AN ANALYSIS OF THE INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
PARADIGM: A CASE STUDY FROM GUYANA
Emily E. Kachorek
B.S., University of California, Davis, 2003
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
(Biological Conservation)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2010
AN ANALYSIS OF THE INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
PARADIGM: A CASE STUDY FROM GUYANA
A Thesis
by
Emily E. Kachorek
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Jamie M. Kneitel
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Michelle Stevens
__________________________________, Third Reader
Dr. Ben Sacks
________________________
Date
ii
Student: Emily E. Kachorek
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
_________________________, Dean
Dr. Jill M. Trainer
_________________
Date
College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
iii
Abstract
of
AN ANALYSIS OF THE INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
PARADIGM: A CASE STUDY FROM GUYANA
by
Emily E. Kachorek
Particularly in poor tropical countries, in areas where people exist through
subsistence lifestyles, the hunting of wildlife serves as a major source protein (Redford,
1993). In some areas, overhunting is considered to be one of the most serious threats
facing wildlife (Robinson & Redford 1991; Redford 1992). Globally, protected areas
form the backbone of biodiversity conservation, however, criticisms of traditionally
modeled protected areas have been waged on multiple fronts and have resulted in the
development conservation projects that recognize that social and ecological systems are
inextricably linked. Integrated conservation and development programs (ICDP) couple
biodiversity conservation with socioeconomic development aimed at inclusive and
surrounding communities (IUCN / UNEP / WWF 1991). Due to limited conservation
funding, the inability to illustrate project effectiveness, lack of substantiated foundation
on which to base decision-making and continued biodiversity loss, ICDPs and similarly
focused programs are hotly contested.
iv
This study evaluates the success of an ICDP located in Guyana by assessing local
resident’s attitudes towards conservation, wildlife populations, and the relationship
between attitudes and wildlife. Direct analysis of wildlife populations offered little
evidence in support of biological conservation success. However, this result does not lead
to the conclusion that relationships between conservation, the environment, human
welfare and culture do not exist or are in someway unimportant to conservation
objectives. Many alternative explanations and confounding factors potentially useful in
explaining the observed patterns include: methodological limitations, including small
sample size and differences in habitat type, time lag between establishment of the ICDP
and detectible differences in wildlife populations, and source-sink dynamics operating
within the greater study area.
Results of attitude surveys illustrated that those in contact with the conservation
organization are generally supportive of the organization itself and conservation goals but
also emphasize a general lack of understanding of the linkage between the ICDP’s
development initiatives, benefits received and conservation goals. Furthermore, hunting
rights, with their connection to self-determination, land rights and community
sovereignty, was highlighted as an important issue.
Although I found little variation in species diversity across villages, this index
was not correlated with positive conservation attitudes at the village level. The results of
this study do not support the method of assessing broad ICDP success by solely
evaluating individual’s attitudes. This case study emphasizes the importance of empirical
v
approaches to both conservation and development goals, useful in informing the
development of successful approaches to biodiversity conservation.
___________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Jamie M. Kneitel
___________________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project would not have been possible without the assistance, support and
guidance from many individuals and institutions. I sincerely thank my major advisor, Dr.
Jamie Kneitel, who was willing to take on a project-less graduate student with big
ambitions and a focal interest different than his own. Dr. Kneitel’s patience, statistical
expertise, generosity with his time and lighthearted nature will always be deeply
appreciated. I thank Dr. Michelle Stevens for her initial connection to the project, for her
guidance in Indigenous Issues and Traditional Ecological Knowledge and for her
continuous moral support throughout my graduation education. I would also like to thank
Dr. Ben Sacks, for his participation as a valued and thoughtful committee member.
Dr. Jose M. Fragoso and the Project Fauna team made this research project
possible. In addition to allowing me to utilize wildlife data, the team provided much
needed logistical support and academic guidance. I would like to offer my heartfelt
appreciation of Dr. Jose M. Fragoso, who was willing to give an unfamiliar student the
academic opportunity of a lifetime. My time spent in Guyana would not have been the
same without the direction and friendship of Dr. Han Overman, Dr. Jeff Luzar and
Anthony Cummings. I would also like to sincerely thank Dr. Kirsten Silvius, Dr. Jane
Read, and the entire Project Fauna team. I am grateful for the support of Iwokrama
International Centre for Rainforest Conservation and Development and the Bina Hill
Institute.
vii
This project would not have been possible without the funding provided by the
National Science Foundation (#0508094) and numerous CSUS scholarships and grants:
2008 and 2009 Marda West Scholarships, 2009 M.D.F Udvardy Graduate Student
Award, 2009 Alumni Association Graduate Student Scholarship, 2008 Biological
Conservation Scholarship and State University Grants.
I will forever be grateful for the encouragement, support, love (and sometimes
prodding) provided over the course of my graduate education by my wonderful husband,
Pete Knudsen, family and friends.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
Materials and Methods .........................................................................................................8
Results ................................................................................................................................25
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................50
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................59
Appendix A Map of Guyana and location of Iwokrama Forest .........................................61
Appendix B Map of Iwokrama Forest and Neighboring Communities .............................62
Appendix C Mammal Species List ....................................................................................63
Appendix D Attitude Survey .............................................................................................65
Appendix E Attitude Survey Results .................................................................................67
Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................71
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Comparison of Mammal Diversity Across ICDP, Non-ICDP and
Control Treatments. ............................................................................................27
Table 2. Comparison of Species Abundance and Variation Across
Treatments (ICDP, Non-ICDP and Control), Season and Transect
Location. .............................................................................................................29
Table 3. Non Parametric Comparisons of Species Abundance and
Variation Across Treatments (ICDP, Non-ICDP and Control),
Season and Transect Location ............................................................................31
Table 4. Comparison Within ICDP and Non-ICDP Treatments of SpeciesSpecific Sex Ratios Among Killed Individuals. .................................................41
Table 5. Comparison Between ICDP and Non-ICDP Treatments of the
Age Structure of Individuals Killed Within a Species ........................................43
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. The Black Lines Represents eight 4 km Transects Embedded on
Satellite Imagery................................................................................................13
Figure 2. Mammal Diversity Measured in Terms of Mean Sign Counts
Per km Does Not Differ Among Treatments (Control, ICDP and
Non-ICDP). .......................................................................................................26
Figure 3. The variability of Paca Sign Counts, Measured Via Standard
Deviation, Vary by Treatment (P < 0.001). ......................................................33
Figure 4. Red Brocket Deer Abundance was Found to Differ by
Treatment (P < 0.001). ......................................................................................35
Figure 5. The Variability of Red Brocket Deer Sign Counts, Measured
Via Standard Deviation, Vary by Treatment (P = 0.019). ................................36
Figure 6. Transect Location is a Significant Factor in Tapir Abundance
(P = 0.036). .......................................................................................................38
Figure 7. Average Conservation Attitude by Treatment. ..................................................45
Figure 8. No Significant Relationship was Found Between Average
Village Conservation Attitude Score and the Village’s Mean
Mammal Diversity... ..........................................................................................49
xi
1
INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity loss has been rapid, extreme and is, often times, circumstantially
complex. Particularly in poor tropical countries, in areas where people exist through
subsistence lifestyles, the hunting of wildlife, or wild meat, serves as a major protein
source and additionally acts as a safety net in lean times (Redford, 1993). Effects of wild
meat hunting have been shown to include biodiversity loss, population reduction and
extirpations (Alvard et al. 1997; Shively 1997; Wilkie et al. 1998; Scherr 2003; Vedeld et
al. 2004; Kaimowitz & Sheil 2007). More subtle impacts, such as changes in sex and age
ratio within a population, are also consequences of hunting (Dubost, 1988; Fragoso et al.,
2000). In the tropics, overhunting is considered to be one of the most serious threats
facing wildlife (Robinson & Redford 1991; Redford 1992). In the tropics it is estimated
that between fifty and one hundred percent of tropical plant’s seeds are animal dispersed
(Howe & Smallwood, 1982). The hunting of these important seed dispersing species has
the potential to cause dramatic cascade effects, altering ecosystem diversity, composition,
structure and function (Howe & Smallwood, 1982; Terborgh, 1988; Janson & Emmons,
1990).
Globally, protected areas form the backbone of biodiversity conservation.
However, protected areas have often been criticized as ineffective and incapable of
ensuring biodiversity conservation (Peres & Terborgh, 1995; Brandon et al., 1998).
Government corruption (Smith et al., 2003; Laurance, 2004), lack of law enforcement
(Corlett, 2007), exclusive management style, implementation of a blueprint or
2
‘Yellowstone Model’ approach (Western et al., 1994; Stevens, 1997) and poverty
(Infield, 1988; Scherr, 2003; Scherr et al., 2003; Kaimowitz & Sheil, 2007) are
commonly attributed to the failures. Additionally, a quantitative assessment of park
effectiveness in tropical countries found that while they were successful in preventing
land clearing overall, they were also vulnerable to hunting pressure (Bruner et al., 2001).
Moreover, concerns about injustice and human rights issues (Neumann, 2002; IUCN,
2008; Dowie, 2009) resulting from the establishment of the “traditionally” modeled
protected areas have, in part, lead to a movement of increasingly community focused
conservation projects.
These community focused conservation projects have been labeled numerous
ways: Community-based Conservation (CBC), Integrated Conservation and Development
Projects (ICDP), Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM), and
collaborative management ventures. Uniting the programs that use these labels is a
multidisciplinary, integrative approach inclusive of the local communities. ICDPs
recognize that since social and ecological systems are inextricably linked, environmental
protection and biodiversity conservation will be most successful when coupled with
socioeconomic development aimed at inclusive and surrounding communities (IUCN /
UNEP / WWF, 1991; Western et al., 1994; Stevens, 1997; Abbot et al., 2001).
An underlying assumption of these models is that the perceptions and attitudes of
community members will be influenced by their inclusion in decision-making, access to
education opportunities, by fostering development programs and access to income
generating activities. People will, therefore, be more likely to both support these efforts,
3
and act in ways that are considered pro-conservation (Abbot et al., 2001). In relation to
this study, the hunting of wild meat is the focal resource use. Because the impact that
hunters have on animal populations depends on the manner in which species are
harvested (Bodmer et al., 1997), the assumption follows that conservation education, proconservation attitudes and income to purchase alternative protein sources, will lead to
sustainable hunting behaviors.
Iwokrama
Iwokrama International Centre for Rain Forest Conservation and Development
(Iwokrama) was established in 1996 under international agreement between the Guyana
Government and the Commonwealth Secretariat. Iwokrama currently manages nearly one
million acres of Guyana’s interior and has been recently cited as a useful example of a
multilevel ICDP that has provided long-term development assistance as well as
developed trust and reciprocity between Iwokrama and the local communities (Berkes,
2007). The local indigenous people are mainly Macuxi Amerindians that are sedentary
and maintain a subsistence livelihood, relying on wild meat as a major source of protein
(Fragoso, unpublished data).
Iwokrama works with the local indigenous communities in an effort to promote
conservation and aid in poverty alleviation. It’s stated mission illustrates the duality of
its goals, "To promote the conservation and the sustainable and equitable use of tropical
rain forests in a manner that will lead to lasting ecological, economic and social benefits
to the people of Guyana and to the world in general, by undertaking research, training
4
and the development and dissemination of technologies" (Iwokrama International Centre,
2003).
The Northern Rupununi District Development Board (NRDDB) formed
concurrently with the development of Iwokrama and is currently composed of sixteen
local Macuxi communities (Alfonso Ford, personal communication). The NRDDB
functionally serves as a user group as well as an important and respected stakeholder in
Iwokrama (Allicock, 2003). User groups play an important role in ICDPs and have the
potential to influence local attitudes as well as serve a variety functions that include
assisting protected area authorities and aiding in management decisions. User groups can
be instrumental in facilitating communication between local communities and park
management, building social capital as well as provide a basis for community wide
participation (Baral & Heinen, 2007). Baral and Heinen (2007) found that when local
people were satisfied with their local user groups, they were more likely to agree with
sharing conservation responsibility and generally held positive conservation attitudes.
In addition to serving as an important user group in Iwokrama, the relationship
between the NRDDB and Iwokrama is an institutional model for Guyana’s Poverty
Reduction Strategy (Bicknell, 2004), “Heavily integrated into our best practices are our
strong community relations with the communities of the North Rupununi and the Village
of Fair View within the Iwokrama Forest. These integral activities form the core of the
Iwokrama International Centre. This core in turn supports the businesses of Iwokrama.
By integrating human needs and values into business development and conservation
strategies, partnerships with local communities are established so they can assist in forest
5
management and get direct benefits through joint business development” (Iwokrama
International Centre, 2007).
Iwokrama’s development is an example of the ICDP paradigm’s growing global
influence; over the past two and a half decades CBC, ICDP and similar models have
become widely implemented and an important feature of conservation policy. However,
the effectiveness (Robinson, 1993; Barrett & Arcese, 1995; Oats, 1995; Noss, 1997;
Brandon et al., 1998) and applicability (Adams & Hulme, 2001; Berkes, 2007) of CBC
and ICDPs are contested. Broadly, this debate is commonly referred to as the “people in
parks” debate. Allendorf et al. (2007) comment that “the complex relationships between
people and protected areas are still poorly understood and the connections to broader
issues often remain unacknowledged”. This broad lack of understanding remains a
roadblock to effective conservation (Allendorf et al., 2007).
Due to the continuing “people in parks” debate, the limited funding available for
conservation, the inability to illustrate community focused conservation project’s
effectiveness, lack of substantiated data on which to base decision making, and
continued biodiversity loss, there has been a recent call in the literature for a transition
towards an conservation research infrastructure, similar to that within the medical
community, that supports evidence-based practices (Adams & Hulme, 2001; Pullin et al.,
2004; Sutherland et al., 2004; Saterson et al., 2004; Fazey et al., 2004; Pullin & Stewart,
2006). “Evidence-based conservation” requires a more systematic evaluation of impacts
and costs of specific conservation approaches. Additionally, increased synthesis of sitespecific information allows for critical evaluation across approaches, as well as stronger
6
links between site-specific projects and global monitoring of biodiversity (Saterson et al.,
2004).
Because local community members’ perceptions and attitudes play an important
role in community focused project success, site-specific evaluation for these projects
commonly consist of assessing local people’s perceptions and attitudes (Fiallo &
Jacobson, 1995; Infield & Namara, 2001; Struhsaker et al., 2005). Additionally, attitudes
have been used as a means of determining individual’s resource use interests, albeit, with
mixed results (Holmes, 2003a,b; Arjunan et al., 2006). Allendorf et al. (2006) argue that
because there is no clear relationship between socioeconomic variables and attitudes
towards protected areas, and because perceptions play a greater role than socioeconomic
variables in predicting attitude, testing community focused project interventions based on
people’s perceptions is feasible and accurate.
Moreover, attitudinal surveys are utilized because assessing changes in local
community member’s decision-making and behavior is difficult (Infield & Namara,
2001; Homes, 2003a). In a study investigating residents’ perceptions of a national park in
Nepal, Allendorf et al. (2007) noted that different individual’s perceptions within a single
community are diverse, complex and often contradictory. Other studies have illustrated
similar discordances between attitudes and behavior (Infield & Namara, 2001; Holmes,
2003a). Few studies have investigated the circumstances under which attitudes translate
to conservation behavior, despite this correlation serving as an underlying assumption of
ICDP models.
7
Following the call of evidence-based conservation, twelve years post ICDP
initiation, I posed the question: Has Iwokrama’s ICDP been successful? Because a priori
inclusion of the required experimental and control approach necessary to a study is not
always possible, this case study takes a post hoc approach that incorporates testable
hypotheses and includes confounding variables.
If Iwokrama’s ICDP has been successful the relevant testable hypothesis are as
follows: first, in comparison to hunting areas managed by non-ICDP villages, I expect
hunting areas managed by ICDP villages to have greater species abundance, diversity and
wildlife population demographic indices indicative of un-hunted wildlife populations. I
would expect community members in ICDP villages to hold positive conservation
attitudes. Moreover, if positive conservation attitudes translated into pro-conservation
resource-use behaviors, I expect that villages that, on average, hold positive attitudes will
have harbor greater species diversity in their respective hunting areas when compared to
villages that hold negative conservation attitudes.
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
Situated on the northeast coast of South America, Guyana occupies an area of
215,000 km2 (Appendix A). The tropical climate is hot and humid. Rainfall is seasonal
and peaks between May and September, with the mean annual rainfall between 1600 and
1900 mm (Mistry et al., 2004). The study site is located in the Northern Rupununi
District, which is situated in the south-west of the country (Appendix B). The area is
comprised of the savanna biome and includes low-lying seasonally flooded grasslands,
forest islands, gallery forests, and palm communities (Hill, 1976).
People of the Macuxi ethnic group primarily populate the participating
communities in the study area. Approximately 7750 Macuxi people live in the Rupununi
savanna in small villages (Shackley 1998). Of the village participating in this study, the
population ranges from approximate 105 to 578 individuals, with the median village
population of 241. The Macuxi are largely sedentary, garden-scale agriculturalists that
rely on game and fish for protein.
Sixteen local primarily indigenous communities are represented in the NRDDB
and have agreed to remain committed to the effective management of the Iwokrama
Forest and the Rupununi ecosystem. In conjunction with Iwokrama, many key projects
run by the NRDDB. Junior Wildlife Clubs allow the youth of the communities to study
and explore the local wildlife as well as discuss important social and environmental
issues. Small business development is facilitated through microcredit, and efforts are
9
made to revitalize native languages. Additionally, the development of conservation
contracts with Iwokrama aid the communities in conservation management and the
sustainable use of specific threatened resources within each community (Allicock, 2003).
Notably, many of the Macuxi’s traditional methods for guiding resource
management practices, such as the importance of the village piaman (shaman) in the
regulation of hunting practices, are fading. The impact hunters have on wildlife
populations depends on the manner in which hunters harvest species (Bodmer et al.,
1997), therefore practices related to the hunting of wild meat serve a methods of
traditional resource management. Hunting remains an important aspect of the Macuxi
livelihood that provides a strong connection with the local ecosystem (Fragoso,
unpublished data).
The species most commonly hunted by the Macuxi are similar to those hunted
across the Amazon basin. Key hunted species include: tapir (Tapirus terrestris), peccary
species (Tayassu pecari and Pacari tajacu), red brocket deer (Mazama americana), paca
(Cuniculus paca), agouti (Dasyprocata agouti), Galliformes (curassows and tinamous),
and tortoises (Fragoso, unpublished data). The Macuxi do not traditionally eat primates
(Fragoso, personal communication).
Study locations include five non-ICDP villages, eight ICDP villages and three
control locations. All non-ICDP villages are believed to have minimal to no direct contact
with Iwokrama; all villages associated with the ICDP are, by definition, active
stakeholders in the Iwokrama organization. As there is little baseline data for neotropical
species densities and demographic indices, lightly to un-hunted areas serve as a control,
10
providing comparisons against the different management strategies as well as aiding in
my ability to detect deviations from “normal” un-hunted populations.
Observational studies, such as this one, seek to draw inferences about the effects
of treatments on specified dependent variables in question. While confounding factors are
taken into consideration and minimized when possible, a major challenge in conducting
observational studies is drawing inferences that are acceptably free from the influences of
overt and hidden biases (Glantz, 1997). All datasets were subject to review and unreliable
or questionable datasets were removed from analysis. Data collected from para-biologists
that were untrustworthy or of inferior quality were removed from analysis.
Because population size varies among villages and because tropical climates have
distinct dry and wet seasons, these variables were accounted for in analyses on
populations and community variables.
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
The Indigenous worldview is very different from the Western worldview
(Melville 2003). In areas where indigenous peoples have depended for long periods of
time on the local environment, as the Macuxi have, groups have developed close
interrelationships with local animals, plants, and environment and have formed
distinctive and diversified indigenous knowledge system and traditional cultural beliefs
(Salick et al., 2007). Traditional ecological knowledge is closely integrated with moral
and religious belief systems and is of significance from a conservation perspective
(Gadgil et al., 1993).
11
Traditional ecological knowledge is difficult for Western science to understand
(Gadgil et al., 1993) and difficult to incorporate into western study design. As it is out of
the scope of this study, I will not attempt to evaluate the impact of the Macuxi’s
traditional management practices. Many of the traditional beliefs and practices of the
Macuxi have faded and individuals and villages vary with respect to their level of
integration into national society (Strong et al, In Press). However, the Macuxi maintain a
strong relationship with their resource base and a significant amount of Macuxi culture is
retained in remnants of the local folklore (Fernandes 2006).
The Guyanese Amerindian Act of 1976 aims in part to designate village land
rights and allows Amerindian councils to introduce rules for particular purposes that
included natural resource use. Despite this law, not all villages currently have nationally
recognized rights and village boundaries are difficult to determine. Therefore, traditional
land use and resource management practices are determined more by historical custom
rather than Guyanese law (Shackley 1998).
Biological Data
Biological data was collected from all sixteen sites via distance-based transect line
method. Line-transect sampling is a common method used to estimate densities of
medium and large bodied neotropical mammals (Bodmer et al., 1997; Cullen et al., 2001,
Silvius, 2004). The research team trained two local para-biologists in each community to
collected pertinent data on wildlife populations. Eight 4 km transects at each study site
were monitored once a month for animal signs. Animal signs included: tracks, scat,
feathers, hair/fur, scratch marks, resting areas, or any other physical clue of a species
12
presence.
Research illustrates that hunting intensity generally decreases with increasing
distance from the hunter’s home (Fragoso, 1991; Hill et al., 1997). In order to account for
hunting intensity, transects were group into “near” and “far” categories. Four transects
were randomly located within a distance 0-6 km from the study site center, and represent
the village’s “near hunting area.” Another four transects were randomly located between
6-12 km from the study site center, and represent the village’s “far hunting area” (Figure
1).
13
Figure 1: The black lines represents eight 4 km transects embedded on satellite imagery.
The diagram in upper right hand corner depicts transect mythology: the red dot represents
the village or study site center, the lines represent the eight transects. The four "near"
transects are located in yellow shaded area (0-6 km from the village center), and four
"far" transects located in green shaded area (6-12 km from the village center).
14
Transects were walked at a slow, constant rate for data collection purposes only.
Over 19,000 animal signs were collected over a twelve-month time period from January
2008 – December 2008. Although variation in rainfall and season are accounted for
indirectly, as the dataset spans an entire year’s time and included both the wet and dry
season, season was included as dependent variable in the ANOVA analysis.
Following the methodology of similar studies (Fragoso 1991; Hill et al. 1997;
Fragoso et al., 2000), animal track counts serve as a proxy for species abundance and
provide data from which biodiversity was determined. The assumption is made that
changes in abundance reflect actual changes in population size (Bodmer et al., 1997). In
order to avoid pseudeoreplication, sign observations were calculated as the average
number of unique observations per village/transect/month/meter and converted into
averages per kilometer. (Hurlbert, 1984). Biodiversity was measured as average species
richness per village/transect/month/meter was converted into kilometers and, for
logistical purposes, was limited to fifty common mammal species (Mammal Species List,
Appendix C). While there are many ways to evaluate ecosystem health, biodiversity is a
frequently used gross measure (Meffe et al., 2006). Biodiversity and species relative
abundance are compared across three management strategies: management of hunting
areas by village influenced by Iwokrama’s ICDP, management of hunting areas by
village that do not participate in Iwokrama’s ICDP and control areas.
The eight species described below were analyzed for relative abundance and
standard deviation of sign counts across management strategies. In general, these species
15
were chosen for analysis due to their importance as a food source to the Macuxi, the
important ecological role the species serves, or the species’ conservation status.
Although small bodied, agoutis are opportunistically utilized as a protein source
for the Macuxi. Research conducted in French Guiana reported that agoutis are
ubiquitous and use a wide variety of vegetation types as long as good cover exists.
Agoutis seek out seasonally flooded areas and prefer to avoid zones of dense
undergrowth (Dubost, 1988). The IUCN reports that agouti populations are stable and
includes the species in the conservation category of “least concern” (IUCN, 2010).
Collared peccary are a favored food source among the Macuxi. Collared peccary
travel in small groups of fewer than 30 individuals. Collared peccary are omnivorous,
known to frequent human disturbed areas and occupy a variety of habitats (Fragoso,
1994; Beck et al., 2008). Fragoso et al. (2000) determined that collared peccary tracks
counts were equally distributed among vegetation types, however an interaction was
found between hunting location, measured in terms of distance from village center, and
vegetation. The IUCN believes collared peccary populations to be stable and lists them as
a species of “least concern” (IUCN, 2010).
Curassow species are primarily herbivorous arboreal birds and serve an important
ecological role as seed dispersers (Brooks & Strahl, 2000). Although listed as a species of
“least concern” by the IUCN (2010), curassow species are believed to be among the most
threatened birds in the neotropics and remain an important food source for indigenous
peoples, including the Macuxi (Brooks & Strahl, 2000).
16
Red deer are a highly sought after as a protein source. Little is known about the
species as they are secretive and rarely walk along trails (Trolle, 2003). Red brocket deer
are listed by the IUCN as “data deficient” (IUCN, 2010).
Pacas are a favored food source of the Macuxi and are found in a variety of forest
habitats that include deciduous and semi-deciduous forest, dense upland scrub and
narrow growth along riverbanks (Trolle, 2003). Their populations are considered stable
globally and are listed as a species of “least concern” by the IUCN (IUCN, 2010).
Tapir are the largest terrestrial mammals in South America (Eisenberg, 1989).
They are generalist herbivores, whose diet consist of leaves, fruits and grasses and are
known to occur in a variety of habitats including: moist and swamp forests, dry and moist
shrub lands and grasslands (Fragoso, 1997; Trolle, 2003; Naveda et al., 2010). Tapir
populations are in decline due to habitat loss, deforestation, hunting, and competition
from domestic livestock, which has resulted in the IUCN conservation status as
“vulnerable” (Naveda et al., 2008). In a similar study, Fragoso et al. (2000) found no
significant differences in tapir track counts among three different vegetation
communities, concluding that tapirs use different plant communities equally.
Tinamous are ground dwelling, mainly herbivorous birds that can be found in a
variety of habitats including lowland rainforest, swamp forest, shrub-land, and savanna
(ICUN, 2010). The Macuxi commonly hunt this bird for food. Common Tinamou species
at the study sites include (Crypturellus cinerius, C. undulates, C. soui, C. Variegatus and
Tinamus major), all of which are listed by the ICUN as species of “least concern” (IUCN,
2010).
17
White-lipped peccary are actively hunted as a protein source. White-lipped
peccary travel in large groups commonly between 50-300 individuals, and range over
huge areas of land. They are omnivorous, have been recorded utilizing both forest and
open habitats close to cover, and are not considered to be habitat specialists (Fragoso,
1994; Trolle, 2003). The IUCN notes that populations are declining and lists the species
as “near threatened” (IUCN, 2010).
Of the species examined many have large geographical ranges and broad
ecological tolerances (Eisenberg, 1980). In one of the few studies addressing hunting
practices in the forest-savanna ecotone, similar to that of my study location, Strong et al.,
(In press) find many similarities in terms of game species harvest and composition to that
of other sites in the interior Amazon.
All study locations analyzed include a mix of both forest and savanna, however
both vegetation types exist to different extents. For this reason percent savanna is
included as a covariate in statistical analyses. I anticipate that differences in vegetation
types will not lead to gross and statistically significant differences in species abundance
and variation. Furthermore, I expect that differences in hunting pressure will override any
habitat differences (Cullen et al., 2001).
Hunting Returns
Sex ratio and age structure are important demographic indices useful in detecting
the effects of hunting on species populations (Fragoso et al., 2000). The conservative
baseline sex ratio of 1:1 is commonly used to detect variations from un-hunted
populations. However, consideration of species-specific life history and biology allows
18
for increased accuracy in making predictions about whether or not a given population is
over-hunted. For most ungulate species not subject to intense hunting pressure adult sex
ratios are female-biased, however, due to the biology of these species, the results of
hunter kills typically illustrate a male-biased sex ratio (Fragoso et al., 2000).
Following a study done by Fragoso et al. (2000) for all commonly hunted
vertebrate species, excluding the collared peccaries, populations illustrating a male
mortality bias will be considered a sign of a population that is not over-hunted.
Populations illustrating an equal or female bias are considered indicative of an overhunted population. The social behavior of collared peccaries results in similar mortalities
for both sexes. The un-hunted sex ratio of collared peccaries is even and therefore, both a
male bias as well as an equal sex ratio will be indicative of a population that is not overhunted. A female bias would remain a sign of an over-hunted population. The sex ratio
was compared against the appropriate hunted ratio for both the ICDP and non-ICDP
treatment.
The age structure of individuals within a population is an additional useful
demographic index. Because hunting prevents young individuals from reaching older age,
the expectation is that heavily hunted populations have more young individuals than
lightly hunted or un-hunt populations. Without good baseline data on age structure and
mortality rates within un-hunted populations, it is not possible to compare the ratios
against a theoretical un-hunted population. Therefore, conclusions for this index take the
form of the relative differences in hunting pressure between treatments based on
19
comparisons of the ratio of “young” to “old” individuals between the ICDP and nonICDP treatments.
Data on animal kills made by hunters within thirteen local communities provides
the necessary dataset from which to analyze population demographic indices. This dataset
was gathered and recorded by hired village para-biologist in the form of hunting returns.
Village members contacted the para-biologist after returning from either a successful or
unsuccessful hunt. Village members were notified that the information they provided was
for scientific research and that they should not alter their hunting behaviors in anyway.
Due to logistical constraints, not every hunt and kill was document, however we have no
reason to believe that the document kills represent a non-random sample of village hunts
and species killed.
The information gathered from the hunting return that is pertinent to this study
included: the species killed, the individual’s sex, and individual’s approximate age,
estimated into one of five age categories. Without a more detailed ageing protocol, it is
not feasible for me to accurately determine population structure. With this limitation,
individuals were grouped into one of two categories, “young” or “old”. For this study, the
“young” category included all individuals the hunter deemed either, “young”, “juvenile”
or “young adult”. Individuals deemed as “adult” or “old adult” were included in the “old”
category.
Attitudinal data
To evaluate individual’s perceptions and attitudes about wildlife conservation, ten
households from ten villages (5 ICDP and 5 non-ICDP) were randomly sampled between
20
June - August 2008. The survey was modeled from similar studies (Mehta & Heinen,
2001; Abbot et al., 2001; Infield & Namara, 2001; Holmes, 2003a). Input from the
research team’s anthropologist, who had been in close contact with the Macuxi people for
over a year’s time, was incorporated for cultural appropriateness. Additionally, to aid in
determining the survey’s cultural and methodological appropriateness, three test surveys
were given to para-biologist working with the research team. Comments and suggestions
made by the para-biologists were taken into consideration.
Questions were mainly fixed-response attitude statements and were supplemented
with open-response questions (Appendix D). Key informant interviews provided
additional information central to a deeper analysis of questionnaire data. The Committee
for the Protection of Human Subjects at California State University, Sacramento deemed
the survey “no risk”.
Upon arrival to each village the elected village leader, referred to as the village
toushao, was consulted on purpose and procedure of the survey. At all ten villages,
approval to conduct the survey was granted. The toushao reviewed the list of randomly
ordered village households and provided information on the physical location of
dwellings, as well as information on individuals that may be away from the village for
extended periods of time (e.g., working in Brazil or in the north of the country gold
mining), or away for the day at their farm. In all villages surveyed, the resident parabiologists were informed of my arrival and accompanied either myself, or myself and the
anthropologist, during the course of the surveying process. Importantly, being
accompanied by the para-biologist(s) provided credibility to myself, as I was viewed as
21
an outsider by village members. Additionally, the para-biologist served as a translator
into the local language(s) and was able to clarify survey questions when necessary.
All attempts were made to survey the top ten households on the list. If a house
was found empty, available information on household members whereabouts was
gathered. Whenever possible, the individual was found within the village. Second
attempts were made at households that were found empty, and no information on the
individuals could be obtained. Due to time and logistical constraints, if the members of
the household were unable to be located within the 2-4 day stay in the village, the next
household on the randomly ordered list was interviewed. On a few occasions, if the parabiologist knew that he would be in contact with a member of the currently unoccupied
household in the near future, the survey was conduced solely by the para-biologist.
Additionally, due to illness, either the anthropologist and the para-biologist, or just the
para-biologist surveyed two of the villages.
Upon arrival to an occupied household, I introduced myself, explained the
purpose of my survey and requested the occupant’s participation. If both adult members
of the household were home, due primarily to cultural doctrine, the male was first asked
to participate. If the male was vacant, the female was then asked to participate. On a few
rare occasions, participation in the survey was declined and then next household on the
list was surveyed. Surveys were conducted in English (the national language), unless
English was not spoken or well understood. In these cases, the para-biologist served as a
translator into the local language.
22
Respondents were asked to select one of three responses for each question. A
positive response to a positive conservation question and a negative response to a
negative conservation question were scored a +1. Similarly, negative response to a
conservation question was scored a -1. “I don’t know” and “maybe” responses were
scored, neutrally, and assigned a zero value. Higher summed scores represent more proconservation attitudes. For reporting purposes, individuals were not connected to their
responses and all personal data was anonymous.
Statistical Analysis
Mammalian diversity was assessed via the mean number and mean standard
deviation of animal signs per village/transect/month/km. These dependent variables were
analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) that included season and
treatments as fixed effects and included percent savanna and village population as
covariates. Because the fixed effect of transect location is only of significance in
populated areas, the influence of transect location (near and far) was analyzed using a
three-way ANOVA that included the fixed effects: location, season and only hunting
treatments (ICDP and non-ICDP). Percent savanna and village population were included
as covariates.
Species abundances were similarly assessed by means of the dependent variables:
mean counts per village/transect/month/km and standard deviation of counts per
village/transect/month/km. Two-way analyses of variance, that included season and
treatments as fixed effects and included percent savanna and village population as
covariates, were used to analyze the dependent variables. Bonferroni post hoc tests were
23
used to determine differences between groups. The effects of transect location was
analyzed using a three-way ANOVA that included the fixed effects: location, season and
only hunting treatments (ICDP and non-ICDP) and percent savanna and village
population as covariates.
All data that did not meet statistical assumptions were either square root or log
(Ln + 1) transformed. Heteroscedastic data, not remedied by transformation were
analyzed by means of the non-parametric Mann-Whitney or Kruskall-Wallis test with
Bonferroni corrected post hoc tests. The threshold used to reject the null hypothesis was
set at an alpha of 0.05.
Analyses of population demographic indices were analyzed using Chi-Squared
analyses. The sex ratio for each species were summed within treatments and compared
against the theoretical conservative 1:1 ratio of males to female using Chi-Squared
Goodness of Fit Test. The age structure of young to old individuals was summed within
treatment groups and compared between ICDP and non-ICDP treatments using a ChiSquared Test of Proportions. In cases where assumptions were not met, the Fisher’s
Exact Probability Test was used.
The attitude survey was analyzed via both descriptive and inferential statistical
methods. Survey questions that focused on conservation attitudes (questions 1-3, 6, 1416; Appendix D) were summed and averaged for each village. Theoretically individual
summed scores ranged from -7 to 7. Inferential comparison of means was used to test the
hypothesis that conservation attitudes differ between ICDP and non-ICDP villages.
24
The relationship between average village conservation attitude and mammal
diversity was analyzed via a non-parametric Spearman Rank Correlation due to violations
of normality. All analyses were carried out in SPSS for Mac, version 17.0.
25
RESULTS
Mammal Diversity
Mammal species diversity was similar across all treatments. (Figure 2). No
significant effect of treatment, season, location, or village population were found for
either mean or mean standard deviation of number of different species observed via sign
counts per village/transect/month/km. Percent savanna was marginally significant (P =
0.075) for mean counts but was not found to be significant factor in terms of standard
deviation (Table 1). No significant interactions were found.
26
Figure 2: Mammal diversity measured in terms of mean sign counts per km does not
differ among treatments (control, ICDP and non-ICDP).
Dependent variable
Independent variables
Covariates
Treatment
Season
Location*
Percent Savanna
Village Population
F (df=2) P value F (df=1) P value F (df=1) P value F (df=1) P value F (df=1) P value
mean count/km a
0.199
0.821
0.094
0.762
0.926
0.341
3.474
0.075
0.450
0.509
standard deviation a
1.349
0.278
0.799
0.380
0.630** 0.432**
0.018
0.894
0.508
0.483
Notes: location*: values reported via 3 way ANOVA that did not include the control treatment group
treatment, season: values reported from analysis conducted via a 2-way ANOVA
a
data square-root transformed
**
test assumptions not met
Table 1: Comparison of mammal diversity across ICDP, non-ICDP and control treatments.
27
28
Species Accounts
Agouti (Dasyprocta leporina). No significant effect of treatment, season, location,
or village population was found for either mean or mean standard deviation of agouti sign
counts per village/transect/month/km. Percent savanna was found to be significant (P =
0.003) for mean counts but was not found to be significant factor in terms of standard
deviation (Table 2). No significant interactions were found.
Species
Dependent variable
Independent variables
Covariates
Treatment
Season
Location*
Percent Savanna
Village Population
F (df=2) P value F (df=1) P value F (df=1) P value F (df=1) P value F (df=1) P value
mean count/km a
0.810
0.457
0.025
0.877
1.093
0.302
11.238
0.003
1.222
0.280
Agouti
standard deviation b
0.708
0.502
0.126
0.725
0.936
0.339
2.832
0.105
0.445
0.511
mean count/km a
2.199
0.133
0.016
0.902
2.131
0.152
13.304
0.001
0.685
0.416
Collared peccary
standard deviation a
2.634
0.092
0.012
0.914
NP
NP
25.332
0.000
2.307
0.142
mean count/km a
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
10.565** 0.003** 0.711** 0.407**
Paca
standard deviation a
11.458
0.000
1.736
0.200
NP
NP
25.896
0.000
0.404
0.531
mean count/km a
9.772
0.001
0.184
0.671
1.119
0.296
7.430
0.012
0.145
0.707
Red Deer
standard deviation a
4.675
0.019
0.170
0.684
0.749
0.392
2.631
0.118
0.198
0.661
mean count/km a
0.225
0.801
0.104
0.750
4.703
0.036
9.574
0.005
1.097
0.305
Tapir
standard deviation a
2.113
0.143
0.127
0.725
3.365
0.074
7.387
0.012
0.880
0.358
Notes: location*: values reported via 3 way ANOVA that did not include the control treatment group or non parameteric Mann-Whiteny test
treatment, season: values reported from analysis conducted via a 2-way ANOVA or non parameteric Kruskal-Wallis test
Covariates, values reported from analysis conducted via a 2-way ANOVA
a
data square-root transformed
b
data square log (ln + 1) transformed
**
assumptions of test not met
Table 2: Comparison of species abundance and variation across treatments (ICDP, non-ICDP and control),
season and transect location. The covariates included percent of study site that was savanna and village
population.
29
30
Collared Peccary (Pacari tajacu). No significant effect of treatment, season,
location, or village population was found for either mean or mean standard deviation of
collared peccary sign counts per village/transect/month/km (Table 2 & 3). Percent
savanna was found to be significant for both mean counts (P = 0.001) and mean standard
deviation (P < 0.001) (Table 2). No significant interactions were found.
Collared peccary
mean count/km
standard deviation
mean count/km
Curassow Sp.
standard deviation
mean count/km
Paca
standard deviation
mean count/km
Tinamou Sp.
standard deviation
mean count/km
White-lipped peccary
standard deviation
Mann-Whitney test
Notes: c
d
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Species
Dependent variable
Z score
NA
-1.387
-1.310
-1.695
-0.693
-0.231
-0.130
-0.182
-1.231
-1.440
P value
NA
NA
0.334
0.256
0.258
NA
0.864
0.607
0.805
0.864
df
NA
NA
1
1
1
NA
1
1
1
1
Chi
Squared
NA
NA
0.934
1.292
1.281
NA
0.029
0.265
0.061
0.029
P value
NA
NA
0.374
0.339
0.097
NA
0.749
0.922
0.429
0.471
df
NA
NA
2
2
2
NA
2
2
2
2
NA
NA
1.965
2.163
4.668
NA
0.578
0.162
1.695
1.506
Independent variables
seasond
Chi
Squared
treatment d
location c
MannWhitney
U
NA
57.5
59.000
51.5
71.000
80.000
82.000
81.000
61.000
57.000
Table 3: Non Parameteric comparisons of species abundance and variation across treatments (ICDP,
non-ICDP and control), season and transect location.
NA
0.165
0.190
0.090
0.488
0.817
0.896
0.855
0.218
0.150
P value
31
32
Curassow Species (Crax alector & Mitu tomentosa). No significant effect of
treatment, season, or location was found for either mean or mean standard deviation of
curassow species sign counts per village/transect/month/km (Table 3). No significant
interactions were found. Percent savanna and village population could not be analyzed
due to statistical limitations.
Paca (Cuniculus paca). Treatment was not found to be a significant factor for
mean counts however did have a significant effect on mean standard deviation (P <
0.001) of paca sign counts per village/transect/month/km (Table 2 & 3). Bonferroni Post
Hoc test illustrated a significant difference between ICDP and non-ICDP treatments;
ICDP treatments having lower mean standard deviation. However, no significant
differences were found between the control and other treatments (Figure 3). The
covariate percent savanna was found to be significant in terms of mean (P = 0.003) and
mean standard deviation of sign counts per village/transect/month/km (P < 0.001) (Table
2). Location, season and village population were not found to be significant factors in
either mean or mean standard deviation (Table 2 & 3). No significant interactions were
found.
33
Figure 3: The variability of Paca sign counts, measured via standard deviation, vary by
treatment (P < 0.001). Results of a Bonferroni Post Hoc test illustrated a significant
difference between ICDP (A) and non-ICDP treatments (B); ICDP treatments having
lower mean standard deviation. No significant differences were found between the
control (AB) and other treatments.
34
Red Deer (Mazama americana). Treatment was found to be a significant factor
for both mean counts (P = 0.001) and mean standard deviation (P = 0.019) of red deer
sign counts per village/transect/month/km (Table 2). Post Hoc tests found the control
treatment to have significantly greater mean sign counts compared to both ICDP and nonICDP treatments, which were not different from one another (Figure 4). The graph
illustrating mean standard deviation shows the ICDP treatment as having a significantly
lower mean standard deviation of counts per village/transect/month/km than non-ICDP
treatments (Figure 5).
The covariate percent savanna was found to be significant factor in terms of mean
counts (P = 0.012). However, percent savanna was not a significant in terms of mean
standard deviation. Location, season and village population were not found to be
significant factors in either mean or mean standard deviation (Table 2) and no significant
interactions were found.
35
Figure 4: Red Brocket Deer abundance was found to differ by treatment (P < 0.001). The
control treatment (A) was found to have significantly greater mean sign counts compared
to both ICDP (B) and non-ICDP treatments (B), which were not different from one
another.
36
Figure 5: The variability of Red Brocket Deer sign counts, measured via standard
deviation, vary by treatment (P = 0.019). The ICDP treatment (A) has significantly lower
mean standard deviation of counts per village/transect/month/km than non-ICDP
treatments (B). No significant differences were found between the control (AB) and other
treatments.
37
Tapir (Tapirus terrestris). Mean counts and mean standard deviation of tapir sign
counts per village/transect/month/km were similar in terms of treatment, season and
village population. Transect location was illustrated as a significant factor for both mean
counts (P = 0.036) and marginally significant for mean standard deviation (P = 0.074)
(Table 2).
As would be expected with hunting pressure decreasing with increased distance
from human focal areas, tapir’s abundance was significantly lower in the near zone across
both hunting treatments (ICDP and non-ICDP) (Figure 6). However, the variation in sign
counts between near and far transect locations was more marked in non-ICDP villages.
Although the difference was not statistically significant, this observation could be
indicative of greater hunting pressure among non-ICDP villages. Moreover, this result is
consistent with Hill et al. (1997) observations of increased track counts with increasing
distance from the villages that hunters reside. Alternatively, the observed differences
between near and far transect locations could be indicative of increased hunting pressure
nearer to the village or simply the species’ sensitivity to human disturbance and presence.
The covariate percent savanna was found to be significant factor in terms of both
mean counts (P = 0.005) and standard deviation (P = 0.012) (Table 2). No significant
interactions were found.
38
Figure 6: Transect location is a significant factor in Tapir abundance (P = 0.036). Tapir
abundance is significantly lower in the “near” zone (B) across both hunting treatments
(ICDP and non-ICDP) compared with transects located in the “far” zone (A).
39
Tinamou sp. (Crypturellus sp. & Tinamus major). No significant effect of
treatment, season, or location was found for either mean or mean standard deviation of
Tinamou species sign counts per village/transect/month/km (Table 3). No significant
interactions were found. Percent savanna and village population could not be analyzed
due to statistical limitations.
White-lipped Peccary (Tayassu pecari). No significant effect of treatment, season,
or location was found for either mean or mean standard deviation of white-lipped peccary
species sign counts per village/transect/month/km (Table 3). No significant interactions
were found. Percent savanna and village population could not be analyzed due to
statistical limitations.
Sex Ratio
Four mammal species, agouti, paca, white-lipped peccary and collared peccary,
were found with great enough frequency throughout the hunting returns to be analyzed
for deviations from baseline sex ratios of 1:1. Results of the sex ratios index do not differ
considerably between ICDP and non-ICDP villages. Results are displayed in Table 4.
Because we expect greater male mortality in populations not experiencing heavy
hunting pressure (Fragoso et al., 2000), the observed even sex ratio demonstrated for the
paca and white-lipped peccary species leads to the conclusion that both populations may
be experiencing unsustainable hunting pressure in both ICDP and non-ICDP villages.
However, due to species-specific behavior of the collared peccary an even sex ratio is
illustrative of a stable population. Therefore, the non-significant result found in both
40
ICDP and non-ICDP villages is illustrative of a stable mortality sex ratio for this species.
Differences in the sex ratio of hunted agoutis provide the only difference between ICDP
and non-ICDP villages. Mortality demographics found within ICDP villages
demonstrates an even sex ratio indicative of heavy hunting pressure, whereas the
significantly greater male mortality found in non-ICDP villages is illustrative of a stable
agouti population.
Agouti
131
97
71
87
108
83
216
15
Treatment Sample Size
ICDP
Non-ICDP
ICDP
Collared Peccary*
Non-ICDP
ICDP
Paca
Non-ICDP
ICDP
White-lipped Peccary
Non-ICDP
Notes: * baseline ratio not 1:1
Species
73
60
30
51
51
46
88
11
Males
58
37
41
36
57
37
128
4
Females
Chi
Squared
(df1)
1.718
5.454
1.704
2.586
0.333
0.976
7.407
3.267
0.190
0.020
0.192
0.108
0.567
0.323
0.006
0.071
P value
M=F
M>F
M=F
M=F
M=F
M=F
F>M
M=F
Conclusion
Table 4: Comparison within ICDP and non-ICDP treatments of species-specific sex ratios among
killed individuals.
41
42
Age Structure
No difference in the age ratio of “young” to “old” individuals was found between
ICDP and non-ICDP villages for the four species analyzed (Table 5).
43
Table 5: Comparison between ICDP and non-ICDP treatments of the age structure of
killed individuals within a species.
Species
Treatment Sample Size
Young
Old
Pearson's x2
ICDP
133
27
106
Agouti
2.80
Non-ICDP
97
29
68
ICDP
72
24
48
Collared Peccary
2.09
Non-ICDP
79
18
61
ICDP
108
26
82
Paca
0.06
Non-ICDP
82
21
61
ICDP
217
60
157
White-lipped Peccary*
NA
Non-ICDP
14
2
12
Notes: * test assumptions not met; Analysis run with 2 tailed Fisher's Exact Probablity Test
P value
0.094
0.148
0.806
0.362
44
Village Conservation Attitude
A total sample size was 102 respondents. Respondents were either the male or
female head of the household; 78% of participants were male, 19% were female and 3 of
surveys were answered together by both partners. Although men do the majority of the
hunting and the sample sizes are skewed, analyzed using a student 2 tailed t-test, there
was no significant different in conservation attitudes between the sexes.
Generally, results for the survey across all villages, both ICDP and non-ICDP,
were supportive of conservation. I found no significant difference in average village
conservation attitude between ICDP and non-ICDP villages, however the trend is towards
a more positive conservation attitude in ICDP villages (Figure 7).
45
Figure 7: Average conservation attitude by treatment. All villages were generally
supportive of conservation. There is no significant difference in average village
conservation attitude between ICDP and non-ICDP villages, however the trend is towards
a more positive conservation attitude in ICDP villages.
46
Moreover, the trend observed in terms of variation in attitude score across
treatments is noteworthy. Again, while not statistically significant, there was less
variability in individual’s conservation attitudes in ICDP village compared with nonICDP villages. This lack of variation among individuals in ICDP villages can additionally
be interpreted as success on the part of Iwokrama. We would expect some individuals to
support a philosophy of conservation and its efforts innately, regardless of Iworkama’s
influence. It could be understood that Iwokrama’s relationship with the ICDP villages,
and the benefits that follow (education programs, Jr. wildlife club, etc.), have been
instrumental in fostering and pro-conservation attitudes among individuals who might not
have otherwise harbor that set of beliefs. This logic would result in the observed decrease
in variability of the conservation attitudes score for village as a whole and across ICDP
villages.
Due to a proposed development of a protected area in the Kanuku Mountains
located near to some of the non-ICDP villages, three villages, not part of the Iworkama’s
ICDP, had been approached by and consulted with Conservation International (CI). The
relationship between these non-ICDP villages and CI is not modeled on ICDP and, to my
best knowledge, is a business style relationship. However, due to this relationship, it is
assumed that these non-ICDP villages have experienced outside western conservation
influence that has the potential to alter conservation attitudes in a similar manner to that
of Iwokrama.
47
Although the sample size is small (5 ICDP, 3 non-ICDP/conservation contact, 2
non-ICDP/non-conservation contact), results of a Kruskall-Wallis analysis illustrate a
non-significant trend in conservation attitude: both the ICDP and non-ICDP/conservation
contact villages illustrated greater pro-conservation attitudes and less variation in attitude
compared with the non-ICDP/non-conservation villages. With this limited dataset,
contact with a conservation organization seems to correlate with pro-conservation
attitudes.
Responses to survey questions not included as part of the conservation attitude
analysis are summarized in Appendix E and illustrate additional successes of Iwokrama’s
ICDP. The results of the survey illustrated general knowledge and positive perceptions of
the Iwokrama organization and it’s goals: in ICDP villages, most individuals interviewed
in ICDP villages (92%), responded that they had heard of the Iwokrama organization,
however, only about half of those individuals (44%) responded that they had an idea of
Iwokrama’s purpose. There is potential room for improvement on Iwokrama’s behalf on
this account. About half (44%) of the people in ICDP villages familiar with Iwokrama,
felt that they had personally benefited from the organization. Of those individuals in
ICDP villages familiar with Iwokrama, 70% of individuals felt that their village had
benefited from Iwokrama, 80% felt that Iwokrama was good for Guyana and 81%
responded that they thought Iwokrama was protecting plants and animals. Although
ICDP villages responded with more positive conservation attitudes and perceptions on all
accounts, in general, attitudes towards and perceptions of Iwokrama follow similar topic
specific patterns between ICDP and non-ICDP villages.
48
Attitude and Biodiversity
No significant relationship was found between average village conservation
attitude score and the village’s mean mammal diversity (Figure 8). These results indicate
that attitude is a poor predictor of the mammal diversity within the village’s hunting
areas.
49
Figure 8: No significant relationship was found between average village conservation
attitude score and the village’s mean mammal diversity.
50
DISCUSSION
This study critically evaluated an integrated conservation and development
program located in Guyana, following the call for quantitative monitoring and evidencebased conservation (Adams & Hulme, 2001; Pullin et al., 2004; Sutherland et al., 2004;
Saterson et al., 2004; Fazey et al., 2004; Pullin & Stewart, 2006). This study evaluated
the success of an ICDP program by assessing local resident’s attitudes towards
conservation, wildlife populations, and the relationship between attitudes and wildlife.
The expectation that a successful ICDP would produce hunting areas managed by ICDP
villages that would have greater biodiversity, species abundance, and wildlife population
demographic indices when compared with non-ICDP hunting areas was not supported.
The comparisons between ICDP and non-ICDP treatments are strengthened by the
agreement among all measured biological indices.
On all accounts our results mirror that of a recent, similarly focused, study that
measured the effectiveness of ICDP located on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia (Linkie
et al., 2008). This ICDP sought to address the local problem of deforestation. While the
results of a community questionnaire survey illustrated strong support for conservation
activities among the ICDP villages, actual changes in conservation behavior was not
observed. The researchers compared deforestation rates surrounding 65 ICDP and 65
non-ICDP villages and, after taking into consideration the influence of physical and
socioeconomic factors, concluded that participation in the ICDP and its development
schemes had no effect on levels of deforestation (Linkie et al., 2008). Importantly, the
51
similar findings of the Linkie et al, study, with its much larger sample size and similar
methods, lend strength to the conclusions drawn from my own case study and analysis.
Variation in mean sign counts was the only dependent variable that illustrated
differences between ICDP and non-ICDP treatments. For both paca and red brocket deer
the standard deviation was lowest among the ICDP treatment and similar between nonICDP and control treatments, illustrating greater consistency between the ICDP villages
in terms of species sign counts. This may suggest some success for Iwokrama in that the
ICDP management strategy contributes to constant wildlife populations. However,
differences in habitat or other unaccounted for variables may also be influencing
population size variation.
Moreover, the observed patterns of sign count variability could be attributed to
methodology. ICDP treatment sample size (8 villages) was larger than that of the nonICDP treatment (5 villages) and the control treatments (3 study sites). Another possible
explanation is that there has been less turn-over in the para-biologists collecting sign
counts in ICDP villages, compared with other treatment sites, illustrating consistence in
data collection rather than species sign counts. However, if this were the case we would
expect to see similar trends among other species and across other independent variables.
In terms of species abundance, the only differences between treatments were
observed for the red deer, where abundances were lower in both hunted study sites than
in the control site. A number of alternative hypotheses may be useful in explaining this
pattern. One possible explanation is that red deer may actively avoided areas frequented
by humans. However, a study conducted by Hill and colleagues (1997) illustrated greater
52
encounter rates in forest habitat with brocket deer, near populated villages when
compared with areas unfrequented by humans. The authors propose that human
disturbance may enhance habitats for brocket deer. As such, human presence alone may
not account for the difference between the human populated and control sites.
Differing resource uses with the treatments sites offer an alterative explanation.
ICDP and non-ICDP areas are actively hunted, whereas control sites are free from or
minimally hunted. It follows that the decrease abundance of red deer found within
hunting treatments may be the result of subsistence hunting.
Alternatively, the observed pattern may be explained by habitat differences
between the primarily densely forested control areas and the mixed habitat types of the
hunted and populated areas. This hypothesis is supported by the results that the covariate
percent savanna was found to be significant factor in terms of mean counts. However,
percent savanna was not a significant in terms of mean standard deviation.
Percent savanna was found to have the most significant influence on species’
abundance and variation within our study sites; although all five of the species may be
considered common in a variety of habitat types (Strong et al., in press). Detectable
differences in hunting pressure were not sufficient to override differences in vegetation
type, as expected. I was not able to reject the alternative hypothesis, that hunting
pressures were similar between ICDP and non-ICDP villages.
ICDP’s have been criticized for having indirect, ambiguous conservation
incentives (Barrett & Arcese 1995), and this may be hindering Iwokrama’s biological
success. Only 44% of people in ICDP villages who responded that they had heard of
53
Iwokrama also reported that they understood Iwokrama’s purpose. This illustrates that
Iwokrama may be failing to make crucial links between conservation and development. If
the local stakeholders are not provided with or able to take advantage of the opportunities
to benefit directly from biodiversity conservation, the link that provides the incentive to
stop external threats to biodiversity is missing (Salafsky & Wollenberg, 2000).
Moreover, the lack of detectable differences in wildlife populations may be
attributed to a time lag between the initiation of the ICDP and detectable outcomes. Baral
and colleagues (2007) assert that many prior analyses of ICDP may have been unfairly
deemed unsuccessful based on unrealistic expectations of the amount of time needed to
develop institutional framework and change behaviors. Their research supports the
hypothesis that a trend is present in the development of participatory ICDPs. Initially
ICDPs focus heavily on economic development and as they advance beyond this initial
stage, ICDPs move towards institutional strengthening and strike a greater balance
between conservation and development. Finally, with strong institutional framework in
place, administrative activities diminish and conservation becomes a greater focus. By
comparing ICDPs with differing lengths of existence, they found that the ICDPs that had
been in existence for longer periods of time were associated with greater conservation
activity (Baral et al., 2007).
Iworkama’s ICDP falls within Baral and colleagues’ “long term” time frame
grouping and exceeds the their suggestion that that a decade is a reasonable timeframe for
the initiation of this last stage focusing on conservation objectives. Although I expected
that Iwokrama’s ICDP should be at a stage where conservation outcomes would be
54
apparent, the authors admit that variation between ICDPs exists (Baral et al., 2007).
Therefore, successes in terms of Iwokrama’s conservation goals may be in progress,
however, not yet be detectable.
Source sink dynamics may also be useful in explaining the lack of detectable
differences between ICDP and non-ICDP treatments. A literature review of studies of
subsistence hunting in the neotropics conducted by Novaro and colleagues (2000)
demonstrates that subsistence hunting is often conducted adjacent to relatively
undisturbed areas, as is the case in our study. These undisturbed or protected areas have
the ability to serve as population sources to hunted areas and may play a key role in
rebuilding and maintaining wildlife populations (Novaro et al., 2000). So while there may
be differences wildlife populations among treatments, these differences may be negated
by wildlife dispersal from surrounding source populations.
In addition to biological success, this study evaluated the attitudes and perceptions
of the local people regarding conservation and the Iwokrama program. The ICDP mission
is two-fold: biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development. Both foci
inextricably linked and, therefore, equally important. Our expectation that community
members in ICDP villages would hold positive conservation attitudes was supported;
Iwokrama appears to have achieved success in fostering pro-conservation attitudes.
Because positive attitudes towards a local protected area by the neighboring communities
were found to be the strongest correlate of protected area success (Struhsaker et al.,
2005), this achievement should be viewed as highly significant in terms of the potential
success of Iwokrama’s protected area.
55
However, care should be taken in interpretation of these results as attitudes can be
volatile and can be greatly influenced by recent events (Infield & Namara 2001).
Additionally, because data was collected at a single point in time, there is no way of to
determine if attitudes were successfully altered though contact with Iwokrama and the
ICDP, or if pro-conservation attitudes have always existed. Furthermore, it is likely, as
previously mentioned, that conservation attitudes varied among villages prior to the
development of either Iworkama or contact with CI. It should therefore, not necessarily
be assumed that attitudes were altered through these relationships. The alternative
hypothesis that the correlation between ICDP village and pro-conservation attitudes is
due to the fact that villages with more conservation minded individuals were more likely
to want to work with Iwokrama’s ICDP, can not be rejected nor easily studied.
Hunting regulations were illustrated as a semi-contentious issue. While 80% of
ICDP respondents believed that their village’s council (locally elected leaders) should be
able to limit hunting (65% of non-ICDP participants answered similarly), only 25% of
ICDP respondents claimed that hunters benefited from Iwokrama. Taken together these
results may mean that villagers view establishing hunting limits as a role for local
leaders, not outside entities, and may have more to do with community solidarity than
hunting itself. This may be especially sensitive topic as only some of the ICDP villages
have legally secured land rights. If this is the case, this result supports the body of
research suggesting that land tenure may play a crucial role in the success of communitybased conservation programs (Suyanto et al., 2005).
56
By combining the results of biological data and attitude surveys, this study
addresses the underlying assumption of ICDP: that conservation attitudes translate into
conservation behavior. The hypothesis that villages that hold positive attitudes will
harbor greater species abundance and diversity in their respective hunting areas when
compared to villages that hold negative conservation attitudes was not supported.
Although the attitude survey illustrated that 40% of respondents in ICDP villages familiar
with Iwokrama reported to have changed their hunting behavior as a result of Iwokrama’s
development, results of the correlation analysis illustrated no relationship between
conservation attitude and mammalian diversity. Furthermore, this result does not support
the method of assessing ICDP success by solely evaluating people attitudes.
The lack of correlation between attitude and diversity does not come as a surprise
as I found very little variation in wildlife populations across hunted villages. However,
the finding that 40% of respondents in ICDP villages familiar with Iwokrama reported to
have changed their hunting behavior as a result of Iwokrama’s development should be
considered a success both in terms of Iwokrama’s achievements and for the ICDP
paradigm itself. If we assume that the 40% reported change in behavior is exemplary of
all individuals in ICDP villages, further investigation into the specific types of behavioral
changes may provide greater insight into the lack of significant conservation results.
Due to the nature of an observational study, there are numerous variables that
have the potential to influence wildlife populations, as well as individual’s attitudes and
perceptions. Socioeconomic differences among villages, the status of the wildlife
populations prior to the development of the ICDP, the date of the village’s founding, the
57
degree and impact of traditional resource use management practices and the distances
between villages all have potential confounding effects on the studies outcomes. Our
conclusions generally fall short of uprooting common criticisms that community focused
conservation programs lack effectiveness (Robinson, 1993; Barrett & Arcese, 1995; Oats,
1995; Noss, 1997; Brandon et al., 1998). However, there exist alternative hypothesis
useful in explaining the observed patterns. It should be noted that study sample sizes
were small and therefore, it is possible that the observed non-significant results were
made as a result of Type II error.
With a lack of demonstrated project success (Oats, 1995; Noss, 1997; Brandon et
al., 1998) research has begun to focus on the intrinsic trade-offs between conservation
and development as well as exploration of the key factors necessary to achieving both
conservation and development goals. In a recent paper, Sandker et al (2009) developed a
model to explore the trade-offs between conservation and development by simulating the
effects of different ICDP strategies. Importantly, their model used populations of forest
elephants, western lowland gorillas and duikers as indicators of biodiversity conservation
performance of the ICDP. While they did not directly gather the wildlife data, to my
knowledge this is the first study that directly assesses ICDP performance based on
wildlife populations.
Based on the modeled conservation and development indices, their results
illustrate little potential for win-win situations. Although their model illustrated that with
a high budget, the ICDP strategies were sufficient to maintain selected wildlife
populations, a diminished budget resulted in declining wildlife populations. ICDP budget
58
and governance were revealed as key factors in achieving both conservation and
development goals. Importantly, the authors conclude that an ICDP approach that ignores
governance will not work for human development in the long-term, and with short-term
donor investments will be ultimately unsuccessful in terms of conservation goals. Longterm conservation and human development will only be achieved with significant effort
put towards governance reform.
The importance of long-term financial support (Sandker et al., 2009), governance
that is respectful and inclusive of traditional ecological knowledge (Gadgil et al. 1993),
empowering local communities (Baral et al., 2007; Brooks et al., 2006) and land tenure
(Gadgil, et al., 1993; Suyanto et al. 2005) have all been highlighted in the literature as
key factors to ICDP success that Iwokrama should remain especially attentive towards.
59
CONCLUSIONS
Iwokrama was developed under an umbrella of both biological conservation as
well as socioeconomic development. Through a relationship of trust and reciprocity, the
NRDDB functions as an active stakeholder in Iwokrama as well as the user group that
acknowledges the benefits received from Iwokrama’s ICDP. The evaluation of
Iwokrama’s success through two different methods produced semi-conflicting results:
through direct analysis of wildlife populations I found little evidence in support of
biological conservation success but, though attitude surveys, found that those in contact
with Iwokrama are generally supportive of the organization and conservation goals.
Although I found little variation in species diversity across villages, this index was not
correlated with positive conservation attitudes at the village level. The results of this
study do not support the method of assessing broad ICDP success by solely evaluating
individual’s attitudes.
It is important to note that the lack of direct linkages found between Iwokrama’s
ICDP, and greater species diversity and relative abundances in participatory villages does
not lead to the conclusion that relationships between conservation, the environment,
human welfare and culture do not exist or are in someway unimportant to conservation
objectives. Many alternative explanations and confounding factors potentially useful in
explaining the observed patterns include: methodological limitations that included small
sample size and differences in habitat type, time lag between establishment of the ICDP
60
and detectible differences in wildlife populations, and source-sink dynamics operating
within the greater study area.
Attitude surveys emphasize a general positive attitude towards conservation,
although an actual change in attitudes cannot be directly attributed to the Iwokrama
organization, as well as a lack of understanding of the linkage between the ICDP’s
development initiatives, benefits received and conservation goals. Furthermore, hunting
rights, with their connection to self-determination, land rights and community
sovereignty, was highlighted as an important issue.
This case study emphasizes the importance of empirical approaches to both
conservation and development goals, useful in informing the development of successful
approaches to biodiversity conservation, particularly in poor countries. Moreover,
emphasis should be placed on longitudinal studies that include routine monitoring,
evaluation, and flexibility in project implementation (Brooks et al, 2006; Linkie et al.,
2008).
61
APPENDIX A
Map of Guyana and location of Iwokrama Forest
Graphic courtesy of Iwokrama International Centre
62
APPENDIX B
Map of Iwokrama Forest and neighboring communities
Graphic courtesy the Iwokrama International Centre GIS
63
APPENDIX C
Mammal Species List
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Common Name (US)
white-tailed deer
grey brocket deer
red brocket deer
white-lipped peccary
collared peccary
lowland tapir
naked-tailed armadillo
nine-banded armadillo
long nosed armadillo
giant armadillo
tamandua
giant anteater
southern two-toed sloth
pale-throated three-toed sloth
common four-eyed opossum
common opossum
grison
tayra
neotropical otter
giant otter
kinkajou
olingo
coati
crab-eating raccoon
bush dog
crab-eating fox
jaguarandi
oncilla
margay cat
ocelot
cougar
jaguar
brown bearded saki
Scientific Name
Odocoileus virginianus
M. gouzoubira
Mazama americana
Tayassu pecari
T. tajacu
Tapirus terrestris
Cabassous unicinctus
Dasypus novemcinctus
D. kappleri
Priodontes maximus
Tamandua tetradactyla
Myrmecophaga tridactyla
Choleopus didactylus
Bradypus tridactylus
Philander sp.
Didelphis marsupialis
Galactis vittata
Eira barbara
Lontra longicaudis
Pteronura brasilenesis
Potos flavus
Bassaricyon gabbii
Nasua nasua
Procyon cancrivorus
Speothos venaticus
Cerdocyon thous
Herpailurus yaguaroundi
F. tigrina
Felis wiedii
Leopardus pardalis
Puma concolor
Panthera onca
Chiropotes satanus
64
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Guianan saki
brown capuchin
wedge-capped capuchin
squirrel monkey
golden handed tamarin
howler monkey
spider monkey
Brazilian porcupine
black-tailed dwarf porcuine
Guianan squirrel
accouchi
agouti
paca
capybara
spiny tree rat
red-nosed tree rat
white-faced tree rat
Pithecia pithecia
Cebus apella
C. olivaceus
Saimiri sciureus
Saguinus midas
Alouatta macconelli
Ateles paniscus
Coendou prehensilis
C. melanura
Sciureus aestuans
Myoprocta acouchy
Dasyprocta leporina
Cuniculus paca
Hydrocaeris hydrochaeris
Mesomys hispidus
Makalata didelphoides
Echimys chrysurus
65
APPENDIX D
Attitude Survey
Village ________________________ 1 = Yes / 2 = Maybe / “I don’t know” / 3 = No
Number _______________________
Date/time____________/__________ How many times a month do you hunt? _______
Age/Sex ___________/____________
Do you work for Iwokrama or CI? ________
1) Do you think wild animals and plants need to be protected?
123
2) Do you try to protect wild plants and animals?
123
3) Do children need to learn about plants and animals in school?
123
4) Do you think that there are less animals now than 10 years ago?
123
5) Do you think there might be less animals in 10 years than there are
123
now?
6) Do you think that if people hunt too much, that the animals will be
123
reduced?
7) Do you think the village council should limit how much villagers can 1 2 3
hunt?
8) Do you think people from your village should be able to hunt as
123
much as they want on your village’s land?
9) Do you think people from other Amerindian villages should be able
123
to hunt as much as they want on your village’s land?
10) Do you think non-Amerindians from outside your village should be
123
able to hunt as much as they want on your village’s land?
11) Have you heard the word conservation?
123
12) Can you tell me what you think conservation means?
123
13) Have you heard the word sustainability?
123
14) Do you think conservation is good / bad / or doesn’t matter/don’t know.
15) Do you think organizations that protect wild plants and animals are good /
bad / or doesn’t matter/don’t know?
16) Do you think areas where no one is allowed to hunt are good / bad / or
doesn’t matter/don’t know?
17) Have you heard of Iwokrama?
18) Can you tell me what you think Iwokrama is doing?
19) Have you benefited from Iwokrama?
20) Do you think your village has benefited from Iwokrama?
21) Do you think hunters benefit from Iwokrama?
22) Do you think Iwokrama is good / bad / doesn’t matter/don’t know
for Guyana?
123
123
123
123
123
123
66
23) Do you think Iwokrama is protecting plants and animals?
24) Would it be better if Iwokrama did not exist?
25) Do you think the environment benefits from Iwokrama?
26) Do you think that hunting should be allowed in all of the Iwokrama
forest?
27) Have you changed how you hunt because of Iwokrama? If so how
and why?
123
123
123
123
123
67
APPENDIX E
Attitude Survey Results
#
1
Survey Question
% of respondents who
answered that they think wild
animals and plants need to be
protected
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
they try to protect wild plants
and animals
ICDP
NonICDP
94%
81%
78%
75%
3
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
children need to learn about
plants and animals in school
96%
94%
4
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
there are less animals now
than 10 years ago
64%
52%
5
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
there might be less animals in
10 years than there are now
42%
41%
6
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
if people hunt too much, that
the animals will be reduced
96%
75%
7
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
the village council should
limit how much villagers can
hunt
80%
65%
2
Survey Question
% of respondents who
answered that they DO NOT
think wild animals and plants
need to be protected
% of respondents who
answered that they DO NOT
think that they try to protect
wild plants and animals
% of respondents who
answered that they DO NOT
think that children need to
learn about plants and
animals in school
% of respondents who
answered that they DO NOT
think that there are less
animals now than 10 years
ago
% of respondents who
answered that they DO NOT
think that there might be less
animals in 10 years than there
are now
% of respondents who
answered that they DO NOT
think that if people hunt too
much, that the animals will be
reduced
% of respondents who
answered that they DO NOT
think that the village council
should limit how much
villagers can hunt
ICDP
NonICDP
2%
6%
14%
10%
2%
0%
16%
23%
28%
24%
4%
10%
6%
21%
68
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
people from their village
should be able to hunt as
much as they want on your
village’s land
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
people from other
Amerindian villages should
be able to hunt as much as
they want on your village’s
land
% of respondents who
answered that they think nonAmerindians from outside
your village should be able to
hunt as much as they want on
your village’s land
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
the word conservation
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
the word conservation who
responded that could provide
a definition of what the word
means
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
the word sustainability
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
the word conservation who
responded that they think
conservation is good
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
think organizations that
protect wild plants and
animals are good
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
areas where no one is allowed
to hunt are good
24%
35%
0%
2%
0%
0%
86%
69%
66%
74%
64%
34%
91%
61%
84%
71%
46%
39%
% of respondents who
answered that they DO NOT
think that people from your
village should be able to hunt
as much as they want on your
village’s land
% of respondents who
answered that they DO NOT
think that people from other
Amerindian villages should
be able to hunt as much as
they want on your village’s
land
% of respondents who
answered that they DO NOT
think non-Amerindians from
outside your village should be
able to hunt as much as they
want on your village’s land
% of respondents who
answered that they had NOT
heard the word conservation
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
the word conservation who
responded that could NOT
provide a definition of what
the word means
% of respondents who
answered that they had NOT
heard the word sustainability
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
the word conservation who
responded that they think
conservation is bad
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
think organizations that
protect wild plants and
animals are bad
% of respondents who
answered that they think that
areas where no one is allowed
to hunt are bad
72%
54%
96%
96%
98%
98%
14%
31%
9%
13%
32%
52%
2%
7%
2%
2%
36%
36%
69
17
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iworkrama
92%
67%
18
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and who
responded that could tell me
what Iwokrama was doing
44%
37%
44%
15%
70%
32%
25%
13%
80%
54%
81%
66%
6%
2%
19
20
21
22
23
24
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and who
answered that they think that
they have benefited from
Iwokrama
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and who
answered that they think that
their village has benefited
from Iwokrama
% of respondents who
answered who answered that
they had heard of Iwokrama
and who think that hunters
benefit from Iwokrama
% of respondents who
answered who answered that
they had heard of Iwokrama
and who answered that they
think Iwokrama is good for
Guyana
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and think that
Iwokrama is protecting plants
and animals
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and think it
would be better if Iwokrama
did not exist
% of respondents who
answered that they had NOT
heard of Iworkrama
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and who
responded that they could
NOT tell me what Iwokrama
was doing
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and who
answered that they DO NOT
think that they have benefited
from Iwokrama
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and who
answered that they DO NOT
think that their village has
benefited from Iwokrama
% of respondents who
answered who answered that
they had heard of Iwokrama
and who DO NOT think that
hunters benefit from
Iwokrama
% of respondents who
answered who answered that
they had heard of Iwokrama
and who answered that they
DO NOT think that Iwokrama
is good for Guyana
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and DO NOT
think that Iwokrama is
protecting plants and animals
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and DO NOT
think it would be better if
Iwokrama did not exist
8%
27%
23%
41%
53%
69%
19%
59%
55%
61%
0%
0%
0%
0%
75%
49%
70
25
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and think that
the environment benefits
from Iwokrama
69%
43%
26
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and think that
hunting should be allowed in
all of the Iwokrama forest
10%
16%
27
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and think that
they have changed how they
hunt because of Iwokrama
40%
13%
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and DO NOT
think that the environment
benefits from Iwokrama
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and DO NOT
think that hunting should be
allowed in all of the
Iwokrama forest
% of respondents who
answered that they had heard
of Iwokrama and DO NOT
think that they have changed
how they hunt because of
Iwokrama
4%
0%
81%
51%
33%
55%
71
LITERATURE CITED
Abbot, J., D. Thomas, A. Gardner, S. Neba and M. Khen. 2001. Understanding the links
between conservation and development in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World
Development 29: 1115-1136.
Adams and Hulme. 2001. If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the
question? Oryx 35: 93-200.
Allendorf, T., K.K. Swe, T. Oo, Y. Htut, M. Aung, M. Aung, K. Allendorf, L. Hayek, P.
Leimgruber and C. Wemmer. 2006. Community attitudes toward three protected
areas in Upper Myanmar (Burma). Environmental Conservation 33: 344-352.
Allendorf , T.D., J.L.D. Smith, and D.H. Anderson. 2007. Residents’ perceptions of
Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Landscape and Urban Planning 82: 33-40.
Allicock, Sydney. 2003. Developing Partnerships Between the Northern Rupununi
District Development Board (NRDDB) and the Iwokrama International Centre
Programme for Rain Forest Conservation & Development. Paper submitted at
Indigenous Rights in the Commonwealth Caribbean and Americas Regional Expert
Meeting. Tower Hotel, Georgetown, Guyana. <http://scholar.google.com/. 29,
September 2007.
Alvard, M.S., J.G. Robinson, K.H. Redford, and H. Kaplan. 1997. The Sustainability of
Subsistence Hunting in the Neotropics. Conservation Biology 11: 977-982.
Arjunan, M., C. Holmes, J. Puyravaud, and P. Davidar. 2006. Do developmental
initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from the
Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management
79: 188-197.
Baral, N., M.J. Stern and J.T. Heinen. 2007. Integrated conservation and development
project life cycles in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal: Is development
overpowering conservation? Biodiversity Conservation 16: 2903-2917.
Baral, N. and J.T. Heinen. 2007. Resources use, conservation attitudes, management
intervention and park-people relations in the Western Terai landscape of Nepal.
Environmental Conservation 34: 64-72.
Barrett, C.B. and P. Arcese. 1995. Are integrated conservation-development projects
(ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa.
World Development 23: 1073-1084.
72
Beck, H., Taber, A., Altrichter, M., Keuroghlian, A. & Reyna, R. 2008. Pecari tajacu. In:
IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1.
<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 08 April 2010.
Berkes, Fikret. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. PNAS 104:
15188-15193.
Bicknell, Jake E. 2004. Sustainable, Community-based Aquarium Fisheries in the North
Rupununi, Guyana. OFI Journal 44.
Bodmer, R.E., J.F. Eisenberg and K.H. Redford. 1997. Hunting and the Likelihood of
Extinction of Amazonian Mammals. Conservation Biology 11: 460-466.
Brooks D.M. and S.D. Strahl (compilers). 2000. Curassows, Guans and Chachalacas:
Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Cracids 2000-2004. IUCN/SSC
Cracids Specialist Group. ICUN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Viii + 182
pp.
Brooks, J.S., M.A. Franzen, C.M Holmes, M.N. Grote, and M. Borgerhoff Mulder. 2006.
Testing Hypothesis of the Success of Different Conservation Strategies. Conservation
Biology 20: 1528-1538.
Brandon K., K. Redford, and S. Sanderson eds. 1998. Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and
Protected Areas. Washington (DC): Island Press.
Bruner, A., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E. and da Fonseca, G.A.B. 2001. Effectiveness of
Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity. Science 291: 125-128.
Corlett, T. Richard. 2007. The Impact of Hunting on the Mammalian Fauna of Tropical
Asian Forests Biotropica 39: 292–303.
Cullen, L., E.R. Bodmer and C. Valladares-Padua. 2001. Ecological consequences of
hunting in Atlantic forest parches, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Oryx: 35 137-144.
Dowie, Mark. 2009. Conservation Refugees, The hundred-year conflict between global
conservation and native peoples. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dubost, G. 1988. Ecology and social life of the red acouchy, Myoprocta exilis;
comparisons with the red-rumped agouti, Dasyprocta leporine. Journal of Zoology
(London) 214: 107-123.
73
Eisenberg, J.F. 1980. The density and biomass of tropical mammals. Conservation
Biology, an Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (eds M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox)
Sinauer Press, Sunderland. 35-55.
Eisenberg, J. F. 1989. Mammals of the Neotropics. Vol I: The Northern Neotropics.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Fazey, I., J.G. Salisbury, D.B. Lindenmayer, J. Maindonald and R. Douglas. 2004. Can
methods applied in medicine be used to summarize and disseminate conservation
research? Environmental Conservation 31: 190-198.
Fernandes, Damian. 2006. “More eyes watching…” Community-based management of
the Arapaima (Arapaima gigas) in Central Guyana: “Survival of the Commons:
mounting challenges and new realities”. 11th Conference of the International
Association for the Study of Common Property, Bali Indonesia, June 19-23 2006.
Fiallo, E.A. and S.K., Jacobson. 1995. Local Communities and Protected Areas: Attitudes
of Rural Residents Towards Conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador.
Environmental Conservation 22: 241-249.
Fragoso, J.M.V. Biodiversity Dynamics and Land-use Changes in the Amazon: MultiScale Interactions Between Ecological Systems and Resource-Use Decisions by
Indigenous Peoples. Unpublished.
Fragoso, J.M.V. 1991. The Effects of Hunting on Tapirs in Belize. Pages 154-162 in
Robinson, J.G. and K.H. Redford, eds. Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Fragoso, J. M. V. 1994. Large Mammals and the Community Dynamics of an
Amazonian Rain forest. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL, USA.
Fragoso, J.M.V. 1997. Tapir generated seed shadows: scale-dependent patchiness in the
Amazon rain forest. J. Ecology 85: 519-529.
Fragoso J.M.V., Silvius K.M. and Villa-Lobos M. 2000. Wildlife Management at the Rio
das Mortes Xavante Reserve, MT, Brazil: Integrating Indigenous Culture and
Scientific Method for Conservation. World Wildlife Fund-Brazil, Brasilia, Brazil.
Vol. 4, 68p.
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity
Conservation. Ambio 22: 151-156.
74
Glantz, Stanton, A. 1997. Primer of Bio-Statistics, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Hill, Thoe L. 1976. The Savanna Biome: A Case Study of Human Impact on Biotic
Communities. McGill University Savanna Research Project. Savanna Research Series
No 19. Department of Geography McGill University. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Hill, K., J. Padwe, C. Bejyvagi, A. Bepurangi, F. Jakugi, R.Tykuarangi, and T.
Tykuarangi. 1997. Impact of Hunting on Large Vertebrates in the Mbaracayu
Reserve, Paraguay. Conservation Biology 11: 1339-1353.
Holmes, Christopher M. 2003a. The influence of protected area outreach on conservation
attitudes and resource use patters: a case study from western Tanzania. Oryx 37: 305315.
Holmes, Christopher. 2003b. Assessing the perceived utility of wood resources in a
protected area or Western Tanzania. Biological Conservation 111: 179-189.
Howe, H.F. and J. Smallwood. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 13: 201-228.
Hurlbert, S.H., 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments.
Ecological Monographs 54: 187-211.
Infield, M. and A. Namara. 2001. Community attitudes and behavior towards
conservation: as assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake
Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35:1 48-60.
Infield, Mark. 1988. Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and a local
conservation area in Natal, South Africa. Biological Conservation 45 21-46.
IUCN (The International Union for the Conservation of Nature) 2008. Biodiversity
Governance by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities,
http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/ceesp/topics/governance/index.cfm
Downloaded on 08 April 2010.
IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1.
<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 08 April 2010.
IUCN / UNEP / WWF. 1991. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living.
IUCN / UNEP / WWF, Gland.
Iwokrama International Centre. 2003. Summary Report 1998-2002. Caribbean Paper &
Printed Products Limited, Georgetown.
75
Iwokrama International Centre for Rain Forest Conservation and Development. 2007
<http://www.iwokrama.org/home.htm. 13, November 2007.
Janson, C.H. and L.H. Emmons. 1990. Ecological structure of the nonflying mammal
community at Cocha Cashu Biological Station, Manu National Park, Peru. Pages 314338 in Gentry, A.H., ed. Four Neotropical Forests. Yale University Press, New
Haven.
Kaimowitz, D. and D. Sheil. 2007. Conserving What and for Whom? Why Conservation
Should Help Meet Basic Human Needs in the Tropics. Biotropica 39: 567-574.
Laurance, William F. 2004. The perils of payoff: corruption as a threat to global
biodiversity. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 19: 399-401.
Linkie, M., R.J. Smith, Y. Zhu, D.J. Martyr, B. Suedmeyer, J. Pramono, and N. LeaderWilliams. 2008. Evaluating Biodiversity Conservation around a Large Sumatran
Protected Area. Conservation Biology 22: 683-690.
Meffe, Gary K., C. Ronald Carroll and Martha J. Groom. 2006. “What is Conservation
Biology?” Principles of Conservation Biology, Third Edition. Ed. Groom, M. J., G.
K., Meffe, and C. R. Carroll. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts 325.
Mehta, J.N. and J.T. Heinen, 2001. Does community-based conservation shape favorable
attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management
28: 165-177.
Melville, I.J. 2003. Guyanese Indigenous Culture: Past and Present. Paper submitted at
Indigenous Rights in the Commonwealth Caribbean and Americas Regional Expert
Meeting. June 23rd-25th, 2003, Georgetown, Guyana.
Mistry, J., M. Simpson, A. Berardi and Y. Sandy. 2004. Exploring the links between
natural resourse use and biophysical status in the waterways of the Northern
Rupununi, Guyana. Journal of Environmental Management 72: 117-131.
Naveda, A., de Thoisy, B., Richard-Hansen, C., Torres, D.A., Salas, L., Wallance, R.,
Chalukian, S. & de Bustos, S. 2008. Tapirus terrestris. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on
08 April 2010.
Neumann, Roderick P., 2002. Imposing wilderness: struggles over livelihood and nature
preservation in Africa. University of California Press: Berkeley, California.
76
Noss, A.J. 1997. Challenges to nature conservation with community development in
central African forests. Oryx 31: 180-188.
Novaro, A. K.H. Redford, R.E. Bodmer. 2000. Effects of Hunting in Source-Sink
Systems in the Neotropics. Conservation Biology 14: 713-721.
Oats, John. F. 1995. The Dangers of Conservation by Rural Development – a case-study
from the forest of Nigeria. Oryx 29: 115-122.
Peres, C.A. and J.W. Terborgh. 1995. Defensibility statues of exciting conservation units
and design criteria for the future. Conservation Biology 9: 34-46.
Pullin, A.S and G.B. Stewart. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and
environmental management. Conservation Biology 20: 1647-1656.
Pullin, A.S., T.M. Knight, D.A. Stone, K. Charman. 2004. Do conservation manager use
scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119:
245-252.
Redford, K.H. 1992. The Empty Forest. BioScience 42: 412-422.
Redford, K.H. 1993. Hunting in Neotropical Forests: a subsidy from nature. Pages 227246 in C.M. Hladik, A. Hladik, O.F. Linares, H. Pagexy, A. Semple, and M. Hadley,
eds. Tropical forests, people and food: biocultural interactions and applications to
development. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization,
Paris.
Robinson, J.G. and K.H. Redford, Eds. 1991. Neotropical wildlife use and conservation.
Chicago, University of Chicago.
Robinson, John G. 1993. The Limits to Caring: Sustainable Living and the Loss of
Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7: 20-28.
Salafsky, Nick and Eva Wollenberg. 2000. Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A
Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs and
Biodiversity. World Development 28: 1421-1438.
Salick, J., Amend, A., Anderson, D., Hoffmeister, K., Gunn, B., and Zhendong, F. 2007.
Tibetan sacred sites conserve old growth trees and cover in the eastern Himalayas.
Biodiversity and Conservation 16, 693-706.
Sandker, M., B.M. Campbell, Z. Nzooh, T. Sunderland, V. Amougou, L. Defo and J.
Sayer. 2009. Exploring the effectiveness of integrated conservation and development
77
interventions in a Central African forest landscape. Biodiversity Conservation 18:
2875-2892.
Saterson, K.A., N.L. Christensen, R.B. Jackson, R.A. Kramer, S.L. Pimm, M.D. Smith
and J.B. Wiener. 2004. Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of
conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 18: 597-599.
Scherr, Sarah, J. 2003. Hunger, Poverty, and Biodiversity in Developing Countries. Paper
of the Mexico Action Summit, Mexico City. Forest Trends & Ecoagricultural
Partners. Washington D.C.
Scherr, S.J., A. White and D. Kaimowitz. 2003. A New Agenda for forest conservation
and poverty reduction: making markets work for low-income producers. Forest
Trends. Washington, D.C.
Shackley, Myra. 1998. Designating a Protected Area at Karanambu Ranch, rupununi
Savannah, Guyana: Resource Management and Indigenous Commmunities. Ambio
27: 207-210.
Shively, E.G. 1997. Poverty, technology, and wildlife hunting in Palawan. Environmental
Conservation 24: 57-63.
Silvius, K.M. 2004. Bridging the Gap between western scientific and traditional
Indigenous wildlife management: the Xavante of Rio Das Mortes Indigenous
Reserve, Matto Grosso, Brazil. In. K.M. Silvius, R.E. Bodmer and J.M.V. Fragoso,
eds. People in Nature: Wildlife Conservation in South and Central America.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Smith R.J., R.D.J. Muir, M.J. Walpole, A. Balmford and N. Leader-Williams. 2003.
Nature 426: 67-70.
Stevens, Stan. eds. 1997. Conservation Through Cultural Survival. Island Press:
Washington D.C.
Strong J.N., Fragoso J.M.V. and Oliveira L.F. (In Press). Hunting patterns and game
choice by the Macuxi Indians of Roraima. Homen, Ambiente e Ecologia non Estado
de Roraima. National Institute of Amazonian Research (INPA), Manaus, Brazil.
Struhsaker, T.T., P.J., Struhsaker and K.S. Siex. 2005. Conserving Africa’s rain forests:
problems in protected areas and possible solutions. Biological Conservation 123: 4554.
Sutherland, W.J., A.S. Pullin, P.M. Dolman and T.M. Knight. 2004. The need for
evidence-based conservation. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 19: 305-307.
78
Suyanto, S., R.P. Permana, N. Khususiyah, and L. Joshi. 2005. Land tenure, agroforestry
adoption, and reduction of fire hazard in a forest zone: a case study for Lampung,
Sumatra, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 65: 1-11.
Terborgh, J. 1988. The Big Things that Run The World-A Sequel to E. O. Wilson
Conservation Biology 2: 402-403.
Trolle, M. 2003. Mammal survey in the southeastern Pantanal, Brazil. Biodiversity and
Conservation 12: 823-836.
Vedeld, P., A. Angelsen, E. Sjaastad, and G.K. Berg. 2004. Counting on the
Environment: Forest Incomes and the Rural Poor. Environmental Economics Series,
paper No. 98 The World Bank Environmental Department. Washington, D.C.
Western, D., M. Wright, and S.C. Strum. 1994. Natural Connections. Washington (DC)
and Covelo, California: Island Press.
Wilkie, D.S., B. Curran, R. Tshombe and G.A. Morelli. 1998. Modeling the Sustainablity
of Subsistence Farming and Hunting in the Ituri Forest of Zaire. Conservation
Biology 12: 137-147.