Contribution of fencing strategy to biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development in northern province, Rwanda: a case study of the community surrounding Volcano National Park.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64792/ncdt4e49Keywords:
Fence ecology, human-wildlife conflict, community livelihoods, Volcanoes National Park (VNP), Northern Province, RwandaAbstract
The Northern Rwandan Volcanoes National Park (VNP) is a globally recognized biodiversity hotspot. It is under growing threat from conflicts between people and wildlife, as well as pressure from land use change that degrades habitat. Fencing was chosen as one of the methods of conservation to protect its biodiversity and lessen wildlife conflicts with nearby residents. Less is known about the ways in which this approach influenced the socio-economic and ecological growth of the neighborhoods surrounding the park. This project investigated how fencing strategies play a role in balancing socio-economic development and biodiversity conservation in the regions surrounding Volcanoes National Park in the northern province of Rwanda. In order to assess how the park's fencing design contributes to lowering human-wildlife conflict, protecting habitats, and enhancing the standard of living for nearby populations, the study employed mixed-methods approach that included questionnaires, interviews, and field observations. Findings show that fences have improved food security and economic stability for those living close to the VNP while also somewhat lowering the frequency of crop raiding and animal predation. The study also highlights the significance of inclusive management techniques and community concerns around access to traditional resources. The results highlight how important it is to combine ecological preservation with local development objectives in order to reap the long-term advantages of conservation. The study identifies the wildlife species that are most and least impacted by the technique, as well as the function that fencing plays in preserving endangered wildlife species and the effects that the strategy has on local customs and cultural values. The study recommends that the Rwanda Development Board enhance community participation, strengthening community outreach programs for the importance of the fence, improve benefit-sharing, and strengthen awareness. Local leaders should support communication and community conservation, while researchers should examine the cultural impacts of fencing.
References
1. Ceballos, G., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2002). Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science, 296
2. (5569), 904–907. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069349.
3. Dawa, K., Dorji, L., & Dorji, N. (2021). National Impact Assessment Report on Electric Fencing 2021, 1–
4. 74. Retrieved from https://www.nppc.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/EF-Impact-assessment-report.pdf
5. Feuerbacher, A., Lippert, C., Kuenzang, J., & Subedi, K. (2021). Low-cost electric fencing for peaceful coexistence: An analysis of human-wildlife conflict mitigation strategies in smallholder agriculture. Biological Conservation, 255, 108919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108919
6. Guinness, S. M. (2015). The effects of human-wildlife conflict on conservation and development: a case study of Volcanoes National Park, northern Rwanda. ResearchGate, 1(July). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1245.9367
7. Kalpers, J., Williamson, E. A., Robbins, M. M., McNeilage, A., Nzamurambaho, A., Lola, N., & Mugiri, G. (2003). Gorillas in the crossfire: Population dynamics of the Virunga mountain gorillas over the past three decades. Oryx, 37(3), 326–337. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000589
8. King, L. E., Lala, F., Nzumu, H., Mwambingu, E., & Douglas-Hamilton, I. (2017). Beehive fences as a multidimensional conflict-mitigation tool for farmers coexisting with elephants. Conservation Biology, 31(4), 743–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12898
9. Kioko, J., Muruthi, P., Omondi, P., & Chiyo, P. I. (2008). The performance of electric fences as elephant barriers in Amboseli, Kenya. African Journal of Wildlife Research, 38(1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.3957/0379-4369-38.1.52
10. Krishna Pasupuleti, M. (2024). Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches Using Advanced Statistical Tools SPSS, Amos, and NVivo in Modern Research, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.62311/nesx/48547
11. Lanshima, C. A., & Abdulkarim, Y. (2021). Use of Focus Group Discussion (FGD) as a Primary Instrument for Research: A Research Note. Dutse International Journal of Social and Economic Research, 6(2), 197–204.
12. Munanura, I. E. (2013). Managing tourism growth in endangered species' habitats of Africa: Volcanoes National Park in Rwanda. Current Issues in Tourism,16(7-8),700-718,https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13683500.2013.785483
13. Nyiratuza, M., Maniriho, A., Ming’ate, F. L. M., & Mireri, C. (2024). Impact of Volcanoes National Park conservation on local food security. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2319690
14. O’Neill, H. M. K., Durant, S. M., Strebel, S., & Woodroffe, R. (2022). Fencing affects African wild dog movement patterns and population dynamics. Oryx, 56(1), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320000320
15. Plumptre, A., S A., D, Segan, Watson, J., & Kujirakwinja, D. (2017). Conservation Action Plan for the Albertine Rift. Wildlife Conservation Society, 40. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15701.32485
16. Rahman, A., & Muktadir, M. G. (2021). SPSS: An Imperative Quantitative Data Analysis Tool for Social Science Research. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 05(10), 300–
17. 302. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2021.51012
18. Ringma, J. L., Wintle, B., Fuller, R. A., Fisher, D., & Bode, M. (2017). Minimizing species extinctions through strategic planning for conservation fencing projects, 1–21.
19. Sharma, G. (2017). Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(7), 749–752. Retrieved from www.allresearchjournal.com
20. Somers, M. J., & Hayward, M. W. (2012). Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential Or a Riposte to Threatening Processes? https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0902-1
21. Sun, P., Bariyanga, J. D., & Wronski, T. (2025). Human-wildlife conflict in Rwanda: Linking ecoregion, changing conservation status, and the local communities’ perception. Global Ecology and Conservation, 59, e03550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2025.e03550
22. Uwayo, P., Nsanzumukiza, V., Martin, Maniragaba, A., Nsabimana, A. P., &
23. Williamson, K. (2018). Questionnaires, individual interviews, and focus group interviews. Research Methods: Information, Systems, and Contexts: Second Edition. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102220-7.00016-9
24. Xu, W., & Huntsinger, L. (2022). Minding the boundary: social–ecological contexts for fence ecology and management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 20(7), 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2500
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 MUJAWIMANA Alice (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is the most open of the Creative Commons licenses. It allows others to copy, share, remix, adapt, and build upon the material — even for commercial purposes — provided that proper credit is given to the original author(s).
You are free to:
-
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
-
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following terms:
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in a way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
-
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
-
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
-
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all the permissions necessary for your intended use. Other rights, such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights, may limit how you use the material.
