CC BY
52
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: INSEPARABLE OPTIONS FOR PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT. A CASE STUDY OF FOUR NIGERIAN NATIONAL PARKS
Israel O. O. Osunsina1* , Olujide Osunsina2 , Adekunle A. Ogunjinmi3 , Oladapo O. Oduntan1 , Muideen A. Yisau1 , Mathias O. Umunna4
1 Federal University of Agriculture in Abeokuta, Nigeria *e-mail: [email protected] 2Federal College of Forestry Mechanisation in Afaka, Nigeria 3Federal University of Technology in Akure, Nigeria 4Federal College of Wildlife Management in New Bussa, Nigeria
Received: 18.03.2022. Revised: 20.09.2022. Accepted: 11.10.2022.
The establishment and management of Protected Areas have become the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation strategies. However, efforts aimed to manage these areas have paid little or no attention to livelihoods and needs of the surrounding communities. Therefore, this study assesses the socio-economic predictors of the local people's needs and also establishes the link between biodiversity conservation and rural development. A survey of villages around four Nigerian national parks has been carried out to determine available infrastructural facilities, the facilities mostly desired by villagers and the socio-economic predictors of the local people's needs and their dependence on the national park resources. The selection of the study areas was performed through multi-stage random sampling, with a focus on villages within a 10-km radius of each national park boundaries. Primary data were collected from 1500 respondents in 106 local communities around four national parks, i.e. 22 around the Cross River National Park (CRNP), 22 around the Gashaka Gumti National Park (GGNP), 27 around the Kainji Lake National Park (KLNP), and 35 around the Old Oyo National Park (OONP). The collected data were analysed and presented descriptively, while logistic regression was used to identify the socio-demographic predictors of needs by local people. Results of the demographic characteristics show that there were more male respondents interviewed (73.2%) than female respondents (26.8%) in all four national parks. In all the four studied national parks, farming has a predominant occupation: CRNP (99.3%), GGNP (93.9%), KLNP (90.5%), and OONP (85.2%). The major number of respondents is married: CRNP (77.0%), GGNP (70.0%), KLNP (84.4%), and OONP (79.6%), and is within the age group of 15-25 years: CRNP (43.0%), GGNP (30.0%), KLNP (36.2%) and OONP (25.2%). All of the respondents interviewed in CRNP were Christians (100%), while the majority of respondents in GGNP (87.3%), KLNP (99.2%), and OONP (53.1%) were Muslims. In terms of educational qualifications, there was a high level of illiteracy among the people living around the studied national parks as most of the respondents in CRNP had primary (45.3%) and secondary education (32.7%). However, for the other three national parks, we demonstrated a higher percentage of non-formal education: GGNP (61.5%), KLNP (63.1%) and OONP (68.1%). The obtained results show that the study area is characterised by a lack of infrastructures, such as roads (96.4%), electricity (97.7%) and limited provision of service, such as medicine (91.1%), potable water (96.5%), and education services (86.6%). The majority of the interviewed respondents in communities around the national parks indicated the provision of health care centres (78.5%), boreholes/portable water (77.7%), roads (68.6%), the establishment of schools (59.7%) and employment (56.2%). Our results show that the communities' expectation was for basic infrastructures, such as the provision of potable water (77.5%), health care centres (78.5%), electricity (78.1%), and roads (68.9%). The logistic regression analysis indicated that the predictors of the respondents' infrastructural needs were gender (P = 0.068, p < 0.01), age (P = 0.032, p < 0.01), and education level (P = 0.047, p < 0.05). The study concludes that there is a need for the federal, state and local governments to provide the basic infrastructures in villages surrounding the studied national parks to reduce the pressure and over-dependence of the local people on the national park resources. The literacy campaign and conservation education should be taken to the grass-root because the majority of the local people are illiterates and live around biodiversity hotspots.
Key words: attitude, biodiversity, infrastructure, local people, needs, Protected Area
Introduction
Biodiversity implies the variety of all forms of life, from genes and species to ecosystems and remains the living natural heritage to all. The biodiversity is crucial for the reduction of poverty, due to the basic goods and ecosystem services it provides. The world's poorest people depend on forests to varying extents (Camara-Leret et al., 2019). Globally, about 2 600 000 000 people
worldwide draw their livelihoods either partially or fully from agriculture. More than 3 000 000 000 people depend on marine and coastal biodiversity, while over 1 600 000 000 people rely on forests and non-timber forest products (CBD, 2016).
The deep relationship between people and forests and their associated biological diversity has a long history (Roberts, 2019). Indigenous communities often have a deep cultural and spiritual
relationship with their ancestral forest lands and age-old knowledge about biodiversity. It is not just coincidence that the majority ofthe world's remaining biodiversity resides in indigenous territories (Taylor et al., 2012; Verschuuren & Brown, 2018). The biodiversity ultimately provides people with raw materials for food and feed, construction, clothing, handicrafts, medicines and other daily livelihood needs (Cámara-Leret & Dennehy, 2019). Around the world, human activities are taking a heavy toll on biodiversity and ecosystem services through unsustainable agriculture, unsustainable industrial logging, overhunting creeping urbanisation, rampant coastal development and rapacious over-fishing, which are fragmenting and destroying the natural environment (Lewis & Maslin, 2015; Barlow et al., 2016; Potapov et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2018).
Sustainable rural development is the key to maintain active local communities in rural and semi-natural areas, avoiding depopulation and preserving sites of high ecological value, including Protected Areas, and ecosystem functions and services, upon which the society relies and that contribute to poverty alleviation both locally and globally (de Castro-Pardo et al., 2021). Nigeria has created Protected Areas under the co-ordination of National Park Services aiming to protect the biodiversity. As a result, residents of communities surrounding Protected Areas could not meet their basic needs, like employment, water provision, educational facilities, medical services, energy supply, livestock grazing, and motor-able roads (Olufemi & Kenneth, 2019). Rural people may be poor, sometimes to the point of mere subsistence and may have a few options for coping with the challenges of making a living and so need to supplement their income by exploitation of natural resources to provide a reasonable livelihood. Conflicts always also arise due to the pressure of a growing population, widespread poverty and unsustainable land-use practice outside Protected Areas (Osunsina & Fagbeyiro, 2015). It is increasingly recognised that the biodiversity is ultimately lost or conserved at the local and rural levels due to the high prevalence of poverty (Yosef, 2015). It has been observed that the impacts of Protected Areas on local livelihoods can be major determinants of attitudes of local communities toward conservation (Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Clements et al., 2014; Bragagnolo et al., 2016; Abukari & Mwalyosi, 2018a,b, 2020).
The success of conservation strategies through Protected Areas may lie in the ability of managers
to reconcile biodiversity conservation goals with social and economic issues and to promote greater compliance of local communities with Protected Areas' conservation strategies (Andrade & Rhodes, 2012). Enhancing social and economic development, while preserving nature, is one of the most significant challenges for humankind in the XXI century. Hence, finding new pathways for reconciling socio-economic well-being and nature sustainability is critically important for contemporary societies, especially in tropical developing countries where sustaining local livelihoods often clashes with biodiversity conservation (Campos-Silva et al., 2021; de Castro-Pardo et al., 2021). Ensuring positive outcomes for both biodiversity and people requires a careful balance between conservation goals and demands for resources that support livelihoods and needs of the rural people (FAO & UNEP, 2020). In view of the foregoing, this study was conducted to assess the facilities and amenities available in the neighbouring villages around a national park, the amenities mostly desired by the villages and the socio-economic predictors of the local people's needs. The study specifically considers and establishes the link between biodiversity conservation and rural development.
Material and Methods
The study has been carried out in Cross River National Park (CRNP), Gashaka Gumti National Park (GGNP), Kainji Lake National Park (KLNP), and Old Oyo National Park (OONP). Table 1 shows a brief description of these national parks. Primary data were collected from local communities in support zones of Nigerian national parks. The study was done using multi-stage random sampling. The national parks are divided into ranges, which serve as units for protection and conservation activities, and are located in various geographical zones for ease of protection and administrative activities. Within the ranges, there are the support zones of villages near national parks that were selected for the study. The communities and villages, where the national parks are located, are in 19 local government areas in the northern and southern parts of Nigeria with a total population of 2 758 299 according to a 2006 population census and Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette (National Population Commission, 2010). However, this official gazette lacks a breakdown of the number of people for each of the selected communities and villages in each of the local governments. The survey method was conducted in line with Ogunjinmi et al. (2014).
Table 1. Brief description of the four selected national parks in Nigeria
Parameters* National parks
CRNP GGNP KLNP OONP
Area 4000 km2 6731 km2 5340.83 km2 2512 km2
Longitude 08.445322-08.44887° E 11.482732-11.484554° E 03.331740-05.503340° E 03.350010-04.420044° E
Latitude 05.344991-05.348319° N 7.56311568-7.565193° N 09.402200-10.322640° N 08.150023-09.05012° N
Location in Nigeria South-eastern part North-eastern part North-central part South-western part
State Cross River Adamawa and Taraba Kwara and Niger Oyo
IUCN category II II II II
Local government areas covered 5 4 5 11
Year of the foundation 1991 1991 1979 1991
Predominant vegetation Moist tropical primary rainforest and mangrove swamps on the coastal zones Montane forests and savanna grassland Northern Guinea savanna Southern Guinea savanna
Climate Rainy season: April - November; dry season: December - March. Rainy season: May - October; dry season: November - April. Rainy season: April - September; dry season: October -April. Rainy season: March - November; dry season: December -February.
Division Oban Hills and Okwango divisions Gumti and Tango sectors Borgu and Zugurma sectors One contiguous sector
Uniqueness It is a United Nations biodiversity hotspot It has enclave villages, and it is an Important Bird Area It has enclave villages, a long lake (136 km), and an Important Bird Area It has an archaeological site of ruins of the Old Oyo Empire
Animal diversity It has 15 primate species, including Gorilla gorilla diehli Matschie, 1904, and Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1799); 75 mammal species, including Loxodonta cyclotis Matschie, 1900, and Syncerus caffer nanus (Boddaert, 1785); 42 snake species, over 350 bird species, and 950 butterfly species. It is one of two sites in Nigeria, where Phyllastrephus xavieri (Oustalet, 1892) is found. Other species rare in Nigeria are Macheiramphus alci-nus Westermann, 1851, Aquila africana (Cassin, 1865), and Malimbus racheliae (Cassin, 1857). It has a diversity of rare and highly threatened fauna, 103 species of mammals (e.g. Colobus guereza Ruppell, 1835, Potamochoerus porcus (Linnaeus, 1758), Panthera leo (Linnaeus, 1758), Cephalophus silvicultor (Afzelius, 1815), Kobus ellipsiprymnus (Ogilbyi, 1833), Pan troglodytes), more than 500 bird species, 55 fish species, and over 500 butterfly species. It has threatened migratory animal species, such as Taurotragus derbianus (Gray, 1847), and Acinonyx jubatus (Schreber, 1775). It has a diversity of 65 mammal species, 350 bird species, 30 species of reptiles and amphibians, 118 fish species. Common animal species are Loxodonta africana (Blumenbach, 1797), Syncerus caffer (Sparrman, 1779), Hippotragus equinus (E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803), Kobus kob (Erxleben, 1777), Panthera leo, P. pardus (Linnaeus, 1758), Crocody-lus niloticus Laurenti, 1768, Python sebae (Gmelin in Linnaeus, 1789), Varanus niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758). It is represented by numerous mammal species, like Kobus kob, Hippotragus equinus, Alcelaphus buselaphus (Pallas, 1766), Sylvicapra grimmia (Linnaeus, 1758), Tragela-phus scriptus (Pallas, 1766), Papio anubis (Lesson, 1827), Syncerus caffer (Sparrman, 1779), Potamochoerus porcus, Panthera leo, Crocuta crocuta (Erxleben, 1777), over 200 bird species.
Plant diversity Over 1568 plant species were identified, 77 of which are endemic to Nigeria. They include 1303 flowering plants, 141 lichens and 56 moss species (e.g. Ancistrocladus korupensis D.W.Thomas & Gereau, Berlinia confusa Hoyle, Coula edu-lis Baill., Hannoa klaineana Pierre & Engl., Klainedoxa gabonensis Pierre ex Engl., Khaya ivorensis A.Chev., Lophira alata Banks ex C.F.Gaertn., Prunus africana (Hook.f.) Kalkman). Some of the common tree species are Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile, Afzelia africana Sm. ex Pers., Khaya senegalensis (Desr.) A.Juss., Daniellia oliveri (Rolfe) Hutch. & Dalziel, Isoberlinia doka (Craib & Stapf), Vitellaria paradoxa subsp. nilotica (Kotschy) A.N.Henry, Chithra & N.C.Nair, Albizia gummifera (J.F.Gmel.) C.A.Sm., Triplochiton scleroxylon K.Schum., Aubrevillea kerstingii (Harms) Pellegr. Common tree species are Afzelia africana, Daniellia oliveri, Vitellaria paradoxa subsp. nilotica, Isoberlinia doka, Burkea africana Hook. Pterocarpus erinaceus Poir., Parkia clappertoniana Keay, Khaya senegalensis, Detarium microcarpum Guill. & Perr. Common tree species are Burkea africana, Vitellaria paradoxa subsp. nilotica, Daniellia oliveri, Lophira alata, Anogeis-sus leiocarpa (DC.) Guill. & Perr., Detarium microcarpum, Annona senegalensis Pers., Hy-menocardia acida Tul., Parkia clappertoniana, Piliostigma thonningii (Schumach.) Milne-Redh., Terminalia macroptera Guill. & Perr.
Note: * - Information is provided according to NPSN (2022); CRNP - Cross River National Park, GGNP - Gashaka Gumti National Park, KLNP - Kainji Lake National Park, OONP - Old Oyo National Park.
In all ranges (administrative zones) of the selected national parks, amounting to 109 communities, 10% from the list of communities were randomly selected. They were chosen between 0 km and 10 km from a national park's boundaries. The total number of communities within this range was based on National Park Service records. In each community, a list of households was obtained from community heads or community leaders. Household heads, or in their absence, any member willing to participate, were invited for questionnaire administration. The total num-
ber of selected households was 1500 (300 ones were related to CRNP, 330 to GGNP, 390 to KLNP, and 480 to OONP), representing 10% of the total number of households among all 106 surrounding villages comprising 22 around CRNP, 22 around GGNP, 27 around KLNP, and 35 around OONP.
Data analysis
Data were obtained using a set of questionnaires administered to respondents in each village. The questionnaire comprised the socio-demo-
graphic characteristics of respondents, amenities available in the village and amenities they desire from a national park. The explanatory and dependent variables are operationalised in Table 2. The collected data were analysed and presented descriptively using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 (IBM Corporation, USA). Data were analysed and presented descriptively in frequency, and percentages, while the logistic regression was used to identify the socio-de-mographic predictors of need by the local people.
Results and Discussion
The result of the demographic characteristics shows that there were more male respondents interviewed (73.2%), than female respondents (26.8%) in the four national parks. This is similar to the study carried out by Osunsina (2016) showed that men were predominant in the sample population. Most of respondents were married (78.2%), while a larger proportion of respondents were also between the age ranges of 15-25 years (32.7%). All of the interviewed respondents in CRNP were Christians (100%), while the majority of respondents in GGNP (87.3%), KLNP (99.2%) and OONP (53.1%) were Muslims. In terms of the educational qualification, most of the respondents in CRNP had primary (45.3%) and secondary education (32.7%). But in the other three national parks, a higher proportion of respondents had non-formal education: GGNP (61.5%), KLNP (63.1%) and OONP (68.1%) (Table 3). This shows a high level of illiteracy among the people living around the national parks. This is caused by the location of villages in remote areas, where there are no schools within reach. Osunsina & Fagbeyiro (2015) indicated that the education affects many aspects of life, including how individuals relate to and perceive the national parks and their natural resources. The level of formal education associated with respondent age influenced attitudes of the people. It has become common sense in Nigeria that resources have to be re-distributed evenly. Among these resources there are those affecting the provision
of formal education. To succeed in influencing the people to be socially and environmentally responsible, the government will be obligated to conceive, develop and implement a comprehensive environmental education programme.
To reverse the existing destructive trends of people-related activities and living styles, the environmental enlightenment and ethics must become a basic goal on all levels within the school system. Sustainable resource utilisation can be achieved to a large extent by developing and investing in a citizenry that is knowledgeable about the environment and has skills to recognise and deal effectively with the problems. Through formal education, people make sense of their experiences and develop their knowledge and understanding of natural and human activities, which influence and shape the environment. This helps to focus energies on certain issues and address appropriate audiences. Taking into cognizance problems facing Nigeria, emphasis and focus on school children has benefits and limitations.
Adekunle et al. (2012) and Olunusi et al. (2022) established a relationship between the level of education and the knowledge of conservation and sustainable use among respondents utilising natural resources. Morar & Peterlicean (2012) affirmed that education can help people gain knowledge, skills, motivation values and the engagement needed to manage efficiently Earth resources and to take responsibility for maintaining the environment quality. Osunsina & Fagbeyiro (2015) also reported that younger respondents have a higher educational level than older respondents, because now younger respondents have more access to education, as compared with older respondents in the Old Oyo National Park (Nigeria). In all selected national parks, farming was considered the predominant occupation, namely CRNP (99.3%), GGNP (93.9%), KLNP (90.5%), and OONP (85.2%). Similar studies of Osunsina (2016) and Osunsina & Fagbeyiro (2015) showed that farming is the predominant occupation practised around national parks due to the highly fertile land found around Protected Areas.
Table 2. Operationalisation of variables used in the study for analysis of data from four Nigerian national parks
Explanatory variables Description Operationalisation
Gender Whether the respondent is a male or female 1 for male, 0 female
Age The actual age of respondents in years Age
Education Education attainment of respondent 1 for non-formal, 0 otherwise
Occupation The occupation of the respondent 1 for farming, 0 otherwise
Marital Status The marital status of the respondent 1 for single, 0 otherwise
Religion The religion of the respondent 1 for Christian, 0 otherwise
Community infrastructural need Whether the respondents need the infrastructure 1 for Yes, 0 for No
Dependent variable Description Operationalisation
Support for conservation Whether respondents support conservation activities in a national park or not 1 for Yes, 0 for No
Table 3. Demographic characteristics of respondents around the four selected national parks in Nigeria
Parameters Variables National parks and sampling size
CRNP n = 300 (%) GGNP n = 330 (%) KLNP n = 390(%) OONP n = 480 (%) In total n= 1500 (%)
Gender Male 248 (82.7) 247 (74.8) 251 (64.4) 352 (73.3) 1098 (73.2)
Female 52 (17.3) 83 (25.2) 139 (35.6) 128 (26.7) 402 (26.8)
Marital status Single 69 (23.0) 99 (30.0) 61 (15.6) 98 (20.4) 327 (21.8)
Married 231 (77.0) 231 (70.0) 329 (84.4) 382 (79.6) 1173 (78.2)
Age 15-25 129 (43.0) 100 (30.3) 141 (36.2) 121 (25.2) 491 (32.7)
26-35 59 (19.7) 69 (20.9) 111 (28.5) 77 (16.0) 316 (21.1)
36-45 39 (13.0) 45 (13.6) 55 (14.1) 85 (17.7) 224 (14.9)
46-55 38 (12.7) 47 (14.2) 30 (7.7) 103 (21.5) 218 (14.5)
56-65 13 (4.3) 31 (9.4) 31 (7.9) 52 (10.8) 127 (8.5)
66 and above 22 (7.3) 38 (11.5) 22 (5.6) 42 (8.8) 124 (8.3)
Religion Christianity 300(100) 42 (12.7) 3(0.80) 210 (43.8) 555 (37.0)
Muslim 0 (0) 288 (87.3) 387 (99.2) 255 (53.1) 930 (62.0)
Traditional 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 15 (3.1) 15 (1.0)
Qualification Non-formal 54 (18.0) 203 (61.5) 246 (63.1) 327 (68.1) 830 (55.3)
Islamic 0 (0) 24 (7.30) 63 (16.2) 38 (7.9) 125 (8.3)
Primary 136 (45.3) 63 (19.1) 24 (6.2) 75 (18.3) 298 (19.9)
Secondary 98 (32.7) 40 (12.1) 47 (12.1) 8 (1.7) 193 (12.9)
Tertiary 12 (4.0) 0 (0) 10 (2.6) 32 (6.7) 54 (3.6)
Occupation Farmer 298 (99.3) 310 (93.9) 353 (90.5) 409 (85.2) 1370 (91.4)
Trader 0 (0) 0 (0) 25 (6.4) 16 (3.3) 41 (2.7)
Fisherman 0 (0) 4(1.2) 5 (1.3) 8 (1.7) 17 (1.1)
Civil servant 2 (0.7) 16 (4.8) 7(1.8) 23 (4.8) 48 (3.2)
Hunter 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 24 (5.0) 24 (1.6)
Note: Proportion is indicated in percentages (%); CRNP - Cross River National Park, GGNP - Gashaka Gumti National Park, KLNP - Kainji Lake National Park, OONP - Old Oyo National Park.
The obtained results showed that communities around the selected national parks have benefited from them in terms of employing people from these communities. However, this seems to be more pronounced in KLNP and OONP (46.5% and 55.3%, respectively). Some respondents also indicated that they have received donations of educational material from national parks. Other benefits enjoyed from national parks include the provision of the borehole, renovation of health centres and schools (Table 4). Kainji Lake National Park was able to provide more assistances and amenities to villages around it through the Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project (LEEMP) sponsored by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). This observation is consistent with Osunsina et al. (2018), stated that KLNP only showed strengths in the community support for this national park primarily because of the GEF/LEEMP programme going on in KLNP, which is a part of an integrated conservation and development programme.
In terms of the community expectation from the national park, our results showed that communities' expectations were basic amenities/infrastructures. These expectations were based on the fact that the national park establishment has denied them of the basic resources, which they use, and that national parks are the closest government in-
stitutions to them. The study shows that most of the essential and basic infrastructures were lacking in many villages. Zhu et al. (2018) and Ayivor et al. (2020) noted that most of the national parks are located in remote areas, with restrictions to development which further exacerbate the existing poverty and reliance on natural resources, most often lacking in such infrastructures as roads and limited provision of services (e.g. medicine, potable water, education services). The majority of respondents in communities around the selected national parks indicated the provision of health care centre (78.5%), borehole/portable water (77.7%), roads (68.6%), establishment of schools (59.7%) and employment (56.2%) (Table 5). However, our study showed the lower number of respondents demanding for provision of financial assistance (20.7%), provision of farmlands (21.1%), and electricity (21.9%) (Table 5). A similar study of Akosim & Mbaya (2012) conducted in the Chad Basin National Park (Nigeria) revealed the development options demanded from the national park management to elicit the support of the resident as employment (21.77%), pipe borne-water (20.41%), roads (15.65%), electricity (11.57%), health facility (8.84%), while farmland areas (2.04%), agricultural inputs (5.44%), schools (6.1%), viewing centres (5.44%), and community woodlots (2.72%) were the least demanded.
Table 4. Amenities benefited by neighbouring villages in the four selected national parks from the Nigerian National Park Service
Indicators National parks and sampling size
CRNP n = 300 (%) GGNP n = 330 (%) KLNP n = 390 (%) OONP n = 480 (%) In total n= 1500 (%)
Grading of roads
Yes 0 (0) 0 (0) 52 (13.2) 32 (6.7) 84 (5.6)
No 300 (100) 330 (100) 338 (86.8) 448 (93.3) 1416 (94.4)
Renovation of schools
Yes 0 (0) 41 (12.4) 117 (30.0) 43 (9.0) 201 (13.4)
No 300 (100) 289 (87.6) 273 (70.0) 437 (91.0) 1299 (86.6)
Renovation of health centres
Yes 0 (0) 37 (11.2) 56 (14.4) 41 (8.5) 134 (8.9)
No 300 (100) 293 (88.8) 334 (85.6) 439 (91.5) 1366 (91.1)
Provision of well/borehole
Yes 0(0) 26 (7.9) 2 (0.4) 24 (5.0) 52 (3.5)
No 300 (100) 304 (92.1) 388 (99.5) 456 (95.0) 1448 (96.5)
Provision of electricity
Yes 0 (0) 0 (0) 10 (2.6) 24 (5.0) 34 (2.3)
No 300 (100) 330 (100) 380 (97.4) 456 (95.0) 1466 (97.7)
Employment for villagers
Yes 51 (17.0) 53 (16.0) 181 (46.4) 265 (55.2) 550 (36.7)
No 249(83.0) 277 (84.0) 209 (53.6) 215 (44.8) 950 (63.3)
Provision of educational materials
Yes 0 (0) 7 (2.1) 30 (7.7) 23 (4.8) 60 (4.0)
No 300 (100) 323 (97.9) 360 (92.3) 457 (95.2) 1440 (96.0)
Note: Proportion is indicated in percentages (%); CRNP - Cross River National Park, GGNP - Gashaka Gumti National Park, KLNP - Kainji Lake National Park, OONP - Old Oyo National Park.
Table 5. Amenities expected by neighbouring villages from Nigeria National Park Service in the four selected national parks
Indicators National parks and sampling size
CRNP n = 300(%) GGNP n = 330 (%) KLNP n = 390 (%) OONP n = 480 (%) In total n= 1500 (%)
Provision of farmlands
Yes 104 (34.6) 55 (16.7) 133 (34.2) 25 (5.2) 317 (21.1)
No 196 (65.4) 275 (83.3) 257 (65.8) 455 (94.8) 1183 (78.9)
Provision of health centres
Yes 199 (66.3) 279 (84.5) 319 (81.8) 380 (79.2) 1177 (78.5)
No 101 (33.7) 51 (15.5) 71 (18.2) 100 (20.7) 323 (21.5)
Provision of borehole
Yes 277 (92.3) 290 (88.0) 333 (85.4) 263 (54.8) 1163 (77.5)
No 23 (7.7) 40 (12.0) 57 (14.6) 217 (45.2) 337 (22.5)
Provision of schools/school materials
Yes 143 (47.7) 251 (76.1) 245 (62.8) 256 (53.4) 895 (59.7)
No 157 (45.0) 79 (23.9) 145 (37.2) 224 (46.6) 605 (40.3)
Provision of roads
Yes 178 (59.3) 229 (69.4) 270 (69.2) 352 (73.3) 1029 (68.6)
No 122 (40.7) 101 (30.6) 120 (30.8) 128 (26.7) 471 (31.4)
Provision of employment opportunities
Yes 152 (50.7) 103 (31.2) 275 (70.5) 313 (65.2) 843 (56.2)
No 148 (49.2) 227 (68.8) 115 (29.5) 167 (34.8) 657 (43.8)
Provision of electricity
Yes 131 (43.7) 94 (28.5) 9 (2.3) 95 (19.8) 329 (21.9)
No 169 (56.2) 236 (71.5) 381 (97.7) 385 (80.2) 1171 (78.1)
Provision of the financial assistance
Yes 36 (12.0) 43 (13.0) 16 (4.1) 216 (45.0) 311 (20.7)
No 264 (88.0) 287 (87.0) 374 (96.9) 264 (55.0) 1189 (79.3)
Note: Proportion is indicated in percentages (%); CRNP - Cross River National Park, GGNP - Gashaka Gumti National Park, KLNP - Kainji Lake National Park, OONP - Old Oyo National Park.
The majority of the rural people resort to the usage of medicinal plants because orthodox medicine and hospital services are not available in most of the villages. In those, where medical facility was
available, they were not easily affordable by villagers. Therefore, most rural people solely depend on medicinal plants for their health care needs. This was also reported by Osunsina et al. (2012, 2014)
in studies on medicinal plants and food additives used by communities around four national parks. In the report on the state of the world's forests, FAO & UNEP (2020) stated that biodiversity provides a wide range of products and services that contribute to human health, including medicine, food, clean water and air, shade or simply a green space, allowing to exercise and relax. Various studies (e.g. Muhumuza & Balkwill, 2013; Willis, 2017; Saez, 2019) show that in African communities, local people traditionally depend on environmental resources directly for survival. People hunt animals, collect wild fruits, and their culture revolves around resources in the environment. However, respondents complained that the medicinal plants were not found anymore in the «free area» because their habitats have been cleared for agricultural activities.
In CRNP, five villages have partly good roads; all villages, except one, have primary schools; 14 villages have secondary schools; 12 villages have health centres, while only one village has a borehole and electricity supply (Fig. 1). In GGNP, only five villages have tarred roads; 15 villages have a primary school, and one village has a secondary school. In terms of health facilities, eight villages have health centres or dispensaries, three villages have a borehole, and none of the villages has electricity (Fig. 1). In KLNP, only two villages have tarred roads; 23 villages have a primary school; two villages have secondary schools; 12 villages have health centres. In addition, seven villages have a borehole, and two villages have electricity. In OONP, only two villages have tarred roads; 17 villages and two villages have primary and secondary schools, respectively. In terms of health facilities, three villages have health centres, six villages have boreholes/well, and only one village has electricity (Fig. 1).
=
й 20
II Vi
□ I
ll
U 0 |
2 2 2 an
Good road Primary school Secondary school Health centre Borehole/well Electricity Infrastructural facilities available
□ CRNP ■ GGNP 11 KLNP «OONP
Fig. 1. Infrastructural facilities available in villages around the selected four Nigerian national parks. Designations: CRNP - Cross River National Park, GGNP - Gashaka Gumti National Park, KLNP - Kainji Lake National Park, OONP -Old Oyo National Park.
The over-dependence of the rural people on the national park resources can be related to the unavailability or inadequacy of some vital infra-structural facilities, which are needed by villagers. Such facilities include good roads, schools, health centres, boreholes, and electricity. The lack of water and health centres causes villagers to intrude into the national park for water and medicinal plants. Several authors (e.g. Ayivor et al., 2013, 2020; Zhu et al., 2018) have linked the poverty and basic needs of local communities in Protected Areas as driving forces that compel the people to over-exploit natural resources in Protected Areas to the detriment of biodiversity conservation. FAO (2017) and FAO & UNEP (2020) reported that income and wild foods from forests provide a safety net during seasonal food shortages and during times of famine, crop failure, and economic, social and political shocks. Harvesting food from forests is an important strategy for coping with periods of the food insecurity, especially for vulnerable households living in and close to Protected Areas. The dependence of the local people on national park resources for their livelihood and survival affects biodiversity conservation in those national parks. Hence, the success of any conservation programme is dependent on meeting needs of the local people. Alix-Garcia et al. (2015) and Jayachandran et al. (2017) revealed that successful conservation of wildlife and forest biodiversity was also a result of recognising needs of the local people in Mexico and Uganda, respectively. Several studies (e.g. Ayivor et al., 2013; Muhumuza & Balkwill, 2013) asserted the strong link between the livelihood and dependence of the people on natural resources of national parks.
Results of the modelling of explaining the so-cio-demographic predictors of community needs in the four selected Nigerian national parks are presented in Table 6. The likelihood ratio test indicates that the logistic regression model is significant with x2 test statistics of 32.38 for support the biodiversity conservation. This shows that the socio-demographic variables of respondents were significantly related to their support of the biodiversity conservation in national parks. In addition, the model predictions are correct at 74.1% support for biodiversity conservation in national parks. This shows that the explanatory variables can be used to specify dependent variables (i.e. biodiversity conservation in a national park) in discrete terms (0, 1) with a high degree of accuracy.
Table 6. Socio-demographic predictors of the respondents' infrastructural needs in four Nigerian national parks
Parameters B SE Wald p-value Exp.(B)
Gender 0.463 0.158 8.610 0.003** 1.589
Age 0.739 0.159 21.560 0.000** 2.093
Religion 1.627 0.136 144.138 0.000** 5.089
Marital Status -1.145 0.200 32.891 0.000** 0.318
Occupation 0.438 0.253 2.986 0.084 1.549
Education 0.052 0.137 0.144 0.704 1.053
Community needs 1.133 0.576 3.873 0.049* 3.105
Constant -0.735 0.610 1.449 0.229 0.480
Correct Prediction (%) 74.1
Final model fit
-2 log-likelihood 1503.18
Nagelkerke R2 0.214
Note: * - p < 0.05; ** - p < 0.01; B - unstandardised beta, SE - standard error, Wald - Wald test statistics, Exp.(B) - exponential value of regression.
Gender (p < 0.01), age (p < 0.01), religion (p < 0.01), marital status (p < 0.01), and community infrastructural needs (p < 0.05) are the predictors of the community support for biodiversity conservation in the four selected national parks. However, the occupation and education of the respondents are not statistically related to the respondents' support for biodiversity conservation. The final model fit indicated that 74.1% of the variation in the respondent support for biodiversity conservation is explained by the logistic model indicating a strong relationship between the predictors and the predictions. Age has a significant influence on attitudes and perceptions of the local communities on resource use and conservation. This finding is similar to the observed relationship between age and respondents' use of natural resources that was stated by Osunsina & Fagbeyiro (2015).
Gender has a significant influence on attitudes and support of the local communities on resource use and conservation. The study by Ogunjinmi et al. (2012) on gender and traditional responsibilities in natural resources utilisation and management indicated that women are usually the ones engaged in household subsistence activities, such as the collection of water, fodder, herbs for medicinal purposes and wood for fuel and other materials. Marital status has a significant effect on the support for biodiversity conservation; larger households are likely to be highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihood. This is in line with the study by Ratsimbazafy et al. (2012) where households were highly dependent on the forest to generate income remained reluctant and unsupportive of
conservation efforts. Community infrastructural needs also have a significant influence on the support for biodiversity conservation. Olufemi & Kenneth (2019) stated that the quest for in-frastructural needs is assuming a high dimension around Protected Areas, and meeting these needs will ensure recognition and support for intact ecosystems. The study further shows that religion has a significant effect on the support for biodiversity conservation. Several studies (Berkes, 2013; Mikusinski et al., 2014; Murray & Agyare, 2018) have shown that religion provides values, belief and environmental ethics that shape how various societies interact with biological diversity and nature in general and are central to basic beliefs and ethics that influence people's behaviour, which is relevant to conservation interventions.
Nigerian national parks should be commended in their efforts at providing villages around them with some basic amenities such as schools, building and renovation of classrooms, the building of dispensaries and clinics, provision of notebooks for students and grading of community roads. This has gone a long way to motivate the support of the biodiversity conservation. Muhumuza & Balkwill (2013) indicated that people may be motivated to conserve biodiversity in national parks for various reasons. Other studies (e.g. Alix-Garcia et al., 2015; Jay-achandran et al., 2017) in Mexico and Uganda suggest that programmes offering payments and incentives in compensation for conservation activities have successfully reduced rates of deforestation and biodiversity loss.
However, gestures of national parks in providing amenities for villages are not so much appreciated by the people because they bore the weight of social and economic implications of conservation, and because they have been neglected by (federal, state and local) governments that should provide them with basic amenities. Therefore, the national park is seen as a social problem and hindrances to their benefit from their God-endowed resources. It is quite disturbing that the Nigeria's national parks are encumbered with a problem of poor funding and socio-economic problems of surrounding villages to the extent that they are unable to face challenges of their establishment. Many other national parks in the world have gone beyond protection and anti-poaching activities to an increase in the animal population and restoring extinct or threatened species to a viable population. No wonder many species of animals such as Kobus ellipsiprymnus (Ogilbyi, 1833), Loxodonta africana (Blumenbach, 1797), Pan-thera pardus (Linnaeus, 1758), Gorilla gorilla (Savage, 1847), Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1799) are not commonly seen anymore or have disappeared in some of Nigeria's national parks, because of poaching activities. Osunsina et al. (2018) identified the poor funding in most national parks in Nigeria and revealed that the funding was considered inadequate to conduct critical management activities and irregular at the time needed to conduct these activities.
This trend is not likely to change unless there is a review of the national biodiversity convention and the roles of federal, state and local governments are well specified and implemented. It is noteworthy that the biodiversity conservation is a national issue which cannot be tackled by a single government parastatal. It should be noted that no national park or other Protected Areas can solely cater for needs of rural communities around its fringes without the assistance of national or international donors and international conservation organisations. Smith (2014) stated that, without the external financial revenue, the wildlife departments or national parks cannot individually fund the development aspects of rural communities living around national parks. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the three-tier of the government in Nigeria. Efforts should be made to integrate this into the national budget and planning. The Nigeria's national parks are gradually drifting towards the empty
forest syndrome described by Redford (1992) as an ecosystem that is void of large mammals. This must not be encouraged.
Conclusions
There is a need to improve infrastructural facilities in villages surrounding the fours selected national parks. The over-dependence of the local people on national parks could be reduced, if there is a provision of facilities such as potable water, functional health centre and dispensaries and affordable and available liquid paraffin for cooking. The literacy campaign should also be taken to the grass-root because the majority of the local people are illiterates. Therefore, three tiers of the government (federal, state and local) should give attention to the development of basic amenities at the grass-root level, which, in turn, would reduce the pressure on natural resources and stem the tide of frequent conflicts between the national park staff and villagers.
Acknowledgements
We thank the conservator general of the Nigeria National Park Service for the approval to conduct this research. Special appreciation goes to the conservators of Cross River National Park, Gashaka Gumti National Park, Kainji Lake National Park, and Old Oyo National Park for their support during conducting this research. Efforts of the range heads and all national park rangers, who assisted during the data collection, are greatly appreciated. We greatly appreciate the co-operation, support and assistance of heads of villages, leaders and members of villages surrounding the national parks where we conducted this study.
References
Abukari H., Mwalyosi R.B. 2018a. Comparing conservation attitudes of park-adjacent communities: the case of Mole national park in Ghana and Tarangire national park in Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science 11: 1-14. DOI: 10.1177/1940082918802757 Abukari H., Mwalyosi R.B. 2018a. Comparing conservation attitudes of park-adjacent communities: the case of Mole national park in Ghana and Tarangire national park in Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science 11: 1-14. DOI: 10.1177/1940082918802757 Abukari H., Mwalyosi R.B. 2018b. Comparing pressures on national parks in Ghana and Tanzania: the case of Mole and Tarangire national parks. Global Ecology and Conservation 15: e00405. DOI: 10.1016/j. gecco.2018.e00405 Abukari H., Mwalyosi R.B. 2020. Local communities' perceptions about the impact of protected areas on livelihoods and community development. Global Ecol-
ogy and Conservation 22: e00909. DOI: 10.1016/j. gecco.2020.e00909 Adekunle M.F., Shotuyo A.L.A., Osunsina I.O.O., Odebiyi B.R. 2012. Economic valuation of wild animal species in Odeda local government area, Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and the Social Sciences 10(1): 227-238. DOI: 10.4314/joafss.v10i1.22 Akosim C., Mbaya Y.P. 2012. Implications of residents' attitudes and perceptions of conservation programme on the status of mammals and birds in Chad Basin National Park, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Advancement in Environmental Science 2(2): 105-112. Alix-Garcia J., Sims K.R., Yañez-Pagans P. 2015. Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico's payments for Ecosystem Services Program. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 7(4): 1-40. DOI: 10.1257/pol.20130139 Andrade G.S.M., Rhodes J.R. 2012. Protected areas and local communities: an inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies?. Ecology and Society 17(4): 14. DOI: 10.5751/ES-05216-170414 Ayivor J.S., Gordon C., Ntiamoa-Baidu Y. 2013. Protected area management and livelihood conflicts in Ghana: A case study of Digya National Park. Parks 19(1): 37-50. DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2013.PARKS-19-1.JSA.en Ayivor J.S., Nyametso J.K., Ayivor S. 2020. Protected area governance and its influence on local perceptions, attitudes and collaboration. Land 9(9): 310. DOI: 10.3390/land9090310 Barlow J., Lennox G.D., Ferreira J., Berenguer E., Lees A.C., Mac Nally R., Thomson J.R., Ferraz S.F., Lou-zada J., Oliveira V.H., Parry L., Solar R.R., Vieira I.C., Aragäo L.E., Begotti R.A., Braga R.F., Cardoso T.M., de Oliveira R.C., Souza C.M., Moura N.G., Nunes S.S., Siqueira J.V., Pardini R., Silveira J.M., Vaz-de-Mello F.Z., Veiga R.C., Venturieri A., Gardner T.A. 2016. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535(7610): 144-147. DOI: 10.1038/nature18326 Bennett N.J., Dearden P. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017 Berkes F. 2013. Religious Traditions and Biodiversity. In: S.A. Levin (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition). Waltham, USA: Academic Press. P. 380-388. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00122-2 Bragagnolo C., Malhado A.C.M., Jepson P., Ladle R.J. 2016. Modelling local attitudes to protected areas in developing countries. Conservation Society 14(3): 163-182. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.191161 Cámara-Leret R., Dennehy Z. 2019. Indigenous knowledge of New Guinea's useful plants: A review. Economic Botany 73(3): 405-415. DOI: 10.1007/s12231-019-09464-1
Cámara-Leret R., Fortuna M.A., Bascompte J. 2019. Indigenous knowledge networks in the face of global change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116(20): 9913-9918. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1821843116 Campos-Silva J.V., Peres C.A., Hawes J.E., Haugaasen T., Freitas C.T., Ladle R.J., Lopes P.F.M. 2021. Sustainable-use protected areas catalyze enhanced livelihoods in rural Amazonia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118(40): e2105480118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2105480118 CBD. 2016. Ecosystem restoration: short-term action plan. Decision 13/5 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available from https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-05-en.pdf Clements T., Suon S., Wilkie D.S., Milner-Gulland E.J. 2014. Impacts of protected areas on local livelihoods in Cambodia. World Development 64(Suppl.1): 125-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.008 de Castro-Pardo M., Azevedo J.C., Fernández P. 2021. Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Rural Development and Protected Areas. Land 10(10): 1008. DOI: 10.3390/land10101008 Evans N.P., Bauska T.K., Gázquez-Sánchez F., Brenner M., Curtis J.H., Hodell D.A. 2018. Quantification of drought during the collapse of the classic Maya civilization. Science 361(6401): 498-501. DOI: 10.1126/science.aas9871 FAO. 2017. Strengthening sector policies for better food security and nutrition results - Forestry. Policy Guidance Note 3. Rome: FAO. 28 p. FAO & UNEP. 2020. The State of the World's Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and people. Rome: FAO and UNEP. 214 p. DOI: 10.4060/ca8642en Jayachandran S., de Laat J., Lambin E.F., Stanton C.Y., Audy R., Thomas N.E. 2017. Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357(6348): 267-273. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan0568 Lewis S.L., Maslin M.A. 2015. A transparent framework for defining the Anthropocene Epoch. Anthropocene Review 2(2): 128-146. DOI: 10.1177/2053019615588792 Mikusinski G., Possingham H., Blicharska M. 2014. Biodiversity priority areas and religions - a global analysis of spatial overlap. Oryx 48(1): 17-22. DOI: 10.1017/S0030605312000993 Morar F., Peterlicean A. 2012. The role and importance of educating youth regarding biodiversity conservation in protected natural areas. Procedia Economics and Finance 3: 1117-1121. DOI: 10.1016/s2212-5671(12)00283-3 Muhumuza M., Balkwill K. 2013. Factors Affecting the Success of Conserving Biodiversity in National Parks: A Review of Case Studies from Africa. International Journal of Biodiversity 2013: 798101. DOI: 10.1155/2013/798101
Murray G., Agyare A. 2018. Religion and perceptions of community-based conservation in Ghana, West Africa. PLoS ONE 13(4): e0195498. DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0195498 National Population Commission. 2010. 2006 Population and Housing Census of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Vol. 3: Population Distribution by Sex, State, LGA, and Senatorial District. Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission. Available from https://catalog.ihsn. org/index.php/catalog/3340/download/48521 NPSN. 2022. National Park Service of Nigeria. Available
from http://nigeriaparkservice.gov.ng/ Ogunjinmi A.A., Ogunjinmi K.O., Osunsina I.O.O. 2012. Scaling up women's roles in sustainability and conservation through wildlife farming - an overview. Journal of Environmental Extension 10: 52-55. Ogunjinmi A.A., Onadeko S.A., Inah E.I., Osunsina I.O.O. 2014. Communication Content from Nigeria National Parks and Its Impact on Local Responses to Conservation Initiatives. Sustainability: The Journal of Record 7(5) 269-274. DOI: 10.1089/sus.2014.9772 Olufemi L.M., Kenneth I.Y. 2019. Biodiversity Conservation and Unmet Social and Health Needs in the Rural Communities of Niger State, Nigeria. In: Q. Yasser (Ed.): Handbook of Research on Rural Sociology and Community Mobilization for Sustainable Growth. Hershey, USA: IGI Global. P. 22-40. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-7158-2.ch002 Olunusi B., Lameed G.A., Olunusi P.A., Olawumi A.T. 2022. Socioeconomic determinants of hunters' participation in bush meat trade in Ibadan Oyo State Nigeria. Journal of Biotechnology and Biodiversity 10(1): 1-7. DOI: 10.20873/jbb.uft.cemaf.v10n1.olunusi Osunsina I.O.O. 2016. Illegal resources extraction and preponderance distance of villages: a case study of four Nigerian national parks. International Journal of Conservation Science 7(3): 771-782. Osunsina I.O.O., Fagbeyiro A.O. 2015. Local Community Perception and Attitude towards the Non-Utilization of Natural Resources in Old Oyo National Park, Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development 109(2): 291-306. DOI: 10.12895/jaeid.20152.364 Osunsina I.O.O., Inah E.I., Ogunjinmi A.A., Jayeola O.A., Oduntan O.O., Oladoye O.A. 2012. Non-Timber Forest Products Used as Food Additives by Villagers around Support Zone Villages of Some Nigeria National Parks. In: J.C. Onyekwelu, B.O. Agbeja, G.A. Adekunle, P.O. Adesoye, A.O. Omole (Eds.): Forests and Forest Products 2012: 3rd Biennial Conference of the Forest and Forest Products Society. Ibadan: University of Ibadan. P. 42-48. Osunsina I.O.O., Inah E.I., Onadeko S.A., Adegbite D.A., Ogunjinmi A.A., Oladoye O.A., Yisau M.A. 2014. Ethnomedicinal Value of Some Selected Plants in Support Zone Villages of Some Nigeria National
Parks. In: M.O. Adedire, J.C. Onyekwelu, D O. Oke, V.A.J. Adekunle, O.A. Jayeola, A.O. Oladoye (Eds.): Forest and Forest Products: Key to Sustainable Livelihood: 4th Biennial Conference of the Forest and Forest Products Society. Abeokuta: Federal University of Agriculture. P. 217-221. Osunsina I.O.O., Ogunjinmi A.A., Yisau M.A., Inah E.I., Osunsina J. 2018. Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas: A Case Study of Four National Parks in Nigeria. Applied Tropical Agriculture 23(2): 155-165. Potapov P., Hansen M.C., Laestadius L., Turubanova S., Yaroshenko A., Thies C., Smith W. 2017. The last frontiers of wilderness: Tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Science Advances 3(1): e1600821. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600821 Ratsimbazafy C.L., Harada K., Yamamura M. 2012. Forest resources use, attitude, and perception of local residents towards community based forest management: Case of the Makira Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) Project, Madagascar. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment 4(13): 321-332. DOI: 10.5897/JENE11.123 Redford K. 1992. The Empty Forest. Bioscience 42(6): 412422. DOI: 10.2307/1311860 Roberts P. 2019. Tropical forests in prehistory, history, and modernity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 350 p. Saez S.G. 2019. Biodiversity conservation: between protected areas and local communities. A case study in Picos de Europa National Park (northern Spain). PhD Thesis. Spain: Autonomous University of Barcelona. 205 p.
Smith E. 2014. Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPS): Character of Success and Recommendations for Implementation. PhD Thesis. Oxford, USA: University of Mississippi. 174 p. Taylor D.C., Taylor C.E., Taylor J.O. 2012. Empowerment on an Unstable Planet. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. 296 p. Verschuuren B., Brown S. (Eds.). 2018. Cultural and spiritual significance of nature in protected areas: Governance, management and policy. Abingdon, UK: Rout-ledge. 334 p.
Willis K.J. (Ed.). 2017. State of the World's Plants. Richmond, Surrey UK: Kew Publishing. 96 p. Yosef M. 2015. Attitudes and perceptions of the local people towards benefits and conflicts they get from conservation of the Bale Mountains National Park and Mountain Nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni), Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 7(1): 28-40. DOI: 10.5897/IJBC2014.0792 Zhu P., Huang L., Xiao T., Wang J. 2018. Dynamic changes of habitats in China's typical national nature reserves on spatial and temporal scales. Journal of Geographical Sciences 28(6): 778-790. DOI: 10.1007/s11442-018-1504-y
СОХРАНЕНИЕ БИОРАЗНООБРАЗИЯ И РАЗВИТИЕ СЕЛЬСКИХ ТЕРРИТОРИЙ: НЕРАЗДЕЛИМЫЕ ВАРИАНТЫ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ ОСОБО ОХРАНЯЕМЫМИ ПРИРОДНЫМИ ТЕРРИТОРИЯМИ. ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ ЧЕТЫРЕХ НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫХ ПАРКОВ НИГЕРИИ
И. О. О. Осунсина1* , О. Осунсина2 , А. Э. Огунджинми3 , О. О. Одунтан1 , М. А. Исау1 , М. О. Умунна4
1Федералънъш сельскохозяйственный университет Абеокуты, Нигерия
*e-mail: [email protected] 2Федералъный колледж механизации лесного хозяйства Афаки, Нигерия
3Федералъный технологический университет Акуре, Нигерия 4Федералъный колледж управления дикой природой в Нъю-Бусса, Нигерия
Создание особо охраняемых природных территорий (ООПТ) и управление ими стало краеугольным камнем стратегий сохранения биоразнообразия. Однако усилия, направленные на управление ООПТ, практически не учитывали средства к существованию и потребности окружающих сообществ местного населения. В данном исследовании оцениваются социально-экономические предикторы потребностей местного населения, а также устанавливается связь между сохранением биоразнообразия и развитием сельских территорий. Было проведено обследование деревень, расположенных вокруг четырех национальных парков Нигерии, для определения доступных объектов инфраструктуры, наиболее востребованных сельскими жителями объектов, а также социально-экономических показателей потребностей местного населения и их зависимости от ресурсов национальных парков. Выбор территории исследования был осуществлен методом многоступенчатой случайной выборки с упором на села в радиусе 10 км от границ каждого национального парка. Первичные данные были собраны у 1500 респондентов из 106 местных сообществ вокруг четырех национальных парков, в том числе 22 вокруг национального парка Кросс-Ривер (НПКР), 22 вокруг национального парка Гашака Гумти (НПГГ), 27 вокруг национального парка Озеро Каинджи (НПОК), и 35 вокруг национального парка Олд-Ойо (НПОО). Собранные данные были проанализированы и описаны. Логистическая регрессия использовалась для выявления социально-демографических предикторов потребностей местного населения. Результаты демографических характеристик показывают, что в четырех национальных парках было опрошено больше мужчин (73.2%), чем женщин (26.8%). Во всех исследованных национальных парках преобладающим занятием местного населения является земледелие: НПКР (99.3%), НПГГ (93.9%), НПОК (90.5%), НПОО (85.2%). Наибольшее количество респондентов состоит в браке: НПКР (77.0%), НПГГ (70.0%), НПОК (84.4%), НПОО (79.6%). Наибольшее количество респондентов приходится на возрастную группу 15-25 лет: НПКР (43.0%), НПГГ (30.0%), НПОК (36.2%) и НПОО (25.2%). Все респонденты, опрошенные в НПКР, были христианами (100%), тогда как большинство респондентов в НПГГ (87.3%), НПОК (99.2%) и НПОО (53.1%) были мусульманами. В отношении уровня образования, среди населения, проживающего на территории исследуемых национальных парков, отмечен высокий уровень неграмотности, так как большинство опрошенных в НПКР имели начальное (45.3%) и среднее (32.7%) образование. Для остальных трех национальных парков была показана более высокая доля неформального образования: НПГГ (61.5%), НПОК (63.1%) и НПОО (68.1%). Полученные результаты показывают, что территория исследования характеризуется отсутствием таких объектов инфраструктуры, как дороги (96.4%), электричество (97.7%), и ограниченным предоставлением таких услуг, как лекарства (91.1%), питьевая вода (96.5%), а также услуги образования (86.6%). Большинство опрошенных респондентов в населенных пунктах вокруг национальных парков указали на наличие медицинских центров (78.5%), скважин/питьевой воды (77.7%), дорог (68.6%), открытий школ (59.7%) и трудоустройства (56.2%). Наши результаты показывают, что ожидания сообществ включают объекты базовой инфраструктуры, такой как обеспечение питьевой водой (77.5%), медицинские центры (78.5%), электричество (78.1%) и дороги (68.9%). Логистический регрессионный анализ показал, что предикторами потребностей респондентов в объектах инфраструктуры были пол (в = 0.068, р < 0.01), возраст (в = 0.032, р < 0.01) и уровень образования (в = 0.047, р < 0.05). Был сделан вывод о том, что федеральным, региональным и местным органам власти необходимо обеспечить наличие базовой инфраструктуры в деревнях, окружающих изученные национальные парки, чтобы уменьшить давление и чрезмерную зависимость местного населения от ресурсов национальных парков. Должна быть распространена кампания по распространению грамотности и просвещению по вопросам сохранения, поскольку большинство местного населения неграмотны и проживает в горячих точках биоразнообразия.
Ключевые слова: биоразнообразие, инфраструктура, местное население, особо охраняемая природная территория, отношение, потребности
