Land Use Planning and Wildlife-Inflicted Crop Damage in Zambia

Abstract

Damage to crops from wildlife interference is a common threat to food security among rural communities in or near Game Management Areas (GMAs) in Zambia. This study uses a two-stage model and cross-sectional data from a survey of 2769 households to determine the impact of land use planning on the probability and extent of wildlife-inflicted crop damage. The results show that crop damage is higher in GMAs as compared to non-GMAs, and that land use planning could be an effective tool to significantly reduce the likelihood of such damage. These findings suggest that there is merit in the current drive to develop and implement land use plans to minimize human-wildlife conflict such as crop damage. This is especially critical as Zambian conservation policies do not explicitly provide compensation for damage caused by wildlife.

Advancing protected area effectiveness assessments by disentangling social‐ecological interactions: A case study from the Luangwa Valley, Zambia

“…Overall, colonial laws fractured the way people used and related to nature (Anderson et al, 2015, I13, Kaunda, 2016) and still shape the view of conservation today (Anderson et al, 2015). Today, stakeholders in conservation and stewardship are residents, government authorities, NGOs and state agencies (Anderson et al, 2015; Lindsey et al, 2014; Subakanya et al, 2018). Stakeholders in the category of knowledge differ between research and education: while mainly external groups conduct and finance research (I1, Abel and Blaikie 1986), education takes place in schools, within communities (I26, Nyirenda et al, 2017), and in the context of conservation programs (I7).…”

“…Actors involved in human‐wildlife conflicts commonly include individual residents or communities on the one side and single animals on the other side. In the study area, elephants ( Loxodonta africana ) cause most of the damages to crops and infrastructure, and accidentally injure or kill people (Gross et al, 2018, I4, I5, I8, I10, I19, Richardson et al, 2012, Subakanya et al, 2018). Leopards ( Panthera pardus ), spotted hyenas ( Crocuta crocuta ), and raptors mainly attack livestock (Nyirenda et al, 2017).…”

“…Damage to crops and livestock by wildlife results in food shortages. The resulting food insecurity impedes socio‐economic development (I20, I26, Richardson et al, 2012)—especially since no realized compensations for residents in game management areas exist (I5, I8, I20, Subakanya et al, 2018). Some people respond to human‐wildlife conflict with increased illegal subsistence hunting (Lewis et al, 2011) or retaliatory killing of wildlife (I8, Becker et al, 2013).…”

“…For example, material and nonmaterial services provided by nature in North Luangwa include the provision of building materials (Chidumayo, 2016), food (Anderson et al, 2015, Dumas et al, 2017, I9), and emotional connections to specific places (I4, I8). Disservices and disbenefits are human‐wildlife conflicts (Gross et al, 2018, I3, I19, I26) or crop damage by wildlife (I19, I27, Subakanya et al, 2018). Negative interactions seem to outnumber positive ones in our study system.…”

“…Zambia's Luangwa Valley exemplifies a social‐ecological system where North Luangwa National Park and four adjacent game management areas exhibit a high level of biodiversity and are home to several endangered and endemic species (Riggio et al, 2013) while people inhabit this area and have relationships with nature (Anderson et al, 2015; Watson et al, 2015). Despite years of conservation in the region, the lack of effectiveness of the study PCA system is reflected in habitat conversion and loss (Riggio et al, 2013; Watson et al, 2015), unsustainable natural resource use (Dumas et al, 2017) and human‐wildlife conflict (Gross et al, 2018; Subakanya et al, 2018). Thus, this system of PCAs provides an opportunity to assess the relationship between SEIs and social‐ecological effectiveness.…”