Presentation made at the Sustainable Tourism in Small Island Developing States conference, 23-24 November 2017, Seychelles. A partnership of the Seychelles Sustainable Tourism Foundation, IUCN WCPA Tourism and Protected Areas Specialist Group, University of Seychelles, Paris Tourism Sorbonne (IREST), and Global Sustainable Tourism Council.

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