title: Differences in perceptions of communication, tourism benefits, and management issues in a protected area of rural Kenya.
abstract: With record-breaking tourist visits in Kenya in 2005-2006, communities near the country's renowned protected areas must undertake or revisit planning efforts to conserve and enhance the region's natural, social, and economic resources. This article examines the differences between two stakeholder groups in the Samburu region of central Kenya: (1) protected area leadership and staff; and (2) members of the communities adjacent to the protected areas. Based on the results and analysis of 30 in-depth interviews, the authors identify differences between protected area staff and their community members regarding perceptions about communication between the two groups, and the economic benefits of tourism. The different stakeholders agreed, however, about challenges related to equitable distribution of tourism-based employment and revenue. The results indicate a need to reach consensus about what constitutes sufficient communication between national reserves and their community, and to what extent tourism-related revenue and employment should be distributed within the region. A discussion of the potential role of indicators and standards to make such decisions is presented.
authors.affiliation: Human Dimension of Natural Resources Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. Brett.Bruyere@Colostate.edu
authors.forename: Brett L
authors.initials: BL
authors.lastname: Bruyere
authors.forename: Adam W
authors.initials: AW
authors.lastname: Beh
authors.forename: Geoffrey
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Lelengula
mesh_terms: D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D007630:Kenya; D011639:Public Opinion; D011998:Recreation / Q000191:economics; D014195:Travel / Q000191:economics
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Oct 23;104(43):16781-6
references.pmid: 17942687
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 May;19(5):232-7
references.pmid: 16701261
references.citation: Environ Manage. 1997 Jul;21(4):483-91
references.pmid: 9175538
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2001 Aug;28(2):165-77
references.pmid: 11443381
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2007 Apr;39(4):497-505
references.pmid: 17265111