Knowledge, Attitude, and practices assessment concerning community conservation and participatory rural appraisal in the areas that neighbour the Kisite Mpunguti Marine park and reserve.

This Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) survey and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) was carried out by Community Wildlife Programme of the Kenya Wildlife Service as part of the activities of the USAID funded Conservation of Biodiverse Resources Areas (COBRA) project. The survey and PRA methods were combined and carried out in August 1995 in all villages that neighbour the Kisite Mpunguti Marine Park and Reserve. A sample of 152 respondents were interviewed for the survey while the whole community participated in the PRA. The main objectives of the survey and PRA included: to understand villages existing natural resources, their use and conservation; focus on rural communities' attitudes towards conservation especially of vulnerable ecosystems; to w1derstand existing conservation related practices relevant to the development of the area by focusing on natural resources; Provide community participation in identifying social issues, problems and solutions of resource use and conservation; Form a base for future monitoring of trends of change in' knowledge, attitudes and practice towards conservation of natural resources; Provide a management plan for community wildlife program for community participation in natural resource sustainable utilization. This report is divided into two parts with Part One reporting on the results of the KAP survey and Part Two reporting on the PRA. This survey was adapted from those carried out by the African Wildlife Foundation around Tsavo and Amboseli National Parks. A pre-designed survey instrument was tested and implemented by a team of local enumerators. They asked open ended questions and ticked the answers in the appropriate boxes of the survey instrument. The survey data was then analysed by David Sumba using FOXPRO. This report summarises the key findings and can be used to derive a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the activities of CWS in this area. This report identifies a number of key monitoring indicators that can be used for follow-up on the communities and CWS activities and these include: (1) Reduced incidents of human wildlife conflict reported to KWS (2 ) Improved reporting mechanism for human wildlife conflicts; (3) Increased visits to the park by the communities; (4) Reduced fishing-in the park by fishermen; (5) Decrease in ranger and fishermen conflicts; (6) Increase tourist oriented facilities to tap market from tourists; (7) Increased community based conservation programs to promote proper use of mangrove; trees, reduce charcoal burning, check water pollution and apply proper fishing methods; (8) Diversification in other income generating activities away from fishing e.g. small business, fish transportation and marketing; (9) Organized fish marketing; reliable market and use of modem equipment like cold storage Facilities; (10) Increased visits by KWS and government officials to create more awareness on conservation and government policy for area development respectively. / Increased dependency on government and KWS officials for advise on development; (11) Increased community initiated education based projects. The PRA on the other hand was implemented after the KAP survey and covered the villages that has been surveyed. The standard PRA methodology was adopted for this exercise. During the last days of the KAP survey, the team members to every area undertook to arrange community meetings that would form the basis of the PRA. Chiefs and village elders were contacted to mobilise the community for this activity. It was interesting to see how the community participated in all the stages of data collection and for each village area, a specific Community Action Plan (CAP) was formulated.

Published