Nature conservation in Cross River National Park, south-east Nigeria: promoting collaboration between local people and conservation authorities

Figures & data

Table 1. Variables used in statistical analysis

Variable	Description	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Incentive strategies	Different incentive strategies offered to the interviewees:
	Gathering of non-timber forest products under the supervision of national park officials (NFOR = 0)	0.15
	Community forestry (COMFOR = 1)	0.26
	Skill development (SKILL = 2)	0.59
FARM SIZE	Farmland size in hectares	6.45	6.17	0.50	50.00
DISTANCE	Distance from the interviewee residence to the OD in kilometre	5.46	4.53	0.50	25.00
NONTIMB	Annual income from non-timber forest products in Nigerian Naira	18,217	26,320	5000	250,000
HH_SIZE	Household size (number of persons)	8.59	4.71	2.00	28.00
GENDER	Gender of the interviewee (male = 1, female = 0)	0.55	0.49	0	1
EDUCAT	Interviewee has at least primary school education (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.79	0.41	0	1
MEMBER	Membership of an environmental group (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.22	0.26	0	1
B_MANGO	Extracts bush mangoes for commercial purpose (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.69	0.46	0	1
COCOA	Commercial cocoa farm (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.34	0.48	0	1
Note: 1US $ = 155 Nigerian Naira (NGN), SD = standard deviation.

Table 2. Choice of incentive strategies in relation to age, gender and community

	Age %		Gender %		Community %
Strategy	Youth	Adult	Male	Female	Butatong	Bukalom	Wula
NFOR	21.00	13.50	11.10	18.80	12.00	16.00	16.00
COMFOR	29.00	25.40	18.50	34.80	24.00	32.00	22.00
SKILL	50.00	61.10	70.00	46.40	64.00	52.00	62.00
Notes: NFOR = Gathering of non-timber forest products under the supervision of national park officials.
COMFOR = Community forestry; SKILL = Skill development.

Table 3. Multinomial logit model results for factors influencing choice of incentive strategies

	Community forestry (COMFOR)			Skill development (SKILL)
Variable	Coefficient	Marginal effect		Coefficient	Marginal effect
Constant	−3.54*			−0.01
	(2.15)			(1.16)
FARM SIZE	−0.13	−0.00		−0.11*	−0.01
	(0.09)	[0.99]		(0.06)	[0.89]
DISTANCE	0.01	0.00		0.05	0.01
	(0.14)	[1.01]		(0.12)	[1.05]
NONTIMB	−0.00	0.00		−0.00**	0.00
	(0.00)	[0.98]		(0.00)	[0.99]
HH_SIZE	0.14	0.01		−0.03	−0.01
	(0.14)	[1.15]		(0.09)	[0.97]
GENDER	−2.92**	−0.23		−0.03	−0.19
	(1.39)	[0.05]		(0.75)	[0.97]
EDUCAT	3.31**	0.12		2.07**	0.06
	(1.48)	[27.49]		(0.97)	[7.96]
MEMBER	3.49*	0.26		−0.32	−0.19
	(1.91)	[33.11]		(1.42)	[1.38]
B_MANGO	2.35**	0.05		2.02**	0.12
	(1.13)	[10.49]		(0.85)	[7.53]
COCOA	1.97	0.08		3.46***	0.34
	(1.73)	[7.14]		(1.41)	[31.63]
Log likelihood function			−61.31
Restricted log likelihood			−84.05
χ^2 statistic			45.48
Prob[χ^2 > value]			0.00****
McFadden Pseudo R ^2			0.27
% correctly predicted			79.83
Hausman–McFadden test: χ^2 statistic			6.27
P-value			0.39
Number of observations			137
Notes: Gathering of non-timber forest products under the supervision of national park officials (NFOR) is the omitted choice. *, **, ***, **** represent 0.10, 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 levels of statistical significance, respectively. Standard error is in parenthesis and odds ratio is in square brackets. Marginal effects for discrete independent variables were calculated as the difference in the expected value of the dependent variable when the independent variable of interest takes the value zero and when it takes the value one while marginal effects for continuous independent variables were calculated at the mean of the independent variable of interest (Greene 2003).

Greene , WH. 2003 . Econometric analysis. , 5th , Upper Saddle River , NJ : Prentice Hall .

 Google Scholar