Fig 1 - uploaded by Nathan James Bennett
Content may be subject to copyright.
![Modified sustainable livelihoods framework (adapted from [33-35]).](profile/Nathan-Bennett-4/publication/326309917/figure/fig1/AS:649421347897346@1531845523642/Modified-sustainable-livelihoods-framework-adapted-from-33-35.png)
Source publication
![Fig. 1. Modified sustainable livelihoods framework (adapted from [33-35]).](profile/Nathan-Bennett-4/publication/326309917/figure/fig1/AS:649421347897346@1531845523642/Modified-sustainable-livelihoods-framework-adapted-from-33-35_Q320.jpg)
Conservation success is often predicated on local support for conservation which is strongly influenced by perceptions of the impacts that are experienced by local communities and opinions of management and governance. Marine protected areas (MPAs) are effective conservation and fisheries management tools that can also have a broad array of positiv...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... [72], Scoones [34] and Ellis [35] suggest that there are a number of micro to macro-level contextual factors -including trends and shocks as well as policies, institutions, and processes -that transform and mediate access to assets and have impacts on livelihood strategies or portfolios and the resultant socio-economic and environmental outcomes (Fig. 1). Central to the sustainable livelihoods frame- works are a number of capitals or assets that are the platform for livelihood strategies. These assets include natural, social, human, physical, financial, cultural, and political capitals -definitions of each provided in Table 2. In the context of this framework, a marine protected area ...
Citations
Human benefits from wildlife are apparently declining over decades as the extent and intensity of threat to protected areas continue. This study assessed nature of community participation in wildlife management in Baturiya Sanctuary with a view to providing information for active participation of communities in the management of this area. A total of five communities namely: Shinge (4km west), Illala (12km west), Kokiro (3km east), Zigobiya (7km east) and Abanaguwa (5km north) were purposively sampled based on their proximity to the sanctuary. Snowball sampling technique was used to select fifty-seven (57) participants for the survey. Questionnaire and Interview were conducted to elicit the knowledge and perspectives of participants on the role of community in wildlife management. Numerical values were analysed in percentage while chi-square was used to test the levels of participation among communities. Findings of this study indicate that only 18 of the 57 sampled participants are involved in wildlife management. It also shows that there is decrease and extinction of wildlife especially birds, primates and reptiles in the sanctuary. The study also found four categories of participants: active-voluntary, active-institutional, passive-voluntary and passive-institutional. It shows that 37.50% active and 62.50% are passive participants respectively. Benefits of community participation include control of poaching (43.85%) and control of trade in parts of animals (25%). Majority of the participants (83.33%) engage in wildlife management voluntarily based on perceived benefits derived from the sanctuary. Poor governance (43.85%) and weak community institutions (31.57%) are the main limitations to community participation in wildlife management. This study therefore recommended that community leaders and youth should be strengthened and officially recognized as stakeholders in wildlife management and governance of natural resources in Nigeria at large.
