Identified community based associations in the study area are community based forest management, different types of community based ecotourism association such tour guiding, horse renting, food cooking, selling hand craft products and cultural event showing which used to generate income and indirectly conserve biodiversity of the park .
Perceived Benefits From The Park
The result in the Table 2, indicated that from the total respondents interviewed about 94(98.9%) community based association members and 30(32.6%) of non-community based association members which in total 124(66.4%) respond that they obtain benefit from the park while about 1(1.1%) of community based association members and 62(67.4%) of non-community based association members which in total 63(33.7%) of the respondents confirmed that they didn’t obtain any benefit from the park. There were significant difference among community based association and non-community based association at (X2 = 92.071, df = 1, P < 0.05) regarding perceived benefits from park. However result of survey revealed that benefits obtained from the park across the kebeles was not significant (X2 = 3.416, df = 3, P > 0.05).
Table 2
Perceived benefit across community based association and Kebeles
Items | Does park benefit you? at, 95% confidence interval |
Across community based association (df = 1) | X2 = 92.071, P = .001 |
Across kebeles (df = 3) | X2=3.416, P = 0.332 |
Source: Own survey, 2020 |
The result of survey indicated, the most dominant perceived benefits among all items was fire wood and fodder which account 80%, followed by medicinal plant (67%), bee keeping (60%) while the list perceived benefits is employment opportunities which score 13%, (Table 3). When we look a difference of each perceived benefits across community based association, with exception of employment opportunities; all benefits were statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. This indicated members of associations were more benefited almost in all available benefit options provided in the area as compared to non-associations. This may be due to the opportunity that being the member of community based association can provide the chance of obtaining additional benefits.
Focus group discussion and key informant result also indicated being a members of association make them so as to get additional benefits particularly from ecotourism activities such as tour guiding, handcraft selling, horse renting and food cooking. As they said that individual who guide tourist receive 500 Ethiopian Birr per day, cookers and horse renters obtain 500 Ethiopian Birr per day and 150 Ethiopian Birr per day respectively. Moreover, they also stated that they get opportunities to participate in different events organized by park communities such as workshop and training. These results agreed with other similar study conducted by Yohannes Teshome et al., 2018 which indicated that many protected areas particularly, park has a potential to contribute on the local community livelihood benefit both directly and indirectly. Similar finding was noted by Yesoph Mamo et al., 2015 that local communities have benefited a lot from the park, even if perceived benefits were vary across village depending on their proximity to the park and duration of settlements as well as level of participation in conservation activities. Moreover another similar study conducted by Sizwe et al., 2016 also reflected that communities based conservation initiatives for park associated local peoples have the potential to significantly enhance local development and socio-economic benefits through job creation.
Table 3
Perceived benefit across CBA
Perceived Benefits | Response | community based association | Non community based association | Positive response | Total (%) | X2 (df) | p-Value |
Employment opportunity | yes | 9(9.5%) | 4(4.3%) | 13 | 7 | 1.898(1) | .168 |
No | 86(90.5%) | 88(95.7%) | | |
Fire wood and fodder collection | yes | 63(66.3%) | 17(18.5%) | 80 | 42.8 | 43.693(1) | 0.000 |
No | 32(33.7%) | 75(81.5%) | | |
Bee keeping | yes | 41(43.2%) | 19(20.7%) | 60 | | 10.864(1) | 0.001 |
No | 54(56.8%) | 73(79.3%) | | |
Medicinal plants | yes | 51(53.7%) | 16(17.4%) | 67 | 35.8 | 26.776(1) | .000 |
No | 44(46.3%) | 76(82.6%) | | |
Selling Hand craft products | yes | 44(46.3%) | 0(0.0%) | 44 | 23.5 | 55.721(1) | .000 |
No | 51(53.7%) | 92(100.0%) | | |
Revenue sharing | yes | 22(23.2%) | 0(0.0%) | 22 | 11.8 | 24.146(1) | .000 |
No | 73(76.8%) | 92(100.0%) | | |
Tour guiding | yes | 32(33.7%) | 1(1.1%) | 33 | 17.6 | 34.173(1) | .000 |
No | 63(66.3%) | 91(98.9%) | | |
Horse renting | yes | 46(48.4%) | 2(2.2%) | 48 | 25.7 | 52.392(1) | .000 |
No | 49(51.6%) | 90(97.8%) | | |
Food cooking | yes | 18(18.9%) | 0(0.0%) | 18 | 9.6 | 19.288(1) | .000 |
No | 77(81.1%) | 92(100.0%) | | |
Source: Own survey, 2020 |
Contribution Of Local Community Towards Park Conservations
The sampled response indicated that majority (87.2%) of the respondents were agreed that they play great role in conservation of the park’s biodiversity whereas few (12.8%) of them didn’t contribute towards park conservation and their contributions were significantly different across community based association (X2 = 7. 334, df = 1 and P < 05) (Table 4).
Table 4
Roles in conservation of the park across community based association
No | Item | community based association | Non community based association | Frequency | Percent | X2(df) | P-value |
1 | Contribute to the park conservation in any means | 89 | 74 | 163 | 87.2 | 7.334(1) | .007 |
2 | Not contribute to the park conservation | 6 | 18 | 24 | 12.8 |
| Total | 95 | 92 | 187 | 100 | | |
Source: Own Survey, 2020 |
The result in Fig. 2 indicated that majority (62%) of the respondents contribute towards conservation of the park by controlling outbreak of fire, followed by informing wildlife attack (52.9%). Besides, result from focus group discussion and key informant interviews also supports this finding. They said that know day, even if the relationship between park communities and local peoples were not as such strong, from the beginning they consider the park as their own resource and conserve it. Additionally for a long period of time, before the area considered as park, they protect and conserve as part of their life using own traditional sanction. In support of our findings, similar study conducted by Sam et al., 2014 indicated that, the participation of local community in natural resources management is the integration of local people to mobilize themselves to make decisions, manage their resources and control the activities that affect their lives. Moreover they argue that the local people have been over looked completely in the local community which are supposed to be involved in resource management through the process of gradually handling of harvesting and management activities of their natural resources. Furthermore other study conducted by Sizwe et al., 2016 also confirm that, even limited levels of awareness existing, local community are pro-active in conservation of natural resources by controlling illegal acting towards wildlife.
Perceptions of local community towards park conservation
The result in Table 5 indicates that there is no significant variation across association regarding perception of considering park as the government resource than their own asset at (X2 = 9.831, df = 4, P > 0.05), similarly no significant variation across association about how the community can better manage the park if full responsibility is given to them (X2 = 10.114, df = 4, P > 0.05). Hence, about 57.9% of community based association members and about 44.6% of non-community based association members perceive and consider park as their own resource not as the government resource. Despite the similarity in perception there is a percentage difference across two associations. However significant variation was observed across association in terms of relations between park and community is cordial (X2 = 44.862, df = 4, P < 0.05) and also feeling about the way this park is being managed (X2 = 68.374, df = 4, P < 0.05). This implies members of association has positive outlook regarding the relationship between park communities and way of park being managed.
Result from focus group discussion and key informant interviews also indicated that they have mixed response in terms of perception towards the park conservation activities. It may be depend on perceived benefits and conflicts among communities. They said that the relationship between park community and local peoples was not good. The main reason they stated are when park animal damage our crop they do not compensate balanced payment and also not actively participate in management activities of the park, except few individuals. Finding by Tewodros Kumssa and Afework Bekele, (2014), reflected that there had been many complaints by local people about the continuing problems related to their restriction of their resource use activity within the area. Moreover the pressure and conflict from conservation authorities, grazing fines, and benefits are for government. Similarly study conducted by Studsrod and Wegge, (1995) indicated that the relationship between park and peoples were negative due to crop and livestock damage by wildlife, and restrictions imposed by the reserve authorities in collecting forest products.
Table 5
Local people’s perception across community based association
Variables | Response at community based association in Percentages | Response at non community based association in Percentages | X2(df) | P-value |
Peoples consider the park as liability than asset | Mean = 3.48,SD = .944;n = 95 | Mean = 3.02;SD = 1.089,n = 92 | 9.831(4) | .055 |
Strongly agree | 3.2 | | 8.7 | | | |
Agree | 15.8 | | 29.3 | | | |
Neither agree nor disagree | 16.8 | | 15.2 | | | |
Dis agree | 57.9 | | 44.6 | | | |
Strongly dis agree | 6.3 | | 2.2 | | | |
Community can better manage the park if given full responsibility | Mean = 1.93, SD = .854;n = 95 | Mean = 2.25,SD = 1.125;n = 92 | 10.114(4) | .06 |
Strongly agree | 28.4 | | 26.1 | | | |
Agree | 60.0 | | 47.8 | | | |
Neither agree nor disagree | 4.2 | | 3.3 | | | |
Dis agree | 5.3 | | 20.7 | | | |
Strongly dis agree | 2.1 | | 2.2 | | | |
Relations between Park and community is cordial | Mean = 2.42, SD = 1.116;n = 95 | Mean = 3.40,SD = .915;n = 92 | 44.862(4) | .001 |
Strongly agree | 18.9 | | 2.2 | | | |
Agree | 45.3 | | 18.5 | | | |
Neither agree nor disagree | 15.8 | | 20.7 | | | |
Dis agree | 14.7 | | 54.3 | | | |
Strongly dis agree | 5.3 | | 4.3 | | | |
How do you feel about the way this Park is being managed | Mean = 1.87, SD = .802; n = 95 | Mean = 3.21SD = 1.033; n = 92 | 68.374(4) | .000 |
Very happy | 31.6 | | 5.4 | | | |
Happy | 56.8 | | 25.0 | | | |
Neither happy nor unhappy | 4.2 | | 16.3 | | | |
Unhappy | 7.4 | | 50.0 | | | |
Very unhappy | 0.0 | | 3.3 | | | |
Source: Own survey, 2020 |
SWOT analysis of community based associations
In this study SWOT analysis was conducted to assess suitability of community based conservation association. In this process, the internal factor (weakness and strengthens) and external factor (opportunities and threats) were identified and listed. For evaluation of Internal Factor Estimate Matrix (IFEM) and External Factor Estimate Matrix (EFEM) were used. In formulating the matrices, each factor was evaluated by giving a weight between zero (non- important) to1 (most important) such a way that the total point in each matrix was calculated. Further, each factor was scored with a number between one and four (1 = Major weakness; 2 = Minor weakness; 3 = Minor strength; 4 = Major strength, for internal matrices) whereas 1 = Major threats; 2 = Minor threats; 3 = Minor opportunities; 4 = Major opportunities, for external matrices.
After the weighted and score have been determined, the weighed score has been given to each factor which is useful in assessing the priorities/importance of each factor. In IFEM the total of weighted score (importance) with the value of more than 2.5 indicates strength are more than weakness. Similarly, in the case of EFEM the totals weighted score with the value of more than 2.5 means opportunities are more than threats. Weighted score for the strengths and weakness IFEM and opportunities and threats are tabulated in Tables 6 and 7.
Table 6
Weighted score for the strengths and weakness
No | Strengths | Weight | Score | Weighted score |
1 | Control illegal activities | 0.259 | 4 | 1.036 |
2 | Advise and punishment of members | 0.195 | 3 | 0.585 |
3 | Awareness about conservation | 0.225 | 4 | 0.9 |
| Sub total | 0.679 | | 2.52 |
| Weakness | | | |
1 | Poor coordination among members of association | 0.110 | 2 | 0.22 |
2 | Members turnover and low regular meeting | 0.083 | 2 | 0.166 |
3 | Less response to the problems occurred in association | 0.046 | 1 | 0.046 |
4 | Limited income sources | 0.085 | 2 | 0.17 |
| Sub-total | 0. 323 | | 0.602 |
| Total | 1.000 | | |
Source: Own survey, 2020 |
Table 7
Weighted score for opportunities and challenges
No | Opportunities | Weight | Score | Weighted score |
1 | Presence of community based conservation initiatives | 0.148 | 4 | 0.592 |
2 | The prevalence of alternative job opportunities | 0.15 | 4 | 0.6 |
3 | Presence of diverse natural resources in the area | 0.195 | 4 | 0.78 |
4 | The presence of different NGOs, those work on conservation of the park | 0.13 | 3 | 0.39 |
5 | Presence of community relationships | 0.117 | 3 | 0.35 |
| Sub-total | 0.74 | | 2.67 |
| Threats | | | |
1 | Occurrence of anthropogenic factors that cause the loss of biodiversity of the park | 0.086 | 2 | 0.172 |
2 | Political instability and security problems | 0.049 | 1 | 0.049 |
3 | Low recognition and commitment from concerned body | 0.079 | 2 | 0.158 |
4 | Poor promotion of the area and association | 0.054 | 1 | 0.054 |
| Sub-total | 0.26 | | 0.433 |
| Total | 1.000 | | |
Source: Own survey, 2020 |
Thus, by comparing internal and external factors in the matrix of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) acceptable strategies were formulated which are as follows; Internal factor estimate matrices regarding strengthens three factors were identified (Table 7). The weight allocated for these factors where between 0.195 and 0.259 and score ranged between 3 and 4. When considering weakness four factors were detected with the lowest weight 0.046 and the highest 0.110 with score range between 1 and 2. The final weighed score for strength was 2.521 while that of weakness was 0.602. This implies that strength were more than weakness. External factor estimate matrices; there were five factor pertaining to opportunities (Table 8) with weight between 0.117 and 0.195 and score between 3 and 4, whereas four threats were determined with lowest weight of 0.049 and highest weight of 0.086 with scores between 1 and 2. The final weighted score for opportunity was 2.67 while that of threats was 0.433. This indicates that opportunities more than threats.
Table 8
Strength –Weakness Strategies
Strength –Weakness (Strategies that reduce/avoid weakness by maximizing Strength) |
¬ Enhance advising and regulating mechanism for creating good coordination and commitment among members of association ¬ Exploiting alertness of community about conservation initiatives to ensure timely response to the problems occurred in association ¬ Supplement incentives and enhance amount of payment of services provide for community members ¬ Empower members of the community to control illegal activities in the park to minimize the problems occurred ¬ Aware and advice community, about the importance of working together on conservation activities to reduce member turnovers. |
Source: Own survey, 2020 |
Table 8
Opportunities- Threats Strategies
Opportunities- Threats (Strategies that minimize threats by maximizing opportunity) |
¬ Widely implement and incorporate community based association in conservation activities to minimize anthropogenic factor that cause the loss of park biodiversity ¬ Built strong relationships and create collaboration among community and local security agents to minimize the problems of political instability and security to maintain the safety of working environment ¬ Enhance the role of non-governmental organization working on conservation area for strengthen and maximizing promotion of existing potential resource and conservation initiative ¬ Excel and enforce implementation of existing community based conservation initiatives to enhance recognition and commitment from concerned body |
Source: Own survey, 2020 |