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.
Highlights
Communities juxtaposed to protected areas (PAs) often disproportionally accrue the costs of conservation, but they can receive benefits from the existence of a PA. e 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. is study sought to understand the costs, benefits, and attitudes of local people living adjacent to Save Valley Conservancy (SVC), Zimbabwe. e purpose was to determine whether benefit and loss accrual has a bearing on the levels of illicit wildlife-based activities experienced in the SVC
PAs have been heavily criticized for preserving nature for a wealthy elite [15]. us, this ethnocentric conservation strategy characterized with exclusion has not gained acceptance, as it works against the economic and social interests of local people, and frequently transformed wildlife from an asset into a threat and nuisance [16,17,18]
In an effort to redress the colonial injustices, well-meaning conservationists have embraced the paradigmatic shift in the conservation of wildlife from the historical separatist conservation approaches termed “conservation against the people” by Baldus [8] to present day community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) [20]. us, the modern movement in conservation recognizes PAs to be socioecological systems as it has been proven beyond doubt that no PA can succeed for long in the teeth of local opposition [21]
Summary
Communities juxtaposed to protected areas (PAs) often disproportionally accrue the costs of conservation, but they can receive benefits from the existence of a PA. e 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. is study sought to understand the costs, benefits, and attitudes of local people living adjacent to Save Valley Conservancy (SVC), Zimbabwe. e purpose was to determine whether benefit and loss accrual has a bearing on the levels of illicit wildlife-based activities experienced in the SVC. One of the dominant conclusions that may be drawn from the decades of research on the social dynamics of biodiversity conservation is that protected areas (PAs) have added hardship to households in rural communities throughout much of the African countries [10]. Us, the modern movement in conservation recognizes PAs to be socioecological systems as it has been proven beyond doubt that no PA can succeed for long in the teeth of local opposition [21] Beyond these advancements, narrowing down to the Zimbabwean case, political independence has championed the resurgence of restoring the right to own and manage wildlife that had been denied in the colonial era to rural communities. Conceptual Background. e conceptual framework (Figure 1) explains the interaction occurring between PA management and local communities. e conceptual framework is premised on the following four assumptions:
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
