Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from International Journal of Biodiversity
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
International Journal of Biodiversity
Volume , Article ID , pages
http://dx.doi.org/.//
Review Article
Factors Affecting the Success of Conserving Biodiversity in
National Parks: A Review of Case Studies from Africa
Moses Muhumuza1,2 and Kevin Balkwill1
1University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3 WITS 2050, South Africa
2Mountains of the Moon University, P.O. Box 837, Fort-Portal, Uganda
Correspondence should be addressed to Moses Muhumuza; musacot@gmail.com
Received October ; Revised January ; Accepted January
Academic Editor: Antonio Terlizzi
Copyright © M. Muhumuza and K. Balkwill. is 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.
National Parks are a cornerstone for biodiversity conservation in Africa. Two approaches are commonly used to sustain biodiversity
in National Parks.Past and current studies show that both approaches are generally ineective in conserving biodiversity in National
Parks in Africa. However, there are a handful of cases where these approaches have been successful at conserving biodiversity in
National Parks. e question this paper attempts to answer is why in some cases these approaches have been successful and in other
cases they have failed. A metadata analysis of documents on case studies about conservation of biodiversity in National Parks
in Africa was conducted. A series of search engines were used to nd papers for review. Results showed that all factors responsible
for both the success and failure of conserving biodiversity in National Parks in various contexts were socioeconomic and cultural in
nature. e highest percentage in both successful case studies (%) and unsuccessful cases studies (%) was associated with the
creation and management of the park. ese results suggest that future conservation approaches in National Parks in Africa should
place more emphasis on the human dimension of biodiversity conservation than purely scientic studies of species and habitats in
National Parks.
1. Introduction
National Parks are the most extensive type of protected areas
in Africa and globally. ey are classied under category
II of the IUCN categories of protected areas []. National
Parks are created to () protect the ecological integrity of one
or more ecosystem for present and future generations; ()
exclude exploitation or occupation detrimental to the pur-
posesofdesignationofthearea;and()provideafoundation
for spiritual, scientic, educational, recreational, and visitor
opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and
culturally compatible []. National Parks comprise the highest
percentage (%) of the total area covered by protected
areas worldwide []. For instance, according to estimates by
Colchester [], Africa has more than , National Parks
covering a total ,, km2of the continent. In Sub-
Saharan Africa alone, over million km2of land out of
million km2(constituting approximately %) has been set
aside as National Parks [].
Conservation of biodiversity in National Parks is done
through two main approaches: one approach is the preser-
vation approach, which aims at setting aside National Parks
to exclude human activities except for tourism. rough this
approach, direct use of natural resources in the park for
commercial or subsistence purposes is prohibited []. is
type of approach is oen referred to as the “protectionism
approach” or “the nes and fences” approach []. For con-
sistency, the term “preservation approach” is used in this
paper. e preservation approach aims at excluding human
activities considered inimical to the objectives of conserving
biodiversity in National Parks. e preservation approach
was the most dominant approach until the s, but in
some National Parks, it has now been substituted by the
second approach called the community-based conservation
approach that allows people (especially those that neighbour
National Parks) to benet socially or economically from
parks []. e community-based conservation approach was
proposed to address the problems associated with excluding
International Journal of Biodiversity
human activities from the park. A detailed description of the
development of the two approaches can be found elsewhere
[,].
e community-based conservation approach involves
initiatives aimed at conserving biodiversity in the park but
also letting local people benet from the park []. Some of
the initiatives involved in the community-based conservation
approach include signing of resource use agreements such
as in the Rwenzori Mountains National Park which allow
local people who neighbour National Parks to have access
to specic resources from the park for subsistence use [].
In other cases, local people are given money for infrastruc-
tural development, such as in Integrated Conservation and
Development Initiative in Korup National Park in Cameroon
[]. And in other National Parks such as Pendjari National
Park in Benin, local people are given a percentage of revenue
generated from tourism activities in the park [].
Despite the implementation of these approaches, the
Global Outlook which is a recent report by the Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity []showsthat
biodiversity loss from protected areas has persisted. e
report revealed that the targets agreed upon by leaders of
dierentcountriesintheworldintosignicantlyreduce
therateofbiodiversitylossatglobal,regional,andnational
levels had not been met by . reats to biodiversity such
as habitat loss, climate change, pollution, unsustainable use
of resources, and invasive alien species have intensied [].
AccordingtoButchartetal.[], despite the many eorts
takenaroundtheworldtoconservebiodiversityanduseit
sustainably, approaches and strategies so far have not been
adequate to address the scale of biodiversity loss or reduce
the pressures.
Although none of the twenty-one subtargets accompa-
nying the overall target of signicantly reducing the rate of
biodiversity loss by was achieved globally, there are some
thathadbeenlocallyachieved[,]. de Oliveira []had
earliernotedthatforeveryprotableandsuccessfulprotected
area, there may be hundreds that are not successful.
ere are a number of suggestions that have been
made since the publication of the Global Outlook by the
Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity. For
instance, Rands et al. [] suggested that beyond the year ,
successful conservation approaches need to be reinforced
and adequately nanced. Rands et al. []opinethatamore
radical change is required to recognize biodiversity as a
global public good and integrate biodiversity conservation
into policies and decision frameworks. However, before
any suggestion about eective conservation of biodiversity
inNationalParksisimplemented,thecurrentscenario
necessitates an understanding of the underlying factors for
success and failure of the existing biodiversity conservation
approaches.
Although many studies have been conducted on threats
that protected areas face, there is a scarcity of literature that
assesses why those threats have persisted. In addition, there
is a scarcity of published literature that analyzes why some
strategies aimed at preventing biodiversity loss succeed in
some instances and fail in other instances. In the absence
of such literature, it becomes dicult to propose other
strategies or to have a basis upon which new ones can be
improved.
Although the Secretariat for the Convention on Biological
Diversity [] identied underlying causes to biodiversity loss
such as demographic change, economic activity, levels of
international trade, per capita consumption patterns linked to
individual wealth, cultural and religious factors, and scientic
and technological change, these factors were not discussed
in specic detail in the context of conserving biodiversity in
National Parks in Africa. In this paper, the aim is to identify
and analyze factors that aect the success of conserving
biodiversity in National Parks in Africa.
2. Methods
A literature review of biodiversity conservation in National
Parks in Africa was conducted. e literature that was
reviewed was systematically selected from the internet using
search engines shown in Table .Websearcheswerecon-
ducted between May and March . e search
terms used separately or in combination included “National
Park management,”“evaluation of success of National Parks,”
“eectiveness of National Parks,”“community based con-
servation of National Parks,”“community based natural
resource management,”and “eectiveness of community based
conservation approach”. For ScienceDirect, the search was
conductedontherstthreehundredarticles.
e web search resulted in journal articles, books,
technical papers, working documents, and theses which are
collectively called “publications” in this paper. e title of
each publication was read to determine if it met the criteria
for inclusion. If the title and abstract of the publication
indicated that it might meet the inclusion criteria, the full
text was viewed and the publication was saved on a personal
computer. A publication was selected for review if it met the
following criteria:
() was written in English,
() reported on establishment, management, and eec-
tiveness of a National Park in Africa,
() reported on implementation, monitoring, and eec-
tiveness of any aspects of community-based conser-
vation in or around a National Park in Africa,
() assessed performance of any biodiversity conserva-
tion approach in and around a National Park in
Africa,
() discussed actual reasons for success or failure of the
approach in a National Park in Africa.
Attentionwasrstgiventopublicationsthatwerein
peer-reviewed journals, project reports, and working articles.
Because much grey literature (such as unpublished Masters
and Ph.D. theses) in conservation is of high quality and could
be valuable for evaluating and understanding factors aecting
the success or failure of conserving biodiversity in National
Parks, grey literature publications were also included in the
review. Publications that had a conceptual or theoretical
signicancetojustifytheargumentinthispaperwerealso
International Journal of Biodiversity
T : Web search engines from which the literature for review was obtained.
Source of data Description of the source
CBNRM Net CBNRM Net is an integrated and adaptable knowledge management tool. It has over case studies
on community-based natural resource management collected from various countries around the world.
Khup.com Khup.com is a search engine, which provides updated and quality results for e-books, books, magazines,
user’s guides, and references in pdf format in various elds including biodiversity conservation.
Advancing conservation in the
social context reference library
Advancing conservation in the social context reference library is an interdisciplinary research initiative
designed to generate knowledge and promote potential solutions about the tradeos that characterize
complex ecological and social relationships. Registered users access and download materials from
advancing conservation in the social context library.
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect is an online collection of published scientic research. It contains nearly million
articles from over , journals and over , e-books, reference works, book series, and handbooks
issued by Elsevier.
Google Scholar
Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes full text of scholarly literature
across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. It indexes most peer-reviewed online journals
from scholarly publishers especially in Europe and America.
T:enumberofsubfactorsineachcategory.
Category of factors Number of factors in unsuccessful cases sub Number of factors in successful cases sub
Creation and management of the park
Local community neighbouring the park
e area where the park is located
National policy governing the park
Financial resource base of the park.
included in the review. Publications that reported on trans-
boundary National Parks were also included in the review.
Publications that reported case studies in Africa as well
as other continents were only included in the review if they
reported specic results on African case studies. Publications
that reported multiple case studies from Africa were included
in the review even when the case study results were gener-
alised. Publications that reported threats or lack of threats in
National Parks without giving reasons for the observations
were not included in the review.
Of the publications, met the criteria for selection
and inclusion in the review. ese publications are shown
in the reference list and in Supplementary Material available
online at http://dx.doi.org/.//.
e procedure of reviewing the publications followed
guidelines recommended by Randolph []. Deductive cod-
ing of text as explained by []wasconductedoneach
of the selected publications. A case study was considered
“successful” if the publication reviewed stated that there
was staving o of biodiversity loss in a National Park or if
there was a reduction in threats to the park. If an approach
such as community-based conservation succeeded in giving
local people incentives or attracting tourists to the park
but failed to stave o biodiversity loss or to reduce threats
to biodiversity in the park, it was categorized as a failure.
e categorization of factors as responsible for success or
failurewasbasedonwhatwasreportedbytheauthorsof
the publications. Case studies and examples referred to in the
body of the paper were selected based on their relevance to
the presentation and discussion.
3. Results
Various factors that aected conservation of biodiversity
in National Parks in Africa were identied. e identied
factors were grouped into ve categories which included
the creation and management of the park, local community
neighbouring the park, the area where the park is located,
national policy governing the park, and nancial resource
base of the park. Table shows the number of sub-factors
in each of the ve categories. For instance, in the category
of creation and management of the park, there were sub-
factors and sub-factors associated with unsuccessful cases
and successful cases, respectively.
Onecategory(thecreationandmanagementofthe
park) constituted an overlap of sub-factors that aected the
conservation of biodiversity in National Parks positively and
negatively in dierent contexts.
3.1. Creation and Management of the Park. Creation of a
National Park involves placing a caveat on the use of a
particular area oen more than km2. How this is done
inuences how that area will be managed and how eective
biodiversity conservation in that area will be. Table shows
the number of publication in which the sub-factors that were
associated with the creation and management. Some of the
factors were responsible for success in some situation and for
failure in other situations.
3.1.1. Displacing Local People in Order to Establish National
Parks. at the displacement of people from their traditional
International Journal of Biodiversity
T : e number of publications in which the subfactors associated with the creation and management of the park were reported.
Subfactors
Number and percentage
of publications reporting
the factor to be
responsible for success
Number and percentage
of publications reporting
the factor to be
responsible for failure
Subfactors responsible for success and failure in dierent contexts
e creation of the park led to displacement of local people from the land they
occupied. (.%) (.%)
e local people neighbouring the park were restricted from accessing resources
in the park. (.%) (.%)
e local people who initially obtained resources in the area were not adequately
compensated for no longer accessing resources in the park. (.%) (.%)
Subfactors responsible only for success
e park administration had conict resolution mechanisms and implemented
them in case of any conict. (.%)
e park’s administration possessed documents for legal establishment of the
park. (.%)
e park’s administration gave harsh punishments to people who contravened
park rules. (.%)
e park’s administration provided education, awareness, and outreach
programmes to local communities neighbouring the park. (.%)
e management of the park was eected through the leadership structures of
the local community. (.%)
e park had a monitoring and evaluation system. (.%)
Subfactors responsible only for failure
e local people neighbouring the park were asked to pay fees to access resources
in the park. (.%)
e local people neighbouring the park were not consulted before the park was
created. (.%)
A feasibility study to account for the local context was not conducted before
creating the park. (.%)
e park administration did not give the promised incentives to local people in
thecaseofcommunity-basedconservationapproach. (.%)
e park was created in an area with high biodiversity and not degraded. (.%)
e creation of the park did not take into account the past and current human
ecology of the area. (.%)
ere were no clear communication channels between park sta and leaders at
the local and national level. (.%)
e policies governing the park were not enforced. (.%)
e park sta were not skilled and were paid a low salary. (.%)
Previous initiatives to conserve biodiversity in the park had failed. (.%)
e park had been newly created. (.%)
lands led to unsuccessful conservation of biodiversity in
National Parks was reported in (.%) publications (for
instance [–]). Displacement involves the involuntary
physical removal of people from their historical or exist-
ing home as a result of actions by governments or other
organisational actors. Displacement of people from their
traditional lands caused a negative attitude among local
residents towards the existence of the park, and negative
attitudes were responsible for conicts between local people
and the park sta. A study by Kideghesho et al. [],
among communities neighbouring the Serengeti National
Park,foundthatpeoplewhohadbeenevictedwhenthe
park was created more strongly opposed the existence of the
park than those who were not evicted. Similar ndings were
reported in studies by Hoole and Berkes [] that described
how Herero communities were ousted from Etosha National
Park. Creation of protected areas not only causes conicts
between park managers and local people [], but also results
in killing highly prized wildlife species by local people as a
way of protesting the approach [,]. ese case studies
International Journal of Biodiversity
suggest that the loss of biodiversity from National Parks is as
a result of people feeling no longer accountable for those
resources.
Although displacement of people during creation of
National Parks was one of the factors aecting successful
conservation of biodiversity in parks [], in publications,
success of conserving biodiversity in National Parks was
attributed to evicting local people who occupied the area.
is indicates that in some instances, it is appropriate to
evict local people from their traditional lands for biodiversity
conservation especially when supported by national policy.
is makes the displacement of local people in order to
establish parks a debatable issue.
3.1.2. Restriction of Local People against Access to Resources
in Parks. In (%) of the publications, unsuccessful con-
servation of biodiversity in National Parks was attributed to
restricting local people neighbouring the park from accessing
resources in the park. is was reported for instance in [,,
,]. For example, Shackleton et al. []attributethefailure
of conserving biodiversity in three National Parks in Uganda
to restricted access to park resources. Restricted access caused
negative attitudes amongst local communities towards the
existence of the park and resulted in some people conducting
the prohibited activities illegally in the park. For instance,
negative attitudes towards the protected areas in Western
Serengeti correlated with restrictions over access to pasture
and water for livestock []. Similarly, a study by Vodouhˆ
e
et al. [] found that % of the people (mainly farmers) who
were asked about their attitudes towards the conservation
of Pendjari National Park said that the decision of the park
management sta to ban agricultural activities within the
park boundaries generated a strong negative opinion of
the park management. In the same study, % of people
involved in livestock production commented negatively on
the Pendjari National Park sta ’s decision to ban animal
rearing within the park [].
Although restricting local people from accessing park
resources was reported as a factor that led to the failure of
conserving biodiversity in parks, in (.%) of the publi-
cations reviewed, authors attributed successful conservation
of biodiversity in National Parks to restriction over resource
use by constantly patrolling and physically guarding the park.
A study by Bruner et al. [] found that park eectiveness at
conserving biodiversity correlated most strongly with density
of guards. ey found that the median density of guards in
the most eective parks was more than eight times higher
than in the least eective parks ( guards per km2
in the most eective parks compared with . guards
per km2in the least eective). However, enforcement
capacity (a function of training, equipment, and salary) was
not found to correlate with eectiveness, suggesting that these
characteristics are less important than the presence of guards,
contradicting some cases where it was reported that those
factors hindered the successful conservation of biodiversity
in National Parks.
is indicates that in some cases, it is necessary to restrict
access to National Parks for more eective conservation
of biodiversity. However, successful conservation through
restricted access was supported by presence of a clearly
demarcated border [,]. Roe et al. [] suggest that with
the presence of a clearly demarcated border, park resources
can be clearly segregated and agreed upon by users, although
they note that the mobility of animals frustrates this especially
under game cropping arrangements. Similarly, ndings []
in Tanzania, which linked success of biodiversity conserva-
tion with dierent levels of protection, found that biodiversity
in strictly guarded areas was more conserved than in less
guarded areas.
3.1.3. Lack of Adequate Compensation, or Failure to Take into
Account the Needs, of Local People Who Initially Depended
on Resources in the Area Occupied by the Park. In (.%)
of the publications, unsuccessful conservation of biodiversity
was attributed to the failure of the park sta to adequately
compensate local people who initially depended on resources
in the area where the park was created [,,]. is
compelled local people to go against park rules and to
harvest resources in the park. A study by Vodouhˆ
eetal.[]
showed that nearly % of the people neighbouring Pendjari
National Park said that % of total revenues generated
through hunting activities distributed to the population were
insucient to compensate for having no access to resources
in the park that they initially depended on. For this reason,
it was said that some people continued going into the park to
harvest resources so as to meet their livelihood needs. Also a
study by Holmern et al. [] on hunting in Serengeti National
Park showed that providing adjacent villages with incentives
to abstain from illegal hunting indicated that the incentives
givendidnotleadtoeconomicallysustainableactivitiesand
they made only a minor economic contribution compared to
illegal hunting.
However, where the park administration took into
account the needs of the community neighbouring the park,
there was successful conservation of biodiversity in those
parks. is was reported in (.%) of the publica-
tions. For example, Archabald and Naughton-Treves []
found that % of respondents living near three National
Parks in Uganda thought that tourism revenue sharing had
improved their attitudes towards conservation of biodiversity
in those National Parks. Also in the same study, % of
the respondents thought that tourism revenue sharing was
more important than illegally harvesting nontimber forest
products from the parks. Similarly, a study by Roe et al. []
concluded that the value of wildlife assets greatly aects the
incentives for community-based conservation and hence its
chances of success. ey, however, cautioned that benets
should be shared in a way that is commensurate with the
varying sacrices and contributions made or the damages
incurred by the local people. Similarly, in one case study
in South Africa, it was found that to be eective, benet
sharing schemes need to be seen to be transparent and
accountable, with well-dened principles and practices that
are understood, agreed, and accepted by all stakeholders. A
studybyDudleyetal.[] in the forest surrounding Lob´
ek´
e
National Park among two groups of Cameroonian people (the
Baka pygmies and the Bagando) concurs with these ndings.
International Journal of Biodiversity
Similarly, Kremen et al. [] attribute successful conservation
of the Masoala National Park to the design considering the
economic and cultural benets of the local people. Successful
conservation of wildlife and forest biodiversity conservation
in Taita Kenya was also as a result of recognizing the needs
of local people []. Various studies such as [,]showthat
traditionally, local people in African communities depend on
environmental resources directly for survival. People hunt
animals, collect wild fruits, and their culture revolves around
resources in the environment. A lack of this recognition was
a fault on the side of conservationists who established the
rst protected areas in Africa. It is a greater fault on the
side of current conservationists to establish protected areas
withouttakingintoaccountthatlocalpeopledependonthose
resources for livelihood and survival. Conservationist must
realize that the biodiversity that parks are designed to protect
is a social good. More than % of the people in eastern and
South Africa depended on the immediate forest resources for
livelihood and survival [].
People who depend on the immediate environmental
resources are said to have traditional practices informed by
traditional ecological knowledge that they use to conserve
those resources []. So it should not be assumed that
dependence on environmental resources automatically leads
to biodiversity loss. In other words, there is a possibility that
traditional communities have traditional conservation strate-
gies which have been ignored by National Park managers.
is issue has been explored further in Muhumuza et al. (in
prep.). e point that is being made here is that conservation
of National Parks in the current African context should not
be based on knowledge, assumptions, and demographics of
the th century.
3.1.4. Conict Resolution Mechanism and Direct Compensa-
tion Schemes. When there are conicts resulting from the
eviction of people from their traditional lands, in some
publications, it was emphasized that the park administration
must put in place conict resolution mechanisms. In (.%)
of the publications reviewed, the authors highlighted the
importance of dispute resolution for conservation of biodi-
versity in parks. For instance, Bruner et al. []showedthat
park administrators that had conict resolution mechanisms
and implemented them when conict arose more eectively
managed conservation of biodiversity in parks than those
that did not. Conict or dispute resolution mechanisms are
therefore likely to be an essential component of successful
initiatives of conserving biodiversity in National Parks. Some
of the conict resolutions involve compensation for loss of
property,forinstance,whenverminfromNationalParks
destroyed local people’s crops. Bruner et al. []found
that the existence of direct compensation programmes to
local communities correlated signicantly with management
eectiveness of National Parks.
3.1.5. Possession of Legal Documents for the Establishment of
Parks. In (.%) publications reviewed, more successful
conservation of biodiversity was attributed to the possession
of documents for legal establishment of the park. Legal
creation of the park was fundamental in eective park man-
agement and was proven to be a critical factor in deterring
land use changes, particularly in areas of development fron-
tiers []. Legal creation of protected areas seems to provide
some immediate guarantees of protection under certain
conditions. For instance, it serves as a deterrent to signicant
land use changes and habitat conversion even in the absence
of other management actions []. Legal establishment of
NationalParksisalsolinkedtogovernmentsupportbecause
it gives government a legal mandate to have control over
National Parks [,–]). Derman []attributedthe
initial success of the Communal Areas Management Program
for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) program to ocial
support of the Zimbabwean government.
3.1.6. Punishing Contraveners of Park Rules. In (.%)
of the publications, successful conservation of biodiversity
in National Parks was ascribed to harsh punishments given
to people who contravened park rules. Harsh punishments
areaproductoftheprobabilityofapprehendingviolators
when guards detected a violation (either in progress or
aer the act) and a probability of the violator receiving a
signicant sanction if apprehended []. Eectiveness of the
park to conserve biodiversity signicantly correlated with
the level of punishments of illegal activities in the park
[]. However, Bruner et al. [] found that punishments
againstclearingandloggingcorrelatedwithparkeective-
ness, whereas deterrents against hunting did not. Dudley et al.
[]intheirstudyinCrossRiverNationalParkandOkomu
National Park recommend that punishments or some aspects
ofthedecreegoverningoperationofprotectedareasmay
require modication to reect contemporary developments,
including possibly harsher punishments for illegal activities
and conversely greater access to protected area benets for
local communities.
3.1.7. Provision of Education, Awareness, and Implementation
of Outreach Programmes. In (.%) of the publications,
authors found that provision of education, awareness, and
outreach programmes to local communities neighbouring
theparkwasresponsibleinsomecasesforsuccessfulconser-
vation of biodiversity [,,]. A study by Ormsby and
Kaplin [] in Masoala National Park in Madagascar found
that % of residents living near the park were aware of the
existence of the park and expressed positive opinions about
the park, attributing this to the education and awareness pro-
grammes that the park administration had provided. Dudley
et al. [] also ascribed success of the Sustainable Forest
Management and Conservation Project in Botswana, Malawi,
Mozambique, and Namibia to the provision of awareness
programmes. ey attributed provision of environmental
education to the reduction in deforestation from .% in
to about .% in . Also the forest stocking density posi-
tively changed from stems per hectare in to in
, which is an increase of % []. Provision of awareness
programmes was linked to sensitization of the community on
the need for conservation. A study in Bwindi Impenetrable
National Park in Uganda also conrmed that environmental
education enhanced management eectiveness in the parks.
International Journal of Biodiversity
Education and awareness activities play a vital role in building
support for protected areas in general and for particular
management actions. Sensitization is highly signicant in
terms of future interventions [].
3.1.8. Eecting Park Management through Local Structures. In
(.%) of the publications, it was reported that conserva-
tion of biodiversity was successful because the management
of the park was eected through the leadership structures of
the local community [,,]. A study by Vodouhˆ
eetal.[]
found that conservation of biodiversity in Pendjari National
Park was successful among other reasons because the park
sta recognized a local organization made up of members
of local communities who were mandated to inform park
staabouteachactivitythatlocalpeopleintendedtoconduct
in the park. Recognizing the local community organization
not only reinforced local people’s positive perception about
the park management, but also increased the awareness of
the local people about biodiversity conservation. Community
institutions such as social structures, rules, processes, and
arrangements are the building blocks of community organi-
zation and collective action and so have a major inuence on
the ecacy of biodiversity conservation [].
3.1.9. Presence of a Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
System. Eecting conservation of the park through the exist-
ing leadership system also enhanced participatory monitor-
ing of resource use in parks. In (.%) of the case studies,
eectiveness of conserving biodiversity in National Parks was
because of the presence of a participatory monitoring and
evaluation system [,,–]. For instance, successful
conservation of Miombo woodlands was attributed to a
community-based monitoring system that focuses on natural
resourceuseandforestqualityinmontaneevergreenforest
and Miombo woodland areas which was developed and
implementedinvillagesinaspartofaparticipatory
forest management regime in Iringa district, Tanzania [].
AstudybyDudleyetal.[]suggestedthatagoodmon-
itoring and evaluation system is closely correlated to those
protected areas where biodiversity is being best conserved.
Conservation eectiveness of protected areas in Tanzania was
attributed to establishing clear management and monitoring
objectives in advance []. Stuart-Hill et al. []reported
a detailed discussion on the success of using an “Incident
Book” system as a monitoring tool for eective conservation
of National Parks in Namibia.
Inotherpublications(forinstance[,,,,]),
successful conservation of biodiversity in National Parks
was associated with local community members monitoring
the use of resources in the park In Uganda, for instance,
Uganda Wildlife Authority signed resource use agreements
with local communities which included that local people
participate in monitoring of resources. Fisher and Jackson
[] reported that this venture was behind the success in
reducing anthropogenic pressure around Kibale National
Park in Uganda. Similar ndings were reported in the western
part of Serengeti National Park [,]andinZimbabwe’s
CAMPFIRE programme. Successful conservation of National
Parks was also attributed to cooperation between the local
community and the park sta [,,,]. Cooperation
allows mutual agreements between protected area sta and
thelocalcommunitytobereachedandcompromisesto
be struck with regard to protected area resource use. is
is important as it underscores the need for park managers
to provide livelihood and employment opportunities and
involvement in park governance processes, regardless of the
state of any land claims that were in process or completed [,
]. In some National Parks where the local community had
the autonomy to make rules and regulations governing access
to resources in the park, success was registered [,]. A case
in point was in Namibia where members of the conservancy
committee were democratically elected and were given the
mandateofmakingrulesandregulationstogovernresource
use []. However, in that case, the success of devolving
power to local communities to make rules required culturally
appropriate competence in legitimacy and accountability.
Roe et al. [] warn that representativeness and legitimacy do
notalwaysgohandinhand.
3.1.10. Asking Local People to Pay Fees to Access Resources in
the Park. In (.%) of the publications, it was reported
that the local people neighbouring the park were asked to pay
fees to access resources in the park. is hampered successful
conservation because local people could not see the point of
asking them to pay for resources that they thought belonged
to them []. For instance, negative attitudes towards Kgala-
gadi Transfrontier National Park in South Africa were as a
result of neighbouring indigenous groups being required to
pay regular access fees to the park unless they were entering
for a cultural purpose []. is led some local people to feel
that they were being treated like tourists [].
3.1.11. Lack of Consultation with, and Involvement of, the Local
People before Establishing the Park. Lack of consultation with
thelocalpeoplebeforetheparkwascreatedwasreportedin
(.%) of the publications (for instance, in [,]) as
responsible for unsuccessful conservation of biodiversity in
parks. According to Mbile et al. [],KorupNationalParkwas
created without any form of prior negotiations with any of the
local people and for that reason, access to resources remained
ade facto reality. Also Gibson and Marks []reported
that in many National Parks in Africa, local people have
been neglected in the processes of negotiations regarding
the use of the resources within National Parks. is resulted
in people not taking up the conservation objectives of the
park.Forinstance,Vodouh
ˆ
eetal.[] found that the former
management of the Pendjari National Park in Benin did not
includecommunitieslivingadjacenttoitandthiscaused
localpeopletohaveafeelingofinjusticeandtheythought
that the central government had stolen their resources. is
resulted in frequent conicts between the park sta and local
communities who deed the rules against accessing the park
tohuntanimalsortodoagriculture.Insomecases,duetolack
of involvementof the people, local people who were expected
to implement some of the project activities did not know
muchaboutsomeprojectsthattheparkwasimplementing
to conserve biodiversity. For instance, a study by Wainwright
and Wehrmeyer []aboutLuangwaIntegratedResource
International Journal of Biodiversity
Development Project in Zambia found that only % of the
residents interviewed claimed to have a good understanding
of the program implemented by the project in coordination
with the park, despite .% of respondents having known
Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project for more
than three years. ese studies concluded that if local people
were not involved in decisions over management of resources
in National Parks, then they cannot support the objectives
of the park administration. is conclusion is supported by
evidence from other case studies which reported that when
local people neighbouring the park agreed on the objectives
of conserving the park (, .%) and comanagement arrange-
ments were arrived at through a consensus manner between
the park sta and the local community (, .%), there was
successful conservation in those parks. For instance, conser-
vation was more successful when local people neighbouring
the park agreed on the objectives for establishing the park
[]. Allowing local communities neighbouring the Pendjari
NationalParktoagreeonconservationobjectivesledto
the creation of a participatory management strategy which
allowedthemtoharvestmedicinalplantsandusefulfruits
through the authorization from the Village Associations for
the Management of Wildlife Reserves (VAFMWR) [].
In some cases, consultations with the local people led to
joint formulation of policy. In Zanzibar,according to a study
by Williams et al. [], new policy and legislation were piloted
through the joint formulation of hunting by-laws with each
village. e by-laws set out the rules for resource control
and revenue generation mechanisms to promote community
management and nancial viability. Joint eorts between the
governmentagencyresponsibleforthewildliferesourceand
partner villages were simultaneously made to improve the
implementation of an annual closed hunting season. All these
arrangements led to more eective conservation of biodi-
versityinNationalParks.Kremenetal.[]alsoreported
success in Masoala National Park as a result of arriving at co-
management arrangements in a consensus manner. In South
Africa, the Makuleke agreement, whereby the community
gained ownership of more than , hectares of valuable
conservation land in the Kruger National Park, is the result
of almost three years of negotiations. e agreement came
about because both key role players (the community and
the South African National Parks Board) were prepared to
redene their objectives over time. e end result enhanced
biodiversity conservation because , ha of new land was
addedtotheparkandanagreementreachedagainstchange
of land use on the restituted portion. Also the community
beneted because they were mandated to establish their own
tourism lodges, with the help of commercial partners, inside
the park [].
From these examples, it appears that involving the com-
munityrequiresconstantsupportofthecommunityinvolved.
Strong project stewardship by the local government with
backing from the national government was also attributed
to the success of the Sustainable Forest Management and
Conservation Project in Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique,
and Namibia []. A study on the community-based conser-
vation project in Mahenye, Zimbabwe, suggested that even
in apparently successful conservation and development
projects, local participatory decision-making institutions are
fragile and require continuing external support []. ey
caution against full devolution of authority to the community
level without safeguards to maintain good governance and
adequate capacity. Based on a study on community-based
natural resource management and development in Botswana
it was concluded that local communities cannot achieve
the goals of sustainable development on their own, hence
suggesting external support [].
3.1.12. Establishing a Park without First Conducting a Feasi-
bility Study. In (.%) of the publications, unsuccessful
biodiversity conservation in National Parks was ascribed
to the failure of conducting a feasibility study to account
forhowthelocalcontextwouldinuencetheoutcomeof
initiatives of conserving biodiversity in National Parks [].
AccordingtoMalleson[], among other factors for the
failure to sustain biodiversity in Korup National Park in
Cameroon was the failure of park managers and the sta
of the Korup project (that was implemented to solve some
existing problems associated with biodiversity conservation
in the park) to understand the existing needs of the local
people, the socioeconomic and political factors, and the
complex historical processes which underpin the use of
natural resources in Korup. To highlight this point, Malleson
[]pointsout:
“without a rm grasp of the ecological, socio-
political and economic complexities of the Korup
forest area, Korup project management continued
to base the design and implementation of its
rural development component on a number of
misguided assumptions” (p. 245).
Similarly, Gibson and Marks [] using game theory and
a case study from Zambia found that failure of initiatives to
prevent hunting in National Parks in Africa was as a result
of implementing these initiatives without an understanding
of some of the economic, political, and social benets of
local hunting. As a result, Gibson and Marks []argue
that community-based wildlife management schemes may
succeed in protecting some of the larger mammals only by
virtue of their increased enforcement levels, not their ability
to distribute socioeconomic benets to the local people.
3.1.13. Failure to Give the Promised Incentives to Local People
and Failure of Local People at Received the Incentives to
Change eir Behaviour. In (.%) of the publications,
failure to conserve biodiversity in National Parks especially
where the park was implementing community-based conser-
vation initiatives was attributed to not giving the promised
incentives to local people that were meant to keep them
from going to the park [,,]. In that situation, local
people saw no benet in their engagement with the park
administration and continued going against park rules to
access resources in the park []. For instance, in the analysis
of the eectiveness of the Sustainable Forest Management and
Conservation Project in Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique,
and Namibia, Kasparek []attributedtherelativelylow
performanceoftheprojectinMozambiquetotheproject
International Journal of Biodiversity
failing to deliver the promised incentives that were meant to
motivate people against charcoal burning in protected areas.
In some cases, where the incentives were given to the peo-
ple,theydidnotcausetheexpectedpositivechangeamongst
local people to prevent them from accessing resources in
the park. is was because the dierences in age, gender,
and wealth of local communities neighbouring the park were
not taken into account while implementing the community-
based conservation approaches [,,]. Wainwright and
Wehr m e y er [ ],forinstance,attributethefailureofLuangwa
Integrated Resource Development Project in Zambia to the
exclusion of women from the project activities, and yet
womenplayanimportantroleinresourceharvestingfrom
National Parks. Kasparek []intheassessmentoftheeec-
tiveness of Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation
Project in Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, and Namibia
observed that natural resource management, and specically
forest management, is quite gender sensitive, an aspect that
was not considered in the project. Men and women do
not benet to the same extent from forest products, and
yet gender issues were not treated by the project team
either as a separate output or as a cross-cutting issue [].
Similarly, Malleson [] attributed the failure of conserving
biodiversity in the Korup National Park to the failure of
the Korup project ocers to realize that communities in
Korup Forest area consist of socially heterogeneous groups of
people. Most settlements in Korup Forest area were socially
diverse, and communities consisted of a very complex mesh
of dierent types of institutions, households, and individuals
whose rights of access to land and forest resources were
dierentiated along the lines of political power, wealth,
ethnicity, gender, and marital status []. Such diversity leads
to a failure in consensus and in providing incentives to satisfy
every member of the community.
3.1.14. Creation of the Park in an Area with High Levels of
Biodiversity and Not Degraded. In (.%) of the publica-
tions, failure to stave o biodiversity loss in protected areas
was ascribed to creating the park in an area that had high
biodiversity and was not degraded. Because of this, local
people perceived the creation of the park as unwarranted
claiming that their good practices concerning resource use
had kept the area undegraded, and that is why it attracted
the attention of conservationists. However, Bruner et al. []
and Dudley et al. [] also noted that in the communities
where people were claiming that creation of the park was
unwarranted, local communities kept on encroaching on
park land because of lack of a buer zone. In this case, local
people (especially) those near the park claimed that they did
not know where the border between their gardens and the
park was [].iswasbecausethebiodiversityontheprivate
land was relatively homogenous with that in the park. is
means that the park needed a clear boundary.
3.1.15. Lack of Consideration of Ecological Factors in the
Area Where the Park Was Created. e failure to conserve
biodiversity in National Parks was also attributed to the lack
of consideration of the past and current human ecology
of the area before the park was created. is factor was
reported in (.%) of the publications reviewed. Mbile et
al. [] for instance argue that in Africa, human ecological
interactions are important in shaping forest health. Hunters
in the Korup Forest area are said to have evolved with wildlife
and shaped the ecosystem there, so eliminating them from
the area when the park was created meant disrupting the
ecological balance [].Relatedtothehumanecological
factor is the size of the park. According to some studies
[,], if the size of the park created was small, there cannot
be successful conservation of biodiversity in that park. Roe et
al. [] claimed that the manageable scale of National Parks
needed to be suciently large to warrant collective action
and revenue generation to sustain them. Dudley et al. []
attributed the failure of National Parks in Kwazulu-Natal
in South Africa to inadequate design. According to them,
over half of Kwazulu-Natal protected areas were not designed
to optimize biodiversity conservation, were surrounded by
landscapes that did not enable eective park management, or
were too small to maintain viable populations. Dudley et al.
[] made a similar observation on Kyabobo Range National
Park in Ghana.
3.1.16. Lack of Clear Communication Channels between Park
Sta and Leaders. Lack of clear communication channels
between park sta and leaders at the local and national
level was also attributed to failure of conserving biodiversity
in National Parks in (.%) of the publications. For
instance, Mallya [] found that miscommunication amongst
stakeholders of the Serengeti National Park coupled with
the conicting laws and regulations from local and national
leaders and park sta led to improper investment agreements
that resulted in inadequate benets from investors to local
communities. Similar ndings were also reported where rural
district councils, the local people, and park sta debated how
tourism revenue should be shared []. Local people wanted
local communities at the village or village development com-
mittee level to benet from wildlife management programs,
yet the park sta and district councils argued for the district
atlargetobenet.
3.1.17. Failure to Enforce Policies Governing the Park. In
(.%) of the publications, the failure of conserving bio-
diversity in National Parks was ascribed to not enforcing
policies governing the park. Although enforcement of policy
shows one of the strongest relationships to management
eectiveness, the assessment carried out by Dudley et al. []
in various National Parks from African countries showed
that policies were not enforced in all the National Parks
surveyed. is resulted in a number of problems such as
failure to monitor illegal resource use in the park, contested
ownership of park land, and other problems associated with
the mismanagement of the park [].Basedonthendings
by Dudley and colleagues [], many of the problems already
presented in this paper that hindered eective conservation of
biodiversity in National Parks were indirectly linked to failure
to enforce policies governing the park.
3.1.18. Limited Number of Park Sta and Paying Park Sta
Low Salaries. Related to limited enforcement of policies
International Journal of Biodiversity
T : Subfactors associated with the local community neighbouring the park that were responsible for successful and unsuccessful
conservation of biodiversity.
Subfactors
Number and percentage
of publications reporting
the factor
Subfactors responsible for failure
e local people dependency on the park resources for their livelihood and survival. (.%)
Local people lacked land, secure land tenure, and contested ownership of land in the park. (.%)
ere were economic and cultural dierences and variation in expectations among community members. (.%)
e benets local people derived from the park did not lead to change in their behavior. (.%)
ere was corruption amongst community leaders. (.%)
ere was a cultural attachment to the park by local people. (.%)
Subfactors responsible for success
e local people neighbouring the park engaged in other economic activities. (.%)
e local people neighbouring the area had secure land tenure. (.%)
governing parks was a factor of unskilled park sta [,]. A
studybyDudleyetal.[] reported that many National Parks
in Africa had sta that faced serious shortfalls of skills and
capacity to eectively perform. In addition to limited skills,
the park sta was paid low salaries. For example, a study by
Archabald and Naughton-Treves []inthreeNationalParks
in Uganda reported that wardens in charge had revealed that
parkstawerenotonlygettingalowsalarybuthadfrequently
gone without pay for months. Under such circumstances,
park sta found it dicult to share money accruing from
tourism revenue with the community in the implementation
of benet sharing schemes.
3.1.19. Failure of Previous Conservation Initiatives. Another
factor that caused failure of the conservation of biodiversity
in National Parks was that previous initiatives to conserve
biodiversity in a particular park had failed [,,]. is
factor was reported in (.%) of the publications reviewed.
Ormsby and Kaplin [] found that in Masoala National
Park in Madagascar inconsistency in past and present park
management goals led to confusion among the community
regarding the park programme. e community was aware
of the existence of the park but was unfamiliar with its
goals. Ormsby and Kaplin [] also reported that the park
sta had raised high and unrealistic expectations among
some communities which were not met. Similar ndings are
reported in a study that investigated the attitude of com-
munities adjacent to the Chobe National Park in Botswana
and the South Luangwa National Park in Zambia []. Aer
two decades of implementing the programme, there appeared
to be confusion among communities regarding community-
based natural resource management. ey also attributed
this to unfullled expectations and frustrations []. ese
factors highlight inadequacies in implementation with regard
to outreach and inclusion of local people in conservation
programmes.
3.2. Whether the Park Was Old or Was Newly Created. Failure
to conserve biodiversity was also associated with how long
ago the park was created. Conservation of biodiversity was
more unsuccessful in newly created parks than parks that
were established long ago [,,]. is factor was reported
in (.%) of the publications. For instance, in a study by
Dudley et al. [] about the Sustainable Forest Management
and Conservation Project in Botswana, Malawi, Mozam-
bique, and Namibia, it was reported that older protected areas
tended to score slightly higher in successful conservation
than newer ones.
e reason why old National Parks were found to be
more successful than newly created parks could be associated
with the dierence in support that the two categories of
park receive from the community. Kideghesho et al. []
observed disparity of support between old and new parks
and interpreted that disparity is to mean that the young
generation were less likely to oppose a park that was created
when they were not yet born (citing Serengeti National Park
created in ) than protected areas, that were created in
early (citing Ikorongo, Grumeti and Kijereshi National
Parks).
3.3. e Local Community Neighbouring the Park. ere
were various subfactors associated with the local community
neighbouring National Parks that inuenced the conserva-
tion of biodiversity in those parks (Ta b l e ).
3.3.1. Dependence on Park Resources for Livelihood and
Survival by Local People. In (.%) of the publications
reviewed, it was reported that the dependence of local people
on National Park resources for their livelihood and survival
aected biodiversity conservation in those parks [,].
Dependence on the park resources meant that people had
access to the resources in the park. For instance, failure to
sustain biodiversity in Korup National Park was partly as a
result of local people neighbouring the park obtaining a wide
range of livelihood opportunities upon which communities
in the densely populated areas surrounding the park relied in
varying degrees, to make a living [].
International Journal of Biodiversity
3.3.2. Lack of Land, Lack of Secure Land Tenure, and Contested
Ownership of Land in the Park. Connected to the factor of
dependence on park resources by local people for livelihood
and survival by the local people was a factor of lack of
land and secure land tenure. For example, in the case of
Korup National Park, the local people neighbouring the park
had little and others no land for other activities and as a
consequence were compelled to harvest park resources. is
also explains why in (.%) of the publications, it was
reported that local people contested the ownership of the park
because they wanted to have access to resources therein due
to lack of land.
3.3.3. Economic and Cultural Dierences and Variation in
Expectations among Community Members. In (.%) of
the case studies, economic and cultural dierences among
community members curtailed successful conservation of
biodiversity in parks. In a study in the Korup National
Park, Malleson [] reported that wealthy, self-interested and
politically powerful individuals were in a strong position to
take control of the exploitation of the most protable forest-
related enterprises, such as timber exploitation, ivory, and
game meat trades, and to acquire prime land for agricultural
production usually associated with community-based con-
servation programmes. e majority who were poor could
not engage in such enterprise and hence did not feel that
they were beneting from the park. ese imbalances made
it dicult for marginalised and politically weak communities
on the forest edge to contest the appropriation of forest
resources by politically powerful elites from the same area
or by conservation projects. Cultural dierences among com-
munity members also led to failure of conserving biodiversity
in National Parks because initiatives such as benet sharing
were not satisfactory to all members of dierent cultural
backgrounds in the community. Vodouhˆ
eetal.[]found
that people who perceived that they beneted from the
Pendjari National Park were from tribes whose traditional
activities like hunting were associated with the park contrary
to those who lived far away from the park whose economic
activities were not linked to the park resources. A study by
Shackleton et al. [] also reported similar ndings. is
indicates that people who benet and are aware of how they
benet from parks are more likely to supp ort the conservation
ofparksthanthosewhodonotorarenotawareofhowthey
benet.
Other than the economic and cultural dierences, there
was variation in expectations among dierent community
members for the benets from the park that led to failure in
conserving biodiversity in National Parks. is was reported
in (.%) of the case studies reviewed. For instance, a study
by Archabald and Naughton-Treves []inthreeNational
Parks in Uganda found that there were numerous stakehold-
ers with diering priorities on how to put tourism revenue to
use. For example, some respondents including implementers
and beneciaries at all levels argued that individuals who
suered direct costs from conservation, such as eviction from
park land or high levels of crop raiding should receive a larger
share of revenue-sharing benets.
3.3.4. Inability of Local Communities to Appreciate Incentive
Obtained by Supporting Conservation of the Park. Other
than variation in expectations of various individuals, the
benets local people derived from the park did not lead
to change in their behavior, and hence they continued to
unsustainably utilize resources from National Parks. is
factor was reported in (.%) of the publications reviewed.
Malleson [], for instance, attributes the failure of the Korup
project to conserve biodiversity in Korup National Park to
a lack of linking conservation goals and the introduction of
new alternative income-generating activities. Some people
obtained incentives from community-based conservation
schemes and continued illegal use of park resources. Malleson
[] cited an example of a participant in her study who was
employed by the Korup project on a part-time basis but which
did not make him feel that his employment was an adequate
incentive to stop him from hunting in his spare time in
the Korup National Park. is means that people weighed
the incentives obtained from community-based initiatives
and the costs they incurred by giving up their activities
in protected areas. is indicates that local people did not
appreciate the incentives they obtained in order to support
conservation of biodiversity in National Parks.
3.3.5. Corruption among Community Leaders. Corruption
among community leaders was another factor that indirectly
resulted in failure to conserve biodiversity in the park. is
factor was reported in (.%) of the publications reviewed.
For example, a study by Archabald and Naughton-Treves
[] found that in one parish bordering Bwindi National
Park, a local council chairman was corrupt which limited
the success of a tourism revenue scheme because he had
embezzled the tourism revenue sharing funds. Similarly, in
Mgahinga, a community neighbouring Mgahinga National
Park, one community refused to contribute to their project
because they thought that the local representative to the
park protection committee was corrupt. ese studies are
indicative of the problem of corruption that could hinder
successful conservation of biodiversity in National Parks.
3.3.6. Strong Cultural Association of the Local People with the
Park. Although some case studies such as []reportedthat
tribes whose traditional activities were linked to National
Parks were more positive about conservation of the park; in
(.%) of the publications, authors reported contradictory
ndings. For instance, Mbile et al. []foundthatcultural
attachment to the park by local people was also a strong
hindrance to eective conservation of biodiversity. Mbile and
colleagues [] found that because some villagers were more
culturallyandhistoricallyattachedtosomeoralltheareain
the National Park, they felt more obliged to use resources in
a culturally appropriate manner regardless of whether that
manner was proconservation or counter-conservation.
3.3.7. e Local People Neighbouring the Park Engaged in
Other Economic Activities. However, in (.%) of the
publications reviewed, it was reported that there was suc-
cessful conservation of biodiversity in National Parks where
International Journal of Biodiversity
T : Subfactors associated with the characteristics of the area
where the park was located.
Subfactors Number and percentage
publications
Subfactors responsible for failure
e park was located in an area of
high human population density. (.%)
e park was located in an area that
was politically unstable. (.%)
Subfactor responsible for success
e park was located in a remote area
with low human density. (.%)
the local people neighbouring the park engaged in other
economic activities. Availability of alternative sources of
income is essential in relieving anthropogenic pressure on
forest resources. However, Kasparek []suggeststhatthis
shouldnotbetakenforgrantedbecauselivelihoodsvaryand
theirinuenceinmotivatingpeopletoconserveresourcesin
the park has to be tested in practice.
3.3.8. e Local People Neighbouring the Area Had Secure
Land Tenure. In (.%) of the publications, it was reported
that in communities neighbouring parks where local people
hadsecurelandtenureandlandforagriculture,therewas
successful conservation of biodiversity in those parks. For
instance,Roeetal.[] found that lack of arable land in rural
areas in Africa compels local people to access land in National
Parks.
3.4. Characteristics of the Area Where the Park Was Located.
ree factors associated with the characteristics of the area
where the park was located were reported to be responsible
for successful and unsuccessful conservation of biodiversity
in National Parks (Table ).
3.4.1. Location of the Park in an Area of High Human
Population Density. According to some studies reported in
(.%), it was dicult to conserve biodiversity in parks that
werelocatedinanareaofhighhumanpopulationdensity[,
,]. For instance, increase in human populations along the
western boundary of the Serengeti ecosystem led to negative
consequences for wildlife populations []. Similarly, rapid
population growth in Kenya led to conversion of “wildlands”
to agricultural lands [,].Also,astudybyKiringeetal.
[] found that people living in villages located in National
Parks put pressure on park resources.
3.4.2. Location of the Park in a Politically Unstable Area. In
(.%) of the publications, unsuccessful conservation of
biodiversity was reported to be as a result of the parks being
located in a politically unstable area. For example, Hamilton
et al. [] found that Uganda Wildlife Authority faced
challenges of conserving biodiversity in Bwindi National Park
in the late s, because of rebel activities that were taking
place in the park. Political instability in National Parks was
reported to have aected successful biodiversity because no
patrols were conducted in the park to check illegal activities
and also few tourists visited the park. In the absence of park
patrols,localpeoplewouldsneakintotheparkandillegally
extract resources unnoticed []. Tourism is a main source
of revenue in many National Parks in Africa []. According
to Hamilton et al. [],lowtouristnumbersvisitingBwindi
National Park during the time of political instability in the
area resulted in low revenue generation which aected the
management of the park.
3.4.3. Remoteness of the Area Where the Park Was Located.
Other studies attributed the success of conserving biodiver-
sity in National Parks to the fact that those parks were located
in remote areas. is factor was reported in (.%) of
the publications reviewed. Characteristics of a remote area
described by Hockings [] included lack of infrastructure
such as roads and limited provision of services such as
medical and education services. In remote areas, people were
said to be more subsistence than commercial in practice.
eirsubsistencepracticesenabledthemtoliveinbalance
with the environment.
Remote areas were also characterized by low human pop-
ulation density, a factor that case studies attributed to suc-
cessful conservation of biodiversity in National Parks. Due
to limited infrastructure and provision of services, people
were not oen attracted to remote areas; hence, the number
of people remains low. Also, in such areas due to limited
provision of services, the mortality could have been higher
thanintownswherelifesupportservicesweremoreavailable.
People are oen attracted to places where they think they
can conduct economic activities and develop or get better
services. For instance, Hockings []foundthatconservation
of biodiversity was more successful in National Parks located
in areas of low agricultural potential. is meant that people
wouldnotbeattractedtosettleinareaswherethesoilis
infertile. Hockings []suggeststhatitshouldnotbetaken
for granted that people in remote areas have conservation
practices; it is just that National Parks remain secure by virtue
of their remoteness, a situation that is likely to change as
infrastructural development and high population densities
set in.
3.5. e National Policy Governing the Park. Two factors
(political interference and lack of national policies to support
management decisions of the park) were associated with
national policy that aected the conservation of biodiversity
in National Parks.
3.5.1. Political Interference. In (.%) of the publications,
authors attributed failure to sustain biodiversity in National
Parks to political interference in the management of the
park. For example, Kasparek [] in a study assessing the
eectiveness of a Sustainable Forest Management and Con-
servation Project that was implemented in four African
countries (in Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, and Namibia)
reported that in Malawi, the eectiveness was limited by
political interference in the project activities. Funds given to
International Journal of Biodiversity
local people as an incentive for alternative livelihoods were
suspended for that reason. Also in some cases (for instance, in
Uganda), government ocials were reported to have allowed
local communities to access park resources in exchange for
votes.
3.5.2. Lack of National Policies to Support Management Deci-
sions of the Park. In (.%) of the publications, lack of
national policies to support the management decisions of the
park sta was reported to be responsible for unsuccessful
conservation of biodiversity. According to Malleson []in
the absence of national policies, local people challenged the
actions of the park sta. For example, in Cameroon, the
Korup Project team worked with six villages around the
Korup National Park to establish natural resource manage-
ment committees to facilitate eective conservation of the
park; however, these committees are not legally recognized
under Cameroon’s new forest law []. Such a situation had
earlier been reported by Williams et al. []pointingout
that policy constraints and bureaucracy resulted in some by-
laws agreed upon amongst local people and park sta to
remain unapproved and therefore impossible to implement.
InUganda,astudybyArchabaldandNaughton-Treves[]
showed that unclear revenue sharing policy and institutional
support resulted in some park wardens using preservation
approaches in parks where they were supposed to implement
community-based initiatives. Also, Mallya []inastudy
conducted in Serengeti National Park reported that due
to conicting laws and regulations, there were investment
agreements that resulted in inadequate benets given to local
communities.
3.6. e Financial Resource Base of the Park. e nancial
resource base of the park was also found to be responsible for
the success or failure of conserving biodiversity in National
Parks.
In (%) of the publications, authors reported that
failure to conserve biodiversity in National Parks was as a
result of lack of nances by the administration of the park
to implement its management plan. In (%) of the
publications, the lack of nances in National Parks was
associated with lack of reliable sources of funding. In South
Africa, the eective management of parks was partly curtailed
by unreliable sources of funding []. A similar scenario was
reported in Nini Suhien National Park in Ghana []. ese
were aected by low fees collected from tourism. e major
source of income in many National Parks in Africa is tourism,
an activity that is seasonal [].
Lack of nances hindered the conduct of research to
inform policy and management decisions [], the develop-
ment of park infrastructure [], the acquisition of equipment
[], the training of sta and the employment of skilled
personnel [,], and the monitoring and evaluation pro-
grammes [,]. In a study by Archabald and Naughton-
Tre ves [] in three National Parks in Uganda, senior level
park sta are said to have expressed concern that the
amount of income generated in each park was inadequate
to cover basic costs. is resulted in local people not getting
incentives, suspension of park patrols, delayed and low salary
payment of park sta, and failure to implement compensation
schemes [].
Also in a study by Ervin [], major stang weaknesses
across four protected area systems that were studied were
linked to lack of sucient nances. e levels of investment
in protected area management were below what is required to
pay the recurring costs to eectively conserve the biodiversity
contained within protected area systems. Similar ndings
were reported by Wilkie et al. []:
“expanding the present system by creation of
additional protected areas without commensurate
increases in funding for management will merely
establish “paper parks” and will fail to improve
the level of biodiversity conservation in the region”
(p.703).
Wilkie et al. [] claimed that on average, African nations
spend .% of their national budgets on protected area
management and concluded that if governments of those
nations continue to undernance protected areas then most,
if not all, protected areas will continue to exhibit reductions
in the biomass of individual species and risk the extirpation
or extinction of large, slow reproducing species, and rare
endemics.
How lack of nances aected infrastructural develop-
ment was explored in more detail by Dudley et al. []and
Malleson []. For instance, in Korup National Park, limited
revenue generated by park admission fees from tourists
visiting the park went to the central government coers and
little or no nances were le for infrastructural development
of the park []. A study by Dudley et al. []alsofound
that in South Africa nearly percent of eld sta working
in National Parks felt that equipment to facilitate them in
their work was inadequate and hence prevented them from
eective monitoring and managing of parks.
In (.%) of the publications, authors reported that
successful conservation of biodiversity in National Parks
occurred because local councils and the community mobi-
lized funds for the conservation of biodiversity in parks.
For example, in a study by Kasparek []thatevaluatedthe
Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation Project
in Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, and Namibia, it was
reported that local people mobilized funds from fees gen-
erated from licensing, nes, and sales of trees and poles
from the park and contributed to the Community Devel-
opment Fund. ese funds sustained the community-based
biodiversity conservation projects, and hence more successful
conservation of biodiversity occurred.
However, it is imperative to note that availability of
funds does not guarantee that the issues pointed out will
be addressed or that biodiversity conservation will be better.
As some of the cases in this review have shown, corruption
amongst community members and park sta may hinder
biodiversity conservation funds from being utilized appro-
priately. For instance, at the time of writing this paper
(in July ), the board of directors and the executive
director of Uganda Wildlife Authority (responsible for all
theprotectedareasinUganda)andtheexecutivedirectorof
Uganda National Forest Authority (responsible for all forests
International Journal of Biodiversity
in Uganda) had been suspended for misappropriating funds
andcorruption-relatedcases.Fundstoatuneof,USD
meant for the USAID funded programme called Protected
Areas Management for Sustainable Use had been misused
by Uganda Wildlife Authority ocials []. Similarly, the
Uganda National Forest ocials misused funds from timber
harvesting []. Such cases are indicative that even when
nances are available, they may not be used to conserve
biodiversity.
4. Discussion
ere are three points of view and perceptions that emerge
from this review. ese perceptions and points of view are
associated with three factors; displacement of people in order
to establish National Parks, provision of “poor” people with
economic incentives with an assumption that they will not
illegally extract park resources, and high human population
density as a driver of biodiversity loss.
A synthesis of the results of this review has been stru-
ctured around these factors because they dominate the
literature on conservation. Firstly, various conservationists
believe (as this review has shown) that the interaction of
humans with natural resources is a threat to biodiversity. ey
perceive “genuine nature” to be devoid of humans and this
forms a foundation for the idea of displacing people in order
to establish National Parks. In this section, diering points of
view about the benets associated with not displacing people
in order to establish National Parks is presented.
Secondly, in contemporary conservation practice, it is ass-
umed that poor people mostly depend on natural resources
and hence are responsible for biodiversity loss and envi-
ronmental degradation. For instance, in the community-
conservation approach, poor people are oen targeted so that
when they are given economic incentives, they can develop
and hence reduce pressure on natural resources. Contrary
to this perception, in some cases, the rich are actually more
responsible for biodiversity loss from National Parks than the
poor.
irdly, this review has shown that high human popula-
tion density is one of the main factors underlying biodiversity
loss. In this section, it is shown that this factor has oen
been ignored or not properly taken into consideration in
implementing biodiversity conservation strategies. Dierent
human population scenarios in the context of biodiversity
conservation are presented and recommendations made on
how to deal with them in the current milieu especially in
National Parks in Africa.
e next subsection delves into these three issues.
4.1. Arguments against Displacement of Local People in Order
to Establish National Parks. Various authors have advocated
against the creation of parks by displacing people. Agrawal
and Redford [] argue that empirical studies that establish
the relationship between the displacement of humans from
protectedareasandthemarginalgainthatsuchdisplacement
confers on biodiversity conservation are lacking.
InacriticalreviewusingacasestudyofthreeNational
Parks (Serengeti National Park, Mkomazi Game Reserve, and
Arusha National Park), Nelson [] claims that the creation of
the rst National Parks in Africa was at a time when wildlife
populations were recovering from a population decline that
had occurred a decade earlier caused by diseases (Rinderpest
plague) introduced by immigrants from Europe. At that
time, Africa was ourishing with wildlife and vegetation,
and European colonialists quickly set aside those areas as
protected areas thinking that they were of no use to the
indigenous people whose population was also still recovering
having declined because of small pox []. ese arguments
suggestthatstrictpreservationmaynotbeaneective
strategy of conserving biodiversity even when there is no
anthropogenic threat.
Although in this study the negative consequences to
biodiversity conservation due to displacement of people
when creating National Parks and restricting them from
accessing resources those parks were social, Ghimire and
Pimbert [] provide an ecological explanation against such
approaches of biodiversity conservation. e authors argue
that purely protected areas such as strictly preserved National
Parks are not good for sustaining biodiversity because they
reduce the functionality of the ecosystem due to restricted
interaction. Ghimire and Pimbert [] claim that in remote
parts of Africa indigenous humans are part of the forests
and they coevolved with wildlife. erefore, removing them
from forests and creating National Parks destabilizes the
functioning of the ecosystem. Wild and Mutebi []inearlier
studies had expressed a similar point of view. With the
disappearanceoftheforestelephants,theyarguethatsomepit
sawing could be benecial to the gorillas by opening up the
forest and providing the luxuriant vegetation they need for
food. Creation of National Parks that exclude humans could
thus lead to change in the behaviour of the wild animals.
Given that the population of megafauna in most African
forests has reduced, contrary to what most people think,
humanactivitiesinforestscouldbecriticalinensuringforest
health [].
Hutton and Dickson [] use evidence from bush meat
trade in Central Africa to link ecology and economics
of protected areas and resources therein. ey argue that
while many conservationists conventionally think that either
consumptive use of National Park resources must be stopped
or heavily regulated, commercial use of wildlife is not in
itself incompatible with conservation. ey exemplify that
elephants do not magically maintain static numbers and that,
unless controlled hunting carefully regulates their numbers,
they increase and ultimately are responsible in conned con-
ditions for destroying their own environment and drive some
plant species to extinction. Between and during
adroughtinZimbabwe,itwasdiculttodistinguishthe
wasteland in parks caused by elephants from the wasteland
outside caused by people and cattle conned in a small area.
In a situation where animal populations increase in
number and exceed sustainable levels to the detriment of their
habitats, some conservationists recommend culling game or
cropping animals. is issue has oen caused a lot of heated
debate; for instance, the suggestion to cull elephants in Kruger
National Park to control their numbers caused a lot of debate
amongst the public and conservationists [,]. e debate
International Journal of Biodiversity
turned political and economic and the proposal for culling
was suspended. It is necessary to rst have thorough research
conducted to inform any ecological decisions that are to be
taken. Each case has its unique characteristics that must be
takenintoaccount.
Another ecological point of view against strict preserva-
tion of National Parks is that strict protection of National
Parks isolates them from their surroundings. Isolation of
protected areas is said to result in serious threats to the long-
term viability of many wildlife populations and migrations in
Africa []. Ecologists have debated the impact of isolation
on wildlife populations in parks. e primary drivers of
isolation of protected areas are habitat loss. Naughton-Treves
et al. [] conducted a study in tropical protected areas
which showed that deforestation within park boundaries and
surrounding areas was isolating those areas. Deforestation
for instance restricts the movement of wildlife into and out
of protected areas. To address that problem, a multipronged
conservation strategy is oen recommended that involves
creating corridors for wildlife connecting dierent protected
areas []. Mountain and lowland gorillas survived in a region
of political instability because Bwindi National Park was con-
nected to Ituri forest, forests in the Rwenzori Mountains and
Virunga in Democratic Republic of Congo []. Although
this is commendable, it may not be feasible in many National
Parks in Africa given the current settlement patterns in most
areas in Africa.
In addition, protected areas face many ecological risks
both natural and human created. An example is when
theentireremainingprotectedhabitatofthegoldenlion
tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia)wasalmostwipedoutby
rein(Castro,in).Shaer[]presentsfour
broad categories of natural risks that isolated protected
areas face. ese include ecological uncertainty (resulting
from random events in the survival and reproduction of
individuals), environmental uncertainty (due to random, or
at least unpredictable, changes in weather, food supply, and
the populations of competitors, predators, and parasites and
natural catastrophes such as oods, res, or droughts, which
may occur at random intervals, and genetic uncertainty or
random changes in genetic make-up due to genetic dri or
inbreeding that alter the survival and reproductive probabil-
ities of individuals.
A consideration of these ecological factors and social
factors is identied as being important in this study for eec-
tive biodiversity conservation when creating and managing
National Parks.
4.2. Pitfalls of Providing Local People with Economic Incentives
as a Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation in National Parks.
Although some case studies in this review underscored the
need for community involvement in the management of
parks in Africa and commend community-based conser-
vation initiatives, it is argued that simply involving them
is not enough to solve problems that face National Parks.
Similarly involving people or giving them incentives as is
usually done in community-based conservation projects does
not automatically lead to good conservation practices as the
ndingsofthisreviewhaveshown.
Various people may be motivated to protect the envi-
ronment for dierent reasons []. Similarly, people may
be motivated to conserve biodiversity in National Parks for
dierent reasons. Integrated conservation and development
projects are good examples to use to illustrate this point
because according to Mogaka et al. [], they are among
the most common projects implemented among local com-
munities neighbouring National Parks in Africa. A common
assumption in integrated conservation and development
projects is that if local people develop (i.e., acquire better
income alternatives), they will be prompted to access park
resources less. is may not always be the case; it depends
on human social factors.
According to Alpert [], development may increase
consumerism, make people less reliant on the immediate
natural resources and hence less sensitive to local resources,
and weakens some cultural institutions that are tailored
to management of natural resources in a traditional way.
For example, it is common in integrated conservation and
development projects to give a certain amount of money or
a certain percentage of the revenue (usually ranging between
% and %) to local people neighbouring a park for
infrastructural development such as construction of roads.
Suchaventuremayactuallyleadtomoreunsustainableuseof
resources from the park. A study by Barrett and Arcese []
revealed that improvement in roads and transport facilities
enabled markets that trade in resources acquired illegally
from protected areas to thrive.
ese studies explain ndings of this review that even
when local people were given incentives, that on its own did
not change their behaviour. erefore, provision of services
and incentives to the rural poor in order to encourage them
to change their behaviour so that they can conserve resources
might be a wrong assumption. Adams and Hutton []
suggest that development and conservation of biodiversity
are two distinct objectives which need to be looked at dier-
ently in dierent contexts. For instance, rural development
that is oen espoused to be associated with conservation
in integrated and conservation development projects could
depend on conservation in the long term but not in the
short term. Noss [] projected that rural development that
isbasedonconservationcannotbeattainedinlessthan
y years. Fiy years far exceeds the average life span of
most rural inhabitants in Africa. e ten countries with the
lowest life expectancies are from Sub-Saharan Africa. e
life expectancy of people in most African countries ranged
between . years and . years [].
Although sustainable development relies on ecosystem
services such as nutrient cycling, preservation of water
supplies, and enhancement of soil formation []suchthings
might not matter, to poor rural farmers in remote areas of
Africa in a situation where they struggle to attain basic needs.
However, this does not mean that the auent are more likely
to exhibit proconservation behaviour. Although, a study by
Newmark and Hough [] in Uganda, South Africa and
Tanzania reported that well-o individuals tended to be more
pro-conservation than poor individuals, it is argued that even
when individuals have attained a certain level of development
or amassed a certain amount of wealth, it not a guarantee that
International Journal of Biodiversity
they will conserve biodiversity. Africa is currently operates
with a capitalistic economy, and many people are becoming
materialistic and striving to attain exceptional levels of
development. For example, in Tanzania, a study focusing
on utilitarian perception of resources in protected areas by
local people living outside Katavi National Park []found
that people from well-o households were oen the ones
who resented the “conservation and development” concept
because the development of other individuals interfered
with their small scale business enterprises. In addition,
evidence provided by Marcus [] from his evaluation of
four Integrated Conservation and Development projects in
Madagascar suggests that there is no guarantee that people of
high social economic status have a more positive perception
of protected areas than the poor people. It is only in some
circumstances that wealthier people suer less as a result of
reduced access to natural resources and as a consequence are
notoenseentoconictwithprotectedareamanagers.ese
socioeconomic issues need to be taken into account in the
management of National Parks.
4.3. Human Population Density, Ecological Dynamics of
Africa, and Establishment of National Parks: Past and Present
Scenarios. Tre n d s o f human population inc r e a s e s h o w t h at
at the time the rst National Parks were created in Africa,
the numbers of people were ecologically limited. Given
diseases, and hostile environments, there was a low human
population depending on a huge amount of resources in a vast
environment (suggesting a low human population density).
Statistics show that at the beginning of when the rst
protected areas were created in Africa, the human population
was approximately . million people but currently, the
population is . million people. Before the beginning of
thethcentury,thehumanpopulationwaslow,people
in Africa were not yet materialistic and their way of life
was still controlled by ecology. erefore, in that case,
resource availability far exceeded resource use and for these
reasons, there were no reports of environmental degradation.
Establishing protected areas at that time could have been easy
giventhatitinvolvedlittlesocialandeconomiccost[]. is
wasalsoreectedintheresultsofthisreviewthatprotected
areas located in areas with a low human population density
were more successful at conserving biodiversity than those
located in areas with high human population densities.
e factor of human population needs to be taken into
account in the current process of creating and managing
protected areas. is is because, presently, Africa is the second
most populated continent [], with high female fertility rates
[]andwithahighrateofpopulationgrowth[]. e
human population factor aects biodiversity conservation
in various ways. Firstly, high human population limits the
enactment of by-laws. A study by Nkonya et al. []that
aimed at assessing compliance to natural resource by-laws in
Uganda reported that initial increase in population density
reduces the likelihood of enacting by-laws. Enactment and
compliance to natural resource management policies were
more eective in areas where the population density was
below people/km2[] indicating a strong inuence of
humanpopulationtocompliancetoresourceusepolicies.
Secondly, high human population densities necessitate that
peoplewillbedisplacedwhencreatingprotectedareas.
is oen results in limited access to land for agriculture
andconningthemintosmallerareas.ishasvarious
implications; one implication is that people will degrade the
smaller area where they are conned and indiscriminately
harvest the resources therein (such as in Bwindi National
Park in Uganda). e second implication is that people may
increase pressure, demanding access to the resources in the
National Parks, and illegally access the park resources. For
instance, Semuliki National Park is located in a remote area
and was created when the population of the surrounding area
was relatively low but faces similar problems associated with
demand for access to resources by local people as the case
is in other National Parks such as the Rwenzori Mountains
National Park in Uganda, Lake Nakuru National Park in
Kenya,andChobeNationalParkinBotswana.esetwo
implications lead to unsustainable utilization of biodiversity
in and outside National Parks. e third implication is that
the establishment of the National Parks builds social tensions
amongst local communities over resource use because they
are not able to develop at the same pace as other regions where
National Parks have not been created []. Some authors
claim that social tensions and desperation to attain higher
levels of development lead to migration of local people to
cities in search of a “better life” []. is point also conrms
that people in Africa are becoming materialistic; unlike in
the past, they no longer need just to survive but desire to
attain higher standards of living. is has an implication
for conservation of biodiversity in National Parks because
according to Averbeck [], aer failing to attain wealth from
cities, out of desperation, they return to the rural areas to
forcefully access and extract resources from protected areas.
Allowing restricted access to park resources where
National Parks are surrounded by high population densities
may also lead to the harvest of resources in an uncontrolled
manner. In such a case, strict preservation may be the solution
in the short term. As shown in the results of this review, in
some cases, conservation of biodiversity was more successful
in protected areas where local people were evicted from the
area, denied access to the parks and measures to constantly
patrol, and guard the area put in place. is suggests that
a balance between strict preservation and community-based
conservation should be considered as the situation dictates.
In Kenya, there was indiscriminate harvesting of resources,
which led to % percent loss in wildlife between and
, and that when part of the area was gazetted into a
National Park, wildlife loss reduced to % in protected
areas but the loss in unprotected area increased to % [].
is indicates that creation of protected areas can reduce
species loss in areas where there was previous indiscriminate
harvesting. is concurs with the research in Bwindi National
Park []. Increase in human populations along the western
boundaries of the Serengeti ecosystem has led to negative
consequences within the protected area on wildlife popula-
tions, as indicated by trends in the bualo population [].
ese suggestions concur with studies which suggest that
where some demographic characteristics dictate, National
Parks should be protected strictly [,]. However, this
International Journal of Biodiversity
does not mean that those areas should be strictly protected
indenitely. e results of this review suggest that both strict
preservation and community-based conservation approaches
are useful depending on the demographic situation of the
National Park. e demographic factors of the areas also need
to be placed in the past and current ecological context of the
area.
5. Conclusion
e aim of this paper was to review the existing literature
on conservation of biodiversity in National Parks in Africa
and identify factors that aect the success of biodiversity
conservation. e review has found that biodiversity con-
servation in National Parks is aected by various factors
associated with the creation and management of the park,
the local community neighbouring the park, the area where
the park is located, the national policy governing the park,
and the nancial resource base of the park. ese factors
are socioeconomic and cultural in nature involving the
management of local communities that neighbour National
Parksasmuchastheresourcesinparks.isindicatesthat
future strategies of conserving biodiversity in parks should
focus as much on the socio-economic human dimension of
biodiversity conservation as the scientic study of species and
habitats in National Parks.
Limited attention to the socioeconomic and related
aspects of culture had previously been blamed for failure of
community-based conservation approaches [,]. Studies
on the social dimension of biodiversity conservation and
how various socio-economic and cultural factors aect park
resource use and biodiversity conservation in various con-
texts are recommended.
As this investigation has shown, factors that aect biodi-
versity were not uniform across all successful or unsuccessful
case studies. In each case study, there were specic underlying
causes that inuenced each of the identied factors. Future
studies that investigate how and why local people neighbour-
ing National Parks interact with resources therein ought to
be integrative in nature to include the psychological, socio-
economic, and cultural factors and not only emphasize the
economic aspects as is oen done in Integrated Conservation
and Development Programmes and Projects []orthe
traditional ecological knowledge as is done in studies that link
local people’s culture and biodiversity conservation [,].
is investigation has also revealed that biodiversity
in National Parks depends on the relations between local
people and park sta. is necessitates training park sta
in community social relations and development in addition
to scientic managing of plant and animal species and their
habitats.
References
[] S. Chape, S. Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox, and M. Spalding, e
2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas, IUCN and UNEP-
WCMC, Cambridge, UK, .
[] M. Colchester, “Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples, pro-
tected areas and biodiversity conservation,” in Wo r l d R a i nfore s t
Movement, International Secretariat, Maldonado, Uruguay, nd
edition, .
[] W. Adams, Against Extinction: e Story of Conservation,
Earthscan, London, UK, .
[]S.Stolton,S.Mansourian,andN.Dudley,Valuing Protected
Areas, e International Bank for Reconstruction and Devel-
opment,Washington,DC,USA,.
[] R. A. Schroeder, “Geographies of environmental intervention
in Africa,” Progress in Human Geography,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] K. A. Galvin, P. K. ornton, J. R. de Pinho, J. Sunderland, and
R. B. Boone, “Integrated modeling and its potential for resolving
conicts between conservation and people in the rangelands of
East Africa,” Human Ecology ,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] D. M. Tumusiime, P. Vedeld, and W. Gombya-Ssembajjwe,
“Breaking the law? Illegal livelihoods from a Protected Area in
Uganda,” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. , no. , pp. –,
.
[] R.C.Malleson,Forest livelihoods in southwest province, Came-
roon: an evaluation of the Korup experience [doctoral thesis],
University College London, .
[] F. G. Vodouhˆ
e, O. Coulibaly, A. Ad´
egbidi, and B. Sinsin,
“Community perception of biodiversity conservation within
protected areas in Benin,” Forest Policy and Economics,vol.,
no.,pp.–,.
[] S. H. M. Butchart, M. Walpole, B. Collen et al., “Global bio-
diversity: indicators of recent declines,” Science,vol.,no.
, pp. –, .
[] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Global
Biodiversity Outlook 3, Secretariat of the Convention on Biolog-
ical Diversity, Montr´
eal, Canada, .
[] M. R. W. Rands, W. M. Adams, L. Bennun et al., “Biodiversity
conservation: challenges beyond ,” Science,vol.,no.
, pp. –, .
[] J. A. P. de Oliveira, “Implementing environmental policies in
developing countries through decentralization: e case of
protected areas in Bahia, Brazil,” World Develop m e n t ,vol.,
no.,pp.–,.
[] J. J. Randolph, “A guide to writing the dissertation literature
review,” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,vol.,no.
, pp. –, .
[] J. Fereday and E. Muir-Cochrane, “Demonstrating rigor using
thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive
coding and theme development,” International Journal of Qual-
itative Methods,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. W. Kiringe, M. M. Okello, and S. W. Ekajul, “Managers’ per-
ceptions of threats to the protected areas of Kenya: prioritization
for eective management,” Oryx,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. R. Kideghesho, E. Røska, and B. P. Kaltenborn, “Factors
inuencing conservation attitudes of local people in Western
Serengeti, Tanzania,” Biodiversity and Conservation,vol.,no.
, pp. – , .
[] A. Hoole and F. Berkes, “Breaking down fences: recou-
pling social-ecological systems for biodiversity conservation in
Namibia,” Geoforum,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[]N.Salafsky,H.Cauley,G.Balachanderetal.,“Asystematic
test of an enterprise strategy for community-based biodiversity
conservation,” Conservation Biology,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] D. Lewis, G. B. Kaweche, and A. Mwenya, “Wildlife conser-
vation outside protected areas&lessons from an experiment in
Zambia,” Conservation Biology,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
International Journal of Biodiversity
[] R. A. Mugisha, Evaluation of community-based conservation
approaches: management of protected areas in Uganda [Ph.D.
thesis],UniversityofFlorida,.
[] K. Archabald and L. Naughton-Treves, “Tourism revenue-
sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: early eorts
to identify and reward local communities,” Environmental
Conservation,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] S. Shackleton, B. Campbell, E. Wollenberg, and D. Edmunds,
Devolution and Community-Based Natural Resource Manage-
ment: Creating Space for Local People to Participate and Benet,
Natural Resource Perspectives. ODI, .
[] A.G.Bruner,R.E.Gullison,R.E.Rice,andG.A.B.DaFonseca,
“Eectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity,”
Science,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] D. Roe, J. Mayers, M. Grieg-Gran, A. Kothari, C. Fabricius, and
R. Hughes, Evaluating Eden: Exploring the Myths and Realities
of Community-Based Wildlife Management, Evaluating Eden
Series No. , .
[] M. McDu, “Needs assessment for participatory evaluation
of environmental education programs,” Applied Environmental
Education & Communication,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] C. Boyd, R. Blench, D. Bourn, L. Drake, and P. Stevenson,
Reconciling Interests Among Wildlife, Livestock and People in
Eastern Africa: A Sustainable Livelihoods Approach,Resource
Perspectives: ODI, .
[] T.Holmern,E.Røska,J.Mbaruka,S.Y.Mkama,andJ.Muya,
“Uneconomical game cropping in a community-based conser-
vation project outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania,”
Oryx,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] N. Dudley, A. Belokurov, O. Borodin, L. Higgins-Zogib, M. L.
L. Hockings, and S. Stolton, Are Protected Areas Working? An
Analysis of Forest Protected Areas, WWF International, Gland,
Switzerland, .
[] C. Kremen, V. Razamahatratra, R. P. Guillery, J. Rakotomalala,
A. Weiss, and J. S. Ratsisompatrarivo, “Designing the Masoala
National Park in Madagascar based on biological and socioeco-
nomic data,” Conservation Biology,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] J. G. Njogu, “Community-based conservation in an entitlement
perspective,” Research Report , African Studies Centre, .
[] R. J. Shrivastava and J. Heinen, “A microsite analysis of resource
use around Kaziranga national park, India: implications for
conservation and development planning,” Journal of Environ-
ment and Development,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] A.L.WilyandS.Mbaya,“Land,peopleandforestsineastern
and southern Africa at the beginning of the st century,” in e
Impact of Land Relations on the Role of Communities in Forest
Future,p.,IUCN-EARO,Nairobi,Kenya,.
[] A. Agrawal and K. Redford, “Place, conservation, and displace-
ment,” Conservation Society,vol.,pp.–,.
[] P. J. Balint and J. Mashinya, “e decline of a model community-
based conservation project: governance, capacity, and devolu-
tion in Mahenye, Zimbabwe,” Geoforum,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] B. Derman, “Environmental NGOs, dispossession, and the
state: the ideology and praxis of African nature and develop-
ment,” Human Ecology,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] M. Kasparek, “Sustainable forest management and conservation
project evaluation of pilot measures in Botswana, Malawi,
Mozambique and Namibia,” Research Report, Sustainable
Forests Management and Conservation Project FANR/SADC -
GTZ, .
[] M. Samson and L. Maotonyane, Community-Based Natural
Resource Conservation and Development the Experience of
Botswana, e World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative, .
[] N.Dudley,J.Hurd,andA.Belokurov,Eds.,Tow a r d s a n E e c t i v e
Protected Areas Network in Africa. Experience in Assessing
Protected Area Management Eectiveness and Future Proposals,
WWF International, Gland, Switzerland, .
[] A. Ormsby and B. A. Kaplin, “A framework for understanding
community resident perceptions of Masoala National Park,
Madagascar,” Environmental Conservation,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[]T.Caro,T.A.Gardner,C.Stoner,E.Fitzherbert,andT.R.
B. Davenport, “Assessing the eectiveness of protected areas:
paradoxes call for pluralism in evaluating conservation perfor-
mance,” Diversity and Distributions,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] J. Ervin, “Rapid assessment of protected area management
eectiveness in four countries,” BioScience,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] J. Ervin, “Protected area assessments in perspective,” BioScience,
vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] G.Stuart-Hill,R.Diggle,B.Munali,J.Tagg,andD.Ward,“e
event book system: a community-based natural resource mon-
itoringsystemfromNamibia,”Biodiversity and Conservation,
vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] E.Topp-Jørgensen,M.K.Poulsen,J.F.Lund,andJ.F.Massao,
“Community-based monitoring of natural resource use and
forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands of
tanzania,” Biodiversity and Conservation,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] R. J. Fisher and W. J. Jackson, “Action Research for collaborative
management of protected areas,” in Proceedings of the Workshop
on Collaborative Management of Protected Areas in the Asian
Region,Sauraha,Nepal,.
[] R. Taylor, “Community based natural resource Management
in zimbabwe: e experience of CAMPFIRE,” Biodiversity and
Conservation,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. A. Timko and T. Sattereld, “Seeking equity in National Parks:
case studies from South Africa and Canada,” Conservation &
Society,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. A. Timko and J. L. Innes, “Evaluating ecological integrity in
national parks: case studies from Canada and South Africa,”
Biological Conservation,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] C. C. Gibson and S. A. Marks, “Transforming rural hunters into
conservationists: an assessment of community-based wildlife
management programs in Africa,” Wo r l d D e v e l opment,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] P. Mbile, M. Vabi, M. Meboka et al., “Linking management
and livelihood in environmental conservation: case of the
Korup National Park Cameroon,” Journal of Environmental
Management,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] C. Wainwright and W. Wehrmeyer, “Success in integrating
conservation and development? A study from Zambia,” World
Development, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[]A.Williams,T.S.Masoud,andW.J.Othman,Community-
Based Conservation: Experiences from Zanzibar,Gatekeeper
Series No. , International Institute for Environment and
Development, .
[] A. B. Mallya, An Evaluation Community Conservation in West-
ern Serengeti, African Conservation Foundation, .
International Journal of Biodiversity
[] M.M.Musumali,T.S.Larsen,andB.P.Kaltenborn,“Animpa-
sse in community based natural resource management imple-
mentation: e case of Zambia and Botswana,” Oryx,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] Parcs Nationaux Madagascar, Madagascar Protected Area Sys-
tem Management Plan 200-2006, Ministry of Environment
Wat e r and Forests , .
[] K.L.Metzger,A.R.E.Sinclair,R.Hilborn,J.G.C.Hopcra,
andS.A.R.Mduma,“Evaluatingtheprotectionofwildlifein
parks: e case of African bualo in Serengeti,” Biodiversity and
Conservation,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] D.S.Wilkie,J.F.Carpenter,andQ.Zhang,“eunder-na-
ncing of protected areas in the Congo Basin: so many parks and
so little willingness-to-pay,” Biodiversity and Conservation,vol.
,no.,pp.–,.
[] A. Hamilton, A. Cunningham, D. Byarugaba, and F. Kayanja,
“Conservation in a region of political instability: bwindi impen-
etrable forest, Uganda,” Conservation Biology,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] E. Rutagarama, “Protected area management eectiveness, the
case study of Rwanda in Africa,” in Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the International Congress for Conservation Biology,
November .
[] M. Hockings, “Evaluating protected area management: a review
of systems for assessing management eectiveness of protected
areas,” Occasional Paper, WWF, .
[] P. S. Goodman, South Africa: Management Eectiveness Assess-
ment of Protected Areas in KwaZulu-Natal Using WWF’s RAP-
PAM Methodology, WWF, Gland, Switzerland, .
[] P. S. Goodman, “Assessing management eectiveness and set-
ting priorities in protected areas in KwaZulu-Natal,” BioScience,
vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] G. Tenywa, “UWA suspends top ocials,” New vision article,
, http://www.newvision.co.ug/D///.
[] E. Anyoli, Ex NFA Boss Akankwasa Out on Bail,EastAfrican
News, .
[] R. H. Nelson, “Environmental colonialism: “Saving” Africa
from Africans,” Indepe ndent Review,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] R. P. Neumann, “Primitive ideas: protected area buer zones
and the politics of land in Africa,” Development and Change,vol.
,no.,pp.–,.
[] K. B. Ghimire and M. P. Pimbert, “Social change and conser-
vation: an overview of issues and concepts,” in Social Change
and Conservation, Environment Politics and Impacts of National
Parks and Protected Areas, K. B. Ghimire and M. P. Pimbert,
Eds.,pp.–,Earthscan,London,UK,.
[] R. G. Wild and J. Mutebi, “Conservation through community
use of plant resources. Establishing collaborative management
at Bwindi Impenetrable and Mgahinga Gorilla National Parks,
Uganda,” in People and Plants, Working Paper No. , UNESCO,
Paris, France, .
[] J. Hutton and B. Dickson, “Conservation out of exploitation:
asilkpursefromasow’sear?”inConservation of Exploited
Species,J.D.Reynolds,G.M.Mace,K.H.Redford,andJ.
G. Robinson, Eds., pp. –, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, .
[] W. Cadman, e Debate on Elephant Culling in South Africa: An
Overview,IFAW,.
[] P. O. Camara, Analysis of Nutritional Practices of the Commu-
nities in Upper Niger National Park,eWorldBank/WBI’s
CBNRM Initiative, .
[] W. D. Newmark, “Isolation of African protected areas,” Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] L. Naughton-Treves, M. B. Holland, and K. Brandon, “e role
of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining
local livelihoods,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
vol. , pp. –, .
[] M. L. Shaer, “Minimum population sizes for species conserva-
tion,” BioScience,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] P. Coulibaly-Lingani, Appraisal of the participatory forest man-
agement program in southern Burkina Faso [Ph.D. thesis],Acta
Universitatis Agriculturae, .
[] H. Mogaka, G. Simons, J. Turpie, F. Karanja, and L. Emerton,
Economic Aspects of Community Involvement in Sustainable
Forest Management in Eastern and Southern Africa,eWorld
Conservation Union, Eastern Africa Regional Oce, Nairobi,
Kenya, .
[] P. Alpert, “Integrated conservation and development projects:
examples from Africa,” BioScience,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] C. B. Barrett and P. Arcese, “Are integrated conservation-
Development Projects (ICDPs) Sustainable? On the conserva-
tion of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa,” World Devel o p -
ment,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] W. M. Adams and J. Hutton, “People, parks and poverty:
political ecology and biodiversity conservation,” Conservation
and Society,vol.,pp.–,.
[] A. J. Noss, “Challenges to nature conservation with community
development in Central African forests,” Oryx,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] WHO, “Human development index,” Bulletin of the World
Health Organization, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] W. D. Newmark and J. L. Hough, “Conserving wildlife in Africa:
integrated conservation and development projects and beyond,”
BioScience,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] C. M. Holmes, “Assessing the perceived utility of wood reso-
urces in a protected area of Western Tanzania,” Biological
Conservation, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] R. R. Marcus, “Seeing the forest for the trees: integrated conse-
rvation and development projects and local perceptions of
conservations in Madagascar,” Human Ecology,vol.,no.,
pp. –, .
[] K. Brandon, K. H. Redford, and S. E. Sanderson, Eds., Parks in
Peril. People, Political, and Protected Areas, Island Press and e
Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC, USA, .
[] W. Adams and M. Ineld, “Park outreach and gorilla conser-
vation: Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Uganda,” in African
Wildlife and Livelihoods: e Promise and Performance of
Community Conservation,D.HulmeandM.Murpree,Eds.,pp.
–, James Currey, Oxford, UK, .
[] E. Barrow and M. Murphree, “Community conservation: from
concept to practice,” in African Wildlife and Livelihoods: e
Promise and Performance of Community Conservation,D.
HulmeandM.Murphree,Eds.,p.,JamesCurrey,Oxford,
UK, .
[] E. Nkonya, J. Pender, E. Kato, S. Mugarura, and J. Muwonge,
Who Knows, Who Cares? Determinants of Enactment, Awareness
and Compliance With Community Natural Resource Manage-
ment By-Laws in Uganda,WorkingPaperno.,CAPRi,
Washington, DC, USA, .
[] S. Ernst, “Uganda: consequences of the establishment of Rwen-
zori Mountains National Park,” Geographische Rundschau,vol.
,no.,pp.–,.
International Journal of Biodiversity
[] P. Blaikie and S. Jeanrenaud, Biodiversity and Human Welfare,
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development,
Geneva, Switzerland, .
[] C. Averbeck, “Incorporating local people through economic
incentives at Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda,” in Stake-
holder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management,pp.–
, Heidelberg Publishers, Berlin, Germany, .
[] M. Norton-Griths, “e economics of wildlife conservation
policy in Kenya,” in Conservation of Biological Resources,E.J.
Milner-Gulland and R. Mace, Eds., p. , Blackwell, Malden,
Mass, USA, .
[] W. Olupot, A. J. McNeilage, and A. J. Plumptre, An Analysis of
Socioeconomics of Bushmeat Hunting at Major Hunting Sites in
Uganda, WCS Working Papers, .
[] A.H.Harcourt,S.A.Parks,andR.Woodroe,“Humandensity
as an inuence on species/area relationships: double jeopardy
for small African reserves?” Biodiversity and Conservation,vol.
, no. , pp. –, .
[] G. Wittemyer, P. Elsen, W. T. Bean, A. C. O. Burton, and J. S.
Brashares, “Accelerated human population growth at protected
area edges,” Science,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. Igoe, Conservation and Globalization: A Study of National
Parks and Indigenous Communities from East Africa to South
Dakota, Wadsworth Press, Belmont, Calif, USA, .
[] S. R. Kellert, J. N. Mehta, S. A. Ebbin, and L. L. Lichtenfeld,
“Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric,
and reality,” Society and Natural Resources,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] C. B. Barrett and P. Arcese, “Are Integrated Conservation-
Development Projects (ICDPs) Sustainable? On the conserva-
tion of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa,” World Devel o p -
ment,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] C. Antons, “e role of traditional knowledge and access to
genetic resources in biodiversity conservation in Southeast
Asia,” Biodiversity and Cons ervation,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke, “Rediscovery of traditional
ecological knowledge as adaptive management,” Ecological
Applications,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
