Citation
Assessment of the Impacts of the Conservation of Protected Areas to the Improvement of Livelihoods of Adjacent Communities of the Nyungwe National Park, Rwanda

Material Information

Title:
Assessment of the Impacts of the Conservation of Protected Areas to the Improvement of Livelihoods of Adjacent Communities of the Nyungwe National Park, Rwanda
Creator:
Mulindahabi, Felix
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (64 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Interdisciplinary Ecology
Committee Chair:
CHILD,BRIAN ANTHONY
Committee Co-Chair:
TUCKER,CATHERINE MAY
Committee Members:
ATHAYDE,SIMONE F

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
national -- park
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.

Notes

Abstract:
In many developing countries, outreach programs are used to provide benefits delivered from tourism to local people. Rwanda has developed park management policies that aim to avoid, reduce, and mitigate negative impacts that arise from the establishment and management of national parks on local residents. But little is known about local residents' perceptions and attitudes towards the conservation, and the benefits and costs arising from the implementation of these policies. This study, carried out in Banda and Rasano around Nyungwe National Park, assessed local communities' perceptions on the benefits and costs, and their attitude towards biodiversity conservation in the park. We used focus group discussion and household survey (semi-structured interview) methods to collect data in 182 households from July to August 2016. Findings from this study showed that more than 85% of households have improved or slightly improved their well-being because of the park, and 95% have positive attitude towards the conservation of Nyungwe National Park. Clean water, employment in the park and tourism related activities, school and health clinics are the major benefits of NNP to its surrounding communities. Major sources of household income were comprised of on-farm, off-farm, and park-related products. The latter contributes 25% of the total annual income in Banda village. However, they count for 3% of total income per household in Rasano village. Crop raiding and restriction on access to the natural resources are major costs identified by respondents. The findings, in studied villages, also showed that park-local community relationships are mixed. The perception of park-community relationships (74% - 90%) was positive possibly due to the regular communication to discuss park issues. However, 55% expressed that it is not easy for them to express their grievances in relation to the park. This is due to the long and centralized process to receive compensation for crops damaged by park animals. Nyungwe funds many community projects with income generating potential. However, the success of these projects, especially income generating ones, is constrained by lack of managerial skills and lack of involvement of community beneficiaries in the process of project design, and development. Finally, community projects: classroom and health clinic, livestock husbandry, paying for health insurance for poor people, clean water, and energy efficiency stoves were the most common community projects put forward and scored higher than 85% for future funding. ( en )
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.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2017.
Local:
Adviser: CHILD,BRIAN ANTHONY.
Local:
Co-adviser: TUCKER,CATHERINE MAY.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2018-06-30
Statement of Responsibility:
by Felix Mulindahabi.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Embargo Date:
6/30/2018
Classification:
LD1780 2017 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF THE CONSERVATION OF PROTECTED AREAS TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF LIVELIHOODS OF ADJACENT COMMUNITIES OF THE NYUNGWE NATIONAL PARK, RWANDA By FELIX MULINDAHABI 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 2017

PAGE 2

2 2017 Felix Mulindahabi

PAGE 3

3 T o my wife Hildegarde Mukasakindi, whose words of encouragement support and prayer make me able to get such success and honor. Along with all friends and respected teachers. I dedicate this thesis to you.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S My study program was made successful by the generous professional and financial support of many organizations and individuals I am particularly grateful to the School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Wildlife Conservation Society, the Beinecke Brothers for funding my study program Also, to the Afri can Wildlife Foundation, Charlotte F ellowship Program Award for funding the field activities of this research Without this fellowship grant, this research been achieved I extend my sincere appreciation to Dr. Michel Masozera, Wildlife Conservation Society Rwanda Program country director who gave me the encouragement and assistance to join graduate studies. T hank s to my advisor, Dr. Brian Child for all his wisdom, advice and tireless continuous support throughout my Master of Science study and research. His encouragement, guidance, and support from the initial to the final level of this research enabled me to develop an understanding of the subj ect. I also express my very gr eat appreciation to my thesis committee members: Dr. Catherine Tucker and Dr. Simone Athayde, for their encouragement, insightful comments and questions. I am grateful to express my sincere gratitude to the Rwanda Development Board for the facilitation and permission to conduct this research in Nyungwe National Park. I owe my deepest gratitude to WCS and RDB colleagues for all kinds of support that was provided for the success of this research. My special thanks go to Mediatri ce Bana, Nyungwe Forest Conservation Project director, for all the facilitations she provided in this research.

PAGE 5

5 Furthermore I would like to thank Dr. Madan Oli and his family Kate Mastro, Jennifer Moore, and Elise Morton for their encouragement and their help during my stay in the United States. I am gratitude to Emmanuel Mukeshiman a, Matthieu Mayira, Pascal Nshimyukiza and Gratien Gatorano who have tirelessly helped in data collection for this thesis. Finally, I am heartily thankful to my family for en couragement and moral support from the beginning to the accomplishment of this work.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ................................ ............................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Introd uction Background ................................ ................................ ......................... 12 Background of Protected Areas in Rwanda ................................ ............................ 13 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 14 Goal, Obje ctives, and Hypotheses ................................ ................................ .......... 16 Goal and Research Questions ................................ ................................ ......... 16 Specific Objectives ................................ ................................ ........................... 16 Research Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ...................... 16 Signific ance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 Thesis Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................ 19 Key Terms and Concepts ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Liveli hood Framework ................................ ................................ ...................... 19 Livelihood Strategies and Diversification in Rural Areas ................................ .. 20 Impacts of National Parks and Livelihoods ................................ ....................... 20 Perception and Attitude of Local People Toward Conservation of Wildlife ....... 21 Background of the Manage ment and Conservation of Nyungwe National Park ...... 21 Nyungwe National Park and Livelihoods of Local Communities ............................. 22 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 26 Collaboration and Participatory Approach and Concept ................................ ......... 26 Study Site ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 27 Research Sampling and Sample Size ................................ ................................ .... 30 Household Survey Sampling ................................ ................................ ............ 30 Household Data Collection ................................ ................................ ............... 30 Household Data Processing and Analysis ................................ ........................ 32 Focus Group Discussion Data Collection ................................ ......................... 32 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 34

PAGE 7

7 Perception of Household on the Conservation of Nyungwe National Park and Livelihoods ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 34 Demography of Households in Banda & Rasano Communities ....................... 34 Human capital ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 Natural capital ................................ ................................ ............................ 35 Financial capital ................................ ................................ ......................... 35 Physical capital ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 Major Crops Grown and Livestock Reared in Banda and Rasano Villages ...... 36 Food Security in Households ................................ ................................ ............ 37 Perceptions on Benefits and Costs ................................ ................................ ......... 42 Costs of Living Near the Nyungwe National Park ................................ ............. 46 Perception on Governance of the Nyungwe National Park and Local Communities ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 Attitude and Preference of Community Projects in Future ................................ 49 Factors that Influence d Success or Failure of Community Projects ................. 50 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 52 Perception of Households on Benefits and Costs of NNP on Local Residents ....... 52 Household Income Diversification ................................ ................................ ........... 54 Park Relationship with Local People ................................ ................................ ....... 54 Factors Affected the Success or Fa ilur e of Community Project Funded by the Park ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 55 Preference and Choice of Potential Community Projects Funding ......................... 55 Conclusion and Management Recommendations ................................ .................. 56 REFERENCE LIST ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 58 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 64

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Institutions and organizations in the management of Nyungwe National Park ... 23 3 1 Characteristics of our study areas ................................ ................................ ...... 28 3 2 Community projects supported by Nyungwe National Park in Bweyeye and Rangiro sectors ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 29 4 1 Situation analysis in Banda and Rasano. ................................ ........................... 38 4 2 Description of cat egories of the source of income for households ...................... 39 4 3 Perceptions of households on benefits a nd costs of living near the NNP ........... 44 4 4 Source of info rmation about governance of NNP ................................ ............... 48 4 5 Positive and negative impacts of the Nyungwe National Park by priority of importance ranking. ................................ ................................ ............................ 50

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Livelihood framework based on assets. ................................ .............................. 19 2 2 Statistics of tourists in Nyungwe National Park from 1988 to 2010 ..................... 25 2 3 Number of community projects and the amount spent on each of them for a period of 9 years in NNP. ................................ ................................ ................... 25 3 1 Epistemological position orienting this study ................................ ...................... 26 3 2 Location of study sites ................................ ................................ ........................ 2 7 3 3 Procedure used to select study sites and households in the survey ................... 31 3 4 Example of a pairwise comparison absolute scale ................................ ............. 33 4 1 Diversification of income Banda and Rasano villages ................................ ........ 40 4 2 Income distr ibution in households in Banda, and Rasano village.. ..................... 41 4 3 Major crops grown and livestock kept in Banda and Rasano villages ................ 42 4 4 Percentage of food consumption in household in previous day of the survey .... 43 4 5 Months of food shortage in Banda and Rasano in previous 12 m onths.. ............ 43 4 6 Percentage of respondents who strongly agree or agree on household benefits from the park ................................ ................................ ......................... 45 4 7 Percentage of respondents who strongly agree or agree on the costs of livi ng near the park, Banda and Rasano ................................ ................................ ..... 47 4 8 Perceptions on Park Community relationship ................................ ..................... 47 4 9 Attitude of respondents (percentage) on future community support by the park ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 49

PAGE 10

10 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 ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF THE CONSERVATION OF PROTECTED AREAS TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF LIVELIHOODS OF ADJACENT COMMUNITIES OF THE NYUNGWE NATIONAL PARK, RWANDA By Felix Mulindahabi December 2017 Chair: Brian Child Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology In m any developing countries, outreach programs are used to provide benefits delivered from tourism to local people Rwanda has developed park management policies that aim to avoid, reduce and mitigate negative impacts that arise from the establishment and ma nagement of national parks on local residents B ut little is known about local residents' perceptions and attitudes towards the conservation, and the benefits and costs arising from the implementation of these policies This study, carried out in Banda and Rasano around Nyungwe Na tional Park, assessed local communities' perceptions on the benefits and costs, and their attitude towards biodive rsity conservation in the park. We used f ocus g roup discussion and household survey (semi structured inte rview) methods to collect data in 182 households from July to August 2016. Findings from this study show ed that more than 85% of households have improved or slightly improved their well being because of the park, and 95% have positive attitude towards the conservation of Nyungwe National Park Clean water,

PAGE 11

11 employment in the p ark and tourism related activities school and health clinics are the major benefits of NNP to its surrounding communities Major sources of household income were comprised of on farm, off farm, and park related products. The latter contributes 2 5 % of the total annual income in Banda village. However, they count for 3% of total income per household in Rasano village. Crop raiding and restriction on access to the natural resources are maj or costs identified by respondents The findings, in studied villages also showed that p ark local community relationship s are mixed. The perception of park community relationship s (74% 90%) was positive possibly due to the regular communication to discu ss park issues. However, 55% expressed that it is not easy for them to express their grievances in relation to the park. This is due to the long and centralized process to receive compensation for crops damaged by park animals. Nyungwe funds many community projects with income generating potential. However, the success of these projects, especially income generating ones, is constrained by lack of managerial skills and lack of involvement of community beneficiaries in the process of pro ject design, and deve lopment. Finally, community projects: classroom and health clinic livestock husbandry, paying for health insurance for poor people, clean water, and energy efficiency stoves were the most common community project s put forward and scored highe r than 85% for future funding

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction B ackground Nyungwe National Park (NNP) is on the forefront in protecting the remaining biodiversity of the lower mountain rain forests remaining in East Africa, making it a priority for conservation in Africa ( Plumptre, 2012 ). Today, the 2014 United Nations List of Protected Areas contains 209,429 landscapes covering 32,868,673 km2, including al., 2014). Protected a reas (PAs) management activities: enforcement, boundary demarcation, and direct compensation to local communities have been shown to be effective in wildlife conservation (Adams et al., 2004; Bruner et al., 2001), safeguard ecosystem goods and services, an d introduce new livelihood options through expansion of tourism, recreation and aesthetic pleasure (Pullen et al., 2014). However, some other authors suggest that the establishment and management of national parks distributes fortune and misfortune at the same time (Brockington et al., 2008). According to Adams et al. (2004), the creation of protected areas causes the foreclosure of future land use options, with potentially significant economic opportunity costs, and it can have substantial costs on liv elih ood opportunities foregone. Following the declaration of the World Congress in Bali, which states that protected areas must be managed so that local communities, the nations involved, and the world community all benefit (Naughton Treves, Holland, & Brandon, 2005) protected areas should strive to contribute to poverty reduction at the local level, and at the very minimum must not contribute to or exacerbate poverty (Franks & Small, 2016).

PAGE 13

13 Following these claims, the management of protected areas has substantially broadened their mission: to protect biodiversity, and to directly provide benefits to local people. The justification of the shift from the total protection approach of conserving biodiversity toward an involvement of local residents in the management of PAs roots from the principal that protected areas in developing cou ntries will survive only if they address human concerns (SCBD, 2008; Naughton Treves, Holland & Brandon, 2005 ; Gibson & Marks, 1995) However, a key question today is to what extent the distribution of benefits can ensure the support of local communities for conservation initiatives. In the context of national parks, where resources extraction is prohibited, outreach programs are used to provide benefits delivered from tourism to local people (Mulder & C oppolillo, 2005). Benefit sharing entails the provision of development oriented facilities such as schools, health clinics, roads, and water services (Mulder & Coppolillo, 2005), direct payment, compensation for damages caused by wildlife, employment oppor tunities, and support to income generating projects, and ecosystem services (Gross Camp et al., 2012). Background of Protected Areas i n Rwanda While the creation of protected areas in Africa boomed in the 1960s, the establishment of protected areas in Rwan da was started earl ier in 1918 by colonial regime, and in 1933 all remnants of mountain forests were set aside as protected forests (Masozera, 2002). Today, Rwanda, 26,338 km2, has approximately 10% of its surface und er protection as national parks. The Ny ungwe National Park (1,019 km2), which is the largest remaining lower mountain forest in East Africa,

PAGE 14

14 The Volcanoes National Park (160 km2), which protects the critically endangered mountain gorillas ( Gorilla beringei beringei ) and golden monkey ( Cercopith ecus mitis kandti ), The Akagera National Park (1,200 km2) with a mosaic habitat of savannah and wetland in eastern Rwanda, and The Gishwati Mukura National Park (25.58 km2), which encompasses two forest remnants in western Rwanda. Three (NNP, VNP, and Giswati Mukura NP) of these national parks are located in the Albertine rift region, the richest biological diversity region (Plumptre et al., 2004). The growing human population, limited land resources, civil war, and genocide against Tutsi (that resulted in massive occupation of protected areas for settlement), and poverty are major challenges for the management of protecte d areas in Rwanda (REMA, 2011). Problem S tatement Rwanda, like many other developing countries, has developed par k management policies that aim to avoid, reduce and mitigate negative impacts that arise from the establishment and management of national parks on local residents These policies enhance positive impacts to local people, and where appropriate, compensate property damage by wildlife (Kagarama et al., 201 1). The r elationship between parks and people have focused on examining the socio economic status of people living around Rwandan nation al parks (Plumptre et al., 2004; Bush et al., 2010), evaluating of com munity based conservation around Nyungwe National Park (NNP) ( Rutebuka et al., 2012 ), examining perceptions of tourism revenue sharing impacts on Volcanoes National Pa rk (Munanura et al., 2016), measuring effectiveness, efficiency and equity in payments fo r ecosystem s ervices (Martin et al., 2014) and evaluating forest dependence and its implications for protected area

PAGE 15

15 management (Masozera and Alavalapati 2004) However, data on the impact of Rwandan national parks on local people is still limited. R elati vely little information is available about the ways in which national park policies and management practices in Rwanda have impacted the livelihoods of people living in close proximity of them and it is not understood how positive or negative impacts are distributed between and within relevant communities adjacent to these national parks. The Rwandan government, non government organizations (NGOs) and donors support wildlife related community projects/enterprises for their perceived development and conser vation potentials. For instance, the Rwanda Development Board (RDB) a government institution which manage national parks, allocates 5% of annual tourism revenue to community projects/enterprises. Under this program, more than US$1,200,269 was allocated to conservation related community projects in three national parks for the six year period from 2005 to 2010 (Kagarama et al. 2011). Yet, there is little information available concerning the success or failure of these projects or how they have contributed to the behavior change and attitude of local residents towards the conservation of the N yungwe N ational P ark (NNP), and the livel ihoods of adjacent communities. To fill this ga p in knowledge, this study examine s the perceptions of representatives from mult i stakeholder groups about the contribution of benefits from NNP to the community livelihoods at the household level. This information is crucial for identifying and understanding the impacts (both negative and positive) of the park on adjacent local commu nities. Nyungwe National Park managers and other local

PAGE 16

16 stakeholders working with these communities will use this information to promote positive impacts and reduce negative impacts to communities who bear the costs of management of NNP. Goal, O bjectives, and H ypotheses Goal and Research Q uestions The goal of this study is to systematically investigate whether communities adjacent to NNP perceive positive or negative impacts from the park, and determine if the protection of Nyungwe National Park enhances the livelihoods of people living in its proximity. To address thi s problem, this study asked the following questions: 1. How do the relevant stakeholders perceive the impacts of NNP on local communities? 2. How are the benefits from the park diversifie d and distribute d among and within communities adjacent to NNP? 3. What are the factors influencing the success or failure of community outreach pro jects/enterprises? and finally, 4. What are the perceptions of local communities regarding the contribution of NNP to the improvement of their livelihoods, as well as conservation? Specific O bjectives The specific objectives are: Assess the perceptions of different stakeholders regarding the positive and negative impacts of NNP on local communities in terms of livelih ood diversification and distribution Characterize the impacts of the park on the livelihoods of communities adjacent to Nyungwe National Park Identify factors influencing the success or failure of park related community projects around Nyungwe National Par k Research Hypotheses The research hypothes e s are:

PAGE 17

17 1. Benefits from the park have improved the livelihoods of households adjacent to Nyungwe National Park over the last five years through increased income, education, and improved well being. 2. Communities who perceive that they benefit from NNP have positive attitudes towards its conservation. These park related benefits are expected to be manifested in the form of jobs and employment, income generating community projects, and socio economic infrastructure. 3. The benefits and costs from the park are equally distributed and dive rsified to adjacent households. Significance of the Study The effectiveness of protecting biodiversity and habitat in developing countries such as Rwanda depends on involvement of local comm unities and consideration of their needs ( Allendorf et al., 2006) In the effort to gain community support in the conservation of wildlife, conservation planners in Rwanda incorporate a component of local community needs into their conservation agendas. A n understanding of what factors influence local residents ttitudes towards conservation can assist in managing their expectations. Based on the predicted relationship between impacts of PAs on adjacent communities and the attitude s and behaviors of loca l people (Ormsby & Kaplin 2005 ), livelihood can help park managers to evaluate their conservation efforts, and therefore, direct their management actions to suit both wildlife and local residents. Furthermore, u nderstanding the perception and attached benefits i s important because the distribution of the latter is an enabling condition for communities to engage in wildlife conservation ( Anthony, 2007). It can reveal opportuniti es for improving rela tionships, and outreach program s as well as inform ing policy makers and park

PAGE 18

18 managers In this way, it can assist with prioritizing avenues for action including ways to maximiz e benefits to communities and to mitigate costs Thesis Overview Chapter 1 describes background information of the study It also expla ins the problem statement of this research project, research questions, overall goal, the specific objectives, and research hypotheses Chapter 2 describes a conceptual framewor k, and literature review on the topic of my interest. Furthermore, it describes background of the management and conservation of Nyungwe National Park. Chapter 3 describes the study site and methodology used for sampling, data collection, and data analysis Chapter 4 presents the results and patterns of findings of household survey and focus group discussion. And finally, Chapter 5 discusses the results from this research, summarizes the findings, and provides management recommendations for conserv ation of Nyungwe National Park.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Key Terms and C oncepts Livelihood F ramework Ellis (1998) defines a household as the social group which resides in the same place, shares the same meals, and makes joint or coordinated decisions over resource allocation and income pooling. The term livelihood refers to the access of individuals to hu man, financial, social, physical, and natural capital also called assets ( Christensen & Pozarny 2008; Coad et al., 2008; Dubois, 2003; Bebbington, 1999). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) developed the livelihood framework, in which rural poor peopl e can improve and maintain a livelihood based on a range of these capitals (Figure 2 1 ). The livelihood framework approach is commonly used to identify and prioritize actions for poverty reduction, but it can also be used to assess the significance or impa ( Krantz 2001 ). Figure 2 1 Livelihood framework based on assets. (Adapted from Christensen & Pozarny 2008 ) Human Capital Poor Rural Household Natural Capital Social Capital Physical Capital Financial Capital

PAGE 20

20 Livelihood Strategies and Diversification in Rural A reas Many rural (poor) people maintain diversified livelihood strategies which can be (Barrett, Reardon & Webb, 2001; Ellis, 2000; Ellis, 1998) and park related products Park related products consist of salaries and wages in park and tourism related activ ities, and gifts and donations from the park and conservation organizations. O n farm income comprises both consumption in kind of on farm output a nd cash income from output sold. Non farm income, o n the other hand, refers to non agricultur al income: labor payments, non wage labor contracts, urban to rural remittances arising from within national boundaries, and international remittances. Impacts of National Parks and Livelihoods The benefits of parks comprise of safeguarding the ecosystems services such as clean air and clean water, employment opportunity, recreation and tourism development (Pullen et al., 2014) For example, Madagascar gives back 50% of tourism revenue to local people under a revenue sharing scheme (Goodwin & Roe, 2001). Furthermore, in fo depend on forests for at least a portion of their income. In Africa alone, 600 million people rely on forests and woodlands for their livelihoods (Coad et al., 2008). W ildlife human c onflict s such as crop raiding and livestock predation ( Mc Guinness & Taylor, 2014 ; Karanth et al., 2013; McShine, 2008 ; Butler 2000 ; Michals ki et al., 2006; Archabald & Naughton Treves, 2001), natural resources ( Naughton Treves, 1998) are negative impacts on residents close to the parks.

PAGE 21

21 Perception and Attitude o f Local Peo ple Toward Conservation o f Wildlife Perception and attitudes of people in developing countries toward the conservation of biodiversity correlate with so ciodemographic variables including age, gender, household income, household size, education, household income, and park people relationship (Anthony, 2007). They also vary greatly at community scales. In developing countries, for example, where velihoods rely on the extraction of natural resources, local people resent imposed conservation ideas and tend to hold negative attitudes toward wildlife conservation and park management authorities (Nepal and Weber, 1995). However, positive perception of benefits from the parks predicts 2005 ) Background of the Management and C onservation of Nyungwe National Park Nyungwe National Park (NNP) is an afro mountain rainforest, and was established as a natural reserve in 1933 to protect rich biodiversity NNP ranges in altitude between 1600 and 2950 m a.s.l and harbors more than 1,200 spec ies of vascular plant s, 280 species of bird, a nd 86 species of mammal including 13 species of primates such as the endangered eastern chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii ), and the near threatened species: the owl faced monkey ( Cercopithecus hamlyni ; Plumptre, 2012 ) N yungwe N ational P ark is also a water catchment, which contributes 60% of the oughout the year (MINITERE, 2003) Climate in Nyungwe is characterized by a wet season extending from September to May and shorter dry season from June to August with a nnual rainfall averages between 1,500 2500 mm ( Plumptre, 2012 ) Nyungwe is among high populated areas with 456 people/km 2 (NISAR, 2012).

PAGE 22

22 Human population increase, poverty, c onversion of land for agriculture and resource extractio n are major threats that NNP has experienced since its establishment as a forest reserve in 1933. For instance, twenty one (21.8% of the park) has been converted into agriculture land during the 35 year period from 1960 to 1996 ( Gapus i, 1998 ). Since 1986, the Rwanda Development Board (RDB), formally Rwandan Office for Tourism and National Parks (ORTPN) was given a mandate of enforcing conservation regulatio ns: effort to control illegal mineral extracti on, hunting, and forest encroachme nt ( Plumptre, 2012) .The conservation of biodiversity of Nyungwe was strengthened when the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) started working in Nyungwe in 198 6 with a focus on ecology applied research, tourism development, anti poaching and conser vation education and outreach. Today, various institutions and organizations work together with the Rwanda Development Board/Department of T ourism and Conservation (RDB ) in management of Nyungwe National Park (Table 2 1). Nyungwe National Park and L ivelihoods of Local C ommunities Tourism in the Rwandan national p ark is a major source of foreign income. In Nyungwe, m ain attraction s are primate viewing, nature walks and bird watching with more than 10,000 tourists per year ( Figure 2 2). The govern ment of Rwanda developed a policy of sharing revenue from tourism ( ORTPN, 2005 ) with three objecti ves: (1) to reduce illegal activities, ensure sustainable conservation, and increase community responsibility for conservation (conservation impact objective ); (2) to improve livelihoods by contributing to poverty reduction, to compensate for loss of access and/or crop damage, to provide alternatives to park

PAGE 23

23 resources and to encourage community based tourism (livelihood impact objective); and (3) to buil d tru st, to reduce conflicts, to increase community participation in conservation, and to empower communities ( relationship impact objective). Since the implementation of the revenue sharing scheme, the Rwanda Development Board ( RDB ) has disbursed an amount of US$582,344 to support 84 community projects around NNP with an average of US$64,705 per annum for a period of 9 years from 2005 to 2014 (Figure 2 3) Fifty eight ( 58% ), 25% and 16% was allocated to socio economic infrastructure projects, income generating projects, and conflict resolution related projects respectively. Table 2 1 Insti tutions and organizations in the management of Nyungwe National Park Name R ole and responsibility Governmental institutions Rwanda Development Board (RDB) Implementation of the day to day management activities : To protect park enhance scientific research, promote ecotourism and sharing of benefits derived from tourism activities with the people living near national parks Ministry of Commerce, Industry, Investment Promotion, Tourism and Cooperatives (MINICOM) MINICOM is responsible for initiating, developing, and administering programs aimed at promoting a balanced and viable growth tou rism, and promoting ecotourism Ministry of Natural Resourc es (MINRENA) Elaboration of environmental policy and oversee environmental issues Rwanda Environmental and Management Authority (REMA) REMA oversees implementation of biodiversity policy and environmental law, and ensure s that sustainability is integrated in policies University of Rwanda T o train manage rial staff, and contribute to the park management with scientific information Local non governmental o rganizations

PAGE 24

24 Table 2 1. Continued Name R ole and responsibility Association for the Conservation of Nature in Rwanda (ACNR) The major role of ACNR is to stimulate the interest and curiosity of people ( youth ) to the importance and conservation of biodiversity through the promotion of research an d knowledge Rural Environment Development Organization (RED O) REDO focuses on environmental sustainability : raising awareness about nature conservation, livelihood projects, education based human rights interventions, and advocacy initiatives. International Non Governmental Organizations Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) WCS principal mandate is to ensure the long term conservation of the biodiversity of Nyungwe. It focuses on building capacity (personnel and equipment) creating conservation awareness about the importance of the park to people living near th e park, and providing scientific information for management of the park. KAGENO Kageno is a community development and focuses on creating community development activities and help ing them protect their frag ile environments including NNP. Major funding organizations USAID and UNDP/GEF

PAGE 25

25 Figure 2 2 Statistics of tourists in Nyungwe National Park from 1988 to 2010 (Source: RDB) Figure 2 3 Number of community projects and the amount spent on each of them for a period of 9 years in NNP ( S ource : RDB). 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Number of visitors Year Statistics of tourist visits in Nyungwe National Park $1,000 $21,000 $41,000 $61,000 $81,000 $101,000 $121,000 $141,000 $161,000 $181,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Total amount disbursed Number of projects Community projects Community projects funded by revenue sharing scheme Number of projects Fund disbursed

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Collaboration and Participatory Approach and Concept This research applied a participatory approach design (Tress et al., 2005). It fostered collaboration with academic and non academic professionals including park managers, local government, and local community representatives. Epistemologically, (Creswell, 2014) philosophy to answer the research questions. I used a qualitative and quantitative mixed method research approach (Creswell, 2014) so that they complement each other. Moreover, I used a convergent parallel mixed methods model (Creswell, 2014; Figure 3 1): collecting both qualitative and quantitative data roughly at the same time, and integrating such informa tion to interpret the results. Figure 3 1 Epistemological position orienting this study (Adapted from Creswell, 2014) Convergent parallel mixed methods Semi structured interview & Household survey (quantitative data) Pragmatic Worldview RQ. Do benefits from parks improve conservation and the livelihoods of local people living adjacent to NNP? Participatory Rural Appraisal: Focus group (qualitative data) Qualitative and quantitative analysis; Integration of results Knowledge production (Publication) Feedback to stakeholders

PAGE 27

27 Study S ite This study was carried out in Banda and Rasano cells (called village in this study) from Rangiro and Bweyeye administrative sectors (Figure 3 2 ) neighboring Nyungwe National Park longitude 29 districts respectively in t he western Province Table 3 1 contains major c haracteristics of Rangiro and Bweyeye sectors. Figure 3 2 Location of study sites (Rangiro and Bweyeye), Rwandan national parks in general and Nyungwe National Park in particular Uwinka Interpretation Center

PAGE 28

28 Table 3 1 C haracteristics of our study areas (Rangiro and Bweyeye Sectors): Rangiro and Bweyeye are located northwest and southwest of Nyungwe National Park respectively Characteristic Rangiro Bweyeye Population 13,991 (53% female) 11,695 (52% female) No. of people who can write and read (>10 years old)* 40% (33.6% female ) 34.3% ( 24.9% female) M ajor occupation (>5 years old)* Subsistence farmer (agri livestock) 59% 62.5% Mean size of household* 4.9 people 5 people Clean water source* 47% 51.4% Household without land* 15.7% 16.3% People with bank account* Access to credits/loan* 21.2 % (5.6% female) 5.6 % 9.4% (0.6 % female) 4.1% Distance to the Uwinka Tourism Interpretation center** 13 km 32 km Distance to the park headquarter** ~40 km ~70 km Distance to the Kamembe town** ~ 65 km > 85 Distance to the main road** 13 km to main road, 32 km ** denotes source field data; denotes source: NISAR (2012) Relatively many people in Banda village (compared to Rasano) have a contract or casual work in tourism and park related activities: primate habituation and tracking, nature trail maintenance, primate guide, porter, and research. Main community cooperatives working with NNP:

PAGE 29

29 1. The Pilier de la Nature et Promotion du Tourism (PNPT: 85 members), is a community based tourism cooperative which runs a campsite and contracts with the park to main tain nature trails in the park. 2. Kabeho Nyungwe is an ex poacher cooperative (45 members) and its main activity is livestock keeping. Wi ldlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Rwanda Development Board (RDB) support this cooperative through revolving funds. 3. The Women C ooperative (40 members) whose main activity is hand crafts and basket weaving which are locally sold to tourists. Kageno, a N ew York City based non profit international community development organization ( http://kageno.org ) has its local office in the activities and interventions: early age children education (kinder garten), health care, income generating activities, and conservation In additional to employment, Kageno also provides food (porridge) and school uniforms for the school children. Rasano village has relatively few people working in tourism and park relat ed activities compared to its counterpart Banda village The majority of financial support from the park in this village is through a tourism revenue sharing program (Table 3 2) Table 3 2 Community projects supported by Nyungwe National Park in Bweyeye a nd Rangiro sectors Major community projects funded by the park and partners Banda Rasano Bee keeping project 45 people** 17 people** Construction of Health Post* whole community whole community Livestock (goat rearing) 300 families** 150 families** Children classroom (2 classrooms) whole community whole community Park related long term work contract >20 people ~3 people Land for sand extraction 35 people** Maternity clinic and facilities whole community House for vulnerable people 20 families Energy efficiency stove 100 households Livestock project (pig rearing) 45 families** Fruit project (Fashion fruit growing) 150 people**

PAGE 30

30 Table 3 2. Continued cooperative members Research Sampling and Sample S ize Household Survey Sampling I used household sampling (Newing et al., 2011) to collect data for this study I used the purposive method/homogenous case sampling ( Kemper et al., 2003) to sample districts, sectors and cell/village (Figure 3 3). I had a discussion meeting with park community conservation staff to decide district s sector s and cell s to be studie d We selected Banda village as the park management and tourism development influence zone, and Rasano village as a zone with little influence from management activities and tourism deve lopment. From each village, I randomly sampled 10% of households: 92 (100% of target sample) and 90 (92% of target sample) in Banda and in Rasano respec tively. Household Data C ollection I random ly s elected a sample of 10% (182 households) from the list of households obtained from the sector office in such a way that each household had an Major community projects funded by the park and partners Banda Rasano Community managed campsite 85 people** Park trail maintenance (short term work contract) 120 people** Hand craft and basketry weaving 42 people** Kiln for roofing tiles 22 people** Early children education, child feeding, and school uniform* >300 children Clean water* 11,600 people Pico hydro power* ~1000 people

PAGE 31

31 equal opportunity to participate in this survey I used a quantitative questionnaire method through one to one interview s (Newing et al., 2011) with the interviewee freely respond ing to predefined questions (about 45 to 60 minutes). Respondents, 18 years old and above participated in the survey and responded on behalf of the household. No selected households refused to respond to our interview However, some selected househ olds had shifted to other areas, so we replaced the missing one with another randomly selected household in the same village (Newing et al., 2011). I piloted and tested the developed questionnaire in 10 households before it was finalized and administered to the sampled households We used electronic tablets and paper datasheets to collect data. work and the battery charging system was limited in our study site, so we also used paper printed datashee ts to collect data, and then we entered data into tablets. Figure 3 3 Procedure used to select s tudy sites and households in the survey Administrative District Administrative Sector Administrative Cell/village Household 2 out of 5 districts were selected using purposive method 2 out of 13 sectors were selected using procurs ive method 10% of households were randomly selected (total of 182 households) 2 out of 8 villages were selected using purposive method

PAGE 32

32 Household Data Processing a nd Analysis The data analysis approach in this study combines qualitative and quantitative information. Qualitative data which cannot be analyzed directly using statistics were processed and analyzed qualitatively (Newing et al., 2011). We use d both descriptive, nonparametric, and parametric statistics (Ravid, 2014) to analyze quantitative data. I used RStudio software version 3.3.1(R Core Team, 2016) to analyze data in this research. More specifically, I used Pearson's Chi squared test, and St udent t test using Welch Two Sample t test ( Gb, McCollin, & Ramalhoto, 2007) for numerical data, and Mann Whitney Wilcoxon rank test for ordinal data Focus Group Discussion Data Collection The Focus Group Discussions (Boateng, 2012) were based on a semi structured group discussion to interview several respondents systematically and simultaneously. Participants were purposive selected on the criteria that they would be kn owledgeable on the given topic and comfortable talking to the interviewer/facilitator and to each other (Rabiee, 2004). Focus group discussion is applauded and widely used in recent times mainly because of its strength of convenience, economic advantage, high face validity, and speedy results (Boateng, 2012 ; McLafferty, 2004 ) Out of 18 p eople invited for focus group discussion 13 (78%) people of which 23% were women responded to the invitation. The first focus group discussion comprised of 7 people (1 woman) with 6 community and 1 lo cal government representative. Six people (2 women) from Rwanda Development Board (RDB), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and New Forest Company (NFC) formed our second focus group discussion.

PAGE 33

33 T he researcher/facilitator explained the questions and the process for the focus group discussion. Each focus gr oup identified positive and negative impacts of the park on communities, and the impacts were cluster ed in to 3 to 4 maj or categories according to their homogeneity /similarity We used the analytical hierarchy process (AHP ; Saaty, 1990 ) to process and analy ze focus group discussion data. I used the absolute scale (Figure 3 4 ) to measure t he intensity of importance between elements /factors, and the consistency ratio (CR) as a measurement of the level of consistency. A pair wise comparison using an absolute sc ale was carried out between the two focus group discussions. We repeated the s ame process to identify and compare factors which influenced success or failure of community conservation projects supported by the park. We used the following formula to measure the level of consistency: CR = CI/RI whereby, CR = consistence ratio, RI = random consistence index, and CI = consistence index (Saaty, 1990 ) Only less than or equal to 10% consistence ratio (CR) was accepted in our analysis. Figure 3 4 Example of a pairwise comparison absolute scale (source: Margles et al. 2010). Interpretation of scale based on importance of exper ience and judgement (Saaty, 1990 ): 1 = equal importance, 3= moderate importance of one over another, 5 = essential or strong importance, 7 = very strong importance, and 9 = extreme importance. 2, 4, 6, and 8 = intermediate values between the two adjacent judgements.

PAGE 34

34 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Perception of Household on the Conservation of Nyungwe National Park and Livelihoods Demograph y of Households in Banda & Rasano Communities Human capital On average, a ge of respondents was between 41 44 but varies from 18 to 88 years old (mean = 42.7, SD = 14.54) The sample showed more females in Banda (63%) but more males (55.6%) in Rasano. Thi s is possibly due to the fact that males in Banda go to work in Kamembe town or Kigali city. The majority (78% and 83% of respondents for Banda and Rasano, respectively) considered the mselves as subsistence farmers. The average size of household was 5.1 in Banda (SD= 2.24) and 5.46 in Rasano (SD= 2.20) people per household but the difference was not statistically significant (t= 1.0516, df = 179.9, p >0.05 ). In Banda 49.4% (x =2.46, SD = 1.25) and in Rasano 42.6% (x = 2.45, SD = 1.22) of people in a househo ld are above 18 year s old with no significant statistical difference Less than 45% of people in a household c an read: Banda (41%, x = 2.12, SD = 1.80) and Rasano ( 36% x = 1.98, SD = 1.69) with no statistical difference between the two means Less than 20 % of households had a member in secondary school with none in university. None of the difference between villages are statistically significant. Malaria was: Banda (75%) and Rasano (80%) the biggest health concern of household members followed by diar rhea (32% and 38% ) for Banda and Rasano respectively (Table 4 1)

PAGE 35

35 Natural capital On average the size of land/plot owned was: Banda (0.56 hectares SD = 0.58) and Rasano (0.48 hectares SD = 0.63) with no significant statistical difference. Fifty six (56%) and 65% of household s own land less than 0 .5 hectares in Banda and Rasano respectively Similarly, (11% and 9%) households do not own land/plot in Banda and Rasano, respectively. Financial capital Mean annual income was higher in Banda (FRW 191,045, $1 =FRW 780) than in Rasano (FRW 173,748) but with no significant difference. On farm and off farm income were higher in Rasano than in Banda with no significance statistical difference. However, park related products were 10 times higher in Banda (x = 48,415) tha n in Rasano (x = 4,768) with significant statistic difference (<0.001). Physical capital Banda (91% and 80%) and Rasano (12% and 52%) have access to clean water and health care respectively with significant statistical difference (p < 0.001). In Banda (72% and 97%) and Rasano (55% & 96%) households have mud break houses and tine roofing respectively with no significant statistical difference. Nevertheless, more than 90% of househ olds do not own a generator, solar panel /power bicycle or motorb ike, televisio n or electricity. Household Income and Source of Income I measured income by summing up household cash income and in kind income (Income = cash income + in kind income) for a period of one year. In kind income includes crop production consumed in a househo ld, in kind external donation s natural resources collected from the wild/bush and other non monetary goods received in a

PAGE 36

36 household. It excluded, however various kind of assets such as radio, telephone, land, houses, livestock, etc. In this analysis, c ash income refers to the collection of monetary ear ning by a household: wages and salaries remittances, pensions, sale of crop products or the government grant (child grant, disability grants) Table 4 2 describes three categories of sources of income for a household. Major sources of income include on farm products (44 %, x =83,345 SD =71,946 ) and (60 %, x=203,702, SD = 158,610) for Banda and Rasano respectively with no statistically significance difference ( p > 0.05 ). P ark related products (25 % x =86,995, S D = 222,462 and 3 % x = 4.768, SD = 12,092) in Banda and Rasano respectively with significant statistical difference ( p<0.001 ). Off farm products : Banda ( 31% x = 58,557, SD = 86,995) and Rasano ( 37% x = 65,279, SD = 110,291; p > 0.05 ; Figure 4 1). Food from charity (55% and 22%), cash/ donation (12% and 1%) local remittance (24% and 12%), gov ernment grant (55% and 22%), subsi dized fertilizer (33% and 3%) and local remittance (25% & 12%) in Banda and Rasano respectively showed significant statistica l difference (p<0.001) (Table 4 1). Eleven (11%) and (18%) of households are better off with FRW 273,000 (~US$360) Rasano and Banda respectively per year (Figure 4 2) Banda (29%) and Rasano (25%) household earn higher than an average (FRW 182,396) per hou sehold per year with no statistical difference. Major Crops Grown a nd L ivestock Rear ed in Banda and Rasano Villages B eans (83% and 72%) followed by sweet potatoes (66% and 57%) were the most grown crop in Banda and Rasano, respectively. C assava was frequen tly grown in Rasano ( 88% ) compared to Banda ( 56 %) with significant statistical difference ( 2 =

PAGE 37

37 28.22, df = 1, p <0.001; Figure 4 3). Few households grow cassava in Banda because of cassava mosaic diseases that spread in the area in previous years. Major livestock kept were c attle (27% and 21%), followed by pigs (25% and 40%) and goats (18% and 22%) in Banda and Rasano respectively with no statistical difference. However, more than 32% of household in Banda and 23% of household in Rasano do not own livesto ck (Figure 4 3) Food Security in H ouseholds Staple food s in Rwanda consist of roots, tubers, banana, beans, sweet potatoes, cassava, maize and avocado fruits ( Adekunle, 2007 ) The m ajority of people, in rural areas, eat twice a day. Porridge (sorghum or c orn, sugar, and milk) is commonly taken for breakfast. Boiled beans, banana, maize bread, sweet potatoes or cassava and vegetable comprise lunch or dinner. Whereas milk can be consumed on daily basis, meat is rarely (two to three times per month) consumed in rural areas. Therefore, we did not expect meat to be consumed by many household s in a meal on the previous day of the survey. We asked respondents to confirm various food items in the ir meal in the previous day of the survey Beans (81% & 60%) sugar (2 7% & 7.8%), fruits (19% & 7.8%), fish (22% & 41%), and meat (9.8% & 1%) were food consumed with significant statistical difference between villages The greater percentage of small fish consumption in Rasano is due to the influence of being closer to the b order with Burundi. However, a small number of households consumed m ilk, fruit, meat, egg and sugar (Figure 4 4). A small number of household suffer from shortage of food, especially in Rangiro (9 months from June to February; Figure 4 5 ). Over 70% of hous eholds suffer from food shortage in April and May. However, food shortage persisted in June, July, and August

PAGE 38

38 in up to 20% of households in Rasano village. This is possibly due to changes in rain patterns. Table 4 1 Situation analysis in Banda and Rasano Mean and standard deviation (SD) or number of household and percentage (%), and level of significance (p value) Area characteristics Village Banda (N=92) Rasano (N=90) P value Age of respondents 44.2 (SD=15.7) 41.2 (SD=13.2) 0.171 Gender of respondents: Male 34 (37%) 50 (55.6%) <0.05 Female 58 (63%) 40 (44.4%) Substance farming 72 (78.3%) 75 (83.3%) >0.05 Employed part time 10 (10.9%) 9 (10%) No formal education 41 (44.6%) 39 (43.3%) >0.05 Primary school education 38 (41%) 31 (34.4%) Some college education 10 (10.9%) 14 (15.6%) Number of years lived in the area 36.2(SD16.2) 36.6(SD16.7) >0.05 Human capital Size of household 5.1 (SD= 2.24) 5.46 (SD= 2.20) >0.05 Number of people who can read 2.1 (SD = 1.8) 1.9 (SD 1.69) >0.05 Number of people <18 year old/HH 2.87 (SD = 1.9) 2.89 (SD = 1.9) >0.05 Number of people >18 year old/HH 2.46 (SD = 1.3) 2.45 (SD = 1.2) >0.05 Number of people in primary school 1.3 ( SD = 1.4) 1.5 (SD = 1.2) >0.05 Number of people in secondary school 0.3 (SD 0.68) 0.2 (SD = 0.5) >0.05 Malaria 69 (75%) 72 (80%) >0.05 Diarrhea 30 (32.6%) 35 (38.8%) >0.05 Natural capital >0.05 Size of plot (Ha) 0.56 (SD=0.58) 0.48 (SD=0.63) Household with land < 0.5 Ha 51 (56.04%) 60 (65.93%) >0.05 Household with land > 0.5 Ha 40 (43.95%) 30 (32.96%) >0.05 Landless 10 (11%) 8 (9.1%) >0.05 Financial capital Mean income per year (FRW) 191,045 173,748 >0.05 On farm products (FRW) 83,345 103,702 >0.05 Off farm products (FRW) 58,557 65,279 >0.05 Park related products (FRW) 48,415 4,768 <0.001 Physical assets House roofing (iron sheet or tiles) 90 (97.8%) 87 (96.7%) >0.05 Easy access to clean water 84 (91.3%) 11 (12.2%) <0.001 Easy access to healthcare for the family members 74 (80.4%) 47 (52.2%) <0.001 House wall (mud bricks) 67 (72.8%) 50 (55.6%) >0.05 House wall (mud) 24 (26.1%) 39 (43.3%) >0.05 Radio 53 (57.6%) 49 (55.1%) >0.05

PAGE 39

39 Table 4 1 Continued. Table 4 2 Description of categories of the source of income for households Source of income Description On farm income E arning of a household from farming products (consumed + sold) Non timber forest collection (either sold or used in households) Park related income wages and salaries earned from the park and/ or conservation related non governmental organizations gifts or donations from charities/conservation NGOs or tourists Off farm income wages and salaries (none park related wages and salaries) in country remittance and self employment donation/assistance from government Area characteristics Village Banda (N=92) Rasano (N=90) P value Telephone 28 (35.6%) 32 (35.6%) >0.05 Size of plot/land (Ha) 0.56 (SD =0.6) 0.48 (SD = 0.6) >0.05 On farm products >0.05 Natural resource collection 91 (98.9%) 90 (100%) >0.05 Agriculture 85 (92%) 86 (95.5%) >0.05 Park related products: 57(61.9%) 26 (28.8%) <0.05 Food from charity 51 (55.4%) 20 (22.2%) <0.001 Clothes from Charity 22 (23.9%) 21 (23.3%) >0.05 Cash from charity 11 (12.0%) 1 (1.11%) <0.05 Transport (lift to town or main road) 10 (10.9%) 1 (1.11%) <0.05 Sponsorship for education 14 (15.2%) 17 (18.9%) >0.05 Wages & salaries 8 (8.7%) 0 Off farm products 77(83.7%) 49 (54.4%) <0.05 Government grant 42 (45.7%) 23 (25.6%) <0.05 Subsidized fertilizer 31 (33.7%) 3 (3.33%) <0.001 Local remittance yr. 23 (25.0%) 11 (12.2%) <0.05 Crops and livestock (frequency) Beans 77 (83.7%) 67 (72.83%) >0.05 Sweet potatoes 61 (66.30%) 53 (57.61%) >0.05 Cassava & Other 52 (56.52%) 88 (95.65%) <0.001 Cattle 25 (27.17%) 20 (21.7%) >0.05 Pigs 23 (25%) 37 (40.22%) >0.05 Goats 17 (18.48%) 21 (22.83%) >0.05

PAGE 40

40 (a) (b) Figure 4 1 Diversification of income: (a) Banda (N=92) and (b) Rasano (N=90) villages 44% 31% 25% On-farm products Off-farm products Products related to the park 60% 37% 3% On-farm products Off-farm products Products related to the park

PAGE 41

41 Figure 4 2 Income distribution in households in (left) Banda (N=92), and (right) Rasano (N=90 ) village. The average income per households in previous 1 2 months was 190,306 FRW (USD237.9) in Banda, and 173,748 FRW (USD217.2 ) in Rasano. 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 Income (in thousand) Households On-farm products Off-farm products Products related to the park Banda Rasano

PAGE 42

42 (a) (b) Figure 4 3 (a) Major crops grown and (b) livestock kept in Banda and Rasano village s Perceptions o n Benefits and Costs Banda (90%) and Rasano ( 80.4% ) perceived that the park either increased or slightly increased their wellbeing in the last 5 years. More than 95% have positive attitudes that the park should be conserved for the present and future generation s (Table 4 3). S chool children education, employment in tourism related activities, employment in the park, getting cash for the park, c onser vation education, access to market for their 0 20 40 60 80 100 Banana beer Green banana Maize Cassava & Other Sweet potatoes Beans Percentage of frequency Name of crop Rasano Banda 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Guineapig Chicken Rabbit Goats Pigs Cattle No livestock Percentage of households Livestock Rasano Banda

PAGE 43

43 products, donations and grant, and socio economic in frastructure were perceived benefits from the park with significant statistical difference (p<0.001) (Table 4 3). While Banda ( 91% ) perceived that access to clean water is a benefit to them, Rasano ( 87% of respondents ) contrast ed this perception. This is b ecause majority of households in Banda fetch water (tap water) in less than 20 minutes while in Rasano most of household fetch water in running streams and rivers (Figure 4 6) Figure 4 4 Percentage of food consumption in household in previous day of th e survey Figure 4 5 M onths of food shortage in Banda (N=92) and Rasano (N=90) in previous 12 months. question whether the household experienced food shortage in previous 12 months. 0 50 100 Cassava leaves Beans Oils and Fats Potatoes Sugar and honey Small fish Fruits Meat Eggs Milk Meal consumed in previous day Banda N=92 Rasano N=90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage of household Months Months of food shortage in households (answer "Yes ") Banda Rasano Harves t Harves t Harves t

PAGE 44

44 Table 4 3 Perceptions of households on benefits and costs of living near the NNP: percentage of aggregate responses (strongly agree or agree), mean and standard deviation of responses and are based on Likert scale (1 = strongly disa gree to 5 = stro ngly agree, and 3 neutral), t value, and level of significance Variables % of households Responses (Mean and SD) W value p value Banda Rasano Banda (N=92) Rasano (N=90) Benefits Clean water 95.7 31.1 4.67 (0.68) 2.44 (1.17) 7780.5 <0.001 Donation and grants 81.5 67.8 4.15 (1.13) 3.64 (1.25) 5180 <0.001 Clean air 80.4 77.8 4.09 (1.10) 3.83 (1.18) 4694 >0.05 Job in the park 58.7 31.1 3.58 (1.22) 2.86 (1.25) 5441 <0.001 Getting cash from the Park 79.3 42.2 3.83 (1.04) 2.86(1.16) 5974.5 <0.001 Job in tourism activities 92.4 27.8 4.10 (0.54) 2.54 (1.02 7163 <0.001 Market for product 94.6 34.4 4.10 (0.59) 2.60 (1.20) 6787.5 <0.001 School and clinics 91.3 78.3 4.34 (0.70) 4.09 (0.87) 5414.5 <0.05 Conservation education & training 81.5 66.7 3.90 (0.80 3.50 (0.84) 4746 >0.05 Infrastructure and services 39.1 11.1 3.12 (0.91) 2.27 (0.82) 6210 <0.001 Costs Crop raiding 72.8 31.1 3.84 (1.52) 2.46 (1.49) 6008.5 <0.001 Restriction to natural resources 44.6 55.6 3.02 (1.17) 3.28 (1.45) 3634 >0.05 Livestock predation 7.6 11.1 1.68 (0.84) 1.87 (1.01) 3756 >0.05 Harassment by park rangers 5.4 5.6 1.68 (0.80) 1.71 (0.78) 4 026 >0.05 Park Community relationship Excellent relationship with the park 89 74 4.35 (0.79) 3.93 (0.91) 5242.5 < 0.001 Park does a lot for us 88 68 4.15 (0.73) 3.63 (1.02) 5272 <0.001 Regular meeting with park 78 43 3.95 (1.12) 2.96 (1.15) 6057 <0.001 Easy to express grievances 60 52 3.37 (1.40) 3.20 (1.24) 4536.5 >0.05 Attitude on conservation in future 95 98 4.42 (0.58) 4.62 (0.51) 3411.5 <0.05 Project preference for future support Clean water 96 98 4.52 (0.67) 4.67 (0.54) 3695 >0.05

PAGE 45

45 Table 4 3. Continued Variables % of households Responses (Mean and SD) W value p value Banda Rasano Banda (N=92) Rasano (N=90) Livestock rearing 95 100 4.75 (0.67) 4.81 (0.39) 4213 >0.05 School and clinics 86 90 4.42 (0.62) 4.38 (0.61) 4338 >0.05 Energy efficient stove 93 95 4.15 (0.84) 4.19 (0.58) 4281 >0.05 Paying health insurance for poor people 93 100 4.68 (0.69) 4.66 (0.48) 4573 >0.05 Improved agriculture (agriculture inputs) 86 90 4.15 (0.91) 4.18 (0.76) 4273 >0.05 Guarding crops from wild animals 85 61 4.24 (0.96) 3.40 (1.28) 5795 <0.00 1 Agroforestry (tree planting) 76 68 3.74 (0.89) 3.44 (1.06) 4708.5 >0.05 Low Interest Loan (revolving fund) 60 73 3.46 (1.31) 4.09 (0.99) 3021 <0.00 1 Community tourism 55 41 3.42 (0.97) 3.03 (1.05) 4974.5 <0.05 Beekeeping development 54 36 3.14 (1.26) 2.63 (1.30) 5005.5 <0.00 1 Figure 4 6 Percentage of respondents who strongly agree or agree on household 0 20 40 60 80 100 Clean water Donors and grants Clean air Getting job from the park Getting cash from the park Job in tourism industry Access to market of the products Conservation Clinic and school children Benefit of living near the park Banda Rasano

PAGE 46

46 Costs of L iving N ear the Nyungwe National Park Banda (73% & 44% ) and Rasano (31% & 55% ) strongly agree or agree that crop raiding is a cost for their households with significant statistical difference (p < 0.001), followed by restrict ed access to natural resources (Figure 4 7 ). Surprisi ngly, Banda ( 18 %) and Rasano (4 % ) said that bad behavior (polygamy) was related to the management of the park and tourism activities P eople working in the park g et wealth and marry many women. Perception on Governance of the Nyungwe National Park and Local C ommunities Banda (90% & 78% ) and Rasano ( 76% & 43%) sa id that they have an excellent relationship with the park, and have regular meetings with the park with statistical significant difference (<0.001). Nevertheless, 60% and 52% agree or strongly agree that it is not easy for them to express their grievances (Figure 4 8). They said that it takes a long time to get compensation for their property (crops) damaged by wild animals from the park. Furthermore, participants were asked to whom they would like to go (or where they go) if they need information about NNP and socio economic opportunities The majority of people go to local government for information about human wildlife conflict, community development and small scale business, and agriculture (Table 4 4). They go to the c onservation a wareness v olunteer (ANICO) about revenue sharing. Nevertheless, 25% of respondents would not be interested in getting inf ormation about revenue sharing

PAGE 47

47 Figure 4 7 Percentage of respondents who strongly agree or agree on the costs of living near the park, Banda (N= 92) an d Rasano (N=90). Figure 4 8 Perceptions on Park Community relationship 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Killing and injuries from wild animals Crop raiding Livestock predation Restriction to natural resources Harrassment by parkstaff Bad behavior Costs of living near the park Banda Rasano 0 20 40 60 80 100 We meet regularly with the park staff to discuss issues Our relationship with the park are excellent The park does a lot for us It is easy for me to express any grievances related to the park Park Community relationship Banda Rasano

PAGE 48

48 Table 4 4 Source of information about governance of NNP : Number of respondents and percentage Major source of information Village ANICO Local government officials and park NGO none Relatives and friends Opinion leaders p value Human wildlife conflicts Banda 44 (47.8%) 31 (33.7%) 6 (6.52%) 2 (2.17%) 1 (1.09%) 6 (6.52%) 0.011 Rasano 31 (34.4%) 47 (52.2%) 0 (0.00%) 6 (6.67%) 1 (1.11%) 3 (3.33%) Information on community development Banda 0 47 (51.1%) 9 (9.78%) 2 (2.17%) 1 (1.09%) 33 (36%) 0.017 Rasano 0 52 (57.8%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (2.22%) 1 (1.11%) 35 (39%) Information on small scale business Banda 3 (3.26%) 55 (59.8%) 3 (3.26%) 17 (18.5%) 10 (10.8%) 4 (4.35%) 0.014 Rasano 0 (0.00%) 70 (77.8%) 0 (0.00%) 12 (13.3%) 7(7.7%) 1 (1.11%) Information on agriculture product inputs Banda 1 (1.09%) 68 (73.9%) 9 (9.78%) 9 (9.78%) 3 (3.26%) 2 (2.17%) 0.007 Rasano 0 (0.00%) 79 (87.8%) 0 (0.00%) 8 (8.89%) 2 (2.22%) 1 (1.11%) Information on Revenue Sharing Banda 35 (38.0%) 14 (15.2%) 13 (14.1%) 17 (18.5%) 6 (6.5%) 0 <0.00 1 Rasano 36 (40.0%) 18 (20.0%) 1 (1.11%) 29 (32.2%) 6 (6.67%) 0

PAGE 49

49 Attitude and Preference of Community Project s in Future Participants in this study used the choice about the potential community projects, which the park should fund in future Overall, communities want everything on the project list. However, r on com munity projects: low interest bank loan (revolving funds; p=0.001), community tourism projects (p=0.01), beekeeping development (p= 0.008), agroforestry ( p= 0.0 4 ), and guarding crop from wild animals varied between the two villages (Table 4 4) Beekeeping development (54% & 36%) and community tourism (55% & 41%) for Banda and Rasano respectively were the least preferred community projects (Figure 4 9). This is because most of the communities lack the required specif ic skills to run such projects Figure 4 9 Attitude of respondents (percentage) on future community su pport by the park (aggregate response of Rasano N= 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 Revolving funds Socio-economic Improved agriculture Tourism related Beekeeping development Livestock husbandry Energy saving cooking stoves Paying health Clean water facilities Agroforestry Guarding crops from Attitude of respondents of future use of support Banda Rasano

PAGE 50

50 Factors that Influenced Success or Failure of Community Projects Impacts of Nyun gwe National Park (NNP) on local residents were assessed using focus group discussion (FGD) workshops Major positive impacts identified include: ecosystem services : clean water, clean air, and local climate regulation (63% and 65% importance of priority ), and socio economic infrastructure (tourism revenue sharing). Likewise, crop raiding (54% and 51% importance of priority) was the most negative impact of the park on the surro unding communities (Table 4 5). Furthermore, participation of beneficiaries in th e process of selection and implementation of the community projects (55% and 25%), and adequate skills in managing community projects (35% and 59%) were major factors influencing the succes s of community funded projects. Table 4 5 Positive a nd negative impacts of the Nyungwe National Park by priority of importance ranking Impacts Community Park Rank/Priority vector CR Rank/Priority vector CR Positive impacts Ecosystem services 63% 4% 65% 2% Employment and income opportunity 26% 28% Access to information on the park 11% 7% Negative impacts Crop raiding 54% 8% 51% 9% Restriction for access to natural resources 29% 11% Remoteness 7% 3 0% Costs related to fire suppression in the park 10% 6% Factors influenced success of community funded projects Participation in selection of the projects 56% 6% 25% 6% Long term support from the park and or local authorities 9% 16%

PAGE 51

51 Table 4 5. Continued Impacts Community Park Rank/Priority vector CR Rank/Priority vector CR Factors influenced failure of community funded projects Lack of skills to manage projects leading to mismanagement of projects 48% 8% 57% 9% Lack of involvement beneficiaries in conception and implementation of the project 19% 25% Creation of cooperative targeting funds 16% 8% Corruption 16% 10%

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Perception of Households on Benefits and Costs o f NNP o n Local Residents National parks can bring benefits or costs to people living within or near them (Ellis, 1999) We used focus group discussion and household survey s to assess impacts of Nyungwe National Park on surrounding communities in 182 households in Banda and Rasano villages. Data showed mixed impacts of the park on household living next to Nyungwe National Park. More than 95% of respondents interview ed perceived the national park as a benefit to them, and have positive attitudes towards its conservation The benefits to communities and household s include classrooms, health clinics (health point), clean wate r, income generating activities (employment in park and tourism related activities, livestock) clean air, local climate regulation, conservation education and training, as well as funding opportunities However, remarkable difference s w ere observed between the two villages. For example, access to clean water (Banda: 95% and Rasano: 31%), employment in tourism related activities (Banda 92% vs Rasano 27%) demonstrate significant difference s (p < 0.001) between villages indicating that people in Banda benefit more than those in Rasano. This difference is explained by exposure to tourism and park management activities (Anthony, 2007). There was, in Banda, a higher number of people employed in park related activities including long term work cont racts, casual labor contracts, community campsites, handicrafts, and donations from conservation organizations than its counterpart Rasano. Overall, the higher perception of benefits and positive attitude s towards conservation in Nyungwe National Park were remarkably higher than those reported at

PAGE 53

53 Kr u ger National Park ( Stem et al., 2003 ), but in consistence with findings from India and Nepal (Karanth & Nepal, 2012). The large number of household s perceiving park benefit s and its important role in their livel ihoods/well relationships with the park, and positive attitude towards conservation (Allendorf et al., 2006). also apparent. Focus group discussion and hou sehold surveys demonstrated that c rop damage (30% to 72% of respondents) and restriction to non timber natural resources (45% to 55%) are major costs perceived by households around Nyungwe National Park. Nevertheless, remarkable difference s in crop raiding was observed between the two villages with a higher percentage of crop raiding in Banda (p < 0.001). A l ow number of household s report ing crop raiding can be associated to the land use (type of crop grown) in relation to park boundary ( Fungo, 2011) Many people in Rasano reported that they replaced crop with eucalyptus in their plots near the park boundary because eucalyptus are not palatable food for primates. These findings are in consistence with other studies on crop raiding in forested areas: C yamudongo forest Rwanda (McShane, 2008), Gishwati forest, Rwanda (Mc Guinness & David Taylor, 2014), and Sulawesi Indonesia ( Riley & Priston (2010). The impact of crop raiding on attitudes of local communities towards national parks can undermine efforts to support conservation, even when the programs provide substantial economic benefits ( Fungo, 2011).

PAGE 54

54 Household Income Diversification On farm products (crops firewood, and traditional medicine), park related products (salaries and wages from park and tourism and conservation related activities, food and clothes from charity), and off farm products formed major source s of household income Diversification of so urce of income, especially park products varied between villages (p<0.001) with a higher percentage in Banda (25% vs 3%) Significant difference s in most park related variables including salaries and wages in Banda (8% vs 0%) can be explained by the tourism and park management influence zone People living in a community where tourism exists (tourism exposure) are more likely to participate in tourism associated benefits ( Stem et al., 2003) Park Relationship with Local People The p ark local community relationship is mixed in our studied villages. There was a positive perception of the park community relationship (74% 90%) with a difference between the two villages. People's positive perception on park management is a good oppor tunity for conservatio n because it influences positive attitudes to the conservation (Allendorf et al., 2006; Ormsby and Kaplin, 2005) Communities ( 47% to 52%) go to the local government (cell executive secretary and park staff) and conservation awareness volunteer for informa tion about the management of the park (ANICO) indicating the level of trust established between communities and park managers. However, at least 55% felt that it was not easy for them to express their grievances when they face problems from the park. It ta kes time and it is a long process to get compensation for property damaged by wildlife. The process is too long and costly so that by the end, the process cost is greater than the compensation.

PAGE 55

55 Factors Affected the Success or Fa ilur e of Community Project F unded b y the Park Focus group discussion s pointed out a number of challenges for community projects funded by the park. These include: poor management, limited entrepreneurial skills, lack of involvement and participation in project design and implement ati on, and inadequate funding. Many community projects funded by the park, especially income generating projects, lack scrutiny for their feasibility and sustainability such as a business plan. Though the park funds the project s initiated by community members (community cooperatives), most of these projects w ere designed and written by few people without consultation/involvement of other members of the cooperatives who are expected to implement these projects Thus, there is a limitation of their participation in project conception, development and implementation. Furthermore, poor management and limited entrepreneur skills hinder the success of the project even if they are well designed. M ost management struct ures do not function: financial and accounting book, business plan, and tr ansparence and accountability. Group discussion indicated that some community projects are dominated by a few individuals who were on the forefront at project conception, and they co ntrol and derive benefits from these projects. Even if management structure exists, managerial skills (e.g. marketing business plan, etc. ) and financial capacity are limited. Preference and Choice of Potential Community Projects Funding When asked their a ttitude on community projects which can be funded by Nyungwe National Park in the future, interviewees wanted every community project on the list. However, community projects: socio economic infrastructure (classroom and health clinic), livestock husbandry paying for health insurance for poor people, clean

PAGE 56

56 water, energy saving stove, and agriculture inputs were the most common community project s put forward with support from more than 85% of respondents. On the other hand, community projects: beekeeping p roject and tourism related small scale business were less prioritized (less than 50%) by respondents. Although these projects are more conservation friendly and have considerable income generating potential in many rural areas (Bradbear, 2009, Archabald & Naughton Treves, 2001 Mehta & Kellert, 1998) they require special managerial skills and competence. However, these ski lls and competences are limited in studied villages. Beekeeping project s for instance are among community project s tha t are doing better in other areas ar ound Nyungwe (Hakizimana, pers c ommunication). Conclusion and Management Recommendations In many developing countries, benefit sharing has been used to compensate foregone access to natural resources in national parks. This study has shown that more than 80% of respondents have improved or slightly improved their livelihood because of the park, and 95% have a positive attitude towards conservation. Studied villages benefit from the park through ecosystem services (clean water and clean air), classroom and health clinic s and generating income from employment small scale tourism business, and tourism revenue sharing projects funded by the park. With regards to benefit distribution, the results demonstrated that people in Banda get benefits in various ways but few households receive the benefits. I n areas with high population density such as Nyungwe it might be not easy for the park or tourism r elated activities to reach each household. However, benefit sharing should focus on interventions that reach many households at the same time For example, the clean water project funded by Kageno demonstrated the value of Nyungwe as a water

PAGE 57

57 catchment, thu s enhancing positive attitude of many households toward the conservation of the park. However, the impact s of Nyungwe on surrounding communities are mixed While local residence s perceived benefits, the results reveal that more than 50% of households incur red cost s as well throug h crop raiding. The loss of access to natural resources was also a major cost of household living closer to the park. Nyungwe National Park has funded various community income generating projects However, lack of certain skill s nee ded for management of pr ojects constrained many of the park funded community projects. These projects failed due to poor management, and insufficient expertise in project development and management. Therefore, the community projects require a full package which contains a grant that is accompanied by long term technical support including acquire d managerial skills and entrepreneurial skills if these projects are to succeed We presented community projects according to Im plementing the project such as a classroom and health clinic will ensure a long term solution to the challenge of conservation. However, income generating projects such as beekeeping and community tourism projects can generate income for households but the se projects will require long term technical support (e.g. market and marketing) Finally, this study assessed perceived benefit and cost in two villages. We recommend extending a similar study to other villages in other sectors and districts. Likewise, ec onomic impact is also another area to study in order to understand how such a biodiversity rich national park contribute s to the local and national economy.

PAGE 58

5 8 REFERENCE LIST Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., ... & Wolmer, W. (2004). Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. science, 306(5699), 1146 1149. Adekunle, J. (2007). Culture and customs of Rwanda. Greenwood Publishing Group. https://books.go ogle.com/ Accessed September 1 st 2017 Allendorf, T., Swe, K. K., Oo, T., Htut, Y., Aung, M., Allendorf, K., ... & Wemmer, C. (2006). Community attitudes toward three protected areas in Upper Myanmar (Burma). Environmental Conservation, 33(4), 344 352. Anthony, B. (2007). The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neighbouring communities towards Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environmental Conservation, 34(3), 236 245. Archabald, K., & Naughton Treves, L. (2001). Tourism revenue sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environmental Conservation, 28(2), 135 149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000145 Barrett, C. B., Reardon, T., & Webb, P. (2001). Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food policy, 26(4), 315 331. Barrow E., Gichohi H., and Infield M., (2000): Rhetoric or Reality? A Review of Communit y Conservation Policy and Practice in East Africa Barrow, E., & Murphree, M. (1998). Community Conservation from Concept to Practice: A Practical Framework: Community Conservation in Africa: Principles and Comparative Practice (No. 8). Working Paper. Beb bington, A. (1999). Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World development, 27(12), 2021 2044. Boateng, W. (2012). Evaluating the efficacy of focus group discussion (FGD) in qualitative social research. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7). Boone, C. G., Buckley, G. L., Grove, J. M., & Sister, C. (2009). Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(4), 767 787. Bradbear, N. (2009). Bees and their role in forest livelihoods. Food and Agricultural Organization, 194. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

PAGE 59

59 Bruner A. G., Gullison R. E., Rice R. E., da Fonseca G. A. B., 2001: Effect iveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity, www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 291 5 JANUARY 2001 Bryceson, D. F. (1999). African rural labour, income diversification and livelihood approaches: a long term development perspective. Review of African Political Economy, 26(80), 171 189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056249908704377 Butler, J. R. A. (2000). The economic costs of wildlife predation on livestock in Gokwe communal land, Zimbabwe. African journal of Ecology, 38(1), 23 30. Bush, G. K., Ikirezi, M., Daconto, G., Gray, M., & Fawcett, K. (2010). Assessing impacts from community conservation interventions around Parc National des Volcans, Rwanda. Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, Rwanda. Child, B., & Wojcik, D. (2014). Developing Capacity for Community Governance of Natural Resources Theory & Practice. Author House. Christensen I. & Pozarny P., 2008. Socio Economic & Livelihood Analysis in Investment Planning. FAO E A S YPol. http://www. fao.org/docs/up/easypol/581/ accessed on August 20 20017. Coad, L., Campbell, A., Miles, L., & Humphries, K. (2008). The costs and benefits of protected areas for local livelihoods: a review of the current literature. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Ce ntre, Cambridge, UK. Creswell, J. W., (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Sage Publication Deguignet M., Juffe Bignoli D., Harrison J., MacSharry B., Burgess N., Kingston N., (2014) 2014 United Nation s List of Protected Areas. UNEP WCMC: Cambridge, UK. Dubois, O. (2003). Forest based poverty reduction: a brief review of facts, figures, challenges and possible ways forward. Forests in Poverty Reduction Strategies: Capturing the Potential. T. Oksanen, B Pajari and T. Tuomasjukka (eds.) pp, 65 81. Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford university press. Ellis, F. (1999). Rural Livelihood Diversity in Developing Countries: Evidence and Policy Implications. Over seas Development Institute, London, (40), 10. https://doi.org/xx Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. The journal of development studies, 35(1), 1 38.

PAGE 60

60 Franks, P., & Small, R. (2016). Understanding the social impacts of protected areas: a community perspective. Fungo, B. (2011). A review crop raiding around protected areas: nature, control and research gaps. Environmental Research Journal, 5(2), 87 92. Gapusi, J. R. (2007). Regeneration of indigenous species in Nyungwe buffer zone for Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala. Gibson C. C. & Marks S. A., (1995). Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: an assessment of community based wildlife management programs in Africa. World Development 23(6): 941 57. Gb, R., McCollin, C., & Ramalhoto, M. F. (2007). Ordinal methodology in the analysis of Likert scales. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 601 626. Goodwin, H., & Roe, D. (2 001). Tourism, livelihoods and protected areas: opportunities for fair trade tourism in and around National parks. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(5), 377 391. Gross Camp N. D., Martin A., Mcguire S., Kebede B., and Munyarukaza J., (2012). Pa yments for Ecosystem S ervices i n an African Protected A rea: exploring issues of legitimacy, fairness, equity and effectiveness. Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 46(1), 24 33 Kagarama J., Bizoza A., Kayigamba C., (2011). Assessment of the Performance of the Revenue Sharing Implementation during 2005 2010: Review Carried out in t he National Parks of Virunga, Akagera and Nyungwe, a Report to the Rwanda Development Board, December 21st 2011. Karanth, K. K., Gopalaswamy, A. M., Prasad, P. K., & Dasgupta, S. (2013). Patterns of human wildlife conflicts and compensation: Insights from Western Ghats protected areas. Biological Conservation, 166, 175 185. Karanth, K. K., & Nepal, S. K. (2012). Lo cal residents perception of benefits and losses from protected are as in India and Nepal. Environmental management, 49(2), 372 386. Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 273 296. Krantz, L. (2001). The sustainable livelihood approach to poverty reduction. SIDA. Division for Policy and Socio Economic Analysis.

PAGE 61

61 Margles, S. W., Masozera, M., Rugyerinyange, L., & Kaplin, B. A. (2010). Participatory planning: Using SWOT AHP analysis in buffer zone management planning. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29(6 8), 613 637. Martin, A., Gross Camp, N., Kebede, B., & McGuire, S. (2014). Measuring effectiveness, efficiency and equity in an experimental Payments for Ecosystem Services trial. Glob al Environmental Change, 28, 216 226. Masozera, M. K., Alavalapati, J. R., Jacobson, S. K., & Shrestha, R. K. (2006). Assessing the suitability of community based management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(2), 206 21 6. Masozera, M. K., & Alavalapati, J. R. R. (2004). Forest Dependency and its Implications for Protected Areas Management: A Case Study From the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19(sup004), 85 92. https://doi.org/10 .1080/14004080410034164 Masozera, M. K. (2002). Socioeconomic impact analysis of the conservation of the Nyungwe forest reserve, Rwanda (Doctoral dissertation, University of Gainesville, Florida). s and actions to decrease crop raiding by forest dwelling primates around a Rwandan forest fragment. Human dimensions of wildlife, 19(2), 179 190. McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. Journal of advanced nursing, 48 (2), 187 194. Raiding Around Raiding Around Cyamudongo Forest Rwanda, (June), 143. Mehta, J. N., & Kellert, S. R. (1998). Loc al attitudes toward community based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu Barun Conservation Area. Environmental Conservation, 25(4), 320 333. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689299800040X Michalski, F., Boulhosa, R. L. P., F aria, A., & Peres, C. A. (2006). Human wildlife conflicts in a fragmented Amazonian forest landscape: Determinants of large felid depredation on livestock. Animal Conservation, 9(2), 179 188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469 1795.2006.00025.x MINITERE (2003). Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Environment, national strategy and action plan for the conservation of biodiversity., (April).

PAGE 62

62 Mulder B. M., and Coppolillo P., (2005). Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture. Princeton University Press, New Jersey 08540. A ccessed from https://books.google.com/books on February 29th 2016 Munanura, I. E., Backman, K. F., Hallo, J. C., & Powell, R. B. (2016). Perceptions of tourism revenue shari ng impacts on Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda: a Sustainable Livelihoods framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9582(March), 1 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1145228 Naughton Treves, L., Holland, M. B., & Brandon, K. (2005). The role of pro tected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 219 252. and Resources, 30(1), 219 252. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.164507 Nepal, S. K., & Weber, K. E. (1995). Prospects for c oexistence: wildlife and local people. Ambio, 238 245. Newing H., Eagle C.M., Puri R.K, and Waston C.W, (2011). Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice. Routledge. 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX144RN. NISAR (National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda), (2012). Fourth Rwanda Population and Housing Census. Ormsby, A., Kaplin, B.A., 2005. A framework for understanding community resident perceptions of Masoala National Park, Madagascar. Environmental Conservati on 32 (2), 156 164. ORTPN (2005): Tourism Revenue Sharing in Rwanda Provisional Policy and Guidelines. Plumptre, A. J. (2012). The Ecological Impact of Long term Changes in Africa's Rift Valley. Nova Science Publishers. Plumptre, A. J., Kayitare, A., Ra Namara, A. (2004). Socioeconomic status of people living near protected areas in the central albertine Rift, (Albertine Rift Technical Reports), 1 127. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publicat ion/235945000_Socioeconomic_status_of_peo ple_in_the_Central_Albertine_Rift eas on Human Well being: A STAP Washington, D.C. Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the nutrition society, 63(04), 655 660.

PAGE 63

63 Ravid, R. (2014). Practical statistics for educators. Rowman & Littlefield. R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R project.org/ REMA (2011). Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of N ature Resources. Rwanda Biodiversity Policy. Republic of Rwanda, (Rwanda Environment Management Authority), 68. Riley, E. P., & Priston, N. E. (2010). Macaques in farms and folklore: exploring the human nonhuman primate interface in Sulawesi, Indonesia. A merican Journal of Primatology, 72(10), 848 854. Rutebuka, E., Nsabimana, D., & Gross Camp, N. (2012). Evaluation of community based conservation around protected areas in Rwanda, Nyungwe National Park. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The an alytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377 2217(90)90057 I SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). (2008). Protected areas in for the welfare of the planet. Diversity (Vol. 43). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.3846&rep=rep1&type =pdf#page=10 Stem, C. J., Lassoie, J. P., Lee, D. R., Deshler, D. D., & Schelhas, J. W. (2003). Community pa rticipation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspectives. Society & Natural Resources, 16(5), 387 413. Team, R. (2014). RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA. URL http://www. RStudio. com/ide. Tre ss, B., Tress, G., & Fry, G. (2005). Defining concepts and the process of knowledge production in integrative research (pp. 13 26). Springer: Heidelberg, Germany.

PAGE 64

64 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Felix Mulindahabi was born in 1969 in Rwanda and received a bachelor's degree in wildlife management in 2005. He worked in the field of wildlife conservation for over 20 years in tropical mountain forests in Rwanda. He received his Master of Science in interdisc iplinary ecology at the University of Florida in December 2017