Participatory Planning: Using SWOT-AHP Analysis in Buffer Zone Management Planning

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 13 January 2011Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable ForestryPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306917

Participatory Planning: Using SWOT-AHP Analysis in Buffer ZoneManagement PlanningShawn W. Marglesab; Michel Masozeracd; Louis Rugyerinyangee; Beth A. Kaplinf

a Center for Tropical Ecology and Conservation (CTEC), Antioch University New England, Keene,New Hampshire, USA b The Nature Conservancy, Christiansted, Virgin Islands, USA c Gund Institutefor Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA d Wildlife ConservationSociety Rwanda Program, Colchester, Vermont, USA e Rwandan Office of Tourism and Parks(ORTPN), Nyamagabe, Rwanda f Department of Environmental Studies, Center for Tropical Ecologyand Conservation (CTEC), Antioch University New England, Keene, New Hampshire, USA

Online publication date: 11 October 2010

To cite this Article Margles, Shawn W. , Masozera, Michel , Rugyerinyange, Louis and Kaplin, Beth A.(2010) 'ParticipatoryPlanning: Using SWOT-AHP Analysis in Buffer Zone Management Planning', Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29: 6, 613— 637To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10549811003769483URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10549811003769483

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306917

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10549811003769483

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29:613–637, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1054-9811 print/1540-756X onlineDOI: 10.1080/10549811003769483

Participatory Planning: Using SWOT-AHPAnalysis in Buffer Zone Management Planning

SHAWN W. MARGLES1, MICHEL MASOZERA2,LOUIS RUGYERINYANGE3, and BETH A. KAPLIN4

1Center for Tropical Ecology and Conservation (CTEC), Antioch University New England,Keene, New Hampshire, USA and The Nature Conservancy, Christiansted,

Virgin Islands, USA2Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA

and Wildlife Conservation Society Rwanda Program, Colchester, Vermont, USA3Rwandan Office of Tourism and Parks (ORTPN), Nyamagabe, Rwanda

4Department of Environmental Studies, Center for Tropical Ecology and Conservation(CTEC), Antioch University New England, Keene, New Hampshire, USA

Land-use decisions and practices surrounding protected areashave proven to be contentious. Particularly in developing coun-tries, buffer zones associated with protected areas must accom-modate both conservation and development objectives, includingagricultural interests. However, incorporating stakeholder grouppreferences in land-use decisions can be challenging and devel-oping informed management approaches through a transparentprocess can be difficult. To assist the detailing of a responsivebuffer zone management plan, this research used a process-oriented approach to elucidate the needs and priorities of stake-holders for the Nyungwe National Park (NNP) buffer zone inRwanda. This article presents an application of the SWOT-AHPmethodology (a strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat anal-ysis hybridized with the analytic hierarchy process) as a particular

I. Munanura, members of the Rwandan Government, and PCFN staff all contributedto the successful organization of the workshop. The authors would particularly like torecognize the ORTPN and PCFN staffs at Nyungwe National Park including F. Bizimungu,N. Barakabuye, F. Mulindahabi, and C. Rubayita. The authors also thank L. Naughton forher guidance; S. P. Munyaneza, T. Butera, and J. Sebuhoro for facilitating the workshop;A. Behm-Masozera for her friendship, guidance, and moral support in the field; and A.Keleman, K. Dooley, and two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. This researchwas partially supported by a grant from the Center for Tropical Ecology and Conservation.

Address correspondence to Shawn W. Margles, The Nature Conservancy, 3052 EstateLittle Princess, Christiansted, VI 00820, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

613

Downloaded At: 17:41 13 January 2011

614 S. W. Margles et al.

way of engaging communities and interested groups in bufferzone management planning. This methodology engaged farmers,local governments, national agencies, non-governmental organi-zations, and other interested groups in a collaborative priority-set-ting activity. This approach may be useful to agroforestry andagricultural land-use managers when identifying differences inneeds and perceptions between groups is important in order tonegotiate and implement trade-offs in planning decisions.

KEYWORDS buffer zones, community decision making, land-useplanning, Nyungwe National Park, participatory, priority setting,public policy, Rwanda, SWOT-AHP

INTRODUCTION

As the field of conservation continues to evolve, buffer zones have becomea central approach to protected area management (Li, Wang, & Tang, 1999;Ebregt & de Greve, 2000; Martino, 2001; Budhathoki, 2004). Buffer zoneshave engaged many management tactics including agroforestry and agri-cultural zones and have been used both as a tool to conserve areas ofecological and social importance and to address vital development objectives(Kozlowski & Vass-Bowen, 1997; Ebregt & de Greve). Yet the developmentof a protected-area community boundary is complex, as these areas involvea multiplicity of stakeholders and must consider a wide range of socialand ecological needs (Ebregt & de Greve; Martino; Naughton-Treves, Mena,Treves, Alvares, & Radeloff, 2003; Stainback, 2004). In this light, buffer zoneshave been viewed by many as a way to accommodate the needs of both pro-tected areas and local communities (Kremen et al., 1999; Abbot & Thomas,2001; Bajimaya, 2003). Nonetheless, although employed as part of numerousconservation initiatives, buffer zones have been a sometimes-contentiousand not entirely successful approach to conserve protected-area biodiversity(Wells, Brandon, & Hannah, 1992; Barrett & Arcese, 1995; Neumann, 1997).

A frequent problem encountered in the literature regarding the for-mation and implementation of buffer zones is the complexity of engaginglocal people, disparate organizations, and assemblages of people in plan-ning (Alpert, 1995; Kremen, Raymond, & Lance, 1998; Wells &McShane,2004). Additionally, there are often inconsistent or unclear definitions ofneeds for and perceptions of buffer zones both between and within organi-zations and groups of people (Wells & Brandon, 1993; Ebregt & de Greve,2000; Martino, 2001). The inherently large number of groups and individualsimpacted by natural resource use decisions compounds the hardship of bothof the aforementioned concerns (Ebregt & de Greve; Naughton-Treves et al.,2003).


Using SWOT-AHP Analysis 615

Recent literature has shown the importance of a participatory and inte-grated approach to nature conservation (Hackel, 1999; Valladares-Padua,Padua, & Laury Cullen, 2002). Moreover, successful policy development isseen as being highly participatory and process-oriented, and is the foun-dation for a stable and sustainable resource management infrastructure(Pickton & Wright, 1998; Ebregt & de Greve, 2000; Rist, 2003). However,there are myriad complexities when working with a wide range of stakehold-ers, user groups, partners, and various public participants. Addressing thesecomplexities may require conservation practitioners to draw on fields asbroad as social change, systems management, communication, logistics, net-working, and many others. Given these challenging conditions, practitionershave struggled to find appropriate, inclusive methods to design and managebuffer zones that will minimize negative outcomes and enable more adaptiveframeworks for conservation and economic development. How politicians,managers, and other leaders experience and understand goals of manage-ment approaches and underlying obstacles can play a decisive role in theultimate success or failure of a project (Wielkiewicz & Stelzner, 2005).

In this article we discuss the use of a SWOT-AHP (a strength, weak-ness, opportunity, and threat analysis hybridized with the analytic hierarchyprocess) methodology to identify the needs and perceptions of stakehold-ers involved with the Nyungwe National Park (NNP) buffer zone, Rwanda.We were especially interested in how agricultural interests, including thoseof tea plantation and tree farm representatives, interface with conservationinterests. Following extensive preplanning, we tested this methodology dur-ing a 1-day workshop with representatives of five stakeholder groups withinterest in the NNP buffer zone. Our experience suggests that not only wasthe methodology useful to identify specific factors that participants viewedas strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT-factors) withrespect to the buffer zone, but also that discussions in the group settinghad the benefit of generating knowledge that was not uncovered in the pre-planning period. This process also served to help build consensus amongthe stakeholders about the principal SWOT-factors relevant to the zone, andto help them arrive at a deeper understanding of each other’s perspectivesand concerns. The results of this process will underpin ongoing conser-vation efforts in the NNP buffer zone. We recommend this technique notonly as a method for quantifiably gauging opinions but, perhaps even moreimportantly, as a promising approach to engage individuals in a transparentplanning process.

BACKGROUND: THE STUDY SITE

Rwanda (Figure 1) is a country with one of the greatest population den-sities in Africa with an average of 325 people km2 (Kock, 2004). In areas



FIGURE 1 Map showing location of Nyungwe National Park, Rwanda. Inset map indicatesthe location of Rwanda in Africa with the shaded area indicating Nyungwe. Also shown onthe map of Rwanda are the two other national parks in the country: Volcanoes National Parkand Akagera National Park. Maps courtesy of Wildlife Conservation Society.

surrounding its national parks, population densities can reach over 400people km2. Due in large part to high population densities in the coun-try, wildlife conservation is extremely complex (Kock). Rwanda does nothave a buffer zone policy and buffer zone approaches are not con-sistent between the three national parks in the country (NNP, AkageraNational Park, and Volcanoes National Park; MINALOC, 2001; MINIPLAN,2002a, 2002b; Makana, Habiyambere, & Hall, 2004; ORTPN, 2004; Stainback,2004).

NNP encompasses a montane forest located in southwestern Rwanda(2◦15′–2◦55′ S, 29◦00′–29◦30′ E). In conjunction with Kibira National Park,Burundi, it forms one of the largest blocks of lower montane forest in Africa.A recent law passed by parliament promoted the status of Nyungwe fromreserve to national park. The same law officially designated an area sur-rounding the boundary of the park as buffer zone. This law restricts allhuman activity within the park and requires that a buffer zone policy be inplace before management practices are implemented within the buffer zone(Establishing the Nyungwe National Park, 2005). At present, the RwandanOffice of Tourism and National Parks (ORTPN) is enforcing the national parkrules and regulations.

Nyungwe was first designated as a forest reserve in 1933. Activitiesintended to protect the natural forest from negative impacts caused byneighboring communities have been ongoing around NNP since the 1970s



(Makana et al., 2004). To date, the most concerted effort to engage a bufferzone was led by the Rwandan Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI), with theestablishment of a belt of pine trees (Pinus patula) around the park under-taken with support from the Swiss government in 1984. The zone of treeswas established with the dual purpose of demarcating the forest bound-ary and providing employment and income to the people living around it(Masozera, Alavalapati, Jacobson, & Shrestha, 2006). Other activities aroundthe park, to a lesser extent, have unofficially contributed to the state of thebuffer zone and have not been coordinated with conservation or forestryactivities. These activities include subsistence farming, banana plantations,and large-scale tea production.

Forestry activities within the zone of pine trees came to a sudden haltwith the genocide that occurred during 1994. Processing facilities and roadinfrastructure were severely damaged or destroyed (Makana et al., 2004).Since 1996, after the war and genocide, ORTPN and other governmentoffices have been working in concert with the Wildlife Conservation Society(WCS) and Projet Conservation de la Forêt de Nyungwe (PCFN) to developways to increase the utility of the buffer zone.

Although the law designating the NNP buffer zone contributes to pro-tected area management and conservation goals in the country and region,it does not stipulate the responsibilities of key players or the managementobjectives, making the means of implementation uncertain. A stalematebetween interest groups impedes potential benefits from the buffer zonesuch as timber extraction, firewood collection, or other agricultural activ-ities from being realized. Part of this stalemate can be attributed to anunclear understanding of what is needed from the NNP buffer zone fromthe perspective of stakeholder groups. Some individuals involved insist thatprotection from forest animals is an imperative quality of the buffer zonewhile others stress that it is import for the buffer zone to provide economicbenefits. However, although there is a need to articulate differences in per-ceptions between stakeholder groups, other experiences in natural resourceplanning suggest that it is similarly important to select an inclusive processto derive this information (Wells & McShane, 2004).

As a result of the 1994 genocide, communities tend not to overtly iden-tify with a particular ethnic group. Although many people consider theconflict in Rwanda as having a cultural divide, it is important to point outthat the two groups—the Hutu and the Tutsi—share one language, worshipthe same god, and are mainly subsistence agriculturalists. Because the coun-try as a whole, and communities individually, have made concerted effortsto move forward from this tragedy and are working to avoid such conflictin the future, the present or historical ethnicity of individuals or groups wasnot considered in this research. At present it is not culturally or politicallyappropriate to request anyone to specify or categorize his or her familiallineage. Our experience was that individuals were welcoming both to each



other and to us and were seemingly candid in their responses. Workshopparticipants and groups interacted with each other and outward hostilitieswere not observed. Although cultural bias may exist, we did not to focus onthis aspect in this research.

METHODS

Background of the Methodology

In order to assess the perceptions of interest groups of the NNP buffer zone,we used a SWOT-AHP methodology. This approach, taken by others, hasbeen found suitable to both build consensus and assist strategic planningthrough a transparent process (see, for example, Pickton & Wright, 1998;Schmoldt & Peterson, 2001; Ananda & Herath, 2003). This methodology hasalso been used successfully in other research pertaining to NNP and wasthus considered a viable approach within this particular cultural context(see Masozera et al., 2006).

A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysisis an approach which analyzes the internal and external factors influencingan organization or plan of action (Kangas, Kurtila, Kajanus, & Kangas, 2003).According to Panagiotou (2003), the specific aim of this method is to identifyinternal strengths of a project or organization in order to take advantage ofits external opportunities and avoid external (and possible internal) threats,while addressing its weaknesses. Employing a SWOT analysis in a group set-ting enables transparency in the decision-making process and leaves openthe possibility of discovering otherwise overlooked or neglected perspec-tives (Pickton & Wright, 1998). SWOT analyses have been used in a variety ofenvironmental conservation and forestry projects (see, for example, Kurtila,Pesonen, Kangas, & Kajanus, 2000; Masozera et al., 2006). The benefit of aSWOT analysis is argued to lie in its process as opposed to the statisticalstrength of its output (Pickton & Wright).

Although the SWOT process is able to identify key aspects and expec-tations of a project or plan, it has an inherent inability to prioritize themost important and pressing influences. Its analysis instead implies equalitybetween all identified factors (Pickton & Wright, 1998; Kurtila et al., 2000;Panagiotou, 2003). Without correcting for potential inequalities between fac-tors, management approaches may incorrectly consider a particular strengthto balance a given weakness. Many proponents of SWOT analyses havesuccessfully hybridized the method with prioritizing techniques (Kurtilaet al.; Panagiotou; Kajanus, Kangas, & Kurtila, 2004; Masozera et al.,2006). For use in natural resource planning, a hybridizing technique mustaccount for the conflicting, multidimensional, incommensurable, and uncer-tain effects which are common in these types of decisions (Ananda & Herath,2003).



The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is among the most widely usedmulticriteria methods and has been successfully employed with SWOTanalyses (Kurtila et al., 2000; Ananda & Herath, 2003; Kajanus et al., 2004;Masozera et al., 2006). The AHP requires decision makers to conduct aseries of pair-wise comparisons of factors and assign a numerical ranking torepresent each decision. These decisions reflect the decision-maker’s per-ception of the relative importance of the factors. Assigning a numericalvalue enables a quantitative analysis for verbal comparisons. This processis an eigenvalue technique that assigns a relative priority value to each fac-tor, and allows the most preferential or pressing factor to be brought forth(Kurtila et al.). When the AHP is used to compare factors resulting froma SWOT analysis, participants are able to identify and quantifiably priori-tize the most significant strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threatsassociated with a plan of action. (For a detailed explanation of the AHPand its application to management decision making, see Al-Subhi Al-Harbi,2001.)

The AHP method is most useful when a goal for a decision is clear,relevant criteria are determined, and alternatives are described using thesecriteria (Handfield, Walton, Sroufe, & Melnyk, 2002). A potential draw backto the AHP method is that it relies upon available information at the timeof the decision-making process. Unless all relevant data are available, asis rarely the case in environmental decision making, the priority rankingmay not adequately represent the “best” option. For this reason, due tothe technical limit of available biological data for NNP, we did not focusdirectly on biological priorities. The depth of information needed to makeinformed biological decisions could not be communicated within a singleday’s workshop. Had the workshop been comprised of more technical audi-ences this might have been a viable option. An additional drawback liesin that there may be an inherent difficulty in comparing some alternatives.Also, interdependent factors may not be readily acknowledged with thismethod. For example, improving a strength factor such as agroforestry sys-tems may at the same time mitigate a threat factor such as slash and burnagriculture. Although the process may not account for this, managers mayadd their understanding of these interconnections to make decisions andallocate resources.

The SWOT-AHP process attempts to accommodate a diversity of view-points. As in any such approach, some viewpoints rise to the top and someviewpoints may be suppressed. In this way the SWOT-AHP is not differentfrom any other approach to consensus. However, the process of conduct-ing the SWOT-AHP analysis often builds an understanding of perspectivesbetween groups and individuals and clarifies gaps in existing knowledge tohelp focus efforts on needed information.

The statistical bearing of the SWOT-AHP methodology provides man-agement planners with the ability to articulate the perceptions of interest



groups in quantitative terms. This enables the negotiation of trade-offs dur-ing the planning process. Negotiations in land-use planning are unavoidableand in the situation of a buffer zone, where the same piece of land isexpected to satisfy varying demands, all groups must be willing to acceptcompromises (Redford & Stearman, 1993). Conducting the SWOT-AHP ina group setting provides an opportunity for discourse both within andbetween interest groups. Discourse leads to increased understanding of dif-ferent positions and perspectives, facilitating the negotiation of trade-offs.The formulation of management plans that are acceptable to all stakehold-ers requires balancing interests of different stakeholders. A managementstrategy based on the perspective of only one particular stakeholder groupmay present unacceptable decisions for other stakeholders. This study is anapplication of a hybrid SWOT-AHP method to assess preferences and prior-ity interests of multiple stakeholders involved in the management of NNP’sbuffer zone. The results of this study will help in the designing and devel-opment a buffer zone management plan that takes into account interests ofdifferent stakeholders.

Preliminary Interviews and Identification of SWOT Factorsand Stakeholder Groups

Between April and July 2005, a series of semi-structured preliminary inter-views were conducted with individuals known to have specific knowledgeof the NNP buffer zone management history and practices. People hav-ing direct experience, current or past, with activities concerning the bufferzone were considered knowledgeable. During these preliminary interviews,the research objectives and the SWOT-AHP methodology were introduced.Interviews were designed to generate a list of strengths, weaknesses, oppor-tunities, and threats (the SWOT factors) of the current NNP buffer zonemanagement. This information was later organized into categories by theresearchers. For example, natural forest protection, erosion protection, fire-wood, and watershed protection were all identified as strengths of currentmanagement and categorized as “Provides Environmental-Related Services.”Data collected via these interviews were compiled and prepared for a 1-dhighly structured SWOT-AHP workshop. Because this process relied uponinformation obtained from the specified individuals, it is possible that cer-tain data were missing from the initial collection period. However, priorto the workshop, a Rwandan colleague cross-checked the initial sorting ofinformation, and participants reviewed the information on the day of theworkshop.

For this research we considered factors that were associated with thecurrent management of the buffer zone as internal and other factors asexternal. For example, “provides economic benefits to local and nationalcommunities” was considered an internal strength because the definition



of this factor pertained to the present management approach of the bufferzone. “Improvement of local, regional, and national economy” was consid-ered an external opportunity because the current management regime doesnot account for these points. Further, “involvement of local people” wasconsidered external because local communities were not consulted whenthe pine trees of the buffer zone were initially planted and at present nomanagement approach focuses on this resource.

The interview process brought attention to additional groups andindividuals with information about the buffer zone. Through these inter-views, district-level representatives, local park management officials, cen-tral government agency representatives, and cooperative and associationleaders—including agroforesters and farmers—were identified and invitedto participate in a 1-day SWOT-AHP workshop. This method of stakeholderidentification is known as a reputation analysis (see, for example, Grimble& Chan, 1995; Ananda & Herath, 2003). This invitee method may neglectcertain disconnected or otherwise less apparent interests as it does not seekto uncover all persons with potential interest in buffer zone management.However, this approach successfully recognized a number of individuals andgroups that would be directly impacted by the management plan and whowere interested in participating in the SWOT-AHP workshop.

In order to ensure that the group dynamic of this SWOT-AHP work-shop be most effective, the number of invited participants was restricted tofewer than 30 individuals (Schmoldt & Peterson, 2001). Because the numberof stakeholders in a natural resource management plan can be huge, thetotal number of participants was limited through the reputation analysis ina systematic way. This may have excluded certain viewpoints from the finalanalysis and conclusions.

With the analysis of identified individuals, the researchers foundfive distinct stakeholder groups: Conservation; Forestry; Tea Operations;Community Associations; and Local Government Representatives. The cat-egorizations of these groups were based on an assumption of theresearchers and also on direct affiliations of individuals to specific groups.The “Conservation” stakeholder group consisted of Rwandan state agen-cies and Rwandan Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) representativeswhose primary interest was biodiversity conservation. The “Forestry” groupconsisted of representatives from the Rwandan forestry department, thenational institute for agroforestry research, and citizens with specific trainingin forestry and agroforestry. Representatives from local tea factories madeup the “Tea Operations” group. “Community Associations” included leadersfrom farming, artisans, beekeeping, community development, indigenousrights, and craft cooperatives. Mayors from communities surrounding thepark comprised the “Local Government” stakeholder group. These initialgroups were used for the purpose of planning and structuring the workshop.Participants were later allowed to select their preference for group affiliation.



Although the term “stakeholder” implies neutrality and equal poweramong participants, this assertion has been neither established nor refutedin the context of the NNP buffer zone. It should be noted that in this articlethe term “stakeholder” will be used to refer to groups or organizations withdemonstrated interest in the management of the NNP buffer zone. The use ofthis term assumes no division of power. “Demonstrated interest” is definedas those groups, identified through a reputation analysis, that have beeninvolved currently or historically with the use and management of the landarea legally designated as the NNP buffer zone.

Training Interpreters and Facilitators for Highly StructuredSWOT-AHP Workshop

Five interpreters were hired to facilitate each of the five stakeholder groupsidentified to participate in the SWOT-AHP workshop. A 21/2-d intensivetraining session for the interpreters was held at the Gisakura Guest Houselocated near the boundary of NNP in the semi-urban center of Gisakura,Rwanda. This highly structured training program was designed and led bythe first author. All interpreters had a minimum of some university leveltraining and were fluent in the three dominant languages in Rwanda: French,English, and Kinyarwanda. The training session provided instructional back-ground information regarding buffer zone theory, the historical backgroundof the NNP buffer zone, policy formation and strategic planning, the SWOT-AHP methodology, and research objectives. A simulated workshop usingrecruited local residents allowed interpreters to practice communicating theworkshop objectives, format, and methodology. Additional training was pro-vided as necessary to ensure interpreters understood and could convey theunderpinning concepts of the research.

Convening a Workshop With Stakeholder Groups

On August 25, 2005, 30 stakeholder representatives were invited to a 1-dhighly structured SWOT-AHP workshop in Kamembe City, an urban centernear NNP, to discuss the management of the NNP buffer zone. To beginthe workshop, a presentation by the first author provided participantswith a brief overview of buffer zone theory as it applies to communitydevelopment, conservation, and protected area management. The work-shop structure and the SWOT-AHP methodology were also explained to theparticipants. SWOT factors compiled from the preliminary interviews werepresented and explained. A trained interpreter translated this presentationinto the local language Kinyarwanda and relayed clarifying questions fromthe audience as necessary.

The categorical workshop groups, as previously defined, allowedan analysis of the major stakeholder groups involved in or affected



by the management of the NNP buffer zone. Participants representedconservation priorities, community well-being, and several groups with agri-cultural interests—including bee keepers, agroforesters, and tea plantationrepresentatives. Following the presentation of SWOT factors, participantswere asked to categorize themselves into one of the five groups which theyfelt they represented best. As opposed to assigning participants to a par-ticular group, this approach of sorting participants was taken to encouragea more accurate representation of participant perspectives. This approachto dividing participants did not allow for individuals with multiple groupidentities to move between workshop groups. However, the researchersdecided that this approach of defining workshop groups would best allowparticipants to choose their strongest affiliation.

On the day of the workshop only 2 out of 12 invited local governmentrepresentatives were able to attend, while the community associations grouphad 9 representatives. This was largely due to unavoidable scheduling con-flicts. Because two representatives were too few to conduct a meaningfulanalysis and a group of nine would be too large (Schmoldt & Peterson,2001), some representatives from the community associations group wereasked to join the representatives from the local government. Given thepotential for power differential between government officials and associ-ation representatives, it was left up to the participants to decide whetheror not to change groups. Two association representatives agreed to changegroups, creating a group of four. Both participants who agreed to switchgroups had some law enforcement background and thus may have beenmore comfortable interacting with local government officials.

Although one association group remained intact with seven members,dividing participants in this manner made an analysis of government represen-tatives impossible as a distinct interest group. However, it was determined thatdividing participants in this way enabled representatives to more effectivelycontribute to the overall SWOT-AHP process. These groups were identifiedas Association 1 and 2. Association 1 represented five distinct associationinterests (artisans, beekeeping, community development, craft cooperatives,and indigenous rights). The composite group of representatives from localgovernment and community associations comprised Association 2.

Three representatives from tea cooperatives agreed to participate in thisworkshop. It was difficult to find representatives from tea operations whowould participate in the workshop, because, as it was revealed through pre-liminary interviews, they did not view their operations as an extension of theofficial buffer zone. Most people involved with the tea operations expressedthat their operations had no relevance to the NNP buffer zone. They agreedto participate in the workshop after the preliminary interviews because theywere interested in learning more about the buffer zone and how they mightbe involved in its future development. This point is interesting, because thereare several active factories producing tea around the Nyungwe forest. Other



than the belt of pine trees, tea cultivation constitutes the largest contiguousland use around the park. Other research suggests that the pine plantationsin the buffer zone could be replaced with an agroforestry system producingtea as a more economically viable alternative that would address biodiver-sity conservation and community livelihoods (Masozera & Alavalapati, 2004).The unexpected perspective of the tea representatives brings to light that ifmanagers intend to institute tea cultivation as a major activity in the bufferzone, then they will need to consider how to convey the importance of thetea operators’ role in maintaining the legal buffer zone.

Three national languages were necessary to conduct the workshop:English, French, and Kinyarwanda. Twenty-five percent of participantsspoke all three languages and 29% of participants only spoke one of thethree languages. Eighteen percent spoke Kinyarwanda only.

Workshop Participants Conduct a SWOT Analysis

Each of the five stakeholder groups was assigned a trained facilitator. In theirworkshop groups, with the guidance of the facilitator, participants were askedto deliberate the SWOT factors and definitions identified in the preliminaryinterviews and to make addenda where they felt necessary. Each group self-selected a spokesperson who presented omissions, amendments, or additionsto factors and their definitions to the entire workshop. Participants discussedchanges and then a vote was taken by the entire workshop to accept orreject the proposed changes. After the researchers compiled refined factorsand definitions, four surveys were generated, one for each SWOT category(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats; Table 1).

Surveys consisted of a series of pairwise comparisons (see Figure 2for an example of a pairwise comparison from the Strengths survey).Participants were asked to return to their workshop groups and determinethe most significant SWOT factor for each survey through a series of pair-wise comparisons. The process of comparing factors and assigning relativevalues constituted the AHP.

Interest Groups Make Pairwise Comparisons Between SWOT Factors

After returning to their respective interest groups, facilitators reviewed theprocess of selecting the most pressing factor, which was explained dur-ing the opening presentation. Each interest group was asked to work as agroup to evaluate factors within a SWOT category in pairs and indicate ifboth factors were equally important or one was more important than theother. For instance, participants ranked the strength factors “Buffer zoneprovides environmental-related services” and “Buffer zone helps to improverelations around the park” according to which one they felt was most impor-tant. Factors were ranked using the AHP comparison scale with a rating of



TABLE 1 List of Agreed Upon SWOT Factors Associated With the Management of theNyungwe National Park Buffer Zone

StrengthsS-A Provides environmental-related services†∗S-B Helps to improve relationships around the park (reduces conflicts and increases

cooperation)†∗S-C Provides economic benefits to local and national communities†∗

WeaknessesW-A Limited financial resources at local and national management levels†W-B Lack of technical skills and training∗W-C Not providing expected benefits†W-D Unclear and undefined rules and regulations†W-E Buffer zone is not established around the entire park∗

OpportunitiesO-A Improvement of local/regional/national economyO-B Strengthening partnerships and collaboration†O-C Support forest protection and biodiversity conservationO-D Provide environmental goods and services to local communities

ThreatsT-A The chosen management plan fails to achieve expected benefits†T-B Limited financial support to forestry at a regional and national level†T-C Population pressures †∗T-D Market fluctuationsT-E Changes in government policies†T-F Natural calamities∗T-G Uncontrolled source of funds at initial stages∗

Notes. †Indicates that a change was made from the list compiled from preliminary interviews. ∗Indicateseither a SWOT category or factor that was not identified through preliminary interviews was added.

FIGURE 2 Example of a pairwise comparison survey. Example depicts the survey requestingfor the strength labeled “Strength A” to be compared with “Strength B.”

1–9 (Table 2). A printout of the AHP comparison scale was provided toeach group, and facilitators assisted participants in relating verbal judgmentsappropriately in the context of each comparison.

Facilitators recorded group responses. All participants in a groupneeded to agree upon the ranking before it was recorded. In the eventof a disagreement, facilitators were instructed to encourage dialogue untilconsensus on the appropriate scaling was reached. Facilitators also ensuredthat no one personality dominated the group decision or consensus processby guiding the conversation as appropriate.



TABLE 2 Pair-Wise Comparison Scale for AHP Preferences

Numerical rating Verbal judgments of preferences

1 Equally preferred2 Equally to moderately preferred3 Moderately preferred4 Moderately to strongly preferred5 Strongly preferred6 Strongly to very strongly preferred7 Very strongly preferred8 Very strongly to extremely preferred9 Extremely preferred

After facilitators recorded pairwise comparisons for each category ofSWOT factors for each group, responses were processed by the researcherson-site in the main workshop room using Expert Choice software (ExpertChoice, 2005). Responses were processed for each interest group sepa-rately. Inconsistency ratios were used to gauge the general consistency ofresponses.

The inconsistency ratio provides a measure of how logical or rational adecision is (Expert Choice, 2005). A larger inconsistency ratio value indicatesmore inconsistent judgments. An inconsistency ratio of .10 or less is generallyconsidered acceptable (Expert Choice). An inconsistency ratio greater than.10, and particularly as high as .20, indicate that a re-examination of judg-ments might be necessary. However, while a ratio considerably more than.10 might call for a re-examination of decisions, the degree to which a highinconsistency ratio indicates a problem depends on the situation (ExpertChoice). For example, in this research the Association 2 group returnedhigh inconsistency ratios in three of their five surveys. However, as opposedto being an example of illogical thought (e.g., A is better than B; B is bet-ter than C; but C is better than A), it is more likely a reflection of thevarying degree of importance that individuals in that group feel for individ-ual SWOT factors. Accepting the inconsistency as an accurate reflection ofvarying levels of importance within the group can possibly help to eluci-date conflicting views within groups. This assumption is supported in thissituation, because the final SWOT survey was returned with near perfectconsistency.

In this research the inconsistency ratio of .10 was used as a generalguideline and indicator for points needing further attention and consid-eration. Because the preference for and prioritization of natural resourceuse is highly subjective, it was expected that even participants within sim-ilar interest groups would have varying levels of strengths of preferencefor individual SWOT factors within each survey. If a survey indicated aninconsistency ratio greater than .10, the survey was returned to the groupand participants were asked to consider the accuracy of their evaluations



and re-examine their responses. A higher level of inconsistency was tol-erated for resubmitted surveys based on an expectation that re-examineddecisions with an inconsistency ratio higher than .10 indicated accuratereflections of different opinions, rather than poorly considered decisionmaking. A resubmitted survey with an inconsistency ratio of .15 or belowwas considered acceptable for the analysis. If the second review of a surveyhad an inconsistency ratio greater than .15, the survey was accepted withthe inconsistency noted.

Pairwise Comparisons Are Made Between the Four SWOT Categories

After workshop groups completed the comparisons for each category ofSWOT factors, and the analysis passed the Expert Choice analysis for incon-sistency, a fifth survey was generated (the fifth survey will hereafter bereferred to as the final SWOT survey). The final SWOT survey was designedspecifically for each group to determine the most pressing overall SWOTfactor influencing group decisions in the comparisons done by each stake-holder group. The final SWOT survey administered to each group wasspecifically designed for each stakeholder group to reflect the decisionsmade in the previous four surveys. Surveys for each group reflected themost significant factor in each SWOT category, which had been broughtforward during the analysis of the previous four surveys. The final SWOTsurvey asked each stakeholder group to complete a total of six com-parisons (Strength vs. Weakness; Strength vs. Opportunity; Strength vs.Threat; Weakness vs. Opportunity; Weakness vs. Threat; and Opportunityvs. Threat). Comparisons were made in the same fashion as the first fourrounds of surveys using the same scale of AHP preferences (see Figure 3 foran example of the final SWOT survey).

Although it is difficult to compare these factors head to head, thisprocess was necessary to better understand how groups prioritize SWOTfactors. For example, the Forestry 2 group ranked Strength A: ProvidesEnvironmental Related Services as the greatest strength of the buffer zone.With this information alone it would seem reasonable to invest resources in

FIGURE 3 Example of the final survey provided to workshop groups to identify the mostsignificant SWOT factor.



improving the ability of the buffer zone to provide such services. However,when the strengths are weighted against threats in the manner described,it becomes evident that Threat A: The Chosen Management Plan Fails toAchieve Expected Benefits, Threat C: Population Pressures, and Threat B:Limited Financial Support to Forestry at a Regional & National Level, all rankhigher in importance, in that order, than Strength A. With this additionalinformation, managers can consider resource allocation to more effectivelybalance the benefits of Strength A with the potential costs of Threats A, C,and B.

The researchers completed final analysis and review of workshop sur-veys after the workshop using Expert Choice software (Expert Choice, 2005).Feedback forms were completed anonymously by participants at the end ofthe workshop, and then collected.

RESULTS

Preliminary interviews with individuals known to have specific knowledgeof the buffer zone identified several SWOT factors regarding the presentmanagement of the NNP buffer zone. The researchers sorted these fac-tors into categories based on common themes; 15 strength factors wereaggregated into three categories; 19 weaknesses were aggregated into fourcategories; 17 opportunities were aggregated into four categories; and 23threats were aggregated into six categories.

During the workshop, participants made several adjustments to thedefinition of SWOT factors. Adjustments ranged from changing a singleword in the existing definition of a SWOT factor to deleting a factorentirely from the list; 15 strength factors were aggregated into three cate-gories; 17 weaknesses were aggregated into four categories; 25 opportunitieswere aggregated into four categories; and 21 threats were aggregatedinto five categories. Participants added three major common theme cat-egories of SWOT factors: (W-E) Buffer zone is not established aroundthe entire park; (T-F) Natural Calamities; and (T-G) Uncontrolled Sourceof Funds at Initial Stages (Table 1). Ten previously unidentified bufferzone functions and influencing conditions were described and sorted byparticipants into the described thematic categories: Enhances/improvesmicro climate; Promotes cooperation between communities through mak-ing associations; The provision of land for beekeeping reduces conflicts;Timber for economic purposes; Medicinal herbs; Low education levels/Poorunderstanding of people (Illiteracy); Not homogeneous (it is different every-where); Ignorance (leads to poor family planning and lots of babies); Fires;and Diseases.

The Conservation group achieved the most consistency in their deci-sions regarding the buffer zone SWOT factors. Although two surveys were



TABLE 3 Workshop Groups’ Inconsistency Ratios for Pairwise Comparisons of SWOT Factorsof the Nyungwe National Park Buffer Zone

Forestry Forestry Association Association TeaSWOT factor Conservation (1) (2) (1) (2) operations

Strengths .05 .08 .08 .05 .00352 .13†Weaknesses .08 .02 .02 .08 .25 .11†Opportunities .0039 .08 .08 .04 .19 .08Threats .10 .02 .02 .15† .26 .10SWOT .08 .09 .04 .20 .00795 .07

Note. Bold numbers indicate inconsistency ratios above the accepted limit of .10. †Indicate inconsistencyratios from resubmitted surveys which are above .10 but below the second cut-off of .15.

returned for reconsideration due to high inconsistency scores, resubmit-ted surveys maintained inconsistency ratios below 0.10 for this group.Association 2, consisting of association and local government represen-tatives, had the least consistent responses. However, it should be notedthat two of their surveys, the strengths survey and the final SWOT survey,received two of the three most consistent scores. Table 3 presents workshopgroups’ inconsistency ratios.

Association 1 group and Association 2 group both returned severalsurveys with unacceptable inconsistency ratios. Even upon reconsideration,neither group was able to reach acceptable consistency on all of their sur-veys. However, both groups were consistent in two or more surveys. Eventhough Association 2 was inconsistent in three out of their first four surveys(strength = .00352, weakness = .25, opportunity = .19, threat = .26) theyachieved the highest degree of consistency in their final SWOT survey withan inconsistency ratio of .00795. This was the highest level of consistencyamong the final SWOT surveys.

The Forestry group maintained the greatest level of consistency untilthe final SWOT survey which asked groups to make pairwise comparisonsbetween different SWOT categories. The final SWOT survey illuminated asignificant divide among participants in this group regarding their perspec-tives about the strengths and weaknesses of the buffer zone. In order toreconcile this, the Forestry group was asked to split themselves into twogroups, separating the different perspectives. This process yielded a groupof three and a group of four— referred to as Forestry 1 and Forestry 2. Afterthe division, both forestry groups submitted surveys with acceptable incon-sistency ratios (Forestry 1 inconsistency ratio = .09; Forestry 2 inconsistencyratio = .04).

Priority weighting for SWOT factors was calculated by the researchersduring the workshop using Expert Choice software (Expert Choice, 2005).Global priority scores of workshop groups are presented in Table 4. Globalscores refer to the weighted ranking of a factor in relation to all otherSWOT factors and represent the importance of that factor relative to all



TABLE 4 Workshop Groups’ Global Priority Scores for SWOT Factors of the NyungweNational Park Buffer Zone. Global Scores Refer to the Weighted Ranking of a Factor inRelation to All Other SWOT Factors and Represent the Importance of That Factor Relative toAll Others

Forestry Forestry Association Association TeaSWOT factor Conservation (1) (2) (1) (2) operations

Strengths .229 .215 .538 .277 .507 .252S-A .121 .145 .363 .075 .157 .122S-B .032 .022 .054 .024 .295 .088S-C .076 .048 .121 .179 .055 .042Weaknesses .105 .115 .082 .134 .086 .502W-A .022 .016 .011 .016 .022 .049W-B .008 .029 .021 .008 .016 .088W-C .012 .010 .007 .046 .040 .162W-D .056 .051 .036 .059 .003 .172W-E .006 .009 .006 .005 .006 .030Opportunities .183 .077 .256 .060 .264 .102O-A .058 .005 .017 .017 .124 .044O-B .017 .010 .032 .034 .075 .010O-C .054 .016 .053 .003 .027 .031O-D .054 .046 .153 .006 .039 .017Threats .483 .593 .124 .529 .143 .143T-A .056 .235 .049 .133 .030 .010T-B .037 .088 .018 .036 .024 .015T-C .204 .132 .027 .169 .011 .053T-D .016 .056 .012 .014 .012 .008T-E .086 .040 .008 .045 .007 .021T-F .018 .025 .005 .052 .007 .006T-G .066 .018 .004 .079 .052 .030

others. Table 4 shows that the three groups— Conservation, Forestry 1,and Association 1— considered that threats made up the most significantcategory of SWOT factors concerning the current buffer zone managementplan (48%, 59%, and 52% of the weighted rankings, respectively). Forestry1 and 2 were split on the importance of the strengths versus the threatsof the buffer zone: strengths made up nearly 54% (and threats 12%) of theweighed ranking of Forestry 2 group, while Forestry 1 ranked strengths atonly 22%. A similar discrepancy in weighted ranking was found betweenthe two Association groups. Association 1 weighed threats at nearly 54%while Association 2 ranked weaknesses as 50% of the weighted rankings.Due to the inconsistency ratios of both community association groups, theirranked priority scores must be interpreted carefully. Tea Operation represen-tatives indicated a weighted ranking of 50% for weaknesses. Overall, for thesix final interest groups in the workshop, opportunities received the mostconsistently low weighted rankings (6–26%).

Seventeen out of 35 feedback forms that were made available followingthe workshop were completed and returned. The researchers believe that asmall number of feedback forms were completed because participants might



not have been aware of their location (all forms were placed on a centraltable in the main workshop room and the location was announced to thegroup). All completed feedback forms indicated that participants learnednew information from their participation in the workshop. Several feed-back forms indicated a clearer understanding of the buffer zone and itsfunction. General comments indicated a desire to use the methodology inother strategic planning forums.

DISCUSSION

The SWOT-AHP workshop effectively documented needs and perceptionsof stakeholders of the NNP buffer zone for the first time. The workshop for-mat allowed candid conversation and documented the different and sharedvisions in stakeholder priorities for the buffer zone and its management. Thisdemonstrated both the quantitative and qualitative values of the methodol-ogy. Prior to the workshop, needs and perceptions had not been formallyrecorded (Stainback, 2004).

The SWOT-AHP methodology brought to light new information on per-spectives of the buffer zone. This was evident in the differences betweenSWOT factors generated in preliminary interviews and the list of SWOTfactors that was finalized and voted upon by participants during the work-shop. For example, the single threat factor receiving the overall highestglobal priority was population pressure (Table 4). Although this threat tothe buffer zone was identified in preliminary interviews, the influence ofpoor family planning (T-C) was only brought up at the workshop. This sin-gle point might suggest that any attempt to manage a buffer zone will failin the absence of family planning education or other approaches to abatepopulation pressures. Discussion within the workshop setting also raisedconcerns that a natural calamity such as fire or disease may destroy thebuffer zone. Similarly, “Uncontrolled Source of Funds at Initial Stages” (T-G)was not identified prior to the workshop. Only at the workshop was theimportance of well-organized and coordinated buffer zone planning effortsdiscussed. Participants indicated that this was the first time they had consid-ered the impact of disassociated activities within the buffer zone. A benefitof the workshop format was that it allowed new ideas to arise from groupdiscussions. Information brought to light at the workshop augmented theinformation from preliminary interviews and served as a crosscheck forthe potential biases introduced by the selection method of intervieweesand the sorting of initial SWOT factors by the researchers into broadercategories.

In addition to illuminating SWOT factors that the preliminary inter-views had not disclosed, feedback forms indicated that participants leftthe workshop with a better understanding of the buffer zone and different



perspectives on its management. Participants commented that the dialogue-centered format helped to reach a new understanding of perspectives fromvarious individuals and vantage points. Comments on the feedback formsalso indicated that the group discussions were the most beneficial aspectof the workshop. One participant noted that the discussions contributed toa better understanding of how to “think together about the problems andeventual solutions about the protection and management of the buffer zoneso that it can provide benefits to communities.” Several participants alsoremarked that the workshop format enabled everyone to address his or herideas about what should be done in and around the buffer zone.

While ORTPN remains in charge of managing NNP, the RwandanForestry Department (MINITERE), which will soon be the National ForestAuthority, is responsible for managing the buffer zone under the new lawthat establishes Nyungwe as a national park (Estabilishing the NyungweNational Park, 2005). The results of our research indicate that there are vary-ing perspectives both within and between these groups, which may impacttheir cooperative abilities. For example, the stark divide within the forestrystakeholder group was evidenced by the inability of the Forestry groupto reach consensus before it was separated into Forestry 1 and Forestry 2to complete the final SWOT survey. Upon dividing the Forestry workshopgroup into two, it became evident that Forestry 2 considered that strengthsof the buffer zone far outweigh threats (54% and 12%, respectively), whileForestry 1 prioritized strengths at 22% and threats at nearly 60%. Similar toForestry 1, the Conservation group perceived threats as the overall great-est challenge to sustainable buffer zone management (48%). A comparisonof the global prioritization of all three groups indicates that conflicts mayarise within and between management agencies when trying to determinethe appropriate allocation of attention or resources to strength, threat, andopportunity factors.

Based on our experience with the SWOT-AHP analysis, combiningrepresentatives from multiple community associations in a SWOT workinggroup during a workshop is not recommended when aiming to determinestakeholder group preferences and priorities. The wide range of interestsrepresented by the two groups that merged community associations andlocal government representatives (Association 1 and 2) is likely to have con-tributed to the high inconsistency ratios in their surveys. This is supportedby the acceptable consistency ratios achieved in the more uniform groups(Conservation, Forestry 1, Forestry 2, and Tea Operations). High inconsis-tency ratios made interpreting verbal judgments for the two Associationgroups difficult. This outcome may indicate that the highly personalizednature of buffer zone land-use decisions makes reaching consensus withinmixed stakeholder groups more difficult. However, mixed groups may haveattained a more in-depth understanding of others’ perspectives.



A constraint to this workshop was the availability of participants.As noted, the government officials had numerous conflicts that could notbe avoided. Most participants were only able to allocate a single day to theworkshop. Due to these time constraints, it was necessary for the researchersto predefine participant categories as previously discussed. With additionaltime, participants could have been led through a process by which theydefined their own categorizations. Although the approach taken was appro-priate for our purposes, this method could be seen as creating “artificial”stakeholder groups. This approach also risks overlooking other stakeholdergroups that may not be immediately apparent.

Computer analysis of SWOT factors was completed openly in the mainconference room. Participants were encouraged to watch and ask questionsduring the prioritization process. Many participants, although not famil-iar with Expert Choice software, had working knowledge of computers.The researchers believe this aided their comfort with the use of this technol-ogy in the workshop process. With additional time, a tutorial of the softwarewould have been possible to increase the level of understanding of howpriority outcomes were calculated. However, the computer literacy of thisparticular group of stakeholders allowed for the use of the software with-out affecting the transparency of the process. With a less computer-literategroup of participants, the use of advanced computer technology may be adrawback.

The use of well-trained facilitators was instrumental to the success ofthe workshop. Because participants spoke three national languages withvarying levels of proficiency, it was imperative that interpreters were fluentin all three languages. Additionally, the inherent nature of the local languageKinyarwanda made interpreting some ideas and concepts cumbersome.For example, some scientific terminology did not have parallel languagein Kinyarwanda. Some translations and explanations therefore needed morecircumvent approaches. Interpreters relied upon information received dur-ing their training sessions to respond to participants’ questions. Althoughit is possible that interpreters may have added biases that affected results,we believe that adequate screening and training of facilitators minimize thispotential. Additionally, it is important to note that only 25% of participantsspoke all three languages. Our experience suggests that the presence ofintensively trained translators was of key importance for at least 75% of theparticipants.

CONCLUSIONS

As the agricultural frontier continues to expand and interact with pro-tected areas, efforts to understand these interactions and their implicationsfor both people’s livelihoods and the conservation of biodiversity become



more important. Buffer zones remain an important approach in this regard.Our research shows that the development of a sustainable buffer zonemanagement plan must engage diverse stakeholder groups and build under-standing of the diverse values and expectations that exist among interestgroups. A dialogue-driven format provides one such avenue (Mendoza &Prabhu, 2005), and our findings show that the SWOT-AHP methodologymakes great strides to engage disparate groups in an open and trans-parent planning process. Documenting disparities between groups in anopen forum encourage communication not only between and within groupsbut also between individuals and agencies responsible for managementimplementation. This communication may avoid conflicts and allow com-promises and trade-offs in a regulatory action plan to be better accepted(Pickton & Wright, 1998).

In our experience, a SWOT-AHP workshop effectively enabled opencontributions and quantifiably delineated differences in preferences andpriorities between interest groups. The information obtained from the com-pilation of SWOT surveys identified specific areas of concern to stakeholdergroups. The results of a SWOT-AHP analysis may serve as a guideline forresource allocation when designing a buffer zone management plan or pol-icy. Also, the open and inclusive format of a SWOT-AHP workshop is likelyto contribute to the legitimacy of a buffer zone management plan or policythat incorporates its results.

Integrating the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in a land-use plan-ning process can be difficult (Redford & Sanderson, 2000; Naughton-Treves,2002;). Yet biodiversity conservation may hinge on its success (Hackel, 1999;Ebregt & de Greve, 2000). Experience using the SWOT-AHP methodologyin a workshop setting indicates that this method may be highly success-ful in bringing stakeholder groups, including agricultural and conservationinterests, together in an open dialogue format. While there are a varietyof qualitative and quantitative approaches to achieving dialogue and con-sensus, the SWOT-AHP method allowed us to mix open discussion andqualitative ranking of factors with quantitative analyses to understand the dif-ferent interests in the buffer zone. The SWOT-AHP methodology facilitateddialogue among different stakeholders and helped build understanding ofand consensus for management objectives. Additionally, the mixed dialogueand quantitative nature of the method allowed us to identify undocu-mented factors of and priorities for a buffer zone management plan duringthe 1-d workshop. The method requires well-trained assistants and facilitywith data analysis software, which may be a drawback in some situations.However, our study found that an in-depth understanding of perspectiveswas achieved by taking the time to engage multiple groups in the SWOT-AHP process. The SWOT-AHP process appears to be especially well-suitedto situations where input and dialogue from stakeholder groups with dis-parate interests and expectations is necessary, as is the case with agricultural



and conservation interests in the creation of buffer zone management plans.We believe that further application of this methodology would facilitate theplanning process and the development of more readily accepted buffer zonemanagement approaches and policies.

REFERENCES

Abbot, J., & Thomas, D. H. L. (2001). Understanding the links between conservationand development in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World Development,29(7), 1115–1136.

Alpert, P. (1995). Applying ecological research and integrated conservation anddevelopment projects. Ecological Applications, 5(4), 857–860.

Al-Subhi Al-Harbi, K. (2001). Application of the AHP in project management.International Journal of Project Management, 19, 19–27.

Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2003). The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incor-porate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy andEconomics, 5, 13–26.

Bajimaya, S. (2003). Nepal’s experience in participatory biodiversity conservationwith emphasis on buffer zone initiatives. Policy Matters, 12, 275–282.

Barrett, C., & Arcese, P. (1995). Are Integrated Conservation-Development Projects(ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in Sub-SaharanAfrica. World Development, 23(7), 1073–1084.

Budhathoki, P. (2004). Linking communities with conservation in developingcountries: Buffer zone management initiatives in Nepal. Oryx, 38(3), 334–341.

Ebregt, A., & de Greve, P. (2000). Buffer zones and their management: Policy andbest practices for terrestrial ecosystems in developing countries. Wageningen,The Netherlands: EC-LNV & IAC.

Establishing the Nyungwe National Park. No. 22/2005. Republic of Rwanda. (2005).Expert Choice I. (2005). Expert choice trial. Retrieved August 1, 2005, from http://

www.expertchoice.com/products/grouptrialreg.htmlGrimble, R., & Chan, M.-K. (1995). Stakeholder analysis for natural resource

management in developing countries: Some practical guidelines for makingmanagement more participatory and effective. Natural Resources Forum, 19(2),113–124.

Hackel, J. D. (1999). Community conservation and the future of Africa’s wildlife.Conservation Biology, 13(4), 726–734.

Handfield, R., Walton, S. V., Sroufe R., & Melnyk, S. A. (2002). Applying environmen-tal criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the AnalyticalHierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 141, 70–87.

Kajanus, M, Kangas J., & Kurtila, M. (2004). The use of value focused thinking andthe A’WOT hybrid method of tourism management. Tourism Management, 25,499–506.

Kangas, J, Kurtila, M., Kajanus, M., & Kangas, A. (2003). Evaluating the managementstrategies of a forestland estate-The S-O-S approach. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 69, 349–358.



Kock, M. D. (2004). Health and disease issues at the interface. Wildlife ConservationSociety, 39 pp.

Kozlowski, J., & Vass-Bowen, N. (1997). Buffering external threats to heritage con-servation areas: A planner’s perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 37 ,245–267.

Kremen, C., Raymond I., & Lance, K. 1998. An interdisciplinary tool for monitoringconservation impacts in Madagascar. Conservation Biology, 12(3), 549–563.

Kremen, C., Razafimahatratra, V., Guillery, R. P., Rakotomalala, J., Weiss, A.,& Ratsisompatrarivo, J.-S. (1999). Designing the Masoala National Park inMadagascar based on biological and socioeconomic data. Conservation Biology,13(5), 1055–1068.

Kurtila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas J., & M. Kajanus, M. (2000).Utilizing the analytichierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis-A hybrid method and its applicationto a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics, 1, 41–52.

Li, W., Wang, Z., & Tang, H. (1999). Designing the buffer zone of a nature reserve:A case study in Yancheng Biosphere Reserve, China. Biological Conservation,90, 159–165.

Makana, J.-R., Habiyambere, T., & Hall, J. (2004). Evaluation de la zone tampon dela Reserve Forestire de Nyungwe, Sud-Oest du Rwanda. Kigali, Rwanda: WildlifeConservation Society.

Martino, D. (2001). Buffer zones around protected areas: A brief literaturereview. Electronic Green Journal, 1(15). Retrieved August 4, 2010, fromhttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/02n4v17n

Masozera, M. K., & Alavalapati, J. R. R. (2004). Forest dependency and its impli-cations for protected areas management: A case study from the NyungweForest Reserve, Rwanda. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19(4),1–8.

Masozera, M. K., Alavalapati, J. R. R., Jacobson, S. K., & Shrestha, R. K. (2006).Assessing the suitability of community-based management for Nyungwe ForestReserve, Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 206–216.

Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2005). Combining participatory modeling and multi-criteria analysis for community-based forest management. Forest Ecology andManagement, 207 , 145–156.

MINALOC. (2001). Community development policy (2nd ed.). Kigali: Republic ofRwanda, Ministry of Local Government and Social Affairs.

MINIPLAN. (2002a). 2020 vision—Draft. Kigali: Republic of Rwanda, Ministry ofFinancial and Economic Planning.

MINIPLAN. (2002b). The government of Rwanda poverty reduction strategy paper.Kigali: Republic of Rwanda, National Poverty Reduction Programme, Ministryof Finance and Economic Planning.

Naughton-Treves, L. (2002). Wild animals in the garden: Conserving wildlifein Amazonian agroecosystems. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeogrophers, 92(3), 488–506.

Naughton-Treves, L., Mena J. L., Treves, A., Alvares, N. L., &. Radeloff, V. C. (2003).Wildlife survival beyond park boundaries: The impact of slash-and-burn agri-culture and hunting on mammals in Tambopata, Peru. Conservation Biology,17(4), 1106–1117.



Neumann, R. P. (1997). Primitive ideas: Protected area buffer zones and the politicsof land in Africa. Development and Change, 28, 559–582.

ORTPN. (2004). Strategic plan 2004–2008. Kigali: Rwanda Office of Tourism andNational Parks.

Panagiotou, G. (2003). Bringing SWOT into focus. Business Strategy Review, 14(2),8–10.

Pickton, D. W., & Wright, S. (1998). What’s SWOT in strategic analysis? StrategicChange, 7 , 101–109.

Redford, K. H., & Sanderson, S. E. (2000). Extracting humans from nature.Conservation Biology, 14(5), 1362–1364.

Redford, K. H., & Stearman, A. M. (1993). Forest-dwelling Native Amazoniansand the conservation of biodiversity: Interest in common or in collision?Conservation Biology, 7(2), 248–255.

Rist, R. C. (2003). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials(2nd ed.. pp. 619–644). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schmoldt, D. L., & Peterson, D. L. (2001). Efficient group decision making in work-shop settings. In D. L. Schmoldt, J. Kangas, G. A. Mendoza, & M. Pesonen(Eds.), The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmentaldecision making (pp. 97–114). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Stainback, G. A. (2004). Economic alternatives in the buffer zone around NyungweForest Reserve, Rwanda. Kigali, Rwanda: Wildlife Conservation Society.

Valladares-Padua, C, Padua, S. M., & Laury Cullen, J. (2002). Within and sur-rounding the Morro do Diabo State Park: Biological value conflicts, mitigation,and sustainable development alternatives. Environmental Science & Policy, 5,69–78.

Wells, M. P., Brandon K., & Hannah, L. (1992). People and parks: Linking protectedarea management with local communities. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Wells, M. P., & Brandon, K. E. (1993). The principles and practice of buffer zonesand local participation in biodiversity conservation. Ambio, 22(2–3), 157–162.

Wells, M. P., & McShane, T. O. (2004). Integrated protected area management withlocal needs and aspirations. Ambio, 33(8), 513–519.

Wielkiewicz, R. M., & Stelzner, S. P. (2005). An ecological perspective on leadershiptheory, research, and practice. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 326–341.


Participatory Planning: Using SWOT-AHP Analysis in Buffer Zone Management Planning

Documents

Transcript of Participatory Planning: Using SWOT-AHP Analysis in Buffer Zone Management Planning