1.
Benefits and Costs Experienced by Communities
living next to Amboseli National Park and
Kimana Conservancy in Kenya
Dr. Margaret Wachu Gichuhi
Research Fellow (Environment &
Climate Change)
Email: mgichuhi@jkuat.ac.ke
Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture
and Technology, P.O BOX 62000-
00200,Nairobi,Kenya.

2.
• 8% of Kenya’s biodiversity is conserved through National Parks (NP), Reserves and
Sanctuaries
• Conservation areas serve as;
breeding grounds, wildlife dispersal areas and corridors
protected area buffer zones, eco-tourism and recreation facilities
habitats for wildlife and endemic species, education and research
• Communities’ negative perception of conservation areas is due to human-wildlife
conflicts and the need to share resources equitably
• Amboseli National Park and Kimana Community Conservancy are located in Rift
Valley Province, Loitokitok District, Kenya
Burning Issue: Linking Conservation to
Community Benefits

3.
• Swamps and riverine areas are suitable for agriculture; the range is suitable for wildlife and
pastoralism
• Kimana area has been used by the Maasai pastoral community to graze their livestock on a
communal basis
• Non-maasai migrants have permanent agricultural fields around the Ranch’s important
wetland areas leading to conflict over water
• The aim is to assess the benefits of involving community members in the management of
Amboseli National Park and Kimana Conservancy
• The specific objectives are; to analyze the public benefits and costs associated with the
conservation area
• Secondly, to assess the degree of community involvement in conservation management
Contd.

4.
• Primary data comprised questionnaires and interviews for household surveys
• Questionnaires for household surveys were close-ended and with checklist options
• Direct observations were used to clarify information from the respondents
• Most households falling within the buffer zones were interviewed
• Random and purposeful sampling was used to identify and select respondents
• Purposeful sampling was used where a population was represented by a cluster
• Secondary data was also used
• Sample size ; Kothari (2004), Amboseli NP (n = 577, n=40, sample size used), Kimana (n =
642.6 n=34, sample size used
• Data analysis: data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS 9.0)

5.
Study Area: Amboseli Ecosystem

6.
• The process of data analysis involved checking of erroneous data and making corrections
• Variable types were defined, coded data was transformed and frequency tables created
• Data was checked using frequency counts, descriptive statistics and measures of
associations and relationships
• Pearson’s correlation was used to measure how variables or rank orders are related
• 34% of respondents living next to Amboseli National Park and 32% of the respondents
next to Kimana preferred livestock keeping
• 48% of the respondents living next to Amboseli and 50% living next to Kimana owned
land individually
• 68% of the respondents living next to Amboseli and 68% living next to Kimana indicated
that resources were not well distributed

7.
• 34% of the respondents living next to Amboseli Park and 35% living next to
Kimana indicated a reduction in forest cover
• 49% in Amboseli and 44% of the respondents in Kimana experienced crop
destruction from wild animals.
• 34% of the respondents living next to Amboseli and 29% in Kimana identified eco-
tourism as the main conservation benefit
• 48% and 43% of the respondents living next to Amboseli NP and Kimana
identified compensation as the best solutions to human - wildlife conflicts
Contd.

8.
• Conservancy benefits and expected solutions has a significant correlation (r = .141,
P < 0.000, n = 659) at (0.05level) and at 95% confidence level
• Type of conflict and conservation benefits has a correlation of (r = 0.201, P < 0.000,
n = 659) at 0.05 level
• There is a symbiotic relationship between communities and benefits from
conservation areas where there are no conflicts
• An increase in conservancy benefits such as eco-tourism, community projects and
infrastructure changes community’s perception to Wildlife conservation
• Type of wild animal attacks and conservation benefits has a negative correlation of
(r = -0.118, P < 0.000, n = 659) at 0.05 level
Contd.

9.
Contd.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Livestockdeaths
Cropdestruction
Wildlifeattacks
None
Human-wildlife
Waterconflict
Grassconflict
Human-human
Eco-tourism
Communityprojects
Infrastructure
Business
Anyother
Compensation
Sharingbenefits
Grazingintheparks
Fencing
Problems Type of Conflict Conservancy benefits Expected solutions
Amboseli NP Kimana Community Conservancy

10.
• Socio-economic and socio-cultural aspects influenced community’s livelihoods and use of
available resources
• Benefits received by communities were eco-tourism, community projects, infrastructure
development and business activities
• Communities that practiced livestock keeping and owned conservancies received more
benefits and experienced minimal human – wildlife conflicts
• Communities should benefit economically from conservation areas
• Frequent stakeholder consultations with communities to improve the governance of
resources and increase appreciation of wildlife resources

11.
• Conflict resolution measures i.e sharing of resources to improve the ratings of
conservation areas by the communities
• Education awareness programs and management plans should be fully
implemented
• Local communities should be involved in the decision making process.
• Resource inventories for biodiversity should be updated frequently
• Inspiration:
The wildlife conservation areas will benefit from community appreciation of
wildlife resources leading to improved conservation
Contd.

12.
• Policies on land uses in ASALS to incorporate community
conservancies for sustainable use of rangelands
• Research on Marine parks and reserves to assess the resources,
impacts and community involvement in conservation
• Integrate climate mitigation and adaptation strategies in resource use
and conservation