<%BANNER%>

Households' Resource Use, Conservation Attitude and Perceived Socioeconomic Impact of the Protected Areas Policy in the ...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021215/00001

Material Information

Title: Households' Resource Use, Conservation Attitude and Perceived Socioeconomic Impact of the Protected Areas Policy in the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago
Physical Description: 1 online resource (151 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chandool, Cindy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: areas, attitude, community, conservation, dependency, environment, impact, management, nariva, natural, protected, resources, sensitive, socioeconomic, swamp
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The designation of the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) was analyzed on a socioeconomic level from the perspective of the two communities; the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities. The resource dependency and conservation attitudes of households in the community and the factors that affect them were assessed. In addition, potential impacts (both negative and positive) of the ESA designation, as perceived by the communities, were also examined at both the household and community level. The preferences for management of the Nariva Swamp by the communities were also assessed. Conservation attitude and resource dependency were determined through a survey of 80 households in the communities and analyzed using regression in order to determine the significant factors. Perceived impacts of the ESA designation were analyzed using socioeconomic impact matrix analysis at the household level and the SWOT-AHP (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats Analysis-Analytical Hierarchy Process) at the community level. Community members were also asked to vote on their preferred management scenarios for future management of the swamp. The factors that significantly affect resource dependency in the Nariva Swamp were age, gender and length of residency and those that significantly affect attitude towards protected areas were age, gender and landholding size. The perceived socioeconomic impacts of ESA designation by the households were mostly negative and potential loss of access to the swamp was considered the greatest negative impact. The SWOT-AHP analysis showed that different groups within the community had varying perceptions about the effects of ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. General community members and members of an environmental group considered the potential opportunities presented by the ESA designation to be most important whereas the ecotourism operator considered the potential threats represented by the designation to be most important. The preferred management choice of the communities was shared authority in management of the swamp with the government agencies. The results of these analyses were used to suggest community management strategies for the Nariva Swamp to encourage and promote maximum participation by the communities.
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 Cindy Chandool.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Alavalapati, Janaki R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021215:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021215/00001

Material Information

Title: Households' Resource Use, Conservation Attitude and Perceived Socioeconomic Impact of the Protected Areas Policy in the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago
Physical Description: 1 online resource (151 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chandool, Cindy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: areas, attitude, community, conservation, dependency, environment, impact, management, nariva, natural, protected, resources, sensitive, socioeconomic, swamp
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The designation of the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) was analyzed on a socioeconomic level from the perspective of the two communities; the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities. The resource dependency and conservation attitudes of households in the community and the factors that affect them were assessed. In addition, potential impacts (both negative and positive) of the ESA designation, as perceived by the communities, were also examined at both the household and community level. The preferences for management of the Nariva Swamp by the communities were also assessed. Conservation attitude and resource dependency were determined through a survey of 80 households in the communities and analyzed using regression in order to determine the significant factors. Perceived impacts of the ESA designation were analyzed using socioeconomic impact matrix analysis at the household level and the SWOT-AHP (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats Analysis-Analytical Hierarchy Process) at the community level. Community members were also asked to vote on their preferred management scenarios for future management of the swamp. The factors that significantly affect resource dependency in the Nariva Swamp were age, gender and length of residency and those that significantly affect attitude towards protected areas were age, gender and landholding size. The perceived socioeconomic impacts of ESA designation by the households were mostly negative and potential loss of access to the swamp was considered the greatest negative impact. The SWOT-AHP analysis showed that different groups within the community had varying perceptions about the effects of ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. General community members and members of an environmental group considered the potential opportunities presented by the ESA designation to be most important whereas the ecotourism operator considered the potential threats represented by the designation to be most important. The preferred management choice of the communities was shared authority in management of the swamp with the government agencies. The results of these analyses were used to suggest community management strategies for the Nariva Swamp to encourage and promote maximum participation by the communities.
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 Cindy Chandool.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Alavalapati, Janaki R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021215:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





HOUSEHOLDS' RESOURCE USE, CONSERVATION ATTITUDE AND PERCEIVED
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PROTECTED AREAS POLICY IN THE NARIVA
SWAMP, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO





















By

CINDY CHANDOOL


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 Cindy Chandool




































To my Mom for her unwavering support and encouragement









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the invaluable assistance and

support of the following people and organizations who contributed in ways that can never be

adequately measured. First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my committee chair,

Dr. Janaki R. R. Alavalapati who allowed me the latitude to fully explore my research ideas

while ensuring that I stayed focused and achieved my goals for my PhD program. The other

members of my committee also have my sincere thanks for all their input and assistance: Dr.

Taylor V. Stein, Dr. Donna Lee and Dr. Brijesh Thapa. I would also like to thank Dr. Brian

Child for his insight at the early stage of my research.

The participants and survey respondents in my research provided important assistance, as

well as the interview subjects from various government agencies in Trinidad. I would especially

like to thank Robyn Cross who provided valuable information for my research. The pursuit of

my PhD would not have been possible without the financial assistance of the Organization of

American States (OAS) who provided me with a two-year graduate scholarship and the PEO

sisterhood who provided me with an International Peace Scholarship. I would also like to thank

my department, the School of Natural Resources and Environment for the two-year graduate

assistantship that allowed me to complete my program as well as all the technical and

administrative support and advice provided by Meisha Wade, Cathy Ritchie and Dr. Stephen

Humphrey.

My friends and family also deserve my sincerest appreciation for their encouragement and

prayers through the difficult periods of my studies as well as their company and conversation

during the more relaxed times. In particular, I would like to thank my friends: Vanessa,

Mechelle and Nicholla; my mom, my sister Alicia and Brandon as well as my fellow students in









the Natural Resource Policy lab. Finally, the achievement of my PhD would not have been

possible without God's many blessings.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ................ ...............9......._._ ....


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


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


CHAPTER


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


Protected Areas ..........._...._ .. ........ ..... ...... ...............13..
Protected Areas Policy in Trinidad and Tobago ........_................. .. ......._...__ .....1
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory ............... ........ .. ...... .........1
The Case of Protected Areas Policy in Trinidad and Tobago ..........._..._ ................ ...17
Problem Statement and Research Questions .............. ...............20....
Proj ect Si gnificance ................. ...............24..............
Plan of Dissertation............... .............2


2 HOUSEHOLDS' RESOURCE USE PATTERNS AND FACTORS INFLUENCING
THEIR RE SOURCE DEPENDENCY .....__................... ........__.. ......... 3


Introducti on ........._._.... ...............30..._._.. ......
Literature Review .............. .. ...............32...
Natural Resource Dependency .............. ...............32....
Factors Affecting Resource Dependency .............. ...............33....
Measurement of Resource Dependency ................ ....__.. ......... ............3
Study Site The Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago ...._.__... ............. ........_........36
M ethod ................ ...............3 9..............
Household Surveys .............. ...............39....
Survey Design .............. ...............39....
Administration of Survey .............. ...............39....
Dependency Model ........._.._ ........... ...............40....
Calculation of Dependency .................... ...............4
Logistic Regression Model ................. ...............40................
Results ................. .... .......... ... ........... .................4
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents ................. ................ ....__. .42
Pattern of Swamp Resource Use .............. ...............43....
Dependency Model Results ......__................. .......__. .........4
Discussion............... ...............4












3 FACTORS INFLUENCING HOUSEHOLDS' ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE
DESIGNATION OF THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREA .............. ...............53....


Introducti on ............ ..... ._ ...............53....
Literature Review .................... ...............54
Effect of Attitudes on Behavior.. ....._ ....__.......___ ......__ ..............54
Factors affecting Community Attitudes .............. ...............57....
M ethods .............. ...............58....
Household Survey............... ...............58.
Survey D esign........................... .. ........ ..............5
Regression Models of Attitude towards Protected Areas .............. .....__.................59
M multiple Linear Regression .............. ...............61....
Logistic Regression .............. ...............62....
R results ............... ... .. .__ ........... ............... .......6
Multiple Linear Regression Model of Attitude .........___ ...... __. .......__...........63
Logistic Regression Model of Attitude ................ ................ ............... ........ ...65
Logistic Regression of Behavioral Intention and Attitude ....._____ ..... .....__ .........67
Discussion............... ...............6


4 FACTORS INFLUENCING HOUSEHOLDS' PERCEIVED SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF DESIGNATING THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA .............. ...............73....


Introducti on ............ ..... ._ ...............73....
Literature Review ................................ ......................7
Perception of Impact of Stakeholders in Protected Areas .............. .. ...___............75
Socioeconomic Impacts of Carbon Sequestration and Reforestation Proj ects..............76
Socioeconomic Benefits of Ecotourism in Protected Areas.............___ .........__ ......81
Factors Affecting Impact Perception ....._____ ................... ............8
Methods ............... .... ... ............8
Socioeconomic Impact Assessment .............. ...............86....
Socioeconomic Impact Matrix .............. ...............86....
Multiple Regression Analysis............... ...............88
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) .................. ..... ........... .........__ ........8
Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat- Analytical Hierarchy Process (SWOT-
A H P) .............. ...............9 1....
Results ............... .. ......... ... .... .__ ............9
Socioeconomic Impact Matrix Analysis .............. ...............94....
SWOT-AHP .................. ..... .. ..............9
General Community Members .............................. ...............9
Environmental Community-based Organization (ECBO) .............. ...................99
Ecotourism Operator (Eco-op) ....._____ ............ ....___ ............10
D iscussion............... ..............10


5 PREFERENCES OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS FOR MANAGEMENT OF
THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA .............106












Introducti on .............. ....._.. ...............106.....
Literature Review .............. ...............107....
Rational Choice Theory............... .. ... .. ...........10
Collective Action in Natural Resource Management .........._.... .......... ...............108
Community Participation in Management of Protected Areas ................. ................. 110
M ethods .............. ... .... ...__ ...............113.....
Semi-structured interviews ................. ... ........ .... ... ....... ..... ..........11
Voting Choice Methodology Borda Count and Approval Voting. ................... ..........113
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ................. ...............117...............
R results ................ .. ............ ...............118......
Semi-structured Interviews ................. ...............118................
Exi sting Managem ent ................. ...............119...............
Restoration and Reforestation ................. .....___.....__ ............1

Agriculture ................. ...............119......... ......
Livelihood ............... ..... ...............120
Community Management Choices .............. ... ................. ... .......12
Structural Equation Model for Resource Dependency, Attitudes, Socioeconomic
Impact Perception and Participation in Protection of the Nariva Swamp ................. 123
D iscussion............... ..............12


APPENDIX


A HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE............... .............13

B FOCUS GROUP DETAILS FOR SWOT FACTORS .............. ...............138....


C SWOT-AHP QUESTIONNAIRE .............. ...............139....

D VOTES FOR MANAGEMENT CHOICES OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS .............140


E REGRESSION WEIGHTS AND COVARIANCES FOR SEM MODEL OF
PARTICIPATION IN PROTECTION OF THE NARIVA SWAMP .............. ..............141


LIST OF REFERENCE S ............ ......_.._ ...............142....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..........._.._ ....... ...............151.....










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Numbers and percentages of respondents who enter the Nariva Swamp and their
purpose. .............. ...............43....

2-2 Numbers and percentages of respondents who do not enter the Nariva Swamp and
their reasons. ............. ...............44.....

2-3 Logistic Regression for resource dependency (n= 80) .............. ...............45....

2-4 Pearson correlation matrix for variables in Logistic Regression ................. ................. .48

3-1 Proportion of respondents who consider an issue important ........._._ .... ..._.._ ..........63

3-2 Multiple Linear Regression of attitudes towards protected areas ................. ................. 64

3-3 Logistic Regression of attitudes towards protected areas ................ ........................66

4-1 Cumulative scores of potential impacts of ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp as
perceived by the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities .............................95

4-2 Multiple Linear Regression of perceived impacts of ESA designation ................... ..........96

4-3 Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat (SWOT) analysis for ESA designation of the
Nariva Swamp............... ...............96.

4-4 Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat-Analytical Hierarchy Process (SWOT-AHP)
analysis showing priority scores .............. ...............98....

5-1 Voter choices for management of the Nariva Swamp ...........__... ........ .............122

5-2 Model fit statistics for Structural Equation Model (SEM) shown in Figure 5-1 .............124

5-3 Standardized causal effects of variables in SEM model ................ ........................124










LIST OF FIGURES


Fiare page

1-1 A conceptual framework to operationalize community participation in conservation
and management of the Nariva Swamp. ....___ ............... ............... ........ ...24

2-1 Map of Trinidad showing location of the Nariva Swamp ................. ................ ...._.3 7

3-1 Suggested link between attitude towards protected areas and behavior. ...........................55

4-1 Generalized hierarchy for Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat-Analytical
Hierarchy Process (SWOT-AHP) analysis of the ESA designation of the Nariva
Swamp ................. ...............93.................

4-2 Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for general community members........99

4-3 Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for environmental community-
based organization (ECBO) ................. ...............100...............

4-4 Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for ecotourism operator .....................101

5-1 Path diagram of SEM showing standardized regression coefficients along pathways
and R2 Values above the endogenous variables............... ...............12









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

HOUSEHOLDS' RESOURCE USE, CONSERVATION ATTITUDE AND PERCEIVED
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PROTECTED AREAS POLICY IN THE NARIVA
SWAMP, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

By

Cindy Chandool

August 2007

Chair: Janaki R. R. Alavalapati
Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology

The designation of the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago as an Environmentally

Sensitive Area (ESA) was analyzed on a socioeconomic level from the perspective of the two

communities; the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities. The resource dependency

and conservation attitudes of households in the community and the factors that affect them were

assessed. In addition, potential impacts (both negative and positive) of the ESA designation, as

perceived by the communities, were also examined at both the household and community level.

The preferences for management of the Nariva Swamp by the communities were also assessed.

Conservation attitude and resource dependency were determined through a survey of 80

households in the communities and analyzed using regression in order to determine the

significant factors. Perceived impacts of the ESA designation were analyzed using

socioeconomic impact matrix analysis at the household level and the SWOT-AHP (Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats Analysis-Analytical Hierarchy Process) at the community

level. Community members were also asked to vote on their preferred management scenarios for

future management of the swamp.









The factors that significantly affect resource dependency in the Nariva Swamp were age,

gender and length of residency and those that significantly affect attitude towards protected areas

were age, gender and landholding size. The perceived socioeconomic impacts of ESA

designation by the households were mostly negative and potential loss of access to the swamp

was considered the greatest negative impact. The SWOT-AHP analysis showed that different

groups within the community had varying perceptions about the effects of ESA designation of

the Nariva Swamp. General community members and members of an environmental group

considered the potential opportunities presented by the ESA designation to be most important

whereas the ecotourism operator considered the potential threats represented by the designation

to be most important. The preferred management choice of the communities was shared

authority in management of the swamp with the government agencies. The results of these

analyses were used to suggest community management strategies for the Nariva Swamp to

encourage and promote maximum participation by the communities.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Protected Areas

The concept of protected areas (PAs) is an historic idea, which first became explicitly

expressed in the Yellowstone National Park, USA and now encompasses over 30,000 areas

worldwide known as national parks, nature reserves, conservation areas, and several other

designations (Beresford and Phillips, 2000). The initial approach to conservation advocated the

"fortress conservation," "fines and fences" or "coercive" approach which was based on

preservation of natural resources on the principle of separation from human influence by

establishing strict nature reserves in which no human activity was allowed (Adams & Hulme,

2001). This type of approach was followed in the West Indies, India and Africa and was

accompanied by the development of legislation and central government institutions to manage

these reserves (Adams & Hulme, 2001).

This centrally organized strategy which excluded the human element from biodiversity

conservation was not fulfilling its objectives in some countries (Hulme & Murphree, 2001). This

occurred in part because these exclusionary strategies led to negative impacts on social and

economic characteristics of the local communities which often led to a lack of compliance of the

regulations governing the protected areas (Adams & Hulme, 2001). The overexploitation of

resources often has socioeconomic reasons when human welfare is not addressed or are based on

social actions such as logging or development so that resource management should focus on the

people involved and not only on the actual resource (Pomeroy, 1995). The sustainability of

protected areas was compromised by such conflict as well as a lack of sufficiently large areas

protected within the reserves to conserve the natural resources (Kellert et al., 2000).









Protected areas in the Caribbean increased after the 1970's in both number and area but

this trend has diminished possibly due to the lack of available land (Green & Paine, 1997).

There is a new protected area community-based paradigm which has been developing over the

last decade led mainly by the World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas (Kellert et

al., 2000; Gillingham, 2001) within which these areas now include places where people live and

work and a collaborative approach to management is required which keeps social and economic

obj ectives in mind (Beresford and Phillips, 2000).

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed a system of

protected areas that continue to range from the traditional strict nature reserves to sustainable use

protected areas (IUCN, 1994). There is a broad spectrum of initiatives possible under this

paradigm of community conservation within which participation and economic use are the main

criteria and this allows for situations ranging from low levels of participation by communities to

areas in which the community has full proprietary rights to the area (Adams & Hulme, 2001).

"Fortress conservation" is biocentric in that nature is the focus of the conservation goals

whereas community conservation can be seen as more anthropocentric (Jones & Murphree,

2001). They also focus at a coarse level rather than at the fine focus of the local context (Bawa

et al., 2004). The new community conservation paradigm instead emphasizes benefits to

communities, proprietary rights of locals and sustainable use (Child, 2004). This approach

focuses on the conservation of ecosystems and their services instead of single species

conservation (Child, 2004). Instead of negatively affecting biodiversity, there have been many

instances of more effective biodiversity conservation on community managed land than in the

"fortress" type of conservation area (Child, 2004).









It is preferable for protected areas to meet socioeconomic needs especially in poor areas

while simultaneously protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services (Child, 2004) especially

since local people would depend on the area for their livelihood. There can be benefits from

sustainable use of protected areas while conserving them if monitoring of ecosystem integrity is

included in management (Child, 2004). Institutions and incentives are prominent within this

conservation paradigm so that people can maintain their livelihood through conservation (Child,

2004).

Within this paradigm, there can be more equitable access to the protected area, improved

implementation of management strategies and improved resource management when

stakeholders are allowed to participate fully in management actions (Kessler, 2004). There is a

need for adaptive schemes, traditional knowledge and improvement of social capital within each

specific local setting (Bawa et al., 2004). Participatory democracy, institution strengthening and

empowerment of resource users are also important (Jentoft et al., 1998; Bawa et al., 2004). The

partnership between local community and government works when they can provide legislation,

enforcement and other assistance (Pomeroy & Berkes, 1997).

There is also a need to draw from local knowledge and natural science information so that

the area is treated as a single economic and ecological unit in order to build resilience (Bawa et

al., 2004; Pomeroy, 1995). The protected areas can conserve natural resources and ecosystem

services while simultaneously providing benefits to the community through alternative activities

such as nature-based tourism as well as by protecting the natural resources on which traditional

livelihoods depend (Singleton et al., 2002; Picard, 2003). PAs are now designated with the

expectation that they will provide economic, social, scientific (Picard, 2003) and ecological

benefits.









The ecological and socioeconomic aspects of natural resources should not be considered

separately in conservation management. Neither purely biocentric nor anthropocentric

approaches will lead to effective conservation. Instead a dual consideration of nature and

humans is necessary to ensure the sustainability of protected areas and other conservation

initiatives. In many instances, the benefits (local and national) of protected areas are more likely

achieved when stakeholders are involved in management (Child, 2004).

Protected Areas Policy in Trinidad and Tobago

The development of protected areas policy in Trinidad and Tobago has evolved along the

general pattern of protected areas elsewhere starting with the "fortress conservation" approach

and ending with the community-based approach. The history and evolution of this policy can be

described using a Punctuated Equilibrium framework.

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

Punctuated equilibrium theory originated in the field of evolutionary biology whereby

species evolution was seen to be stable or in equilibrium followed by apparently 'sudden'

evolution of a new species (Repetto, 2006). This theory has been adapted to policy change

where a similar trend has been observed in particular in environmental policy (Repetto, 2006).

In the policy arena, there tends to be the maintenance of the status quo or equilibrium followed

by a break in the logj am leading to a change in the dynamics of the policy and a subsequent

speeding up of the policy process (Repetto, 2006). Underlying this trend is the fact that there are

more marginal changes and fewer paradigmatic changes that occurred to lead to the

"punctuation" (Repetto, 2006). These changes tend to be sudden and discontinuous and cannot

be explained sufficiently by the idea of "political will" (Repetto, 2006).

In order to explain this pattern, there is a need to know the processes and drivers of

environmental policy in their particular context, especially the political context (Repetto, 2006).









The causal variables as to why the old policy fails are important and they lead to the need for

new "policy images" which means that the issue is thought of in a new way (Repetto, 2006).

These determinants of policy change are characterized by negative and positive feedbacks to the

system (Repetto, 2006). When change causes a disturbance, forces (negative feedback) may

drive the system back to its original status (Repetto, 2006). On the other hand, the disturbance

may be caused by forces (positive feedback) that reinforce the change and move it further away

from the original state (Repetto, 2006). For example, positive feedback may take the form of

new programs that have been initiated since the last shift in policy (Repetto, 2006).

Elections, social movements and institutional changes may all cause policy shifts (Repetto,

2006). In particular, environmental policy faces the challenges of economic growth, property

rights issues as well as the support of positive factors such as saving species and reducing

pollution (Repetto, 2006). The cost of reversal of policy is considered to be high and the

influence of the change agents must be great (Repetto, 2006). The Catch 22 or "social trap" is

that there is no positive experience to look at during the equilibrium so that there is a reluctance

to depart from traditional practice but if new approaches are not adopted, there will be no

favorable examples to look at (Repetto, 2006).

The Case of Protected Areas Policy in Trinidad and Tobago

The various forms of protected areas policy in Trinidad and Tobago appear to fit into this

pattern inherent in the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. Interest in the protection of natural areas

began at a very early stage in Trinidad and Tobago's development. As far back as the 1880's,

the first attempt at some form of protective environmental policy was made by the administration

of Trinidad and Tobago, which at that time was still a British colony, and took the form of

commissioning a report on the forests of the islands. Protected areas, designated as national

parks, were first identified by the independent government in 1972, but the formal acceptance of









national parks into the environmental policy of Trinidad and Tobago was not done until 1981

(Leach & Fairfield, 2001).

This policy remained a 'paper policy' with no associated legislation to enforce its

provisions. National parks continued to be formed under related legislation such as Forestry and

Wildlife legislation. Some of the parks that were designated, such as the Chaguaramas National

Park in 1974, were done largely on the basis of recreational criteria rather than environmental

issues. This first attempt at protected areas policy can be seen as one policy change followed by

equilibrium since this status quo persisted for several years.

Multi-lateral international conventions such as the Convention for Biodiversity and the

Ramsar Convention, to which Trinidad and Tobago is a signatory, played a role in promoting the

further development of a policy on protected areas. These acted as some of the external drivers

that cause changes in policy (Repetto, 2006). The need for changes in protected areas policy was

also driven by the government agencies responsible for these areas, the scientific community

represented by the conservation specialists at the University of the West Indies as well as a small

environmentally conscious community within the country (Brown, 2000).

The apparent over-exploitation of resources, changing land use and lack of effective

conservation in the natural areas of Trinidad and Tobago prompted these stakeholders to promote

the concept of a comprehensive and enforceable piece of legislation to conserve protected areas

(Brown, 2000). The Forestry Division, in particular, drafted several policies and pieces of

legislation in order to encourage governmental approval of a national parks system. This

advocacy is identified as one of the causes for policy change and punctuation of the policy

equilibrium (Repetto, 2006). In combination, the pressure of international agreements and the










opinions of scientific experts, members of the general citizenry as well as government employees

themselves, represented these marginal changes that led to punctuation in protected areas policy.

This "new" policy took the form of several variations and iterations as it developed,

ranging from being a forestry policy to a combined national parks and wildlife policy to a stand-

alone national parks policy. The National Parks and Wildlife Bill in particular, received severe

criticism from reviewers over jurisdictional issues and in particular, land use, the rights of which

would be curtailed for existing users (Leach & Fairhead, 2001) and was withdrawn to reemerge

as two separate Bills for national parks and wildlife respectively.

Leach & Fairfield (2001) consider the main reason for the lack of enforcement of a

comprehensive protected areas policy at this time to be a lack of political will in a government

more committed to industrial development issues (Leach & Fairhead, 2001). However as

identified in Repetto (2006) there must be additional reasons for the maintenance of this status

quo. One reason may have been economic since large tracts of resource-rich land were required

for conservation purposes to be set aside when the country was in the midst of a reinvigorated

energy sector.

In addition, constant indecision and confusion over which governmental agency should

control the protected areas was a contentious issue (Leach & Fairhead, 2001). In the midst of the

debate over this policy, the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) was formed in 1995

through the promulgation of the Environmental Management Act. This served to introduce

further conflict since the EMA was given the authority to designate Environmentally Sensitive

Areas (ESAs) which are, in effect, protected areas. This was viewed as a duplication of effort

and resources to the proposed National Parks and Protected Areas Bill. These factors acted in

concert as negative feedbacks (Repetto, 2006) causing a "stall" in this particular protected areas









policy and a maintenance of the status quo which was exemplified by the fact that the National

Parks and Protected Areas Bill was never passed in Parliament.

The punctuation of the protected areas policy in this instance was caused in part by this

shift in responsibility from the Forestry Division to the EMA. However since many of the

responsibilities for implementation of the ESA will still reside with the Forestry Division, the

change in agency may be more of a political and legislative issue rather than a functional one.

The resultant policy which now governs the sustainable use and conservation of protected areas

in Trinidad and Tobago is the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Rules, 2001 (ESAR).

Implementation of these rules is currently being undertaken and areas are being designated as

prescribed by these rules. This process is being conducted in stages and one of the first sites to

be legally designated is the Nariva Swamp.

Problem Statement and Research Questions

Based on the ESAR as PA Policy, it is important for PAs such as the Nariva Swamp to

promote social and economic aspects of sustainability in addition to biological and physical ones.

In addition, the impact of the designation of a PA on the surrounding community will affect the

success of the PA as determined by the achievement of short and long term conservation goals of

the PA. Success can be measured by the socioeconomic status of the community and status of

the resource (Singleton et al., 2002). This success is reliant on the perceptions, attitudes and

behavior of the people involved in the use of the natural resource.

Effective natural resource management initiatives will be those that consider people's

perceptions and use of their natural resources as well as their perception of costs and the

processes that affect these resources (Marcus, 2001). It has been suggested that a combination of

positive attitudes of the community and their perceived benefits should provide an increased

probability of compliance with PA restrictions and plans as well as participation in these










management plans (McClanahan et al., 2005). PA management success also requires the

continuous assessment of these perceptions which includes the determination of the factors that

influence these perceptions (McClanahan et al., 2005).

The variability of socioeconomic and political contexts of different countries leads to

differing conclusions about stakeholder attitudes and perceptions about PA policy (Weladji et al.,

2003). In order to achieve the protection of natural resources through protected areas policy, one

of the key actions is to identify stakeholders, ascertain their attitudes towards protected area

management and the factors that affect these attitudes (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). Surveys

on these issues can help to guide management decisions and provide baseline information for

assessing the effectiveness of new policies (Weladji et al., 2003). The study of community

attitudes and behavior to the ESAR before they are implemented is important to ensuring that the

local people participate in management. My study will seek to determine the factors that affect

people's perceptions and attitudes with a view to promoting conservation success by ensuring

that their concerns are addressed at an early stage of implementation of the ESAR in the Nariva

Swamp .

In order to assess the effectiveness of protected areas management, one element to be

evaluated is the planning of protected areas as characterized by the protected areas legislation,

policy and management planning (Hockings, 2003). Designating an area as protected does not

make sense if it is not possible for the sustainable traditional uses and services to continue for the

communities (Hockings, 2003). This interaction of human communities with protected areas

includes the provision of livelihoods and sustenance (Hockings, 2003). Planning for protected

areas must now be done with and for local people rather than against them (Beresford and

Phillips, 2000). This includes ensuring that they are not negatively impacted by these









designations but can obtain maximum benefits by improving the social and economic conditions

for people living within these areas (Beresford and Phillips, 2000). It has been predicted that

local communities within and around a protected area would prefer to obtain maximized positive

social and economic impacts rather than only require mitigation of negative impacts

(O'Faircheallaigh, 1999).

My study will ascertain the level of community support for the policy in order to enable its

success and ensure that local communities are not negatively affected. If local people do not

perceive that the policy will benefit them; they may choose not to participate and may ignore

management plans and restrictions. Protection of these Environmentally Sensitive Areas will

only be effective if stakeholders are meaningfully and transparently involved, traditional or

customary rights are recognized and their loss compensated for, and there are direct linkages

between conservation and development objectives (Elliot et al., 2001; Ngugi, 2002). My study

will therefore establish attitudes about protected areas policy and the ESAR in general, the ESA

designation of the NS, the purpose of its designation and the perceived impacts of designation. It

will also assess the dependency of households on the resources of the Nariva Swamp.

The management of the swamp under the ESAR legislation can potentially affect the

communities adj acent to the swamp. Management actions will include restoration of previously

cleared areas of the swamp using native species in order to both regenerate natural habitat and

increase carbon sequestration in the swamp. Existing forest cover will also be protected in order

to maintain the carbon sequestration of the swamp forest. There is also a planned increase in

nature-based tourism activities within the swamp. There is known to be an un-quantified level of

nature-based tourism being conducted in the swamp which is expected to increase with the

ESAR implementation.









In Trinidad and Tobago, since the legislation is still in the process of being implemented,

the effects of the ESAR are as yet unknown, so it is important to ascertain the potential

socioeconomic impacts of ESA designation as perceived by local communities to ascertain

potential barriers to ESA implementation in the Nariva Swamp. Based on the findings of my

study, recommendations can be made on the additional measures or modifications to proposed

management plans for the Nariva Swamp that need to be implemented in order to maximize the

benefits and minimize the negative impacts ofESA designation on local communities and to

promote sustainable wetland co-management. Recommendations can also be made on the

approaches and steps needed to enhance participation of stakeholders in ESA management and

whether the community needs to be more fully involved in the proj ects.

A conceptual framework depicting this is shown in Figure 1-1; the conservation attitudes,

resource dependency and perception of potential socioeconomic impacts of the two communities

will be determined. These components are all influenced by socioeconomic variables such as

age and income and depending on the influencing variables as well as the characteristics of these

factors (attitudes, dependency and impacts) participation in management and appropriate

management strategies can be predicted or developed.

Research Questions. The aims of my study will be fulfilled by addressing the following

questions:

1) What are the existing use patterns of resources by communities surrounding the Nariva
Swamp? What factors affect this dependency?

2) What are the attitudes of households towards the designation of the Nariva Swamp as an
ESA? What are the variables that affect these attitudes?

3) What socioeconomic impacts are expected by households in response to the designation of
the Nariva Swamp as an ESA? What are the variables that affect these perceptions?









4) What are the choices for management by community members? How do the community
members view their role in co-management of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA? What is
their preference towards imminent changes in management of the Swamp?


Figure 1-1. A conceptual framework to operationalize community participation in conservation
and management of the Nariva Swamp.

Project Significance

The Nariva Swamp in Trinidad and Tobago is a Ramsar Site and will be designated as a

protected area known as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) under the legislation of









Trinidad and Tobago. The conservation of the natural resources of this swamp is of both

regional and international significance but this conservation cannot be achieved without the

participation of the surrounding communities in the sustainable use of these resources. The

variability of socioeconomic and political contexts of different countries leads to differing

conclusions about stakeholder attitudes and perceptions about PA policy (Weladji et al., 2003).

Developing countries require the support of local people who live adj acent to PAs to ensure their

integrity into the future (Anderson and Grove, 1987; West and Brechin, 1991; Brandon and

Wells, 1992). It is crucial to determine whether local communities understand and are in support

of conservation measures, their attitudes toward the PA, the benefits to locals and the extent of

these benefits (Alexander, 2000; Hough 1991; West and Brechin, 1991).

It is expected that people will choose to participate in protected areas management if their

expected benefits (positive impacts) will exceed their costs (negative impacts) (Marshall, 2005)

which is also true of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. Support for protected areas by

local communities in these developing countries tends to be reduced or lacking if the designation

and management of these protected areas has negative effects on these communities (Hough

1991; West and Brechin, 1991). There have been few evaluations of these social impacts in

protected areas systems and these are a critical component in the discussion of international

conservation policies which is currently deficient (Fortin and Gagnon, 1999). Surveys on these

issues can help to guide management decisions and provide baseline information for assessing

the effectiveness of new policies (Weladji et al., 2003). In developing countries, there is a need

for this type of survey research to inform social impact assessment (Becker, 2001).

In Trinidad and Tobago, since the legislation is still in the process of being implemented,

the effects of the ESAR are as yet unknown, but it can be predicted that the designation of ESAs









will lead to socioeconomic effects and complexities within the communities adj acent to these

protected areas. The attitudes towards and potential socioeconomic impact of ESA designation

of the Nariva Swamp as perceived by local stakeholders are issues that must be assessed ex ante

in order to ensure public support for this PA policy. This empirical research will contribute to

the literature and information on socioeconomic effects of protected areas in developing

countries, which is considered deficient as identified by the authors above. It will also contribute

to the literature on stakeholder attitudes of protected areas policy and management as well as the

pattern of their resource use. The results of this proj ect will provide this type of information by

identifying the country specific, contextual factors that affect people's attitudes and impact

perception as well as the types and levels of perceived positive (benefits) and negative (costs)

impacts of this PA policy in the Nariva Swamp.

Although the Nariva Swamp has been earmarked for designation as an ESA and

management plans are in place, there is still an opportunity for modifications to the management

plan as well as the timing and mode of implementation of required management actions

prescribed in this plan. This pre-assessment can proactively identify potential issues of concern

to the communities on the ESA designation and ensure that they are included in management as

appropriate. These results will be communicated to the EMA, the community and other

stakeholders in order to promote conservation success by ensuring that these concerns are

addressed prior to the implementation of the ESA Rules in the Nariva Swamp. In addition, this

information can be used by government agencies to address the community's perceived impacts

with respect to the Nariva Swamp before these management actions are undertaken and also

avoid or mitigate these impacts through the amendment or alteration of similar proposed actions

in other ESAs. It is important to determine the predicted socioeconomic impacts of the ESA










policy management actions at this stage before they are implemented so that management plans

may be guided accordingly based on the results of my study.

My study will also contribute to the improvement of resource management of the swamp

by providing a baseline study for the comparative assessment of the PA policy and management

after a period of implementation has elapsed. My study can be used within a framework of

adaptive management of continuous monitoring, assessment and amendment of management

plans. The social fabric of communities is a product of the dynamic and changeable values,

attitudes and behaviors held by these communities further emphasizing the need for an adaptive

approach to resource management (CERM, 2002). This empirical research addresses these

attitudes and so, can be used as a baseline study for a framework of adaptive management within

the Nariva Swamp in which the predictive assessment can be followed by continuous monitoring

and amendment of management plans.

It can also be used as a model for similar socioeconomic assessments within the other

areas earmarked for designation as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). The management

of the Nariva Swamp should provide social benefits to outweigh potential costs and the attitudes

of stakeholders should be incorporated into these management plans for the swamp. My study

will provide this information to improve resource management of the swamp and support better

decision-making by providing information that can be used in the implementation strategy of the

policy to mitigate negative impacts as well as provide a comparative framework for the

assessment of the policy after a period of implementation has elapsed. It also provides a

framework for similar studies in other sensitive areas as the policy and management plans are

implemented for each of these areas.









The research will also provide policy relevant information that will lead to the

enhancement of natural resource protection by contributing to well-informed policymaking. The

proj ect will benefit the policy makers and other decision makers within the realm of protected

areas policy and management in Trinidad and Tobago by improving the goals and

implementation of this policy with specific recommendations. The relevant stakeholders who

participate in and depend on protected areas policy will also benefit from the analysis. Within

the larger perspective, the social and natural resources of the country will benefit through

improved policy alternatives and decisions in the long term.

Plan of Dissertation

The dissertation is divided into five chapters that build on each other by assessing

household dependency, attitudes, potential impacts and community management preferences of

ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp.

Chapter 2 addresses the resource use patterns of the local communities in and around the

Nariva Swamp. Natural resource dependency is estimated and converted to a binary scale

resulting in a division into high and low dependency households. The factors that affect this

resource dependency are also analyzed using a logistic regression in order to assess the effect of

these factors on high or low dependency by the households in the community. The results of

these analyses are used to suggest the role of dependency in PA management.

Chapter 3 assesses household attitudes towards protection of the Nariva Swamp to

determine whether these attitudes are positive or negative. It is expected that those with positive

attitudes will tend to participate in PA management activities whereas those with negative

attitudes will not participate. These attitudes were analyzed in two ways, using multiple linear

regression and logistic regression. This allows for the comparison of the two methods as a

model for conservation attitudes and the factors affecting these attitudes. These predictive









attitude models can be used in the development of community management options for the

Nariva Swamp to encourage and promote maximum participation by the communities.

Chapter 4 examines the potential impact of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp as

perceived by community members. A simple matrix method is used to determine the perceived

impacts of the households in the communities. The strength, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

analysis combined with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (SWOT-AHP) method is also used in a

focus group setting in order to have participation by different subsets of interests in the

community. These methods provide both an absolute measurement of perceived impacts as well

as a comparative measurement of the impacts as quantified by the community. The potential

impacts can be incorporated into management by either alleviating them in the case of negative

impacts or promoting them in the case of positive impacts.

Chapter 5 covers the management choices of community groups using voting procedures,

namely the Borda Count and Approval voting methods. These methods are used within the

framework of co-management of the Nariva Swamp between the government and communities

in order to determine the community's preferences for management. This chapter also serves to

unite the former chapters through a structural equation model that contains selected

socioeconomic variables and their effects on resource dependency, attitudes towards protected

areas and perception of potential socioeconomic impacts. This allows for the integration of

overall results into suggestions for future management strategies in the swamp.









CHAPTER 2
HOUSEHOLDS' RESOURCE USE PATTERNS AND FACTORS INFLUENCING THEIR
RESOURCE DEPENDENCY

Introduction

Rural communities often depend on natural resource extraction as a key part of their

livelihood strategy. In developing countries in particular, rural households make extensive use

of a variety of products and services from environmental resources (Cavendish, 2000). Natural

resource based activities tend to require little skill and monetary investment with associated low

returns except in cases of highly specialized resources or products with high market value

(Vedeld et al., 2004).

Some of the products obtained from natural resources include fuelwood, plants, medicines,

wild food, fiber, grazing material for animals, hunting animals and building materials (Bluffstone

et al., 2001; DeBoer & Baquete, 1998; Cavendish, 2000; Vedeld et al., 2004; Heltberg, 2001).

Households that depend on agriculture for their livelihood also use the natural resources for

crop/agricultural land or grazing land for animals (Bluffstone et al., 2001; Vedeld et al., 2004).

In circumstances where there is a wide variety and range of resources available, there is great

heterogeneity in how the resource is used by local people (Takasaki et al., 2001).

A meta-analysis of 54 studies in different developing countries around the world was by

Vedeld et al. (2004) and showed an average forest income of 22% of the total income of the

households. This report also estimated that approximately 60 million people worldwide are

heavily dependent on forest resources for their livelihood (Vedeld et al., 2004). The resources

may serve to maintain the current income level of the household, act as additional source of

income to increase wealth and escape poverty or as a type of buffer against unforeseen decreases

in income (Vedeld et al., 2004).









The use of natural resources for local livelihood is often not regulated (Bahuguna, 2000).

Thus, resource use can become excessive and lead to the degradation of the environment when

local people are faced with poverty and have no other recourse for income generation (Reardon

& Vosti, 1995). In cases where agriculture or for example timber extraction in Asia has led to

the degradation of these resources, diversification of income sources or alternative livelihood

strategies by rural people who have lower negative impacts on the resource should help reduce

this degradation (Reardon & Vosti, 1995; Gunatilake, 1998).

Some researchers consider that poor management and inequitable distribution of resources

may lead to low economic benefit from common resources (Bluffstone et al., 2001). Due to the

strong linkage between rural communities and natural resources, they can be greatly affected by

restrictions on resource use or access (Adhikari et al.. 2004; Reddy & Chakravarty, 1999). The

magnitude and details of resource use and dependency will have consequences for conservation

of that resource and strategies for making the resource use sustainable (Vedeld et al., 2004).

In light of this determination by Vedeld et al. (2004), the management of a protected area

such as the Nariva Swamp in Trinidad and Tobago must include an assessment of the

dependency of the local communities on the natural resources of the swamp. Since this swamp

will be an ESA as described previously in Chapter 1, this assessment will allow for the

formulation of management strategies in order to ensure the continued livelihood of the

communities. This management will need to take into consideration the extent and level of the

resource dependency, that is, whether the communities are heavily dependent on the swamp

resources or not and the ways in which they use the resource. Management may also have to

include alteration of some of the practices in the swamp that may be degrading the resource.










My study strives to answer these questions by assessing resource dependency of the Plum

Mitan and Kernahan/Cascadoux communities which are in close proximity to the Nariva Swamp.

Resource dependency can be assessed at different levels; the household level is recognized as

one appropriate level of analysis and was used in my study. An administered survey was used to

collect information on resource dependency in addition to interviews with the local people and

government officials. The basic characteristics of the use of the resources of the Nariva Swamp

by the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities were determined from this survey.

Dependency was estimated by collecting information on the annual income received by

households from the swamp as well as their total annual income from all sources. This data was

used to calculate an indicator of resource dependency as a ratio of swamp income versus total

income. The index was then converted to a binary scale of high and low dependency using the

mean as the threshold value; this value was 0.26 or 26% of household income obtained from

swamp resources. Logistic regression was then used to analyze the dependency of the

communities based on eight variables that based on the literature, influence household resource

dependency and the magnitude of the effect of these factors.

This analysis of household resource dependency on the Nariva Swamp has several

implications for management of this swamp as an ESA. These suggestions were made based on

the factors that affect dependency as well as the generally low level of resource dependency by

these communities. These types of pre-implementation studies are important to align

management with the actual context of the communities that are dependent on natural resources.

Literature Review

Natural Resource Dependency

Differences in resource use by members of a community arise due to variations in the

specific socioeconomic conditions, values, beliefs, goals and preferences of the members of that









community (Adhikari et al.. 2004). Each community has its own unique set of factors that affect

the nature and level of their resource dependency. It should be noted that resource use by

households may vary across a particular community and will not remain static over time,

resulting in changing resource dependency over time (Cavendish, 2000).

Factors Affecting Resource Dependency

Geographic and economic conditions are two of the factors that affect how people use a

particular resource (Takasaki et al., 2001). The wealth of a household in particular will generally

affect the level of dependency on the resource (Takasaki et al., 2001). Wealth would include

income as well as landholding and other non land assets such as natural resources, human

resources and all physical and financial assets (Takasaki et al., 2001; Reardon & Vosti, 1995). A

household has a certain quantity of these assets that is allocated to income generating activities

that affect the environment which then feeds into the next cycle of income generating activity

(Reardon & Vosti, 1995).

Wealth will therefore affect the choices made by households with respect to livelihood

strategies such as agriculture versus fishing or other forms of resource use (Takasaki et al.,

2000). Rapid rural appraisal in Peruvian Amazon to measure asset and wealth, showed that in

rural communities, landholding and other assets can affect resource use even if these assets are

relatively small (Takasaki et al., 2000). Higher income will also lead to greater investment in

recreation time and less dependency (Gunatilake, 1998).

It is expected that poorer households will rely more heavily on natural resource extraction

and that differences in landholdings will vary resource dependency such that those with less or

poorer quality land will exhibit a greater reliance on natural resources (Takasaki et al., 2001;

Reddy & Chakravarty, 1999; Vedeld et al., 2004; Cavendish, 2000). Although the poor may be

more dependent on forest resources, it is important to note that richer households may use more









land for agriculture and grazing of livestock (Heltberg, 2001). Therefore dependency is not

restricted to poorer households; instead households that have fewer sources of income or

"consumption smoothing" tend to rely on the resources more than others (Pattanayak and Sills,

2001).

Education will allow for a greater diversity of income generating opportunities for

individuals leading to less use of natural resources; education can also act as a proxy for wage

earning since education determines wage (Gunatilake, 1998). It is therefore expected that

education would have a negative effect on dependency (Gunatilake, 1998; Adhikari et al.. 2004).

Age will affect dependency because older people may find it easier to collect products from the

environment rather than engage in agricultural activities which may be to strenuous (Cavendish,

2000; Vedeld et al., 2004). However, Masozera and Alavalapati (2004) found that age had a

negative effect on dependency.

The gender of the head of the household and general composition of the household may

affect the types of resources that can be obtained from the environment (Cavendish, 2000;

Vedeld et al., 2004). This is particularly true in traditional societies where males and females

have specific roles and activities (Cavendish, 2000). Gender may have a variable effect on

dependency, if the activities are more male oriented then there would be higher dependency by

males or the nature of resource use may be more female oriented leading to the opposite result

(Gunatilake, 1998).

Agricultural income, household size as well as access to towns and markets also affect

dependency (Masozera & Alavalapati, 2004; Gunatilake, 1998). Agricultural income and market

access has a negative effect on dependency whereas household size had a positive effect on

dependency (Masozera & Alavalapati, 2004). Greater availability of labor in a household can









lead to a greater variability in income generating activities away from the natural resource and

lower dependency (Gunatilake, 1998). However, a household with a large number of people will

tend to have higher requirements to live and will then have greater dependency (Gunatilake,

1998).

Those closer to the forest will have higher dependency (Gunatilake, 1998). Those with

non-agriculture and non-forest activities are expected to have lower dependency because these

tend to be year round rather than seasonal like agriculture is (Gunatilake, 1998). Other factors

that influence resource dependency include technology (tools used for collection), debt,

male/female ratio, labor availability, number of days spent in other activities and landholding

size all have effects on household dependency (Adhikari et al.. 2004; Gunatilake, 1998).

Outward migration may also affect dependency but testing this is difficult (Gunatilake, 1998).

Other household characteristics that are important in the consideration of forest dependency

include ethnicity and occupation (Vedeld et al., 2004). Also employment unrelated to either

forest or agriculture and incorporation into outside markets lead to a lower dependency

(Gunatilake, 1998)

There may also be community level characteristics that affect resource dependency such as

market access, community averaged income, forest income, limitations on access to resource,

institutional issues (organization and administrative), politics and ecology (Vedeld et al., 2004).

Also, when agricultural productivity in a community is low, they tend to rely more heavily on the

natural resources (DeBoer & Baquete, 1998). If the community is linked with the market

economy there will be less dependence on natural resources (Gunatilake, 1998). With higher

agricultural productivity in the village there will be lower dependency (Gunatilake, 1998).









Measurement of Resource Dependency

Measuring resource dependency is difficult to quantify absolutely so there are different

ways of estimating this dependency. One such method used by researchers is the amount of

hours spent in activities related to resource use. This labor allocation can be quantified as time

spent collecting products and quantity of products collected can be used as a measure of

dependency on the common pool resource (Adhikari et al.. 2004; Bluffstone et al., 2001;

Pattanayak and Sills, 2001).

Another aspect of resource dependency as exemplified by the case of forest dependency in

the Brazilian Amazon, is the use of forest products to alleviate any losses in agricultural

activities (Pattanayak and Sills, 2001). This study characterized household collection of forest

products as a function of household labor, characteristics and access and quality to the resource

(Pattanayak and Sills, 2001). This labor was operationalized by annual number of trips to the

forest for products collection purposes (Pattanayak and Sills, 2001). Those who take more

collection trips and hence have higher dependency, are those who have lived there longer and

know more about the resource (Pattanayak and Sills, 2001).

Resource dependency may also be measured using total income obtained from the natural

resource or by measuring forest income as a proportion of total income of the household

(Gunatilake, 1998; Masozera and Alavalapati, 2004). This includes calculation of assets of rural

households that can be generally considered to be agricultural land, productive assets,

nonproductive assets and livestock (Takasaki et al., 2000).

Study Site The Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago

Primary socioeconomic surveys and data collection are required in the communities

adj acent to the Nariva Swamp to enable the assessment of attitudes, resource use and perceptions

of impact of the ESAR. The Nariva Swamp is a freshwater swamp situated on the east coast of










Trinidad (Figure 2-1) and is the largest wetland in Trinidad and Tobago being made up of

approximately 6,000 hectares. It is a designated Wetland of International Importance under the

Ramsar Convention (1971). The ecosystem types are mangrove swamp forest, palm forest,

swamp wood and freshwater marsh which provide a habitat for many rare and endangered

species of reptiles, mammals and birds such as the manatee (Trichecus manatus), the red howler

(Alouatta seniculus insularis) and capuchin (Cebus albifr~ons) monkeys (Brown, 2000).











Fiur -1 ap of Trnddsown oaio fteNaiaSap




spce ffehaerfs,7 ecn o h sadsaia pce r on thereas wll s3

pecnto riiadsrptlsan 8 ecnto teiladsamhbin Brw, 00. te

speie of? comriliprac on ntesapicuetebakcnh(oae
urseus),~~~ magoeose Cassra hzpoa)advroscrb Crioagahm n

Ucidescordaus) (rown,2000)





The sitehas Map compe hiid storywhinch include illegalrice f warmin naea fteswm hc










were not zoned for such activity. At present, the site can be characterized according to two main

zones, which are not formally demarcated under the existing management regime. The first

zone, the Bush Bush Wildlife Sanctuary is a protected area that is accessible through a permit

system only and is largely used for scientific research. This zone has no infrastructure and is

accessible by walking into the area or by boat and one trail traverses the zone itself. Some

villagers use both motorized and non-motorized boats to access this area to bring visitors to the

site as well as to Hish and hunt in the area.

The second extensive zone is made up of the remaining parts of the swamp, which are used

for a mixture of agriculture, fishing, hunting and recreation. This area is relatively easy to access

with some parts bordering the main access road with minor roads leading into the area. It is also

accessible by boat or kayak along the Nariva River and there are several houses within this area.

Some villagers sell their catch, such as fish and crabs along the roadway in small sheds or at their

houses. The main communities within and around the Nariva Swamp are the Kernahan and

Plum Mitan communities around which this research will focus.

Some land tenure issues exist within the swamp whereby families have short-term leases

and in some cases have no leases for the land they live on (Brown, 2000). The activities that

take place in the swamp are legal except for those that take place within the Bush Bush Wildlife

Sanctuary. This has led to a lack of economic stability of some members of the local community

and has affected the way they utilize the resources of the swamp (Brown, 2000). These people

would not be inclined to protect the swamp if they do not feel that they have a legitimate long

term benefit to gain (Brown, 2000).










Method

Household Surveys

The primary means of data collection was done via a detailed, administered household

survey/questionnaire (Appendix A).

Survey Design

The second section of the survey focused on resource use and dependency of the

household. Questions were asked on existing relationships with the natural resources of the

swamp such as extent of use for agriculture, hunting, fishing, mariculture and recreation. The

frequency of use of the natural resources of the swamp was also queried based on number of

trips to the swamps and hours spent there. The proportion of income obtained from use of

resources from the swamp was also ascertained in this section. The use of the swamp for

ecotourism activity was also determined. The main sources of income for the household, size of

landholdings, capital assets and agricultural leases in the swamp (if any) were answered in this

section.

Socioeconomic factors were covered in the fourth section of the questionnaire. This

section covered demographic factors such as age, gender, education as well as household

composition such as ethnicity, religion, occupation of household members, marital status and

household size.

Administration of Survey

The survey instrument was initially tested in the Manzanilla area to avoid reduction of an

already small sample pool. Based on feedback from this pre-test and from input by members of

government agencies and the wider scientific community, questions were altered or removed as

necessary.










Respondents were apprised of the intent of my study before the survey was administered

(Reddy, 2002). The questionnaire was orally administered to heads of households from a total of

80 randomly selected households from the Plum Mitan and Kernahan/Cascadoux communities.

In the event that the head of household was not available the next available adult member of the

household with was questioned. The survey was approved by the University of Florida

Institutional Review Board (Protocol #2006-U-541).


Dependency Model

Calculation of Dependency

Based on methods used by other researchers described previously, the proportion of

income from the resource was used to estimate dependency. This relative value of resource

dependency was used since it is easily calculated from information readily available from

respondents, provides an acceptable indication of dependency and has been used in other studies

such as by Gunatilake (1998). An indicator of household dependency on the Nariva Swamp was

estimated using the ratio of income obtained from the swamp versus total income from all

sources (agriculture, labor, swamp, capital assets) as reported in the survey (Gunatilake, 1998).

The ratio obtained from this calculation was converted to a binary scale (0, 1) by assuming that a

value equal to or greater than the mean of 0.26 (26% income dependent on the swamp) was

assigned a value of I and below 0.26 was assigned a value of 0.

Logistic Regression Model

Logistic regression analysis is very applicable to socioeconomic and other scientific

research in which characteristics or variables can be defined as binary, dichotomous responses

such as low or high (0 or 1). This regression methodology uses a model of the general form

below and has been used widely in the social and natural sciences (Raftery, 2001).










logit (2n) = a + P 1Xli + P 2X2i ... kXki

where Xli to Xki represents the predictors; a is the intercept; P 1 to P k are coefficients of the

predictors and 2n represents the probability of obtaining a value of I as the predicted response

variable. For the purposes of my study, this response variable was resource dependency with 1

representing high dependency and 0 representing low dependency.

The variables or predictors used in the model were chosen based on the literature as well as

the specific context of these communities. These variables were:

AGE The age of the respondents was collected in categories which were converted to

values from 1 to 5 for the purpose of analysis. It is expected that age would have a positive

effect on dependency since it is expected that younger people in these communities would tend

to find employment outside of the area and thus have lower dependency on the swamp.

GENDER Females were assigned a value of I and males a value of 0. Gender may have

a variable effect depending on the activities that are conducted with the resource (Gunatilake,

1998). If this activity is female oriented then there would be a positive effect on dependency of

being female whereas male oriented activity would have a negative effect on this model.

EDUC Education was categorized based on a range of no school to college level on a

scale from 0 to 3. Education is expected to have a negative effect on dependency since more

educated people would have a greater range of employment opportunities available.

LANDHOLD This variable, landholding size was the absolute value of land under the

control of the household in acres; this variable was used as a proxy for wealth. Since control of

land should lead to income generating activities that do not involve swamp resources, this

variable should have a negative effect on dependency.









DIVERS Diversity of labor was calculated based on the occupations reported by the

household and ranged from values of 1 to 3 as the number of jobs and hence income generating

opportunities, available to the household. The greater number of occupations should lead to

lower dependency since there are more options available for earning income besides the use of

the resource (Gunatilake, 1998).

HHSIZE Household size was a categorical variable and was converted into values from 1

to 3. This variable could have either a positive or negative effect on dependency since a larger

number of people in a household could provide a greater variety of labor choices and hence

lower dependency or the larger number of people may lead to a need for higher income which

may require the use of swamp resources (Gunatilake, 1998).

NONSWAMPAG Greater agricultural productivity should reduce resource

dependency (Gunatilake, 1998). However, in these communities agricultural plots may be

located in the swamp. In order to account for agricultural productivity that is not dependent on

the swamp, an indicator variable was developed from survey response such that those who

controlled agricultural land outside the swamp were assigned a value of I and all others, either

agricultural land in the swamp or no agricultural land, were assigned a value of 0. It is expected

that those with agricultural plots outside the swamp will have lower dependency.

LENGTH RES Length of residency was a categorical variable that was converted to a

range from 1 to 4 in the order of increasing residency in the area. It is expected that people who

have lived in the area longer would have greater reliance on the swamp resources.

Results

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents

The gender distribution of respondents was fairly even, 51.3% were female and 48.8%

were male. In terms of education level, the maj ority of respondents (67.5%) attended school at










the primary level, 23% attended secondary or vocational school, 1.3% attended college and 7.5%

never attended school. Household sizes varied from 1 to 4 persons (52.5%), to 5 to 8 persons

(30%) to more than 8 persons (17.5%). Income levels were moderate to low, 58.8% reported

annual incomes between TT 12,001 to 50,000, 37.5% had annual incomes lower than TT 12,000

and 3.8% reported incomes of TT 50,001 to 100,00 per year. The age of respondents were

comprised of 33.8% in the 50 to 59 year range, 25% in the 30 to 39 range, 23.8% in the 40 to 49

category, 10% over 60 years of age and 7.5% between the ages of 18 and 29.

Pattern of Swamp Resource Use

The Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities use the resources in the Nariva

Swamp mainly for agriculture and fishing (Table 2-1). In the Nariva Swamp area, some

agriculture is done in the villages whereas others are done in the swamp itself. Agricultural

crops include: watermelon, cucumber, pumpkin, string beans, mango, tomato and ochro with

watermelon being the dominant crop planted in and around the swamp. Fishing is done mainly

for cascadu, conch and crabs. Other uses of the swamp by the local people are recreation

(including hiking, birdwatching, sightseeing), activities related to the Forestry Division,

fuelwood and building material collection (Table 2-1). Most respondents (77.5%) actually go

into the Nariva Swamp for one of these purposes.

Table 2-1. Numbers and percentages of respondents who enter the Nariva Swamp and their
purpose.
Purpose for Agriculture Fishing Recreation Work for Fuelwood Building
Entering the Forestry Materials
Swamp Division
Number of
respondents 16 40 16 2 2 2
Percentage of
respondents 20% 50% 20% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%





The main use of the resources in the swamp is for fishing (50% of respondents), followed

by agriculture and recreation (Table 2-1). The other three uses are done on a very small scale by

the community. None of the respondents reported income from ecotourism activities, such as

tour guiding or handicraft sales, within the swamp. A small percentage of the respondents

(22.5%) do not go into the Nariva Swamp at all, the main reason being that it is too far from their

homes. Other reasons include: lack of time, interest and fear of officials (Table 2-2).

Table 2-2. Numbers and percentages of respondents who do not enter the Nariva Swamp and
their reasons.
Reasons Do not want to be
Too charged by Government Other
far No time officials No interest (unspecified)


Number of
respondents 8 4 1 3 2

Percentage of
respondents 10 5 1.25 3.75 2.5

Dependency Model Resultsl

Based on the data collected, only 32.5% of the households in the Plum Mitan and

Kernahan/Cascadoux communities were considered highly dependent on swamp resources. The

mean number of hours spent in the swamp per week for the reasons described previously was

22.9 hours per week.

The regression model has significant overall predictive power with a model Chi-square

value of 23.97 and P = 0.002 indicating that the variables in the model adequately account for the

variation in the dependent variable. The model has 70% correct predictive accuracy but the Log

Likelihood value was high (81.88) and the R2 ValUe WaS low (0.26) indicating that the model

although significant overall provided a moderate (approx. 26%) explanation of dependency.


SThe threshold or cut-off value for conversion of resource dependency to a binary scale was varied to determine the
effect of this change on the model results. The results obtained from these models were not significantly different
from the model depicted here and so were not included in these results.









These values suggest that there may be variable related to dependency that have not been

described by this model.

Table 2-3. Logistic Regression for resource dependency (n= 80)
Variables p (coefficient) S.E. Wald Significance Exp (B)

Age -0.636 0.279 5.180 0.023 0.530
Gender -1.337 0.671 3.974 0.046 0.263
Educ 0.010 0.582 0 0.986 1.010

Land~hold 0.140 0.116 1.457 0.227 1.151
Divers 0.477 0.466 1.049 0.306 1.611
Hhsize -0.081 0.384 0.044 0.834 0.923

Non_swamp_ag -0.776 0.837 0.861 0.354 0.460
Length_res 0.834 0.501 2.772 0.096 2.303
Constant -1.738 2.335 0.554 0.457 0.176


Significant predictors of the probability of high resource dependency were age, gender and

length of residency at P < 0. 1 (Table 2-3). Age had a significant negative effect on resource

dependency (P = -0.636, P = 0.023) at the a = 0.05 level. This negative effect of age on

dependency was not as expected since older people are expected to be more dependent on

resources. Instead with each unit increase in age, the probability of high resource dependency is

multiplied by 0.53. This may be due to the fact that the main activities in the swamp, fishing and

agriculture are more labor intensive than resource based activities in other parts of the world in

which older people can readily participate. The labor intensive nature of these activities would

mean that they are restricted to younger age groups.

Gender was also significant at the a = 0.05 level with females being less dependent than

males (p = -1.34, P = 0.046). The effect of gender varies (Gunatilake, 1998) so that this effect is

expected. In this community, males do a large proportion of fishing and agriculture so it is

reasonable to expect that males will be more dependent on the swamp resources than females.










Length of residency had the predicted positive effect on dependency but at the a = 0. 10 level (P

= 0.834, P = 0.096). This suggests that those who have lived in the communities longer have a

higher dependency on the natural resources. This probably occurs because those who live in an

area longer are more familiar with the resource base and have had a longer time to develop

efficient uses of the resource. Based on the odds ratio for this predictor, each categorical

increase in length of residency will cause the odds of high resource dependency to be multiplied

by 2.3.

The other predictors should be mentioned even though they did not have a significant

effect on resource dependency. Education has a small positive effect on dependency,

landholding size also has a small positive effect on dependency and since this was an indication

of wealth it should have resulted in a negative effect (Table 2-3). However, since landholdings

reported by respondents would have included lands in the swamp areas, this result is not

unexpected for these particular communities. Labor diversification based on number of

occupations listed for the household has a positive effect on dependency which again was not as

predicted (Table 2-3). This may be due to the use of swamp resources for additional income by

households. Household size has a small negative effect on dependency such that a larger

household has lower dependency (Table 2-3). Since size of household has a variable effect on

dependency, this result is possible since larger households have a greater number of people to

generate income from non-resource based activities. The indicator for agricultural holdings that

are not within the swamp had a negative effect on dependency meaning that those who have

agricultural land outside of the swamp has a lower probability of dependency which is as

expected (Table 2-3).









The general lack of significance of these predictors may be due to the generally low level

of dependency of these communities so that they did not behave as rural communities in other

parts of the world. These results emphasize the need for dependency studies specific to a

location and context. Although this analysis was done using a logistic regression, due to the lack

of significance of several variables that were expected to have an effect on dependency, the

independent variables were tested for multicollinearity by producing a correlation matrix of the

Pearsonian correlations for the independent variable (Table 2-4). This result shows that although

some variables were considered to be significantly correlated (Table 2-4) none of these

correlations were large indicating that multicollinearity was not a problem with these variables.

In order to verify this result, the independent variables were also regressed against each other.

Multicollinearity exists if R2 ValUeS for any of these regressions approach 1. For all of the

regressions between the variables, none of the R2 ValUeS approached 1.










Table 2-4. Pearson correlation matrix for variables in Logistic Regression

Age Gender Educ Land~hold
Age 1 0.141 -0.234(*) -0.043
Gender 1 0.276(*) 0.170

Educ 1 -0.063

Land hold 1

Divers

Hhsize

Non_swamp_ag

Length~res
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


Divers
-0.230(*)

0.001

0.037
0.248(*)


Hhsize
0.027

-0.219

-0.194
0.272(*)

-0.001


Non_swamp_ag
0.241(*)

0.399(**)

0.178
0.351(**)

0.147

0.002


Length_res
0.203

-0.140

-0.184
-0.010

0.053

0.185

0.132

1









Discussion

The Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities did not have a large proportion

of highly dependent households and the significant predictors of dependency were age, gender

and length of residency. This result exemplifies the need for analyses of dependency on

protected areas on a case by case basis within their specific localities and communities. The

rural nature and general lack of wealth of these two communities would indicate that the

communities would be heavily dependent on natural resources found within the swamp. The fact

that the findings were actually the opposite of the expected situation may be due to under-

reporting of income sources by respondents.

However, it may be also due to the fact that some of the issues that affect other rural

communities would not apply in the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities. This

may be because although these areas are considered rural due to the livelihood strategies

employed, income levels and physical location, the small size of the country of Trinidad and

Tobago means that no area is truly remote or subj ect to restrictions such as market access that are

main factors in larger countries.

In addition, as stated by Cavendish (2000), household resource use may have changed over

time. This is particularly applicable since the local people have said that resources such as fish

and crabs have reduced over the years and that agriculture in the swamp is not sufficient to meet

their needs. This implies that the resource has been degraded and they may have altered their

livelihood strategies over time and become less dependent on these resources. Further ecological

studies would be required to confirm this implication.

The need for alternative livelihood strategies calls for a compromise between local

livelihood and conservation of natural resources (Heltberg, 2001). Increasing agricultural

productivity and providing for opportunities that do not involve either agriculture or the natural









resource will help reduce dependency and any negative impacts (Gunatilake, 1998). It may be

necessary to not only diversify income, which may not lead to higher income but instead

promote specialized high gain activities (Vedeld et al., 2004). In order to improve the

sustainability of forest dependent activities, investment should be made into eco-developmental

proj ects that can both enhance conservation of the area and reduce unsustainable practices

(Bahuguna, 2000).

One option for such activities in the Nariva Swamp is the development of ecotourism in

the area. The local residents have expressed great interest in such activity but have stated that

they lack the capacity to do so and would require assistance from those experienced in such

activities. This type of income generating activity is especially important to the communities

since j obs generated from reforestation and other ongoing management activities in the Nariva

Swamp may not provide great levels of employment for the local community due to the small

scale and incremental nature of such activities (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006)

It makes sense that maintaining and enhancing natural resources are in the best interest of

rural communities since to some extent, they are dependent on them and although a

comparatively small percentage, there are those who are highly dependent on these resources.

Management guidelines governing resource use need to focus on changing people's behavior so

that the rural poor can generate adequate income while also ensuring that the resource base is

protected and improved (Reardon & Vosti, 1995).

Since it is difficult to quantify environmental services (such as the recreation and

ecological function aspects of the Nariva Swamp), these services are not included in reported

environmental incomes (Vedeld et al., 2004). In fact some communities have developed their

own system of contributing or reinvesting to the natural capital without government intervention










(Cavendish, 2000). It is important to include environmental income in national statistics and

assessment of the poor (Vedeld et al., 2004).

Despite the fact that the communities around the Nariva Swamp are not highly dependent

on the resources based on income, due to their proximity to the swamp, they are closely

associated with its resources. It is therefore important for them to be involved in the

management of common resources from both an ecological and economic perspective (Adhikari

et al.. 2004). Common resources have both private and public aspects in that the resources

themselves are public but the extracted items are used for private economic gain (Adhikari et al..

2004). Greater equity can be achieved in collective resource management if the needs of the

poor are recognized and access to resources are adjusted accordingly in a participatory manner

(Reddy & Chakravarty, 1999). In addition, increased awareness and education of the community

on the possible impacts of excessive and unsustainable resource use would improve management

(Reddy & Chakravarty, 1999).

Households spend less time on resource dependent labor if there are clear institutional

rules associated with resource use (Bluffstone et al., 2001). When this time is allocated more

efficiently, household members can engage in income generating activities that are not related to

the resource and hence reduce their dependence (Bluffstone et al., 2001). The intimate

association of communities with the natural resources as well as lack of benefits from resource

use and restrictions placed on them by regulations combines to emphasize the need for

participatory mechanisms to promote the conservation of the resource by locals (Gunatilake,

1998).

The benefits of biodiversity conservation are typically of national significance rather than

local, a shift of benefits to include the local community would lead to better protection of









resources while reducing dependency (Gunatilake, 1998). In order to account for resource

dependency by local people and enable the diversification of their income, conservation policies

should have clear, negotiated access, withdrawal and responsibilities towards the resource in

question (Vedeld et al., 2004). These arrangements need to be both secure and flexible so that

changing conditions are accounted for (Vedeld et al., 2004). The community members from

Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan in focus group sessions as detailed in Chapter 4 were

particularly concerned with issues of access to resources and loss of control of their land.

Capacity building in all spheres of resource use and marketing should also be captured in the

management plans (Vedeld et al., 2004).

The Nariva Swamp's designation as an ESA will have to include all these considerations in

its management such that the community is involved in both the formulation of a management

plan as well as its implementation. The guidelines of clear rules for access, institutional

arrangements and capacity building are all essential for the effective management of this

protected area so that the communities that depend on its resources are not negatively affected.









CHAPTER 3
FACTORS INFLUENCING HOUSEHOLDS' ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE DESIGNATION
OF THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA

Introduction

Sustainability of protected areas is dependent on participation and support by local

communities (Alexander, 2000). Basic conservation values and principles that are shared by the

members of the public can be the basis of management goals and agreements (Miller and

McGee, 2001). These community values and opinions are considered central to the objectives of

resource management as well as the development of meaningful communication between

different stakeholders and managers to develop stakeholder participation in conservation (Miller

and McGee, 2001).

By assessing the attitudes and perceptions of local communities towards protected areas,

management proj ects can be altered to better align the proj ect' s development with local needs

(Alexander, 2000). It is crucial to determine whether local communities understand and are in

support of conservation measures, their attitudes toward the PA, the benefits to locals and the

extent of these benefits and their attitudes about management of the PA (Alexander, 2000).

As discussed in McFarlane and Boxall (2000), there is a hierarchy of participatory or non-

participatory behavior by stakeholders in collective resource management, such that values and

beliefs affect people's attitudes such as preferences for management that in turn affect their

specific actions or behavior. These actions or behavior can consequently affect natural resource

policy and management (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). Based on this causal relationship, it is

important to identify the factors that affect stakeholder attitudes in order to achieve effective

policy implementation and sustainable management strategies (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000;

Weladji et al., 2003; Alexander, 2000).










My study describes the attitudes of community members towards the designation of the

Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago as a protected area, designated as an Environmentally

Sensitive Area (ESA). In order to do this, community members were asked their perceptions on

protecting the swamp area as well as the biodiversity contained within it. This was done via an

administered survey to establish whether their attitudes are favorable towards conservation or

not. The variables that affect these attitudes were then examined using regression analyses, both

logistic and multiple linear regressions. Some of the variables that are expected to affect attitude

towards protected areas are age, gender, income, education, landholding, dependency and length

of residency.

Behavioral intention was also assessed in order to establish the link suggested by the

between positive attitude towards PAs and positive behavioral intention, which should then

translate into the future participation of community members in management of the Nariva

Swamp. The findings of my study could then be used to inform the direction of future

management plans to include age-appropriate education and awareness programs, improved

communication between community members and government officials and measures directed to

promote positive attitudes based specifically on the variables that affect these attitudes in the

Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities.

Literature Review

Effect of Attitudes on Behavior

One definition of attitude involves how a person feels towards an issue, whether this is

positive or negative (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). There is generally a correlation between values,

attitudes and behavior whereby beliefs/values, attitudes, intentions and behavior are thought to

build on each other (Vaske and Donnelly, 1999) as depicted in Figure 3-1. The values of









different user groups such as preservationists and extractive users, affects their behavior (Vaske

and Donnelly, 1999).

Value s/B eli efs




Attitude towards Protected Areas




Behavioral Intention




Behavior

Figure 3-1. Suggested link between attitude towards protected areas and behavior.

When attempting to affect people's behavior, such as in environmental conservation, it is

important to determine both their attitudes and beliefs to plan the appropriate conservation

programs (Aipanjiguly et al., 2003). Behavior may be affected by altering beliefs and/or

perceptions of outcomes of action as well as altering motivation for compliance with the specific

behavior being changed (Bright et al., 1993). A study showed that for the National Parks Burn

Policy and that changing beliefs about behavior also changes attitudes about this behavior and

hence behavioral intention (Bright et al., 1993).

Behavior may be altered by education, institutional changes or technology (Stern, 1999).

Persuasive communication can be used to alter beliefs and attitudes about a policy by specifically

addressing these beliefs and attitudes (Bright et al., 1993). Communication targeted to changing

behavior should also include the consequences of certain behaviors and actions rather than the

target of the behavior itself (Bright et al., 1993).









Attitudes of local communities toward PAs will be more positive if they receive greater

benefits from natural resource protection and participate directly in PA management (Alexander,

2000). When the local community has a negative attitude towards PAs and do not obtain

benefits from the designation, the protection of such an area is more difficult and may not be

successful in terms of resource conservation, as was found in PAs in India (Alexander, 2000).

To avoid this negative attitude, local communities should be involved in the planning and

management of protected areas (PAs) from its initial stages (Alexander, 2000).

For example, in the marine park, Wakatobi National Park (WNP), Sulawesi, Indonesia,

management based on rules and regulations alone has led to a lack of equity and efficacy of the

Park' s management (Elliot et al., 2001). This previous management plan for the WN~P did not

include sufficient local consultation and failed to meet the needs of the communities that live

within the park (Elliot et al., 2001). According to Elliot et al. (2001), several researchers have

indicated that increased participation by local people and addressing the needs of these

communities can improve the success of PA management plans and may even contribute to

achieving resource management obj ectives at a national and global scale.

In another study of the attitudes of local communities to Benoue Wildlife Conservation

Area (BWCA) and Cameroonian wildlife policy (Weladji et al., 2003), it was found that there

was variation in community attitudes among three different communities (Weladji et al., 2003).

This was caused in part by the disassociation of local people and their subsistence activities in

PAs until the late 1970's leading to negative economic impacts and consequent negative attitudes

of the local communities (Weladji et al., 2003). Participatory approaches changed the focus to

inclusion of local communities and their needs into sustainable conservation measures thus

changing their attitudes to more positive ones (Weladji et al., 2003).









Factors affecting Community Attitudes

There are differing results of studies on the factors that affect the attitudes of communities

to conservation and PAs. In a study by McFarlane and Boxall (2000), two user groups were

studied on the basis of socioeconomic variables, forest knowledge and values, social influences

and preferences about management of the forest. The variables assessed by McFarlane and

Boxall (2000) were age, gender, place of residence (proximity to urban centers), education,

household income, dependence on natural resources for livelihood, membership in a

conservation organization and forest recreation activity.

According to McFarlane and Boxall (2000), other studies as well as their study conducted

in Canada have shown that place of residence, education and age are consistent predictors of

positive attitudes towards the natural environment. Income and gender were found to be not as

consistent when determining environmental attitudes (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). Based on

the results of this and previous studies, it is expected that persons who have greater amounts of

knowledge about protected areas and natural resources will exhibit more positive attitudes about

natural resource protection than those with less knowledge about these issues (McFarlane and

Boxall, 2000). It is also expected that women, younger people, people living in urban areas,

more educated people and people who are not dependent on forests for income will be more

supportive of sustainable natural resource management (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000).

In the study of the BWCA and towards Cameroonian wildlife policy (Weladji et al., 2003),

knowledge of the wildlife policy did not affect support of the policy by locals since most of those

with low knowledge still expressed their support (Weladji et al., 2003). However, input into

management and benefits from hunting activities were concerns expressed by local communities

(Weladji et al., 2003). Results of this study differed from other studies in that level of education

and financial status did not positively influence attitude to wildlife (Weladji et al., 2003).









Similarly, in the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park in South Africa, communities did not perceive

that conservation and tourism in the PA was of any benefit to them in the past (Picard, 2003).

The present attitudes of local communities recognize the integration of conservation and

community development and the low socioeconomic status of some communities did not

diminish this attitude (Picard, 2003).

Additionally, in Natal, South Africa, it was determined that greater education and Einancial

status indicated positive attitudes towards PAs whereas ineffective involvement of local

communities in PA establishment and management as well as inequitable distribution of benefits

was associated with negative attitudes to PAs (Alexander, 2000). In Indonesia, lack of access to

a sustainable livelihood and poverty were also factors that negatively affected the sustainable use

of natural resources by local communities (Elliot et al., 2001). Lack of communication to the

communities and the general public about the demarcated or restricted zones of the park also led

to negative attitudes (Elliot et al., 2001). Local people were generally in favor of conserving the

resources of the park by preventing environmentally unsustainable practices but they believed

that this protection should not completely prevent their ability to earn a livelihood in the park or

cause a loss in net income (Elliot et al., 2001). This study identified the specific areas that need

to be addressed in the park' s management such as diversification of economic pursuits and

increased development of tourism (Elliot et al., 2001).

Methods

Household Survey

The survey was administered and the study site was the same as described in Chapter 2.

Survey Design

The first section of the survey covered the attitudes of households towards conservation

and protected areas (Appendix A). Nine statements were used to assess attitudes and included










topics such as whether biodiversity conservation is a good idea and whether benefits can be

obtained from protection of natural resources. They also included specific statements about ESA

designation of the Nariva Swamp and if this protection could negatively affect them. Three of

the questions were negatively worded to ensure that the answers given were unbiased by the

wording of the statements. The respondents were asked to choose their response on a 5-point

scale (0 to 4) to determine whether they strongly agree to strongly disagree and 0 if they did not

have an opinion on that particular statement.

The final question in this section of the survey asked respondents to rank the issues on a

scale of 1 to 5 in order of importance to the communities. These were limited land and food,

lack of utilities, lack of access to the swamp and lack of good quality access roads to the

community. These questions were used to ascertain some of the reasons for people's attitudes

towards protected areas in these two communities. Behavioral intention and by extension

predicted participatory behavior, was assessed via a single statement of intention. This took the

form of asking respondents whether they would be willing to participate in management of the

swamp by attending meetings and other related activities. This question was located in the third

section of the survey and a simple yes/no response was required.

Regression Models of Attitude towards Protected Areas

Since researchers use both logistic regression and multiple linear regression (MLR) in

assessing conservation attitudes and both approaches are valid methods for this type of analysis,

it was considered beneficial to produce both models for comparative purposes. In the case of

logistic regression models, the resultant predictions apply to the probability of the favorable

event occurring, in this case the probability of a high or positive attitude towards protection of

the Nariva Swamp. The MLR model produces a more direct prediction of the effect of










independent variables on the actual attitude towards PAs of the households, rather than the

probability, by attempting to fit a linear relationship among the variables.

The same independent variables were used for both regression models. These were:

AGE The age of the respondents was collected in categories which were converted to

values from 1 to 5 for the purpose of analysis. It is expected that age would have a negative

effect on conservation attitude since it is expected that younger people would have greater

knowledge about conservation and would have more favorable attitudes towards PAs

(McFarlane and Boxall, 2000).

GENDER Females were assigned a value of I and males a value of 0. Gender tends to

be inconsistent in the prediction of conservation attitude (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000) but for

the purposes of this analysis it was expected that females will have more positive attitudes

towards PAs.

EDUC Education was categorized based on a range of no school to college level on a

scale from 0 to 3. Education was expected to have a positive effect on attitude because those

with higher levels of education should have been exposed to greater knowledge about the

importance of natural resource management.

LANDHOLD Landholding size was the absolute value of land under the control of the

household in acres and is used to account for property ownership. It was expected that those

who had more land under their control would have a more positive attitude towards protection of

the swamp since they are less likely to be affected by changes in access to the resources.

TOTALINCOME This variable was categorized on a scale from 1 to 4 based on the

survey results for annual household income. This variable is inconsistent when predicting










conservation attitudes and so may be either a positive or negative predictor in the models

(McFarlane and Boxall, 2000).

DEPEN Dependency was previously calculated (Chapter 2) and is a binary variable (0,

1) representing high and low dependency on swamp resources. Those who are more dependent

on these resources will tend to have a more negative attitude towards protection of the swamp.

LENGTH RES Length of residency was a categorical variable that was converted to a

range from 1 to 4 in the order of increasing residency in the area. It is expected that people who

have lived in the area longer would have a more negative attitude towards PAs since they might

view changes in swamp management as changes in tradition and access.

LANDLIM This variable was used as an indicator of householders' perception that the

main issue in the community is a lack of sufficient land. Those who considered this important to

most important were assigned a value of I and all others were assigned a value of 0. This

variable was expected to have a negative effect on attitude since protection of the swamp could

be considered a further limitation on land available.

FOODLIM The lack of food was used as an indicator of poverty and was assigned a

value of 1 if considered important to most important and 0 otherwise. Poorer people tend to have

a more negative attitude toward protection of natural resources.

ACCESSLIM Limitations on access to the swamp and its resources was assigned a

value of 1 if the respondents considered this issues to be important, more important or most

important and if not, it was given a value of 0. Those who consider access limitations to be an

important issue would tend to have a more negative attitude towards PAs.

Multiple Linear Regression

The model of household attitude towards designation of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA is

as shown below.










Y = a + blV1 + b2V2 + b3V3 + b4V4 + ...... + bxVx

Where Y = ATTITUDE (dependent variable), a = constant, bl to bx are the coefficients of

the independent variables and V1 to Vx are the independent variables as described above.

The dependent variable ATTITUDE was an index calculated by finding the mean of the

responses from the nine statements described above after first reversing the values for the three

negative statements. This resulted in a numeric variable from 0 to 4.

Logistic Regression

The logistic regression model is shown below:

logit (2n) = a + P 1Xli + P 2X2i ... kXki

where Xli to Xki represents the predictors; a is the intercept; P 1 to P k are coefficients of the

predictors and 2n represents the probability of obtaining a value of I as the predicted response

variable.

The dependent variable for this model was BINARYATTITUDE which was calculated

using the scores for attitude determined above. The median value of 2.5 was used as the

threshold value for positive and negative attitudes such that attitude scores equal to or greater

than 2.5 were assigned a value of I and attitudes with a value less than 2.5 were assigned a value

of 0.

Behavioral intention and attitude were regressed against each other using a logistic

regression model as described above in which behavioral intention was the binary dependent

variable and attitude before conversion to binary form was the independent variable.

Results

The 9 items used on the questionnaire to develop the index for conservation attitude was

tested for reliability by calculating Cronbach's Alpha which resulted in an acceptable value of a

= 0.67. Aggregation of the questionnaire items to calculate the attitude index showed that the 80









households sampled in the Kemahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities exhibited 56.3%

positive attitude towards conservation and ESA designation. Among these households, the most

important issue was considered to be a lack of adequate quality access roads into the community

(Table 3-1) followed closely by a lack of utilities, mainly electricity and water. Community

members from Kemahan/Cascadoux indicated that electricity was only supplied to the area eight

years ago and many people still do not have a pipe bomne water supply.

Table 3-1. Proportion of respondents who consider an issue important
Issue Percentage respondents

Lack of Adequate Access Roads to the Community 73.8%
Lack of Utilities 67.5%

Limited Food 56.3%

Lack of Access to Swamp 58.8%
Limited Land 43.8%


Multiple Linear Regression Model of Attitude

The mean value of attitude towards conservation, protected areas and ESA designation of

the Nariva Swamp was 2.64 (Std. Deviation = 0.69). The MLR model was significant for the ten

(10) independent variables selected with an F-statistic of 4.78 and P-value < 0.001. These ten

(10) predictors explained 44% of the variance in this model of attitude towards PAs (R2 = 0.44).

Of these predictors, those considered significant were AGE and LANDHOLD (Table 3 -2).

Age had a negative effect on attitude (b = -0.29, P < 0.001) meaning that older people have

a less favorable attitude towards conservation and ESA designation. This was as predicted from

the literature since young people may have had more exposure to environmental awareness at

school and may be less concerned with traditional access to the Nariva Swamp. Landholding

size had the expected positive effect on attitude (b = 0. 11, P < 0.001) since people who have

more personal resources, as indicated by landholding size, tend to have more positive attitudes









towards conservation issues especially since they would be less affected by changes in access to

the swamp.

The other independent variables, although not significant predictors of attitudes towards

PAs in this model, (Table 3-2) that had the expected effect on attitude were dependency,

education, land_1im and access_1im. Dependency showed a small negative effect on attitudes (b

= -0.07) and education was predicted to have a positive effect on attitude (Table 3-2).

Table 3-2. Multiple Linear Regression of attitudes towards protected areas
VIF (Collinearity
Variables b S.E. t Significance Stati sti c)
(Constant) 2.930 0.590 4.964 0
Total income -0.110 0.162 -0.677 0.501 1.959

Depen -0.070 0.171 -0.409 0.684 1.608

Age -0.294 0.074 -3.988 0 1.724
Gender -0.233 0.151 -1.538 0.129 1.428
Educ 0.188 0.127 1.475 0.145 1.329

Land~hold 0.110 0.026 4.262 0 1.576
Length_res 0.109 0.102 1.078 0.285 1.288
Land_1im -0.249 0.181 -1.373 0.174 2.021
Food_1im 0.224 0.186 1.206 0.232 2.133
Access_1im -0.025 0.223 -0.112 0.911 3.026


Those who considered lack of land and lack of access to swamp resources as important

issues in the community had more negative attitudes towards protected areas. Of the remaining

predictors, those with greater income had a less favorable attitude toward ESA designation

(Table 3-2) and females had a less favorable attitude than males. Respondents who lived in the

area longer and those who considered lack of food as important issues had more positive

attitudes towards ESA designation which was not as expected from the literature.









Due to the moderate R2 Value (0.44), multicollinearity among the independent variables

was assessed using a collinearity statistic (VIF in Table 3-2). Collinearity is considered to exist

if the VIF value approaches 10 which did not occur in this analysis. This results combined with

the relatively small values of the coefficients of the predictors suggests that there may be other

factors not included in this model analysis that may account for attitude towards protected areas

in these two communities.

Logistic Regression Model of Attitude

This model predicted the probability of a positive or favorable attitude towards protected

areas and ESA designation. The overall model was considered highly significant, having a chi-

square value of 48.97 (P < 0.001). The -2 Log Likelihood value, which should be as small as

possible was 60.69 and R2 WaS 0.61 meaning that 61% of variance in probability of positive

attitude was explained by this model. In terms of accuracy, 85% of responses were correctly

predicted by the model.

In terms of significant predictors, the results produced by this model were different from

those in the MLR model in that there were a greater number of significant predictors (Table 3-3).

Age and landholding size were both significant predictors as found in the MLR model but gender

and land_1im were also significant predictors in this model. Age exhibited a negative effect on

the probability of a positive attitude (P = -1.62, P = 0.002) significant at the a = 0.05 level.

Younger people are 0.2 times more likely to have a high attitude towards protected areas.

Landholding size also had a similar effect as the MLR model such that those with more land are

1.82 times more likely to have a favorable attitude towards PAs (P = -0.6, P = 0.001, a = 0.05)

Gender was predicted to have a significant effect on attitude (P = -1.58, P = 0.08) at an a =

0.10 level. This result indicated that females are 0.21 times more likely to have a negative

attitude towards protected areas than males. Limitation on land availability (Land_1im) was also









a significant predictor of probability of positive attitude at the a = 0.05 level. For this predictor,

those who consider a lack of land availability to be an important issue in the community are 0.06

times more likely to have an unfavorable attitudes towards ESA designation (P = -2.89, P =

0.01).

Table 3-3. Logistic Regression of attitudes towards protected areas
Variables P S.E. Wald Significance Exp (B)
(coefficient)
Total~income -0.275 0.991 0.077 0.782 0.760

Depen -1.284 0.999 1.653 0.199 0.277
Age -1.620 0.514 9.914 0.002 0.198
Gender -1.577 0.906 3.028 0.082 0.207
Educ 0.802 0.776 1.069 0.301 2.230

Land~hold 0.597 0.182 10.805 0.001 1.817
Length_res 0.621 0.536 1.340 0.247 1.861
Land_1im -2.894 1.171 6.107 0.013 0.055
Food_1im 1.497 0.964 2.414 0.120 4.470
Access_1im -0.353 1.119 0.099 0.752 0.703
Constant 2.777 3.761 0.545 0.460 16.078


The non-significant predictors: income, dependency and access_1im all had negative

effects on attitude (Table 3-3). Education, length of residency and food_1im had positive effects

on the probability of a high or positive attitude towards PAs (Table 3-3). The results of the

regression analyses showed that those with larger landholdings were more positive towards

protecting the swamp whereas those with higher incomes were more negative. This would

appear to be contradictory since they should both be indicators of wealth and wealthier people

were expected to have favorable attitudes towards protected areas.

However, those with more land would consider the effects of ESA designation in a

favorable light since any restrictions on the use of land in the swamp would be offset by their









existing landholdings, whereas income may be earned from swamp resources so even if income

is higher, these respondents may believe that protecting the swamp could curtail their income.

Those who considered lack of food as an important issue also had a positive attitude. In

comparison, the logistic model appeared to have greater explanatory power in this case since the

R2 ValUe WaS higher than the value obtained for the MLR model and more predictors were found

to be significant.

Logistic Regression of Behavioral Intention and Attitude

In the analysis of behavioral intention, 70% of the respondents indicated that they intend to

participate in management activities related to the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. This

proportion was higher than the value obtained for positive attitudes which suggests that even

those with a low or negative attitude towards PAs in general would be willing to participate in

meetings and other management related endeavors.

The regression of behavioral intention versus attitude towards PAs resulted in a significant

model (chi-square = 6.32, P = 0.01) although the R2 value was small (0. 11) and the -2 Log

Likelihood was high (94.58). This R2 result was not a problem in this instance since it was

expected that attitude would not be the only predictor of behavioral intention but rather the

analysis was performed to see if this relationship between probability of positive behavioral

intention and attitude was significant. The model showed that there was a significant

relationship between these two factors and also that a more positive attitude towards PAs would

have a positive effect on behavioral intention (P = 0.91, P = 0.02, a = 0.05). A person with a

more positive attitude towards PAs would be 2.49 times more likely to intend to participate in

management of a PA.









Discussion

The results of attitude studies in relation to natural resources and conservation tend to vary

for different communities, countries and regions. This was exemplified by the results of my

study of the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities in the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad

and Tobago, since variables such as income and length or residency did not have the predicted

effect on attitude towards protected areas whereas other variables, such as age and landholding

size performed as expected. The analysis of attitudes towards protected areas is particularly

applicable to the designation of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA since the lessons learned from

other regions can be applied to this designation from the initial stages and local communities can

be included at this relatively early stage in planning and management.

The comparison of the two different types of regression (logistic and multiple linear) in the

analysis of attitudes toward protection of the Nariva Swamp resulted in differing numbers of

significant predictors. The MLR resulted in 2 significant predictors, age and landholding size

whereas the logistic regression resulted in 4 significant predictors, age, landholding, lack of land

availability and gender. Using the results from the logistic regression model, since the R2 ValUe

for this model was higher (0.61), it can be inferred that in order to improve attitudes towards

ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp, these are the four variables that must be taken into

consideration.

Lack of available land is one of these predictors whereby those who thought this was an

important issue had a less favorable attitude towards the protection of the swamp. This was

further emphasized by the fact that the community members expressed grave concerns about the

loss of their land. Many respondents thought that ESA designation would lead to the

government reneging on the leases they hold or in the cases where there were no legal

documents, on the property they live on. The government agencies need to communicate the









exact details of the ESA designation and need to make clear that the Kernahan/Cascadoux and

Plum Mitan villages are not included in the ESA and that only illegal activities such as planting

crops in the ESA will be removed (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006).

Age as a significant predictor implies that information and participation need to target

older groups since younger ones are already more positive towards protected areas. Gender has a

similar connotation since females had a more negative attitude towards protection of the swamp

than males. This indicates that effort needs to be made to reach out to women in the community

and ensure their participation in conservation activities. Specifically designed awareness and

education programs on the importance of protected areas and the Nariva Swamp in particular can

be presented to older people and women at sessions to which they are personally invited rather

than just as a part of the wider community.

It is predicted that positive attitude will lead to positive behavioral intention and hence to

favorable action. Based on the analysis of attitude towards protection of the Nariva Swamp, a

significant relationship between positive attitude and positive behavioral intention exists thus

verifying the validity of this prediction for this particular case study. By extension, those with

positive behavioral intention, in this case a willingness to participate in co-management of the

Nariva Swamp should actually fulfill this intention and exhibit participatory behavior.

Interpretation of this model as an absolute predictor of positive outcomes should still be

done with caution since Sheppard et al. (1988) found that uncertainty exists about the association

of behavioral intention and actual outcome. Nevertheless to ensure that behavioral intention

translates into participatory behavior, positive attitudes need to be encouraged since the link has

been established. Other factors must be implemented in order to promote a desired outcome









including cooperation among groups, such as government, community and NGOs, as well as

adequate physical and financial resources to support these outcomes (Sheppard et al., 1988).

Positive attitude towards PAs was exhibited by 56.3% of respondents and 70% of these

same respondents expressed the intention to participate in management of the Nariva Swamp.

Attitudes towards protection of the Nariva Swamp is considered to have improved over the past

ten (10) years since there has been a reduction in poaching and associated fines in restricted areas

(D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006). However, there is still a need to continue to

improve this proportion of positive attitudes in order to optimize the probability of achieving

successful management of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA. Levels of both positive attitude and

behavioral intention should be maximized since actual outcomes often differ from the predicted

participation level.

This can be partially achieved by increasing the knowledge of the community members

about natural resources and the benefits of protecting the Nariva Swamp. Pro-conservation

behavior can also be affected by addressing the underlying values, beliefs and motivations

through persuasive communication (Bright et al., 1993). For example, this type of

communication to the communities can be targeted to change behavior by explaining the

consequences of certain behaviors and actions, in this instance unsustainable use of the swamp

resources leading to degradation of the resource itself, rather than addressing only the issues

associated with managing the resource.

Another key element of any communication and education programs in the swamp must be

the identification of benefits from the designation (Alexander, 2000). Failure to identify

discernable benefits of conservation initiatives to local people can lead to a lack of effective

protection of natural resources (Picard, 2003). A lack of communication about the Nariva










Swamp, the ESA designation and its boundaries, zones and restrictions to the

Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities was identified as a serious concern by

community members.

There are certain decisions that have already been made with respect to the ESA

designation of the Nariva Swamp. This information was contained in an administrative record

that was open to public comment (EMA, 2006) including information on the ESA Rules and the

intention to designate the swamp as a "managed resource" according to IUCN categories. The

local media was used to communicate the availability of this record for public comment (EMA,

2005). However, several members of the local communities indicated that they were not aware

of this record and never viewed the information. Communication efforts need to be increased

and should include transparent and continuous avenues of communication with local

communities (Elliot et al., 2001).

Participatory approaches can also lead to more positive attitudes towards protected areas as

well as a reduction in future conflict and enforcement requirements (Weladji et al., 2003;

Kessler, 2004). Empowerment of the community is important whereby they are allowed to

provide information and address their concerns in a manner that ensures that this information is

integrated into the management process (Kessler, 2004). Behavior may also be altered by

institutional changes (Stern, 1999) so that the communities can be a more integral part of

management of the swamp.

Management of the Nariva Swamp needs to change and depart from the old ways of doing

things whereby the government makes decisions and the people are expected to comply. The

communities feel that in the past, rules and regulations have been put in place to govern the

swamp without meaningful consultation with them. This lack of inclusion of the communities in










management does not lead to positive attitudes towards protected areas and given the need for

participatory behavior by the communities for effective management and protection of the

swamp, they must be included in the present and future decisions about the Nariva Swamp.









CHAPTER 4
FACTORS INFLUENCING HOUSEHOLDS' PERCEIVED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
OF DESIGNATING THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
AREA

Introduction

People's support is required for long-term conservation success but will not provide this

support if their costs (negative impacts) exceed their benefits (positive impacts) (Gillingham and

Lee, 2003). Although positive perception of impacts is not an absolute determinant of change in

behavior, it is one necessary factor in contributing to such changes (Marcus, 2001). Local

communities should therefore obtain a significant proportion of socioeconomic benefits from

activities such as ecotourism within PAs rather than be burdened by negative impacts (costs) of

designation of the PA (Alexander, 2000). Therefore, the relationship of the adjacent human

populace to a PA should be examined in order to obtain simultaneous conservation and

development (Gillingham and Lee, 2003).

The use of rules and regulations alone, such as restrictions on use of an area, has been

ineffective in achieving natural resource management (Elliot et al., 2001). Realistically,

developing countries lack the finances and personnel to monitor these restrictions effectively

leading to non-enforcement of the rules prescribed by legislation (Elliot et al., 2001). These

types of regulations may in fact have a negative effect on the livelihood of the local community

who in turn will not support the PA and will not abide by the prescribed regulations (Elliot et al.,

2001). In addition, livelihoods of communities that depend on traditional uses of natural

resources may be impacted by the protection of these resources for alternative uses (Alexander,

2000). When local communities are excluded from these activities they may also increasingly

use the resources surrounding the PA leading to degradation of these areas (Alexander, 2000).









The importance of positive community perception to PA management illustrates the need

to identify these perceptions and values when implementing a PA and the necessity of

communicating these perceptions to government personnel. In order to achieve this for the

Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago, the two communities in closest proximity to the swamp

(Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan villages) were asked to identify and quantify the potential

impacts that they perceive will occur when the swamp is designated as an ESA. This was done

using a matrix analysis approach as well as a SWOT-AHP methodology. Both methodologies

were used so that a wide range of opinions could be solicited from both communities through the

impact matrix analysis on socioeconomic issues and more specific information could be obtained

from people within the community with particular interests on a broader range of impacts using

the SWOT-AHP method.

The matrix approach was accomplished via a household survey of the two communities in

which respondents were asked to assess the strength of potential socioeconomic impacts and

whether these would be positive or negative. Relative weights of impacts were obtained from

key informants within the communities and cumulative impacts were calculated using the

product of magnitude and weight of impacts. This enabled an additive determination of

perceived impacts for the communities as well as a regression analysis of the variables that affect

these perceptions on a household level.

SWOT-AHP was also used to quantify impacts based on the analysis of strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) followed by the application of the Analytical

Hierarchy Process (AHP) to allow for comparisons among these groups. This analysis was done

to identify the SWOT factors in a holistic manner so that other potential impacts besides the

socioeconomic ones covered in the survey could be identified. This was achieved in a focus










group setting with participants from three categories of interest groups within the community:

general community members, members of an environmental group and a small scale ecotourism

operator.

The results of the matrix analysis and SWOT-AHP exercise identify the socioeconomic

factors that affect the community members' perception of impacts of the ESA designation of the

Nariva Swamp as well as the SWOT factors and their relative importance. The combination of

these analyses can inform management plans so that strengths and opportunities are maximized

and weaknesses and threats are minimized. Similarly, other impacts identified through the

matrix analysis can be addressed whereby the positive impacts are emphasized and negative ones

are mitigated based on the underlying factors that predict impact perception as identified by the

regression analysis.

Literature Review

Perception of Impact of Stakeholders in Protected Areas

Perceived benefits and community involvement in management tend to increase the

success of PA management (McClanahan et al., 2005; Marcus, 2001). Whereas the PAs may be

primarily established for the conservation of biophysical resources, it is important to include

stakeholder perception in the ways in which this protection is implemented to include the

perceived benefits of impacted communities (Alexander, 2000). As in the case of wildlife crop

damage in six PAs in Tanzania, perceived impacts may be overestimated as compared to its real

value but perceived impacts of villagers must be given consideration and it is important to

understand the factors affecting this perception and ways in which negative impact perception

can be made more positive (Gillingham and Lee, 2003).

Socioeconomic impacts of PA designation include people' s way of life, change in status of

employment, their culture, their community, their environment and resource management, their









health and wellbeing, their fears and aspirations and their local economy (Vanclay, 1999;

Vanclay et al., 2000; Fortin and Gagnon, 1999). The expected positive impacts of a PA include

employment opportunities from conservation activities and improved living conditions

(Alexander, 2000). In Belize, there were few perceived problems by the local stakeholders

caused by the creation of a wildlife sanctuary (Alexander, 2000). Of the few problems that were

reported, temporal changes in local management and uneven benefit distribution from tourism

employment were identified (Alexander, 2000). Perception of these problems arose when

benefits were no longer experienced on a personal level such as education and economic benefits

from tourism revenue (Alexander, 2000).

Other perceived negative impacts included land use restrictions but the local people

perceived that long term benefits such as tourism revenue and infrastructure offset these negative

impacts (Alexander, 2000). Some of the concerns of local communities near the wildlife

sanctuary in Belize included fair distribution of employment benefits, inclusion in management

and effectiveness of this management, amount of local participation and education of the

community on natural resources (Alexander, 2000). These issues are especially problematic in

developing countries where populations are increasing and financial and human resources

needed for the effective management of PAs are lacking (Alexander, 2000).

Socioeconomic Impacts of Carbon Sequestration and Reforestation Projects

In the past, forest conservation proj ects in developing countries have not been

economically viable despite an increase in activities such as ecotourism (Hardner et al., 2000). It

is therefore important to assess the distribution of benefits, views and awareness of the local

communities about the long-term implications of protected area programs (Reddy, 2002). The

socioeconomic benefits and/or impacts from such proj ects tend to be highly variable and are

unique to the location of the project in question because they will depend on the specific context









in which the proj ect is implemented with regards to existing land use practices and proposed

changes to these uses (Kueppers et al., 2004; Hardner et al., 2000).

The complexity of rural, low income communities indicates that a lack of involvement of

local stakeholders and access by these stakeholders to resources will not succeed (Boyd et al.,

2005). This stakeholder participation and buy in will contribute to long term proj ect success

because the local community will monitor the area for fire and pests, illegal logging and illegal

encroachment (Boyd et al., 2005). In addition, climate change mitigation projects that improve

or maintain the socioeconomic environment will tend to obtain the support of local communities

and have a higher probability of success (Kueppers et al., 2004). A proj ect that produces greater

negative impacts will tend to face resistance by locals (Kueppers et al., 2004). Impacts on

livelihood, traditional rights and equity across stakeholders are important especially when

proj ects occur in rural, low income communities (Asquith et al., 2002; Boyd et al., 2005).

Equity involves inclusion and fairness of the distribution of present and future benefits

(Brown and Corbera, 2003). This may take the form of financial benefits to locals who might

lose short term benefits to obtain long term ones (Brown and Corbera, 2003). Equity also

involves the inclusion of all stakeholders in decision-making processes so that power and

knowledge are not factors that exclude some members of the community (Brown and Corbera,

2003). Property rights are one aspect of equity that must be considered since some communities

have informal systems of access to natural resources which may exclude them from obtaining

benefits from reforestation proj ects (Brown and Corbera, 2003).

Social and economic welfare must also be an important component of carbon projects,

such as reforestation or agroforestry proj ects, to ensure social viability (Brown and Corbera,

2003). In order to obtain benefits to both natural resources and local people, projects should be









formulated to ensure that locals are empowered and social capital is created and enhanced (May

et al., 2003). Research is lacking on the benefits that may be created for the local communities

impacted by these projects (May et al., 2003). Villagers in a study by Reddy (2002) indicated

that a plantation in Southeast Asia used for carbon sequestration was also a source of

employment and an economic source both from local use of its products as well as sale of these

products on the market (Reddy, 2002). Negative perceptions of this carbon sequestration

program included concerns that benefits from the program would not reach the poorer segment

of the community (Reddy, 2002). Villagers were also in favor of community participation in

resource management (Reddy, 2002).

Benefits of these carbon sequestration proj ects may take the form of new resources for the

development of the local community, increase in rural income, maintenance and improvement of

the environment of the community (Kueppers et al., 2004). In a carbon sequestration project

between Costa Rica and Norway designed to combine natural resource conservation and

enhancement of local quality of life and livelihoods of communities, only positive impacts were

reported (Miranda et al., 2002). The local benefits were increased awareness of environmental

issues through environmental education activities, community participation in the proj ect and

employment from non-timber forest products and ecotourism (Miranda et al., 2002).

Sustainable forestry can also contribute to the well-being of rural communities by

changing crops that may produce low levels of product to forest and agro forest as well as by

other alternative means of income (Miranda et al., 2002). There is also a potential for secondary

socioeconomic benefits such as increased employment and income from subsidiary activities,

improved quality of life, improved social welfare by alleviating poverty, increase in relative









values of forested land, food and fiber security (Boomfield et al., 2000; Miranda et al., 2002;

May et al., 2003).

In a study of Brazil and Bolivia, May et al. (2003) examined the ways in which carbon

proj ects can be implemented to contribute to sustainable development and local benefits (May et

al., 2003). The Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Proj ect (NKMCAP) which involved

local, regional and international partners expanded a national park to stop logging and aimed to

conserve forests to prevent CO2 emiSSIOnS from deforestation (May et al., 2003). The project

allowed access for sustainable uses by local communities and provided funds for environmental

projects (May et al., 2003). The community initially lost their jobs from logging and was

excluded from participation in the project so that benefits were not realized until the community

was more fully involved in the project (May et al., 2003). The benefits eventually created were

improved land tenure arrangements and increased income from local sustainable forest

management (May et al., 2003). This project also contributed to local community development

of sustainable agriculture and forestry with its associated benefits (May et al., 2003).

The Bananal proj ect in Brazil made social aims a main priority to integrate social

development and forest protection (May et al., 2003). The Bananal project included

environmental education for the community, seedling distribution and agroforestry

implementation (May et al., 2003). However, income and employment were not generated to a

great extent (May et al., 2003).A forest proj ect in Plantar provided employment to local people

from tree planting and maintenance but this benefit was reduced after the proj ect was

implemented (May et al., 2003). The experiences from this proj ect indicate that environmental

education can help integrate a carbon/reforestation proj ect with the local communities but that









direct involvement of local users of the land would provide more significant contributions to

sustainable development (May et al., 2003).

The potential negative impacts of carbon sequestration and reforestation proj ects may be

reduction in income generation, loss of soil fertility and food security (Kueppers et al., 2004).

Land tenure may be a problem to the implementation of forestry proj ects in developing countries

due to the short term nature and size of such land arrangements (Miranda et al., 2002). Brown

and Corbera (2003) found that stakeholders considered that change in income was the most

important social impact followed by participation in the design of the proj ect and access to

resources. The clarification of property rights and organization of the community were also

important to stakeholders for the realization of socioeconomic benefits (Brown and Corbera,

2003).

Multi-species community-based reforestation has been suggested as one option to provide

benefits to these low income communities if designed carefully (Boyd et al., 2005). It is also

important for communities to have access to information about the proj ect, be involved at all

stages of the proj ect and have ownership of components of the proj ect (Boyd et al., 2005).

Adaptive management strategies that encourage innovation among small farmers may be the best

approach to capture the benefits of reforestation and carbon sequestration proj ects in the local

community and provide resilience to changes and uncertainty in dynamic systems (Tschakert and

Tappan, 2004). As found in Mexico, these negotiations among stakeholders must be done to

ensure that this proj ect and future ones contributes to equitable local socioeconomic development

by assessing the needs of the poor and the ways in which this may differ from other stakeholders

(Brown and Corbera, 2003). The NKMCAP example showed that carbon projects should be









decentralized, have clear obj ectives and activities as well as provide adequate access to resources

and communication with the local communities (May et al., 2003).

Socioeconomic Benefits of Ecotourism in Protected Areas

When local people are fundamentally linked to the use of natural resources for their

socioeconomic wellbeing, depletion of this resource will negatively impact their status (Ngugi,

2002). Ecotourism is considered one way in which the environment can be protected while

generating a supplementary or maj or means of income for local people who may have decreased

income from PA designation or resource degradation (Ngugi, 2002; Alexander, 2000).

According to Scheyvens (1999), ecotourism can provide both cultural and environmental

benefits as an integral part of the activity.

One of the benefits is the greater involvement and active participation of the community in

the ecotourism effort at this site which will contribute to a greater level of community pride and

cooperation. Scheyvens (1999) referred to this as social empowerment, which maintains and

enhances the local community's equilibrium and improves community cohesion as individuals

and families work together to build a successful ecotourism venture. There will also be political

empowerment as defined by Scheyvens (1999) that is equal consideration being given to all

members of the community including their questions and concerns about ecotourism activity

within their community. Economic empowerment refers to ensuring that the local community

obtains long-term economic benefits and that this is shared equitably among the community and

for community development purposes, e.g. to build schools or improve roads (Scheyvens, 1999).

This would also ensure that the low-status section of the community (women or youths) would

have increased status (Scheyvens, 1999).

The community will also be able to use their native or inherited skills or products to earn a

living which would help foster these traditions rather than letting them disappear over









subsequent generations. Wallace & Pierce (1996) mentioned that cultural exchanges with

visitors could be an opportunity to experience authentic two-way interaction with local residents.

In turn, the locals will recognize the importance of their culture, environment and traditional

knowledge (Scheyvens, 1999). This leads to improved self-esteem of the community as a whole

and working together of the community. This would spur community members to further

enhance their training and education (Scheyvens, 1999). This has also been referred to as

"biocultural restoration" via educational and recreational activities for locals (Wallace & Pierce,

1996).

Ecotourism is a potential source of additional or alternative income for the community

either directly through participation in tours or through supplemental enterprises such as food,

local crafts etc. Ecotourism, according to Wallace and Pierce (1996), "directs economic and

other benefits to local people that complement rather than overwhelm or replace traditional

practices (farming, fishing, social systems, etc.)." This should consequently lead to a better

quality of life and positive feedback into the resource from which they earn a living. For

example, the Maori communities in New Zealand sustainably use their natural resources by

engaging in ecotourism activity to provide employment for locals by training tribes to provide

information to visitors, such as in Whale Watches (Scheyvens, 1999). They plan to use

ecotourism to revive respect for traditional knowledge in a socially and economically sustainable

manner (Scheyvens, 1999).

Economic benefits should include employment, improved infrastructure, increased

business for local stores in a non-consumptive manner that is at the same time financially

promising (Stem et al., 2003). In the Amboseli National Park, its financial value that was mostly

attributed to tourism, was US$40/ha, as compared to less than US$0.80/ha when used for









agriculture (Stem et al., 2003). There are spin-off businesses possible from ecotourism (Stem et

al., 2003) for community members to sell their goods as well as offer accommodation to visitors.

The desired socioeconomic benefits for the communities around the Nariva Swamp will

only be achieved with appropriate policies and careful planning, including education, training,

and enhanced access to capital for local residents to facilitate their involvement (Wall, 1997). In

order to maximize the socioeconomic benefit to local communities, there must be long-term

participation of locals at an early stage in the decision-making process (Wallace & Pierce, 1996).

Also, residents of Namibia are forming conservancies, which will legally give them rights of

conditional use of wildlife and are developing plans for ecotourism ventures (Maclaren, 2002).

Economic gains that may accrue to the community are similar to those obtained from

South African National Parks; park entrance fees, accommodation, equipment rental (kayaks

etc.), food sales (local cuisine), merchandise sales (equipment, local clothing and cultural

souvenirs) (Eagles, 2001). Wunder (1999) in studying the Cuyabeno Wildlife Refuge found that

the sale of local handicrafts would be appropriate only if done in the context of a holistic cultural

experience such as traditional dances and rituals if the local communities are willing to share

these experiences with the visitors.

In the Rotal Chitwan National Park in Nepal, ecotourism failed to improve biodiversity

conservation (Bookbinder et al., 1998). This was due to a paucity of direct economic benefit to

the local community, which was integrally linked, with the tendency of locals to conserve

biodiversity. Empowerment of locals is an important aspect of ensuring their full participation in

ecotourism programs in order to share costs and benefits among all stakeholders (Scheyvens,

1999).









Factors Affecting Impact Perception

The variables identified that influence differences in attitudes and perception of benefits of

stakeholders in Kenya as well as in other studies were age of the protected area, income,

occupation, diet, education, property ownership, redistribution of wealth from the designation,

ethnicity and relationship with government personnel (McClanahan et al., 2005). It is also

expected that the existence of community programs adds to the perception of benefits but does

not have as significant an effect as age of the PA (McClanahan et al., 2005). Surveys of

socioeconomic variables have also shown that communities closest to the PA experience a

greater proportion of costs/negative impacts of PA designation (McClanahan et al., 2005). Issues

that emerged from the study of PAs in Tanzania as those affecting perception of impacts

included property rights of the land on which villagers lived and farmed, in other words the lack

of direct rights over the benefits and costs they faced from park designation (Gillingham and

Lee, 2003).

In a study of a PA proj ect in Masoala, villages that experienced benefits from the proj ect or

understood the proj ect' s aims as target villages had a more positive attitude towards the park

than people from villages who were not a focus of the proj ect (Marcus, 2001). Higher

socioeconomic status should lead to positive perception and vice versa but this is not necessarily

the case because there was no significant relationship found in the Masoala study (Marcus,

2001). There was also a positive correlation between educational level (attended school and/or

are literate) and positive perceptions of the park (Marcus, 2001). Respondents indicated that

alternative viable economic measures than the Park will encourage change in land use (Marcus,

2001).

Economic gain such as from the sale of crops will contribute to a positive impact

perception whereas ethnicity was not a significant factor but location of dwelling was important










(Marcus, 2001). Factors such as age, gender and sex were not contributing factors to positive

perceptions (Marcus, 2001). Local communities need to be made aware that conservation of

resources is not just a luxury that they will be sacrificed Einancially to achieve (Marcus, 2001).

In examining the economic impact of the Mombasa Marine National Park in Kenya on local

Eisherman to determine who bears the cost of PA designation, it was found that communities will

probably have a negative attitude towards PAs especially in poor areas, but those implementing

the PA should attempt to instill a positive attitude in local people (Ngugi, 2002). Ensuring that

local communities feel that they are partners in the conservation initiative is important and this

can be achieved by seeking their input in the location of conservation site itself such as zoning,

rules that will be applied to the PA and the timing of various proj ects in particular those people

who may lose or reduce existing income and will require alternative sources of income need to

be consulted (Ngugi, 2002). One way in which the government can achieve collaboration is

through facilitating capacity building (technical, human resources, managerial and Einancial)

within both conservation agencies and local communities (Ngugi, 2002).

Nature-based tourism should be developed to ensure that income from such ventures will

contribute to the economic viability of the park and associated economic benefits to local people

from sustainable activities (Singleton et al., 2002). They should develop a different economic

regime of earning livelihoods that are based on sustainable use of natural resources (Singleton et

al., 2002). Such livelihoods should accrue Einancial gains to the communities without negatively

affecting the natural resources as may be done by their existing practices or land uses (Singleton

et al., 2002).









Methods


Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Social research on policy has been done via social impact assessment which has been

defined by Becker (2001) as "'the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or

proposed action which are related to individuals, organizations and social macro-systems".

Socioeconomic impact assessment can be used as a predictive tool to determine the potential or

future effects of a policy on physical and psychological health, well-being, lifestyles and inter-

personal relationships (CERM, 2002). An impact can be a real or perceived experience that is

experienced by an individual, household, or a community or society (Vanclay, 1999).

Socioeconomic impact identification and measurement must include community input,

perceptions and participation in order to be relevant and representative (GHD, 2005; CERM,

2002). People's expressions of opinion can be used to ascertain their values by determining the

numeric measures of a variety of statements that address facets of a particular value (Miller and

McGee, 2001). Perceptions of impact are important in determining what socioeconomic issues

are considered important by residents (Asquith et al., 2002). This type of assessment can

elucidate the stakeholders' perception of the proj ect and indicate the points to be negotiated with

the government and stakeholders in subsequent discussions (Brown and Corbera, 2003).

Socioeconomic Impact Matrix

The analysis focused on the socioeconomic impact of the ESA designation of the Nariva

Swamp on local communities using a compiled matrix of potential impacts from May et al.

(2003), Kueppers et al. (2004), Proctor et al. (2002), Brown and Corbera (2003), Reddy (2002),

Vanclay et al. (2000) and Fortin and Gagnon (1999) to assess the perceived impacts of this

policy and its management actions. This matrix was included in the third section of the

household survey described in Chapter 2 (Appendix A). The respondents were asked to value










impacts based on a Likert-type scale from a range from +5 to 5 with +5 representing a highly

positive impact and -5 representing a very negative impact and 0 representing no effect or not

applicable (Kueppers et al., 2004).

The socioeconomic impacts on socioeconomic variables were broadly categorized as living

conditions, way of life, household income, involvement in your community, access to the

resources of the swamp, property rights, traditional uses of the swamp, culture, education, health

and wellbeing and children's future. The potential impacts used were intended to allow a range

of people with varying levels of education and knowledge to be able to understand and evaluate

them (Brown and Corbera, 2003). Key respondents from the community were also asked how

important each individual impact is to them on a scale of 1 to 10 (relative impact weighting).

The weights would indicate the relative importance of each impact; impacts with a similar

weight would have the same importance according to community members (Kueppers et al.,

2004).

Total values for each impact were calculated as the product of intensity/magnitude of

impact and weight of impact. These totals can be summed for each category of impact such as

on livelihood, social capital etc. and the cumulative perceived impact score for the ESA

designation policy can be determined after Kueppers et al. (2004) by summing all these products

for each household. Individual matrices for households was then aggregated to determine the

community level impacts for Kernahan and Plum Mitan to give an indication of overall

perceptions of impact.

An open-ended question about perceived impacts was also included in the questionnaire to

ensure that impacts unique to the Plum Mitan and Kernahan/Cascadoux communities were

identified and were not restricted to the impacts found in the literature. This was done to ensure









that the unique effects perceived by the community due to the specific relationships, histories,

social values and other factors within these communities was taken into consideration (Becker et

al., 2004).

Multiple Regression Analysis

The quantitative data from total perceived impact of the ESA designation of each

household was statistically analyzed using multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis in order to

determine the statistical significance of sociodemographic variables as determinants of perceived

impacts. The regression analysis also indicated how much variation in the dependent variable

(perceived impact) was explained by the equation or model. The multiple regression analysis

will assess the relationship of factors such as education, socioeconomic status, age, employment,

swamp dependency etc. to each of the perceived benefits or impacts (McClanahan et al., 2005).

Similar to the analysis of attitudes, it is expected that perception of impacts will be affected by

several influencing socioeconomic variables.

The regression model and variables used in the analysis of attitudes in Chapter 3 can be

applied to impact perception as well.

Y = a + bil1 + b2I2 + b3I3 + b4I4 + b5I5 + b6I6 + b7ly

Where Y = total household impact perception of ESA designation

a = constant;

lI = age (expected negative effect on impact perception);

I2 = inCOme (expected positive effect on impact perception);

IS = dependency (expected negative effect on impact perception);

I4 = gender (effect on impact perception may be negative or positive);

Is = education (expected positive effect on impact perception);

I6 = property ownership/landholding (expected positive effect on impact perception) and









IT = length of residency (expected negative effect on impact perception)

(Chapter 3 contains details on calculation of the independent variables).

The results of these analyses indicated the most important variables that contribute to

people's perceptions of impacts in these two communities.

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a tool originally developed in the business world by

Saaty in the late 1970's and has been applied to various situations, including natural resource

management, that require multi-criteria, complex decisions by aggregation of performance

indicators (Schmoldt et al., 2001; Ananda and Herath, 2003). AHP allows decisions

makers/participants to determine relative utility values/priorities based on the alternatives and

information presented/provided (Schmoldt et al., 2001).

The hierarchical nature of this process leads to definition of a main goal/obj ective which is

then broken down into lower levels of the hierarchy of more specific criteria related to this main

objective (Schmoldt et al., 2001). Pairwise comparisons are then made at each level of the

hierarchy on a nine-point importance scale to obtain priority values which then allow for the

calculation of overall priorities using the eigenvalue method (Schmoldt et al., 2001; Mardle et

al., 2004). AHP allows for greater consideration given to such comparisons and can be used in

public participation (Schmoldt et al., 2001).

It is important for PA management to be based on quantitative, transparent and credible

reasoning and AHP can be used to achieve his aim (Ananda and Herath, 2003). It provides a tool

for different participants representing varying interests and values to use a similar method for

analysis and decision-making in protected area and natural resource management (Schmoldt et

al., 2001). The complex decisions in natural resource management occur because of the various

uses for these resources and the often large number of stakeholders involved (Ananda and









Herath, 2003). Since AHP is not lengthy or cumbersome it can simplify this type complex

decision making (Schmoldt et al., 2001).

The AHP methodology was used to develop resource management proj ects for the

National Park Service Unit in the US (Schmoldt et al., 2001). This was done to decide on

proj ects based on criteria other than project cost (Schmoldt et al., 2001). By comparing each

proj ect alternative, clear obj ectives and decisions were made and water quality and sensitive

wildlife for example were chosen as priority proj ects (Schmoldt et al., 2001). Similarly, in an

example of forest management in Kalimantan, Indonesia, AHP was used to select criteria and

indicators in a bottom-up approach in order to assess sustainability of forest management and

using a wide range of stakeholders of varying education backgrounds (Schmoldt et al., 2001).

Decisions were made based on AHP results as to whether criteria and indicators should be

retained or rej ected (Schmoldt et al., 2001).

The multi-dimensional and multi-criteria nature of environmental impact assessment (EIA)

lends itself to analysis using AHP (Ramanathan, 2001). The need for various experts to make

choices about different environmental issues in EIA can be facilitated through the use of AHP

(Ramanathan, 2001). The flexibility and versatility of AHP especially with regards to dealing

with both qualitative and quantitative indicators also makes it appropriate for use as a tool for

EIA (Ramanathan, 2001). AHP is easily used and understood by non-technical people including

general members of the pubic (Ramanathan, 2001). AHP was applied in a socioeconomic impact

assessment of an LPG plant in Maharashtra and both the numerical significance and perceived

relative importance by stakeholders was determined using AHP (Ramanathan, 2001). This

allowed for the systematic analysis of impacts and prioritization of the environmental plans for

this plant (Ramanathan, 2001).









Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat- Analytical Hierarchy Process (SWOT-AHP)

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis has been often used in the

fields of business and has been extended to that of natural resource management, to assess a

given decision, project or policy directive in a systematic manner (Schmoldt et al., 2001). This

analysis attempts to identify strategic factors related to the issue under consideration (Schmoldt

et al., 2001) Since SWOT on its own does not provide a means of weighting the factors

obtained, the final decisions tend to be made on a qualitative basis of the importance of these

factors (Schmoldt et al., 2001). In order to circumvent this problem and enable the SWOT

analysis to be more quantitative in nature, it can be merged with the AHP process. By doing

this, priority measures can be assigned to the factors obtained through SWOT analysis to

facilitate the process of making decisions in a multicriteria framework in natural resource

management (Schmoldt et al., 2001).

In an application of SWOT-AHP technique/methodology in Nyungwe Forest Reserve,

Rwanda among different stakeholders, a non-governmental organization, a government agency

and local community were asked to analyze the community-based management of this reserve

(Masozera et al., 2006). The methodology was able to capture the different preferences of such

groups for comparative purposes and to suggest future management (Masozera et al., 2006). The

analysis was able to show that these three groups did not agree on the efficacy of the CBM

approach to managing the reserve with the community placing greater emphasis on income

opportunities and the two other groups emphasize the negative aspect of CBM of uncertainties of

government decisions and lack of control of government agencies (Masozera et al., 2006).

SWOT-AHP was performed for the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp using the

methodology below as adapted from Schmoldt et al. (2001). The analysis was done over a

period of three days in a focus group with a total of ten participants. These participants










represented different specific interests within the community and were five members of the

general community, four members from an environmental community-based organization

(ECBO) and one small-scale ecotourism operator.

Stage 1 The groups referred to in the analysis are the strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats of the ESA designation and the final result of this SWOT-AHP analysis

was an overall priority for each of the alternatives being examined (Schmoldt et al., 2001). The

hierarchy of the SWOT analysis is depicted in Figure 4-1. The first stage in the combined

SWOT-AHP analysis was the identification of factors within each SWOT group. This number

of factors should be ten (10) or less for each of the four groups (SWOTs) to facilitate the

application of AHP. The generation of these factors was accomplished by brainstorming in the

focus group to generate a list of SWOT items. These items were then grouped into summary

factors to facilitate further analysis via pairwise comparisons.

Stage 2 The second stage was the pairwise comparison of these factors for each group

(SWOT). This was done using a questionnaire format. In this process, the factors under the

strengths group for example, were compared with each other to determine which was of greater

importance and the magnitude of this difference was determined on a scale of 1 to 9. If no

difference in importance was in the pair then a 1 was assigned and if one is more important than

the other the strength of that difference was assigned from 2 to 9; 9 representing maximum

importance in comparison to the other member of the pair. Expert Choice software (Version

11.5, 2006) was used to facilitate these calculations which are based on the eigenvalue method.

Stage 3 The resulting values were priorities of the factors within each group and were

used to obtain a representative factor within each group based on the highest factor priority. This

resulted in four factors, one factor from each group (one strength, one weakness, one opportunity










and one threat) being brought forward for comparison with each other. Pairwise comparisons

were made among the four and again Expert Choice software (2006) was used to calculate

priority values for these factors. These values were considered to be group priorities or scaling

factors which were then multiplied by the priority values obtained in stage 2 above to give the

required overall priority values for each of the strategic factors of each SWOT group.

Stage 4 These overall priority values can then be used to determine importance and

management strategies. Tables and graphs of the priority values obtained in the SWOT-AHP

analysis were then created for comparison of the priorities among the three interest groups. It is

considered that this method can assess both qualitative and quantitative criteria in decision-

making. When one factor is found to be of greater priority than others, the strength, opportunity,

weakness or threat can be addressed more directly. In the case of positive impacts, they can be

emphasized and in the case of negative impacts, they can be minimized when the designation is

implemented.




IMPACTS OF ESA DESIGNATION

POSITIVE IlVPACTS NEGATIVE IlVPACTS


STRENGTHS OPPORTUNrITIES WEAKNESSES THREATS


Strength 1 Opportunity 1 Weakness 1 Threat 1


Strength x Opportunity x Weakness x Threat x


Figure 4-1. Generalized hierarchy for SWOT-AHP analysis of the ESA designation of the
Nariva Swamp












Socioeconomic Impact Matrix Analysis

The results of the cumulative community-level socioeconomic impact assessment (SIA)

are shown in Table 4-1. The most important socioeconomic impact by relative weight was

property rights followed by employment, community involvement and access to the swamp

resources which were all assigned a relative weight of 9 according to the community members

(Table 4-1). Based on the cumulative impact, community members perceived that all the

socioeconomic impacts would be negative except for their children's future. The greatest

cumulative negative impacts were perceived as being on access to the swamp resources and on

property rights. Other impacts that were mentioned by community members in the open-ended

question were the possibility of relocation, the need to move their family and start over, that the

restrictions caused by the designation would mean that it would be more difficult to make money

and they would have to work harder to do so.

At the household level of analysis, the MLR model was analyzed with the full seven (7)

independent variables listed in the methods section. This model was found to be non-signifieant

with an F-value of 1.74, P-value of 0. 114 and R2 of 0. 15. In light of this result a forward step-

wise regression was necessary to determine if any model using the independent variables was

significant for impact perception. Based on the change in R2 ValUeS of the stepwise regression,

the largest change was 0.106 for the model with four (4) variables: age, gender, education and

landholding. This model also had the largest F-statistic (3.01) and smallest P-value (0.02) so that

the model was significant at the a = 0.05 level and is the "best-fit" for this data for the given

suite of independent variables. Multicollinearity among the independent variables was

previously analyzed in Chapter 3.


Results









Table 4-1. Cumulative scores of potential impacts of ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp as
perceived by the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities
Potential Impact Relative Weight of Cumulative Impact Score
Impact
Employment 9 -783
Living Conditions 6 -678

Way of Life 3 -297
Household Income 8 -528

Community Involvement 9 -747

Access to the Resources of the Swamp 9 -1269

Property Rights 10 -1240
Traditional Uses of the Swamp 5 -540
Culture 3 -75

Education 6 -114

Health and Wellbeing 5 -135
Children's Future 7 35


Gender and landholding were both significant at the 0.05 level (Table 4-2); gender has a

positive impact on impact perception so that females had more positive impact perceptions than

males. Those with larger landholdings had a more negative perception of the impacts of the ESA

designation of the swamp (Table 4-2) which would be related to the perception the community

has of property rights changing in the village and not just in the demarcated areas of the swamp.

Although not significant, age had a negative effect on impact perception (Table 4-2) which was

as predicted since older people were expected to have a more negative perception of the impacts

of ESA designation. Education unexpectedly had a negative effect on impact perception (Table

4-2) since those with higher levels of education were predicted to have a more positive

perception of impacts.









Table 4-2. Multiple Linear Regression of perceived impacts of ESA designation
Variables B S.E. T Significance

(Constant) -29.51 96.87 -.031 .762

Age -3.85 21.00 -0.18 .855

Gender 104.73 48.72 2.15 .035

Educ -16.41 42.77 -0.38 .702

Land hold -22.66 7.47 -3.03 .003


SWOT-AHP

The initial stage of the analysis resulted in four (4) strategic factors in the strengths group,

three (3) in the opportunities group and two (2) in both the weaknesses and threats groups (Table

4-3). The details obtained in the focus groups for each factor are in Appendix B and the

resulting SWOT-AHP questionnaire based on these factors is in Appendix C.

Table 4-3. SWOT analysis for ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp
Group Factors

Strength Sl- Additional source of income and/or employment

S2 Management benefits (better management of the swamp)

S3 Reduction in illegal activities in the swamp

S4 Better protection of plants and animals in swamp
Opportunities 01 Better community and government agency relationship

02 Improved awareness and education on environment

03 Increased community involvement in management of swamp
Weaknesses W1 Limited income and/or employment generation from swamp

W2 Loss of access to some areas and uses of swamp
Threats T1 Conflicts between community and government personnel who
enforce the laws

T2 Limited involvement in decisions about the swamp









General Community Members

Based on the factor priority scores within each group, the general community members

considered management benefits to be the most important strength accounting for 50.5% of the

total strength of the ESA designation and increased involvement in management of the swamp as

the most important opportunity, 77.5% of that group (Table 4-4). Limited income was

considered the more important weakness and lack of involvement in decision-making was the

higher ranked threat (Table 4-4). In terms of group priority, opportunities were given the highest

priority (48.4%) by general community members and then weaknesses, strength and threats in

descending order (Table 4-4). This means that the community members consider that the

positive opportunities. provided by the ESA designation outweigh the negative aspects.

Figure 4-2 provides a graphical representation of the Einal result; the overall priority values

for the SWOT factors for the general community members. The positive factors (strengths and

opportunities) are shown at the top two quadrants of the graph and the negative factors

(weaknesses and threats) are represented by the lower two quadrants. Clearly, increased

community involvement in management of the swamp was the highest overall priority of all the

SWOT factors for the general community members.

Limitation on income and employment in the swamp was seen by the general community

members as the most important negative factor of the ESA designation. Based on overall

priority, management benefits was the greatest strength and limited involvement in management

decisions was the most serious threat, both of which received lower overall priority scores than

the highest priority opportunity and weakness. In the opinion of members of the general

communities of Plum Mitan and Kernahan/Cascadoux, positive impacts of the ESA designation

of the Nariva Swamp accounted for 67.3% of the strategic factors associated with this










designation. This result differed from that obtained from the matrix analysis in which negative

impacts outweighed positive impacts.

Table 4-4. SWOT-AHP analysis showing priority scores
Factor Priority Scores Overall Priority Scores

Community ECBO Eco-Op Community ECBO Eco-Op

Strengths 0.189 0.16 0.196

S1 0.227 0.082 0.248 0.043 0.013 0.049

S2 0.505 0.705 0.471 0.095 0.113 0.092

S3 0.085 0.164 0.123 0.016 0.026 0.024

S4 0.183 0.049 0.158 0.035 0.008 0.031

Opportunities 0. 484 0. 549 0.075

01 0.047 0.137 0.091 0.023 0.075 0.007

02 0.178 0.568 0.091 0.086 0.312 0.007

03 0.775 0.295 0.818 0.375 0.162 0.061

Weaknesses 0. 289 0. 033 0. 541

W1 0.667 0.111 0.1 0.193 0.004 0.054

W2 0.333 0.889 0.9 0.096 0.029 0.487

Threats 0. 039 0. 258 0.188

T1 0.125 0.1 0.1 0.005 0.026 0.019

T2 0.875 0.9 0.9 0.034 0.232 0.169

*The italicized, underlined values are the group priorities or scaling factors













STRENGTHS


OPPORTUNITIES


Better community and
- government agency
relationship


involvement in management


Additional source of income
employment

Management benefits
Better protection of plants and
animals


education on


-0.3


-0.2


Conflicts between community and
government personnel


SLimited income and/or
employment generation
WEAKNESSES


THREATS


-0.3


Figure 4-2. Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for general community members

Environmental Community-based Organization (ECBO)


The ECBO members considered the greatest strength of the ESA designation of the Nariva


Swamp to be management benefits (Table 4-4). The most important opportunity was considered


to be improved environmental awareness which differed from the general community members


and the most important weakness was considered to be loss of access to the swamp; another


difference from the community members (Table 4-4). The greatest threat was similar to that for


the community members which was lack of involvement in decision-making for the swamp.














STRENGTHS


OPPORTUNITIES


0.3


Additional source of income
and/or employment

Reduction in illegal activities

Management benefits


Increased community
involvement in management

Better community and
government agency
relationship


Improved awareness and education on
environment


-0.1 -0.05
Loss of access to swamp



Limited income and/or
employment generation


0.2 0.25


0.3 0.35


Conflicts between community and
government personnel


Limited involvement in
decisions


-0 2


THREATS


WEAKNESSES


-0.3 0


Figure 4-3. Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for environmental community-
based organization (ECBO)



The members of the environmental organization placed greatest importance on


opportunities, similar to the general community members, assigning this SWOT group a


weighting of 54.9%. Positive impacts in the upper quadrant of the graph (Figure 4-3) accounted


for 70.9% of the overall priority of the SWOT factors.












Ecotourism Operator (Eco-op)


OPPORTUNITIES

Improved awareness and education on
environment

community
ent mn management
Better community and
government agency
relationship

0.1 0.2 0.3






Limited involvement in
decisions


STRENGTHS


Additional source of income and/or
employment

Better protection of plants and
animals


-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3


employment generation


-0.3


Conflicts between community and
government personnel


THREATS


WEAKNESSES


-0.6 J


Figure 4-4. Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for ecotourism operator



The ecotourism operator who formed part of the focus group shared the opinion of both the


community members and the ECBO members that the greatest strength of the ESA designation


would be the management benefits to be derived and the greatest threat would be limited


involvement in decisions about the swamp (Table 4-4). Similar to the general community


members, the ecotourism operator considered community involvement in swamp management


was the most important opportunity and shared the opinion of the ECBO members that loss of


access to the swamp would be the highest priority weakness (Table 4-4).









Unlike the other community members and ECBO members, the ecotourism operator

placed greatest weight on weaknesses assigning this group 54. 1% of the priority of ESA

designation whereas opportunities garnered only 7.5% of this support (Table 4-4). Figure 4-4

above shows that the lower quadrant or negative impacts of the ESA designation accounted for

the highest overall priority and represented 72.9% of the importance given to the SWOT factors

by the ecotourism operator.

The AHP methodology included an analysis of consistency to assess whether intransitivity

occurs in the comparisons being made by a particular individual or group (Mardle et al., 2004).

Ideally, the consistency ratio should be < 0. 1; in this analysis several of the comparisons

exceeded this value. This inconsistency may occur because the persons) making the pairwise

comparisons does not fully understand the issue under consideration (Mardle et al., 2004).

However, the complexity of natural resource management issues and possible conflicting

relationships among management aims can also be the cause of this inconsistency and so the

consistency ratio calculated in AHP may not give an accurate indication of validity (Mardle et

al., 2004). Since the SWOT factors were developed in conjunction with participants,

comparisons were explained as fully as possible to the participants in the focus group and

unbiased judgments were required for the analysis, the inconsistency was tolerated for my study.

Discussion

The positive or negative impact of conservation measures to stakeholders may determine

the success of a policy and so, the perceptions of these stakeholders to the PA and the policy

implementation are important in conserving the area (Weladji et al., 2003). Some of the

suggested ways to mitigate both real and perceived impacts include increased education and

training and identification of alternative livelihoods to sustain the economic viability of local

people who are excluded form conservation areas (Singleton et al., 2002; Ngugi, 2002).









Education of the community and other programs to achieve participation could identify and

communicate indirect benefits of PA designation to local people so that restrictions of use in

some areas of the PA can be appreciated for their long term potential benefits (McClanahan et

al., 2005).

The socioeconomic impact matrix analysis resulted in the quantification of the significance

of predicted effects of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. By determining the

significance of the independent variables, the government agencies can understand the issues that

are important to the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities and can address or

mitigate these negative impacts so that the benefits are greater than the costs for the communities

in order to obtain their support for the protected area (Gillingham and Lee, 2003). The results of

the SWOT-AHP analysis enable the development of strategic, long term plans for the Nariva

Swamp .

The fact that the future of the community' s children was the only cumulative positive

impact in the matrix analysis shows that perceived impacts were based on short term costs

although there is recognition by the community that there are long term benefits to be obtained

by designating the swamp as an ESA. Gender and property ownership were the significant

predictors of impact; females had more positive perceptions of the impact of ESA designation

than males and those with larger amount of property had more negative perceptions of impact.

This effect of property ownership is related to the fact that community members are

concerned about loss of their land due to the ESA designation and as expressed via the household

survey and during focus groups, some members of the community believe that they may be

asked to relocate out of their community. Loss of access to swamp resources was also of great

concern both in the matrix analysis from the household survey and the SWOT-AHP by the









ECBO members and the ecotourism participant. The communities would be concerned with this

impact because of the potential loss of their traditional uses of the swamp, such as for

agriculture, as well as the inability to conduct tours in the swamp. Although the present levels of

ecotourism in the swamp was reported by the community members as being very low to

negligible, they expressed interest in expanding this activity in the future.

The general community members were concerned about the negative impact on income

generation and employment from the swamp and expressed the opinion that the ESA designation

would lead to curtailment on their current means of employment from fishing without providing

sufficient alternative means of employment. Management plans for the swamp need to include

alternative means for income generation by community members and allow for sustainable levels

of access and use of swamp resources.

The ECBO considered improved awareness and education on the environment to be of

high priority in this ESA designation since they would like to be involved as tour guides in the

swamp and also because one of the purposes of the group is the protection of the environment of

the Nariva Swamp. All interest groups in the SWOT-AHP exercise indicated that they consider

the opportunity to increase their involvement in the management of the Nariva Swamp as the

most important benefit from the ESA designation.

The greatest negative factor identified by the ECBO was the possibility of little

involvement on the management of the swamp. This group believed that they have not been

involved enough in swamp management in the past and would like this situation to change. The

intention to have participatory processes in the management of the swamp as an ESA needs to be

fulfilled so that this opportunity is realized. Acknowledgement of the benefits of the PA by

stakeholders is more probable if they are allowed to be fully involved in its designation and










protection (Kessler, 2004). This can be accomplished in part through constant communication

and information among the community and the government agencies in a collaborative approach

to management so that the local communities feel that they are partners in the management of the

PA (Ngugi, 2002).

Capacity building is another measure government agencies can use for reducing perceived

negative impacts. This can take the form of the provision of both technical and human resources

(Ngugi, 2002). In the case of the Nariva Swamp, there is a need for instruction on sustainable

agricultural practices and other uses of swamp resources. In addition, community members

require assistance in establishing and maintaining successful ecotourism initiatives. This would

include training as tour guides as well as information on other enterprises associated with

ecotourism, managing a business and marketing their ecotourism services.

The benefits of the designation of the Nariva Swamp as a protected area need to be

communicated more effectively to the communities in the area in order to reduce the overall

negative perception currently held by many households in these villages. Innovative means of

education and communication with the communities need to be implemented since the results of

my study indicate that past initiatives have not been successful in fostering positive perceptions

about this designation. The inclusion of environmental groups within the community in

awareness and communication measures is one way of achieving an increase in positive

perceptions within the communities due to the relatively small size and close-knit character of

these villages. This is necessary because in order for community members to participate in

management activities in the swamp and abide by protective measures that may be necessary to

conserve swamp resources, the perceptions of these communities towards ESA designation need

to become more positive.









CHAPTER 5
PREFERENCES OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE
NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA

Introduction

The Nariva Swamp will be designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) under

the ESA Rules, 2001 (EMA, 2005). Specifically, the ESA will be "The Nariva Swamp Managed

Resource Protected Area" (EMA, 2005). There exist general guidelines for the allowed and

restricted uses for the swamp but no detailed management plan for the swamp as an ESA.

General aims for the Nariva Swamp as an ESA include controlled ecotourism activities,

reforestation of degraded areas of the swamp and integration of sustainable resource use within a

framework of participatory management of the swamp (EMA. 2005)

This participatory management will include the communities in and around the swamp

and is an example of collective action with respect to a common pool natural resource. As such,

the management decisions made will be subj ect to the rational choices of community members as

well as the potential problem of 'free riders.' The preferred outcome is for community members

to fully participate in sustainable management of the swamp. This can be achieved through the

inclusion of the communities in management decisions at an early stage in the planning process.

One strategy for including the community members in a participatory manner in

management planning for the Nariva Swamp is through the early identification of their choices

for management strategies. In order to determine the preferences of community members from

Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan with respect to management in the Nariva Swamp, voting

methods were used. The two methods used were the Borda Count and Approval Voting, both of

which were applied in a focus group setting to six management options.

These options were based on level of community involvement in management of the

Nariva Swamp and ranged from minimal involvement in management to complete transfer of










management responsibility to the community. Focus group participants were asked to make their

choices from the options and rank them according to the two voting methods. The use of both

methods allowed for comparison of the results using different voting techniques for protected

areas management. In addition, the preferred management option by the communities could be

identified to inform future management plans.

This chapter also includes a confirmatory analysis performed using the structural equation

modeling (SEM) technique to summarize and validate some of the analytical findings of the

three (3) previous chapters. This model provided confirmation of the relationships predicted

previously.

Literature Review

Rational Choice Theory

The concept of rational choice refers to the idea that individual preference and beliefs

influence the option chosen by a person with an emphasis on the pursuit of personal goals (Satz

and Ferejohn, 1994; Johnson, 1998). Rational Choice Theory based on this concept is a

predictive theory in which people are considered to be rational beings who are "purposive and

intentional" (Friedman and Hechter, 1988). In this theory, it is assumed that the alternatives

available, the benefits of each choice and preferred order of benefits and outcomes of each

choice are known (Simon, 1955).

Rational Choice Theory can also be applied to social ranking of alternatives based on the

aggregation of these individual choices (Hechter and Kanazawa, 1997; Johnson, 1998). Social

choice based on Rational Choice Theory is about how collective decisions should be made even

though there is a great diversity of individual perspectives and contexts (Peter, 2003). Arrow

tried to operationalize decision-making to merge individual choices into social preference

ordering (Peter, 2003).









Arrow' s Impossibility states that ordering or choice is democratic and that all individual

preferences are known (unrestricted domain) (Peter, 2003). There is also the assumption of

independence of irrelevant alternatives that is choice is not affected by preference for alternatives

that are not in the choice set (Peter, 2003). It is also based on a weak Pareto principle which is if

all individuals choose one choice over another then the social preference ordering should also

regard that choice as better and that there is no dictatorship (Peter, 2003).

Collective Action in Natural Resource Management

Based on this framework of Rational Choice Theory, Olson says that groups will not

voluntarily organize to achieve social/public good except if there are enough benefits to

counteract any costs of being in this group (Ostrom and Ostrom, 1971). Nevertheless, successful

Collective Action is desirable in order to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons" that often occurs

with respect to common pool resources (Ostrom, 1998). This occurs when individuals act only

as self-interested, short term maximizers resulting in 'free-riders' who want others to pay for the

public benefit (Ostrom, 1998).

Common pool resources, such as protected areas, as managed by multiple users are

sometimes successful and other times not depending on certain conditions (Ostrom, 1999;

Ostrom, 1998). In PA management, the social dilemma in the management of this public good is

whether people will choose to participate in management or not. If all choose not to participate,

there will be no benefit for anyone (Ostrom, 1998). There may be a Pareto-superior outcome

which can provide maximum benefits to those affected by the action (Ostrom, 1998).

Developing countries have often restricted use of the resource but without the necessary

monitoring and money for enforcement, these arrangements did not work well (Ostrom, 1999).

Research has exhibited that management of common-pool resources is possible without external

pressure such as government enforcement (Ostrom, 1998; Frey and Meier, 2004). There have









been instances where local communities have been able to work together to manage resources

and avoid the tragedy of the commons (Ostrom, 1999).

Both empirical and field experiments show that persisting regimes of collective action

have local leaders, clear rules and boundaries, restrictions in resource use, benefits proportional

to inputs in view of local conditions, self-monitoring and graduated sanctions (Ostrom, 2000).

Communication is one way to overcome self-interest but it must be used in conjunction with

other strategies (Ostrom, 1998). Reciprocity is also a successful strategy that includes

identifying who else is involved, assessing if they will cooperate, if they do cooperate whether

they will trust others and a rule of no cooperation with non-reciprocal individuals and a system

of punishment for those who do not comply (Ostrom, 1998). If people expect cooperation from

other people, they are more willing to cooperate because an individual's actions depend on the

actions of others (Frey and Meier, 2004).

Successful resource policies have been those where individuals participate in institution

design that has some effect on them so they can cooperate and devise their rules (Ostrom, 1998).

More local responsibility in management leads to more moral behavior because locals are

knowledgeable and know who is trustworthy so that instructions restrict behavior in collective

interest according to rational choice theory (Jentoft et al., 1998; Ostrom, 1999). The rules are

made specific to that resource and context; there are lower monitoring costs and several small

management units over an area so that there is a smaller risk of failure (Ostrom, 1999).

Collective property management also works better if the group is cohesive and homogeneous

such as in traditional societies that are not developing or growing (Walker et al., 2000).

Even in the best scenario, the free rider problem or cheating will never completely go away

(Ostrom, 1999). Some efforts will fail to self-organize; there may be local tyrants, no









innovation, no scientific information and internal conflicts (Ostrom, 1999). Other threats to

successful collective action include migration (out or in) where you lose economic resources for

out migration or there is no trust of those who migrate in (Ostrom, 2000). Other problems are

government rules, technology changes and availability, generational flow of information, aid

from others such as international groups, corruption, conflict resolution as an institutional

arrangement is not in place and educational and extension facilities do not exist (Ostrom, 2000).

In less developed countries, collective action breaks down from economic stresses and rapid

population growth, inequality increases and poverty (Walker et al., 2000).

Self organized groups for collective action can be considered complex adaptive systems in

that they use different sorts of decision rules to determine collective choices (Ostrom, 1999).

The complexity of these systems means that there is no single/simple solution and the

institutional arrangements need to be diverse and specific to each situation (Ostrom, 1998).

Community Participation in Management of Protected Areas

Community conservation can be defined as 'those principles and practices that argue that

conservation goals should be pursued by strategies that emphasize the role of local residents in

decision-making about natural resources' (Adams and Hulme, 2001, pl3). Ideally, community

conservation should improve the socioeconomic standards of local communities (Kellert et al.,

2000).

Despite the great variety of management strategies that may fall under this definition

including initiatives such as community forestry and participatory multipurpose proj ects, they all

include the participation of local communities and institutions, devolution of management

authority from government to local communities, linkage of socioeconomic development with

natural resource conservation, emphasis on local property rights and inclusion of traditional

knowledge and marginalized people in management (Kellert et al., 2000).









Zimbabwe's Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources

(CAMPFIRE) program is one example of success which has led to increased wildlife as

compared to management by the state agency (Child, 2004). However, there have been

disappointments as well as successes in the implementation of community conservation. These

disappointments arise because of the challenges to community conservation which includes the

fact that there are multiple institutions and interests that must be involved in community

conservation namely local, national, international (Kellert et al., 2000). The establishment of

new organizations that integrate all these interests leads to complex situations that are difficult to

manage and guide under existing institutional arrangements (Kellert et al., 2000).

Co-management is necessary whereby authority for the resource is shared between

government and local organizations since many government agencies lack the capacity to

manage the resource without local management (Pomeroy, 1995). There is also a need for

socioeconomic development and scientific considerations to be considered in tandem with each

other along with institution building and reform (Kellert et al., 2000). Self organization within

conservation initiatives is based on the attributes of the community that uses the resources of the

area (Gillingham, 2001). There is a multiplicity of these socioeconomic factors that should be

considered within tropical environments that affect conservation success (Bawa et al., 2004).

The multiple objectives that must be fulfilled by the areas that are being managed under

community conservation strategies are often disparate and conflicting such as socioeconomic

development, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of resources with the result that one

goal may be emphasized at the expense of another (Kellert et al., 2000). The achievement of the

conservation objectives may be best done through incentives incorporated into conservation

efforts to alleviate institutional problems (Child, 2004; Kellert et al., 2000).









Community conservation is also prone to the problem of "free riders" in which people may

not bear the costs of managing the common property resource but receive the benefits (Jentoft et

al., 1998). However, social capital and strong institutions and leadership can help avoid this

issue (Jentoft et al., 1998; Pomeroy, 1995). The devolution of authority and management to the

community allows for the adoption of innovative approaches to conservation and lends itself to

adaptive management (Child, 2004). It is also necessary to have a structure in place for

monitoring efficacy of the management structure (Child, 2004).

The situation in which one resource was the focus of the conservation effort tended to be

more successful where there were strong legislative frameworks, developed organizations and

financial support and infrastructure (Kellert et al., 2000). Public education and institutional

capacity building towards the idea of community conservation are also important to the success

of community conservation efforts (Kellert et al., 2000).

In order to achieve effective conservation it must be expected that differing stakeholder

groups will conflict with each other, that there will be heterogeneity among these groups and

local conditions, that institutional building is necessary, that education will be required to

achieve community support and that large areas may be required for some ecosystems or species

that may conflict with the needs of locals (Kellert et al., 2000).

The assumption of homogeneity of societies around protected areas has lead to ineffective

community efforts towards conservation (Gillingham, 2001). Incorporation of the unique or

variable socioeconomic characteristics and institutions of the communities involved in

conservation would improve conservation projects (Gillingham, 2001). Lack of consideration of

these issues had led to inappropriate social organizations arising from conservation interventions










that consequently lead to a lack of compliance with regulations governing the resource, lack of

equity of benefits and access to the resource (Gillingham, 2001).

The promise of community conservation as an ideology or concept is still valid but

adaptive management structures are crucial. The issues mentioned above are those that must be

considered in order to have successful community conservation programs. These lessons learnt

from empirical case studies from around the world are valuable tools that can lead to more

effective implementation of this management strategy in protected areas.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews

Interviews were held with members of the government agencies with responsibility for the

Nariva Swamp: the Forestry Division and the Environmental Management Authority (EMA).

The semi-structured interviews covered topics such as land tenure, use of the swamp, agricultural

activities, management plans for the swamp and tourism activity. This also included information

on the uses and benefits of the swamp as well as potential changes in this use from the ESA

designation. These interviews were intended to obtain information from governmental

stakeholders on the future management of the swamp as well as the views on ecotourism

potential in the swamp.

Voting Choice Methodology Borda Count and Approval Voting

Voting is a tool that can efficiently facilitate decision making (Kangas et al., 2006).

Choosing alternatives in collective decision making can result in different decisions or "winners"

based on the voting system used and the aggregation systems associated with this method

(Hannu, 1995). Some voting methods lead to the most preferred alternative being considered

while all others are ignored (Garcia-Lapresta and Martinez-Panero, 2002). In some instances,









such as when there is consensus among voters on the alternatives, the result from different voting

systems will be the same (Hannu, 1995).

When making social choices, such as natural resource decisions, the components of the

decision framework are: voters/participants, alternatives from which to choose, information on

the preferences of participants and an aggregation method such as a voting method (Kangas et

al., 2006). Participation in these decisions should be fair, transparent and representative and

voting theory can be applied to natural resource management to achieve this (Kangas et al.,

2006).

Voting methods are useful in this context because they can handle the ordinal nature of

both preferences and data on the alternatives that are being voted on (Kangas et al., 2006). These

methods are also comprehensive, simple, quick and can be used in large groups with varying

interests (Kangas et al., 2006). This is especially useful in participatory processes in natural

resource management because a large proportion of the decisions might be made by participants

or stakeholders (Kangas et al., 2006).

Borda Count uses the entire list of alternatives where each participant votes for each

alternative (Kangas et al., 2006). The most preferred alternative receives the highest number

which is equal to the number of alternatives, n, from which the choice is to be made (Kangas et

al., 2006). The second most preferred alternative is ranked as n-1 after which this pattern is

continued until the least preferred alternative is given a rank of 1 (Kangas et al., 2006). The

alternative with the greatest number of votes is the chosen decision (Kangas et al., 2006). This

method usually achieves the aim of the chosen alternative being the most preferred by voters

(Kangas et al., 2006).









This Borda Count method is considered representative and straightforward but may not

allow for a person' s freedom in scoring nor give an accurate indication of the merits of the

alternatives (Garcia-Lapresta and Martinez-Panero, 2002). Borda Count tends to assure

consistent outcomes and unique decisions (Saari, 2006). This method has also been criticized as

violating one of Arrow' s principles by allowing for irrelevant alternatives that are not

independent (Garcia-Lapresta and Martinez-Panero, 2002).

Due to the way in which the votes are assigned, the alternative chosen by the Borda Count

may be based on the number of alternatives under consideration (Kangas et al., 2006). Voting

methods are vulnerable to the problem of strategic voting once the alternatives are greater than

two but the Borda Count is considered to be one of the methods that is more resistant to this type

of voting manipulation (Saari, 2006). In order for this method to be manipulated through

strategic voting the order of the preferences must be changed but this can only be done with prior

knowledge of the Borda scores (Kangas et al., 2006).

Approval voting is another means of making decisions in natural resource management. In

approval voting, each participant votes for all the alternatives preferred by that participant and

the alternative with the greatest number of votes is chosen (Kangas et al., 2006; Garcia-Lapresta

and Martinez-Panero, 2002). This may lead to the moderately preferred alternative being chosen

over the others (Kangas et al., 2006). This method is considered to be flexible, practical and

lends legitimacy to the result since it is not easily manipulated (Garcia-Lapresta and Martinez-

Panero, 2002). The potential problems with approval voting include possible inequality among

voters and a lack of preference ordering (Garcia-Lapresta and Martinez-Panero, 2002).

Other systems for decision-making include plurality and pair-wise comparisons such as

Condorcet which were not considered in my study. There is no optimal voting method for









natural resource management decision making since it is a social choice scenario so that various

voting systems are available that might produce different results in a given situation (Kangas et

al., 2006).

Borda Count and Approval Voting were used to assess six (6) options for management of

the Nariva Swamp which differed based on the amount of involvement of the community. These

scenarios were developed based on information contained in Kessler (2004) on natural resource

management. Ten community members participated in a focus group in which one of the tasks

was to express their preferences for these six options using both voting methods. The six

management options on which the participants voted were:

Option A Minimal This is the situation where you have little or no involvement or

responsibility with managing the Nariva Swamp and obtain benefits only as a by-product of the

protection of the swamp.

Option B Informing This is where information is obtained from government agencies

(like the Forestry Division) and you may give information to them but there is no exchange of

ideas or discussions and again you obtain whatever benefits everyone else can obtain from

protecting the swamp.

Option C Active Consultation You are consulted on issues about the swamp and how it

is used and managed but government agencies make the final decisions which you are then

informed of. You obtain a greater proportion of the benefits from swamp protection.

Option D Negotiation There are discussions back and forth with government agencies

so that contracts and agreements on the role you play in managing the swamp and the benefits

you gain are agreed upon by all parties concerned. You obtain about 30% to 40% of the benefits

obtained by protecting the swamp.










Option E Sharing Authority This is an interactive, complete 50/50 partnership with

government where there is a constant, frequent exchange of information, ideas and

responsibility. You share in the decision-making about management of the swamp with the

government agencies and also share in the benefits.

Option F Complete Transfer This is a total transfer of all responsibility and decision-

making to you. You get all the benefits and all the responsibility to manage the swamp with no

assistance from government agencies.

For the Borda Count method, participants were asked to rank the management choices

based on their preferences from 6 to 1 with their most preferred option obtaining a rank of 6 and

their least preferred a rank of 1.

Approval Voting was done using the same 6 options and participants were asked to rank all

acceptable options as 1, options that they have no preference for was given a rank of 0 and

unacceptable options received a rank of -1.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)2

SEM is a type of causal analysis that allows for the analysis of multiple, interrelated

dependence relationships through the development of structural equations and associated path

diagrams. The analysis uses a correlation or covariance matrix as the input and allows for the

representation of unobserved (latent) variables and measurement errors. The measurement

model that was developed for this analysis was based on the analyses conducted in Chapters 2 to

4 and serves as a simple, confirmatory model of these analyses. The number of variables was

restricted to four (4) exogenous, four (4) endogenous and four (4) error (latent) variables to




2 The validity and generality of the results of this SEM analysis should be treated with caution since the sample size
was relatively small (n = 80)










compensate for the relatively small sample size. AMOS 6.0 (2006) software was used for these

analyses; this software facilitates the development of the covariance matrix from the raw data.

The structural equations used in this analysis are as follows:

Y1 = blX1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + El

Y2 = bsX1 + b6X2 + b7X3 + bsX4 + b9 1+ E2

Y3 = bloX1 + bllX2 + bl2X3 + bl3X4 + bl4Y 2+ E3

Y4 = b15Y2 + E4

Where X1 = Age, X2 = Gender, X3 = Landholding Size, X4 = Length of Residency;

Y1 = Dependency, Y2 = Attitude, Y3 = Impact Perception, Y4 = Behavioral

Intention and

El to E4 are latent error terms associated with measurement error of the endogenous

variables.

The path diagram for these equations is depicted in the results section (Figure 5-1). After

the parameters for each pathway were estimated by the software, the model was analyzed for its

"goodness of fit" and for possible modifications to the paths based on indices calculated by

AMOS 6.0 (2006). The measurement model is usually adjusted by the researcher as required to

facilitate an improve model fit while maintaining the theoretical foundation of the model. The

final or accepted model is considered the structural model. In this analysis, the structural model

was the same as the measurement model (refer to results section).

Results

Semi-structured Interviews

The interviews held with government agencies provided details on the expected activities

associated with management of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA although the arrangements for co-

management have not yet been decided.









Existing Management

It is expected that activities that are currently licensed under the Conservation of Wildlife

Act and the Forests Act will be allowed to continue but may be modified based on studies that

will be conducted on the present status of the natural resources in the swamp (D. Boodoo,

personal communication, 2006; Cross, personal communication, 2006). This licensed activity

includes the harvesting of crab, cascadu and conch which are done for subsistence by members

of the community (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006).

Restoration and Reforestation

There are some areas on the southwestern boundary of the swamp that are demarcated for

restoration that are currently being occupied illegally; these people will have to be removed from

this prohibited area (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006). The northern areas of the

swamp have already been reforested; this has been approximately 20 acres in the past 3 years (R.

Singh, personal communication, 2006). The expected reforestation will be about 1000 hectares

(R. Cross, personal communication, 2006).

Agriculture

The agricultural extension services will have to be improved for the area (D. Boodoo,

personal communication, 2006). Agricultural practices will have to become more sustainable;

activities such as slash and burn or the application of fertilizers will have to be stopped or

changed to more suitable practices for protection of the resources (R. Singh, personal

communication, 2006). The agricultural lands that were distributed many years ago by the

Ministry of Agriculture fall under their jurisdiction and will continue to be used (R. Cross,

personal communication, 2006). Lands within the Kemahan/Cascadoux village will not be

affected by this designation and past arrangements whether informal or legal will be recognized

under this designation (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). Only illegal activities that









have always been prohibited under previous management regimes for the swamp will continue to

be illegal and will be removed (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006).

Livelihood

A few of the community members are presently employed for regular activities involved

with management of the swamp such as clearing water courses and building cages in the swamp

for reintroduction proj ects of native birds that have been extirpated (D. Boodoo, personal

communication, 2006). This builds service for future employment opportunities that will arise

from the ESA designation (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006). The employment

expected from restoration activities include actual reforestation as well as nurseries that will be

set up in the surrounding communities but exact numbers are not yet known (R. Cross, personal

communication, 2006).

The numbers of visitors to the swamp for ecotourism both present and future are unknown

but this will hopefully increase, although the exact details have not yet been determined, so that

the community can achieve socioeconomic benefits from this and that education of both local

and foreign tourists can form a part of this activity (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006).

The community needs to be trained for this type of tourism activity (R. Singh, personal

communication, 2006).

Management Structure for the ESA

The ESA designation allows resource use but it will be more defined and restricted to

certain zones (R. Singh, personal communication, 2006). The management activities that will

affect the members of the community include the removal of people conducting illegal activities.

Expansion of such activities will be restricted especially into the ESA area (R. Cross, personal

communication, 2006). The EMA under whose purview rests the ESA Rules, 2001, do not have

the personnel to effectively manage the swamp so that the Forestry Division personnel including









the Wildlife Section will have to continue to monitor activities under this legislation (D. Boodoo,

personal communication, 2006; R. Cross, personal communication, 2006).

A small, cohesive management unit is needed so that research can be translated into action

(R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). There is a need for a Nariva Management Authority

that is physically based at the Nariva Swamp to coordinate and is made up of government

agencies and community members so that management action can be undertaken in a timely

fashion (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). This is especially necessary because of the

different agencies that have jurisdiction within the swamp under previous legislation (R. Cross,

personal communication, 2006).

The community involvement in management of the Nariva Swamp can follow a similar

model to that of the nearby communities in the Matura area who initially worked closely with the

government agencies in the protection of sea turtles that nest on the beaches in the Matura area

(R. Singh, personal communication, 2006). Eventually, the responsibility for the protection of

the turtles devolved almost entirely to the community groups in the area with some general

training and supervision by the government agencies. Much participation is still to be facilitated

to inform management (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006).

Community Management Choices

The community preferences for their involvement in management of the Nariva Swamp

can be seen in Table 5-1. Individual voting preferences are detailed in Appendix D. The two

methods resulted in Option E (shared authority) as the preferred alternative (Table 5-1). This

alternative would mean a full partnership among government agencies and the community and

indicate a strong preference by the two communities to be actively involved in all aspects of

management of the swamp and in receiving benefits from these activities. The "second choice"

obtained using the Borda Count was active consultation (Option C) which expressed a similar









intention as Option E of being involved in management but with less responsibility, benefits and

decision-making. According to the Borda Count method, Option E would be chosen and

management plans would be made accordingly.

The Approval Voting process resulted in two "winners" Option E as discussed above as

well as Option D (negotiation) both of which received 10 votes. This is one of the characteristics

of Approval Voting whereby a clear choice is not always obtained since voters are allowed to

vote for all their preferences rather than ranking them. Option D would be a participatory type of

management as well with decisions being made by government which are then negotiated

through a participatory process resulting in agreements and contracts. This type of management

would ensure that the community members are involved but will require less effort in their part

than Option E and consequently they would receive fewer benefits.

One of the advantages of the Borda method in this example is that a unique choice was

made whereas with the approval method, two winners were chosen. The alternative chosen by

the Borda Count is usually the one most preferred by the voters (Kangas et al., 2006).

Participants were not aware of the voting methods that were to be used so strategic voting should

not have been an issue with the voting methods chosen (Kangas et al., 2006).

Table 5-1. Voter choices for management of the Nariva Swamp
Management choices Borda count Approval voting

Option A Minimal 17 0

Option B Informing 23 -4

Option C Active Consultation 47 6

Option D Negotiation 43 10

Option E Sharing Authority 50 10

Option F Complete Transfer 30 0
Note: The values in bold are the options most preferred by the participants










Community members also indicated that they want to be involved with ecotourism

activities but believe that the money from such activities is not accruing to them thus supporting

the results of the voting which indicated their preference to have a significant role in

management of the ESA. The community members also do not want to be restricted from access

to the swamp and do not want to be moved from their land. They believe that their rights as

farmers will be ignored and that agriculture is their main source of income that may be curtailed.

According to the communities, the hillside farmers appear to be in the ESA boundary based on

what the members who have seen the plan say. Farmers should be given alternative areas to

farm and not just removed from where they have been all their lives. They need access to the

ESA on a seasonal basis for fish in the dry season as part of their livelihood and not simply for

recreation.

Structural Equation Model for Resource Dependency, Attitudes, Socioeconomic Impact
Perception and Participation in Protection of the Nariva Swamp

The overall model fit was good with a chi-square value of 13.96 (d.f. = 13) and P-value of

0.3 8 which means that there is a failure to rej ect the null hypothesis. In this analysis, this is the

required condition for a good fit since the null hypothesis is that the model fits the population

perfectly; failure to rej ect the null means that the model can potentially fit the population. In

SEM, the model is always based on a failure to rej ect rather than complete acceptance of the

model .

Other relative "goodness of fit" statistics are shown in Table 5-2, all of which indicate that

the model is a "good fit" for this suite of variables. The RMR (root mean square residual) is the

only value that is large when the desired results is as small a number as possible. This value is

based on differences among variances and covariances in the sample and model. Since the

absolute value of the standardized residual covariances (Appendix E) for all the variables were










less than 2, this indicated that the correct model was achieved for these variables despite the high

RMR value.

Table 5-2. Model fit statistics for Structural Equation Model (SEM) shown in Figure 5-1
RMR GFI AGFI RMSEA TLI CFI

Model 1 167.207 0.961 0.891 0.031 0.969 0.986


The other indices, GFI (goodness of fit index), AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit), RFI

(relative fit index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) and CFI (comparative fit index) should all be as

close to 1 as possible, with a value of 1 indicating a prefect fit. These values were all close to 1

for this model again confirming a good relative model fit. The remaining index, the RMSEA

(root mean square error of approximation) of about .05 or less usually indicates a close fit of the

model with respect to the degrees of freedom. The RMSEA for this model is well below this

value indicating that despite the small sample size, the model fits with respect to the degrees of

freedom, probably because of the small number of variables used.

Table 5-3. Standardized causal effects of variables in SEM model
Effect Length Land Gender Age Depen Attitude
res hold
Depen Total 0.264 0.042 -0.257 -0.361 0 0
Direct 0.264 0.042 -0.257 -0.361 0 0
Indirect 0 0 0 0 0 0

Attitude Total 0.067 0.399 -0.117 -0.426 0.005 0
Direct 0.066 0.398 -0.116 -0.425 0.005 0
Indirect 0.001 0.001 -0.001 0.001 0 0

Beh intent Total 0.019 0.111 -0.033 -0.119 0.001 0.279
Direct 0 0 0 0 0 0.279
Indirect 0.019 0.111 -0.033 -0.119 0.001 0

Impact Total -0.039 -0.323 0.227 0.001 -0.001 -0.164
Direct -0.028 -0.258 0.208 -0.069 0 -0.164
Indirect -0.011 -0.065 0.019 0.070 -0.001 0









Modification indices were calculated by the software so that the pathways among the

variables could be changed if necessary. The specified default threshold of change in chi-square

was 4 and no modification indices (variance or regression) were obtained indicating that none

exceeded this threshold; so none of the model parameters or pathways were modified.

Table 5-3 and Figure 5-1 show the values obtained for the causal (regression) effects of the

variables in the model. These values are standardized so that they give the amount of change in

the endogenous variable with a standard deviation unit change in the exogenous variable. For

example, one standard deviation unit change in age leads to a reduction in dependency by -0.36.

The significant variables obtained were the same as for individual regression analyses namely

age, landholding and length of residency were significant predictors of dependency; landholding

and age were significant variables for attitude and landholding and gender significantly predicted

impact perception (Appendix E). Attitude was a significant predictor of behavioral intention and

a unit standard deviation change in attitude results in a change in behavioral intention of 0.28

(Appendix E).

Table 5-3 provides additional information on the proportion of the total effects that are

direct and indirect. The noteworthy results are the indirect effects on behavioral intention and

impact perception. Attitude was represented as an endogenous variable in this model and so, the

exogenous variables that affect attitude also have an indirect effect on behavioral intention.

Landholding size had an effect of 0. 11 per standard deviation unit on behavioral intention and

age had a -0.12 effect on this variable as well. Similarly, a proportion of the causal effect of the

socioeconomic variables on impact perception can be attributed to their indirect effect on attitude

(Table 5-3) which is a variable on the impact perception pathway.









Discussion

The SEM analysis confirmed the results obtained in Chapters 2 to 4 and provided a

summary model for the dissertation showing that socioeconomic variables affect dependency,

attitude and impact perception and by extension participatory behavior in collective resource

management.

The use of voting in the participation process for management of the Nariva Swamp

appears to a viable method due to its fair, transparent and representative characteristics (Kangas

et al., 2006). The application used in my study to choose management scenarios is very similar

to the kinds of choices that will be made in future participatory activities and my study can be

used as a framework for such decision-making exercises. Comparatively, the Borda Count gave

the clearer decision whereas Approval Voting resulted in two preferences for management which

may be problematic when one choice must be made for resource management.

Based on the result of the voting exercise, the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan

communities chose equal partnership in management decisions in the Nariva Swamp. The

communities want real consultation processes and not just agency management, they do not want

to find about things after they are already happening. This feeling of lack of empowerment and

involvement in decisions about the swamp were reflected in the preferred option for management

in which they share authority with government agencies. This would enable them to know all

the decisions that need to be made and will be completely involved in the decision making

process as well as the actual management of the resources in the swamp.

If the individuals who make up these two communities act in a completely "rational" or

self-interested manner, then community participation in management will not be effective and

the problem of "free-riders" will occur. For community participation in management to avoid

the potential problems identified by rational choice theory and by extension collective action









initiatives, it is important to include people early on in meaningful participation. As indicated by

the results of the voter choice exercise, the community is willing to share in management of the

swamp and collective action can be successful in this instance of certain conditions are met.

These conditions include the fact that management strategies must be based on the

common objectives of resource managers and local people in order to be applicable to

developing countries. The traditional knowledge and rights of local people are also important in

managing PAs to proactively address site specific issues and create a feeling of appreciation and

ownership of the resources in the PA (Kessler, 2004). There should also be equitable

distribution of management and benefits so that the needs of the local people in and around the

PA are fulfilled (Elliot et al., 2001).

Based on the experiences of other researchers in collective action, successful participation

in management of the Nariva Swamp will also require local leadership, clear rules and

boundaries, restrictions in resource use, benefits proportional to inputs in view of local

conditions, more local responsibility and incorporation of local knowledge in management, self-

monitoring and graduated sanctions (Jentoft et al., 1998; Ostrom, 2000). There will also be a

need for creation of new institutional arrangements, conflict resolution mechanisms and

education and extension services to achieve community support (Kellert et al., 2000; Ostrom,

2000). Problems that need to be avoided include economic stresses and rapid population growth,

inequality increases and poverty (Walker et al., 2000).

Further analyses are needed on the management preferences of the two communities with

respect to the Nariva Swamp in order to have detailed management structures and plans. The

results of this initial analysis prove that this must involve significant devolution of authority from

the government agencies to the community so that authority can be shared. This process may be










a long term solution and should lead to more equitable access to the PA, improved

implementation of management strategies and improved resource management in the Nariva

Swamp .











I El 1

AGE -.36 .27

DEPEN



04
Y / .26

\ \ .00
GENDER /-.42

\` E2; 1 E4~


S.36 0

A .28
\~A-TTITUDE t BEH INTENT
.40


LANDHOLDr
-.16
S-.07
.21
.07


-.26 .17

-.03 IMPACT
LENGTHRES




(E3 I


Figure 5-1. Path diagram of SEM showing standardized regression coefficients along pathways
and R2 Values above the endogenous variables

(Note: Although the diagram shows a value of 0 due to rounding by the statistical program for the path from
dependency to attitude, this value is in fact 0.005.)









APPENDIX A
HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Introduction

The School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Florida is
conducting an independent research study about the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad. In order to
understand the factors affecting conservation, research assistants are conducting face-to-face
interviews with households around the swamp. The households are being selected, in order to get

representative data from the Kernahan and Plum Mitan communities around the swamp.
You have been selected from this community to be a respondent. Privacy is a key

principle of this survey. There are no wrong or right answers, most importantly candid and
honest answers are the most useful. If you have any questions about this survey, please feel free
to contact the principal investigator: Cindy Chandool, University of Florida, Gainesville Florida,
32611 (phone 352-846-5999).


Village: ........
Date and time: .....

Occupation : (list all)










Section I. Attitude Questions

Please tell us how you feel about the following statement using the scale of 0 to 4, 1 being

Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 being Disagree (D), 3 being Agree (A), 4 being Strongly Agree (SA)

and 0 being Don't Know. Circle one appropriate number of every statement.


Don't
SA
Know
4 0


SD D

12


Is the protection of plants, animals and natural areas important?


Don't
SD D A SA
Know

1 2 3 4 0

12 3 4 0

12 3 4 0


a. Protection of the swamp has taken my land thus I don't have
enough land to cultivate
b. Wild animals damage my crops
c. I have reduced my access to swamp resources/products because
of conservation


Don't
SD D A SA
Know

1 234 0

1 234 0

12 3 4 0


a. I have benefited from existing conservation in the Nariva
Swamp
b. Land allocation ensures my ownership of the land in the Nariva
Swamp
c. I can get more income because of swamp protection and
management activities


Don't
SD D A SA
Know

1 2 3 4 0

1 2 3 4 0


a. Protecting the Nariva Swamp as an environmentally sensitive
area is important
b. Zoning the swamp into different areas for specific activities
(such as ecotourism, agriculture etc.) will benefit me









5. Rank the following issues or problems currently facing your community in order of 5 (most
important) to 1 (least important).
Problems Most More Important Somewhat Least
important Important (3) important (2) important
(5) (4) (1)
Limited land 5 4 3 2 1


Limited food

Lack of electricity
and/or water
Lack of access to
swamp resources/
products
Lack of adequate
access roads to
community


Section HI: Dependency Questions
6. Do you ever go into the Nariva Swamp?


Yes/No (If no, go to # 7, if yes go to #8)


7. If NO why don't you ever go there?

a) Fear of wardens or forestry officers
interest d) No time e) Too far


b) Fear of animals c) No
d) Other- Specify


8. If YES, why do you go there?

a) Health related
d) Fuel wood
g) Others specify


b) Hunting/Fishing
e) Grazing animals


c) Building materials
f) Recreation


9. How many working hours do you spend per trip, including time of travel to and from, to
collect items from the swamp? hours


10. How many trips do you make per week?


trips


11. How many people from your household collect items from the swamp?


persons









12. What is your income from the swamp (if any) per month?
13. What is your total household income per month?
14. Do you benefit from the tourism industry of this SWAMP? Yes / No [if No go to # 17]
If Yes, please specify in which way
a) Sell handcrafts
b) Act as a tour guide
c) Sell other items from swamp
c) Others specify

15. What is your income from this business per month?

16. What are the main sources of cash income for your household?
a) Sale of farm produce
b) Labor of a member of household
c) Assistance from a daughter/ son / relative
d) Trade
e) Others (specify)

17. How big is the size of the land that is under control of your household (ha)?

18. What main crops do you grow and what was the average production (kg) last season?







19. For each crop, is the crop produced for the market or for the household consumption? If for
the market, what quantity of the production is sold?


Crop
1. Watermelon


Household consumption Market (quantity)


20. How many hours do you travel to reach the market for your crops?









21. Please indicate ownership of the following assets and year that the asset was purchased (for
livestock, indicate numbers owned):

Items Number
Bicycle
Motorcycle
Motor car
Boat
Radio
Television
Chickens
Pigs
Goats
Cows
Land with agriculture (ha)
Land without agriculture (ha)

22. Do you have an agricultural field in the swamp?

23. What was the size of your field in the previous season, 2005-2006 (ha)?

24. What is the size of your agricultural fields this season, 2006 (ha)? Did you clear the land for
your field? If NOT why?


Section III: Perception of Impact Questions

25. Are you aware of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Rules that was passed in 2001?
Yes No

26. If yes, are you aware that the Nariva Swamp is one of the sites that are planned for
designation as an Environmentally Sensitive Area? Yes No


The proposed management actions associated with this designation include three main plans that
have the potential to affect the Kernahan and Plum Mitan communities: 1) restoration of cleared
areas of the swamp to regenerate native plants and animals in the swamp, 2) increase in
ecotourism activities within the swamp and 3) relocation of existing illegal agricultural activity
in the swamp to legally demarcated areas.









Please tell us whether these actions to protect the Nariva Swamp will affect you in any of the
following areas and how much it will affect you on a scale from -5 to +5 with -5 being affect you
very negatively, +5 affect you very positively and 0 not affect you at all.

27. Do you believe that the designation of the Nariva Swamp as an Environmentally Sensitive
Area may potentially affect the following and what is the expected strength of this impact?

Potential impact Yes/No Score (-5
to +5)
a. Your employment (new job or becoming unemployed)
b. Your living conditions
c. Your way of life (how you live, work and interact in the community)
d. Your household income (change in income)
e. Your involvement in your community (involvement in community
groups, involvement in management of the swamp)
f. Your access to the resources of the swamp
g. Your property rights (changes in lease)
g. Your traditional uses of the swamp
h. Your culture (customs, values, beliefs)
i. Your education
j. Your health and wellbeing (stress, quality of life, standard of living)
k. Your children's future

Are there any other effects that you think this designation will have on you and your family and
is so, what are they?

28. Would you be willing to participate or assist in the management of the Nariva Swamp as a
protected area by being involved in community groups, attending meetings and other required
activities? Yes No


Section IV: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

29. What is your gender?
*Male
*Female










30. What is your ethnicity?
African

East Indian

Caucasian

*Chinese

Other, specify


31. What is your religion?

*Muslim

*Hindu

Catholic

Protestant

*Other


32. How long have you been settled in this area?

Less than 10 years

10-19 years

20-30 years

more than 30 years


33. What specific part of Trinidad did your family originate from?





34. What is your highest level of education?
Primary School

Secondary School
Vocational School

College/University

Graduate Degree










35. How many people live in your house (including you)
1-4 persons

5-8 persons

more than 8 persons


36. What is your current annual household income from all the members of the household?
Less than TT 10,000

TT 10,001 30,000

TT 30,001 50,000

More than TT 50,000


36. To what age group do you belong?
*18-29

*30-39

*40-49

*50-59

*above 60


37. What is your marital status?
a) Single b) Married

c) Divorced d) Widowed









APPENDIX B
FOCUS GROUP DETAILS FOR SWOT FACTORS

Strengths

1. Additional source of income and/or employment
make more money from ecotourism
generate income from reforestation and from other work for Forestry Division

2. Management benefits
improvement in management of the swamp
more organized management of the swamp
more personnel will be available for management

3. Reduction in illegal activities in the swamp
people from outside the community will no longer come in to conduct illegal agriculture
and over-fishing
clearing of areas in the prohibited areas in the swamp will stop

4. Better protection of plants and animals in swamp
animals such as crabs and conch will increase; presently they are low in numbers
trees will be replanted

Opportunities

1. Better community and government agency relationship
more information will be given to the community from the agencies
more meetings will be held with government agencies
agencies will actually ask for input from community and not just implement proj ects
without letting the local people know

2. Improved awareness and education on environment
knowledge will be obtained on swamp; this can help with giving tours to visitors
children will gain education about the swamp

3. Increased community involvement in management of swamp
agencies will ask for input from community
community opinions (what they have to say) will be taken into consideration in
management
community will get to participate in day to day management









APPENDIX C
SWOT-AHP QUESTIONNAIRE

Compare each pair below and indicate your opinion of how important one item is over the other
in the pair. Choose one number only for each pair. If you think both are equally important,
choose 1.

Additional source of 1 More More I~IManagement benefits (better
income and/or employment I` 'Imanagement of the swamp)
98 76 54 32 12 34 56 78 9

Additional source of 1 More More I\IReduction in illegal activities
income and/or employment I in the swamp
98 76 54 32 12 34 56 78 9

Additional source of 1 More More I\IBetter protection of plants and
income and/or employment I` 'Ianimals in swamp
98 76 54 32 12 34 56 78 9

Management benefits 1 More More I\IReduction in illegal activities
(better management of the 1 I in the swamp
swamp) 9 87 65 43 21 23 45 6 78 9

Management benefits 1 More More I\IBetter protection of plants and
(better management of the 1 I animals
swamp) 9 87 65 43 21 23 45 6 78 9
Reduction in illegal 1 More More I~IBetter protection of plants and
activities in the swamp 1 I animals
98 76 54 32 12 34 56 78 9
Better community and 1 More More I\IImproved awareness and
government agency 1` 'Ieducation on environment
relationship 9 87 65 43 21 23 45 6 78 9
Better community and 1 More More I\IIncreased community
government agency 1` 'Iinvolvement in management of
relationship 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 swamp
Improved awareness and 1 More More I\IIncreased community
education on environment 1` 'Iinvolvement in management of
9 87 65 43 21 23 45 6 78 9 swamp
Limited income and/or 1 More More Loss of access to some areas
employment generation 1` 'Iand uses of swamp
from swamp 9 87 65 43 21 23 45 6 78 9
Conflicts between 1 More More IILimited involvement in
community and 1` 'Idecisions about the swamp
government personnel who 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
enforce the laws














































Option A
Minimal


Option B -
Informing

Option C -
Active
Consultation

OptionD -
Negotiation
OptionE -
Sharing
Authority


Option F -1
Complete
Transfer


APPENDIX D
VOTES FOR MANAGEMENT CHOICES OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS

Borda Count Results


_______


Person Person
9 10


3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2


2 2 3 3 2 1 4 4 1 1


5 5 4 4 5 5 6 3 4 6



1 6 6 6 6 3 3 1 6 5


6 4 5 5 4 6 5 6 5 4



4 3 2 2 3 4 2 5 2 3


1______


Person Person
9 10


III\IIVV


1 0 -1 1 1 0 0 0 -1


Person Person Person
6 7 8


Person Person Person Person
1 2 3 4


Person
5


Management
Choice


Option A
Minimal


Option B -
Informing

Option C -
Active
Consultation

OptionD -
Negotiation
OptionE -
Sharing
Authority

OptionF -
Complete
Transfer


Approval Voting Results


Management
Choice


Person Person Person
6 7 8


Person Person Person Person Person
12 3 4 5


1 -1 1 0 -1 1 0 -1 0


1-1 -1 0 -1 1 -1 -1 0 -1


1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0



11111 111


11111 111













































Standardized Residual Covariances
Length Land Beh
Gender Age Depen Attitude Impact
res hold mntent
Length~res
Land hold -0.092
Gender -1.247 1.512
Age 1.804 -0.386 1.256
Depen -0.324 -0.274 -0.697 0.128 0.025
Attitude -0.658 -0.017 -0.016 -0.166 -0.103 0.019
Beh intent 0.514 0.709 0.444 1.168 -0.827 0.007 0.001
Impact -0.251 0.329 -0.428 0.339 -0.385 0.027 0.508 -0.142


APPENDIX E
REGRESSION WEIGHTS AND COVARIANCES FOR SEM MODEL
IN PROTECTION OF THE NARIVA SWAMP


OF PARTICIPATION


Maximum Likelihood Estimates
Regression Weights (Unstandardized)


Estimate
-.150
-.241
.006
.175
.007
.063
.089
-.158
-.257
.191
-8.313
-17.699
87.383
-12.823
-50.523


S.E.
.040
.090
.015
.064
.154
.091
.020
.128
.059
.074
30.571
7.831
43.494
21.636
39.385


C.R.
-3.756
-2.675
.438
2.743
.044
.697
4.418
-1.231
-4.341
2.578
-.272
-2.260
2.009
-.593
-1.283


P
***"'

.007
.662
.006
.965
.486
***"'

.218
***"'

.010
.786
.024
.045
.553
.200


Depen
Depen
Depen
Depen
Attitude
Attitude
Attitude
Attitude
Attitude
Beh intent
Impact
Impact
Impact
Impact
Impact


<---
<---
<---
<---
<---
<---
<---
<---
<---
<---
<---
<---
<---
<---
<---


Age
Gender
Land hold
Length~res
Depen
Length~res
Land hold
Gender
Age
Attitude
Length~res
Land hold
Gender
Age
Attitude









LIST OF REFERENCES


Adams W. and D. Hulme. 2001. Conservation & community: changing carratives policies &
practices in African conservation. In Afr~ican wildlife & livelihoods: the promise and
performance of conanunity conservation. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Adhikari, B., S. DiFalco, and J.C. Lovett. 2004. Household characteristics and forest
dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological
Economics 48(2):245-257.

Aipanjiguly, S., S.K. Jacobson, and R. Flamm. 2003. Conserving manatees: knowledge,
attitudes, and intentions of boaters in Tampa Bay, Florida. Conservation Biology
17(4):1098-1105.

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. 1980. Thiderstanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Alexander, S.E. 2000. Resident attitudes towards conservation and black howler monkeys in
Belize: The community baboon sanctuary. Environmental Conservation 27(4):341-350.

Ananda, J. and G. Herath. 2003. The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate stakeholder
preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy andEconontics 5:13-26.

Anderson, D., and R. Grove. 1987. Conservation in Afr~ica: people, policies, and practice.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Asquith, N.M., M.T. Vargas Rios, and J. Smith. 2002. Can forest-protection carbon projects
improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado climate action proj ect,
Bolivia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7:323-337.

Bahuguna, V.K. 2000. Forests in the economy of the rural poor: An estimation of the
dependency level. Anabio 29(3):126-129.

Bawa, K.S., R. Seidler, and P.H. Raven. 2004. Reconciling conservation paradigms.
Conservation Biology 18(4):859-860.

Becker, H. A. 2001. Social impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research
128:311-321.

Becker, D. R., C. C. Harris, E. A. Nielsen, and W. J. McLaughlin. 2004. Social impact: A
comparison of a technical and a participatory application of social impact assessment.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 22(3): 1 77-1 89.

Beresford, M. and A. Phillips. 2000. Landscape stewardship: New directions in conservation of
nature and culture. The George Wright Forum 17(1):15-26.










Bluffstone, R., M. Boscolo, and R. Molina. 2001. How does community forestry affect rural
households? A labor allocation model of the Bolivian2 Andes. Working Paper, University
of Redlands, USA.
http://dlc.dlib .indiana. edu/archive/00000796/00/bluffstoner3 00901 .pdf

Bookbinder, M.P., Dinerstein, E., Rijal, A., Cauley, H., and Rajouria, A. 1998. Ecotourism's
support of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 12(6): 1399-1404.

Boomfield, J., M. Ratchford, and S. Brown. Land-use change and forestry in the Kyoto protocol.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 5:3-8.

Boyd, E., M. Gutierrez, and M. Chang. 2005. Adapting small-scale cdm sinks projects to low-
income communities. Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 71.
http:.//www.tyndall .ac.uk/publi cati ons/working_papers/wp7 1.pdf

Brandon, K. and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. World
Development 20(4):557-570.

Bright, A., M. Manfredo, M. Fishbein, and A. Bath. 1993. Application of the theory of reasoned
action to the national park service's controlled burn policy. Journal of Leisure Research
25(3):263-280.

Brown, K. and E. Corbera. 2003. A multi-criteria assessment fra~mework for carbon- mitigation
projects: Putting "development" in the center of decision-making. Tyndall Centre
Working Paper No. 29.
http:.//www.tyndall .ac.uk/publications/working_papers/wp29.pd

Brown, N. 2000. Environmental advocacy in the Caribbean: The case of the Nariva swamp,
Trinidaddd.ddddddd~~~~~~~ CANARI Technical Report No. 268.
http://www. canari. org/nariva. pdf

Cavendish, W. 2000. Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural
households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28(11): 1979-2003.

Center for Environmental and Recreation Management, University of South Australia (CERM).
2002. Assessing the social and environmental values of boredrain wetlandst~t~lt~t~lt~t~lt created by
great artesian basin bore water in .Sonlu Australia. Report produced for the Department
of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.

Child, B. 2004. Parks in transition: Biodiversity, development and the bottom line. In Parks in
ttrttrttrtranst ion.rtrt~t~ London, UK: Earthscan.

De Boer, W.F. and D.S. Baquete. Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people
in the vicinity of the Maputo elephant reserve, Mozambique. Environmental
Conservation 25(3):208-218.










Eagles, P.F.J. 2001. International trends in park tourism. Paper prepared for Europarc, 2001.
http://www. ahs.uwaterloo. ca/rec/pdf/inttrends. pdf

Elliott, G., B. Mitchell, B. Wiltshire, A. Manan, and S. Wismer. 2001. Community participation
in marine protected area management: Wakatobi national park, Sulawesi, Indonesia.
Coa;stal Ma~na~gem ent 29:295-316.

Environmental Management Authority (EMA). 2005. The administrative record for the
environmentally sensitive area: Nariva Swamp managed resource protected area. Port of
Spain, Trinidad and Tobago: EMA.

Fortin M. J. and C. Gagnon. 1999. An assessment of social impacts of national parks on
communities in Quebec, Canada. Environmental Conservation 26(3):200-211.

Frey, B.S. and S. Meier. 2004. Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 54:65-88.

Friedman, D. and M. Hechter. 1988. The contribution of rational choice theory to
macrosociological research. Sociological Theory 6(2): 201-218.

Garcia-Lapresta J.L. and M. Martinez-Panero. 2002. Borda count versus approval voting: A
fuzzy approach. Public Choice 112:167-184.

GHD Pty Ltd. (GHD). 2005. Social impact assessment for Breakout creek. SIA Report prepared
for Torrens Catchment Water Management Board.
http://www.amlrnrm sa.gov.au/proj ects/downloads/boc_sia~report.pdf

Gillingham, S. 2001. Insights and applications social organization and participatory resource
management in Brazilian Ribeirinho communities: A case study of the Mamiraua
sustainable development reserve, Amazonas. Society & Natural Resources, 14:803-814.

Gillingham, S. and P.C. Lee. 2003. People and protected areas: A study of local perceptions of
wildlife crop-damage conflict in an area bordering the Selous game reserve, Tanzania.
Oryx 37(3):316-325.

Green, M.J.B, and J. Paine. 1997. State of the world's protected areas at the end of the TMI Iemileth
century. Paper presented at IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Symposium on
"Protected Areas in the 21st Century: From Islands to Networks."
http://www.unep -wcm c. org/protected_are as/archiv e/alb any. pdf

Gunatilake, H.M. 1998. The role of rural development in protecting tropical rainforests:
Evidence from Sri Lanka. Journal of Environmental management 5 3:273-292.

Haldeman, V.A., J.M. Peters, and P.A. Tripple. 1987. Measuring a consumer energy
conservation ethic: An analysis of components. Journal of Consumer Affairs 21(1):70-85.










Hannu, N. 1995. On the difficulty of making social choices. Theory andDecision 38(1):99-1 19.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243-1248.

Hardner, J.J., P.C. Frumhoff and D.C. Goetze. 2000. Prospects for mitigating carbon, conserving
biodiversity, and promoting socioeconomic development obj ectives through the clean
development mechanism. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 5:61-
80.

Hechter, M. and S. Kanazawa. 1997. Sociological rational choice theory. Annual Review of
Sociology 23:191-214.

Heltberg, R. 2001. Determinants and impact of local institutions for common resource
management. Environment and Development Economics 6: 183-208.

Hockings, M. 2003. Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas.
BioScience 53(9):823-832.

Hough, J. 1991. Social impact assessment: Its role in protected area planning and management.
In Resident peoples and national parks: Social dilenanas and strategies in international
conservation. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.

Hulme, D. and M. Murphree. 2001. Community Conservation in Africa. In Afiican wildlife &
livelihoods: the promise and performance of conanunity conservation. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

Heltberg, R. 2001. Determinants and impact of local institutions for common resource
management. Environment and Development Economics 6: 183-208.

Hockings, M. 2003. Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas.
BioScience 53(9):823-832.

Hough, J. 1991. Social impact assessment: Its role in protected area planning and management.
In Resident peoples and national parks: Social dilenanas and strategies in international
conservation. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.

Hulme, D. and M. Murphree. 2001. Community Conservation in Africa. In Afiican wildlife &
livelihoods: the promise and performance of conanunity conservation. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 1994. Guidelines for protected areas
nzanagentent categories. Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA)
with assistance of World Conservation Monitoring Center, IUCN. Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.










Jentoft, S., B.J. McCay, and D.C. Wilson. 1998. Social theory and fisheries co-management.
Marine Policy 22(4):423 -43 6.

Johnson, P.E. 1998. Social choice: Theory and research. Sage University Papers Series. No. 07-
123. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, B.T.B. and M.W. Murphree. 2001. Community-based natural resource management as a
conservation mechanism: Lessons and directions. In ParksP~~~~PPPPP~~~~PPPP in transition. London,
England: Earthscan.

Kangas, A., S. Laukkanen, and J. Kangas. 2006. Social choice theory and its applications in
sustainable forest management-a review. Forest Policy and Economics 9:77-92.

Kellert, S.R., J.R. Mehta, S.A. Ebbin and L.L. Lichtenfield. 2000. Community natural resource
management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources, 13:705-715.

Kessler, B.L. 2004. Stakeholder participation: A spubesl~ i\ of current literature. Paper prepared
by the National Marine Protected Areas Center in cooperation with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center, Silver Spring, Maryland.
http ://www.mpa.gov/pdf/publications/Stakeholde ytei~d

Kueppers, L.M., P. Baer, J. Harte, B. Haya, L.E. Koteen, and M.E. Smith. 2004. A decision
matrix approach to evaluating the impacts of land-use activities undertaken to mitigate
climate change an editorial essay. Climatic Change 63:247-257.

Leach, M. and J. Fairhead. 2001. Science, policy and national parks in Trinidaddddddddddddddddd and Tobago.
Working Paper from the project "Forest Science and Forest Policy: Knowledge,
Institutions and Policy Processes".
http ://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/KNOTS/PDFs/Trinidad~ainlak~d

McClanahan, T., J. Davies and J. Mania. 2005. Factors influencing resource users and managers'
perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya. Environmental
Conservation 32(1):42-49.

McFarlane, B. and P.C. Boxall. 2000. Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two
stakeholder groups: The case of the foothills model forest, Alberta, Canada. Society &
Natural Resources 13:649-661.

Maclaren, F.T. 2002. A strategic approach for community-ba~sed ecotourism development. Paper
prepared for The International Ecotourism Society.

Marcus, R.R. 2001. Seeing the forest for the trees: integrated conservation and development
projects and local perceptions of conservation in Madagascar. Human Ecology 29(4):381-
397.










Mardle, S., S. Pascoe, and I. Herrero. Management objective importance in fisheries: an
evaluation using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Environmental 2anageenten


Marshall, G.R. (Ed.). 2005. Economics for collaborative environmental nzanagentent. London,
England: Earthscan.

Masozera, M.K. and J.R.R. Alavalapati. 2004. Forest dependency and its implications for
protected areas management: A case study from the Nyungwe forest reserve, Rwanda.
Scandinavian Journal ofForest Resources 19(Suppl. 4):85-92.

Masozera, M.K., J.R.R. Alavalapati, S.K. Jacobson, and R.M. Shrestha. 2006. Assessing the
suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe forest reserve, Rwanda.
Forest Policy and Economics 8(2):206-216.

May, P.H., E. Boyd, M. Chang and F.C. Veiga. 2003. Local sustainable development effects of
forest carbon proj ects in Brazil and Bolivia: A view from the field. Paper presented at
The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity.
http://www.ii ed. org/pub s/pdf/full/9240IIED .pdf

Miller, K.K. and T.K. McGee. 2001. Toward incorporating human dimensions information into
wildlife management decision-making. Human Dimensions of Wildhife 6:205-221.

Miranda, M., C. Dieperink and P. Glasbergen. 2002. The social meaning of carbon dioxide
emission trading institutional capacity building for a green market in Costa Rica.
Environment Development and Sustainability 4:69-86.

Ngugi, I. 2002. Economic impacts of marine protected areas: a case study of the Mombasa
marine park (Kenya). Ergo 1(1):1-11.

O'Faircheallaigh, C. 1999. Making social impact assessment count: a negotiation based
approach for indigenous people. Society & Natural Resources. 12(1):63-80.

Ostrom, E. 1998. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action:
Presidential address, American political science association, 1997. American Political
Science Review 92(1): 1-22.

1999. Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science
2:493.535.

2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. The Journal of Econontic
Perspectives 14(3):137-158.

Ostrom, V. and E. Ostrom. 1971. Public choice: A different approach to the study of public
administration. Public Administration Review 31(2):203-216.










Pattanayak, S.K. and E.O. Sills. 2001. Do tropical forests provide natural insurance? The
microeconomics of non-timber forest product collection in the Brazilian Amazon. Land
Economics 77(4):595-612.

Peter, F. 2003. Gender and the foundations of social choice: The role of situated agency.
Feminist Economics 9(2 3): 13 32.

Picard, C.H. 2003. Post-apartheid perceptions of the greater St Lucia wetland park, South Africa.
Environmental Conservation 30(2): 182-191.

Pomeroy. R. S. 1995. Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastal
Hisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean & Coa;stal Ma~na~gem ent 27(3): 143-162.

Pomeroy, R. S. and F. Berkes. 1997. Two to tango: The role of government in Hisheries co-
management. Marine Policy 21(5):465-480.

Proctor, W., S. Cork, J. Langridge, A. Langston, N. Abel, M. Howden, M. Anderies, R. Parry,
and D. Shelton. 2002. Assessing ecosystem services in Australia. Presented at Sustainable
Ecosystems Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO),
Australia 7th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics.
http://www. ecosystemservicesproj ect. org/html/publications/docs/ISEE_02 .pdf

Raftery A.E. 2001. Statistics in sociology 1950-2000: A selective review. Sociological
Methodology 3 1:1-45.

Ramanathan, R. 2001. A note on the use of the analytical hierarchy process for environmental
impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 63 :27-3 5.

Reardon, T. and S.A. Vosti. 1995. Links between rural poverty and the environment in
developing countries: Asset categories and investment poverty. WorldDevelopment
23(9):1495-1506.

Reddy, B.S. 2002. Natural resource management through rural cooperatives issues ofpeople 's
participation and monitoring. Paper presented at "International Symposium Sustaining
Food Security and Managing Natural Resources in Southeast Asia challenges for the
21st Century".
http ://www.uni-hohenheim. de/symposium2002/pa~full/Full-Pap-S2-
3_SudhakaraReddy~pdf

Reddy, S.R.C. and S.P. Chakravarty. 1999. Forest dependence and income distribution in a
subsistence economy: Evidence from India. World Development 27(7): 1141-1149.

Repetto. R. (Ed.) 2006. Punctuated equilibrium and the dynamics of US environmentalpolicy.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.










Saari, D. 2006. Which is better: The Condorcet or Borda winner? Social Choice Welfare 26:107-
129.

Satz, D. and J. Ferejohn. 1994. Rational choice and social theory. The Journal of Philosophy
91(2):71-87.

Scheyvens, R. 1999. Case study: Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities.
Tourism Management 20:245-249.

Schmoldt, D.L., J. Kangas, G.A. Mendoza, and M. Pesonen. (Eds.) 2001. The analytical
hierarchy process in natural resources and environmental decision making. The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sheppard, B.H., J. Hartwick, and P.R. Warshaw. The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis
of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. The
Journal of Consumer Research 15(3):325-343.

Simon, H. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics
69(1):99-118.

Singleton, J., R. Sulaiman, and The Nature Conservancy SE Asia Center for Marine Protected
Areas staff. 2002. Environmental assessment study Komodo national park Indonesia.
http ://www.komodonationalpark. org/downloads/Komodo%20EAS .pdf

Stem, C.J., J.P. Lassoie, D.R. Lee, and D.J. Deshler. 2003. How 'eco' is ecotourism? A
comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
11(4):322-347.

Stern, P.C. 1999. Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal of
Consumer Policy 22:461-478.

Takasaki, Y., B.L. Barham and O.T. Coomes. 2000. Rapid rural appraisal in humid tropical
forests: An asset possession-based approach and validation methods for wealth
assessment among forest peasant households. World Development 28(1 1): 1961-1977.

.2001. Amazonian peasants, rain forest use, and
income generation: The role of wealth and geographical factors. Society & Natural
Resources 14:291-308.

Trumbo, C.W. and G.J. O'Keefe. 2005. Intention to conserve water: Environmental values,
reasoned action, and information effects across time. Society & Natural Resources
18:573-585.

Tschakert, P. and G. Tappan. 2004. The social context of carbon sequestration: considerations
from a multi-scale environmental history of the old peanut basin of Senegal. Journal of
Arid Environments 59(3):535-564.











Vanclay, F. 1999. Social impact assessment. In International H~andbook ofEnvironmental
Impact Assessment (Vol 1). Oxford, England: Blackwell Science.

Vanclay, F., M. van Schooten, and R. Slootweg. 2000. Social impact assessment. In
Environmental Assessment in East Asia. Singapore: Institute of South East Asian Studies.

Vaske, J.J. and M.P. Donnelly. 1999. A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland
preservation voting intentions. Society & Natural Resources 12:523- 537.

Vedeld, P., A. Angelsen, E. Sjaastad, and G.K. Berg. 2004. Counting on the environment forest
incomes and' the rural poor. Environmental Economics Series, World Bank Paper No. 98.

Wall, G. 1997. Is ecotourism sustainable? Environmental management 21(4):483-491.

Wallace, G.N. and S. Pierce. 1996. An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of
Tourism Research 23(4):843-873.

Walker, J.M., R. Gardner, A. Herr and E. Ostrom. 2000. Collective choice in the commons:
Experimental results on proposed allocation rules and votes. The Economic Journal
110:212-234.

Weladji, R.B., S.R. Moe, and P. Vedeld. 2003. Stakeholder attitudes towards wildlife policy and
the Benoue wildlife conservation area, North Cameroon. Environmental Conservation
30(4):334-343.

West, P.C., and S.R. Brechin. (Eds.) 1991. Resident peoples and' national parks: Social dillemmas
and' strategies in international conservation. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona
Press.

Wunder, S. 1999. Promoting Forest conservation through ecotourism income? A case study fr~om
the Ecuad'orian Amazon region. Occasional Paper No. 21 Center for International
Forestry Research.
http://www. cifor. cgi ar. org/publi cati ons/pdf fil es/OccPapers/OP-2 1.pdf









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Cindy Chandool is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago where she pursued her tertiary

education at the University of the West Indies, Trinidad (UWI). She completed both her

bachelor of science (BSc) and masters (MPhil) degrees in Zoology at UWI in 1996 and 1999

respectively. In 1999, she began her career at the Environmental Management Authority (EMA)

in Trinidad and Tobago where she functioned as a regulatory compliance officer. In this

capacity she was able to participate in the review of environmental impact assessment reports

and other conservation oriented activities for the sustainable development of her country.

In order to continue her education, she applied for and received a graduate scholarship

from the Organization of American States (OAS). This scholarship facilitated her pursuit of a

doctor of philosophy (PhD) degree in interdisciplinary ecology at the School of Natural

Resources and Environment, University of Florida. She began her studies at the University of

Florida in August 2003 and received her PhD in August 2007. She intends to continue her career

in natural resource management in her country, utilizing the interdisciplinary perspective she has

gained through her PhD studies.





PAGE 1

1 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PROTECTED AREAS POLICY IN THE NARIVA SWAMP, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO By CINDY CHANDOOL 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

PAGE 2

2 2007 Cindy Chandool

PAGE 3

3 To my Mom for her unwavering support and encouragement

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the invaluable assistance and support of the following people and organizations who contributed in ways that can never be adequately measured. First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my committee chair, Dr. Janaki R. R. Alavalapati who allowed me the latitude to fully explore my research ideas while ensuring that I stayed focused and achieved my goals for my PhD program. The other members of my committee also have my sincere thanks for all their input and assistance: Dr. Taylor V. Stein, Dr. Donna Lee and Dr. Brijesh Thapa. I would also like to thank Dr. Brian Child for his insight at the early stage of my research. The participants and survey respondents in my research provided important assistance, as well as the interview subjects from various government agencies in Trinidad. I would especially like to thank Robyn Cross who provided valuable information for my research. The pursuit of my PhD would not have been possible without the financial assistance of the Organization of American States (OAS) who provided me with a two-year graduate scholarship and the PEO sisterhood who provided me with an International Peace Scholarship. I would also like to thank my department, the School of Natural Resources and Environment for the two-year graduate assistantship that allowed me to complete my program as well as all the technical and administrative support and advice provided by Meisha Wade, Cathy Ritchie and Dr. Stephen Humphrey. My friends and family also deserve my sincerest appreciation for their encouragement and prayers through the difficult periods of my studies as well as their company and conversation during the more relaxed times. In particular, I would like to thank my friends: Vanessa, Mechelle and Nicholla; my mom, my sister Alicia and Brandon as well as my fellow students in

PAGE 5

5 the Natural Resource Policy lab. Finally, the achievement of my PhD would not have been s many blessings.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................9 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................10 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................13 Protected Areas .......................................................................................................................13 Protected Areas Policy in Trinidad and Tobago .....................................................................16 Punctuated Equilibrium Theory ......................................................................................16 The Case of Protected Areas Policy in Trinidad and Tobago .........................................17 Problem Statement and Research Questions ..........................................................................20 Project Significance ................................................................................................................24 Plan of Dissertation .................................................................................................................28 2 THEIR RESOURCE DEPENDENCY ...................................................................................30 Introduction .............................................................................................................................30 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................32 Natural Resource Dependency ........................................................................................32 Factors Affecting Resource Dependency ........................................................................33 Measurement of Resource Dependency ..........................................................................36 Study Site The Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago .........................................................36 Method ....................................................................................................................................39 Household Surveys .................................................................................................................39 Survey Design .................................................................................................................39 Administration of Survey ................................................................................................39 Dependency Model .................................................................................................................40 Calculation of Dependency .............................................................................................40 Logistic Regression Model ..............................................................................................40 Results.....................................................................................................................................42 Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents .........................................................42 Pattern of Swamp Resource Use .....................................................................................43 Dependency Model Results .............................................................................................44 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................49

PAGE 7

7 3 DESIGNATION OF THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA ................................................................................................................53 Introduction .............................................................................................................................53 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................54 Effect of Attitudes on Behavior .......................................................................................54 Factors affecting Community Attitudes ..........................................................................57 Methods ..................................................................................................................................58 Household Survey ...................................................................................................................58 Survey Design .........................................................................................................................58 Regression Models of Attitude towards Protected Areas .......................................................59 Multiple Linear Regression .............................................................................................61 Logistic Regression .........................................................................................................62 Results.....................................................................................................................................62 Multiple Linear Regression Model of Attitude ...............................................................63 Logistic Regression Model of Attitude ...........................................................................65 Logistic Regression of Behavioral Intention and Attitude ..............................................67 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................68 4 IMPACTS OF DESIGNATING THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA .......................................................................73 Introduction .............................................................................................................................73 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................75 Perception of Impact of Stakeholders in Protected Areas ...............................................75 Socioeconomic Impacts of Carbon Sequestration and Reforestation Projects ................76 Socioeconomic Benefits of Ecotourism in Protected Areas ............................................81 Factors Affecting Impact Perception ...............................................................................84 Methods ..................................................................................................................................86 Socioeconomic Impact Assessment ................................................................................86 Socioeconomic Impact Matrix ........................................................................................86 Multiple Regression Analysis ..........................................................................................88 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) ...............................................................................89 Strength Weakness Opportunity ThreatAnalytical Hierarchy Process (SWOT-AHP) ............................................................................................................................91 Results.....................................................................................................................................94 Socioeconomic Impact Matrix Analysis .........................................................................94 SWOT-AHP ....................................................................................................................96 General Community Members .................................................................................97 Environmental Community-based Organization (ECBO) .......................................99 Ecotourism Operator (Eco-op) ...............................................................................101 Discussion .............................................................................................................................102 5 PREFERENCES OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA ...............106

PAGE 8

8 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................106 Literature Review .................................................................................................................107 Rational Choice Theory .................................................................................................107 Collective Action in Natural Resource Management ....................................................108 Community Participation in Management of Protected Areas ......................................110 Methods ................................................................................................................................113 Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................................113 Voting Choice Methodology Borda Count and Approval Voting ..............................113 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ...........................................................................117 Results...................................................................................................................................118 Semi-structured Interviews ............................................................................................118 Existing Management .............................................................................................119 Restoration and Reforestation ................................................................................119 Agriculture .............................................................................................................119 Livelihood ..............................................................................................................120 Community Management Choices ................................................................................121 Structural Equation Model for Resource Dependency, Attitudes, Socioeconomic Impact Perception and Participation in Protection of the Nariva Swamp .................123 Discussion .............................................................................................................................126 APPENDIX A HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................130 B FOCUS GROUP DETAILS FOR SWOT FACTORS .........................................................138 C SWOT-AHP QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................139 D VOTES FOR MANAGEMENT CHOICES OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS.............140 E REGRESSION WEIGHTS AND COVARIANCES FOR SEM MODEL OF PARTICIPATION IN PROTECTION OF THE NARIVA SWAMP ..................................141 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................142 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................151

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Numbers and percentages of respondents who enter the Nariva Swamp and their purpose. ..............................................................................................................................43 2-2 Numbers and percentages of respondents who do not enter the Nariva Swamp and their reasons. ......................................................................................................................44 2-3 Logistic Regression for resource dependency (n= 80) ......................................................45 2-4 Pearson correlation matrix for variables in Logistic Regression .......................................48 3-1 Proportion of respondents who consider an issue important .............................................63 3-2 Multiple Linear Regression of attitudes towards protected areas ......................................64 3-3 Logistic Regression of attitudes towards protected areas ..................................................66 4-1 Cumulative scores of potential impacts of ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp as perceived by the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities .............................95 4-2 Multiple Linear Regression of perceived impacts of ESA designation .............................96 4-3 Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat (SWOT) analysis for ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp ....................................................................................................................96 4-4 Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat-Analytical Hierarchy Process (SWOT-AHP) analysis showing priority scores ........................................................................................98 5-1 Voter choices for management of the Nariva Swamp .....................................................122 5-2 Model fit statistics for Structural Equation Model (SEM) shown in Figure 5-1 .............124 5-3 Standardized causal effects of variables in SEM model ..................................................124

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 A conceptual framework to operationalize community participation in conservation and management of the Nariva Swamp. ............................................................................24 2-1 Map of Trinidad showing location of the Nariva Swamp..................................................37 3-1 Suggested link between attitude towards protected areas and behavior. ...........................55 4-1 Generalized hierarchy for Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat-Analytical Hierarchy Process (SWOT-AHP) analysis of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp................................................................................................................................93 4-2 Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for general community members .........99 4-3 Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for environmental community-based organization (ECBO) .............................................................................................100 4-4 Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for ecotourism operator .....................101 5-1 Path diagram of SEM showing standardized regression coefficients along pathways and R2 Values above the endogenous variables ...............................................................129

PAGE 11

11 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 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PROTECTED AREAS POLICY IN THE NARIVA SWAMP, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO By C indy Chandool August 2007 Chair: Janaki R. R. Alavalapati Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology The designation of the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) was analyzed on a socioeconomic level from the perspective of the two communities; the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities. The resource dependency and conservation attitudes of households in the community and the factors that affect them were assessed. In addition, potential impacts (both negative and positive) of the ESA designation, as perceived by the communities, were also examined at both the household and community level. The preferences for management of the Nariva Swamp by the communities were also assessed. Conservation attitude and resource dependency were determined through a survey of 80 households in the communities and analyzed using regression in order to determine the significant factors. Perceived impacts of the ESA designation were analyzed using socioeconomic impact matrix analysis at the household level and the SWOT-AHP (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats Analysis-Analytical Hierarchy Process) at the community level. Community members were also asked to vote on their preferred management scenarios for future management of the swamp.

PAGE 12

12 The factors that significantly affect resource dependency in the Nariva Swamp were age, gender and length of residency and those that significantly affect attitude towards protected areas were age, gender and landholding size. The perceived socioeconomic impacts of ESA designation by the households were mostly negative and potential loss of access to the swamp was considered the greatest negative impact. The SWOT-AHP analysis showed that different groups within the community had varying perceptions about the effects of ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. General community members and members of an environmental group considered the potential opportunities presented by the ESA designation to be most important whereas the ecotourism operator considered the potential threats represented by the designation to be most important. The preferred management choice of the communities was shared authority in management of the swamp with the government agencies. The results of these analyses were used to suggest community management strategies for the Nariva Swamp to encourage and promote maximum participation by the communities.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Protected Areas The concept of protected areas (PAs) is an historic idea, which first became explicitly expressed in the Yellowstone National Park, USA and now encompasses over 30,000 areas worldwide known as national parks, nature reserves, conservation areas, and several other designations (Beresford and Phillips, 2000). The initial approach to conservation advocated the conservation,preservation of natural resources on the principle of separation from human influence by establishing strict nature reserves in which no human activity was allowed (Adams & Hulme, 2001). This type of approach was followed in the West Indies, India and Africa and was accompanied by the development of legislation and central government institutions to manage these reserves (Adams & Hulme, 2001). This centrally organized strategy which excluded the human element from biodiversity conservation was not fulfilling its objectives in some countries (Hulme & Murphree, 2001). This occurred in part because these exclusionary strategies led to negative impacts on social and economic characteristics of the local communities which often led to a lack of compliance of the regulations governing the protected areas (Adams & Hulme, 2001). The overexploitation of resources often has socioeconomic reasons when human welfare is not addressed or are based on social actions such as logging or development so that resource management should focus on the people involved and not only on the actual resource (Pomeroy, 1995). The sustainability of protected areas was compromised by such conflict as well as a lack of sufficiently large areas protected within the reserves to conserve the natural resources (Kellert et al., 2000).

PAGE 14

14 this trend has diminished possibly due to the lack of available land (Green & Paine, 1997). There is a new protected area community-based paradigm which has been developing over the last decade led mainly by the World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas (Kellert et al., 2000; Gillingham, 2001) within which these areas now include places where people live and work and a collaborative approach to management is required which keeps social and economic objectives in mind (Beresford and Phillips, 2000). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed a system of protected areas that continue to range from the traditional strict nature reserves to sustainable use protected areas (IUCN, 1994). There is a broad spectrum of initiatives possible under this paradigm of community conservation within which participation and economic use are the main criteria and this allows for situations ranging from low levels of participation by communities to areas in which the community has full proprietary rights to the area (Adams & Hulme, 2001). whereas community conservation can be seen as more anthropocentric (Jones & Murphree, 2001). They also focus at a coarse level rather than at the fine focus of the local context (Bawa et al., 2004). The new community conservation paradigm instead emphasizes benefits to communities, proprietary rights of locals and sustainable use (Child, 2004). This approach focuses on the conservation of ecosystems and their services instead of single species conservation (Child, 2004). Instead of negatively affecting biodiversity, there have been many instances of more effective biodiversity conservation on community managed land than in the ion area (Child, 2004).

PAGE 15

15 It is preferable for protected areas to meet socioeconomic needs especially in poor areas while simultaneously protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services (Child, 2004) especially since local people would depend on the area for their livelihood. There can be benefits from sustainable use of protected areas while conserving them if monitoring of ecosystem integrity is included in management (Child, 2004). Institutions and incentives are prominent within this conservation paradigm so that people can maintain their livelihood through conservation (Child, 2004). Within this paradigm, there can be more equitable access to the protected area, improved implementation of management strategies and improved resource management when stakeholders are allowed to participate fully in management actions (Kessler, 2004). There is a need for adaptive schemes, traditional knowledge and improvement of social capital within each specific local setting (Bawa et al., 2004). Participatory democracy, institution strengthening and empowerment of resource users are also important (Jentoft et al., 1998; Bawa et al., 2004). The partnership between local community and government works when they can provide legislation, enforcement and other assistance (Pomeroy & Berkes, 1997). There is also a need to draw from local knowledge and natural science information so that the area is treated as a single economic and ecological unit in order to build resilience (Bawa et al., 2004; Pomeroy, 1995). The protected areas can conserve natural resources and ecosystem services while simultaneously providing benefits to the community through alternative activities such as nature-based tourism as well as by protecting the natural resources on which traditional livelihoods depend (Singleton et al., 2002; Picard, 2003). PAs are now designated with the expectation that they will provide economic, social, scientific (Picard, 2003) and ecological benefits.

PAGE 16

16 The ecological and socioeconomic aspects of natural resources should not be considered separately in conservation management. Neither purely biocentric nor anthropocentric approaches will lead to effective conservation. Instead a dual consideration of nature and humans is necessary to ensure the sustainability of protected areas and other conservation initiatives. In many instances, the benefits (local and national) of protected areas are more likely achieved when stakeholders are involved in management (Child, 2004). Protected Areas Policy in Trinidad and Tobago The development of protected areas policy in Trinidad and Tobago has evolved along the and ending with the community-based approach. The history and evolution of this policy can be described using a Punctuated Equilibrium framework. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Punctuated equilibrium theory originated in the field of evolutionary biology whereby species evolution was seen to be stable or in equilibrium followed by appaevolution of a new species (Repetto, 2006). This theory has been adapted to policy change where a similar trend has been observed in particular in environmental policy (Repetto, 2006). In the policy arena, there tends to be the maintenance of the status quo or equilibrium followed by a break in the logjam leading to a change in the dynamics of the policy and a subsequent speeding up of the policy process (Repetto, 2006). Underlying this trend is the fact that there are more marginal changes and fewer paradigmatic changes that occurred to lead to the In order to explain this pattern, there is a need to know the processes and drivers of environmental policy in their particular context, especially the political context (Repetto, 2006).

PAGE 17

17 The causal variables as to why the old policy fails are important and they lead to the need for 2006). These determinants of policy change are characterized by negative and positive feedbacks to the system (Repetto, 2006). When change causes a disturbance, forces (negative feedback) may drive the system back to its original status (Repetto, 2006). On the other hand, the disturbance may be caused by forces (positive feedback) that reinforce the change and move it further away from the original state (Repetto, 2006). For example, positive feedback may take the form of new programs that have been initiated since the last shift in policy (Repetto, 2006). Elections, social movements and institutional changes may all cause policy shifts (Repetto, 2006). In particular, environmental policy faces the challenges of economic growth, property rights issues as well as the support of positive factors such as saving species and reducing pollution (Repetto, 2006). The cost of reversal of policy is considered to be high and the that there is no positive experience to look at during the equilibrium so that there is a reluctance to depart from traditional practice but if new approaches are not adopted, there will be no favorable examples to look at (Repetto, 2006). The Case of Protected Areas Policy in Trinidad and Tobago The various forms of protected areas policy in Trinidad and Tobago appear to fit into this pattern inherent in the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. Interest in the protection of natural areas the first attempt at some form of protective environmental policy was made by the administration of Trinidad and Tobago, which at that time was still a British colony, and took the form of commissioning a report on the forests of the islands. Protected areas, designated as national parks, were first identified by the independent government in 1972, but the formal acceptance of

PAGE 18

18 national parks into the environmental policy of Trinidad and Tobago was not done until 1981 (Leach & Fairfield, 2001). provisions. National parks continued to be formed under related legislation such as Forestry and Wildlife legislation. Some of the parks that were designated, such as the Chaguaramas National Park in 1974, were done largely on the basis of recreational criteria rather than environmental issues. This first attempt at protected areas policy can be seen as one policy change followed by equilibrium since this status quo persisted for several years. Multi-lateral international conventions such as the Convention for Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention, to which Trinidad and Tobago is a signatory, played a role in promoting the further development of a policy on protected areas. These acted as some of the external drivers that cause changes in policy (Repetto, 2006). The need for changes in protected areas policy was also driven by the government agencies responsible for these areas, the scientific community represented by the conservation specialists at the University of the West Indies as well as a small environmentally conscious community within the country (Brown, 2000). The apparent over-exploitation of resources, changing land use and lack of effective conservation in the natural areas of Trinidad and Tobago prompted these stakeholders to promote the concept of a comprehensive and enforceable piece of legislation to conserve protected areas (Brown, 2000). The Forestry Division, in particular, drafted several policies and pieces of legislation in order to encourage governmental approval of a national parks system. This advocacy is identified as one of the causes for policy change and punctuation of the policy equilibrium (Repetto, 2006). In combination, the pressure of international agreements and the

PAGE 19

19 opinions of scientific experts, members of the general citizenry as well as government employees themselves, represented these marginal changes that led to punctuation in protected areas policy. ranging from being a forestry policy to a combined national parks and wildlife policy to a stand-alone national parks policy. The National Parks and Wildlife Bill in particular, received severe criticism from reviewers over jurisdictional issues and in particular, land use, the rights of which would be curtailed for existing users (Leach & Fairhead, 2001) and was withdrawn to reemerge as two separate Bills for national parks and wildlife respectively. Leach & Fairfield (2001) consider the main reason for the lack of enforcement of a comprehensive protected areas policy at this time to be a lack of political will in a government more committed to industrial development issues (Leach & Fairhead, 2001). However as identified in Repetto (2006) there must be additional reasons for the maintenance of this status quo. One reason may have been economic since large tracts of resource-rich land were required for conservation purposes to be set aside when the country was in the midst of a reinvigorated energy sector. In addition, constant indecision and confusion over which governmental agency should control the protected areas was a contentious issue (Leach & Fairhead, 2001). In the midst of the debate over this policy, the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) was formed in 1995 through the promulgation of the Environmental Management Act. This served to introduce further conflict since the EMA was given the authority to designate Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) which are, in effect, protected areas. This was viewed as a duplication of effort and resources to the proposed National Parks and Protected Areas Bill. These factors acted in

PAGE 20

20 policy and a maintenance of the status quo which was exemplified by the fact that the National Parks and Protected Areas Bill was never passed in Parliament. The punctuation of the protected areas policy in this instance was caused in part by this shift in responsibility from the Forestry Division to the EMA. However since many of the responsibilities for implementation of the ESA will still reside with the Forestry Division, the change in agency may be more of a political and legislative issue rather than a functional one. The resultant policy which now governs the sustainable use and conservation of protected areas in Trinidad and Tobago is the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Rules, 2001 (ESAR). Implementation of these rules is currently being undertaken and areas are being designated as prescribed by these rules. This process is being conducted in stages and one of the first sites to be legally designated is the Nariva Swamp. Problem Statement and Research Questions Based on the ESAR as PA Policy, it is important for PAs such as the Nariva Swamp to promote social and economic aspects of sustainability in addition to biological and physical ones. In addition, the impact of the designation of a PA on the surrounding community will affect the success of the PA as determined by the achievement of short and long term conservation goals of the PA. Success can be measured by the socioeconomic status of the community and status of the resource (Singleton et al., 2002). This success is reliant on the perceptions, attitudes and behavior of the people involved in the use of the natural resource. perceptions and use of their natural resources as well as their perception of costs and the processes that affect these resources (Marcus, 2001). It has been suggested that a combination of positive attitudes of the community and their perceived benefits should provide an increased probability of compliance with PA restrictions and plans as well as participation in these

PAGE 21

21 management plans (McClanahan et al., 2005). PA management success also requires the continuous assessment of these perceptions which includes the determination of the factors that influence these perceptions (McClanahan et al., 2005). The variability of socioeconomic and political contexts of different countries leads to differing conclusions about stakeholder attitudes and perceptions about PA policy (Weladji et al., 2003). In order to achieve the protection of natural resources through protected areas policy, one of the key actions is to identify stakeholders, ascertain their attitudes towards protected area management and the factors that affect these attitudes (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). Surveys on these issues can help to guide management decisions and provide baseline information for assessing the effectiveness of new policies (Weladji et al., 2003). The study of community attitudes and behavior to the ESAR before they are implemented is important to ensuring that the local people participate in management. My study will seek to determine the factors that affect that their concerns are addressed at an early stage of implementation of the ESAR in the Nariva Swamp. In order to assess the effectiveness of protected areas management, one element to be evaluated is the planning of protected areas as characterized by the protected areas legislation, policy and management planning (Hockings, 2003). Designating an area as protected does not make sense if it is not possible for the sustainable traditional uses and services to continue for the communities (Hockings, 2003). This interaction of human communities with protected areas includes the provision of livelihoods and sustenance (Hockings, 2003). Planning for protected areas must now be done with and for local people rather than against them (Beresford and Phillips, 2000). This includes ensuring that they are not negatively impacted by these

PAGE 22

22 designations but can obtain maximum benefits by improving the social and economic conditions for people living within these areas (Beresford and Phillips, 2000). It has been predicted that local communities within and around a protected area would prefer to obtain maximized positive social and economic impacts rather than only require mitigation of negative impacts My study will ascertain the level of community support for the policy in order to enable its success and ensure that local communities are not negatively affected. If local people do not perceive that the policy will benefit them; they may choose not to participate and may ignore management plans and restrictions. Protection of these Environmentally Sensitive Areas will only be effective if stakeholders are meaningfully and transparently involved, traditional or customary rights are recognized and their loss compensated for, and there are direct linkages between conservation and development objectives (Elliot et al., 2001; Ngugi, 2002). My study will therefore establish attitudes about protected areas policy and the ESAR in general, the ESA designation of the NS, the purpose of its designation and the perceived impacts of designation. It will also assess the dependency of households on the resources of the Nariva Swamp. The management of the swamp under the ESAR legislation can potentially affect the communities adjacent to the swamp. Management actions will include restoration of previously cleared areas of the swamp using native species in order to both regenerate natural habitat and increase carbon sequestration in the swamp. Existing forest cover will also be protected in order to maintain the carbon sequestration of the swamp forest. There is also a planned increase in nature-based tourism activities within the swamp. There is known to be an un-quantified level of nature-based tourism being conducted in the swamp which is expected to increase with the ESAR implementation.

PAGE 23

23 In Trinidad and Tobago, since the legislation is still in the process of being implemented, the effects of the ESAR are as yet unknown, so it is important to ascertain the potential socioeconomic impacts of ESA designation as perceived by local communities to ascertain potential barriers to ESA implementation in the Nariva Swamp. Based on the findings of my study, recommendations can be made on the additional measures or modifications to proposed management plans for the Nariva Swamp that need to be implemented in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the negative impacts of ESA designation on local communities and to promote sustainable wetland co-management. Recommendations can also be made on the approaches and steps needed to enhance participation of stakeholders in ESA management and whether the community needs to be more fully involved in the projects. A conceptual framework depicting this is shown in Figure 1-1; the conservation attitudes, resource dependency and perception of potential socioeconomic impacts of the two communities will be determined. These components are all influenced by socioeconomic variables such as age and income and depending on the influencing variables as well as the characteristics of these factors (attitudes, dependency and impacts) participation in management and appropriate management strategies can be predicted or developed. Research Questions. The aims of my study will be fulfilled by addressing the following questions: 1) What are the existing use patterns of resources by communities surrounding the Nariva Swamp? What factors affect this dependency? 2) What are the attitudes of households towards the designation of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA? What are the variables that affect these attitudes? 3) What socioeconomic impacts are expected by households in response to the designation of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA? What are the variables that affect these perceptions?

PAGE 24

24 4) What are the choices for management by community members? How do the community members view their role in co-management of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA? What is their preference towards imminent changes in management of the Swamp? Figure 1-1. A conceptual framework to operationalize community participation in conservation and management of the Nariva Swamp. Project Significance The Nariva Swamp in Trinidad and Tobago is a Ramsar Site and will be designated as a protected area known as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) under the legislation of High or l ow Positive or negative Positive or negative Management s trate gies Resource dependency Community p articipation in m anagement Attitude towards protected areas Perception of potential impacts Socioecon omic Variables Age, Income, Gender, Length of Residency, Education, Property Ownership, Household Size

PAGE 25

25 Trinidad and Tobago. The conservation of the natural resources of this swamp is of both regional and international significance but this conservation cannot be achieved without the participation of the surrounding communities in the sustainable use of these resources. The variability of socioeconomic and political contexts of different countries leads to differing conclusions about stakeholder attitudes and perceptions about PA policy (Weladji et al., 2003). Developing countries require the support of local people who live adjacent to PAs to ensure their integrity into the future (Anderson and Grove, 1987; West and Brechin, 1991; Brandon and Wells, 1992). It is crucial to determine whether local communities understand and are in support of conservation measures, their attitudes toward the PA, the benefits to locals and the extent of these benefits (Alexander, 2000; Hough 1991; West and Brechin, 1991). It is expected that people will choose to participate in protected areas management if their expected benefits (positive impacts) will exceed their costs (negative impacts) (Marshall, 2005) which is also true of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. Support for protected areas by local communities in these developing countries tends to be reduced or lacking if the designation and management of these protected areas has negative effects on these communities (Hough 1991; West and Brechin, 1991). There have been few evaluations of these social impacts in protected areas systems and these are a critical component in the discussion of international conservation policies which is currently deficient (Fortin and Gagnon, 1999). Surveys on these issues can help to guide management decisions and provide baseline information for assessing the effectiveness of new policies (Weladji et al., 2003). In developing countries, there is a need for this type of survey research to inform social impact assessment (Becker, 2001). In Trinidad and Tobago, since the legislation is still in the process of being implemented, the effects of the ESAR are as yet unknown, but it can be predicted that the designation of ESAs

PAGE 26

26 will lead to socioeconomic effects and complexities within the communities adjacent to these protected areas. The attitudes towards and potential socioeconomic impact of ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp as perceived by local stakeholders are issues that must be assessed ex ante in order to ensure public support for this PA policy. This empirical research will contribute to the literature and information on socioeconomic effects of protected areas in developing countries, which is considered deficient as identified by the authors above. It will also contribute to the literature on stakeholder attitudes of protected areas policy and management as well as the pattern of their resource use. The results of this project will provide this type of information by perception as well as the types and levels of perceived positive (benefits) and negative (costs) impacts of this PA policy in the Nariva Swamp. Although the Nariva Swamp has been earmarked for designation as an ESA and management plans are in place, there is still an opportunity for modifications to the management plan as well as the timing and mode of implementation of required management actions prescribed in this plan. This pre-assessment can proactively identify potential issues of concern to the communities on the ESA designation and ensure that they are included in management as appropriate. These results will be communicated to the EMA, the community and other stakeholders in order to promote conservation success by ensuring that these concerns are addressed prior to the implementation of the ESA Rules in the Nariva Swamp. In addition, this information can be used by government agencies to address thwith respect to the Nariva Swamp before these management actions are undertaken and also avoid or mitigate these impacts through the amendment or alteration of similar proposed actions in other ESAs. It is important to determine the predicted socioeconomic impacts of the ESA

PAGE 27

27 policy management actions at this stage before they are implemented so that management plans may be guided accordingly based on the results of my study. My study will also contribute to the improvement of resource management of the swamp by providing a baseline study for the comparative assessment of the PA policy and management after a period of implementation has elapsed. My study can be used within a framework of adaptive management of continuous monitoring, assessment and amendment of management plans. The social fabric of communities is a product of the dynamic and changeable values, attitudes and behaviors held by these communities further emphasizing the need for an adaptive approach to resource management (CERM, 2002). This empirical research addresses these attitudes and so, can be used as a baseline study for a framework of adaptive management within the Nariva Swamp in which the predictive assessment can be followed by continuous monitoring and amendment of management plans. It can also be used as a model for similar socioeconomic assessments within the other areas earmarked for designation as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). The management of the Nariva Swamp should provide social benefits to outweigh potential costs and the attitudes of stakeholders should be incorporated into these management plans for the swamp. My study will provide this information to improve resource management of the swamp and support better decision-making by providing information that can be used in the implementation strategy of the policy to mitigate negative impacts as well as provide a comparative framework for the assessment of the policy after a period of implementation has elapsed. It also provides a framework for similar studies in other sensitive areas as the policy and management plans are implemented for each of these areas.

PAGE 28

28 The research will also provide policy relevant information that will lead to the enhancement of natural resource protection by contributing to well-informed policymaking. The project will benefit the policy makers and other decision makers within the realm of protected areas policy and management in Trinidad and Tobago by improving the goals and implementation of this policy with specific recommendations. The relevant stakeholders who participate in and depend on protected areas policy will also benefit from the analysis. Within the larger perspective, the social and natural resources of the country will benefit through improved policy alternatives and decisions in the long term. Plan of Dissertation The dissertation is divided into five chapters that build on each other by assessing household dependency, attitudes, potential impacts and community management preferences of ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. Chapter 2 addresses the resource use patterns of the local communities in and around the Nariva Swamp. Natural resource dependency is estimated and converted to a binary scale resulting in a division into high and low dependency households. The factors that affect this resource dependency are also analyzed using a logistic regression in order to assess the effect of these factors on high or low dependency by the households in the community. The results of these analyses are used to suggest the role of dependency in PA management. Chapter 3 assesses household attitudes towards protection of the Nariva Swamp to determine whether these attitudes are positive or negative. It is expected that those with positive attitudes will tend to participate in PA management activities whereas those with negative attitudes will not participate. These attitudes were analyzed in two ways, using multiple linear regression and logistic regression. This allows for the comparison of the two methods as a model for conservation attitudes and the factors affecting these attitudes. These predictive

PAGE 29

29 attitude models can be used in the development of community management options for the Nariva Swamp to encourage and promote maximum participation by the communities. Chapter 4 examines the potential impact of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp as perceived by community members. A simple matrix method is used to determine the perceived impacts of the households in the communities. The strength, weaknesses, opportunities, threats analysis combined with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (SWOT-AHP) method is also used in a focus group setting in order to have participation by different subsets of interests in the community. These methods provide both an absolute measurement of perceived impacts as well as a comparative measurement of the impacts as quantified by the community. The potential impacts can be incorporated into management by either alleviating them in the case of negative impacts or promoting them in the case of positive impacts. Chapter 5 covers the management choices of community groups using voting procedures, namely the Borda Count and Approval voting methods. These methods are used within the framework of co-management of the Nariva Swamp between the government and communities unite the former chapters through a structural equation model that contains selected socioeconomic variables and their effects on resource dependency, attitudes towards protected areas and perception of potential socioeconomic impacts. This allows for the integration of overall results into suggestions for future management strategies in the swamp.

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 2 HOUE PATTERNS AND FACTORS INFLUENCING THEIR RESOURCE DEPENDENCY Introduction Rural communities often depend on natural resource extraction as a key part of their livelihood strategy. In developing countries in particular, rural households make extensive use of a variety of products and services from environmental resources (Cavendish, 2000). Natural resource based activities tend to require little skill and monetary investment with associated low returns except in cases of highly specialized resources or products with high market value (Vedeld et al., 2004). Some of the products obtained from natural resources include fuelwood, plants, medicines, wild food, fiber, grazing material for animals, hunting animals and building materials (Bluffstone et al., 2001; DeBoer & Baquete, 1998; Cavendish, 2000; Vedeld et al., 2004; Heltberg, 2001). Households that depend on agriculture for their livelihood also use the natural resources for crop/agricultural land or grazing land for animals (Bluffstone et al., 2001; Vedeld et al., 2004). In circumstances where there is a wide variety and range of resources available, there is great heterogeneity in how the resource is used by local people (Takasaki et al., 2001). A meta-analysis of 54 studies in different developing countries around the world was by Vedeld et al. (2004) and showed an average forest income of 22% of the total income of the households. This report also estimated that approximately 60 million people worldwide are heavily dependent on forest resources for their livelihood (Vedeld et al., 2004). The resources may serve to maintain the current income level of the household, act as additional source of income to increase wealth and escape poverty or as a type of buffer against unforeseen decreases in income (Vedeld et al., 2004).

PAGE 31

31 The use of natural resources for local livelihood is often not regulated (Bahuguna, 2000). Thus, resource use can become excessive and lead to the degradation of the environment when local people are faced with poverty and have no other recourse for income generation (Reardon & Vosti, 1995). In cases where agriculture or for example timber extraction in Asia has led to the degradation of these resources, diversification of income sources or alternative livelihood strategies by rural people who have lower negative impacts on the resource should help reduce this degradation (Reardon & Vosti, 1995; Gunatilake, 1998). Some researchers consider that poor management and inequitable distribution of resources may lead to low economic benefit from common resources (Bluffstone et al., 2001). Due to the strong linkage between rural communities and natural resources, they can be greatly affected by restrictions on resource use or access (Adhikari et al.. 2004; Reddy & Chakravarty, 1999). The magnitude and details of resource use and dependency will have consequences for conservation of that resource and strategies for making the resource use sustainable (Vedeld et al., 2004). In light of this determination by Vedeld et al. (2004), the management of a protected area such as the Nariva Swamp in Trinidad and Tobago must include an assessment of the dependency of the local communities on the natural resources of the swamp. Since this swamp will be an ESA as described previously in Chapter 1, this assessment will allow for the formulation of management strategies in order to ensure the continued livelihood of the communities. This management will need to take into consideration the extent and level of the resource dependency, that is, whether the communities are heavily dependent on the swamp resources or not and the ways in which they use the resource. Management may also have to include alteration of some of the practices in the swamp that may be degrading the resource.

PAGE 32

32 My study strives to answer these questions by assessing resource dependency of the Plum Mitan and Kernahan/Cascadoux communities which are in close proximity to the Nariva Swamp. Resource dependency can be assessed at different levels; the household level is recognized as one appropriate level of analysis and was used in my study. An administered survey was used to collect information on resource dependency in addition to interviews with the local people and government officials. The basic characteristics of the use of the resources of the Nariva Swamp by the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities were determined from this survey. Dependency was estimated by collecting information on the annual income received by households from the swamp as well as their total annual income from all sources. This data was used to calculate an indicator of resource dependency as a ratio of swamp income versus total income. The index was then converted to a binary scale of high and low dependency using the mean as the threshold value; this value was 0.26 or 26% of household income obtained from swamp resources. Logistic regression was then used to analyze the dependency of the communities based on eight variables that based on the literature, influence household resource dependency and the magnitude of the effect of these factors. This analysis of household resource dependency on the Nariva Swamp has several implications for management of this swamp as an ESA. These suggestions were made based on the factors that affect dependency as well as the generally low level of resource dependency by these communities. These types of pre-implementation studies are important to align management with the actual context of the communities that are dependent on natural resources. Literature Review Natural Resource Dependency Differences in resource use by members of a community arise due to variations in the specific socioeconomic conditions, values, beliefs, goals and preferences of the members of that

PAGE 33

33 community (Adhikari et al.. 2004). Each community has its own unique set of factors that affect the nature and level of their resource dependency. It should be noted that resource use by households may vary across a particular community and will not remain static over time, resulting in changing resource dependency over time (Cavendish, 2000). Factors Affecting Resource Dependency Geographic and economic conditions are two of the factors that affect how people use a particular resource (Takasaki et al., 2001). The wealth of a household in particular will generally affect the level of dependency on the resource (Takasaki et al., 2001). Wealth would include income as well as landholding and other non land assets such as natural resources, human resources and all physical and financial assets (Takasaki et al., 2001; Reardon & Vosti, 1995). A household has a certain quantity of these assets that is allocated to income generating activities that affect the environment which then feeds into the next cycle of income generating activity (Reardon & Vosti, 1995). Wealth will therefore affect the choices made by households with respect to livelihood strategies such as agriculture versus fishing or other forms of resource use (Takasaki et al., 2000). Rapid rural appraisal in Peruvian Amazon to measure asset and wealth, showed that in rural communities, landholding and other assets can affect resource use even if these assets are relatively small (Takasaki et al., 2000). Higher income will also lead to greater investment in recreation time and less dependency (Gunatilake, 1998). It is expected that poorer households will rely more heavily on natural resource extraction and that differences in landholdings will vary resource dependency such that those with less or poorer quality land will exhibit a greater reliance on natural resources (Takasaki et al., 2001; Reddy & Chakravarty, 1999; Vedeld et al., 2004; Cavendish, 2000). Although the poor may be more dependent on forest resources, it is important to note that richer households may use more

PAGE 34

34 land for agriculture and grazing of livestock (Heltberg, 2001). Therefore dependency is not restricted to poorer households; instead households that have fewer sources of income or yak and Sills, 2001). Education will allow for a greater diversity of income generating opportunities for individuals leading to less use of natural resources; education can also act as a proxy for wage earning since education determines wage (Gunatilake, 1998). It is therefore expected that education would have a negative effect on dependency (Gunatilake, 1998; Adhikari et al.. 2004). Age will affect dependency because older people may find it easier to collect products from the environment rather than engage in agricultural activities which may be to strenuous (Cavendish, 2000; Vedeld et al., 2004). However, Masozera and Alavalapati (2004) found that age had a negative effect on dependency. The gender of the head of the household and general composition of the household may affect the types of resources that can be obtained from the environment (Cavendish, 2000; Vedeld et al., 2004). This is particularly true in traditional societies where males and females have specific roles and activities (Cavendish, 2000). Gender may have a variable effect on dependency, if the activities are more male oriented then there would be higher dependency by males or the nature of resource use may be more female oriented leading to the opposite result (Gunatilake, 1998). Agricultural income, household size as well as access to towns and markets also affect dependency (Masozera & Alavalapati, 2004; Gunatilake, 1998). Agricultural income and market access has a negative effect on dependency whereas household size had a positive effect on dependency (Masozera & Alavalapati, 2004). Greater availability of labor in a household can

PAGE 35

35 lead to a greater variability in income generating activities away from the natural resource and lower dependency (Gunatilake, 1998). However, a household with a large number of people will tend to have higher requirements to live and will then have greater dependency (Gunatilake, 1998). Those closer to the forest will have higher dependency (Gunatilake, 1998). Those with non-agriculture and non-forest activities are expected to have lower dependency because these tend to be year round rather than seasonal like agriculture is (Gunatilake, 1998). Other factors that influence resource dependency include technology (tools used for collection), debt, male/female ratio, labor availability, number of days spent in other activities and landholding size all have effects on household dependency (Adhikari et al.. 2004; Gunatilake, 1998). Outward migration may also affect dependency but testing this is difficult (Gunatilake, 1998). Other household characteristics that are important in the consideration of forest dependency include ethnicity and occupation (Vedeld et al., 2004). Also employment unrelated to either forest or agriculture and incorporation into outside markets lead to a lower dependency (Gunatilake, 1998) There may also be community level characteristics that affect resource dependency such as market access, community averaged income, forest income, limitations on access to resource, institutional issues (organization and administrative), politics and ecology (Vedeld et al., 2004). Also, when agricultural productivity in a community is low, they tend to rely more heavily on the natural resources (DeBoer & Baquete, 1998). If the community is linked with the market economy there will be less dependence on natural resources (Gunatilake, 1998). With higher agricultural productivity in the village there will be lower dependency (Gunatilake, 1998).

PAGE 36

36 Measurement of Resource Dependency Measuring resource dependency is difficult to quantify absolutely so there are different ways of estimating this dependency. One such method used by researchers is the amount of hours spent in activities related to resource use. This labor allocation can be quantified as time spent collecting products and quantity of products collected can be used as a measure of dependency on the common pool resource (Adhikari et al.. 2004; Bluffstone et al., 2001; Pattanayak and Sills, 2001). Another aspect of resource dependency as exemplified by the case of forest dependency in the Brazilian Amazon, is the use of forest products to alleviate any losses in agricultural activities (Pattanayak and Sills, 2001). This study characterized household collection of forest products as a function of household labor, characteristics and access and quality to the resource (Pattanayak and Sills, 2001). This labor was operationalized by annual number of trips to the forest for products collection purposes (Pattanayak and Sills, 2001). Those who take more collection trips and hence have higher dependency, are those who have lived there longer and know more about the resource (Pattanayak and Sills, 2001). Resource dependency may also be measured using total income obtained from the natural resource or by measuring forest income as a proportion of total income of the household (Gunatilake, 1998; Masozera and Alavalapati, 2004). This includes calculation of assets of rural households that can be generally considered to be agricultural land, productive assets, nonproductive assets and livestock (Takasaki et al., 2000). Study Site The Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago Primary socioeconomic surveys and data collection are required in the communities adjacent to the Nariva Swamp to enable the assessment of attitudes, resource use and perceptions of impact of the ESAR. The Nariva Swamp is a freshwater swamp situated on the east coast of

PAGE 37

37 Trinidad (Figure 2-1) and is the largest wetland in Trinidad and Tobago being made up of approximately 6,000 hectares. It is a designated Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention (1971). The ecosystem types are mangrove swamp forest, palm forest, swamp wood and freshwater marsh which provide a habitat for many rare and endangered species of reptiles, mammals and birds such as the manatee (Trichecus manatus), the red howler (Alouatta seniculus insularis) and capuchin (Cebus albifrons) monkeys (Brown, 2000). Figure 2-1. Map of Trinidad showing location of the Nariva Swamp. (Source: EMA, 2005) In addition, Nariva Swamp is a refuge for migratory waterfowl and a habitat for several ns (Brown, 2000). Other species of commercial importance found in the swamp include the black conch (Pomacea urseus), mangrove oyster (Crassostrea rhizophorae) and various crabs (Cardisoma guanhumi and Ucides cordatus) (Brown, 2000). The swamp is a state owned area and is a collective resource within the public domain. The site has a complex history which included illegal rice farming in areas of the swamp which

PAGE 38

38 were not zoned for such activity. At present, the site can be characterized according to two main zones, which are not formally demarcated under the existing management regime. The first zone, the Bush Bush Wildlife Sanctuary is a protected area that is accessible through a permit system only and is largely used for scientific research. This zone has no infrastructure and is accessible by walking into the area or by boat and one trail traverses the zone itself. Some villagers use both motorized and non-motorized boats to access this area to bring visitors to the site as well as to fish and hunt in the area. The second extensive zone is made up of the remaining parts of the swamp, which are used for a mixture of agriculture, fishing, hunting and recreation. This area is relatively easy to access with some parts bordering the main access road with minor roads leading into the area. It is also accessible by boat or kayak along the Nariva River and there are several houses within this area. Some villagers sell their catch, such as fish and crabs along the roadway in small sheds or at their houses. The main communities within and around the Nariva Swamp are the Kernahan and Plum Mitan communities around which this research will focus. Some land tenure issues exist within the swamp whereby families have short-term leases and in some cases have no leases for the land they live on (Brown, 2000). The activities that take place in the swamp are legal except for those that take place within the Bush Bush Wildlife Sanctuary. This has led to a lack of economic stability of some members of the local community and has affected the way they utilize the resources of the swamp (Brown, 2000). These people would not be inclined to protect the swamp if they do not feel that they have a legitimate long term benefit to gain (Brown, 2000).

PAGE 39

39 Method Household Surveys The primary means of data collection was done via a detailed, administered household survey/questionnaire (Appendix A). Survey Design The second section of the survey focused on resource use and dependency of the household. Questions were asked on existing relationships with the natural resources of the swamp such as extent of use for agriculture, hunting, fishing, mariculture and recreation. The frequency of use of the natural resources of the swamp was also queried based on number of trips to the swamps and hours spent there. The proportion of income obtained from use of resources from the swamp was also ascertained in this section. The use of the swamp for ecotourism activity was also determined. The main sources of income for the household, size of landholdings, capital assets and agricultural leases in the swamp (if any) were answered in this section. Socioeconomic factors were covered in the fourth section of the questionnaire. This section covered demographic factors such as age, gender, education as well as household composition such as ethnicity, religion, occupation of household members, marital status and household size. Administration of Survey The survey instrument was initially tested in the Manzanilla area to avoid reduction of an already small sample pool. Based on feedback from this pre-test and from input by members of government agencies and the wider scientific community, questions were altered or removed as necessary.

PAGE 40

40 Respondents were apprised of the intent of my study before the survey was administered (Reddy, 2002). The questionnaire was orally administered to heads of households from a total of 80 randomly selected households from the Plum Mitan and Kernahan/Cascadoux communities. In the event that the head of household was not available the next available adult member of the household with was questioned. The survey was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (Protocol #2006-U-541). Dependency Model Calculation of Dependency Based on methods used by other researchers described previously, the proportion of income from the resource was used to estimate dependency. This relative value of resource dependency was used since it is easily calculated from information readily available from respondents, provides an acceptable indication of dependency and has been used in other studies such as by Gunatilake (1998). An indicator of household dependency on the Nariva Swamp was estimated using the ratio of income obtained from the swamp versus total income from all sources (agriculture, labor, swamp, capital assets) as reported in the survey (Gunatilake, 1998). The ratio obtained from this calculation was converted to a binary scale (0, 1) by assuming that a value equal to or greater than the mean of 0.26 (26% income dependent on the swamp) was assigned a value of 1 and below 0.26 was assigned a value of 0. Logistic Regression Model Logistic regression analysis is very applicable to socioeconomic and other scientific research in which characteristics or variables can be defined as binary, dichotomous responses such as low or high (0 or 1). This regression methodology uses a model of the general form below and has been used widely in the social and natural sciences (Raftery, 2001).

PAGE 41

41 logit () 1X1i 2X2i kXki where X1i to Xki represents the predictors 1 k are coefficients of the predictors and represents the probability of obtaining a value of 1 as the predicted response variable. For the purposes of my study, this response variable was resource dependency with 1 representing high dependency and 0 representing low dependency. The variables or predictors used in the model were chosen based on the literature as well as the specific context of these communities. These variables were: AGE The age of the respondents was collected in categories which were converted to values from 1 to 5 for the purpose of analysis. It is expected that age would have a positive effect on dependency since it is expected that younger people in these communities would tend to find employment outside of the area and thus have lower dependency on the swamp. GENDER Females were assigned a value of 1 and males a value of 0. Gender may have a variable effect depending on the activities that are conducted with the resource (Gunatilake, 1998). If this activity is female oriented then there would be a positive effect on dependency of being female whereas male oriented activity would have a negative effect on this model. EDUC Education was categorized based on a range of no school to college level on a scale from 0 to 3. Education is expected to have a negative effect on dependency since more educated people would have a greater range of employment opportunities available. LAND_HOLD This variable, landholding size was the absolute value of land under the control of the household in acres; this variable was used as a proxy for wealth. Since control of land should lead to income generating activities that do not involve swamp resources, this variable should have a negative effect on dependency.

PAGE 42

42 DIVERS Diversity of labor was calculated based on the occupations reported by the household and ranged from values of 1 to 3 as the number of jobs and hence income generating opportunities, available to the household. The greater number of occupations should lead to lower dependency since there are more options available for earning income besides the use of the resource (Gunatilake, 1998). HHSIZE Household size was a categorical variable and was converted into values from 1 to 3. This variable could have either a positive or negative effect on dependency since a larger number of people in a household could provide a greater variety of labor choices and hence lower dependency or the larger number of people may lead to a need for higher income which may require the use of swamp resources (Gunatilake, 1998). NON_SWAMP_AG Greater agricultural productivity should reduce resource dependency (Gunatilake, 1998). However, in these communities agricultural plots may be located in the swamp. In order to account for agricultural productivity that is not dependent on the swamp, an indicator variable was developed from survey response such that those who controlled agricultural land outside the swamp were assigned a value of 1 and all others, either agricultural land in the swamp or no agricultural land, were assigned a value of 0. It is expected that those with agricultural plots outside the swamp will have lower dependency. LENGTH_RES Length of residency was a categorical variable that was converted to a range from 1 to 4 in the order of increasing residency in the area. It is expected that people who have lived in the area longer would have greater reliance on the swamp resources. Results Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents The gender distribution of respondents was fairly even, 51.3% were female and 48.8% were male. In terms of education level, the majority of respondents (67.5%) attended school at

PAGE 43

43 the primary level, 23% attended secondary or vocational school, 1.3% attended college and 7.5% never attended school. Household sizes varied from 1 to 4 persons (52.5%), to 5 to 8 persons (30%) to more than 8 persons (17.5%). Income levels were moderate to low, 58.8% reported annual incomes between TT 12,001 to 50,000, 37.5% had annual incomes lower than TT 12,000 and 3.8% reported incomes of TT 50,001 to 100,00 per year. The age of respondents were comprised of 33.8% in the 50 to 59 year range, 25% in the 30 to 39 range, 23.8% in the 40 to 49 category, 10% over 60 years of age and 7.5% between the ages of 18 and 29. Pattern of Swamp Resource Use The Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities use the resources in the Nariva Swamp mainly for agriculture and fishing (Table 2-1). In the Nariva Swamp area, some agriculture is done in the villages whereas others are done in the swamp itself. Agricultural crops include: watermelon, cucumber, pumpkin, string beans, mango, tomato and ochro with watermelon being the dominant crop planted in and around the swamp. Fishing is done mainly for cascadu, conch and crabs. Other uses of the swamp by the local people are recreation (including hiking, birdwatching, sightseeing), activities related to the Forestry Division, fuelwood and building material collection (Table 2-1). Most respondents (77.5%) actually go into the Nariva Swamp for one of these purposes. Table 2-1. Numbers and percentages of respondents who enter the Nariva Swamp and their purpose. Purpose for Entering the Swamp Agr iculture Fishing Recreation Work for Forestry Division Fuelwood Building Materials Number of respondents 16 40 16 2 2 2 Percentage of respondents 20% 50% 20% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

PAGE 44

44 The main use of the resources in the swamp is for fishing (50% of respondents), followed by agriculture and recreation (Table 2-1). The other three uses are done on a very small scale by the community. None of the respondents reported income from ecotourism activities, such as tour guiding or handicraft sales, within the swamp. A small percentage of the respondents (22.5%) do not go into the Nariva Swamp at all, the main reason being that it is too far from their homes. Other reasons include: lack of time, interest and fear of officials (Table 2-2). Table 2-2. Numbers and percentages of respondents who do not enter the Nariva Swamp and their reasons. Reasons Too far No time Do not want to be charged by Government officials No interest Other (unspecified) Number of respondents 8 4 1 3 2 Percentage of respondents 10 5 1.25 3.75 2 .5 Dependency Model Results 1 Based on the data collected, only 32.5% of the households in the Plum Mitan and Kernahan/Cascadoux communities were considered highly dependent on swamp resources. The mean number of hours spent in the swamp per week for the reasons described previously was 22.9 hours per week. The regression model has significant overall predictive power with a model Chi-square value of 23.97 and P = 0.002 indicating that the variables in the model adequately account for the variation in the dependent variable. The model has 70% correct predictive accuracy but the Log Likelihood value was high (81.88) and the R2 value was low (0.26) indicating that the model although significant overall provided a moderate (approx. 26%) explanation of dependency. 1 The threshold or cut-off value for conversion of resource dependency to a binary scale was varied to determine the effect of this change on the model results. The results obtained from these models were not significantly different from the model depicted here and so were not included in these results.

PAGE 45

45 These values suggest that there may be variable related to dependency that have not been described by this model. Table 2-3. Logistic Regression for resource dependency (n= 80) Variables S.E. Wald Significance Exp (B) Age 0.636 0.279 5.180 0.023 0.530 Gender 1.337 0.671 3.974 0.046 0.263 Educ 0.010 0.582 0 0.986 1.010 Land_hold 0.140 0.116 1.457 0.227 1.151 Divers 0.477 0.466 1.049 0.306 1.611 Hhsize 0.081 0.384 0. 044 0.834 0.923 Non_swamp_ag 0.776 0.837 0.861 0.354 0.460 Length_res 0.834 0.501 2.772 0.096 2.303 Constant 1.738 2.335 0.554 0.457 0.176 Significant predictors of the probability of high resource dependency were age, gender and length of residency at P < 0.1 (Table 2-3). Age had a significant negative effect on resource -negative effect of age on dependency was not as expected since older people are expected to be more dependent on resources. Instead with each unit increase in age, the probability of high resource dependency is multiplied by 0.53. This may be due to the fact that the main activities in the swamp, fishing and agriculture are more labor intensive than resource based activities in other parts of the world in which older people can readily participate. The labor intensive nature of these activities would mean that they are restricted to younger age groups. being less dependent than -1.34, P = 0.046). The effect of gender varies (Gunatilake, 1998) so that this effect is expected. In this community, males do a large proportion of fishing and agriculture so it is reasonable to expect that males will be more dependent on the swamp resources than females.

PAGE 46

46 = 0.834, P = 0.096). This suggests that those who have lived in the communities longer have a higher dependency on the natural resources. This probably occurs because those who live in an area longer are more familiar with the resource base and have had a longer time to develop efficient uses of the resource. Based on the odds ratio for this predictor, each categorical increase in length of residency will cause the odds of high resource dependency to be multiplied by 2.3. The other predictors should be mentioned even though they did not have a significant effect on resource dependency. Education has a small positive effect on dependency, landholding size also has a small positive effect on dependency and since this was an indication of wealth it should have resulted in a negative effect (Table 2-3). However, since landholdings reported by respondents would have included lands in the swamp areas, this result is not unexpected for these particular communities. Labor diversification based on number of occupations listed for the household has a positive effect on dependency which again was not as predicted (Table 2-3). This may be due to the use of swamp resources for additional income by households. Household size has a small negative effect on dependency such that a larger household has lower dependency (Table 2-3). Since size of household has a variable effect on dependency, this result is possible since larger households have a greater number of people to generate income from non-resource based activities. The indicator for agricultural holdings that are not within the swamp had a negative effect on dependency meaning that those who have agricultural land outside of the swamp has a lower probability of dependency which is as expected (Table 2-3).

PAGE 47

47 The general lack of significance of these predictors may be due to the generally low level of dependency of these communities so that they did not behave as rural communities in other parts of the world. These results emphasize the need for dependency studies specific to a location and context. Although this analysis was done using a logistic regression, due to the lack of significance of several variables that were expected to have an effect on dependency, the independent variables were tested for multicollinearity by producing a correlation matrix of the Pearsonian correlations for the independent variable (Table 2-4). This result shows that although some variables were considered to be significantly correlated (Table 2-4) none of these correlations were large indicating that multicollinearity was not a problem with these variables. In order to verify this result, the independent variables were also regressed against each other. Multicollinearity exists if R2 values for any of these regressions approach 1. For all of the regressions between the variables, none of the R2 values approached 1.

PAGE 48

48 Table 2-4. Pearson correlation matrix for variables in Logistic Regression Age Gender Educ Land_hold Divers Hhsize Non_swamp_ag Length_res Age 1 0 .141 0 .234(*) 0 .043 0 .230(*) 0 .027 0 .241(*) 0 .203 Gen der 1 0 .276(*) 0 .170 0 .001 0 .219 0 .399(**) 0 .140 Educ 1 0 .063 0 .037 0 .194 0 .178 0 .184 Land_hold 1 0 .248(*) 0 .272(*) 0 .351(**) 0 .010 Divers 1 0 .001 0 .147 0 .053 Hhsize 1 0 .002 0 .185 Non_swamp_ag 1 0 .132 Length_res 1 Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 49

49 Discussion The Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities did not have a large proportion of highly dependent households and the significant predictors of dependency were age, gender and length of residency. This result exemplifies the need for analyses of dependency on protected areas on a case by case basis within their specific localities and communities. The rural nature and general lack of wealth of these two communities would indicate that the communities would be heavily dependent on natural resources found within the swamp. The fact that the findings were actually the opposite of the expected situation may be due to under-reporting of income sources by respondents. However, it may be also due to the fact that some of the issues that affect other rural communities would not apply in the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities. This may be because although these areas are considered rural due to the livelihood strategies employed, income levels and physical location, the small size of the country of Trinidad and Tobago means that no area is truly remote or subject to restrictions such as market access that are main factors in larger countries. In addition, as stated by Cavendish (2000), household resource use may have changed over time. This is particularly applicable since the local people have said that resources such as fish and crabs have reduced over the years and that agriculture in the swamp is not sufficient to meet their needs. This implies that the resource has been degraded and they may have altered their livelihood strategies over time and become less dependent on these resources. Further ecological studies would be required to confirm this implication. The need for alternative livelihood strategies calls for a compromise between local livelihood and conservation of natural resources (Heltberg, 2001). Increasing agricultural productivity and providing for opportunities that do not involve either agriculture or the natural

PAGE 50

50 resource will help reduce dependency and any negative impacts (Gunatilake, 1998). It may be necessary to not only diversify income, which may not lead to higher income but instead promote specialized high gain activities (Vedeld et al., 2004). In order to improve the sustainability of forest dependent activities, investment should be made into eco-developmental projects that can both enhance conservation of the area and reduce unsustainable practices (Bahuguna, 2000). One option for such activities in the Nariva Swamp is the development of ecotourism in the area. The local residents have expressed great interest in such activity but have stated that they lack the capacity to do so and would require assistance from those experienced in such activities. This type of income generating activity is especially important to the communities since jobs generated from reforestation and other ongoing management activities in the Nariva Swamp may not provide great levels of employment for the local community due to the small scale and incremental nature of such activities (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006) It makes sense that maintaining and enhancing natural resources are in the best interest of rural communities since to some extent, they are dependent on them and although a comparatively small percentage, there are those who are highly dependent on these resources. Management guidelines governing resource use need to focus on changing pthat the rural poor can generate adequate income while also ensuring that the resource base is protected and improved (Reardon & Vosti, 1995). Since it is difficult to quantify environmental services (such as the recreation and ecological function aspects of the Nariva Swamp), these services are not included in reported environmental incomes (Vedeld et al., 2004). In fact some communities have developed their own system of contributing or reinvesting to the natural capital without government intervention

PAGE 51

51 (Cavendish, 2000). It is important to include environmental income in national statistics and assessment of the poor (Vedeld et al., 2004). Despite the fact that the communities around the Nariva Swamp are not highly dependent on the resources based on income, due to their proximity to the swamp, they are closely associated with its resources. It is therefore important for them to be involved in the management of common resources from both an ecological and economic perspective (Adhikari et al.. 2004). Common resources have both private and public aspects in that the resources themselves are public but the extracted items are used for private economic gain (Adhikari et al.. 2004). Greater equity can be achieved in collective resource management if the needs of the poor are recognized and access to resources are adjusted accordingly in a participatory manner (Reddy & Chakravarty, 1999). In addition, increased awareness and education of the community on the possible impacts of excessive and unsustainable resource use would improve management (Reddy & Chakravarty, 1999). Households spend less time on resource dependent labor if there are clear institutional rules associated with resource use (Bluffstone et al., 2001). When this time is allocated more efficiently, household members can engage in income generating activities that are not related to the resource and hence reduce their dependence (Bluffstone et al., 2001). The intimate association of communities with the natural resources as well as lack of benefits from resource use and restrictions placed on them by regulations combines to emphasize the need for participatory mechanisms to promote the conservation of the resource by locals (Gunatilake, 1998). The benefits of biodiversity conservation are typically of national significance rather than local, a shift of benefits to include the local community would lead to better protection of

PAGE 52

52 resources while reducing dependency (Gunatilake, 1998). In order to account for resource dependency by local people and enable the diversification of their income, conservation policies should have clear, negotiated access, withdrawal and responsibilities towards the resource in question (Vedeld et al., 2004). These arrangements need to be both secure and flexible so that changing conditions are accounted for (Vedeld et al., 2004). The community members from Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan in focus group sessions as detailed in Chapter 4 were particularly concerned with issues of access to resources and loss of control of their land. Capacity building in all spheres of resource use and marketing should also be captured in the management plans (Vedeld et al., 2004). s in its management such that the community is involved in both the formulation of a management plan as well as its implementation. The guidelines of clear rules for access, institutional arrangements and capacity building are all essential for the effective management of this protected area so that the communities that depend on its resources are not negatively affected.

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 3 FACTORS INFLUENCING TOWARDS THE DESIGNATION OF THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA Introduction Sustainability of protected areas is dependent on participation and support by local communities (Alexander, 2000). Basic conservation values and principles that are shared by the members of the public can be the basis of management goals and agreements (Miller and McGee, 2001). These community values and opinions are considered central to the objectives of resource management as well as the development of meaningful communication between different stakeholders and managers to develop stakeholder participation in conservation (Miller and McGee, 2001). By assessing the attitudes and perceptions of local communities towards protected areas, (Alexander, 2000). It is crucial to determine whether local communities understand and are in support of conservation measures, their attitudes toward the PA, the benefits to locals and the extent of these benefits and their attitudes about management of the PA (Alexander, 2000). As discussed in McFarlane and Boxall (2000), there is a hierarchy of participatory or non-participatory behavior by stakeholders in collective resource management, such that values and for management that in turn affect their specific actions or behavior. These actions or behavior can consequently affect natural resource policy and management (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). Based on this causal relationship, it is important to identify the factors that affect stakeholder attitudes in order to achieve effective policy implementation and sustainable management strategies (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000; Weladji et al., 2003; Alexander, 2000).

PAGE 54

54 My study describes the attitudes of community members towards the designation of the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago as a protected area, designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). In order to do this, community members were asked their perceptions on protecting the swamp area as well as the biodiversity contained within it. This was done via an administered survey to establish whether their attitudes are favorable towards conservation or not. The variables that affect these attitudes were then examined using regression analyses, both logistic and multiple linear regressions. Some of the variables that are expected to affect attitude towards protected areas are age, gender, income, education, landholding, dependency and length of residency. Behavioral intention was also assessed in order to establish the link suggested by the between positive attitude towards PAs and positive behavioral intention, which should then translate into the future participation of community members in management of the Nariva Swamp. The findings of my study could then be used to inform the direction of future management plans to include age-appropriate education and awareness programs, improved communication between community members and government officials and measures directed to promote positive attitudes based specifically on the variables that affect these attitudes in the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities. Literature Review Effect of Attitudes on Behavior One definition of attitude involves how a person feels towards an issue, whether this is positive or negative (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). There is generally a correlation between values, attitudes and behavior whereby beliefs/values, attitudes, intentions and behavior are thought to build on each other (Vaske and Donnelly, 1999) as depicted in Figure 3-1. The values of

PAGE 55

55 different user groups such as preservationists and extractive users, affects their behavior (Vaske and Donnelly, 1999). Figure 3-1. Suggested link between attitude towards protected areas and behavior. When attempting important to determine both their attitudes and beliefs to plan the appropriate conservation programs (Aipanjiguly et al., 2003). Behavior may be affected by altering beliefs and/or perceptions of outcomes of action as well as altering motivation for compliance with the specific behavior being changed (Bright et al., 1993). A study showed that for the National Parks Burn Policy and that changing beliefs about behavior also changes attitudes about this behavior and hence behavioral intention (Bright et al., 1993). Behavior may be altered by education, institutional changes or technology (Stern, 1999). Persuasive communication can be used to alter beliefs and attitudes about a policy by specifically addressing these beliefs and attitudes (Bright et al., 1993). Communication targeted to changing behavior should also include the consequences of certain behaviors and actions rather than the target of the behavior itself (Bright et al., 1993). Values/Beliefs Attitude towar ds Protected Areas Behavioral Intention Behavior

PAGE 56

56 Attitudes of local communities toward PAs will be more positive if they receive greater benefits from natural resource protection and participate directly in PA management (Alexander, 2000). When the local community has a negative attitude towards PAs and do not obtain benefits from the designation, the protection of such an area is more difficult and may not be successful in terms of resource conservation, as was found in PAs in India (Alexander, 2000). To avoid this negative attitude, local communities should be involved in the planning and management of protected areas (PAs) from its initial stages (Alexander, 2000). For example, in the marine park, Wakatobi National Park (WNP), Sulawesi, Indonesia, management based on rules and regulations alone has led to a lack of equity and efficacy of the et al., 2001). This previous management plan for the WNP did not include sufficient local consultation and failed to meet the needs of the communities that live within the park (Elliot et al., 2001). According to Elliot et al. (2001), several researchers have indicated that increased participation by local people and addressing the needs of these communities can improve the success of PA management plans and may even contribute to achieving resource management objectives at a national and global scale. In another study of the attitudes of local communities to Bnou Wildlife Conservation Area (BWCA) and Cameroonian wildlife policy (Weladji et al., 2003), it was found that there was variation in community attitudes among three different communities (Weladji et al., 2003). This was caused in part by the disassociation of local people and their subsistence activities in and consequent negative attitudes of the local communities (Weladji et al., 2003). Participatory approaches changed the focus to inclusion of local communities and their needs into sustainable conservation measures thus changing their attitudes to more positive ones (Weladji et al., 2003).

PAGE 57

57 Factors affecting Community Attitudes There are differing results of studies on the factors that affect the attitudes of communities to conservation and PAs. In a study by McFarlane and Boxall (2000), two user groups were studied on the basis of socioeconomic variables, forest knowledge and values, social influences and preferences about management of the forest. The variables assessed by McFarlane and Boxall (2000) were age, gender, place of residence (proximity to urban centers), education, household income, dependence on natural resources for livelihood, membership in a conservation organization and forest recreation activity. According to McFarlane and Boxall (2000), other studies as well as their study conducted in Canada have shown that place of residence, education and age are consistent predictors of positive attitudes towards the natural environment. Income and gender were found to be not as consistent when determining environmental attitudes (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). Based on the results of this and previous studies, it is expected that persons who have greater amounts of knowledge about protected areas and natural resources will exhibit more positive attitudes about natural resource protection than those with less knowledge about these issues (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). It is also expected that women, younger people, people living in urban areas, more educated people and people who are not dependent on forests for income will be more supportive of sustainable natural resource management (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). In the study of the BWCA and towards Cameroonian wildlife policy (Weladji et al., 2003), knowledge of the wildlife policy did not affect support of the policy by locals since most of those with low knowledge still expressed their support (Weladji et al., 2003). However, input into management and benefits from hunting activities were concerns expressed by local communities (Weladji et al., 2003). Results of this study differed from other studies in that level of education and financial status did not positively influence attitude to wildlife (Weladji et al., 2003).

PAGE 58

58 Similarly, in the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park in South Africa, communities did not perceive that conservation and tourism in the PA was of any benefit to them in the past (Picard, 2003). The present attitudes of local communities recognize the integration of conservation and community development and the low socioeconomic status of some communities did not diminish this attitude (Picard, 2003). Additionally, in Natal, South Africa, it was determined that greater education and financial status indicated positive attitudes towards PAs whereas ineffective involvement of local communities in PA establishment and management as well as inequitable distribution of benefits was associated with negative attitudes to PAs (Alexander, 2000). In Indonesia, lack of access to a sustainable livelihood and poverty were also factors that negatively affected the sustainable use of natural resources by local communities (Elliot et al., 2001). Lack of communication to the communities and the general public about the demarcated or restricted zones of the park also led to negative attitudes (Elliot et al., 2001). Local people were generally in favor of conserving the resources of the park by preventing environmentally unsustainable practices but they believed that this protection should not completely prevent their ability to earn a livelihood in the park or cause a loss in net income (Elliot et al., 2001). This study identified the specific areas that need increased development of tourism (Elliot et al., 2001). Methods Household Survey The survey was administered and the study site was the same as described in Chapter 2. Survey Design The first section of the survey covered the attitudes of households towards conservation and protected areas (Appendix A). Nine statements were used to assess attitudes and included

PAGE 59

59 topics such as whether biodiversity conservation is a good idea and whether benefits can be obtained from protection of natural resources. They also included specific statements about ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp and if this protection could negatively affect them. Three of the questions were negatively worded to ensure that the answers given were unbiased by the wording of the statements. The respondents were asked to choose their response on a 5-point scale (0 to 4) to determine whether they strongly agree to strongly disagree and 0 if they did not have an opinion on that particular statement. The final question in this section of the survey asked respondents to rank the issues on a scale of 1 to 5 in order of importance to the communities. These were limited land and food, lack of utilities, lack of access to the swamp and lack of good quality access roads to the towards protected areas in these two communities. Behavioral intention and by extension predicted participatory behavior, was assessed via a single statement of intention. This took the form of asking respondents whether they would be willing to participate in management of the swamp by attending meetings and other related activities. This question was located in the third section of the survey and a simple yes/no response was required. Regression Models of Attitude towards Protected Areas Since researchers use both logistic regression and multiple linear regression (MLR) in assessing conservation attitudes and both approaches are valid methods for this type of analysis, it was considered beneficial to produce both models for comparative purposes. In the case of logistic regression models, the resultant predictions apply to the probability of the favorable event occurring, in this case the probability of a high or positive attitude towards protection of the Nariva Swamp. The MLR model produces a more direct prediction of the effect of

PAGE 60

60 independent variables on the actual attitude towards PAs of the households, rather than the probability, by attempting to fit a linear relationship among the variables. The same independent variables were used for both regression models. These were: AGE The age of the respondents was collected in categories which were converted to values from 1 to 5 for the purpose of analysis. It is expected that age would have a negative effect on conservation attitude since it is expected that younger people would have greater knowledge about conservation and would have more favorable attitudes towards PAs (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). GENDER Females were assigned a value of 1 and males a value of 0. Gender tends to be inconsistent in the prediction of conservation attitude (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000) but for the purposes of this analysis it was expected that females will have more positive attitudes towards PAs. EDUC Education was categorized based on a range of no school to college level on a scale from 0 to 3. Education was expected to have a positive effect on attitude because those with higher levels of education should have been exposed to greater knowledge about the importance of natural resource management. LAND_HOLD Landholding size was the absolute value of land under the control of the household in acres and is used to account for property ownership. It was expected that those who had more land under their control would have a more positive attitude towards protection of the swamp since they are less likely to be affected by changes in access to the resources. TOTAL_INCOME This variable was categorized on a scale from 1 to 4 based on the survey results for annual household income. This variable is inconsistent when predicting

PAGE 61

61 conservation attitudes and so may be either a positive or negative predictor in the models (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). DEPEN Dependency was previously calculated (Chapter 2) and is a binary variable (0, 1) representing high and low dependency on swamp resources. Those who are more dependent on these resources will tend to have a more negative attitude towards protection of the swamp. LENGTH_RES Length of residency was a categorical variable that was converted to a range from 1 to 4 in the order of increasing residency in the area. It is expected that people who have lived in the area longer would have a more negative attitude towards PAs since they might view changes in swamp management as changes in tradition and access. LAND_LIM This variable was used as an indmain issue in the community is a lack of sufficient land. Those who considered this important to most important were assigned a value of 1 and all others were assigned a value of 0. This variable was expected to have a negative effect on attitude since protection of the swamp could be considered a further limitation on land available. FOOD_LIM The lack of food was used as an indictor of poverty and was assigned a value of 1 if considered important to most important and 0 otherwise. Poorer people tend to have a more negative attitude toward protection of natural resources. ACCESS_LIM Limitations on access to the swamp and its resources was assigned a value of 1 if the respondents considered this issues to be important, more important or most important and if not, it was given a value of 0. Those who consider access limitations to be an important issue would tend to have a more negative attitude towards PAs. Multiple Linear Regression The model of household attitude towards designation of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA is as shown below.

PAGE 62

62 Y = a + b1V1 + b2V2 + b3V3 + b4V4 xVx Where Y = ATTITUDE (dependent variable), a = constant, b1 to bx are the coefficients of the independent variables and V1 to Vx are the independent variables as described above. The dependent variable ATTITUDE was an index calculated by finding the mean of the responses from the nine statements described above after first reversing the values for the three negative statements. This resulted in a numeric variable from 0 to 4. Logistic Regression The logistic regression model is shown below: logit () 1X1i 2X2i kXki where X1i to Xki represents the predictors 1 k are coefficients of the predictors and represents the probability of obtaining a value of 1 as the predicted response variable. The dependent variable for this model was BINARY_ATTITUDE which was calculated using the scores for attitude determined above. The median value of 2.5 was used as the threshold value for positive and negative attitudes such that attitude scores equal to or greater than 2.5 were assigned a value of 1 and attitudes with a value less than 2.5 were assigned a value of 0. Behavioral intention and attitude were regressed against each other using a logistic regression model as described above in which behavioral intention was the binary dependent variable and attitude before conversion to binary form was the independent variable. Results The 9 items used on the questionnaire to develop the index for conservation attitude was s Alpha which resulted in an acceptable value of = 0.67. Aggregation of the questionnaire items to calculate the attitude index showed that the 80

PAGE 63

63 households sampled in the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities exhibited 56.3% positive attitude towards conservation and ESA designation. Among these households, the most important issue was considered to be a lack of adequate quality access roads into the community (Table 3-1) followed closely by a lack of utilities, mainly electricity and water. Community members from Kernahan/Cascadoux indicated that electricity was only supplied to the area eight years ago and many people still do not have a pipe borne water supply. Table 3-1. Proportion of respondents who consider an issue important I ssue Percentage respondents Lack of Adequate Access Roads to the Community 73.8% Lack of Utilities 67.5% Limited Food 56.3% Lack of Access to Swamp 58.8% Limited Land 43.8% Multiple Linear Regression Model of Attitude The mean value of attitude towards conservation, protected areas and ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp was 2.64 (Std. Deviation = 0.69). The MLR model was significant for the ten (10) independent variables selected with an F-statistic of 4.78 and P-value < 0.001. These ten (10) predictors explained 44% of the variance in this model of attitude towards PAs (R2 = 0.44). Of these predictors, those considered significant were AGE and LAND_HOLD (Table 3-2). Age had a negative effect on attitude (b = -0.29, P < 0.001) meaning that older people have a less favorable attitude towards conservation and ESA designation. This was as predicted from the literature since young people may have had more exposure to environmental awareness at school and may be less concerned with traditional access to the Nariva Swamp. Landholding size had the expected positive effect on attitude (b = 0.11, P < 0.001) since people who have more personal resources, as indicated by landholding size, tend to have more positive attitudes

PAGE 64

64 towards conservation issues especially since they would be less affected by changes in access to the swamp. The other independent variables, although not significant predictors of attitudes towards PAs in this model, (Table 3-2) that had the expected effect on attitude were dependency, education, land_lim and access_lim. Dependency showed a small negative effect on attitudes (b = -0.07) and education was predicted to have a positive effect on attitude (Table 3-2). Table 3-2. Multiple Linear Regression of attitudes towards protected areas Variables b S.E. t Significance VIF (Collinearity St atistic) (Constant) 2.930 0.590 4.964 0 Total_income 0.110 0.162 0.677 0.501 1.959 Depen 0.070 0.171 0.409 0.684 1.608 Age 0.294 0.074 3.988 0 1.724 Gender 0.233 0.151 1.538 0.129 1.428 Educ 0.188 0.127 1.475 0.145 1.329 Land_hold 0.110 0.0 26 4.262 0 1.576 Length_res 0.109 0.102 1.078 0.285 1.288 Land_lim 0.249 0.181 1.373 0.174 2.021 Food_lim 0.224 0.186 1.206 0.232 2.133 Access_lim 0.025 0.223 0.112 0.911 3.026 Those who considered lack of land and lack of access to swamp resources as important issues in the community had more negative attitudes towards protected areas. Of the remaining predictors, those with greater income had a less favorable attitude toward ESA designation (Table 3-2) and females had a less favorable attitude than males. Respondents who lived in the area longer and those who considered lack of food as important issues had more positive attitudes towards ESA designation which was not as expected from the literature.

PAGE 65

65 Due to the moderate R2 value (0.44), multicollinearity among the independent variables was assessed using a collinearity statistic (VIF in Table 3-2). Collinearity is considered to exist if the VIF value approaches 10 which did not occur in this analysis. This results combined with the relatively small values of the coefficients of the predictors suggests that there may be other factors not included in this model analysis that may account for attitude towards protected areas in these two communities. Logistic Regression Model of Attitude This model predicted the probability of a positive or favorable attitude towards protected areas and ESA designation. The overall model was considered highly significant, having a chi-square value of 48.97 (P < 0.001). The -2 Log Likelihood value, which should be as small as possible was 60.69 and R2 was 0.61 meaning that 61% of variance in probability of positive attitude was explained by this model. In terms of accuracy, 85% of responses were correctly predicted by the model. In terms of significant predictors, the results produced by this model were different from those in the MLR model in that there were a greater number of significant predictors (Table 3-3). Age and landholding size were both significant predictors as found in the MLR model but gender and land_lim were also significant predictors in this model. Age exhibited a negative effect on the probability of a positive attitude ( = -Younger people are 0.2 times more likely to have a high attitude towards protected areas. Landholding size also had a similar effect as the MLR model such that those with more land are 1.82 times more likely to have a favorable attitude towards PAs ( = Gender was predicted to have a significant effect on attitude ( = -0.10 level. This result indicated that females are 0.21 times more likely to have a negative attitude towards protected areas than males. Limitation on land availability (Land_lim) was also

PAGE 66

66 a significant those who consider a lack of land availability to be an important issue in the community are 0.06 times more likely to have an unfavorable attitudes towards ESA designation ( = -2.89, P = 0.01). Table 3-3. Logistic Regression of attitudes towards protected areas Variables (coefficient) S.E. Wald Significance Exp (B) Total_income 0.275 0.991 0.077 0.782 0.760 Depen 1.284 0.999 1.653 0.199 0.277 Age 1.620 0.51 4 9.914 0.002 0.198 Gender 1.577 0.906 3.028 0.082 0.207 Educ 0.802 0.776 1.069 0.301 2.230 Land_hold 0.597 0.182 10.805 0.001 1.817 Length_res 0.621 0.536 1.340 0.247 1.861 Land_lim 2.894 1.171 6.107 0.013 0.055 Food_lim 1.497 0.964 2.414 0.120 4. 470 Access_lim 0.353 1.119 0.099 0.752 0.703 Constant 2.777 3.761 0.545 0.460 16.078 The non-significant predictors: income, dependency and access_lim all had negative effects on attitude (Table 3-3). Education, length of residency and food_lim had positive effects on the probability of a high or positive attitude towards PAs (Table 3-3). The results of the regression analyses showed that those with larger landholdings were more positive towards protecting the swamp whereas those with higher incomes were more negative. This would appear to be contradictory since they should both be indicators of wealth and wealthier people were expected to have favorable attitudes towards protected areas. However, those with more land would consider the effects of ESA designation in a favorable light since any restrictions on the use of land in the swamp would be offset by their

PAGE 67

67 existing landholdings, whereas income may be earned from swamp resources so even if income is higher, these respondents may believe that protecting the swamp could curtail their income. Those who considered lack of food as an important issue also had a positive attitude. In comparison, the logistic model appeared to have greater explanatory power in this case since the R2 value was higher than the value obtained for the MLR model and more predictors were found to be significant. Logistic Regression of Behavioral Intention and Attitude In the analysis of behavioral intention, 70% of the respondents indicated that they intend to participate in management activities related to the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. This proportion was higher than the value obtained for positive attitudes which suggests that even those with a low or negative attitude towards PAs in general would be willing to participate in meetings and other management related endeavors. The regression of behavioral intention versus attitude towards PAs resulted in a significant model (chi-square = 6.32, P = 0.01) although the R2 value was small (0.11) and the -2 Log Likelihood was high (94.58). This R2 result was not a problem in this instance since it was expected that attitude would not be the only predictor of behavioral intention but rather the analysis was performed to see if this relationship between probability of positive behavioral intention and attitude was significant. The model showed that there was a significant relationship between these two factors and also that a more positive attitude towards PAs would have a positive effect on behavioral intention (A person with a more positive attitude towards PAs would be 2.49 times more likely to intend to participate in management of a PA.

PAGE 68

68 Discussion The results of attitude studies in relation to natural resources and conservation tend to vary for different communities, countries and regions. This was exemplified by the results of my study of the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities in the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago, since variables such as income and length or residency did not have the predicted effect on attitude towards protected areas whereas other variables, such as age and landholding size performed as expected. The analysis of attitudes towards protected areas is particularly applicable to the designation of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA since the lessons learned from other regions can be applied to this designation from the initial stages and local communities can be included at this relatively early stage in planning and management. The comparison of the two different types of regression (logistic and multiple linear) in the analysis of attitudes toward protection of the Nariva Swamp resulted in differing numbers of significant predictors. The MLR resulted in 2 significant predictors, age and landholding size whereas the logistic regression resulted in 4 significant predictors, age, landholding, lack of land availability and gender. Using the results from the logistic regression model, since the R2 value for this model was higher (0.61), it can be inferred that in order to improve attitudes towards ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp, these are the four variables that must be taken into consideration. Lack of available land is one of these predictors whereby those who thought this was an important issue had a less favorable attitude towards the protection of the swamp. This was further emphasized by the fact that the community members expressed grave concerns about the loss of their land. Many respondents thought that ESA designation would lead to the government reneging on the leases they hold or in the cases where there were no legal documents, on the property they live on. The government agencies need to communicate the

PAGE 69

69 exact details of the ESA designation and need to make clear that the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan villages are not included in the ESA and that only illegal activities such as planting crops in the ESA will be removed (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). Age as a significant predictor implies that information and participation need to target older groups since younger ones are already more positive towards protected areas. Gender has a similar connotation since females had a more negative attitude towards protection of the swamp than males. This indicates that effort needs to be made to reach out to women in the community and ensure their participation in conservation activities. Specifically designed awareness and education programs on the importance of protected areas and the Nariva Swamp in particular can be presented to older people and women at sessions to which they are personally invited rather than just as a part of the wider community. It is predicted that positive attitude will lead to positive behavioral intention and hence to favorable action. Based on the analysis of attitude towards protection of the Nariva Swamp, a significant relationship between positive attitude and positive behavioral intention exists thus verifying the validity of this prediction for this particular case study. By extension, those with positive behavioral intention, in this case a willingness to participate in co-management of the Nariva Swamp should actually fulfill this intention and exhibit participatory behavior. Interpretation of this model as an absolute predictor of positive outcomes should still be done with caution since Sheppard et al. (1988) found that uncertainty exists about the association of behavioral intention and actual outcome. Nevertheless to ensure that behavioral intention translates into participatory behavior, positive attitudes need to be encouraged since the link has been established. Other factors must be implemented in order to promote a desired outcome

PAGE 70

70 including cooperation among groups, such as government, community and NGOs, as well as adequate physical and financial resources to support these outcomes (Sheppard et al., 1988). Positive attitude towards PAs was exhibited by 56.3% of respondents and 70% of these same respondents expressed the intention to participate in management of the Nariva Swamp. Attitudes towards protection of the Nariva Swamp is considered to have improved over the past ten (10) years since there has been a reduction in poaching and associated fines in restricted areas (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006). However, there is still a need to continue to improve this proportion of positive attitudes in order to optimize the probability of achieving successful management of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA. Levels of both positive attitude and behavioral intention should be maximized since actual outcomes often differ from the predicted participation level. This can be partially achieved by increasing the knowledge of the community members about natural resources and the benefits of protecting the Nariva Swamp. Pro-conservation behavior can also be affected by addressing the underlying values, beliefs and motivations through persuasive communication (Bright et al., 1993). For example, this type of communication to the communities can be targeted to change behavior by explaining the consequences of certain behaviors and actions, in this instance unsustainable use of the swamp resources leading to degradation of the resource itself, rather than addressing only the issues associated with managing the resource. Another key element of any communication and education programs in the swamp must be the identification of benefits from the designation (Alexander, 2000). Failure to identify discernable benefits of conservation initiatives to local people can lead to a lack of effective protection of natural resources (Picard, 2003). A lack of communication about the Nariva

PAGE 71

71 Swamp, the ESA designation and its boundaries, zones and restrictions to the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities was identified as a serious concern by community members. There are certain decisions that have already been made with respect to the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. This information was contained in an administrative record that was open to public comment (EMA, 2006) including information on the ESA Rules and the local media was used to communicate the availability of this record for public comment (EMA, 2005). However, several members of the local communities indicated that they were not aware of this record and never viewed the information. Communication efforts need to be increased and should include transparent and continuous avenues of communication with local communities (Elliot et al., 2001). Participatory approaches can also lead to more positive attitudes towards protected areas as well as a reduction in future conflict and enforcement requirements (Weladji et al., 2003; Kessler, 2004). Empowerment of the community is important whereby they are allowed to provide information and address their concerns in a manner that ensures that this information is integrated into the management process (Kessler, 2004). Behavior may also be altered by institutional changes (Stern, 1999) so that the communities can be a more integral part of management of the swamp. Management of the Nariva Swamp needs to change and depart from the old ways of doing things whereby the government makes decisions and the people are expected to comply. The communities feel that in the past, rules and regulations have been put in place to govern the swamp without meaningful consultation with them. This lack of inclusion of the communities in

PAGE 72

72 management does not lead to positive attitudes towards protected areas and given the need for participatory behavior by the communities for effective management and protection of the swamp, they must be included in the present and future decisions about the Nariva Swamp.

PAGE 73

73 CHAPTER 4 FACTORS INFLUENCING D SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DESIGNATING THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA Introduction -term conservation success but will not provide this support if their costs (negative impacts) exceed their benefits (positive impacts) (Gillingham and Lee, 2003). Although positive perception of impacts is not an absolute determinant of change in behavior, it is one necessary factor in contributing to such changes (Marcus, 2001). Local communities should therefore obtain a significant proportion of socioeconomic benefits from activities such as ecotourism within PAs rather than be burdened by negative impacts (costs) of designation of the PA (Alexander, 2000). Therefore, the relationship of the adjacent human populace to a PA should be examined in order to obtain simultaneous conservation and development (Gillingham and Lee, 2003). The use of rules and regulations alone, such as restrictions on use of an area, has been ineffective in achieving natural resource management (Elliot et al., 2001). Realistically, developing countries lack the finances and personnel to monitor these restrictions effectively leading to non-enforcement of the rules prescribed by legislation (Elliot et al., 2001). These types of regulations may in fact have a negative effect on the livelihood of the local community who in turn will not support the PA and will not abide by the prescribed regulations (Elliot et al., 2001). In addition, livelihoods of communities that depend on traditional uses of natural resources may be impacted by the protection of these resources for alternative uses (Alexander, 2000). When local communities are excluded from these activities they may also increasingly use the resources surrounding the PA leading to degradation of these areas (Alexander, 2000).

PAGE 74

74 The importance of positive community perception to PA management illustrates the need to identify these perceptions and values when implementing a PA and the necessity of communicating these perceptions to government personnel. In order to achieve this for the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad and Tobago, the two communities in closest proximity to the swamp (Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan villages) were asked to identify and quantify the potential impacts that they perceive will occur when the swamp is designated as an ESA. This was done using a matrix analysis approach as well as a SWOT-AHP methodology. Both methodologies were used so that a wide range of opinions could be solicited from both communities through the impact matrix analysis on socioeconomic issues and more specific information could be obtained from people within the community with particular interests on a broader range of impacts using the SWOT-AHP method. The matrix approach was accomplished via a household survey of the two communities in which respondents were asked to assess the strength of potential socioeconomic impacts and whether these would be positive or negative. Relative weights of impacts were obtained from key informants within the communities and cumulative impacts were calculated using the product of magnitude and weight of impacts. This enabled an additive determination of perceived impacts for the communities as well as a regression analysis of the variables that affect these perceptions on a household level. SWOT-AHP was also used to quantify impacts based on the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) followed by the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to allow for comparisons among these groups. This analysis was done to identify the SWOT factors in a holistic manner so that other potential impacts besides the socioeconomic ones covered in the survey could be identified. This was achieved in a focus

PAGE 75

75 group setting with participants from three categories of interest groups within the community: general community members, members of an environmental group and a small scale ecotourism operator. The results of the matrix analysis and SWOT-AHP exercise identify the socioeconomic f impacts of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp as well as the SWOT factors and their relative importance. The combination of these analyses can inform management plans so that strengths and opportunities are maximized and weaknesses and threats are minimized. Similarly, other impacts identified through the matrix analysis can be addressed whereby the positive impacts are emphasized and negative ones are mitigated based on the underlying factors that predict impact perception as identified by the regression analysis. Literature Review Perception of Impact of Stakeholders in Protected Areas Perceived benefits and community involvement in management tend to increase the success of PA management (McClanahan et al., 2005; Marcus, 2001). Whereas the PAs may be primarily established for the conservation of biophysical resources, it is important to include stakeholder perception in the ways in which this protection is implemented to include the perceived benefits of impacted communities (Alexander, 2000). As in the case of wildlife crop damage in six PAs in Tanzania, perceived impacts may be overestimated as compared to its real value but perceived impacts of villagers must be given consideration and it is important to understand the factors affecting this perception and ways in which negative impact perception can be made more positive (Gillingham and Lee, 2003). hange in status of employment, their culture, their community, their environment and resource management, their

PAGE 76

76 health and wellbeing, their fears and aspirations and their local economy (Vanclay, 1999; Vanclay et al., 2000; Fortin and Gagnon, 1999). The expected positive impacts of a PA include employment opportunities from conservation activities and improved living conditions (Alexander, 2000). In Belize, there were few perceived problems by the local stakeholders caused by the creation of a wildlife sanctuary (Alexander, 2000). Of the few problems that were reported, temporal changes in local management and uneven benefit distribution from tourism employment were identified (Alexander, 2000). Perception of these problems arose when benefits were no longer experienced on a personal level such as education and economic benefits from tourism revenue (Alexander, 2000). Other perceived negative impacts included land use restrictions but the local people perceived that long term benefits such as tourism revenue and infrastructure offset these negative impacts (Alexander, 2000). Some of the concerns of local communities near the wildlife sanctuary in Belize included fair distribution of employment benefits, inclusion in management and effectiveness of this management, amount of local participation and education of the community on natural resources (Alexander, 2000). These issues are especially problematic in developing countries where populations are increasing and financial and human resources needed for the effective management of PAs are lacking (Alexander, 2000). Socioeconomic Impacts of Carbon Sequestration and Reforestation Projects In the past, forest conservation projects in developing countries have not been economically viable despite an increase in activities such as ecotourism (Hardner et al., 2000). It is therefore important to assess the distribution of benefits, views and awareness of the local communities about the long-term implications of protected area programs (Reddy, 2002). The socioeconomic benefits and/or impacts from such projects tend to be highly variable and are unique to the location of the project in question because they will depend on the specific context

PAGE 77

77 in which the project is implemented with regards to existing land use practices and proposed changes to these uses (Kueppers et al., 2004; Hardner et al., 2000). The complexity of rural, low income communities indicates that a lack of involvement of local stakeholders and access by these stakeholders to resources will not succeed (Boyd et al., 2005). This stakeholder participation and buy in will contribute to long term project success because the local community will monitor the area for fire and pests, illegal logging and illegal encroachment (Boyd et al., 2005). In addition, climate change mitigation projects that improve or maintain the socioeconomic environment will tend to obtain the support of local communities and have a higher probability of success (Kueppers et al., 2004). A project that produces greater negative impacts will tend to face resistance by locals (Kueppers et al., 2004). Impacts on livelihood, traditional rights and equity across stakeholders are important especially when projects occur in rural, low income communities (Asquith et al., 2002; Boyd et al., 2005). Equity involves inclusion and fairness of the distribution of present and future benefits (Brown and Corbera, 2003). This may take the form of financial benefits to locals who might lose short term benefits to obtain long term ones (Brown and Corbera, 2003). Equity also involves the inclusion of all stakeholders in decision-making processes so that power and knowledge are not factors that exclude some members of the community (Brown and Corbera, 2003). Property rights are one aspect of equity that must be considered since some communities have informal systems of access to natural resources which may exclude them from obtaining benefits from reforestation projects (Brown and Corbera, 2003). Social and economic welfare must also be an important component of carbon projects, such as reforestation or agroforestry projects, to ensure social viability (Brown and Corbera, 2003). In order to obtain benefits to both natural resources and local people, projects should be

PAGE 78

78 formulated to ensure that locals are empowered and social capital is created and enhanced (May et al., 2003). Research is lacking on the benefits that may be created for the local communities impacted by these projects (May et al., 2003). Villagers in a study by Reddy (2002) indicated that a plantation in Southeast Asia used for carbon sequestration was also a source of employment and an economic source both from local use of its products as well as sale of these products on the market (Reddy, 2002). Negative perceptions of this carbon sequestration program included concerns that benefits from the program would not reach the poorer segment of the community (Reddy, 2002). Villagers were also in favor of community participation in resource management (Reddy, 2002). Benefits of these carbon sequestration projects may take the form of new resources for the development of the local community, increase in rural income, maintenance and improvement of the environment of the community (Kueppers et al., 2004). In a carbon sequestration project between Costa Rica and Norway designed to combine natural resource conservation and enhancement of local quality of life and livelihoods of communities, only positive impacts were reported (Miranda et al., 2002). The local benefits were increased awareness of environmental issues through environmental education activities, community participation in the project and employment from non-timber forest products and ecotourism (Miranda et al., 2002). Sustainable forestry can also contribute to the well-being of rural communities by changing crops that may produce low levels of product to forest and agro forest as well as by other alternative means of income (Miranda et al., 2002). There is also a potential for secondary socioeconomic benefits such as increased employment and income from subsidiary activities, improved quality of life, improved social welfare by alleviating poverty, increase in relative

PAGE 79

79 values of forested land, food and fiber security (Boomfield et al., 2000; Miranda et al., 2002; May et al., 2003). In a study of Brazil and Bolivia, May et al. (2003) examined the ways in which carbon projects can be implemented to contribute to sustainable development and local benefits (May et al., 2003). The Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project (NKMCAP) which involved local, regional and international partners expanded a national park to stop logging and aimed to conserve forests to prevent CO2 emissions from deforestation (May et al., 2003). The project allowed access for sustainable uses by local communities and provided funds for environmental projects (May et al., 2003). The community initially lost their jobs from logging and was excluded from participation in the project so that benefits were not realized until the community was more fully involved in the project (May et al., 2003). The benefits eventually created were improved land tenure arrangements and increased income from local sustainable forest management (May et al., 2003). This project also contributed to local community development of sustainable agriculture and forestry with its associated benefits (May et al., 2003). The Bananal project in Brazil made social aims a main priority to integrate social development and forest protection (May et al., 2003). The Bananal project included environmental education for the community, seedling distribution and agroforestry implementation (May et al., 2003). However, income and employment were not generated to a great extent (May et al., 2003).A forest project in Plantar provided employment to local people from tree planting and maintenance but this benefit was reduced after the project was implemented (May et al., 2003). The experiences from this project indicate that environmental education can help integrate a carbon/reforestation project with the local communities but that

PAGE 80

80 direct involvement of local users of the land would provide more significant contributions to sustainable development (May et al., 2003). The potential negative impacts of carbon sequestration and reforestation projects may be reduction in income generation, loss of soil fertility and food security (Kueppers et al., 2004). Land tenure may be a problem to the implementation of forestry projects in developing countries due to the short term nature and size of such land arrangements (Miranda et al., 2002). Brown and Corbera (2003) found that stakeholders considered that change in income was the most important social impact followed by participation in the design of the project and access to resources. The clarification of property rights and organization of the community were also important to stakeholders for the realization of socioeconomic benefits (Brown and Corbera, 2003). Multi-species community-based reforestation has been suggested as one option to provide benefits to these low income communities if designed carefully (Boyd et al., 2005). It is also important for communities to have access to information about the project, be involved at all stages of the project and have ownership of components of the project (Boyd et al., 2005). Adaptive management strategies that encourage innovation among small farmers may be the best approach to capture the benefits of reforestation and carbon sequestration projects in the local community and provide resilience to changes and uncertainty in dynamic systems (Tschakert and Tappan, 2004). As found in Mexico, these negotiations among stakeholders must be done to ensure that this project and future ones contributes to equitable local socioeconomic development by assessing the needs of the poor and the ways in which this may differ from other stakeholders (Brown and Corbera, 2003). The NKMCAP example showed that carbon projects should be

PAGE 81

81 decentralized, have clear objectives and activities as well as provide adequate access to resources and communication with the local communities (May et al., 2003). Socioeconomic Benefits of Ecotourism in Protected Areas When local people are fundamentally linked to the use of natural resources for their socioeconomic wellbeing, depletion of this resource will negatively impact their status (Ngugi, 2002). Ecotourism is considered one way in which the environment can be protected while generating a supplementary or major means of income for local people who may have decreased income from PA designation or resource degradation (Ngugi, 2002; Alexander, 2000). According to Scheyvens (1999), ecotourism can provide both cultural and environmental benefits as an integral part of the activity. One of the benefits is the greater involvement and active participation of the community in the ecotourism effort at this site which will contribute to a greater level of community pride and cooperation. Scheyvens (1999) referred to this as social empowerment, which maintains and and families work together to build a successful ecotourism venture. There will also be political empowerment as defined by Scheyvens (1999) that is equal consideration being given to all members of the community including their questions and concerns about ecotourism activity within their community. Economic empowerment refers to ensuring that the local community obtains long-term economic benefits and that this is shared equitably among the community and for community development purposes, e.g. to build schools or improve roads (Scheyvens, 1999). This would also ensure that the low-status section of the community (women or youths) would have increased status (Scheyvens, 1999). The community will also be able to use their native or inherited skills or products to earn a living which would help foster these traditions rather than letting them disappear over

PAGE 82

82 subsequent generations. Wallace & Pierce (1996) mentioned that cultural exchanges with visitors could be an opportunity to experience authentic two-way interaction with local residents. In turn, the locals will recognize the importance of their culture, environment and traditional knowledge (Scheyvens, 1999). This leads to improved self-esteem of the community as a whole and working together of the community. This would spur community members to further enhance their training and education (Scheyvens, 1999). This has also been referred to as "biocultural restoration" via educational and recreational activities for locals (Wallace & Pierce, 1996). Ecotourism is a potential source of additional or alternative income for the community either directly through participation in tours or through supplemental enterprises such as food, directs economic and other benefits to local people that complement rather than overwhelm or replace traditional This should consequently lead to a better quality of life and positive feedback into the resource from which they earn a living. For example, the Maori communities in New Zealand sustainably use their natural resources by engaging in ecotourism activity to provide employment for locals by training tribes to provide information to visitors, such as in Whale Watches (Scheyvens, 1999). They plan to use ecotourism to revive respect for traditional knowledge in a socially and economically sustainable manner (Scheyvens, 1999). Economic benefits should include employment, improved infrastructure, increased business for local stores in a non-consumptive manner that is at the same time financially promising (Stem et al., 2003). In the Amboseli National Park, its financial value that was mostly attributed to tourism, was US$40/ha, as compared to less than US$0.80/ha when used for

PAGE 83

83 agriculture (Stem et al., 2003). There are spin-off businesses possible from ecotourism (Stem et al., 2003) for community members to sell their goods as well as offer accommodation to visitors. The desired socioeconomic benefits for the communities around the Nariva Swamp will only be achieved with appropriate policies and careful planning, including education, training, and enhanced access to capital for local residents to facilitate their involvement (Wall, 1997). In order to maximize the socioeconomic benefit to local communities, there must be long-term participation of locals at an early stage in the decision-making process (Wallace & Pierce, 1996). Also, residents of Namibia are forming conservancies, which will legally give them rights of conditional use of wildlife and are developing plans for ecotourism ventures (Maclaren, 2002). Economic gains that may accrue to the community are similar to those obtained from South African National Parks; park entrance fees, accommodation, equipment rental (kayaks etc.), food sales (local cuisine), merchandise sales (equipment, local clothing and cultural souvenirs) (Eagles, 2001). Wunder (1999) in studying the Cuyabeno Wildlife Refuge found that the sale of local handicrafts would be appropriate only if done in the context of a holistic cultural experience such as traditional dances and rituals if the local communities are willing to share these experiences with the visitors. In the Rotal Chitwan National Park in Nepal, ecotourism failed to improve biodiversity conservation (Bookbinder et al., 1998). This was due to a paucity of direct economic benefit to the local community, which was integrally linked, with the tendency of locals to conserve biodiversity. Empowerment of locals is an important aspect of ensuring their full participation in ecotourism programs in order to share costs and benefits among all stakeholders (Scheyvens, 1999).

PAGE 84

84 Factors Affecting Impact Perception The variables identified that influence differences in attitudes and perception of benefits of stakeholders in Kenya as well as in other studies were age of the protected area, income, occupation, diet, education, property ownership, redistribution of wealth from the designation, ethnicity and relationship with government personnel (McClanahan et al., 2005). It is also expected that the existence of community programs adds to the perception of benefits but does not have as significant an effect as age of the PA (McClanahan et al., 2005). Surveys of socioeconomic variables have also shown that communities closest to the PA experience a greater proportion of costs/negative impacts of PA designation (McClanahan et al., 2005). Issues that emerged from the study of PAs in Tanzania as those affecting perception of impacts included property rights of the land on which villagers lived and farmed, in other words the lack of direct rights over the benefits and costs they faced from park designation (Gillingham and Lee, 2003). In a study of a PA project in Masoala, villages that experienced benefits from the project or park than people from villages who were not a focus of the project (Marcus, 2001). Higher socioeconomic status should lead to positive perception and vice versa but this is not necessarily the case because there was no significant relationship found in the Masoala study (Marcus, 2001). There was also a positive correlation between educational level (attended school and/or are literate) and positive perceptions of the park (Marcus, 2001). Respondents indicated that alternative viable economic measures than the Park will encourage change in land use (Marcus, 2001). Economic gain such as from the sale of crops will contribute to a positive impact perception whereas ethnicity was not a significant factor but location of dwelling was important

PAGE 85

85 (Marcus, 2001). Factors such as age, gender and sex were not contributing factors to positive perceptions (Marcus, 2001). Local communities need to be made aware that conservation of resources is not just a luxury that they will be sacrificed financially to achieve (Marcus, 2001). In examining the economic impact of the Mombasa Marine National Park in Kenya on local fisherman to determine who bears the cost of PA designation, it was found that communities will probably have a negative attitude towards PAs especially in poor areas, but those implementing the PA should attempt to instill a positive attitude in local people (Ngugi, 2002). Ensuring that local communities feel that they are partners in the conservation initiative is important and this can be achieved by seeking their input in the location of conservation site itself such as zoning, rules that will be applied to the PA and the timing of various projects in particular those people who may lose or reduce existing income and will require alternative sources of income need to be consulted (Ngugi, 2002). One way in which the government can achieve collaboration is through facilitating capacity building (technical, human resources, managerial and financial) within both conservation agencies and local communities (Ngugi, 2002). Nature-based tourism should be developed to ensure that income from such ventures will contribute to the economic viability of the park and associated economic benefits to local people from sustainable activities (Singleton et al., 2002). They should develop a different economic regime of earning livelihoods that are based on sustainable use of natural resources (Singleton et al., 2002). Such livelihoods should accrue financial gains to the communities without negatively affecting the natural resources as may be done by their existing practices or land uses (Singleton et al., 2002).

PAGE 86

86 Methods Socioeconomic Impact Assessment Social research on policy has been done via social impact assessment which has been defined by Becker (2001) as ``the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action which are related to individuals, organizations and social macro-systems''. Socioeconomic impact assessment can be used as a predictive tool to determine the potential or future effects of a policy on physical and psychological health, well-being, lifestyles and inter-personal relationships (CERM, 2002). An impact can be a real or perceived experience that is experienced by an individual, household, or a community or society (Vanclay, 1999). Socioeconomic impact identification and measurement must include community input, perceptions and participation in order to be relevant and representative (GHD, 2005; CERM, 2002numeric measures of a variety of statements that address facets of a particular value (Miller and McGee, 2001). Perceptions of impact are important in determining what socioeconomic issues are considered important by residents (Asquith et al., 2002). This type of assessment can egotiated with the government and stakeholders in subsequent discussions (Brown and Corbera, 2003). Socioeconomic Impact Matrix The analysis focused on the socioeconomic impact of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp on local communities using a compiled matrix of potential impacts from May et al. (2003), Kueppers et al. (2004), Proctor et al. (2002), Brown and Corbera (2003), Reddy (2002), Vanclay et al. (2000) and Fortin and Gagnon (1999) to assess the perceived impacts of this policy and its management actions. This matrix was included in the third section of the household survey described in Chapter 2 (Appendix A). The respondents were asked to value

PAGE 87

87 impacts based on a Likert-type scale from a range from +5 to 5 with +5 representing a highly positive impact and -5 representing a very negative impact and 0 representing no effect or not applicable (Kueppers et al., 2004). The socioeconomic impacts on socioeconomic variables were broadly categorized as living conditions, way of life, household income, involvement in your community, access to the resources of the swamp, property rights, traditional uses of the swamp, culture, education, health The potential impacts used were intended to allow a range of people with varying levels of education and knowledge to be able to understand and evaluate them (Brown and Corbera, 2003). Key respondents from the community were also asked how important each individual impact is to them on a scale of 1 to 10 (relative impact weighting). The weights would indicate the relative importance of each impact; impacts with a similar weight would have the same importance according to community members (Kueppers et al., 2004). Total values for each impact were calculated as the product of intensity/magnitude of impact and weight of impact. These totals can be summed for each category of impact such as on livelihood, social capital etc. and the cumulative perceived impact score for the ESA designation policy can be determined after Kueppers et al. (2004) by summing all these products for each household. Individual matrices for households was then aggregated to determine the community level impacts for Kernahan and Plum Mitan to give an indication of overall perceptions of impact. An open-ended question about perceived impacts was also included in the questionnaire to ensure that impacts unique to the Plum Mitan and Kernahan/Cascadoux communities were identified and were not restricted to the impacts found in the literature. This was done to ensure

PAGE 88

88 that the unique effects perceived by the community due to the specific relationships, histories, social values and other factors within these communities was taken into consideration (Becker et al., 2004). Multiple Regression Analysis The quantitative data from total perceived impact of the ESA designation of each household was statistically analyzed using multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis in order to determine the statistical significance of sociodemographic variables as determinants of perceived impacts. The regression analysis also indicated how much variation in the dependent variable (perceived impact) was explained by the equation or model. The multiple regression analysis will assess the relationship of factors such as education, socioeconomic status, age, employment, swamp dependency etc. to each of the perceived benefits or impacts (McClanahan et al., 2005). Similar to the analysis of attitudes, it is expected that perception of impacts will be affected by several influencing socioeconomic variables. The regression model and variables used in the analysis of attitudes in Chapter 3 can be applied to impact perception as well. Y = a + b1I1 + b2I2 + b3I3 + b4I4 + b5I5 + b6I6 + b7I7 Where Y = total household impact perception of ESA designation a = constant; I1 = age (expected negative effect on impact perception); I2 = income (expected positive effect on impact perception); I3 = dependency (expected negative effect on impact perception); I4 = gender (effect on impact perception may be negative or positive); I5 = education (expected positive effect on impact perception); I6 = property ownership/landholding (expected positive effect on impact perception) and

PAGE 89

89 I7 = length of residency (expected negative effect on impact perception) (Chapter 3 contains details on calculation of the independent variables). The results of these analyses indicated the most important variables that contribute to in these two communities. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a tool originally developed in the business world by management, that require multi-criteria, complex decisions by aggregation of performance indicators (Schmoldt et al., 2001; Ananda and Herath, 2003). AHP allows decisions makers/participants to determine relative utility values/priorities based on the alternatives and information presented/provided (Schmoldt et al., 2001). The hierarchical nature of this process leads to definition of a main goal/objective which is then broken down into lower levels of the hierarchy of more specific criteria related to this main objective (Schmoldt et al., 2001). Pairwise comparisons are then made at each level of the hierarchy on a nine-point importance scale to obtain priority values which then allow for the calculation of overall priorities using the eigenvalue method (Schmoldt et al., 2001; Mardle et al., 2004). AHP allows for greater consideration given to such comparisons and can be used in public participation (Schmoldt et al., 2001). It is important for PA management to be based on quantitative, transparent and credible reasoning and AHP can be used to achieve his aim (Ananda and Herath, 2003). It provides a tool for different participants representing varying interests and values to use a similar method for analysis and decision-making in protected area and natural resource management (Schmoldt et al., 2001). The complex decisions in natural resource management occur because of the various uses for these resources and the often large number of stakeholders involved (Ananda and

PAGE 90

90 Herath, 2003). Since AHP is not lengthy or cumbersome it can simplify this type complex decision making (Schmoldt et al., 2001). The AHP methodology was used to develop resource management projects for the National Park Service Unit in the US (Schmoldt et al., 2001). This was done to decide on projects based on criteria other than project cost (Schmoldt et al., 2001). By comparing each project alternative, clear objectives and decisions were made and water quality and sensitive wildlife for example were chosen as priority projects (Schmoldt et al., 2001). Similarly, in an example of forest management in Kalimantan, Indonesia, AHP was used to select criteria and indicators in a bottom-up approach in order to assess sustainability of forest management and using a wide range of stakeholders of varying education backgrounds (Schmoldt et al., 2001). Decisions were made based on AHP results as to whether criteria and indicators should be retained or rejected (Schmoldt et al., 2001). The multi-dimensional and multi-criteria nature of environmental impact assessment (EIA) lends itself to analysis using AHP (Ramanathan, 2001). The need for various experts to make choices about different environmental issues in EIA can be facilitated through the use of AHP (Ramanathan, 2001). The flexibility and versatility of AHP especially with regards to dealing with both qualitative and quantitative indicators also makes it appropriate for use as a tool for EIA (Ramanathan, 2001). AHP is easily used and understood by non-technical people including general members of the pubic (Ramanathan, 2001). AHP was applied in a socioeconomic impact assessment of an LPG plant in Maharashtra and both the numerical significance and perceived relative importance by stakeholders was determined using AHP (Ramanathan, 2001). This allowed for the systematic analysis of impacts and prioritization of the environmental plans for this plant (Ramanathan, 2001).

PAGE 91

91 Strength Weakness Opportunity ThreatAnalytical Hierarchy Process (SWOT-AHP) SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis has been often used in the fields of business and has been extended to that of natural resource management, to assess a given decision, project or policy directive in a systematic manner (Schmoldt et al., 2001). This analysis attempts to identify strategic factors related to the issue under consideration (Schmoldt et al., 2001) Since SWOT on its own does not provide a means of weighting the factors obtained, the final decisions tend to be made on a qualitative basis of the importance of these factors (Schmoldt et al., 2001). In order to circumvent this problem and enable the SWOT analysis to be more quantitative in nature, it can be merged with the AHP process. By doing this, priority measures can be assigned to the factors obtained through SWOT analysis to facilitate the process of making decisions in a multicriteria framework in natural resource management (Schmoldt et al., 2001). In an application of SWOT-AHP technique/methodology in Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda among different stakeholders, a non-governmental organization, a government agency and local community were asked to analyze the community-based management of this reserve (Masozera et al., 2006). The methodology was able to capture the different preferences of such groups for comparative purposes and to suggest future management (Masozera et al., 2006). The analysis was able to show that these three groups did not agree on the efficacy of the CBM approach to managing the reserve with the community placing greater emphasis on income opportunities and the two other groups emphasize the negative aspect of CBM of uncertainties of government decisions and lack of control of government agencies (Masozera et al., 2006). SWOT-AHP was performed for the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp using the methodology below as adapted from Schmoldt et al. (2001). The analysis was done over a period of three days in a focus group with a total of ten participants. These participants

PAGE 92

92 represented different specific interests within the community and were five members of the general community, four members from an environmental community-based organization (ECBO) and one small-scale ecotourism operator. Stage 1 The groups referred to in the analysis are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the ESA designation and the final result of this SWOT-AHP analysis was an overall priority for each of the alternatives being examined (Schmoldt et al., 2001). The hierarchy of the SWOT analysis is depicted in Figure 4-1. The first stage in the combined SWOT-AHP analysis was the identification of factors within each SWOT group. This number of factors should be ten (10) or less for each of the four groups (SWOTs) to facilitate the application of AHP. The generation of these factors was accomplished by brainstorming in the focus group to generate a list of SWOT items. These items were then grouped into summary factors to facilitate further analysis via pairwise comparisons. Stage 2 The second stage was the pairwise comparison of these factors for each group (SWOT). This was done using a questionnaire format. In this process, the factors under the strengths group for example, were compared with each other to determine which was of greater importance and the magnitude of this difference was determined on a scale of 1 to 9. If no difference in importance was in the pair then a 1 was assigned and if one is more important than the other the strength of that difference was assigned from 2 to 9; 9 representing maximum importance in comparison to the other member of the pair. Expert Choice software (Version 11.5, 2006) was used to facilitate these calculations which are based on the eigenvalue method. Stage 3 The resulting values were priorities of the factors within each group and were used to obtain a representative factor within each group based on the highest factor priority. This resulted in four factors, one factor from each group (one strength, one weakness, one opportunity

PAGE 93

93 and one threat) being brought forward for comparison with each other. Pairwise comparisons were made among the four and again Expert Choice software (2006) was used to calculate priority values for these factors. These values were considered to be group priorities or scaling factors which were then multiplied by the priority values obtained in stage 2 above to give the required overall priority values for each of the strategic factors of each SWOT group. Stage 4 These overall priority values can then be used to determine importance and management strategies. Tables and graphs of the priority values obtained in the SWOT-AHP analysis were then created for comparison of the priorities among the three interest groups. It is considered that this method can assess both qualitative and quantitative criteria in decision-making. When one factor is found to be of greater priority than others, the strength, opportunity, weakness or threat can be addressed more directly. In the case of positive impacts, they can be emphasized and in the case of negative impacts, they can be minimized when the designation is implemented. Figure 4-1. Generalized hierarchy for SWOT-AHP analysis of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp IMPACTS OF ESA DESIGNATION POSITIVE IMPACTS STRENGTHS NEGATIVE IMPACTS OPPORTUNITIES WEAKNESSES THREATS Strength 1 Strength x Opportunity 1 Opportunity x Weakness 1 Weakness x Threat 1 Threat x

PAGE 94

94 Results Socioeconomic Impact Matrix Analysis The results of the cumulative community-level socioeconomic impact assessment (SIA) are shown in Table 4-1. The most important socioeconomic impact by relative weight was property rights followed by employment, community involvement and access to the swamp resources which were all assigned a relative weight of 9 according to the community members (Table 4-1). Based on the cumulative impact, community members perceived that all the cumulative negative impacts were perceived as being on access to the swamp resources and on property rights. Other impacts that were mentioned by community members in the open-ended question were the possibility of relocation, the need to move their family and start over, that the restrictions caused by the designation would mean that it would be more difficult to make money and they would have to work harder to do so. At the household level of analysis, the MLR model was analyzed with the full seven (7) independent variables listed in the methods section. This model was found to be non-significant with an F-value of 1.74, P-value of 0.114 and R2 of 0.15. In light of this result a forward step-wise regression was necessary to determine if any model using the independent variables was significant for impact perception. Based on the change in R2 values of the stepwise regression, the largest change was 0.106 for the model with four (4) variables: age, gender, education and landholding. This model also had the largest F-statistic (3.01) and smallest P-value (0.02) so that the model was signif-suite of independent variables. Multicollinearity among the independent variables was previously analyzed in Chapter 3.

PAGE 95

95 Table 4-1. Cumulative scores of potential impacts of ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp as perceived by the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities Potential Impact Relative Weight of Impact Cumulative Impact Score Employment 9 783 Living Conditions 6 678 Way of Life 3 297 Household Income 8 528 Community Involvement 9 747 Access to the Resources of the Swamp 9 1269 Property Rights 10 1240 Traditional Uses of the Swamp 5 540 Culture 3 75 Education 6 114 Health and Wellbeing 5 135 7 35 Gender and landholding were both significant at the 0.05 level (Table 4-2); gender has a positive impact on impact perception so that females had more positive impact perceptions than males. Those with larger landholdings had a more negative perception of the impacts of the ESA designation of the swamp (Table 4-2) which would be related to the perception the community has of property rights changing in the village and not just in the demarcated areas of the swamp. Although not significant, age had a negative effect on impact perception (Table 4-2) which was as predicted since older people were expected to have a more negative perception of the impacts of ESA designation. Education unexpectedly had a negative effect on impact perception (Table 4-2) since those with higher levels of education were predicted to have a more positive perception of impacts.

PAGE 96

96 Table 4-2. Multiple Linear Regression of perceived impacts of ESA designation Variables B S.E. T Significance (Constant) 29.5 1 96.87 0 3 1 .762 Age 3.85 21.00 0 .18 .855 G ender 104.73 48.72 2.15 .035 Educ 16.4 1 42.7 7 0 .38 .702 Land_hold 22.6 6 7.4 7 3.03 .003 SWOT-AHP The initial stage of the analysis resulted in four (4) strategic factors in the strengths group, three (3) in the opportunities group and two (2) in both the weaknesses and threats groups (Table 4-3). The details obtained in the focus groups for each factor are in Appendix B and the resulting SWOT-AHP questionnaire based on these factors is in Appendix C. Table 4-3. SWOT analysis for ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp Group Factors Strength S1 Additional source of income and/or employmen t S2 Management benefits (better management of the swamp) S3 Reduction in illegal activities in the swam p S4 Better protection of plants and animals in swam p Opportunities O1 Better community and government agency relationsh ip O2 I mproved awareness and education on environment O3 Increased community involvement in management of swam p Weaknesses W1 Limited income and/or employment generation from s wam p W2 Loss of access to some areas and uses of swamp Threats T1 Conflicts between community and government personnel who enforce the laws T2 Limited involvement in decisions about the swamp

PAGE 97

97 General Community Members Based on the factor priority scores within each group, the general community members considered management benefits to be the most important strength accounting for 50.5% of the total strength of the ESA designation and increased involvement in management of the swamp as the most important opportunity, 77.5% of that group (Table 4-4). Limited income was considered the more important weakness and lack of involvement in decision-making was the higher ranked threat (Table 4-4). In terms of group priority, opportunities were given the highest priority (48.4%) by general community members and then weaknesses, strength and threats in descending order (Table 4-4). This means that the community members consider that the positive opportunities provided by the ESA designation outweigh the negative aspects. Figure 4-2 provides a graphical representation of the final result; the overall priority values for the SWOT factors for the general community members. The positive factors (strengths and opportunities) are shown at the top two quadrants of the graph and the negative factors (weaknesses and threats) are represented by the lower two quadrants. Clearly, increased community involvement in management of the swamp was the highest overall priority of all the SWOT factors for the general community members. Limitation on income and employment in the swamp was seen by the general community members as the most important negative factor of the ESA designation. Based on overall priority, management benefits was the greatest strength and limited involvement in management decisions was the most serious threat, both of which received lower overall priority scores than the highest priority opportunity and weakness. In the opinion of members of the general communities of Plum Mitan and Kernahan/Cascadoux, positive impacts of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp accounted for 67.3% of the strategic factors associated with this

PAGE 98

98 designation. This result differed from that obtained from the matrix analysis in which negative impacts outweighed positive impacts. Table 4-4. SWOT-AHP analysis showing priority scores Factor Priority Scores Overall Priority Scores Community ECBO Eco Op Community ECBO Eco Op Strengths 0.189 0.16 0.196 S1 0.227 0.082 0.248 0.043 0.013 0.049 S2 0.505 0.705 0.471 0.095 0.11 3 0.092 S3 0.085 0.164 0.123 0.016 0.026 0.024 S4 0.183 0.049 0.158 0.035 0.008 0.031 Opportunities 0.484 0.549 0.075 O1 0.047 0.137 0.091 0.023 0.075 0.007 O2 0.178 0.568 0.091 0.086 0.312 0.007 O3 0.775 0.295 0.818 0.375 0.162 0.061 Weaknesses 0.289 0.033 0.541 W1 0.667 0.111 0.1 0.193 0.004 0.054 W2 0.333 0.889 0.9 0.096 0.029 0.487 Threats 0.039 0.258 0.188 T1 0.125 0.1 0.1 0.005 0.026 0.019 T2 0.875 0.9 0.9 0.034 0.232 0.169 *The italicized, underlined values are the group priorities or scaling factors

PAGE 99

99 Figure 4-2. Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for general community members Environmental Community-based Organization (ECBO) The ECBO members considered the greatest strength of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp to be management benefits (Table 4-4). The most important opportunity was considered to be improved environmental awareness which differed from the general community members and the most important weakness was considered to be loss of access to the swamp; another difference from the community members (Table 4-4). The greatest threat was similar to that for the community members which was lack of involvement in decision-making for the swamp.

PAGE 100

100 Figure 4-3. Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for environmental community-based organization (ECBO) The members of the environmental organization placed greatest importance on opportunities, similar to the general community members, assigning this SWOT group a weighting of 54.9%. Positive impacts in the upper quadrant of the graph (Figure 4-3) accounted for 70.9% of the overall priority of the SWOT factors.

PAGE 101

101 Ecotourism Operator (Eco-op) Figure 4-4. Overall priority values for SWOT-AHP analysis for ecotourism operator The ecotourism operator who formed part of the focus group shared the opinion of both the community members and the ECBO members that the greatest strength of the ESA designation would be the management benefits to be derived and the greatest threat would be limited involvement in decisions about the swamp (Table 4-4). Similar to the general community members, the ecotourism operator considered community involvement in swamp management was the most important opportunity and shared the opinion of the ECBO members that loss of access to the swamp would be the highest priority weakness (Table 4-4).

PAGE 102

102 Unlike the other community members and ECBO members, the ecotourism operator placed greatest weight on weaknesses assigning this group 54.1% of the priority of ESA designation whereas opportunities garnered only 7.5% of this support (Table 4-4). Figure 4-4 above shows that the lower quadrant or negative impacts of the ESA designation accounted for the highest overall priority and represented 72.9% of the importance given to the SWOT factors by the ecotourism operator. The AHP methodology included an analysis of consistency to assess whether intransitivity occurs in the comparisons being made by a particular individual or group (Mardle et al., 2004). Ideally, the exceeded this value. This inconsistency may occur because the person(s) making the pairwise comparisons does not fully understand the issue under consideration (Mardle et al., 2004). However, the complexity of natural resource management issues and possible conflicting relationships among management aims can also be the cause of this inconsistency and so the consistency ratio calculated in AHP may not give an accurate indication of validity (Mardle et al., 2004). Since the SWOT factors were developed in conjunction with participants, comparisons were explained as fully as possible to the participants in the focus group and unbiased judgments were required for the analysis, the inconsistency was tolerated for my study. Discussion The positive or negative impact of conservation measures to stakeholders may determine the success of a policy and so, the perceptions of these stakeholders to the PA and the policy implementation are important in conserving the area (Weladji et al., 2003). Some of the suggested ways to mitigate both real and perceived impacts include increased education and training and identification of alternative livelihoods to sustain the economic viability of local people who are excluded form conservation areas (Singleton et al., 2002; Ngugi, 2002).

PAGE 103

103 Education of the community and other programs to achieve participation could identify and communicate indirect benefits of PA designation to local people so that restrictions of use in some areas of the PA can be appreciated for their long term potential benefits (McClanahan et al., 2005). The socioeconomic impact matrix analysis resulted in the quantification of the significance of predicted effects of the ESA designation of the Nariva Swamp. By determining the significance of the independent variables, the government agencies can understand the issues that are important to the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities and can address or mitigate these negative impacts so that the benefits are greater than the costs for the communities in order to obtain their support for the protected area (Gillingham and Lee, 2003). The results of the SWOT-AHP analysis enable the development of strategic, long term plans for the Nariva Swamp. impact in the matrix analysis shows that perceived impacts were based on short term costs although there is recognition by the community that there are long term benefits to be obtained by designating the swamp as an ESA. Gender and property ownership were the significant predictors of impact; females had more positive perceptions of the impact of ESA designation than males and those with larger amount of property had more negative perceptions of impact. This effect of property ownership is related to the fact that community members are concerned about loss of their land due to the ESA designation and as expressed via the household survey and during focus groups, some members of the community believe that they may be asked to relocate out of their community. Loss of access to swamp resources was also of great concern both in the matrix analysis from the household survey and the SWOT-AHP by the

PAGE 104

104 ECBO members and the ecotourism participant. The communities would be concerned with this impact because of the potential loss of their traditional uses of the swamp, such as for agriculture, as well as the inability to conduct tours in the swamp. Although the present levels of ecotourism in the swamp was reported by the community members as being very low to negligible, they expressed interest in expanding this activity in the future. The general community members were concerned about the negative impact on income generation and employment from the swamp and expressed the opinion that the ESA designation would lead to curtailment on their current means of employment from fishing without providing sufficient alternative means of employment. Management plans for the swamp need to include alternative means for income generation by community members and allow for sustainable levels of access and use of swamp resources. The ECBO considered improved awareness and education on the environment to be of high priority in this ESA designation since they would like to be involved as tour guides in the swamp and also because one of the purposes of the group is the protection of the environment of the Nariva Swamp. All interest groups in the SWOT-AHP exercise indicated that they consider the opportunity to increase their involvement in the management of the Nariva Swamp as the most important benefit from the ESA designation. The greatest negative factor identified by the ECBO was the possibility of little involvement on the management of the swamp. This group believed that they have not been involved enough in swamp management in the past and would like this situation to change. The intention to have participatory processes in the management of the swamp as an ESA needs to be fulfilled so that this opportunity is realized. Acknowledgement of the benefits of the PA by stakeholders is more probable if they are allowed to be fully involved in its designation and

PAGE 105

105 protection (Kessler, 2004). This can be accomplished in part through constant communication and information among the community and the government agencies in a collaborative approach to management so that the local communities feel that they are partners in the management of the PA (Ngugi, 2002). Capacity building is another measure government agencies can use for reducing perceived negative impacts. This can take the form of the provision of both technical and human resources (Ngugi, 2002). In the case of the Nariva Swamp, there is a need for instruction on sustainable agricultural practices and other uses of swamp resources. In addition, community members require assistance in establishing and maintaining successful ecotourism initiatives. This would include training as tour guides as well as information on other enterprises associated with ecotourism, managing a business and marketing their ecotourism services. The benefits of the designation of the Nariva Swamp as a protected area need to be communicated more effectively to the communities in the area in order to reduce the overall negative perception currently held by many households in these villages. Innovative means of education and communication with the communities need to be implemented since the results of my study indicate that past initiatives have not been successful in fostering positive perceptions about this designation. The inclusion of environmental groups within the community in awareness and communication measures is one way of achieving an increase in positive perceptions within the communities due to the relatively small size and close-knit character of these villages. This is necessary because in order for community members to participate in management activities in the swamp and abide by protective measures that may be necessary to conserve swamp resources, the perceptions of these communities towards ESA designation need to become more positive.

PAGE 106

106 CHAPTER 5 PREFERENCES OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE NARIVA SWAMP AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA Introduction The Nariva Swamp will be designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) under The Nariva Swamp Managed Resource Protected Area. There exist general guidelines for the allowed and restricted uses for the swamp but no detailed management plan for the swamp as an ESA. General aims for the Nariva Swamp as an ESA include controlled ecotourism activities, reforestation of degraded areas of the swamp and integration of sustainable resource use within a framework of participatory management of the swamp (EMA. 2005) This participatory management will include the communities in and around the swamp and is an example of collective action with respect to a common pool natural resource. As such, the management decisions made will be subject to the rational choices of community members as to fully participate in sustainable management of the swamp. This can be achieved through the inclusion of the communities in management decisions at an early stage in the planning process. One strategy for including the community members in a participatory manner in management planning for the Nariva Swamp is through the early identification of their choices for management strategies. In order to determine the preferences of community members from Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan with respect to management in the Nariva Swamp, voting methods were used. The two methods used were the Borda Count and Approval Voting, both of which were applied in a focus group setting to six management options. These options were based on level of community involvement in management of the Nariva Swamp and ranged from minimal involvement in management to complete transfer of

PAGE 107

107 management responsibility to the community. Focus group participants were asked to make their choices from the options and rank them according to the two voting methods. The use of both methods allowed for comparison of the results using different voting techniques for protected areas management. In addition, the preferred management option by the communities could be identified to inform future management plans. This chapter also includes a confirmatory analysis performed using the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique to summarize and validate some of the analytical findings of the three (3) previous chapters. This model provided confirmation of the relationships predicted previously. Literature Review Rational Choice Theory The concept of rational choice refers to the idea that individual preference and beliefs influence the option chosen by a person with an emphasis on the pursuit of personal goals (Satz and Ferejohn, 1994; Johnson, 1998). Rational Choice Theory based on this concept is a available, the benefits of each choice and preferred order of benefits and outcomes of each choice are known (Simon, 1955). Rational Choice Theory can also be applied to social ranking of alternatives based on the aggregation of these individual choices (Hechter and Kanazawa, 1997; Johnson, 1998). Social choice based on Rational Choice Theory is about how collective decisions should be made even though there is a great diversity of individual perspectives and contexts (Peter, 2003). Arrow tried to operationalize decision-making to merge individual choices into social preference ordering (Peter, 2003).

PAGE 108

108 preferences are known (unrestricted domain) (Peter, 2003). There is also the assumption of independence of irrelevant alternatives that is choice is not affected by preference for alternatives that are not in the choice set (Peter, 2003). It is also based on a weak Pareto principle which is if all individuals choose one choice over another then the social preference ordering should also regard that choice as better and that there is no dictatorship (Peter, 2003). Collective Action in Natural Resource Management Based on this framework of Rational Choice Theory, Olson says that groups will not voluntarily organize to achieve social/public good except if there are enough benefits to counteract any costs of being in this group (Ostrom and Ostrom, 1971). Nevertheless, successful with respect to common pool resources (Ostrom, 1998). This occurs when individuals act only as self--public benefit (Ostrom, 1998). Common pool resources, such as protected areas, as managed by multiple users are sometimes successful and other times not depending on certain conditions (Ostrom, 1999; Ostrom, 1998). In PA management, the social dilemma in the management of this public good is whether people will choose to participate in management or not. If all choose not to participate, there will be no benefit for anyone (Ostrom, 1998). There may be a Pareto-superior outcome which can provide maximum benefits to those affected by the action (Ostrom, 1998). Developing countries have often restricted use of the resource but without the necessary monitoring and money for enforcement, these arrangements did not work well (Ostrom, 1999). Research has exhibited that management of common-pool resources is possible without external pressure such as government enforcement (Ostrom, 1998; Frey and Meier, 2004). There have

PAGE 109

109 been instances where local communities have been able to work together to manage resources and avoid the tragedy of the commons (Ostrom, 1999). Both empirical and field experiments show that persisting regimes of collective action have local leaders, clear rules and boundaries, restrictions in resource use, benefits proportional to inputs in view of local conditions, self-monitoring and graduated sanctions (Ostrom, 2000). Communication is one way to overcome self-interest but it must be used in conjunction with other strategies (Ostrom, 1998). Reciprocity is also a successful strategy that includes identifying who else is involved, assessing if they will cooperate, if they do cooperate whether they will trust others and a rule of no cooperation with non-reciprocal individuals and a system of punishment for those who do not comply (Ostrom, 1998). If people expect cooperation from actions of others (Frey and Meier, 2004). Successful resource policies have been those where individuals participate in institution design that has some effect on them so they can cooperate and devise their rules (Ostrom, 1998). More local responsibility in management leads to more moral behavior because locals are knowledgeable and know who is trustworthy so that instructions restrict behavior in collective interest according to rational choice theory (Jentoft et al., 1998; Ostrom, 1999). The rules are made specific to that resource and context; there are lower monitoring costs and several small management units over an area so that there is a smaller risk of failure (Ostrom, 1999). Collective property management also works better if the group is cohesive and homogeneous such as in traditional societies that are not developing or growing (Walker et al., 2000). Even in the best scenario, the free rider problem or cheating will never completely go away (Ostrom, 1999). Some efforts will fail to self-organize; there may be local tyrants, no

PAGE 110

110 innovation, no scientific information and internal conflicts (Ostrom, 1999). Other threats to successful collective action include migration (out or in) where you lose economic resources for out migration or there is no trust of those who migrate in (Ostrom, 2000). Other problems are government rules, technology changes and availability, generational flow of information, aid from others such as international groups, corruption, conflict resolution as an institutional arrangement is not in place and educational and extension facilities do not exist (Ostrom, 2000). In less developed countries, collective action breaks down from economic stresses and rapid population growth, inequality increases and poverty (Walker et al., 2000). Self organized groups for collective action can be considered complex adaptive systems in that they use different sorts of decision rules to determine collective choices (Ostrom, 1999). The complexity of these systems means that there is no single/simple solution and the institutional arrangements need to be diverse and specific to each situation (Ostrom, 1998). Community Participation in Management of Protected Areas Community conservation can be defined as conservation goals should be pursued by strategies that emphasize the role of local residents in decision-ulme, 2001, p13). Ideally, community conservation should improve the socioeconomic standards of local communities (Kellert et al., 2000). Despite the great variety of management strategies that may fall under this definition including initiatives such as community forestry and participatory multipurpose projects, they all include the participation of local communities and institutions, devolution of management authority from government to local communities, linkage of socioeconomic development with natural resource conservation, emphasis on local property rights and inclusion of traditional knowledge and marginalized people in management (Kellert et al., 2000).

PAGE 111

111 (CAMPFIRE) program is one example of success which has led to increased wildlife as compared to management by the state agency (Child, 2004). However, there have been disappointments as well as successes in the implementation of community conservation. These disappointments arise because of the challenges to community conservation which includes the fact that there are multiple institutions and interests that must be involved in community conservation namely local, national, international (Kellert et al., 2000). The establishment of new organizations that integrate all these interests leads to complex situations that are difficult to manage and guide under existing institutional arrangements (Kellert et al., 2000). Co-management is necessary whereby authority for the resource is shared between government and local organizations since many government agencies lack the capacity to manage the resource without local management (Pomeroy, 1995). There is also a need for socioeconomic development and scientific considerations to be considered in tandem with each other along with institution building and reform (Kellert et al., 2000). Self organization within conservation initiatives is based on the attributes of the community that uses the resources of the area (Gillingham, 2001). There is a multiplicity of these socioeconomic factors that should be considered within tropical environments that affect conservation success (Bawa et al., 2004). The multiple objectives that must be fulfilled by the areas that are being managed under community conservation strategies are often disparate and conflicting such as socioeconomic development, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of resources with the result that one goal may be emphasized at the expense of another (Kellert et al., 2000). The achievement of the conservation objectives may be best done through incentives incorporated into conservation efforts to alleviate institutional problems (Child, 2004; Kellert et al., 2000).

PAGE 112

112 Community conservation is also prone to the problem not bear the costs of managing the common property resource but receive the benefits (Jentoft et al., 1998). However, social capital and strong institutions and leadership can help avoid this issue (Jentoft et al., 1998; Pomeroy, 1995). The devolution of authority and management to the community allows for the adoption of innovative approaches to conservation and lends itself to adaptive management (Child, 2004). It is also necessary to have a structure in place for monitoring efficacy of the management structure (Child, 2004). The situation in which one resource was the focus of the conservation effort tended to be more successful where there were strong legislative frameworks, developed organizations and financial support and infrastructure (Kellert et al., 2000). Public education and institutional capacity building towards the idea of community conservation are also important to the success of community conservation efforts (Kellert et al., 2000). In order to achieve effective conservation it must be expected that differing stakeholder groups will conflict with each other, that there will be heterogeneity among these groups and local conditions, that institutional building is necessary, that education will be required to achieve community support and that large areas may be required for some ecosystems or species that may conflict with the needs of locals (Kellert et al., 2000). The assumption of homogeneity of societies around protected areas has lead to ineffective community efforts towards conservation (Gillingham, 2001). Incorporation of the unique or variable socioeconomic characteristics and institutions of the communities involved in conservation would improve conservation projects (Gillingham, 2001). Lack of consideration of these issues had led to inappropriate social organizations arising from conservation interventions

PAGE 113

113 that consequently lead to a lack of compliance with regulations governing the resource, lack of equity of benefits and access to the resource (Gillingham, 2001). The promise of community conservation as an ideology or concept is still valid but adaptive management structures are crucial. The issues mentioned above are those that must be considered in order to have successful community conservation programs. These lessons learnt from empirical case studies from around the world are valuable tools that can lead to more effective implementation of this management strategy in protected areas. Methods Semi-structured interviews Interviews were held with members of the government agencies with responsibility for the Nariva Swamp: the Forestry Division and the Environmental Management Authority (EMA). The semi-structured interviews covered topics such as land tenure, use of the swamp, agricultural activities, management plans for the swamp and tourism activity. This also included information on the uses and benefits of the swamp as well as potential changes in this use from the ESA designation. These interviews were intended to obtain information from governmental stakeholders on the future management of the swamp as well as the views on ecotourism potential in the swamp. Voting Choice Methodology Borda Count and Approval Voting Voting is a tool that can efficiently facilitate decision making (Kangas et al., 2006). based on the voting system used and the aggregation systems associated with this method (Hannu, 1995). Some voting methods lead to the most preferred alternative being considered while all others are ignored (Garca-Lapresta and Martnez-Panero, 2002). In some instances,

PAGE 114

114 such as when there is consensus among voters on the alternatives, the result from different voting systems will be the same (Hannu, 1995). When making social choices, such as natural resource decisions, the components of the decision framework are: voters/participants, alternatives from which to choose, information on the preferences of participants and an aggregation method such as a voting method (Kangas et al., 2006). Participation in these decisions should be fair, transparent and representative and voting theory can be applied to natural resource management to achieve this (Kangas et al., 2006). Voting methods are useful in this context because they can handle the ordinal nature of both preferences and data on the alternatives that are being voted on (Kangas et al., 2006). These methods are also comprehensive, simple, quick and can be used in large groups with varying interests (Kangas et al., 2006). This is especially useful in participatory processes in natural resource management because a large proportion of the decisions might be made by participants or stakeholders (Kangas et al., 2006). Borda Count uses the entire list of alternatives where each participant votes for each alternative (Kangas et al., 2006). The most preferred alternative receives the highest number which is equal to the number of alternatives, n, from which the choice is to be made (Kangas et al., 2006). The second most preferred alternative is ranked as n-1 after which this pattern is continued until the least preferred alternative is given a rank of 1 (Kangas et al., 2006). The alternative with the greatest number of votes is the chosen decision (Kangas et al., 2006). This method usually achieves the aim of the chosen alternative being the most preferred by voters (Kangas et al., 2006).

PAGE 115

115 This Borda Count method is considered representative and straightforward but may not allow for alternatives (Garca-Lapresta and Martnez-Panero, 2002). Borda Count tends to assure consistent outcomes and unique decisions (Saari, 2006). This method has also been criticized as independent (Garca-Lapresta and Martnez-Panero, 2002). Due to the way in which the votes are assigned, the alternative chosen by the Borda Count may be based on the number of alternatives under consideration (Kangas et al., 2006). Voting methods are vulnerable to the problem of strategic voting once the alternatives are greater than two but the Borda Count is considered to be one of the methods that is more resistant to this type of voting manipulation (Saari, 2006). In order for this method to be manipulated through strategic voting the order of the preferences must be changed but this can only be done with prior knowledge of the Borda scores (Kangas et al., 2006). Approval voting is another means of making decisions in natural resource management. In approval voting, each participant votes for all the alternatives preferred by that participant and the alternative with the greatest number of votes is chosen (Kangas et al., 2006; Garca-Lapresta and Martnez-Panero, 2002). This may lead to the moderately preferred alternative being chosen over the others (Kangas et al., 2006). This method is considered to be flexible, practical and lends legitimacy to the result since it is not easily manipulated (Garca-Lapresta and Martnez-Panero, 2002). The potential problems with approval voting include possible inequality among voters and a lack of preference ordering (Garca-Lapresta and Martnez-Panero, 2002). Other systems for decision-making include plurality and pair-wise comparisons such as Condorcet which were not considered in my study. There is no optimal voting method for

PAGE 116

116 natural resource management decision making since it is a social choice scenario so that various voting systems are available that might produce different results in a given situation (Kangas et al., 2006). Borda Count and Approval Voting were used to assess six (6) options for management of the Nariva Swamp which differed based on the amount of involvement of the community. These scenarios were developed based on information contained in Kessler (2004) on natural resource management. Ten community members participated in a focus group in which one of the tasks was to express their preferences for these six options using both voting methods. The six management options on which the participants voted were: Option A Minimal This is the situation where you have little or no involvement or responsibility with managing the Nariva Swamp and obtain benefits only as a by-product of the protection of the swamp. Option B Informing This is where information is obtained from government agencies (like the Forestry Division) and you may give information to them but there is no exchange of ideas or discussions and again you obtain whatever benefits everyone else can obtain from protecting the swamp. Option C Active Consultation You are consulted on issues about the swamp and how it is used and managed but government agencies make the final decisions which you are then informed of. You obtain a greater proportion of the benefits from swamp protection. Option D Negotiation There are discussions back and forth with government agencies so that contracts and agreements on the role you play in managing the swamp and the benefits you gain are agreed upon by all parties concerned. You obtain about 30% to 40% of the benefits obtained by protecting the swamp.

PAGE 117

117 Option E Sharing Authority This is an interactive, complete 50/50 partnership with government where there is a constant, frequent exchange of information, ideas and responsibility. You share in the decision-making about management of the swamp with the government agencies and also share in the benefits. Option F Complete Transfer This is a total transfer of all responsibility and decisionmaking to you. You get all the benefits and all the responsibility to manage the swamp with no assistance from government agencies. For the Borda Count method, participants were asked to rank the management choices based on their preferences from 6 to 1 with their most preferred option obtaining a rank of 6 and their least preferred a rank of 1. Approval Voting was done using the same 6 options and participants were asked to rank all acceptable options as 1, options that they have no preference for was given a rank of 0 and unacceptable options received a rank of -1. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 2 SEM is a type of causal analysis that allows for the analysis of multiple, interrelated dependence relationships through the development of structural equations and associated path diagrams. The analysis uses a correlation or covariance matrix as the input and allows for the representation of unobserved (latent) variables and measurement errors. The measurement model that was developed for this analysis was based on the analyses conducted in Chapters 2 to 4 and serves as a simple, confirmatory model of these analyses. The number of variables was restricted to four (4) exogenous, four (4) endogenous and four (4) error (latent) variables to 2 The validity and generality of the results of this SEM analysis should be treated with caution since the sample size was relatively small (n = 80)

PAGE 118

118 compensate for the relatively small sample size. AMOS 6.0 (2006) software was used for these analyses; this software facilitates the development of the covariance matrix from the raw data. The structural equations used in this analysis are as follows: Y1 = b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + E1 Y2 = b5X1 + b6X2 + b7X3 + b8X4 + b9Y1 + E2 Y3 = b10X1 + b11X2 + b12X3 + b13X4 + b14Y2 + E3 Y4 = b15Y2 + E4 Where X1 = Age, X2 = Gender, X3 = Landholding Size, X4 = Length of Residency; Y1 = Dependency, Y2 = Attitude, Y3 = Impact Perception, Y4 = Behavioral Intention and E1 to E4 are latent error terms associated with measurement error of the endogenous variables. The path diagram for these equations is depicted in the results section (Figure 5-1). After the parameters for each pathway were estimated by the software, the model was analyzed for its AMOS 6.0 (2006). The measurement model is usually adjusted by the researcher as required to facilitate an improve model fit while maintaining the theoretical foundation of the model. The final or accepted model is considered the structural model. In this analysis, the structural model was the same as the measurement model (refer to results section). Results Semi-structured Interviews The interviews held with government agencies provided details on the expected activities associated with management of the Nariva Swamp as an ESA although the arrangements for co-management have not yet been decided.

PAGE 119

119 Existing Management It is expected that activities that are currently licensed under the Conservation of Wildlife Act and the Forests Act will be allowed to continue but may be modified based on studies that will be conducted on the present status of the natural resources in the swamp (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006; Cross, personal communication, 2006). This licensed activity includes the harvesting of crab, cascadu and conch which are done for subsistence by members of the community (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006). Restoration and Reforestation There are some areas on the southwestern boundary of the swamp that are demarcated for restoration that are currently being occupied illegally; these people will have to be removed from this prohibited area (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006). The northern areas of the swamp have already been reforested; this has been approximately 20 acres in the past 3 years (R. Singh, personal communication, 2006). The expected reforestation will be about 1000 hectares (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). Agriculture The agricultural extension services will have to be improved for the area (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006). Agricultural practices will have to become more sustainable; activities such as slash and burn or the application of fertilizers will have to be stopped or changed to more suitable practices for protection of the resources (R. Singh, personal communication, 2006). The agricultural lands that were distributed many years ago by the Ministry of Agriculture fall under their jurisdiction and will continue to be used (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). Lands within the Kernahan/Cascadoux village will not be affected by this designation and past arrangements whether informal or legal will be recognized under this designation (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). Only illegal activities that

PAGE 120

120 have always been prohibited under previous management regimes for the swamp will continue to be illegal and will be removed (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). Livelihood A few of the community members are presently employed for regular activities involved with management of the swamp such as clearing water courses and building cages in the swamp for reintroduction projects of native birds that have been extirpated (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006). This builds service for future employment opportunities that will arise from the ESA designation (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006). The employment expected from restoration activities include actual reforestation as well as nurseries that will be set up in the surrounding communities but exact numbers are not yet known (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). The numbers of visitors to the swamp for ecotourism both present and future are unknown but this will hopefully increase, although the exact details have not yet been determined, so that the community can achieve socioeconomic benefits from this and that education of both local and foreign tourists can form a part of this activity (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). The community needs to be trained for this type of tourism activity (R. Singh, personal communication, 2006). Management Structure for the ESA The ESA designation allows resource use but it will be more defined and restricted to certain zones (R. Singh, personal communication, 2006). The management activities that will affect the members of the community include the removal of people conducting illegal activities. Expansion of such activities will be restricted especially into the ESA area (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). The EMA under whose purview rests the ESA Rules, 2001, do not have the personnel to effectively manage the swamp so that the Forestry Division personnel including

PAGE 121

121 the Wildlife Section will have to continue to monitor activities under this legislation (D. Boodoo, personal communication, 2006; R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). A small, cohesive management unit is needed so that research can be translated into action (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). There is a need for a Nariva Management Authority that is physically based at the Nariva Swamp to coordinate and is made up of government agencies and community members so that management action can be undertaken in a timely fashion (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). This is especially necessary because of the different agencies that have jurisdiction within the swamp under previous legislation (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). The community involvement in management of the Nariva Swamp can follow a similar model to that of the nearby communities in the Matura area who initially worked closely with the government agencies in the protection of sea turtles that nest on the beaches in the Matura area (R. Singh, personal communication, 2006). Eventually, the responsibility for the protection of the turtles devolved almost entirely to the community groups in the area with some general training and supervision by the government agencies. Much participation is still to be facilitated to inform management (R. Cross, personal communication, 2006). Community Management Choices The community preferences for their involvement in management of the Nariva Swamp can be seen in Table 5-1. Individual voting preferences are detailed in Appendix D. The two methods resulted in Option E (shared authority) as the preferred alternative (Table 5-1). This alternative would mean a full partnership among government agencies and the community and indicate a strong preference by the two communities to be actively involved in all aspects of obtained using the Borda Count was active consultation (Option C) which expressed a similar

PAGE 122

122 intention as Option E of being involved in management but with less responsibility, benefits and decision-making. According to the Borda Count method, Option E would be chosen and management plans would be made accordingly. well as Option D (negotiation) both of which received 10 votes. This is one of the characteristics of Approval Voting whereby a clear choice is not always obtained since voters are allowed to vote for all their preferences rather than ranking them. Option D would be a participatory type of management as well with decisions being made by government which are then negotiated through a participatory process resulting in agreements and contracts. This type of management would ensure that the community members are involved but will require less effort in their part than Option E and consequently they would receive fewer benefits. One of the advantages of the Borda method in this example is that a unique choice was made whereas with the approval method, two winners were chosen. The alternative chosen by the Borda Count is usually the one most preferred by the voters (Kangas et al., 2006). Participants were not aware of the voting methods that were to be used so strategic voting should not have been an issue with the voting methods chosen (Kangas et al., 2006). Table 5-1. Voter choices for management of the Nariva Swamp Management choices Borda count Approval voting Option A Minimal 17 0 Option B Informing 23 4 Option C Active Consultation 47 6 Option D Negotiation 43 10 Option E Sharing Authority 50 10 Option F Complete Transfer 30 0 Note: The values in bold are the options most preferred by the participants

PAGE 123

123 Community members also indicated that they want to be involved with ecotourism activities but believe that the money from such activities is not accruing to them thus supporting the results of the voting which indicated their preference to have a significant role in management of the ESA. The community members also do not want to be restricted from access to the swamp and do not want to be moved from their land. They believe that their rights as farmers will be ignored and that agriculture is their main source of income that may be curtailed. According to the communities, the hillside farmers appear to be in the ESA boundary based on what the members who have seen the plan say. Farmers should be given alternative areas to farm and not just removed from where they have been all their lives. They need access to the ESA on a seasonal basis for fish in the dry season as part of their livelihood and not simply for recreation. Structural Equation Model for Resource Dependency, Attitudes, Socioeconomic Impact Perception and Participation in Protection of the Nariva Swamp The overall model fit was good with a chi-square value of 13.96 (d.f. = 13) and P-value of 0.38 which means that there is a failure to reject the null hypothesis. In this analysis, this is the required condition for a good fit since the null hypothesis is that the model fits the population perfectly; failure to reject the null means that the model can potentially fit the population. In SEM, the model is always based on a failure to reject rather than complete acceptance of the model. -2, all of which indicate that sidual) is the only value that is large when the desired results is as small a number as possible. This value is based on differences among variances and covariances in the sample and model. Since the absolute value of the standardized residual covariances (Appendix E) for all the variables were

PAGE 124

124 less than 2, this indicated that the correct model was achieved for these variables despite the high RMR value. Table 5-2. Model fit statistics for Structural Equation Model (SEM) shown in Figure 5-1 RMR GFI AGF I RMSEA TLI CFI Model_1 167.207 0 .961 0 .891 0 .031 0 .969 0 .986 The other indices, GFI (goodness of fit index), AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit), RFI (relative fit index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) and CFI (comparative fit index) should all be as close to 1 as possible, with a value of 1 indicating a prefect fit. These values were all close to 1 for this model again confirming a good relative model fit. The remaining index, the RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) of about .05 or less usually indicates a close fit of the model with respect to the degrees of freedom. The RMSEA for this model is well below this value indicating that despite the small sample size, the model fits with respect to the degrees of freedom, probably because of the small number of variables used. Table 5-3. Standardized causal effects of variables in SEM model Effect Length _res Land _hold Gender Age Depen Attitude Depen Total Direct Indirect 0 .264 0.264 0 0 .042 0 .042 0 0 .257 0 .257 0 0 .361 0 .361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Attitude Total Direct Indirect 0 .067 0.066 0.001 0 .399 0.398 0.001 0 .117 0.116 0.001 0 .426 0.425 0.001 0 .005 0.005 0 0 0 0 Beh_intent Total Direct Indirect 0.019 0 0.019 0.111 0 0.111 0.033 0 0.033 0.119 0 0.119 0.001 0 0.001 0.279 0.279 0 I mpact Total Direct Indirect 0 .039 0.028 0.011 0 .323 0.258 0.065 0 .227 0.208 0.019 0 .001 0.069 0.070 0 .001 0 0.001 0 .164 0.164 0

PAGE 125

125 Modification indices were calculated by the software so that the pathways among the variables could be changed if necessary. The specified default threshold of change in chi-square was 4 and no modification indices (variance or regression) were obtained indicating that none exceeded this threshold; so none of the model parameters or pathways were modified. Table 5-3 and Figure 5-1 show the values obtained for the causal (regression) effects of the variables in the model. These values are standardized so that they give the amount of change in the endogenous variable with a standard deviation unit change in the exogenous variable. For example, one standard deviation unit change in age leads to a reduction in dependency by -0.36. The significant variables obtained were the same as for individual regression analyses namely age, landholding and length of residency were significant predictors of dependency; landholding and age were significant variables for attitude and landholding and gender significantly predicted impact perception (Appendix E). Attitude was a significant predictor of behavioral intention and a unit standard deviation change in attitude results in a change in behavioral intention of 0.28 (Appendix E). Table 5-3 provides additional information on the proportion of the total effects that are direct and indirect. The noteworthy results are the indirect effects on behavioral intention and impact perception. Attitude was represented as an endogenous variable in this model and so, the exogenous variables that affect attitude also have an indirect effect on behavioral intention. Landholding size had an effect of 0.11 per standard deviation unit on behavioral intention and age had a -0.12 effect on this variable as well. Similarly, a proportion of the causal effect of the socioeconomic variables on impact perception can be attributed to their indirect effect on attitude (Table 5-3) which is a variable on the impact perception pathway.

PAGE 126

126 Discussion The SEM analysis confirmed the results obtained in Chapters 2 to 4 and provided a summary model for the dissertation showing that socioeconomic variables affect dependency, attitude and impact perception and by extension participatory behavior in collective resource management. The use of voting in the participation process for management of the Nariva Swamp appears to a viable method due to its fair, transparent and representative characteristics (Kangas et al., 2006). The application used in my study to choose management scenarios is very similar to the kinds of choices that will be made in future participatory activities and my study can be used as a framework for such decision-making exercises. Comparatively, the Borda Count gave the clearer decision whereas Approval Voting resulted in two preferences for management which may be problematic when one choice must be made for resource management. Based on the result of the voting exercise, the Kernahan/Cascadoux and Plum Mitan communities chose equal partnership in management decisions in the Nariva Swamp. The communities want real consultation processes and not just agency management, they do not want to find about things after they are already happening. This feeling of lack of empowerment and involvement in decisions about the swamp were reflected in the preferred option for management in which they share authority with government agencies. This would enable them to know all the decisions that need to be made and will be completely involved in the decision making process as well as the actual management of the resources in the swamp. If the individuals who make up these two communities act in a completelself-interested manner, then community participation in management will not be effective and -the potential problems identified by rational choice theory and by extension collective action

PAGE 127

127 initiatives, it is important to include people early on in meaningful participation. As indicated by the results of the voter choice exercise, the community is willing to share in management of the swamp and collective action can be successful in this instance of certain conditions are met. These conditions include the fact that management strategies must be based on the common objectives of resource managers and local people in order to be applicable to developing countries. The traditional knowledge and rights of local people are also important in managing PAs to proactively address site specific issues and create a feeling of appreciation and ownership of the resources in the PA (Kessler, 2004). There should also be equitable distribution of management and benefits so that the needs of the local people in and around the PA are fulfilled (Elliot et al., 2001). Based on the experiences of other researchers in collective action, successful participation in management of the Nariva Swamp will also require local leadership, clear rules and boundaries, restrictions in resource use, benefits proportional to inputs in view of local conditions, more local responsibility and incorporation of local knowledge in management, self-monitoring and graduated sanctions (Jentoft et al., 1998; Ostrom, 2000). There will also be a need for creation of new institutional arrangements, conflict resolution mechanisms and education and extension services to achieve community support (Kellert et al., 2000; Ostrom, 2000). Problems that need to be avoided include economic stresses and rapid population growth, inequality increases and poverty (Walker et al., 2000). Further analyses are needed on the management preferences of the two communities with respect to the Nariva Swamp in order to have detailed management structures and plans. The results of this initial analysis prove that this must involve significant devolution of authority from the government agencies to the community so that authority can be shared. This process may be

PAGE 128

128 a long term solution and should lead to more equitable access to the PA, improved implementation of management strategies and improved resource management in the Nariva Swamp.

PAGE 129

129 Figure 5-1. Path diagram of SEM showing standardized regression coefficients along pathways and R2 Values above the endogenous variables (Note: Although the diagram shows a value of 0 due to rounding by the statistical program for the path from dependency to attitude, this value is in fact 0.005.)

PAGE 130

130 APPENDIX A HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Introduction The School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Florida is conducting an independent research study about the Nariva Swamp, Trinidad. In order to understand the factors affecting conservation, research assistants are conducting face-to-face interviews with households around the swamp. The households are being selected, in order to get representative data from the Kernahan and Plum Mitan communities around the swamp. You have been selected from this community to be a respondent. Privacy is a key principle of this survey. There are no wrong or right answers, most importantly candid and honest answers are the most useful. If you have any questions about this survey, please feel free to contact the principal investigator: Cindy Chandool, University of Florida, Gainesville Florida, 32611 (phone 352-846-5999). Village: . . . Date and time: . . .. . . . . . . Occupation : (list all) . . . . . . . .

PAGE 131

131 Section I. Attitude Questions Please tell us how you feel about the following statement using the scale of 0 to 4, 1 being Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 being Disagree (D), 3 being Agree (A), 4 being Strongly Agree (SA) 1. SD D A SA Know Is the protection of plants, animals and natural areas important? 1 2 3 4 0 2. SD D A SA Know enough land to cultivate 1 2 3 4 0 b. Wild animals damage my crops 1 2 3 4 0 c. I have reduced my access to swamp resources/products because of conservation 1 2 3 4 0 3. SD D A SA Know a. I have benefited from existing conservation in the Nariva Swamp 1 2 3 4 0 b. Land allocation ensures my ownership of the land in the Nariva Swamp 1 2 3 4 0 c. I can get more income because of swamp protection and management activities 1 2 3 4 0 4. SD D A SA Know a. Protecting the Nariva Swamp as an environmentally sensitive area is important 1 2 3 4 0 b. Zoning the swamp into different areas for specific activities (such as ecotourism, agriculture etc.) will benef it me 1 2 3 4 0

PAGE 132

132 5. Rank the following issues or problems currently facing your community in order of 5 (most important) to 1 (least important). Problems Most important (5) More Important (4) Important (3) Somewhat important (2) Least important ( 1) Limited land 5 4 3 2 1 Limited food 5 4 3 2 1 Lack of electricity and/or water 5 4 3 2 1 Lack of access to swamp resources/ products 5 4 3 2 1 Lack of adequate access roads to community 5 4 3 2 1 Section II: Dependency Questions 6. Do you ever go into the Nariva Swamp? ____ Yes/No (If no, go to # 7, if yes go to #8) a) Fear of wardens or forestry officers b) Fear of animals c) No interest d) No time e) Too far d) OtherSpecify 8. If YES, why do you go there? a) Health related b) Hunting/Fishing c) Building materials d) Fuel wood e) Grazing animals f) Recreation g) Others specify 9. How many working hours do you spend per trip, including time of travel to and from, to collect items from the swamp? _______________ hours 10. How many trips do you make per week? _______________ trips 11. How many people from your household collect items from the swamp? ____ persons

PAGE 133

133 12. What is your income from the swamp (if any) per month? 13. What is your total household income per month? 14. Do you benefit from the tourism industry of this SWAMP? Yes / No [if No go to # 17] If Yes, please specify in which way a) Sell handcrafts b) Act as a tour guide c) Sell other items from swamp c) Others specify 15. What is your income from this business per month? ______________________ 16. What are the main sources of cash income for your household? a) Sale of farm produce b) Labor of a member of household c) Assistance from a daughter/ son / relative d) Trade e) Others (specify) 17. How big is the size of the land that is under control of your household (ha)? 18. What main crops do you grow and what was the average production (kg) last season? 19. For each crop, is the crop produced for the market or for the household consumption? If for the market, what quantity of the production is sold? Crop Household consumption Market (quantity) 1. Watermelon 2. 3. 4. 5. 20. How many hours do you travel to reach the market for your crops?

PAGE 134

134 21. Please indicate ownership of the following assets and year that the asset was purchased (for livestock, indicate numbers owned): Items Number Bicycle Motorcycle Motor car Boat Radio Tele vision Chickens Pigs Goats Cows Land with agriculture (ha) Land without agriculture (ha) 22. Do you have an agricultural field in the swamp? 23. What was the size of your field in the previous season, 2005-2006 (ha)? 24. What is the size of your agricultural fields this season, 2006 (ha)? Did you clear the land for your field? If NOT why? Section III: Perception of Impact Questions 25. Are you aware of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Rules that was passed in 2001? Yes No 26. If yes, are you aware that the Nariva Swamp is one of the sites that are planned for designation as an Environmentally Sensitive Area? Yes No The proposed management actions associated with this designation include three main plans that have the potential to affect the Kernahan and Plum Mitan communities: 1) restoration of cleared areas of the swamp to regenerate native plants and animals in the swamp, 2) increase in ecotourism activities within the swamp and 3) relocation of existing illegal agricultural activity in the swamp to legally demarcated areas.

PAGE 135

135 Please tell us whether these actions to protect the Nariva Swamp will affect you in any of the following areas and how much it will affect you on a scale from -5 to +5 with -5 being affect you very negatively, +5 affect you very positively and 0 not affect you at all. 27. Do you believe that the designation of the Nariva Swamp as an Environmentally Sensitive Area may potentially affect the following and what is the expected strength of this impact? Potential impact Yes/No Score ( 5 to +5) a. Your employment (new job or becoming unemployed) b. Your living conditions c. Your way of life (how you live, work and interact in the community) d. Your household income ( change in income ) e. Yo ur involvement in your community (involvement in community groups, involvement in management of the swamp) f. Your access to the resources of the swamp g. Your property rights (changes in lease) g. Your traditional uses of the swamp h. Your cul ture (customs, values, beliefs) i. Your education j. Your health and wellbeing (stress, quality of life, standard of living) Are there any other effects that you think this designation will have on you and your family and is so, what are they? 28. Would you be willing to participate or assist in the management of the Nariva Swamp as a protected area by being involved in community groups, attending meetings and other required activities? Yes No Section IV: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS 29. What is your gender? Male Female

PAGE 136

136 30. What is your ethnicity? African East Indian Caucasian Chinese Other, specify _______ 31. What is your religion? Muslim Hindu Catholic Protestant Other 32. How long have you been settled in this area? Less than 10 years 10-19 years 20-30 years more than 30 years 33. What specific part of Trinidad did your family originate from? 34. What is your highest level of education? Primary School Secondary School Vocational School College/University Graduate Degree

PAGE 137

137 35. How many people live in your house (including you) 1-4 persons 5-8 persons more than 8 persons 36. What is your current annual household income from all the members of the household? Less than TT 10,000 TT 10,001 30,000 TT 30,001 50,000 More than TT 50,000 36. To what age group do you belong? 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 above 60 37. What is your marital status? a) Single b) Married c) Divorced d) Widowed

PAGE 138

138 APPENDIX B FOCUS GROUP DETAILS FOR SWOT FACTORS Strengths 1. Additional source of income and/or employment make more money from ecotourism generate income from reforestation and from other work for Forestry Division 2. Management benefits improvement in management of the swamp more organized management of the swamp more personnel will be available for management 3. Reduction in illegal activities in the swamp people from outside the community will no longer come in to conduct illegal agriculture and over-fishing clearing of areas in the prohibited areas in the swamp will stop 4. Better protection of plants and animals in swamp animals such as crabs and conch will increase; presently they are low in numbers trees will be replanted Opportunities 1. Better community and government agency relationship more information will be given to the community from the agencies more meetings will be held with government agencies agencies will actually ask for input from community and not just implement projects without letting the local people know 2. Improved awareness and education on environment knowledge will be obtained on swamp; this can help with giving tours to visitors children will gain education about the swamp 3. Increased community involvement in management of swamp agencies will ask for input from community community opinions (what they have to say) will be taken into consideration in management community will get to participate in day to day management

PAGE 139

139 APPENDIX C SWOT-AHP QUESTIONNAIRE Compare each pair below and indicate your opinion of how important one item is over the other in the pair. Choose one number only for each pair. If you think both are equally important, choose 1. Additional source of income and/or employment More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Management benefits (better management of the swamp) Additional source of income and/or employment More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Reduction in illegal activities in the swamp Additional source of income and/or employment More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Better protection of plants and animals in swamp Management benefits (better management of the swamp) More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Reduction in illegal activities in the swamp Management benefits (better management of the swamp) More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bet ter protection of plants and animals Reduction in illegal activities in the swamp More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Better protection of plants and a nimals Better community and government agency relationship More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Improved awareness and education on environment Better community and government agency relationship More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Increased community involvement in management of swamp Improved awarene ss and education on environment More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Increased community involvement in management of swamp Limited income and/or employm ent generation from swamp More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Loss of access to some areas and uses of swamp Conflicts between community and government personnel who enforce the laws More More 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Limited involvement in decisions about the swamp

PAGE 140

140 APPENDIX D VOTES FOR MANAGEMENT CHOICES OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS Borda Count Results Management Choice Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person 9 Person 10 Option A Minimal 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 Option B Informing 2 2 3 3 2 1 4 4 1 1 Option C Active Consultation 5 5 4 4 5 5 6 3 4 6 Option D Negotiation 1 6 6 6 6 3 3 1 6 5 Option E Sharing Authority 6 4 5 5 4 6 5 6 5 4 Option F Complete Transfer 4 3 2 2 3 4 2 5 2 3 Approval Voting Results Management Choice Person 1 Person 2 Pers on 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person 9 Person 10 Option A Minimal 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Option B Informing 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 Option C Active Consultation 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Option D Negotiation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Option E Sharing Authority 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Option F Complete Transfer 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

PAGE 141

141 APPENDIX E REGRESSION WEIGHTS AND COVARIANCES FOR SEM MODEL OF PARTICIPATION IN PROTECTION OF THE NARIVA SWAMP Maximum Likelihood Estimates Regression Weights (Unstandardized) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Depen < --Age .150 .040 3.756 *** Depen < --Gender .241 .090 2.675 .007 Depen < --Land_hold .006 .015 .438 .662 Depen < --Length_res .175 .064 2.743 .006 Attitude < --Depen .007 .154 .044 .965 Attitude < --Length_res .063 .091 .697 .486 Attitude < --Land_hold .089 .020 4.418 *** Attitude < --Gender .158 .128 1.231 .218 Attitude < --Age .257 .059 4.341 *** Beh_intent < --Attitude .191 .074 2.578 .010 Impact < --Length_res 8. 313 30.571 .272 .786 Impact < --Land_hold 17.699 7.831 2.260 .024 Impact < --Gender 87.383 43.494 2.009 .045 Impact < --Age 12.823 21.636 .593 .553 Impact < --Attitude 50.523 39.385 1.283 .200 Standardized Residual Covariances Length _r es Land _hold Gender Age Depen Attitude Beh _intent Impact Length_res Land_hold 0 .092 Gender 1.247 1.512 Age 1.804 0 .386 1.256 Depen 0 .324 0 .274 0 .697 0 .128 0 .025 Attitude 0 .658 0 .017 0 .016 0 .166 0 .103 0 .019 Beh_intent 0 .514 0 .709 0 .444 1.168 0 .827 0 .007 0 .001 Impact 0 .251 0 .329 0 .428 0 .339 0 .385 0 .027 0 .508 0 .142

PAGE 142

142 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams W. and D. Hulme. 2001. Conservation & community: changing carratives policies & practices in African conservation. In African wildlife & livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Adhikari, B., S. DiFalco, and J.C. Lovett. 2004. Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics 48(2):245-257. Aipanjiguly, S., S.K. Jacobson, and R. Flamm. 2003. Conserving manatees: knowledge, attitudes, and intentions of boaters in Tampa Bay, Florida. Conservation Biology 17(4):10981105. Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Alexander, S.E. 2000. Resident attitudes towards conservation and black howler monkeys in Belize: The community baboon sanctuary. Environmental Conservation 27(4):341350. Ananda, J. and G. Herath. 2003. The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics 5:1326. Anderson, D., and R. Grove. 1987. Conservation in Africa: people, policies, and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Asquith, N.M., M.T. Vargas Rios, and J. Smith. 2002. Can forest-protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado climate action project, Bolivia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7:323337. Bahuguna, V.K. 2000. Forests in the economy of the rural poor: An estimation of the dependency level. Ambio 29(3):126-129. Bawa, K.S., R. Seidler, and P.H. Raven. 2004. Reconciling conservation paradigms. Conservation Biology 18(4):859-860. Becker, H. A. 2001. Social impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 128:311-321. Becker, D. R., C. C. Harris, E. A. Nielsen, and W. J. McLaughlin. 2004. Social impact: A comparison of a technical and a participatory application of social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 22(3):177-189. Beresford, M. and A. Phillips. 2000. Landscape stewardship: New directions in conservation of nature and culture. The George Wright Forum 17(1):15-26.

PAGE 143

143 Bluffstone, R., M. Boscolo, and R. Molina. 2001. How does community forestry affect rural households? A labor allocation model of the Bolivian Andes. Working Paper, University of Redlands, USA. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00000796/00/bluffstoner300901.pdf Bookbinder, M.P., Dinerstein, E., Rijal, A., Cauley, H., and Rajouria, A. 1998. support of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 12(6):1399-1404. Boomfield, J., M. Ratchford, and S. Brown. Land-use change and forestry in the Kyoto protocol. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 5:38. Boyd, E., M. Gutierrez, and M. Chang. 2005. Adapting small-scale cdm sinks projects to low-income communities. Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 71. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/wp71.pdf Brandon, K. and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. World Development 20(4):557-570. Bright, A., M. Manfredo, M. Fishbein, and A. Bath. 1993. Application of the theory of reasoned action to the national park scontrolled burn policy. Journal of Leisure Research 25(3):263-280. Brown, K. and E. Corbera. 2003. A multi-criteria assessment framework for carbonmitigation pd center of decision-making. Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 29. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/wp29.pdf Brown, N. 2000. Environmental advocacy in the Caribbean: The case of the Nariva swamp, Trinidad. CANARI Technical Report No. 268. http://www.canari.org/nariva.pdf Cavendish, W. 2000. Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28(11):1979-2003. Center for Environmental and Recreation Management, University of South Australia (CERM). 2002. Assessing the social and environmental values of boredrain wetlands created by great artesian basin bore water in South Australia. Report produced for the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Child, B. 2004. Parks in transition: Biodiversity, development and the bottom line. In Parks in transition. London, UK: Earthscan. De Boer, W.F. and D.S. Baquete. Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo elephant reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation 25(3):208218.

PAGE 144

144 Eagles, P.F.J. 2001. International trends in park tourism. Paper prepared for Europarc, 2001. http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/rec/pdf/inttrends.pdf Elliott, G., B. Mitchell, B. Wiltshire, A. Manan, and S. Wismer. 2001. Community participation in marine protected area management: Wakatobi national park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coastal Management 29:295316. Environmental Management Authority (EMA). 2005. The administrative record for the environmentally sensitive area: Nariva Swamp managed resource protected area. Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago: EMA. Fortin M. J. and C. Gagnon. 1999. An assessment of social impacts of national parks on communities in Quebec, Canada. Environmental Conservation 26(3):200-211. Frey, B.S. and S. Meier. 2004. Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 54:65-88. Friedman, D. and M. Hechter. 1988. The contribution of rational choice theory to macrosociological research. Sociological Theory 6(2): 201-218. Garca-Lapresta J.L. and M. Martnez-Panero. 2002. Borda count versus approval voting: A fuzzy approach. Public Choice 112:167184. GHD Pty Ltd. (GHD). 2005. Social impact assessment for Breakout creek. SIA Report prepared for Torrens Catchment Water Management Board. http://www.amlrnrm.sa.gov.au/projects/downloads/boc_sia_report.pdf Gillingham, S. 2001. Insights and applications social organization and participatory resource management in Brazilian Ribeirinho communities: A case study of the Mamiraua sustainable development reserve, Amazonas. Society & Natural Resources, 14:803-814. Gillingham, S. and P.C. Lee. 2003. People and protected areas: A study of local perceptions of wildlife crop-damage conflict in an area bordering the Selous game reserve, Tanzania. Oryx 37(3):316-325. Green, M.J.B, and J. Paine. 1997. State of the world's protected areas at the end of the Twentieth century. Paper presented at IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Symposium on ntury: From Islands to Networks. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/archive/albany.pdf Gunatilake, H.M. 1998. The role of rural development in protecting tropical rainforests: Evidence from Sri Lanka. Journal of Environmental Management 53:273292. Haldeman, V.A., J.M. Peters, and P.A. Tripple. 1987. Measuring a consumer energy conservation ethic: An analysis of components. Journal of Consumer Affairs 21(1):70-85.

PAGE 145

145 Hannu, N. 1995. On the difficulty of making social choices. Theory and Decision 38(1):99-119. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243-1248. Hardner, J.J., P.C. Frumhoff and D.C. Goetze. 2000. Prospects for mitigating carbon, conserving biodiversity, and promoting socioeconomic development objectives through the clean development mechanism. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 5:6180. Hechter, M. and S. Kanazawa. 1997. Sociological rational choice theory. Annual Review of Sociology 23:191214. Heltberg, R. 2001. Determinants and impact of local institutions for common resource management. Environment and Development Economics 6:183208. Hockings, M. 2003. Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. BioScience 53(9):823-832. Hough, J. 1991. Social impact assessment: Its role in protected area planning and management. In Resident peoples and national parks: Social dilemmas and strategies in international conservation. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. Hulme, D. and M. Murphree. 2001. Community Conservation in Africa. In African wildlife & livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Heltberg, R. 2001. Determinants and impact of local institutions for common resource management. Environment and Development Economics 6:183208. Hockings, M. 2003. Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. BioScience 53(9):823-832. Hough, J. 1991. Social impact assessment: Its role in protected area planning and management. In Resident peoples and national parks: Social dilemmas and strategies in international conservation. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. Hulme, D. and M. Murphree. 2001. Community Conservation in Africa. In African wildlife & livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 1994. Guidelines for protected areas management categories. Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) with assistance of World Conservation Monitoring Center, IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.

PAGE 146

146 Jentoft, S., B.J. McCay, and D.C. Wilson. 1998. Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 22(4):423-436. Johnson, P.E. 1998. Social choice: Theory and research. Sage University Papers Series. No. 07-123. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jones, B.T.B. and M.W. Murphree. 2001. Community-based natural resource management as a conservation mechanism: Lessons and directions. In Parks in transition. London, England: Earthscan. Kangas, A., S. Laukkanen, and J. Kangas. 2006. Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management-a review. Forest Policy and Economics 9:7792. Kellert, S.R., J.R. Mehta, S.A. Ebbin and L.L. Lichtenfield. 2000. Community natural resource management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources, 13:705715. Kessler, B.L. 2004. Stakeholder participation: A synthesis of current literature. Paper prepared by the National Marine Protected Areas Center in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center, Silver Spring, Maryland. http://www.mpa.gov/pdf/publications/Stakeholder_Synthesis.pdf Kueppers, L.M., P. Baer, J. Harte, B. Haya, L.E. Koteen, and M.E. Smith. 2004. A decision matrix approach to evaluating the impacts of land-use activities undertaken to mitigate climate change an editorial essay. Climatic Change 63:247257. Leach, M. and J. Fairhead. 2001. Science, policy and national parks in Trinidad and Tobago. Institutions and Policy Pro http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/KNOTS/PDFs/TrinidadNationalParks.pdf McClanahan, T., J. Davies and J. Mania. 2005. Factors influencing resource users and perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32(1):4249. McFarlane, B. and P.C. Boxall. 2000. Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: The case of the foothills model forest, Alberta, Canada. Society & Natural Resources 13:649-661. Maclaren, F.T. 2002. A strategic approach for community-based ecotourism development. Paper prepared for The International Ecotourism Society. Marcus, R.R. 2001. Seeing the forest for the trees: integrated conservation and development projects and local perceptions of conservation in Madagascar. Human Ecology 29(4):381-397.

PAGE 147

147 Mardle, S., S. Pascoe, and I. Herrero. Management objective importance in fisheries: an evaluation using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Environmental Management 33(1): 111. Marshall, G.R. (Ed.). 2005. Economics for collaborative environmental management. London, England: Earthscan. Masozera, M.K. and J.R.R. Alavalapati. 2004. Forest dependency and its implications for protected areas management: A case study from the Nyungwe forest reserve, Rwanda. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Resources 19(Suppl. 4):85-92. Masozera, M.K., J.R.R. Alavalapati, S.K. Jacobson, and R.M. Shrestha. 2006. Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe forest reserve, Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics 8(2):206-216. May, P.H., E. Boyd, M. Chang and F.C. Veiga. 2003. Local sustainable development effects of forest carbon projects in Brazil and Bolivia: A view from the field. Paper presented at The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity. http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/9240IIED.pdf Miller, K.K. and T.K. McGee. 2001. Toward incorporating human dimensions information into wildlife management decision-making. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:205221. Miranda, M., C. Dieperink and P. Glasbergen. 2002. The social meaning of carbon dioxide emission trading institutional capacity building for a green market in Costa Rica. Environment Development and Sustainability 4:6986. Ngugi, I. 2002. Economic impacts of marine protected areas: a case study of the Mombasa marine park (Kenya). Ergo 1(1):1-11. impact assessment count: a negotiation based approach for indigenous people. Society & Natural Resources. 12(1):63-80. Ostrom, E. 1998. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American political science association, 1997. American Political Science Review 92(1):1-22. __________1999. Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science 2:493.535. __________2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3):137-158. Ostrom, V. and E. Ostrom. 1971. Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration. Public Administration Review 31(2):203-216.

PAGE 148

148 Pattanayak, S.K. and E.O. Sills. 2001. Do tropical forests provide natural insurance? The microeconomics of non-timber forest product collection in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Economics 77(4):595-612. Peter, F. 2003. Gender and the foundations of social choice: The role of situated agency. Feminist Economics 9(2 3):13 32. Picard, C.H. 2003. Post-apartheid perceptions of the greater St Lucia wetland park, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 30(2):182191. Pomeroy. R. S. 1995. Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastal fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean & Coastal Management 27(3):143-162. Pomeroy, R.S. and F. Berkes. 1997. Two to tango: The role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 21(5):465-480. Proctor, W., S. Cork, J. Langridge, A. Langston, N. Abel, M. Howden, M. Anderies, R. Parry, and D. Shelton. 2002. Assessing ecosystem services in Australia. Presented at Sustainable Ecosystems Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia 7th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics. http://www.ecosystemservicesproject.org/html/publications/docs/ISEE_02.pdf Raftery A.E. 2001. Statistics in sociology 1950-2000: A selective review. Sociological Methodology 31:1-45. Ramanathan, R. 2001. A note on the use of the analytical hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 63:2735. Reardon, T. and S.A. Vosti. 1995. Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing countries: Asset categories and investment poverty. World Development 23(9):1495-1506. Reddy, B.S. 2002. Natural resource management through rural cooperatives participation and monitoringFood Security and Managing Natural Resources in Southeast Asia challenges for the http://www.uni-hohenheim.de/symposium2002/pa_full/Full-Pap-S2-3_Sudhakara_Reddy.pdf Reddy, S.R.C. and S.P. Chakravarty. 1999. Forest dependence and income distribution in a subsistence economy: Evidence from India. World Development 27(7):1141-1149. Repetto. R. (Ed.) 2006. Punctuated equilibrium and the dynamics of US environmental policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

PAGE 149

149 Saari, D. 2006. Which is better: The Condorcet or Borda winner? Social Choice Welfare 26:107129. Satz, D. and J. Ferejohn. 1994. Rational choice and social theory. The Journal of Philosophy 91(2):71-87. Scheyvens, R. 1999. Case study: Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management 20:245-249. Schmoldt, D.L., J. Kangas, G.A. Mendoza, and M. Pesonen. (Eds.) 2001. The analytical hierarchy process in natural resources and environmental decision making. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sheppard, B.H., J. Hartwick, and P.R. Warshaw. The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. The Journal of Consumer Research 15(3):325-343. Simon, H. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1):99-118. Singleton, J., R. Sulaiman, and The Nature Conservancy SE Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas staff. 2002. Environmental assessment study Komodo national park Indonesia. http://www.komodonationalpark.org/downloads/Komodo%20EAS.pdf Stem, C.J., J.P. Lassoie, D.R. Lee, and D.J. Deshler. 2003. eecotourism? A comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(4):322-347. Stern, P.C. 1999. Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy 22:461-478. Takasaki, Y., B.L. Barham and O.T. Coomes. 2000. Rapid rural appraisal in humid tropical forests: An asset possession-based approach and validation methods for wealth assessment among forest peasant households. World Development 28(11):1961-1977. ____________________________________. 2001. Amazonian peasants, rain forest use, and income generation: The role of wealth and geographical factors. Society & Natural Resources 14:291308. Intention to conserve water: Environmental values, reasoned action, and information effects across time. Society & Natural Resources 18:573585. Tschakert, P. and G. Tappan. 2004. The social context of carbon sequestration: considerations from a multi-scale environmental history of the old peanut basin of Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments 59(3):535-564.

PAGE 150

150 Vanclay, F. 1999. Social impact assessment. In International Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (Vol 1). Oxford, England: Blackwell Science. Vanclay, F., M. van Schooten, and R. Slootweg. 2000. Social impact assessment. In Environmental Assessment in East Asia. Singapore: Institute of South EastAsian Studies. Vaske, J.J. and M.P. Donnelly. 1999. A valueattitudebehavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society & Natural Resources 12:523 537. Vedeld, P., A. Angelsen, E. Sjaastad, and G.K. Berg. 2004. Counting on the environment forest incomes and the rural poor. Environmental Economics Series, World Bank Paper No. 98. Wall, G. 1997. Is ecotourism sustainable? Environmental Management 21(4):483-491. Wallace, G.N. and S. Pierce. 1996. An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research 23(4):843-873. Walker, J.M., R. Gardner, A. Herr and E. Ostrom. 2000. Collective choice in the commons: Experimental results on proposed allocation rules and votes. The Economic Journal 110:212-234. Weladji, R.B., S.R. Moe, and P. Vedeld. 2003. Stakeholder attitudes towards wildlife policy and the Bnou wildlife conservation area, North Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30(4):334343. West, P.C., and S.R. Brechin. (Eds.) 1991. Resident peoples and national parks: Social dilemmas and strategies in international conservation. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. Wunder, S. 1999. Promoting Forest conservation through ecotourism income? A case study from the Ecuadorian Amazon region. Occasional Paper No. 21 Center for International Forestry Research. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-21.pdf

PAGE 151

151 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Cindy Chandool is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago where she pursued her tertiary education at the University of the West Indies, Trinidad (UWI). She completed both her bachelor of science (BSc) and masters (MPhil) degrees in Zoology at UWI in 1996 and 1999 respectively. In 1999, she began her career at the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) in Trinidad and Tobago where she functioned as a regulatory compliance officer. In this capacity she was able to participate in the review of environmental impact assessment reports and other conservation oriented activities for the sustainable development of her country. In order to continue her education, she applied for and received a graduate scholarship from the Organization of American States (OAS). This scholarship facilitated her pursuit of a doctor of philosophy (PhD) degree in interdisciplinary ecology at the School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida. She began her studies at the University of Florida in August 2003 and received her PhD in August 2007. She intends to continue her career in natural resource management in her country, utilizing the interdisciplinary perspective she has gained through her PhD studies.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101114_AAAAGK INGEST_TIME 2010-11-14T18:03:45Z PACKAGE UFE0021215_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1053954 DFID F20101114_AACFER ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH chandool_c_Page_076.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
6553b821843b2cf6c93ab9c71aebeb52
SHA-1
45b1bb90231a4baf3f1d2bf8ba0f0ab6da3b7741
122396 F20101114_AACEZL chandool_c_Page_076.jp2
e436a522bbf8ffd61d0967eee468cd7b
3d19517f70f405cc921317a916392d80e93a99e9
103329 F20101114_AACEYX chandool_c_Page_060.jp2
0916515acc2f59425584b6184958eabd
50c88fda20d2baa023e6c08cf1eb0e2b9d076d7c
F20101114_AACFFG chandool_c_Page_092.tif
e51262980ca60e748818d6f5656346df
e21a80e754bb81fda05396d220fb2d329ac45545
F20101114_AACFES chandool_c_Page_077.tif
875526601284bd9cc67d8d57d6d78f37
8ca211f0770ca1a5c0faa78c6262b27fa5e5d3c2
118861 F20101114_AACEZM chandool_c_Page_077.jp2
7e5ecc5552f664233a98e43cbc305267
b3c667f418b2e5b639fcb18c2c2b6ccfc4703fc4
1051943 F20101114_AACEYY chandool_c_Page_061.jp2
b50ce7bc324da611a796f6882bb08681
d2cbbcde23cf175430c90d34d8681c7aa5df0080
F20101114_AACFFH chandool_c_Page_093.tif
05aa8387c09b2ef530527b718fcec1a0
2b659a60a366bb994c8b58a4fd19421bea0cb0a0
F20101114_AACFET chandool_c_Page_078.tif
861ae1ba71732c48f349a48cb6a404bb
eb578c13bee58e2f410fa8c5d57623211c51fbbd
114153 F20101114_AACEZN chandool_c_Page_078.jp2
4c192875fca2c1ca01323948e1d1955f
6b205e66a33a00cc9f6bc828962c01447b3c1e4f
110255 F20101114_AACEYZ chandool_c_Page_063.jp2
7e6178311f04950e35100da40431ff13
a912ec562fa2d429ded29f60fff5c09717c684e4
F20101114_AACFFI chandool_c_Page_094.tif
2cefad5707701f95c41da72ad96f6997
f39014228b6d81c906ba627bb6b30aa2810a5c45
F20101114_AACFEU chandool_c_Page_079.tif
40abd76471a04aa597b58a741ed121ba
53c7ddbefb66a4afaacf04f65f786b37c5b3cf08
111337 F20101114_AACEZO chandool_c_Page_079.jp2
d6a93f84269a48ea4d070279c6556f23
cadbf4c68751540779377bcef58135747d88991b
F20101114_AACFEV chandool_c_Page_080.tif
b56ca7365941bf19e3053e9a940da9b5
6f35cf291a23f21af08f36818360f739720b2bd1
111600 F20101114_AACEZP chandool_c_Page_080.jp2
0b1c8002c665679dd2cb6db16779f701
d4bfe85fcaae3eddb40640d94b35161d476aba23
F20101114_AACFFJ chandool_c_Page_095.tif
c9ca6f20b065eafc0d68d033ecdf2715
a2119d779d414954072ac348fef375e9ca5252b6
F20101114_AACFEW chandool_c_Page_081.tif
22ce41fd605cff6566000d90d4af781b
ebf00699a0ebe1e67640507c8c26ffa1dd8a3ed9
118232 F20101114_AACEZQ chandool_c_Page_081.jp2
8229a787f2e9632bc943aaf64198e620
9b749eae18a9e6b02d232c468d0f5922127b9f9d
F20101114_AACFFK chandool_c_Page_096.tif
2a893fde5d9f61ddff7ce2fd66bdbefa
b8b4f0f0efd5f6a422cbab5aa2d616153bccbefd
F20101114_AACFEX chandool_c_Page_082.tif
7f132f76ba5c1a756582f5874b51a469
f69758aaa98ca098d4f2af9f30367a35da223e2c
112750 F20101114_AACEZR chandool_c_Page_082.jp2
39b8766fa7483cd8f5001bdfa0eeb989
eb813cb8eaeb6935db70d751b698d25138c6df48
F20101114_AACFGA chandool_c_Page_113.tif
76dd9b395ccaed05a8cc569f8a458e57
95501354df1cadaac9bf694580b7f6832be9591b
F20101114_AACFFL chandool_c_Page_097.tif
71b30a41e1ed96617f9c54c490c1dcf9
84100c6383de843f677e5bec26a5303defee3e1d
F20101114_AACFEY chandool_c_Page_084.tif
8e4fcbac63670dd290bfaf3c3facd66a
eb2d678f17c646456848ff1182bacbea1141ac4b
1051960 F20101114_AACEZS chandool_c_Page_083.jp2
10c70917d4d96433511b5ad8e9b3feed
cfee327dd58484aa4c761329e77a3631a7a5038c
F20101114_AACFGB chandool_c_Page_114.tif
57de0321a5fcb533ce84e7b61835f907
7bd93f0b14a6e13c7213be6eea80bc3ffb8111ab
F20101114_AACFFM chandool_c_Page_098.tif
92ddbdacbe7732e851f3b050c145a567
30bf0ca9cf5ec6aa90d7e0b63a032d46313171bc
F20101114_AACFEZ chandool_c_Page_085.tif
a25a71f4b611d6c5c56a210d72a01bf5
f08ace73352d122659dd5103d80ac63c472215e6
116182 F20101114_AACEZT chandool_c_Page_084.jp2
f0398aafe41d1df7fe5ff846054155e8
b6a8d6b32f3f7aa37dccb8117db7fc3017f38bac
F20101114_AACFGC chandool_c_Page_115.tif
403921a2c54f55a96f74824dcfdf9c5a
210997591dc4b52f9362b58fdc4434ac7107aebe
25271604 F20101114_AACFFN chandool_c_Page_099.tif
9fb8bea20b95bd32b2c6b5e7172d700e
3cad5a4c94859028cf3422ec7a0ab00c7fd00cbd
108484 F20101114_AACEZU chandool_c_Page_085.jp2
66537e63bb4308375591cdd9836e3e8c
889f76b22d15c3568f52f0d237d46b8735c28372
F20101114_AACFGD chandool_c_Page_117.tif
2df55b1b606abf97133f1f593f305d81
6e9fb1712f7cc76170b6187fc194285d5bb6980f
F20101114_AACFFO chandool_c_Page_100.tif
8d9764ed48c28c8181ac7d4462d80f8c
527c2d4888fea91e2fb60e9ae00938a57f57bf35
116606 F20101114_AACEZV chandool_c_Page_086.jp2
2e3beb06635a579744dd49ce9f75f59b
4c6ec054db59cd1ece2a7157f82881a7a6e47a0f
F20101114_AACFGE chandool_c_Page_118.tif
4c82396f7d7516dac14dcec6777f4012
e9984cef0ea01102495e7f1c9268e63ef3f0f042
F20101114_AACFFP chandool_c_Page_101.tif
bbadb7fc924b2a901de9b2e090483dcf
08387b40e6edc9216c26a6554c26f8ef8dfd85fc
112838 F20101114_AACEZW chandool_c_Page_090.jp2
7b62640e3d719340ce9d188693e3b4a2
fb9f178a683e6c37f46372849297acaebe1a1259
F20101114_AACFGF chandool_c_Page_119.tif
f93540a9732a461fb473dd6ce00b8af1
d189b4df77bfb0c9e3c8668eb4bcaa025512156e
F20101114_AACFFQ chandool_c_Page_102.tif
0ccb886d9e5df5e312a05fdcc3bb9db1
5baeeeb36434dc0ebce596867c2026aac3cbe2f9
123752 F20101114_AACEZX chandool_c_Page_091.jp2
12f2f54fa2d8b6cc85388f1738eaf58a
b3e1ddeead5d9095347e9142bf13f087f9cbab13
F20101114_AACFGG chandool_c_Page_120.tif
6469756bd44c2eb2d9c33e57c24a63d0
0a4a8b0d1adaa48e8a036584b9f9a4825fc68b2b
F20101114_AACFFR chandool_c_Page_103.tif
dac2259e4c3c9d4985325311faf253f7
ddeaa40d4399fd8d1d80797ccc6d0487b95703bb
117115 F20101114_AACEZY chandool_c_Page_092.jp2
19b04c0adecbd7beae696e56c9c27eaf
729c70887efb77b81048937afa32fd7d09460574
F20101114_AACFGH chandool_c_Page_121.tif
8ceb037ef4a0c8e75d49c49429589af5
4209cc849cdbd99fe71da6c6cf1acba01b6669de
F20101114_AACFFS chandool_c_Page_104.tif
1c1a8229931c9ec31976f9747afc4ddb
70a16cc98e81523c316189b2df9477690c15468f
89477 F20101114_AACEZZ chandool_c_Page_093.jp2
88daa2fa3b57310f0e5f7e525a8ac2b1
f1b7a186ea64b08780a4533734fb680cd419892f
F20101114_AACFGI chandool_c_Page_123.tif
9c058b24e3b80b5016d03912ceabe5e0
6ceee45e341f77d155e366b5158890aa1008d894
F20101114_AACFFT chandool_c_Page_105.tif
9a1deea2ec845ba545d2368c3a252577
b1ecfb578809e671ae81257422737ba6cca9318c
F20101114_AACFGJ chandool_c_Page_124.tif
033efd11ef71f40f279e1402a92d93fb
61265b971b8379a3933939f77359f78efed719fa
F20101114_AACFFU chandool_c_Page_106.tif
67c13fb6965e3bf8f4a27867ace3381e
f423ab2f0f4ec03c041f38ca43543c99a75f28ba
F20101114_AACFFV chandool_c_Page_107.tif
44ddd6d788d4ae8df4356d9249d538dc
9a52937cec5db3572e3dbdec5579a5d969be100c
F20101114_AACFGK chandool_c_Page_125.tif
01345ce7a62d3798f6da8c991e9c29a0
287f769c125da26ec9a93f20a8b687f9b396ed2e
F20101114_AACFFW chandool_c_Page_108.tif
01870e84d10456d4941ed39a2b25e20e
1d03973510c48aa6b448eb1448018ffedc6c113e
F20101114_AACFHA chandool_c_Page_142.tif
49cfbcfe8c19e49d77fd17bc98b6bc17
54fcc47a871fb0370cbc6c73fc3920666f7aa21a
F20101114_AACFGL chandool_c_Page_126.tif
e9648359e88f8e78ca67457c00f62f91
2a8cc5a80b62ed74a9771b2847c2c8b8a4a63aea
F20101114_AACFFX chandool_c_Page_109.tif
db6ead2fc4589c1bb1e34cd21389482d
1c266abe8755d31dc2247e58aba197d6fd32a0aa
F20101114_AACFHB chandool_c_Page_144.tif
c3329d7209d82657ba139cda952a772c
2c31ed9cb493e3c4c7f40e12d55e2730b1ece991
F20101114_AACFGM chandool_c_Page_127.tif
45f95c844cc71eb9a046afd926c1c220
b1fc414daa32b81bb5f95756cae2eb854ad1c7a3
F20101114_AACFFY chandool_c_Page_111.tif
249c021256523a1b03aaa9a74be65c05
6d4c9c13be0b5c2a3655f6fac03b1411c8ca12f2
F20101114_AACFHC chandool_c_Page_146.tif
2d711875be8d057ecc297d47cfb2af60
75de7afd35e410a9c53b5fc73fedc2197b500a6b
F20101114_AACFGN chandool_c_Page_128.tif
5fe8b842f9d08f474a049ce9d9d12f47
88207dc5da265d0485d6e8c62ef56ad546379508
F20101114_AACFFZ chandool_c_Page_112.tif
68b8222db2796583e0fc6048f94c1985
6e2838adc1ec9c4ee57a9390324b024db7d2873b
F20101114_AACFHD chandool_c_Page_147.tif
573dd050850cbecf16af596a9aa1c475
a435c0a670ae06036dc606e15dfc795fe2aea77b
F20101114_AACFGO chandool_c_Page_129.tif
6b926db5c6593fc700c96da2a9318000
e347cfcdc664b23e4b0234941253a757609f3a0c
F20101114_AACFGP chandool_c_Page_130.tif
dcba2307c8a40b63fc300f4d05d368be
c9c1eee6eba60c80248c1eb6706307014cd34ad6
F20101114_AACFHE chandool_c_Page_148.tif
0ee964050d457e9f339607102fea5892
56464147e8c4bb518412ca0fd9b33719ff5f6e40
F20101114_AACFGQ chandool_c_Page_131.tif
6e3361cd8e6ae43fe3d7045abfbc74fa
b088fdd703e0aecf32d134c099521e8f617e3d32
F20101114_AACFHF chandool_c_Page_149.tif
fe7879b562d20769df71c631a9f022b0
fbda90ed51888e559e522c1026f2193a6768076c
F20101114_AACFGR chandool_c_Page_132.tif
f42286d7ff15c4d6d4d1fd371ebc0923
d4289fc5c63263758f3fdba0842bde2db36ddc5e
F20101114_AACFHG chandool_c_Page_150.tif
12c91a583fe91562893640fa8f79849c
bc208021f2e74dfb6d18cf5b34ffeca92d734ac8
F20101114_AACFGS chandool_c_Page_133.tif
211b3868ea868929ed8568de7718431d
e0e6ad09c07031274b902294cdbea520fb934711
F20101114_AACFHH chandool_c_Page_151.tif
39c66c68141dba65fd6c6a2c6b25ed92
536abde82c17754131e71fb24b8188d54db795cf
F20101114_AACFGT chandool_c_Page_134.tif
c776a284ee42b9ff069f39bdeb456830
c135a0035a6a7856b4d7bc755943a033beb13574
10105 F20101114_AACFHI chandool_c_Page_001.pro
5c5a1cfaa77b3bf02aa866250cb9e3b8
6eefcd69bab0629a19e1719890d509d949a100d0
F20101114_AACFGU chandool_c_Page_135.tif
9cffb3d544b26f54a47c2113c5de926a
c7f409c9c1c7afe665f5e9a0a3cc7ee68f65131e
832 F20101114_AACFHJ chandool_c_Page_002.pro
1198e75d7743d6a4bb23a59a70dd0489
3e4966f7d8fc58eebbfebbba9beef8a91fdfdba1
F20101114_AACFGV chandool_c_Page_136.tif
d05c8e6f340bd68b9c88896c6ff916fd
cbfc0091226b22ec727a1baf0cde71a41ba951a2
1690 F20101114_AACFHK chandool_c_Page_003.pro
9f16513caf28caa4f0e1086c2226e271
74f9e1f67b859745d2e22c0bf52af43050738d51
F20101114_AACFGW chandool_c_Page_137.tif
2361f5ef6e9e85874a6da0e13d1e83b5
fd2578cb100555d0325b999debc6cdff5541a8fd
F20101114_AACFGX chandool_c_Page_138.tif
7cb4c5da8c66aaaaae6d9102d9f1bace
1b33ca1767cbbbfe508c726ba055cf60c8f357ea
54490 F20101114_AACFIA chandool_c_Page_019.pro
719681349bfc89975a62797370c0e49d
fbd48e5f6776f0e12178180f76ac0e5ac57c3d88
50640 F20101114_AACFHL chandool_c_Page_004.pro
e02fd4c4ddb9bf7029782e6ad448b675
2be6521f37b6de6e3ff1db29fe398d0e26b19b27
F20101114_AACFGY chandool_c_Page_139.tif
fe2cb81162ce0a08955b88a6abc4e5e7
ee64bd35d7427b2d4a52e2ac93568d1c4b9359ff
55424 F20101114_AACFIB chandool_c_Page_020.pro
e1d060938a39f539d89f4f47ecdbf58b
024bb2e7eacad383865118c0034e625d00ee0cae
3577 F20101114_AACFHM chandool_c_Page_005.pro
d2899233bafd6120b9ed41488ff13cdc
5c64ac2a37143a9b501b1a8a7798cd0b2e8ba2c3
F20101114_AACFGZ chandool_c_Page_140.tif
147e6fc4b19c0edc07bfeb667384bef4
fcc813b38c5923ab003b94c640bc58bcc151f27c
53821 F20101114_AACFIC chandool_c_Page_021.pro
90bf15f1f2ebe2830493ad1f8d2db77f
046e19fba7f03de8011b9b619fda6ca779bc8eef
71237 F20101114_AACFHN chandool_c_Page_006.pro
d0c78482d423abed087b2db93faeec3c
a5a87ee06c0dca27c3577b4731349f6a8194569b
15515 F20101114_AACFID chandool_c_Page_024.pro
4b0a1e989ae40ad443ca43f455318a49
4151027cd1e6311814de9305563d47b5ce81bfac
86055 F20101114_AACFHO chandool_c_Page_007.pro
0ed6f53ffbde866b58983b0e313a57a4
8e5d42c834a136660989a1fd19eda9a241963b28
55720 F20101114_AACFIE chandool_c_Page_026.pro
91bf5627407506bae4a76e53650b8048
0ea6dcaee908f7cfa1962165144062dd8193bb9a
58157 F20101114_AACFHP chandool_c_Page_008.pro
f5f41651168f131bc58be30c57132963
fc1dd9e00c10e5d42f86e259873812b11ac2e3bf
49404 F20101114_AACFIF chandool_c_Page_027.pro
64dc6373ee93afac31a91bbc9179ce7a
2761e5d621a34058c2f870678497b395b7a15aa4
45986 F20101114_AACFHQ chandool_c_Page_009.pro
2169baad27e1453e1e2fcb413d6187a4
2aea520af6285a2dbc0a32a030d3baad7a6e6659
53800 F20101114_AACFIG chandool_c_Page_028.pro
e1c5ecbf51f5c46c03ad9998051fbc26
687e64a3953a0d47e3568cc36895da459c34830d
30682 F20101114_AACFHR chandool_c_Page_010.pro
c038f9cc947d14a90d098704609e92cf
bb59f3a1180ae37c4a35cbb04bf78a72f6fad7ec
43662 F20101114_AACFIH chandool_c_Page_029.pro
f647a58cafb80c44860503470aca0118
aa61a641ea3be66a08a27d70247f721075693b99
42891 F20101114_AACFHS chandool_c_Page_011.pro
f61b2d337e98e8912985d1d81454310e
6a1a5f7d5f75cfd9acf653479cd34207bd7cc9b1
48910 F20101114_AACFII chandool_c_Page_030.pro
9161f5733478fc0326760923e3a3c8e1
aa77bc6deb254c4961649da636dbebdae91fce27
30002 F20101114_AACFHT chandool_c_Page_012.pro
2bf9a3be833c0f05ce4e857e6e15c025
2935a8150c5a3f9b119f2a2f941e84aa12b668e5
52835 F20101114_AACFIJ chandool_c_Page_031.pro
c3b4e7a4ef19ec0a12acaf19ac15f3ce
b0bc4cc89d330baca794a020fa89cdd2395b9867
48039 F20101114_AACFHU chandool_c_Page_013.pro
7454afa7193ae2a6dfccb6ad55ac1694
d371e03b250a55c5f1174b96d0f82d89d589ed75
53584 F20101114_AACFIK chandool_c_Page_032.pro
0b5ec5a792d4e5a8d93cf826fd2fedb0
758f769c083e2645a0507892ff45295e02304f52
51536 F20101114_AACFHV chandool_c_Page_014.pro
24f2d6d55c734158fb1deb97d643ad2d
93f52cdf855cbf3c43c60c5894d2d977e0945777
55153 F20101114_AACFIL chandool_c_Page_033.pro
6e782f773b80412b8395c5a957a69bc3
c343b581ff3fc825630d55aca16c6d036945c702
51637 F20101114_AACFHW chandool_c_Page_015.pro
33dbd31f8544cd9fb74ddf495dbb4a06
20cf373f7058dbf2bc6926e30819098ca5a7b8fa
49718 F20101114_AACFJA chandool_c_Page_053.pro
0a094a9d4b969811e96a46ffa9dd0d22
bf12009a9a8965cac9b5312e7a33bc1d1e293aae
53810 F20101114_AACFHX chandool_c_Page_016.pro
7d6313cc76b56d3208355acd0b566e7a
506823ea9645fb8883baef9b19c1a6487bd8e951
49576 F20101114_AACFJB chandool_c_Page_054.pro
82753b80d98ba252a107359ade682407
c1face4df7db1e954d3325ee72d4c21e01832071
50584 F20101114_AACFIM chandool_c_Page_034.pro
81d3fbdb125f95486853966f80cd61d6
ae3d84b504e55c639506bad211366eaeff8ed99b
57838 F20101114_AACFHY chandool_c_Page_017.pro
61873a340b69d716e30ec9f2b3734d48
0c9c5f5d37fdbd68e429ed57fdbdda2944d41678
35581 F20101114_AACFJC chandool_c_Page_055.pro
3f9d1e741252733e2160cb128336a7c6
fd3e71a3b74363ede5b27cea179bde6c9c0cca6a
49870 F20101114_AACFIN chandool_c_Page_035.pro
e07e713d8b8eeaac557c60deb4b0a889
d7be5dff174a4cee59a9a1215b93e7b613c031a6
51411 F20101114_AACFHZ chandool_c_Page_018.pro
a6f6ee4fd5db88b1a1c51dc65624534f
05b1b1398abe1ce0d396ed184667603ff6c9757f
56849 F20101114_AACFJD chandool_c_Page_057.pro
462ffdc9d2f7340ece70a1e60c2cc9b6
c0428ceac3317f3bffc0346adffd287e0bd8ac58
52590 F20101114_AACFIO chandool_c_Page_036.pro
0d21a99d23dfe3f0f7622061f2cd1954
e07d9d33ef0c05e27711f8b404c46337c0768733
51005 F20101114_AACFJE chandool_c_Page_058.pro
7e43726ec711d072e20a77239a461059
1189f9cda2cd84547b3db90c62e9c7af9d92b455
24921 F20101114_AACFIP chandool_c_Page_037.pro
e2db7774e898d3c217e2517e0c1570b3
10bef1bf0cbee52e445ac1c89a6d9638c1a7481a
54031 F20101114_AACFJF chandool_c_Page_059.pro
9633bb6dbb6716a7612960c4c3660923
3ed763ae39624dcd72559c33b120c9bef00623b9
48832 F20101114_AACFIQ chandool_c_Page_038.pro
4f47c287430ca15d76bbb8dd6b522afb
95109b71bb577d9b50decef42056e4c63987266d
46880 F20101114_AACFJG chandool_c_Page_060.pro
c49ab3e2dadd6621739dfd435993852f
1c8ee789a8bf18e639e6ccdefeef9fe03755d49f
48490 F20101114_AACFIR chandool_c_Page_040.pro
a872c299ff00c6fbdce644bd6be63d57
1a055cc59afe43285a5905033ed22e5b97fb4783
49919 F20101114_AACFJH chandool_c_Page_061.pro
dd29de720686f526264b1949bd594069
b66d874cab28f67b36b1b61de1de6c80a1554414
49523 F20101114_AACFIS chandool_c_Page_041.pro
6f9eba5251b706bacf797eac19c75f17
2c2588c29ad9ea9bc97dd2aa9fe7343262a7e1a5
55275 F20101114_AACFJI chandool_c_Page_065.pro
35b5f12b3f6612e9c1a155446466f7ff
ec03de6bff191d564311dd08ba8922d9e5bba050
51715 F20101114_AACFIT chandool_c_Page_042.pro
c9ef0dacd39dfffc274dd4a86389fe04
440da67fff320f29dc6a2ce2c327f28927787fe4
44129 F20101114_AACFJJ chandool_c_Page_066.pro
2d6fcc84a5b88c9b5023b8a441a3abad
31eeb01dd9c28420fff385f395474afa33203f9e
45579 F20101114_AACFIU chandool_c_Page_043.pro
40764d8009df52de01916ede9166cd0a
19abb841f7e8c88325e463b5cda62276d816c9d4
48333 F20101114_AACFJK chandool_c_Page_067.pro
74485884fec0b3eb02719a8ecf06019b
320759cbc4d2ce36bf2472a77dcf18713166f84e
47187 F20101114_AACFIV chandool_c_Page_045.pro
010e9b2f3486c83465f200161ee5f097
a84ac9c35960fce7ce2c817d53c34f4d3fe9a1e7
54605 F20101114_AACFJL chandool_c_Page_068.pro
34e1c124802383f8e822b7bf59e4bd4a
224b037a38915cb402c745257f76a6e00d8cd888
15039 F20101114_AACFIW chandool_c_Page_048.pro
b0a502ae3019521faf7f9adf590bde21
8ea1fed2ccd2e7cbfbc53096ff986bcbf495fc45
53415 F20101114_AACFJM chandool_c_Page_069.pro
1c32697724138c3c8613d756e8995628
0f5d567cc5381a138b73eab64424e62bebab97f5
52979 F20101114_AACFIX chandool_c_Page_049.pro
703b4ba36f7b7ebf1238814ed4590596
9c6e63d8cba2c740e44970f882d31d75abfa8300
45396 F20101114_AACFKA chandool_c_Page_088.pro
b3f496aec280f4cd89381ee9240b5bd5
3ed06754f9661b4c40486e04becdf4ed31ac5a6f
53008 F20101114_AACFIY chandool_c_Page_050.pro
dd8252f47cd02ab8839f45beb692c5e7
5682ef704fad7db9af63255fab8defd886c772c3
53717 F20101114_AACFKB chandool_c_Page_089.pro
77321457d62df2c1107c45ef5e52eeb7
8d0e791c4359e0257af21b8b7314fd9672ab9fcd
52431 F20101114_AACFJN chandool_c_Page_070.pro
02ce8c1ffd228259d70d2bcacd64a1a1
0c414332c5583a3619313bfaf174f46e0c3c5f4d
32642 F20101114_AACFIZ chandool_c_Page_052.pro
9bc83fb332cce9f95cf7c7eb01488e43
cfba52c2c9bb6ed58ba7fa35f2233115daa09486
51958 F20101114_AACFKC chandool_c_Page_090.pro
324375bfa3bb50fd2588a125807876b8
374b93e78d143a464357823f83072859c968f466
49700 F20101114_AACFJO chandool_c_Page_071.pro
b21efa1de591ec5b7e60d6fe3530ffcb
561b497974403d37b89adbbd212e331a521870a2
54226 F20101114_AACFKD chandool_c_Page_092.pro
81302f0ae37d1d00db488732db8fb9d3
0d7803aabaeea76c83075fb82e2a95e43615f9b6
7362 F20101114_AACFJP chandool_c_Page_072.pro
5265768d3348d99284f748807060e089
f7165a3480e026e98453bd4ec4abce5f0394728c
37966 F20101114_AACFKE chandool_c_Page_093.pro
1bfbc2ef6593d6af082fb24d5fc1cd1b
aa84f542d9cae2eadb7cc728f209654c12998f63
49941 F20101114_AACFJQ chandool_c_Page_073.pro
fb12fda3e6fb205a13441204d263174d
c39c8cdc5699848786329a27c80479bcd9d6d620
49959 F20101114_AACFKF chandool_c_Page_094.pro
283f16b4bae6797fa8021bef1319a312
efd7c2c2fb1277d206b5412189e5a9406394d389
52245 F20101114_AACFJR chandool_c_Page_074.pro
42f61be85962713134866319779ac7eb
946df6ea58cb772727a57891ffb2ce057c667a6c
37098 F20101114_AACFKG chandool_c_Page_095.pro
2f3a540efa68cce05697e6f29faad0ab
3e7ac802745f14a164d2a8e91a6760d3fa8cae1a
56383 F20101114_AACFJS chandool_c_Page_076.pro
0d335e5f46eb3b256799c89623f2926f
7b050b88b94d0cb395a573a8753749a491d8556c
37079 F20101114_AACFKH chandool_c_Page_096.pro
e48531f349e9bf0ad4b25cecf2d948ca
3750dc7311e5af3a0020f0aeb8a24e4bec5187a9
55435 F20101114_AACFJT chandool_c_Page_077.pro
415b9a9f7a8f35a79700defe159a3020
d446c137e7773775e89d6660b70a5093b72ef672
52316 F20101114_AACFKI chandool_c_Page_097.pro
50a47b4d1e1edf23c0289d02ba470857
4f6d3b0b56a51488f8f2b5e31d92ca5aef01618e
51303 F20101114_AACFJU chandool_c_Page_079.pro
758de8c257399dad0a5fa3c4a04fd268
89d8d7d1b21ca4e5424316be7b3fd3ed488e6b75
23804 F20101114_AACFKJ chandool_c_Page_098.pro
3f1952481dffc6d5a023d6c67356b5a0
f1b19ca0f4ad1e01c4b2196a014fa06a8d61aa53
50921 F20101114_AACFJV chandool_c_Page_080.pro
0c3d30e2989f672eae1875637c2f3f8d
9a736f51417b953813869c1bacda6f036e8cf047
27940 F20101114_AACFKK chandool_c_Page_099.pro
6bffb36081c6db32e08637c296030ef6
e8c74332487dbbc8783636e791231b06e7a918b8
54386 F20101114_AACFJW chandool_c_Page_081.pro
cb9fa07e1cfa3bbd61577fa8a1c9aa69
51e08998ef926b31377942357854f94a71d523c4
24832 F20101114_AACFKL chandool_c_Page_100.pro
ff89036098fedd968fcddaeee9b6ba27
2e1c060b768bc3176a6cd4debb615d7076c0d585
52211 F20101114_AACFJX chandool_c_Page_082.pro
6da2d76259ed3bc496187978ada56625
f8ea93c442cdad4c18346ed3b349fb9a00686cdc
51253 F20101114_AACFLA chandool_c_Page_120.pro
6344b7ced894e5d432206bc9adda11a7
34a6620e933af63bd52fe2c0e3566a6ff2db8053
30683 F20101114_AACFKM chandool_c_Page_101.pro
f4d0da6d99576217f3b31823b8b028e4
597e02c7726331a9c788105526d220eef75a6ab8
50752 F20101114_AACFJY chandool_c_Page_083.pro
47fa8b0b8cd53dec5891304b5623300d
0cc8205542725ccd8e2d8da03c1f562f6c0777bd
54513 F20101114_AACFLB chandool_c_Page_121.pro
d6b668012d803e7dd70f14a9468eb103
371aa1c557ac0509f6a6aedc1bf94e8b67eecdc3
52813 F20101114_AACFKN chandool_c_Page_104.pro
c2047a3d97610cf9280b6d854067cbaf
df7897a87979d7bd5f8ec9f5d96dcb3a02e361a6
53036 F20101114_AACFJZ chandool_c_Page_086.pro
b76075895f79738ec0759138ed33dbbf
8efec81df393d53b497ab5cb56b6dcd4551f55fc
46476 F20101114_AACFLC chandool_c_Page_122.pro
75f93f8cec489c0b078f0a296d7649b3
99c9ce7b804a50e38ea653477417c1804239e3fa
54665 F20101114_AACFLD chandool_c_Page_123.pro
8ff26230d86810dc0c55260f81b83e90
8f63c9178d9a208cec39b424ea225f9e1b5d852a
52533 F20101114_AACFKO chandool_c_Page_106.pro
f45d2712a7ef3540e3add2fdac9a54b2
683be2af880019564906e383d8908a813cceb666
42834 F20101114_AACFLE chandool_c_Page_124.pro
b8a7b27de8bf048c7d5e781ee6ce937d
60430e195bfc1c0b564347c1c1ebd2b93018a409
48446 F20101114_AACFKP chandool_c_Page_107.pro
baaaef643cfc9b89eee96ddeaf87b093
fb1e2beb39cab715e1c8e286ac9fa9291af1e1ea
52417 F20101114_AACFLF chandool_c_Page_125.pro
dc61b7c84d76d7c3ed37707a5c0bfa8d
632f0c37040da458480b37a3499e3cece47d5613
55838 F20101114_AACFKQ chandool_c_Page_108.pro
091dd994c1e4da0138083f824f253c2a
c0a4ddd6c6fb9dfcfa42d6e77059395ac8fd5805
53236 F20101114_AACFLG chandool_c_Page_126.pro
e42329266d06dee41723ac1ea0f7bcc4
f9e4dad8c43e4985f847f775faa98fe04b862682
54344 F20101114_AACFKR chandool_c_Page_109.pro
8eb33b5e5fb390225a96e9f2aa14f035
6a58a4a533c6b859a210a44ecf94c275cf77bca4
54384 F20101114_AACFLH chandool_c_Page_127.pro
d480027a377dc00a430efd237bb94cf9
ff9c207aa4c2dc03097f7ed7195201a763fea6bc
55199 F20101114_AACFKS chandool_c_Page_110.pro
98235d86af67511e37477fc23733bc6a
1b2bc80db69aa023ffac82cf2b52f2a0f32d83e6
4892 F20101114_AACFLI chandool_c_Page_128.pro
71ad5a2d69c2006d6ac10a30448e2c4f
595627b08100b67b41be88509774c797d24dca76
55290 F20101114_AACFKT chandool_c_Page_111.pro
a73fe635709b372a512ac987dd77cf07
bb383f15d0faff3b58d48783fc543b47c61177ac
15077 F20101114_AACFLJ chandool_c_Page_129.pro
07943f574f413e49fee00266c5d67493
1355879f5aa27630f40e194dee67c434eb747e12
51910 F20101114_AACFKU chandool_c_Page_112.pro
222123cd53925ba7d731473d38ebe9a5
1ae47781e3bc7c1c49b31afb57e08da4c3065aff
25316 F20101114_AACFLK chandool_c_Page_130.pro
1a4f146cee3c3bbd0638632416d4c4ad
a07d62e1d5393553fa0811103b91b185d9f28048
48166 F20101114_AACFKV chandool_c_Page_113.pro
51a987db85665c382b42df875cfffa03
93dc50046d9c052cc247c1cfe5331368657272ad
31374 F20101114_AACFLL chandool_c_Page_131.pro
d2d582eefc2b61a7f97ddaf67f7258af
5e5de8dad280f960bb6d76082a92fba513adcf9c
47689 F20101114_AACFKW chandool_c_Page_114.pro
aabb5c7c7ac1e1fded9e6b8e8b837ec3
a23d066e09c15f5da89356c02fcfb0e77cd9995d
60235 F20101114_AACFMA chandool_c_Page_147.pro
3ce7bef0a999b2bd17fa537aca82e240
19b7674658dcced9311bb507f2531265dae3e0f2
29619 F20101114_AACFLM chandool_c_Page_132.pro
54bf99d695bffd3358335cdb281713c4
5e9c08ad493a23299fc3c3e1201edf074191605b
47481 F20101114_AACFKX chandool_c_Page_116.pro
7e989f0885467b87d918e3d26ebbf29f
29e7ac853a9ea5ad656565a925a1683acee8791b
27538 F20101114_AACFLN chandool_c_Page_133.pro
09cd48249db3fbe5e48a394d86e91978
0fecd8a50ca38b756541e342966aa1fb1e9c7d99
48013 F20101114_AACFKY chandool_c_Page_117.pro
ba8173e12b447d13d15c5d055f79198b
31efcc8cac0f0b3cc731f941da450d3cac8502f1
61680 F20101114_AACFMB chandool_c_Page_148.pro
6fd89dfb5380f2a114f7d0be08bebdd1
18719b051c04cbdd08b8e57d9e959c250782302d
33201 F20101114_AACFLO chandool_c_Page_134.pro
69d6ed01c544f4af5f709f0e452df99a
b70e93cd5c690dbb8cf8191714afc39804598a42
41004 F20101114_AACFKZ chandool_c_Page_118.pro
359494735badc57f919bba888d5039e6
bf974fbace62116a2c0f9e912598fce6dbeb17a1
58438 F20101114_AACFMC chandool_c_Page_149.pro
cf16ec8f253ec4ea2673dab9a3ecccd6
561335a4dbdfe02f2ac27e22a741af0cc122f10a
45012 F20101114_AACFMD chandool_c_Page_150.pro
49c652c715a8d3bea46da12ea329e0e7
a84bc2544bffa0e311560dfbb099b6763de090be
39411 F20101114_AACFLP chandool_c_Page_135.pro
2d0785eb6bdd7324ed54d01d69e50f26
1dcf717fc7170b60b8a91903c0f1bd3958fc951c
32503 F20101114_AACFME chandool_c_Page_151.pro
f1a91444b5270540614bf548d59d8401
19d3c1a0c0f733ebe550f0709279419c126480ad
13456 F20101114_AACFLQ chandool_c_Page_136.pro
aee34076a8f9ce3bd815a5ad0c519370
c7c4d866b113c6d6f57052ebee5bc85d5eeedac9
556 F20101114_AACFMF chandool_c_Page_001.txt
a2ffa45643fb9b5a68147479204236e0
a1c0d37916a0fe10c471b12912a037c268feb1f0
40235 F20101114_AACFLR chandool_c_Page_138.pro
2b11049a1bc174ac156c737cd395417d
b7faa7ad13aa09ed943521f076bd1b9d9d773ea4
84 F20101114_AACFMG chandool_c_Page_002.txt
558a5caceeabf9cf6c959f80036cdbcc
3bbfebdeef3daa318bc14e8260a6b855dccf1c8b
65716 F20101114_AACFLS chandool_c_Page_139.pro
ddb45a34b991c0218aa307b92d9cca6e
adda920a0ecc9f2bc57fa0dea142ec3035ee2993
125 F20101114_AACFMH chandool_c_Page_003.txt
c4455d34f49952fa1170b31d2a37abb6
a99931c91dad86b5728bb56e68f785fc7289774c
26628 F20101114_AACFLT chandool_c_Page_140.pro
78b24e5c256923f5b6b2f07733cbb308
50371c215d760d549387cee8d018be9d81cd430d
2029 F20101114_AACFMI chandool_c_Page_004.txt
620872468ff1d4fe3da813c7a15cf8a6
8991f83bdc6a08ef713f5a0b96c982ea870714bc
34625 F20101114_AACFLU chandool_c_Page_141.pro
397dd3ee42b3ae5670ebec924a32dcb7
2f8a6c06ba790da246a46a53d5e7e24c99e1c254
146 F20101114_AACFMJ chandool_c_Page_005.txt
9f71787f4a51e4550b2b3314ba2f6b04
acc5fca4bf7a911fd0342246911404f7fa22246c
59640 F20101114_AACFLV chandool_c_Page_142.pro
779d83cf554621851e8fc411d4c7ab92
7df948fd881dcf3bf191f408a1bba0133c3852d7
3141 F20101114_AACFMK chandool_c_Page_006.txt
629b5bb1a6176ec990fd64b4e9e44529
aceb1c6c8dc53c0fb4111cb631faf470ffe3b1c5
63995 F20101114_AACFLW chandool_c_Page_143.pro
7ea0b4785569cd21207211741f0a2c93
3de73f13ddfd9c7d55b20c428ee83f0db4e70793
3629 F20101114_AACFML chandool_c_Page_007.txt
b415e140321a5954a23184d5aab97889
d7490add943313cf27f151cc5b4cc27d74fb8d38
64747 F20101114_AACFLX chandool_c_Page_144.pro
8ce61179c989c5afb04346a2e040628f
31bf796b13f9c37c1d1dab03c2c32c5eeadb1aab
2093 F20101114_AACFNA chandool_c_Page_022.txt
7e2291b33f10482159ae1ffca63c837b
555c1268b8975cf956b38ced6289f801454cbf84
2490 F20101114_AACFMM chandool_c_Page_008.txt
eca9da722b92837418131522ab82b3b8
4fcc64d3e6ff036587252922c5e8d78c10c8b057
58717 F20101114_AACFLY chandool_c_Page_145.pro
50e616915a27ae5bd9d999caa11308df
7d8b6052c59cbe271afc84a83d77ab7e42461abf
2051 F20101114_AACFNB chandool_c_Page_023.txt
61f18b6604bfcf6870e1178334bc6a23
d95570bbf780e3ae80969c5dd0ad0a03cc43f8cf
1902 F20101114_AACFMN chandool_c_Page_009.txt
328de60792fe68b3f519e776af0a36b2
f77133ffdd46b3f14e12392384644a7de789c9f0
63185 F20101114_AACFLZ chandool_c_Page_146.pro
9d39d2a82301f6adc0d593cea5adf600
8bd32189bbf17fd7075b3aaf510bd115d184d695
2181 F20101114_AACFNC chandool_c_Page_026.txt
fdc6542029c4c7287a2286db1096a52c
e09d51ec3fa0a9f66b3ad4741dcb1ceeb4022ebe
1264 F20101114_AACFMO chandool_c_Page_010.txt
38bbec36f98124a7231fc1fdde57755e
46b53f6f0a4ebf6970563b140a4664898e66a50d
1955 F20101114_AACFND chandool_c_Page_027.txt
8d4c9e80f0d46c1f55685fa25007dfc9
7eb6b59f343577a0bdde0e9db748d58386322a13
1892 F20101114_AACFMP chandool_c_Page_011.txt
3196c70e9f5f1f9ff70ddabeca9d431d
4c9e091dc8d890eced9c51d792e09d6847b8c6b9
2158 F20101114_AACFNE chandool_c_Page_028.txt
241beab9a0ee51c99070737e2c59b47e
92f2898699785375a3681c95e68ebf7ee965191b
2087 F20101114_AACFNF chandool_c_Page_031.txt
0d652292ec61602f9131f7e6f1b58f09
177d639aa0325cac628d29e9fa936f0d59c525e0
1194 F20101114_AACFMQ chandool_c_Page_012.txt
958512ed8e6e83cf1f735a0d4ef8c19d
2ea354e4e5689cb8a9d6f49d902601df69428b79
2157 F20101114_AACFNG chandool_c_Page_032.txt
142715be1012d24529643b0b29230da4
ea801ad00ae39149a25fce7cb9e886d434c2ae5d
2006 F20101114_AACFMR chandool_c_Page_013.txt
e20c7eb15aaef608848310740897cf44
a23d58d757e28a7a347b4dd5b28af2f366d1386b
2168 F20101114_AACFNH chandool_c_Page_033.txt
22afba4ba4562965493fd331e08b98fd
39b3a59ba21a762d5a778418ab1af48d582cde09
2040 F20101114_AACFMS chandool_c_Page_014.txt
873b7fb28900caa824b0fe88cec3c1f0
e3ea3770297688f979857233ac68a7921ec7f2c7
1995 F20101114_AACFNI chandool_c_Page_034.txt
52d53f27d9d1f6a568d842dd50951279
b5d199de91ef08975a1998901d07e1241e9d813b
2042 F20101114_AACFMT chandool_c_Page_015.txt
79e5a56d1e53a2b4a88e1a8477128e43
95c5206d7a0c71c1c13f68cfe5cdbe5eb935fff7
1968 F20101114_AACFNJ chandool_c_Page_035.txt
7c752313d0223131eb2c99bcb60b0d86
cf51b399e02418599cab1b94bb4e434edf0025dd
2147 F20101114_AACFMU chandool_c_Page_016.txt
735247437dd56879df53d62320328881
86148f2c48ecfe263d307fef978af0b7db2eefdc
2098 F20101114_AACFNK chandool_c_Page_036.txt
b96b169e341ef2596b8f278a3e46c106
592e341d4cec5ab68926648cd9bf72c2f7c808ea
2265 F20101114_AACFMV chandool_c_Page_017.txt
584b1e8942ecb2cd47a10dda1c12c4c9
b3fb9dffcb8246729dba0630df08fb460abf54e9
1060 F20101114_AACFNL chandool_c_Page_037.txt
3ce2015e2ebd937a33651fa444e9d52c
41656dded1a58b7f3be1b3a5c0436184b313c3ae
2032 F20101114_AACFMW chandool_c_Page_018.txt
1c5ce462e5b7e7bfb00282f3db81785b
008ee49ddb08f2e4e903b18d08e4ab81f488caab
1997 F20101114_AACFOA chandool_c_Page_054.txt
2a5ece26045cca7e540d5322d8fbd03e
5f3b6ca5b568868db883f4707e0dc487811d9146
1938 F20101114_AACFNM chandool_c_Page_038.txt
fe03af47b9abe7659e183a410b374f81
794f839291674546513172d89f08434bb82d9863
F20101114_AACFMX chandool_c_Page_019.txt
5d6afa058536b3ec4aa2da29f437551d
6c1d0fe670ff5fdd9dda243b49f0b32858928cbf
1569 F20101114_AACFOB chandool_c_Page_055.txt
49853747121e999be121e09c05bf3c6c
1cf6af1d74c62053d846efab061564872d629a80
1952 F20101114_AACFNN chandool_c_Page_040.txt
0358ce8553359223f9842075da32eb84
4a14f3c3fde0305efff45d02812e597d0f7d6ad0
2202 F20101114_AACFMY chandool_c_Page_020.txt
6db6ae2b62e51bbc7b7072032f2a4cab
e1a78e064f251006556f14eaa4974ff53fb16ff3
2171 F20101114_AACFOC chandool_c_Page_056.txt
0f83ec0fe4c6c8ed1a99519d6719f6b8
a086cddca8dcb71ef804c30b6e80f439da879823
1992 F20101114_AACFNO chandool_c_Page_041.txt
7bb1af479d4f469d65a44914b9b9c2f7
4c9203186ef2bf64b3996e74d564224affe72d7c
2117 F20101114_AACFMZ chandool_c_Page_021.txt
b6a06e6c2487bea0a65a9195c45bcafa
7d2d3d60b7a38a74ee8dc1f491bf9054b2cf729d
2135 F20101114_AACFOD chandool_c_Page_058.txt
8abd1902abacb8ef700d502010aa5836
23873213b626ca1bbff39a3df4a7a7d8a2f8bbc8
2092 F20101114_AACFNP chandool_c_Page_042.txt
c7481e1cbc44250cc63f4b327f721643
4913e1efb762bbb5022e5d516fa81d42fdc656c2
2144 F20101114_AACFOE chandool_c_Page_059.txt
b8f25f11f420b63d780dfaab07ac2432
585f348861860c08af673685c19ac73de94bbb30
1813 F20101114_AACFNQ chandool_c_Page_043.txt
19c47c7495b4c80084df863f0e9d275c
e94815b9c63ee50469c006ce7fea8bdb3e6539fb
1875 F20101114_AACFOF chandool_c_Page_060.txt
386f9336da9bbed530ec9c499217f82e
a284b713f1e8c18159960dba967d9f81a329fef1
1994 F20101114_AACFOG chandool_c_Page_061.txt
b44e82f2cdd2cc83cb49643be043c09f
9c3955a18451a4d5349b5ad51a697a23d6a1ec5e
2050 F20101114_AACFNR chandool_c_Page_044.txt
9d84f849da2a537c7c086ae54a879a6e
939c06f16e800add7301753072925199299d780f
1908 F20101114_AACFOH chandool_c_Page_062.txt
4d2f986fcdacaf9c666d51a18261ade7
baba2179a8671ca38283496cdb7b6ea67746eea7
F20101114_AACFNS chandool_c_Page_045.txt
126b86b8fcfc7966d326f02f9764684f
c789865e98bce5da1d3ce9ac89971393da1a3440
1934 F20101114_AACFOI chandool_c_Page_063.txt
e3a9419ae09e7c0426d53a38c22ae301
335b9dce8fca6ebbbf1ee9155f456e2e4ddca798
1962 F20101114_AACFNT chandool_c_Page_046.txt
b6c011696dcf3268d1a35bdb27fd1e76
fe113034e0dfb54daedd7d92ff857dd7610fd922
1753 F20101114_AACFOJ chandool_c_Page_066.txt
836b38fc25ba0574bd7aee37dacbc19f
a70afff43db7d91a29a3ff5882b15edc27062490
1165 F20101114_AACFNU chandool_c_Page_047.txt
d4b8b88fcee9e9eab9589d051934ac58
0792d87532ee00d01439355dc0116a0e5fa2f40c
1915 F20101114_AACFOK chandool_c_Page_067.txt
cd7c9c523ede30944c2bfb04c5657bd9
576144879a3b6acf952c3a144cbab4ed5aeee76f
672 F20101114_AACFNV chandool_c_Page_048.txt
ae8705b28eabc2d3cddd07aade00b0cf
2fa0b21946d7d815d4235a48d1b57e4206630b4a
2189 F20101114_AACFOL chandool_c_Page_068.txt
2bd8555066adce8938f7a02aa52b5043
e6b6511e87dfc2806da665b8c4e2e36db0cbdbdc
2089 F20101114_AACFNW chandool_c_Page_050.txt
63324f56dfac60ad4e448e51b6825e60
c4ed46d3f7d326b9ea72d1f9a9900b233872b8ac
2109 F20101114_AACFOM chandool_c_Page_069.txt
51aaae9b6312e655cd5b953e7c97d3f6
24be32b1fc77ec1d0837b02dd34708ca119d79e3
2022 F20101114_AACFNX chandool_c_Page_051.txt
e5666c6902a409d08eebbd6f4187aea9
5423a279c0a559c9896a98f42b5267e0cf394ece
F20101114_AACFPA chandool_c_Page_086.txt
b419bfcc93dcfb13a6064b86c999c54f
2c1edd6cd6db2ac5bc58ef80fb2893bf1fd3f87b
2067 F20101114_AACFON chandool_c_Page_070.txt
3bd4eb820756ad67f433399a5d3bd15d
434b6eba57b25e75af4f655bd76835083fed8571
1299 F20101114_AACFNY chandool_c_Page_052.txt
231065b9bea49e3fa23292f97ca9585d
4b5545c961db7a6ed07155b19c84458eab6875ff
F20101114_AACFPB chandool_c_Page_087.txt
a352a2d96fce26c74020b1eed4f9b361
1e7c45877841c2abb118e0b0c5cfe6f331ffcc42
F20101114_AACFOO chandool_c_Page_071.txt
f1c24ea489839709cf513fc1d7d9e0d5
f90cc50075abf3ac890f6be6dbf21059aaebc1d0
2046 F20101114_AACFNZ chandool_c_Page_053.txt
c2f039a62f2348561c718a8a0dd0bb17
07237c68bd54bf18ee5c54b66f97abef2edd8c30
1850 F20101114_AACFPC chandool_c_Page_088.txt
aac3173a85ce662b3e4d4fad14c084b4
7a4fd205b787f327ec9174048d13e8c795362513
296 F20101114_AACFOP chandool_c_Page_072.txt
b9772a4ee262579aa627ff2a12def5b2
1fb77b5fd5ac8b079f5fd93c4dab19049309cfbd
2131 F20101114_AACFPD chandool_c_Page_089.txt
048c82ab2e896f1100c882e5b1186901
58497296b3a1827a6d28ec0a2a01a3382df62a49
2058 F20101114_AACFOQ chandool_c_Page_074.txt
f91378f3f139be1bed08d0b378784f63
67a3191759a1f3b429b31c6be91f0ac0c026dbf3
2048 F20101114_AACFPE chandool_c_Page_090.txt
de0da6d2566f7948528a7e4aee6c6f6a
bb7e7c0853c56eea1feb335364c03580700c6a79
2044 F20101114_AACFOR chandool_c_Page_075.txt
ce89df6e0e9aef9d4088183af54c2e73
64b8c8ff3c91e344a868dfff677eafc99a0202da
2203 F20101114_AACFPF chandool_c_Page_091.txt
db58517c076974cef0d3e126052d48f8
0a7a485a69afc7b4ba91bc1367417f26291e02a5
1639 F20101114_AACFPG chandool_c_Page_093.txt
4fc61e18d231d409be5bf225a6b80f1e
9e866dc6fa72c5a9e49eade1028a6d14e77ff7d8
2054 F20101114_AACFOS chandool_c_Page_078.txt
601a3bb04f9d0c25958b680addde7686
03dca8198951e232bb4d3cc33770bd900e90c205
1527 F20101114_AACFPH chandool_c_Page_095.txt
b8e52dcb7f8f91491b05573ac68ab39a
d83584d515bea0c68dcc2e3fec5511b742ee423e
2020 F20101114_AACFOT chandool_c_Page_079.txt
7e3d99f00de51a4f3108e3ff49a9c042
dafacab9f56b287a93cddc30765736080650d066
1641 F20101114_AACFPI chandool_c_Page_096.txt
01f957826db9c0ced42335137ba9e5a9
565d283dfb6b1d9ab3271260f495fed4066f1f61
2007 F20101114_AACFOU chandool_c_Page_080.txt
4762cc8eff51a900ce04d6843358c8af
8823702cd03c9a30054650da2af3999692ea95de
2062 F20101114_AACFPJ chandool_c_Page_097.txt
765e74ff92111508b64de4b9bba1277d
8dd2a31752791f0be09114d6a36fd28aba4c8257
2142 F20101114_AACFOV chandool_c_Page_081.txt
f6698b24def2cbc2c1dd114809118861
b77fb4b2771cea8273df54125c8022e2f06a6250
1015 F20101114_AACFPK chandool_c_Page_098.txt
48c61015553b3e1e546aae5b48a74d88
75def5f0b3e61be11fadc9a8a9c36e85872a0e2a
2053 F20101114_AACFOW chandool_c_Page_082.txt
37dd0a78cb2ecf0793a0dd96b4b68370
5b4f89a1c287ee25bcf3ad2953e910cb6cce9c5b
1247 F20101114_AACFPL chandool_c_Page_099.txt
f18cb8bd7b77a7c3225f9ae5760b2008
608ad1a1e3652a83845e25aba70692a954abee58
2013 F20101114_AACFOX chandool_c_Page_083.txt
7a97135a005f3a448d65ffc1eb73bd3e
ac517345b019fc0677ab3645e843c937af4623ae
F20101114_AACFQA chandool_c_Page_115.txt
0c8f0f6b78d3480cfc0cba08374de6f3
0c71ecf7878539e1315e1df189a5c1b067a78de4
1144 F20101114_AACFPM chandool_c_Page_100.txt
7a2b28acf2bc38d5ecb340e6d25df9a9
8f59115a64eeb6af38b9dfba67fe4f0d433b385a
F20101114_AACFOY chandool_c_Page_084.txt
5067b4cf6beb7afab891680c9b5c985f
676607469e071fa78c37bc0090d4f10d98bc8dd2
1925 F20101114_AACFQB chandool_c_Page_117.txt
b73b209fbdb4712d825452d7321170c3
a97bfad23a4835f8836a1aa50c00ba470f326431
2179 F20101114_AACFPN chandool_c_Page_102.txt
424f7332fff3ad5cbcf53447b10224e3
588880dc2953cebe855857072c1e9de8be3cf20e
1755 F20101114_AACFQC chandool_c_Page_118.txt
5bb357a923e889e7a843a22ebf6be19e
69b490d8ebe9211fa6388afb46f0e78e673a1f25
F20101114_AACFPO chandool_c_Page_103.txt
6cec7eeb6a53ce1611acb60012aec54f
1398a77c7a805b19fc4160af2fe23dc57ceb3499
1977 F20101114_AACFOZ chandool_c_Page_085.txt
c0d9b26bcec5e2b33615f13f8da91503
e94e5f9f7d3dd6e2da9b0f550d276445398111d2
2014 F20101114_AACFQD chandool_c_Page_119.txt
48d2251c5dcb6a5424085d4c4d33d5a8
a911923e5f539e896d833c9ce9d3e184740106d5
2078 F20101114_AACFPP chandool_c_Page_104.txt
989163fbd7fa19de66d2f07dda749185
d06df570182b3850a76262f3d61179c04ebd4771
2018 F20101114_AACFQE chandool_c_Page_120.txt
b7d612f8e5b4e23a77b49756adaf37c7
18e761c599b9e9bd260509cd086156e248df7bd6
F20101114_AACFPQ chandool_c_Page_105.txt
efcf1752c7132012d2cd9741e1b2ffdb
382eefe16e60cbbfa8df74aa8a72393c8448aa30
2141 F20101114_AACFQF chandool_c_Page_121.txt
85a8107d0b6a57d5b35c8f12ee4ce63c
54e42ffab7c0a21ec9f0c3bb3aac4a16691e80c0
2160 F20101114_AACFPR chandool_c_Page_106.txt
ff33f7e0cb55ddd4e926e8efa3fd7c7e
829b358e9de37b14e102666f8fb439689323e453
1842 F20101114_AACFQG chandool_c_Page_122.txt
f1892e858b063082c7716f2d71ef3e1f
6a16adbfed4d8805a2f7f64d873183bd12e4b722
1954 F20101114_AACFPS chandool_c_Page_107.txt
b5d2190b52961f1b311715106df0b239
2f788b55bca470e07f160652a52d025ea7117322
51119 F20101114_AACENF chandool_c_Page_119.pro
d8afd67050ec3a7faa71cc1c000c2f06
ed0589f50d6002066384bc36f1f271c7c9d7a680
2156 F20101114_AACFQH chandool_c_Page_123.txt
86dad713ed6c1327b2d5f4f0a73b4a20
fe2ff7e93e2a7a0f1abae763fd8da4ca23a81410
50001 F20101114_AACENG chandool_c_Page_085.pro
32f684b7b2bd353213df3fb3f64d3a7a
f06ff6e1c5c085fc2431eda023c4fd59617141e8
1889 F20101114_AACFQI chandool_c_Page_124.txt
452bc35982615ce306638eb974829420
f4adaa1f08ef772b30c9f06934d3f6cbdf2231b7
F20101114_AACFPT chandool_c_Page_108.txt
60460de960b5511201803eb51a1002a6
3b8d0c8341b131877c50dc5d5b440c359ca14b83
1739 F20101114_AACENH chandool_c_Page_029.txt
dacb9050e6a9058bd9874dc82fefac0e
d7e14fecf34c94e43826bdc216640f355b4d4c19
2072 F20101114_AACFQJ chandool_c_Page_125.txt
0f30ba2c2b9ee456a2966b42d04a10a9
972d232556dc0096b941e359bcbfb06f4cc3102b
F20101114_AACFPU chandool_c_Page_109.txt
830f19a170d991946dff7f008c8b37aa
a1ae2c949185c6036fa85d063cf6e56e2ed8dfb0
54609 F20101114_AACENI chandool_c_Page_115.pro
ed9db8325772b9b1546341a6c087302c
627778b7ca38884475fc588a12851dfedbd6e100
2138 F20101114_AACFQK chandool_c_Page_126.txt
49a61eb288dc1814d2e1821f3d802a0e
aab675045568cf450085805d31fc81973be942f8
2172 F20101114_AACFPV chandool_c_Page_110.txt
8c8d34154a95100a8a592ec6164d9af4
8bd3d46532adee239b36f90ca4b6e39924371cc6
43118 F20101114_AACENJ chandool_c_Page_140.jpg
2862b5d4cfe0b5a67102a167b069b745
f18c3529655035f52de5d4d674903ebf6a83a38b
F20101114_AACFQL chandool_c_Page_127.txt
5474802b9415660a8860956a7e9aedb0
a1f7b889f06a13ce7594297b0c13a56271707830
2176 F20101114_AACFPW chandool_c_Page_111.txt
8394606cbef0ae318d35483f7f107de2
6a9ed22de86eb01cd95639683e7f046ee9d94099
2137 F20101114_AACENK chandool_c_Page_092.txt
85f520f148ea761f534f6bff3c7ec24f
f2730707690c28eb670dc014dd32e3ddcd2b5f4e
1286 F20101114_AACFQM chandool_c_Page_129.txt
fb70f7db959fe05aa33b608f48f27e9c
c681cc19e6648b83f3e4d629560e6f341565efe9
2057 F20101114_AACFPX chandool_c_Page_112.txt
4cdd6409217269fb3276689449c2af4b
8adec65f135156efbb76d683bdb2135a5313dd79
2631 F20101114_AACFRA chandool_c_Page_143.txt
d1c35d9e113c69f3a8453413745a38a7
840a9f32690e7e39a4f6219004755b3bef0063a4
76866 F20101114_AACENL chandool_c_Page_032.jpg
8937a0845ed7cfac7a457c054d96c504
eb940010ab32128a683309d1696d853c4195c8b5
1074 F20101114_AACFQN chandool_c_Page_130.txt
1894897f37b111ea72ba1ea4293a28aa
27f73058f03d24b77b8bebb443dbc5d31c27a64d
1947 F20101114_AACFPY chandool_c_Page_113.txt
aba5d294656a5bcd7bf56b1acb28fb6f
362341458a56cef3071481d2edf838b8e351453d
2646 F20101114_AACFRB chandool_c_Page_144.txt
936571bfe9591bb4f7ad34ad7c49d957
1df077c29bb583a270422d42e4eebbfd82d44571
56701 F20101114_AACENM chandool_c_Page_025.pro
239e204063490b9870c06294db2f8ed8
79131d3221ed55ab7d51bbb9f56babdd5899e435
1447 F20101114_AACFQO chandool_c_Page_131.txt
d0416f07825079a84bd782d54c32e4f5
054c62a1521d8f1fde6b0ec9f570d7b43cd3245b
1895 F20101114_AACFPZ chandool_c_Page_114.txt
fdc22da1589783ecc0ebcea198184636
42197efa8f3d996b6ceaf3627c23b7c14a9bddff
29274 F20101114_AACEOA chandool_c_Page_047.pro
a808b2ef67405e0a0aba8b61be83cba9
4d07b04acf8ffc513c138dfe778adca89ef78044
2414 F20101114_AACFRC chandool_c_Page_145.txt
6763b500b5b02fe6994048dbd2123e01
ff963c347b0e2196251766d83c41457b074d65ff
201 F20101114_AACENN chandool_c_Page_128.txt
608697b497830b24cfc8ff3c6b4a5658
624cc52adc48de7af37276cc5cfb35e8a8b6a087
1260 F20101114_AACFQP chandool_c_Page_132.txt
742a57002a22c4fed5a29a3312473cfc
aa362352754e543d211c50df27153f13129b7d95
85710 F20101114_AACEOB chandool_c_Page_033.jpg
c3129d6c4cf53b79a4cd2a0a743fefcc
ed5b77c34b7aa5866146bf6ec8670877e8ee6b5f
2596 F20101114_AACFRD chandool_c_Page_146.txt
417035faa3338841daf888e8eea1a08e
cf75a60cb0867331de6d6d7d0694fb79b035b7fb
50395 F20101114_AACENO chandool_c_Page_087.pro
4b8df09d95a2cd2347d3504a0d0caee1
fa174b35149ff1170ed95261f4eddabc792d20e2
1131 F20101114_AACFQQ chandool_c_Page_133.txt
fa24550f7d2731acf26ea7af6daa6e1a
b798b9aa37e5bb334b3f14a17984a514fef5db64
1419 F20101114_AACEOC chandool_c_Page_101.txt
31215c87db2f4d657b640a4d5ac9d048
d995373efcae8f3158db306366f32d484f2536b7
2498 F20101114_AACFRE chandool_c_Page_147.txt
8c0a3099c37987ef2d98a7df6cf45255
93a0a437699c1fc1449e7d2209bb0ab56e356ba9
96008 F20101114_AACENP chandool_c_Page_124.jp2
917a3ce95ff4f23a93f02f3c4eb2d16f
db8c98cf78e3ad5a7cfa1dc6230b3efb1115d5c4
1410 F20101114_AACFQR chandool_c_Page_134.txt
1a612fb18d6605e81fa586291ac33bae
4a93470830d24e13928bf15c42aba53b1236c3aa
41754 F20101114_AACEOD chandool_c_Page_064.pro
5cf052f6d9445fa424636afd249b5b20
223564e44a3c3df694a0b3ec8286ab6799b2d4bb
2535 F20101114_AACFRF chandool_c_Page_148.txt
8e79b509101e1fe66b8b52a3fd4515a9
18c19489ab926211621fd645b8766d4c15fe267f
122219 F20101114_AACENQ chandool_c_Page_025.jp2
15553473e675a020451ae2454a52628c
a0c7012a6eabb054e9dbeccab9eda66d2a3aaf64
1654 F20101114_AACFQS chandool_c_Page_135.txt
88d629c6d3c463fff2bd4f652a46596c
d4ec05984ae8edd4874d625d79924f0e2cbd171f
2514 F20101114_AACEOE chandool_c_Page_137thm.jpg
d1d4d3099a55649a42836831673fe4a1
a3842fe0551bb873cf40f90140d9cbb9c76a8393
1867 F20101114_AACFRG chandool_c_Page_150.txt
40b09d8e8a29a161bf0308d602cb1bbb
92fd64d43d76aee5fc10cdf3c66eaaf689142b5c
24468 F20101114_AACENR chandool_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
06abd4966bce049230454c6d086470d0
f4f01311ea8852b0cf95e7d76c1f882b4f7e702d
839 F20101114_AACFQT chandool_c_Page_136.txt
f0721ffc244fb0cf33c195e103d1cf0e
caa04420924f22f84c11aaa656e4ebf0ccea5859
88305 F20101114_AACEOF chandool_c_Page_039.jp2
41fc6e30a72587deac3fe884e445f652
02fd5f5099591105e8e93068f45b2d4b35580622
1333 F20101114_AACFRH chandool_c_Page_151.txt
72e61beb7862edf909043cd7bdbe3278
3652453a4439906605ca289d3dd7a6062295b78c
58382 F20101114_AACEOG chandool_c_Page_130.jp2
a8321caffe78a6e25cd2ae939f5a648c
de5114948dcfec3956563504d54faaf1fa6ee907
2480 F20101114_AACFRI chandool_c_Page_001thm.jpg
284d871a8ac8fb788e8993f0a9aa0fda
1068810f15ccaa41722cee90f24fdf2a9e853f1e
77492 F20101114_AACENS chandool_c_Page_092.jpg
6398113486e303b319c08a3248392675
7ea4da317dba6cafc3e9a59131b8f9735562e0b6
685 F20101114_AACFQU chandool_c_Page_137.txt
4798f44e74f9ec0492b6acb656c00315
c3b6b4e01fea9ef6d31b2ccd423a5e020e378af3
111637 F20101114_AACEOH chandool_c_Page_120.jp2
a72b71be0354dcd5faafe405ca01c191
d3e1502b9bbf1bfc607e444bc38c4d89ac3a914a
1645890 F20101114_AACFRJ chandool_c.pdf
3ba2486de06f708a04035dd9f9055168
7c609ee186c2c83a3f49cca2bd3d78c557e999cf
1051985 F20101114_AACENT chandool_c_Page_006.jp2
cb44c46d917f6a850f51911acc886ae3
df999f0412539a08a79a63b79d93edff74f07610
1707 F20101114_AACFQV chandool_c_Page_138.txt
870db8a42cc595c764df0a6b1e69476b
5a4146b51d209d4a00d3ba60c7b5dfc5e5738927
F20101114_AACEOI chandool_c_Page_067.tif
e89d43cddee82c033c76a7ecd0af18b5
6b49348209e363be6faf9b679379ba2fb6cfeb72
8278 F20101114_AACFRK chandool_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
a1e56b457aede5d40d39f6e12c89a386
6eb704f4bd24a493695a88d0f204adec6eea2817
3242 F20101114_AACFRL chandool_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
3b75510250d62ef567d163b43749938d
6277a0afb15382333049eea5ee2eef5e4ebdad98
24610 F20101114_AACENU chandool_c_Page_119.QC.jpg
28e8319fa8cd39c6ad708ed6933877b8
ededb3f4eb88196dfa006510cbc46d5ea802ed74
2997 F20101114_AACFQW chandool_c_Page_139.txt
c58ac10ebca068fb85669a7dc1a50076
755de5c7c627a4842677615042278dd58124e205
23883 F20101114_AACEOJ chandool_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
95de5df57e377eb021d6f24ada0f8d1a
d9e0a9205d16b0e27ef03b367236a11ce4053d77
5538 F20101114_AACFSA chandool_c_Page_009thm.jpg
7dcdc0628e086a497b69b8f0c71ce5e6
0654e28ae7fd66b801b2714729071175e7b0d253
1335 F20101114_AACFRM chandool_c_Page_002thm.jpg
237e656da7baf9bacaddb488c5dae7d4
1740b79002150f525db51c2badad821771353889
51710 F20101114_AACENV chandool_c_Page_023.pro
90dbb2ee0421fd80d8088e5452a0cc23
1b72357146cb057395dce7860e0eb9c3e8ed00d3
1363 F20101114_AACFQX chandool_c_Page_140.txt
f8f32d1da80002e03fca208da415fc5a
48e332b464297d77c884705451524d2119789333
647 F20101114_AACEOK chandool_c_Page_024.txt
7f25d3d7144e0f4e33b530e1c15e41ba
0e7b453994a7e4431378e58f4154ac6fa491ead8
14515 F20101114_AACFSB chandool_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
923fdd29889af55b9e6ff5a0b04eeaa5
a07c6068cdb341e85ae0b2498990c1d25562ef96
3668 F20101114_AACFRN chandool_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
bf960d4d10f7a4fb9fb960ce4e519382
c2df4c61d1738088d29d3d05378f471d6c1d4d22
70533 F20101114_AACENW chandool_c_Page_040.jpg
476b88d17620cdf29cad9d57cb33765a
85dd946ea4cdd9bc1b0f6f71309e08c9eb85a13e
1631 F20101114_AACFQY chandool_c_Page_141.txt
1c9d7a1275ef22fc94cb22807671ea85
7ff3c6d8c3d0e2d70f595a69457dbbb0dc2a94ea
7372 F20101114_AACEOL chandool_c_Page_144thm.jpg
bee67d22dfe24b3544ccb93fce369ef2
2deba5fab5264b57dd0afcd2ffe71733665ccbb8
3976 F20101114_AACFSC chandool_c_Page_010thm.jpg
8ff8e758edf999ef141a90ac2bdcab91
5d7b24dfd3bb2ff305b9c9eced0c3fd628c3105a
1426 F20101114_AACFRO chandool_c_Page_003thm.jpg
db7f30ce11de7833c18cb149e98e124a
9c2b43a9e16c8f1b50da034f5311a06b55f3882f
F20101114_AACENX chandool_c_Page_110.tif
9141d5a25d4192e2e288627634416e80
6bbabc8298346da2379fe97934d08ddc855a3f5f
2435 F20101114_AACFQZ chandool_c_Page_142.txt
d3af2166f0b901f8e53772284a03952d
e449d45228a2f4a7f77d584cfb2051e8d2ac299a
6819 F20101114_AACEPA chandool_c_Page_036thm.jpg
8cdeffab71090d02d792b8be3404aff6
250c19a54d250f6e78cec67416bccd4d3de7e698
76363 F20101114_AACEOM chandool_c_Page_086.jpg
f8134688cbf52cf76d75c4b0cf05b2f2
05177833477d409d3e1d1dc1cd7e22074f4efab9
21345 F20101114_AACFSD chandool_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
75be995b446db4cf8b79816ff24f7889
a48f9d123f48e8a2ee7791ba6998ec06fb14de2a
24454 F20101114_AACFRP chandool_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
2b576fec0b061f158f60c94ecf08306c
7cb3d0f39fe9d8a7155606031da13578f4ba953b
76793 F20101114_AACENY chandool_c_Page_097.jpg
59a3f85306b6c4aa9e95cb8ea2b32452
7def384bca7a86f615ceccda2aa890ae388e28c2
6667 F20101114_AACEPB chandool_c_Page_112thm.jpg
4ed37ec461d0fada720e2aaa0b550837
c90c4c5ede410baa203af1a25d1b3b0182376fc4
24385 F20101114_AACEON chandool_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
f90bae7ab279c6dcf18421198f1ec464
489634a9ff1e53033727af37ed42b4098ba68da6
5852 F20101114_AACFSE chandool_c_Page_011thm.jpg
951bf8f1432bc758284894feab4eddc0
0de77dcb8f72056c031ede8eef068ec8a95c3a3d
6540 F20101114_AACFRQ chandool_c_Page_004thm.jpg
7c4837343172930f7159ed58c918dfc5
ae7bc645829071fa62893278ed6b2f42907935b0
F20101114_AACENZ chandool_c_Page_143.tif
b0179b838d943f8891a21212e45e4fdc
c5f6c2e73afd7faa06b03af6bacc1d9bfd462269
2451 F20101114_AACEPC chandool_c_Page_149.txt
3f38bf10886783e3d89f77de547270fd
5d7599e0722eee35e2d147be1091d048c0116f7f
4863 F20101114_AACEOO chandool_c_Page_098thm.jpg
9ca8b46fdb41a137291ca1cc05937def
1eef523c2996af7a6ca19ade5a6dabad54d7dd12
15744 F20101114_AACFSF chandool_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
8a82657f2689de3ea71d3a5ded9032cd
51a14999e538b2e5a38530c53c11ed433957a1cb
4580 F20101114_AACFRR chandool_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
9f85c0ad5dd8cab39f1f7d2ca580c5b1
acafde3e1511e3e6a28d9bc45a96af2fc287f1a7
F20101114_AACEPD chandool_c_Page_141.tif
c271aeced6c4ea323d95e36139e9d492
9d60fb8398f2426f83f064964b54fc73a4a486eb
20112 F20101114_AACEOP chandool_c_Page_048.jpg
64f2af631e1249f3c9cb1f692e82a823
b8b8fbd5b3677f7729391c9bd0e9e0d409bf62f8
4430 F20101114_AACFSG chandool_c_Page_012thm.jpg
483056b70ecf1032f44127fd153d0e22
0c545c5000b624b60be9d0d28eb5a57868b4fc15
1661 F20101114_AACFRS chandool_c_Page_005thm.jpg
fe51d0670a4ad5e56087082eddc7dd1f
3869ebbc924b981646250028dd7e5cb158582faf
23839 F20101114_AACEPE chandool_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
7730f40238e93e0571b33778b98a281a
89bbcddf290927a5f9c9759107d33359e8832d98
51771 F20101114_AACEOQ chandool_c_Page_103.pro
49c6665ae46758632b7833968910d0f0
2aeb2361d9b282712ad776ca1d87b8446f71ed54
23003 F20101114_AACFSH chandool_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
b6b2281de3d1b2d820e99f34660cd354
62d6361334fe8646f2582702f651a30807e400a2
21706 F20101114_AACFRT chandool_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
98ce4df7ea00d7f33b15aa3486fdf8cc
7534dd07334e6f046ef0612c63864a09b51f0c8a
2184 F20101114_AACEPF chandool_c_Page_077.txt
877203e3f116f9ccb93288eef2068e17
4c8c97c31e5ce57b23e30ea6086311429b9ef468
74932 F20101114_AACEOR chandool_c_Page_049.jpg
59b51fbc383d508cd2048cd15855dfd0
c307e55133ce4057defbb9b288d464a0cde18371
6361 F20101114_AACFSI chandool_c_Page_013thm.jpg
00f9a107d79e6ca1bef3f0cfab4c2e66
e9728deec78739e8f037a28b8c830aed38f1a379
5557 F20101114_AACFRU chandool_c_Page_006thm.jpg
d326cc3f8a316f178228c8b1d5a9ad57
685eb81e1e54ca4adbec686eb45b35b557649259
115174 F20101114_AACEPG chandool_c_Page_089.jp2
629120c7943b39facb5d733deb8670fd
fd437c25e2cd665744f0f4cfb5a75d93073c9a81
79043 F20101114_AACEOS chandool_c_Page_106.jpg
d5932e682398d06369bd92ad976d4111
b032add67659d4f28d6f2302197c26f03d322e46
24250 F20101114_AACFSJ chandool_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
8825e161973ecfa821f4284200b17107
34e0210725b9e5b58fce0435a8b8ab2c1b29c486
54373 F20101114_AACEPH chandool_c_Page_102.pro
f912cc945bbab10fdca8f3e278a53c6c
d2ce16cd9755b46beb0046970813552552782bcd
6574 F20101114_AACFSK chandool_c_Page_014thm.jpg
6ff309a16afcd1222cde7ae8e0dd5f2c
3db2b9f26033de403701492c22779d75ad8570e6
28003 F20101114_AACFRV chandool_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
b0bbaeaa23cf47154c5b48cf3b7346c9
1810afef35f80fa719f2c4b8a2e36f91902a5ff9
2233 F20101114_AACEPI chandool_c_Page_057.txt
7ef72277478820f96e895f37e55dfb6f
22f4ec2f973169a2acb4ca485b7d45a56b82b90c
1051982 F20101114_AACEOT chandool_c_Page_033.jp2
a2b012bfbb4d985bffe4692ee1530fcb
7a9ce71a22cffe270f1ae80cbba64be7b668d92b
6664 F20101114_AACFSL chandool_c_Page_015thm.jpg
fb1a66c499ba97c0c28f9cc9befc5c91
db9db298a9e535b1eec522af8665c072fbc13b66
7022 F20101114_AACFRW chandool_c_Page_007thm.jpg
12ea38c5a1768010b3992d65a6d27873
21a76fe8e22aa67aabfcd16523de91aadcf0a7b4
6847 F20101114_AACEPJ chandool_c_Page_084thm.jpg
ae9ed4859ab047062db73fe9af2e94c3
414ad88403008b6f59745ca148647f2158208335
F20101114_AACEOU chandool_c_Page_122.tif
f0e73550e66552bcbb1bd23241b6a4e4
5ff77d38602d5d066b762514d62dab384b8aac88
24134 F20101114_AACFTA chandool_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
a134a4a6a8321d5dec26171d22d712f7
6b73a84281f37cd7789964ab5c02a79349b89a36
25379 F20101114_AACFSM chandool_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
81af771205c0a5a1cc85d5d5801714ae
06c4bef65e3c2fde8ebe776646823af1974a55e3
19966 F20101114_AACFRX chandool_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
1c4cad175f5c9ed2c186a762d0b9f48f
eeb6f89c25c4f86b0f275fed5b85c80b3a28852a
59954 F20101114_AACEPK chandool_c_Page_138.jpg
e7f1dc54761e894b59462b2ab965c96f
71229b713e2c715ae4f7c63a2af499989e2893d1
88267 F20101114_AACEOV chandool_c_Page_138.jp2
e47705c1b6e3e4584d321089f28471fa
b86e4e2434d21c2cacbaac0a1cf7b91bf0f635b3
6646 F20101114_AACFTB chandool_c_Page_023thm.jpg
ec847ad270372ed59d7d9a72c12db45c
2bb6fc113fd605e060f3ac13a3dadf482410de9b
6852 F20101114_AACFSN chandool_c_Page_016thm.jpg
03032e460b5825e45e8b6cc8e9352489
bee8e89ac750057b9cfa943bccbb1295eb5a880f
5168 F20101114_AACFRY chandool_c_Page_008thm.jpg
63293215fbfff10bd47f2f77770b8683
ffbef65df10ef42af21579bdb8f6bb93f3848533
2086 F20101114_AACEPL chandool_c_Page_073.txt
32be30fbbf4bdcd9dd6fa78685776b33
37aabee1668f5263a838580df207db0162522041
70149 F20101114_AACEOW chandool_c_Page_045.jpg
2c8580e7ec088f4c1300cc3d13c78b2c
60d26fc12d64417b289425cb7cc14eb78ee97689
4850 F20101114_AACFTC chandool_c_Page_024thm.jpg
7dec4c4ed669846e0678cfa8e2898593
8e6c4861f2d8c6a20bbcae667930b5b7e4a2e3f5
27370 F20101114_AACFSO chandool_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
6c084c20e4a6deed10710236e31ff765
65d6f581b566095839a01c43008606bfb89096fd
20192 F20101114_AACFRZ chandool_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
635a94c8a8f0201dee38b69cd8e38669
b8e0b8a0ec42662d5c9df661d3813abe8d726644
52054 F20101114_AACEQA chandool_c_Page_105.pro
677b68279d965c326144604e698cac50
18eb10d51761c1c4e1edef09e603f0aba525ebcd
117691 F20101114_AACEPM chandool_c_Page_032.jp2
ed8502d736b3081b006676790e051b5c
ce32ed95d55a10cc60c748a4c9cbdebd5a0fc0f0
6531 F20101114_AACEOX chandool_c_Page_045thm.jpg
f441a768fd588f230403d624374e2256
2b48da9fff032088c1f3ed6febe1c9b987b40ea2
26203 F20101114_AACFTD chandool_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
f98916cab50e19b84aece6f8d06716ed
36a949a6fcd47ec9198b3ec50a50960ceaee3c19
7148 F20101114_AACFSP chandool_c_Page_017thm.jpg
daa591ee547700633e73a0a454b75884
cb0bb20269d4108cd83f094743625c172986e274
1054428 F20101114_AACEQB chandool_c_Page_048.tif
dadc415fd3eeba25de9a6ad072590dd6
1e5d302c3677554da77697e02c22c3c61d8457e5
49460 F20101114_AACEPN chandool_c_Page_052.jpg
22ca75afb4ccbce6fae929eb3b685dcb
8c675fa039d4bb35e58a3e264cb31598bfbefb18
F20101114_AACEOY chandool_c_Page_145.tif
4b4548064a74c0ad6cd210a3140507b4
2e5035902a7cf66d9ac4428dccdc79a3ddcc0576
7049 F20101114_AACFTE chandool_c_Page_025thm.jpg
c1d5cebd36b1ce9b7197a22030647d19
12e5b8e090c4785953b0511e741efe9787f834d3
23864 F20101114_AACFSQ chandool_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
46d534a4e8a97c1a63dba5c0e8446401
abc42209a7c07f8a36fb79a1214586e1ce86a660
75176 F20101114_AACEQC chandool_c_Page_141.jp2
336229e270cc74d5b95d81054bec64eb
781481ab2e23dc735c9efa1b2c28ff3aa4255c89
110031 F20101114_AACEPO chandool_c_Page_087.jp2
b0de667e8600e5d699be3a14df24718d
2efba489157d42646a73e1457ff1a7cfe6bc579e
16103 F20101114_AACEOZ chandool_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
1bae2de5244cf6f5fecb932a573f72fa
2497f23d011ec0c0d2d6e1723f776a3280ffe4ab
6946 F20101114_AACFTF chandool_c_Page_026thm.jpg
4fc0723bb24fc7ccfa7653428f2098e9
254cb77663ce44a5a8ee027b52678ef463565150
6737 F20101114_AACFSR chandool_c_Page_018thm.jpg
e5a2476fbe851da0a17b132a30ecf967
d40b7591e3b79776c17388eca4a84416c23ede4e
F20101114_AACEQD chandool_c_Page_030.txt
bd5dd4217723299e1155caa4722005b9
9ac1a07156b60317640c4eb082feb20c866a3d61
F20101114_AACEPP chandool_c_Page_006.tif
9d963e1d5fb39322b87d01d49cdfbb3f
17d436752b7d5fa84e1e5c54132580ba2245bb6d
23682 F20101114_AACFTG chandool_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
7d4d3bd6594b038217f647344d17b9c4
376f823237d24664766e794597830fdb9b35b84f
25101 F20101114_AACFSS chandool_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
ab0e9d489d694d856008378c393d15eb
404bd1e3d9966ca57ffa57452d7295465818449b
53139 F20101114_AACEQE chandool_c_Page_022.pro
9a198800c5f835feef35b176d4a2d9e9
b24fb3730f157aa6d22e3730d691cd511daefed5
2225 F20101114_AACEPQ chandool_c_Page_025.txt
623a5d96598cb63fa52518f5e27605cf
2d97fe55b7d7df79d74441f42eaac16e4a7851d0
6471 F20101114_AACFTH chandool_c_Page_027thm.jpg
b57abc35630b22a7ca452d4ce9497848
e06d0cee184a28c654647427881c2310bafb91de
6941 F20101114_AACFST chandool_c_Page_019thm.jpg
74d227652ac49b1e331e4b4288c261ba
a4da547c2e056852385fcf67c5fc476881913883
25669 F20101114_AACEQF chandool_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
e5e9e754052301e44b02ce677212cd5f
85febee20122df2dffc448d754c702c8952113a5
1710 F20101114_AACEPR chandool_c_Page_064.txt
b04a2fd8eddd7e893d1cf7edfd7cd1d2
d22d289ae2016828fd22697a654e313f2f21aa53
25108 F20101114_AACFTI chandool_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
f2395a268cb9a3971f608e1e116334cf
5c74d1a15f65505fd28a675a35203d9509a8624f
25788 F20101114_AACFSU chandool_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
3faa8d5e2a56a19520542690734b782a
c057e931bb1a2ee169bb92ada3f359652a7e43b7
73655 F20101114_AACEQG chandool_c_Page_037.jpg
030f15e9869e2c15b6e15d7d207b067a
e9d05425f0053fab0945449d14c90aeea067c525
26534 F20101114_AACEPS chandool_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
86dbd11a34f53c31d8d7fcbe78f53b8e
534307ce002c51f9e69b27f8da297a3cc3c51509
6808 F20101114_AACFTJ chandool_c_Page_028thm.jpg
d4868af64cc6fc2d2c83ce80cfde60ac
4459b18e5ba833488444c7660754c319337a988a
6902 F20101114_AACFSV chandool_c_Page_020thm.jpg
26bad7e94ede17dd3020031abc8da8e8
488d5056c98652c1acdee11b9ec0b66511995c87
F20101114_AACEQH chandool_c_Page_065.txt
1f20e10ee290377eb45ca42da58dcdff
053cdc0c2f6384e09a685589944cf96c787dec56
11722 F20101114_AACEPT chandool_c_Page_137.pro
946c8af9c37a9d1c737209d291c0cdd3
4eb94e16cdf8c1fc6e334ac0a0dc4cc0f9d746fb
21605 F20101114_AACFTK chandool_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
5d9401f006158ede937e4d163644dcde
6fc60f9491c8837d16c53cc28b03eb1005e48cb4
1888 F20101114_AACEQI chandool_c_Page_116.txt
79028f269e82ccb5465e46068ba0714e
600e700bf6358df0338236626fb706b0d2ea99eb
5939 F20101114_AACFTL chandool_c_Page_029thm.jpg
4f1c1586d416a2547b29f967fba36be1
2f8fffd81d4fc9b8eb0bd0dfc98e6d53dde9d268
24857 F20101114_AACFSW chandool_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
e3d6e8821d1941cd9c0a19697a514ed6
8bfafdb628d9e9e47c23c0c124cf075a965006aa
39762 F20101114_AACEQJ chandool_c_Page_039.pro
a9dfd31b0b8344af9ff812a1ed97054d
dc37f8f86eb851f10d0b8f3ae9378dabb9886fa7
51552 F20101114_AACEPU chandool_c_Page_044.pro
13b59af42c0012bffc48cc3bb8ffe4c7
5d5f134710fa93706950a2cc416d31a02b2e956a
23211 F20101114_AACFUA chandool_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
7f31d3b525c1a36bf8d4bb8cbd2bc9e2
335cf9f8a2be6c5d7e3103b3042fee6a2b36fd10
25018 F20101114_AACFTM chandool_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
e045f90098d14ef0f3f665bb7ac2ba48
b3f4ec46ef718243ac64cf54b9f30476d23c9c3f
6878 F20101114_AACFSX chandool_c_Page_021thm.jpg
9a2f18ca1ef8f9fc1fc44cfb4d720a1b
6ff4b4a090b3cd1f29e5427ef89b82fd458d6837
98673 F20101114_AACEQK chandool_c_Page_062.jp2
fdfd5b33d0b0d1cda01c7da81bdc2403
214e977e0999153014633472e11161502d3dc35c
55108 F20101114_AACEPV chandool_c_Page_056.pro
bc2a3d32cd113455b5c8f8d5422f021e
d2aa6fc39257c21776b5cfa2d76370342971dfd1
6340 F20101114_AACFUB chandool_c_Page_038thm.jpg
aed58183d5e1181cb3813b2f6c92a2d6
d3eb5be1d9ce92d66f83950fac56323be9399d56
6939 F20101114_AACFTN chandool_c_Page_030thm.jpg
1003a7ff137bdfce9e666cb6cdecf05b
a1fd9b4f434f31f73312b8ce4cf4f6bc9b8e4881
24807 F20101114_AACFSY chandool_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
698873a8eacf23e604dcda7bd760ad81
36deb3683c319b602f9f8673947a8c68f4be01b1
26039 F20101114_AACEQL chandool_c_Page_136.jpg
ce347f2a58dbee9ef9de79a71e7e85ea
52fee9df9cfd5db71c14347b706b4848f2b909c4
50836 F20101114_AACEPW chandool_c_Page_075.pro
65a808d06ce0f50afb7f2ea2efedfa83
c3d4d2a60511d306fba0bab14adf62c47505c1f4
19501 F20101114_AACFUC chandool_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
e967938c33ad205856ac822c5e3e7521
885c415aa741fea1ffe77bf771bd6bdf5384a945
7276 F20101114_AACFTO chandool_c_Page_031thm.jpg
8f4f63906cb22d654dc8d79f4e0aa067
cd68402f01aa63356902210b628e5048212266f5
6915 F20101114_AACFSZ chandool_c_Page_022thm.jpg
6a207aaedaf07d1b962e8a8b08b47de6
ab58bc72c8457783a441effecd48a91297f8efe0
52152 F20101114_AACEPX chandool_c_Page_078.pro
b3634cac294717335564109093297051
cfb8ecdc88d3966ca7e0debe903c66e0c4a569ae
56026 F20101114_AACERA chandool_c_Page_091.pro
da6159124dd8ad7b003b3da9d3cc5ed1
0e8cf715b8771a0d768c15ac3219fac978338024
1976 F20101114_AACEQM chandool_c_Page_094.txt
7ac187fcbe88ed7589c66a473c4d9699
a1e61e68f2aa7ea75705b188e17a1f0c5b5afc75
5627 F20101114_AACFUD chandool_c_Page_039thm.jpg
c1f8147d5d859c179015b2921a41aaec
219039192ba7d11136b23422db83a8a33f182415
25492 F20101114_AACFTP chandool_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
e8bdddbf2ec12c324015c1a38300dc1e
996afbdb3cf25c8fab0b369421729511e610d6e0
F20101114_AACEPY chandool_c_Page_083.tif
f5cd4318ddaac8ffe55fcc6f40db4de4
f224fb91edf64fe9b21bb6b043d72e6f301995e9
48082 F20101114_AACERB chandool_c_Page_012.jpg
b2b20da4da286f7393082ca3ac32ac47
93a496775204e236b0ee494ab85a0235ff099fac
76715 F20101114_AACEQN chandool_c_Page_022.jpg
76271dfc8ff077dba169885c56841e8d
756a6d3a5fedfd3bf5f96a4dd966ca408715b3f2
23713 F20101114_AACFUE chandool_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
916d07c78dc55d50bcce28f56fdfb054
7c66049cf4be6cc734ca2600d7dd4617be7f6b37
7159 F20101114_AACFTQ chandool_c_Page_032thm.jpg
6a9a2953899290ab8e5c6a74be3fed74
3b92764f87808cfb721228e92d93446cbe31108e
17620 F20101114_AACEPZ chandool_c_Page_141.QC.jpg
397580af57c2f12b2a4090ac0d59bad1
1a3b13440fd1a2d37242f08ce71273d0388f52ba
F20101114_AACERC chandool_c_Page_049.txt
5d530e6cc6a43394bd950747d10b4de7
fea2b23c953ecdffd776c08335255c615b0cc3e5
68487 F20101114_AACEQO chandool_c_Page_117.jpg
054249cb91a4ac1ed99942f0268c2fb4
2798dd02c313e22b90811957a0c3fef752d53b41
25394 F20101114_AACGAA chandool_c_Page_123.QC.jpg
2db44a61d3f5b125f8ac9b372ee32579
8076479256f1a47f09203d82a9cb8e3ea88349fc
6615 F20101114_AACFUF chandool_c_Page_040thm.jpg
57b570adb4ed93c6bef3d1ecf287b93b
6c37371f27a5483d37969773796a0b1fbe31def0
27196 F20101114_AACFTR chandool_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
c4ad5203c7891f71d0dec716b0289ab5
7d28e2d31ae0c9bcbde4025d234be466d7280625
1672 F20101114_AACERD chandool_c_Page_039.txt
5ca6e8b91a06476c081a28f8da96539e
5fcc03865891095b6c300cb140bb8929fb23d570
24100 F20101114_AACEQP chandool_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
f0388d4a1608ebbdb7c770f47773b7fc
3e23fbdae80f5422f11fd63de64642b6a9e9cf4b
7185 F20101114_AACGAB chandool_c_Page_123thm.jpg
ca5d644562de1f8e3bae277293523b65
3c41146e9d1722bffc02d49fd36899d9b70daf08
23212 F20101114_AACFUG chandool_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
6476f2d57510e61ac18b7be6a6ede895
5d6b675b19ddb361658c96fb6ab29cacd948494f
7366 F20101114_AACFTS chandool_c_Page_033thm.jpg
561e313ac85e081a8dca827c9b220266
435dc7b2099428d4502ab1d678726f89cd692f06
F20101114_AACERE chandool_c_Page_011.tif
18204f3a77a844bddeddca6fbe9dfb18
e7e931b42745addfa610ea245439766c07ac96aa
18302 F20101114_AACEQQ chandool_c_Page_138.QC.jpg
8c19d157a66f66843496a80fedc5120d
009683db4bd370f6b9c9df202bd0f05b298a1494
22325 F20101114_AACGAC chandool_c_Page_124.QC.jpg
2f09870e70643e0d576697ba2df5e987
25b3d802a2963c98737a55050e10ecc2489884d1
6494 F20101114_AACFUH chandool_c_Page_041thm.jpg
2d9b29a0355f726555e8c4ac3c4b1e14
a42ccedf94e650842150681be54390fa503210c5
25837 F20101114_AACFTT chandool_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
65f7accf692e96e31a241b23f4a2a6ab
1bf9663f2a669a49d5163f2916276dbb9ad42eed
F20101114_AACERF chandool_c_Page_049.tif
2ab85a093ad28b373506ec7b3c9d6beb
84b5b2fd3b78a7a1bdd35a109d8c6f79b695487e
6241 F20101114_AACEQR chandool_c_Page_124thm.jpg
c72729c4ebfee2ccddd5764a6ee7a776
0d1a02055bef4f770c50c9c11a9fac48ef9722b1
24689 F20101114_AACFUI chandool_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
c2b220c5438df903a861100227c12f59
384687bc3811e7fc816ec81816f297e19b0a8e69
7088 F20101114_AACFTU chandool_c_Page_034thm.jpg
61a6da59fe681b6efdd264772e982bf8
c2d1f9e065d7651fba7874b011286232e690d350
69958 F20101114_AACERG chandool_c_Page_107.jpg
4d4c4cfc906e2409a40010f2eb76539a
79bbd80987c4c11495e2d325424fba4df5775099
116884 F20101114_AACEQS chandool_c_Page_065.jp2
f6a5d4ca92304f2f4f78163816196d7a
eff957808ef8c63beed509866d7c75ea1b7b49df
24326 F20101114_AACGAD chandool_c_Page_125.QC.jpg
8067e71799651d9f94d31bba8d1ba9be
876ea72710dcf35987f0168038bae2ecc3ed31cc
7020 F20101114_AACFUJ chandool_c_Page_042thm.jpg
3a6785c74c61052c5ba8be7c9e5bf7c9
e10b189bbdc980e7a2b1bcc461c07541e89dc2e7
24960 F20101114_AACFTV chandool_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
385f7c292c2e3f05ee6f043a77688184
de62bb2c27bdc86ced8607cdd7988894b3371c27
86142 F20101114_AACERH chandool_c_Page_096.jp2
4673191d4a722bf65f93ccebe54c54ce
5a18b7f5c950cddc33690dc70bf6d13258c639b6
6558 F20101114_AACEQT chandool_c_Page_050thm.jpg
99c4a777b131cbf8171a80ad65294181
10027d00c573a1afdbf4323fd0bc81e50ecd4154
6680 F20101114_AACGAE chandool_c_Page_125thm.jpg
4ea32b6edc2103053f3afbdb92f2adfa
db232c3961896d48ccd040d7bb3b557597ad85a3
23620 F20101114_AACFUK chandool_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
abffad289f78146878ae97b5ccea2d70
fbfeb4424af90415b9061ab7028f151751ffb219
7324 F20101114_AACFTW chandool_c_Page_035thm.jpg
956ce8f4e4a7280d77a087c137bd7148
58b028c271d5393e92e2c3af14a63984da815ec7
49697 F20101114_AACERI chandool_c_Page_046.pro
871a8deade52112325485e02a05314a1
73dee0b9514ace36b9f6138b4d98ae1bee3ef642
2209 F20101114_AACEQU chandool_c_Page_076.txt
f8e16276269f5abc60f7dedd75eccad8
2a546f95fb15ede8edc665dda1d225bb457ccebf
24895 F20101114_AACGAF chandool_c_Page_126.QC.jpg
8f8e99bcb7abf313a932c63a3bcf13f9
97805ce5803805fa1a14dd469974c33434d34a3f
6474 F20101114_AACFUL chandool_c_Page_043thm.jpg
aa2a34e3de9be69d741bc59e80456d21
f6fbcc84897390271fb441e6b85846650c6d2d71
23924 F20101114_AACERJ chandool_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
e511e134cb5883c815d0ce559d0eafb3
105674a0bf4a9f677ed8571c85c0917899d84af8
6701 F20101114_AACGAG chandool_c_Page_126thm.jpg
b809e6c839c75797721d30955dd01a58
d88669ea7bcd8945a8b69dff966c3d96dcda4c5e
4756 F20101114_AACFVA chandool_c_Page_052thm.jpg
ca89b015c913b4ec8e7dde8124a05195
550ff6c924c96c7a1a56c1bea69670062c41ad89
24183 F20101114_AACFUM chandool_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
93f23a8fd635414e2e34c0086c7a64db
423fa16e67c0b856e5d1da399e3dacb58927edc3
24966 F20101114_AACFTX chandool_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
2e6074df720700edf1b2b6a96a85b328
65d1f9dc0844819e6be72f0c0be1ea6d1a01c4fd
27224 F20101114_AACERK chandool_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
54196e6f467eeee3072639d8c8985d4f
e493502ae23b39a23f9b6df0003ce2af12a360db
100053 F20101114_AACEQV chandool_c_Page_088.jp2
2adf0447bc0f8ae8019e86b56f6bdb7f
c55f7df970253042fc9c7de5f4f633147515c6b5
24885 F20101114_AACGAH chandool_c_Page_127.QC.jpg
dac1a9b2473ed49b663f5759fc023b39
2f824a23e3a54dc84bd3e981fae97df087033868
24365 F20101114_AACFVB chandool_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
0b77b63d258233af8d1e1e1d5b87e5c3
8fcdce3b3efde3f403ee416ee932c2f698ccb97a
6765 F20101114_AACFUN chandool_c_Page_044thm.jpg
dc93499e69890374835430737f7d3a75
2c3cd2a4f06d486980d1f99025bd98cdbc633b3b
24551 F20101114_AACFTY chandool_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
461b492274297e6f64cfc5224a27551c
058b1883562b37beaf7b712af810fe12732d0fcb
6663 F20101114_AACERL chandool_c_Page_109thm.jpg
62c658fb097f8bd611c3aa431d55c8cb
87f6578d4ed45b70732a7397e88a10f9ac1a25d3
15885 F20101114_AACEQW chandool_c_Page_132.QC.jpg
376329d03e687baf03f8056b49bb0d2c
cecdb15a56ba5ebd1b91e04970a76a7d00fb4d10
6841 F20101114_AACGAI chandool_c_Page_127thm.jpg
ebe23ecb985c0abb7cdde0e141896092
632cfb5f87d1f842fc9333c530487c8d2ec74850
6784 F20101114_AACFVC chandool_c_Page_053thm.jpg
8e473ac2d174e61b52946b390b280b3c
a48085e13d6af45866301be385e3cf2474235068
23025 F20101114_AACFUO chandool_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
fecce44d132cb04296249c1a5ee34224
0897f4498b578e4907443db5c1bfaf8b09f99d59
6714 F20101114_AACFTZ chandool_c_Page_037thm.jpg
a24b3dc5f58459c16d1c83f518ad0c99
55030eb983905a9a24045c13b289e91c545b3cbf
13294 F20101114_AACESA chandool_c_Page_005.jpg
98cd975c52aad66a35fb3934ee61fdd4
1b846b34fe0bd7297f307ec6718455abecaf56ed
51054 F20101114_AACERM chandool_c_Page_051.pro
68162f9f1e342056a68701f4675e84cc
27f70dacac08ef9dad5fc2ab80ef61fb3ba5b973
73601 F20101114_AACEQX chandool_c_Page_063.jpg
ee8589a1f7ce3e4ee8f7e1528825f168
3aa49caf61a7e165d23dc3b290e3adb7fc9ee4da
5328 F20101114_AACGAJ chandool_c_Page_128.QC.jpg
13cc5f239386ef5ce6bb835dbec57510
14b51f2c759eb23adc35c735ad4da9b323c9cc51
23906 F20101114_AACFVD chandool_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
11f1634d741e0fa35373909c4c7464c5
037efb1f35b87840748f2a4d7eb0bca823a4f554
23727 F20101114_AACFUP chandool_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
d2e2a688a72b01353fe8b893f022b9a5
3bb15185ed71156b3d82bd5db8e022bb3583fb8a
83151 F20101114_AACESB chandool_c_Page_006.jpg
c1533ed1c74b8f221fa5e0d82911e070
cf00c9939b5108505064b6f3ac3520240519895b
7064 F20101114_AACERN chandool_c_Page_081thm.jpg
267a2035a6daab7bcc5c2f781a4c946c
f18a7f11661531d9474c778b71ab0e839e039d98
114960 F20101114_AACEQY chandool_c_Page_036.jp2
1b1a397ef08f2ab4c2afedb82689d12c
a8d9136b9c1d5fdbaf5ea3237d83d7a5f4803096
1843 F20101114_AACGAK chandool_c_Page_128thm.jpg
a3b126d6a4c558d6bd120781c5c782ab
d13d6f1b6ada42c88305d7a0df095a676ad1ec94
6535 F20101114_AACFVE chandool_c_Page_054thm.jpg
022e77b862b14d8385b62675abda11d9
c30496ee89619e930640450ce203a5e2eca9ac74
6528 F20101114_AACFUQ chandool_c_Page_046thm.jpg
25f825c6bbc2862c2366ed1ceb564f39
ac73f312cc4c9e0a5c48430a8a7e9e1ea0299a27
113426 F20101114_AACESC chandool_c_Page_007.jpg
0c8ba3ca207ad2e84767817168014532
1496c90f1eaef69e4dd4e9c0ee17d6263cdb3881
48903 F20101114_AACERO chandool_c_Page_132.jpg
e4d5620c3bf4122f474c874cdeba551d
f4ed35466ea5ad48b145fbd6ef68ae635a7eb7ff
53422 F20101114_AACEQZ chandool_c_Page_084.pro
0a88728504d7181f3faa980025b190b3
12895cbf65b4971ed0c5ba761a864d7b4434f3f7
8158 F20101114_AACGBA chandool_c_Page_137.QC.jpg
44af8f40fe9005eb4d70389f6cf1d962
161a0f7f9d36d3d033d1d1d8fbfa89faa64a6abd
11840 F20101114_AACGAL chandool_c_Page_129.QC.jpg
d5acf3e32923800d1e9c84627c49e07b
59719e821d86c4ce0823dc359578ea96a3d1b0ee
18720 F20101114_AACFVF chandool_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
1a46997be057cd960fb54472a67bb78d
ad297512aae50d2713528fa2df0e33a747a300d3
15093 F20101114_AACFUR chandool_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
d5143821e5422847da50f9b23dc1d6df
aeb7f8eaf09cacb3596614d971d5c1364cca88f2
77815 F20101114_AACESD chandool_c_Page_008.jpg
6792816e0b91c58e47d942644e9d2607
150801abcdc56f38501944a5fa25bf13ffe1d98f
F20101114_AACERP chandool_c_Page_116.tif
4a72264419c1f3354b17db8a2f62db74
0ba390bd40cac4f4b1183a28b78e497ed76f551f
5302 F20101114_AACGBB chandool_c_Page_138thm.jpg
a1ee887507053ed6efb3efea98104671
acdb99ef41e66f74d24c6e670ab52372f6111ad3
3810 F20101114_AACGAM chandool_c_Page_129thm.jpg
4408891096fc21ca6b1b74f7e245eaca
f9167062f90427b3fab59086965f3268573a694a
5457 F20101114_AACFVG chandool_c_Page_055thm.jpg
36e0821a923f618632d4b88a4b10825a
7375adef019dca1037eaded0806ab2c2cea44ab8
4194 F20101114_AACFUS chandool_c_Page_047thm.jpg
4b4fddf86599682038c07807732aab3e
d6cb93242926a2ca671310a66154c6569b4e7419
68553 F20101114_AACESE chandool_c_Page_009.jpg
c2ccaa595b58043b99b28f39e681e1bf
c39b0c9dc3c3bc29b06be6b5a753ace26134a441
45978 F20101114_AACERQ chandool_c_Page_062.pro
80c24d853ae50e94c9467f134f72aab7
a9267a5d4608dafc5a4f0d37d6d81f96fdb6487c
30723 F20101114_AACGBC chandool_c_Page_139.QC.jpg
9d579068bccb2c502855b614860aad36
bfe9a3a65a08961c2cbe293d4f2e588cd8f4acfe
14259 F20101114_AACGAN chandool_c_Page_130.QC.jpg
f4922f63ebd0d8828746ebae4dc2f8da
0abbbd17f68f7479c595155d59fb8cda12af452e
25377 F20101114_AACFVH chandool_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
b86f4c0efafa10c79beff1e41ae2eaab
acb84b2605569f6b12aee10608043aef735b6605
6602 F20101114_AACFUT chandool_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
b554409b90ad52222062fbfa60e5178b
301fccb71f9ba4e0af3445f4a61a218e0dd8215a
51655 F20101114_AACESF chandool_c_Page_010.jpg
c8b22848fc0c3dcd9e01ef3ee7eecd1d
e30502fb81229d9289b85daddba3cfea3105241d
F20101114_AACERR chandool_c_Page_021.tif
134015033f7a30d97be3aca05509e878
6c51634e684025c4724b59bef7d270f0e8aab2ae
8194 F20101114_AACGBD chandool_c_Page_139thm.jpg
6f139a1acbfaa154c13acabfc4a9cb50
846f6b3b4f8af24bd1f4ee96f04ab460954d9e07
3768 F20101114_AACGAO chandool_c_Page_130thm.jpg
3fbdd1ddf33448095970be71b796b29f
f01f5e3283a7a399e211792eab60b4ad035d2a3a
6887 F20101114_AACFVI chandool_c_Page_056thm.jpg
0345b2a71f23f7b33e6f380da000a1f6
5847c8a8d0b1956d1c41dffd16f086b432456fa5
2274 F20101114_AACFUU chandool_c_Page_048thm.jpg
cff3cbd8e56ab7d8015cbfecf43aa80d
9b71f0d9232a0155665be7b7cf4a1f5ee2f5177d
68478 F20101114_AACESG chandool_c_Page_011.jpg
87cc9d22b0a7124368a5679f33f07ee8
ccff838f19c10b7410267cd4701a6370be018ba7
49276 F20101114_AACERS chandool_c_Page_063.pro
5c503e4f13286cd2af3d0aff305a60ec
5b152c9300cdd5a19b3af32aa5bf3c04b174d4dc
14735 F20101114_AACGAP chandool_c_Page_131.QC.jpg
31a4fa8284b4696ab08279c3e67d0238
f45b6a4ce3c55fc45513c2c31b4e1d22d3b9df2f
7421 F20101114_AACFVJ chandool_c_Page_057thm.jpg
b482d191127553a2206564099b6bd0c0
6e785cb3dc6efd78640305d67354eb8df3a6585d
24607 F20101114_AACFUV chandool_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
19241450be4d6d09fef1dd157ec120a0
218441e2654ff4b6010db4c842e74043793705d2
70258 F20101114_AACESH chandool_c_Page_013.jpg
c7060b4e5e9d8075cc0cd9453fc92dc7
88671ed496f9c8460b0fee130bd68dedea8c47c7
228089 F20101114_AACERT UFE0021215_00001.xml FULL
7ecd0b0333490b13a56e00a67cfd57ff
c9169dcf741d6290ffb2189406959471c4b36aeb
15752 F20101114_AACGBE chandool_c_Page_140.QC.jpg
21fd1d059c2c71dffe085ce7df54b5b1
555cfdc75adc8eae7879a026b497ddce4a57dd77
4707 F20101114_AACGAQ chandool_c_Page_131thm.jpg
3b7107930a39f22037b8a9d17dd4809c
74ea895be76ec5469130322351213093f5b05a40
24751 F20101114_AACFVK chandool_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
6b15a23bfefd50fb10b6daa8ba6c5fb2
fcea31e8b9a02e5b011326d07e48ae3da4a1d1f8
6983 F20101114_AACFUW chandool_c_Page_049thm.jpg
f4df0ca96ec6cecb4a032d5320cfcb92
44f48cb85d84312210dd8c08d3bac151e891da22
74669 F20101114_AACESI chandool_c_Page_014.jpg
7785544fd56604f4eb6fdfe82c1eacd1
b0f490def568051571c40fff01301dd4568a94dd
4802 F20101114_AACGBF chandool_c_Page_140thm.jpg
e36332c063ee66df0d9b5b88b6b06c76
512e6f114306446b20ea8b8bef4a2811e8864680
5166 F20101114_AACGAR chandool_c_Page_132thm.jpg
6a96d221b577de99bca4f9dc6b7c9ddd
a8dcf0f1db9fb1c844e088cb1b36796ea9d2cc0a
6986 F20101114_AACFVL chandool_c_Page_058thm.jpg
07e308cbc278425998298442ddbfdbcd
e382fb27a1fcc0575d69355e7312287aa5ac5b39
24230 F20101114_AACFUX chandool_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
83dc832b1a0a029ebba7b83af01f9a14
89f406e46a94b89cf7bd82a9f6b2de599e1e61a4
74367 F20101114_AACESJ chandool_c_Page_015.jpg
1cfab959fdd9f9179f63abb466a41717
54b1a09de1db74c53c569bf870df224379da06b3
5077 F20101114_AACGBG chandool_c_Page_141thm.jpg
cc3012e40e3dffd80b51d5aa1b3f3180
dc7ceec4d59e971e9cde59b1309b1974b79a674e
13557 F20101114_AACGAS chandool_c_Page_133.QC.jpg
aa0106036eca7c5df53085c321705a7a
f6e9931a289273b9e8fe63d3fcfdf61772cefc67
23000 F20101114_AACFWA chandool_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
a4e0d6b03fb19aae9e9111e32c93cbdf
f99a4e24d3b57d84493d891bd0cb1160c581545e
25906 F20101114_AACFVM chandool_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
9c90cf14d98d15b67071317490ab5175
874d077904d20a97bcb6a08aa1f695b53642ef4c
75764 F20101114_AACESK chandool_c_Page_016.jpg
5cc650ae50ac88ac0441ec28b639909d
da026d4d12782ef7b204f370a0a3b8a00fa1a0a3
25236 F20101114_AACGBH chandool_c_Page_142.QC.jpg
5455f64eddfacd5a2c2b36f2c16a661f
198fb9d748524e61a53dd5a744ab8c9f88ea22f8
4093 F20101114_AACGAT chandool_c_Page_133thm.jpg
ce1d3f4e650db2b4bdd1027c7988cccb
511fe55dd8a1cc6a40e38a386b35dad950bc86ee
5961 F20101114_AACFWB chandool_c_Page_066thm.jpg
99177d57ede6393b6d1c91d8c67a0a7e
56e5ee5829812742bf56436d604e7de4cbd217d5
6781 F20101114_AACFVN chandool_c_Page_059thm.jpg
1b7d2e075c62a57d570875abe959c415
fcc6f1ea002c679c386a883c0733cf9bc92b3fc2
6519 F20101114_AACFUY chandool_c_Page_051thm.jpg
530de8c815ba33ac91bbc537942f2a31
34e2ff6fac3f31d08807eadb9c4edd188f773507
81296 F20101114_AACESL chandool_c_Page_017.jpg
78df84c12c23ec2e6f215099d8a5cea4
64261cdcc2f06dcdfd1e42b24d03ef7fa3d67a7a
27073 F20101114_AACERW chandool_c_Page_001.jpg
0e3a9df9cd858cd8d9de8f57d1386317
a48ca7c33e1e651327c58fe2b427a18dd91bd312
6920 F20101114_AACGBI chandool_c_Page_142thm.jpg
5a827ca90da6c0786004189c5bd34824
bb25ca3e0bba5d686a85c67757b2a65efa17fd68
15563 F20101114_AACGAU chandool_c_Page_134.QC.jpg
a65cf9961d689c37aff82d2302fd5f42
db447b390ab3ea68b366a6904c7df478c202d4ef
22835 F20101114_AACFWC chandool_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
59f765d45c641c53f258b063eedfb1c3
af51a77180ba2173a55d4ca5d2a7e9086f2cefb7
22586 F20101114_AACFVO chandool_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
94904c77a53bae8bebc4d9f7753d246c
d198dde36cc493ce9932af1b14e59731e09c9974
16368 F20101114_AACFUZ chandool_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
f96a432a15ea765967dbeea9fe155ac6
fa3c4de59524d6d1a0acfd0cb43b487f5d3c7059
73560 F20101114_AACESM chandool_c_Page_018.jpg
1f96d10ee359df4668eb1f25a0368c63
d0ef15d33d04206eddadf743f8b8c8ef66b01bcd
9875 F20101114_AACERX chandool_c_Page_002.jpg
39a821ba9c9dbeda8931eb1036a37970
6e5efa2ce3f671a4a1ca911f77ccb1509d497d6c
79434 F20101114_AACETA chandool_c_Page_035.jpg
5667e8c258e6387d779d433d72fd4dfe
4b5ea677532d2ef68eb2dcbd85783f6957502610
28018 F20101114_AACGBJ chandool_c_Page_143.QC.jpg
fbb811a5a66c7a8478ab2cfa9d454bb6
0d9dcfb4e45fe3a4f9f49d8e035b1ab908f26ef6
4639 F20101114_AACGAV chandool_c_Page_134thm.jpg
3fffb43261c9fbeda97744521bc17a4f
c1bbec90877fe2f0f17f9acd3699d3d0a021da5b
6259 F20101114_AACFWD chandool_c_Page_067thm.jpg
cfa383641ab7b44f961d6ddb6d16cd0f
1efa3f9c13a9b2dda852c6ef9ee58f32aa33f575
6280 F20101114_AACFVP chandool_c_Page_060thm.jpg
f28b402638f37a5401969eb8a04b8f3e
b276eb0ca8e46f912299c2140c4a0c4937fca441
76556 F20101114_AACESN chandool_c_Page_019.jpg
447f581b7db402834ad696ea1903fb60
0f8ff6e6445821b24a7a1fc079459860daca67c5
11111 F20101114_AACERY chandool_c_Page_003.jpg
e7e71e58e49d11325314d7793a528f1c
1ecce09c635af42c829441346d14d7c47028b7e2
75784 F20101114_AACETB chandool_c_Page_036.jpg
2e1c09aeede46550cab878e93a30d0bc
c9c0f20d143fcc3b3b21abae51ce447c98767886
7545 F20101114_AACGBK chandool_c_Page_143thm.jpg
82c63cf3339f426bb336572071edeba8
d3b7cb079a78f37f401ad7ae6af6d50aed2e5450
20630 F20101114_AACGAW chandool_c_Page_135.QC.jpg
66bb0db9b7dd5196f96ee11bc6ce702a
8eac00146afd5de49f0cc5e3f7422d445d7c6b72
25119 F20101114_AACFWE chandool_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
7b6d3545c998cca365e379cbb63867b7
211cb0c807a871b54c7bd255bd6f10714ad6ce42
24401 F20101114_AACFVQ chandool_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
3129f52c3d326c8a0eaf14b4fefeefbd
82df71fcf7f0869f58aa8dbff5be36b80c522827
77699 F20101114_AACESO chandool_c_Page_020.jpg
9f86535eb8d875ebb9046468e28db41b
768a816acbfc1abac15f7dfaadfd0078ff052c42
74625 F20101114_AACERZ chandool_c_Page_004.jpg
8ed18af087065618337f9812ebc47179
cd18231990433602dd8155268a48b9064146f3cc
70217 F20101114_AACETC chandool_c_Page_038.jpg
00bd135f9122a246fa5f8381e908f771
2b56336cef94bd636185e1c5fcadaa0b936388cf
176086 F20101114_AACGCA UFE0021215_00001.mets
6035677266888b0161bd6ae209e563bb
2e3980f2b9849d53a60eac65d7a0d64b6cf1dde5
27790 F20101114_AACGBL chandool_c_Page_144.QC.jpg
5a197a1c73df393eaf147f72735ccb2e
78f5045cc77f8299b0b861619e4a748c2dc8b613
5677 F20101114_AACGAX chandool_c_Page_135thm.jpg
e5f25fb2233177a2dc1cdef1fae18cc2
fa6fb910508b2852fa78cec169e02717529b8023
6821 F20101114_AACFWF chandool_c_Page_068thm.jpg
4baf03d7e1bf8ed1503c82ec5ff91dd2
89851398c043e45de8a1537c4f80848fa2d2b966
6771 F20101114_AACFVR chandool_c_Page_061thm.jpg
8e2156252737ff44b082484cd5eb0e97
8bc79312af5dd8c69ce2c508db3a7f0e02fd2bee
76538 F20101114_AACESP chandool_c_Page_021.jpg
68c120b6fcc5176bc62e3face5ec4838
e1059fe427e69e5fbd2e7728b77e849ea4e19420
59075 F20101114_AACETD chandool_c_Page_039.jpg
813c4f3a03d42eddd2b318ba55ae4aa9
c37e33edb37329f6d02675dad18a76b41a9ebc5b
26704 F20101114_AACGBM chandool_c_Page_145.QC.jpg
1dcf04b2344a145031c3a546fa36bfff
f81aa5b91081bae7b9d6d2cf381abead977c44c3
8844 F20101114_AACGAY chandool_c_Page_136.QC.jpg
349f67378a6725eb979f0b7976c33d68
fc7d6fee3e1c7976854d8c629e8167ae1229cfd0
24333 F20101114_AACFWG chandool_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
86beb9018c69a6f90803458faadd2879
cf090975e8c271d1ecdcce70072d4a47720cd6ff
22625 F20101114_AACFVS chandool_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
6c6c87b1d60b22e4fef6a0496311493c
6725cc74abee5839841be5f36cdafe0e9c6ca8d6
74214 F20101114_AACESQ chandool_c_Page_023.jpg
ad038886a8b1039f8d8a7af75a29c74b
249f1d9760d1440a03eb163d6a05dfd78e10427f
72182 F20101114_AACETE chandool_c_Page_041.jpg
a140f0d569fc041499a3c02fe2420c2a
0de4abb7f0e991a88b0adbc943806f5fc8792742
7451 F20101114_AACGBN chandool_c_Page_145thm.jpg
5194f7a810b131aedf931cd4b8921fc7
a7f8e4c15336b6c153a1691dfc1d461f50882b4c
2850 F20101114_AACGAZ chandool_c_Page_136thm.jpg
ac3bd31aefcac478971f638165d2b24c
9f75b6740610bcbdd64c446d3f661870610219bd
6882 F20101114_AACFWH chandool_c_Page_069thm.jpg
9b8788389177cbbd4f7a20ee73e520d1
a7abeea320def14b97997dd245ad756ca51efc28
6154 F20101114_AACFVT chandool_c_Page_062thm.jpg
12701b4310befa2095d6450570acb283
af7344caa8fce647022707566d849569a258b354
50101 F20101114_AACESR chandool_c_Page_024.jpg
4211f20fcd4ac00277e3098939cd7b99
6d75d1b1b2f01f599ccb757ffa3d0fe22c91d828
74716 F20101114_AACETF chandool_c_Page_042.jpg
c3a42556353ce754ebbd2c0d2367333f
26a17cfbebdebb3f019a57c6ba3519d3e1a5d61a
27258 F20101114_AACGBO chandool_c_Page_146.QC.jpg
22169dbd071f9e480520aff91886d65c
340b2db2631bcb73152401b8294e64483a204095
24205 F20101114_AACFWI chandool_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
5bdd77076fccc9d09d58265484cc95ba
62448dca1d9ee0676af822060b56b4e6c5c54f3e
24705 F20101114_AACFVU chandool_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
d49b53acedca0b7a19de96bbec0ec062
f8b5b52246b2aaa6dc7af53c997e55ccaf932c5d
80210 F20101114_AACESS chandool_c_Page_025.jpg
0db106649fc5b1ae345a62861f540781
39fbeeabadd68dcbbf2e23a4b5348e0f018eee30
70368 F20101114_AACETG chandool_c_Page_043.jpg
23a7965599ba891612c0c59b485832d6
edea90bebe6c94b90a5a9a56a6800326a13f4e1b
7637 F20101114_AACGBP chandool_c_Page_146thm.jpg
276a8a59a7af0abec95de6894723ad88
659a0d783b735f3b2b14e2b135b8982ad059f258
6678 F20101114_AACFWJ chandool_c_Page_070thm.jpg
7a51ff95d34ce347d52252e9efe563c9
d55a9807b5983bbc3bb3dd2f6bbff59f55b56e39
6757 F20101114_AACFVV chandool_c_Page_063thm.jpg
4588403fa76d44dcfc15bccfd266cd6d
b07206ed7456d3eef152f9160894e019d815a431
78329 F20101114_AACEST chandool_c_Page_026.jpg
a10adb11a7277bc731fe7ba4b1a357d2
54dda5cf282b8beafb90942a4846907b6603f63c
72288 F20101114_AACETH chandool_c_Page_044.jpg
1025db68ce97f1f4a4d6e9c3428a8967
197c5f74a0ea9f954faead7bf3ea84b065250b84
26835 F20101114_AACGBQ chandool_c_Page_147.QC.jpg
f821ff6e514aed2a446db7efd0bd3740
cbfeaaf955f23fbc2fbad2e2aa69d0032559d440
6452 F20101114_AACFWK chandool_c_Page_071thm.jpg
959eafa76e717bea9dd9283c53288753
78400fcb8e7061143ab5039660799eb0452fc7d3
20722 F20101114_AACFVW chandool_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
64f35350ced0b7b706ab5ef770589a82
6b2f458839b6d59bcce40928942404ef80082ca9
72727 F20101114_AACESU chandool_c_Page_027.jpg
2a1c83f1ec2c9b481b434dcc99b3606a
5a27e1629315e5269bcca88bfb7e8abea53f282d
72310 F20101114_AACETI chandool_c_Page_046.jpg
ca4b9bf7041a1cad4de1cc527861e87c
937399cc9a005e9b94f7018bef6510f551b761f0
7233 F20101114_AACGBR chandool_c_Page_147thm.jpg
4d28d42463a23be8f28b08b9cf573ec2
075a084e4a300b645f5d7fba14d9e3e3fa08faf5
6043 F20101114_AACFWL chandool_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
92c574b6daf80ce256b351ebd4f86e2b
e7eb2ad840d1bed2711e375ec16bfea78231ac30
5951 F20101114_AACFVX chandool_c_Page_064thm.jpg
68db422ada01290ca5670fea7d56b417
65d2651f875ba818800bfe2f19d805551cc6fd28
75622 F20101114_AACESV chandool_c_Page_028.jpg
a7f8cbbf9f3138cf681aeaf5deb84e9c
c65548463f1ada0d3534a56f8bf49f600a4412fb
45103 F20101114_AACETJ chandool_c_Page_047.jpg
f97c34fc97c736b9e3e5bca0881ad1d1
e874c739a0227a983e75e927bf0aa73a441bec18
26707 F20101114_AACGBS chandool_c_Page_148.QC.jpg
d04b3463d67f2339fd4dabc8fe215b21
854080f237f36762cd50705b52cd295eeb050e6b
6705 F20101114_AACFXA chandool_c_Page_080thm.jpg
61cfbe661047a0a59e3585217402d9ee
7280cdba0285685e234255d23f75a17799a187f0
2079 F20101114_AACFWM chandool_c_Page_072thm.jpg
08e606e48e487be89fe19f1501a70baf
71f02c1ccb4f89d7fa1439a21946221c5b8a3798
25514 F20101114_AACFVY chandool_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
684f133fd3162053be3a6563d7b91398
176f5f773e79fcfe2a63b956430b7303359a1f17
65372 F20101114_AACESW chandool_c_Page_029.jpg
69d8f9425801b60aa21f5dafb9bb5906
0840fc627f8d82cbfdef957110d09d116b5823d5
74466 F20101114_AACETK chandool_c_Page_050.jpg
eda49c681ccb54fe086bfedad2a99d02
d924fd26ac41099b0531e157e1004645d54c89b3
7211 F20101114_AACGBT chandool_c_Page_148thm.jpg
566fd68aa881743c71afb97b0dab19bf
7fafb4c95122ddd298ff7fe3d9885154f651ee87
25460 F20101114_AACFXB chandool_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
3db38ecf480fba1911c61d156dde2a85
ec35f54503a553644c3613aaf27197f419d971d7
24546 F20101114_AACFWN chandool_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
6729c62f0b94cc00dcfff6f6134e9fc8
cc8641920e8c0b811de754eaa30379e8e6d0f013
71668 F20101114_AACETL chandool_c_Page_051.jpg
3fba44f9f714007e1d834512d0a76e38
e4d2851dac9922e27bf84e57b0df9a7f9fdba70c
26528 F20101114_AACGBU chandool_c_Page_149.QC.jpg
128b5b6960734d188bb9f77d7f0f37d6
c5abc6b9430f164ac18bf8d55a854b47e0ba8282
6550 F20101114_AACFXC chandool_c_Page_082thm.jpg
32f0c90009e33251c81f197a6f17a8cd
1c3a357922630034bf273a6783d1c56a0295eed3
6702 F20101114_AACFWO chandool_c_Page_073thm.jpg
0ca99db5ca5e812de11baec207593f2e
14d1bf48e3d312c0a208f3578d66aa780eb14a41
6824 F20101114_AACFVZ chandool_c_Page_065thm.jpg
69256891f5f3f3a5c16dff7bbaf88e0d
bc6ac565e4fbf7ba64ee7ced32de9a2232f950ee
79034 F20101114_AACESX chandool_c_Page_030.jpg
9be496935a76a723907651712f2c04c0
739dcf5b42164654af41fd563c4d39fe92fbf743
78129 F20101114_AACEUA chandool_c_Page_068.jpg
059b09e021013b805f913f40d94592bf
ccd2a50cfd063218a2923c5fd058afea11c2455b
74262 F20101114_AACETM chandool_c_Page_053.jpg
33ddd56ca7c59f59b55dbbc5a8753632
ef57dfb97e450795d12e88d193e3f9b60db2c4c4
7279 F20101114_AACGBV chandool_c_Page_149thm.jpg
a32e35f73d2724db59bbfde6651fb188
6076f838ced1a798e76873603d4d736bcd4569df
25718 F20101114_AACFXD chandool_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
da8e2a286f10b59c12afae24d0582bfe
d2135e4dd85fb8112fdecfbb9394c8835fde63b0
24879 F20101114_AACFWP chandool_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
696a5a19cdb29bbc1c9ec5ccde0f34bf
2eb8eec8809ec8030e9aeadd3b2a6ec8e89d92f4
84677 F20101114_AACESY chandool_c_Page_031.jpg
f007c27a43b655c1f516f292322973df
9de3ac8d2e8059499d1e29bd5d30c08c9605c26a
75479 F20101114_AACEUB chandool_c_Page_069.jpg
c22f016d5a859a6ff5411520313d16af
839e2a63bf9fe3522193715f053ba91593b5d9f5
71359 F20101114_AACETN chandool_c_Page_054.jpg
6492fdad6ff66865da21d8adae872717
dfe6845b3f9ae36a5155e3ee86e9a0bf964cd14e
21476 F20101114_AACGBW chandool_c_Page_150.QC.jpg
a303cca4071d62222dfdac73f99e1c18
b9173daf43669160e9c0600a296604abae768d42
F20101114_AACFXE chandool_c_Page_083thm.jpg
5d1e0089d5b5d855f3ec935a237673f4
60f828e54aafc5d66a210a583aec451bd4116b0a
6773 F20101114_AACFWQ chandool_c_Page_074thm.jpg
1c67551b8c910542b21af71b35342bbd
181539a69c0c5252edc80ae6bd29d21ae53eb245
81152 F20101114_AACESZ chandool_c_Page_034.jpg
8ec462b003589fdf72c4e4dd77d64a32
225007c60ea1fa86daffb130bf0eb90130444d5d
74672 F20101114_AACEUC chandool_c_Page_070.jpg
2115b0f58b49422c87634303f5a75462
5207bf3958980aeb04b55cb292e1e74afd3b81ce
57471 F20101114_AACETO chandool_c_Page_055.jpg
adcc838bb274e260df3bec97933cacbe
1fc483dc70880319cd8fa2faa8665f86868a246f
6220 F20101114_AACGBX chandool_c_Page_150thm.jpg
9776cc752871a5e98f942d77233f78e2
adf24bdf85182feb91a2be866bb3ff0a3bd96516
24977 F20101114_AACFXF chandool_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
729b3e20bf6bb27fae3bd9e38cbeca1c
decb8c5937e6c1113f172c6c0a170540c288a064
24339 F20101114_AACFWR chandool_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
c7f38d8e1cfda49db8b504065f0e58c8
e499b7f154e6135c659f8a148a214aea8946540e
72346 F20101114_AACEUD chandool_c_Page_071.jpg
ce2ba59d9dde1eb7158611fde07952e3
c2f2009dd36f4b8eb659c869d36e70b616db94b0
78195 F20101114_AACETP chandool_c_Page_056.jpg
b67ac358ccd4d5e2bb5759ca4a08b6df
66bc351110aba61839ea422e930b699cb9e9d259
17082 F20101114_AACGBY chandool_c_Page_151.QC.jpg
7905ec67881a3e41b721b48d9a660209
79f62b379739563bf9ee56542e0e450836719ad7
23774 F20101114_AACFXG chandool_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
f1570fcf664d50f7fd46b00f14e992c2
ae9df750e159bf6a4f19517729b59d030f656e09
6823 F20101114_AACFWS chandool_c_Page_075thm.jpg
3faf9b5d497fcfb315f344ae634167c8
66576abe26e72a65e2d97bb25691ad51ab118ada
17833 F20101114_AACEUE chandool_c_Page_072.jpg
185f5405434605fdb41cf2515cf11c34
abe1a41632ad17f35d0b993a2c445520f9d3f056
87031 F20101114_AACETQ chandool_c_Page_057.jpg
18fa3fc1541868330bd8bca6c09d7e0e
522ac0d4eaef075cf831e44e90f2b92cb1769de9
4747 F20101114_AACGBZ chandool_c_Page_151thm.jpg
d3d409b41a5947c44b66fc75b8146882
7262638d0e8881ade3349edb2771a4f69339360c
6358 F20101114_AACFXH chandool_c_Page_085thm.jpg
80aa77d6b4afc079b9cafb9a7ba7c87f
6beebdda828158252d0a008bcfa84009716efa3b
26613 F20101114_AACFWT chandool_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
3894581fd8320d29985306f48b2ffd55
6cc5918186613dfbb7422704fee1d8e39138babb
74863 F20101114_AACEUF chandool_c_Page_073.jpg
ebba1c35bc382657b16bc13e7087f05a
7ad5442c3ba000c042b9b58736c7a71ad8128d7e
80609 F20101114_AACETR chandool_c_Page_058.jpg
df6d0281750ea86a21ffba831932e8b8
4837dd4d2f47c7cad37bc49bcb6e4ae063b0de1f
108282 F20101114_AACFAA chandool_c_Page_094.jp2
3494381ea8958c95cb778dc9f677419f
f937067db70d13a0e1008f716429e36373b41b7b
24822 F20101114_AACFXI chandool_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
7264aa86e631ac50de54d7a2b2799398
2b0f4956550b6b5f9235bf321332b03316e012c9
7225 F20101114_AACFWU chandool_c_Page_076thm.jpg
fe8d31331337c9c772d41ad8c93bb0e6
2db2418150d93cde5542e5dc04dcb29edb56e9f4
75711 F20101114_AACEUG chandool_c_Page_074.jpg
858ee5744d97c73a37732a6f1eef6497
3a5017244ecf3632712564c396420711125292c7
76296 F20101114_AACETS chandool_c_Page_059.jpg
cc8d05d34098f1218034465406f54d9a
ecda287d9ebd2a8059a0e476df939e8e986fb793
85197 F20101114_AACFAB chandool_c_Page_095.jp2
d0772b53ef6826602c6efd29308b8a6e
11e3fa825f13c348ba5a0f743d26f69f855e6194
6769 F20101114_AACFXJ chandool_c_Page_086thm.jpg
3e191efa034a0a052cf67022f0b624d4
456277ad112b70548cd39b81efd9a8b64ba8d320
25666 F20101114_AACFWV chandool_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
17c76e9882f471dde0ffa60e1ce37052
d7c4d8dbdeec58e37293c0e85455e7fb6c8d8057
74096 F20101114_AACEUH chandool_c_Page_075.jpg
42ef0644f3b23de544c510db69507716
348ff25f07859c7a2a0509093d83f4406758c56f
68870 F20101114_AACETT chandool_c_Page_060.jpg
b4c85ec00bd1a195a4dc6697246b0bcd
fadb363ba6fe545d4f1a31a3fb097b2cbe553644
115808 F20101114_AACFAC chandool_c_Page_097.jp2
fbaf3792bb1f82d5d336b0b2eb060bcb
7672c5d2731aee11aea766a26cedb31ce28df718
F20101114_AACFXK chandool_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
91c7fd6b4a848443332cb11926caa787
722b22782586f204e32c35eee6b9223f3cb902f4
6811 F20101114_AACFWW chandool_c_Page_077thm.jpg
3e81413fff5971eef1475a9d148d3e94
31579c75b6c038004cf357b1b915d2f382ee368a
79678 F20101114_AACEUI chandool_c_Page_076.jpg
e750f58e92138f9b98d2efc2d0d0b5bf
cecb91a96a2daead70d94fa856936d898dc22b8b
78288 F20101114_AACETU chandool_c_Page_061.jpg
ee198346a8320fbb2fd029b609c886c7
1937f18f9fe099e7228cfe9d67072da1ae5fb266
58460 F20101114_AACFAD chandool_c_Page_098.jp2
7411bef24c7319434c86271351216fc2
d7efce5ccdafd67e73c101e45236f83225314d71
6517 F20101114_AACFXL chandool_c_Page_087thm.jpg
64a0c15e7a1dea654814433b06562ad0
2a9ba419d3ba573242614bd3c104013e0ce76252
6835 F20101114_AACFWX chandool_c_Page_078thm.jpg
60d50c076c95da5aa254e36c753fff35
e59fbc5fc6f71e709e4d80fa0ca636615fc2d856
78105 F20101114_AACEUJ chandool_c_Page_077.jpg
dc7d73a8dfbfd289d414f862d48a5b00
cdfc7b0d60d696c5d78ace67a5e9f895b600cb55
64372 F20101114_AACETV chandool_c_Page_062.jpg
9ae0f3cce6a1a109fe36803fcfaf7f30
912d39a5a4add9beccd830f0d4c03d928c39b40f
19620 F20101114_AACFYA chandool_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
a2761200f85a097cbe03e7c25cb21f83
8a67350af1ec44a8ce201b265f14da0da75a8afc
22103 F20101114_AACFXM chandool_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
ca51c65a197933582241f06b0b448ede
994c7e5a979517010ccae23574cfc4696effe193
6631 F20101114_AACFWY chandool_c_Page_079thm.jpg
003dd7188be79c52bfa8ad1a6c767db1
0a259482631fb44c851e837cf3db9714fa499824
74964 F20101114_AACEUK chandool_c_Page_078.jpg
00a9a4791e1f8c2973043fbcea9b3171
1af5c9a195832396e85bbb3a106a6621e1d8c675
63015 F20101114_AACETW chandool_c_Page_064.jpg
c246b46c9e02d13a524f8e9a9597c6e9
6dd1c9ff8f54527785d67d7251c9ee751abeeb9e
757638 F20101114_AACFAE chandool_c_Page_099.jp2
4cf9ec6baab8dbdb05dc2da2df98e741
5393132dc4b83afb1120ee4c39de8222f0a3dd21
5433 F20101114_AACFYB chandool_c_Page_095thm.jpg
2a0099fd1d34446cc458f7b1c200514f
cb374bf015a0b54b79c3be0489aad6260ba252fd
5971 F20101114_AACFXN chandool_c_Page_088thm.jpg
3ee83721382b4b427087e14ef5fdf960
ebf4cf18700cbcad6f865c9f677c23abb94f6f06
23238 F20101114_AACFWZ chandool_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
143c15585d1de55baa00764dc5258f06
1bef5345dadf0b42c62999ac6cd64e8187949637
74077 F20101114_AACEUL chandool_c_Page_079.jpg
ebd8817314b9a0bdc48f23daf51f1d7e
e85d3f0febb275bd3c2b8dd7196caf103023f201
77294 F20101114_AACETX chandool_c_Page_065.jpg
71753beeac71735f1895deee349219c3
ae613269630ec683028aae353bfebbe80176afdf
639026 F20101114_AACFAF chandool_c_Page_100.jp2
63f074e3c791f92b1807b9307b0b51f8
abcb4bde17dfeae8e84ebaf977f1e537d3b6a97b
19196 F20101114_AACFYC chandool_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
baf9be01b6a1c7a9e1b6c4d7103ea740
aeb9cef2f5f9ff909b34ee04a720dd83ad428ba9
25045 F20101114_AACFXO chandool_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
00bddc983fcacae3b212ae924c332ffa
e74fa67e6e90de853d9bb097b7c03ad8489b9c96
59244 F20101114_AACEVA chandool_c_Page_096.jpg
6fed3ca634d0fe147d16a002fb402759
303fb0c6648add9c591b21203562d09da41f4bbf
72710 F20101114_AACEUM chandool_c_Page_080.jpg
4df33f3bccf535f22d6e9572afd27890
fd8b67f2c552b95c14d6457ebfb57b709b99bd99
790549 F20101114_AACFAG chandool_c_Page_101.jp2
c14cbc6602f26afb1aaf03cc20ded66c
58b2b8ae1521df171c1e042852062a0e8578c7b2
5768 F20101114_AACFYD chandool_c_Page_096thm.jpg
efb1b5606dc7814e5b719660ec2aa40d
a3ed618ff76f387756de0a68a4808c73e2257c49
6790 F20101114_AACFXP chandool_c_Page_089thm.jpg
658a4b242fbffc46853dbf4d7c0e21fc
ecaccb6e43372a3f8692791cf56d407d57c832fa
40414 F20101114_AACEVB chandool_c_Page_098.jpg
3141f8d9311ddf037bd7e475fea09544
edce390b13392aae1c4121aa2a994a998ba6eedf
77654 F20101114_AACEUN chandool_c_Page_081.jpg
93eaddff09ba093c45bb4daa30b6b55b
b15da0af8ca1ddd9ca723a5362d4485d3bf64725
67200 F20101114_AACETY chandool_c_Page_066.jpg
3cff37c8aef6d9cd7fdeb6e73ce82306
6e14587d9deee454186ac993f8340342313cffd1
119460 F20101114_AACFAH chandool_c_Page_102.jp2
a6732ea7134910b10689dafe640a93c9
38f59997751727154eaa1a8dff45a7c55a6a6e77
25413 F20101114_AACFYE chandool_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
09a162bdc474b007e5088d2672c4044e
db2dab8b6ac67e8f2d372bdc5347c48f676eca9c
F20101114_AACFXQ chandool_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
dbf548820408428e757dbc4801aab349
600ef773a8221a5daca68015dfdefa0dffeab8c6
53254 F20101114_AACEVC chandool_c_Page_099.jpg
fa71c5007f6df56695283a40aad4cbaf
238dff7fa7cd9191744403d1238d66553db7d57c
73448 F20101114_AACEUO chandool_c_Page_082.jpg
3d24314af92c2ea86a1fc94463762626
ca97e584ab8a62b05f193752517a48519fe06694
69460 F20101114_AACETZ chandool_c_Page_067.jpg
159c0176c78bc20555804146c2c5c5ff
f0b8d0b58248bb71186c265a54b19d687c022212
112810 F20101114_AACFAI chandool_c_Page_103.jp2
771ae0caab733238c6781c2ac318471f
ef36fbfee9078b2845a6f8cec1c60b5aa29d5b17
6815 F20101114_AACFYF chandool_c_Page_097thm.jpg
d22fe86c7b42d219c67bc9605e7f0d50
8740a8dca9a9362a266f99a769afac45d420687e
6643 F20101114_AACFXR chandool_c_Page_090thm.jpg
9758b45586ba35bc3552aa0e77260d10
6d7f83195f86b5f345b5b3a0b71b89bd3fad6ddc
46947 F20101114_AACEVD chandool_c_Page_100.jpg
8253b60fa2358932b155b8218345342f
d477865a3e6b4f0d6a7d72f94e998b2623c089ee
81911 F20101114_AACEUP chandool_c_Page_083.jpg
a9de27e1f55d718fabdc314b83706ff7
afa3a3ea7156d40f567d4b4350213748924b1441
114654 F20101114_AACFAJ chandool_c_Page_104.jp2
8c6b37447984107649321eb704a02a65
b50fd9771d5f55f642f375f1ef78f47d3c7dfd98
14353 F20101114_AACFYG chandool_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
268d2fcde99fed529f6645b7d7c2a611
d484f9a257ba6fc582866aefeadf3183b7f7d758
26886 F20101114_AACFXS chandool_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
a3daa378657bca7387def64c2991c71a
4739d6175b3b490ea4d44e74103722c051d57573
54747 F20101114_AACEVE chandool_c_Page_101.jpg
3b9b94517976f6621a5477ed3d701bca
7c8adb61710ca2ad3221c33f495f0ba41907aff1
77309 F20101114_AACEUQ chandool_c_Page_084.jpg
003844407d61aa680103d4f98dc3c294
73b420d713ca750fb5f034e4d6a4dc033e03f4d6
113507 F20101114_AACFAK chandool_c_Page_105.jp2
3fcbb4900a5c7e1184f1cb06bc8ab44b
1017da88d3eed18fc37fda5c9c9d6ec63cf8d824
17650 F20101114_AACFYH chandool_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
998ec75bc93413cc101d3a6e736f4dad
9e338339231fdec08381a6af4ea3fe0707bfe70b
7097 F20101114_AACFXT chandool_c_Page_091thm.jpg
0d18829be53b165f41d8c52cdb9e05ce
b743fa5e7370eaaa6a2fea3505f791f6e6c6d1f4
77204 F20101114_AACEVF chandool_c_Page_102.jpg
df2291ba2cf4dee66c438257323373e3
de82ffee2a1720966d733d0f164bdfc4c7038207
72057 F20101114_AACEUR chandool_c_Page_085.jpg
4b4308129f1f853556d6d0ad826fc9ff
13e120d0709800e9a28a8c5694fcb2de0bc9ecc2
102554 F20101114_AACFBA chandool_c_Page_122.jp2
b4a4c9f9ed00447b80a0b39153a57795
04802b409ca724e2b22ccca81eaad5bf43e422a0
117975 F20101114_AACFAL chandool_c_Page_106.jp2
4e2a3629cb44ac5a096e20c0068f352b
76c4ca680258f8df2be80697668a91b92405dac0
5359 F20101114_AACFYI chandool_c_Page_099thm.jpg
5ca4aa604529f22b0e3ac060e2b7ae58
c95769423dbd99b2bc4030ca5e313465415767a5
25660 F20101114_AACFXU chandool_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
9210e818ec2cfcd5a597f9eb09884579
a59909d3a9e02c7835fa638be56f6d975b85af37
74497 F20101114_AACEVG chandool_c_Page_103.jpg
98e352ca519075a0a89a82d6bf0cd40a
881cee8993da3d0efaaca6c4c073d1604171d35a
72447 F20101114_AACEUS chandool_c_Page_087.jpg
72750160c90cbd19b75a00cddc7e0857
26ef04d50c340e42a079d9dfcac19bf361e360f7
114211 F20101114_AACFBB chandool_c_Page_123.jp2
2442c20ad31375149f417d23dfa8d49f
19984d7daf1f8754a14014b00ae41d42a31ecec6
106908 F20101114_AACFAM chandool_c_Page_107.jp2
f100ed5e64cc8c7bd750ba5f80655797
452bd31062042d45c9c97e5d23e9d8eacfcfa2bc
14938 F20101114_AACFYJ chandool_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
b1bf9e801dbaa6e3700cc6b1a63ea2bd
0c6917ecad0ea945c306ba07f25accebee106b7a
6955 F20101114_AACFXV chandool_c_Page_092thm.jpg
210dbadab50d46180ea208af279c8c9c
03cad47102982d15cdfef864ac9dfa54aa2c9b8b
75737 F20101114_AACEVH chandool_c_Page_104.jpg
2164444873e79236b59f5b1ca98a6bd2
1cdb0a3f019890fe0ee119aa6c1a497abbbf24a9
66211 F20101114_AACEUT chandool_c_Page_088.jpg
574ec65a4880ab87b19615c8af36cb5f
6d4531ce7f23bb8979db288d0868294ba96748c8
113364 F20101114_AACFBC chandool_c_Page_125.jp2
337536844a02b614d5e92baac1c41e64
9042d2b8d519f8d773ffe2faf8c23d45ae87217a
120566 F20101114_AACFAN chandool_c_Page_108.jp2
fc2f2159a21a1675b5508c1f7b613586
06c5191df27d4c36aecd240ddd9f7fc9a7b795cb
4603 F20101114_AACFYK chandool_c_Page_100thm.jpg
332d61bb6b85b49290c865422c20e164
c7aafae948946d53d073c623ae666198d8f87391
21484 F20101114_AACFXW chandool_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
f038a4307d75c00f552000c513a9ee4a
7f1e3fef36f22b6c66e4dbc75415ef4bda6077a0
74567 F20101114_AACEVI chandool_c_Page_105.jpg
a4d958a3d887c7346952190954b361ca
800b9e1c82d4bf7ab779c2cc1792bce952b6ab47
76803 F20101114_AACEUU chandool_c_Page_089.jpg
22b69a115e6dd3e221913b25fe6705da
5e76c2d555882c903421d235bf1b9da8259748a0
116353 F20101114_AACFBD chandool_c_Page_126.jp2
479f9c700f7050314349b993b942990c
2d0adea597eaf701e4b7f0fb6a950f64757b5987
116711 F20101114_AACFAO chandool_c_Page_109.jp2
f43cd3a4fa64ccb816244083b3cb9ff3
9893258a7fca03334041df6c9a56795f89bc5a96
17911 F20101114_AACFYL chandool_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
2093957673926485bd81765d44248a0f
34dad75d26552809f56ba266d784ad53cf876d7d
5851 F20101114_AACFXX chandool_c_Page_093thm.jpg
af5443e232aca464539fb21026d88a3e
56bf450fee61def17e85c342193faf03eb982122
75852 F20101114_AACEUV chandool_c_Page_090.jpg
8868315e457c153aaded3876fd87ffb2
f374d6c2d368ddcd27da1fd523906f57e06c842d
116668 F20101114_AACFBE chandool_c_Page_127.jp2
029d2d36ae38b7b8a68d13138d713ea4
e7be75ff90bbd82520f50d1d3406f0f4e9725c2e
119159 F20101114_AACFAP chandool_c_Page_110.jp2
9bd22f0c23806073290de3f162e10925
a1fc277862b86070ae16f47d2a72978f65446350
78615 F20101114_AACEVJ chandool_c_Page_108.jpg
79936578cb31f7352ba1b4692d42a266
fb366bda43a062adaef681568246c1e68302e9ca
7010 F20101114_AACFZA chandool_c_Page_108thm.jpg
3136254d50b03db8ef5eff337352365d
d4df4fabbeaaf5d1f5eae4e98e0191941ef68617
5429 F20101114_AACFYM chandool_c_Page_101thm.jpg
66c59944bc9bd125fa806b27af7d3a5f
5d5f3a343f7a07e42a0f943849601f1a0d55e0d5
23744 F20101114_AACFXY chandool_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
11c7b6f5978b25110fa5ecfb7c4637d8
a07385820e866c929591e03f4737cff2284f1854
81124 F20101114_AACEUW chandool_c_Page_091.jpg
16dd6b943e92b9246e4d1b315093703e
dc26158597b4816f738f11161ffe4bd895303c4b
119647 F20101114_AACFAQ chandool_c_Page_111.jp2
ce52e6fddbee2f2ef8ad6ce50fb1f1bf
02eaf69d7e7e85655f865fd9df3611c7be7c3c07
76414 F20101114_AACEVK chandool_c_Page_109.jpg
654fc9b39daaaf3a853428bd4fc03a8b
e2a7dee12c9677ea8663dabd2e4cfe72969dbcbf
25063 F20101114_AACFZB chandool_c_Page_109.QC.jpg
12c70b1565557bdee0fbc7611ab163f1
47fa0d998f7779e2fc61c6f09c897f9d6c0dc7f0
25403 F20101114_AACFYN chandool_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
9aac764dcd76ea41500c2d4b246d0a4c
d8a9fc54aff70702105e7e1ac65c500cd72c0d51
F20101114_AACFXZ chandool_c_Page_094thm.jpg
9e5a09b203416722a6c7412c6d1095b9
7b905e575944e52933053aa755ad398d511e2c2c
64534 F20101114_AACEUX chandool_c_Page_093.jpg
edfedb1059720c7501b625a898649ffe
0414b44650bad7837d113ae115a695c5aa3326ee
14321 F20101114_AACFBF chandool_c_Page_128.jp2
451683a5dd898c738690d18aa8cbecc1
6d61d417cd3329da461471688acde44fa617b34f
112054 F20101114_AACFAR chandool_c_Page_112.jp2
eda2650fd3e9a73f322bc893a3fd8cc6
4c461801334a78ad100bf05e6d202a8177c72d14
79002 F20101114_AACEVL chandool_c_Page_110.jpg
24fab623231f70efd55e429a4ad30a8c
18e92061b5ddb198e5f97ef0b47e0f13d5aa4a4b
25770 F20101114_AACFZC chandool_c_Page_110.QC.jpg
681d989916a52ff2169ba3ba553094a3
7f686cbd3fdf04abe8130acfce83e74adc90ee79
6738 F20101114_AACFYO chandool_c_Page_102thm.jpg
bd43d7b97a599f36b80549d6414afbce
f555283b925308b80796a89db856a6641d5cfd7c
72058 F20101114_AACEUY chandool_c_Page_094.jpg
b153695dd6aebb30aef3a72bf56a9ae7
dae0a6287402e0a2891090b65c27547cdf738078
45309 F20101114_AACFBG chandool_c_Page_129.jp2
0630edb3af72ef727a248fbf94ee0705
30948d83b86cb97361bba7c7ad4880a848173480
76919 F20101114_AACEWA chandool_c_Page_126.jpg
d3b7c7725319bb661d0808e0d14494db
3b678792a693f067fb33a6653305acacd5e6c32c
106304 F20101114_AACFAS chandool_c_Page_113.jp2
537312a08ad562d3d4832f04a99d305a
ea67145776eafdfddd36c141d55d265c4940deec
79021 F20101114_AACEVM chandool_c_Page_111.jpg
b5257e765b66ea4757156543b021e0bc
c0a42364c4d192702a18af02321a9f2edc958714
6794 F20101114_AACFZD chandool_c_Page_110thm.jpg
a92efcef58df1ccafa3ee0f38c6e32d8
40073dd549dd6456a9d6a677251c7242d419c8c3
24911 F20101114_AACFYP chandool_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
17b7e1af31560eb1249c0cc46437a3ad
74fd4dddd5065772ada293829830d79947fece98
67429 F20101114_AACFBH chandool_c_Page_131.jp2
774f790f6a3d1a45d701232f202dce2a
3d9687b2173915c6477d9718dcefeede70c13bd6
75798 F20101114_AACEWB chandool_c_Page_127.jpg
21ddd486a280a0238a40713b46b4ebc5
0211f6021bf9180bea26f72ce603d962352fd720
103971 F20101114_AACFAT chandool_c_Page_114.jp2
78cf431796070ca689a3e08846b80626
e3d341e6e9eaf9f7f0baaa5728f75be2f6f2aeb9
74232 F20101114_AACEVN chandool_c_Page_112.jpg
3c46b1a4bfd677cbeec0e07cf12681b9
0ff80921ffa11cc904a46dc053ee09d92d5e3a27
25592 F20101114_AACFZE chandool_c_Page_111.QC.jpg
e399fb4139a1417b3f97b39d93b44292
9cd4a37e5e5c4e1ee0d7a0cc42379cdfe8801fbe
6710 F20101114_AACFYQ chandool_c_Page_103thm.jpg
826663a0211b07caf30f391d5ab37bbc
42552eabd4a1e8bb3c779e95f7deff876c6dfe7b
59686 F20101114_AACEUZ chandool_c_Page_095.jpg
39fb239f9596c2e6becc87cc7a66d752
cbf09d93d9c139ff9c0a2afadc1aad87ec19257d
69299 F20101114_AACFBI chandool_c_Page_132.jp2
4b4f008468c11c2f715f4c30f50f64da
b271328535c8cccf4cb4596c1327e9c37b931077
15351 F20101114_AACEWC chandool_c_Page_128.jpg
a93ba1b0b7218cff7a0e5ef6d6318b73
cdbf6c7b6f38f9988613d9a1d4788468077654ae
118531 F20101114_AACFAU chandool_c_Page_115.jp2
8c14ae7e0909b27b73caf9409ee35684
966aed2b0d819b516f26c4f97b32557ff985c592
69271 F20101114_AACEVO chandool_c_Page_113.jpg
d1cc3030b54adca4ef74217de8b21253
4aad5934e4cd70348b167f7c14bd64737a3a36d3
6872 F20101114_AACFZF chandool_c_Page_111thm.jpg
d53262343c4bde46eadbe7549ba78380
09ef717cfe273d9e8dda26227a6321a4863bd6e1
25145 F20101114_AACFYR chandool_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
8eced238055b04243d77fc8cdd0de2c0
33d532058b08ea7a1bfa7fa8f45fa8cc48d7f1e0
62628 F20101114_AACFBJ chandool_c_Page_133.jp2
28d8e7648fa35abed1f1acf102f07ece
1fdcf63be361fd07e5feca46761a470a807a96ba
37166 F20101114_AACEWD chandool_c_Page_129.jpg
5880091cbf5a3e2b044a7119baf0435b
83a26458bc66b5b5e537fe8f6af7f158ee8c2332
104904 F20101114_AACFAV chandool_c_Page_116.jp2
c66ea0bf371414dbf791328a723a3c62
6d41837d49fc015f0b861c7b2b907552eeacb764
68004 F20101114_AACEVP chandool_c_Page_114.jpg
4e57d1f1b41f0cecd8d70fed0532112d
4b1b2c51063377d2316cb07da9b0f944b09d2a7b
24256 F20101114_AACFZG chandool_c_Page_112.QC.jpg
66e9f2a3eea4c710714436bb88c436ac
c83cf623905d2d975d3cb36261b7dc9b37672787
6916 F20101114_AACFYS chandool_c_Page_104thm.jpg
ecf800ede5158b6df3c31c2668034e7d
0d5cdaf9c5646155de409e1243dadb208595f98e
74695 F20101114_AACFBK chandool_c_Page_134.jp2
96aa72672aca754094498a8d8423596b
c6fec745daa2a747f3e77a98e7701a939fe6bba2
44404 F20101114_AACEWE chandool_c_Page_130.jpg
df8f370518901dde240c2464c16586ff
53adaf5bf3ff06cd1b0e7d454369fd66d32a4eb7
103397 F20101114_AACFAW chandool_c_Page_117.jp2
4888f95a9668a197f49e87b6dffa37a7
62e7caf60eaec8d003dc84c18dfa323121825437
76964 F20101114_AACEVQ chandool_c_Page_115.jpg
0b2877997099af0621ac73b533101619
54b1452178807901ca06bd42ff9e81f1cbad556c
23137 F20101114_AACFZH chandool_c_Page_113.QC.jpg
fd58a674f3b5689b40134c9b75312f16
dc9c6687ad75b341e105174499aef3bfb4fb8eef
24482 F20101114_AACFYT chandool_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
e205ca0baa34932837690cfdc22a524b
65a9312b17b47acec9c2016447871f50411f9c13
F20101114_AACFCA chandool_c_Page_001.tif
aaf860c3db761be55c2ae00127045f40
2c273c4161e6c3fc90dc979b5c274cf6be9d2633
89618 F20101114_AACFBL chandool_c_Page_135.jp2
0bc1d6668cc8a923b1ae0a8c73a5857c
a6829e09db578c4e0f03544ed382eb53db8e1449
46529 F20101114_AACEWF chandool_c_Page_131.jpg
de939201bf323ca1963e520cbb12c370
7203a07365efc8dca5e72bc43407d406559f085a
90134 F20101114_AACFAX chandool_c_Page_118.jp2
6b4c1659dd1fc06a0d71d9c56efc67ff
b4e6c67f4f39c230e753341952b91920ab212021
70290 F20101114_AACEVR chandool_c_Page_116.jpg
98895013dcff32df1643c9325eedde5e
5d7e5bff5ae964acbf7c11f1fec2d454c5582756
6434 F20101114_AACFZI chandool_c_Page_113thm.jpg
cfe96976a9934c98dab3ca11823924ab
b1ab126b096d9834001afb5546919db6364c450d
6885 F20101114_AACFYU chandool_c_Page_105thm.jpg
f156295ea468430b28b155628f2fb97e
00de3c84f938fcd2c05f7459a2acff2e96264d19
F20101114_AACFCB chandool_c_Page_002.tif
056799e1104429eefd2361cc886ea4bb
9d495b35876718a6d98487609c6a6c351fa8495b
32914 F20101114_AACFBM chandool_c_Page_136.jp2
2806d05cc8606c25e8cc1637371c9f01
2a08cb27dd9626c7a03db11ca6461e1decf6f05e
44264 F20101114_AACEWG chandool_c_Page_133.jpg
41369dc32398cb3d74e98be9c0fbaccc
9b0912623419429a9bad231f57110f36758e5426
111417 F20101114_AACFAY chandool_c_Page_119.jp2
de64864d248d8a470161986514b76dc1
c18701a32bc4fa5fa5219ddbc88e00fe69fbf2c4
60986 F20101114_AACEVS chandool_c_Page_118.jpg
6b75507a1b9b1320b2f270d4b23e810a
f79adadbe641cb237497ec78c308054a3cba5133
22323 F20101114_AACFZJ chandool_c_Page_114.QC.jpg
30e290af2806523b91855d83a3eaec3d
6dc82ae7fc78b2c7aba44e70797ec7f8be29855a
25953 F20101114_AACFYV chandool_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
689e8564c913a770bc2711e4019058c4
744c99feadd2846da65672b55774d35eb7e8cd81
F20101114_AACFCC chandool_c_Page_003.tif
4457e9b1abaa297f5f35976eb160a69c
90d90d1b323eaa191c00979ea26f9cfb940450a6
29982 F20101114_AACFBN chandool_c_Page_137.jp2
83f520d94a0d835503bedde3ac94ab95
6e35301f3b410085b19110b75900436131de3848
50969 F20101114_AACEWH chandool_c_Page_134.jpg
6bfb6af2ff3c6b21530c6f9ddcc9686a
3bc9b69420af3763fe10072f928cd8d04fbf3808
118072 F20101114_AACFAZ chandool_c_Page_121.jp2
abb9794b0f55e978eb2fe7a7dc6cf63e
94930d254ae44f5f96bbcf31b654f8a0f984ddff
74916 F20101114_AACEVT chandool_c_Page_119.jpg
e46959a6d41b7debd10d5a2ac0feef23
ead94ae9dc51da148b9f11adb56889c0d8f4c2a4
6172 F20101114_AACFZK chandool_c_Page_114thm.jpg
b5473ff34a7a1f08174230e1fa0161a9
2dd7dbc8fbad90149eb97f37a228ec94887e5603
7154 F20101114_AACFYW chandool_c_Page_106thm.jpg
ac8dd83d523935a4725384d42ba3dd0e
f4db2037a64d25388a2329a358cc284664b72989
F20101114_AACFCD chandool_c_Page_004.tif
9ade257cd9b77a05c61db0939097b40d
77cbc81e1d1078a3e2b738604de0d4376e26503b
117961 F20101114_AACFBO chandool_c_Page_139.jp2
aa29d1591d029435ca7f76b75ce65520
eca32b0202e2964bb5fefaee33800788643985c5
70536 F20101114_AACEWI chandool_c_Page_135.jpg
73bcd741da808972ff14b60e79369763
024949eeda0b04613af946d2a90e203cb1bfcaf3
74837 F20101114_AACEVU chandool_c_Page_120.jpg
de9c574e6ab15c1faab88619d00549c6
9a2de28accc64ba199c2017b29c82dd672b1204a
25621 F20101114_AACFZL chandool_c_Page_115.QC.jpg
25bb4ffe62679fd817db0653a2187e45
7b53ad5a4843e10ce84576926d349869a9739eec
22991 F20101114_AACFYX chandool_c_Page_107.QC.jpg
83e3004f11959bbb13ccc55b456afa59
225a106bd7f2dcef2313d58475c2cc66b91e84c9
F20101114_AACFCE chandool_c_Page_005.tif
bdd02ef7a92ac8cf1e6010277db549cc
78fe16ced4657b89bb52b3656104dd5bcb677979
53418 F20101114_AACFBP chandool_c_Page_140.jp2
09f57565bef5167bcaa55495f1dff71d
24e3ce73f66b6c3458dd4164dcd0d47441ec999d
24267 F20101114_AACEWJ chandool_c_Page_137.jpg
08d260493293a2f775d9319f9f93be1f
81dc1dc45809fb381ce42d4db13e13df69a47820
77172 F20101114_AACEVV chandool_c_Page_121.jpg
a0a53b830cf82a1e8dce374483136595
1be50e1fe04e17b7f068014e5a14c83288132a7b
6908 F20101114_AACFZM chandool_c_Page_115thm.jpg
88c17a48cd8df112ac7a772df7a9afaa
4f8c5b0edc108ee2858deac8196930ca8ad203b2
6430 F20101114_AACFYY chandool_c_Page_107thm.jpg
e5cc1d97fda1accfafa5c49f90939088
2244148b3c0a6506e21d54bd9be4aeba25932e11
F20101114_AACFCF chandool_c_Page_007.tif
1099c1a743a8844d3968a81c72b5c898
42e33846325df838b6917a4b58aa307957dbbcb5
130580 F20101114_AACFBQ chandool_c_Page_142.jp2
56fd9b0288279cf1a1c886fa5317da41
a3244739c6735eacabf374955f71149a6be0bdcc
95498 F20101114_AACEWK chandool_c_Page_139.jpg
5dff923856e20a801ec2e6813b63c746
157ab201962a22c625389a104ef4bd048ea82be6
70357 F20101114_AACEVW chandool_c_Page_122.jpg
ce6ae15a748635bac064b7ea1c1dd4d9
085fe56f163b5411ca632789fcfc0c0b8ecd6d9d
23026 F20101114_AACFZN chandool_c_Page_116.QC.jpg
daffcd55c442d531d05cd7a5166019be
e9b60b336b259b70275349189051c775a59a2410
26032 F20101114_AACFYZ chandool_c_Page_108.QC.jpg
a161095a2c97d6dc33b1174e19d3fe0f
6561c62a58be940af936a66def43791c692b9f0b
1051977 F20101114_AACFBR chandool_c_Page_143.jp2
cfa2f9aafc8eb4305ee0a71541a59223
121a485a46d45a07ee8165a7e2f76bef7fde95a5
55948 F20101114_AACEWL chandool_c_Page_141.jpg
37d6eaccff7c19f2e3adaac0943508a2
85988c1e7ad92b864aea151bd51691a7a5d5249d
76446 F20101114_AACEVX chandool_c_Page_123.jpg
b1ef6cb1c06dd19fe0712e351adc470b
4230767f68cf874e49b429af0f2578fa5127aa5a
6616 F20101114_AACFZO chandool_c_Page_116thm.jpg
73cffe51608c17ba12783d19dce78763
1bedf234b9f87d560a805a79e68414f662c99411
11217 F20101114_AACEXA chandool_c_Page_005.jp2
74a8757a57fa4fb6595bcaf3a4c4fa5e
b24c3ab851bc93de0cca9daf714cf84e8b151d25
1051979 F20101114_AACFBS chandool_c_Page_144.jp2
44a105b9ba7ed8c94b4a7d36dcecb009
6445c9562b8fd7cb974c17adc177339bb3b03a5b
84922 F20101114_AACEWM chandool_c_Page_142.jpg
24e718951207d5536167015b52d2e1ab
d2dddcceb4ce38acdd4610204ecc3d71f02a5b2b
68043 F20101114_AACEVY chandool_c_Page_124.jpg
f053252debd727d2f40b21bd027d0016
78489b7151a0137693d5b1b8925b0a772f101313
F20101114_AACFCG chandool_c_Page_008.tif
51f5a11db1f317c6611e3dfddbb43fe2
1936122df3632cb3aa6eab447e78571e4e1fd357
22344 F20101114_AACFZP chandool_c_Page_117.QC.jpg
73a0bea1e6dde2f5e1b9ea5bea4dcffa
37cc1574d10a5ec7b0acb3f0173c2046e36a20cc
F20101114_AACEXB chandool_c_Page_007.jp2
2c7e8b16f891f28b5fc027bccdc2e427
2ac27f8c1141c9778662224e4253b6b91a15cc76
1051966 F20101114_AACFBT chandool_c_Page_145.jp2
f95e355d26ce5a2514255e08c936b038
5f9d3c16ba419501fe8d82375e242ae0a032e72f
99850 F20101114_AACEWN chandool_c_Page_143.jpg
07edb8284b8151b666861e75f595a25d
c799397660712b7349c9df61f527e655d691d6e2
75102 F20101114_AACEVZ chandool_c_Page_125.jpg
c1cad521cbff63deac0d3e6f28d09079
80fee56e99053cc629e710979068c0b326c4f73d
F20101114_AACFCH chandool_c_Page_009.tif
e97bd2b870209791bee978761e1b83bd
6d74413c259733983ba0061f9554662dc33d24f1
6389 F20101114_AACFZQ chandool_c_Page_117thm.jpg
59c87ab8777223fd68a0d470776cc780
4c584ee6f0493e124e8f99e3f36802d27bb177e4
F20101114_AACEXC chandool_c_Page_008.jp2
4c8ee6a1bc63b004b922358098a11311
eaceda31bc3d4ec4f32e62f256406174568e0b43
1051956 F20101114_AACFBU chandool_c_Page_146.jp2
a94a6477b76f7374d9e5104ce56cfc31
9493ecfdd90880cb0ac817fde2eb12b72e8f179f
101565 F20101114_AACEWO chandool_c_Page_144.jpg
d08eb5e518bcc39b2963ebe53b943aee
65deb6b7a7d64c5da3aaeecc163b6d896a6f7944
F20101114_AACFCI chandool_c_Page_010.tif
81d2cf8146e8860dc07f4eb76bb5325b
56e8cc5fc74249c086f9a5902f568a347d7cdd62
20721 F20101114_AACFZR chandool_c_Page_118.QC.jpg
658881b8fdd245d6e809946cb582cdb0
bd3af4b537945c8443e7172327f825a1a1e05bd9
F20101114_AACEXD chandool_c_Page_009.jp2
6ebe85b54c3725cdeb036ace44a07940
7959dd156d1c8ab0912b96e90c1f8cdaacbe49fd
1051969 F20101114_AACFBV chandool_c_Page_147.jp2
55ef7a6b05a796faf4994a284c4e02e8
d68378389dc605d71f98a0075d593109cfb80bdd
96454 F20101114_AACEWP chandool_c_Page_145.jpg
4edf88e4831fc3978c24555ff786ecc4
a54a3fa15bda9a675d4d31c664437ea9b4acf49c
F20101114_AACFCJ chandool_c_Page_012.tif
fab243e880b1b8f4d58996057c269bd7
e7bc515ad3cccafa627b860d873aa8560d3e0849
5712 F20101114_AACFZS chandool_c_Page_118thm.jpg
ac8b5d23baed2ab598a34d23f4f679e7
d8da54d864b78f3b0ad4f172df447e9745f05c13
1051959 F20101114_AACEXE chandool_c_Page_010.jp2
9f2641ef89eda5e007b22aa1ec9f8f76
f46b40f7d53cd5cb918dc425089064f4a0cfe5db
1051954 F20101114_AACFBW chandool_c_Page_148.jp2
de5c8e05aa5eee7e6f85756fcb77992b
723f5eae1a86c8112a8938dbd189ee38085dc4fe
96112 F20101114_AACEWQ chandool_c_Page_146.jpg
94a675cf9801366e8e150790e661e618
7361e6a4fa71af697caf8ef17c6b75999407c2a4
F20101114_AACFCK chandool_c_Page_013.tif
565a9d4f644c5ea9650a3c2502028054
a564653c2cd1950f458ac95196b7ac44a0eae499
6692 F20101114_AACFZT chandool_c_Page_119thm.jpg
908dbd446820658cc9228f36b2dc0638
09284cacf2a8b683015f48e05bcddf2f2a3df978
98159 F20101114_AACEXF chandool_c_Page_011.jp2
8fd5417d47582945f6c208c3a8bb6625
c07e21984e6d70477ab4d8e11c403a15acb2e004
1051981 F20101114_AACFBX chandool_c_Page_149.jp2
2e070aa83546400cc9554c0f448f066c
d4a99449a267242329ea92c7d073a61e63d4f497
93437 F20101114_AACEWR chandool_c_Page_147.jpg
6d3ca28af3ed455bb06ae1487ccdeabd
fb74a9792ef3654ecc038e3b243706c235b1b531
F20101114_AACFDA chandool_c_Page_030.tif
81f5bd9c59d2ad1a180e6f30d3592da3
866918a214ba0d87607cdf08cb99b6414d4b8a3f
F20101114_AACFCL chandool_c_Page_014.tif
0c04fa419fc121fcdb6fc6a6800b52ae
c783673a4c8ddb414be17304893c879f6cc7201a
24840 F20101114_AACFZU chandool_c_Page_120.QC.jpg
2f83be974b36db38a544e74aaa469ce5
f7df95928584c86064006032033383443d548af3
70265 F20101114_AACEXG chandool_c_Page_012.jp2
11945e096e03fc10b793e11340dcc664
8c03b3789b16b29cf81690e97099243ecc9cf029
1051963 F20101114_AACFBY chandool_c_Page_150.jp2
6a528be91d4659b0085f373b7b37afc5
07a9456be21ff6f4ec50c8a319971369f6aef69f
98114 F20101114_AACEWS chandool_c_Page_148.jpg
c205fd6e624154013638f34dd4695717
5221bd60b492cbc8c47fe634470b9f4ded8c7bd9
F20101114_AACFDB chandool_c_Page_031.tif
5c5fa7b5e73b60e53a4b090ef4b30d89
212b2a7af986cfd3672aa9edbe83a8236103758f
F20101114_AACFCM chandool_c_Page_015.tif
d9ef2d21fc04737855f93f9c4d11cd0e
99153dafe0f7ddb224bf56efdf4cadc97db3a577
6859 F20101114_AACFZV chandool_c_Page_120thm.jpg
4ce2c50bf6d63fbdef75f01f29d57526
efc3f65d79c40af78ce3378139847b660290869e
105634 F20101114_AACEXH chandool_c_Page_013.jp2
0f81d7181f7ddc333a5c7e0cbf9d0d64
3e0ee27dcd07527675e128a31411b90fa524d7a7
73632 F20101114_AACFBZ chandool_c_Page_151.jp2
e01659303ecba804f3a2ab10f6b04cd2
69d1d2168609c798ab997c2c59f47af7cd60cca7
91996 F20101114_AACEWT chandool_c_Page_149.jpg
4023799fcbc94ea00cb62ec3aace1876
c046a4efe8d5f9df5c88c8d501bf27de08ebdf1f
F20101114_AACFDC chandool_c_Page_032.tif
36104f746b7986c8fff0410e0c36c3f2
ac5990fe0e851032d4a5b9f91932e5de519f9c58
F20101114_AACFCN chandool_c_Page_016.tif
0332bd7c9e6e6026cbf2d7fd93db17f2
bcaeccd520eb8e15a69462495f53064ce4bb57b1
26044 F20101114_AACFZW chandool_c_Page_121.QC.jpg
ae7a54d7e5b70928c98c066fa9adeb15
215887bc68daf01ca4175e5eb1acd7654b309920
112323 F20101114_AACEXI chandool_c_Page_014.jp2
4f12995eaac7e7803b4fffd03d4d70da
d375402ec1a576b41100bc38e96e14591937a78b
75997 F20101114_AACEWU chandool_c_Page_150.jpg
c982d67a8b710066dc326712597ce5f5
9576d9d0ed0ef8a48b66f51c28fa6d9e87c6b0b4
F20101114_AACFDD chandool_c_Page_033.tif
a496ef6c92b8275b20548eea0a9a8514
5209af5e1cdbec95409aef4d39e52a91520a64e2
F20101114_AACFCO chandool_c_Page_017.tif
0e71d7b095572f6fd26c05f3f79e9cb6
8e749bc703ecc73bd68a21120ead18f05b62e0b7
7135 F20101114_AACFZX chandool_c_Page_121thm.jpg
dff961b27bd6d6334f3226a856c15564
e272c1d2858cd2d11142b3b6a8f276cac8adac9c
113112 F20101114_AACEXJ chandool_c_Page_015.jp2
398b66b41e0c9449e609e34541ca786f
bfcc23a9c70de2eeb80f1ace6bf5d631cee09da6
51885 F20101114_AACEWV chandool_c_Page_151.jpg
cfef02ffdd1e78b6be36834f7fff9b5a
340b356108bea7c9a41510b1785ea45f20b08942
F20101114_AACFDE chandool_c_Page_034.tif
403410fa67196f11da620c21b3c34067
84d2d1c8f468baca905ce2fbc13701b17f03d084
F20101114_AACFCP chandool_c_Page_018.tif
683b8569e630e03940b6aa0ecbe5039e
cce0ef14e681c41d6a2fd67853d2416aeb59cf58
23377 F20101114_AACFZY chandool_c_Page_122.QC.jpg
05528365aa56c55837b3ad5c02f49f57
c459ae12db82ac38ffbaef62ac2fb82143a6ed9f
116456 F20101114_AACEXK chandool_c_Page_016.jp2
c5ee03f4a885b4d921b014bddbbf58bc
8fa7710c11ceb9188588675cd6ff8cd10c0adac5
29433 F20101114_AACEWW chandool_c_Page_001.jp2
aa8bb5523d1330a7bdd3269de91d4b68
2d187b24533c483142825337ed8c59141e648545
F20101114_AACFDF chandool_c_Page_035.tif
53538907eebb0be732ecff1fc696e7ff
13373877e9e2401bea1b8ec8145722f6325293fc
F20101114_AACFCQ chandool_c_Page_019.tif
4cc9399878ec25a4b963cb634a13197e
5082f6cc046cbf1080b83b9c874e6c596c3adc87
6500 F20101114_AACFZZ chandool_c_Page_122thm.jpg
efdfe5983fdd886f89a08419999679c1
09fd79a961fa2240191d8726593ee3aecada61e1
123276 F20101114_AACEXL chandool_c_Page_017.jp2
3905027f21131ec6668c0ce73c886011
2acd91db502baa2b63897b4313c11893a81cf1a0
5051 F20101114_AACEWX chandool_c_Page_002.jp2
52818a92ac4b09b9ce763bebd592fac6
06d3bc962c133ba4128c3ebcbaaf1f90677800ff
F20101114_AACFDG chandool_c_Page_036.tif
34ab768d26513cdda5eaf22a3750ea38
0cbb166f9fd4abd5061e8db3295955d9b47e8046
F20101114_AACFCR chandool_c_Page_020.tif
d699e881a7c06ce1c201235d72f653ff
90b5c5ec1efd2c07aa07f6c2949565b0c2584f61
111321 F20101114_AACEXM chandool_c_Page_018.jp2
1cb7d7a3d29a645c453531436acd8a71
743e6ba93dcb36a828671e6f9783e0b7436fe642
7304 F20101114_AACEWY chandool_c_Page_003.jp2
725b0de076f71ac008bee488cbb7d65c
4d4291a6a190b921114cd1cea8e1e53d99703e15
1051952 F20101114_AACEYA chandool_c_Page_035.jp2
8b634cad59d4c2a4411571fc2343202b
ed66fd086e32ed0540f3c2f48fff29e04348ff3d
F20101114_AACFCS chandool_c_Page_022.tif
010093935d6cf3be00681a5a1baa4ad1
1ea31b7bb8c2f3fa9e0037a1f4a3a19286933e57
117925 F20101114_AACEXN chandool_c_Page_019.jp2
8cf8a35068c1da76fdc72ba13ffa5251
dd5e7ac0065cc2809ce78d82b4964a694336ce78
110416 F20101114_AACEWZ chandool_c_Page_004.jp2
15dca137c9f71230c566843001755cfb
11724671096dddf4c4c7067fb8f5f8f5043faa62
F20101114_AACFDH chandool_c_Page_037.tif
f58afbddc3ebccef40a38184ee800a55
a27eb8475eb897f64f6d4da762831ef9be47358c
F20101114_AACEYB chandool_c_Page_037.jp2
c313a2ce4c232ad9c051b86b9010521e
c1378ba82e378cc459e6e958e7c131cd7deaa216
F20101114_AACFCT chandool_c_Page_023.tif
b711dde42d9a8eb846040b8425d1ceb3
58ff9f715daf2ee6e7af01135f696cc701b3bd56
118248 F20101114_AACEXO chandool_c_Page_020.jp2
db52404681d17dd2da155c90638bc0f6
70611d7fa735ebdf1465c47f682f8f7d3be95789
F20101114_AACFDI chandool_c_Page_038.tif
f69ac8d10df76608f25ea677d52c3a2f
e0b1e619e13aeb64274de7f73ef62ae35ec04891
104640 F20101114_AACEYC chandool_c_Page_038.jp2
bad6c575bb342cb2e27e4ab316af97d1
19af829823e0646ddf195eba8f5678c97b151a16
8423998 F20101114_AACFCU chandool_c_Page_024.tif
f7638b3027f6a0e08669cb7a07efdfbd
2534df3a52c530f70bd6a37476ca1798e716fd92
117133 F20101114_AACEXP chandool_c_Page_021.jp2
5f70276a7f3125b2a5e45f61f3741840
2dfc7d1900bc625d49782aac63249622a55e43c0
F20101114_AACFDJ chandool_c_Page_039.tif
5fe5100680ec64cda2178ac43fed27e1
4bc0920319fb53ca3e2d01905f351562fa76a93d
107606 F20101114_AACEYD chandool_c_Page_040.jp2
34d9afbcf4654af3660d9fd37f273777
19b25d7caa058a4d0537b8d4143cb59a79f2c58c
F20101114_AACFCV chandool_c_Page_025.tif
8428e75153550829f283069488a7d40c
725a76264a8d5cf58ba43fc0a28f06c25be37892
115072 F20101114_AACEXQ chandool_c_Page_022.jp2
6a174bd450fee8c2caf81f4328aaa8fd
85b0d30d6afc67902e23c1f7904f0765f45dfb36
F20101114_AACFDK chandool_c_Page_040.tif
c1db22bf98e7fa43a96669c5c9732acf
213a195613a8e967408fe9da8f434c6dd078a355
107601 F20101114_AACEYE chandool_c_Page_041.jp2
4cc9ba4e17cffde22c69ffdfc535fcd9
7dcffa476d1e8a53f4e0db96d967ce3e5b355ada
F20101114_AACFCW chandool_c_Page_026.tif
2087cf66c18a21e2e385585125fd2db7
cb08922c59f7be3d06046b0c79a2c88844642eef
114549 F20101114_AACEXR chandool_c_Page_023.jp2
131bdbc55b4b319b38fa9866e7abb82e
b28c47b16a7abfcc52c33223cae88c76bdb45a47
F20101114_AACFEA chandool_c_Page_058.tif
c1ae2421e28b10f9f4d9effd62e36e6c
d17a3c12271203acb15c6dc3a117cd6b80cd3427
F20101114_AACFDL chandool_c_Page_041.tif
6f44a7eeece2982e2a6cc80ff8ca5a02
0af3910ff803c12aebefe7c34e1f91c4518ad8f8
113097 F20101114_AACEYF chandool_c_Page_042.jp2
7fe101905a132e0d87ad7dd9b630b1d3
64cd15c213f1278494f60b76d082dc3a06b805ea
F20101114_AACFCX chandool_c_Page_027.tif
687b634913a067f8da36bef0f8dd0aba
ca6c72a67ec96c696cd377c2cfdc82416f00965c
626909 F20101114_AACEXS chandool_c_Page_024.jp2
a0b601b6719d66db74c9016b8e276a80
a206c5e65496a6d83b4ed208b92000b00577e14c
F20101114_AACFEB chandool_c_Page_059.tif
c2025256aeae278eddb4dd12bd60e61a
c355cc124aa2f2f0e1d345fb73d82280ddace541
F20101114_AACFDM chandool_c_Page_042.tif
2cc6741537a622ba94e36f05fdb3baf0
ebf3d5a13de9a0d1710062077ed37beb331c26da
105236 F20101114_AACEYG chandool_c_Page_043.jp2
82a0bf367cbea25fe5d810c5df3805d8
013a49647b45aa564b88ece70f2f22ee5c997a46
F20101114_AACFCY chandool_c_Page_028.tif
451d19b2602f901986df13b167ff2cff
a0893dc84210325720413f576593b263affd635e
120262 F20101114_AACEXT chandool_c_Page_026.jp2
414671e8223febd6374315ffe5829ea8
362d2fac6bde5fb2117754ddce09975c168372e2
F20101114_AACFEC chandool_c_Page_060.tif
ef06c3f4861c8fd4ffcb294cd3e83a03
9895f3ca35d3b047ea6ff125f777cba3b0f2ec8b
F20101114_AACFDN chandool_c_Page_043.tif
94599d02d6230db3a2492ba33fa1e133
5e3bf150a1782c50d64331f2f0290cbccd1f7687
109027 F20101114_AACEYH chandool_c_Page_044.jp2
eb2a7b81c265b83c6c0eca890827a012
6b6522af14d7c6be7af889b68c73cf10c593f5c0
F20101114_AACFCZ chandool_c_Page_029.tif
1fcd07a2d1cddffce25a65984d29349e
90d69ce94c7dd3a20d5d91610a2e81850e521195
110353 F20101114_AACEXU chandool_c_Page_027.jp2
045d99d0ffe72da9976b04496e002bc0
7c879281b56d1cb67891f22fc8fc6374870b3054
F20101114_AACFED chandool_c_Page_061.tif
73f3db32a098afd2cae294a3cf6a04c7
971c67b2bf1645876cc0d33856ddac5e4027e19b
F20101114_AACFDO chandool_c_Page_044.tif
36d8e1825546c54c23bf743d7bceb532
55996a458e7975ff4fc074200a9984aa1f946b13
105777 F20101114_AACEYI chandool_c_Page_045.jp2
2d9f439466c4a6e1d6eeeacf504cc632
42abb118108616c9c44e580c593f23f0b0a30c17
116232 F20101114_AACEXV chandool_c_Page_028.jp2
27861fdf7ea597654c8089549d74fa73
302d94170628083cea2fd932074e1b36db8589f8
F20101114_AACFEE chandool_c_Page_062.tif
bf5e74b90082789a66d6d3be53d66dbc
4df0e848370f7c80a41cf44d98afa1843be53d4b
F20101114_AACFDP chandool_c_Page_045.tif
f6e04619545c763456692320e3638f46
03abbf86eee1fcfd81a84d571a2d4c765efd7426
108532 F20101114_AACEYJ chandool_c_Page_046.jp2
da71b9975180c7a0e33c40be779a4584
de74376f1c75a8314ba63752a271de52404130e9
98496 F20101114_AACEXW chandool_c_Page_029.jp2
99043d2d31b8e9cbca9318f72173b431
afaa93f6b2e47a195c8aee4ecaace3b78db02c3b
F20101114_AACFEF chandool_c_Page_063.tif
c28dd70360a7e513d1590412a6f5262a
7dd7de2c5b83656f2f4cd19747c6f817d1b78831
F20101114_AACFDQ chandool_c_Page_046.tif
f70e008cf8d24933bc57d04bfa34de2e
66e470ff1e40dc4e243bf22fee06313d8cfba1f7
65175 F20101114_AACEYK chandool_c_Page_047.jp2
661144ec097d500190b88e6aa30ba5f5
b875139cb929d55ef00c7fe65cb36f521b5af459
1051961 F20101114_AACEXX chandool_c_Page_030.jp2
b1cf6a072bd29a6ef1f61963c57c0207
5217fbfde15d0673f79248ef0a5423ae614eaf55
F20101114_AACFEG chandool_c_Page_064.tif
157914fce95b4da81a8eb29ca006e791
7f5fa081bbc4322916a8a433176181188f2af99e
F20101114_AACFDR chandool_c_Page_047.tif
1bffc01c277242c6b63c11f137017c21
9834ff6913538690c726d1fd919795e1085c6ac4
35767 F20101114_AACEYL chandool_c_Page_048.jp2
86baa637cfc264201e93cfac2c88d252
e5af2adb7d7dd3038c20eaa4b061e58d6d95f65c
1051968 F20101114_AACEXY chandool_c_Page_031.jp2
46287daec2b4aee6725d62ce8d6790ff
8a04a0675bff7208c08092d8f7fb78401c719913
F20101114_AACFEH chandool_c_Page_065.tif
67c166746df6efd2c43a707f52aa065d
75531cd43182b46a26d8fb023d022a5df85c1459
95263 F20101114_AACEZA chandool_c_Page_064.jp2
7023b2cb1947df3670232de4c1b920e5
622335dfabfc5633e6cad541633b890694ce13e6
F20101114_AACFDS chandool_c_Page_050.tif
de82d8013e12d2db5cabc853a66d0a5c
78088523ca164ef4c7d1fa5a7e499629401c1a7d
113952 F20101114_AACEYM chandool_c_Page_049.jp2
85f2e1d77f63e947ba56f272659b12ed
a7016071269d140b7d9eb28e724d3b8e817c7139
1051973 F20101114_AACEXZ chandool_c_Page_034.jp2
105a1dcadd702d22304222f15425e13a
22bada1cbcd289e76b0c8154bb2ce46df214618a
99692 F20101114_AACEZB chandool_c_Page_066.jp2
7d338e71aae349fe454f6fbecddb54ff
44fa3e8eac035aa2be50ca20a04a737b24acca7d
F20101114_AACFDT chandool_c_Page_051.tif
0bb38ec8b496deae60f4b998bd23f1e4
e35c64de720ecc2069dc8701a64855e0d9f89f8a
115175 F20101114_AACEYN chandool_c_Page_050.jp2
1663ca1fab8222b8e11446a3c38ee50f
5485fad408284e6b224da8659393c284984284f2
F20101114_AACFEI chandool_c_Page_066.tif
c2f87f7253cd0b293e613cfef8fc5e7b
e53ba6a0993e755967834661ee36fe2afc70f82e
104516 F20101114_AACEZC chandool_c_Page_067.jp2
7cec600916f390396ec8b2b405769c3e
f05c2daf6cfc7566e36eb4b54b5f007bfea1d827
F20101114_AACFDU chandool_c_Page_052.tif
6eb5dc351305a5c104303d684947f194
847147532bd780ee31efe1b7b0f158d256b98657
110962 F20101114_AACEYO chandool_c_Page_051.jp2
fffca7b2b6d4a79f110064213d52f51b
19286c66add98201ed515c021ddcb0f8b95c3b1b
F20101114_AACFEJ chandool_c_Page_068.tif
cdd53c974ef3df107ea0ac44ab3de5ee
cfc2b68a7b10d0b00bffe21e4a53892c52e7f46c
118010 F20101114_AACEZD chandool_c_Page_068.jp2
34ec9a62becde047e60f72d82088e345
79a520d35ef4dae5b156b7d992cbd81040ed1377
F20101114_AACFDV chandool_c_Page_053.tif
c149e73f56f4fa38093d3e8f9a78b401
84c2f8130400875742ff31fb5267a613031ee27e
73457 F20101114_AACEYP chandool_c_Page_052.jp2
05292d0424297e4dfbaf872d4f0d7f54
9848fd99607b37da49628996d80419af7b833f12
F20101114_AACFEK chandool_c_Page_069.tif
467659164cdadf00bdcc927fb0750f6f
d98c5cf71998e6a33893f0c6fe2a778c7ee395fa
114325 F20101114_AACEZE chandool_c_Page_069.jp2
5438abf5bc3d6dd1464ac92e624e1491
670db3c8ebd45f2712f04a95d4a6116b04151bed
F20101114_AACFDW chandool_c_Page_054.tif
7959b2a679aca66aec25064d26866fa8
9f2a444d25ab5e9ed6a46ace4d7fa9699d8fea63
111759 F20101114_AACEYQ chandool_c_Page_053.jp2
a69bbd90d24f96fc079e35f0b1313dca
9a90dc03b58ce8bb67c48941ce0b98051dcaea69
F20101114_AACFEL chandool_c_Page_070.tif
5d41ee5bcc69d5dbfc54a66d11c47066
c03e17a99a853724aaf71ba0eb8d50ce902bf141
115256 F20101114_AACEZF chandool_c_Page_070.jp2
2bcf8ee460684ea4cfadf0b6f575a70b
3c0a16ab621aa650220a287cef091cfbe0d654fa
F20101114_AACFDX chandool_c_Page_055.tif
3040d35321b3bb3f7babc050abf4b446
16079eb26c3d5a0ae68f00cf9ebfff3a9cb64b86
109319 F20101114_AACEYR chandool_c_Page_054.jp2
32a497816a830db2c9bb1e613dc58eb3
8d2a8ff813b812292dbf34b4565327bd5d3a4615
F20101114_AACFFA chandool_c_Page_086.tif
c10f96abbbf2eea1dc6e342f5c01193f
be3564bffccf3f115bf9f6a08c487af73451f03a
F20101114_AACFEM chandool_c_Page_071.tif
a32279feb3c276b1fb53e968e977340a
e062b1cf6d2d8ea975cdd0631941e6fd7409989e
109637 F20101114_AACEZG chandool_c_Page_071.jp2
5454ea4aff07c4b97cd4ca18d0f32e28
6aeae6b439fd69858939b367249e41df47e65b03
F20101114_AACFDY chandool_c_Page_056.tif
f1b5c471410a6cb9b31afcaf8ab12993
ab53b14c732e43ff9d22b39740e1cdfecef0323f
80689 F20101114_AACEYS chandool_c_Page_055.jp2
69538abb30b35f51f83ea44c06f59abd
199b21b45e4c3ce13b487537771bfc1e6b98f9a8
F20101114_AACFFB chandool_c_Page_087.tif
395cdad52abef6dc4cb61fd43ba503c7
3bcfae745531590b54c0f0f758477de263f0e214
F20101114_AACFEN chandool_c_Page_072.tif
41e92410d5519cba5cfbbdb1e3b58719
2ab510aa56d448935c2911d9d84000203bb6fd4a
20036 F20101114_AACEZH chandool_c_Page_072.jp2
b9d4b01223f4b46c2d8e68e72eceb24d
e1c91e65587f665661915ea91039b9eec7b4e8b3
F20101114_AACFDZ chandool_c_Page_057.tif
7f2e61e1acaa58aa3a2dac39df70dda5
5f32ca7363be7e68acea2a5bfb13149fccf8939a
118800 F20101114_AACEYT chandool_c_Page_056.jp2
d7c8f1fd0a286e3dd50afecc3973d284
b15cf0f923dd494c82dc45ca2821b239ce12d2c7
F20101114_AACFFC chandool_c_Page_088.tif
5f5df1bcf37ba987296540950727531f
a232277159f2273e8657acba6ef109b94b6d8343
F20101114_AACFEO chandool_c_Page_073.tif
2fdb9ec54d037f102b84196e8450ebe3
785b45bafba7546221bd16a8f827c821ff127736
110144 F20101114_AACEZI chandool_c_Page_073.jp2
f9ecab9f6b070d625465a654e4d13766
91ef90611c7e60f7ce13655ed206b929e1df8d30
1051953 F20101114_AACEYU chandool_c_Page_057.jp2
c2c3222920fdeda4127a0c85c8c24166
e5ab918cdfc026a9b95e4e4cd0c44c02feb640ec
F20101114_AACFFD chandool_c_Page_089.tif
68d27112e8516068afc122c8031f7a9c
34d02b7e7c1c40f87a84c63ce1eca73f4fa74343
F20101114_AACFEP chandool_c_Page_074.tif
7b0faeae2fcb42ac5b69b2233bdb419c
1d3852c3d7584dca22bcc67e16e4bae4b432ad32
115469 F20101114_AACEZJ chandool_c_Page_074.jp2
094a7ac3dff0fd0d0dca7f3624e7d393
199ec4df531641089836714d47a19f878e38ba5a
F20101114_AACEYV chandool_c_Page_058.jp2
c3f0f27fd58681a771e6d1cb64f0b168
1697d40ae7a250844c4b1d180b64c36700404cb2
F20101114_AACFFE chandool_c_Page_090.tif
0c035517703f24c88c1a59b2ebf95c63
76d272191c0731f891eba43df797e9c68c8db573
F20101114_AACFEQ chandool_c_Page_075.tif
5142531039590f3f3fdaae5b510a13f5
f1f50f66877a3270d6b3cb0059d46d49f36bd407
112312 F20101114_AACEZK chandool_c_Page_075.jp2
5ce08f6ae66ae8bc77babb1efd0b944e
8a6250371f00e1b7a6e98a58be771c46ae071bbe
116620 F20101114_AACEYW chandool_c_Page_059.jp2
304251d422e9528eece680b07b29edc3
07cb41be90e6b7a9a419d86a9e905c390098edec
F20101114_AACFFF chandool_c_Page_091.tif
fb106fdadb70dedc2798353f45c5fc51
b9c85c6ec3837ed97ae736fb3fd9f9a60ac52fbe