Introduction

The management of protected areas around the globe is often as dynamic as the habitats they are intended to protect, and affected by the socio-political context in which such management occurs. Given such circumstances, many conservationists in the international community have called for a more adaptive and holistic management approach, one that includes consideration for and extension to local communities during decision-making and in realizing tourism benefits. In fact, international events in recent years that addressed the status of parks and protected areas have stressed the need for both local participation in decision-making processes and the equal distribution of conservation related benefits (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED] 1987; World Conservation Union 2003).

In 2003, for example, the meeting of the World Parks Congress resulted in development of the Durban Action Plan (2003), an internationally distributed action paper that specifically identified numerous community-based outcomes in protected area management. This includes the need to become a stronger catalyst for sustainable development (outcome 2), securing indigenous rights of local communities adjacent to protected areas and improving communication among relevant stakeholders (outcome 10). However, assessments of previous efforts to more effectively involve local communities in protected area management have revealed mixed results. The purpose of this article is to assess the extent to which community members and protected area staff agree regarding sufficiency of communication and distribution of economic benefits specifically in a protected area in the Samburu region of Kenya.

Review of Literature

Both Honey (1999) and Wallace (1996) have articulated the imperative need for genuine benefits and community participation in plans for ecotourism in or near protected areas. When communities are required to relinquish access to resources in protected areas, as can be the case for indigenous populations in a number of developing countries, providing opportunities for these communities to provide input regarding management of the area becomes even more crucial (Wallace 1996). However, the provision of this type of open forum for local communities calls for some management schemes to shift from passive modes of collaboration (that which simply offers stakeholders pre-determined management options from which to choose) to a more active form of engagement which considers all stakeholder preferences and values at the onset (Honey 1999).

The success of the latter paradigm in protected area management is largely contingent on the ability of protected area leaders to integrate local communities and other relevant stakeholders in their management (Phillips 2003). In fact, community participation in protected area decision-making has achieved a number of successes in this realm. Its benefits are diverse and varied, having fostered a sense of connection in post-industrial England (Curry 2000) and providing land managers with a workable framework for addressing ecotourism impacts in emerging parts of South America (Farrell and Marlon 2002). In both of these regions, local participation was seen as the key factor in helping protected area managers reach their goals. Such results were realized in other research in Ecuador (Becker and others 2005), Mexico (Curtin 2002), Nepal (Bajracharya and others 2005; Mehta and Heinen 2001), and parts of Africa (Alpert 1996; Hackel 1999; Western and others 1994).

Most community-based efforts in Africa, however, have rarely achieved comparable success (Dalal-Clayton and Child 2003; Goldman 2003; Wainwright and Wehrmayer 1998; Williams and others 1999). For example, in Kenya, Maasai pastoralists near the Eselenkai Conservation Area were insufficiently included in many planning meetings (International Institute for Environment and Development 2002). Not only were economic benefits from the conservation area not received, traditional homes were adversely affected in many instances. Similarly, a community wildlife management initiative in Tanzania, one which failed to involved local people in community dialogue, resulted in a lack of trust and community indifference to wildlife conservation efforts (Songorwa 1999).

As community participation in protected area management receives more value and emphasis, sustainable tourism is often considered as a conservation strategy in such areas. For purposes of this article, sustainable tourism development is defined in accordance with that of Eagles and others (2002): it provides opportunities to enhance economic opportunities, protect natural and cultural heritage, and enhance quality of life.

Sustainable tourism in developing countries has been acknowledged by others as a means for enhancing local benefits (e.g., economic, conservation, quality of life) while creating opportunities for community representation in protected area management (Kiss 2004; Scheyvens 1999). For example, the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), a nongovernmental organization (NGO) involved in wildlife conservation efforts, has embraced the goals outlined by WCED and the IUCN and identified the “people’s voice” as a necessary component in establishing joint responsibility and equal sharing of benefits with their protected area partners (AWF 1993). Of relevance to this study, AWF provided assistance in helping three Kenyan national reserves develop ecotourism plans through stakeholder collaboration (AWF 2004).

This study identifies some of the barriers for achieving a sustainable level of tourism for Samburu (SNR) and Buffalo Springs (BSNR) National Reserves in Kenya. It focuses on current difficulties regarding communication between protected area staff and local communities regarding management that potentially affects local people, and perceptions of economic benefits, and how differences between key groups inhibit development and implementation of a sustainable tourism plan. This is problematic. According to the General Management Plan (GMP) for SNR specifically, the creation of such a tourism plan should be a precursor to any tourism development in the area (AWF 2004). Additionally, the Kenyan central government’s policies and regulations on environment and development include a legal mandate for including local communities in the management of Kenya’s protected areas (see Sessional Paper 6). What constitutes sufficient local community involvement, as this study will discuss, is unclear and a source of potential conflict.

Implementation of a community-based planning process, that which asks local people what they want and solicits their expectations and concerns, is documented as the first step in achieving success with tourism development initiatives (Blamey 2001; Wall 1997).

Consequently, the results of this study can help inform managers about such concerns so they may be able to further progress toward a community-based plan for sustainable tourism. Specifically, this article documents stakeholder concerns related to communication by management of the reserves to local communities about decisions that have local implications (e.g., grazing restrictions), and their perceived and expected benefits from the protected areas. Additionally, stakeholder concerns are addressed in an effort to identify potential problem areas regarding tourism planning initiatives in the region.

In addition, community involvement can contribute to greater social capital, or the interpersonal networks that exist within a community that ultimately compel those networks to do things for one another (Putnam 1993). Strong social capital ultimately helps communities function cooperatively and with a spirit of community or common good, and can be particularly valuable in developing world settings. Highly networked communities (i.e., communities with high social capital) have been shown to effectively manage fisheries in India (Sekhar 2007), implement soil conservation practices in the Philippines (Cramb 2005), reduce poverty in a community in Nigeria (Mabogunje 2007), and minimize land tenure disputes in Guatemala (Katz 2000).

Study Area

Samburu (165 km2) and Buffalo Springs (131 km2) National Reserves lie in north-central Kenya, approximately halfway between Mount Kenya to the south and the Mathew’s Range to the north (see Fig. 1). The contiguous reserves are situated on the banks of the Ewaso Ngiro River, the major perennial water source in an arid landscape, and the political boundary between the two local governing bodies responsible for management of the reserves: the Samburu County Council and the Isiolo County Council. Local populations in the area are predominantly Maa-speaking Samburu, a tribe related to the well-known Maasai herders of southern Kenya and Tanzania. Other groups in the surrounding area include the Turkana, Borana, and Somali tribes. Each of these tribes is represented in communities that lie within designated group ranches located north of the Ewaso Ngiro River (in the Samburu County Council jurisdiction) and on the community trust lands situated south of the river (in the Isiolo County Council jurisdiction).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of Samburu region in Kenya

Full size image

In Kenya, there is a marked difference in the protected area management structure between national parks and national reserves. National parks come under the management authority of the central government and its protected area governing body, the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). National reserves, however, are decentralized and managed by the county councils in which districts the reserves are located. Reserve rangers and wardens are employees of the county councils of these districts. SNR is located within the boundaries of Samburu District, while BSNR is located entirely within Isiolo District. This study was conducted in each of the reserves, and includes documented responses from stakeholders in each of the two districts.

Kenya and the Samburu region have recently experienced a surge in numbers of international tourists, spurred in part by the investment of European Union countries to market and advertise the region as a tourist destination. In addition, as the world continues to recover from the tragedies of September 11, 2001, international travel has regained some of the revenue lost in the aftermath of that event. Table 1 and Fig. 2 demonstrate the increase in tourism in Kenya and Samburu National Reserve, respectively. The unprecedented number of tourists indicates the need for research that addresses sustainable tourism.

Table 1 Visitor arrivals to Kenya (in thousands), 1999–2005
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Visitation to Samburu National Reserve, 2001–2005

Full size image

Historical and Political Context

Like many countries on the African continent, Kenya was colonized in the late 1800s by a European nation (Great Britain). It was administered by various British entities (e.g., Imperial British East Africa Company, British central government) at least partially with profit-making motivations. Their approach to colonization could be described as a conquest in which different regional groups became antagonistic, consequently creating a tribal system that divided ethnic groups against one another in Kenya. As infrastructure in the country was completed (e.g., railways), an influx of British and other Europeans agriculturalists relocated to the area to take advantage of the potential for profitable crops; many Kenyans were employed as laborers (others were forced in some instances) on such land. As a whole, Kenyans were largely powerless in their own country during this time.

The ensuing decades included numerous attempts and movements by Kenyans that demanded self-governance and independence. Coalitions formed, political and economic discontent ebbed and flowed, and episodes of violence against British rulers erupted. This also resulted in civil strife between and within some Kenyan ethnic groups (e.g., Kikuyu); some Kenyans benefited from the presence of wealthy British, though most did not. This tribalism continues to some extent today, illustrated in part by the violence and unrest following a closely contested presidential election in December 2007 between two individuals from two of Kenya’s largest tribes.

After decades of unrest and instability, Kenya was granted independence in 1961 but was still under the control of the British monarchy. In 1964, it became a republic with a president and prime minister, though as a new self-governing nation, it struggled. Similar to the post-independence of many African countries, Kenya’s experience has been marked by great progress as well as violent ethnic clashes, instability, and government corruption since its release from colonial rule.

From a policy standpoint, since independence, Kenya’s natural resources—and in particular its wildlife—have been governed by a number of national and local policies that have been amended and updated through the years, often in reaction to the compelling issues at the time (e.g., poaching). There have been numerous agencies created (and some since dissolved) to implement and enforce policies including the Game Department, the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department, and most recently, the Kenya Wildlife Service. Some legislation appears to be well-intentioned, such as Sessional Paper No. 6 (revised in 1999) that requires that sustainability principles be adhered to when considering development in areas that are critical to the natural environment. The Wildlife Conservation Act (last revised in 1985) provides for the protection, conservation and management of Kenya’s wildlife. Hunting bans have been installed, removed, and re-installed over the years. In preparation of this research, dozens of policies were reviewed at the National Archives of Kenya to understand the historical context of Kenya’s wildlife management.

An exhaustive analysis of policy, however, has limited value considering that as a whole, policy in Kenya has been inconsistent, mired in controversy, and generally lacking the resources needed for its implementation and enforcement. Government corruption has also had its influence with instances of nepotism, missing financial resources, misspent resources, and other allegations within the agencies responsible for managing Kenya’s wildlife and natural resources. Essentially, since its independence, Kenya has little track record of governance that could be described as corruption-free or with sufficient resources.

This brief historical, social, and political account of Kenya’s history is to provide a context for this research. It helps describe the experiences, difficulties, and realities that the country and its groups have faced since colonial rule, and in particular can help explain some of the deep-seeded perceptions of individuals reported in this article, and the different opinions between community members and protected area staff. The pre- and post-independence experience in Kenya has undoubtedly marginalized some groups, including the Samburu, as described in a number of publications (see Hodgson 2000; Salih 2001). The differences subsequently reported later in this article should be understood within this complex and unsettling history.

Methods

This study employed a qualitative strategy. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were selected as the primary means of data collection because of the desire for in-depth information, cultural norms that require relationships be built prior to asking personal information, and also due to practical considerations regarding low levels of literacy among some individuals in the region that prevent the usability of written surveys and similar methods. In addition, the study was an exploratory, inductive effort since minimal prior information or research exists regarding the variables of interest for this particular region.

Sample

Thirty semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in the region were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. Interviewees were primarily with national reserve staff (e.g., wardens, rangers; n = 14) and members of communities adjacent to the reserves (n = 16), many of whom live a semi-pastoral lifestyle based largely on raising livestock. Interviews were conducted during a three month span beginning in May 2005 that included the high tourist season months of July and August. The first month was dedicated to building relationships and rapport with individuals to be interviewed. Participants were identified using a snowball sampling approach; an initial list of individuals was generated based on recommendations of a regional and respected NGO. At the conclusion of the interviews, participants were asked to recommend names of other individuals to interview. Interviews with individuals from a specific stakeholder group (e.g., rangers, community members) were continued until the researchers determined that a sufficient repetition and salience of themes had emerged. The length of the interview ranged between 30 and 90 minutes. A smaller second set of interviews was conducted in May to June 2006.

Most interviews were conducted in English, which is widely spoken in Kenya and taught as a second language in most regions beginning in primary school. Some interviews were conducted in KiSwahili or KiSamburu; one of the research assistants was from the region and spoke both languages fluently. Interview responses presented in this article are direct translations, with some minor grammatical corrections or clarification (listed within parentheses).

During the semi-structured interviews, participants were asked to assess communication between the reserves and its stakeholders, and the perceptions about the benefits of tourism. Regarding the former, respondents were asked to generally evaluate the extent to which protected area staff communicated openly and sufficiently—by their own definition—about management decisions in the reserve that potentially have local implications. This could include: highly volatile issues, such as grazing restrictions; neutral issues, such as the overall ecological health of the reserve; as well as positive topics, such as employment opportunities in the reserve. It was measured directly in response to questions such as “Do you feel the reserve communicates sufficiently with local people about management decisions that might affect them?” Regarding the benefits of tourism, this was a separate topic area that was not integrated with the questions related to communication, unless a respondent converged the two topics within their answers. Follow-up visits were conducted to insure the researchers accurately comprehended respondents’ thoughts and intents.

Interview questions were identified based on an examination of the management objectives of the reserves (as outlined in SNR’s General Management Plan in 2004), a review of literature about indicators for sustainable development (e.g., sufficient opportunities for community-based input), and in consultation with AWF and other organizations with relevant experience in the region.

Analysis

All interviews were transcribed. Transcriptions were subsequently analyzed using a qualitative software analysis program (i.e., NVivo) in which keywords and themes were identified, assigned to particular sections or statements in the transcriptions (e.g., coding), and then tabulated to determine how often respondents made comments regarding a particular theme. An inductive coding approach was used for analysis of the transcribed interviews to allow for discovery of patterns of behavior and thought patterns (see Bernard 2002).

A three-step coding process was used to analyze the data (see Dey 1999) and preceded by the researchers reviewing the transcripts multiple times to gain a general idea of the content. In open coding (step 1) the researchers referred to the interview questions and reviewed the data for phrases and concepts that appeared multiple times in response to those questions. The researchers then created and assigned codes (e.g., “employment equity”) to the phrases and concepts that emerged multiple times in the transcripts. In axial coding (step 2), the researchers created categories (e.g., “employment”) based on the codes in step 1, and connected each code to main categories. The number of times a code was referred to in the data was counted to calculate percentages and assess salience of themes. The final step (step 3) was selective coding, where the researchers reviewed the data to understand the relationships between the main categories identified in axial coding.

Recent literature, such as publications described earlier about the benefits of stakeholder involvement in protected area planning, was employed as a lens with which to evaluate stakeholder perceptions from the transcribed interviews. This transformative strategy allowed for the expression and representation of individual concerns in a region where genuine dialogue among interested parties may not fully exist (Creswell 2003). Further, comparisons in this study were made based on the composition of two groups: (1) protected area staff (e.g., rangers, wardens); and (2) members of communities located adjacent to the reserves. The physical, geographic separation between the communities and the actual reserves is minimal; sometimes by just a river, with the community on one side and the reserve on the other.

Limitations

The sample size of 30 individuals for this qualitative study is relatively low. Using the rule of thumb for semi-structured interviews to continue the activity until responses are sufficiently repeated and themes emerge (Creswell 2003), however, the sample size was viable for this study. For example, in some instances, all 16 community members responded similarly to one question (e.g., the economic benefits of tourism), and it would be unlikely that the 17th and 18th interviewees would respond differently. In addition, the communities adjacent to the protected areas are considerably small and mostly homogenous, allowing for a more modest sample size.

The site of this study is also quite unique in terms of its culture, making the generalizability of this work limited. While the issues that emerged (such as the disparate perception about communication between the protected area and its local stakeholders) might be generally applicable to nature-based tourism in other parts of the world, how those issues are specifically defined and resolved must have a highly localized theme.

Finally, there is an additional limitation associated with cross-cultural research projects that involve expatriates conducting their work in a developing country which was previously colonized. In this study, one researcher lived in the community for three months in the year prior to the data collection, and lived in the community again for one month prior to engaging in the actual interviews. In addition, a Samburu research associate was included in most interviews to help lead, explain concepts, and provide translation when needed. In addition, the manuscript was reviewed by in-country partners to help increase its relevancy and appropriateness for Kenyan audiences. While these efforts may help mitigate the “expatriate” effect and build trust between the researchers and local people to some extent, it certainly would not eliminate it.

Results and Discussion

The results of this study reveal a disconnection between protected area staff and adjacent community members regarding communication: community members generally assessed the effectiveness of the existing communication structure much differently than reserve staff. The identified benefits of tourism, as described by each stakeholder group, also proved to be varied and inconsistent. There was minor consensus that tourism provided economic benefits to the region, though the extent of those benefits was assessed differently. Other concerns, such as livestock grazing, also emerged (see Table 2).

Table 2 Selected descriptive results comparing community members and protected area staff
Full size table

Communication

According to Kernel (2005), an important initial factor in achieving local stakeholder collaboration in protected area and tourism planning is conducting an assessment of the existing communication system among interested parties. Interview participants in this study were asked to describe and evaluate the current state of dialogue between the reserve and its community about management decisions that potentially affect local people.

When asked an open-ended question to evaluate communication between the reserves and the community about management that potentially affects local people, most participants provided an evaluation of the value and process of communication (e.g., frequency, importance). At the time of the study, communication between the reserves and its adjacent communities occurred primarily through an informal word-of-mouth network; there was no regular or formalized effort. Rangers posted at reserve entrance gates near communities are often interact with local people, or talk with community acquaintances while in town. In the previous year, one of the reserves created a community warden position with the responsibility to serve as a liaison, though practical matters such as limited transportation (for the warden to travel from the reserve headquarters to community locations) create limitations for this position, in addition to a lack of formal training on community outreach.

Ten of 14 protected area staff (71%) made comments that suggested communication with their local communities about important management decisions was sufficient and imperative. This ranger’s comment revealed such a perspective:

R25:

Of course we cannot conserve this wildlife without the help of these communities. There must be that, a good relationship between the park and the community. So we normally go to the [homes and villages], we have meetings with them, tell them that these resources are also theirs, these are their resources.

Additionally, nine of 14 (64%) staff elaborated on the consequences of failing to engage the community, as evidenced by the following comment:

R1:

So without this community, if you do not bring them on board, whatever happens to wildlife when they go out, I’m sure…. I’m sure they’ll do something to the wildlife just to make sure we know about it.

“Do something” in the above quote was most often identified as killing wildlife on community land (in lieu of within the reserve boundaries). In other words, protected area staff recognized that poaching is used as a response to dissatisfaction with reserve communication.

Conversely, 12 of 16 (75%) community members assessed communication between the reserves and communities as either non-existent or limited at-best. They often reported that decisions were made in the reserves with local implications, but without opportunities to provide input or ask questions. With communication and dialogue as a cornerstone to successful tourism planning in protected areas (Nepal and Weber 1995), efforts appear needed in this region to insure the frequency and format that defines “good dialogue” is shared among protected area management and all of its stakeholders. To date, what constitutes “good dialogue” is undefined, which may underlie the reason for the disparity between the groups.

While rangers and wardens may feel they sufficiently initiate and maintain dialogue, the perception of the community is different. This result reveals the importance for the leadership of these protected areas to examine their existing communication structure and ensure that effective dialogue is maintained, as perceived by the stakeholders. Without such an effort, consequences like those described earlier (e.g., poached wildlife) may persist.

What constitutes improved dialogue is a localized issue driven by cultural and social norms. What might work for a protected area in the United States (e.g., public meetings) would likely not be appropriate or practical in Samburu, where capitalizing on social networks or conversing one-on-one with local elders may be a more viable approach. The frequency and format of communication needs to be defined collaboratively by the stakeholders in the Samburu region, and led by protected area staff. Such variables were unaddressed by this research project.

Few respondents commented about the content of communication by the reserves. As described previously, interviewees responded firstly—and almost exclusively—about the process. Communication needed to happen more often. This finding indicates that leadership at the reserves might first define how to communicate with community members regarding relevant management decisions, and then focus on content. After ideas are identified regarding how to improve the communication process, leadership at the reserves must think strategically and innovatively to determine its implementation, given a number of practical limitations such as transportation (it is not uncommon for a reserve to have only one available vehicle at any given time for the entire region). Some communities are easily accessible as they are on well-traveled routes by numerous vehicles (delivery trucks, tour companies, research teams), while others are situated hours off the beaten track. In addition to transportation, training in how to conduct community outreach is needed. The professional development of rangers, wardens, and assistant wardens does not mandate skills in outreach, consensus-building, communication, or similar skill sets. However, there appear to be numerous entities (e.g., NGOs, Kenyan universities) with the capacity and interest—based on prior work in the area—to deliver such opportunities.

Perceived Benefits of Tourism

Stakeholder recognition of tourism-based benefits that are extended to them (e.g., revenue collected by park entry gates goes to local government, which supports schools and health clinics, for example) is also an imperative for sustainable tourism (Dieke 1993). By understanding how different stakeholders perceive the magnitude and value of those benefits, leadership can effectively address relevant stakeholder needs. The following is a description of identified stakeholder perceptions of tourism-based benefits in the Samburu region, and where consensus emerged or failed to materialize among stakeholders.

In a separate set of questions from those regarding communication with local people, respondents were asked to identify and discuss any benefits of tourism to local, regional or larger levels. There was generally consensus that tourism provided at least general economic benefits to local communities. Such benefits include: (1) annual stipends to adjacent community conservancies funded by revenue from park entry fees to support locally-determined priorities (e.g., school bursaries, public health), (2) tourist dollars spent on village visits and curio purchases, and (3) cash donations from tourists directly to individuals, families and organizations. Such economic benefits were identified to some degree by all 30 interviewees, most often as the first response to an open-ended question about the benefits of tourism. Other benefits of tourism were mentioned, (e.g., cultural exchange with tourists, rides to town), though not in sufficient frequency to mention here.

Eleven of 14 (79%) staff mentioned annual community stipends as a primary economic benefit of the protected areas. For example, two community group ranches adjacent to SNR each received one million Kenyan shillings in 2004–2005 (approximately US $13,300). No other economic benefit was mentioned consistently by protected area staff.

Contrarily, community members typically did not mention the community stipends when discussing economic benefits, and when prompted, many were unaware of the stipends altogether. Instead, all 16 interviewees identified money received directly through craft sales and village visits. Curiously, the opportunity for such revenue is limited and few respondents articulated that such revenue was abundant. Based on the researchers’ observation, only a small percent of tourists actually stop at local villages or manyattas for tours (for which tourists pay an entry fee) or purchases. Most visitors adhere to a regimented schedule led by their tour guide, and unplanned options, such as stops in local villages, are generally not part of their pre-planned and all-inclusive tour. Consequently, opportunities for revenue to be exchanged directly between tourists and the community are limited. Regardless, it was the source of economic revenue most often first mentioned by community members, though this quote exemplified a typical community member’s perceptions about the extent of that economic revenue:

C5:

The only benefit [of tourism] that I can see, is when the tourists now go to the village, to buy now the ornaments and these local beads. That one now depends on one’s wishes though. Because he or she can buy or he or she can not.

The above statement illustrates a typical perception that only minor economic benefits are received by the community from tourism, especially when compared to the benefits within the protected areas where tourists spend significant sums of money on lodging, food, tips, and in gift shops.

Overall, when asked to describe the benefits of tourism, all respondents in this study focused almost exclusively on the economic benefits. However, nature-based tourism in regions, such as Samburu, has the potential to provide other benefits. While economic benefits are often the most obvious, cultural and conservation benefits are possibilities as well (Ross and Wall 1999). For example, exchange between visitors and local communities can nurture pride and help maintain traditional practices through story-telling and cultural demonstrations. However, few individuals identified such benefits. Additionally, no respondent—including those employed by the protected areas—mentioned that tourism enables wildlife and their habitat to be conserved. As previously mentioned, responses were limited exclusively to economic benefits.

Additional Expressed Concerns

Beyond the inconsistencies of how individuals perceive communication and the economic benefits of tourism, other salient issues emerged, such as equity in employment and livestock grazing.

Equity in Employment

The concern most often mentioned by community members (11 of 16; 69%) was lack of local representation in the staff of the protected areas and the lodges within. Previous research has shown that many community-based conservation initiatives failed due to inequitable representation in the conservation areas they are asked to help protect (Akama 1996; Foggin and Munster 2003; International Institute for Environment and Development 2002; Songorwa 1999). One community member in this study quantified the problem as follows:

C19:

Like the employment…. the rangers that are employed, there are around 60 rangers but you will find (if you look at where they are from) you can hardly find 10 of them (that are from neighboring communities).

In fact, 13% of the staff of one of the protected areas came from adjacent communities. Comparatively, more than one-third of protected area staff identified employment as a benefit to their local communities. This is clearly another gap between community members and reserve staff in the perceptions of what constitutes sufficient representative employment of local residents in the protected areas’ payroll. Community members considered the current situation to be unsatisfactory; staff assessed the situation quite differently.

Indicators and standards are a common tool for protected area management, especially in widely-applied planning frameworks, such as the Limits of Acceptable Change. Most often, they are applied to biophysical (e.g., soil compaction) or social (e.g., percent of visitors who report crowding) variables. Protected areas might also consider applying indicators (e.g., percent of staff from local communities) and standards (e.g., a given percent) to this equitable employment issue as well. What constitutes a sufficient standard for this variable, especially in terms of the economic dimension of sustainable tourism, merits further study.

In addition to employment within the protected areas, 10 of 16 (63%) community members identified the distribution of revenue generated by the protected areas to the communities as insufficient. A portion of the revenue generated in the protected areas in this study (via entry fees, concessions, etc.) is allocated to adjacent communities for locally-determined priorities, as described earlier. For those communities bordering SNR, for example, money collected by SNR is added to the general fund for the Samburu County Council, and council members determine how funds are allocated to different regions within the entire district. These amounts are considered by most community members as insufficient, as evidenced by comments such as this one from a community member:

C20:

(The communities) are benefiting, although up to now, the benefit is minimal. Very minimal. Because the council shares revenue with them. I don’t really say that is sharing because it’s peanuts. Because when you are given one million per annum, and the council is getting between 70 and 90 million, then that is not sharing, that’s just like a small grant.

A revenue-sharing system perceived as more equitable could be achieved through careful deliberation and compromise between county councils and their communities. The establishment of such a system has, in fact, been highlighted as a critical management issue for SNR in their GMP (AWF 2004). This again raises the possibility of extending indicators (e.g., percent of revenue collected that is distributed to communities) and standards (e.g., a given percent) to the economic activity of protected area management.

Illegal Grazing

When asked an open-ended question about other management issues, the most often cited concern by staff was illegal grazing within protected area boundaries. Nine of 14 (64%) staff members identified this issue as a primary concern. A common intervention during this situation is for rangers to impound livestock and fine the owner, or refer him to a local judicial ward. However, the pastoral communities surrounding the reserves are economically and culturally dependent on livestock. To Samburu people, cattle are a measure of wealth and social status, and also serve as the economic base of their livelihood as they sell livestock to meet basic needs (Lesorogol 2003; Spencer 1965). Actions that disrupt livestock consequently create both a cultural and economic hardship.

Further complicating the livestock issue is that lands outside the protected areas have minimal sources of viable vegetation during the six month dry season, and cannot support thousands of heads of cattle year-round. Most community members cited these harsh conditions as a justification to graze cattle in the protected areas, even when sanctions, fines, and jail time are realistic penalties for doing so, as this comment illustrated:

C28:

…there are some cases where, it comes that there is no grass outside the reserve, so they are forced to go inside the reserve and look for the pastures. So in that circumstance, it is unavoidable because when there is no pastures outside of the reserve, then you are forced to go inside the reserve.

That not a single community member (i.e., individuals who own the cattle) cited grazing as a concern indicates the gap between their perceptions, and those of the reserve staff who were most likely to cite grazing as a priority issue. Again, cattle carry monumental cultural value in Samburu; the thought of their cultural icon being a source of consternation may be unthinkable. This issue is terribly complex as it involves sensitive and long-standing cultural tradition. While a carrying-capacity approach might seem reasonable, the acceptability of placing any restrictions on cattle is likely to be moderate among community members.

Conclusions

Protected area management can be complex. As evidenced by the dynamic and varied special interests of stakeholders in Samburu and Buffalo Springs National Reserves, planning processes in the region would do well to address more of the needs and concerns of their community members. The first step to develop mutual trust among protected area stakeholders is to engage in meaningful dialogue and share information (Backman and others 2001; Bryan 2004). When this step has been ignored in other parts of Africa, community-based conservation projects have failed to deliver meaningful benefits (Mohamed 2002; Songorwa 1999). While most of the rangers and wardens of the reserves say that regular, open dialogue exists between them and adjacent communities, community members indicated otherwise. Numerous benefits have been associated with the establishment of protected areas in developing nations, including economic (revenue sharing), infrastructural (school building), and social welfare (Ross and Wall 1999; Scheyvens 1999). In the protected areas for this study, all interviewees identified economic benefits as the major benefit of tourism for communities. This result is a bit skewed, however, with community members expressing dissatisfaction with the amount of money received from park revenue sharing programs and with insufficient amounts secured from tourist visits to local villages. Additionally, a gap exists between the community and protected area staff/policy-makers about the perceptions of the adequacy of local employment in the reserves and its associated lodges.

As discussed, this study also illustrates the need to apply widely used management tools of indicators and standards to the economic function of protected area management. What constitutes sufficient representation of local communities in protected area employment rolls? What percent of revenue generated by protected areas should be redistributed to communities? An indicator-standard approach is applicable to how these questions can be resolved.

The scope of this research is limited to identifying the differences and similarities between protected area staff and community members from adjacent lands. It did not address possible solutions to their differences, though such efforts are obviously needed in order to resolve the issues described previously. In addition, the results must be taken into the context of a relatively young democracy that exists in Kenya, as discussed earlier. Good governance and public administration of government agencies requires mentoring, time, and resources, none of which have been abundant in Kenya’s brief experience with independence.