Transcript Lilian Namuma Sarah Kong`ani - Wangari Maathai Institute for

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNITY LIVELIHOOD OPTIONS AND
CLIMATE CHANGE KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES: A CASE STUDY OF
MAASAI MAU FOREST, NAROK COUNTY, KENYA
By:
Lilian Namuma Sarah Kong’ani
A60/74990/2014
SUPERVISORS:
Dr. Thuita Thenya, Dept, of Geography and Environmental Studies
Dr. Mutune Jane Mutheu, Wangari Maathai Institute
Introduction
• Rural livelihood portfolios-diversity
• Livelihoods - climate change (cc) is the major
stressor
• Climate
changedecline
biodiversitylivelihood
• Heavy reliance -nature based resources
• Forest ecosystems-2/3 of Africa’s 600 million
• Climate change knowledge – livelihoods
Statement of the problem
• Livelihoods-forest degradation- climate changeMMF -(Naituyupaki zonal management plan, 2012).
• Communities & cc comprehension- (Dube, et al., 2013).
• Studies- effects of cc on rural livelihoods - little
on MMFACs (Dube, et al., 2013 & Onyekuru et al. 2014)
• Studies- FACs adaptation to cc but scanty on
MMF- bias towards ASALs- (Boon, et al. 2012; Tambo, et al. 2013)-
Research Questions
• What are the livelihood activities undertaken by the
households adjacent to Maasai Mau forest ecosystem?
• What is the knowledge of climate change among
households and its implications on their livelihood options?
• What livelihood options practices do the households
adjacent to Maasai Mau forest ecosystem undertake to
adapt to climate change?
Scope and limitation
• Generate pertinent information -relationship
between community livelihood options and cc
knowledge & practices
• Limited to households in Naituyupaki- Olkurto
location.(time & financial constraints)
Research objectives
Overall Objective
• To assess the relationship between community livelihood options and
climate change knowledge and practices among communities in
Naituyupaki- Olkurto location, Maasai Mau forest in Narok County, Kenya.
Specific Objectives
a) To assess the livelihood activities among households
b) To assess the knowledge of climate change and its implications on
livelihood options.
c) To assess the practices on livelihood options in response to climate
change
Justification
• Climate change-challenge – livelihoods (Kashaigili et al.,
2014).
• Overdependence-nature based resources; forest
ecosystems
• No study - on the Maasai Mau FACs
• Cc knowledge - MMFACs- sustainable livelihood
practices
• Enhance cc knowledge - NRM- informed policies etc
Literature review
A review of studies conducted among households adjacent to forest
ecosystems on:
Forest based livelihoods - (Kabubo-Mariara, 2013; Aruwajoy et. al. 2013;
Boon et. al. 2012; Gross-Camp et. al. 2015)
Livelihoods and climate change - (Dube et al. 2013; Onyekuru et al.
2014; Gross-Camp et al. 2015
Climate change knowledge and livelihood dynamics –
(Kuria, 2009; Boon et al. 2012; Dube et al. 2013; Egbe, et al. 2014)
Climate change mitigation & adaptation practices –
(Kuria, 2009; Boon et al. 2012; Onyekuru et al. 2014; Foli, et al., 2011)
Research gaps
No similar study - particularly for MM FACs-
generalization
Cc - global phenomena- yet little known- communities
(Ufuoku, 2011; The
Rwenzori Think Tank report, 2011; Dube, et. al 2013)
CC knowledge alone may not be lead to better mitigation practices
(Rwenzori Think Tank report, 2011)
Conceptual framework
Source, modified from livelihood framework by DfiD, 2000
Study area; Naituyupaki, Olkurto location
Source, Maasai Mau, Naituyupaki- Olokurto management plan of 2012
Research design
Designed to use a mixed method where quantitative - complemented
by qualitative methodology
Household level - Quantitative type – questionnaire to 72 –
randomly
Key informants – Qualitative type- checklist- purposively sampled
FGDs – Qualitative type – checklist- purposively sampled
Research assistants-Qualifications
Sample size (ss) computation
Household ss of 72 computed using Booth et al., (2008) rigorous
scientific formulae
Table 1: Naituyupaki, Olkurto location
(acceptable error- 0.05 & 95% cl).
Sub-location
Olkurto
Population
Size
6305
Entiyani
2247
No. of
Households Percentage
31
1171
10
397
Naituyupaki
Iltuati
Ilkeremisho
5310
2052
2890
959
354
533
Imolelian
Total
2241
21045
397
3811
Source, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2010
25
9
14
10
100
Sample
sizes
22
8
18
6
10
8
72
Data sources and collection tools
Primary dataQuestionnaire- HH;
Checklist - 2 FGDs;
Checklist - Key informant interviews and;
Participant observations
Voice recording & Photographing
SecondaryPublished journals & grey literature - local & international –on the subject
matter
Data analysis & Expected outcome
Compile data- Excel spreadsheet & SPSS
Data will be analyzed by means, percentages, inferential statistics
and chi-squares
Qualitative - organized and analyzed & observe coherence of
responses.
Document qualitative and quantitative data of FACs
Publish at least 2 two papers in the peer reviewed journals;
Thesis write up.
Work Plan
Budget
S/NO.
ITEM
UNIT COST
(KSHS)
UNITS
Reconnaissance- 4 days
Travel to and fro Maasai Mau Forest & local
1 transport
Meeting with local contact / opinion leader, recruit
2 (3) research assistants
3 Train the (3) research assistants
4 Test the questionnaire & depart
5 Researcher’s Per diem
TOTAL (KSHS)
1@2
1500
3000
1
1@3
1@3
1@4
1000
1000
1000
5000
1000
3000
3000
20000
Questionnaire survey
20 days
20 days @ 3
4 days
20 days
20 days
15 days
500
1000
10000
5000
250
150
10,000
60,000
40,000
100,000
5,000
3,000
Focus group discussion
1day *6 participants*2
Refreshments
Meeting venue
1000
2000
2000
12,000
4,000
2,000
Stationery
1 cartridge @ 10,000
3 realms @ 500
10000
1500
10,000
1,500
Field Work Allowances (includes accommodation)
6
7
8
9
10
11
Village Guide
Research Assistants
Supervisors
Researcher’s Per diem
Communication and Internet
Local transport (Motorbikes)
12 2 FGDs-Transport reimbursement
13 Cartridge
14 Printing papers
TOTAL
277,500.00
Thank you
for your
attention……