ABSTRACT
This work investigated the attitudes
of host communities toward conservation programmes in Cross River National
Park. The study identified the conservation programmes in Cross River National
Park, determined the perception of host communities towards conservation
programmes in Cross River National Park, identified the level of involvement of
host communities in the management of conservation programmes in Cross River
National Park, determined the level of acceptability of conservation programmes
by the host communities of Cross River National Park, ascertained the level of
benefits enjoyed by the host communities of the conservation programmes in
Cross River National Park and determined ways of improving the conservation
programmes in the study area for the sustainability of both the host
communities and the National Park. The sample size of the study was 397
respondents and the study adopted both purposive random sampling and stratified
sampling technique. A well-structured questionnaire was used to elicit information
from the host communities of the study area. The data were analysed using
simple descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages), mean and standard
deviation and ANOVA was used to test the hypothesis. The findings of the study
proved that there is significant difference between the respondents’ occupation
and the conservation programmes in Cross River National Park (F cal 9.5 > F
tab 2.24) at 5% significance level, there is relationship between respondents’
gender and their participation in the conservation programmes of Cross River
National Park (F cal11.83 > F tab 2.24) and there is significant difference
in the benefits enjoyed by the host communities of the National Park from the
conservation programmes (F cal 15.389 > F tab 2.04) . The empirical survey
revealed that the null hypothesis was not true. From this work, it was
recommended that existing community institutions
should be part of the planning, decision making, stakeholders and monitoring of
conservation policy. Also, conservation awareness/educational programmes
should be created and frequently conducted for residents/indigenes in order to
increase participation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title ii
Approval iii
Certification iv
Dedication v
Acknowledgment vi
Abstract vii
Table of Contents viii
List of Tables xi
CHAPTER
ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Information 1
1.2 Statement
of The Problem 6
1.3 Objectives
of the Study 8
1.4 Research
Questions 8
1.5 Hypotheses 9
1.6 Significance
of the Study 9
1.7 Scope
of the Study 10
CHAPTER
TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Conceptual Framework 11
2.1.1 Attitude 11
2.1.2 Host Communities 11
2.1.2.1 Host
Community Involvement and Participation 14
2.1.2.2 Community-Based
Tourism 15
2.1.3 Conservation 17
2.2
Theoretical Framework 19
2.2.1 Doxey’s
Irridex Model 19
2.2.2
Butler’s Tourism Destination Lifecycle 20
2.2.3 Butler’s Dynamic Matrix 21
2.2.4 The Social
Exchange Theory 21
2.2.5 Stakeholder’s Theory 23
2.2.5.1 The Concept of the Stakeholder in a Tourist Company 23
2.2.6 Conservation Theory 25
2.2.6.1 Matrix 25
2.2.6.2 Conservation Management Models 26
2.3 Empirical Framework 28
2.4 Summary 34
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research
Design 35
3.2 Area of Study 35
3.3 Population for the Study 36
3.4 Sample 36
3.5 Sampling Techniques 37
3.6 Instrument for
Data Collection 37
3.7 Validation of the Instrument 38
3.8 Data Collection Techniques 38
3.9 Method of Data
Analysis 38
CHAPTER
FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Data Analysis and Interpretation 40
4.2
Major Findings 48
4.2 Discussion of Findings 49
CHAPTER
FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary of Findings 53
5.2 Conclusion 54
5.3 Recommendation 55
REFERENCES 56
APPENDIXES
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
4.1: Frequency Distribution according to Gender, Age, Marital Status and
Education Qualification. 40
TABLE
4.2: Mean Response on conservation programmes . 41
TABLE
4.3: Mean Response on Host
Communities’ Participation in the Management of Conservation Programmes. 42
TABLE
4.4: Mean Response on Benefit from
the Conservation Programmes. 43
TABLE
4.5: Mean Response on Communities’ Understanding of
the Conservation Programmes. 44
TABLE
4.6: Mean Response on Acceptability of the Conservation Programmes. 45
TABLE 4.7: Mean Response on the Ways of Improving the
Conservation Programmes for the Sustainability of both the Host Communities and
the National Park. 46
TABLE
4.8: Respondents’ Occupation and the Conservation Programmes of Cross River
National Park.
47
TABLE 4.9: Gender
and Host Communities’ Participation in the Conservation Programmes of the Park.
47
TABLE
4.10: Benefits from the Conservation Programmes.
48
CHAPTER 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Tourism
is widely believed to be the most rapidly growing global industry. The World
Tourism Organization (WTO) has recently estimated that ecotourism is worth some
$20 billion a year, together with nature-based tourism, accounts for 20% of
global international travel (Saurabh and Vinay, 2010). Ecotourism has become one of the world’s major
economic sectors with the capability to play a significant role in the sustainable
development of natural areas (Powell and Ham, 2008). Ecotourism
is a conservation tool in and around protected areas that were building support
and raising awareness of the many important values of protected areas including
ecological, cultural, sacred, spiritual, aesthetic, recreational and economic
values (Bushell and Eagles, 2007). Today’s protected areas focused on
conserving biodiversity and large-scale natural ecosystems. However, these
protected areas are facing an increasing number of challenges.
The
community a tourist visits is often termed the host community. Cook, Yale and
Marqua (2006) defined the host community as towns or cities that welcome
visitors and provide them with the desired services. Smith (2001) also defined
host communities as people who live in the vicinity of the tourist attraction
and are either directly or indirectly involved with, and / or affected by the
tourism activities. One will agree that tourism whether on a large scale or low
scale, in no small measure affects the host community. This is particularly
evident during the period of the events and sometimes afterwards. Tourism is an
economic sector able to offer a significant contribution to the economic growth
of a region and to the labour market, and creates occupation
opportunities directly and indirectly through the supply of goods and the necessary
services for tourist activities (Mansour, 2013). Moreover, tourism produces
social benefits to the region (i.e. small and medium-sized enterprises’
development, creation of new jobs, improvement of infrastructure etc.)
(Mansour, 2013). The impacts of tourism can be sorted into several categories,
the most common ones are; economic, environmental and socio-cultural impacts
(Cook, Yale and Marqua, 2006). Each of these categories includes positive and
negative impacts. Community and tourism developers must balance the
opportunities and concerns of all stakeholders by working against conditions
where positive impacts benefit one part of the community (geographic or social)
and the negative impacts hurt another (Kreag, 2001).
In the past 25 years, the area of land under legal
protection increased exponentially, particularly in developing countries where
biodiversity is greatest. Concurrently, the mission of parks and reserves
expanded significantly (WPC, 2003). By global mandates, protected areas (PAs) now
are supposed to do far more than conserve biological diversity. These areas are
charged with improving human wellbeing and providing economic benefits across
multiple scales (WPC, 2003). According to IUCN definition, a protected area is an area of land and/or sea
especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity,
and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or
other effective means
thus confirming that biodiversity conservation is the fundamental goal of the
protected areas classified by IUCN (Dudley and Stolton, 2008). Other types of protected
areas, such as historical parks, monuments, sacred sites, tribal reservations,
etc., that have no content related to the conservation of nature or natural resources
in any of its manifestations, while of the utmost importance, need not
necessarily fall under the umbrella of the IUCN protected area categories
(Dudley and Stolton, 2008). According to IUCN's revised definition, a protected
area is a 'clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and
managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term
conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values' (Dudley,
2008). However, while the concept of biodiversity
conservation is the prime basis for establishing protected areas for nature
conservation, the current category system and the guidelines for its
application do not appear to reflect the complex articulation of the biodiversity
concept; in view of the recent development of ecological theories and the
substantial contributions of conservation biology, the relationship between the
categories of protected areas and the various notions of biodiversity
conservation appears to need an extensive revision (Dudley and Stolton, 2008).
As protected
areas were set up in one country after another, each nation developed its own
approach, and there were initially no common standards or terminology. The only
shared idea was that important scenic, wildlife or outdoor recreation areas
should be identified and protected for the public good (Dudley and Stolton, 2008).
Protected area is referred to
geographic spaces which, because of their particular values for conservation
purposes, warranted special forms of management ranging from total closure,
except for protection purposes, to direct human use, to various forms of
intervention required to maintain or restore habitats, re-introduce extirpated
spaces, remove invasive species, or facilitate visitation by scientists or the
public for purposes of research, monitoring, recreation and education (Dudley
and Stolton, 2008). Tourism parse was
considered to consist of the facilitation of recreational visitation: roads,
lodging, food services, guide services, and water and sanitation, and so on.
There is no “one-size-fits-all” answer to the challenge of tourism in protected areas
indeed an attraction of visiting protected areas is to see how each park manager
has developed his or her local situation in a way that projects its uniqueness,
while contributing to the common endeavour of conservation (Eagles, McCool, and
Haynes, 2002). To a large extent, management must be responsive to local
conditions. It may appear that protected area managers have a relatively simple
job in achieving the task of conservation and visitor use, but in fact it is
not easy at all. Managers have the challenging responsibility of balancing the
many competing pressures thrust upon them. This challenge grows and becomes
more complicated with increasing numbers of visitors, changes in patterns of
visitor use, and the emergence of an ever more critical public demanding higher
standards in conservation management (Eagles, McCool, and Haynes, 2002). The
challenge of protected area management especially that of dealing with the pressures
of recreation and tourism will only be met effectively through building partnerships
between all the interested parties. It is hoped that this document, by being available
to protected area managers as well as other important stakeholders, such as local
communities, tour operators and conservation groups, will help build such
partnerships (Eagles, McCool and Haynes, 2002).Tourism of
protected areas can generate necessary income for the protection of the area’s
biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and cultural heritage (Eagles and McCool,
2002).
A
definition of wildlife should include all living organisms out of the direct
control of man, including undomesticated or cultivated plants and animals (Greg, 2009). Although, it may be inappropriate to restrict
wildlife to a few kinds of organisms, common usage, public perceptions, funding
allocations, and history have resulted in a practical definition of wildlife as
undomesticated free-ranging vertebrates (Greg, 2009).
Furthermore, because of professional distinctions, fish are generally excluded
from the definition of wildlife. The definition of wildlife is left as essentially undomesticated, free-ranging
terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals) (Greg, 2009). According
to Greg (2009), Conservation is an effort to maintain
and use natural resources wisely in an attempt to ensure that those resources
will be available for future generations. In Nigeria,
conservation of diversity of wildlife species are maintained at the optimum
level commensurate with other forms of land use in order to ensure the
continued existence of wildlife for the purpose of their sustainable
utilization for benefit of the people and this is among the objectives of National
Park Services (NPS, 2006).
Mutually supportive relationships
between communities and nearby protected areas are critical to the long-term
success of conservation efforts. In sub-Saharan Africa, many protected areas
were first created during colonial times as hunting grounds or parks for
European elites, with little or no regard for the needs or desires of local
communities (Adams, 2003). Today, many of these areas harbour long-standing
conflicts over land tenure and resource use. These conflicts may create tensions
between local communities, protected area’s staff, and conservation goals
(Lilieholm and Romney, 2000; Whitesell et al., 2002). It is necessary to
involve the local people through a community based conservation approach in
order to sustain the protected areas. This method strongly involves the local
people in decision-making and benefit sharing. The creation of many protected
areas, however, forced the relocation of local communities from their original
areas of residency, depriving them of access to resources in the protected
areas such as meat, grazing areas, and firewood (Fischer et al., 2011;
Mombeshora and Le Bel, 2009). This deprivation seems to have disconnected local
communities from the adjacent protected areas (Strickland-Munro et al., 2010).
Such protectionist and coercive conservation policies, later known as ‘fortress
conservation’ (Brockington, 2002; Igoe, 2004) have dominated much of African
conservation (Buscher and Dietz, 2005). Protected areas that exclude local
communities or their participation have often caused negative relationships
between protected areas and local communities, resulting in conflicts and
problems such as increased illegal hunting, habitat encroachment and
destruction, violence, and poverty among indigenous communities (Nepal, 2002;
Choudhry, 2004; Graham et al., 2005; Romanach et al., 2011).
New strategies such as
‘community conservation’ (Infield and Namara, 2001; McClanahan et al., 2005) or
‘participatory management’ (Dimitrakopoulos et al., 2010; Granek and Brown,
2005) have been developed in response to the general belief of many
conservationists that protected areas are likely to fail unless local
communities are to some extent involved in conservation efforts (Hulme and
Murphree, 2001; Yeo-Chang, 2009). Strategies to reconcile differences between
local residents and protected areas’ needs encourage community participation in
natural resource management while improving their economic comfort (Vodouhe et
al., 2010). However, Benjaminsen and Svarstad (2010), using two case studies
from Tanzania and South Africa, demonstrate how the conservation practices
observed in Africa do not fit the win-win discourse, but are more in line with
the ‘fortress conservation’ that previously dominated both discourse and
practice. Wildlife affects local communities through both the damage it causes
to crops and the benefits associated with it (Emerton, 2001). Muchapondwa et
al. (2009) are of the view that the benefits of wildlife potentially accrue
at both global and local levels whereas the costs occur exclusively at the
local level. Benefits to communities may come through involvement and
participating in tourism activities within and adjacent to the protected area
(Strickland-munro et al., 2010).
Contemporary forest use
increasingly tends to transcend traditional forms of utilization such as source
of timber, hunting and gathering, or slash and burn agriculture to lean toward
tourism use (Lenhard et al., 2010). The importance of bringing together
tourism and forestry has been recognised not only in forest management context
but also in rural community development through community participation in
ecotourism (Emaviwe, 2014). Tourism use of forests has also provided a valuable
incentive for conserving local ecosystems (Bori-Sanz and Nikanen, 2002; Font
and Tribe, 2005). In Nigeria, the use of wild land for tourism is a novel
experience which has greatly been hampered by the dominance of cultural
attitudes toward their utilization (Emaviwe, 2014). Modern concept and systems
of natural resource conservation such as national parks were introduced as an
imposition from colonial authorities that excluded the socio–cultural and
economic systems of the local communities (Emaviwe, 2014). Management of formal
systems of natural resources conservation has remained highly centralized and
conditioned by government policies of the colonial and postcolonial eras (Marguba,
2002; Reo et al., 2009). However, one major reason for constituting
national parks in Nigeria is tourism (National Park Service, 2000). Ngoka
(2007) surveyed the tourism potentials of parks and corroborated that it
harbours great potentials for eco-tourism development.
Along with Korup
National Park in the Republic of Cameroon, Cross River National Park is an important
biotic reserve which contains one of the oldest rainforests in Africa (National
Park Service, 2016). It is also one of the 25 United Nations acclaimed
biodiversity hot spots in the World (National Park Service,
2016). Some portions of the park lie in the Guinea-Congolian region of the
lowland rainforest refugia with closed canopy and scattered emergent trees
which reach a height of between 40 and 50 meters (National Park Service, 2016).The
park is home to 199 mammals, 63 frog and toad, 20 reptiles, 380 bird 48 fish
and 950 butterfly species (NTDC, 2012). Eighteen of 23, representing some 78%
of primate species recorded in Nigeria are found here; two of which - the Cross
River gorilla, (gorilla gorilla deihli) and the chimpanzee (pantroglodytes)
- being highly endangered hominids (NTDC, 2012).
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Natural ecosystems in Nigeria are highly vulnerable to
many adverse influences deliberate or in advertent (Marguba, 2002). Most of
these deliberate adverse influences come as a result of illiteracy and lack of
awareness among the greater number of the populace around the protected areas.
Moreover, most people around the areas are unemployed and most of their soil
texture is unsuitable for agriculture leaving nothing other than hunting and
harvesting of natural resources from forests around them. Most people inherit
only hunting equipment and skill from their parents; as a result, poaching is
not viewed by such people as a crime against wild animals and breach of law of
the land on protected areas. Their belief is that wildlife is gift from nature
and is owned by everybody hence there is no need restricting its use.
Harvest/exploitation of forest fruits, seeds, nuts, vegetables, herbs and fuel
wood for the day to day needs of human are the only and main occupation of most
the people that dwell around most of the protected areas. These actions are
among the main problems protected areas usually face. In such areas
indiscriminate killing of young and pregnant animals that lead to the disappearance
of valuable wild animal species is also a common practice. Indiscriminate
exploitation and utilization of natural resources in both protected and
unprotected areas usually lead to extinction of most of our renewable resources
as well as non-renewable resources. These indiscriminate harvesting of most
flora and fauna resources in parks and game reserves had forced most wild
animals into endangered list (Ejidike
and Ajayi, 2012).
Stakeholder involvement in the tourism development is
a critical factor of success, yet there are many local communities being
excluded or mainly minimally involved in the planning and management of natural
resources in protected areas (Bola and Thandi, 2013). According to Rastegar
(2002), there are different levels of people in community which need different
levels for motivation and satisfaction which should be identified. Negative
attitude towards ecotourism and conservation in protected areas often arise
from poor relationship between residents and management and also inequity in
the distribution of benefits derived from these ventures (Bola and Thandi,
2013).
The participation of local
communities in protected area management is a key factor in the long-term
conservation of the natural resources. In many situations, the relationship of
people and protected area faces conflicts. Pratiwi (2006) and Okello (2003)
found that the perceptions of locals towards protected areas are negative
because people living near protected areas have subsistence needs that are
direct opposition to the needs of the park. Protected areas that exclude local
communities or their participation have often caused negative relationships
between protected areas and local communities, resulting in conflicts and
problems such as increased illegal hunting, habitat encroachment and
destruction, violence, and poverty among indigenous communities (Nepal, 2002;
Choudhry, 2004; Graham et al., 2005;
Romanach et al., 2011).
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The main objective of
this work was to investigate the attitudes of host communities toward
conservation programme in Cross River National Park. Specifically, this work:
1. Identified
the conservation programmes in Cross River National Park.
2. Identified
the level of involvement of host communities in the management of conservation
programmes in Cross River National Park.
3. Ascertained
the level of benefits enjoyed by the host communities of the conservation
programmes in Cross River National Park.
4. Determined
the perception of host communities toward conservation programmes in Cross
River National Park.
5. Determined
the level of acceptability of conservation programmes by the host communities
of Cross River National Park.
6. Determined
ways of improving the conservation programmes in the study area for the
sustainability of both the host communities and the National Park.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.
What are the conservation programmes in
Cross River National Park?
2.
What is the host communities’ level of
involvement or participation in the management of conservation programmes of
Cross River National Park?
3.
To what extent do the host communities of
Cross River National Park benefit from the conservation programmes?
4.
What is the understanding of the host
communities of Cross River National Park towards the conservation programmes?
5.
What is the level of acceptability of
conservation programmes by the host communities of Cross River National Park?
6.
What are the ways of improving the
conservation programmes for the sustainability of both the host communities and
the National Park?
1.5 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
H01: There
is no significant difference between respondents’ occupation and the
conservation programmes in Cross River National Park.
H02:
There is no relationship between respondents’ gender and their participation in the conservation programmes
of Cross River National Park.
H03: There is no significant
difference in the benefits enjoyed by the host communities of the Cross River National Park from the conservation
programmes.
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The result of this study
will be of immense benefit if successfully implemented or executed. These
benefits include; sustainable tourism development, conservation of
biodiversity, reduction of the overexploitation of wild land and wildlife
resources on protected areas, creation of visitor awareness, revenue
generation, employment and, improvement of the host communities’ livelihood.
Those that will benefit from this study are; the host communities of the Cross
River National Park, the Park management, tourists, government (national, state
and local) and other researchers.
If executed
properly, it will provide economic alternatives for the host communities of the
Park in order to reduce overexploitation of wild land and wildlife resources
on protected areas thereby, leading to sustainability. Sustainable tourism can
directly contribute to biodiversity conservation by offering less destructive
livelihood alternatives to host communities and landowners in buffer zones and
conservation corridors, away from unregulated logging, intensive
cattle-ranching, monoculture, hunting, and unsustainable tourism. It also
provides an incentive for public and private landowners in critical ecosystems
to permanently conserve biodiversity-rich properties, by offering
revenue-producing, low-impact economic use. For the Park management, it
provides them with additional financial resources from visitation and donations
and, it also creates visitor awareness, promotes community involvement and
interest in conservation issues, and generates political support for conservation
through environmental education during travel. If the Park is sustainable, it
will generate more revenue for the government as it increases tourist inflow.
This study can also be used as a reference point for other researchers.
The study will be of
great benefit to the management of the National park. They will find it
valuable especially in ascertaining the level of benefits enjoyed by the host
communities and their attitudes toward the conservation programmes. The result
of this study will help bring to light the level of involvement of the host
communities in the conservation programmes.
1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study was delimited to only the host
communities of the Cross River National Park. It seeks to investigate the conservation
programmes in Cross River National Park as well as the attitudes of the host
communities of the Park toward the conservation programmes. It also
investigates their level of involvement or participation in the management of
the conservation programmes, their level of acceptability, the benefits they
enjoy from the conservation programmes and the extent at which they enjoy those
benefits.
Login To Comment