SUSTAINING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN 
AND AROUND NYUNGWE NATIONAL PARK (NNP) 
EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION EDUCATION AND OUTREACH 
INITIATIVES AROUND NYUNGWE NATIONAL PARK 
Associate Cooperative Agreement No AID-696-LA-10-00001 under Leader Cooperative 
Agreement No EEM--00-09-00007-00 
Prepared by the WildlifeConservation Society, May 2015. 
CONTENT 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1. Background 
1.2. Education and Outreach Interventions around NNP 
1.3. Evaluation Objectives 
2. METHODOLOGY 
2.1. Survey Design 
2.2. Sampling Framework and Procedure 
3. KEY RESULTS FROM THE COMMUNITY SURVEY 
3.1 Demographics 
3.2 Basic knowledge, values, and attitudes about NNP 
4. DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS 
4.1 Threats to NNP 
5. KEY RESULTS FROM THE SCHOOL SURVEY 
5.1 Demographics 
5.2 Animal knowledge 
5.3 Environmental clubs and awareness of education/outreach efforts 
5.4 Questions on students’ role 
6. DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND SCHOOL SURVEY RESULTS 
6.1 Knowledge of and attitude to laws
6.2 Post survey Media questions 
6.3 Effectiveness of Different Outreach Methods/Approaches 
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
ANNEX I COMMUNITY SURVEY: PRE & POST-IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY RESULTS 
ANNEX II SCHOOL SURVEY PRE & POST-IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY RESULTS 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1. Background 
Nyungwe National Park (NNP) is an area of global and national biodiversity significance. The national 
park and its surrounding landscape are home to a rich assemblage of wildlife and natural resources. In 
total, NNP is home to at least 275 species of birds, 140 species of orchids, and 13 species of 
primates—including the rare owl-faced monkey, over 400 Eastern chimpanzees, and groups of black￾and-white colobus that number in the hundreds. NNP provides important benefits to people as well: it 
generates important tourism revenues and it is a critical catchment for Rwanda’s fresh water, plays a 
key role in erosion control, flood prevention, and climate regulation. 
Nyungwe became a national park in 2005, since this time there has been remarkable conservation 
achievements made and opportunities discovered. These successes notwithstanding, the forest still 
faces a range of critical threats. Human populations along the boundary of Nyungwe are some of the 
highest in Africa with as many as 500 people per square kilometre. Poverty in the area is severe. 
Animal poaching, fire, mining and the unsustainable harvesting of bamboo are the most immediate 
threats, because local people have few available substitutes. Fire is a severe threat, often resulting from 
the illegal harvesting of honey in the park. Illegal mining, which increases when gold and coltan prices 
are high, causes habitat destruction, water pollution and increases in bush meat demand. 
Actively working with surrounding communities is a prerequisite for achieving conservation results in 
NNP. For local people to support the park and the conservation of its resources, they must not only 
benefit from it, but have a clear understanding of how they benefit from it. The main goal of education 
and outreach initiatives around NNP is to enable people to better understand the values of NNP and 
encourage them to adopt sustainable behaviour in support of park conservation efforts. 
With support from USAID, WCS has been implementing the 5 years project ’Sustaining biodiversity 
conservation in and around Nyungwe National Park, Rwanda’, from 2010 to 2015. The supportive 
objective of this project is that communities and government are able to benefit from the conservation 
of NNP. In this way the project aims to ensure that Rwanda benefits from the conservation of wildlife 
and sustainable use of ecosystem services in NNP. 
The project is articulated around six broad strategies employed to guide interventions in support of 
biodiversity conservation. The sixth strategy revolves around “implementing education and outreach 
programs”. Through this strategy, WCS, working with RDB and local education partners, has
developed an Education and Outreach Strategy for NNP, in order to address both the immediate threats 
of unsustainable resource use, fire and mining as well as the long-term threat of degazettement. The 
strategy was to build on existing education and outreach activities to develop and implement an 
integrated set of education and communication tools and activities that reach two key audiences –
students in formal education (Education), and out-of school youth and other vulnerable groups through 
social marketing (Outreach).
Based on the original project plan, the intended outputs of this strategy were that “students in formal 
education adopt supportive attitudes to park conservation based on a clear understanding of the 
multiple values of NNP, reduce the adoption of unsustainable behaviours as they grow into adults and 
out of school youth and other vulnerable groups gain new skills and an increased understanding of the 
multiple values of NNP, adopt supportive attitudes towards park conservation and reduce destructive 
behavior”. 
1.2. Education and Outreach Interventions around NNP 
Initial conservation education work, supported by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, helped us initiate 
environmental clubs in 8 schools (4 primary and 4 secondary) surrounding the park, and working with 
teachers as well as District Environment Officers (DEOs). A suite of activities and materials promoting 
chimpanzee conservation were developed under this work. With the USAID project “Sustaining 
Biodiversity Conservation in and around Nyungwe National Park”, we aimed at developing an
education and outreach program targeting school and out of school youth and communities, addressing 
the main threats and identifying specific alternatives. 
With support from our Conservation Education Department at our Global HQ in the Bronx Zoo in 
New York, we undertook a series of baseline surveys- with general sectors of the population as well as 
schools and specific groups that influence the park to a large extent. Based on these surveys, we 
developed an elaborate Education and Outreach Strategy for NNP upon which we based the 
development of activities and materials used in the various components of the program.
In addition to the baseline surveys, we implemented a series of training workshops on conflict￾sensitive conservation1
in collaboration with the International Institute for Sustainable Development 
(IISD). The findings of these workshops as well as results of additional consultations with 
conservationists formed the basis of the Nyungwe National Park Conflict Analysis2
. 
The main components of our education and outreach programs are detailed below.
1.2.1 School programs 
a. Teachers program 
We recognize the need to support local teachers in their vital role as educators. They are important 
partners in the goal of protecting NNP. Our commitment has been supporting and assisting teachers to 
become conservation educators. The teachers that we work with learn conservation education 
techniques and receive information about relevant conservation issues and materials for their students. 
WCS’s Education Department encourages a focus on “multiplier audiences”, this means engaging 
individuals with the power to teach others in great numbers. With this in mind, we recognize teachers 
as a “multiplier audience”. Teachers are instrumental in the writing of education and outreach 
strategies, in the design of education materials/activities and in the delivery of conservation lessons to 
children, making them an excellent group to engage with our education and outreach initiatives. 
b. Environmental Clubs 
Children are an important constituency of our work, and one of the tools used to engage them is the 
establishment of environmental clubs at various levels including primary and secondary schools. 
Through the clubs, we offer students and teachers interactive learning opportunities that enable 
students of all ages to develop a deeper knowledge of Nyungwe forest, its values, threats to its 
existence, and the possible alternatives to natural resource use. 
1.2.2 Public outreach 
a. Animateur de Conservation (ANICOs) 
In order to mitigate the threats to biodiversity within and surrounding NNP, we have worked to 
establish a network of 53 liaison volunteers, one in each cell3
abutting the park. In addition to their role 
as community educators, they help to mitigate conflicts around the park through identifying threats in 
their areas and providing timely information to park wardens and the local government. 
b. Social marketing & radio 
Our social marketing and radio programming are part of the integrated set of outreach tools designed 
to target communities living near NNP. Social Marketing is a process that applies marketing principles 
and techniques to create, communicate and deliver value in order to influence target audience 
behaviours that benefit society (public health, safety, the environment and communities) as well as the 
target audience (Kotler et al. 2006) Using community events we have delivered conservation messages 
to thousands of people through music, tailor made drama, and quizzes. 
 
1
Conflict-sensitive conservation (CSC) is conservation programming and implementation that takes into account 
the causes, actors and impacts of conflict in order to minimize conflict risks and maximize peace-building 
opportunities 
2
 Crawforf, A. (2012). Conflict-Sensitive Conservation in Nyungwe National Park: Conflict Analysis. IISD Report. 
3
A Cell is the lowest administrative unit in the Rwanda Local Government Structure.
In 2013 in partnership with Media Impact (MI) and with funds from the USFWS, we piloted a radio 
communications program called “My Chimpanzee-My Community”. The program follows 
entertainment-education and social marketing approaches. Such approaches are designed to encourage 
positive behaviour and social change through modeling desired changes using dramatic representations 
of people and communities with whom the audience can identify. The center piece of the radio 
program is “AHAJISHE IGISABO” a serial drama that weaves together relevant conservation 
information on chimpanzees in a compelling and entertaining way. 
c. Community Enterprise development 
We focus our support to cooperatives which involve ex-illegal users of forest products (poachers, 
beekeepers, wood collectors) in an attempt to reduce the pressure on the national park through 
providing alternatives. Our projects have included support to a beekeeping union (comprised of 13 
cooperatives with some 800 members). We train our community partners in technical and business 
skills as well as environmentally sound production methods, and we provide necessary equipment and 
infrastructure. In addition, we work with specific communities to popularise fuel efficient technologies 
through the provision of energy saving cook stoves aimed at reducing the need for wood from the 
forest. 
In order to reduce the drivers for poaching, we are working with three ex-poacher cooperatives by 
promoting access to affordable finance through local Savings and Credit Organisations (SACCOs). 
Our current efforts working with two such SACCOs are aimed at easing the requirements for credit in 
cases where credit is needed for specific activities with the potential to improve the well-being of 
reformed poachers. 
1.3. Evaluation Objectives 
In 2011, WCS Rwanda collected baseline data on awareness and attitudes towards NNP. This baseline 
information was crucial in guiding the development of the Education and Outreach Strategy and to 
help assess the effectiveness of education and outreach initiatives. To measure the impact and the 
extent of reach of the education and outreach interventions, a repeat phase of data collection was 
carried out at the end of the USAID project (Nov 2014), 3-years after the baseline data were collected. 
This report follows on from the baseline survey report; it documents changes over time (2011 and 
2014) found in the knowledge, attitudes and behavior patterns of students in formal education and out 
of school people in the study locations around NNP. It summarizes in brief, the background and 
methodology to the surveys.
The purpose of the 2014 survey was to measure the impact of the investment in conservation education 
and outreach activities on the communities adjacent to NNP, in terms of changes in knowledge, 
attitudes and behaviours regarding the conservation of the park. We were interested in the following 
questions:
 Do students in schools in which conservation education activities were implemented know more 
about, and exhibit more positive attitudes and behaviours towards the conservation of NNP than 
students in schools where no conservation education activity was implemented? 
 Did the level of awareness/support towards conservation of NNP change within community 
members following the implementation of the education activities? 
 Did community members have any significant level of exposure to the WCS implemented 
outreach activities, and if so did this influence positively their knowledge and attitudes?
In addition, between 2013 and 2014 the interest in the scope of our interventions and other community 
conservation interventions has grown. In the 2011 baseline survey we explored only the knowledge, 
attitude and behavior of respondents in the study area. In the 2014 repeat survey, the scope was 
widened to measure the reach of education and outreach interventions, specifically how far messages 
and materials spread within the schools and communities where we worked. 
2. METHODOLOGY 
2.1. Survey Design 
The evaluation was based on a pre and post-survey design with random sampling of participants in 
experimental and pre-identified control areas. Experimental areas included schools and cells where 
conservation education and outreach interventions were implemented. Control areas consisted of 
schools that did not have access to the conservation education program and cells in selected sectors 
that do not share a boundary with the Nyungwe National Park. 
The survey included socio-economic information on the target population and information on 
knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards the conservation of NNP. Similar information was 
collected from the control areas. The 2014 survey replicated the 2011 baseline using the same research 
instruments. The school and household questionnaire replicated the 2011 questionnaires with the 
addition of several questions on the exposure of respondents to project activities. While conducting the 
evaluation survey, the same information was collected from different respondents to those interviewed 
for the baseline in the same experimental and control areas. 
2.2. Sampling Framework and Procedure 
2.2.1 School Survey 
Selection of survey schools was based on proximity to the national park (within 20Km from the park 
boundary) in order to hold constant any other factors that might influence conservation interventions. 
The school surveys were administered to students in 10 schools that represented three types of levels 
(Secondary 6 level and Senior 3 level and primary 6 level). Five were experimental schools, those in 
which education activities were conducted, and five control schools. Control schools were matched for 
district, type of school (Primary 6, Secondary 3, or Secondary 6), distance from NNP, and sector threat 
levels of fire and poaching. The student sample consisted of a total of 200 students, 100 from the 
experimental schools and 100from the control group. The Tables below shows the distribution of 
schools from which the student data was collected.
In each school, two classes were chosen. For S64
 Schools, one grade was chosen randomly amongst 
classes S4, S5 and S6. One class from this grade was then chosen randomly. For S35
 Schools, one 
grade was chosen randomly amongst classes S1, S2, and S3. In the primary school section, one grade 
was chosen randomly amongst classes P3, P4, P5, and P6. One class was then randomly selected from 
this grade. In this way, there were 3 P6, 5 S3, 2 S6 classes chosen in the pilot schools, and 3 P6, 5 S3, 
2 S6 classes chosen in the control schools, for a total of 5 pilot classes and 5 control classes. This was 
the same sampling method used in the baseline survey. 
a) Control Schools 
District Sector School Type Threat level
Nyamagabe Nkomane G.S Bitandara P6,S3 Low fire
Karongi Rangiro G.S Rangiro S3,S6 Medium poaching
Nyamasheke Rangiro G.S Mpabe P6,S3 Medium poaching
Rusizi Nyakabuye G.S Nyakabwende P6,S3 No fire, no poaching
Nyaruguru Karengera CIM-APPECUM S3,S6 High poaching, low fire
 
4
 S6 Level Schools
5
 S6 Level schools
b) Experimental Schools 
District Sector School Type Threat level
Nyamagabe Kitabi G.S Kitabi P6,S3 High fire, Low poaching
Karongi Twumba G.S Gisovu S3,S6 Low poaching, High fire
Nyamasheke Bushekeri G.S Gisakura P6,S3 Medium poaching
Rusizi Nyakabuye G.S Nyamubembe P6,S3 No fire, no poaching
Nyaruguru Muganza G.S Bigugu S3,S6 High poaching, medium fire
From each class, 10 students (5 boys and 5 girls) were randomly chosen to participate in the survey. 
Interviewers looked at the class register and starting with the fifth student chose every third student 
until 10 students were chosen. If a chosen student was absent, the next 3rd student was chosen. If 
interviewers got to the bottom of the list, and ten students had not been chosen yet, they returned to the 
top of the list and continued counting three students. In this way, student #5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 
29 and 32 on the register were chosen for the survey. If 5 of one gender were already chosen, the 
interviewer continued choosing only the other gender. Students met with the team of interviewers and 
participated in a group session. Each student had an answer sheet to record his/her responses. The 
interviewers went through the survey instrument question by question with the students, and the 
students recorded their responses. 
2.2.2 Community Survey 
For the survey of out of school respondents, only sectors6
 adjacent to Nyungwe National Park were 
considered for the survey. Selection of survey sectors was based on firstly, levels and combinations of 
threats (fire and poaching) identified from Ranger Based Monitoring (RBM), and secondly, the cells 
being adjacent to the national park or not. Based on the sample size calculated (390 surveys overall), 
13 out of 23 sectors abutting the park were chosen for the survey. The table below shows the 
combination of threats in the sectors and the sectors that were chosen for the community survey.
 
6
A sector is
Poaching Level
High Medium Low None/Very Low
Fire Level
High
Uwinkingi
Kitabi
Kivu˟
Bweyeye˟
Medium
Low Rangiro˟
Mahembe
Twumba˟
Mutuntu
Nkomane˟
None/Very 
Low
Ruharambuga˟
Bushekeri˟
Ruheru˟
Nyabimata
Muganza
Karambi˟
Cyato
Butare˟
Gatare
Buruhukiro˟
Gitambi
Nyakabuye
Nkungu˟
Karengera˟
To choose the survey cells, we looked at the adjacent and non-adjacent cells to the park in each 
selected sector and chose one from each category randomly. Sometimes all cells bordered the park and 
two cells adjacent to the park were chosen. In total, 26 cells were chosen for the survey. 
A household survey, achieved by interviewing people in their homes, was used to collect the data. In 
each cell, 15 households were surveyed for a total of 390 households for the whole survey. In order to 
choose which household to survey, enumerators started at the boundary of the cell and chose a 
direction (North, South, East or west) using a compass. After directing the compass, enumerators 
walked in the chosen direction for 500m (estimated) and interviewed the nearest household. After 
conducting the first survey, the enumerator walked another 500m in the same direction and surveyed 
again the nearest household. The enumerators continued with the same method until 15 surveys were 
completed in each cell. 
If no house is located near the 500 m mark, the enumerators kept walking until the next house was 
found. If no one was found at home, the enumerator kept walking in the same direction until the next 
house with an adult to interview was found. If the enumerator got to the border of the cell or could not 
keep walking because of an obstacle, they changed the direction until the next household. Each 
enumerator interviewed one person per household. Enumerators considered the gender and age group 
of the respondents in order to meet the quota for the categories of respondents required for data 
sample.
3. KEY RESULTS FROM THE COMMUNITY SURVEY 7
3.1 Demographics 
The respondents interviewed during the Pre (N=390) and Post (N=390) implementation surveys were 
equally representing the 13 selected sectors (Bweyeye, Bushekeri, Twumba, Butare, Rangiro, Kivu, 
Nkomane, Karengera , Karambi, Nkungu, Buruhukiro, Ruheru, Ruharambuga), representing fairly 
evenly males and females, aged between 14 to 88, the majority of which (84% in Pre and 86% in Post) 
identified themselves as farmers with relatively low education levels (over 80% without any secondary 
school education). 
Literacy/numeracy was measured by self-reports of ability to read in Kinyarwanda, write in
Kinyarwanda, and do arithmetic (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division), with an average 
of 30% of respondents (in both Pre and Post survey) reporting to be unable to read, write and do 
arithmetic). In the Rwanda census, literacy levels are also self-reported. 
3.2 Basic knowledge, values, and attitudes about NNP 
The education/outreach strategy had various Knowledge-Attitude Targets (or KATs) about specific 
information the audience should know, or attitudes that would support the overall conservation goals, 
objectives, and behavior targets. For the Knowledge-Attitude target (KAT) about values, the 
knowledge baseline and indicator was % of audience that know the values of NNP. This included 
intrinsic value of NNP, and utilitarian values such as tourism, hydrological services provided by NNP
and carbon sequestration services provided by NNP. Overall, communities around NNP have a general 
good knowledge of the park (with 92% and 95% in pre and post survey respectively being aware that 
Nyungwe is a park) and agree that it should be protected (96% and 99% in pre and post survey 
respectively). Interestingly, post implementation of education activities, 90% of respondents believed 
that NNP provide benefits to surrounding communities, as opposed to 72% in the Pre implementation 
survey, identifying among the benefits rainwater, fresh air, tourism income and employment among 
others. Also the knowledge of the main threats was already high before implementation, but some 
increases in specific knowledge were identified (see below and Annex I for the answers to each 
question).
3.2.1 Basic Attitude
From the education/outreach strategy, the attitude baseline and indicator was % of audience that agree 
that NNP should be protected because it is home to intrinsically valuable animals and because it
provides benefits to them and their community and it is their responsibility to help protect NNP. The 
value for this indicator was already high in the baseline (Pre=96%) and increased to 99% of the 
interviewed in the Post survey, agreeing that NNP should be protected, that it is their responsibility to 
support park staff in the protection of NNP (Pre=96%, Post=95%). Moreover, Post implementation of 
education activities, 90% of respondents believed that NNP provide benefits to surrounding 
communities, as opposed to 72% in the Pre implementation survey, identifying among the benefits 
rainwater, fresh air, tourism income and employment among others. 
a) Threats to NNP 
The top three threats identified during the education/outreach strategy workshops for NNP are 
poaching, setting fire, and cutting bamboo. 
The education/outreach strategy for each threat is described, followed by survey questions and results 
about behavior targets, knowledge targets, attitude targets, alternatives to the threat, and laws about the 
threat.
 
7
 see Annex I for detailed results for each session
1. Poaching 
a. Poaching Behavior 
For poaching, the education/outreach strategy target audience is poachers, those people who hunt 
illegally. It outlines the target behavior as “stop or reduce poaching”. For this survey, we used self￾reported measures of poaching behavior and questions about people in general. This will be
supplemented with ranger data on encounters with snares or ranger data on encounters with carcasses. 
During both Pre and Post implementation surveys, the levels of self-reported hunting behavior were 
very low (Pre= 1.1 % and Post= 0.8%), despite respondents showed to be aware that “people” do hunt 
in NNP (Pre= 19.6%, Post= 32%). 
As is typical with self-reported illegal behavior, the level of hunting reported is extremely low, and 
much lower than the perception of people in general hunting. This suggests there is some level of 
hunting in NNP, and people are aware of that. It is troubling to note that the percentage of respondents 
that answered positively to the question “Do people hunt in NNP?” went up from about 20% to about 
32%.Data from the Ranger-Based Monitoring of threats and illegal activities inside the park, carried 
out by the park rangers, show indeed an increase in illegal activities in the park between 2009 and 
2014, indicating that the respondents’ perceptions may reflect the reality.. 
b. Influencing poaching behavior
As well as looking at the direct audience of poachers and poaching, influencing audiences, those 
whose behaviors may affect the behavior of the direct audiences, are a target audience of the 
education/outreach strategy. This includes: family and friends, women’s groups, school children, 
local authorities such as police, park rangers, and military, community leaders such as teachers, 
pastors, presidents of cooperatives or associations, NGO leaders and community decision makers. 
These groups have personal relationships or are in a position of influence, and can affect the attitudes 
and behavior of poachers. The target behavior identified was “encourage others to stop poaching”, 
whether referring to husbands, sons, other relatives, neighbors, friends, suspected or known poachers. 
In the education/outreach strategy, the indicator is % of people who have encouraged others to stop 
poaching. The survey questions focused on starting a conversation with someone. From the results we 
see that some conversations were happening before the education and outreach activities about 
encouraging others to stop hunting or seeking alternatives to hunting. However, these conversations 
showed a 6% increase in the post outreach surveys. 
c. Attitudes toward hunting
According to the education/outreach strategy, the attitude target and indicator is % of people who 
agree that it is desirable and possible to stop poaching animals. Although poachers are specifically 
targeted in the strategy, the sample in the survey is too small to report on. Another attitude baseline and 
indicator is the % of audience that agree that poaching is an undesirable activity because it has a 
negative impact on wildlife and people and it is their responsibility to help stop poaching. The % of 
respondents agreeing that hunting should not be allowed (81%) and that it is their responsibility to
support park authorities in their efforts to stop hunting in NNP (90%) was high already in the Pre 
survey and increased in the Post survey (85% and 95% respectively). 
d. Knowledge about hunting impact
In the education/outreach strategy, the percentage of audience that knows the impact of poaching on 
wildlife and people was the knowledge indicator. The % of respondents who understood hunting is 
problematic for animals increased from 74% to 92% after the education and outreach activities. 
Specifically, those who answered, “Animal populations decrease because of hunting” went up from 
67% to 88% and those who answered, “animal behavior is affected because of hunting” increased from 
8% to 26%. 
The % of respondents recognizing hunting as a problem for people living in communities surrounding 
NNP was similar (80%) before and after implementation. Interestingly, when asked how hunting is a 
problem for people living in communities surrounding NNP, the % of respondents answering that 
“Hunting decreases animals for tourism which brings revenue for communities” increased from 46% to 
76% after the outreach efforts, with a 10% in the Post survey who answered that “Hunting is a 
problem for people living in the communities due to the “punishment for poachers. 
In the baseline survey the answer that hunting decreases food supply for people was cited by 23% of 
respondents, although hunting is not allowed in NNP for any reason, including food for people. It is 
important to note that this answer was given by 0% of respondents in the survey taken after the 
education and outreach activities.
e. Alternatives to Poaching
In the education/outreach strategy, another knowledge-attitude target (KAT) focused on alternatives. 
The knowledge baseline and indicator was % of audience that knows about the realistic alternatives to
poaching. The attitude baseline and indicator was % of audience who agree that there are alternatives 
to poaching. These issues were addressed by survey questions, reporting 80% of respondents in Pre 
and 85% in Post education implementation answering there are alternative ways to get meat. 
2. Setting fires 
a. Fire Setting Behavior 
For setting fire, the education/outreach strategy target audience included honey collectors, charcoal 
makers, truck drivers (who smoke or set fires in the forest to keep warm or cook as they are travelling 
on the road through NNP), and farmers who use fire to clear their fields. The education/outreach 
strategy outlines the target behavior as “stop setting fires”, whether for collecting honey, making 
charcoal, cooking, keeping warm, or clearing land. 
For the survey, we used self-reported measures of fire-setting behavior and questions about people in 
general. As is typical with self-reported illegal behavior, the level of setting fires is extremely low (see 
Annex X). It is interesting to note that in the baseline survey 10% of respondents reported using fire 
themselves in the last 5 years and in the post education and outreach survey 0% of respondents 
reported using fire themselves in the past 3 years. This will be discussed in the light of the ranger data 
on fires. 
b. Influencing fire setting behavior 
As well as looking at the direct audiences that are setting the fires, the education/outreach strategy 
examined influencing audiences, the same groups associated with poachers. These groups have 
personal relationships or are in a position of influence, and can affect the attitudes and behavior of the 
people setting fires. The target behavior identified was “encourage others to stop setting fires in NNP”. 
In the education/outreach strategy, the indicator is % of people who have encouraged others to setting 
fires. The survey questions focused on starting a conversation with someone. 
Some conversations are happening about this topic (to encourage others to stop setting fires, stop 
clearing land and find alternatives). Overall, there was a slight increase in percent of respondents who 
indicated starting a conversation about this topic in the post education and outreach survey, with the 
largest increase being a jump from 34% of respondents to 43% of respondents who indicated they had 
started a conversation with someone to encourage them to stop setting fires in NNP.
c. Attitudes toward setting fires in/near NNP 
According to the education/outreach strategy, the attitude target and indicator is % of people who 
agree that it is desirable and possible to stop setting fires in NNP. Although honey collectors, truckers, 
and charcoal makers are specifically targeted in the strategy, the sample in the survey is too small to 
report on. Another attitude baseline and indicator is the % of audience that agree that setting fires is an 
undesirable activity because it has a negative impact on wildlife and people and it is their 
responsibility to help stop setting fires. 
The percentage of respondents that had the attitude that fires should not be set in NNP increased 10% 
to about 92% of respondents after the outreach activities. This is a very high level and should continue 
to be supported. In addition, a high percentage of respondents continues to agree that it is their 
responsibility to work with park authorities to help stop this behavior. 
d. Knowledge about impact of fire
In the education/outreach strategy, the percentage of audience that knows the impact of setting fire on 
wildlife and people was the knowledge target. The majority of people surveyed (90% in Pre and 99% 
in Post) understood that setting fires is problematic for both animals/ plants and local communities 
(89% in Pre and 93% in Post), quoting as reasons that animals and plants are killed by fire and that 
local people commit time to fighting fires, which could be used for other activities (67% in Pre and 
39% in Post). 
e. Alternatives to setting fires 
The education/outreach strategy described a knowledge-attitude target (KAT) focusing on alternatives 
to setting fires. The knowledge baseline and indicator was % of audience that knows about the realistic 
alternatives to setting fires. The attitude baseline and indicator was % of audience who agree that the 
alternatives to setting fires are preferable and it is possible / realistic for them to choose the 
alternatives. Although different sub-audiences set fire, only honey collectors were addressed by the 
Pre and Post surveys, which found over 90% of respondents agreeing there can be alternative ways to 
harvesting honey in the forest, quoting managing private hives outside the park. 
3. Cutting bamboo 
a. Cutting Bamboo Behavior 
For cutting bamboo, the education/outreach strategy outlines the target behavior as “stop cutting 
bamboo”, whether for construction, crafts, or firewood. For this baseline, we used self-reported 
measures of fire-setting behavior and questions about people in general. While no respondent reported 
collecting bamboo in the park, 9% and 13% of respondents in Pre and Post survey recognized people 
still cut bamboo, mostly to make baskets and other materials. 
b. Influencing bamboo cutting behavior 
As well as looking at the direct audience of bamboo cutters, the education/outreach strategy examined 
influencing audiences, the same groups associated with poachers. These groups have personal 
relationships or are in a position of influence, and can affect the attitudes and behavior of the people 
cutting bamboo. The target behavior identified was “encourage others to stop cutting bamboo in 
NNP”. In the education/outreach strategy, the indicator is % of people who have encouraged others to 
stop cutting bamboo. The survey questions focused on starting a conversation with someone to 
encourage them to stop setting fires in NNP, and someone starting a conversation with them. 
Some conversations are happening about this topic (to encourage others to stop cutting bamboo, and 
finding alternatives). Overall, there was over a 10% increase in percent of respondents who indicated 
starting a conversation about this topic. 
c. Attitudes toward cutting bamboo in NNP
According to the education/outreach strategy, the attitude target and indicator is % of people who 
agree that it is desirable and possible to stop cutting bamboo in NNP. Another attitude baseline and 
indicator is the % of audience that agree that cutting bamboo is an undesirable activity because it has a 
negative impact on wildlife and people and it is their responsibility to help stop cutting bamboo. From 
the results, it emerges that cutting bamboo is not seen as big a threat to NNP as poaching and setting 
fires. 82% of respondents in the Pre survey thought people should be allowed to cut bamboo in NNP, 
although there was a slight decrease in the Post survey (75%). 
d. Knowledge about impact of cutting bamboo 
In the education/outreach strategy, the percentage of audience that knows the impact of cutting 
bamboo on wildlife and people was the knowledge target. During the implementation of outreach 
activities, there was not an improvement in this knowledge, given that only 50% of the respondents in 
both survey knew there were some animals particularly affected by bamboo cutting, and that very few 
of those knew it related to the owl-faced monkey. 
e. Alternatives to Cutting Bamboo 
In the education/outreach strategy, another knowledge-attitude target (KAT) focused on alternatives. 
The knowledge baseline and indicator was % of audience that knows about the realistic alternatives to 
bamboo cutting. The attitude baseline and indicator was % of audience who agree that the alternatives 
to bamboo cutting are preferable and it is possible / realistic for them to choose the alternatives.73% of 
respondents of both surveys agreed that there are alternative places for people to get bamboo other 
than the park. Interestingly, there was a large increase in the percent of respondents who replied that 
planting bamboo in their fields was an alternative place for people to get bamboo. 91% of respondents 
listed planting as an alternative post outreach activities, while 46% listed it as an option pre outreach 
activities. It is also interesting that only 7% listed buying bamboo as an option post outreach, while 
47% listed it pre outreach. 
4. DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS 
When developing materials for the community outreach activities, such as the community events and 
the radio program, low levels of literacy/illiteracy reported were taken in consideration. The surveys 
were designed to address the below questions: 
 Do community members in the areas in which education and outreach activities were implemented 
know more about, and exhibit more positive attitudes and behaviours towards the conservation of 
NNP than those in areas where no education and outreach activities were implemented? 
 Do individuals who participated or were exposed to education and outreach interventions of the 
project express more support for conservation of NNP than those who did not participate? 
Unfortunately, survey data as collected makes it difficult to compare the populations and areas exposed 
to outreach activities against those populations and areas not-exposed, in order to address these points 
directly. The results do allow us to re-focus the questions and address issues relating to whether 
community members had any significant level of exposure to the WCS implemented outreach 
activities, if individuals who had exposure to the activities/materials were made aware of the messages 
being presented, and if the level of awareness/support towards conservation of NNP changed within 
community members following the implementation of the outreach activities, for those exposed. 
Consideration must be made that the time, the resources and thus our ability to reach out to a 
significant proportion of the community was limited. 
It is encouraging that such a high percentage, 99%, of community participants agree that NNP should 
be protected and 95% believe it is their responsibility to support park staff. This indicates that the 
community participants would likely be receptive to learning more about NNP and participating in 
efforts, along with park staff, to support the park. Especially since 90% believe that NNP provides 
benefits to the communities. Future activity design should continue to emphasize the benefits of NNP, 
to encourage community members to participate in efforts to protect NNP.
4.1 Threats to NNP 
4.1.1. Poaching 
As is typical with self-reported illegal behavior, the level of hunting reported is extremely low, and 
much lower than the perception people have of hunting in general. This suggests there is some level of 
hunting in NNP, and people are aware of that. It is interesting to note that the percentage of 
respondents that answered positively to the question “Do people hunt in NNP?” went up from about 
20% to about 32%. Data from the Ranger-Based Monitoring of threats and illegal activities inside the 
park, carried out by the park rangers, show indeed an increase in illegal activities in the park between 
2009 and 2014, indicating that the respondents’ perceptions may reflect the reality. Further 
investigation is needed to address the target behavior, “stop or reduce poaching”, but the survey 
responses data indicate that this is unlikely. 
There was a 6% increase in conversations started that encouraged another person to stop poaching. 
While modest, this does positively reflect the target behavior to “encourage others to stop poaching”. 
Since sharing opinions and knowledge with others has a multiplier effect, it would be good to 
emphasize in future activities ways that people can start conversations with others. Many people like to 
see themselves as positive role models or as an influence for positive change, perhaps this could be 
tied into the responsibility community participants feel to support park authorities discussed below. 
In terms of attitudes toward hunting, the percentage of respondents remained high who agree that 
poaching is undesirable and they have a responsibility to help stop poaching. Again here, the high level 
of responsibility felt by the community to support park authorities is very encouraging. This indicates 
good relations between the community and the park authorities which could have a positive impact on 
the adoptions of protective behaviours, should the community gains more knowledge about protective 
actions they can take when these actions are presented by park authorities. 
The % of respondents who understood hunting is problematic for animals increased from 74% to 
92% after the education and outreach activities. Specifically, those who answered, “Animal 
populations decrease because of hunting” went up from 67% to 88% and those who answered, “animal 
behavior is affected because of hunting” increased from 8% to 26%. This could be a reflection of an 
emphasis in the education and outreach materials designed, including the “threat posters” (on 
poaching, fire and bamboo cutting), and the radio program which had several episodes focusing on 
poaching.
The post survey results showed 10% of respondents felt that hunting was a problem for people living 
in communities due to “punishment for poachers”. The punishment of a poacher affects the whole 
family because of incomes the family was expecting from the man in family, expenses related to fines 
and other costs when in jail. There was also a 30% increase in the percentage of respondents that 
recognized the damage that hunting can cause for tourism revenue. This can be emphasized in future 
outreach efforts to better illuminate how the park benefits communities when its resources are 
protected. There was a dramatic drop from 23% to 0%, pre and post outreach efforts, of respondents 
who answered that hunting decreases food supply, possibly indicating less reliance on hunted animals 
or increased knowledge of the illegal nature of the product (thus concealment of its consumption). 
4.1.2 Fires 
In the baseline survey 10% of respondents reported using fire themselves in the last 5 years and in the 
post education and outreach survey 0% of respondents reported using fire themselves in the past 3 
years.
As with poaching, there was a slight increase in the percentage of respondents who indicated they had 
started a conversation to encourage someone to stop setting fires in NNP. A very high level of 
respondents post outreach believe that fires should not be set in NNP, the increase was striking, 
jumping from 10% to 92%. This positive attitude should continue to be supported in future outreach 
efforts and efforts should be made to tie into the high support level indicated for working with park 
authorities to stop fire setting behaviors. An attitude change in this case is quite clear and encouraging 
for future efforts. 
Knowledge levels regarding the impact of fire remain high. The knowledge target was achieved as 
shown by an increase of almost 10% to 99% in understanding that setting fires is problematic for both 
animals/plant, and over 10% to 93% understanding is it problematic for communities as well, in the 
post outreach survey. Positive knowledge was shown about alternatives to setting fire as well. The 
response from honey collectors regarding alternative methods to setting fires within NNP were positive 
and hit the knowledge targets with 90% of honey collectors agreeing that there were other ways to 
harvest honey and quoting managing private hives outside of the park as an alternative. Responses 
from other sub-audiences who might set fires such as charcoal makers, truck drivers and farmers were 
not collected. Future surveys could target these sub-audiences to gain more information about fire 
setting behavior in order to design appropriate outreach materials and activities to reach these 
audiences. 
4.1.3 Bamboo 
For cutting bamboo, the education/outreach strategy outlines the target behavior as “stop cutting 
bamboo”, whether for construction, crafts, or firewood. For this baseline, we used self-reported 
measures of fire-setting behavior and questions about people in general. While no respondent reported 
collecting bamboo in the park, 9% and 13% of respondents in Pre and Post survey recognized people 
still cut bamboo, mostly to make baskets and other materials.
The target behavior identified regarding bamboo influencing audiences was “encourage others to stop 
cutting bamboo in NNP”. There was a 10% increase overall in conversation starting relating to 
bamboo which is a good start and should be expanded upon. 
The survey responses, both pre and post outreach, indicated that the majority of people do not believe 
that cutting bamboo is as big a threat to NNP as poaching and setting fires. In fact, a majority think 
that people should be allowed to cut bamboo in NNP, although the percentage declined by 7%. In 
addition, only 50% knew that some animals were affected by bamboo cutting. Necessary next steps 
involve activities to heighten awareness in the community about the damage of bamboo cutting. In 
general there is a high sense of responsibility to help park authorities and also a belief that NNP 
provides benefits to the community, these attitudes and beliefs should be tied in with concrete actions 
to make lasting change. 
73% of respondents of both surveys agreed that there are alternative places for people to get bamboo 
other than the park. Interestingly, there was a large increase in the percent of respondents who replied 
that planting bamboo in their fields was an alternative place for people to get bamboo. 91% of 
respondents listed planting as an alternative post outreach activities, while 46% listed it as an option 
pre outreach activities. It is also interesting that only 7% listed buying bamboo as an option post 
outreach, while 47% listed it pre outreach. The education materials we produced under this project 
focused on bamboo cutting. Included were poster design with messages about the impact of bamboo 
cutting on animals and people; possible alternatives to NNP bamboo cutting; and a board game that 
illustrated that it is unlawful to cut bamboo from Nyungwe. There were some trainings in use of these 
materials, as well as schools visits that focused on this theme. No alternative sources of bamboo were 
provided by WCS. With support of Margot Marsh Biodiversity foundation grant, we also conducted 
meetings with community and local authorities in bamboos zones and we did environmental education 
in schools around bamboo zone.
5. KEY RESULTS FROM THE SCHOOL SURVEY 8
5.1 Demographics
Student ages ranged from 14 to 24, 50% girls and boys, 30% were Primary 4-6 students, 45% 
Secondary 1-3 students, and 25% Secondary 4-6 students. 
5.2 Animal knowledge 
5.2.1 Animals living in Nyungwe 
Students generally correctly stated that blue touraco, baboon, colobus monkey, Owlfaced monkey and 
L’hoesti monkey are found in Nyungwe. In the Post implementation survey, 57% of the students 
correctly stated that chimpanzees live in Nyungwe, as opposed to 38% in the Pre survey.
5.2.2 Names of animals 
Animals found in Nyungwe were correctly identified by 0 to 25% of respondents (depending on 
species). Significantly more students could name baboon, Colobus monkey, and chimpanzee post￾campaign. Chimpanzees were named correctly by 36% of respondents, compared with 25% of 
respondents in the pre-implementation survey. Pilot schools showed significant increases in naming 
baboon, Colobus monkey, giraffe, chimpanzee and elephant comparing before and after working with 
them. 
 
8
 see Annex II for detailed results for each session
5.3 Attitude Questions 
In general, the students around Nyungwe have a positive attitude towards the park, answering it should 
be protected in the great majority of cases (98% of respondents, Pre and Post implementation of 
activities). In the Post survey, 84% said Nyungwe would NOT be better used as farmland (compared 
with 73% pre-campaign) and 89% of students in the pilot schools said Nyungwe would NOT be better 
used as farmland, significantly greater than 71% in the control group. 
5.4 Behaviour Questions 
For the most part, students indicated low levels of participation in threat behaviours to Nyungwe 
(cutting bamboo, setting fires, and hunting) in both pre and post survey and both in pilot and control 
groups. Students encouraged family members not to do actions which may transmit diseases to 
chimpanzees, with 17% saying “a lot like me” for “Some children encourage their family or friends not 
to spit, litter or use the bush toilet in pilot schools as opposed to 6% in the pre-implementation . 
5.5 Environmental clubs and awareness of education/outreach efforts 
In addition to the questions that were asked both before and after the work with the pilot students, 
some questions were asked about environmental clubs and student awareness of the education/outreach 
efforts afterwards. 
 Overall, 52% of students surveyed were members of their school’s environmental club. This 
was similar in pilot and control schools 
 Those who were members listed “learn about Nyungwe conservation” (62%) and “educating 
communities” (53%) as the main activities, with “planting trees” (18%) as the next one. Other 
answers included “learn about environmental protection” (11%) or Nyungwe specific activities 
such as songs, dramas, or debates about Nyungwe (1-3%), but these were very low. It is 
unclear if those who put “learn about Nyungwe conservation” learned the information through 
some type of creative activity. 
For those students who were not members of their school’s environmental club, 56% said they have 
attended activities organized by the school environmental club.
We asked whether students had ever used the education materials about NNP at school. 
 77% of students overall responded that they had, with posters, books, films and dramas as the 
main materials. 
 86% of pilot school students, compared with 68% of control school students (significantly 
more) said they used education materials about NNP 
 Books and posters were considered to have the most information about NNP 
 The top 4 materials were their favorite materials as well 
5.6 Questions on students’ role 
To see whether students felt Nyungwe conservation is a long-lasting, important issue, and whether 
they have a role in teaching about Nyungwe conservation in the future, we asked “If you have a family 
in the future, do you think your children will learn about Nyungwe Forest at home and at school, or 
only at school?” 
 95% said “at home and at school” 
Have you done anything to protect Nyungwe Forest? 
 69% said “yes” 
 This compares with 44% of students who said “yes” in the pre-survey 
 77% in pilot schools said “yes” they have done something to protect Nyungwe, significantly 
more than the 60% in the control schools 
The main thing that students did was educating others about Nyungwe and encouraging them not to do 
threat behaviors such as cutting trees or burning the forest, and not doing these behaviours themselves. 
6 DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND SCHOOL SURVEY RESULTS 
The survey findings show that the level of basic information about animals, starting with their names, 
is still low for students, and should continue to be part of education/outreach efforts. Animals that are 
better known (but not found in Nyungwe) such as gorillas and giraffes, were easier for the students to 
identify. In order to build pride in Nyungwe animals, students should continue to learn about 
Nyungwe species, with chimpanzees as a special focus. In future surveys, perhaps photos rather than 
drawings, which were used here, would give a more realistic image for students to respond to. 
For knowledge concerning chimpanzees, percentages were similar to the baseline. There is room for 
improvement, and this should be emphasized in the education/outreach materials and activities 
implemented. 
Results show that student attitude towards Nyungwe is very positive. This should be continued to be 
emphasized, as well as making students’ sense of personal responsibility towards Nyungwe and 
positive actions even greater. 
More students whom we worked with (compared with students in control schools) saw the link 
between unhygienic behavior such as vomiting or using the bush toilet and transmitting human 
diseases to chimpanzees. Not doing these behaviors and encouraging family members to do the same 
is still a message that students should learn. 
Environmental clubs, since they have more flexibility in their content, should be an important source 
of Nyungwe-focused activities. Clubs should continue and increase their emphasis on Nyungwe 
conservation and outreach. 
The materials developed for this project are being implemented in the schools and students are able to 
recall using them. Follow-up with pilot schools confirm the use of materials. Many students in control 
schools also learn about NNP. Based on student preference, the most useful materials to develop and 
use are posters, books, films and dramas. This should be continued in the future, with Nyungwe and 
other topics. We can see that working with students increases their level of action toward Nyungwe 
conservation; this should be continued/ increased. Student action and commitment to NNP today can 
translate to continued support and pro-conservation action as students grow up. 
Overall, students showed a high level of understanding of Nyungwe as a national park and the rules of 
the park. Student attitude towards Nyungwe is very positive. The strong belief that Nyungwe is 
valuable and better as a park than farmland is helpful for students’ stand against future degazettement. 
Most students feel some responsibility towards Nyungwe. Few students do illegal behaviors such as 
hunting and setting fires, with 69% (overall; 77% in pilot schools) saying they have done something to 
protect NNP. This should be continued to be encouraged, while adding ideas about conservation 
action beyond telling others about NNP and appropriate behaviors. 
Basic information about chimpanzees and how special they are (found only in Africa in the wild, 
Nyungwe is the only Rwandan park with chimpanzees), and that human diseases can make 
chimpanzees sick, should be continued to be emphasized in education/outreach programs. Increasing 
pride and knowledge in Nyungwe wildlife will be helpful for supporting its conservation. 
Chimpanzees, with their important ecological and economic role through tourism, are especially 
important. 
Environmental clubs, since they have more flexibility in their content, should be an important source 
of Nyungwe-focused activities. Clubs should continue and increase their emphasis on Nyungwe 
conservation and outreach, and schools without environmental clubs could be encouraged to start one, 
perhaps with the help of schools that have environmental clubs. Materials and activities should 
continue to be developed for clubs, taking into account that this study found that posters, films, books 
and dramas were said to be the most useful and enjoyable ways to get information. 
Overall, the positive attitude towards the park and helping conserve it was high across students 
surveyed. Students in both pilot schools, where we worked, and the control schools, knew or could 
infer about illegal behaviors. These messages are transmitted to the students through our formal 
program efforts, but also more broadly. 
In the post-implementation survey, pilot school students showed greater familiarity with the Nyungwe 
education materials, specific information about Nyungwe species such as their names, had a greater 
sense of responsibility and were more likely to have done something to conserve Nyungwe than their 
control school counterparts. Beyond this project, the positive gains from working with students should 
be continued and expanded to other schools. Depending on funding, creative methods such as using 
community volunteers and partners should be considered. For example, what key activities might 
RDB take on for school education programming? 
6.1 Knowledge of and attitude to laws 
The education/outreach strategy addressed laws and punishments related to the threat behaviors of 
poaching, setting fires, and cutting bamboo. The knowledge baseline and indicator were % of audience 
that know the laws, regulations and punishments relating to the threat behaviors and % of audience that 
know the likelihood of getting caught if committing unlawful threat behaviors in NNP. 
The respondents’ knowledge on the law and regulations varied for different threats. While people know 
that hunting is illegal in NNP (94% in Pre and 97% in post), and that there can be fines and 
imprisonment for carrying out illegal activities, only 54% of the respondents of the Pre survey knows 
that setting fires is illegal (and 79% in Post).
The knowledge baseline and indicator were % of audience that know the laws, regulations and 
punishments relating to the threat behaviors and % of audience that know the likelihood of getting 
caught if committing unlawful threat behaviors in NNP. The respondents’ knowledge on the law, 
regulations and punishments varied for different threats. This indicates that more work is needed to raise 
awareness about these issues. Other questions in the survey indicate a high level in the sense of 
responsibility to support park authorities, therefore there is reason to be hopeful that once the 
community’s awareness of laws, regulations and punishments is raised, that they will support the park in 
upholding and maintaining the regulations and laws. 
6.2 Post survey Media questions 
The baseline survey was designed with a media preferences section to find out community preferences. 
Based on the results it was decided that in implementing the education/outreach strategy, we would 
need to make use of different media to disseminate information and engage with different audiences. A 
number of important media-related baselines were established that assisted with developing effective 
ways to communicate with target audiences. 
In the baseline, pre-outreach survey, it was found that radio provides the best method of reaching the 
largest number of people. It was found that about 61% of respondents surveyed used radio, while only 
about 28% used mobile phones and less than 2% used television. 
The survey found that in terms of radio preference: 42.3% liked this source and 32.5% mostly prefer 
this source; while 47% listened to Radio 7days/week. The preferred radio station was found to be 
Rwanda Radio at about 91%. 
With regard to newspapers, it was found that most people do not have regular access to printed media 
such as newspapers. Of those that do have access, the preferred newspaper is Imvaho which was rated 
as the #1 preference for about 78% of respondents. 
The baseline survey found there is a broad interest in different forms of music with gospel and 
religious music being the most preferred, closely followed by traditional music. 
In terms of community activities, the baseline survey found that most respondents said that they 
enjoyed attending community meetings. Cultural dancing is also popular and to a lesser extent drama 
and plays. It was suggested that there had been limited exposure to the latter, perhaps explaining the 
lower level of preference expressed. 
From the information of the baseline survey on media used, the project developed targeted activities 
(such as socio-marketing events, community meetings, a radio program, some visual materials etc.). 
During the 2014 survey we attempted to measure the reach of education and outreach interventions, 
specifically of the radio program, the ANICO program, the community events (socio-marketing, 
forums, other community meetings and school-led activities for the community) and the materials 
developed, providing a new baseline for defining the scale that future activities should have in order to 
secure adequate reach. 
From the 2014 survey it was interesting that 50% of the respondents answered to have listened to a 
radio program on NNP, given that the only specific radio program on NNP was the one implemented 
by WCS for only 5 months in 2013. Most respondents (65%) identified at least some of the issues 
covered during the radio program (including NNP protection, mining, poaching, tree cutting, etc.). 
For the ANICO program, only 8% of respondents correctly identified them as the volunteers who 
sensitize people about NNP, having met them mostly at community meetings. 
24% of the interviewed had participated to a community sensitization event about NNP, with 49% 
retaining that the main messages were about NNP/environment protection. 
18% of respondents attended community outreach events organized by students, with 55% retaining 
that the main messages were about NNP/environment protection. Among the respondents, 10% had 
students in their household who belong to environmental clubs and who in 90% of cases reported 
learning knowledge related to NNP. 
21% of the respondents had noticed the posters in their village (posters provided to the ANICO to be 
places at the Cells’ offices), with 85% identifying messages about NNP (animals which are in the park, 
protection of NNP, antipoaching etc.). 
6.3 Effectiveness of Different Outreach Methods/Approaches 
From the information of the baseline survey on media used, the project developed targeted activities 
(such as socio-marketing events, community meetings, a radio program, some visual materials etc.). 
During the 2014 survey we attempted to measure the reach of education and outreach interventions, 
specifically of the radio program, the ANICO program, the community events (socio-marketing, 
forums, other community meetings and school-led activities for the community) and the materials 
developed, providing a new baseline for defining the scale that future activities should have in order to 
secure adequate reach. 
The radio program seemed to be particularly effective given the short time period it was on air, only 5 
months. Despite this, 50% of respondents indicated they had listened to a radio program on NNP, with 
65% able to identify some of the issues covered during the radio program. 
Posters seemed to be an effective method of portraying information to the community. 85% of those 
who had seen the posters could identify messages about NNP portrayed. Only about 20% noticed the 
posters, so work needs to be done to make posters more visible and/or more plentiful to capitalize on 
their effectiveness in relaying messages. 
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
The purpose of the 2014 survey was to measure the impact of the investment in conservation education 
and outreach activities on the communities adjacent to NNP, in terms of changes in knowledge, 
attitudes and behaviours regarding the conservation of the park. Between 2013 and 2014 the interest in 
the scope of our interventions and other community conservation interventions has grown. In the 2011 
baseline survey we explored only the knowledge, attitude and behavior of respondents in the study 
area. In the 2014 repeat survey, the scope was widened to measure the reach of education and outreach 
interventions, specifically how far messages and materials spread within the schools and communities 
where we worked. 
Knowledge levels overall, between the student and community respondents surveyed indicate a need 
for improvement. The attitude in support of protection of NNP and support of park authorities is high 
overall and this is very encouraging. Respondents also indicate that the community views the park as 
having positive benefits for the community. This indicates good relations between the community and 
the park. This positive attitude should continue to be supported in future education and outreach 
efforts. Efforts should be made to create programs designed to increase knowledge levels that to tie 
into the high support and level of responsibility indicated for working with park authorities. 
One area in particular that needs to be addressed is bamboo cutting. Survey responses show that most 
people do not view bamboo cutting as a threat to NNP in the same way they view fires or poaching. 
Awareness needs to be raised about the problems associated with bamboo-cutting, tapping into the 
high support levels reported for park authorities. 
Slight increases in conversation-starting related to poaching, fire setting and bamboo cutting were 
shown in the post survey. Since sharing opinions and knowledge with others has a multiplier effect, it 
would be good to emphasize in future activities or trainings, examples of ways that people can start 
conversations with others. Many people like to see themselves as positive role models or as an 
influence for positive change, perhaps this could also be tied into the responsibility community 
participants feel to support park authorities. 
A focus should be put on future improvements in expanding the reach of media materials to a larger 
audience. The post survey shows, that those who did participate in some way with the media offerings, 
whether viewing posters, listening to radio programs or attending community events, retained 
knowledge about the messages presented to a positive degree. In addition, it would be beneficial to 
increase the number of environmental clubs, because while only 10% of community survey 
respondents reported having students in their household who belong to environmental clubs, 90% of 
these cases reported learning knowledge related to NNP! This shows that students involved in 
environmental clubs can be exceptionally effective as transferring knowledge and functioning as 
multiplier audiences within the community. 
Overall, knowledge levels of those reached by education and outreach materials and activities still 
needs improvement. Encouragingly, there is a positive attitude of responsibility felt to support park 
authorities, effective multiplier audiences have been identified, media sources developed were shown 
to have positive effects in relaying messages when reached by community members, and there is a 
belief that NNP provides benefits to the community. These attitudes and beliefs should be tied in with 
concrete actions to increase knowledge and make lasting behavior change. 
ANNEX I: Nyungwe National Park Community Survey: Pre & 
Post-implementation survey results 
Demographics 
Pre: Respondents were: 
 53% male, 47% female 
 Equally representing 13 sectors: Bweyeye, Bushekeri, Twumba, Butare, Rangiro, Kivu, 
Nkomane, Karengera , Karambi, Nkungu, Buruhukiro, Ruheru, Ruharambuga
 Ages 14 to 88 
 86% self-identified as farmers. Others described themselves as business owners (3%),
secondary school students (3%), retired (2%) and housewives (2%) 
 29% without any primary school, 35% with 6 years of primary school, and 89% without any 
secondary school. 
Post: Respondents were: 
 51% male, 49% female 
 Equally representing 13 sectors: Bweyeye, Bushekeri, Twumba, Butare, Rangiro, Kivu, 
Nkomane, Karengera , Karambi, Nkungu, Buruhukiro, Ruheru, Ruharambuga 
 Ages 16 to 52 {Question 1} 
 84% self-identified as farmers. Others described themselves as students (10%), employees 
(2%), poter (1%). For the following, less than 1% in each category self identified as: business 
owner, hand craft, carpenter, handicap, mechanic, sheeper, and unemployed. {Question 5} 
 24% without any primary school, 34% with 6 years of primary school, and 84% without any 
secondary school. {Questions 2a and 2b}. 
Pre: Respondents reported: 
 Reading levels are: 24% high, 24% medium, 20% low, 32% unable to read. 
 Writing levels are: 23% high, 24% medium, 20% low and 34% unable to write. 
 Arithmetic levels are: 22% high, 24% medium, 25% low and 30% unable to do arithmetic. 
Post: Respondent reported: 
 Reading levels are: 16% high, 32% medium, 23% low, 29% unable to read. 
 Writing levels are: 17% high, 31% medium, 21% low and 31% unable to write. 
 Arithmetic levels are: 11% high, 34% medium, 31% low and 23% unable to do arithmetic. 
Basic knowledge, values, and attitudes about NNP 
Basic Knowledge 
Did you know that Nyungwe Forest is a National Park? 
 Pre: Yes = 92%, No= 1%, Don’t know = 8% 
 Post: Yes = 95%, No= 2%, Don’t know = 3%
What activities that local people do in the forest might reduce or stop tourists going to NNP? 
Respondents gave their own answers: 
 Pre: Poaching (62%), setting fires( 52%), cutting trees (46%), cultivating/encroachment 
(16%), mining (14%), honey collecting (10%), cutting bamboo (8%) and don’t know (18%) 
 Post: Poaching 53%, cutting trees 52%, setting fires 50%, mining 25%, 
cultivating/encroachment 24%, cutting bamboo (6%), honey collection 5%, and don’t know 
15%. 
What activities that local people do in the forest might reduce the amount or quality of water
flowing from NNP? 
 Pre: Cutting trees (43%), setting fires (39%), mining (24%), cultivating/encroachment (22%), 
poaching (19%), cutting bamboo (4%), collecting honey (4%), don’t know (19%). 
 Post: cultivating/encroachment (33%), setting fires (33%), Cutting trees (31%), mining (25%), 
poaching (8%), cutting bamboo (2%), collecting honey (1%), don’t know (24%). 
What activities that local people do in the forest might reduce the ability of the forest to 
absorb carbon? The phrase “and help control global warming” at the end of this question was 
included in the pre survey but not post. 
 Pre: Setting fires (53%), cutting trees (52%), poaching (17%), cultivating/encroachment 
(11%), mining (6%), cutting bamboo (6%), honey collecting (3%), don’t know (22%). 
 Post: Setting fires (41%), cutting trees (32%), cultivating/encroachment (6%), cutting 
bamboo (4%), poaching (3%), mining (2%), honey collecting (<1%), don’t know (37%). 
Which animals in NNP deserve special protection? 
 Pre: Colobus monkey (41%), Chimpanzees (31%),monkeys in general (30%), L’hoest’s monkey 
(27%), duikers (18%), leopard (15%) [although it is extinct in NNP now]], owl-faced monkey 
(14%), all animals (13%), rodents such as Gambian rats, brush-tailed porcupines and squirrels 
(12%) 
 Post: Post: chimpanzee 36.5%, monkeys in general 27%, L’hoest’s monkey 21%, all of them 
must be protected 20%, Angolan colobus 15%, duikers 11%, birds of prey 6.5%, wild pigs 6%, 
owl-faced monkey 3%, baboon 3%, rodents such as Gambian rats, brush-tailed porcupine and 
squirrel species 2%, gorillas 2%. 
NNP is similar to many forest types found in Africa. 
 Pre: Agree (22%), disagree (25%), don’t know (53%). [Those who disagreed are correct]
 Post: Agree (24%), disagree (34%), don’t know (41%). [Those who disagreed are correct] 
NNP is home to a large variety of rare or endangered animals. 
 Pre: Agree (46%), disagree (8%), don’t know (46%) [Those who agreed are correct]
 Post: Agree (48%), disagree (14%), don’t know (38%) [Those who agreed are correct]
Africa is the only place where chimpanzees are found in the wild {Question 31c}. 
 Pre: Agree (23%), disagree (13%), don’t know (65%) [Those who agreed are correct]
 Post: Agree (34%), disagree (20%), don’t know (46%) [Those who agreed are correct]
Rwanda is the only African country where chimpanzees are found in the wild. 
 Pre: Agree (21%), disagree (15%), don’t know (64%) [Those who disagreed are correct]
 Post: Agree (35%), disagree (20%), don’t know (45%) [Those who disagreed are correct]
In Rwanda, chimpanzees are only found in NNP. 
 Pre: Agree (33%), disagree (17%), don’t know (50%) [Those who agreed are correct]
 Post: Agree (44%), disagree (19%), don’t know (37%) [Those who agreed are correct]
Colobus monkey groups are smaller in NNP than in other places..
 Pre: Agree (9%), disagree (15%), don’t know (76%) [Those who disagreed are correct]
 Post: Agree (22%), disagree (18%), don’t know (60%) [Those who disagreed are correct]
Owl–faced monkeys are common in NNP. 
 Pre: Agree (12%), disagree (12%), don’t know (77%) [Those who disagreed are correct] 
 Post: Agree (17%), disagree (14%), don’t know (69%) [Those who disagreed are correct]
How many primate species live in NNP?
Pre: 
 Post: Do not know 59%, do not know what primates are 14%. Less than 1% got the answer 
correct. [Correct answer is 13] 
Basic Attitude
Do you agree that NNP should be protected? 
 Pre: Yes = 96%, No = 1%, Don’t know = 3% 
 Post: Yes = 99%, No = <1%, Don’t know = <1% 
If yes, why do you believe it should be protected? (Respondents gave own answers) 
 Pre: Answers included: It is home to animals that have a right to exist (intrinsic value) (69%); 
NNP provides benefits from tourism for communities living around NNP (tourism 
value)(48%); It is an important source of water for communities living around NNP (35%); It 
provides fresh (good) air (34%); It provides local climate regulation (28%); The forest absorbs 
carbon and helps reduce global warming (15%); It provides aesthetic / scenic / peaceful value 
(7%); It provides soil production services (4%); It provides soil production services (3%); and it 
provides education value (3%) 
 Post: The main reasons cited for protection, if the respondent said yes, are: the forest as a 
source of rainwater (10%), the forest as a source of rain water and fresh air (9%), government 
resources (8%), as an animal habitat that attracts tourists (6%) 
Do you agree that it is your responsibility to support park staff in the protection of NNP? 
 Pre: Yes = 96%, no = 1%, don’t know = 3%
 Post: Yes = 95%, no = 3%, don’t know = 2%
In your opinion, does NNP provide benefits to surrounding communities? 
 Pre: Yes = 72%, no = 5%, don’t know = 23%
 Post: Yes = 90%, no = 7%, don’t know = 3%
If yes, what are they? Respondents gave their own answers. 
 Pre: Answers included: NNP provides benefits from tourism for communities living around 
NNP (tourism value) (64%); It is an important source of water for communities living around 
NNP (31%); It provides fresh (good) air (28%); It provides local climate regulation (25%); The 
forest absorbs carbon and helps reduce global warming (16%); It is home to animals that 
have a right to exist (intrinsic value) (14%) [Although this does not address the questions 
about benefits to communities]; It provides a home for pollinators which people need for 
their crops (8%); It provides soil production services (6%); It provides aesthetic / scenic / 
peaceful value (6%); It provides research value (5%); It provides education value (4%). 2% also 
said it provides jobs. 
 Post: Answers included: rainwater and fresh air (17%), rain water (16%), benefits on country￾level (7%), Tourism brings in income 5.5%, Tourism brings in income and provides rain water 
(5%); rain water for crops (5%); fresh air (3%), other listings included employment (2%), home 
for animals and different combinations of the above. 
Are there any animals in NNP that are particularly important to you? 
 Pre: Yes = 61%, no= 38%, don’t know = 1%
 Post: Yes = 64%, no= 36%, don’t know = <1%
If yes, which ones? 
 Pre: L’hoest’s monkey (31%), chimpanzees (30%), monkeys (in general) (23%), baboons 
(16%), colobus monkey (12%), duikers (7%), wild pigs (7%), rodents such as Gambian rats, 
brush-tailed porcupine and squirrel species (6%). Although it was not asked why people gave 
their responses, it is interesting to note that duikers, wild pigs, and rodents are species that 
are sometimes hunted. Other interesting answers included leopard (4%) although it no 
longer exists in the park, and gorilla (7%), which are not found in NNP. Bees and owl-faced 
monkeys were mentioned by 3% of respondents each. 
 Post: Chimpanzee (39%), all animals (13%), baboon 10%, colobus 9%, L’hoesti monkeys 9%, 
gorilla 7%, blue monkey 4%, monkeys in general 5%, vervet monkey 3%, birds 2%, duiker 2%. 
Threats to NNP 
I. Poaching 
a. Poaching Behavior 
Levels of self reported hunting behavior: 
 Pre: 1.1 % said they ever hunted animals in NNP in the past 5 years
 Post: 0.8% said they ever hunted animals in NNP in the past 3 years 
Post: If yes, 80% duikers, 20% African brush tailed porcupine, Gambian rates 
“Do people hunt in NNP?”
 Pre: Yes =19.6%, no= 42.1%, don’t know = 38.2% 
 Post: Yes =32%, no= 47%, don’t know = 21% 
If they said “yes”, they were asked how many people they knew personally who hunt in NNP 
 Pre: 
 Post: None= 79%, 1-5 people= 14%, 6-10 people 4%, more than 20 people= 2%, 16-20 people 
1%, 11-15 people <1% 
Which animals do people hunt? 
 Pre: duikers (38%), rodents such as Gambian rats, brush-tailed porcupines and squirrel 
species (35%), L’hoest’s monkey (27%), and wild pigs (27%). Don’t know = 20%.
 Post: rodents such as Gambian rats, brush-tailed porcupines and squirrel species (34%), 
duikers (33%), wild pigs (32%), L’hoest’s monkey (8%), Angolan colobus (3%), monkeys in 
general (3%), baboon 2%, chimpanzees 2%, and Don’t know = 35%.
b. Influencing poaching behavior
I have started a conversation with someone to encourage them to stop hunting in NNP: 
 Pre: 28% of respondents 
 Post: yes = 34%, no = 66% 
I have started a conversation with someone about alternatives to hunting in NNP 
 Pre: 25% of respondents 
 Post: yes = 31%, no 69% 
 From the results we see that some conversations were happening before the education and 
outreach activities about this topic. Conversations seem to have increased slightly, with the 
post outreach surveys showing a 6% increase in conversation starting. 
c. Attitudes toward hunting
 Pre: 81% disagree that there should be some hunting allowed in NNP (agree = 10%, don’t
know = 9%)
 Post: 84.5% disagree that there should be some hunting allowed in NNP (agree = 11%, don’t
know = 4%)
 Pre: 90% agree that it is their responsibility to support park authorities in their efforts to stop 
hunting in NNP (disagree = 4%, don’t know = 6%)
 Post: 95% agree that it is their responsibility to support park authorities in their efforts to 
stop hunting in NNP (disagree = 4%, don’t know = 1%)
d. Knowledge about hunting impact
 Pre: 74% said yes that hunting is a problem for animals in NNP (no = 5%, don’t know= 21%) 
 Post: 92% said yes that hunting is a problem for animals in NNP (no = 6%, don’t know= 1%) 
If yes, how is it a problem for animals in NNP? 
 Pre: Animal populations decrease because of hunting (67%), non-target species such as 
chimpanzees are caught (accidental snaring; 10%), animal behavior is affected because of 
hunting (8%) and don’t know (9%)
 Post: Animal populations decrease because of hunting (88%), animal behavior is affected 
because of hunting (26%) non-target species such as chimpanzees are caught/accidental 
snaring (4%); migration of animals (2%); it is a loss for Rwanda (2%) and don’t know (1%)
Is hunting a problem for people living in communities surrounding NNP: 
 Pre: yes= 80%, no=6%, don’t know = 14%
 Post: yes = 80%, no = 13%, don’t know = 7%
If yes, how is it a problem for people living in communities surrounding NNP? 
 Pre: The top answers were: Hunting decreases animals for tourism which brings revenue for 
communities (46%); hunting decreases food supply for people (23%). 
 Post: The top answers were: Hunting decreases animals for tourism which brings revenue for 
communities (76%); Hunting is a problem for people living in the communities due to the 
“punishment for poachers” (10%) 
“Are there any animals that once lived in NNP but don’t live there anymore?”
 Pre: yes = 39%, yes, no = 7%, don’t know = 55% 
 Post: yes = 33%, no=17%, don’t know = 50%
Specific animals subsequently named were: 
 Pre: elephant (71%), buffalo (35%), leopard (8%) and lion (5%). Don’t know = 8%. Lions as 
well as other animals were named incorrectly. 
 Post: elephant (64%), buffalo 27%, leopard 8%, lion 3%, do not know 23% 
e. Alternatives to Poaching
Do people who hunt animals in NNP hunt for meat or money or both (remember you can say ‘I don’t 
know’) 
 Pre: Both = 58%, meat = 22%, money = 2%, don’t know = 17%
 Post: Both = 60%, meat = 27%, money = 5%, don’t know = 13%
If people hunt for meat, are there alternatives ways for them to get meat? 
 Pre: Buy meat (24%), raise pigs (20%), raise rabbits/guinea pigs (20%), raise goats (16%), 
don’t know (14%)
 Post: Yes = 85%, no = 8%, do not know = 6% 
Post: If yes, alternatives listed were: raise goats 66%, raise pigs 64%, raise rabbits/guinean rats 52%, 
buy meat 28%, cows 16%, employment 7%. 
II. Setting fires 
a. Fire Setting Behavior 
Levels of self -reported behavior: 
 Pre: 99% said they have not started a fire in NNP in the last 5 years 
 Pre: 100% said they do not currently use fire in NNP for any reason 
 Post: 100% said they have not used fire in or around NNP for the past 3 years 
“Do people set fires in NNP?”
 Pre: yes = 66%, no = 22, don’t know= 12
 Post: yes = 48%, no = 41%, do not know = 11% 
If yes, how many people do you personally know who set fires? 
 Pre: 
 Post: none = 88%, 1-5 people = 10%, more than 20 people = 2% 
For clearing land next to NNP, a very important issue to this audience in which the majority were 
farmers 
 Pre: 10% said they have used fire in the past 5 years to clear land next to NNP 
 Pre: .5 % said they currently use fire to clear land next to NNP 
The question was asked in the post education and outreach survey: In the past 3 years, have you used 
fire in or around Nyungwe for any reason? 
 Post: 100% of respondents answered “No”. 
The top reasons for setting fires were: 
 Pre: honey collection (66%), burning land next to NNP (28%), cooking (13%), and keeping 
warm (5%). Don’t know = 10%.
 Post: honey collection 48%, poaching 14%, cooking 4%, create pasture 3%, do not know 21% 
b. Influencing fire setting behavior 
 Pre: 34% of respondents have started a conversation with someone to encourage them to 
stop setting fires in NNP 
 Post: 43% of respondents have started a conversation with someone to encourage them to 
stop setting fires in NNP 
 Pre: 34% of respondents have started a conversation with someone to encourage them to 
stop clearing land with fire next to NNP 
 Post: 38% of respondents have started a conversation with someone to encourage them to 
stop clearing land with fire next to NNP 
 Pre: 32% of respondents have started a conversation with someone about alternatives to 
using fire to clear land next to NNP 
 Post: 35% of respondents have started a conversation with someone about alternatives to 
using fire to clear land next to NNP 
c. Attitudes toward setting fires in/near NNP 
Fires should not be set in NNP 
 Pre: agree = 82%, disagree = 11%, don’t know = 7%
 Post: agree = 92%, disagree = 8%, do not know = 1% 
Agree that it is their responsibility to work with park authorities to help stop fires being set in NNP
 Pre: agree = 90%, disagree = 1%, don’t know = 9%
 Post: agree = 92%, disagree = 8%, do not know = 1% 
d. Knowledge about impact of fire 
Is fire is a problem for animals and plants in NNP 
 Pre: yes = 90%, no = 1%, don’t know = 9%
 Post: yes = 99%, no = 0.5%, don’t know = 0.5%
If yes, how is it a problem for animals in NNP? Interviewers allowed respondents to give their own 
answers: 
 Pre: Animals are killed by the fire (89%), Plants are killed by the fire (63%), animals lose their 
habitats/homes (34%), animals lose their food (21%), animals lose their breeding sites (8%), 
ecological processes are lost (e.g. when pollinators are lost) (5%), don’t know (1 %) 
 Post: Animals are killed by the fire (69%), Plants are killed by the fire (47%), animals migrate 
due to lost habitat (34%), desertification 9%, extinction of plant species (4%) animals lose 
their food (3%), 
Is fire a problem for people living in communities surrounding NNP? 
 Pre: yes = 89%, no = 5%, don’t know = 7%
 Post: yes = 93%, no = 4%, do not know = 3% 
If yes, how is it a problem for people living in communities surrounding NNP? 
 Pre: The top answers given were: Local people commit time to fighting fires, which could be 
used for other activities (67%), fires and habitat destruction cause reduced tourism to NNP, 
and reduce economic benefits from tourism to people (25%), fires and the habitat 
destruction cause reduced hydrological services from NNP (19%), fighting fires costs NNP a 
lot of money (9%), fires reduce fresh air from forest (8%), and fires and habitat destruction 
cause reduced carbon sequestration by NNP(6%). 
 Post: Local people commit time to fighting fires, which could be used for other activities 
(39%), fires reduce fresh air and rain from forest (19%), fires threaten nearby villages (8%), 
fires cause insecurity for surrounding communities (7%), fires cause air pollution (6%), fires 
can lead to injury/accident for those assisting to fight the fire (4%), fires can cause reduced 
tourism to NNP (3%) 
e. Alternatives to setting fires 
For those people who collect honey in NNP, are there alternative ways they can make honey? 
 Pre: Yes (93%), no (2%), don’t know (5%)
 Post: yes = 92%, no = 3%, do not know 5% 
If yes, what? 
 Pre: Find and manage own hives (64%), join a bee-keeping association (36%) 
 Post: Access beekeepers/hives outside of NNP (98%), buy honey 1% 
III. Cutting bamboo 
a. Cutting Bamboo Behavior 
 Pre: 5% said they have collected bamboo in NNP in the last 5 years 
 Pre: 0% said they currently collect bamboo in NNP 
 Post: 0% said they currently collect bamboo in NNP 
“Do people cut bamboo in NNP?” 
Pre: yes = 9%, I don’t know = 46%, no = 45% 
Post: yes = 13%, no = 34%, do not know = 53% 
If yes, how many people do you personally know that cut bamboo? 
 Pre: 
 Post: none = 91%, 1 to 5 people = 4%, more than 20 people = 4% 
The top reasons for cutting bamboo: 
 Pre: baskets (22%), crafts (8%), and firewood (27%)
 Post: building materials (21%), handicrafts (20%), baskets (17%), firewood 4% 
b. Influencing bamboo cutting behavior 
 Pre: 16% of respondents have started a conversation with someone to encourage them to 
stop cutting bamboo in NNP 
 Post: 29% of respondents have started a conversation with someone to encourage them to 
stop cutting bamboo in NNP 
 Pre: 13% of respondents have started a conversation with someone about alternatives to 
cutting bamboo in NNP 
 Post: 24% of respondents have started a conversation with someone about alternatives to 
cutting bamboo in NNP 
c. Attitudes toward cutting bamboo in NNP
People should be allowed to cut bamboo in NNP: 
 Pre: agree = 82% agree, disagree = 10% said disagree, do not know = 9% 
 Post: agree = 75%, disagree = 18%, do not know = 8%
Percent that agree it is their responsibility to support park authorities to stop people from cutting 
bamboo in NNP: 
 Pre: 91% agree 
 Post: 96% agree 
d. Knowledge about impact of cutting bamboo 
“Are there any animals that are particularly affected by bamboo cutting in NNP?”
 Pre: 54% said yes for (no = 7%, don’t know = 39%)
 Post: yes = 55%, no = 75, do not know 38% 
If yes, which ones: 
 Pre: 12% of those who said “yes” correctly said “owl faced monkey”. 25% said “don’t know”. 
Other replies included “all animals” (9%) and a variety of animals such as snakes (7%), birds 
(7%). 
 Post: all (11%), birds (5%), snakes (5%), owl-faced monkey (3%), other (32%), do not know 
(25%) 
Is cutting bamboo a problem for people living in communities surrounding NNP: 
 Pre: 69% said yes, no = 7%, don’t know = 24%
 Post: yes = 57%, no = 14%, do not know 29% 
If yes, how is it a problem for people living in communities surrounding NNP? Respondents gave their 
own answers to interviewers. 
 Pre: The top answers given were: Don’t know (19%), owl faced monkeys are important for 
tourism, so impacts on their populations could impact tourism benefits (16%), and insecurity 
to adjacent population (6%). 
 Post: the punishment for people who cut bamboo is a problem (22%), causes environmental 
destruction (15%), Other (21%) 
e. Alternatives to Cutting Bamboo 
For people who need bamboo, are there any other places for them to get bamboo other than NNP? 
 Pre: Yes (73%), no (6%), don’t know (21%)
 Post: yes 75%, no 11%, do not know 14% 
If yes, where? 
 Pre: Buy bamboo in the village (47%), plant bamboo in their fields (46%) 
 Post: Plant bamboo in their field (91%), buy bamboo in the market (7%) 
IV. Laws 
Is it legal to cut bamboo in NNP? 
 Pre: Yes (2%), no (95%), don’t know (3%)
 Post: No 97%, do not know 2%, yes 1% 
Is it against the law to set fires in NNP? 
 Pre: Yes (54%), No (46%) 
 Post: yes = 79%, no = 21% 
Is it legal to hunt some animals in NNP? 
 Pre: Yes (4%), no (94%), don’t know (2%)
 Post: No = 97%, yes = 2%
Although the sample was too small, for the question “If you said ‘yes’, what animals are legal to 
hunt”, the answer given
 Pre: “animals that can eat people’s crops”
 Post: no answers given 
Can people be fined for carrying out illegal activities in NNP? 
 Pre: Yes (81%), no (3%), don’t know (16%)
 Post: yes = 93%, no = 2%, do not know = 5% 
Can people be imprisoned for carrying out illegal activities in NNP? 
 Pre: Yes (94%), no (2%), don’t know (6%)
 Post: yes = 95%, do not know = 3%, no = 1% 
V. Protection of NNP (general, not per threat) 
Have you actively supported or promoted the continued conservation of NNP? 
 Pre: Yes (48%), no (42%), don’t know (10%)
 Post: yes = 45%, no 51%, do not know = 3% 
If yes, how have you supported or promoted the continued conservation of NNP? 
 Pre: Suppressing fire (7%), forbidding people to enter or destroy the forest (8%), reporting 
people who destroy the park (7%). “Other” (71%) was not specified by the interviewers.
 Post: Participation in fighting fires (22%), educating others (19%), help NNP become more 
secure (9%), did not participate in activities that would destroy the park (5%), participated in 
an environmental club (2%) 
Do you agree or disagree that it is your responsibility to encourage others to support the protection 
of NNP? 
 Pre: Agree (94%), disagree (42%) 
 Post: yes = 97%, no = 1%, do not know = 1% 
Have you ever encouraged others to support the protection of NNP? 
 Pre: Yes (52%), no (42%), don’t know (6%)
 Post: yes = 50%, no = 49%, do not know = 1% 
If yes, how? 
 Pre: “Other” = 73%, but was not specified by interviewers or data entry people
 Post: sensitize community about NNP protection (37%), forbid community to participate in 
illegal activities within NNP (30%), advise community against participating in illegal activities 
within NNP (12%), advise community to help protect NNP (4%), advise community to help 
fight fires (3%), participate in fighting fires (3%) 
Post survey Media questions 
Did you listen to any radio program about NNP? 
 Yes = 50%, no = 50% 
If yes, what day of the week? 
 Thursday 12% 
 Sunday 5% 
 Tuesday 5% 
 Wenesday, Friday and Monday at 3% each 
 Saturday 2% 
 Do not remember 50% 
 Do not know 15% 
What was your favorite character? 
 Gahigi 1% 
 Kanyombya 1%
 All of them 1% 
 Do not remember name 56% 
 Do not know 33% 
What were three important issues covered by the radio programme/magazine? 
 Do not know 29% 
 NNP protection 10% 
 Do not remember 6% 
 Avoid mining, poaching and tree cutting 4% 
 Benefits of protecting NNP 4% 
 Benefits of NNP, NNP protection, visiting NNP 4% 
 Avoid mining, poaching and fire setting 3% 
 Protection of the environment and animals 3% 
 Other answers included combinations of avoiding mining, poaching tree cutting, fire setting 
 Other answers emphasized protecting NNP and educating others 
What do you call the volunteers who sensitize people about NNP? 
 Do not know 71% 
 ANICO 8% 
 ORTPN 3% 
 Park rangers 2% 
 Other answers included leaders, cell executive, forest officer, community leader and naming 
an individual person 
Have you ever met one? 
 No = 80% 
 Yes = 19% 
If yes, where? 
 Meeting 42% 
 Speech 9% 
 Neighbor or friend 9% 
 Umuganda 3% 
How many meetings conducted by ANICO have you participated in? (question 117) 
 None 70% 
 3 = 6% 
 2 = 6% 
 Many 5% 
 1 = 4% 
 5 = 3% 
How many community sensitization events about NNP have you attended? (question 118) 
 None 76% 
 1 = 9% 
 2 =6% 
 3 = 3% 
 Many = 2% 
What was your favorite part? 
 A play = 15% 
 Education about NNP project 3% 
 41% said none 
 11% = do not know 
 The rest of the answers centered around protection of NNP themes 
Who was the famous person there? 
 None = 45% 
 Do not know = 22% 
 Kanyombya 18% 
 Do not remember = 11% 
 Boniface = 1% 
 Agronome = <1% 
What were the main messages at the event? 
 Do not know 39% 
 NNP protection 16% 
 None 12% 
 Keep NNP secure 8% 
 Environmental protection 6% 
 Sensitize the community to protect NNP 4% 
Have you ever attended community outreach events organized by students? 
 No = 82% 
 Yes = 18% 
What were the messages at the event? 
 Do not know 38% 
 How to protect NNP 26% 
 None 7% 
 Advise community against participating in damaging behaviors/actions 5% 
 A play about park conservation 4% 
 Benefits of NNP 4% 
 Protection of NNP 3% 
 Other answers included a play about NNP and a play about chimpanzees 
Are there any students in this household that belong to environmental clubs? 
 No = 90% 
 Yes = 10% 
What knowledge have you learned from them about NNP? 
 Education about NNP protection = 19% 
 Not to destroy NNP = 16% 
 Nothing = 10% 
 The value of NNP = 10% 
 To avoid people that damage NNP = 7% 
 Other answers include: opposing those who set fires in NNP; NNP contribution to 
hydrological cycle; actions to protect birds; value of the forest; laws against poaching and 
cutting trees in NNP; NNP is habitat for animals and brings income to the community; not to 
poach or cut trees. 
Are there any posters with messages about NNP in your village? 
 No = 79% 
 Yes = 21% 
What messages about NNP are in the posters? 
 Animals that live in NNP = 11% 
 Protection of NNP = 8% 
 Avoiding causing harm to NNP = 8% 
 Anti-poaching = 4% 
 Do not know = 7% 
 Did not read message = 4% 
 Do not know how to read = 4% 
 All people must help protect NNP = 2% 
Which of these posters helped you learn the most about NNP? 
 Chimpanzee = 23% 
 Animal (general) = 20% 
 None = 11% 
 Poaching theme = 6% 
 Fire theme = 2% 
 Poster outlining possible punishments for breaking the law = 2% 
 Other answers included baboon poster; gorilla; beekeeping; canopy. 
ANNEX II: School Survey Pre & Post-implementation survey 
results 
A) Demographic Information 
 Student ages ranged from 14 to 24 
 50% were girls, 50% were boys 
 30% were Primary 4-6 students, 45% were Secondary 1-3 students, 25% were Secondary 4-6 
students 
 Same proportions and ages as the pre-implementation survey 
B) Animal knowledge 
Animals living in Nyungwe 
 Students generally correctly stated that blue touraco, baboon, colobus monkey, Owlfaced 
monkey and L’hoesti monkey are found in Nyungwe
 57% correctly stated that chimpanzees live in Nyungwe. Before, 38% said that chimpanzees 
live in Nyungwe
 Many students thought that gorillas, giraffes, and elephants (animals that do NOT live in 
Nyungwe) live in Nyungwe (Gorilla: 61% said it lives in Nyungwe; Giraffe: 62%; Elephant: 
60%)
Names of animals 
 Animals found in Nyungwe were correctly identified by 0 to 25% of respondents (depending 
on species). Significantly more students could name baboon, Colobus monkey, and 
chimpanzee post-campaign.
 Chimpanzees were named correctly by 36% of respondents, compared with 25% of 
respondents in the pre-implementation survey. 
 Pilot schools showed significant increases in naming baboon, Colobus monkey, giraffe, 
chimpanzee and elephant comparing before and after working with them.
 Gorillas, giraffes, and elephants were identified by 60% or more of students. 
C) Knowledge Questions about Nyungwe 
Students showed a good understanding of Nyungwe as a national park and the rules of the park, as they 
did in the baseline. Post-implementation scores included: 
 77% knew that Nyungwe Forest is part of their district
 97% knew Nyungwe is a national park 
 95% knew that cutting bamboo in Nyungwe is not allowed 
 78% knew that fires affect the animals in the forest
 100% knew that hunting in Nyungwe Forest is NOT allowed 
 90% knew that Nyungwe forest produces water 
 84% said that tourists come to Nyungwe to see chimpanzees – before 74% said this. (A 
positive trend, but not statistically significant at 95% confidence interval) 
 43% knew that in Rwanda, chimpanzees are only found in Nyungwe 
 35% said that human diseases can make chimpanzees sick 
 37% knew Africa is the only place where chimpanzees are found in the wild 
D) Attitude Questions 
The survey indicated that: 
 Almost all respondents (98%) believe Nyungwe should be protected 
 84% said Nyungwe would NOT be better used as farmland (compared with 73% pre￾campaign). 89% of students in the pilot schools said Nyungwe would NOT be better used as 
farmland, significantly greater than 71% pre-implementation of the education program. 
 92% feel Nyungwe is valuable because it makes water 
 87% believe chimpanzees are interesting animals, and they are important because tourists 
come to see them (97%), and tourists are important for communities near Nyungwe (71%) 
 75% feel some sense of responsibility toward protecting Nyungwe. 79% of pilot school 
students feel this way. 
E) Behavior Questions 
For the most part, students indicated low levels of participation in threat behaviors to Nyungwe 
(cutting bamboo, setting fires, and hunting.) Except for encouraging family members not to do 
actions which may transmit diseases to chimpanzees, students encouraged family members to do pro￾conservation behaviors. 
 80% said “not at all like me” when responding to “Some children cut bamboo in Nyungwe 
Forest” (10% “a little like me”, 10% “a lot like me”) 
 78% said “not at all like me” when responding to “Some children set fires in Nyungwe Forest” 
(10% “a little like me”, 13% “a lot like me”) 
 79% said “not at all like me” when responding to “Some children hunt animals in Nyungwe 
Forest” (7% “a little like me”, 14% “a lot like me”) 
 82% said “not at all like me” when responding to “Some children encourage their family to 
hunt animals in Nyungwe Forest” (11% “a little like me”, 8% “a lot like me”) 
 87% said “not at all like me” when responding to “Some children encourage their family to set 
fires in Nyungwe” (7% “a little like me”, 6% “a lot like me”) 
 79% said “a lot like me” when responding to “Some children encourage their father/brother or 
others to stop cutting bamboo in Nyungwe Forest” (6% “a little like me”, 15% “not at all like 
me”) 
 14% said “a lot like me” for “Some children encourage their family or friends not to spit, litter 
or use the bush toilet”, and 6% said “a little like me”. For pilot school students, the percentage 
of students for “a lot like me” was 17% and “a little like me” was 6%, which shows an 
increase in understanding and action with the implementation of conservation lessons (pre￾implementation levels were 6% “a lot like me” and 2% “a little like me”) 
F) Environmental clubs and awareness of education/outreach efforts 
In addition to the questions that were asked both before and after the work with the pilot students, 
some questions were asked about environmental clubs and student awareness of the education/outreach 
efforts afterwards. 
 Overall, 52% of students surveyed were members of their school’s environmental club. This 
was similar in pilot and control schools 
 Those who were members listed “learn about Nyungwe conservation” (62%) and “educating 
communities” (53%) as the main activities, with “planting trees” (18%) as the next one. Other 
answers included “learn about environmental protection” (11%) or Nyungwe specific activities 
such as songs, dramas, or debates about Nyungwe (1-3%), but these were very low. It is 
unclear if those who put “learn about Nyungwe conservation” learned the information through 
some type of creative activity. 
For those students who were not members of their school’s environmental club, 56% said they have 
attended activities organized by the school environmental club. 
We asked whether students had ever used the education materials about NNP at school. 
 77% of students overall responded that they had, with posters, books, films and dramas as the 
main materials. 
 86% of pilot school students, compared with 68% of control school students (significantly 
more) said they used education materials about NNP 
 Books and posters were considered to have the most information about NNP 
 The top 4 materials were their favorite materials as well