Abstract
With the increase in illegal resource harvesting in most protected areas (PAs), the need to understand the determinants and relationships between PAs and local communities to enhance wildlife conservation is increasingly becoming important. Using focus group discussions and interviews, we established the determinants of PA staff-community relationship from both PA staff and local communities’ viewpoints, and assessedperceptions of their relationship with each other. The study was guided by the following main research question, ‘What is the nature of the relationship between PA staff and local communities and what are the main factors influencing the relationship?’ Data were collected through focus group discussions and interviews from four PAs and their adjacent communities in Zimbabwe between July 2013 and February 2014. Our results showed that a total of seven determinants were identified as influencing PA staff-community relationship, i.e., benefit-sharing, human-wildlife conflict, compensation for losses from wildlife attacks, communication between PA staff and local communities, community participation in the management of CAMPFIRE projects, lack of community participation in tourism in PAs, and community perceptions of PA staff or PA staff perceptions of the community. Of the seven, only one determinant, benefit-sharing, was recorded as the main factor that differentially influencesthe perceptions of community and PA staff on their relationship. Furthermore, both the communities and PA staff reported mixed perceptions on their relationship with each other. We conclude that both communities’ and PA staff’s views on determinants are largely similar in all studied PAs irrespective of PA ownership, management and/or land use. Our findings could be relevant in policy making especially in developing countries in developing PA-community relationship framework in natural resource conservation.
Highlights
Most protected areas (PAs) have a history of human habitation before their establishment [1, 2]
Many local people were evicted from their former areas of habitation when most PAs were created[3, 4] and were further prohibited from accessing natural resources that were fenced inside the established PAs [5, 6]
The increase in illegal resource harvestingled to a realisation that the fences and fines approach was failing as a wildlife preservation method [15, 16] and this led to the introduction of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs)[17, 18]
Summary
Most protected areas (PAs) have a history of human habitation before their establishment [1, 2]. Many local people were evicted from their former areas of habitation when most PAs were created[3, 4] and were further prohibited from accessing natural resources that were fenced inside the established PAs [5, 6]. The establishment of PAs was reinforced through protectionist conservation policies, later known as the ‘fences and fines’ approach or ‘fortress conservation’ [11, 12]. These policies created conflict between local people and PA staff[13, 14]. ICDPs which were reported to have gained local people support, became a popular approach for working with communities in and around PAs [19]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
