Conservation, local well-being and ecosystem services inside the Bwabwata National Park

(Poster)

Attila Paksi
attila.paksi@helsinki.fi

University of Helsinki, Finland
,
Anita Heim
anita.heim@helsinki.fi

University of Helsinki, Finland

DOI: 10.17011/conference/eccb2018/108178

SEE PEER REVIEW

On a global scale, high biodiversity areas show a large overlap with the indigenous people's traditional territories, hence approaches in biodiversity conservation shifted from exclusion to involvement of local people into conservation management.

The hunter-gatherer Khwe San people, living inside the Bwabwata National Park (BNP) in Namibia, are involved in the national Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) programme. For the sake of nature conservation, own-use hunting is banned, and gathering activities are restricted, depriving the Khwe to benefit directly from ecosystem services and to utilise their Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and practices. Meanwhile, the community earns CBNRM-generated income from trophy hunting and tourism concessions, however, whether the monetary benefits outweigh the loss of provisional and cultural ecosystem services is still in question.

Our research aims to reveal (1) the main constituents of local well-being (2) and the importance of provisional and cultural ecosystem services among those constituents by utilising the Photovoice method. Photovoice is a participatory photography method consisting of multiple processes by which participants can identify, capture and reflect on specific topics within their community (Wang & Burris 1997). We have conducted Photovoice sessions in three villages involving 24 local participants. A photovoice session consisted of a full-day basic photography training, four days of photo capturing on the research topic, followed by individual semi-structured interviews with the photographers and a focus group discussion with the wider community. The visual data and the transcribed interviews were thematically analysed following the structure of ecosystem services and well-being constituents in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Framework (MEA 2005).

The photos and related narratives highlighted the importance of the provisional and cultural ecosystem services in the local well-being of the Khwe. Food, medicine, traditional crafts and traditional practices were most commonly represented on the photos. Participants stressed the insecurity of resources and the impaired freedom to access and use natural resources as negatively influencing their well-being.

Our results showed that monetary benefits of CBNRM are not able to redeem the restricted access to provisional and cultural ecosystem services. Furthermore, it comes with a cost in local well-being. For CBNRM to stand up to its label, the approach needs to incorporate local well-being measures.

References:

MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health education & behavior, 24(3), 369-387.

SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:

This study appears to use qualitative data (including the Photovoice method) to determine the impact of CBNRM on a Khwe communty in Namibia. The data highlighted the importance of the provisional and cultural ecosystem services in the local well-being of the Khwe. The insecurity of resources and the impaired freedom to access and use natural resources was listed as a factor negatively influencing the well-being of the Khwe.
MERITS:
The topic, though focused on a single communty, is of general interest (CBNRM impact on communities).
CRITIQUE:
There does not seem to be a stated objective for this project. I dont know what is meant by "the display of ecosystem services and related TEK". I'm not clear how the "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: A Framework for Assessment" was used as an assessment tool for visual data and transcribed interviews. How were the Photovoice data assessed?
DISCUSSION:
This abstract needs a clear and stated objective. There are several points that need clarification (see critique section).

- - -
INTRO:
The introduction is clear and well written, it sets the stage for the rest of the paper.
MERITS:
It contributes to qualitative data collection by using innovative methods like photography paired with traditional knowledge.
CRITIQUE:
None
DISCUSSION:
The discussion is specific and related to the case study, with a generalization at the end which looks perfect to me.

- - -
INTRO:
The study follows the implementation of CBNRM (Community-Based Natural Resource Management) in the hunter-gatherer Khwe San people, living in the Bwabwata National Park (BNP), Namibia. The researchers used photos and voice narratives to establish the typesand importance of the provisional and cultural ecosystem services in the local well-being of the Khwe.
MERITS:
The study discusses an interesting subject and the specific conditions of the case study seem to provide valuable lessons as to the conflicts that may arise when social "meets" environmental. The data gathering method is interesting and clearly stated.
CRITIQUE:
The data analysis method requires more elaboration. Is this thematic analysis? Discourse analysis? How is the MA Framework utilized? Also, more elaboration on findings might be beneficial as the themes found are somewhat expected for this case study, and one must wonder what is the added value of the methodology and the (unique?) findings this particular study, not only for this case study but also on a theoretical level and for other similar cases.
DISCUSSION:
The research seems to have been carried out adequately in terms of methodology, and the case is interesting. But again, what is missing is a clearer explanation of the data analysis method.

- - -
INTRO:
This abstract looks at the relationship between conservation and human well-being in Bwabwata National park in Namibia. The authors use innovative method, photovoice participatory photography. They reveal some ecosystem services important to the locals and negative impacts of conservation on their well-being.
MERITS:
The merit is the use of the inovative method, photovoice participatory photography.
CRITIQUE:
The objective of the research in not entirely clear to me. The sentence like "Our research investigates the display of ecosystem services and related TEK in the local well-being of the Khwe" is kind of opaque.

The method "photovoice participatory photography" is not clear to me too.
DISCUSSION:
The research is important given its use of innovative method that could reveal important aspects of impacts of conservation on well-being. A sentence giving a clear statement of the objective and another sentence that clearly discribes the method (photovoice participatory photography) would improve the abstract.

- - -
INTRO:
This abstract reports on implementation of a photovoices project in three villages in Namibia and subsequent analysis of the resulting interviews and photos with a focus on identifying provisional and cultural ecosystem services that are important to the well-being of the Khwe San people living in this area.
MERITS:
Photovoices projects are important tools for working with individuals to tell their own stories about their relationship to place and each other.
CRITIQUE:
The abstract seems to imply that the CBNRM approach, with local representatives monitoring natural resources, was a mitigation of the loss of ecosystem services due to National Park status implementation. It is not clear how the monitoring actions led to this mitigation and what specifically happened. It is also not clear how the photovoices project specifically led to incorporation of TEK in strengthening conservation efforts. I do not know what the authors mean by using the MEA framework specifically. Does this mean using the various categories of well-being defined by MEA? is there room to specifically note results beyond provisioning and cultural services?
DISCUSSION: I think the initiative sounds like it was very useful in working with community members to share their observations. I feel like some of the background information detracts from setting the stage for the methods and results from the study. In the intro, the authors note that "The conservation status of their area deprived the Khwe of remaining active beneficiaries of the ecosystem services as well as of utilizing their Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and practices." But the results present cultural and provisioning ecosystem services that the community notes? Also, what is the follow up with the community members regarding the results - what might community members do with this information?

Conservation, local well-being and ecosystem services inside the Bwabwata National Park