Contrasting perceptions of ecosystem services of an African forest park

Abstract

SUMMARYTraditionally, conservation programmes assume that local peoples' support for parks depends on receiving material benefits from foreign exchange, tourism, development and employment. However, in the case of forest parks in Africa, where annual visitation can be small, local support may instead result from ecosystem services. Kibale National Park, a forest park in Uganda, demonstrates that people appreciate parks in ways that are seldom cited nor explored. Public perceptions of benefits accrued from Kibale were explored using two different sampling techniques: a community census and a geographic sample. In both surveys, over 50% of respondents perceived benefits provided by Kibale National Park, and over 90% of those who perceived benefits identified ecosystem services, whereas material benefits were cited less frequently. Multimodel selection on a suite of general linear models for the two different sampling methods provided a comparison of factors influencing perceptions of ecosystem services. Perceptions of Park benefits were influenced by geography, household and respondent characteristics, and perception of negative impacts from the Park. Perceived ecosystem benefits played an important role in the way the Park was viewed and valued locally. Parks have considerable impacts on neighbouring communities, and their long-term political and economic sustainability depends on managing these relationships well. Since local people have the most to gain or lose by conserving neighbouring parks, analyses that incorporate the perceptions of local people are essential to management and sustainability of park landscapes.

Migrant decision-making in a frontier landscape

“…Benefits include fuelwood, timber, and grazing areas provided by local resource areas such as community forest reserves (Borgerhoff Mulder et al 2007). Many households also cited non-material ecosystem services of Katavi National Park, such as rainfall and keeping wild animals away from settlements, which may significantly shape positive attitudes regarding conservation (Holmes 2003, Hartter et al 2014. Together, resource use and biodiversity areas constitute natural capital and contribute to how households make adaptive decisions through migration (Adams andAdger 2013, Hunter et al 2014).…”

An experimental test of community‐based strategies for mitigating human–wildlife conflict around protected areas

“…The coupling of animal deterrents with tangible incentives to humans also holds powerful potential for fostering long‐term coexistence between humans and elephants. Indeed, offsetting economic losses is considered essential to managing human–elephant conflict successfully (Hartter, Solomon, Ryan, Jacobson, & Goldman, ; Snyman, ). Although programs for compensating subsistence farmers for crop losses to elephants have met with difficulties in Africa (Shaffer et al, ), the production of marketable commodities such as honey (King, Lala, Nzumu, Mwambingu, & Douglas‐Hamilton, ), chili products (Hedges & Gunaryadi, ), or other cash crops (Parker & Osborn, ) as a byproduct of deterrence can increase community buy‐in and foster greater tolerance toward elephants (Shaffer et al, ).…”

Perceived human–elephant conflict and its impact for elephant conservation in northern Congo

“…Also benefits (e.g. ecosystem services, employment, social services) due to proximity of a protected area or involvement in a conservation project can result in more positive perceptions of biodiversity conservation (Brooks, Waylen, & Mulder, ; Hartter, Solomon, Ryan, Jacobsen, & Goldman, ; Nsonsi, Heymanns, Diamouangana, & Breuer, ).…”