ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Nigeria like other countries has experienced rapid increase in number and sizes of protected areas in the last century. As a result, a number of policies, agencies and departments were established to ensure proper protection and management of these areas. To ensure management effectiveness, frequent evaluation is necessary. This paper is a review of relevant literatures on protected area management effectiveness and collaboration in management. The findings of the review indicated that the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) framework is the most widely used for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. However, a limitation of the framework is its deficiency to integrate collaboration and motivation. These factors play vital roles in effective management of protected areas through promoting wildlife conservation particularly in developing world. Therefore, this paper proposes a hybrid framework for evaluating protected area management effectiveness, consisting of the IUCN framework, collaboration and motivation to be used in subsequent assessment of protected areas.
77:15 (2015) 3140 | www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 21803722 |
Jurnal
Teknologi
Full Paper
PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA: A
REVIEW
Hassan Abdulaziza*, Foziah Johara, Mohammad Rafee Majida,
Nasiru Idris Medugub
aDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning,
Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310
UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
bDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences,
Nasarawa State University Keffi, P.M.B. 1022 Keffi, Nasarawa State,
Nigeria
Article history
Graphical abstract
Abstract
Nigeria like other countries has experienced rapid increase in number and sizes of
protected areas in the last century. As a result, a number of policies, agencies and
departments were established to ensure proper protection and management of these
areas. To ensure management effectiveness, frequent evaluation is necessary. This paper
is a review of relevant literatures on protected area management effectiveness and
collaboration in management. The findings of the review indicated that the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) framework is the most widely used for assessing
management effectiveness of protected areas. However, a limitation of the framework is
its deficiency to integrate collaboration and motivation. These factors play vital roles in
effective management of protected areas through promoting wildlife conservation
particularly in developing world. Therefore, this paper proposes a hybrid framework for
evaluating protected area management effectiveness, consisting of the IUCN framework,
collaboration and motivation to be used in subsequent assessment of protected areas.
Keywords: Protected area, management, effectiveness, collaboration
© 2015 Penerbit UTM Press. All rights reserved
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the 21st century, environmental protection and
management have been central issues across the
globe. The rapid increase in the world’s population and
greater dependence of human populace on non-
renewable environmental resources has posed a
serious threat to the environment, particularly
protected areas. The most valuable environmental
resources are mainly concentrated in protected areas.
They have long been recognized as cornerstones of
ecological conservation [1-4]. The International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is primarily
concerned with the management of protected areas
through legal or other effective means that can enable
long-term achievement of nature conservation and
associated ecosystem services [5]. The establishment of
Yellowstone in the United States in the nineteenth
century (1872) marked the beginning of protected area
formation, where the number and expanse of
protected areas keep increasing rapidly throughout the
globe. They are established for different purposes
ranging from conservation, recreation, natural resource
management, cultural and religious purposes. To
achieve these and more, the protected areas need to
be well-managed [6]. In an effort to ensure proper
management, the World Database on Protected Areas
keeps and manage data of over 162,000 protected
areas distributed worldwide as in figure 1, covering 28.4
million kilometer square, equivalent to 5.6% of the earth
surface [6-7]. The necessity or decision for the
management of the protected areas depends on size,
32 Hassan Abdulaziz et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 77:15 (2015) 3140
richness in biodiversity and availability of
rare/threatened species. Even though they are set
aside and managed mainly for the purpose of
conservation, they are also associated with wide
natural, social and economic benefits [8, 6].
Despite the growth in number and size of protected
areas across the globe, they are yet to reach 17% and
10% target of terrestrial and marine protection
respectively as outlined in the CBD Aichi Biodiversity
Target 11. At the same time, those in existence are
subjected to a range of natural, human and
management challenges. Evidence of increasing
challenges in and outside protected areas have been
reported by [5, 8-10]; and vulnerability and failure to
achieve their primary objectives [6]. In many cases,
damage resulting from these impacts are irreversible,
which can lead to complete disappearance of
protected areas. Threats can be natural or cultural, they
may arise from inadequacies in resources or
management, institutional or capacity problems [5];
external impacts, internal impacts, resource exports or
human [11]. [9] include illegal hunting, harvesting of
exotic plants and logging, encroachment, major
conversion and degradation among adverse human
activities. Based on the above mentioned facts, there is
growing concern to secure protected areas through
more effective management.
Figure 1 Growth in number of protected areas globally (Adopted from [7])
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in this review is a synthesis of
literature available in form of journals, books, reports,
and conference papers on protected area
management effectiveness and collaborative
management in protected areas. They were obtained
from Web of Science and Google Scholar search
engines and IUCN, United Nations Environment
Programme and World Conservation Monitoring Center
(UNEP-WCMC) websites. The Keywords and phrases
used were: “protected area”, “management
effectiveness”, “collaboration management”, and “co-
management”, with “AND” used as a connecting word
between keywords for the purpose of retrieving
relevant papers, books and reports for the review.
3.0 OVERVIEW OF PROTECTED AREA
MANAGEMENT
Protected area management is concerned with a
combination of actions such as legal, political,
administrative, research, planning, protective,
coordinating, so as to improve the operational
effectiveness and performance of protected areas
towards achieving their specified objectives [12].
Several international organizations play significant role
in the management of protected areas globally.
Prominent leading organizations include the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
the United Nation Environment Programme
(UNEP/WCMC), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
and the World Bank among others.
Management of protected areas differs greatly due to
factors such as level of awareness, system of
governance, well-being of the local people and
location. In an effort to ensure effective management
and sustainability of protected areas, several factors
have to come into play, such as: the system of
governance, resources availability and community
support [13]; availability of management plan,
supporting infrastructure, technical and financial
resources [14,11]; institutional capacity, information on
resources, involvement of indigenous/local people,
enforcement and implementation [11]. Effectiveness of
protected area governance plays a vital role in
ensuring effective management. It determines how
responsibilities are shared and exercised, and
accounted for based on legal rights [15-16]. The IUCN
categorizes protected area governance into four
types: governance by government, shared
governance, private governance and governance by
indigenous people and local communities [17-18]; as
shown in figure 2. However, [19] criticized governance
33 Hassan Abdulaziz et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 77:15 (2015) 3140
by government in isolation from other stakeholders due
to fear that, environmentally sound approaches can be
ignored if they are against the interest of those in power.
It is thus argued that shared governance is the most
effective way of governing/managing protected
areas. It is a collaborative approach to management,
also referred to as co-management. This approach is
the current trend adopted for protected area
management in many countries, as it allows managers,
local communities/indigenous people and other
stakeholders such as NOG’s, CBO’s and the tourism
industry to have sense of ownership and responsibility.
Collaboration in management guarantees effective
management of protected areas [20, 15].
Figure 2 Options for protected area governance (Adopted
from [1])
3.1 Current Trend in Protected Area Management
Following the weaknesses of the traditional approach
to protected area management, which set aside
protected areas for the purpose of conservation,
wilderness and scenic values; and exclude indigenous
people/local communities and stakeholders in
planning and management processes, collaborative
approach is now used. This is a Top-Down approach,
where the government assumes full responsibility of
these areas, as they finance, establish regulations that
govern the areas and make management decisions
singlehanded. This approach was criticized by many
researchers as they deny the local people their social
and cultural values [16]. The collaborative approach
allows the participation of several parties in
management, where concession is reached by all
parties involved. Collaboration is a problem solving
technique through joint decision-making where
stakeholders take collective responsibility for their
actions and subsequent outcomes from those actions
[20]. Several researches indicate the need for
participation of multi-stakeholder to ensure effective
management [21]. This approach emerged due to
weaknesses of other approaches and their inability to
integrate ecological perspective with social and
cultural aspects [22]. Researches have also shown that
effective management can be achieved best by
incorporating local communities in every decision to be
taken on the protected area [23]. The need for
collaboration in planning and management of
protected areas has been identified as a suitable and
sustainable approach to protected area management
[19-20, 22]. [24] state that public participation in
planning and management of parks/reserves can
intensify support for the areas by the local
people/communities. This is because effective
management of protected areas depends on the
manner in which local people view the areas and the
environment in general.
Management effectiveness evaluation is a strong
mechanism that inform managers and decision makers
about how well a protected area is doing, areas that
need immediate attention and revealing strength and
weakness of individual sites or system. Responding to
the challenges facing protected area management, it
becomes necessary to evaluate effectiveness of
protected area management effectiveness and their
capacity to deliver their management objectives. The
need for more evaluation of protected areas has been
postulated by a number of authors [5, 13, 25-26]. A study
by [26] on global analysis of protected area
management effectiveness revealed that 42% of the
areas included in the study were associated with major
deficiencies. Evaluation of protected area
management promotes adaptive management,
effective allocation of resources, accountability,
transparency and support capacity building [5];
improves programme planning [27]; and improves
planning strategies and better management
actions/programmes [12]. For the purpose of
evaluating protected area management
effectiveness, over 70 methodologies have been
developed and tested in different regions of the world
[26] as shown in appendix I. In addition, their
application depends on the region, focus of
evaluation, protected area system or management
[28].
4.0 PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT IN
NIGERIA
Environmental protection and management in Nigeria
dates back to the pre-colonial era by the
traditional/local people. Protected areas in Nigeria
have been managed since before the establishment of
governmental and non-governmental institutions. At
that time, management was the sole responsibility of
the traditional and local people until the 19th century,
with their local custodians. Later, the reserves were
taken over by the government, where the traditional
reserves custodians were substituted with modern
rangers in 1900s, and came under the control of the
government.
Nigeria like other countries has many protected
areas. A total number of 1021 protected areas based
on compilation from the [7, 29-33]. They are distributed
across the seven vegetation zones of the country as in
figure 3. Most of them are included in the World
Database for Protected Areas (WDPA). However,
despite the number of protected areas in the country,
their management status remains questionable.
Theoretically, the protected areas are protected:
however, in practice, the situation is different, as most
are only protected by name. This is what literature refers
to as “paper parks” [9]; ‘paper reserves’ [33]. Even
34 Hassan Abdulaziz et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 77:15 (2015) 3140
those that are protected, they are not based on
management plans or working plans meant for the
protection. [5] refers to these un-followed documents
prepared to guide management as “shelf documents”.
A: Kamuku; B1: Kainji (Borgu); B2: Kainji (Zuguruma); C: Old Oyo; D: Okomu; E1: Cross River (Oban); E2: Cross River (Okwango); F: Gashaka Gumti; G:
Yankari; H: Chad Basin (Hadejia-Nguru); H1: Chad Basin (Sambisa); H2: Chad Basin (Chingurme-Duguma); 1: Ebbazikampe: 2: Okpara; 3: Upper Ogun;
4: Ohosu; 5: Ologbo; 6: Iri-Ada-Obi; 7: Ologbolo-Emu-Urho; 8: Orle River; 9: Gilli-Gilli; 10: Anambra; 11: Uddi/Nsukka; 12: Akpaka; 13: Obudu; 14: Stubbs
Creek; 15: Ibi; 16: Wase Sanctuary; 17: Wase Rock Bird Sanctuary; 18: Pandam Wildlife Park; 19: Pai River; 20: Ankwe River; 21: Damper Sanctuary; 22:
Nasarawa; 23: Lame Burra; 24: Kogin Kano; 25: Lake Chad; 26: Dagida; 27: Alawa; 28: Kwiambana
Figure 3 Map of Nigeria showing protected areas (Adapted from [30])
Nigeria has witnessed a rapid increase in the
number and size of protected areas in the 20th
century. The first forest reserve created in 1899 marks
the beginning of designating protected areas in the
country. In 1900, protected areas in Nigeria represent
0.01% of the country’s total land mass, equivalent to
97,125 hectares. Five decades later, a substantial
achievement was recorded as the figure increased to
8% in 1950 representing 7,332,031 hectares, and after
that, it increased slowly to 11% in 1980 [35]. The
protected areas include forest reserves, biosphere
reserve game reserves, game/wildlife sanctuary, strict
nature reserves, and national parks as in appendix II.
They are established for the purpose of conservation
of valuable environmental/-ecological resources, to
meet tourism and recreational needs and to support
research and education through proper
management [35].
In Nigeria, National Parks and Game Reserves
constitute the greater percentage of the protected
area system. [36] estimates the total area covered by
Nigeria’s protected areas to be over three million
hectares, and about 2.3 million hectares fall into
category Ia and II of the IUCN category. [37]
categorized effort towards management and
conservation of protected areas into three: the first
stage was to restrict hunting rights of the
traditional/local people, the second stage was to
establish game reserves and other forms of protected
areas so as to ensure effective management of
resources; and the third stage was development of
wildlife tourism with the aim of conserving
endangered resources. In line with [37] categorization,
management of protected areas in Nigeria gained
government support from the colonial era, when the
Department of Forestry was established to oversee
and manage the reserves resources [38]. The
Department of Forestry was established in 1897.
The establishment of the Department of Forestry was
the initial step towards proper management of
protected areas and other natural resources in
Nigeria. Recently, the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency (FEPA) was established, and it
recorded significant achievements in establishment of
national environmental policy, guidelines, standards
and criteria. The ultimate aim of the agency are to: (i)
ensure quality of life and environmental standards
adequate for better health and well-being of all
Nigerians, (ii) conserve and ensure the utilization of the
environment and its natural resources sustainably so
that both the present and future generations can reap
benefits from its resources, (iii) restore, maintain and
enhance ecosystems, (iv) increase public awareness
particularly on the relationship between environment
and socio-economic development, and encourage
communities and individuals to participate in efforts
35 Hassan Abdulaziz et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 77:15 (2015) 3140
towards environmental improvement, and (v)
collaborate with international bodies/agencies and
NGOs in ensuring proper protection and
management of the environment. But yet, this is not
the reality on the ground.
Management of protected areas in Nigeria is a Top-
Down approach which involves only the agencies
responsible and the managers. This approach is
associated with several shortcomings as they are
unable to incorporate indigenous/local communities,
which made them loose their support in
management. Involvement of local communities in
protected area management is among the
requirement of the Decree 46 of 1999, in an effort to
improve management and conservation of national
parks in Nigeria.
Effective management of protected areas in
Nigeria depends heavily on the well-being of the
indigenous people and local communities
surrounding the areas [35]; economic and social
structure of regions where protected areas are
located [39]. In an effort to achieve this objective, the
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was
adopted in 1997 by the federal government. The
primary aim is to conserve and enhance sustainable
use of the nation’s biodiversity and biological
resources; and to integrate biodiversity considerations
in national planning policy and decision-making.
5.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
5.1 IUCN Framework for Evaluating Protected Area
Management
Series of theories and framework have been
developed for the purpose of evaluating protected
area management effectiveness so as to determine
how well a protected area is doing and how well it is
protected. The most widely accepted framework is
the one developed by IUCN which is based on three
themes: planning and design; adequacy and
appropriateness of management processes; and
delivery of protected area objectives [5] as in figure 4.
Figure 4 IUCN framework for evaluating protected area
management (Adopted from [5])
The framework focuses on six elements namely:
context, planning, input, process, output and
outcome to determine the effectiveness of protected
area management at either individual sites or
protected area system and their contributions in
effective management. One of the limitations of the
construct is that, it does not incorporate collaboration
and motivation. This is part of the requirement of the
CBD Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 for 2020, where
effective conservation and equitable management
of protected areas have been spelled out.
Indigenous/local communities can play a significant
role towards effective management, as they were in-
charge of the protected area management before
the coming of the present institutions. In addition,
other protected areas can play a significant role in
ensuring effective management through information
sharing and motivation of both managers and the
indigenous/local people. But the institutions are of the
view that the local communities are unable to
manage them through proper regulation and
therefore they are threats to the areas and or their
contribution in management can be insignificant.
Therefore, government controls are imposed, which
has paved the way for the top-down approach, and
this has not yielded successful outcome. The
institutions are less concerned with managers’
motivation which strengthens ability to perform and
achieve better outcomes for the reserves.
Collaboration receives less attention due to low
level of environmental education from the side of
local people. But then their traditional knowledge
however is of vital importance in management and
conservation of protected areas [40-41]. Some
researchers argue that management of protected
areas can be achieved without collaboration with
local communities and stakeholders [42]. However,
collaborative management strategy appears to be
the most effective way of managing the protected
areas since the areas are in the mist of the local
people. Nowadays, collaborative management is
gaining recognition due to its positive contribution in
protection and conservation of protected areas [41-
42]; reduces pressure on the areas especially through
support of local economic development [44];
contribute to effectiveness of the areas [45]; stands
better chance of achieving the protected area
management objectives [46].
Neglecting local communities in management itself
is a threat to the areas. It can lead to deliberate
(illegal) actions that can be detrimental to the
protected area resources as well as a setback to the
sustainability of the areas [47]. The author also
emphasized on peaceful coexistence managers and
local communities otherwise, the local communities
may collaborate with poachers and others of
prejudicial interest. Quite number of researchers
reveal that collaboration between the PA managers
and the local communities plays significant role in
effective management of protected areas by
promoting wildlife conservation particularly in
developing world [48-50, 46]. Protected areas that
36 Hassan Abdulaziz et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 77:15 (2015) 3140
lack the support of local people, or tend to disregard
them hardly if not impossible to attain expected
outcome [51]; and their sustainability is at stake [48].
[52] added that, local communities should not only
participate in management of protected areas, but
also in decision-making process. This allows the local
people to have a sense of ownership, and as well
make them comply easily to policies and guidelines
governing the protected areas, while disregarding
them can make them become resistant to the
regulations because they will feel that they are
rubbed off their resources.
In addition to collaboration, staff motivation is
another important factor in ensuring effective
management of protected areas. Motivating
protected area staff through incentives or other
means contributes to effectiveness of protected areas
[43].
5.2 Proposed Framework
Based on a synthesis of literature on protected area
management and collaborative management,
coupled with the effort to meet the CBD Aichi
Biodiversity Target, a new direction for effective
management of protected areas has been proposed.
It incorporates elements of motivation and
collaboration with indigenous people/local
communities/stakeholders, NGOs, international
organizations and other protected areas in both
planning and management processes. The integrated
framework is shown in figure 5. This is an additional
dimension to the work of [5] for evaluating
management effectiveness of protected areas.
Figure 5 Proposed framework for evaluating protected area
management (Adapted from [5])
6.0 POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES RELATED TO
PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA
The protection of protected areas by legislation dated
back to 1880s under Governor Alfred Maloney. This
marked the formal protection of forest and
environmental resources through the Department of
Forestry. The first forest reserve was then established in
1899. Environmental protection was formalized in 1901
with the establishment of Forest Ordinance, later the
colonial Township Ordinance in 1917, which paved
the way for the establishment of protected areas [53].
Then in 1916 the Wild Animals Preservation Laws of
Western Nigeria (Cap 132) emerged as the first law,
and was only applicable to the western part of the
country. A decade after, the second law, the Wild
Animals Preservation Laws of Eastern Nigeria was
enacted in 1928, and was only applicable to the
eastern part of the country. The last law which
protected the northern reserves came into being after
three decades in 1063, and is referred to as the Wild
Animals Laws in Northern Nigeria.
After independence in 1960, a Decree emerged so
that creation of reserves and national parks could
have legal backing. Decree No. 46 of 1979 serves as a
legal background for the creation and protection of
reserves. In an effort to promote planning and
management of the environment, the Nigerian
Society for Environmental Management and Planning
was created in 1983 with the aim of promoting
planning and management of the environment;
developing policies; and conducting research on the
state of the environment and its management in
Nigeria. In addition, the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency (FEPA) in Nigeria also plays
significant role in environmental management
through the establishment of national environmental
policy, guidelines, standards and criteria among
others. Decree 36 of 1991 was later promulgated to
ensure proper management of protected areas.
However, the Decree was modified in 1995 due to
some weaknesses. The latest decree established for
NPS is: Decree 46 of 1999, introduced to improve
management and conservation of National Parks in
the country. The Decree also mandates all National
Parks to prepare a comprehensive management plan
for the parks. The plan according to[36] should consist
of: (1) a map of the park and proposed facilities; (2)
an inventory of resources in the park; (3) assessment of
wildlife population trends in the park; (4) assessment of
wildlife interference and plans for controlling it; (5) a
description of proposed research activities,
infrastructure development and wildlife resource
management in the park; (6) plans for administration
of the park; (7) plans to develop national and
international tourism; (8) plans for the creation of
buffer zones around the park and the participation of
local communities in the management of the park; (9)
plans for public participation in park activities; (10)
plans to promote and assist in ensuring
environmentally sound sustainable development in
the areas surrounding the park, other buffer zones, for
the purpose of protecting the areas.
In addition, policy on forestry, wildlife and protected
areas is part of the National Policy on Environment in
1989, which was subsequently revised in 1999. The
policy is aimed at:
37 Hassan Abdulaziz et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 77:15 (2015) 3140
Maintaining environmental quality in order to
ensure healthy wellbeing of the citizens;
Conserving and sustaining the environment and
its natural resources;
Restoring, maintaining and enhancing the
ecosystems and ecological processes so as to
ensure sustainability of the natural environment;
Increasing public awareness and at the same
time promoting public understanding of the
linkages between the environment and
development;
Cooperating with other agencies and
international organizations in environmental
protection and management.
Similarly, other effort to strengthen the protection
and management of reserves/protected areas in
Nigeria include the establishment of the Support Zone
Community Development Programme. It is among the
significant programmes developed for the benefit of
local communities around protected areas. This policy
is integrated in section 49, sub-section (1) and (2) of
the National Park Legislation. This policy can play a
significant role in incorporating local communities in
protected area planning and management so as to
achieve effective protection and management, but
as noted above, most park management regimes still
pursue a top-down approach that tends to exclude
local communities.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Significant achievements have been recorded in the
establishment of protected areas at both local and
global scales, despite the pressure from population
increase and increasing dependence on
environmental resources which subject protected
areas to a number of threats and pressure. However in
Nigeria this effort continues to face major
shortcomings. Even those in existence face a series of
challenges from ineffective management,
degradation, extinction of biodiversity and lack of
independent objective evaluation.
At present, the existing IUCN framework as the most
widely used framework for evaluating management
effectiveness of protected areas is inadequate at fully
exploiting opportunities in collaboration and
motivation in management. These two elements have
potentials to improve more effective management
and maintain good relationships between key players
(communities and managers) in management. The
interplay between them can significantly contribute
to the achievement of protected area objectives. This
paper has indicated the reason that necessitates
incorporation of the two elements into the IUCN
framework so as to determine the extent to which they
contribute to effectiveness of protected area
management. Effectively managed protected areas
are vital not only to the environment and the
ecological system, but also to humans as they
contribute to controlling and limiting the occurrence
of natural catastrophes. Therefore, this paper calls for
more assessment of protected areas using this
framework to enable them accomplish their
management objectives.
References
[1] Dearden, P., Bennett, M. and Johnston, J. 2005. Trends in
Global Protected Area Governance 1992-2002.
Environmental Management. 6(1): 89-100.
[2] Prato, T. and Fagre, D. 2005. National Parks and Protected
Areas: Approaches for Balancing Social, Economic, and
Ecological Values. Weley, Blackwell Publications.
[3] Vodouhe, F. G., Coulibaly, O., Adegbidi, A. and Sinsin, B.
2010. Community Perception of Biodiversity Conservation
within Protected Areas in Benin. Forest Policy and
Economics. 12: 505-512.
[4] Kolahi, M., Sakai, T., Moriya, K., Majid, F. M. and Koyama, L.
2013. Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protected Areas
Management in Iran. Case Study in Khojir National Park.
Environmental Management. 52 (2): 514-530.
[5] Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and
Courrau, J. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for
Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas.
2nd Edition. IUCN, GLAND, SWITZERLAND AND CAMBRIDGE.
UK, xiv +105pp.
[6] Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. and Hockings, M.
2014. The Performance and Potential of Protected Areas.
Nature. 515: 67-73.
[7] Deguignet M., Juffe-Bignoli D., Harrison J., MacSharry B.,
Burgess N. and Kingston N. 2014. United Nations List of
Protected Areas. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK.
[8] Dudley, N. 2004. How Effective Are Protected Areas? A
Preliminary Analysis of Forest Protected Areas by WWF The
Largest Ever Global Assessment of Protected Area
Management Effectiveness. A Report Prepared For The
Seventh Conference Of Parties Of The Convention On
Biological Diversity. February. SWITZERLAND: WWF.
[9] Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. 1999. A Preliminary Survey of
Management Status and Threats in Forest Protected Areas.
Parks. 9(2): 27-33.
[10] Chape, S. 2004. Systematic Assignment of Protected Area
Management Categories: An Opportunity for Achieving a
Measurable Framework. Parks. 14(3): 51-57.
[11] Carey, C., Dudley, N. and Stolton, S. 2000. Squandering
Paradise? The Importance and Vulnerability of the World’s
Protected Areas. GLAND, Switzerland. WWF.
[12] Cifuentes, M. A. , Izurieta, A. V. and Faria, H. H. 2000.
Measuring Protected Area Management Effectiveness.
Technical Series No. 2. WWF:IUCN:GTZ.
[13] Hockings, M. and Philips, A. 1999. How Well Are We Doing?
Some Thoughts on the Effectiveness of Protected Areas.
Parks. 9(2): 5-14.
[14] Kurdoglu, O. and Cokcaliskan, B. A. 2011. Assessing the
Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in the Turkish
Caucasus. African Journal of Biotechnology. 10(75): 17208-
17222.
[15] Nielsen, G. 2012. Capacity Development in Protected Area
Management. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology. 19(4): 297-310.
[16] Mulongoy, J. K. Chape, S. P. [Eds]. 2004. Protected Areas
and Biodiversity. An Overview of Key Issues. CBD
Secretariat, Montreal, Canada and UNEP-WCMC.
CAMBRIDGE, UK.
[17] Dudley, N. (Editor).2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected
Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
X + 86pp.
[18] Graham, J., Amos, B. and Plumptre, T. 2003. Governance
Principles for Protected Areas in the 21st Century. A Paper
Prepared for The Fifth World Parks Congress Durban, South
Africa. Institute on Governance, in Collaboration with Parks
38 Hassan Abdulaziz et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 77:15 (2015) 3140
Canada and Canadian International Development
Agency.
[19] Briassoulis, H. 1989. Theoretical Orientations in
Environmental Planning. An Inquiry into Alternative
Approaches. Environmental Management. 13(4): 381-392.
[20] Selin S. and Chavez, D. 1995. Developing a Collaborative
Model for Environmental Planning and Management.
Environmental Management. 19(2): 189-195.
[21] Margerum, R. D. 1995. Integrated Environmental
Management: Moving from Theory to Practice. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management. 38(3): 371-392.
[22] Lane, M. B. 2001. Affirming New Direction in Planning
Theory: Comamangement of Protected Areas. Society and
Natural Resources. 14: 657-671.
[23] Stolton, S. 2004. Issues that Arise for the Categories in a
Changing World. Parks. 14(3).
[24] Ezebilo, E.E. and Mattsson, L. 2010. Socio-Economic Benefits
of Protected Areas as Perceived by Local People around
Cross River National Park: Nigeria. Forest Policy and
Economics. 12(3): 189-193.
[25] Ervin, J. 2003. Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of
Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology.
GLAND, SWITZERLAND: WWF.
[26] Leverington, F., Costa, K. L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A. and
Hockings, M. 2010. A Global Analysis of Protected Area
Management Effectiveness. Environmental Management.
46(5): 685-698.
[27] Hocking, M., Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. 2000. Evaluating
Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management
of Protected Areas. IUCN, GLAND, SWITZERLAND AND
CAMBRIDGE, UK x + 121pp.
[28] Hockings, M., Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. 2002. Evaluating
Effectiveness: A Summary for Park Managers and Policy
Makers. WWF. United Kingdom and IUCN. GLAND,
SWITZERLAND.
[29] United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). 2008. Nigeria Biodiversity and Tropical Forestry
Assessment: Maximizing Agricultural Revenue in Key
Enterprises for Targeted Sites (Markets). Chemonics
International Inc.
[30] First National Biodiversity Report. 2001. Federal Republic of
Nigeria. Contributors: Oladipo, E., Ogbe, M. G., Molta, N.,
Ladipo, D., Shingu, G., Maiwada, O., Dore, M.P.O., Olojede,
A., Osemeobo, G., Mshelbwala, J., Sarumi, Ojogbo, V.,
Owolabi, C., Ene-Ita, A.
[31] Oladipo, E., Ogbe, M.G., Molta, N., Ladipo, D., Shingu, G.,
Maiwada, O., Dore, M.P.O., Olojede, A., Osemeobo, G.,
Mshelbwala, J., Sarumi, Ojogbo, V., Owolabi, C. and Ene-
Ita, A. 2001. Nigeria First National Biodiversity Report.
Federal Republic of Nigeria.
[32] Olufemi A. O. and Ameh, C. E. 1999. Forest Resource
Situation Assessment of Nigeria. EC-FAO PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAMME (1998-2002 Tropical forestry Budget line B7-
6201/97-15/VIII/FOR PROJECT GCP/INT/679/EC. FAO).
Abuja, Nigeria.
[33] IUCN 1998. United Nations List of Protected Areas. Prepared
by WCMC and WCPA. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge. UK. Xii + 412pp.
[34] Marguba, L. B. 1999. Development of National Parks in
Nigeria. An Overview: A Paper Presented to the Meeting of
the Nigerian Field Society. UK Branch. 9th 10th October
1999.WHISPNADE, ENGLAND.
[35] Marguba, L. B. 2003. Protected Areas in National and
Regional Development. The Road to Durban. Regional
Protected Areas Workshop for West and Central Africa.
Kribi: Cameroon. Technical Report compiled by Nayuoh, L.
and Bakarr, M. I. IUCN Regional Office for Central Africa.
Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation
International and IUCN World Commission on Protected
Areas.
[36] The Global Environment Facility. 2002. Washington DC.
[37] Osemeobo, G. J. 1990. Land Use Policies and Biotic
Conservation. Problems and Prospects for Forestry
Development in Nigeria. Land Use Policy. 7(14): 314-322.
[38] Gbadegesin, A. and Ayileka, O. 2000. Avoiding the
Mistakes of the Past. Towards a Community Oriented
Management Strategy for the Proposed National Park in
Abuja-Nigeria. Land Use Policy. 17(2): 89-100.
[39] Usman, B. A. and Adefalu, L. L. 2010. Nigerian Forestry,
Wildlife and Protected Areas. Status Report. Tropical
Conservancy. 11(3-4): 44-52.
[40] Johannes, R. E. (editor). 1989. Traditional Ecological
Knowledge: A Collection of Essays. International
Conservation Union (IUCN). Gland, Switzerland.
[41] Johannes, R. E. 1998. The Case for Data-Less Marine
Resource Management. Examples from Tropical Nearshore
Fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 243246.
[42] Young, J. C., Jordan, A., Searle, K. R., Butler, A., Chapman,
D. S., Simmons, P. and Watt, A. D. 2013. Does Stakeholder
Involvement Really Benefit Biodiversity Conservation?
Biological Conservation. 158:359-370.
[43] Chowdhury, M. S. H., Koike, M. and Muhammed, N. 2009.
Embracing Collaborative Protected Area Management for
Conservation. An Analysis of the Development of the Forest
Policy of Bangladesh. International Forestry Law. 11(3): 359-
374(16).
[44] Infield, M. 2001. Cultural Values: A forgotten Strategy for
Building Community Support for Protected Areas in Africa.
Conservation Biology. 15(3): 800-802.
[45] Blomley, T., Pfliegner, K., Isango, J., Zahabu, E., Ahrends, A.,
and Burgess, N. 2008. Seeing the Wood for the Trees. An
Assessment of the Impact of Participatory Forest
Management on Forest Condition in Tanzania. Oryx. 42(03):
380-391.
[46] Nakakaawa, C., Moll, R., Vedeld, P., Sjaastad, E. and
Cavanagh, J. 2015. Collaborative Resource Management
and Rural Livelihoods around Protected Areas: A case
Study of Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda. Forest Policy
and Economics. Article in Press.
[47] Holmes, G. 2007. Protection, Politics and Protest.
Understanding Resistance to Conservation. Conservation
and Society. 5(2): 184-201.
[48] Wells, M. P. and McShane, T. O. 2004. Integrating Protected
Area Management with Local Needs and Aspirations.
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 33(8): 513-
519.
[49] Mutanga, C. N., Vengesayi, S., Muboko, N. and Gandiwa,
E. 2015. Towards Harmonious Conservation Relationships. A
Framework for Understanding Protected Area Staff-Local
Community Relationships in Developing Countries. Journal
for Nature Conservation. 25: 8-16.
[50] Mutanga, C. N., Vengesayi, S., Muboko, N. and Gandiwa,
E. 2015. Towards Harmonious Conservation Relationships. A
Framework for Understanding Protected Area Staff-Local
Community Relationships in Developing Countries. Journal
for Nature Conservation. 25: 8-16.
[51] Holmes, G. 2013. Exploring the relationship between local
support and the success of protected areas. Conservation
and Society. 11(1): 72-82.
[52] Klooster, D. & Masera, O. 2000. Community Forest
Management in Mexico. Carbon Mitigation and
Biodiversity Conservation through Rural Development.
Global Environmental Change. 10(4): 259-272.
[53] Chokor, B. A. 1993. Government Policy and Environmental
Protection in the Developing World: The Example of
Nigeria. Environmental Management. 17(1): 15-30.
39 Hassan Abdulaziz et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 77:15 (2015) 3140
Appendix I:
METHODOLOGIES FOR EVALUATING
PROTECTED AREA
S/N
Methodology name
Abbreviation
1
Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area
Management
RAPPAM
2
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
METT
3
Enhancing Our Heritage
EOH
4
How is Your Marine Protected Area Doing?
How is Your Marine
Protected Area Doing?
5
Conservation Action Planning
TNC CAP
6
World Wide Fund World Bank Marine Protected Area Score Card
Marine Tracking Tool
7
Conservation International Management Effectiveness Tracking
Tool
CI METT
8
Important Bird Area Monitoring
Birdlife IBA
9
Governance of Biodiversity Survey Greifswald
GOBI
10
Stockholm Biosphere Reserves Survey
Stockholm BR Survey
11
West Indian Ocean MPA Toolkit
West Indian Ocean
MPA
12
Site level assessment of World Heritage Areas
Egyptian Site-Level
Assessment
13
Central Africa Republic-Evaluation of ‘Conservation Potential’
of Protected Areas
Central African
Republic
14
African Rainforest Study
African Rainforest Study
15
Assessing protected area management effectiveness in the
Congo Basin
Congo MEE
16
Threat Reduction Assessment in Uganda
Uganda Threat
Assessment
17
Korean tracking tool
Korea METT
18
Korea survey on protected area management status
Korea MEE
19
Evaluation of Management effectiveness of Indian Protected
Areas
MEE Indian
20
Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Indian Tiger Reserves
Indian Tiger Reserves
Assessment
21
Marine Protected Area Evaluation
Alder
22
European Diploma of Protected Areas
European Diploma
23
Protected Area Network Parks
PAN Parks
24
EUROPARC Trans-boundary Parks Certification
EUROPARC Transb.
25
EUROPARC European Charter for Sustainable Tourism
EUROPARC ECST
26
Carpathian Management Tracking Tool
CPAMETT
27
European Site Consolidation Scorecard
European SCS
28
Management Effectiveness Study-Finland
Finland MEE
29
Management effectiveness of Lithuanian protected areas
Lithuania
30
State of the ParkAssessment Finland
SOP Finland
31
Evaluation of French Regional Nature Parks
French RNP
32
Contrat d’Objectifs (French National Parks
French NP (CdO)
33
Nature Park Quality Campaign, Germany
German Nature Parks
34
Quality Criteria and Standards of German National Parks
German National
Parks
35
Evaluation of German BRs
German BRs (EABR
36
Evaluation of German BRs)
German BRs
(Schrader)
37
National Park Authority Performance Assessment, England
NPAPA England
38
Evaluation of Local Nature Reserves, Scotland
LNR Scotland
39
Performance and management effectiveness of national
nature reserves, Scotland
NNR MEE Scotland
40
Countryside management system (National Nature Reserves,
Wales)
NNR Wales
41
Quality Park Project Italy
Italian Quality Parks
42
Monitoring and Evaluation of Protected Areas, Italy
MEVAP Italy
43
Natuurmonumenten Quality Test
Natuurmonumente
n Test
44
Spanish National Parks
Situation of National
Park Network
45
Evaluation of the system of protected areas of Catalonia, Spain
Catalonia MEE
46
Management Effectiveness Evaluation Tenerife
Tenerife MEE
47
EUROPARC Spain DB
EUROPARC Spain
Database
48
INDES-PAR Asturias
INDES-PAR (Asturias)
49
MEE Swedish Counties
Evaluation of Swedish
County Administrative
Boards
50
SkötselDOS
SkötselDOS (Protection
GIS System)
51
TNC Parks in Peril Site Consolidation Scorecard
PIP Site
consolidation
52
PROARCA/CAPAS Scorecard Evaluation
PROARCA/CAPAS
53
WWF/CATIE Measuring protected area management
effectiveness
WWF-CATIE
54
Rapid Evaluation of Management Effectiveness in Marine
Protected Areasof Mesoamerica.
Mesoamerica MPA
55
Degree of Implementation and the Vulnerability of Brazilian
Federal Conservation Areas (WWF Brazil)
Brazil 1999
56
AEMAPPS: Analisis de Efectividad de Manejo de Areas
Protegidas con Participacion Social: MEE with social
participation Columbia
AEMAPPS
57
Ecuador MEE: Indicadores para el Monitoreo y Evaluacion del
Manejo de las Areas Naturales Protegidas del Ecuador
Ecuador MEE
58
Manual para la Evaluacion de la Eficencia de Manejo del
Paraque Nacional Galapagos-SPNG
Galápagos MEE
59
Monitoring and Assessment with Relevant i ndicators of
Protected Areas of the Guianas
MARIPA-G
60
Belize National Report on Management Effectiveness
Belize MEE
61
Metodologia de Evaluacion de Efectividad de Manejo (MEMS)
y SMAP del SNAP de Bolivia
MEMS
62
Padovan 2002
Padovan 2002
63
Scenery Matrix
Scenery Matrix
64
PA Consolidation Index
PA Consolidation Index
65
Valdiviana Ecoregion Argentina
Valdiviana
66
Venezuela Vision
Venezuela Vision
67
Peru MEE
Peru MEE
68
Sistema de Información, monitoreo y evaluación para la
conservación
SIMEC
69
Tasmanian World Heritage MEE
Tasmanian WHA
70
New South Wales State of Parks (Australia)
NSW SOP
71
Victorian State of Parks (Australia)
Victorian SOP
72
Queensland Rapid Assessment (Australia)
Qld Rapid
Assessment
73
Fraser Island World Heritage Area (Australia)
Fraser Island WHA
74
Queensland Park Integrity assessment (Australia)
Qld Park Integrity
75
USA State of Parks
USA SOP
76
Monitoring and reporting ecological integrity in Canada’s parks.
Parks Canada
Source [26]
Appendix II:
S/N
Name of Protected
Areas
S/N
Name of Protected
Areas
S/N
Name of
Protected
Areas
S/N
Name of
Protected Areas
S/N
Name of Protected
Areas
S/N
Name of Protected
Areas
S/N
Name of Protected
Areas
S/N
Name of Protected Areas
S/N
Name of Protected
Areas
1
Apoi Creek Forests
112
Bokori
227
Eporo
342
Ijebu-Ode
457
Kogo
573
Marguba
688
Omo
803
Ukpom-Bende
918
West Okura
2
Baturiya Wetland
113
Bonu
228
Eruwa
343
Ikebiri Creek
458
Kogum River
574
Maribara
689
Oni
804
Uku Da Sisi
919
West Tangaza
3
Dagona Sanctuary Lake
114
Borgu
229
Esie
344
Ikeji
459
Kokomto
575
Maru Bongudu
690
Onishere
805
Umon Ndealichi
920
Woabi
4
Foge Islands
115
Boshi
230
Etizurugi
345
Ikerre
460
Komadugu Gana
576
Matanfada
691
Opandha
806
Umuabi
921
Wuda Taye
5
Lake Chad Wetlands
116
Bosso Dam
231
Ewohimi
346
Ikom
461
Komala
577
Matsago
692
Ora-Iuleha-Ozalla
807
Umuahia Ibeku
922
Wurkam River
6
Lower Kaduna-Middle
N Niger Floodplain
117
Buga Hill
232
Ewun Rafia
347
Ikom
462
Kona
578
Matsena
693
Oroma Anam
808
Umude Ugbenu
923
Wuro Bamusa
7
Maladumba Lake
118
Bugau North
233
Fadaman Mada
348
Ikpeye
463
Konduga
579
Mawarta
694
Osara
809
Umuokpara Umuowa Ogee
924
Wuro Biriji
8
Nguru Lake Complex
119
Bulangu
234
Fahu
349
Ikrigon
464
Kontagora
580
Mawashi
695
Osho
810
Ungua Jiburu
925
Wuro Mallum
9
Oguta Lake
120
Buli Hill
235
Falomi
350
Ikwe
465
Korama Kurumi
581
Mawulli
696
Oshogbo
811
Unguwa Lalle
926
Wushishi
10
Pandam and Wase Lakes
121
Bunga Hill
236
Farfar
351
Ila (Nigeria)
466
Kpashimi
582
Mayo Ndaga
697
Oshun
812
Unknown (NGA) No.1
927
Wuyo Gube
11
Upper Orashi Forests
122
Bunu
237
Farin Ruwa
352
Ilaro
467
Kpeyafo
583
Mazanbiya
698
Osi
813
Unknown (NGA) No.11
928
Yache
UNESCO-MAB Biosphere
Reserve
123
Burashika
238
Fatika
353
Ilesha
468
Kuchigi
584
Mbaafon
699
Osomari
814
Unknown (NGA) No.12
929
Yamaltu
12
Omo Strict Natural Reserve
124
Buratai
239
Fefeku
354
Illela
469
Kudu
585
Mbaav 1
700
Otamiri
815
Unknown (NGA) No.13
930
Yamdugu
National
125
Burgo
240
Femari
355
Illoka'oje
470
Kuduge
586
Mbaav 2
701
Otamiri River
816
Unknown (NGA) No.14
931
Yammama
Community Forest
126
Burra North
241
Feri
356
Imbibnina
471
Kukangiwa
587
Mbaava
702
Otete
817
Unknown (NGA) No.15
932
Yan Tumaki
13
Mbe Mountains
127
Burra West
242
Finukunu
357
Inyelen
473
Kukar Jangara
588
Mbahura
703
Otu
818
Unknown (NGA) No.16
933
Yandev
Forest Reserve
128
Busta
243
Fuchi
358
Ipeli-Idoani
474
Kukawa
589
Mbakoso
704
Otuma
819
Unknown (NGA) No.17
934
Yangaiya
14
Abak River
129
Cece
244
Fuka
359
Ipetu
475
Kukwaba
590
Mbakpa
705
Oturkpo
820
Unknown (NGA) No.18
935
Yarda Kangiwa
15
Abba Isari
130
Central Shendam
245
Gabas Mari
360
Irele
476
Kumo
591
Mbamsjrom
706
Owan
821
Unknown (NGA) No.19
936
Yashi
16
Aburifa
131
Central Wase
246
Gabo Escarpment
361
Irite Amoli
477
Kuna Hill
592
Mbanue
707
Owo
822
Unknown (NGA) No.2
937
Yasku
17
Achalla
132
Chihurma
247
Gabu
362
Irrua Uromi
478
Kurba
593
Mbatan
708
Oyinno
823
Unknown (NGA) No.20
938
Yautare
18
Achara Ihe
133
Chikwei
248
Gadadri
363
Irrua-Unea
479
Kurba
594
Mbatiav
709
Pai River
824
Unknown (NGA) No.21
939
Yede
19
Acharane
134
Chinade
249
Gadam
364
Isa Zurmi
480
Kurmayai
595
Meko
710
Panshanu
825
Unknown (NGA) No.22
940
Yelwa Fuel
20
Adaki
135
Chokochoko
250
Gadari
365
Isanlu
481
Kurmi Adebi
596
Mele
711
Pategi
826
Unknown (NGA) No.23
941
Yerwa
21
Adankolo
136
Cross River North
251
Gadau
366
Ise
482
Kurmi Agori
597
Meleri
712
Prison Fuel
827
Unknown (NGA) No.24
942
Yo
22
Adiani
137
Cross River South
252
Gagara
367
Iseyin Central
483
Kurmi Agudu
598
Meringa North West
713
Puissa
828
Unknown (NGA) No.25
943
Zaga
23
Adoru
138
Dabaga
253
Gajiram
368
Iseyin West
484
Kurmi Agyaragu
599
Minna
714
Rabadi
829
Unknown (NGA) No.26
944
Zala
24
Afaka
139
Dabamsame
254
Galadima
369
Ishan Aiyede
485
Kurmi Akanga
600
Mkar
715
Radda
830
Unknown (NGA) No.27
945
Zalanga
25
Afi River
140
Dabira
255
Galambi
370
Isheagu
486
Kurmi Akeno
601
Mohono
716
Rade
831
Unknown (NGA) No.28
946
Zamfara
26
Agaie Gate
141
Dadingel
256
Galma
371
Ishieki
487
Kurmi Akura
602
Molai
717
Radoho
832
Unknown (NGA) No.29
947
Zanchita
27
Agala
142
Dagidda
257
Gambare
372
Isiamaigbo
488
Kurmi Kurayi
603
Moma
718
Radung
833
Unknown (NGA) No.3
948
Zandama Hills
28
Agbaja
143
Dajina
258
Gambari
373
Ivi-Ada-Obi
489
Kurmi Maiakuya
604
Mongu
719
Radwan
834
Unknown (NGA) No.30
949
Zangula River
29
Agbun
144
Dakka
259
Gangara
374
Iwa River
490
Kurmi Maisamari
605
Monkin
720
Rafin Bawa
835
Unknown (NGA) No.31
950
Zaranda Hill
30
Agoi
145
Dalli
260
Gangoro
375
Jabi Rawa
491
Kurmi Tagwaye North
606
Mozum
721
Rafin Doboyi
836
Unknown (NGA) No.32
951
Zaria
31
Ago-Owu
146
Dam Makama
261
Gangume
376
Jagali
492
Kurmi Tagwaye South
607
Mudu
722
Rafin Hill
837
Unknown (NGA) No.33
952
Zauna
32
Aguara
147
Damakuli
262
Garba Shege
377
Jaja
493
Kurmin Bakin Kogin
608
Mungurum
723
Rafin Iwa
838
Unknown (NGA) No.34
953
Zigau
33
Aguobu Owa
148
Damangu
263
Gardemna
378
Jajere
494
Kurmin Danki
609
Muni
724
Raganda
839
Unknown (NGA) No.35
954
Zing
40 Hassan Abdulaziz et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 77:15 (2015) 3140
34
Ajaokuta
149
Damasak
264
Garere
379
Jalingo
495
Kurmin Kogi
610
Musa
725
Rahama
840
Unknown (NGA) No.36
955
Zok
35
Ajigin
150
Damboa
265
Garko
380
Jangasiri
496
Kurmin Male
611
N.W. Escarpment
726
Rakuma
841
Unknown (NGA) No.37
956
Zubakpere
36
Akanga
151
Damri
266
Garko Meri
381
Jankai
497
Kurra Jekko
612
Naanabi
727
Ran
842
Unknown (NGA) No.38
957
Zugurma
37
Akanto
152
Dan Babba
267
Garu
382
Jaori
498
Kurumi Zano
613
Nabardo
728
Ribako
843
Unknown (NGA) No.39
958
Zuguskwak
38
Akerre
153
Dan Gagi
268
Garu Gingna
383
Jarawa Hill
499
Kusoru
614
Nafada
729
Ribuku
844
Unknown (NGA) No.40
959
Zuma Hill
39
Ako
154
Dan Kabba
269
Garunda
384
Jare
500
Kusoziko
615
Nami Hill
730
Richa
845
Unknown (NGA) No.41
960
Zurak
40
Akobiwho
155
Dan Kulili
270
Gasartani
385
Jauro River
501
Kusur
616
Namtari
731
Rigachikun
846
Unknown (NGA) No.42
Game Reserve
41
Akpaka
156
Dandadu
271
Gasi
386
Jauro Tukur
502
Kutigi
617
Nasarawa
732
Rikau
847
Unknown (NGA) No.43
961
Alawa
42
Akpatakum
157
Danganagi
272
Gauara
387
Jawo
503
Kuzosiko
618
Nasarawa (Northern
Kaduna)
733
Rinukunu
848
Unknown (NGA) No.44
962
Afi River (proposed)
43
Akpugo
158
Danguwa
273
Gaya
388
Jenere
504
Kwaimbana
619
Ngala
734
River Amboi
849
Unknown (NGA) No.45
963
Akpaka (proposed)
44
Akumazi
159
Dankaiwa
274
Gayi
389
Jere
505
Kwakuti
620
Ngamzagi
735
River Moshi
850
Unknown (NGA) No.46
964
Anambra (proposed)
45
Akure
160
Dansosia
275
Gazabure
390
Jerwa
506
Kwakuti
621
Ngohingulde
736
River Nwum
851
Unknown (NGA) No.47
965
Bakono?
46
Akure-Ofosu
161
Dapchi
276
Gbagba
391
Jimbum
507
Kwakwa
622
Nguroje
737
Rogogo
852
Unknown (NGA) No.48
966
Baturiya Wetlands
47
Akwana East
162
Dargazu
277
Gbedege
392
Kabacha
508
Kwankiro
623
Nimbia
738
Roni East
853
Unknown (NGA) No.49
967
Dagida
48
Akwana West
163
Dasun
278
Gboko
393
Kabama
509
Kwari Kwasa
624
Ningishi Hills
739
Roni North
854
Unknown (NGA) No.5
968
Dagona
49
Akwari Ani
164
Datsinudara
279
Geltur
394
Kabo
510
Kwaya Tera
625
Ninjam
740
Rukuba(Amo)
855
Unknown (NGA) No.50
969
Ebbe/Kampe (proposed)
50
Ala
165
Daura
280
Gembu
395
Kabobi
511
Kwogin Kerami
626
Niocha
741
Ruma
856
Unknown (NGA) No.51
970
Falgore (Kogin Kano)
51
Alagbede
166
Dawaki
281
Gerkawa Hill
396
Kadobi
512
Kwoiba
627
Nkachu-Ituku
742
Rurum
857
Unknown (NGA) No.52
971
Gilli-Gilli
52
Alawa
167
Dawan Allah
282
Gerki
397
Kafa Kurmi
513
Kwongoma
628
Nkisi River
743
Sainyinan
858
Unknown (NGA) No.53
972
Ibi
53
Albasu
168
Dayi
283
Gerti Kloof
398
Kafanchan
514
Kyarana
629
North Tangaza
744
Sakwa
859
Unknown (NGA) No.56
973
Ifon (Proposed)
54
Alin Magani
169
Dayigora
284
Gijia
399
Kafarati
515
Labar
630
Nsukwai
745
Sambisa
860
Unknown (NGA) No.57
974
Iri-Ada-Obi (proposed)
55
Alla
170
Dekina
285
Gilli-Gilli
400
Kafnikoro
516
Lafia (Gongola State)
631
Nugboji
746
Sambrero
861
Unknown (NGA) No.58
975
Kambari
56
Ambakar
171
Demsa
286
Gimi River
401
Kagorko
517
Lafia (Plateau State)
632
Numan
747
Sandami
862
Unknown (NGA) No.59
976
Kashimbila
57
Amere
172
Dende
287
Gindiri
402
Kagurna
518
Lafiagi
633
Nun River
748
Sanga River
863
Unknown (NGA) No.6
977
Kuyambana
58
Anambra
173
Dep River
288
Girari
403
Kaibaki North
519
Lafiagi Oro
634
Nungu
749
Sangiwa
864
Unknown (NGA) No.61
978
Kwale
59
Anara
174
Divana
289
Girei
404
Kaibaki South
520
Laigbede
635
Nunku
750
Sapoba
865
Unknown (NGA) No.62
979
Lame-Burra
60
Anchau West
175
Djibia
290
Giru
405
Kaikaimako
521
Lainde
636
Oba Hills
751
Sebore
866
Unknown (NGA) No.69
980
Margadu-Kabak
Wetlands
61
Andoni (proposed)
176
Dogan Dawa
291
Gitata
406
Kakanda Hills
522
Lake Alo
637
Oban Group
752
Seri
867
Unknown (NGA) No.7
981
Moko (proposed)
62
Anfani
177
Dogwandaji
292
Giwa (North)
407
Kakangi
523
Lame
638
Obaretin
753
Shaba
868
Unknown (NGA) No.72
982
Ngel - Nyaki
63
Anji
178
Doka
293
Giwa (South)
408
Kakara
524
Lamurde
639
Obeaku
754
Shakwadina
869
Unknown (NGA) No.74
983
Nguru/Adiani Wetlands
64
Anwo
179
Dokin
294
Gogiya
409
Kakau
525
Langai
640
Obi
755
Shamyogti
870
Unknown (NGA) No.75
984
Nun River (proposed)
65
Apoi Creek
180
Doma
295
Gombe
410
Kakiwargi
526
Lanlate
641
Obieze-Isu
756
Shangey Tiev
871
Unknown (NGA) No.78
985
Ohosu (proposed)
66
Ara
181
Dono
296
Gombole
411
Kalalawa
527
Lantang
642
Obot-Ndom
757
Share
872
Unknown (NGA) No.8
986
Okomu
67
Arakanga
182
Doro
297
Goronyo
412
Kalsingi Hills
528
Lema
643
Odo Ogun
758
Shasha
873
Unknown (NGA) No.80
987
Okeleuse (Proposed)
68
Assob Bachit
183
Dorofi
298
Gubagi
413
Kaltungo
529
Lembi
644
Odoba
759
Shebangel Hills
874
Unknown (NGA) No.9
988
Ologbo
69
Auchi
184
Duisin Bamli
299
Gubaji
414
Kaltungo Hill
530
Lemsikari
645
Odu
760
Shegali
875
Unknown (NGA) No.10
989
Opanda (proposed)
70
Auno
185
Dukku
300
Gubio
415
Kalunta
531
Libere
646
Odugebe
761
Shekato
876
Unknown (NGA) No.4
990
Opara
71
Auya
186
Duma
301
Gudi Hill
416
Kalurwa
532
Liji Hills
647
Odun
762
Sherigia
877
Unknown (NGA) No.54
991
Orile
72
Aviele
187
Dumbari Futu
302
Guduma
417
Kamarimi
533
Limanti
648
Ogbe
763
Sheya
878
Unknown (NGA) No.55
992
Orle River
73
Awlaw-Isikwe
188
Dungunde
303
Guga
418
Kamatan
534
Limoro
649
Ogbesse
764
Shimfida
879
Unknown (NGA) No.60
993
Pai River
74
Aworo
189
Dupa
304
Gugunguma
419
Kambari
535
Little Osse
650
Ogiopa
765
Sobi
880
Unknown (NGA) No.63
994
Pandam
75
Ayu Hills
190
Dusuwa
305
Guidan Baure
420
Kampe River
536
Lizai
651
Oglewu
766
Soge
881
Unknown (NGA) No.64
995
Ribako (proposed)
76
Azarunikwia
191
Dutsen Amina
306
Gujba
421
Kanawa
537
Lokwoja
652
Ogotun North
767
Sonkpa
882
Unknown (NGA) No.65
996
River Benue (proposed)
77
Azaya
192
Dutsen Bello
307
Guji-Ganna
422
Kandawa
538
Lower Enyong
653
Ogotun South
768
South Ibie
883
Unknown (NGA) No.66
997
Sambisa
78
Babban Rafi
193
Dutsen Kurafe
308
Gulbin Ka
423
Kande River
539
Lower Imo River
654
Ogotun West
769
Stubbs Creek
884
Unknown (NGA) No.67
998
Stubbs Creek (proposed)
79
Babbankurmi
194
Dutsin Dorowa
309
Gumsi
424
Kanoma Gabiya
540
Lower Orashi River
655
Ogu Itu
770
Sumu
885
Unknown (NGA) No.68
999
Taylor Creek (proposed)
80
Badauri
195
Dutsin Gora
310
Gumu
425
Karaduwa
541
Mada River North
656
Ogun River
771
Suntai
886
Unknown (NGA) No.70
1000
Udi/Nsukka
81
Baga
196
Dutsin Kodawa
311
Gundulwa
426
Karfe Binji
542
Mada River South
657
Ogwa
772
Surami
887
Unknown (NGA) No.71
1001
Wase
82
Bagaji
197
Dutsin Kuba
312
Gundumi
427
Karfi
543
Madagine
658
Ogwashi-Uku
773
Swamp
888
Unknown (NGA) No.73
1002
Wase Rock Bird
83
Bagau
198
Dutsin Kwaita
313
Gura
428
Kariya
544
Madalla
659
Ohaji
774
Takum
889
Unknown (NGA) No.76
1003
Yankari
84
Bage
199
Duya
314
Guram River
429
Karlahi
545
Madara
660
Ohaodo-Mbanasa
775
Tala Hill
890
Unknown (NGA) No.77
National Park
85
Bagele Hill
200
East Anka
315
Gurin
430
Karmo
546
Madatai
661
Ohosu
776
Tandama
891
Unknown (NGA) No.79
1004
Baturiya Wetlands
(proposed)
86
Bagga
201
Eba Island
316
Gurmina
431
Karnowa
547
Mafa
662
Ohumbe
777
Tara
892
Unuhu Agbaja
1005
Chad Basin
87
Baissa
202
Ebba
317
Gurmina
432
Karoka
548
Mafuta
663
Oinye
778
Tarana
893
Upkon
1006
Cross River
88
Bajiye
203
Ebor
318
Gurusu
433
Karonmajigi
549
Maharai
664
Oji River
779
Tatu
894
Upper Imo River
1007
Gashaka-Gumti
89
Bakanbawa
204
Ebue
319
Gwadabawa
434
Kasa Kogi
550
Mai Hula
665
Ojofu
780
Taylor Creek
895
Upper Ogun
1008
Gujba(proposed)
90
Bakin Dutse
205
Eda 1
320
Gwagwa
435
Kasanu
551
Mai Samari
666
Ojogba-Ugun
781
Teshi
896
Upper Orashi River
1009
Kainji Lake
91
Bakura Tureta
206
Eda 2
321
Gwaiyo
436
Katerma
552
Maifari
667
Okeluse
782
Tongo
897
Uremure Yokri
1010
Kamuku (proposed)
92
Bam Ngelzarma
207
Ede
322
Gwana
437
Katika
553
Maigazari
668
Okene catchment area
783
Tsanni
898
Usonigbe
1011
Kogo (proposed)
93
Bantaji
208
Edoko Hills
323
Gwanara
438
Katsina
554
Mai-Ido
669
Okene waterworks
784
Tsaunin Kaura
899
Ute-Ukpu
1012
Kuyambana (proposed)
94
Bara
209
Edotsu
324
Gwirta
439
Katsina-Ala
555
Maiwado
670
Okhuessan
785
Tudun Iyo
900
Utugu and Karama
1013
Old Oyo
95
Barawa
210
Edumanom
325
Gwiwa Korel
440
Kaugama Motso
556
Maje (East)
671
Okomu
786
Tudun Mani
901
Uwet Odot
1014
Sambisa (proposed)
96
Barburam
211
Efan
326
Hadejia Plantation
441
Kawara
557
Maje (West)
672
Okpara
787
Tufa
902
Vobera
Strict Nature Reserve
97
Bashari
212
Effium
327
Hadin
442
Kaya
558
Maje Abuchi
673
Okpobi
788
Tukan
903
Wafin
1015
Akure
98
Bauni
213
Egbe
328
Hardaali
443
Kazura
559
Maki
674
Okura Iyale
789
Tukoki
904
Wagur
1016
Bam Ngelzarma
99
Bayawa
214
Egbedi Creek
329
Ibadan
444
Keaun Suna
560
Makurdi Fuel
675
Okura River
790
Tukulma
905
Waji
1017
Lekki
100
Bazairam
215
Eggua
330
Ibaji-Ojok
445
Keffi
561
Maladumba
676
Okuta
791
Turbustrajiri
906
Walama
1018
Milliken Hill
101
Beji
216
Ehor
331
Ibi
446
Kenjimiram
562
Malechana
677
Olague
792
Tuwaru
907
Wamba
1019
Omo (Biosphere Reserve)
102
Belare
217
Ejidogardi
332
Idanre
447
Kesewa
563
Mallamji
678
Old Ogbomosho
793
Tyabo Rokota
908
Wamiri
1020
Urhonigbe
103
Benisheikh
218
Ejigbo
333
Idasu
448
Kilboa
564
Mamu River
679
Old Ogbomosho
Water Works
794
Ubiaja
909
Wannune
Wildlife Sanctuary
104
Bida (Bornu State)
219
Ejigbobini
334
Idu
449
Kinging
565
Mando
680
Olla Hill
795
Ubibia
910
Wara
1021
Afi Mountain
105
Bida (Niger State)
220
Ekenwan
335
Ife
450
Kir Hill
566
Mando Road North
681
Olle
796
Udo
911
Warwade
106
Biliri Hills
221
Ekiadolor
336
Ifon
451
Kirfi Hill
567
Mando Road South
682
Ologbo
797
Ugboha
912
Wasagu Sakaba
107
Birnin Gwari
222
Ekiadolor
337
Igangan
452
Kiri
568
Manu
683
Ologholo-Emu-Urho
798
Ugondo
913
Wasaini
108
Birniwa
223
Ekinta River
338
Iggi River
453
Kirmin Agyaga
569
Maradun
684
Olokemeji
799
Ujrohi-Ojogba
914
Wawa
109
Birniwa Railway
224
Eleiyele
339
Iguobazuwa
454
Kirmin Nunkuchu
570
Marafa
685
Olomu
800
Ukpam
915
Wawagi
110
Bissaula
225
Eme River
340
Ihugh
455
Kogin Kano
571
Marama Hill
686
Oloyan
801
Ukpe-Sobo
916
Werdawa
111
Bodor Hill
226
Enugu
341
Ijaiye
456
Kogin Zur
572
Marbe
687
Oluwa
802
Ukpilla
917
West Anka
Source: [7, 29-33]
... In other contexts, they may even be drivers of improved land conditions [35]. However, in the case of Nigeria, its over 200 million inhabitants and population density of 226 km 2 place a huge demand on land resources [33,36]. Thus, gridded human population density constructed for 2018 in 2020, from random forest-based dasymetric redistribution at 3 arc-second (approximately 100 m at the equator) spatial resolution, was downloaded from www.worldpop.org ...
... Overgrazing has been associated with the disappearance of the typical savannah vegetation and the emergence of the Sudan-Sahelian Savannah in the NGS [15,72]. Thus, from the combination of drivers above, there is a critical need for an improved management of grazing resources, protected areas, and the governance of land resources in the NGS [11,36,68]. While all small-area archetypes are mostly dominated by the land-use management drivers, NGSAs 6 and 8 are the only small-area archetypes that are distinctly driven by the socio-economic drivers characterized by areas with low population density, i.e rural population with corresponding moderate information/knowledge access. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Nigerian Guinea Savannah is the most extensive ecoregion in Nigeria, a major food production area, and contains many biodiversity protection areas. However, there is limited understanding of the social-ecological features of its degraded lands and potential insights for sustainable land management and governance. To fill this gap, the self-organizing map method was applied to identify the archetypes of both proximal and underlying drivers of land degradation in this region. Using 12 freely available spatial datasets of drivers of land degradation—4 environmental; 3 socio-economic; and 5 land-use management practices, the identified archetypes were intersected with the Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)-derived land-degradation status of the region, and the state administrative boundaries. Nine archetypes were identified. Archetypes are dominated by: (1) protected areas; (2) very high-density population; (3) moderately high information/knowledge access; (4) low literacy levels and moderate–high poverty levels; (5) rural remoteness; (6) remoteness from a major road; (7) very high livestock density; (8) moderate poverty level and nearly level terrain; and (9) very rugged terrain and remote from a major road. Four archetypes characterized by very high-density population, moderate–high information/knowledge access, and moderate–high poverty level, as well as remoteness from a major town, were associated with 61.3% large-area degradation; and the other five archetypes, covering 38.7% of the area, were responsible for small-area degradation. While different combinations of archetypes exist in all the states, the five states of Niger (40.5%), Oyo (29.6%), Kwara (24.4%), Nassarawa (18.6%), and Ekiti (17.6%), have the largest shares of the archetypes. To deal with these archetypical features, policies and practices that address increasing population in combination with poverty reduction; and that create awareness about land degradation and promote sustainable practices and various forms of land restoration, such as tree planting, are necessary for progressing towards land-degradation neutrality in the Nigerian Guinea Savannah.
... This is particularly concerning because people are technically not permitted to enter protected areas. However, these protection rules are apparently inadequately enforced (Abdulaziz et al., 2015). The Zugurma sector of the Kainji Lake National Park, for example, is clearly affected by land degradation (Figs. ...
... Despite the negative trend in parts of the Zurgurma Sector noted above, there are still stable areas in most protected areas. The NGS is thus very relevant for the federal government's nature conservation initiative, as the largest and oldest national parks are found in this zone ((Abdulaziz et al., 2015;Usman and Adefalu, 2010). ...
Article
Full-text available
Land degradation poses a persistent challenge to ecosystems and sustainable livelihoods in the Nigerian Guinea Savannah (NGS). While both human activity and climate variability have been implicated as degradation drivers, the lack of research fuels dispute over the status of land degradation in the Savannah and its drivers. Detailed correction evidence on the contributions of rainfall and human activities to land degradation can, however, help identify appropriate measures to address land degradation. MODIS vegetation “greenness” and TAMSAT rainfall data were employed to achieve the following objectives: (i) provide empirical insights on the pattern of savannah vegetation dynamics; (ii) control for rainfall effects in Savannah degradation; (iii) characterize the extent, severity and geography of human-induced land degradation. The selected statistical techniques proved useful for highlighting the spatio-temporal dynamics of degradation in the NGS. Controlling for the effect of rainfall on vegetation greenness produces a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) residual that allows to estimate the human impact on land degradation. Despite no indication of a worsening rainfall regime, inter-annual variation in vegetation greenness exhibits a consistently negative, declining trend. This continuous, negative, declining trend in the NDVI residual strongly suggests ongoing biomass loss in the NGS is the result of unsustainable human activity. Observed improvement is attributable to existing land management programmes (afforestation and the planting of drought tolerant species) initiated by states in the zone. In sum, approximately 38% of the NGS land area, including protected areas such as Kainji Lake National Park, are becoming more degraded, while 14% and 48% of the remaining area shows either improvement or no real change, respectively. These results serve as a baseline information resource for tracking future land use activities, land degradation and potential pathways for achieving more sustainable land management.
... To date, some oil facilities are still within protected areas. In general, there are almost no protected areas in the Niger Delta that are really protected [101]. In our analysis, the Apoi Creek Forest was the reserve with the highest oil-spill occurrence in our study even though it is a Ramsar site and has an internationally high protection status (strict nature reserve by IUCN category). ...
Article
Full-text available
The Niger Delta belongs to the largest swamp and mangrove forests in the world hosting many endemic and endangered species. Therefore, its conservation should be of highest priority. However, the Niger Delta is confronted with overexploitation, deforestation and pollution to a large extent. In particular, oil spills threaten the biodiversity, ecosystem services and local people. Remote sensing can support the detection of spills and their potential impact when accessibility on site is difficult. We tested different vegetation indices to assess the impact of oil spills on the land cover as well as to detect accumulations (hotspots) of oil spills. We further identified which species, land cover types and protected areas could be threatened in the Niger Delta due to oil spills. The results showed that the Enhanced Vegetation Index, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index and the Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index were more sensitive to the effects of oil spills on different vegetation cover than other tested vegetation indices. Forest cover was the most affected land-cover type and oil spills also occurred in protected areas. Threatened species are inhabiting the Niger Delta Swamp Forest and the Central African Mangroves that were mainly affected by oil spills and, therefore, strong conservation measures are needed even though security issues hamper the monitoring and control.
... This is also the case in Nigeria, where its landscapes and PA are increasingly degraded and fragmented . Despite growth in size and numbers and their high potential to conserve ecosystems, most PA in Nigeria lack adequate protection or are ineffectively managed (Abdulaziz et al., 2015). Illegal logging, agricultural activities, poaching, extraction of non-timber forest products and cattle herding are major threats (Imarhiagbe et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Protected areas are expectedly intact habitats for biodiversity and key for ecosystem conservation. However, where inadequately protected, human-induced forest fragmentation can degrade them and reduce their functioning. Therefore, monitoring forests in protected areas is essential to ascertain their protection. This paper assesses forest fragmentation in the Cross River National Park, a biodiversity hotspot in the tropical rainforest of Nigeria. Forest fragmentation was analyzed using the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework. Fragmentation analysis of the State used class-level pattern metrics on Landsat and Sentinel images from the years 2000, 2015 and 2020. Forest fragmentation has reduced total forest area, decreased average size of forest patches, increased the number of forest patches and amount of edge. Only the isolation of forest patches has not yet reached a measurable intensity. However, spatio-temporal forest fragmentation over the years 2000, 2015 and 2020 indicates a rising trend, especially between 2015 and 2020. The Drivers, Pressures, Impacts and Responses were investigated through a systematic literature review. Many studies show that the main proximate Drivers of forest fragmentation are agricultural activities mainly by the local communities, demand for forest resources by the growing population, and by external actors through illegal logging and infrastructure building, which have increased. However, wider literature highlight issues of disproportionately blaming local resource users, and the need to examine the neglect of justice, rights and local values, and their implications for sustainable protected areas. Reported Impacts include hindered migration of the endangered Cross River gorilla and impaired ecosystem services like water cycling, carbon sequestration and disease regulation. Responses have generally excluded the local communities, have failed or are yet to become effective. There is thus a need to identify, together with the involved actors, why measures have failed and to implement more sustainable options to reduce fragmentation in the park while addressing local users’ needs.
... The work of David (2008) and Fingesi et al. (2019) have corroborated the research findings that there are substantial decline in wildlife in Nigeria's protected areas. Similarly, researchers have shown that despite the number of protected areas in Nigeria, their management status remains questionable (Abdulaziz et al., 2015), hence in practice most protected areas are referred to as "paper parks" (IUCN, 1998). ...
Article
Full-text available
Human benefits from wildlife are apparently declining over decades as the extent and intensity of threat to protected areas continue. This study assessed nature of community participation in wildlife management in Baturiya Sanctuary with a view to providing information for active participation of communities in the management of this area. A total of five communities namely: Shinge (4km west), Illala (12km west), Kokiro (3km east), Zigobiya (7km east) and Abanaguwa (5km north) were purposively sampled based on their proximity to the sanctuary. Snowball sampling technique was used to select fifty-seven (57) participants for the survey. Questionnaire and Interview were conducted to elicit the knowledge and perspectives of participants on the role of community in wildlife management. Numerical values were analysed in percentage while chi-square was used to test the levels of participation among communities. Findings of this study indicate that only 18 of the 57 sampled participants are involved in wildlife management. It also shows that there is decrease and extinction of wildlife especially birds, primates and reptiles in the sanctuary. The study also found four categories of participants: active-voluntary, active-institutional, passive-voluntary and passive-institutional. It shows that 37.50% active and 62.50% are passive participants respectively. Benefits of community participation include control of poaching (43.85%) and control of trade in parts of animals (25%). Majority of the participants (83.33%) engage in wildlife management voluntarily based on perceived benefits derived from the sanctuary. Poor governance (43.85%) and weak community institutions (31.57%) are the main limitations to community participation in wildlife management. This study therefore recommended that community leaders and youth should be strengthened and officially recognized as stakeholders in wildlife management and governance of natural resources in Nigeria at large.
Chapter
The establishment that 70% of the world's poor residing in rural areas depends directly on biodiversity for their well-being has ignited the call for sustainable usage of biological resources. Biodiversity conservation has thus become a novel project with noble intention of providing a habitat and protection from hunting for threatened and endangered species and ecological processes that cannot survive in most intensely managed landscapes. Nigeria has created protected areas under the coordination of National Park Services in line with this. As a result, residents of communities surrounding the protected areas could not meet their basic needs like employment, water provision, educational facilities, medical services, energy supply, livestock grazing, and motorable roads. They have subsequently deviated from the extant rules that guide their conducts and by ensuing difficulties see biodiversity conservation as an elitist policy despite their understanding of the idea behind it.
Article
Full-text available
Originally conceived to conserve iconic landscapes and wildlife, protected areas are now expected to achieve an increasingly diverse set of conservation, social and economic objectives. The amount of land and sea designated as formally protected has markedly increased over the past century, but there is still a major shortfall in political commitments to enhance the coverage and effectiveness of protected areas. Financial support for protected areas is dwarfed by the benefits that they provide, but these returns depend on effective management. A step change involving increased recognition, funding, planning and enforcement is urgently needed if protected areas are going to fulfil their potential.
Article
Full-text available
The idea that the support of local people is essential for the success of protected areas is widespread in conservation, underpinning various conservation paradigms and policies, yet it has rarely been critically examined. This paper explores the circumstances which determine whether or not local opposition to protected areas can cause them to fail. It focuses on the power relations between protected areas and local communities, and how easily they can influence one another. We present a case study from the Dominican Republic, where despite two decades of resentment with protected policies, local people are unable to significantly challenge them because of fears of violence from guards, inability to reach important political arenas, social ties with guards, and the inability to coordinate action. It concludes by arguing that there are often substantial barriers that prevent local people from challenging unpopular conservation policies, and that local support is not necessarily essential for conservation.
Article
This paper conceptualises a framework for assessing protected area (PA)–community relationships and is premised on the view that positive PA–community relationships enhance conservation. A meta-synthesis of existing academic literature with a qualitative orientation was used to review the PA staff-community relationships, and data were analysed using an inductive qualitative approach. From a review of 105 published documents focusing on wildlife conservation, community involvement and PA–community relationships, it emerged that relationships are mostly influenced by attitudes. With the case of PA–community relationships, the question that arises is ‘whose attitude’? The paper proposes that both PA staff attitudes and community attitudes play an important role in shaping these relationships. Based on these findings, we propose a PA–community relationship framework that illuminates the human–wildlife interface as critical space in shaping conservation attitudes. In particular, four major factors affecting PA staff-community relationships were identified: (i) history of creation of the PAs focusing on forced relocation, and the fences and fines approach; (ii) benefits and costs associated with living closer to PAs; (iii) socio-demographic factors in which the influences of sex, age, level of education, number of years stayed in the village, experience accrued from working in PAs, household size, number of livestock, sources of income, and level of income; and (iv) community involvement in conservation-related developmental projects. We conclude that enhanced PA–community relationships promote wildlife conservation through participatory approaches and collaboration between PA staff and communities. We recommend for continued assessment and monitoring of PA staff and community relationships in order to allow for sustainable conservation especially in developing countries.