Contributed Paper Protected Areas as Frontiers for Human Migration ZINTA ZOMMERS ∗ AND DAVID W. MACDONALD Department of Zoology, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Tubney, OX13 5QL, United Kingdom Abstract: Causes of human population growth near protected areas have been much debated. We conducted 821 interviews in 16 villages around Budongo Forest Reserve, Masindi district, Uganda, to explore the causes of human migration to protected areas and to identify differences in forest use between migrant and nonmigrant communities. We asked subjects for information about birthplace, migration, household assets, household activities, and forest use. Interview subjects were categorized as nonmigrants (born in one of the interview villages), socioeconomic migrants (chose to emigrate for economic or social reasons) from within Masindi district (i.e., local migrants) and from outside the Masindi district (i.e., regional migrants), or forced migrants (i.e., refugees or internally displaced individuals who emigrated as a result of conflict, human rights abuses, or natural disaster). Only 198 respondents were born in interview villages, indicating high rates of migration between 1998 and 2008. Migrants were drawn to Budongo Forest because they thought land was available (268 individuals) or had family in the area (161 individuals). A greater number of regional migrants settled in villages near Lake Albert than did forced and local migrants. Migration category was also associated with differences in sources of livelihood. Of forced migrants 40.5% earned wages through labor, whereas 25.5% of local and 14.5% of regional migrants engaged in wage labor. Migrant groups appeared to have different effects on the environment. Of respondents that hunted, 72.7% were regional migrants. Principal component analyses indicated households of regional migrants were more likely to be associated with deforestation. Our results revealed gaps in current models of human population growth around protected areas. By highlighting the importance of social networks and livelihood choices, our results contribute to a more nuanced understanding of causes of migration and of the environmental effects of different migrant groups. Keywords: Africa, livelihoods, population growth, refugees, resource use, Uganda ´ Areas Protegidas como Fronteras para la Migraci´ on Humana Resumen: Las causas del crecimiento de poblaciones humanas cerca de ´ areas protegidas han sido muy debatidas. Realizamos 821 entrevistas en 16 aldeas alrededor de la Reserva Forestal Budongo, Distrito de Masindi, Uganda, para explorar las causas de la migraci´ on humana hacia ´ areas protegidas y para identificar diferencias en el uso del bosque entre comunidades de migrantes y no migrantes. Recabamos informaci´ on sobre el lugar de nacimiento, migraci´ on, bienes familiares, actividades familiares y uso del bosque. Los individuos entrevistados fueron clasificados como no migrantes (nacidos en alguna de las aldeas en las que se hicieron entrevistas), migrantes socioecon´ omicos (migraron por razones econ´ omicas o sociales) del interior del distrito Masindi (i. e., migrantes locales) y de afuera del distrito Masindi (i. e., migrantes regionales) o migrantes forzados (i.e., individuos refugiados o desplazados que migraron debido a conflictos, abusos de derechos humanos o desastres naturales). Solo 198 entrevistados nacieron en aldeas en las que se hicieron entrevistas, lo que indica altas tasas de migraci´ on entre 1998 y 2008. Los migrantes fueron atra´ ıdos al Bosque Budongo porque pensaron que hab´ ıa tierras disponibles (268 individuos) o ten´ ıan familia en el ´ area (161 individuos). El n´ umero de migrantes regionales que se estableci´ o en aldeas cercanas al Lago Albert fue mayor que el de migrantes forzados y locales. La categor´ ıa de migraci´ on tambi´en se asoci´ o con diferencias en formas de vida. El 40.5% de los migrantes forzados obten´ ıa salario mediante labores, mientras que 25.5% ∗ email zinta.zommers@lmh.ox.ac.uk Paper submitted February 14, 2011; revised manuscript accepted November 25, 2011. 547 Conservation Biology, Volume 26, No. 3, 547–556 C 2012 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01846.x