservation in Pr actice: A Case Study of Lake Mburo National Park. Institute for Development Policy and Ma nagement, University of Manchester, Great Britain. Hulme, D., and M. Murphree. 2001. Community Conservation as Policy; Promise and Performance. Pages 280-297 in D. Hulme, a nd M. Murphree, editors. African Wildlife & Livelihoods. James Currey Ltd, Oxford, UK.

PAGE 144

144 Hulme, D., and A. Shepherd. 2003. Conceptua lizing chronic poverty. Pages 403-424 in D. Hulme, and A. Shepherd, editors. Special issue on "Chronic poverty and development policy." World Development. I-Cheng, C., L. P. Chow, and R. V. Rider. 1972. The Randomized Response Technique as Used in the Taiwan Outcome of Pregnanc y Study. Studies in Family Planning 3 :265-269. International Institute for Sust ainable Development. 2003. A guide for field projects on adaptive strategies. http://www.iisd.org/casl/CAS LGuide/WealthRanking.htm Last accessed February 23, 2006. Inamdar, A., H. d. Jode, K. Lindsay, and S. Cobb. 1999. Capitalising on Nature: protected area management. Science 283 Infield, M. 1988. Attitudes of a rural community towards conser vation and a local conservation area in Natal, South Afri ca. Biological Conservation 45 :21-46. Infield, M., and A. Namara. 2001. Community attitu des and behaviour towards conservation: an assessment of a community conservation pr ogramme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35 :48-60. Jacobson, S. K., M. McDuff, and M. Monroe 2006. Conservation Education and Outreach Techniques. Oxford University Press, U.K. Jorgenson, S., and F. Muller. 2000. Ecosystems as complex systems. Pages 2-16 in S. Jorgenson, and F. Muller, editors. Handbook of ecosyst em theories and management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Junger-Tas, J., and I. H. Marshall. 1999. Th e Self-Report Methodology in Crime Research. Crime and Justice 25 :291-367. Kaltenborn, B. P., J. W. Nyahongo, and K. M. Ti ngstad. 2005. The Nature of Hunting around the Western Corridor of Serengeti National Par k, Tanzania. European Journal of Wildlife Research 51 :213-222. Kaplan, S. 2000. Human Nature a nd Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56:491-508. Kellert, S. R., J. N. Mehta, S. A. Ebbin, and L. L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric, a nd Reality. Society and Natural Resources 13 :705-715. Kiss, A. 2004. Making Biodiversity Conservation a Land-Use Priority. Pages 98-123 in T. O. McShane, and M. P. Wells, editors. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work. Columbia University Press, New York.

PAGE 145

145 Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8 :239-260. Koojo, S. M. 2001. An Evaluation of Chimpanzee Censusing Techniques and an Estimation of Snare Density in Kibale National Park. Mast ers Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. Koziell, I. And C. McNeill. 2002. Building on Hi dden Opportunities to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals: Poverty Reduction thr ough Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. United Nationals Development Programme, Equator Initiative, New York, New York. Leader-Williams, N., S. D. Albon, and P. S. M. Berry. 1990. Illegal exploitation of black rhinoceros and elephant populati ons: Patterns of decline, law en forcement and patrol effort in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. The Journal of Applied Ecology 27 :1055-1087. Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M., J. J. Hox, P. G. M. v. d. Heijden, and C. J. M. Maas. 2005. Metaanalysis of randomized response rese arch: Thirty-five y ears of validation. Sociological Methods Research 33 :319-348. Lewis, D., G. B. Kaweche, and A. Mwenya. 1990. Wildlife Conservation: An Experiment in Zambia. Conservation Biology 4 :171-180. Lewis, D. M., and A. Phiri. 1998. Wildlife snarin g an indicator of community response to a community-based conservation project. Oryx 32 :111-121. Lewynsky, V. A. 1986. Evaluation of special ang ling regulations in the Coeur d'Alene River Trout fishery. Master's thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. Lieberson, J., D. Ray, D. Stryker, and L. Va nderslice. 2003. Poverty Reduction in Uganda; A Background Paper. United States Agency fo r International Development; Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination. Liu, I. 2007. Senior Lecturer. School of Mathematic s, Statistics and Comput er Science. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Locander, W., S. Sudman, and N. M. Bradbur n. 1976. An investigation of interview method, threat and response distortion. Journal of American Statistical Association 71. Manstead, A. S. R. 1996. Attitudes and Behavior in G. R. Semin, and K. Fielder, editors. Applied Social Psychology. Sage Publications, London, England. Marcus, R. R. 2006. Seeing the forest for the tree s: Integrated Conservation and Development Projects and local conservation in Madaga scar. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 29 :381-398.

PAGE 146

146 Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 1998. Meas ures of Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000. Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An introduction to CommunityBased Social Marketing. J ournal of Social Issues 56 :543-554. McShane, T. O., and S. A. Newby. 2004. Expect ing the Unattainable: The Assumptions Behind ICDPs in T. O. McShane, and M. P. Wells, ed itors. Getting Biodivers ity Projects to Work. Columbia University Press, New York. Mehta, J. N., and J. T. Heinen. 2001. Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management 28 :165-177. Melnychuk, M. C., and L. J. Chapman. 2002. Hypoxia tolerance of two hapl ochromine cichlids: swamp leakage and potential for interlacustrine dispersal. Environmental Biology of Fishes 65 :99-110. Milner-Gulland, E. J., and N. Leader-Williams 1992. A model of incentives for the illegal exploitation of black rhinos and elephants: poaching pays in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Journal of Applied Ecology 29 :388-401. Monroe, M. C. 2003. Two Avenues for Encourag ing Conservation Behaviors. Research in Human Ecology 10 :113-125. Moore, D.S. 1995. The Basic Practice of Statis tics. New York, New York. Freeman and Co. Moorman, R. S. 2006. Benefits of local residents visiting La Selva Biolog ical Station, Costa Rica. Environmental Conservation 33 :89-99. Mordi, A. R. 1991. Attitudes Toward Wildlife in Botswana. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, New York. Mugisha, A. 2002. Evaluation of Community-Based Conservation Approaches: Management of Protected Areas in Uganda. Doctoral disserta tion. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did= 727390011&sid=4&Fmt=2&clientId=7511&RQT=3 09&VName=PQD Last accessed May 7, 2007. Mugisha, A. R., and S. K. Jacobson. 2004. Thr eat reduction assessment of conventional and community-based conservation approaches to managing protected areas in Uganda. Environmental Conservation 31 :233-241. Mugume, S. 2000. Snare removal program in Kiba le National Park: A preliminary report. Pan Africa News. December 2

PAGE 147

147 Naughton-Treves, L. 1996. Uneasy Neighbors: W ildlife and Farmers Around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Doctoral disse rtation. University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did= 739442181&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=7511&RQT=3 09&VName=PQD Last accessed May 7, 2007. Naughton-Treves, L. 1997. Farming the Forest Edge: Vulnerable Places and People around Kibale National Park, Uga nda. Geographical Review 87 :27-46. Naughton-Treves, L., D.M. Kammen, and C. Chapman. 2007. Burning biodiversity: Woody biomass use by commercial and subsistence groups in western Ugandas forests. Biological Conservation 134 :232-241. Nepal, S. K., and K. E. Weber. 1995. Prospect s for coexistence: Wildlife and local people. Ambio 24 :238-245. Newmark, W. D., and J. L. Hough. 2000. Conserving W ildlife in Africa: Integrated Conservation and Development Projects and Beyond. BioScience 50 :585-592. Newmark, W. D., N. L. Leonard, H. I. Sa riko, and D. G. M. Gamassa. 1993. Conservation attitudes of local people livi ng adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biological Conservation 63 :177-183. Ogwal, J. J. 2003. Fish Resource Harvesting in Lake Kabaleke (Kayanja Landing Site) 20002002. Uganda Wildlife Authority, Kibale Conservation Area. Okirina, M. 2004. Assistant warden, Law enfor cement, Uganda Wildlife Authority, Kibale National Park. Olli, E., G. Grendstad, and D. Wollebaek. 2001. Correlates of Environmental Behaviors. Environment and Behavior 33 :181-208. Parker, T. A., and J. L. Carr. 1992. Status of fore st remnants in the Cordillera de la Costa and adjacent areas of southwestern Ecua dor. RAP working paper #2. Conservation International, Washington D.C. Parry, D., and B. Campbell. 1992. Attitudes of ru ral communities to animal wildlife and its utilisation in Chobe Enclave and Maba be Depression, Botswana. Environmental Conservation 19 :245-252. Pierce, C. L., M. J. Manfredo, and J. J. Va ske. 2001. Social Science Theories in Wildlife Management in D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer, editors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North Ameri ca. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. Pitcher, T. J., R. Watson, R. Forrest, H. Valt sson, and S. Gunette. 2002. Estimating illegal and unreported catches from marine ecosystems: A basis for change. Fish and Fisheries 3 :317339.

PAGE 148

148 Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2006. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. www.ramsar.org Last accessed August 10, 2006. Rao, M., and P. J. K. McGowan. 2002. Wild-Meat Use, Food Security, Livelihoods, and Conservation. Conservation Biology 16 :580-583. Rauwald, K. S., and C. F. Moore. 2002. Environm ental Attitudes as Predictors of Policy Support Across Three Countries. E nvironment and Behavior 34 :709-739. Renzetti, C. M., and R. M. Lee 1993. Researching sensitive topics. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Robinson, J. G., and K. H. Redford. 2004. Jack of all trades, master of none: inherent contradictions amond ICD approaches. Page 442 in T. O. McShane, and M. P. Wells, editors. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work. Columbia University Press, New York. Sah, J. P., and J. T. Heinen. 2001. Wetland re source use and conser vation attitudes among indigenous and migrant peoples in Ghoda ghodi Lake area, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 28 :345-356. Salafsky, N., and R. Margoluis. 1999. The thre at reduction assessment (TRA): Approach to measuring conservation success. A practical and cost-effective fram ework for evaluating. Conservation Biology 13 :830-841. Schill, D. J., and P. A. Kline. 1995. Use of ra ndom response to estimate angler noncompliance with fishing regulations. North Ameri can Journal of Fisheries Management 15 :721-731. Scott, P. 1998. From Conflict to Collaboration: People and Forests at Mount Elgon, Uganda. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. Shepherd, G. 2004. Poverty and Forests: Sustaini ng Livelihoods in Integrated Conservation and Development in T. O. McShane, and M. P. We lls, editors. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work. Columbia University Press, New York. Skonhoft, A., and J. T. Solstad. 1996. Wildlife management, illegal hunting and conflicts. A bioeconomic analysis. Environment and Development Economics 1 Slocum, R., L. Wichhart, D. Rocheleau, and B. Thomas-Slayter, editors. 1995. Power, Process and Participation Tools for Change. Inte rmediate Technology Publications Ltd, London. Smith, D. R., D. R. Anderson, and J. F. Sme ltzer. 1989. Assessment of the Violation-Simulation Method. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17 :179-184. Smith, D. R., and J. F. Smeltzer. 1991. Occurrence of Fishing without a Li cense on the Cache la Poudre River, Colorado. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11 :109-112.

PAGE 149

149 Solomon, J., S. K. Jacobson, K. Wald, and M. Gavin. 2007. Estimating Illegal Resource Use at a Ugandan Park with the Randomized Response Technique. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12(2):75-88 Songorwa, A. N. 1999. Community-Based Wildlife Management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the Communities Interested? World Development 27 :2061-2079. Spiteri, A., and S. K. Nepal. 2006. IncentiveBased Conservation Programs in Developing Countries: A Review of Some Key Issu es and Suggestions for Improvements. Environmental Management 37 :1-14. Struhsaker, T. T. 1981. Forest and primate cons ervation in East Africa. African Journal of Ecology 19 :99-144. Struhsaker, T. T., P. J. Struhsaker, and K. S. Siex. 2005. Conserving Africa's rain forests: problems in protected areas and possibl e solutions. Biological Conservation 123 :45-54. Sunderlin, W. D. 2006. Poverty alleviation thro ugh community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam: An assessment of the potential. Forest Policy and Economics 8 :386-396. Sunderlin, W. D., A. Angelsen, B. Belcher, P. Burgers, R. Na si, L. Santoso, and S. Wunder. 2005. Livelihoods, Forests, and Conservation in Developing Countries: An Overview. World Development 33 :1383-1402. Tezcan, S., and A. R. Omran. 1981. Prevalence a nd Reporting of Induced Abortion in Turkey: Two Survey Techniques. Studies in Family Planning 12 :262-271. Thomas, A. 2000. Poverty and the "End of Developm ent" in T. Allen, and A. Thomas, editors. Poverty and Development. Oxford Univer sity Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Timmer, V., and C. Juma. 2005. Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Reduction Come Together in the Tropics. Environment:26-44. Trujillo, H. A. G. 1998. Sustaina bility of Ecotourism and Traditional Agricultural Practices in Chiapas, Mexico. Engineering. Doctoral dissertation. Universi ty of Florida, Gainesville, FL. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did= 734377381&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=7511&RQT=3 09&VName=PQD Last accessed: May 7, 2007. Twyman, C. 2000. Livelihood Opport unity and Diversity in Kala hari Wildlife Management Areas, Botswana: Rethinking Community Res ource Management. Journal of Southern African Studies 26 :783-806. Uganda Wildlife Authority. 2000. Uganda Wild life Authority Collaborative Management Strategy. Kampala, Uganda. Uganda Wildlife Authority. 2006. Map of Ugandas National Parks. http://www.uwa.or.ug/parks.html Last accessed: December 5, 2006.

PAGE 150

150 Umesh, U. M., and R. Peterson. 1991. A critical evaluation of the randomized response method. Sociological Methods and Research 20 :104-138. United Nations Development Program. 2003. Hu man Development Report 2003: Millenium Development Goals: A Compact amo ng Nations to End Human Poverty. http://hdr.undp.org/report s/global/2003/ Last accessed January 15, 2007. United Nations Development Program 2006. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/sta tistics/indices /default.cfm Last accessed: August 3, 2006. United States Agency for International De velopment. 2005. USAID/Uganda Annual Report. Washington, D.C. Viana, J. P., J. M. B. Damasceno, L. Ca stello, and W. G. R. Crampton. 2004. Economic Incentives for Sustainable Community Manageme nt of Fishery Resources in the Mamiraua Sustainable Development Reserve, Amazonas, Br azil. Pages 139-154 in K. M. Silvius, R. E. Bodmer, and J. M. V. Fragoso, editors. Peop le in Nature. Columbia University Press, New York. Wainwright C. and W. Wehrmeyer. 1998. Success in Integrating Conservation and Development? A Study from Zambia. World Development 26 (6):933-944. Wallace R. H. 2004. The Effects of Wealth a nd Markets on Rubber Tapper Use and Knowledge of Forest Resources in Acre, Brazil. Doct oral Dissertation. Univ ersity of Florida, Gainesville, FL. http://etd.fcla.edu/ UF/UFE0007082/wallace_r.pdf Last accessed: May 7, 2007. Warner, S. L. 1965. Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. American Statistical Association Journal. March :63-69. Weisberg, H. F., J. A. Krosnick, and B. D. Bowen 1996. An Introduction to Survey Research, Polling, and Data Analysis. Sage Pub lications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. Wells, M. P., T. O. McShane, H. T. Dublin, S. O'Connor, and K. Redford. 2004. The Future of Integrated Conservation and Development Pr ojects: Building on What Works. Pages 397421 in T. O. McShane, and M. P. Wells, ed itors. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work. Columbia University Press, New York. Western, D. 2001. Taking the broad view of c onservation A response to Adams and Hulme. Oryx 35 :201-203. Wilkie, D. S., G. A. Morelli, J. Demmer, M. Starkey, P. Telfer, and M. Steil. 2006. Parks and People: Assessing the Human Welfare Effect s of Establishing Protected Areas for Biodiversity Conservati on. Conservation Biology 20 :247-249. Wilshusen, P., S. Brechin, C. Fortwangler, a nd P. West. 2002. Reinventing a square wheel: Critique of a resurgent "protection paradigm" in international biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15 :17-40.

PAGE 151

151 Wright, V. L. 1980. Use of Randomized Respons e Technique To Estimate Deer Poaching. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8 :342-344.

PAGE 152

152 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jennifer N. Solomon was born in 1971 in Hudson, New York. Raised in Spencertown, New York, she graduated from Chatham High School in 1988. The next year was spent in Lucelia, Sao Paulo, Brazil, where she was a Rotary International Exchange student. In 1993 she earned a B.A. in environmental studies and politi cal science from State University of New York at Buffalo. After graduation she moved to th e western part of the United States where she worked in the fields of environmental educati on and political research. In 1995 she joined the Peace Corps in Nicaragua where she worked with a Dutch non-governmental organization training primary and secondary sch ool teachers to incorporat e environmental education into the curricula. After her Peace Corps expe riences, she traveled throughout Central and South America and co-directed an environmental education progr am in Ecuador. In 2000 she earned a M.A. in environmental po licy from Tufts University. The same year she entered the Ph.D. program in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at University of Florida. Upon completion of her Ph.D. program Jennifer will pursue work in the conservation and development field.