1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNITY LIVELIHOOD OPTIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES: A CASE STUDY OF MAASAI MAU FOREST, NAROK COUNTY, KENYA By: Lilian Namuma Sarah Kong’ani A60/74990/ SUPERVISORS: Dr. Thuita Thenya, Dept, of Geography and Environmental Studies Dr. Mutune Jane Mutheu, Wangari Maathai Institute

2. Introduction Rural livelihood portfolios-diversity
Livelihoods - climate change (cc) is the major stressor
Climate change- decline biodiversity- livelihood
Heavy reliance -nature based resources
Forest ecosystems-2/3 of Africa’s 600 million
Climate change knowledge – livelihoods

3. Statement of the problem
Livelihoods-forest degradation- climate change- MMF -(Naituyupaki zonal management plan, 2012).
Communities & cc comprehension- (Dube, et al., 2013).
Studies- effects of cc on rural livelihoods - little on MMFACs (Dube, et al., 2013 & Onyekuru et al. 2014)
Studies- FACs adaptation to cc but scanty on MMF- bias towards ASALs- (Boon, et al. 2012; Tambo, et al. 2013)-

4. Research Questions
What are the livelihood activities undertaken by the households adjacent to Maasai Mau forest ecosystem?
What is the knowledge of climate change among households and its implications on their livelihood options?
What livelihood options practices do the households adjacent to Maasai Mau forest ecosystem undertake to adapt to climate change?

5. Scope and limitation
Generate pertinent information -relationship between community livelihood options and cc knowledge & practices
Limited to households in Naituyupaki- Olkurto location.- (time & financial constraints)

6. Research objectives Overall Objective Specific Objectives
To assess the relationship between community livelihood options and climate change knowledge and practices among communities in Naituyupaki- Olkurto location, Maasai Mau forest in Narok County, Kenya.
Specific Objectives
To assess the livelihood activities among households
To assess the knowledge of climate change and its implications on livelihood options.
To assess the practices on livelihood options in response to climate change

7. Justification
Climate change-challenge – livelihoods (Kashaigili et al., 2014).
Overdependence-nature based resources; forest ecosystems
No study - on the Maasai Mau FACs
Cc knowledge - MMFACs- sustainable livelihood practices
Enhance cc knowledge - NRM- informed policies etc

8. Climate change knowledge and livelihood dynamics –
Literature review
A review of studies conducted among households adjacent to forest ecosystems on:
Forest based livelihoods - (Kabubo-Mariara, 2013; Aruwajoy et. al. 2013; Boon et. al. 2012; Gross-Camp et. al. 2015)
Livelihoods and climate change - (Dube et al. 2013; Onyekuru et al ; Gross-Camp et al. 2015
Climate change knowledge and livelihood dynamics –
(Kuria, 2009; Boon et al. 2012; Dube et al. 2013; Egbe, et al. 2014)
Climate change mitigation & adaptation practices – (Kuria, 2009; Boon et al. 2012; Onyekuru et al. 2014; Foli, et al., 2011)

9. Research gaps
No similar study - particularly for MM FACs- generalization
Cc - global phenomena- yet little known- communities (Ufuoku, 2011; The Rwenzori Think Tank report, 2011; Dube, et. al 2013)
CC knowledge alone may not be lead to better mitigation practices (Rwenzori Think Tank report, 2011)

10. Conceptual framework
Source, modified from livelihood framework by DfiD, 2000

11. Study area; Naituyupaki, Olkurto location
Source, Maasai Mau, Naituyupaki- Olokurto management plan of 2012

12. Research design
Designed to use a mixed method where quantitative - complemented by qualitative methodology
Household level - Quantitative type – questionnaire to 72 – randomly
Key informants – Qualitative type- checklist- purposively sampled
FGDs – Qualitative type – checklist- purposively sampled
Research assistants-Qualifications

13. Sample size (ss) computation
Household ss of 72 computed using Booth et al., (2008) rigorous scientific formulae (acceptable error & 95% cl).
Table 1: Naituyupaki, Olkurto location
Sub-location
Population Size
No. of Households
Percentage
Sample sizes
Olkurto
6305
1171 31 22
Entiyani
2247
397 10 8
Naituyupaki
5310
959 25 18
Iltuati
2052
354 9 6
Ilkeremisho
2890
533 14
Imolelian
2241
Total
21045
3811
100 72
Source, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2010

14. Data sources and collection tools
Primary data-
Questionnaire- HH;
Checklist - 2 FGDs;
Checklist - Key informant interviews and;
Participant observations
Voice recording & Photographing
Secondary-
Published journals & grey literature - local & international –on the subject matter

15. Data analysis & Expected outcome
Compile data- Excel spreadsheet & SPSS
Data will be analyzed by means, percentages, inferential statistics and chi-squares
Qualitative - organized and analyzed & observe coherence of responses.
Document qualitative and quantitative data of FACs
Publish at least 2 two papers in the peer reviewed journals;
Thesis write up.

16. Work Plan

17. Focus group discussion
Budget
S/NO.
ITEM
UNITS
UNIT COST (KSHS)
TOTAL (KSHS)
Reconnaissance- 4 days 1
Travel to and fro Maasai Mau Forest & local transport 2
1500
3000 2
Meeting with local contact / opinion leader, recruit (3) research assistants
1000 3
Train the (3) research assistants 3 4
Test the questionnaire & depart 5
Researcher’s Per diem 4
5000
20000
Field Work Allowances (includes accommodation)
Questionnaire survey 6
Village Guide
20 days
500
10,000 7
Research Assistants
20 3
60,000 8
Supervisors
4 days
10000
40,000 9
100,000 10
Communication and Internet
250
5,000 11
Local transport (Motorbikes)
15 days
150
3,000
Focus group discussion 12
2 FGDs-Transport reimbursement
1day *6 participants*2
12,000
Refreshments
2000
4,000
Meeting venue
2,000
Stationery 13
Cartridge
1 10,000 14
Printing papers
3 500
1,500
TOTAL
277,500.00

18. Thank you for your attention……