Date: Final Report: Grant Program: Year Funded: Amount Awarded: Project Title: Project Location: PI: Organization: Address:

Transcription

1 Date: December 25 th 2013 Final Report: Kasiisi Project Report: 2013 Grant Program: General Conservation Fund Year Funded: 2013 Amount Awarded: $3500 Project Title: Kibale Forest Schools Conservation Education Project Project Location: Kibale National Park, Uganda PI: Elizabeth Ross Organization: The Kasiisi Project Address: 64 Linnaean St, Cambridge, MA Phone: Website:

2 Summary This project was designed to help children from 7 primary schools bordering Kibale National Park, Uganda learn about the importance of the forest to a healthy environment, by monitoring water quality in local ponds, streams and lakes. The project was divided into 3 stages within one academic year February December. In the first stage completed between February and October Grade 4 children from each school used standard testing techniques to measure the quality of the water in wet and dry seasons, in at up to 3 water sources close to their schools. In the second stage, in October 2013, Kasiisi Project Staff returned to the schools to o Share the results that the children obtained o Discuss the reasons for the results they got and any implications for the environment. In stage 3 in November 2013 water samples were brought to the classroom. The students from each school were divided into groups of between 3 and 8 and each group was assigned one of the original, now experienced 25 children.. These students instructed their classmates how to test water quality and discussed the factors that impact it. The 543 students in this study were 50% male and 50 % female. The girls being slightly younger on average, (12) years than the boys (13 years). What were the major goals and objectives of the project? Were these accomplished? Goals and Objectives 1) To demonstrate the impact of deforestation and traditional and industrial agriculture on the quality of stream, pond and drinking water. Objectives To map, collect and analyze water samples from agricultural streams To map, collect and analyze water samples from forest streams To map, collect and analyze water samples from tea planation streams To map, collect and analyze water samples from drinking water sources 1. Kasiisi Project staff held meetings with the science teachers of 7 forest edge schools to plan the project.. 2. Kasiisi Project staff visited each school and talked to students about the threats to preserving clean water sources and taught 25 students from each school simple ways to measure water quality. 3. Each of the 7 schools sent these 25 children (targeted students) into the field to complete on site measurements (temperature, depth, and flow) of a variety of water sources; agricultural ponds and streams, tea planation streams and drinking sources. Samples of water were also measured for turbidity, ph, the number and variety of micro invertebrates collected and pathogen load. Each school collected water from 2-3 different sites in the dry season (June- September) and the wet seasons (March May) and (October November) 2) To assist the children in analyzing the information they have collected and to use this information to design ways to protect their environment. Within each group children were assigned different roles - record keeper, photographer, sample collector etc. Results of the test were taken back to the classroom, graphed and discussed. The children then talked

3 about how what they had learned could inform how they might protect their environment. Despite the challenges of obtaining reasonably accurate results and the multiple factors impacting them e.g. turbidity might increase in the wet season because of increased soil erosion or decrease because of dilution, each school was able to obtain data on at least one point that was used to discuss the factors that impact water quality and why it is important. Setting up pathogen load tests Measuring turbidity Checking the temperature Identifying macro- invertebrates Instruction from KFSP teacher Kasiisi Primary School: Water samples at the Kasiisi Well were more turbid during the wet season than the dry season caused by agricultural run off. (Figure 1) Increasing turbidity was accompanied by a decline in the number of macro- invertebrates collected (Figure 2) suggesting that turbid water may not healthy for these animals Dry Season Wet Season 0 Dry Season Wet Season Figure 1: Mean turbidity reading at Kasiisi Well Figure 2: Mean number of macro in wet and dry seasons (lower reading=more turbid) invertebrates in wet and dry seasons.

4 Kasiisi Well Rweteera Primary School: At Rweteera Primary School students went to 2 different water sources, Kidabule a site in the middle of a banana plantation with a lot of erosion where water and Kaitanjojo a source close to the road during the wet season. The results show that at Kidabule the water was shallower, warmer and more turbid Depth Temperature Turbidity Figure 3: Mean depth, temperature and turbidity at Kidabule (blue) and Kaitanjojo (red) streams. Kaitanjojo Kidabule

5 Discussion points included: Why did they get these results What might be exacerbating this effect, Why is it bad for the fish and What can be done to help? 3) To help them share their results and conclusions with their schools, parents and communities and also with government organizations and the global conservation community. Objectives 1. Water sources will be located on digital and paper maps. 2. Problems and solutions will be illustrated using artwork and essays. 3. All posters, maps etc. will be displayed at an open day where students will display their work to parents, peers and the community. GPS points were collected for each water source and are in the process of being digitally mapped. The interactive map will be available in early Children made posters and held school open days to demonstrate what they had learned to their parents and the other children in the schools. What impact will your findings and/or accomplishments have on the species/habitat/community? Remains of fire for preparing the local distilled spirit at Rwigo river. Cows drinking in the Rwigo river

6 Cattle and erosion in the heavily deforested Rwigo river valley, which is the sole source of water for hundreds of people Evaluations The children in our study had learned in class about water and the factors that contribute to its purity. We knew from Part 1 of this project that this kind of hands- on project could teach them similar facts but in a way that was more meaningful and that would have a greater impact. From evaluations we knew that as a result they were significantly more aware of the factors that could affect water quality. In this second round we wanted to confirm the impact of the project and to see if its effect extended beyond the 175 students who were directly involved in the field trips to their peers in the classroom. We measured their knowledge and their understanding of what might be the important factors impacting water quality in 3 ways. 1. By having the children answer 4 True/False questions about factors impacting water quality 2. By having the children draw pictures of the water sources. We scored presence and absence of plants (trees, grass, papyrus etc.), animals, agriculture (maize, cows, banana trees etc.) and markers of human activity (roads, houses, bridges, people etc.) in each picture. 3. Asking them to list 3 things that make water quality poor and 3 ways that they could protect their water sources. All evaluations were carried out a) Before and after the intervention b) On the 175 children who participated in the field project (targeted students). c) On 368 of their classmates

7 Results Students who participated in the water project fieldwork, were significantly better informed about factors impacting water quality after the intervention than before. 1. True False Knowledge Questions When asked to answer a series of question about water quality the targeted students scored significantly higher after the project than before Graph showing results of true/false questions pre and post- intervention p<000.1 Figure 4: Graph showing mean scores for true/false questions for all targeted students pre and post intervention (paired results within individuals) Drawings The results in the table below show a significantly better understanding of the complexity of environmental factors impacting water quality in targeted students after the intervention confirming data collected during round 1 of the Water Project in Results are paired within individuals. The only change was in 2013 there was no significant difference in human impacts (houses, vehicles, people washing etc.) post intervention than before. Category Pre Pre- Project Mean Score Post Post- Project Mean Score P value Mann Whitney U 2- tailed test Year Plants < < Animals =0.002 < Invertebrates < < Agriculture < Human < NS

8 Factors impacting water quality When asked before the project to list 3 things that negatively impacted water quality and 3 ways they could improve it, the majority of students said that trees, leaves, fish, frogs, snakes, insects etc. made water dirty (Figure 2) and listed cleaning up (removing leaves, sweeping etc.) as the best way to improve water quality (Figure 3). Post intervention they gave much more weight to the impact of environmental degradation (erosion, deforestation, etc.), 52% vs. 30% and the impact of people (animals, sewage, poor farming practices, washing etc.) 27% vs. 16%. This change was reflected in a much lower concern with cleaning up (brushing and weeding) as a way to produce clean water 32% vs. 75% and a much greater emphasis on reducing environmental degradation (e.g. planting trees), 52% vs 8% and lowering the impact of people 12% vs. 8% List 3 things that negatively impact water quality - pre (blue) and post (red) intervention % of responses Plant debris and aquatic animals/ bacteria Environmental Degradation Direct Impact of People Figure 5 showing the % of responses pre (blue) and post (red) intervention given by targeted students when asked to list 3 things that negatively impacted water quality.

9 % of responses Clean Up and maintenance List 3 ways to protect water quality- pre (blue) and post (red) intervention Environmental Degradtion Miitgation Direct impact of people Figure 6: showing the % of responses pre (blue) and post (red) intervention given by targeted students when asked to list 3 ways they could protect water quality. Comparison between students participating in the project and their peers A challenge for all our conservation projects is the size of the classes we are working with (over 120 per teacher) and how we can design programs that reach as many children as possible with very limited resources. In 2012 we had had anecdotal success using our targeted students to teach their peers, thus reaching many more children. In 2013 we repeated this strategy. We brought water into the classroom as the last phase of the project and had the experienced students teach their peers how to do water quality measurements. We found that when we evaluated the drawings of inexperienced children there was no significant difference in the vegetation and human activity scores from those of targeted students. They scored a just significantly (p=0.05) lower presence of wild animals due to the fact their score for invertebrates was significantly lower. (Mean = 0.47 vs for targeted students (p=0.0006) ) Comparison between post intervention drawing scores of targeted students (green) and their peers (orange) ** p= Vegetation Animals Human activity Targeted Students Peer students Figure 7: Post evaluation drawing scores between targeted students (green) and peer students (orange)

10 Conclusion The results showed overwhelmingly that this project has a profound and significant impact on children s knowledge and understanding of the features that affect the quality of their water, and ways that these effects can be mitigated. Their knowledge improved significantly and for a second year their drawings were far more detailed and accurate and reflected the wide range of objects that have the potential to affect water quality (cows, people defecating, vegetation, agriculture, washing vehicles etc.). When asked what factors negatively impact water sources and what can be done to protect it, their post intervention results showed a greater understanding of the affect of environmental degradation as opposed to leaves in the water or sweeping around the well. We confirmed that trained students could effectively teach their peers most of the information they had learned. The only exception to this was that the presence of invertebrates was significantly lower in inexperienced students than their targeted peers. Some information about the importance of macro- invertebrates as a measure of water quality was passed on because even untrained students scored significantly higher in post evaluations but as it was not possible to bring these animals into the classroom the fact that they did not see them likely meant that they gave them less importance. Teacher evaluations and Feed back Kigarama (Magezi Godfrey) The project never interfered school activities because it was done during the co-curricular activities. The pupils learned a lot from the project and it was exciting and fun. Pere-Atchte (Ategeka) It was my first time to head such a scientific project at my school and an amazing opportunity for my learners to use equipment in their learning experience. It helped learners reduce to fatigue of classroom learning. Special thanks go to KFSP. Iruhuura (Saad) Thank you so much The Kasiisi project/kfsp for remembering us by including Iruhuura primary school into this wonderful project. It has given me an opportunity to teach my learners through hands on activity. Learners were able to identify some of the bad practices that impact water quality like growing crops near water sources, distilling from rivers, sharing water sources with domestic animals, playing, defecating among other practices. Kasiisi (Patrick) The kids loved outdoor activities. The content complimented the science syllabus. The project never interfered with the school s timetable

11 Teacher Evaluations % of Teachers Teacher Evaluations Figure 8: Graph showing teacher feed back to the project Teacher requests % of teachers Continue Program Expand to more classes Provide permanent equipment More time for parents Figure 9: Graph of teacher request to improve the project Also note any collaboration created as a result of the project The Kibale Fish Project continued to partner with us to improve and sustain this project. We are exploring collaboration with other US schools.

12 Did/will your findings and or accomplishments influence existing conservation/research priorities or policy? We work with young children so the impact of our programs are likely to be long term, but we are sharing our results with local education and wildlife authorities to ensure that we have an influence on their priorities and policies. What are the long- term implications of the project? What is the next step? In this second year of the project we showed that this was a predictably successful way to teach young children about water and the environmental challenges to maintaining its quality. They took on board the importance of trees and vegetation in protecting water sources from pollution and run off. They loved the program and learned a lot, the teachers were enthusiastic and we were able to show that when experienced students taught their peers we could successfully extend the reach of the project to reach over 350 additional children For 5 of the 7 schools this was their second round of the project albeit with a different group of children. The next step is to repeat the project for a third year, adding more new schools while at the same time providing experienced schools with significantly less help from the Kibale Forest Schools Program. At the end of the third year it is anticipated that the most experienced schools will be able to run their own programs unaided other than by occasional consultation with KFSP staff, and some help with provision of equipment, and that their trained teachers will be the resource we will use to expand the program into many additional schools in their area. We already have a similar situation in a clean burning stove project we are involved in with where the students from one very active school are being invited to neighboring schools to share their program with peers. We will then have an expanding sustainable population of trained teachers reaching hundreds of children with a program that successfully impacts their knowledge of and attitude to the importance of conserving their environment. Potentially the program could develop momentum exponentially reaching schools all around the park