Evaluation of the effectiveness of protected areas in conserving ecological integrity in Kibale and queen Elizabeth conservation areas, Uganda

Abstract

The effectiveness of wildlife protected areas in conserving ecological integrity in Kibale and Queen Elizabeth Conservation Areas, Uganda was explored. The study was conducted from August 2017 to October 2019 in response to the inadequate data and information that existed on how effective wildlife protected areas conserve ecological integrity with a view to suggest management strategies to enhance the conservation of biological diversity and ecosystem processes. An evaluation of how the long-term wildlife monitoring, wildlife corridors, community-based conservation, and threats affects biodiversity and ecological integrity was conducted through a survey. Document review, semi-structured questionnaires, Key Informant Interviews, Focus Group Discussions, the Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Action Planning methodology, Threat Reduction Assessment technique, and Geographical Information System/remote sensing were used to collect data. A sample size of 416 respondents was used during this study. Data was analysed using inferential statistics, and results presented in tables and figures. The study established that Wildlife Monitoring was done primarily in-house by the protected area staff; and rarely through co-operation with other agencies, academic institutions, co-operative projects with NGOs, and contracting out to consultants and/or freelance researchers, (χ2 (4, N = 81) = 15.523, p = .000, α = .05, V=.526). The long-term wildlife monitoring program used on-the-ground monitoring, and rarely used traditional knowledge and remote sensing which would improve wildlife monitoring. Wildlife monitoring guided the wildlife agency to formulate conservation-related policies (χ2 (1, N = 81) = 297.1, p = .000, α = .05, V = .342), identify new conservation initiatives (χ2 (1, N = 81) = 7.247, p = .000, α = .05, V = .370), and propose innovative conservation policy areas (χ2 (1, N = 81) = 9.351, p = .001, α = .05, V = .416) to conserve biodiversity and protect ecological integrity. The landscape had 20 key wildlife corridors which facilitate the movement of migratory animal species mainly Elephants, Chimpanzees and Lions. However, the corridors experienced changes in vegetation cover, corridor connectivity, migratory animal populations, and stepping stone habitats. Community Based Conservation contributed to overall conservation through participation of local communities (χ2 (1, N = 268) = 46.013, p = .000, α = .05, V = .588), local authorities (χ2 (4, N = 268) = 17.021, p = .000, α = .05, V = .261) and private sector (χ2 (1, N = 268) = 20.822, p = .000, α = .05, V = .326) in conservation programs which improved community-park relations (χ2 (3, N = 268) = 24.815, p = .000, α = .05, V = .229). Further, the wildlife protected areas were primarily threatened by anthropogenic and natural threats, and administrative constraints which threatened habitat quality, diversity, and continuity. The average threat reduction indices for both Conservation Areas were less than 50% implying that management only mitigates less than 50% of the PAs threats, hence a significant “dissatisfactory” on the overall performance of the conservation areas to protect ecological integrity. In conclusion, long-term wildlife monitoring guides development of conservation-related policies, innovative conservation initiatives, and proposes policy areas to conserve the ecological integrity. The wildlife corridors provide ecological linkages for migratory animal species contributing to the overall conservation of biodiversity. Community-based conservation is fundamental to conservation of biodiversity since it improves community knowledge and collaboration, creates trust, belonging and acceptance, reduces pressure on the park resources, and improves community-park relations. Threats in the conservation areas were reducing. Therefore, wildlife agency should provide incentives to meet community needs, strengthen the benefit sharing scheme, and create and strengthen community conservation institutions to participate in conserving biodiversity. The wildlife agency should formulate more conservation-related policies; integrate ecosystem health in the wildlife monitoring program; and also put more effort to address the threats affecting biodiversity to move from “dissatisfactory” to “satisfactory” level of ecological integrity. Finally, further research should investigate ecosystem health; the magnitude (area) and intensity of habitats affected by invasive and alien plant species; restoration options of the wildlife corridors; and the impact of tourism-related infrastructural development on ecological integrity of the wildlife protected areas. Key words: Biodiversity, Conservation, National Parks, Wildlife