Beyond a single perspective to conservation relationships: exploring factors influencing protected area staff and local community relationships in Zimbabwe

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location of the four study sites in Zimbabwe (see Table 1 for details).

Table 1. General characteristics of the study sites: four PAs and adjacent communities, Zimbabwe.

Attributes	Study site
	Umfurudzi	Gonarezhou	Matusadona	Cawston Ranch
Status	Safari Area	National Park	National Park	Safari area
Ownership	Government	Government	Government	Private
Management	Public–private partnership	Public–private partnership	Public	Private
Year established	1981	1930 as a Game reserve, upgraded to a National Park in 1975	1963 as a Game reserve, upgraded to a National Park in 1975	1988
Size (km^2)	760	5053	1400	128
Animal species	Mixed species of both carnivores and herbivores	Wide variety of both large carnivores and herbivores	Wide range of carnivores and herbivores	Mainly small herbivores
Tourism facilities and attractions	Chalets, tented camps, camp sites, caves with paintings, mountains	Tented camps, campsites, waterfalls, cliffs and natural water pans	Lodges, campsites	Bush camps
Forms of tourism	Photographic, sport fishing	Photographic, sport fishing	Photographic, sport fishing	Trophy hunting
Study areas (as depicted in Figure 1)	1-Sanye, 2-Mufurudzi 1, and 3-Mufurudzi 2	1-Chizvirizvi, 2-Mupinga, 3-Chitsa, 4-Mutandahwe, and 5-Mahenye	1-Nebiri, 2-Musambakaruma 2, and 3-Musambakaruma 1	1-Ward 10 and 2-Ward 9
CBNRM projects	None	CAMPFIRE	CAMPFIRE	None
Sources of community livelihoods	Small-scale subsistence and cash crop farming Small-scale livestock production Gold panning	Small-scale substance and cash crop farming Small-scale livestock production	Small scale subsistence and cash crop farming Very little livestock production due to tsetse fly prevalence	Small-scale subsistence and cash crop farming Small scale livestock production
Local languages	Shona	Shangani	Tonga, Shona	Ndebele
Potential conflicts between PAs and communities
Community benefits from PAs	No benefits	Mainly CAMPFIRE benefits	Employment benefits CAMPFIRE benefits	A number of material benefits, for example, game meat, employment
Human–wildlife conflict	Loss of crops and livestock	Loss of crops and livestock	Minimal crop and livestock destruction	Loss of crops
Compensation for losses from wildlife	No compensation	No compensation	No compensation	No compensation
Community involvement in decision-making	None	Limited involvement only in CAMPFIRE management	Limited involvement only in CAMPFIRE management	None

Source: Gandiwa et al. (2012); Muboko et al. (2014); Muposhi et al. (2014); Muposhi et al. (2015); Mutanga et al. (2015b).

CBNRM: Community-Based Natural Resource Management; CAMPFIRE: Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources. Shona people identify themselves by clans such as Karanga, Korekore, Ndau, Manyika or Zezuru which are not captured in this Table.

Figure 2. Community and PA staff perceptions of the relationship they have with each other.

Table 2. Ordinal logistic regression results explaining the influence of eight factors on PA staff–community relationships from the community data sample.

		95% Confidence intervals for odds ratios
Model	Coefficient estimate (Std. error)	Lower	Odds	Upper
PA–community relationships are influenced by:
History of PA creation	−0.28 (0.05)*	0.67	0.74	0.82
Communication	0.46 (0.06)*	1.41	1.58	1.77
Perceptions of tourism	0.53 (0.07)*	1.50	1.70	1.93
Perceptions of conservation	0.56 (0.05)*	1.58	1.75	1.94
Perceptions of PA staff	0.51 (0.07)*	1.45	1.66	1.90
Problems caused by PA existence to adjacent communities	−0.08 (0.05)^a	0.83	0.92	1.02
Benefit-sharing	0.31 (0.07)*	1.18	1.37	1.58
Community involvement	0.25 (0.07)*	1.11	1.28	1.47
R^2 = 0.77
Model x^2(8) = 915.76*

*p < 0.001, ^aNon-significant (ns, p > 0.05).

Table 3. Ordinal logistic regression results explaining the influence of six factors on PA staff–community relationships from the PA staff data sample.

		95% Confidence intervals for odds ratios
Model	Coefficient estimate (Std. error)	Lower	Odds	Upper
PA–community relationships are influenced by:
History of PA creation	−0.44 (0.17)***	0.72	0.65	0.84
Communication	0.59 (0.22)**	1.17	1.81	2.79
Perceptions of communities	0.60 (0.23)***	1.15	1.82	2.88
Problems caused by communities to PAs	−0.13 (0.23)^a	0.73	0.64	1.78
Benefit-sharing	0.17 (0.28)^a	0.52	1.89	1.53
Community involvement	0.70 (0.30)***	1.13	2.02	3.63
R^2 = 0.50
Model x^2(6) = 55.32*

*p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.05, ^aNon-significant (ns, p > 0.05).

Appendix 1. Demographic profiles of respondents. Values are numbers of respondents, and percentages in parenthesis

Demographic profiles of community respondents, n = 938
Gender		Household size
Male	541(57.7)	<5	404(43.1)
Female	397(42.3)	6–10	381(40.6)
Age(years)		>10	153(16.3)
18–25	177(18.9)	Total number of livestock
26–35	237(25.3)	<5	485(51.7)
36–45	201(21.4)	6–10	238(25.4)
46–55	107(11.4)	11–15	84(9.0)
56–65	131(14.0)	16–20	50(5.3)
66–75	70(7.5)	21–25	26(2.8)
76+	15(1.6)	26–30	20(2.1)
Highest level of education		>30	33(3.5)
No formal education	159(170)	Level of income per year
Primary education	442(47.1)	<US$1000	824(87.8)
Secondary education	308(32.8)	US$1000–$2000	68(7.2)
Adult education	13(1.4)	US$2001–$3000	18(1.9)
College diploma	11(1.2)	US$3001–$4000	7(0.7)
University graduate	5(0.5)	US$4001–$5000	6(0.6)
Number of years stayed in the village		US$5001–$6000	5(0.5)
<2	39(4.2)	>$6000	10(1.1)
3–10	134(14.3)	Neighbouring protected area
11–20	330(35.2)	Umfurudzi	74(7.9)
21–30	153(16.3)	Gonarezhou	278(29.6)
31–40	137(14.6)	Matusadona	281(30.0)
41–50	52(5.5)	Cawston Ranch	305(32.5)
>50	92(9.8)
Demographic profiles of PA staff respondents, n = 133
Gender		Job position
Male	113(85.0)	Park Manager	1(0.8)
Female	20(15.0)	Assistant Park Manager	2(1.5)
Age(years)		Senior Game Ranger	7(5.3)
18–25	22(16.5)	Game Ranger	110(82.7)
26–35	64(48.1)	Community Liaison Officer	1(0.8)
36–45	22(16.5)	General Hand	7(5.3)
46–55	14(10.5)	Skinner	2(1.5)
56–65	8(6.0)	Driver	1(0.8)
66–75	3(2.3)	Chef	1(0.8)
76+	0	Mechanic	1(0.8)
Highest level of education		Protected area
No formal education	8(6.0)	Umfurudzi	22(16.5)
Primary education	29(21.8)	Gonarezhou	37(27.8)
Secondary education	74(55.6)	Matusadona	28(34.6)
Adult education	0	Cawston Ranch	46(21.1)
College diploma	14(10.5)
University graduate	8(6.0)
Number of years working in the Protected area
<5	49(36.8)
6–10	52(39.1)
>10	32(24.1)

Appendix 2. Descriptive statistics for dependent and independent variables for the community data sample

Item	Code	Mean	Standard deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
Dependent variable
Protected area (PA) staff–community relationship
Trust
I believe that the Park Management/staff have good intention	TR 01	2.68	2.37	0.99	−0.75
I have faith/trust in the promises or statements of Park staff	TR 02	2.43	2.12	1.26	0.05
I believe the Park has a lot of experience and knows best with regards to wildlife conservation	TR 03	4.41	3.51	9.38	195.13
Fair principles seem to guide the Park’s behaviour	TR 04	3.62	2.55	0.24	−1.66
Category mean	TR	3.29	1.88	1.80	16.02
Commitment
I am proud to tell others that I support wildlife conservation	COMT 01	4.44	2.74	−0.32	−1.77
I really care about the fate of this Park	COMT 02	3.97	2.69	0.01	−1.83
I am willing to put in a great deal of effort in order to help wildlife conservation be successful	COMT 03	4.27	2.69	−0.21	−1.79
I feel that the Park is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to our community	COMT 04	3.23	2.53	0.98	−0.74
Category mean	COMT	3.98	2.11	−0.10	−1.35
Control mutuality
The Park really listens to what our community has to say	C/MUT 01	2.66	2.31	0.98	−0.74
The Park believes the opinions of our community are important	C/MUT 02	2.63	2.28	1.02	−0.63
The Park gives our community enough say in its decision-making process	C/MUT 03	2.28	2.05	1.42	0.49
Generally speaking, both the Park and ourselves are satisfied with the decision-making process	C/MUT 04	2.46	2.18	1.20	−0.17
Category mean	C/MUT	2.51	1.74	0.95	−0.24
Satisfaction
I feel our community is important to the Park	SAT 01	3.40	2.59	0.42	−1.61
Both the Park and ourselves benefit from our relationship	SAT 02	2.50	2.20	1.16	−0.26
Our relationship with the Park is good	SAT 03	2.93	2.45	0.76	−1.18
In general, I am satisfied with our relationship with the Park	SAT 04	2.78	2.38	0.89	−0.92
Category mean	SAT	2.90	1.85	0.71	−0.65
Overall relationship	REL	3.17	1.57	0.57	−0.47
Independent variables
History of PA creation
Forced relocation	HIS 01	5.26	2.49	−0.93	0.94
Fences and fines approach	HIS 02	5.36	2.42	−1.00	−0.79
Restrictions on the use of natural resources	HIS 03	5.58	2.25	−1.24	−0.16
Wildlife attacks on crops, livestock, and humans	HIS 04	5.93	2.10	−1.70	1.14
Decline in traditional practices as a result of restricted access	HIS 05	5.55	2.31	−1.20	−0.30
Category mean	HIS	5.54	1.64	−1.00	0.11
Communication
Park owners/management communicate well with us	COMN 01	3.05	2.48	0.67	−1.30
Game ranchers communicate well with us	COMN 02	2.87	2.39	0.80	−1.06
There is a regular communication network	COMN 03	2.91	2.40	0.77	−1.10
The Park normally holds meetings with us	COMN 04	2.22	2.08	1.48	0.59
We are consulted in decision-making	COMN 05	2.12	1.96	1.66	1.32
Category mean	COMN	2.63	1.62	0.81	−0.27
Community perceptions of tourism
I would be happy to see more tourists here	T/PERC 01	4.25	2.76	−0.18	−1.85
I would be happy if my children worked in the tourism industry	T/PERC 02	5.31	2.44	−0.98	−0.83
Tourism benefits the whole community	T/PERC 03	3.30	2.62	0.49	−.1.59
My family has more money because of tourism	T/PERC 04	2.07	1.94	1.68	1.36
Because visitors want to experience our culture, tourism strengthens our cultural tradition	T/PERC 05	3.07	2.53	0.65	−1.35
Tourists respect our culture and traditions	T/PERC 06	3.04	2.45	0.68	−1.25
Tourism offers financial opportunities for me that have adequately offset my losses from conservation	T/PERC 07	2.13	2.02	0.65	1.16
Category mean	T/PERC	3.31	1.50	0.27	−0.77
Community perceptions of conservation
It is important to protect plants and trees in the Park	C/PERC 01	5.36	2.49	−1.05	−0.78
It is important to protect wild animal species in the Park	C/PERC 02	5.49	2.38	−1.18	−0.43
People who poach should be punished	C/PERC 03	4.91	2.61	−0.66	−1.41
It is good this land is protected	C/PERC 04	4.35	2.70	−0.27	−1.77
I think the Park was created for the betterment of the community	C/PERC 05	3.83	2.71	−0.11	−1.83
I am happy that my village boarders the Park	C/PERC 06	3.67	2.70	0.22	−1.80
Category mean	C/PERC	4.60	1.70	−0.38	−0.82
Community perceptions of PA staff
The Park staff are generally helpful and understand our problems, needs and expectations	PS/PERC 01	2.27	2.13	1.43	0.39
The Park staff are friendly to us	PS/PERC 02	2.35	2.15	1.35	0.28
The Park staff are open to our suggestions and concerns regarding development and conservation programmes	PS/PERC 03	2.31	2.10	1.38	0.34
The Park staff encourage us to participate in conservation programmes	PS/PERC 04	3.01	2.47	0.69	−1.27
The Park staff respect our input or appreciate our efforts	PS/PERC 05	2.34	2.08	1.33	0.26
Category mean	PS/PERC	2.46	1.65	1.09	0.30
Problems caused by PA existence to the community
Damage caused by wild animals	PROB 01	5.30	2.49	−0.96	−0.94
Confrontations with conservation authorities	PROB 02	4.86	2.52	−0.58	−1.43
Threats to human safety	PROB 03	5.18	2.42	−0.84	−1.06
Restrictions on livestock grazing areas	PROB 04	4.99	2.50	−0.70	−1.28
Restrictions on firewood collection	PROB 05	4.66	2.59	−0.44	−1.61
Restrictions on animal hunting	PROB 06	4.69	2.62	−0.47	−1.59
Restrictions on fishing	PROB 07	4.80	2.57	−0.55	−1.50
Category mean	PROB	4.93	1.72	−0.47	−0.83
PA benefits to the community
Provides building material	BEN 01	2.12	2.08	1.65	1.05
Conservation awareness	BEN 02	3.26	2.56	0.51	−1.52
Provides job opportunities	BEN 03	2.44	2.21	1.22	−0.17
Skills development programmes	BEN 04	2.09	1.95	1.69	1.37
Hunt animals or plants for food and medicine	BEN 05	1.77	1.67	2.29	3.96
Provides game meat from culled animals	BEN 06	2.11	2.03	1.66	1.14
I earn money from tourism	BEN 07	1.91	1.83	2.00	2.54
Category mean	BEN	2.25	1.28	1.27	1.57
Community involvement in conservation
The Park values our input a lot	C/INV 01	2.29	2.16	1.39	0.27
Our local/traditional knowledge is important to the Park	C/INV 02	2.76	2.37	0.92	−0.87
Park management trusts us to make meaningful contributions to the management processes	C/INV 03	2.26	2.05	1.44	0.54
We participate and receive benefits from tourism	C/INV 04	2.07	1.96	1.75	1.52
Increased number of goods and services obtained from local businesses	C/INV 05	2.70	2.41	0.99	−0.80
Number of displays of traditional culture or customs within the PA by local communities	C/INV 06	1.84	1.75	2.15	3.31
Category mean	C/INV	2.32	1.38	1.11	0.71

The dependent variable PA–community relationship was coded REL and was assessed using trust (TR), commitment (COMMT), control mutuality (C/MUT), and satisfaction (SAT). The independent variables were coded HIS for history of creation of PAs, COMN for communication, T/PERC for community perceptions of tourism, C/PERC for community perceptions of conservation, PS/PERC for community perceptions of PA staff, PROB for problems caused by PA existence, BEN for benefit-sharing, and C/INV for community involvement in PA management.

Appendix 3. Descriptive statistics of dependent and independent variables for the PA staff data sample

Item	Code	Mean	Standard deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
Dependent variable
Protected Area (PA) staff–community relationship
Trust
I believe that the community has good intention	TR 01	4.21	2.16	−0.14	−1.32
I feel a strong faith in the integrity of the community	TR 02	4.29	1.76	−0.19	−.074
I believe the community has invaluable knowledge with regards to wildlife conservation	TR 03	4.61	2.08	−0.37	−1.26
Ethical principles seem to guide the community’s behaviour	TR 04	4.58	1.93	−0.43	−0.78
Category mean	TR	4.44	1.38	0.17	−0.77
Commitment
The PA values its relationship with the community	COMT 01	4.91	1.94	−0.62	−0.72
I really care about the fate of this community	COMT 02	4.92	1.87	−0.84	−0.36
There is much to be gained by supporting this community	COMT 03	4.71	1.81	−0.31	−0.95
I feel that the community is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to our PA	COMT 04	3.92	1.94	0.02	−1.02
Category mean	COMT	4.61	1.24	−1.03	0.97
Control mutuality
The community really listens to what the PA has to say	C/MUT 01	4.31	1.90	−0.16	−0.85
The community believes the opinions of the PA are important	C/MUT 02	4.15	1.91	−0.16	−0.97
The community gives the PA enough say in its decision-making process	C/MUT 03	4.66	2.0	−0.42	−0.93
Generally speaking, both the community and the PA are satisfied with the decision-making process	C/MUT 04	4.27	1.86	−0.2	−1.0
Category mean	C/MUT	4.35	1.48	−0.22	−0.31
Satisfaction
I feel the PA is important to the community	SAT 01	5.02	2.20	−0.79	−0.86
Both the community and the PA benefit from our relationship	SAT 02	4.86	1.9	−0.75	−0.41
Our relationship with the community is good	SAT 03	4.27	1.98	−0.25	−1.06
In general, I am satisfied with our relationship with the community	SAT 04	4.4	1.92	−0.26	−1.05
Category mean	SAT	4.6	1.23	−0.33	−0.34
Overall relationship	REL	4.5	1.0	−0.27	−0.01
Independent variables
History of PA creation
Forced relocation	HIS 01	4.30	2.19	−0.25	−1.42
Fences and fines approach	HIS 02	4.60	1.86	−0.52	−0.70
Restrictions on the use of natural resources	HIS 03	4.83	1.83	−0.46	−0.90
Wildlife attacks on crops, livestock, and humans	HIS 04	5.01	1.74	−0.62	−0.39
Decline in traditional practices as a result of restricted access	HIS 05	4.46	2.0	−0.25	−1.32
Category mean	HIS	4.64	1.30	−0.2	−0.91
Communication
The PA communicates well with the community	COMN 01	5.44	1.76	−1.29	−0.97
The community communicates well with us	COMN 02	5.31	1.60	−0.52	−0.88
There is a regular communication network	COMN 03	4.20	1.92	−0.15	−0.98
The Park normally holds meetings with the community	COMN 04	4.57	1.98	−0.41	−1.05
The community is consulted in decision-making	COMN 05	3.81	2.32	0.1	−1.56
Category mean	COMN	4.66	1.28	−0.27	−0.27
PA staff perceptions of the community
The community is generally keen to learn about wildlife conservation	COM/PERC 01	4.67	2.01	−0.64	−0.85
Whenever we hold training programmes for the community, they are usually supportive and they come in their numbers	COM/PERC 02	4.10	1.79	−0.14	−0.84
The community understands the importance of wildlife conservation	COM/PERC 03	4.32	1.65	−0.24	−0.72
The community wants to participate in any tourism activities	COM/PERC 04	4.08	1.9	−0.18	−1.09
The community is innovative and always come up with exciting programmes for the tourists	COM/PERC 05	3.14	1.78	0.62	−0.54
Category mean	COM/PERC	4.06	1.15	−0.24	−0.68
Conservation problems caused by the community
Loss of wild animal species due to poaching	PROB 01	5.44	1.78	−0.84	−0.6
Reduction in wild animal habitat due to encroachment	PROB 02	4.96	1.85	−0.95	−0.07
Community collaboration with external commercial poachers	PROB 03	4.88	1.9	−0.57	−0.7
Over-reliance on natural resources	PROB 04	4.36	1.72	−0.41	−0.6
Resistance to taking up any income generating tourism activities	PROB 05	3.75	1.75	0.28	−0.49
Resistance to attending any training programmes in wildlife conservation	PROB 06	3.77	1.87	0.18	−0.85
Reluctant to upgrade their educational qualifications so that they can be employed in higher level positions within the park	PROB 07	4.78	1.91	0.4	−0.9
Category mean	PROB	4.56	1.01	−0.59	0.57
PA benefits to the community
Building material	BEN 01	3.42	2.10	0.23	−1.34
Conservation awareness	BEN 02	4.66	1.83	−0.5	−0.59
Job opportunities	BEN 03	4.77	1.93	−0.43	−0.98
Skills development programmes	BEN 04	3.98	1.92	0.06	−1.12
Free hunting of animals or plants for food and medicine	BEN 05	3.24	2.21	0.48	−1.24
Game meat from culled animals	BEN 06	3.62	2.15	0.15	−1.41
Earning money from tourism	BEN 07	3.29	2.04	0.37	−1.18
Category mean	BEN	3.85	1.17	−0.05	−0.47
Community involvement in conservation
The PA values community input a lot	C/INV 01	4.41	2.08	−0.33	−1.14
The community’s local/traditional knowledge is important to the Park	C/INV 02	4.72	1.98	−0.52	−0.83
PA management trusts the community to make meaningful contributions to the management processes	C/INV 03	4.23	1.91	−0.03	−0.98
The community participates and receive benefits from tourism	C/INV 04	3.55	2.07	0.26	−1.26
Increased number of goods and services obtained from local businesses	C/INV 05	3.88	1.94	0.05	−1.01
Number of displays of traditional culture or customs within the PA by local communities	C/INV 06	3.11	1.91	0.52	−0.74
Category mean	C/INV	3.98	1.20	−0.35	0.07

The dependent variable PA–community relationship was coded REL and was assessed using trust (TR), commitment (COMMT), control mutuality (C/MUT), and satisfaction (SAT). The independent variables were coded HIS for history of creation of PAs, COMN for communication, COM/PERC for PA staff perceptions of the community, PROB for problems caused by the community, BEN for benefit-sharing, and C/INV for community involvement in PA management.

Gandiwa E, Gandiwa P, Muboko N. 2012. Living with wildlife and associated conflicts in a contested area within the Northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. J Sustainable Dev Africa. 14:252–260.

 Google Scholar

Muboko N, Gandiwa E, Mapuranga JT. 2014. Human-elephant conflict in local communities living adjacent to the Southern Boarder of Matusadona National Park, Zimbabwe. RP-PCP/AHEAD Conference, Painted Dog Conservation Centre, Dete, Hwange, Zimbabwe.

 Google Scholar

Muposhi VK, Chinyandura A, Gandiwa E, Muvengwi J, Muboko N, Taru P, Kupika OL. 2014. Post-release monitoring of diet profile and diet quality of reintroduced African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in Umfurudzi Park, Zimbabwe. Trop Conserv Sci. 7:440–456.

 Google Scholar

Muposhi VK, Gandiwa G, Makuza SM, Bartels P. 2015. Population and trophy quality trends of three gregarious herbivores in an insulated semi-arid savanna ecosystem (Cawston Ranch, Zimbabwe), 1997–2014. Trop Conserv Sci. 8:424–438.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mutanga CN, Vengesayi S, Gandiwa E, Muboko N. 2015b. Community perceptions of wildlife conservation and tourism: A case study of communities adjacent to four protected areas in Zimbabwe. Trop Conserv Sci. 8:564–582.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar