Hindawi
Scientifica
Volume 2019, Article ID 2534614, 11 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2534614
Research Article
An Assessment of Local People’s Support to Private Wildlife
Conservation: A Case of Save Valley Conservancy and Fringe
Communities, Zimbabwe
Given Matseketsa ,1 Billy B. Mukamuri,1 Never Muboko,2 and Edson Gandiwa
1
2
2
Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
School of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Private Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe
Correspondence should be addressed to Given Matseketsa; matseketsagiven@gmail.com
Received 10 September 2018; Revised 15 January 2019; Accepted 31 January 2019; Published 3 March 2019
Academic Editor: Michael McKinney
Copyright © 2019 Given Matseketsa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
The long-term survival of a protected area (PA) may depend to a greater extent on the goodwill and support of the people residing
around it. This study assessed local people’s support for private sector driven wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe, using the Save
Valley Conservancy (SVC) as a case. Specifically, the objectives of the assessment were threefold: (i) to establish perceptions on the
current nature of the relationship between SVC and people living on its edge, (ii) to ascertain the proximate and underlying causes
of local resistance to SVC, and (iii) to identify strategies local people employ to resist SVC conservation efforts. Data were collected
through a household questionnaire survey during the month of April, 2018. In addition, photographs showing the nature of
vandalism and sabotage imposed on the SVC ecosystem by fringe communities were also collected, as part of evidential data. A
multistage sampling method was adopted, and this combined purposive sampling to select study wards: random sampling to select
villages and systematic sampling to select households (n � 71). Our results show that local people rate the current relationship
between them and SVC owners as bad, i.e., undesirable interaction. The nature of this perceived bad relationship is attributed to a
host of factors, key among them being, lack of wildlife-related benefits and escalation of wildlife-induced costs, which are crucial in
determining local community’s support for conservation. We conclude that the studied local community’s support for private
nature conservation is marginal; hence, there is a need for increased efforts by SVC owners to devise realistic incentives including
an active engagement of local communities so that they cooperate with conservation efforts.
1. Introduction
Protected areas (PAs), whether state or privately owned,
have been the mainstay of international conservation
strategies since the start of the twentieth century [1]. Until
recently, the commonly adopted PA system’s preservation
model was replicated globally from the American Yellowstone model known as “fortress conservation.” The fortress
conservation doctrine was based on the premise that wild
species must be preserved by reserving areas and barring
people (or at least the wrong sort of people) from living
within and using the resources from these areas [2]. In the
African context, this fortress conservation indicated a
radical departure from the traditional methods of living
with nature [3]. More specifically, this ethnocentric conservation strategy viewed native Africans as a clear evil, a
“weed” to be removed from the purity of wild nature [4, 5].
However, the question that arises is that if the “fortress” was
or is meant to protect natural resources that are within it,
what then happens if the protected animals go out? Or does
the “fortress” protect those living outside from what is kept
within, such as crop-raiding animals, dangerous predators,
and diseases endangering livestock and people? [6]. In other
words, the phrase “protected area” may be misleading as it
means various things to different people. Protected from
what and for whom? [7, 8]. Vague, ignorant, incorrect, or
evasive replies to such questions can sometimes be highly
counterproductive and generate significant conflicts around
2
PAs. Notwithstanding the fact that the gazettement and
management of PAs has been a source of disaffection amidst
the indigenous communities because of the top-down approach followed in creating and managing them, there is the
aspect of the “hidden” costs which were brought forward
afterwards such as the loss of economic opportunities,
denied access to key livelihood resources and crop and
livestock depredation by wild animals [9, 10]. The additional cost of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) has often been
seen to stir passionate opposition in already agitated people
who feel that these damaging animals are valued more than
their lives [11]. This line of reasoning resembles Gillingham
and Lee’s [12] argument that communities who do not feel a
part but at the same time bear the costs of conservation are
expectedly unsupportive of conservation. In scenarios
where wildlife-induced damages to human property and life
are neither controlled nor compensated, opposition toward
conservation and wildlife resources become entrenched
[13, 14].
Thus, in the African context, conservation particularly
enforced through the forced establishment of some PAs has
been thought of simply as a protective “locking away” of
resources by a powerful elite who have time to enjoy the
beauty of nature, while exhibiting a selfishness and anticommunity development agenda [15]. Following the above
argument, Carruthers [16] stresses that PAs from the outset
were perceived as “white inventions, serving as instruments
of dispossession and subjugation” in which Africans were
nonpartners who were neither able to continue their traditional subsistence lifestyles in conserved areas, nor were
fully co-opted into the system of Western conservation
imposed on them. This alienation of African communities,
especially those living at the edge of PAs, turned potential
conservation allies into adversaries. Consequently, many
PAs in Africa to date share a common salient feature:
historical poor public relations and minimal support from
local communities [17]. Mkomazi Game Reserve (now a
national park) in Tanzania is an archetypal case in the field of
conservation studies, showing how a PA can face outright
opposition [18]. In fact, Norgrove and Hulme [19] made an
observation that the relationships between PAs and people
are best understood as struggles in which “PA neighbours”
use overt and covert “weapons of the weak” to challenge the
hegemony of conservation. This is problematic as Holmes
[20] insists that, when people are disgruntled, they enthusiastically resist, and consequently, conserving the resources
of PAs in the face of opposition is difficult and costly.
Further to this, Cavanagh and Benjaminsen [21] clearly
stated that local societies are not passive victims but
“powerful and potentially transformative agents” who frame
their resistance by interpreting their own experiences of
marginalization and injustices.
More recently, in particular, in the third world, there
has been a gradual realization that PAs cannot survive
without support of their neighbours [22]. For example, the
opening speech of the president of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) to the Fourth World Parks Congress
stated that “quite simply, if local people do not support PAs,
then PAs cannot last” [23]. Furthermore, Barrow and
Scientifica
Fabricius [24] state that “ultimately, conservation and PAs
must either contribute to national and local livelihoods, or
fail in their biodiversity goals.” Thus, it is increasingly
recognized that the fate of PAs is tied to local support [25].
The above recognition has led to a paradigm shift marked
by people-centered conservation strategies, policies [26],
and most importantly, the valuing of local ecological
knowledge in areas where human communities live inside
and around PAs [27]. In Zimbabwe, the shift has seen the
implementation of the Communal Area’s Management
Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) as a
mechanism to improve relations between PAs and their
neighboring communities [28]. Also, the adoption of
the Community-Based Natural Resource Management
(CBNRM) as the overall framework guiding or around
which conservation of wildlife and other natural resources
is organized, inclusive of local communities, has been
witnessed in Zimbabwe and Southern Africa as a whole
[29]. Key strategies for encouraging local cooperation
include devolution of decision-making on resource
management and governance [30], benefits, and resource
rights to local levels in anticipation for positive reciprocal
action. Privately owned PAs or conservancies have
adopted mantras or concepts such as “moving beyond the
fences” to highlight the desire to both involve and ensure
that communities benefit from wildlife [31]. Despite these
clear attempts by PAs management to secure local support, resistance appears to continue or even escalate. So
far, what perpetuates the resistance particularly in the
Save Valley Conservancy (SVC) context remains ambiguous. Thus, an exploration of the factors that arouse a
strong desire in people to resist conservation efforts is
necessary as a precondition to alleviating resistance
wracking PAs. In this present study, the term “resistance”
means the violation of conservation institutions driven
either by need or by deliberate distrust and hostility to
what are commonly viewed as external and illegitimate
authorities governing conservation territories [32]. The
objectives of this present study were to (i) establish
perceptions on the current nature of the relationship
between SVC and people living on its edge, (ii) ascertain
the proximate and underlying causes of local resistance to
SVC, and (iii) identify strategies local people employ to
resist SVC conservation efforts.
1.1. Theoretical Framework. This study utilized Brockington’s [18] principle of local support and Scott’s [33]
theory of everyday resistance. The former states that, if
individual PAs are to have any long-term continuity as
institutions and if they are to be effective in preserving the
biodiversity contained within them, then local people must
support them. Discontented local people will resist PA
regulations, protest against them, refuse to cooperate with
authorities, and not participate in their plans. This will
consequently undermine both the institution of a PA and the
health of the biodiversity contained within it. The principle
has an interesting position in conservation strategy, discourse, and practice as it is analogous to the concept of
Scientifica
conservation justice which dictates that local communities
are entitled to receive fair treatment and meaningful involvement in conservation endeavours [34]. The latter is
premised on the underlying assumption that poor grass
roots actors resort to everyday forms of resistance also
termed “weapons of the weak” when open confrontation
with powerful actors carries the real prospect of a massive
retaliatory response. Hence, for this present study, this theory
is of utility as it offers better lenses to uncover and understand
local acts of resistance, as the current displays of vandalism
and sabotage posing significant impacts on SVC’s faunal
resources are mostly covert and anonymous in nature
(i.e., elusive snaring of terrestrial mammal species, cutting and
stealing of perimeter fence, unauthorised bushfires, feigned
compliance, and noncooperation via illegal grazing). Hence,
the theory in question offers a fresh perspective of productively assessing PA-community relations, as it makes
conservation practitioners more aware of the forms local
resistance can take and the diverse meanings and intentions
embodied. Further, the theory reveals that resistance is a tactic
utilized by the weak to contest oppression. This implies that
local villagers resisting SVC could simply be a call for a more
socially just conservation. Thus, if conservation practitioners
endorse their call, conservation is eventually made better for
both biodiversity and those who live close to PAs.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area. The study was conducted in two local
communities falling under the Bikita district, adjacent to the
southwestern border of SVC, southeastern Zimbabwe
(Figure 1). Communal areas in Zimbabwe are divided into
administrative units of villages. Six or seven make a ward or
community [35]; hence, in this study, we focused on two
communities: Ward 3 and Ward 26. SVC spans an area of
3400 km2 (however, during 2000 and 2001, SVC was affected
by the onset of the land reform programme such that some
of its properties, i.e., Angus, Masapas, Levanga, and Senuko
occupying the Southern half, were invaded by subsistence
farmers). Up until April 2014, it was a cooperatively managed private wildlife area, but in the month of May 2014, it
was placed under the custodianship of the Zimbabwe Parks
and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA). The conservancy is located in agroecological region V which is a
semiarid area in the southeast Lowveld of Zimbabwe. Its
southern boundary is approximately 45 km northeast of
Chiredzi town while the Save River and Sangwe communal
lands mark its eastern boundary. Its northern boundary lies
not far from Birchenough Bridge and its western boundary
being formed by a resettlement scheme on land of the former
Devuli Ranch and to the South by Matsai Communal area. It
is located in Masvingo Province and covers two districts
which are Chiredzi and Bikita. It is surrounded by three
other districts which are Zaka, Buhera, and Chipinge. SVC is
bordered primarily by high-density communal land (of
between 11 and 82 people per km2) [36], with some commercial agriculture to the south and east. At national level,
the average national density for communal areas is 33 people
per km2 [37].
3
2.2. Data Collection. A multistage sampling technique was
adopted due to the nature of the sampling frame, to select the
sampling units. The first stage involved purposive sampling
following Patton [38]. As a result, two wards (3 and 26) were
selected from a total of seven wards. Purposive sampling was
found suitable as study communities were in close proximity
to SVC boundary, and therefore believed to have much
interaction with the PA. The second stage involved simple
random sampling for village selection, and this resulted in
five (5) out of 11 villages being selected out of the two wards.
The villages selected were Matsai, Villages 24, 26, 27, and 31.
The third stage involved systematic sampling which resulted
in the selection of 71 households (representing 20% of all the
village households); this was ensured by picking and
interviewing every second household from village registers.
Out of the 71 respondents, 79% were males (n � 56) and 21%
were females (n � 15). The age of the respondents ranged
from 18 to >60. About 18% (n � 13) of the respondents were
between 18 and 25 years, 39% (n � 28) were between 26 and
39 years, 25% (n � 18) were between 40 and 59 years,
whereas 17% (n � 12) were more than 60 years.
Data collection was conducted in April 2018, using an
interview-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire
included both open-ended and closed-format questions.
Fixed response questions were used to ensure precision of
responses, whilst open-ended questions were also included
to tap into the views of the villagers and glean more information on the subject of interest. For example, the
questionnaire addressed some of the following questions: (i)
can you describe the nature of your relationship with the
SVC owners and the main factors mediating the relationship? (ii) Do you have any grievances or are you unhappy
about something with the conservancy? Incorporating openended questions in a questionnaire in ecology has also been
advocated for by White et al. [39] who argues that welldesigned open questions may provide data of equivalent
precision to closed-format ones. All interviews were conducted by the first author with the aid of a field assistant who
was selected from the local community and made initial
contact in each village with the local village leaders to seek
permission. The interview sessions lasted between 15 and 25
minutes. Further, field observations including photography
were used as a complementary method to have a visual
appreciation of the nature of vandalism and sabotage upon
the SVC ecosystem by fringe communities. The method
provided an insight into the realities on the ground and also
helped in the verification and interpretation of data collected
through the social survey. The method of photography has
been used in socioecological research elsewhere in the
Gonarezhou ecosystem, southeastern Zimbabwe [40].
2.3. Data Analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to
summarize quantitative data sets from house-hold questionnaires. A nonparametric test, i.e., Kruskal–Wallis chisquared (χ2), was also used to determine whether given
responses on the nature of relationship locals have with the
SVC, proximate and underlying causes of resistance,
strategies employed to resist SVC conservation efforts differ
4
Scientifica
Mozambique
Zambia
Harare
Matendere
Gunundwe
Mapari
Zimbabwe
Masvingo
Bulawayo
Chishakwe
Msaize
Botswana
South africa
Chapungu
Save valley conservancy
8
Gonarezhou national park
Sango
7
6
Umkondo
mine
Savuli
26
Mokore
Bedford block
Turgw
e rive
3
2
r
Savé river
N
Angus
1
Humani
Mukazi
Masapas
Mukwazi
Levanga
Senuko
Hammond
M
kw
a
sin
Arda
er
ive
r
Mkwasine
0
20 km
Impala
Perimeter fence
Internal ranch boundary (no fence)
Rivers
Study wards
Figure 1: Location of the study communities, i.e., Wards 3 and 26 adjacent to the southwestern SVC, Zimbabwe.
Scientifica
across the villages using the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 20 for Windows (IBM SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, USA). A p value < 0.05 was deemed significant.
3. Results
3.1. Perceptions on the Prevailing Nature of SVC’s Relationship
with Neighboring Communities. PA-community relationships are dynamic and largely influenced by changing
circumstances. Respondents reported mixed perceptions
on their relationship with the SVC. In Village 26, the
majority of the respondents (n � 7; 47%) claimed their
relationship with the SVC to be bad, whilst a minor proportion (n � 1; 6%) of the respondents in Matsai village
rated the existing relationship as good (Figure 2). There was
no significant difference (KWχ2 � 2.122; df � 4; p > 0.05) on
the nature of relationship locals have with the SVC across
the villages.
The mixed perceptions on the relationship between
neighboring communities and the SVC was further evidenced by the majority of respondents, 69% (n � 49) who
indicated that they were anti-conservation (study participants claimed that there was an increase in the number of
problems caused by SVC’s existence to adjacent communities such as crop and livestock depredation), while 31%
(n � 22) of the respondents claimed to actively support
wildlife conservation in the SVC. There was no significant
difference (KWχ2 � 5.217; df � 4; p > 0.05) in the views of
local communities with regard to claims to support the SVC
across villages.
3.2. Proximate and Underlying Drivers of Local Resistance to
Biodiversity Conservation in SVC. Respondents have different reasons for resisting biodiversity conservation in the
SVC. Factors that were reported to spark resistance based on
respondents’ views were classified into two categories,
namely, proximate (the more immediate factors) and underlying (deep-seated factors). Identified factors included
the lack of wildlife-related benefits (n � 11; 22%), poor
control of damage-causing wild animals (n � 7; 14%), escalation of wildlife-induced costs or conflicts (primarily
referring to the damage caused by wild animals to crops and
livestock) (n � 13; 27%), distrust for SVC owners and
workers (n � 5; 10%), limited and irregular communication
between SVC-management and adjacent communities
(n � 6; 12%), lack of compensation for losses from wildlife
(n � 5; 10%), and the lack of community participation in
wildlife conservation (n � 2; 4%) (Table 1). Overall, there
was no significant difference (KWχ 2 � 2.005; df � 4; p > 0.05)
in the reasons behind resistance respondents displayed
across the villages.
3.3. Tactics Adopted by Respondents to Resist SVC. Study
respondents in communities living adjacent to the SVC use
several methods to attenuate their hardships and express
their discontent. About six strategies are used in confronting
nature conservation in the SVC ecosystem, namely,
poaching of terrestrial mammal species (n � 19; 39%),
5
cutting and stealing of perimeter fence (n � 8; 16%) (Figure 3), feigned compliance (n � 7; 14%), collaborating with
external poachers (n � 3; 6%), non-cooperation via grazing
trespass (n � 6; 12%), and not able to actively oppose the
SVC (usually because of old age or fear of SVC authorities
and punishments) (n � 6; 12%) (Table 2). There were no
significant differences (KWχ 2 � 3.929; df � 4; p > 0.05) on the
strategies used to resist SVC across the villages.
4. Discussion
This study provided an opportunity for the first time to
examine factors besetting local residents’ support for nature
conservation. The SVC provides an excellent case for exploring these dynamics of conflict and social resistance as it
has endured sustained opposition from local human communities in designating and managing it. McCleave et al.
[41] found that several factors are often at play in shaping the
relationship between a park neighbor and a park in New
Zealand. Thus, a more nuanced understanding of the factors
that impede positive PA-local population relationships is
critical for fostering sustainable conservation relationships.
Our results show that the current relationship between SVC
and local inhabitants is dysfunctional, and it is bad (Figure 2). Local people’s relationship to the SVC is complex;
however, on a preliminary basis, the existence of an uneasy
and bitter relationship can be attributed to the several factors
uncovered by the present study. From respondents’ perspective, a host of factors were raised as important in shaping
how they relate with the PA; these determinants are discussed in subsequent sections.
4.1. Determinants of Community Resistance. The present
study demonstrated that respondents residing near SVC
hold different reasons for resisting its conservation efforts.
Results show that there were seven main factors perceived by
local people to animate and strengthen resistance toward
wildlife conservation in the SVC. Stated factors include
limited benefits from wildlife, poor control of damage
causing wild animals (no/delayed response to HWC incidents), escalation of wildlife-induced costs/conflicts, local
distrust for PA officials, insufficient communication between
SVC-management and local human communities, lack of
compensation for loss accrual, and the lack of community
participation in wildlife conservation (Table 1). The factors
conveyed by respondents tend to be similar across the villages at first glance. However, a critical look at the results
reveals that the lack of benefits and escalation of wildlifeinduced costs are key drivers for the passionate opposition
toward wildlife conservation in the SVC across villages.
These findings are in synchrony with previous studies on the
topic. In Laikipia district, Kenya, people were willing to
express devotion for wildlife and wildlife areas if they did not
suffer losses to wildlife continuously and later on derive
minimal benefits from it [42]. It is believed that, if a balance
is struck between cost and benefit, accrual opposition for
nature conservation is reduced. According to Gillingham
and Lee [12], local people who disproportionately bear the
6
Scientifica
50%
45%
40%
Percentage of respondents
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Matsai village
Village 24
Village 26
Study villages
Good
Neutral
Village 27
Village 31
Bad
Very bad
Figure 2: Communities’ views of their relationship with the SVC. Note: good means that the interaction between SVC authorities and
community members is desirable; neutral means that communities perceived their relationship with SVC authorities to be impartial; bad
means interaction undesirable. Villages 24, 26, 27, and 31 fall under Ward 26, and Matsai village falls under Ward 3.
Table 1: Proximate and underlying drivers of local resistance to SVC across the villages.
Ward(s) Village(s)
3
26
Matsai
24
26
27
31
Total
(n � 49)
Lack of
wildliferelated
benefits
3
3
2
1
2
11 (22%)
Proximate
Escalating
Poor control of
wildlifedamageinduced costs/
causing
conflicts
wildlife
1
2
0
3
2
2
3
2
1
4
7 (14%)
13 (27%)
Underlying
No
Limited and
Distrust for
compensation
irregular
SVC owners
for losses from
and workers communication
wildlife
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
5 (10%)
6 (12%)
5 (10%)
Lack of
participation in
wildlife
conservation
0
0
0
1
1
2 (4%)
Note: contained in this table are numbers of respondents (not bracketed) who provided a response.
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. On top of this, in a broader
sense, the escalation of conservation-related costs, i.e., crop
raiding, can often make the difference between hunger or
food sufficiency. In other words, costs incurred can breed or
exacerbate poverty in local communities, further creating an
acrimonious conservation climate as in this case.
Moreover, lack of control of damage causing wild animals was also reported by respondents as a strong reason for
the opposition displayed. This confirms the observation by
Ayivor et al. [11] that anything that threatens a source of
livelihood in local people inevitably erodes support for
conservation and garners resistance. The issue of lack of
control (referring to the authorities failure to control
problematic wild animals/land owners less responsive) of
damage-causing wild animals is quite rampant in the SVC
context. The SVC subsists on hunting tourism to self-finance
its operations, and so the killing of wild animals on the basis
of problem animal control is regarded as a bad business ethic
in the sphere of safari hunting. Similarly, this phenomenon
Scientifica
7
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 3: (a, b) Unauthorised fire-setting with a malicious intent in one property which is part and parcel of the SVC during the study
period; (c, d) field assistant alongside the first author physically verifying the vandalism of perimeter fence by fringe communities. Photo
credits: L. Phikelele (fire-setting) and G. Matseketsa (perimeter fence), 2018.
Table 2: Strategies respondents employ to resist SVC conservation efforts across the villages.
Poaching of
Cutting and stealing Non-cooperation
Feigned Collaborating with
Ward(s) Village(s) terrestrial mammal
of perimeter fence via illegal grazing compliance external poachers
species
3
Matsai
4
3
1
2
0
26
24
3
2
1
2
0
26
4
0
2
1
2
27
5
0
1
0
0
31
3
3
1
2
1
Total
19 (39%)
8 (16%)
6 (12%)
7 (14%)
3 (6%)
(n � 49)
Not able to
actively oppose
the SVC
1
2
1
1
1
6 (12%)
Note: contained in this table are numbers of respondents (not bracketed) who provided a response.
has also been observed by Dzingirai [44] in the CAMPFIRE
context. However, as in this case, when local communities
feel that authorities elevate biodiversity conservation over
human welfare issues, they take matters into their own
hands, eliminating unwelcome animals [45]. In other words,
when local communities feel that both governments and
conservation stakeholder’s value wildlife more than their
lives, livelihoods or their aspirations, retaliation, and opposition to conservation initiatives can be swift and uncompromising [13, 14].
Distrust or lack of trust between the SVC and neighboring communities is a key determinant of resistance to
conservation efforts. A significant proportion of respondents
highlighted distrust for SVC authority. Trust has been
identified as an important element of multiple forms of
natural resource management processes and outcomes [46].
For example, in a study of national parks in the United States
and Ecuador, trust in PA authorities proved to be a key
predictor of compliance with park regulations, with distrust
predicting noncompliance [47]. Trust held by community
8
members for natural resource agencies has also been shown
to increase public approval of management decisions and
minimize resistance to planning efforts [48]. Conversely,
local communities lack trust in SVC authorities, hence the
dissention. This lack of trust can be primarily linked to SVC
members’ ability to over promise and under deliver. Upon
the creation of the SVC, a fence was constructed fencing out
local peasants from key livelihood resources, and white
shareholders of SVC convinced the peasants that the erection
of a fence was a legal requirement for the successful running
of hunting tourism operations and that the benefits will surely
flow over the fence into the communities [49]. Surprisingly, to
this date, benefits are yet to materialize. If promises take as
long to materialize, they lose their persuasive appeal, especially if there are no clear indications that things will change
for the better soon. Moreover, lack of compensation for losses
incurred was also identified as one other factor that provokes
a strong sense of hatred, resentment, and opposition in fringe
community members. The result is consistent with findings by
Mariki [50] who in the Kilimanjaro National Park, Tanzania,
discovered the accrual of conservation costs and lack of
compensation, sparks hatred, resentment, and ultimately
resistance toward conservation. Hence, it has been seen that
the provision of compensation for wildlife damage and fair
benefit sharing can strengthen local people support for
wildlife conservation [50].
Study findings show that limited and irregular communication between PA authority and locals and the lack of
community participation in wildlife conservation are key
factors, engendering resistance in SVC-adjacent dwellers.
These results correspond with findings of previous studies.
For instance, a remarkable study by Mutanga et al. [51]
focusing on four PAs in Zimbabwe, namely, Gonarezhou
National Park, Umfurudzi Park, Matusadona National Park,
and Cawston Ranch and their surrounding communities
revealed that poor communication was an important factor
in inspiring negative park-people relationships. Further to
that, the lack of community participation in nature conservation degrades good PA-people relations as in this case.
Andrade and Rhodes [14] found that local community
participation in the PA decision-making process and nature
conservation is significantly related to the level of compliance with PA polices.
4.2. Strategies That Neighbours to the SVC Employ to Resist
Conservation Efforts. In the SVC context, local inhabitants
employ several tactics in resisting nature conservation.
Stated strategies include poaching of valuable terrestrial
mammal species, cutting and stealing of perimeter fence
(Figure 3), noncooperation via illegal grazing, feigned
compliance, collaborating with external poachers, and not
able to actively oppose the SVC/under resourced to do
anything (Table 2). Strategies employed in resisting SVC
tend to be similar across the sampled villages. However, a
thorough examination of findings shows poaching to be the
primary and convenient method utilized in expressing
dissatisfaction for nature conservation in the SVC across all
five study sites, followed by the cutting and theft of game
Scientifica
fence and feigned compliance (e.g., agreeing to discard
ecologically detrimental behaviors during community
conservation meetings but not comply with it), respectively.
Poaching in the SVC has been employed in conjunction
with the vandalism of perimeter fence; locals cut the fence
which they use to make snares, whilst creating pathways
through the fence for wild animals to exit out of the PA into
the villages where they can easily “poach” them. Holmes
[52] and many others suggest the continuation of outlawed
livelihood practices by local communities as an assertion of
resistance. Poaching practiced in the SVC is quite peculiar
in the sense that locals can catch a wild animal on a snare
but somehow choose to leave it there to rot. This phenomenon has also been observed where animals are illegally
killed in a PA, but no meat, hides, horns, or other benefits
taken and the bodies left to rot (for Kenya; [53, 54]; for USA,
[55]). It is believed that, when local communities do that,
they will be implicitly making a statement that they have a
right to kill animals. Moreover, results on poaching still
show that some local community members gang up or
accomodate poachers coming from outside their communities [54] in Kenya. This collaboration with external
poachers can partly be attributed to the existence of a
confrontational park-people relationship as in this case. If a
good park-people relationship prevails, local inhabitants
themselves become allied with PA management in protecting the area from threatening activities or developments.
Moreover, study findings show that illegal cattle grazing
is a technique local people employ in expressing their discontent for the conservancy. This research result is in
harmony with findings by Neumann [56] on the same topic
that reported, in Arusha National Park, Tanzania, as much as
acts such as grazing trespass and park encroachment may be
attributed to “ignorance” by conservationists and PA authorities; however, in reality, they have multiple meanings
and intentions. Thus, they represent more subtle forms that
community objections to conservation may take. Accordingly, there is a Maasai proverb which states that “God gave
us cattle and grass; we do not separate the things God gave
us” [57]. Interestingly, some respondents from the survey
indicated that they were not able to actively oppose the SVC/
just under resourced to do anything or fight back. This is
justified considering that park-people relationships are
asymmetrical in nature, where PA authorities are the wielders
of power, and local people, the dissident groups [20]. And
according to Chan and Satterfield [58], the capacity to resist
unjust practices is a function of power such that those with a
greater ability to articulate their grievances are also those most
likely to achieve desirable outcomes. Overall, findings obtained show that locals have an inclination toward the covert
weapons. These do not publicly challenge the PA but they
involve “hidden” activities; hence, it is hard to control the
elusive snaring of wild animals, cutting and stealing of game
fence, feigned compliance, and bushfires. Holistically, present
study findings are in line with results obtained by others.
Other studies reveal that people resist conservation by
destroying the resources they once valued due to changes in
tenure rights [59], fire-setting [60], destroying PA infrastructure [61], and tree cutting [59]. It is concluded that
Scientifica
continued hostility from local people is clearly counterproductive to sustainable conservation efforts [62].
9
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
The present study identified and presented the factors that
constrain local support for wildlife conservation in the
SVC context. Based on our results, it can be concluded
that the existing relationship between edge communities
and the SVC is bad (not cordial). Local human communities perceive the SVC as a source of much of their
anguish. As evident from the results of this study, a
multiplicity of factors was brought to light as key in fueling resistance in fringe community members. As a result, local people’s support for wildlife conservation is fast
eroding, whilst resistance mounts a situation that undermines SVC’s long-term ecological character (as it turns
into a “paper park,” i.e., only protected on paper). PA
neighbours have developed a sophisticated armoury of
methods to pursue their livelihood goals and resist the
conservation agenda promoted by the SVC and its allies.
Thus, the situation around the SVC is a clear-cut
hegemonic/counterhegemonic struggle between PA authorities (fighting for the prevailing conservation ideology) and PA neighbours (fighting for or negotiating their
right to a modest or decent way of life).
Thus, on the basis of data from this study, local opposition can be neutralized by a number of actions such as
(i) the creation of a formal and meaningful relationship
(not a “paper partnership” as reported by Corbett [63])
with the neighboring communities, in order to stimulate
a more positive form of reciprocity toward wildlife
conservation. (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. These inventories can support the
development of conservation strategies to minimize the
burden of SVC on local villagers while sustainably
managing biodiversity. (iv) Under corporate social responsibility and extension work, SVC authorities need to
have the capacity to embark on regular outreach programmes to dialogue with community members and to
listen to their concerns. Regular dialogue will help to
promote mutual trust, reduce acrimony, and curtail
conflict situations. (v) PA practitioners could try to move
away from labelling all infractions of PA regulation as
criminality and irrationality and to recognize and address
this vibrant everyday sociopolitics to produce policy that
is both better for biodiversity and people in the immediate vicinities.
Data Availability
The data used to support the findings of this study are
available from the corresponding author upon request.
Acknowledgments
Our special thanks go to Francis Dzinavanhu who assisted in
conducting the interviews and all the respondents who
participated willingly. We are also grateful to the village
leadership for granting us permission to conduct this
research.
References
[1] M. Adams, “Negotiating nature: collaboration and conflict
between aboriginal and conservation interests in New South
Wales, Australia,” Australian Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3–11, 2015.
[2] J. R. Kideghesho, Constraints in Implementing the BenefitBased Approaches as a Strategy for Conserving Wildlife in
Western Serengeti, Sokoine University Press, Morogoro,
Tanzania, 2006.
[3] B. Tavuyanago, “Living on the fringes of a protected area:
Gonarezhou National Park (GNP) and the indigenous
communities of South East Zimbabwe, 1934-2008,” D.Phil
thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 2016.
[4] J. S. Adams and T. O. McShane, The Myth of Wild Africa:
Conservation without Illusion, W. W. Norton and Company,
New York, NY, USA, 1996.
[5] D. V. L. Macleod, “Parks or people? National parks and the
case of Del Este, Dominican republic,” Progress in Development Studies, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 221–235, 2001.
[6] J. A. Andersson, M. de Garine-Wichatitsky, D. H. Cumming,
V. Dzingirai, and K. E. Giller, Trans-Frontier Conservation
Areas: People Living on the Edge, Earthscan Publications,
London, UK, 2013.
[7] D. Kaimowitz and D. Sheil, “Conserving what and for whom?
Why conservation should help meet basic human needs in the
tropics,” Biotropica, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 567–574, 2007.
[8] J. A. Riseth, Parks for Whom? A Norwegian Policy Dilemma:
Recreation vs Indigenous Interests, 2008.
[9] L. Naughton-Treves, “Predicting patterns of crop damage by
wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda,” Conservation
Biology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 156–168, 1998.
[10] M. Infield and A. Namara, “Community attitudes and behaviour towards conservation: an assessment of a community
conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park,
Uganda,” Oryx, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 48–60, 2009.
[11] J. S. Ayivor, C. Gordon, and Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu, “Protected
area management and livelihood conflicts in Ghana: a case
study of Digya National Park,” Parks, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 37–50,
2013.
[12] S. Gillingham and P. C. Lee, “People and protected areas: a
study of local perceptions of wildlife, crop-damage, conflict in
an area bordering the Selous game reserve, Tanzania,” Oryx,
vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 310–325, 2003.
[13] M. M. Okello and B. E. L. Wishitemi, “Principles for the
establishment of community wildlife sanctuaries for ecotourism: lessons from Maasai Group Ranches, Kenya,” African Journal of Business and Economics, vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 90–109, 2006.
[14] G. S. M. Andrade and J. R. Rhodes, “Protected areas and local
communities: an inevitable partnership toward successful
10
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
Scientifica
conservation strategies?,” Ecology and Society, vol. 17, no. 4,
p. 14, 2012.
K. MacKinnon, Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics,
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 1986.
J. Carruthers, The Kruger National Park: A Social and Political
History, University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg, South
Africa, 1995.
M. G. Shibia, “Determinants of attitudes and perceptions on
resource use and management of Marsabit National Reserve,
Kenya,” Journal of Human Ecology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 55–62,
2017.
D. Brockington, “Community conservation, inequality and
injustice: myths of power in protected area management,”
Conservation and Society, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 411–432, 2004.
L. Norgrove and D. Hulme, “Confronting conservation at
mount elgon, Uganda,” Development and Change, vol. 37,
no. 5, pp. 1093–1116, 2006.
G. Holmes, “Exploring the relationship between local support
and the success of protected areas,” Conservation and Society,
vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 72–82, 2013.
C. J. Cavanagh and T. A. Benjaminsen, “Guerrilla agriculture?
A bio political guide to illicit cultivation within an IUCN
Category II protected area,” Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 42,
no. 3-4, pp. 725–745, 2015.
S. Vermeulen and D. Sheil, “Partnerships for tropical conservation,” Oryx, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 434–440, 2007.
S. Ramphal, in Proceedings of Parks for Life: Report of the
IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas,
J. McNeely, Ed., pp. 56–58, IUCN, Caracas, Venezuel, February 1992.
E. Barrow and C. Fabricius, “Do rural people really benefit
from protected areas: rhetoric or reality?,” Parks, vol. 12, no. 2,
pp. 67–79, 2002.
K. H. Redford and E. Fearn, Protected Areas and Human
Livelihoods (WCS Working Paper No. 32), Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY, USA, 2007.
R. D. Baldus, A Practical Summary of Experiences after Three
Decades of Community Based Wildlife Conservation in Africa
“What are the Lessons Learnt?, Joint publication of FAO and
CIC, Budapest, Hungary, 2009.
D. Trakolis, “Local people’s perceptions of planning and
management issues in prespes lakes national park, Greece,”
Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 61, no. 3,
pp. 227–241, 2001.
R. B. Martin, “Communal areas management programme for
indigenous resources (CAMPFIRE). Revised version,”
CAMPFIRE Working Document No. 1/86, Branch of Terrestrial Ecology, Department of National Parks and Wild Life
Management, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1986.
E. Gandiwa and A. Barabasch, “Skills and training needs in
community based natural resource management,” in Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Research Work &
Learning, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa,
December 2017.
N. Muboko and F. Murindagomo, “Wildlife control, access
and utilisation: lessons from legislation, policy evolution and
implementation in Zimbabwe,” Journal for Nature Conservation, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 206–211, 2014.
D. H. M. Cumming, “Wildlife, livestock and food security in
the south east lowveld of Zimbabwe,” in Conservation and
Development Interventions at the Wildlife/Livestock Interface:
Implications for Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health,
S. A. Osofsky, S. Cleveland, W. B. Karesh et al., Eds., pp. 9–37,
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2005.
[32] P. Robbins, Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction, Blackwell, New York, NY, USA, 2004.
[33] J. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant
Resistance, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, 1985.
[34] J. S. Ferketic, A. M. Latimer, and J. A. Silander Jr., “Conservation justice in metropolitan cape town: a study at the
macassar dunes conservation area,” Biological Conservation,
vol. 143, no. 5, pp. 1168–1174, 2010.
[35] E. Gandiwa, I. M. A. Heitkönig, A. M. Lokhorst,
H. H. T. Prins, and C. Leeuwis, “CAMPFIRE and humanwildlife conflicts in local communities bordering northern
Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe,” Ecology and Society,
vol. 18, no. 4, p. 7, 2013.
[36] P. Lindsey, R. Du Toit, A. Pole, and S. Romañach, Save Valley
Conservancy: A Large Scale African Experiment in Cooperative
Wildlife Management, Earthscan, London, UK, 2009.
[37] ZimStats (Zimbabwe National Statistical Agency), “Zimbabwe National Population Census,” Census 2012: Zimbabwe
Main Report, ZimStats, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2013.
[38] M. Q. Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods,
SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1990.
[39] P. C. L. White, N. V. Jennings, A. R. Renwick, and
N. H. L. Barker, “Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past
use and recommendations for best practice,” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 421–430, 2005.
[40] E. Gandiwa, P. Gandiwa, and N. Muboko, “Living with
wildlife and associated conflicts in northern Gonarezhou
National Park, Southeast Zimbabwe,” Journal of Sustainable
Development in Africa, vol. 14, pp. 252–260, 2012.
[41] J. McCleave, S. Espiner, and K. Booth, “The New Zealand
people-park relationship: an exploratory model,” Society &
Natural Resources, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 547–556, 2006.
[42] M. E. Gadd, “Conservation outside of parks: attitudes of local
people in Laikipia, Kenya,” Environmental Conservation,
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 50–63, 2005.
[43] G. Matseketsa, G. Chibememe, N. Muboko, E. Gandiwa, and
K. Takarinda, “Towards an understanding of conservationbased costs, benefits and attitudes of local people living adjacent to Save Valley Conservancy, Zimbabwe,” Scientifica,
vol. 2018, Article ID 6741439, 9 pages, 2018.
[44] V. Dzingirai, Take Back Your CAMPFIRE: A Study of Local
Level Perceptions to Electric Fencing in the Framework of
Binga’s CAMPFIRE, Centre for Applied Social Sciences,
University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1995.
[45] P. Nyhus, R. Tilson, and Sumianto, “Crop-raiding elephants
and conservation implications at way kambas national park,
sumatra, Indonesia,” Oryx, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 262–269, 2000.
[46] J. W. Smith, J. E. Leahy, D. H. Anderson, and
M. A. Davenport, “Community agency trust and public involvement in resource planning,” Society & Natural Resources,
vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 452–271, 2013.
[47] M. J. Stern, “Coercion, voluntary compliance, and protest: the
role of trust and legitimacy in combating local opposition to
protected areas,” Environmental Conservation, vol. 35, no. 3,
pp. 200–210, 2008.
[48] P. R. Lachapelle and S. F. McCool, “The role of trust in
community wild land fire protection planning,” Society &
Natural Resources, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 321–335, 2012.
[49] H. Wels, Fighting over fences: organizational cooperation and
reciprocal exchange between the Save Valley Conservancy and
its neighboring communities, Ph.D. thesis, University of
Sussex, Brighton, UK, 2000.
[50] S. B. Mariki, “Conservation with a human face? Comparing
local participation and benefit sharing from a National park
Scientifica
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
and a state forest plantation in Tanzania,” SAGE Open, vol. 3,
no. 4, article 215824401351266, 2013.
C. N. Mutanga, N. Muboko, and E. Gandiwa, “Protected area
staff and local community viewpoints: a qualitative assessment of conservation relationships in Zimbabwe,” PLoS One,
vol. 12, no. 5, Article ID e0177153, 2017.
G. Holmes, “Protection, politics and protest: understanding
resistance to conservation,” Conservation and Society, vol. 5,
pp. 184–201, 2007.
N. L. Peluso, “Coercing conservation? The politics of state
resource control,” Global Environmental Change, vol. 3, no. 2,
pp. 199–217, 1993.
D. Western, “Ecosystem conservation and rural development:
the case of Amboseli,” in Natural Connections: Perspectives in
Community-Based Conservation, D. Western, R. M. Wright,
and S. Strum, Eds., Island Press, Covelo, CA, USA, 1994.
K. Jacoby, Crimes against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves
and the Hidden History of American Conservation, University
of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2001.
R. Neumann, Imposing Wilderness: Struggles of Livelihood and
Nature Preservation in Africa, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA, USA, 1998.
L. N. Hazzah, “Living among lions (Panthera leo): coexistence
or killing? Community attitudes towards conservation initiatives and the motivations behind lion killing in Kenyan
Maasailand,” M.Sc. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison, WI, USA, 2006.
K. M. A. Chan and T. Satterfield, “Justice, equity, and biodiversity,” in The Encyclopedia of Biodiversity Online Update
1, S. Levin, G. C. Daily, and R. K. Colwell, Eds., Elsevier,
Oxford, UK, 2007.
J. Harkness, “Recent trends in forestry and conservation of
biodiversity in China,” in Managing the Chinese Environment,
R. L. Edmonds, Ed., pp. 187–210, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, USA, 2000.
C. A. Kull, “Madagascar aflame: landscape burning as peasant
protest, resistance, or a resource management tool?,” Political
Geography, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 927–953, 2002.
F. Meyerson, “Guatemala burning,” Amics Journal, vol. 20,
no. 3, pp. 28–32, 1998.
R. B. Weladji and M. N. Tchamba, “Conflict between people
and protected areas within the Bénoué wildlife conservation
area, north Cameroon,” Oryx, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 72–79, 2003.
J. Corbett, Paper Parks and Paper Partnerships: Lessons for
Protected Areas and Biodiversity Corridors in the Greater
Mekong Sub-Region, International Union for Conservation of
Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 2008.
11
The Scientific
World Journal
Chemistry
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com
2013
Volume 2018
Journal of
Advances in
Botany
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Scientifica
Volume 2018
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Public Health
Volume 2018
International Journal of
Volume 2018
International Journal of
Ecology
Agronomy
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Volume 2018
Volume 2018
Submit your manuscripts at
www.hindawi.com
Advances in
Virolog y
International Journal of
Biodiversity
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Volume 2018
Volume 2018
Journal of
Environmental and
Public Health
International Journal of
Geophysics
Journal of
Chemistry
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Volume 2018
Applied &
Environmental
Soil Science
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Volume 2018
International Journal of
Forestry Research
Volume 2018
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Volume 2018
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Volume 2018
Advances in
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Journal of
Advances in
Marine Biology
Agriculture
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Volume 2018
Archaea
Meteorology
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Volume 2018
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Volume 2018
Journal of
Geological Research
Volume 2018
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com
Volume 2018