Towards an Understanding of Conservation-Based Costs, Benefits, and Attitudes of Local People Living Adjacent to Save Valley Conservancy, Zimbabwe

Abstract

Communities juxtaposed to protected areas (PAs) often disproportionally accrue the costs of conservation, but they can also receive benefits from the existence of a PA. The extent to which local communities benefit or incur costs as a result of residing next to PAs is of interest to conservationists and policy-makers. This study sought to understand the costs, benefits, and attitudes of local people living adjacent to Save Valley Conservancy (SVC), Zimbabwe. The purpose was to determine whether benefit and loss accrual has a bearing on the levels of illicit wildlife-based activities experienced in the SVC. Data were collected through a household questionnaire survey and key informant interviews from April to July 2014. A three-stage sampling was adopted: firstly, purposive sampling was employed to select wards adjacent to the SVC; secondly, random sampling was used to select villages within the selected wards; and thirdly, systematic sampling was used to select 71 household questionnaire respondents. Snowball sampling was used to select 9 key informants. The study results show that the majority of locals living close to SVC are not deriving discernable benefits and the costs of conservation are escalating influencing negative attitudes towards wildlife conservation, thus causing them to view wildlife as a nuisance. Overall, our results indicate that conservation losses and benefit accrual by local communities influence their attitudes toward SVC and conservation in general. We conclude that costs incurred outweighed the benefits accrued, a situation that triggers a more negative form of reciprocity towards SVC and wildlife conservation. It is recommended that a more socially and economically inclusive management approach based on a stakeholder-driven access and benefit sharing (ABS) framework be instituted to promote a more positive form of reciprocity towards SVC and nature conservation.

Community perceptions on the benefits and challenges of community-based natural resources management in Zimbabwe

“…Regardless of these negative perceptions the community members expressed willingness to actively participate in CAMPFIRE activities, if possible. This is in line with Matseketsa et al (2018) who posited that a governance system where locals are excluded in the management of resources will create negative perceptions among local community members.…”

“…In general, the key problems originate from poor local involvement, power inequalities and resulting minimal or missing community benefits, which should be addressed based on local views and needs (see Tosun 2000Tosun , 2006Saarinen, 2010;Hun et al, 2015;Mbaiwa, 2011aMbaiwa, , 2017. This is crucial because CBNRM is seen in the southern African context often as a concept meant to correct the colonial injustices of the past whereby the rural people were excluded from the management of resources in their communities (Matseketsa et al, 2018). During the colonial era, protected areas (PAs) were formulated to forward the global conservation agenda, and laws were promulgated to criminalize traditional practices such as subsistence hunting done by the locals (Ramutsindela, 2009;Matseketsa et al, 2018) thereby taking away the right of the locals to benefit from the resources in their communities.…”

Ranger perceptions of the role of local communities in providing actionable information on wildlife crime

“…Clearly communicating local benefits from supporting PA conservation can encourage cooperation and therefore information provisioning (e.g., Matseketsa, Chibememe, Muboko, Gandiwa, & Takarinda, 2018). However, implementing community outreach programs effectively depends on the knowledge and experience of rangers.…”

An Assessment of Local People’s Support to Private Wildlife Conservation: A Case of Save Valley Conservancy and Fringe Communities, Zimbabwe

“…According to Gillingham and Lee [ 12 ], local people who disproportionately bear the cost of protection and feel “excluded” cannot be expected to provide the needed support if the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits they derive. In short, local communities do whatever maximizes their own profit and that positive reciprocity is contingent upon receiving benefits [ 43 ]. The absence of discernable benefits and escalating costs justify local communities' continued resistance toward the SVC and nature conservation at large.…”

“…(ii) Putting in place formalized benefit sharing mechanisms to ensure a steady flow of benefits to local people living on the edge. This is critical as Matseketsa et al [ 43 ] argue that people living in close proximity to PA edges often avoid costs and seek benefits. (iii) There is need to document the economic, social, and opportunity costs of SVC on local communities, thus creating inventories.…”