Land Use Planning and Wildlife-Inflicted Crop Damage in Zambia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Game Management Areas in Zambia
3. Conceptual Framework
4. Methods
4.1. Data
4.2. Model Specification
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Crop Damage
5.2. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Households
5.3. Characteristics of Communities
5.4. Two-Stage Model Results
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Guidelines for Land-Use Planning; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Naab, F.Z.; Dinye, R.D.; Kasanga, R.K. Urbanisation and its impact on agricultural lands in growing cities in developing countries: A case study of Tamale, Ghana. Mod. Soc. Sci. J. 2013, 2, 256–287. [Google Scholar]
- Muleya, Z. The Strategic Planning Process for Preparing General Management Plans for Protected Areas; Zambia Wildlife Authority: Lusaka, Zambia, 2006; unpublished. [Google Scholar]
- Lamarque, F.; Anderson, J.; Fergusson, R.; Lagrange, M.; Osei-Owusu, Y.; Bakker, L. Human-Wildlife Conflict in Africa. Causes, Consequences and Management Strategies; Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kameri-Mbote, P. Land Tenure, Land Use and Sustainability in Kenya: Towards Innovative Use of Property Rights in Wildlife Management; IELRC Working Paper 2005-4; International Environmental Law Research Centre: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Dixon, J.A.; Sherman, P.B. Economics of protected areas. Ambio 1991, 20, 68–74. [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro, P.J. The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 43, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, R.B.; Fernandez, A.; Tschirley, D.; Tembo, G. Wildlife Conservation in Zambia: Impacts on Rural Household Welfare. World Dev. 2012, 40, 1068–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Boer, W.F.; Baquete, D.S. Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environ. Conserv. 1998, 25, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osborn, F.V.; Parker, G.E. Elephant/Human Conflict Around the Luangwa National Parks, Zambia; Consultancy Report for WWF/SARPO; Mid Zambezi Elephant Project: Harare, Zimbabwe, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Newmark, W.D.; Manyanza, D.N.; Gamassa, D.M.; Sariko, H.I. The conflict between wildlife and local people living adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania: Human density as a predictor. Conserv. Biol. 1994, 8, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, C.M. Conflict of interest between people and baboons: Crop raiding in Uganda. Int. J. Primatol. 2000, 21, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linkie, M.; Dinata, Y.; Nofrianto, A.; Leader-Williams, N. Patterns and perceptions of wildlife crop raiding in and around Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Anim. Conserv. 2006, 10, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, T.B. Human Wildlife Conflict Study, Namibian Case Study; World Wide Fund: Windhoek, Namibia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Shrestha, R. A Case Study on Human-Conflict in Nepal (with Particular Reference to Human-Elephant Conflict in Eastern and Western Terai Regions); World Wide Fund: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Naughton-Treves, L. Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajracharya, S.B.; Furley, P.A.; Newton, A.C. Impacts of community-based conservation on local communities in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 2765–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weladji, R.B.; Tchamba, M.N. Conflict between people and protected areas within the Bénoué Wildlife Conservation area, North Cameroon. Oryx 2003, 37, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otuoma, J. The Effects of Wildlife-Livestock-Human Interactions on Habitat in the Meru Conservation Area, Kenya; LUCID Working Paper 39, Land Use Change Impacts and Dynamics; International Livestock Research Institute: Nairobi, Kenya, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Muruthi, P. Human Wildlife Conflict: Lessons Learned from AWF’s African Heartlands; AWF Working Papers; African Wildlife Foundation: Nairobi, Kenya, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Granados, A.; Weladji, R.B. Human–elephant conflict around Bénoué National Park, Cameroon: Influence on local attitudes and implications for conservation. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. Int. J. 2012, 17, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connell-Rodwell, C.E.; Rodwell, T.; Rice, M.; Hart, L.A. Living with the modern conservation paradigm: Can agricultural communities co-exist with elephants? A five-year case study in East Caprivi, Namibia. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 93, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, R.D. A Review of Problem Elephant Policies and Management Options in Southern Africa; Human Elephant Task Force, IUCN; African Elephant Specialist Group: Nairobi, Kenya, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Bandyopadhyay, S.; Tembo, G. Household consumption and natural resource management around national parks in Zambia. J. Nat. Resour. Policy Res. 2010, 2, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, D.; Pienaar, E.; Jarvis, L. Wildlife conservation, labor supply and time values in rural Botswana. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2016, 21, 135–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- DeMotts, R.; Hoon, P. Whose elephants? Conserving, compensating, and competing in northern Botswana. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 837–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cragg, J. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 1971, 39, 829–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Expected Sign |
---|---|
Age of household head in years | Positive/Negative |
Sex of household head, 1 = male | Negative |
Maximum education (in years) | Negative |
Household size | Negative |
Distance to the nearest main road in kilometers | Positive |
Total area cropped in hectares | Positive |
Value of consumer assets in ZMK | Negative |
Value of productive assets in ZMK | Negative/Positive |
Infrastructure index | Negative |
Population density per square km | Negative |
Number of Scouts | Negative/Positive |
Prime GMA, 1 = yes (gma1) | Positive |
Secondary/specialized GMA, 1 = yes (gma2) | Positive |
Value of harvest in ZMK | Positive |
Land use plan, 1 = yes (land use) | Negative |
Variable | Full Sample | GMAs | Non-GMA Control Areas | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|
Number of sample households | 2717 | 1574 | 1143 | |
Total household income (ZMK) | 4,235,762 | 3,591,253 | 5,123,301 | * |
Household size | 5.28 | 5.08 | 5.57 | *** |
Age of household head (in years) | 42.46 | 41 | 44.48 | *** |
Sex of household head (=1 if male) | 0.74 | 0.73 | 0.76 | ** |
Maximum education (in years) | 6.78 | 6.42 | 7.27 | *** |
Cropped area (hectares) | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.92 | |
Value of consumer assets (ZMK) | 401,588 | 285,362 | 561,641 | ** |
Value of productive assets (ZMK) | 618,036 | 256,729 | 1,115,584 | *** |
Distance to nearest main road (km) | 5.09 | 6.08 | 3.8 | *** |
Population density (per sq km) | 35.2 | 41.41 | 26.97 | *** |
Infrastructure index | 3.62 | 3.64 | 3.59 | |
Prime GMA | 0.17 | 0.3 | n.a. | |
Secondary/specialized GMA | 0.2 | 0.35 | n.a. |
Categorical Variable Description | Communities without Land Use Plans | Communities with Land Use Plan | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|
Number of communities | 110 | 25 | |
Household size | 5.26 | 5.46 | |
Age of household head (in years) | 42.25 | 43.48 | * |
Sex of household head (=1 if male) | 0.75 | 0.75 | |
Maximum education (in years) | 5.33 | 5.54 | |
Cropped area (hectares) | 0.88 | 1.11 | *** |
Value of consumer assets (Kwacha) | 15.61 | 16.53 | |
Value of productive assets (Kwacha) | 30.31 | 30.39 | |
Distance to nearest main road (km) | 5.38 | 2.94 | *** |
Population density (per sq. km) | 4.34 | 5.38 | *** |
Infrastructure index | 3.56 | 3.84 | ** |
Prime GMA | 0.12 | 0.39 | *** |
Secondary/Specialized GMA | 0.24 | 0.08 | *** |
Variables | Basic Model | With Interactions | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Land use plan (dlandplan), 1 = yes | −0.00673 | 1.4020 | 0.0324 | 1.0230 |
(0.0203) | (1.0530) | (0.0311) | (1.2540) | |
Prime GMA (g1), 1 = yes | 0.2240 *** | −0.2080 | 0.3310 *** | 0.0044 |
(0.0568) | (1.1580) | (0.0795) | (1.6850) | |
Secondary/specialized GMA(g2), 1 = yes | 0.0393 | −0.5800 | 0.0566 * | 0.1440 |
(0.0260) | (0.8300) | (0.0301) | (0.9630) | |
dlandplan*g1 | −0.0478 * | 1.0580 | ||
(0.0279) | (1.8600) | |||
dlandplan*g2 | −0.0874 *** | −1.0830 | ||
(0.0228) | (2.2050) | |||
Age of household in years (hage) | −8.19 × 10−5 | 0.0280 | −8.38 × 10−5 | 0.0295 |
(0.0005) | (0.0190) | (0.0005) | (0.0186) | |
Sex of household head, 1 = male (hmale) | −0.0150 | −0.2100 | −0.0140 | −0.3450 |
(0.0171) | (0.8140) | (0.0168) | (0.8090) | |
Level of Education (hedu) | 0.0009 | 0.1430 | 0.0008 | 0.1420 |
(0.0022) | (0.0915) | (0.0022) | (0.0915) | |
Household size (hhsize) | −0.0042 | 0.1110 | −0.0045 | 0.1050 |
(0.0029) | (0.1230) | (0.0028) | (0.1240) | |
Distance to nearest main road in km (Kroad) | 0.0015 *** | −0.00889 | 0.0012 ** | −0.0048 |
(0.0005) | (0.0180) | (0.0005) | (0.0175) | |
Cropped area in hectares (carea) | 0.0266 *** | −0.1390 | 0.0263 *** | −0.1370 |
(0.0053) | (0.2290) | (0.0053) | (0.2240) | |
Value of consumer assets (vcasset2) | −0.1770 | 12.3000 | −0.1100 | 12.2200 |
(0.5800) | (22.8200) | (0.5750) | (22.4800) | |
Value of productive assets (vpasset2) | −0.3930 | −22.4100 | −0.4010 | −19.3600 |
(0.4220) | (17.4100) | (0.4200) | (18.0800) | |
Population density (Popdens) | 0.0002 | −0.0099 | 0.0004 | 0.0031 |
(0.0007) | (0.01480) | (0.0007) | (0.0162) | |
Infrastructure index (infras2) | −0.0102 *** | −0.1580 | −0.0127 *** | −0.1360 |
(0.0035) | (0.1350) | (0.0037) | (0.1380) | |
Number of scouts (nscouts) | 0.0069 ** | 0.1130 | 0.0045 | 0.7950** |
(0.0030) | (0.0706) | (0.0070) | (0.3580) | |
Value of harvest (harv2) | 0.3050 *** | 8.8390 *** | 0.3000 *** | 9.0150 *** |
(0.0480) | (2.3230) | (0.0479) | (2.3150) | |
Nscouts*g1 | −0.0118 | −1.2550 ** | ||
(0.0117) | (0.5080) | |||
Nscouts*g2 | 0.0066 | −0.7110 * | ||
(0.0079) | (0.3690) | |||
Number of Observations | 2185 | 302 | 2185 | 302 |
Goodness of Fit Chi2-square statistic | 246.23 *** | 245.31 *** | ||
Log pseudo likelihood | −748.745 | −866.880 | −744.040 | −862.678 |
Cragg and Uhler’s R2 | 0.202 | 0.209 | ||
District dummy variable | 104.80 *** | 48.48 *** | 95.36 *** | 43.43 *** |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Subakanya, M.; Tembo, G.; Richardson, R.B. Land Use Planning and Wildlife-Inflicted Crop Damage in Zambia. Environments 2018, 5, 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5100110
Subakanya M, Tembo G, Richardson RB. Land Use Planning and Wildlife-Inflicted Crop Damage in Zambia. Environments. 2018; 5(10):110. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5100110
Chicago/Turabian StyleSubakanya, Mitelo, Gelson Tembo, and Robert B. Richardson. 2018. "Land Use Planning and Wildlife-Inflicted Crop Damage in Zambia" Environments 5, no. 10: 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5100110