Belonging, Indigeneity, Land and Nature in Southern Africa under Neoliberal Capitalism: An Overview

Koot, Stasja; Hitchcock, Robert K.; Gressier, Catie

doi:10.1080/03057070.2019.1610243

Cited by 29 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is ongoing debate around the benefits, values, and morality of a neoliberal economic approach to wildlife management and CBNRM approaches in Africa (Koot, Hitchcock, & Gressier, 2019; Muradian et al, 2013; Neuteleers & Engelen, 2015; Virtanen, 2003; Wunder, 2013). Our study has shown that relative to Zambians in the south western corner of Zambia, Namibian conservancy members' tolerance and perceptions of intangible benefits toward some wildlife species are more positive—most likely as a result of the economic approach taken in Namibia's CBNRM program.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does money “buy” tolerance toward damage‐causing wildlife?

Kansky

Kidd

Fischer

2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area supports largescale migrations of wildlife that occur in a mixed agri-conservation landscape in five Southern African countries. Human-Wildlife Conflict is a key challenge and understanding the drivers of communities' willingness to coexist with wildlife is thus critical. Community based natural resource management (CBNRM) is a widely used economic approach to foster human-wildlife coexistence with the assumption that monetary benefits can "buy" tolerance by offsetting the disservices of living with wildlife. We tested this assumption and hypothesized that Namibians would be more tolerant towards wildlife than Zambians because they received higher monetary benefits from wildlife. We used the Wildlife Tolerance Model (WTM) as the framework to define tolerance and identify tolerance drivers. We found Namibians tolerance was higher for lion, elephant and hyena but not for kudu and baboon. After controlling for confounding variables of the WTM that could potentially explain differences in tolerance, contrary to expectation, the monetary benefits did not account for higher Namibian tolerance. Instead, only nonmonetary benefits explained the higher tolerance. We used crowding theory to explain this finding, proposing that CBNRM in Namibia and the monetary benefits from the program "crowd in" intrinsic motivation to appreciate and tolerate wildlife.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does money “buy” tolerance toward damage‐causing wildlife?

Kansky

Kidd

Fischer

2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another example: While the ANC instituted a land reform programme in 1994, settlers retain the overwhelming majority of land (Clarno, 2017;Karriem and Hoskins, 2016). While there is not space here to review land reform policies, including emerging changes (see Karriem and Hoskins, 2016;Kepe et al, 2011;Koot et al, 2019), it is worth noting that in the constitution, land restitution is limited to persons or communities who were dispossessed of their land after 19 June 1913. As discussed above, this date corresponds to the Natives' Land Act, which officially codified land dispossession by confining Africans to only 7% of the land making up South Africa with baseless claims that these meagre, poor quality lands corresponded to traditional homelands.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another set of questions relates to the implications of using a settler colonial lens to interpret transitional measures in South Africa. For example, while most authors treat Black South Africans as indigenous/'native' (e.g., Beinhart and Dubow, 1995: 2), some scholars are now examining consciousness among some Khoisan people of having preceded the arrival of Bantu-speaking Africans in South Africa (Koot et al, 2019;Veracini and Verbuyst, 2020;Verbuyst, 2016) resulting in narrowing the definition of who might be considered indigenous. Using a lens of settler colonialism, then, raises questions of how, in the context of transition, to address such emergent claims and pursue justice measures for all populations who experienced violent oppression.…”

Section: Conclusion: New Directions For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Settler Colonialism and the South African TRC: Ambivalent Denial and Democratisation Without Decolonisation

Park

2021

Social & Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the quarter-century since it began its work, the South African TRC has been endlessly debated. At the same time, a field of study emerged centred on settler colonialism, and settler colonial analyses have become established in transitional justice. South Africa’s TRC, however, has escaped examination through the lens of settler colonialism. Typically, settler colonialism in South Africa is treated as an historical phase; however, recent scholarship emphasises South Africa’s colonial present. Following these insights, this article: (1) establishes the relevance of a settler colonial lens for interpreting the South African TRC by demonstrating the settler colonialism of apartheid; (2) provides an empirical examination of the TRC’s Report. The Report acknowledges settler colonialism while advancing a series of denials, producing ‘ambivalent denial’; (3) explores the implications of ambivalent denial. Specifically, ambivalent denial contributes to democratisation without decolonisation by enabling settler denial and failing to address settler colonial structures.

show abstract

“…Since apartheid was abolished in 1994, disparities in wealth in South Africa have endured, particularly regarding land, which is still largely controlled by a predominantly white minority (Goodman 2017;Koot, Hitchcock, and Gressier 2019). De facto, this is an economic continuation of apartheid for most black people, whose "political liberation has yet to translate into broad material gains" (Goodman 2017; see also Alexander 2002;Bond 2014).…”

Section: Environmentourism Against Rhinocide?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enjoying extinction: philanthrocapitalism, <i>jouissance</i>, and 'excessive environmentourism' in the South African rhino poaching crisis

Koot¹

2021

Journal of Political Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From 2007 to 2015, rhino poaching grew rapidly in and around Kruger National Park, South Africa. And though poaching numbers have declined since then, the 'poaching crisis' and its consequences continue to influence rhetoric and practice in the area, including continuing public outcries that the rhino is close to extinction. This discourse of extinction is also prevalent among the luxurious tourist lodges on private nature reserves of the Greater Kruger Area that attract wealthy tourists. In response, some lodges started initiatives in which tourists can join the fight against rhino poaching. These tourist activities share important similarities with 'philanthrocapitalism',in which wealthy philanthropists address social and environmental challenges drawing on the same business principles that made them successful. Based on research on the tourism industry, I explore the political ecology of such high-end, 'environmentourist' activities. I argue that philanthropic environmental tourist activities are based on a reductionist articulation of the rhino poaching crisis. They de-politicize it from its socio-economic and historical context and are 'excessive', in that they produce and legitimize exorbitant forms of privatized, luxurious tourism and consumerism as a solution for social and environmental crises. Moreover,such 'excessive environmentourism' allows wealthy tourists to enjoy 'doing good'in a very specific way, best captured by the term 'jouissance.' Jouissance is a particular type of ambivalent enjoyment that includes fascination with dark and horrific elements (i.e. poached rhinos and the idea that these animals are at the brink of extinction). I conclude that jouissance functions as a core motivation for wealthy tourists to engage in touristic experiences precisely because it enables them to believe they can overcome the dark sides of their own excesses ironically by 'doing good', grounded in excessive consumption.

show abstract

Belonging, Indigeneity, Land and Nature in Southern Africa under Neoliberal Capitalism: An Overview

Cited by 29 publications

References 20 publications

Does money “buy” tolerance toward damage‐causing wildlife?

Does money “buy” tolerance toward damage‐causing wildlife?

Settler Colonialism and the South African TRC: Ambivalent Denial and Democratisation Without Decolonisation

Enjoying extinction: philanthrocapitalism, <i>jouissance</i>, and 'excessive environmentourism' in the South African rhino poaching crisis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About