Conservation of Terrestrial Flora and Fauna in Rachuonyo South, Kenya: A Focus on Effects of Hunting and Gathering

Conservation of Terrestrial Flora and Fauna in Rachuonyo South, Kenya: A Focus on Effects of Hunting and Gathering

Juma Christine Atieno, Mutavi Irene Nzisa, Obuoyo Joyce, Omanyo Abraham

School of art and Social Sciences, Maseno University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.7817

Received: 02 May 2023; Accepted: 31 July 2023; Published: 01 September 2023

ABSTRACT

Terrestrial flora and fauna species are at the brink of disappearance yearly due to increase in human population. Yearly, the extinction rate of these species are 25% and 34% globally and 69% and 68% in Kenya. However, the depletion rate and the status of species in Rachuonyo South is not specified in any literature and yet, the rise of human population in Rachuonyo South has increased   anthropogenic   activities   for instance 74% and 97%   of population   depends   on agriculture and wood fuel respectively. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of hunting and  gathering   on   terrestrial   flora   and   fauna   species   conservation. A cross-sectional survey design was used by application of Stratified Random Sampling to generate a sample size of 379 household heads. Data was collected using questionnaires and interviews. The results indicated that there were 80 and 25 terrestrial flora and fauna species threatened. The terrestrial flora and fauna species were in a declining trend (mean=1.96, standard deviation=0.487   and mean=1.97, standard   deviation=0.462)   respectively.   The frequency   of   hunting and   gathering were   extremely   high (mean=2.90, standard   deviation=   1.006).   Hunting   and   gathering   were greatly affecting terrestrial flora and fauna species (mean=1.22, standard deviation=0.414). The respondents   were   not   sure   whether   there   were   effective   conservation   measures   in   place   to mitigate the effects of the mentioned hunting and gathering (mean=1.70, standard deviation=0.457). In conclusion, the survival of terrestrial flora and fauna species in Rachuonyo South   Sub County was greatly threatened   by hunting and gathering.   The local communities should be involved in conservation measures.

Keywords: Terrestrial Flora; Terrestrial Fauna; Conservation; Hunting and Gathering

INTRODUCTION

By the rise of Iron Age in 1000 BC, a dramatic growth in human population of 72million was experienced.   Since   then   the   human   population   has   grown   by 100   times, thereby   increasing anthropogenic activities for livelihood (Klein, Beusen & Janshen, 2010). This is a fundamental cause to the ongoing global mass extinctions of terrestrial flora and fauna species (Eldredge, 2000). Anthropogenic activities are socio-economic duties carried out by human beings on an environment such as farming, hunting, grazing, charcoal burning, firewood collection, and brick making. The Convention of Biological Diversity state that there are both indirect and direct anthropogenic factors of species extinction. The direct human factors are habitat loss, spread of invasive species, over harvesting, pollution, and climate change (Allister, Braat, Vander Windt, Rademaekers, Eichler & Turner (2009). A study done by Redford (1995) as cited by (Muluneh, 2021) noted that a third to half of earth surface have been greatly altered by direct human factors.

In addition, World Wide Fund, noted that currently, the greatest threat to terrestrial flora and fauna species is seemingly habitat loss and out of all species described in the IUCN’s Red List 85% are threatened by habitat loss (WWF, 2020). Other studies such as (Odetta 2014; Vilà, Espinar, Hejda, Hulme, Jarošík, Maron, & Pyšek, 2011; Pejchar & Mooney, 2009) have greatly talked about how spread of invasive species, habitat loss, climate change, pollution and over harvesting threatens flora and fauna species.   however, these studies occurred elsewhere and not in   Rachuonyo, at   the   same   time   the   depletion   rate   of   flora   and   fauna   species   were   not documented   in   Rachuonyo   South.   The   analysis   of   the   above   studies   indicated   that   rapid population growth has led to increased anthropogenic activities and population pressure on the land hence increased depletion of flora and fauna species. This was replicated in Rachuonyo South   whose   population   growth   was   rising   as   evidenced by   2019   Kenya   population   and demographic census which reported a population density of 511 persons/Km2   in the sub-county which was far above the national population density of 82 persons/Km2.

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) points to the global acceleration of the loss and decline of terrestrial flora and fauna species since 2010, with a high risk of mass extinction of species in the next few decades if urgent measures are not taken globally. They further predicted that one million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction (IPBES 2019a). Similarly, recent scientific knowledge such as the International Union for Conservation   of   Nature (2019   & 2021)   and   Food   and   Agriculture   Organization (2021), acknowledge that yearly, there is global decline of species at a rate of 34% of flora and 25% of fauna and yet these species are greatly beneficial to human wellbeing through the numerous ecosystem   services they support   such as soil formation and protection, food and medicines. Studies by United Nations Environment Program (2019) and Convention on Biological Diversity (2019)   are   in   agreement   with   Redford (1995)   and   asserted   that   these   species   are   greatly threatened to extinction due to habitat loss. The rate of the threat is estimated at 1000 times background rates. These studies have concentrated on the importance of species diversity and the effect of its decline to humanity, however, the rate at which these species were declining was still worrying and this has weakened livelihoods, food security, health, and quality of life worldwide. Therefore, a better understanding on the available species of flora and fauna was still crucial and how   these   anthropogenic   activities   have   threatened   terrestrial   flora   and   fauna   species.   The present study bridged these two identified knowledge gaps by identifying terrestrial flora and fauna species threatened by anthropogenic activities.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Numerous studies indicated that globally, terrestrial flora and fauna species are undergoing the fastest rate of extinction known in geological history and hold the opinion that the earth has reached its sixth mass of extinction. For instance, out of 391,000 flora species known globally, 21% are threatened with extinction (UNEP report, 2010b; Mongabay, 2016).   In addition, Cresswell and Murphy (2016) estimated that globally, 15 billion flora species are threatened with extinction yearly. These researchers affirmed that 90% of flora species have been removed in the United States and 480 fauna species have been recorded as extinct in Australia. A researcher indicated that in the next few decades up to 1 million terrestrial species could become extinct if the declining rate continues (Turku 2020). A study acknowledged that human activities and influences are greatly enhancing the extinction rate of species and yet their existence is not known (Camilo, Derek, Sina, Alastair, Simpson & Boris 2011). Further, Camilo et al. (2011) indicated that about 86% of all terrestrial flora and fauna species are yet to be discovered, described and catalogued. The result of their findings also indicated that out of 7.77 million faunae and 298,000 species of flora only 953,434 and 215,644 species respectively have been described and catalogued. These studies have noted that terrestrial flora and fauna species were being depleted at a high rate and yet these species were not documented globally, regionally and locally. Hence there was a need to examine the current status of these species. Therefore, the present study aimed at identifying threatened terrestrial flora and fauna species in the study area.

The challenge of terrestrial flora and fauna species decline is   a universal   phenomenon   that includes   African   continent (Darwall, Smith, & Allen   2011).   Studies   done   by   Lindsey, Romañach, Tambling, & Chartier (2011) and Plumer (2019) indicated that in Zimbabwe within a span of four years about 1400 large mammals had decayed in traps, similarly, in between the year 2009 and 2011, 7000 elephants had been killed by hunters in Mozambique. A study stated that hunting as an anthropogenic activity greatly endangers animal species and that in the red list of threatened   species recorded   by IUCN   out of 9000 species listed, 72% are threatened   by hunting (Sean, Watson and Fuller 2016). This finding compared well with FAO (2015) findings which stipulated that wildlife in the majority of countries within savanna environment are greatly threatened by hunting. This threat is accelerated by an increasing demand for bush meat in rural areas of African continent that experiences a rapid growth of human population. However, FAO further   indicated   that the sum of bush   meat hunted is not tracked   anywhere.   These studies (Lindsey et al 2011; Plumer 2019; Sean, Watson and Fuller 2016; and FAO 2015) concurred that hunting as an anthropogenic activity has threatened animal species to extinction. However, these studies majorly focused on hunting as an anthropogenic   activity at the expense of gathering aspect, similarly, they did not analyze how hunting affected plant species and to what extent were specific fauna species affected and yet both plant and animal species were being threatened by this activity. Therefore, the current study described how hunting and gathering threatened terrestrial flora and fauna species conservation.

According to International Union for Conservation of Nature (2014), 3,148 flora species were listed to have faced extinction due to habitat loss being enhanced by vegetation clearance. In support to this, studies done by Neldner, Neihus, Wilson, McDonald, Ford & Accad (2017); Taylor, Eber& Toni, (2014) affirmed that habitat loss propagated by vegetation clearance is a great threat to terrestrial flora and fauna species whose intensity increases from no impact to above 95% loss of species richness. Further, Neldner et al (2017) and Morgan (2001) acknowledges that in a situation where clearance exceeds 20% of the vegetation then decline of terrestrial species take place and is accelerated in areas whose native vegetation is less than 30 percent. Convention on Biological Diversity (2016), noted that in as much as a lot of measures have been put in place to reduce the decline of species in Africa, however, seemingly the continent is still experiencing a high rate of extinction. For instance, approximately 140,000 and 372,000 hectares of natural vegetation are lost yearly in Nigeria and Tanzania respectively (Nguon & Kulakowski, 2013; Sangedas & Maleko, 2018). In as much as these studies clearly outlined the decline of flora species due to loss of habitat. However, these studies did not analyze how habitat loss due to vegetation was affecting fauna species and to what extent each group of flora species were affected by a specific activity and yet these species are essential for human livelihood. Due to this gap there was a need to determine how terrestrial species were threatened by vegetation clearance. Hence, the present study bridged this knowledge gap by determining how vegetation clearance threatened terrestrial flora and fauna species.

Kenya is endowed with over 35,000 terrestrial flora and fauna species. Some of these species do not exist in other parts of the globe making Kenya to be traditionally known as a mega bio diverse country (Lusweti, 2011). A study conducted   by Convention   on Biological   Diversity acknowledged the fact that these species in Kenya have remained highly protected. However, on the contrary, the study also pointed out that many areas still remained unprotected (CBD, 2019). Further CBD (2019) indicated that this has increased the rate of decline due to numerous threats barring conservation. According to Ogutu, Piepho, Said, Ojwang, Njino, Kifugo & Wargute, (2016), 69%   flora   and   68%   fauna   are   being   depleted   annually   due   to   habitat   destruction enhanced   by   rapid   growth   in   human   population.   Similarly, Masumi (2020)   noted   that   the survival of terrestrial species in Kenya as was determined using the IUCN Red List Index (RLI) showed a downward trend from 1993 to 2020. The CBD (2019) finding measured up with the outcomes   by Lusweti (2011) and FAO (2019), which acknowledged   that habitat destruction greatly fuels the decline of species essential for human wellbeing. Further, Lusweti (2011) noted that destruction of habitat may cause modification of habitat due to fragmentation thus barring stability and continuity   of the habitat   making species to be isolated   thus   enhancing   species extinction. NEMA (2019), noted that the government has not been able to attain the aim of reducing species diversity decline by 2010 due to destruction of habitat.

Globally, terrestrial flora is experiencing a massive collapse in their population size (Ripple 2016). Worldwide ecologists asserted that humans are responsible for the extinctions of flora, they estimated that 24 species a day, go extinct due to hunting and gathering (Turtenwald, 2018). Hunting is the seeking, pursuance and capture or destruction of game and wild animals for subsistence, profit or sport (FAO report, 2018). Kirby (2012) stated that 301 out of the 4,500 terrestrial mammal species listed by the IUCN threatened with extinction is due to hunting. Further, FAO report, (2018) reported that; USA alone is annually losing 175 million fauna including; 24,000 bear, 55,000 caribou, 67,000 moose, 84,000 antelope, and million rabbits among others. The above studies showed that hunting was a source of decline for terrestrial fauna species globally, however, these studies did not clearly show how gathering affects flora and fauna species. There was a need for more studies to link hunting and gathering to species decline. The current study, therefore found this a missing knowledge gap and therefore addressed the effect of hunting and gathering on the threatened terrestrial flora and fauna species.

African continent is currently faced with the local extirpation of many larger terrestrial mammals (Jimoh, Ikyaagba, Alarape, Adeyemi, & Waltert 2012; Maisels, 2013), such as Miss Waldron’s red colobus monkey in Ghana, decimation of game herds in Botswana, wild bear and warthog in Muslim Countries (FAO, 2018; Rinkesh, 2019). Besides, between 2014 and 2017 Africa lost more than 100,000 elephants (Actman, 2019), in Central Africa 178 species are estimated to be currently hunted and out of these 97 species are greatly threatened   and are at the verge of extinction due to hunting (Taylor, 2012; IUCN, 2012). Sadly, hunting is still on the increase in Africa, being fueled by the rising human populations, improved weaponry and overseas demand for exotic bush meat.   The above studies have agreed that hunting was a dangerous   activity especially to flora species, however, neither of them focused on the effect it brought on the plant species and yet hunters affected flora species as they accessed the habitat in search for the prey. This therefore gave this study a leeway to broaden the knowledge scope on effect of hunting and gathering on flora and fauna species.

In Uganda more than 1,400 pangolins were killed in between 2012–2016 due to illegal hunting (Rossi, 2018). On the other hand, over 1,000 rhinos were illegally hunted in 2017 in South Africa (AWF, 2017). Researcher noted that on average, hunting leads to 83% reduction fauna species within 25 miles of hunter access point like roads and towns (Justin 2017). Some experts have noted that Tanzania is experiencing illegal hunting making large mammals like elephants, eland and giraffe to be extremely rare and others to be locally extinct (Alex, Foley, Foley, De Luca, Msuha, Tim, Davenport & Sarah 2014). Despite these interesting insight concerning the effect of hunting to fauna species, none of these researchers clearly documented on the species which were   highly   threatened.   The   current   study   bridged   this   gap   by   identifying   fauna   species threatened by hunting.

A study carried out in Kenya by Gilbert (2019) pointed out that, about 300,000 tons of bush meat is consumed yearly. Meanwhile AWF, (2014), noted that; the demand for wildlife products; ivory and rhino horn has led to a resurgence of elephant and rhino illegal hunting. Ogutu (2016) asserted that; the rates of decline for each species varied substantially   between counties but virtually all counties fared very badly. Further, Ogutu (2016), noted that, the number of the most common fauna species in Kenya reduced from a total of 1,809,605 in 1977-1980 to 607,233 in 2011-2013 and that the actual rate of decline in numbers fauna varied among species. It was most extreme (64-88%) for wildebeest, giraffe, gerenuk, Grant’s gazelle, warthog, lesser kudu, among others.   It was clear from the above studies that terrestrial fauna species were lost due to hunting. None of the above researches have clearly listed the species that were highly threatened and to what extent they were threatened. The listing of these species helps in identifying the threatened species which, enhanced species conservation and eventually improve the livelihood.

Studies   done   by   Akama, (2003)   and   Mungai, (2004)   asserted   that   the   population   around protected regions in Kenya kill a number of wild animals for their consumption especially in dry season. Further, Mungai (2004) noted that out of 2 million metric tons of illegal bush meat harvested in Africa yearly, 300,000 tons are approximated to be consumed in Kenya. Mostly fauna species are hunted for human use. Hunting has been pointed out as an activity that poses both conservation and human livelihood challenges (Bennett, Eves, Robinson and Wilkie, 2002; Brown, 2003; Milner, Gulland & Bennett, 2002). As a conservation challenge, it causes the reduction   in   the   population   of   targeted   species   leading   to   local   eradication   and   even   to extinctions   of   species   globally (Bennett, Eves, Robinson   and   Wilkie, 2002; Brown, 2003; Milner, Gulland & Bennett, 2002; Barnett, 2000; Peres, 2000a; 2000b; Steadman and Stokes, 2002; Olson & James, 1982; Holdaway & Jacomb, 2000; Oates, Abedi, McGraw, Struhsaker &Whitesides 2000). A study conducted by Department for International Development (DFID) affirmed that hunting leads to the decline of fauna species in rain forest (DFID, 2002). According to Ariya (2015), sales of dry bush meat are done to small hotels within Homabay, Mbita, Sori and Ndhiwa. These bush meats are acquired through illegal hunting that is occurring in Homabay County. These studies Akama, (2003); Mungai, (2004) and Ariya (2015) agreed that hunting was a great threat to animal species conservation and greatly led to their decline. However, these studies did not factor how hunting affected various plants, yet during hunting as hunters paved their way into the bush plant species were cut down and some were also trodden upon. This study therefore bridged this gap by describing how hunting and gathering threatened terrestrial flora and fauna species conservation.

Study Area.

Rachuonyo   South   Sub   County receives   an average   annual   rainfall   of 700-800mm, which   is scanty and unreliable, it has a well-drained and fertile soil supporting a range of vegetation including trees, herbs, and shrubs (GoK Report, 2013 and James, 2017).   A study conducted by Appiah & Pappinen, (2010) indicated that the dominant occupant of the region is Luo speaking community who are mainly farmers cultivating maize, sorghum, cassava, beans and bananas, coupled up with animal rearing. GoK Report (2013) further asserted that in addition to farming the community are also involved in residential and commercial settlement, sand harvesting, and brick making. Vegetation cover has constantly been disturbed by being exposed to agents of soil erosion thereby causing them to lose their fertility and porosity essential for the growth of plants and trees. This is due to over reliance on agriculture, vegetation clearance and continuous herbs collection for food and medicinal purpose (GoK Report, 2018). A study entitled “Farm Forestry Prospects among some local communities in Rachuonyo District, Kenya” conducted by Appiah and Pappinen (2010), reported that tree product is a major contributor to the household cash income   of   about   32%.   Farmers   therefore   amalgamate   small   scale   mixed   cropping   with multipurpose trees and some livestock but highly favours exotic tree species for cash income, fuel and shade.

UNIT OF ANALYSIS

The Sub County is dominated by a Luo community   known as Rachuonyo.   Historically, the Rachuonyo   people   were   reknowned   hunters   and   gatherers, a   skill   they inherited   from   their ancestor Rachuonyo who was an excellent hunter and made a big hunt for his master, Chien (Ayot, 1978). Though this study does not give a clear indication of the depletion of flora and fauna species, it can be used to justify the fact that there is a lot of hunting and gathering happening in the study area. A study by Ariya (2015) further acknowledged that hunters in Homabay tend to ensnare wild animal species through galvanized steel, sisal ropes and copper. This study by Ariya (2015) was good because it provided a direction on how hunting led to depletion of fauna species. However, this study did not look on the effect of hunting on plant species   and the rate at which animal   and   plant   species   were affected   by the same activity. Therefore, the present study bridged this gap by describing the effect of hunting and gathering on terrestrial plant and animal species.

According to the findings of Homabay County Integrated Development Plan (2018), thousands of species are threatened to extinction in Homabay where Rachuonyo South is located. This is due to high population growth and poverty level which increases human activities on the habitat within the county.   Further, HCIDP (2018), noted that high rate of fertility within the County which stand at 5.2 children per woman higher than the national rate which is 4.6 children per woman and   of counties   such as Siaya   and Migori   whose   fertility rate stood at 3.2 and 4.2 children respectively. For instance, by 2009, the sub county was a home to 113,118 people, currently according to 2019 census, the population rose to 130,814 people implying a population density of 511 persons/Km2   in the sub-county which is far above the national population density of 82 persons/Km2   and some surrounding counties such as Siaya and Migori whose densities are 393 and 430 persons per square kilometer SCIDP (2018) and MCIDP (2018). Meanwhile, Homabay county where Rachuonyo is situated is also experiencing a steady rise in her rate of population growth for instance in the census of 1999, the county had 751,332 people this rose to 963,794 in 2009 and in the 2019 census the county has a population 1,131,950. The county has an annual population change of 1.6% between the year 2009 and 2019 (Brinkhoff, 2020). This has greatly posed a great threat to the species. In addition, (GoK 2018) asserted Activities such as Intensive agriculture, wildlife poaching, vegetation clearance has exacerbated environmental degradation and that bush and forest clearing to farming, charcoal burning and human settlement within the region has led to the loss of vegetation. Further GoK (2018), noted that these activities often lead to decline on plant species, biomass and animal habitat and yet forest is a home to over 80% of animal species such as Topi antelope, hyenas, Roan antelopes, giraffes, buffaloes, hare and various species of snakes. In as much as measures such as reforestation, ecotourism, seed banks, nature preserves and government’s legislation have been emphasized in the region unfortunately the decline is still high due to acceleration of these anthropogenic activities on habitats by densely human populated region. For instance, 74% of population is employed in agriculture, and at least 97% of the households use wood fuel for cooking, (GoK Report, 2018). However, these activities were cutting down various species of plants causing a relocation of animal species and yet these species were not documented. Hence, this study assessed the effect of the anthropogenic activities on terrestrial flora and fauna species conservation in Rachuonyo Sub County, Homabay County.

Globally, terrestrial flora and fauna species are threatened majorly by rapid human population growth, increased human activities geared toward reducing poverty levels and cultural activities. In Kenya, particularly in Rachuonyo South, human population growth was found to be alarming hence human activities escalating. According to Kenya population and demographic census of 2019, the Sub County had a population density of 511persons per Km2 which was far above the population densities of some surrounding counties such as Siaya and Migori whose densities are 393 and 430 persons per square kilometer respectively while national population density is 82 persons per km2. The fertility rate of the Sub County stood at 5.2 children per woman greater than the national rate of 4.6 children per woman and of counties such as Siaya and Migori whose fertility rate stood   at 3.2 and   4.2 children respectively.   Thus it is worth   noting that human population growth in the sub county has accelerated human activities on the habitat posing a great threat to flora and fauna species.

Historically, Rachuonyo community are renowned hunters and gatherers a skill acquired from their ancestral link to Rachuonyo who was one of the greatest and excellent hunters in Luo community. This activity could be threatening game found within the study area. However, most of the reviewed studies have focused on the mega- terrestrial fauna species as being threatened leaving the aspect of other species such as small game while some studies majorly focused on hunting as an anthropogenic activity at the expense of gathering aspect. Considering the global and local threats to terrestrial flora and fauna species coupled with the deficiency of the reviewed pieces of literature, the present study focused on examining the effect of anthropogenic activities (hunting, gathering and vegetation clearance) on terrestrial flora and fauna species conservation in Rachuonyo South Sub County, Homabay County.

METHODOLOGY

The study employed a cross-sectional descriptive research design because data was collected at one point at a time from the study area and described to depict the effect of human activities on terrestrial flora and fauna species conservation. Rachuonyo South Sub County is in Homabay County. It is bordered   by Rachuonyo   North Sub County to the North, Rachuonyo   East sub county to the North   East, Rangwe   sub   county   to   the West   and   Kisii   County to the South.

Rachuonyo South Sub County lies between longitudes 34o 14’ E and 35o 1’E and latitude 0o 23’ S and 0o 36’ S (figure). It has a total area of 259 square kilometres. Rachuonyo South sub County is   divided   into   five   wards   namely; West   Kasipul, East   Kamagak, Central   Kasipul, West Kamagak, and North Kamagak, these wards are further sub divide into twenty-five sub locations which had a specific boundary (Government   of Kenya 2018). A stratified random sampling technique was employed to select respondents from five wards in the study area. The sample size was determined by the Fisher’s formula as articulated by Madhuri and Dheerji (2022):

n = z2pq

         d²

Where:   n =   the desired   minimum   sample size (when target population   is infinite), Z =   the standard normal deviate at the required confidence level (Marginal error); at 95%, z=1.96, P= the proportion in target population estimated to have the characteristic being measured q=1-p,

d= Level of significance.

Source: Madhuri and Dheerji (2022) formula to determine sample size of a population.

Therefore: at 0.05 confidence level, z=1.96, p= (50% =0.5). Thus n= (1.96)² x (0.5 x 0.5) =384

                                                                                                                                         (0.05)²

Since the study population is finite at N=30990 household heads, then the sample size formula is

Where n0 is the sample size for finite population, n =384, and N =30990.

=   379

Hence, the   minimum   sample   size   of the study was   379   indicating that   questionnaires   were administered to 379 household heads. The unit of analysis were household heads composed of either adult male or female in the study area who provided key information concerning human activities that were greatly threatening the existence of species in Rachuonyo South Sub County. The   sample   size   per   ward   used   in   the   study   was   attained   by dividing   the   total   number   of households from each ward by the total households of the entire sub county and then multiplied by total sample size as shown in table 1 column 5.

Table 1: Sampling matrix   of Respondents

Source: Modified from (KNBS 2019)

To   get   individual   household heads   from   the   sample   size   for   each   ward, stratified   random  sampling was employed by considering the wards as strata. The list of all household names was obtained from the Ward executive officer, to get the sampling frame after which the respondents were randomly picked at an interval of ten to avoid biasness. Internal consistency reliability was employed through computation of Cronbach alpha.   The reliability statistics are displayed in table 2.

Table 2: Reliability Statistics

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondent’s Response Rate

The   United   State   Government   Accountability   Office (2017) defined response   rate   as   the percentage of the eligible sampled elements of the target population who provided usable data for the analysis. According to GAO Internal Guidance Resource (2017) the computation of the response rate can be done using the following formula;

The present study adopted this formula to compute the respondents’ response rate as shown in table 3.

Table 3: Respondents Response Rate Summary

The respondents’ response rate (household heads =96%, chiefs =80%, environmental officers =100%, herbalist and hunter =100%, forest officers =100%) as shown in Table 3 for this study were sufficient as they were far above the 50% bench mark rate proposed by the United State Government Accountability Office (2017). This high response rate enhanced the reliability and validity of the study.

Socio-Demographic Characteristic of the Respondents

Connelly (2013)   asserted   that   demographic   characteristics   of   participants   are   essential   in informing the readers of the research about what population outcome may generalize. In this study, the data collected focused on gender, age, household size, education, main occupation, period lived in the study area, approximate size of land and approximate income per month of the household heads as the active participants in human activities. The table below shows clearly the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Table 4: Socio-Demographic Characteristic of the Respondents

Gender wise, the study was balanced with both male and female respondents (Household: Male= 41%, Female=59%, Chief: male=75%, female=25%; Environment officer: male=50%, female=50%, herbalist:   female=50%; hunter:   male=50%, forest   officer:   male=50%, female=50%). This implied that for their livelihood, both male and female were actively engaged on   anthropogenic   activities   which   threatened   the   terrestrial   flora   and   fauna   species.   UNEP, (2017) conform to the finding of this study (Table 4) that both men and women in the world are actively involved activities that threatens biodiversity. Further, UNEP noted that biodiversity is seen to be closely connected to development, access to resources, income-generating activities, food, and essential household products therefore on a daily routine both men and women collect, utilize, sell plant and animal products.

Age bracket   in   the study depicted   maturity and   experience   of respondents.   It   was   included because it was a determinant of people carrying out various anthropogenic activities, have a history of the occurrence of these activities, knowledge on various terrestrial flora and fauna species   and   how   these   activities   have   affected   terrestrial   flora   and   fauna   species   within Rachuonyo South Sub County. According to the study, the ages of respondents were distributed as:   31-40 years (5%), 41-50years (31%), 51-60 years (40%) and above 60 years (24%). From the results presented in Table 4, it was evident that most of the respondents were in age range from   51   to   60.   This   implied   that   mature   and   experienced   indigenous   respondents   were considered to give history of terrestrial flora and fauna species that were indigenous and how the anthropogenic activities have affected them.

Level of education indicates the ability of a respondent to articulate issues regarding terrestrial flora and fauna species conservation, anthropogenic activities threatening species and the involvement   of   the   respondent   in   these   activities.   In   the   study, the   level   of   education   was distributed as: Primary (51%), secondary (27%), certificate/diploma (13%) and university (9%). Analysis of education level indicated that majority of respondents had basic education (78%) which empowered them to provide the information inquired of by the study, at the same time, this analysis indicated the level of involvement of the respondents to the activities that threatens the survival of species. This implied that in as much as the respondents could articulate issues regarding   species, majority of the   respondents   that   had education   below   tertiary   level   were greatly involved in the anthropogenic activities. UNESCO, (2015) support this finding by indicating   that,   by   improving   knowledge,   instilling   values,   fostering   beliefs   and   shifting attitudes,   education   has   considerable   power   to   help   individuals   reconsider   environmentally harmful lifestyles and behavior. Further, UNESCO, (2015) pointed out that 25% of people with less than secondary   education   worry   about   environment   as opposed   to   46% of people   with tertiary education.

Period of residence and years of service in a given area may be commensurate with knowledge of the study area. It was included because it was an evidence that the information given by the respondents were truthful since, the more the time the respondents stay in the study area, the more reliable the information given. In the study, 3 (1%), 16 (4%), 112 (31%) and 234 (64%) respondents had stayed in the study area for periods 5-10 years, 10-15 years, 15-20 years and More than 20 years respectively.   The study revealed that 64 % of the respondents have lived in the area for more than 20 years and 31% for 15-20 years (Table 7). This implied that majority of the respondents had adequate knowledge of the distribution of flora and fauna species, anthropogenic   activities   threatening species, the purpose   of these activities   and conservation measures in the study area. The studies (Omari, 2006; Babatunde & Qaim, 2009), supported this finding, they asserted that when people stay in a particular area for a longer duration, they get experience   on   the   conditions   of   the   environment, become   aware   of   the   available   natural resources like terrestrial species, give relevant information to researchers on the various activities they do for a living.

Occupation and an approximate monthly income of the respondents gives light on the resource utilization   within   the   study   area.   In   this   study, the   formally   employed, casually   employed, business   oriented   and farming oriented   respondents   accounted   for 15%, 7%, 16% and 62% respectively and majority of respondents’ monthly income fell in the range between Ksh. 5001 to Ksh. 10,000 which accounted for 50%.   This implied that most respondents heavily depended on the   available   natural   resources   such   as   land   and   species   for   their   livelihood.   The   analysis depicted   that   a   greater   percentage   62%   of   respondents   depend   on   farming   an   activity   that threatens the survival of species as a result of vegetation clearance at the same time majority of the respondents 50% had a low income of Ksh. 5001 to Ksh. 10,000. This can be interpreted that majority of the residents are poor making them to rely on activities such as farming, hunting and gathering that threatens the survival of terrestrial flora and fauna species. Gok report, (2018), reported that 74% and 97% of the household heads within Homabay County are employed in agriculture, and use wood fuel for cooking and that the region is characterized by high level of poverty.

Approximate land size in the study depicted the level of land fragmentation due to diversified activities   of high population. According to the study, the land was distributed as: 1-3 acres (71%), 4-6 acres (25%) and above 7acres (4%).   The majority of respondents (71%) owned farms of average sizes of 1 acre 3 acres while 25% of the respondents owned farms of average sizes of 4 to 6acres. This suggested that the respondents depended highly on land and that due to high population, the land is highly fragmented. Gok (2018), reported that the region is characterized   by a rapidly growing population   and high population density and falling food production putting pressure on the available resources.

Years of service of the key informants reflects their professional experience. In the study, the key informants which included; Chiefs, environment officer, herbalist, hunter and gatherer and forest officer had served for a period of above five years. This implied that the key informant had requisite experience. Cossham, A. & Johanson, G. (2019); Marshall, M. N. 1996), indicated that key informants are knowledgeable individuals that contribute a perspective on a research phenomenon or situation and have a role in the community or understanding of the phenomenon that gives them information that the researcher is seeking. Further, Marshall, indicated that they are expert source of information who due to their personal skills, or position within a society provide more information and deeper insight into what is going on around them.

Terrestrial flora and   fauna   species threatened by anthropogenic activities   in Rachuonyo South Sub County

There was need to establish whether there were any terrestrial flora and fauna species being threatened within Rachuonyo   South Sub County, hence the researcher sought to identify the various terrestrial flora and fauna species threatened by anthropogenic activities and their uses.

The study established that some terrestrial flora species were threatened in Rachuonyo South Sub County. The results are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Threatened Terrestrial Flora Species, Classification, Uses and the Threatening Anthropogenic Activities

Source: field data 2022 and Kokwaro &Johns (2013)

The   response   from   household   questionnaires   and   the   key   informants   indicated   that   some terrestrial flora species are threatened in Rachuonyo South Sub County as shown in Table 5. A total of 80 flora species   were identified   as threatened.   Most of the threatened   flora species identified were indigenous apart from Ndap Nyaluo (nicotiana tabacum) which is exotic. Indigenous   flora species   threatened   included;   Anyuka   (Vangueria   madagascariensis),   Achak (Euphorbia inaequilatera),   Osiri, (Scotia myrtina), Adugo, (Combretum molle), Akech (Chameecrista hildebrandtii), Alii, (Acacia seyal), Ang’we (Kedrostis foetidissima), Pilipili (Capsicum frutescens), Otho (Balanites aegyptiaca),Pedo (Harrisonia   abyssinica), Pocho (Ficus thonningii), Powo (Grewia bicolor), Roko (Zanthoxylum chalybeum), Siala (Markhamia lutea), Sangla (Rhus natalensis), Yago (Kigelia Africana) and Yiendalusi (Rhynchosia alegans) among others (Table 5).

The   uses   of the identified   terrestrial   flora species   were   established   to   be wood   fuel, fruits, vegetables, fodder, construction, timber, brick making, for basketry and medicinal   purposes. These uses led to anthropogenic activities such as vegetation clearance, hunting and gathering which posed a great threat to the identified flora species. This implies that Rachuonyo South is endowed with various terrestrial flora species which support their livelihood in areas such as food, wood fuel, medicinal and construction among others and that the local community majorly depend on indigenous species at the expense of exotic species this has posed heavy threat to the existing indigenous species leading to extinction of some species. An interview with key informants revealed:

Initially, Rachuonyo South Sub County was heavily forested with indigenous trees, thick bushes and shrubs, but currently   due to increased   human activities   such as charcoal   burning, brick making, rural access roads and crop farming most species have reduced in number and specific species used for herbal medicine have become rare forcing the herbalist to take a long duration in gathering herbs.   (Female   herbalist   from Kotieno   Sub location   in   West   Kasipul   – December 2022).

Another key informant also revealed that:

As a result of increased human activities such as charcoal burning, firewood collection and brick making accelerated by rapid population growth and poverty in the sub county most indigenous terrestrial flora species such as yago (Kigelia Africana), siala   (Markhamia lutea), alii (Acacia seyal), konga (Agave sisalama) kuogo(Lannea schweinfurthii), ng’owo (Ficus wakefieldii), ober (Albizia coriaria),   onera (Terminalia brownie) and otho (Balanites aegyptiaca) have been greatly threatened   and that some species such as oseno (Cordia   monoica), keyo (Combretum molle), roko (Zanthoxylum chalybeum) and dwele (Melia azeradarch)   have become extinct within the region. (Forest Warden at Kodera Forest– December 2022)

This implies that the species are greatly essential   to the livelihood   of the local community. However, the rate at which these species were being used have threatened their existence and these threat were due to increased human activities enhanced by rapid population growth and high poverty level within the study region. Hence, there is a likelihood of high rate of species extinction in the next few decades within the study area if the poverty level and rapid growth of human population is not controlled.

The study established the current status of terrestrial flora species richness and the results were summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: The current status flora species richness

Source: Field data, 2022

Table   6 shows that 76% of respondents   noted   a decrease   in the number   of terrestrial   flora species, they further identified the reasons for the decrease which were found to be linked to the uses of terrestrial flora species (Table 6), 14% of the respondents indicated an increase in species richness basing their argument on tree planting, agroforestry, planting of vegetables for consumption,   usage of modern technology of cooking and building while 10% indicated no change   in   species   richness.   This   finding   shows   that   the   distribution   of   the   response   from household heads leaned highly toward “Decreasing” (mean=1.96 and standard deviation= 0.487) as presented in Table 6.   This quantitative decline in species richness was explained by the qualitative data resulting from the summary on the uses of the terrestrial flora species (Table 6). Additionally, an interview with key informants revealed that:

Most   of the indigenous   community   are   greatly   involved   in   activities   such   as   crop farming, settlement of new homes, charcoal burning, firewood collection and brick making and these activities have posed threats to terrestrial flora species as no replacement is done for the species cut   at   the   same   time   once   an   area   has   been   cleared   for   crop   farming   and   settlement   it   is permanently left for that activity leaving no room for regrowth of the species. Further, due to population pressure more habitat are constantly encroached this has made terrestrial flora species to decrease in number thus habitat loss. (Administrative Chief from East Kamagak – December 2022).

This explains the fact that terrestrial flora species are greatly essential for the livelihood of the residents of Rachuonyo   South Sub County, however, rapid growth of human population has accelerated human activities within the study region that exerts a lot of pressure on the available flora species thus threatening them to extinction. These human activities (uses of the species) are also important to the local community, some of them such as crop farming, charcoal burning and brick making among others are sources of earning a living within the study area. It is evident, therefore, that the uses of these species are linked to the anthropogenic activities (vegetation clearance, and gathering). This eventually led to loss and fragmentation of habitat that caused fauna species to relocate to safer and larger habitat and even those that would remain would eventually die due to competition for food. Further there was a clear indication that the residents were ignorant of the various species conservation measures put in place within the study area as evidenced   by the responses   of the 14% respondents.   It barred the residents   from managing habitat by practicing activities which prevented degradation and thereby enhancing the quality of vegetation.

The findings of IUCN (2019), noted that increase in human population has led to the release of anthropogenic activities that lead to loss and fragmentation of habitat which threatens species to extinction. Similarly, Carrington (2020) asserted that the key reasons for the loss of plant species is the clearance of wild   habitat to create farmland, overharvesting of wild plants for herbal medicines that has threatened 723 species with extinction. These findings from IUCN (2019) and Carrington (2020) are consistent with the findings of the present study. However, IUCN studied population density, diversity and abundance of antelope species in a Lake National park while Carrington (2020) on the other hand focused on the race against time to save plants and fungi. These   studies   did   not   document   on   specific   human   activities   such   as   vegetation   clearance, hunting and gathering and how these activities are affecting terrestrial flora and fauna species conservation an area studied by the current study.

The   study   further   established   whether   terrestrial   fauna   species   were   also   threatened   in Rachuonyo South Sub County. The results are summarized in Table 7.

Table   7: Identified threatened terrestrial fauna species, classification, uses and the threatening anthropogenic activities

Source: Field data 2022 and (Kokwaro & Johns 2013)

The response from household questionnaires and the key informants interviewed indicated that some terrestrial fauna species were threatened in Rachuonyo South Sub County as shown in Table 7. A total of 24 fauna species were identified as threatened. All the fauna species identified were indigenous and they included Abur (Redunca redunca), Aidha (Protoxerus stangeri bea), Apul (Kobus ellipsi prymnus), Apwoyo (Lepus saxatilis), Bim (Papio   cynocephalus), Chiewu (Atherurus africanus), Dwe (Tragelaphus spekei), Fuko (Tachyoryctes slendens), Gwothim (Lycaon pictus), Jowi (Syncerus caffer), Kibwe (Canis   mesomelas), Mbeche (Potamochoerus porcus),   Mwanda   (Oreutragus   oreotragus   schillingsi),   Mwok   (Orycteropus   afer),   Ngau (Sylvicarpa   grimmia),   Njiri   (Phacochoerus   aethiopicus),   Nyakech   (Aepyceros   melampus),Ogwang Kibikibi (Mellirora capensis), Ogwang- oluwo-bondo (Nandinia binotata), Omoro (Hyppotragus   equines), Ondiek (Crocuta   crocuta), Ong’er (Cercopithecus   aethiops pygerythrus), Oyieyo (Aethomys chrysophilus) and Riwo (Connocheates taurlnus) (Table 7).

The study established that fauna species were used for meat, horn and skin and that these uses resulted in anthropogenic activity (hunting and gathering) which was found to be a threat to species conservation (Table 7). An interview with key informant revealed that:

Rachuonyo South Sub County was once sparsely populated with human, having few patches of barren land for crop farming while the rest of the land was covered by vegetation and various animal   species   were   roaming   in   groups, currently   the   region   has   high   human   population, scattered shrubs and reduced fauna species while other such as riwo, nyakech, ngau, and jowi becoming extinct (Administrative Chief from North Kamagak – December 2022).

This implies that Rachuonyo South is endowed with various terrestrial fauna species which are greatly used by the local community as a source of game meat to replace beef which are costly and so most of them cannot afford, while other species are hunted for their horns which are used for making musical instrument known as “abuu” and for their skin which is used for making traditional drums for various local churches and traditional regalia worn by council of elders during special ceremonies and functions. This indicate that the community heavily depend on these species for their survival however the overdependence on them have threatened some of the species to extinction and the community is ignorant about the threat caused to the species due to overdependence.

The study established the current status of terrestrial fauna species richness. Their response is summarized in Table 8.

Table 8: The current status fauna species richness

Source; Field data, 2022

The findings on Table 7 revealed that; 79% of the respondents indicated a decline in fauna species   richness (Table   8) due   to   the   uses   of   species   as   shown   in   Table   10, 12%   of   the respondents noted that the species richness are increasing due to rearing of domestic animals and keeping poultry for consumption and usage of modern instruments in various churches. while 9% recorded no change. This finding showed that the distribution of the response from household heads   leaned   highly   toward “decreasing” (mean=1.97   and   standard   deviation=   0.462)   as presented   in   Table   8.   This   quantitative   decline   in   species   richness   was   explained   by   the qualitative data resulting from the summary on the uses of the terrestrial fauna species (Table 7). Further, the uses of these species were also observed to be connected   to the anthropogenic activities (vegetation clearance, hunting and gathering). It is evident that despite the threat the local community was causing to terrestrial fauna species most of them were still engaged on the same activities. These activities are however key to their livelihood. There is therefore need to create awareness to the local community on the importance of species to ecosystem, effects of their destruction and further engaging them on activities such as poultry rearing to help them find other sources of protein.

This finding is in agreement with a report by WWF (2014), which recorded that there has been a constant decline in fauna population over the past 40 years and that a period between 1970 and

2012 experienced a decline of 52% of all fauna species population. Further, (WWF report, 2019), affirmed that about 99.9% of species that have ever lived have become extinct. In as much as this study indicated the quantitative rate of decline of fauna species, it did not list fauna species threatened   and   specific   reasons   for   their   threat.   The   current   study has   listed   specific   fauna species threatened and the factors that pose threat to them.

Therefore, it is a clear indication that both terrestrial flora and fauna species identified within the study   area   were   facing   drastic   decline   due   to   anthropogenic   activities   such   as   vegetation clearance, hunting and gathering. These findings were consistent with those of (Butchart, 2010; Hoffmann, 2010) who noted that as mankind is increasingly using the natural resources and modifying the environment, the terrestrial species is in decline and that much of the decline were due to habitat loss and transformation. However, these studies focused on timing and direction of trend inflections as well as estimating the trend in which species population changed over time. Furthermore, Hoffmann (2010)   coded   each species   according to IUCN   threats, conservation actions and utilization action classification scheme. The current study however, studied specific anthropogenic activities actually threatening terrestrial flora and fauna species conservation in Rachuonyo South.

Effect   of   hunting and   gathering on   terrestrial   flora and   fauna   species   conservation   in Rachuonyo South Sub County.

After identifying the terrestrial flora and fauna species threatened, the second objective sought to explain hunting and gathering as an anthropogenic activity that threatens terrestrial flora and fauna   species   identified   in   objective   one.   The   response   from household   heads   and   the   key informants are presented on Table 9 below.

Table 9: Frequency distribution of Anthropogenic Activity (hunting and gathering)

Source: Field data, 2022

Responses   from the household   heads   indicated   that hunting and   gathering was taking   place within the study area as shown in Table 9. About 99% of the respondents indicated the presence of the activity while 70% accepted their involvement in the activity. These findings indicated that the distribution of the response leaned highly toward “Yes” (mean=1.01 and standard deviation= 0.116 and mean of 1.30 and standard deviation of 0.457) respectively as shown on Table 9. It is therefore clear that hunting and gathering as human activity was prevalent within the   study   area   and   most   respondents   were   heavily   involved   in   the   activity   as   a   source   of acquiring food (from both game meat and traditional vegetables), medicine and firewood among others for their livelihood. However, in as much as this activity is crucial for the survival of the local community, it is greatly endangering the indigenous species causing some to be extinct. An interview with key informant revealed that:

Majority of the local inhabitants have no proper source of income for their livelihood apart from agriculture and small scale business therefore they are highly depending on flora species for local vegetable (such as achak, apoth, atipa, obong, odielo and ododo among others); for medicinal purposes, firewood, charcoal burning (for sale and personal use), construction, basketry (for sale) and fauna species are hunted for game meat, skin and horn.   This activity is on an increasing trend due to increase of human population making each house hold to have a larger population being fed and later on settled hence posing a lot of pressure to the naturally available resources.

This implies that hunting and gathering was prevalent within the study area as majority of the respondents were actively involved in the activity as a means of food procurement, construction, basketry and medication among others. This activity was accelerated by their low economic power justified by their approximate income per month that ranges between Ksh.5001 to Ksh.10000 (Table 3). This therefore, resulted in unsustainable use of flora and fauna species which was a threat to their conservation.

The presence of hunting and gathering as human activity occurring in Nyalenda sub Locsation was justified by plate 1a and b as shown below.

Plate 1(a and b):Hunting and Gathering activity in Nyalenda and Sino Kogola respectively.

The above findings were supported by the results from the previous studies carried out by (Andy, Milner-Gulland, Ingram & Aidan, 2019) and (Nasi, Brown, Wilkie, Bennett, Tutin, Van Tol & Christophersen, 2008) which asserted that time taken by individual in hunting depends entirely on their economic power and that in times of hardship hunting act as economic guard. In as much as the outcome of these studies supported the findings of the present study, however, these studies focused on hunting for consumption on tropics and tropical forest respectively further, Andy et, al. (2019), studied on influences of hunting methods and effort on the types of animals caught in the Tropics. They did not document on how hunting and gathering as an anthropogenic activity affects both flora and fauna species. This gap was bridged by this present study.

A   research   carried   out   in   Latin   America, Asia   and   Africa   by (Nielsen   etal.   2018), on   the Importance of Wild Meat in the Global South: noted that once a year, 39% of household out of the 7978 household   interviewed   hunted wildlife   for meat and that reliance on wild meat is highest among the poorest households. A study in West Africa by (Schulte-Herbrüggen, Marcus, Katherine, Laura Charlotte & Guy, 2013) noted that conservation and rural livelihood of many who depends entirely on bush meat for income and food are greatly threatened by unsustainable hunting. It is noted that these studies concentrated on the economic importance of wild meat to rural population, patterns   of hunting, wildlife   depletion, and the integration   of hunting into agricultural   livelihoods.   Also, the   study   was   done   in   an   intensively   managed   farm   forest (protected area). The current study however, was conducted in an unprotected area, and did not consider economic importance of hunting and gathering activity rather, it concentrated on effect of hunting and gathering activity on species conservation.

Household heads were asked to list both flora and fauna species being hunted and gathered stating reasons why they were being hunted and gathered. Evidence from questionnaires and key informants interviewed identified various flora and fauna species hunted and gathered which used to generate Table 10.

Table 10: Terrestrial Flora Species Gathered and Fauna Species Hunted and Reasons.

Source: Field data, 2022

The findings presented on Table 10 indicated that flora and fauna species are being gathered and hunted respectively. There are 79 flora species gathered for medicinal purposes, fruit, basketry, wood fuel, construction, vegetable among other uses while 15 fauna species are hunted and gathered for the purpose of meat, skin and horn (Table 10). Some of the flora species being gathered include; Achak (Euphorbia inaequilatera),   Osiri, (Scotia myrtina), Adugo, (Combretum molle), Akech (Chameecrista   hildebrandtii),   Alii, (Acacia seyal), Ang’we (Kedrostis foetidissima), Pilipili (Capsicum frutescens), Otho (Balanites aegyptiaca),Pedo (Harrisonia abyssinica), Pocho (Ficus thonningii), Powo (Grewia bicolor), Roko (Zanthoxylum chalybeum), Siala (Markhamia lutea), among others and fauna species being hunted include; Abur (Redunca redunca),   Aidha (Protoxerus   stangeri   bea),   Apool (Kobus ellipsi prymnus), Apwoyo (Lepus saxatilis),   Jowi (Syncerus caffer), Kibwe (Canis mesomelas), Mbeche (Potamochoerus porcus), Mwanda (Oreutragus   oreotragus   schillingsi), Ngau (Sylvicarpa grimmia), Nyakech (Aepyceros melampus), Ogwang Kibikibi (Mellirora   capensis),   Omoro (Hyppotragus equines), and Riwo (Connocheates taurlnus).

It is evident therefore that flora species are more threatened than fauna species in Rachuonyo South Sub County. This is because from Table 10, the uses of flora species are more than the purposes for which fauna are hunted and gathered. Majority of the community heavily depended on flora species for herbal medicine, vegetables, fruits, basketry. About 97% of the population use wood fuel as a source of energy. This has led to the clearance of vegetation as seen in Plate

1(a) and (b) causing the destruction of fauna habitat (especially for large mammal) leading to migration, reduction   and   extinction   of   species   as   seen   in   Plate   1(a) and (b).   Further, this clearance has caused hunters to trek over a long distance on an open field in search for fauna species a clear indicator of migration, reduction and extinction of fauna species within the study area.

These findings are consistent with (IUCN report, 2019) stating that yearly depletion rate of flora and fauna species were 34% and 25% respectively. Meanwhile in Kenya according to (Ogutu, Piepho, Said, Ojwang, Njino, Kifugo & Wargute, 2016), the rate of depletion of flora and fauna were 69% and 68% respectively.

The household heads further responded on the question if hunting and gathering are affecting flora and fauna species and how species of flora and fauna are affected. The responses are summarized in Tables 11 and 12 respectively.

Table11: Whether Hunting and Gathering Affects Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Species

Mean 1.22 and Standard deviation 0.414

Source: Field data, 2022

Table 12: Ways in which Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Species are affected by Hunting and Gathering

Source: field data 2022

The result presented on Table 11 showed that 78% of respondents indicated “Yes” while 22% noted “No”.   The   distribution   of   the   response   towards   this   question   was   moderately   spread however, it was still leaning toward “Yes” (mean=1.22, standard deviation=0.414). Further, the study revealed that 73% of flora and fauna species were affected by extinction, 86% of fauna have   relocated, 95%   by   reduction   of   species   number 92%   by   Habitat   loss, and   81% fragmentation of habitat (Table 12). An interview with some key informants revealed;

Hunting and gathering has led to relocation of fauna species, reduction of flora and fauna species richness, extinction of some flora and fauna species such as nyakech (that used to walk in group of fifties), jowi, njiri, bim, abur, oseno   and yago, habitat loss, fragmentation   of the habitat, adaptation to new feeds in fauna species, decline in predators, increase of the prey and imbalance in the biomass are ways in which hunting and gathering has affected flora and fauna species (A male   hunter   at   Nyalenda   Sub   location   and   female   herbalist   at   Kamuma   Sub   Location   – December 2022).

This information confirms that terrestrial flora and fauna species are highly affected by hunting and gathering activity within the study area as indicated by the responses above, majority of the respondents noted a decline in species as a result of the uses of the species and over dependence for   instance   95%   and   73%   of   the   respondents   noted   reduction   and   extinction   of   species respectively some of the species noted to have become extinct are yago, oseno, roko, nyakech, bim, jowi njiri among others. This decline and extinction of species has led to imbalance on the ecosystem. At the same time 92% and 81% of the respondents indicated loss and fragmentation of habitat this has exposed the land to agents of erosion rendering the soil unable to support the growth of more flora due to depletion of nutrient.

These findings are justified by Mazor etal. (2018) who reported that the global diversity is highly threatened by hunting of wild animals and that 20% of species in the IUCN Red list are directly threatened   by hunting. Similarly, Ripple et al., (2015) also indicated that over 300 mammal species are threatened by hunting. In as much as these findings conforms to the present findings, however, these studies focused on how drivers of biodiversity loss can be realigned to match the predicted severity for an informed policy goals and threats of large herbivores of body mass equal to or greater than 100kg and over looked ecosystem effects respectively. The present study however did not examine how to realign drivers of biodiversity loss with the predicted severity rather concentrated how plants and animals are threatened by hunting and gathering.

Further, studies   by   Lusweti, (2011); Ariya, (2015); Justin, (2017); and Turtenwald, (2018) asserted   that   hunting   leads   to   extinction   of   species, 83%   reduction   fauna   species   and modification of habitat due to fragmentation thus barring stability and continuity of the habitat making species to be isolated thus enhancing species extinction.   In addition, Andy, Milner- Gulland, Ingram & Aidan (2019) noted that hunting in the tropics are at unprecedented rate.

Even though the outcome of the above studies conquered with the current study, these studies did not consider hunting and gathering as an anthropogenic activity threatening both flora and fauna species. For instance, Andy etal. (2019), discussed influences of hunting methods and effort on the types of animals caught, the efficiency of harvest, and the implications of these factors for sustainability.   Meanwhile, Lusweti (2011) studied   relevance, importance   and   status   of biodiversity   in   Kenya while   Ariya (2015) focused   on   establishing   the   level   of   wildlife utilization, types and sources of wildlife snaring materials in Ruma National Park. Above studies did not document on the effect of hunting and gathering on both flora and fauna species, a gap which was bridged by the present study.

The study further   established the frequency of occurrence of hunting and gathering and the results were summarized in Table 13.

Table 13: Frequency of the occurrence of Hunting and Gathering

Mean 2.08 and Standard Deviation 1.109

Source: Field data, 2022

The finding presented on Table 13 showed that 46% of respondents stated weekly occurrence, 32% recorded daily, 12% recorded monthly, 8% stated non-involvement while 2% stated yearly occurrence.   The response   was not evenly spread within   the scale but greatly leaned toward weekly and daily. This indicated that the frequency of hunting and gathering was very high (mean=2.08, standard deviation= 1.109), making the cumulative annual hunting and gathering rate in the study at 90% (Daily 32%, weekly 46%, monthly 12% totaling to 90%. This result implied that hunting and gathering activity was on an increasing trend within the study area. The implication   of these data is that the increasing   trend has caused   threat   to terrestrial   species leading to a decline and extinction to some flora and fauna, migration and loss of habitat. If the activity is not curtailed, then in the near future the region shall have lost a greater percentage of species.

These   findings   are   justified   by   Schulze, Knights   &   Coad (2018)   in   their   study   about   an assessment of threats to terrestrial in protected areas which reported that unsustainable hunting and   collection   of   terrestrial   animals   was   the   most   frequent (61%), followed   by impacts   of recreational activities (55%), fire or its suppression (49%), invasive alien species (48%), and gathering of terrestrial plants (48%). Critique of the above study revealed the study focused on assessing threats to terrestrial species in protected areas. The current study however, was carried out in an unprotected area and did not consider threats to terrestrial species rather effects of specific human activities such as hunting and gathering and vegetation clearance to terrestrial flora and fauna species conservation.   It is evident from the above analysis that hunting and gathering as an anthropogenic activity is prevalent within Rachuonyo South Sub County and this may be attributed to lack of public awareness on the importance of terrestrial species to the ecosystem and the effect of their decline to the livelihood of the community. This has posed a great threat to terrestrial flora and fauna species conservation.

CONCLUSION

The study found out that in Rachuonyo South sub county there were 80 terrestrial flora and 24 fauna species threatened and that terrestrial flora were more threatened than the terrestrial fauna. The threats to these species were found to be due to anthropogenic activities such as hunting, gathering and vegetation clearance which were highly connected to uses of species such as wood fuel, brick making, logging for lumbering, road creation and expansion and crop farming, over stocking.

Hunting and gathering as an anthropogenic activity was found to prevalent within the study area. Most   members   of   the   household   were   engaged   in   this   activity   as   was   evident   by   most respondents accepting that hunting and gathering was affecting terrestrial flora and fauna species within the study area. However, the respondents were not sure whether there were effective conservation measures in place to mitigate the effects of the mentioned anthropogenic activity.

RECOMMENDATION

There is a need to create an awareness on the importance of terrestrial species to the ecosystem services that the community is enjoying and the dangers that would be faced by the community due   to   the   destruction   of   the   species.   This   should   be   done   by   putting   in   place   adequate conservation   measures   by   relevant   governmental   and   non-governmental   authorities   and monitoring   anthropogenic   activities   by   some   local   authority   established   under   county government.

The residents of Rachuonyo South Sub County should be actively involved in the conservation of flora and fauna species, in doing this, the county government   should   take active role in sensitization programs on the environmental conservation, offering incentives to the local conservationist and even organizing general exhibitions on flora and fauna conservation at ward level.

REFERENCES

1. Actman, J. (2019). Poaching animals, explained: Illegally taking animals from the wild threatens many species with extinction. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reference/poaching-animals/
2. Akama, J. (2003). Wildlife Conservation in Tsavo. An Analysis of Problems and Policy Alternatives. East.
3. Allister S. Braat L., vanderWindt H., Rademaekers K., Eichler L. & Turner K. (2009). Study on understanding the causes of biodiversity loss and the policy assessment framework. Retrieved from ttps://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/ biodiversity/pdf/
4. Alex L., C. Foley, L. Foley D. De Luca, M. Msuha, Tim R.B. Davenport & M. Sarah. (2014).   A   Field   Guide   to   the   Larger   Mammals   of   Tanzania.   16 –   320pages. Princeton University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=PmqYDwAAQBAJ&dq=large+mammal+sp ecies+like+elephant,+eland+and+giraffe…+in+Tanzania+(ALEX+2014)&source= gbs_navlinks_s
5. Andy D., Milner-Gulland E., Ingram D & Aidan K. (2019)   A Framework for Assessing Impacts of Wild Meat Hunting Practices in the Tropics. Human Ecology (2019) 47:449–464 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-0075-6
6. Ariya, G. (2015). Wildlife Snaring by the Local Community in Ruma National Park, Kenya: Can Conservation Tourism be an Alternative Livelihood Strategy? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(2), 141-149.
7. Appiah, M. & Pappinen, A. (2010). Farm Forestry Prospects Among Some Local Communities   in Rachuonyo   District, Kenya. Small-scale   Forestry. 9, 297-316. doi:10.1007/s11842-010-9117-z.
8. AWF. (2014). State of Ivory Demand in China – African Wildlife: THREATS TO ELEPHANTS. Retrieved from https://www.awf.org/sites/default/files/media/ Resources/Facts%2520%2526amp %253B%2520Brochures/Ivory%2520Demand%2520 Report.pdf
9. AWF. (2015). making REDD+ work for Africa: Lessons Learned from pilot Forest CarbonInitiatives   in   Tanzania,   Kenya   and   Democratic   Republic   of   Congo   . African Worldlife Foundation.
10. AWF. (2017). South Africa is home to Africa’s   largest population of rhinos. African Worldlife   Foundation (AWF).   Retrieved   from https://www.awf.org/ country/south-africa
11. Ayot,   T.   O.   (1978).   South   Nyanza   Historical   Texts   Volume   I   .   UoN   Repository   .Retrieved from http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke › bitstream
12. Babatunde, R.O. & Qaim, M. (2009). The Role of Off farm Income Diversification in Rural Nigeria: driving forces and household access. Conference paper presented on 23rd 2009, at the Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE), Economics Department, Oxford. http /conferences/2009- EDIA/papers/051- Babatunde.pdf.
13. Babbie, E.   (2010). The practice of Social Research. South African Edition. Cape Town.ABC Press.
14. Babbie, E., & Mouton. (2010). The practice of Social Research. South African.
15. Barnett, R. (2000). Food for Thought-The Utilization of Meat in Eastern and Southern Africa. TRAFFIC   East/Southern Africa. Nairobi: Kenya.
16. Bennett, E., Eves, H., Robinson, J. and Wilkie, D. (2002). Why is eating bushmeat a biodiversity crisis. Conservation Practice 3: 28–29.
17. Bennie J., Davies W. T., Cruse, D., Gaston, J. K., (2016). Ecological effects of artificial light   at   night   on   wild   plants.   J.   Ecol.   104,   611–620.   doi:doi:   10.1111/1365-2745.12551
18. Bollen, k. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
19. Brinkhoff T. (2020) Homabay (County, Kenya): Population Statistics, Charts, Maps & Charts https://www.citypopulation.de/en/kenya /admin/nyanza/43_homa_bay/
20. Brown,   D.   (2003).   Is   the   best   the   enemy   of   the   good?   Livelihoods   perspectives   on bushmeat harvesting and trade– some issues and challenges. Paper   submitted to the CIFOR-Bonn Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity.
21. Camilo M. Derek P. T., Sina A., Alastair G. B S., Boris W. (2011). How many species are there on Earth and in the Ocean? . PloS Biology((8)), 9 . doi:10.1371
22. Cane H.J., Minckley L. R., KervinJ. L., Roulston H., & Williams, M.N.(2006) Complex Responses   Within   a   Desert   Bee   Guild   (Hymenoptera:   Apiformes)   to   Urban Habitat Fragmentation. Ecological applications. 16 (2), 632–644.
23. Carrington D. (2020) 40% of world’s plant species at   risk of extinction: race against time to   save   plants   and   fungi http://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2020/sep/30/world-plant-species-risk- extinction-fungi-earth
24. CBD. (2010). Linking Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation: A State of Knowledge Review. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
25. CBD. (2016). The second edition of the ‘State of Biodiversity in Africa’ assesses the progress of African countries on implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).   Retrieved   from   http://sdg.iisd.org/news/unep-eu-and-cbd-assess-african- state-of-biodiversity/
26. CBD. (2016). The second edition of the ‘State of Biodiversity in Africa’ assesses the progress of African countries on implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).   Retrieved   from   http://sdg.iisd.org/news/unep-eu-and-cbd-assess-african- state-of-biodiversity/
27. CBD. (2019). The extinction crisis Centre for Biological Diversity. Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD): Retrieved from https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodivers ity/extinction_crisis/
28. Connelly,   L.   (2013)   Demographic   datain   research   studies.,   22(24):   269.   MedSurg Nursing.
29. Cooper D. R. & Schindler P.S. (2014). Business Research Methods . McGraw-Hill. Cossham, A. & Johanson, G. (2019). The benefits and limitations of using key informants in library and information studies research. In Proceedings of RAILS – Research Applications   Information   and   Library   Studies,   2018,   Faculty   of   Information Technology, Monash University, 28-30 November 2018. Information Research, 24(3),   paper   rails1805.   Retrieved   from   http://InformationR.net/ir/24- 3/rails/rails1805.html   (Archived   by   the   Internet   Archive   at https://web.archive.org/web/20190818104043/http://informationr.net/ir/24- 3/rails/rails1805.html)
30. Cresswell ID, Murphy H. (2016). Biodiversity: Terrestrial plant and animal species: Threatened Species lists. In: Australia state of the environment 2016, . Canberra: Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy.
31. Darwall,   W.,   Smith,   K.,   &   Allen,   D.   (2011).   The   Diversity   of   Life   in   African Freshwaters:   Under   Water,   Under   Threat.   An   analysis   of   the   status   and distribution of freshwater species throughout mainland Africa. Gland. UK: Switzerland Cambridge.
32. DFID.   (2002).   Wildlife   and   poverty study.   London:   Wildlife   Advisory   Group,   Rural Livelihoods   Department,   DFID.   Department   for   International   Development (DFID).
33. Drost,   A.   E.   (2011).   Validity   and   reliability   in   social   science   research.   Education Research and Perspectives,, 38(1), 105-124.
34. Dulac, J. (2013). Global Land Transport Infrastructure Requirements – Estimating Road and   Railway   Infrastructure   Capacity   and   Costs   to   2050.   Paris:   International Energy Agency.
35. Effects   of   overpopulation   (2013)   Wildlife   and   habitat   Destruction,   Rep.   negative Population Growth. Retrieved from http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/ ENVS2/max/essay4.html
36. Eldredge, N. (2000). Life in the Balance. Princeton JN: Princeton University Press.
37. Ewing R. J. & Kostyack. (2016). Endangered by Sprawl: How Runaway Development Threatens America’s Wildlife. Rep. National Wildlife Federation . Retrieved from http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/ENVS2/max/essay4.html
38. FAO. (2015). Illegal hunting and the bush-meat trade in Savanna Africa: drivers :Impacts and solutions to address the problem. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 79.   FAO   Subregional   Office   for   Southern   Africa   Agrovoc.   Retrieved   from https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/7312/illegal-hunting-and-bushmeat- savannah-africa.pdf
39. FAO. (2018). Legislation on Wildlife, Hunting and Protected   Areas in Some European Countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO). Retrieved from http://encyclopedia.uia
40. FAO. (2019). The Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations (FAO): The State of the World’s   Biodiversity   for   Food andAgriculture,   J. Bélanger   & D. Pilling (eds.). FAO Commission onGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments. Rome.572 . Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN
41. FAO. (2021). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): https://www.fao.org/agriculture/ crops/thematic- sitemap/ theme/biodiversity/en/
42. Furman. (2003). African Biodiversity and Conservation ; Earth 105, Environment of Africa. Retrieved from http://www.geosc.psu.edu/people/ faculty/personalpages/tfurman/ index.html
43. Furman, T. & Guertin, L. . (2021). African Biodiversity And Conservation: lesson from ‘ OER Initiative . Retrieved from e- education Institute of Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: https://courseware.e- education.psu.edu/courses/earth105new/content/l
44. Giincralp, B.   (2013). Futures of global urban expansion: uncertainties and implications for biodiversity conservation. Environmental Researchers Letters, 8(1), 1-10.
45. Gilbert, C. (2019). Tighten laws on bushmeat trade   to save wildlife species. Retrieved from https://www.the-star.co.ke/opinion/star-blogs/2019-07-11-tighten-laws-on- bushmeat-trade-to-save-wildlife-species/
46. Gliem, J. & Gliem, R. (2003), Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/ 1805/344/Gliem%20%26%20Gli em.pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y
47. GOK.   (2013).   Homabay   County   Draft   Strategic   Plan.   Government of Kenya (GOK). Homabay county Government.
48. GOK. (2018). SECOND COUNTY   INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2018- 2022 (DRAFT). Retrieved   from   HOMABAY   COUNTY   GOVERNMENT   (CIPD): file:///D:/BOOKS/HomaBay%20 County%20Integrated%20Development%20plan %202018-2022%20(4).pdf
49. Hardman,   S.   (2011).   How   does   urbanization   affect   biodiversity?   Retrieved   from https://ecologicablog.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/how-does-urbanization-affect- biodiversity-part-one/
50. Heale,   R.,   &   Twycross,   A.   (2015).   Validity   and   Reliability   in   Quantitative   Studies. Evidence Based Nurs, 18(4), 66-67.
51. Holdaway, R. N. and Jacomb, C. (2000). Rapid extinction of the moas (Aves: Dinornithiformes): model, test and implications. Science 28: 2250–2254.
52. IPBES. (2019). Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’;   Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating.   The International   Science-   Policy   Platform on Biodiversity   and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) .
53. IPBES (2019a): Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
54. IUCN. (2014). International Union for Conservation of Nature. Table 8: Toatal endemic and threatened endemic species in each country(total by taxonomic group). International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Retrieved from http://cmsdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/summarystats/2014_2_ summary_ Stats page_Documents/2014_RL Stats_Table8.pdf
55. IUCN.   (2009).   Red List of threatened   species.   Switzerland.:   International   Union   for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
56. IUCN. (2012). The red list of threatened species. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/
57. IUCN. (2019). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2. International Union for Conservation of nature (IUCN). Retrieved from https://www.iucnredlist.org
58. James, T. (2017). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and environmental and social   management   plan   for the   rehabilitation   andimprovement   of facilities   at oyugis law courts in oyugis, homabay county.
59. Jimoh, S., Ikyaagba E., Alarape A., Adeyemi A., & Waltert M. (2012). Local depletion of two   larger   duikers   in   the   Oban   hills   region,   Nigeria.   Afr. J.   Ecol,   50,   1-7. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1365-2028.2011.01285.x
60. Justin. (2017). Endangered   species how much hunting   reduces   animal   populations;   .Retrieved from https://time.com/4736526/hunting-reduces-animal-populations
61. Kirby, D. (2012). Hunting Threatens Hundreds of Animals With Extinction;. Retrieved from http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/10/19/reporthunting-threatens- hundreds-animals-extinction
62. Klein, K., Beusen, A., & Janshen, P. (2010). Long Term Dynamic Modelling of Global Population   and   Built   up   area   in   a   spartially   explicit   way.   Environmental Assessment Agency, 3(1).
63. KNBS.   (2019).   Volume   II   Distribution   of   Population   by Administrative   Units   2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census: . Kenya National   Bureau   of Statistics (KNBS), Volume II. Retrieved from http://housingfinanceafrica.org/app/uploads/VOLUME-II-KPHC-2019.pdf
64. Kothari, C. (2015). Research Methodology: Methods and techniques 2nd Revised Edition. New Delhi,: New Age International (P) Limited Publishers.
65. Krosnick J. A & Stanley. (2009). Question and Questionnaire Design. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/dept/ communication/faculty/krosnick/ docs/2009/2009_h andbook_krosnick.pdf
66. Lauren C., Jasmin W., Maisels F., Funk S.,   Doughty H., Julia E.,   Gomez J., Ingram J., Yuhan L., Lola N., Paemelaere E., Sartoretto E., Vliet N.,&   Nasi R. (2021). Impacts of Taking, Trade and Consumption of Terrestrial Migratory Species for Wild Meat https://www.unep.org/resources/report/impacts-taking-trade-and- consumption-terrestrial-migratory-species-wild-meat.
67. Lindsey, P., Romañach, S., Tambling, C., & Chartier K. (2011). Ecological and financial impacts   of   illegal   bushmeat   trade   in   Zimbabwe.   .   Oryx, 45(1),   96–111.   doi: 10.1017/S0030605310000153)
68. Loreau M. &   Andrew H. (2007). Large-Scale Biodiversity Experiments. In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Vols.   5-   volume).   New   Jersey,   USA:   Princeton   Uni   versity, Princet on.
69. Luck, G.W. & Smallbone L.T. (2010). Species diversity in urban landscapes: patterns, drivers   and   implications.   In   Urban   Ecology,   K.   Gaston   (Ed),   pp   88-119. Cambridge University Press & British Ecological Society.
70. Lusweti, A. (2011). Biodiversity Conservation in Kenya.
71. Madhuri T. & Dheerji V. (2022) Formular to determine sample size of a population. Statistics guide https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/sample-size-formula/
72. Maisels.   (2013).   Devastating   decline   of   forest   elephants   in   Central   Africa. journal.pone.0059469. doi:10.1371
73. Masumi   S.G. (2020)   Kenya   National   Biodiversity   Threat   Assessment:   Direct   Human Threats Impacting Kenya’s Biodiversity. BIODEV 2030 file:///D:/ETHICS%20WORK/IPBES%20%20SPECIES%20EXTINCT.pdf
74. Mazor T., Doropoulos C., Schwarzmueller F., Gladish D. W., Kumaran N., Merkel K., Di Marco M., & Gagic V. (2018). Global mismatch of policy and research on drivers of biodiversity loss. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018- 0563-x
75. McCombes, S. (2019). Descriptive research. Retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/
76. McDonald,   R.I,   Marcotullio   &   Giineralp,   B.   (2013).   Urbanization   and   trends   in biodiversity and ecosystem services. In Urbanization, biodiversity, and ecosystem services:Challenges and opportunities.
77. Milner-Gulland, E. J., Bennett, E. L. and the SCB (2002). Annual Meeting Wild Meat Group (2003). Wild meat –the bigger picture. Trends Ecology Evolution 18: 351– 357.
78. Minteer   B.   A.   &   Collins   J.   P.   (2012).   Species   Conservation,   Rapid   Environmental Change, and Ecological Ethics. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10), 14.
79. Montoya,   D. (2008). Habitat loss, dispersal,   and the probability of extinction of tree species . Commun Integr Biol, 1(2), 146-147. doi:10.4161/cib.1.2.6998
80. Mongabay. (2016). How many plant species are there in the world? Scientists now have an answer. Retrieved from https://news.mongabay.com/ 2016/05/many-plants- world-scientists-may-now-answer
81. Morgan, G. (2001). Landscape health in Australia. A rapid assessment of   the   relative condition of Australia’s bioregions and subregions. Canberra, ACT: Environment Australia and National Land and Water Resources Audit
82. Muluneh, M. G. (2021). Impact of climate change on biodiversity and food security: a global perspective. Wollo University. doi: 10.1186/s40066-021-00318-5 :
83. Mungai, N. (2004). Thriving Bush Meat Trade Threatens to Deplete Kenya’s Tourism Resource. Nation Centre. Nairobi: Kenya.
84. Mugenda   &   Mugenda   (2003).   Research   Methods.   In   Quantitative   &   Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi, Kenya.: Acts press.
85. Mutavi,   I. N., & Long’ora,   A. E. (2010).   Assessment   of the Effect   of Antropogenic Activities on Terrestrial. EAS Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1(3).
86. Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., Van Tol, G., and Christophersen, T. (2008). Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: The bushmeat crisis. Secretariat   of the convention on biological   diversity,   Montreal   and Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor Technical Series 50
87. Native.   (2015).   Native   Vegetation   and   Biodiversity   Management:   clearing   Native Vegetation   to   establish   a   house   and/or   associated   structures   under   regulation 5(1)(a). Retrieved from https://www.environment.sa.gov.au
88. NECC (2018). Illegal Logging and Charcoal   burning. National Environment Complaints Committee (NECC). Retrieved from http://www.necc.go.ke/ 2018/11/12/illegal- logging-charcoal-burning/
89. Neldner V.J., Laidlaw M. J, McDonald K. R,   Mathieson M. T., Melzer R.I, Seaton R, McDonald Hobson W. F, & Limpus C. J. (2017). Scientific review of the impacts of land clearing on threatened species in Queensland. Queensland Government, Brisbane.
90. Neldner, V.J., Niehus, R.E., Wilson, B.A., McDonald, W.J.F., Ford, A.J. & Accad, A. (2017). The Vegetation of Queensland. Descriptions of Broad Vegetation Groups. Version 3.0. Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane. Retrieved   from publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/redd/resource/78209e 74-c7f2-4589-90c1- c33188359086
91. Marshall, M. N. (1996). The key informant technique. Family Practice, 13(1), 92–97.
92. NEMA. (2009). National   Environmental Research   Agenda for 2008- 2030. . Nairobi: National   Environment   Management   Authority   (NEMA)   and   Government   of Kenya.
93. NEMA. (2019). State of Environment Report 2019-2021: Environment and Natural Resource   Governance.   National   Enviroment   Management   Authority (NEMA). Retrieved from https://www.nema.go.ke/images/Docs/EIA_1840-1849/Kenya%20State%20of%20Environment%20Report%202019- 2021%20 final-min.pdf
94. Nguon P. & Kulakowski. (2013). Natural Forest Disturbances and the Design of REDD+ Innitiatives,. Environ- Sic. Policy, 33, 332-345. Retrieved from [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
95. Nielsen, M.   R.,   Meilby, H.,   Smith-Hall, C.,   Pouliot,   M.,   &   Treue,   T.   (2018).   The Importance   of   Wild   Meat   in   the   Global   South.   Ecological   Economics, 146(December 2017), 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.018
96. Oates, J. F., Abedi-Lartey, M., McGraw, W. S., Struhsaker, T. T. and Whitesides, G. H. (2000). Extinction of a West African colobus monkey.Conservation Biology 14: 1526–1532.
97. Odetta, M. (2014). Human Impacts On Biodiversity. Retrieved from https://www.slideserve.com/odetta/3-3-human-impacts-on-biodiversity
98. Ogutu.   (2016).   Extreme   Wildlife   Declines   and   Concurrent   Increase   in   Livestock Numbers in Kenya: What Are the Causes? Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163249
99. Ogutu. J., Piepho. H., Said. H., Ojwang. G., Njino. L., Kifugo. C., & Wargute, W. (2016). Extreme   Wildlife   Declines   and   ConcurrentIncrease   in   Livestock   Numbers   in Kenya:What Are the Causes?
100. Olson, S. L. and James, H. F. (1982). Fossil birds from the Hawaiian Islands: evidence for wholesale extinction by man before western contact. Science 217: 633–635.
101. Oluwatayo, J. (2012). Validity and reliability issues in educational research. Journal   of Educational and Social Research, 2, 391-400.
102. Pejchar, L., & Mooney, H. A. (2009). Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 497–504. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.
103. Peres, C. A. (2000a). Effects of subsistence hunting on vertebrate community structure in Amazonian forests. Conservation Biology 14: 240– 253.
104. Peres, C. A. (2000b). Evaluating the impact and sustainability of subsistence hunting at multiple Amazonian forest sites. In Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests: 31–56.
105. Plumer, B. (2019, 05 06). Humans Are Speeding Extinction and   Altering the Natural World   at   an ‘Unprecedented’   Pace.   Retrieved   from   The   New   York   Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-extinction-united- nations.html
106. Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2017). Reason & Rigor: How Conceptual   Framework Guide research (2nd ed.). SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA.
107. Rinkesh.   (2019).   Causes   effect   and   solution   of   Overhunting.   Retrieved   from https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions- overhunting.php Conserve Energy Future trafficking-assessment/
108. Redford, K.   (1995).   Human   influence   on   biodiversity.   In   e.   V.H.   Hewood   (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
109. Reside, A.E., VanDerWal, J., and Kutt, A.S. (2012). Projected changes in distributions of Australian tropical savanna birds under climate change using three dispersal scenarios. Ecology and Evolution 2:705-718.
110. Ripple W. J., Newsome, T. M., Wolf, C., Dirzo, R., Everatt, K. T., Galetti, M., Hayward, M. W., Kerley, G. I. H., Levi, T., Lindsey, P. A., Macdonald, D. W., Malhi, Y., Painter, L.   E.,   Sandom, C.   J.,   Terborgh, J.,   &   Van   Valkenburgh,  B.   (2015). Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Science Advances, 1(4), e1400103. https:// doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400103
111. Ripple, W. J. (2016). Saving the world’s terrestrial megafauna. BioScience pbiw092. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw092
112. Robson, C. (2011).   Real   World   Research:   A Resource   for Users   of Social   Research Methods in Applied Settings, (2nd Ed.). Sussex, A. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
113. Rockstrom   J.,   Steffen, W.,   K   Person   A.,   Chappin   S.,   &   Lambin   E.   (2009).   A   safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461 (7263), 472-475.
114. Rossi, A.   (2018).   Uganda   Wildlife Trafficking   Assessment. TRAFFIC   International. United   Kingdom:   Cambridge.   Retrieved   from https://www.traffic.org/publications/reports/uganda-wildlife-trafficking- assessment/
115. Rovai, A.,   Baker, J.   and   Ponton, M.   (2014).   Social   science   research   design   and statistics:A practioner’s   guide   to   research   methods   and   IBM   SPSS   analysis.   (1st   ed.) Chesapeake, VA. Watertree Press LLC.
116. Sangeda Z., & Maleko D. (2018). Regeneration Effectiveness Post Tree Harvesting in Natural Miombo Woodlands, Tanzania.
117. Schulte-Herbrüggen   B.,   Marcus   J.,   Katherine   H.,   Laura   A.   Charlotte   W.   & Guy   C. (2013). Wildlife Depletion in a West African Farm-Forest Mosaic and the Implications   for Hunting across   the Landscape.   Hum Ecol, 41:795–806   DOI 10.1007/s10745-013-9609-5
118. Schulze K., Knights K., Coad L. (2018). An assessment of threats to terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 2018; e12435. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12435
119. Sean M.   Watson J.; & Fuller R. (2016). Hunting, Fishing and farming remain the biggest threats to wildlife (conversation).
120. Steadman, D. W. & Stokes, A. V. (2002). Changing exploitation of terrestrial vertebrates during the past 3000 years on Tobago,West Indies . Human Ecology, 30, 339– 367.
121. Stein, B.A., J.S. Adams and L.S. Kutner. (2000). The Status of Biodiversity in the United States.   New   York:   Oxford   University   Press.   Retrieved   from https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Threats-to- Wildlife/Habitat-Loss
122. Stephenson, P.J., Bakarr, M., Bowles-Newark, N., Kleinschroth, F., Mapendembe, A., Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., Obura, D., Ratsi-fandrihamana, N., Simaika, J., Sitati, N., et al.   (2021)   Conservation   science   in   Africa:   Mainstreaming   biodiversity information   into   decision-making.   In   Closing   the   Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation Science; Wildlife Research Monograph Number, 4; Ferreira, C.C., Klütsch, C.F.C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 287–321.
123. Stephenson, P.J.; Londoño-Murcia, M.C.; Borges, P.A.V.; Claassens, L.; Frisch- Nwakanma, H.; Ling, N.; McMullan-Fisher, S.; Meeuwig, J.J.; Unter, K.M.M.; Walls, J.L.; et al. (2022). Measuring the Impact of Conservation: The Growing Importance of Monitoring Fauna, Flora and Funga. Diversity 2022, 14, 824. https://doi.org/10.3390/ d14100824
124. Kenya Energy Situation (2018). Sustainable Energy in Humanitarian Settings. Webinar Series. Retrieved from https://energypedia.inf/ wiki/kenya _Bioenergy_in_Kenya-3
125. Taylor, G. (2012). A systematic review of the bushmeat trade in West and Central Africa. MSc thesis,UK: University of Oxford, Oxford,. Retrieved from Google Scholar
126. Taylor, M. F. J., Eber, S. C. & Toni, P. (2014). Changing land use to save Australian wildlife.   Sydney, NSW: World Wildlife Fund Australia.
127. Travis, J.M.J., Delgado, M., Bocedi, G., Baguette, M., Bartoń, K., Bonte, D., Boulangeat, I., Hodgson, J.A., Kubisch, A., Penteriani, V., Saastamoinen, M., Stevens, V.M. and Bullock, J.M. (2013). Dispersal and species’ responses to climate change. Oikos 122: 1532-1540.
128. Turku, U.   (2020).   New   species   described   in   2020.   Retrieved   from   scienceDaily: www.sciencedaily.com/release/2020/07/200701100030.htm
129. Turtenwald, K. (2018). How does hunting affect the Environment? Retrieved from https:/sciencing.com/hunting-affects-environment-11369486.html
130. UN.   (2015)   World Urbanisation   Prospects:   The 2014   Revision. New York, NY:   UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. United Nations (UN)
131. UNEP. (2010). State of Biodiversity in Africa. United Nation Environment Program (UNEP). Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/ 119/State%20of%20biodiversity% 20in%20Afri ca
132. UNEP. (2017). Why gender is important for biodiversity conservation. Retrieved from https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/why-gender-important-biodiversity- conservation
133. UNEP.   (2019a) 1 million species of plants and animals at risk of extinction, U.N. report warns. United Nation Environment Program (UNEP)
134. UNEP. (2014). Report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme” on its eleventh special session A/C.2/65/L.43. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
135. UNEP. (2019b). Nature’s Dangerous   Decline Unprecedented   Species Extinction Rates Accelerating. United Nation Environment Programme, (UNEP). Retrieved from https://www.unenvironment.org
136. UNEP/GRID-Arendal. (2002). Africa Environmental Outlook: Past, Present and Future Perspectives. Arendal, Norway: UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/aeo/index.htm.
137. UNESCO, (2015).   Education   increases   awareness   and   concern   for   the   environment. United   Nations   Educational   and   Cultural   Organization (UNESCO).   Retrieved from https://world-education-blog.org/2015/12/08/education-increases-awareness- and-concern-for-the-environment/
138. Vilà; M., Espinar, J. L., Hejda, M., Hulme, P. E., Jarošík, V., Maron, J. L., Pyšek, P. (2011).   Ecological   impacts   of   invasive   alien   plants   A   meta-analysis   of   their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecology Letters,14, 702–708. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01628.x
139. WB. (2013). World Databank: Health, Nutrition and Population statistics. World Bank (WB). Retrieved from https://databank.worldbank.org/ data/viewsource=health- nutrition-and-population-statistics
140. WB. (2019). Annual Meetings 2019: Development Committee: This is what is all about: Protecting Biodiversity in Africa. World Bank (WB).
141. WWF. (2019). Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145–148. World Wide Fund   for   Nature   (WWF)   Retrieved   from http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
142. WWF, (2014).   Living   Planet   Report   2014; Species   and   spaces, people   and   places, Glands. Switzerland.   World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
143. WWF. (2020). Losing their homes because of the growing needs of humans. worldwide fund for nature. Retrieved from https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/wildlife_practice/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/
144. World Resources Institute. (2003). EarthTrends:   The Environmental Information Portal.Retrieved from http://earthtrends.wri.org.
145. Wuensch, L. K. (2012). A brief   introduction   to   Reliability, Validity   and   Scaling. Retrieved   from   http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/ MV/FA/reliability -Validity- Scaling docx