Essay 2017 03 27 000Cbd | EssaySauce.com

ASSESSMENT OF CAUSES AND TRENDS OF HUMAN WILDLIFE CONFLICT IN KATHITHI DIVISION, PART OF MERU COUNTY, KENYA

ANN WANGUI NDEGE

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTERS DEGREE IN PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

2017

DECLARATION

This research project proposal is my original work and has never been presented for the award of any degree or Masters degree in any other university.

SIGN”……….’ DATE ……………………”.

Ann Wangui Ndege

Reg no: L50/84538/2016

This research project has been submitted for examination with my approval as the University supervisor.

SIGN ” DATE ………………………….’..

Prof. Nathan N.Gichuki

Senior Lecturer.

School of Biological and physical sciences.

DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to my family, Husband and my two daughters for the support they accorded me during the demanding time of my study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am truly humbled by the support from my supervisor Prof. Nathan N.Gichuki for his valuable pieces of advice which laid strong foundation to this work. Despite his busy schedule he was available for consultation. My special regards goes to Amos Gitonga the Resident Lecturer and all the lecturers who contributed in one way or another during the time of my study; I do appreciate all the research participants who accepted to be part of this research study.

The study could not have been completed in good time were it not for the considerable understanding and moral support from my family who kept encouraging me inspite of my very demanding official work I was also undertaking. Members of staff, Meru National Park for their unending resource assistance. My friends and classmates for their support.

May God bless you all.

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

TABLE OF CONTENT v

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES ix

ABSTRACT xi

CHAPTER ONE 1

INTRODUCTION 1

1.2 Statement of the problem. 6

1.3Purpose of the study. 7

1.4. Research objectives. 7

1.5 Research questions. 8

1.5.1 Research hypothesis 8

1.6 Significance of the Study 8

1.7 Limitations of the study. 9

1.8 Delimitation of the study. 10

1.9 Assumptions of the study 10

The study assumption is that the information given by the respondents will be true and free from bias. That the local authorities know the issues of wildlife conflict and understand the scope in which they operate. Finally, the assumption that Kenya Wildlife Service has adequate information concerning the subject matter. 10

1.10 Definition of significant term. 10

1.11 Organization of the study. 11

CHAPTER TWO 13

LITERATURE REVIEW 13

2.1 Introduction 13

2.2 The major wildlife species involved in human wildlife conflict. 13

2.3 The nature and causes of human-wildlife conflict. 14

2.3.2 Land Use Patterns adjacent to the Protected Area 17

2.4 The economic and social costs of human wildlife conflict. 18

2.5 The conflict mitigation strategies. 20

2.6 Theoretical Framework 21

2.7 Conceptual framework 22

2.8 Conceptual framework 24

2.9 Summary and Gaps to be filled by the study. 25

CHAPTER THREE 27

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 27

3.1 Introduction 27

3.2 Research design 27

3.3 Target Population 27

Table 3.1 Target Population 28

3.4 Sample size and sampling procedure 28

3.5 Research Instruments 30

3.5.1 Pilot study 31

3.5.2 Validity of the instruments. 31

3.5.3 Reliability of instruments. 31

3.6 Data collection procedure. 31

3. 7 Data Analysis Techniques 32

3.8 Ethical Considerations 32

3.9 Operationalization of variables 33

Table 3.3 Operationalization of variables 33

REFERENCES 35

APPENDIX 1: INTRODUCTION LETTER 40

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COMMUNITIES 40

APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRES FOR AUTHORITIES/INSTITUTIONS 46

APPENDIX IV: TIME SCHEDULE 50

APPENDIX V: BUDGET 50

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual framework 26

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Target Population 28

Table 3.2 Sample size and procedure 30

Table 3.3 Operatinalization of variables 33

ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

CWS: Community Wildlife Service

IUCN: International Union for the Conservation of Nature

KWS: Kenya Wildlife Service

HWC: Human-Wildlife Conflict

UN:

FAO:

CWS:

COBRA:

MNP: United Nations

Food and Agriculture organization

Community Wildlife Service

Conservation of Biodiversity Resource Area

Meru National Park

Table of Contents

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to provide a better understanding of the causes of human-wildlife conflict and propose aiding development of a program for integrating wildlife conservation with human development needs at Kathithi area and Meru National Park. The study will be carried out under the following objectives; to establish if human population increase adjacent to the park influence human wildlife conflict, to establish if land use pattern adjacent to the park influences human wildlife conflict, to establish which wildlife species mainly cause human conflict, to establish the current mitigation measures in resolving human wildlife conflict by assessing policy for wildlife conservation and community commitment to the same. This study will adopt the descriptive survey design while revealing variables contributing negatively or positively towards human wildlife conflict. In order to achieve the objectives of the study, the target population will comprise the households living adjacent the park, local authorities and Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS).Systematic Random sampling procedures will be employed during the data collection exercise. Various techniques will be used for the analyses and presentation of data, these will include both quantitative and qualitative techniques. The researcher suspects that crop damages, human threat, property destruction are some of the most prevalent damages. The study will try to establish challenges faced while undertaking conservation measures such as communities lack of necessary skills and training in conservation practices, the negative perception and attitude by the locals on wildlife policies and conservation management. Its of paramount importance that this study will bring out the importance and to involve the relevant sectors such as the agricultural, livestock, tourism and lands to work together to ensure the communities realize their crop yields, and livestock production while coexisting with wildlife.

Chapter one

Introduction

1.1 Background of the study

According to the 2003 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Parks Congress, human-wildlife conflict occurs when wildlife requirements encroach on those of human populations, with costs both to residents and wild animals (IUCN, 2005).

The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS, 1995) considers human-wildlife conflicts to include the contentions relating to destruction, loss of life and property, and interference with rights of individuals or groups attributable directly or indirectly to wild animals.

The conflicts arises as a result of competition of people and wildlife for natural resources i.e. water, pasture and shelter( habitat).problems associated with wildlife include; loss of human life, injury to people, crop raiding , destruction of property, predation on domesticated animals, destruction of habitats, reduction of wildlife populations and creation of fear and tension among the affected communities.

Many communities in Africa bear the costs of coexisting with wildlife without receiving any benefits (O’Connell-Rodwell et., all 2000) and often the costs are very considerable in relation to their standards of living. A wide variety of vertebrates conflict with farming activities in Africa. These include birds, rodents, primates, antelopes, buffalos, hippopotamuses, bush pigs and elephants. While it is widely recognized that in most cases elephants do not inflict the most damage to subsistence agriculture, they are generally identified as the greatest threat to African farmers (Parker et al., 2007).

Human-wildlife conflicts also undermine human welfare, health and safety, and have economic and social costs. Nuisance encounters with small animals, exposure to zoonotic diseases, physical injury or even death caused by large predators’ attacks have high financial costs for individuals and society in the form of medical treatments to cure and prevent infections transmitted from animals through human contacts (Ministry of water, land and air protection, British Columbia, 2003)

Human can be economically affected through destruction and damage to property and Infrastructure (e.g. agricultural crops, orchards, grain stores, water installation, fencing, pipes),

livestock depredation, transmission of domestic animal diseases, such as foot and mouth. Negative social impacts include missed school and work, additional labour costs, loss of sleep, fear, restriction of travel or loss of pets (Hoare 1992)

Large mammalian carnivores are responsible for numerous fatal attacks on humans, and large herbivores, such as elephants, are also involved in human deaths and injury every year, albeit more rarely.(FAO,2003). Large carnivores are the principal culprits of attacks on domestic animals. Patterson et al. (2004), for example, analyzed 312 attacks claiming 433 heads of livestock over a four-year period on two neighboring arid-land ranches adjoining Tsavo East National Park in Kenya.

Lions were responsible for 86 percent of the attacks while the rest were carried out by hyenas and cheetahs. Lions and hyenas attacked mainly cattle and at night, whereas cheetahs nearly always took smaller sheep and goats. (Weladji and Tchamba, 2003).

Serious diseases are known to be transmitted by wildlife to domestic livestock and possibly also to humans (i.e. rabies). Scavengers and predators, such as spotted hyenas, jackals, lions and vultures, also play a role in disseminating pathogens by opening up, dismembering and dispersing parts of infected carcasses. For example, predators ingest anthrax spores together with carcass tissue; the spores are then widely disseminated in the predators’ faeces (Hugh-Jones and de Vos, 2002).

The global human population is increasing at an alarming rate and exerting significant pressures; altering and deteriorating sustainability of natural environments (Kideghesho 2010).

Demographic and social changes place more people in direct contact with wildlife. As human

Populations grow, settlements expand into and around protected areas (IUCN, World Park Congress,2003), as well as in urban and sub-urban areas. In Africa, human population growth has lead to encroachment into wildlife habitats, constriction of species into marginal habitat patches and direct competition with local communities (Siex et al., 1999)

This demographic change leads more people in direct contact with wildlife. This is because as human population grows, settlements expand into and around protected areas. Human population growth leads to encroachment into wildlife habitats and migratory corridors resulting to constriction of wildlife species into marginal habitat patches and direct competition with local communities for natural resources.

Encroachment results to habitat loss. As wildlife ranges shrink, more and more wildlife is confined into smaller pockets and at same time gets into contact with more humans and in conflict with each other. People have encroached on buffer zones and this is where HWC is prevalent as wildlife stray from protected areas into the adjacent cultivated fields or grazing zone. Natural resource exploitation when is overdone results to deforestation and times even desertification, extinction of species and forced wildlife migration. In Kenya, in many areas with abundant wildlife, such as Samburu, Trans-Mara, Taita and Kwale, conflict is intensified by land use fragmentation and the development of small-scale farming. In fact, state and trust ranches have been subdivided and sold as smallholdings and cultivated with commercial horticultural crops (Kenya Wildlife Service, 1996)

Equally, protected areas often only protect a part of an ecosystem or species range, and

Wildlife dispersal from such areas may increase conflict with man (Woodroffe & Ginsberg,

1998). Even as alternative forms of land use, such as wildlife tourism, are implemented in an

attempt to derive sustainable benefits from wildlife, conflict may remain (Roe et al., 1997;

Goodwin et al., 1998).

Climatic trends are an important cause of HWC. Seasonal changes in rainfall are directly correlated with predation intensity in Kenya. In Tsavo National Parks, Patterson et al. (2004) quantified appositive association between monthly rainfall and attacks, demonstrating that in this region lions are more likely to attack livestock during seasonal rains. During drought periods, ungulates spend most of their time near a limited number of water sources and thus they are easily found and killed; when rain fills seasonal pools, lions disperse into their habitat, change their diets, and prey on easier targets (Patterson et al., 2004)

The large scales climatic change has been observed and documented since the mid-twentieth century and, nowadays have become a major global concern. The change in global temperature is affecting climatic variables and resulting in the change of global precipitation amount and distributions (Hulme et al. 2001, Houghton 2009). Combined with an ongoing fact of climate change, it is widely believed that anthropogenic activities are major driving factors in challenging wildlife conservation from the pole to tropics (Travis 2003, Dalelo 2012, Kaeslin et al. 2012).

Human population increase and related land use change are more aggravated by the ongoing climate change pressures. As a result, species and their ecosystems ‘distribution, composition and interactions are already under risk in most protected areas worldwide (Meyer and Turner 1992, Thuiller et al. 2006). Moreover, it intensifies the extent of human wildlife conflict, occurrence of wildfires, and prevalence of diseases, distributions of invasive species and pests (Parmesan and Yohe 2003, Kumssa and Afework 2013). The untouched and marginal landscapes of the planet are under mark of anthropogenic impacts (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Kaeslin et al. 2012)

Human-wildlife conflicts are prevalent in Africa where large numbers of big mammals such as elephants and lions still roam freely in marginal rangelands and protected areas. The increase in human population has resulted to encroachment into more marginal lands inhabited by wildlife, leading to fragmentation and conversion of land, for instance, to settled agriculture and other uses incompatible with wildlife. These, as Kangwana (1993), Conover (2002) and Okello et al.,(2003) contend does not only escalate conflicts between the people, wildlife, and the authorities sustainable wildlife conservation practice. In Kenya, for instance, where much of the wildlife live outside designated protected areas, Western (1995) observes that the people who live in these areas depend more on natural resources and find it difficult to tolerate wild animals in their lands when they consider them a threat to their lives and livelihoods.

Conflicts between people and wildlife currently rank amongst the main threats to conservation in Africa. In Kenya, for instance, with much of the wildlife living outside protected areas, one of the real challenges to conservation is how to enhance and sustain co-existence between people and wild animals. It is undoubtedly evident that the expansion of the human society has forced people to infringe on wildlife habitats and convert land to other uses incompatible with wildlife.

In Meru Conservation Area and other parts of northern Kenya, human-wildlife conflicts negatively impact on the humans and wildlife alike .There are several reported cases such as people loosing lives and others sustaining injuries to wild animals such as loins,leopard and elephants, and loss of crops and domestic animals to wild animals such as leopards, lions and elephants. Understanding how the people and conservation agencies can cooperate to address the problem of coercive wildlife-human interactions is critical in evolving and establishing sustainable conservation systems. This study focuses on human wildlife interactions around Meru National Park, specifically in Kathithi area, which borders Meru National Park in Meru County. Documented information about the study area indicates that it is frequently invaded by wildlife from the adjacent Meru National Park. The animals cause damage crops, livestock and infrastructure. This study will seek to establish wildlife species involved, the reasons for frequent invasions, economic and social costs as well as the strategies used to mitigate the conflict by the affected farmers.

A survey will be conducted among households sampled within and adjacent to the Meru National Park. The study will be carried in Kathithi area, in Meru county, bordering Meru National Park to the North West, for two months, that is, in the month of January and February 2017.

The broad objective of the study is to establish the nature, causes and costs of human wildlife conflict as well as the effectiveness of current efforts to reverse the rising trends in human wildlife conflict in Kathithi area and other areas adjacent to Meru National National Park in Kenya.

1.2 Statement of the problem.

Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is fast becoming a serious threat to the survival of many endangered species in the world. It is not restricted to particular geographical regions or climatic conditions, but is common to all areas where wildlife and human population coexist and share limited resources. Dense human population in close vicinity to nature reserves seems to pose the greatest challenges in many countries. (Western and Pearl 1989).

Human-wildlife conflicts undermine human welfare, health and safety, and have economic and social costs. Nuisance encounters with small animals, exposure to zoonotic diseases, physical injury or even death caused by large predators’ attacks have high financial costs for individuals and society in the form of medical treatments to cure and prevent infections transmitted from animals through human contact (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, British Colombia, 2003). Humans can be economically affected through destruction and damage to property and infrastructure (e.g. agricultural crops, orchards, grain stores, water installation, fencing, and pipes), livestock depredation, transmission of domestic animal diseases, such as foot and mouth. Negative social impacts include missed school and work, additional labour costs, loss of sleep, fear, restriction of travel or loss of pets (Hoare, 1992.)

The excessive exploitation of the forest has an impact on wildlife species, their habitats are reduced which have negative impact especially the endangered species such as Elephants and Rhinos for instance. This also greatly affects plant species which takes long period of time to mature. At the same time the human population is affected adversely.

The establishment of protected areas has often denied local people access to their traditional resource areas. Wildlife sanctuaries normally included sources of dry season water and pasture which were traditionally available to domestic livestock owned by pastoralists (Western 1982). Wildlife is often seen by the local people as belonging to government; as they alone seem to be responsible for its care (Berger 1989; Korfage 1985; Scott 1983). Wildlife agencies emphasis law enforcement, administrative procedure and conservation education but cannot contain or fully control wildlife damage and destruction.

The protected area strategies to ensure peaceful co-existence between man and wildlife is still a challenge in individual parks and is evident and manifested in many forms such as Putting up of electric fence, proactive patrols by Kenya wildlife service rangers and creation of conservation awareness to the surrounding community of Kathithi and other adjacent areas of Meru National Park. The more witnessed nature and causes of human wildlife conflict in the study area Kathithi Area of Meru County include crop damage, livestock predation, and destruction of property, injury and loss of life by wildlife. The challenges of management are due to encroachment, wildlife barrier destruction, water pollution, habitat destruction, rapid change in land use, fragmentation of wildlife dispersal areas and breeding grounds. .

Such broad environmental, human health and safety, economic and social impacts suggest that government, wildlife managers, scientists and local communities need to recognize the problem and adopt measures to resolve it in the interest of human and Environmental well being.

There is therefore the need for more effective planning and implementation of the wildlife conservation policy in the future; lay Strategies for promoting better wildlife management and dealing with human wildlife conflict in Kenya and more so Kathithi of Meru conservation area. This study also aims at giving more insight and recommendations on the same.

1.3Purpose of the study.

This study intends to establish the nature, causes and costs of human wildlife conflict as well as the effectiveness of current efforts to reverse the rising trend in human wildlife conflict in Kathithi area and other areas adjacent to Meru National National Park in Kenya.

1.4. Research objectives.

The study will be guided by the following objectives;

(i) To establish the major wildlife species involved in human – wildlife conflict in Kathithi Area of Meru County.

(ii) To determine the nature and causes of human wildlife conflict in the study area Kathithi Area of Meru County

(iii) To establish the economic and social costs of human wildlife conflict in Kathithi Area of Meru County

(iv) To determine the conflict mitigation strategies used by residents in Kathithi Area of Meru County.

1.5 Research questions.

The study will seek to answer the following questions;

(i) What is the major wildlife species involved in human wildlife conflict in Kathithi Area in Meru County?

(ii) What is the nature and causes of human wildlife conflict in Kathithi Area in Meru County?

(iii) What are the economic and social costs of human wildlife conflict in Kathithi Area in Meru County?

(iv) Which strategies do local land owners use to mitigate human wildlife conflict in Kathithi Area in Meru County?

1.5.1 Research hypothesis

i. Human wildlife conflict is a minor problem involving only a few wildlife species whose economic and social costs are marginal and tolerable by residents of Kathithi area in Meru County.

ii. Wildlife control efforts and conservation awareness by Kenya Wildlife Service have curtailed human wildlife conflict in Kathithi area in Meru County.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The current increase in human settlement in Kathithi area makes it a victim of human-wildlife conflict with its proximity to Meru National Park. This conflict is anticipated to move to worrying proportion in the near future in the event that corrective measures are not put in place. This population growth has reduced the wildlife ecological niche hence the need to injecting a sense of ownership for the local residents at Kathithi to conserve wildlife and for the state to find a resolve to HWC.

The study area envelopes complex livelihood systems for the local community and wildlife, hence conservation and aversion of possible conflicts are continuously likely to be witnessed between people and wildlife. Wildlife ecosystem plays a very significant role in boosting Kenyan revenue due to tourism and its multiplier activities. The country derives a substantial amount of income from wildlife (one-quarter of its total earnings) making it the largest source of foreign exchange for the national economy (World Bank 1997). Therefore, the study aims at appraising the role of the local community in conserving the biodiversity present in their neighborhoods.

The specific significance of the study is to come up with recommendations that will help prevent future HWC while ensuring sustainable conservation.

The outcome of the recommendation could be used to review the current wildlife conservation policies in order to enhance its effectiveness and to formulate new policies. Other National parks could also benefit by adopting measures suggested in the study. The findings will also be important for decision and policy makers in providing them with greater insight on the problems that are usually associated with wildlife conservation. The area community' developers can use the findings as a tool of awareness creation to the local community. Finally, the report will contribute to the pool of wildlife conservation knowledge and hence is useful to the academic fraternity and those interested in wildlife conservation.

1.7 Limitations of the study.

The study may encounter enormous challenges such as; the expansiveness of the selected study area, difficultly in effectively assessing individual locals’ attitudes towards environmental issues.

The respondents’ likely likelihood to demonstrate values they think the researcher will be looking for in effect distorting the outcome or lack of cooperation between the interviewers and respondents as some fear to give true information.

There could be tendencies of the respondents to conceal information; others may lack full knowledge about the subject under study which may lead them to giving unreliable and incorrect information.

The constraints will therefore be overcome by adopting a research methodology and sample procedure that will focus on specific sample population targeting key players and stakeholders to ensure accuracy and effectiveness of data collection.

1.8 Delimitation of the study.

Geographical scope: the study will be limited to Kathithi Area adjacent to Meru National Park and environs as a case for study but the findings can be generalized to whole ecosystem.

Methodological scope: the prime aim of the study will focus on conflict between local residents and wildlife in Meru National Park.

Value scope: The study will attempt to explain how the rise in human population and land use changes adjacent to Meru National Park influences human wildlife conflict. The wildlife species responsible for the conflict and type of conflict will also be investigated as a preferred model for wildlife conflict resolution.

Academic scope: the study will also be limited to fulfilling the requirement for the degree of Masters of Arts in Project Planning and Management.

1.9 Assumptions of the study

1.10 Definition of significant term.

For the purpose of this study, the following terms have the attached meaning:

Human – This was taken to imply anthropogenic activities (relating to people) which include trade, settlement and transportation

Problem animal – means any wildlife which has caused or is causing damage to or harm to human life or property

Wildlife – This was constructed to imply the presence of wild animals within the context of their natural environment.

Protected area – means an area declared to be a wildlife protected area under the Wildlife Act Cap 376. An area prohibited or restricted or regulated for ensuring the security of the animal or vegetable life in a National Park for preserving the habitat and ecology zone by notice in the Gazette.

Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC) – was taken to imply negative results from the interaction between human and wildlife.

Ecosystem: An ecosystem is made up of plants, animals, microorganisms, soil, rocks,

Minerals, water sources and the local atmosphere interacting with one another.

Endangered species: a native species that faces a significant risk of extinction in the near

Future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Such species may be declining in

Numbers due to threats such as habitat destruction, climate change, or pressure from invasive

Species.

Environment: An interaction between the physical surroundings and the social, political and

Economic forces that organize people in the context of these surroundings.

Environmental Education: a process that allows individuals to explore environmental issues, engages in problem solving, and takes action to improve the environment. As a result, Individuals develop a deeper understanding of environmental issues and have the skills to make informed and responsible decisions.

Human-animal conflict: a range of direct and indirect negative interactions between humans

and wildlife.

Park: an enclosed piece of ground stocked with game and held by royal prescription or grant

Perception: the feelings, understandings of the people of Kafue game management area

Concerning human animal conflict.

Species: a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort

or kind.

Sustainable: Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.

Wildlife: traditionally refers to non-domesticated vertebrates, but has come to broadly

reference to all wild plants, animals and other organisms, for this study it will only refer to

wild animals.

1.11 Organization of the study.

This paper was divided into three chapters. Chapter one was the introduction to the study. It was incorporated the background of the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, limitations of the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, four objectives and questions, significance of the study, delimitation of the study, limitation of the study, assumptions of the study and an operational definition of key terms used within the study.

Chapter two was the literature review. It showed what the previous researchers have found out in the area. This consisted of a review oaf the study objectives followed by the theoretical framework and conceptual frame work. The last part of this chapter was the summary and gaps to be filed by the study.

Research methodology was chapter three of the study. This commenced with an introduction to the chapter and its components. This was followed by a discussion on the research design, target population, sampling design and data collection instruments. The data collection instruments section had pilot testing explanation, validity and reliability tests. This was followed by the data collection procedure, methods of data analysis, ethical considerations and operational definition of variables table and summary containing a brief description of the main issues in the chapter.

Chapter two

Literature review

2.1 Introduction

This chapter is aimed at collecting as much information as possible from previous research done on the same topic that I intend to research on, and most of the information will come from books, journals and magazines.

This chapter will also present a review of both theoretical foundation and empirical literature relating to human dimension review with wildlife conflict in the context of sustainable conservation. A suitable conceptual model will be formulated based on the background featuring the key variables of the study as means to achieve sustainable conservation as addressing mitigation to resolve human wildlife conflict at Kathithi and other areas adjacent to Meru National Park.

Demographic and social changes place more people in direct contact with wildlife: as human populations grow, settlements expand into and around protected areas (IUCN, World Park Congress 2003) as well as in urban and sub-urban areas. In Africa, human population growth has lead to encroachment into wildlife habitats, constriction of species into marginal habitat patches and direct competition with local communities (Siex et al., 1999)

2.2 The major wildlife species involved in human wildlife conflict.

Large mammalian carnivores are responsible for numerous fatal attacks on humans, and large herbivores, such as elephants, are also involved in human deaths every year, albeit more rarely. Elephants and hippopotamuses will rarely deliberately attack humans; in most cases deaths occur while people are protecting their crops against raiding animals (usually at night); when people accidentally come into close contact with the animals, especially on paths near water at night; or when people encounter injured animals whose normal sense of caution is impaired.

Baboons are seldom, if ever, dangerous to humans, though they are capable of inflicting serious wounds to dogs. But they will intimidate humans especially women in urban areas, when scavenging for food. (FAO, 2003)

A wide variety of vertebrate animals conflict with farming activities in Africa. These include birds, rodents, primates, antelopes, buffalos, hippopotamuses, bush pigs and elephants. While it is widely recognized that in most cases elephants do not inflict the most damage to subsistence agriculture, they are generally identified as the greatest threat to African farmers (Parker et al., 2007). Elephants can destroy a field in a single night raid. Most peasant farmers are unable to deal with the problem of elephant damage themselves and governments rarely offer any compensation.

Large carnivores are the principal culprits of attacks on domestic animals. Patterson et al. (2004), for example, analysed 312 attacks claiming 433 heads of livestock over a four-year period on two neighbouring arid-land ranches adjoining Tsavo East National Park in Kenya, lions were responsible for 86 percent of the attacks while the rest were carried out by hyenas and cheetahs. Lions and hyenas attacked mainly cattle and at night, whereas cheetahs nearly always took smaller sheep and goats. Some other smaller carnivores are also responsible for attacks on livestock. In B”nou” National Park in Cameroon, the civet is the main predator, causing losses to livestock income of about 18 percent (Weladji and Tchamba, 2003).

Their predation techniques are different; baboons attack by day and usually kill small stock such as goats and sheep, while lions and leopards attack at night, and lions kill larger prey such as cattle and donkeys (Butler, 2000).

2.3 The nature and causes of human-wildlife conflict.

As human populations expand into wild animal habitats, natural wildlife territory is displaced. Reduction in the availability of natural prey/food sources leads to wild animals seeking alternate sources. Alternately, new resources created by humans draw wildlife resulting in conflict. The population density of wildlife and humans increase with overlaps in geographical areas used increasing their interaction thus resulting in increased physical conflict. Byproducts of human existence offer un-natural opportunity for wildlife in the form of food and sheltered interference and potentially destructive threat for both man and animals. Competition for food resources also occurs when humans attempt to harvest natural resources such as fish and grassland pasture.

Human deaths and injuries, although less common than crop damage, are the most severe manifestations of human-wildlife conflict. (FAO, 2009)

Another thing to note is that road accidents caused by wildlife can result in human death and injury. This phenomenon, well known in Europe and the United States (Mouron et al.,1998; Scanlon, 1998) is also a serious problem in Namibia where vehicle collisions with greater kudus are responsible for more human deaths than attacks by both crocodiles and elephants.

Crop damage is the most prevalent form of human-wildlife conflict across the African continent. The occurrence and frequency of crop-raiding is dependent upon a multitude of conditions such as the availability, variability and type of food sources in the area, the level of human activity on a farm, and the type and maturation time of crops as compared to natural food sources.

Another adverse effect of the human-wildlife conflict is the killing of domestic animals by predators. The number and type of domestic animals killed by wildlife varies according to the species, the time of year, and the availability of natural prey. In the savannah and grasslands where pastoralism remains the main source of livelihood for many people, attacks on livestock are an issue. On a national level the losses are hardly significant, but for the individual stock owner, they can be catastrophic. For a small-scale herder, losses to wildlife can mean the difference between economic independence and dire poverty. Some other smaller carnivores are also responsible for attacks on livestock. In B”nou” National Park in Cameroon, the civet is the main predator, causing losses to livestock income of about 18 percent (Weladji andTchamba, 2003).

Nevertheless, mammalian carnivores are not the only group involved. Serious diseases are known to be transmitted by wildlife to domestic livestock and possibly also to humans (i.e. rabies). Scavengers and predators, such as spotted hyenas, jackals, lions and vultures, also play a role in disseminating pathogens by opening up, dismembering and dispersing parts of infected carcasses. For example, predators ingest anthrax spores together with carcass tissue; the spores are then widely disseminated in the predators’ faeces (Hugh-Jones and de Vos, 2002) The key role played by the African buffalo as maintenance host of foot-and-mouth disease was identified in the late 1960s.

2.3.1 Human Population growth.

According to Musyoki (2007), almost all human societies lived by hunting and gathering around ten thousand years ago. Co-existence between humans and animals was never strained as natural resources were abundant in terms of quality and quantity. When people started cultivating land for agricultural purposes and tamed animals, reliable food resource base was gained throughout the year but this faced new threats of crop damage by wild animals. Humans have suffered losses in crops and livestock ever since there has been agriculture (Naughton-Treves, 1998).

A rise in human population, the subsequent demand for settlements and socio-economic activities has led to expansion of human activities up to the edges of conservation areas and marginal land that were animal dispersal ranges (Musyoki, 2007).

Wanjau (1999) also argued that demand is a factor driving human wildlife conflicts and is made more complex by issues like poverty and overpopulation. He further noted that addressing issues related to economic development can be used as a conflict management strategy in cases where demand is a factor in human wildlife conflict. Gachugu (2006) reported that increment in human populations and poverty, coupled with the need to improve livelihoods continues to increase problems in conservation areas. A direct connection between human population, poverty and livelihood improvement activities was also drawn by Malik (1984) who argues that pressure on the environment arise from land requirements for development and poverty alleviation activities. He further notes that this is aggravated by ever increasing human populations around conservation areas. The relationships between human population growth, poverty and human wildlife conflicts in Kathithi area of Meru National Park will be further analyzed in this study.

Baboons raid gardens and food in lodges and camping areas and can cause an immense nuisance in small urban settlements if left unchecked. On the Zimbabwean side of the Zambezi valley, baboons are a major menace in bush camps and small towns such as Chirundu and Victoria Falls, and in wildlife camps and lodges where they are not actively controlled. They pull thatch from thatched-roof buildings and will even intimidate wide-eyed tourists in order to steal food directly from the tables they occupy (Gaynor, 2000; Kansky, 2002)

2.3.2 Land Use Patterns adjacent to the Protected Area

The establishment of National parks and reserves has been seen as a central point in conservation of natural environments. However, according to Musyoki (2007), their absolute value has been put into question when compared to the benefits which the local communities accrue from conservation activities. He quoted a Central Bureau of Statistics report (Daily Nation 22/6/2004) which states that 40-60% of people neighboring Protected Areas are living below poverty line. He also argues that over the years, the economic and social prosperity of communities neighboring protected areas has been on the decline and this leads to conflict escalations as people fend for themselves from the natural resources available.

In scenario where wildlife induced damages to human property or life are neither controlled nor compensated, negative attitudes become entrenched with the locals and they therefore regard wildlife as a livelihood threat (Okech, 2011). This is worsened by incidents where local communities don’t benefit from conservation efforts and are alienated from economic enterprises related to wildlife, for example the tourism industry. According to Okech (2011), local communities can retaliate or frustrate conservation programs and projects if they feel that the state agencies or conservation stakeholders care more for wildlife than the locals who are being directly affected by the destruction caused by wildlife. The retaliations can be uncompromising in severe cases which can lead to conservation initiatives being rendered ineffective.

Okello and Canner (2000) examined how agricultural expansion fuels human wildlife conflicts and found that wild animals destroy more crops than they harm livestock. Their case study of Maasai group Ranches revealed that over 40% of group ranch members experience annual crop damage by wildlife compared to 21% of those experiencing livestock losses. All these losses have greatly reduced support for conservation activities.

Human wildlife conflicts have been reported to be actually real in all the administrative districts in Kenya (KWS, 1997). These conflicts occur mostly in areas where agriculture is the main economic activity of the region. (KWS, 1997; Omondi, 2004). According to Omondi (2004), baboons and monkeys raid farms more frequently than other wildlife species. He argues that farming communities mostly live around conservation areas and therefore conflicts occur at most in all areas where wildlife conservations activities take place. Critical examination of the same parameters is of paramount importance to the success of conservation initiatives of Meru National Park as this will create a clear picture of the current status of human wildlife conflicts in the area. It will also identify the entrance points for engaging communities adjacent to the Park.

The manner in which Kenyan protected areas were established also caused polarity between national parks and the surrounding communities, Lelo (1994). According to his study, locals were alienated from their traditional resources which led to resentment amongst the communities and the protected resources. He argued that state agencies controlled the land which included other resources such as water, forests and wildlife which formed the basic livelihoods of those communities. This changed their status in the eyes of the communities which were using them.

According to Musyoki (2007), the creation of these parks did not encompass the ecological and distribution ranges of wildlife species. Some shortcomings in the design of National parks and reserves were also highlighted by the fact that all the resources required by wildlife were not included in the preserved areas e.g. saltlicks thus forcing animals to move out and seek the same. Lelo (1994) pointed out that the boundaries of Oldonyo Sabuk National Park excluded the important distribution ranges for animals and therefore the movement of wildlife outside the park to seek the same. Other parks like Tsavo National Park were designed after the government was sure that the land could not be used for other purposes e.g. agriculture. This resulted to a large chunk of mainly poor wilderness devoid of enough water and forest cover thus outward movement of wildlife into settlement areas when weather conditions are adverse (Musyoki 2007). These parks portray an approach in park designs that reserved significantly large tracts of land for animal migration with little regard to ecological needs of wildlife. According to Lelo (1994) settlements in the migration/dispersal areas have heightened the human-wildlife conflict scenario.

2.4 The economic and social costs of human wildlife conflict.

Studies of the conflicts between humans and wildlife conducted over the years have revealed that all wildlife species act in ways that cause harm to human livelihoods (Conover 2000). Musyoki (2007) argued that large wildlife species that are potentially dangerous and those that gather in groups are more likely to bring about conflicts when they roam far than smaller animals whose ranges are restricted.

Two perspectives have been used in these studies; either from the wildlife conservation perspective or analysis of the people affected by the conflicts (Musyoki, 2002). Social scientists are more likely to use the farmers’ perspective in their investigations about crop raiding. Wildlife biologists are more interested in consequences of crop raiding vis-a-vis conservation while focusing on the concerned wildlife species. Observations made by Naughton-Treves (1996) on the communities bordering Kibale National Park in Uganda showed that they perceived crop damage as a larger problem that in which it meant their loss of ownership of wildlife resource to the government. According to him all communities might be highly concerned with the impact of wildlife on agriculture while few people actually experienced or suffer extensive crop damage. This project shall borrow from the observation in Uganda and explore these perspectives in the study area and bring out the exact feeling of the local communities about Human-wildlife conflicts.

Other studies have revealed that human – wildlife conflicts can also have their source in people to people or people to state differences (Musyoki 2007). This is usually as a result of resentment of state-controlled wildlife conservation by communities which feel they were alienated or marginalized during establishment of parks. According to Musyoki (2007), local communities receive benefits, legally or illegally for neighboring wildlife resources. Some receive benefits of developmental nature from NGO’s or government agencies due to the losses incurred. Regardless of those benefits, they resent wildlife as their focus is mostly on those losses. Musyoki (2007) further argues that as long as wildlife continues to raid peoples crops, they will face resentment from the local communities. Approaches which eliminate situations of conflict can be the best hope for a permanent solution to human- wildlife conflicts, Wanjau (1999) Kenana, L. & Owino, A.O (2008) identified threats to human livelihoods for residents bordering Oldonyo Sabuk National Park as being human- wildlife conflicts, lack of access to water pasture, wildlife diseases and other factors. They argued that critical to the long term conservation of the park was the need for focused attention on these threats to livelihoods. According to their analysis 85% of local residents supported the existence of the park. These are those who had resided around the park for the last 10 years and experienced the benefits.

Agriculture. Crop damage not only affects farmers’ ability to feed their families, it also reduces cash income and has repercussions for health, nutrition, education and ultimately development. When crop damage occurs finances are diverted from these areas to cover the cost of staple foods.

Husbandry. Mammalian carnivores and crocodiles are responsible for the loss of a high proportion of livestock throughout Africa. However the number of livestock killed over a period of time is an inconsistent indicator in appraising the real impact on the livelihood of the rural population, and it would be more informative if it were related to the total family livestock holdings or total village units. The possibility of disease transmission from wildlife to livestock jeopardizes international trade. Cattle and/or meat can only be exported if they come from areas that are certified free of foot-and-mouth disease. This can only be done if the areas are free of buffalo.

Health and employment. Nuisance encounters with small animals, exposure to zoonotic diseases, physical injury or even death caused by attacks by large animals have high financial costs for individuals and society in the form of medical treatments. Nocturnal surveillance of fields results in a higher exposure to malaria (WWF SARPO, 2005).

Infrastructure. The economic cost of the damage caused by elephants to infrastructure in the Pama National Reserve in Burkina Faso would amount to about US$587/pond/year and US$23/track kilometre/year (Alfa Gambari Imorou et al., 2004).

Other economic costs of human-wildlife conflict include the time spent and cost of guarding crops from elephants and bush pigs at night, and from baboons and granivorous birds by day. The task of guarding crops at night generally falls to men; by day this is frequently the responsibility of children. Time that might have been spent on production is instead spent on farm patrols to ward off rampaging wildlife. Human-wildlife conflict thus has a wide-ranging negative social impact, which includes missed school and work, additional labour costs, loss of sleep, fear, and also restriction of travel or loss of pets (Hoare, 1992).

2.5 The conflict mitigation strategies.

Creation of national parks in Kenya did not include input from local communities as no consultations or sensitizations were done. It is apparent that the park designs would work using strong machinery for enforcement, an option embraced by the colonial Government and passed over to the government of Kenya (Lelo, 1994). Government policies have reinforced this view with conservation work being undertaken while emphasizing law enforcement while regarding people as a living threat to National Parks.

According to Musyoki (2007), wildlife laws and alienation of land led to people resenting wildlife regulations. A hardened attitude towards conservation was also observed by Lelo (1994) among the Akamba community when their grazing lands were declared wildlife reserves by Europeans. Ownership of wildlife is unlikely to be relinquished to the local people especially due to the global politics regarding conservation and the role of wildlife in the national economy of Kenya. A study done by Omondi (1994) revealed that employment in conservation areas did not favour local communities who lacked necessary skills or training. This results in conflicts on differential distribution of conservation costs and benefits. He further argued that there is equal distribution of wildlife benefits with the communities being disadvantaged. This could actually disadvantage conservation initiatives.'

Conservation of wildlife in Kenya is governed by the wildlife policy which is contained in the sessional paper NO. 3 of 1975, ‘Statement of the Future of Wildlife management Policy in Kenya’ (KWS 1997) the paper encouraged a modified approach to wildlife conservation based on local participation. This important shift in conservation policies was intended to harmonize social and economic development with wildlife conservation (Musyoki 2007). The sessional paper proposed remuneration of land owners who supported conservation in order to sustain utilization of wildlife resources. The realization of the important links in planning and management of parks with animal dispersal areas called for an approach linking human activities to conservation and was envisioned in sessional paper No.3 of 1975. The aim of the new policy was mitigating human wildlife conflicts and a reverse of imbalance of imbalance costs especially through enhancing wildlife benefits to local communities.KWS established a department of community wildlife service (CWS) to work with people in areas utilized by wildlife (KWS 1990). CWS activities were majority training, extension, problem animal control and revenue sharing. Community Wildlife Service then launched the Conservation of Biodiversity Resource Areas Project (COBRA) from 1992 – 1998. The project aimed at increasing socio-economic benefits from wildlife conservation and improving the conservation of natural resources within communities that live adjacent to national parks (KWS, 1997).

2.6 Theoretical Framework

This study was founded from Paul Stern’s theory of Value – Belief – Norm theory (VBN) as he presents a theoretical basis for understanding the type of values that cause moral obligation to environmentally responsive behavior that works towards solving social and environmental problems (Stern et al. 1999). The VBN – model builds on Schwartz’s (1992, 1994), topology of value theory that presumes that altruism value leads to awareness of adverse consequences on other people and thus instigates responsibility to help eliminate the problem.

The model divides the value sets into three types; egoistic, biospheric and altruistic. Stern, through his survey findings, holds that VBN ‘ theory, when compared with other prevalent theories, offers the best available explanation of support for the social and environmental concerns to communities.

There are three types of support; citizenship actions, policy support and acceptance, and personal-sphere behaviors that accord with socio-environment principles. The interface between self-concept and collectivism, the theorists argue provides a good foundation to community based management of natural resources and social relations.

In Kenya, the Government through the Kenya Wildlife Service (official custodian of wildlife) is the de jure of wildlife. However, the biggest percentage of wildlife is found outside protected areas. Over the years, a tussle has developed between these two owners of wildlife. The land owners argue that they are de facto owners of wildlife since they bear the larger cost of living with it. A logical framework for peaceful coexistence between wildlife and human is necessary to ensure sustainability of wildlife resources in the area, as well as to enhance environmental, economic and social wellbeing of the region.

2.7 Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework refers to a network of inter linkages of variables in a relationship or phenomena under study. It is also a collection of interrelated concepts that guides the research and determines what variables will be measured and relationships to look for. The conceptual framework of this study (Figure 1) , draws from the theoretical backgrounds earlier illustrated. By applying the theoretical model, the researcher developed a conceptual framework that is expected to explain the key causes of human-wildlife conflict. The schematic diagram explains the relationship between the independent variables and the dependant variable.

An independent variable (also called the ‘predictor variable’) is that variable that causes changes in the dependent variable. An independent variable is presumed to affect the dependent variable, whose outcome depends on the manipulation of the independent variable. The conceptual framework illustrates how the independent variables (i.e. human population increase, land use changes, type of wildlife species and insularization of protected area) influence the dependent variable (i.e. human-wildlife conflict).

Weather, policy, law and culture are the intervening variables, as they are variable that might affect the relationship of the dependent and independent variables but it is difficult to measure or to see the nature of their influence. Policy failure in this case could mean for instance people not being well compensated for the losses incurred due to wildlife invasion to their properties. A moderating variable is a variable that behaves like the independent variable in that it has a significant contributory or contingent effect on the relationship between the dependent and the independent variable. In this study these may include attitude towards wildlife Perception towards conservation.

2.8 Conceptual framework

Independent Variable Moderating Variable

Dependent Variable

Figure 1: Conceptual framework

2.9 Summary and Gaps to be filled by the study.

Understanding the causes of conflict and the influence of climate variability is a major global concern. The change in global temperature is affecting climatic variables and resulting in the change of global precipitation amount and distributions (Hulme et al. 2001, Houghton 2009). Combined with an ongoing fact of climate change, it is widely believed that anthropogenic activities are major driving factors in challenging wildlife conservation from the pole to tropics (Treves 2003, Dalelo 2012, Kaeslin et al. 2012).

Understanding the nature of conflicts, as well as the three types of support given by Paul Stern’s theory of Value – Belief – Norm theory (VBN) ,of citizenship actions, policy support and acceptance, and personal-sphere behaviors that accord with socio-environment principles, the interface between self-concept and collectivism, will go a long way to help researcher in this study as the theorists argument provides a good foundation to community based management of natural resources and social relations.

Understanding human responses to persistent threat from wildlife and identification of best strategies that can be used to reduce the magnitude of losses and those that contain the problem of animal species within their ranges and thus eliminating conflict situations forms another basis for this study.

Social science studies use of the farmers’ perspective in human- wildlife conflict investigations of which are limited. They use the needs of the local communities and aspirations of local communities to bring insight to the human-wildlife conflict problem. According to Musyoki (2007), these studies give an idea on the degree of losses experienced by farmers but very few explore the exact meaning of these losses to the farmers. The difference in the two analysis done by Lelo (1994) and that of Kennan & Owino needs to be further examined in order to find out other reasons for change of perceptions by local residents. This will be further investigated in this study to note strategies for minimizing human – wildlife conflict.

Scholarly attention has also increased in regard to policy initiatives that focus on human wildlife conflicts and this indicates the seriousness of this problem and the need to strategically analyze the methods used to address the problem using up to date information. Recent studies show that many local communities around protected areas have negative feelings about policies developed by the state or conservation initiatives being used to manage human wildlife conflicts.

According to Omondi (2004), baboons and monkeys raid farms more frequently than other wildlife species. He argues that farming communities mostly live around conservation areas and therefore conflicts occur at most in all areas where wildlife conservations activities take place. Critical examination of the same parameters is of paramount importance to the success of conservation initiatives of Meru National Park as this will create a clear picture of the current status of human wildlife conflicts in the area. It will also identify the entrance points for engaging communities adjacent to the Park.

Chapter three

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter features components of the research methodology that will be employed in study. These features include, research design, target population, sample size and sampling procedure, methods of data collection, validity and reliability, the methods of data analysis and Ethical issues.

3.2 Research design

The study will employ descriptive survey research design. According to Kothari (2007)descriptive survey research design is a type of research used to obtain data that can help determine characteristics of a phenomenon in its natural setting. A descriptive survey involves asking(often in the form of a questionnaire)from a large group of individuals either by mail, telephone or in person. The main advantage of survey is the potentiality it provides when dealing with a large sample of individuals. This will be appropriate because the study will involve a large sample and focuses on obtaining quantative data from community adjacent to Meru N.Park,Kathithi Area.

3.3 Target Population

According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), a target population is that population to which a researcher wants to generalize the results from the sample survey.

The target population includes 120 fence attendants who are distributed at 10 outposts along the park electric fence, 100 security rangers who are also in the same outposts, 200 community members who live close to the park, 80 administration officers inside the park and 100 research personnel. This population is considered to be the best since all those targeted work within the area of study, at very key departments of Meru N.Park and the affected community of Kathithi by HWC.

Table 3.1 Target Population

RESPONDENTS TARGET POPULATION

120

Security ranger 100

200

100

TOTAL 600

3.4 Sample size and sampling procedure

According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), a sample is a subset of a particular population.

Generally, the sample size depends on the factors such as the number of variables in the study, the type of research design, the method of data analysis and the size of accessible population.

Gay in Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), suggests that for correctional studies, 30 cases or more are required; for descriptive studies,10 percent of the accessible population is enough and for experimental studies ; at least 30 cases as required.

Sampling in Kothari (2005), is defined as the selection of some part of an aggregate or totally on the basis of which a judgment or influence about the aggregate is made. It is a process of selecting units from a population of interest so that by studying the sample, one may fairly generalize the results back to population from which they were selected.

The research will be carried out in Kathithi Area part of Meru National park. A sample size of one hundred will be used of which systematic random sampling method will be used to administer the questionnaires to members of Kathithi community adjacent to Meru N.Park

This study will employ probability sampling design in obtaining sample from the people. Design of sampling in which each item from the target population will be accorded equal chance of being included in the final sample, hence ascertaining objectivity in sample selection. In selecting various personnel Stratified random sampling will be employed by dividing the target population into six strata on the basis of the six distinctive job categories as, fence attendants, community,research personels,Administration officers, security personnel and casuals. A sample size of 10% will be drawn from each stratum using simple random sampling procedures giving a sample of 60 respondents.

Table 3.2Sample size and procedure

The formula below adopted from Watson(2001) was used to determine the sample size.

Where:

n =Sample size required

N= Target population

P= Estimated variance in population as a decimal

A =precision desired

Z = Confidence level

R=Estimated response rate as a decimal

In this case N=600 total population

P=30 percent variance in polulation

A =95 percent precision

Z = 90 percent confidence level

R = 90 percent estimated response rate

n =183 respondents

Categories of residents Target population Percentage in T.P sample size

120 20 37

Security ranger 100 17 60

200 33 31

80 13 24

100 17 31

TOTAL 600 100 183

3.5 Research Instruments

To ensure that data collected address the study objectives, the data collection instrument must be selected appropriately to avoid collecting irrelevant information, Hanry (2004). In this study, questionnaire will be prepared for purposes of obtaining data from the 60 respondents, because as Malhorta (2005) observed, it offers considerable advantages in administration, it presents an even stimulus potentially to large numbers of people simultaneously and provides the investigation with an easy accumulation of data. Gay (1976) maintains that questionnaires give respondents freedom to express their views and also make decisions. The questionnaire items will comprise of both closed- ended and open- ended questions that have the advantage of collecting both qualitative and quantitative information.

3.5.1 Pilot study

A Pilot study will be conducted two weeks prior to the actual data collection day. Questionnaires will be administered to 60 respondents of the target population who will not be used in the study. The pre-test will identify ambiguous questions for realignment to the study objectives. Wrong phrasing, insufficient response space and unclear instructions will also be identified for correction. The results of the pre-test will tell if the research content is valid.

3.5.2 Validity of the instruments.

Validity is accuracy and meaningfulness of the inferences which are based on research results ((Mugenda and Mugenda 2003).In this study, validity will be measured through the test instruments ability to measure what is supposed to measure. Sample questionnaire will be prepared and presented to two experts at university of Nairobi in the department of Extra Mural Studies for scrutiny and examination.

3.5.3 Reliability of instruments.

Reliability is a measure of degree to which a research instrument yields consistent results or data after trials (Mugenda and Mugenda 2003) I will use the test re-test method to test the reliability of the instruments reliability. This will be achieved through administering the instrument twice to the same pilot group at intervals of two weeks with initial conditions constant. Analysis from the two pilot tests will establish the extent to which the instruments context will be administered. An adjusted spearman brown correlation coefficient will be calculated. A correlation coefficient between 0.5 and 1.0 will mean that the instrument is reliable.

3.6 Data collection procedure.

According to Kothari (2005), data collection procedure comprises of the steps and actions necessary for conducting research effectively and the desired sequencing of these steps. The researcher will embark on the process of collecting data from the field upon preparation of a research proposal which will have to be approved by the supervisor. Consequently, the researcher will apply for a research permit from the Kenya Wildlife Service Meru N.Park which will authorize the data collection process. Presenting the permit to all relevant authorities, the researcher will embark on collecting data, assisted by two well trained and motivated research assistants. Interviews will be conducted by the researcher, as more information through consistent probing.

Both primary and secondary data will be used. The primary data to be used in this study will include use of questionnaires, and interviews. Questions will be both open and close ended.

3. 7 Data Analysis Techniques

Data analysis refers to the examination of data collected in a study and making deductions and references. It also involves uncovering the underlying structures, extracting important variables, detecting anomalies, scrutinizing the acquired information and testing underlying assumptions (Orodho, 2002). Data collected will be cleaned to ensure that only relevant data will be retained for analysis. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics such as, frequencies and percentages aided by Statistical Packages for Social Scientist (SPSS).Qualitative data will be analysed by making inferences from views and opinions of respondents. The information obtained will then be summarized and organized according to research objectives, arranged in themes and presented in narrative form. Data will be presented using frequency distribution tables.

3.8 Ethical Considerations

There are several reasons for adhering to ethical norms in research. Norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, falsifying or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and avoid error. Moreover, since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among many different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standard promote the value that are essential to collaborate work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect and fairness, ( Resnik, 2011).

William, (2006) lists some of the ethical issues as, informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity. Given the importance of the ethical issues in several ways, the researcher recognized other scholars ‘works through quotation and citation. In this study copyright and aspects of patenting will be respected and a plagiarism of any form will be vehemently avoided. In the entire research period, respondents’ identity and confidentiality will be observed such that, any data obtained will not be disclosed to any other person. The researcher will ensure that human subjects are fully protected, no harm, cruelty and coercion will be used in the research process and the results, as promised, will be shared with to those who participated. The respondents will be assured of their safety by ensuring the research assistants have proper identification during the exercise.

3.9 Operationalization of variables

The variables are defined an shown on Table3.3

Table 3.3 Operationalization of variables

objective Types of variables indicators Measurement scale Tools of analysis Types of analysis

To establish the major wildlife species involved in human – wildlife conflict in Kathithi Area of Meru County.

Species involved in HWC

Reported case noted in KWS occurrence book

No. of occurrence of wildlife on farmland

Nominal scale

Frequency distribution tables

Percentage Descriptive

Inferential

To determine the nature and causes of human wildlife conflict in the study area Kathithi Area of Meru County

nature and causes of HWC Nature of encounter/destru ction by wildlife species in farmland

-Type of wildlife spp. responsible for conflict

Nominal scale

Frequency distribution tables

Percentage Descriptive

Inferential

To establish the economic and social costs of human wildlife conflict in Kathithi Area of Meru County

Economic and social costs of HWC

Type of economic activity undertaken

Interval scale

Nominal scale

Frequency distribution tables

Percentage Descriptive

Inferential

To determine the conflict mitigation strategies used by residents in Kathithi Area of Meru County Conflict mitigation measures Nominal scale

Frequency distribution tables

Percentage Descriptive

Inferential

References

Alfa Gambari Imorou, S., Mama, A., Tehou, A. & Sinsin, B. 2004. The human elephant(Loxodonta africana) conflicts in the hunting zone of Djona (Benin)adjacent to the Regional Park of the W: the case study of the villages of Alfakoara. InP. Chardonnet, F. Lamarque & M. Birkan, eds. Proceedings of the 6th International

Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non’clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 245-265.

Conover D.O. & Conover M.R. (2000) Historical forces shaping Americans perception of wildlife and wildlife conflict.

Dalelo, A. (2012). Loss of Biodiversity and Climate Change as Presented in Biology Curricula for Ethiopian Schools: Implications for Action-Oriented Environmental Education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), 619-638.

FAO. 2005. Strategies to mitigate human-wildlife conflict in Mozambique, by J.Anderson & F. Pariela. Report for the National Directorate of Forests and Wildlife, Mozambique.

Gichohi, H. W. (2003, September). Direct payments as a mechanism for conserving important wildlife corridor links between Nairobi National Park and its wider ecosystem: The Wildlife Conservation Lease Program. In Vth World Parks Congress.

Kansky, R., and D. Gaynor. 2000. Baboon management strategy for the Cape Peninsula. Final report. Table Mountain Fund Project number ZA 568, Cape Town, South Africa.

GAY,L.R.(1996)Education Resaerch:competenciesfor Analysis and Application.BeverlyHill,CAsage publications.

Goodland R. & McNeely J & Pitt C. (1985) Culture and conservation with human dimension-, developing a partnership of indigenous people.

Goodwin, H., Kent, I.J., Parker, K.T., & Walpole, M.J. 1998. Tourism, Conservation andSustainable Development; Case Studies from Asia and Africa.Wildlife and DevelopmentSeries, No. 12.IIED, London.

Houghton, J. (2009). Global Warming, Climate Change and Sustainability. The John Ray Initiative Briefing Paper, 14, 7.

Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological conservation, 142(1), 14-32.

Hoare, R.E. 1999. Data collection and analysis protocol for human-elephant conflictsituations in Africa. Document prepared for the IUCN African Elephant SpecialistGroup’s Human-Elephant Conflict Working Group. Arusha, United Republic ofTanzania

Hugh-Jones, M.E. & de Vos, V. 2002. Anthrax and wildlife. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), 21(2): 359’383.

Hulme D. and M. Murphree (eds.) (2001). ‘African wildlife and livelihoods: The promise and performanceof community conservation.’ Oxford: James Currey Ltd

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2005. Benefitsbeyond boundaries: Proceedings of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. Durban,South Africa, 1’17 September 2003. Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK.

Kaeslin, E., Redmond, I., & Dudley, N. (2012). Wildlife in a changing climate (No. 167). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Kangwana, K. 1993. Elephants and Maasai: conflict and conservation in Amboseli, Kenya. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, UK, University of Cambridge.

Kothari, S. P., Leone, A. J., & Wasley, C. E. (2005). Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. Journal of accounting and economics, 39(1), 163-197.

Kothari,C.R.(2007)Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques(2nd revised Edition,Reprint:2007)New Age International Publishers.

KWS (Kenya Wildlife Service Report) 1990. A Policy Framework and Development Programme 1991-1996. Nairobi, Kenya Wildlife Service.

KWS (1995), Kenya Wildlife Service: Report of the Five Person Review Committee on Wildlife-HumanConflict. Nairobi Kenya.

KWS (Kenya Wildlife Service Report) 1997 – A five man Review of Human Wildlife Conflicts in Kenya. A report to KWS.

KWS (Kenya Wildlife Service Report) 2006. KWS Strategic Management Plan (2005- 2010), Nairobi

Lelo, F.K (1994). Humanisation of Wildlife management-. A case study of Oldonyo Sabuk National Park, Kenya. Phd Thesis, Clarks University Atlanta.

Masasabi W. Evans (2003). The human wildlife conflict: A case of the Nairobi National Park.

Meyer, William B., and Billie L. Turner. "Human population growth and global land-use/cover change." Annual review of ecology and systematic 23.1 (1992): 39-61.

Mugenda,O.M.,& Mugenda,A.G.2003.Resaerch methods Quantative and Qualitative approach. Nairobi ACTS Press.

Musyoki C, M. (2007). Human Wildlife Conflicts in Kenya: Crop raiding by Elephants & other Wildlife in Mahiga ‘B’ Village of Nyeri District. Phd Thesis, Kyoto University, Japan.

Mwangi, E.M. 1995. Land use planning and coordination study: Protected area system coverage. Final report to the Kenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.

Ngene, S. M., & Omondi, P. O. (2009). The costs of living with elephants in the areas adjacent to Marsabit National Park and Reserve. Pachyderm, (45), 77-87.

Nkonge G. N. (2008) An analysis of Human Wildlife Conflict in Matheru Location, Meru South District.

O’Connell-Rodwell, C.E., Rodwell, T., Rice, M. & Hart, L.A. 2000. Living withthe modern conservation paradigm: can agricultural communities co-exist withelephants? A five year case study in East Caprivi, Namibia. Biological Conservation,93(3): 381’391.

Ogodo, 0. (2003). Resolving the conflict calls for a tight balancing Act-Legislator. East African Standard Newspaper, Monday 7 July. The Standard Limited.

Okech, R. (2011) Wildlife-community conflicts in conservation areas in Kenya. Sir Wilfred Grenfell College Memorial University. Newfoundland, Canada. <Retrieved from>kmsl. isn. ethz. ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/123268/…/Chapt. 4. pdf

Okello M., S. Seno, B. Wishitemi (2003). Maasai community wildlife sanctuaries in Tsavo-Amboseli,Kenya. Parks 13 (1): 62-75.

Okello, M.M. and J.W. Kiringe 2004. Threats to biodiversity and their implications in protected and adjacent dispersal areas of Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12 (1), pp. 54’69.

Omondi, P. (1994). Wildlife-human conflicts in Kenya. Integrating wildlife conservation with human needs in the Maasai Mara region. Phd Thesis, Mcgrill University, Canada.

Orodho,A.,&Kombo,D.K(2002).Research Methods.NairobiKenyatta University, Institute of Open Learning.Printers&stationers Limited.

Osemeobo, G.J. 1993. Impact of land use on biodiversity preservation in Nigerian natural ecosystems: A review. Natural Resources Journal, 33, pp. 1015’1025.

Otieno, A. 2003. Why locals are turning against animals. East African Standard Newspaper, Monday 7 July. The Standard Limited.

Parker, G.E., Osborn, F.V., Hoare R.E. & Niskanen, L.S., eds. 2007. Humanelephantconflict mitigation: a training course for community-based approaches inAfrica. Participant’s manual. Livingstone, Zambia, Elephant Pepper Development.

Patterson, B.D., Kasiki, S.M., Selempo, E. & Kays, R.W. 2004. Livestock predationby lions (Panthera leo) and other carnivores on ranches neighboring Tsavo NationalPark, Kenya. Biological Conservation, 119(4): 507’516.

Meyer, W. B., & Turner, B. L. (1992). Human population growth and global land-use/cover change. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 23(1), 39-61.

Naughton-Treves, L. (1996). Uneasy neighbors: wildlife and farmers around Kibale National Park, Uganda (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida).

Roe, D., Leader-Williams, N. & Dalal-Clayton, B. 1997.Take only Photographs, LeaveonlyFootprints: the Environmental Impacts of Wildlife Tourism.Wildlife & DevelopmentSeries, No.10, IIED, London.

Resnik, D. B. (2011, May). What is ethics in research & why is it important. In The national.

Sekhar N. U (1998) Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas: the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India – Environmental Conservation.

Siex, K.S. & Struhsaker, T.T. 1999. Colobus monkeys and coconuts: a study ofperceived human’wildlife conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36(6): 1009’1020.

Sindiga, I. 1995. Wildlife-based tourism in Kenya: Land use conflicts and government compensation policies over protected areas. Journal of Tourism Studies, 6 (2), pp. 45’55.

Sindiyo, J. 1992. Management proposal for the Mara Dispersal Areas. In: Gakahu, C.G. ed. Tourist attitudes and use in Maasai Mara National Reserve. Wildlife Conservation International.

Thuiller, W., Broennimann, O., Hughes, G., Alkemade, J. R. M., MIDGLEY, G. F., & Corsi, F. (2006). Vulnerability of African mammals to anthropogenic climate change under conservative land transformation assumptions. Global Change Biology, 12(3), 424-440.

Treves, A. & Naughton-Treves, L. 1999.Risk and Opportunity for Humans Coexistingwith Large Carnivores.Journal of Human Evolution, 36: 275’282.

Treves, A. & Karanth, K.U. 2003. Human carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology, 17(6): 1491’1499.

Trust and Nairobi, Kenya, IUCN Species Survival Commission, African Elephant Specialist Group, Human-Elephant Conflict Task Force.

Wanjau, M. (1999). Suistainable extractive use of Wild plant resources to resolve natural management conflicts & promote conservation: A collaborative management approach – Case study of Chyullu Hills National Park, Kenya. African Centre for Technological Studies. Nairobi, Kenya.

Wanjau, M.W. 2000. Resolving conflicts between people and crocodiles: a case study ofAthi River, Kibwezi, Tsavo ecosystem. Report to Kenya Wildlife Services.

Wanjau, M.W. 2002. People/crocodile conflicts in Kenya: policy changes required toeffectively manage the conflicts. Report to Kenya Wildlife Services.

Weladji, R.B. & Tchamba, M.N. 2003. Conflict between people and protected areaswithin the B”nou” Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Oryx, 37(1):72’79

Western, D. A. V. I. D., Pearl, M. C., Pimm, S. L., Walker, B. R. I. A. N., Atkinson, I., & Woodruff, D. S. (1989). An agenda for conservation action. Conservation for the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press, New York, 304-323.Wildlife Ranching Symposium, Paris, France, 6’9 July 2004. Game and Wildlife Science, 21(4): 553’569.

Western D. (1995). ‘Opening address on the national debate on the wildlife-human conflict in Kenya.’ August3, 1995. Nairobi.

Williams, A.C., Johnsingh, A.J.T. & Krausman, P.R. 2001. Elephant-human conflicts in Rajaji NationalPark, north-western India. Wildlife SocietyBulletin, 29: 1097-1104

WWF. 1997. Conserving Africa's elephants: Current issues and priorities for action. In H.T. Dublin,T.O. McShane and J. Newby). World Wide Fund for Nature International Report, Gland, Switzerland.

WWF SARPO. 2005. Human wildlife conflict manual. Harare, Zimbabwe, WWFSouthern African Regional Programme Office (SARPO)

APPENDIX 1: INTRODUCTION LETTER

Ann Wangui Ndege

University of Nairobi

Meru Extra Mural Centre

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: DATA COLLECTION.

I am a student at the University of Nairobi and currently pursuing a course of study for the degree in Masters of project Planning and Management. Pursuant to the pre-requisite course work, I am currently conducting a research study to causes and trends of human wildlife conflict in kathithi division, part of Meru County, Kenya

The study is meant purposely for academic and not any other reason. Your opinion and views are important for the successful completion of this study. I kindly request that you complete the questionnaire enclosed herein following instructions given after each item and return completed copies. Your cooperation will be highly appreciated and any information provided shall be treated with privacy and confidentiality.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours Sincerely,

Ann Wangui Ndege

L50/84538/201

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COMMUNITIES

This questioner is to collect data for purely academic purposes. You are kindly requested to answer the questions as sincere as possible. The information you will give will only be used for research purposes and your identity will be treated with confidentiality.

PART A: DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

Tick the appropriate answer to your level best

1. Gender Male [ ] Female [ ]

2. Age: 15-35 [] 36-50 [ ] 51 -65 [ ] above65 [ ]

3. Level of education:

Primary [ ] Secondary [ ] College [ ] University [

4. Marital status

Married [ ]

Separated [ ]

Single [ ]

Divorced [ ]

5.Occupation:

Self employed [ ]

Formal [ ]

Casual [ ]

Unemployed [ ]

PART B: WILDLIFE SPECIES INVOLVED IN HWC

1.Do you encounter any conflicts with wildlife?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

If yes, which one?

2.Human life loss [ ] Livestock killing by wildlife [ ]

Crop damage [ ] Human injuries [ ]

Human threat [ ] Destruction of property [ ]

3.Do you get compensation for these losses? Yes [ ] No [ ]

4.Which wildlife species frequently attack your farm?

i)………………………………… ii)……………………………….

iii)………………………………… iv)……………………………..

5.Do you grow crops Yes [ ] No [ ]

If yes which crop type………………………………………………………………………………….

6.Do you keep livestock Yes [ ] No [ ]

If yes which livestock………………………………………………………………………………….

7. What is the frequency of the different types of wildlife conflict?

Annually [ ] Seasonally [ ] Weekly [ ] Daily [ ]

What is the trend of Human Wildlife Conflict in general over the years? Decreasing [ ] Not changing [ ] Increasing [ ]

PART C: NATURE AND CAUSES OF HWC

1.What is the approximate Distance from the National park to your home?

Buffer zone [ ] Close (1 Km – 2km) [ ] Far (3km -5km) [ ]

2.What is major use of your land?

Farming [ ] Playground [ ] keeping livestock [ ]

Others indicate…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

3.To what level do you agree with the following? Use a scale of 1-5 where; 5 Very great extents, 4 Great extents, 3 Moderate extent, 2 Little extents, 1 No extent

Co-existence between humans and animals was never strained as natural resources is concerned for many years 5 4 3 2 1

The locals have suffered losses in crops and livestock due to attacks by wild animals in recent past

Poverty and overpopulation demand are some of the factors driving human wildlife conflicts as wildlife habitats are disappearing at an alarming rate

The need to improve livelihoods adjacent the protected area continues to increase problems in conservation areas.

PART D: LAND USE PATTERN

1. Which economic activities are undertaken in this area?

Pastoralism [ ]

Tourism [ ]

Farming [ ]

Charcoal burning [ ]

2. What is the major water source from this area?

River water emitting from the Park [ ]

Boreholes [ ]

Others…………………………………………………

3.To which extent do you agree with the following statements, using a scale of 1-5 below, in which;

5 – To a very large extent 4 – To a large extent 3- To some extent

2-To a small extent 1-To no extent

Where there is wildlife crop damages and property damage there is no compensation

1 2 3 4 5

There is compensation for wildlife induced damages to human life or injury

Local communities can frustrate conservation programs and projects

Wild animals destroy more crops than they harm livestock.

Traditional resources in the Park have led to resentment amongst the communities and the protected resources and their managers.

The state agencies care more for wildlife than the people.

Parks portray an approach in park designs that reserved significantly large tracts of land for animal migration

PART E: CURRENT MITTIGATION MEASURES

1. How do you respond to wildlife invasion to your land?

Chasing away Yes No

Trapping animal

Kill

Call KWS Officers

Avoid them

2.Have you observed any environmental change over the years? Yes [ ] No [ ]

3.To what extent do think Kenya Wildlife Service (MNP) has helped maintain the Park habitat or has increased its degradation?

To a very great extent

[ ]

To a great extent [ ]

To a moderate extent [ ]

To a low extent [ ]

To no extent at all [ ]

4.To what extent do you agree that the strategies adopted by KWS to deal with Human Wildlife Conflict at Meru National Park are effective? Use a scale of 1-5 where; 5 Very great extent, 4 Great extent, 3 Moderate extent, 2 Little extent, 1 No extent

Fencing

Capture and translocation of problem animal

Controlled shooting problematic animals

Chasing/scaring wildlife away from farmlands

Compensation

5. What would you suggest should be done to minimize conflict? ”

APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRES FOR AUTHORITIES/INSTITUTIONS

PART A: DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

1.Name of the officer………………………………………………………………………………….

2.Department……………………………………………………………………………………………

3.Gender Male [ ] Female [ ]

4.Age: 24-35 [] 36-50 [ ] 51 -65 [ ] above 65 [ ]

5.Level of education:

Primary [ ]

Secondary[ ]

6.Marital status

Married [ ]

Separated [ ]

PART B: WILDLIFE SPECIES INVOLVED IN HWC

1.What are the main animals involved in human wildlife conflict?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

2.Which are the major areas experiencing conflict?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

3.What does the community do to guard against attacks from animals?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

4.What types of damages are mostly reported?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

5.What action do you take when conflict is reported are they effective as far as human wildlife conflict management and resolution is concerned”..

PART C: NATURE AND CAUSES OF HWC

1.Humans have suffered losses in crops and livestock over the past few years. What could have been some of the reasons that facilitated this?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2.What is the major use of the land around the parks? ”

3.How has the increment in human populations and poverty affected the environment around conservation areas?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

PART D: LAND USE PATTERN

1.Do you encourage economic activities to be undertaken in this area by people living around?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

If yes, name some of the economic activities that you encourage and why”..

If no, name some of the economic activities that you do not encourage and why”…….

2.How do you deal with the local communities that frustrate conservation programs and projects?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3.What are the main causes of human wildlife conflict in the area?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

PART E: CURRENT MITTIGATION MEASURES

1What are some of the challenges faced when undertaking your conservation measures?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2What issues are addressed towards the communities for sustainable wildlife conservation in this area? ‘…

3.Are the farmers compensated in the occurrence of damage resulting from Human Wildlife Conflict?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

4.What is the trend of Human Wildlife Conflict in general over the years?

Decreasing [ ] Not changing [ ] Increasing [ ]

5.What is the future well being of wildlife in this area towards sustainability and conservation of biodiversity?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

6.Which mitigation measures do you proposes for more effectively dealing with HWC……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Thank you for your cooperation.

END

APPENDIX IV: TIME SCHEDULE

TASK DEC JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY

Coming up with research topic and variables

Literature Review

1st Proposal Defence

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Final Proposal Defence

Research project Report submission

Graduation

APPENDIX V: BUDGET

Particulars Units Cost in Kshs Total cost in Kshs

Proposal writing stationary

a)Foolscaps 1 Ream 300 300

b)Pens 1/2dozen 120 120

c)Photocopy papers 3 Reams 500 1500

d)Spring files 2 Pieces 50 100

e)Binding 3 100 300

Transport 5 Days 1500 7,500

Subsistence 5Days 500 2,500

Subtotal 12,320

Pilot Testing

a)Questionnaire typesetting 10pgs 30 300

b)photocopying 90pgs 3 270

c)Transport 2 days 600 1,200

d)Subsistence 2 days 500 1,000

Subtotal 12,770

Data collection

a)Questionnaire typesetting 10pgs 30 300

b)photocopying 600pgs 3 1,800

c)Data Analysis 15,000

d)Transport 10days 800 8,000

Subtotal 25,100

Report writing

a)Typesetting 100 30 3,000

b)photocopying 700 3 2,100

c)Transport 5 days 600 3,000

d)Binding 7 300 2,100

e)Subsistence 5day 500 2,500

Subtotal 12,700

Research Assistants 2 for 7 days 2,000 14,000

Grand Total 66,890

Essay: Essay 2017 03 27 000Cbd

Essay details and download:

Text preview of this essay:

Abstract

Chapter one

Introduction

Chapter two

Literature review

Chapter three

References

About this essay:

Essay details and download:

Text preview of this essay:

Abstract

Chapter one

Introduction

Chapter two

Literature review

Chapter three

References

About this essay:

Essay Categories: