Formatted: Font: +body (Calibri)

LOCAL COMMUNITIES PERCEPTIONS OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AROUND QUEEN Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
ELIZABETH NATIONAL PARK
BY
NUWAMANYA RONAH
STUDENTS NO: 214024629
REG NO: 14/U/24915
SUPERVISORS NAME
MR. OCHIENG AMOS
A RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, BIODIVERSITY AND

TOURISM, SCHOOL OF FORESTRY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL SCIENCES, IN Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF BACHELORS Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
OF TOURISM
MAKERERE UNIVERSTY Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
23rd November 2017 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
1
DECLARATION
I, NUWAMANYA RONAH, hereby declare that the information in this research dissertation is my
original work not copied from any other written document and has never been submitted in by
any other student in any institution.
Signature.. Date..
NUWAMANYA RONAH
i
APPROVAL
This research dissertation has been conducted under my supervision as the university academic
supervisor and is now ready for examination.
Signature. Date..
MR AMOS OCHIENG
(Supervisor)
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this research dissertation to my dear family members and friends for their great love,
financial support, care and good pieces of advice they gave to me during my academic life. May
the Almighty God richly bless them.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGE
Glory and honor goes to the Almighty God who never forsaken me in everything, protected and
encouraged me in hard times during my course. My sincere appreciation also goes to my
supervisor, Mr. Ochieng Amos for his tireless effort towards the completion of my research and
may the Lord bless him. I also thank parents, brothers and sisters for their great contribution
towards my achieving my career. I extend my great appreciation to the family of
Mr.Tumutegyerize Apollo for their love, prayers and financial support they offered to me during
my life at the university and may he Lord forever bless them.
My appreciation also goes to the local people of Katunguru fishing village and QENP officials
who made my data collection period a success.
Great thanks also go to my friends and course mates who helped me a lot through discussions
and also the tourism lecturers Makerere University for their tireless efforts towards the
completion of my course.
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
QENP Queen Elizabeth National Park
NWF National Wildlife Federation
UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority
v
LIST OF TABLES
vi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
According to National Wildlife Federation, (NWF, 2016)Wildlife conservation is the practice of

protecting wildlife plant and animal species and their habitats. The goal of wildlife conservation
is to ensure that nature will be around for future generations to enjoy and also recognize the
importance of wildlife and wilderness. In addition, wildlife conservation is an activity in which
people make conscious efforts to protect earths biological diversity. However, for decades,
wildlife conservation has presented one of the biggest challenges for conservationists (Ochieng
et al., 2017). This is largely because people living around national parks and game reserves tend
to encroach on protected areas for farming, poaching and settlement (Allendorf and Songer,
2013). In response, conservation managers apprehend and persecute the offenders and in
some cases forcefully driving the local communities away from protected areas. This in a long
run affects how the communities perceive wildlife conservation programs.
According to Holmes,(2012) Peoples perception towards wild life conservation can be either
negative or positive depending on the protected area management style. Several protected
area management styles have been discussed in literature. For example; top down
management, this is where protected area managers and the central government take their
own decisions without involving the local communities therefore authority lies in the top
management (McClanahan et al., 2006). Top down management can be effective in achieving
broader biodiversity conservation objectives through establishment of open marine protected
areas (Toonen et al., 2013). In many countries, consultation is required by law with ultimate
decision making in the hands of the government (Day, 2002). Here community engagement is
done through informing the public through notices and providing opportunities for comments
to make the local people actively engaging in planning and implementation of protected
areas(Sayce et al., 2013). On several occasions, local people have been expelled from their
settlements without adequate provision for alternative means of work and income in favor of
sustaining wildlife. This management style influences negative perceptions of local people there
by starting to illegal hunting, encroachment deforestation.
1
Collaborative management, this is the management of resources by sharing the benefits,
responsibilities, control and decision making authority between local people and protected area
management. This management approach merges both bottom-up and top down management.
It describes in reality how most management processes by governments share responsibility
and work together in dynamic partnerships based on participation of all individuals and groups
that are involved in the protected area management framework (Christie, and White 1997).
This management style recognizes the capacity of local resource users to be active partners in
power sharing arrangements. This management style improves on the local community
perceptions since they play a big role in the day today management as the government takes
responsibility for over all policy and coordination.
Bottom up, this is a community and user led management where the local people are fully
involved in the protected area management through enforcing and complying rules and
regulations (Cinner et al.,2012). The bottom up approach assumes that local people given a
responsibility can manage the resources in a sustainable manner hence boosting wildlife
conservation (Christie, P., A. T. White 1997). Local peoples participation has often centered on
encouraging local people to sell their labor in return for food, materials and cash. This style of
management boosts positive perceptions of wildlife conservation amongst local communities
due to the benefits accrued from the protected areas.
According to Moore (2010),the creation of many national parks forced the relocation of local
communities from their original areas of residency, depriving them access to resources in such
areas for example bush meat, grazing areas and firewood. This deprivation seems to have
disconnected local communities from the adjacent restricted areas. Such protectionists and
coercive conservation policies later known as fortress conservation has dominated much of
African conservation. National parks that exclude local peoples participation have often caused
negative relationships between them and the local communities. Perception refers to the way
how, people think of different phenomenon around their environment or settlement.
According to SchacterDaniel (2011), perception is the organisation, identification and
interpretation of sensory information in order to present and understand the environment. All
perception involves signals in the nervous system which in turn result from physical and
2
chemical stimulation of the sense organs Perceptions are affected by different social-
demographic factors such as house hold income levels education level, size of livestock, length
of residency, gender and household size (Arjunan, m., Holmes, c., Puyravaud, 2006).
According to Nepal, A.J.(2002), local peoples perceptions can also be affected by unequal
sharing of benefits and denial of local people to engage in protected area activities which in
most cases leads to negative relationships between the protected area management and the
local community. This later alone leads to poaching ,encroachment ,deforestation, illegal
grazing in the park, poverty which come up due to gazzeting of the protected areas that deny
local people access to resources from the protected areas that local people used to collect from
here (Dickman, A.J.2005). Following the gazzetment of protected areas in Uganda, so many
things havehappened that influence local peoples perceptions and these include displacement
of the local people from their original lands, denying local people access to protected areas,
establishment of community based projects where some local people are employed, revenue
sharing and many other things and these influence local peoples perceptions either positively
or negatively. This study therefore sought to study the local peoples perceptions of wildlife
conservation around Queen Elizabeth National park guided by the following objectives: To
assess the benefits of wildlife conservation to the people around Queen Elizabeth National
park; To analyze the perceptions of local people towards wildlife conservation around Queen
Elizabeth National park.
1.2 Problem Statement

The experiences of local community interaction with wildlife greatly influence their attitudes
and perceptions of wildlife conservation practices, eventually influencing sustainable and
effective utilization (Karanth and Nepal, 2012). These learned experiences resultantly guide
protected area managers on where to improve and what local people desire in return for their
participation or support of conservation. It should be noted that local people living adjacent to
protected areas have long history and attachment to proposed conservation which also shape
their attitudes and perceptions, depending on the costs and benefits associated with the
protected area.
3
According to Mauna et al. (2012), access to conservation related benefits positively influence
local peoples perceptions. Conservation benefits can be in form of benefit sharing,
employment opportunities to the local people, local access to herbal medicine, firewood
fetching, involving local people in local community based projects such as community schools,
hospitals, safe water, good roads among others (Kideghesho et al., 2007). In addition to that,
other factors such as lack of local peoples participation in decision making, planning and other
wildlife conservation activities may influence their perception negatively (Karki, 2003).As
observed by Chowdhury et al.(2014), the survival of protected areas would be threatened if the
perceptions and needs of local people are not addressed. It is therefore critical to examine the
perceptions of local people towards wildlife conservation in order to achieve effective
sustainable management of protected areas. However in Uganda, how the local communities
perceive wildlife conservation around Queen Elizabeth National park remains less studied. This
proposed study sought to address this gap by examining the local communities perceptions of
wildlife conservation around Queen Elizabeth National park. It was guided by the following
objectives; to examine the benefits of wildlife conservation to the people around Queen
Elizabeth National park and to analyze the perceptions of the local communities towards
wildlife conservation around Queen Elizabeth national park.
1.3 Objectives of the study

General objective
To examine the local peoples perceptions of wildlife conservation around Queen Elizabeth
National Park.
Specific objectives
1 To examine the benefits of wildlife and its conservation to the people around Queen
Elizabeth National Park.
2 To analyze the perceptions of the local communities towards wildlife conservation
around Queen Elizabeth National Park.
4
1.4 Research Questions
The research will be guided by the following question aiming at meeting the above objectives.
1. What are the benefits of wildlife conservation to the local people around Queen
Elizabeth National park?
2. What are the perceptions of local people towards wildlife conservation around Queen
Elizabeth National Park?
1.5 Significance/ Justification of the study

People will get to know the importance of conserving wildlife.
The protected area managers will be helped on how to sensitize the local people on based on
their views about wildlife conservation and their desires and recommendations.
The findings of the study will help park officials on how to improve the live hoods of the local
people through engaging them in wildlife conservation activities where they can earn a living
especially those with negative perceptions.
Findings of the study will also help in completing the dissertation which will help other scholars,
students and other people with interest in the same field.
1.6 Scope of study
1.6.1 Content scope

The study focused on the local peoples perceptions of wildlife conservation in Katunguru
fishing village, the benefits local people get from conservation, how different people in
Katunguru participate in conservation of wildlife, and their perception towards wildlife
conservation around Queen Elizabeth National Park.
1.6.2 Geographical scope

The study was conducted in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Kasese district in Western Uganda
in a selected fishing village of Katunguru around Lake George. Katunguru fishing village
comprises of people of different tribes that is Banyankole, Bakiga, Bakonjo, Bamba, and
Baganda whose major economic activity is fishing.
5
1.6.3 Time scope
The study was carried out within a period of six months from May to November.
Table 1.1 summary of activities that were done in the period between May and November.
Period Activity
May to August Writing a proposal Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
September Going to the field Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
September Analyzing data Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
October to November Writing a research report Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter will review the details of the existing literature concerning generally, the peoples
perceptions of wildlife conservation around queen Elizabeth National Park. The presentation of
the already existing literature will be done according to the objectives of the study
2.1 Perceptions and attitudes of local people towards wildlife conservation

According to Karanth and Nepal (2012), the impacts local people experience from wildlife
conservation has influenced peoples attitudes and perceptions which have in return strongly
influenced sustainable and effective activities.
An understanding of factors which influence peoples attitude and perceptions is the key
feature in planning, decisions making and management of the biodiversity conservation goal
(Kideghesho et al. 2007). Understanding the perception and attitudes of local people also gives
the protected area a sense of direction on where to improve and what local people desire
(Allendorf et al, 2012).
According to Mauna et al. (2012), access to conservation-related benefits can positively

influence local attitudes for example through employing local people as tour guides, security
guards, and equal sharing of benefits as well. In addition (Karki, 2003), revealed that, other
7
factors such as government policy, lack of participation in decision making, protected areas
staff or management intervention and poor involvement of local people in planning
conservation activities influence negative perception. Local people especially those living in and
adjacent to protected areas have had a long relation with these areas, and their attitudes
generally depend on costs and benefits got from PAs and the local dependency on natural
resources [Kideghesho et al 2007] . According to Chowdhury et al (2014) the effective
sustainability survival of protected areas especially in developing countries would be
threatened if the needs and aspiration of local people are not considered.
2.2 Attitudes and perceptions of local people towards tourism development Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Bold
Peoples reactions towards tourism development can either be positive or negative depending
on how the host community perceives the tourism impact on their ability to benefit from those
tourism resources. An experience by local people of wildlife conflict causes a very big bad
feeling especially where it involves loss of lives and property and this generates negative
attitudes towards wildlife conservation and tourism (Omondi, 1994). Local people may also
react positively if at all they perceive tourism as beneficial and also a major factor that improves
their welfare and standard of living (Allen et al., 1993).
According to Lank Ford and Hayward (1994), perceptions of outdoor recreational opportunities
and participation are the most significant factors affecting the attitude towards tourism
development by local people. Tourism is an industry business and an environment or
community for operation which involves tourists (William and Lawson, 2001). The relationship
between the elements of tourism are studied widely especially the host community's feedback
on the impacts of tourism since it has been recognized that attitudes and perception of local
people towards tourism development are essential in providing matching input in dealing with
strategic management decisions, marketing and operation of existing future programs and
projects (Belisle and Hoy, 1980).
According to William and Lawson (2001), the views of local people living adjacent to the
National parks must be considered if tourism is to be sustainable for a long time and also their
perceptions of wildlife conservation and tourism should be put into consideration.
8
2.3 Local peoples participation in wildlife conservation Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Bold
Drake [1991] defines local participation as the ability of local people to influence the outcome
of development projects.
Involvement of local communities in conservation tasks is one of the main features of people
oriented conservation programs (Adama and Hulme 1998).however involving local people in
biodiversity conservation is also a central area of debate (Pimbert and Petty 1997). On the
other hand, some scholars insist that the meaningful participation of local communities in
conservation project can contribute to their success through the combination of valuable TEK
with scientific knowledge. This increases their flexibility in the face of uncertainty and changes
to the resources system (Schmic 1999).
On the other hand, other scientists claim that unconvincing local participation is one of the
failures of ICDPs (Well and Mc Shane 2004).Given that local participation has been identified as
a central component in shaping the success of conservation projects worldwide, its essential to
understand the meaning of participation (Ericson 2006). There are seven identified types of
public participation namely passive participation, participation in information giving.
Participation by consultation, participation for material incentives functional participation,
interaction participation and self-mobilization (Pimbert and Petty 1997).
Participation typologies range from Passive Participation in which local people are informed
about a project and outsiders remain authorized, consults based participation in which local
people have no voice decision making process but their opinions can be used to help the
authorities define and solve problems and the highest level of local participation is interactive
or self-motivated participation in which local people are fully involved in defining the problem
and solution as well as decision making and management. (Pimbert and Petty 1997, Ericson
2006)
Schmic, (1999) claims that the involvesment of local people in some cases is only used as a
means of gathering information and resources with the aim of facilitating the agenda of
outsiders. In addition, many forms of participation that are implemented are passive and
9
sometimes obligatory which has led to much critic in literature about the application of
participation in conservation Process (Brown 2003b, 2003)
Given the current state of literature on conservation (Brown 2002) asserts that not just
consultation, but real participation is required to ensure the success of people oriented
conservation.
2.4. Benefits of wild life conservation to local communities Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Bold
Its no secret that weve lost an overwhelming number of species within that last four decades.
These species have all but disappeared due to overpopulation, deforestation, consumer
culture, climate change, animal exploitation, and other harming sources all inflicted by
mankind. Its been said that at least 10,000 species are lost a year, halving the worlds wildlife
population in just the past 40 years. One of the first great rules of terrestrial biology according
to Jeffrey Kluger is no species is forever. However, this rapid loss of species we are
witnessing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than
the natural extinction rate. As increasingly accepted theories have argued and as the Science
papers show we are now in the midst of the sixth great extinction, the unsettlingly-named
Anthropogenic, or the age of the humans.
When the public and politicians began insisting on environmental protection in the 1960s,
conservation laws began passing in the 1980s, starting with the Alaska National Interest Lands
Act, which set aside 101 million acres of Alaska to be preserved as a monument, national park
or wildlife refuge to maintain one of the United States last wild areas. With more and more
public involvement, restoring and preserving endangered wildlife species finally became
possible. As WWF perfectly puts it, conserving wildlife is a source of inspiration.
The Earths natural assets are made up of plants, animals, water, land, the atmosphere, and of
course, humans. WWF goes on to assert that, Biodiversity underpins the health of the planet
and has a direct impact on all our lives. Put simply, reduced biodiversity means millions of
people face a future where food supplies are more vulnerable to pests and disease, and where
fresh water is in irregular or short supply. If biodiversity directly impacts our lives in such big
10
ways, then its safe to say that conservation efforts dont just benefit the environment, they
benefit us, too.
Food Security
One compelling benefit that comes from wildlife conservation efforts is that it ensures food
security. Protecting forests from deforestation and rebuilding forest habitats to preserve
biodiversity aids in the carbon-sequestering process, provides new economic opportunities, and
guards against erosion.
In addition, wildlife conservation promotes agricultural biodiversity, which plays an important

role in building a secure, robust, and thriving food system. When agricultural biodiversity is
exploited and land is cleared for agriculture, resources and extensive habitat loss take place, as
well as undocumented loss of species and massive soil erosion. Research shows this process has
negative impacts on nutrition, health and dietary diversity of some groups of society.
Public Health
Another compelling benefit that comes from wildlife conservation is that these
initiatives protect human health. Conservation International reports that more than 50
percent of modern medicines and more than 90 percent of traditional medicines come from
wild plants and animals. These traditional medicines thereby represent an essential
pharmacopeia and body of medical knowledge that cannot be replaced easily by synthetic
alternatives.
Moreover, a world that promotes healthy ecosystems and biodiversity provides crucial buffers
between disease and humans. A number of studies have linked reduced diversity among
mammal species and overall decreases in biodiversity to an increase in the transmission of
animal-borne diseases to humans.
In addition to this, healthy ecosystems and biodiversity regulate climate change and mitigate
water and air pollution.
Creating Opportunity
11
Perhaps the most compelling benefit that comes from wildlife conservation is that it provides
the local people with opportunity, whether it be economically, social, or culturally for example
security guards, park rangers, tour guides.
Unsustainable resource extraction industries such as the clear-cut logging industry, the bush
meat industry, the poaching industry, and the charcoal trade extend the gap between the
poor and the rich and have been linked to civil war and political strife.
In addition, increasing biodiversity and healthy ecosystems through conservation improves

agricultural productivity, thereby allowing farms to become more profitable. Healthy
ecosystems that are home to unique species lure in tourists from around the world, which helps
the local economy and invites in a new fusion of investment. Wildlife conservation projects
bring the community together as well, as they call for a team effort. From rangers to
administrators, conservation initiatives invite the opportunity for a new preservation-based
economy.
The unsustainable, unconscious, self-interested relationship with the environment has lead
local people into an exceedingly destructible world. If local people do not take action and go
about changing their ways, they are at risk of losing more vital and irreplaceable ecosystems
and biodiversity, or at least until the sixth great extinction claims one final species.
Benefits: Case of the Mt. Elgon Conservation and Development has been assisting the National
Park authorities with forest and community issues since 1987 working in conjunction with Mt.
Elgon National Park. (MECDP 1995, Mwayafu 2007) Through collaborative management of
resources, the people are no longer viewed as a problem but rather a solution (Barlett 1992,
Gilmour 1994). The underlying principle behind this is that the benefits, responsibilities and
decision making powers are shared to varying degrees and through a range of approaches
among some of or all of the stakeholders in the resources. Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)
which is mandated to oversee all protected areas in Uganda is obliged to share 20% of its park
entry fees with the local governments adjacent to the forest reserves. This obligation is based
on the acknowledgement that communities on the frontline of protected areas endure a
disproportionate burden of the costs associated with the conservation of protected areas.
12
Through revenue sharing provides an enabling environment for establishing good relations
between protected areas and adjacent communities, demonstrate the economic value of
protected areas and conservation in general to adjacent communities, solicit support and
acceptance of protected areas and conservation from adjacent communities and developing a
framework of collaborative management for the protected areas. Employment the protected
areas provide a number of benefits to the surrounding communities by enhancing employment
opportunities to the people. The community may be directly or indirectly employed in catering
for visitors as guards, guides, and ticket collectors to areas having eco-tourism Programmes; the
standard of living of the communities is improved as a result of community involvement in the
management of the protected areas. This has enabled the local people become collaborating
partners in the management of the park hence reducing conflicts with the park authorities
CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY
13
3.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a description of research methodology that was employed by the
researcher in collection of data. It also looks at the research design, study population,
determination of the sample size, sampling techniques and procedures, data collection
methods, data collection instruments and data analysis.
3.2 Study area

The research was carried out in Katunguru fishing village around Queen Elizabeth national park
in Kasese district western Uganda. Katunguru village has a population of approximately 800
people whose major economic activity is fishing due to the fact that it is located near Lake
George. The village consists of people of different tribes who include bakonjo, batoro,
banyaruguru, banyankole, bakiga and a few baganda who speak different languages with
different cultures but live in harmony together. Kantunguru is located along Mbarara- Kasese
highway a few kilometers from Kyambura Gorge.According to Uganda Wild life Authority, 29 TH
October 2016 report), Queen Elizabeth National Park is among the oldest national parks in
Uganda, it was founded in 1952 as Kazinga National Park. It was renamed 2 years later to
commemorate the visit of Queen Elizabeth. The park occupies an estimated 1978 square
kilometers and extends from Lake George in north east to Lake Edward in the south west and
includes Kazinga channel connecting the two lakes. It is found in western Uganda where it is
shared by districts of, Mitooma, Rubirizi, Kasese, Kanungu, Rukungiri, Ibanda, Kamwenge and
kabalore.
The vegetation of QENP consists of mostly thickets of various small tree species which include
acacia and euphoria trees. There are also some parts with rain forests and open savannah
grassland. The park also has swampy vegetation especially on the shores of LakeGeorge,
Edward and river Kazinga channel. QENP consists of various animal species and birds. The
common animal species include the climbing lions in Ishasha, the elephants, buffallos,
antelopes, the hippopotamuses, leopards among others.
QENP is located in the rift valley which was formed as a result of volcanic action and tectonic
activity which happened 8000-10000 years ago and led to formation of crater lakes of which
14
some are salty for example lake. Katwe. Other volcanic lakes are flesh water lakes. The soils are
also volcanic and fertile which has supported agriculture in communities around the park. The
flesh water lakes have supported fishing hence the local people around those lakes have earned
income from fishing thus improving their economic standards.
3.3 Research design Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Bold

The research study used both qualitative and quantitative research designs. Qualitative design
was used by the researcher to record the observations on the physical benefits local people
have obtained from conservation, the opinions of the local people during interview about their
perceptions of wildlife conservation. Quantitative approach was used by the researcher while
entering data in tables and graphs, and also in recording some key statistical findings.
3.4. Study population

The target population of the study included; residents of Katunguru village, park officials and
local community leaders. The researcher involved the park officials of QENP because they have
more knowledge on the perceptions of the local people in the adjacent communities and the
benefits they provide to them. The local residents and leaders were also engaged because they
are the ones who feel the impact of being adjacent to the national park thus have all that
information about their perceptions.
3.5 Sampling Techniques

The researcher used Simple random sampling during her research. Simple random sampling is
defined as the method which involves use of the participants who are accessible at the time.
The researcher randomly selected 40 local people in Katunguru fishing village who were readily
available and willing to give information to the researcher hence each member of the
community had equal chances of being selected.
The target population composed of 50 local people of which were local people in Katunguru
village, 5 community leaders and 5 park officials in Katunguru fishing village.
Table 2: summary of categories and number of respondents who were sampled.
15
Category Number
Local people 40 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Community leaders 5 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Park officials 5 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Total 50 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
3.6 Methods of data collection

This section shows how the researcher obtained findings from the field.
3.6.1 Interview method

Data was collected through oral interviews or face to face interaction with the respondents and
this was done by using guiding questions that were asked by the researcher to help address the
research questions. This was done especially for leaders who didnt have time to respond and
also for the local people who were not well acquainted with reading and writing. Those who
could read and write were given questionnaires to fill in answers. The questionnaire consisted
of both open ended and closed ended questions which were answered by respondents with the
help of researcher who explained and interpreted the questions to the respondents. This
method covered a big number of subjects and was useful because respondents easily answered
without fear of prejudice. This method helped the researcher to get local peoples views about
wildlife conservation, how they perceive it and the benefits they get from wildlife conservation
around Queen Elizabeth national park.
3.6.2 Direct observation method

This is where the researcher used her naked eyes to see the records from the local leaders that
talk about the benefits local people had obtained from wildlife conservation and also compared
what was seen and evidenced with the information got from the local people through
interviews and questionnaire. Under this method, photographs were taken where necessary as
evidence to support the information that was obtained from the local people.
16
3.7 Data analysis and data presentation
3.7.1 Data analysis

Data collected was processed to make it easy for analysis. This involved reviewing the
information given by the respondents in the questionnaires constantly. Data was also sorted,
coded and entered to ease the analysis process.
Data was then checked to ensure it is accurate, reliable and consistent and was arranged to
facilitate interpretation.
3.6.2. Data presentation

This is a process whereby the data from the questionnaires was copied and analyzed by tallying
it and tabulating it in frequency tables. The information was presented in terms of percentages,
and frequency polygons like graphs and pie charts.
3.7 Anticipated limitations of the study and their solutions

Unfavorable weather conditions such as rain and sunshine during data collection. This was
overcome by the researcher drafting an appropriate budget for the things to be used in the
field for example an umbrella, gumboots, raincoat and others in case of bad weather.
The limitation of walking long distances during data collection. This was solved by hiring a
motorcycle that helped the researcher to move from one place to another around Katunguru
village.
The researcher made a time table for activities of the study to solve the limitation of limited
time for the study.
Unwillingness of respondents to give relevant answers to the researcher. This was solved by the
researcher being polite and patient upon the rude respondents and also persuading the
unwilling ones to give their views as well.
17
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of the study on local communities perceptions of wildlife
conservation around QENP. The findings have been presented according to the specific
objectives namely, examining the benefits of wildlife and its conservation to the people around Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Queen Elizabeth National Park, analyzing the perceptions of the local communities towards
wildlife conservation around Queen Elizabeth National Park.
4.2 Respondents profile
4.2.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents

Gender
The total number of respondents interviewed was 50 of which 44% were males and 56% were
females. The biggest number of respondents was females because they were the biggest
number found in homes and businesses at the time of the data collection.
Table 3: shows gender of the respondents
Percentage
Male 44 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Female 56 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Age
This study considered the age of respondents in order to examine different perceptions of
different age brackets toward wildlife conservation around QENP. The majority of the
respondents were between the ages of 37-47 represented by 40% whereas 26% represented
18
the age group between 29-36 years of age. 18% of the respondents were between the age
group of 18-25 years while 16% represented the respondents aged 48 years and above.
Table 4: shows age distribution of the respondents
Age group Percentage

15-25 18 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
46 and above 16 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Marital status
Concerning the marital status of the respondents, 54% of them were married, 26% were single,
14% were widowed and 6% were divorced. This is important to the study because it indicates
that most respondents have lived long in the area and hence can give accurate information
about wild life conservation in the area.
Table 5: marital status of the respondents
Marital status Percentage

Single 26 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Married 54 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Divorced 6 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Widowed 14 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Education level
19
Of all the 50 respondents interviewed, 48% of them confessed that they attained education up
to a primary level 36% had attained secondary education. Only 16% of respondents had
attained University education. This indicates that majority of the respondents are not well
educated and are more likely to depend on small hold farming, fishing and wildlife resources,
potentially affecting conservation and protection. The table below shows the level of education
of the respondents
Table 6: education background of the respondents
Respondents Level of education Percentage
Primary 24 48 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Secondary 18 36 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
University 8 16 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Occupation of respondents
This explains what the local communities around Queen Elizabeth National Park do to earn a
living and also explains whether the local communities have benefited from different tourism
activities around Queen Elizabeth National Park. This is evidenced by the tables as the
respondents gave their aired out what they do. Table 5 gives various occupations respondents
engage in, one of the occupations include; fishing.
Table 7: occupation of the respondents
Occupation Number of respondents Percentage Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Fishermen 35 70 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Art and craft making 5 10 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Casual work 15 30 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

20
When the local communities in the proximity Queen Elizabeth national Park were interviewed
about what they do to earn a living, most of them that is 70% were engaged in fishing along Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
kazinga channel ,30% were casual workers involved in different small scale business like shop
keepers, builders, mobile money attendants and more other casual jobs and then 10% were
involved in craft making. This implies that majority of the respondents were engaged in fishing
to earn a living thus ending up overfishing which is a threat to fish species. Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
4.2.2. Local peoples perceptions of wildlife conservation around Queen Elizabeth national
park
This explains local communities understanding and willingness towards wildlife conservation in
Queen Elizabeth National park support for the ideas of conserving wild animals in the park, how
positive attitudes towards wildlife conservation improve local communities welfare, benefits of
conservation in the Park. It also explains activities that local communities engage in to avoid
destroying the park and reactions of local communities when meet people who engage in un-
eco-friendly activities in the Park. Firstly, Table 6 below shows local communities perceptions
on wildlife conservation in Queen Elizabeth National Park, according to the interview conducted
by the researcher. The identified views include Good and Bad. The explanations follow the Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
table below.
Table 8: Responses on the Perceptions of wildlife conservation in Queen Elizabeth National

Park
View No f respondents percentages
Good 20 40 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Bad 18 36 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Others 12 24 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Total 50 100
Of all the 50 respondents interviewed among the local communities in the neighborhood of Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Queen Elizabeth National Park, 40%represented by a number of 20 people admitted that they
perceive wildlife conservation to be good. This shows that however much people might
21
encroach and disrupt resources in the national park due to circumstances like poverty,
ignorance and unemployment among others; they embrace wildlife conservation to be a good
idea.
The good perception towards wildlife conservation was backed up by many reasons which
include; employment to people as tour guides, development in Kasese district, source of
revenue to the government of Uganda, 25%revenue sharing and resource use. Conservation Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
also attracts tourists in Queen Elizabeth National Park, leads to conservation of nature,
improves the well-being of the local people through provision of market for their products,
leads to infrastructure development, reduction of habits that interrupt with the ecosystem such
as poaching and leads to maintain of the beauty of the environment among others.
On the other hand, 18% of the respondents interviewed said they do not perceive conservation Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
to be a good idea because they are always limited by the park authority from accessing God
Given resources (wild animals, firewood, water) in the park for their survival because of
ecotourism. The others said the idea of wildlife conservation is bad because it has increased the
costs of living in their area of stay due competition for local products between tourists and local
people, changes in target market for agricultural products. Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
In addition, about local communities attitudes towards wildlife conservation, Table 7 below
shows the responses of the local communities on the idea on the idea of conserving wild
animals in Queen Elizabeth National Park according to the interview.
Table 9: Idea of Conserving Wild animals in Queen Elizabeth National Park
View No of respondents Percentages

Yes 35 70 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
No 10 20 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)


22
When the local communities were asked whether they support the idea of conserving animals
in Queen Elizabeth National Park. Most of they showed a positive response though there is still
poaching of animals in the Park for meat especially buffalos and elephants for their trophies
while others kill the animals because they destroy their crops and kill people sometimes as they Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
escape from the park boundaries.
Of the 50 people interviewed, 70%admitted that they support the idea of conserving animals in Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
the park because this limits animals from interfering with local communities as they may cause
harm to people such as destroying peoples crops, wild animals act as tourist attractions hence
bringing foreign exchange thus boosting the economy, provision of employment opportunities
to people in the park as tour guides and in the tourism chain, balancing of the ecosystem Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
among others. Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
However 10 respondents of the 50 respondents said that they dont support the idea of Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
conserving wild animals in the park because the animals destroy their small gardens and
sometimes attack them and some end up losing their lives. Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Furthermore, Table 8 shows the responses of local communities to the question on whether a
good attitude towards wildlife conservation is helping them improve their welfare according to
the interview conducted.
Table 10: Attitude towards Ecotourism and whether it is helping Local communities to
improve their welfare
View Respondents Percentage
Total 50 100 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
23
One of the most notable evidences on whether a good attitude towards wildlife conservation is
helping local communities to improve their welfare showed that 70% of the 50 respondents
said a good attitude in wildlife conservation works along with creating employment
opportunities in other sectors like the food and beverage section as waiters and waitresses in
Simba safari camp, Mweya safari Lodge, generation of income from ecotourism activities in the
Park, it has enabled some people earn a living, people are able to access clean water from
water tanks built by the park, leads to provision of market for peoples products most
especially farmers, leads to infrastructure development in the form of roads and creation of
interpersonal relationships as local communities are able to interact with people from different
backgrounds.
On the other hand, 4% of the respondents interviewed said a good attitude towards ecotourism
is not helping them to improve their welfare. These included a peasant, a farmer and a doctor.
More so, about local communities attitudes towards wildlife conservation, Table 9 below
shows the responses of the benefits of wildlife conservation in Queen Elizabeth National Park
to the local communities. The identified benefits include employment, revenue sharing, and
market for products, infrastructure development, climate modification, income generation and
appreciation of nature among others.
Table 11: Benefits of wildlife conservation in Queen Elizabeth National Park
Benefit No of respondents Percentage
Employment opportunities. 14 28 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Revenue sharing 14 28 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Market for products 16 32 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Climate modification 2 4 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Infrastructure 14 28 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

24
During this interview, the percentage exceeded 100% yet 50 respondents were interviewed. Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
This is because most of the respondents answered more than one benefit which increased the
percentage greater than 100%. The most frequently mentioned benefit to the local
communities is the resource use from the park which represents 36% of the 50 respondents
interviewed. However, some respondents who answered more than 2 benefits also mentioned
resource use as a benefit and this is why the percentage exceeds 100%. Resource use is involves
allowing the local communities access park for resources through a memorandum of
understanding at parish level. The resources include collecting of firewood from the park and
collecting water from the park and also carrying keeping projects in the park premises as
mentioned by respondents.
The second benefit is employment which is represented by 28% of the 50 respondents

interviewed. Most people in the local communities are employed in the park as ranger guides,
porters in the park while others are employed indirectly by the park as they are employed as
waiters and waitresses in Simba safari camp to serve tourists.
The third benefit is market which also represents 12% of the 50 respondents interviewed. This
was mostly mentioned by farmers and shopkeepers in Mitooma who deal in agricultural
products like food stuffs which are sold to lodges which serve tourists and also sale of essential
products for use by the park staff.
Fourthly, ecotourism leads to the development infrastructure in the local communities; this is
represented by 32% of the 50 respondents interviewed. Infrastructure development is in the
form of rehabilitating of roads in the local communities that connect to the national park,
construction of schools like Kazinga Primary School, CSH Primary School and also electrification
of villages in Kazinga, Mitooma and Katunguru.
The fifth benefit is income generatio which is represented by 10% of the respondents Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
interviewed. This was mostly mentioned by students of Mitooma Secondary School as it is well
known that the tourism industry is a topic in the geography syllabus. In class, they are taught
that tourism is a source of income generation for both the government and people which is
25
later used to provide social services to the people and also improve peoples standards of living
respectively.
Twenty eight percent of the respondents interviewed confessed that wildlife conservation in
the Park brings about revenue sharing as a result of park entry fees which are usually 20% of
the gate entry from tourists. This is used in the development, financing and supporting of local
projects like sheep farming and Irish potato farming. More so, of the 50 respondents
interviewed, 6% confessed that wildlife conservation in the park has created relationship
between the local people and others from different parts of the world. This is because there are
always various interactions of tourists with locals. Alternatively, 4% of the 50 respondents
interviewed confessed that ecotourism in Mgahinga Gorilla National Park has led to
modification of climate thus leading to rainfall formation hence supporting farming.
Finally, 10% of the 50 respondents interviewed said that ecotourism in Queen Elizabeth
National Park leads to conservation and appreciation of nature. This is evidenced by protecting
and conserving of the different wild animals in the park. Table 11 shows local communities
responses on whether they participate in activities that do not destroy the park.
Table 12: Participation of activities that do not destroy the park
View No of respondents Percentage
When the local communities were interviewed on whether they dont participate in activities
that do not destroy the park, 62% of the respondents said they do participate in activities such
as chairing conservation debates, importance of the existence of the park and participating in
26
conservation dramas at school level by students of Mitooma Secondary School, arresting
poachers ,inspecting local communities for any illegal activities and patrolling of the park for
illegal activities by the ranger guides and wardens of Queen Elizabeth National Park, reporting
poachers and also building of the buffalo wall to prevent wild animals from escaping from the
park premises, making arts and crafts as a source of employment so as to avoid direct
dependence on the park. Local community members also engage in sensitization of fellow
community members about benefits of the park existence.
On the other hand, 30% of the respondents interviewed said that they dont participate in any
activities that do not destroy the park and these include, a peasant, shopkeepers, farmers,
doctor and waiters and waitresses. Finally, Table 12 shows the responses of the local
communities on their reactions if met people engage in activities that are not eco- friendly in
the Park. Some of the identified reactions include reporting to UWA, Police and sensitization.
When the local communities were asked about their reactions if they meet people engage in
un- ecofriendly activities in the Park, 50% of the respondents said they would report to UWA.
This continues to show that local communities in the neighborhood of the National Park have a
positive attitude towards conservation and embrace the idea of ecotourism as they respond to
what is discussed in the parish sensitization meetings. This is because UWA is concerned with
management of the park resources.
Table 13: Local communities reactions if met people engage in un eco-friendly activities in
the park
View No of respondents Percentage
Reporting to UWA 25 50 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Reporting to Police 4 8 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Sensitizing 15 30 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

27
Thirty percent of the respondents interviewed said they would sensitize them about the
importance of the existence of the park and also benefits from the existence of the park to the
local communities such as revenue sharing and resource use. Furthermore, 12% of the
respondents interviewed said they would do nothing because they have no authority to stop
those who engage in un eco-friendly activities. Eight percent of the respondents interviewed
said they would report the people to police so as police can take immediate action.
28
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
The local communities in the neighborhood of Queen Elizabeth National Park as noted from the
interviews with respondents were aware of ecotourism as they gave different opinions on what
is being done in the Park such as protecting animals, conservation, sustainable use of
resources, keeping nature, visiting green areas, protecting the environment, visiting the
national park and nature tourism. However, a greater percentage termed and referred
ecotourism to as the act of conserving resources which is evidenced by 28% of the various
opinions given by the local people during the interview and a few of them represented by 8%
only had no idea about wildlife conservation. This shows that most of the people in the
neighborhood of the park understand the essence of wildlife conservation.
The local communities have also been sensitized about ecotourism in Queen Elizabeth National
Park as of the opinions given during the interviews of the respondents, this is explained by the
various opinions given by respondents during the interview on how they understand
ecotourism.90% of the respondents admitted they had been sensitized and 10% had not been
sensitized. This shows that local communities in the area embrace conservation.
However, local communities received different forms of sensitization on conservation including

conservation of nature, importance of wild animals in the park and reporting those who engage
in illegal activities. A greater percentage of 50% of the respondents interviewed said
conservation of nature was the most common type of sensitization. This is because
conservation of nature encompasses all the other forms of sensitization.
29
The organizations that carried out sensitization exercises according to the interview of the
respondents in the descending order are namely, Uganda Wildlife Authority, Uganda
Community Tourism Association and Peace Corps Volunteers as NGOs and Ministry of Tourism
Wildlife and Antiquities. Uganda Wildlife Authority participated more in conducting ecotourism
sensitization (72%) because it has the mandate to protect and conserve resources in national
parks as its mission states, Conserving for Generations.
Most local community members from the areas of Kazinga, Katunguru and Mitooma who were
interviewed to find out whether the public and local communities follow the instructions they
were given in the conservation sensitization and awareness campaigns gave a positive
response. This is demonstrated by the percentage response of 58% according to the interview.
This greater percentage is because local communities report those who engage in illegal
activities like poaching, engagement in afforestation and farming to avoid poaching of wild
animals in the park like forest buffaloes for food and other resources.
The smaller percentage (26%) that said the sensitization meetings are not effective according
to the responses from the interview are as because some local community members still
continue to destroy the park through engagement in poaching. The noted are the peasants in
Katunguru parish who are still primitive and still believe park resources are God given and
therefore everyone has a right to access park resources.
Next to the above, the local communities said they had been educated about wildlife
conservation in Mgahinga Gorilla National Park as evidenced by a greater percentage of
60%,this is was given by respondents according to the interview conducted and only a 20% of
respondents had been educated on a small extent. The percentage difference is because
sensitization about wild life conservation in the National Park is done at village level at least
once in every month by Uganda Wildlife Authority as they encourage local communities to
participate in environmental friendly activities that support ecotourism such as afforestation.
On the other hand, the respondents gave various opinions on their attitudes towards wildlife
conservation in Queen Elizabeth National Park. A greater percentage of the local communities
represented by 90% said that they view conservation as a good idea and only 8% of the
30
respondents said ecotourism is perceived as a bad idea. The percentage difference is because
of the benefits that come along with ecotourism such as employment opportunities,
development of infrastructure in form of roads and schools, source of revenue and provision of
market for local communities farming products in the proximity of the park.
The local communities in the neighborhood of the National Park support the idea of conserving
wild animals in the park according to the responses from the interview. This is evidenced by a
greater percentage according to responses which is 90% and 4% of the respondents who dont
support the idea of conserving wild animals in the Park. The percentage difference is because
conservation attracts tourists, infrastructure development balancing of the ecosystem and also
leads to human wild life conflicts respectively.
More so, 70% of the respondents interviewed said that a good attitude towards conservation is
helping them to improve their welfare and only 4% of the respondents said a good attitude
towards ecotourism is not helping them improve their welfare. This because ecotourism has
many benefits that come along with it such as infrastructure development, employment
opportunities generation of income and provision of market for local peoples agricultural
products.
The local population have benefited greatly from conservation of resources in the Park as
evidenced by different opinions given by respondents in the local communities according to the
interview. The benefits include employment, revenue sharing, and market for their products,
climate modification, relationships, and appreciation of nature, resource use, income
generation and revenue sharing among others.
Furthermore, 62% of the respondents interviewed said they participate in activities that do not
destroy the park while 30% of the respondents interviewed in activities that dont destroy the
park. The 62% respondents participate in activities such as engagement in sensitization,
chairing conservation debates at schools, participating in drama, arresting poachers, inspecting
local community residences for illegal activities and forming community based enterprises such
as crafts enterprises and dancing groups. This shows that local communities embrace
conservation awareness programs.
31
Finally, most of the respondents interviewed said they would react accordingly if meet people
engage in illegal activities that destroy the park.88% of the respondents interviewed gave
responses such as reporting to UWA, sensitizing the local people, reporting to police and a few
represented by 12% would do nothing because they think they are not concerned. This shows
that most people have a good attitude towards wildlife conservation in Queen Elizabeth
National Park.
CHAPTER SIX:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
Most (75%) of the local communities have a good attitude and are aware of ecotourism as most
of them regarded it as conservation of natural resources in the environment. This has been
evidenced by the percentage responses. However, a few of the local communities have a
negative attitude and are not aware of ecotourism due to human wildlife conflicts caused most
especially by the wild animals that escape from the park.
Local communities in the neighborhood of Queen Elizabeth National Park embrace and support
wildlife conservation as a good idea due to the benefits that come along with it such as
employment opportunities, infrastructure development, revenue sharing, resource use, source
32
of income to the government and also act as a form of tourism which attracts tourists to the
area.
6.2 Recommendations
Members of the local communities with desirable skills and education should be employed in
the park as ranger guides as one of the strategies for changing their perception and attitudes
towards the park and the wildlife. This can enable them earn a living through getting income as
a result of protecting park resources as they also crack down their colleagues found engage in
illegal activities in Queen Elizabeth National Park. This will also eliminate the perspectives of
considering park resources as God Given resources.
Uganda Wildlife Authority should engage local community members who consider park
resources as God Given resources through inviting them to the local council meetings so that
they are sensitized about nature conservation and its associated benefits.
The Government of Uganda should through Uganda Investment Authority and Ministry of
Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities promote private sector investment in ecotourism sites Queen
Elizabeth National Park inclusive. This can be done through providing support in form of
finance, training and research of local communities based projects such as craft enterprises
and cultural dancing groups in ecotourism areas. These can create and bring benefits to local
people from ecotourism as tourists can purchase local community products along with
ecotourism products hence creating a positive attitude of local communities towards
conservation.
Government should adequately fund Uganda Wildlife Authority to fulfill its objectives of
conserving wildlife throughout Uganda both inside and outside the wildlife protected areas
(national parks, wildlife reserves and community wildlife areas) for the current and future
generations. The funds can be used to focus more on sensitization of surrounding communities
about ecotourism and its benefits and also deploying of staff that can help in protecting of wild
animals habitats.
33
REFERENCES
Huntington, HP. (2011). The local perspective. Nature, 478, 182-183.
Berkes, F. Colding J and Folke, C (2000).Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological and Adaptive

Management. Ecological Applications, 10, 125-1262
Trakolis, D. (2001). Local perception of planning and management issue in Prespe lakes,
National Parks, Greece Journals of Environment Management, 61, 227-241.
Gandiwa E Gandiwa P and MuBoko N (2012). Living with wild life and associated conflicts in
northern Gonarezhou National park, south east Zimbambwe, Journal of sustainable
development in Africa 14, 252-260.
34
Jalilova, G and Vacik, H (2012). Local peoples perception of forest biodiversity in the Thapa, B
and Child B (2012) attitudes and opinions of local and National Public sector stakeholders
towards KgalagadiTransfrontier Park Bostwana.
Gandiwa, E, (2012) Local knowledge and perception of animal population abundances by

communities adjacent to NorthenGonarezhou National park, Zimbabwe.Tropical conservation
science 5,255-269.
Allenderorf, T. D, Aung, M and Songer, M (2012).Using residents perception to improve park-

people relationships in chatthin wildlife sanctuary.
Berkes, F Turner, NJ 2006, knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation practice for
social Ecological system resilience, Human Ecology, Vol. 34 no.4, Pg. 479-494.
Brown,K 2003a, integrating conservation and development a case of institutional misfit,

frontiers in Ecology and the environment.
Davis, A and Wagner, JR 2003, who knows? On the importance of identifying experts when
researching local Ecological knowledge.
Dinh, TV 2009, living with change: local knowledge, institution livelihood and coastal resources
in Tam GiangCauHai lagoon system under context of institutional and global Climate change.
Olsson, P and Folke, C 2001, Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for
ecosystem Management: a study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden.
Ericson J A 2006, A participatory approach on conservation in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve.
Ellis, sc 2005, meaningful consideration? A review of traditional knowledge in environmental

decision making Artic, Pg 66-77
35
APPENDICES
A QUESTIONNAIRE TO LOCAL RESIDENTS AND LOCAL LEADERS OF KATUNGURU FISHING

VILLAGE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES PERCEPTIONS OF WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION AROUND QUEEN ELIZABETH NATIONAL PARK.
Dear respondents,
My name is NuwamanyaRonah, a third year student of Makerere University undertaking

research as an academic requirement in partial fulfillment of the award of Bachelor of Tourism
36
at MakerereUniversity. The questions are intended to facilitate the study on localcommunities
perceptions of wildlife conservation around QENP.
The information for this research will be purely for academic purposes and recommendations Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
made will be of great importance to all the stakeholders in the tourism industry.
The information will be treated with strict confidentiality.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Respondents name Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Sex Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
(a) Male (b) female Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Education level(a)primary (b) secondary y (c) university (d) none
Age(a)15-25 (b)26-36 (c) 37-47 (d) 48and above Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Marital status Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
(a) married (b)single (c)widowed (d)divorced/separated Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Employment level Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

(a) employed by QENP (b)unemployed (c)self-employed (d) others specify
(b) What do you do to earn a living? Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
..... Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

PART ONE Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Local peoples perceptions of wildlife conservation around Queen Elizabeth national Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
park. Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Which economic activity are you engaged in to earn a living?
a) Fishing Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

b) Transport Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
37
c) Agriculture Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
d) Othersspecify Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
What are some of the tourism activities carried out in and around QENP? Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
e) Do you receive any benefits from tourism in QENP?
Yes.. No (tick)
If yes,
f) What tourism benefits have or do you receive from the conservation of wildlife
in this area
g) What challenges do you face because of wildlife conservation in this area? Formatted: Left
PART TWO
Local peoples perceptions of wildlife conservation around QENP
a) Does the park management allow you to obtain some resources from the national park?
Yes no (tick) Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

b) If yes, what are some of the resources they allow you to obtain from there?
38

c) How often are you allowed to pick those resources from the park?

d) Have the park officials sensitized you about wildlife conservation?
Yes No......... (tick)
e) What did you learn from them?
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
....
f) How do you perceive the benefits or wildlife conservation in and around QENP?

Thank you for your time.
AN INTERVIEW GUIDE DESIGNED FOR PARK OFFICIALS FOR DATA COLLECTION ON LOCAL
COMMUNITIES PERCETIONS OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND BENEFITS LOCAL PEOPLE
OBTAIN FROM WILDLIFE CONSERVAION AROUND QENP.
Dear sir / Madam
39
I am NuwamanyaRonah, a bachelor of Tourism student a Makerere university conducting
research on local communities perceptions of wildlife conservation around QENP. You have
been selected randomly to participate in the information giving for the success of this study.
Therefore I request you to kindly answer the questions that will be asked. The information
obtained will be strictly for academic purposes and will be treated with high level of
confidentiality. Thanks. Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)
Name: (optional) ..
Part one(Benefits local people obtain from Queen Elizabeth National park)
a) What are some of the benefits obtained by the people from the national park?
b) What are some of the challenges faced by the people that live within the vicinity of
Queen Eliazabeth national park?
....................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
......
Part two (local communities perceptions of wildlife conservation around QENP)
a) Are people allowed to access the national park to pick some resources?
Yes No...
b) If yes what are some of the resources that are picked from the national park by the natives?
40

..................
c) How often are they allowed to pick resources from the park?
Regularly
Irregularly
Not sure
Never
d) Have the park officials sensitized the native population around Queen Elizabeth national
park about the wild life conservation?
Yes .. No ..
g) How do you perceive the benefits or wildlife conservation in and around QENP?

Thank you.
41
42

Formatted: Font: +body (Calibri)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formatted: Font: +body (Calibri)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LOCAL COMMUNITIES PERCEPTIONS OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AROUND QUEEN Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

ELIZABETH NATIONAL PARK

STUDENTS NO: 214024629

REG NO: 14/U/24915

MR. OCHIENG AMOS

A RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, BIODIVERSITY AND

MAKERERE UNIVERSTY Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

23rd November 2017 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

QENP Queen Elizabeth National Park

NWF National Wildlife Federation

UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority

According to National Wildlife Federation, (NWF, 2016)Wildlife conservation is the practice of

1.2 Problem Statement

1.3 Objectives of the study

1.5 Significance/ Justification of the study

1.6 Scope of study

1.6.1 Content scope

1.6.2 Geographical scope

September Going to the field Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

September Analyzing data Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

October to November Writing a research report Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

2.1 Perceptions and attitudes of local people towards wildlife conservation

According to Mauna et al. (2012), access to conservation-related benefits can positively

In addition, wildlife conservation promotes agricultural biodiversity, which plays an important

In addition, increasing biodiversity and healthy ecosystems through conservation improves

3.2 Study area

3.3 Research design Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Bold

3.4. Study population

3.5 Sampling Techniques

Table 2: summary of categories and number of respondents who were sampled.

Local people 40 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Community leaders 5 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Park officials 5 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Total 50 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

3.6 Methods of data collection

3.6.1 Interview method

3.6.2 Direct observation method

3.7.1 Data analysis

3.6.2. Data presentation

3.7 Anticipated limitations of the study and their solutions

4.2 Respondents profile

4.2.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents

Table 3: shows gender of the respondents

Female 56 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Table 4: shows age distribution of the respondents

Age group Percentage

26-35 26 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

36-45 40 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

46 and above 16 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Table 5: marital status of the respondents

Marital status Percentage

Married 54 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Divorced 6 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Widowed 14 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Table 6: education background of the respondents

Respondents Level of education Percentage

Primary 24 48 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)

Secondary 18 36 Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri)