PERCEPTIONS, PARTICIPATION, AND SUCCESS IN TWO COMMUNITY BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS IN THE NORTHERN ECUADORIAN AMAZON By HERNAN GONZALO ALVAREZ BARRIGA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIR EMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIEN C E UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2015
Â© 2015 Hernan Gonzalo Alvarez Barriga
I would like to dedicate this work to my family for all their unconditional and constant support.
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My program was made successful by the constant support of many people and institutions that funded and supported this research project. I am very thankful to the Ecuadorian Government, especially SENESCYT (National Department of Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation) without their financial support I would have not been able to finance my graduate stud ies . I want to also thank the Tropical Conservation and Development (TCD) program of the University of Florida, wh ose financial support helped me to conduct my research in Ecuador. I would like to give my special th anks to my committee chair, Dr. Bette Loiselle, for all her support, motivation and guidance during my entire study program. I also thank the m embers of my committee Dr. Susan Jacobson and Dr. Marianne Schmink for their importan t guidance and comments on my research and the thesis . I want to thank the community members that allowed me to stay in their homes during my fieldwork season, and all the people that I interviewed and were willing to share me their experience and knowledge . I thank also the participating organizations: Wildlife Conservation Society, Grupo FARO and Universidad San Francisco de Quito, and the people in the Ministry of the Environment and the l ocal g overnments of Francisco de Orellana. Finally, I thank my fami ly and friends who g a ve me support during hard moments.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 2 IN COMMUNITY BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ................................ .... 14 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 14 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 16 Survey Development ................................ ................................ ........................ 16 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ . 16 Data Analysi s ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17 Questionnaire Validation ................................ ................................ .................. 18 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 19 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 23 Concluding Remarks ................................ ................................ ............................... 25 3 PARTICIP ATION INFLUENCES SUCCESS OF COMMUNITY BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ................................ ................................ ............. 30 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 30 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 33 Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ . 33 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 34 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 34 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 36 Concluding Remarks ................................ ................................ ............................... 39 4 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 43 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY ................................ ................................ .................. 45
6 B FRAMEWORK TO EVALUATE SUCCESS OF CBC PROGRAMS BASED ON FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE LOCAL PARTICIPATION ................................ ...... 49 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 54 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 60
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Parameters, dimensions and indicators used to develop open and close ended questions. Parameters were considered based on Hockings et al. 2006. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 26 1 2 Numbers of interviews conducted for each case study (CBC program). ............ 26 1 3 Attitudes of local participants (LP = 19, 14), program managers (NGO = 4, 4) and Government officials (GOV = 3, 1) in regard to the general benefits of the program. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 27 1 4 Attitudes of local participants (LP = 19, 14), program managers (NGO = 4, 4) and Government officials (GOV = 3, 1) towards the program success. .............. 27 1 5 Three most important benefits of each program mentioned by local participants (LP = 19, 14), program managers (NGO = 4, 4) and Government officials (GOV = 3, 1). ................................ ................................ ......................... 28 1 6 Three most important threats mentioned by local participants (LP = 19, 14), program managers (NG O = 4, 4) and Government officials (GOV = 3, 1) for each program. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 29 2 1 Comparison of the average implementation score of each stage between and within the two CBC programs (see Appendix B). ................................ ................ 40 B 2 Rubric created based on the conceptual model (Figure B 1), in order to rank each factor on a scale of 1 (lowest score) to 5 (highest score). .......................... 50
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Conceptual model for the implementation process of factors that influence local participation in Community Based Monitoring Programs. ........................... 40 2 2 Differences in the degree of implementation of factors that influence local participation between and within the two CBC programs. Each indicator was ra nked from a scale of 1 (lowest score) to 5 (highest score). Also a gradient of colors reflect the increasing scale from the lowest score (light grey) to highest score (dark gray). For more details about the ranking scale see Appendix B. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 41 2 3 Comparison of the overall success between and within the two CBC programs. Each indicator was ranked from a scale of 1 (lowest score) to 5 ( highest score). Also a gradient of colors reflect the increasing scale from the lowest score (light grey) to highest score (dark gray). For more details about the ranking scale see Appendix B. ................................ ................................ ..... 42 B 1 Conceptual model for the implementation process of factors that influence local participation in Community Based Monitoring Programs. ........................... 49
9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science PERCEPTIONS, PARTICIPATION, AND SUCCESS IN TWO COMMUNITY BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS IN THE NORTHERN ECUADORIAN AMAZON By Hernan Gonzalo Alvarez Barriga December 2015 Chair: Bette Loiselle Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Program e valuation is critical to ensure Com munity based Conservation (CBC) programs help protect biodiversity , particularly in rural areas in developing countries. Some studies have found that CBC programs have little or fleeting success . This is often attributed to a lack of direct benefits provid ed to local people, leading to negative attitudes and lack of local support. This study examines factors that influence success of CBC programs , including the degree of local participation . W e use two case studies from the northern Ecuadorian Amazon and ex amine how perceptions and attitudes about program success vary among stakeholder groups, such as: community members, NGO staff, and government officials . Information was collected using a questionnaire composed of open and close ended questions. In the en d, 49 people were interviewed . Perceptions and attitudes in the two programs revealed that, regardless of delivering tangible benefits to the people, local people evaluate the program differently than NGO managers and government officials. Furthermore, o ur results show that s ustaining participation and developing benefits from monitoring activities were found to be important factors influencing success when the other implementing factors are
10 implemented appropriately . We recommend more evaluations of CBC pr ograms to determine the relative degree to which local participation influences program success.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Community based conservation (CBC) programs are initiatives that aim to improve biodiversity conservation, however, these initiatives are failing in several parts of the world (Saterson et al. 2004). One of the arguments is that these initiatives do not effectively deal with fundamental trade offs , such as provision of community devel opment. One limitation of many CBC programs is the failure to provide local benefits as part of the program outcomes. This failure has resulted in lack of support and negative attitudes from local people towards these programs ( Brandon and Wells 1992 ; Lewi s and Phiri 1998 ; Wells 1998 ; Songorwa 1999 ). At the same time, the involvement of local people , in the design and implementation process, has been recognized as a factor influencing success (Waylen et al. 2010). Despite recognizing the importance of local participation, the concept of participation has been poorly defined and not rigorously applied on the ground (Little 1994; Waylen et al. 2010) . Conservationists have recognized the role of CBC interventions , a s the top down approach has often proven inadequate to achieve meaningful conservation outcomes (Western and Wright 1994). Considering the role of local communities in natural living inside and/or around protected areas have access to natural resources or receive an (Robinson and Redford 1994). For that reason, in the context of this study, we defined CBC programs as: programs that involve local, non professional volunteers, either being paid or not, in natural resource management and/or monitoring, organized by government entities or non governmental conservation organizations to improve
12 management of natural resources with community input (Whitelaw et al. 2003; Evans and Guar iguata 2008; Danielsen et al. 2009) . In this investigation, we examine two CBC programs implemented in the n orthern Ecuadorian Amazon by different non profit organizations. These two case studies have two fundamental distinctions in terms of the involve ment of local people. While in one program the involvement of local people represents a mean s to achieve conservation ends, in the other, building capacity of the local people is the goal to achieve indirect conservation impacts. We expect to contribute in formation with the analysis of these case studies that helps us understand which factors influence success in CBC programs given their different approaches . We focus o n two specific questions: 1) how do perceptions and attitudes of different program partic ipants differ towards the program success? and, 2) how does the degree of local participation influence program success? The two programs examined in this study have been implemented by non profit organizations, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS program ) in one case, and a c onsortium between Grupo FARO (FARO program ) and Universidad San Francisco de Quito in the second case ; both programs occurred within the YasunÃ Biosphere Reserve (YBR) and the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve (SBR) located in the northern Ecuad orian Amazon. Due to its exceptionally high levels of biodiversity, the c onservation importance of this region has been recognized internationally (Bass et al. 2010) . Several attributes have made the northern Ecuadorian Amazon a challenging place to manage, conserve and protect biodiversity. One challenge is the complexity created by a large and diverse group of stakeholders, which includes private and state
13 oil compani es, government agencies, military, indigenous communities, non profit organizations, and university operated biological stations (Finer et al. 2009) . In term s of administers YBR and SBR and oversees the management of natural resources. At the same time, the Ministry of Energy and Mines maintains a certain control over the man agement of natural resources. Specifically, the Ministry of Energy and Mines coordinates oil extraction, while the Ministry of the Environment administers the legal permits for such activities (INEFAN 1998; MAE 2013) . Since 2008 and 2010, both NGOs have implemented CBC programs, WCS in the YBR area and Grupo FARO in the YBR and SBY area s . WCS has implemented a program to manage populations of river turtles ( Podocnemis unifilis ) , where local communities are involved in t he collection, measurement, and incubation of eggs, the release of freshly hatched turtles to the rivers, and the monitoring of effects of these actions on turtle populations. Grupo FARO has implemented a conservation program to develop local capacity to c onduct environmental monitoring of the flora and fauna in community territories with the expected outcome that local people will improve the management of their natural resourc es. Following Kapos et al. (2009 ) , WCS takes a conservation based approach as it focuses on management of wildlife species and populations with direct actions . In contrast, Grupo FARO has an indirect approach to conservation because it focuses on training to develop specific individual skills and establish organizational capacity for natural resource management.
14 CHAPTER 2 COMMUNITY BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Background In the past two decades, Community Based Conservation (CBC) programs have been considered an important s trategy to improve biodiversity conservation in rural areas (Mugisha 2002) . Conservationists have increasingly recognized the role of CBC interventions after the real ization that top down approaches have often proven inadequate to achieve meaningful conservation outcomes (Western and Wright 1994). These initiatives have gained popularity in developing countries, where the highest biodiversity on earth is distributed an d where threats are often great. CBC approaches have been executed under the premise that if local people living inside and/or around protected areas have access to natural resources or receive any kind of benefit from them, they will contribute to efforts to conserve biodiversity (Robinson and Redford 1994). Despite best intentions, however, CBC programs are failing in several parts of the world (Saterson et al. 2004) . Factors influencing conservation success have been identified from different case studies, and one is the local support towards these initiatives , which is influence d by the perceptions of program outcomes by local communities (Bennett and Dearden 2014 ) . Negative local attitudes have resulted from programs th at fail to provide local benefits (Brandon and Wells 1992 ; Wells 1998 ; Lewis and Phiri 1998; Songorwa 1999). Thus , a critical pitfall is that CBC programs alone do not provide sufficient development benefits for local people at a sufficient scale .
15 Strateg ies are needed to improve success of CBC programs. P rogram evaluation s are an example of a needed strategy to reflect on outcomes and develop general conclusions on how best to design or modify programs for success. In a review, Waylen et al. (2010) establ ished a framework to evaluate what factors best predict success of community based conservation interventions. Specifically, they tested several hypothesized drivers of program success: 1) support to local needs , 2) encouraging engagement that reflects ne eds of local communities , 3) high levels of local participation, 4) conservation education, and 5) economic and other direct and indirect benefit s by the project. They concluded that support to and engagement with local communities were the two key factors that influenc e the outcomes of community based interventions . In other words, understanding and adapting to the context in which local communities are immersed is crucial. In this study, we examine how the degree to which programs address local needs influences the perceptions and attitudes of different stakeholders in regards to program success . For this purpose, we use two case studies in western Amazonia that have two fundamentally distinct conservation approaches (e.g., Kapos et al. 2009) : 1) direct management of wildlife species and populations (WCS program), and 2) indirect effects via development of local capacity (FARO program). In other words, the local people in the WCS program represent the mean s to achieve c onservation ends, while in FARO program building capacity of local people for conservation activities is the goal. We hypothesize that the FARO program may deliver more general benefits because of its focus on local capacity building than the WCS program, which is focused more on biodiversity conservation. Consequently , we expect that local people will have
16 more positive attitudes towards the general benefit s of the FARO program, and all stakeholders (community, NGO, government) will have greater agreement about FARO program success than the WCS program. Methods Survey Development To address the main question of this study, attitudes and perceptions of local participants (LP), project managers (NGO) and government authorities (GOV) were compared in regards to various program parameters . Each parameter had different dimensions, and for each dimension one or two indicators were developed , such as : general benefi ts of the program, importance of the program, level of satisfaction, program usefulness for the community and enhancing decision making, and program overall success (Table 1 1 ). The indicators were used to desig n a survey composed of open and close ended questions with a total of 26 items (Appendix A). Data Collection Data were collected from June to August 2014. Primary data used for this study consisted of responses to questionnaires from three stakeholder groups: local participants (LP), project manager s (NGO) and government authorities (GOV). Questionnaires were not randomly distributed in the community, but a purposive sample was used to select specific participants in each program. Individuals that were interviewed participated directly in the CBC pro gram and, thus, could provide detailed information about aspects of the program. In this study, we focus on how success is perceived from the perspective of those that best know the project, rather than the entire community.
17 Interviews were done individual ly with each person to avoid bias in the answers and to create a safe environment to obtain sincere responses; all interviews were conducted by the primary author (HA). Each interview lasted between 30 to 45 minutes and participation was voluntary; partici pants did not receive any incentive for their participation. Questionnaires were chosen as the main source of data collection to help standardize the comparison among stakeholder groups. Open ended questions allowed respondents to express themselves more f reely, thus adding value to the set of closed ended questions that were also included in the survey. As a secondary source of data, we observed program activities in the field and conducted unstructured interviews with community leaders. Secondary data he lped to understand the context of the program and provided insights in interpreting results. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for data comfortable with the t ape recorder. However, notes were taken and the answers were transcribed. Unstructured interviews were not recorded, but written notes were taken. For more information about the interviews recorded and the transcriptions contact the primary author. Data An alysis Qualitative data from open ended questions were analyzed through content analysis and topic coding (Richard s 2009). Topic coding consists of labeling text according to its subjects. The content of every question was coded into different categories t hat emerged from the stakeholder responses. We constructed themes and subthemes that were compared among stakeholder groups. In order to validate the coding process and avoid biases, three independent groups of four people each were
18 asked to code the surve y responses. We compared the categories that emerged from each independent group. These comparisons made weak categories disappear and reaffirmed strong ones. We analyz ed quantitative data from close ended questions calculating the percentages of stakehold ers that chose a specific response for each question. A 5 point likert scale was constr ucted for every question (Vaske 2008). Respondents had to score their answers from the scale and sometimes to choose the most appropriate answer(s) according t heir own c riteria (Appendix A). Questionnaire Validation In order to determine the reliability of information, a preliminary survey was conducted with an independent group from May to August 2013. The test community included 11 people from an indigenous community lo cated in the cloud forest of Ecuador. The test commu nity had many similarities to the main study communities and, thus, we considered them to provide a reasonab le test of the proposed survey. From these preliminary interviews, we were able to identify words and questions that were not clear or were difficult to understand; these words and questions were later modified to simplify the vocabulary and improve understanding. We also analyzed scores provided on scale questions (i.e., questions that rank answers along a scale) in order to evaluate the percent of unanswered questions, as well as extreme tendencies to positive or negative attitudes. If a high percentage of unanswered questions were foun d, this may indicate that respondents did not understand the questions very well or that the statements were not meaningful to them. If extreme negative or positive answers were found, this might indicate floor or ceiling effects of the questions, such tha t the survey may tend to favor positive or negative responses (Elkin 2012) .
19 Reliability of the questionnaire was calculated through test retest and internal consistency reliability analyses. Test retest reliability was used to understand how stable the answers were for each respondent over time. For this, eight people participatin g in a conservation project were interviewed twice with a difference of 10 days between the first and second interview. Consistency of responses over time was determined with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). ICC values range from 0 to 1 and repres ent the proportion of total variance explained by among person variance (Elkin 2012) . If among person variances are much greater than within person variance in the two replicates, the questionnaire is considered reliable (typically ICC >0.70 is used to indicate reliability) (Deyo et al. 1991). Results from this analysis revealed ICC = 0.67, indicating a marginal reliability. Internal consistency of the scales wa s calculated in the questionnaire through is to 1 the greater the reliability of the scale (Cronbach 1951; Streiner 2003) . Results of this analysis showed internal consisten the retest. We used the results of validity and reliability to modify the questionnaire. After 0.84), and deemed suita ble for use with the focal groups of this study . Results Forty five people were interviewed using the questionnaire and four community leaders using an unstructured interview format, resulting in a total of 49 respondents for this study (Table 1 2). For WC S case study, responses from 2 different communities were reported. In addition to two community leaders, 19 local participants (LP) were
20 interviewed, 7 from Nueva Providencia and 12 from Sani Isla; these interviews included more than 50% of the people in each community involved in the program. I interviewed 4 project managers from WCS and 3 government officials, which represented 100% of the managers and officials involved in the program. For the local people interviewed in the WCS program, 58% were male a nd 42% were female ranging in age from 19 to 53 years old. In the case of FARO program , we interviewed 14 community members that represented more than 70% of the people that participated in the program (9 from Taracoa district and 5 from WamanÃ community). Additionally, unstructured interviews were conducted with the WamanÃ community leader and the Taracoa district president. I interviewed 4 project managers, which represented 100% of the Grupo FARO USFQ managers, and 1 government official out of 3 official s that were involved in this group. The other two government officials were not interviewed because of difficulties in contacting them. For the community members interviewed in FARO program, 60% were male and 40% were females ranging in age from 16 to 62 y ears. the general benefits of the program were si milar for WCS and variable for FARO program (Table 1 3). In the WCS program, we found general agreement among stakeholders. T he only disagreement we found was that government officials had negative attitudes in terms of the program helping local decision making in the community. L ocal people and government officials also had negative to neutral attitudes in regards to whether the community receiv ed support from local government entities. In contrast, in the FARO program, there were considerable disagreements among stakeholders regarding the general benefits of the program. T he
21 only agreement between the three stakeholder groups in this program was with regard to training of local people as a benefit . In terms of variation of the program perceived success, we also found that mo re that 50% of stakeholders in WCS had similar and positive attitudes, while FARO stakeholders had very different attitudes towards prog ram success (Table 1 4). In fact, there was no agreement among the local participants, program managers and government officials in any of the parameters , in the latter case . Moreover, we found that local people were more optimistic about program success t han either NGO or government . When we analyzed the responses from the open ended questions, variation in terms of what stakeholders defined as the three most important program benefits occurred in both the FARO and WCS program s (Table 1 5). In the WCS case , the three stakeholders perceived conservation and community development benefits ; however, their underl y ing reasons differed . For example, the majority of local people though t that the benefits of conserving the turtles included their attractiveness for tourists , and their use as food for local consumption . Meanwhile, program managers and government officials highlighted the importance of local participation in wildlife management as a program benefit . Furthermore, NGO and government officials identified community development and economic benefits to a much greater deg ree than did local participants . M ost NGO managers and government officials highlighted environmental education as an important community development benefit of the program . In contrast, loca l people in WCS program felt that community benefits were strongest because of the organizational and collaborative aspects this program brought to the community.
22 In the case of the FARO program, only local participants perceived benefits in terms of conservation, while community development benefits w ere perceived as important for all three stakeholder groups (Table 1 5). However , s takeholders differed as to what were the specific community development benefits of the program. Wh ile capacity building was largely agreed to be a benefit, program managers and government officials also found that environmental education was important. Furthermore, program managers were the only group for which decision making for management of natural resources was viewed as an important benefit. S takeholders in the two programs also differed in their perceptions of the three most important threats to the program (Table 1 6). In the case of WCS, in large part local people, NGO managers and government o fficials agree d that community participation (i.e., lack thereof) represent ed a threat to the program. Within this category, the majority of program managers and government officials saw lack of community engagement as the major program threat. Local peopl e and government officials agreed that inadequate program design, ( implementation and sustainability ) , were threats. Finally, program managers alone perceived that external factors , such as sy access to collect , were threats. In the case of FARO program, only program design inadequacy was perceived as a threat by all three stakeholders. In this category, local people perceived the lack of economic incentives, community involveme nt and project timeline, while NGO managers perceived problems with sustainability, timeline, and implementation of the program as threats. Government officials perceived difficulties with results
23 dissemination and the process of the government involvement in the program as threat s to the program . Finally, only NGO managers perceived lack of community participation and government support as important program threats. Discussion The positive attitudes of WCS stakeholders suggest that this program was perceiv ed by all parties to deliver more general and tangible benefits to the local people than the FARO program . These results contradict our expectation that the FARO program , which focus ed directly on building local capacities and responding to local needs , would have more general benefits. Even though there was disagreement in terms of the benefits provided by the FARO program, much of this disagreement came between NGO managers and Government officials. In fact, local participants were more optimistic in r egards to the benefits and the success of the program than other stakeholder groups . This optimism might be explained by how the stakeholders evaluated the program. Most local participants evaluated the program based on the benefits they received. For exam ple, they mentioned that the program was successful because they we re learning new things, the program provided the community with equipment, and in case of the WamanÃ community they we re conserving the area being monitor ed . On the other hand , NGO managers and government officials evaluated the program based on the perception of the achievement of specific program objectives. When we compared the perceived success among stakeholder groups, the FARO progr am showed more variability than the WCS program. An ex planation for th is variation may be related to differences during the program implementation process. For example, the WCS program had a stron ger conservation focus than did the FARO program , and regardless of this , WCS appeared to do a better job in adjusting the
24 implementation of the program to the realities of the communities (see Chapter 2). As a consequence, this program delivered more tangible benefits to the people and aligned the program to local ecotourism activities. This case study shows the importance of find ing the practical interface that links capacity building and a common interest in conservation/sustainable use of a specific resource . We found that comparison of the responses between the close and open ended questions revealed an important methodological difference . Close ended questions showed that attitudes towards the general benefits of the WCS program were similar among th e three stakeholder groups . I n contrast, open ended questions revealed th at the reasons underlying these perceived general benefits differed among the stakeholders . These findings show us that regardless of delivering tangible benefits to the people, it is possible, and even likely, that how local people actually view program b enefits will differ from that of NGO managers and gover nment officials. W hile th e two initiative s represent a conservation program for the NGO managers and government officials, this is not what it represents to local communities . In other words, regardles s of the conservation outcome, local communities see the program as an opportunity for their development. Based on th ese results, we speculate that this fundamental distinction in perspectives likely has long term implications for program success . Further, this may also be one of the explanations for why most programs, when they do achieve some success , are more likely to be only temporary success stories (Garnett et al. 2007). Given that CBC program approaches studied here were not replica ted and only a limited number of individuals within the different stakeholder groups were available for
25 interviews, the conclusions we draw are limited. However, the two CBC programs impact the same Amazonian indigenous group, which provides some indicatio n of how such approaches might affect the perception of outcomes in these communities. We encourage additional studies to examine the importance of local community needs and the degree to which they are incorporated in the project as factors that influenc e stakeholder perceptions while considering program approach and design. Concluding Remarks The comparison of the two CBC programs with different approaches revealed that both conservation and capacity building could work together in order to achieve succes s, if the i mplementation strategists are linked and adapted in concrete ways to local needs. Furthermore, p erceptions and attitudes of the three stakeholder groups in the two case studies showed different realities of the program. From one side, close ende d questions indicated that the three stakeholder groups in WCS program had similar attitudes towards the general benefits and the success of the programs. On the other, perceptions about the three most important benefits and threats of the program suggeste d that, even when positive social and ecological outcomes are achieved, perceptions and beliefs of local people when compared to those of external stakeholders are fundamentally distinct. Although our results are limited, we can speculate that this distinc tion may play a critical role in the success of CBC programs, especially in the long term.
26 Table 1 1. Parameters, dimensions and indicators used to develop open and close ended questions. Parameters were considered based on Hockings et al. 2006. Parameters Dimensions Indicators Context Significance Level of importance of the project Benefits of the project * Threats List of the threats of the project Input Adequacy of information Usefulness of the information Process Participation Level of satisfaction of local participants Decision Making Decision making based in the project results Outputs Project Achievement Degree of success of the program Results and outputs produced * For this study threats were defined as perceived problems for the success of the program , rather than threats to wildlife species. Table 1 2. Numbers of interviews conducted for each case study (CBC program). Case study Stakeholder groups Local Participants (LP) Project Managers (NGO) Government Officials (GOV) Total WCS 21 4 3 28 Grupo FARO 16 4 1 21 Total 37 8 4 49
27 Table 1 3 . Attitudes of local participants (LP = 19, 14), program managers (NGO = 4, 4) and Government officials (GOV = 3, 1) in regard to the general benefits of the program. General benefits WCS GRUPO FARO LP NGO GOV LP NGO GOV Provides jobs + + + + Economic benefits + + Wildlife conservation + + + + D = Decision making + + D + = = Over exploitation + + + + = Training + + + + + + Local Gov. Support + = + = = Min. of Env. Support + + + D (+) Positive attitudes, ( ) negative attitudes, (=) neutral, (D) disagreement within group Symbols show the attitudes of more than or equal to 50% of the people in each group. Disagreement within group means that the majority of the people had different attitudes. Table 1 4. Attitudes of local participants (LP = 19, 14), program managers (NGO = 4, 4) and Government officials (GOV = 3, 1) towards the program success . Perceived success WCS GRUPO FARO L P NG O GO V L P NGO GOV Importance to community + + + + D + Importance to conservation + + + + + = Satisfaction of local participation + + N/A + D N/A Useful for community + + + + D = Enhances local decision making + + + D Program success + + + + D (+) Positive attitudes, ( ) negative attitudes, (=) neutral, (D) disagreement within group Symbols show the attitudes of more than or equal to 50% of the people in each group. Disagreement within group means that the majority of the people had different attitudes. N/A = question was not answered by government officials.
28 Table 1 5. Three most important benefits of each program mentioned by local participants (LP = 19, 14), program managers (NGO = 4, 4) and Government officials (GOV = 3, 1). WCS Grupo FARO Themes Sub themes LP NGO GOV Themes Sub themes LP NGO GOV Conservation benefits 89% 100% 100% Conservation benefits 54% 25% 0% Recovering and protecting turtles 71% 100% 100% Wildlife protection 86% 0% 0% Touri sm attraction 71% 0% 33% Management of natural resources 29% 100% 0% Consumptive use 59% 33% 33% Community involvement in wildlife management 29% 100% 67% Community development 77% 100% 100% Aesthetic value 29% 0% 0% Capacity building 90% 100% 100% Ecological benefits 0% 67% 33% Community organization 20% 0% 0% Decision making 0% 75% 0% Community development 58% 100% 100% Environmental education 40% 100% 100% Capacity building 64% 67% 33% Equipment and infrastructure 10% 0% 0% Environmental education 27% 67% 67% Individual benefits 30% 0% 0% General community benefits 55% 0% 0% Institutional support 18% 0% 33% Economic benefits 21% 67% 67% Institutional benefits 0% 25% 0% Community working with tourism 100% 67% 33% Interactions with local communities 0% 100% 0% Jobs for local monitors 25% 0% 67% Scientific research 0% 100% 0% Percentages for themes were calculated from the total number of people interviewed for each stakeholder group in each CBC program. Percentages for sub themes were calculated from the total number of people that mentioned each theme. For this reason % of all sub themes in each theme do not sum 100%.
29 Table 1 6 . Three most important threats mentioned by local participants (LP = 19, 14), program mana gers (NGO = 4, 4) and Government officials (GOV = 3, 1) for each program. WCS Grupo FARO Themes Sub themes LP NGO GOV Themes Sub themes LP NGO GOV Community participation 50% 67% 100% Community participation 38% 50% 0% Community social structure and communication 43% 50% 33% Community engagement 60% 50% 0% Community conflict 60% 100% 0% Conflict between communities 43% 50% 0% Community organization 40% 100% 0% Community engagement 0% 100% 67% Political organization 0% 50% 0% Project design 50% 33% 67% Project design 77% 100% 100% Few project benefits 43% 0% 0% Community benefits 20% 0% 0% Project implementation 71% 100% 50% Economic incentives 70% 0% 0% Project sustainability 14% 0% 100% Community involvement 50% 25% 0% Project sustainability 10% 75% 0% Project timeline 50% 50% 0% Institutional support 7% 0% 0% Equipment 20% 0% 0% Lack of Government support 100% 0% 0% Project implementation 20% 50% 0% Results dissemination 0% 0% 100% Government involvement 20% 25% 100% External factors 0% 67% 0% High demand for turtles eggs 0% 100% 0% Institutional support 38% 75% 0% Easy access to collect eggs 0% 50% 0% Government support 80% 100% 0% Government economic resources 40% 0% 0% No t hreats 14% 0% 0% External factors 0% 25% 0% Everything worked well 100% 0% 0% Demand for Nat. Res. exploitation 0% 100% 0% No threats 8% 0% 0% Everything worked well 100% 0% 0% P ercentage s for themes were calculated from the total number of people interviewed for each stakeholder group in each CBC program . Percentages for sub themes were calculated from the total number of people that mentioned each theme . For this reason % of all sub themes in each theme do not sum 100%.
30 CHAPTER 3 PARTICIPATION INFLUENCES SUCCESS OF COMMUNITY BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Background The participation of local people in management of natural resources has been widely recognized as a factor that influence s success ( Waylen et al. 2010) . Indeed, investigators have suggested that connecting environmental monitoring progr ams to local decision making processes can lead to more relevant and sustainable con servation interventions ( Danielsen et al. 2005; Danielsen et al. 2010) . Although claims about the inclusion of participation have increased, the concept of participation has been poorly defined and not rigorously applied (Little 1994; Waylen et al. 2010) . Several initiatives , which have been implemented in diverse localities, have incorporated different levels of local participation and involvement with varied approaches . Yet, these initiatives have achieved inconsistent social and ecological results . Consequently, several investigators have sought to better understand the interactions between conservation initiatives and local participation (Berkes et al. 1991 ; Lawrence 2006; Danielsen et al. 2009 ). Historically, local participation received attention when rural development (Litt le 1994) . Since then, the first sectors to use local participation to achieve desired outcomes have been public health, education, agriculture, forestry, water and economic initiatives (Little 1994) . Currently , an extensive literature on the role of local participation in community programs exists (Brandon and Wells 1992; Garnett et al. 2007) . For example, Little ( 1994 ) argued that two main elements of participation are needed to achieve local conservation goals. The first is participation as a goal , which allows communities to
31 have better control over their lives and resources, while the se cond is participation as a mean s to achieve social and economic objectives (Little 1994) . For the purpose of this study we used these two important elements (i.e., local participation as a goal and as a means to achieve conservation outcomes) to define local participation in community based conservation (CBC) interventions. In the past two decades, community based monitoring programs have been considered an important strat egy to improve biodiversity conservation in rural areas ( Barrett and Arcase 1995 ; Mugisha 2002) . Studies show that since the 400,000 and 500,000 small , new informal and formal groups have been established to undertake initiatives under varied environmental and social contexts (Pretty 2003) . For example, developed countries have opted for strategies such as citizen science programs, whereby citizens are involved as volunt eer researchers and have been trained for data collection ( Kruger and Shannon 2000; Conrad and Hilchey 2011 ) . However, developing countries do not usually have the same economic resources or human capital to support large monitoring programs with the participation of volunteers, such as those typified by citizen science programs in developed countries. These circumstances have led to approaches that are cheap to implement, require fewer resources and involve the participation of fewer people (Danielsen et al. 2007) . For example, monitoring schemes in developing countries are often part of resource management programs. These monitoring programs are implemented at the local scale with the participation of a limited number of local people tha t have little formal education.
32 Traditionally , conservation initiatives can be divided into top down an d bottom up approaches (Conrad and Hil chey 2011) . This classification is based o n governance structure, where the first approach is a conservation action initiated by an external organization, while the second is motivated by a grass root s organization . However, the classification of CBC pr ograms becomes more complex when we consider involvement of local people. Here, level of participation can vary from local stakeholders contribut ing little or no participation in management decisions to situations where local people have full control in bo th the implementation of conservation initiatives and decision making processes (Berkes et al. 1991; Lawrence 2006 ; Danielsen et al. 2009 ). Community involvement as a mean s for achieving conservation goals is supported by participatory theory , and success in CBC interventions has been shown to be associat ed with greater community participation (Forgie et al. 2001; Waylen et a l. 2010) . Yet, this is not always the case (Adams et al. 2004; Balint and Mashinya 2006 ; Salafsky 2011 ) . Local partici pation can occur at various stages of a project, including the development, design and implementation . The degree to which local participation improves program success, thus, may be complex given that participation may vary at different project stages. To gain a better understanding of the importance of local par ticipation to project success, we addressed the following research questions: 1) How does the degree of local participation during project implementation influence conservation program success? a nd , 2) Is local participation in some phases of the program implementation process more important than in others?
33 Methods Conceptual Model To address the research questions, we developed a conceptual model composed of 9 key factors that influence local participation in CBC programs (Figure 2 1) . These factors were organized hypothetically in order of occurrence du ring program implementation. I ndicators were defined for each factor in order to rank the implementation of e ach factor from a scale of 1 to 5 (Appendix B ) . The construction of this model was based on a literature review from previous frameworks that analyzed public involvement in citizen scienc e , and uses concepts in participatory theory, conclusions from ecolog ical anthropology, political ecology and a review of different case studies of CBC programs around the world ( Little 1994; Wilcox 1998; Forgie et al. 2001 ). Data Collection Data were collected from June to August 2014 using primary and secondary sources. Primary data included responses to structured (Appendix A) and unstructured interviews from four stakeholder groups for each case study: local participants, community leaders, project managers and government authorities. All the interviews were recorded and done individually with each person to avoid bias in the answers and to create a safe environment to obtain sincere responses. Participants were not randomly chosen, but rather specific people in each program. These participants were individuals that participated actively and could provide detailed information about the program. A secondary source used in this study was existing documents such as program reports, legal agreements, online documents and videos. This allowed
34 triangulation of the information collected avoiding biases and possible errors for interpretation of results. Data Analysis In order to compar e both CBC programs, we evaluated the imp lementation of each factor with a rubric created based on the conceptual model ( Appendix B ) . Indicators for each factor were ranked o n a scale of 1 to 5 with information from the interviews and secondary source s of data. For each stage in the rubric (early, middle and late) the average score was calculated and compared between the programs and between communities in each program . In the end, these analyses aimed to assess the implementation of these factors in terms of the association between the degree of local participation and CBC program overall success . Results The degree of implementation of the different factors that influence local participation varied betwe en the two case studies (Table 2 1 ). In general, WCS was found to engage more with local people throughout the implementation process than the FARO program ( Figure 2 2 ) . At the same time, WCS program was more successful in achieving program outcomes and conservation impact (Figure 2 3 ) . For example, the WCS program was successful in terms of achieving the program objectives, making conservation decisions at the community level, and maintaining activities over time in the two communities in which the program worked . In contrast, the FARO program was more varia ble in engaging local people throughout the project stages ( Figure 2 2 ) . For example, some factors , such as the inclusion of local people perspectives in the definition of the program, partnership with different stakeholder groups , and the degree of involvement of local people in the monitoring process , facili t ated local participation .
35 However, other factors limited local participation, such as inadequate recruitment and identification of target communi ties, low retention of local people , and fail ure to resolve conflict s . In t he end, the FARO program only partially achieved its objectives ; the program is no longer being implemented in the two communities and conservation decisions were only made locally in one community (Figure 2 3 ) . Across project stages , we found that the implementation process varied not only between WCS and FARO programs, but also between the two communities within the FARO program (Figure 2 2 ). In both communities involved in the FARO program, the overall success was similar, y et the achieved outcomes were different. For example, objectives were partially achieved and the program did not continue in both communities. However, the program did result in conservation decisions at the community level in WamanÃ . Clear differences w er e found in the middle stage between the two programs, especially in terms of capacity building, and retention of local people (Table 2 1). In general , both programs were successful in building capacity of local people. However, WCS was more successful in t he retention of local participants than FARO. For WCS, the number of local participants either increased or remained the same in Nueva Providencia and Sani Isla community, respectively. Meanwhile for FARO, the number of local monitors actually decreased in both communities. Moreover, a clear contrast between the two programs occurred in terms of incentives provided to local people . Conserving the river turtles in WCS program provided a new opportunity for the By contrast in the FARO program ,
36 environmental monitoring was not linked to any marketing strategy that would provide indirect economic benefits to local monitors or other community members. Discussion O ur results suggest that community based conservation program success was to some degree associated with local participation , which is consistent with other studies (e.g., Waylen e t al. 2010) . The overall success of the two CBC programs was determined , however, by how the factors that influence local participation were implemented . WCS program was more successful in involving local people than was FARO program because of its constant engagement with local community members throughout the three project stages . T he FARO case study demonstrated that if this level of involvement is not maintained throughout the program, program success could fall short. Thus, our results appear to contradict the expectation that the degree to which local people participate in problem definition , by itself, is a prime factor influencing program success (Little 1994). Retention of local participants and conflict resolution were key factors that influenced the relative success of the two program s . Good r etention in the WCS program likely was a result of the continued efforts related to training of community members by WCS staff relative to infrequent training provided by FAR O (i.e., several times a year for shorter periods of time by WCS vs. once a year for one week by FARO). This strategy of frequent or repeated training likely result ed in better retention through its ability to motivate local participants. At the same time, the inclusion of incentives and the connection of the program to ecotourism activities in the communities also likely contributed to the effectiveness of the WCS project in promoting local involvement. The implementation of these strategies showed local p eople that
37 conservation activities could also be profitable for them. Local participants from WCS project perceived more direct benefits to the community than did local participants from the Grupo FARO program (see results Chapter 1). Consequently, our res ults support the statement that CBC programs that focus on valuable natural resources for the local community are more likely to enhance participation and be more successful (Little 1994). T he recruitment and identification of target participants wa s another important factor likely influencing success in the projects studied here . WCS used existing small local m I n the FARO program , target participa nts were different between community groups. I n one community a new monitoring group was created which, in the end, disbanded because of lack of appropriate retention mechanisms. In the other community, the existing Dance Youth group was involved but this group was chosen to participate after a conflict within the community. Therefore the ir participation was not voluntary , and this monitoring group also disbanded by the end of the project. In these two cases, our results reveal that the involvement process of target participants is effective when existing structures in combination with new structures are involved, and if their participation is voluntary with the community support. D ifferences were also found in partnership s that likely affected program outco mes within Grupo Faro program. The FARO program was implemented similarly and with the same objectives in the two communities, yet partnership s w ere done differently in each community . In Tar acoa the program involved the district president instead of commu nity leaders, while, i n WamanÃ the program was implemented at the
38 community scale and, thus, formal agreements were signed with the community leaders . This difference influenced how factors, such as recruitment and identification of target participants, ac hievement of program objectives, and conservation decisions made, were achieved in each community . Differences in the process of involving stakeholders in the project resulted in partnerships being achieved at higher political levels (state and national go vernment entities) in Taracoa, but not in WamanÃ communities in the FARO program . For Taracoa , one of the outcomes of creating these alliances was that the state government provided credentials that recognized local people as commun ity monitors. Such recog nition helped to motivate and keep local monitors engaged. Despite this , no conservation decisions using monitoring results were made at the end of the program. In WamanÃ community, partnerships were achieved with the various community leaders, but they fa iled to achieve agreements with higher political leaders. Even though the program did not achieve consolidation of alliances, the program did succeed in achieving conservation decisions at the community level. After reviewing results from the environmental monitoring, the community decided to protect a patch of forest that still had wildlife when compared to other parts of their territory where wildlife was less abundant. T hese results support the argument that creating alliances at the community level can be more effective for decision making (Danielsen et al. 2010) . Meanwhile working at the district level may be more effective in terms of creating alliances with higher political levels , which can provide other benefits to the program (e.g. such as formal recognition because of training processes from government authorities).
39 Our results suggest that the degree of local participation influence s program success to a meaningful degree. Other factors , however, that were not included in this study may have also influenced program success, such as available funding for the two programs . We stress that m ore evaluations of CBC programs are needed to determine the relative degree to which local participation influen ce s program success. Concluding Remarks The overall success of CBC programs was associated with how the programs differed in incorporating local participation. Our results showed that conservation success was more likely to be achieved with greater and sus tained engagement of local participants throughout the project. Including perspectives of local community members in defining the conservation problem is not the sole factor that influences success. We found that the translation of middle and later stages of the program into a relevant and practical local c ontext for local participants are key factor s of project success. Some factors that encourage participation in CBC programs were more relevant than others under specific circumstances. Sustaining particip ation and developing benefits from monitoring activities were found to have more value to local people and influence program success when the other factors in the framework were implemented appropriately. Finally, o ur results suggested that in order be eff ective in empower ing conservation decision making at the community level, it may be more important to establish partnerships and alliances with community leaders, rather than relying on agreements with higher political authorities.
40 Figure 2 1. Conceptual model for the implementation process of factors that influence local participation in Community Based Monitoring Programs. Table 2 1. Comparison of the average implementation score of each stage between and within the two CBC programs (see Appendix B ) . WCS Grupo FARO Stage N. Providencia Sani Isla Taracoa WamanÃ Early 3.29 3.29 3.14 3.14 Middle 4.4 0 4.2 0 3.00 2.8 0 Late 4.14 4.00 3.14 3.57 Outcomes 4.17 4.17 2.25 2.58
41 Figure 2 2 . Differences in the degree of implementation of factors that influence local participation between and within the two CBC programs . Each indicator was ranked from a scale of 1 (lowest score) to 5 (highest score). Also a gradient of colors reflect the increasing scale f rom the lowest score (light grey) to highest score (dark gray). For more details about the ranking scale see Appendix B.
42 Figu re 2 3 . Comparison of the overall success between and within the two CBC programs . Each indicator was ranked from a scale of 1 (lowest score) to 5 (highest score). Also a gradient of colors reflect the increasing scale from the lowest score (light grey) to highest score (dark gray). For more details about the ranking scale see Appendix B.
43 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS Perceptions and attitudes of the three stakeholder groups in the two case studies reve a led different realities of the program s . From one side, close ended questions showed that the three stakeholder groups in WCS program had similar attitudes towards the g eneral benefits and the success of the programs . On the other hand , perceptions about the three most important benefits and threats of the program suggested that, even when positive social and ecological outcomes are achieved, perceptions and beliefs of local people versus those of external stakeholders are fundamentally distinct. Although our results are limited, we can speculate that this distinction may play a critical role in the success of CBC programs, especially in the long term. The overall success of the two programs was associated with factors that influence the degree of local participation during program implementation. In the case of WCS program, the constant engagement with local people, especially during middle and late r stages of the program were apparently associated with program success . In the case of FARO program, t hree important factors were foun d to influence success , or more appropriately, lack thereof . The factors were failure in recruitment and identification of appropriate local participants, low retention of local participants , and failure to resolve conflict s . At the same time, variation in the implementation of the different factors influencing local participation not only affected success but also the achievement of different outcomes. For example, analysis of the implementation process in the FARO program reveal ed that the establishment o f formal agreement with community leaders can facilitate decision making process at the community level, while
44 agreements with higher political leaders may result in other beneficial outcomes. Th ese outcomes include formal recognition for local participant s which provides incentive s for local p articipation .
45 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY Introduction outcomes of Community Based Conservation Programs. There are no right or wrong answers for this questionnaire. The most important thing is that you answer each question with your opinion and knowledge. Your identity will remain CONFIDENTIAL and your name and personal information will NOT be released to third par ties under any circumstances. Your answers are very important for the purpose of this study and your participation is voluntary. a. Questionnaire code: __________________________ ________________________ b. Date: ___________________________________________ ___________________ c. Interview starting time: ________________________ ________________________ d. Interview ending time: ________________________ _________________________ e. Place of the interview: ____________________ _____________________________ 1. Wh at are the three most important benefits of the project? 1 __________________________________________________________________ 2 ___________________________________________________________________ 3 ________________________________________________________ __________ Very unimportant Unimportant Neutral Important Very important 2. How important is the project for the community? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How important is the project for the conservation of the natural resources? 1 2 3 4 5 I'm going to give you several things that some people might or might not think are benefits of the project. Could you tell me how much do you agree or disagree with followings? 4. Which of the following options represent benefits of the project? Strongly disagree Disagree Neut ral Agree Strongly agree a. The project generates employment for the local people 1 2 3 4 5 b. The project generates economic benefits for the local people 1 2 3 4 5
46 c. The project helps to protect the natural resources of the community 1 2 3 4 5 d. The project helps to make better decisions in the community 1 2 3 4 5 e. The project helps to regulate the exploitation of the natural resources 1 2 3 4 5 f. The project trains community members 1 2 3 4 5 g. Thanks to the project local Governments supports the community 1 2 3 4 5 h. Thanks to the project the Ministry of the Environment supports the community 1 2 3 4 5 5. What are the three most important threats of the project? __________________________________________________________________ ____ ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ 6. Have Formal Agreements been signed with the community to support the project? ____________________________ ________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ 7. Have Formal Agreements been signed with the Ministry of the Environ ment to support the project? ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ 8. Has the in formation collected in program been used by the community, the NGO, the Ministry of the Environment or any local government? If, yes, how it has been used? ____________________________________________ __________________________ ______________________________________________________ ________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ Not at all useful Not useful Neutral Useful Very useful 9. How useful is the information collected for the co mmunity? 1 2 3 4 5
47 10. Has the project results been presented to other community members? If yes, to whom and to how many people have the project results been presented? ____________________________________________________ __________________ ____________________________________________________ __________________ ____________________________________________________ __________________ 11. What mechanisms have been used to present the project results? ______________________________________________ __________ ______________ ____________________________________________________ __________________ ______________________________________________ ________________________ Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied 12. How satisfied are you with your participation in the project? 1 2 3 4 5 13. Why? ______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________ _____________________________________________ _________________________ 14. What other community members have been involved in the program and how? ____________________________________________ __________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________ ___________ _________________________________ __________________________ Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 15. Have any decisions been made in the community based on the project results? 1 2 3 4 5 16. What decisions have been made? ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ 17. In terms of conservation of natural re sources, what results have been achieved in the program? ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ _____________ _____________
48 18. In terms of participation and capacitation of local people, what results have been achieved in the program? ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ Very unsuccessful Unsuccessful Neutral Successful Very successful 19. How successful do you think is or was the program? 1 2 3 4 5 20. Is there something else you would like to talk about or mentioned about the program? ____________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________ ______________________________________ ______ __________________________ 21. What is your name? ________________________________________________________ ______________ 22. Gender: 1. Male 2. Female 23. What is your age? ____________________________________________ __________________________ 24. Name of the community where you are from? ____________________________________________ __________________________ 25. Have you been capacitated before this program? ____________________________________________ __________________________ 26. What is you r occupation? ____________________________________________ __________________________
49 APPENDIX B FRAMEWORK TO EVALUATE SUCCESS OF CBC PROGRAMS BASED ON FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE LOCAL PARTICIPATION The following too l aims to help conservation organizations and practitioners to evaluate community based monitoring programs. This tool is based on a conceptual model to determine the association between the degree of local participation and program success (Figure B 1). T he conceptual model is composed of 9 key factors that influence local participation. These factors are organized in order of occurrence during the program implementation, and were derived from the literature and previous frameworks that analyzed public inv olvement in citizen science and community based programs. Figure B 1. Conceptual model for the implementation process of factors that influence local participation in Community Based Monitoring Programs.
50 Table B 2. Rubric created based on the conceptual model (Figure B 1), in order to rank each factor on a scale of 1 (lowest score) to 5 (highest score). 1. Early Stage: a. Local perspectives in the definition of the environmental problem 1. To what degree were local perspectives included in the definition of the environmental problem? 1 2 3 4 5 No inclusion at all Little inclusion with inexplicit explanation Moderate inclusion with general explanation High inclusion with explicit explanation Detailed explanation of possible causations of the environmental issue 2. To what degree were local people consulted about skills and capacities needed to address the environmental problem? 1 2 3 4 5 No consultation at all Little consultation with inexplicit explanation Moderate consultation with general explanation General consultation with explicit explanation Detailed consultation b. Program design (ranking scale modified from Bass et al. 1995) 1. To what degree did local people participate in the program design? 1 2 3 4 5 No participation at all People were informed about decisions made People were consulted by answering questions People participated by forming groups and sharing decision making People participated in joint analysis taking in consideration multiple perspectives c. Recruitment and identification of target p articipants (Cooper et al. 2007 ; Garnett et al. 2009) 1.Were local people involvement done voluntarily and with the community support? 1 2 3 4 5 Individual participation was not voluntary and without support of the community Individual participation was voluntary and without support of the community Individual participation was not voluntary and with support of the community Individual participation was voluntary and with little support of the community Individual participation was voluntary and with much support of the community 2. How appropriate were the group's structure involved in the program? Were existing local groups included in the program? Or was the program designed to create new structures? 1 2 3 4 5 No structures were created An inappropriate existing structure was involved A new structure was created An appropriate existing structure was involved A new structure was created and an appropriate existing structure was involved d. Partnership (Western 1994a, Metcalfe 1994; Wilcox 1998; Kapos et al. 2009; Forgie et al. 2001) 1. How well did the program do in establishing partnerships with stakeholder groups? 1 2 3 4 5 No partnerships were established Partnership with 1 stakeholder group Partnership with 2 stakeholder groups Partnership with most stakeholder groups Partnership with all most all stakeholder groups 2. Specify the stakeholder groups you have established partnerships with? 1. Do community participants benefit from the research outcomes? (Green 2004) 1 2 3 4 5 Research benefits researchers or external bodies only Researchers/ external bodies primarily benefit; community benefits are secondary Equal benefit for researchers/external bodies and community Research primarily benefits community; benefit is secondary for researchers and external bodies Explicit agreement on how research will benefit community
51 2. Middle Stage: e. Training of local participants (Danielsen et al. 2008) 1 2 3 4 5 1. How many people have been trained? No people have been trained Less than half that were planned More than half that were planned Exact number of people that were planned More than were planned 2. Specify the stakeholder groups that have been trained? (e.g. local monitors, community members, park rangers, etc.) 2. To what degree were the local people involved in the monitoring process? 1 2 3 4 5 No involvement, all actions undertaken by professional scientists Most of actions undertaken by professional scientist with local data collectors Collaborative monitoring with external data interpretatio n Collaborative monitoring with local data interpr etation Autonomous local monitoring f. Retention of local participants (Little 1994; Western 1994b; Cooper et al. 2007) 1. Level of retention of local participants? 1 2 3 4 5 Everybody left Less than 50% retained More than 50% retained Participation grew somewhat Participation grew significantly 2. Number of times local people were trained? 1 2 3 4 5 One Two to three Four to five Six to seven More than seven 3. Have incentives been provided to local participants? 1 2 3 4 5 No incentives Some incentives but no economic Indirect economic incentives Direct economic incentives Direct and indirect economic incentives 4. Specify the type of incentive(s) provided or generated with the program for the local people 3. Late Stage: g. Environmental education (Jacobson 1991; Forgie et al. 2001) 1. Number of times an environmental education program was implemented? 1 2 3 4 5 No implementatio n One Two to three Four to five More than five 1. How well did the program do in implementing the environmental education program to different stakeholder groups? 1 2 3 4 5 No stakeholder groups Implementatio n to 1 stakeholder group Implementatio n to 2 stakeholder groups Implementation to 3 stakeholder groups Implementation to 4 and more stakeholder groups 2. Specify all stakeholders that had received environmental education program (e.g. community members, other communities, government officials, etc.) 1. How well did the program 1 2 3 4 5
52 do in implementing mechanisms to engage and educate local people? No mechanism implemented 1 mechanism implemented 2 mechanisms implemented 3 mechanisms implemented 4 and more mechanisms implemented 3. Specify the mechanisms to engage and educate local people have been used (e.g. results dissemination, media resources, workshops) h. Conflict resolution (Schmink and Wood 1978; Bas s et al. 1995; Waylen et al. 2013) 1.Were strategies for conflict resolution implemented? And how effective were they? 1 2 3 4 5 No strategies were implemented Strategies implemented with little effectiveness, conflict was not solve Strategies implemented with moderate effectiveness, conflict partially solved Strategies implemented with moderate/high effectiveness, most of the conflict solved Strategies implemented with high effectiveness, conflict has been solved i. Program evaluation (Green 2004; Cooper et al. 2007) 1. Were appraisal procedures for ecological outcomes implemented? 1 2 3 4 5 No appraisal procedures implemented Few appraisal procedures implemented Some appraisal procedures implemented Many appraisal procedures implemented Comprehensive appraisal procedures implemented 2. Were appraisal procedures for social outcomes implemented? 1 2 3 4 5 No appraisal procedures implemented Few appraisal procedures implemented Some appraisal procedures implemented Many appraisal procedures implemented Comprehensive appraisal procedures implemented 3. Did appraisal procedures allow modification of program design during the implementation process? 1 2 3 4 5 Program design predetermined, no possibility for modification Program design predetermined, limited possibility for modification Program design flexible, moderate possibility for modification Program design flexible, high possibility for modification Program design not predetermined, complete modification possible 4. Overall success: j. Program outcomes in terms of local empowerment (Green 2004; Kapos et al. 2009 Constantino et al. 2012) 1. For local participants, did the program allow understanding of new management processes? 1 2 3 4 5 No opportunity for understanding management processes Low opportunity for understanding management processes Moderate opportunity for understanding management processes Moderate/high opportunity for understanding management processes High opportunity for understanding management processes 2. For local participants, did the program allow them to pass on their newly acquired skills? 1 2 3 4 5 No opportunity was allowed Low opportunity was allowed Moderate opportunity was allowed Moderate/high opportunity was allowed High opportunity was allowed and local people are training new participants 3. Is the environmental problem better understood by local participants as a result of the program? 1 2 3 4 5 Understanding of the problem did not improve Understanding of the problem improved a little Understanding of the problem improved somewhat Understanding of the problem moderately improved The environmental problem is fully understood 4. For local participants, did 1 2 3 4 5
53 the program help increase the personal status within community? No opportunity for increase in personal status Low opportunity for increase in personal status Moderate opportunity for increase in personal status Moderate/high opportunity for increase in personal status High opportunity for increase in personal status 5. Did local participants apply training skills beyond project? 1 2 3 4 5 No opportunity for training skills applied beyond project Low opportunity for training skills applied beyond project Moderate opportunity for training skills applied beyond project Moderate/high opportunity for training skills applied beyond project High opportunity for training skills applied beyond proj ect 6. Did the program develop or improve collaboration between communities and other stakeholders? 1 2 3 4 5 No development or improvement of collaboration Little development or improvement of collaboration Moderate development or improvement of collaboration Moderate/high development or improvement of collaboration High development or improvement of collaboration 7. Did the program encourage changes in community/organizational practice? 1 2 3 4 5 No changes in community/org anizational practice Little changes in community/org anizational practice Moderate changes in community/or ganizational practice Moderate/high changes in community/organi zational practice High changes in community/orga nizational practice k. Program outcomes in terms of objective achievement 1. Were the program objectives achieved? 1 2 3 4 5 Objectives were not achieved Less than half achieved Half achieved More than half achieved All the objectives achieved 2. To what degree are the capacities and skills developed in the program likely to continue after the time frame? 1 2 3 4 5 Not likely to continue Will continue only until the program ends Likely to continue in short term Likely to continue with short inputs Likely to continue indefinably 3. Is the program still being implemented? 1 2 3 4 5 Program is not being continued Low chance of continuing Medium chance of continuing High chance of continuing Almost certain to continue l. Program outcomes in terms of conservation impact (Kapos et al. 2009) 1. Has actions developed in the program changed the probability of persistence of the environmental problem? 1 2 3 4 5 The probability has increased The probability stays the same The probability has somewhat decreased The probability has somewhat/highly decrea sed The probability has highly decreased 2. Is the conservation impact derived from the program likely to persist? 1 2 3 4 5 Not likely to persist Likely only if the intervention is increased Likely if the intervention is maintained Likely with minor intervention Likely with no further intervention
54 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, W. M., R. Aveling, D. Brockington , B. Dickson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, and W. Wolmer. 2004 . Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306 (5699): 1146 1149. Adams, W. M., D. Brockington , J. Dyson , and B. Vira. 2003 . Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science 302 (5652 ): 1915 1916. Agrawal, A., and C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservati on. World Development 27 (4): 629 49. Allen, W. J. 2001 . Working together for environmental management: t he role of information sharing and collaboration learning . PhD (Development Studies), Massey University, New Zealand. Balint, P. J., and J. Mashinya. 2006 . The decline of a model community based conservation project: Governance, capacity, and devolution in Mahenye, Zimbabwe. Geoforum , 37 (5), 805 815. Barrett, B., and P. Arcase . 1995. Are integraded conservation development projects sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in Sub Saharan Africa. World Development. 23(7): 1073 1084. Bass, S., B. Dalal Clayton, J. Pretty. 1995. Participation in strategies for sustainable development. Environmental Planning Issues. No7. Bass, M. S., M. Finer, C. N. Jenkins, H. Kreft, D. F. Cisneros Heredia, S. McCrack en, N. C. A. Pitman, P. H. English, K. Swing, G. Villa, A. Di Fiore, C. C. Voigt, T. H. Kunz. 2010 l Park. PLoS ONE , 5 (1), 1 8. Berkes, F., P. George, and R. Preston. 1991 . Co Management: The Evolution of the Theory and Practice of Joint Administration of Living Resources . Paper presented at the second annual meeting of IASCP, University of Manitoba , Winnipeg, Canada, September 26 29. Bennett, N. J., and P. Dearden . 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44 : 107 116. Brandon, K. E., and M. Wells. 1992 . Planning for People and Parks: Design Dilemmas. World Development 20 (4): 557 570. Bravo, D., S. VÃ¡sconez, and M. VillacÃs. 2011 . Monitoreo Ambiental Local: un insumo para la gestiÃ³n ambiental territorial. Esfera PÃºblica N2. Grupo FARO, Quito, Ecuador.
55 Conrad, C. C., and K. G. Hilchey. 2011 . A review of citizen science and community based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 176 (1 4): 273 291. Constantino, P. de A. L., H. S. A. Carlos, E. E. Ramalho , L. Rostant , C. E. Marinelli , D. Teles , S. F. Fonseca Junior, R. B. Fernandes, J. Valsecchi. 2 012 . Empowering Local People through Community based Resource Monitoring: a Comparison of Brazil and Namibia. Ecology and Society 17 (4): 1 19. Cooper, C., J. Dickinson , T. Phillips, and R. Bonney. 2007 . Citizen Science as a Tool for Conservation in Residential Ecosystems . Ecology and Society 12 (2): 11. Cline, S. A., and A. R. Collins. 2003 . Watershed associations in W est Virginia: t h eir impact on environmental protection. Journal of Environmental Management 67 (4) : 373 383. Cronbach, L. J. 1 951 . Coefficient Alpha and The Internal Structure of Test. Psychometrika 16 (3): 297 334. Danielsen, F., N. D. Burgess, and A. Balmford. 2005 . Monit oring matters: Examining the potential of locally based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2507 2542. Danielsen, F., N. D. Burgess , A. Balmford , P. F. Donald , M. Funder , J. P. G. Jones , P. Alviola, D. S. Balete, T. Blomley, J. Brashares, B. Child, M. Enghoff, J. Fjeldsa, S. Holt, H. Hubertz, A. E. Jensen, P. M. Jensen, J. Massao, M. M. Mendoza, Y. Ngaga, M. K. Poulsen, R. Rueda, M. Sam, T. Skielboe, G. Stuart Hill, E. Topp Jorgensen, and D. Yonten. 2009 . Local participation in natural resource monitoring: A characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology 23(1): 31 42. Danielsen, F., N. D. Burgess , P. M. Jensen, and K. Pirhofer Walzl. 2010 . Environmental monitoring: The scale and spee d of implementation varies ac cording to the degree of people involvement. Journal of Applied Ecology 47 (6): 1166 1168. Danielsen, F., M. M. Mendoza , A. Tagtag , P. Alviola, D. S. Balete , A. E. Jensen , M. Enghoff, and M. K. Poulsen. 2007 . Increasing conserva tion management action by involving local people in natur al resource monitoring. A Journal of the Human Environment 36 ( 7), 566 570. Deyo, R. A., P. Diehr, and D. L. Patrick. 1991. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clinical Trials 12 : 142S 158S. Donovan, R. 1994. Boscosa: Forest Conservation and Management through Local Institutions (Costa Rica). In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community Based Conservation, eds. D. Western, and M. R. Wright, pp . 215 233. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
56 Elkin, E. 2012. Are You in Need of Validation? Psychometric Evaluation of Questionnaires Using SAS Â® . San Francisco, CA, USA. Evans, K., M. R. Guariguata. 2008. Partici p a tory monitoring in tropical forest management: a review of tools, concepts and lessons learned . Center for International Forest Research ( CIFOR ) : Http://www.cifor. org/online library/browse/view publication/publication/2486.html . (accessed 23 May 2014). Faro. 2012. Grupo Faro Ideas y Accion Colectiva . http://www.grupofaro.org/programas (acce s sed 15 June 2015). Finer Biosphere Reserve: a brief modern history and conservation challenges. Environmental Research Letters 4 (3): 034005. Forgie, V., P. Horsley, and J. Johnston. 2001. Facilitating community based conservation initiatives . Garnett, S. T., J. Sayer, and J. Du Toit. 2007. Improving the Effectiveness of Interventions to Balance Conservation and Development: a Conceptual Framework. Ecology and Society 12 (1): 2. Garnett, S. T., G. M. Cro wley, H. Hunter Xenie, W. Kozanayi, B. Sithole, C. Palmer , R. Southgate, K. K. Zander. 2009. Transformative knowledge transfer through empowering and paying community researchers. Biotropica 41 (5): 571 577. Gartlan, S. 2004. Land Tenure and state property: a comprision of the Korup and Kilum ICDPs in Cameroun. In Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards better conservation and development , eds. T. O. McShane, and M. P. Wells, pp. 208 231. New York, NY , USA: Columbia University Press. Gibson, C. 1999. Politicians and poeachers: the political economy of wildlife policy in Africa. Cambridge University. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, L. 2004. Review criteria and rating scale for community base d participatory research. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment. No 99. http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/cbpr/cbpr.pdf Hockings, M., S. Stolton, N. Dudley, F. Leverington, and J. Courrau. 2006. Evaluating effectiveness: A framework for asses sing management of protected areas. 2nd edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fbJkqFX69ooC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7& dq=Evaluating+Effectiveness+A+framework+for+assessing+management+effecti veness+of+ protected+areas+2+Edition&ots=TgKswzkh 0&sig=OLk Gi6pCpJjzqzfMUPf7KSyLJk \ nhttp://books.google.com/books (acce s sed 13 September 2013 ) .
57 INEFAN. 1998. Plan de manejo del parque nacional yasuni . Jacobson, S. K.1991. Evaluation model for developing, implementin g, and assessing conservation education programs: Examples from Belize and Costa Rica. Environmental Management 15 (2): 143 150. Jorgenson, J., and M. C. RodrÃguez. 2001. Memorias del Seminario Taller 2001: ConservaciÃ³n y desarrollo sostenible del Parque N acional YasunÃ y su Ã¡rea de influencia. Simbioe. Kainer, K., M. DiGiano, A. Duchelle, L. Wadt, E. Bruna, and J. Dain. 2009. Partenering for greater success:local stakeholders and research in troopical biology and conservation. Biotropica 41 (5): 555. Kapos, V., A. Balmford, R. Aveling, B. Philip, P. Carey, A. Entwistle, J. Hopkins, T. Mulliken, R. Safford, A. Stattersfield, M. Walpole, and A. Manica. Outcomes, not implementation, predict conservation success. Oryx 43 (3): 336 342. Kellert, S. R., J. N. Mehta, S. A. Ebbin, and L. L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhethoric, and Reality. Society and Natural Resources 13 : 705 715. Kerr, M., E. Ely, V. Lee, and A. Mayio. 1994. A profile of volunteer environmental monitorin g: National survey results. Lake and Reservoir Management 9 :1 4. Larrea, C. 2010. PetrÃ³leo o ConservaciÃ³n en el Parque YasunÃ: una opciÃ³n histÃ³rica. Universidad Andina SimÃ³n Bolivar, Sede Ecuador. Quito: UASB Digital. Larrea, C., A. I. Larrea, and A. L. Br avo. 2008. PetrÃ³leo, sustentabilidad y desarrollo en el AmazonÃa del Ecuador: dilemas para una transiciÃ³n hacia una sociedad post petrolera. Quito: Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar. Lawrence, A. 2006. No personal motive? Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false dichotomies of participation. Ethics, Place and Environment 9 (3): 279 298. Lewis, D. M., and A. Phiri. 1998. Wildlife snaring an indicator of community response to a community based conservation project. Oryx 32 : 111 121. Litt le, P. D. 1994. The link between local participation and improved conservation: A review of issues and experiences. In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community Based Conservation, eds. D. Western, and M. R. Wright, pp. 347 372. Washingto n, D.C: Island Press. MAE. 2013. Plan de Manejo del Parque Nacional Sumaco Napo Galeras . Quito.
58 Mehta, J. N., and S. R. Kellert. 1998. Local attitudes toward community based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu Barun Consarvation Area. Environmental Conservation 25 : 320 33. Metcalfe, S. 1994. The Zimbabwe Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community based Conservation, eds. D. Wester, R. M. W rigth, and S. C. Strum, pp. 161 192. Covelo, California: Island Press. Mugisha, A. R. 2002. Evaluation of Community Based Conservation Approaches: Management of Protected Areas in Uganda . University of Florida. Ostrom, E. 1997. Self governance and forest r esources. A paper presented at the conference on Local institutions for forest management: how can research make a difference? Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Bogor, Indonesia. Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and the collective manageme nt of resources. Science 302 (5652): 1912 1914. Richards, L. 2009. Handling Quali tative Data: A Practical Guide, pp. 93 . London: Sage Publications . Robinson, J., and Redford. 1994. Community based approaches to wildlife conservation in neotropical forest. In Natural Connections, eds. D. Western, M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, pp . 300 317. Washington, DC: Island Express. Salafsky, N. 2011. Integrating development with conservation. A means to a conservation end, or a mean end to conservation?. Biological Cons ervation 144 (3): 973 978. Saterson, K. A., N. L. Christensen, R. B. Jackson, R. A. Kramer, S. L. Pimm, M. D. Smith, and J. B. Wiener. 2004. Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 18 (3): 597 59 9. Schmink, M., and C. H. Wood. 1987. The "political ecology" of Amazonia. In Lands at Risk in the Third World: Local Level Perspectives, eds. P. D. Little, and M. M. Horowitz. Westview. Seymour, F. J. 1994. Are succesful community based conservation projects designed or discovered? In Natural Connections , eds. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, pp. 472. Washington, D.C: Island Express. Songorwa, A. N. 1999. Community based wildlif e management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the communities interested?. World Development 27 (12): 2016 2079.
59 Streiner, D. L. 2003. Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency. J Pers Assess. 80 (1): 99 103. Vaske, J. J. 2008. Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation and Human Dimensions. Venture Publishing, State College, Pennsylvania. Waylen, K. A., A. Fischer, P. J. K. McGowan, and E. J. Milner Gulland. 2013. Deconstructing Community for Conser vation: Why Simple Assumptions are Not Sufficient. Human Ecology 41 (4): 575 585. Waylen, K. A., A. Fisher, P. J. McGowan, S. J. Thirgood, and E. J. Milner Gulland. 2010. The effect of local, cultural context on community based conservation interventions: e valuating ecological, economic, attitudinal and behavioural outcomes . Systematic Review No. 80, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence , Birminghan, UK. WCS. 2010. Reserva de Biosphera: YasunÃ. Wildlife Conservation Society Ecuador. Wells, P. M. 1998. I nvesting in Biodiversity: a review of Indonesia's integrated conservation and development projects. The World Bank, East Asia Region. Western, D. 1994 a . Linking Conservation and Community Aspirations. In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community based Conservation, eds. D. Western, M. Wrigth, and S. C. Strum, pp. 499 512. Covelo, California: Island Press. Western, D. 1994 b . Ecosystem Conservation and Rural Development: The Case of Amboseli. In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community based Conservation, eds. W. David, R. M. Wrigth, and S. C. Strum, pp. 15 52. Covelo, California: Island Press. Western, D., and R. M. Wright. 1994. Perspectives in community based conservation. In Natural Connections , p p. 581. Washington DC: Island Press. Whitelaw, G., H. Vaughan, V. Craig, and D. Atkinson. 2003. Establishing the Canadian Community Monitoring Network. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88 : 409 418 . Wilcox, D. 1998. Building Effective Local Partne rships . The Partnerships Handbook. Http://www.partnerships.org.uk/pguide/pships.htlm . (accesed 8 December 2013 )
60 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH In 2010, Hernan Gonzalo Alvarez Barriga got his BS degree in b iology at Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador, looking at sexual dimorphism of birds. Over time he has developed his professional interests in conservation planning, the involvement of local peop le in conservation initiatives and human wildlife interactions. As a consultant, Hernan Gonzalo Alvarez Barriga has worked with indigenous communities, mainly with Kichwa and Waorani, involved in environmental education and monitoring programs in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Additionally, Hernan Gonzalo Alvarez Barriga has worked as the A ssistant D irectors of Tiputini Bi odiversity Station of Universidad San Francisco de Quito , a position that has involved him in the conservation of YasunÃ National Park and YasunÃ Biosphere Reserve. He joined the University of Florida in 2013 and received his m 2015. Hernan Gonzalo Alvarez Barriga hopes to go back to Ecuador and collaborate with conservation organizations working with human wildlife interactions.