<%BANNER%>

Butterfly Farming and Conservation Behavior in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021834/00001

Material Information

Title: Butterfly Farming and Conservation Behavior in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania
Physical Description: 1 online resource (55 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Morgan-Brown, Theron G
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attitudes, behavior, biodiversity, butterfly, conservation, farming, ranching, usambara
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The commercialization of non-timber forest products has been proposed to strengthen the link between biological conservation and economic development in forest adjacent communities, but is also associated with unsustainable harvesting. A compromise solution is to use natural forests as a source of seeds and genetic diversity required for intensive production of non-timber forest products in nearby communities. I assessed this approach by evaluating a new conservation and development project involving the commercialization of butterflies in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. I compared 150 butterfly farmers and a matched control group of 170 non-butterfly farmers on their strength of support for conservation, knowledge of conservation behavior, perception of ability to aid conservation, and self-reported participation in conservation behavior. I found that butterfly farmers were significantly more likely to express support for conservation, believe in their ability to help conservation, and participate in conservation behavior. Knowledge of conservation behavior was not significantly different between butterfly farmers and non-butterfly farmers. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that the rank of butterfly farming income among household sources was an important predictor of conservation behavior. While butterfly farming only relies on natural forests for a few inputs, these inputs appear sufficient to link butterfly farming to forest conservation. Butterfly farming, as practiced in this project, is an example of how forest conservation can be promoted by linking limited harvest of non-timber forest products from natural forests with cultivation of the same products in adjacent 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 Theron G Morgan-Brown.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Jacobson, Susan K.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021834:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021834/00001

Material Information

Title: Butterfly Farming and Conservation Behavior in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania
Physical Description: 1 online resource (55 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Morgan-Brown, Theron G
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attitudes, behavior, biodiversity, butterfly, conservation, farming, ranching, usambara
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The commercialization of non-timber forest products has been proposed to strengthen the link between biological conservation and economic development in forest adjacent communities, but is also associated with unsustainable harvesting. A compromise solution is to use natural forests as a source of seeds and genetic diversity required for intensive production of non-timber forest products in nearby communities. I assessed this approach by evaluating a new conservation and development project involving the commercialization of butterflies in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. I compared 150 butterfly farmers and a matched control group of 170 non-butterfly farmers on their strength of support for conservation, knowledge of conservation behavior, perception of ability to aid conservation, and self-reported participation in conservation behavior. I found that butterfly farmers were significantly more likely to express support for conservation, believe in their ability to help conservation, and participate in conservation behavior. Knowledge of conservation behavior was not significantly different between butterfly farmers and non-butterfly farmers. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that the rank of butterfly farming income among household sources was an important predictor of conservation behavior. While butterfly farming only relies on natural forests for a few inputs, these inputs appear sufficient to link butterfly farming to forest conservation. Butterfly farming, as practiced in this project, is an example of how forest conservation can be promoted by linking limited harvest of non-timber forest products from natural forests with cultivation of the same products in adjacent 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 Theron G Morgan-Brown.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Jacobson, Susan K.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021834:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
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 E20101204_AAAAAJ INGEST_TIME 2010-12-04T06:45:45Z PACKAGE UFE0021834_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 27250 DFID F20101204_AAAGDM ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH morganbrown_t_Page_22.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
c5f33930e969805df5cc51efa90ad791
SHA-1
aa7e4592a79ede816b93320c0e0e04509bf22d69
2187 F20101204_AAAGNH morganbrown_t_Page_27.txt
0d26bec720fa843898882e5453200a70
d4cdf4a074e86fe2b9c8d87044d30e9a6d1ef691
23803 F20101204_AAAGIK morganbrown_t_Page_04.jp2
173789237d89fa302b6402cc4bd35583
3ca9b790b2f5e289192c27a03c7fd5efc730b2ba
1053954 F20101204_AAAGDN morganbrown_t_Page_51.tif
a8c46ca1030d5b7a99e7b2952427ac1c
a432e0743de5cae0a4795e1d1b01e804bbc9e2ab
2202 F20101204_AAAGNI morganbrown_t_Page_28.txt
74bff6a54986f9af291569f8bae16e98
de8448c68cdb2c5b81ae86ba0a538b426d0f56c4
2470 F20101204_AAAGDO morganbrown_t_Page_48.txt
ed023b5e25aa58d38b8d9fb1095f6835
11ec83420b523e6637f9c01cfe86de6235e56ff1
2272 F20101204_AAAGNJ morganbrown_t_Page_29.txt
378d0f97448c169b9885da9275ae308b
7da53faa0f2dd85d3ab2e7cbb0a68318cb9127d5
1051983 F20101204_AAAGIL morganbrown_t_Page_05.jp2
67bc2fc5f842c4d9d8299e9ce2185d73
dc1a361e3389d82d5c3cf6336f324db39cd43487
F20101204_AAAGDP morganbrown_t_Page_39.tif
b451f111d9f75e644b36f37e6e1764d3
6b99a27fc8d3a1f27db55129c7b8901e387b1c98
2256 F20101204_AAAGNK morganbrown_t_Page_30.txt
f949ed2438ccf1058fe86c38f398061b
0b9fd3ae17fbd42f5962ec1c1bd06fd8bbc75935
763091 F20101204_AAAGIM morganbrown_t_Page_06.jp2
8d07f591cc098fd92cdfad258ffae916
6d9f4a3ac25790f2cedf3195ce6c0390832f9874
6751 F20101204_AAAGDQ morganbrown_t_Page_18thm.jpg
7955ceabc6e2cde596c115c12afd12eb
c1ca0bce87eca6e8fe61969cea75b61900d0073e
2231 F20101204_AAAGNL morganbrown_t_Page_31.txt
cc12b28901d990cb7df32f20beb1892d
85ff347ba1a538ffef89523493b725fe2a0eaca3
357253 F20101204_AAAGIN morganbrown_t_Page_07.jp2
7c1e064223f16d528e3a5b3f20265f9e
38463001ae2da4005d725e5cc4bccfbeac86cdf5
F20101204_AAAGDR morganbrown_t_Page_02.tif
082fac365d75b04e4671d7cd7c64a57a
2d1bc25881e072e45d9454a16da7699ee9dfe9af
2237 F20101204_AAAGNM morganbrown_t_Page_33.txt
fbb58e49b04319ee5ac18dcfd5af42f2
e7c1685e9c99dc820a9190bfae352623760b20c9
113832 F20101204_AAAGIO morganbrown_t_Page_10.jp2
4c594823c539421cf75855db5b6dbb5d
06dfa774e23a4c05657e8538e672d2777cbf1337
3478 F20101204_AAAGDS morganbrown_t_Page_25thm.jpg
23936cdb135e7706561168bf67f7b3bb
26990bd9153e9e2a4ea895c9283b128e28e5c253
2273 F20101204_AAAGNN morganbrown_t_Page_34.txt
65ffbe6f2206bc4bc13935ed5d4cb81d
280401f13a02d488a03d70d46d40f5e95f350efb
116962 F20101204_AAAGIP morganbrown_t_Page_13.jp2
08141b09cacbddb3186925c114c32a8a
3613f27eeac65806dc99fdccfc712b5e943b82b4
25810 F20101204_AAAGDT morganbrown_t_Page_09.jp2
ff60dffe89b097d3079fca0cbb0e72c9
835e9c749346ebfbe53faa8cb909257b1891d296
2664 F20101204_AAAGNO morganbrown_t_Page_38.txt
d09aefbbbe1bb3596f490d6d9d31054d
f4c1d562d578dca9eec7276dd3e47f00bdd209ca
46684 F20101204_AAAGIQ morganbrown_t_Page_14.jp2
430b4b52304cd757ca4727db6f151016
e80ba4445ab34571aff6787eec04a532233c8ab9
1306 F20101204_AAAGDU morganbrown_t_Page_37.txt
2403fbdd657b4063392974c4b4f32c2f
05d7349f6eeb1fb48b128ed67c5ceebfaf3426b2
2713 F20101204_AAAGNP morganbrown_t_Page_39.txt
11092e2862a6e9e100b4068c8c868688
ad132ecdb85cf4ee82b43bd2cfc7d74c1062e63d
119051 F20101204_AAAGIR morganbrown_t_Page_17.jp2
2cb58a62201262c3fc50586f1cc69bf2
a3003e26f32a0850fa7f010813926e083161ee6b
15879 F20101204_AAAGDV morganbrown_t_Page_39.QC.jpg
8ce7022b3e10fe0606772952e7611c88
a1e9fa1723d741f72cfdf6c5163f6db032e387fc
116202 F20101204_AAAGIS morganbrown_t_Page_19.jp2
a9bc25d7eca04a02c8f9bcc688165257
0d41b3d1c066e13dc0f2ec4940b9d31ba45caadf
105681 F20101204_AAAGDW morganbrown_t_Page_15.jp2
e03672028a33605f57330d93d3c1e2fd
6bdfe187896e2ecd64fcf0bd2d51d815b43d49a0
2515 F20101204_AAAGNQ morganbrown_t_Page_40.txt
b316bbb0ef35ddbdc688da896d4e464b
fbdefd6633e04e3c09f30257ef75e875026d53f9
27665 F20101204_AAAGIT morganbrown_t_Page_20.jp2
8822b76e7209399ac8b1bde1e275fd94
cee6d7743cfeaa57150727d2becf99310bb2c95e
2507 F20101204_AAAGNR morganbrown_t_Page_41.txt
1216c25fc7a0e152dea717b4aeff59cd
6fd02d1a61f95446dbdd35ee465130ff9bd4b0ce
125169 F20101204_AAAGIU morganbrown_t_Page_22.jp2
b6d61842e75ccb683346d9cd94bf66ba
216c22bfaec973d443d3b8413d455c46287cfe60
26397 F20101204_AAAGDX morganbrown_t_Page_12.QC.jpg
2abab4f2aa5fd02f68f41122b6ca0b10
837a66a8d7d4200d0a7b25a0f5fd4888b1e483d5
2216 F20101204_AAAGNS morganbrown_t_Page_42.txt
ed589780666ac13ee38663711429788d
fdc2ec04fdcc1f9f563d62a793b39532542dcb78
112188 F20101204_AAAGIV morganbrown_t_Page_24.jp2
c30a24275f98dd38d0aa7d4942c07463
c5726f3ccbf75b10ebf2a483829227489dab56e8
F20101204_AAAGDY morganbrown_t_Page_45.tif
39e5ad1de7abcbc1253073d9561eac69
92414d06ddde42b356cc77d6062030e4353ec5cb
2767 F20101204_AAAGNT morganbrown_t_Page_44.txt
a24704028a1dd0fb3df96df24db94b62
c3b59654f6389777e34613e2720929a139125441
442389 F20101204_AAAGIW morganbrown_t_Page_25.jp2
c52c8481277ddd6833b87b525782d71a
1d18bcadb38583bf2e55aa77ce6a73d0e2702011
F20101204_AAAGDZ morganbrown_t_Page_03.tif
f23189108cdc9984169944a206d347f9
38818fdd63c5e376abfd8c356a2a1d86e20ea181
1724 F20101204_AAAGNU morganbrown_t_Page_49.txt
9de6697f77af37f54fe5a57ec738451e
8e95a0ba8f1b44ecf51b924155d99dd308566c59
70422 F20101204_AAAGIX morganbrown_t_Page_26.jp2
5bd5fbfbe5f7b555addf46379f9f867f
a5f01856e2873f009992f504d96472f42ca8d30e
360 F20101204_AAAGNV morganbrown_t_Page_50.txt
f23009f2652834c3a860f1578aaf3e50
c0ae700bf191bd65a9699812c916ac9df6e96fb4
26484 F20101204_AAAGGA morganbrown_t_Page_33.QC.jpg
89a1005e0d0941c3d8ee8e1c049bff77
641fc18bf9a700c9ec5077e44425c15aa628ff03
113003 F20101204_AAAGIY morganbrown_t_Page_27.jp2
f2d3cec55e13b22a1863c4fc5fd21e19
6b8767154578f46bec5b4cec95001550e7fdbf62
2733 F20101204_AAAGNW morganbrown_t_Page_51.txt
1b7e41b71caf1deefec98f7503751aab
6bc237bd9c951d37b1dd6c05ee6ad4c7913b4574
F20101204_AAAGGB morganbrown_t_Page_49.tif
83ae913f193c1ef181d9332bbe2ae27c
27b055ab302ff8c97bc937ad3424a9a697cb9130
121109 F20101204_AAAGIZ morganbrown_t_Page_28.jp2
b020da003416e31ce0c95f579ddbe8fb
a2bc54d780fd7a343cf616e191d233317013e80b
2646 F20101204_AAAGNX morganbrown_t_Page_53.txt
ed9e5d1e644b7ef9bbeb47f9c7b5db03
13fd0c528596699186cc4ce6818c0b225dd67d3b
17281 F20101204_AAAGGC morganbrown_t_Page_46.QC.jpg
42933db34f610fe5d8134b15f2a872e2
d67cfbbed4cd109d68d4b3cc777cd0124cdf45b6
1304 F20101204_AAAGNY morganbrown_t_Page_55.txt
6d55388dab207b8afa6decfdc9695dd6
60d2a6246003119e693e7b2768240fd9b66cddac
99184 F20101204_AAAGGD morganbrown_t_Page_08.jp2
3ce05021ebfb94f39b875bc22df42c4f
8e04e406818847025d3b26d68ea98647ad7bef6e
F20101204_AAAGLA morganbrown_t_Page_50.tif
c96400fc3d346d8f3df171dbadcbdf36
fe7bd86efbbce456bf5f311f8090bf3ea3d7a67a
126723 F20101204_AAAGNZ morganbrown_t.pdf
41d7fef59006cc1d6c4b3fb0f86a1b68
287e69ecc75759ad82a3f9abf0f09bfd63f87956
F20101204_AAAGGE morganbrown_t_Page_15.tif
b81d9aac53d0f17e7c3beea5b95ba0fb
5c67526a4ca5cc445be393bfef9779c5115163be
F20101204_AAAGLB morganbrown_t_Page_53.tif
418e7663b6be318eba70dcc180b15abf
6d7f2e15a140d0df9a9f4242d3a300224dbb5ec9
110983 F20101204_AAAGGF morganbrown_t_Page_23.jp2
6627249aa5290cefacfe3db6f4394af7
33f7fc22c309f4280891dbc51078b9d205887663
F20101204_AAAGLC morganbrown_t_Page_54.tif
f551b97fcc76cefa2dda8cbbc388824c
ab93c886a0c4b885fce61f70c0949c02eb8bbe1d
F20101204_AAAGGG morganbrown_t_Page_12.tif
b11c137ba019a225685392f8434655aa
19e1cb75e3b1399002d5b2b9b94c0948f30aa15d
26903 F20101204_AAAGQA morganbrown_t_Page_29.QC.jpg
295ffbc1d793627015cb160208f3f539
1e5b9991a2f959b52696f81493987ffcce9cdb04
8246 F20101204_AAAGLD morganbrown_t_Page_01.pro
62d508acb2bb6d397117828e0033c338
0becffa75a4a0baf985d96bb14890f5af37ea424
3454 F20101204_AAAGGH morganbrown_t_Page_14thm.jpg
af0dd843a9839a8696fae1e663ae5c76
f983c8f00dc86fbca76963a5f16267e1d70b2f01
7248 F20101204_AAAGQB morganbrown_t_Page_29thm.jpg
c9b566a912f7a70176807e1a290f03d2
b1823683168ae91a94c072f963a5bdf17e59e2af
968 F20101204_AAAGLE morganbrown_t_Page_02.pro
ef79bba118801d0bd45bb98baee35024
50f4953fdeebd951567b1addfec10b2b285db4a5
11042 F20101204_AAAGGI morganbrown_t_Page_14.QC.jpg
24f39a6ac27ab78de637b34859fdf127
88e0cc19cc6bafad7e6e249a17eb266d364c2d89
7123 F20101204_AAAGQC morganbrown_t_Page_30thm.jpg
e226c7f2fc204c3fca6c94a1b821f1e8
d7804c507cc7ac2d80a09285f78aee535b020178
1330 F20101204_AAAGLF morganbrown_t_Page_03.pro
81b0df6a246e973f9516d8279eb0782b
fdc3a04e5ad78daffc6775d92e0a7f1cc73da2bb
26963 F20101204_AAAGQD morganbrown_t_Page_31.QC.jpg
b786b72a1f403da0fa7722bf3d37c1e9
408a93bbbc9ffb2c15cc1e48b33536d5c7e0af7e
70253 F20101204_AAAGLG morganbrown_t_Page_05.pro
390bd9ce187a1570d0d2c0c8f9615072
f77fe485b1072e42d139bb4881e7c396be73ee26
80911 F20101204_AAAGGJ morganbrown_t_Page_47.jp2
9328d82d7bdab2c89aef852293fafb54
2fa2aa2d6516ed6f3c7cd18f76b4892e5b153913
7215 F20101204_AAAGQE morganbrown_t_Page_31thm.jpg
8d4ea97c2aad2d69f5135e8bc096031c
064056f5e55fbe5a81203ded13321b3c7ea4bab8
19473 F20101204_AAAGLH morganbrown_t_Page_06.pro
7eda0837dcf484e3161a1f86d4fee972
360033f28ba666b736692e3cb545743492a672b8
2119 F20101204_AAAGGK morganbrown_t_Page_32.txt
c9fd879c8616aa82a93c87bf25ee9149
a18aa0ece87642a765d268be42f8a70402ef9371
7192 F20101204_AAAGQF morganbrown_t_Page_33thm.jpg
ea4ccfdc364ae09569917b4eb51e12cd
ade1f48342cf84802c6c3d799d6b592b6eab6d3e
9375 F20101204_AAAGLI morganbrown_t_Page_07.pro
1fa61c7d1da2aff7dd7b7b60795b4a37
cf72830088521485cb52d76d950e9b06850de71f
16674 F20101204_AAAGGL morganbrown_t_Page_47.QC.jpg
55294e9dce144eda7c05e404a6404f57
d6197230197eeecaa9e1dc12d764589acfec31b3
27182 F20101204_AAAGQG morganbrown_t_Page_34.QC.jpg
82a552e262f5154df9fc1181f5f7ea5e
bac5a313dc22585bbcae02b75c83472734828496
44823 F20101204_AAAGLJ morganbrown_t_Page_08.pro
4437cae1c9029b9790a993d261e8cba8
0efc6a313701a1f282224b477d690ad172636205
67202 F20101204_AAAGGM UFE0021834_00001.mets FULL
43f3a843e5d9f3ee7891543945242243
759831fbe30dfb394e0eacab936452c93455743a
7245 F20101204_AAAGQH morganbrown_t_Page_34thm.jpg
3af60951f5f27629092d2f0d8c573c51
3b4c886fa3c281963bdf8549c1f4293db051e018
10750 F20101204_AAAGLK morganbrown_t_Page_09.pro
877d076bea4d8e05430480d15ecf0d0f
5772fd8a2a3b65ea3d0f8062b5fc81d3feefd7d2
27296 F20101204_AAAGQI morganbrown_t_Page_35.QC.jpg
c886a5dc9bb9618eecc3492dddcd6a38
eb193d2805a77bc8ae759abc7d6118e1c3abefa7
51395 F20101204_AAAGLL morganbrown_t_Page_10.pro
6069ea262e95cd6300a8ca5d45800b1a
2907d04facf5101926d33d2efe3e52dd4e76f7be
7148 F20101204_AAAGQJ morganbrown_t_Page_35thm.jpg
3f7c422c7b617fd25ead5fad78df3be5
cfe08b60667b2e122382960fc363f7da8bf6c6c3
56738 F20101204_AAAGLM morganbrown_t_Page_11.pro
2aad8aac519e44f38240fc6050ac0d65
20040c4f1ed10b2fdd022c8818e18458d428b900
24383 F20101204_AAAGGP morganbrown_t_Page_01.jpg
05d9b7a266d94149631d554d4a53f229
3999a91fe71c4f85633647d2d09f13f834ee56d5
4322 F20101204_AAAGQK morganbrown_t_Page_37thm.jpg
43785194b095664acb065eb1b2f12aa1
6c4550e97dcb5a3f360af9344fc6e8a823db1b8f
56652 F20101204_AAAGLN morganbrown_t_Page_12.pro
dc6abd9a54d76143f71ff181f69457c0
fa8f082e5ede206538d55f4c51f5b8696c0a0fe3
9882 F20101204_AAAGGQ morganbrown_t_Page_02.jpg
eea5e1ef9a0392f1c73cddd0fd4b7284
5739ab2eb8d0c2e3722fae9acdf61de6ea050adc
4524 F20101204_AAAGQL morganbrown_t_Page_39thm.jpg
864cdba970ad7dd655d3dec6dc4171b0
53ec612d720272fb04a7e9763eb611d14a4187b3
10124 F20101204_AAAGGR morganbrown_t_Page_03.jpg
0991e04acc19e83be88460c64b0029c9
2c16542f85b7016190f318e522a0242ac70140c4
15951 F20101204_AAAGQM morganbrown_t_Page_42.QC.jpg
ccc3c2679a57fe61e2ff9b8a4b76a191
7d6c2c9c5809c324001a6c466324555db8cd9774
48589 F20101204_AAAGLO morganbrown_t_Page_15.pro
0b0c6623a5f31f0fa0e91bbf457c90eb
edc43f5140d086a17be03759e907752d89979691
20783 F20101204_AAAGGS morganbrown_t_Page_04.jpg
899e796caa3e16548852321cbf29cb33
66f9c4f1b10531c1f1b06432fb0d51c499d26a72
4474 F20101204_AAAGQN morganbrown_t_Page_43thm.jpg
c50707331ed61c0ab23aae849d1a7783
56fd4646f39ed43508fe9eb718f5fbb849337171
56150 F20101204_AAAGLP morganbrown_t_Page_17.pro
6978f4158832deb73fea320ff0b611af
674de6fe9c142f0368ac7eba73b48d1ab58e8b7b
16610 F20101204_AAAGQO morganbrown_t_Page_44.QC.jpg
e46263029ab0e8adb213e5d9ecf990f8
88f6b70f29d06d8aecb1213e7ffa4825d5304210
11192 F20101204_AAAGLQ morganbrown_t_Page_20.pro
bd5ea610fa950296a60ceb1d6a40016b
833c08c2d91558404869acf38f4f5380b0a240d5
65027 F20101204_AAAGGT morganbrown_t_Page_05.jpg
2f3bbd8548ba6cf42b20f3aed93d31ca
734180b559a9887e5219252d742c75cabdc6a692
16033 F20101204_AAAGQP morganbrown_t_Page_45.QC.jpg
cbf631f54e0886a8ecf3ad33abee5491
5baf3ca400af5ff5e14a882ecbd252db001fd3dc
F20101204_AAAGBX morganbrown_t_Page_31.tif
fb076626edff6b0fe14393f5730396d8
9cbf27e078074f6decbaf2d04ebb8b6e48288087
40859 F20101204_AAAGLR morganbrown_t_Page_21.pro
b41d8c8522decf67c85851e58351ba31
a7619d658b2bdf1d148a6c6f7335089a47925169
31750 F20101204_AAAGGU morganbrown_t_Page_06.jpg
71c6f4f3f8a3ab10088a8db99822cbc0
4ff943730bb79969fb7eac3bc19d07165e17e467
4829 F20101204_AAAGQQ morganbrown_t_Page_46thm.jpg
6aa2988950c0c1346ebee661bac918e3
a0ac95ccae5cd7430392ab828e115f3af82f0434
66897 F20101204_AAAGBY morganbrown_t_Page_51.pro
8afd89a13db83af17ff91154f734751b
b1b7b8303a9a2a452bdcdab1ccc895d21d8bf114
53045 F20101204_AAAGLS morganbrown_t_Page_23.pro
69d1a197788884e129e9fa8400ecddd1
7f1fc9545af9cd533db2b02aa3e69f81d61f1f06
66848 F20101204_AAAGGV morganbrown_t_Page_08.jpg
28045368db6682ba4da49a26c70de004
a5130f23793b7ac3258198fec553fa578e6fb7b4
18213 F20101204_AAAGQR morganbrown_t_Page_49.QC.jpg
fcc418443b5bab6e4e9741900b7a1e0e
5f51fa27f27a1054d302d519208ac064ebf0bfbc
49935 F20101204_AAAGBZ morganbrown_t_Page_42.jpg
b5a12750783d40e810b7504bea994517
51dfd54fe757627ca52d2ff0a439ae371e0a438c
19626 F20101204_AAAGLT morganbrown_t_Page_25.pro
d92eb02bf2f3e15a40f93ea63b1f4a0f
99b263e53b888a3cd50f8457633b23251612be9e
21685 F20101204_AAAGGW morganbrown_t_Page_09.jpg
c1fcbe44979c9da833f95f86c91abb73
787a6c310d77db721c92f70f93edd55e1441e9f6
5119 F20101204_AAAGQS morganbrown_t_Page_49thm.jpg
3c898d857b07d49092e9c0a364b57e1a
dd4afd3b71f155ad8be740beab1dd524c5c18a8e
38672 F20101204_AAAGLU morganbrown_t_Page_26.pro
ddd1e474f648fa0d2ccea9b1383ac485
1feaff786f9837c67abaadad98bd2a65a7a49a6c
75334 F20101204_AAAGGX morganbrown_t_Page_10.jpg
07f7e67106fb1ad68676a0618997897a
4632aecdf6257bbd2ba523dc84c0fb11d8dfa3d0
56270 F20101204_AAAGLV morganbrown_t_Page_28.pro
f0fde281be8d478f8ff8bcf51a44ddeb
3091bcc0d7afd1d84202612d5d5ee603d2bf18f6
63264 F20101204_AAAGEA morganbrown_t_Page_22.pro
c873fc107c06e2edcedb7bc7b132f43b
7d3f3b1cd186147fbf39caaa4e03c878b93e8ca4
78742 F20101204_AAAGGY morganbrown_t_Page_12.jpg
dbb55490d71d274aed8d856ec458e9c2
0b321cf37a7798d9eb1873260ab461c43a17a4e4
6719 F20101204_AAAGQT morganbrown_t_Page_50.QC.jpg
b0a51cf7692e7bd9b45a52da6ee6244f
dda5b2eb070e9c67cbcdc82b722dffd8c3f0f61d
58136 F20101204_AAAGLW morganbrown_t_Page_29.pro
d809bdfe1aa8a3ace8193eaeb442e0e2
75f5802ee3ec2408af38ebf178605251dc620d29
86470 F20101204_AAAGEB morganbrown_t_Page_46.jp2
c2b41f7813584180307788734699784e
bb87d7ec53f824e88b94a16deea101571ec21f18
76954 F20101204_AAAGGZ morganbrown_t_Page_13.jpg
9ad45977bbdeb7a7e5a57228b31600fa
c17eb6aef5fbe822fe88f2909447fde80b531ab6
7476 F20101204_AAAGQU morganbrown_t_Page_52thm.jpg
2fcea005a812d86bc10ef5bc80a3de39
2322dcffae3bb53d6883432a559633fbe8fcda02
57083 F20101204_AAAGLX morganbrown_t_Page_30.pro
401eabac867ce4aae2f0281b0a60802b
3bb647393f4d8b6dfaa92311d4021070551f5cad
2233 F20101204_AAAGEC morganbrown_t_Page_17.txt
a43e08c69d2618ea22fd066dc9198f14
1a43a0c95c8f5fc4b1a35638b4ab6da7262a8936
27605 F20101204_AAAGQV morganbrown_t_Page_53.QC.jpg
8e97aa1e9acdcc9cd26c4fe3932434fd
13b3f0e73f8c09c4ae1ef34ac37ee7ce9b7e0ebb
124443 F20101204_AAAGJA morganbrown_t_Page_29.jp2
449f320a89f3b14e21aa8bff422dc9f6
bfd6996b68c518c935508c348ad800495599eaaf
57086 F20101204_AAAGLY morganbrown_t_Page_31.pro
dc62270a3c6a9936fe783845313e1c22
7a80af29d70c57a80ff4d9ee1d41b98a5cefecf0
74420 F20101204_AAAGED morganbrown_t_Page_48.jp2
4d24d6f0df13a1bae025a4fd7ccf0786
454b3d53d5627ff67890a5890f421dce4348457e
18870 F20101204_AAAGQW morganbrown_t_Page_54.QC.jpg
4360031648a8d08389d560f9cfc8d38d
5e5dc268538d4241f29f0f1c707656cc63dccf9e
120596 F20101204_AAAGJB morganbrown_t_Page_30.jp2
3f460d936c009777ce5ae59cd13756ec
7c1d1687e1bdc8e90b8482ccb5e341ded9243e0c
52908 F20101204_AAAGLZ morganbrown_t_Page_32.pro
d6f063f065011477356b65da753d400d
10fb7e2c1bddd3c6d556dfc1f304bc87a561823c
113179 F20101204_AAAGEE morganbrown_t_Page_16.jp2
32c90123459105bed5bde5ef5d6f88d1
7a86ab045278ef7cbed6ac9e8a6e1dd612ae84a0
121523 F20101204_AAAGJC morganbrown_t_Page_31.jp2
576c426de6ffd9f21bcb3e8173db406b
b1a589ca0c7cdb1b5f8b7ffb42f797f6c6d04814
17371 F20101204_AAAGEF morganbrown_t_Page_38.QC.jpg
128e0c8581e306363b8552c8f8394ca6
0c2b8641bf3a1c4aa7330338f66d286a0deb6c31
113693 F20101204_AAAGJD morganbrown_t_Page_32.jp2
27c9cef45c5f0b3db1321507d2ea20cd
70603a960c60c6ee4a7475c2920139bfa0a72adf
2152 F20101204_AAAGEG morganbrown_t_Page_18.txt
0af68711c0c04bd0b24832be06fd3740
7956e77a68ca664f2c94ace7c2c11a5962b640b5
7118 F20101204_AAAGOA morganbrown_t_Page_09.QC.jpg
42eee796ff6f2d200d5314eb57485b51
b6ba4afe78a178be7a0d13079509f23de605d177
122952 F20101204_AAAGJE morganbrown_t_Page_33.jp2
8a94321d0bd82cf6079ea1c6530ad599
7f2dc766b743a524e0ea5a3925788fa7b6309726
5081 F20101204_AAAGOB morganbrown_t_Page_38thm.jpg
3d741f27ca894a22f504723935b491a9
17d47db377efbe3fe3bc1a53101c7b8e5c616edd
124627 F20101204_AAAGJF morganbrown_t_Page_34.jp2
8137ba6172913d09fdda001cec0624da
95a9b1937c503de348bc3912deea26f7cbd22723
54645 F20101204_AAAGEH morganbrown_t_Page_19.pro
eb4870c47e0819945e612eef8d22ddab
aca2d27cdc24739debc41eef90cb4c3d7700da0f
7325 F20101204_AAAGOC morganbrown_t_Page_53thm.jpg
b43077b0978233c69091d1d7209b78a5
4d11288b3602c5c8939fdd9a731b81d16ed56983
86942 F20101204_AAAGJG morganbrown_t_Page_38.jp2
7fd838e281d229291ef7cf7cd4658c0b
4cef43037a8ddb55fb64271a215bd248099b4dd4
F20101204_AAAGEI morganbrown_t_Page_20.tif
7bfe6f4aa519100942373918784c8299
d308e10194f5edb4c65d73d476fb9cb2b0fd05eb
4691 F20101204_AAAGOD morganbrown_t_Page_42thm.jpg
a9a8df5069a9c261e10a07bf48d98514
bac56cc591c2507e45166b020361fd786eb49082
76948 F20101204_AAAGJH morganbrown_t_Page_39.jp2
c7347275c01e5f6483d51617008b7883
144d0ba2fd2478b74459b437354a4eccd76b9fb0
F20101204_AAAGEJ morganbrown_t_Page_22.tif
f414fa9e38824927e0db9e8140f93bba
f2758101d51d2dd909ae5e7d05edc222eac83dab
4830 F20101204_AAAGOE morganbrown_t_Page_05thm.jpg
424c3724a16a79183541c5f6f92db7ec
91423a4a801569553e8d4178e59708a2bb09a57e
86336 F20101204_AAAGJI morganbrown_t_Page_40.jp2
edc1eda2ea7c538f2dba583dadedd42b
e69d99bb189a16eeec2efb282db032f4b30829e3
9448 F20101204_AAAGEK morganbrown_t_Page_06.QC.jpg
6fd56e5ae2ba64f749de8a9e9e0fa866
4a2dccb1ea30b75c0dc18addcb00cd45c118a259
17604 F20101204_AAAGOF morganbrown_t_Page_05.QC.jpg
306b122a23e8be6a8f5ffcee684b519d
7b6c647eb89a3baee696e9fef6ac57ae8690665d
82790 F20101204_AAAGJJ morganbrown_t_Page_41.jp2
2b9675329474d1e25d44bcebcbdb3752
9dbea05a68057ed2a932f6f24b5d137e40070989
15737 F20101204_AAAGEL morganbrown_t_Page_37.QC.jpg
1d56d57cd813f431fd9e28d7182977ec
4b69f9544536a9b072ed8aa9b16bf2d0b99bbbdb
2737 F20101204_AAAGOG morganbrown_t_Page_06thm.jpg
67d638c24c4afd172751a573b88f1500
7e75a6cab775f91c19b835bcce40b3c60bfe4437
69603 F20101204_AAAGJK morganbrown_t_Page_42.jp2
f9a7d6ef8d8b3ca2e6eac9645e4405a4
3fb057f3c679388e96b5d3c72b4fefacfa6f1da9
16305 F20101204_AAAGEM morganbrown_t_Page_43.QC.jpg
4015f669a67a98e2e60adb4ef8e7d9f8
309f4b4204e1d79c0405c926f2b75f107a66f585
2434 F20101204_AAAGOH morganbrown_t_Page_20thm.jpg
695e481eb3d53c98c5a6d16f1c3b61f0
1603a2288684311c08f9bcd0affb67d4debfee90
71024 F20101204_AAAGJL morganbrown_t_Page_43.jp2
f41126b060791b0de530b59c487c95d3
9c89eb6c2ea3587cc813f7507ace245ae3e60ba8
51754 F20101204_AAAGEN morganbrown_t_Page_44.pro
eba3ecfc61b50b631f99170914793036
850fba464a45f95bcdc9dd5e738df645614aa99b
3132 F20101204_AAAGOI morganbrown_t_Page_02.QC.jpg
b62fd497bd53f749831bdaae16be9b9f
804e2d773a7b5d8f7c6620b491ca76a6627a84ad
1425 F20101204_AAAGEO morganbrown_t_Page_46.txt
3e93143abfdf07ef13ea73e2ad28d598
6389246ff463f3ffc42d833b1aaff6f652ce257a
7140 F20101204_AAAGOJ morganbrown_t_Page_22thm.jpg
6d8c7571bb738327ccfa497639c30a37
ae16d95dbae8e0f84fc3f932913afe4b875fe54f
82808 F20101204_AAAGJM morganbrown_t_Page_44.jp2
f77360040f8a7a79180af217eec6378a
22ca9de745b73ed0031b9c38f6458657d1b14a9f
82050 F20101204_AAAGEP morganbrown_t_Page_34.jpg
f49717f0f9668330c019283c9aca0e3e
4a9b7e9687fa7e152307b64b9c99cc04215e9e72
6876 F20101204_AAAGOK morganbrown_t_Page_19thm.jpg
facca8950d8200e3ef1acdc3f6c82ac2
9788e167645a7d29a115d71c7d134f3ef590da9f
75626 F20101204_AAAGJN morganbrown_t_Page_45.jp2
1caa58880a2f4d4d4c6f94171ea762e3
06c2a60a3fe36817b37a80fff148687a1f446015
52799 F20101204_AAAGEQ morganbrown_t_Page_24.pro
ed891c666e3f88294b9c38fc4f55bdb4
ade59133039ffef2bad02c45244913b5141cba69
4770 F20101204_AAAGOL morganbrown_t_Page_55thm.jpg
8d3a6b469fca16bd1b5233db1c8336aa
657331a7e8152d42500e8978cb8557cfced6989c
82599 F20101204_AAAGJO morganbrown_t_Page_49.jp2
d3b6135b7a6edc454e789a07de3a11b5
357eb9112fdb7da3919a95c933734784a3283110
20601 F20101204_AAAGER morganbrown_t_Page_07.jpg
4684be06bcca66d48731771655dd2e47
194a0acc432ccf0878d52512c64a9a7bc92c7443
26037 F20101204_AAAGOM morganbrown_t_Page_17.QC.jpg
49e30686c6d0d0b431161589b5f0ff91
3149c8366ce5caeee77d450104f1bd95c8c2d2cb
26501 F20101204_AAAGES morganbrown_t_Page_30.QC.jpg
d28d5595d5b7d731408be9789b669859
511148b0b2c23fb47442fb0d6f4fbb631213f4a1
4658 F20101204_AAAGON morganbrown_t_Page_36thm.jpg
3dc8c278caf1bcb511c066992707a753
6518454ef99953a8c1f3aa36641ddcf137c15f2f
23359 F20101204_AAAGJP morganbrown_t_Page_50.jp2
42514f11f1405cb5a1ba37751bb01369
8938d25f4d4969ef1634edbd524db277898d7e7f
57369 F20101204_AAAGET morganbrown_t_Page_40.jpg
897fdd2b9f0cdd3a7d29d200b8e07e24
8bbc203124cf39b952183f35e7544299efdab234
11299 F20101204_AAAGOO morganbrown_t_Page_25.QC.jpg
ea4b43b33c1f6475480ce45f96cc4077
c37c48150305557786361a964ab3e737f5ba2be1
138804 F20101204_AAAGJQ morganbrown_t_Page_51.jp2
f4c6457a5d7f70768b1d4bf50003565f
5be58ca7cb4bc35ad07a518c6a2934226abbe4ff
2232 F20101204_AAAGEU morganbrown_t_Page_04thm.jpg
fc92cefee74f487742b75c675143abbe
de5a413fbd55822779c9bdfdecb12be7eb182037
7605 F20101204_AAAGOP morganbrown_t_Page_11thm.jpg
3fd53eb7e84700803cff1bf2c8780ff3
c070639539bef3a18f830d8205fa92a3de3cb13c
137339 F20101204_AAAGJR morganbrown_t_Page_53.jp2
56dbf3c7ea62525399cb80c7fa6e5ae0
9362493982579e05858b6f492be8a99aa715db21
55481 F20101204_AAAGEV morganbrown_t_Page_13.pro
93bc48bf84bf4a28a7a6731604a40594
c54f188e9d81a4c709a9f4fe42c0dc3afff84e99
5077 F20101204_AAAGOQ morganbrown_t_Page_54thm.jpg
c8e120ea358784dddb56874cd8bae156
c35a469357f882bb9d246ec3a5ef3f572b4be499
86160 F20101204_AAAGJS morganbrown_t_Page_54.jp2
f56ea5beaa8dcd86b6ea3fc488d597a3
2bc9976ec8bcaa347144eaed9edac2e1c584ae50
2185 F20101204_AAAGEW morganbrown_t_Page_19.txt
3080b7fde5a5923c88f53e8bd93748f7
602c1cad9630cd21345aef0be9289b93bb559d9d
70606 F20101204_AAAGJT morganbrown_t_Page_55.jp2
1bf43dc898cf43ffe2039b0d7bcfafc6
af7af58fe774734e5eb8f324b67983ab0d8d4b13
31675 F20101204_AAAGEX morganbrown_t_Page_55.pro
f08c9c62198e8d804e144017444c8ad5
12e84cb120696d7ee53b99ed05d6d09f81048032
5652 F20101204_AAAGOR morganbrown_t_Page_21thm.jpg
688f47bbe5d2fe1492e6d0d480f3d5e8
9d631fd6c71652162959fb580b1a26e1343637c9
F20101204_AAAGJU morganbrown_t_Page_01.tif
0e6f475bc5f18dc3c92d0c8dd8f0d49a
22a1867fe8baaf13e3ac35f44b817db6ec0b1717
F20101204_AAAGCA morganbrown_t_Page_55.tif
a0ab6d638893ce47ffc3decba66bdcd8
4aa4f60d5ab557a0253a22204996a29a0bef91f6
5848 F20101204_AAAGEY morganbrown_t_Page_07.QC.jpg
6b967982ab15eed0da957df009684ba6
4b6dda2f9991c4cc5b9002690e230e67d98a976f
16476 F20101204_AAAGOS morganbrown_t_Page_36.QC.jpg
f061c3164591b1f50e26796331d4ddfc
8a7ccddc0051fc3c408c556b93e3a9e702411922
F20101204_AAAGJV morganbrown_t_Page_04.tif
8c2671fd1e9466f6be06891d8ac190e4
2b679b1cc60aadf6eca3820dd76ff9784a229cf1
5017 F20101204_AAAGCB morganbrown_t_Page_40thm.jpg
b5ff95864f95072f12089cf9785b00df
430242a70f9a82d21cb12de6459ae834b4611451
123675 F20101204_AAAGEZ morganbrown_t_Page_35.jp2
367b6e6b4bf904e480465ef2a0fed8d9
b5bc4a8cfbc4a7b317b0426578dff902f1e20ff2
7013 F20101204_AAAGOT morganbrown_t_Page_17thm.jpg
5fcd7389d511d24cb5bad9b62d2e6b26
1bc93f3faee9744c3aaf336047329a8d2649a96e
25271604 F20101204_AAAGJW morganbrown_t_Page_05.tif
b15ab856d8a28b94a2782c2cfefd5563
93190908b6a81e5925c0848e1f20317b2671e39c
1051979 F20101204_AAAGCC morganbrown_t_Page_11.jp2
934e21a958cd1b3b8774dd5b5c1f311b
7f4539164011d9181d7c499d48c0be3a7bc0c16b
16573 F20101204_AAAGOU morganbrown_t_Page_55.QC.jpg
3fb1c12e36abfd1bd97d1983acca137d
0a1a87467683c37997c0f81b8ac48df31105e702
F20101204_AAAGJX morganbrown_t_Page_07.tif
5c47e90218e1525814b9c36f31097ed4
6f4a2dcfdcbb8237407f2dee47db46edd971501f
27574 F20101204_AAAGOV morganbrown_t_Page_52.QC.jpg
2324f002585b27fd4ad25d8a2bc37359
73b6410c7537d69e390067a2974575ab11975b68
33734 F20101204_AAAGHA morganbrown_t_Page_14.jpg
41530de2839629654ada248e89e09387
01764e3805d896b63ca84e3cf10e9259da23ab94
F20101204_AAAGJY morganbrown_t_Page_08.tif
caec9cb4b5c2a606f8e1beb30cecf93e
b25c687ab12efdd0b2a4912f6ba4248b799dbbbb
2613 F20101204_AAAGCD morganbrown_t_Page_45.txt
b2f2c078dd2ac4166c45e973353aa66b
4adb259334ab03ccd8f25078bef52f5fd54b80eb
17863 F20101204_AAAGOW morganbrown_t_Page_41.QC.jpg
aeeb4dcbbe21ac084bb14a3771b5a5ba
f1b393229173c222595e9bd05b73d0d2e1408ac7
69944 F20101204_AAAGHB morganbrown_t_Page_15.jpg
bab7a8f307895dd4bf9fb504fdd6abe6
e18796a77c23655cbda4ff3c9b6481a54318ba96
F20101204_AAAGJZ morganbrown_t_Page_10.tif
ca2129a343372e89742ff4a85eb60b23
2fc21d76ba4c38ba7adbf9b8defaa27ab2e30f77
49786 F20101204_AAAGCE morganbrown_t_Page_39.pro
f0a7dab3dacb0d96df1d0fe83ddf6d4f
e6eebd4085d176cd7ad21205a32824d3ba224c40
6668 F20101204_AAAGOX morganbrown_t_Page_32thm.jpg
f1a50df554e609861a4e219150dd8aa1
c0d7ce9f50185fbedc9abc7bd919c36759073989
75135 F20101204_AAAGHC morganbrown_t_Page_16.jpg
ae876c1c684ef286846fb53fb63f2516
265d47db88ffdb6f26df45e5989fc713c47bc561
57210 F20101204_AAAGMA morganbrown_t_Page_33.pro
3c206cc7be748c135ae2864070a02770
169484dbe03b5c7ebec5b716e0c827b45441792c
17448 F20101204_AAAGOY morganbrown_t_Page_40.QC.jpg
ce0a0832f3af2818000920987c940f4f
3a5a00617c05dbe6548c4ee1a635b01cac6af045
79189 F20101204_AAAGHD morganbrown_t_Page_17.jpg
f7150a781ba0a31e2e0ccce4ef098eec
38bf32dda1fc3510caa34814549b8472c4f0979b
50763 F20101204_AAAGCF morganbrown_t_Page_43.jpg
ce10bf9f80cc3c03af60dcb79e8874c2
f14644736953e44f34ca937b2e70a279dc61d562
58048 F20101204_AAAGMB morganbrown_t_Page_35.pro
77a88bebfd524bfb38fa6d5561da4bc0
d666096ae7c32a1b790c8d1ce8c9c8873d73df94
6892 F20101204_AAAGOZ morganbrown_t_Page_13thm.jpg
f53cb191d8b3c89d34587fb6b7927ce0
54a3f6e1494c85eea3d7d54792bb515302d5dea2
75649 F20101204_AAAGHE morganbrown_t_Page_18.jpg
86292927a2f85e53226b3782b5cb587d
73563c5001eb1bc7516024ccc98e524ad058955d
F20101204_AAAGCG morganbrown_t_Page_27.tif
89b451e648c712352e972ecda488971d
1d46f0f05cd69788d59fac670aa1036ec5ae4e62
32960 F20101204_AAAGMC morganbrown_t_Page_36.pro
f81b76f7d9df3ff5234a7cdf785ef334
1730095e45cfa8c6922eb94881791d0bf9e9cb02
76818 F20101204_AAAGHF morganbrown_t_Page_19.jpg
18c03bdf6b6ba7ddade15d4417f9a0af
b1c47ce69784cbd5b9f9127aa98704982a5e2495
6307 F20101204_AAAGCH morganbrown_t_Page_15thm.jpg
99b04851d52b87757513cab65c66e2a1
430c39979bdaba80b999fc3990476044d43c65cc
32092 F20101204_AAAGMD morganbrown_t_Page_37.pro
f799885116f97aee4edb4969a0a2d026
479f199c1b4d4edc073dc6928ba405c5d426f9cf
22759 F20101204_AAAGHG morganbrown_t_Page_20.jpg
353c319f7904aaef04fbe0730cafd68b
311a0f9deaa30c85960ef5f3da820cf6d64186aa
2098 F20101204_AAAGCI morganbrown_t_Page_10.txt
98b91ee999d6ec5d65a5cdf76a0708b7
f345f7e651331834cc02a2db2b16c30e95b59262
52841 F20101204_AAAGME morganbrown_t_Page_38.pro
263151856aae9fd6cc2dd00af9a0c9ad
6315e34664c656a4f461966207f419c5182222e9
65493 F20101204_AAAGHH morganbrown_t_Page_21.jpg
e69323bb61cd0d534f9c716b48e8e749
687885c47e7eb4e4f956433a0ac5d84e72f10155
2874 F20101204_AAAGCJ morganbrown_t_Page_05.txt
524cefcfc2352c7df8c279ef8e5368e9
87d06c2861132fcef7e20efac17a51c2f78dd44b
49586 F20101204_AAAGMF morganbrown_t_Page_40.pro
54fdb3b7bea9b0d782dbef1ee5d6f20f
e2d4c23e454020bf7afdfc30f77fb0bc51346148
85306 F20101204_AAAGHI morganbrown_t_Page_22.jpg
71aad695b4ab45c0b5a2be51d7269eaa
eb71ae360761224323ed7c4b161dc93bb06aadc6
1624 F20101204_AAAGCK morganbrown_t_Page_47.txt
cd811836fa07f8d083339df70c4a0a1f
e90f51c53d925aebeafafeb5f35a66cf5084b17c
48605 F20101204_AAAGMG morganbrown_t_Page_41.pro
1e558ceb684400dcac753ceb20d3b81c
82e6d82da0171caabe38b2c9095f782d6a95e350
73541 F20101204_AAAGHJ morganbrown_t_Page_23.jpg
ca1fb3ea87eee55cdd34324302bcbbad
c17e190f1908b1ac9ddac664722e6380c3e6921c
27033 F20101204_AAAGCL morganbrown_t_Page_51.QC.jpg
b0b9c29ec127a119990b92d8dc1472f9
5884835d3031cea8cdbee12ac1eba4516a15ef40
40022 F20101204_AAAGMH morganbrown_t_Page_43.pro
ca12d5df5e5b6ec9001a0ebeaed504c8
5d66821beea3ba0e51563cf95c3425d1e9310df2
8861 F20101204_AAAGCM morganbrown_t_Page_50.pro
2268c092b74f6270ff6452c4ee234d81
c438bc5773fb159baa94cff82943b1628259ed12
47607 F20101204_AAAGMI morganbrown_t_Page_45.pro
438ef44c42ab5e8bdb6e178d659c9606
685c027e643fd49d62e7248e1aab32ccfa753d1e
74826 F20101204_AAAGHK morganbrown_t_Page_24.jpg
989fac39e3653e871c2c170428f7b960
1ba0b1d5e427db926cb99b043c8465615efd91ea
2219 F20101204_AAAGCN morganbrown_t_Page_12.txt
beedfe90b3437645e3f1456633b236f1
dfe2abeeac5c812db420c95ff46902d4e2142344
36623 F20101204_AAAGMJ morganbrown_t_Page_46.pro
25599a57d984b8612981cd910b7f19b3
b1536114143e6775dee6ae03765060ea97c99bbf
35163 F20101204_AAAGHL morganbrown_t_Page_25.jpg
4517568856f2c84dc2e42afc68b2d17e
61338ac26a26a4a1251e0a3358f7b51d1cb3b0b1
20274 F20101204_AAAGCO morganbrown_t_Page_14.pro
51b22d764a7b02be53d946b22e5fbe70
933a9682721ed15f9e81d2308572a8b05f5a6f37
37591 F20101204_AAAGMK morganbrown_t_Page_47.pro
b5cd17f1aa133ad134e0cb2faf003a19
a079554ead00d2dde599ce0c87384fd488dfc140
49780 F20101204_AAAGHM morganbrown_t_Page_26.jpg
e651c11e3c046e99facb72665a8daa44
30087bcf4ecb85a29919a95c0b576a830a0fc804
20618 F20101204_AAAGCP morganbrown_t_Page_21.QC.jpg
833318e92876cf7e5ccbf80351c40b40
06e4bc9d11252946daffafbfa2d0d21ab5c46b28
45650 F20101204_AAAGML morganbrown_t_Page_48.pro
e4f8e2d4c2ec51623bc17ce0dfbbfc5c
ef3bbc746e2ec0ed3bd7e8eee33f45c595c5acdd
75922 F20101204_AAAGHN morganbrown_t_Page_27.jpg
0c6af1d58f9ac215bafc398731051203
196df8cc8769cea35329d77863d716590c483c81
901 F20101204_AAAGCQ morganbrown_t_Page_25.txt
acb8afeb640ebe9b6de67df07017f8ed
2f133959707531d728567efc7133a34fbac14cd8
79782 F20101204_AAAGHO morganbrown_t_Page_28.jpg
e60df88d80265b203ea13dcbad68db8a
e5319ce81b15fa5c39786892fffbc5f75982fc2c
52449 F20101204_AAAGCR morganbrown_t_Page_37.jpg
6bf79179c3f9dbe6bc5272730e8c6340
4183c904011e78a2e9990bcde9a9c40a2bbe4b13
39868 F20101204_AAAGMM morganbrown_t_Page_49.pro
57165fee22ceb34a7e56eedd9efcc079
283f3b4f469449c5f57935597f82ef53f030e9f9
80607 F20101204_AAAGHP morganbrown_t_Page_30.jpg
d69ea5a23b1b588c621996d5ee93996d
be23161db055b6dbff5fed1ee4da8d91508de7d0
52961 F20101204_AAAGCS morganbrown_t_Page_27.pro
8b4953af3eb2ffee8040a530276899e9
7a40f74ab5551ba08418e2614644624ea267253f
65330 F20101204_AAAGMN morganbrown_t_Page_52.pro
c2706f83b99a3ff28ce66fa187787ae9
817d17c197b9e1babecd309e2a05cb6280fed36a
80881 F20101204_AAAGHQ morganbrown_t_Page_31.jpg
de8d6530731687421d3afcc0290f931f
831a4a420a2609a6aee7ab21f46fcdf1e8fdfe01
F20101204_AAAGCT morganbrown_t_Page_28.tif
5864932774f1a63e67fa98c8c97d2fd2
628b6a3cf54553ab4ebc4da7948bd856e5585e58
64700 F20101204_AAAGMO morganbrown_t_Page_53.pro
32792773bd3ff3e5a5ac50a791776acd
8910c116f5f0e52820ecb526f534560e08bc89ca
74670 F20101204_AAAGHR morganbrown_t_Page_32.jpg
3745234ccb12f590b5a2b936d3191a54
cbcad09d9d5c5e0a873022598ac30edfb2a5aa82
115588 F20101204_AAAGCU morganbrown_t_Page_18.jp2
2755f16cf2745c683ac005376d6ef731
0ae20b11ad797c5807c722e0b7e43d8167064111
80646 F20101204_AAAGHS morganbrown_t_Page_33.jpg
b49e0837d25a88dc8f16d78b63e96a25
22644e475ac83453eb541fd3e013acb92ea28c94
1976 F20101204_AAAGCV morganbrown_t_Page_08.txt
b34cab5fe44d3c12748b267e51c54a9d
ffb8ceee6d27d6fc7abeb3f4f14caae3c4eb2a9f
40059 F20101204_AAAGMP morganbrown_t_Page_54.pro
02ea578d4c2765cb9712a4dba2446c31
e79b2b968235dcea0306170ee9c0ce30431755e9
81701 F20101204_AAAGHT morganbrown_t_Page_35.jpg
3d7b5fa2561b2d2036e1c3e282890a93
01760f42361edd72d7dd30f488236d041da4ca31
53749 F20101204_AAAGCW morganbrown_t_Page_18.pro
e0618af382c67e3b6c28c318b976efbd
4ecd758ac6f7157cef3989342418467023208a96
499 F20101204_AAAGMQ morganbrown_t_Page_01.txt
50a46e4523c98c6d9ee055bd27ec1344
5f34698c05820b00fdb46f3663589ec96cfc7e5d
58459 F20101204_AAAGHU morganbrown_t_Page_38.jpg
9664597c22b3c7ddebd51f8dd1b52cea
e5e90dd72ad5d3603199606d918a2ef7e42e0a96
73766 F20101204_AAAGCX morganbrown_t_Page_36.jp2
a92fd88476935521df51a8f6171fd249
06df3da328fbf1c361387448350f6142e6609e6d
97 F20101204_AAAGMR morganbrown_t_Page_02.txt
f2bb63a9ea354986f92826144972eaff
3d9e60ab4b322a8dfcc65924c5f33fc9d7a38a68
52912 F20101204_AAAGHV morganbrown_t_Page_39.jpg
b2fb939e9ceaa41c2a4edc886cdaf162
bf6f602b6c0a293e3d38e4bb349bb14454402c1a
2122 F20101204_AAAGCY morganbrown_t_Page_43.txt
38c52fcf93f30e31fdf77c56d115c6fd
2c3aa9facf07a419b32b731ff64d34bbae142639
105 F20101204_AAAGMS morganbrown_t_Page_03.txt
dde18a1f3e57e033a051eb32baad09ac
37566072d99e17438839576b19b24a5ce3493b84
57005 F20101204_AAAGHW morganbrown_t_Page_41.jpg
3eb8ed1285a57433e5bc4dbef2e1db18
5a1618c55c7a1e7ce108673fae344bb4284bc4ce
4489 F20101204_AAAGCZ morganbrown_t_Page_45thm.jpg
90934cf3aafaf5502dd8f40d910c6f06
4310da114bd8093c9cab41d4d6dde977448ec982
393 F20101204_AAAGMT morganbrown_t_Page_04.txt
c1748d3c9e84444dbc5a05bd19684664
d821ab381e3c2d356460547bd289a07096081cde
52500 F20101204_AAAGHX morganbrown_t_Page_45.jpg
eee31d18651d2fbbb613fd59c8aeb401
dfa1fbf14c58b79fe22d470c59728d7e9eb33053
830 F20101204_AAAGMU morganbrown_t_Page_06.txt
1d420404ede3aaabb957022c0c703d60
2d456f3e9c01e57546042ebb2a37af887e430732
56841 F20101204_AAAGHY morganbrown_t_Page_46.jpg
c944ba88ae753b9b885a420274d94513
ae3a4d6103bd806351dd99d4f4f405c7f5006c73
419 F20101204_AAAGMV morganbrown_t_Page_07.txt
d5ae17439bc3f5e55b3081d0600778f8
3d1c7d0ec5b9a35f434565981bedebbd6a324d64
4704 F20101204_AAAGFA morganbrown_t_Page_44thm.jpg
06147a6878a2e005645792bff733769b
9dc6109581716234215a26b1ddb4f92162618632
56440 F20101204_AAAGHZ morganbrown_t_Page_47.jpg
599c0e0200897c83ce9557099ba84052
ed9eee23ffd2dd3eff8b91806b424cc033489c2b
434 F20101204_AAAGMW morganbrown_t_Page_09.txt
cacabef6f1fa1487d294439609f2218e
bdc50cdba074c51ebc768767d46a5df2ca9f2eb6
1655 F20101204_AAAGFB morganbrown_t_Page_54.txt
7574a1e0ac7f9c58ef3b94279208ecf6
ca9f59439f52dca3b1b126b686171aaa418238cc
F20101204_AAAGMX morganbrown_t_Page_11.txt
8c7dadbcb11816decd5aab9e1658051e
1acf1ec978a7fcf2c95cffbcaec6aafa1e18a672
888399 F20101204_AAAGFC morganbrown_t_Page_21.jp2
74f0d0e72671bee39104948003ac3505
0ba33fc8456170eb686320ac10fd2f3cf03953b5
F20101204_AAAGKA morganbrown_t_Page_11.tif
85bf327e4d32894ef1c12424951cd1f8
265189b2a2ee3fded9f8576432653d0329e42e57
810 F20101204_AAAGMY morganbrown_t_Page_14.txt
f2ec2904bb238a38e62c5deeb3fa5229
764683bd597e84cc37e17ef59de52544b17e55a9
71760 F20101204_AAAGFD morganbrown_t_Page_37.jp2
af38d975f72e22a7143c7df19016ad3d
e91944dfe9282dde65234c066da5f4ee4631e7fe
F20101204_AAAGKB morganbrown_t_Page_13.tif
8f80a0d4c7800b5cc8a1fed684b8db34
4232e78d97dd23adf02b6b77c7e5ea2464da9b33
2031 F20101204_AAAGMZ morganbrown_t_Page_15.txt
bc0d23b9405ffd3ce6769a719d6cf642
f9c7cf91e7543b0f76b31f8a2c594c0656d8a6ef
56299 F20101204_AAAGFE morganbrown_t_Page_44.jpg
b269f251633b8f41e62192c093e3c071
2f15b1b369ab8b2a6499d7e5ce3ead1b6fda5807
F20101204_AAAGKC morganbrown_t_Page_14.tif
9b60cb6c0de476704dc8a7270ffbe28b
2a2512adb14f8b7aa746ac23dfbc28d112e7ae12
F20101204_AAAGFF morganbrown_t_Page_52.tif
a9fedd5f9f939533f089237da2efbb3a
7cc59130f23147148a60d3365898f422185b1c0c
7777 F20101204_AAAGPA morganbrown_t_Page_51thm.jpg
bad8ab2e4da321abfe02f25546ad357b
9debe837e96c9da2b6f55323cca147d4e085dc18
F20101204_AAAGKD morganbrown_t_Page_16.tif
f20b76d4174ebfc1a059f6d9439f18c9
fb5145fe0a880a9ee03c7bbf1eb7ee267520e61d
89429 F20101204_AAAGFG morganbrown_t_Page_11.jpg
8100632864c8968f31acb9da3c074a97
1722c3af054b4e60ef068d5e2d9184e7ff1dfa33
24731 F20101204_AAAGPB morganbrown_t_Page_18.QC.jpg
1ee03b6b346d29d075698e78a463f9cd
f6dc5634ff325792a38bad92a29636e3d9d10dc8
F20101204_AAAGKE morganbrown_t_Page_17.tif
5b9647c9ab7a39dfd21bbec91f10c5ca
bc4021f412f545a99988280a6ce61856f6a1742e
119209 F20101204_AAAGFH morganbrown_t_Page_12.jp2
abe255301b596e0590a85360841479f2
a65224e453211c2008d0e2bbd7efc3382e90883e
86868 F20101204_AAAGPC UFE0021834_00001.xml
2ff52feb21c5b97a42efbf3362efc461
f6018f3af952e782432f9ff1180115e54d565dba
F20101204_AAAGKF morganbrown_t_Page_18.tif
6f22e885418a514e1986b95bc7b99e06
cc91112c0c7e0063d650742baadc1678472417be
7511 F20101204_AAAGPD morganbrown_t_Page_01.QC.jpg
765f2e39de0c37a5f80fd854e2e62db9
de64ca5b56f29b6605426d3d857caf27f3ce8997
F20101204_AAAGKG morganbrown_t_Page_19.tif
9fd879baed40f7a428d42e76e20975e7
b12f59b5e91c39e3899ae0b355c44da0f38dbad1
25108 F20101204_AAAGFI morganbrown_t_Page_13.QC.jpg
ff9262e63d8d06448d6cb52df0fdb406
e5403e3c6771fd583f8dea0a6f84b9eb3af61f44
2274 F20101204_AAAGPE morganbrown_t_Page_01thm.jpg
45e483ce76582753dcfc0f806519dbdf
4ce3ccbfe04fb56f82af32c8645f957aeef7fb07
8423998 F20101204_AAAGKH morganbrown_t_Page_21.tif
cbc340e9140030db4831d908fb77eae1
94f3560550387ebd90a96dfa66f098fea4a4107a
F20101204_AAAGFJ morganbrown_t_Page_40.tif
230b7fa7f943ecd07dc9397fc335b0d0
b4d48240021de03ebd463b27c337b90b3d5b26fa
1339 F20101204_AAAGPF morganbrown_t_Page_02thm.jpg
33d9dcfdedf6b32a7f630c38a5dfcf24
e912334b51442b3ac5a1758dd68e8ff5a6854d1a
F20101204_AAAGKI morganbrown_t_Page_23.tif
3d9f7973db7d298f2919b4057f20d6bc
b602307767740065cfa52ab0fb0acc54b734d781
6630 F20101204_AAAGFK morganbrown_t_Page_24thm.jpg
c8520e493b20545eeb536fb78944eebb
55a97545e3bdaaf5f251a22127848e96678139de
3240 F20101204_AAAGPG morganbrown_t_Page_03.QC.jpg
e7148bc44b7db2559d8f412bbcdabb74
86a398439281685297076d185358ba83f799593a
F20101204_AAAGKJ morganbrown_t_Page_24.tif
f734cce1a9cd3cb525bca47e40b32493
58b006ef2ab5492c9c9571bba0a565dc7dc0668c
6777 F20101204_AAAGFL morganbrown_t_Page_16thm.jpg
0e8c24989c61b8dd51c408e0679c7ab1
d8afc053a26c96fa6547848d0534872100054d16
1382 F20101204_AAAGPH morganbrown_t_Page_03thm.jpg
cab3694befb0164643279fca51a11638
90415a9d6f9d346b7447669454ae2e0e8eaa7d3d
F20101204_AAAGKK morganbrown_t_Page_26.tif
e99c17b80ad4d53f7c99180d09b6859e
090a8c766110d9c6167e3e26bece6c728a8765d6
138672 F20101204_AAAGFM morganbrown_t_Page_52.jp2
aec850db097c42ca8889fa712b2c46c3
2c69044bd59dd77c831c246a96604925bcfad52a
F20101204_AAAGKL morganbrown_t_Page_29.tif
b15a3a96a3508bf8b0aa1278a0041087
87fa6c1b826033bb67747ade91f60dbd94770856
4590 F20101204_AAAGFN morganbrown_t_Page_48thm.jpg
96ef8d29dcd8518f6fc1a51728dd138f
437ddf133263b89c36932ddb274ceb2185537693
6804 F20101204_AAAGPI morganbrown_t_Page_04.QC.jpg
a011a50eb8b0f31d3599a56c815f604b
054a511bb47ca02517804875ee315b4d2b8668e7
F20101204_AAAGKM morganbrown_t_Page_30.tif
cbee1bc77dfa41d7691658ce9a38df60
32d480229230390c81a5a85c09bdd9565de5a805
41220 F20101204_AAAGFO morganbrown_t_Page_42.pro
410659907a64988b21a25d50098d3684
a8691ab3271e2c195ffed92f5247775ca7317f78
2004 F20101204_AAAGPJ morganbrown_t_Page_07thm.jpg
8c13bfeb299993f31892dbd65c18bb5a
e265d5064e0ce4cd9c44234e39d20051eab4e17f
2682 F20101204_AAAGFP morganbrown_t_Page_52.txt
cdd9422d2edda9289babe42f143bc45e
dfc968fcce73ccfc59693186d4b4a56d35e992d3
21356 F20101204_AAAGPK morganbrown_t_Page_08.QC.jpg
4c696f2ad4510de656e3a1e84573650a
ba1aeebd924955613991a1d470d9a7d335fe3849
F20101204_AAAGKN morganbrown_t_Page_32.tif
914f6a9fda114e6d75cdea53b916e4f1
3b8b5d0b82c56e329f9003f12409dab03c99d143
50016 F20101204_AAAGFQ morganbrown_t_Page_36.jpg
68ad52e9381c67e252d08ed53c06542b
256e4639060117011346ad97a24e294c37c8945b
2424 F20101204_AAAGPL morganbrown_t_Page_09thm.jpg
44ccf548d81ba825cb66c6860ffb4561
4b7cea5930c52c358f3025eb195f2eee06f69813
F20101204_AAAGKO morganbrown_t_Page_33.tif
0d19a444507f7abeb5c8b275cf3bf267
423a250e277d96bc8cfba87770f8f8990e8c4730
81821 F20101204_AAAGFR morganbrown_t_Page_29.jpg
9644b3585e931d79a356bd31e5c4f3b0
6432b4d5970ed44107012a1443c72ae812d571b1
24416 F20101204_AAAGPM morganbrown_t_Page_10.QC.jpg
e3c8455e30a89c128fb951d3cec072f0
be36ff82ea7fe9cd67222ecf4e7cda56a220eb13
F20101204_AAAGKP morganbrown_t_Page_35.tif
fd657e0c088573ab976752a0dd6ae5b4
000eda6c3c577ec2ed13e68b926501a332d158ab
8904 F20101204_AAAGFS morganbrown_t_Page_04.pro
956f2aa09716f01a1ef9eed29b53357f
9d60d76b463def2290dfde24186bb9a7f9f9f3ec
6666 F20101204_AAAGPN morganbrown_t_Page_10thm.jpg
6bae71580e65c457de721515b9c8cfed
b992b0e88a03af3eac0a3a70407a8d884295fa04
F20101204_AAAGKQ morganbrown_t_Page_36.tif
36af20e8ff3b80941f5e2a7e48367189
0a0c2db84e09617a83d27ce750dbaa5db19aa13f
2203 F20101204_AAAGFT morganbrown_t_Page_13.txt
7a50b056373b1ea052348b457e1da7c8
bf4ad46cbefc929b0e213a3771729e5b9fd2672d
28243 F20101204_AAAGPO morganbrown_t_Page_11.QC.jpg
053baff61ad4d1b5043da30f54305f01
e5a240b343215ed23830d5bf651cbe3fc517a31d
F20101204_AAAGKR morganbrown_t_Page_37.tif
149c57fca195d4436509aa1a8a333115
8aa077504c94603d5f3f140acd72de9bc962e80e
2230 F20101204_AAAGFU morganbrown_t_Page_50thm.jpg
265a929335029b34f8faefd60309e67a
7c3e1eb4887ba2e6b1afacd15fadba215b8926be
7029 F20101204_AAAGPP morganbrown_t_Page_12thm.jpg
8490572af73908c6838a877b0a955102
f1424ba9e3adecd7af2ca5e846c3592ccc063ba7
F20101204_AAAGKS morganbrown_t_Page_38.tif
1c6a9306946ab21b86db0294673e70a7
bf72ba8de78197dc75683d31e79a2a15429436a6
24835 F20101204_AAAGFV morganbrown_t_Page_24.QC.jpg
560ff8313cd01a5c9309001970de4e01
2c6621c6d26b204bb42ff9d611aa19f83f7ffefa
23189 F20101204_AAAGPQ morganbrown_t_Page_15.QC.jpg
7e24b34a4c57687c3f18f117f2ce6e65
c86b66c0ba008cb0563d81c32a009f1899c15644
F20101204_AAAGKT morganbrown_t_Page_41.tif
33fbfbc5b38a5a834e7ee4d1ac55e2b7
97f7e196a1dc94b490cd6c9dcf343a52a0c9b37f
58103 F20101204_AAAGFW morganbrown_t_Page_34.pro
2983464e4bdc9d3a4a6cd4a01eef03c8
494cf08ef39936feeb2a5cff5f2b3d4649e303f8
24631 F20101204_AAAGPR morganbrown_t_Page_16.QC.jpg
897ef383b7629bc14dbbaf1175e79418
94ab0f8c6fdace0bc4cca5cae6db83f71bf3dc06
F20101204_AAAGKU morganbrown_t_Page_42.tif
b4dc2dc54db38b884f35dd9108611a6e
97ea272ab85738b4d34ed20687cc305447f128b2
4666 F20101204_AAAGFX morganbrown_t_Page_47thm.jpg
a7954d04c4395c9f4a031f9cb407e3c3
e1abf102e8f5180d8376e5d0f2dbd37ceecbfacf
F20101204_AAAGKV morganbrown_t_Page_43.tif
a1e645926f6e22ecf2ea9a8db2c91551
3cdae179e1b33265d7f0b35e441e1fe3d75cb3ba
4908 F20101204_AAAGDA morganbrown_t_Page_41thm.jpg
6a6648611310c4048f6ab01779fbf95e
90ecebb39a81f1edf9921048efbc533d8467cef8
F20101204_AAAGFY morganbrown_t_Page_06.tif
ad7d431662eee6b2841a53063191f563
dc4ecf0a0773a8c1117f7512f4cabe7ca4dcbea2
25471 F20101204_AAAGPS morganbrown_t_Page_19.QC.jpg
5c281efebf4245fbe3050ba91143f495
0fdf25c0b00bb297834a7a789d4f67848ac9a466
F20101204_AAAGKW morganbrown_t_Page_44.tif
947947122f305359e749f33f25640314
b368bccfb444592c4a57f08064415795746feff3
6076 F20101204_AAAGDB morganbrown_t_Page_08thm.jpg
97d932cb2dfd6233f86e2e6d39195b91
4fff24a800ef1b224bab2c23eaf78b0e155eff0b
2276 F20101204_AAAGFZ morganbrown_t_Page_35.txt
843139c0e491e830434ee7ec666faa99
4c3426e38a69feb559cea39913b0abfa3ff9ca45
7447 F20101204_AAAGPT morganbrown_t_Page_20.QC.jpg
9bf33c7f4c9da54d612b2e86705242e5
6d574f12ee5181f1f3849f40b3e4767d5a7e609e
F20101204_AAAGKX morganbrown_t_Page_46.tif
f8f1056273097c078cb911e62e22582a
0d30cd2aaf6cee8fa2fcf7ee69a02a728e05fdfa
F20101204_AAAGDC morganbrown_t_Page_09.tif
a0139eb22262b9f74dde79870d7a8d72
17339ec589b6875baab816c64c0cbfdf8709a124
6493 F20101204_AAAGPU morganbrown_t_Page_23thm.jpg
bc3ad90d74e296076bfc92580006e24b
4ba705dffbda505f0305725ccfe21895c2fa9130
F20101204_AAAGKY morganbrown_t_Page_47.tif
67a1199c8d5688080eeed54ef34b1661
74bf24c827e0d6a010c3cec58e0d69618d9f7682
16502 F20101204_AAAGDD morganbrown_t_Page_48.QC.jpg
3bedd36a129ed920bbfeb1ed25b5118b
5768cd68abe4c83b6a88fca94a4f7ff82f5dedec
15404 F20101204_AAAGPV morganbrown_t_Page_26.QC.jpg
5ef5e65390e4fca24090643be7593247
70361303c89ac8f93c473fffbdd6f891af46dd81
51139 F20101204_AAAGIA morganbrown_t_Page_48.jpg
cbf968755e4308b8466bf1d48f9ed512
4aee9f56088dbef420938ee0cab3efc92905d210
F20101204_AAAGKZ morganbrown_t_Page_48.tif
f9f9125a422f9a163dd42b3d2ab86bd7
62b76e724ab41479509e2b03fac9b8c53eb01323
F20101204_AAAGDE morganbrown_t_Page_25.tif
f21c9a6e81dde98ba23dcc5ff031fb87
e3aa44bd5c6787ee9594b7c00cbf013bace13210
4318 F20101204_AAAGPW morganbrown_t_Page_26thm.jpg
0186072232e8e03a2e2039302a7e1f06
ca42241d1d41eab7a24b65f583340e61a0b26c30
56350 F20101204_AAAGIB morganbrown_t_Page_49.jpg
38119cca5df746686572aff8218b00eb
f2941e55a81bdc7a7ee3ecef308ce80cabee43a8
6820 F20101204_AAAGDF morganbrown_t_Page_27thm.jpg
22f61cb417abc1d60a284cba1cc5cfca
a5fe5fd3f22181c45ca38750f6d1c6e628bbce66
24799 F20101204_AAAGPX morganbrown_t_Page_27.QC.jpg
34ea6eba2648cff820f375bf831a24b6
9a761911bf56f7102c14e607576517295f22d8cf
20090 F20101204_AAAGIC morganbrown_t_Page_50.jpg
e0cb0536cca8c1d78a130a666da349a3
1e304405d00d6ebf9a8b08e87e7105d1e295b9ea
2121 F20101204_AAAGNA morganbrown_t_Page_16.txt
8a03ac940842eb148baab2cb82c6252e
d123b1f35929d104aff9ececfd003391c9cf3796
26272 F20101204_AAAGPY morganbrown_t_Page_28.QC.jpg
787b65c889115009900a999f8932b911
4389afdd62b8398da51f3532b1f326e412c60c78
95216 F20101204_AAAGID morganbrown_t_Page_52.jpg
efdcf3b7fb354cffe6bd5a0925bcfc69
72269a33ec9d6044d650de7aaccd28e58fd46967
24473 F20101204_AAAGDG morganbrown_t_Page_32.QC.jpg
7e477f33d66b7787e17c8cbfa23f228d
3eaf7ce61b07b5f47177b5d1f6e25029ef01a3db
446 F20101204_AAAGNB morganbrown_t_Page_20.txt
b2fa522a57f6e30f954b01a270903e0e
f2e0739d9e99758397127e502b39b127e750f085
6909 F20101204_AAAGPZ morganbrown_t_Page_28thm.jpg
b08862da2c93c3a37bbbc45c1f3ef349
90d6a3ef20d30d875fbb15516e861e0c0ba76d93
89052 F20101204_AAAGIE morganbrown_t_Page_53.jpg
57e49492290c5ca276dbf8e80425ac99
8920185a0481af840634e3624da869e0f9f57b37
1305 F20101204_AAAGDH morganbrown_t_Page_36.txt
2434421366ed08e25de7ffa24a345e7f
fa6edf47034bf7e006a28e9882f6087b1dc69c40
1970 F20101204_AAAGNC morganbrown_t_Page_21.txt
73730b0893a70008e015fcb7e2aad99f
eb1f3b67e001e82d06484dfad8f72b12ad091963
62330 F20101204_AAAGIF morganbrown_t_Page_54.jpg
4382aa597959bad6f332d2f543ae62f6
28bc44cbf2f4ed3e3d07635cecda20a835062928
23810 F20101204_AAAGDI morganbrown_t_Page_23.QC.jpg
e7093f9ad2a0272112fe945c13c15657
e5dbbce781fcd902fcbbeb5c351f4723fadead8f
2899 F20101204_AAAGND morganbrown_t_Page_22.txt
e8d8ce7d89e316ddf0b51f63a353f90d
58296e015094267897c2ca1767799c684fae396c
50118 F20101204_AAAGIG morganbrown_t_Page_55.jpg
9415d07c214a1608190079ea9bcd9541
a354f3b248c5f5d6a42de0623edb8906bc030ca3
89296 F20101204_AAAGDJ morganbrown_t_Page_51.jpg
4c7aac353f3f17e91613b29393f2f8f4
62f91f0dc7b0b09e277b59d8f1941bb7198cf1d5
2341 F20101204_AAAGNE morganbrown_t_Page_23.txt
0ec5c337ce4f3c7c5bba27e1eda23081
e6d7fd68d585a7bc21fd3b97cb4f293aeed7f952
25212 F20101204_AAAGIH morganbrown_t_Page_01.jp2
034e68d6b75741e9dc9871be6a11de06
c8622e7edc2f85011fbe09843da0b72cbfd173b6
F20101204_AAAGDK morganbrown_t_Page_34.tif
fa29a95b69c91f061587890becab1f00
d98895e5f7622a2b90eeae52e8bd06440d054a52
2102 F20101204_AAAGNF morganbrown_t_Page_24.txt
40f73d8bd86e3ed1ded8fc03a4f6cd66
9d25eb159db4b8c4258dcd1538b905a756711234
5751 F20101204_AAAGII morganbrown_t_Page_02.jp2
7458f7f66843e65b9660affdb2dec46b
f260cd19479f99cdf8aebe6333f555f1249e621c
51919 F20101204_AAAGDL morganbrown_t_Page_16.pro
d81f6fefc9414653ded17646ad2933d2
10ea5ff0d58859903e4ac5605a71c20419c8a162
2139 F20101204_AAAGNG morganbrown_t_Page_26.txt
cddc0f7afb657db905bad56d2e4c9b04
c1fd79c48665cabff945b3b6ee63abe3d773ee3f
6353 F20101204_AAAGIJ morganbrown_t_Page_03.jp2
11c7ce6596e1e33e74362403c93b9a6f
4c6448bf196c8802d020fb7d382b8fc58ce34f8b







BUTTERFLY FARMING AND CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR IN THE EAST USAMBARA
MOUNTAINS OF TANZANIA
























By

THERON MORGAN-BROWN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007



































2007 Theron Morgan-Brown

































To my amazing parents and wonderful wife









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not have been possible without assistance I received from the Tropical

Conservation and Development Program, Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, Amani Butterfly

Project, Dr. Susan Jacobson, Dr. Kenneth Wald, Dr. Brian Child, Amiri Saidi, Victoria

Mwaifunga, Christina Misana, and David Loserian.










TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ........................................................................................ .............. 4

L IST O F T A B L E S ..............................................................................6

L IST O F F IG U R E S .................................................................. ........................... ........... 7

A B STR A C T ......... .. ................................... .......................................................................... 8

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ................. ............................ .. 10

2 METHODS ............................................................... 15

S tu d y S ite ................... ................... .............................5
D ata C o lle ctio n .................................................................................................................... 1 6
Survey Instrum ent D esign.................................................... .............. 16
Conservation Behavior and Related Measures .................................. 17
Other M measures ........................................................................ ......... 18
D ata A n aly sis ..................................................... 19

3 RESULTS ........................................ .................... 21

Butterfly Farming and Forest Conservation ............................ ........... 21
Conservation Behavior and Components .................................................................. 21
Dem graphics .............. ........... ............................ .............. .............. 23
Butterfly Income and Predictors of Conservation Behavior....................... ...... 24

4 D IS C U S S IO N .......................................................................................... 2 7

Butterfly Farmers and Conservation Behavior ...................................... 27
The Role of Organizations and Institutions .............................................. 30
L e sso n s .......................................................................................................... . ....... 3 2

APPENDIX

A AMANI BUTTERFLY PROJECT 2006 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (SWAHILI)...... 37

L IS T O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................................... ...................... 5 1

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .................................................. ..... ..................................... 55









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Mann-Whitney Utest comparisons of median scores for butterfly farmers and the
control group for the conservation behavior scale and related scales.............................22

3-2 Mann-Whitney Utest comparisons of the percent of butterfly farmers and the
control group participating in specific conservation behaviors...................................... 22

3-3 Socio-demographic differences between butterfly farmers and the control group........... 23

3-4 Linear regression models of participation in conservation behavior using
sim ultaneous entry of all variables .............. ........................................................... 26









LIST OF FIGURES


Table page

3-1 Butterfly farmer beliefs about butterfly farming and forest conservation .................... 21

3-2 Mean conservation behavior scores by the rank of butterfly income among
household income sources (error bars show 95% confidence intervals)...........................25









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

BUTTERFLY FARMING AND CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR IN THE EAST USAMBARA
MOUNTAINS OF TANZANIA

By

Theron Morgan-Brown

December 2007

Chair: Susan Jacobson
Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology

The commercialization of non-timber forest products has been proposed to strengthen the

link between biological conservation and economic development in forest adjacent communities,

but is also associated with unsustainable harvesting. A compromise solution is to use natural

forests as a source of seeds and genetic diversity required for intensive production of non-timber

forest products in nearby communities.

I assessed this approach by evaluating a new conservation and development project

involving the commercialization of butterflies in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. I

compared 150 butterfly farmers and a matched control group of 170 non-butterfly farmers on

their strength of support for conservation, knowledge of conservation behavior, perception of

ability to aid conservation, and self-reported participation in conservation behavior.

I found that butterfly farmers were significantly more likely to express support for

conservation, believe in their ability to help conservation, and participate in conservation

behavior. Knowledge of conservation behavior was not significantly different between butterfly

farmers and non-butterfly farmers. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that the rank of

butterfly farming income among household sources was an important predictor of conservation

behavior.









While butterfly farming only relies on natural forests for a few inputs, these inputs appear

sufficient to link butterfly farming to forest conservation. Butterfly farming, as practiced in this

project, is an example of how forest conservation can be promoted by linking limited harvest of

non-timber forest products from natural forests with cultivation of the same products in adjacent

communities.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Conservation scientists hold diverse views regarding the role of economic development in

biodiversity conservation in the developing world. Some scientists believe that development

benefits are critical to win the support of local people for conservation efforts (Peter et al. 2002;

Wells & McShane 2004). For other scientists, the two goals are fundamentally different and best

approached as separate issues (Oates 1995, 1999; Struhsaker 1998; Terborgh 1999). However, in

the minds of many conservationists, the disappointing results of many conservation and

development projects are due to a failure to implement key principles and understand wider

institutional relationships rather than a failure of the concept itself (Adams & Hulme 2001; Peter

et al. 2002; Wells & McShane 2004).

A challenge in many conservation and development projects is the tenuous or non-existent

link between development benefits and conservation (Newmark & Hough 2000). Consequently,

the sustainable harvest of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) has been advocated as a way to

create a clear link between forest conservation and development (Peters et al. 1989; Shackleton

2001). However, the actual experience with many NTFPs has been discouraging. The majority of

NTFPs don't result in substantially increased income for rural peoples, and when they do the

harvesting levels are often unsustainable (Arnold & Perez 2001; Belcher et al. 2005; Blaise

Paquit & Edwin J 1997; Kusters et al. 2006). Furthermore, some researchers argue that the long

term trend for the most valuable NTFPs is domestication and that domestication will diminish

the economic incentive to conserve NTFPs in situ (Arnold & Perez 2001; Crook & Clapp 2001).

Additionally, they argue that NTFP producers who are dependent on natural forests will be at a

competitive disadvantage compared to producers who rely on domesticated sources (Crook &

Clapp 1998).









This study evaluates the Amani Butterfly Project, a project of the Tanzania Forest

Conservation Group, in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. The project uses the limited

harvest of adult butterflies and their host plants from natural forests to support commercial

butterfly farming in adjacent communities. Therefore, unlike full domestication, this system

maintains a linkage between farming and the forest. Individual farmers capture wild female

butterflies and place them in net cages with host plants for egg laying. Since these captive

populations are often built with only a few females, farmers periodically add wild male

butterflies to maintain genetic diversity. In order to feed their butterfly larvae, which are host

plant specific, farmers also grow host plants collected from the forest edge as seeds or seedlings.

Gordon and Ayiemba (2003) describe the farming process of a similar project in more detail.

The Amani Butterfly Project1 provides technical advice and essential marketing services. It

buys pupae from member farmers and sells them primarily to live butterfly exhibits in Europe

and the US, with lesser sells of dried specimens to internet specimen dealers. The project's

finances and marketing are managed by project staff members employed by the Tanzania Forest

Conservation Group, while the project's politics and prices are determined by an elected

committee of butterfly farmers.

Annual sales from the project have increased each year from $20,000 USD in 2004 to

$50,000 USD in 2006. Sixty-five percent of the project's earnings go directly to 300 member

farmers and 7% accrue to a village development fund, which is controlled by the elected

committee of butterfly farmers and used for projects like school buildings. Baseline income

surveys conducted in 2003 and subsequent sales data indicate that participating households have

increased their annual income by about 20%. Of the 21 sub-village farming groups that began

farming butterflies in 2002, all but two were still active at the time of this study and the project is

1 For more information see www.amanibutterflyproject.or .

11









currently adding 5 more groups.

An important characteristic of butterfly farming is that is requires diversity. Butterfly

farmers that can produce a wide variety of species can ship their pupae directly to live butterfly

exhibits, which is more profitable than shipping to pupae suppliers. Therefore, butterflies are

unlike many non-timber forest products, where commercialization typically leads to species

specialization (Belcher et al. 2005). Additionally, because butterflies are host plant specific, the

farming process links each butterfly species to a different host plant. Members of the Amani

Butterfly Project use more than 30 species of native trees, shrubs, herbs, and lianas in their

butterfly farming operations.

Butterfly farming as practiced in this project differs somewhat with the "butterfly

ranching" practiced in Papua New Guinea (New 1994). Ranching operations are more dependent

on wild butterfly populations because they do not keep adult butterflies in enclosures. Butterfly

farming is more desirable for the live pupae trade because netted enclosures reduce the risk of

disease and parasitism in pupae and allow the producer to better track the age of his or her pupae.

However, farmers in the Amani Butterfly Project still depend on the forest as a source of genetic

diversity for their captive populations and as a source of younger host plants, which are often

more desirable for egg-laying and feeding young larvae.

As invertebrates, butterflies have a rapid reproductive rate, a key criteria for linking NTFP

harvesting to conservation (Crook & Clapp 1998). In the case of butterfly farming, this means

there is not only a reduced chance of over-harvesting, but also little need for harvesting in the

first place since just a few female butterflies can rapidly produce very large captive populations.

Furthermore, since butterfly pupae are widely dispersed and cryptic in the wild, it is easier to

farm pupae than harvest them from the wild. Similarly, in the case dried specimens, it is much

easier to obtain perfect, undamaged specimens through farming than by wild harvest. A study of









butterfly farming in Kenya concluded that there was no indication of a negative effect on wild

butterfly populations (Gordon & Ayiemba 2003). It is also unlikely that farming will have a

negative impact on host plants since most of the plants are removed from the forest boundaries,

which are frequently cleared as fire breaks. Thus, butterfly farming appears ecologically

sustainable.

The second critical question, which is the focus of this study, is whether or not the link

between butterfly farming and forest conservation is strong enough to change people's behaviors

in a way that will benefit conservation. The corollary of its light ecological footprint is that most

of the value of butterfly farming is created outside of the forest. As farmers develop their skill to

maintain captive butterfly populations and host plant nurseries, the necessity of accessing the

forest is diminished. Furthermore, in order for the linkage to be translated into conservation

behavior, butterfly farmers must believe that the income they receive from butterfly farming is

sufficient to cover the opportunity costs of engaging in conservation behavior. This study is the

first to examine the relationship between butterfly farming and conservation behavior.

I tested the following three hypotheses:

1. Butterfly farmers believe that forest conservation is essential for butterfly farming.

2. Butterfly farmers will participate in more conservation behavior than a non-butterfly
farming control group

3. Income from butterfly farming will be positively associated with participation in
conservation behaviors.

In addition to economic motivation, whether or not butterfly farmers choose to participate

in conservation behaviors is also contingent on their belief that the behaviors will be effective

(Ajzen 2002; Stern 2000), knowledge of the behaviors (Schultz 2002), and general attitudes

about forest conservation (Ajzen 1985). For instance, butterfly farmer's can help prevent illegal

forest uses that might compete with butterfly farming by participating in village environmental









committees that help enforce forest laws. However, butterfly farmers might choose not to

participate in the committees or engage in other conservation behaviors if they believed that their

behaviors will be futile because of the actions of others. Therefore, I also examined widely

accepted behavioral components.

Because there is no baseline data regarding conservation behavior in these communities

prior to the project's start date, I used non-butterfly farmers from the same communities as a

control group. To control for self-selection bias among butterfly farmers, I also asked butterfly

farmers about why they joined the project and tracked demographic variables that might reveal

preexisting differences between butterfly farmers and non-butterfly farmers.









CHAPTER 2
METHODS

Study Site

The two villages chosen for the study, Msasa and Kwezitu, are highland villages in the East

Usambara Mountains at 800 to 1000 m ASL and are two of the most successful villages in the

Amani Butterfly Project. The villages are fairly similar, consisting of mostly Sambaa people and

are about 50% Muslim and 50% Christian. They are long established villages with 84% of adult

residents claiming to having been born in the area or to have lived in the area for more than 20

years.

More than 90% of people in these two villages earn income and subsist from agriculture.

The primary crops in the area are corn, cassava, banana, beans, sugar cane, cardamom, cloves,

cinnamon, black pepper, and small holder tea (Reyes et al. 2005). Due to the combination of

steep slopes, heavy rainfall, and relatively poor soils, many of the current agricultural practices

are unsustainable (Reyes et al. 2005). Some households also have livestock including chickens,

cows, and goats. About 20% of households in these two villages earn income from farming

butterflies.

The East Usambara Mountains are a priority area for conservation within the Eastern Arc

Biodiversity Hotspot (Burgess et al. 2007) and have a long history of conservation and

development projects of limited success (Stocking & Perkin 1992). Msasa and Kwezitu border

several official forest reserves. Kwezitu also has a community forest reserve. Villagers are

allowed to access the forest reserves for firewood and medicinal plants twice a week. All other

uses of forest reserves are prohibited (except for butterfly farming activities), but there are still

numerous threats to the forest including agricultural encroachment, illegal cutting, fire, and

charcoal production (Newmark 2002). On household land, cutting trees for timber must be









approved by district forest officials, and in practice timber processing of many species is never

approved (Vihemaki 2005). However, this restriction is meaningless because clearing household

land for agriculture does not need to be approved. The Division of Forestry and Beekeeping is

responsible for enforcing forest regulations, but the presence of forest officers is limited.

Therefore, the government relies greatly on village environmental committees to help enforce

forest regulations (Vihemaki 2005).

Data Collection

The treatment sample consisted of 150 butterfly-farmers drawn at random from the

Amani Butterfly Project's list of registered butterfly farmers. This represented about 85% of all

officially registered butterfly farmers in the two villages. The control sample of 170 households

was drawn at random from village government household lists not including households with

butterfly farming income. This represented 22% of eligible households. Using the AAPOR's

reporting guidelines (American Association for Public Opinion Research 2006), Contact Rate 1

for butterfly farmers was 95% and the Cooperation Rate 1 was 99%. The Contact Rate 1 for the

control was 90% and the Cooperation Rate 1 was 99%.

The survey for this study was conducted in June and July of 2006. The survey

questionnaire was administered in Swahili in face to face interviews by two graduates from the

University of Dar es Salaam's Environmental Studies Program with no prior connection to the

study area. They asked local residents to help locate individuals on the sample lists and made up

to three attempts to locate interviewees. Before each interview, the interviewers read a brief

consent statement asking for permission to conduct the interview and informing the respondent

that their name would not be recorded on the questionnaire forms.

Survey Instrument Design

The survey questionnaire was written in English by a native English speaker and then









translated into Swahili by a native Swahili speaker. The survey was then back-translated by a

second native Swahili speaker to insure the correct translation of concepts.

I revised the 63 item survey instrument after it was reviewed by the institutional review

board of the University of Florida and the manager of the Amani Butterfly Project. I also pre-

tested the survey with 10 respondents from two neighboring villages not included in the study

and revised questions that respondents in the pre-test phase found unclear.

Conservation Behavior and Related Measures

I assessed conservation behavior using 12 questions. However, after a Cronbach's scale

analysis, I removed 4 items that were not related to other items in the scale. The 8 remaining

questions examined participation in village environmental committee meetings, tree planting on

household land, preserving forested parts of household farmland, participation in tree planting on

village land, reporting illegal behavior, and discouraging illegal behavior. All the questions were

framed at the household level and measured reported behavior in the previous 12 months prior to

the interview. The specific quantified responses were ranked into 4 categories that were scored

from 0 (no participation in behavior) to 3 (above average participation in behavior). The

standardized Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.74.

I assessed supportfor conservation using eight questions. However, after analyzing the

scales Cronbach's alpha I excluded two variables that were not related to other items in the scale.

Each question had 3 or 4 discrete answers representing different degrees of support. The six

questions included in the scale asked about the size of protected areas, timber cutting, pole

cutting, illegal timber cutting in a forest reserve, the creation of a new forest reserve, and

whether or not farmers should be obliged to report illegal activities to conservation authorities.

The standardized Cronbach's alpha for the final scale was 0.55.

To access beliefs about ability to aid conservation, I asked respondents if they believed









there were things they could do to aid conservation. I also asked about the effectiveness of tree

planting, environmentally friendly building, local conservation officials, other butterfly farmers,

and participation in village environmental committees. Each question had 3 or 4 discrete answers

with scores ranging from 0 to 3. Since not sure responses conveyed a lack of confidence in

effectiveness, they were treated as negative responses. The standardized Cronbach's alpha for the

scale was 0.63.

I examined knowledge of conservation behaviors by asking about knowledge of

environmentally friendly forms of house construction, knowledge about the importance of house

construction materials, and knowledge of conservation friendly wood. These four questions

formed an index with each correct answer receiving 1 point.

Other Measures

To test whether butterfly farmers thought there is a direct relationship between butterfly

farming and forest conservation, I asked butterfly farmers four questions examining their

perceptions of threats to forests and butterfly farming. To better understand any selection bias

among people who chose to become butterfly farmers, I asked butterfly farmers to name three

reasons for joining the butterfly project in an open ended question.

In addition to recording whether or not the respondent was a butterfly farmer, butterfly

farmer status was also evaluated using the rank of butterfly farming as a source of income among

household income sources. Butterfly income rank scores ranged from 0 (butterfly income is not a

part of household income) to 3 (butterfly income is the first source of household income).

To better understand any differences between butterfly farmers and the matched control

group, I asked demographic questions including the respondents' gender, age, education level,

ethnicity, length of residency in the area, number of close friends and relatives that farm

butterflies, and participation in other conservation and development projects. Wealth was









measured by the number of hectares and cows owned by household.

Data Analysis

I sampled 85% of butterfly farmers, which is a lower sampling error than assumed by most

statistical tests. Therefore, my results, which are unadjusted for the low sampling error, are

conservative. I used Mann-Whitney Utests to detect differences between butterfly farmers and

the control sample when the dependent variables were ordinal or nominal. For demographic

comparisons involving multiple ordinal variables, I used Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Additionally, I

used Spearman's rank correlations (Spearman's r) to determine associations between nominal

and ordinal variables. I used case-wise deletion for these first analyses. I then ran a simultaneous

entry linear regression model of conservation behavior including all demographic and behavior

component variables. For this analysis, I treated conservation behavior as a continuous variable. I

plotted the residuals and did not find any serious departures from normality or constant variance

for the conservation behavior scale.

The conservation behavior scale and the perceptions of ability to aid conservation scale

contained significant amounts of missing data. For the conservation behavior scale, interviewer

error on two variables resulted in a 38% reduction in data using list-wise deletion. To test

whether or not missing data influenced the results of this study, I used the multiple imputation

procedure available in SAS 9.1 known as PROC MI to generate appropriate values for missing

data using the MCMC method. Since most of the variables for the conservation behavior scale

are complete for each case, the imputed values generally only represent one or two missing

variables in the eight variable scale. Thus, imputing values allows for the examination of a

greater proportion of complete data than list-wise deletion.

I included all variables in the imputation model and bound the imputations to values

appropriate for the variable being imputed. Given that most of the missing data was in only two









variables within an eight variable scale and that less than 10% of data was missing from other

variables, I felt that it was reasonable to create 10 imputations (Fichman & Cummings 2003). I

used PROC MIANALYZE to combine regression analysis results for the 10 imputed datasets.

The results are presented in the regression analysis of conservation behavior and compared to the

results obtained with list-wise deletion.









CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

Butterfly Farming and Forest Conservation

A majority of butterfly farmers see a strong relationship between their ability to farm

butterflies and forest conservation (Figure 3-1). Eighty-seven percent believed cutting timber or

poles was very dangerous for wild butterflies and their host plants. Seventy-three percent

reported that living near the forest was very helpful for butterfly farming and 81% said that it

would be very difficult to continue farming butterflies if the forests in their area were cleared.

This 81% of butterfly farmers also scored higher on the conservation behavior scale than other

butterfly farmers (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.043).


Is tree cutting dangerous for wild
butterflies and host plants?

Is pole cutting dangerous for wild
butterflies and host plants? Very
U Somewhat
How helpful is living near forest for E/ [ Not
butterfly farming?

How difficult would it be to farm
butterflies if forests are cleared?

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent response

Figure 3-1. Butterfly farmer beliefs about butterfly farming and forest conservation.

Conservation Behavior and Components

Butterfly farmers reported greater participation in conservation behavior, support for

conservation, and belief in their ability to influence conservation than the control, even though

they did not report greater knowledge of conservation behaviors than the control (Table 3-1).

On specific behaviors within the conservation behavior scale, butterfly farmers were more









likely than the control group to be environmental committee members, attend environmental

committee meetings, plant non-timber tree species, participate in village tree planting activities,

preserve household land as forest, and discourage illegal cutting (Table 3-2). Butterfly farmers

were not significantly more likely than the control group to plant timber species or report illegal

cutting to authorities (Table 3-2).

Table 3-1. Mann-Whitney Utest comparisons of median scores for butterfly farmers and the
control group for the conservation behavior scale and related scales.
Butterfly Farmers Control Group
Variable N Median n Median M-W p
Score Score U
Conservation behavior participation 87 11 94 6.5 2386 <0.001
Support for conservation 128 16 129 15 6476 0.003
Belief in ability to aid conservation 139 15 144 12 5395 <0.001
Conservation behavior knowledge 128 3 130 3 7558 0.188

Table 3-2. Mann-Whitney Utest comparisons of the percent of butterfly farmers and the control
group participating in specific conservation behaviors.
Butterfly Farmers Control Group
Variable N % n % M-W U p
Environmental committee member 139 71 150 44 7587 <0.001
Environmental committee 107 80 103 60 4398 0.001
attendance
Non-timber tree planting on 124 90 136 68 6588 <0.001
household land
Timber tree planting on household 123 57 127 46 6932 0.076
land
Tree planting on village land 132 56 150 32 7518 <0.001
Preserving household land as forest 135 45 149 31 8618 0.013
Discouraging illegal cutting 135 57 150 31 7455 <0.001
Reporting illegal cutting 134 17 148 14 9621 0.494

Forty percent of butterfly farmers mentioned conservation as a reason for becoming a

butterfly farmer. This group scored higher on the conservation behavior scale and the

conservation knowledge index than other butterfly farmers (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.010, p = 0.002

respectively), but did not score higher on the belief in effectiveness and support for conservation

scales. However, butterfly farmers that did not report conservation as an original motivation for

joining the project still reported more participation in conservation behaviors than non-butterfly









farmers (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.007).


Demographics

Butterfly farmers were not significantly different from the control group in age, religion,

ethnicity, gender, length of residency, number of adults in household, number of adult

contributors to household income, children in household or household cow ownership. However,

butterfly farmers owned slightly more land, participated in a greater number of other

conservation and development projects, and had more close friends and relatives who farmed

butterflies (Table 3-3). Also, a greater percentage of butterfly farmers completed primary school

and were aware of the Amani Butterfly Project's community development fund (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3. Socio-demographic differences between butterfly farmers and the control group.
Butterfly Farmers Control Group
Variable n Median n Median M-W p
or % or % U
% completed primary school 140 78% 150 61% 8796 0.001
Acres owned 131 5 144 4 8054 0.036
Other conservation & development 140 2 152 1 8005 <0.001
projects participated
% aware of project village 140 26% 151 6% 8406 <0.001
development fund
Close friends & relatives who farm 140 5 150 3 6402 <0.001
butterflies

Butterfly farmers also had more diversified income sources. Ninety-five percent of the

control group and 73% of butterfly farmers said that agriculture was their primary source of

household income. Twenty-four percent of butterfly farmers reported that butterfly farming was

their primary source of income. Fifty-six percent of butterfly farmers reported that butterfly

farming was the second most important source of income in their households; where as 59% of

the control group did not report a secondary income source.

The 40.1% of butterfly farmers who reported conservation as a motivation for joining the

project were significantly more educated than other butterfly farmers (93% vs. 70%, Mann-









Whitney, p = 0.001), and were also more likely to have participated in other conservation and

development projects (Mann-Whitney, p =.024).

However, among butterfly farmers, butterfly income rank was not correlated with

conservation motivation for joining, primary school completion, or land ownership. Participation

in other conservation and development products was somewhat negatively associated with

butterfly income rank (Kruskal-Wallis, chi square = 7.54, p = 0.057).

Butterfly Income and Predictors of Conservation Behavior

Butterfly income rank was more strongly correlated with the conservation behavior scale

than butterfly farmer status (Spearman's r = 0.40, p < 0.0001 vs. r = 0.36, p < 0.0001), but the

two variables were highly covariate (Spearman's r = 0.937, p < 0.0001). A bar chart of butterfly

income rank and conservation behavior shows an increase in conservation behavior for each

increase in butterfly income rank (Figure 3-2).

To see if the relationship between income and conservation behavior remained significant

while controlling for all other variables in the study, I ran a linear regression model of

conservation behavior using simultaneous entry of all demographic variables and behavior

component variables included in the survey (Table 3-4).

In the regression analysis of conservation behavior using list-wise deletion of cases with

missing values (150 cases out of 292), the model was significant (Adjusted R2 = 0.35, F = 5.80, p

< 0.0001). The explanatory variables significant at the 0.05 level were butterfly income rank and

belief in ability to aid conservation.

As described in the data analysis section, I reran the linear regression model after using

multiple imputations to impute missing values (Table 3-4). Similarly to the first analysis, the

model using the full data set was significant (Adjusted R2= 0.34, F = 10.14, p < 0.0001).

Butterfly income rank and belief in ability to aid conservation remained significant explanatory












variables. Many variables that were nearly significant in the list-wise deletion model were


significant in the post imputation model. These included length of respondent residency, the log


transformation of acres owned, participation in other conservation and development projects,


conservation support, and knowledge of conservation behaviors. Knowledge of the project's


development fund was nearly significant.


15


2!
o


I-
0
o
U,
o
tn





C
0


a.

C
0
0
L-
Q.


n=94


no
butterfly
income


n=14


n=48


n=25


3rd
or below


Rank of butterfly income

Figure 3-2. Mean conservation behavior scores by the rank of butterfly income among household
income sources (error bars show 95% confidence intervals).


_I I I I I I I I









Table 3-4. Linear regression models of participation in conservation behavior using simultaneous
entry of all variables
Conservation Conservation
behavior behavior
(list-wise deletion) (multiple imputation)
n = 142 n = 292
Independent Variables B p B p
Butterfly income rank 1.43 0.0002 1.18 < 0.0001
Number other conservation and 0.55 0.1180 0.75 0.0015
development projects participated
Number of friends and family who farm 0.01 0.8851 -0.03 0.6527
butterflies
Aware of project development fund 0.42 0.6212 1.26 0.0517
Support for conservation 0.22 0.0720 0.23 0.0101
Belief in ability to aid conservation 0.42 0.0024 0.19 0.0108
Conservation behavior knowledge 0.33 0.3776 0.46 0.0261
Age 0.01 0.8437 -0.02 0.4045
Male 0.38 0.6027 0.56 0.2544
Sambaa ethnicity 0.61 0.4734 0.26 0.6309
Completed primary school -0.58 0.5819 -0.46 0.4752
Length of residency 0.74 0.1034 0.61 0.0351
Muslim -0.21 0.7803 0.25 0.6077
Household size 0.11 0.2785 0.09 0.1448
Own Cow(s) 0.16 0.8426 -0.01 0.9873
Log transformation of acres owned 0.64 0.1829 0.70 0.0161
Model R2 0.35 0.34
Model F score 5.80 10.14
Model p value < 0.0001 < 0.0001









CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

Butterfly Farmers and Conservation Behavior

In support of my first hypothesis, a strong majority of butterfly farmers see a clear link

between their ability to farm butterflies and the preservation of natural forests (Figure 3-1). This

result shows that partial domestication does not lead butterfly farmers to conclude that in situ

preservation is unnecessary. I also found that butterfly farmers who recognized the conservation

linkage were more likely to participate in conservation behavior than the small minority of

butterfly farmers who believed they could continue to farm butterflies in the absence of forests.

Similarly, a meta-analysis of conservation and development projects concluded that butterfly

farming was likely to have a strong link to conservation (Salafsky & Wollenberg 2000).

However, their conclusion was based on expert opinion rather than project participant beliefs and

this may partly explain why they did not find an association between conservation linkage and

threat reduction in a macro-level study of 39 different conservation and development initiatives

including 2 butterfly farming initiatives (Salafsky et al. 2001; Salafsky & Wollenberg 2000).

In support of my second hypothesis, butterfly farmers reported more participation in

conservation behavior than non-butterfly farmers (Table 3-1), and this relationship held true for 7

of the 8 conservation behaviors measured on the conservation behavior scale (Table 3-2).

Butterfly farmers also expressed greater support for conservation and believed more in their

ability to aid conservation than the control (Table 3-1).

I found a paucity of studies with which to compare my findings, both with regard to

butterfly farming and to non-timber forest products in general. Butterfly farming in Kenya was

associated with an increase in support for conservation among butterfly farmers and some

evaluations of non-timber forest product commercialization schemes have found a positive









relationship between participation and attitudinal support for conservation (Gordon & Ayiemba

2003; Mehta & Heinen 2001). However, in both the NTFP literature and more general

conservation and development literature, studies examining behavior are rare. In a recent review

article that examined attitude and behavioral success in conservation and development projects,

the authors reported that they excluded 80% of the 124 conservation and development project

articles they reviewed due to lack of data (Brooks et al. 2006). I reviewed the articles they did

include and found that many of them lacked quantifiable behavioral measures as well. Several

recent studies report a positive relationship between conservation behavior and conservation

projects (Abbot et al. 2001; Holmes 2003; Stem et al. 2003). However, almost no studies provide

a control or baseline data with which to evaluate behavior findings. The use of baseline data or a

control group is unfortunately the exception rather than the rule in current conservation and

development research.

The results of the regression analysis (Table 3-4) also indicate a strong relationship

between butterfly farming and conservation behavior. While land ownership and participation in

other conservation and development projects are predictors of conservation behavior, they do not

interfere with butterfly income rank as a unique predictor of conservation behavior. Figure 3-2

shows an increase in conservation behavior for each butterfly income rank increase, which is

consistent with my third hypothesis; that butterfly farmers recognize economic incentives for

engaging in conservation behavior.

I did not find any published studies that directly examined the relationship between

conservation income dependency and participation in conservation behavior. Salafsky et al.

(2001) examined the relationship between the percent of average household incomes obtained

from conservation-related enterprises and success of conservation and development projects.

However, their analysis was conducted at the macro-level using threat reduction assessment and









therefore was not sensitive to conservation income differences within projects. From their

macro-oriented view, they concluded that other factors in addition to income were more

important determinants of conservation and development project success. Given the high rate of

failure among the projects they studied, this conclusion seems reasonable. However, my results

suggest that income generation should not be disregarded.

Although many other authors have arrived at a similar conclusion with limited data (Abbot

et al. 2001; Marcus 2001; Newmark & Hough 2000), the chart of butterfly income rank and

conservation behavior (Figure 3-2) illustrates very clearly that minor livelihood improvements

are unlikely to create substantial changes in behavior. Butterfly farmers with the lowest butterfly

income rank score did not report significantly more conservation behavior than the control.

However, the chart also indicates that conservation linked income sources need not be a

household's primary income source in order to promote significant behavior change. Households

that rank butterfly farming as their second most important source of income (56% of butterfly

farmers) report significantly greater participation in conservation behaviors than non-butterfly

farmers, even though butterflies probably make up only 20% of their income.

In the absence of baseline data, I examine competing explanations for my findings. The

comparison of demographic variables shows that butterfly farmers ranked higher in education,

land ownership, and participation in conservation and development projects (not including

butterfly farming). Even though butterfly farming does not require land ownership or education,

the economic security that these factors provide may have allowed early butterfly farmers to be

more entrepreneurial and take risks. Therefore, it is possible that some butterfly farmers

represent what are described as "early adopters" in the theory of diffusion of innovation (Rogers

1995). This finding seems to agree with other findings that rural households try to maintain a

diversified economic strategy and are unlikely to concentrate too heavily on any one NTFP,









especially if they perceive risk (Belcher et al. 2005). Moreover, given the uneven record of

conservation and development projects in the area (Stocking & Perkin 1992), it is not surprising

that many residents were initially skeptical of butterfly farming.

Forty percent of butterfly farmers mentioned the project's connection to conservation as a

reason for joining the project. However, the 60% of butterfly farmers who did not claim

conservation as an initial motivation for joining the project also scored significantly higher on

the conservation behavior scale than non-butterfly farmers. Additionally, none of the

demographic differences between butterfly farmers and the control are associated with butterfly

income rank. This is not surprising, because people that own more land, are more educated, and

participate in other conservation and development projects are likely to have more diversified

incomes and less time to devote to butterfly farming. Therefore, though it appears there are

factors that influenced which community members would become butterfly farmers, these factors

are not associated with success as a butterfly farmer and do not explain the correlation between

the butterfly income rank and participation in conservation behavior.

The Role of Organizations and Institutions

Probably the most important factor contributing to the success of the Amani Butterfly

Project is the organization itself. Prior to the establishment of the project, a few community

members captured butterflies and occasionally sold them to collectors. However, without the

marketing infrastructure, expertise and organization provided by the project, the full value of

butterfly resources in the area would not have been recognized by the community. This fact

highlights a short-coming in many NTFP case study reviews. While they do a good job of

characterizing current NTFP situations (Belcher et al. 2005; Crook & Clapp 1998; Kusters et al.

2006), their conclusions imply that the current market and institutional realities are fixed. Many

of the case studies tend to focus on NTFPs in local markets and miss examples of NTFPs that









have global markets (Shackleton 2001). The Amani Butterfly Project demonstrates that

economically competitive scenarios that empower rural producers are possible and even

necessary.

The institution of the Amani Butterfly Project also gives butterfly farmers defacto

ownership over butterflies in their area, by giving them control over the market for butterflies

and access to the forest. New members in the project must be approved by existing members. For

instance, the original members of the project have recently allowed 100 new farmers from two

villages in the area to join the project, but on the condition that they only farm species which are

not currently produced in sufficient numbers.

The project also created a democratic organization that brought together roughly 20% of

households in these two communities for a common purpose. Participation in group butterfly

farming activities might explain why butterfly farmers reported greater confidence in their ability

to aid conservation. In effect, butterfly farmers are creating new social norms, a key ingredient in

conservation behavior (Dietz et al. 2005; Stern 2000). In addition to the survey results presented

in this study, there are several examples of butterfly farmers engaging in conservation behaviors

as a group. Independent of the project's professional staff, butterfly farmers have brought

attention to and stopped destructive firewood cutting practices by local tea estates. In Msasa/IBC

village, butterfly farmers convinced the village to purchase land to create a new community

forest reserve using a portion of the village's development funds awarded by the Amani Butterfly

Project. Subsequently, butterfly farmers in Msasa/IBC have organized a tree planting campaign

in Msasa/IBC village aimed at rehabilitating their new village forest reserve. In Kwezitu village,

butterfly farmers worked with the environmental committee chairman (who was not a butterfly

farmer) to help secure the last remaining portion of unprotected village forest as a village forest

reserve that is specifically under the management of butterfly farmers. This has nearly doubled









the original size of Kwezitu village's forest reserve. Kwezitu village is currently seeking to have

the new forest reserve gazetted as an official village forest reserve under Tanzania's Community

Forest Act.

The behavior of butterfly farmers as individuals and as a group also illustrates how

economic incentives can complement other conservation actions. Lack of conservation behavior

knowledge can be a barrier to participation in conservation behavior (Schultz 2002). In Kwezitu

village in particular, the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group built local peoples' capacity to

manage tree nurseries and manage community forests long before the creation of the butterfly

project. Butterfly farming has given these communities increased economic incentive to apply

the training and knowledge that TFCG has provided.

Salafsky et al. (2001) describe a similar phenomenon in their review of what they describe

as the "community-based enterprise strategy". Many of the enterprises that were failures in

financial terms reported positive conservation outcomes. The authors concluded that the process

of creating a community enterprise was as important as the outcome of the enterprise and that the

process can help communities form institutions that empower local communities to manage their

resources and create new social norms regarding conservation. In the case of the Amani Butterfly

Project, project meetings provided a venue for discussions about conservation issues in which

people were motivated to listen.

Lessons

Butterfly farming, as practiced by members of the Amani Butterfly Project, provides an

alternative model for NTFP harvesting that can successfully link forest conservation and

development goals. Even though actual harvesting from the forest is limited and most of the

value creation occurs outside of the forest, butterfly farmers clearly recognize a connection

between their ability to farm butterflies and forest conservation. Partial-domestication in this









case appears to be sufficient to create economic motivation for conservation behavior in rural

communities and may be replicable in other areas.

Butterfly farming and similar ventures will not eradicate poverty. However, the project is

advancing development in the East Usambara Mountains in addition to increasing the incomes of

participating farmers. Predictable monthly butterfly income enabled project members to create

their own SACCOS (savings and credit cooperative societies), a self loan system that is popular

in Tanzania. Villages in the project area have used community development funds awarded by

the project to build new primary school buildings. Also, 55% of the project's registered farmers

are women and 20% of respondents in the survey report using butterfly farming income to send

children to secondary school.

The linear relationship between conservation behavior and butterfly income rank highlights

a potential problem that excessive taxes and fees can create for integrated conservation and

development projects. Members of the Amani Butterfly Project are fortunate because at the

moment they only pay about 10% of their earnings into the village development fund. This tax

rate is comparable to the village tax rate on cash crops produced in the study area. However,

governments often place special fees on nature based products, even when produced on private

or community land, because they are viewed as public goods (Maraseni et al. 2006; Mayaka et

al. 2005). For instance, under the Tanzanian Wildlife Act 1974, all wildlife is the property of the

state. The Amani Butterfly Project may shortly be required to pay a $0.10 fee to the Division of

Wildlife for every pupa it exports, which would effectively double the tax rate paid by member

farmers. Higher tax rates may be justified if the taxes are spent on protecting the resource base,

but not when they are simply a means of increasing general government revenue. The Division

of Wildlife has no official presence in the East Usambara Mountains and does not share revenue

with the Division of Forestry and Beekeeping. Therefore, the fees do not serve a local









conservation purpose. Even tax revenue spent in communities on village wide development

projects is unlikely to promote the same level of behavior change as direct individual earnings.

The overall effect of such taxes is to put environmentally friendly land uses at a competitive

disadvantage and reduce conservation incentive (Child 2000).

Though butterfly farming as practiced by the Amani Butterfly Project and similar projects

may be a competitive land use form on small scales, it seems unlikely that butterfly farming can

serve as the sole justification for conserving vast forest areas (Muriithi & Kenyon 2002).

However, butterfly farming works well alongside protected areas, where butterfly farming does

not have to compete with incompatible forest uses. Unlike the experience with many

domesticated NTFPs (Crook & Clapp 1998), forest dependent butterfly farmers have some

competitive advantages over butterfly farmers who produce butterflies under fully domesticated

conditions. The micro-climate is more favorable and the host plants and butterflies are readily

available. These conditions greatly reduce the capital requirements of butterfly farming.

Additionally, forest dependent producers have a market advantage if they can convince buyers

that they are stewards of the natural habitat where the butterflies are found.

Worldwide butterfly trade was estimated to be $100 million USD in the early 1990's and is

most likely much more now (Slone et al. 1997). Rural communities bordering protected forests

could capture a greater proportion of this market if projects like the Amani Butterfly Project can

successfully market their conservation credentials. As is the case with many nature based

products, a certification system might help buyers identify conservation friendly suppliers. This

may be particularly effective marketing approach for the live butterfly exhibits because many of

the exhibits are attached to zoos and museums visited by people who are interested in

conservation. One of the Amani Butterfly Project's buyers, a major pupae distributor in the UK,

advertises that they spend more than 400,000 on pupae each year from projects that promote









development and conservation in the tropics (Calvert 2006). The Amani Butterfly Project's

database of live butterfly exhibits, which is far from complete, currently includes more than 200

live butterfly exhibits. The Xerces society reports that a typical large live butterfly exhibit in the

US spends more than $100,000 a year on pupae (Black et al. 2001).

The market for butterflies has other potential benefits for conservation. Butterflies, beetles,

mantids, spiders, and scorpions are fascinating creatures, especially for children, and interacting

with these creatures may help suburban and urban children develop an appreciation of nature

(Basile & White 2000). Conservationists should encourage live butterfly exhibits to include more

education for the general public about the source of their butterflies and the threats to

biodiversity in these locations. Insect farming can allow people to interact with nature, whether

in live exhibits or as dried specimens, in a way that does not threaten nature while at the same

time generating increased worldwide interest in conservation and improving the relationship

between rural people and conservation.

Butterfly farming is an under-explored topic and, in light of my findings, should be further

investigated as a means to promote conservation and development. To the best or my knowledge,

butterfly farming is an export business in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam,

Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, the United States, Costa Rica, Belize, Peru, Ecuador, Kenya,

Tanzania, Uganda, Madagascar, and South Africa. However, in the past 20 years, most of the

handful of published articles on butterfly farming have described farming in Kenya and Papua

New Guinea (Gordon & Ayiemba 2003; New 1994). There is a great diversity in the farming

practices and institutional structures associated with butterfly farming in different countries, and

it is unclear how these differences affect its relationship with forest conservation.

Perhaps the greatest lesson from this study is that systematic evaluations of conservation

and development projects are feasible. My quasi-experimental approach with a matched control









group echoes a recent call by prominent conservation scientists for more experimental

evaluations of conservation and development initiatives (Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006). Also,

unlike many evaluations which only examine environmental attitudes or knowledge (Brooks et

al. 2006), my study provides a quantifiable measure of the initiative's most important outcome -

conservation behavior. This is important because attitudes and knowledge are not always directly

associated with participation in conservation behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002) and

therefore less representative of behavior changes that may affect biodiversity conservation.

Finally, my system of evaluation demonstrates the advantage of separating project participants

into levels of benefit or intervention. If the association between conservation outcomes and level

of intervention or benefit matches the trend seen between project participants and the non-

participant control, then this strengthens the case that the intervention is responsible observed

differences in conservation outcomes. In my case, the measure was butterfly income rank, but

many other measures in addition to income are possible, such as amount of training received, or

length of membership in the project.









APPENDIX A
AMANI BUTTERFLY PROJECT 2006 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (SWAHILI)

Survey Information

Date:

Interviewer:

Subvillage:

Tamko litakalo somwa kwa kila kaya

Habari, jina langu ni (jina la mwanafunzi mtanzania). Ninatoka Chuo Kikuu cha Kilimo cha
Sokoine na ningependa kukualika kushiriki katika utafiti ninaoufanyia kazi na mtafiti kutoka
Chuo Kikuu cha Florida cha Marekani. Lengo la utafiti huu ni kujifunza zaidi kuhusu jinsi watu
kama ninyi mnajisikiaje na uhifadhi wa misitu katika milima ya Usambara Mashariki.
Tunatembelea kaya mbalimbali 300 na kuwauliza maswali machache ambayo yatachukua dakika
20 hadi 30 ili kuyajibu.

Kama utakubali kushiriki, ningependa kukuambia kwamba majibu yako itakuwa ni siri
kwasababu sitandikajina lako kwenye karatasi hii (Ujisikie uhuru). Kama hukubali kushiriki
katika utafiti huu, hiyo ni sawa pia.
Je,unakubali kushiriki?

Tamko litakalo somwa kama mhojiwa anakubali
Tunapenda sana kufahamu maoni yako, kwa hiyo tafadhali jitahidi kujibu kwa ufasaha
iwezekanavyo. Aidha, uwe hum kujibu maswali haya kwa namna upendavyo, pamoja na kuweza
kuniambia kama huna maoni yoyote au hutaki kujibu swali fulani. Pia, unaweza kuamua
kutoendelea katika utafiti huu wakati wowote ule.









Hisia juu ya Hifadhi


Soma kwa mhojiwa: Sasa nitakuuliza maswali kuhusiana na unavyojisikia kuhususiana na vitu
fulani fulani. Ninachokihitaji hasa ni kufahamu maoni yako na majibu yote ni sahihi kwa
maswali haya. Nitasoma swali na majibu matatu au manne halafu nitaombajibu lako. Kama
huna maoni kuhusiana na swali fulani au huelewi swali fulani, tafadhali nieleze.

1. Je, unadhani kwamba kiasi cha misitu iliyotengwa kwa ajili ya hifadhi katika eneo hili
inatakiwa:

a. Ibaki kama ilivyo (2)
b. Iongezwe (3)
d. Ipunguzwe (0)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (66)
f. Sielewi swali (77)
g. Kakataa kujibu (88)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (99)

2. Je, unadhani ni vizuri kwa serikali kuruhusu wanakijiji wakate miti ya kujengea nyumba zao
ndani ya msitu wa hifadhi?

a. Ndio, ni vizuri sana (0)
b. Ndio, ni vizuri kiasi (1)
c. Hapana, siyo vizuri (2)
d. Hapana, siyo vizuri kabisa (3)
c. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (66)
f. Sielewi swali. (77)
g.Kakataa kujibu (88)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (99)

3. Je, unadhani ni vizuri kwa serikali kuruhusu wanakijiji wakate miti ya mbao ndani ya msitu
wa hifadhi?

a. Ndio, ni vizuri sana (0)
b. Ndio, ni vizuri kiasi (1)
c. Hapana, siyo vizuri (2)
d. Hapana, siyo vizuri kabisa (3)
c. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali. (7)
g.Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

4. Je, unakubaliana au haukubaliani na usemi huu:
Kazi ya ziada inahitajika ili kudhibiti ukataji holela wa miti katika misitu ya hifadhi.

a. Ndio, nakubaliana kabisa (3)
b. Ndio, nakubaliana kiasi (2)









c. Hapana, sikubaliani (0)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali. (7)
g.Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

5. Je, unakubaliana au haukubaliani na usemi huu:
Wanavijiji wote wanapaswa kupanda miti katika ardhi yao.

a. Ndio, nakubaliana kabisa (3)
b. Ndio, nakubaliana kiasi (2)
c. Hapana, sikubaliani (0)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali. (7)
g.Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

6. Je, unakubaliana au haukubaliani na usemi huu:
Uchanaji mbao sio tatizo katika msitu wa hifadhi wa Derema?

a. Sio tatizo kabisa (0)
b. Ni tatizo kiasi (1)
c. Ni tatizo kubwa (2)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali. (7)
g.Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

7. Kwa ujumla unajisikiaje kuhusu eneojipya la hifadhi ya msitu wa Derema?

a. Umefurahishwa sana (3)
b. Umefurahishwa kiasi (2)
c. Hujafurahishwa wala Hujakasirishwa (1)
d. Umekasirishwa (0)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali. (7)
g. Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

8. Kama jirani yako akimkuta mtu anakata miti kwa ajili ya mbao, je unadhani anapaswa kutoa
taarifa kwa afisa wa msitu au kamati ya mazingira?

a. Ndio, ni muhimu sana (3)
b. Ndio, ni muhimu kiasi (2)
c. Hapana, siyo muhimu (0)
c. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
d. Sielewi swali. (7)









e.Kakataa kujibu (8)
f. Imerukwa na mhoj aji (9)

Tabia ya kujali mazingira
Soma kwa mhojiwa: Ahsante sana kwa majibu yako hadi hapa. Sasa nitakuuliza maswali kuhusu
shughuli ambazo wewe unashiriki au watu katika kaya yako wanashiriki. Kumbuka kuwa majibu
yote ni sahihi. Nitasoma swali halafu nitaombajibu lako.

9. Je, wewe ama watu engine wa kaya yako ni wana chama wa Kamati ya Mazingira?

a. Ndio (3)
b. Hapana (0)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali. (7)
g. Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

10.Katika mwaka uliopita, je ni mara ngapi unadhani, wewe ama watu engine wa kaya yako,
walishiriki katika mikutano ya kamati ya mazingira?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu (8)
d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

11. Katika mwaka uliopita, je wewe au watu engine wa kaya yako, mlishawahi kupanda miti au
mimea ya vipepeo katika ardhi yenu (Siyo kwenye viriba)? na ni miti mingapi?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu (8)
d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

12. Je,kati ya miti iliyopandwa, mingapi haikuwa mdalasini au karafuu au mimea ya
vipepeo?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu (8)
d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

13. Je, kaya yako ina mpango au imeanza kulima chai badala ya iliki?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu (8)
d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)










14. Je, kaya yako ina eneo la shamba ambalo mmepanga liendelee kuwa msitu? ni eka
ngapi?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu (8)
d. Imerukwana mhojaji (9)

15. Je wewe au mtu yeyote katika kaya yako mlishawahi kushiriki katika upandaji wa miti
kwenye ardhi ya kijiji? na ni mara ngapi katika mwaka uliopita ?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu (8)
d. Imerukwana mhojaji (9)

16. Je, wewe au mtu yeyote wa kaya yako, mlishawahi kutoa taarifa za uhalifu kwa kamati ya
mazingira au afisa wa msitu ndani ya mwaka uliopita ? Na ni mara ngapi ?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu (8)
d. Imerukwana mhojaji (9)

17. Katika mwaka uliopita, umeshawahi kumwambiajirani yako yeyote asikate miti au mijengo
ndani ya msitu wa hifadhi? Mara ngapi ?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu (8)
d. Imerukwana mhojaji (9)

18. Chakula kinapikwaje katika kaya yako?

a. Jiko la umeme (3)
b. Jiko sanifu la kuni linalotunzwa (2)
c. Jiko sanifu la kuni lisilotunzwa (1)
d. Jiko la mafiga matatu la kuni (0)
e. Aujikolamkaa (0)
f. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
g. Sielewi swali (7)
h. Kakataa kujibu (8)
i. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

19. Je, kaya yako imejenga jengo jipya lolote ndani ya kipindi cha mwaka uliopita?
Unaweza kunionesha?










a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu (8)
d. Imerukwana mhojaji (9)

20. (Kama utajengajengo) Umetumia (Utatumia) nini kwa ajili ya ukuta

a. Mawe (3)
b. Matofari ya block (3)
c. Matofari ya kukausha kwajua (3)
d. Matofari ya kuchomwa (1)
e. Miti ya kujengea na udongo (0)
f. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
g. Sielewi swali (7)
h. Kakataa kujibu (8)
i. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

21. (Kama utajenga jengo) Ni aina gani ya mti (mtatumia) mlitumia kwa ajili ya
kupaulia ?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu (8)
d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

22. Je, kuna mtu yeyote wa kaya yako alichonga meza, kabati, kitanda katika mwaka
uliopita? Pisi Ngapi ? Ulitumia aina gani ya miti ?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu au haionekani (8)
d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

Kwa wakulima wa kipepeo tu...

Maoni juu ya mradi wa kipepeo

23. Ni vitu gani vilikuvutia katika mradi wa kipepeo hapo mwanzoni ulivyoanza? (orodha ya
kutaja)

a.
b.
C.
d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
e. Sielewi swali (7)
f. Kakataa kujibu (8)









g. Imerukwana mhojaji (9)

24. Ulitumia kununua vitu gani pesa za kipepeo? (Circle all that Apply)

a. Karo za shule ya sekondari
b. Chakula
c. Mifugo
d. Ujenzi
e. Kumiliki mali
f. Sherehe
g. Kuweka akiba
h. Vingine
i. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
j. Sielewi swali (7)
k. Kakataa kujibu (8)
1. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

25. Unadhani kuwa maafisa wa mradi wa vipepeo wanafanya kazi nzuri kusaidia wafugaji?

a. Ndio, wanasaidia sana (3)
b. Ndio, wanasaidia kiasi (2)
c. Hapana, hawasaidii (1)
d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
e. Sielewi swali. (7)
f. Kakataa kujibu (8)
g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

26. Unadhani maafisa wa mradi wanafanya maamuzi ya haki hasa katika zoezi la kukusanya
mabuu ya vipepeo wakati wa siku za soko?

a. Ndio, wanafanya kwa haki sana (3)
b. Ndio, wanafanya kwa haki kiasi (2)
c. Hapana, hawafanyi kwa haki (0)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali. (7)
g.Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

27. Naomba niambie vitu viwili vizuri na viwili vibaya kuhusiana na mradi wa Kipepeo?
(Orodha ya kutaj a)

a. Vizuri:
b. Vizuri:
c. Vibaya:
d. Vibaya:
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali (7)









g. Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwana mhojaji (9)

Utegemezi wa Kilimo cha Kipepeo na Msitu
Soma kwa mhojiwa: Ahsante sana kwa majibu yako mpaka hapa. Tumekaribia kumaliza. Katika
sehemu hii, nitasoma maswali na majibu halafu utaniambiajibu lako.

28. Je, unadhani ni kwa kiasi gani kaya yako inategemea mradi wa kipepeo?

a. Inategemea sana (3)
b. Inategemea kiasi (2)
c. Inategemea kidogo sana (1)
d. Haitegemei kabisa (0)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali (7)
g. Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

29. Je, kama utaacha kufuga vipepeo, unadhani itakuwa rahisi kupata kipato sawa na kile
kitokanacho na ufugaji wa vipepeo kwa kufanya shughuli nyingine?

a. Itakuwa rahisi sana (0)
b. Itakuwa rahisi kiasi (1)
c. Ni vigumu kidogo (2)
d. Ni vigumu sana. (3)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali (7)
g. Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

30.Unadhani kwa muda gani mradi wa vipepeo utaendelea?
a. Hauna mwisho (3)
b. Kwa angalau miaka 10 ijayo (2)
c. Miaka 2 mpaka 5 ijayo (1)
d. Unakaribia kufa (0)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali (7)
g. Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

31. Unadhani utafuga vipepeo kwa muda gani?
i. Sitaacha kufuga (3)
j. Kwa angalau miaka 10 ijayo (2)
k. Miaka 2 mpaka 5 ijayo (1)
1. Huu ni mwaka wangu wa mwisho (0)
m. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
n. Sielewi swali (7)









o. Kakataa kujibu (8)
p. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

32. Je, unadhani watoto wako wataweza kuwa wafugaji wa kipepeo?

a. Ndio, nina uhakika sana (3)
b. Ndio, nina uhakika kiasi (2)
c. Sina uhakika (1)
d. Hapana, haitawezekana (0)
e. Sielewi swali (7)
f. Kakataa kujibu (8)
g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

Imani juu ya Hifadhi ya Msitu na Kilimo cha Kipepeo
33. Je, unaamini kuwa ukataji miti ya mbao ni hatari kwa idadi ya vipepeo wa pori pamoja na
mimea inayowahifadhi?

a. Ndio, ni hatari sana (3)
b. Ndio, ni hatari kiasi (2)
c. Hapana, siyo hatari (1)
d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
e. Sielewi swali. (7)
f. Kakataa kujibu (8)
g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

34. Je, unaamini kuwa ukataji wa miti ya kujengea ni hatari kwa idadi ya vipepeo wa pori
pamoja na mimea inayowahifadhi?

a. Ndio, ni hatari sana (3)
b. Ndio, ni hatari kiasi (2)
c. Hapana, siyo hatari (0)
d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
e. Sielewi swali. (7)
f. Kakataa kujibu (8)
g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

35. Je, unaamini kuwa kuishi karibu na msitu kunarahisisha kufanya kilimo cha kipepeo? Ni kwa
kiasi gani unajisikia hivyo?

a. Ndio, inasaidia sana (3)
b. Ndio, inasaidi kiasi (2)
c. Hapana, haisaidii (0)
d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
e. Sielewi swali. (7)
f. Kakataa kujibu (8)
g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)









36. Kama miti ndani ya misitu ya hifadhi ikikatwa, unaamini bado utaweza kufanya kilimo cha
kipepeo?


a. Ndio, naamini itakuwa rahisi kuendelea
b. Ndio, lakini itakuwa ngumu
c. Hapana, sitaweza kuendelea kabisa
d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni
e. Sielewi swali.
f. Kakataa kujibu
g. Imerukwa na mhojaji


Imani juu ya ufanisi wa ndani na nje ya misitu kuhusiana na Hifadhi ya Msitu
37. Je unadhani kwamba vipo vitu ambavyo unaweza kufanya ili kusaidia uhifadhi wa misitu?


a. Ndio, naweza kusaidia sana
b. Ndio, naweza kusaidia kiasi
c. Hapana, siwezi kusaidia kabisa
d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni
e. Sielewi swali.
f. Kakataa kujibu
g. Imerukwa na mhojaji


38. Je unadhani kama wanakijiji wakipanda miti kwenye mashamba yao itasaidia uhifadhi wa
misitu?


a. Ndio, itasaidia sana
b. Ndio, itasaidia kiasi
c. Hapana, haitasaidia kabisa
d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni
e. Sielewi swali.
f. Kakataa kujibu
g. Imerukwa na mhojaji


39. Je, unadhani kuwa wafugaji wa vipepeo wengi wanafanya vitu ambavyo vinasaidia kuhifadhi
misitu? Ni kwa kiasi gani unajisikia hivyo?


a. Ndio, wapo wengi
b. Ndio, wapo wachache
c. Hapana, hawapo kabisa
d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni
e. Sielewi swali.
f. Kakataa kujibu
g. Imerukwa na mhojaji


40. Je, unadhani kuwa maafisa misitu wanafanya kazi nzuri ya kulinda msitu? Ni kwa kiasi gani
unajisikia hivyo?









a. Ndio, wanafanya kazi nzuri sana (3)
b. Ndio, wanafanya kazi nzuri kiasi (2)
c. Hapana, hawafanyi kazi nzuri (1)
d. Hapana, hawafanyi kazi kabisa (0)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali. (7)
g. Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

41. Je, unadhani kuwa maafisa misitu wanasikiliza mapendekezo kutoka kwa wanakijiji
kuhusiana na ulinzi wa misitu?


h. Ndio, wanasikiliza sana
i. Ndio, wanasikiliza kiasi
j. Hapana, hawasikilizi
k. Hapana, hawasikilizi kabisa
1. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni
m. Sielewi swali.
n. Kakataa kujibu
o. Imerukwa na mhojaji


Imani juu ya tabia zinazojali mazingira

42. Ni njia gani ya kujenga kuta za nyumba unadhani ni nzuri kwa ajili ya uhifadhi wa misitu?
(USISOME MAJIBU)


a. Mawe ya kuchonga
b. Matofari ya block
c. Matofari ya udongo ambayo hayajachomwa
d. Matofari ya kuchomwa
e. Miti na udongo
f. Nyingine
g. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni
h. Sielewi swali.
i. Kakataa kujibu
j. Imerukwa na mhoj aji


43. Kuhusiana na uhifadhi wa misitu, je unadhani kuna umuhimu wowote wa kuangaliajinsi
ambavyo watu wanajenga nyumba zao?


a. Ndio, kuna umuhimu sana
b. Ndio, kuna umuhimu kiasi
c. Hapana, hakuna umuhimu
d. Hapana, hakuna umuhimu kabisa
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni
f. Sielewi swali.
g. Kakataa kujibu









h. Imerukwana mhojaji (9)

44. Ili kulinda misitu unadhani ni aina gani ya miti ni bora itumike kwa kujengea (USISOME
MAJIBU)?

a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
b. Sielewi swali (7)
c. Kakataa kujibu au haionekani (8)
d. Imerukwana mhojaji (9)

45. Ili kulinda misitu unadhani ni aina gani ya miti ni bora itumike kwa kupaulia?

e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali (7)
g. Kakataa kujibu au haionekani (8)
h. Imerukwana mhojaji (9)

46. Je unadhani ukishiriki katika kamati ya mazingira ya kijiji itasaidia kuhifadhi msitu?

a. Ndio, itasaidia sana (3)
b. Ndio, itasaidia kiasi (2)
c. Hapana, haitasaidia (1)
d. Hapana, haitasaidia kabisa (0)
e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6)
f. Sielewi swali. (7)
g. Kakataa kujibu (8)
h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

Demographic Information
Sasa kwa sehemu ya mwisho ya utafiti, Nitakuuliza kuhusu maswali machache yanayo kuhusu
wewe na kaya yako. Ahsante sana kwa msaada wako, na tumekaribia kumaliza.
Mhojiwa

47. Je, una umri wa miaka mingapi?

48. Una kiwango gani cha elimu?

a. Sina elimu (0)
b. Elimu ya msingi (1)
c. Darasa la 7 (2)
d. Kidato cha 1 mpaka 3 (3)
e. Kidato cha 4 (4)
f. Kidato cha 6 (5)
g. Chuo (6)
h. Chuokikuu (7)
i. Kakataa kujibu (8)
j. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)










49. Wewe ni muumini wa dini ipi?

a. Mwislamu (1)
b. Mkristu (2)
c. Nyingine (3)
d. Sina (4)
e. Kakataa kujibu (8)
f. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

50. Je wewe ni wa kabila lipi?

51. Onesha me au ke (USIULIZE)

52. Ni kwa muda gani umeishi katika milima ya Usambara Mashariki?

Idadi ya wana kaya
53. Ni watu wangapi wenye umri zaidi ya miaka 18 wanaishi katika kaya hii au wanaotegemea
chakula au kipato cha kaya hii?

54. Ni watu wangapi wenye umri zaidi ya miaka 18 wanachangia kuleta kipato au wanasaidia
kufanya kazi shambani katika kaya hii?

55. Kuna watoto wangapi wa chini wa umri wa miaka 18 katika familiar hii pamoja na wale
wasioishi katika kaya hii?

.lhir/lhli za kiuchumi za Kaya
56. Je, ni ipi ndiyo njia muhimu sana kuliko zote ya kujipatia kipato kwa kaya
yako?

57. Je, ni ipi ndiyo njia ya pili ya kujipatia kipato kwa kaya yako?

58. 51. Je, ni ipi ndiyo njia ya tatu ya kujipatia kipato kwa kaya yako?

59. Je, eneo la ardhi ambalo kaya yako inamiliki lina ukubwa wa eka ngapi?

60. Je unamiliki ng'ombe, na ni wangapi?

Ushirikishwaji/Uelimishwaji wa Miradi ya Hifadhi na Maendeleo
61. Je, wewe, au mtu yeyote wa kaya yako, alishawahi kushiriki katika miradi ya (Circle all that
apply):
a. mabwawa ya samaki
b. misambu
c. majiko sanifu
d. miradi ya misitu yetu (TFCG)
e. au miradi mingine yeyote inayolenga kusaidia uhifadhi katika eneo hili











62. Je, kati ya ndugu zako, jamaa, na marafiki, ni wangapi kati yao ni wakulima wa
kipepeo?

63. Je, unafahamu shughuli yeyote ya maendeleo ya j amii inayofadhiliwa na mfuko ya j amii ya
mradi wa kipepeo? Itaj e

Mwisho wa Utafiti
Ahsante sana kushiriki katika utafiti huu na kujibu maswali yangu. Umekuwa msaada mkubwa
sana.









LIST OF REFERENCES


Abbot, J. I. O., D. H. L. Thomas, A. A. Gardner, S. E. Neba, and M. W. Khen. 2001.
Understanding the Links Between Conservation and Development in the Bamenda
Highlands, Cameroon. World Development 29:1115-1136.

Adams, W. M., and D. Hulme. 2001. If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is
the question? Oryx 35:193-200.

Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Pages 11-39 in J. Kuhl,
and J. Beckman, editors. Action-control: From cognition to behavior. Springer,
Heidelberg, Germany.

Ajzen, I. 2002. Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of
Planned Behaviorl. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32:665-683.

American Association for Public Opinion Research 2006. Standard Definitions: Final
Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 4th edition. AAPOR,
Lenexa, Kansas.

Arnold, J. E. M., and M. R. Perez. 2001. Can non-timber forest products match tropical forest
conservation and development objectives? Ecological Economics 39:437-447.

Basile, C., and C. White. 2000. Respecting Living Things: Environmental Literacy for Young
Children. Early Childhood Education Journal 28:57-61.

Belcher, B., M. Ruiz-Perez, and R. Achdiawan. 2005. Global patterns and trends in the use and
management of commercial NTFPs: Implications for livelihoods and conservation. World
Development 33:1435-1452.

Black, S. H., M. Shepard, and M. M. Allen. 2001. Endangered Invertebrates: The Case for
Greater Attention to Invertebrate Conservation. Endangered Species Update 18:41.

Blaise Paquit, N., and K. A. Y. Edwin J. 1997. The regulatory framework for the exploitation of
medicinal plants in Cameroon: the case of Prunus africana on Mount Cameroon.
Biodiversity and Conservation 6:1409-1412.

Brooks, J. S., M. A. Franzen, C. M. Holmes, M. N. Grote, and M. B. Mulder. 2006. Testing
Hypotheses for the Success of Different Conservation Strategies. Conservation Biology
20:1528-1538.

Burgess, N. D., T. M. Butynski, N. J. Cordeiro, N. H. Doggart, J. Fjeldsa, K. M. Howell, F. B.
Kilahama, S. P. Loader, J. C. Lovett, B. Mbilinyi, M. Menegon, D. C. Moyer, E.
Nashanda, A. Perkin, F. Rovero, W. T. Stanley, and S. N. Stuart. 2007. The biological
importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Biological
Conservation 134:209-231.

Calvert, J. 2006. The Butterfly Farm makes a difference to hundreds of lives in developing
countries. Butterfly Farm News. The Startford Butterfly Farm.









Child, B. 2000. Making wildlife pay: converting wildlife's comparative advantage into real
incentives for having wildlife in African savannas, case studies from Zimbabwe and
Zambia. Pages 335-387 in H. H. T. Prins, J. G. Grootenhuis, and T. T. Dolan, editors.
Wildlife conservation by sustainable use. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

Crook, C., and R. A. Clapp. 1998. Is market-oriented forest conservation a contradiction in
terms? Environmental Conservation 25:131-145.

Crook, C., and R. A. Clapp. 2001. Ecosystem structure, economic cycles and market-oriented
conservation. Environmental Conservation 28:194-198.

Dietz, T., A. Fitzgerald, and R. Shwom. 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES. Annual Review
of Environment & Resources 30:335-372.

Ferraro, P. J., and S. K. Pattanayak. 2006. Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation
of Biodiversity Conservation Investments. PLoS Biology 4:e105.

Fichman, M., and J. N. Cummings. 2003. Multiple Imputation for Missing Data: Making the
most of What you Know. Organizational Research Methods 6:282-308.

Gordon, I., and W. Ayiemba. 2003. Harnessing Butterfly Biodiversity for Improving Livelihoods
and Forest Conservation: The Kipepeo Project. The Journal of Environment
Development 12:82-98.

Holmes, C. M. 2003. The influence of protected area outreach on conservation attitudes and
resource use patterns: a case study from western Tanzania. Oryx 37:305-315.

Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research
8:239-260.

Kusters, K., R. Achdiawan, B. Belcher, and M. R. Perez. 2006. Balancing development and
conservation? An assessment of livelihood and environmental outcomoes of nontimber
forest product trade in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Ecology and Society 11:Article
20.

Maraseni, T., G. Shivakoti, G. Cockfield, and A. Apan. 2006. Nepalese non-timber forest
products: An analysis of the equitability of profit distribution across a supply chain to
India. Small-Scale Forestry 5:191-206.

Marcus, R. 2001. Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Integrated Conservation and Development
Projects and Local Perceptions of Conservation in Madagascar. Human Ecology 29:381-
397.

Mayaka, T. B., T. Hendricks, J. Wesseler, and H. H. T. Prins. 2005. Improving the benefits of
wildlife harvesting in Northern Cameroon: a co-management perspective. Ecological
Economics 54:67-80.









Mehta, J. N., and J. T. Heinen. 2001. Does Community-Based Conservation Shape Favorable
Attitudes Among Locals? An Empirical Study from Nepal. Environmental Management
28:165-177.

Muriithi, S., and W. Kenyon. 2002. Conservation of biodiversity in the Arabuko Sokoke Forest,
Kenya. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:1437-1450.

New, T. R. 1994. Butterfly ranching: Sustainable use of insects and sustainable benefit to
habitats. Oryx 28:169-172.

Newmark, W. D. 2002. Conserving Biodiversity in East African Forests: A Study of the Eastern
Arc Mountains. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Newmark, W. D., and J. L. Hough. 2000. Conserving Wildlife in Africa: Integrated Conservation
and Development Projects and Beyond. BioScience 50:585-592.

Oates, J. F. 1995. The dangers of conservation by rural development a case-study from the
forests of Nigeria. Oryx 29:115-122.

Oates, J. F. 1999. Myth and Reality in the Rainforest: How Conservation Strategies Are Failing
in West Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Peter, R. W., R. B. Steven, L. F. Crystal, and C. W. Patrick. 2002. Reinventing a Square Wheel:
Critique of a Resurgent "Protection Paradigm" in International Biodiversity
Conservation. Society & Natural Resources 15:17-40.

Peters, C. M., A. H. Gentry, and R. 0. Mendelsohn. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest.
Nature 339:655-656.

Reyes, T., R. Quiroz, and S. Msikula. 2005. Socio-economic comparison between traditional and
improved cultivation methods in agroforestry systems, East Usambara Mountains,
Tanzania. Environmental Management 36:682-690.

Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffussion of Innovations. Free Press, New York.

Salafsky, N., H. Cauley, G. Balachander, B. Cordes, J. Parks, C. Margoluis, S. Bhatt, C.
Encarnacion, D. Russell, and R. Margoluis. 2001. A Systematic Test of an Enterprise
Strategy for Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology
15:1585-1595.

Salafsky, N., and E. Wollenberg. 2000. Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A Conceptual
Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs and Biodiversity.
World Development 28:1421-1438.

Schultz, P. W. 2002. Knowledge, information, and household recycling: examining the
knowledge-deficit model of behavior change in T. Dietz, and P. C. Stern, editors. New
Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information and Voluntary Measures.
National Research Council, Washington D.C.









Shackleton, C. M. 2001. Re-examining local and market-orientated use of wild species for the
conservation of biodiversity. Environmental Conservation 28:270-278.

Slone, T. H., L. J. Orsak, and 0. Malver. 1997. A comparison of price, rarity and cost of
butterfly specimens: Implications for the insect trade and for habitat conservation.
Ecological Economics 21:77-85.

Stem, C. J., J. P. Lassoie, D. R. Lee, D. D. Deshler, and J. W. Schelhas. 2003. Community
Participation in Ecotourism Benefits: The Link to Conservation Practices and
Perspectives. Society & Natural Resources 16:387.

Stern, P. C. 2000. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior: Toward
a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues
56:407-424.

Stocking, M., and S. Perkin. 1992. Conservation-with-Development: An Application of the
Concept in the Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers 17:337-349.

Struhsaker, T. T. 1998. A Biologist's Perspective on the Role of Sustainable Harvest in
Conservation. Conservation Biology 12:930-932.

Terborgh, J. 1999. Requim for Nature. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Vihemaki, H. 2005. Politics of Participatory Forest Conservation: Cases from the East Usambara
Mountains, Tanzania. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 4:1-16.

Wells, M. P., and T. O. McShane. 2004. Integrating Protected Area Management with Local
Needs and Aspirations. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 33:513-519.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Theron Morgan-Brown was born in 1977 in a cabin near Oregon City. He spent the

majority of his childhood in Bandon, Oregon and graduated valedictorian from Bandon High

School in 1996. Theron went on to earn a B.A. in biology from Lewis and Clark College in

Portland, Oregon in 2000. He first traveled to East Africa as a student in 1998 and then returned

in 2001, when he was awarded a Fulbright Fellowship to conduct research in Tanzania.

In Tanzania, Theron investigated the feasibility of using butterfly farming as economic

incentive to promote forest conservation in the East Usambara Mountains. Based on the results

of this research, Theron went on to found The Amani Butterfly Project in 2003, Tanzania's first

butterfly farming enterprise that helps hundreds of rural households farm and export butterfly

pupae to live butterfly exhibits in Europe and the US.

After completing his M.S. program in interdisciplinary ecology, Theron plans to pursue a

Ph.D. in the same program. In the long run, Theron plans to return to Tanzania with his wife,

Jacqueline Kweka, to continue to explore the synergies between rural economic development

and biological conservation in Africa.





PAGE 1

1 BUTTERFLY FARMING AND CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR IN THE EAST USAMBARA MOUNTAINS OF TANZANIA By THERON MORGAN-BROWN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Theron Morgan-Brown

PAGE 3

3 To my amazing parents and wonderful wife

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study would not have been possible withou t assistance I received from the Tropical Conservation and Development Program, Tanzan ia Forest Conservation Group, Amani Butterfly Project, Dr. Susan Jacobson, Dr. Kenneth Wal d, Dr. Brian Child, Amiri Saidi, Victoria Mwaifunga, Christina Misana, and David Loserian.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. .........6 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ ........7 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... .............8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................10 2 METHODS...................................................................................................................... ....15 Study Site..................................................................................................................... ........15 Data Collection................................................................................................................ ....16 Survey Instrument Design....................................................................................................16 Conservation Behavior and Related Measures....................................................................17 Other Measures................................................................................................................. ...18 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. .....19 3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... ......21 Butterfly Farming and Forest Conservation........................................................................21 Conservation Behavior and Components.............................................................................21 Demographics................................................................................................................... ...23 Butterfly Income and Predictors of Conservation Behavior................................................24 4 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ...27 Butterfly Farmers and Conservation Behavior....................................................................27 The Role of Organizations and Institutions.........................................................................30 Lessons........................................................................................................................ .........32 APPENDIX A AMANI BUTTERFLY PROJEC T 2006 SURVEY QUESTIONN AIRE (SWAHILI)......37 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. .51 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH........................................................................................................55

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Mann-Whitney U test comparisons of median scor es for butterfly farmers and the control group for the conservation be havior scale and related scales. ...............................22 3-2 Mann-Whitney U test comparisons of the percen t of butterfly farmers and the control group participating in specific conservation behaviors. .......................................22 3-3 Socio-demographic differences between butterfly farmers and the control group. ..........23 3-4 Linear regression models of partic ipation in conserva tion behavior using simultaneous entry of all variables ...................................................................................26

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Table page 3-1 Butterfly farmer beliefs about but terfly farming and forest conservation. .......................21 3-2 Mean conservation behavior scores by the rank of butterfly income among household income sources (error bars show 95% confidence intervals). ..........................25

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science BUTTERFLY FARMING AND CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR IN THE EAST USAMBARA MOUNTAINS OF TANZANIA By Theron Morgan-Brown December 2007 Chair: Susan Jacobson Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology The commercialization of non-timber forest produ cts has been proposed to strengthen the link between biological conserva tion and economic development in forest adjacent communities, but is also associated with uns ustainable harvesting. A compromi se solution is to use natural forests as a source of seeds and genetic diversit y required for intensive production of non-timber forest products in nearby communities. I assessed this approach by evaluating a new conservation and development project involving the commercialization of butterflies in the Ea st Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. I compared 150 butterfly farmers and a matched control group of 170 non-butterfly farmers on their strength of support for conservation, knowle dge of conservation behavior, perception of ability to aid conservation, a nd self-reported participation in conservation behavior. I found that butterfly farmers were signifi cantly more likely to express support for conservation, believe in their ability to help conservation, and partic ipate in conservation behavior. Knowledge of conserva tion behavior was not significan tly different between butterfly farmers and non-butterfly farmers. Multivariate regr ession analysis demonstrated that the rank of butterfly farming income among household sources was an important predictor of conservation behavior.

PAGE 9

9 While butterfly farming only relies on natural fo rests for a few inputs, these inputs appear sufficient to link butterfly farming to forest cons ervation. Butterfly farming, as practiced in this project, is an example of how forest conservation can be prom oted by linking limited harvest of non-timber forest products from natural forests with cultivation of the same products in adjacent communities.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Conservation scientists hold di verse views regarding the role of economic development in biodiversity conservation in the developing world. Some scientis ts believe that development benefits are critical to win th e support of local people for conser vation efforts (Peter et al. 2002; Wells & McShane 2004). For other scientists, the tw o goals are fundamentally different and best approached as separate issues (Oates 1995, 1999; Struhsaker 1998; Terb orgh 1999). However, in the minds of many conservationists, the di sappointing results of many conservation and development projects are due to a failure to implement key principles and understand wider institutional relationships rather than a failure of the concept itself (A dams & Hulme 2001; Peter et al. 2002; Wells & McShane 2004). A challenge in many conservation and developm ent projects is the te nuous or non-existent link between development benefits and conser vation (Newmark & Hough 2000). Consequently, the sustainable harvest of non-timber forest produ cts (NTFPs) has been advocated as a way to create a clear link between forest conservation and development (Peters et al. 1989; Shackleton 2001). However, the actual experience with many NT FPs has been discouraging. The majority of NTFPs don’t result in substantiall y increased income for rural peoples, and when they do the harvesting levels are often unsustainable (Arn old & Perez 2001; Belche r et al. 2005; Blaise Paquit & Edwin J 1997; Kusters et al. 2006). Furthe rmore, some researchers argue that the long term trend for the most valuable NTFPs is dom estication and that domes tication will diminish the economic incentive to conserve NTFPs in situ (Arnold & Perez 2001; Crook & Clapp 2001). Additionally, they argue that NTFP producers who are dependen t on natural forests will be at a competitive disadvantage compared to producers who rely on domesticated sources (Crook & Clapp 1998).

PAGE 11

11 This study evaluates the Amani Butterfly Proj ect, a project of the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, in the East Usambara Mountai ns of Tanzania. The project uses the limited harvest of adult butterflies and their host plants from natura l forests to support commercial butterfly farming in adjacent communities. Ther efore, unlike full domestication, this system maintains a linkage between farming and the fo rest. Individual farmers capture wild female butterflies and place them in ne t cages with host plants for egg laying. Since these captive populations are often built with only a few females, farmers periodically add wild male butterflies to maintain genetic di versity. In order to feed their butterfly larvae, which are host plant specific, farmers also grow host plants collec ted from the forest edge as seeds or seedlings. Gordon and Ayiemba (2003) describe the farming pr ocess of a similar project in more detail. The Amani Butterfly Project1 provides technical advice and e ssential marketing services. It buys pupae from member farmers and sells them pr imarily to live butterfly exhibits in Europe and the US, with lesser sells of dried specimens to internet specimen dealers. The project’s finances and marketing are managed by project st aff members employed by the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, while the project’s politic s and prices are dete rmined by an elected committee of butterfly farmers. Annual sales from the project have incr eased each year from $20,000 USD in 2004 to $50,000 USD in 2006. Sixty-five percent of the pr oject’s earnings go dire ctly to 300 member farmers and 7% accrue to a village developm ent fund, which is controlled by the elected committee of butterfly farmers and used for pr ojects like school buildings. Baseline income surveys conducted in 2003 and subs equent sales data indicate that participating households have increased their annual income by about 20%. Of the 21 sub-village farming groups that began farming butterflies in 2002, all but two were still active at the time of this study and the project is 1 For more information see www.amanibutte rflyproject.org

PAGE 12

12 currently adding 5 more groups. An important characteristic of butterfly farmi ng is that is requires diversity. Butterfly farmers that can produce a wide va riety of species can ship their pupae directly to live butterfly exhibits, which is more profitable than shippi ng to pupae suppliers. Ther efore, butterflies are unlike many non-timber forest products, where co mmercialization typica lly leads to species specialization (Belcher et al. 2005). Additionally, because butterf lies are host plant specific, the farming process links each butterfly species to a different host plant. Members of the Amani Butterfly Project use more than 30 species of na tive trees, shrubs, herb s, and lianas in their butterfly farming operations. Butterfly farming as practiced in this proj ect differs somewhat with the “butterfly ranching” practiced in Papua New Guinea (New 1994). Ranching operations are more dependent on wild butterfly populations because they do not keep adult butte rflies in enclos ures. Butterfly farming is more desirable for the live pupae trad e because netted enclosures reduce the risk of disease and parasitism in pupae and allow the produ cer to better track the age of his or her pupae. However, farmers in the Amani Butterfly Project s till depend on the forest as a source of genetic diversity for their captive populations and as a source of younger host plants, which are often more desirable for egg-laying and feeding young larvae. As invertebrates, butterflies ha ve a rapid reproductive rate, a key criteria for linking NTFP harvesting to conservation (Crook & Clapp 1998). In the case of butterfly farming, this means there is not only a reduced chance of over-harvesti ng, but also little need for harvesting in the first place since just a few female butterflies can rapidly produce very large captive populations. Furthermore, since butterfly pupae are widely disp ersed and cryptic in the wild, it is easier to farm pupae than harvest them from the wild. Si milarly, in the case dried specimens, it is much easier to obtain perfect, undama ged specimens through farming than by wild harvest. A study of

PAGE 13

13 butterfly farming in Kenya concluded that ther e was no indication of a negative effect on wild butterfly populations (Gordon & Ayiemba 2003). It is also unlikely that farming will have a negative impact on host plants sin ce most of the plants are rem oved from the forest boundaries, which are frequently cleared as fire breaks. Thus, butterfly farming appears ecologically sustainable. The second critical question, which is the focu s of this study, is whether or not the link between butterfly farming and forest conservatio n is strong enough to change people’s behaviors in a way that will benefit conservation. The corollary of its light ecological footprint is that most of the value of butterfly farming is created outside of the forest. As farmers develop their skill to maintain captive butterfly popula tions and host plant nurseries, the necessity of accessing the forest is diminished. Furthermore, in order for the linkage to be transl ated into conservation behavior, butterfly farmers must believe that the income they receive from butterfly farming is sufficient to cover the opportunity costs of engaging in conserva tion behavior. This study is the first to examine the relationship between but terfly farming and conservation behavior. I tested the following three hypotheses: 1. Butterfly farmers believe that forest cons ervation is essential for butterfly farming. 2. Butterfly farmers will participate in more conservation behavior than a non-butterfly farming control group 3. Income from butterfly farming will be posit ively associated with participation in conservation behaviors. In addition to economic motivation, whether or not butterfly farmers choose to participate in conservation behaviors is also contingent on their belief that the behaviors will be effective (Ajzen 2002; Stern 2000), knowledg e of the behaviors (Schultz 2002), and general attitudes about forest conservation (Ajzen 1985). For instance, butterfly farm er’s can help prevent illegal forest uses that might compete with butterfly farming by participating in village environmental

PAGE 14

14 committees that help enforce forest laws. Ho wever, butterfly farmers might choose not to participate in the committees or engage in other conservation behaviors if th ey believed that their behaviors will be futile because of the actions of others. Therefore, I also examined widely accepted behavioral components. Because there is no baseline data regarding conservation behavior in these communities prior to the project’s start da te, I used non-butterfly farmers from the same communities as a control group. To control for se lf-selection bias among butterfly fa rmers, I also asked butterfly farmers about why they joined th e project and tracked demographi c variables that might reveal preexisting differences between butterfly farmers and non-butterfly farmers.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 METHODS Study Site The two villages chosen for the study, Msasa a nd Kwezitu, are highland vi llages in the East Usambara Mountains at 800 to 1000 m ASL and ar e two of the most successful villages in the Amani Butterfly Project. The villages are fairly similar, consisting of mostly Sambaa people and are about 50% Muslim and 50% Ch ristian. They are long establishe d villages with 84% of adult residents claiming to having been born in the area or to have lived in the area for more than 20 years. More than 90% of people in these two villages earn income and subsist from agriculture. The primary crops in the area are corn, cassava, banana beans, sugar cane cardamom cloves cinnamon black pepper and small holder tea (Reyes et al. 2005). Due to the combination of steep slopes, heavy rainfall, and relatively poor soils, many of the current agricultural practices are unsustainable (Reyes et al. 2005). Some house holds also have livestock including chickens, cows, and goats. About 20% of households in th ese two villages earn income from farming butterflies. The East Usambara Mountains are a priority area for conservation wi thin the Eastern Arc Biodiversity Hotspot (Burgess et al. 2007) a nd have a long history of conservation and development projects of limited success (Stock ing & Perkin 1992). Msasa and Kwezitu border several official forest reserves. Kwezitu also has a community forest reserve. Villagers are allowed to access the forest rese rves for firewood and medicinal plants twice a week. All other uses of forest reserves are prohi bited (except for butterfly farmi ng activities), but there are still numerous threats to the forest including agri cultural encroachment, illegal cutting, fire, and charcoal production (Newmark 2002). On house hold land, cutting trees for timber must be

PAGE 16

16 approved by district forest offi cials, and in practice timber pro cessing of many species is never approved (Vihemki 2005). However, this restrict ion is meaningless because clearing household land for agriculture does not need to be approve d. The Division of Forestry and Beekeeping is responsible for enforcing forest regulations, but the presence of forest officers is limited. Therefore, the government relies greatly on villa ge environmental committees to help enforce forest regulations (Vihemki 2005). Data Collection The treatment sample consisted of 150 bu tterfly-farmers drawn at random from the Amani Butterfly Project’s list of registered butterfly farmers. This represented about 85% of all officially registered butterfly farmers in the two villages. The control sample of 170 households was drawn at random from village government household lists not including households with butterfly farming income. This represented 22% of eligible households. Using the AAPOR’s reporting guidelines (American Association for Public Opinion Research 2006), Contact Rate 1 for butterfly farmers was 95% and the Cooperatio n Rate 1 was 99%. The Contact Rate 1 for the control was 90% and the Cooperation Rate 1 was 99%. The survey for this study was conducted in June and July of 2006. The survey questionnaire was administered in Swahili in f ace to face interviews by two graduates from the University of Dar es Salaam’s Environmental Studies Program with no prior connection to the study area. They asked local reside nts to help locate individuals on the sample lis ts and made up to three attempts to locate in terviewees. Before each interview, the interviewers read a brief consent statement asking for permission to cond uct the interview and informing the respondent that their name would not be reco rded on the questionnaire forms. Survey Instrument Design The survey questionnaire was written in E nglish by a native Englis h speaker and then

PAGE 17

17 translated into Swahili by a native Swahili speak er. The survey was then back-translated by a second native Swahili speaker to insure the correct transla tion of concepts. I revised the 63 item survey instrument afte r it was reviewed by the institutional review board of the University of Flor ida and the manager of the Amani Butterfly Project. I also pretested the survey with 10 respondents from tw o neighboring villages not included in the study and revised questions that respondents in the pretest phase found unclear. Conservation Behavior and Related Measures I assessed conservation behavior using 12 questions. However, after a Cronbach’s scale analysis, I removed 4 items that were not related to other items in the scale. The 8 remaining questions examined participati on in village environmental comm ittee meetings, tree planting on household land, preserving forested parts of household farmland, part icipation in tree planting on village land, reporting illegal beha vior, and discouraging illegal be havior. All the questions were framed at the household level and measured reporte d behavior in the previous 12 months prior to the interview. The specific quantif ied responses were ranked into 4 categories that were scored from 0 (no participation in behavior) to 3 (a bove average participation in behavior). The standardized Cronbach’s al pha for the scale was 0.74. I assessed support for conservation using eight questions. Howe ver, after analyzing the scales Cronbach’s alpha I excluded two variables th at were not related to other items in the scale. Each question had 3 or 4 discrete answers repr esenting different degrees of support. The six questions included in the scale asked about the size of protect ed areas, timber cutting, pole cutting, illegal timber cutting in a forest reserv e, the creation of a new forest reserve, and whether or not farmers should be obliged to report illegal activities to co nservation authorities. The standardized Cronbach’s alpha fo r the final scale was 0.55. To access beliefs about ability to aid conservation I asked respondents if they believed

PAGE 18

18 there were things they could do to aid conserva tion. I also asked about th e effectiveness of tree planting, environmentally friendly building, local c onservation officials, other butterfly farmers, and participation in village environmental commi ttees. Each question had 3 or 4 discrete answers with scores ranging from 0 to 3. Since not sure responses conveyed a lack of confidence in effectiveness, they were treated as negative resp onses. The standardized Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.63. I examined knowledge of conservation behaviors by asking about knowledge of environmentally friendly forms of house cons truction, knowledge about the importance of house construction materials, and knowledge of cons ervation friendly wood. These four questions formed an index with each corre ct answer receiving 1 point. Other Measures To test whether butterfly farmers thought ther e is a direct relations hip between butterfly farming and forest conservation, I asked butterf ly farmers four questions examining their perceptions of threats to forest s and butterfly farming. To better understand any selection bias among people who chose to become butterfly farm ers, I asked butterfly farmers to name three reasons for joining the butterfly pr oject in an open ended question. In addition to recording whether or not the respondent was a butterf ly farmer, butterfly farmer status was also evaluated using the rank of butterfly farming as a source of income among household income sources. Butterfly income rank scor es ranged from 0 (butterfly income is not a part of household income) to 3 (butterfly inco me is the first source of household income). To better understand any differences between butterfly farmers and the matched control group, I asked demographic questions including th e respondents’ gender, ag e, education level, ethnicity, length of residency in the area, number of close frie nds and relatives that farm butterflies, and participation in other conservation and development projects. Wealth was

PAGE 19

19 measured by the number of hectares and cows owned by household. Data Analysis I sampled 85% of butterfly farmers, which is a lower sampling error than assumed by most statistical tests. Therefore, my results, whic h are unadjusted for the low sampling error, are conservative. I used Mann-Whitney U tests to detect differences between butterfly farmers and the control sample when the dependent variab les were ordinal or nominal. For demographic comparisons involving multiple ordinal variables, I used Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Additionally, I used Spearman’s rank correlations (Spearman’s r ) to determine associations between nominal and ordinal variables. I used cas e-wise deletion for these first an alyses. I then ran a simultaneous entry linear regression m odel of conservation behavior incl uding all demographic and behavior component variables. For this an alysis, I treated conservation beha vior as a continuous variable. I plotted the residuals and did not find any serious departures fro m normality or constant variance for the conservation behavior scale. The conservation behavior scale and the percep tions of ability to aid conservation scale contained significant amounts of missing data. For the conservation behavior scale, interviewer error on two variables re sulted in a 38% reduction in data using list-wise deletion. To test whether or not missing data influenced the results of this study, I used the multiple imputation procedure available in SAS 9.1 known as PROC MI to generate appropri ate values for missing data using the MCMC method. Sinc e most of the variables for th e conservation behavior scale are complete for each case, the imputed values generally only represent one or two missing variables in the eight variable scale. Thus, im puting values allows for the examination of a greater proportion of complete data than list-wise deletion. I included all variables in the imputation model and bound the imputations to values appropriate for the variable bei ng imputed. Given that most of the missing data was in only two

PAGE 20

20 variables within an eight variable scale and th at less than 10% of data was missing from other variables, I felt that it was r easonable to create 10 imputati ons (Fichman & Cummings 2003). I used PROC MIANALYZE to combine regression an alysis results for th e 10 imputed datasets. The results are presented in the regression analysis of conservation behavior and compared to the results obtained with list-wise deletion.

PAGE 21

21CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Butterfly Farming and Forest Conservation A majority of butterfly farmers see a strong relationship between their ability to farm butterflies and forest conservation (Figure 3-1). Eighty-seven percent belie ved cutting timber or poles was very dangerous for wild butterflies and their host plants. Seventy-three percent reported that living near the forest was very he lpful for butterfly farming and 81% said that it would be very difficult to continue farming butterf lies if the forests in their area were cleared. This 81% of butterfly farmers also scored highe r on the conservation beha vior scale than other butterfly farmers (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.043). Figure 3-1. Butterfly farmer beliefs about butterfly farming and forest conservation. Conservation Behavior and Components Butterfly farmers reported gr eater participation in cons ervation behavior, support for conservation, and belief in thei r ability to influence conservati on than the control, even though they did not report grea ter knowledge of conservation behavior s than the control (Table 3-1). On specific behaviors within the conservation be havior scale, butterfly farmers were more 020406080100 How difficult would it be to farm butterflies if forests are cleared? How helpful is living near forest for butterfly farming? Is pole cutting dangerous for wild butterflies and host plants? Is tree cutting dangerous for wild butterflies and host plants? Very Somewhat NotPercent response

PAGE 22

22 likely than the control group to be environm ental committee members, attend environmental committee meetings, plant non-timber tree species, part icipate in village tree planting activities, preserve household land as forest, and discourag e illegal cutting (Table 3-2). Butterfly farmers were not significantly more likely than the cont rol group to plant timber species or report illegal cutting to authorities (Table 3-2). Table 3-1. Mann-Whitney U test comparisons of median scor es for butterfly farmers and the control group for the conservation be havior scale and related scales. Butterfly Farmers Control Group Variable N Median Score n Median Score M-W U p Conservation behavior participation 87 11 94 6.5 2386 <0.001 Support for conservation 128 16 129 15 6476 0.003 Belief in ability to aid conservation 139 15 144 12 5395 <0.001 Conservation behavior knowledge 128 3 130 3 7558 0.188 Table 3-2. Mann-Whitney U test comparisons of the percent of butterfly farmers and the control group participating in specifi c conservation behaviors. Butterfly Farmers Control Group Variable N % n % M-W U p Environmental committee member 139 71 150 44 7587 <0.001 Environmental committee attendance 107 80 103 60 4398 0.001 Non-timber tree planting on household land 124 90 136 68 6588 <0.001 Timber tree planting on household land 123 57 127 46 6932 0.076 Tree planting on village land 132 56 150 32 7518 <0.001 Preserving household land as forest 135 45 149 31 8618 0.013 Discouraging illegal cutting 135 57 150 31 7455 <0.001 Reporting illegal cutting 134 17 148 14 9621 0.494 Forty percent of butte rfly farmers mentioned conservation as a reason for becoming a butterfly farmer. This group scored higher on the conservation behavior scale and the conservation knowledge index than other butterfly farmers (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.010, p = 0.002 respectively), but did not score higher on the beli ef in effectiveness and support for conservation scales. However, butterfly farmers that did not report conservation as an original motivation for joining the project still reported more participation in cons ervation behaviors than non-butterfly

PAGE 23

23 farmers (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.007). Demographics Butterfly farmers were not significantly differe nt from the control group in age, religion, ethnicity, gender, length of re sidency, number of adults in household, number of adult contributors to household income, children in ho usehold or household cow ownership. However, butterfly farmers owned slightly more land, participated in a gr eater number of other conservation and development projects, and had more close friends and relatives who farmed butterflies (Table 3-3). Also, a gr eater percentage of butterfly farmers completed primary school and were aware of the Amani Butterfly Projec t’s community development fund (Table 3-3). Table 3-3. Socio-demographic differences betw een butterfly farmers and the control group. Butterfly Farmers Control Group Variable n Median or % n Median or % M-W U p % completed primary school 140 78% 150 61% 8796 0.001 Acres owned 131 5 144 4 8054 0.036 Other conservation & development projects participated 140 2 152 1 8005 <0.001 % aware of project village development fund 140 26% 151 6% 8406 <0.001 Close friends & relatives who farm butterflies 140 5 150 3 6402 <0.001 Butterfly farmers also had more diversified income sources. Ninety-five percent of the control group and 73% of butterfly farmers said that agriculture was their primary source of household income. Twenty-four per cent of butterfly farmers reporte d that butterfly farming was their primary source of income. Fifty-six percen t of butterfly farmers reported that butterfly farming was the second most important source of income in their households; where as 59% of the control group did not report a secondary income source. The 40.1% of butterfly farmers who reported co nservation as a motivation for joining the project were significantly more educated than other butterf ly farmers (93% vs. 70%, Mann-

PAGE 24

24 Whitney, p = 0.001), and were also more likely to have participated in other conservation and development projects (Mann-Whitney, p =.024). However, among butterfly farmers, butterfly income rank was not correlated with conservation motivation for joining, primary school completion, or land ownership. Participation in other conservation and development products was somewhat negatively associated with butterfly income rank (Krusk al-Wallis, chi square = 7.54, p = 0.057). Butterfly Income and Predictors of Conservation Behavior Butterfly income rank was more strongly correl ated with the conservation behavior scale than butterfly farmer status (Spearman’s r = 0.40, p < 0.0001 vs. r = 0.36, p < 0.0001), but the two variables were highl y covariate (Spearman’s r = 0.937, p < 0.0001). A bar chart of butterfly income rank and conservation behavior shows an increase in conserva tion behavior for each increase in butterfly income rank (Figure 3-2). To see if the relationship between income a nd conservation behavior remained significant while controlling for all other variables in the study, I ran a linear regression model of conservation behavior using simultaneous entry of all demographic variables and behavior component variables included in the survey (Table 3-4). In the regression analysis of conservation beha vior using list-wise deletion of cases with missing values (150 cases out of 292), th e model was significant (Adjusted R2 = 0.35, F = 5.80, p < 0.0001). The explanatory variable s significant at the 0.05 level we re butterfly income rank and belief in ability to aid conservation. As described in the data anal ysis section, I reran the linear regression model after using multiple imputations to impute missing values (Tab le 3-4). Similarly to the first analysis, the model using the full data set was significant (Adjusted R2 = 0.34, F = 10.14, p < 0.0001). Butterfly income rank and belief in ability to aid conservation remained significant explanatory

PAGE 25

25 variables. Many variables that were nearly si gnificant in the list-wise deletion model were significant in the post imputation model. These included length of respondent residency, the log transformation of acres owned, participation in other conservation and development projects, conservation support, and knowledge of conserva tion behaviors. Knowledge of the project’s development fund was nearly significant. Figure 3-2. Mean conservation beha vior scores by the rank of butterfly income among household income sources (error bars show 95% confidence intervals). no butterfly income 3rdor below 2nd1st 0 5 10 15Pro-conservation behavior score n=94n=14n=48n=25 Rank of butterfly income

PAGE 26

26 Table 3-4. Linear regression models of participat ion in conservation beha vior using simultaneous entry of all variables Conservation behavior (list-wise deletion) n = 142 Conservation behavior (multiple imputation) n = 292 Independent Variables B p B p Butterfly income rank 1.43 0.0002 1.18 < 0.0001 Number other conservation and development projects participated 0.55 0.1180 0.75 0.0015 Number of friends and family who farm butterflies 0.01 0.8851 -0.03 0.6527 Aware of project development fund 0.42 0.6212 1.26 0.0517 Support for conservation 0.22 0.0720 0.23 0.0101 Belief in ability to aid conservation 0.42 0.0024 0.19 0.0108 Conservation behavior knowledge 0.33 0.3776 0.46 0.0261 Age 0.01 0.8437 -0.02 0.4045 Male 0.38 0.6027 0.56 0.2544 Sambaa ethnicity 0.61 0.4734 0.26 0.6309 Completed primary school -0.58 0.5819 -0.46 0.4752 Length of residency 0.74 0.1034 0.61 0.0351 Muslim -0.21 0.7803 0.25 0.6077 Household size 0.11 0.2785 0.09 0.1448 Own Cow(s) 0.16 0.8426 -0.01 0.9873 Log transformation of acres owned 0.64 0.1829 0.70 0.0161 Model R2 0.35 0.34 Model F score 5.80 10.14 Model p value < 0.0001 < 0.0001

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Butterfly Farmers and Conservation Behavior In support of my first hypothesis, a strong majo rity of butterfly farmers see a clear link between their ability to farm butte rflies and the preservation of natural forests (Figure 3-1). This result shows that partial dome stication does not lead butterfly farmers to conclude that in situ preservation is unnecessary. I also found that bu tterfly farmers who recognized the conservation linkage were more likely to participate in c onservation behavior than the small minority of butterfly farmers who believed they could continue to farm butterf lies in the absence of forests. Similarly, a meta-analysis of conservation and de velopment projects conc luded that butterfly farming was likely to have a strong link to conservation (Salafs ky & Wollenberg 2000). However, their conclusion was based on expert opini on rather than project participant beliefs and this may partly explain why they did not find an association between conservation linkage and threat reduction in a macro-level study of 39 di fferent conservation and development initiatives including 2 butterfly farming initiatives (Sal afsky et al. 2001; Salafsky & Wollenberg 2000). In support of my second hypothesis, butterfly farmers reported more participation in conservation behavior than non-butte rfly farmers (Table 3-1), and th is relationship held true for 7 of the 8 conservation behaviors measured on th e conservation behavior scale (Table 3-2). Butterfly farmers also expressed greater support for conservation and believed more in their ability to aid conservation th an the control (Table 3-1). I found a paucity of studies with which to compare my findings, both with regard to butterfly farming and to non-timber forest products in general. Butterfly farming in Kenya was associated with an increase in support for conservation among butterfly farmers and some evaluations of non-timber forest product co mmercialization schemes have found a positive

PAGE 28

28 relationship between participat ion and attitudinal support for conservation (Gordon & Ayiemba 2003; Mehta & Heinen 2001). However, in bo th the NTFP literature and more general conservation and development literature, studies examining behavior are rare. In a recent review article that examined attitude and behavioral success in conser vation and development projects, the authors reported that they excluded 80% of the 124 conservation and development project articles they reviewed due to la ck of data (Brooks et al. 2006). I reviewed the ar ticles they did include and found that many of them lacked quant ifiable behavioral measures as well. Several recent studies report a positive relationship between conservation behavior and conservation projects (Abbot et al. 2001; Ho lmes 2003; Stem et al. 2003). Howe ver, almost no studies provide a control or baseline data with which to evaluate behavior findings. The use of baseline data or a control group is unfortunately th e exception rather than the ru le in current conservation and development research. The results of the regression analysis (Tab le 3-4) also indicat e a strong relationship between butterfly farming and conservation behavi or. While land ownership and participation in other conservation and development projects are pr edictors of conservation behavior, they do not interfere with butterfly income rank as a unique predictor of conserva tion behavior. Figure 3-2 shows an increase in conservation behavior for each butterfly income rank increase, which is consistent with my third hypothesis; that but terfly farmers recognize economic incentives for engaging in conservation behavior. I did not find any published studies that di rectly examined the relationship between conservation income dependency and participatio n in conservation behavior. Salafsky et al. (2001) examined the relationship between the percent of average household incomes obtained from conservation-related enterprises and succes s of conservation and development projects. However, their analysis was conducted at the macr o-level using threat reduction assessment and

PAGE 29

29 therefore was not sensitive to conservation inco me differences within projects. From their macro-oriented view, they concluded that othe r factors in addition to income were more important determinants of conservation and develo pment project success. Given the high rate of failure among the projects they studied, this conc lusion seems reasonable. However, my results suggest that income generation should not be disregarded. Although many other authors have arrived at a similar conclusi on with limited data (Abbot et al. 2001; Marcus 2001; Newmark & Hough 2000) the chart of butterfly income rank and conservation behavior (Figure 32) illustrates very clearly that minor livelihood improvements are unlikely to create substantial changes in behavior. Butterfly fa rmers with the lowest butterfly income rank score did not report significantly mo re conservation behavior than the control. However, the chart also indicates that cons ervation linked income s ources need not be a household’s primary income source in order to pr omote significant behavior change. Households that rank butterfly farming as their second most important source of inco me (56% of butterfly farmers) report significantly gr eater participation in conserva tion behaviors than non-butterfly farmers, even though butterflies probab ly make up only 20% of their income. In the absence of baseline data, I examine competing explanations for my findings. The comparison of demographic variables shows that butterfly farmers ranke d higher in education, land ownership, and participati on in conservation and developm ent projects (not including butterfly farming). Even though butterfly farmin g does not require land ow nership or education, the economic security that these factors provide may have allowed early butterfly farmers to be more entrepreneurial and take risks. Therefore, it is possible that some butterfly farmers represent what are described as “ early adopters” in the theory of diffusion of innovation (Rogers 1995). This finding seems to agree with other findi ngs that rural households try to maintain a diversified economic strategy and are unlikely to concentrate too heavily on any one NTFP,

PAGE 30

30 especially if they perceive ri sk (Belcher et al. 2005). Moreove r, given the uneven record of conservation and development projects in the area (Stocking & Perkin 1992), it is not surprising that many residents were initiall y skeptical of butterfly farming. Forty percent of butterfly farm ers mentioned the project’s co nnection to conservation as a reason for joining the project. However, the 60% of butterfly farmers who did not claim conservation as an initial motivation for joining the project also scored significantly higher on the conservation behavior scale than non-but terfly farmers. Additionally, none of the demographic differences between butterfly farmers and the control are associated with butterfly income rank. This is not surprising, because people that own more land, are more educated, and participate in other conservation and development projects are likely to have more diversified incomes and less time to devote to butterfly farming. Therefore, though it appears there are factors that influenced which community members would become butterfly farmers, these factors are not associated with success as a butterfly farmer and do not explain the correlation between the butterfly income rank and partic ipation in conservation behavior. The Role of Organizations and Institutions Probably the most important f actor contributing to the success of the Amani Butterfly Project is the organization itself. Prior to the establishment of the project, a few community members captured butterflies and oc casionally sold them to collectors. However, without the marketing infrastructure, expert ise and organization provided by th e project, the full value of butterfly resources in the area would not have been recognize d by the community. This fact highlights a short-coming in many NTFP case st udy reviews. While they do a good job of characterizing current NTFP situations (Belcher et al. 2005; Crook & Cla pp 1998; Kusters et al. 2006), their conclusions imply that the current ma rket and institutional re alities are fixed. Many of the case studies tend to focus on NTFPs in lo cal markets and miss examples of NTFPs that

PAGE 31

31 have global markets (Shackleton 2001). The Am ani Butterfly Project demonstrates that economically competitive scenarios that empow er rural producers are possible and even necessary. The institution of the Amani Butterfly Project also gives butterfly farmers de facto ownership over butterflies in th eir area, by giving them contro l over the market for butterflies and access to the forest. New members in the proj ect must be approved by existing members. For instance, the original members of the project have recently allowed 100 new farmers from two villages in the area to join the project, but on the condition that th ey only farm species which are not currently produced in sufficient numbers. The project also created a democratic organi zation that brought t ogether roughly 20% of households in these two communities for a comm on purpose. Participation in group butterfly farming activities might explain why butterfly farm ers reported greater confidence in their ability to aid conservation. In effect, butterfly farmers ar e creating new social norms, a key ingredient in conservation behavior (Dietz et al. 2005; Stern 2000). In addition to the survey results presented in this study, there are several examples of bu tterfly farmers engaging in conservation behaviors as a group. Independent of the pr oject’s professional staff, bu tterfly farmers have brought attention to and stopped destruc tive firewood cutting practices by lo cal tea estates. In Msasa/IBC village, butterfly farmers convinced the villa ge to purchase land to create a new community forest reserve using a portion of the village’s development funds awarded by the Amani Butterfly Project. Subsequently, butterfly farmers in Ms asa/IBC have organized a tree planting campaign in Msasa/IBC village aimed at rehabilitating their new village forest reserve. In Kwezitu village, butterfly farmers worked with the environmental committee chairman (who was not a butterfly farmer) to help secure the last remaining portion of unprotected village forest as a village forest reserve that is specifically under the management of butterfly farmers. This has nearly doubled

PAGE 32

32 the original size of Kwezitu village’s forest reserv e. Kwezitu village is cu rrently seeking to have the new forest reserve gazetted as an official village forest re serve under Tanzania’s Community Forest Act. The behavior of butterfly farmers as indivi duals and as a group also illustrates how economic incentives can complement other conser vation actions. Lack of conservation behavior knowledge can be a barrier to participation in conservation behavior (S chultz 2002). In Kwezitu village in particular, the Tanzania Forest C onservation Group built local peoples’ capacity to manage tree nurseries and manage community fore sts long before the crea tion of the butterfly project. Butterfly farming has given these co mmunities increased economic incentive to apply the training and knowledge that TFCG has provided. Salafsky et al. (2001) describe a similar phenome non in their review of what they describe as the “community-based enterprise strategy”. Ma ny of the enterprises that were failures in financial terms reported positive conservation outcomes. The authors concluded that the process of creating a community enterprise was as important as the outcome of the enterprise and that the process can help communities form institutions that empower local communities to manage their resources and create new social norms regarding conservation. In the case of the Amani Butterfly Project, project meetings provided a venue for discussions about conser vation issues in which people were motivated to listen. Lessons Butterfly farming, as practiced by members of the Amani Butterfly Project, provides an alternative model for NTFP harvesting that can successfully link fore st conservation and development goals. Even though actual harvesting fr om the forest is limited and most of the value creation occurs outside of the forest, bu tterfly farmers clearly recognize a connection between their ability to farm butterflies and fo rest conservation. Partial-domestication in this

PAGE 33

33 case appears to be sufficient to create economic motivation for conservation behavior in rural communities and may be replicable in other areas. Butterfly farming and similar ventures will not eradicate poverty. However, the project is advancing development in the East Usambara Mount ains in addition to in creasing the incomes of participating farmers. Predictable monthly butterf ly income enabled project members to create their own SACCOS (savings and cr edit cooperative socie ties), a self loan system that is popular in Tanzania. Villages in the project area have used community development funds awarded by the project to build new primary school buildings. Also, 55% of th e project’s registered farmers are women and 20% of respondents in the survey report using butterfly farming income to send children to secondary school. The linear relationship between conservation be havior and butterfly income rank highlights a potential problem that excessive taxes and f ees can create for integrated conservation and development projects. Members of the Amani Bu tterfly Project are fortunate because at the moment they only pay about 10% of their earning s into the village deve lopment fund. This tax rate is comparable to the village tax rate on cash crops produced in the study area. However, governments often place special fees on nature based products, even when produced on private or community land, because they are viewed as public goods (Maraseni et al. 2006; Mayaka et al. 2005). For instance, under the Tanzanian Wildlife Act 1974, all wi ldlife is the property of the state. The Amani Butterfly Project may shortly be required to pay a $0.10 fee to the Division of Wildlife for every pupa it exports, which would e ffectively double the tax rate paid by member farmers. Higher tax rates may be justified if th e taxes are spent on protecting the resource base, but not when they are simply a means of in creasing general government revenue. The Division of Wildlife has no official presence in the East Usambara Mountains a nd does not share revenue with the Division of Forestry and Beekeepi ng. Therefore, the fees do not serve a local

PAGE 34

34 conservation purpose. Even tax revenue spent in communities on village wide development projects is unlikely to promote the same level of behavior change as di rect individual earnings. The overall effect of such taxe s is to put environmentally frie ndly land uses at a competitive disadvantage and reduce conservation incentive (Child 2000). Though butterfly farming as practiced by the Am ani Butterfly Project and similar projects may be a competitive land use form on small scales, it seems unlikely that butterfly farming can serve as the sole justifica tion for conserving vast forest areas (Muriithi & Kenyon 2002). However, butterfly farming works well alongside protected areas, where butterfly farming does not have to compete with incompatible fo rest uses. Unlike the experience with many domesticated NTFPs (Crook & Clapp 1998), forest dependent butterfly farmers have some competitive advantages over butterfly farmers w ho produce butterflies under fully domesticated conditions. The micro-climate is more favorable and the host plants and butterflies are readily available. These conditions greatly reduce the capital requirements of butterfly farming. Additionally, forest dependent pr oducers have a market advantag e if they can convince buyers that they are stewards of the natural habitat where the butterflies are found. Worldwide butterfly trade was estimated to be $100 million USD in the early 1990’s and is most likely much more now (Slone et al. 1997). Rural communities borde ring protected forests could capture a greater proportion of this market if projects like the Aman i Butterfly Project can successfully market their conservation credentia ls. As is the case with many nature based products, a certification system might help buyers identify conservation friendly suppliers. This may be particularly effective marketing approach for the live butterfly ex hibits because many of the exhibits are attached to zoos and muse ums visited by people w ho are interested in conservation. One of the Amani Butterfly Projec t’s buyers, a major pupae distributor in the UK, advertises that they spend more than £400,000 on pupae each year from projects that promote

PAGE 35

35 development and conservation in the tropics (Calvert 2006). The Aman i Butterfly Project’s database of live butterfly exhibits, which is fa r from complete, currently includes more than 200 live butterfly exhibits. The Xerces society reports that a typical large live butterfly exhibit in the US spends more than $100,000 a year on pupae (Black et al. 2001). The market for butterflies has other potential benefits for conservation. Butterflies, beetles, mantids, spiders, and scorpions are fascinating cr eatures, especially for ch ildren, and interacting with these creatures may help suburban and urba n children develop an appreciation of nature (Basile & White 2000). Conservation ists should encourage live butte rfly exhibits to include more education for the general public about the so urce of their butterflies and the threats to biodiversity in these locations. In sect farming can allow people to interact with nature, whether in live exhibits or as dried specimens, in a way that does not threaten nature while at the same time generating increased worldwide interest in conservation and improving the relationship between rural peopl e and conservation. Butterfly farming is an under-explored topic a nd, in light of my findings, should be further investigated as a means to promote conservation and development. To the best or my knowledge, butterfly farming is an export business in Pa pua New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, the United St ates, Costa Rica, Belize, Peru, Ecuador, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Madagascar, and South Africa. Ho wever, in the past 20 years, most of the handful of published articles on butterfly farming have describe d farming in Kenya and Papua New Guinea (Gordon & Ayiemba 2003; New 1994). Th ere is a great divers ity in the farming practices and institutional structures associated w ith butterfly farming in different countries, and it is unclear how these differences affect its relationship with forest conservation. Perhaps the greatest lesson from this study is that systematic evaluations of conservation and development projects are feasible. My quasi-e xperimental approach with a matched control

PAGE 36

36 group echoes a recent call by prominent conser vation scientists for more experimental evaluations of conservation and development initiatives (Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006). Also, unlike many evaluations which only examine envir onmental attitudes or knowledge (Brooks et al. 2006), my study provides a quantifiable measure of the initiative’s most important outcome – conservation behavior. This is important because attitudes and knowledge ar e not always directly associated with participation in conserva tion behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002) and therefore less representative of behavior changes that may af fect biodiversity conservation. Finally, my system of evaluation demonstrates the advantage of separating project participants into levels of benefit or inte rvention. If the associ ation between conserva tion outcomes and level of intervention or benefit matches the trend se en between project participants and the nonparticipant control, then this st rengthens the case that the intervention is responsible observed differences in conservation outcomes. In my case, the measure was butterfly income rank, but many other measures in addition to income are po ssible, such as amount of training received, or length of membership in the project.

PAGE 37

37 APPENDIX A AMANI BUTTERFLY PROJEC T 2006 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (SWAHILI) Survey Information Date:_______________ Interviewer: ________________ Subvillage: _______________ Tamko litakalo so mwa kwa kila kaya Habari, jina langu ni (jina la mwanafunzi mtanzania). Ninatoka Chuo Kikuu cha Kilimo cha Sokoine na ningependa kukualika kushiriki katika utafiti ninaoufanyia k azi na mtafiti kutoka Chuo Kikuu cha Florida cha Marekani. Lengo la utafiti huu ni kujifunza zaidi kuhusu jinsi watu kama ninyi mnajisikiaje na uhifadhi wa misitu katika milima ya Usambara Mashariki. Tunatembelea kaya mbalimbali 300 na kuwauliza maswali machache ambayo yatachukua dakika 20 hadi 30 ili kuyajibu. Kama utakubali kushiriki, ningependa kukuambia kwamba majibu yako itakuwa ni siri kwasababu sitandika jina lako kwenye karatasi hii (Ujisikie uhuru). Kama hukubali kushiriki katika utafiti huu, hiyo ni sawa pia. Je,unakubali kushiriki?_______________ Tamko litakalo somwa ka ma mhojiwa anakubali Tunapenda sana kufahamu maoni yako, kwa hiyo tafadhali jitahidi kujibu kwa ufasaha iwezekanavyo. Aidha, uwe huru kujibu maswali ha ya kwa namna upendavyo, pamoja na kuweza kuniambia kama huna maoni yoyote au hutaki ku jibu swali fulani. Pia, unaweza kuamua kutoendelea katika utafiti huu wakati wowote ule.

PAGE 38

38 Hisia juu ya Hifadhi Soma kwa mhojiwa: Sasa nita kuuliza maswali kuhusiana na unavyojisikia kuhususiana na vitu fulani fulani. Ninachokihitaji hasa ni kufah amu maoni yako na majibu yote ni sahihi kwa maswali haya. Nitasoma swali na majibu matatu au manne halafu nitaomba jibu lako. Kama huna maoni kuhusiana na swali fulani au huelewi swali fulani, tafadhali nieleze. 1. Je, unadhani kwamba kiasi cha misitu iliyot engwa kwa ajili ya hi fadhi katika eneo hili inatakiwa: a. Ibaki kama ilivyo (2) b. Iongezwe (3) d. Ipunguzwe (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (66) f. Sielewi swali (77) g. Kakataa kujibu (88) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (99) 2. Je, unadhani ni vizuri kwa serikali kuruhusu wa nakijiji wakate miti ya kujengea nyumba zao ndani ya msitu wa hifadhi? a. Ndio, ni vizuri sana (0) b. Ndio, ni vizuri kiasi (1) c. Hapana, siyo vizuri (2) d. Hapana, siyo vizuri kabisa (3) c. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (66) f. Sielewi swali. (77) g.Kakataa kujibu (88) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (99) 3. Je, unadhani ni vizuri kwa serikali kuruhusu wana kijiji wakate miti ya mbao ndani ya msitu wa hifadhi? a. Ndio, ni vizuri sana (0) b. Ndio, ni vizuri kiasi (1) c. Hapana, siyo vizuri (2) d. Hapana, siyo vizuri kabisa (3) c. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali. (7) g.Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 4. Je, unakubaliana au haukubaliani na usemi huu: Kazi ya ziada inahitajika ili kudhibiti ukataji holela wa miti katika misitu ya hifadhi. a. Ndio, nakubaliana kabisa (3) b. Ndio, nakubaliana kiasi (2)

PAGE 39

39 c. Hapana, sikubaliani (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali. (7) g.Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 5. Je, unakubaliana au haukubaliani na usemi huu: Wanavijiji wote wanapaswa kupanda miti katika ardhi yao. a. Ndio, nakubaliana kabisa (3) b. Ndio, nakubaliana kiasi (2) c. Hapana, sikubaliani (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali. (7) g.Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 6. Je, unakubaliana au haukubaliani na usemi huu: Uchanaji mbao sio tatizo katika msitu wa hifadhi wa Derema? a. Sio tatizo kabisa (0) b. Ni tatizo kiasi (1) c. Ni tatizo kubwa (2) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali. (7) g.Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 7. Kwa ujumla unajisikiaje kuhusu eneo jip ya la hifadhi ya msitu wa Derema? a. Umefurahishwa sana (3) b. Umefurahishwa kiasi (2) c. Hujafurahishwa wala Hujakasirishwa (1) d. Umekasirishwa (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali. (7) g. Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 8. Kama jirani yako akimkuta mtu anakata miti kwa ajili ya mbao, je unadhani anapaswa kutoa taarifa kwa afisa wa msitu au kamati ya mazingira? a. Ndio, ni muhimu sana (3) b. Ndio, ni muhimu kiasi (2) c. Hapana, siyo muhimu (0) c. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) d. Sielewi swali. (7)

PAGE 40

40 e.Kakataa kujibu (8) f. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) Tabia ya kujali mazingira Soma kwa mhojiwa: Ahsante sana kwa majibu yako hadi hapa. Sasa nitakuuliza maswali kuhusu shughuli ambazo wewe unashiriki au watu katika kaya yako wanashiriki. Kumbuka kuwa majibu yote ni sahihi. Nitasoma swali halafu nitaomba jibu lako. 9. Je, wewe ama watu wengine wa kaya yako ni wana chama wa Kamati ya Mazingira?______ a. Ndio (3) b. Hapana (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali. (7) g. Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 10.Katika mwaka uliopita, je ni mara ngapi una dhani, wewe ama watu wengine wa kaya yako, walishiriki katika mikutano ya kamati ya mazingira?________ a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 11. Katika mwaka uliopita, je wewe au watu wengi ne wa kaya yako, mlishawahi kupanda miti au mimea ya vipepeo katika ardhi yenu (Siyo kw enye viriba)?_____ na ni miti mingapi?________ a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 12. Je,kati ya miti iliyopandwa, mingapi hai kuwa mdalasini au karafuu au mimea ya vipepeo?_______ a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 13. Je, kaya yako ina mpango au imeanza kulima chai badala ya iliki?_________ a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

PAGE 41

41 14. Je, kaya yako ina eneo la shamba ambalo mmepanga liendelee kuwa msitu?________ni eka ngapi?__________ a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 15. Je wewe au mtu yeyote katika kaya yako mlishawahi kushiriki katika upandaji wa miti kwenye ardhi ya kijiji?_______ na ni ma ra ngapi katika mwaka uliopita________? a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 16. Je, wewe au mtu yeyote wa kaya yako, mlisha wahi kutoa taarifa za uhalifu kwa kamati ya mazingira au afisa wa msitu ndani ya mw aka uliopita_______? Na ni mara ngapi________? a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 17. Katika mwaka uliopita, umeshawahi kumwamb ia jirani yako yeyote asikate miti au mijengo ndani ya msitu wa hifadhi? _________ Mara ngapi_________? a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 18. Chakula kinapikwaje katika kaya yako? a. Jiko la umeme (3) b. Jiko sanifu la kuni linalotunzwa (2) c. Jiko sanifu la kuni lisilotunzwa (1) d. Jiko la mafiga matatu la kuni (0) e. Au jiko la mkaa (0) f. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) g. Sielewi swali (7) h. Kakataa kujibu (8) i. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 19. Je, kaya yako imejenga jengo jipya lolote ndani ya kipindi cha mwaka uliopita? _______ Unaweza kunionesha? _________

PAGE 42

42 a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 20. (Kama utajenga jengo) Umetumia (Utatu mia) nini kwa ajili ya ukuta ________________? a. Mawe (3) b. Matofari ya block (3) c. Matofari ya kukausha kwa jua (3) d. Matofari ya kuchomwa (1) e. Miti ya kujengea na udongo (0) f. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) g. Sielewi swali (7) h. Kakataa kujibu (8) i. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 21. (Kama utajenga jengo) Ni aina gani ya mti (mtatumia) mlitumia kwa ajili ya kupaulia_______________? a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 22. Je, kuna mtu yeyote wa kaya yako alichonga meza, kabati, kitanda katika mwaka uliopita?_______ Pisi Ngapi ________? Ulitumia aina gani ya miti______________? a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu au haionekani (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) Kwa wakulima wa kipepeo tu… Maoni juu ya mradi wa kipepeo 23. Ni vitu gani vilikuvutia katika mradi wa kipepeo hapo mwanzoni ulivyoanza? (orodha ya kutaja) a. ____________________________________________________________ b. ____________________________________________________________ c. ____________________________________________________________ d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) e. Sielewi swali (7) f. Kakataa kujibu (8)

PAGE 43

43 g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 24. Ulitumia kununua vitu gani pesa za ki pepeo? (Circle all that Apply) a. Karo za shule ya sekondari b. Chakula c. Mifugo d. Ujenzi e. Kumiliki mali f. Sherehe g. Kuweka akiba h. Vingine ________________________________________ i. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) j. Sielewi swali (7) k. Kakataa kujibu (8) l. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 25. Unadhani kuwa maafisa wa mradi wa vipepe o wanafanya kazi nzuri kusaidia wafugaji? a. Ndio, wanasaidia sana (3) b. Ndio, wanasaidia kiasi (2) c. Hapana, hawasaidii (1) d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) e. Sielewi swali. (7) f. Kakataa kujibu (8) g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 26. Unadhani maafisa wa mradi wanafanya maamuz i ya haki hasa katika zoezi la kukusanya mabuu ya vipepeo wakati wa siku za soko? a. Ndio, wanafanya kwa haki sana (3) b. Ndio, wanafanya kwa haki kiasi (2) c. Hapana, hawafanyi kwa haki (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali. (7) g.Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 27. Naomba niambie vitu viwili vizuri na vi wili vibaya kuhusiana na mradi wa Kipepeo? (Orodha ya kutaja) a. Vizuri:______________________________________________________ b. Vizuri:______________________________________________________ c. Vibaya:______________________________________________________ d. Vibaya:______________________________________________________ e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali (7)

PAGE 44

44 g. Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) Utegemezi wa Kilimo cha Kipepeo na Msitu Soma kwa mhojiwa: Ahsante sa na kwa majibu yako mpaka hapa. Tumekaribia kumaliza. Katika sehemu hii, nitasoma maswali na majibu halafu utaniambia jibu lako. 28. Je, unadhani ni kwa kiasi gani kaya yako inategemea mradi wa kipepeo? a. Inategemea sana (3) b. Inategemea kiasi (2) c. Inategemea kidogo sana (1) d. Haitegemei kabisa (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali (7) g. Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 29. Je, kama utaacha kufuga vipepeo, unadhani ita kuwa rahisi kupata kipato sawa na kile kitokanacho na ufugaji wa vipepe o kwa kufanya shughuli nyingine? a. Itakuwa rahisi sana (0) b. Itakuwa rahisi kiasi (1) c. Ni vigumu kidogo (2) d. Ni vigumu sana. (3) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali (7) g. Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 30.Unadhani kwa muda gani mrad i wa vipepeo utaendelea? a. Hauna mwisho (3) b. Kwa angalau miaka 10 ijayo (2) c. Miaka 2 mpaka 5 ijayo (1) d. Unakaribia kufa (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali (7) g. Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 31. Unadhani utafuga vipepeo kwa muda gani? i. Sitaacha kufuga (3) j. Kwa angalau miaka 10 ijayo (2) k. Miaka 2 mpaka 5 ijayo (1) l. Huu ni mwaka wangu wa mwisho (0) m. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) n. Sielewi swali (7)

PAGE 45

45 o. Kakataa kujibu (8) p. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 32. Je, unadhani watoto wako wataweza kuwa wafugaji wa kipepeo? a. Ndio, nina uhakika sana (3) b. Ndio, nina uhakika kiasi (2) c. Sina uhakika (1) d. Hapana, haitawezekana (0) e. Sielewi swali (7) f. Kakataa kujibu (8) g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) Imani juu ya Hifadhi ya Msitu na Kilimo cha Kipepeo 33. Je, unaamini kuwa ukataji miti ya mbao ni hatari kwa idadi ya vipepeo wa pori pamoja na mimea inayowahifadhi? a. Ndio, ni hatari sana (3) b. Ndio, ni hatari kiasi (2) c. Hapana, siyo hatari (1) d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) e. Sielewi swali. (7) f. Kakataa kujibu (8) g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 34. Je, unaamini kuwa ukataji wa miti ya kujeng ea ni hatari kwa idadi ya vipepeo wa pori pamoja na mimea inayowahifadhi? a. Ndio, ni hatari sana (3) b. Ndio, ni hatari kiasi (2) c. Hapana, siyo hatari (0) d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) e. Sielewi swali. (7) f. Kakataa kujibu (8) g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 35. Je, unaamini kuwa kuishi karibu na msitu kunara hisisha kufanya kilimo cha kipepeo? Ni kwa kiasi gani unajisikia hivyo? a. Ndio, inasaidia sana (3) b. Ndio, inasaidi kiasi (2) c. Hapana, haisaidii (0) d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) e. Sielewi swali. (7) f. Kakataa kujibu (8) g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

PAGE 46

46 36. Kama miti ndani ya misitu ya hifadhi ikik atwa, unaamini bado utaweza kufanya kilimo cha kipepeo? a. Ndio, naamini itakuwa rahisi kuendelea (0) b. Ndio, lakini itakuwa ngumu (1) c. Hapana, sitaweza kuendelea kabisa (3) d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) e. Sielewi swali. (7) f. Kakataa kujibu (8) g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) Imani juu ya ufanisi wa ndani na nje ya misitu kuhusiana na Hifadhi ya Msitu 37. Je unadhani kwamba vipo vitu ambavyo unaw eza kufanya ili kusaidia uhifadhi wa misitu? a. Ndio, naweza kusaidia sana (3) b. Ndio, naweza kusaidia kiasi (2) c. Hapana, siwezi kusaidia kabisa (0) d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) e. Sielewi swali. (7) f. Kakataa kujibu (8) g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 38. Je unadhani kama wanakijiji wakipanda miti kwenye mashamba yao itasaidia uhifadhi wa misitu? a. Ndio, itasaidia sana (3) b. Ndio, itasaidia kiasi (2) c. Hapana, haitasaidia kabisa (0) d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) e. Sielewi swali. (7) f. Kakataa kujibu (8) g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 39. Je, unadhani kuwa wafugaji wa vipepeo wengi wanafanya vitu ambavyo vinasaidia kuhifadhi misitu? Ni kwa kiasi gani unajisikia hivyo? a. Ndio, wapo wengi (3) b. Ndio, wapo wachache (2) c. Hapana, hawapo kabisa (0) d. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) e. Sielewi swali. (7) f. Kakataa kujibu (8) g. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 40. Je, unadhani kuwa maafisa misitu wanafanya kazi nzuri ya kulinda msitu ? Ni kwa kiasi gani unajisikia hivyo?

PAGE 47

47 a. Ndio, wanafanya kazi nzuri sana (3) b. Ndio, wanafanya kazi nzuri kiasi (2) c. Hapana, hawafanyi kazi nzuri (1) d. Hapana, hawafanyi kazi kabisa (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali. (7) g. Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 41. Je, unadhani kuwa maafisa misitu wanasikiliza mapendekezo kutoka kwa wanakijiji kuhusiana na ulinzi wa misitu? h. Ndio, wanasikiliza sana (3) i. Ndio, wanasikiliza kiasi (2) j. Hapana, hawasikilizi (1) k. Hapana, hawasikilizi kabisa (0) l. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) m. Sielewi swali. (7) n. Kakataa kujibu (8) o. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) Imani juu ya tabia zinazojali mazingira 42. Ni njia gani ya kujenga kuta za nyumba unadhani ni nzuri kwa ajili ya uhifadhi wa misitu? (USISOME MAJIBU) a. Mawe ya kuchonga (3) b. Matofari ya block (3) c. Matofari ya udongo ambayo hayajachomwa (3) d. Matofari ya kuchomwa (1) e. Miti na udongo (0) f. Nyingine_______________ ( ) g. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) h. Sielewi swali. (7) i. Kakataa kujibu (8) j. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 43. Kuhusiana na uhifadhi wa misitu, je unadha ni kuna umuhimu wowote wa kuangalia jinsi ambavyo watu wanajenga nyumba zao? a. Ndio, kuna umuhimu sana (3) b. Ndio, kuna umuhimu kiasi (2) c. Hapana, hakuna umuhimu (1) d. Hapana, hakuna umuhimu kabisa (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali. (7) g. Kakataa kujibu (8)

PAGE 48

48 h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 44. Ili kulinda misitu unadhani ni aina gani ya miti ni bora itumike kwa kujengea (USISOME MAJIBU)?____________ a. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) b. Sielewi swali (7) c. Kakataa kujibu au haionekani (8) d. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 45. Ili kulinda misitu unadhani ni aina gani ya miti ni bora itumike kwa kupaulia?____________ e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali (7) g. Kakataa kujibu au haionekani (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 46. Je unadhani ukishiriki katika kamati ya mazi ngira ya kijiji itasaidia kuhifadhi msitu? a. Ndio, itasaidia sana (3) b. Ndio, itasaidia kiasi (2) c. Hapana, haitasaidia (1) d. Hapana, haitasaidia kabisa (0) e. Sina uhakika/ Sijui/ Sina maoni (6) f. Sielewi swali. (7) g. Kakataa kujibu (8) h. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) Demographic Information Sasa kwa sehemu ya mwisho ya utafiti, N itakuuliza kuhusu maswali machache yanayo kuhusu wewe na kaya yako. Ahsante sana kwa msaada wako, na tumekaribia kumaliza. Mhojiwa 47. Je, una umri wa miaka mingapi?_____ 48. Una kiwango gani cha elimu? a. Sina elimu (0) b. Elimu ya msingi (1) c. Darasa la 7 (2) d. Kidato cha 1 mpaka 3 (3) e. Kidato cha 4 (4) f. Kidato cha 6 (5) g. Chuo (6) h. Chuo kikuu (7) i. Kakataa kujibu (8) j. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9)

PAGE 49

49 49. Wewe ni muumini wa dini ipi? a. Mwislamu (1) b. Mkristu (2) c. Nyingine (3) d. Sina (4) e. Kakataa kujibu (8) f. Imerukwa na mhojaji (9) 50. Je wewe ni wa kabila lipi? _____ 51. Onesha me au ke (USIULIZE) _____ 52. Ni kwa muda gani umeishi katika milima ya Usambara Mashariki? _____ Idadi ya wana kaya 53. Ni watu wangapi wenye umri zaidi ya miak a 18 wanaishi katika kaya hii au wanaotegemea chakula au kipato cha kaya hii? _____ 54. Ni watu wangapi wenye umri zaidi ya miak a 18 wanachangia kuleta kipato au wanasaidia kufanya kazi shambani katika kaya hii? _____ 55. Kuna watoto wangapi wa chini wa umri wa miaka 18 katika familia hii pamoja na wale wasioishi katika kaya hii? _____ Shughuli za kiuchumi za Kaya 56. Je, ni ipi ndiyo njia muhimu sana kuli ko zote ya kujipatia kipato kwa kaya yako?___________ 57. Je, ni ipi ndiyo njia ya pili ya kujipatia kipato kwa kaya yako?___________ 58. 51. Je, ni ipi ndiyo njia ya tatu ya kujipatia kipato kwa kaya yako?___________ 59. Je, eneo la ardhi ambalo kaya yako inamiliki lina ukubwa wa eka ngapi?______ 60. Je unamiliki ng’ombe, na ni wangapi?______ Ushirikishwaji/Uelimishwaji wa Miradi ya Hifadhi na Maendeleo 61. Je, wewe, au mtu yeyote wa kaya yako, alishawahi kushiriki katika miradi ya (Circle all that apply): a. mabwawa ya samaki b. misambu c. majiko sanifu d. miradi ya misitu yetu (TFCG) e. au miradi mingine yeyote inayolen ga kusaidia uhifadhi katika eneo hili ____________________________________________________________?

PAGE 50

50 62. Je, kati ya ndugu zako, jamaa, na marafiki ni wangapi kati yao ni wakulima wa kipepeo?______ 63. Je, unafahamu shughuli yeyote ya maendeleo ya jamii inayofadhiliwa na mfuko ya jamii ya mradi wa kipepeo?________Itaje_________________________________________________ Mwisho wa Utafiti Ahsante sana kushiriki katika utafiti huu na kujibu maswali yangu. Umekuwa msaada mkubwa sana.

PAGE 51

51 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbot, J. I. O., D. H. L. Thomas, A. A. Gardner, S. E. Neba, and M. W. Khen. 2001. Understanding the Links Between Conservation and Development in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World Development 29 :1115-1136. Adams, W. M., and D. Hulme. 2001. If community co nservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx 35 :193-200. Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Pages 11-39 in J. Kuhl, and J. Beckman, editors. Action-control: From cognition to behavior. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. Ajzen, I. 2002. Perceived Behavioral Control, Self -Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32 :665-683. American Association for Public Opinion Research 2006. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcom e Rates for Surveys. 4th edition. AAPOR, Lenexa, Kansas. Arnold, J. E. M., and M. R. Perez. 2001. Can nontimber forest products match tropical forest conservation and development obj ectives? Ecological Economics 39 :437-447. Basile, C., and C. White. 2000. Respecting Livi ng Things: Environmental Literacy for Young Children. Early Childhood Education Journal 28 :57-61. Belcher, B., M. Ruiz-Perez, and R. Achdiawan. 2005. Global patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: Implicati ons for livelihoods and conservation. World Development 33 :1435-1452. Black, S. H., M. Shepard, and M. M. Allen. 2001. Endangered Invertebrates: The Case for Greater Attention to Invertebrate Co nservation. Endangered Species Update 18 :41. Blaise Paquit, N., and K. A. Y. Edwin J. 1997. The regulatory framework for the exploitation of medicinal plants in Cameroon: the cas e of Prunus africana on Mount Cameroon. Biodiversity and Conservation 6 :1409-1412. Brooks, J. S., M. A. Franzen, C. M. Holmes, M. N. Grote, and M. B. Mulder. 2006. Testing Hypotheses for the Success of Different C onservation Strategies. Conservation Biology 20 :1528-1538. Burgess, N. D., T. M. Butynski, N. J. Cordeiro, N. H. Doggart, J. Fjeldsa, K. M. Howell, F. B. Kilahama, S. P. Loader, J. C. Lovett, B. Mbilinyi, M. Menegon, D. C. Moyer, E. Nashanda, A. Perkin, F. Rovero, W. T. Stan ley, and S. N. Stuart 2007. The biological importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Biological Conservation 134 :209-231. Calvert, J. 2006. The Butterfly Farm makes a difference to hundr eds of lives in developing countries. Butterfly Farm News. The Startford Butterfly Farm.

PAGE 52

52 Child, B. 2000. Making wildlife pay: converting wildife's comparative advantage into real incentives for having wildlife in African sa vannas, case studies from Zimbabwe and Zambia. Pages 335-387 in H. H. T. Prins, J. G. Grootenhuis, and T. T. Dolan, editors. Wildlife conservation by sustainable use. Kl uwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. Crook, C., and R. A. Clapp. 1998. Is market-orien ted forest conservation a contradiction in terms? Environmental Conservation 25 :131-145. Crook, C., and R. A. Clapp. 2001. Ec osystem structure, economic cycles and market-oriented conservation. Environmental Conservation 28 :194-198. Dietz, T., A. Fitzgerald, and R. Shwom. 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL VALU ES. Annual Review of Environment & Resources 30 :335-372. Ferraro, P. J., and S. K. Pattanayak. 2006. Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Investments. PLoS Biology 4 :e105. Fichman, M., and J. N. Cummings. 2003. Multip le Imputation for Miss ing Data: Making the most of What you Know. Orga nizational Research Methods 6 :282-308. Gordon, I., and W. Ayiemba. 2003. Harnessing Bu tterfly Biodiversity fo r Improving Livelihoods and Forest Conservation: The Kipepeo Project. The Journal of Environment Development 12 :82-98. Holmes, C. M. 2003. The influence of protected area outreach on conservation attitudes and resource use patterns: a case st udy from western Tanzania. Oryx 37 :305-315. Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environmenta l Education Research 8 :239-260. Kusters, K., R. Achdiawan, B. Belcher, and M. R. Perez. 2006. Balancing development and conservation? An assessment of livelihood and environmental outcomoes of nontimber forest product trade in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Ecology and Society 11 :Article 20. Maraseni, T., G. Shivakoti, G. Cockfield, and A. Apan. 2006. Nepalese non-timber forest products: An analysis of the equitability of profit distri bution across a supply chain to India. Small-Scale Forestry 5 :191-206. Marcus, R. 2001. Seeing the Forest for the Tree s: Integrated Conservation and Development Projects and Local Perceptions of Co nservation in Madagascar. Human Ecology 29 :381397. Mayaka, T. B., T. Hendricks, J. Wesseler, and H. H. T. Prins. 2005. Improving the benefits of wildlife harvesting in Northern Cameroon: a co-management perspective. Ecological Economics 54 :67-80.

PAGE 53

53 Mehta, J. N., and J. T. Heinen. 2001. Does Community-Based Conservation Shape Favorable Attitudes Among Locals? An Empirical Study fr om Nepal. Environmental Management 28 :165-177. Muriithi, S., and W. Kenyon. 2002. C onservation of biodiversity in the Arabuko Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Biodiversity and Conservation 11 :1437-1450. New, T. R. 1994. Butterfly ranching: Sustainabl e use of insects and su stainable benefit to habitats. Oryx 28 :169-172. Newmark, W. D. 2002. Conserving Biodiversity in East African Forests: A Study of the Eastern Arc Mountains. Springer, Berlin, Germany. Newmark, W. D., and J. L. Hough. 2000. Conserving W ildlife in Africa: Inte grated Conservation and Development Projects and Beyond. BioScience 50 :585-592. Oates, J. F. 1995. The dangers of conservation by rural development a case-study from the forests of Nigeria. Oryx 29 :115-122. Oates, J. F. 1999. Myth and Reality in the Rain forest: How Conservation Strategies Are Failing in West Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Peter, R. W., R. B. Steven, L. F. Crystal, a nd C. W. Patrick. 2002. Reinventing a Square Wheel: Critique of a Resurgent "Protection Paradigm" in International Biodiversity Conservation. Society & Natural Resources 15 :17-40. Peters, C. M., A. H. Gentry, and R. O. Mende lsohn. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature 339 :655-656. Reyes, T., R. Quiroz, and S. Msikula. 2005. Socio-economic comparison between traditional and improved cultivation methods in agroforestry systems, East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Environmental Management 36 :682-690. Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffussion of I nnovations. Free Press, New York. Salafsky, N., H. Cauley, G. Balachander, B. Cord es, J. Parks, C. Margoluis, S. Bhatt, C. Encarnacion, D. Russell, and R. Margoluis. 2001. A Systematic Test of an Enterprise Strategy for Community-Based Biodivers ity Conservation. Conservation Biology 15 :1585-1595. Salafsky, N., and E. Wollenberg. 2000. Linking Li velihoods and Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Inte gration of Human Needs and Biodiversity. World Development 28 :1421-1438. Schultz, P. W. 2002. Knowledge, informati on, and household recycling: examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change in T. Dietz, and P. C. Stern, editors. New Tools for Environmental Protection: Educa tion, Information and Voluntary Measures. National Research Council, Washington D.C.

PAGE 54

54 Shackleton, C. M. 2001. Re-examining local and mark et-orientated use of wild species for the conservation of biodiversity. Environmental Conservation 28 :270-278. Slone, T. H., L. J. Orsak, and O. Malver. 1997. A comparison of price, rarity and cost of butterfly specimens: Implications for the insect trade and for habitat conservation. Ecological Economics 21 :77-85. Stem, C. J., J. P. Lassoie, D. R. Lee, D. D. Deshler, and J. W. Schelhas. 2003. Community Participation in Ecotourism Benefits: The Link to Conservation Practices and Perspectives. Society & Natural Resources 16 :387. Stern, P. C. 2000. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Signi ficant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56 :407-424. Stocking, M., and S. Perkin. 1992. Conservatio n-with-Development: An Application of the Concept in the Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17 :337-349. Struhsaker, T. T. 1998. A Biologist's Perspec tive on the Role of Sustainable Harvest in Conservation. Conservation Biology 12 :930-932. Terborgh, J. 1999. Requim for Nature. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Vihemki, H. 2005. Politics of Participatory Forest Conservation: Cases from the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. The Journal of Tr ansdisciplinary Environmental Studies 4 :1-16. Wells, M. P., and T. O. McShane. 2004. Integr ating Protected Area Management with Local Needs and Aspirations. AMBIO: A J ournal of the Human Environment 33 :513-519.

PAGE 55

55 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Theron Morgan-Brown was born in 1977 in a cabin near Oregon City. He spent the majority of his childhood in Bandon, Oregon a nd graduated valedictor ian from Bandon High School in 1996. Theron went on to earn a B.A. in biology from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon in 2000. He first tr aveled to East Africa as a st udent in 1998 and then returned in 2001, when he was awarded a Fulbright Fellow ship to conduct research in Tanzania. In Tanzania, Theron investigated the feasib ility of using butterfly farming as economic incentive to promote forest conservation in th e East Usambara Mountains. Based on the results of this research, Theron went on to found The Am ani Butterfly Project in 2003, Tanzania’s first butterfly farming enterprise that helps hundreds of rural households farm and export butterfly pupae to live butterfly exhib its in Europe and the US. After completing his M.S. program in interd isciplinary ecology, Ther on plans to pursue a Ph.D. in the same program. In the long run, Theron plans to return to Tanzania with his wife, Jacqueline Kweka, to continue to explore the synergies betw een rural economic development and biological conservation in Africa.