Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • The Perceived Benefits of Protected Areas in the Virunga-bwindi Massif

  • Sarah Tolbert, Wellard Makambo, Stephen Asuma, Altor Musema, Benjamin Mugabukomeye
  • Journal:
    Environmental Conservation / Volume 46 / Issue 1 / March 2019
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    18 September 2018, pp. 76-83

  • Despite decades of continuous research highlighting the biological success of mountain gorilla conservation in the Virunga-Bwindi Massif, there is little knowledge of whether people living near the mountain gorilla parks perceive benefits from protected areas (PAs). This paper is the first study in the region to use the sustainable livelihoods framework to understand drivers of local perceptions of PA benefits. We used a logit regression to examine the relationship between household socioeconomic characteristics and the costs and benefits that 752 men and women living near mountain gorilla PAs reported. Integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) in the Virunga-Bwindi Massif have improved perceptions of mountain gorilla PAs, but they need to prioritize projects that improve human and social capital. The frustration voiced about inequitable benefit distribution highlights the need for further social equity research to ensure ICDPs, including revenue-sharing schemes, are managed transparently and equitably.

  • A review of the effectiveness of agriculture interventions in improving nutrition outcomes

  • Peter R Berti, Julia Krasevec, Sian FitzGerald
  • Journal:
    Public Health Nutrition / Volume 7 / Issue 5 / August 2004
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    02 January 2007, pp. 599-609
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • Objectives:

    To review the impact of agriculture interventions on nutritional status in participating households, and to analyse the characteristics of interventions that improved nutrition outcomes.

    Design:

    We identified and reviewed reports describing 30 agriculture interventions that measured impact on nutritional status. The interventions reviewed included home gardening, livestock, mixed garden and livestock, cash cropping, and irrigation. We examined the reports for the scientific quality of the research design and treatment of the data. We also assessed whether the projects invested in five types of ‘capital’ (physical, natural, financial, human and social) as defined in the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, a conceptual map of major factors that affect people's livelihoods.

    Results:

    Most agriculture interventions increased food production, but did not necessarily improve nutrition or health within participating households. Nutrition was improved in 11 of 13 home gardening interventions, and in 11 of 17 other types of intervention. Of the 19 interventions that had a positive effect on nutrition, 14 of them invested in four or five types of capital in addition to the agriculture intervention. Of the nine interventions that had a negative or no effect on nutrition, only one invested in four or five types of capital.

    Conclusions:

    Those agriculture interventions that invested broadly in different types of capital were more likely to improve nutrition outcomes. Those projects which invested in human capital (especially nutrition education and consideration of gender issues), and other types of capital, had a greater likelihood of effecting positive nutritional change, but such investment is neither sufficient nor always necessary to effect change.