International Peer-Reviewed JournalOpen AccessISSN 2456-8880
irejournals@gmail.com+91-7433024337

Home / Current Issue / Paper 1714225

1714225 Vol 9 · Issue 8 Download Paper

Effectiveness of Community Participation in Wildlife Resources Conservation in Cross River National Park, Nigeria

Dr. Eric E. Offiong Dr. Vincent T. Ebu Prof. Nchor A. Ayuk Dr. Anoh Regina Ado Beshel A. Urim

Subject area: Physical Sciences and Environment  ·  Area of research: Environmental Forestry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I8-1714225

Abstract

This study assessed the effectiveness of community participation in the conservation of wildlife resources in Cross River National Park, Akamkpa, Nigeria. Cochran’s sample size formula was used to calculate the number of the park’s communities. Out of 105 communities, eighteen communities within the support zone were purposively selected due to their significance, (proximity and acquaintance) and administrative convenience and used for the study. Total sample size for the study was 1,046, and the sample intensity was 0.022. Primary data was collected through the use of participatory rural appraisal tools namely questionnaires, semi-structural interviews, and focus group discussions. Kruskal–Wali’s test was used to test the significance of the data. The result shows 92% of the respondents were males against 8% females. Majority aged 40-49 years (27%) and 50-59 years (26%) as well as 20-29 years, 30-39 years and 60 years upward were 14%, 19% and 3% respectively. Specifically, 40.4% of the respondents strongly agreed, while 32.2% agreed that they participate in wildlife conservation management. In terms of contribution to the park's management, 40.9% of the respondents strongly agreed, 32.9% agreed that they contribute to the park's management, while 26.2% disagreed. The table shows that majority of Rangers 37% agree that communities around the park contribute to the park management by reducing the rate of trespassing activities in the park, followed by 26% who helped to reduced poaching. It is also indicated in the table that, shares of 21% and 9% said their contributions to park management have also helped in reducing the rate of vandals and grazing respectively. The level of community participation in park management was moderate, with communities contributing to the park’s decision-making processes, providing information, and supporting policy implementation. It is recommended that CRNP should establish a monitoring and evaluation framework to track community participation in park management.

References

[1] Abimbola, O.A., Lawal, M.S. & Adetola, J. (2011). Biodiversity and Community Participation in Kainji Lake National Park, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50, 211 -231.

[2] Brosius, J. P., Tsing, A. L., & Zerner, C. (2005). Representing communities: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 18(7), 631-635.

[3] Bruyere, B. & Rappe, S. (2007). Identifying the Motivations of Environmental Volunteers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50, 503-516.

[4] Edet, D. I. (2005). Threat to wildlife and their utilizable products in the cross-river rainforest, Nigeria. Journal of agriculture and the social sciences. 3(1) 59-68

[5] Edmund, B., Helen, G. & Mark, I. (2000). A Review of Community Conservation Policy and Practice in East Africa

[6] Ellis, R. & Waterton, C. (2004). Environmental Citizenship in the Making: The Participation of Volunteer Naturalists in UK Biological Recording and Biodiversity Policy. Science and Public Policy, 3, 95-105.

[7] Garcia, S.M. (2008). Fisheries Assessment and Decision Making: Towards an Integrated Advisory Process. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, 158-196

[8] Henson, A., Williams, D., Dupain, J., Gichohi, H. & Muruthi, P. (2009). The Heartland Conservation Process: Enhancing Biodiversity Conservation and Livelihoods through Landscape-scale Conservation Planning in Africa. Oryx 43, 508-519.

[9] Hibbert, S., Piacentini, M. & Dajani, H. (2005). Understanding Volunteer Motivation for Conservation Biogeography, Diversity and Distributions, 16, 354-362.

[10] Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). Conservation biology: Research priorities for the next decade. Island Press.

[11] Kumar, K., Kumar, P., & Sharma, S. (2017). Community-based conservation: A review of the literature. Journal of Environmental Management, 199, 252-261

[12] Lawrence, A., Paudel, K., Barnes, R. & Malla, Y.A.M. (2006). Adaptive Value of Participatory Biodiversity Monitoring in Community Forestry, Environmental Conservation, 33, 325-334

[13] Measham, T. & Barnett, G. (2008). Environmental Volunteering: Motivations, Modes and Outcomes. Australian Geographer, 39, 537-552.

[14] Nadasdy, P. (2003). Hunters and bureaucrats: Power, knowledge, and Aboriginal-state relations in the southwest Yukon. University of British Columbia Press.

[15] National Park Service (2018). Boundary Demarcation: Environmental Policy Planning. National Centre for Economic Management & Administration Ibadan, 16-17

[16] Nchor, A.A., Urim, B.A., & Kejuo, E.T. (2023). Assessment of Protected Area Management Practices in The Nigerian National Park Service: The Case of Cross River National

[17] Park. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 49(3), 1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.49318-1102

[18] Paul, S. (2005). Community Participation in Development Projects. The World Bank Experience- Readings in Community Participation. Washington, D.C.

[19] Powell, M. C. & Colin, M. (2008) Meaningful citizen engagement hi science and technology - What would it really take? Science Communication, 30, 126-36.

[20] Walpole, M. J., & Thouless, C. R. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of conservation and development interventions. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 681-685.

[21] Weston, M., Fendley, M., Jewell, R., Satchell, M. & Tzaros, C. (2003). Volunteers in bird Conservation: Insights from the Australian Threatened Bird Network, Ecological Management & Restoration, 4205-4211

How to cite this paper

Dr. Eric E. Offiong, Dr. Vincent T. Ebu, Prof. Nchor A. Ayuk, Dr. Anoh Regina Ado, Beshel A. Urim "Effectiveness of Community Participation in Wildlife Resources Conservation in Cross River National Park, Nigeria" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals Volume 9 Issue 8 2026 Page 1050-1057 https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I8-1714225
Dr. Eric E. Offiong, Dr. Vincent T. Ebu, Prof. Nchor A. Ayuk, Dr. Anoh Regina Ado, Beshel A. Urim "Effectiveness of Community Participation in Wildlife Resources Conservation in Cross River National Park, Nigeria" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, vol. 9, no. 8, Feb. 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I8-1714225
Dr. Eric E. Offiong, Dr. Vincent T. Ebu, Prof. Nchor A. Ayuk, Dr. Anoh Regina Ado, Beshel A. Urim (2026). Effectiveness of Community Participation in Wildlife Resources Conservation in Cross River National Park, Nigeria. Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 9(8). doi: https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I8-1714225
Dr. Eric E. Offiong, Dr. Vincent T. Ebu, Prof. Nchor A. Ayuk, Dr. Anoh Regina Ado, Beshel A. Urim "Effectiveness of Community Participation in Wildlife Resources Conservation in Cross River National Park, Nigeria" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, vol. 9, no. 8, Feb. 2026. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I8-1714225
@article{1714225,
      author = {Dr. Eric E. Offiong, Dr. Vincent T. Ebu, Prof. Nchor A. Ayuk, Dr. Anoh Regina Ado, Beshel A. Urim},
      title = {Effectiveness of Community Participation in Wildlife Resources Conservation in Cross River National Park, Nigeria},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {9},
      number = {8},
      pages = {1050-1057},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1714225.pdf},
      abstract = {This study assessed the effectiveness of community participation in the conservation of wildlife resources in Cross River National Park, Akamkpa, Nigeria. Cochran’s sample size formula was used to calculate the number of the park’s communities. Out of 105 communities, eighteen communities within the support zone were purposively selected due to their significance, (proximity and acquaintance) and administrative convenience and used for the study. Total sample size for the study was 1,046, and the sample intensity was 0.022. Primary data was collected through the use of participatory rural appraisal tools namely questionnaires, semi-structural interviews, and focus group discussions. Kruskal–Wali’s test was used to test the significance of the data. The result shows 92% of the respondents were males against 8% females. Majority aged 40-49 years (27%) and 50-59 years (26%) as well as 20-29 years, 30-39 years and 60 years upward were 14%, 19% and 3% respectively. Specifically, 40.4% of the respondents strongly agreed, while 32.2% agreed that they participate in wildlife conservation management. In terms of contribution to the park's management, 40.9% of the respondents strongly agreed, 32.9% agreed that they contribute to the park's management, while 26.2% disagreed. The table shows that majority of Rangers 37% agree that communities around the park contribute to the park management by reducing the rate of trespassing activities in the park, followed by 26% who helped to reduced poaching. It is also indicated in the table that, shares of 21% and 9% said their contributions to park management have also helped in reducing the rate of vandals and grazing respectively. The level of community participation in park management was moderate, with communities contributing to the park’s decision-making processes, providing information, and supporting policy implementation. It is recommended that CRNP should establish a monitoring and evaluation framework to track community participation in park management.},
      month = {February},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I8-1714225}
  }