Community attitudes towards protected areas: insights from Ghana S ELASE D EWU and E IVIN R ØSKAFT Abstract Understanding community attitudes towards pro- demarcated for protection are usually surrounded by people tected areas is of great importance because these attitudes who are generally impoverished and whose livelihoods de- are inherently linked to the long-term existence and effect- pend on such areas (King, ). Restricting access to nat- iveness of protected areas. We assessed the factors that influ- ural resources can make it difficult for these people to ence community attitudes towards Mole and Digya meet their basic livelihood needs (Amoah & Wiafe, ; National Parks in Ghana. During June–August we con- Cobbinah et al., ). This does not inspire collaboration ducted interviews with randomly selected households, for conservation but instead breeds resentment and apathy using a semi-structured questionnaire. We found that atti- (King, ; Amoah & Wiafe, ). tudes towards the protected areas were positive, with Mole Not only does the establishment of protected areas pre- residents being more positive than Digya residents. Analyses clude people from resource acquisition, it can sometimes revealed that community attitudes were largely influenced bring untold hardships (Mfunda, ; Masud et al., by the perceived costs and benefits of the protected area, ). Local communities may be forced to bear significant household size, occupation, level of education, and aware- losses (e.g. raided crops, depredation of livestock, damage to ness of or participation in livelihood projects. The findings other property) associated with the management of these suggest that increasing the benefits from protected areas and areas (Kideghesho & Mtoni, ; Karanth & Nepal, ; minimizing the costs on fringe communities fosters positive Vedeld et al., ; Cobbinah, ). Restricted resource attitudes towards the concept of protected areas and conser- access coupled with crop damage often leads to negative vation in general. Additionally, perceptions of protected attitudes (Wang et al., ). areas are likely to be more positive when management inter- Local communities are often excluded from the manage- ventions are tailored for local communities as opposed to ment of conservation areas, and this exclusion is believed to the adoption of universal, unspecific interventions. be a source of conflict (Lewis, ). Communities who do not feel they are part of the conservation effort but have to Keywords Benefits, community attitudes, conservation, bear the costs of conservation are understandably unsup- costs, Digya National Park, Ghana, Mole National Park, portive (Gillingham & Lee, ). However, when commu- protected areas nities are actively involved they tend to exhibit positive attitudes (Infield & Namara, ), which correlate with conservation success in protected areas (Struhsaker et al., ). Introduction A prerequisite for effective management of protected etting aside priority areas for conservation is viewed as a areas is the inclusion of local communities (Nyahongo, Scrucial strategy in securing dwindling biodiversity ). Moreover, effective management also calls for an un- (Rodrigues et al., ; Geldmann et al., ). However, derstanding of people’s attitudes and the underlying factors the establishment and maintenance of protected areas is that form these attitudes (Allendorf et al., , ; Sarker controversial. Although many people regard protected & Røskaft, ). Understanding attitudes towards conser- areas as an essential conservation strategy, others perceive vation and incorporating these into management interven- them as a threat to their livelihoods (Brockington & tions could further improve attitudes, park–people Wilkie, ). relationships and conservation in general (Allendorf et al., The establishment and maintenance of protected areas ). We assessed the attitudes of fringe communities to- usually involves restricting access to essential resources, wards protected areas in Ghana, using the country’s two lar- evicting communities living within the new boundaries gest National Parks, Mole and Digya, as case studies. Factors and modifying traditional land use rights (Wilkie et al., affecting peoples’ attitudes were assessed and compared ; Cobbinah et al., ). In developing countries areas across the two protected areas to identify similarities and differences. People’s attitudes towards protected areas are largely in- SELASE DEWU (Corresponding author) and EIVIN RØSKAFT Department of Biology, fluenced by the perceived costs and benefits of these areas Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway. E-mail [email protected] (Allendorf et al., ; Tessema et al., ). Attitudes Received May . Revision requested July . tend to be positive when people benefit from a protected Accepted September . First published online February . area (Infield & Namara, ; Mehta & Heinen, ; Oryx, 2018, 52(3), 489–496 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605316001101 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.234, on 28 Sep 2021 at 16:58:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001101 490 S. Dewu and E. Røskaft Scanlon & Kull, ; Cobbinah, ). Conversely, if pro- tected areas threaten the livelihoods of the surrounding communities (e.g. if crops are raided by wildlife from the protected area) their attitudes towards the protected area are usually negative (Baral & Heinen, ; Kideghesho et al., ; Manyama et al., ). Against this backdrop we hypothesized that households benefiting from a protected area would have more positive attitudes towards the protected area (H). Likewise, consid- ering the potential losses incurred by local people, we hy- pothesized that households overwhelmed by these losses would have less favourable attitudes towards the protected area (H). There is evidence that livelihood programmes can have a positive effect on people’s attitudes and beha- viours, making them more amenable to conservation (Abbot et al., ). We therefore hypothesized that house- holds that are aware of or have participated in livelihood support projects would have favourable attitudes towards the protected area (H). We also assessed the effects of socioeconomic and demographic variables on attitudes, as they have been found to influence conservation attitudes (Infield & Namara, ; Holmes, ; Wang et al., ; Karanth & Nepal, ; Sarker & Røskaft, ; Masud & Kari, ). Literature pertaining to local community attitudes to- wards protected areas in Ghana is scant. This study is among the first to assess community attitudes towards Mole and Digya National Parks. The findings will broaden our understanding of the factors that influence the attitudes of local residents and could also serve as a baseline for evalu- ating conservation attitudes in relation to the implementa- tion of new policies. FIG. 1 Locations of communities around (a) Mole and (b) Digya National Parks, Ghana, where interview surveys were conducted to assess local attitudes towards the protected areas. Study areas Ghana has an extensive network of protected areas, span- ning a variety of ecosystems, and conservation dates back Digya National Park (, km ), in central Ghana, is the to the colonial era. The first wildlife policy for the country country’s second largest National Park (Fig. ), spanning the was adopted in , recognizing the importance of pro- Brong Ahafo, and Eastern and Ashanti regions. It is bor- tected areas as a conservation strategy. In this policy dered to the east by Lake Volta, to the north by the Sene was revised to emphasize the role of communities in wildlife River and to the south by the Obosum River. Vegetation conservation (Ntiamoa-Baidu et al., ). is largely Guinea savannah woodland and transitional semi- Mole National Park (, km ), in northern Ghana deciduous forest. Mean reported annual rainfall is ,– (Fig. ), is the country’s largest National Park. Although pro- , mm. The area was first established as a game reserve tected since , it was not designated a National Park until in and later expanded and gazetted as a National Park (Ntiamoa-Baidu et al., ). The habitat is Guinea savan- in (Twumasi et al., ). The Park is inhabited by ele- nah woodland and the mean annual rainfall is c. , mm phants Loxodonta africana, ungulates, manatees Trichechus (Jachmann, ; Burton et al., ). Over , and senegalensis, and primate species, among others (Twumasi species of mammals, birds and plants, respectively, are et al., ; Jachmann, ). It is fringed by indigenous protected within the Park (Forestry Commission of Ghana). and migrant communities that are engaged in farming There are c. villages in the vicinity (IUCN-PAPACO, and fishing. However, there are conflicts between park b), and these communities are largely engaged in sub- officials and local communities over where people are per- sistence farming that is seasonal and dependent on rainfall. mitted to fish. Oryx, 2018, 52(3), 489–496 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605316001101 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.234, on 28 Sep 2021 at 16:58:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001101 Local attitudes towards protected areas 491 These two protected areas are important for conservation scores of individual statements to produce a composite atti- in Ghana.