Eco-bursaries as incentives for conservation around Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya

MICHELLE JACKSON AND LISA NAUGHTON

APPENDIX 1

The contractual agreement given to parents of ASSETS beneficiary students. Before their child receives an ASSETS bursary, parents are required to formally agree to the terms of the contract by providing their signature.

ASSETS Beneficiary Agreement

I certify that I shall adhere to the following conditions set out by the ASSETS Committee, which may be reviewed periodically:

  1. To keep a well maintained wood lot at home.
  1. To protect Arabuko-Sokoke Forest by not cutting down any trees from it, nor hurting wild animals or birds in it.
  1. To protect Mida Creek by not cutting mangroves, nor fishing with nets of undersized-mesh, and by releasing, in good condition, all turtles caught in nets.
  1. To be actively involved in conservation initiatives (e.g. mangrove planting, butterfly farming, bee-keeping, wildlife clubs etc.)
  1. To contribute Ksh. 300 per term towards the conservation of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest and Mida Creek.

I understand that if I fail to meet any of the above conditions the ASSETS committee may be compelled to withhold my support.

Signed ………………………………………..Date………………………..

APPENDIX 2

Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents based on participation in ASSETS.Roof type is an indicator of wealth; in coastal Kenya, a thatched roof usually indicates less wealth than an iron roof.Wildlife conflict categories were based on respondents’ descriptions: ‘none’ means no crop raiding reported, ‘low’ means occasional crop raiding by small animals with minimal damage, ‘moderate’ means consistent crop raiding by small animals and occasional heavy crop raiding by elephants, and ‘severe’ means consistent heavy crop raiding by elephants and other animals.Forest use was assessed by asking whether respondents currently use the forest for any purpose, legal or illegal.Higher education was clearly associated with having a wage-earning job (F = 7.43, p < 0.001) and an iron roof (F = 13.24, p < 0.001).Households closer to the forest tended to have thatched roofs (F = 5.01, p = 0.03), use the forest more (F = 27.53, p < 0.0001), and be older (Pearson’s R = 0.21, p = 0.02).*Indicates significant difference between ASSETS and non-ASSETS using ANOVA (p < 0.05).

Socioeconomic characteristic / ASSETS
n = 60 / Non-ASSETS n = 53 / Total
n = 113
Mean / SD / Mean / SD / Mean / SD
Age (years)* / 46.4 / 11.0 / 41.5 / 13.4 / 44.1 / 12.4
Education (years) / 4.1 / 4.0 / 3.3 / 4.6 / 3.7 / 4.3
Number of children* / 7.2 / 3.2 / 5.5 / 2.6 / 6.4 / 3.0
Distance to forest (km)* / 1.7 / 1.0 / 1.2 / 1.1 / 1.5 / 1.1
(%) / (%) / (%)
Female / 68 / 77 / 73
Religion
Christian / 70 / 59 / 65
Muslim / 8 / 4 / 6
Traditional / 10 / 4 / 7
None / 12 / 30 / 22
Income
Wage earners / 33 / 25 / 29
Sells farm products / 43 / 49 / 47
Subsistence farmers / 23 / 26 / 25
Thatched roof / 61 / 74 / 67
Wildlife conflict
None / 54 / 46 / 33
Low / 67 / 33 / 32
Moderate / 40 / 60 / 18
Severe / 40 / 60 / 18
Use forest / 37 / 53 / 44